MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766625864 · doi:10.1142/s0219633617500729

Molecular dynamics simulations for CL-20/TNT co-crystal based polymer-bonded explosives

2017· article· en· W2766625864 on OpenAlexaff
Qiang Cao, Ji Jun Xiao, Pei Gao, Shen Shen Li, Feng Zhao, Yan Alexander Wang, He Ming Xiao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Theoretical and Computational Chemistry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolystyrenePolymerCrystal (programming language)Binding energyCrystallographyMaterials scienceMolecular dynamicsTrinitrotoluenePhysicsPhysical chemistryChemistryExplosive materialComputational chemistryAtomic physicsOrganic chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were carried out to study the polymer-bonded explosives (PBXs) where the explosive base was the well-known high energy co-crystal compound, 2,4,6,8,10,12-hexanitro-2,4,6,8,10,12-hexazaisowurtzitane/2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (CL-20/TNT), and the polymer binders were fluorine rubber (F[Formula: see text], fluorine resin (F[Formula: see text], polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) and polystyrene (PS), respectively. The binding energies, pair correlation functions (PCFs) and mechanical properties of the PBXs were reported. According to our theoretical results of binding energies, the compatibility of the PBXs is predicted to be in the following order: CL-20/TNT/PVAc[Formula: see text] CL-20/TNT/F[Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] CL-20/TNT/PS [Formula: see text] CL-20/TNT/F[Formula: see text]. The binding energies of the PBXs on three crystalline surfaces, (100), (001), (010), of the CL-20/TNT co-crystal were also compared: CL-20/TNT(100)[Formula: see text]CL-20/TNT(001)[Formula: see text]CL-20/TNT(010) for F[Formula: see text], F[Formula: see text], and PS; CL-20/TNT(001)[Formula: see text]CL-20/TNT(100)[Formula: see text]CL-20/TNT(010) for PVAc. The PCF analysis reveals that there exist H-bonds between H and O, F, and N atoms on all three interfaces and among all H-bonds, N H-bond has the fewest number. For the CL-20/TNT co-crystal, the moduli can be reduced by adding a small amount of the polymer binders but the ductility can be prolonged only by F[Formula: see text] and F[Formula: see text].

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Theoretical and Computational ChemistrySame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207