Comprehensive evaluation method of ammunition safety test reaction level based on different parameters
By comprehensively considering multiple evaluation parameters and quantifying them, the problem of accuracy and objectivity in reaction level evaluation in ammunition safety tests has been solved, achieving a more accurate and objective reaction level assessment.
Patent Information
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- XIAN MODERN CHEM RES INST
- Filing Date
- 2026-03-11
- Publication Date
- 2026-06-30
AI Technical Summary
Existing methods for evaluating the reaction level of ammunition safety tests lack precision and objectivity, and the evaluation results vary depending on the evaluation parameters, with subjective judgment having a significant impact.
A comprehensive evaluation was conducted using multiple evaluation parameters (peak shock pressure, fragment velocity, fragment size, crater diameter, and explosion fireball intensity). The reaction level was determined through quantitative assignment and qualitative criteria, and the main and auxiliary parameters were used for collaborative evaluation.
This improved the comprehensiveness and accuracy of ammunition reaction level assessment, reduced the influence of subjective factors, and achieved a more precise and objective evaluation.
Smart Images
Figure CN122307056A_ABST
Abstract
Description
Technical Field
[0001] This invention belongs to the field of ammunition safety testing technology, and relates to reaction levels, specifically a comprehensive evaluation method for ammunition safety testing reaction levels based on different parameters. Background Technology
[0002] Ammunition safety testing is a crucial step in ensuring the safety and controllability of ammunition throughout its entire lifecycle, from research and development to production, storage, transportation, and use. A scientific and systematic evaluation of the potential reaction levels of ammunition in actual use environments serves as the basis for ammunition hazard prevention and emergency rescue efforts, and thus has significant military importance and application context.
[0003] For evaluating ammunition safety, a common method is to use parameters characterizing ammunition power, such as fragmentation velocity and shock wave overpressure, as evaluation parameters to characterize the degree of ammunition reaction. Based on static explosion test data, the reaction level of the ammunition is assessed from strong to weak by comparing the power differences of the same evaluation parameter in safety tests and static explosion tests: detonation (Level I), explosion (Level II), deflagration (Level III), combustion (Level IV), and no reaction (Level V). However, current reaction level evaluation methods still have some shortcomings: First, different evaluation parameters may yield different results, and there is currently no method to comprehensively evaluate the ammunition reaction level based on the results of multiple parameters; second, the reaction level criteria are mainly qualitative rather than quantitative, making them susceptible to subjective judgment and bias when evaluating adjacent reaction levels, thus lacking precision and objectivity to some extent. Summary of the Invention
[0004] In view of the shortcomings of the existing technology, the purpose of this invention is to provide a comprehensive evaluation method for the reaction level of ammunition safety tests based on different parameters, thereby solving the technical problem that the accuracy and objectivity of the evaluation methods in the existing technology need to be further improved.
[0005] To solve the above-mentioned technical problems, the present invention adopts the following technical solution.
[0006] A comprehensive evaluation method for the response level of ammunition safety tests based on different parameters, the method comprising the following steps.
[0007] Step 1: Establish qualitative criteria for reaction levels corresponding to different evaluation parameters.
[0008] The different evaluation parameters include the peak overpressure of the shock wave, fragment velocity, fragment size, crater diameter, and explosion fireball intensity.
[0009] Step 2: The ratio of the measured value of each evaluation parameter in the ammunition safety test to the value when the ammunition explodes statically is used as the criterion for the reaction level of each evaluation parameter and quantified.
[0010] Step 3: Determine the peak overpressure of the shock wave, fragment velocity, and fragment size as the main evaluation parameters, and determine the crater diameter and the intensity of the explosion fireball as auxiliary evaluation parameters.
[0011] Step 4: Determine the coordinates of the measuring point.
[0012] Step 5: Determine the values of shock wave overpressure, fragment velocity, fragment size, ground crater size, and explosion fireball intensity at the measurement point location during static explosion, and use them as the benchmark values for each evaluation parameter.
[0013] Step 6: Assess the reaction level using the primary evaluation parameters. When the reaction levels assessed by the primary evaluation parameters are consistent, the reaction level is established as the overall reaction level for the safety test.
[0014] Step 7: When the reaction levels determined by the main evaluation parameters are inconsistent, auxiliary evaluation parameters are used to further determine the reaction level. The reaction level determined by most evaluation parameters is the comprehensive reaction level of the safety test, and the evaluation process ends.
[0015] The present invention also has the following technical features.
[0016] In step 1, the reaction levels are divided into five levels: detonation, explosion, deflagration, combustion, and no reaction.
[0017] In step 2, when the reaction level is detonation, m1≥0.8, m2≥0.8, m3≤1.2, m4≥0.8; when the reaction level is explosion, 0.2<m1<0.8, 0.2<m2<0.8, 1.2<m3<2.0, 0.2<m4<0.8; when the reaction level is deflagration, m1≤0.2, m2≤0.2; where m1 is the ratio of the measured value of the shock wave overpressure peak value to the reference value; m2 is the ratio of the measured value of the fragment velocity to the reference value; m3 is the ratio of the measured value of the fragment size to the reference value; and m4 is the ratio of the measured value of the crater diameter to the reference value.
[0018] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following technical effects.
[0019] (I) The comprehensive evaluation method of the present invention comprehensively considers the test results of multiple evaluation parameters for comprehensive evaluation, which is more comprehensive and accurate than evaluation based on a single evaluation parameter.
[0020] (II) The comprehensive evaluation method of the present invention assigns quantitative criteria to the qualitative criteria of the reaction level evaluation parameters and determines the threshold of segmented quantification, which can effectively reduce the influence of subjective factors on the reaction level determination. Attached Figure Description
[0021] Figure 1This is a schematic diagram of the safety test point layout in an embodiment of the present invention.
[0022] The specific content of the present invention will be further described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments. Detailed Implementation
[0023] It should be noted that, unless otherwise specified, all devices and methods in this invention employ those known in the prior art.
[0024] Following the above technical solutions, specific embodiments of the present invention are given below. It should be noted that the present invention is not limited to the following specific embodiments, and all equivalent modifications made based on the technical solutions of this application fall within the protection scope of the present invention.
[0025] Example: This embodiment presents a comprehensive evaluation method for the reaction level of ammunition safety tests based on different parameters. The method includes the following steps: Step 1: Establish qualitative criteria for reaction levels corresponding to different evaluation parameters.
[0026] Different evaluation parameters include peak shock wave overpressure, fragment velocity, fragment size, crater diameter, and explosion fireball intensity.
[0027] The reaction levels are divided into five levels: detonation, explosion, deflagration, combustion, and no reaction.
[0028] Different warheads of munitions exhibit varying degrees of reaction, resulting in different peak overpressure values of shock waves, fragment velocities, fragment sizes, crater diameters, and explosion fireball phenomena. Therefore, the qualitative criteria for the reaction levels corresponding to different evaluation parameters are shown in Table 1 below.
[0029] Table 1. Evaluation parameters and qualitative criteria for safety test response levels
[0030] The qualitative criteria in Table 1 all compare the test results of the evaluation parameters in the safety test with the benchmark values. The benchmark values are determined by comprehensively considering the results of past static explosion tests and the results calculated by theoretical formulas.
[0031] Step 2: The ratio of the measured value of each evaluation parameter in the ammunition safety test to the value when the ammunition explodes statically is used as the criterion for the reaction level of each evaluation parameter and quantified.
[0032] In the qualitative criteria, for the peak overpressure of the shock wave and fragment velocity and size, the boundary between detonation and explosion is that the results of the safety test and the static explosion test / theoretical values are comparable. However, subjective factors can cause deviations in the evaluation results. To improve the reliability of the evaluation results, the reaction level criteria for evaluation parameters such as the peak overpressure of the shock wave, fragment velocity and fragment size, and ground crater size are quantified and assigned values. The intensity of the explosion fireball, which is highly dependent on the test site conditions, is not quantified for the time being.
[0033] In step 2, let m i The ratio of the i-th evaluation parameter to the benchmark value in the safety test is given by m. i The magnitude of the shock wave overpressure peak is used to determine the reaction level of the ammunition, where i = 1, 2, 3, 4; m1 is the ratio of the measured value of the shock wave overpressure peak to the reference value; m2 is the ratio of the measured value of the fragment velocity to the reference value; m3 is the ratio of the measured value of the fragment size to the reference value; and m4 is the ratio of the measured value of the crater diameter to the reference value.
[0034] When assigning quantitative criteria to the indicator of being comparable to theoretical values, considering the measurement deviations of the test system, the differences between munitions, and the differences in the site environment in actual test scenarios, each factor is relatively independent and each is calculated at 10%, with a comprehensive measurement deviation of 17.3%. Therefore, the thresholds for evaluation parameters such as peak shock wave pressure, fragment velocity, and crater size for explosion and detonation are all set at 0.8, and the threshold for fragment size is set at 1.2. When determining the boundary between explosion and deflagration, to avoid misjudgments caused by ballistic shock waves, stones flying onto the velocity measuring target, etc., the lower limit threshold is set at 0.2, and the upper limit threshold for fragment size is 2.0. The resulting safety test response level evaluation parameters and quantitative criteria are shown in Table 2 below.
[0035] Table 2. Safety Test Response Level Evaluation Parameters and Criteria
[0036] Step 3: Determine the peak overpressure of the shock wave, fragment velocity, and fragment size as the main evaluation parameters, and determine the crater diameter and the intensity of the explosion fireball as auxiliary evaluation parameters.
