Journal of Hazardous Materials 166 (2009) 12961301

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hazardous Materials
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ j hazmat
Prediction of detonation performance of CHNO and CHNOAl explosives
through molecular structure
Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz

Department of Chemistry, Malek-ashtar University of Technology, Shahin-shahr, P.O. Box 83145/115, Islamic Republic of Iran
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 October 2008
Received in revised form 6 December 2008
Accepted 8 December 2008
Available online 11 December 2008
Keywords:
Detonation performance
CHNO explosive
CHNOAl explosive
Elemental composition
Loading density
a b s t r a c t
A new pathway has been introduced to predict detonation pressure of CHNO and CHNOAl explosives.
Although aluminized explosives can have Chapman-Jouguet detonation performance signicantly differ-
ent from those expected from existing thermodynamic computer codes for equilibrium and steady state
calculations, newcorrelation can also be used here. Molecular structures of CHNOand CHNOAl explosives
are the only necessary parameters that would be needed in this newscheme. There is no need to use heat
of formation or any experimental data. Besides, elemental compositions of CHNOand CHNOAl explosives
rather than assumed detonation products are essential input parameters. Predicted detonation pressures
for CHNO explosives are compared with experimental data as well as computed results gained by com-
plicated computer code using BKWR and BKWS equations of state so the new method shows the best
results. Also, the calculated results for CHNOAl explosives indicate good agreement with the measured
data as compared to estimated results of BKWS-EOS using full and partial equilibrium.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Development of newexplosives with a given performance, sen-
sitivity and physical properties is one of the major challenges to the
chemical industry. The importance of various theoretical methods
complemented the computer outputs increases with greater rel-
evance for synthesis, performance and vulnerability. However, the
expenditure connectedwiththe development andsynthesis of new
high-energy materials also needs to develop theoretical methods.
Detonation pressure as one of the most important detonation
parameters is not well-resolved measurements because deter-
minations of detonation pressures by various indirect methods
span 1020% [1]. Sine non-equilibrium effects in reaction zones
may contribute to this confusion, measured pressures may be
higher than equilibrium calculations if the measurement is
taken behind the von Neumann spike and in front of the CJ
plane. Different computer codes such as BKW [1] and RUBY
[2] and latters offspring TIGER [3], CHEQ [4], and CHEETAH
[5] with suitable equations of state (EOS) of detonation prod-
ucts can be used to predict various performance parameters
for measuring the effectiveness of different explosives. Some
of the well-known EOSs are BeckerKistiakoskyWilson (BKW-
EOS) [6], the JacobsCowperthwaiteZwisler (JCZ-EOS) [7] and
KiharaHikitaTanaka (KHT-EOS) [8]. The BKW-EOS has a long
and venerable history in the explosives eld so the BKWC-EOS [5],

Tel.: +98 312 522 5071; fax: +98 312 522 5068.
E-mail addresses: mhkeshavarz@mut-es.ac.ir, mhkir@yahoo.com.
BKWR-EOS [9] and BKWS-EOS [10] are three different of its param-
eterizations. The BKWS-EOS predictions of detonation pressure are
better than the BKWR-EOS predictions. Some different approaches
have been recently introduced for simple reliable evaluation or
desk calculation of detonation pressure [1117] of pure and mixed
CHNO, CHNOF and CHNOFCl explosives so that the results are
comparable with output of complex computer codes. The heat
of formation and the density of the explosive substance usually
needed for calculations.
Aluminized explosives can be classied as non-ideal explosives
because they have signicantly different detonation properties
than those predicted by equilibrium, one-dimensional steady
state calculations. Aluminum powder can be added to explosives,
propellants and pyrotechnics compositions to improve their per-
formances. It improves the blast effect of explosives and their
underwater performance. To predict detonation properties of non-
ideal explosives, partial equilibriumrather than a complex reacting
mechanism can be used so it is invoked by specifying the early
amount of aluminum that is assumed to react. Inert aluminum
atoms can be included in the product species database that could
only form solid, liquid and gaseous aluminum. Therefore, this pre-
vents reactions of aluminumwith oxygen or other reactive species.
The purpose of this work is to introduce a simple method for pre-
dicting detonation pressure for both CHNO and CHNOAl explosives
at any loading density, simultaneously. This method is based on
molecular structure of explosives and weight percentages of differ-
ent ingredients in composite explosives. It will be shown there is
no need to use the heat of formation of explosives as well as match-
ing detonation products. Predicted detonation pressure will also be
0304-3894/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.12.040
M.H. Keshavarz / Journal of Hazardous Materials 166 (2009) 12961301 1297
tested with experimental data of some well-known explosives and
outputs of computer codes.
2. Theory
2.1. Non-ideal behavior of aluminized explosives
The non-ideal behavior of explosives can be assigned to the
retardation of energy release from the explosive. Different ways
contribute to this which includes a lack of oxygen balance. After
the shock wave from the detonation has gone into surrounding air
andthe detonationproducts reacts withfreshsource of oxygen, this
results inenergybeing released. Also, there is slowor multiple reac-
tions which cause energy to be released late in the reaction zone of
the detonation. Thus, high degree of inhomogeneity and secondary
reactions occurring in the detonation products expanding behind
the detonation zone are two important characteristics of non-ideal
explosives.
Since aluminum powder increases the energy and raises the
ame temperature in rocket propellants, it is a common ingre-
dient in solid composite and composite-modied double base
propellants. Moreover, it is widely used in fuel-air and aluminized
explosives because it can raise reaction temperature, heat of det-
onation, bubble energies in under water weapons and improve air
blast as well as create incendiary effect. However, some works have
been done to explain the role of aluminum powder in detonating
aluminized explosives [1821]. Non-ideal behavior of aluminized
explosives can be assigned to several points: (1) they have sig-
nicantly different detonation properties than those predicted by
equilibrium, one-dimensional and steady state calculations; (2)
physical separationof the fuel andoxidizer insuchexplosives result
in extended chemical reaction zones; (3) diffusion may play an
important role in the measured data of detonation properties; (4)
thereactedaluminummaybeafunctionof thereactionzonelength.
Detonation performance of aluminized explosives cannot be
described by the CJ theory which assumes energy release to
be instantaneous. The released energy from the aluminum reac-
tion does not contribute much to the leading shock wave because
aluminum reacts slowly. Thus, detonation pressure of an alu-
minized explosive is much lower than those expected based on
its energy content. Since detonation wave duration is much longer
in aluminized explosives, they are preferred to conventional high
explosives for blast-type applications.
2.2. Prediction of detonation pressures in aluminized explosives
Powders of aluminumcanbe used inexplosives to increase their
performances because it not only increases the heat of explosion
but also acts as intermediate sensitive agent. The blast effect is
usually improved by adding aluminum to high explosives because
it increases the time of pressure effect. The volume and composi-
tion of the gaseous detonation products are the other parameters
that can inuence the blast effect. The effect of incorporation of
aluminum is characterized by accepted parameters other than the
energy release. Due to pressure variation during the chemical inter-
action of aluminumwith the detonation products under isentropic
expansion, the brisant effect is increased by the blast effect. It
can be assumed that combustion of aluminum particles in explo-
sives occurs behind the reaction front, during expanding gaseous
detonation products. Thus, burning aluminum raises the temper-
ature which would increase the rate of aluminum burning until
it is burned near the CJ plane. However, aluminum particles do
not take part in the reaction zone but act as inert ingredients.
Since it is not clear what degree of aluminum oxidized in the
CJ point for mixture of high explosives with aluminum, ther-
modynamic calculations of detonation parameters are carried out
by computer codes by assuming a certain degree of oxidation of
aluminum. As a simple estimation, to predict detonation perfor-
mance for aluminized explosives, partial equilibrium rather than a
complex reacting mechanism can be used by specifying the initial
aluminum. Inert aluminum atoms can be included in the product
species database of computer codes that could only formsolid, liq-
uid or gaseous aluminum. Different theoretical approaches have
been recently introduced to predict detonation performance of
selected classes of non-ideal explosives [2224].
3. Results and discussion
Prevention of aluminum from oxidation can increase the num-
ber of gaseous molecules and an accompanying decrease in the
condensed carbon. This can increase detonation performance
because the higher gas yield results in higher detonation pres-
sure [24]. If complete equilibrium is assumed, more condensed
aluminum oxide is produced which force oxygen to react with alu-
minumrather than carbon. Thus, we can expect the oxygen content
of the explosives may be important in predicted detonation pres-
sure for aluminized explosives. The study has shown the following
four decomposition pathways for CHNO explosives can be suitable
in taking desirable simple model [13]:
1298 M.H. Keshavarz / Journal of Hazardous Materials 166 (2009) 12961301
Table 1
Comparison of detonation pressure (in GPa) of the new correlation for explosives that do not contain Al with BKWS-EOS, BKWR-EOS [10] and measured values.
Name
a

0
(g/cm
3
) Pexp Pnew %Dev New P
BKWR-EOS
%Dev BKWR-EOS P
BKWS-EOS
%Dev BKWS-EOS
BTF 1.86 36.0 [10] 34.0 5.6 34.3 4.7 33.6 6.7
COM B 1.72 29.5 [10] 28.8 2.2 30.2 2.4 27.6 6.4
COM B-3 1.72 28.7 [10] 28.8 0.4 29.9 4.2 27.3 4.9
CYCLOTOL-78/22 1.76 31.7 [10] 30.8 2.7 32.9 3.8 30.2 4.7
CYCLOTOL-77/23 1.74 31.3 [10] 30.1 3.9 32.0 2.2 29.4 6.1
CYCLOTOL-75/25 1.76 31.6 [10] 30.8 2.6 32.7 3.5 30.0 5.1
1.62 26.5 [10] 25.8 2.8 27.1 2.3 24.9 6.0
CYCLOTOL-65/35 1.72 29.2 [10] 29.0 0.8 30.3 3.8 27.7 5.1
CYCLOTOL-50/50 1.63 23.1 [10] 25.3 9.7 25.7 11.3 23.5 1.7
DATB 1.8 25.1 [10] 25.2 0.2 29.2 16.3 25.8 2.8
1.78 25.1 [10] 24.4 2.8 28.0 11.6 25.0 0.4
FEFO 1.59 25.0 [1] 25.1 0.5 23.4 6.4 21.1 15.6
HMX 1.89 39.0 [10] 38.6 1.1 40.5 3.8 37.4 4.1
1.6 28.0 [10] 27.9 0.5 28.1 0.4 25.9 7.5
1.4 21.0 [10] 21.5 2.4 21.3 1.4 19.9 5.2
1.2 16.0 [10] 16.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 15.1 5.6
HMX 1 11.0 [10] 11.3 3.2 11.7 6.4 11.0 0.0
0.75 6.0 [10] 6.7 11.9 6.9 15.0 6.4 6.7
HNAB 1.6 20.5 [10] 20.8 1.7 22.2 8.3 20.4 0.5
LX-04 1.86 35.0 [10] 34.6 1.1 34.2 2.3 30.4 13.1
LX-09 1.84 37.7 [10] 34.4 8.8 37.7 0.0 34.7 8.0
LX-10 1.86 37.5 [10] 35.1 6.4 37.6 0.3 34.2 8.8
LX-14 1.84 37.0 [10] 34.2 7.6 37.7 1.9 34.5 6.8
NG 1.6 25.3 [10] 26.9 6.5 26.0 2.8 25.0 1.2
NM 1.13 12.5 [10] 11.1 11.0 13.4 7.2 13.0 4.0
NQ 1.72 24.5 [10] 28.2 15.2 29.2 19.2 25.0 2.0
OCTOL-78/22 1.82 34.2 [10] 33.1 3.3 35.5 3.8 32.6 4.7
OCTOL-76/23 1.81 33.8 [10] 32.7 3.3 35.0 3.6 32.1 5.0
OCTOL-60/40 1.8 32.0 [10] 31.8 0.6 33.2 3.8 30.4 5.0
PBX-9010 1.78 32.8 [1] 31.9 2.8 30.7 6.4
PBX-9404 1.84 37.5 [1] 34.4 8.3 34.1 9.1
PBX-9407 1.6 28.7 [1] 25.6 10.7 24.8 13.6
PBX-9501 1.77 32.4 [1] 31.1 4.0 33.7 4.0 30.7 5.2
PENTOLITE 1.68 25.1 [10] 26.8 6.6 26.7 6.4 24.8 1.2
PETN 1.76 33.7 [10] 31.9 5.4 29.8 11.6 31.2 7.4
1.7 30.7 [10] 29.7 3.3 27.9 9.1 28.9 5.9
1.6 26.6 [10] 26.2 1.6 25.1 5.6 25.4 4.5
1.45 20.8 [10] 21.3 2.6 21.5 3.4 20.8 0.0
1.23 13.9 [10] 15.1 8.6 16.1 15.8 15.3 10.1
0.99 8.7 [10] 9.5 8.7 10.4 19.5 10.0 14.9
0.88 6.8 [10] 7.3 7.0 8.2 20.6 7.8 14.7
RDX 1.8 34.1 [10] 34.3 0.5 36.4 6.7 33.4 2.1
1.77 33.8 [10] 33.2 1.9 35.1 3.8 32.2 4.7
1.72 31.3 [10] 31.3 0.0 32.9 5.1 30.2 3.5
1.6 26.3 [10] 27.1 3.0 28.1 6.8 26.0 1.1
1.46 21.1 [10] 22.6 6.9 23.2 10.0 21.6 2.4
1.4 21.3 [10] 20.7 2.7 21.4 0.5 19.9 6.6
1.29 16.6 [10] 17.6 6.0 18.3 10.2 17.2 3.6
1.2 15.2 [10] 15.2 0.2 16.0 5.3 15.2 0.0
1.1 12.2 [10] 12.8 4.9 13.8 13.1 13.0 6.6
1 8.9 [10] 10.6 18.8 11.7 31.5 11.0 23.6
0.95 9.6 [10] 9.5 0.6 10.7 11.5 10.0 4.2
0.7 4.8 [10] 5.1 7.8 6.0 25.0 5.7 18.8
0.56 3.2 [10] 3.3 3.3 4.1 28.1 3.8 18.8
TATB 1.85 25.9 [10] 25.17 3.1 31.4 21.2 27.1 4.6
TETRYL 1.68 23.9 [10] 25.5 6.8 26.0 8.8 23.9 0.0
1.61 22.6 [10] 23.1 2.1 23.7 4.9 21.8 3.5
1.36 14.2 [10] 15.2 7.2 16.8 18.3 15.7 10.6
TNT 1.64 21.0 [10] 21.7 3.5 22.3 6.2 20.3 3.3
1.45 14.4 [10] 15.5 7.8 16.7 16.0 15.3 6.3
1.36 12.4 [10] 12.8 3.6 14.5 16.9 13.4 8.1
rms percent deviation 6.0 11.3 7.8
a
See Appendix A for glossary of compound name.
It was also shown that elemental composition of CHNO explo-
sives or aluminized composite explosives can be correlated to
detonation parameters [24] without using assumed composition
of detonation products. Besides, experimental data of the ideal
and non-ideal explosives reveal that detonation pressure is roughly
proportional to loading density squared [25]. Some different com-
bination of basic parameters, such as the elemental composition,
oxygen balance, heat of formation and initial density of mixture,
have been studied and optimized with experimental data. It was
found that a suitable core correlation, as the rst part of new rela-
tionship, canbeheldbasedoncontributingelemental compositions
and specic groups for CHNO explosives. Role of aluminum can be
added as the second part of new correlation. Thus, simple model
can be written as follows:
P = z
1
+P
CHNO
+P
Al
(2a)
M.H. Keshavarz / Journal of Hazardous Materials 166 (2009) 12961301 1299
Fig. 1. Calculated detonation pressures versus experimental data for various CHNO
explosives. The solid lines represent exact agreement between predictions and
experiment. Filled triangles denote calculated results of new method. Filled and
hollow circles indicate the computed results by BKWR-EOS and BKWS-EOS [10],
respectively.
P
CHNO
= z
2

2
0
+z
3
a +z
4
b +z
5
c +z
6
d +z
7
n
NHx
(2b)
P
Al
= z
8
n

Al
(2c)
where a, b, c and d are the number of moles of carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen and oxygen, respectively; n
NHx
is the number of NH
2
,
NH
4
+
or ve (or six) member ring in cage nitramines; n

Al
is a
function of the number of moles of Al which can be determined
according to Eq. (1); z
1
to z
8
are adjustable parameters. The vari-
ables of P
CHNO
are closely related to previous work [17]. Multiple
linear regression method [26] was used to nd adjustable parame-
ters. The left-division method for solving linear equations uses the
least squares method because the equation set is overdetermined
[26]. The results give the following correlation:
P = 2.335 +P
CHNO
+P
Al
(3a)
P
CHNO
= 10.586
2
0
1.239a 0.183b +0.650c +0.540d
2.471 ln
NHx
(3b)
P
Al
= 6.308 n

Al
(3c)
Fig. 2. Calculated detonation pressures versus experimental data for various
CHNOAl explosives. The solid lines represent exact agreement between predictions
and experiment. Filled triangles denote calculated results of newmethod. Filled and
hollow circles indicate the computed results by BKWS-EOS using full and partial
interactions [10], respectively.
where P is expressed in GPa. Contributing the number of moles
of aluminum depends on oxygen content of explosive that can be
determined according to the following conditions:
(I) n

