w.. .

TITLE:

INTRODUCTION TO DETONATION PHENOMENA

AUTHOR(S):

WI liam C. Davis

SUBMITTED TO:

U. S. AW

Research Office

Working Group Meeting on Detonation Phenomena, Menlo Park, CA, Cctober 23-24, 1979

DmclAmEm
IF .,.. .*d. M.-l
. F .,. . -.,,, -1, !-.. S-.
. . . . . .

. ..

.*,* ..- ,1%.-1,,, -. !-. -., ,.-

..,....*-.I
~. , ..,. ,.,, .

. f ,
.s4, ,

. - ......
--.
..

-,------1 ,< II . .
.

.J..
...

-.
.!, ---...!.

.,,
.!, . .. ,-

~
.,.

,
.,.,, .

, : :: , ,,--

.. .

... .... - .

-.

,,
,1

...**, -).

,,,.

,.,.

..z
J,...

... .
. . .

I -, ...

..

r.

-.
.-

,.!-... ..4--,.
-q,,,,,*,,!-

. . .

. .

, ..:.,---,-,-~f-

..,..-.,

,.. ,, +,,,
.--,

. . . - .*.:.,
.., ,.

.Vrl.,> .,,

.-I,.-.,:

...W.-.,
.

,
...-.

,-,
~... +.-.j

..,.,
, . .. . .. . .

--------

BY ~e of thh utklo tbr publktlon, tho tbeOme.mmoots(lloond lshts k tiblldmr ~ Innnwcawrkhtmd thoQawmwntud Ilswthorlrad =h-tl~ bvo~k~ fl~~it LO rOP~UU In wholo w In port MM artklo wdor any oopyrl~hl oEculdbythepubllsbw. ho k Almaa Bchtulc Lahaf8tay qunts tlw tbo pubkbmldntuy tltbortloku+ Perfomwdundar theuupkmaftk USEBDA.

sd.ntific
LOS AlAMUS,

10s @

alamos
hboratory
of Callforrda
NEW MEXICO S7640

of tho Univoidty

/\ An Aliirmaiivo Ac?ian/Eq Ial OpportunelyEmplayor

~nm NII,RWi

ft: ,NmWU
,:

uNrrtm SIATRPI ENKROY RBSRARCHANI)

. - -~ .-

1.

Introduction to Detonation Phenomena Ii.C. Davis LASL

My asslgmnent Is to provide an introduction to detonation phenanena for scientists who work in other fields, and to provide a broad perspective of our field as an Introduction to the more specialized papers. I will try to take

care of the first part, and hope it somehow serves for the second part. SclentifIc research has understanding as Its goal, and understanding proceeds from observation to hypothesis to deduction to comparison. with observatim and hypothesis. Lets begin

Figure 1 shows a block of explosive detonating. The wave spreads almost like a Huyghens construction. The velocity of the wave is primarily determined by the composition and density of the explosive, and little affected by the time it has run, the edges, or the wave curvature. The material in front of the detonation wave is absolutely unaffected, and In particular another detonation wave in it propagates independently of the first one until they intersect. Thus the wave front is the moving surface that separates explosive material in motion fran .stationarymaterial. uid explosives, perhaps a f= 61gaPascalso The pressures are very high in solid or liqthousand atmospheres, or swer~l tens of

hunmed

At these high pressures, arxlthe temperatures achieved in the These observations sug-

compression, chemical reactions proceed very rapidly. gest that cmfi nement of tb

material that allows the reaction to proceed so The distinguishing

fast is provided by the inertia of the explosive itself. feature of detonatia

is self-inertial confinement of the chemical reaction. .

Detonation science i: the study of this special interactlon of chemistry and mechanics.

2.,

Figure 2 is a diagram showing the conventional Idea of a detonation wave. The detonation front is a shock wave, supersonic relative to the material ahead of it, so no signal precedes it. CompressIon heats the explosive, and rapid

reaction ensues. The pressure falls rapidly in the reaction region, as heat is released. Finally chemical reaction is complete, and the gases expand as

an inert flew to match the boundary conditions. After a detonation has run a long dlstmce in explosive the reaction zone

is very thin relative to the inert following flow, and it is a good appro(imation tn neglect the reaction zone in any calculation. The reaction zone appears, in a measurement compared with such an idealized calculation, as a small rise in pressure or velocity at the front.

