Lethality of Bursting Munitions and Their Effect on 

Survivability 

by Natalie Eberius, Patrick Gillich, and Kathleen Doonan 

ARL-TR-5475 March 2011 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068 

ARL-TR-5475 March 2011 

Lethality of Bursting Munitions and Their Effect on 

Survivability 

Natalie Eberius, Patrick Gillich, and Kathleen Doonan 

Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

March 2011 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

September 2009–October 2010 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Lethality of Bursting Munitions and Their Effect on Survivability 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Natalie Eberius, Patrick Gillich, and Kathleen Doonan 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

AH80 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: RDRL-SLB-W 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-5475 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

The distances at which mounted personnel in military vehicles and dismounted personnel can survive blast threat detonations is 

of interest. Zones described in terms of area of effect and range provide a technical basis for hazard standoff distances (i.e., 

distances at which explosive ordnance disposal teams can safely operate). Current standoff requirements are often based on 

limited test and simulation data, with feedback observed in the field providing a significant contribution. These lethality zone 

estimates support system requirement definitions, input to tactics, techniques and procedures, and risk assessment. This report 

details the capability of the MUVES-S2 model to simulate both threat and target interactions to construct improved 

vulnerability zones detailing lethality and survivability in terms of measures of personnel injury. Empirical data sets support 

threat characterization that describe ballistic behavior and projectile properties as well as ballistic material modeling of vehicle 

componentry, armor, and personnel protective equipment. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

bursting munitions, MAIS, ORCA, MUVES-S2 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UU 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

18 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Natalie Eberius 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-5219 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

1. Purpose 1

2. Injury Mechanisms 1

3. Characterization of Bursting Munitions 1

4. Methodology for Modeling Bursting Munitions 2

5. ORCA Methodology 3

6. Analysis of Bursting Munitions 4

7. Conclusion 7

Distribution List 8 
iv 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Example arena test setup. ................................................................................................2

Figure 2. Inputs and outputs of the MUVES-S2 model with embedded ORCA. ...........................3

Figure 3. Typical target array. .........................................................................................................5

Figure 4. Elements of a bursting munition grid plot. ......................................................................5

Figure 5. MAIS contour plot for bursting munition against a dismounted Soldier array. ..............6

Figure 6. MAIS contour plot highlighting a dismounted Soldier on a single cell. .........................7
v 

List of Tables 

Table 1. MAIS levels. .....................................................................................................................4
vi 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
1 

1. Purpose 

This report describes a methodology which uses U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate tools and techniques to characterize the lethality of 

fragments from bursting munitions and their effect on personnel survivability. Current 

operations have generated the need to understand the expected injuries resulting from such 

threats. Bursting munitions are a recurring threat in today’s urban battlefield. It is important to 

capture and understand the zonal injury footprint of these munitions to properly equip and 

educate current forces. 

2. Injury Mechanisms 

Typical bursting munitions generate several different types of injury mechanisms. The 

fragmentation standoff requirement for hazards for typical bursting munitions is significantly 

greater than the distances where other injury mechanisms are a factor. For this reason, 

methodology often focuses on the fragmentation effects of the bursting munition. However, at 

closer ranges, other injury mechanisms generate additional lethality concerns. At these ranges, 

injuries may be from blast overpressure, thermal energy, and blunt trauma. Injuries due to blast 

overpressure may include eardrum damage and lung damage. Injuries due to thermal energy like 

skin burn may also occur. Depending on the size and orientation of debris, there is the potential 

for blunt trauma. 

3. Characterization of Bursting Munitions 

Empirical data quantify the fragmentation and blast characteristics of the bursting munition 

threat. These data are acquired through a specialized test referred to as an arena test. Arena 

testing consists of an array of witness panels surrounding the threat in order to collect and 

capture fragments from the munitions. The panels can be set at varying distances and arranged 

in various collection patterns (e.g., horseshoe and square) in order to characterize the effect at 

given ranges. Depending on the test requirements, varying materials may be used to construct 

these panels. An initial understanding of the threat aids in the arrangement of the panels. 

Effective arena design uses this understanding to capture the maximum number of fragments 

without compromising the arena. An example of an arena test setup is pictured in figure 1. 

Velocity screens and pressure transducers are instrumented to record fragment velocities and 
2 

Figure 1. Example arena test setup. 

pressure data, respectively. High-speed cameras may be placed in the surrounding area to 

augment the collected data. The fragment masses, numeric densities, and peak velocities 

measured by electronic means are collected from incremental zones orientated relative to the 

munition axis. The fragment distribution is processed in accordance with standard testing 

procedures. A comprehensive report is constructed and includes blast overpressure 

measurements, velocity data, photographic evidence, fragment photographs, and fragment 

distribution. A statistical characterization of the fragmenting threat environment is also 

constructed into a standardized format referred to as Z-data format. Z-data contain the 

fragmentation in terms of fragment number, mass, velocity, and zonal distribution. The Z-data 

are then used as input for vulnerability/lethality models such as MUVES-S2. 

4. Methodology for Modeling Bursting Munitions 

The MUVES-S2 model is a stochastic, component-level survivability/vulnerability/lethality 

software suite that simulates the effects of indirect- and direct-fire munitions against modeled 

targets. MUVES-S2 has a long history of use and acceptance in the evaluation of vehicle and 

personnel vulnerability. Figure 2 depicts the inputs required and pertinent outputs generated in 

MUVES-S2 analysis. MUVES-S2 incorporates the Operational Requirement-based Casualty 

Assessment (ORCA) model as its preferred personnel assessment model. MUVES-S2 with 

embedded ORCA provides the U.S. Department of Defense with a standard computer simulation 

platform for evaluating effectiveness of munitions and missiles and the survivability and 

vulnerability of personnel, aircraft, missiles, and ground systems.
3 

Figure 2. Inputs and outputs of the MUVES-S2 model with embedded ORCA. 

Personnel inside vehicles or in the open are modeled using the ORCA man geometry. Personnel 

can be fitted with personal protective equipment (PPE) and articulated into various postures. 

Any known or prototypical PPE can be modeled given the geometric profile and ballistic 

capabilities. PPE can include flexible armor (i.e., vest), helmets, and hard plates. 

A MUVES-S2 threat input file contains a description of the initial conditions of the threat in 

terms of its physical characteristics such as mass, velocity, length, and diameter. The threat is 

represented from Z-data containing fragment distribution which consists of numbers of 

fragments in a predefined set of mass classes and polar zones around the burst point. For a 

bursting munition analysis, each threat is detonated at a specific burst point in the target 

description’s coordinate system. A percentage of fragments from the detonation will intersect 

with the target geometry, and the resulting ballistic effects will be assessed. Threat paths that 

intersect crew are evaluated using ORCA, and subsequent injuries are modeled. 

5. ORCA Methodology 

ORCA is a high-resolution computerized human vulnerability model that can be used to assess 

the impact of various casualty-causing insults on personnel. ORCA determines the type, 

severity, and frequency of injuries sustained by crew as well as the percent reduction in human 

capability from impacting fragments. Furthermore, ORCA includes improved methodology and 

enhanced capabilities compared to Sperrazza-Kokinakis and ComputerMan methodologies. 

Some of these improvements include a more precise anatomical representation, the ability to map 

injuries to physical and cognitive impairment, an evaluation of basic human capability
4 

requirements to postinjury capabilities, a calculation of operational casualty metrics, and an 

accommodating methodology for improvements. The ORCA code has been reviewed by peers 

in the medical and biological fields and the U.S. Army and Navy services. They found the code 

to be adequate in producing injury, impairment, and operational casualty results within the 

documented model limitations. 

ORCA classifies each computed penetrating injury using the Abbreviated Injury Scale – 1985 

Revision (AIS-85), which is a standard measure of individual anatomical injury. AIS is an 

anatomically-based, consensus-derived, international injury scoring system that classifies injury 

by body region and its relative severity on a six-point ordinal scale. 

Injury severity scoring systems provide the necessary analytical tools to accurately characterize 

the medical injury and injury severity with respect to survivability. ORCA calculates several 

summary severity trauma metrics that may be used to characterize the combined effects from 

multiple wounds as well as multiple injuries in a wound tract. One of these injury metrics is the 

maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS). This score classifies injury severity on the basis of 

the single injury having the greatest AIS severity level. Examples of MAIS levels are outlined in 

table 1. 

Table 1. MAIS levels.

MAIS Injury Level Type of Injury 

0 No injury None 

1 Minor Superficial 

2 Moderate Reversible injuries; medical attention required 

3 Serious Reversible injuries; hospitalization required 

4 Severe Reversible injuries; not fully recoverable without care 

5 Critical Nonreversible injuries; not fully recoverable, even with care 

6 Maximal Nearly unsurvivable 

6. Analysis of Bursting Munitions 

MUVES-S2 with embedded ORCA is used to evaluate lethality of bursting munitions in terms of 

injury to personnel within target geometry. The lethality footprint of a bursting munition is 

obtained through the use of target arrays. In a typical analysis, a planar grid of cells is 

constructed, and each target in the array is evaluated given a detonation. An example of this 

target array is shown in figure 3, and an example of the elements in the grid plot is shown in 

figure 4. The characterization of the munition is described where the parameters of mass, 

velocity, shape factor, and trajectory angle are subjected to statistical variability. Another 

parameter that can be varied is the position of the target within the cell. This process allows the 
5 

Figure 3. Typical target array. 

