AD-A280 435

CONTRACT NO: DAMD17-88-C-8141

ITITLE: BLAST OVERPRESSURE STUDIES WITH ANIMALS AND MANISUBTITLE: Non-Auditory Damage Risk Assessment for Simulated

Weapons Fired from an Enclosure

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Daniel L. Johnson, Ph.D.AUTHORS: John T. Yelverton, William Hicks, Roy Doyal

CONTRACTING ORGANIZATION: EG&G Special Projects2450 Alamo Avenue, S.E.P.O. Box 9100Albuquerque, New Mexico 87119-9100

IREPORT DATE: November 15, 1993

TYPE OF REPORT: Final Report, Task Order 4

PREPARED FOR: U.S. Army Medical Research and Dk IC

Development Command, Fort Detrick SElA C i UFrederick, Maryland 21702-5012

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: Approved for public release;I distribution unlimited

The views, opinions and/or tIndings contained in this report arethose of the author(s) and should not be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position, policy or decision unless sodesignated by other documentation.

I %-• •94-18184

SC 3 076

AD_

CONTRACT NO: DAMD17-88-C-8141

ITITLE: BLAST OVERPRESSURE STUDIES WITH ANIMALS AND MANISUBTITLE: Non-Auditory Damage Risk Assessment for Simulated

i Weapons Fired from an Enclosure

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Daniel L. Johnson, Ph.D.AUTHORS: John T. Yelverton, William Hicks, Roy Doyal

ICONTRACTING ORGANIZATION: EG&G Special Projects

2450 Alamo Avenue, S.E.P.O. Box 9100Albuquerque, New Mexico 87119-9100I

REPORT DATE: November 15, 1993ITYPE OF REPORT: Final Report, Task Order 4

PREPARED FOR: U.S. Army Medical Research andDevelopment Command, Fort DetrickFrederick, Maryland 21702-5012i

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: Approved for public release;I distribution unlimited

The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report arethose of the author(s) and should not be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position, policy or decision unless sodesignated by other documentation.

II'

Form Approved

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMS No. 0704-088

a |. at to a! re i e nv' - . ' , -q tcte irc rev. e-nq intrunice1. ie*fcn.. I lt'r'q aat a $ovrei.vitc- ,r.3 3-1 ~3.r,~ he d aI a re'e C. 'I d b,,Oe~' n ee~~.e el no nontn 'n onei .er

1tolden ent-A'il C 8V' M h" Of aipe 'I Of tier

'ei .' .' .- I - I- ..' r:.ru.'; '.t-. : ~ '''o.cc , ~ -, riels re1CCJa.r1 r'% 3rr les rr ate rof i orrr tier& n CvAraors an ý ocrl I 125 ,e Iferson'C 3w '' .It I)v4. lthr"tCn. . )a2;02-4302. ard to 1teO

1Ire o f| 4qrnen yP.0,er. Pki a-4crsc• -Rlion P1Cle<t (0704.0 188). Wa•s? tCn, DC 2503.

i AGLNCV USE ONLY (Leave oianK) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

15 November 199T Final Report, Task Crder 4A. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Blast Overpressure Studies with 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Animals and Man Contract No.Subtitle: Non-Auditory Damage Risk Assessment foi DAMDl7-88-C-8141.q i'1ipr WPpnc Firp from an FTnrlo_,urp6. AUTHOR(S) 62787ADaniel L. Johnson, Ph.D.; John T. Yelverton, M.S. 3M162787A878.AA

William Hicks and Roy Doyal WUDA315004

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

EG&G Special Projects

2450 Alamo Avenue, S.E.P.O. Box 9100Albuquerque, New Mexico 87119-9100

9. SPONSORINGMONITOR:NG AGENCY NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING . MONITORINGU.S. Ariay Mdiical Research & Development Command

Fort DetrickFrederick, Maryland 21701-5012

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

For the period of time 6/21/88 - 9/30/93.

12a. OISTR;BUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. ABSTRACT tMaxtmum 2,Q.0 worOs)

Anesthetized sheep were exposed to a reverberant wave environment like thatproduced from firing an anti-tank weapon from a room. The simulation was accom-plished by detonating C4 explosive outside a chamber of 18.2m volume. The blastwave traveled into the chamber through a 20 cm I.D. tube and was reflected off theback wall and subsequently throughout the chamber. The resulting waveform veryclosely approximated that generated by a Carl-Gustav anti-tank weapon fired froma chamber. A series of I shot; 3 shot, 2.5-min. apart; or 12 shot, 2.5 min. apartexposures were used. The results indicate that multiple shots have a strong ad-ditive effect, decreasing the subthreshold levels. The subthreshold for a singleblast is estimated to be below a smoothed peak of 31 kPa (approximately 65 kPa un-smoothed). The subthreshold for 3 exposures is estimated to be below 21.5 kPa(approximately 46 kPa unsmoothed). The subthreshold for 12 exposures was notfound.

14. SUeECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Blast overcressure effects on animals; non-auditory' injury,'; effects o: complex wa ; e as an animal 16. PRICE CCOE

i c - ''_- -! Lifr I z-~ R,-r) T "T I _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _17 1, !,- . i, CLA .,iI'cAT:o I ,,CUR:Te C'AS3Ii:CA713!4 '9 ttCURItY CLASS,F,CAT;ON ;. L:' TAT ON OF ABSTRACTOF kt;CRT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

fInc clatzS i fied tUncla 1sl f ieid Un c-Ta i fiPi -- t Un1imitedNSN 7510-01.280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)

PfeurIm,b" tmf ANJ '•I /_!9-16

IIIIIIIIIIIII

This work was supported by the U. S. Army Medical Research and Development Commandunder Contract No. DAMD17-88-C-8141.

The views, opinions and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) andshould not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy or decision 3unless so designated by other documentation.

In conducting this research, the investigator(s) adhered to the "Guide for the Care and Useof Laboratory Animals," prepared by the Committee on Care and Use of LaboratoryAnimals of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Research Council (NIH

Publication No. 86-23. Reviiwd 198;.

LIST OF PERSONNELTASK ORDER 4

1. Daniel L. Johnson, Ph.D., Director2. John T. Yelverton, M.S., Physiologist, Principal Investigator3. William Hicks, Biologist4. Allie Shaw, Veterinarian Assistant5. Bruce Moore, Photographer6. Lewis West, Explosives Supervisor7. Scott Carter, Explosives Technician8. George Shepler, Electronics Technician9. Roy Doyal, Programmer

Accesion For

NTIS CRA&IDTIC lAB •

Unanno'Jm:cedJuIf Ica ~10f

vy........~f:..........-.....

B y ... .... ..... .. ........................ .......

DLstrib ot!o" !

Avijiabilty Coc;es

vdAvail and Or

Dist SpC"3

'-

I

:'Ontr-ct No. rAMDAI 7-88-C-3141Bas ic

Pace ;o. 2$5

FORE34ORD

Opinions, interpretations, conclusions and reca mendations are t~hose of the 1author and are not necessaril., endorsed by the U.S. Army.

Where copyrighted material is cuoted, permission has been obtained touse such material.I

Where ,•ateriil frorn docunents designated for limited distribution .squoted, permission has been obtained to use the material.

x-_ Citations of comrercial organizations and trade names in this report do 1not constitute an official epartbnent of the Army endorsemnt or approval ofthe products or services of these organizations. 3

x In conducting research using animals, the investigator(s) adhered to ?he a"Suide for the Ca,-e ard Use of Labcratory Animals,' prepared by the Ccimitteeon Care and Use of Laboratory knimals of the Institute ct Laboratory knLrralResources, National Research Council (NIH Publication .o. 86-23, Revised 1985$.

For the protection of human subjects, the ,nvestigator's) ha:e .xe÷edto policies of applicable Federal Law 45C0,46. 3

1n conducting research utilizing reccmbinant :NA technology, theinvestigator(s) adhered to current guidelines pramilgated by the NatiornalInstitutes of Health.

P tgraturef te

I11

I I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IPageINTRODUCTI N .................................................. 1

BA CKGROUND .................................................. 1

OJECTIVES ........................................................

I ~METHODS............................................................ 4

Waveform Development .................................. 5Experimental Design .................................... 6

Twelve Exposure Experiments ........................... 7Single Exposure Experiments ........................... 7Three Exposure Experiments............................. 7

Test Enclosure ......................................... 8

Instrumentation ........................................ 9An imal Care ............................................ 10Pathology Scoring ...................................... 12Data Analysis .......................................... 13

R E SULTS ........... ............................... . ....... ... 14

Waveform Development ................................... 14Non-Auditory Injury Levels ............................. 15

DISCUSSION... ................................................. 17

Waveform Development ................................... 17Non-Auditory Injury Levels ............................. 17

CONCLUS IONS ................................................. 19

REFERENCES ................................................... . 20

APPENDIX AMAXIMUM PEAK PRESSURES ................................. 40

APPENDIX BPATHOLOGY SUMMARY ...................................... 42

APPENDIX CWALL GAUGE NUMBER 10 PRESSURE-TIME SUMMARY ............... 50

APPENDIX DINDIVIDUAL SEVERITY OF INJURY INDICES ..................... 55

I ! I II I II I I I II I II I II

UU

LIST OF FIGURES

FiarePacre 3Side view of the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-m configurationof the EG&G Test Enclosure redesigned as a Carl-Gustav anti-tank weapon blast s~muiator ................... 21

2 Gauge layout for the Carl-Gustav simulation calibra-tion shots in the 3.05 x 2.44-m eihclosure.............. 22

3 Gauge layout and animal locations for the Carl- IGustav simulation tests in the 3.05 x 2.44 x

2.44-m enclosure .......................................... 234 Preliminary instrumentation cylinder calibration 3

curve for experimental design for the Carl-Gustavblast simulation in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-menclosure ....... ....................................... 24

5 Gauge one pressure-time pattern for a 454-g chargedetonation in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-m Carl-Gustavanti-tank weapon blast simulator ........................... 25

6 Gauge one pressure-time pattern for a 907-g charge Idetonation in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-m Carl-Gustavanti-tank weapon blast simulator ........................... 26

7 Gauge one pressure-time pattern from a 1361-gcharge detonation in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-miCarl-Gustav anti-tank weapon blast simulator ........... 27

8 Gauge one pressure-time pattern from a 1814-gcharge detonation in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-mCarl-Gustav anti-tank weapon blast simulator .............. 28

9 Pressure-time pattern recorded at operator'sposition of a Carl-Gustav anti-tank weapon ................ 29

A0 Mean maximum peak pressure (Pmax) versuscharge weight calibration curve for gauges!, 2 3, and 4 of the instrument cylinder .................. 30

"I Mean smoothed peak pressure (Psm) versuscharge weight calibration curve for gauges"!, 2, 3, and 4 of the instrument cylinder................ 31

12 Relationship between the maximum peak pressure I(Pmax) recorded in the enclosure and thecalculated smoothed peak pressures (Psm)using the mean values for gauges 1, 2, and i4 of the instrumentation cylinder .......................... 32

A3 Mean severity of injury indices as a functionof the instrumentation cylinder smoothed peakpressure (Psm) for 12 exposures to a simulatedCarl-Gustav blast wave in the 3.05 x 2.44 x2 .44 -m enclosure ....................................... 33

I

I

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

F Fi qur e Paqe

14 Mean severity of injury indices as a functionof the instrumentation cylinder smoothed peakpressure (Psm) for one exposure to a simulatedCarl-Gustav blast wave in the 3.05 x 2.44 x2.44-m enclosure ....................................... 34

15 Mean severity of injury indices as a functionof the instrumentation cylinder smoothed peakpressure (Psm) for three exposures to asimulated Carl-Gustav blast wave in the3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-m enclosure ............................ 35

16 Smoothed peak pressure injury prediction curvefor complex blast waves generated by detonatingexplosive charges in 11.3-, 18.2-, and 36.3-m'enclosures . ............................................ 36

Iii

I

S~I

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Experimental design for the Carl-Gustavsimulation tests in the 3.05 x 2.44 x2.44-m configuration of the EG&G testenc losu re ................................. ... . .... .... . 37

2 Mean severity of injury indices (SI) versusinstrument cylinder maximum peak pressuresand charge weights ..................................... 38

3 Mean severity of injury indices (SI) versuswall gauge number 10 maximum and smoothedpeak pressures and charge weight .......................... 39

A-i Maximum peak pressure (Pmax) records from theCarl-Gustav simulated blast wave calibrationshots in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.A4-m enclosure ............... 40

A-2 Smoothed peak pressure (Psm) from theCarl-Gustav simulated blast -.. ibrationshots in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2., nclosure ............... 41

B-i Pathology summary for the simulated weaponexperiments in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-menclosure .............................................. 42 3

C-I Wall gauge number 10 pressure-time summaryfor the Carl-Gustav blast simulation testsin the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-m enclosure ...................... 50

D-1 Individual severity of injury indices as afunction of instrumentation cylinder smoothedpeak pressure (Psm) for the 12 exposures to asimulated Carl-Gustav blast wave in the 3.05x 2.44 x 2.44-m enclosure ..... ............................ 55

D-2 individual severity of injury indices as afunction of instrumentation cylinder smoothedpeak pressures (Psm) for a single exposure toa simulated Carl-Gustav blast wave in the3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-m enclosure ............................. 56

D-3 individual severity of injury indices as a Ifunction of insrumentation cylinder smoothedpeak pressure (Psm) for three exposures to asimulated Carl-Gustav blast wave in the 3.05 x2.44 x 2.44-m enclosure ..................................... 57

IivI

TASK ORDER 4

DAMD-17-88-C-8141

BLAST OVERPRESSURE STUDIES WITH ANIMALS AND MAN

SUBTITLE: NON-AUDITORY DAMAGE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SIMULATED

WEAPONS FIRED FROM AN ENCLOSURE

INTRODUCTION

This report describes the results of studies undertaken to

establish the non-auditory subthreshold for injury in a reverberant

wave environment like that produced from firing an anti-tank weapon

from a room. Anesthetized sheep were used throughout the study to

determine the extent of the effects from va ious intensities and

receti:-ons of the simulated weapon blast. The studies were

conducted by EG&G Special Projects at the Blast Overpressure Test

Site, Kirtland AFB, NM.

I BACKGROUND

Previous studies done under this ccntract have 'emonstrated

that the ccmplex blast waves generated L.y detcnating various

3weights of bare, spherical C 4 charges In three different enclosure

volumes uroduced varying degrees of nonaiditory injury." The

Sextent of the injury depended upon the size of the charae detonated

II:

iI

and the ' :cation of the animal with respect to the charge and

posi-icn :rn the chamber. :njury levels increased with increasing 3charge weight as in the freefield. However, they also varied as a

function of the location of the subject in the enclosure and not Inecessarily as a function of range from the explosion as in the 3

iifreefield. Animals in the corners sustained more severe injuries

in the form of solid intra-abdominal organ damage than those

located away from the multiple reflecting surfaces and at shorter

distances from tnie explosion. This was carticularly true at the Ihigher blast levels. At the higher levels, the reflected waves

tended to focus, producing "incident reflected waves" 3 to 10 times

higher than those generated in the freefield at the same ranges and

explosive weights.

It was also demonstrated tha• quasi-static pressure did not Iinfluence lung, upper respiratory tract, or GI tract injury to any

appreciable degree. Nonetheless, the reverberant nature of the

complex wave was altered by changing the quasi-static pressure

which did appear to have a sliqht effect on solid intra-abdominal

organ response. There was a higher incidence of solid intra- iabdominal organ injury as well as more severe solid intra-abdcminal

injury in the subjects exposed in tne chamber with the door locked

and vent doors closed. 3An ijury prediction curve using a severity of injury index

(SI) and smoothed peak pressure 'Psmr as correlates appeared to be 3an adequate model for the information that was collected. The

sever-ty index data predicted a no-injurry window for a Psmr

2 1j I

extending from 0 to 57 kPa. The 57 kPa was adjusted upward from

the 49 kPa zero crossing of the curve to compensate for the control

injury level of 0.05. Trace to slight injuries were estimated for

pressures extending from 57.1 to 130 kPa. Fo. values ranging from

130.1 to 221 kPa, slight to extensive injuries were predicted.

Moderate to lethal levels of injury were expected over a span of

221 to 428 kPa. At pressures above 428.1 kPa, lethality was

predicted to exceed 50 percent. It was also found that, intra-

abdominal injury notwithstanding, by converting Psm to maximum peak

pressure (Pmax) , there was a good correlation between the injury

prediction curve and the "Bowen freestream survival curves," for 2

to 3 ms duration waves.

This implies that the pulse with highest peak and longest

duration of the individual pressure pulses in the complex wave is

primarily responsible for injury production, with limited additive

effects from the multiple shocks associated with the reverberant

wave. The extent to which this relationship holds true for other

classes ct waveforms needs to be clarified. This report deals with

the generation of another class of waveforms in which bare charges

of C-4 were detonated and introduced into a test chamber via a

modified shock tube.

I3

II

OBJECTIVES

There were three basic objectives of this study which included

two protocol amendments.

1. To provide data for the validation of the Jaycor injury

prediction model by the Walter Reed Army Institute of

Research (WRAIR) .

2. To determine the non-auditory subthreshold level from 1, 33, and 12 exposures to a complex wave environment similar

to that produced from firing an anti-tank weapon from an Ienclosure.

3. To correlate the results with those from other studies to

to establish additional damage risk criteria for complex

wave environments if necessary.

METHODS

The instrumentation cylinder was used to map the pressure-time

environment at various locations in the weapon blast simulator

(illustrated in Figure 1) to develop a waveform similar to that

generated by the Carl-Gustav anti-tank weapon. Once the location

in the chamber (illustrated in Figure 2) for the best waveform

simulation was established, anesthetized sheep were exposed to

various intensities and repetitions of the simulated wave. With

but one exception , the same basic approach was used throughout the

study. As illustrated in Figure 3, two anesthetized sheep at a

time were fitted with cotton webbing or fish net harnesses and

suspended from the ceiling of the enclosure at a height of 1.2 m

4iI

from the floor as measured to the xiphisternum for exposure. One

sheep was placed in the location the instrument cylinder was in

during waveform and calibration curve development and the other

sheep was placed on the opposite side of the gun barrel in a mirror

image location facing the other sheep. The one exception was one

test with one sheep only.

Waveform Development

The pressure-time environment was recorded at various

locations in the chamber as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 to

establish the exposure positions for the test subjects and to

provide input parameters to the WRAIR to model the pressure-time

environment throughout the room. Most of the measurements were

taken around the barrel of the simulator at a height of 1.2 m off

the floor using the free air gauges and the instrumentation

cylinder that was used in the Task Order 2 experiments. The

pressure-time patterns that were selected by Walter Reed Army

Institute of Research (WRAIR) and the U.S. Army Aeromedical

Research Laboratory (USAARL) to simulate the Carl-Gustav anti-tank

weapon blastwave were recorded by the instrumentation cylinder

located in the position shown in Figure 2. Pressure-time

recordings from 454--, 90' , 1361- and 1814-g C-4 charge detonations

were used to develop the initial calibration curves for the

smoothed peak pressure (Psm) and the maximum peak pressure (Pmax)

The Psm versus charge weight calibration curve is illustrated in

Fiyure 4.

I, = T = .. . = .... . f =l = .. . . . = .. . = .. . = =- ... = .. .. .= -

II

For this study the average blast load on the instrumentation

cylinder for the position illustrated in the figure was considered 3to be the blast dose to the animals exposed in the same equivalent

locations. The average pressure-time values were calculated from Igauges 1 through 4 of the instrumentation cylinder for each charge

weight for correlation wich the severity of injury indices of each

exposure group.

A break was taken during the single exposure tests to take

additional calibration shots at the calculated experimental blast Ilevels that were being used in the study to arrive at the final

calibration curves for Psm and Pmax. IExperimental Design

The design for the study is presented Table 1. Varying Inumbers of anesthetized sheep were subjected to 1, 3 or 12 blasts

of simulated anti-tank waveforms in 1.5- to 3-dB increments. The

exposure doses and charge weights were derived from the 454-, 907-,

1361-, and 1814-g C-4 charge calibration shots mentioned above.

There were three experiments based upon the number of exposures the ianimals received. Pairs of controls were used at intervals

throughout the study to compensate for any lesions induced by

iatrogenic factors or disease. All animals were treated the same i

and mounted in position for 28 minutes whether they were exposed or

not. This allowed the controls to be compared interchangeably 3between groups. There were 110 sheep in the single exposure tests,

82 in the 3 exposure tests, and 29 in the 12 exposure tests. The

I

interval between shots was arproximately 2.5 minutes. The

experiments will be described in the order in which they were done.

Twelve Exposure Experiments

There were five groups of four each, with the exception of the

first group in which there was one additional animal and eight

controls as seen in Table 1. Five different pressure levels were

used, starting at a Psm of 84.6 kPa and going down in 3-dB steps to

21.1 kPa to establish the approximate severity of injury and injury

thresholds for the various organs. At 21.1 kPa, further exposures

were stopped because threshold had not been reached. Emphasis then

shifted in doing the three exposure experiments.

Single Exposure Experiments

For the single exposure experiments, there were 96 animals in

six groups with varying numbers of animals per group depending upon

the pressure level and 14 controls which are listed in Table I.

Initially, -.wo animals each, were exposed in 3-dB increments to

smoothed peak pressures of 84.6, 59.8, 42.2, 29.9 and 21.1 kPa to

estimate the threshold and subthreshold levels based on severity of

injury scores. The various groups were filled in with additional

animals to establish statistically significant threshold and

subthreshold levels for injury. One 1.5-dB step down from 59.8 to

50.3 kPa was done in addition to the 3-dB steps to estimate the

threshold fo• injury level.

II 7

I

Three Exposure Experiments

The protocol was amended to establish the subthreshold for

injury level for three exposures to the simulated anti-tank weapon

blast. It was felt that the three exposure scenario better

reflected the actual use of the weapon during training. Groups of

20, 10 and 40 subjects each were exposed to respective Psm levels

of 25.6, 21.1, and 17.7 kPa. A total of 12 controls were used 3during this test series.

Test Enclosure

As seen in Figure 1, the all-steel-enclosure that was built

for Task Order 2 was converted to a "simulator" to satisfy Task

Order 4 requirements. The partition wall was adjusted to the 18.2

V13 volume used in the FY 90 tests. A hole was cut in the wall i

directly opposite the door to allow the introduction of a 249-cm

long 'gun barrel' constructed from a piece of seamless high-

pressure steel tube. It had an inside diameter of 20 cm and a 32.54-cm thick wall. This tube extended 152 cm into the chamber.

