Comparison of Simultaneous Shock Temperature Measurements from Three Different Pyrometry Systems
- 17 Downloads
Pyrometry is one of the most prevalent techniques for measuring temperature in shock physics experiments. However, the challenges of applying pyrometry in such highly dynamic environments produces multiple sources of uncertainty that require investigation. An outstanding question is the degree of agreement between different pyrometers and different experiments. Here we report a series of novel plate impact experiments with simultaneous thermal radiance measurements using three different multi-wavelength optical pyrometry systems, each with different spatial and temporal resolutions, on samples shocked to identical states. We compare the temperatures measured by each system and their associated uncertainties using a number of emissivity assumptions. The results shown that the measurements from all three systems agree within uncertainty. Some non-thermal light contamination was observed despite a number of prevention measures.
KeywordsShock temperature Pyrometry Plate impact
The authors would like to thank Dave Pitman and Robert Denning for operating the gun facility. The AWE personnel would like to thank Tony Gallagher for technical drawing support and Neil Holmes for input on the impedance-matching slurry. T.O would like to thank Antony Glauser for helpful discussions on the application of probability density functions to pyrometry data. D.E.E., and D.J.C., thank Imperial College London, AWE, and the University of Oxford for their support. D.J.C also acknowledges the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for support through a Knowledge Transfer Secondment (KTS). Support for DEE provided by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) is also gratefully acknowledged. UK Ministry of Defence © Crown Owned Copyright 2019/AWE.
- 8.Ota T, Chapman D, Richley J, Eakins D (2017) Initial results from a simultaneous pyrometry and reflectivity diagnostic. Proceedings of Shock Compression of Condensed Matter 2017, Awaiting publication, 2017Google Scholar
- 9.Seifter A, Stewart ST, Furlanetto MR, Kennedy GB, Payton JR, Obst AW (2006) Post‐shock temperature measurements of aluminum. In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol 845, no. 1, pp 139–142) AIPGoogle Scholar
- 11.Partouche-Sebban D, Pelissier J, Abeyta F, Anderson W, Byers M, Dennis-Koller D, Esparza J, Hixson R, Holtkamp D, Jensen B, King J, Rodriguez P, Shampine D, Stone J, Westley D, Borror S, Krushwitz D (2005) Measurement of the shock-heated melt curve of lead using pyrometry. J Appl Phys 97:043521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hereil P, Mabire C (2001) Temperature measurment of tin under shock compression. Proc Shock Compress Condens Matter 2001:1235–1238Google Scholar
- 14.S. Marsh, LASL Shock Hugoniot Data, University of California, 1980.Google Scholar
- 15.Cox GA, Christie MA (2015) Fiting a multiphase equation of state with swarm intelligence. J Phys 27:405201Google Scholar
- 17.Haslam JJ (2015) “Silicone Tungsten Procedure” LLNL Report LLNL-MI-676695Google Scholar
- 19.Golovashkin AI, Motulevich GP (1964) Optical and electrical properties of tin. J Exp Theor Phys 19(2):301Google Scholar