Theoretical insights into the stabilities, detonation performance, and electrostatic potentials of cocrystals containing α- or β-HMX and TATB, FOX-7, NTO, or DMF in various molar ratios.

Abstract

A molecular dynamics method was employed to study the binding energies associated with the cocrystallization (at selected crystal planes) of either 1,3,5-triamino-2,4,6-trinitro-benzene (TATB), 1,1-diamino-2,2-dinitroethylene, 3-nitro-1,2,4-triazol-5-one (TATB, FOX-7, and NTO, respectively, all of which are explosives), or N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF, a nonenergetic solvent) in various molar ratios with 1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazacyclooctane in its α and β conformations (α-HMX and β-HMX, respectively). The results showed that the cocrystals with low molar ratios (2:1, 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3) were the most stable. The binding energies of HMX/NTO and HMX/DMF were larger than those of HMX/TATB and HMX/FOX-7. According to the calculated stabilities, HMX prefers to adopt its α form in HMX/TATB and its β form in HMX/NTO, whereas the two forms coexist in HMX/FOX-7. For HMX/TATB, HMX/NTO, and α-HMX/FOX-7, increasing the proportion of the cocrystal component with the highest detonation heat (HMX in the first two cases, FOX-7 in the latter) increases the detonation heat, velocity, and pressure of the cocrystal. However, increasing the proportion of the component with the highest detonation heat in β-HMX/FOX-7 and γ-CL-20/FOX-7 increases the detonation heat of the cocrystal but decreases its detonation velocity. An investigation of the surface electrostatic potential revealed how the sensitivity changes upon cocrystal formation. Graphical Abstract Surface electrostatic potential of HMX/TATB.