The tube was horizontally mounted with its centeriine 122 cm from Ithe floor and supported inside the chamber by a 2.54-cm thick stand 3that consisced of a 46- x 33-cm base plate, a vertical member that

decreased in width from 30 to 19 cm, and a barrel mount. The 3mount was comprised of a 30- x 16- x 2.54-cm support plate anu a

!5-cm wide by 1.27-cm thick band that surrounded the tube. External Isupport for the barrel was furnished by the barrier wall which was

constructed from a 244- x 244-cm sheet of 2.54-cm thick steel and

I i I i i i i i i i i i i1 i i i i i i i i i

a 10-49 :-beam (10-inch wide flange I-beam weighing 49 lb/ft 3 )

The barrel extended 3 cm beyond the barrier wall and was surrounded

by a 'receiver' constructed from a 30-cm length of 2.54-cm-thick

wall high pressure tubing. The receiver tapered from 42- to 41-cm

ID. It was surrounded by two radial and eight longitudinal gussets

fabricated from a 2.54-cm plate to increase its hoop strength. A

movable 152- x 122-cm 'driver' section fabricated from two 15-cm

thick plates of salvaged battleship armor was installed 15 cm

downstream from the leading edge of the receiver. There was a 20-

cm diameter hole cut in the slab of armor adjacent to the receiver

and was inline with the centerline of the gun barrel.

The simulator was operated by detonating a spherical charge of

C-4 explosive in the mouth of the opening in the driver section to

approximate the backblast from a weapon firing. The blast wave

traveled down the barrel into the enclosure and was reflected off

of the backwall. The wave shape varied as a function of location

ii, the room. The wave intensity was changed by changing the charge

weigh-. The simulator was operated with the enclosure inertia

vent doors open to minimize quasi-static pressure rise and to

eliminate explosive decomposition products.

Instrumentation

Piezotronics (PCB) Model 102M152 or Model 102M165

piezoelectric pressure transducers as well as the instrumentation

cylinder, provided by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research

I WRAKR) were used during the study. The instrumentation cylinder

9

Iwas fitted with four ablative coated PCB Model 102M125 gauges at

90-degree intervals around its circumference and at the midpoint of 3its long axis. The 102M152's and 102M165's were used as side-on

free air gauges mounted vertically with their sensing elements

pointing face-up or mounted face-on in three of the enclosure 3walls. A 102M165 with ablative coating was located at the end of

the barrel during the animal experiments. A 1- to 2-mm-thick layer 3of temperature resistant, high-vacuum grease impregnated with

charcoal was coated on the sensing element of each of the free air Igauges before each shot to mitigate any possible thermal or flash

effects. Signals from the transducers were passed out of PCB

inline voltage mode followers into power conditioners through

Tektronix Model AM502 differential amplifiers unfiltered.

Unfiltered signals were simultaneousl.y recorded on an Ampex Model IPR2230 dc to 80 kHz FM tape recorder and digitized over 13 uf 15 3segments of 8k data points each at a 4 usec sample interval with a

Pacific Instruments data acquisition system operating in I

conjunction with a Compaq Desk Pro Model 386/20e personal computer.

The first 2 of the 15 segments were used to establish the baseline Ifor the data array. The analog tape was kept for archival 3purposes. The digitized data was stored on 20 and 44 Mbyte

Bernoulli disk cartridges for analysis using the blast data

acquisition and analysis software developed for EG&G by

Professional Computer Consultants. The data stored on the 44 Mbyte Idisks were also sent to the WRAIR for further analysis. -

101

Animal Care

A total of 221 female Columbia-Rambouiiiet cross sheep having

body weights of approximately 41 to 50 kg were used during the

study. They were treated for endoparasites and their ears were

`sprayed with tick pesticide four days after arrival at the

laboratory our.door pens. The drinking water was also treated with

terramycin powder at a rate of 0.6 g/liter for 2 weeks to help

reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications.

The animals were maintained in one of four outdoor pens. Each

per which had a portion with an overhead cover. One to two weeks

I prior to testing, the subjects were sheared in g9oups ':f 6 to 10.

given a second application of tick spray, and moved to an indoor

holding facility. They were kept in groups of 4 to 6 in pens with

wood shavings on the floor. Food pellets were provided at a raze

of i kg/head/day. Water was available ad ibitum. Each test

animal was fasted a minimum of 18 hours before a test.

On the morning of a test, the animals were harnessed, weighed

and given a otoscopic examination to remove any obstruction from

the ear canals prior to transport to the test site. The ear or

ears that were to be protected were blocked with a selected

I earolug. Each sheep rcceived a preanesthetic intramuscular (IM)

injection of atropine sulfate (0.44 mg/kg) and xylazine (0.22

mg/kg) and was placed in its test position approximately 15 minutes

prior to blast exposure. At 5 minutes before the test, each sheep

was anesthetized with an IM injection of ketamine hydrochloride (11

I mg/kga then exposed to blast:.'.

I 11

I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I i

UU

Pathology Scoring

The subjects were not allowed to recover from anesthesia. iStarting at approximately one hour after blast exposure, one sheep

at a time was given an IM injection of ketamine hydrochloride (22

mgikg), exsanguinated by severing the jugular veins and carotid 3arteries, and necropsied. Each animal was assessed for injuries

using the alphanumeric scoring system described in the Task Order 32 final report. 3 Trauma to the pharynx/larynx, trachea, lungs,

heart, hollow abdominal organs, and solid abdominal organs were

assigned individual numerical scores based on the severity of the 3lesion. The various lesions were also graded trace, slight,

moderate, or extensive depending upon their severity. 3The alphanumeric pathology scoring system for the most

commonly injured nonauditory organs is listed as follows:

Pathology Scoring System 3Severity Lun Phx/Lyx Trachea GI Tract Intra-abdominal

Negative 0 0 0 0 0 3Trace 1-4 1-4 1-4 1-4 1-4

Slight 5-21 5-16 5-18 5-18 5-18 UModerate 22-36 17-22 19-28 19-28 19-28 3Extensive 37+ 23+ 29t 29+ 29+

Maximum 64 60 55 48 44 3Possible

UThe ears were evaluated based upon the percentage of eardrum

ruptured. An additional numerical score was given for each ear for 3the amount of eardrum damaged and ossicular chain involvement.

12

Each individual injury score was divided by its preassigned

maximum possible score to arrive at a severity of injury ratio for

that organ or system. The maximum possible score varied as a

function of the number of components the organs were divided into

and the possible levels of severity assigned to them. The presence

or absence and the extent of a pneumothorax, hemothorax,

hemoperitoneum, coronary air or cerebral air were summed and added

to the sum of the ratios. The resulting value was the adjusted

severity of injury index which was arrived at by excluding the ear

damage values from the sum of the ratios.

3 Data Analyeis

The i, 3, and 12 exposure sheep pathology results were

3 evaluated in terms of the number and the intensity of the

reverberant wave. Injury levels in terms of damage to specific

U organs and adjusted severity of injury indices were listed in

descending order of charge weight. The Pmax and Psm pressures,

calculated from the instrumentation cylinder calibration curves,

3 were correlated with the corresponding severity of injury indices

to determine the nonauditory subthreshold and threshold for in]ury

levels in relation to the number of exposures to the simulated

3 anti-tank weapon blast wave. Pressure-time output from wall gauge

number 10, which was located at neck level between the two test

3 animals, was listed for every shot on the single- and three-

exposure experiments and for the first, sixth, and twelfth shot on

the 12 exposure experiment to estimate the reproducibility of the

* 13

I

blast environment and to compare to the instrumentation cylinder

correlations. The single exposure results were also compared to 3the no-injury data from the Task Order 2 report.

RESULTS iThe results of the waveform modeling efforts and final

calibration curve development will be presented first, followed by

the experimental pathology assessment results for the study.

The pressure-time data recorded at the various gauge locations i

during calibration and waveform development are listed in terms of 3Pmax and Psm in Tables A-I and A-2 of Appendix A. The average

values for various instrumentation cylinder gauge combinations were i

also calculated.

The pathology assessments, for the major organs including Ieardrum injury and severity of injury indices, are given in Table

B-I of Appendix B. They were listed in terms of numbers of

exposures and in descending order of charge weight. 3The wall gauge pressure-time data taken to monitor the shot-

to-shot blast environment reproducibility for each animal test are Itabulated in Table C-I of Appendix C. Along with the mean, the

standard deviation and standard estimate for each pressure level

are also given. 3

Waveform Development IAs previously mentioned, the waveforms that were considered to

be the best simulants of the Carl-Gustav anti-tank weapon blast

14I

wave were recorded by the instrumentation cyvlnder in the location

depicted in Figure 2. Initiaw calibration shot pressure-time

records from gauge one for 454- ,907-, 1361- and 1814-g charge

detonations are illustrated in Figuiez 5 through 8. A blast wave

that was recorded at the operator's position during a weapon firing

is presented in Figure 9.

The additional calibration shots taken to develop curves

relating Pmax and Psm to charge weight are illustrated in Figures

10 and Ii. Second order polynomiais were used to fit lines to the

data points. The poonts for the curves were the mean values for

gauges 1 through 4 listed in Tables A-1 and A-2. Estimates from

these curves were used to relate blast overpressure to injury

level.

Wall gauge pressure-time measurements listed in Appendix C

were also used to evaluate injury level with respect to blast for

Icomparison with the instrumentation cylinder derived Psm

cal~culations.

Non-Auditory Injury Levels

Mean severity of injury index (SI) values from the pathology

assessments (listed in Appendix B) versus the Pmax and Psm blast

Ilevels 'derived from Fiqures 10 and 11i are presented in Table 2.

The severity indices were grouped in terms cf number of exposures

and descending order of blast intensity. For the convenience of

discussicn the results are cresented in terms of Psm, but can

easily be converted to Fmax pressures using the eauation in Fiaure

1-2 that Jllustrates the relationship between Pmax and Psm.

I1

I

II

For the 12 exposure group, the SI ranged from 2.18 for a Psm

of 89.7 kPa to 0.22 for a Psm of 22.8 kt~a. A dose-response curve 3for the group was created using a second order polynomial fit of

the data relating SI means to Psm and is illustrated in Figure 13. i

The number of animals per point were included. :he control level SI i

crossing point occurs at approximately 21.8. However, this

approach ignores the strong effect at the low peak values (the SI 3is still at 0.22) and is clearly not a proper approach for

obtaining the non-auditory limit. In fact, we can not really be isure where the limit is for 12 shots. Since it was determined that 3the 12-shot threshold series was not likely to be a datum point of

use to the Army, the effort to find the 12-shot threshold was 3dropped in favor of the 3-shot series.

Single exposure SI measurements ranged from 0.29 for a Psm of i

89.7 kPa to 0.01 for a Psm of 22.8 kPa. The single-exposure curve 3with the number of animals per point is shown in Figure 14. The

control level crossing point occurred at 31.0 kPa.

The SI fo- the three-exposure group animals ranged from 0.10

at a Psm of 26.9 kPa to 0.01 at a Psm of 19.7 kPa. Figure 15 1illustrates the response curve and the number of animals per point.

For this aroup the control level crossing point was approximateiy

21.5 kPa. 3Individual severity of injury scores listed in the Appendix B

were also clotted against the instrumentation cylinder Psm levels Iand are presented in Figures D-I through D-3 of Appencix D.

The mean severity of injury indices with respect to the wall

6I-

gauge 10 Psm means are preoented in Table 3. The SI and Psm

values generated by 533-cr charge detonations and below were

equivalent to the SI versus instrumentation cylinder Psm pressures

for the same range of charge weights which were listed in Table 2.

DISCUSSION

Waveform Development

Taking into account the differences in scaling, the simulator

reverberant blast waves illustrated in Figures 5 through 8 compare

quite favorably to the Figure 9 pressure-time pattern recorded at

the operator's position during a Carl Gustav anti-Lank weapon

firing. More importantly, the wave shapes remained reasonably

constant as blast intensity increased.

With the exception of the 12-exposure 1361-g tests, the gauge

10 pressure-time data presented in Appendix C, demonstrates that

there was good day-to-day blast overpressure level reproducibility,

particularly in terms of Psm. The standard deviat:-ion for a given

Psm mean was typically less than 10 percent of the mean.

