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