Engine containment, at least under the USA FARs, is certified under FAR Part 33, with tests for turbine containment under FAR part 33.94.
This incident aside, the biggest threat to the industry is if the certification status of the engine is called into question.
FAA Advisory Circular 33-5
Note: It's an old one, from 1990
c. Engine Tests.
(1) Engine Configuration, The engine used for the containment and unbalance tests must meet the type design for those items deemed influential to the test results. Influential items include, but are not limited to, case thickness, retention of external components, blade design, rotor structure, and rotor support structure. A typical aircraft inlet and typical aircraft exhaust nozzle/ducting, or equivalent (i.e., having the same attachment loads and reactions which influence engine case deflections, containment capability, and engine vibratory response), should be used,
(2) Conditions. The engine may be tested at nominal sea e level conditions, and:
(i) The critical blade should be released at the maximum permissible rpm with the engine rotor and static structure at the worst associated operating temperatures and stresses, or at any other realistic combination of rpm, temperature, and stress agreed to be more critical.
(ii) High speed photography and witness shields are recommended as means of determining the trajectories and energy levels of fragments that might be ejected out the engine air inlet or exhaust, or that might be released through the wall(s) of the engine casing. Any fragment(s) penetrating and escaping through the engine casing (including any containment wrapping that is part of the engine type design) will normally be cause for failing the test. Even if the penetrating fragments have low retained kinetic energy (after exiting), the engine's containment capability must be considered extremely marginal. The energy levels and trajectories of any fragments exiting the inlet or exhaust should be included in the engine installation manual for consideration by the airframe engineers.
(iii) For some engine type designs, it may be necessary to conduct tests which are more severe than the release of one blade. For example, a certain turbine may be designed to prevent disk burst, upon loss of output shaft load, by shedding its blades. Containment would be required for this condition by FAR 33.75. If the same turbine blade were found to be the most critical under FAR 33.94, and a loss of load / blade shedding test successfully demonstrated structural integrity, it would not be necessary to perform the 33.94 test for the turbine because the demonstrated kinetic energy for penetration and unbalance loads would exceed the FAR 33.94 requirements.
(iv) Following release of the critical blade, no engine control may be adjusted by the operator for at least 15 seconds after indication of excessive vibration or other evidence that would be available to the pilot, in order to simulate crew recognition and reaction time and determine the short term effects of operation with this unbalance.
(3) Test Results. The engine is acceptable if:
(i) At completion of the test, the damage resulting from a critical rotor blade failure is contained by the engine structure, and
(ii) The resultant loads do not cause: distortion of the engine casing, separation of case flanges, rotor unstacking, or other damage, if any of the foregoing would result in a hazardous condition for a typical installation; fire (external or internal); or failure of the engine mounting attachments; and
(iii) Either the engine continues to run for at least 15 seconds after indication of excessive vibration or other evidence that wpuld be available to the pilot, and then can be successfully shut down; or the resulting engine damage induces a self-shutdown anytime after initial blade release.
(My
bold)