Method for testing impact resistance of industrial electronic detonator under high overload condition

Abstract

The invention discloses a method for testing the impact resistance of an industrial electronic detonator under a high overload condition, and belongs to the technical field of reliability testing of initiating explosive devices. In order to solve the technical problem that results of a Hopkinson bar test and a simulation water pressure method cannot be directly compared, the invention provides a method for determining the impact pressure of the Hopkinson bar by taking a capacitor power-loss voltage as a common damage variable, respectively establishing quantitative mathematical relationships between the capacitor power-loss voltage and the impact pressure in the two tests and then setting an equivalent voltage condition to deduce a conversion formula between the two pressures. And finally, converting a water pressure method test condition in an industrial standard into an accurate Hopkinson bar laboratory loading parameter threshold. According to the method, quantitative equivalence of two test systems is realized for the first time, so that it is possible to directly judge whether a product meets the industrial impact resistance standard or not by using an efficient and controllable laboratory means, the test efficiency and economic benefits are remarkably improved, and a new standardized approach is provided for reliability evaluation of industrial electronic detonators.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of pyrotechnic reliability testing technology, specifically to a method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions, and in particular to a method for quantitatively calibrating the simulated hydrostatic test standard with the Hopkinson rod laboratory test conditions. Background Technology

[0002] As the core initiating element in modern blasting engineering, the reliability of industrial electronic detonators directly affects the safety and effectiveness of the entire operation. In actual blasting sites, detonators not only need to withstand the impact of their own internal explosive detonation but are also often exposed to the intense shockwaves generated by the explosions of nearby explosive charges. This high overload impact can easily cause the failure of the detonator's delicate electronic control module (typically including transducers, capacitors, and control chips), specifically manifested as unexpected de-energization of the energy storage capacitor, leading to detonation misfires and serious engineering safety hazards. Therefore, establishing a scientific and reliable impact resistance testing and evaluation system is crucial for ensuring the reliable use of industrial electronic detonators.

[0003] Currently, there are two main technical approaches in the industry for evaluating the impact resistance of electronic detonators, but they are independent of each other and each has its limitations. One approach is a standard testing method that is closer to engineering practice, which can be called the simulated hydraulic pressure method. The shock wave pressure curve generated by this method is closer to that of an actual explosion, and the evaluation results are highly authoritative, making it the current mandatory engineering standard. However, the impact load of this method originates from a real explosive explosion, and its intensity is determined by factors such as the amount of explosive and the distance, making it difficult to continuously and precisely linearly control the impact pressure acting on the sample. Therefore, it mainly provides a qualitative or semi-quantitative "pass / fail" judgment, making it difficult to achieve precise quantitative analysis of stress levels, nor can it finely distinguish and quantify the different degrees of damage to the sample when it is close to the failure threshold, thus limiting its use for in-depth product performance research and classification guidance.

[0004] Another approach is the Hopkinson bar test, commonly used in laboratory research. This method utilizes the principle of stress wave loading, applying precise, controllable, and continuously adjustable high-overload impacts to samples by adjusting parameters such as driving gas pressure. It boasts significant advantages such as good repeatability, easy parameter quantification, and high experimental efficiency. This precise controllability allows researchers to establish a quantitative mathematical relationship between impact loads and damage to electronic components (such as capacitor voltage drops), making it highly suitable for mechanistic studies and performance screening of the impact resistance of detonator electronic components during the R&D phase. However, the stress wave pressure curve morphology (with a distinct plateau segment) and loading timescale generated by the Hopkinson bar differ fundamentally from the complex shock waves generated at actual blasting sites, leading to its testing environment being considered "dissimilar" to reality. The core dilemma lies in the fact that although the Hopkinson bar test provides excellent quantitative analysis data, the engineering significance of this data is unclear, and the test results, due to the different loading mechanisms, cannot be directly used as an authoritative basis for judging whether a product can withstand the impact of an on-site blast.

[0005] This reveals a clear technical paradox and industrial dilemma between the two existing testing methods: the simulated hydraulic pressure method, representing authoritative engineering standards, struggles to provide accurate quantitative analysis and damage grading, failing to fully realize its profound value in guiding product optimization and engineering risk assessment; while the Hopkinson bar method, adept at providing quantitative damage analysis, does not have its evaluation conclusions directly recognized by standards. The core issue lies in the fact that, due to the drastically different load generation mechanisms and pressure-time histories of the two methods, the industry generally considers their testing conditions "incomparable," leading to a long-standing inability to establish any quantitative correlation between their data. Although previous studies have used both methods to test electronic detonators, even observing the common failure phenomenon of capacitor de-energization, these works have been limited to independent analyses, failing to achieve quantitative conversion from one testing condition to another. This has isolated the quantitative analytical advantages of the Hopkinson bar from engineering application standards.

[0006] Therefore, how to break down the barriers between these two testing systems and build a quantifiable "bridge" so that the precise thresholds and damage grades obtained by the efficient, controllable, and quantitatively analytical laboratory Hopkinson bar test can be accurately mapped and determined to meet the strict simulated hydrostatic standard has become a prominent technical problem that has troubled those skilled in the art, and a key bottleneck restricting the efficient control and standardization of industrial electronic detonator product quality. Summary of the Invention

[0007] The technical problem to be solved by this invention is: how to establish a quantitative equivalence relationship between the Hopkinson rod laboratory test and the simulated water pressure method standard test, so as to make an accurate judgment on whether industrial electronic detonators meet the industry impact resistance standards by using efficient and controllable laboratory testing methods.

[0008] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides a method for testing the impact resistance performance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions, comprising the following steps:

[0009] S1. Preparation of the sample to be tested: Provide the industrial electronic detonator to be tested, strip the outer casing of its electronic control module to expose the electrodes of the solid electrolytic capacitor, and electrically connect the voltage test lead to the electrodes;

[0010] S2. First Loading Test: The sample was subjected to Hopkinson bar impact loading, and the corresponding stress wave platform pressure data P was collected. shpb With capacitor terminal voltage data V shpb ;

[0011] S3. Second loading test: The sample is subjected to impact loading under simulated water pressure method, and the corresponding peak pressure data P of the shock wave is collected. explo With capacitor terminal voltage data V explo ;

[0012] S4. Relationship Modeling: Based on multiple sets of test data from steps S2 and S3, a fitting method is used to establish V... shpb With P shpb The first mathematical relationship between them, and V explo With P explo The second mathematical relationship between them;

[0013] S5. Equivalent calibration: A power loss voltage value is preset as the equivalent condition V0. V0 is substituted into the first mathematical relationship and the second mathematical relationship, and the two are made equal, thereby deriving P. explo With P shpb The formula for equivalent pressure conversion between them;

[0014] S6. Threshold determination: Substitute the peak pressure value of the shock wave corresponding to the preset simulated water pressure test conditions based on industry standards into the pressure equivalent conversion formula to calculate the equivalent Hopkinson rod impact loading condition parameter threshold, and use this parameter threshold as the basis for determining whether the impact resistance performance of the industrial electronic detonator meets the standard.

[0015] As an optional implementation, in step S3, the peak pressure data P of the shock wave... explo The pressure is obtained by a pressure sensor arranged inside the detonator housing. The pressure sensor is a PVDF piezoelectric film with its sensitive surface in close contact with the inner wall of the detonator housing.

[0016] As an optional implementation, the first mathematical relationship and the second mathematical relationship are linear.

[0017] As an optional implementation, the first mathematical relationship in P shpb When the pressure is in the range of 207 MPa to 591 MPa, the following condition is met: V shpb =0.02578×P shpb -6.1637.

[0018] As an optional implementation, the second mathematical relationship in P explo When the pressure is in the range of 13MPa to 28.5MPa, the following condition is met: V explo =0.65418×P explo -9.74121.

[0019] As an optional implementation, in step S5, the pressure equivalent conversion formula is: P explo =5.4687+0.03941×P shpb .

[0020] As an optional implementation, in step S6, the preset simulated water pressure test conditions are: single-shot center detonator detonation, with the sample to be tested 5cm away from the center detonator.

[0021] As an optional implementation, the threshold value of the Hopkinson bar impact loading condition parameter calculated in step S6 is a stress wave platform pressure of 277.87 MPa, or a corresponding nitrogen driving gas pressure of 0.35 MPa.

[0022] As an optional implementation, in step S6, the impact response is further divided into a normal use zone, a temporary misfire zone, and a damaged misfire zone based on the de-energized voltage data at the capacitor terminal and the functional status of the electronic control module, and a comprehensive judgment is made in conjunction with the parameter thresholds.

[0023] This invention, for the first time, establishes a complete quantitative calibration system connecting laboratory testing and engineering standard testing, fundamentally solving the aforementioned dilemmas. Specifically, the core contribution of this method is the discovery of the "capacitor de-energization voltage," an essential physical quantity capable of uniformly characterizing the damage level of electronic detonators under two distinct loading methods, serving as the cornerstone of equivalence correlation. Through systematic experimental design and data modeling, reliable quantitative mathematical relationships were established between this damage quantity and the Hopkinson bar stress plateau pressure, as well as with the peak pressure of the simulated hydrostatic shock wave. Furthermore, based on rigorous damage equivalence principles, a precise switching formula connecting the two pressure parameters was derived, transforming previously "incomparable" test conditions into accurately calculable mathematical relationships. Ultimately, this technical approach has significant practical value, directly converting specific hydrostatic test conditions (such as a single shot at a distance of 5cm) specified in industry standards into a clear loading parameter threshold (such as 0.35MPa nitrogen pressure) that can be executed on a Hopkinson bar. This allows production and R&D units to quickly, in batches, and authoritatively test whether the impact resistance of products meets the standards in the laboratory without having to conduct expensive and cumbersome underwater explosion tests. This not only greatly improves testing efficiency and reduces costs, but also upgrades the qualitative judgment of macroscopic phenomena to a precise quantitative evaluation based on microscopic electrical parameters, providing the industry with a standardized solution that is scientific, economical, and operable. Attached Figure Description

[0024] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention or the prior art, the accompanying drawings used in the description of the embodiments or the prior art will be briefly introduced below.

[0025] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions, as provided in Embodiment 1 of the present invention.

[0026] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram comparing the stress wave pressure curve under Hopkinson bar loading and the shock wave pressure curve under simulated hydraulic loading, as used in Embodiment 2 of the present invention.

[0027] Figure 2 (a) in the figure is the stress wave pressure curve of the Hopkinson bar;

[0028] Figure 2 (b) in the figure is the simulated shock wave pressure curve using the water pressure method;

[0029] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the pressure sensor and its packaging structure used in Embodiment 2 of the present invention, wherein:

[0030] Figure 3 (a) in the figure represents a PVDF piezoelectric film;

[0031] Figure 3 (b) in the image shows the packaged pressure testing element;

[0032] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the on-site layout structure for the simulated water pressure method impact loading experiment in Embodiment 2 of the present invention;

[0033] Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram and physical image of a test involving high-intensity impact loading initiated by dual-center detonators in Embodiment 2 of the present invention, wherein:

[0034] Figure 5 (a) in the diagram is a test illustration;

[0035] Figure 5 (b) in the figure is a top view of the actual object;

[0036] Figure 6 This is a fitted curve of the relationship between the de-energized voltage at the capacitor end of the Hopkinson rod and the impact load obtained in Embodiment 2 of the present invention, wherein:

[0037] Figure 6 (a) in the diagram shows the division of different regions;

[0038] Figure 6 (b) in the figure is a linear fit plot;

[0039] Figure 7 This is a fitted curve of the relationship between the voltage loss at the capacitor terminal and the impact load obtained in Embodiment 2 of the present invention using the simulated water pressure method, wherein:

[0040] Figure 7 (a) in the diagram shows the division of different regions;

[0041] Figure 7 (b) in the figure is a linear fit graph. Detailed Implementation Example 1:

[0042] This embodiment provides a method for testing the impact resistance performance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions. This method aims to address the problem in existing technologies where there is a lack of quantitative correlation between laboratory Hopkinson rod test data and industry-standard simulated hydrostatic method (explosion shock wave resistance test) data, making it impossible to directly use laboratory data to guide field engineering applications. For example... Figure 1 As shown, this testing method mainly includes the following steps:

[0043] First, step S1 is performed to prepare the sample to be tested. Before conducting any impact loading experiment, the industrial electronic detonator needs to undergo specific pretreatment to accurately measure the changes in the electrical performance of its internal key electronic components after impact. In this embodiment, the selected test object is an industrial electronic detonator, with a focus on the energy storage capacitor in its internal electronic control module. This is because in the high overload environment of actual blasting projects, the failure of the electronic detonator often manifests as the unexpected loss of power in the energy storage capacitor, resulting in insufficient voltage and failure to detonate. The preparation process is as follows: Take the finished industrial electronic detonator and carefully peel off the outer covering structure (such as injection molded body or shell) of its electronic control module using physical or chemical means until the two electrodes of the solid electrolytic capacitor are completely exposed. In order to capture the voltage change across the capacitor in real time or via an oscilloscope, dedicated voltage test leads need to be soldered or connected to the positive and negative terminals of the capacitor respectively. After the connection is completed, the processed electronic control module is reinstalled into the detonator casing to assemble a simulated finished detonator without detonating explosives, so as to ensure that the structural strength of the test sample is as consistent as possible with the actual product and to avoid stress transmission distortion due to structural defects.

