Method for quantitatively evaluating glass fragment hazard under explosion impact and application thereof

Abstract

This invention discloses a quantitative assessment method for the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact and its application, belonging to the field of explosion protection and structural safety assessment. The method first collects characteristic parameters of the glass fragments after the explosion and screens out hazardous fragments according to standards; by introducing benchmark values ​​and weighting coefficients for dimensionless weighting, the hazard index of each hazardous fragment is calculated segmentally for different projection distances; the indices of all hazardous fragments are summed to obtain a unified hazard index for the glass plate, which is then mapped to a standard safety level. This invention achieves a unified, comparable, and quantifiable engineering evaluation of the hazard of glass fragments, providing a reliable basis for the safe design and optimal selection of solutions for glass under explosive conditions.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of explosion protection and structural safety assessment technology, specifically to a method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact and its application. Background Technology

[0002] Architectural glass is highly susceptible to shattering under explosive loads, generating a large number of high-speed flying fragments. These fragments are the primary source of secondary injuries and fatalities in explosion accidents. Currently, the industry mainly evaluates the explosion safety of glass based on standards such as ISO 16933 (e.g., D, E, F levels). The evaluation methods focus on observing final state indicators such as whether the glass detaches entirely, whether fragments penetrate the witness panel, the distance fragments are thrown, and the number of large fragments. While these methods provide important safety benchmarks, they have significant limitations: First, the various indicators are discrete and independent, making it difficult to integrate them into a continuous and comparable comprehensive risk value, resulting in an inability to conduct precise quantitative comparisons between glass solutions with different structures, sizes, or support conditions; second, existing methods focus on qualitative judgments of "whether a certain level is passed" rather than quantitative descriptions of "the specific degree of danger," making it difficult to support parameter sensitivity analysis and refined optimization during the design phase.

[0003] Therefore, there is an urgent need in this field for a unified quantitative assessment method that can comprehensively consider multiple injury-causing factors such as fragment mass, size, projection distance, and impact height, in order to solve the problems of discrete indicators, difficulty in quantitative comparison and optimization in the existing technology. Summary of the Invention

[0004] This invention aims to overcome the shortcomings of existing technologies and provide a calculable, summable, and standard safety level-mapped method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact. This method transforms multiple discrete fragment risk parameters into a single, continuous, unified hazard index through dimensionless scaling, weighting, and summation, thereby achieving accurate quantitative evaluation and scheme comparison of glass explosion resistance.

[0005] To solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the technical solution proposed in this application is as follows:

[0006] This invention provides a method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact, comprising the following steps:

[0007] S1: Obtain all fragments produced by the glass plate after the explosion impact, and extract the parameters of each fragment, including: mass m i Total dimensions of the three axes L i Maximum feature size S i Projectile distance d i and impact height h i ;

[0008] S2: Based on the preset hazardous fragment judgment criteria, select a set of hazardous fragments from all the fragments obtained in S1;

[0009] S3: For each hazardous fragment in the hazardous fragment set selected in S2, set a corresponding benchmark value and weighting coefficient for the parameters; the benchmark value includes a quality benchmark value m. ref The total datum value L of the three-axis dimensions ref Maximum feature size reference value S ref Projection distance reference value d ref and the impact height reference value h ref The weighting coefficients include the quality weighting coefficient w. m The total weighting coefficient w for the three-axis dimensions L The maximum feature size weighting coefficient w S Projectile distance weighting coefficient w d and the impact height weighting coefficient w h ;

[0010] S4: For each hazardous fragment, based on its projection distance d i Calculate the hazard index Di of this single fragment:

[0011] ;

[0012] S5: Sum the hazard indices Di of all hazardous fragments to obtain a unified hazard index Du representing the overall hazard level of the glass panel; the formula for calculating the unified hazard index Du is:

[0013] ;

[0014] Where N represents the projectile distance d i In accordance with 1 meter <d i The total number of hazardous debris ≤3 meters, N eff Represents the projectile distance d i The total number of dangerous debris exceeding 3 meters in height;

[0015] S6: Compare the calculated unified hazard index Du with the preset safety level threshold, and output the quantification level of the glass plate fragment hazard based on the comparison result.

[0016] Furthermore, in S2, the preset hazardous debris determination criteria include at least: the debris's launch distance d. i ≥1 meter, and the total three-axis dimensions of the fragments L i ≥25 mm.

[0017] Furthermore, the maximum feature size S iThe impact height h refers to the maximum size of the fragment in three-dimensional space. i This refers to the vertical height of the impact point above the ground when the fragment impacts the witness board or a pre-set equivalent human target; the sum of the three dimensions L i This is the sum of the characteristic dimensions of the fragment in the length direction and in two orthogonal directions perpendicular to the length direction.

[0018] Furthermore, in S4, the formula is applied to different projectile distances d. i The fragments were segmented; when the ejection distance d of the fragments... i Satisfying 1 meter ≤ d i When the height is ≤3 meters, the impact height h of the fragment is... i Treat it as zero or not included in the calculation; when the projectile distance d of the fragment is... i If the debris is greater than 3 meters and impacts the witness board, the impact height h will be included. i .

[0019] Furthermore, the selection of the benchmark value mentioned in S3 is based on explosion test statistics and thresholds in industry standards. The minimum reference value that meets the evaluation requirements is selected as follows: quality benchmark value m ref = 0.13 grams, maximum feature size reference value S ref =11.7 mm, total dimensional reference value L of the three axes ref = 25.5 mm, projectile distance reference value d ref = 1.0 meter, impact height reference value h ref = 0.01 meters.

[0020] Furthermore, the principle for setting the weighting coefficients described in S3 is that parameters with higher sensitivity to causing injury to the human body are assigned greater weights; the weighting coefficients are as follows: mass weighting coefficient w m = 0.10, the weighting coefficient for the sum of the three-axis dimensions w L = 0.13, the weighting coefficient for the largest feature size w S = 0.20, projectile distance weighting coefficient w d = 0.20, impact height weighting coefficient w h = 0.30.

[0021] Furthermore, the preset safety level threshold mentioned in S6 is used to establish a mapping relationship between the unified hazard index Du and the safety level; wherein, the mapping relationship is as follows: when the unified hazard index Du < 45, the hazard level of the glass fragments is determined to be level D; when the unified hazard index Du satisfies 50 ≤ Du ≤ 190, the hazard level is determined to be level E; when the unified hazard index Du > 190, the hazard level is determined to be level F; the hazard levels D, E, and F are defined with reference to the ISO 16933 standard.

[0022] Furthermore, the fragment parameters described in S1 are obtained through two methods: physical experiments and numerical simulations.

[0023] In physical explosion experiments, the mass m of the fragments is directly obtained through high-speed photography, on-site measurement, and weighing. i Total dimensions of the three axes L i Maximum feature size S i Projectile distance d i and impact height h i ;

[0024] In numerical simulation, the mass m of the fragment is calculated based on the total volume of the fragment unit set formed after the simulation model breaks and the material density. i The sum of the three-axis dimensions L is calculated based on the envelope size of the fragment unit set in three-dimensional space. i With the largest feature size S i And by tracking the trajectory of the debris, the ejection distance d is extracted. i and impact height h i .

[0025] Furthermore, when calculating the uniform hazard index Du in S5, the hazard index Du can be decomposed into components contributed by mass, size, distance, and height parameters, respectively, to analyze the contribution of different risk sources.

[0026] On the other hand, this application also claims protection for a method for optimizing a glass explosion-proof safety design scheme using any of the methods described above, comprising:

[0027] Step A: For the same glass structure, design multiple different support conditions or geometric parameter schemes;

[0028] Step B: For each scheme in Step A, calculate its uniform hazard index Du under the set explosion conditions;

[0029] Step C: Compare the values ​​of the uniform risk index Du calculated from all the schemes;

[0030] Step D: Select the scheme with the lowest uniform hazard index Du value as the explosion-proof safety design scheme for the glass structure under the explosion condition.

[0031] Compared with the prior art, the present invention achieves the following beneficial technical effects:

[0032] This invention integrates multiple discrete risk indicators of glass fragments after an explosion into a unified hazard index, enabling precise quantitative comparison of safety performance among different glass structures and design schemes. This method aligns with existing engineering standards, and the evaluation results can be directly mapped to authoritative safety levels, while also possessing good engineering interpretability. Furthermore, it supports rapid data acquisition through physical experiments or numerical simulations, significantly improving the R&D efficiency and design optimization capabilities of explosion-proof glass, and providing a reliable quantitative basis for safety design and risk control. Attached Figure Description

[0033] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of the present invention. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0034] Figure 1 This is a schematic diagram of the overall process of the quantitative assessment method for the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact according to the present invention.

[0035] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the glass plate, witness plate, fragments, and various parameters (projection distance, impact height) during the explosion test.

[0036] Figure 3 A map showing the experimental site markings for the areas where debris landed after the experiment.

[0037] Figure 4 This is a photograph of the glass fragments collected after the experiment.

[0038] Figure 5 This is a set of fragment units and their time history trajectory after glass failure in a numerical simulation experiment.

[0039] In the diagram: 1-glass plate, 2-witness board, 3-fragments, 4-walls and ground, 5-hazardous debris collection area, 6-safe zone. Detailed Implementation

[0040] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present invention clearer, the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0041] The quantitative assessment method for the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact described in this invention has the following complete process: Figure 1 As shown, the specific implementation includes the following six steps:

[0042] S1: Obtain all fragments produced by the glass plate 1 after the explosion impact, and extract the parameters of each fragment 3;

[0043] This step aims to comprehensively collect basic information about all glass fragments after the explosion. For example... Figure 2 As shown, under the impact of the blast shockwave, glass plate 1 breaks, producing fragments 3, which fall onto the wall and the ground 4. Each identifiable fragment needs to be numbered, and the following five key parameters need to be extracted: mass m i Total dimensions of the three axes L i Maximum feature size S i Projectile distance d i and impact height h i .in:

[0044] mass m i The mass of the fragment, measured in grams, is directly related to its kinetic energy.

[0045] The sum of the three dimensions L i The sum of the characteristic dimensions of a fragment in three mutually perpendicular directions (such as length, width, and thickness), expressed in millimeters, reflects the overall size of the fragment.

[0046] Maximum feature size S i The largest scale of a fragment in three-dimensional space (such as the longest diagonal), measured in millimeters, reflects its penetration and cutting potential.

[0047] Projectile distance d i The horizontal distance of a fragment from the center of the glass plate at its original position to its final resting point (or point of impact), measured in meters, reflects its scattering ability.

[0048] Impact height h i Specifically refers to the vertical height of the center of the impact hole from the ground above the impact point of fragments that struck Witness Board 2, measured in meters. This parameter is used to assess the risk of injury to critical parts of the human body, such as the head.

[0049] S2: Based on the preset hazardous fragment judgment criteria, select a set of hazardous fragments from all the fragments obtained in S1;

[0050] After obtaining all fragment parameters, a subset of fragments with significant hazards must be selected based on clear judgment criteria, excluding low-risk fragments that are too small or launched too close. The judgment criteria are: the fragment's launch distance d. i ≥1 meter, and the sum of its three axes L i≥25 mm. Only debris that meets both of these conditions is considered "hazardous debris" and proceeds to the next calculation stage. This step focuses on the main sources of risk, improving assessment efficiency.

[0051] S3: For each hazardous fragment in the set of hazardous fragments selected in S2, set a corresponding baseline value and weight coefficient for the parameter respectively;

[0052] This step establishes a unified benchmark and influencing factors for the quantitative calculation. For the five parameters extracted in S1, a benchmark value is introduced for dimensionless processing, and a weighting coefficient is added to adjust their contribution to the final index.