In sumnary, there is a zone of chemical reaction that is almost unaffect(xl

end of the reaction zone is the initial state for the following expansion, and must be known to define the inert flow problem. The chemical reaction zone also introduces a length, characteristic of the explosive, t$at provides a scale for all detonation phenanena. Lengths in the various useful explosives range from a few wm to a fmn.

The solid lines in Fig. 3 show them[!asured velocities ofpieces of alumi.. num foil embedded in explosive, as the detonation wave passes over the.toil. The dashed lines are calculations of the foil motions if there were no reaction zone. The four different lines shm the effects of different back boundary

conditi~ns, namely different lengths of explosive. The reaction zone shows up as the departure of the solid lines from the dashed lines, as they rise near the front. We see that the reaction zone is there, at least qualitatively . like we thought it would be, and that it is only slightly affected by the caI)ditions behind.

3.

The transient change of the reaction zone seen In F~g. 3 is a necessary consequence of a finite reaction zone length. us more information about the reaction. Certainly the largest transient arises in getting the detonation started. Sane features of the shock initiation process are shown in Fig. 4. The dfagram Study of the transients gives

in the upper left is intended to represent a slab of explosive, large in lateral dimensions, being driven by a piston, shown crosshatched. the right, is a t-x diagram showing what happens. Beside It, on

The lowest line in the plot,

showing x increasing slowly with t, gives the position of the interface between piston and explosive.
the

The steeper line from the origin is the trajectory CF Material between the shock and the interface

shock wave in the explosive.

is compressed, and heated by the compression. After an induction time, the material that has been hot longest (next to the piston) begins to react in the little dark area, and quickly forms a detonation. The detonation propagates at high velocity in the shock-compressed explosive, on a trajectory indicated by the steepest line in the diagram, and overtakes the shock wave. Then after

a transient phase of interaction, detonation propagates at detonation velocity in the unshocked and undisturbed explosive, along the line going up and to the right.

If the explosive is a single crystal of PE?N and the oiston velocity

is about 1.2 mn/vs, the shock will move at about 5 mn/ws and the shocked region will be at a pressure of about 11 GPa and a temperature of 1070K, The induction time will be a little more than 0.5 IJS,and overtake will occur at
1

vs.

The high temperature in the shocked explosive leads to an induction

time that seems consistent with data about the rate from lower-temperature laboratory measurements. All of this seems simple and obvious. However, there !s a ca:ch. If the .

explosive is not a sfngle crystal of PETN, but Is made by pressing PETN powder

4.

until its density is within 1% cf the crvstal density, things are different, Doing this same experiment shows that a piston velocity of onlyO.4 nsn/I.Is,

giving a shock velocity of only about 31mn/ps, a pressure of 2.5 GPa, and a temperature of only 475K, initiates the material with 1 MS to overtake. NW nothing Is simple and obvious. The sane material can be heated in an oven

to4751( and decomposes only S1OW1Y, The explanation seems to be that energy is concentrated at local regions called hot spots, and that the temperature is not unifornlin the material. (Careful expe~Imtintshave shown that the dcscrip-

tlon given above of initiation in th~ ~ingle crystal is also somewhat too sire. ple to fit all the observations,) ~eaction takes place quickly at the hot The instant of overtake is hlurSeveral papers dt

spots, and the shock accelerates as it runs.

red a little, and the whole process is more complicated, this meeting are devoted to the details.

The important point is that inhomogeneous heating and reaction are important processes in explosives. suggested for hot spots. Figure 5 shows some of the ideas that have been

Energy concentration may come from jets of material

generated at little vee-shaped intersections of crystallite; from impact of material thrown across a void; from viscous heating in material near the surface of a collapsing void; frcnnshock collision around a high-impedance inciusion; from friction between two crystallite; or from internal slippage in a crystallite. Ing. I expect discussion of these processes and others at this mcet-

One useful thing we could do is to de~ine the several processes and give

them names so we could be sure what process is being discuzsed. Other transient effects besides initiation and the small changes -n the reaction zone shown in Fig. 3
can

also be found.

Figure 6 shows some measureThe tran-

ments of detonation velocity vs length of run for two explosives.

sient is not observed in pBX-9404, presumably because it is too fast, and is observable but small in Composition B-3.

