190 likes | 288 Views
Underground UXO: Are they a significant source of explosives in training range soils?. Susan Taylor James Lever, Michael Walsh, Mariane Walsh, James Bostick, Bonnie Packer. Funding - USAEC Jordan Papadopoulos - ARDEC Roger Young - USACE, Huntsville Jay Clausen - AMEC
E N D
Underground UXO: Are they a significant source of explosives in training range soils? Susan Taylor James Lever, Michael Walsh, Mariane Walsh, James Bostick, Bonnie Packer
Funding - USAEC Jordan Papadopoulos - ARDEC Roger Young - USACE, Huntsville Jay Clausen - AMEC Dauphin and Doyle - DAC Lisa Greenfeld, USAEC Phil Thorne - ARA Peter Keene, Alan Hewitt, Thomas Jenkins- CRREL SERDP-CP 1226, Chendorain and Stewart Acknowledgements
Of the multiple fates for ordnance, which contributes more high explosives residues on our training ranges? We have much of the information we need to answer this question Still have areas where information is “fuzzy” Purpose
# produced? • # used? • % Fate: HO, LO, Dud • For duds …surface or below? • Category: BIP? corrode? detonate? split? • Calculate rate of release for each category & compare Methodology
High Order= round detonates as designed Low Order=only a portion of the explosive fill detonates Sympathetic detonation=round cracks open, deflagrates or detonates due to a near by detonation. Split Casing= round breaks open on impact or due to some process other than nearby detonation Definitions
Five most commonly produced 8 in., 155mm, and 105mm howitzer 81mm and 4.2 in mortar 50 year production= 3.4 x 108 kg HE Ref: Papadopoulos (2003) ARDEC & USAEC Pub.: ARWEC-SP-02001 or SFIM-AEC-PC-2003018 Munitions Produced
Varies on a year to year basis We used 80% Ref.: Value given in Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on UXO (2003) fuzzy Percent used in Training
Varies for types of munitions We used the average for all 5 types Ref: Dauphin and Doyle, USACE, 2001 & 2000 SFIM-AEC-PR-CR-200139 Percent of rounds that HO, LO, DUD
Next step: residues immediately available • Multiply the number of each type of round * mass HE * % residue from HO and LO • =Kg HE from HO and LOW
High Order= Used 0.001% of the weight of the fill for residue. Hewitt et al. 2003, Jenkins et al. 2000 Low Order= We used 50% the wt. of the fill for residue (fuzzy) Lewis et al. 2002, Hewitt et al. 2003 HE immediately released from HO and LO
Next step: Duds(partially cased) • Multiply the number of each type of round * mass HE * % Dud • =Kg HE in Duds • Now to assign the various fates for the duds to see how much residue is available to rain –slower release
Surface or buried? 5% surface, 95% buried Ref.: UXO Recovery Depth Database, USACE Huntsville. Blown-in-Place (assume surface only) either goes LO or HO Sympathetic Detonation? round cracks open- fuzzy Round cracked open at impact? -fuzzy Corroding in Place? Corrosion rates vary Praxis 2004, Literature on carbon steels HE released from Duds:slowly over time
Estimate time to corrosive failure using literature and SERDP study Estimate rates of dissolution as a function of particle size or surface area for ALL fates Calculated the quantity of dissolved load of explosive for a given time interval Next
Relative HE load by Fate (1% UXO corroded) Live Fire Surface UXO Buried UXO
Relative HE load by Fate (10% UXO corroded) Live Fire Surface UXO Buried UXO
Available data suggests that low-order, or partial, detonations are currently the largest source of explosives on our ranges. Need more data on the actual fates experienced by munitions Framework for compiling and ranking explosive sources may help guide future research and policy Conclusions
Munitions Produced Percentage used in training 80% HO, LO, Dud rates Surface vs Buried UXO 5% and 95% Fate of DUDs Papadopoulos (2003) Special Publication ARWEC-SP-02001 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on UXO (2003) USACE, 2001&2000 SFIM-AEC-PR-CR-200139 UXO Recovery Depth Database USACE Roger Young, Huntsville. Our Best guess based on anecdotal information References used
Live fire-HO residue Blow-in Place LO residue DUDs Corrosion Hewitt et al. 2003 Jenkins et al. 2000 Lewis et al. 2002 Hewitt et al. 2003 Praxis 2004 Literature values References used