军用高能炸药的研制测试包括小规模配方制备、安全性测试,以及最终的爆轰性能测试,以验证理论计算结果。本文将介绍与爆轰速度和爆轰压力测量相关的典型研制测试方法。
军用高能炸药的研制测试包括小规模配方制备、安全性测试,以及最终的爆轰性能测试,以验证理论计算结果。本文将介绍与爆轰速度和爆轰压力测量相关的典型研制测试方法。
用于军事用途的高能炸药研发测试包括小规模配方制备、安全性测试,最终进行爆轰性能测试以验证理论计算结果。对于新开发的配方,该过程首先从小规模混合开始,随后进行热测试以及撞击和摩擦感度测试。只有通过上述测试后,才能进一步开展大规模配方的爆轰测试,本文将重点介绍这一阶段。近年来表征技术的进步使得对爆轰初期演化过程的测量达到了前所未有的精度。本文将介绍并比较一种新型的光子多普勒测速技术(Photonic Doppler Velocimetry, PDV)与传统的光纤爆速测量结合平板凹痕法计算爆轰压力的方法,用于测定爆轰压力。特别地,本文还将讨论铝在炸药配方中的作用。近期的研究进展促使开发出一些新型炸药配方,使铝在爆轰产物膨胀的极早期即发生反应。这种增强的反应导致爆轰速度和压力因铝与膨胀气体产物中氧气发生反应而发生变化。
军用高能炸药的研发因试验设施要求而涉及广泛的安全考量和资源限制。在美国陆军军械研究、开发与工程司令部(ARDEC)皮卡汀尼兵工厂,炸药从研发阶段开始,直至全生命周期监测及退役处理均需进行评估。为向作战人员提供高效且安全的弹药,始终持续评估在操作、储存和装填方面更安全的新型炸药。根据最新法规,应尽可能遵循钝感弹药(Insensitive Munitions, IM)指南和要求。因此,每当合成和配制新型炸药时,性能测试至关重要,以确保其满足用户需求。在此背景下,对新研制的PAX-30炸药的爆轰特性进行了测量,并与传统高性能炸药PBXN-5进行对比。特别是,其爆速和爆轰压力的测量结果被分享,这些参数对于验证理论模型和性能计算具有重要意义。PAX-30通过使用活性铝研制而成,旨在替代PBXN-5等传统炸药。
铝的氧化反应具有较高的摩尔氧化焓:
2Al + 3/2 O2 -> Al2O3 (1,670 kJ/mol)
通过添加铝替代对冲击敏感的炸药成分,该配方对外部冲击和危险因素的敏感性降低,安全性提高。这在有效满足联合国关于钝感弹药(Insensitive Munition, IM)要求的同时,仍保持了军用应用所需的性能。2,3.4
用于测试此类物品的设施具有独特性且高度专业化。在大量处理前,需进行一些初步测试以筛选爆炸物。这些测试包括采用差示扫描量热法(DSC)进行的热表征,以及撞击和摩擦测试。在DSC测试中,将少量测试样品置于惰性气氛中以恒定速率加热,并监测热流的方向和大小。在撞击和摩擦测试中,样品分别受到标准化落锤(德国材料试验研究院,即BAM撞击测试)的冲击;在摩擦测试中,则使用标准化的陶瓷销和板(德国材料试验研究院,即BAM摩擦测试)进行测试。5
一旦制剂被认定为可安全操作,即可通过专有的混合技术实现进一步放大生产。简而言之,高能炸药可分为三类:
熔铸法,其中粘结剂为熔融态物质,如石蜡、三硝基甲苯(TNT)、二硝基苯甲醚(DNAN)或其他可熔材料。可谨慎添加含能或燃料类固体,并需充分考虑其粒径与相容性。
浇铸固化,其中黏结剂为可浇铸的聚合物,例如端羟基聚丁二烯(HTPB)、聚丙烯酸酯或其他在未反应状态下呈液态的环氧类塑料,但在引发后会固化为固体。固体组分在基体处于液态时被掺入其中。
压制成型,其中固体负载量非常高,通常按重量计接近95%,并添加粘结剂,通过清漆涂覆或挤出工艺包裹固体。
材料压制或浇注成型后,采用标准方法进行机械加工,以获得所需测试的合适几何形状。本文中的PAX-30和PBXN-5均为高性能压装炸药。其配方通过浆料涂覆工艺制备,即将高能硝胺晶体(HMX、RDX或CL-20)和铝颗粒悬浮于水溶液中,随后加入含有专有黏结剂的清漆。清漆加入后,聚合物包覆在炸药晶体表面,悬浮液在真空条件下加热以去除溶剂,然后对颗粒进行过滤和干燥。所得类颗粒状物质随后被压制成所需构型。
爆轰速度
为了测定爆轰速度,必须监测爆轰波阵面在材料中的到达情况。爆轰定义为一种自持的、瞬时的压力和温度升高现象,其传播速度超过材料中的声速。当温度和压力足够高,能够在传播的反应阵面后方引发放热反应时,爆轰即变为自持状态。这种特性可通过在某些材料结构中引入氧化性基团(如硝酸酯基团)来实现。两种典型例子是RDX(环三亚甲基三硝胺,又称黑索金)和HMX(环四亚甲基四硝胺),如图1所示,这两者基本上是美国国防部(DoD)使用最广泛的含能材料。请注意这些分子的氧平衡,这使得在激波阵面后方能够发生自传播的放热反应。

图1. RDX(环三亚甲基三硝胺,左)和 HMX(环四亚甲基四硝胺,右)。 请点击此处查看此图的放大版本。
确定爆轰前沿速度的一种方法是监测其随时间变化的位置。光纤爆速(FODV)测试用于测定炸药材料的爆轰速度。设计了一种丙烯酸夹具,用于固定炸药样品,并将光纤沿装药长度方向置于已知距离位置。标准测试采用一个长5英寸、直径0.75英寸的炸药样品,共布置五根光纤;最底部的光纤位于装药底端上方0.50英寸处,其余每根光纤依次向上间隔1英寸放置。在丙烯酸夹具上加工的孔为两级台阶孔,其中大直径段用于容纳光纤的纤芯和包层,小直径段则形成一个密闭的空气间隙。当爆轰波在炸药样品中传播时,产生的冲击波激发该密闭空气间隙,产生短暂而明亮的闪光,可通过光纤系统观测到。
本测试所用的光纤具有廉价的塑料芯。由于该测试具有破坏性,且空气冲击具有一致性,因此无需使用更高质量的光纤即可获得高质量的速度数据。皮卡汀尼兵工厂的测试设施采用并联的光电二极管,将爆炸产生的光信号转换为电压信号。对于本测试而言,电压尖峰的幅值并不重要。一台1 GHz的示波器连接至光电二极管的求和电路,尽管该采样率远高于本测试所需。光纤信号的“峰值”可通过信号首次上升沿或峰值本身来确定。根据光纤之间的距离以及爆轰到达的时间差,即可计算出爆轰速度。
爆轰压力
通过测量炸药爆炸后在标准钢板上形成的凹痕深度,可估算爆轰压力。对于多种炸药化合物,凹痕深度与已知的压力值具有良好的相关性。通常,由于大多数炸药满足爆轰发生的 Chapman-Jouguet(CJ)条件,因此爆轰压力通常被称为 CJ 压力,本文后续也将采用这一术语。将装药组件置于一块称为“见证板”的钢板上方,爆炸后会在钢板上形成凹痕。将多种已知爆轰压力的炸药在标准 0.75 英寸装药直径下产生的凹痕深度与测试所得的凹痕深度进行比较。利用钢板凹痕法测定爆轰压力是一种可靠的方法,具有多年积累的大量数据支持其有效性。然而,爆轰是一种动态的快速化学反应,近年来人们越来越希望使用更高分辨率的工具来观测压力随时间的变化历程。
为了直接测量炸药的爆轰压力,还可以使用光子多普勒测速法(Photonic Doppler Velocimetry, PDV)。该激光干涉仪系统由劳伦斯利弗莫尔国家实验室开发,采用波长为1,550 nm的连续波激光源。通过将激光束照射到运动目标上并收集多普勒频移的光信号,可分析产生的拍频信号,从而获得目标的速度随时间变化的曲线。与传统的高速摄影技术不同,这种速度曲线能够连续记录目标速度随时间的变化。近年来,该测量技术受到广泛关注,目前已普遍应用于美国国防部(DoD)和能源部(DoE)的炸药表征实验室中。
为了计算新型炸药的CJ压力,可以使用PDV系统测量炸药与聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)窗口之间界面的质点速度。在该界面处放置一层极薄的金属箔(通常为铝或铜),用作反射面。该金属箔应足够薄,以避免显著衰减冲击波,同时又需足够厚,以阻止爆轰光透过。通常情况下,1,000埃的箔片厚度在大多数实验装置中最为理想。已知PMMA中的质点速度和炸药的爆轰速度后,可通过Hugoniot冲击匹配方程计算爆轰压力。6
尽管在ARDEC,0.75英寸装药直径的FODV测试是一项既定标准,但基于PDV的测试仍在持续改进中。根据炸药配方的不同,可采用其中一种或两种测试方法来表征爆速和爆压。
警告!高能炸药(危险品第1类物质)的加工、操作和测试只能由经过培训且具备资质的人员进行。高能炸药对撞击、摩擦、静电放电和冲击敏感。仅可使用经批准的、能够处理大量第1类物质的研发设施。
1. ARDEC 光纤爆速测试
2. 光学多普勒测速法
PDV 的典型装置如图2和图3所示,而 FODV 装置如图4所示。传统 FODV 实验中爆炸后得到的凹痕靶板如图5所示,PAX-30 和 PBXN-5 的位置/时间结果如图6所示。两种材料的爆速相近(直线斜率),PAX-30 的爆速约慢 0.4 µsec/mm。尽管这一差异看似不大,但考虑到 PAX-30 的炸药填充质量比 PBXN-5 低近 20%,该差异实际上具有重要意义。爆速并非用于量化爆轰波阵面处或紧随其后的铝反应程度的决定性测试方法,但可对铝的反应情况提供初步评估。

