A presentation using BREEZE ExDAM to analyze the 7/7 London Terrorist Bombing.

1. Prepared by:
BREEZE Software
12700 Park Central Drive | Suite 2100 | Dallas, TX
75251+1 (972) 661-8881 | breeze-software.com
Analysis of the 7/7 London Terrorist
Bombing Using BREEZE ExDAM
Friedrich STEINHÄUSLER, Thomas WILFLINGER, MaximilianKIEFEL -
University of Salzburg
Presented by the University of Salzburg at the
2nd Wound Ballistics Symposium on August 20, 2013.

2. BRIDGING
Resources
and
Agencies
in
Large-­‐Scale
Emergency
Management
EU
FP7
Collabora-ve
Project
SEC-­‐2010.4.2-­‐1:
Interoperability
of
data,
systems,
tools
and
equipment
www.sec-­‐bridge.eu
USING
REAL
DATA
FOR
VALIDATION
OF
3D
INJURY
MODELLING
Defence Academy, Shrivenham
Friedrich
STEINHÄUSLER,
Thomas
WILFLINGER
and
MaximilianKIEFEL
University
of
Salzburg
(PLUS)
Department
of
Materials
Engineering
and
Physics
Division
of
Physics
and
Biophysics
Salzburg,
Austria
2
BRIDGE
Exploita-on
Mee-ng,
Shrivenham,
20
August
2013
Hasu
PATEL*
and
Steve
DRYDEN**
*St.
Bartholomew’s
and
the
Royal
London
Hospitals
**
UK
Metropolitan
Police,
London,
UK
London,
United
Kingdom

3. Topics
1. The
BRIDGE-­‐Project
2. Blast
Simula-on
3. Evalua-on
of
Simula-on-­‐Results
4. Reconstruc-on
of
Pre-­‐blast
posi-ons
Tube
Sta-ons
-­‐
Aldgate
and
Edgware
Road
5.
Modelling
results
6. Open
issues
7. Future
ac-vi-es
3

4. 4
1. The BRIDGE-project

5. 1. The BRIDGE-project
5

6. BRIDGE-Consortium
6

7. Responsibilities of the Paris-Lodron
University of Salzburg (PLUS)
7
Ø WP 3 Simulation of scenarios
Ø Setting up a Critical-Infrastructure library
Ø Validation and optimization of existing codes
Ø WP 13 Dissemination and standardisation
Ø Concept Case: Advanced Situation Awareness
Ø UAV – Flying Sensor platform
Ø Expert system
Ø Modelling package

8. Objectives:
Ø Test
of
EXDAM
-­‐
HEXDAM/VEXDAM
from
the
perspec-ve
of
an
end-­‐user
Ø Iden-fica-on
of
inherent
modelling
strengths
and
limita-ons
Ø Development
of
an
op-miza-on
method,
based
on
clinical
and
forensic
data
of
the
vic-ms
of
London
7/7
suicide
afacks
8

9. 2. Blast simulation
9

10. Methodology
Ø
Blast
simula-on
considers
first-­‐order-­‐
effects
of
a
pressure
wave
on
materials
Ø
Physical
injuries
are
expressed
as
damage
of
material
as
a
percentage
of
total
damage
10

11. Methodology (cont.)
Ø
Degree
of
damage
depends
on
the
sensi-vity
of
the
par-cular
material
Ø
Modelled
situa-on
is
sta:c,
i.e.
objects
remain
fixed
in
pre-­‐defined
loca-ons
which
excludes
an
explicit
calcula-on
of
higher-­‐
order
effects
11

12. UK – Data on injuries of victims
12
1. A
detailed
list
is
a
available
from
the
UK:
Approximately
400
injuries
of
the
blast
wave
registered
+
about
200
addi-onal,
non-­‐blast
related
injuries
2. PLUS-­‐modelling
results
predict
more
injuries
(mostly
small
injuries,
up
to
500)
3. UK
data
on
loca-on
of
foreign
body
fragments,
not
considered
in
PLUS-­‐modelling

13. UK-technical details on train materials and construction
13

14. UK-technical details on train materials and construction
14

15. UK-technical details on train materials and construction
15
Load carrying
structures preserved
Most windows
destroyed

