Home

Table of Contents

XXXX VM15
19th International Symposium of Ballistics, 711 May 2001, Interlaken, Switzerland

A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF PERSONNEL INCAPACITATION METHODOLOGIES G.E. Romanczuk1, E.G. Davis2 , E.W. Crow1 and D.N. Neades2
1 U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Command, AMSAM-RD-SS-AA, Redstone Arsenal,

AL 35899, USA
2 U.S. Army Research Laboratory, AMSRL-SL-BE, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

MD 21005, USA

Currently, there is a renewed interest in calculating Probability of Incapacitation, Pi, for use in combat soldier vulnerability/lethality (V/L) studies. P(I/H) or more correctly E(I/H), expected value of incapacitation, has been computed historically utilizing a wide variety of methods This paper will present an overview of several currently used and newly developed methodologies utilized to estimate soldier probability of incapacitation level (given a hit) resulting from a ballistic projectile penetrating injury. Incapacitation modeling methods presented include the Sperrazza-Kokinakis approach, the Ballistic Dose Model, the ComputerMan Model, and the newly developed Operational Requirement-based Casualty Assessment (ORCA) Model. Methodologies and approaches will be compared and contrasted, as appropriate, and model users inputs and outputs will be illustrated. Additionally, IncapMan, a newly developed analysis tool, that outputs estimates from several Incapacitation methods is presented. IncapMan will serve as a point of departure for the current discussions of which methodology should be utilized to analyze and evaluate Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) environments and which methodology should be utilized and incorporated into current component level vulnerability tools.

INTRODUCTION
Throughout the history of man, there has been a continuing struggle to understand and harness or retard the ability of ballistic objects to cause harm, kill, or incapacitate. Any item having sufficient kinetic energy can cause insult or injury to a person. This paper will focus on injury that is caused by ballistic objects or fragment that perforate or penetrate into a person. This paper will not look at injuries caused by large objects moving slowly or other blunt traumas, however, new tools to add these effects into the calculation of incapacitation will be discussed. As late as the early 1980s, a common criterion was referenced in regard to the definition of a hazardous fragment. The definition included a level of kinetic energy that the fragment must possess in order to be hazardous. This limit was set at 58 foot-pounds and attributed to H. Rohne.[1] This estimate of the amount of kinetic energy required to make a fragment hazardous or lethal neglects to link the energy

993

Home

Table of Contents

Vulnerability Modeling & Wound Ballistics

to a specific impact point on the body. Neades and Rudolph trace the early works of Rohne and latter works of Sterne and Dziemian [2] and conclude, Indeed, penetrating injury research shows that lethal injuries can occur at impact kinetic energy levels significantly less than 58 ft-lbs. Without giving additional consideration to other parameters such as missile shape, size, mass, and possibly impact location, energy based hazard assessments can be misleading. This statement is also true for weapons systems antipersonnel effects analysis. The model methodologies described in this paper, while representing different approaches, often have their underpinnings on the same, or nearly the same, underlying large set of experimental data. Figure 1, illustrates the use of 20% (NATO standard) ordinance gelatin in a long block as simulant for human tissue in small arms ballistic Figure 1 Wound track in simulated tissue testing. It is important to understand the as- [3]. sumptions and definitions in each model. Over the years, casual reference has caused an obfuscation of the underlying limitations and definitions inherent in these engineering models. Indeed, the reader should be aware of exactly how each model arrives at a Probability. Contemporary U.S. vulnerability analysts prefer E(I/H) to specifically acknowledge that the values computed are expected values and not statistical probabilities. The following sections will describe the incapacitation modeling methods of interest, specifically the Sperrazza-Kokinakis approach, the Ballistic Dose Model, the ComputerMan Model, and the newly developed ORCA Model. It is not intended to criticize or discredit any of the particular methods, but to assist in furthering understanding of the models, all in one paper. It is important for vulnerability and survivability analysts to understand the basic assumptions of each model to assure reasonable or appropriate applications of these models.