Non-Auditory Injury Levels

The single-shot injury prediction curve developed during Task

order 2 is illustrated in Figure 16. This curve predicts trace to

slight levels of injuries with SI values ranging from 0.05 to 0.66

for a Psm value range of 57.1 to 130 kPa. For a single exposure,

the predicted SI from a Psm of 89.7 kPa would he 0.28.

As indicated in Tables B-1 and Table 2 and illustrated in

F"Laure 13, the average SI of Line Carl -(33ustav s2.mulation from 12

17

UI

exposures to a Psm of 89.7 kPa was 2.18. When compared to a

single-blast exposure, these results appear to indicate that once 3threshold levels of injury are reached, additional exposures have

almost an additive effect, increasing the severity of injury with 3each additional blast. The most heavily injured animal at the 89.7 1kPa level had an SI of 4.28 which included a ruptured liver and an

extensive hemoperitoneum with more than 200 cc of free blood in the 3abdomen. Trace to slight borderline single exposure of 130 kPa

injury prediction of 0.66 was not reached until the blast dose was i

lowered to 42.8 kPa. The SI versus Psm dose-response curve (Figure 313) illustrates that there were not enough data points in the right

places nor number of animals per point to estimate a subthreshold. 3The single-exposure group SI data for the animals exposed to

89.7 kPa, listed in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 14, compare Ifavorably to the Task Order 2 single-shot injury prediction curve 3in Figure 16. The equation for this curve predicts an SI cf 0.28

for a single blast Psm of 89.7 as compared to the mean SI of 0.29 i

with a range of 0.27 to 0.30 for the two animals actually exposed

to this pressure. However, subthreshold predictions are not as Iclose. Assuming a control level SI of 0.03, the single-exposure 3subthreshold prediction curve shown in Figure 14 estimates

subthreshold levels to be below 31.0 kPa. The single shot injury 3prediction curve of Task Order 2 is not as conservative and

predicts subthreshold levels below 57.0 kPa (based on a control SI iof 0.05) . Thus, the longer reverberation times of the Carl-Gustav 3

18 m 3I i I I I i i i i . .I

simulation must have an influence on the threshold and subthreshold

levels.

The three-exposure group data listed in Table 2 also

demonstrate the additive effects of multiple blasts. As

illustrated in Figures 14 and 15, the subthreshold limit of 31 kPa

for a single shot decreases to 21.5 kPa for 3 exposures. Because

of the fewer points used to obtain a subthreshold, a more

conservative approach is to use 19.7 kPa as the non-injury point.

This point is clearly below the control SI of 0.03.

The wall gauge number 10 mean Psm pressures are a good

approximation of the instrumentation cylinder means. The SI versus

Psm comparisons for the wall gauge, show that for a Psm below 58.2

kPa the SI versus Psm comparisons are equivalent to SI versus

instrumentation cylinder comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

The waveform developed in the EG&G Blast Simulator for this

study is a good approximation of the pressure-time pattern recorded

at the operator's position during a Carl-Gustav anti-tank weapon

firing. It was demonstrated that the pattern of the reverberant

wave was retained as blast intensity increased and that the peak

pressure leve.3 were reproducible from day-to-day.

Multiple blasts have an additive effect in increasing the

severity of injury as some function of the number of exposures

thereby lowering the non-auditory subthreshold levels,

* 1

i

IThe subthreshold for a single blast exposure is below a Psm

31.0 kPa; whereas it is predicted to be below 19.7 kPa for 3 3exposures. A subthreshold for 12 exposures was not found.

iREFERENCES

1. Yelverton, J. T. and D. L. Johnson, "Interim Report: Biological 3Response to Complex Blasr Waves in a 17.3 m3 Enclosure,"Contract No. DAMD-17-88-C-8141, U. S. Army Medical Researchand Development Command, March 1991. 3

2. Yelverton, J. T. and D. L. Johnson, "Interim >-eport;LBiological Response to Complex Waves in Various E"c:1osureVolumes," Contract No. DAMD-17-88-C-8141, December iJ'3.

3. Yelverton, J. T., D. L. Johnson, W. Hicks and R. Doyal, "FinalReport: Blast Overpressure Studies with Animals and Man. iSubtitle: Nonauditory Effects of Complex Blast on Sheep inThree Different Enclosures," Contract No. DAMD-17-88-C-8141,U. s. Army Medical Research and Development Command, October1993.

4. Bowen, I. G., E. R. Fletcher and D. R. Richmond,"Estimate ofMan's Tolerance to the Direct Effects of Air Blast, " TechnicalProgress Report No. DASA-2113, Department of Defense, DefenseAtomic Support Agency, Washington, D.C., 1968.

5. Tiurmon, J. C., A. Kumar and R. P. Link, "Evaluation ofKetamine Hydrochloride as an Anesthetic in Sheep," J.A.V.M.A.162(4): 293-297, 1973. 3

6. Kumar, A. et il., "Response of Goats to Ketamine HydrochlorideWith and Without Premedication of ALropine, Acetylpromazine,Diazepam, or Xylazine," V__SAC: 955-960, June J.983.

IUU

20 1

269crI i

'• " ' " 7 2 4 4 .-

U1

IqC

6cr _ý6,s- ZI ____•_ -

W ~607cF, -

Figure 1. Side view of the 3.05 x 2.44 X 2.44- mconfiguration of the EG&G Test Enclosure redesigned asa Carl-Gustav anti.-tank weapon blast simulator.

i iV

I Jc

3

III

.- I

a-I -5

r s - I

I i I 322

I i i I i I

'II I. 1 I

I I

I

TII I i i i i i i i i i i i n i n i t t t • I

CI

Fiue3 ag laot adaia lctosfo h al

III --

I iI

I I i I

Gustav simulation tests in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44-menclosure.

23

III

I

Figure 4. Preliminary instrunentation cylinder catibration curve for exper'mentatdesign for the Cart-Gustav blast oimiutation in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enctosure.

y 0.49383 * 0.08898 x - 0.00002 x'Z120 I

Sm 100

0o0t

h 80 -

"dIp 60

ae

k 40* I

kp 20a

0 I0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Charge Weight, g

iII

I

6@ 1_i 4

4 4

-4. 0616& 44 ow'sc

I .4 ZJ 4 .M

3Q4 V) N

0" 0

•I -i Y'.N-I

I i°

-.- *

6" ,O44 oo __

-a 4 I F

40 ~ £

Q) '

1 31

3 41o

N1 .4 0-4'41i

~c0

-4 ) 0)

3fL 13 3 33

I 3 - N

NA 16 4

I

rlti

N 3DM 6n

-I000

4 44ý

~ 9.1. .1

,o .X •.|4J

oD 0*

C6 p0>

4) r=-

• __. 3.'-

4.)th..~i ) I

VoI. IJ40 CL

', Ob J( II4 ) Q

A 16 4

266

gg

a0 N

to 4

3N N C

4-I VI ., D

£1

o'~to

40 0,q-

I NI 4I4,•

-

-J ~0

- -- ' I' ,- .,.• ,

- .-.- Oax.:•

44,-4 41

' ,I I

'.0

c 0,00 Q,

.- x

~ArJ Ln 4-27

I

"3 3

4 44 O0N

It t V 4.

NU 0 4 -

A 3

li " 0) 1VI

9.4 _ 0- 4 ).

-0 v1 I

,z x 'lI

lb Isi 36 Z

LI a4

N3~x

,4 0

3 0IC

21'

-I

0 0

41~

"0 0 >

IU'00

0)04j~- U

S0.I4 14 U

IW 440 0

(van)0. ArJ

I.,-,co

.................................

I/>

iIIIII

Figure 10 . Mean maximurn peak pressure (Pmax) versus charge weight caLibration curve

for gauges 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the instrumnnt cytinder.

y 16.7225853 + 0.126.,033x + 0.0000144x'2

350

300

250 -

m

a 200

x - : /---1-0 1A1 10 20

k10

so

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1690 1800 2000

Charge Weight, g

III

30 3

Figure 11. Mean smoothed peak pressure (Psm) versus charge weight calibration curvefor gauges 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the instrunent cyl inder.

y =4.2147674 ÷0.0786800x -0.0000117x'2

140 -,

I)

120 "

m 80

k 60 •

IPIaI

20-

•20 " ÷ N(4

I0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14,00 1600 '1800 2000

Charge Weight, c

1 140-.-

12|

1|1* .4

k!0-

40 --L.

IIIiIi

Figure 12. Relationship between the maximum peak pressures (Prnax) recorded in Ithe enclosure arnd the calculated smoothed peak pressures (Psm) using the mean

values for gauges 1, 2 and 4 of the instrumentation cylinder.

350 8.4172012 1 1.4471872x + 0.0099705x'2

300. I

oom

, 250 I -j ___ i

k 150I

a 100 . . .. .a - .- m

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 11.0 3Psm, kPU

III

Ii

Ii

Figure 13. Mean severity of injury indices as a function of the instrumentationcylinder smoothed peak pressure (Psm) for 12 exposures to a simiulated Cart-Gustav

blast wave in the 3.05 x 2.4, x 2.44- m enclosure.y -0.5920114 * 0.0281095x + (.0000406x'Z

2.5-

S 1 2 2 5

V

r 1.5

y

nd3 0.5.;

4 Control Level 0.03

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Psm, kPa

iI

1 33

II

II

IFiguro 14. mean severity of injury indices as a function of the instrumentation lcylinder smoothed peak pressure (Psm) for one exposure to a simJtated Cart-Gustav

blast wave in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2..44-m enclosure.

0.3 y y -0.0609242 * 0.0023134x * 0.0000186x'2

0.25

v

0.24(>I

S0.15Y

n 0.1d - .4

S12 30 ControL Level z 0.03

4- 1.0-

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Psm, kPa

II

IL

-- Figure 15. mean severity of injury indices as a function of the instrumentation-- ~cyl inder snmoothed peak pressure (Psm) for three exposures to a simulated Carl-Custav

-- blast wave in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enbclosure.

y =-1.9561251 0.1637392x -0.00324.55x'3

Ii

0.09 - ,\n •20

I S 0.08 J-10

IaI

- ~V 0.07--'

-- r 0.06

b 0.05yy0"1! 0.1--004

__ n "Control Levek 0.03d 0.03

e 0 . 0 2 •

0.01 - '040

I 0 0.0

`19 20 21 22 23 24 2'5 26 27

Psm, kPat

IyI70.0

In' __ _ _ _ _

IIIIIiI

Figure 16. Smoothed peak pressure injury prediction curve for complex blast wavesgenerated by detonating explosive charges in 11.3-, 18.2-, arn 36.3-m'3 enclosures.

df c 51 y z -0.2490883 * 0.0035331x * 0.0000266x'2 Lethality (r/nJ

10 SS(res) z 51.42 Correl. Coef. = 0.8518 r'2 0.7255 t 11.6109 -p < 0.001

No Trace Slight Moderate 7

Injuriesi to to I to

e S l ight Extensive Lethal Injuriesv 7 '

C IInjuries I njuries _ __ . .X> 50M Mortality

1 4 1

d 3'

x 2 . / ---,* I

Control Level 0.05

0 --- ____4 II0 i00 200 300 400 500 600

Smoothed Peak Pressure, kPa I

III

36 I

Table 1. Experimental design for the Carl-Gustav simulation tests in the

3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m configuration of the EG&G Test Enclosure.Exposure Levels Groups

Delta Pmax, PsM, Charge Number of Aninais/Number of Exposuresdb kPa kPa weight, 1 1 3 120 224.4 84.6 1361 2 5

3 134.2 59.8 816 84

4.5 108.9 50.3 656 4

6 89.8 42.2 533 30 4

7.5 74.9 35.5 436

9 63.2 29.9 359 12

10.5 54.6 25.6 302 20

12 46.1 21.1 245 40 10 4

13.5 39.9 17.7 203 40Subtotats 96 70 21

Controls 14 12 8Totals 110 82 29

Equations from Preliminary Calibration Curves

Pmax 10.31854 * 0.14370x + 0.00001x'2 where x z charge weight

SPsm = 0.49383 + 0.08Z98x - 0.00002x'2 where x z charge weight

I

IIII

I

III

Tabie 2. mean severity of injury indices (SI) versus instruffent

cylinder maximuim and smooth peak pressures and charge weight.Exposure Levels Exposure Groups

Pmaxo Psm, Charge Mean Sl per Group and LevelkPa kPa weight, g xl x3 x12

215.4 89.7 1361 0.29 2.18

129.5 60.6 816 0.18 1.61 I105.8 50.8 656 0.09

88.2 42.8 533 0.05 0.29 164.0 31.0 359 0.03 0.29

56.2 26.9 302 0.10 I48.6 22.8 245 0.01 0.09 0.22

43.0 19.7 203 0.01 IControls J 0.03

Equations lrom Finei Calibration Curves

Pmax z 16.7225883 *0.1264033x *0.0000144x'2 where x 2 charge weight

Psm 2 4.2147674 * 0.0786800x 0.0000117x'2 where x z charge weight

IIIIII

38I

I

I

Table 3. Mean severity of injury indices (SI) versus wall gauge number 10maximum and smoothed peak pressures and charge weight.

I Pressure Level Mean SI Pressure Level Mean SI Pressure Level Mean S1Charge PMAx, Psm, for One Pmax, Psm, for Three Pmnx, Psm, for Twelve

Weight, g kPa kPa Exposure kP. kPa Exposures kPa kPa Exposures1361 141.1 "88. 0.29 '-563.90 110.10 2.,18

816 131.4 684 0.18 130.40 63.00 1.61

656 169.5 58.2 0.09

533 111.6 45.3 0.OS 82.60 42.10 0.29

359 60.6 32.8 0.03 54.70 30.10 0.29

302 48.90 22.60 0.10

245 40.4 22.0 0.01 43.10 21.50 0.09 39.50 21.60 0.22

203 38.20 17.60 0.01

Controls 0.03

II_,II

I 39

APPENDIX A

MAXIMUM PEAK PRESSURES

lllý~~~ ~ ~ 0i "i I 11 1110 " Pý-I f

I - .LAI%•l•w,, "0 II .. CWt111i0K0 'o

PI I!~~[ ON.

-i-4 - -: 'i ' '10 00 i1 •i , , i"'".N' 0 ;w "0' IT .04-. ley !M

,A, rlti I"! ', 1

S: NllIN .NioI ioi I -. I I " ' I I ! II

-- ,i% ';0 ' K- :' •1 Hoj N Co'14'. N 0 qCi; ! 10Z I $ 1 iI---r C.I l I P^ I cM I I , _ II iI, I ; .

I " NNI 'Ii"NIi;N

I ' f I..N C.:J.t" i i

W I.n! 1 IIIij-i' C 49 91,. Cl '0f c.I i 1•in',o:a:"o44 .0 . I 'i: .6I'oI ' 0 o'

z_ COI NK ;I I ' , c zi i 0 . ..- .1 ""o"l@ I,•],ll•i, :i "!

I ID

•I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 1! 19 11 1v%!'• :i'a 10,l1 ,I l,__1 i i!" > " • l -

V, 1 tJ%:oPo ,O l II ..I0 010ý -NNNNNO

Ii I, ;i, I,.ls.'lNlNo .

I• "4'1 I I-.1 1 'I-IV• '-1l'J' --** I' • t.-*

z' 1 1:0. !N , i I. .

0 A I, I : i, M'* . . " .,1,,0;Icol.

o'I : I, I*'. lla l o 'n i ;** I : l-I ll 1 i i l * ' '-, I 4 . I , I lc_ _I_ ; ~

IDOM~v a o, t%.0- .1 h~r~

Z_ Is I;Ij 0 i Go i " ! - , n

.. i ' I .. .. .. . .... .I i, ,.. 0 N "' ,l_

11 Is 0: Id; a I 1 -1 " * -I I , I I I I co

ltC '(•: IiZIl• .n• .' N , ,N. 1 •l:, IN • l . . l ' l

O IOI' I, • ~ I 0- t' 1 u , i n -s 'IN I p I I I I I I I . . . . .c i . I 'I l !1

-- , " ~ ~.- N.4;n i.,,;i 0,4 , ~ •:(D. '0.;•,4 ,odr; ,,-:.; N ,;ol, ,.- • ,;• .; iIl ,0 i ! o Co I C! W% r,-I, I . N , I I0 N '

"9j ¶ iN :i..6 I 'ZZZ 6 0-

In It 10 10 , 1 i ' i .

;0, 0 N 0 0,0:"0 0r 0!p 010 Nv t - N

- .I .;.i

C ! .: v .P1.. ' e : clr M I ! Ri

I I I

4040

I.0...- -

.j !ý 1 .ý - ý ." .. 9. .l1 'iv' r: 9 ! O T|'

0 IcoII ,TccI

cy m I- NI l c~

cm I m M loej ItW It IV 1 %N% 6%$ 10' 01. [ 01 11 11 ! W N'.- '0( I'tI -. 501 0I ! loll

O0 .

InOQ %0.I iN, -5010 Dos I &AIt' f;f "

13,~~~II 1'c -co ac.. 1 .: .. 69il !I

010 0~,i . 0 c c:n o - icy CA:&I(v ,' .1 'tfYf~' .I

4# N P' " , '. , va 01 'In GO: Go> 4 .S ' C CI C... ~ ~ i-

rv J'N'A' "k. co I06 'o wNlki , S

-- ~~~~' I. ..-

cI :.o co:1 - P, 5Ii~n

FrIN N,,I %mjpCU'0Np" .Ne.s0I.iooLCD~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 o11C J v ' ' -

f- Iii: N.I ,ý P n4 o

!2 -IK 0 o 4 ~ ,cU IU 0 4 n ii r N I i I I ' .+1 JH ZS 1 NINlR .. .. .:, .- IN____ ___ ____ ___ ____ __t' c-JCo~J 1a 00I I ';. IIgf: s' NIM

N0' . 1 nni 00

N- Ie 9'' ryF1 t" ! A

II i .. . .. . i l"4 'oN'N P.mm- '&5.ra * I . . ''i.i~31. Go ^j Io ý ¾Oi0Ill A . ~ "" .r .I:a O

I~ ~ m I~ IIsI' si ,P c, d

I "0 '0 3 OIN N 0 0 N . N N U' ~ 0 'nO'.~i u.% LAN. ": *4 'IIxI !

C'4 I iN ' N4 v3 1 a N

U~ UIrJI I UiU. C;uu uu : vuv .uuv u ' u Ii

ic :1 ' v ikIv lu

FI-~ --- (> Cý 0'01 WI N rv Nv Nl 'j .'n 0.^ 614 4 A Co CoN CD C) -s ' -n -. 'XYy rq 0 y 0 ' N N N 4 - .ry ' f U' 's I' U' vP,Uv% ' ".-o - , -: -1 -3'

(v *j N 'NN 'j N .N ' -N 'N PA P .s e24 rv U:f I'0CU 0~j 0'C , AW A v' C I.-

"N' NI NI' N I

ito C C , N 0,; 0 00 0 N 0 C I)$ 0 oc oc op- o

4 1

I3 APPENDIX B

IPAThOLOGY SU�O4ARY

IUIIIIIIIIUUIIII

0 z *, I --

*~~U.L I-.c AUU~' 2z zi i ; ; "I ;i :. .I • I ' .o

,* <NI:.o i K" .- o<,o o I

• I I "I " I II "i

, , -.,--o ' -i i•o ~ o . .

°°° ' . 'l'°io I "'jI0 .D OCD°O a

WI Q C , I N , i i N.. ,- - - .- :010. 0 0 10. 00 l UIvno .1

Ii I-- ... .1•! '•I, - - -

13 1W! 9 I I ! '. : i " .• I

2 ':1;• -".• .Q •.: i . l • ; ! ! i o o I ,,-.: • ,

o ; .I , , i

p'v,*. 0 0000. "0 , , 0 .0 . ... .

S U�- 'J •W • : J,I iz z ' I z f , z 'w

co' T w, o, en -fG-" 't -ý ;; G" -ý- J -~•,',. "'" 7"" t, ~

(NJ IN ,o

I -, , I I*-,S .8 -'- .*f t7I-..i.i -.I. 05 x z .C w pz - w.I

* D . 1 I , I

L,, o: 0 , '.- -u "4 • L•0 Z: 0 ' A

_a.x._. - . , ,- __ _ -~O.• __-___: _ _C' u"J ,• 4 .. w:° < ,u':J•i i u"J: . . . ..*o , !o ° °

S. :40 ^ ; . cc tJ o * -J , , rI

, "n . H -

_ _ _ _n4_ _Cý C; r 0 .0 I

S-- . - I,-• ,. , :," - . ---

-u. _ U .u • ..In :, .: -Oa

I, -0 0 CDv-uLu '.• L,... '7 -io, o

S , -" L5 . " .

x W. ii , ,

.0 .. , .

0,,K 4K 0, ->c j0 V ,I F.o1

". . f! . i ... ,' . . -C*

42 • CGo cO Go co V, V, V1 O n11 I • jCjf

0 0.

x cc co " .o 's co ýo f,,co - .C .) ,-Y.0 C-

- Z. Z, Z. JI'7

IK m -88 ý! - o -- C n w0 -4Q2

I

"Li. w " . . .. X W ' ' w w I z .J , o

ofu I loo- i . I.-K ! l / ° °: I I I0 I, ./ 0'1 !0 0: 0 1 i i CI i 0W

'0 , .t-"

*•tIII-.", wJI'l. i ! 'UWqtu I-I•J -tTt, 2I~,t/ u! Ut Ut U ! Z i m

" "0 CC 010 1 0 0,,0 ',i 0 C I01Cc I

or w: Ii i. I

K J I I !I I?4Ih I I 11 I

0I 010 0 Y ' I 0 0 0 0 k1 0. ': 1 i . i , PI i

.I - -_- ,i0 : 0 ,

X! ; t: IWl i . cI IC 14,• :U.- 1, 1 ,o 16% ýO- 0o o. < oo om o" p, .:o, o40 C.•'<cN 0'. ()ýlpi~ g • -"'g::?3.I? 3 .~

.I .I ,-. . .0-- I ' .0 ,

'X " " .0 " ' s5J 0 m '. 5 5. ;5:5 5 ' . 1-.J --0 .0''0 0 010 %i"tII I0 -L l0"S t

• Z r • . .. •. . I' ' 1 " " •.-.-o . 0' 01 00 o•I,•'o!o. 0,,I.- O.

S; : / I w. I w W , , I' w

c 0 0 0 L :t I . -• o : I,

ootdi 0000 0.0 0j *'* *iuoo0ooo. 00000•0, ,... .ooo

IAO ,t uj ujuujLutu.u

c: Zi A1 2 x 2z (2. 227 x e ..

So / . "u'o1•1 ' I ./ ' VrU / I L-3

IA,*.o0I,' (A W La 0101010

/ ' of ' at "J c " ..0.

!I ' o ' n C r I 0i 0 0 M IDU, I l,S:i 0 00. 0 0 " -P.

V, VLI

i~ 0 0 I 1,,Q~jo~ ,. ,ulu i4 UJJ U'U , Ut

I" : =,wI ' I t : ' I . Il . . .'l . -_ I- - . . -,: -

S-r , , - - i

q , C 0' Q -1, .• , ."D -1- 01- !2-,o - "o----o-- 0 i W- -n-P., W,-P^ ov P• F^0,0' --00.0 i .oY "0'0"0•,00 0 0 . ... 01.- - ...... 0-÷;.-': .....

11 1ý IWl i% V,' 6i .IP 1/ Ln i -L^.

S . . . .. ....... .. -; - U0

N (>1 NI i It V. C g 0. . o -• I0

S- ..oI-•, .. -- . -- " .... •- . . . ....e opp - - r "N . .. . p'- I r P-.' , P .S rP -

c- 1 . .. . ' . . . .. .2 pp.. . .. , 1' .. . u ... . .. . co... . .'I ' !ji ,: i l Ut I ,1 ":i 7 :; : "- : l ,0I l' U IAII tJ Ut IIA I'/Pl z 1: l-iUt• 1,1II . . = 1, , I "j (S =~. z I = =,t=j

0 _ ~ _v _3

' I ' ' " - i : ' :-1 ' , ' • ' i

4 1 't

•, ~ ~ ~ J / •f ~o ,•'. •-.• r I.. '.. f•- r,• tV ov 0-, '.,'& ý .@,. •oGSi 3..D o " a, 0-.'o 0~. -:ooo 01 4 ~ ~ o> 0i i_Si , ' I : ' . i '. 71f , " , ' .' _ ' :,. 1 . , •0 --1 1 ,ý , -c]• V

rv rjtq rvV) tvr~iSl • • @ •-F.N • # •l / • -. 1-C0ý a

-i* Il I i1 1 I-ILftJ. I a

o':o : l~~lI~,(U Iu. J uJZll'l,IJ(l.AuJl. .Iu2JI i I I• W mm .JI...1 W 1 w

S°°'l°° OO o '-,lo.oo oloK, b, '7 ° °'0

"- ft 0 I :

10 C." 0--'-

, " ,.' ,; i::" 'I. oo o o 'o .

J 1• o"' ," ; '- c .w Oý , l i Oi'.'OIC• 0 , '

U 't..i.• i H0.0 " 00' O"OIOlo 0 I ' O .' I

or IU L I . . c C, C .I

I! C 011 0!0 00

0I 0 •.Olo:' 000 000 0 010 0 0010!00 010I CID O'-' CI 0, 00Q0 ~ 0 0. 0 010 1**,(3 ,< i ~! I i]i I , ,,i i

ItZ iow I

. . .I a, . -A .! I [ '

, I= W, W' w ,,.wS 0 0 0n'•1 0 0.0 .. 0Q 0,1Q Q , •lc:, D :o,.oCO olo

-I I, I i - ,- . : -iJ W :i I •; : ,;! ~ " I :J** I I

-4I----' .• ,-I .J I

I Q ' , I I u 'u

UJ..H 00 0 U L L5 0 0------------~A

" • : , , .- , , . :, Up 4c ai I' 0U I $. 0 -I- .' .LU U)

0, 0N 0'' 0'0 ý '

*. .... : • ,, . !.i. •. :'.w '• :-- -- i-.- .• i.. .

0... L13 0 z

- --- -.-- ----- . ....- '- ,=,- -I- - g. ..

" -. "'I"h~. 1.~~ ~ ' "~ ~' '~I- (~p~ 1P 1 P1 _ P"°'UJIU c. 4 w wW.- g: ýIW

L5 (1. t

;v , t, 0 ,1 U, W- -.- . . .. . . ..- ' ................ .'. . . . . . . .. .i_ A_ A :.,o- UN

c I ., , . : : , I " -.,o o. C 0 o. ., ', I

of o -I. (> 0. 4 > ,:,ol

.P, r-V .~ ry .`,• .jJ .. "Jt .t . .3 .

1,-. 1-,. "" (- 0" r-,o "c"'"•

: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - , -- ,. . , ,, .. . 0 1- • o • • , . . • - . . " '

,14

I1

I . I I j I I

-- 4•I0 it i0-- I Ii'Ti TVHI ,2 T----,L" l 0 o1 0 ICc0w-;z I0z

0 0l, l l ,o J IO I

i .- i .i , .! i WiW , U1

-I. 0 '0 00 0 i 0 -1010 0 :oo, 010 IonC0 . , . i , C1

, III I I .,

-I - IN- NINI N - -- -- r -- i------ ,t------T • , - ----- :---' I I . . . . . .I I i -' ' 1 .. I I :IN' I '

-•R al , 4i" a 0 .b, bl 1' !'P W ': :f re i4 1 WOp Q I 8 " ,C '0 0 S I 0 00 ob D- : a o: - I i ! ' " I ,

Ii•'i ' I: , ' I

0. 0:0 C110 0 0 000O!00000, 11/ 0 0 g' 0"lg~

0'00'!0.' 0 ;0 0 011,,0000O,0 010.0 0 .0:0:0 C00C00 ;

N 0 I 10 -404: c , j I . .C .I .: I .C ' i ' : 0 0 0- " "

0 01 1 0000010100 00o0 0: 01,: oo0oo01010'C 0 l 0 0 0 ;

IN• ,, ,U• ,W I . . ... . . . :ii iZ : -I i -w 'WI I 'I I I w. W , ', w : '.

-- i 1 I.. CI C-0 o l o.oo o

W :' W , 1 W U ~ i , w I u w W'W U Uj W I W W I 3Lw .: ! _j j wj

0 0l-l

• • z. l~l l•..= t : ~ z .•..... z ' zz :.. z z z z zl z m Zl .. . . .x'l • x.z .z .. -Z:Z.;.z "1SzaI

0.00 0ol0 0 000000 -~~ 10 =.n0010 010. 010.0 0*o 0;0 010 Ol""W , .'W: L , UJW Ia LU ' /I U - ,U I/ L W I I I L . 1 U01 W. w _, ku wJ "

M. .2 .... l ;a.. .Z I.. I X. . ...z Z Zat ... MIX ..........

ol - ý : - - . 0 I' 0. : . .C'o 0 0 00 0 0 0

14 0- I I 0;00 :0- 0 L 0:0.00 :0c. 0 0 01000 00 U . 010101j0 0: 0l00ý.1.

4x 1 u.wuiu ju w. ZL2 W N.U 'Nli iu U;L Uiw w lULL ~U L W W IUjWi

4KI UJ wH UU 6ii W: L W W

z• xI z , . N1= ' ix I z Z Z!1x a.J • • ;l z , z -x, lxl ,-l.,z~ l[ l z XI.: x a[ x;' ; a, Z :•XI a

L A ' ý -L^ 'A W % V , 0. - UN m P -, ' ; , I : : • i • • ' I ! I "

.... -0-* 0--- 0 .. 0 -00 L/ : -. 0.0. .-- ;• +--o~o�--J--. ,-- 0-00 -00 00 0 0-0 0-0- 0c;. . .. --0 - -

Cm

I," -I 0

0.0. ,J, J 7 U . , 4 . , 'J $ . $t .I J P # .' 4. .-. . . . . . .q -'. tJ h, t • L-t .j ,4 .t

"" • I .I ' i - -- o- : ' ' C) o"oL V' al 2 ' CD

"--- - ..... + -- - o N 'o ýU- o.- 'o- .. 0 - o" co -") -c .........

" ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ;,:l o',o (Noi 0:lo C>o,= a' o', .o' 0ý 0o 0,.l 0•,:•, • 4> 4c. 0o o-', 1> 'Q. I

A .- .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .:? . . . . . . .. .

Pl Pý P^ I Pn L" V ' L^ 'o '0-0 0-0 .0-0 P0,000 '... .. 00'-. 0

4,5

Uj0 c c :a i zX • .7 . ~ J*K .ij I I g

ILKL o Ii H li-Ij.- •"~S0 0CZ z w 5

"1•, 1I 1 O I i 00 z H i j0' 1 t i c0 =.I C ' o c I C c cJ . I I1 0

in' 0010I

.o~o~ o ol'•",'lollo__ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ II

UJ _ _ _ _ _ __,_. I j iN4 ii 111111 __,

.00Q0 :0'o x0 wo 0P41"010: , ~,I~

1 0 oi= )C10 q10 o0:1:0 0

U ''I''I"i liiI I I • --- i - " .. . I , I i •

0 ~oole

c Q 0 %,%I o: I 0

-!I .. ,, I . I

"iO0 1,0.o l0 0010 ! ~ s: l

voo!o~o,1oo 00000.l - 00o

Ri0

U ... =J=:•I , ,I • I

,, Q 6I,6 6! jI.u , c c , iC; u;1': 6: , 0 o ,Oi.O! 13

rn coo1 1 - io c.o , :

C i , I, , , I Z Z ', Go:

-o

uj . .w IU L. - --. L-. .i W -• ' ' _L .

""la :I I. : z 2I : z z .; II 0

* L • ooio1 oL i•)o :o ,,;P .•,0 :oOL,i•o • -r4---• I0 oF.-. oo o : . io ao o , ,,o o*:a) c o ,, , . . • 'N l --

- I i • l • , , . - - o ~ o ,,• .,•o ,o o o o

C9IPI I -.; : I

I~ u j. ~ I

__. w ,W . '- - ' '0P I Ij I " •i5 010 0--j,: .0,,,,o~o .o , 0,o ,o'o o o.,•o..0 oo A oPA, . 0:,, ,0-AP 1 1 .. , v.. o ; , .% v%

C uJuw (A W1IW

I P .UJ .P WiWI _- . UJ:, . J.... PM 4 ... p w.. • . .. .. .. , 1 -*:

S =,Z•.' R : Z, Z Zwx. ox Z :a I z iz iz

to Lw L'o I v c-o o 00 0 0 oo T,. 0 o oo Fn F ol 0 100' 0II . 0 .IP 0

_ I .0,-. -) . I

,A • , . - • . -. -• _ _. ____._,,_:•: - ,. ; ; , .oi

K, Uj k ý'30 o -7 (J-o . o u.• .- •, ,. o' . 'o. W ! u , w , , ,o -o - .e.u o .

up:• .. . . . P " • . .. . . . .. !. . I

of -, 'j w:Lj ... . o 'P .7 L2 ýj u I u' ""1 ,u _ , o u , tj O -;;• o "'

L" z 2C xz wz of x L3. w w .W- KWWW~LIIz az~ -- ZR; ZR. "R*z fagz z zaz

I~' 1 -p

, , w-

I 0 ' I I* 0- 0=: I '0,.o . . . I ii '

)1 IN iIN'lIN~'IN-V'J.tI IN r',p rIM e I'N I IN INp PIN INNI' IN% ,I.I"NI• , t 'p'u v '~~

:0 iO ':W

* :21

o- •. @ . .4 Q.0.@ y. u-. o L LI: 0. lu: z II ,--W uj Iý W.1o u. c. Ul W. -

PA• ' PA P P PA, PA PAMIJPAPP P APA -• - AP • .•. . - '•,1 I N II NI N N N

01x x x0 jW u j.

PA A A A AP P PA PAPAPAPAPAPA A A A AP P P PAM PA PA r PA PA 4 4 44r P . IIl

306

z. Z I C ~ .z

PA PA-Q PA, PA PA1 PA PAIn~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0-. 9 .0. 0ý. 0.90 0 . P A P A P A P A P A P A P P P A P.A0. c~ 0 0, 0 o....000 -o z .0 0.0.00.'a ~3 ~L INl II INI NINI*

^j rj fl rv Nj j46

I

i - 0I0 1 mi a IQ I

I- It 0 4,'I a-, 1 1 4 0I.0 ' -K be , I R ale N .

"Fn 0 C, t, 11 G) '... I ' a 1 . I QM I I'D I 2 I , I I , 0 0

SMu 00~V000 5 ,l,IO.OOOIoOKOOIOI.o 0! 01! 0 00 0.0,00Q ý : ,Q

. ; n.....J. . . v _D

I' ilI- I ' ' I l I

E!- I • I l , II I ' , ,

•;I I:' ' I i I

0 6, 0 16 IIJ. IM6a66,6 4 oD I 6,_::: i4' ~~ ', 1 . I 0 0 0: I I K 7 y 3 1 :0 0 0 0 0 I . r l 1 ;

', , ,I I I

00 ,0 00 00 0.000 ;100,O ,0 0,0 0 0.0 C0 0-0.0,0 0 ' 0 0 0 1 5 10 0 0 0o ac 'Ieoo0o•ooolo 'o 0.0.• 0 0 0.0 0 0olo1, .0olo

H i K I I * zmxZz~~~ :l~ .X. L--ui L0' 010 0 �l0 0 .0 0Q 0, 010 0Q0;0 00 00 0 0 '0 0 *00Q 0.I00;00 10

Oic~, 0 01 0 o1Q• o o .. Io o :QoQO 0. •"Ol!O,•o!• c" oi Z o l(oi2aIL 0 !. oo.2. c .21(.2lo o I.o 0 '0.o0,o oI oio o 0 o o 1.o ,- I u

U, UJ 11 u• . L w.,, 1' I uj . , ,

2 iz ai21 z , 213~u 3Z .3z l a Z, 2,3.22 Z13K Z5.12 3 2 31 1

I , I I. I ,I• I I

Z3 1 3;Z: 33 IM

Q.us'0IO0.si^,IQ 0 .10,0 01010C> 0 C % 0Q , Oi; 0:• Io• I0:o=•'.• 0 0

SIj~ I ,0 I.:i, , , MI '

at 2 ; 0; 23 I

UJll I• WlI w w.l ujuj w Luu••L 2'-I~~i! ::I 2 I z x i z I z .:~ -==z- ~ z !'= az~zzz =z•

I i N 40

"0-•'.:• L.0•0• 0 •I•0 .0 0 L2 I Ll : L5 01( , 0• ',0:,0 10 (0 0 ( J • oo 0:0u. - -... .. . . W.____W_ W... . .

S 2 ' : I -. I ! . I ' ; I - I "

;-III'

1 = O • . I

V, 0 1 C'IS)UJ

01Cl *010i0 1 1 0 ILI, ;0 0 W3j32I 0 0 U. 0 0: 0 o -I I

o ! .I * I -: ii ,1 210at. ZM. SM .SIS 'W MSZSWS' S WSMWzl z JS SM SMlz zl~ UJ! JW LLI- 0 (.W 0 0jýLIUU -l 0( .2

lz.S SM aI W'S XI SM 2t :9 SM 7: X M

-I . I , '. ' • : 2 Z Z 2 3 2 3- , I i,,i L' I ; I ' : . 0I -I

-" 10 i o I 'A wi 1 0 : '•. f .m' " " - ;!... 0C13: 0 o1

o 0 o , ,.'0 .0 0 0 ,0 0 01. 0 5I0.0-0 Q 0 - l..- o,• - ,o 1 oo 0 0.- ,0o o0 .,, o-,- 0 c

w) . . . W . 1 n I I wl., to" .I ,0 0 0 C 0 0 • .ý 0 00 o 0. 0 0 0.0 0 0 D' C 0 00 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 00 0

m I - ry ry N Ci f v ry y N• t•"," CY N. rv - "JIf', N N evj ''Z . m N. 'N rqNw r :N. N I N Ni ^ IN j, ; ; . . i i , ; I I " ''3

,,, ,,0 o . In 0 e, . . ,,, ' o,:-. 0: 00- t V% ,,, 0,,- N .1 I), 0 IN 0-. , ., . , , ., 1 PI) F^ . . , 4 4 ," " .,. , 4 4 .4 '1 , .II.1f

4, I m , . I, ,. . 4 I> 0 0 , CD 0

0- C.

I~ .0, I0jI 01 C,( D-,00-. S A

U . 1 o l 1 ' O 0 0 L 0 > 1, 0 ( P" 0 , 0 -1 0 P. > .ý > - 0- '0 . ,,, O L 0-o l > z

iz -.. . I rv r\ .)~ es j r N W, p'S INN r ND~ No No* to cc 0""j., P.. I P F,. fl - , P , I

471

"IjII U . r Z I ' i I w I w w I

I'- I w•.,, w Im wjw' ' I • ' 'iwt •,-.' wj• I .n~

Scl I

__ _ __ _ 10110-C10:a, I o ' C : , I I

" .00: 10 64 0 a 11',

I- i •" ! • • I I : I .1 * ! I :' * i'!' _ I

S• - ' l I I oli - • d

Nt![ i°°°,° ° °.° ° ° Io :o ,o o' 4o4 olo-gojojoooio~ olm o oloio 3, .II41

C, -0:,0 oi~C; :01 0 ;00 0 00 I 0! C 0

4A 0: 0i OIO0, 00 0OU'Cl,~ 1:00 110 1 0 . 0• ! , 1

II ' IN 1. . 1• • . .• I . . . ' . . . .0 01 0 00 0.0 0 00 001 C001 0 0 0ol)o; 06biA

-, ~ 4, I i i :U, :. C I i C II 0: C I co '0

C.-4 --.--- 0: C; I ' . ; , :::' I , ' ' I , 1 '

I I" 1 1: " I , -1-3,.. -l

S: i cl. .l . .& ci ci " ci' i ci. c c ! i; I {I

-I- a o! I

:0, 0 01010 01C : ,o0 C 0 0 :C 0 , 0 '. !

x00 01 000 0 10001 . I 4)

CA..

I 0 0 1 0 0 00 0

I ~ ~ w

V% I ' I I I owl

-K :0~~ 0,oioiO.. :o 0 ~jj 0 , ,,U~000.

. i c, ,: . - I : i ,-, 44.UI 0. 0 L o i oi, I i c 4j. ' 0 O

k1 J)W .U')I W W W'• 4 U JI1

W 4~~~ U) U)W:)W 1 ••W.',,U)) ) U),' - :,• W W ' U);U WIUl U) •'•

I t z 2 . • z z . • , z z ci z ' z 2 1 2 - .2. X , 1U I 'o ,-J w: ,•2 iJ ,I "

o. 000a, 0 0101,0 C 00U0 )4)0:000 oc~p o o 0 0oo01 * C.

-' I 2 c c j c c ~ i

c I - g Iz I T

. - : ! , 0, z ,. .j ,- lu w _!c

. I ." W , , L - , -

.cf I : I!- • 'N'I~ 4II &.- II"' ~-i -!i&.;r

. • ! I I o _ ! ] I ' " : ! ' l i ,, .

,:,,O ic • !,-' ,, .-. 0 0 o ..n0o Co' o'.C .o, 0 0 : I ' ,-D ':

, . I i ,.

C! o

c' Q ).- U - , U • , , - • 0 I 4 -)

d _W . ! . ,,'- Z i ! " " I 0 O O! : U j , U J W : W . L i . I ,,

S_ r4 . . ...g -J 'OO * -sa . • . - * * *. -. - .. :o:-.40.W ,).c

2 I,- ,01 21 IX Cc'= =,• X X'~ a x•i Z.Zl

-- Cro .i4* 0,0 0 -" . -.o ,O.C.0 01C;"; ',A4 .

w UP I " w I w ,, 3- .-- A• X• • Z ' ''ZI Z 'j j j Z W ; X. z 'x 2 z x .:c- . . • z Z Z . .Z ! ,.,

.~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ----,-----.,-------- i ' ; : ' ' -- " •' -- •luj W1' "••°°s ••;••o'•••"ol . 1 , Pý , ",o o " n " '.. . . . . . . . . . . "ý . . . . . P, 001,o : .. . , .

. 0 .- w -,. .96 ,C, ,C>.-

, . • , u ' , .. , l • • . ,-,l, 10 0oo= : io~~ý a- C c) I o'0 0,-Ce'l-•, ,.,.

0 u ml 7- • -K . - - - - CC-• - -Or of of -a .0 :0,- .. o o 0 0

m ý: -- l -01,01 or at ar.• 0 -of ce• 0• 00 0:,/ C ". . . . .I '" ~ '". "~•l.,

L .' -0 .0 0 a ",4 o -Jo a 0.0 Z 0 .X ,',,L

.j L,. . LL J:a 0 - -0. 0.0 0, ox C) ,- Z

48:ý 0

L3

UJIIac, 'AC

I.. 0

o 1T

OF I j I I

WI 4-0R

11 -I 41

IA' I j -

Z, IU ~ ~I Isi;

Poll

IA UcL Aii t

';14 Iw41.

gil.

I- 16.5.9

x )I 0 .t 4#

3 APPENDIX C

U WALL GAUGE NUMBER 10 PRESSURE-TIME SUMMARY

IIi

IUIIIIIi

III , I 1:

Table C-1. Wall gauge number 10 pressure-time surmmary for the Cart-Gustav blastsimulation tests in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enclosure. I

Date I Animal Charge j Shot Test Pmax, Psm, I max,

SWt.,g 1 No. No. . kPa j kPa kParrnsec

I] I 12 EXPOSURES (MEANS) J8/31/92 J 281 1361 1,6,12 : 1 695.5 I 14S.0 1 798.09/3/92 284 1361 1,6,12 I 3 767.9 I 94.3 790.5

9/3/92 1 285 1361 i I9/10/92 I 286 1361 1,6,12 4 228.4 I 91.1 821.59/10192 287 1361 5

Mean n z 3 563.9 110.1 803.3SD 292.8 30.2 16.2

SE 169.1 17.5 9.3

9/16/92 292 816 1,6,12 7 131.3 61.8 T 397.8

9/16/92 293 816_ __ _

9117/92 294 816 1,6,12 8 129.5 64.2 380.8

9/17/92 295 816Mean n z 2 130.4 63.0 389.3

So 1.3 1.7 12.0SE . 0.9 1.2 8.5

9/18/92 296 533 1,56,12 9 86.6 42.2 224.99/18/92 297 $33 '

921/92 298 , 533 1,6,121 10 78.5 41.9 1 258.59/21/92 2" 19 533

Mean _ n= 2 82.6 42.1 241.7

SM . = 5.7 0.2 23.8

SE 4.0 0.2 16.8

I _ __I___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9/23/92 1 300 m 359 1 1,6,12 11 52.3 28.7 105.9

9/23/92 i 301 35911/13/92 330 359 1,6,12 26 57.1 31.4 2 169.7

11/13/92 331 359 1 .0

Mean n = 2 54.7 30.1 157.8SD 3.4 1.9 16.s

SE 2.4 1.2 11.9

9/25/92 304 245 1,6,12 1i 36.6 20.4 3 02.3

9/25/92 305 245

10/16/92 320 245 1.6912 21 42.4 22.7 102.0

10/16/92 1 321 245Mean In = 2 39.5 21.6 102.2

SD T 4.1 1.6 i o.2

SE 12.9 1.2 ! 0.1

I SINGLE EXPOSURES

9/29/92 306 1361 1 14 141.1 88.3 774. 8

91/29/92 307 1361Mean n x 1 141.1 88.3 "74.8

soSe

9130/92 0 1 1 1 _5 117.B 67.8 44.2. 1

9/30/92 309 916

10/27/92 326 816 1 24 130.4 63.6 376.9

10/27/92 327 815-

-- 50

I I . ITabte C-l(conild). Walt gauge number 10 pressure-tine summary for the Cart-Gustavblast simutatlon tests in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enclosure. I 3

Date Animal Charge Shot Test Pma , iPsm aw,

I Wt., No. NO. kPa kPa kPaanwec

11/10/92 332 816 I 1 27 . 130.0 1 66.4 365.011/10/92 [ 333 816 1 1

11/11/92 _ _334_ _ 816 1 28 147.2 75.6 677.8

11111/92 I 335 816 I _ _

Mean __ _ n 2 4 i131.4 68.4 1 465.5

S_ _ _ _ _12.1 5.1 145.6SE _ _ i___ 6.0 I 2.6 i 72.8

4. I11/12/92 3ýo 656 1 i 175.2 55.6 327.0 I11/12/92 337 65611/17/92 1 338 I 656 1 30 163.7 60.8 308.111/17/92 1 339 I 656 1

Mean n : 2 169.5 58.2 317.6so i 8.1 3.7 13.4SE . 5.8 2.6 9.5

___I __ _ __ _ __

10/8/92 312 I 533 1 17 86.2 43.1 257.010/8/92 313 533

10/23/92 324 533 1 23 114.0 49.0 254.910/23/92 1 325 533 1 16_ W9.I

11119/92 340(h) 533 1 31 j 163.0 48.8 279.111/19/92 341 533 1 I _

11/20/92 342 533 1 32 i 121.0 44.5 252.411/20/92 1 343 533 1 27

1/0/00 1 344 533 1 33 121.7 46.1 267.7

1/0/00 1 345 533 I7_

11/25/92 1 346 533 1 34 96.9 1 43.4 270.311/25/92 1 347 533 i __im

12/1/92 1 348 533 1 35 137.8 45.7 251.012/3/92 j 349 533 I

12/3/92 352 533 1 I 37 113.8 44.9 231.71213/92 353 533 1

12/7/92 354 i 533 1 38 86.7 i 45.9 257.912/7/92 355 53312/16/92 356 533 139 -112.2 46.0 243.8

1/0/00 357 I 533_ __'_ _ _I

12/18/92 358 533 1 40 1 143.7 I 6.5 1 240.412/18/921 359 5331/5/93 360 i 533 1 41 91.5 41.7 233.01/5/93 361 II533 _I

1/7/93 364 533 1 43 82.5 44.9 225.21/7/93 365 5331/8/93 3•66 533 1 44 241.7

1/8/93 367 I 533 1

1/12/93 1 368 533 1 45 101.6 43.8 274.41/0/00 - 369 533 - i

Mean n z 15 111.6 45.3 252.0SO __23.1 2.0 16.2

SE 6.0 0.5 4.2

10/9/92 314 I 359 1 18 6..7 32.0 173.7

10/9/92 315 359 •10/21/92 322 359 1 22 76.1 36.7 153.410/21/92 323 . 359

51 1

3//9 i40 I 35

Table C-l(Cont'd). Watt gauge number 10 pressure-time summary for the Cart-Gustavblast simulation tests in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.4f.- m enclosure. '

Date iAnimal Charge Shot I Test mxLj Pm I/maxfW t., 9 I O. No. kPa 1 kPa kP&*msec

3/2/93 1 406 '. 359 1 64 53.i 32.9 130.73/2193 407 t 3593/3/93 408 359 1 65 53.3 30.7 159.4

3/3/93 409 359

3/4/93 410 359 1 66 55.9 31.9 139.8

3/4/93 1 411 3593/10/93 i 412 i 359 1 67 60.4 32.8 147.33/10/93 i 413 359

Mean I n 6 I 60.6 32.8 150.7SO 8.8 2.1 15.1SE 3.6 1 C.8 6.2

10/14/92 I 316 245 1 19 41.5 21.0 97.2

10/14/92 317 24.5 i3/25/93 416 j 245 1 69 35.6 21.1 82.3

3/25/93 417 2453/26/93 418 245 1 70 42.7 24.1 91.9

3/26/93 1 419 2453/30/93 420 245 1 71 38.7 22.9 98.13/30/93 421 ! 245 13/31/93 422 245 1 i 72 46.0 j 23.7 99.3

3/31/93 423 245 1

5/27/93 1 460 245 1 91 43.7 I 22.1I 84.01 461 245_I

5/28/93 462 245 1 92 38.0 I 20.0 84.1

463 245 16/2/93 464 245 1 93 45.9 I 23.9 92.1

465 245 _

6/3/93 466 245 1 94 37.0 1 20.7 88.7

467 245 I I

6/4/93 468 245 I 95 39.8 23.1 97.6469 245

6/9/93 472 245 1 97 43.8 21.3 82.8

473 2456/10/93 474 245 1 98 35.8 21.1 84.6

475 2456/11/93 476 245 1 99 36.4 21.0 84.4

477 245 I

6/15/93 478 245 1 100 43.2 i 22.8 92.8479 245 I

6/16/93 480 245 1 101 41.9. 1 22.4 88.4481 245

6/22/93 482 245 1 102 37.J 21.2 79.4

483 2456/23/93 I 484 245 1 103 41.3 20.2 82.5

485 . 2456/24/93 486 245 1 104 38.6 22.5 87.7

487 2456/25/93 488 245 1 105 40.5 23.3 89.4

489 2457/7/93 490 245 106 40.4 21.5 83.2

491 245Mean n = 20 40.4 -20 83. 5

2 3.2 1.2 6.1SE 0.7 (T3 1.4

5 2

I

Tabte C-1(cont~d). Wait gauJe mriber 10 pressure-time sumiary for the Cart-Gustavbtast simutation tests in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enctosure. I

Date • Anima| [Charge Shot Test Pmax ,sin ImaXrUt., g I No. No. kPR kPaI kPalrysec

S 3 THREE EXPOSUkES (MEANS) 681/19/93 370 1 302 IWhrO , 46 52.7 26.5 116.6

1/19/93 371 I 302 iI ______

1/20/93 372 302 lthru3 47 1 48.8 27.6 i 124.21/20/93 : 373 302 l "

1/27/93 ; 376 302 lthru3 49 44.8 27.1 118.51/27/93 377 302 " •

1/28/93 I 378 302 ithru3 I 50 44.3 26.1 r 111.01/28/93 ; 379 302 ,1',

1/29/93 380 302 IthrWO 51 I 57.3 31.8 1 141.11/29/93 i 381 302' iI

2/2/93 381 I 302 lthru3 52 42.1 25.3 121.02/2/93 383 3022/3/93 384 302 IthruW 53 45.0 26.3 I 116.62/3/93 385 302 .

2/4/9 38 0|2/4/93 386 302 ilthru3 54 45.6 27.7 119.32/4/93 387 . 302 m••

2/5/93 388 302 Ilthru3 55 52.1 I 27.6 1 121.6

2/5193 I 389 302 [ I2/9/93 - 390 302 lthru3 I 56 56.4 27.8 117.62/9/93 1 391 302 I _,_ _

Mean I_ n -- 10 48.9 27.4 120.7

SO , i 5.4 ___ 1.7 _ _8.0

SE I1.7 0.6 i 2.5

2/11/93 1 394 245 lthrO3 58 47.9 L 21.8 1 96.82/11/93 395 245 1 1 ! 1

2/12/93 396 245 7 lthru3 59 i 41.2 21.3 86.12/12/93 397 2452/17/93 398 245 lthru3 60 38.8 21.5 91.32117/93 399 2452/19/93 1 400 245 Ithru3 61 I 43.8 21.4 88.82/19/93 401 245

2/23/93 402 245 Ithru3 62 43.9 21.3 89.52/23/93 403 245

Mean I:n = 5 43.1 21.5 1 90.5

SD 3.4 0.2 ,_4.0SSF 1.5 0.1 1.8

4/1/93 424 203 lthru3 73 41.3 18.2 69.842.5 203

4/1/93 426 203 lthru3 74 41.3 15.1 I 70.7

427 203 I

4/22/93 430 203 Ithru 76 41.9 17.9 70.8431 203

4/27/93 432 203 lthru3 1 77 1 35.9 16.6 66.7433 203 •

4/28/93 434 203 thru3 78 37.9 16.7 6. 1

435 203

4/29/93 43.6 203 lthru3 79 44.3 17.9 69.9437 '_03

4,/30/93 438 203 1thru3 80 38.1 18.2 69.4439 2___03 o

5,4/93 440 203 Ithru3 81 38.6 17.5 69_2441 203

5/11/93 Z44 203--- 1thru3 83 41.5 18.0 72.8

Table C-l(co4td,). wall gauge r.umber 10 pressure-time snumary Icr the Cart-Gjstav-"

btast sifmutation tests in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enctosure.

Date Animal sCharge Shot Test P Pmax, i Psm, Ix,_I Ut., g i NO. 00o. kPa kPa kPaemsec

445 1 203 I

5/12/937 446 203 1 lthru3 84 36.7 16.0 i 72.0447 203 iI

5/13193 448 203 1 lthru3 i 85 41.0 17.5 67.5

_/__ _ I "449 203 , 1

5/19/93 1450 203 ilthru3 I 86 35.7 1 17.9 72.0_i 451 203 1

5/20/93 1 452 203 lthru3 87 37.6 17.9 79.1t 453 203

5/21193 454 203 Ithru3 I B 36.5 17.3 66.2455 203 _

5/26/93 458 203 lthru3 90 34.1 17.2 65.0

I 459 - 203

7/8/93 49" 203 lthru3 I 107 37.3 17.4 66.0

493 2037/9/93 494 203 Ithru 3 108 33.4 17.2 65.2

4 9 5 2 0 3 - _ _ _ _ _ _._7 1 .7/13/93 496 203 1 1 thru 3 109 36.2 INi7.7 71.4

497 I 203 !

71/3 48 23 i I thru 3 110 -37.-1- 16.9 68.Z49 1 203 I !

7/15/93 500 iT 203 _1 thru 3-1 ill 36.7 _ 17.6 67.4__.501 1 203 I 1

Mean I n =20 I 38.2 17.6 69.3SO I _ _ _i 2.9 0.5 3.3

SE,0.6 0.1 0.7

S

qII

I

I

I

! 54

N APPENDIX D

INDIVIUUAL SEVERITY OF INJURY INDICES

i

II

II

I'IrI

II

Figure 0-1. Individual severity of injury indices as a function of instrunentation

cylinder sootned peak pressure (Psm) for 12 exposures to a smitated Car-(Custfov

blast wave inm the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enclosure.

y 3 -0.6131646 + 0.0291016x * 0.0000307x'2I4.5 T

4-.

e 3.5I

e 3

n 0.5 +

0- Control Level 0.C3

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

PSm, kPa

II1I

I

U

IIII

Figure 0-2. Individual severity of injury indices as a function of instrumentationcylinder smoothed peak pressures (Psni) for a single exposure toa a simrulated Carl-

Gustav blast wave in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enclosure.

y x -0.0093798 - 0.0001355x * 0.0000420x'2

0.35

S0.25 I

er1 0.2I

0,15 Ind 0.1 '

0.05 Controt Level 0.03

20 30 40 50 60 70 s0

Psm, kPa

III

56 1I

IIIII

Figure D-3. IndividuaL severity of injury indices as a fun~ction of instrumentationcyttider smoothed peak pressure (Psm) for three exposures to a simutalted Carl-Gustav

blast wave in the 3.05 x 2.44 x 2.44- m enclosure.

y 2 -1.8975128 * 0.1592186x 0.0031619x'2

0.45

0.4 -

e 0.35v V

e 0.3 -

I 0.25

S0.2 ;

n 0.15

C o.1 ".1•,f•'

0.05 1K • •0.05-- Control Level 0.03

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

I

I

I