Mechanisms and Scoring of Explosion Induced Trauma
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY CRANFIELD DEFENCE AND SECURITY CENTRE FOR DEFENCE ENGINEERING PhD THESIS Academic Year 2013-2014 Tamlin Whyte Adequacy of Test Standards in Evaluating Blast Overpressure (BOP) Protection for the Torso Supervisor: Prof I Horsfall June 2014 This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Crown Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder. Abstract The blast wave emanating from an explosion produces an almost instantaneous rise in pressure which can then cause Blast Overpressure (BOP) injuries to nearby persons. BOP injury criteria are specified in test standards to relate BOP measurements in a testing environment to a risk of BOP injury. This study considered the adequacy of test standards in evaluating BOP protection concepts for the torso. Four potential BOP injury scenarios were studied to determine the likelihood of injury and the adequacy of test standards for appropriate protection concepts. In the case of vehicle blast, BOP injury is unlikely and test standards are adequate. In the scenario involving an explosive charge detonated within a vehicle, and the close proximity to a hand grenade scenario, test standards are not available. The demining scenario was identified as of importance as test standards are available, but do not mandate the evaluation of BOP protection. A prototype South African Torso Surrogate (SATS) was developed to explore this scenario further. The SATS was required to be relatively inexpensive and robust. The SATS was cast from silicone (selected to represent body tissue characteristics) using a torso mould containing a steel frame and instrumented with chest face-on pressure transducer and accelerometer. The SATS was subjected to an Anti-Personnel (AP) mine test and the Chest Wall Velocity Predictor and Viscous Criterion were used to predict that BOP injuries would occur in a typical demining scenario. This result was confirmed by applying the injury criteria to empirical blast predictions from the Blast Effects Calculator Version 4 (BECV4). Although limitations exist in the ability of injury criteria and measurement methods to accurately predict BOP injuries, generally a conservative approach should be taken. Thus, it is recommended that the risk of BOP injuries should be evaluated in demining personal protective equipment test standards. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was the outcome of working with many remarkable colleagues and mentors. I thank them all for sharing their expertise, opinions and passion for their various fields of interest. Thanks to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) who gave me the opportunity to work in the fascinating field of blast injuries. Thanks for showing faith in me and for providing funding for this study. Thanks to David Reinecke, for introducing me to the world of vehicle validation testing and providing me with opportunities to learn about the fields of injury biomechanics and blast injuries. Izak Snyman, thanks for being my mentor and CSIR study supervisor and providing feedback during the study. Thanks for sharing you valuable time with me. Thanks to Frikkie Mostert, Theo van Dyk, Philip Roach, Dave Roos, Jaap Lotter and Dave Engels, for inspiring me to believe in my opinions and for always having time to chat about ideas and theories to grow my thinking. Leon Broodryk, Deon Malherbe and Jimmy Hannan, thanks for assisting me with the practical design and manufacture of the South African Torso Surrogate (SATS). Geoff Turner, Jimmy Hannan, Piet Ramaloko, Martin Milwa and Tsepo Setlai, thanks for teaching me about the field of blast testing in general and for assisting with instrumentation and measurement for blast testing. Rayeesa Ahmed and Thanyani Pandelani, thanks for sharing the learning process with me. To the Armaments Corporation of South Africa (ARMSCOR), thanks for providing funding for some of the testing in this study and specifically, Frans Beetge, for sharing his experience in the field of validation testing of landmine protected vehicles. Thanks to the NATO HFM-148 working group (Piet-Jan Leerdam, Marike van der Horst, Mat Philippens, Frank Dosquet, Joseé Manseau, Cynthia Bir, Denis Lafont, Lars Svensson, Ulf Aborelius and Ami Frydman). I was so privileged to meet regularly with such knowledgeable, open and inspiring people. Thanks for your guidance and discussion regarding BOP injuries and thoracic and abdominal injuries in particular. Thanks too for your friendship and support through the years. Thanks too to Marike for her mentorship and her reviews of my research over the years. 3 Wayne State University Department of Biomedical Engineering, thanks for welcoming me into your labs for your tests involving rats exposed to BOP. Special thanks to Cynthia Bir and Pamela van de Vord for making this opportunity possible. Thanks to Pamela van de Vord, Sujith Sajja, Dhananjeyan Thiruthalinathan, Alessandra Dal Cengio Leonardi, Evon Ereifej, Blake Mathie, Bin Wu, Li Mao, Andrea Kepsel and Richard Bolander for assisting me with the rat tissue processing and evaluation. Although it was ultimately decided that this work not be included, the insights into tests involving animal subjects expanded my outlook on injury criteria development. Thanks to Cranfield University for assisting with funding for this study and to the library staff for their fantastic assistance in helping me as an off-campus student. They really went above and beyond to get me articles that I needed promptly. Thanks to my thesis committee at Cranfield University and to Debra Carr in particular for her constructive feedback. Many, many thanks to my thesis supervisor, Ian Horsfall, for taking me on as a distance learning part-time student. Thanks for your constant support during the years and for the great value that you have added to this thesis. I really appreciated our phone discussions that kept me on track and your understanding that life continues alongside PhD thesis. To my wonderful family, thank you for providing me with and allowing me this privilege. To my parents, thanks for teaching me to value learning and for being my rock throughout the years. Thank you for giving me the freedom and the means to follow my own path. To my amazing husband, your support has no bounds! Thank you for sharing every up and down with me and for being there to discuss details and editing Thank you for taking up the slack and giving me the time to pursue my studies. Finally, to my son, Matthew Vaughan Whyte, I’m so looking forward to spending more time exploring with you. My wish for you is that you continue to relish the joy of discovery and remember how to hold on to your convictions like only a 2 year old can! This is for you… “Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” – Albert von Szent-Györgyi. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 23 1.1 Blast Injury Mechanisms ................................................................................. 24 1.2 Blast Scenarios Considered.............................................................................. 25 1.3 Injury Criteria and Test Standards ................................................................... 26 1.4 Torso Surrogates .............................................................................................. 28 1.4.1 Why develop another torso surrogate? ..................................................... 29 1.5 Study outline .................................................................................................... 29 2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ............................. 33 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 33 2.1.1 Chapter outline ......................................................................................... 33 2.2 Introduction to Blast Physics and Defining Blast Overpressure ...................... 34 2.2.1 Blast waves in free field environments..................................................... 35 2.2.2 Blast waves in complex environments ..................................................... 39 2.2.3 Summary of terminology and defining BOP ............................................ 40 2.3 Explosive Munitions and BOP Outputs ........................................................... 41 2.3.1 Classification of explosives ...................................................................... 41 2.3.2 Scaling and TNT-equivalency of HE explosives ..................................... 42 2.3.3 General explosive munitions .................................................................... 44 2.3.4 Description of explosive charges or munitions for blast scenarios considered in this study ........................................................................................... 45 2.4 BOP Measurements, Empirical Calculations and Numerical Simulations of Explosive Events ......................................................................................................... 48 2.4.1 Measurement of blast effects .................................................................... 48 2.4.2 Predicting blast effects.............................................................................. 50 2.5 Prevalence of Blast Injuries in Various Scenarios ..........................................