INCAPACITATION METHODOLOGIES Sperrazza-Kokinakis MV3/2 Model

In 1965, William Kokinakis and Joseph Sperrazza published U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Report Number BRL-1269, which describes their methodology for estimating soldier incapacitation. [4] The Kokinakis and Sperrazza methodology has been the most commonly used method in past works and it is often cited as the personnel incapacitation method source. This report, as well as other documents that are superseded by BRL Report No. 1269, establish the coefficients, and the model by which an estimate of probability of incapacitation, Pi/h or Phk can be calculated. This term and the definition of incapacitation that is established in BRL 1269 is an important element in the next model, Ballistic Dose, and will be visited in the discussion in the next section.

994

Home

Table of Contents

A Comparative Evaluation of Personnel Incapacitation Methodologies

Phk = Pi / h = 1 e

a(mv o 3 / 2 b)

(1)

The dependence of Phk, (Pi/h) established in BRL Report 1269, on weight (m) and striking velocity (Vo) for steel fragments was fitted by equation. (1) The coefficients for a, b, and n were derived for four combat tactical roles (i.e., assault, defense, reserve, and supply) and six post wounding times (e.g., 30 sec., 5 min., 30 min., 12 hrs., 24 hrs., and 5 days). The application of these roles can be somewhat arbitrary and, in general, assault is utilized. Also, included were tables that transformed the data from a nude soldier to a soldier with helmet and winter type clothing. This is an important fact in regards to implementation of this methodology in V/L codes, the a,b,& ns should be checked to determine if they are from the nude soldier or the velocity retarded winter clothing coefficients. Also, unpublished modifications that expand the mathematical coefficients use beyond those listed in BRL Report 1269 have been found coded have been developed and coded into common V/L tools. While the methodology is the same, the Phk value computed may vary. In fact, the 3/2 exponent is originally introduced as a value which is set to 3/2 from the analysis of the whole body and assumed to be correct for each body part. Figure 2 shows a typical plot of the data for one role and post wounding time. Various values of Pi have been calculated for a range of velocities and a variety of masses. These curves show the general form that the Sperrazza-Kokinakis method will produce. In developing the relationship and correlations found above, Sperrazza and Kokinakis related specific wound class information to task performance of the soldier, which in this case was arbitrarily related to behavior of the limbs. [4] In order to limit errors induced by the subjective medical evaluation terminology only the anatomical component which yields the highest incapacitation potential was utilized. Kokinakis and Sperrazza acknowledged that the value computed, Phk, is in fact Figure 2 Sample S-K data. an average level of incapacitation and not a true probability. Also, they assumed that the equation, which fit the data for the body as a whole, could be utilized to analyze the major body regions described in the methodology (i.e., entire body, head&neck, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, arms, and legs).
SK thorax
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
Pi

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

0 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

velocity (ft/sec) 50

10

30

1 00

200

Ballistic Dose
The concept of Ballistic Dose and its complete theoretical foundation can be found in a current Army Research Laboratory report. [5] This intriguing work attempts to provide a methodology which can provide an incapacitation or survival probability for situations

995

Home

Table of Contents

Vulnerability Modeling & Wound Ballistics

when precise anatomical impact location is not known or is not relevant. In essence, the methodology utilizes the ComputerMan wound ballistics model, described in the next section, as a virtual experiment. If you assume the correctness of the answers from ComputerMan and its methodology, then repeated tests can be performed against different body sections. After the tests are completed an equation can be formulated based upon the variables thought to influence Pi/h. Using this concept and multiple regression it is possible to create a formula for a ballistic dose that is dependent on mass velocity, and the number of impacts. Equation 2 shows the general form of the overall relation and Equation 3 show the formulation for the ballistic dose as a function of mass, velocity and number of impacts.

P ( m ,v, n) = 1 e
I

(m , v, n)

(2) (3)

( m, v, n ) = e a m b v c n d

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a typical set of curves from the ballistic dose methodology. Figure 3 is a plot of a single hit of the masses and velocity indicated on the abdomen. Figure 4 illustrates the change when the number of hits is incremented by one. Similar to the Sperrazza-Kokinakis generalized methodology, the Ballistic Dose Model is a generalized approach that summarizes the results obtained from the discreet event ComputerMan wound ballistics model.
BD Abdomen
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
Pi

BD Abdomen
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

Pi

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 velocity (ft/sec) 10 30 50 100 200 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 velocity ( ft/sec) 10 30 50 100 200 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Figure 3 B. Dose for one impact.

