Numerical simulation study of composite solid propellant small scale gap test

Hu, Qiang; Liu, Yu Xiang; Wang, Du-dou; Wang, Xueren; Geng, Biao; Guang, Wang

doi:10.1063/5.0039853

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yu et al [20] pointed out that the explosive bottom temperature continues to increase until the explosives ignites, i.e., once the air in the bottom gap has been compressed to a certain extent. Qiang et al [21] used a numerical model of the small-scale gap test to obtain the critical gas thickness for the detonation reaction of a solid propellant. Cheng et al [22] simulated the detonation process of explosive trains with a micro-sized air gap and concluded that the critical air gap thickness ranges from 0.32-0.40 mm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Combustion Model for Explosive Charge Affected by a Bottom Gap in the Launch Environment

Wu,

Chen,

et al. 2024

CMES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Launch safety of explosive charges has become an urgent problem to be solved by all countries in the world as launch situation of ammunition becomes consistently worse. However, the existing numerical models have different defects. This paper formulates an efficient computational model of the combustion of an explosive charge affected by a bottom gap in the launch environment in the context of the material point method. The current temperature is computed accurately from the heat balance equation, and different physical states of the explosive charges are considered through various equations of state. Microcracks in the explosive charges are described with respect to the viscoelastic statistical crack mechanics (Visco-SCRAM) model. The method for calculating the temperature at the bottom of the explosive charge with respect to the bottom gap is described. Based on this combustion model, the temperature history of a Composition B (COM B) explosive charge in the presence of a bottom gap is obtained during the launch process of a 155-mm artillery. The simulation results show that the bottom gap thickness should be no greater than 0.039 cm to ensure the safety of the COM B explosive charge in the launch environment. This conclusion is consistent with previous results and verifies the correctness of the proposed model. Ultimately, this paper derives a mathematical expression for the maximum temperature of the COM B explosive charge with respect to the bottom gap thickness (over the range of 0.00-0.039 cm), and establishes a quantitative evaluation method for the launch safety of explosive charges. The research results provide some guidance for the assessment and detection of explosive charge safety in complex launch environments.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Combustion Model for Explosive Charge Affected by a Bottom Gap in the Launch Environment

Wu,

Chen,

et al. 2024

CMES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Research on the Safety Response Characteristics of Composite Charges Under Shock Wave Loading

Li,

Lu,

Deng

et al. 2024

Propellants Explo Pyrotec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work, reaction intensity diagnostic techniques such as self‐shorting electrical probes and witness plates were used to establish a new large‐scale gap test device, which can be used to effectively study the influence of shock wave pressure, confinement strength, and insensitive explosive layer thickness on the safety response under shock loading. Taking a composite charge consisting of a TATB‐based and an HMX‐based aluminized explosive as an example, the influence of shock wave pressure, shell confinement, and composite charge structure on the reaction intensity was studied in detail. The results show that the reaction intensity of the charge is positively correlated with the shock wave pressure, increases with the shell confinement strength, and decreases with the insensitive explosive layer thickness. For the same composite charge structure and confinement strength, the reaction intensity level of the charge increases with the shock pressure. When PBX‐5 is 40 mm thick and PBX‐6 is 60 mm thick, under initial pressures of 6.45, 3.61, and 1.51 GPa, the reaction levels are detonation, deflagration, and no reaction, respectively. Under the same shock pressure, the reaction intensity increases with the confinement strength and decreases with the insensitive explosive layer thickness. For the same composite charge structure and shock pressure (5 mm PBX‐5, 95 mm PBX‐6; 1.51 GPa shock pressure value), when the sleeve is 5 mm steel, 5 mm aluminum, 2 mm steel or weaker, the reaction levels are detonation, detonation, and no reaction, respectively. These results are helpful to the safety design of composite charges.

show abstract