Ammunition and Explosive Storage Magazines: ECM No Longer Used for New Construction, But Still in Use  

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (6 MB)

Comments/Design Consideration

There is no reduced ESQD associated with this ECM design.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (6 MB)

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Calculations 

Comments/Design Consideration

Supersedes Drawings 749771-749774 and 793751. NAVFAC MIL-BUL-340 (YD), Jul 93, lists these ECM drawings as canceled.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (11 MB)

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Calculations 

Comments/Design Consideration

Supersedes Y & D Drawings 952127-952131 and 952135. NAVFAC MIL-BUL-340 (YD), Jul 93, lists these ECM drawings as canceled.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (11 MB)

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Approval Letter - Increase of NEW to 500,000 LB 
• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB approval signature of 11 May 85 on drawings. Replaced by RC Box, Type 'C' - NAVFAC 14004689-14004720 (Without Platform) and NAVFAC 14005091-14005122 (With Platform)

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• AUTOCAD (Without Platform) 
• AUTOCAD (With Platform) 
• PDF (Without Platform)  (9 MB)
• PDF (With Platform)  (9 MB)

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB approval signature of 04-Jan-2011 on drawings. Replaced by RC Box, Type 'C' - NAVFAC 14004689-14004720, Rev. 1 (Without Platform) and NAVFAC 14005091-14005122, Rev. 1 (With Platform)

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Listed in DDESB minutes as STD magazine. NAVFAC MIL-BUL-340 (YD), Jul 93, lists these ECM drawings as canceled.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (14 MB)

Reference Information

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB (P. Price) approval signature of 05 Nov. 85 on drawings. Sited for 350,000 pounds NEW. Superseded by NAVFAC Drawings 6448522-6448554 (Standard Box Magazine Type D) and NAVFAC Drawings 6448555-6448588 (HSLIS Box Magazine Type D), both dated 27 May 97.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• AUTOCAD 
• PDF 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Approval Letter - Increase of NEW to 500,000 LB 

Comments/Design Consideration

Superseded NAVFAC 1404465 through 1404478. DDESB approval signature of 30 June 87 on original drawings. Replaced by RC Box, Type 'D' - NAVFAC 14021368-14021404 (Without Platform) and NAVFAC 14021406-14021444 (With Platform)

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• AUTOCAD (Without Platform) 
• AUTOCAD (With Platform) 
• PDF (Without Platform)  (7 MB)
• PDF (With Platform)  (8 MB)

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

Superseded NAVFAC 6448522 through 6448554. DDESB approval signature of 13 March 13 on original drawings. Replaced by RC Box, Type 'D' - NAVFAC 18232899-18232936 (Without Platform) and NAVFAC 18232939-18232978 (With Platform)

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

Superseded by NAVFAC Drawings 6448589-6448621. This magazine design was sited for 350,000 pounds NEW. A site specific approval was granted to Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, for the construction of four Box Type F Magazines with the dehumidification system located on top of the Magazine, vice behind the magazines as was shown on the approved design drawings. This modification was not approved by the DDESB as a standard design, since the Navy never came in with a modified standard magazine drawing set to incorporate the addition of the dehumidification system onto the magazine roof.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

This design was constructed at Luke AFB. It was evaluated by the COE, Huntsville, to determine its structural rating. Their analysis, documented on memo CEHNC-ED-CS-S(210.2b) of 23 January 2002, found that the design shown on the drawings came from existing 7-Bar ECM design 33-15-74.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

This design was constructed at Osan Air Base, Korea and is based on OCE Drawing 33–15-61, 30 Dec, 1959, which is considered a 7-Bar ECM. The drawings provides for two different ECM designs. One design is a typical ECM with a single headwall and the ventilator out the rear of the ECM, while the second design includes two headwalls and a ventilator that is centered on the roof of the ECM. Based on a review by the Huntsville COE, the headwall and doors used on 33-03-0028 match the headwall and doors of 33-15-61. The doors of the three designs are all 6-foot wide sliding doors. Two of these doors are required per entrance.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

This design is similar to 33-15-61, the DDESB approved Standard Freloc-Stradley Magazine. 3-03-31 was designed for construction at VILSECK ASP-I (Germany) for USAFE. It measured 26' W X 80' L and had a ceiling height of 14' at the centerline. The entrance measured approximately 10' by 10'. It had a reinforced concrete arch of uniform thickness. a heavily reinforced headwall, and bi-parting, double-leaf steel doors. A Sep 1977 dynamic analysis of this Freloc design, performed by Agbabian Associates for the COE, European Division, determined that the headwall was sufficiently strong to meet NATO face-on loading criterion, but the door was not. Recommendations were prodded in Agbabian Associates Report R-7745-4503 to strengthen the doors by adding additonal horizontal and vertical stiffeners on the exterior side of the doors. DDESB-KT Memos of 27 Jan and 4 May 1978 states that the door of the ECM analyzed by Agbabian Associates (33-03-31) met U.S. standard magazine criteria.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Known as a Quick Reaction Site (QRS) magazine, which were only constructed in Germany. Permitted to store a maximum of 4,000 kg NEQ. DDESB-KT Memo of 19 March 1976 evaluated this design and compared its structural components to counterpart features of standard ECM, particularly those in 33-15-61 and 33-15-64, which had undergone extensive testing. Based on this review, the design was approved for she storage of 4,000 kg NEQ in each arch unit. In addition, the design of the door was considered to qualify the ECM design for the minimum separation distances permitted.

Reference Information

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

A COE, Huntsville District, letter of 13 Apr 98 determined this ECM was a revision of 33-15-06 (a 7-Bar ECM) and recommended it be considered a 7-Bar ECM as well. A 26 Jan 99 DDESB letter approved use of ECM constructed in accordance with Drawing 33-13-02, as a 7-Bar magazine.
A provision of the approval was that the separation distances between the rear or side of these ECMs, as the PES, to the front of one of these ECMs, as an ES, was at least 360 feet. Side to side exposures between the PES and the ES are required to be separated in accordance with the appropriate entries for either 3-bar or 7-bar ECMs in accordance with Table 9-5 of DoD 6055.9-ST:).

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (6 MB)

Comments/Design Consideration

A double-headwall (flow-through) design with a single sliding door on each headwall. The headwall and door design are consistent with the COE, Omaha District. ALCM magazine design (AW 33-15-01), a 7-Bar design.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

This design was known as the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) Igloo and is a double-headwall (flow-through) design with two large sliding doors on each headwall. The design provides 7-Bar protection. A 26 Feb 1980 DDESB letter approved AW 33-15-01 as a typical layout for ALCM storage and considered this design equal to a standard ECM. There are two designs in existence, with the only differences being the footings and floor slab. The initial design constructed at Griffis AFB, NY, had wall footings and a floating slab-on-grade. The subsequent design revised the foundation and flooring to a mat foundation slab. The subsequent design is believed to have been constructed at the following Air Force Bases: Grand Forks, ND. Minot. ND: Fairchild, WA. Ellsworth.. SD: Wurtsmith, WI; K.I. Sawyer, MI; Barksdale. LA; Blythville. AR: McConnel.. KS: Carswell, TX; and Andersen, Guam. Internal dimensions are 40' wide by 112' long by 18'6" high along the longitudinal centerline. Each of the sliding doors measures 18' 10" long by 13'7 5/8" high.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Constructed at Luke AFB, analyzed by COE- Huntsville, to determine its Structural rating. Their analysis, documented on memo CEHNC-ED-CS-S (210-2b) of 23 January 2002, found that the design of the headwall and door meets 7-Bar criteria.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

A double-headwall (flow-through) design with a single sliding door on each headwall. The headwall and door design are consistent with the COE, Omaha District, ALCM magazine design (AW 33-15-01), a 7-Bar design.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Constructed at Barkesdale AFB, LA. Analyzed by COE, Huntsville AL, to determine structural rating. Their analysis, documented on memo CEHNC-ED-CS-S of 15 July 2003 found that the design of the headwall and doors met 7-Bar criteria.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

A double-headwall (flow-through) design with a single sliding door on each headwall. The headwall and door design are consistent with the COE. Omaha District ALCM magazine design. Similar design to Omaha District 33-15-01, but with a larger door opening.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

A double-headwall (flow-through) design with a single sliding door on each headwall. The headwall and door design are consistent with the COE, Omaha District ALCM magazine design. Similar design to Omaha District 33-15-02, but with a larger door opening.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

Previously called the "YURT" Magazine. This magazine design superseded Drawings 652-686 - 33-15-01. A 1 Apr 87 Huntsville Division, COE, letter stated that ECM design 33-15-06 was no longer being used for new construction.

