Increases in computational power have contributed to growing interest in using modeling and simulation (M&S) to better understand and address blast injury for US service members. The development of an M&S capability that can comprehensively simulate human injury, lethality, and impairment due to blast injury threats in the military environment requires a large, coordinated integration of many models and simulations. This contribution describes how various lessons learned from the defense M&S domain were used to support the future development of an envisioned Modeling Capability for blast injury by providing simulation functionality for simulation-based experimentation. It first addresses conceptually the interoperability challenges when more than one simulation can be or must be applied and possibly composed for the experiment. This leads to the development of a proposed concept of operations for the application of the Modeling Capability and the development of a framework of services needed to allow the identification of an applicable simulation solution, selecting the subset of those simulations, composing them for the experiment, and assessing the results. As a nascent endeavor, anticipated challenges for implementing these concepts are discussed, leveraging lessons learned regarding interoperability, composability, use of services, repositories, and development of simulation compositions to conduct simulation-based experiments.
YoungLRLingGWalilkoT, et al. State of the science: blast injury pathophysiology. In: DCallawayJBurstein (eds) Operational and medical management of explosive and blast incidents. Cham: Springer, 2020, pp. 35–49.
3.
WangQLouYLiT, et al. Development and application of digital human models in the field of vehicle collisions: a review. Ann Biomed Eng2021; 49: 1619–1632.
4.
BarorohDKChuC-HWangL. Systematic literature review on augmented reality in smart manufacturing: collaboration between human and computational intelligence. J Manuf Syst2021; 61: 696–711.
5.
KainzWNeufeldEBolchWE, et al. Advances in computational human phantoms and their applications in biomedical engineering—a topical review. IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci2019; 3: 1–23.
von TerschRGuptaRTynerCF, et al. Using modeling and simulation to examine the benefits of medical technology in a simulated combat environment. J Defense Model Simul2008; 5: 159–178.
8.
WalkerPBMehalickMLGlueckAC, et al. A decision tree framework for understanding blast-induced mild Traumatic Brain Injury in a military medical database. J Defense Model Simul2017; 14: 389–398.
9.
DownesDBouamoulAOuelletS, et al. Development and validation of a biofidelic head form model to assess blast-induced traumatic brain injury. J Defense Model Simul2018; 15: 257–267.
10.
DunnWDeutschEMaxworthyJ, et al. Systems integration. In: AILevineSDeMariaADSchwartz, et al. (eds) The comprehensive textbook of healthcare simulation. New York: Springer, 2013, pp. 121–133.
11.
TolkA. Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research. In: CDCombsJASokolowskiCMBanks (eds) The digital patient: advancing medical research, education, and practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2016, pp. 225–240.
12.
DavisPKAndersonRH. Improving the composability of DoD models and simulations. J Defense Model Simul2004; 1: 5–17.
13.
YilmazL. On the need for contextualized introspective models to improve reuse and composability of defense simulations. J Defense Model Simul2004; 1: 141–151.
14.
TolkATurnitsaCDDialloSY, et al. Composable M&S web services for net-centric applications. J Defense Model Simul2006; 3: 27–44.
15.
HannayJEvan den BergTGallantS, et al. Modeling and simulation as a service infrastructure capabilities for discovery, composition and execution of simulation services. J Defense Model Simul2021; 18: 5–28.
16.
ZimmermanPGilbertTSalvatoreF. Digital engineering transformation across the Department of Defense. J Defense Model Simul2019; 16: 325–338.
17.
IEEE 1516:2010. Institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE) standard for modeling and simulation (M&S) high level architecture (HLA) - framework and rules.
18.
IEEE 1516.1:2010. Institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE) standard for modeling and simulation (M&S) high level architecture (HLA) - federate interface specification.
19.
IEEE 1516.2:2010. Institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE) standard for modeling and simulation (M&S) high level architecture (HLA) - object model template (OMT) specification.
20.
IEEE 1730:2022. Institute of electrical and electronics engineers (IEEE) recommended practice for distributed simulation engineering and execution process (DSEEP).
21.
LeggieriMJJrBielerDBjarnasonS, et al. Environmental toxicology of blast exposures: injury metrics, modelling, methods and standards. J R Army Med Corps2019; 165: 7–9.
22.
McGregorSLMurnaneJA. Paradigm, methodology and method: intellectual integrity in consumer scholarship. Int J Consum Stud2010; 34: 419–427.
23.
DingZGongWLiS, et al. System dynamics versus agent-based modeling: a review of complexity simulation in construction waste management. Sustain2018; 10: 2484.
LipfertSWGüntherMRenjewskiD, et al. A model-experiment comparison of system dynamics for human walking and running. J Theoret Biol2012; 292: 11–17.
26.
Van LiedekerkePPalmMMJagiellaN, et al. Simulating tissue mechanics with agent-based models: concepts, perspectives and some novel results. Comp Part Mech2015; 2: 401–444.
