Thursday, October 29, 2015

Electronic Salesmasters Now Repping Chassis Plans

Continuing to expand our sales channels, we’ve added Electronic Salesmasters, Inc.,  as sales representatives.  ESI will represent Chassis Plans in West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Kentucky.


 


ESI has a strong presence in:


  • Industrial

  • Appliance

  • Communications

  • Transportation

  • Military

  • Instrumentation

  • Datacom

  • Medical

  • Automotive

 


ESI is characterized by sound financial management, motivation and plans for business continuity. They pride themselvesin being “businessmen in sales”, not just salesmen in business. ESI provides stability, trust and confidence that enhances their relationships with customers throughout the territory.


 


Additional information is available at www.chassis-plans.com/representatives.html.



Electronic Salesmasters Now Repping Chassis Plans

Adds Cornerstone and Midtec as sales representatives

Map of Chassis Plans Sales Reps

Map of Chassis Plans Sales Reps


We’re please to announce the appointment of two new sales representative groups.


 


Cornerstone Technical Sales will cover Florida with an office in Palm Harbor, FL.  Cornerstone is available at www.ctsrep.com.


 


Midtec Associates covers Missouri, Southern Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas.  Midtech has offices in Lenexa, KS, and St. Louis.  Midtech can be reached at www.midtec.com.


 


Both these companies have extensive experience in industrial and military computing and will bring a local presence to these states to offer our customers on-site assistance and product expertise.



Adds Cornerstone and Midtec as sales representatives

The 2016 Federal Budget has Healthy Increases for R&D and Defense

The 2016 US budget was released in early February by the President. In this budget there are increases in R&D spending in general and the defense budget. For the past several years, since the Budget Control Act (BCA) was passed in 2011, the Defense budget has been decreasing as has the overall spending on R&D in general. The 2016 budget is the start of a turnaround in both Defense related R&D as well as general Science and Technology R&D spending. Whether the proposed budget will pass the scrutiny of congress is another matter.


 


The military budget has been teetering on the brink of disaster for the past several years. With the emphasis on overseas contingency operations (OCO) and the effects of the BCA and sequestration the military has been forced to review every program and every expense for the past five years. This review has not been necessarily bad. The top-down and bottom-up review has forced each branch of the service to focus on what is important for the future needs of the US foreign and domestic policies.


 


The following chart shows the level of defense funding for the past several years as well as the projected spending for the next five years. Although the proposed budget for 2016 of $585B is below the 2010-11 level it is a significant increase from 2015. The majority of the Defense budget is for operations, facilities and personnel but there is still a significant portion allocated for procurement and R&D. The 2016 budget provides for $177.5 billion in procurement and research spending, an increase of $20.4 billion, or 13 percent, over the 2015 budget.


 


gov-budget-graph


 


The Pentagon wants to spend $107.7 billion on procurement and $69.8 billion on research and development, with $12.3 billion falling within that for science and technology spending. The biggest investments include $48.8 billion for aircraft, $25.6 billion for shipbuilding, $8.2 billion for ground systems and $11.9 billion for missiles and munitions.


 














































Procurement and R&D Funding by Branch
ArmyNavyAir Force
Total$126.5BTotal$161BTotal$122.2B
R&D$6.9BR&D$17.9BR&D$18B
%5.40%%11%%14.70%

 


For the Army, there are significant upgrades planned for existing vehicles such as Abrahams, Bradley and Striker vehicles. There is also funding for a Humvee replacement. A lot of the upgrades are for better computer and communications systems. For procurements, the Army is targeting Blackhawk and Apache attack helicopters, Chinook helicopters, WIN-T communication systems, and the MQ-1 Gray Eagle, a dual-purpose weaponized/ISR unmanned aircraft.  Areas in RDT&E specifically identified by the Army include basic research, applied research, advanced technology development, demonstration and validation.


 


The Air Force will fund R&D in nuclear operations to reduce risks to ground-based strategic defense such as ICBM guidance and propulsion, provide for B-2 fleet defensive management system upgrades related to attack capability and investments in domestic launch systems. They will invest in future capabilities and technologies to support adaptive engine transition program testing and provide critical command and control with better ISR capabilities and maintain its commitment to recapitalize the Air Force to sustain designs and developments for the KC-46 (an aerial refueling and transport vehicle), the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the LRS-B (a next generation stealth bomber), and a combat rescue helicopter.


 


The Navy in recent years has emphasized its desire for more unmanned systems plus next-generation strike aircraft to be interchangeable between manned and unmanned.  An example is the UCLASS, or unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike program.  The Marine Corps R&D will focus on amphibious combat vehicles. The Marines have already awarded contracts to two vendors for procurement of additional vehicles.  Also, in the cyber domain, networks such as Naval Enterprise Networks (NGEN) and the Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) will see more investment as will combat and controls systems for tactical platforms.


 


All of the branches of the military are also increasing the funding for cyber programs and big data programs. Included is funding for security from cyber attacks from internal and external sources.


 


Overall the 2016 budget is encouraging for technology companies. With more R&D spending there are more opportunities to sell existing products as well as get funding for innovations and product enhancements. The question is will congress fight the budget since it is well over the BCA cap or will congress realize that the investment is needed for the future of technology growth and modernization of both the military and NASA. Hopefully the later, but we will probably have to wait until at least September 30th to get an answer.


 


We at Chassis Plans are already seeing a much-increased level of quote activity and programs which have been on hold being released.  There is a general feeling in Government procurement that the worst is behind us and that much needed money is being made available.  Based on our first quarter performance, we’re expecting a banner year.  Our systems form the foundation for many military programs so an increase in our business is a leading indicator for the health of the sector.


 



The 2016 Federal Budget has Healthy Increases for R&D and Defense

Mike McCormack Joins Chassis Plans as President

Mike McCormack

Mike McCormack


Chassis Plans is pleased to announce the appointment of Mike McCormack as President. Mike brings a comprehensive understanding of the Defense and Industrial markets through his past experience in senior management positions at IntelliPower,  Johnathan Engineered Solutions and Emerson.  The organizations managed, designed and manufactured a wide range of products including power conversion systems, electronic components, mechanical components and outside plant equipment to the Defense, Aerospace, Communications and Oil and Gas Exploration. Mike also previously served in the USAF as an Airborne Command Post Communications Systems Engineer on board EC-135’s.


 


With Mike on board Chassis Plans will continue with being the leader in the design and development of world class Rugged Custom Military and Industrial grade Computers, Monitors and Keyboards through innovative designs and outstanding customer service and support.



Mike McCormack Joins Chassis Plans as President

Is there an Engineering Graduate Shortage?

At Chassis Plans we have been supporting engineering students for several years via scholarships and hiring students as interns. As we go into the future there is a strong need for technologists to support future development in all fields of science and engineering.


Courtesy of S. Harris - http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com

Courtesy of S. Harris – http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com


 


Is there a real shortage of Engineers and Scientists in the current marketplace? In 2008 the Bureau of Labor estimated there would be a shortage of 160,000 engineers and scientists by 2016. However, some of the more recent studies are showing that there is not a shortage of engineering talent but the issue is whether the math and science education in the United States requires development in both primary and secondary schools. What is being done about it and is there a light at the end of the tunnel?


 


Of all the reports, both pro and con, on the engineer shortage, the one thing that is agreed on is that students today need to develop better skills in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). No matter what career path is taken by today’s students, knowledge of STEM skills will be an aid to better opportunities. In a 2011 article for the Wall Street Journal, Norman Augustine, former chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin stated – “In my position as CEO of a firm employing over 80,000 engineers, I can testify that most were excellent engineers. But the factor that most distinguished those who advanced in the organization was the ability to think broadly and read and write clearly.


 


The good news is that STEM programs are in almost all high schools and more primary schools. STEM programs are multidiscipline based incorporating the integration of disciplinary knowledge into a new whole. Technology helps us communicate; math is the language, science and engineering are the processes for thinking and all this leads to creativity and innovation.