图2. 典型的PDV装置示意图。 爆炸药丸或浇铸棒被堆叠放置。请点击此处查看此图的放大版本。

图3. PDV装置(近景视图)。 位于底部的PDV装置。请点击此处查看该图的放大版本。

图4. FODV装置示意图。 将炸药棒用环氧树脂固定在钢制靶板上,以确保安装时接触牢固且保持直立。雷管和助爆剂位于炸药棒的顶部。 请点击此处查看此图的放大版本。

图5. FODV测试中的凹痕。 凹痕深度使用校准的深度规或轮廓仪进行测量。请点击此处查看该图的放大版本。

图6. 爆速计算结果。 每个数据点均来自FODV装置中的光纤探针。PAX-30的R2 = 0.999717,均方根误差(RMSE)= 0.519693;PBXN-5的R2 = 0.998778,RMSE = 1.342272。请点击此处查看该图的放大版本。
| 炸药 | n | 爆速(mm/μsec) | 爆轰波CJ压力 (GPa,平板凹痕法) | 爆轰波CJ压力 (GPa,PDV法) |
| PBXN-5 | 3 | 8.83 ± 0.12 | 37.9 ± 1.4 | 34.7 ± 0.0 |
| PAX-30 | 3 | 8.48 ± 0.04 | 32.3 ± 1.3 | 30.5 ± 0.3 |
表1. 实验性能数据。n 为测试总数,每次测试包含5根光纤针。PDV CJ压力仅包含一次测试。
从图2-3所示炸药装药底部测得的PDV迹线输出如图7所示。CJ压力是通过使用Cooper近似法6对产物气体Hugoniot进行建模,并在匹配PMMA-炸药Hugoniot后外推CJ点而计算得到的。此类计算的典型屏幕截图如图8所示。该技术仍存在一定局限性,因为计算过程假设从窗口速度迹线起始点开始进行线性外推,这会导致压力被略微低估,实验结果(表1)已证实了这一点。