27.
UhrmacherAMDegenringDZeiglerB. Discrete event multi-level models for systems biology. In: CPriami (ed.) Transactions on computational systems biology I. Berlin: Springer, 2005, pp. 66–89.
28.
ChaouiyaC. Petri net modelling of biological networks. Brief Bioinform2007; 8: 210–219.
29.
HillRRTolkA. A history of military computer simulation. In: ATolkJFowlerGShao, et al. (eds) Advances in modeling and simulation. New York: Springer, 2017, pp. 277–299.
30.
BokulichA. How scientific models can explain. Synthese2011; 180: 33–45.
31.
MihaiLAChinLJanmeyPA, et al. A comparison of hyperelastic constitutive models applicable to brain and fat tissues. J R Soc Interface2015; 12: 20150486.
32.
ChenHZhaoXLuX, et al. Non-linear micromechanics of soft tissues. Int J Non Linear Mech2013; 58: 79–85.
SuppesP. Models of data. In: ENagelPSuppesATarski (eds) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science proceedings of the 1960 international congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962, pp. 252–261.
35.
TolkADialloSYPadillaJJ, et al. How is M&S interoperability different from other interoperability domains?M&S J2012; 7: 5–14.
36.
AlbertsDBaileyTChoinardP, et al. NATO code of best practice for C2 assessment. Washington, DC: CCRP Press.
37.
TolkA. Terms and application domains. In: ATolk (ed.) Engineering principles of combat modeling and distributed simulation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012, pp. 55–78.
38.
BastinLCornfordDJonesR, et al. Managing uncertainty in integrated environmental modelling: the UncertWeb framework. Environ Model Soft2013; 39: 116–134.
BalciO. How to assess the acceptability and credibility of simulation results. In: Winter simulation conference proceedings, Washington, DC, 4–6 October 1989, pp. 62–71. Piscataway, NJ: ACM.
42.
HarperJ. Synthetic training technologies gaining foothold with military. National Defense2017; 102: 38–40.
43.
BradeD. A generalized process for the verification and validation of models and simulation results. PhD Dissertation, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, 2004.
44.
SargentRG. Verification and validation of simulation models. J Simul2013; 7: 12–24.
45.
HicksJLUchidaTKSethA, et al. Is my model good enough? Best practices for verification and validation of musculoskeletal models and simulations of movement. J Biomech Eng2015; 137: 020905.
46.
ZhangLYangKHDwarampudiR, et al. Recent advances in brain injury research: a new human head model development and validation. Stapp Car Crash J2001; 45: 369–394.
PageEHOpperJM. Observations on the complexity of composable simulation. In: WSC’99. 1999 winter simulation conference proceedings. “Simulation - a bridge to the future” (cat. no. 99CH37038), Phoenix, AZ, 5–8 December 1999, pp. 553–560, vol. 1. New York: IEEE.
53.
TolkADialloSYPadillaJJ, et al. Reference modelling in support of M&S—foundations and applications. J Simul2013; 7: 69–82.
54.
SISO-GUIDE-001.1:2012. Guide for generic methodology for verification and validation (GM-VV) to support acceptance of models simulations and data GM-VV volume 1: introduction.
55.
SISO-GUIDE-001.2:2012. Guide for generic methodology for verification and validation (GM-VV) to support acceptance of models simulations and data GM-VV volume 2: implementation guide.
56.
SISO-REF-039:2013. Reference for generic methodology for verification and validation (GM-VV) to support acceptance of models simulations and data GM-VV volume 3: reference manual.
57.
ThackerBHDoeblingSWHemezFM, et al. Concepts of model verification and validation (LA-14167-MS). Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2004.
NATO Education and Training Network (NETN). Federation agreements and FOM reference document (FAFD) v1.0—annex C. Research & Technology Organization Technical Report TR-MSG-068, NATO Modelling and Standards Group, 2012, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA560402.pdf
62.
PullenJMGalvinKBrookRA.Simulation in NATO federated mission networking. In: International command and control research and technology symposium, Southampton, 2–5 November 2020.
63.
JeffersonDR. Virtual time. ACM Trans Prog Lang Syst1985; 7: 404–425.
64.
KleinJT. Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: keyword meanings for collaboration science and translational medicine. J Trans Med Epidemiol2014; 2: 1024.
65.
TolkAHarperAMustafeeN. Hybrid models as transdisciplinary research enablers. Europ J Oper Res2021; 291: 1075–1090.
66.
IEEE 1730.2:2022. Approved draft recommended practice for verification, validation, and acceptance/accreditation of a distributed simulation–an overlay to the distributed simulation engineering and execution process (DSEEP).
67.
McFarlandJM. Uncertainty analysis for computer simulations through validation and calibration. PhD Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 2008.
68.
LoucksDPBeekEvan StedingerJR, et al. Water resources systems planning and management: an introduction to methods, models and applications. Paris: UNESCO, 2005.
