Difference between revisions of "User:Debra Tabron/sandbox"

From Enviro Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 137: Line 137:
 
The detonation efficiency of munitions has historically been assessed using fragmentation characteristics such as size, shape, velocity, and scatter pattern. The magnitude of the shock or impulse generated by the detonation is also a means for characterizing a detonation. For the Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCEA), gaseous byproducts of the detonation are measured to determine consumption of the energetic load. Qualitative characterizations of detonations are also based on a visual assessment of the physical condition of the round following detonation.
 
The detonation efficiency of munitions has historically been assessed using fragmentation characteristics such as size, shape, velocity, and scatter pattern. The magnitude of the shock or impulse generated by the detonation is also a means for characterizing a detonation. For the Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCEA), gaseous byproducts of the detonation are measured to determine consumption of the energetic load. Qualitative characterizations of detonations are also based on a visual assessment of the physical condition of the round following detonation.
  
 +
[[File:Walsh-Article 1-Table 3.PNG|thumbnail|right|500 px|Table 3. Detonation efficiency descriptors used by CRREL.]]
 
The ability to quantify the mass of energetics that is consumed during a munitions-based activity allows a new assessment method for the efficiency of that activity. We now know how efficient a detonation or firing activity is in consuming the energetic load because we can measure energetics residues. A valuable assessment can be made of the effectiveness of a particular formulation of energetic materials for a specific operation in conjunction with the visual inspection of the munition or propellant remains. Assessment criteria developed by the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) characterizes detonation efficiency based on the percent of energetic residues remaining after detonation (Table 3). We can thus standardize a system of detonation characterization based on the consistently measureable residue masses.
 
The ability to quantify the mass of energetics that is consumed during a munitions-based activity allows a new assessment method for the efficiency of that activity. We now know how efficient a detonation or firing activity is in consuming the energetic load because we can measure energetics residues. A valuable assessment can be made of the effectiveness of a particular formulation of energetic materials for a specific operation in conjunction with the visual inspection of the munition or propellant remains. Assessment criteria developed by the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) characterizes detonation efficiency based on the percent of energetic residues remaining after detonation (Table 3). We can thus standardize a system of detonation characterization based on the consistently measureable residue masses.
 +
 +
Most munitions tested perform quite well, with detonation efficiencies well within the high-order consumption range (>99.99%) and propellant consumption >95%. There are problems with both anti-tank rockets, with efficiencies <30% in some cases, and the new insensitive munitions, which have energetic compounds in the explosive formulations with 70-80% efficiencies (Table 4). 
  
  

Revision as of 20:52, 14 November 2016

The firing and detonation of munitions will result in the deposition of unreacted energetic compounds. These materials, in sufficient concentrations, can be harmful to the environment and human health. The mass of energetics residue also indicates the efficiency of the activity, be it firing or detonation of the round or the disposal of propellants or unexploded ordnance. Quantifying energetics deposition is the basis for fate and transport analysis and modeling, range sustainment capabilities, and determining the toxicological impacts of munitions compounds.

Related Articles:


CONTRIBUTOR(S): Michael R. Walsh, P.E., M.E.

Key Resource(s): Characterization of PAX-21 Insensitive Munition Detonation Residues[1]

Introduction

Live-fire military training is an integral part of combat readiness. During this training, energetic materials such as explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics are expended. Research conducted at the US Army’s Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory has demonstrated that during training activities, some energetic material always remains[2][3][4]. These materials can migrate to groundwater and possibly off range, jeopardizing human health and the sustainability of our military’s range assets. Very large environmental liabilities can be incurred because of energetics contamination ranges, such as has occurred at the Eagle River Flats impact area on the former Ft. Richardson, AK, and the Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod, MA[5][6].

Deposition can occur during any one or more of the following range training activities: Firing the munition, detonation, disposal of a malfunctioned munition (referred to as a “blow-in-place” [BIP] operation), and disposal of excess propellant charges (Fig. 1). Propellants, explosive loads, and pyrotechnic loads or tracers all contain energetic materials that can be recovered following a training activity.

Figure 1. Range ordnance disposal operation. Blow-in-place (BIP) operations often result in significant energetics deposition.

Determining Energetics Deposition

The efficiency of a detonation will have a major influence on the environmental impact of that munition on a training range. Detonation efficiency can be characterized in several manners. Commonly used methods include measuring the shock (blast) wave intensity, measuring the fragmentation size and pattern, and estimating energetic residues from detonation combustion products. A new approach is to use detonation residues deposition mass estimates to directly determine environmental impact.

Mass deposition refers to the mass of energetics remaining after an operation involving munitions is completed. These energetic residues are measured on the surface of ranges or in surface and groundwater[7][8]. The residues mass may be measured as estimated total mass remaining, as a percentage of the original mass of energetics involved in that operation for the munition, or as a soil concentration. Soil concentrations were originally examined, but it was not possible to parse out the sources of the residues or the contribution a specific munition or munition type had on the overall deposition.

The need to detect very small masses of energetics led to testing of munitions on a clean, uncontaminated surface, snow or ice, which allows for quantification of energetics residues on a per-round basis without interference from past training activities. The ability to develop an energetics residue mass estimate for a single round enabled the determination of the efficiency of a round with respect to specific operations, such as firing, detonation, or disposal. Refinement, and in some cases development, of analytical methods for propellants and explosives enabled the breakdown of efficiencies into those for individual energetic compounds within formulations. This gives a more detailed indication of where problems may occur during training as well as which operations or munitions will have less impacts on ranges and thus enable sustainable range operations.

Mass Deposition Experiments on Snow

Figure 2. Post-detonation residues deposition footprint and sampling residues on snow-covered ice.

Mass deposition measurements of munitions detonations first occurred in response to the closure of the Eagle River Flats (ERF) impact area on Fort Richardson in Alaska[9]. Howitzer rounds were fired into the Flats in winter to try to determine if explosives or white phosphorus could be detected in the residues deposited on the snow surface[10]. A sampling process was developed for residues on snow, but sampling bias and cross-contamination from prior range activities proved problematic until testing was moved to an impact area underlain by ice in 2002 (Fig. 2) [11]. In 2004, winter tests conducted on snow-covered ice by at the ERF impact area demonstrated that estimates of per-round energetic residues can be obtained using the recently developed, multi-increment sampling protocol[12]. All detonation tests have since been conducted using a variation of this method[13]. The method is constantly refined, with several quality assurance procedures incorporated, as well as streamlining of the initial sample processing and reduction of cross contamination of samples in the field and the lab.

Results for 20 years of detonation testing have been compiled into a database. Munitions tested include howitzer, tank, and mortar rounds, hand and rifle grenades, demolitions materials, mines, and rockets. Tests include live-fire, blow-in-place (BIP), simulated and actual low-order detonations, and close-proximity detonation testing. Testing of newly developed insensitive munitions is now being conducted using command detonations of the rounds rather than firing them into the impact area as the rounds are in the process of certification. An excerpt from the database is shown in Table 1. The full database is much more detailed, with data on each energetic component in the explosive formulation.

Weapon Size and Type(Explosive filler formulation) Analyte1 Rounds Sampled Residues Mass (mg)2 References
High-Order Detonations
60-mm Mortar (Comp-B) RDX 12 0.073 Walsh et al., 2006[14] and Walsh et al., 2011[15]
60-mm Mortar (Comp-B) TNT BDL
60-mm Mortar (PAX-21) RDX 7 7.1 Walsh et al., 2013[1], and Walsh et al., 2014[16]
60-mm Mortar (PAX-21) DNAN 9.2
60-mm Mortar (PAX-21) AP 14,000.
81-mm Mortar (Comp-B) RDX 7 8.0 Walsh et al., 2011[15], and Hewitt et al., 2005[17]
81-mm Mortar (Comp-B) TNT BDL
81-mm Mortar (IMX-104) RDX 9 8.0 Walsh et al., 2014[18]
81-mm Mortar (IMX-104) DNAN 8.0
81-mm Mortar (IMX-104) NTO 540.
105-mm Howitzer (Comp-B) RDX 13 0.095 Walsh et al., 2011[15], and Hewitt et al., 2005[17]
105-mm Howitzer (Comp-B) TNT BDL
155-mm Howitzer (Comp-B) RDX 7 0.30 Walsh et al., 2011[15], and Walsh et al., 2005[19]
BIP Detonations
60-mm Mortar (Comp-B) RDX 7 200. Walsh et al., 2011[15], and Walsh, 2007[20]
60-mm Mortar (Comp-B) TNT BDL
60-mm Mortar (PAX-21) RDX 7 860 Walsh et al., 2013[21]
60-mm Mortar (PAX-21) DNAN 740
60-mm Mortar (PAX-21) AP 35,000.
81-mm Mortar (Comp-B) RDX 7 150. Walsh et al., 2011[15], and Walsh, 2007[20]
81-mm Mortar (Comp-B) TNT BDL
81-mm Mortar (IMX-104) RDX 9 2,100. Walsh et al., 2011[15], and Walsh et al., 2014[18]
81-mm Mortar (IMX-104) DNAN 5,000.
81-mm Mortar (IMX-104) NTO 45,000.
105-mm Howitzer (Comp-B) RDX 13 50. Walsh et al., 2011[15]
105-mm Howitzer (Comp-B) TNT BDL
155-mm Howitzer (Comp-B) RDX 7 15. Walsh et al., 2005[12], and Walsh et al., 2011[15]
155-mm Howitzer (Comp-B) TNT 7
1Analytes: RDX: Royal demolition explosive (1,3,5-Trinitroperhydro-1,3,5-triazine / (O2NNCH2)3), TNT: 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (2-Methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene / C6H2(NO2)3CH3), DNAN: 2,4-Dinitroanisole (1-Methoxy-2,4-dinitrobenzene / C7H6N2O5), NTO: Nitrotriazalone (3-Nitro-1,2,4-triazol-5-one / C2N4O3), AP: Ammonium Perchlorate (NH4ClO4)

2BDL: Below Detection Limits

Table 1. Excerpt from the detonation residues database.
Figure 3. Firing position tests: Anti-tank rocket (residues deposited primarily behind weapon) and tank (residues deposited in front of weapon)

The same methods used for collecting post-detonation residues have been applied to sampling for propellants at firing positions. For firing positions, the area does not need to be underlain by ice. Snow cover is sufficient (Fig. 3). The mass of propellant residues resulting from firing most weapon systems is quite low, so multiple rounds (up to 200) are fired from a single firing position to obtain sufficient residues to derive an estimate of residues per round. Some direct-fire weapon systems, such as tanks, will severely agitate the snow surface in front of the gun. In these cases, snow samples will need to be taken at several depths to recover the residues. An excerpt from the firing point residues database is shown in Table 2.

Weapon Size and Type Analyte1 Rounds Fired Residues/Round Mass (mg) References
9-mm Pistol (Double-base) NG 100 2.1 Walsh et al., 2012[3]
5.56-mm Rifle (Double-base) NG 100 1.8 Walsh et al., 2012[3]
12.7-mm MG (Double-base) NG 195 11. Walsh et al., 2012[3]
40-mm GMG (Double-base) NG 144 76. Walsh et al., 2012[3], and Walsh et al., 2011[22]
60-mm Mortar (Double-base) NG 25 0.09 Walsh et al., 2012[3], and Walsh et al., 2011[22]
81-mm Mortar (Double-base) NG 61 1000. Walsh et al., 2012[3], and Walsh et al., 2011[22]
120-mm Mortar (Double-base) NG 40 350. Walsh et al., 2012[3], and Walsh et al., 2011[22]
105-mm Tank (Single-base) DNT 90 6.7 Walsh et al., 2012[3], and Walsh et al., 2011[22]
84-mm Anti-tank (Double-base) NG 6 95,000. Walsh et al., 2012[3], and Walsh et al., 2011[22]
204-mm Rocket AP 18 BDL Walsh et al., 2012[3]
105-mm Howitzer (Single-base) DNT 7 8.0 Walsh et al., 2012[3]
155-mm Howitzer (Single-base) DNT 70 34. Walsh et al., 2012[3]
155-mm Howitzer (Triple-base) NQ, NG 30 BDL Ampleman et al., 2011[23]
1Analytes: NG: Nitroglycerin (Propane-1,2,3-triyl trinitrate,C3H5N3O9); DNT: 2,4-dinitrotoluene, C₇H₆N₂O₄; NQ: Nitroguanidine (1-Nitroguanidine, CH4N4O2)
Table 2. Firing point energetics deposition per round.

