Skip to main content
Log in

Fragment distribution as an aid to forensic failure investigations at the scene of explosions

  • Peer Reviewed Articles
  • Published:
Practical failure analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Twelve pipe bombs were exploded, and the fragments were collected and weighed. The distribution of fragment masses was shown to follow a Weibull-type form M (n)=M0 [1 − exp (−Bnλ)] when RDX-based military explosives were used and a bimodal distribution when commercial explosives were used. The constant, B, was a function of the mass of fragments recovered, making its use inappropriate in a forensic context where complete collection of the fragments would not be possible. For RDX-based explosives with added Mg or Al powder, the value of the constant, λ, was reduced compared to that of the RDX-based explosive without metal powder additions. An alternative fragment distribution formula, log [(100 M (N))/M0]=FWDM [m(N)/ M0], can also be used to distinguish between explosives, although the correlation coefficient is inevitably somewhat lower and the scatter between the results of nominally identical tests can be greater. The coefficient, FWDM, has a dependence on the mass of fragments collected, restricting its utility in forensic contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H.P. Tardif and T.S. Sterling: “Explosively Produced Fractures and Fragments in Forensic Investigations,”J. Forensic Sci., 1967,12(3), pp. 247–72.

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. Gurney: Report 405, Ballistics Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, MD. Quoted in M.A. Meyers,Dynamic Behavior of Materials(New York: John Wiley, 1994): pp. 229–43.

  3. N.F. Mott:Proc. Royal Society A, 1947,189, pp. 300–08.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Held:Tactical Missile Warheads, J. Carleone, ed., AIAA, Washington, DC, 1993, pp. 387–464.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J.C. Oxley, J.L. Smith, E. Resende, E. Rogers, R.A. Strobel, and E.C. Bender: “Improvised Explosive Devices: Pipe Bombs,”J. Forensic Sci., 2001,46(3), pp. 510–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. A. Roine:HSC Chemistry Version 2.03, Outukompu Research Oy, Pori, Finland.

  7. Shock Waves and High-Strain-Rate Phenomena in Metals, M.A. Meyers and L.E. Murr, ed., 1981, Plenum, New York, pp. 1033–39.

    Google Scholar 

  8. J. Akhavan:The Chemistry of Explosives, Royal Society of Chemistry, London, 1998, pp. 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  9. H. Kast:Zeitung für das gesamte Schiess- und Sprengstoffwesen-Nitrocellulose, 8, 1913, pp. 65–68. Quoted in B.T. Federoff and O.E. Sheffield, ed.,Encyclopaedia of Explosives and Related Items (Dover, NJ, Picatinny Arsenal, 1962): pp. B265–97.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P.W. Cooper and S.R. Kurowski:Introduction to the Technology of Explosives, Wiley VCH, New York, 1996, pp. 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dean, R., Edwards, M.R. Fragment distribution as an aid to forensic failure investigations at the scene of explosions. Practical Failure Analysis 2, 33–40 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02715417

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02715417

Keywords

Navigation