Attachment 1_ SOW Blast Attribute Sensitivity Study dtd 11 Jun 24.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUREAU OF

DIPLOMATIC SECURITY

PHYSICAL SECURITY DIVISION

SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE BLAST ATTRIBUTE

SENSITIVITY STUDY (BASS) (1,000 LBS)

11 JUNE 2024

Background:

The U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), Physical Security Division (PSD), Research and Development Branch (RD) has consistently conducted testing of structural systems, facades, windows, and blast effect mitigation technologies using the Department’s Design Basis Threat

(DBT).

DS/PSD/RD has a need to evaluate the vulnerability of physical security structural, facade, and window systems, and blast effect mitigation technologies designs developed by the Department of State (DOS), and accordingly has explosive testing performed at test sites throughout the US. DOS has noted several occurrences in which air blast loadings from various charge configurations were significantly different than that which was predicted using analytical methods. These recorded inconsistencies may be due to a variety of “attributes” associated with the experiment such as; (1) changes to the charge type, (2) charge configuration, (3) height of detonation (“burst”), (4) atmospherics, (4) variability in explosive yield, (5) clearing effects, and/or (6) instrumentation/test setup.

RD conducted recent blast testing related the BASS program and focused on testing with DOS charge configurations and COTS explosive materials to evaluate:

1) Attribute effects on structural loading and the sensitivity of that loading to the attribute.

2) The repeatability of the measured structural blast load for a given test setup executed in the field.

3) Comparison of measured data with that predicted using equivalency curves (evaluation using Conwep).

The results provided new data to the blast engineering community that can be used to generate TNT equivalency curves.

This previous testing focused on three explosive materials; ANFO, Flake TNT, and hand-packed (bulk) C-4. Charges were evaluated in a cylindrical configuration with a length to diameter (L/D) ratio of 1.

Charges were fired both on a 32-inch-high wooden table (the DOS VBIED setup) positioned over a 4” steel plate and at ground level on a leveled sand pad to evaluate the effects of elevation and ground effects. This work included ten (10) blast testing experiments performed with each of the charges in the VBIED configuration in order to demonstrate repeatability with each of the materials. An additional five

(5) experiments were conducted with ANFO and C-4 charges at ground level.

Testing shall follow the DS/PSP/RD Standard Practice for Blast Tests dated December 2022 except as superseded by test configurations described in this Scope of Work.

Effort:

This effort shall reproduce and add to previous testing at increased charge size, setback, and additional shapes and provide for a total of fifty (50) open air blast tests using 1,000lbs, plus booster, of four charge types (Cast TNT, Flake TNT, ANFO, and C-4). Testing shall be designed to capture the following, at a minimum:

Compare recorded data to that predicted by Conwep

Compare recorded data to TNT equivalency curves

Compare tests of each charge type to determine repeatability of recorded datasets.

Standoff effects (also referred to as close-in effects) will be explored. Tests shall be conducted at 60 feet from the proposed test structure.

Effects of elevation and ground substrate shall be evaluated. Recorded pressure and impulse of elevated charges shall be compared to those conducted at ground level.

Test for and document the fuel / oxidizer ration and the water content of ANFO on the day of the testing

Charge shape effects will be evaluated by constructing charges assembled in a cylindrical shape

Capture time of arrival data of blast wave

Measure blast pressures

Measure and document atmospherics for each test at the time of test to include humidity, temperature, and windspeed.

Measure and document all attributes of the charge configuration for each test to include HOB, charge dimensions, exact charge weight, charge volume, explosive density, booster size, booster location, and any other attribute that may affect recorded pressures (PCB: adding here but really focused on including these descriptors in the reporting phase and it seems easiest to say it here)

Capture high speed videos of blast event

Capture deflection at test structure from accelerometers, strain gauges, high speed video with fiducials, or other recommended instrumentation methods

Capture deformations of blast pad (steel plate) as applicable

For each pressure gauge, develop Friedlander curve fits (as appropriate) and compare to ConWep predictions and recorded data.