Figure 4. Elements of a bursting munition grid plot. 

model to produce a distribution of burst results and a lethality footprint of the munition against 

various target geometries (e.g., a dismounted Soldier, other personnel, and crew inside of 

vehicle). 

The output from these types of analyses can be displayed in contour plots where the metric can 

vary depending on the focus of the particular analysis. Some of the more common types of 

metrics are MAIS, probability of a specific MAIS level, number of hits to a particular personnel 

target, and number of hits to particular body regions. An example plot is shown in figure 5. This 

plot depicts model results of a bursting munition detonation from the grid space center and 

resultant effects on the target array of dismounted Soldiers. Each dismounted Soldier in the 

array is independently evaluated for every cell.

Target independently 

evaluated in every 

cell of the grid 

Threat detonates 

in center of grid 
6 

Figure 5. MAIS contour plot for bursting munition against a dismounted Soldier array. 

In addition to generating plots which represent the bursting munitions’ lethality in terms of effect 

on personnel injury, more specific information about the dismounted Soldier can be produced. 

Figure 6 illustrates specific details about the effects of a single detonation on a single cell in the 

grid space. In this example, the MAIS of the dismounted Soldier was 5 (critical injury) and, 

therefore, the cell that represents this location is color coded accordingly. The trajectories of all 

the fragments that caused injury can be modeled to help understand the behavior of the threat. 

Injuries can then be mapped to the surface geometry where the threat trajectories intersect the 

body. The impact locations and areas of influence can be visualized in three dimensions and 

color coded according to the MAIS level received. These analysis capabilities can demonstrate 

the utility of body armor systems and vehicular armor systems designed to protect against the 

lethal effects of bursting munitions. The comparison of armor systems can be easily measured 

and quantified to support performance measures and tradeoff analyses. These analyses can assist 

in understanding areas where protection provided by vehicular and body armors influences 

survivability. 

Bursting 

munition 

in center 

of plot 

5 m 10 m 15 m 20 m 25 m 
7 

Figure 6. MAIS contour plot highlighting a dismounted Soldier on a single cell. 

7. Conclusion 

Penetrating fragment effects due to bursting munitions have become an increasingly important 

issue in the urban battlefield. The coupling of arena test data and modeling and simulation 

provides an improvement to the benefits of stand-alone arena testing. MUVES-S2 can 

effectively model threat fragmentation, fly-out, and the corresponding effect on personnel in 

various target environments. The use of modeling and simulation to generate lethality footprint 

plots for various artillery munition systems is a capability available with ORCA embedded in 

MUVES-S2. This capability supports the quantification of vulnerability zones described in 

terms of injury severity. The understanding offered by these zones provides standoff distances 

where personnel and military systems can continue the mission while maintaining a high 

probability of survivability on the battlefield. 

AIS Injury Occurrence: 

1 Critical injury (AIS 5) 

3 Severe injuries (AIS 4) 

2 Serious injuries (AIS 3) 

1 Moderate injury (AIS 2) 

 7 Total injuries 

Injury Example 1: 

Skull penetration greater than 2 cm 

Critical injury (MAIS 5) 

Injury Example 2: 

Major artery rupture (transection) 

Serious injury (MAIS 3) Cell (X, Y) 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

8 

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 only) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC HRR 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL CIM L 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL CIM P 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL D 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

 RDRL CIM G (BLDG 4600) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

9 

 1 ASST SECY ARMY 

 (CD ACQSTN LOGISTICS & TECH 

 only) SAAL ZS RM 3E448 

 103 ARMY PENTAGON 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0103 

 1 DIRECTOR FORCE DEV 

 (CD DAPR FDZ 

 only) RM 3A522 

 460 ARMY PENTAGON 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0460 

 1 US ARMY TRADOC ANL CTR 

 ATRC W 

 A KEINTZ 

 WSMR NM 88002-5502 

 1 USARL 

 RDRL SLE 

 R FLORES 

 WSMR NM 88002-5513 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 US ARMY DEV TEST COM 

 CSTE DTC TT T 

 314 LONGS CORNER RD 

 APG MD 21005-5055 

 1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR 

 TEAE SV 

 P A THOMPSON 

 4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE 

 APG MD 21005-3013 

 12 DIR USARL 

 RDRL SL 

 J BEILFUSS 

 J FEENEY 

 J FRANZ 

 M STARKS 

 P TANENBAUM 

 RDRL SLB A 

 D FARENWALD 

 G MANNIX 

 RDRL SLB D 

 R GROTE 

 RDRL SLB E 

 M PERRY 

 RDRL SLB G 

 P MERGLER 

 RDRL SLB S 

 S SNEAD 

 RDRL SLB W 

 L ROACH 
10

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.