Munition Efficiency

The detonation efficiency of munitions has historically been assessed using fragmentation characteristics such as size, shape, velocity, and scatter pattern. The magnitude of the shock or impulse generated by the detonation is also a means for characterizing a detonation. For the Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCEA), gaseous byproducts of the detonation are measured to determine consumption of the energetic load. Qualitative characterizations of detonations are also based on a visual assessment of the physical condition of the round following detonation.

Table 3. Detonation efficiency descriptors used by CRREL.

The ability to quantify the mass of energetics that is consumed during a munitions-based activity allows a new assessment method for the efficiency of that activity. We now know how efficient a detonation or firing activity is in consuming the energetic load because we can measure energetics residues. A valuable assessment can be made of the effectiveness of a particular formulation of energetic materials for a specific operation in conjunction with the visual inspection of the munition or propellant remains. Assessment criteria developed by the US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) characterizes detonation efficiency based on the percent of energetic residues remaining after detonation (Table 3). We can thus standardize a system of detonation characterization based on the consistently measureable residue masses.

Most munitions tested perform quite well, with detonation efficiencies well within the high-order consumption range (>99.99%) and propellant consumption >95%. There are problems with both anti-tank rockets, with efficiencies <30% in some cases, and the new insensitive munitions, which have energetic compounds in the explosive formulations with 70-80% efficiencies (Table 4).


References

  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Taylor, S., Ramsey, C.A., Ringelberg, D.B., Zufelt, J.E., Thiboutot, S., Ampleman, G. and Diaz, E., 2013. Characterization of PAX‐21 Insensitive Munition Detonation Residues. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 38(3), pp.399-409. doi: 10.1002/prep.201200150
  2. ^ Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Poulin, I., Taylor, S. and Douglas, T.A., 2011. Energetic residues from the detonation of common US ordnance. International Journal of Energetic Materials and Chemical Propulsion, 10(2). doi: 10.1615/IntJEnergeticMaterialsChemProp.2012004956
  3. ^ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Ampleman, G., Thiboutot, S., Brochu, S. and Jenkins, T.F., 2012. Munitions propellants residue deposition rates on military training ranges. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 37(4), pp.393-406. doi: 10.1002/prep.201100105
  4. ^ Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E. and Hewitt, A.D., 2010. Energetic residues from field disposal of gun propellants. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 173(1), pp.115-122. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.08.056
  5. ^ Walsh, M.E., Walsh, M.R., Collins, C.M. and Racine, C.H., 2014. White phosphorus contamination of an active army training range. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 225(6), pp.1-11. doi: 10.1007/s11270-014-2001-2
  6. ^ Clausen, J., Robb, J., Curry, D. and Korte, N., 2004. A case study of contaminants on military ranges: Camp Edwards, Massachusetts, USA. Environmental Pollution, 129(1), pp.13-21. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2003.10.002
  7. ^ Jenkins, T.F., Hewitt, A.D., Grant, C.L., Thiboutot, S., Ampleman, G., Walsh, M.E., Ranney, T.A., Ramsey, C.A., Palazzo, A.J. and Pennington, J.C., 2006. Identity and distribution of residues of energetic compounds at army live-fire training ranges. Chemosphere, 63(8), pp.1280-1290. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.09.066
  8. ^ Thiboutot, S, Ampleman, G. Brochu, S., Diaz, E, Martel, R., Hawari, J., Sunahara, G., Walsh, MR, and Walsh, ME, 2013. Canadian programme on the environmental impacts of munitions. 1st European Conference on Defence and the Environment, Helsinki, Finland. Presentation
  9. ^ Racine, C.H., Walsh, M.E., Roebuck, B.D., Collins, C.M., Calkins, D., Reitsma, L., Buchli, P. and Goldfarb, G., 1992. White phosphorus poisoning of waterfowl in an Alaskan salt marsh. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 28(4), pp.669-673. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-28.4.669
  10. ^ Collins, C.M. and Calkins, D.J., 1995. Winter tests of artillery firing into Eagle River Flats, Fort Richardson, Alaska. US Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory. Report pdf
  11. ^ Jenkins, T.F., Walsh, M.E., Miyares, P.H., Hewitt, A.D., Collins, N.H. and Ranney, T.A., 2002. Use of snow-covered ranges to estimate explosives residues from high-order detonations of army munitions. Thermochimica Acta, 384(1), pp.173-185. doi: 10.1016/S0040-6031(01)00803-6
  12. ^ 12.0 12.1 Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A. and Jenkins, T.F., 2005. An examination of protocols for the collection of munitions-derived explosives residues on snow-covered ice (No. ERDC/CRREL-TR-05-8). US Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH USA. Report pdf
  13. ^ Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E. and Ramsey, C.A., 2012. Measuring energetic contaminant deposition rates on snow. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 223(7), pp.3689-3699. doi: 10.1007/s11270-012-1141-5
  14. ^ Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A., Rachow, R.J., Zufelt, J.E., Collins, C.M., Gelvin, A.B., Perron, N.M. and Saari, S.P., 2006. Energetic residues depositions from 60-mm and 81-mm mortars. ERDC/CRREL Technical Report TR-06-10. Report pdf
  15. ^ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 15.8 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Walsh2011
  16. ^ Walsh, M.E., Walsh, M.R., Taylor, S. and Ramsey, C.A., 2014, May. 4.0 Deposition of DNAN and RDX from PAX-21 and IMX-104 Detonations. In Jannaf Workshop Proceedings-Fate, Transport and Effects of Insensitive Munitions: Issues and Recent Data (p. 23). OCLC Number: 899521393.
  17. ^ 17.0 17.1 Hewitt, A.D., Jenkins, T.F., Walsh, M.E., Walsh, M.R. and Taylor, S., 2005. RDX and TNT residues from live-fire and blow-in-place detonations. Chemosphere, 61(6), pp.888-894. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.04.058
  18. ^ 18.0 18.1 Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A., Thiboutot, S., Ampleman, G., Diaz, E. and Zufelt, J.E., 2014. Energetic Residues from the Detonation of IMX‐104 Insensitive Munitions. Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, 39(2), pp.243-250. doi: 10.1002/prep.201300095
  19. ^ Walsh, M.R., Taylor, S., Walsh, M.E., Bigl, S., Bjella, K., Douglas, T., Gelvin, A., Lambert, D., Perron, N. and Saari, S., 2005. Residues from live fire detonations of 155-mm howitzer rounds. ERDC/CRREL Technical Report TR-05-14.Report pdf
  20. ^ 20.0 20.1 Walsh, M.R., 2007. Explosives residues resulting from the detonation of common military munitions: 2002-2006. ERDC/CRREL-TR-07-2. Hanover NH Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab. Report pdf
  21. ^ Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A., Brochu, S., Thiboutot, S. and Ampleman, G., 2013. Perchlorate contamination from the detonation of insensitive high-explosive rounds. Journal of hazardous materials, 262, pp.228-233. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.08.04
  22. ^ 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 Walsh, M.E., Walsh, M.R., Taylor, S., Douglas, T.A., Collins, C.M. and Ramsey, C.A., 2011. Accumulation of propellant residues in surface soils of military training range firing points. International Journal of Energetic Materials and Chemical Propulsion, 10(5): pp 421–435. doi: 10.1615/IntJEnergeticMaterialsChemProp.2012005295
  23. ^ Ampleman, G, Thiboutot, S., Marois, A., Gagnon, A., Walsh, M.R., Walsh, M.E., Ramsey, C.A., and Archambeault, P., 2011. Propellant residues emitted by triple base ammunition live firing using a British 155-mm howitzer bun at CFB Suffield, Canada. In, MR Walsh et al. Characterization and fate of gun and rocket propellant residues on testing and training ranges. ERDC/CRREL Technical Report TR-11-13, pp 39-76. Report pdf

See Also

Retrieved from "https://www.enviro.wiki/index.php?title=User:Debra_Tabron/sandbox&oldid=3555"