Deposition Rates from Blow‐in‐Place of Different Donor Charges: Comparison of Composition C‐4 and Shaped Charges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For more than 70 years, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) have been using the plastic explosive Composition C‐4 based mainly on the explosive hexahydro‐1,3,5‐trinitro‐1,3,5‐triazine (RDX) for various operational needs. Composition C‐4 is used as donor charge for the blow‐in‐place destruction of unexploded ordnance (UXO) by Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams and, as well, mostly used as a demolition explosive by engineering units. RDX is very stable in the environment, somewhat water‐soluble and moves relatively rapidly towards surface and groundwater bodies in Ranges and Training Areas (RTA). It is the key contaminant that triggered the closure of a major RTA in the USA and the use of C‐4 was proven to contribute to its accumulation in demolition ranges. A study was conducted to measure the deposition of RDX generated from the use of Canadian C‐4 blocks and two shaped charges for comparison purposes, as the shaped charge represents a possible alternative for C‐4 as a donor charge in blow‐in‐place operations. The shaped charges studied were the Excalibur and two diameters of the SM‐EOD suite from SAAB Bofors. These shaped charges were selected for their potential to destroy UXOs. The Excalibur shaped charge led to RDX deposition rates similar to those observed with C‐4 blocks, whereas the SM‐EOD showed forensic traces of RDX. Based on these results, SM‐EOD shaped charges provide a possible alternative to using C‐4 for blow‐in‐place (BIP) operations, as they generate only small quantities of critical contaminants (such as RDX). By eliminating the contamination from the donor charge, the BIP operation will necessarily be improved and cleaner.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".