applied

sciences
Article
Force and Sound Pressure Sensors Used for Modeling
the Impact of the Firearm with a Suppressor
Jaroslaw Selech 1 , Artūras Kilikevičius 2 , Kristina Kilikevičienė 3 , Sergejus Borodinas 4 ,
Jonas Matijošius 2, * , Darius Vainorius 2 , Jacek Marcinkiewicz 1 and Zaneta Staszak 1
1 The Faculty of Civil and Transport Engineering, Poznan University of Technology, 5 M. Skłodowska-Curie
Square PL-60-965 Poznan, Poland; jaroslaw.selech@put.poznan.pl (J.S.);
jacek.marcinkiewicz@put.poznan.pl (J.M.); zaneta.staszak@put.poznan.pl (Z.S.)
2 Institute of Mechanical Science, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, J. Basanavičiaus str. 28,
LT-03224 Vilnius, Lithuania; arturas.kilikevicius@vgtu.lt (A.K.); darius.vainorius@vgtu.lt (D.V.)
3 Department of Mechanical and Material Engineering, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
J. Basanavičiaus str. 28, LT-03224 Vilnius, Lithuania; kristina.kilikeviciene@vgtu.lt
4 Department of Applied Mechanics, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saulėtekio av. 11, 10223 Vilnius,
Lithuania; sergejus.borodinas@vgtu.lt
* Correspondence: jonas.matijosius@vgtu.lt; Tel.: +370-684-04-169




Received: 23 December 2019; Accepted: 30 January 2020; Published: 2 February 2020


Abstract: In this paper, a mathematical model for projectiles shooting in any direction based on
sensors distributed stereoscopically is put forward. It is based on the characteristics of a shock
wave around a supersonic projectile and acoustical localization. Wave equations for an acoustic
monopole point source of a directed effect used for physical interpretation of pressure as an acoustic
phenomenon. Simulation and measurements of novel versatile mechanical and acoustical damping
system (silencer), which has both a muzzle break and silencer properties studied in this paper. The use
of the proposed damping system can have great influence on the acoustic pressure field intensity
from the shooter. A silencer regarded as an acoustic transducer and multi-holes waveguide with
a chamber. Wave equations for an acoustic monopole point source of a directed effect used for the
physical interpretation of pressure as an acoustic phenomenon. The numerical simulation results of
the silencer with different configurations presented allow trends to be established. A measurement
chain was used to compare the simulation results with the experimental ones. The modeling and
experimental results showed an increase in silencer chamber volume results in a reduction of recorded
pressure within the silencer chamber.

Keywords: force sensor; silencer; point wave source; dynamic impact; sound pressure

1. Introduction
The results of acoustic and force sensors’ measurement and their use in shooting simulation are
analyzed in a series of articles. Acoustic parameters and force measurement technology is widely used
in the assessment of the characteristics of the shot. Parameters of firearms and their accessories (sights,
silencer, etc.) are research objects of many studies worldwide, as the high precision and reliability
of their evaluation is required by state authorities of weapon supervision. A modern silencer of the
firearm is vastly superior to ear-level protection and the only available form of suppression capable
of making certain sporting arms safe for hearing [1–8]. Forces show an increasing number of cases
of hearing damage [9–15]. Many of the early developments of the silencer were mainly empirical in
nature [16–25].
The basic purpose of the silencer is to mask the position of the weapon, which can be precisely
determined similarly to locating the blasting source [26–31]. A silencer suppresses the firing sound in

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961; doi:10.3390/app10030961 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 2 of 14

several ways: by reducing the inner energy of the powder gases coming out of the barrel, by reducing
their output velocity and temperature, or by breaking the powder gas flow and by making it whirl.
All firearm silencers offered significantly greater noise reduction than ear-level protection, which is
usually greater than 50%. Noise reduction of all ear-level protectors is unable to reduce the impulse
pressure below 140 dB for certain common firearms.
The firing sound is a combination of a number of acoustic waves formed as a result of four main
components: the gunpowder gas flow muzzle wave, the shock wave generated due to the supersonic
projectile movement, the wave formed by the air column ejected from the gun barrel in front of the
projectile, and the acoustic wave generated by collision of gun parts during the firing process.
The US Army’s Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL) has developed a prediction method for muzzle
devices [32] based on gathered experimental data on muzzle devices for distances from 10 to 50 calibers
from the muzzle [33–35]. Helliker and other scientists [16,27,36–42] investigated many different muzzle
devices including a silencer. The outputs of the models were not verified against experimental test
data from muzzle blasts, which differ to conventional blast waves [43–48].
Carson and Sahni [49] studied containment devices in more detail both theoretically and
experimentally in three approaches: acoustic theory, blast theory, and quasi-one-dimensional
flow theory.
Blast attenuation increased rapidly with the number of baffles in a silencer before maximum
attenuation was achieved and a gradual decline occurred [50–56].
It is well known that, while the projectile accelerates with a high temperature and high pressure,
the explosion of propellant gases generates the muzzle blast wave [49,57–65]. Since the muzzle energy
increases, the impulsive wave intensity is estimated accordingly. A shot, as an impulse shock wave
coming from the weapon, has many negative effects on people and the environment. Unlike other
sounds, shock wave has high energy, low frequency, and impulsiveness. It is strongly directed and has
long-range propagation [66–74]. The muzzle blast is strongly directed.
Kirby [75] noted that both the Boundary Element Method and Finite Element Analysis have been
used as tools to model the gas flows in vehicle exhaust silencers.
Cummings [36] suggests that computational methods require considerable effort and can be
difficult to track and other mathematical models are also reliant on very low Mach number velocities,
which limits their application within firearms.
In this paper, authors used the acoustic-solid interaction COMSOL multi-physics interface for
finding a solid domain reaction (barrel with/without silencer) to the acoustic explosion inside the
barrel, which corresponds to the blasting effect [76].
The main advantage of this device is that the sound is suppressed mainly in the area of the shooter
while, in the direction of the shot, the sound is suppressed by up to 30% (and this device does not
belong to the mufflers) and can, therefore, be used in hunting because if, in the direction of the shot,
sound is suppressed by more than 30%, hunting would not be possible. Thus, a blocking device
imposed for use in hunting has been developed and its use significantly reduces the sound pressure in
the shooter zone and, in addition, significantly reduces the kickback force.
The newly developed suppression device is intended for use in the leisure and non-military
industry. The newly developed silencer would be a mixture of the silencer and muzzle brake designed
to reduce noise and kickback. The main advantage of this unit is that the sound is suppressed mainly in
the shooter area and up to 30% in the firing direction (and this indicator does not count as suppressors).
As a result, the damping device can be used in leisure activities, as if the sound was suppressed by
more than 30% in the direction of the firing. The damping device would be classified as dampers,
which are not legal in many European countries like Lithuania.
The silencer muzzle brake is widely described in both scientific and patent materials. However,
there is hardly any information on devices with the desired damping-braking properties. This type of
device is not for sale.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

