4.6 Article

Effect of multi-walled carbon nanotubes on thermal stability and ablation properties of EPDM insulation materials for solid rocket motors

期刊

ACTA ASTRONAUTICA
卷 159, 期 -, 页码 508-516

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.01.047

关键词

EPDM insulation material; Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs); Solid rocket motor (SRM); Ablation characteristics; High-temperature performance

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51576165, 51876177]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) have excellent physicochemical properties and can be used as fillers to improve the performance of insulation materials. However, there is currently no proper understanding of the mechanism by which MWCNTs improve the ablation performance of insulation materials. Here, we prepare two formulations of ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) insulation materials with and without MWCNTs and study their thermal stability and ablation characteristics via thermogravimetric analysis, high temperature char layer residue experiments, oxyacetylene ablation tests, and other analytical methods along with scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The intrinsic mechanism by which MWCNTs improve the ablation performance of insulation materials is revealed from the perspectives of char layer formation, consumption, and micro-morphology. The addition of MWCNTs increased the carbon residue rate after thermal decomposition and can suppress the consumption reaction of the char layer under high-temperature conditions. Microscopic morphological analyses show that the insulation material containing MWCNTs has a denser char layer surface and a network-like structure inside, which improve the ability of the char layer to resist erosion by gas flow. The combination of these factors improves the ablation performance of EPDM. Our findings regarding the MWCNT reinforcement mechanism can guide the design of new insulation materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据