manufacture and material properties of explosive

Instructions:

Description

Project Description:

The name of the ammunition: 4.5-inch Naval ammunition
Booster: PBXN-7 (TATB/RDX/VITON)
permitted a maximum of six (6) pages (plus 1 for references).

– The briefing should include a technical review (including sources) of the manufacture/formulation and properties of the current energetic components ” The booster PBXN-7 materials, TATB, RDX, and Viton” and suggested improvements/replacements.
Demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the methods and problems of synthesis/formulation for the explosive components and manufacture of the munitions.

The points you need to consider is to discuss both the single explosives (all the booster materials TATB, RDX, and Viton) and the PBXN-7 composition.
Please, include:
– Booster: PBXN-7 (TATB/RDX/VITON) General view.
– Basic chemistry of nitration (Nitronium ion).
– Synthesis method batch Vs. continuous/ Scale/ Quality control.
– Synthesis examples of LA/LS, TNT, RDX/HMX, NC, NG.
– Synthesis and Manufacture (process)/ Chemical and Physical Properties/ Energetic composition/ plant design
– Basic stability/ compatibility/ storage properties
– Basic hazard/ Safety
– Performance Properties/Reliability
– Crystal properties/ Binder properties
– Mechanical properties/ Damage mechanism, (vibration, shock)
– Filling processes (Casted/Extruded/Pressed)
– Environmental Impact (legislation)/ Demilitarisation
– Obsolescence and Cost

At the end propose an alternative/replacement Booster component for the given weapon system “4.5-inch Naval ammunition” (including Safety/ Toxicology/ Quality control/ Alternative/ Future scanning/ the reason behind choosing the alternative/replacement Booster component) One page only.

References (not less than 15) (Cranfield referencing style either numbered or author-date)

Note and important: For clarification add Figures, Table, Flow chart, chemical structure image.

Some sources of information:
– J.Akhavan Book
– T. Urbanski book
– Organic Chemistry textbooks
– PEP journal
– CEJEM – Central European Journal of Energetic Materials
– Manufacturer webpages
– Energetic Polymers, How Ghee Ang & Sreekumar Pisharath, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co
– https://miningandblasting.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/the-preparatory-manual-of-explosives.pdf
– Cooper PW., Kurowski SR. Introduction to the Technology of Explosives. VCH; 1996. 178-183 p.
– Agrawal JP., Hodgson R. Organic Chemistry of Explosives. Wiley; 2007. 87-117 p.
– Google

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!