Effect of Scale, Material Strength, and Loading on Ejecta Formation from Explosively Driven Aluminum
When a shock wave reaches the free surface of a material with surface asperities, particles can be ejected from the surface. The mass and velocity of the ejecta depend on the strength and profile of the shock wave, the material in which the wave travels, and the finish of the free surface. In the present study, aluminum targets with machined triangular perturbations on the free surface were shock loaded by high explosives to 12.0 and 19.4 GPa and by plate impact to 14.5 GPa. In all experiments, the aluminum remained in the solid phase. Two scales of perturbations were tested: 30-\(\upmu\)m-deep and 500-\(\upmu\)m-deep V-shaped grooves with a 60° tip angle. The perturbation growth and ejecta formation were quantified using photonic doppler velocimetry and piezoelectric pins. It was found that the maximum observed velocity from the perturbed surface was nearly identical for both scales but that ejecta formed only when the larger scale perturbations were used. This result may be attributed to a scale effect caused by the smaller perturbation being on the scale of the grain size of the material. When the shock loading was removed by placing an air or vacuum gap between an explosive and the aluminum target, no ejecta was detected to within the instrumentation limits.
KeywordsEjecta Scale effect Aluminum Richtmyer–Meshkov instability
The authors would like to thank Mathieu Beauchesne and Allan Read for assisting with manufacturing many of the components necessary for the experiments. This work was partially supported by grants under the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Engage project Diagnosing Chemically Driven Imploding Flyers for Magnetized Target Fusion Proof of Concept, National Research Council Canada-Industrial Research Assistance Program project 848270, and the Mitacs Accelerate Cluster project Control of Imploding Metal Liners.
- 3.Laberge M, Howard S, Richardson D, Froese A, Suponitsky V, Reynolds M, Plant D (2013) Acoustically driven magnetized target fusion. In: IEEE Symposium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE), IEEE. doi: 10.1109/SOFE.2013.6635495
- 8.Mikhailov AL, Ogorodnikov VA, Sasik VS, Raevskii VA, Lebedev AI, Zotov DE, Erunov SV, Syrunin MA, Sadunov VD, Nevmerzhitskii NV et al (2014) Experimental-calculation simulation of the ejection of particles from a shock-loaded surface. J Exp Theor Phys 118(5):785–797. doi: 10.1134/S1063776114040153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Asay JR, Bertholf LD (1978). Model for estimating the effects of surface roughness on mass ejection from shocked materials. Technical report SAND-78-1256, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, USAGoogle Scholar
- 28.Dynasen Inc. (2016) http://dynasen.com. Accessed 21 Mar 2016
- 31.Primasheet flexible sheet explosive. http://www.eba-d.com/products/primasheet-flexible-sheet-explosive. Accessed 26 Jan 2017
- 32.Georges W, Loiseau J, Higgins A, Tyler T, Zimmermann J (2017) Reduction of ejecta from asperities on a metal surface upon shock breakout. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol 1793, p 060026. AIP Publishing. doi: 10.1063/1.4971582
- 34.Georges W (2016) Ejecta generation and impact jetting in dynamic loading of aluminum flyers. Masters Thesis. McGill UniversityGoogle Scholar
- 35.Asay JR (1977) Effect of shock wave risetime on material ejection from aluminum surfaces. Technical report SAND-77-0731, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM USAGoogle Scholar
- 37.Marsh SP (1980) LASL Shock Hugoniot Data. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar