1 / 34

Improvised Explosive Assessment Tool CRTI 06-0204RD

Improvised Explosive Assessment Tool CRTI 06-0204RD. Presented at the Public Security S&T Summer Symposium 2009 15-18 June, Ottawa, Ontario. CRTI06-0204RD Improvised Explosives Assessment Tool. INTRODUCTION Project Review Progress and Results Leverage Low-Hanging Fruit

harding-conway
Download Presentation

Improvised Explosive Assessment Tool CRTI 06-0204RD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Improvised Explosive Assessment ToolCRTI 06-0204RD Presented at the Public Security S&T Summer Symposium 2009 15-18 June, Ottawa, Ontario

  2. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool INTRODUCTION • Project Review • Progress and Results • Leverage • Low-Hanging Fruit • Information Leveraging • Canadian Indicator Booklet • Urban Modeling Protocols • Public Security Support • Conclusions

  3. CRTI 06-204RD: Improvised Explosive Assessment Tool PM: John Anderson Delivery by: Suffield (lead), Valcartier, CERL, CSIS, RCMP, Amita Start-End: October 2007 – December 2011 Total Funding : $3.25 Million + 2.66M in-kind Total FTE: 18.5 total (7.7 Suffield) Client sponsor(s): CRTI Linkages (National): CSIS, RCMP, CERL, Valcartier, DSTI Linkages (International): TSWG/FBI/ATF, UK, AUS Objective(s): To deliver a capability/tool that will provide investigators and first responder organizations with a means for obtaining rapid, evidence-based and scientifically sound assessments of many improvised explosive formulations, compositions and recipes. This information will be of direct utility to end users by providing accurate information on over two dozen critical factors for a minimum of forty (40) improvised explosive (IE) formulations and/or technologies. Outcomes: - Improved appreciation of threat spectrum and associated implications - Establishment of pan-national capability to assess, and advise on the improvised explosive threat - Database of experimental results and a software tool for first responder and expert investigator use. - Provision of data for the CRTI project “Protocol for Modeling Explosive Threats in Urban Environments Outputs / deliverables: -Reports on improvised explosives characteristics -A scientifically sound formulation assessment tool. -A database of experimental data for use in other improvised explosive programs.

  4. DRDC Suffield J. Anderson CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool The IEAT Team • DRDC Valcartier • P. Brousseau, S. Desilets, S. Turgeon • NRCan-CERL • P. Lightfoot • PSCan • T. Patraboy, P. Caron • RCMP • Ian Summerell • DSTI • Tony Heron • AMITA • Larry Chop

  5. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool APPROACH • Literature surveys • Information fed from variety of sources • Explosives Assessments • Methods of synthesis/precursors • Sensitivity/stability • Detonation Properties (Velocity, Critical Diameter, Initiation) • Blast Properties (free-field, semi confined, confined) • TNT “equivalency” • All info fed into Assessment tool

  6. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool POTENTIAL COMPOSITIONS • Peroxides (TATP, HMTD, MEKP etc.) • Peroxide-based (H2O2 + organic material-OM, other additives as required) • Non-ideal or other oxidizer-based (AN, UNi, Metal Nitrates, Perchlorates, Chlorates, KMnO4 etc.) • Liquids (NM, NE, IPN, HN, EHN, NG, EGDN etc) • Liquid-based (energetic liquids plus additives such as metals) • Precursor materials • “Other” (R-salt, HM-RDX, HM-HE (HM-homemade), other candidates from intel assessments)

  7. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool APPROACH • Four Phases • Phase I: Review of Information Sources • Phase II: Prioritization of formulations to be assessed • Phase III: Technical Assessments/Database Development • Phase IV: Database population, integration and testing

  8. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Last Year: • Focus was on Urea Nitrate and Mixtures (urgent requirement for knowledge from our international partners) • CERL: Sensitivity Studies • Suffield: Blast Properties • Valcartier: Chemical and Structural Analysis IEAT Tool/Database Outline

  9. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Project Progress Update: • Peroxide Desensitization • HME based on Metal Nitrates • MEKP Characterization • Decomposition Mechanisms for UNi • Update on Development of the Improvised Explosives Assessment Tool (Software/Database)

  10. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool PEROXIDES: HMTD/TATP (what’s already known) • Extremely Sensitive to Mechanical Stimuli (friction/impact) • Extremely Sensitive to Thermal Stimuli • TATP has high vapor pressure, HMTD much less so • ESD Results vary Question: Can these HMEs be desensitized with other materials

  11. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool PEROXIDES: HMTD/TATP (what we’ve done) • TATP/Al mixtures • TATP/AN; HMTD/AN mixtures • TATP/grease, HMTD grease mixtures • TATP/alcohol, HMTD/ alcohol mixtures • TATP/H2O, TATP/AN/H2O mixtures

  12. Use 35% HP Don’t use 50% HP CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Question: Can these HMEs be desensitized with other materials Answer: Yes – but large amounts of material required Variation in ESD measurements for HMTD a concern

  13. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool HME based on Metal Nitrates • NaNO3, KNO3, Sr(NO3)2, Ba(NO3)2, Ca(NO3)2 (planned) • Looked at variety of mixtures with metal and elemental fuels • Evaluated the hazard and explosive properties of a broad range of potential HMEs • No apparent safety issues - mixtures are relatively safe to handle and easy to make by grinding/mixing • Clear potential for large-scale detonation devices using binary mixtures with specific metal powder, particularly for KN and SN

  14. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Still to do: • Small-scale detonation tests on ternary mixtures • 2-kg airblast testing on selected ternary mixtures • 50-kg airblast testing on a few mixtures • VOD determination for selected mixtures • Ca(NO3)2 “workup”

  15. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool • MEKP Characterization • MEKP is easily prepared with readily available chemicals: • The preparation of MEKP does not require sophisticated equipment • Most publications describe MEKP as amixture of organic peroxides (mainly the dimer form) which are intrinsically unstable due to the peroxide group (C-O-O-C). • MEKP (diluted in a plasticizer) is widely used in the plastic industry as a catalyst for initiating and cross-linking polymerization. • In 1996, the worldwide yearly consumption of MEKP was estimated at 22,000 tons (Shu et al. Thermochim. Acta, (2005), 430, 67-71). • MEKP is extremely sensitive to friction, impact and heat.

  16. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Decomposition Mechanisms for UNi • Hypothesis • Evaporation of Nitric acid • Sublimation under vacuum • Revert back to Urea & producing Nitric acid boiling • Decomposition reactions (producing volatile organic species) Vacuum Stability Test (VST): 100oC for 40hrs – 27% Weight loss and decomposition observed ?

  17. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Aging Experiments of Urea Nitrate at 100oC in an Oven IR and NMR Spectroscopy Studies • 24hrs - Urea Nitrate was mainly present • 48hrs - Ammonium Nitrate (AN) strongly present • 72hrs - AN strongly presents + Urea + Biuret • 144hrs - AN + Urea + Biuret

  18. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Urea Nitrate DecompositionProposed Mechanism below melting point

  19. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool • Decomposition processes are complex and were characterized by numerous techniques – could this help with development of detection techniques? • Urea nitrate appears stable at room temperature • Urea nitrate is very acidic – could produce secondary decomposition process when mixed with other ingredients. • Which can lead to “unplanned thermal events”!

  20. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Update on Development of the Improvised Explosives Assessment Tool (Software/Database) • Give First Responders, Investigators, Forensics, Scientists access to reliable information about Improvised Explosives (HMEs) to better assess threats • Key players : Defence Research and Development Canada, Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Safety Canada. • Evaluate selected HMEs • Build a user-friendly software tool

  21. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Version 1 : Data Entry • Adopted an Agile approach for software development • Small iterations • Fewer functionalities implemented at a time • Frequent releases • Quick and regular feedback • Build GUI Prototypes accessible from a web browser

  22. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Data Architecture

  23. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Examples of Characteristics • Explosive Outputs • Velocity of detonation • TNT Equivalency (Air blast) • Structure and Analysis • NMR Spectra • Microscopy • Observed Properties • Physical state (solid, liquid) • Odor • Hazard • Sensitivity to friction • Thermal stability • Disposal • Solubility in water, in acetone • Other Properties • Melting point • Toxicity

  24. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Activities of IEAT The actors:

  25. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Lessons learned to date • Assign responsibilities within the end-users community • They define requirements • Regular meetings with representative from each organization • Talk to users with a functional prototype, not paperwork • Build a common vocabulary (ex: recipes, synthesis procedures, test methods) • Data ≠ Advice • Scientists are hungry for data • Public Safety people are hungry for advice • Implement good communication between them

  26. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Future work and challenges • Data population • Enter data beyond document upload • No centralized data • Assess data and judgment taken from literature • Level of confidence? Reliability? • Piles of papers => Huge amount of work! • Have a good search tool • Meaningful and useful to the different end-users • Not for all first responders because it is classified • Desensitize information

  27. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Low Hanging Fruit: Information Sharing LINKAGES/LEVERAGING • UK/CPNI/DSTL/METROPOLITION POLICE - HPOM data, other HME “tidbits” • FBI/ARA/ATF - CHP, ASN and FGAN data and more “tidbits” • AUS - Recent Distribution of Reports All done through linkage with TSWG HME-WG’s and International Workshops

  28. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Low Hanging Fruit: Indicators/Warnings for HME Canadianized EH!

  29. Protocols for Modeling Explosive Threats in Urban Environments S&T Thrust : CRTI 6-252RD Clients : CRTI, CSIS SA : Dr. Fan Zhang PM : Mr. Pierre Caron Delivery : DRDC Suffield / CSIS Start-End : April 2007 – March 2011 Resources over life of project: Collabor. : CSIS, RCMP, Martec Ltd., U of Waterloo Linkage : US TSWG, DTRA, UK Dstl • Objectives: • Develop protocols serving as standards and guidelines for modeling both ideal and non-ideal explosive threats in the close proximity of urban environments, so that the threats on structures and personnel in real-world urban scenarios can be assessed and the range of applicability of the fast tools can be extended • The Protocols are based on physically-correct models and will consist of a large number of first-principles, accurate, near-field modeling solutions including pressure (static and dynamic), impulse and temperature histories and P-I curves on structural elements of a comprehensive class of fundamental urban environments and scenarios. • Outcomes and Deliverables: • Physical models for non-ideal blast explosives and target interactions • Accurate near-field solutions in urban elements and scenarios • Chinook Code update as a first-principle continuum modeling tool for threats of explosive devices and urban target interactions • Multiple scaling rules for non-ideal explosives • Protocols as guidelines & database for urban explosive threats, loading, structure/ personnel vulnerability for best explosion modeling practices • Protocols in both printed manuals and a user-friendly electronic platform

  30. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Low Hanging Fruit: Public Security Support to Law Enforcement: Large Scale FGANFO Trial

  31. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Low Hanging Fruit: Public Security Support to Law Enforcement: • SME advice on TATP/Al mixtures Support to TC/DHS • Development of Simulants for TATP/HMTD • DRDC Support • (synthesis of HMEs) • Installation of CT-80 on Range (2 days/-30C) • Data for HMTD, HMTD/grease and HMTD/AN acquired (all three instruments) • Data for TATP and mixtures, AN and mixtures to be acquired July 09

  32. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Closing Remarks • CA working on a variety of Improvised Explosives-related programs: Ops Infrastructure Protection, HME, Improvised FAE, Modelling/Software, and database development programs • IEAT/database coming along nicely • Render Safe Procedures (RSP) a Gap area – project starting soon (dedicated site and equipment in design phase) • Wealth of information generated/collected – allowing us to offer SME advice on large number of compositions

  33. CRTI06-0204RDImprovised Explosives Assessment Tool Acknowledgements • DRDC Suffield: P. Lambert, L. Gagne • DRDC Valcartier: D. Chamberland, A. Marois, E. Sinelnikov • CERL: B. Ridley, K. Armstrong and last but certainly not least Ms. Louise Ripley & her Team

  34. QUESTIONS?

More Related