Gun Barrel Erosion—Comparison of Conventional and LOVA Gun Propellants

[+] Author and Article Information
A. C. Hordijk, O. Leurs

 TNO Defence, Security and Safety, PO Box 45, 2280 AA Rijswijk, The Netherlands

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 128(2), 246-250 (Dec 13, 2005) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2172956 History: Received November 22, 2005; Revised December 13, 2005

The research department Energetic Materials within TNO Defence, Security and Safety is involved in the development and (safety and insensitive munitions) testing of conventional (nitro cellulose based) and thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) based gun propellants. Recently our testing capabilities have been extended with vented vessel tests in order to investigate whether or not newly developed (low vulnerability (LOVA)) gun propellants or propellant formulations perform better in erosion tests. At the moment we have two vented vessel tests available, making it possible to determine the extent of erosion from a relatively low loading density to one comparable to a large caliber gun (maximum allowable pressures from 20 to 400MPa). Test pieces of various materials have been used and a number of LOVA and conventional gun propellants have been tested. From the results of these experiments the wear and wear rate have been determined. The erosion dependency on propellant properties like impetus, flame temperature, and combustion gas composition has been determined. Furthermore, an internal ballistics code has been adapted to model the pressure and temperature development in a vented vessel. The results are compared with the experimental results. This model will be described in short and the results presented.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Erosion of rifling grooves and (b) erosion along the tube length starting at the origin of rifling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Low pressure vented vessel and (b) vented HPCV made of 34CrNiMo6 steel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

(a) PMMA mass loss as function of the force or impetus (conv. prop.) (diamonds) and the LOVA ones (circles) and (b) reduced mass loss of PMMA (P) and Rulon (R) test pieces compared to the Mueller (M) data (see Ref. 16)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

(a) Comparison of measured (solid diamonds) and calculated (open squares) results of RB 107 in the vented HPCV and (b) comparison of experimental (gray) and simulated (black line) P-t results of ETPE∕RDX formulation in the vented LPCV



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In