journal article·2024-11-17

Determining reaction rate parameters for an energetic material through inverse multi-scale analysis of shock-to-detonation transition

P. Parepalli, D. B. Hardin, C. D. Molek, E. J. Welle, H. S. Udaykumar

Publisher page

Abstract

In multi-scale predictive models of shock-to-detonation transition (SDT), microstructure-aware burn models are employed to connect meso-scale dynamics with macro-scale energy release. Meso-scale calculations of hotspot ignition and growth rely on chemical reaction rates expressed in Arrhenius forms. However, even for well-studied energetic materials such as HMX, the reaction time scales and pathways provided by available reaction kinetic schemes vary widely. Uncertainties in reaction rate parameters can amplify to produce large uncertainties in predicted initiation envelopes (James curves or Pop-plots). To better pin down reaction rate parameters for HMX, we perform an inverse analysis to extract the rate constants in an Arrhenius model (assuming a single reaction global kinetics model) that best predicts an experimentally obtained criticality envelope. Interestingly, the estimated global kinetic scheme is shown to conform to the well-known Henson 1-equation model. To establish the validity of the inverse analysis, we further carry out a forward analysis using the determined rate law and demonstrate good predictions of SDT for a different class of pressed HMX material. While the inverse analysis has been applied herein to HMX, the paper presents a general route to arrive at global kinetics models that can be applied to a wide class of EM species.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Energetic Materials and Combustion · Combustion and Detonation Processes · Rocket and propulsion systems research

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Air Force Research Laboratory, Eglin AFB, Eglin, USA

Funding

Air Force Office of Scientific Research

References (71)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1002/prep.20190018710.1002/prep.201900187 ↗
2. Clements, B. 2011. Merging the mechanical constitutive model viscoscram with the Henson-Smilowitz thermal ignition model to address weak-shock initiation. Los Alamos, NM, United States: Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL).
3. Cochran, S., and J. Chan. 1979. Shock initiation and detonation models in one and two dimensions. [pbx-9404, rx-03-bb]. Livermore, USA: California University.
4. 10.1002/prep.20208023110.1002/prep.202080231 ↗
5. 10.1007/s00193-018-0805-510.1007/s00193-018-0805-5 ↗
6. Gaul, N. J., M. K. Cowles, H. Cho, K. Choi, and D. Lamb. 2015. Modified Bayesian kriging for noisy response problems for reliability analysis. Editor^editors. International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, V02BT03A060. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
7. 10.1090/S0025-5718-98-00913-210.1090/S0025-5718-98-00913-2 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.08.00210.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.08.002 ↗
9. 10.1063/5.014605510.1063/5.0146055 ↗
10. Handley, C. A. 2007. The CREST reactive burn model, AIP confer. Proc 955:373–76.
11. 10.1063/1.500599710.1063/1.5005997 ↗
12. Henson, B. F., L. Smilowitz, J. J. Romero, and B. W. Asay. 2009. Modeling thermal ignition and the initial conditions for internal burning in PBX9501. Shock compression of condensed matter: Proceedings of the American Physical Society Topical Group on Shock Compression of Condensed Matter, Nashville, TN, USA, 257–62. AIP Publishing.
13. Izvekov, S., M. Sellers, B. Barnes, J. Larentzos, J. Brennan, and B. Rice. 2015. Non-equilibrium multiscale coarse-grained simulation of energetic molecular crystalline materials. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 250.
14. 10.1002/prep.1996021010310.1002/prep.19960210103 ↗
15. 10.1039/C5CP00950B10.1039/C5CP00950B ↗
16. 10.1016/j.jcp.2013.01.00710.1016/j.jcp.2013.01.007 ↗
17. 10.1007/s00193-015-0548-510.1007/s00193-015-0548-5 ↗
18. 10.1063/1.496221110.1063/1.4962211 ↗
19. 10.1063/1.504176110.1063/1.5041761 ↗
20. 10.1063/1.86294010.1063/1.862940 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.combustflame.2020.01.04310.1016/j.combustflame.2020.01.043 ↗
22. 10.1063/1.511790410.1063/1.5117904 ↗
23. 10.1063/1.86994110.1063/1.869941 ↗
24. McGuire, R., and C. Tarver. 1981. Chemical-decomposition models for the thermal explosion of confined HMX, TATB, RDX, and TNT explosives. CA, USA: Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
25. 10.1080/1364783060085175410.1080/13647830600851754 ↗
26. Menikoff, R. 2015. JWL equation of state (No. LA-UR-15-29536). Los Alamos, NM, USA: Los Alamos National Lab.10.2172/1229709 ↗
27. 10.1088/1364-7830/6/1/30610.1088/1364-7830/6/1/306 ↗
28. 10.1051/epjconf/2010100000310.1051/epjconf/20101000003 ↗
29. 10.1002/prep.20190020610.1002/prep.201900206 ↗
30. Molek, E. J. W. C. D., D. B. Hardin, J. O. Mares, and J. P. Vitarelli. 2018. Microstructural effects on initiation threshold behavior of HMX based materials. Proceedings of the 16th Symposium (International) on Detonation, 60. Cambridge, MA.
31. 10.1007/s00193-018-0874-510.1007/s00193-018-0874-5 ↗
32. 10.1002/prep.20220026810.1002/prep.202200268 ↗
33. 10.1063/5.006871510.1063/5.0068715 ↗
34. 10.1063/5.018773510.1063/5.0187735 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.11.01710.1016/j.combustflame.2017.11.017 ↗
36. Price, D. 1986. Effect of particle size on the shock sensitivity of pure porous HE (high explosive). Silver Spring, MD: Naval Surface Weapons Center.10.21236/ADA178206 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.jmps.2020.10407510.1016/j.jmps.2020.104075 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.combustflame.2020.05.02010.1016/j.combustflame.2020.05.020 ↗
39. 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.2.04320210.1103/PhysRevFluids.2.043202 ↗
40. 10.1063/1.493858110.1063/1.4938581 ↗
41. 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.3.03320110.1103/PhysRevFluids.3.033201 ↗
42. Reaugh, J. E. 2006. Multi-scale computer simulations to study the reaction zone of solid explosives. Livermore, CA, United States: Lawrence livermore national Lab.
43. 10.1007/s00193-019-00931-110.1007/s00193-019-00931-1 ↗
44. 10.1007/s00193-020-00947-y10.1007/s00193-020-00947-y ↗
45. 10.1007/s41939-020-00075-110.1007/s41939-020-00075-1 ↗
46. 10.1021/acs.jpca.0c0732010.1021/acs.jpca.0c07320 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.jcp.2012.10.03110.1016/j.jcp.2012.10.031 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.compfluid.2017.09.00610.1016/j.compfluid.2017.09.006 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.jcp.2017.01.04610.1016/j.jcp.2017.01.046 ↗
50. 10.1063/1.504618510.1063/1.5046185 ↗
51. Sewell, T. D., and R. Menikoff. 2003. Complete equation of state for beta-hmx and implications for initiation. AIP Conference Proceedings, Portland, Oregon, USA, 157–62. American Institute of Physics.
52. 10.1016/0168-9274(92)90066-M10.1016/0168-9274(92)90066-M ↗
53. 10.1002/prep.20230020110.1002/prep.202300201 ↗
54. 10.1002/prep.20180008210.1002/prep.201800082 ↗
55. 10.1002/prep.20220013910.1002/prep.202200139 ↗
56. Stewart, D. S., S. Chaudhuri, K. Joshi, and K. Lee. 2017. Mirrored continuum and molecular scale simulations of the ignition of gamma phase RDX. AIP Conference Proceedings. 070010-1–070010–5. Vol. 1793.
57. 10.1063/1.183127710.1063/1.1831277 ↗
58. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.09830110.1103/PhysRevLett.91.098301 ↗
59. 10.1002/prep.20040009210.1002/prep.200400092 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.combustflame.2004.01.00210.1016/j.combustflame.2004.01.002 ↗
61. Vanpoperynghe, J., J. Sorel, J. Aveille, and J. Adenis. 1985. Shock initiation of TATB and HMX explosive compositions. Editor^editors. 8th Symposium (International) on Detonation, Albuquerque New Mexico, USA, 892–913.
62. 10.1002/prep.1976001040310.1002/prep.19760010403 ↗
63. 10.1016/S0010-2180(97)00332-510.1016/S0010-2180(97)00332-5 ↗
64. Welle, C. D. M. E. J., R. R. Wixom, P. Samuels, and J. T. Langhals. 2015. Microstructure effects on the initiation threshold behavior of HMX and PBXN-5. Proceedings of 15th International Detonation Symposium. 71. Vol. 2014.
65. 10.1088/1742-6596/500/5/05204910.1088/1742-6596/500/5/052049 ↗
66. 10.1557/JMR.2010.016710.1557/JMR.2010.0167 ↗
67. 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.01410910.1103/PhysRevB.97.014109 ↗
68. 10.1063/1.502204210.1063/1.5022042 ↗
69. 10.1038/s41524-020-00484-310.1038/s41524-020-00484-3 ↗
70. 10.1016/j.combustflame.2011.11.01010.1016/j.combustflame.2011.11.010 ↗
71. 10.2514/1.J05101710.2514/1.J051017 ↗