4.6 Article

Combustion performance of nano Si powder with molecular perovskite energetic materials DAP-4 as oxidant

期刊

VACUUM
卷 211, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.vacuum.2023.111916

关键词

Si powder; DAP-4; Combustion; Decomposition; Reaction mechanism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a new type of solid fuel, nano silicon (Si) powder, and proposes the use of DAP-4 as an oxidant to prepare DAP-4/Si composites. The thermal decomposition and combustion properties of DAP-4/Si composites were studied, and it was found that the combustion properties first increased and then decreased with Si content. The combustion mechanism of DAP-4/Si composites was proposed based on their ignition and combustion characteristics. This work provides a further reference for the application of DAP-4 in solid propellant formulation.
Nano Silicon (Si) powder has become a new type of solid fuel in recent years because of its high energy density, large gas production, and low agglomeration behavior. Optimizing and improving its energy release performance is an important challenge. In this paper, DAP-4, an energetic molecular perovskite material with high energy and strong oxidation, was introduced as the oxidant to prepare DAP-4/Si composites, and its combustion properties were studied. The thermal decomposition, combustion performance, as well as their combustion product properties, were studied. The results showed the thermal decomposition properties of DAP-4/Si composites still keep stable (>370 degrees C), and the combustion properties of DAP-4/Si composites first increase with Si content and then reduced. It was confirmed that DAP-4/Si with the ratio of 6.5:3.5-6:4 had a better burning intensity than the other ratios. The combustion mechanism of DAP-4/Si composites was proposed based on the ignition and combustion characteristics of DAP-4/Si composites. This work may provide a further reference for the application of DAP-4 into solid propellant formulation.

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