Investigation of Head Response to Blast Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Head injury resulting from blast loading, specifically mild traumatic brain injury, has been identified as a possible and important blast-related injury for soldiers in modern conflict zones. A study was undertaken to evaluate head response to blast loading scenarios using an explicit finite element numerical model and to comment on the potential for head injury. METHODS: The blast loading and simplified human body numerical models were validated using impulse, peak acceleration and the Head Injury Criterion from experimental blast test data. A study was then undertaken to evaluate head response at varying distances and orientations from the explosive. RESULTS: The accelerations and injury metrics for the head increased with decreasing distance to the explosive, as expected, but were also significant at intermediate distances from the explosive for larger charge sizes and intermediate heights of burst. Varying lateral position with constant standoff did not have a significant effect on the head kinematic response. CONCLUSIONS: The head injury criteria considered were exceeded in close proximity to the explosive (<35 charge radii) and depended on the height of burst for the range of charge sizes considered. The injury criteria were also exceeded at intermediate distances for larger charge sizes because of the influence of the mach stem. Although the injury criteria used in this study are typically applied to longer duration events, and may not be applicable for shorter duration blast loading, aggressive loading is predicted at small standoff distances and confirmed by the resulting head kinematics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".