4.6 Article

In situ time-resolved Raman spectroscopy of nitromethane under static and dynamic compression

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
卷 134, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0155484

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the molecular-level behavior of nitromethane (NM) under static and dynamic compression and reveals multiple phase transitions and shock velocities at different pressures through experiments and simulations.
Energetic materials are extensively used as propellants in rockets demanding the understanding of their chemical and thermal stability for safe storage and transportation as well as ease of decomposition. Nitromethane (NM) is one such material with significant performance advantage over other mono propellants. In this manuscript, we report the detailed molecular-level behavior of NM under static and dynamic compression. Dynamic compression experiments were performed up to similar to 6.4 GPa using a 2 J/8 ns Nd: YAG laser coupled with time-resolved Raman spectroscopy (TRRS) setup. Static compression experiments were performed up to similar to 20 GPa using a diamond anvil cell. During laser-driven shock compression, NM undergoes three phase transitions at 1.1, 2.5, and 3.4 GPa. However, in the case of static compression, the corresponding phase transitions were observed at 0.3, 1.3-1.8, and 2.5 GPa. TRRS was also performed at 300 mJ (1.47 GW/cm(2)), 500 mJ (2.45 GW/cm(2)), and 800 mJ (3.9 GW/cm(2)) and intensity ratios of shocked and un-shocked Raman peaks were utilized to experimentally calculate the shock velocities, which were determined to be 2.66 +/- 0.09, 3.58 +/- 0.40, and 3.83 +/- 0.60 km/s, respectively. These experimental results were corroborated with the one-dimensional (1D) radiation hydrodynamics simulations, performed to obtain shock pressure. The shock velocities at these laser intensities were calculated to be 2.98, 3.69, and 3.92 km/s, respectively, which are in reasonably close agreement with our observed results.

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