Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.

349–358, 2001

Strength of Commercial Explosives

A. N. Afanasenkov,1 L. I. Kotova,1 B. N. Kukib1 UDC 536.46

Translated from Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 115–125, May–June, 2001.
Original article submitted February 29, 2000; revision submitted July 4, 2000.

Strength is determined for mixtures of Amatol (79/21 AN/TNT) with various addi-
tives and mixtures of ammonium nitrate and aluminum of various compositions. The
results obtained and literature data are used to obtain a formula for calculating the
relative strength of commercial explosives containing two parameters — explosion
heat and volume of explosion products. The strength of mixtures of ammonium ni-
trate and aluminum (under powerful initiation leading to overcompressed detonation)
exceeds the strength of the reference explosive (Amatol) when the aluminum content
is 10–40%. In this case, maximum strength is observed for a mixture containing 30%
aluminum. The experimental results and calculations using the proposed formula are
in satisfactory agreement.

INTRODUCTION standard conditions. The strength of a HE in a partic-

ular rock is determined by the following three param-
For work performed as the general action of an ex- eters: Q, n, and pfin or Vfin (the pressure depends on
plosion (rock blasting and ground ejection), the main rock hardness). Since the absolute value of the work
parameter of a high explosive (HE) is the total work of of an explosion is difficult to determine because there
the explosion A or strength. The strength of (HE) was are no data on pfin , the total work of an explosion was
defined by A. F. Belyaev [1] as follows: “The sum of all calculated from formula (1), using tabular values of Q
modes of mechanical work of an explosion will be called and V0 or their values calculated by well-known meth-
the total work of the explosion or the total strength.” ods [1–4] and the value of n = 1.25, which is constant
The total work of an explosion is commonly calculated for all explosives. This quantity, called “the ideal work
from the formulas of an explosion” (Aid ), is given in reference literature
 V n−1 i
[4] and serves as a characteristic of the strength of HE
h
ini
A=Q 1− (1)
Vfin (Aid is necessarily included in technical specifications
or for HE).
h  p (n−1)/n i
fin It turned out that Aid < Q at all times and the
A=Q 1− , difference can reach 20–25%. Therefore, Landau and
pini
Stanyukovich [5] proposed to replace the actual expan-
where Vini and Vfin are the initial and final volumes of
sion adiabat of explosion products by two adiabats. The
explosion products, n is the polytropic exponent, pini
first is the adiabat of explosion products that issues
is the initial pressure of explosion products, pfin is the
from the Jouguet point (polytropic exponent is equal
final pressure of explosion products when they, having
to its value at the Jouguet point), and the second is
extended, accomplished the total work A, and Q is the
the adiabat of air with a polytropic exponent n = 1.4.
explosion heat.
The point of their contact corresponds to a pressure
The total work of an explosion is maximal for ex-
of ≈0.25 GPa. With the use of this proposal, a cal-
pansion of explosion products in air. In this case,
culation of the total work of an explosion gives a value
pfin = p0 and Vfin = V0 , where p0 is atmospheric pres-
practically equal to the explosion heat. For example, for
sure and V0 is the volume of explosion products under
Amatol, the technical specifications and [4] give values
1
Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics, of Aid = 850 kcal/kg and Q = 1031 kcal/kg (differing
Russian Academy of Sciences, by 18%). At the same time, a calculation using the
Chernogolovka 142432.
0010-5082/01/3703-0349 $25.00