[0044] Next, step S2 is executed to perform the first loading test, namely the Hopkinson bar impact loading test. The Hopkinson bar technology utilizes one-dimensional elastic stress wave theory to generate a high overload environment with regular waveforms and controllable parameters. The sample to be tested, prepared in step S1, is fixed between the transmission bar and the incident bar of the Hopkinson bar experimental apparatus, or placed in a specific fixture. The launching device is activated, driving the impact bar to strike the incident bar at a preset speed, thereby generating a compressive stress wave propagating axially within the bar system. This stress wave acts on the industrial electronic detonator sample to be tested. During the impact, strain gauges attached to the bar, combined with a hyperdynamic strain gauge, record the incident wave, reflected wave, and transmitted wave signals. Data processing yields the stress wave plateau pressure data acting on the sample, denoted as P. shpb Simultaneously, an oscilloscope or high-speed data acquisition card is connected via the voltage test leads from step S1 to record the voltage changes across the capacitor in real time at the moment of impact and after impact. By comparing the initial voltage before impact and the remaining voltage after impact, the de-energized voltage at the capacitor is calculated and denoted as V. shpb To establish reliable statistical regularities, it is necessary to change the velocity of the impact rod or the driving pressure of the air chamber, and to conduct multiple impact tests of different intensities on multiple samples of the same model, thereby obtaining multiple sets of corresponding (P) values. shpb -V shpb ) data pairs.

[0045] Subsequently, step S3 is performed to conduct the second loading test, namely the simulated water pressure impact loading test. This step aims to obtain experimental data that more closely approximates the characteristics of the impact waves at a real blasting site. The experiment is conducted in a dedicated water tank or explosion pool. The test sample prepared in step S1 is placed in water, and a central detonator, serving as the blast source, is simultaneously placed in the water. To accurately measure the shock wave pressure acting on the test sample, this embodiment employs a pressure sensor positioned symmetrically to the test sample (i.e., at the same distance from the blast source). The central detonator is detonated, and the shock wave propagates in the water, acting on the test sample and the pressure sensor. At this time, the pressure sensor captures and records the peak shock wave pressure data at this location, denoted as P. explo Simultaneously, using wires connected to the capacitor of the sample under test and an oscilloscope, the voltage loss of the capacitor under the action of underwater shock waves was recorded and denoted as V. explo Similarly, to achieve broad applicability, the shock wave intensity can be adjusted by varying the distance between the sample and the explosion source (e.g., from 4cm to 10cm), or by using dual or multiple center detonators for initiation, thereby obtaining multiple sets of (P) values ​​covering different damage levels. explo -V explo ) data pairs.

[0046] After completing data acquisition for the two different loading methods described above, step S4 is executed to perform relationship modeling. This step is crucial for achieving data equivalence. Based on multiple sets of Hopkinson bar test data obtained in step S2, the stress wave platform pressure P is used as the model. shpb The independent variable is the capacitor de-energized voltage V. shpb Using the least squares method or other statistical fitting algorithms as the dependent variable, regression analysis is performed to establish the first mathematical relationship between the two. Experimental observations show that within a certain effective pressure range, these two typically exhibit a good linear relationship. Similarly, based on multiple sets of simulated water pressure test data obtained in step S3, with the peak shock wave pressure P... explo The independent variable is the capacitor de-energized voltage V. explo Using the external load as the dependent variable, a second mathematical relationship is established between the two. These two mathematical models characterize the evolution of the relationship between external load and internal damage (capacitor de-energization) of the detonator under impact environments with two different physical mechanisms.

[0047] Next, step S5 is executed to perform equivalent calibration. This embodiment is based on the principle of "damage equivalence," which means that if two different impact environments cause the same degree of damage inside the detonator (i.e., the same capacitor de-energization voltage), then the two impact environments are equivalent in engineering evaluation. Specifically, a de-energization voltage value is pre-set as the equivalent condition V0 (this value can be any value within the effective range of the model, or it can be a combination of the expressions of two mathematical relationships). V0 is substituted into the first and second mathematical relationships established in step S4, respectively, to make the two equations equal (i.e., V... shpb =V explo By mathematical transformation, the voltage variable V is eliminated, thereby deriving the peak pressure P of the simulated water pressure method shock wave. explo With the Hopkinson bar stress wave platform pressure P shpb The formula for equivalent pressure conversion between laboratory and field environmental parameters breaks down the barriers between them.

[0048] Finally, step S6 is executed to determine and apply the threshold. According to industry standards such as "Industrial Electronic Detonators," the test conditions for explosion shock wave resistance performance are typically specified (e.g., single-shot center detonator detonation, sample distance 5cm). Based on these standard conditions, the peak shock wave pressure value corresponding to the standard conditions can be determined through on-site testing or by reviewing historical data. This standard-based pressure value is then substituted into the pressure equivalent conversion formula obtained in step S5 to calculate the equivalent Hopkinson rod impact loading condition parameter threshold (i.e., the corresponding stress wave platform pressure). Furthermore, this stress wave pressure can be converted into specific operating parameters of the Hopkinson rod launching system (e.g., nitrogen-driven gas pressure). Thus, in subsequent detonator product development or quality testing, it is only necessary to apply the load corresponding to this threshold using a Hopkinson rod in the laboratory to directly determine whether the product's impact resistance performance meets industry standards, without having to conduct complex and expensive underwater explosion tests each time.

[0049] Through the steps S1 to S6 described above, this embodiment not only provides a standardized testing process, but also a scientific data conversion method, enabling low-cost laboratory testing to effectively replace and accurately evaluate high-standard field conditions. Example 2:

[0050] This embodiment, based on Embodiment 1, combines specific experimental data, equipment parameters, and fitting results to provide a detailed explanation of the method for testing the impact resistance performance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions. This embodiment demonstrates how to specifically utilize PVDF sensors, dual-detonator pressurization technology, and damage zoning theory to construct accurate equivalent relationships.

[0051] First, regarding the selection and preparation of the experimental subject. Considering that solid-state electrolytic capacitors exhibit a more pronounced loss-of-charge behavior under impact compared to tantalum capacitors, this embodiment selects an industrial electronic detonator manufactured by a certain company as the research object. This detonator contains a 35µm bridge wire tip and has a capacitor specification of 250µF and 10V. During sample preparation, the outer injection-molded body of the electronic control module was carefully damaged. Test silver wires were soldered to both ends of the capacitor, and the module was reinstalled into the detonator casing, forming a test assembly without pyrotechnic agents.

[0052] During the Hopkinson bar test phase, the stress waveform generated by the loading device used is as follows: Figure 2 As shown in (a) above, the stress wave generated by the Hopkinson rod exhibits a typical plateau segment, with a high peak pressure but a relatively short duration, and a relatively regular waveform. The plateau pressure P of the stress wave under different driving pressures was recorded in the experiment. shpb and the corresponding capacitor de-energization voltage V shpb Analysis of a large amount of data revealed that the capacitor's response to an impact can be divided into three regions: the normal operating region, the temporary misfire region, and the damaged misfire region. For example... Figure 6 As shown, when the stress wave platform pressure P shpb Within the range of 207 MPa to 591 MPa, the capacitor de-energization voltage exhibits a significant linear relationship with the pressure. Linear fitting was performed on the data within this range (e.g.,...). Figure 6 As shown in (b) of the diagram, the first mathematical relation is obtained as follows:

[0053] V shpb =0.02578×P shpb -6.1637;

[0054] The fitted curve showed good linear correlation with a fitting coefficient of 0.92, indicating that the formula can accurately predict capacitive damage under Hopkinson bar loading.

[0055] In the simulated water pressure test phase, to accurately measure the shock wave pressure, this embodiment uses a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) piezoelectric film as a pressure sensor. For example... Figure 3 As shown in (a), PVDF piezoelectric films are characterized by their light weight, high frequency response (able to respond to high-frequency vibrations), stable waveform, and good linearity, making them ideal for measuring explosive shock waves. The PVDF used is model JYC05-3B, with a dynamic piezoelectric constant d = 43.94 PC / N·cm. 2 The thickness is 50μm, and the diameter of the sensing element is 5mm. To simulate the transmission effect of the detonator casing on the shock wave and ensure that the measured pressure accurately reflects the load on the electronic module, such as... Figure 3 As shown in (b), the PVDF piezoelectric element is encapsulated in the detonator housing and made to fit tightly against the tube wall.

[0056] Experiment setup as follows Figure 4 As shown, an 8-gauge electronic detonator was fixed at the center of a disc as the central detonation source, submerged in water to a depth of 20 cm. Detonator samples were inserted at different distances from the center (e.g., 5 cm to 10 cm), with silver wires connected to an oscilloscope. Test tubes encapsulated with PVDF sensors were inserted symmetrically at the test samples. The experiment was set with a 5-second delay time for the central detonator and a 6.5-second delay time for the test samples. This time difference allowed the test samples to withstand the shock wave generated by the central detonator's explosion before their own detonation. The test results are shown in Table 1 below:

[0057] Table 1: Results of Hydraulic Pressure Test for Single-Shot Center Detonator

[0058]

[0059] As shown in the table above, the sample loses only a slight voltage (≤1V) at 5cm, and its physical structure remains intact. Figure 2 (b) shows a typical shock wave pressure curve measured by the simulated hydrostatic method. Compared with the Hopkinson bar, the peak pressure of the underwater explosion shock wave is lower, but the pulse width is larger, and it is accompanied by complex loads such as subsequent bubble pulsation.

[0060] To obtain failure data for higher pressure ranges, this embodiment also employs methods such as... Figure 5 The dual-center detonator detonation scheme is shown below. The two center detonators are bundled together and detonated simultaneously to enhance the shock wave intensity and obtain more comprehensive data. Detailed results of this series of experiments are shown in Table 2 below:

[0061] Table 2: Results of Hydraulic Pressure Test of Dual-Type Center Detonators (× indicates the side with lower impact intensity)

[0062]

[0063] Experimental results show that the degree of capacitor loss intensifies with increasing impact strength. Based on... Figure 7 The test data shown indicates that when the peak pressure P of the shock wave... explo Within the pressure range of 13 MPa to 28.5 MPa, the capacitor de-energization voltage also exhibits a linear relationship with the pressure. Through fitting, the second mathematical relationship is obtained as follows:

[0064] V explo =0.65418×P explo -9.74121;

[0065] The correlation coefficient of the fit is as high as 0.95. It is worth noting that in the simulated water pressure method, a relatively low peak pressure (such as 28.45 MPa) can cause the capacitor to completely lose power (10V), while the Hopkinson rod requires a pressure as high as 591 MPa to achieve the same effect. This fully illustrates the significant difference in the damage mechanism between the two loading methods and also confirms the necessity of establishing an equivalent relationship.

[0066] During the equivalent calibration phase, based on the damage equivalence principle, the above two linear equations are solved simultaneously:

[0067] 0.02578×P shpb -6.1637 = 0.65418 × P explo -9.74121

[0068] After simplified calculations, the equivalent conversion formula between the peak pressure of the simulated hydraulic shock wave and the platform pressure of the Hopkinson bar stress wave is obtained:

[0069] P explo =5.4687+0.03941×P shpb ;

[0070] Or, conversely, it can be expressed as:

[0071] P shpb ≈25.37×P explo -138.76.

[0072] According to industry standards, the standard conditions for the explosion shock wave resistance test are usually a single-shot center detonator detonation and a distance of 5cm between the test sample and the sample. The measured data in this embodiment show that at this standard distance of 5cm, the average peak pressure of the shock wave measured by the PVDF sensor is approximately 16.3MPa (refer to the data in Table 1 above; some high values ​​can reach 18.2MPa, based on the fitted curve).

[0073] In this embodiment, after comprehensive consideration, the equivalent Hopkinson rod stress wave platform pressure threshold that meets industry standards (single-shot 5cm test conditions) was determined to be 277.87 MPa. In actual operation, this stress wave pressure corresponds to a nitrogen driving gas pressure of 0.35 MPa for the Hopkinson rod launching system.

[0074] Furthermore, this embodiment also clearly divides the impact response into three regions based on the capacitor's de-energized voltage data and the functional status of the electronic control module. This is of great significance for the graded evaluation of the product.

[0075] Normal operating area: The capacitor loses only a small amount of power (e.g., 0-2V), the physical structure is intact, and it does not affect normal detonation.

[0076] Temporary misfire zone: The capacitor has lost a significant amount of power (e.g., 2V-8V), but the capacitor itself has not been broken down. In this case, the detonator may temporarily fail to detonate because the voltage is lower than the ignition voltage, but it may regain its function if recharged. This manifests as a "misfire" risk in actual engineering and requires special attention.

[0077] Damaged detonation zone: The capacitor is completely de-energized or physically damaged (e.g., de-energization > 8V or casing deformation). At this point, the detonator is completely inoperable and cannot be repaired.

[0078] Based on the calculated threshold of 277.87 MPa, if the sample enters the "temporary failure zone" or "damaged failure zone" when the pressure is below this value during the Hopkinson rod test, the batch of detonators is deemed to have substandard impact resistance. Conversely, if the sample remains in the "normal use zone" when the pressure is reached or exceeded, the product is deemed to meet the industry's impact resistance standards.

[0079] In summary, this embodiment, through meticulous experimental design and rigorous data analysis, successfully established a quantitative relationship between two testing methods over a wide pressure range using a PVDF thin-film sensor and dual-pressure technology. Furthermore, it concretized the abstract mathematical relationship into an operable Hopkinson rod pressure threshold (0.35 MPa air pressure), providing strong technical support for the research and quality inspection of industrial electronic detonators.

Claims

1. A method for testing the impact resistance performance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. Preparation of the sample to be tested: Provide the industrial electronic detonator to be tested, strip the outer casing of its electronic control module to expose the electrodes of the solid electrolytic capacitor, and electrically connect the voltage test lead to the electrodes; S2. First Loading Test: The sample was subjected to Hopkinson bar impact loading, and the corresponding stress wave platform pressure data P was collected. shpb With capacitor terminal voltage data V shpb ; S3. Second loading test: The sample is subjected to impact loading under simulated water pressure method, and the corresponding peak pressure data P of the shock wave is collected. explo With capacitor terminal voltage data V explo ; S4. Relationship Modeling: Based on multiple sets of test data from steps S2 and S3, a fitting method is used to establish V... shpb With P shpb The first mathematical relationship between them, and V explo With P explo The second mathematical relationship between them; S5. Equivalent calibration: A power loss voltage value is preset as the equivalent condition V0. V0 is substituted into the first mathematical relationship and the second mathematical relationship, and the two are made equal, thereby deriving P. explo With P shpb The formula for equivalent pressure conversion between them; S6. Threshold determination: Substitute the peak pressure value of the shock wave corresponding to the preset simulated water pressure test conditions based on industry standards into the pressure equivalent conversion formula to calculate the equivalent Hopkinson rod impact loading condition parameter threshold, and use this parameter threshold as the basis for determining whether the impact resistance performance of the industrial electronic detonator meets the standard.

2. The method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S3, the peak pressure data P of the shock wave explo The pressure is obtained by a pressure sensor arranged inside the detonator housing. The pressure sensor is a PVDF piezoelectric film with its sensitive surface in close contact with the inner wall of the detonator housing.

3. The method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions according to claim 1, characterized in that: The first mathematical relationship and the second mathematical relationship are linear.

4. The method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions according to claim 3, characterized in that: The first mathematical relation in P shpb When the pressure is in the range of 207 MPa to 591 MPa, the following condition is met: V shpb =0.02578×P shpb -6.1637.

5. The method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions according to claim 3, characterized in that: The second mathematical relation in P explo When the pressure is in the range of 13MPa to 28.5MPa, the following condition is met: V explo =0.65418×P explo -9.74121.

6. The method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S5, the pressure equivalent conversion formula is: P explo =5.4687+0.03941×P shpb .

7. The method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S6, the preset simulated water pressure test conditions are: single-shot center detonator detonation, with the sample to be tested 5cm away from the center detonator.

8. The method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions according to claim 7, characterized in that: The threshold values ​​for the Hopkinson bar impact loading condition parameters calculated in step S6 are 277.87 MPa for the stress wave platform pressure or 0.35 MPa for the corresponding nitrogen driving pressure.

9. The method for testing the impact resistance of industrial electronic detonators under high overload conditions according to claim 1, characterized in that: In step S6, the impact response is further divided into a normal use zone, a temporary misfire zone, and a damaged misfire zone based on the de-energized voltage data of the capacitor terminal and the functional status of the electronic control module, and a comprehensive judgment is made in conjunction with the parameter thresholds.

Images