Test Configuration:

Explosive Materials and Configuration

A blast test reaction structure that can accommodate the required instrumentation shall be required to facilitate this scope of work. All experiments shall be conducted using 1,000lb charges (not including a quantity of C4 booster in a spherical shape as determined by the performer and coordinated with the DS/PSD/RD). Four (4) different explosive materials will be evaluated in this series: 1. Stacked cast TNT blocks shall be used for comparison with historical data and shall act a base reference for subsequent testing. 2. ANFO -, bulk which has lowest cost and is most commonly available. 3. C4 which has specific applications to DOS. 4. Flake TNT, which is the preferred explosive, used by some DOD facilities. Each of these materials will be evaluated (tested) in sets of five (5), and total fifty (50), in the same configuration to demonstrate repeatability of the measured blast loading. Each of the explosives shall be COTS materials.

Charge weight and density will be recorded in all experiments. The density of the explosive charges will be determined by weighing the material added to the charge container and measuring the volume that the explosive occupies in the container. The density of the hand packed C-4 charges is expected to vary between tests. However, the performer shall develop a plan to create a consistent procedure for field packing of these charges.

The performer shall provide a stacking configuration for hemispherical shaped tests and shall be coordinated with the DS/PSD/RD. are to be determined. The exact stacking configuration will be documented and recorded in the final report.

Instrumentation:

The performer shall consider the number of anticipated tests and determine if fewer or additional pressure gauges will be required to conduct all testing. Pressure gauge response will need to be evaluated from test to test and adjustments and/or replacement of gauge may be required.

Proposed instrumentation fielded in this series of tests includes:

Pressure Gauges – 31 Gauges Total o Incident Pressure (Free Field) – 11 Gauges

9 Pencil Gauges – (3 pencil gauge arrays of 3 gauges each) 2 Ground Blocks – (between the charge and the wall) o Reflected Pressure – 20 Gauges Gauges located on a metal plate that covers the windows

Accelerometers – 2 single axis gauges o 1 single axis accelerometer attached to the back of the test front o 1 single axis accelerometer attached to the test structure

High Speed Cameras o 2 high speed cameras shall be fielded in all tests

Characterization of ANFO Material:

In addition to charge weight and density, the fuel/oxidizer and water content of will be measured and recorded for four (4) of the ANFO charges. Analysis shall be of ANFO material used for the first and last tests performed for both elevated and ground testing. The performer shall preform analysis on-site for these tests to measure these properties the day of the test.

Ground Level Configuration:

The first five (5) tests conducted at ground level shall be hemispherical shaped cast TNT block charges, shall be stacked. Stacking plan shall be based on historical testing and coordinated with the DS/PSD/RD.

In the last twenty (20) tests of this series, the charge will be positioned on ground level. The purpose of these experiments if to demonstrate the effects of ground substrate and elevation as seen on the front face of the reflective structure. The substrate below the charge shall be compacted sand with minimum diameter and depth corresponding to a crater prediction obtained using Conwep for surface burst over sand. Additional sand shall be purchased and kept on-site to backfill the hole between tests.

The charge standoff will remain constant in all experiments and be measured from center of charge to the test front. Charge weight and density will be recorded in all experiments. The density of the explosive charges will be determined by weighing the material added to the charge container and measuring the volume that the explosive occupies in the container. Fuel/oxidizer ratio and water content will be recorded in the ANFO experiments. The density of the hand packed C-4 charges is expected to vary between tests. However, the performer shall develop a procedure, in coordination with the DS/PSD/RD, to provide for consistent field packing of these charges.

For cylindrical shaped charges, commercially available cardboard tubes (Sonotubes) will be used to hold the Cast TNT, ANFO, TNT flake, and C-4 charges. The exact diameter of the cardboard tubes shall be chosen to provide an L/D ratio as close to 1 as possible.

Elevated Test Configuration:

The first (5) tests conducted at ground level shall be hemispherical shaped cast TNT block charges, shall be stacked. Stacking plan shall be based on historical testing and coordinated with the DS/PSD/RD.

In the last twenty (20) experiments performed, the charge will be placed on a wooden table 32 inches high. The performer shall analyze and propose the approach and material of which the charge table shall sit, the performer will consider two (2) options:

Option one (1) place a stiff steel pad. The performer shall determine the appropriate steel plate thickness. Previous testing (with 100lb charges) utilized a solid (monolithic) 4” steel plate.

Option (2) predict crater size and excavate the predicted crater and back fill with compacted sand.

The charge standoff will remain constant in all experiments and be measured from center of charge to the test front. Charge weight and density will be recorded in all experiments. The density of the explosive charges will be determined by weighing the material added to the charge container and measuring the volume that the explosive occupies in the container. Fuel/oxidizer ratio and water content will be recorded in the ANFO experiments. The density of the hand packed C-4 charges is expected to vary between tests. However, the performer shall develop a procedure, in coordination with the DS/PSD/RD, to provide for consistent field packing of these charges.

The same cylindrical cardboard charge containers used for the elevated test configuration shall be used in this series. The charge L/D will be kept as close to 1 as possible in all experiments.

Test Matrix:

In all tests the charge weight will be 1,000 lbs (charge weight will not be scaled in these experiments).

The performer may suggest additional/other tasks and/or optional tasks related to the test matrix below.

Currently, this SOW is arranged into six tasks:

Task one: Test setup and charge material acquisition Task two: Conduct five (5) tests with stacked Cast TNT blocks at ground level. The substrate will be sand in these experiments.

Task three: Conduct twenty (20) tests at ground level. The substrate will be sand in these experiments.

Task four: Conduct five (5) tests with stacked Cast TNT, the charge will be elevated 32 inches on a wooden table (positioned over a steel plate)

Task five: Conduct the twenty (20) tests, the charges will be elevated 32 inches on a wooden table (positioned over a steel plate)

Task six: Conduct final analysis and reporting

Table 1: Test Matrix

Test # Explosive Charge Elevation (in) Detonation Point Note

Stacked cast

TNT

Ground (Hemispherical) Bottom-center

Compare with historical use as reference for subsequent explosives

Stacked cast

TNT

Ground (Hemispherical)

Bottom-center

Stacked cast

TNT

Ground (Hemispherical)

Bottom-center

Stacked cast

TNT

Ground (Hemispherical)

Bottom-center

Stacked cast

TNT

Ground (Hemispherical) Bottom-center

6 Cast TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

Compare with historical use to shape change

7 Cast TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

8 Cast TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

9 Cast TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

10 Cast TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

11 C-4 Ground (Cylindrical) Center

DOS interest in special cases

12 C-4 Ground (Cylindrical) Center

13 C-4 Ground (Cylindrical) Center

14 C-4 Ground (Cylindrical) Center

15 C-4 Ground (Cylindrical) Center

16 Flake TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Center

Used by some DoD facilities for DOS testing

17 Flake TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Center

18 Flake TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Center

19 Flake TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Center

20 Flake TNT Ground (Cylindrical) Center

21 ANFO Ground (Cylindrical) Center Least expensive and most common.

Current SOP configuration

22 ANFO Ground (Cylindrical) Center

23 ANFO Ground (Cylindrical) Center

24 ANFO Ground (Cylindrical) Center

25 ANFO Ground (Cylindrical) Center

Stacked cast

TNT

32 (Hemispherical) Bottom-center Compare with historical use as reference for 27 Stacked cast 32 (Hemispherical) Bottom-center

TNT subsequent explosives

Stacked cast

TNT

32 (Hemispherical)

Bottom-center

Stacked cast

TNT

32 (Hemispherical)

Bottom-center

Stacked cast

TNT

32 (Hemispherical)

Bottom-center

31 Cast TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

Comparison with above indicates the effect of the elevated charge when changing one variable - the height of burst.

(assuming we drop the steel plate)

32 Cast TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

33 Cast TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

34 Cast TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

35 Cast TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Bottom‐center

36 C‐4 32 (Cylindrical) Center

37 C‐4 32 (Cylindrical) Center

38 C‐4 32 (Cylindrical) Center

39 C‐4 32 (Cylindrical) Center

40 C‐4 32 (Cylindrical) Center

41 Flake TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Center

42 Flake TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Center

43 Flake TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Center

44 Flake TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Center

454 Flake TNT 32 (Cylindrical) Center

46 ANFO 32 (Cylindrical) Center

47 ANFO 32 (Cylindrical) Center

48 ANFO 32 (Cylindrical) Center

49 ANFO 32 (Cylindrical) Center

50 ANFO 32 (Cylindrical) Center

Data Reduction:

Data reduction shall be required for this effort.

The performer shall find peak pressures at each pressure gauge location using Friedlander curve fits (where appropriate). Curve fitting process shall be coordinated with the DS/PSD/RD.

The original data records will be integrated to determine impulse loading at the gauge locations.

The pressure data and the impulses shall be put into tables and plotted.

Standard deviation of pressure and impulse among similar tests will be evaluated. Results should support recommended acceptable plus / minus ranges pressure and impulses for give charge configurations (explosive type, shape, detonation, range, . . .)

Documentation and evaluation of atmospheric scaling methods as required for test location and conditions.

TNT equivalencies, and charge scaling analysis, shall be evaluated for each of the charge types.

Parameters including time of arrival, slant angle, peak shock wave velocity, and scaling effects shall be evaluated and compared with predictions from current methods

CLINS by Task

Task 1: Design and Construction and/or proposal of existing testing infrastructure for a test front and instrumentation installation and testing. The most economical and efficient design for materials and methods shall be considered.

Task 1.A: Develop test front to accommodate required instrumentation OR propose existing test infrastructure and methods that can meet scope requirements. Test front/structure shall be evaluated per the following sections of the DOS ASTM document “Standard Practice for Blast Testing”:

Section 9.1: Non-Reactive Structure, Section 9.2: Elastic to the Load, Section 9.4: Global Movement Mitigation, Section 9.6: Reflections, and Section 9.8: Clearing Effects. This evaluation shall be presented to the DS/PSD/RD prior to fabrication/construction.

Task 1.B: Design instrumentation installation details. Gauge mounting shall ensure no gauge movement and allow for fixing/tightening of gauges if movement is observed.

Task 1.C: Design blast test pad

Task 1.D: Construct and fabricate required testing front/structure and test pad if applicable OR propose existing test infrastructure and methods that can meet scope requirements.

Task 1.E: Purchase gauge/instrumentation materials

Task 1.F: Purchase explosive materials

Task 1.G: Conduct ConWep analysis for each charge type at distance for both elevated and surface detonations.

Task 1.H: Develop methods and tools that expedite the processing of data so that onsite test day evaluations and comparisons will be facilitated. Examples include quick turnaround of curve fits and integrations with graphical presentations as well as tabular summaries.

Task 1.I: (Optional) Conduct hydrocode modeling for each charge type at distance for both elevated and surface detonations.

Task 2: Ground level blast testing – stacked Cast TNT blocks

Task 2.A: Develop a test plan that includes but is not limited to providing a substrate under the charge of compacted sand having volume and dimension consistent with the crater prediction from Conwep. The process of compaction to be determined by performer. The ground surface from the charge to the target wall shall be free of any hard particles larger than ¼” in diameter. Ensure this area is level and that sand is on site and standing by to backfill or level between tests.

Task 2.B: Conduct reduced charge size (100.5lbs) “tickler/calibration” tests on ground with hand packed C4 in a cylindrical shape. Quantity of tests required shall be determined by all instrumentation and recording being proved operational and data collection is correct and ensured.

Task 2.C: Conduct 5 tests on ground with stacked cast blocks of Cast TNT, configured into a hemispherical shape, to provide comparison with historical test results and to serve as a reference for subsequent testing. The stack plan shall be similar to those used in for historical tests that were used to develop Kingery-Bulmash parameters. The detonation point shall be bottom center.

Task 2.D: Document atmospherics just prior to each test to include temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and time of day. Apply and evaluate atmospheric scaling affects. Onsite test day review of the scaling affects shall be facilitated.

Task 2.F: Conduct pressure gauge recorded data reduction. Apply Friedlander curve fits (as appropriate) and integrate pressure gauge records. Execute tools from Task 1.I to provide quick onsite test day comparisons and evaluation of results.