Al
= 1.5n
Al
for d a
(II) n

Al
= 1.4n
Al
for d > a +
b
2
andd 2a +
b
2
(III) n

Al
= 1.25n
Al
for d > a and
b
2
d a
(IV) n

Al
= n
Al
for d > 2a +
b
2
Besides, extra condition would be considered for the case
m
Al
/m
CHNO
2/3where n
Al
shouldalsobe multipliedby0.6because
excess aluminumcannot be contributed in the reaction zone. In Eq.
(2), 100gof highexplosives weretakenfor calculationof detonation
pressure and the number of moles of extra aluminum in explo-
sives with general formula C
a
H
b
N
c
O
d
Al
e
should be considered, e.g.
RDX/Al (90/10) has formula C
1.215
H
2.43
N
2.43
O
2.43
Al
0.371
assuming
100g mixture of RDX and Al that should be changed to formula
Table 2
Comparison of detonation pressure (in GPa) of the newcorrelation for aluminized composite explosives with BKWS-EOS (using full and partial, 50%, interaction of aluminum
with detonation products) [10] and measured values.
Name
a

0
(g/cm
3
) Pexp Pnew %Dev new P
BKWS-EOS
, full %Dev BKWS-
EOS full
P
BKWS-EOS
, partial %Dev BKWS-
EOS partial
Alex-20 1.801 23.0 [1] 24.0 4.3
Alex-32 1.88 21.5 [1] 21.2 1.4
Destex 1.68 17.5 [1] 16.8 4.0
HBX-1 1.71 22.0 [10] 21.6 2.0 21.1 4.1 20.9 5
PBXN-1 1.77 24.5 [1] 23.5 4.2
RDX/Al(90/10) 1.68 24.6 [10] 25.3 3.0 26.4 7.3 25.7 4.5
RDX/Al(80/20) 1.73 22.7 [10] 23.3 2.8 24.4 7.5 23.7 4.4
RDX/Al(70/30) 1.79 21.0 [10] 20.1 4.2 20.5 2.4 21.2 1.0
RDX/Al(60/40) 1.84 21.1 [10] 22.9 8.3 15.6 26.1 17.4 17.5
RDX/Al(50/50) 1.89 19.0 [10] 19.0 0.1 12.0 36.8 11.9 37.4
TNETB/Al(90/10) 1.75 26.2 [10] 27.2 3.8 26.9 2.7 25.8 1.5
TNETB/Al(80/20) 1.82 24.8 [10] 25.6 3.2 25.6 3.2 24.4 1.6
TNETB/Al(70/30) 1.88 22.7 [10] 21.8 3.8 21.9 3.5 21.9 3.5
TNT/Al(78.3/21.7) 1.8 18.9 [10] 20.3 7.4 18.3 3.2 18.7 1.1
rms percent deviation 4.3 14.9 13.4
a
See Appendix A for glossary of compound name.
1300 M.H. Keshavarz / Journal of Hazardous Materials 166 (2009) 12961301
Fig. 3. Comparison of predicted detonation pressure with the calculated values of Agrawals review [27] for some new explosives.
C
1.35
H
2.7
N
2.7
O
2.7
Al
0.515
. To show the present method and test its
reliability, detonation pressures of different CHNO and CHNOAl are
calculated and compared with the experimental values as well as
the calculated results of BKWR-EOS and BKWS-EOS. R
2
values or
the coefcients of determination of Eq. (2) are 0.98 [26]. Predicted
and experimental detonation pressure using the new method and
the percent of error, [(predictedmeasured)/measured] 100, are
given in Table 1 for CHNO explosives and in Table 2 for CHNOAl
explosives. As seen in Table 1, some explosives have extra elements
such as F or Cl so Eq. (3) can also be used. The number of moles
of carbon, hydrogen and aluminum as fuel has opposite sign com-
paredwiththe number of moles of oxygeninEq. (3), whichdepends
on the oxygen content of explosive. Though the calculated detona-
tion pressures of explosives are compared to the computed results
of the BKWR-EOS and BKWS-EOS in Table 1, predicted detonation
pressures of aluminized explosives in Table 2 are compared with
BKWS-EOS using full and partial equilibriumof Al. The partial equi-
librium predictions were got by assuming only 50% of Al interacts
with the detonation products. Since the new hand calculated det-
onation pressures of different CHNO and CHNOAl explosives show
surprisingly good agreement with experimental data compared to
the computed results of complicated computer program, this may
be taken as suitable conrmation test of the new method.
Visual comparisons of the new method, BKWR-EOS and
BKWS-EOS predictions with experimental data are also given in
Figs. 1 and 2. Fig. 1 provides the comparison between measured
data and predictions for CHNO explosives. Fig. 2 shows a compar-
ison between calculated values of Eq. (3) and computed results of
the BKWS-EOS using full and partial equilibrium of Al with exper-
imental values. In each of these gures, exact agreement between
the experiment and predicted values is presented by the line that
bisects each gure along the diagonal. As obvious in Figs. 1 and 2,
the new method shows good agreement with experimental data.
However, this may be taken as proper approval test of the new
methodfor bothCHNOandCHNOAl explosives, simultaneously. The
calculated values for some further new explosives with complex
molecular structures are also given in Fig. 3. As seen in Fig. 3, the
predicted results are also close the calculated values of Agrawals
review [27]. To calculate detonation velocity of both CHNO and
CHNOAl explosives at any loading density, simultaneously, another
simple related method can also be used [28].
4. Limitations of the new method
Deviations of the new method can become large for some spe-
cial cases, i.e. (i) The newprocedure cannot be used for an energetic
compound that follows condition d>3(a +b), e.g. TNM; (ii) increas-
ing non-energetic additives.
5. Conclusions
A simple method has been introduced for predicting detonation
pressure of both CHNOand CHNOAl explosives simultaneously so it
needs no prior knowledge of any measured, estimatedor calculated
physical, chemical or thermochemical properties of explosive and
assumed detonation products. Since prediction of performance is
readily calculated by a desk calculator only by molecular structure
of explosives, the results of this work are appealing to chemists.
Comparison of calculated results with experimental data listed in
Tables 1 and 2 may be taken as suitable support of the new pro-
cedure for use with any CHNO and CHNOAl explosives that do
not have the limits of Section 4. To make an acceptable compari-
son of the proposed method with calculated results of a computer
code and suitable equations of state, the BKWR-EOS and BKWS-
EOS were used for CHNOexplosives and the BKWS-EOS for CHNOAl
explosives using full and partial equilibrium. Compared to the com-
puted results, the new procedure presents an improved accuracy
and simple applicability to wide range of CHNO and CHNOAl ener-
getic materials. Elemental compositions and determination of the
number of moles of NH
2
, NH
4
+
or ve (or six) member ring in
cage nitramines inthe energetic compounds are the only important
factors that would be needed in the novel method.
M.H. Keshavarz / Journal of Hazardous Materials 166 (2009) 12961301 1301
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank the research committee of Malek-ashtar
University of Technology (MUT) for supporting this work.
Appendix A. Glossary of compound names for pure as well
as composite explosives based on 100g for mixture of
different compounds
1. Alex 20: C
1.783
H
2.469
N
1.613
O
2.039
Al
0.7335
2. Alex 32: C
1.647
H
2.093
N
1.365
O
1.744
Al
1.142
3. BTF: Benzotris[1,2,5]oxadiazole,1,4,7-trioxide(C
6
N
6
O
6
)
4. COMP B: 63/36/1 RDX/TNT/wax (C
2.03
H
2.64
N
2.18
O
2.67
)
5. COMP B-3: 60/40 RDX/TNT (C
2.04
H
2.50
N
2.15
O
2.68
)
6. CYCLOTOL-78/22: 78/22 RDX/TNT (C
1.73
H
2.59
N
2.40
O
2.69
)
7. CYCLOTOL-77/23: 77/23 RDX/TNT (C
1.75
H
2.59
N
2.38
O
2.69
)
8. CYCLOTOL-75/25: 75/25 RDX/TNT (C
1.78
H
2.58
N
2.36
O
2.69
)
9. CYCLOTOL-65/35: 65/35 RDX/TNT (C
1.96
H
2.53
N
2.22
O
2.68
)
10. CYCLOTOL-50/50: 50/50 RDX/TNT (C
2.22
H
2.45
N
2.01
O
2.67
)
11. DATB: 1,3-Diamino-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene (C
6
H
5
N
5
O
6
)
12. Destex: C
2.791
H
2.3121
N
0.987
O
1.975
Al
0.6930
13. FEFO: 1,1

-[Methylenebis(oxy)]bis[2-uoro-2,2-dinitroethane]
(C
5
H
6
N
4
O
10
F
2
)
14. HBX-1: C
2.068
H
2.83
N
1.586
O
2.085
Al
0.63
15. HMX: Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine (C
4
H
8
N
8
O
8
)
16. HNAB: 2,2

,4,4

,6,6

-Hexanitroazobenzene (C
12
H
4
N
8
O
12
)
17. LX-04: 85/15 HMX/Viton A (C
1.55
H
2.58
N
2.30
O
2.30
F
0.52
)
18. LX-09: 93/4.6/2.4 HMX/pDNPA/FEFO (C
1.43
H
2.74
N
2.59
O
2.72
F
0.02
)
19. LX-10: 95/5 HMX/Viton A (C
1.42
H
2.66
N
2.57
O
2.57
F
0.17
)
20. LX-14: 95.5/4.5 HMX/Estane 5702-F1 (C
1.52
H
2.92
N
2.59
O
2.66
)
21. NG: Nitroglycerine (C
3
H
5
N
3
O
9
)
22. NM: Nitromethane (CH
3
NO
2
)
23. OCTOL-78/22: 77.6/22.4 HMX/TNT (C
1.74
H
2.59
N
2.39
O
2.69
)
24. OCTOL-76/23: 76.3/23.7 HMX/TNT (C
1.76
H
2.58
N
2.37
O
2.69
)
25. OCTOL-60/40: 60/40 HMX/TNT (C
2.04
H
2.50
N
2.15
O
2.68
)
26. PBX-9010: C
3.42
H
6
N
6
O
6
F
0.6354
Cl
0.212
; 90/10 RDX/Kel-F
27. PBX-9404: 94/3/3HMX/NC/CEF(C
1.40
H
2.75
N
2.57
O
2.69
Cl
0.03
P
0.01
)
28. PBX-9407: 94/6 RDX/Exon 461 (C
1.41
H
2.66
N
2.54
O
2.69
Cl
0.07
F
0.09
)
29. PBX-9501: 95/2.5/2.5 HMX/Estane/EDNPA-F
(C
1.47
H
2.86
N
2.60
O
2.69
)
30. PENTOLITE: 50/50 TNT/PETN (C
2.33
H
2.37
N
1.29
O
3.22
)
31. PETN: Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (C
5
H
8
N
4
O
12
)
32. RDX: Cyclomethylene trinitramine (C
3
H
6
N
6
O
6
)
33. RDX/Al(90/10): C
1.215
H
2.43
N
2.43
O
2.43
Al
0.371
34. RDX/Al(80/20): C
1.081
H
2.161
N
2.161
O
2.161
Al
0.715
35. RDX/Al(70/30): C
0.945
H
1.89
N
1.89
O
1.89
Al
1.11
36. RDX/Al(60/40): C
0.81
H
1.62
N
1.62
O
1.62
Al
1.483
37. RDX/Al(50/50): C
0.675
H
1.35
N
1.35
O
1.35
Al
1.853
38. TATB: 1,3,5-Triamino-2,4,6-trinitrobenzene(C
6
H
6
N
6
O
6
)
39. TETRYL: N-Methyl-N-nitro-2,4,6-trinitroaniline (C
7
H
5
N
5
O
8
)
40. TNETB/Al(90/10): C
1.399
H
1.399
N
1.399
O
3.264
Al
0.371
41. TNETB/Al(80/20): C
1.244
H
1.244
N
1.244
O
2.902
Al
0.715
42. TNETB/Al(70/30): C
1.088
H
1.088
N
1.088
O
2.539
Al
1.11
43. TNT: 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (C
7
H
5
N
3
O
6
)
44. TNT/Al(78.3/21.7): C
2.414
H
1.724
N
1.034
O
2.069
Al
0.804
References
[1] C.L. Mader, Numerical Modeling of Explosives and Propellants, second edition,
CRC Press, 1998.
[2] H.B. Levine, R.E. Sharples, Operators Manual for RUBY, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory report UCRL-6815, Livermore, CA, 1962.
[3] M. Cowperthwaite, W.H. Zwisler, TIGER Computer Program Documentation,
Stanford Research Institute, 1973, SRI publication number 2106.
[4] A.L. Nichols, F.H. Ree, CHEQ 2.0 Users Manual UCRL-MA-106754, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1990.
[5] L.E. Fried, W.M. Howard, P.C. Souers, CHEETAH 2 0 Users Manual, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1998.
[6] C.L. Mader, Detonation properties of condensed explosives computed using the
Becker-Kistiakosky-Wilson equation of state, Los Alamos Scientic Laboratory
Report LA-2900, New Mexico, 1963.
[7] M. Cowperthwaite, W.H. Zwisler, The JCZ equations of state for detonation
products and their incorporation into the TIGER code, in: Proceedings of the
Sixth Symposium (International) on Detonation, Ofce of the Chief of Naval
Operations, Coronads, CA, Washington, DC, 1976.
[8] K. Tanaka, Detonation properties of high explosives calculated by revised
Kihara-Hikitaequationof state, in: Proceedings of theEighthSymposium(Inter-
national) on Detonation, Ofce of the Chief of Naval Operations, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, Washington, DC, 1985.
[9] M. Finger, E.L. Lee, F.H. Helm, B. Hayes, H. Hornig, R. McGuire, M. Kahara, M.
Guidry, The effect of elemental composition on the detonation behavior of
explosives, in: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium (International) on Deto-
nation, Ofce of the Chief of Naval Operations, Coronado, CA, Washington, DC,
1976.
[10] M.L. Hobbs, M.R. Baer, Calibrating the BKW-EOS with a large product species
database andmeasuredCJ properties, in: Proceedings of the TenthSymposium
(International) on Detonation, Boston, MA, 1993.
[11] M.H. Keshavarz, M. Oftadeh, A new correlation for predicting the CJ pressure
of CHNO explosive, High Temp.-High Press. 34 (2002) 495497.
[12] M.H. Keshavarz, M. Oftadeh, Two new correlations for predicting detonation
power of CHNO explosives, Bull. Korean Chem. Soc. 24 (2003) 1922.
[13] M.H. Keshavarz, H.R. Pouretedal, Anempirical methodfor predictingdetonation
pressure of CHNOFCl explosives, Thermochim. Acta 414 (2004) 203208.
[14] M.H. Keshavarz, Simple determination of performance of explosives without
using any experimental data, J. Hazard. Mater. A 119 (2005) 2529.
[15] M.H. Keshavarz, H.R. Pouretedal, Calculation of detonation pressures of con-
densed CHNOF explosives, J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 29 (2006) 145151.
[16] M.H. Keshavarz, Theoretical prediction of detonation pressure of CHNO high
energy materials, Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 14 (2007) 7780.
[17] M.H. Keshavarz, Reliable estimation of performance of explosives without con-
sidering their heat contents, J. Hazard. Mater. A 147 (2007) 826831.
[18] A. Maranda, Research on the process of detonation of explosive mixtures of the
oxidizer fuel type containing aluminium powder, Propell. Explos. Pyrotech. 15
(1990) 161165.
[19] S. Cudzilo, A. Maranda, J. Nowaczewski, W. Trzci nski, Shock initiation studies
of ammonium nitrate explosives, Combust. Flame 102 (1995) 6472.
[20] A. Maranda, The role of water in detonation of aluminium sensitized slurry
explosives, Propell. Explos. Pyrotech. 16 (1991) 232234.
[21] A. Maranda, Study of detonation of aluminium sensitized slurry explosives
containing organic fuels, Propell. Explos. Pyrotech. 16 (1991) 266272.
[22] M.H. Keshavarz, Newmethodfor predicting detonationvelocities of aluminized
explosives, Combust. Flame 142 (2005) 303307.
[23] M.H. Keshavarz, R. Teimuri Mofrad, K. Esmail Poor, A. Shokrollahi, A. Zali, M.H.
Youse, Determination of performance of non-ideal aluminized explosives, J.
Hazard. Mater. A 137 (2006) 8387.
[24] M.H. Keshavarz, Asimple theoretical prediction of detonation velocities of non-
ideal explosives only from elemental composition, in: P.B. Warey (Ed.), New
Research on Hazardous Materials, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2007, Chapter
9.
[25] C.H. Johansson, P.A. Persson, Detonics of High Explosives, Academic Press, New
York, 1970, p. 34.
[26] W.J. Palm III, Matlab for Engineering Applications, WBC/McGraw-Hill, 1999, p.
334.
[27] J.P. Agrawal, Recent trends in high-energy materials, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci.
24 (1998) 130.
[28] M.H. Keshavarz, Simple correlation for predicting detonation velocity of ideal
and non-ideal explosives, J. Hazard. Mater. A, in press, doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.
2008.11.117.