ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2024
Investigation of dynamic responses of skin simulant against fragment impact through experiments and concurrent computational modeling.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perforation of the skin by fragment impact is a key determinant of the severity of an injury and incapacitation during modern asymmetric warfare. Computational models validated against experimental data are thus desired for simulating the responses of a skin simulant against fragment impact. Toward this end, experiments and concurrent computational modeling were used to investigate the dynamic responses of the skin simulant against fragment impact. Fragment simulating projectiles (FSPs) of masses 1.10 g and 2.79 g were considered herein, and the responses of the skin simulant were investigated in terms of the threshold velocity, energy density, peak displacement, and failure mechanisms. The results illustrate numerous salient aspects. The skin simulant failure involved cavity shearing followed by elastic hole enlargement, and these results were sensitive to the strain rate. The best agreement between the simulated and experimental results was achieved when the input stress-strain curves to the simulation were based on the full spectrum of strain rates. When a single stress-strain curve corresponding to a specific strain rate was used as the input, the threshold velocity and peak displacement of the skin simulant were either underpredicted or overpredicted depending on the strain rate considered. The threshold velocity was also sensitive to the input failure strain; here, the best agreement was obtained when the failure strain was based on the theoretical limiting strain. When the FSP materials were changed to plastics, the threshold velocities increased by up to 33%; however, the energy densities and generated stresses exceeded the contusion and laceration thresholds of the skin.
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.