16. PLUS-modelling of blast induced damage to train tunnel-
system
16
PLUS-modelling results:
1. Explosive amount needed
for major destruction
of tunnel structure: more than
250 kg TNT-equivalent
2. Only the signal and voltage cables
maybe damaged
by a large suitcase bomb

17. PLUS modelling on explosive amount
17
1. Amount of explosive
not exactly known by
UK-authorities
2. PLUS-simulations
most successful
assuming 0.8-1.1 kg
TNT-equivalent

18. PLUS simulations of the incident at Kings-
cross
18
1. About
50
simula-ons:
Different
loca-on
of
explosive;
changes
in
explosive
yield
2. Addi-onal
simula-ons:
Impact
of
structural
elements
3. Verifica-on
of
approximately
400
injuries
taken
from
UK
data
4. Verifica-on
of
posi-on
of
vic-ms
from
UK-­‐photography
Methodology

19. PLUS: Carriage 1 with 80 passengers
19

20. PLUS: Blast wave expansion
20

21. PLUS: Exterior blast damage to carriage
21

22. 22
Real blast damage to carriage

23. Exact Location of persons inside
23

24. PLUS: Impact on passengers at
2 m – 13 m from bomb
24

25. PLUS: Impact on passengers at
0 m – 2 m from bomb
25

26. PLUS: Total blast-induced destruction of
lower extremities
26

27. PLUS: Corroboration of impact on
passengers for various bomb sizes
27
Amount
of
explosive
Number
of
Dead
Severly
injured
Number
of
Injuries
Comments
0.5
kg
TNT
11-­‐18
20-­‐35
220-­‐285
Range
dependent
on
exact
bomb
locaPon
Most
probable
amount
of
explosives
0.8
kg
TNT
17-­‐25
24-­‐40
235-­‐300
1
kg
TNT
18-­‐27
30-­‐45
250-­‐375
1.1
kg
TNT
22-­‐28
35-­‐50
305-­‐455
1.5
kg
TNT
25-­‐32
37-­‐53
355-­‐500
2
kg
TNT
30-­‐37
41-­‐50
420-­‐585
Reality
26
41
Approx.:
400

28. Blast Simulation: Onset of explosion (Example)
28

29. Blast Simulation: Propagation of wave
(Example)
29

30. Blast Simulation: Resulting injuries (Example)
30
14%
86%
62%
33%
15%
81%
36%
23%
40%
13%
10%
93%

31. Practical Application of Results
Ø
Model
does
not
provide
any
informa-on
about
the
health
status
of
a
person
Ø
PLUS
uses
modelling
results
from
triage
category
of
vic-ms:
+
Uninjured
+
Injured
(slight,
moderate,
severe)
+
Dead
(fatal
injury)
31

32. Categorization of victims
T-­‐Status
ISS
P-­‐Status
CondiPon
T3
1-­‐9
P3
Walking
wounded
T2
10-­‐17
P2
Needs
surgery
T1
18-­‐49
P1
Seriously
Injured
T4
50-­‐74
P1
Will
unlikely
reach
hospital
alive
Dead
75
P4
Dead
32

33. 33
3. Evaluation of simulation results

34. Evaluation of simulation results
34
ExternalInternal
Upper half Lower half

35. Evaluation of simulation results
Ø
PLUS
pre-­‐defined
Injury
Categories
35
Head Neck
Chest Abdomen Upper
Ext. Lower
Ext.
internal internal upper
half upper
half
Slight 1%
-­‐
10% 1%
-­‐
55% 1%
-­‐
10% 1%
-­‐
10% 1%
-­‐
20% 1%
-­‐
20%
Moderate 11%
-­‐
20% 56%
-­‐
60% 11%
-­‐
30% 11%
-­‐
30% 21%
-­‐
50% 21%
-­‐
45%
Severe 21%
-­‐
30% 61%
-­‐
85% 31%
-­‐
50% 31%
-­‐
50% 51%
-­‐
75% 46%
-­‐
80%
Fatal 31%
-­‐
100% 86%
-­‐
100 51%
-­‐
100% 51%
-­‐
100% 76%
-­‐
100% 81%
-­‐
100%
external external lower
half lower
half
Slight 1%
-­‐
25% 1%
-­‐
25% 1%
-­‐
30% 1%
-­‐
30%
Moderate 26%
-­‐
50% 26%
-­‐
50% 31%
-­‐
60%
31%
-­‐
60%
Severe 51%
-­‐
75% 51%
-­‐
75% 61%
-­‐
100% 61%
-­‐
100%
Fatal 76%
-­‐
100% 76%
-­‐
100%
Injury
evaluation
table

