SUPPLEMENT TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE / JUNE 1965
PROBLEMS IN SENSITIVITY TESTING OF
"ONE SHOT" ELECTRO-EXPLOSIVE DEVICES
Herbert D. Peckham*
HOLEX incorporated
Hollister, California
ABSTRACT
Accurate estimates of aerospace electro-explosive
device reliability can be made only by properly
employed techniques of sensitivity testing. Im-
properly applied, sensitivity testing can produce
misleading data which may compromise mission
success or result in rejection of reliable units.
This paper analyzes techniques used to estimate
the reliability of "one shot" electro-explosive
devices, discusses current practices which can
produce suspect data, and suggests remedial
action which will lead to accurate and dependable
methods of reliability estimation.
INTRODUCTION
Peculiar problems arise in the testing of certain
"one-shot" items. If one desires to investigate
the stimulus level at which these "one-shot"
items responds, he is immediately frustrated by
the following situation. If the stimulus does not
cause the device to respond, the experimenter has
no idea how close the test stimulus is to the
critical stimulus. If the device does respond, the
experimenter has no idea how far above the crit-
ical stimulus is the test stimulus. Examples of
devices which have "one-Shot" response charac-
teristics are: photo-flash bulbs, percussion fired
rifle cartridges, etc. The particular "one-shot"
device that will be examined in detail in this
paper is the electro-explosive device (EED). The
problems of reliability and confidence estimation
for EED's require the application of methods de-
signed specifically for this task. While the
specific items for discussion will be the EED, the
methods described are applicable to any "one-
shot" device.
A prerequisite to valid reliability estimation of an
electro-explosive device (EED) is a sensitivity
test program -- carefully chosen and properly
carried out. Meaningful and essential reliability
data can be provided by such testing if the results
are interpreted within the inherent limitations of
the particular test method employed. However,
*Instructor in Physics and Astronomy
Gavilan College, Gilroy, California
628
extrapolation beyond the proper range of the test
can produce results which may be "statistically
correct" but which may be seriously in error when
compared to the true EED reliability.
Current aerospace reliability requirements are
significantly higher than a few years ago. The
trend is always towards higher reliability. How-
ever, the sensitivity testing methods being used
to evaluate the increasing reliability levels are
clearly being misapplied. The results of such
testing must therefore be considered suspect until
proven otherwise.
The purpose of this paper is to critically examine
contemporary sensitivity testing procedures. Part
I describes the specific application of sensitivity
testing to EED's and indicates how reliability
estimates are made. In Part II, each of the current
methods of sensitivity testing is described giving
the characteristics, advantages, and limitations
of each. The basic problems in EED sensitivity
testing are discussed in Part III. Finally, cor-
rective action is recommended in Part IV.
PART I: ELECTRO-EXPLOSIVE SENSITIVITY TESTING
ELECTRO-EXPLOSIVE DEVICES
An EED is a device which functions as an energy
amplification mechanism in which a low energy
electrical stimulus is used to trigger a high energy
release from an explosive charge. The energy out-
put may be used to pressurize, push or pull, rotate,
eject, cut, heat, etc. There are two methods of
applying the electrical stimulus. One is to cause
a small bridgewire in the device to explode by the
sudden application of electrical energy. The ex-
ploding wire causes initiation of the explosive
train. This is known as the exploding bridgewire
mode. (EBW) The other method is to use electrical
energy to heat a bridgewire which is in contact
with the explosive train. The energy generated by
Joule heating of the bridgewire causes initiation of
the explosive. This paper will be concerned with
the latter method, the so-called "hot wire" device.
The explosive train generally consists of a sensi-
tive prime explosive in contact with the bridgewire
followed by a main load of less sensitive explosive.
 SUPPLEMENT TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE / JUNE 1965
The type and quantity of explosives in a given EED
are varied to meet specific design requirements.
The characteristics of EED's make them particu-
larly well suited to aerospace applications. Their
energy potential to weight ratio is extremely high.
One of their outstanding characteristics is ex-
treme simplicity with resultant high reliability.
Properly designed, and utilizing carefully
selected explosives, EED's can be subjected to a
variety of severe environmental stresses and still
function reliably as designed.
SENSITIVITY TESTING
A sensitivity test as pertains to EED's has well
defined characteristics. First, the response of
the EED to the test is quantal, i.e., either there
is no response or there is full response. Second,
the test is destructive. Obviously, if the device
responds the explosive charge has fired and the
device cannot be tested further. Less obvious is
the fact that if the device does not respond it
must be assumed that the characteristics of the
explosive train could have been altered by the
test stimulus and the device must be considered
to have been "dudded". Finally, as the severity
of the test stimulus increases, the percentage of
the devices expected to respond increases.
Sensitivity tests lead to two types of data. The
first is where response or no response for each
device is observed in an ordered arrangement at
specified test levels. The second method is
where the percentage of devices responding at
specified test levels is observed. Ordering of the
tests is not important.
RELIABILITY ESTIMATION
Values of x and s are calculated from the data
output of the sensitivity test. The exact calcula-
tion method will be determined by the specific
test used. x is the estimate of the mean re-
sponse stimulus. s is the estimate of the
standard deviation of the probability function of
the EED and is a measure of the dispersion of the
test data about the mean.
The values of x and s are used to calculate the
stimulus level corresponding to the required re-
sponse and confidence levels. As an example,
assume that: (a) a sample of EED's is subjected
to a sensitivity test in which current is the test
stimulus, (b) a stimulus level corresponding to a
response percentage of 99.9% at a confidence
level of 95% is required, (c) there is a true normal
distribution of the data, (d) 20 parts were used in
the calculations, and (e) the results of the neces-
sary calculations are x = 2. 0 amperes, and s =
0. 1 amperes. The question which must be
answered is how many times s must be added to x
to obtain the required stimulus level. The easiest
way to do this is to refer to a table of tolerance
factors for a normal distribution. Such a table
629
will give a factor K which when multiplied by s
and added to x will produce the required stimulus
level. ] n this particular instance the value of K
is 3. 3( . The desired stimulus level is therefore
2. 0 + (3. 3) (0. 1) = 2. 33 amperes . The final
result of the sensitivity test is the statement that
assuming normal distribution of data, there is a
9 5 % confidence level that at lea st 9 9. 9 % of the
EED's will function at a stimulus level of 2. 33
amperes.
PART II: METHODS OF SENSITIVITY TESTING
PROBIT METHOD
The Probit method was originally developed and
utilized in biological sensitivity testing. However,
it has had some application to EED's. A very com-
plete and concise description of the application of
Probit testing to ordnance items, including an ex-
cellent step by step calculation procedure, is
given in the U'ted States Department of Commerce
Handbook 91.
In the Probit method the experimenter chooses a
number of test levels for which the EED response
will vary from very low to very high. The test
levels need not be equally spqced. A number of
EED's are tested at each stimulus level. The
number of devices responding at each stimulus
level and the total number of devices tested at each
level is recorded. Table 1 gives the results of a
typical Probit test applied to EED's in which the
test stimulus is current. Based on these results,
and using calculation procedures outlined in
reference (2), the output of the test is x = 1. 95
amperes and s = 0. 22 amperes.
Test Number Number
Level s of Devices of Devices
(Amperes) Tested
Responding
2.4 25
24
2.2 10 8
2.0 10
5
1.8 10 0
1. 6 25
2
Table 1. Typical Probit Test Results
The Probit is particularly well suited to the situa-
tion in which it is difficult to change the stimulus
level. Such a situation would be when a sensiti-
vity test was being carried out to determine the
load level of an EED. As an example, consider an
explosive guillotine designed to cut a cable. Since
the guillotine either does or does not cut the cable
it has a quantal response. However, in this case,
the variate is not the electrical stimulus to the
EED but the explosive load. The problem is to
determine the explosive load which can be ex-
pected to cause the guillotine to cut as designed
at the required reliability level and with the re-
quired confidence. Using Probit testing, the load
 SUPPLEMENT TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE / JUNE 1965
levels can be predetermined and the requisite
number of parts with each load can be assembled.
Then, once testing is commenced, no changes in
load levels are required. On the other hand, if
the load level of each shot was determined by the
results of the previous shot, as is the case in
some methods of sensitivity testing, the testing
would be unreasonably drawn out. The Probit
method will generally require more parts to pro-
duce the same results than other more efficient
methods of sensitivity testing. A basic consider-
ation is that the method is based upon normalcy
of the variate being tested.
BRUCETON METHOD
The Bruceton (or up and down) method of sensiti-
vity testing was developed specifically for ord-
nance testing. The majority of all EED sensiti-
vity testing carried out at the present time
utilizes this method. Crow(3) and Dixon(4)
have given excellent descriptions of the method
complete with calculation procedures.
The Bruceton test is carried out using equally
spaced test levels that are chosen before the
test commences. The test is sequential in that
the test level for a given shot is determined by
the outcome of the previous shot. If a given shot
fires, the next shot is made at the next lower test
level. If a given shot does not fire, the subse-
quent shot is made at the next higher test level.
Table 2 shows the results of a Bruceton test car-
ried out on 36 electro-explosive cartridges. The
test stimulus is firing current and the test levels
are spaced 0.05 amperes apart. Based upon the
results in Table 2, the required calculations yield
x = 1.41 amperes, and s = 0.036 amperes.
Test
Level Response to Test
(Amperes) (x = Fire, o = No-Fire)
1.50 x It is, therefore, less subject to extrapolation
1.45 x x x X o x x x x x x x x x
1.40 x o o xoo oooooooo x x
1.35 0 0 ox
1.30
Table 2. Typical Bruceton Test Results
The nature of the Bruceton method causes testing
to be concentrated about the mean. It is therefore
a very efficient estimator of the mean -- more so
than any other method. It is not a good estimator
of the standard deviation. Since the testing is
concentrated about the mean, little or no data is
gathered in the tails of the distribution. The
result is a tendency to underestimate the standard
deviation. This is particularly dangerous in the
case of EED's because it makes them appear to be
more reliable than they really are at the rated
firing current, and safer than they really are to the
hazard of low stimulus initiation. It is important
to note that this weakness of the Bruceton method
exists even assuming that the variate being inves-
tigated has a normal distribution - a requirement of
the Bruceton method. If there is reason to question
the normalcy of the input data, the results of the
Bruceton method involving extrapolation are doubly
suspect.
RUN DOWN METHOD
The Run Down method was developed at the Naval
Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Maryland, and is
described in a Bureau of Naval Weapons military
specification. (5) The novel features of the Run
Down method are that the method assumes a very
conservative EED probability distribution -- the
log logistic distribution, and generates test data
considerably further out on the tails of the distri-
bution than is the case in Bruceton testing.
An initial Bruceton test is conducted using 20 parts.
The purpose is to gain a rough idea of the charac-
teristics of the distribution. Based upon the out-
put of the initial Bruceton test, two firing levels
are computed -- level 1 (x + 0. 4s), and level 2
(x + 1, 3s). Fifty parts are tested at level 1. If
5 or fewer fires are observed testing is continued
until 130 parts have been tested. Then a new level
is computed (5x + 0. 2s) at which 50 parts are tested.
In the usual case in which more than 5 fires are
observed at level 1, 130 parts are tested at level
2. The total number of parts required is 200.
The data obtained above is analyzed for a reliabi-
lity of 99. 0% by the Berkson technique. (6) A
method of calculating confidence limits has been
described by Working and Hotelling. (7) The out-
put of the Run Down test is, as before, a stimulus
level which corresponds to a specified response
and confidence level.
An important fact about the Run Down method is
that it generates data further out on the probability
distribution than is the case in Bruceton testing.
errors than the Bruceton method. This method,
although an improvement over the Bruceton method,
does not solve the situation completely. The Run
o Down method can be used out to a reliability of
99. 0% as described in the Military Specification.
However, typical EED reliability requirements
today are 99.99% response at a confidence level of
95%. Therefore, even though testing is carried out
further out on the tails than is the case using
Bruceton testing, long extrapolations are still re-
quired to reach current reliability requirements.
PART III: PROBLEM AREAS
PROPER PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
A central and critical element in all the methods of
sensitivity testing discussed thus far is the appro-
priate probability function which describes the EED
being tested. Both the Bruceton and Probit methods
require that the variate being tested be normally
630
 SUPPLEMENT TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE / JUNE 1965
distributed. The Run Down method assumes a log
logistic distribution.
Considering the number of EED's currently em-
ployed in aerospace applications, a surprisingly
small amount of work has been done to determine
the appropriate statistical model for EED's. At
the Franklin Institute Laboratories, 4, 362 carbon
bridge EED's were tested to determine the statis-
tical model, (8) and more recently 7, 890 hot-wire
EED's were expended in a statistical model test
at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory. (9) The results
of these tests indicate that the proper variate is
the logarithm of the firing current, and that this
variate is distributed according to the logistic
distribution. This information is of little use to
the contemporary reliability engineer because the
state of the art has advanced far past the carbon
bridge EED or the type of hot-wire EED which was
tested at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory.
The problem is that there is no assurance that the
more sophisticated, modem EED's follow a log-
logistic distribution, or even if they have a
generic "best" distribution. It is quite possible
that the statistical model appropriate to one type
of modem EED would not be suitable to another.
The point is that this is a critical area of uncer-
tainty which needs to be resolved if valid EED
reliability estimates are to be made.
NORMALIZING TECHNIQUES
In cases where a sensitivity test is used which is
based upon normalcy of data, but the variate being
tested is not normally distributed, it is usually
possible to find a transform which will generate a
new variate which is, or at least is approximately,
normally distributed. For example, it is held by
some authors that EED critical firing current is not
normally distributed, but the new variate gen-
erated by taking the logarithm of the critical firing
current is normally distributed. The log transform
is relatively common and indeed is the subject of
an entire book. (10)
There are many other transformations which will
make almost any distribution normal in the vicinity
of the mean, but to guarantee normalcy of data in
the tails of the distribution is quite another
matter. In cases in which normalcy dependent
sensitivity testing is used to estimate extreme
reliability points, nothing short of an extensive
statistical model investigation involving perhaps
thousands of observations will suffice.jl) It
must be emphasized therefore that too much con-
fidence cannot be placed on a normalizing tech-
nique to permit the use of the Bruceton or Probit
method unless it can be proven that the tails of
the distribution have been normalized. This is
particularly important when estimating extreme
reliability points as is the case most often today.
SAMPLE SIZE AND RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Sample size and reliability requirements are
631
closely connected with the problem of EED relia-
bility esitmation. Obviously, as the reliability
requirements get higher, the number of parts allo-
cated to prove the reliability should increase pro-
portionately. However, experience has proven
that this is not always the case. Where the indi-
vidual unit cost is high, there have been cases
where the sample size for reliability testing has
actually been decreased at the higher reliability
levels.
It is understandable that the budget conscious
engineer is loath to allocate large numbers of ex-
pensive parts to be destructively tested in sensi-
tivity testing. However, if the mission of the EED
is sufficiently important to warrant a high relia-
bility and confidence level, an expenditure of the
necessary number of parts to demonstrate the re-
liability is certainly justified. Failure to properly
verify the reliability requirements is a sure path to
mission failure.
The requirement for reliability has been steadily
increasing. In the late 1950's, many of the aero-
space projects did not require reliability and con-
fidence figures to be associated with a given
stimulus to an EED. The picture has changed how-
ever. In 1961-1962, reliability figures of 99.9%
were common. Now, the usual reliability require-
ment on aerospace EED's is 99.99% at a confidence
level of 95%. There have been cases in which the
reliability figure has been set at 99. 999% and
higher. To put this in the proper focus, it must be
remembered that using the most common method of
sensitivity testing, the Bruceton method, that
reliability estimates past the 99% point must be
considered suspect because of the requirement for
normalcy of data. This, coupled with low sample
size, begins to lend a suspicious cast upon much
of the contemporary EED reliability data. One
suspects that reliability requirements may be satis-
fied only on paper. Also, looking at the sky-
rocketing reliability requirements, one wonders if
they reflect true system reliability requirements or
are the result of several stages of reliability
"padding" accomplished to conceal uncertainty on
the part of the design engineer.
PART IV: REMEDIAL ACTION
PROBABILITY DISTRIB UTIONS
A thorough knowledge of the appropriate probability
distribution function (or functions) is essential
before meaningful discussion can take place about
EED reliability. As indicated previously, there is
a paucity of information about EED probability dis-
tribution functions and what is available concerns
obsolete devices. Most certainly, the reason why
more statistical model investigations have not been
made is because of the cost involved. Very rarely
can the statistical investigator procure the several
thousand devices needed. The cost of 5, 000
sophisticated EED's similar to those in use on con-
temporary and planned aerospace applications
 SUPPLEMENT TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS
would cost at least $50, 000. 00. It is a rare
budget that can include figures of this magnitude
for reliability investigations.
An easier approach is to characterize modem EED's
by construction and material. Once generic
'types" have been defined which permit the ready
identification of a given EED as to its type, the
task is to determine the appropriate statistical
model of each type. With some ingenuity, an EED
could be designed to serve as a statistical test
vehicle at a fraction of the cost of a flight EED.
The reduction in cost would take place through
the elimination of any features superfluous to the
requirement of -sensitivity testing. The test
vehicle should be designed to permit simulation of
all the "type" EED's.
The first step that should be taken, then, is to
undertake a serious investigation of the appro-
priate statistical models which describe the most
modern EED's. This must be done before any pre-
cision can be inserted into the process of EED
reliability estimation. With a properly designed
EED to serve as a test vehicle, this could be
accomplished with a reasonable budget.
NON-PARAMETRIC TESTING METHODS
All of the sensitivity testing methods discussed in
this paper thus far are parametric methods. That
is, they depend critically upon the assumption of
various parameters. The outcome of the test is
directly related to the degree of accuracy with
which the original assumptions are verified. Thus,
there is a built in restriction on the tests which
can cause serious errors if ignored.
The non-parametric tests are completely different.
They do not depend upon the assumption of any
particular distribution or parameter of a distribu-
tion. There are mild requirements which must be
met but these are very easy to satisfy. Most of
the existing non-parametric testing methods
suitable for sensitivity testing are variations of
the Robbins-Monroe method. (2)
The basic equation of the method which produces
successive test levels is:
Xn =
Xn-l - 9
Yn-l - zj (1)
In equation (1) xn is the test stimulus for the nth
test, xn-l is the test stimulus for the (n - 1)St
test, C is an undetermined constant, f(n) is an
undetermined function of n, Yn-l is the response
of the (n - l)st test (for success y = 1, for
failure y = 0), and z is the decimal which repre-
sents the response point desired.
The Robbins-Monroe method has been in mathe-
matical literature for some time but relatively
little use has been made of it from the engineering
standpoint. The reason is that one must make the
optimum choice of C and f(n) to produce maximum
632
ON AEROSPACE / JUNE 1965
convergence rate upon the desired response point.
This knowledge is not presently available. Also,
workable cut off rules need to be developed to stop
the testing process. Methods of introducing confi-
dence levels into the calculations are available,
but need definition towards the specific problem of
EED sensitivity testing.
