Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71

www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint

Ballistic skin simulant

Jorma Jussilaa,*, Ari Leppäniemib, Mikael Paronenc, Erkki Kulomäkid
a
Police Technical Centre, P.O. Box 20, 00561 Helsinki, Finland
b
Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
c
Helsinki University Laboratory of Polymer Chemistry, Helsinki, Finland
d
National Bureau of Investigation, Vantaa, Finland

Received 30 March 2004; received in revised form 17 June 2004; accepted 17 June 2004
Available online 11 September 2004

Abstract

Hydrogels prepared from water solutions containing 10–20 mass% gelatine are generally accepted muscle tissue simulants in
terminal ballistic research. They, however, do not have a surface layer which simulates the effect of human skin. The purpose of
this research was to find a suitable skin simulant for enhancing the testing fidelity and the credibility of the results with gelatine-
based materials when assessing the injury potential of not only high energy bullets, but also especially that of non-penetrating
‘‘less lethal’’ kinetic impact ammunition and relatively low energy ricochet fragments. A skin simulant also permits the
simulation and assessment of exit wounds.
The mechanical and ballistic properties of human skin and target simulant were established on the basis of results found in the
literature. Some errors in these were found. The corrected values are included in this paper for comparison. The target values of
the mechanical properties of the skin simulant were the following: threshold velocity vth = 94
4 m/s, tensile strength 18
2 N/
mm2 and elongation at break 65
5%.
A selection of synthetic and natural materials was evaluated as skin simulants by analysing their mechanical and ballistic
properties. The results were compared to literature values obtained with human cadavers.
The tests showed that the best skin simulant of the ones evaluated was semi-finished chrome tanned upholstery ‘‘crust’’
cowhide of 0.9–1.1 mm nominal thickness. Its threshold velocity was 90.7 m/s, tensile strength 20.89
4.11 MPa and
elongation at break 61
9%. These values are the same as the average values of human skin. Of the synthetic materials
evaluated, 1 mm thick natural rubber can be used on impact side as a threshold velocity filter with some reservations although its
theoretical threshold velocity is only 82.9 m/s.
# 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wound ballistics; Simulant; Skin

1. Introduction lying tissues. All these layers have different physical

Human skin is part of a tissue system consisting
roughly of epidermis, dermis, subcutaneous fat and under-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 83888075;
fax: +358 9 83888088.
E-mail address: jorma.jussila@ptk.poliisi.fi (J. Jussila).
properties and absorb different amounts of impact energy.
As the penetration resistance of this system is not merely a
sum of the component layer resistances, the significance of
skin to terminal ballistic research and forensic reconstruc-
tion is emphasised. This is especially the case when the
injury potential of low velocity projectiles like air gun
pellets, bullet ricochet fragments and non-penetrating

0379-0738/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.06.039
64 J. Jussila et al. / Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71
impact projectiles (baton ammunition) is to be assessed.
We may also want to simulate exit wounds to compare
them with the ICRC wound classification [1].
Gelatine blocks containing 10 mass% or 20 mass% gela-
tine in water are well established muscle tissue simulants.
The threshold velocity of 4.5 mm steel spheres in gelatine is
about 37 m/s [2,3] and the same of 4.0 mm steel spheres in
human skin 126 m/s [4]. Having equal sectional density
(grams per cross-sectional area) and form, the penetration
ability should be roughly equal. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that skin has a significant effect especially when investigat-
ing relatively low velocity and low energy ballistic events. It
seems obvious that the simulant system needs to be
improved by including a skin simulant. In the best case,
these simulants together could form an easy to use, inex-
pensive and consistent basis for a standard wound ballistic
simulant system.
An impacting bullet makes the skin to stretch, partially
crush and finally rupture, allowing the bullet to enter sub-
cutaneous tissue. When looking for a suitable skin simulant
for wound ballistic testing, the threshold velocity vth
required by a given projectile for penetration is important.
vth is, in turn, dependent on the mechanical properties of the
skin. Of the numerous ways to define mechanical properties
of materials, tensile strength and elongation at break (max-
imum elongation) can be considered to be the most impor-
tant ones with respect to vth. The properties of human skin
vary with age and location on the body. Establishing skin
simulant therefore requires a definition of a target person. On
the basis of law enforcement perspective, the reference
person has been defined to be a 30-year-old male. The
theoretical location of the target skin is that of anterior
thorax.
1.1. Previous research on mechanical and ballistic
properties of human skin
Some researchers have removed the skin from human
cadavers and tested it in isolation [5,6]. Considering the
importance of skin as a part of an energy absorbing system,
these studies can hardly be used. Furthermore, the pene-
tration process of skin pinned against a solid background is
based primarily on crushing. Thus, tests performed with
skin samples alone leave room for doubt as the penetration
may be too much based on the effect of either crushing
or tensile stress caused by stretching instead of their
combination. Therefore, only the experiments with human
cadavers with skin were reviewed. A summary of the
experiments and results obtained are presented in Table
1. Possible errors were found. The corrections are included
in Table 1.
The first one to investigate the penetrability of human
skin was Journée in 1907 (in [7] and [8]). Journée reported
that a lead sphere, 11.25 mm in diameter and weighing 8.5 g,
at vi = 60 m/s produced superficial skin damage without
penetration and that at 70 m/s perforated the skin and
penetrated several centimetres into the underlying tissue.
There is, however, no record on the location of the test shots
on the cadaver and the precision of measured vi values could
also be speculated.
Mattoo [9] reported shooting lead spheres of 9.14 mm
diameter (000 buckshot) weighing 4.5 g into the thigh
section of human cadavers. The threshold velocity, vth,
required for penetration was 65 m/s.
Tausch et al. [10] conducted extensive experiments
shooting 4 mm, 9 mm and 0.45 lead spheres and bullets
into upper thighs of human cadavers to find out vth. A total of
212 test shots were fired. Tausch reported incorrect weights
for lead spheres. Calculating, for example, 9.0 mm sphere
volume and multiplying it with the density of ‘‘lead’’ bullet
alloy of 11.2 g/cm3 gives 4.28 g instead of reported 5.3 g. It
should also be noted that so-called lead bullet is not pure lead
(density 11.3 g/cm3) but typically contains, for example, 2%
tin and 6% antimony. Not knowing the precise composition
of the ‘‘lead’’ spheres, a density estimate of 11.2 g/cm3 has
been used when correcting the projectile mass and related
values in Table 1.
DiMaio et al. [11] shot 4.5 mm and 0.22 calibre air gun
diabolo pellets and 0.38 calibre round nose lead bullets into
lower extremities of human cadavers. DiMaio gives the
following vth values: vth (k = 4.5 mm) = 101 m/s, vth (k
=0.22 in.) = 75 m/s and vth (k = 0.38 in.) = 58 m/s.
Missliwetz [4] made an extensive (2514 shots) and
thorough study on the subject. He shot various 4 mm and
4.5 mm air gun pellets into thigh and back of human
cadavers consisting of 40 adults and 10 children. Recognis-
ing the problem of what can be considered as penetration, he
defined vst for bullets that got stuck in the skin and vth for
those that completely penetrated the skin. The average vst for
a 4.5 mm projectile in adult human thigh skin was 99–
130 m/s depending on projectile type whereas average vth
was 109–136 m/s.
Sellier and Kneubuehl [8] studied the experiments and
results published earlier by Tausch et al. [10] and Mis-
sliwetz [4]. The original errors in the projectile weights
were not considered in review. The results of all the
relevant experiments are summarised in Tables 1 and 2
including correction of projectile mass related values when
possible. In addition to sources of error based on projectile
mass and diameter, some additional alternatives exist. One
is related to the definition for penetration. Has a bullet
penetrated the skin if it is lodged in it or abraded the skin
but bounced off? In theory, bullet rotation can also cause
torsional stretch of skin. These factors were assumed to
have a minimal effect on the results due to the large
number of tests and test repetitions increasing the statis-
tical level of confidence and giving fairly accurate mean
values.
Several researchers have deduced that skin penetrability
is dependent primarily on the sectional density S of the
projectile (S = mass divided by cross-sectional area of the
bullet in g/cm2) and given their proposal for threshold
 J. Jussila et al. / Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71 65

