destruction of wp munitions by davinch - cwd 2014 of wp munitions by davinch cwd2014, london ......

Atsushi Sugiyama, Koichi Hayashi, Masaya Ueda, Noriyuki TakahashiKOBE STEEL, Ltd.

Destruction of WP Munitions by DAVINCH

CWD2014, London6/6/2014

Referred from: Wikipedia

Outline

WP : White Phosphorus

Technical issues for destruction of WP munition

Destruction with DAVINCH

Mechanisms of WP reaction

Pictures (preparation, after detonation)

Tasks for WP destruction

-Prevention of phosphorous dispersion

-Oxidation of WP

-Minimization of Smoke generation

Summary

1

WP: White Phosphorus

WP in the bottleYellow color is due to membrane of red phosphorus

Self-reactive in the airUsed for smoke munitions

Molecular structure: P4 (tetrahedron)P

PP

P

2

Technical issues for destruction of WP munitions

155mm projectile; WP smoke

3

Spread of phosphorous compoundsRisk of accidental WP ignitionGeneration of a blanket of smoke

Referred from: TM 43-0001-28

Destruction by DAVINCH

Flexibility of input

Closed process

The successful performance of DAVINCH has been demonstrated by a rigorous destruction testing protocol.

A destruction process of WP munitions with DAVINCH Lite system is being evaluated.

4

Detonation process

Advantages of DAVINCH for WP munitions

DAVINCH Lite system

P

PP

PH3PO4

H2OH3PO4

adsorption of H2O

aggregation

OO

O OO

HH

OH

HP

PP

P

O

O

O OO

HH

OH

H

Smoke particle

oxidation

reaction with oxygen

(very slow)

5

Normal mechanism of smoke generation by WP

hydration

P

PP

P Detonation energy

P

P

P

P

H3PO4

H2OH3PO4

adsorption of H2O

excessive H2O

dissolving in H2O(prevention of smoke)

Destruction mechanism by DAVINCH

6

OO

O

O OO

O

O

O

O

HH

OH

H

H

H

H

H

breaking of bindings

(very fast)

Re-binding

3000K10GPa

Destruction test condition

Shot No. #1 (standard) #2 #3 #4

Donor charge 7.2 kg 7.2 kg 20.4 kg 12 kg*

Water - 15 kg - 20 kg

Oxygen 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 5 m3

Na2CO3 - - - 5 kg

Detonation condition

Details of inputs

Donor charge (Emulsion explosive)OxygenWaterNa2CO3

To dissolve phosphoric acid

To neutralize water left in chamber

* Det cord was used for shot #4

7

To oxidize phosphorus

Simulated ammunition

1.5kg of WP was contained.

Steel pipe with cap (ϕ115mm × 550mm)

8

Simulated ammunition used for #1

Donor charge application

Loaded in chamber with water(#2)

With det cords (#4)(to detonate simultaneously) 9

Simulated ammunition with donor charge

#1#3

Water bag

Visual examination after detonation

After detonation(#1)

Inside of the chamber(Smoke was being generated) The lid of chamber

10

Tasks of destruction test

11

Tasks Evaluation

(1)Prevention of phosphorous dispersion

Dust recovery rate of dust-trap equipment

(2)Oxidation ofunreacted WP

Mass of WP remaining in the chamber dust

(3)Minimization of smoke generation

Visual examination of Smoke reduction in ventilation system

(1) Prevention of phosphorous dispersion

Off-gas treatment line

Cold Trap(for dust removing)

Detonation gas in chamber

12

S1 S2

S1, S2: sampling points of gas

Oxidizer & Scrubber

Off-gas filter

(1) Dust recovery rate of dust-trap equipmentTotal amount of P in detonation gasand cold trap are similar

Total amount ofP atoms [g]

#1 #2 #3 #4

Detonation gas (S1) 1.48 1.38 1.39 1.39

Trapped at Cold Trap 1.74 1.56 2.46 0.80

exhaust gas (S2) N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D.

13

Most of P was trapped by cold trap.

Not detected from exhaust gas (S2)There was not any detectable dispersion of phosphorous

S1

S2

#1, #2 (smaller amount of explosive)WP remained in chamber

#3, #4 (larger amount of explosive)WP was not detected

14

Qualitative analysis : heating dust with burner

Oxidation of un-reacted phosphorus

WP in dust #1 #2 #3 #4

weight [g] 5.2 Failed to recover

0.14 0.03

Destruction Efficiency [%] 99.653 99.991 99.998

Amount of explosive [kg] 7.2 7.2 20.4 12

Burning test bad bad good good

Quantitative analysis : extraction by organic solvent

(2) Unoxidized phosphorus

#1

A blanket of smoke

#3 (large explosives)

Smoke was reduced by ventilation

Also at #2(small amount of explosive and water)

Also at #4(contained all inputs)

15

(3) Minimization of smoke generation

Chamber ventilation line

16

Detonation energy is most important to oxidize WP.

From explosive or added water

With/without water (#1, #2)

More explosive (#3, #4)Better WP oxidationSmoke reduction

Effects for smoke

H3PO4

excessive H2O

Conclusion

17

Shot No. #1 (basic) #2 #3 #4

Donor charge 7.2 kg 7.2 kg 20.4 kg 12 kg*

Water - 15 kg - 20 kg

Oxygen 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 5 m3

Na2CO3 - - - 5 kg

Oxidation of WP bad bad good good

Smoke bad bad good best

Dispersion good good good good

Factors for results

Results

Oxidation : Explosive + others (oxygen or det cord)

Smoke : Explosive + others (oxygen or det cord or added water)

Dispersion: Equipment (Cold Trap , Oxidizer)

*pH of water from chamber is around 7 … Na2CO3 worked well.

*

Conclusion

Summary & Future works

WP was found to be well oxidized by much amount of explosive.

Smoke generation could be reduced by enough explosive.

Optimization of detonation condition

Most of dispersed phosphorous compound were trapped at Cold Trap, and there was not any detectable dispersion.

18

Amount of explosive (minimal and enough for WP destruction)

Summary

Future works

Reason(s) for smoke reduction… added water, oxygen, or amount of explosive

Thank you for your attention