Figure 4 B. Dose for two impacts.

ComputerMan
ComputerMan, originally developed by V. R. Clare and colleagues [6] of the Wound Ballistics Division, U.S. Army Chemical Systems Laboratory, is an automated wound ballistics methodology to predict biomechanical degradation to personnel who suffer penetrating injuries due to fragment impacts. Single or multiple Figure 5 The ComputerMan GUI.

996

Home

Table of Contents

A Comparative Evaluation of Personnel Incapacitation Methodologies

fragments of different mass, velocity, shape factor, and density can cause injuries. Degradation in ComputerMan is determined along wound paths by computing depth of penetration and hole size created and estimating its effect on limb (arms and legs) dysfunction. A major feature of the ComputerMan methodology is the computerized whole body Anatomy of a standing man. This data is represented in 5 mm x 5 mm cells and 12 mm and 26 mm cross sections. The Anatomy data was primarily based upon Eycleshymer and Schoemaker [7] 1911 cross sectional anatomy. In 1994, numerous computer-coding enhancements were incorporated into the ComputerMan Model by Saucier and Kash. [7] Expanding the ComputerMan anatomical description to 290 different tissue types was just one of the numerous enhancements. In contrast to the two previous methodologies, ComputerMan is intended to be a high-resolution simulation of the results of a particular wounding event. Wounding events can then be evaluated to determine incapacitation or biomechanical degradation or predict survival probability. Evaluations can be obtained using the code or developed with additional tools that are included in the ComputerMan system. Figure 5 shows the main GUI for ComputerMan. The crouching man body posture is shown. User inputs for mass, velocity, shape factor, and density are required to define the fragment. The analyst/user defines the projectile trajectory wound path via left and right mouse input on the graphical figure. Figure 6, shows output for a typical ComputerMan test case. This output shows that for the theoretical combat assault role this particular wound does not have an effect until after 5 minutes after the wound. Therefore, the incapacitation level would be set at 0 for the five-minute assault role. This value is set using the concept of limb dysfunction. There are three potential states for each limb in this method. N is no effect on limb, F is Loss of Fine muscular coordination or weakness, and T is Total loss of limb function. These states are used to determine 81 possible combinations for the four limbs. This value ranges between 0 and 100 by multiples of 25 and it is a mathematical combination value that is output by the ComputerMan model as Figure 6 ComputerMan a level of incapacitation. output.

PiMan
Mr. Chris Pitts and the primary author, while working at the Research Institute at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, created the PiMan tool. It was a first attempt to calculate the methodologies being discussed in one code. PiMan was coded for SGIs & Windows PCs with the Windows versions using the MFC class libraries. PiMan works much the same way as the ComputerMan GUI version based on a single shotline derived from user interaction. It Figure 6 PiMan output di- was found during its use that to compare all three methodologies, a multiple impact pattern was required so that alog.

997

Home

Table of Contents

Vulnerability Modeling & Wound Ballistics

averages over random fragment paths could be used and give a true comparison. [8] Figure 7 shows the PiMan interface.

IncapMan
This tool builds on the PiMan work and will serve as the basis for integration of all methods into the 3DPimms personnel incapacitation suite. It is coded in Python and uses the Prospect toolkit from Envisage, Inc. In support of the Integrated Casualty Figure 8 The IncapMan environment. Estimation Methodology (ICEM) new representations of men in several postures were created from the bounding box information in ComputerMan. The new models use Truncated General Cones (TGCs) to enclose the Anatomy information described above. It is this information and model that is critical to tie into ComputerMan or Orca and get the correct Incapacitation value. These new TGC men allow an obliquity calculation for fabric armor models to be conducted. IncapMan will serve as a method to explore multiple hits on multiple people in vehicles hit by spall or on open terrain from bursting munitions. Figure 8 shows the user interface with a crouching TGC man.

