Abstract:Blast injuries remain a serious threat to defence and civilian populations around the world. 'Primary' blast injuries (PBIs) are caused by direct blast wave interaction with the human body, particularly affecting air-containing organs. Despite development of blast injury criteria since the 1960s, work to define blast loading conditions for safety limits, protective design and injury research has received relatively little attention. With a continued experimental focus on PBI mechanisms and idealised blast assu… Show more
“…For each gauge location, PBI risk was determined by plotting blast wave parameters calculated in each CFD model with pre-defined PBI criteria (Figure 9), adopting the graphical method for PBI prediction as developed by Denny et al (2021a). Expected PBIs at each gauge location for each blast scenario are summarised in Table 5.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each gauge location, PBI risk was determined by plotting blast wave parameters calculated in each CFD model with pre-defined PBI criteria (Figure 9), adopting the graphical method for PBI prediction as developed by Denny et al (2021a). Expected PBIs at each gauge location for each blast scenario are summarised in Table 5.Figure 9.Expected primary blast injury risk (see Table 1) at each gauge location for each blast scenario using blast parameters calculated by computational fluid dynamics models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Primary blast injury risk was interpreted at each gauge location through inspection of blast wave parameters and with reference to pre-defined injury criteria, based on more detailed reviews by Denny et al (2021aDenny et al ( , 2021b. Primary blast injury risk profiles were grouped according to area of the body affected: (1) the auditory system, (2) pulmonary injury and risk of lethality, and (3) brain-related PBI (Table 1).…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These models have increased complexity and their accuracy is unknown in comparison to the injury criteria based on idealised blast wave inputs, with Teland suggesting that Axelsson-based methods are underpinned by poor quality data (Teland, 2012). As reviewed by Denny et al (2021a), there still lacks consensus on the reliability, applicability and underlying assumptions of certain PBI criteria. As a result, injury criteria based on idealised (open-field) blast waveforms remain widely adopted and more suitable for fast-running injury risk estimations.…”
Explosions increasingly occur in densely populated, urban locations. Primary blast injuries (PBIs), caused by exposure to blast wave overpressure, can be predicted using injury criteria, although many are based on idealised loading scenarios that do not necessarily reflect real life situations. At present, there is limited understanding of how, and to what extent, blast-structure interaction influences injury risk, and the suitability of injury criteria that assume idealised loading. This work employed computational fluid dynamics to investigate the influence of blast interaction effects such as shielding and channelling on blast load characteristics and predicted PBIs. The validated modelling showed that blast interaction with common urban features like walls and corners resulted in complex waveforms featuring multiple peaks and less clearly defined durations, and that these alter potential injury risk maps. For example, blast shielding due to corners reduced peak overpressures by 43%–60% at locations behind the corner. However, when the urban layout included a corner and a wall structure, higher pressures and impulse due to channelling were observed. The channelling significantly increased the injury risk at the exposed location and reduced the shielding effects behind the corner. In these cases, the application and interpretation of existing injury criteria had several limitations and reduced reliability. This demonstrates that structural-blast interaction from common urban layouts has a significant effect on PBI risk. Specific challenges and further work to develop understanding and reliability of injury prediction for urban blast scenarios are discussed.
“…For each gauge location, PBI risk was determined by plotting blast wave parameters calculated in each CFD model with pre-defined PBI criteria (Figure 9), adopting the graphical method for PBI prediction as developed by Denny et al (2021a). Expected PBIs at each gauge location for each blast scenario are summarised in Table 5.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For each gauge location, PBI risk was determined by plotting blast wave parameters calculated in each CFD model with pre-defined PBI criteria (Figure 9), adopting the graphical method for PBI prediction as developed by Denny et al (2021a). Expected PBIs at each gauge location for each blast scenario are summarised in Table 5.Figure 9.Expected primary blast injury risk (see Table 1) at each gauge location for each blast scenario using blast parameters calculated by computational fluid dynamics models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Primary blast injury risk was interpreted at each gauge location through inspection of blast wave parameters and with reference to pre-defined injury criteria, based on more detailed reviews by Denny et al (2021aDenny et al ( , 2021b. Primary blast injury risk profiles were grouped according to area of the body affected: (1) the auditory system, (2) pulmonary injury and risk of lethality, and (3) brain-related PBI (Table 1).…”
Section: Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These models have increased complexity and their accuracy is unknown in comparison to the injury criteria based on idealised blast wave inputs, with Teland suggesting that Axelsson-based methods are underpinned by poor quality data (Teland, 2012). As reviewed by Denny et al (2021a), there still lacks consensus on the reliability, applicability and underlying assumptions of certain PBI criteria. As a result, injury criteria based on idealised (open-field) blast waveforms remain widely adopted and more suitable for fast-running injury risk estimations.…”
Explosions increasingly occur in densely populated, urban locations. Primary blast injuries (PBIs), caused by exposure to blast wave overpressure, can be predicted using injury criteria, although many are based on idealised loading scenarios that do not necessarily reflect real life situations. At present, there is limited understanding of how, and to what extent, blast-structure interaction influences injury risk, and the suitability of injury criteria that assume idealised loading. This work employed computational fluid dynamics to investigate the influence of blast interaction effects such as shielding and channelling on blast load characteristics and predicted PBIs. The validated modelling showed that blast interaction with common urban features like walls and corners resulted in complex waveforms featuring multiple peaks and less clearly defined durations, and that these alter potential injury risk maps. For example, blast shielding due to corners reduced peak overpressures by 43%–60% at locations behind the corner. However, when the urban layout included a corner and a wall structure, higher pressures and impulse due to channelling were observed. The channelling significantly increased the injury risk at the exposed location and reduced the shielding effects behind the corner. In these cases, the application and interpretation of existing injury criteria had several limitations and reduced reliability. This demonstrates that structural-blast interaction from common urban layouts has a significant effect on PBI risk. Specific challenges and further work to develop understanding and reliability of injury prediction for urban blast scenarios are discussed.
“…The estimation of impulse and deflection within the fracture limits is of paramount importance for troop protection [7]. For the purpose of guiding the clinical care of explosion victims, in paper [9,10] is presented the physics of the vehicle mine blast, the likely pathways of injury to troops, and the development of countermeasures to limit this threat.…”
The safety of the troop in an armored vehicle is paramount. The most serious threat to armored vehicles is a buried charge explosion or an improvised explosive device. The use of numerical approaches in the validation of armored vehicles minimizes the number of prototypes needed and speeds up the design process. This research focuses on blast simulation utilizing the ConWep (which stands for conventional weapon) method for STRENX armor steel used for blast protection in ALM (which stands for antilandmine) vehicles. The plate is modeled as a deformable solid with the Johnson-Cook plasticity model. In this paper protective plates were examined in order to determine which geometry gives the best protective conditions for the troop in an armored vehicle. Three different geometries were numerically tested, and two of them represent combined geometry. The maximal value of the plastic strain and maximal value of the vertical displacement of the central node on the protective plate was chosen as the parameters to represent the obtained results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
