## 7 Discussion  
The present study proposes a novel method for simulating blast-induced biomechanical responses using a simplified dummy and mapping test model calibration based on 1d-CNN. The primary contribution of this study lies in the proposal and validation of the method; however, certain limitations remain and will be addressed in future research. First, future investigations should consider scenarios involving greater TNT equivalents or variations in blast angle to fully assess the model's performance under extreme or oblique loading. In accordance with AEP-55 [5] standards, the reference equivalent for armored vehicle underbelly mine testing is specified as 6, 8, and 10 kg TNT, and the blast tests should incorporate five critical impact orientations: frontal (0\({}^{\circ}\)), lateral (90\({}^{\circ}\)), rear (180\({}^{\circ}\)), anterolateral (45\({}^{\circ}\)), and posterolateral (135\({}^{\circ}\)) relative to the occupant position. Due to safety constraints at our testing facility and the use of a simplified rig simulating the vehicle's under-body structure, high-yield explosives were not employed in this phase. The primary objective of this study was to develop and validate the proposed methodology. Future work will incorporate large-yield detonations and multi-directional blast testing to fully evaluate system performance. For the simulated explosion test, [PERSON] [44] and [PERSON] [45] used a vertical shock machine to generate impulses representative of underbody blast loading. [PERSON] employs a hydraulic mechanism to accelerate the dummy-mounted sled, enabling controlled impact with a barrier for dynamic testing [19]. A pressurized cylinder was employed by [PERSON] to drive a hammer sled into the dummy-mounted floor and seat platen [7,8]. These methods can serve as references for future high-impact loading applications on the simplified dummy. To date, the simulated explosion test of varying impact angles on human body responses remains largely unexplored. Future research could aim to develop experimental blast simulation techniques capable of adjusting the impact trajectory angle. Second, while the laboratory-based pendulum experiments offer controllable and repeatable conditions, they inherently differ from real explosive environments. Actual blast scenarios may involve multidirectional forces, complex fluid-structure interactions, and secondary effects such as fragment impacts, none of which are replicated in the current setup. These differences should be taken into account when interpreting the validity and generalizability of the results. While the problem of uniaxial loading has been mitigated in recent research, the complex multidirectional characteristics of blast waves and secondary phenomena remain challenging to reproduce. It is necessary to develop an experimental apparatus that can replicate the coupled effects of blast overpressure and fragment impact to better simulate real-world explosive loading conditions. Third, the validation cases remain relatively limited in number and diversity. The current framework does not account for alternative loading configurations, such as varying occupant postures or different seat structures, which may significantly influence biomechanical outcomes. Expanding the experiment and simulation to encompass a broader range of real-world conditions would enhance the method's robustness. Future work will aim to address these limitations by expanding the methodology to other anatomical regions, such as the lumbar spine or lower limbs. A methodology similar \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **HIC\({}_{\textbf{15}}\)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Upper Neck Maximum** \\ **Axial Compression Force** \\ **(\(k\)N)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Hybrid III 50 th FEM & 2.75 & 160.52 \\ The proposed model & 3.05 & 156.68 \\ Relative error (\%) & 10.9 & 2.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Relative error compared to Hybrid III 50 th FEM. to that presented in this study could be adopted for spinal injury assessment.