The Operational Requirement-based Casualty Assessment (ORCA) Model

To address known limitations, short falls, and lack of a comprehensive standardized operational casualty assessment methodology, a new methodology has been developed for tri-service use that allows the assessment of soldier performance following weapon induced injury. This new methodology is embodied in the Operational Requirement-based Casualty Assessment (ORCA) Model. [9] ORCA development was initiated in 1993 and was jointly Figure 9 ORCA overview. sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, the Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness and Aircraft Survivability (JTCG/ME&AS), and the U.S. Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD). Presently, the ORCA Model is undergoing validation and verification (V&V) for use in various systems vulnerability modeling environments. The ORCA Model permits casualty assessments in a consistent manner across virtually all types of military platforms, jobs, and weapon-induced threats. That is, unlike

998

Home

Table of Contents

A Comparative Evaluation of Personnel Incapacitation Methodologies

Sperrazza-Kokinakis, Ballistic-Dose, and the ComputerMan Models, which are limited to casualty assessments related to fragOperational Requir ement -based ments only, the ORCA Model permits caCasual y t Assessme (O nt RCA) sualty assessment across the spectrum of Ballisti Dose c Casualt y potential battlefield threats, including fragCompute rMan Correlati n o Curves EKE ments, bullets, flechettes, blast, burn/therHighResol tion u MV Computer Human ized VulnerabiityModel l s mal, toxic gases, and laser insults. Included MV/A 58 Ft-Lb in the ORCA Modeling Methodology, in1906 1950 1956 1970 1978 1996 1998 sults to injuries are characterized, as are inDate of Ini Availability tial juries to impairments, and finally impairments to soldier operational performance Figure 10 Evolution to ORCA. degradation, referred to as operational casualties. Figures 9 & 10 show an overview and the evolution of the ORCA methodology, respectively. Unlike the ComputerMan Model which estimates military task performance degradation based on non-specifically defined limb requirements, ORCA characterizes the injurious effect on 24 explicitly defined elemental capabilities related to vision, auditory, mental/cognitive, vocal, physical, and endurance functioning. Analysis can be conducted for one or more simultaneous or sequential occurring events, and for one or more battlefield threat types. Service member jobs are characterized into tasks and sub-tasks, which in turn have been explicitly characterized by using the same 24 elemental capability vectors, which are used for characterizing the initial injuries. Additionally, ORCA provides estimates of soldier survivability via two Abbreviated Injury Scale-based[10] injury severity summary scores, namely the Injury Severity Score (ISS) [11] and the Anatomic Profile (AP) [12]. ORCA or ORCA modules/functions/libraries are presently being evaluated and incorporated into larger Army vulnerability and survivability assessment computer codes.
bulles t directed fragments chemicals energy shock blas t flechettes flame

Level of Sophistication

fragments

bulles t

flechettes

1.5

fragments

3DPIMMS AND FUTURE PERSONNEL TOOLS

A methodology has been written about in previous publications [13] that creates a simulation to evaluate MOUT weapons with a call to ComputerMan for determination of incapacitation. This methodology (3DPimms) is currently approved for evaluations of Multi-Purpose Individual Munition/Short Range Assault Weapon (MPIM/SRAW) versus bunkers and Figure 11 3DPimms methodology. rooms. Additional, current AMCOM work involves implementing a process to create the inputs for battlefield blast insults that will allow a link to the ORCA blast modules/functions. Also, in the future, it is planned that the ORCA functions/libraries for

