Professional Documents
Culture Documents
size distributions Explosives Engineering
José A. Sanchidrián
Typical fragments size distribution data look like this:
2
10
50
Our goals:
1
10
‐ To describe the size distribution
by a simplified function.
Passing (%)
0
10
‐ To predict the size distribution
from blast design data.
-1
10
x50
-2
10
-1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10
Size (mm)
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 1
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
A thought on different representations
100
90
80
70
Passing (%)
60
50 Linear‐linear 100
40
30 80
20
Passing (%)
10 60
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Log‐linear
Size (mm) 40
2
10
20
0 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
Size (mm)
1
10 Log‐log
0
10 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
Size (mm)
Our goals:
‐ To describe the size distribution by a simplified function.
‐ To predict the size distribution from blast design data.
What distribution should we use?
Paul Rosin* (1890–1967)
Erich Rammler* (1901–1986)
... with contributions from Karl Sperling and John Bennet to its final form:
x
n 1
x n
Rosin and Rammler’s
PDF n exp interest was the particle size
xc xc distribution of coal.
x n
CDF 1 exp
xc
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 2
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
The Weibull contribution:
x n x
n
The Rosin‐Rammler‐Weibull distribution
0.02
x =50
c
n=1
0.015
x =50
c
n=1.5 x =100
c
PDF
0.01 n=1
0.005
xc =100
n=1.5
0 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
Size (mm)
x
n 1
x n
PDF n exp
xc xc
José A. Sanchidrián. Fragmentation by blasting models. Applied Detonation Physics and Blast Modelling. Cambridge, 22-26 September 2014
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 3
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
The Rosin‐Rammler‐Weibull distribution
1
xc=50
0.9
n=1.5 x =100
c
0.8 n=1
0.7
0.6
Passing
0.5
x =50
c
0.4 n=1
0.3 xc=100
0.2 n=1.5
0.1
0 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
Size (mm)
x n x
n
José A. Sanchidrián. Fragmentation by blasting models. Applied Detonation Physics and Blast Modelling. Cambridge, 22-26 September 2014
The Rosin‐Rammler‐Weibull distribution
0
10
x =100
c
n=1
x =50
c x =100
-1 c
10 n=1
n=1.5
Passing
xc =50
-2
n=1.5
10
-3
10 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10
Size (mm)
x n
x
n
José A. Sanchidrián. Fragmentation by blasting models. Applied Detonation Physics and Blast Modelling. Cambridge, 22-26 September 2014
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 4
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
When a distribution of fragment size is described by an analytical function,
the distribution is being simplified (and, to some extent, made erroneous).
‐ This is not different from many other situations in engineering, physics, chemistry,
natural sciences… We need models borne in mathematical formulae for our
engineers’ work.
‐ We know material models are not exact but we generally describe nature by means
of mathematical expressions.
[Even the perfect gas law does not describe gases exactly… and, under certain conditions, it does not
describe gases at all! We know that quite well when we look for equations of state in detonation
physics!]
‐ So we are perfectly well in using formulae to describe the nature or the behavior of
materials but we must be aware of their limits of use. Away from these, the reality
may be different (or very different) than what our formulae tell.
Is the Rosin‐Rammler‐Weibull distribution the only one
applicable to fragmentation by blasting material?
Some size distributions for granular materials
We want to describe
the size distribution of
rock fragments from
blasting by means of
an analytical
distribution function
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 5
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
Some size distributions for granular materials
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 6
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
Some size distributions for granular materials
x n
OLS fits
FWRR 1 exp , 0 x
xc Rosin‐Rammler
RRW
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 7
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
x x x n OLS fits
FS WRR 1 exp max c
, 0 x xmax
x x x Rosin‐Rammler
c max
Scaled‐Rosin‐Rammler
S‐RRW RRW
Some size distributions for granular materials
x x x x x
OLS fits
FS GRA 1 1
max g
exp x max g
, 0 x xmax
x x x x x x Rosin‐Rammler
g max g max
Scaled‐Rosin‐Rammler
Scaled‐Grady
S‐GRA
S‐RRW RRW
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 8
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
1 OLS fits
FSWE b
, 0 x xmax
log( xmax / x)
1 Rosin‐Rammler
log( xmax / x50 )
Scaled‐Rosin‐Rammler
Scaled‐Grady
Swebrec
SWE
S‐GRA
S‐RRW RRW
Some size distributions for granular materials
x
n1
x
n2
OLS fits
, 0 x
FBiWRR (1 f )1 exp f 1 exp
xc1 xc2 Rosin‐Rammler
Scaled‐Rosin‐Rammler
Scaled‐Grady
Swebrec
Bimodal Rosin‐Rammler
SWE
Bi‐RRW S‐GRA
S‐RRW RRW
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 9
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
1
x 1 2
x 2
OLS fits
x x , 0 x
FBiGRA (1 f )1 1 exp f 1 1 exp
x g1 x g 2 Rosin‐Rammler
x g1 x g2
Scaled‐Rosin‐Rammler
Scaled‐Grady
Swebrec
Bimodal Rosin‐Rammler
Bimodal Grady
SWE
Bi‐RRW S‐GRA
Bi‐GRA
S‐RRW RRW
Some size distributions for granular materials
1 OLS fits
FExSWE b c
, 0 x xmax
log( xmax / x) ( xmax / x) 1
1 a (1 a ) Rosin‐Rammler
log( xmax / x50 ) ( xmax / x50 ) 1
Scaled‐Rosin‐Rammler
Scaled‐Grady
Swebrec
Bimodal Rosin‐Rammler
Bimodal Grady
SWE
Extended Swebrec
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 10
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
We can guide the fits towards a certain zone (coarse,
fines, …) using weights that are a function of the size
or the percentage passing.
2
min wi F ( xi , k ) pi
i
1
wi s
pi
Some size distributions for granular materials
Rosin‐Rammler
x n
FWRR 1 exp , 0 x
xc
OLS
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 11
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
Rosin‐Rammler
x n
FWRR 1 exp , 0 x
c
x
1/P0.5
OLS
Some size distributions for granular materials
Rosin‐Rammler
x n
FWRR 1 exp , 0 x
xc
1/P
1/P0.
5
OLS
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 12
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
Rosin‐Rammler
x n
FWRR 1 exp , 0 x
c
x
1/P2
1/P
1/P0.
5
OLS
Some size distributions for granular materials
Scaled Rosin‐Rammler
x x x n
FS WRR 1 exp max c
, 0 x xmax
x x x
c max
OLS
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 13
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
Scaled Rosin‐Rammler
x x x n
FS WRR 1 exp max c
, 0 x xmax
xc xmax x
1/P0.5
OLS
Some size distributions for granular materials
Scaled Rosin‐Rammler
x x x n
FS WRR 1 exp max c
, 0 x xmax
x x x
c max
1/P
1/P0.5
OLS
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 14
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
Scaled Rosin‐Rammler
x x x n
FS WRR 1 exp max c
, 0 x xmax
xc xmax x
1/P2
1/P
1/P0.
5
OLS
Some size distributions for granular materials
Bimodal Rosin‐Rammler
OLS x n1 x n2
, 0 x
FBiWRR (1 f )1 exp f 1 exp
xc1 xc2
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 15
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
Bimodal Rosin‐Rammler
1/P0.5
OLS x n1
x n2
FBiWRR (1 f )1 exp
f 1 exp , 0 x
xc1 xc2
Some size distributions for granular materials
Bimodal Rosin‐Rammler
1/P
1/P0.5
OLS x n1 x n2
, 0 x
FBiWRR (1 f )1 exp f 1 exp
xc1 xc2
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 16
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Some size distributions for granular materials
Bimodal Rosin‐Rammler
1/P2
1/P
1/P0.
5
OLS x n1
x n2
FBiWRR (1 f )1 exp
f 1 exp , 0 x
xc1 xc2
Choosing the best size distribution
The data:
136 data sets, bench blasting, muckpile sived
Fits of:
RRW, S‐RRW, S‐GRA, SWE,
Bi‐RRW, Bi‐GRA, ExSWE
Weights:
1, 1/P1/2, 1/P, 1/P2
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 17
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Log error in size:
eL log( x*p / x p )
xp x*p
Choosing the best size distribution
Example of errors
Scaled Rosin‐Rammler
1/p1/2‐weighed fits
3.5
Error points
Maximum error Median
3 95 percentile
Expected error:
2.5
𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑒
Absolute log error
2 Expected error
Maximum
1.5 𝑞error:𝑒
0.5
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 18
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Expected error
OLS fits
0.8
RRW
100 % S-RRW
0.7 S-GRA
SWE
0.6 Bi-RRW
Absolute log error, median
Bi-GRA
Ex-SWE
0.5
50 %
0.4
x*p x p x*p
0.3 eR 1
xp xp
25 %
0.2 eL log( x*p / x p ) log(eR 1)
10 %
0.1
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
Choosing the best size distribution
Expected error
1/p1/2 fits
0.8
RRW
100 % S-RRW
0.7 S-GRA
SWE
0.6 Bi-RRW
Absolute log error, median
Bi-GRA
Ex-SWE
0.5
50 %
0.4
x*p x p x*p
0.3 eR 1
xp xp
25 %
0.2 eL log( x / x p ) log(eR 1)
*
p
10 %
0.1
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 19
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Expected error
1/p fits
0.8
RRW
S-RRW
0.7 100 % S-GRA
SWE
0.6 Bi-RRW
Absolute log error, median
Bi-GRA
Ex-SWE
0.5
50 %
0.4
x*p x p x*p
0.3 eR 1
xp xp
25 %
0.2 eL log( x*p / x p ) log(eR 1)
0.1 10 %
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
Choosing the best size distribution
Expected error
1/p2 fits
0.8
RRW
S-RRW
0.7 100 % S-GRA
SWE
0.6 Bi-RRW
Absolute log error, median
Bi-GRA
ExSWE
0.5
50 %
0.4
x*p x p x*p
0.3 eR 1
xp xp
25 %
0.2 eL log( x / x p ) log(eR 1)
*
p
0.1 10 %
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 20
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Maximum error
OLS fits
1.6
RRW
S-RRW
1.4 300 % S-GRA
SWE
Absolute log error, 95 percentile
1.2 Bi-WRR
200 % Bi-GRA
Ex-SWE
1
0.8
100 %
x*p x p x*p
0.6 eR 1
xp xp
50 %
0.4 eL log( x*p / x p ) log(eR 1)
25 %
0.2
10 %
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
Choosing the best size distribution
Maximum error
1/p1/2 fits
1.6
RRW
300 % S-RRW
1.4 S-GRA
SWE
Absolute log error, 95 percentile
1.2 Bi-RRW
200 % Bi-GRA
Ex-SWE
1
0.8
100 %
x*p x p x*p
0.6 eR 1
xp xp
50 %
0.4 eL log( x / x p ) log(eR 1)
*
p
20 %
0.2
10 %
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 21
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Maximum error
1/p fits
1.6
RWW
S-RRW
1.4 300 % S-GRA
SWE
Absolute log error, 95 percentile
1.2 Bi-WRR
200 % Bi-GRA
Ex-SWE
1
0.8
100 %
x*p x p x*p
0.6 eR 1
xp xp
50 %
0.4 eL log( x*p / x p ) log(eR 1)
25 %
0.2
10 %
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
Choosing the best size distribution
Maximum error
1/p2 fits
1.6
RRW
300 % S-RRW
1.4 S-GRA
SWE
Absolute log error, 95 percentile
1.2 Bi-RRW
200 % Bi-GRA
Ex-SWE
1
0.8
100 %
x*p x p x*p
0.6 eR 1
xp xp
50 %
0.4 eL log( x / x p ) log(eR 1)
*
p
25 %
0.2
10 %
0 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10
Passing (%)
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 22
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Expected error (%) Maximum error (%)
Size-scaled Bi-components Size-scaled Bi-components
Passing Weights Passing Weights
(%) exponent RRW S-RRW S-GRA SWE Bi-RRW Bi-GRA Ex-SWE (%) exponent RRW S-RRW S-GRA SWE Bi-RRW Bi-GRA Ex-SWE
99 0 23 7 7 10 1 2 5 99 0 109 33 33 33 50 65 33
0.5 26 8 8 11 2 3 6 0.5 164 58 57 40 63 77 40
1 26 8 10 14 5 5 6 1 293 58 74 47 62 96 48
2 61 8 11 31 9 11 7 2 1798 83 95 626 178 460 95
95 0 15 5 6 7 1 2 4 95 0 86 31 28 30 15 19 29
0.5 19 7 7 8 2 2 4 0.5 148 44 56 39 42 29 36
1 19 7 8 9 4 4 4 1 288 55 69 43 51 81 43
2 42 8 8 18 5 6 6 2 1505 81 94 407 138 404 91
90 0 8 5 6 5 1 1 2 90 0 31 28 24 25 9 14 13
0.5 12 5 6 6 1 1 2 0.5 31 31 34 29 12 14 14
1 14 7 8 5 2 2 2 1 48 47 35 38 18 16 14
2 29 7 8 12 3 4 5 2 1322 78 96 101 38 28 22
80 0 5 2 3 4 1 1 1 80 0 20 20 19 20 6 7 10
0.5 5 3 3 4 1 1 1 0.5 25 21 20 20 7 9 10
1 7 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 37 23 23 20 8 12 11
2 11 6 6 7 2 2 3 2 940 47 42 30 19 20 15
50 0 6 4 5 4 1 1 3 50 0 21 20 18 14 10 11 9
0.5 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 0.5 22 21 18 14 10 10 10
1 6 5 5 5 2 2 3 1 22 21 20 15 9 9 12
2 12 7 8 6 2 2 3 2 349 62 81 21 12 12 17
< 5 % 20 < 25 %
0 14 8 7 10 4 4 5 20 0 34 34 35 30 22 22 26
5 – 10 % 0.5 8 6 5 9 4 3 4 25 – 50 % 0.5 26 31 34 25 20 23 22
1 6 5 5 8 4 4 3 1 38 31 34 22 24 33 20
10 – 25 % 2 6 4 4 5 4 4 3 50 – 100 % 2 46 46 66 17 24 32 20
10 0 39 13 14 13 6 7 8
> 25 % 0.5
> 100 % 10 0 162 78 94 66 38 39 58
22 9 9 11 6 7 5 0.5 121 62 73 47 27 32 42
1 16 9 11 11 6 6 3 1 95 60 64 41 22 24 34
2 11 11 12 8 4 5 4 2 60 42 50 29 17 15 28
5 0 59 23 34 27 8 7 8 5 0 458 207 290 178 87 79 104
0.5 35 11 18 15 6 5 7 0.5 235 90 108 98 32 42 69
1 15 13 12 15 6 4 8 1 101 49 55 79 19 20 48
2 11 12 12 10 3 4 7 2 61 53 56 34 32 33 35
2 0 272 149 193 62 16 20 22 2 0 2555 769 1207 282 200 284 143
0.5 180 76 99 32 9 15 13 0.5 1561 512 702 173 118 148 103
1 73 29 39 19 10 10 12 1 650 343 471 128 61 47 87
2 25 28 30 11 9 11 12 2 128 116 110 142 37 35 44
1 0 1224 690 1123 195 44 70 54 1 0 8701 2098 3504 1535 422 661 637
0.5 725 399 572 165 31 33 53 0.5 4075 1049 1574 2193 359 419 368
1 342 195 285 97 21 17 35 1 1360 670 1048 1128 122 155 218
2 44 35 41 15 11 13 14 2 160 155 145 220 51 52 79
0.5 0 2808 1061 1898 346 82 154 60 0.5 0 10725 3689 5105 4421 573 810 2165
0.5 1299 529 863 262 74 89 61 0.5 5223 1732 2329 3332 405 573 691
1 580 239 376 199 35 49 42 1 2046 961 1245 1815 226 282 488
2 53 38 43 15 10 13 13 2 249 224 217 383 67 57 150
Choosing the best size distribution
‐ Muckpile fragmentation data (sieving) will probably have an error of about
10 – 20 %.