36. Categorization of injuries
36
Uninjured
No
injuries
Slightly
injured
(T3)
At
least
one
slight
injury
Moderately
injured
(T2)
At
least
one
moderate
injury
Severly
injured
(T1)
At
least
one
severe
injury
Dead
At
least
three
severe
injuries
or
at
least
one
fatal
injury
A
blast
vic-m
is
defined
as:

37. Application of injury categorization to
modelling example
37
Head Neck
Chest Abdomen Upper
Ext. Lower
Ext.
inside inside inside inside
Slight 1%
-­‐
10% 1%
-­‐
55% 1%
-­‐
10% 1%
-­‐
10% 1%
-­‐
20% 1%
-­‐
20%
Moderate 11%
-­‐
20% 56%
-­‐
60% 11%
-­‐
30% 11%
-­‐
30% 21%
-­‐
50% 21%
-­‐
45%
Severe 21%
-­‐
30% 61%
-­‐
85% 31%
-­‐
50% 31%
-­‐
50% 51%
-­‐
75% 46%
-­‐
80%
Fatal 31%
-­‐
100% 86%
-­‐
100 51%
-­‐
100% 51%
-­‐
100% 76%
-­‐
100% 81%
-­‐
100%
outside outside outside outside
Slight 1%
-­‐
25% 1%
-­‐
25% 1%
-­‐
30% 1%
-­‐
30%
Moderate 26%
-­‐
50% 26%
-­‐
50% 31%
-­‐
60%
31%
-­‐
60%
Severe 51%
-­‐
75% 51%
-­‐
75% 61%
-­‐
100% 61%
-­‐
100%
Fatal 76%
-­‐
100% 76%
-­‐
100%
Injury
evaluation
table14%
62%
15%
81%
36%
40%
13%
93%

38. Sample victim: Several severe and fatal injuries
38
14%
62%
15%
81%
36%
40%
13%
93%
Significant
injuries
Result:
Deceased

39. 4. Reconstruction of pre-blast
situation:
Tube Stations Aldgate and
Edgware Road
39

40. Modelling of pre-blast situation at Aldgate
station based on forensic data
40

41. Modelling of pre-blast situation at Edgware
Road station based on forensic data
41

42. 5. Modelling Results
42
BRIDGE
Exploita-on
Mee-ng,
Shrivenham,
20
August
2013

43. Corroboration of modelling results
with clinical data
43
Person Significant
injuries
(Model) Model Reality Person Significant
injuries
(Model) Model Reality
A Chest,
Abdomen T2 T3 7 Lower
Ext T3 T3
B Uninjured Uninjured 8 Lower
Ext T3 T3
C Chest,
Abdomen T2 T3 10 Chest,
Abdomen T2 T3
D Chest,
Abdomen T2 T3 11 Lower
Ext T3 T3
E Chest,
Abdomen T2 T3 12 Chest T2 T2
F Chest,
Abdomen T2 T3 14 Chest,
Abdomen Dead Dead
G Abdomen
T2 T3 16 Chest Dead T1
H Chest T2 T2 17
Lower
Ext. T1 T1
I Chest T2 T3 18 Lower
Ext. T1 T1
J Chest Dead Dead 19 Chest,
Lower
Ext. T1 T3
K Chest Dead Dead 20 Lower
Ext T1 T3
L Chest Dead Dead 21 Chest,
Lower
Ext. T2 T3
M Chest,
Abdomen Dead Dead 22 Chest
T2 T3
N Chest Dead Dead 24 Chest
T2 T3
O Lower
Ext T1 T1 25 Chest
T2 T3
P Chest Dead Dead 26 Chest,
Abdomen T2 T3
1 Lower
Ext T3 T3 27 Neck T3 Uninjured
2 Lower
Ext T3 T3 29 Neck T3 Uninjured
3 Lower
Ext T3 T3 30 Uninjured Uninjured
4 Lower
Ext T3 T3 31 Lower
Ext T3 Uninjured
6 Lower
Ext T3 T3 32 Lower
Ext T3 T3
Aldgate