 


Courtest of Ed Stein - http://edsteinink.com

Courtest of Ed Stein – http://edsteinink.com


 


In the past, there were huge government programs, such as the space program, that captured the imagination of many students and helped keep enrollment in engineering and science programs high. Today the government is sponsoring STEM programs to excite students. There are engineering-oriented competitions such as robotics competitions hosted by both the government and private companies.


 


There are resources outside of the normal school campus that can also help excite students to take an interest in science. Three of the key outside influences that can have an effect on students are:


 


  • The Internet

  • Transformation of public libraries

  • Open source software and hardware development.

 


The information explosion created by the internet has greatly surpassed what has been available in the past. The challenge is to be able to discern what information is useful and what is not. In the past a student would have to go to the library and look up the topic of interest using the sources available in that library. If a student lived in a small town the resources were limited. The internet provides an almost unlimited number of sources on any topic. So does that make the local library an obsolete facility?


 


Computer Lab in McAllen Texas Library

Computer Lab in McAllen Texas Library


 


The function of the library is changing. Libraries are moving away from just being a place where books are stored. Today’s libraries are embracing the internet culture and getting involved with STEM programs. More and more local libraries are adding Makers labs, computer labs and adding equipment such as 3D Printers that can be used by the public. One example is the new library in McAllen,Texas, where an old Wal-Mart building was turned into the largest single floor library in the United States. As part of the makeover computer labs were added as well as meeting rooms for STEM and Makers events.


 


Another driver of technology education is the concept of open source development projects which generate free or very low cost software and hardware solutions. Using open source developed products, schools, as well as individuals, can have hands on experience developing robotics, graphics applications and other technology projects.


 


The support of STEM programs by government agencies, schools and companies will go a long way to improving the skills of students in science, math and engineering and help to provide sufficient technology workers for the future.


 


Chassis Plans will continue to help with additional scholarships, equipment donations, and Intern programs.



Is there an Engineering Graduate Shortage?

Chassis Plans Awards Winter 2015 Leadership in Engineering Scholarship

Chassis Plans Winter 2014 Leadership in Engineering Scholarship Winner - Grace Bushnell

Chassis Plans Winter 2014 Leadership in Engineering Scholarship Winner – Grace Bushnell


Chassis Plans is pleased to announce Grace Bushnell won the Winter 2015 Chassis Plans Leadership in Engineering Scholarship.


 


Grace’s outstanding essay is located here.


 


Grace is a second year PhD student in Biomedical Engineering at the University of Michigan. Grace is originally from a small farming town in Northern Illinois. She received her Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering in 2013 and Master of Science in Biomedical Engineering in 2014, both from Northwestern University.


 


Her undergraduate research was focused on endovascular coiling of aneurysms and mussel-inspired biomaterials to serve as surgical adhesives. Her current graduate research is focused on developing biomaterials for the study, detection, and treatment of metastatic cancer.


 


Grace plans to work as a post-doctoral fellow following her PhD and hopes to eventually join academia as a faculty member to both teach and develop a biomaterials research program.



Chassis Plans Awards Winter 2015 Leadership in Engineering Scholarship

2015 Chassis Plans Calendars are Here

Chassis Plans

Chassis Plans’ 2015 Industrial Computer Calendar


Announcing the Chassis Plans’ 2015 calendar is here.  These are free to qualified users in the industrial and military computer markets.  Go to www.chassis-plans.com/industrial-computer-calendar.html to request your own copy.


 


This is a beautiful large format 11 x 17-inch work of art that everybody loves.



2015 Chassis Plans Calendars are Here

ISO 9001:2008 Surveillance Audit

Chassis Plans just completed its most recent two-day ISO 9001:2008 surveillance audit by the registrar International Standards Authority Inc.


 


Periodic surveillance audits are a requirement for maintaining ISO 9001:2008 registration.


 


External surveillance audits verify that the organization has an effective quality management system that meets all the requirements of the internationally recognized ISO 9001:2008 standard.



ISO 9001:2008 Surveillance Audit

RAID Data Storage

Introduction


 


RAID is an acronym which stands for Redundant Array of Independent Disks.  It combines multiple disk drives into a logical unit.  As its name implies, it provides redundancy which allows continuous access to data should a disk drive fail.  When a server wants to store data it sends a write command to the storage array with the data to be stored and a logical unit number (LUN) identifying where to place the data.  When the server wants to retrieve that data, it sends a read request to the storage array, again referencing the LUN from which to retrieve the data.  The server doesn’t realize that the data isn’t being stored on a disk drive but on a series of disk drives.  It doesn’t really care just as long as it can store and retrieve the data.  A RAID storage array is a virtual storage device.  Although virtualization in the server and network space is somewhat new, virtualization in the data space has been around for quite some time.


 


RAID Levels


 


Depending on the level of redundancy and performance required, data is distributed across the disk drives in one of several ways, most of which provide protection against sector or whole drive failures.  Let’s take a look at the more popular RAID levels.


 


Raid 0RAID 0 – RAID 0 is a bit misleading as it provides no redundancy at all and as a result, no protection against drive failures.  RAID 0 is really a data distribution scheme to increase write performance.   In this scheme, data is stripped across a set of disk drives so that each drive only has to store a portion of the data and, therefore, the data as a whole is written in less time than if it were written to a single disk drive.  The downside to RAID 0 is the opportunity for a disk failure is doubled..


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


.


.
Raid 1RAID 1 – RAID 1 requires at least two drives and provides redundancy by mirroring the data on a second drive or on a second set of drives.  Therefore, if a drive fails, it is abandoned and the data is referenced from its mirrored drive.  Subsequent writes are then only written to the surviving drive pair until the failed drive is replaced and rebuilt with the data from the surviving drive.  Should the surviving drive fail before the failed drive is replaced and reloaded with the mirrored data, an unrecoverable error is said to have occurred.


 


 


 


 


.


 


 


 


 


RAID 10 – RAID 10 is a combination of RAID 1 and RAID 0.  In RAID 10, data is stripped across a set of disk drives and the data on that set of drives is mirrored on another set of disk drives.  RAID 10 gives the system higher performance writes, as in RAID 0, as well as data protection from mirroring as in RAID 1.  The downside to RAID 10 is the cost of a larger set of disk drives.


 


Raid 5


RAID 5 – RAID 5 solves the higher cost of the combined performance and reliability found in RAID 10.  In RAID 5 data is distributed across a set of drives, as in RAID 0, yielding the higher performance.  However, the cost of redundancy is minimized by requiring only one extra disk drive.  This drive is for parity data.  When data is stripped across the drive set, parity is also generated by an exclusive OR Boolean function applied to each data element and saved on the parity drive.  Should a drive fail, it can be rebuilt with the data from the remaining drives.  The missing data element is regenerated using the information in the parity drive.  This not only allows the system to rebuild a replacement drive but to also operate without the replacement drive, albeit at a slower read pace as the system must regenerate the missing data on each read.  Although an extra drive is used for parity, the parity element is really distributed throughout the drive set so no one drive contains only parity information as can be seen in the RAID 5 diagram below.  The downside to RAID 5 is that each disk drive is read quite extensively to rebuild a failed drive.  If the heavy reading workload causes a second drive to fail all data now becomes unrecoverable. Today’s single disk drive capacity is up to 4 terabytes of data.  Rebuilding a 4 terabyte drive can take many hours.  The larger the drive, the longer the rebuild time, and the more likely the system will lose a second drive resulting in data loss.


 


Raid 6RAID 6 – RAID 6 was developed to overcome the shortcoming of RAID 5.  If using large capacity drives, it is recommended that RAID 6 be implemented.  RAID 6 used double parity so that two drives can fail and the system still has enough information to rebuild both drives.  As in RAID 5, the parity is distributed throughout the drive set.


 


 


 


 


.


 


JBOD – JBOD is an acronym that stands for Just a Bunch Of Disks.  It’s not a RAID level at all but is worth addressing in the RAID discussion.  JBODs address the need for capacities greater than can be found on a single disk drive but provide nothing in the way of redundancy.  There is no algorithm support for stripping, mirroring, or parity.  It’s simply an inexpensive way to provide for large capacity storage.


 


Application


 


Storage arrays with various RAID levels are used extensively in many applications today.  It is often used in deployed applications in rugged environments for data acquisition.  The most common environment is on an airborne platform or in a ground station to received collected data from an airborne platform.  Data collection sensors have evolved to provide greater resolution which means more data to store.  At the same time, disk drive capacities have increased while costs have declined.  This has allowed RAID to become the technology of choice for data acquisition applications.


 


Chassis Plans offers rugged storage arrays compliant and certified to the rugged MIL-STD-810G standard providing assurance that your data storage is protected in certain harsh environments.  The Chassis Plans rugged storage arrays support all RAID levels discussed here and are housed in a 2U high 19 inch rack mount enclosure with capacities up to 48 terabytes. For greater capacities, up to seven additional enclosures can be added to extend the total capacity under a single RAID group to 384 terabytes of data.


 


 


Graphics for this blog article attributed to Colin M.L. Burnett.



 


 



RAID Data Storage

MIL-STD-810G – Part 20 (Acidic Atmosphere) Method 518.1

MIL-STD-810G covers exposure to an Acidic Atmosphere in Method 518.1. Acidic atmospheres are of increasing concern, especially for materiel in the vicinity of industrial areas or near the exhausts of fuel burning devices. Method 518.1 is comprised of 7 pages.


 


This Method is used to determine the resistance of materials and protective coatings to corrosive atmospheres. This Method is appropriate for materiel likely to be stored or operated in areas where acidic atmospheres exist, such as industrial areas or near the exhausts of any fuel-burning device.


 


Note this method is not a replacement for the salt fog method, nor is it suitable for evaluating the effects of hydrogen sulfide that readily oxidizes in the test environment to form sulfur dioxide. Caution: Although salt fog chambers are usually used for this test, introducing an acidic or sulfur dioxide atmosphere in a salt fog chamber may contaminate the chamber for future salt fog tests.


 


Some problems as a result of an acidic environment include:


 


  1. Chemical attack of surface finishes and non-metallic materials.

  2. Corrosion of metals.

  3. Pitting of cement and optics.

 


This Method should be applied late in a products test cycle. Also, separate items should be tested for Salt Fog.


 


Two test durations are suggested. For infrequent periods of exposure, three 2-hour spraying periods with 22 hours storage after each is sufficient. To represent approximately 10 years natural exposure in a moist, highly industrial area, or a shorter period in close proximity to vehicle exhaust systems, particularly ship funnel exhausts where the potential acidity is significantly higher, four 2-hour spraying periods with 7 days storage after each is sufficient.


 


The actual test is similar to Method 509.5 (Salt Fog) in that the acid solution is atomized into a fog and blown through a test chamber.


 



MIL-STD-810G – Part 20 (Acidic Atmosphere) Method 518.1

MIL-STD-810G – Part 19 (Pyroshock) Method 517.1

MIL-STD-810G covers Pyroshock in Method 517.1. Pyroshock is a high intensity, short duration shock event caused by the detonation of a pyrotechnic device on adjacent structures. Pyroshock is a physical phenomenon characterized by the overall material and mechanical response at a structure point from either (a) an explosive device, or (b) a propellant activated device. Method 517.1 is comprised of 23 pages.


 


Method 517.1 is not intended to test material exposed to external explosions.


 


Use this method to evaluate materiel likely to be exposed to one or more pyroshocks in its lifetime.


 


In general, the pyroshock sources may be described in terms of their spatial distribution – point sources, line sources and combined point and line sources. Point sources include explosive bolts, separation nuts, pin pullers and pushers, bolt and cable cutters and pyro-activated operational hardware. Line sources include flexible linear shape charges (FLSC), mild detonating fuses (MDF), and explosive transfer lines. Combined point and line sources include V-band (Marmon) clamps.


 


Pyroshocks are generally within a frequency range between 100 Hz and 1,000,000 Hz, and a time duration from 50 microseconds to not more than 20 milliseconds. Acceleration response amplitudes to pyroshock may range from 300 g to 300,000 g.


 


Pyroshock usually exhibits no momentum exchange between two bodies (a possible exception is the transfer of strain energy from stress wave propagation from a device through structure to the materiel). Pyroshock results in essentially no velocity change in the materiel support structure.


 


The characteristics of pyroshock are:


  1. near-the-source stress waves in the structure caused by high material strain rates (nonlinear material region) propagate into the near-field and beyond;

  2. high frequency (100 Hz to 1,000,000 Hz) and very broadband frequency input;

  3. high acceleration (300 g to 300,000 g) but low structural velocity and displacement response;

  4. short-time duration (< 20 msec);

  5. high residual structure acceleration response (after the event);

  6. caused by (1) an explosive device or (2) a propellant activated device (releasing stored strain energy) coupled directly into the structure; (for clarification, a propellant activated device includes items such as a clamp that releases strain energy causing a structure response greater than that obtained from the propellant detonation alone);

  7. highly localized point source input or line source input;

  8. very high structural driving point impedance (P/v, where P is the large detonation force or pressure, and v, the structural velocity, is very small). At the pyrotechnic source, the driving point impedance can be substantially less if the structure material particle velocity is high;

  9. response time histories that are random in nature, providing little repeatability and substantial dependency on the materiel configuration details;

  10. response at points on the structure that are greatly affected by structural discontinuities;

  11. materiel and structural response that may be accompanied by substantial heat and electromagnetic emission (from ionization of gases during explosion).

 


Examples of electronic problems associated with pyroshock follow, but the list is not intended to be all-inclusive.


  1. materiel failure as a result of destruction of the structural integrity of microelectronic chips;

  2. materiel failure as a result of relay chatter;

  3. materiel failure as a result of circuit card malfunction, circuit card damage, and electronic connector failure. On occasion, circuit card contaminants having the potential to cause short circuits may be dislodged under pyroshock.

  4. materiel failure as a result of cracks and fracture in crystals, ceramics, epoxies, or glass envelopes.

 



MIL-STD-810G – Part 19 (Pyroshock) Method 517.1

MIL-STD-810G – Part 18 (Shock) Method 516.6

tank-in-airMIL-STD-810G covers shock in Method 516.6. Shock is an infrequent single pulse acceleration with a narrow pulse width imparted to a device. Method 516.6 is one of the more complicated Methods comprised of 38 pages. In addition there are three Annexes:


 


Annex A – Statistical Considerations (8 pages)


Annex B – Effective Shock Duration (4 pages)


Annex C – Autospectral Density (4 pages)


 


Method 516.5 is one of the more widely performed Methods, often in conjunction with Method 514.6 (Vibration).


 


Shock tests are performed to:


  1. provide a degree of confidence that material can physically and functionally withstand the relatively infrequent, non-repetitive shocks encountered in handling, transportation, and service environments. This may include an assessment of the overall material system integrity for safety purposes in any one or all of the handling, transportation, and service environments;

  2. determine the material’s fragility level, in order that packaging may be designed to protect the material’s physical and functional integrity; and

  3. test the strength of devices that attach material to platforms that can crash.

 


A shock environment is generally limited to a frequency range not to exceed 10,000 Hz, and a time duration of not more than 1.0 second. (In most cases of mechanical shock the significant material response frequencies will not exceed 4,000 Hz and the duration of material response will not exceed 0.1 second.) The material response will, in most cases, be highly oscillatory, of short duration, with a substantial initial rise time with large positive and negative peak amplitudes.


 


Shock is the term applied to a comparatively short time (usually much less than the period of the fundamental frequency of the material) and moderately high level (above even extreme vibration levels) force impulse applied as an input to the material.


 


Failure modes to shock events include:


 


  1. material failure as a result of increased or decreased friction between parts, or general interference between parts;

  2. changes in material dielectric strength, loss of insulation resistance, variations in magnetic and electrostatic field strength;

  3. material electronic circuit card malfunction, electronic circuit card damage, and electronic connector failure. (On occasion, circuit card contaminants having the potential to cause short circuit may be dislodged under material response to shock.);

  4. permanent mechanical deformation of the material as a result of overstress of material structural and non-structural members;

  5. collapse of mechanical elements of the material as a result of the ultimate strength of the component being exceeded;

  6. accelerated fatiguing of materials (low cycle fatigue);

  7. potential piezoelectric activity of materials, and

  8. material failure as a result of cracks in fracturing crystals, ceramics, epoxies, or glass envelopes.