It should be noted that even though the method is
non-parametric, a knowledge of the probability
distribution involved can make the method more
efficient and require less parts. By generating
computer programs which can simulate the method
and the probability distributions involved, large
amounts of experience can be acquired relatively
quickly. With the proper experience, the relia-
bility engineer can estimate in advance how many
parts will be required to locate a given response
point. This would inject a refreshing note into the
combined process of specifying and proving re-
liability.
The second step which needs to be taken, then, is
to develop efficient methods of non-parametric
sensitivity testing and couple the new tests with a
knowledge of the appropriate statistical models of
EED's.
CONCLUSION
Mission success depends critically upon all the
components of a system functioning reliably as
designed. For electro-explosive devices (EED' s)
the verification of this reliability must be done
with some form of sensitivity testing. Insufficient
attention to valid demonstrations of EED reliability,
or failure to observe important restrictions on
sensitivity tests, can be an invitation to system
failure or can lead to rejection of reliable parts.
Of the methods of sensitivity testing currently
available, the one used most often is the Bruceton
method. The Bruceton method requires that the
variate being investigated be normally distributed.
There is relatively little information available con-
cerning the proper statistical model for EED's.
Thus, the employment of a sensitivity test based
upon normalcy of data against unknown probability
distributions must be considered suspect. The use
of normalizing transforms to normalize the variate
are effective in the region of the mean, but are not
valid for extreme response points.
The solution to the dilemma is twofold. First,
serious investigations must be made to determine
the appropriate statistical model (or models) to
accurately describe modern and sophisticated EEIYs.
Second, non-parametric tests need to be developed
whi ch will function efficiently even in the face of
deviations from expected statistical distributions.
It is quite possible, and indeed probable, that
EED's scheduled for use have passed all reliability
requirements which have been specified but which
have true reliability figures differing widely from
 SUPPLEMENT TO IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE / JUNE 1965

that which is expected. It is equally probable that

EED's that are completely reliable have been re-
jected by faulty sensitivity testing. The problems
which have lead to this stuation can and should
be solved.

REFERENCES
(1) Lloyd, D.K. & Lipow, M., "Reliability:
Management, Methods, and Mathematics,"
Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
pp. 496-497, 1962.
(2) United States Department of Commerce Hand-
book 91, "Experimental Statistics, " U. S.
Government Printing Office, Section 10-3,
19 63.
(3) Crow, E.L., Davis, F.A., & Maxfield, M.W.,
"Statistics Manual, " Dover Publications,
Inc., NewYork, Section 4.5.1, 1960.
(4) Dixon, W.J. & Massey, F.J., "An Introduc-
tion to Statistical Analysis, " McGraw Hill,
New York, Chapter 19, 1955.
(5) Department of the Navy, Bureau of Naval
Weapons, MIL-I-23659 (Wep), "Military
Specification, Design & Evaluation of
Electric Initiators, " 18 Marhc 1963.
(6) Berkson, J., "A Statistically Precise and
Relatively Simple Method of Estimating the
Bio-assay and Quantal Response, Based on
the Logistic Distribution Function, " Journal
of The American Statistical Association, 58,
pp. 565 - 569, September 1953.
(7) Working & Hotelling, Proceedings of the
American Statistical Association, p 73 of
supplement to Vol. 24, Series No. 165A.
(8) Hammer, C., "Statistical Methods in
Initiator Evaluation," Franklin Institute
Laboratories for Research and Development,
Interim Report No. I-1804-1, May 1, 1955.
(9) Hampton, L.D., &Ayres, J.N., "Charac-
terization of Squib Mk 1 Mod 0, Determina-
tion of the Statistical Model," NAVWEPS
Report 7347, January 30, 1961.
(10) Aitchison, J. & Brown, J.A.C., "The Log-
normal Distribution, " Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England, 1957.
(11) Dixon, W.J. & Massey, F. J., op cit, par
19-2.
(12) Robbins, H., & Monro, S., "A Stochastic
Approximation Method, " Annals of Mathe-
matical Statistics 22, '51, pp. 400-407.

633