94 The silencer muzzle brake is widely described in both scientific and patent materials. However,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 3 of 14
95 there is hardly any information on devices with the desired damping-braking properties. This type
96 of device is not for sale.
97 The
Thesilencer
silencerandand muzzle problems are
muzzle brake problems are most
mostoften
oftenaddressed
addressedininthe
the scientific
scientific literature:
literature: impact
98 impact
on bulleton trajectory
bullet trajectory [77–79],
[77–79], effectseffects of sound
of sound pressure
pressure generated
generated during
during the the
shotshot
on on hearing
hearing [80–85],
99 [80–85], and reducing
and reducing the soundthe pressure
sound pressure of firearms
of firearms by using by various
using various
types types of silencers
of silencers [86–88].[86–88].
However,
100 However, problems related to the use of the device for recreational use
problems related to the use of the device for recreational use are not addressed. are not addressed.
101 AAprototype
prototypeisiscurrently
currentlybeing developed
being developed at JSC Oksalis,
at JSC and and
Oksalis, the determination of theofproperties
the determination the properties
102 (acoustic parameters and kickback force) of this prototype would allow for a well-validated
(acoustic parameters and kickback force) of this prototype would allow for a well-validated theoretical
103 theoretical model based on the results obtained. With the right model and theoretical optimization
model based on the results obtained. With the right model and theoretical optimization studies,
104 studies, it would be possible to retest and evaluate the performance of the damping-braking device.
it would be possible to retest and evaluate the performance of the damping-braking device. The goal is
105 The goal is to achieve optimum damping-braking device characteristics and to evaluate the
to achieve optimum damping-braking device characteristics and to evaluate the production capabilities.
106 production capabilities.
2. Materials and Methods
107 2. Materials and Methods
The object of the investigation is a damping system used in a firearm. Explosive Weapon (Merkel
108 The object of the investigation is a damping system used in a firearm. Explosive Weapon (Merkel
RX Helix Black 308 Win) is presented in Figure 1a. The damping system is shown in Figure 1a–c,
109 RX Helix Black 308 Win) is presented in Figure 1a. The damping system is shown in Figure 1a, 1b,
110 respectively.
and ImagesImages
1c, respectively. of a suppression system
of a suppression fittedfitted
system to thetoweapon are shown
the weapon in Figure
are shown 1a,c.
in Figure 1aAssembly
and
111 of Assembly
1c. the damping system
of the (silencer)
damping systemis (silencer)
presentedis in Figure 1b.
presented in Figure 1b.

(a)

(b) (c)
112 Figure
Figure1.1.Firearm
Firearmwith
witha fire damping
a fire system
damping (silencer):
system a) explosive
(silencer): weapon
(a) explosive (Merkel
weapon RX Helix
(Merkel Black Black
RX Helix
113 308
308Win);
Win);b)(b)
assembly of the
assembly damping
of the system
damping (silencer);
system c) a (c)
(silencer); suppression system
a suppression fitted fitted
system to the to
weapon.
the weapon.

114 In
In the design
design process,
process,computational
computationalsimulations
simulations areare used
used to investigate
to investigate how different
how different geometries
115 geometries and operational parameters affect optimizing the performance of systems (Figure
and operational parameters affect optimizing the performance of systems (Figure 2). Of the available 2). Of
116 the available computational tools, COMSOL Multiphysics applies a finite element method
computational tools, COMSOL Multiphysics applies a finite element method to solve different physicsto solve
117 different physics problems
and engineering and engineering problems
(e.g., acoustic (e.g., acoustic
propagation) governedpropagation) governedequations
by partial differential by partial (PDEs).
118 differential equations (PDEs). The acoustic-solid interaction, transient multi-physics interface
The acoustic-solid interaction, transient multi-physics interface combines the pressure acoustics as well
119 combines the pressure acoustics as well as transient and solid mechanics interfaces to connect the
as transient and solid mechanics interfaces to connect the acoustic pressure variations in the air domain
120 acoustic pressure variations in the air domain to the structural deformation in the solid domain. A
to the structural deformation in the solid domain. A dedicated multi-physics coupling condition is
121 dedicated multi-physics coupling condition is readily defined for the air-solid boundary and sets up
readily defined for the air-solid boundary and sets up the air loads on the solid domain and the effect
of the structural accelerations on the air. Each module is governed by its own equations that describe
the specific physics.
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

122 Appl.air
the Sci.loads
2020, 10,
on961 4 of 14
the solid domain and the effect of the structural accelerations on the air. Each module
123 is governed by its own equations that describe the specific physics.

124
125 Figure 2. CAD assembly of 3D silencer model section view included chamber and internal holes.

126 The pressure acoustics model involves a monopole point source that considers the flow pulse at
127 the center of a barrel bottom (Figure 3) to illustrate some properties of time-dependent acoustic
128 problems [89]. The acoustic pressure field p(x,t), along the barrel is given by the scalar wave equation
129 shown below.

124 + ∇ ∙ − (∇ − = ( , ), (1)
Figure 2. CAD assembly of 3D silencer model section view included chamber and internal holes.
125
130 Figure 2. CAD assembly of 3D silencer model section view included chamber and internal holes.
where pt is the total acoustic pressure, ρ is air density, c is speed of sound, and qd is the dipole domain
131 Thewhich
source, pressure acoustics
represents model involves
a domain volumetric a monopole
force andpointS(x,t)source
is the that considers
monopole thesource
point flow pulse
term
126 at
The pressure acoustics model involves a monopole point source that considers the flow pulse at
the center of a barrel bottom (Figure 3) to illustrate some properties of time-dependent acoustic
132 given by the equation below.
127 the center of a barrel bottom (Figure 3) to illustrate some properties of time-dependent acoustic
problems [89]. The acoustic pressure field p(x,t), along the barrel is given by the scalar wave equation
128 problems [89]. The acoustic pressure field
shown below. ( p(x,t),
, ) =along the ( − barrel ), is given by the scalar wave equation (2)
129 shown below. 1 ∂ p2
1
!
133 where δ(x-x0) is the delta functionρcin three + dimensions
∇· − (∇pt −and = S(x,
qd adds t),source at the point where x = x(1)
the 0.
2 ∂t 2 ρ
+ ∇ ∙ − (∇ − = ( , ), (1)
134 where pt is
The the total acoustic
monopole amplitude pressure,
S dependsρ is air
on density,
the sourcec is type
speedand,of sound,
in ourand qd is the dipole
calculation, domain
is the volume
130
135 where
source,p t is the represents
which total acoustic
a pressure,
domain ρ is
volumetric air density,
force c
and is speed
S(x,t) is of
the sound,
monopoleand qd is the
point
flow rate out from the source (peak 4 m /s). All external boundaries of the air domain are established
3 dipole
source termdomain
given
131
136 source,
byathe
as whichwave
equation
spherical represents
below. a domain
radiation. volumetric
This radiation force and
condition S(x,t)anisoutgoing
allows the monopole point
spherical wavesource term
to leave
132 given by the equation below. 4π
137 the modeling air domain with minimalS(reflections. x, t) = The
Sδ (x −maximum
x0 ) , element size is closely related (2) to
ρc
138 the speed of sound in the air, frequency(bandwidth,
, )= and
( − ),number of elements per wavelength (we
(2)
139 whereNδ(x
used − x0 ) is the delta function in three dimensions and adds the source at the point where x = x0 .
= 4).
133 where δ(x-x0) is the delta function in three dimensions and adds the source at the point where x = x0.
Silencer
134 Air domain
The monopole amplitude S depends on the(barrel)
Solid domain source type and, in our calculation, is the volume
135 flow rate out from the source (peak 4 m3/s). All external boundaries of the air domain are established
136 as a spherical wave radiation. This radiation condition allows an outgoing spherical wave to leave
137 the modeling air domain with minimal reflections. The maximum element size is closely related to
138 the speed of sound in the air, frequency bandwidth, and number of elements per wavelength (we
Monopole point source
139 used N = 4).

Boundary with added mass and spring Silencer

foundation
140
Air domain
Figure 3. CAD assembly of Solid
the 3Ddomain (barrel)
silencer with barrel and some boundary condition.
141 Figure 3. CAD assembly of the 3D silencer with barrel and some boundary condition.
The monopole amplitude S depends on the source type and, in our calculation, is the volume flow
142 rate outthe
In pressure
from acoustics
the source (peak 4andm3 /s).
solid
Allmechanics model simulation,
external boundaries several are
of the air domain assumptions
establishedwere
as a
143 made: (1) only
spherical waveisotropic lossThis
radiation. factor of the mechanical
radiation systeman
condition allows is outgoing
taken intospherical
account, wave
(2) thetomonopole
leave the
144 point source
modeling airtime duration
domain is about 1,
with minimal 2 ms (in real
reflections. Therifle barrel,Monopole
maximum element point
the shot size issource
duration varyrelated
closely from 1 to
to the
60
145 ms), (3) the holes number of the silencer are selected from 7 to 9 and used in a parametric
speed of sound in the air, frequency bandwidth, and number of elements per wavelength (we used sweep of
146 Boundary with added mass and spring foundation
140 N =time-dependent
the 4). study, and (4) the monopole point source has a normal distribution waveform of
In the pressure acoustics and solid mechanics model simulation, several assumptions were made:
141 (1) only isotropic
Figure loss factor
3. CAD of theofmechanical
assembly system
the 3D silencer with is taken
barrel andinto account,
some boundary (2)condition.
the monopole point
source time duration is about 1, 2 ms (in real rifle barrel, the shot duration vary from 1 to 60 ms),
142 In holes
(3) the the pressure
number acoustics and solid
of the silencer mechanics
are selected frommodel simulation,
7 to 9 and used in several assumptions
a parametric sweep of were
the
143 made: (1) only isotropic
time-dependent study, andloss(4)factor of the mechanical
the monopole system
point source has is taken into
a normal account, waveform
distribution (2) the monopole
of flow
144 point source
pulse in time duration
modeling. The default is about 1, 2 msand
temperature (in initial
real rifle barrel,estimated
pressure the shot 20 ◦ C andvary
duration 0 Pa,from 1 to 60
respectively.
145 ms),
Moreover, the bottom of a barrel has 90 kg of added mass and a spring foundation, as shown of
(3) the holes number of the silencer are selected from 7 to 9 and used in a parametric sweep in
146 the time-dependent
Figure 3. study, and (4) the monopole point source has a normal distribution waveform of
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

147 flow pulse in modeling. The default temperature and initial pressure estimated 20 °C and 0 Pa,
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 5 of 14
148 respectively. Moreover, the bottom of a barrel has 90 kg of added mass and a spring foundation, as
149 shown in Figure 3.
150 During
Duringthethe
research,
research,thethe
dynamic
dynamic effects of aofbullet
effects a bulletcaused
causedby by
a silencer areare
a silencer examined.
examined.The study
The study
151 used
useda bullet (180
a bullet g).g).
(180
152 The main
The object
main of current
object research
of current in this in
research paper
thisispaper
the silencer’s design. According
is the silencer’s to the technical
design. According to the
153 requirements, the sound level
technical requirements, pressure
the sound field
level and rifle
pressure delivery
field willdelivery
and rifle be minimized
will be from the shooting
minimized from the
154 side, but theside,
shooting sound butlevel pressure
the sound from
level the target
pressure fromis the
not target
necessary tonecessary
is not attenuation.to attenuation.
155 Brüel
Brüel & Kjær
& Kjær measuring
measuring instruments
instruments were usedwere used to force
to measure measure force pressure
and sound and sound pressure
parameters.
156 Theparameters. The mobileresults
mobile measurement measurement
processingresults processing
equipment equipment
“3660-D” with "3660-D" with DELL
DELL computers computers
(Figure 4c).
157 The(Figure 4c). The
force sensor force sensor
8320-002 (Figure 8320-002
4a) were(Figure
mounted 4a)onwerethe mounted on the
gun backrest. Thegun backrest.
apparatus forThe apparatus
measuring
158 thefor measuring
sound pressure theis sound
shownpressure
in Figureis4d.
shown in Figure
This part depicts 4d.anThis part
audio depictswith
analyzer an audio analyzer 2250
a microphone with a
159 andmicrophone
a hydrophone 22508103
and[90,91].
a hydrophone 8103 [90–92].

(a)

(c)

(b) (d)
160 4. Experimental
Figure
Figure 4. Experimentalsetup for force
setup and and
for force sound pressure
sound measurements:
pressure (a) thea)force
measurements: the sensor 8320-002;
force sensor 8320-
161 (b)002;
the testing
b) the bench;
testing (c) the mobile
bench; c) the measurement results processing
mobile measurement equipment
results processing “3660-D” "3660-D"
equipment with DELL with
162 computers; (d) the apparatus
DELL computers; for measuring
d) the apparatus the sound
for measuring pressure
the (Hydrophone
sound pressure 8103). 8103).
(Hydrophone

163 The received

The measurement
received signals
measurement from the
signals computer
from were processed
the computer were using static using
processed data processing
static data
164 package Origin 6 and Pulse software packages. Signal spectra, distributions, and statistical parameters
processing package Origin 6 and Pulse software packages. Signal spectra, distributions, and statistical
165 were calculated.
parameters were calculated.
166 Arithmetic
Arithmeticmean:
mean: n
X 1
x= xin, (3)
n 1
x i=1  xi (3)
Standard deviation: v
n i 1 ,
n
t
1 X
167 Standard deviation: SX = ( xi − x ) 2 , (4)
n−1
i=1
1 n
where n—the number of measurement results.
S  xi —the ith measurement
x x
X 
result.
n  1 i 1
 i 
2
(4)
,
168 where n - the number of measurement results. xi - the ith measurement result.
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 6 of 14

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14

3. Results
169 3. Results
3.1. Measurements Results of the Firearm’s Backrest Force
170 3.1. Measurements Results Of The Firearm's Backrest Force
Measurements of the firearm’s backrest force were carried out using a force-measuring device
171 Measurements
(Figure 4a). of the firearm's backrest force were carried out using a force-measuring device
172 (Figure 4a).
During the study, the dynamic effects caused by a different bullet on a rifle were examined.
173 Duringgraphs
The typical the study, the
of the dynamic
backrest effects
forces caused
in the bythe
end of a different bullet
rifle’s back on a 4a)
(Figure rifleare
were examined.
shown The
in Figure 5.
174 typical graphs of the backrest forces in the end of the rifle's
The statistical parameters of the results are presented in Table 1. back (Figure 4a) are shown in Figure 5.
175 The statistical parameters of the results are presented in Table 1.
Time(Signal 2) - Mark 1 (Real) \ FFT
Time(Signal 2) - Mark 2 (Real) \ FFT
[N]

2k

1.6k

1.2k

800

400

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65

176 [s]