c 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation 349
350
composite isentrope gives a value of 1010 kcal/kg; the
difference is only 2%. This means that the strength of
a HE can be characterized by its explosion heat. As a
result, we have an “energy” definition of the strength.
It was used by many experts in explosions: K. K. An-
dreev, A. F. Belayev, L. V. Dubnov, G. P. Demidyuk,
V. A. Assonov, B. D. Rossi, et al.
The notion of the strength as the work done by ex-
panding explosion products was not disputed, but, nev-
ertheless, new concepts were introduced, for example,
the efficiency of explosion of a HE, which was defined
as the ability of the explosive to perform useful modes
of work in large volumes [2]. In some cases, this notion
was used as a synonym of the strength, and, in other
cases, it was used as an independent notion which ac-
tually means nothing. For example, Polyak and Vain-
shtein [6] pointed out that in well-known methods of
estimating the strength of explosive (Trauzl charge, bal-
listic mortar, etc.), part of the strength is measured and
then used to determine the relative strength of a HE,
which in many cases does not correspond to the “prac-
tical efficiency” of the HE. The “practical efficiency” is
determined by the method of cavity formation (explo-
sions in sand or rock). Bolkhovitinov [7] pointed out
that the notion of “explosion efficiency” has no physi-
cal meaning because it includes the term “useful mode
of work,” which cannot be determined from the laws of
thermodynamics.
The same mechanical effect of an explosion can be
treated as a useful mode of work if it is adequate to
the purpose of the explosion, and it can be treated as
a useless mode of work if it is not adequate to the pur-
pose. For example, scattering of rock is undesirable in
explosive rock fragmentation but this is the purpose of
ejection explosions.
Davydov et al. [8] confused further this issue.
Without defining the notion of “HE efficiency,” they
introduced the new notion of the “universal thermody-
namic criterion of HE efficiency.” As the criterion for
HE efficiency, they took the total work of an explosion
in the form (1), where the final volume of explosion
products is replaced by the current volume, i.e., the
criterion is not a constant value but depends on the
expansion ratio of explosion products. To characterize
HE, Davydov et al. [8] propose to use the relative effi-
ciency (for specified expansion ratio) — the ratio of the
efficiency criteria for the tested and reference HE. It is
also pointed out in [8] that the criterion of HE efficiency
characterizes the inherent projection ability of HE, and
the strength of HE is only part of the criterion.
The use of aluminized HE and safety HE with ion-
exchange salts showed that the actual strength does not
agree with the strength calculated from the explosion
Afanasenkov, Kotova, Kukib
heat. At the same time, as is known from the blasting
practice, the final pressure (volume) of explosion prod-
ucts depend on the properties of the medium in which
the explosion is performed, and the total work of explo-
sion for a particular HE is not a constant value. There-
fore, the notion of the relative strength of HE (quantity
f ) has been widely used for quantitative comparison of
the action of explosions of different HE. It turned out
that for explosions of HE under identical conditions, the
quantity f does not depend on rock hardness [7]. For
HE with balance for CO2 (zero oxygen balance), the
explosion products have practically identical composi-
tions, i.e., the same exponent n. Then, the single char-
acteristic of HE is the its explosion heat (A ∼ Q). From
this condition, the quantity f is defined as the ratio of
the work done by a HE charge (A) to the work done by
the reference explosive charge of the same mass (Aref )
under the same conditions: f = A/Aref or f = Q/Qref
(Qref is the specific explosion heat for the reference HE).
The parameter called the conversion factor K is
also frequently used. If the HE charges to be com-
pared have different masses but the works of explosions
of these HE charges are identical, then A = QM =
Qref Mref and K = M/Mref = Qref /Q = 1/f , where M
and Mref are the masses of the charges of the tested and
reference HE, respectively. The parameter K for com-
mercial HE is given, e.g., in [9, 10]. The quantity Mref
was called the mass of an equivalent charge. It should
be noted that in experimental methods of determining
the strength (Kast probe, Hess probe, cavity formation,
ballistic pendulum, etc.), only part of the total work of
explosion of a HE is measured and its absolute value de-
pends on the measurement technique, whereas the rela-
tive strength of the HE practically remains unchanged.
As a result, the strength can be determined by a sin-
gle, most suitable method, and anticipated results for
the other methods can be predicted, if necessary, by
relevant correlations [11–13].
Among the experimental methods of determining
the relative strength of HE, the method of underwater
explosion is most accurate, and the method of cavity
formation (explosion in rock) is the most simple and
easily feasible but less accurate method. A review of
experimental methods is presented in [3, 14]. In the
present work, the relative strength was determined by
the second method.
There are several versions of the method of cavity
formation [15], among which the following are used most
widely.
Version 1. Charges of constant masses are exploded
