Explosion Consequence Modeling via Iterative Parameter Space Coverage

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing modeling packages struggle to effectively estimate the consequences of explosive attacks and the impacts of mitigating strategies, as they require large datasets and lack coordination to achieve complex outcomes.

Innovation Solution

A method and system that estimate the consequences of an explosion by generating scenarios, modeling explosive devices, propagating hazards, and modeling injuries, using iterative subsets of parameter distributions to cover the entire parameter space.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If existing modeling packages are used to estimate explosive attack consequences, then modeling can be performed, but enormous datasets are required and coordination between packages is lacking

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveconsequence estimation accuracyVSAvoiddataset size

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the consequence estimation process into distinct modular components: hazard propagation modeling, injury modeling, and mitigation strategy evaluation. Each module processes specific aspects of the explosive event independently, allowing the system to avoid requiring enormous integrated datasets while maintaining comprehensive analysis capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system creates a universal modeling framework that can handle multiple types of explosive events, mitigation strategies, and injury outcomes through a single coordinated platform. This multi-functional approach eliminates the need for separate specialized packages and their associated data requirements, providing comprehensive consequence estimation in one integrated system.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

2Adaptability or versatility

If existing modeling packages are used to model complex explosive scenarios, then some outcomes can be achieved, but coordination between packages is lacking for comprehensive analysis

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvescenario modeling capabilityVSAvoidsystem coordination

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system merges hazard propagation modeling, injury modeling, and mitigation evaluation into a single coordinated framework. This integration allows comprehensive analysis of complex explosive scenarios by combining multiple modeling capabilities that previously required separate packages, improving adaptability while managing system complexity through unified architecture.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Data Source

PatentUS12213739B2Homeland explosive consequence and threat (HExCAT) modeling and medical mitigation tool

Publication Date: 2025.02.04 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS REPRESENTED BY THE SEC OF HOMELAND SECURITY

AI summary

A system to estimate consequences of an explosion includes a scenario generator to generate a scenario based on user input and scenario parameters; an explosive device model generator to generate an explosive device model based on the user input and explosive device parameters; a propagation of hazards modeler to model propagation of hazards into the scenario based on the user input and hazard parameters; an injury modeler to model injuries corresponding to modeling propagation of hazards into the scenario based on injury parameters; and an iteration and output generator to iterate by using additional iterative subsets of the parameters to generate the scenario, generate the explosive device model, model propagation of hazards, and model injuries, until parameter spaces of the parameters are covered. The iteration and output generator generates an injury record based injury outcomes from the modeling of injuries corresponding to the iterating.