Comparison of Explosives Residues from the Blow-in-Place Detonation of 155-mm High-Explosive Projectiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disposal of unexploded ordnance is a potential source of explosives residues on ranges. Blow-in-place detonation of munitions currently is done to clear these areas for safety without an emphasis on the consumption of the explosive load. The general testing method is to detonate the horizontal fuzed projectile with one block of C4 explosive. Explosives residues from blow-in-place disposal were examined using several different detonation configurations. Seven 155-mm fuzed high-explosive projectiles were detonated on a snow-and-ice-covered range on Fort Richardson, Alaska, to obtain baseline data on the current testing method. Tests were then conducted using the same type of projectiles in three configurations: fuzed rounds vertically oriented, fuzed rounds horizontally oriented with two donor charges, and a non-fuzed horizontal round with one donor charge. Recovered energetic residues indicate explosive load consumption in excess of 99.998% for all tests, ranging from 12 to 62 mg per round. This compares to 0.31 mg per round for live-fire detonation of the same-type rounds. Although two orders of magnitude higher, residue quantities for proper blow-in-place detonation of these munitions are quite small and are unlikely to result in significant explosives residues on ranges when compared to low-order or unaddressed unexploded ordnance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".