Numerical modeling of composite propellant response to drop weight impact
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Finite element analysis is used to study the dynamic response of propellant subjected to drop weight impact. The model of the propellant incorporates varying amounts of ammonium perchlorate (AP) particles to account for stress concentrations due to sample inhomogeneity. The intent of this study is to examine locations which may lead to critical initiation shear stresses such as AP sliding on AP or AP sliding on steel. The initial full AP model used a 60% (by weight) solids loading corresponding to a research propellant formulated for a companion experimental program. Due to the unusually high number of slidelines which are needed to model the friction between the AP particles and surrounding media, the code was not capable of compiling the full model. Other models have been run to examine the effects of a few AP particles on the resulting stress state in the propellant. These models show significant increases in the maximum shear stress at locations immediately surrounding the AP particles. Quantitative comparisons are also made between homogeneous propellant and AP–in–propellant models. Two–dimensional geometric constraints of the code are also discussed. In particular, it is shown the default axisymmetric and the alternative plane strain geometries have limitations which do not allow for proper modeling of the particles. Finally, the limitations of using hydrocodes for simulating the effects of particles in propellant are discussed along with recommendation for further work.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: High-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior · Energetic Materials and Combustion · Fluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (20)
Show source-provided references
1. Duffy K. · 1993
2. Duffy, K., Baker, P., Barr, E. and Mellor, A. 1991. AIAA Paper 91–2193, 27th Joint Propulsion Conference. 1991, Sacramento.
3. Duffy K. P. · 1993
4. Baker P. J. · J. Propuls. Power · 1992 · 8 · 57810.2514/3.23517 ↗
5. Hallquist, J. O. 1982. “User's manual for DYNA2D”. Univ. of Cal., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report UCID–18756, Rev. 1.
6. Goudreau G. L. · Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Eng. · 1982 · 33 · 72510.1016/0045-7825(82)90129-3 ↗
7. Hallquist J. O. · 1978
8. Hodgman E. C. · 1961
9. So W. T. · J. Spacecraft & Rockets · 1991 · 28 · 65810.2514/3.26296 ↗
10. Francis E. C. · Chemical Systems Division · 1990
11. Incropera F. P. · 1974
12. So W. T. · 1991
13. Coffey, C. S. and Armstrong, R. W. 1981.Shock Waves and High Strain-Rate Phenomena in Metals, 313New York: Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4613-3219-0_20 ↗
14. Whirley R. W. · Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory · 1993
15. Lieb, R. and Leadore, M. 1992. Mechanical response comparison of gun propellants evaluated under equivalent time–temperature conditions. JANNAF Structures and Mechanical Behavior Subcommittee Meeting. 1992, Albuquerque, NM.
16. Lieb R. · CPIA Publ. 582 · 1992 · 1 · 145
17. Davis I. L. · Thiokol Corporation · 1990
18. Baker P. J. · J. Prop. Power · 1992
19. Johnson J. N. · Eighth Symposium (International) on Detonation · 1985 · 52
20. Kang J. · Combust. Flame · 1992 · 89 · 11710.1016/0010-2180(92)90023-I ↗