‐ You don’t want to add much more to that when you fit a function.
‐ If you are using a distribution function upfront (e.g. when using a
prediction formula – Kuz‐Ram type) you want it to be able to represent
fragmentation with an error comparable to experimental.
Let’s set the error limits as:
‐ 25 % for the expected error
[Errors will be about 50 % of the times higher, and 50 % of the times lower]
‐ 100 % for the maximum error
[Errors will rarely exceed that value]
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 23
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Expected error (%) Maximum error (%)
Size-scaled Bi-components Size-scaled Bi-components
Passing Weights Passing Weights
(%) exponent RRW S-RRW S-GRA SWE Bi-RRW Bi-GRA Ex-SWE (%) exponent RRW S-RRW S-GRA SWE Bi-RRW Bi-GRA Ex-SWE
99 0 23 7 7 10 1 2 5 99 0 109 33 33 33 50 65 33
0.5 26 8 8 11 2 3 6 0.5 164 58 57 40 63 77 40
1 26 8 10 14 5 5 6 1 293 58 74 47 62 96 48
2 61 8 11 31 9 11 7 2 1798 83 95 626 178 460 95
95 0 15 5 6 7 1 2 4 95 0 86 31 28 30 15 19 29
0.5 19 7 7 8 2 2 4 0.5 148 44 56 39 42 29 36
1 19 7 8 9 4 4 4 1 288 55 69 43 51 81 43
2 42 8 8 18 5 6 6 2 1505 81 94 407 138 404 91
90 0 8 5 6 5 1 1 2 90 0 31 28 24 25 9 14 13
0.5 12 5 6 6 1 1 2 0.5 31 31 34 29 12 14 14
1 14 7 8 5 2 2 2 1 48 47 35 38 18 16 14
2 29 7 8 12 3 4 5 2 1322 78 96 101 38 28 22
80 0 5 2 3 4 1 1 1 80 0 20 20 19 20 6 7 10
0.5 5 3 3 4 1 1 1 0.5 25 21 20 20 7 9 10
1 7 4 4 4 1 1 2 1 37 23 23 20 8 12 11
2 11 6 6 7 2 2 3 2 940 47 42 30 19 20 15
50 0 6 4 5 4 1 1 3 50 0 21 20 18 14 10 11 9
0.5 5 5 5 5 2 2 3 0.5 22 21 18 14 10 10 10
1 6 5 5 5 2 2 3 1 22 21 20 15 9 9 12
2 12 7 8 6 2 2 3 2 349 62 81 21 12 12 17
< 5 % 20 < 25 %
0 14 8 7 10 4 4 5 20 0 34 34 35 30 22 22 26
5 – 10 % 0.5 8 6 5 9 4 3 4 25 – 50 % 0.5 26 31 34 25 20 23 22
1 6 5 5 8 4 4 3 1 38 31 34 22 24 33 20
10 – 25 % 2 6 4 4 5 4 4 3 50 – 100 % 2 46 46 66 17 24 32 20
10 0 39 13 14 13 6 7 8 10 0 162 78 94 66 38 39 58
> 25 % 0.5 22 9 9 11 6 7 5 > 100 % 0.5 121 62 73 47 27 32 42
1 16 9 11 11 6 6 3 1 95 60 64 41 22 24 34
2 11 11 12 8 4 5 4 2 60 42 50 29 17 15 28
5 0 59 23 34 27 8 7 8 5 0 458 207 290 178 87 79 104
0.5 35 11 18 15 6 5 7 0.5 235 90 108 98 32 42 69
1 15 13 12 15 6 4 8 1 101 49 55 79 19 20 48
2 11 12 12 10 3 4 7 2 61 53 56 34 32 33 35
2 0 272 149 193 62 16 20 22 2 0 2555 769 1207 282 200 284 143
0.5 180 76 99 32 9 15 13 0.5 1561 512 702 173 118 148 103
1 73 29 39 19 10 10 12 1 650 343 471 128 61 47 87
2 25 28 30 11 9 11 12 2 128 116 110 142 37 35 44
1 0 1224 690 1123 195 44 70 54 1 0 8701 2098 3504 1535 422 661 637
0.5 725 399 572 165 31 33 53 0.5 4075 1049 1574 2193 359 419 368
