Matter and Radiation at Extremes, Volume. 8, Issue 4, 046901(2023)

Shock standards Cu, Ag, Ir, and Pt in a wide pressure range

Leonid Burakovskya)... Dean L. Preston, Scott D. Ramsey, Charles E. Starrett and Roy S. Baty |Show fewer author(s)
Author Affiliations
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA
  • show less
    Figures & Tables(8)
    Principal Hugoniot of Cu as P vs η (“Compression”): our new analytic model (solid line) vs the experimental data from Refs. 3, 21, and 51, and the theoretical calculations in Refs. 52 and 53 using the average-atom approximation implemented with three quantum-statistical models, specifically Thomas–Fermi, Thomas–Fermi with quantum and exchange corrections, and Hartree–Fock–Slater.
    Principal Hugoniot of Ag as P vs η (“Compression”): our new analytic model (solid line) vs the experimental data from Ref. 3 and the theoretical calculations in Ref. 54 using the relativistic Green’s function quantum average atom code Tartarus.
    Principal Hugoniot of Ir as P vs η (“Compression”): our new analytic model (solid line) vs the experimental data from Ref. 55 (“Shock Wave Database”) and our own theoretical calculations, similar to those in Ref. 56 for Pt, using the Thomas–Fermi model with corrections (“Thomas–Fermi Corr.”).
    Principal Hugoniot of Pt as P vs η (“Compression”): our new analytic model (solid line) vs the experimental data from Refs. 57 and 58 and the theoretical calculations in Ref. 56 using the Thomas–Fermi model with corrections (“Thomas–Fermi Corr.”).
    Comparison between N in (11), n in (12), and n≡Up**/c/a, where Up** is the solution of (3), all three being functions of Z.
    Y defined in (23) as a function of Z.
    Grüneisen gamma for Cu along its principal Hugoniot vs η (“Compression”): our new analytic model (solid line) vs the theoretical results of Ref. 64, the results of Refs. 3 and 65 using some functional forms of γ(ρ) applied to the corresponding experimental data, and the theoretical model of Ref. 66.
    • Table 1. Numerical values of the parameters for the analytic model of the principal Hugoniot for the two Hugoniot standards Cu and Ag and the two shock-ramp pusher standards Ir and Pt.

      View table
      View in Article

      Table 1. Numerical values of the parameters for the analytic model of the principal Hugoniot for the two Hugoniot standards Cu and Ag and the two shock-ramp pusher standards Ir and Pt.

      Zρ0 (g/cm3)C (km/s)BA × 102 [(km/s)−1]c (km/s)ba × 105 [(km/s)−1]L [(km/s)2]df × 103 [(km/s)−1]Up* (km/s)Upmax (km/s)Up** (km/s)
      Cu298.933.9161.511−0.792 9677.122 461.190 0610.118 844 885.50.883 3244.436 1619.981 7265.308887.140
      Ag4710.493.2421.564−1.581 935.555 331.180 447.969 3084 067.75.209 647.872 0712.062 4264.0251241.07
      Ir7722.563.8841.635−2.545 915.939 091.176 986.077 85155 5277.347 456.873 308.973 80312.5971673.11
      Pt7821.453.6271.533−1.541 175.685 521.176 076.042 27157 97811.947 48.696 3811.534 6306.7501698.75
    Tools

    Get Citation

    Copy Citation Text

    Leonid Burakovsky, Dean L. Preston, Scott D. Ramsey, Charles E. Starrett, Roy S. Baty. Shock standards Cu, Ag, Ir, and Pt in a wide pressure range[J]. Matter and Radiation at Extremes, 2023, 8(4): 046901

    Download Citation

    EndNote(RIS)BibTexPlain Text
    Save article for my favorites
    Paper Information

    Category: Radiation and Hydrodynamics

    Received: Sep. 6, 2022

    Accepted: Apr. 18, 2023

    Published Online: Aug. 7, 2023

    The Author Email: Burakovsky Leonid (burakov@lanl.gov)

    DOI:10.1063/5.0124555

    Topics