Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Experimental Investigation of the Ballistic Response of Head Surrogate Against Fragment Simulating Projectiles

  • Research paper
  • Published:
Experimental Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 20 December 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Penetrating combat injuries by fragments are of concern during tactical warfare. The fragments generated from the explosive devices can cause lethal penetration in various organs, including the head. The response of the head against fragment impact is unknown.

Objective

To experimentally investigate the ballistic response of an open-shape head surrogate model against fragment impact. We hypothesize that the response of the head surrogate to the impact of small fragments is different than that of larger projectiles. The ballistic response of the head surrogate was evaluated in terms of ballistic limit velocities (V50), energies (E50), energy densities (E50/A) required for the penetration, and associated failure mechanisms in various layers of the head surrogate.

Methods

The head surrogate was prepared by stacking rectangle cross-sectioned skin, skull, and brain simulants. Chisel-nosed fragment simulating projectiles (FSPs) of 1.10-g and 2.79-g were impacted on the head surrogate using a pneumatic gas gun setup.

Results

V50 and E50/A of the 2.79-g FSP were lower by ~ 50% than the 1.10-g FSP. The skin simulant failed by the combination of shearing and elastic hole enlargement. The skull simulant failed by a conoid fracture. In penetration cases, the FSP broke the fractured conoid of the skull simulant in smaller pieces and penetrated into the brain simulant. Interestingly, for the cases of non-penetration into the brain simulant, the brain simulant was damaged due to the moving conoid of the skull simulant.

Conclusion

The results demonstrated that V50 and E50/A were influenced by the size of the FSP. For the investigated fragments, 15–25 J of energy was sufficient to cause various degrees of penetration into the brain simulant. All three layers of the head surrogate failed by distinguished mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

"Most of the data is provided in the paper. Any additional data can be made available on a reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Change history

References

  1. Breeze J, Powers D (2017) Ballistic Trauma, Springer

  2. Champion HR, Bellamy RF, Roberts CP, Leppaniemi A (2003) A profile of combat injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 54:S13–S19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Breeze J, Clasper JC (2013) Determining the velocity required for skin perforation by fragment simulating projectiles: a systematic review. BMJ Military Health 159:265–270

    Google Scholar 

  4. Regasa LE, Kaplan DA, Martin EMM, Langbein J, Johnson F, Chase LC (2018) Mortality Following Hospital Admission for US Active Duty Service Members Diagnosed With Penetrating Traumatic Brain Injury, 2004–2014. J Head Trauma Rehabil 33:123–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowyer G, Cooper G, Rice P (1995) Management of small fragment wounds in war: current research. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 77:131

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carr DJ, Lewis E, Horsfall I (2017) A systematic review of military head injuries. BMJ Military Health 163:13–19

    Google Scholar 

  7. Breeze J, Carr DJ (2016) Energised Fragments, Bullets and Fragment Simulating Projectiles, in: Blast Injury Science and Engineering, Springer, pp. 219–226

  8. Hill P, Edwards D, Bowyer GW (2001) Small fragment wounds: biophysics, pathophysiology and principles of management. BMJ Military Health 147:41–51

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mahoney P, Carr D, Arm R, Gibb I, Hunt N, Delaney RJ (2018) Ballistic impacts on an anatomically correct synthetic skull with a surrogate skin/soft tissue layer. Int J Legal Med 132:519–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Oehmichen M, Meissner C, König H, Gehl H-B (2004) Gunshot injuries to the head and brain caused by low-velocity handguns and rifles: a review. Forensic Sci Int 146:111–120

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mahoney PF, Carr D, Delaney R, Hunt N, Harrison S, Breeze J, Gibb I (2017) Does preliminary optimisation of an anatomically correct skull-brain model using simple simulants produce clinically realistic ballistic injury fracture patterns? Int J Legal Med 131:1043–1053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carr D, Lindstrom A-C, Jareborg A, Champion S, Waddell N, Miller D, Teagle M, Horsfall I, Kieser J (2015) Development of a skull/brain model for military wound ballistics studies. Int J Legal Med 129:505–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thali M, Kneubuehl B, Dirnhofer R, Zollinger U (2002) The dynamic development of the muzzle imprint by contact gunshot: high-speed documentation utilizing the “skin–skull–brain model.” Forensic Sci Int 127:168–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Riva F, Lombardo P, Zech W-D, Jackowski C, Schyma C (2019) Individual synthetic head models in wound ballistics—a feasibility study based on real cases. Forensic Sci Int 294:150–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sterzik V, Kneubuehl BP, Bohnert M, Riva F, Glardon M (2017) Bullet fragmentation preceding a contour shot: case study and experimental simulation. Int J Legal Med 131:173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Riva F, Fracasso T, Guerra A, Genet P (2021) Practical application of synthetic head models in real ballistic cases. Int J Legal Med 135:2567–2579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Euteneuer J, Gosch A, Cachée P, Courts C (2019) Evaluation of the backspatter generation and wound profiles of an anatomically correct skull model for molecular ballistics. Int J Legal Med 133:1839–1850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Taylor SC, Ondruschka B, Kieser DC, Hammer N, Lee M, Hooper GJ, Kranioti E (2022) Ballistic trauma caused by military rifles: experimental study based on synthetic skull proxies. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 18:30–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bhatnagar A (2006) Bullets, fragments and bullet deformation, in: Lightweight ballistic composites, Elsevier, pp. 29–71

  20. Kneubuehl BP (2011) Wound ballistics: basics and applications, Springer Science & Business Media

  21. Van der Voort MM, Baker EL, Schultz E, Sharp MW (2016) Projection Criteria for Insensitive Munitions and Hazard Classification, MSIAC Report O-168

  22. Shuker ST (2019) Emergency treatment of blast, shell fragment and bullet injuries to the central midface complex. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 18:124–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Berryman HE (2019) A systematic approach to the interpretation of gunshot wound trauma to the cranium. Forensic Sci Int 301:306–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG 2920) (2003) Ballistic Test Method For Personal Armour Materials and Combat Clothing (2nd ed.), in, NATO Standardization Agency

  25. Bolduc M, Jager H (2016) Summary of Newly Ratified NATO Standard AEP 2920, Ed. A, V1, in: Personal Armour Systems Symposium PASS 2016 Proceeding Book, pp. 25–40

  26. Keene DD, Penn-Barwell J, Wood P, Hunt N, Delaney R, Clasper J, Russell R, Mahoney P (2016) Died of wounds: a mortality review. BMJ Military Health 162:355–360

    Google Scholar 

  27. Maiden N (2009) Ballistics reviews: mechanisms of bullet wound trauma. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 5:204–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Long J, Yang J, Lei Z, Liang D (2015) Simulation-based assessment for construction helmets. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 18:24–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Li Y, Fan H, Gao X-L (2022) Ballistic helmets: Recent advances in materials, protection mechanisms, performance, and head injury mitigation. Compos B Eng 109890

  30. Vakil MT, Singh AK (2017) A review of penetrating brain trauma: epidemiology, pathophysiology, imaging assessment, complications, and treatment. Emerg Radiol 24:301–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Van Wyck D, Grant G, Laskowitz D (2015) Penetrating traumatic brain injury: a review of current evaluation and management concepts. J Neurol Neurophysiol 6:336–343

    Google Scholar 

  32. Arunkumar P, Maiese A, Bolino G, Gitto L (2015) Determined to Die! Ability to Act Following Multiple Self‐inflicted Gunshot Wounds to the Head. The Cook County Office of Medical Examiner Experience (2005–2012) and Review of Literature. J Forensic Sci 60:1373–1379

  33. Panzer MB, Wood GW, Bass CR (2014) Scaling in neurotrauma: how do we apply animal experiments to people? Exp Neurol 261:120–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Breeze J, Carr DJ (2016) Physical Models: Tissue Simulants, in: Blast Injury Science and Engineering, Springer, pp. 145–153

  35. Carr DJ, Stevenson T, Mahoney PF (2018) The use of gelatine in wound ballistics research. Int J Legal Med 132:1659–1664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jussila J, Leppäniemi A, Paronen M, Kulomäki E (2005) Ballistic skin simulant. Forensic Sci Int 150:63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Breeze J, Carr DJ (2016) Energised Fragments, Bullets and Fragment Simulating Projectiles. Blast Injury Science and Engineering: A Guide for Clinicians and Researchers 219–226

  38. Chanda A, Unnikrishnan V, Flynn Z, Lackey K (2017) Experimental study on tissue phantoms to understand the effect of injury and suturing on human skin mechanical properties. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 231:80–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chanda A, Upchurch W (2018) Biomechanical modeling of wounded skin. J Compos Sci 2:69

  40. Marechal L, Balland P, Lindenroth L, Petrou F, Kontovounisios C, Bello F (2021) Toward a common framework and database of materials for soft robotics. Soft Rob 8:284–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chanda A (2018) Biomechanical modeling of human skin tissue surrogates. Biomimetics 3:18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sperrazza J, Kokinakis W (1968) Ballistic limits of tissue and clothing. Ann N Y Acad Sci 152:163–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yoganandan N, Pintar FA (1997) Biomechanics of penetrating trauma. Crit Rev™ Biomed Eng 25

  44. Mahoney PF, Carr DJ, Miller D, Teagle M (2017) The effect of helmet materials and simulated bone and tissue layers on bullet behaviour in a gelatine model of overmatch penetrating head injury. Int J Legal Med 131:1765–1776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pullen A, Kieser DC, Hooper G (2021) A study into the viability of Synbone® as a proxy for Sus scrofa (domesticus) ribs for use with 5.56-mm open tip match ammunition in ballistic testing. Int J Legal Med 135:521–526

  46. Smith MJ, James S, Pover T, Ball N, Barnetson V, Foster B, Guy C, Rickman J, Walton V (2015) Fantastic plastic? Experimental evaluation of polyurethane bone substitutes as proxies for human bone in trauma simulations, Legal Medicine 17:427–435

    Google Scholar 

  47. Żochowski P, Cegła M, Berent J, Grygoruk R, Szlązak K, Smędra A (2023) Experimental and numerical study on failure mechanisms of bone simulants subjected to projectile impact. Int J Numer Methods Biomed Eng e3687

  48. Henwood BJ, Appleby-Thomas G (2020) The suitability of Synbone® as a tissue analogue in ballistic impacts. J Mater Sci 55:3022–3033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Taylor SC, Kranioti EF (2018) Cranial trauma in handgun executions: experimental data using polyurethane proxies. Forensic Sci Int 282:157–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Brown AD, Walters J, Zhang Y, Saadatfar M, Escobedo-Diaz JP, Hazell PJ (2019) The mechanical response of commercially available bone simulants for quasi-static and dynamic loading. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 90:404–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Falland-Cheung L, Waddell JN, Li KC, Tong D, Brunton P (2017) Investigation of the elastic modulus, tensile and flexural strength of five skull simulant materials for impact testing of a forensic skin/skull/brain model. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 68:303–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hwang K, Kim JH, Baik SH (1999) The thickness of the skull in Korean adults. J Craniofac Surg 10:395–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. De Boer H, Van der Merwe A, Soerdjbalie-Maikoe V (2016) Human cranial vault thickness in a contemporary sample of 1097 autopsy cases: relation to body weight, stature, age, sex and ancestry. Int J Legal Med 130:1371–1377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Law SK (1993) Thickness and resistivity variations over the upper surface of the human skull. Brain Topogr 6:99–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ruan J, Prasad P (2001) The effects of skull thickness variations on human head dynamic impact responses, in, SAE Technical Paper

  56. Jussila J (2004) Preparing ballistic gelatine—review and proposal for a standard method. Forensic Sci Int 141:91–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Farrer AI, Odéen H, de Bever J, Coats B, Parker DL, Payne A, Christensen DA (2015) Characterization and evaluation of tissue-mimicking gelatin phantoms for use with MRgFUS. J Ther Ultrasound 3:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Breeze J, James G, Hepper A (2013) Perforation of fragment simulating projectiles into goat skin and muscle. BMJ Military Health 159:84–89

    Google Scholar 

  59. Nguyen T-TN, Meek G, Breeze J, Masouros SD (2020) Gelatine Backing affects the performance of single-layer ballistic-resistant materials against blast fragments. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 8:744

  60. Mukasey MB, Sedgwick JL, Hagy D (2008) Ballistic resistance of body armor, nij standard-0101.06. US Department of Justice (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij) 38

  61. Sutar S, Ganpule S (2020) Investigation of wave propagation through head layers with focus on understanding blast wave transmission. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 19:875–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ganpule S, Alai A, Plougonven E, Chandra N (2013) Mechanics of blast loading on the head models in the study of traumatic brain injury using experimental and computational approaches. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 12:511–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Karger B (1995) Penetrating gunshots to the head and lack of immediate incapacitation II. Review of case reports. Int J Legal Med 108:117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Rettinger G (2017) The “80 Joule criterion” reconsidered today. Forensic Sci Int 276:64–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Henderso J (2010) Lethality criteria for debris generated from accidental explosions, in, Ministry of defence London (United Kingdom)

  66. Kneubuehl BP (1994) Wound ballistics and the scientific background. Elsevier Health Sciences

  67. Tomasello K, Jacq C, Baker E, Sharp M (2019) NATO AC326 subgroup B ammunition systems design and assessment–insensitive munitions test STANAG updates. 2019 Insensitive Munitions & Energetic Materials Technology Symposium, Seville, Spain, pp 21–24

    Google Scholar 

  68. Oei Su Cheok WKJ (2005) Weapon Danger Area Variation with Incapacitation Criteria, in: DSTA horizons, Singapore : Defence Science & Technology Agency, pp. 96–101

  69. Watkins F, Pearce B, Stainer M (1988) Physical effects of the penetration of head simulants by steel spheres. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 28:S40–S54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Blackmore D (1985) Energy requirements for the penetration of heads of domestic stock and the development of a multiple projectile. Vet Rec 116:36–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kneubuehl BP, Coupland RM, Rothschild MA, Thali MJ (2011) Wound ballistics and forensic medicine, in: Wound Ballistics, Springer, pp. 253–303

  72. Serraino S, Milone L, Picone D, Argo A, Salerno S, Midiri M (2020) Imaging for ballistic trauma: other applications of forensic imaging in the living, in: Radiology in Forensic Medicine, Springer, pp. 169–180

  73. Inchingolo F, Tatullo M, Marrelli M, Inchingolo AD, Pinto G, Inchingolo AM, Dipalma G (2011) Short report of an unusual ballistic trauma. Int J Surg Case Rep 2:272–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Baptista MV, d’Ávila SC, d’Ávila AMM (2014) Histopathological detection of entry and exit holes in human skin wounds caused by firearms. J Forensic Leg Med 25:49–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Carr D, Kieser J, Mabbott A, Mott C, Champion S, Girvan E (2014) Damage to apparel layers and underlying tissue due to hand-gun bullets. Int J Legal Med 128:83–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Stefanopoulos PK, Hadjigeorgiou GF, Filippakis K, Gyftokostas D (2014) Gunshot wounds: a review of ballistics related to penetrating trauma. J Acute Dis 3:178–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Christensen AM, Rickman JM (2022) Cone cracking in human bone: A CT case review series. Forensic Imaging 200510

  78. Caister A, Carr DJ, Campbell P, Brock F, Breeze J (2020) The ballistic performance of bone when impacted by fragments. Int J Legal Med 134:1387–1393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Kieser DC, Riddell R, Kieser JA, Theis J-C, Swain MV (2014) Bone micro-fracture observations from direct impact of slow velocity projectiles. J Arch Mil Med 2

  80. Rickman JM, Shackel J (2019) Crack propagation through sandwich bones due to low-velocity projectile impact. Int J Legal Med 133:1443–1459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Sherman D (2000) Impact failure mechanisms in alumina tiles on finite thickness support and the effect of confinement. Int J Impact Eng 24:313–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Feli S, Aaleagha MA, Ahmadi Z (2010) A new analytical model of normal penetration of projectiles into the light-weight ceramic–metal targets. Int J Impact Eng 37:561–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Bresciani L, Manes A, Giglio M (2018) An analytical model for ballistic impacts against ceramic tiles. Ceram Int 44:21249–21261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Zaera R, Sánchez-Gálvez V (1998) Analytical modelling of normal and oblique ballistic impact on ceramic/metal lightweight armours. Int J Impact Eng 21:133–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Khan M, Iqbal M (2022) Failure and fragmentation of ceramic target with varying geometric configuration under ballistic impact, Ceramics International

  86. Chaudhri MM (2015) Dynamic fracture of inorganic glasses by hard spherical and conical projectiles. Philos Trans Royal Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 373:20140135

  87. Rickman JM, Shackel J (2019) A novel hypothesis for the formation of conoidal projectile wounds in sandwich bones. Int J Legal Med 133:501–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Taylor SC, Kieser DC, Hammer N, Ondruschka B, Kranioti E, Pullen A, Hooper G (2022) Viability of Bos taurus scapulae as a flat bone proxy for ballistic testing. BMJ Mil Health 168:196–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Martrille L, Symes SA (2019) Interpretation of long bones ballistic trauma. Forensic Sci Int 302:109890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Sturdivan LM, Bexon R (1981) A mathematical model of the probability of perforation of the human skull by a ballistic projectile. Chemical Systems Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

  91. Bird CE, Fleischman JM (2015) A rare case of an intact bone plug associated with a gunshot exit wound. J Forensic Sci 60:1074–1077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Thali MJ, Kneubuehl BP, Zollinger U, Dirnhofer R (2002) The “Skin–skull–brain model”: a new instrument for the study of gunshot effects. Forensic Sci Int 125:178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Mahoney PF, Carr DJ, Delaney RJ, Gibb IE (2020) Shooting through windscreens: ballistic injury assessment using a surrogate head model—two case reports. Int J Legal Med 134:1409–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Karger B, Puskas Z, Ruwald B, Teige K, Schuirer G (1998) Morphological findings in the brain after experimental gunshots using radiology, pathology and histology. Int J Legal Med 111:314–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Nguyen T-T, Breeze J, Masouros SD (2021) Penetration of Energised Metal Fragments to Porcine Thoracic Tissues. J Biomech Eng

  96. Breeze J, Sedman A, James G, Newbery T, Hepper A (2014) Determining the wounding effects of ballistic projectiles to inform future injury models: a systematic review. BMJ Military Health 160:273–278

    Google Scholar 

  97. Wen Y, Xu C, Wang S, Batra R (2015) Analysis of behind the armor ballistic trauma. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 45:11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Liu L, Fan Y, Li W (2014) Viscoelastic shock wave in ballistic gelatin behind soft body armor. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 34:199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Han R-G, Qu Y-J, Yan W-M, Qin B, Wang S, Wang J-Z (2020) Experimental study of transient pressure wave in the behind armor blunt trauma induced by different rifle bullets. Defence Technology 16:900–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Gilson L, Rabet L, Imad A, Coghe F (2020) Experimental and numerical assessment of non-penetrating impacts on a composite protection and ballistic gelatine. Int J Impact Eng 136:103417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Swain M, Kieser D, Shah S, Kieser J (2014) Projectile penetration into ballistic gelatin. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 29:385–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Pullen A, Kieser D, Hooper G (2022) Ballistic gelatin calibration standardisation. BMJ Mil Health 168:124–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Cronin D, Falzon C (2011) Characterization of 10% ballistic gelatin to evaluate temperature, aging and strain rate effects. Exp Mech 51:1197–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Pandey PK, Harmukh A, M. Kha M, Iqbal M, Ganpule S (2023) Ballistic response of skin simulant against fragment simulating projectiles. Def Technol

Download references

Acknowledgements

SG acknowledges financial support from Armaments Research Board under the grant ARMREB-ASE-2018-198.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 247667

    P. K. Pandey & S. G. Ganpule

  2. Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 247667

    S. G. Ganpule

  3. Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory, Sector 30, Chandigarh, India, 160030

    Y. K. Joshi

  4. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India, 247667

    M. K. Khan & M. A. Iqbal

Authors
  1. P. K. Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y. K. Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. K. Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. A. Iqbal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. G. Ganpule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. G. Ganpule.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figure 11(b) was replaced with the correct figure.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 8242 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pandey, P.K., Joshi, Y.K., Khan, M.K. et al. Experimental Investigation of the Ballistic Response of Head Surrogate Against Fragment Simulating Projectiles. Exp Mech 64, 85–104 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-023-01010-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-023-01010-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation