Explosives benchmark

Further, some important properties of these explosives vis-a-vis their comparison with benchmark explosives are given in Table 2.4. 

It may however, be noted that these values for different parameters are influenced by purity, morphology and particle size of the sample. The calculated values of VOD for FOX-7 and RDX are 9090ms 1 and 8940 ms 1 respectively (Cheetah Thermochemical Code). Based on these results, it was concluded that FOX-7 is better than RDX which is used as a benchmark explosive for comparison with other explosives. Consequently, it is an attractive ingredient for application in high performance IM compliant explosive formulations. FOX-7 also increases the burning-rate in propellants and as a natural consequence, is of interest for high performance propellants. 

These early products soon expanded into a wide range of acid-based explosives in the late nineteenth century. Cordite, an explosive commonly used in naval warfare, was a prime example. Unlike the relative instability of guncotton and nitroglycerin, cordite was inflammable, vibration resistant, and waterproof Trinitrotoluene, better known as TNT, was another benchmark explosive. Very stable and of a consistency that allows it to be formed into virtually any shape, TNT remains in common use more than a century after its invention. 

Benchmark 2 continues the emphasis on persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity, but at lower threshold values. In addition. Benchmark 2 includes flammability and explosiveness. It is anticipated that many chemicals will not move past Benchmark 2 because of the broad scope of hazards and challenging threshold values included in the Green Screen. 

Interest in polynitroarylenes has resumed over the past few decades as the demand for thermally stable explosives with a low sensitivity to impact has increased. This is mainly due to advances in military weapons technology but also for thermally demanding commercial applications i.e. oil well exploration, space programmes etc. Explosives like 1,3-diamino-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene (DATB) (13), l,3,5-triamino-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene (TATB) (14), 3,3 -diamino-2,2, 4,4, 6,6 -hexanitrobiphenyl (DIPAM) (15), 2,2, 4,4, 6,6 -hexanitrostilbene(HNS, VOD 7120 m/s, = 1.70 g/cm ) (16) and A,A -bis(l,2,4-triazol-3-yl)-4,4 -diamino-2,2, 3,3, 5,5, 6,6 -octanitroazobenzene (BTDAONAB) (17) fall into this class. TATB is the benchmark for thermal and impact insensitive explosives and finds wide use for military, space and nuclear applications. 

Amino-1,2,4-triazole is a useful starting material for the synthesis of many 1,2,4-triazole-based explosives. Jackson and Coburn synthesized a number of picryl- and picrylamino-substituted 1,2,4-triazoles. PATO (99) is synthesized from the reaction of 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole (98) with picryl chloride (67). ° PATO has also been synthesized from the reaction of 3-amino-l,2,4-triazole with A,2,4,6-tetranitromethylaniline (tetryl). PATO has a low sensitivity to impact and is thermally stable up to 310 °C. PATO (VOD 7469 m/s) exhibits lower performance to TATB (VOD 8000 m/s) which is the common benchmark standard for thermal stability and insensitivity in explosives. 

The analysis of the potential consequences of an accident is a useful way of understanding the relative inherent safety of process alternatives. These consequences might consider, for example, the distance to a benchmark level of damage resulting from a fire, explosion, or toxic material release. Accident consequence analysis is of particular value in understanding the benefits of minimization, moderation, and limitation of effects. This discussion includes several examples of the use of potential accident consequence analysis as a way of measuring inherent safety, such as the BLEVE and toxic gas plume model results shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6. 

Firstly, we should make sure the proportion and form of the mixed gas. Secondly, we should benchmark the gas components. In other words, we convert it to pure gas composition, no air base composition and the gas composition. Thirdly, we should find out the explosion limit of the unit gas. Fourthly, we should calculate the explosion limit of the pure combustible gas, no air flammable gas. Fifthly, we should calculate the overall gas (including gas, inert gases (C02,N2) and air) explosion limit in the air. 

The use of model checking makes the approach prone to the state-space explosion problem. Nevertheless, we are able to check realistic functional safety concepts (braking system example from the ARP 4761 [18]) within minutes. A more detailed benchmarking still needs to be performed. Furthermore we are restricted to discrete time, which is a limitation introduced by the stateflow semantics and the LTL-based backend. 

---