Fragment size distribution statistics in dynamic fragmentation of laser shock-loaded tin
Source abstract
Abstract
This work investigates the geometric statistics method to characterize the size distribution of tin fragments produced in the laser shock-loaded dynamic fragmentation process. In the shock experiments, the ejection of the tin sample with etched V-shape groove in the free surface are collected by the soft recovery technique. Subsequently, the produced fragments are automatically detected with the fine post-shot analysis techniques including the X-ray micro-tomography and the improved watershed method. To characterize the size distributions of the fragments, a theoretical random geometric statistics model based on Poisson mixtures is derived for dynamic heterogeneous fragmentation problem, which reveals linear combinational exponential distribution. The experimental data related to fragment size distributions of the laser shock-loaded tin sample are examined with the proposed theoretical model, and its fitting performance is compared with that of other state-of-the-art fragment size distribution models. The comparison results prove that our proposed model can provide far more reasonable fitting result for the laser shock-loaded tin.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Laser-induced spectroscopy and plasma · Traumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Science and Technology on Plasma Physics Laboratory, Laser Fusion Research Center, CAEP , P.O. Box 919-986, Mianyang 621900, People’s Republic of China
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. Nature · 1988 · 33228 · 775
2. Science · 2004 · 303 · 116710.1126/science.1094014 ↗
3. Annu Rev Earth Pl Sc · 2010 · 38 · 22110.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100045 ↗
4. Nature · 1995 · 373 · 68910.1038/373689a0 ↗
5. Sciences · 1996 · 272 · 134910.1126/science.272.5266.1349 ↗
6. Int. J. Impact Eng. · 2012 · 43 · 6310.1016/j.ijimpeng.2011.12.001 ↗
7. Phys. Rev. Lett. · 2005 · 95 · 09550310.1103/physrevlett.95.095503 ↗
8. J. Radiol. Prot. · 1993 · 13 · 18710.1088/0952-4746/13/3/003 ↗
9. Light: Science &Applications · 2014 · 310.1038/lsa.2014.40 ↗
10. Soil Till Res. · 2002 · 64 · 7910.1016/s0167-1987(01)00246-x ↗
11. J. Appl. Phys. · 2012 · 111 · 04409110.1063/1.3684978 ↗
12. Comp. Mater. Sci. · 2015 · 98 · 27110.1016/j.commatsci.2014.11.020 ↗
13. J. Franklin Inst · 1936 · 221 · 48510.1016/s0016-0032(36)90309-5 ↗
14. Proc. R. Soc. A · 1947 · 189 · 30010.1098/rspa.1947.0042 ↗
15. 2001 · 663
16. J. Appl. Phys. · 1985 · 58 · 121010.1063/1.336139 ↗
17. J. Appl. Phys. · 1990 · 68 · 609910.1063/1.347188 ↗
18. Int. J. Fract. · 2010 · 163 · 8510.1007/s10704-009-9418-4 ↗
19. Int. J. Impact Eng. · 2008 · 35 · 155710.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.07.042 ↗
20. AIP. Conf. Proc. · 1982 · 78 · 50510.1063/1.33316 ↗
21. Shock compression of condensed matter
22. J. Appl. Phys. · 2002 · 92 · 583010.1063/1.1515125 ↗
23. Plasma Phys. Contr. F. · 2013 · 55 · 12401510.1088/0741-3335/55/12/124015 ↗
24. J. Phys. Conference Series · 2008 · 112 · 03202110.1088/1742-6596/112/3/032021 ↗
25. Rev. Sci. Instrum. · 2015 · 86 · 02350110.1063/1.4907710 ↗
26. Phys. of Plasmas · 2012 · 19 · 07270810.1063/1.4739070 ↗
27. Phys. Rev. B · 2010 · 82 · 17410210.1103/physrevb.82.174102 ↗
28. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2009 · 95 · 21190510.1063/1.3268437 ↗
29. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. · 2014 · 47 · 32530410.1088/0022-3727/47/32/325304 ↗
30. Opt. Express · 2014 · 22 · 1892410.1364/oe.22.018924 ↗
31. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2006 · 88 · 26191810.1063/1.2216892 ↗
32. Struct. Multidisc. Optim. · 2001 · 23 · 110.1007/s00158-001-0160-4 ↗
33. Int. J. Impact Eng. · 2016 · 91 · 6810.1016/j.ijimpeng.2015.12.012 ↗