999

Home

Table of Contents

Vulnerability Modeling & Wound Ballistics

fragmenting injury calculations will replace the ComputerMan functions when these become available. With the same approach and using available raytrace methods inside of Virtual Reality toolkits, personnel lethality and survivability can be extended to all manner of virtual prototypes. This includes studies for up armoring or designing new body armor, or dismounted infantry distributed simulation environments. Figure 11, shows a visualization of a faceted man with impact points established inside one such package. The ProspectV2 environment from Envisage, Inc. (Huntsville, AL) has a suitable raytrace tool and is designed for real-time visual simulation. Currently, a ray or rays can impact representations of soldiers modeled in the ComputerMan coordinate system. These impact points can be used as input to a casualty analysis directly using ComputerMan or ORCA libraries. This ability and updated geometry should lead to new capabilities for future combat casualty codes as they transition to this type of detailed wound ballistics integrated approach.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper has explored the various methodologies that are available to estimate and compute soldier incapacitation from penetrating injuries. The traditional generalized approach; Sperrazza-Kokinakis has been examined and compared to the more recent methodology that yields an incapacitation metric average per anatomical body region. Both of these methodologies have been examined with regard to the discreet event approaches, namely the ComputerMan and ORCA Models. ORCA extends the ComputerMan approach for penetrating injuries to look at the total effect of the wound on the elemental capability vector of a person attempting to perform a combat operational function instead of four body limbs. Hopefully, as new requirements are written for weapons systems that require lethality against personnel, the requirements will utilize the expanded definitions and detail inherent in the ORCA method. This includes incapacitation due to blast and thermal effects. This paper also indicates that viable computational options to the entrenched method, Sperrazza-Kokinakis, are available in codes utilizing ORCA/ComputerMan links when detailed information about the specific injury locations is known.

1000

Home

Table of Contents

A Comparative Evaluation of Personnel Incapacitation Methodologies

REFERENCES
1. Neades, D.N. and R. R. Rudolph, An Examination of Injury Criteria for Potential Applications to Explosive Safety Studies, ADP004 883/XAG, August 1984. 2. Sterne, T.E. and A.J. Dziemian, Provisional Probabilities of Incapacitation by a Caliber 0.30 Rifle-Bullet, Ball M-2, BRL-MR 949, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD, December 1955. 3. U.S. Army ARL Web Page, http://web.arl.mil/services/SL-Exprmnt.html, Courtesy of DERA, U.K. 4. W. Kokinakis and J. Sperrazza, Criteria for Incapacitating Soldiers with Fragments and Flechettes. BRL Report No. 1269, January 1965. 5. R. Saucier and Ada W.D. Gilman, The Concept of Ballistic Dose and Its Use as a Predictor of Personnel Incapacitation and Survivability, ARL-TR-1242, December 1996. 6. Clare, V.R., Ashman, W., Broome, P., Jameson, J., Lewis, J., Merkler, J., Mickiewicz, A., Sacco, W., Sturdivan, L., Lamb, D., Sylvanus, F., The ARRADCOM ComputerMan: An Automated Approach to Wound Ballistics. ARCSL-TR-80021, U.S. Army Chemical Systems Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, November 1980. 7. Saucier, R., Kash, H.M., III, ComputerMan Model Description, U.S. Army Research Laboratory Technical Report Number ARL-TR-500. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, APG, MD, August 1994. 8. Romanczuk, G. and C.Pitts, A Comparative Analysis of the Calculation of Probability of Incapacitation Found in Sperrazza-Kokinakis, Ballistic Dose, and ComputerMan/ORCA, Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference,Washington, D.C., April 1620, 2000. 9. Neades, D.N., Klopcic, J.T., Davis, E.G., New Methodology for the Assessment of Battlefield Insults and Injuries on the Performance of Army, Navy, and Air Force Military Tasks, In Proceedings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Research and Technology Organization (NATO/RTO), Specialists Meeting of the RTO Human Factors and Medicine Panel, Models for Aircrew Safety Assessment: Uses, Limitations, and Requirements Held at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, USA, 2628 October 1998, August 1999. 10. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), The Abbreviated Injury Scale 1985 Revision (AIS-85), Committee on Injury Scaling, Des Plaines, IL, 1985. 11. Baker, S.P., ONeill, B., Haddon, W., Long, W.B., The Injury Severity Score: A Method for Describing Patients With Multiple Injuries and Evaluating Emergency Care, Journal of Trauma, 14(3), pp. 187196, 1974. 12. Copes, W.S., Champion, H.R., Sacco, W.J., Lawnick, M.M., Progress in Characterizing Anatomic Trauma, Journal of Trauma, 30(1), pp. 12001207, 1990. 13. Romanczuk, G. et. al., 3DPIMMS High Detail Effectiveness Calculation From Collected Three-Dimensional Fragment Dispersion Data, First Biennial National Forum on Weapon System Effectiveness, Eglin Air Force Base, April 68, 1999. ** The Army Research Laboratory created ComputerMan, ORCA, Ballistic Dose, and BRL-CAD

1001

Home

Table of Contents