44. Corroboration of modelling results with clinical
data (cont.)
44
Person Significant
injuries
(Model) Model Reality Person Significant
injuries
(Model) Model Reality
A Chest Dead Dead 5 Chest Dead Dead
B Chest,
Abdomen Dead Dead 7 Neck,
Chest,
Abdomen,
Lower
Ext. T2 T3
C Head Dead Dead 9 Neck,
Chest,
Abdomen,
Lower
Ext. T2 T2
D Head,
Chest,
Abdomen Dead Dead 10 Chest T2 T3
E Chest,
Lower
Ext. T1 T3 11 Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3
F Chest Dead Dead 13 Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3
G Abdomen,
Upper
Ext.,
Lower
Ext. T1
or
Dead Dead 14 Neck,
Lower
Ext. T3 T3
H Neck,
Abdomen,
Upper
Ext.,
Lower
Ext. T1
or
Dead T1 15
Lower
Ext. T3 T3
I Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3 19 Neck,
Lower
Ext. T3 T3
J Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3 21 Neck,
Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3
K Lower
Ext T3 T3 22 Lower
Ext T3 T3
L Neck,
Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3 23 Neck,
Lower
Ext. T3 T3
M Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3 24 Neck,
Chest T2 T3
N Chest,
Abdomen T3 Uninjured 25 Neck,
Chest,
Lower
Ext. T2 T3
O Uninjured T3 26 Chest,
Abdomen,
Lower
Ext. T1 T1
P Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3 31 Neck,
Chest T3 T3
Q Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3 32 Lower
Ext T3 T3
1 Neck,
Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3
2 Neck,
Chest,
Abdomen T3 T3
3 Lower
Ext T1
or
T2 T2
4 Neck,
Chest,
Lower
Ext. T1
or
Dead T3
Edgware
road

45. 6. Open issues
45

46. Open issues
46
Ø Inadequate
pre-­‐defined
sensi-vi-es
in
the
HEXDAM
model:
e.g.
neck
is
oversensi-ve,
while
head
is
not
sensi-ve
enough
Ø PLUS
Evalua-on
Table
needs
to
be
adapted
aner
correc-ng
the
sensi-vi-es

47. Outliers
47
Person Significant
injuries
(Model) Model Reality
E Chest,
Lower
Ext. T1 T3
Edgware
road
Remark:
Person
E
is
iden-cal
with
person
K
by
name
!

48. Outliers
48
Remark:
Why
is
person
4
not
even
similarly
injured
like
person
3
and
person
5
?
Person Significant
injuries
(Model) Model Reality
4 Neck,
Chest,
Lower
Ext. T1
or
Dead T3
Edgware
road

49. Outliers
49
Remark:
Person
16
seems
to
be
closer
to
the
bomb
than
any
other
vic-m
Person Significant
injuries
(Model) Model Reality
16 Chest Dead T1
Aldgate

50. 50
6. Future activities

51. Future activities
1) Valida-on
using
Kings
Cross
incident
2) PhD-­‐work
for
further
valida-on
and
op-miza-on
3) Use
of
supercomputers
for
modelling
4) Building
up
of
a
Cri-cal-­‐Infrastructure
library
5) Field
experiments
for
further
valida-on
6) Using
common
language
with
medical
services
51

52. Future activities
Ad
2)
and
6):
Transla-on
of
Model
Output
(Percentage
of
damage)
into
Injury
Severity
Score
(ISS)
52

53. Main-Contact:
Friedrich.Steinhaeusler@sbg.ac.at
Further people:
Maximilian.Kiefel@sbg.ac.at
Thomas.Wilflinger@sbg.ac.at
hasu.patel@talk21.com
stevedryden@talk21.com
53

54. Acknowledgement:
to the organizers of this “Wound ballistics
symposium” here at Shrivenham
Any comments?
54

55. Learn more about
BREEZE ExDAM at
breeze-software.com/ExDAM
breeze-software.com
breeze@trinityconsultants.com
+1 (972) 661-8881