Hugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron X-ray radiation
Pressure–density relationships derived from the experimentally obtained shock and particle velocities are critical to define a material’s equation of state (EOS). Typically, impact experiments coupled with velocimetry are used to map a material’s Hugoniot. Limitations such as sample geometry and var...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer
2019
|
| _version_ | 1826296422317686784 |
|---|---|
| author | Miller, DJ Crum, RS Homel, MA Eakins, DE Chapman, DJ Jonsson, JCZ Rutherford, ME Escuariza, EM Smith, LC Herbold, EB Lind, J Akin, MC |
| author_facet | Miller, DJ Crum, RS Homel, MA Eakins, DE Chapman, DJ Jonsson, JCZ Rutherford, ME Escuariza, EM Smith, LC Herbold, EB Lind, J Akin, MC |
| author_sort | Miller, DJ |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Pressure–density relationships derived from the experimentally obtained shock and particle velocities are critical to define a material’s equation of state (EOS). Typically, impact experiments coupled with velocimetry are used to map a material’s Hugoniot. Limitations such as sample geometry and varying indices of refraction may prevent proper characterization using traditional techniques such as photon doppler velocimetry (PDV) or velocity interferometer system for any reflector (VISAR). Here, traditional Hugoniot measurements using PDV are compared to dynamic x-ray imaging encompassing two different sample geometries on the gas gun platform. Through each of these methods an experimentally derived Hugoniot is determined for a previously uncharacterized polymeric material, Somos Watershed XC11122, that is used 3D printed stereolithography parts. A Us–up relationship was determined to be Us = 2.93 us + 1.73 mm/μs through traditional PDV. Slope and sound speed values determined from x-ray imaging methods varied 11% from PDV measurements. Each method yielded a Hugoniot with densities similar to poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). The similarity shows the viability of such analyses for dynamic properties and Hugoniot data. The performance and analysis of both PDV and dynamic x-ray measurements are laid out in this work. Comparing PDV and x-ray imaging highlights distinct advantages and disadvantages among each method. PDV provides less uncertainty for velocity measurements, however x-ray imaging is more spatially resolved allowing for shock steadiness observations of value when studying heterogeneous materials. Additionally, x-ray imaging provides greater insight into the shape and heterogeneity of the shock front as well as uniaxial strain state (1D zone) assumptions. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T04:16:05Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:c979479b-7d0d-46c6-9c93-85f9cfb26ee3 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T04:16:05Z |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| publisher | Springer |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:c979479b-7d0d-46c6-9c93-85f9cfb26ee32022-03-27T06:59:20ZHugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron X-ray radiationJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:c979479b-7d0d-46c6-9c93-85f9cfb26ee3EnglishSymplectic Elements at OxfordSpringer2019Miller, DJCrum, RSHomel, MAEakins, DEChapman, DJJonsson, JCZRutherford, MEEscuariza, EMSmith, LCHerbold, EBLind, JAkin, MCPressure–density relationships derived from the experimentally obtained shock and particle velocities are critical to define a material’s equation of state (EOS). Typically, impact experiments coupled with velocimetry are used to map a material’s Hugoniot. Limitations such as sample geometry and varying indices of refraction may prevent proper characterization using traditional techniques such as photon doppler velocimetry (PDV) or velocity interferometer system for any reflector (VISAR). Here, traditional Hugoniot measurements using PDV are compared to dynamic x-ray imaging encompassing two different sample geometries on the gas gun platform. Through each of these methods an experimentally derived Hugoniot is determined for a previously uncharacterized polymeric material, Somos Watershed XC11122, that is used 3D printed stereolithography parts. A Us–up relationship was determined to be Us = 2.93 us + 1.73 mm/μs through traditional PDV. Slope and sound speed values determined from x-ray imaging methods varied 11% from PDV measurements. Each method yielded a Hugoniot with densities similar to poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). The similarity shows the viability of such analyses for dynamic properties and Hugoniot data. The performance and analysis of both PDV and dynamic x-ray measurements are laid out in this work. Comparing PDV and x-ray imaging highlights distinct advantages and disadvantages among each method. PDV provides less uncertainty for velocity measurements, however x-ray imaging is more spatially resolved allowing for shock steadiness observations of value when studying heterogeneous materials. Additionally, x-ray imaging provides greater insight into the shape and heterogeneity of the shock front as well as uniaxial strain state (1D zone) assumptions. |
| spellingShingle | Miller, DJ Crum, RS Homel, MA Eakins, DE Chapman, DJ Jonsson, JCZ Rutherford, ME Escuariza, EM Smith, LC Herbold, EB Lind, J Akin, MC Hugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron X-ray radiation |
| title | Hugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron X-ray radiation |
| title_full | Hugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron X-ray radiation |
| title_fullStr | Hugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron X-ray radiation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Hugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron X-ray radiation |
| title_short | Hugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron X-ray radiation |
| title_sort | hugoniot measurements utilizing in situ synchrotron x ray radiation |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT millerdj hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT crumrs hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT homelma hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT eakinsde hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT chapmandj hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT jonssonjcz hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT rutherfordme hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT escuarizaem hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT smithlc hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT herboldeb hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT lindj hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation AT akinmc hugoniotmeasurementsutilizinginsitusynchrotronxrayradiation |