at different depth: from zero to maximum depth at
which there is a camouflet (no ejection cavity). An
ejection cavity of maximum volume is determined and
Strength of Commercial Explosives
the minimum specific consumption of HE is calculated:
q = Q/Vmax . This parameter serves as a characteris-
tic of the strength of the HE. This version was imple-
mented by Mazin et al. [16]. This method turned out to
be rather labor-consuming (an excavator and bulldozer
are required for blasting). The results obtained are not
realistic and do not agree with calculated energy in-
dices Q and Aid . Amatol, 79/21 Grammonit (79% gran-
ular AN + 21% scaly-shaped TNT), granular TNT, and
Igdanit (94.5% granular AN + 5.5% diesel fuel) of bulk
density have identical strengths for explosion in sand:
q = 0.7 kg/m3 . This result can be attributed to an im-
proper choice of the ratio of the sandy basin dimensions
[hole in the ground of dimensions 5 × 5 × 2.2 m (per one
charge) filled with sand] to charge dimensions (diameter
145 mm, length 450 mm, steel-shell thickness 5–6 mm,
and mass ≈6 kg). The optimal depth of the charges
was ≈160 cm. The charges were placed vertically and
exploded from the lower butt end. The explosion was
nonspherical (directed upward). The lower boundary
of the ground is at 60 cm from the charge, and, hence,
there is a wave reflected from the hole bottom which is
also directed upward. After several explosions, the hole
walls were compacted, and in subsequent explosions of
different HE charges, the same volume of sand was ac-
tually ejected from the ground“cup.” A similar result
was obtained in tests of HE in granite rock. For HE
such as Amatol, Igdanit, a mixture of Amatol with 20%
aluminum, and water-filled TNT, the values of q are
practically identical, although the detonation velocities
and explosion heats are considerably different.
Version 2. Charges of different mass are exploded
at constant depth. The charge mass for which the vol-
ume of the ejection cavity is maximal (normal ejection
cavity) is determined. Exactly this mass serves as the
characteristic of the strength of HE. The second ver-
sion is easier to implement than the first because explo-
sions can be performed at small depth (≈50 cm), using
charges of small mass (≈0.5 kg) and doing without un-
wieldy equipment.
In recent decades, extensive use has been made
of low-sensitive commercial HE consisting of coarsely-
dispersed, water-containing mixtures (including emul-
sions) based on ammonium nitrate. Their detonation
failure diameters are mainly 100–200 mm [4]. There-
fore, most of the existing laboratory methods for de-
termining strength, which were developed for tests of
brisant individual and finely divided composite explo-
sive (ammonite and dynamites) with a small detonation
failure diameter (10–30 mm), are unsuitable for the new
commercial HE. The small dimensions and masses of
the charges used in these methods (diameter 10–40 mm
and mass 10–300 g) do not ensure normal detonation
351
of the new HE. Therefore, new testing methods were
developed for commercial HE taking into account the
large failure diameter of coarsely-dispersed simplest and
water-filled HE. For example, the following methods are
proposed to determine strength.
Method 1. Tested HE charges with a mass of
3.63 kg are exploded in 76-mm diameter pits drilled in
homogeneous rock. The strain of the rock is measured,
which serves as the criterion for explosive efficiency [17].
Method 2. Concentrated charges with a mass of
up to 4.5 kg are exploded in homogeneous hard rock
in pits of various depths. The optimal depth of the
charge (Hopt ) at which an explosion of the charge forms
a cavity of maximum volume is determined [17].
Method 3. In the method of underwater explo-
sion [18], concentrated charges (l/d = 1–2) with a mass
of 8 kg are used. (The method of underwater explosion
is recommended by the EXTEST International Study
Group for the Standardization of the Methods of Test-
ing Explosives in the NATO countries [19].)
Methods 1 and 2 are used to determine the relative
strength of HE, and method 3 is employed to obtain the
total work of explosion, which as noted in [19], must
be compared with the explosion heat calculated using
the thermodynamic method. For example, for Igdanit,
the experimental explosion energy differs from the cal-
culated value by a factor of two for a charge mass of
1 kg and only by 5% for a charge mass of 8 kg. Some
new methods are described in [20]. New computational
procedures for determining strength have also been de-
veloped. One of such methods, which does not require
experiments, is recommended in the present paper.
EXPERIMENT
In the work described here, we used the method
of cavity formation in explosion of HE charges in sand
[6]. The choice of sand is due to the homogeneity of its
physical properties over volume and absence of hardness
(blasting work can be performed without machines), the
possibility of repeated use of the same batch of sand,
and its availability and cheapness. The version of the
method developed at the Skochinskii Institute of Mining
under the supervision of B. N. Kukib [21, 22]. The
method is based on the following experimental data.
1. For various HE and various charge masses, val-
ues of Hopt [m] were measured and the dependence
of this quantity on the energy of the charge was con-
structed. It has the form Hopt = 0.2(1 + 1.2 · 10−3 E)
(E [kJ] is the energy of explosion).
352 Afanasenkov, Kotova, Kukib