[0037] In this embodiment, considering that the test methods for shock wave overpressure peak value and fragment velocity are mature and the theoretical formulas are widely accepted, shock wave overpressure peak value and fragment velocity / size are selected as the main evaluation parameters, and the ground crater and explosion fireball intensity are selected as auxiliary evaluation parameters for reaction level assessment.
[0038] Step 4: Determine the coordinates of the measuring point.
[0039] In this embodiment, a coordinate system is established with the geometric center of the ammunition as the origin, and the coordinates of measuring points such as the shock wave sensor, fragment velocity measuring target, and witness board are determined in the safety test.
[0040] Specifically, in this embodiment, Figure 1 This is a top view showing the setup of the test points for a jet impact safety test. The test sample contained 105 kg of TNT, and the projectile was placed vertically. The origin of the coordinate system was selected at the geometric center of the test projectile, 1.5 m above the ground, with the jet source pointing in the 0° direction. Based on the determined location of the coordinate system origin, the velocity target, pressure sensor, and witness plate were evenly distributed on a ring 13 m away from the geometric center. The fragment size was not measured during the test. The specific locations are shown in Table 3.
[0041] Table 3. Location of test measurement points
[0042] Step 5: Taking into account past static explosion test data of ammunition warheads and theoretical formula calculation results, determine the values of shock wave overpressure, fragment velocity, fragment size, ground crater size, and explosion fireball intensity at the measurement point location during static explosion, and use them as the benchmark values for each evaluation parameter.
[0043] In this embodiment, based on the analysis of existing static explosion test data, and combined with the empirical calculation formula of evaluation parameters, the data of parameters such as shock wave overpressure, fragment velocity and fragment size, ground crater size and explosion fireball intensity at the measuring point are comprehensively judged and used as the benchmark values of the evaluation parameters.
[0044] In this embodiment, the specific process of determining the benchmark value of the static explosion test corresponding to the evaluation parameter includes the following steps.
[0045] Step 501: Extract existing static explosion test data.
[0046] According to previous reports on static explosion tests of ammunition, the peak overpressure of the shock wave measured at 10m from the explosion center was 0.15MPa. The report did not mention other evaluation parameters such as fragmentation velocity and crater size, so only the peak overpressure of the shock wave was recorded and used as a reference.
[0047] Step 502: Calculate the static explosion value of the evaluation parameter according to the empirical formula.
[0048] Step 50201: Each evaluation parameter can be calculated according to the following formula.
[0049] Step 5020101, Shock wave overpressure peak value: Shock wave overpressure peak value It can be designed according to the formula of my country's protective engineering structure against conventional weapons. Calculated and applicable scope: In the formula, This is the distance from the measuring point to the center of the ammunition, in meters. The equivalent TNT charge mass of the tested ammunition is given, in kg. For steel-cased ammunition, In the formula, The TNT equivalent of the warhead charge; This refers to the mass of the warhead casing.
[0050] Step 5020102, fragmentation rate The Gurney formula can be used. The calculation yields the following result: Let be the Cunningham constant; for TNT, the Cunningham constant is 2370. This refers to the ratio of the charge mass to the total charge mass.
[0051] Step 5020103, Fragment size of the natural fragmentation warhead Can be adopted Calculate, where, Fragment size (cm) 2 ); Shell density (g / cm³) 3 ); The shell wall thickness is in cm. The arithmetic mean mass (g) of the fragment; Mott's empirical formula can be used. We obtain the following formula: The inner diameter of the shell is (cm). It is a constant determined by the explosive; for TNT, the constant determined by the explosive is 0.145.
[0052] Step 5020104, crater diameter Empirical formula for Kinney crater diameter Calculated; where: The diameter of the crater (m); Set the height (m) for the explosives; The equivalent TNT charge mass (kg) of the tested ammunition.
[0053] Step 50202: Calculate the static explosion data at the current measuring point location according to the formula in step 50201 above.
[0054] Step 5020201, Shock wave overpressure peak: The equivalent charge of a warhead with a charge of 105kg TNT and a shell mass of 150kg is calculated to be 55kg by the formula in step 50201. The shock wave free field pressure at 13m is calculated to be 0.1MPa by the formula in step 50201.
[0055] Step 5020202, fragment velocity: The fragment velocity is calculated to be 1610 m / s using the formula in step 50201.
[0056] Step 5020203, crater diameter: Calculated using the formula in step 50201, the crater diameter formed by a 55kg charge at a blast height of 1.5m is 1.45m.
[0057] Step 503: Determine the benchmark values of the evaluation parameters for the static explosion test based on the experimental data and the calculation results of the empirical formula.
