4.4 Article

Combustion properties of gas-generating pyrotechnics

期刊

COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 163, 期 -, 页码 49-76

出版社

GORDON BREACH PUBLISHING, TAYLOR & FRANCIS GROUP
DOI: 10.1080/00102200108952151

关键词

gas generators; pyrotechnic; propellant; combustion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work focuses particularly on solid energetic materials designed to produce high-pressure gas for pressurizing or inflating devices. In cool gas generators sodium azide is often used. Unfortunately this chemical exhibits drawbacks concerning toxicity and yield of gas. Another gas-generating agent is double base propellant, which has traditionally been used in the rocket-industry. However, it delivers toxic and reactive gases and its combustion temperature is high. In previous work a series of gas-generating materials have been proposed as potential alternatives fueled with double base propellant, azodicarbonamide, nitroguanidine, or guanidine nitrate and stoichiometricly oxidized with potassium nitrate or potassium perchlorate. The purpose of this paper is to examine and compare the burning characteristics of the previously proposed compositions. To carry out this characterization. methods typical for propellant technology are used. Ignition delay, time from ignition to maximum pressure, burning rate. and absolute vivacity have been investigated through closed vessel tests. Thanks to the use of a gaseous ignition mixture the form function of the tested grains is not deteriorated. This leads to fairly reproducible results for the burning rate and the absolute vivacity, despite possible discrepancies in the ignition delay. In most of the studied cases, the addition of an oxidizer tends to improve the ignition delay and the time from ignition to maximum pressure. In addition the burning rate and absolute vivacity increase significantly. The only exception is double base propellant, where the presence of an oxidizer causes relatively minor changes in its combustion properties.

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

4.4
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