TABLE 1
Relative Strength of Model Compositions

Composition M, g W , m3 f
0.45 0.765
0.453 0.845
86.5/13.5 AN/TNT 251 0.505 1.00
0.530 0.904
(0.86)
0.47 0.666
0.519 0.781
93/7 AN/TNT 336 0.521 0.664
0.529 0.676
(0.68)
0.472 0.571
0.386 0.477
96/4 AN/TNT
398 0.494 0.608
(0.553)
Fig. 1. Results of explosions in sand of reference
HE charges (calibration curve 1) and 40/60 Ama- 0.358 0.741
tol/NaCl model composition (curve 2). 0.368 0.749
80/20 Amatol/NaCl 243 0.380 0.774
0.382 0.774
2. The ejection cavity volume W was measured (0.76)
as a function of the mass and shape of the charge at 0.362 0.555
constant depth of the charge. It turned out that this 0.363 0.562
dependence is well described by the formula 60/40 Amatol/NaCl 324 0.449 0.593
0.608 0.608
W (M ) = C(M − M0 )n , (2) (0.587)
where C and n are experimental constants and M0 is the 260 0.217 0.346
mass of the HE charge at which a camouflet is observed. 390 0.312 0.359
3. The work of explosion is characterized by the 485 0.368 0.375
40/60 Amatol/NaCl
515 0.431 0.359
volume of the explosion cavity, and the relative strength 645 0.454 0.310
of the tested HE is characterized by the ratio of the mass (0.35)
of the tested HE charge to the mass of the reference
HE charge, whose explosion results in cavities of equal Note. Mean values are indicated in brackets.
volumes.
4. The relative strength of HE practically does not
depend on the mass of the charge in the range M = Figure 1 shows a graphical illustration of the
250–500 g, which is an advantage of the method because method. Curve 1 (calibration) shows results of explo-
there are no strong restrictions on the mass and depth sions of the reference HE (Amatol), and curve 2 cor-
of tested charges. responds to the tested HE — 40/60 Amatol/NaCl. In
Work was performed in the following sequence. For this case, the strength of the tested HE is lower than
the tested HE, the explosion heat was calculated, after that for ammonite.
which the mass of the charge was chosen (usually 400 g). Two series of explosions were performed. In the
From a calibration curve “energy of a charge–depth of a first series, we studied model compositions — mixtures
charge,” we determined the optimal depth of the charge of ammonium nitrate and TNT (96/4 AN/TNT, 93/7
(35–40 cm). We used a concentrated cylindrical charge AN/TNT, and 86.5/13.5 AN/TNT) and mixtures of
whose height was equal to diameter. We exploded 3– Amatol with an inert additive — sodium chloride (80/20
5 charges of the tested HE and charges of a standard Amatol/NaCl, 60/40 Amatol/NaCl, and 40/60 Ama-
HE (Amatol) of various masses. For Amatol, we con- tol/NaCl). In the second series, we studied mixtures of
structed a dependence of the form (2), into which we ammonium nitrate with aluminum (ammonales). Re-
substituted the cavity volumes obtained in explosion of sults of the first series are presented in Table 1. As
the tested HE charges and obtained the mass of the might be expected, with increase in the proportion of
equivalent charge of Amatol. The relative strength (ex- TNT in a mixture with ammonium nitrate, the strength
perimental) was determined as the ratio of the latter to of the mixture increases, and with increase in the con-
the mass of the charge. tent of the inert additive in the mixture with Amatol,
Strength of Commercial Explosives 353

TABLE 2
Some Characteristics of Model Explosive Compositions

f
Composition Q, kJ/kg V , liters/kg Q/Qref
experiment calculation
Ammonite 4305 893 1 1.00 1.00
86.5/13.5 AN/TNT 3344 924 0.777 0.86 0.83
93/7 AN/TNT 2497 951 0.580 0.68 0.67
96/4 AN/TNT 2103 964 0.488 0.553 0.59
80/20 Amatol/NaCl 3453 716 0.800 0.76 0.80
60/40 Amatol/NaCl 2589 537 0.600 0.59 0.60
40/60 Amatol/NaCl 1726 358 0.400 0.36 0.40

TABLE 3
Results of Explosions of Mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate with Aluminum Powder

Composition Charge Cavity Cavity Cavity

mass, g diameter, m depth, m volume, m3
Amatol 100 1.32 0.39 0.178
200 1.53 0.50 0.306
AN/Al 90/10
200 1.44 0.50 0.271
145 1.34 0.44 0.207
AN/Al 80/20
145 1.28 0.42 0.188
Amatol 150 1.40 0.55 0.282
AN/Al 70/30 125 1.00 0.27 0.071
AN/Al 60/40 135 0.89 0.23 0.048
Amatol 200 1.49 0.58 0.337

it decreases. The relative strength of mixtures of 80/20
Amatol/NaCl, 60/40 Amatol/NaCl, and 40/60 Ama-
tol/NaCl are 0.76, 0.59, and 0.36, respectively. Table 2
gives thermodynamic parameters of the model mixtures
and their relative strengths. As is evident, changes in
the latter correspond to changes in the explosion heat
of the HE.
In the second series of explosions, we studied mix-
tures of ammonium nitrate with aluminum with various
aluminum grain sizes (powder and dust). The charges
were fired by various initiators: No. 1 (ÉD-8PM blasting
cap), No. 2 (blasting cap + 20 g of commercial Amatol),
and No. 3 (blasting cap + 20 g of hand-made ammonite
No. 6).
We first performed experiments with mixtures of
ammonium nitrate with aluminum powder using initia-
tor No. 1. The charge density was ρ0 = 1.0 g/cm3
and diameter was 50 mm. It was assumed that alu-
minum powder would burn in the detonation wave with
release of considerable amount of energy, but this was
not the case. Results of the experiments are given in
Table 3. From the data for the reference HE (Am-
atol), we constructed a dependence of the form (2):
log W = −1.12 + 0.313 log(Mref − 85). By substitu-
tion of experimental values of W into this expression,
we obtained the mass of the equivalent charge and
then calculated the relative strength from the formula
f = Mref /M . The calculation results are presented in
Table 4, whence it follows that the strength of mixtures
of ammonium nitrate with aluminum powder decreases
with increase in the content of the powder and it is
smaller than that for Amatol. Apparently, particles of
the powder envelop grains of ammonium nitrate and
sensitize the HE composition, and the latter detonates
in a nonideal mode.
Then, experiments were carried out with mixtures
containing a coarser aluminum powder with a particle
size of 0.28–0.355 mm. The particle size of ammonium
354 Afanasenkov, Kotova, Kukib

TABLE 4 in the other. In both series, we employed a powerful

Relative Strength of Mixtures initiator — an RDX pellet with a mass of 10 g and
of Ammonium Nitrate with Aluminum Powder a density of 1.72 g/cm3 . The detonation velocities of
Mixture composition Initiator W , m3 Mref , g fexp RDX and ammonite are ≈8.5 and 4.2 km/sec, respec-
No. 1 0.288 156 0.78 tively. The charges of the mixtures had a mass of 150 g,
AN/Al 90/10 a diameter of 60 mm, and a height of 50 mm. The ex-
No. 4 0.284 169 1.13
perimental results are given in Fig. 2 and Tables 6 (for
No. 1 0.193 105 0.71 powder) and 4 (for dust). It is obvious that the strength
AN/Al 80/20
No. 4 0.333 206 1.37 of the mixtures with both aluminum powder and alu-
minum dust increased. The maximum value of 1.73 was
No. 1 0.071 86 0.69
AN/Al 70/30 obtained for a 70/30 AN/Al powder mixture of ammo-
No. 4 0.262 154 1.03 nium nitrate with aluminum powder. The effect of the
No. 1 0.048 85 0.63 initiator is explained as follows. The tested mixtures
AN/Al 60/40 have a large failure diameter and detonate under weak
No. 4 0.266 157 1.04
initiation (under experimental conditions) in a nonideal
mode, and damped detonation is also possible. As the
nitrate was 0.2–0.5 mm. Concentrated charges with a power of the initiator increases, overdriven detonation
mass of 200 g, a diameter of 60 mm, and a height of is initiated in charges of the tested mixtures. For ini-
65 mm and all three initiators were used. The exper- tiators of higher power, the intensity of overdriven det-
imental conditions and results of explosions are given onation is higher, the charge length travelled by the
in Table 5. Results of experiments with ammonite detonation is greater (for overdriven detonation there
were processed by regression analysis, and relations of is no notion of the failure diameter), and the energy of
the form (2) were obtained. For example, for experi- explosion of the mixture is higher. Obviously, with a
ments with initiator No. 1, such relations have the form proper choice of the power of an initiator and its loca-
log W = −1.04 + 0.245 log(Mref − 95). Substituting tion in a charge, overdriven detonation can propagate
the volumes of the cavities produced by explosions of over the entire charge, which leads to complete release
charges of the tested mixtures into equations of the form of energy of the mixture. The ideal case is a spheri-
(2), we obtained the mass of the equivalent ammonite cal charge with initiation at the center. The initiator
charge (see Fig. 1) and then the relative strength of the power does not influence materials with a small failure
mixtures. The results are presented in Table 6. It was diameter and high detonation ability (Amatol, rocky
established that the strength of the mixtures depend ammonite, and TNT). The results obtained show that
appreciably on the method of initiation. Thus, for initi- the use of the overdriven detonation effect (with corre-
ation of charges by initiator No. 1, a maximum strength sponding improvement of initiators) will make it possi-
of 0.7 was observed for the mixture with 30% Al; the ble to employ the method of cavity formation for new
mixtures with 10, 20, and 40% Al have about the same low-sensitive HE in explosions of in sand.
strength equal to 0.5, which is somewhat smaller than
that for mixtures of ammonium nitrate with aluminum
powder. For initiator No. 2, the character of the de- CALCULATION OF THE
pendence is different. Initially, the strength increases STRENGTH OF HE
linearly and reaches the maximum of 1.53 for a mixture
with 30% Al, and then decreases. Simultaneously with experimental studies, various
In the mixture with 40% Al, the latter does not calculated methods for determining the strength of HE
react completely: after explosion, residues of the start- have been proposed. The simplest of them is to de-
ing aluminum remain at the bottom of the cavity. The termine the strength from the explosion heat of HE
initiating ability of intermediate detonators is appar- (f = Q/Qref ) as described above. However, practice
ently determined by their detonation failure diameter has shown that for some classes of HE (compositions
dcr . For commercial ammonite, dcr ≈ 13 mm, and for based on ion-exchange salts and aluminized composi-
hand-made ammonite, dcr ≈ 18 mm, i.e., the latter det- tions) this method gives overstated values of strength.
onates in a nonideal mode. Therefore, it was proposed to take into account the vol-
To verify this assumption, we performed two addi- ume of explosion products in computational methods
tional series of experiments with a mixture of ammo- because exactly explosion products perform work in ex-
nium nitrate with aluminum powder in one series and pansion, which is always smaller than the heat of explo-
a mixture of ammonium nitrate with aluminum dust sion. A simple formula is proposed by Johansson and
Strength of Commercial Explosives 355

TABLE 5
Results of Explosions of Mixtures of Ammonium Nitrate with Aluminum Powder

Composition Initiator Explosive Cavity Cavity Cavity

density, g/cm3 diameter, m depth, m volume, m3
Ammonite (100 g)1 No. 1 1.18 1.165 0.38 0.135
AN/Al 90/10 No. 1 0.97 0.6 0.2 0.0192
AN/Al 80/20 No. 1 1.06 1.01 0.34 0.091
AN/Al 70/30 No. 1 1.08 1.275 0.54 0.230
AN/Al 60/40 No. 1 1.09 1.32 0.51 0.2333
Ammonite (150 g)1 No. 1 1.16 1.32 0.53 0.242
AN/Al 90/10 No. 2 1.00 1.33 0.47 0.218
AN/Al 80/20 No. 2 1.03 1.45 0.54 0.297
AN/Al 70/30 No. 2 1.12 1.59 0.52 0.344
AN/Al 60/40 No. 2 1.12 1.535 0.51 0.3153
Ammonite (200 g)1 No. 1 1.12 1.47 0.505 0.286
AN/Al 90/10 No. 3 1.03 1.17 0.41 0.147
AN/Al 80/20 No. 3 1.04 1.33 0.46 0.213
AN/Al 70/30 No. 3 1.14 1.42 0.46 0.243
AN/Al 60/40 No. 3 1.14 1.54 0.48 0.2983
Ammonite (250)1 No. 1 1.13 1.55 0.495 0.311

Notes. 1) Mass of ammonite charges; 2) incomplete explosion, apparently, the blasting cap has partly dropped out from
the charge; 3) after explosion at the bottom of the cavities residual Al was observed.

Langefors [23]: count the nonideal nature of detonation, contains det-

f = (5Q/Qref + V /Vref )/6. (3)
Here V and Vref are the volumes of explosion products
of the tested and reference HE.
It is obvious that the contribution of the volume
of explosion products to the relative strength is about
17%. Polyak and Vainshtein [6], using the method of
correlation analysis of results of explosions of about
twenty HE in coal and sand, established that the work of
explosion is most strongly affected by the explosion heat
of the HE (correlation factor 0.92) and, to a lesser ex-
tent, it is influenced by the volume of explosion products
(correlation factor 0.897), and the detonation velocity
practically does not influence results of explosions (cor-
relation factor 0.445). This result is presented as the
formula [11]
A = (0.68 · 10−3 )Q0.77 V00.23 β 0.47 ,
p (4)
β = D/0.069 Q.
However, for calculation of strength, this formula is un-
suitable because the coefficient β, which takes into ac-
onation velocity D, which should be measured experi-
mentally (here V0 and V are identical).
We performed a similar analysis of the data in Ta-
ble 1 and the data of [6] on the strength for ammonites.
The experimental parameter — detonation velocity —
is excluded from consideration.
Processing of experimental data showed that the
volume of the cavity produced by an explosion and,
hence, the work of the explosion are determined by the
expression A ∼ W ∼ (Q − 140α)0.75 V00.25 , where α is
the mass fraction of an inert additive. In the absence
of such an additive, A ∼ Q0.75 V00.25 , and then from the
definition f = A/Aref , we have the formula
 Q 0.75  V 0.25  Q 0.75  V 0.25
f= = . (5)
Qref Vref 1031 893
Here the reference HE is Amatol. This formula was first
given in [24].
Values of the relative strength of HE calculated
from the simplified formula f = Q/Qref , Langefors for-
mula (3), and formula (5) for commercial HE are pre-
sented in Tables 7 and 8. Strengths for foreign explosive
356 Afanasenkov, Kotova, Kukib

TABLE 6 sic thermodynamic parameters (heat and volume of

Relative Strength of Mixtures explosion gases) are quite adequate for calculating the
of Ammonium Nitrate with Aluminum Powder relative strength of commercial HE. The last column of
Table 2 gives values of f calculated from formula (5).
Composition Initiator W , m3 Mref , g fexp
As can be seen, there is fairly good agreement with ex-
No. 1 0.019 95 0.486 periment.
No. 2 0.218 111 0.553 For AN/Al mixtures, calculations of f do not in-
AN/Al 90/10 No. 3 0.147 82 0.411
No. 4 0.302 195 1.30 volve difficulties but it is unclear what values of Q
and V0 should be taken. The fact is that AN can de-
No. 1 0.091 96 0.48
No. 2 0.297 201 1.00
compose in a detonation wave by different mechanisms
AN/Al 80/20 No. 3 0.213 77 0.383 with evolution of both NO and O2 , and aluminum can
No. 4 0.332 223 1.49 oxidize both to Al2 O3 with heat release and to AlO
No. 1 0.230 139 0.700 and Al2 O with heat absorption. Thermodynamic cal-
No. 2 0.344 305 1.523 culations and experiments showed that the addition of
AN/Al 70/30 No. 3 0.243 130 0.652 aluminum to compositions with small positive and neg-
No. 4 0.368 260 1.73 ative oxygen balance does not lead to an increase in
No. 1 0.233 97 0.484 detonation velocity and brisance of the composition. In
No. 2 0.315 235 1.176 this case, the results are practically identical both un-
AN/Al 60/40 No. 3 0.298 203 1.013
No. 4 0.303 195 1.3
der the assumption of total aluminum combustion and
under the assumption that the aluminum is an inert
additive. Therefore, by way of illustration, results of
calculations of strength for the indicated mixtures are
given for just one case: AN decomposes by the equa-
tion NH4 NO3 → 2H2 O + N2 + 0.5O2 , which is generally
agreed for high temperatures, and aluminum is oxidized
to Al2 O3 , first with oxygen and then with water. The
calculation was carried out using formula (5).
Calculated and experimental strengths for AN/Al
mixtures are given in Fig. 2. As can be seen, they are
in satisfactory agreement. But the calculation data are
somewhat below the experimental values at a concen-
tration of aluminum powder of 10–30%; the absolute
difference is 15% on the average, which does not exceed
the experimental error. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the
addition 30–40% of aluminum dust is less effective than
the addition of the same quantity of aluminum powder:
the strength of mixtures with the dust is more than 1.5
times lower than that of mixtures with the powder.
Thus, formula (5) is also quite suitable for calcu-
Fig. 2. Relative strength of mixtures of ammonium ni- lating the relative strength of explosive compositions
trate with aluminum: the curve refers to calculations
using formula (5) and points refer to experiment. containing aluminum, such as AN-4 and AN-8 Gran-
ulits from Table 8 and compositions N31R, N135, and
Gel No. 2 from Table 7. As can be seen, the maxi-
compositions calculated from the values of Q and V0 and mum calculated strength corresponds to an aluminum
reported in [13] are given in Table 7 and strength for content of 40% and the experimental strength corre-
domestic HE are listed in Table 8. For both foreign sponds to 30%. [Calculations using the simplified for-
and domestic explosives, the results of calculations us- mula give very high values for the relative strengths
ing the Langefors formula and formula (5) are in good of the mixtures (f = 2.25) for an aluminum content of
agreement. 40%.] Figure 2 shows the experimental value of f = 0.47
For f < 1, the simplified formula f = Q/Qref gives for pure ammonium nitrate obtained in [25] for the ex-
understated values compared to formulas (3) and (5), plosion of an ammonium nitrate charge with a mass of
and for f > 1, it gives overstated values. We believe 32,000 kg. We note that Men’shikov et al. [26] deter-
that formulas (3) and (5), which contain only two ba- mined the explosion heats for mixtures of ammonium
Strength of Commercial Explosives 357

TABLE 7 TABLE 8
Relative Strength of Foreign Commercial Explosives Relative Strength of Domestic Commercial Explosives

Relative Relative
strength of HE strength of HE
HE HE
Q/Qref on Eq. (3) on Eq. (5) Q/Qref on Eq. (3) on Eq. (5)
Sufranex 1.35 1.28 1.22 50/50 AN/TNT 0.841 0.875 0.887
Gomme F15 0.96 0.97 0.97 30/70 AN/TNT 0.883 0.895 0.901
Minex F13S 0.79 0.84 0.86 Granular TNT 0.970 0.947 0.933
N40R 0.86 0.89 0.91 GLT-20 0.866 0.895 0.906
N31R 1.13 1.10 1.08 AN-4 Granulit 0.918 0.938 0.946
NF4 0.80 0.85 0.87 AN-8 Granulit 0.980 0.982 0.982
N135 0.98 0.99 1.00 Ipkonit 0.936 0.947 0.952
Gelsurite 2000 1.04 1.00 0.97 Igdanit 0.894 0.926 0.939
Gelsurite E1 0.63 0.70 0.71 GL-10V Karbatol 1.130 1.100 1.083
Hydrolit AP 0.72 0.76 0.78 Porémit-1 0.708 0.761 0.777
Iremite 110 1.19 1.09 1.02 AN 0.368 0.49 0.484
Gel No. 2 1.09 1.07 1.07
Notes. GLT-20: 72% (by mass) AN, 20% granular TNT,
Tolite 0.87 0.83 0.80 and 8% water and a thickening and structuring agents; AN-
4 (AN-8) Granulit: 91.8% (89%) granular AN, 4% (8%) Al
Pla–NP powder, and 4.2% (3%) mineral oil; Ipkonit: 75.1% AN,
(plastic with 1.05 1.01 0.99 1.6% liquid mineral oil, 8% Al powder, 13.8% water, and
91% PETN) 1.5% a thickening agent; GL-10V Karbatol: 15% Al pow-
der, 61% AN, 10% granular TNT, 4% water, and 10% car-
bamide; Porémit-1: 67% AN, 14% potassium nitrate or
nitrate with aluminum in a Dolgov bomb. It was es- sodium nitrate, 2% emulsifying agent (tall oil), 5% fuel oil,
tablished that the maximum explosion heat equal to 12% water, and 2% gas-generating additive (30% water so-
1700 kcal/kg (water in the liquid state) is released in lution of sodium nitrite).
the explosion of the mixture containing 30% Al. At
the same time, calculations give the maximum explo- of strength for mixtures containing 0–10% Al, in order
sion heat (2330 kcal/kg) at 40% Al. to establish the oxidation mechanism of aluminum in a
detonation wave and to develop an improved method
for calculating detonation parameters and strengths for
modern aluminized commercial explosives containing
CONCLUSIONS 4–8% Al.
A method is proposed to determine the strength
from cavity formation in sand for coarsely-dispersed
HE working in the overdriven detonation mode. A REFERENCES
formula for calculating the relative strength of com-
1. A. F. Belyaev, “Total work of explosion,” in: Physics of
mercial explosives is obtained. It contains only two
Explosion [in Russian], No. 2, Izd. Akad. Nauk SSSR,
thermodynamic parameters — explosion heat and vol-
Moscow (1953), p. 27.
ume of explosion products — which are easy to cal- 2. K. K. Andreev and A. F. Belyaev, Theory of Explosives
culate without using test data. Nor does the formula [in Russian], Oborongiz, Moscow (1960).
contain an experimental parameter such as the det- 3. L. V. Dubnov, N. S. Bakharevich, A. I. Romanov, Com-
onation velocity (it can be calculated
√ from the for- mercial Explosives [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1988).
mula D = 2.641 + 3.231ρ0 · 10−3 QV , which con- 4. List of Recommended Commercial Blasting Agents and
tains the same two parameters: heat and volume of Devices of Blasting and Control [in Russian] Nedra,
explosion gases). Calculations and experiments show Moscow (1987).
that the strength of AN/Al mixtures can be 1.5 times 5. L. D. Landau and K. P. Stanyukovich, “Detonation
higher than the strength of Amatol. Further investi- of condensed explosives,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 46,
gation should be aimed at experimental determination No. 9, 399 (1945).
358
6. G. A. Polyak and B. I. Vainshtein, “Choice of a method
for estimating the strength of safety HE,” Vzryvnoe
Delo, No. 72/29, 210–213 (1973).
7. L. G. Bolkhovitinov, “Strength of explosives,” Vzryvnoe
Delo, No.74/31, 92–96 (1974).
8. V. Yu. Davydov, L. V. Dubnov, and A. M. Grishkin,
“Universal thermodynamic criterion for the efficiency of
an explosive,” Fiz. Goreniya Vzryva, 28, No. 4, 102–
107 (1992).
9. Normative Handbook on Drilling-and-Blasting Work [in
Russian], Nedra, Moscow (1986).
10. B. N. Kutuzov, Blasting [in Russian], Nedra, Moscow
(1988).
11. B. I. Vainshtein, K. S. Chernov, and M. K. Pesotskii,
“Analysis of methods for determining the strength of
HE,” Vzryvnoe Delo, No. 84/41, 75–83 (1982).
12. G. A. Avakyan, L. V. Dubnov, A. A. Mel’nikov, and
Yu. M. Kim, “Experimental and computational meth-
ods for estimating the strength (fugacity) of explosives,”
Vzryvnoe Delo, No. 80/37, 22–29 (1978).
13. J.-P. Blanc and R. L. Thiard, “L’energie des explosifs,”
Explosifs, 37, No. 1, 97–110 (1984).
14. M. A. Cook, The Science of High Explosives, Reinhold,
New York (1958).
15. G. P. Demidyuk, “Methods for estimating the explosive
properties of simple HE,” Vzryvnoe Delo, No. 74/31,
119–133 (1974).
16. M. Yu. Mazin, Yu. M. Litvinov, V. G. Khromov, and
K. K. Shvedov, “Method for determining the strength
of explosives,” in: Methods of Testing Low-Sensitive HE
[in Russian], Joint Inst. of Chem. Phys., USSR Acad. of
Sci., Chernogolovka (1991), pp. 109–129.
Afanasenkov, Kotova, Kukib
17. N. V. Mel’nikov (ed.), Technique of Unclosed Mining
Abroad [in Russian], Gosgortekhizdat, Moscow (1962).
18. G. Bjarnholt, “Suggestions on standard for measure-
ment and data evaluation in the underwater explosion
test,” Propel. Explos., 5, Nos. 2/3, 67–74 (1980).
19. “Extest international study group for the standardiza-
tion of the methods of testing explosives,” ibid., pp. 23–
29.
20. Methods of Testing Low-Sensitive HE (collected papers)
[in Russian], Joint Inst. of Chem. Phys., USSR Acad. of
Sci., Chernogolovka (1991).
21. G. A. Polyak, S. P. Levchik, and B. N. Kukib, “Estimat-
ing the efficiency of safety HE from results of explosions
in sand,” Vzryvnoe Delo, No. 68/25, 111–115 (1970).
22. B. N. Kukib, V. B. Ioffe, and V. E. Aleksandrov, “Esti-
mating the strength of HE from results of explosions in
sand,” Vzryvnoe Delo, No. 84/41, 83–87 (1982).
23. C. H. Johansson and U. Langefors, “Methods of physi-
cal characterization of explosives,” in: Proc. of the 36th
Int. Congress on Commercial Chemistry, Vol. III, Brus-
sel (1972), p. 610.
24. A. N. Afanasenkov, L. I. Kotova, and B. N. Kukib,
“Strength of commercial HE,” in: Detonation, Proc.
X Symp. on Combustion and Explosion, Joint Inst.
of Chem. Phys., USSR Acad. of Sci., Chernogolovka
(1992), pp. 34–35.
25. L. G. Bolkhovitinov and L. M. Pernik, “Use of a binary
mixture of AN and diesel fuel in large-scale explosions,”
Énerg. Stroit., No. 7, 42–45 (1991).
26. B. A. Men’shikov, B. N. Kukib, and V. B. Ioffe, “Ex-
plosion heats for mixtures of ammonium nitrate and
aluminum,” in: Scientific Communications [in Rus-
sian], No. 68, Skochinskii Institute of Mining (1969),
pp. 77–87.