[0058] Step 50301, Shock wave overpressure peak: The shock wave free field overpressure peak at a detonation distance of 10m is calculated to be 0.157MPa according to the empirical formula, which is basically consistent with the experimental value of 0.15MPa. Therefore, it is considered that the empirical theoretical formula is consistent with the experimental results. The benchmark value of the shock wave free field overpressure peak at a static detonation distance of 13m is taken as 0.1MPa from the empirical theoretical formula.
[0059] Step 50302, fragment velocity: Since there is no experimental data for comparison, 1610 m / s calculated according to the empirical formula is the benchmark value for evaluating the fragment velocity parameter.
[0060] Step 50303, Crater diameter: Since there is no experimental data for comparison, the crater diameter of 1.45m calculated by empirical formula is used as the benchmark value for the evaluation parameter of ground crater.
[0061] Step 6: Assess the reaction level using the primary evaluation parameters. When the reaction levels assessed by the primary evaluation parameters are consistent, the reaction level is established as the overall reaction level for the safety test.
[0062] In this embodiment, the specific safety test data are shown in Table 4. Since the measuring points are all located at the same detonation center distance, the average values of the shock wave overpressure peak and fragment velocity are taken, which are 0.095 MPa and 1336 m / s, respectively. Compared with the benchmark values of 0.1 MPa and 1610 m / s, the two evaluation parameters m1 and m2 are 0.95 and 0.78, respectively. According to the criteria in Table 2, the shock wave is judged as detonation, while the fragments are judged as explosion. The reaction levels evaluated by the two are inconsistent, so auxiliary parameters are used for further judgment.
[0063] Table 4 Safety test results
[0064] Step 7: When the reaction levels determined by the main evaluation parameters are inconsistent, auxiliary evaluation parameters are used to further determine the reaction level. The reaction level determined by most evaluation parameters is the comprehensive reaction level of the safety test, and the evaluation process ends.
[0065] In this specific embodiment, since the reaction levels obtained from the shock wave and fragmentation evaluation parameters are inconsistent, auxiliary evaluation parameters are used for further reaction level assessment. After the test, a crater was observed on the ground with a diameter of 1.2m. Compared to the baseline value of 1.45m, the m³ was 0.83. According to the criteria in Table 2, the reaction level was determined to be detonation, and a clear explosion fireball was observed. Therefore, the reaction level of this safety test was determined to be detonation, and the evaluation process was terminated.
Claims
1. A comprehensive evaluation method for ammunition safety test reaction levels based on different parameters, characterized in that, The law includes the following steps: Step 1: Establish qualitative criteria for reaction levels corresponding to different evaluation parameters; The different evaluation parameters include the peak overpressure of the shock wave, fragment velocity, fragment size, crater diameter, and explosion fireball intensity; Step 2: The ratio of the measured value of each evaluation parameter in the ammunition safety test to the value when the ammunition explodes statically is used as the criterion for the reaction level of each evaluation parameter and quantified and assigned. Step 3: Determine the peak overpressure of the shock wave, fragment velocity, and fragment size as the main evaluation parameters, and determine the crater diameter and the intensity of the explosion fireball as auxiliary evaluation parameters; Step 4: Determine the coordinates of the measuring point; Step 5: Determine the values of shock wave overpressure, fragment velocity, fragment size, ground crater size, and explosion fireball intensity at the measuring point location during static explosion, and use them as the benchmark values for each evaluation parameter. Step 6: Assess the reaction level using the primary evaluation parameters. When the reaction levels assessed by the primary evaluation parameters are consistent, the reaction level is established as the overall reaction level for the safety test. Step 7: When the reaction levels determined by the main evaluation parameters are inconsistent, auxiliary evaluation parameters are used to further determine the reaction level. The reaction level determined by most evaluation parameters is the comprehensive reaction level of the safety test, and the evaluation process ends.
2. The comprehensive evaluation method for ammunition safety test response levels based on different parameters as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In step 1, the reaction levels are divided into five levels: detonation, explosion, deflagration, combustion, and no reaction.
3. The comprehensive evaluation method for ammunition safety test response levels based on different parameters as described in claim 2, characterized in that, In step 2, when the reaction level is detonation, m1≥0.8, m2≥0.8, m3≤1.2, m4≥0.8; when the reaction level is explosion, 0.2<m1<0.8, 0.2<m2<0.8, 1.2<m3<2.0, 0.2<m4<0.8; when the reaction level is deflagration, m1≤0.2, m2≤0.2; where m1 is the ratio of the measured value of the shock wave overpressure peak value to the reference value; m2 is the ratio of the measured value of the fragment velocity to the reference value; m3 is the ratio of the measured value of the fragment size to the reference value; and m4 is the ratio of the measured value of the crater diameter to the reference value.