New approach for calculation of peak over pressure and impulse of aluminized explosive charges
Source abstract
Abstract
RDX/HMX-TNT-based aluminized explosive compositions have been investigated to find empirical relations based on heat of explosion (Q) and velocity of detonation (VOD) for calculation of peak over pressure (POP) and impulse (I). Four HMX-TNT-based aluminized compositions have been selected based on calculated values of Q and explosive power. Explosive charges of RDX/HMX-TNT-based aluminized compositions and TNT have been prepared by melt-cast technique for measurement of VOD and air blast. Cylindrical explosive charges with length to diameter ratio of ~ 1 and weight ~ 1.3 kg have been used for measurement of pressure-time profiles at standoff distance of 2–6 m. Similar measurements were also performed for the explosive charges of TNT of weight ~ 11 and 17 kg. Normalized values of Q and VOD2 with corresponding values of TNT have been used to compute charge weight for calculation of scaled distance which is termed as normalized scaled distance. Form of empirical relations has been decided from variation of POP and I with normalized scaled distance. Values of constants used in these relations have been determined using regression analysis. Validation of empirical relations has been carried out by comparing calculated and experimental values of POP and I for explosive charges.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Energetic Materials and Combustion · High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Electromagnetic Launch and Propulsion Technology
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Terminal Ballistic Research Laboratory
Panjab University
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1039/978184755202010.1039/9781847552020 ↗
2. 10.1007/s40996-021-00718-410.1007/s40996-021-00718-4 ↗
3. 10.1002/prep.20120010410.1002/prep.201200104 ↗
4. 10.14429/DSJ.64.685110.14429/DSJ.64.6851 ↗
5. 10.1002/prep.20180032510.1002/prep.201800325 ↗
6. 10.22211/cejem/6496710.22211/cejem/64967 ↗
7. Cooper, P. W. 1994. Comments on TNT equivalence. 20thInternational Pyrotechnics Seminar Colorado.
8. Henrych, J. 1979. The dynamics of explosion and its use. Elsevier.
9. 10.2298/JSC101206163J10.2298/JSC101206163J ↗
10. 10.1016/j.combustflame.2005.03.01110.1016/j.combustflame.2005.03.011 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.12.04010.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.12.040 ↗
12. 10.1002/prep.20110009710.1002/prep.201100097 ↗
13. 10.22211/cejem/6499110.22211/cejem/64991 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.02.04810.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.02.048 ↗
15. 10.22211/cejem/6499110.22211/cejem/64991 ↗
16. 10.1002/prep.20130016910.1002/prep.201300169 ↗
17. 10.1007/978-3-642-86682-110.1007/978-3-642-86682-1 ↗
18. Locking, P. M. 2011. The trouble with TNT equivalence. 26thInternational Symposium on Ballistics, Florida.
19. Maienschein, J. L. 2002. Estimating equivalency of explosives through a thermochemical approach. 12th International Conference Symposium, San Diego, California.
20. 10.5545/sv-jme.2016.423010.5545/sv-jme.2016.4230 ↗
21. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.750-752.215610.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.750-752.2156 ↗
22. Rigby, S. E., and P. W. Sielicki. 2014. An investigation of TNT equivalence of hemispherical PE4 charges. Engineering Transactions 62 (4):423–35.
23. Swisdak M. M. 1975. Explosion effects and properties Part I - Explosion effects in air. Report NSWC/WOL/TR 75-116 White Oak US Naval Surface Weapons Report.10.21236/ADA018544 ↗
24. 10.1002/prep.20070020210.1002/prep.200700202 ↗
25. 10.1002/prep.20080000510.1002/prep.200800005 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.dt.2016.09.00210.1016/j.dt.2016.09.002 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.05.07810.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.05.078 ↗
28. 10.1002/prep.20090005010.1002/prep.200900050 ↗
29. Zhang, Q., and Y. Chang. 2013. A predictive method for the heat of explosion of non-ideal aluminized explosives. Central European Journal of Energetic Materials 10 (4):541–54.