4.6 Article

Sources of Variation in Drop-Weight Impact Sensitivity Testing of the Explosive Pentaerythritol Tetranitrate

期刊

INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
卷 60, 期 13, 页码 5024-5033

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.0c06294

关键词

-

资金

  1. Laboratory Directed Research and Development program of Los Alamos National Laboratory [20200234ER]
  2. National Nuclear Security Administration of U.S. Department of Energy [89233218CNA000001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When new explosives are synthesized and developed, handling sensitivity must be measured consistently to dictate safety protocols. Drop-weight impact tests are the most common method for understanding and quantifying explosive sensitivity, but results can be influenced by various testing conditions.
When new explosives are synthesized and developed, handling sensitivity must be measured in a consistent way to dictate safety protocols. Drop-weight impact tests, which represent explosive material sensitivity with the drop height required for a sample to react with 50% probability, are the most common method for understanding and quantifying explosive sensitivity. However, results from impact tests are influenced not only by the explosive material tested but also by the testing conditions and experimental setup. Examples of these testing conditions are the laboratory where the test was performed, the methods for choosing drop height levels and computing sensitivity, and whether grit paper was used to promote the initiation of reactions. We compile a historical data set with over 450 impact test results of the explosive standard pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) from 1959 to 2020. We model the sensitivity of PETN as a function of the test laboratory, the test method, and the use of grit paper and find that all have a significant effect on the measured sensitivity of PETN. We validate the predictions from the fitted model with several new impact tests performed at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据