 


Method 516.6 includes eight procedures:


 


Procedure I – Functional Shock


Intended to test material (including mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, and electronic) in its functional mode (as installed in the field) and to assess the physical integrity, continuity and functionality of the material to shock.


 


Procedure II – Material to be packaged

The intent of this test is to ensure the functionality of materiel after it has been inadvertently dropped before, during, or after a packaging process.


 


Procedure III – Fragility

Used to determine a material’s ruggedness or fragility so that packaging can be designed for the material, or so the material can be redesigned to meet transportation and/or handling requirements.  This test is designed to build up in severity until a test item failure occurs, or a predetermined goal is reached.


 


Procedure IV – Transit Drop

Intended for material either outside of or within its transit or combination case, or as prepared for field use (carried to a combat situation by man, truck, rail, etc.).


 


Procedure V – Crash Hazard Shock Test

Intended for material mounted in air or ground vehicles that could break loose from its mounts, tiedowns or containment configuration during a crash and present a hazard to vehicle occupants and bystanders.


 


Procedure VI – Bench Handling

Intended for material that may typically experience bench handling, bench maintenance, or packaging.


 


Procedure VII – Pendulum Impact

Intended to test the ability of large shipping containers to resist horizontal impacts, and to determine the ability of the packaging and packing methods to provide protection to the contents when the container is impacted.


 


Procedure VIII – Catapult Launch/Arrested Landing.

Intended for material mounted in or on fixed-wing aircraft that are subject to catapult launches and arrested landings.


 


 



MIL-STD-810G – Part 18 (Shock) Method 516.6

MIL-STD-810G – Part 17 (Acoustic Noise) Method 515.6

shuttle-launchMIL-STD-810G covers Acoustic Noise Susceptibility in Method 515.6. This Method tests material’s response to very loud noise such as from a jet engine, rocket engine (think Shuttle launch) or power plant. This is not a test to determine how much noise an item generates. Method 515.6 is 8 pages with two Annexes totaling 7 pages.


 


As with most of the Methods in 810G, tailoring is essential for this Method to have any meaningful results.


 


The acoustic noise test is performed to determine the adequacy of materiel to resist the specified acoustic environment without unacceptable degradation of its functional performance and/or structural integrity. It is applicable to systems, sub-systems and units that must function and survive in a severe acoustic environment.


 


The acoustic noise environment is produced by any mechanical or electromechanical device capable of causing large airborne pressure fluctuations. In general, these pressure fluctuations are of an entirely random nature over a large amplitude range (5000 Pa to 87000 Pa), and over a broad frequency band extending from 10 Hz to 10000 Hz. When pressure fluctuations impact materiel, generally, a transfer of energy takes place between the energy (in the form of fluctuating pressure) in the surrounding air to the strain energy in materiel. This transfer of energy will result in vibration of the materiel, in which case the vibrating materiel may re-radiate pressure energy, absorb energy in materiel damping, or transfer energy to components or cavities interior to the materiel.


 


Some of the effects of a high acoustic environment include:


 


  1. Wire chafing

  2. Component acoustic and vibratory fatigue

  3. Component connecting wire fracture

  4. Cracking of printed circuit boards

  5. Failure of wave guide components

  6. Intermittent operation of electrical contacts

  7. Cracking of small panel areas and structural elements

  8. Optical misalignment

  9. Loosening of small particles that may become lodged in circuits and mechanisms

  10. Excessive electrical noise

 


As with Method 514.6 (Vibration), loud acoustic environments can have an effect on the material that may change the material’s response to other tests. For example, noise can cause a vibration is a panel that cracks the finish which would cause a failure of the Salt Fog test. This test should be performed first or in conjunction with vibration testing.


 


The Method provides three procedures:


 


Procedure I – Diffuse Field Acoustic Noise.

A uniform intensity shaped spectrum of acoustic noise that impacts all the exposed materiel surfaces is provided. This would be a typically noisy environment with broadband widespread noise such as produced by aerospace vehicles or power plants.


 


Procedure II – Grazing Incidence Acoustic Noise.

Includes a high intensity, rapidly fluctuating acoustic noise with a shaped spectrum that impacts the materiel surfaces in a particular direction – generally along the long dimension of the materiel. An example is high speed airflow over the skin of an aircraft or airflow around a missile hanging on a wing pylon.


 


Procedure III – Cavity Resonance Acoustic Noise.

The intensity and, to a great extent, the frequency content of the acoustic noise spectrum is governed by the relationship between the geometrical configuration of the cavity and the materiel within the cavity. An example would be an open weapons bay on a fighter where the air in the cavity is turbulent. This can induce vibration in adjacent aircraft structures and equipment such as bombs or missiles still in the bay.


 


 



MIL-STD-810G – Part 17 (Acoustic Noise) Method 515.6

MIL-STD-810G – Part 16 (Vibration) Method 514.6

MIL-STD-810G covers vibration in Method 514.6. This is one of more commonly applied Methods. The Method is 23 pages long plus the following annexes.


 


Engineering Information Annex A – 11 pages


Manufacture / Maintenance Guidance Annex B – 1 page


Transportation Tailoring Guidance Annex C – 23 pages


Operational Tailoring Guidance Annex D – 22 pages


Supplemental Tailoring Guidance Annex E – 8 pages


 


As can be noted, while this is one of the more commonly referenced Methods, it is also potentially the most complex to adequately tailor the tests to the operational environment. It can also be noted that laboratory testing is only a close approximation to real-world exposure.


 


The Method starts with a note stating tailoring is essential. Material in the field is subject to a wide variety of vibration amplitudes and frequencies. Items carried in the back of a truck experience much different vibration than items mounted to a helicopter airframe. The appropriate test must be carefully thought out depending on the end-use environment.


 


Of particular note is Method 514.6 is limited to consideration of one mechanical degree-of-freedom at a time. That is, a shake table used for testing moves in only one axis at a time. Method 527 provides further guidance on multiple exciter testing.


 


The Method discusses the item Vibration Life Cycle including:


 


  • Manufacture / Maintenance

  • Transportation

  • Operational

  • Supplemental

 


Within each of these domains, sub-categories such as truck and trailer transportation, aircraft transportation, watercraft transportation and railroad transportation exist. Each of these categories may be again sub-divided into yet more specific criteria such as jet, propeller, helicopter for aircraft.


 


Of concern is the coupling of the unit under test to the mounting platform. Care must be taken, especially for larger items, that flexing and the dynamic responses of the mounting platform during testing do not change the test results to not reflect the real-world environment.


 


The effects of vibration and items to look for include:


 


  1. Chafed wiring.

  2. Loose fasteners/components.

  3. Intermittent electrical contacts.

  4. Electrical shorts.

  5. Deformed seals.

  6. Failed components.

  7. Optical or mechanical misalignment.

  8. Cracked and/or broken structures.

  9. Migration of particles and failed components.

  10. Particles and failed components lodged in circuitry or mechanisms.

  11. Excessive electrical noise.

  12. Fretting corrosion in bearings.

 


Essentially all material will experience vibration, whether during manufacture, transportation, maintenance or operational use. Vibration can have deleterious effects on the unit under test such as cracked finishes, displaced seals, etc. As such, vibration testing should be accomplished prior to other environmental tests to assure vibration doesn’t cause other hidden problems. For example, stress cracks in the material finish due to flexing of the material would show up as corrosion in Method 509.5 (Salt Fog) while a new un-flexed part would pass.


 


Method 514.6 provides 4 procedures:


 


Procedure I – General Vibration

Used for material to be transported as secured cargo or deployed for use on a vehicle including ground vehicles and fixed and rotary wing aircraft.  Standard laboratory vibration shakers are used for testing.


 


Procedure II – Loose Cargo Transportation


Used to simulate unsecured items carried in or on trucks, trailors or tracked vehicles. Simulation of this environment requires use of a package tester  that imparts a 25.4 mm (1.0 inch) peak-to-peak, circular synchronous motion to the table at a frequency of 5 Hz.


 


Procedure III – Large Assembly Transportation


Intended to replicate the vibration and shock environment incurred by large assemblies installed or transported by wheeled or tracked vehicles.  The item under test is loaded onto a representative vehicle and the vehicle is then driven over a test surface to simulate service conditions.


 


Procedure IV – Assembled Aircraft Store Captive Carriage and Free Flight


Used for fixed wing aircraft carriage and environmental life cycles of all aircraft stores and free flight phases of ground or sea-launched missiles.  Standard laboratory vibration shakers are used for testing using representative mounting points to simulate aircraft mounting.


 


Large test items on large complex fixtures are almost certain to have fixture resonances within the test range which can result in large over-tests or under-tests. Similar problems often occur with small test items.


 


Analyses of vibration related failures must relate the failure mechanism to the dynamics of the failed item and to the dynamic environment. It is insufficient to determine that something broke due to high cycle fatigue or wear.


 


Materiel is deemed to have failed if it suffers permanent deformation or fracture; if any fixed part or assembly loosens; if any moving or movable part of an assembly becomes free or sluggish in operation; if any movable part or control shifts in setting, position or adjustment, and if test item performance does not meet specification requirements while exposed to functional levels and following endurance tests.  A vibration qualification test is complete when all elements of the test item have successfully passed a complete test. When a failure occurs, stop the test, analyze the failure, and repair the test item. Continue the test until all fixes have been exposed to a complete test.


 


 



MIL-STD-810G – Part 16 (Vibration) Method 514.6

MIL-STD-810G – Part 15 (Acceleration) Method 513.5

MIL-STD-810G covers steady-state acceleration experienced by material in the service environment. The Method is used to assure material continues to operate after testing.  The Method is also used to assure the material does not become hazardous after exposure to inertial loads experienced in a crash. The method is applicable to material that is installed in aircraft, helicopters, manned aerospace vehicles, air-carried stores, and ground/sea-launched missiles. Method 513.5 is 13 pages long plus a 6 page annex discussing Test Considerations .


 


Method 513.5 includes a note stating that tailoring is essential. A large part of the Method is devoted to tailoring the tests to the material and intended environment.


 


This Method is different from Method 514.6 (Vibration) and Method 516.6 (Shock) in that the acceleration is applied slowly enough with sufficient time allowed to fully distribute the resulting loads through the material and dynamic response of the material is not excited. This method is not adequate for testing aerodynamic loads. Method 501.5 (High Temperature) should be conducted prior to this Method.


 


The effects of acceleration include:


 


  1. Structural deflections that interfere with materiel operation.

  2. Permanent deformation, structural cracks, and fractures that disable or destroy materiel.

  3. Broken fasteners and supports that result in loose parts within materiel.

  4. Broken mounting hardware that results in loose materiel within a platform.

  5. Electronic circuit boards that short out and circuits that open up.

  6. Inductances and capacitances that change value.

  7. Relays that open or close.

  8. Actuators and other mechanisms that bind.

  9. Seals that leak.

  10. Pressure and flow regulators that change value.

  11. Pumps that cavitate.

  12. Spools in servo valves that are displaced causing erratic and dangerous control system response.

 


Section 2 provides formulas for determining g-loads for fighter aircraft because of the high roll and pitch rates and tables of suggested g-loads for other platforms such as helicopters, manned aerospace vehicles, ground-launched missiles, etc. There is also a table of suggested g-loads for the Crash Hazard Acceleration test which goes up as high as 40-g.


 


Required apparatus for testing consists of either a centrifuge of adequate size or a rocket-powered sled.


 


This Method provides for three procedures:


 


  1. Procedure I – Structural Test

    The item under test is subjected to the specified g-level while not operating. After the test, test the item for proper operation.

  2. Procedure II – Operational Test

    The item under test is turned on and operating normally while subjected to the g-load.

  3. Procedure III – Crash Hazard Acceleration Test

    Very high non-operational g-loads are imparted to assure the item under test does not become a hazard during a crash. Items, such as aircrew seats, are tested to ensure they remain attached to the aircraft structure during a crash.


MIL-STD-810G – Part 15 (Acceleration) Method 513.5

MIL-STD-810G – Part 14 (Immersion) Method 512.5

810G covers Emmersion or partial Emmersion in water (or salt water) of equipment. This Method is 7 pages long.


 


This is a rather simple Method. The goal of the tests are to check the item for leaks when submerged in water. There are two Procedures:


 


I. Immersion or submersion


II. Fording


 


Effects of immersion include:


 


  1. Fouling of lubricants between moving parts.

  2. Formation of electrically conductive paths which may cause electrical or electronic equipment to malfunction or become unsafe to operate.

  3. Corrosion due to direct exposure to the water or to the relatively high humidity levels caused by the water.

  4. Impairment of the burning qualities of explosives, propellants, fuels, etc.

  5. Failure of vehicle engines to operate.

 


For the Immersion test (Procedure I), the item is submerged so the top of the item is 1M below the surface. If the environment anticipates a deeper depth, it may be necessary to use a chamber and pressurize to the test depth, assuring the top of the test item is fully submerged.


 


The Fording test (Procedure II) is primarily targeted at vehicles traversing a body of water or material secured to such vehicles.


 


One facet of the Immersion test to consider is the item under test should be heated 27 deg C above the water temperature. When the item is submerged in the cooler water, it will cool down and the inside pressure will be lower. This may “suck” water into the item. 27 Deg C is specified to simulate solar heating. Otherwise, use 10 deg C as a differential to simulate normal differences between material and water temperature.


 


The Immersion test should last approximately 30 minutes. The Fording test should last an hour.


 


Prior to testing, doors, valves, etc., should be exercised a minimum of 3 times to assure seals are not sticking to the surfaces.


 


After the test, examine the article for leaks. Air bubbles during the test are a good indication of a leak. Weight before and after the test may be a good indication of a leak.


 


As a side note, the immersion test may be used for the rain test. However, rain dynamics can sometimes compromise seals so both rain and immersion tests should be conducted.


 



MIL-STD-810G – Part 14 (Immersion) Method 512.5

MIL-STD-810G – Part 13 (Explosive Atmosphere) Method 511.5

810G covers equipment operated in an Explosive Atmosphere. Method 511.5 is 8 pages long. This Method is performed to:


 


  1. Demonstrate the ability of materiel to operate in fuel-air explosive atmospheres without causing ignition, or

  2. Demonstrate that an explosive or burning reaction occurring within encased materiel will be contained, and will not propagate outside the test item.

 


This method applies to all materiel designed for use in the vicinity of fuel-air explosive atmospheres associated with aircraft, automotive, and marine fuels at or above sea level. Procedure II specifically relates to atmospheres in a space in which flammable fluids or vapors exist, or can exist, either continuously or intermittently (e.g., in fuel tanks or within fuel systems).


 


The Method provides for two Procedures:


 


I – The item under test operating in an explosive atmosphere without igniting the air/fuel mixture environment.


II – Determine the ability of the test item to contain an explosion or flame that is the result of an internal malfunction.


 


The test involves placing the item under test inside a chamber that is filled with an explosive mixture of air and n-hexane. N-hexane is specified because its ignition properties in flammable atmospheres are equal to or more sensitive than the similar properties of 100/130-octane aviation gasoline, JP-4 and JP-8 jet engine fuel.


 


The chamber is maintained at the maximum temperature the item may experience. Also, altitude is simulated as appropriate. The energy required to ignite a fuel-air mixture increases as pressure decreases.


 


For Procedure I, operate the item in an explosive atmosphere to determine if it will ignite the mixture.


 


For Procedure II, introduce an explosive mixture into the test item and ignite that mixture. Assure the resulting explosion is contained inside the test item and does not ignite the explosive mixture in the chamber.


 



MIL-STD-810G – Part 13 (Explosive Atmosphere) Method 511.5

Mil-Std-810G – Part 12 (Sand and Dust) Method 510.5

810G covers exposure of equipment to dry blowing sand and dust. Think Afghanistan. As with Method 509.5 for Salt Fog exposure, Blowing Sand and Dust is one of the more commonly performed tests. Method 510.5 covers 13 pages. This is one of the shorter duration Methods and can be finished in a day.


 


Dust is defined as particles measuring less than 150um and sand measures in the range of 150 to 850um. There are specs for size distribution within that range for the test dust or sand.


 


Dust exposure is examined for the ability of the item under test to resist vents being clogged, penetration through cracks, crevices, bearings and joints and to evaluate the effectiveness of filters.


 


Sand exposure is designed to test the item for its ability to be stored and operated in blowing sand conditions. Blowing sand can be very erosive, easily stripping the finish from an item allowing subsequent corrosion or operational failure. Blowing sand can quickly render optical devices unusable.


 


This method is not used to evaluate in-flight material such as air frames, propellers, helicopter rotors, etc. due to the velocities involved. This Method is also not used to evaluate the build-up of electrostatic charge. Some care should be exercised with the equipment regarding ESD. Blowing sand and dust can impart a fairly high charge on an item and subsequent handling of the item may cause damage from a discharge. Assure the item and operator are grounded before handling during or after a test.


 


Blowing sand and dust is usually associated with hot-dry regions though it can be experienced in most other regions depending on the season and weather. In addition, military operations can generate large quantities of loose sand and dust which can be picked up by the wind or, potentially, rotorcraft or other aircraft.


 


The effects can include:


 


  1. Abrasion and erosion of surfaces.

  2. Penetration of seals.

  3. Degradation of electrical circuits.

  4. Obstruction/clogging of openings and filters.

  5. Physical interference with mating parts.

  6. Fouling/interference of moving parts.

  7. Reduction of thermal conductivity.

  8. Interference with optical characteristics.

  9. Overheating and fire hazard due to restricted ventilation or cooling.

  10. Wear (increased fretting due to imbedding between mating surfaces).

  11. Increased chaffing between non-mating contacting surfaces.

  12. Weight gain, static/ dynamic balance.

 


Because of potential damage to an article, Humidity, Salt Fog and Fungus Growth testing should be accomplished prior to Blowing Sand and Dust testing. Also consider the corrosive effects of dust or dust residue since salt and highly alkaline materials may be present in the end-use environment.


 


Method 510.5 provides two procedures:


Procedure I – Blowing Dust (less than 150um)


Procedure II – Blowing Sand (150 to 850um)


 


As you will recall, MIL-STD-810G is not a set of tests to pass or not pass but a document guiding the creation of test procedures which are agreed upon between the vendor and customer as to the intended environment. Therefore, part of the process for Method 510.5 is to identify the climatic conditions appropriate for the geographic areas in which the material will be operated and stored. Specific test conditions should be based, if possible, on field data. Method 510.5 offers guidance which can be used in the absence of field data.


 


The test itself, while straight forward, can be brutal.


 


For Blowing Dust, the item under test should be maintained at its high operating or storage temperature. Humidity should be maintained below 30 percent. The air velocity for the test should be a minimum of 300 +/-200 feet/min with a higher velocity of 1750 +/-250 feet/min typical of desert winds. Use local conditions if they are more representative of the intended environment. The dust should have a chemical composition similar to the dust found in the intended environment. For example, in arid regions, soluble salts are common and can cause fouling, corrosion, and electrical shorts. If possible, actual dust from the region should be used in the test. The goal is to have as realistic test as possible.


 


The item under test should be rotated to assure all surfaces face the blowing dust.


 


The test duration should be at least 6 hours at ambient temperature with an additional 6 hours at the high storage or operational temperature.


 


For Blowing Sand, the test is very similar regarding temperature and humidity. However, the velocity is increased to 40-65 mph (3500-5700 ft/sec). The material should be common silica sand. As with Dust testing, it is preferred to match the properties of the sand found in the end-use environment to the test sand. There are 90 deserts in the world, each with different particle size distributions.


 


The quantity of sand in the air during the test is determined by the expected environment:


 


  1. For materiel likely to be used close to helicopters operating over unpaved surfaces: 2.2 ± 0.5 g/m3.

  2. For material never used or exposed in the vicinity of operating aircraft, but which may be used or stored unprotected near operating surface vehicles: 1.1 ± 0.3 g/m3.

  3. For material that will be subjected only to natural conditions: 0.18 g/m3, -0.0/+0.2 g/m3.

 


The item under test should be oriented so that the most vulnerable surface faces the blowing sand. Rotate the item every 90 minutes if more than one vulnerable surface exists.


 


The Blowing Sand test should last 90 minutes per vulnerable face.


 


For Blowing Dust, evaluate the item for binding, clogging, seizure, etc. Does it operate correctly? Check air filter operation to assure the filters are up to the task.


 


For Blowing Sand, evaluate the item for abrasion and operation. Examine protective coatings and seals. Does the item operate correctly?


 


Chassis Plans has taken our military chassis and displays through Blowing Sand and Dust testing and can work with the customer to put a plan in place for 810G compliance.


 



Mil-Std-810G – Part 12 (Sand and Dust) Method 510.5

Mil-Std-810G – Part 11 (Salt Fog) Method 509.5

h60-over-waterThis is part 11 of a series delving into the intricacies of Mil-Std-810G.


 


810G covers accelerated corrosion using salt fog in Method 509.5.  This method comprises 10 pages. This is one of the more commonly performed tests and is definitely required for items sold to the Navy or for use in coastal areas. Salt is one of the most pervasive chemical compounds in the world. It is found in the oceans and seas, the atmosphere, ground surfaces, and lakes and rivers. It is impossible to avoid exposure to salt.


 


The purpose of Method 509.5 is to assess the effectiveness of protective coatings and finishes on materials. All unprotected metals will corrode if not protected with some finish such as plating or paint. Finishes can also have pinholes or cracks allowing salt to reach the underlying material, causing corrosion. The Method can also be applied to determine the effects of salt deposits on the physical and electrical aspects of the assembly.


 


The effects of a corrosive environment include:


 


  1. Corrosion effects such a electrochemical reaction, stress corrosion, and the formation of acidic/alkaline solutions

  2. Electrical effects such as impairment of electrical material due to salt deposits, production of conductive coatings causing short circuits, and corrosion of insulating materials.

  3. Physical effects such as clogging or binding of moving parts and blistering of paint as a result of underlying electrolysis.

 


Use Method 509.5 for screening purposes only to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of protective coatings and finishes. Either coupons (samples) or the final assembly can be evaluated. The Method is not representative of the natural environment but is a good indicator of potential problem areas. In general, only apply this Method to material that will experience significant exposure to high levels of salt in the atmosphere, such as ship board applications.


 


The Method lists six limitations as follows:


 


  1. There is no relationship between this test and any real world exposure duration.

  2. It has not been demonstrated that a direct relationship exists between salt fog corrosion and corrosion due to other media.

  3. This test has does not imply the material will survive under all corrosive conditions.

  4. This test is unreliable for predicting the service life of materials in corrosive conditions.

  5. Effects of humidity and fungus growth are not represented in this test.

  6. This test is not intended to be used for sample or coupon testing in lieu of assemblage testing.

 


The Method requires a 5% (+/-1%) salt fog be produced and circulated (with minimal air velocity) around the item under test. Condensation should not be allowed to drip onto the test items. This is a fog test, not a salt water exposure test. The test is recommended to last 48 hours with a 48 hour drying time although an alternating 24 hour test cycle (24 fog, 24 drying, 24 fog, 24 drying) has proven to be more destructive. The test temperature is specified as 35 deg C which has been historically accepted and is not necessarily indicative of the actual environment. Alternate temperatures can be used as appropriate.


 


In general, test samples from the salt fog test should not be used in other tests. If only one sample is available or a sample must be reused for other tests, in terms of a schedule, humidity and fungus growth testing should be performed before the salt fog test and sand and dust testing after the salt fog test.


 


After the test, the item should be inspected for physical, electrical and corrosion effects. There can be surprising results. We tested a sample rear panel with a nickel finish compared to a zinc plated finish. As it turned out, the more expensive nickel had apparent pinholes in the finish and failed miserably while the much less expensive zinc coating showed only a light surface corrosion with no damage to the underlying metal.


 


Chassis Plans has worked with various customers to define test procedures, as required by MIL-STD-810G, to validate our rugged rackmount computer systems and displays.


 



Mil-Std-810G – Part 11 (Salt Fog) Method 509.5

Mil-Std-810G – Part 10 (Fungus Growth) Method 508.6

This is part 10 of a series delving into the intricacies of Mil-Std-810G.


 


810G covers fungus growth in Method 508.6.  This method comprises 11 pages plus a 1 page annex on decontaminating equipment after the tests and a 1 page annex on fungus-inert materials.


 


The purpose of Method 508.6 is to assess the extent to which materiel will support fungal growth and how any fungal growth may affect performance or use of the materiel. The primary objectives of the fungus test are to determine:


 


  1. if the materials comprising the test object, or the assembled combination of same, will support fungal growth, and if so, of what species.

  2. how rapidly fungus will grow on the materiel.

  3. how fungus affects the materiel, its mission, and its safety for use following the growth of fungus on the material.

  4. if the material can be stored effectively in a field environment.

  5. if there are simple reversal processes, e.g., wiping off fungal growth.

 


Because some other tests in 810G such as salt fog, sand and dust, or humidity can change the results of a fungus test, those tests should be conducted on a sample after the fungus test is complete. It is imperative the sample be decontaminated after the fungus tests.


 


Electronic equipment is typically manufactured using fungus-resistant material such as fiberglass, metal, plastic, etc. Materials affected by fungus such as fabrics are not typically used in electronic equipment. However, fungus growth can still have detrimental effects on electronic circuitry.


 


The detrimental effects of fungus growth can include:


 


  • Natural material – products such as paper, natural fibers, fabric, etc., are most susceptible as they can feed the fungus. Other organic materials such as adhesives, grease, oils, etc. and leather are susceptible.

  • Synthetic materials – PVC formulations, some polyurethanes, plastics with organic fillers and paints or varnishes with susceptible constituents.

 


Effects of indirect attack include:


 


  • Fungal growth on surface deposits of dust, grease, or other contaminants can cause damage to the underlying material.

  • Metabolic waste products of the fungus (organic acids) can cause corrosion of metals, etching of glass, or staining or degrading of plastics and other materials.

  • Fungus growth can bridge sensitive circuitry changing the electrical properties.

  • Fungus can affect optical systems by adversely affecting light transmission through the system or block delicate moving parts.

 


The Method includes a warning note that 1) highly-specialized techniques are required for the analysis and 2) simple analysis is not sufficient and testing should be performed.


 


Fungus growth can have a negative health impact as many people are very sensitive to mold and fungus.


 


This is a long test, lasting 28 days as a minimum, to allow germination, break-down of carbon-containing molecules, and degradation of the material. In addition, it is recommended the test be extended to 84 days to fully evaluate the impact of fungus growth.


 


The Method identifies five different varieties of fungus which are known to affect different materials and are distributed worldwide. Other species can be introduced as required.  It is recommended to only use 5 or 6 species for testing. The more dominant species will prevail in testing and adding additional species will only add to the cost without additional degradation to the underlying material.


 


The test requires a relatively sophisticated chamber to maintain the desired humidity and temperature as these greatly impact fungus growth. The chamber needs to be vented and filtered to release pressure changes and to filter fungus spores from the discharge.


 


The method goes into great detail on cleaning the test items and the chamber. In addition, while the fungi used in the tests are not typically harmful to humans, some people may have or may develop allergies or other reactions so good housekeeping and handling precautions should be observed.


 


As mentioned earlier, this is a sophisticated test and requires trained personnel and specialized laboratory equipment such as a centrifuge to properly administer the test. The fungal spores need to be prepared and tested for viability. Control strips of cotton are prepared and hung adjacent to the test specimen to be exposed as much as possible to the conditions the specimen is seeing.


 


After the test period, the material under test is analyzed for the fungus species, extent of growth, impact on the underlying material, long range effect the growth could have on the material, and the specific nutrients supporting the growth.


 


Chassis Plans has worked with various customers to define test procedures, as required by MIL-STD-810G, to validate our rugged rackmount computer systems and displays.


 



Mil-Std-810G – Part 10 (Fungus Growth) Method 508.6

Mil-Std-810G - Part 9 (Humidity)

Hot Humid JungleThis is part 9 of a series delving into the intricacies of Mil-Std-810G.


 


810G covers humidity in Method 507.5.  This method comprises 21 pages.


 


The purpose of Method 507.5 is to determine the resistance of material to the effects of a warm, humid environment.  It is applicable to material that is likely to be stored or deployed in areas in which high levels of humidity occur.   The essence of 507.5 is hot and humid.  Effects on electronics can include break down of insulators as they absorb moisture or condensation when a cold object is brought into contact with a warmer humid environment.


 


The method may not reproduce all the humidity effects associated with the natural environment nor is this method applicable to low humidity situations.


 


There is not specific method that addresses low humidity.  However, for completeness, low humidity exposure should be considered.  The usual side effect of low humidity is static electricity build-up and subsequent discharge causing spurious operation or material damage to sensitive electronic devices.  MIL-HDBK-263B is the reference for Electrostatic Discharge Control.


 


Warm, humid conditions can occur year-round in tropical areas, seasonally in mid-latitude areas and in material subject to changes in pressure, temperature, and relative humidity.  Material enclosed in non-operating vehicles can experience high internal temperature and humidity conditions.


 


Specifically, this method does not address:


  • Condensation resulting from changes of pressure and temperature for airborne or ground materiel.

  • Condensation resulting from black-body radiation (e.g., night sky effects).

  • Synergistic effects of solar radiation, humidity, or condensation combined with biological and chemical contaminants.

  • Liquid water trapped within materiel or packages and retained for significant periods.

  • This method is not intended for evaluating the internal elements of a hermetically sealed assembly since such materiel is air-tight.

 


Method 520.3 should be considered in conjunction with Method 507.5 to explore the synergistic effects of temperature, humidity and altitude.


 


The effects of high humidity can include:


 


a. Surface effects, such as:


  1. Oxidation and/or galvanic corrosion of metals.

  2. Increased chemical reactions.

  3. Chemical or electrochemical breakdown of organic and inorganic surface coatings.

  4. Interaction of surface moisture with deposits from external sources to produce a corrosive film.

  5. Changes in friction coefficients, resulting in binding or sticking.

 


b. Changes in material properties, such as:


  1. Swelling of materials due to sorption effects.

  2. Other changes in properties.

    (a) Loss of physical strength.

    (b) Electrical and thermal insulating characteristics.

    (c) De-lamination of composite materials.

    (d) Change in elasticity or plasticity.

    (e) Degradation of hygroscopic materials.

    (f) Degradation of explosives and propellants by absorption.

    (g) Degradation of optical element image transmission quality.

    (h) Degradation of lubricants.

 


c. Condensation and free water, such as:


  1. Electrical short circuits.

  2. Fogging of optical surfaces

  3. Changes in thermal transfer characteristics.

 


In addition to “Natural”, Method 507.5 provides for two Procedures: Induced and Aggravated.  Natural simulates a natural environment.  Induced simulates a natural environment for storage and transit.  Aggravated exposes the test item to more extreme temperature and humidity levels than those found in nature but for shorter durations.  The Natural test criteria was selected to mimic Majuro, Marshall Islands with a temperature range of 88 to 105 degrees F. and relative humidity (RH) of 59% to 88% for the Hot Humid test.  Cycle B2 (High RH) provides for lower temperatures but RH up to 100%


 


The test duration is recommended to be a minimum of 45 cycles for non-hazardous materials to 180 days for Induced testing for hazardous material.  Hazardous materials are those in which a failure may cause damage to adjacent material or injury or death to a user.  The purpose of the higher cycle counts is to establish confidence in the testing.



Mil-Std-810G - Part 9 (Humidity)

Mil-Std-810G – Part 8 (Rain)

f18-in-rainThis is part 8 of a series delving into the intricacies of Mil-Std-810G.