The length of the fects in explosives.

caction zone also implies that there must be edge ef-

One of the simplest ones to interpret occurs in long

cylindrical sticks of explosives, because they can be run long enough for all transients to die out, Ieaving a steady flow. tion in.such a stick. Figure 7 is a diagram of detona-

The shock front is curved, so the streamlines are deThus there is a radial component of

flected outward as they pass through it.

velocity, and radial kinetic energy, so sane energy is not available for the forward motion of the detonation. Figure 8 is a plot of detonation velocityvs reciprocal radius of the It also shows a

stick, showing how the detonation slows down In small sticks. large qualitative effect: stick is too small.

the detonation will not propagate at all if the

Failure radius for the explosives shown varies from about

0.2 mn to about 20 nsn,a range of about 100 times, and the slowing at failure varies from about 1% to about 15%. lieexpect that both the reaction zone length and the way the rate depends on the local state influence these values. The reaction rate and state dependence can be influenced by adding a catalyst, or by changing the hot spots. Figure 9 shows results of both of these Its diam-

changes. The liquid explosive nitranethane is used as the standard.

eter effect curve appears to be a straight line, and the detonation velocity has decreased by only~ at failure. Adding a catalyst or sensitizer, DETA

(diethylenetriami ne, really 2,2-diamino diethylamine), in a very small amount, 0.03%, changes the failure diameter by a factor of two, but leaves both the detonation velocity and the amount of decrease unchanged. Adding silica particles and a little gelling agent to hold them in place also decreases the failure diameter by a factor of two, but now the velocity de;rease is about 13% at failure. The slope of the curves at large diameter, shown in the inset, indi-

cates that adding DETA shortens the reaction zone, but adding silica particles

6.

Increases It appreciably. Me think that the homogeneous llquld explosives fail when a large rarefactlon wave starts at some edge point and propagates in, putting out the detonation. Me call this process catastrophic failure. Perhaps the silica particles diffuse the catastrophic wave, and prevent that kind of fatlure, so propagation continues until theenergy great enough to make it fail. loss to the edge is

An alternate explanation is that the hot spots

produced when the wave interacts with the particles changes the effective state dependence of the reaction and thus changes the fa~lure regime. being done by Ray Engelke. There are other detonation effects we could discuss, but the ones presented so far make up a reasonable background, except for one feature. Jt has been This work is

tacitly assumed that the detonation front and the reaction zone are lrcally smooth and uniform.

If this were so, and we photograph the lightemitted by B

detonation front in a transparent explosive in a long cylindrical stick, the light should be nearly uniform over the front. We might expect.it to be just

slightly brighter in the center and a llttle dinwnerat thn edges, but without much change. Figure 10 is a photograph of the light emit.tedby ~.detonation in a

In a transparent liquid, nitromethane/acetone 80/20 volume %mixture, brass tube 19 mn inside d~ameter.

It is clear that there Is a pronounced Sequential Sim~lar struc-

transverse structure, and that the wave 1:.not locallySm60th. photographs show that the edges move and the spots transform.

tures have been photographed in various liquid and solid explosives, and probably they exist in most explosives, although perhaps not in all. the structures have been studied in considerable detail. In gases,

They are easier to

work with In gases because the reactfon zone can be lengthened by reducing the initial gas pressure. Some soot film results me shown in Fig. 11, from

Strehlow. While the regular patterns are the most studied because they are the most detailed, the irregular ones are more comnon.

!
Ii

7.

- Figure 12 llsts four ideas obtained from our review of detonation phenunena, and now we want to decide

how we may use them for deduction. The first

two items, inertial confinement and appreciable reaction zone length, tell us that if we are to make sensible deductions about detonations we must include details about the interaction of chemistry and mechanics. The second two

items, hot spots and transverse waves, tell us that some technique for averaging their effects must be included in a description of most real explosives. The equations that describe detonation are shown in Fig. 13. equation is the expression of the conservation of mass. conservation of mcnnentum,or F = ma. The first

The second is the

The third is the conservation of energy.

The next equation is the description of the material properties; it gives the specific internal energy as a function cf pressu~e, volume, and internal variables, particularly composition. We use a vector notation for the internal variables, indicated in the next equation. Notice that u and the operator

grad in the first two equations are ordinary vectors in real space, and that the composition vector is in composition space. The time derivative, repre-

sented by the dot, in the third equation means that time derivatives of the ccnnpositionvartables will appear. These quantities, represented by the last equation, are the chemical rates. Application ~f these equations presents the difficulty that we dont know what to use for the material properties, the equation o+ state and the rate. Another difficulty is that although the equations, wfiensolved correctly, presumab[ydescribe the details of the transverse wave structure, and if the local structure of the explosive were used as fnput, the interactions of the hot spots, we cant imagine working with that much detail. One approach is to ask simpler questions. For example, suppose we forget about transverse waves and hot spots and assume that there could be a plane,
.

steady detonation.

For minimum assumptions about the equatton ofstate, and This problem has

any sort of rates, what forms can the reaction zone take?

been studied rather completely. With restriction to one irreversible rate the familiar Z?IDsolutions appear.

In these, the pressure falls through the reac-

tion zone to the CJ point if the flcwiis supported by a piston with a velocity less than CJ particle velocity, and the flow is exactly sonic at that point. If the piston velocity is greater than that value, the whole flow is subsonic. These two solutions appear at the right In Fig. 14. If the rate fs allowed to

have two reversible reactions, nine new posslbilities are added to the 2ND solutions. Other complications of the rate or equation of state 1ead to other solutions.

I dont have time to discuss these here; an Interested person might

look at Detonation by Fickett and Davis. m,

that there are lots of kinds of solutions, and we must compare them with

experiment to find out which are of physical interl:stas approximations to real detonations. The solutions above, the plane steady ones, have only one variable. TWO variables, either plane nonsteady or steady with two space variables, make the problem much harder. Figure 15 is a diagram of a steady, cylindrically-s~metric flow of a detonation propagating in a cylindrical stick in the limit where it has become steady, John Bdzil has treated this problem. The imporl-

ant boundary conditions are the deflectiuri of the flow at.t.hcedges, and the detonation jump conditions. The experimental data for calibration and comparison are the shape of the detonation front and the detonation velocity for different cylinder sizes, and the failure diameter. Figure 16 shows how the calibrated theory fits the experimental shape measurements for two sizes. The .

effective reaction zone thickness and the strength of the state dependence of the rate are found by this fit.

9.

Calibration of an equation of state and a reaction rate to force agreement betweerla theoretical treatment and a llmfted set of experiments has been the almost unfversal procedure for testfng detonation theory. If the calibration

is fmposslble, clearly the theory must be wrong, but if it is possible, it doesnt prove that the theory fs right. . . One kind of experiment that gets away from thfs bfnd is shown in Fig. 17. Ue expect that the detonation veloclty is a Smodh function of the initial

energy and the initial densfty of the explosive ff the final composition can be held-fixed. The upper line in the back in the ffgure ~s the detonation velocfty of nitromethane for a range of temperature. Changing the temperature changes the density quite a lot, and the energy a little. The sloping line leading up fs the detonation velocity for mixtures of nitromethane and acenina, and the energy changes a lot and the density a little. Acenina is an equimolar mfxture of nftric acid, water, and acetonitri?e, and has the same atomic compositfon as nitranethane; therefore the final products, if the reaction goes to completion, are always the same. What we are after is a fit to the detonation velocfty surface in the neighborhood of the intersection of the two lines. The theory for the application of the results is shown in Fig. 18. Th~

expression for D at the top means that from experimei~~,. know the detonation velmfty as a functfon of initial density and energy near some point. The

sketch of the p-v plane shows the theoretical result for a plane, steady, laminar detonation wave with any of a class of simple rate laws. The straight

lfne, the Rayleigh line, and the curved line, the Hugoniot curve, are tangent at the state point that occurs at the end of the reaction zone. quence, one can show that the next two equations hold. are obtained from the experimental data. As a conse-

The left-hand sides

The rfght-hand sides contafn two

variables, whfch are thermodynamic derivatives evaluated at the tangent point,

10,

and the two equatlcns can be solved to get their valu?s.

Finally the pressure

at that tangent point can be obtained frcmnthe last equatlofis. The pressure obtained from these detonation veloclty measurements Interpreted using this theory can be compared with the pressure obtafned from more direct measurements. The best vaues I have for the pressure are 12,2 ~ 0.6 GPa fran the

detonatlon velocity measurements and 14.2 * 0.4 GPa from the direct measurements. I think the most likely reason for the disagreement is that the effect

of the transverse waves has not been properly acccunted for in the theory. Figure 19 shows similm data for solid and liquid TNT. The solid can he

pressed to different densities below Its crystal density, and the specific energy remains almost constant. The 1ine at the back shows a smal1 segment of the fit to measurements for a large density range. Melting the explosive adds and

energy to it, and heating it above the melting point adds more Flmgy changes the density.

The theory can be applied as for nitranethane, and the However, the surt;fiethat fits these sets ofmeasure-

disagreement is similar.

ments is not nearly plafie,even though the .nergy change Is less than 5%. Probably the data indicate the detonation _inthe llquid and the solid arc dif. ferent, perhaps because the hot spots in the solid and the transverse waves in the liquid have different effects in the reaction zone. This concludes the introduction to detonation phenomena for scientists in other fields. I have tried t~ show that detonation is confined by t-heinertia

of the material itself, that the time scale of the chemical reactions Is long enough that it must be taken into account, and that hot spots and transverse waves are important in the process. Figure 20 Is a diagram of detonation physics, Intended to smnarize the introduction, and to help place the papers preleft and right at the top of the

sented at the meeting in perspective. N

diagram are boxes representing input of the material properties, the equation

11.

of state and the chemical rates.

Down the center fluid mectmics

is used to

flti the solutions to interesting problems for explosives with vurlous boundary and Initial conditions, leading to predictions that can be compared with experiment.

In the diagram I have tried to emphasize the effects of transverse

waves and hot spots that must be averaged some way to predict the measurable effect of the explosive. problem. Uewill

I think that Nunziato may talk about aspects of that

also hear two papers about the details of hot spots.

Input from the EOS and r boxes is not available, and fluid mechanics for laminar flow is used. The results from experiments ~re used to get equations of

state and rates that make the predictions agree with the experiments. He will hear several papers describing experiments, forms for the rates, and calibrations. The excltlng new chemistry and quantum mechanics should lead us to

ways to fill in the r box, and we will hear some papers about efforts In that direction. I expect the future to bring a lot of work in detonation chemistry.

At this meeting there are apparently no papers scneduled on the subject of equation of state, but the new work in statistical mechanics, and i.henew capabilities for static high pressure experiments will make it one of the fields of the future, too. Another subject that seems to me to be given Loo little attention at this meeting is that some kind of averaging is needed to take account of the inhcm.lgeneous reaction zone. Hot spots are certainly present in most of the solid

materials we use in shock wave physics, but usually they can be neglected because they cause only small effects. In detonation they cannot be neglected

because they are the main effect; reactio~ begins In their neighborhood, and large composition changes take place there. Until we can take account of the

Inhomogeneities, we cannot use real equations of state and real chemical rates. So far, I have been talking about scientific understanding. Another topic is practical application. Does our research have value for engineering, or

12.

are we just enjoying wrselves

by satisfying our curiosity?

Put another way,

can we get anyone to pay for the research?

It is always hard to guess what a little. A safe

new things might come from research, but we can (drapolate

explosive system is one that has all its explnsl,eparts near failure size, so that when they are initiated Intentionally tney operate well, but accidental initiation will almost always fail.

In such a system, the reaction zone is

Important, and we have to understand it to make one.

way in that direction with tl~einsensitive explosives now in use.

the failure diameter is controlled by th~ Inhomogeneities in the reaction zone, and they have to be understood if the manufacture is to be satisfactorily controlled. Any systems designed for safety will need knowledge of transients,

edge effects, and failure. The next step beyond good engineering of systems using explosive is desigrting the explosive itself.

If w could fill out the boxes of Fig. 20 iIidetail,

we wouldnt even have to make samples of the explosive molecules for testing, or experiment to find the best particle size distribution. Certainly we cant go that far very soon, but every step toward explosive design is important. Im sure the discussion sessions and the papers to be presented will provide a new view of our subject. Just {n case them is any newcomer to the

!>usinesswho feels diffident about speaking up in disagreement with the majorItywhen so many of us have been working so long with explosives, let me quote

from E. Bright Wilson, Jr.

No one can be sa obstructive of progress as the

expert who has worked all his life on a single subject.

.,

13.
. . .. ., .,. . ,. .

.,

. .

r.

14.

. ., . .,..*.!.. .
. . . .,.,

. ..

~.

...

:,

-.:,... . . . . .

.. . . . ~ Flardim;iii?i I ,, :. c)fistant- -- ..= -,. . ..C

,, .,, ~... .,

--.

