Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27603017›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Tailoring the Blast Exposure Conditions in the Shock Tube for Generating Pure, Primary Shock Waves: The End Plate Facilitates Elimination of Secondary Loading of the Specimen.

Matthew Kuriakose, Maciej Skotak, Anthony Misistia, Sudeepto Kahali, Aravind Sundaramurthy, Namas Chandra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Does Blast Exposure to the Torso Cause a Blood Surge to the Brain?Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Matthew KuriakoseCenter for Injury Biomechanics, Materials and Medicine (CIBM3), Department of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102-1982, United States of America.
Maciej SkotakCenter for Injury Biomechanics, Materials and Medicine (CIBM3), Department of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102-1982, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2584-7294
Anthony MisistiaCenter for Injury Biomechanics, Materials and Medicine (CIBM3), Department of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102-1982, United States of America.
Sudeepto KahaliCenter for Injury Biomechanics, Materials and Medicine (CIBM3), Department of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102-1982, United States of America.
Aravind SundaramurthyCenter for Injury Biomechanics, Materials and Medicine (CIBM3), Department of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102-1982, United States of America.
Namas ChandraCenter for Injury Biomechanics, Materials and Medicine (CIBM3), Department of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102-1982, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The end plate mounted at the mouth of the shock tube is a versatile and effective implement to control and mitigate the end effects. We have performed a series of measurements of incident shock wave velocities and overpressures followed by quantification of impulse values (integral of pressure in time domain) for four different end plate configurations (0.625, 2, 4 inches, and an open end). Shock wave characteristics were monitored by high response rate pressure sensors allocated in six positions along the length of 6 meters long 229 mm square cross section shock tube. Tests were performed at three shock wave intensities, which was controlled by varying the Mylar membrane thickness (0.02, 0.04 and 0.06 inch). The end reflector plate installed at the exit of the shock tube allows precise control over the intensity of reflected waves penetrating into the shock tube. At the optimized distance of the tube to end plate gap the secondary waves were entirely eliminated from the test section, which was confirmed by pressure sensor at T4 location. This is pronounced finding for implementation of pure primary blast wave animal model. These data also suggest only deep in the shock tube experimental conditions allow exposure to a single shock wave free of artifacts. Our results provide detailed insight into spatiotemporal dynamics of shock waves with Friedlander waveform generated using helium as a driver gas and propagating in the air inside medium sized tube. Diffusion of driver gas (helium) inside the shock tube was responsible for velocity increase of reflected shock waves. Numerical simulations combined with experimental data suggest the shock wave attenuation mechanism is simply the expansion of the internal pressure. In the absence of any other postulated shock wave decay mechanisms, which were not implemented in the model the agreement between theory and experimental data is excellent.

Indexed as

ExplosionsHigh-Energy Shock WavesAnimalsBlast InjuriesBrain InjuriesBrain Injuries, TraumaticDisease Models, AnimalHeliumModels, TheoreticalPressureHelium

Identifiers

PMID27603017
PMCPMC5014318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.