4.6 Article

Comparison of ballistic impact effects between biological tissue and gelatin

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.11.033

Keywords

Gelatin; Muscle; Simulant; Penetration; Energy transfer; Temporary cavity

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11772303]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Material Evidence Identification Center of the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China [2017JB024]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gelatin is commonly used in ballistic testing as substitute for biological tissue. Comparison of ballistic impact effects produced in the gelatin and living tissue is lacking. The work in this paper was aimed to compare the typical ballistic impact effects (penetration trajectory, energy transfer, temporary cavity) caused by 4.8 mm steel ball penetrating the 60 kg porcine hind limbs and 10 wt% gelatin. The impact event in the biological tissue was recorded by high speed flash X-ray machine at different delay time, while the event in the gelatin continuously recorded by high speed video was compared to that in the biological tissue. The collected results clearly displayed that the ballistic impact effects in the muscle and gelatin were similar for the steel ball test; as for instance, the projectile trajectory in the two targets was basically similar, the process of energy transfer was highly coincident, and the expansion of temporary cavity followed the same pattern. This study fully demonstrated that choosing gelatin as muscle simulant was reasonable. However, the maximum temporary cavity diameter in the gelatin was a little larger than that in the muscle, and the expansion period of temporary cavity was longer in the gelatin. Additionally, the temporary cavity collapse process in the two targets followed different patterns, and the collapse period in the gelatin was two times as long as that in the muscle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available