Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity

Evaluating the

“Prevention of Fatality”

as a

Force Protection Requirement

Problem Statement

• Legacy methodologies for determining

fatality, especially with respect to shock

and acceleration insults, are insufficient.

2

Problem Statement

“….Prevention of Fatality….”

Outline

–Intro – Purpose

– Historical Background

– MCOTEA Approach • Methodology Basis

• Example

• Methodology Pros/Cons

– Conclusion

Intro to MCOTEA

Plan

Test

Planning Testing Reporting

Evaluation Plans

Assessment Plans

Test Plans

Observation Plans

Evaluation Reports

Assessment Reports

Test Data Reports

Observation Reports

Initial Operational Test

Follow-on Operational Test

Multi-service Test

Quick Reaction Test

Test Observations

C4ISR &

IT/Busines

s Systems

Ground

Combat

Systems

Combat

Service

Support

Systems

Expeditionary,

Naval, and

Amphibious

Systems

Purpose

Engage the T&E community concerning the

issues surrounding the evaluation of Fatality in

ballistic survivability and Live Fire Test and

Evaluation (LFT&E) and present the current

MCOTEA approach to evaluate this requirement.

“Prevention of Fatality” is an emergent KPP requirement for Force Protection

Historical Background

• “…Prevention of Fatality….” emerged as a KPP in 2006.

• Legacy Evaluation Framework was inadequate: – Did not directly address “Fatality”:

• Previously Force Protection was only an Incapacitation Based Eval

• The Effect of Multiple injuries was not considered

• Shock and Acceleration injury mechanisms were not prevalent in the past

– Validity of “Prevent Fatality” vs. “Incapacitation” • Users wanted to know if a Platform “Prevented Fatality”

• Incapacitation was “secondary consideration”

***Solution*** Utilize the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) Scores provided by ARL/SLAD as part of

the Crew Casualty Report for each event to develop a value model based

evaluation methodology that can calculate the “Unacceptable Risk to Fatality”.

Developed by MCOTEA in 2008; Implemented in 2009

Process Overview

LF Event Planning Event Execution

Data Collection

(ATC)

MCOTEA Injury Eval

Process

FP KPP Met/Not Met

LFT&E

Reporting

Evaluation Data Assessment

(ARL Crew Casualty Report)

0

100

200

300

He

ad

│A

│

HIC

Ne

ck F

x

Ne

ck F

y

Ne

ck F

z

Ne

ck M

x

Ne

ck M

y

NIJ

Ch

est │

A│

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e F

x

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e F

y

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e F

z

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e M

x

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e M

y

Pe

lvis

DR

I-x

Pe

lvis

DR

I-y

Pe

lvis

DR

I-z

Pe

lvis

Ax

Pe

lvis

Ay

Pe

lvis

Az

% o

f th

e T

hre

sh

old

Upper Body

Crew A

Crew B

Crew C

Crew D

0

100

200

300

Le

ft F

em

ur F

x

Le

ft U

pp

er

Tib

ia F

z

Le

ft U

pp

er

Tib

ia M

x

Le

ft U

pp

er

Tib

ia M

y

Le

ft U

pp

er

Tib

ia In

de

x

Le

ft L

ow

er

Tib

ia F

z

Le

ft L

ow

er

Tib

ia M

x

Le

ft L

ow

er

Tib

ia M

y

Le

ft L

ow

er

Tib

ia In

de

x

Le

ft F

oo

t/A

nkle

Rig

ht F

em

ur F

x

Rig

ht U

pp

er Tib

ia F

z

Rig

ht U

pp

er Tib

ia M

x

Rig

ht U

pp

er Tib

ia M

y

Rig

ht U

pp

er Tib

ia

Ind

ex

Rig

ht L

ow

er Tib

ia F

z

Rig

ht L

ow

er Tib

ia M

x

Rig

ht L

ow

er Tib

ia M

y

Rig

ht L

ow

er Tib

ia

Ind

ex

Rig

ht F

oo

t/A

nkle

% o

f t

he

Th

res

ho

ld

Lower Body

Crew A

Crew B

Crew C

Crew D

LFT&E

Methodology Basis: MCOTEA Weighting of ARL Provided Abbreviated Injury Scale Scores

AIS Injury

Level

1 Minor

2 Moderate

3 Serious

4 Severe

5 Critical

6 Maximal

The graphic above shows the maximal injury that can be assessed per body region based on current ARL approved injury criteria.

ARL/SLAD, trusted technical agent, calculates and publishes the AIS scores and associated Relative Index for each event in the Crew Casualty Report.

Head (0-6)

Foot/Ankle (0, 2)

Tibia (0, 2)

Neck (0,2,3)

Lumbar

Spine/Pelvis

(0,2)

Chest Resultant

(0,3,4,5)

Femur (0, 2, 3)

Core injuries are considered more severe than leg injuries and thus core injuries are weighted more by squaring the assessed AIS value

Leg injuries in general are considered not as severe (severe bleeding can be treated with tourniquet) and thus are scored the actual AIS value

Lumbar spine/pelvis, and leg injuries can only be assessed an AIS 0 or 2 and thus the Relative Index (RI) is used to score an additional point based on the recorded acceleration relative to the threshold. A RI of 100% over the AIS 2 threshold results in a “3” score.

MCOTEA Weighting

The AIS is an anatomically-based,

consensus-derived, global severity

scoring system that classifies each

injury by body region according to its

relative importance on a 6-point

ordinal scale. The Association for

the Advancement of Automotive

Medicine (AAAM) is the “technical

authority” for AIS

0

100

200

300

He

ad

│A

│

HIC

Ne

ck F

x

Ne

ck F

y

Ne

ck F

z

Ne

ck M

x

Ne

ck M

y

NIJ

Ch

est │

A│

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e F

x

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e F

y

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e F

z

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e M

x

Lu

mb

ar S

pin

e M

y

Pe

lvis

DR

I-x

Pe

lvis

DR

I-y

Pe

lvis

DR

I-z

Pe

lvis

Ax

Pe

lvis

Ay

Pe

lvis

Az

% o

f th

e T

hre

sh

old

Upper Body

Crew A

Crew B

Crew C

Crew D

0

100

200

300

Le

ft F

em

ur F

x

Le

ft U

pp

er

Tib

ia F

z

Le

ft U

pp

er

Tib

ia M

x

Le

ft U

pp

er

Tib

ia M

y

Le

ft U

pp

er

Tib

ia In

de

x

Le

ft L

ow

er

Tib

ia F

z

Le

ft L

ow

er

Tib

ia M

x

Le

ft L

ow

er

Tib

ia M

y

Le

ft L

ow

er

Tib

ia In

de

x

Le

ft F

oo

t/A

nkle

Rig

ht F

em

ur F

x

Rig

ht U

pp

er Tib

ia F

z

Rig

ht U

pp

er Tib

ia M

x

Rig

ht U

pp

er Tib

ia M

y

Rig

ht U

pp

er Tib

ia

Ind

ex

Rig

ht L

ow

er Tib

ia F

z

Rig

ht L

ow

er Tib

ia M

x

Rig

ht L

ow

er Tib

ia M

y

Rig

ht L

ow

er Tib

ia

Ind

ex

Rig

ht F

oo

t/A

nkle

% o

f t

he

Th

res

ho

ld

Lower Body

Crew A

Crew B

Crew C

Crew D

Relative Index

EXAMPLE WORKSHEET

Hybrid II/III ATD

Response Parameter

AIS Values/Injury

Output

Crew Locations - AIS/MAIS Scores Qualitative

Weighting

Methodology

Crew Locations - Weighted Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ACCELERATION - CORE

Head AIS 0, AIS 1, AIS 2, AIS 3,

AIS 4, AIS 5, or AIS 6 (AIS)2

Neck AIS 0, AIS 2, or AIS 3 (AIS)2

Chest Resultant

Acceleration

AIS 0, AIS 3, AIS 4, or

AIS 5 (AIS)2

Lumbar Spine, Pelvis AIS 0 or AIS 2 (AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100%)2

Left Femur AIS 0, AIS 2, or AIS 3 (AIS)2

Right Femur AIS 0, AIS 2, or AIS 3 (AIS)2

ACCELERATION - LOWER LEGS

Right Tibia AIS 0 or AIS 2 AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100%

Left Tibia AIS 0 or AIS 2 AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100%

Right Foot/Ankle AIS 0 or AIS 2 AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100%

Left Foot/Ankle AIS 0 or AIS 2 AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100%

Total

Totals are added to any additional AIS

scores from other Injury Mechanisms; such

as Fragmentation, Heat, Toxic Fumes, and

Blast Over Pressure (BOP)

1 – 8: Minor Injury (Green)

9 – 12: Serious Injury (Yellow)

13 – 35: Critical/Severe Injury (Red)

36+: Unacceptable risk of fatal injury (Black)

An Aggregate

Score of zero “0”

is considered –

NO INJURY

MCOTEA Injury Eval Process Example

Crew 1/A

Head (0)

L & R Foot/Ankle

(0, 2)

L & R Tibia

(2, 0)

Neck (0)

Lumbar

Spine/Pelvis

(2)

Chest

Resultant (0)

L & R

Femur (0, 0)

ARL Crew Casualty Report Output

Crew 2/B

Head (0)

L & R Foot/Ankle

(0, 2)

L & R Tibia

(2, 0)

Neck (0)

Lumbar

Spine/Pelvis

(2)

Chest

Resultant (0)

L & R

Femur (0, 0)

Crew 3/C

Head (0)

L & R Foot/Ankle

(2, 2)

L & R Tibia

(2, 2)

Neck (0)

Lumbar

Spine/Pelvis

(2)

Chest

Resultant (0)

L & R

Femur (0, 0)

Crew 4/D

Head (3)

L & R Foot/Ankle

(2, 2)

L & R Tibia

(2, 2)

Neck (2)

Lumbar

Spine/Pelvis

(2)

Chest

Resultant (4)

L & R

Femur (0, 0)

ARL reports RI for each body region and is used to increase injury score in the aggregation methodology based on the acceleration recorded relative to the threshold value for injury

– RI is the percent relative to the threshold value

– RI takes into account duration and magnitude

0

100

200

300

Hea

d │A

│

HIC

Nec

k Fx

Nec

k Fy

Nec

k Fz

Nec

k M

x

Nec

k M

y

NIJ

Che

st │

A│

Lum

bar S

pine

Fx

Lum

bar S

pine

Fy

Lum

bar S

pine

Fz

Lum

bar S

pine

Mx

Lum

bar S

pine

My

Pel

vis

DR

I-x

Pel

vis

DR

I-y

Pel

vis

DR

I-z

Pel

vis A

x

Pel

vis A

y

Pel

vis A

z

% o

f the

Thr

esho

ld

Upper Body

Crew A

Crew B

Crew C

Crew D

0

100

200

300

Left

Fem

ur F

x

Left

Upp

er T

ibia

Fz

Left

Upp

er T

ibia

Mx

Left

Upp

er T

ibia

My

Left

Upp

er T

ibia

Inde

x

Left

Low

er T

ibia

Fz

Left

Low

er T

ibia

Mx

Left

Low

er T

ibia

My

Left

Low

er T

ibia

Inde

x

Left

Foot

/Ank

le

Rig

ht F

emur

Fx

Rig

ht U

pper

Tib

ia F

z

Rig

ht U

pper

Tib

ia M

x

Rig

ht U

pper

Tib

ia M

y

Rig

ht U

pper

Tib

ia

Inde

x

Rig

ht L

ower

Tib

ia F

z

Rig

ht L

ower

Tib

ia M

x

Rig

ht L

ower

Tib

ia M

y

Rig

ht L

ower

Tib

ia

Inde

x

Rig

ht F

oot/A

nkle

% o

f th

e T

hres

hold

Lower Body

Crew A

Crew B

Crew C

Crew D

Relative Index (RI)

Hybrid II/III ATD

Response Parameter

AIS Values/Injury

Output

Crew Locations - AIS/MAIS Scores Qualitative

Weighting

Methodology

Crew Locations - Weighted Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

ACCELERATION - CORE

Head AIS 0, AIS 1, AIS 2, AIS 3,

AIS 4, AIS 5, or AIS 6 0 0 0 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (AIS)2 0 0 0 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Neck AIS 0, AIS 2, or AIS 3 0 0 0 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (AIS)2 0 0 0 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Chest Resultant

Acceleration

AIS 0, AIS 3, AIS 4, or

AIS 5 0 0 0 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (AIS)2 0 0 0 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lumbar Spine, Pelvis AIS 0 or AIS 2 2 2 2 2* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (*AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100%)2 4 4 4 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Left Femur AIS 0, AIS 2, or AIS 3 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (AIS)2 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Right Femur AIS 0, AIS 2, or AIS 3 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A (AIS)2 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

ACCELERATION - LOWER LEGS

Right Tibia AIS 0 or AIS 2 0 0 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100% 0 2 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Left Tibia AIS 0 or AIS 2 2 2 2* 2* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100% 2 2 3 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Right Foot/Ankle AIS 0 or AIS 2 2 2 2* 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100% 2 0 3 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Left Foot/Ankle AIS 0 or AIS 2 0 0 2* 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *AIS + 1 if threshold

exceeded by 100% 0 0 3 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 8 8 15 47 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No other injury mechanisms present from

other insults.

1 – 8: Minor Injury (Green)

9 – 12: Serious Injury (Yellow)

13 – 35: Critical/Severe Injury (Red)

36+: Unacceptable risk of fatal injury (Black)

EXAMPLE COMPLETED WORKSHEET

MCOTEA Methodology

Pros & Cons Pros • Resolves Fatality

– “Unacceptable Risk to Fatality”

• Resolves Injury Severity – No Injury

– Minor Injury

– Moderate Injury

– Severe Injury

• Quantifiable Results – Constructive measure

• Can Be applied across platforms

for comparison

• Utilizes current ARL products

Cons • Not Fully Comprehensive

No Input for:

• Soft Tissue Trauma

• Organ Trauma

• TBI

• Not all Data from the ATDs can

be assessed by ARL

• Quantitative assessment of

Qualitative values

Methodology already utilized on Several USMC LF Service Reports

Vehicle Comparisons

Path Forward: JLTV

Conclusion MCOTEA has a methodology to

evaluate Fatality (“Unacceptable risk to

fatality”) to include Injury Severity

across multiple injuries

.

This approach utilizes the latest and

current crew casualty criteria provided

by ARL/SLAD

Mod Injury

Fatal Injury

Minor Injury

Severe Injury

No Injury

MCOTEA Injury Eval Process

Questions

Raffaele Croce

Lead LFT&E Analyst, MCOTEA

(703)-432-1756

raffaele.croce@usmc.mil

15

Visit our website at www.mcotea.marines.mil