+-

. . .. .,.,

.;

.-. ..-

: ..

.7.. .,-.4
. . .. . ..

,.

.7,

,::.~,-

.:..
. .

.H

:-..

.8.

/ - ,,. ,.

. ..... .-, ., ,,, ,., .....-.: .... +Sk3t@ : .,. .

Y..:U. y: ,::: ~. i -:;:::;;,::,;-{: ~ j.:,:j.

:
-

..;; :.

.. . . ., +. ,4.,

J+
A

*. ..;..

.,..... -.-i ,.. .- :/s;::;-Iy . .,, . . ,;~ - ....&. ..... w--. ,. I -#-/. # .. .. . .
.,-...,;.- .4 .-. . .. ,. .-,..! # . ..-

,.:.

:.L

..%. . .

,....,.

..

. .... ;, ,,,:

-;,. . .. ::-. . ~ : i;.

. l--{,,
..

c 2 h
q . . .

U)
. . . ..: ,..,:. -.- .: ,
.* #m

E E

I 2 c
q

- .

.. .

. .
, .

. .

S!A.
.

~ 50.8 mm

~ .

-=
mm
m

-: 25.4
. .
q

. .

i5
q

.
,

P .

c i;

05 i ~~~e

. .. (ps)

. . .. .

u? . . . . .
?

m .
-.

16.

t
. .

T
e.

17.

. . .
. .

. .

-. . k
m
q q

0+
q -a-

4 ..
. %
H.. . . . .

----
. . .-. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . ..6 ..
. . . . .. . .

#
I

. .

. . .
.. . . . .:

..
. .

.m

-.i

. .
-.

. :

.:. . .

moo

.. . . . .. . .

..

. .,. .. ..f ,..:. . ...

. mm .. .. .. .- .. . ..
. .-.. . .. . -. . . . .. . . . . ~-:~. . . .

.
. .

. . . -.7950
,. ..-:..
..:

;::..:::. . ::;!,.:.. ..>s.

.. . .

..

... - . ~~
. . ~..h?..
l.. ,.2 .-:.

# :.
. . .. ; . . .

. .. .

?41 -.:-.....*.L5. . ,. . ...

. -.:

., .

i9. ~.
.
,.,
. . ., ., .

. .

-,,
, .

...
.
..,
. . ., .,
.. .

-,.. . . .
. ,<. . . : ,. .: ~:. :
7 .

..

.,,,-,-.:, . . ..

,,

y,. by:,:.:,:
.

.-:

:,.:

,..

;,.

,7:.

. . $.
.

,... .

. .,

.
..,

. .. . .. .. &.,... .:. . {....,.,..,.. . . .. . :a, .. . .. -.. ,J.,. . ...

.. . . . . ., . ... ........ :.. ., .; :.. ,,,. ;:..,,-.. .. ,.,,:: . . .. ... . . ... . . ..: ..?., .. .,, . ,.. . . ..
,1 .,.,

,. ,.. ..: ,. . ..
:-.:

a, ,

- ,t; :-..,.,....Y. .;
. . . . ..

.
. .
.: .,-,

.. .
. .

,:.*:

,:

d.
~Y......

.> .:...
..

l&~,&@
.. . ..
. ,,

.:. .:...

... ,. -.. . ,.. : ; . ,

.:::; ::.. :;,..:. . . .

,:

.,. ..

....,,,

.,

,.
..

*+...,.,. . is!::<
.

.. .
;..
. . ...
. .

. ..

:. ., L
,-;,- :.
.
.. , ,,, .,.....

~;.:

:;

. lht4-~ .:., : . .-

... :;,..$
. . . ..m

.. ... .., . ,. . . ...

Sonicocus . . L .
,. . .

->\
,,,

.7.,, :..,:...:,.,.. ...

+.,

., .

.. .. .. .

.. .

:...:,,:

,..-

.. i,

.. .

~-.

.. .. ..

. .

....-_ --- ----- ,-, __ .-, _ .-

-- .-. .-.

.-.... .-.. -.----- ---------

-- - .

20.

. . ..-

..
.. .,

. ... ... . ... .. . . . .:.

9.0 [

~--r

,. .. .-. .. .

Ro

.. .
.

..

b~~
n
G5

.,..

\
----

-: .------

.}WXWOCM.. .. . ... . .. ., .
. .. .

. . ..

.~ .... . .- -1 . .... ,-: ..

..
. ,,

...>.:, .,.

6,0 . 55
--L ..j.. -Lp.
k

. . . .

.. ,.. : . ..: . ., . ..,, .. ... .. !.:. . ... ...

kp ...k .
..4

I
(i -.,
:1.:.?,a

. ..
0.

.;;54 . ...-.. , ,. , ,41

..

..

.. .
,,

.
.Etoram#?6 4 ._..L_:

Im
.

k
. .,.

-.

.-:

.. J,fip: .. ... .. ,. 1.. -4:. ------ l-~i;.. r.. ..., :...:...:, . .------j - :

-..,. .,. .,+.ufp. ?... .,, 4.+, !4-, .

..,..,,.;

,. ., . .

,. .,. .-

,..
-..

.
,.. .

#,:-.,:k
.,. . ...,: , .-

.. . .. . ..
,.:.

q,,,
-..

.- .,... .

.q~i+:,. . *h,

,.

..,..*.-

..

.. .?:,% ;*:J * i .. . ..,,- . . . . . . -..J.....e

.,. > .4.,.,

,. .... . . .

L..-

.-

----- - ~~

21.
.-. .

- .

-.

I/Rf

twi?p . .

F- --l

0s90

--

La6nB
. . . . ..~ .. . ---.., ---.+ -?s=7=-

~..

--z.=

A-.

--

-.

:____

-.

_,

*-

22.

#a

..

. .[ jWi?T

ML

..&JFvJEMfW~

.. --- ... -

o A/..L.WR&@l-( ..... ... ..-.km, ....-. --------------------.. . .. . . .

o ....... -. ... ... ...T- ....,

14

S . ....-.... .. -. . .
POTS Wlws
. .. . ---m

...

... .

I C4N ~--. s-.-. ---.

...

.. .

.. ...... . . . . ... .. m.. . .

25.

-. .

. . . . :, ..:

. .

..

. ..

... ..-.

..

.
-

. .

,
1

26.
~.:j-

.. . . ... . ..... . . . -. -. y . ---.,y:- .. .- , . ,..+ . .. ... .

q    

 

. .
   



 U     

..
.:.:

.-.

-.

--*

,.-

  

-1.

,.

.. .
:-. . . -. .. . . . ..: .. ----.;. . ---. . .

b.*.-. +..

.. .. .,

>

,.

ilul. .. -. .....:.... .-.

q

-.

.x

-.-.

-...
..-1

.- :

,-.. . . -.

GAhc ..-:.::: .. .

.- .::. . . .

...-

L-T . .

L 2-: .
w.. . .. :-.

#:. m:. . . w

P=l$>r)0
. ,

. -: .-. . .
~ .
.. . . . .

( -. .. ~_ .
..

.- . -t.:

+=9 D=DI
L--..- . . - .-%. -. ;;% .: %...

-:-
..

N;.- . Dm>rpo::. ., . ....

v
. .

s: : : . .. . .,. . .

.-

,3-

.. .

..

D=E>DO -.

Uf : . .. .. -... .. ,,.~ :.... y .: .2-:1 ~. .: 1 .. .,. .. .; ,; ;. ., /.

1
..k

-.

---

..

. .

..u. :+

. .

~):.~j>[) -.: . -.. . ., c .:. ... . . 1.:. . . . . .

.-.

.+ ...,- .*. . . ., ~. m.;. . . . .. ...6. ..r. . . .-; . ., .. . .. . . - .. . . . . . . . .. - .. -. .

.-1:
........ * --, . . . .. .
,. . .,. .. ,... . . .* ... . .
..w. . . . . . . . . . . .

. .. . . . .

.-.

27.
. < .-. -. . .
.

. .,.

.. .
. .,

., . ..
. .

-.

..

..

.. .

.1

.-.:.1.

...

.-

..

..

.. .-

.+1

:.

. .,..%-.-*
\ .

.,-., .
... .! . .

-k

Y:..,

#
.-. .: .-

..
.,

. .. . .

.-,

. . . ....?

-:.?=,;..

!.-..

, .:>~.. . ..+; :.

. ..... ,. . .. . .- .-l . ... . .,..:%. +. ., .. . ,.,,. . .. :.+ ,. ... . .\, !.: :. ..:. ,.*. ., -...,..:. . / .
...! .

