## 3 Results and Discussion  
The parameters of detonation for explosives used in this study are calculated using the EXPLO5 thermochemical code, applying the Chapman-Jouguet detonation model. The calculated detonation parameters, along with the experimentally determined detonation velocities, are given in Table 2.  
It can be seen from Table 2 that experimental and calculated detonation velocities for EME differ by less than 1%, while in the case of EMM/EPS mixtures, the difference increases as the amount of EPS increases, reaching \(\sim\)25% for the mixture containing 80% of EPS. As shown in our previous studies [35; 37; 38], EXPLO5 can predict the detonation velocity of a large series of different explosives with an error of less than 5%, so a large discrepancy observed between experimental and calculated detonation velocities for mixtures containing a larger amount of EPS points to the conclusion that these explosives behave non-ideally. Among other things, the non-ideal behavior manifests in a decrease in detonation velocity with an explosive charge diameter decrease, and ideal detonation codes always predict larger detonation velocities than the experimental ones. Recently, [PERSON] et al. [24] have demonstrated that ideal detonation codes can be used to predict the TNT equivalent and relative strength of explosives from the heat of detonation and the volume of detonation products for both ideal and nonideal explosives. In light of this finding, and aware of the limitation of ideal detonation codes when it comes to accurate prediction of D and p of commercial explosives, in this research, we used the ideal detonation code, but we calculated the TNT equivalent using different detonation parameters. Although, in most studies, TNT is used as a reference explosive when comparing the effect of the yield of a certain explosive, in this study we have chosen EME as a reference explosive. The main reason for choosing EME is that both EME and EMM/EPS mixtures belong to the same class of explosives--commercial explosives. This is important because, according to [PERSON] [39], the equivalency principle can provide suitable results for an equal class of explosives, i.e., explosives that perform in the same manner. Compared to TNT, which behaves ideally, explosives used in this study exhibit non-ideal behavior and have significantly lower values of detonation parameters. With regards to the above, Equations (4)-(8) change in such a way that the detonation parameters for EME are used instead of those for TNT, and the TNT equivalent (TNTe) is replaced by EME equivalent (EMEe). The EME equivalents for EMM/EPS mixtures are calculated based on the detonation parameters given in Table 2 and using modified Equations (4)-(8). The results are given in Table 3.  
It is evident from Table 3 that Equations (4)-(6) give fairly similar EMEe values (difference up to 7.3%), while Equation (8) gives significantly lower values of EMEe. On the other hand, the EMEe values calculated by Equation (7) greatly deviate from the values obtained by other equations. Which of the equations given in Table 3 gives better results, i.e., which detonation parameter enables the most accurate estimation of the peak particle velocity by applying the equivalence principle, will be discussed below. In the experiment [30] carried out using EME explosives, the authors measured PPV as a function of charge weight and distance from the blast (Figure 1). For analysis, only measurements from Line 1 were used since the PPV values for Lines 1 and 2 are similar, with small discrepancies due to microgeological conditions and different directions. The maximum PPV from each blast and monitoring position (MO) for EME are given in Table 4.