Initiation train experiments to enable

detonator diagnostics
Cite as: AIP Conference Proceedings 1793, 160003 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4971743
Published Online: 13 January 2017

Elizabeth Francois, Keith Thomas, Gary Liechty, and Carl Johnson

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Effect of pellet coatings on PETN porosity and slapper detonator efficacy

AIP Conference Proceedings 1793, 040011 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4971505

Understanding the shock and detonation response of high explosives at the continuum and
meso scales
Applied Physics Reviews 5, 011303 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5005997

Qualification of a multi-diagnostic detonator-output characterization procedure utilizing

PMMA witness blocks
AIP Conference Proceedings 1979, 160005 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5045004

AIP Conference Proceedings 1793, 160003 (2017); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4971743 1793, 160003

© 2017 Author(s).
 Initiation Train Experiments to Enable Detonator
Diagnostics
Elizabeth Francois 1,a, Keith Thomas 1,b, Gary Liechty 1,c, Carl Johnson 1,d

1 Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA

a) elizabethf@lanl.gov
b) thomask@lanl.gov
c) gliechty@lanl.gov
d) carlj@lanl.gov

Abstract. A measurement of when the detonator breaks out and lights an initiation train has been a desirable diagnostic
for both modelers and experimentalists alike. A detonator diagnostic has been developed using magnet wire circuit to
transmit a signal when the detonation wave breaks the cup. This is used to establish time zero for a variety of types of
shots. This paper describes the design and testing challenges of this diagnostic, and the tests conducted to prove the
concept. The value of this diagnostic is that it is an in situ measurement, meaning it can easily be housed inside the
booster counterbore on the detonator face. It provides an unambiguous measurement of time zero, when coupled with
diagnostics that supply detonator bridge burst information.

INTRODUCTION

An initiation train generally consists of a detonator, a booster, and a main charge

explosive series. The train itself can serve many purposes: be used to do some sort of work, or be
used to investigate the explosive parameters and performance of one or more of the components.
Timing of each portion of the train is critical to understand, both for modelers and
experimentalists alike. Explosive models strive to be predicative, enabling the evaluation of
complex systems without doing expensive tests. Thus far, for most explosives, the word
“predicative” does not adequately describe the model, so experiments are used for model
development. For experimentalists, the goal is to collect data on explosive performance, and time
resolved diagnostics enable a complete picture of the explosive train.
There are a wide variety of diagnostics that are used to evaluate the detonator, booster or
main charge, individually. Timing of each component can be measured by observing its output in
a series of individual tests, but in-situ timing of the detonator in the larger explosive train has
been an elusive goal over the years (1). Modelers and experimentalists alike have desired an in-
situ measurement of detonator performance to establish when the detonator initiates the booster,
and what is the absolute time zero of this event. Time zero of the embedded detonator is
currently measured from the electrical signals within the firing system using a current viewing
resistor (CVR), or a voltage probe (VP). Once past the detonator, time zero of the booster can be
estimated by a parallel fiducial detonator, center of initiation (COI) calculations, or inferred from
detonator timing tests, (1, 2) but never from a direct measurement. Timing of a detonator by
itself can be measured with many diagnostics, when the output is not connected to initiating the

Shock Compression of Condensed Matter - 2015

AIP Conf. Proc. 1793, 160003-1–160003-6; doi: 10.1063/1.4971743
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1457-0/$30.00

160003-1
next component of the train. Shorting pins, switches, and streak cameras all serve to measure this
phenomenon easily. However, when the timing measurement is coupled to the initiation of the
booster and main charge, extra care is necessary to not perturb the detonation front. The
challenge with in situ measurements is to not perturb the detonation wave front in a detrimental
way.

DETONATOR DETAILS

Showing this diagnostic could serve its intended purpose: to capture time of arrival data,
was the first step. Early tests used an exploding bridge wire (EBW) detonator, but as the project
has evolved, a chip slapper detonator is the one of choice.
The details of the detonator built are: an 12 mil bridge, 12 mil barrel, and aluminum cup
with PETN, 0.300” in diameter. The detonator is fired at 3500V through a flat cable. A special
housing to align the diagnostic wires in the center of the cup was devised (figure 2). Testing the
diagnostic wire on these detonators revealed no issues with noise, which was an early concern:
the wires can act as an antenna when the capacitive discharge unit (CDU) discharges, but this is a
short lived effect that happens at bridge burst, but far enough away from the cup break out,
allowing a clear signal (figure 1) to be measured. The diagnostic wires are a pair of copper
magnet wires coated with polyamide. A voltage bias is introduced across the wire pair and the
circuit is open. When the plasma from the detonation breaks out of the detonator cup, the circuit
is completed producing a sharp rise on the scope (figure 1).

EMBEDDED TESTING

This diagnostic was used in a series of Photon Doppler Velocimetry (PDV) shots
evaluating the velocity and pressure of an initiation train (figure 1). The booster thickness and
the main charge thickness were varied to evaluate output at the pole as a function of the high
explosive (HE) thicknesses. From the data, which was from a single PDV probe at the pole, it
was possible to observe
whether the train was
detonating completely or
CDU not, giving some insight
Noise into the margin of the
ToA wire signal system. As all detonators
used were well understood,
this was a good test for
repeatability. Voltage
probes were included,
along with the current
viewing resistor (CVR)
trace to establish bridge
burst. The time elapsed
from the bridge burst to
time of arrival wire (ToA)
signal is the function time.

160003-2
 Figure 1 Top image: Scope output
from timing diagnostics. The red
trace is the CVR; the blue trace is
the voltage probe (VP). The peak of
the VP correlates to inflection point
on CVR, giving bridge burst. The
purple trace is ToA wire. Initial
noise from CDU voltage is
separated sufficiently from the
ToA wire signal to provide an
unambiguous measurement (labeled
on figure). Bottom Image is the
resulting PDV spectrograph of shot.
As of yet there is no time
correlation between the scopes.
This will be included in future tests.

DETONATOR WAVE EFFECTS IMAGING

The PDV tests showed the diagnostic

worked, giving unambiguous data when the
detonator broke out, but questions on the wire’s
effect on the detonation wave shape were outside
the scope of the tests series. In order to investigate
the wire’s effect on the detonation wave, images
were taken using a streak camera. The digital
streak camera (Gen 4, Bechtel Nevada) was used to
evaluate the cup breakout wave shape. Earlier
testing had revealed the wires must be in contact
with the cup to make an accurate measurement (3).
The design used a poly methyl methacrylate
(PMMA) cover to ensure contact. For comparison,
Figure 2 Detonators used for streak camera shots showing
shots were also fired without the cover (figure 2).
wire placement and PMMA cover. The detonator on the left
does not have a PMMA cover, the one on the right does.
The slit on the streak was oriented both
perpendicular and parallel to the wire.
The results were interesting. The shots not using the PMMA window showed a more
pronounced lag of the breakout where the wires are located (figures 3 and 4), but the timing
overall, as seen in the perpendicular orientation, is not negatively effected, and the wave as-a-
whole is not perturbed (Figure 3). In order to image the cup breakout, fluorescent paint
(aluminum fluoro-silicate) was used. The lag seen may stem from the wires sitting on top of the
fluorescing paint, and causing a delay in flash because the paint is obscured.
With the PMMA window in place, the effects of the wire are not as pronounced and the
lag is minimal to non-existent. Because of the extra interface from the window, the streaks are

160003-3
 more convoluted. There is an additional air gap between the window and the detonator, which
can flash, yielding an additional curve in the image. To calculate the timing, the initial streak
curve is used. The writing speed of the camera is 12mm/μs, and the temporal direction is
downward, with the peak of the curve representing first breakout, and the earliest timing of the
event. All detonators demonstrated very similar timing (table 1) with both diagnostics. The
streak record and the scope record were correlated using the fiducial mark (streak: marked with a
circle, scope trace: green signal). From this relationship the timing of each could be calculated. It
could be argued that the results with the window in place are most representative of the detonator
butted up against the booster and no appreciable effect of the wire on the detonation wave shape
is observed.
Shot five requires some comment as the agreement between the camera and the scope is
not as good (table 1). Some questions have arisen what the extra curves in the streak record may
be (figure 5,6). And based on that question, which is the right curve to call the cup break out.
Curves may relate to the paint fluorescing, air gap between PMMA and detonator face flashing,
or the PMMA itself flashing. To choose the correct curve, the timing of the breakout from the
streak was compared to the timing of the ToA wire on the scope. This methodology revealed the
second wave represented the cup breakout when the window was in place. Agreement between
the scope data and the camera data was very good.

t
x

Figure 3 Streak image of detonator without cover. Camera Figure 4 Streak image of detonator without cover. Camera
slit is perpendicular to the wire. Camera fiducial mark is slit is parallel to wire. Two waveforms shown: corresponding
circled in red. Vertical axis is temporal, horizontal axis is to detonator face and wire “delay”. Shot 4
spatial. Shot 3

Figure 5 Streak image of detonator with PMMA cover.
Camera slit is perpendicular to wire. Visible delay from wire
is noticeably reduced. Cover sandwiches the wire to the
detonator face, reducing timing questions but adds additional
interfaces for waveform propagation. Shot 2
Figure 6 Streak image of detonator with PMMA cover.
Camera slit is parallel to wire. Comparing image to ToA wire
data reveals second (brighter) waveform represents the cup
break out. Shot 5

160003-4
 Shot number and details ToA wire diagnostic Streak record time (based on
timing relation to fiducial mark)
Shot 1: PMMA window, wires 386 ns 386 ns
perpendicular to camera slit
Shot 2: PMMA window, wires 385 ns 388.5 ns
perpendicular to camera slit
Shot 3: No window, wires 402.6 ns 403.1 ns
perpendicular to camera slit
Shot 4: no window, camera slit 405 ns 400.5 ns
and wires parallel
Shot 5: PMMA window, 375.8 ns 395.1 ns
camera slit and wires parallel
Table 1: Shot data from streak camera detonator diagnostic shots.

CONCLUSIONS

This effort has demonstrated the application of a “make-wire” is an effective way of

measuring breakout time. In time, it could be a very valuable measurement tool for establishing
time zero of experiments. The signal from the diagnostic is clear and unambiguous. And the
authors feel this represents a significant improvement over other currently used methods such as
a secondary fiducial detonator, to establish time zero for two reasons: One, it measures the
detonator in the initiation train, rather than a similar detonator which may or may not have the
exact same timing, Two, it is an electrical signal rather than a fluorescent paint flash, as
commonly used with a fiducial detonator. It is believed to be the plasma from the detonation that
completes the circuit and is therefore a different, but possibly more accurate measure of the
event.
Future tests are planned using a hemispherical high explosive charge, where the
detonation wave shape is captured with fiber optics, giving a three dimensional time map of the
wave leaving the surface of the charge, in conjunction with this diagnostic. Any effect the wire
may have on the detonation wave will be easily observable with this test. Det/Booster tests are
planned first, then Det/Booster/Main Charge tests. The timing of each component will be
collected and the entire initiation train timing will be mapped. Additional tests are also planned
utilizing this diagnostic with PDV tests where the scope displaying the wire ToA and the PDV
output will be synced.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Authors are extremely grateful to the following people, without which this work
would not have occurred: Michael Martinez and Patrick Salazar for firing shots, Ernie Martinez
for switch design and mentorship, Patrick MacDonald and the Lyra team for enabling this work,
and the TA-15 machinists for making part after part after part.

160003-5
 REFERENCES

1. Munger, Alan C ; Akinci, Adrian A ; Thomas, Keith A ; Clarke, Steve A ; Martin, Eric S ; Murphy, Michael J ;
“Methods for proving the equivalency of detonator performance” 36th International Pyrotechnics seminar ;
August 23, 2009
2. E.S. Martin & H.L. Mallett, “Apparent Center of Initiation Calculations,” Energetic Materials Review, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, October 2004.
3. Francois, E , “ Lyra detonator diagnostic”, internal LANL presentation, Dec, 2014

160003-6