ECM separation distances based in the following criteria: Side to side - use 1.5W" 1/3; back to back - 1.5W 1/3; front to back - 4.5W 1/3

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

A 4 May 78 DDESB letter restated that 33-15-13 was a standard ECM and that variations of this design were acceptable, provided new designs were at least equal to it structurally. This design is known as the "thin-wall" magazine and is known to have been built at Camp Darby, Italy. Similar designs, based on the 33- 15-13 design are known to have been constructed in Germany and elsewhere.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (13 MB)

Comments/Design Consideration

This design includes a double leaf door system, similar to the 33-15-61 two-leaf sliding door tested as part of ESKIMO 11.

Reference Information

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Specifications 

Comments/Design Consideration

Also known as the "Type16" Magazine. This design corrected strength deficiencies found in ECM design 33-15-14, which was determined to be non-standard ECM.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Replaced design 33-15-28 that was previously approved by DDESB for construction at Larson Barracks, Kitzingen, GE. This design has only one entrance vice the 2 shown on 33-15-28.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Constructed at Larson Barracks, Kitzingen, GE. Based on QRS magazine. which were only constructed in Germany (see 33-03-43 design). This design had 2 front headwalls and doors and no rear wall.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Approved during 259th ASESB meeting of 14 Oct 70 and was considered to be atomic blast resistant. This drawing replaced former drawings YT -1 -1 though YT-111. At that meeting, the Chairman, ASESB, also read into the record that Stradley (Yurt) magazines which are constructed in accordance with Standard OCE Drawings 13-15-58 and/or 33--15-61 are considered to be equivalent in strength to the OCE's standard earth covered igloo magazines.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

Approved during 259th ASESB meeting of 14 Oct 70. This drawing replaced former drawings YT-1-1 though YT-111. At that meeting, the Chairman, ASESB, also read into the record that Stradley (Yurt) magazines which are constructed in accordance with Standard OCE Drawings 33-15-58 and/or 33-15-61 are considered to be equivalent in strength to the OCE's standard earth covered igloo magazines. Two door sizes are shown on the drawing: a 10' X 10' door and a 12'X 12' door- DDESB memo of 22 Apr 1980 discusses the successful testing of the two-leaf sliding door of 33-15-61 as pan of ESKIMO II.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Very similar to 33-15-61, which is a 7-Bar ECM. Only differences were the use of a 10' door and 3,000 psi concrete vice a 12' door and 2,500 psi concrete. Doors and headwall were analyzed and were found to meet 7-Bar criteria. COE Huntsville e-mail of 24 January 2003 to DDESB documents results of review and analysis.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

This is not an ECM design drawing. This drawing permitted installation of larger doors on specific magazines, on the basis that the strength of the modified structures remained unchanged as a result of the door modifications. This drawing applied to ECM 33-15-01, 33-15-06 and 652-686 - 652-692.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Approved during 225th ASESB meeting of 19 Feb 64 as a standard magazine design. A 1 Apr 87 COEHQ letter stated that ECM design AW 33-15-63 was no longer being used for new construction. Drawing AW 33-15-63 had two designs shown on it. One is a traditional magazine with a single 12-inch thick reinforced concrete headwall, while the second is a design with two headwalls and doors (flow through design) COE structural evaluation of AW 33-15-63 door in 2003 determined the door would not provide 7 or 3- Bar protection.

The conversion of these designs from Standard magazines to 7-Bar magazines in the early 1990s was in error in that the hinged doors of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65 (all similar door designs) are not capable of providing 7 or 3-Bar protection to their contents. This determination was arrived at during ESKIMO III, which tested a AW 33-5-64 design and by a structural analysis of the door design that was conducted by the Huntsville COE at the request of DDESB-KT. Paragraph C2.3.7.3. ESKIMO III, June 1974 provides further information regarding this test. If different doors than those shown of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64, and 33-15-65 have been installed, then the headwall and alternate door(s) can be structurally evaluated to determine their strength. As a result of the ESKIMO series tests, services began moving towards single and bi-sliding doors or hardened headwall pilasters and header.

Siting guidance: Do not use for new construction. Site existing magazines as Undefined structures to provide a higher level of protection to contents. Use of the K4.5 that is permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) with intervening barricades or the K6 permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) without a barricade provides a very high likelihood of prompt propagation between ECM designed to AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

Approved during 225th ASESB meeting of 19 Feb 64 as a standard magazine design. A 1 Apr 87 COEHQ letter stated that ECM design AW 33-15-64 was no longer being used for new construction. COE structural evaluation of AW 33-15-64 door In 2003 determined the door would not provide 7 or 3-Bar protection.

The conversion of these designs from Standard magazines to 7-Bar magazines in the early 1990s was in error in that the hinged doors of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65 (all similar door designs) are not capable of providing 7 or 3-Bar protection to their contents. This determination was arrived at during ESKIMO III, which tested a AW 33-5-64 design and by a structural analyses of the door design that was conducted by the Huntsville COE at the request of DDESB-KT. Paragraph C2.3.7.3. ESKIMO III, June 1974 provides further information regarding this test. If different doors than those shown of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64, and 33-15-65 have been installed, then the headwall and alternate door(s) can be structurally evaluated to determine their strength. As a result of the ESKIMO series tests, Services began moving towards single and bi-sliding doors or hardened headwall pilasters and header.

Siting guidance: Do not use for new construction. Site existing magazines as Undefined structures to provide a higher level of protection to contents. Use of the K4.5 that is permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) with intervening barricades or the K6 permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) without a barricade provides a very high likelihood of prompt propagation between ECM designed to AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

This ECM was required to be constructed IAW Drawing AW 33-15-63. A 13 Jan 1995 COE, Huntsville Division, letter stated that since the design drawing calls for it to be constructed in accordance with a standard (7-Bar) design, then, by analogy, it also should be considered a standard. Added to the magazine listing in DoD 6055.9-STD, based on COE analysis. COE structural evaluation of AW 33-15-63 door in 2003 determined the door would not provide 7 or 3-Bar protection.

The conversion of these designs from Standard magazines to 7-Bar magazines in the early 1990s was in error in that the hinged doors of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65 (all similar door designs) are not capable of providing 7 or 3-Bar protection to their contents. This determination was arrived at during ESKIMO III, which tested a AW 33-5-64 design and by a structural analyses of the door design that was conducted by the Huntsville COE at the request of DDESB-KT. Paragraph C2.3.7.3. ESKIMO III, June 1974 provides further information regarding this test. If different doors than those shown of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64, and 33-15-65 have been installed, then the headwall and alternate door(s) can be structurally evaluated to determine their strength. As a result of the ESKIMO series tests, Services began moving towards single and bi-sliding doors or hardened headwall pilasters and header.

Siting guidance: Do not use for new construction. Site existing magazines as Undefined structures to provide a higher level of protection to contents. Use of the K4.5 that is permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) with intervening barricades or the K6 permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) without a barricade provides a very high likelihood of prompt propagation between ECM designed to AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

This ECM was required to be constructed IAW Drawing AW 33-15-63. A 13 Jan 1995 COE, Huntsville Division, letter stated that since the design drawing calls for it to be constructed in accordance with a standard (7-Bar) design, then, by analogy, it also should be considered a standard. Added to the magazine listing in DoD 6055.9-STD, based on COE analysis, COE structural evaluation of AW 33-15-63 door to 2003 determined the door would not provide 7 or 3-Bar protection.

The conversion of these designs from Standard magazines to 7-Bar magazines in the early 1990s was in error in that the hinged doors of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65 (all similar door designs) are not capable of providing 7 or 3-Bar protection to their contents. This determination was arrived at during ESKIMO III, which tested a AW 33-5-64 design and by a structural analyses of the door design that was conducted by the Huntsville COE at the request of DDESB-KT. Paragraph C2.3.7.3. ESKIMO III, June 1974 provides further information regarding this test. If different doors than those shown of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64, and 33-15-65 have been installed, then the headwall and alternate door(s) can be structurally evaluated to determine their strength. As a result of the ESKIMO series tests, Services began moving towards single and bi-sliding doors or hardened headwall pilasters and header.

Siting guidance: Do not use for new construction. Site existing magazines as Undefined structures to provide a higher level of protection to contents. Use of the K4.5 that is permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) with intervening barricades or the K6 permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) without a barricade provides a very high likelihood of prompt propagation between ECM designed to AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

This ECM was required to be constructed IAW Drawing AW 33-I S-63. A 13 Jan 1995 COE, Huntsville Division, letter stated that since the design drawing calls for it to be constructed in accordance with a standard (7-Bar) design, then, by analogy, it also should be considered a standard. Added to the magazine listing in DoD 6055.9-STD, based on COE analysis. COE structural evaluation of AW 33-15-63 door in 2003 determined the door would not provide 7 or 3-Bar protection.

The conversion of these designs from Standard magazines to 7-Bar magazines in the early 1990s was in error in that the hinged doors of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65 (all similar door designs) are not capable of providing 7 or 3-Bar protection to their contents. This determination was arrived at during ESKIMO III, which tested a AW 33-5-64 design and by a structural analyses of the door design that was conducted by the Huntsville COE at the request of DDESB-KT. Paragraph C2.3.7.3. ESKIMO III, June 1974 provides further information regarding this test. If different doors than those shown of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64, and 33-15-65 have been installed, then the headwall and alternate door(s) can be structurally evaluated to determine their strength. As a result of the ESKIMO series tests, Services began moving towards single and bi-sliding doors or hardened headwall pilasters and header.

Siting guidance: Do not use for new construction. Site existing magazines as Undefined structures to provide a higher level of protection to contents. Use of the K4.5 that is permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) with intervening barricades or the K6 permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) without a barricade provides a very high likelihood of prompt propagation between ECM designed to AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

This ECM was required to be constructed IAW Drawing AW 33-15-64. A 13 Jan 1995 COE, Huntsville Division, letter stated that since the design drawing calls for it to be constructed in accordance with a standard (7-Bar) design, then, by analogy, it also should be considered a standard. Added to the magazine listing in DoD 6055.9-STD, based on COE analysis. COE structural evaluation of AW 33-15-64 door in 2003 determined the door would not provide 7 or 3-Bar protection.

The conversion of these designs from Standard magazines to 7-Bar magazines in the early 1990s was in error in that the hinged doors of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65 (all similar door designs) are not capable of providing 7 or 3-Bar protection to their contents. This determination was arrived at during ESKIMO III, which tested a AW 33-5-64 design and by a structural analyses of the door design that was conducted by the Huntsville COE at the request of DDESB-KT. Paragraph C2.3.7.3. ESKIMO III, June 1974 provides further information regarding this test. If different doors than those shown of AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64, and 33-15-65 have been installed, then the headwall and alternate door(s) can be structurally evaluated to determine their strength. As a result of the ESKIMO series tests, Services began moving towards single and bi-sliding doors or hardened headwall pilasters and header.

Siting guidance: Do not use for new construction. Site existing magazines as Undefined structures to provide a higher level of protection to contents. Use of the K4.5 that is permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) with intervening barricades or the K6 permitted for 7-Bar ECM (face-to-face) without a barricade provides a very high likelihood of prompt propagation between ECM designed to AW 33-15-63, AW 33-15-64 and 33-15-65.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

A 01 Apr 87 COEHQ letter stated that ECM design 33-15-73 was no longer being used for new construction. A 25 Feb 1985 OCE letter had rescinded use of this design due to excessive deflections that could occur at the crown of the steel arch, due to the weight of the earth cover, and as a result of the collapse of an ECM in the field because of this problem. A 7 Feb 1975 DDESB memorandum approved OCE 33-15-73 (Oval Steel Arch) as a substitute igloo for AW 33-15-64, for use for any application for which a standard igloo is specified. This memorandum was in response to a Ft. Leonard Wood project (Project No. 109, Ammunition Storage Facility). Superseded by 421-80-01.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• AUTOCAD - Official Standard 
• AUTOCAD - Navy Modified 
• MICROSTATION 
• PDF 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Specifications 