[0053] The benchmark values ​​include: mass benchmark value m ref The total datum value L of the three-axis dimensions ref Maximum feature size reference value S ref Projection distance reference value d ref and the impact height reference value h ref These values ​​are typically determined based on extensive experimental data and lower thresholds in industry standards.

[0054] The weighting coefficients include: quality weighting coefficient w m The total weighting coefficient w for the three-axis dimensions L The maximum feature size weighting coefficient w S Projectile distance weighting coefficient w d and the impact height weighting coefficient w h The principle for setting the coefficients is that parameters that are more sensitive to human injury (such as impact height and projection distance) are given greater weight.

[0055] S4: For each hazardous fragment, based on its projection distance d i Calculate the hazard index Di for this single fragment;

[0056] This step is the core calculation process. For each hazardous fragment selected by S2, the calculation is based on its projection distance d. i To better reflect the injury mechanism at different distances, a piecewise function model is used to calculate the danger index Di.

[0057]

[0058] Among them, when the ejection distance of the fragments meets the following condition: 1 meter <d i When the distance is ≤3 meters, the danger mainly comes from the size (cutting) and the initial velocity (impact). In this case, the impact height h i The mass term is not included (considered as 0), and its effect is considered to be implicit in the size and distance terms.

[0059] When the ejection distance of the fragments satisfies: di At distances greater than 3 meters, debris reaching this distance still possesses high kinetic energy. The energy potential represented by its mass and the impact height become key risks, therefore the impact height h must be taken into account. i .

[0060] S5: The danger indices Di of all dangerous fragments are summed to obtain a unified danger index Du representing the danger level of the entire glass plate;

[0061] To assess the overall risk of the entire glass pane, the hazard of all hazardous fragments must be summed to obtain a unified hazard index, Du. Its calculation formula integrates the contributions of all parameters to all fragments and reflects the "cumulative effect":

[0062]

[0063] Where N represents the launch distance between 1 meter and 3 meters (i.e., satisfying 1) <d i ≤ 3) Total number of hazardous debris; N eff This represents a launch distance exceeding 3 meters (i.e., d). i >3) The total number of dangerous fragments.

[0064] S6: Compare the calculated unified hazard index Du with the preset safety level threshold, and output the fragment hazard level of the glass plate 1 based on the comparison result.

[0065] By comparing the calculated uniform hazard index Du with the safety level threshold determined in advance through statistical analysis of a large amount of experimental / simulation data, the quantified hazard level of the glass plate's fragmentation can be output. For example, the following mapping relationship can be established for determination:

[0066] When the uniform hazard index Du < 45, the hazard level of glass plate 1 fragments is determined to be D; when the uniform hazard index Du satisfies 50 ≤ Du ≤ 190, the hazard level is determined to be E; when the uniform hazard index Du > 190, the hazard level is determined to be F; the hazard levels D, E, and F are defined in accordance with the ISO 16933 standard.

[0067] In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, as described in S2, the preset hazardous debris determination criterion is specifically: the projection distance d of the debris. i ≥1 meter, and the total three-axis dimensions of the fragments L i ≥25 mm. This dual threshold screening criterion is directly derived from the common definition of "injury-causing debris" in international standards such as ISO, ensuring that the selected debris set has clear engineering risk significance.

[0068] In this invention, each parameter has a clearly defined physical definition and measurement method. The maximum feature size S...i This refers to the maximum size of the fragment in three-dimensional space, which can be obtained by measuring its longest side or diagonal. The impact height h... i This refers to the vertical height of the impact point above the ground when the fragment impacts the witness board 2 or a pre-set equivalent human target. The sum of the three dimensions, L... i This is the sum of the characteristic dimensions of the fragment in the length direction (i.e., the direction of the largest characteristic size) and in two orthogonal directions perpendicular to that length direction. These definitions ensure the standardization of parameter measurements and the repeatability of results.

[0069] In one specific embodiment of the invention, a set of preferred reference values ​​is provided for ease of engineering application. These reference values ​​are determined based on extensive statistical data from explosion tests and industry standard thresholds: mass reference value m ref = 0.13 grams, maximum feature size reference value S ref = 11.7 mm, total reference value L of the three-axis dimensions ref = 25.5 mm, projectile distance reference value d ref =1.0 meter, impact height reference value h ref = 0.01 meters.

[0070] Accordingly, the present invention provides a set of preferred weighting coefficients for use with the above-mentioned benchmark values, the settings of which reflect the relative importance of each parameter to personnel injury: mass weighting coefficient w m = 0.10, the weighting coefficient for the sum of the three-axis dimensions w L =0.13, the maximum feature size weighting coefficient w S = 0.20, projectile distance weighting coefficient w d = 0.20, impact height weighting coefficient w h =0.30. Among them, impact height and projectile distance were given high weights, which is consistent with their significant impact on injury risk.

[0071] The fragment parameters in S1 can be obtained through two main approaches, ensuring the flexibility and applicability of the method:

[0072] Physical explosion test method: The test is conducted in a controlled explosion test site. The flight trajectory of the debris is recorded by high-speed photography. After the test, the size and distance are obtained by on-site measurement, and the mass is obtained by weighing, thus directly obtaining all parameters.

[0073] Numerical simulation approach: A detailed model of the glass plate is created using finite element software (such as LS-DYNA, AUTODYN) and an explosion load is applied for simulation. From the simulation results, the mass m can be calculated based on the total volume of the fragment element set and the material density. i ; Calculate L based on the spatial envelope size of the fragment unit i and Si By tracking the trajectory of the fragment units and extracting their final positions, the projection distance d can be calculated. i and impact height h i .

[0074] After obtaining the unified hazard index Du through S5 calculation, in order to further analyze the risk composition, the hazard index Du can be decomposed according to the source of parameters:

[0075]

[0076] Specifically, Du can be represented as the sum of five contributing components: Du = D m + D L + D S + D d + D h Among them, D m D represents the cumulative contribution of all fragment mass parameters. L D represents the cumulative contribution of the total parameters of the three-axis dimensions. S D represents the cumulative contribution of the largest feature size parameter. d D represents the cumulative contribution of the projectile distance parameter. h This represents the cumulative contribution of the impact height parameter. By comparing the values ​​of these components, the main factors leading to high risk in glass panels (e.g., whether it is excessive distance ejection or excessively large fragment size) can be clearly identified, thus providing a direct basis for targeted improvements to blast-resistant designs.

[0077] The quantification method described in this invention can be directly applied to the optimization of glass explosion-proof safety design schemes. The specific optimization method includes the following steps:

[0078] Step A: For a specific glass structure (such as laminated glass), design multiple different variant schemes. These schemes may differ in terms of support conditions (such as hinged or fixed supports), geometric parameters (such as thickness, aspect ratio, and area).

[0079] Step B: For each design scheme in Step A, the aforementioned method is used to obtain its fragment parameters through experiments or simulations, and the uniform hazard index Du under the same explosion conditions is calculated.

[0080] Step C: Compare the Du values ​​calculated from all design schemes horizontally.

[0081] Step D: Select the scheme with the lowest unified hazard index Du value as the preferred design scheme for the glass structure, which has the lowest overall fragmentation hazard and the best blast resistance under the target explosion condition. This method transforms subjective design experience into objective quantitative comparison, significantly improving design efficiency and scientific rigor.

[0082] The following is a further description with reference to embodiments:

[0083] Example 1: Hazard Quantification Based on Explosion Test Records

[0084] (1) Test setup: 125 kg of TNT explosive and hollow laminated glass specimens were placed in an open-air area. After the explosion, a witness board and a demarcation of the impact zone were placed behind the specimens to record the impact points and penetration conditions of the fragments. Figure 3 As shown, the impact area is divided into a hazardous debris collection zone 5 and a safe zone 6. The experiment can be recorded using high-speed photography.

[0085] (2) Fragment statistics: such as Figure 4 As shown, the fragments were collected after the experiment, numbered according to a preset statistical standard, and their maximum length S was measured. i Three-axis dimensions and L i and the distance d of the landing point i The impact height h of the impact witness board fragments was recorded. i and weigh the mass m i .

[0086] (3) Hazardous debris screening: retain those that meet the criteria d i ≥1 meter and L i Fragments ≥25 mm are included in subsequent calculations. Details are shown in Table 1 below:

[0087] Table 1. Statistics on hazardous fragments in full-scale tests

[0088]

[0089] (4) Parameter settings: Select m ref =0.13 grams, S ref =11.7 mm, L ref =25.5 mm, d ref =1.0 meter, h ref =0.01 meters; weighting coefficient selected as w m =0.10, w L =0.13, w S =0.20, w d =0.20, w h =0.30.

[0090] (5) Calculation and output: For each dangerous fragment, Di is calculated according to the formula and Du is obtained by summing. The Du values ​​of the three hollow laminated glass specimens are 59.54, 63.10 and 64.61, respectively. At the same time, the ranking result of Di is output to identify the most dangerous fragment. Finally, the safety level is determined as Level E based on the threshold range.

[0091] Example 2: Hazard Quantification and Scheme Comparison Based on Numerical Simulation

[0092] (1) According to the design of the full-scale test, a finite element model of the glass plate was established and an explosion load was applied to obtain the set of fragment elements and their time history trajectory after the glass was broken, such as Figure 5 As shown.

[0093] (2) Extract parameters of each fragment from the simulation results: calculate the mass m from the total volume of the fragment unit and the material density. i The triaxial dimensions and L are obtained from the fragment unit envelope box. i With the maximum length S i The distance d to the landing point is obtained from the trajectory. i Impact height h i As shown in Table 2 below:

[0094] Table 2. Statistical Information on Hazardous Debris in Numerical Simulation

[0095]

[0096] (3) Calculate Di and Du according to the screening rules, benchmark values ​​and weight coefficients of Example 1, where Du is 68.06. Finally, based on the threshold range, the safety level judgment result is given as level E, which is consistent with the result of the full-scale test.

[0097] (4) Calculate Du for glass plates with different support forms, different geometric dimensions (e.g., aspect ratio, area, thickness) and different structural layers, and select the scheme with the minimum Du as the preferred explosion-proof scheme.

[0098] (5) It can further output the component contribution of Du (such as the component composed of mass, size, distance and height) to locate the source of risk and guide targeted improvement.

[0099] Finally, it should be noted that the above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and not to limit them; although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features; and these modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1: Obtain all fragments generated by the glass plate (1) after the explosion impact, and extract the parameters of each fragment (3), including: mass m i Total dimensions of the three axes L i Maximum feature size S i Projectile distance d i and impact height h i ; S2: Based on the preset hazardous fragment judgment criteria, select a set of hazardous fragments from all the fragments obtained in S1; S3: For each hazardous fragment in the hazardous fragment set selected in S2, set a corresponding benchmark value and weighting coefficient for the parameters; the benchmark value includes a quality benchmark value m. ref The total datum value L of the three-axis dimensions ref Maximum feature size reference value S ref Projection distance reference value d ref and the impact height reference value h ref The weighting coefficients include the quality weighting coefficient w. m The total weighting coefficient w for the three-axis dimensions L The maximum feature size weighting coefficient w S Projectile distance weighting coefficient w d and the impact height weighting coefficient w h ; S4: For each hazardous fragment, based on its projection distance d i Calculate the hazard index Di of this single fragment: ； S5: Sum the hazard indices Di of all hazardous fragments to obtain a unified hazard index Du representing the overall hazard level of the glass panel; the formula for calculating the unified hazard index Du is: ； Where N represents the projectile distance d i In accordance with 1 meter <d i The total number of hazardous debris ≤3 meters, N eff Represents the projectile distance d i The total number of dangerous debris exceeding 3 meters in height; S6: Compare the calculated uniform hazard index Du with the preset safety level threshold, and output the fragment hazard level of the glass plate (1) based on the comparison result.

2. The method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact according to claim 1, characterized in that: In S2, the preset hazardous debris determination criteria include at least: the debris's launch distance d. i >1 meter, and the sum of the three dimensions of the fragments L i ≥25 mm.

3. The method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact according to claim 1, characterized in that: The maximum feature size S i The impact height h refers to the maximum size of the fragment in three-dimensional space. i This refers to the vertical height of the impact point from the ground when the fragment impacts the witness board (2) or a pre-set equivalent human target; the total of the three dimensions L i This is the sum of the characteristic dimensions of the fragment in the length direction and in two orthogonal directions perpendicular to the length direction.

4. The method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact according to claim 1, characterized in that: In S4, the formula is for different projectile distances d. i The fragments were segmented; when the ejection distance d of the fragments... i Meets 1 meter <d i When the height is ≤3 meters, the impact height h of the fragment is... i Treat it as zero or not included in the calculation; when the projectile distance d of the fragment is... i If the debris is more than 3 meters high and hits the witness board (2), then the impact height h is included. i .

5. The method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact according to claim 1, characterized in that: The selection of the benchmark value mentioned in S3 is based on explosion test statistics and thresholds in industry standards. The minimum reference value that meets the evaluation requirements is selected as follows: Quality benchmark value m ref = 0.13 grams, maximum feature size reference value S ref = 11.7 mm, total reference value L of the three-axis dimensions ref = 25.5 mm, projectile distance reference value d ref = 1.0 meter, impact height reference value h ref = 0.01 meters.

6. The method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact according to claim 1, characterized in that: The principle for setting the weighting coefficients described in S3 is that parameters with higher sensitivity to causing injury to the human body are assigned greater weights; the weighting coefficients are as follows: mass weighting coefficient w m = 0.10, the weighting coefficient for the sum of the three-axis dimensions w L = 0.13, the weighting coefficient for the largest feature size w S = 0.20, projectile distance weighting coefficient w d = 0.20, impact height weighting coefficient w h = 0.

30.

7. The method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact according to claim 1, characterized in that: The fragment parameters described in S1 can be obtained through two methods: physical experiments and numerical simulations. In physical explosion experiments, the mass m of the fragments is directly obtained through high-speed photography, on-site measurement, and weighing. i Total dimensions of the three axes L i Maximum feature size S i Projectile distance d i and impact height h i ; In numerical simulation, the mass m of the fragment is calculated based on the total volume of the fragment unit set formed after the simulation model breaks and the material density. i The sum of the three-axis dimensions L is calculated based on the envelope size of the fragment unit set in three-dimensional space. i With the largest feature size S i And by tracking the trajectory of the debris, the ejection distance d is extracted. i and impact height h i .

8. The method for quantitatively assessing the hazard of glass fragments under explosive impact according to any one of claims 1 to 7, characterized in that: When calculating the uniform hazard index Du in S5, the hazard index Du can also be decomposed into components contributed by mass, size, distance, and height parameters, respectively, to analyze the contribution of different risk sources.

9. A method for optimizing a glass explosion-proof safety design scheme using the method described in any one of claims 1-8, characterized in that, include: Step A: For the same glass structure, design multiple different support conditions or geometric parameter schemes; Step B: For each scheme in Step A, calculate its uniform hazard index Du under the set explosion conditions; Step C: Compare the values ​​of the uniform risk index Du calculated from all the schemes; Step D: Select the scheme with the lowest uniform hazard index Du value as the explosion-proof safety design scheme for the glass structure under the explosion condition.

Images