Table 1
Summary of in vitro penetration tests with human skin of cadavers
Reported results Calculated results
Source Bullet d (mm) vth (m/s) mi (g) vol (mm3) a (mm2) mic (g) S (g/cm2) Eth (J) Eth/a
Journee in [7] 0.44 lead sphere 11.25 70 8.50 745.51 99.40 8.35 8.40 20.46 0.21
DiMaio [7] Diabolo pellet 4.40 101 0.53 15.21 0.53 3.52 2.73 0.18
DiMaio [7] 0.22 diabolo pellet 5.46 75 1.07 23.41 1.07 4.57 3.01 0.13
DiMaio [7] 38 LRN 9.12 58 7.32 65.33 7.32 11.21 12.32 0.19
Mattoo [9] 000 buckshot 9.14 65 4.50 399.79 65.61 4.48 6.82 9.46 0.14
Missliwetz [4] 4.5 mm lead sphere 4.50 110.4 0.54 47.71 15.90 0.53 3.36 3.26 0.20
Missliwetz [4] 4.5 mm diabolo 4.50 135.6 0.49 15.90 0.49 3.08 4.50 0.28
Missliwetz [4] 4.5 mm spire point 4.50 109 0.56 15.90 0.56 3.52 3.33 0.21
Missliwetz [4] 4.5 mm hollow point 4.50 133.2 0.44 15.90 0.44 2.77 3.90 0.25
Missliwetz [4] 4 mm brass sphere 4.00 120.6 0.31 0.03 12.57 0.31 2.47 2.25 0.18
Missliwetz [4] 4 mm steel sphere 4.00 126.1 0.26 33.51 12.57 0.26 2.11 2.10 0.17
Tausch et al. [10] Lead sphere 9.00 68.7 5.30 381.70 63.62 4.28 6.72 10.09 0.16
Tausch et al. [10] Lead round nose 9.00 66.2 6.20 63.62 6.20 9.75 13.59 0.21
Tausch et al. [10] Lead round nose 9.00 41.8 10.60 63.62 10.60 16.66 9.26 0.15
Tausch et al. [10] Truncated cone 9.00 54.5 7.90 63.62 7.90 12.42 11.73 0.18
Tausch et al. [10] Spire point 9.00 57.9 7.90 63.62 7.90 12.42 13.24 0.21
Tausch et al. [10] 0.45 lead sphere 11.46 56.7 9.00 788.05 103.15 8.83 8.56 14.19 0.14
Tausch et al. [10] 0.45 lead round nose 11.46 37 11.70 103.15 11.70 11.34 8.01 0.08
Tausch et al. [10] 4 mm lead sphere 4.00 68.7 0.47 33.51 12.57 0.38 2.99 0.89 0.07
d: bullet diameter, vth: reported threshold velocity, mi: reported bullet mass, vol: spherical bullet volume, a: cross-sectional area, mic: corrected
bullet mass, S: sectional density, Eth: threshold energy. Note: Figures in bold have been corrected from the original publication. The reference
bullet used in this article is inside a frame. Bullet ‘‘lead’’ alloy density = 11.2 g/cm3. Steel density = 7.9 g/cm3.

velocity equation: of fit are also calculated. Eq. (3) seems to give the best overall
prognosis having the smallest mean and standard deviations
14:1
vth ¼ pffiffiffi (1) from the experimental values and the lowest x2. The threshold
S velocity also depends on other factors like skin thickness, age
See references [8,12,13]. The proposed equation uses S in g/ and projectile form leading to a more complex equation for vth
mm2. [14]. Eq. (3), however, serves well as an approximation.
Making it commensurate with the other equations for g/ Several publications report tensile strength and elonga-
cm2 gives tion at break of human skin [15–17,19–22]. The stretch
velocities obtained with mechanical devices are, however,
14:1 very low compared with those caused by bullets. Despite the
vth ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (1a)
S=100 fact that skin exhibits a rate dependent resistance when
stretched [15], these reports must be looked into because
no reports on high speed stretch have been found. They also
A give a good estimate on how skin properties vary with
vth ¼ K þb (2)
M location and age. Standard low velocity tests are also useful
See reference [6]. Here, K for human skin is 125, A is cross- for estimating materials behavior in general.
sectional area in cm2, M bullet mass (g) and b a constant of 22. Holzmann et al. [16] have reported in vitro measurements
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi on skin thickness (sternum = 1.9 mm), tensile strength
334 (sternum 1938 g/mm2 = 19.38 MPa) and elongation at break
vth ¼  10 (3) (sternum 60.6%). At the age of 35, the values seem to be
S
either at or very close to maximum.
See reference [9].
Bartell and Mustoe [17] compared the properties of rat,
pffiffi
guinea pig, pig and dog with those of human skin obtained
vth ¼ 277:7e0:482 S
(4)
from abdominoplasty surgical specimens and verified its
See reference 10]. Table 2 and Fig. 1 present a comparison of extensibility with in vivo extensometer. They found out that
above equations. The correlations of the equations with the the average human skin thickness (dermis and epidermis)
observed values of vth are the same, 0.89. To see the deviation ranges from approximately 1 mm to 4 mm. The modulus of
of the vth-prognosis obtained with each equation from the elasticity was 0.136
0.038 psi/%strain, stress/relaxation
reported experiment values differences, [Dvth] have been 66.6
1.8% and elasticity in vivo 37.2
4.1%. The precise
calculated. The x2 values (chi-square) describing the goodness locations of test samples were not given. The interesting
66 J. Jussila et al. / Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71

Table 2
Comparison of various penetration functions
Reported results vth-prognosis
Source Bullet vth Sellier and Dvth Sperrazza and Dvth Tausch Dvth Mattoo Dvth
(m/s) Kneubuehl [8] Kokinakis [6] et al. [10] [9]
Journee in [7] 0.44 lead sphere 70 48.65 21.35 36.88 33.12 68.69 1.31 63.06 6.94
DiMaio [7] Diabolo pellet 101 75.20 25.80 57.55 43.45 112.48 11.48 97.47 3.53
DiMaio [7] 0.22 diabolo pellet 75 65.98 9.02 49.37 25.63 99.14 24.14 85.52 10.52
DiMaio [7] 38 LRN 58 42.11 15.89 33.15 24.85 55.30 2.70 54.59 3.41
Mattoo [9] 000 buckshot 65 53.97 11.03 40.32 24.68 78.84 13.84 69.96 4.96
Missliwetz [4] 4.5 mm lead sphere 110.4 76.92 33.48 59.20 51.20 114.78 4.38 99.70 10.70
Missliwetz [4] 4.5 mm diabolo 135.6 80.33 55.27 62.57 73.03 119.16 16.44 104.12 31.48
Missliwetz [4] 4.5 mm spire point 109 75.14 33.86 57.50 51.50 112.40 3.40 97.40 11.60
Missliwetz [4] 4.5 mm hollow point 133.2 84.77 48.43 67.18 66.02 124.57 8.63 109.88 23.32
Missliwetz [4] 4 mm brass sphere 120.6 89.77 30.83 72.67 47.93 130.26 9.66 116.36 4.24
Missliwetz [4] 4 mm steel sphere 126.1 97.15 28.95 81.34 44.76 137.96 11.86 125.91 0.19
Tausch et al. [10] Lead sphere 68.7 54.39 14.31 40.60 28.10 79.60 10.90 70.50 1.80
Tausch et al. [10] Lead round nose 66.2 45.17 21.03 34.83 31.37 61.67 4.53 58.54 7.66
Tausch et al. [10] Lead round nose 41.8 34.54 7.26 29.50 12.30 38.82 2.98 44.77 2.97
Tausch et al. [10] Truncated cone 54.5 40.01 14.49 32.07 22.43 50.81 3.69 51.86 2.64
Tausch et al. [10] Spire point 57.9 40.01 17.89 32.07 25.83 50.81 7.09 51.86 6.04
Tausch et al. [10] 0.45 lead sphere 56.7 48.20 8.50 36.61 20.09 67.80 11.10 62.48 5.78
Tausch et al. [10] 0.45 lead round nose 37 41.87 4.87 33.02 3.98 54.77 17.77 54.26 17.26
Tausch et al. [10] 4 mm lead sphere 68.7 81.59 12.89 63.85 4.85 120.73 52.03 105.75 37.05
Mean 19.98 33.43 6.48 1.65
S.D. 16.57 18.92 15.06 14.48
x2 120.37 276.83 70.38 47.21
R with vth 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
In the vth-prognosis, the left column is the prognosis in m/s obtained with the author’s function, Dvth is the deviation of the prognosis from
reported experiment results. R is the correlation coefficient of prognosis and reported experiment values. Note: The reference bullet used in this
article is inside a frame.

Fig. 1. Comparison of theoretical threshold velocity equations with actual test results obtained with human cadavers.
 J. Jussila et al. / Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71
thing, however, is that when measured with above para-
meters, human skin is very close to that of a dog. The skins of
rat, guinea pig and pig are not even close. The pig is
generally considered as the best experimental animal [18].
Considering the effect of skin in wound ballistic testing, this
claim may, however, not be quite true.
Sugihara et al. [19] have conducted in vivo uniaxial tension
experiments using to find out how skin extensibility varies
according to location and age. According to Sugihara, the
extensibility slightly decreases with age on chest and anterior
thigh whereas abdomen skin extensibility does not seem to
change significantly. At the defined target person’s age of 30,
the chest and thigh skin seem to have similar elongation.
Vogel [20] conducted an extensive in vitro research
involving 348 autopsy specimens. Samples were taken from
the skin above the sternum. Dumbbell-shaped specimens
were cut along the same axis. The specimens were 50 mm
long and the narrow section was 4 mm wide. At the age of
30, the skin thickness was approximately 1.75 mm, tensile
strength 20 MPa and elongation at break 72%.
2. Targeted properties of the skin simulant
The research reviewed above may contain errors and
differences in interpretation of results. A large number of
individual tests, however, smoothen these deviations and
produce reasonably meaningful mean values. These values
can be used as a starting point in the search for appropriate
simulant for human skin.
From the tactical perspective of police, we have chosen to
model the skin simulant to correspond to the frontal skin of
the chest of a 30-year-old man. The simulant should have the
following physical properties preferably at temperatures
ranging from +4 (gelatine temperature) to +22 (room tem-
perature):
vth ¼ 94
4 m=s; tensile strength 18

2 N=mm2 and elongation at break 65
5%
The threshold velocity was calculated with Eq. (3) which
gives the value of 99.7 m/s for a 4.5 mm lead sphere.
Considering the variation in skin properties, it is best to
do simulation on the ‘‘worst case’’ basis. Therefore, a value
of vth = 94
4 m/s was used. Specifications for the tensile
strength and elongation at break are the same as of human
skin and the values were taken from the literature.
In addition to mechanical properties, the simulant needs to
meet some practical criteria. It should be easy to obtain and
handle. The simulant should remain stable and allow storage
in preferably ordinary office environment for a prolonged
period of time. These requirements essentially excluded the
use of substances like the fresh skin of a recently slaughtered
animal and left three alternatives: commercially available
synthetic material manufactured for other purposes, prepared
natural skin and synthetic simulant compounds.
67
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Research equipment
Air rifle Daisy Power Line 856
Gamo 4.5 mm lead pellets (BB)
Copperhead 4.5 mm steel pellets (BB)
Refrigerator/Freezer: Porkka 9010117
Bullet velocity measurement: Oehler 35P proof chronograph
with three mod 55 screens (double measurement)
Climate chamber: Climacell 222 with data logger printout
Accuracy scales: Mettler PJ3600 Delta Range
Material tester Instron 4204 with 1 kN load cell
Mitutoyo No. 293-805 digital micrometer with 5–10 N
measuring force
Microsoft Excel 2003 version 11.5612.5703 was used for
calculus
3.2. Research materials
Extraco 250A bloom gelatine charge no. 3610 (Extraco AB,
Sweden)
10% PTC ballistic gelatine blocks 20 cm  20 cm  25 cm
[2,3]
PVC–LMF film (kitchen wrap) of 11 mm thickness and
1.25 g/cm3 density (Duni AB, Halmstad, Sweden)
The skin simulant candidates are listed in Table 3.
3.3. Methods
Skin simulants were conditioned to the shooting range
temperature of +22 8C and relative humidity of 28% for 2 h
prior to testing. Gelatin penetration resistance was verified
with two 4.5 mm steel pellets. All gelatine verification shot
penetrations followed the penetration function
lw ¼ 0:594vi  21:92
5; (5)
where lw is the penetration (mm) and vi impact velocity (m/
s) [2,3].
Skin simulant was placed on the surface of a gelatin
block and wrapped in place with a single layer of PVC–LMF
film. Due to the thinness and low density of the film, it was
assumed not to present any measurable resistance for pene-
tration and hence no significant error in results. Lead spheres
were shot at the distance of 5 m measuring the velocity at
2.5 m. Six meters per second was subtracted to compensate
for deceleration between the velocity measurement plane
and the target in order to obtain the true impact velocity vi.
Different pellet velocities were used in order to find the
regression curve for penetration and the threshold velocity
vth required for skin penetration. In addition to theoretical vth
calculated with the regression function, actual skin penetra-
tions at near vth velocity were required in the tests.
To estimate the skin simulant behavior with respect to
exit wounds, the simulant was placed on the rear side of the
 68
Table 3
Skin simulant candidates and test results
Sample no. Material Nominal Measured Density Hardness Threshold Tensile Maximum

J. Jussila et al. / Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71

thickness thickness (g/cm3) (ShA) velocity vth strength elongation
(mm) (mm) (m/s) (MPa) (%)
R1 Trelleborg SBR2533 nitrile rubber 2 1.94
0.01 1.25 50
5a 92.4 5.0a 350a
R2 Trelleborg NR2645 natural rubber 2 1.88
0.04 1.02 40
5a 98.4 17a 600a
R21 Trelleborg NR2645 natural rubber 1 1.0
0.02 1.04 40
5a 82.9 17a 600a
R3 Teknikum 662830 chlorosulfonated rubber 2 2.10
0.03 1.77 51a 137.3 10.9
0.11a 723
6a
S1 Moose hide, chrome tanned and through dyed. Light pigmentation finish 1.3–1.5 1.2
0.09 0.59 48.8 26.39
9.28 82
8
S2 Moose hide, chrome tanned and through dyed aniline leather 2.0–2.2 1.72
0.05 0.60 Test aborted 11.92
1.54 84
11
S3 Cowhide, chrome tanned and through dyed. Light pigmentation finish 1.2–1.4 1.23
0.11 0.64 103.4 15.47
3.06 50
3
S4 Cowhide, semi-finished upholstery ‘‘crust’’, chrome tanned and 0.9–1.1 0.85
0.07 0.60 90.3 14.75
4.59 50
13
through dyed. Surface ground
S5 Cowhide, semi-finished upholstery ‘‘crust’’, chrome tanned and 0.9–1.1 0.97
0.12 0.56 78.2 14.16
2.62 61
12
through dyed. Surface not ground
S6 Cowhide, finished upholstery leather, chrome tanned and through 0.9–1.1 0.98
0.03 0.65 96.0 14.18
5.64 65
7
dyed aniline leather
S7 Cowhide, semi-finished chrome tanned upholstery ‘‘crust’’. Not treated 0.9–1.1 0.92
0.03 0.56 90.7 20.89
4.11 61
9
to final softness
S8 Chrome tanned pig hide 1.41 1.25
0.07 0.62 116.1 14.27
3.62 51
11
b b
S8b As S8, but conditioned in climate chamber to Rh 70% 135.4
a
Values announced by the manufacturer.
b
Not measured. Conditioning could not be maintained for tensile testing.
 J. Jussila et al. / Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71 69

Fig. 2. Regression functions for simulants R21 and S7.

gelatin block and wrapped in place with two layers of PVC–
LMF film. Then, a 5.56 mm  45 caliber Federal Tactical
Bonded bullet was fired. The exit wounds were visually
inspected and compared to see whether they produce a
star-like rupture resembling that of an actual gunshot exit
wound.
Skin simulants S1–S8 were subjected to separate tensile
testing. Five test specimens were cut using a dumbbell-
shaped specimen cutter. The resulting specimens were
75 mm long with 4 mm wide and 25 mm long thin section.
Two of the five specimens were cut at 908 angle to the
remaining three to compensate for the possible effect of

Fig. 3. Typical exit wounds. (A and B) 5.56  45 Federal Tactical and simulants S8 and R2, respectively; (C) 7.62  39 and simulant S7. From
the traces left in gelatine, it was deduced that the 7.62  39 bullet exited sideways and ejected some gelatine from the exit opening. Some gelatine
can also be seen in the picture. The pictures are approximately in scale.
70 J. Jussila et al. / Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71
directional orientation of collagen fibers and Langer lines
[2,15,21]. The testing temperature was +23 8C and relative
humidity 28%. Crosshead speed was 50 mm/min and the
initial distance 50 mm. Data acquisition rate was 6.667
points per second. The testing method designed to be as
close to that of Vogel [20] as feasible.
4. Results
The results are shown in Table 3. From the results, we can
see that only sample 7, ‘‘number 7 crust’’, meets the
requirements fairly well. Of the synthetic materials, the
simulant S21 seems to be a reasonably good choice. Its
mechanical properties are, however, not quite within the
target specifications of skin simulant. The theoretical thresh-
old velocity is somewhat low, but the minimum measured
penetration velocity was over 90 m/s. The regression curves
are shown in Fig. 2. In addition to providing good vth, both
materials give fairly linear penetrations over a wide velocity
range. The exit wound in simulant S7 looked similar to real-
life exit wounds, but more work is needed to validate the
result and to establish a scaling function. The synthetic
materials did not show correct material rupture in exit
wounds probably due to their large maximum elongations.
An example of exit wounds in rubber R2 and skins S7 and S8
is shown in Fig. 3.
Sperrazza and Kokinakis [6] shot into isolated human
skin. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the threshold velocities are
much lower than those of the other researchers. This indi-
cates the significance of using complete energy-absorbing
simulant systems in research. An interesting difference
between this function and the others is that it is the only
one asymptotically approaching value vth > 0 when S
approaches 1.
5. Discussion
The ‘‘number 7 crust’’ has correct ballistic properties. It
can be expected to produce credible simulation of human
skin in wound ballistic experiments. The chosen skin simu-
lant is, however, a natural product. As such, its mechanical
properties vary to some extent. Good quality control by the
manufacturer will naturally help in producing reasonably
uniform skin simulant. Still, any changes in, for example,
preparation process or chemicals may result in different
mechanical properties. This situation may, however, be a
fact that has to be accepted until the advent of something
better.
Synthetic material would be best for simulation purposes
due to its homogeneity and resistance to environmental
changes. No suitable general purpose material was, however,
found. Such a material could no doubt be specially made in a
laboratory. The development cost and small market might,
however, make the price rather high. The natural rubber R21
can be used on the impact side to provide a threshold
velocity filter for penetrating projectiles. As its theoretical
vth is slightly low, it can be considered to provide the ‘‘worst
case scenario’’ in forensic reconstructions. The maximum
elongation is about 10 times higher than that of human skin.
Therefore, R21 probably does not give correct results on
impacts where penetration is primarily based on stretching
instead of crushing as is the case with kinetic impact
‘‘baton’’ ammunition. Great maximum elongation of the
evaluated synthetic materials may also have caused the fact
that penetrations near the theoretical vth were not observed.
This assumption also speaks for the use of R21 as its
measured vth was within the targeted values for human skin
simulant.
Another possibility is to use gelatine. An attempt was
made to use 40% concentration of gelatine mixed with water
and glycerol. This did indeed produce leather-like films. The
process, however, requires the use of a climate chamber to
control the temperature and a desiccator to prevent trapping
of air bubbles in the simulant. One could also try cross-
linking gelatine with formaldehyde to control the mechan-
ical properties. It is undoubtedly possible to produce skin
simulant form gelatine, but this path would have required
much more work and was therefore not pursued any further.
The authors feel that an easy-to-use synthetic material of
high fidelity and consistent quality should be developed for
wound ballistic research.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Mr. Antti Rissa of
Lapuan Nahka Oy, P.O. Box 31, 62101 Lapua, Finland; Mr.
Pentti Turunen of Teknikum Oy; Dr. Berthold Koehler of
Gelita Europe for advice on gelatine; Dr. Professor H G
Vogel for expert advice and critique; Dr. Antti Helminen of
Helsinki University of Technology; Mr. Pauli Heiskanen of
National Bureau of Investigation.
References
[1] R.M. Coupland, The Red Cross Wound Classification, ICRC
Publications, International Committee of the Red Cross, Gen-
eva, 1993.
[2] J. Jussila, Preparing ballistic gelatine—review and proposal for
a standard method, Forensic Sci. Int. 141 (2004) 91–98.
[3] J. Jussila, Preparation and use of ballistic gelatine, Police
Technical Centre technical guideline PTK-MO-A-0006, Police
Technical Centre, Helsinki, 2003.
[4] J. Missliwetz, Zur Grenzgeschwindigkeit bei der Haut, Beitr.
Gerichtl. Med. 65 (1987) 411–432.
[5] H. Grundfest, I.M. Korr, J.H. McMillen, E.G. Butler, Ballistics
of the penetration of human skin by small spheres, Committee
on medical research of the Office of Scientific Research and
Development, Missile Casualties Report No. 11, July 6, 1945,
referred to in [8].
 J. Jussila et al. / Forensic Science International 150 (2005) 63–71
[6] J. Sperrazza, W. Kokinakis, Ballistic limits of tissue and
clothing, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 152 (1) (1968) 163–167.
[7] V.J. DiMaio, Penetration and perforation of skin by bullets and
missiles. A review of the literature, Am. J. Forensic Med.
Pathol. 2 (2) (1981) 107–110.
[8] K.G. Sellier, B.P. Kneubuehl, Wound Ballistics and the Scien-
tific Background, Elsevier, 1994 ISBN 0-444-81511-2.
[9] B.N. Mattoo, Discussion of ‘‘Minimal velocities necessary for
perforation of skin by air gun pellets and bullets’’, J. Forensic
Sci. 29 (3) (1984) 700–703.
[10] D. Tausch, W. Sattler, G. Wehrfritz, H.-J. Wagner, Experiments
on the penetration power of various bullets into skin and
muscle tissue, Z. Rechtsmed. 81 (1978) 309–328.
[11] V.J. DiMaio, A.R. Copeland, P.E. Besant-Matthews, L.A.
Fletcher, A. Jones, Minimal velocities necessary for perfora-
tion of skin by air gun pellets and bullets, J. Forensic Sci. 27 (4)
(1982) 894–898.
[12] M. Jauhari, A. Bandyopadhyay, Ballistique des Blessures:
Modele mathémathique relative à la rupture d’une membrane
de peau sous l’impact d’un projectile sphérique, Sci.et Tech-
n.de l’Armement 50 (1–18) (1976) 218–219, referred to in [9].
[13] M. Jauhari, P. Mahanta, Wound ballistics: Study of the Rupture
of Human Skin Membrane under the impact of a Projectile, in:
Proceedings of the Eighth International Meeting of Interna-
tional Association of Forensic Science, Wichita, USA, 1978,
pp. 218–219, referred to in [9].
71
[14] M.M. Ali, V.P. Singh, N. Parrey, Rupture of human skin
membrane under impact of paraboloidal projectile: bullet
wound ballistics, Defence Sci. J. 46 (4) (1996) 233–236.
[15] C. Edwards, R. Marks, Evaluation of biomechanical properties
of human skin, Clin. Dermatol. 13 (4) (1995) 375–380,
Review.
[16] H. Holzmann, G.W. Korting, D. Kobelt, H.G. Vogel, Prüfung
der mechanischen Eigenschaften von menschlicher Haut in
Abhängigkeit von Alter und Geschlecht, Arch. Klin. Exp.
Derm. 239 (1971) 355–367.
[17] T.H. Bartell, T.A. Mustoe, Animal models of human tissue
expansion, Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 83 (4) (1989) 681–686.
[18] B. Schanz, Aspects on the choice of experimental animals
when reproducing missile trauma, Acta Chir. Scand. (Suppl.
489) (1979) 121–130.
[19] T. Sugihara, T. Ohura, K. Homma, H.H. Igawa, The extensi-
bility in human skin: variation according to age and site, Br. J.
Plast. Surg. 44 (6) (1991) 418–422.
[20] H.G. Vogel, Age dependence of mechanical and biochemical
properties of skin, Part I: stress–strain experiments, skin
thickness and biochemical analysis, Bioeng. Skin 3 (1987)
67–91.
[21] D.L. Bader, P. Bowker, Mechanical characteristics of skin and
underlying tissues in vivo, Biomaterials 4 (4) (1983) 305–308.
[22] C.H. Daly, Biomechanical properties of dermis, J. Invest.
Dermatol. 79 (Suppl. 1) (1982) 17s–20s.