ArticlePloS one2018
Effective testing of personal protective equipment in blast loading conditions in shock tube: Comparison of three different testing locations.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of explosively driven shock tube and open-air blast wave propagation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Twenty Years of Blast-Induced Neurotrauma: Current State of Knowledge.Neurotrauma reports · 2024Article
- An investigation on the energy absorption characteristics of a multi-cell hexagonal tube under axial crushing loads.PloS one · 2020Article
- Sensor orientation and other factors which increase the blast overpressure reporting errors.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We exposed a headform instrumented with 10 pressure sensors mounted flush with the surface to a shock wave with three nominal intensities: 70, 140 and 210 kPa. The headform was mounted on a Hybrid III neck, in a rigid configuration to eliminate motion and associated pressure variations. We evaluated the effect of the test location by placing the headform inside, at the end and outside of the shock tube. The shock wave intensity gradually decreases the further it travels in the shock tube and the end effect degrades shock wave characteristics, which makes comparison of the results obtained at three locations a difficult task. To resolve these issues, we developed a simple strategy of data reduction: the respective pressure parameters recorded by headform sensors were divided by their equivalents associated with the incident shock wave. As a result, we obtained a comprehensive set of non-dimensional parameters. These non-dimensional parameters (or amplification factors) allow for direct comparison of pressure waveform characteristic parameters generated by a range of incident shock waves differing in intensity and for the headform located in different locations. Using this approach, we found a correlation function which allows prediction of the peak pressure on the headform that depends only on the peak pressure of the incident shock wave (for specific sensor location on the headform), and itis independent on the headform location. We also found a similar relationship for the rise time. However, for the duration and impulse, comparable correlation functions do not exist. These findings using a headform with simplified geometry are baseline values and address a need for the development of standardized parameters for the evaluation of personal protective equipment (PPE) under shock wave loading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.