Analysis of the 7/7 London Terrorist Bombing Using BREEZE ExDAM

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.

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

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

1. The BRIDGE-project

1. The BRIDGE-project

5

BRIDGE-Consortium

6

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

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

2. Blast simulation

9

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

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

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

UK-technical details on train materials and construction

13


14


15

Load carrying structures preserved

Most windows destroyed

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

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

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

PLUS: Carriage 1 with 80 passengers

19

PLUS: Blast wave expansion

20

PLUS: Exterior blast damage to carriage

21

22

Real blast damage to carriage

Exact Location of persons inside

23

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

24

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

25

PLUS: Total blast-induced destruction of lower extremities

26

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

Blast Simulation: Onset of explosion (Example)

28

Blast Simulation: Propagation of wave (Example)

29

Blast Simulation: Resulting injuries (Example)

30

14%

86%

62%

33%

15%

81%

36%

23%

40%

13%

10%

93%

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

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

3. Evaluation of simulation results

Evaluation of simulation results

34

External Internal

Upper half Lower half

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 halfSlight 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

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:

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 outsideSlight 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%

Sample victim: Several severe and fatal injuries

38

14%

62%

15%

81%

36%

40%

13%

93%

Significant injuries

Result: Deceased

4. Reconstruction of pre-blast situation:

Tube Stations Aldgate and Edgware Road

39

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

40

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

41

5. Modelling Results

42 BRIDGE Exploita-on Mee-ng, Shrivenham, 20 August 2013

Corroboration of modelling results with clinical data

43

Person Significant injuries (Model) Model Reality Person Significant injuries (Model) Model RealityA Chest, Abdomen T2 T3 7 Lower Ext T3 T3B Uninjured Uninjured 8 Lower Ext T3 T3C Chest, Abdomen T2 T3 10 Chest, Abdomen T2 T3D Chest, Abdomen T2 T3 11 Lower Ext T3 T3E Chest, Abdomen T2 T3 12 Chest T2 T2F Chest, Abdomen T2 T3 14 Chest, Abdomen Dead DeadG Abdomen T2 T3 16 Chest Dead T1H Chest T2 T2 17 Lower Ext. T1 T1I Chest T2 T3 18 Lower Ext. T1 T1J Chest Dead Dead 19 Chest, Lower Ext. T1 T3K Chest Dead Dead 20 Lower Ext T1 T3L Chest Dead Dead 21 Chest, Lower Ext. T2 T3M Chest, Abdomen Dead Dead 22 Chest T2 T3N Chest Dead Dead 24 Chest T2 T3O Lower Ext T1 T1 25 Chest T2 T3P Chest Dead Dead 26 Chest, Abdomen T2 T31 Lower Ext T3 T3 27 Neck T3 Uninjured2 Lower Ext T3 T3 29 Neck T3 Uninjured3 Lower Ext T3 T3 30 Uninjured Uninjured4 Lower Ext T3 T3 31 Lower Ext T3 Uninjured6 Lower Ext T3 T3 32 Lower Ext T3 T3

Aldgate

Corroboration of modelling results with clinical data (cont.)

44

Person Significant injuries (Model) Model Reality Person Significant injuries (Model) Model RealityA Chest Dead Dead 5 Chest Dead DeadB Chest, Abdomen Dead Dead 7 Neck, Chest, Abdomen, Lower Ext. T2 T3C Head Dead Dead 9 Neck, Chest, Abdomen, Lower Ext. T2 T2D Head, Chest, Abdomen Dead Dead 10 Chest T2 T3E Chest, Lower Ext. T1 T3 11 Chest, Abdomen T3 T3F Chest Dead Dead 13 Chest, Abdomen T3 T3G Abdomen, Upper Ext., Lower Ext. T1 or Dead Dead 14 Neck, Lower Ext. T3 T3H Neck, Abdomen, Upper Ext., Lower Ext. T1 or Dead T1 15 Lower Ext. T3 T3I Chest, Abdomen T3 T3 19 Neck, Lower Ext. T3 T3J Chest, Abdomen T3 T3 21 Neck, Chest, Abdomen T3 T3K Lower Ext T3 T3 22 Lower Ext T3 T3L Neck, Chest, Abdomen T3 T3 23 Neck, Lower Ext. T3 T3M Chest, Abdomen T3 T3 24 Neck, Chest T2 T3N Chest, Abdomen T3 Uninjured 25 Neck, Chest, Lower Ext. T2 T3O Uninjured T3 26 Chest, Abdomen, Lower Ext. T1 T1P Chest, Abdomen T3 T3 31 Neck, Chest T3 T3Q Chest, Abdomen T3 T3 32 Lower Ext T3 T31 Neck, Chest, Abdomen T3 T32 Neck, Chest, Abdomen T3 T33 Lower Ext T1 or T2 T24 Neck, Chest, Lower Ext. T1 or Dead T3

Edgware road

6. Open issues

45

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

Outliers

47

Person Significant injuries (Model) Model RealityE Chest, Lower Ext. T1 T3

Edgware road

Remark: Person E is iden-cal with person K by name !

Outliers

48

Remark: Why is person 4 not even similarly injured like person 3 and person 5 ?

Person Significant injuries (Model) Model Reality4 Neck, Chest, Lower Ext. T1 or Dead T3

Edgware road

Outliers

49

Remark: Person 16 seems to be closer to the bomb than any other vic-m

Person Significant injuries (Model) Model Reality16 Chest Dead T1

Aldgate

50

6. Future activities

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

Future activities

Ad 2) and 6):

Transla-on of Model Output (Percentage of damage) into Injury Severity Score (ISS)

52

Main-Contact: [email protected]

Further people:

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected] [email protected]

53

Acknowledgement:

to the organizers of this “Wound ballistics symposium” here at Shrivenham

Any comments?

54

Learn more about

BREEZE ExDAM at

breeze-software.com/ExDAM

breeze-software.com [email protected]

+1 (972) 661-8881

Analysis of the 7/7 London Terrorist Bombing Using BREEZE ExDAM

Environment