Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 129, Issue 3, pp 505–510 | Cite as

Development of a skull/brain model for military wound ballistics studies

  • Debra CarrEmail author
  • Anne-Christine Lindstrom
  • Andreas Jareborg
  • Stephen Champion
  • Neil Waddell
  • David Miller
  • Michael Teagle
  • Ian Horsfall
  • Jules Kieser
Original Article

Abstract

Reports on penetrating ballistic head injuries in the literature are dominated by case studies of suicides; the penetrating ammunition usually being .22 rimfire or shotgun. The dominating cause of injuries in modern warfare is fragmentation and hence, this is the primary threat that military helmets protect the brain from. When helmets are perforated, this is usually by bullets. In combat, 20 % of penetrating injuries occur to the head and its wounding accounts for 50 % of combat deaths. A number of head simulants are described in the academic literature, in ballistic test methods for helmets (including measurement of behind helmet blunt trauma, BHBT) and in the ‘open’ and ‘closed’ government literature of several nations. The majority of these models are not anatomically correct and are not assessed with high-velocity rifle ammunition. In this article, an anatomically correct ‘skull’ (manufactured from polyurethane) and ‘brain’ (manufactured from 10 %, by mass, gelatine) model for use in military wound ballistic studies is described. Filling the cranium completely with gelatine resulted in a similar ‘skull’ fracture pattern as an anatomically correct ‘brain’ combined with a representation of cerebrospinal fluid. In particular, posterior cranial fossa and occipital fractures and brain ejection were observed. This pattern of injury compared favourably to reported case studies of actual incidents in the literature.

Keywords

Helmet High velocity Bullet Rifle Penetrating 

Notes

Acknowledgments

A-CL acknowledges an equipment grant from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Miss E. Girvan (Otago Centre for Electron Microscopy) assisted with the EDS analysis. This work was internally funded by The Impact and Armour Group at Cranfield University.

References

  1. 1.
    Karger B (1995) Penetrating gunshots to the head and lack of immediate incapacitation I. Wound ballistics and mechanisms of incapacitaton. Int J Legal Med 108:53–61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fenton TW, Stefan VH, Wood LA, Sauer NJ (2005) Symmetrical fracturing of the skull from midline contact gunshot wounds: reconstruction of individual death histories from skeletonized human remains. J Forensic Sci 50(2):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 125:178–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lieske K, Janssen W, Kulle K-J (1991) Intensive gunshot residues at the exit wound: and examination using a head model. Int J Legal Med 104:235–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kieser DC, Carr DJ, Girvan L, Leclair SCJ, Horsfall I, Theis J-C, Swain MV JAK (2013) Identifying the source of bullet wipe—a randomised blind trial. Int J Legal Med. doi: 10.1007/s00414-013-0874-z Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baxter D, Wilson M (2012) The fundamentals of head injury. Neurosurgery 30(3):116–121Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardman JM, Manoukian A (2002) Pathology of head trauma. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 12(2):175–187, viiCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chitnavis JP, Gibbons CLMH, Hirigoyen M, Lloyd Parry J, Simpson AHRW (1996) Accidents with horses: what has changed in 20 years? Injury. Int J Care Injur 27(2):103–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macnab AJ, Smith T, Gagnon FA, Macnab M (2002) Effect of helmet wear on the incidence of head/face and cervical spine injuries in young skiers and snowboarders. Injur Prev 8(4):324–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siu TLT, Chandran KN, Newcombe RL, Fuller JW, Pik JHT (2004) Snow sports related head and spinal injuries: an eight-year survey from the neurotrauma centre for the Snowy Mountains, Australia. J Clin Neurosci 11(3):236–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones SJ, Lyons RA, Evans R, Newcombe RG, Nash P, McCabe M, Palmer SR (2004) Effectiveness of rugby headgear in preventing soft tissue injuries to the head: a case–control and video cohort study. Br J Sports Med 38(2):159–162CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bond GR, Christoph RA, Rodgers BM (1995) Pediatric equestrian injuries: assessing the impact of helmet use. Pediatrics 95(4):487–489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lim J, Puttaswamy V, Gizzi M, Christie L, Croker W, Crowe P (2003) Pattern of equestrian injuries presenting to a Sydney teaching hospital. Aust N Z J Surg 73(8):567–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCrory P (2002) The role of helmets in skiing and snowboarding. Br J Sports Med 36(5):314CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carey ME (1987) Learning from traditional combat mortality and morbidity data used in the evaluation of combat medical care. Mil Med 152(1):6–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Breeze J, Gibbons AJ, Shieff C, Banfield G, Bryant DG, Midwinter MJ (2011) Combat-related craniofacial and cervical injuries: a 5-year review from the British military. J Trauma Injur Infect Crit Care 71(1):108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spalding TJW, Stewart MPM, Tulloch DN, Stephens KM (1991) Penetrating missile injuries in the Gulf war 1991. Br J Surg 78:1102–1104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eskridge SL, Macera CA, Galarneau MR, Holbrrok TL, Woodruff SI, MacGregor AJ, Morton D, Sahaffer RA (2012) Injuries from combat explosions in Iraq: injury type, location, and severity. Injury 43(1678–1682)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewis EA Between Iraq and a hard plate: recent developments in UK military personal armour. In: IPAC (ed) Personal Armour Systems Symposium 2006 (PASS2006), The Royal Armouries, Leeds, UK, 18–22 September 2006Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schyma C, Greschus S, Urbach H, Madea B (2012) Combined radio-colour contrast in the examination of ballistic head models. Int J Legal Med 126:607–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Watkins FP, Pearce BP, Stainer MC (1988) Physical effects of the penetration of head simulants by steel spheres. J Trauma 28(1 Supplement):S40–S54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Betz P, Steiefel D, Hausmann R, Eisenmenger W (1997) Fractures at the base of the skull in gunshots to the head. Forensic Sci Int 86:155–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hejna P, Safr M, Zatopkova L (2011) Reconstruction of devastating head injuries: a useful method in forensic pathology. Int J Legal Med 125:587–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barber TW, Brockway JA, Higgins LS (1970) The density of tissues in and about the head. Acta Neurol Scand 46(1):85–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jussila J (2004) Preparing ballistic gelatine—review and proposal for a standard method. Forensic Sci Int 141:91–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mabbott A, Carr DJ, Champion S, Malbon C, C T Comparison of 10 % gelatine, 20 % gelatine and Perma-Gel for ballistic testing. In: International Symposium on Ballistics, Freiberg, Germany, 22–26 April 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debra Carr
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anne-Christine Lindstrom
    • 2
  • Andreas Jareborg
    • 2
  • Stephen Champion
    • 3
  • Neil Waddell
    • 2
  • David Miller
    • 1
  • Michael Teagle
    • 1
  • Ian Horsfall
    • 1
  • Jules Kieser
    • 2
  1. 1.Impact and Armour Group, Centre for Defence Engineering, Cranfield Defence and SecurityCranfield University, Defence Academy of the United KingdomWiltshireUK
  2. 2.Sir John Walsh Research Institute, University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Weapons and Vehicle Systems Group, Centre for Defence Engineering, Cranfield Defence and SecurityCranfield University, Defence Academy of the United KingdomWiltshireUK

Personalised recommendations