4.6 Article

Synthesis and Properties of Azide-Functionalized Ionic Liquids as Attractive Hypergolic Fuels

期刊

CHEMISTRY-AN ASIAN JOURNAL
卷 14, 期 12, 页码 2122-2128

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/asia.201900364

关键词

azide-functionalized; hypergolic; ignition delay time; ionic liquids; propellants

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21703218]
  2. Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Committee [JCYJ20151013162733704]
  3. Economic, Trade and Information Commission of Shenzhen Municipality through the Graphene Manufacture Innovation Center [201901161514]
  4. Thousand Talents Plan (Youth)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypergolic ionic liquids (ILs) have shown a great promise as viable replacements for toxic and volatile hydrazine derivatives used as propellant fuels, and hence, have attracted increasing interest over the last decade. To take advantage of the reactivity and high energy density of the azido group, a family of low-cost and easily prepared azide-functionalized cation-based ILs, including fuel-rich anions, such as nitrate, dicyanamide, and nitrocyanamide anions, were synthesized and characterized. All the dicyanamide- and nitrocyanamide-based ILs exhibited spontaneous combustion upon contact with 100 % HNO3. The densities of these hypergolic ILs varied in the range 1.11-1.29 g cm(-3), and the density-specific impulse, predicted based on Gaussian 09 calculations, was between 289.9 and 344.9 s g cm(-3). The values of these two key physical properties are much higher than those of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH). Among the studied compounds, compound IL-3b, that is, 1-(2-azidoethyl)-1-methylpyrrolidin-1-ium dicyanamide, shows excellent integrated properties including the lowest viscosity (30.9 M Pa s), wide liquid operating range (-70 to 205 degrees C), shortest ignition-delay time (7 ms) with 100 % HNO3, and superior density specific impulse (302.5 s g cm(-3)), suggesting promising applications with potential as bipropellant formulations.

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