SMS/Australian Munitions Contribution to International Proficiency Testing of

Explosives SensitivityBob Ford

Leon Van Ieperen

November 2017

Presentation Outline

1. Introduction of ETUG Proficiency Testing Initiative2. Components of Successful Proficiency Testing3. Overview of International Proficiency testing to date4. SMS and Australian Munitions Participation

– Design of the collaborative program– Lessons Learned– Test Results & Correlation– Go-Forward Path

1. Introduction – The Challenge

• Historical Round Robin & Proficiency Testing between laboratories with the same test equipment have not always yielded similar test results.– Incorrect assumptions made that all laboratories used:

• Test equipment with the same:– Component specifications– Maintenance procedures– Calibration procedures

• Test procedures with the same:– Sample preparation and application techniques– Data collection strategies– Reaction criteria– Reaction detection methods

1. Introduction –The Resolution

• Explosives Testing Users Group (ETUG)– International, US DoD/DOE, and Industry Laboratories

• ETUG Charter– collaborate to improve and standardize in-process characterization

test methods for explosives, propellants and pyrotechnic materials.

• ETUG Proficiency Testing Objective:– Confirm standard methods, procedures, protocols and training result

in accurate and repeatable test results.– Laboratory Certification for the various tests

Transport

Life Cycle Stages of Explosives

Storage(Configured for Transport)

4

6

7

9

10

12

1

5

2

13

General IndustryUse/Application

Configured for Transport

Processing

Research & Development

Waste, Reuse, or Recycling

Remanufacturing

Intermediate Storage

3

ManufacturingProcessing/Operations

Explosive IndustryUse/Application

Display/Access8

11 Service Magazine

General IndustryWarehouse/Stock Room

Explosive Industry Magazine

Removed fromTransport Configuration

ETUG Participants

Participating LaboratoriesApplied Research Associates, Inc. /Air ForceResearch Lab (Tyndall Air Force Base) Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

ARDEC – Picatinny Arsenal Dugway Proving Grounds - AMTEC Corporation

Army Research Lab – Aberdeen Proving Grounds Edwards Air Force Base

ATF/National Center for Explosives Training & Research

Eglin Air Force Base

BAE Systems: Kingston TN Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC)

BAM – German National Laboratory Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Battelle – Ohio Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Canadian Explosive Research Laboratory (CERL) Los Alamos National Laboratory

ETUG Participants

Participating Laboratories

Naval Air Warfare Center (China Lake) Sandia National Laboratory : Albuquerque, NM

Naval Research Laboratory Sandia National Laboratory : Livermore, CA

NSWC-Indian Head Division Signature Science, LLC/ Department of Homeland Security (DHS S&T),

IHI Aerospace (NTK Aviation America, Inc.) Australian Munitions: Mulwala, Australia

Orbital ATK: ABL, Bacchus, Elkton, Lake City, Promontory, TNO – Netherlands National Laboratory

Rocky Mountain Scientific Laboratory Vista Outdoors: Anoka, Lewiston

Safety Management Services, Inc./ TEAD

ETUG Test Methods Matrix™Database

Location: www.etusersgroup.org/test-methods-matrix Objectives:

1. Documents the Technical Basis for In-Process and UN Tests2. An informal tool to facilitate technical discussions

Sponsor: ETUGData base Stewards/“gate keepers”:

– ETUG: In-Process Classification – IGUS1,2: UN MTC

1. International Group of Experts on the Explosion Risks of Unstable Substances (IGUS)2. IGUS is comprised of members of the United Nations Explosives Working Group (UN EWG)

Sensitivity Test Equipment

• Friction:– ABL Friction– BAM Friction

• Impact– MBOM Impact

• ESD– Approaching needle

• Thermal– DSC– SBAT

In-Process Energies verses Material Response Data

Range of In-Process Energies

Range of Energetic Material Response

Pro

babi

lity

Increasing Energy Level

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Prob

abili

ty

Impact Energy, J/m2

Data

Log Logistic Fit

H50: 10.24 (27900 J/m2 or 29 cm)S: 0.298

Impact Example

2. Components of Successful Proficiency Testing

• Detailed Procedures• Machine Verification (Specifications, Calibration, etc.)• Test Sample• Homogeneous Sample and consistent Environmental Conditions• Consistent and Repeatable Sample Application• Non-subjective Reaction Detection • Consistent Test Methodology• Statistical Comparison of Results

Detailed Procedures

• Procedures in ETUG website library• Procedures Address

– Machine Verification– Verify Site Repeatability– Gas Analyzer Verification– Sample Receipt and Preparation– Bruceton Testing