. . . . . . . ,. , ;.-; .? if;; , . . ., ; .:. :..:, .. . -P. ul -...: %%.. ... . ... ..<? : . . .#., P:J )>, . . . . ... . :...-..,. . .,: .-.:.> .~. .,. ..) , *,*... ,

.. . ~. ....,,

> . ;:... . :. . .

. .. .

.,, .,. .:. ; , . . .. 5:,.. :..( ! ..1.. ::.* :=

. . ~.\

---- .. . .. . . .

.,

,,,

-:.., .

,, ~q .,. pm

-. .,.

:.,) . ....-.

ij .. :,;

. ..

. .

.:. ...

.,

. . .......

. -.. . . .

.-

4 ..*..,;

.-. }.-., . .. . . *.-. -.. . . .. .. ...-... ... .. . ,, .. . ~-, . . ,.. ..,3-, ... r\_ ---.. ,. . . ..

. .
,

,. . .

...1

..

. .. . .. .. . . 1,)

.. . .

-:.-%: i .:..; :..~:.:. ~. .. I..:+ . ....

. . .( ~:.~&5;:
q

Gd04 r-{.--;-. ,,... . . .,.. ,~.z~~:. .: i :. . .. . .- , .:..,+... . . . .: . . ,: ..,.}. ., .4..: g . :. :.:. . ..-. . . ., ... ... :.: . . ,., .:.... . . ... . .. ,:.,shock Led ~..::>-.. .....-;.. ... . . . .. ..... . ... . ...,. ....* ... ,.... ....,.... .. .... . . . ,.: .. ......... . =.. :.-; - . ../ ..... .. ---- ..-. . . ..,.. .... .,, . .. .. ., :..:... .:, ..... .. .- . .L .. ;:, .+:.i..:...i. . -. :. L &v~L&.m ,. -. .-. ., ... .. ... ,.;.. :. . .. ...1. *. .... . . . , +2 0.03
. ... ..~J--..:: .. . : . ~: ,, --, .,.:..,--..:,

~K. . . .
.
.. .

.
.

..

...

..
.:.

.. :. .-.
,

..

......... ...
.-, . ..

,.

..:: ::.l
1 . .

., :.. . ... .. . .. .. .
.,
. ..-

. .

. ..... .

..

. .*. . .9
14

0.01
,
,. .!

----/ . .. .. i. ,...... K .
.. .

.:.$ : ... ./ iii-= w-::.-,

. ..*..

..

.. .

..... . .

. ..
;-+

<:

~~ ~

+%..:::7%
.,,
,... ,*

.. . . .. . .

..

...

.&j!p::~i:;..w f ... ...

. .

:. * .-

.. .,:-....{ ;: :
. . .

..

.. .

,. :.

.-

:... ,...
.
..

. .
..

..,,

m. w...

...

...

.,.

.. .

-.

. .

. ..-

..-

. 1...

qq:.,~;.:t:
v..>. ? ~k .?...x

.. .,

0
..,. ,

. . ..-.. . .: :: ... .. ... . -.. : -. . ., -.... .. . .. . . . .. . ., .>.~ : !. ., ,

. . . . :., . .

.,. .....u
,. .. ,. .. . . . . . :I;a%. ..

.. . . - .-, ..:...?..

. ,, ..*::... .:. .
)..
.-.

:s,-:
,

;.
.-

f
;..

.,
...

:..

. .. .

. :

.:. :. :-..-..* ., ---. . . . .. ., ..- . . . ,. . -,. . .

. .,mw .

..

~ -. .+. =.; .:-T;.<1 . :. ... . .. , . . .. -..!. . .

.:,-:,-.

--~i..~: . .

. ..
. .

.; .... ,. ... .
. . ., .

...

..

. .. i

. ..1

.,.. .1:..

..

. ..

.,...,..

. .. :..

.. t. .
.. .

.,!~.!.:

+::.

.,

vi.

.,

. ,.,

----

.. .

. ..

, >

29.

G5a0 63@0

,8 %

L!!

.# # ,.

..

>.)

.a

Z+-(
-.-.

v-

~ . --

2+4

t 4

L!i!!!i!!ll%
.

31

Salid~Liquid

TNT

. .. .

67~0

65fm

E
6400

..

32.

. .

~c)s
.

@J-L4w43Ara ~kow

F-r :
Soww
o# s --- -, C?)JS

?fmwn

TESTS

A--