Task 2.G: Conduct evaluation and comparison of TNT DoD equivalencies, slant angle effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis. Execute tools from Task 1.I to provide quick onsite test day comparisons and evaluation of results.

Task 2.H: Submit Quick Look Report documenting each test and results. Report shall include recorded data comparison (in terms of both pressure and impulse) to predicted (ConWep), recorded data comparison to Friedlander curve fitting, Friedlander curve fitting comparison to predicted (ConWep). A summary of best (low) and worst (high) discrepancies of pressure and impulse shall be included. Evaluation and comparison of slant angle effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis. Specific recommendations shall be included as to influencing possible revisions to the current methods (Kingery-Bulmash, UFC, Conwep, etc.). Clearing effects shall be evaluated and compared with predicted methods as selected, recommended and documented by the performer.

Task 3: Ground level blast testing – Cast TNT, C4, ANFO and Flake TNT

• Task 3.A: Develop a test plan that includes but is not limited to providing a substrate under the charge of compacted sand having volume and dimension consistent with the crater prediction from Conwep.

The process of compaction to be determined by performer. The ground surface from the charge to the target wall shall be free of any hard particles larger than ¼” in diameter. Ensure this area is level and that sand is on site and standing by to backfill or level between tests.

• Task 3.B: Conduct 20 tests on ground with Cast TNT, C4, ANFO, and Flake TNT charges, configured into a cylindrical shape. Document atmospherics just prior to each test to include temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and time of day. Apply and evaluate atmospheric scaling effects. Onsite test day review of the scaling effects shall be facilitated.

• Task 3.C: Conduct ANFO analysis. Density, fuel/oxidizer ratio, and water content analysis for two

(2) ANFO tests with write-up.

• Task 3.D: Conduct pressure gauge recorded data reduction. Apply Friedlander curve fits (as applicable) and integrate pressure gauge records. Execute tools from Task 1.I to provide quick onsite test day comparisons and evaluation of results.

• Task 3.E: Conduct evaluation and comparison of TNT DoD equivalencies, slant angle effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis. Execute tools from Task 1.I to provide quick onsite test comparisons and evaluation of results.

• Task 3.F: Submit Quick Look Report documenting each test and results. Report shall include recorded data comparison (in terms of both pressure and impulse) to predicted (ConWep), recorded data comparison to Friedlander curve fitting, Friedlander curve fitting comparison to predicted (ConWep). Further, a summary of best (low) and worst (high) discrepancies of pressure and impulse shall be included. A summary of best (low) and worst (high) discrepancies of pressure and impulse shall be included. Evaluation and comparison of slant angle effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis. Specific recommendations shall be included as to influencing possible revisions to the current methods (Kingery-Bulmash, UFC, Conwep, etc.). Clearing effects shall be evaluated and compared with predicted methods as selected, recommended and documented by the performer.

Task 4: Elevated blast testing – stacked Cast TNT blocks

• Task 4.A: Develop a test plan that includes but is not limited to providing a substrate under the charge of compacted sand having volume and dimension consistent with the crater prediction from Conwep.

The process of compaction to be determined by performer. The ground surface from the charge to the target wall shall be free of any hard particles larger than ¼” in diameter. Ensure this area is level and that sand is on site and standing by to backfill or level between tests.

• Task 4.B: Conduct reduced charge size (100.5lbs) “tickler/calibration” tests on ground with hand packed C4 in a cylindrical shape. Quantity of tests required shall be determined by all instrumentation and recording being proved operational and data collection is correct and ensured.

• Task 4.C: Conduct 5 tests elevated with stacked cast blocks of Cast TNT, configured into a hemispherical shape, to provide comparison with historical test results and to serve as a reference for subsequent testing. The stack plan shall be similar to those used in for historical tests that were used to develop Kingery-Bulmash parameters. The detonation point shall be bottom center.

• Task 4.D: Document atmospherics just prior to each test to include temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and time of day. Apply and evaluate atmospheric scaling affects. Onsite test day review of the scaling affects shall be facilitated.

• Task 4.F: Conduct pressure gauge recorded data reduction. Apply Friedlander curve fits (as appropriate) and integrate pressure gauge records. Execute tools from Task 1.I to provide quick onsite test day comparisons and evaluation of results.

• Task 4.G: Conduct evaluation and comparison of TNT DoD equivalencies, slant angle effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis. Execute tools from Task 1.I to provide quick onsite test day

• Task 4.H: Submit Quick Look Report documenting each test and results. Report shall include recorded data comparison (in terms of both pressure and impulse) to predicted (ConWep), recorded data comparison to Friedlander curve fitting, Friedlander curve fitting comparison to predicted (ConWep). A summary of best (low) and worst (high) discrepancies of pressure and impulse shall be included.

Evaluation and comparison of slant angle effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis.

Specific recommendations shall be included as to influencing possible revisions to the current methods (Kingery-Bulmash, UFC, Conwep, etc.). Clearing effects shall be evaluated and compared with predicted methods as selected, recommended and documented by the performer.

Task 5: Elevated blast testing – Cast TNT, ANFO, C4, and Flake TNT

Task 5.A: Develop a test plan that includes but is not limited to install/level sand pad with steel plate, build 20 charge tables, run pressure gauge lines, install pressure gauges and setup high speed cameras.

The ground surface from the charge to the target wall shall be free of any hard particles larger than ¼” in diameter. Ensure this area is level and that sand is on site and standing by to backfill or level between tests.

Task 5.B: Conduct 20 tests on wood tables with Cast TNT, ANFO, hand packed C4, and flake TNT charges, configured into a cylindrical shape. Document atmospherics just prior to each test to include temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and time of day. Apply and evaluate atmospheric scaling effects. Onsite test day review of the scaling effects shall be facilitated.

Task 5.C: Conduct ANFO analysis. Density, fuel/oxidizer ratio, and water content analysis for two (2)

ANFO tests with write-up.

Task 5.D: Conduct pressure gauge recorded data reduction. Apply Friedlander curve fits as appropriate and integrate pressure gauge records. Execute tools from Task 1.I to provide quick onsite test day

Task 5.E: Conduct evaluation and comparison of TNT DoD equivalencies, slant angle effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis. Execute tools from Task 1.I to provide quick onsite test day

Task 5.F: Submit Quick Look Reports for each test and results. Report shall include recorded data comparison (in terms of both pressure and impulse) to predicted (ConWep), recorded data comparison to Friedlander curve fitting, Friedlander curve fitting comparison to predicted (ConWep). Further, a summary of best (low) and worst (high) discrepancies of pressure and impulse shall be included. A summary of best (low) and worst (high) discrepancies of pressure and impulse shall be included.

Evaluation and comparison of slant angle effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis.

Specific recommendations shall be included as to influencing possible revisions to the current methods (Kingery-Bulmash, UFC, Conwep, etc.). Clearing effects shall be evaluated and compared with predicted methods as selected, recommended and documented by the performer.

Task 6: Submit Final Report for all testing and comparisons within and between tasks. Comparisons shall include but not be limited to:

Recorded data comparison (in terms of both pressure and impulse) to predicted (ConWep) Recorded data (in terms of both pressure and impulse) comparison to Friedlander curve fitting Friedlander curve fitting comparison to predicted (ConWep).

A summary of recorded pressure in terms of best (low) and worst (high) discrepancies as compared to both fitted and predicted.

A summary of recorded pressure in terms of best (low) and worst (high) discrepancies as compared to both fitted and predicted.

A summary of the atmospherics scaling process and indication of its efficacy in the contest of this test series.

As presentation on recommended method for predicting clearing effects with comparisons to the current test results.

A summary presentation on the evaluation and comparison between current predictive methods and test results for slant angles effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis.

Recommendations as to how the current methods (Kingery-Bulmash, UFC, Conwep, . . .. should be revised or augmented based on this test series.

Monthly Status Reports, Weekly Testing updates, and Meetings:

Monthly Status Reports shall be submitted, an example acceptable format is provided in Appendix A.

One meeting a month to discuss design and progress shall be held at a minimum. Meeting frequency can be increased at performer’s discretion to support continued program progress. Upon the commencement of testing, a weekly if not daily meeting may be required to review results and discuss the recorded data.

