Non-lethal Projectile Characterisation Method: Application to 40-mm SIR-X and Condor NT901 Projectiles

  • N. NsiampaEmail author
  • C. Robbe
  • A. Papy
Review Paper


The growing market of kinetic energy non-lethal weapons (KENLW) using deformable projectiles has increased the need of numerically assessing the impacts of KENLW projectiles on the human body in terms of injury risk and consequently the determination of the effective distance of use of these weapons. In the context of simulations of non-lethal impacts on the human body using finite element method, a method of characterisation and validation of deformable non-lethal projectiles is investigated due to the practical difficulty of characterising the projectile deformable part with conventional tests. This method combines in one step the characterisation of the projectile deformable part and the validation of the projectile. It is based on the results of real projectile shots on the rigid wall equipped with a force sensor. To apply the method, two projectiles are used: the 40-mm B&T SIR-X sponge grenade and the CONDOR NT901 projectile. Good correspondence is obtained between the numerical results and the experimental results.


Non-lethal projectile Injury risk assessment Rigid wall Characterisation method Validation method Finite element model 


  1. 1.
    NATO Standardization Agency (2015) AAP-6 edition, NATO Glossary Of Terms And Definitions (English And French),
  2. 2.
    Bir C (2000) The evaluation of blunt ballistic impacts of thorax. PhD thesis, Wayne State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hubbs K, Klinger D (2004) Impact munitions data base of use and effects. Technical Report 204433, U.S. Department of Justice (NIJ),
  4. 4.
    Mahajna A, Aboud N, Harbaji I, Agbaria A, Lankovsky Z, Michaelson M, Fisher D, Krausz MM (2002. ISSN 0140-6736) Blunt and penetrating injuries caused by rubber bullets during the Israeli-Arab conflict in October, 2000: a retrospective study. Lancet (Lond, Engl) 359(9320):1795–1800. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maguire K, Hughes DM, Fitzpatrick MS, Dunn F, Rocke LGR, Baird CJ (2007. ISSN 1472–0205) Injuries caused by the attenuated energy projectile: the latest less lethal option. Emerg Med J: EMJ 24(2):103–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hiquet J, Gromb-Monnoyeur S (2015) Severe craniocerebral trauma with sequelae caused by Flash-Ball® shot, a less-lethal weapon: report of one case and review of the literature. Med Sci Law 56:237–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De brito D, Challener K, Sehgal A (2001) The injury pattern of a new law enforcement weapon: the police bean bag. Ann Emerg Med 38:383–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rezende-Neto J, Silva FD, Porto LB, Teixeira LC, Tien H, Rizoli SB (2009) Penetrating injury to the chest by an attenuated energy projectile: a case report and literature review of thoracic injuries caused by ‘less-lethal’ munitions. World J Emerg Surg 4(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Millar R, Rutherford WH, Johnson S, Malhotra VJ (1975) Injuries caused by rubber bullets: a report on 90 patients. Br J Surg 62(6):480–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steele J, Mcbride S, Kelly J (1999) Plastic bullet injuries in Northern Ireland: experiences during a week of civil disturbance. J Trauma 46:711–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wahl P, Schreyer N, Yersin B (2006) Injury pattern of the Flash-Ball, a less-lethal weapon used for law enforcement: report of two cases and review of the literature. J Emerg Med 31(3):325–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brun P-M, Bessereau J, Chenaitia H, Barberis C, Peyrol M (2012) Commotio cordis as a result of neutralization shot with the Flash Ball less-lethal weapon. Int J Cardiol 158(3):e47–e48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Viano D, Bir C, Waliko T, Sherman D (2004) Ballistic impact to the forehead, zygoma, and mandible: comparison of human and frangible dummy face biomechanics. J Trauma 56:1305–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    MacAlister A (2013) Surrogate head forms for the evaluation of head injury risk, brain injuries and biomechanics. Virginia Tech Wake Forest, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robbe C, Nsiampa N, Papy A, Oukara A, Meersman K (2014) A new thoracic surrogate for assessing the impact of kinetic energy non-lethal projectiles. PASS conference proceedings, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Computational models for the human body: special volume. Elsevier Science Ltd, Amsterdam, 1 edition, July 2004. ISBN 9780444515667Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang KH, Hu J, White NA, King AI, Chou CC, Prasad P (2006) Development of numerical models for injury biomechanics research: a review of 50 years of publications in the Stapp Car Crash Conference. Stapp Car Crash J 50:429–490 ISSN 1532–8546Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raymond DE (2008) Biomechanics of blunt ballistic temporo-parietal head impact. Ph.D. dissertation. Wayne State University Detroit Michigan USAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roth S, Torres F, Feuerstein P, Thoral-Pierre K (2013. ISSN 1872-7565) Anthropometric dependence of the response of a thorax FE model under high speed loading: validation and real world accident replication. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 110(2):160–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    AFRL (2008) (The Air Force Research Laboratory, Non-Lethal Weapons Human Effects,
  21. 21.
    Nsiampa N, Robbe C, Oukara A, Papy A (2011) Development of a thorax finite element model for thoracic injury assessment. 8th European LS-DYNA Users Conference, Strasbourg , FranceGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raul JS, Deck C, Willinger R, Ludes B (2008) Finite-element models of the human head and their applications in forensic practice. Int J Legal Med 122:359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oukara A, Nsiampa N, Robbe C, Papy A (2014) Injury risk assessment of non-lethal projectile head impacts. Open Biomed Eng J 8:75–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cronin DS, Salisbury CP, Horst CR High rate characterization of low impedance materials using a polymeric Split Hopkinson pressure barGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Song B, Chen W (2005) Split Hopkinson pressure bar techniques for characterizing soft materials. Latin Am J Solids Struct 2:113–152Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Oukara A, Robbe C, Nsiampa N, Papy A (2013) Comparison of the lethality of different kinetic energy non-lethal projectiles using a new French assessment approach for head impacts. 27th International Symposium on Ballistics 564–575Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robbe C (2013) Evaluation experimentale de l’impact thoracique des projectiles non-létaux. Ph.D. dissertation Royal Military Academy Brussels Belgium & University of LiègeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Robbe C, Nsiampa N, Papy A, Oukara A (2013) An hybrid experimental/numerical method to assess the lethality of a kinetic energy non-lethal weapon system, Proceedings of Ballist. 27th Int. Symp. Freiburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oukara A (2015) Assessment of non-lethal projectile head impacts. Ph.D. dissertation. Royal Military Academy Brussels Belgium & University of LiègeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Song B, Chen W (2004) Dynamic stress equilibration in split Hopkinson pressure bar tests on soft materials. Exp Mech 44:300–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whisler D, Kim H (2015) Experimental and simulated high strain dynamic loading of polyurethane foam. Polym Test 41:219–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Koohbor B, Kidane A, Lu WY Characterizing the constitutive response and energy absorption of rigid polymeric foams subjected to intermediate-velocity impact.
  34. 34.
    Ouellet S, Cronin D, Worswick M (2006) Compressive response of polymeric foams under quasi-static, medium and high strain rate conditions. Polym Test 25:731–743. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sawas O, Brar NS, Brockman RA (1998) Dynamic characterization of compliant materials using an all-polymeric split Hopkinson bar. Exp Mech 38:204–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nsiampa N, Robbe C, Oukara A, Papy A (2014) Dynamic characterization of kinetic energy non-lethal deformable projectiles using experimental stress-strain curves. In R.G Ames and R.D. Boeka, editors, International Symposium of Ballistics 2014 proceedings, pages 1642–1651Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Oukara A, Robbe C, Nsiampa N, Papy A (2014) The influence of experimental environment on the piezoelectric force measurement. 5th International Metrology Conference (CAFMET)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual volume II material models, 2013.
  40. 40.
    Kolling S, Haufe A (2009) Material models of polymers for crash simulation. An overview with focus on the dynamic test setup impetus by 4a engineering. Accessed 10th Nov 2015.
  41. 41.
    Du Bois P (2003) A simplified approach to the simulation of rubber-like material under dynamic material. Ulm. Accessed 28th Nov 2015. URL
  42. 42.
    de Vries DVWM. Characterization of polymeric foams. July 2009,
  43. 43.
    Illowsky B, College AA, Dean S Introductory Statistics,

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Military AcademyDepartment of Weapon Systems and BallisticsBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations