Blast Protection for UXO Operations Including Demining

Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction

Volume 9 Issue 2 The Journal of Mine Action Article 52

February 2006

Glenn Miles Lockheed Martin UK INSYS Ltd.

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal

Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, Emergency and Disaster Management Commons, Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons, and the Peace and Conflict Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Miles, Glenn (2006) "Blast Protection for UXO Operations Including Demining," Journal of Mine Action : Vol. 9 : Iss. 2 , Article 52. Available at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol9/iss2/52

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for International Stabilization and Recovery at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction by an authorized editor of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Miles: Blast Protection for UXO Operations Including Demining

Table 3: Success scores and number of false positive indications of the rats in the five test boxes.

False positives False positives S+B+s+b/ Blast Boxes tested (area) Success score S+B/100m2 100m2 Johan A – C – E (265sq m) 9/16 = 56.3% 0.75% 0.75% Protection Jullie B – C – D – E (362.5sq m) 15/20 = 75.0% 0.28% 3.00% for UXO Operations Including Demining Josse B – C – E (262.5sq m) 10/16 = 62.5% 1.14% 1.53% by Glenn Miles [ Lockheed Martin UK INSYS Ltd. ] Gilgamesh A (65sq m) No mines 0.00% 1.54%

Lothar A – D (165sq m) 4/4 = 100% 2.42% 3.64% Mines, UXO and improvised explosive devices To protect the safety of those working to defuse mines and UXO, are explosive hazards that have proliferated for Respect B (67.5sq m) No mines 0.00% 0.00% many decades. In a post-conflict scenario, these the mine action community spends considerable time and effort on Sargon D (100sq m) 0/4 = 0.0% 1.00% 1.00% are sometimes known collectively as explosive remnants of war.1 While global initiatives have limited the spread of certain types of devices research and development of protective equipment and neutraliza- were indicated by the rats (87 percent), while other items scored less frequently (frag- (especially anti-personnel mines), a considerable The mine-detection rat is harnessed and linked to the search line. Two tion products that mitigate the effects of explosions. The author ments = 53 percent, bullets = 33 percent). leashes are connected to the glider to allow manipulation of the animal’s problem still exists and will continue for many With the exception of Sargon, all rats scored relatively well (mean = 63.3 percent) position in the box from the safe lanes. years to come. with very few false positive indications (mean < 0.8 indications per 100 square metres Even where loss of life is avoided, remediation introduces a new technology in the form of a wrapping material [120 square yards] for the major markings S+B and 1.6 for all markings S+B+s+b). activities such as soil and water decontamination It should be noted that many of the false positive indications given by different rats and the replacement of habitation and infrastruc- that could be used in everything from safe transportation of explo- were clustered, which might indicate an explosives-contaminated spot. ture are subjected to unnecessary risk, delay and Although the individual success score might seem low, the overall score on the C, additional costs due to the presence (suspected or sives to blast-resistant garbage bins. Inspired by some good experi- D and E boxes (those containing mines) was 100 percent after three rats evaluated actual) of ERW. a box (see Figure 5). Technologies for the detection of explosive blast hazards are numerous and range from rakes ences, Lockheed Martin UK INSYS Ltd. has had with a particular Figure 5: Mean success score of the sequence of three rats that tested the to multi-spectral sensor arrays on autonomous ve- five boxes. hicles. Technologies for the protection of structures, blast mitigation product, this article has been written to expand on materiel and personnel from blast are considerably less numerous. For such technologies to be attrac- these experiences into an important area, namely the management tive they must be simple-to-use, quick-to-deploy and fulfill several key functions: of unexploded ordnance. • Serve as a means to mitigate the blast from a single explosive hazard in situ • Provide blast mitigation for a storage area for Figure 1: BlastWrap. explosive hazards • Protect materiel, buildings and their occu- pants in areas close to the site of the explosive hazard or an explosive hazard storage area In order to fulfill these functions, any workable solution must have the following essential characteristics: • Flexibility and ease of use • Low cost ALL PHOTOS BY GLEN MILES. • High, scalable performance The mean time for a rat to inspect a box was 32 minutes/100 square metres (120 • Low density square yards), so when a box was inspected by three rats, this was done in 96 min- • Very low environmental impact utes. When we include handling and exchanging animals, the total average time to • Longevity evaluate one 100-square-metre box (120 square yards) was about 116 minutes. Here, we show that BlastWrapTM performs excep- tionally well against these parameters. Conclusions The test area was a very dense minefield with 20 mines within an area of less than BlastWrap Introduction 30 square metres (36 square yards). Besides the mines, the area was highly contami- BlastWrap is a generic blast-mitigation technology nated with all kinds of war materials (bullets, detonator pins, mine fragments, etc.), product based on a combination of a compressible which were also often indicated by the animals, especially the detonator pins. After mineral and a flame-quenching salt.2 This mixture three rats evaluated a box, all mines present in that box were scored. is commonly encapsulated within a semi-continuous The construction of risk maps based on the indications of the animals seems to be panel made from two layers of formed thermoplastic a very useful tool as 95 percent of the mines were found in the highest calculated risk comprising a uniform array of sealed compartments. area and the other mine in the second highest risk area. Using this method, more than The result is an adaptable and robust blast-mitigating 80 percent of the total area evaluated by the rats could be declared free of mines. wrapping constructed from lightweight, inexpensive See “References and Endnotes,” page 108 materials (see Figure 1).

100 | research and development | journal of mine action | 2006 | february | 9.2 Published by JMU Scholarly Commons, 2006 9.2 | february | 2006 | journal of mine action | research and development | 1011 Journal of Conventional Weapons Destruction, Vol. 9, Iss. 2 [2006], Art. 52 BlastWrap has been used to mitigate against blast in a variety of applications. Military Munitions Safety Figure 2: BlastWrap litterbin data summary. Figure by Glen Miles. applications have focused on accident prevention in storage and during transport. Work The prevention of sympathetic detonation be- has recently demonstrated the effectiveness of BlastWrap to prevent sympathetic detona- tween artillery shells by BlastWrap suggests a consid- tion between artillery shells, and work is currently underway to design a BlastWrap retrofit erable capacity to transmute blast-wave energy over container for large-calibre ammunition.3 In the oil and gas industries, BlastWrap has been very short distances (see Figure 3). This is borne out proven to prevent blast damage to oil pipelines.4 Civil-sector applications have focused on by the measurement taken from the litterbin trials developing blast-proof litterbins (such as the BlastGard MTR range of trash receptacles5) (see Figure 2). The reduction in blast-wave energy has and on the protection of buildings within Iraq.6 two benefits. First, it reduces the range of lethality of BlastWrap’s pedigree is predicated on its appliqué nature, such that existing structures the blast. Second, it reduces the likelihood and extent can be transformed into blast-resistant structures via retrofit. of secondary reactions of nearby explosive devices. Table 1 describes how BlastWrap fares in terms of the essential characteristics listed above. Hence the same function can be used in dividing walls within magazines or other explosives storage areas to Civilian Safety reduce sympathetic or secondary reaction, as well as The development of the MTR litterbin has generated a performance curve for BlastWrap. around the periphery of the storage area to reduce the The data is summarised in Figure 2. It is conceived that such a device might find use in the effect of any explosion on the surrounding area. Dr. Glenn Miles was educated at transport and storage of ERW. Leeds and Cranfield Universities and UXO Operations with BlastWrap studied energetic materials at the EOD Safety The operational view of handling ERW is drawn Royal Military College of Science to A temporary three-man shelter for protection of explosive ordnance disposal personnel down into distinct phases, from planning through obtain a Ph.D. His first job was at the Atomic Weapons Establishment in reconnaissance and identification to render safe and has been proposed. This structure is designed to be positioned as near as 100 feet from a the United Kingdom, where his re- 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) device. The shelter has the capability to prevent fragment disposal operations. Removal and storage of ERW is sponsibilities included all of the me- penetration and eliminate lethal overpressure within the survival area. The possibilities for also an option. To perform these functions, certain chanical testing of polymer-bonded EOD usage have subsequently been extended (see below). physical processes must be performed: explosives. He moved to Hunting • Establishment and maintenance of safe areas Engineering Ltd. (now Lockheed Building Protection • Establishment and maintenance of demolition Martin UK INSYS Ltd.) in 2000. Two diverging approaches can be taken when protecting buildings. The most effective and/or storage areas • An ERW location marker that has blast-sup- Figure 3: LM UK INSYS testing of BlastWrap with pressing properties, particularly useful for artillery shells. Dr. Glenn Miles is to provide a barrier between the building and the source of the blast. The effect of the • Provision and maintenance of the associated Lockheed Martin UK INSYS Ltd. blast on the building is minimised. Alternatively, blast mitigation that is light and flexible logistical chain managing multiple ERW in close proximity Reddings Wood enough to be used inside the building can be used to reduce the invasiveness of the blast • Provision and management of the requisite per- • A mitigant to minimise the damage to equip- Ampthill, Bedford wave. Although this approach is more discreet and controllable, it still leaves the struc- sonnel and equipment ment resulting from an explosion during MK45 2HD / United Kingdom ture vulnerable to damage that may lead to partial or complete collapse of the building, • Break-down and close-out procedures demining Tel: +44 1525 843 249 depending on the situation. With this in mind, BlastWrap is considered to be part of a The objective of BlastWrap deployment is to pro- • A blast tent to protect the surroundings during E-mail: [email protected] Web site: http://www.insys-ltd.co.uk necessarily more complex solution. This type of application has been proposed for use in vide a portable blast barrier solution that is capable of render-safe operations. Iraq to protect buildings associated with infrastructure. considerable service life and operation in the widest • A semi-permanent blast shield to protect safe possible operational situations. These might include areas and buildings where an explosive event is possible Table 1: The characteristics of BlastWrap.7 • A lagging layer to transform a normal building into a safe explosive device storage area • A sacrificial blast-damping device to the impact Essential Characteristics Description of noise and flash associated with the neutrali- The core technology is a granular material that can be used to fill any sation of ERW • Packaging for stored explosive devices void and so conforms to any shape. An example is illustrated in Figure 4. This trial is Flexibility and ease of use associated with the characterisation of the MTR lit- The standard product (see Figure 1) can easily create flat and terbin. It is conceived that a similar approach can be cylindrical barriers. used mitigate the effects of an IED on the surroundings where there is a damage issue, e.g., in a built- up area, in a multi-story building, in the vicinity of a Raw material costs are quoted as $16 (U.S.) per square foot for a treasured landmark or building. Low cost See “References and Endnotes,” page 108 1-inch-thick layer (�140 per square meter for a 25-mm-thick layer) Figure 4: Explosive trial of BlastWrap-lined container (courtesy of BlastGard International) Reduction of overpressure of 50 percent or more has been demon- High, scalable performance strated. Multiple layers can be used for large explosive devices or stores.

A 1-inch (25-mm) layer has an areal density of 0.6 lbs per square feet Low density (3 kilograms per square meter). Very low environmental impact Materials are non-toxic, as are the combustion products.

Longevity Will retain performance for more than 20 years.

https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cisr-journal/vol9/iss2/52102 | research and development | journal of mine action | 2006 | february | 9.2 9.2 | february | 2006 | journal of mine action | research and development | 103 2 Geneva Diary: Report From the GIcHD, Mansfield[ from page 82 ] endnotes 1. “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.” Ottawa, Canada. Sept. 18, 1997. http://www.un.org/Depts/mine/UNDocs/ban_trty.htm. Accessed Nov. 7, 2005. 2. One square metre is approximately equivalent to 1.2 square yards. Mine Action Support Group Update, October 2005 MASG Newsletter [ from page 85 ] endnotes 1. “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.” Ottawa, Canada. Sept. 18, 1997. http://www.un.org/Depts/mine/UNDocs/ban_trty.htm. Oct. 10, 2005. 2. Editor’s Note: Some countries and mine action organizations are urging the use of the term “mine free,” while others are espousing the term “mine safe” or “impact free.” “Mine free” connotes a condition where all landmines have been cleared, whereas the terms “mine safe” and “impact free” refer to the condition in which landmines no longer pose a credible threat to a community or country. LRc System Allows Remote Disposal, Barthold [ from page 89 ] endnote 1. Patent pending. How Deminer Position contributes to Injury, Jetté, Dionne, Maach, Makris, ceh and Bergeron [ from page 93 ] endnotes 1. Bergeron, D.M., R.A. Walker and C.G. Coffey. June 1998. “Mine Blast Characterization—00-Gram C4 Charges in Sand,” Report 668, DRDC-Suffield, Ralston, Alberta, Canada. 2. Bass, C.R., B. Boggess, M. Davis, C. Chichester, D.M. Bergeron, E. Sanderson and G. Di Marco. 2001. “A Methodology for Evaluating Personal Protective Equipment for AP Landmines,” presented at The 2001 UXO/Countermine Forum, New Orleans, USA, April 2001. 3. Chichester, C., C.R. Bass, B. Boggess, M. Davis, D.M. Bergeron, E. Sanderson and G. Di Marco. 2001. “Effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment for Use in Demining AP Landmines,” presented at The 2001 UXO/Countermine Forum, New Orleans, USA, April 2001. 4. Nerenberg, J., A. Makris, J.P. Dionne, R. James, C. Chichester and D.M. Bergeron. 2001. “Enhancing Deminer Safety Through Consideration of Position,” presented at The 2001 UXO/Countermine Forum, New Orleans, USA, April 2001. 5. Braid, M.P., D.M. Bergeron, R. Fall, M. Ceh. 2003. “Effects of Body Position on Injury Risk Against AP Blast Mines,” NATO paper RTO-MP-AVT-097, presented at the joint RTO AVT/HFM Specialists’ Meeting on “Equipment for Personal Protection (AVT-097)” and “Personal Protection: Bio-Mechanical Issues and Associated Physio-Pathological Risks (HFM-102),” Koblenz, Germany, 19–23 May 2003. 6. 10 centimetres equals approximately 4 inches. 7. Fractured sand is sand that has been pulverized by explosive forces, with silica dust as the main by-product of this process. 8. SAE J211 refers to the SAE Recommended Practice J211, Instrumentation for Impact Tests (MAR95). It provides standards for the performance of equipment in impact tests. 9. Kleinberger, M., E. Sun, R. Eppinger, S. Kuppa and R. Saul. September 1998. “Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. 10. Versace, J. 1971. ”A Review of the Severity Index,” Proceedings of the Fifteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 771–796, 1971. 11. Prasad, P., H.J. Mertz. 1985. “The Position of the United States Delegates to the ISO Working Group 6 on the Use of HIC in the Automotive Environment,” SAE Paper Number 85-1246, Society of Automobile Engineers, Warrendale, Pa., USA, 1985. 12. Garth, R.J.N. 1997. “Blast Injury of the Ear,” In: Scientific Foundations of Trauma, GJ Cooper (Ed.), Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Publisher, 1997, pp. 225–235. 13. 1 g = 9.8 m/s2. qR Hits a Homerun: Landmine-Detection Systems Based on quadrupole Resonance Technology Show Progress, Turner and Williams [ from page 95 ] endnotes 1. Rant, J.J. Institute J. Stefan. Ljubljana, Slovenia. Private communication, October 1999. 2. Japanese Association of International Chemical Information (JAICI). NQR Database. Japan, 1999. Rats to the Rescue: Results of the First Tests on a Real Minefield, Verhagen, F. Weetjens, cox, B. Weetjens and Billet [ from page 100 ] endnotes 1. Verhagen R, Cox C., Machang’u R., Weetjens B. & M. Billet. 2003. “Preliminary Results on the Use of Cricetomys Rats as Indicators of Buried Explosives in Field Conditions.” In: Mine Detection Dogs: Training Operations and Odour Detection. Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. Geneva (ISBN 2-88487-005-5). pp. 175–193. 2. The Tuberculosis Project is a study hoping to change the way Tuberculosis is diagnosed using the exceptional sniffing abilities of rats. For more information, please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3486559.stm. Accessed 11 Nov. 2005. Blast Protection For UXO Operations Including Demining, Miles [ from page 103 ] endnotes Miles: Blast Protection for UXO Operations Including Demining 1. Explosive Remnants of War (ERW): A Threat Analysis, CCW/GGE/I/WP.5, Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining, 23 April 2002. 2. For more information see http://www.blastgardinternational.com/bp_blastwrap.asp. Accessed 12 Dec. 2005. 3. In collaboration with INSYS Ltd. in the United Kingdom. 4. For more information see http://www.blastgardinternational.com/pdfs/pipeline_test_results.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec. 2005. 5. ForPublished more information by JMU Scholarly see http://www.blastgardinternational.com/bp_mtr.asp. Commons, 2006 Accessed 12 Dec. 2005. 3 6. “Proposal for the Protection of Public Buildings in Iraq.” KJ Sharpe. 22 July 2004. 7. As of June 2005. errata The editorial staff of the Journal goes to great effort to make sure that what is printed in our magazine is accurate, properly documented and unbiased. However, in Issue 9.1 there were two errors for which we feel we must apologize. In the staff-written profile of Afghanistan (pages 66-67), our writer misinterpreted something that was written in an earlier article by Patrick Fruchet (http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/8.1/features/fruchet/fruchet. htm) and we alluded to a conflict, which apparently does not exist. Mr. Fruchet wrote to us to clarify, saying, “Our deminers are NOT in ‘conflict’ with ISAF…” We humbly apologize for this accidental error, and thank Mr. Fruchet for calling it to our attention. We mistakenly attributed the article, “Mine Action in Yemen An Example of Success” (pages 10-11, 17), to Mansour Al Azi. It was actually written by Faiz Mohammad, UNDP Mine Action Specialist for the Yemen Mine Action Programme. We apologize to Faiz Mohammad for this error and thank him for letting us know about it. If you find errors in the Journal of Mine Action or disagree with anything we have published, please send your comments in a “Letter to the Editor” via email to Lois Carter Fay at [email protected].