4.7 Article

Exploring mechanisms for agglomerate reduction in composite solid propellants with polyethylene inclusion modified aluminum

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 162, 期 3, 页码 846-854

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.08.013

关键词

Aluminum; Agglomeration; Solid propellant; Combustion; Inclusion; Low-density polyethylene

资金

  1. Air Force Office of Scientific Research MURI [FA9550-13-1-0004]
  2. Defense Threat Reduction Agency [HDTRA1-11-1-0060]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In composite solid propellants, shortening particle residence time at the burning surface and inducing particle microexplosions could decrease aluminum agglomeration, thus reducing two-phase flow losses in a rocket motor. We explore this by using aluminum particles modified with low-density polyethylene (LDPE) inclusion to drive intraparticle outgassing, which could break apart composite particles, yielding smaller and faster burning fragments during composite solid propellant combustion. We find that use of these particles in a propellant results in more prompt particle ignition, and surface residence time is decreased. For composite propellant burning at 6.9 MPa, mean coarse agglomerate diameter is decreased from 75.8 mu m (spherical aluminum) to 29.0 mu m (Al/LDPE 90/10 wt.% particles). Thermal analysis with DSC/TGA shows that 10 wt.% LDPE inclusion in aluminum (1.5% of propellant weight) results in enhanced oxidation characteristics that are more similar to nanoaluminum than neat spherical aluminum. Thermochemical equilibrium calculations indicate LDPE inclusion decreases specific impulse by 1.0% from 262.7 to 260.0 s, but it is expected that in a motor, LDPE inclusion could produce a net increase in specific impulse due to a substantially reduced agglomerate size. This work shows that reduced agglomeration is possible using gas generating inclusion materials that are only weakly reactive with aluminum. (C) 2014 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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