Comments/Design Consideration

Superseded by 421-80-09.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB letter of 04 May 1999 identifies this magazine as being located at Incirlik AFB, Turkey. Dr. Canada of the DDESB evaluated the strength of this ECM design located at Incirlik, AFB.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB letter of 04 May 1999 identifies this magazine as being located at Incirlik AFB, Turkey. Its blast door was determined to be incapable of providing 7-Bar protection, although the magazine arch and headwall were designed to meet 7-Bar criteria. Dr. Canada of the DDESB evaluated the strength of this ECM design located at Incirlik, AFB.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

This Black and Veatch design was constructed at Rapid City Air Force Base (now known as Ellsworth AFB), Rapid City, SD. The Huntsville District COE reviewed this design and determined the design met 7-Bar criteria. Their results are documented on CEHNC-ED-CS-S (210-20b) of 6 March 2003. Some of the magazines were subsequently modified with larger doors, as shown on COE Omaha District Drawing AW 33-13-01, dated 18 May 1960. The original door measures 9' 11 _" H X 8' 5 _" W (double, hinged, swinging doors), while the modified larger door measures 11' H X 10' 1 _" W and are also double, hinged, swinging door. The magazine with the modified door is treated as an Undefined ECM.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Comments/Design Consideration

This magazine design, modified with an Army blast door, was successfully tested in 1946 at Naval Proving Ground, Arco, Idaho, with an NEW of 500,000 pounds NEW. Refer to paragraph 2.3.5 of TP 15 for additional information regarding the test. DoD 4145.27M, March 1969 permitted this ECM to be separated by 210 feet for quantities up to 250,000 pounds NEW and 400 feet for quantities between 250,000 pounds and 500,000 pounds NEW. The 01 December 1955 ASESB QD Standards permitted this ECM design, if it had been modified IAW Bureau Y&D Drawing 626739, dated 19 Mar 54, to use a 185-foot separation distance for quantities up to 500,000 pounds NEW. If not, then a minimum separation distance of 210 feet was required for NEW quantities up to 250,000 pounds and a 400-foot separation distance was required for NEW quantities from 250,000 to 500,000 pounds. Paragraph 2.3.5.3. of TP 15 provides additional information to address the door. with respect to the nine year gap between when the 1946 test occurred and 1954, when Bureau Y&D Drawing 626739 was approved. Bureau Y&D Drawing 626739 was provided for a 13-inch thick headwall and improved door design.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (7 MB)

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

Replaces 33-15-64. Drawing permits the use of 2" deep or 5.5" deep corrogated steel arch.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Design Analysis 
• Specifications 

Comments/Design Consideration

This magazine uses a Blast and Fragment Resistant (BFR) wall system that is also known as the AGAN Steel Panel (ASP) System. Removed from the authorized new construction list on the advice of Huntsville Division COE, as the U.S. distributor for this magazine design is no longer in business.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

Required Modifications

• AUTOCAD 
• MICROSTATION 

Originals (Must Incorporate Modifications)

• PDF 
• AUTOCAD 
• MICROSTATION 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Rescission Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

The original design dated 1 Oct 99, must be modified with the revised drawings, S-9 through S-13, for the magazine to be considered an approved 7-Bar ECM. See the DDESB memo of 17 April 2002 for specific requirements for both new construction and for a retrofit to upgrade an existing magazine built to the original design.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Constructed at Whiteman AFB, MO. This design is based on Air Launched Cruise Missile(ALCM) Igloo AW 33-15-01 and is a double-headwall (flow-through) design will double (2) sliding doors on each headwall. The design provides 7-Bar protection. A 26 Feb 1980 DDESB letter approved AW 33-15-01 as a typical layout for ALCM storage and considered this design equal to a standard ECM. Internal dimensions are 40' wide by 112' long by 18'6" high along the longitudinal centerline. Each of the sliding doors measures 18' 10" long by 13' 7-5/8" high.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

This design superseded the initial M-Type magazine design constructed at NWS Seal Beach. CA (see 8027514 through 8027532). The DDESB approved the modified Type M magazine as a "default", 7-bar structure for storage of up to 350,00(1 pounds of HD 1.1 explosives and approved the siting of 14 Type M (modified) magazines at WPNSTA. Yorktown. The proposed modification increased the ceiling height by four (4) feet and upgraded the magazine's foundation to carry the additional weight of the increased height Two of the 14 ECMs constructed have foundations with slightly less carrying capacity. This is because their construction was started as the Type M design was evolving.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

This is a magazine design developed for storage of Trident rocket motor storage at Kings Bay, GA The headwall/door design from this magazine was also used to upgrade existing Huntsville-type (drawings 1012 through 1014) constructed at Camp Navajo (formerly Navajo Ammunition Depot). See NAVFAC Drawings 8150953 through 8150971.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF  (12 MB)

Comments/Design Consideration

Listed in 1954 DDESB minutes as standard ECM. This design was an original Bureau Y & D Standard. The 01 Dec 55 ASESB QD Standards listed ECM 627954 through 627957 as a Standard ECM for storage of NEW up to 500,000 pounds. A 185-foot separation distance was required from other magazines. Bureau Y & D Drawing 817104 provides general information regarding this ECM and was used for planning purposes.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

This ECM design was tested as part of the 1964 Naval Proving Grouns, Arco, Idaho, test. The 130th ASESB (18 May 53) acknowledge COE Drawings 652-686 - 652-694, dated 27 Dec 41, revised 14 Mar 42, as a Standard ECM. I Dec 55 ASESB QD Standards list this ECM as a standard, with 185 foot separation for barricaded, 360 foot separation for unbarricaded. A 24 Dec 98 DDESB letter states that an ECM constructed to Drawings 652-686 - 652-692 is not robust enough to qualify as a 7-Bar ECM. However, it is robust enough to protect its contents if it is spaced about 400 feet from a detonation of 500,000 pounds NEW in an adjacent ECM. In addition, these ECM constructed with "Medium" or "Rock Only" footings do not satisfy present requirements for electrically continuous reinforcing steel, therefore ECM with these type footings do not meet current lightning protection criteria. Superseded by 33-15-01.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF (partial) 

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Structural Analysis 
• Specifications 

Comments/Design Consideration

Called a Corbetta, Beehive, or Dome Magazine. At a 23 Feb 1942 meeting, the Joint Army and Navy Board of Ammunition Storage (predecessor of ASESB) approved the Corbetta Magazine as an alternate type magazine (i.e. Non-Standard). A 12 Jul 90 DDESB letter approved a 27 Nov 89 COE letter, requesting approval to modify doors no Corbetta Type ECM at Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) and Holston AAP. Once modified, each ECM can be sited for 500,000 pounds NEW, provided the conditions of Note 6 below were met. If they cannot be met, then the ECM must be treated as a non-standard.

A Corbetta-type ECM is considered as Undefined because its door is inadequate to prevent explosion communication. However, in 1990, the DDESB approved two improved door designs for installation onto Corbetta-type ECM. If modified with the new doors, and provided they meet minimum separation distances of 400 feet, side- to-side or rear-to-front exposures between the donor and acceptor ECM and (KI 1) front-to-front exposures between the donor and acceptor ECM, then storage of up to 500,000 pounds NEW of HD 1.1 permitted in modified Corbetta-type ECM.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

COE Huntsville memo (CEHNC-ED-CS-S (210-2b) of 27 June 2002. subject: 7-Bar Magazines, states that the magazines constructed to this drawing at Moron Air Base, Spain, are 7-Bar ECM. The basis for their determination is that this design is identical to 33-13-02, which is a 7-Bar design.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Initial M-Type Navy magazine designed for and constructed at NWS Seal Beach, CA as part of MILCOM P-137. Approved as a site-adaptable magazine with a maximum NEW of 350,000 lbs NEW. Subsequently modified and constructed at NWS Yorktown. Replaced by NAVFAC Drawings 10400001 through 10400027 for new construction.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

As part of FY2001 MILCON Project P-I 14. this design modified eight existing Undefined ECM built in the 1940s timeframe (Huntsville Type 652-1012 through 652--1014. with inadequate headwall reinforcing steel) by replacing their headwalls and doors with those that met 7-Bar criteria This occurred at Army National Guard Training Site, Camp Navajo. AZ. The new headwall and door, a single sliding door, are similar to NAVFAC headwall and door designs (drawings 5167380 through 5167413) previously approved by DDESB at SUBASE Kings Bay, SC.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB letter of 4 May 1999 identifies this magazine as being located at Incirlik AFB, Turkey. Its blast door was determined to be incapable of providing 7-Bar protection, although the magazine arch and headwall were designed to meet 7-Bar criteria. Dr. Canada of the DDESB evaluated the strength of this ECM design located at Incirlik AFB.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB letter of 04 May 1999 identifies four ECM (1995, 2059 (Modified NATO-16), 2323, and 2327) as being located at Incirlik AFB, Turkey. These four ECM were evaluated by Dr. Canada of the DDESB and determined to be as follows: 2059 and 2323 are 3-Bar ECM, and 1995 and 2327 are 7-Bar ECM. The blast doors of the 3-Bar ECM were determined to be incapable of providing 7-Bar protection, although the magazine arch and headwall were designed to meet 7-Bar criteria.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

A 23 Sep 89 site visit to Lone Star, by Adib Farsoun of the Huntsville Division, Corps of Engineers (Code CEHND-ED-CS) concluded that the Lone Star magazines were almost equivalent to standard ECM design 33-15-06 with one exception: 33-15-06 had a double leaf door as compared to a single leaf door on the Lone Star magazines. In addition, magazines are sited 400 feet apart. On this basis, DDESB determined that magazines equivalent to those at Lone Star AAP may be treated as a 3-Bar magazines and are authorized to contain up to 500,000 pounds NEW of HD 1.1.

Reference Information

Digital Drawings

• PDF 
• AUTOCAD  (18 MB)

Documentation

• Approval Letter 
• Specifications  (6 MB)

Comments/Design Consideration

This 14-foot ceiling height Modular Storage Magazine (MSM) design was developed for construction of magazines 2580 and 2581 at Hill AFB, Ogden, Utah, and is basically a larger version of the MSM (11-foot ceiling height) shown on drawings 421-80-06. A total of 40 MSM (14') are planned to be constructed at Hill AFB. Replaced by 421-80-08.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB determined that MLH 25, MLH 90 and MLH 180 ECM designs could be equated to a standard igloo. Construction of 19 of these magazines were approved for Forward Storage Site (FSS) Ottrau, Germany. Maximum explosives limit assigned to this ECM design, as a standard magazine was 37,500 kg. (82,753 pounds). The Ottrau ECM were separated at 25 meters (side to side).

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

Approval was on the basis of the 12 Des 77 DDESB letter that determined the MLH design could be equated to a standard ECM. Separation distances were d=1.25W 1/3 (side to side) and d=2.00W 1/3 (front to rear), which were used at the time to site standard magazines. Approved maximum limit for this design is 77,900 kg (171,884 pounds). The minimum side to side distance used was 25 m (82 feet). The site plan to construct 20 magazines at FSTS Seekach (Kuelsheim), GE was approved.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB approved the construction of seventeen MLH 180, six MLH 90, and three MLH 50 at FSTS Grebenhain, Germany. Approval was on the basis of the 12 Dec 77 DDESB letter that determined the MLH design could be equated to a standard ECM. Separation distances were d=1.25W 1/3 (side to side) and d=2.00W 1/3 (front to rear), which were used at the time to site standard magazines. Approved maximum limit for this design is 77,900 kg (171,884 pounds). The minimum side to side distances used was 25m (82 feet).

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

NATO explosives safety standards limit this magazine to an NEQ of HD 1.1 of 75,000 kg. (165,000 pounds NEW). For siting at U.S. installations, where encumbered land is completely within U.S. owned or controlled property, an explosive limit of 250,000 pounds NEW can be used for siting purposes. Considered a standard (7-Bar) ECM for sitings involving 165,000 pounds NEW or less.

Reference Information

Comments/Design Consideration

NATO explosives safety standards limit this magazine to an NEQ of HD 1.1 of 75,000 kg. (165,000 pounds NEW). For siting at U.S. installations, where encumbered land is completely within U.S. owned or controlled property, an explosive limit of 250,000 pounds NEW can be used for siting purposes. Considered a standard (7-Bar) ECM for sitings involving 165,000 pounds NEW or less.

Reference Information

Documentation

• Block A, Approval Letter 

Comments/Design Consideration

DDESB letter of 31 March 1999 determined that the ECM in Block A at Volkel Air Base (Netherlands) met the criteria of 7-Bar ECM, based on an evaluation of Dr. Canada of the DDESB. The Strengths of the ECM in Blocks B and C could not be determined due to insufficient information.