|
| Hazard rating | Hazard-rating description | Definition | Example of interpretation of numerical results |
|
| A | No break | The glazing is observed not to fracture and there is no visible damage to the glazing system | No failure in the glass; that is, there is elastic behaviour of the glass; some very small failed zones near the boundary conditions may occur |
|
| B | No hazard | The glazing is observed to fracture but the inner, rear face leaf is fully retained in the facility test frame or glazing system frame with no breach and no material is lost from the interior surface; outer leaves from the attack face may be sacrificed and may fall or be projected out | Both glass plies could fail in reaching their stress limit; small strains in the interlayer, no large plastic (permanent) deformation of the window at the end of the simulation (this way the delamination should be small) |
|
| C | Minimal hazard | The glazing is observed to fracture; outer leaves from the attack face may be sacrificed and may fall or be projected out; the inner, rear face leaf shall be substantially retained, with the total length of tears plus the total length of pull-out from the edge of the frame less than 50% of the glazing sight perimeter and so on | Both plies fail; failure of the interlayer; distinction between class C and the higher ones could perhaps be possible using the velocity of the fragments and their trajectories |
|
| D | Very low hazard | The glazing is observed to fracture and significant parts are located no further than 1 m behind the original location of the rear face; parts are projected at any distance from the attack face towards the blast source and so on | Both plies fail;failure of the interlayer;distinction between class C and the higher ones could perhaps be possible using the velocity of the fragments and their trajectories |
|
| E | Low hazard | The glazing is observed to fracture, and glazing fragments or the whole of the glazing falls between 1 m and 3 m behind the interior face of the specimen and not more than 0.5 m above the floor at the vertical witness panel and so on | Both plies fail;failure of the interlayer;distinction between class C and the higher ones could perhaps be possible using the velocity of the fragments and their trajectories |
|
| F | High hazard | Glazing is observed to fracture and there are more than 10 rateable perforations in the area of the vertical witness panel higher than 0.5 m above the floor, or there is one or more perforations in the same witness panel area with fragment penetration more than 12 mm | Both plies fail;failure of the interlayer;distinction between class C and the higher ones could perhaps be possible using the velocity of the fragments and their trajectories |
|