Machine Verification: ExampleModified Bureau of Mines (MBOM) Impact

• Home position• Verify full impact• Surface finish• Inspect surfaces• Drop weight guide bar

alignment• Drop time (60 cm): 365

ms• No binding in collar• Verify weights

Standard Test Samples Used

• Test Samples Used: – HMX 4 micron, shipped to each test site– Smokeless Powder

• Hodgdon Clays• Hodgdon Varget

• Sample Conditioning:– Sample dried for 20-24 hours at 50°C– Prior to testing: Sample conditions at 65-75°F and 10-45% r.h. for 2 hours prior to testing– Moisture content measured

• Sample Application– Use of sample templates– On-line demonstration

Standardized Reaction Detection

• Gas Analyzer: Impact, Friction, & ESD Numerical result of CO concentration 1+ppm changes in CO

• High Speed Video (HSV): Impact & Friction Jetting or Light Video documentation

• HSV & Algorithm (GoDetect-ESD): ESD Automatic Reaction Detection based on criteria:

Buoyancy, brightness, shape, uniformity, and color.

Video documentation

Standard Gas Analyzer and Chambers

ABL Friction Chamber

MBOM Impact Chamber

ABL ESD Chamber

*Drawings on the website www.etusersgroup.org/round-robin-current

Reaction Determination: Jetting

• Considered a Go if jet speed is greater than 1000 inches per second (2540 cm/s) for heights of 20cm or less – If when filming at 2000 frames per second, in one

frame the particles travel from under the insert to the edge of the anvil

• For heights >20cm, reaction judged to be a Go if the jet speed is significantly greater than a similar inert substance

• Video of No-Go and Jetting reactions are here:http://www.etusersgroup.org/reaction-detection-discussion/

1.5”0.5”

Impact Jetting

Frame 1 Frame 2

High-Speed Video w/ Algorithm(Automated)

Case Study: Automated HSV-ESD

• High-speed video with GoDetect algorithm

‒ A Chart Significance Method (also adopted by the ET Users Group), can be used to determine statistical significance for trials completed at a given energy level.

Statistical Comparison of Results

• Statistics used to determine if results between laboratories are statistically different.– The SRC Method (as adopted by the ET Users Group) uses a t-value,

which is a measure of the difference between results. Higher values indicate greater disagreement.

• t-values greater than 3.75 indicate a statistically significant difference. Can be used with Probit, Bruceton, SEQ, Langlie, or other adaptive test method.

3. Overview of International Proficiency Testing To Date

• HMX Pilot Round Robin using High-speed video and GoDetectautomation software completed by the ET Users Group with 3 sites – ABL ESD: Results were consistent for all 3 labs for– MBOM Impact: 2 of 3 labs agreed

• HMX Round Robin completed with High-speed video (HSV) and gas analysis (GA)– ABL Friction: 2/3 labs consistent with HSV – MBOM Impact: 2/4 labs consistent with HSV– ABL ESD: 3/3 labs consistent with HSV, 0/2 with GA

• PETN Round Robin with BAM Friction initiated by Spain

HMX ABL Friction – HSV

Site 2 statistically different from the other sites (discovered a machine issue)

HMX ABL ESD – HSV

Results not statistically different

4. SMS and Australian Munitions Participation

• Hodgdon Varget Smokeless Powder tested at both SMS and Australian Munitions in 2017.

• A gas analyzer was used at each facility to determine if a reaction occurred.

• Details of the test procedure, sample preparation, and sample preparation were shared between sites

ABL Friction

Australian Munitions test data

SMS test data

Results Not Statistically Different

Hodgdon Varget

ABL ESD

1.E-09 1.E-06 1.E-03 0.034 0.10 0.50 0.90 0.951.E-04

1.E-03

1.E-02

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01En

ergy

, J

Probability

Thales Test data

SMS test data

Hodgdon Varget/AR2208

Results Not Statistically Different

Australian Munitions test data

SMS test data

Hodgdon Varget

MBOM Impact

Australian Munitions test data

SMS test data

Results Statistically Different:• Different gas pickup chambers

• Australian Munitions having a much larger volume• Slightly different amount of sample placed on the anvil

• Australian Munitions placed a slightly greater amount on the anvil

Hodgdon Varget

Summary

• Accurate & repeatable test data for in-process characterization of explosives is essential for:– safe process equipment design– safe handling/operations– proper facility design & siting

• The ETUG is making substantial progress in the standardization of key parameters for in-process characterization testing.

• Standardization of the key parameters of explosives characterization testing is required for proper risk management and laboratory certification.

Summary

• The participation of the Australian Munitions laboratory is augmenting this successful international initiative.

• Correlating proficiency test results across multiple laboratories provides the necessary evidence of a laboratory’s compliance with established testing standards.