 


810G covers rain exposure in Method 506.5. This method comprises 11 pages. The purpose of Method 506.5 is to help determine effects of rain, water spray or dripping water:


  •  The effectiveness of protective covers, cases, and seals in preventing the penetration of water into the materiel.

  • The capability of the materiel to satisfy its performance requirements during and after exposure to water.

  • Any physical deterioration of the materiel caused by the rain.

  • The effectiveness of any water removal system.

  • The effectiveness of protection offered to a packaged materiel.

 


Method 512.5 covers immersion and is considered a more stringent test than 506.5. If the material configuration is the same as when tested for 512.5, 506.5 testing is redundant.


 


Limitations to this section include:


  • The method is not intended to examine rain erosion effects such as radomes, helicopter blade leading edges, etc.

  • It may be difficult to determine rain effects on electromagnetic radiation and propagation because of the size of the required facility.

  • Determining adequacy of aircraft windshield rain removal.

  • Does not address pressure washers or decontamination devices.

  • Effects of extended periods of exposure to rain or light condensation drip rates caused by an overhead surface with pooling water.

 


Method 506.5 provides three procedures:


  • Procedure I – Rain and blowing rain. Applicable to material that will be deployed out-of-doors.

  • Procedure II – Exaggerated. For use for large objects that may not fit in a chamber. Uses water spray under pressure from a nozzle.

  • Procedure III – Drip. Appropriate when material is normally protected from rain but may be exposed to falling water from upper surfaces.

 


As with all of Mil-Std-810G, the test methods are intended to simulate real world conditions. For example, it may be advantageous to start the test with the tested item warmer (10°C) than the “rain”. The “rain” will cause a lower temperature and subsequent lower pressure within the tested equipment which may draw in water revealing a possible failure point.


 


While rainfall rates around the world vary, and it may be appropriate to mimic those higher rates, in general, a rate of 4 in/hr is not an uncommon occurrence and will provide a reasonable degree of confidence.


 


Wind is also a factor and provision should be made to provide a simulated velocity of at least 40mph. Higher velocities may be appropriate depending on the intended environment. The item under test should be oriented to maximize potential rain penetration.


 


For Procedure I (rain and blowing rain), the test duration should be at least 30 minutes per surface. Rotate the item under test for each surface to be exposed to the wind.


 


Chassis Plans has engineered and produced rugged enclosures for exterior environments.


 


By David Lippincott Chassis Plans www.chassis-plans.com



Mil-Std-810G – Part 8 (Rain)

Mil-Std-810G – Part 7 (Solar Radiation - Sunshine)

humvee-in-desertThis is part 7 of a series delving into the intricacies of Mil-Std-810G.


 


810G covers Solar Radiation in 505.5 and serves two purposes:


  1. To determine heating effects from sunshine impinging directly on equipment (Procedure I).

  2. To help identify material degradation from sunshine (Procedure II).

 


Mil-Std-810G, Method 505.5, is a rather complicated section at 15 pages with three Annexes (A – Detailed Guidance on Solar Radiation Testing), (B – Instrumentation Installation, Placement and Guidance), (C – Guidance on Tables and Figures) at 15 additional pages combined.


 


Of primary concern to users of computers, the heating effects of solar radiation are more important than material degradation.  Computers are generally manufactured with metal enclosures.  On the other hand, LCDs may suffer from both heating effects and material degradation.  Coatings may degrade somewhat with color changes but the impact of plastic becoming brittle, for example, does not apply to a computer.  A computer painted black sitting outside will become very hot with the subsequent impact on keeping the internal components within operating temperature specifications.


 


The maximum surface and internal temperatures attained by materiel will depend on:


 


  • the temperature of the ambient air.

  • the intensity of radiation.

  • the air velocity.

  • the duration of exposure.

  • the  thermal  properties  of  the  materiel  itself,  e.g.,  surface  reflectance,  size  and  shape,  thermal conductance, and specific heat.

 


Materiel can attain temperatures in excess of 60°C if fully exposed to solar radiation in an ambient temperature as low as 35 to 40°C.  Paint color and composition can have a major impact on surface temperature.


 


810G Method 501.5 (High Temperature) mentions Method 505.5 as a factor to consider (Aggravated solar) when determining effects of high temperature.  In addition, Method 503.5 (Temperature Shock) also references 505.5 in section 2.3.1 for ‘Climatic Conditions’.


 


As you can imagine, 505.5 specifies “Use this Method to evaluate material likely to be exposed to solar radiation during its life cycle in the open in hot climates”.


 


The impact of solar radiation heating effects include:


 


  • Jamming or loosening of moving parts.

  • Weakening of solder joints and glued parts.

  • Changes in strength and elasticity.

  • Loss of calibration or malfunction of linkage devices.

  • Loss of seal integrity.

  • Changes in electrical or electronic components.

  • Premature actuation of electrical contacts.

  • Changes in characteristics of elastomers and polymers.

  • Blistering, peeling, and de-lamination of paints, composites, and surface laminates applied with adhesives such as radar absorbent material (RAM).

  • Softening of potting compounds.

  • Pressure variations.

  • Sweating of composite materials and explosives.

  • Difficulty in handling.

 


Material effects of solar radiation, primarily from UV exposure, include:


 


  • Fading of fabric and plastic color.

  • Checking, chalking, and fading of paints.

  • Deterioration of natural and synthetic elastomers and polymers through photochemical reactions initiated by shorter wavelength radiation. (High strength polymers such as Kevlar are noticeably affected by the visible spectrum. Deterioration and loss of strength can be driven by breakage of high-order bonds (such as pi and sigma bonds existing in carbon chain polymers) by radiation exposure.)

 


Testing is performed in a chamber with a bank of full-spectrum lamps mimicking the sun’s light and heat output.  A maximum irradiance intensity of 1120W/m2 is provided and uniform across the top surface within 10 percent of the desired value.  The Method outlines several scenarios for lamp selection and operation to give the desired results.


 


The ability to vary the lamp output to mimic diurnal variation in solar radiation should be provided for non-static testing.  Where only thermal effects are considered, infrared lamps may be used but realize that coatings and filters on the test item may respond differently to those wavelengths versus sunlight.  As a side note, infrared account for 42.1% (471.5 W/m2) of the sun’s total irradiance


 


For Procedure I (temperature), for worldwide deployment, a peak chamber temperature of 120° F is provided along with airflow of 300 to 600 ft/min to mimic naturally occurring winds.  Generally, an airflow of as little as 200 ft/min can cause a reduction in temperature rise of over 20 percent as compared to still air.  If the item is shielded from the wind in the operating environment, then no airflow would be provided during test.  Maintaining the proper chamber temperature can be challenging as the lamps themselves will generate considerable heat and the unit under test will also be warming the air.  Thus, cooling the chamber may be more problematic versus heating it.


 


Humidity is generally not a concern unless the material under test is known to be sensitive to moisture.


 


The test item should be clean while being tested.  That being said, in many parts of the world, dust and dirt are prevalent and should be considered when planning the testing.  Dust and other surface contamination may significantly change the absorption characteristics of irradiated surfaces.


 


Testing for thermal effects should be performed with the test item in a mode that generates the most heat.


 


Spectral distribution changes with the anticipated operational altitude.  There is more damaging UV radiation at higher altitudes which should be considered.  For example, a long duration high altitude UAV manufactured with composite wings would be tested for that environment looking for material degradation in the wings which may cause structure failure.


 


As with other 810G Methods, Method 505.5 is a general outline and it is left to the end user to create a test plan to align the test with the anticipated environment.  An item in the middle of an asphalt parking lot in Phoenix would be tested differently than an item on a car dash in Anchorage.  The tests should replicate the intended environment.


 


The tests can be performed mimicking the diurnal cycle (24 hours with variable lamp output and variable chamber temperature) or can be steady state (20 hours with the lamps on and 4 hours off).  Repeat the cycle the number of times outlined in the test plan.


 


Chassis Plans has engineered rugged industrial computers for deployment in exposed locations in high-temperature environments and can assist with your project.


 


by David Lippincott Chassis Plans www.chassis-plans.com



Mil-Std-810G – Part 7 (Solar Radiation - Sunshine)