blast testing issues and tbi; experimental models that lead to wrong conclusions

Over the past several years we have noticed an increase in the number of blast injury studies published in peer-reviewed biomedical journals that have utilized improperly conceived experiments. Data from these studies will lead to false conclusions and more confusion than advancement in the understanding of blast injury, particularly blast neurotrauma. Computational methods to properly characterize the blast environment have been available for decades. These methods, combined with a basic understanding of blast wave phenomena enable researchers to extract useful information from well documented experiments. This basic understanding must include the differences and interrelationships of static pressure, dynamic pressure, reflected pressure, and total or stagnation pressure in transient shockwave flows, how they relate to loading of objects, and how they are properly measured. However, it is critical that the research community effectively overcomes the confusion that has been compounded by a misunderstanding of the differences between the loading produced by a free field explosive blast and loading produced by a conventional shock tube. The principles of blast scaling have been well established for decades and when properly applied will do much to repair these problems.This paper provides guidance regarding proper experimental methods and offers insights into the implications of improperly designed and executed tests. Through application of computational methods, useful data can be extracted from well documented historical tests, and future work can be conducted in a way to maximize the effectiveness and use of valuable biological test data.