图7. 测量爆轰波压力时窗口速度随时间的变化。注意不同实验结果之间具有极好的一致性,曲线几乎完全重合。请点击此处查看此图的放大版本。

图8. 通过PDV实验计算CJ压力。 需注意,外推法假设窗口初始推动阶段为线性加速,这目前会导致对CJ压力的低估。请点击此处查看该图的放大版本。

图9. 爆炸产物中已反应与未反应铝的等熵膨胀线示意图。 蓝色直线为与爆速成正比的切线解。注意,已反应铝产物的解导致爆速低于未反应铝的解。请点击此处查看该图的放大版本。
注意两种炸药配方之间计算出的压力差异。含铝炸药表现出较低的压力,部分原因是硝胺(HMX)含量较低,但也因为铝会与爆炸后膨胀气体中的氧气发生反应,导致爆炸压力降低,从而形成较小的凹痕。PBXN-5由于爆炸时产生的气体含量高于PAX-30(PBXN-5为36.2 mol/kg,PAX-30为33.1 mol/kg),因而产生更高的爆炸压力。通过壁面速度测量推导出的更先进的状态方程(EOS)被用于描述炸药产物在如此极端温度和压力条件下的状态。10,11 这将是未来论文的研究主题。
显然,当炸药中的金属在爆炸初期发生反应时,测得的爆轰速度低于金属未发生反应的情况 不 反应。这在某种程度上是违反直觉的;人们会预期由于铝的放热反应向膨胀的爆轰前沿注入更多能量,爆速应增加。然而爆速的降低源于压力-密度雨贡纽曲线(Hugoniots)的解。比容(密度的倒数)-压力等熵线表示爆轰产物在膨胀过程中(从左到右)的状态变化 图9).6 等熵膨胀线表示那些能够从热力学上形成并沿压力-比容曲线膨胀的爆轰产物。在膨胀过程中,若铝发生反应生成氧化物,则会导致气体总体密度下降,从而引起速度降低。这一现象在等熵膨胀线上有所体现 以下 非反应性铝的溶液(图9)。由于爆轰速度是从x轴上的起始密度点与等熵线相交的切线斜率,因此当配方中的铝发生反应时,爆轰速度必然降低。
总之,美国国防部继续积极致力于采用传统和新型技术,对新型含能材料进行应用研究和表征。就 PDV 而言,它是一种能够以极高精度表征炸药性能的有力工具,可为研究人员提供有关爆炸效能的重要信息。这种快速的测试流程显著降低了配方优化和需求验证所需的成本与时间。
分发 A:已批准公开发布,分发不受限制。作者无任何利益冲突需要披露。
作者感谢增强型决定性弹药未来能量需求(FREEDM)计划提供的资金支持,感谢Mike Van De Waal和Gerard Gillen在测试中的协助,感谢Paula Cook在配方方面的帮助,以及感谢Ralph Acevedo和Brian Travers在样品压制方面的贡献。
| 姓名 | 公司 | 目录编号 | 评论 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 环四亚甲基四硝胺 | BAE | 1类5项 | 1.1D,高爆炸物 |
| 铝 | Valimet | 专有材料 | |
| 氟橡胶 | 3M | ||
| 润滑脂 | 道康宁 | Sylgard 182 | 间隙密封剂 |
申请许可以重复使用本 JoVE 文章的文本或图表
申请许可An erratum was issued for Research and Development of High-performance Explosives. The abstract, introduction, protocol, representative results, and acknowledgments sections were updated.
The Abstract was updated from:
Developmental testing of high explosives for military applications involves small-scale formulation, safety testing, and finally detonation performance tests to verify theoretical calculations. small-scale For newly developed formulations, the process begins with small-scale mixes, thermal testing, and impact and friction sensitivity. Only then do subsequent larger scale formulations proceed to detonation testing, which will be covered in this paper. Recent advances in characterization techniques have led to unparalleled precision in the characterization of early-time evolution of detonations. The new technique of photo-Doppler velocimetry (PDV) for the measurement of detonation pressure and velocity will be shared and compared with traditional fiber-optic detonation velocity and plate-dent calculation of detonation pressure. In particular, the role of aluminum in explosive formulations will be discussed. Recent developments led to the development of explosive formulations that result in reaction of aluminum very early in the detonation product expansion. This enhanced reaction leads to changes in the detonation velocity and pressure due to reaction of the aluminum with oxygen in the expanding gas products.
to:
Developmental testing of high explosives for military applications involves small-scale formulation, safety testing, and finally detonation performance tests to verify theoretical calculations. For newly developed formulations, the process begins with small-scale mixes, thermal testing, and impact and friction sensitivity. Only then do subsequent larger scale formulations proceed to detonation testing, which will be covered in this paper. Recent advances in characterization techniques have led to unparalleled precision in the characterization of early-time evolution of detonations. The new technique of Photonic Doppler Velocimetry (PDV) for the measurement of detonation pressure will be shared and compared with traditional fiber-optic detonation velocity and plate-dent calculation of detonation pressure. In particular, the role of aluminum in explosive formulations will be discussed. Recent developments led to the development of explosive formulations that result in reaction of aluminum very early in the detonation product expansion. This enhanced reaction leads to changes in the detonation velocity and pressure due to reaction of the aluminum with oxygen in the expanding gas products.
The Introduction's second to last paragraph was updated from:
In order to calculate the CJ pressure of a new explosive, a PDV system can be used to measure the particle velocity between the explosive and a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) window. A very thin foil, usually aluminum or copper, is placed at this interface to act as a reflective surface. In these studies, copper was used. This foil should be thin enough to prevent significant shock wave attenuation while being thick enough to prevent detonation light from passing through. Typically, a foil thickness of 1,000 angstroms is ideal for most experimental setups. Given the particle velocity in the PMMA and the detonation velocity of the explosive, the detonation pressure can be calculated with Hugoniot shock matching equations.6
to:
In order to calculate the CJ pressure of a new explosive, a PDV system can be used to measure the particle velocity between the explosive and a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) window. A very thin foil, usually aluminum or copper, is placed at this interface to act as a reflective surface. This foil should be thin enough to prevent significant shock wave attenuation while being thick enough to prevent detonation light from passing through. Typically, a foil thickness of 1,000 angstroms is ideal for most experimental setups. Given the particle velocity in the PMMA and the detonation velocity of the explosive, the detonation pressure can be calculated with Hugoniot shock matching equations.6
Step 2.1 in the Protocol was updated from:
Machine a PMMA window sized to the diameter of the explosive charge approximately 6.5mm thick. Ensure that the window is optically clear and free of any machining defects. To accomplish this take an optically clear sheet of cast acrylic and machining out the disks using a laser cutter or similar machining process. Then, utilize water jets to obtain an optically clear surface.
to:
Machine a PMMA window sized to the diameter of the explosive charge approximately 6.5mm thick. Ensure that the window is optically clear and free of any machining defects. To accomplish this take an optically clear sheet of cast acrylic and machining out the disks using a laser cutter or similar machining process. Then, polish the PMMA to obtain an optically clear surface.
In the Representative Results Figure 3's capation was updated from:
Figure 3. PDV setup (close view). The PDV setup at the base where the flyer plate is located.
to:
Figure 3. PDV setup (close view). The PDV setup at the base.
In the Representative Results, the paragraph between table 1 and figure 7 has been updated from:
The output from the PDV trace of the flyer plate from the bottom of the explosive charge of Figures 2-3 is shown in Figure 7. The oscillations arise from the ringing in the plate from the rapid acceleration to nearly 4-5 km/sec. The CJ pressure is calculated from modeling the product gas Hugoniot with Cooper’s approximation,6 and then extrapolating the CJ point once the aluminum-explosive Hugoniot is matched. A typical screen print from such a calculation is shown in Figure 8. The technique still has some limitations since the calculations assume a linear acceleration extrapolation from the beginning of the flyer velocity. This results in slightly underestimating the pressure, as evidenced by the results (Table 1). Work is ongoing to develop new equations to fit the early acceleration of the flyer plate.
to:
The output of the PDV trace from the bottom of the explosive charge of Figures 2-3 is shown in Figure 7. The CJ pressure is calculated from modeling the product gas Hugoniot with Cooper’s approximation,6 and then extrapolating the CJ point once the PMMA-explosive Hugoniot is matched. A typical screen print from such a calculation is shown in Figure 8. The technique still has some limitations since the calculations assume a linear extrapolation from the beginning of the window velocity trace. This results in slightly underestimating the pressure, as evidenced by the results (Table 1).
In the Representative Results Figure 7 and its caption were updated from:

Figure 7. Plate velocity as a function of time for the measurement of CJ pressure in the PBXN-5 explosive. Note the excellent agreement between two different shots, where the traces practically fall on one another.
to:

Figure 7. Window velocity as a function of time for the measurement of CJ pressure. Note the excellent agreement between the different shots, where the traces practically fall on one another.
Also in the Representative Results, Figure 8 had its caption update from:
Figure 8. Calculation of the CJ pressure from the copper flyer plate data on the PDV experiment. Note that the extrapolation assumes a linear acceleration in the initial push of the flyer plate which currently leads to an underestimation of the CJ pressure.
to:
Figure 8. Calculation of the CJ pressure from the PDV experiment. Note that the extrapolation assumes a linear acceleration in the initial push of the window which currently leads to an underestimation of the CJ pressure.
The Acknowledgments section was updated from:
The authors would like to thank the Future Requirement of Enhanced Energetics for Decisive Munitions (FREEDM) Program for funding, Mike VanDeWal and Gerard Gillen for their assistance in testing, Paula Cook for formulations assistance, and Ralph Acevedo and Brian Travers for pressing of the samples.
to:
The authors would like to thank the Future Requirement of Enhanced Energetics for Decisive Munitions (FREEDM) Program for funding, Mike Van De Waal and Gerard Gillen for their assistance in testing, Paula Cook for formulations assistance, and Ralph Acevedo and Brian Travers for pressing of the samples.