This may be done remotely via MS Teams.

Deliverables:

Monthly Status Report submitted by the tenth of every month. This shall be submitted throughout the effort through all testing.

ConWep predictions for Task 2 through Task 5 shall be submitted.

Construction drawings for non-responding wall OR propose existing test infrastructure and methods that can meet scope requirements including instrumentation installation/mounting details/plan from Task 1 shall be provided prior to any construction.

A test plan shall be submitted for Task 2 through 5 testing. The test plan shall include instrumentation layout, charge configurations and location, high speed video angles, pressure gauge locations and type, deflection measuring instrumentation, and any other instrumentation required.

Quick Look Report within 14 calendar days of completion of Task 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively. A Final Report shall be developed for Task 6 discussing and summarizing Tasks 1-5. The report shall include but not be limited to comparing recorded data to predicted ConWep and Friedlander curve fittings as well as comparing predicted to curve fitting. Further, the report shall compare results / findings from Task various combinations of Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Atmospheric data and atmospheric scaling shall be documented, ANFO chemistry results, and charge densities shall be documented Further, a discussion/comparison of recorded data to the DoD TNT equivalencies shall be provided along with slant angles effects, time of arrival, peak velocity, and scaling analysis. Clearing prediction methods shall be documented along with comparisons with test data from the current series.

Raw data files in DPlot format, High—speed video files of test event, pre and post-test photographs. This shall be submitted immediately post completion of each test in Tasks 2 through 5 respectively. All data shall be resubmitted along with curve fitted data, refined/finalized/processed high-speed video, and the Final Report per Task 6.

General Provisions:

Blast Test Standard

Blast testing shall follow the most recent version of the Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security Blast Testing Standard Operating Procedures for DS/PSP/RD. The current version as of the date on this SOW is dated August 22, 2022.

Classification

All of the work under this scope is Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU). Specifics of the DOS design basis threat for new construction are considered SBU Five Eye (FVEY). Specifics of the blast phenomena such as reflected pressure, impulse and duration are not classified.

Confidentiality

All information including photographs, reports and data developed shall remain the property of the United States Government and shall not be discussed with or made available to others for any purpose. The Test Center shall be aware of and take such precautionary measures as necessary to maintain the confidential nature of all information produced under this task order.

Appendix A:

Example Monthly Status Report

DS/C/PSP/PSD/RD – Project Name Task Manager: TBD

Developer PI: (Fill in name, phone number once contract is awarded) Contract Number: (fill in)

MONTHLY STATUS REPORT

1) TASK TITLE: ((fill in)

2) DESCRIPTION/REQUIREMENT: (fill in)

3) DEVELOPER(S): (add any significant subcontractors)

4) TECHNICAL APPROACH: (In five or six sentences, summarize the project’s technical approach.)

5) MILESTONES: (fill in relevant milestones)

Milestone Planned Rescheduled Actual Project Plan

Kickoff Meeting

Preliminary Design Review

Operations and Maintenance Manual

Critical Design Review

Test Plan

Test Report

Etc.

6) FUNDING & COSTS:

Project Funding History Funding Action Date Amount Comment

Funding Expenditures Accrued Remaining

Provided to Date

(Current Month) Expenditures (Cumulative)

Obligated Funds

Funding

$0.00 Total Funding Provided

Contract Value

Insert graph showing planned expenditures, current funding level, and actual expenditures here. The graph must cover from contract start date to end date. If a revised spend plan becomes necessary, be sure to include the original plan as well. (See sample below):

7) TASK STATUS / MONTHLY ACTIVITIES:

a. Report month –

b. Upcoming Month –

8) ISSUES: (Identify any issue that affects the progress of the project, funds requirements, payment of invoices, potential schedule problems. Include requirements for resolution of the issue.)

9) PHOTOS/VIDEO: (Include at least two current digital images of 300 pixel/inch quality or better, in “.jpg”, “.tif”, or “.bmp” format that show a conceptual application, design, physical prototype, or other meaningful representation of the project progress. If applicable, provide video compatible with Windows Media Player.)