"Project Objectives

The project objectives were to develop an energetic material with the following characteristics.

First, an explosive must perform in order to complete the designed task (i.e. break up of rock formations). As a goal, therefore, very high performance (comparable to the explosive H-6) was of primary importance. While the performance of H-6 is very high (relative to typical commercial explosives) it would not be very difficult to reduce performance (once achieved) so that insensitivity could be improved. Additionally, there is a significant amount of data available on H-6 which could permit its use for comparative purposes. Also, the employment of more powerful explosives would reduce the overall quantity of explosives required to perform a specific operation, thus improving safety even further."

"Secondly, the explosive should be insensitive to accidental initiation. The explosives developed (assuming they qualified for large scale testing) were subjected to the most difficult shock and thermal test standards known.

Third, it would be desirable for the explosive to be waterproof in order to permit blasting in areas where water is present (i.e. limestone blasting (dead coral) in low lying levels such as South Florida).

Fourth, in order to take advantage of surplus explosive manufacturing equipment, the energetic material must be processable in standard TNT steam kettles. The closing of numerous government owned explosive processing facilities in the US (and subsequent conversion to private industry usage) has allowed enormous amounts of equipment to become available to commercial explosives manufacturers. It was therefore a primary goal to develop an energetic material which could be processed in existing TNT type processing equipment and which would be self curing or would solidify once cooled (in a manner similar to TNT). By meeting these goals, commercial energetic material manufacturers would be more likely to manufacture the energetic material and make the energetic material commercially available.

Fifth, In order to reduce production time and cost, the explosive must be curable in less than 24 hours.

Sixth and Seventh, in order to for the explosive to be easily initiated, the energetic material must have a low critical diameter and be sufficiently shock sensitive to permit initiation with standard boosters.

Eighth, since TNT itself continues to be responsible for a high number of explosive accidents and development of an insensitive non-TNT based energetic material (with comparable cost and performance) would result in a significant safety improvement to the public, it was a project goal that the energetic material developed not contain TNT.

Ninth, since most commercial explosives only have a shelf life of 1 year or less before they either become ineffective or become very sensitive, it was a goal of this project to develop an explosive with a shelf life of 10-20 years. Indeed a number of aluminized slurry formulations have detonated on their own due to the slow reaction between water and aluminum. Most emulsion explosives are not sufficiently stable to ensure reliable performance after 1 year.

Tenth, although, not a primary goal, in order for commercial explosive manufacturers to find the energetic material financially attractive, it would be desirable for the explosive to have low raw material cost with high raw material availability. Therefore, it was a goal to develop an insensitive energetic material which could be produced for a cost not more than 2-3 times more expensive than typical commercial explosives. However, cost should never take priority over proper application of explosives, particularly when safety may be affected. It is important to note that the price of the explosives is only one factor to consider in evaluating the cost of blasting. Inexpensive explosives that do not serve the purpose for which they are intended are no bargain. High-energy explosives may have a higher initial price, but savings in drilling, loading, and mucking the rock may offset this cost. Additionally, the costs associated with explosive accidents (in terms of loss of and injury to human life, as well as monetary losses) far outweighs the additional costs which may be associated with the production of safer explosives.

The project objectives are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of Project Objectives

OBJECTIVE

NUMBER OBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION

1 High Performance

2 Low Sensitivity

3 Waterproof

4 Steam Kettle Processability (Viscosity < 2kp)

5 Less Than 24 Hour Cure

6 Boosterable with Standard Boosters

7 Low Critical Diameter

8 Non-TNT Based

9 Ten to Twenty year Shelf Life

10 Low Raw Material Cost and High Raw Material Availability"