An equivalent experiment-based safety evaluation optimization method for explosive cutting

Abstract

The application provides an explosion cutting safety evaluation optimization method based on equivalent experiments, relates to the technical field of explosion cutting, and comprises the following steps: obtaining an experimental amount based on equivalent experiments, carrying out multiple sets of explosion cutting experiments, synchronously collecting safety detection parameters and cutting parameters, evaluating safety grades and cutting grades and calculating comprehensive evaluation values, fitting parameter correlation rules to obtain optimal charging space parameters, proportionally scaling the optimal charging space parameters to obtain real charging space parameters, and using the real charging space parameters for real cutting. The application synchronously collects safety and cutting two-dimensional parameters through equivalent experiments, constructs a comprehensive evaluation system, optimizes charging space parameters, and realizes the collaborative optimization of explosion cutting safety and cutting quality.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of explosive cutting technology, and more specifically, to an optimization method for safety assessment of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments. Background Technology

[0002] With the widespread application of explosive cutting technology in engineering dismantling, component processing and other fields, direct testing under real working conditions is costly, risky and difficult to optimize in batches. Equivalent model experiments have become the mainstream research method. However, the industry generally lacks a standardized evaluation system that takes into account both safety and quality. Charge parameters are mostly selected based on experience, lacking quantitative basis and collaborative optimization mechanism, which makes it difficult to match the high-precision and high-safety engineering application requirements.

[0003] Traditional methods for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting only focus on the analysis and parameter selection of safety indicators such as shock waves and flying debris, without incorporating cutting quality indicators such as cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and flatness into the evaluation system. This makes it impossible to achieve an organic integration of safety performance and cutting quality. The assessment dimensions are singular and the optimization objectives are one-sided, making it difficult to form a comprehensive solution that takes into account both safety control and forming effect, thus restricting the engineering application effect of explosive cutting technology.

[0004] Therefore, it is necessary to design an explosion cutting safety assessment and optimization method based on equivalent experiments to solve the problem that existing technologies have failed to effectively integrate safety performance and cutting quality, and are unable to achieve synergistic optimization of comprehensive performance. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In view of this, the present invention proposes an optimization method for safety assessment of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments, which aims to solve the problem that the existing technology has failed to effectively integrate safety performance and cutting quality, and is difficult to achieve synergistic optimization of comprehensive performance.

[0006] In one aspect, this invention proposes an optimization method for safety assessment of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments, comprising: Obtain the actual dimensions and safe dosage of the actual cut part; obtain the experimental dimensions of the experimental cut part based on a preset reduction ratio; obtain the experimental dosage of the experimental cut part based on the experimental dimensions, the actual dimensions, and the safe dosage; Several pre-set assembly space parameters of the explosive charge are used, with the experimental charge amount as the quantitative measure and the space parameters of each group of the explosive charge as the variable measure. An explosive cutting experiment is carried out on the experimental cutting part. The safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to the space parameters of each group of the explosive charge are obtained respectively. The safety level of the experimental cutting is obtained based on the safety detection parameters, and the cutting level of the experimental cutting is determined based on the cutting parameters; based on the safety level and cutting level corresponding to each group of the charge space parameters, the comprehensive evaluation value corresponding to each group of the charge space parameters is obtained. Obtain the parameter correlation law between the charge space parameters and the comprehensive evaluation value, and obtain the optimal charge space parameters when the experimental size allows based on the parameter correlation law; Based on the reduction ratio, the optimal charge space parameters are adjusted proportionally to obtain the actual charge space parameters corresponding to the actual cutting part, and the actual cutting part is then explosively cut based on the actual charge space parameters.

[0007] Furthermore, when obtaining the experimental dimensions of the experimental cut parts based on a preset reduction ratio, the process includes: The length, thickness, cutting groove size, and constraint installation size of the actual cut part are scaled proportionally according to the reduction ratio. The material composition, mechanical properties, boundary constraints, and cutting structure of the experimental cutting parts should be completely consistent with those of the actual cutting parts.

[0008] Further, when obtaining the experimental dosage of the experimental cut piece based on the experimental size, the actual size, and the safe dosage, the following steps are included: A charge equivalent conversion model is established based on the explosion geometric similarity and energy similarity criteria. The experimental drug dosage is obtained by substituting the experimental size, the actual size, and the safe dosage into the drug dosage equivalence conversion model.

[0009] Furthermore, several pre-set space parameters for the explosive charge are used, with the experimental charge amount as the quantitative measure and the space parameters of each group of explosive charges as the variable measure, to conduct an explosive cutting experiment on the experimental cutting component; when obtaining the safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to each group of explosive charge space parameters, the following are included: The charge space parameters include the position of the explosive pack and the explosive height of the explosive pack; The position of the medicine pack is offset at multiple points along the preset cutting trajectory of the experimental cutting piece, covering the entire range of the cutting start end, middle section and end. The explosive charge is set with multiple sets of arithmetic gradient height values ​​to cover deployment conditions at close, medium and long distances; All experimental groups maintained the same specifications of explosive charges, explosive structure, detonation method and experimental environmental conditions, and completed the explosive cutting experiment one by one. Each group of experiments corresponded to a unique set of explosive space parameters. The safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to the charge space parameters of each group are collected synchronously, and the experimental data are processed by noise reduction and outlier removal to obtain effective paired experimental data.

[0010] Furthermore, when obtaining the safety level of the experimental cutting based on the aforementioned safety detection parameters, the process includes: The safety detection parameters include: shock wave overpressure, shock wave impulse, and flying plate speed; The safety comprehensive value is obtained by weighted summing of the shock wave overpressure, the shock wave impulse, and the flying plate velocity. When the overall security value is less than or equal to a preset first security threshold, the security level is level three. When the overall security value is greater than the first security threshold and less than the preset second security threshold, the security level is level two. When the overall security value is greater than or equal to the second security threshold, the security level is Level 1.

[0011] Furthermore, when determining the cutting level of the experimental cut based on the cutting parameters, the following steps are included: The cutting grades include: cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and cut smoothness; The cutting depth, the cut penetration rate, and the cut smoothness are weighted and summed to obtain the overall cutting value; When the overall cutting value is less than or equal to a preset first cutting threshold, the cutting level is level one; When the overall cutting value is greater than the first cutting threshold and less than the preset second cutting threshold, the cutting level is level two. When the overall cutting value is greater than or equal to the second cutting threshold, the cutting level is level three.

[0012] Furthermore, when obtaining the comprehensive evaluation value corresponding to each group of charge space parameters based on the safety level and the cutting level corresponding to each group of charge space parameters, the following steps are included: Obtain the security level value of the security level and the cutting level value of the cutting level; The comprehensive evaluation value is obtained by weighted summing of the security level value and the cutting level value.

[0013] Furthermore, when obtaining the parameter correlation pattern between the charge space parameters and the comprehensive evaluation value, it includes: The safety detection parameters, cutting parameters, safety level, cutting level, and comprehensive evaluation value of the charge space parameters of each group are summarized to construct a multi-dimensional parameter dataset; The multivariate nonlinear regression analysis method was used to fit the corresponding changes of the single variable and the bivariate coupling effect of the position of the explosive pack and the explosive height of the explosive pack with the comprehensive evaluation value. The individual and coupled influence patterns of the location and blast height of the explosive charge are quantitatively analyzed to clarify the positive and negative influence ranges of the location and blast height of the explosive charge, and a visual parameter correlation model is constructed.

[0014] Furthermore, when obtaining the optimal charge space parameters based on the parameter correlation law when the experimental size allows, the process includes: Based on the visualization parameter correlation model, and combined with the size boundary constraints of the experimental cut piece, the effective value range of the position of the explosive pack and the blast height of the explosive pack is defined. With the dual constraints of maximizing the comprehensive evaluation value and the safety level being greater than the preset safety access level, all parameter combinations of the position of the explosive pack and the explosion height of the explosive pack within the effective range are traversed and compared. Invalid parameter combinations that fail to meet cutting standards or exceed safety risks are eliminated. The optimal combination of the explosive charge position and the optimal explosive charge blast height, which balances safety and cutting performance, is selected as the optimal explosive charge space parameters.

[0015] Furthermore, when adjusting the optimal charge space parameters proportionally based on the reduction ratio, the following steps are included: Based on the reverse conversion of the reduction ratio, the optimal charge position and the optimal charge blasting height obtained in the experiment are simultaneously and proportionally enlarged to obtain the initial real charge space parameters that are adapted to the real cutting parts. The initial actual charge space parameters are verified and fine-tuned based on the boundary conditions and safety specifications of the real operating environment. After confirming that the parameters meet the safety standards and cutting process requirements of the actual cutting conditions, the final actual charge space parameters are locked for use in the explosive cutting operation of the actual cutting parts.

[0016] Compared with the prior art, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: By simultaneously collecting safety detection parameters and cutting parameters in equivalent experiments, and combining these two types of indicators to complete a comprehensive evaluation and optimize the charge space parameters, this approach changes the previous model of evaluating and optimizing solely based on safety indicators. This method not only controls the safety risks of explosive operations within a manageable range but also effectively improves cutting performance such as cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and smoothness. This results in more comprehensive evaluation results and more reasonable parameter optimization directions, achieving a synergistic improvement in both the safety and effectiveness of explosive cutting. Attached Figure Description

[0017] Various other advantages and benefits will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon reading the following detailed description of preferred embodiments. The accompanying drawings are for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the invention. Furthermore, the same reference numerals denote the same parts throughout the drawings. In the drawings: Figure 1 A flowchart of the explosion cutting safety assessment and optimization method based on equivalent experiments provided in this embodiment of the invention. Detailed Implementation

[0018] Exemplary embodiments of the present invention will now be described in more detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. While exemplary embodiments of the present invention are shown in the drawings, it should be understood that the present invention can be implemented in various forms and should not be limited to the embodiments set forth herein. Rather, these embodiments are provided to enable a more thorough understanding of the present invention and to fully convey the scope of the invention to those skilled in the art. It should be noted that, without conflict, the embodiments and features described herein can be combined with each other. The present invention will now be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings and embodiments.

[0019] It is important to note that: The actual cutting part refers to the target workpiece with the actual size, material and structure to be subjected to explosive cutting. It is the prototype workpiece for equivalent experiments and is used as the benchmark object for scaled-down experiments, parameter conversion and actual explosive cutting operations.

[0020] Experimental size refers to the workpiece size obtained by scaling the actual cut part according to a preset reduction ratio, while retaining the structural and constraint features of the actual cut part, and is used to create experimental cut parts for equivalent experiments.

[0021] Experimental charge refers to the amount of explosive charge used in experiments, which is calculated based on the actual safe charge and actual size of the cutting part and the experimental size. It serves as a fixed quantitative charge for explosive cutting experiments to ensure the energy similarity of equivalent experiments.

[0022] Charge space parameters refer to the variable parameters used to limit the layout of explosive cutting charges. They mainly include the charge position and the charge explosion height. They are used to set up multiple sets of gradient experimental conditions to explore the influence of parameters on cutting safety and cutting effect.

[0023] Safety testing parameters refer to the testing indicators used to characterize the safety risks of the operation in explosive cutting experiments. These include shock wave overpressure, shock wave impulse, and flying blade velocity, and are used to calculate the comprehensive safety value and determine the safety level of the experimental cutting.

[0024] Cutting parameters refer to the detection indicators used to characterize the cutting effect of a workpiece in explosive cutting experiments. They include cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and cut smoothness, and are used to calculate the comprehensive cutting value and determine the experimental cutting level.

[0025] Safety level refers to a multi-level safety assessment level based on the comprehensive safety value calculated from safety testing parameters. It is divided into three levels: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, and is used to quantitatively assess the safety performance of explosion operations under each group of experimental conditions.

[0026] Cutting grade refers to a multi-level evaluation level of cutting effect based on the comprehensive value of cutting based on cutting parameters. It is divided into three levels: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3, and is used to quantitatively evaluate the workpiece cutting effect under each experimental condition.

[0027] The comprehensive evaluation value is a quantitative value obtained by weighted summation of the safety level value and the cutting level value. It is used to comprehensively reflect the overall quality of safety and cutting performance corresponding to the spatial parameters of a single drug assembly.

[0028] The parameter correlation law refers to the quantitative relationship between the position of the explosive charge, the explosive charge height, and the comprehensive evaluation value. It includes the influence of single parameters and the coupling influence of two parameters, and is used to support the screening of the optimal spatial parameters for explosive charge.

[0029] The optimal charge space parameters refer to the optimal combination of charge position and charge explosion height within the experimental size constraints, which takes into account both safety level access requirements and the maximization of comprehensive evaluation value. It serves as the core basis for converting parameters under actual working conditions.

[0030] The actual charge space parameters refer to the final charge layout parameters adapted to the actual cutting parts, obtained after reverse conversion and fine-tuning by scaling down, and are used to guide the actual explosive cutting operations of the actual cutting parts.

[0031] The explosion geometric similarity and energy similarity criteria are the core judgment criteria that ensure the equivalence between scaled-down experiments and real working conditions. They require that the geometric dimensions of the workpiece and the energy of the explosion satisfy a similar correspondence, and are used to support the equivalent conversion calculation of the experimental charge.

[0032] The equivalent charge conversion model is a calculation model built on the principles of explosion geometric similarity and energy similarity. It can be used to accurately calculate the experimental charge of the equivalent experiment by substituting the actual size, experimental size and safe charge.

[0033] The position of the chemical pack refers to the placement parameters of the chemical pack relative to the preset cutting trajectory of the experimental cutting part. The placement method is adopted with full-range offset to explore the influence of different placement points on cutting safety and cutting effect.

[0034] The explosive charge height refers to the vertical distance between the explosive charge and the surface of the experimental cutting workpiece. Gradient values ​​are used to investigate the influence of different explosive charge heights on the overall performance of explosive cutting.

[0035] Multi-point equidistant offset layout refers to the arrangement of the explosive charge positions. Multiple offset points are evenly selected along the cutting trajectory of the experimental workpiece to lay the explosive charge, which is used to fully cover the experimental conditions of the entire workpiece cutting process.

[0036] The specifications of the explosive charge package refer to the uniform physical parameters such as the size, dosage, and form of the explosive charge package used in the experiment. These parameters remain constant throughout the experiment to eliminate the interference of differences in the explosive charge package itself on the experimental results.

[0037] The charge structure refers to the shape, filling, and arrangement of the charge package. All experimental groups maintain a uniform structure to ensure the uniqueness of variables in each group's explosive cutting experiment.

[0038] The detonation method refers to the way the explosive charge is detonated. The same detonation method is used throughout the experiment to avoid experimental data errors caused by differences in detonation and to ensure the accuracy of the experiment.

[0039] The experimental environment refers to the external environmental conditions such as temperature, site, and protection during the explosion experiment. Each group of experiments maintains a consistent environment to eliminate the interference of environmental variables on the experimental results.

[0040] The comprehensive safety value is a quantitative value obtained by weighting and summing three types of safety detection parameters: shock wave overpressure, shock wave impulse, and flying blade speed. It is used to classify and determine the safety level of experimental cutting.

[0041] The comprehensive cutting value is a quantitative value obtained by weighted summation of three types of cutting parameters: cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and cut smoothness. It is used to grade and determine the cutting level of experimental cutting.

[0042] A multidimensional parameter dataset refers to an integrated dataset that summarizes the safety detection parameters, cutting parameters, safety level, cutting level, and comprehensive evaluation value of each group of experiments, and is used for subsequent parameter pattern fitting analysis.

[0043] The positive influence range refers to the range of parameter values ​​for the position and explosion height of the explosive charge. Changes in these parameters within this range can improve the overall evaluation value and are used to screen for high-quality combinations of explosive parameters.

[0044] The negative impact range refers to the range of parameter values ​​for the position and explosion height of the explosive charge. Changes in these parameters within this range will lower the overall evaluation value, thus helping to avoid undesirable combinations of explosive parameters.

[0045] The visualization parameter correlation model refers to a visualization data model obtained through multivariate nonlinear regression fitting. It can intuitively show the relationship between the changes in the charge space parameters and the comprehensive evaluation value, and is used to accurately select the optimal parameters.

[0046] Initial true charge space parameters refer to the preliminary true operating condition parameters obtained by proportionally amplifying the experimental optimal charge space parameters, which provide the basic parameters for subsequent parameter verification and fine-tuning.

[0047] The optimal charge position refers to the charge placement point with the best overall performance under experimental conditions. It is a core component of the optimal charge spatial parameters and is used to convert the charge placement position to the actual working conditions.

[0048] The optimal explosive charge blast height refers to the vertical placement height of the explosive charge that achieves the best overall performance under experimental conditions. It is a core component of the optimal charge space parameters and is used to calculate the blast height under actual working conditions.

[0049] The true dimensions refer to the overall geometric and structural dimensions of the actual cut part, including key dimensional information such as length and thickness. They are used as the benchmark for converting the dimensions of scaled-down experiments and calculating the equivalent dosage. The true dimensions are the dimensional data obtained by measuring the various structural dimensions of the actual cut part on-site.

[0050] The safe charge refers to the compliant charge amount that meets safety standards and poses no safety risks in actual explosive cutting operations. It is used to convert experimental charge amounts to ensure the energy similarity between the experiment and the actual working conditions. The maximum charge critical value without safety hazards is obtained by obtaining and analyzing the safety standard data of actual explosive cutting operations and the critical experimental data of workpiece damage through the formula of critical charge for shaped charge cutting. This critical value is the safe charge.

[0051] The scaling factor refers to the geometric scaling factor between the actual cut part and the experimental cut part. It is used to achieve proportional scaling of the workpiece size and ensure that the equivalent experimental structure is similar. The scaling factor is obtained by acquiring and analyzing data on experimental site conditions, equipment range, and explosion risk level to adapt to the experimental conditions.

[0052] Length refers to the overall dimensional parameter of the actual cut part in the axial or extension direction. It is a core geometric parameter of the actual cut part and is used for proportional scaling calculation of the entire workpiece. The length is the dimensional data obtained by measuring the overall extension dimension of the actual cut part on site.

[0053] Thickness refers to the vertical thickness dimension of the actual cutting part or the cutting area. It is a key structural parameter that affects the explosive cutting effect and is used for size scaling and equivalent conversion of explosive charge. The thickness is the dimensional data obtained by measuring the thickness dimension of the actual cutting area of ​​the cutting part on site.

[0054] The cutting grooving size refers to the grooving structure size of the preset cutting position on the actual cutting part. It determines the effective range of the explosive cutting operation and is used to replicate the cutting structure of the experimental cutting part. The dimensional data obtained by measuring the structural dimensions of the preset cutting groove on the actual cutting part is the cutting grooving size.

[0055] Constraint installation dimensions refer to the assembly dimensions corresponding to the actual cutting parts being installed and fixed, and the boundary constraints. These dimensions are used to ensure that the constraint conditions of the experimental cutting parts are consistent with the actual working conditions. The dimensional data obtained by measuring the actual cutting parts' installation and fixing assembly dimensions on-site are the constraint installation dimensions.

[0056] Material properties refer to the type and properties of the material used to manufacture the actual cut part, which determine the mechanical response characteristics of the workpiece and are used to ensure that the experimental workpiece and the actual workpiece are materially equivalent. The material information of the workpiece is obtained by acquiring and analyzing the material factory parameter data of the actual cut part.

[0057] Mechanical properties refer to the strength, stiffness, and explosion resistance of the actual cutting material, which affect the effect of explosive cutting and are used to ensure the mechanical similarity of equivalent experiments. The mechanical property parameters of the workpiece are obtained by acquiring and analyzing the mechanical property test report data of the workpiece material.

[0058] Boundary constraint conditions refer to the boundary force and constraint state of a real cutting part after it is installed and fixed. They directly affect the explosive deformation and cutting effect and are used to replicate the constraint environment of real working conditions. The boundary constraint state of the workpiece is obtained by acquiring and analyzing the actual installation and fixing method data of the real cutting part. This constraint state is the boundary constraint condition.

[0059] The cutting structure form refers to the preset cutting structure style and cutting shape of the actual cutting part, which determines the explosion action mode and is used to ensure that the experimental cutting structure is consistent with the actual working conditions. The workpiece cutting structure style is obtained by acquiring and analyzing the cutting structure design drawing data of the actual cutting part. This structure style is the cutting structure form.

[0060] Shock wave overpressure refers to the pressure difference between the shock wave generated by an explosion and the standard atmospheric pressure. It is a core safety detection parameter used to calculate the comprehensive safety value and determine the safety level. The shock wave overpressure is obtained by collecting shock wave pressure data from each group of explosion cutting experiments through sensors and converting the difference.

[0061] Shock wave impulse refers to the magnitude of the impulse of an explosion shock wave acting on a workpiece and its surrounding environment. It is a core safety detection parameter used to quantify the safety risks of explosion impacts and calculate the comprehensive safety value. The shock wave impulse is calculated by collecting data on the continuous action of the explosion shock wave through sensors and integrating the data.

[0062] Flying fragment velocity refers to the speed at which the flying fragments generated by the explosion move. It is a core safety detection parameter used to assess the safety risks of explosion scattering and determine the safety level. The flying fragment velocity is obtained by collecting the speed data of the flying fragments in the explosion experiment through speed measuring equipment.

[0063] The first safety threshold is a critical numerical standard for classifying low-risk safety levels. It is used to distinguish between level two and level three safety levels and to achieve quantitative classification of safety. The low-risk safety threshold is obtained by acquiring and analyzing multiple sets of explosion safety experimental data and safety standard data.

[0064] The second safety threshold is a critical value standard for classifying high safety levels. It is used to distinguish between level one and level two safety levels and to complete the safety level classification. The high safety performance critical value is obtained by acquiring and analyzing the explosion safety risk classification standard and experimental safety data. This critical value is the second safety threshold.

[0065] Cutting depth refers to the vertical penetration depth of the workpiece kerf after explosive cutting. It is a core cutting parameter used to calculate the overall cutting value and determine the cutting grade. The cutting depth is the actual value obtained by measuring the penetration depth of the kerf of the experimental workpiece using a scanning device.

[0066] Cutting penetration rate refers to the proportion of complete cuts along the workpiece's cutting trajectory. It reflects the completeness of explosive cutting and is a core indicator for evaluating cutting effectiveness. The cutting penetration rate is calculated by statistically analyzing the percentage of the cut trajectory's complete area.

[0067] Cut surface flatness refers to the flatness and smoothness of the cut surface of a workpiece. It is used to evaluate the quality of the cut and to provide a basis for determining the cutting grade. The cut surface flatness is determined by scanning and detecting the surface morphology and quantifying the score.

[0068] The first cutting threshold is a critical numerical standard for classifying low-level cutting effects. It is used to distinguish between first-level and second-level cutting effects and to achieve quantitative grading of cutting effects. The critical value for low-quality cutting is obtained by acquiring and analyzing multiple sets of explosive cutting test effect data and process acceptance standard data. This critical value is the first cutting threshold.

[0069] The second cutting threshold is a critical numerical standard for classifying high-level cutting effects. It is used to distinguish between second- and third-level cutting levels and accurately determine the cutting quality level. The critical value for high-quality cutting is obtained by acquiring and analyzing the high-quality process standards for explosive cutting and experimental cutting data. This critical value is the second cutting threshold.

[0070] Size boundary constraints refer to the parameter value boundaries defined by the geometric dimensions of the experimental cutting part itself. They are used to limit the effective range of values ​​for the position and explosion height of the explosive charge, and to avoid invalid working conditions due to exceeding the size limit. The maximum and minimum value boundaries of the parameters are obtained by acquiring and analyzing the overall geometric dimension data of the experimental cutting part. These value boundaries are the size boundary constraints.

[0071] Reference Figure 1 As shown in some embodiments of this application, an optimization method for explosive cutting safety assessment based on equivalent experiments includes: Step 1: Obtain the actual dimensions and safe dosage of the actual cut part; obtain the experimental dimensions of the experimental cut part based on a preset reduction ratio; obtain the experimental dosage of the experimental cut part based on the experimental dimensions, the actual dimensions, and the safe dosage.

[0072] Specifically, when obtaining the experimental dimensions of the experimental cut piece based on a preset reduction ratio, the following steps are included: The length, thickness, cutting groove size, and constraint installation size of the actual cut part are scaled proportionally according to the reduction ratio. The material composition, mechanical properties, boundary constraints, and cutting structure of the experimental cutting parts should be completely consistent with those of the actual cutting parts.

[0073] Understandably, the safe charge for the actual cutting component is calculated using the critical charge formula for shaped charge cutting. Experimental models are prepared based on the geometric similarity principle and structural constraint equivalence principle of explosive cutting. The length, thickness, grooving size, and constraint installation size of the actual cutting component are scaled proportionally. This allows the experimental cutting component to form a strictly geometrically similar system with the actual cutting component, ensuring complete uniformity in the overall structural form, dimensional proportions, grooving layout, and relative geometric features of the constraint installation structure between the two types of components. This avoids structural dimensional distortion and geometric parameter deviations caused by non-proportional scaling. Simultaneously, the consistency of material properties and mechanical properties ensures that the experimental component and the actual component have identical material constitutive relations, strength characteristics, and shape. By unifying the variable response law and blast-resistant mechanical properties, and the boundary constraints, the stress constraint state, displacement limitation conditions, and stress transmission path of the component under real cutting conditions can be replicated. The consistency of the cutting structure form can ensure a high degree of fit between the mechanical response mechanism of the explosion energy, the cutting stress distribution, and the crack propagation path. Through comprehensive equivalent matching of geometric structure, material properties, constraint conditions, and structural form, systematic errors between model experiments and real conditions can be eliminated. This allows the explosion cutting mechanism, parameter variation law, and safety and cutting performance response characteristics of the scaled-down experiment to accurately replicate the core laws of the real cutting scenario. This provides accurate, reliable, and equivalently mapped experimental foundation conditions for subsequent charge conversion, parameter experiments, law fitting, and parameter back-calculation optimization.

[0074] For example, the safe charge amount for actual cutting can be calculated using the critical charge calculation formula for shaped charge cutting, employing the standard critical charge formula for shaped charge cutting: Q 临 =K×S×δ. Where: Q 临 The value represents the critical charge for shaped charge cutting, in grams; K represents the charge correction factor for shaped charge cutting of steel, in g / mm². 2 S represents the effective area of ​​the shaped charge shield, in mm. 2 δ represents the thickness of the sheet metal to be cut, in mm. In this embodiment, the component to be cut is 45# carbon steel, and the corresponding shaped charge correction factor K is 0.0025g / mm. 2 The effective area S of the energy-concentrating medicated shield is taken as 2500mm. 2 The actual thickness δ of the cut sheet metal is taken as 20mm. Substituting all parameters into the formula, we can obtain: Q 临=0.0025×2500×20=125g. This method, based on the metal focused jet fracture criterion, calculates the minimum critical charge required to achieve complete penetration of the component. This critical charge is used as the baseline safe charge for the actual cut, minimizing safety hazards from explosive shock waves, vibrations, and debris while ensuring the quality of the cutting operation and meeting the requirements for complete penetration. The final safe charge for the actual cut is determined to be 125g. The preset scaling factor is 1:5. The actual cut is a commonly used steel structure cutting component, with specific geometric parameters set as follows: overall length 500mm, plate thickness 20mm, cutting groove width 8mm, and constraint installation positioning dimension 30mm. Based on the overall proportional scaling rule of the explosion similarity theory, all key geometric dimensions of the actual cut are uniformly scaled down. After conversion, the corresponding geometric parameters of the experimental cut are: overall length 100mm, plate thickness 4mm, cutting groove width 1.6mm, and constraint installation positioning dimension 6mm. The implementation strictly adopts a full-domain proportional scaling method to ensure that the experimental cutting parts and the real cutting parts have no geometric distortion in terms of dimensional proportions, structural layout, slotting shape, and constraint installation configuration. At the same time, in this embodiment, both the real cutting parts and the experimental cutting parts are made of 45# carbon structural steel, maintaining complete consistency in material chemical composition and metallographic structure. The mechanical property parameters of the material are fixed at tensile strength of 600MPa, yield strength of 355MPa, and elastic modulus of 206GPa. Both types of cutting parts adopt a boundary constraint installation method with rigid fixation at both ends, completely replicating the constraint limit and force boundary conditions under real working conditions. Furthermore, a linear through-groove explosive cutting structure is uniformly adopted, so that the explosive force system, structural response characteristics, and cutting failure mechanism of the experimental cutting parts and the real cutting parts are highly equivalent and unified. This achieves geometric similarity, material mechanical similarity, and boundary condition similarity between the model experimental conditions and the real engineering conditions, ensuring that the subsequent explosive cutting experimental data can accurately map the cutting law of the real workpiece.

[0075] Specifically, when obtaining the experimental dosage of the experimental cut piece based on the experimental size, the actual size, and the safe dosage, the following steps are included: A charge equivalent conversion model is established based on the explosion geometric similarity and energy similarity criteria. The experimental drug dosage is obtained by substituting the experimental size, the actual size, and the safe dosage into the drug dosage equivalence conversion model.

[0076] Understandably, by integrating geometric similarity criteria and energy similarity criteria from the field of explosion mechanics to construct an equivalent conversion model for charge, the geometric similarity criteria achieve scale matching of the spatial structure, size ratio, and explosion field of the experimental cutting part and the real cutting part. The energy similarity criteria follow the mechanical conservation laws of explosion energy transfer, work done, and dissipation, and match the characteristics of explosion loads under different scale components. In the explosion cutting operation, the effective work efficiency of explosion energy, the shock wave propagation law, the range of detonation products, and the geometric size of the component have a quantitative scale correlation. The equivalent conversion model constructed based on the dual criteria can establish a quantitative mapping relationship of charge parameters between the real working conditions and the experimental working conditions, and accurately characterize the correspondence between the detonation energy and the energy required for component cutting failure under different scale models. By substituting standardized experimental dimensions, actual dimensions, and compliant safe charge parameters under real-world conditions into the equivalent conversion model, the scale effect can be used to correct for deviations in explosion energy loss and offset the differences in parameters such as detonation pressure, energy utilization, and stress effects caused by differences in component size. This enables accurate equivalent conversion of safe charge under real-world conditions to charge under small-scale experimental conditions, allowing the experimental charge to completely replicate the detonation energy output level, load intensity, and cutting work capacity under real cutting conditions. This ensures that the energy action mechanism, mechanical response law, and safe load characteristics of small-scale model explosion cutting remain highly consistent with the cutting conditions of real large-scale components, eliminating the problem of experimental data distortion caused by scale differences. This provides an accurate, equivalent, and realistic quantitative charge benchmark for subsequent multi-assembly spatial parameter variable experiments.

[0077] For example, setting the equivalent feature size of the actual cut part Ls = 500mm, the safe charge of the actual cut part Qs = 125g, and the equivalent feature size of the experimental cut part Lm = 100mm, a charge equivalent conversion model is established by combining the explosion geometric similarity criterion and the energy similarity criterion, and the conversion formula is adopted: Qm = Qs × (Lm / Ls). 3 In the formula, Qm is the experimental charge of the experimental cut piece, Qs is the safe charge of the actual cut piece, Lm is the equivalent feature size of the experimental cut piece, and Ls is the equivalent feature size of the actual cut piece. Substituting the values ​​of each parameter into the formula, Qm = 125 × (100 / 500) 3 =1g. This formula relies on the geometric scale to correlate the space of the explosion action and uses the cubic relationship to achieve equivalent matching of the explosion energy of components of different sizes. This ensures that the detonation energy, impact load and work effect of the experimental cutting part are consistent with the actual cutting part working conditions. Finally, the experimental charge of the experimental cutting part in this embodiment is determined to be 1g.

[0078] Step 2: Preset several assembly space parameters for the explosive charge, and use the experimental charge amount as the quantitative value and the space parameters of each group of explosive charges as the variable value to conduct an explosive cutting experiment on the experimental cutting part; obtain the safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to the space parameters of each group of explosive charges respectively.

[0079] Specifically, several pre-set assembly space parameters are used, with the experimental charge amount as the quantitative unit and the space parameters of each set of charges as the variable unit, to conduct an explosive cutting experiment on the experimental cutting component; when obtaining the safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to each set of charge space parameters, the following are included: The charge space parameters include the position of the explosive pack and the explosive height of the explosive pack; The position of the medicine pack is offset at multiple points along the preset cutting trajectory of the experimental cutting piece, covering the entire range of the cutting start end, middle section and end. The explosive charge is set with multiple sets of arithmetic gradient height values ​​to cover deployment conditions at close, medium and long distances; All experimental groups maintained the same specifications of explosive charges, explosive structure, detonation method, and experimental environmental conditions. Each group completed the explosive cutting experiment, and each group of experiments corresponded to a unique set of explosive space parameters. The safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to the charge space parameters of each group are collected synchronously, and the experimental data are processed by noise reduction and outlier removal to obtain effective paired experimental data.

[0080] Understandably, by using the controlled variable method to conduct comparative explosion cutting experiments, the experimental charge is set to a fixed value, and the charge space parameter is used as the only variable. This isolates the interference of irrelevant factors on the experimental results, accurately identifies the intrinsic correlation between target parameters and detection indicators, and deploys the charge at multiple equidistant points along the cutting trajectory to cover the entire range. This conforms to the mechanical distribution law of explosion energy propagation along the action trajectory and the jet effect changing with the point location, fully presenting the difference in detonation energy at different positions throughout the cutting process. The explosion height of the charge is taken with an arithmetic gradient and divided into different action distance intervals, corresponding to the spatial variation characteristics of explosion shock wave propagation, shaped jet extension, and energy attenuation. This can continuously characterize the intensity and form of the explosion load at different distances. The specifications and charge structure of the charge are consistent in all groups of experiments. The detonation method and environmental conditions follow the principle of single-variable control in experiments to ensure that the initial detonation conditions, energy output form, and external environment of each group of experiments remain consistent, avoiding data deviations caused by additional factors. Each group of experiments is matched with an independent parameter combination to form a one-to-one mapping relationship between parameters and indicators. Safety detection parameters and cutting parameters are collected simultaneously during the experiment. Load data and workpiece forming data at the moment of explosion are captured by sensor detection technology. Subsequently, data noise reduction and outlier removal operations are carried out. Data preprocessing principles are used to filter invalid data caused by environmental interference and equipment failure, retaining effective data samples that can truly reflect the influence of the charge space parameters. This allows subsequent level determination, pattern analysis, and parameter optimization to be based on objective, continuous, and reliable experimental data.

[0081] For example, the experimental charge is fixed at 1g. The charge position and blast height are selected as variable charge space parameters. On the preset cutting trajectory of a 100mm long experimental cutting piece, five placement points are set at 20mm equidistant intervals: position 1 (starting end 0mm), position 2 (near middle section 20mm), position 3 (center section 40mm), position 4 (far middle section 60mm), and position 5 (end 80mm). Five sets of arithmetic gradient values ​​are set for the blast height of the charge: 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, 20mm, and 25mm, corresponding to all placement conditions from near to far distance. These are coupled in pairs to form 25 independent charge parameter combinations. All experimental groups uniformly use a diameter of 8mm and a length of... A 12mm cylindrical shaped charge, an integrated shaped charge structure, and a single-point initiation method at the center of the electric detonator were used. The experiment was conducted in a uniform experimental environment maintained at normal temperature and pressure, without external airflow interference. Explosion-cutting experiments were carried out group by group, with each group matched with a unique parameter combination. Specific safety and cutting parameters were collected simultaneously for each group of experiments. The five typical core parameter combinations and corresponding index values ​​are as follows: Group 1 (charge position 0mm, explosion height 5mm): Safety parameters: shock wave overpressure 0.18MPa, shock wave impulse 220Pa・s, fragment velocity 11.5m / s; Cutting parameters: cutting depth 4.0mm, cut penetration rate 100%, cut smoothness 0.08mm; Group 2 (charge position 4mm, explosion height 5 ... The safety testing parameters for the first group (0mm position, 10mm blast height) are: shock wave overpressure 0.15MPa, shock wave impulse 195Pa・s, and flying blade speed 9.8m / s; cutting parameters are: cutting depth 4.0mm, cut penetration rate 100%, and cut flatness 0.10mm. The third group (40mm position, 15mm blast height) has the following safety testing parameters: shock wave overpressure 0.12MPa, shock wave impulse 170Pa・s, and flying blade speed 8.2m / s; cutting parameters are: cutting depth 3.9mm, cut penetration rate 99.2%, and cut flatness 0.13mm. The fourth group (40mm position, 20mm blast height) has the following safety testing parameters: shock wave overpressure 0.09MPa. The first group (shock wave impulse 145 Pa·s, flying blade velocity 6.5 m / s) had cutting parameters of 3.7 mm cutting depth, 97.5% cut penetration rate, and 0.16 mm cut smoothness. The second group (charge package position 80 mm, explosion height 25 mm) had safety testing parameters of 0.07 MPa shock wave overpressure, 120 Pa·s shock wave impulse, 5.1 m / s flying blade velocity, and cutting parameters of 3.5 mm cutting depth, 95.8% cut penetration rate, and 0.20 mm cut smoothness. After all experimental data were collected, the data was denoised using a mean filtering algorithm, and random outliers were removed using the Grubbs criterion, resulting in accurate and effective paired experimental data for all parameter combinations.

[0082] Step 3: Obtain the safety level of the experimental cutting based on the safety detection parameters, and determine the cutting level of the experimental cutting based on the cutting parameters; obtain the comprehensive evaluation value corresponding to each group of the charge space parameters based on the safety level and the cutting level corresponding to each group of the charge space parameters.

[0083] Specifically, when obtaining the safety level of the experimental cutting based on the aforementioned safety detection parameters, the following are included: The safety detection parameters include: shock wave overpressure, shock wave impulse, and flying plate speed; The safety comprehensive value is obtained by weighted summing of the shock wave overpressure, the shock wave impulse, and the flying plate velocity. When the overall security value is less than or equal to a preset first security threshold, the security level is level three. When the overall security value is greater than the first security threshold and less than the preset second security threshold, the security level is level two. When the overall security value is greater than or equal to the second security threshold, the security level is Level 1.

[0084] Understandably, a graded judgment system is constructed based on a multi-dimensional safety risk assessment mechanism for explosive cutting operations. Shock wave overpressure, shock wave impulse, and fragment velocity correspond to the peak pressure characteristics, sustained impact characteristics, and fragment ejection motion characteristics of the explosive load, respectively. These three parameters comprehensively characterize the core safety risk dimensions of shock waves, vibrations, and flying debris during explosive operations, covering all key hazard forms of explosive energy leakage. By performing a weighted summation operation on these three safety detection parameters, and relying on the principle of multi-index comprehensive evaluation to integrate the independent response characteristics and coupled risk characteristics of a single parameter, the bias and randomness of evaluation caused by a single detection parameter are eliminated. This forms a comprehensive safety value that can uniformly quantify the overall safety risk level of the explosion, achieving standardized and normalized fusion output of multi-source safety detection data, based on preset... A two-tiered safety threshold system is established to create a gradient risk classification range. The principle of numerical range division is used to differentiate the levels of safety risk. Different threshold ranges correspond to different load hazard levels and risk grades for explosive cutting operations. The first and second safety thresholds are quantitatively calibrated according to the explosion safety assessment standards. The range distribution can accurately map the low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk states of explosive operations. The comprehensive safety value falling into different numerical ranges corresponds to the third, second, and first-level safety levels, forming a standardized safety evaluation logic of parameter fusion, numerical quantification, and range classification. This avoids the errors and deviations of traditional subjective judgment methods, and makes the safety level judgment of explosive cutting have a quantitative basis, unified standards, and engineering universality. It achieves accurate, objective, and systematic rating of the safety performance of explosive cutting under different charge space parameters.

[0085] For example, shock wave overpressure, shock wave impulse, and flying blade velocity are selected as the core detection variables for the safety performance of explosive cutting. The comprehensive safety value calculation formula is set as: F = α1・P + α2・I + α3・V, where F is the comprehensive safety value, α1 is the weighting coefficient for shock wave overpressure, α2 is the weighting coefficient for shock wave impulse, α3 is the weighting coefficient for flying blade velocity, P is the measured shock wave overpressure value, I is the measured shock wave impulse value, and V is the measured flying blade velocity value. In this embodiment, α1 = 0.4, α2 = 0.35, and α3 = 0.25 are uniformly assigned to complete the fixed ratio of weighting parameters. The first safety threshold is preset to 45, and the second safety threshold is preset to 70. The safety risk levels are divided into three tiers: Level 3, Level 2, and Level 1. Level 3 corresponds to the lowest safety risk, and Level 1 corresponds to the highest safety risk. Taking the measured parameters of each group of experiments as an example, substituting the parameters of the first group (P=0.18MPa, I=220Pa・s, V=11.5m / s) into the formula, we get F=0.4×0.18+0.35×220+0.25×11.5=79.042. This value is greater than the second safety threshold of 70, corresponding to Level 1. Substituting the parameters of the second group (P=0.15MPa, I=195Pa・s, V=9.8m / s) into the formula, we get F=0.4×0.15+0.35× 195 + 0.25 × 9.8 = 70.01. This value equals the second safety threshold, corresponding to safety level one. Substituting the third set of parameters P = 0.12 MPa, I = 170 Pa·s, and V = 8.2 m / s into the formula, we get F = 0.4 × 0.12 + 0.35 × 170 + 0.25 × 8.2 = 60.148. This value is between the first safety threshold of 45 and the second safety threshold of 70, corresponding to safety level two. Substituting the fourth set of parameters P = 0.09 MPa, I = 145 Pa·s, and V = 6.5 m / s into the formula, we get F = 0.4 × 0.09 + 0.35 × 145 +0.25×6.5=49.116, this value is between the first safety threshold of 45 and the second safety threshold of 70, corresponding to a safety level of level two. Taking the fifth set of parameters P=0.07MPa, I=120Pa・s, V=5.1m / s and substituting them into the formula, we can get F=0.4×0.07+0.35×120+0.25×5.1=43.288. This value is less than or equal to the first safety threshold of 45, corresponding to a safety level of level three. By integrating multi-dimensional safety detection parameters with fixed weight coefficients and relying on a unified threshold range, standardized classification judgment is completed, realizing the quantitative classification of the safety performance of explosive cutting under different charging conditions.

[0086] Specifically, determining the cutting grade of the experimental cut based on the cutting parameters includes: The cutting grades include: cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and cut smoothness; The cutting depth, the cut penetration rate, and the cut smoothness are weighted and summed to obtain the overall cutting value; When the overall cutting value is less than or equal to a preset first cutting threshold, the cutting level is level one; When the overall cutting value is greater than the first cutting threshold and less than the preset second cutting threshold, the cutting level is level two. When the overall cutting value is greater than or equal to the second cutting threshold, the cutting level is level three.

[0087] Understandably, a graded evaluation system for explosive cutting effects is constructed based on the principle of comprehensive quantitative evaluation using multiple indicators. Cutting depth characterizes the penetrating power of the explosive focused jet on the component material, directly reflecting the depth effect of the effective work done by the explosive cutting. Cutting penetration rate characterizes the overall integrity of the cutting trajectory, reflecting the uniformity and continuity of the explosive energy along the preset cutting path. Cutting smoothness characterizes the macroscopic regularity of the cut interface, corresponding to the stability and forming accuracy of the component material fracture under detonation load. These three indicators cover the forming quality evaluation system of explosive cutting from three core dimensions: cutting depth, overall integrity, and forming accuracy. This comprehensively and three-dimensionally reflects the cutting performance corresponding to different charge space parameters. A single cutting indicator has limitations and biases in evaluation; the multi-parameter weighted summation calculation mode follows the multivariate evaluation theory, matching fixed weights to each indicator. The coefficients enable the standardized fusion and normalization of multi-dimensional detection data, generating a comprehensive cutting value that can uniformly measure overall cutting performance. This achieves intensive numerical representation of discrete, multi-dimensional cutting quality data. The two-level cutting thresholds are calibrated based on the explosive cutting forming quality standard and the engineering operation limit standard. A gradient cutting quality level division mechanism is constructed based on the principle of numerical interval segmentation. Different threshold intervals correspond to the gradient performance state from defect forming, qualified forming to high-quality forming under explosive cutting conditions. The first, second, and third level cutting grades correspond to progressively improving cutting forming quality standards. The interval assignment of the comprehensive cutting value completes the automated and standardized grading, completely avoiding the subjectivity and ambiguity of traditional visual qualitative evaluation methods. This allows the differences in cutting performance under different charge conditions to form quantifiable, comparable, and traceable standardized evaluation results, achieving accurate hierarchical determination of explosive cutting forming quality.

[0088] For example, using cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and cut smoothness as core parameters for evaluating the quality of explosive cutting, a quantitative rating system for cutting performance is constructed. The formula for calculating the comprehensive cutting value is set as: M = β1・H + β2・T + β3・Q, where M is the comprehensive cutting value, β1 is the weighting coefficient for cutting depth, β2 is the weighting coefficient for cut penetration rate, β3 is the weighting coefficient for cut smoothness, H is the normalized cutting depth value, T is the normalized cut penetration rate value, and Q is the normalized cut smoothness value. In this embodiment, the weighting coefficients β1 = 0.4, β2 = 0.4, and β3 = 0.2 are fixed. The evaluation ratio of each indicator is calculated, with a preset first cutting threshold of 60 and a second cutting threshold of 85. Cutting level one corresponds to the best cutting quality, cutting level two to acceptable cutting quality, and cutting level three to poor cutting quality. The measured parameters from the previous sets are normalized to the range of 0-100 before being used in the calculation. The first set of normalized parameters is H=100, T=100, and Q=92. Substituting these into the formula, we get M=0.4×100+0.4×100+0.2×92=98.4. This value is greater than the second cutting threshold of 85, so the cutting level is determined to be level three. The second set of normalized parameters is H=100, T=1... 00, Q=90, substituting into the formula, we get M=0.4×100+0.4×100+0.2×90=98. This value is greater than the second cutting threshold of 85, so the cutting level is determined to be level three. The third set of normalized parameters H=97.5, T=99.2, Q=85, substituting into the formula, we get M=0.4×97.5+0.4×99.2+0.2×85=95.08. This value is greater than the second cutting threshold of 85, so the cutting level is determined to be level three. The fourth set of normalized parameters H=92.5, T=97.5, Q=80, substituting into the formula, we get M=0.4×92.5+0.4× 97.5 + 0.2 × 80 = 91, which is greater than the second cutting threshold of 85, so the cutting level is determined to be level three; the fifth group of normalized parameters H = 87.5, T = 95.8, Q = 75, which, when substituted into the formula, yields M = 0.4 × 87.5 + 0.4 × 95.8 + 0.2 × 75 = 87.32, which is also greater than the second cutting threshold of 85, so the cutting level is determined to be level three. By integrating the three core performance categories of cutting depth, cut integrity, and cut smoothness through a multi-index weighted fusion method, and relying on a fixed threshold range to complete the standardized hierarchical division, the cutting quality under various loading conditions can be quantified and uniformly graded.

[0089] Specifically, when obtaining the comprehensive evaluation value corresponding to each group of charge space parameters based on the safety level and the cutting level corresponding to each group of charge space parameters, the following are included: Obtain the security level value of the security level and the cutting level value of the cutting level; The comprehensive evaluation value is obtained by weighted summing of the security level value and the cutting level value.

[0090] Understandably, the comprehensive performance evaluation of explosive cutting operations is achieved based on the principle of multi-objective collaborative quantitative evaluation. This involves numerically mapping and converting discrete safety levels and cutting levels, and standardizing the conversion of qualitative level indicators to quantitative numerical indicators using level quantification assignment rules. This eliminates the interval-based and fuzzy nature of level descriptions, providing a unified numerical calculation basis for the two different evaluation dimensions. This adapts to the mathematical logic of multi-indicator fusion evaluation. The safety level numerical value carries the quantitative characteristics of safety risks throughout the entire explosive cutting operation, centrally reflecting the overall intensity level of explosive hazards such as shock waves and flying debris. The cutting level numerical value carries the quantitative characteristics of the component cutting quality, centrally reflecting the work efficiency and forming accuracy level of the explosive focused jet. These two types of values ​​correspond to the safety dimension and forming performance dimension of explosive cutting operations, respectively. The core evaluation system covering explosive cutting conditions follows a multi-dimensional index coupling evaluation mechanism through a weighted summation mathematical operation mode. It allocates corresponding coefficients based on the weight ratio of safety performance and cutting performance in engineering operations, achieving effective integration of safety and cutting indicators. It can simultaneously take into account risk control characteristics and process forming characteristics, integrating two-dimensional independent performance parameters into a single comprehensive evaluation value. It completes the normalization and fusion processing of multi-dimensional heterogeneous evaluation information, enabling the performance differences of different charge space parameters to be presented intuitively through unified values. It avoids the limitations of single-dimensional evaluation that cannot take into account both safety and cutting performance, and provides continuous, uniform, and comparable quantitative data support for subsequent parameter correlation law fitting and optimal parameter combination selection, realizing accurate quantitative characterization of the correspondence between charge parameters and comprehensive working condition performance.

[0091] For example, standardized numerical mappings are used to assign values ​​to safety levels and cutting levels. Safety levels are assigned corresponding values: Level 1 safety level corresponds to value 1, Level 2 safety level corresponds to value 2, and Level 3 safety level corresponds to value 3. Larger values ​​represent lower safety risks and better safety performance. Similarly, cutting levels are assigned corresponding values: Level 1 cutting level corresponds to value 1, Level 2 cutting level corresponds to value 2, and Level 3 cutting level corresponds to value 3. Larger values ​​represent better cutting quality. A comprehensive evaluation value calculation model is constructed: Z = γ1・A + γ2・B, where Z is the comprehensive evaluation value, γ1 is the safety level weight coefficient, γ2 is the cutting level weight coefficient, A is the quantified safety level value, and B is the quantified cutting level value. In this embodiment, combined with the evaluation standard for explosive cutting engineering, the weight coefficients γ1 = 0.5 and γ2 = 0.5 are fixed to achieve equal weighting and coupled evaluation of safety and cutting performance. The calculations are performed using the parameters of the five sets of experimental conditions mentioned above. The first set of conditions has a safety level of Level 1 and a cutting level of... Level 3, corresponding to A=1, B=3, substituting into the formula, we get Z=0.5×1+0.5×3=2; The second group of working conditions has a safety level of Level 1 and a cutting level of Level 3, corresponding to A=1, B=3, substituting into the formula, we get Z=0.5×1+0.5×3=2; The third group of working conditions has a safety level of Level 2 and a cutting level of Level 3, corresponding to A=2, B=3, substituting into the formula, we get Z=0.5×2+0.5×3=2.5; The fourth group of working conditions has a safety level of Level 2 and a cutting level of Level 3, corresponding to A=2... B=3, substituting into the formula, we get Z=0.5×2+0.5×3=2.5; the fifth group of working conditions has a safety level of three and a cutting level of three, corresponding to A=3 and B=3, substituting into the formula, we get Z=0.5×3+0.5×3=3. This method transforms the qualitative level into a calculable quantitative value, and completes the data fusion of the two evaluation dimensions through weighted summation, finally obtaining the comprehensive evaluation value corresponding to the spatial parameters of each assembly of explosives, and completing the integrated quantitative evaluation of the comprehensive performance of explosive cutting under different working conditions.

[0092] Step 4: Obtain the parameter correlation law between the charge space parameters and the comprehensive evaluation value, and obtain the optimal charge space parameters when the experimental size allows based on the parameter correlation law.

[0093] Specifically, obtaining the parameter correlation between the charge space parameters and the comprehensive evaluation value includes: The safety detection parameters, cutting parameters, safety level, cutting level, and comprehensive evaluation value of the charge space parameters of each group are summarized to construct a multi-dimensional parameter dataset; The multivariate nonlinear regression analysis method was used to fit the corresponding changes of the single variable and the bivariate coupling effect of the position of the explosive pack and the explosive height of the explosive pack with the comprehensive evaluation value. The individual and coupled influence patterns of the location and blast height of the explosive charge are quantitatively analyzed to clarify the positive and negative influence ranges of the location and blast height of the explosive charge, and a visual parameter correlation model is constructed.

[0094] Understandably, this study, relying on the principles of data statistical analysis and mathematical modeling, conducts parameter correlation research. It unifies and summarizes the charge space parameters, safety detection parameters, cutting parameters, grade assessment results, and comprehensive evaluation values ​​corresponding to each experimental group. Following structured dataset construction rules, it integrates multi-type, multi-dimensional measured data and derived data to form a standardized and dimensionally complete sample set, providing a standardized data carrier for subsequent mathematical analysis. Multivariate nonlinear regression analysis, based on the nonlinear interaction mechanism between variables, performs function fitting, adapting to the nonlinear variation characteristics of the charge position, charge height, and comprehensive evaluation value in the field of explosive cutting. Fitting operations are performed for both univariate and bivariate combinations, allowing for the layer-by-layer decomposition of the independent effects of a single parameter and the coupled effects of the superposition and mutual constraints between two parameters. Mathematical quantitative analysis relies on data distribution characteristics and function change trends to analyze the influence of parameters. It divides parameter influence intervals based on the nodes where function values ​​increase to decrease and decrease to increase, thereby defining the corresponding effects of different parameter intervals. The visualized parameter correlation model, based on graphical mapping principles, transforms abstract functional relationships and numerical change patterns into intuitive charts, fully presenting the strength, direction, and interval boundaries of variables. The entire process combines statistical modeling, regression fitting, interval discrimination, and visualization, deeply exploring the inherent mathematical correlation between charge space parameters and comprehensive evaluation indicators. It accurately reconstructs the mechanical and performance changes of parameters under explosion conditions, both independently and synergistically, providing a mathematically interpretable, reproducible, and referable basis for complex parameter influence relationships.

[0095] For example, a multi-dimensional parameter dataset was constructed by integrating data from all experimental groups. This dataset includes two types of charge space parameters: charge position and charge explosion height; three types of safety detection parameters: shock wave overpressure, shock wave impulse, and fragment velocity; three types of cutting parameters: cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and cut smoothness; and corresponding safety levels, cutting levels, and comprehensive evaluation values. The charge position values ​​are set as {0mm, 20mm, 40mm, 60mm, 80mm}, and the charge explosion height values ​​are set as {5mm, 10mm, 15mm, 20mm, 25mm}. Data entry was completed by combining the measured values, level assignments, and calculation results from each group mentioned earlier, forming a standardized dataset containing 25 complete samples. Multivariate nonlinear regression analysis was used for fitting calculations. First, univariate regression models were established. The univariate fitting formula for charge position is: Z = -0.000012X 2+0.008X+1.92, where Z is the comprehensive evaluation value and X is the position of the explosive charge; the single-variable fitting formula for the explosive charge's blast height is: Z=-0.0018Y 2 +0.092Y+1.85, where Y is the explosion height of the explosive charge, and then a bivariate coupled nonlinear regression formula is constructed: Z=-0.00001X 2 -0.0016Y 2 +0.0007XY+0.007X+0.088Y+1.81, where X is the position of the explosive charge, Y is the explosive charge blast height, and Z is the comprehensive evaluation value. Quantitative analysis is completed through function differentiation and numerical traversal. It is found that the explosive charge position has a positive influence in the range of 0mm to 42mm and a negative influence in the range of 42mm to 80mm. The explosive charge blast height has a positive influence in the range of 5mm to 25.6mm and a negative influence beyond this range. At the same time, the coupling characteristics of the two parameters are analyzed. Based on the dataset and fitting function, two-dimensional trend curves and three-dimensional surface plots are drawn to complete the construction of a visual parameter correlation model, intuitively showing the linkage between variable changes and the comprehensive evaluation value. This fully characterizes the effect of the explosive charge spatial parameters on the comprehensive performance of explosive cutting.

[0096] Specifically, when obtaining the optimal charge space parameters based on the parameter correlation law when the experimental size allows, it includes: Based on the visualization parameter correlation model, and combined with the size boundary constraints of the experimental cut piece, the effective value range of the position of the explosive pack and the blast height of the explosive pack is defined. With the dual constraints of maximizing the comprehensive evaluation value and the safety level being greater than the preset safety access level, all parameter combinations of the position of the explosive pack and the explosion height of the explosive pack within the effective range are traversed and compared. Invalid parameter combinations that fail to meet cutting standards or exceed safety risks are eliminated. The optimal combination of the explosive charge position and the optimal explosive charge blast height, which balances safety and cutting performance, is selected as the optimal explosive charge space parameters.

[0097] Understandably, the optimal parameters are solved by integrating boundary constraint theory, multi-objective optimization principles, and a global traversal screening mechanism. A visualized parameter correlation model reflects the continuous changes in variables and evaluation indicators. Combined with the spatial boundary conditions formed by the physical dimensions of the experimental cutting parts, the range of values ​​for the explosive charge position and blast height is defined according to geometric constraint rules. Invalid values ​​exceeding the component installation space and operating range are eliminated, forming an effective parameter range that conforms to actual working conditions. Dual constraints are used to construct a multi-objective optimization judgment system based on engineering evaluation standards. Maximizing the comprehensive evaluation value follows the principle of performance extremum solution, corresponding to the optimal state of comprehensive explosive cutting performance. Safety level entry thresholds are set based on safety classification and control rules to define risk critical standards, incorporating safety performance into the scope of hard constraints. The full-domain traversal comparison utilizes the enumeration retrieval principle to perform index calculation and condition verification for all parameter combinations within the valid interval, enabling horizontal comparison of all feasible solutions. The parameter combination screening process combines cutting quality judgment criteria and safety risk judgment criteria, eliminating combinations that do not meet forming requirements or whose risks exceed control standards, while retaining feasible solutions that simultaneously meet performance and safety indicators. The entire process integrates geometric space constraints, safety constraints, and performance constraints, relying on mathematical models and rule-based judgment to complete multi-level screening, locking in the global optimal solution based on parameter change patterns, so that the finally determined charge space parameters simultaneously adapt to the physical structural characteristics of the component, explosion operation safety specifications, and cutting process performance requirements, achieving a deep match between parameter optimization selection and actual engineering application scenarios.

[0098] For example, based on the constructed visualization parameter correlation model of the charge space parameters and comprehensive evaluation values, the effective range of parameters is defined by matching the physical size boundary of the experimental cutting part. In this embodiment, the overall effective cutting trajectory length of the experimental cutting part is set to 100mm. Based on the structural margin at the end of the component and the charge placement avoidance rules, the effective value range of the charge position is limited to 0mm to 80mm. Based on the minimum safe placement spacing of the shaped charge, the lower limit of the effective explosion distance, and the maximum effective coverage range, the effective value range of the charge explosion height is limited to 5mm to 25mm. In this embodiment, the preset safety access level is level two, and the corresponding safety level value judgment threshold is 2. The parameter optimization dual constraint conditions are constructed. The first is to maximize the comprehensive evaluation value. The comprehensive evaluation value calculation formula is Z=0.5×A+0.5×B, where Z represents the comprehensive evaluation value, A represents the safety level value, and B represents the cutting level value. The second is that the safety level value A>2, and the charge position 0 Twenty-five parameter combinations, formed by pairing mm, 20mm, 40mm, 60mm, and 80mm with explosive charge heights of 5mm, 10mm, 15mm, 20mm, and 25mm, were comprehensively compared. The cutting effect corresponding to each parameter combination was verified according to standardized cutting level judgment rules, and the explosion operation safety risk corresponding to each parameter combination was verified according to safety level judgment rules. Invalid parameter combinations that did not meet the cutting level, had a safety level value less than or equal to 2, or exceeded the explosion safety risk standard were eliminated in batches. Among all compliant and valid parameter combinations, the parameter combination with the highest comprehensive evaluation value was selected. Finally, the optimal explosive charge space parameter combination was determined to be 40mm explosive charge position and 15mm explosive charge height. The safety level value and cutting level value corresponding to this parameter combination are 3. Substituting into the formula, the comprehensive evaluation value Z=3 is obtained, which is the optimal value among all valid working conditions and fully meets all judgment conditions of size boundary constraints, safety access constraints, and cutting performance constraints.

[0099] Step 5: Adjust the optimal charge space parameters proportionally based on the reduction ratio to obtain the actual charge space parameters corresponding to the actual cutting part, and perform explosive cutting on the actual cutting part based on the actual charge space parameters.

[0100] Specifically, when adjusting the optimal charge space parameters proportionally based on the reduction ratio, the following steps are included: Based on the reverse conversion of the reduction ratio, the optimal charge position and the optimal charge blasting height obtained in the experiment are simultaneously and proportionally enlarged to obtain the initial real charge space parameters that are adapted to the real cutting parts. The initial actual charge space parameters are verified and fine-tuned based on the boundary conditions and safety specifications of the real operating environment. After confirming that the parameters meet the safety standards and cutting process requirements of the actual cutting conditions, the final actual charge space parameters are locked for use in the explosive cutting operation of the actual cutting parts.

[0101] Understandably, relying on the explosion geometric similarity criterion and the principle of scale conversion, the precise mapping of small-scale experimental parameters to real-world working parameters is achieved. This scales down to correspond to the geometric scale ratio between the experimental model and the real workpiece. Based on a reverse proportional scaling conversion mechanism, the spatial relative position and explosion distance ratio of the shaped charge under experimental conditions can be completely replicated. This maintains the constant consistency of the shaped jet formation, energy propagation attenuation law, and load matching across different scale systems. This allows the relative action characteristics of the optimal experimental charge spatial parameters to be fully transferred to the real cutting conditions, forming initial real charge spatial parameters with theoretical adaptability. The real operating environment contains spatial constraints, media interference, environmental disturbances, and specification limits not covered in the model experiment. Through boundary condition matching and safety specification benchmarking verification mechanisms, this can be achieved by relying on engineering explosion safety standards and current... The initial parameters were verified for compliance by considering the installation constraints and process adaptation criteria of the field space. Micro-parameter corrections were made based on the multi-dimensional constraints of real working conditions to eliminate scale effect deviations and environmental adaptation deviations between the model scale and the real engineering scale. After parameter verification and fine-tuning, dual index verification was completed based on the explosive cutting safety judgment mechanism and the forming process judgment mechanism. The safety risk control threshold and component cutting and forming quality standards of real working conditions were matched to complete the final confirmation of parameter feasibility and adaptability. Standardized real charge space parameters that can be directly applied were locked in. The entire technical process, through the hierarchical processing logic of geometric similarity conversion, engineering constraint verification, and process safety verification, realizes the accurate conversion, correction and solidification of the laboratory optimal parameters from the model scale to the real engineering scale, ensuring that the optimization conclusions of small-size experiments can be accurately adapted to the full-size real explosive cutting operation conditions.

[0102] For example, if the model experiment is scaled down to 1:5 compared to the actual working conditions, a geometric similarity inverse conversion formula is established: S 真 =S 实 ×K, where S 真 S represents the charge space parameters corresponding to the actual cut component. 实The optimal charge space parameters under experimental conditions are given by K, which is the scaling factor. In this embodiment, the scaling factor K is set to 5. After optimization and screening, the optimal charge position is determined to be 40mm and the optimal charge blast height is 15mm. Substituting the parameters into the conversion formula to complete the synchronous proportional scaling calculation, the initial real charge position is 40mm × 5 = 200mm and the initial real charge blast height is 15mm × 5 = 75mm. Thus, the initial real charge space parameters adapted to the actual cutting part size are obtained. The total effective cutting trajectory length of the actual cutting part is 500mm. Combining the spatial installation boundary of the actual operation site, the civil explosion construction safety specifications, and the general standards for shaped charge cutting technology, the above initial real charge space is... The parameters underwent compliance verification. Based on the actual equipment installation margin and minimum safe working distance requirements, the initial parameters were slightly adjusted for adaptation. The initial actual explosive charge position was adjusted from 200mm to 205mm, and the initial actual explosive charge blast height was adjusted from 75mm to 73mm. After the adjustment, the parameters completely conformed to the actual cutting part's structural dimensions and the constraints of the on-site operation. At the same time, they matched the explosive cutting safety threshold and the cut forming process accuracy requirements, meeting the dual standards of no overpressure risk, no excessive flying debris hazard, and a completely through and flat cut under actual working conditions. Finally, the explosive charge position of 205mm and the explosive charge blast height of 73mm were locked as the final actual explosive charge space parameters, which can be directly applied to large-scale explosive cutting operations of actual cutting parts.

[0103] In the above embodiments, by simultaneously collecting safety detection parameters and cutting parameters in equivalent experiments, and combining these two types of indicators to complete a comprehensive evaluation and optimize the charge space parameters, the previous model of solely relying on safety indicators for evaluation and optimization has been changed. This approach can control the safety risks of explosive operations within a manageable range, while effectively improving cutting performance such as cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and flatness. This results in more comprehensive evaluation results and more reasonable parameter optimization directions, achieving a synergistic improvement in both the safety and effectiveness of explosive cutting.

[0104] Those skilled in the art will understand that embodiments of this application can be provided as methods, systems, or computer program goods. Therefore, this application can take the form of a completely hardware embodiment, a completely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, this application can take the form of a computer program goods embodied on one or more computer-usable storage media (including, but not limited to, disk storage, CD-ROM, optical storage, etc.) containing computer-usable program code.

[0105] This application is described with reference to flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems), and computer program goods according to embodiments of this application. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions can be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special-purpose computer, embedded processor, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, generate instructions for implementing the flowchart... Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 A device that provides the functions specified in one or more boxes.

[0106] These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable storage medium that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing device to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable storage medium produce an article of manufacture including instruction means, which are implemented in a process Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The function specified in one or more boxes.

[0107] These computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing equipment to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable equipment to produce a computer-implemented process, thereby providing instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable equipment for implementing the process. Figure 1 One or more processes and / or boxes Figure 1 The steps of the function specified in one or more boxes.

[0108] 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 it. Although the present invention has been described in detail with reference to the above embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications or equivalent substitutions can still be made to the specific implementation of the present invention. Any modifications or equivalent substitutions that do not depart from the spirit and scope of the present invention should be covered within the scope of protection of the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments, characterized in that, include: Obtain the true dimensions and safe dosage of the actual cut parts; The experimental dimensions of the experimental cut parts are obtained based on a preset reduction ratio; The experimental dosage of the experimental cut piece is obtained based on the experimental dimensions, the actual dimensions, and the safe dosage. Several pre-set assembly space parameters of the explosive charge are used, with the experimental charge amount as the quantitative measure and the space parameters of each group of the explosive charge as the variable measure. An explosive cutting experiment is carried out on the experimental cutting part. The safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to the space parameters of each group of the explosive charge are obtained respectively. The safety level of the experimental cutting is obtained based on the safety detection parameters, and the cutting level of the experimental cutting is determined based on the cutting parameters. Based on the safety level and cutting level corresponding to the charge space parameters of each group, obtain the comprehensive evaluation value corresponding to the charge space parameters of each group; Obtain the parameter correlation law between the charge space parameters and the comprehensive evaluation value, and obtain the optimal charge space parameters when the experimental size allows based on the parameter correlation law; Based on the reduction ratio, the optimal charge space parameters are adjusted proportionally to obtain the actual charge space parameters corresponding to the actual cutting part, and the actual cutting part is then explosively cut based on the actual charge space parameters.

2. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 1, characterized in that, When obtaining the experimental dimensions of the experimental cut parts based on a preset reduction ratio, the following are included: The length, thickness, cutting groove size, and constraint installation size of the actual cut part are scaled proportionally according to the reduction ratio. The material composition, mechanical properties, boundary constraints, and cutting structure of the experimental cutting parts should be completely consistent with those of the actual cutting parts.

3. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 2, characterized in that, When obtaining the experimental dosage of the experimental cut piece based on the experimental dimensions, the actual dimensions, and the safe dosage, the following steps are included: A charge equivalent conversion model is established based on the explosion geometric similarity and energy similarity criteria. The experimental drug dosage is obtained by substituting the experimental size, the actual size, and the safe dosage into the drug dosage equivalence conversion model.

4. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 3, characterized in that, Several pre-set assembly space parameters for the explosive charge are used, with the experimental charge amount as the quantitative unit and the space parameters of each set of charges as the variable unit. An explosive cutting experiment is then conducted on the experimental cutting component. When acquiring the safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to each set of charge space parameters, the following steps are included: The charge space parameters include the position of the explosive pack and the explosive height of the explosive pack; The position of the medicine pack is offset at multiple points along the preset cutting trajectory of the experimental cutting piece, covering the entire range of the cutting start end, middle section and end. The explosive charge is set with multiple sets of arithmetic gradient height values ​​to cover deployment conditions at close, medium and long distances; All experimental groups maintained the same specifications of explosive charges, explosive structure, detonation method and experimental environmental conditions, and completed the explosive cutting experiment one by one. Each group of experiments corresponded to a unique set of explosive space parameters. The safety detection parameters and cutting parameters corresponding to the charge space parameters of each group are collected synchronously, and the experimental data are processed by noise reduction and outlier removal to obtain effective paired experimental data.

5. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 4, characterized in that, When obtaining the safety level of the experimental cutting based on the aforementioned safety detection parameters, the following are included: The safety detection parameters include: shock wave overpressure, shock wave impulse, and flying plate speed; The safety comprehensive value is obtained by weighted summing of the shock wave overpressure, the shock wave impulse, and the flying plate velocity. When the overall security value is less than or equal to a preset first security threshold, the security level is level three. When the overall security value is greater than the first security threshold and less than the preset second security threshold, the security level is level two. When the overall security value is greater than or equal to the second security threshold, the security level is Level 1.

6. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 5, characterized in that, When determining the cutting grade of the experimental cut based on the cutting parameters, the following are included: The cutting grades include: cutting depth, cut penetration rate, and cut smoothness; The cutting depth, the cut penetration rate, and the cut smoothness are weighted and summed to obtain the overall cutting value; When the overall cutting value is less than or equal to a preset first cutting threshold, the cutting level is level one; When the overall cutting value is greater than the first cutting threshold and less than the preset second cutting threshold, the cutting level is level two. When the overall cutting value is greater than or equal to the second cutting threshold, the cutting level is level three.

7. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 6, characterized in that, When obtaining the comprehensive evaluation value corresponding to each group of charge space parameters based on the safety level and cutting level, the following are included: Obtain the security level value of the security level and the cutting level value of the cutting level; The comprehensive evaluation value is obtained by weighted summing of the security level value and the cutting level value.

8. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 6, characterized in that, When obtaining the parameter correlation between the charge space parameters and the comprehensive evaluation value, the following are included: The safety detection parameters, cutting parameters, safety level, cutting level, and comprehensive evaluation value of the charge space parameters of each group are summarized to construct a multi-dimensional parameter dataset; The multivariate nonlinear regression analysis method was used to fit the corresponding changes of the single variable and the bivariate coupling effect of the position of the explosive pack and the explosive height of the explosive pack with the comprehensive evaluation value. The individual and coupled influence patterns of the location and blast height of the explosive charge are quantitatively analyzed to clarify the positive and negative influence ranges of the location and blast height of the explosive charge, and a visual parameter correlation model is constructed.

9. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 8, characterized in that, When obtaining the optimal charge space parameters based on the aforementioned parameter correlation rules, under the condition that the experimental size allows, the following are included: Based on the visualization parameter correlation model, and combined with the size boundary constraints of the experimental cut piece, the effective value range of the position of the explosive pack and the blast height of the explosive pack is defined. With the dual constraints of maximizing the comprehensive evaluation value and the safety level being greater than the preset safety access level, all parameter combinations of the position of the explosive pack and the explosion height of the explosive pack within the effective range are traversed and compared. Invalid parameter combinations that fail to meet cutting standards or exceed safety risks are eliminated. The optimal combination of the explosive charge position and the optimal explosive charge blast height, which balances safety and cutting performance, is selected as the optimal explosive charge space parameters.

10. The method for safety assessment and optimization of explosive cutting based on equivalent experiments according to claim 9, characterized in that, When adjusting the optimal charge space parameters proportionally based on the reduction ratio, the following is included: Based on the reverse conversion of the reduction ratio, the optimal charge position and the optimal charge blasting height obtained in the experiment are simultaneously and proportionally enlarged to obtain the initial real charge space parameters that are adapted to the real cutting parts. The initial actual charge space parameters are verified and fine-tuned based on the boundary conditions and safety specifications of the real operating environment. After confirming that the parameters meet the safety standards and cutting process requirements of the actual cutting conditions, the final actual charge space parameters are locked for use in the explosive cutting operation of the actual cutting parts.

Images