4.6 Article

Evolution of Carbon Clusters in the Detonation Products of the Triaminotrinitrobenzene (TATB)-Based Explosive PBX 9502

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 121, 期 41, 页码 23129-23140

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b05637

关键词

-

资金

  1. DOE-NNSA
  2. Dynamic Material Properties program
  3. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA0002442]
  4. DOE Office of Science [DE-AC02-06CH11357]
  5. LLNL [DE-AC52-07NA27344]
  6. DOE Office of Basic Energy Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The detonation of carbon-rich high explosives yields solid carbon as a major constituent of the product mixture, and depending on the thermodynamic conditions behind the shock front, a variety of carbon allotropes and morphologies may form and evolve. We applied time-resolved small-angle X-ray scattering (TR-SAXS) to investigate the dynamics of carbon clustering during detonation of PBX 9502, an explosive composed of 1,3,5-triamino-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene (TATB) and 5 wt % fluoropolymer binder. Solid carbon formation was probed froth 0.1 to 2.0 mu s behind the detonation front and revealed rapid carbon cluster growth which reached a maximum after similar to 200 ns. The late-time carbon clusters had a radius of gyration of 3.3 nm which is consistent with 8.4 nm diameter spherical particles and matched particle sizes of recovered products. Simulations using a clustering kinetics model were found to be in good agreement with the experimental measurements of cluster growth when invoking a freeze-out temperature, and temporal shift associated with the initial precipitation of solid carbon. Product densities from reactive flow models were compared to the electron density contrast obtained from TR-SAXS, and used to approximate the carbon cluster composition as a mixture of 20% highly ordered (diamond-like) and 80% disordered carbon forms, which will inform future product equation of state models for solid carbon in PBX 9502 detonation product mixtures.

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