## 3 Results and Discussion
It is well known that the performance (or power) of explosives determined by different tests does not follow the same ranking order. For example, for blasting work, the detonation heat and the amount of detonation products are the most significant parameters. However, if an explosive performs strong disintegration work, then the most important parameters are the velocity of detonation and pressure [34]. [PERSON] [28] claims that the detonation energy calculated by thermochemical codes allows assessment of the TNT equivalency with respect to peak pressure, while the heat of detonation allows estimation of TNT equivalency with respect to quasi-static pressure at a long time. However, we could not find any previous research on which detonation parameter is best to use to derive TNT or any other explosive equivalence concerning PPV values. Considering the above-mentioned, the first step in the validation of the approach was to find which detonation parameter, i.e., which equation for the calculation of EME\({}_{\text{e}}\) (Equations (4)-(8)), correlates best with the measured PPV. The analysis showed that EME\({}_{\text{e}}\) derived from \(Q\), \(E_{0}\), and \(QV_{0}\)\({}^{0.5}\) (Equations (4)-(6)), give similar results and all of them overpredict PPV, EME\({}_{\text{e}}\) derived from p\({}_{\text{CJ}}\) (Equation (7)) greatly underpredicts PPV, while EME\({}_{\text{e}}\) derived from detonation velocity (Equation (8)) best reproduce experimental _PPV-SD_ data for all studied explosives. For illustration, the results of the analysis for EMM/EPS-40/60 mixture are given in Figure 3. Considering that, further validation is achieved using EME equivalents calculated by Equation (8). As a part of the validation, we compared the experimental PPV-SD(W) data given in Table 5 against the data calculated by Equation (15) using EME equivalent weight (PPV-SD(W\({}_{\text{e}}\))). The best-fit curve for EME explosives is also given for the comparison (Figure 4). It can be observed from Figure 4 that a satisfactory agreement between the experimental and predicted PPV-SD data exists for all explosives. It should be noted that the experimental PPV-SD data for EME (Figure 2) exhibit a significant scattering of the results, especially in the area of lower SD, i.e., closer to the blast point. In this region, PPV exponentially increases with the decrease of SD, so a small variation in measured distance or explosive weight may cause a significant change in PPV, which results in larger experimental errors. For example, for SD \(\approx 10\) m/kg\({}^{0.5}\), the PPV ranges between 48.5 mm/s and 27.3 mm/s (the difference is 21.2 mm/s, almost double). For EMM/EPS mixtures, for SD = 10-15 m/kg\({}^{1/2}\), the minimum and the maximum PPV differ between 5 and 13.5 mm/s. With that in mind, it can be concluded that the predicted PPV values for EME/PPS mixtures are within experimental error (Figure 4). Figure 3: Comparison of experimental and predicted values of PPV for EMM/EPS-40/60 mixture. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Explosive**} & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **EME\({}_{e}\)/100** \\ **(Equation (8))** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Experimental Data**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Calculated Equivalent Weight and Scaled Distance**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **\(W\)** \\ **(g)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **\(R\)** \\ **(m)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **PPV** \\ **(mm/s)** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **\(SD(W,R)\)** \\ **(m/kg\({}^{0.5}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **\(W_{e}\) (g)** \\ **(m/kg\({}^{0.5}\))** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **\(SD(W_{e},R)\)** \\ **(m/kg\({}^{0.5}\))** \\ \end{tabular}