Advertisement

Estimating Sample Heterogeneity and Expected Scatter Due to Cracking in Packed Powder Samples Using a Two-Phase Model

  • M. C. AkinEmail author
  • R. S. Crum
  • J.-B. Forien
  • R. Chau
Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

High-precision Hugoniot measurements of heterogeneous materials are a key tool in creating accurate equations of state, but such measurements are prone to larger uncertainties than their homogeneous counterparts. To efficiently reduce these uncertainties one must estimate the relative contributions of different error sources. Sample cracking is one likely source. Here we estimate its contribution through modeling, using computed tomography scans of powdered single crystal quartz samples to estimate typical packing variation within and between samples. Samples were prepared using the same materials and methods. Cracks were prominent in the samples. We describe a simple model to estimate shock transit time variation for a single shot due to cracking, and estimate that up to 3% variation can be attributed to these structures. This suggests that decreasing variation requires addressing such packing heterogeneities during target fabrication rather than experimental diagnostics.

Keywords

Hugoniot Uncertainties Gas guns Granular media Shock physics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Hector Lorenzana, Eric Herbold, Mike Homel, Jon Lind, Dory Miller, and Rick Kraus for their useful discussions that helped shape this paper. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This research used resources of the Advanced Light Source, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231. MCA acknowledges additional support from LLNL’s Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) under grant 16-ERD-010. LLNL-JRNL-758019.

References

  1. 1.
    Vogler T (2017) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marsh SP (ed) (1980) LASL Shock Hugoniot Data. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacDowell AA, Parkinson DY, Haboub A, Schaible E, Nasiatka JR, Yee CA, Jameson JR, Ajo-Franklin JB, Brodersen CR, McElrone AJ (2012) Developments in X-ray tomography VIII. In: Stock SR (ed) Proceedings of SPIE, vol 8506. San Diego, p 850618.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.930243
  4. 4.
    Champley K (2016) Livermore Tomography Tools (LTT) Software Package. LLNL. https://nci.llnl.gov/capabilities/software. Accessed 13 Nov 2018
  5. 5.
    Trunin RF (ed) (2001) Experimental data on shock compression and adiabatic expansion of condensed matter.RFNC-VNIIEF, Sarov, pp 240, 249–250Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zel’dovich YB, Raizer YP (2002) Physics of shock waves and high-temperature hydrodynamic phenomena. Dover Publications, MineolaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell AC, Nellis WJ (1981) Shock compression of aluminum, copper, and tantalum. J Appl Phys 52:3363.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.329160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schumaker MG, Kennedy G, Thadhani N, Hankin M, Stewart ST, Borg JP (2017) Shock compression of condensed matter—2015. In: AIP Conference Proceedings vol 1793. pp 120016–1120016-8.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4971698

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations