Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12552 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- Accurately estimating the sensitivity of explosive materials is a potentially life-saving task which requires standardised protocols across nations. One of the most widely applied procedures worldwide is the so-called '1-In-6' test from the United Nations (UN) Manual of Tests in Criteria, which estimates a 'limiting stimulus' for a material. In this paper we demonstrate that, despite their popularity, limiting stimuli are not a well-defined notion of sensitivity and do not provide reliable information about a material's susceptibility to ignition. In particular, they do not permit construction of confidence intervals to quantify estimation uncertainty. We show that continued reliance on limiting stimuli through the 1-In-6 test has caused needless confusion in energetic materials research, both in theoretical studies and practical safety applications. To remedy this problem, we consider three well-founded alternative approaches to sensitivity testing to replace limiting stimulus estimation. We compare their performance in an extensive simulation study and apply the best-performing approach to real data, estimating the friction sensitivity of pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN).