Figure 1

(Color online) (a) Survivor functions of fragment masses obtained for a set of parameters reflecting extremal values of strain rate $\dot{\epsilon }$, toughness $G_c$, and ring length $L_{\text{ring}}$ (Table ). The masses $m$ are in grams. (b) Same survivor functions after normalization of the $x$ axis resulting in a single curve in a log-log plot.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 2

(Color online) Survivor function associated to test 5 (thick curve) (Table ) and box plots of the survivor functions underline the scattering of the distributions calculated independently over the 299 experiments. The $x$ axis involves normalized masses.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 3

(Color online) Numerical results associated to test 13, fitting curve (generalized gamma distribution with shape parameter 2, $\beta \simeq 2.2$, and $\mu \simeq 2.7m_{\text{aver}}$), and experimental data points from Grady and Benson [23], Grady and Olsen [22], and Zhang et al. [24] are displayed. The analytical models of one-dimensional fragmentation are based on Voronoi tessellation and Poisson point process.Reuse & Permissions

Figure 4

(Color online) Survivor functions of the heaviest fragment mass and their fit with a Gumbel distribution. For each test, $m$ corresponds to the heaviest fragment mass and $m_{\text{aver}}$ refers to the average fragment mass. The validity of the Gumbel fit has been verified but is not represented here, for the sake of clarity. For instance, for test 9, only three points over the 83 maxima lie outside the 99% confidence envelope. The less precise fits correspond to tests 4 and 12 and are represented here. This disagreement can be explained by finite-size effects of the ring.Reuse & Permissions