Advertisement

Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 116, Issue 1, pp 205–214 | Cite as

Storage lifetime management and thermal hazard assessment of thermally reactive material

  • Shih-Wen Liao
  • Chu-Chin Hsieh
  • Kuo-Yi Li
  • Shu-Yao Tsai
  • Jo-Ming Tseng
  • Jin-Shuh Li
  • Chun-Ping Lin
Article

Abstract

This is a novel idea: replacing highly dangerous and complex testing of solid thermally reactive materials through smart technology. We investigated the prediction of the storage lifetime and the thermal impact of thermally reactive material by different thermal analysis models: differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) for non-isothermal tests versus DSC isothermal tests. Two kinds of kinetic models were compared for evaluating appropriate kinetic parameters of thermal decomposition, and then the thermal hazard parameters were estimated by cartridge package simulation, which could result in reliable thermal hazard properties of a thermal reactive material’s thermal decomposition. We also determined the unsafe characteristics of a thermally reactive material stored in a depot under lifetime, so as to prevent runaway reactions that induce incidents by heat attack during storage. We were interested in an effective and smart analysis technology to reduce energy consumption of the dangerous testing. There are also calls for a smart testing technology which is the achieved object here for reducing energy consumption and avoiding runaway reaction disaster of thermally reactive materials.

Keywords

Simulation storage lifetime Thermally reactive material Thermal hazard Unsafe characteristic Smart testing technology 

List of symbols

CP

Specific heat capacity (J g−1 K−1)

CT

Control temperature (°C)

Ea

Activation energy (kJ mol−1)

E1

Activation energy of the 1st stage (kJ mol−1)

E2

Activation energy of the 2nd stage (kJ mol−1)

ET

Emergency temperature (°C)

fi

Kinetic functions of the ith stage; i = 1, 2, 3

f(α)

Kinetic functions

k0

Pre-exponential factor (m3 mol−1 s−1)

ki

Reaction rate constant (mol L−1 s−1) i = 1, 2

n

Reaction order or unit outer normal on the boundary, dimensionless

NC

Number of components, dimensionless

ni

Reaction order of the ith stage, dimensionless i = 1, 2, 3

Qi

Specific heat effect of a reaction (J kg−1)

q

Heat flow (J g−1)

R

Gas constant (8.31415 J K−1 mol−1)

ri

Reaction rate of the ith stage (g sec−1) i = 1, 2, 3, 4

S

Heat-exchange surface (m 2)

SADT

Self-accelerating decomposition temperature (°C)

T

Absolute temperature (K)

T0

Exothermic onset temperature (°C)

TCL

Time to conversion limit (year)

TCR

Critical temperature (°C)

TER

Total energy release (kJ kg−1)

Te

Ambient temperature (°C)

TMRiso

Time to maximum rate under isothermal conditions (day)

Twall

Temperature on the wall (°C)

t

Time (sec)

W

Heat power (W g−1)

z

Autocatalytic constant, dimensionless

α

Degree of conversion, dimensionless

γ

Degree of conversion, dimensionless

ρ

Density (kg m−3)

λ

Heat conductivity (W m−1 K−1)

χ

Heat transfer coefficient (W m−2 K−1)

∆Hd

Heat of decomposition (kJ kg−1)

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the donors of Asia University in Taiwan under the contract number 101-asia-44 for financial support. The authors are grateful to the National Defense University of ROC in Taiwan.

References

  1. 1.
    Merrifield R, Moreton PA. An examination of the major-accident record for explosives manufacturing and storage in the UK. J Hazard Mater. 1998;A63:107–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Department of Defense, USA, DoD 6055.9, Ammunition and explosives safety standards. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, 2004.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Department of Defense, USA, Ammunition and explosives safety standards (DoD 6055.9-STD). Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin CP, Shu CM. A comparison of thermal decomposition energy and nitrogen content of nitrocellulose in non-fat process of DSC and EA. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2009;95(2):547–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin CP, Chang YM, Gupta JP, Shu CM. Comparisons of TGA and DSC approaches to evaluate nitrocellulose thermal degradation energy and stabilizer efficiencies. Process Saf Environ. 2010;88:413–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chu YC, Tsai FC, Chen WT, Tsai LC, Shu CM, Lin CP. Thermal stability determination, anti-biodegradation, and thermal degradation of nitrocellulose with various nitrogen content by DSC and FT-IR. Adv Mater Res. 2011;189–193:1417–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhou XQ, Hao H. Prediction of airblast loads on structures behind a protective barrier. Int J Impact Eng. 2008;35:363–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Military Agency for Standardization, Stability test procedures and requirements for propellants stabilized with diphenylamine, ethyl centralite or mixtures of both (STANAG No. 4117 2nd Ed.). North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1973.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lindblom T. Reactions in the system nitro-cellulose/diphenylamine with special reference to the formation of a stabilizing product bonded to nitro-cellulose. Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Science and Technology, 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Military Agency for Standardization, Explosives: Vacuum stability test (STANAG No. 4556 1st Ed.), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baytos JF. Vacuum thermal stability of explosives monitored electronically. Los Alamos: Los Alamos National Laboratory Research; 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chovancová M, Zeman S. Study of initiation reactivity of some plastic explosives by vacuum stability test and non-isothermal differential thermal analysis. Thermochim Acta. 2007;460:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martina C, Svatopluk Z. Study of initiation reactivity of some plastic explosives by vacuum stability test and non-isothermal differential thermal analysis. Thermochim Acta. 2007;460:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    United Nations. Globally harmonized system of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS). 3rd ed. New York: United Nations; 2009.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williams, Matei MV. The decomposition of some RDX and HMX based materials in the one-dimensional time to explosion apparatus. Part 2. Estimating the violence of the cook-off event. Propell Explo Pyrotech. 2007;32(1):7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tran TD, Simpson LR, Maienschein J, Tarver C. Thermal decomposition of trinitrotoluene (TNT) with a one-dimensional time to explosion (ODTX) apparatus. 32nd Int. Annual Conference of ICT, Karlsruhe, Germany, July 3–6, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin CP, Chang CP, Chou YC, Chu YC, Shu CM. Modeling solid thermal explosion containment on reactor HNIW and HMX. J Hazard Mater. 2010;176:549–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tseng JM, Lin CP. Green thermal analysis technology for evaluating the thermal hazard of di-tert-butyl peroxide. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2011;50(16):9487–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lin CP, Tseng JM. Green testing technology for improving process manufacturing design and storage management of organic peroxide. Chem Eng J. 2012;180:284–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tseng JM, Lin JZ, Lee CC, Lin CP. Prediction TMCH thermal hazard with various calorimetric tests by green thermal analysis technology. AIChE J. 2012;58(12):3792–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin CP, Chang YM, Tseng JM, Shu CM. Comparisons of nth order kinetic algorithms and kinetic model simulation on HMX by DSC tests. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2010;100(2):607–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin CP, Tseng JM, Chang YM, Liu SH, Shu CM. Modeling liquid thermal explosion reactor containing tert–butyl peroxybenzoate. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2010;102:587–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tseng JM, Lin CP. Prediction of incompatible reaction of dibenzoyl peroxide by isothermal calorimetry analysis and green thermal analysis technology. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;107:927–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tseng JM, Hsieh TF, Chang YM, Yang YC, Chen LY, Lin CP. Prediction of thermal hazard of liquid organic peroxides by non-isothermal and isothermal kinetic model of DSC tests. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;109:1095–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    United Nations. European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by road (ADR). New York: United Nations; 2009.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    United Nations. Recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods, model regulations. 16th ed. New York: United Nations; 2009.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    TAM III Thermostat, Product information, 2011. Available at: www.tainstruments.com.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shih-Wen Liao
    • 1
  • Chu-Chin Hsieh
    • 1
  • Kuo-Yi Li
    • 3
  • Shu-Yao Tsai
    • 5
    • 6
  • Jo-Ming Tseng
    • 2
  • Jin-Shuh Li
    • 4
  • Chun-Ping Lin
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Safety, Health, and Environmental EngineeringNational Yunlin University of Science and TechnologyDouliouTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Institute of Safety and Disaster Prevention TechnologyCentral Taiwan University of Science and TechnologyTaichungTaiwan, ROC
  3. 3.Department of Industrial Engineering and ManagementNational Chin-Yi University of TechnologyTaichungTaiwan, ROC
  4. 4.Department of Chemical and Materials EngineeringNational Defense UniversityDasiTaiwan, ROC
  5. 5.Department of Health and Nutrition BiotechnologyAsia UniversityTaichungTaiwan, ROC
  6. 6.Department of Occupational Safety and HealthChina Medical UniversityTaichungTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations