Minimum Burning Pressures of Water-based Emulsion Explosives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript describes a protocol to measure the minimum pressure required for sustained burning of water-based emulsion explosives. Pumping water-based emulsion explosives for blasting applications can be very hazardous, as demonstrated by a number of pump accidents around the globe in the last decades, including some that resulted in fatalities. In Canada, the recognition of this hazard has led to the development of pumping guidelines that were endorsed by both the explosives industry and the Explosive Regulatory Division of the Canadian government. In these guidelines, it was noted that the minimum burning pressures (MBP) measured in a laboratory would provide a good guide to characterize the behaviour of these products in pumping systems. The same guidelines also call for the design of pump systems that prevent, whenever possible, pressures from exceeding the MBP of the product being pumped. At the time of publication of these guidelines, a methodology existed for measuring such MBP values but it had never been validated to measure the MBP of ammonium nitrate water-based emulsions (AWEs). AWEs are now used much more widely than any other water-based explosives and precursors in on-site bulk loading operations. The Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory (CanmetCERL) has been conducting research over the last ten years to develop a validated testing protocol to measure and interpret representative MBP values for AWEs. The test, as it is performed today, will be described and the critical components will be justified by reference to recent published data. Results of MBP measurements, for a range of AWE products, will be presented. Inclusion of the MBP test in the test standards for the authorization of high explosives in Canada will also be discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".