Abstract
Introduction
Synthetic skin simulants are used both in wound ballistics and forensic investigations and should display similar mechanical properties to human tissue and therefore need to be validated. It is recognised that skin simulants may have a significantly different performance when different backing combinations are used; therefore, it is essential to specify and control the backing material. Roebuck 1518 synthetic chamois (RBK) backed by 20% ballistic gelatin has been validated as a suitable skin simulant; this study looks at validating the RBK simulant when backed by 10% ballistic gelatin.
Methods
Two layers of RBK synthetic chamois backed by calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin were placed onto the long face of the block and secured. Steel spheres with various sectional densities were fired using a custom-made gas gun to determine the V50 of the simulants and compared with the predicted V50.
Results
The results demonstrate that for a sectional density between 2.1 and 6.6 g/cm2, the skin simulants backed by 10% gelatin are within the 35% error bounds predicted by James’ patent equation. All samples had a close fit to the regression line (R2 = 0.9738), and a Spearman rho test indicates that there is a “strong” negative correlation between sectional density and the V50 (Rs =− 0.957, p = 0.00).
Conclusions
This validation study confirms that RBK synthetic simulant backed by 10% gelatin is a suitable skin simulant when testing non-deforming projectiles with sectional densities ranging from 2.1 to 6.6 g/cm2. A predictive trend line also indicates that the skin simulant is suitable for non-deforming projectiles with sectional densities ranging from 0.6 to 20 g/cm2 although this needs to be confirmed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Kneubuehl B (2011) Wound ballistics: basics and applications
Breeze J, James G, Hepper A (2013) Perforation of fragment simulating projectiles into goat skin and muscle. J R Army Med Corps 159(2):84–89
James G (2013) Skin and tissue simulant. GB Patent, 21 November 2013
Haag L, Haag M (2002) Skin perforation and skin simulants. ATFE 34(3)
Mah J, Anctil B, Keown M (2019) Damage caused by soil debris ejected from buried anti-personnel mines
Guha RA, Shear NH, Papini M (2010) Ballistic impact of single particles into gelatin: experiments and modeling with application to transdermal pharmaceutical delivery. J Biomech Eng 132(10):101003. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4002428
Jussila J, Leppaniemi A, Paronen M, Kulomaki E (2005) Ballistic skin simulant. Forensic Sci Int 150(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.06.039
Koene L, Id-Boufker F, Papy A (2008) Kinetic non-lethal weapons. In pp 9-24
Whittle K, Kieser J, Ichim I, Swain M, Waddell N, Livingstone V, Taylor M (2008) The biomechanical modelling of non-ballistic skin wounding: blunt-force injury. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 4(1):33–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12024-007-0029-y
Shergold OA, Fleck NA (2005) Experimental investigation into the deep penetration of soft solids by sharp and blunt punches, with application to the piercing of skin. J Biomech Eng 127(5):838–848. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1992528
Ankersen J, Birkbeck AE, Thomson RD, Vanezis P (1999) Puncture resistance and tensile strength of skin simulants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med 213(6):493–501. https://doi.org/10.1243/0954411991535103
Falland-Cheung L, Pittar N, Tong D, Waddell JN (2015) Investigation of dental materials as skin simulants for forensic skin/skull/brain model impact testing. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 11(4):552–557
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
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(2):519–530
Fenton L, Horsfall I, Carr D (2018) Skin and skin simulants. Aust J Forensic Sci:1–11
DTA (2019) Technical instructions: manufacture of ballistic gelatin. Defence Technology Agency
Pullen A, Kieser DC, Hooper G (2020) Ballistic gelatin calibration standardisation. BMJ Military Health:bmjmilitary-2020-001430. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmilitary-2020-001430
NATO (2016) AEP2920: classification of personnel armour, version 2
Code availability
Not applicable
Funding
The project was funded by the New Zealand Defence Force.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Amy Pullen developed concept and methodology and carried out the trials and analysis. David Kieser and Gary Hooper supervised the work, verified the analytical methods and reviewed the results. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Amy Pullen, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was not needed as no human or animal subjects were involved. Ballistic gelatin is commercially available.
Informed consent
Not applicable
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pullen, A., Kieser, D.C. & Hooper, G. Validation of Roebuck 1518 synthetic chamois as a skin simulant when backed by 10% gelatin. Int J Legal Med 135, 909–912 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-020-02408-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-020-02408-8