1 342 195 285 97 21 17 35 1 1360 670 1048 1128 122 155 218
2 44 35 41 15 11 13 14 2 160 155 145 220 51 52 79
0.5 0 2808 1061 1898 346 82 154 60 0.5 0 10725 3689 5105 4421 573 810 2165
0.5 1299 529 863 262 74 89 61 0.5 5223 1732 2329 3332 405 573 691
1 580 239 376 199 35 49 42 1 2046 961 1245 1815 226 282 488
2 53 38 43 15 10 13 13 2 249 224 217 383 67 57 150
Choosing the best size distribution
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 24
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Conclusions
‐ Representing size distribution of rock fragments with analytic functions is a
challenging, no trivial task, the more as the size/passing data stretch a wider range
of size or percentage passing.
‐ Tests have been made with 136 size distributions of rock fragments from bench
blasting, all of them obtained by sieving.
‐ Functional distributions have been fitted and the errors of the fits evaluated.
‐ By varying the weights of the fits, functions matching different zones of the data
are obtained. This way the maximum range of the data that a given function can
match with a certain error level is assessed.
Choosing the best size distribution
Conclusions
‐ For a maximum 25 % expected relative error and 100 % maximum error, the
ranges of use of the functions are:
Function No. of Range, passing (%) Expected error Maximum error
param. (%) (%)
Rosin‐Rammler 2 96 – 13 4 – 17 17 – 96
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 25
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
Conclusions
‐ And, relaxing a little bit the 25/100 % error restriction:
Choosing the best size distribution
No. of constants 2 3 3 5 5
98 ‐ 10
4 – 25
15 ‐ 161
100 ‐ 2
Function Err. Err. Max. 100 ‐ 1 4 – 19
Exp. (%) (%) 4 – 35 13 ‐ 124
R‐R 4 – 17 17 – 96 15 ‐ 136 99 – 0.5
4 – 25 15 – 161
S‐R‐R 4 – 17 14 – 83 2 – 11 100 –
4 – 35 14 – 136 9 ‐ 178 0.514
3 –
Swebrec 4 – 14 13 – 72 9 ‐ 150
4 – 19 13 – 124
Bi R‐R 1 – 10 8 – 61
2 – 11 9 – 178
Ex‐Swebrec 3 – 14 11 – 95
3 – 14 11 – 150
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 26
Fragment size distributions Explosives Engineering
Choosing the best size distribution
No. of constants 2 3 3 5 5
98 ‐ 10
4 – 25
15 ‐ 161
100 ‐ 2
Function Err. Err. Max. 100 ‐ 1 4 – 19
Exp. (%) (%) 4 – 35 13 ‐ 124
R‐R 4 – 17 17 – 96 15 ‐ 136 99 – 0.5
4 – 25 15 – 161
S‐R‐R 4 – 17 14 – 83 2 – 11 100 –
4 – 35 14 – 136 9 ‐ 178 0.514
3 –
Swebrec 4 – 14 13 – 72 9 ‐ 150
4 – 19 13 – 124
Bi R‐R 1 – 10 8 – 61
2 – 11 9 – 178
Ex‐Swebrec 3 – 14 11 – 95
3 – 14 11 – 150
José A. Sanchidrián
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid 27