Figure 5. Typical time alteration graphs representing generated forces of the reaper of the rear barrel
177 Figure 5. Typical time alteration graphs representing generated forces of the reaper of the rear barrel
directed at a human. Blue—when the silencer is used. Red—when the silencer is not used.
178 directed at a human. Blue - when the silencer is used. Red - when the silencer is not used.
Table 1. Statistical characteristics of force measurement results.
179 The statistical characteristics of the results of the measurement of force in Table 1 show that the
180 damper reduces theSetup
force* from 2,192,333 to 1,195,667Force,
N. NTherefore, it can be seen that the damping
181 Mean Standard Deviation
device significantly reduces the amount of force directed at the Minimum Maximum
person, which is obtained during the
182 shooting. A 1195.667 10.841 1173 1214
183 The formula usedBto evaluate2192.333
the damping4.5056
force is shown2185
below. 2200
* A—with silencer. B—without silencer.
TN = (1-Fwith silencer/ Fwithout silencer)*100%. (5)

The statistical characteristics of the results of the measurement of force in Table 1 show that the
184 Tablefrom
damper reduces the force 1. Statistical
2,192,333characteristics
to 1,195,667 of N.
force measurement
Therefore, results.
it can be seen that the damping
device significantly
Setup* reduces the amount of force directed
Force, N at the person, which is obtained during
the shooting. Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum
The formula
A used to evaluate the damping
1195.667 10.841 force is shown below. 1173 1214
B 2192.333 4.5056 2185 2200
TN = (1 − Fwith silencer /Fwithout silencer ) * 100%. (5)
*A – with silencer. B – without silencer.
The damping evaluating the magnitude of force is given below.
185 The damping evaluating the magnitude of force is given below.
TN = (1
TN−=F(1- Fwith
with silencer /F / Fwithout
silencer without
) * 100% = (1 − 1195.667/2192.333) * 100% = 45.46%
silencer)*100% = (1-1195.667/2192.333) * 100% = 45.46 %
silencer

186 The results

The results show
show that
that the
thedamping
dampingdevice
devicesignificantly
significantlyreduces
reducesthe
theamount
amountofofforce
forcedirected
directedatat
a
187 a person
person (reduction
(reduction ofof 45.46%).
45.46%).

188 3.2. Sound Pressure Measurement Results

189 Sound pressure measurements were carried out using the hydrophone 8103. Sound pressure
190 (Figure 4d), when the shot is being made, the time of change, and the spectral density graphs when
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 7 of 14

3.2. Sound Pressure Measurement Results

Appl.Sound
Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER
pressure REVIEW
measurements were carried out using the hydrophone 8103. Sound pressure 7 of 14

(Figure 4d), when the shot is being made, the time of change, and the spectral density graphs when
191 shootingwith
shooting withand
andwithout
withoutthe thesilencer
silencerisisshown
shownininFigure
Figure6.6.The
Thestatistical
statisticalparameters
parametersofofthe
thetest
testare
are
192 presentedininTable
presented Table2 2asaswell.
well.

3,5
200
150 3,0

100
Sound pressure, Pa

2,5

Sound pressure, Pa
50
2,0
0
1,5
-50
-100 1,0

-150 0,5
-200
0,0
1,5 1,6 1,7 1,8 1,9 2,0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time, s Frequency, Hz

(a) (b)
193 Figure6.6.Typical
Figure Typicalsound
sound pressure
pressure graphs:
graphs: (a)a)a atime
timealteration
alteration
(b)b)aaspectral
spectraldensity,
density), when
when a shot
a shot with
with a
194 barrel is performed.
a barrel is performed.Blue—when thethe
Blue - when silencer is used.
silencer Red—when
is used. Red - when thethe
silencer is not
silencer used.
is not used.

Table 2. Statistical characteristics of sound pressure measurement results.

195 Table 2. Statistical characteristics of sound pressure measurement results.
Setup *
Setup* Sound
SoundPressure,
Pressure,PaPa

MeanMean Standard
StandardDeviation
Deviation Minimum
Minimum Maximum
Maximum
A A 92.517
92.517 1.505
1.505 91.3 91.3 94.2 94.2
B B 350.767
350.767 3.287
3.287 347.8 347.8 354.3 354.3
*A* A—with silencer. B—without
– with silencer. silencer.
B – without silencer.

196 The
Thestatistical
statisticalcharacteristics of of
characteristics thethe
sound
soundpressure measurement
pressure measurement results in Table
results 2 show
in Table that the
2 show that
197 damping device
the damping (silencer)
device reduces
(silencer) the sound
reduces pressure
the sound from 350.767
pressure to 92.517
from 350.767 Pa. Thus,
to 92.517 it can be
Pa. Thus, seenbe
it can
198 that
seenthe silencer
that significantly
the silencer reduces
significantly the sound
reduces pressure
the sound obtained
pressure duringduring
obtained the shooting.
the shooting.
199 The sound pressure damping in relation to the pressure level is given
The sound pressure damping in relation to the pressure level is given below. below.

TP = (1 −T(P
P = (1 – (Pwith silencer max +| Pwith silencer min |)/ (Pwithout silencer max +| Pwithout silencer min |)) * 100%.
with silencer max +|Pwith silencer min |)/(Pwithout silencer max + |Pwithout silencer min |)) * 100%.
(6)
(6)
200 Damping evaluating the pressure level is given below.
Damping evaluating the pressure level is given below.

TTPPpressure = (1
pressure Vulkan =
Vulkan
(1 −– (P
(Pwith
with silencer max +| Pwith silencer min|)/ (Pwithout silencer max +| Pwithout silencer min|)) * 100%
silencer max + |Pwith silencer min |)/(Pwithout silencer max + |Pwithout silencer min |)) * 100% (7)
(7)
== (1
(1−–92.517/350.767)
92.517/350.767) * 100
* 100% % =73.6 %.
= 73.6%.

201 The73.6%
The results show that
reduction in the silencer
sound significantly
pressure achievedreduces
with thethe
usevalue
of anofadditional
the soundsilencer
pressure in the
during
202 shooter
firing zone during
suggests that thethe shooting.
silencer usedThe amount
during of significantly
firing the sound pressure value
increases causedpressure
the sound by the firing
in thein
203 the shooter
shooter area. area decreases by 71.26% using the additional silencer.

204 4.4.Discussion
Discussion
205 Figures
Figures7 7and
and8 show
8 showthethe
backrest’s (Figure
backrest’s 4) rear
(Figure part.part.
4) rear When the shot
When is executed,
the shot the forces
is executed, are
the forces
206 directed to human
are directed time time
to human and spectral density
and spectral graphs
density during
graphs the shooting
during as well
the shooting as when
as well a damper
as when is
a damper
207 used and not used.
is used and not used.
208 The
Theinstantaneous
instantaneouslocal
localacceleration
accelerationininthe
theair
airdomain’s
domain’spoint
pointisisreflected
reflectedtotothe
thesound
soundpressure
pressure
209 level
level(SPL).
(SPL).Time-dependent
Time-dependentnumerical
numericalsimulation
simulationresults
resultsininthe
thelocal
localpoint
pointofofthe
thebarrel
barrelbottom
bottomisis
210 shown in Figure 7a. In four cases, only a barrel without the silencer and with 7-9 hole silencer types.
211 A normalized characteristic of local acceleration in the point of the air domain 1 m distance from the
212 bottom of the barrel in the first 10 periods of the shot are degreased using the silencer (all colors
213 instead of the dark blue in Figure 7a). We can assume that the acoustic sound pressure from this side
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

214 is also degreasing when compared with the calculation of a standard rifle barrel (dark blue line in
215 Figure 7a). The acceleration in the far-field degrease faster using a silencer on the barrel exit.

Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 8 of 14

shown in Figure 7a. In four cases, only a barrel without the silencer and with 7–9 hole silencer types.
A normalized characteristic of local acceleration in the point of the air domain 1 m distance from the
bottom of the barrel in the first 10 periods of the shot are degreased using the silencer (all colors instead
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
of the dark blue in Figure 7a). We can assume that the acoustic sound pressure from this side is also
214 is degreasing
also degreasing whenwhen
compared withwith
compared the calculation of aofstandard
the calculation rifle
a standard barrel
rifle (dark
barrel blue
(dark line
blue in in
line Figure 7a).
215 The acceleration
Figure in the far-field
7a). The acceleration degrease
in the far-field faster using
degrease a silencer
faster using on the
a silencer onbarrel exit.exit.
the barrel

(a) (b)

216 Figure 7. Normalized local acceleration in the point 1 m from the barrel bottom by Z-axes (a) and total
217 acoustic pressure field along the yellow line inside the barrel (b): dark blue – only barrel, other colors
218 – with a 7-9-holes silencer.

219 Total acoustic pressure field along the barrel (yellow line) is shown in Figure 7b. According to
220 the numerical calculation and the pressure field inside the barrel, using the 8holes silencer type
221 degreased almost twice.
222 Normalized sound pressure in the point 1 m from the barrel bottom in the time domain with
223 and without the silencer is shown in Figure 8a. Good enough acoustical damping performance is
224 represented using an 8-holes silencer. Another characteristic of analyzing vibration data is in the
225 frequency domain, which is (a)the most vibration analyzing type. Using a spectrogram, (b)we get a much
226 deeper understanding of the vibration profile and how it changes with time. The FFT (fast Fourier
216
227 Figure
Figure
transform) 7. Normalized
a block local
7. Normalized
takes acceleration in the(Figure
local acceleration
of time-domain data point 1m
in the from
and1the
point
8a) mbarrel bottom
from the
returns by Z-axes
thefrequency
barrel bottom (a)by
andZ-axes
spectrum total
of the(a) and
217
228 acoustic
total pressure
acoustic field along
pressure the
fieldyellow
along line
theinside the
yellow barrel
line (b):
inside dark
theblue – only
barrel barrel,
(b): dark other
data (Figure 8b). The main data presents the highest harmonics are attenuated by the silencer. Low barrel, colors
blue—only
218
229 – with
otheraharmonics
frequency 7-9-holes
colors—withsilencer.
has a 7–9-holes silencer.(blue line in Figure 8b).
lower amplitude

219 Total acoustic pressure field along the barrel (yellow line) is shown in Figure 7b. According to
220 the numerical calculation and the pressure field inside the barrel, using the 8holes silencer type
221 degreased almost twice.
222 Normalized sound pressure in the point 1 m from the barrel bottom in the time domain with
223 and without the silencer is shown in Figure 8a. Good enough acoustical damping performance is
224 represented using an 8-holes silencer. Another characteristic of analyzing vibration data is in the
225 frequency domain, which is the most vibration analyzing type. Using a spectrogram, we get a much
226 deeper understanding of the vibration profile and how it changes with time. The FFT (fast Fourier
227 transform) takes a block of time-domain data (Figure 8a) and returns the frequency spectrum of the
228 data (Figure 8b). The main data presents the highest harmonics are attenuated by the silencer. Low
229 frequency harmonics has a lower amplitude (blue line in Figure 8b).
(a) (b)

230 Figure
Figure8. Normalized
8. Normalized sound sound
pressurepressure
in the point
in 1the
m from the1 barrel
point m frombottom:
the (time
barrelalteration
bottom:(a)(time
and alteration
231 spectral
(a) anddensity (b))density
spectral when a (b))
shotwhen
with aabarrel is performed.
shot with a barrel Blue - when theBlue—when
is performed. silencer is used.
theRed -
silencer is used.
232 when the silencer
Red—when theissilencer
not used.is not used.

233 The SPLacoustic

Total distribution on thefield
pressure frequency
alongofthe
10barrel
Hz both for the line)
(yellow systemis when
shownthe
insilencer
Figureis7b.
notAccording
used to the
234 and used is shown in Figure 9. We can see than SPL from the “man” view is reduced (Figure 9b)
numerical calculation and the pressure field inside the barrel, using the 8holes silencer type degreased
almost twice.
Normalized sound pressure in the point 1 m from the barrel bottom in the time domain with
and without the silencer is shown in Figure 8a. Good enough acoustical damping performance is
represented using an 8-holes silencer. Another characteristic of analyzing vibration data is in the
frequency domain, which (a) is the most vibration analyzing type. Using a spectrogram,(b) we get a much
deeper understanding of the vibration profile and how it changes with time. The FFT (fast Fourier
230 Figure 8. Normalized sound pressure in the point 1 m from the barrel bottom: (time alteration (a) and
transform) takes a block of time-domain data (Figure 8a) and returns the frequency spectrum of
231 spectral density (b)) when a shot with a barrel is performed. Blue - when the silencer is used. Red -
232 thewhen
datathe
(Figure
silencer8b).
is notThe main data presents the highest harmonics are attenuated by the silencer.
used.
Low frequency harmonics has a lower amplitude (blue line in Figure 8b).
233 The SPL distribution on the frequency of 10 Hz both for the system when the silencer is not used
234 and used is shown in Figure 9. We can see than SPL from the “man” view is reduced (Figure 9b)
 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 9 of 14

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

The SPL distribution on the frequency of 10 Hz both for the system when the silencer is not used
235 when
and usedcompared
is shownwith the initial
in Figure 9. We (standard)
can see thansystem
SPL from(Figure 9a). Another
the “man” very famous
view is reduced (Figureand
9b) useful
when
236 acoustic
Appl. Sci. field
2019, 9, xis the
FOR polar
PEER plot
REVIEW diagram, which represents the SPL distribution
compared with the initial (standard) system (Figure 9a). Another very famous and useful acoustic of the exterior-field,
9 of 14
237 field is the polar plot diagram, which represents the SPL distribution of the exterior-field, basedplot
based on far-field integral calculation on the air surface in a pressure acoustics model. Two polar on
238
238 diagrams
diagrams
far-field for
for frequencies
integralfrequencies 110
calculation onHz
110 Hz and
the air 1100
and 1100 Hz are
Hzin
surface are presented
presented
a pressure in
in Figure
Figure
acoustics 10a
10a and
model. and
Two10b,
10b, respectively.
polarrespectively. We
We
plot diagrams
239
239 can
for assume
assume that,
canfrequencies 110using
that, using the
Hz and silencer,
the1100
silencer,
Hz arewe
we can
can reduce
reduce
presented or
or slightly
10a,b,control
slightly
in Figure control SPLs
SPLs that
respectively. that
We can depend
depend
assumeon our
onthat,
our
240
240 requirements.
requirements.
using the silencer, we can reduce or slightly control SPLs that depend on our requirements.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
241
241 Figure
Figure9.
Figure 9.(SPL)
9. (SPL) (10
(10 Hz)
Hz) iso-surface
iso-surface of
of the
the initial
initialsystem
initial system(a)
system (a)and
(a) andsystem
and systemwith
system withaasilencer
with silencer(b).
(b).
(b).

(a)(a) (b) (b)

Figure 10. Exterior-field SPL (far-field)—110 Hz (a) and 1100 Hz (b).

242
242 Figure
Figure10.
10.Exterior-field
Exterior-fieldSPL
SPL(far-field)
(far-field)––110
110Hz
Hz(a)
(a)and
and1100
1100Hz
Hz(b).
(b).
Studies carried out to analyze the barrel of different characteristics show that the pressure is
243
243 Studies
reduced
Studies carried
in part of the
carried out to
to analyze
damper
out where
analyze thethebarrel
the of
of different
cavities
barrel are made.characteristics
different The pressure drop
characteristics show that
showdoes the
thatnot pressure
theexceed
pressure isis
15%.
244
244 reduced
Airflow inin part
part of
reducedsimulations of the damper
have
the shown
damper where
thatthe
where thecavities
the airfloware
cavities aremade.
rate at theThe
made. exitpressure
The increaseddrop
pressure does
by 8%.
drop doesInnot exceed
assessing
not 15%.
exceedthese
15%.
245
245 Airflow
Airflowitsimulations
results, can be assumed
simulations have shown
havethat
shownthisthat the
the airflow
system
that directs rate
airflowthe at
atthe
rateflow exit
along
the increased
exitthe by
shot and,
increased 8%.
8%. In
In assessing
bythereby, suppresses
assessing these
the
these
246
246 results,
results, ititsound
acoustic can
can be
be assumed
pressure
assumed that
that this
(noise) system
in the
this directs
directs the
fire zone.
system the flow
flow along
along thethe shot
shot and,
and, thereby,
thereby, suppresses
suppresses
247
247 the
theacoustic
acousticsoundsoundpressure
pressure(noise)
(noise)ininthethefire
firezone.
zone.

248
248 5.
5.Conclusions
Conclusions
249 The research shows that, using force and sound pressure sensor measurement results of
250 modeling, can be accurately determined by modeling the impact of the muzzle brake to acoustic and
251 force parameters.
252 The research examined the effect of the newly created damper on the dynamic parameters
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 10 of 14

5. Conclusions
The research shows that, using force and sound pressure sensor measurement results of
modeling, can be accurately determined by modeling the impact of the muzzle brake to acoustic and
force parameters.
The research examined the effect of the newly created damper on the dynamic parameters during
the shooting.
The results show that the damping device significantly reduces the rebound force of a gun directed
to a person, which appears during the shot. The force is caused by the use of a damper that decreases
by 45.46%.
The results show that the silencer significantly reduces the value of the sound pressure in the
shooter zone during the shooting. The amount of the sound pressure value caused by the firing in the
shooter area decreases by 73.6% using the additional silencer.
According to the technical requirements, the sound level pressure field and rifle delivery will be
minimized from the shooting side. According to a numerical calculation, the pressure field inside the
barrel, using the 8-holes silencer type, degreased almost twice.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.S., K.K., and J.M. (Jonas Matijošius). Methodology, A.K. and J.M.
(Jacek Marcinkiewicz). Software, S.B. and Z.S. Validation, J.S. and J.M. (Jacek Marcinkiewicz). Formal analysis,
K.K. and Z.S. Investigation, J.M. (Jonas Matijošius). Resources, A.K. Data curation, S.B. and D.V. Writing—original
draft preparation, J.S., A.K., and J.M. (Jonas Matijošius). Writing—review and editing, A.K. Visualization, K.K.
and D.V. Supervision, S.B. Project administration, J.M. (Jonas Matijošius). All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Branch, M.P. Comparison of Muzzle Suppression and Ear-Level Hearing Protection in Firearm Use.
Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2011, 144, 950–953. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Arslan, H.; Ranjbar, M.; Secgin, E.; Celik, V. Theoretical and experimental investigation of acoustic performance
of multi-chamber reactive silencers. Appl. Acoust. 2020, 157, 106987. [CrossRef]
3. Strong, B.L.; Ballard, S.-B.; Braund, W. The American College of Preventive Medicine Policy Recommendations
on Reducing and Preventing Firearm-Related Injuries and Deaths. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 51, 1084–1089.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Itabashi, H.H.; Andrews, J.M.; Tomiyasu, U.; Erlich, S.S.; Sathyavagiswaran, L. Injuries due to firearms and
other missile-launching devices. In Forensic Neuropathology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007;
pp. 211–254, ISBN 978-0-12-058527-4.
5. Hamilton, D.; Lemeshow, S.; Saleska, J.L.; Brewer, B.; Strobino, K. Who owns guns and how do they keep
them? The influence of household characteristics on firearms ownership and storage practices in the United
States. Prev. Med. 2018, 116, 134–142. [CrossRef]
6. Fisher, H.; Drummond, A. A call to arms: The emergency physician, international perspectives on firearm
injury prevention and the canadian gun control debate. J. Emerg. Med. 1999, 17, 529–537. [CrossRef]
7. Jain, S.K.; Singh, B.P.; Singh, R.P. Indian homemade firearm—A technical review. Forensic Sci. Int. 2004,
144, 11–18. [CrossRef]
8. Adams, R.J. Retailer–manufacturer responsibility in the marketing of firearms: Exploring the concept of
negligent distribution. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2004, 11, 161–169. [CrossRef]
9. Breeze, J.; Cooper, H.; Pearson, C.R.; Henney, S.; Reid, A. Ear injuries sustained by British service personnel
subjected to blast trauma. J. Laryngol. Otol. 2011, 125, 13–17. [CrossRef]
10. Guida, H.L.; Diniz, T.H.; Kinoshita, S.K. Acoustic and psychoacoustic analysis of the noise produced by the
police force firearms. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2011, 77, 163–170. [CrossRef]
11. Junuzovic, M.; Midlöv, P.; Lönn, S.L.; Eriksson, A. Swedish hunters’ safety behaviour and experience of
firearm incidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 60, 64–70. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 11 of 14

12. Jones, H.G.; Greene, N.T.; Ahroon, W.A. Human middle-ear muscles rarely contract in anticipation of acoustic
impulses: Implications for hearing risk assessments. Hear. Res. 2019, 378, 53–62. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Chau, J.K.; Cho, J.J.W.; Fritz, D.K. Evidence-Based Practice. Otolaryngol. Clin. N. Am. 2012, 45, 941–958.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Guida, H.L.; Taxini, C.L.; de Oliveira Gonçalves, C.G.; Valenti, V.E. Evaluation of hearing protection used by
police officers in the shooting range. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2014, 80, 515–521. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Yankaskas, K. Prelude: Noise-induced tinnitus and hearing loss in the military. Hear. Res. 2013, 295, 3–8.
[CrossRef]
16. Kim, D.; Cheong, C.; Jeong, W.B. The use of a hybrid model to compute the nonlinear acoustic performance
of silencers for the finite amplitude acoustic wave. J. Sound Vib. 2010, 329, 2158–2176. [CrossRef]
17. Lou, G.; Wu, T.W.; Cheng, C.Y.R. Boundary element analysis of packed silencers with a substructuring
technique. Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem. 2003, 27, 643–653. [CrossRef]
18. Kirby, R.; Amott, K.; Williams, P.T.; Duan, W. On the acoustic performance of rectangular splitter silencers in
the presence of mean flow. J. Sound Vib. 2014, 333, 6295–6311. [CrossRef]
19. Bilawchuk, S.; Fyfe, K.R. Comparison and implementation of the various numerical methods used for
calculating transmission loss in silencer systems. Appl. Acoust. 2003, 64, 903–916. [CrossRef]
20. Ming Wong, L.; Gary Wang, G. Development of an automatic design and optimization system for industrial
silencers. J. Manuf. Syst. 2003, 22, 327–339. [CrossRef]
21. Pollak, S.; Saukko, P. Gunshot Wounds. In Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 70–82, ISBN 978-0-12-382166-9.
22. Haag, M.G.; Haag, L.C. Sound Levels of Gunshots, Supersonic Bullets, and Other Impulse Sounds. In Shooting
Incident Reconstruction; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 295–329, ISBN 978-0-12-382241-3.
23. Davis, R.R.; Clavier, O. Impulsive noise: A brief review. Hear. Res. 2017, 349, 34–36. [CrossRef]
24. Miller, M.T. Crime Scene Reconstruction. In Crime Scene Investigation Laboratory Manual; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 191–200, ISBN 978-0-12-812845-9.
25. Pääkkönen, R.; Anttonen, H.; Niskanen, J. Noise control on military shooting ranges for rifles. Appl. Acoust.
1991, 32, 49–60. [CrossRef]
26. Meng, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, F. A Method for Monitoring the Underground Mining Position Based
on the Blasting Source Location. Meas. Sci. Rev. 2013, 13, 45–49. [CrossRef]
27. Hristov, N.; Kari, A.; Jerković, D.; Savić, S.; Sirovatka, R. Simulation and Measurements of Small Arms Blast
Wave Overpressure in the Process of Designing a Silencer. Meas. Sci. Rev. 2015, 15, 27–34. [CrossRef]
28. Sallai, J.; Hedgecock, W.; Volgyesi, P.; Nadas, A.; Balogh, G.; Ledeczi, A. Weapon classification and shooter
localization using distributed multichannel acoustic sensors. J. Syst. Archit. 2011, 57, 869–885. [CrossRef]
29. Vogel, H.; Dootz, B. Wounds and weapons. Eur. J. Radiol. 2007, 63, 151–166. [CrossRef]
30. Brożek-Mucha, Z. A study of gunshot residue distribution for close-range shots with a silenced gun using
optical and scanning electron microscopy, X-ray microanalysis and infrared spectroscopy. Sci. Justice 2017,
57, 87–94. [CrossRef]
31. Monturo, C. Ammunition. In Forensic Firearm Examination; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019;
pp. 21–71, ISBN 978-0-12-814539-5.
32. Liu, N.; Alexander, A.A.; Li, X.; Wang, S.; Lu, W.F.; Sulaimee, N.H.B.; Chew, C.-M. Modelling of abrasive
blasting process from viewpoint of energy exchange. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 23rd International
Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Turin, Italy, 4–7 September 2018;
pp. 488–492.
33. Carson, R.A.; Sahni, O. Scaling Laws for the Peak Overpressure of a Cannon Blast. J. Fluids Eng. 2016,
139, 021204. [CrossRef]
34. Kong, B.; Lee, K.; Park, S.-R.; Jang, S.; Lee, S. Prediction of sound field from recoilless rifles in terms of source
decomposition. Appl. Acoust. 2015, 88, 137–145. [CrossRef]
35. Costa, E.; Lagasco, F. Development of a 3D numerical methodology for fast prediction of gun blast induced
loading. Shock Waves 2014, 24, 257–265. [CrossRef]
36. Cummings, A. High Frequency Ray Acoustics Models for Duct Silencers. J. Sound Vib. 1999, 221, 681–708.
[CrossRef]
37. Fang, Z.; Liu, C.Y. Semi-weak-form mesh-free method for acoustic attenuation analysis of silencers with
arbitrary but axially uniform transversal sections. J. Sound Vib. 2019, 442, 752–769. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 12 of 14

38. Kilikevicius, A.; Skeivalas, J.; Jurevicius, M.; Turla, V.; Kilikeviciene, K.; Bureika, G.; Jakstas, A. Experimental
investigation of dynamic impact of firearm with suppressor. Indian J. Phys. 2017, 91, 1077–1087. [CrossRef]
39. Lu, Y.; Zhou, K.; He, L.; Li, J.; Huang, X. Research on the floating performance of a novel large caliber
machine gun based on the floating principle with complicated boundary conditions. Def. Technol. 2019,
15, 607–614. [CrossRef]
40. Libal, U.; Spyra, K. Wavelet based shock wave and muzzle blast classification for different supersonic
projectiles. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 5097–5104. [CrossRef]
41. Carson, R.A.; Sahni, O. Study of the relevant geometric parameters of the channel leak method for blast
overpressure attenuation for a large caliber cannon. Comput. Fluids 2015, 115, 211–225. [CrossRef]
42. Mäkinen, T.; Pertilä, P. Shooter localization and bullet trajectory, caliber, and speed estimation based on
detected firing sounds. Appl. Acoust. 2010, 71, 902–913. [CrossRef]
43. Qin, Q.; Zhang, X. Numerical investigation on combustion in muzzle flows using an inert gas labeling
method. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2016, 101, 91–103. [CrossRef]
44. Guo, Z.X.; Pan, Y.T.; Li, K.W.; Zhang, H.Y. Numerical Simulation of Overpressure about Muzzle Blast
Flowfield. Adv. Mater. Res. 2012, 605–607, 2506–2509. [CrossRef]
45. Xiao, W.; Andrae, M.; Gebbeken, N. Experimental and numerical investigations on the shock wave attenuation
performance of blast walls with a canopy on top. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2019, 131, 123–139. [CrossRef]
46. Mouritz, A.P. Advances in understanding the response of fibre-based polymer composites to shock waves
and explosive blasts. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2019, 125, 105502. [CrossRef]
47. Hu, X.-D.; Zhao, G.-F.; Deng, X.-F.; Hao, Y.-F.; Fan, L.-F.; Ma, G.-W.; Zhao, J. Application of the four-dimensional
lattice spring model for blasting wave propagation around the underground rock cavern. Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 2018, 82, 135–147. [CrossRef]
48. Lu, G.; Fall, M. Modelling blast wave propagation in a subsurfacegeotechnical structure made of an evolutive
porous material. Mech. Mater. 2017, 108, 21–39. [CrossRef]
49. Carson, R.A.; Sahni, O. Numerical Investigation of Channel Leak Geometry for Blast Overpressure Attenuation
in a Muzzle Loaded Large Caliber Cannon. J. Fluids Eng. 2014, 137, 021102. [CrossRef]
50. Lee, H.-S.; Kang, T.-Y.; Hong, J.-H. Development of a Muffler for 40 mm Medium Caliber Gun: Numerical
Analysis and Validation. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2018, 19, 245–250. [CrossRef]
51. Yuanjuan, Z. Study on Attenuation Law of Open-pit Bench Blasting Vibration. Procedia Eng. 2014, 84, 868–872.
[CrossRef]
52. Lee, J.S.; Ahn, S.K.; Sagong, M. Attenuation of blast vibration in tunneling using a pre-cut discontinuity.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2016, 52, 30–37. [CrossRef]
53. Sugiyama, Y.; Homae, T.; Wakabayashi, K.; Matsumura, T.; Nakayama, Y. Numerical simulations on the
attenuation effect of a barrier material on a blast wave. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2014, 32, 135–143. [CrossRef]
54. Wierschem, N.E.; Hubbard, S.A.; Luo, J.; Fahnestock, L.A.; Spencer, B.F.; McFarland, D.M.; Quinn, D.D.;
Vakakis, A.F.; Bergman, L.A. Response attenuation in a large-scale structure subjected to blast excitation
utilizing a system of essentially nonlinear vibration absorbers. J. Sound Vib. 2017, 389, 52–72. [CrossRef]
55. Igra, O.; Falcovitz, J.; Houas, L.; Jourdan, G. Review of methods to attenuate shock/blast waves. Prog. Aerosp.
Sci. 2013, 58, 1–35. [CrossRef]
56. Girin, A. Attenuation of a point blast shock wave in the dusty air. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2013, 26, 1569–1573.
[CrossRef]
57. Huang, Z.; Wessam, M.E.; Chen, Z. Numerical investigation of the three-dimensional dynamic process of
sabot discard. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2014, 28, 2637–2649. [CrossRef]
58. Carson, R.A.; Sahni, O. Numerical investigation of propellant leak methods in large-caliber cannons for blast
overpressure attenuation. Shock Waves 2014, 24, 625–638. [CrossRef]
59. Kang, K.-J.; Ko, S.-H.; Lee, D.-S. A study on impulsive sound attenuation for a high-pressure blast flowfield.
J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2008, 22, 190–200. [CrossRef]
60. Rehman, H.; Chung, H.; Joung, T.; Suwono, A.; Jeong, H. CFD analysis of sound pressure in tank gun muzzle
silencer. J. Cent. South Univ. Technol. 2011, 18, 2015–2020. [CrossRef]
61. Scaling of Air Blast Waves. In Fundamental Studies in Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
1991; Volume 12, pp. 49–69, ISBN 978-0-444-88156-4.
62. Explosions and Pressure Waves. In Industrial Safety Series; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994;
Volume 3, pp. 445–462, ISBN 978-0-444-89863-0.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 13 of 14

63. Krehl, P. History of Shock Waves. In Handbook of Shock Waves; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001;
pp. 1–142, ISBN 978-0-12-086430-0.
64. Phadnis, V.A.; Silberschmidt, V.V. 8.14 Composites Under Dynamic Loads at High Velocities. In Comprehensive
Composite Materials II; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 262–285, ISBN 978-0-08-100534-7.
65. Phadnis, V.A.; Roy, A.; Silberschmidt, V.V. Dynamic damage in FRPs. In Dynamic Deformation, Damage and
Fracture in Composite Materials and Structures; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 193–222,
ISBN 978-0-08-100870-6.
66. Guo, Z. Numerical Simulation of Muzzle Blast Overpressure in Antiaircraft Gun Muzzle Brake. J. Inf. Comput.
Sci. 2013, 10, 3013–3019. [CrossRef]
67. Cheng, L.; Ji, C.; Zhong, M.; Long, Y.; Gao, F. Full-scale experimental investigation on the shock-wave
characteristics of high-pressure natural gas pipeline physical explosions. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2019,
44, 20587–20597. [CrossRef]
68. Fang, B.; Wang, Y.-G.; Zhao, Q. On multi-dimensional linear stability of planar shock waves for Chaplygin
gases. Appl. Math. Lett. 2020, 102, 106085. [CrossRef]
69. Yazdandoost, F.; Sadeghi, O.; Bakhtiari-Nejad, M.; Elnahhas, A.; Shahab, S.; Mirzaeifar, R. Energy dissipation
of shock-generated stress waves through phase transformation and plastic deformation in NiTi alloys.
Mech. Mater. 2019, 137, 103090. [CrossRef]
70. Hokamoto, K.; Fujita, M. Shock-wave research on condensed matter at the High-Energy Rate Laboratory of
Kumamoto University—An introduction. Phys. B Condens. Matter 1997, 239, 187–190. [CrossRef]
71. Wu, J.; Liu, X.; Zhao, J.; Qiao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H. The online monitoring method research of laser shock
processing based on plasma acoustic wave signal energy. Optik 2019, 183, 1151–1159. [CrossRef]
72. Otsuka, F.; Matsukiyo, S.; Hada, T. PIC Simulation of a quasi-parallel collisionless shock: Interaction between
upstream waves and backstreaming ions. High Energy Density Phys. 2019, 33, 100709. [CrossRef]
73. Xu, H.; Gao, J.; Yao, A.; Yao, C. The relief of energy convergence of shock waves by using the concave
combustion chamber under severe knock. Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 162, 293–306. [CrossRef]
74. Tonicello, N.; Lodato, G.; Vervisch, L. Entropy preserving low dissipative shock capturing with
wave-characteristic based sensor for high-order methods. Comput. Fluids 2020, 197, 104357. [CrossRef]
75. Kirby, R. Simplified Techniques for Predicting the Transmission Loss of A Circular Dissipative Silencer.
J. Sound Vib. 2001, 243, 403–426. [CrossRef]
76. Wei, Z.; Weavers, L.K. Combining COMSOL modeling with acoustic pressure maps to design sono-reactors.
Ultrason. Sonochem. 2016, 31, 490–498. [CrossRef]
77. Carlucci, D.E.; Decker, R.; Vega, J.; Ray, D. Measurement of in-bore side loads and comparison to first
maximum yaw. Def. Technol. 2016, 12, 106–112. [CrossRef]
78. Courtney, E.; Couvillion, R.; Courtney, A.; Courtney, M. Effects of Sound Suppressors on Muzzle Velocity,
Bullet Yaw and Drag. In Proceedings of the 30th International Symposium on Ballistics, Long Beach, CA,
USA, 11–15 September 2017; DEStech Publications, Inc.: Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 2017.
79. Lobarinas, E.; Scott, R.; Spankovich, C.; Le Prell, C.G. Differential effects of suppressors on hazardous sound
pressure levels generated by AR-15 rifles: Considerations for recreational shooters, law enforcement, and the
military. Int. J. Audiol. 2016, 55, S59–S71. [CrossRef]
80. Lankford, J.E.; Meinke, D.K.; Flamme, G.A.; Finan, D.S.; Stewart, M.; Tasko, S.; Murphy, W.J. Auditory risk of
air rifles. Int. J. Audiol. 2016, 55, S51–S58. [CrossRef]
81. Meinke, D.K.; Murphy, W.J.; Finan, D.S.; Lankford, J.E.; Flamme, G.A.; Stewart, M.; Soendergaard, J.;
Jerome, T.W. Auditory risk estimates for youth target shooting. Int. J. Audiol. 2014, 53, S16–S25. [CrossRef]
82. Mlynski, R.; Kozlowski, E. Selection of Level-Dependent Hearing Protectors for Use in An Indoor Shooting
Range. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2266. [CrossRef]
83. Murphy, W.J.; Tasko, S.M.; Finan, D.; Meinke, D.K.; Stewart, M.; Lankford, J.E.; Campbell, A.R.; Flamme, G.
Referee whistles Part II—Outdoor sound power assessment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2019, 145, 1816. [CrossRef]
84. Skrodzka, E.; Wicher, A.; Gołe¸biewski, R. A Review of Gunshot Noise as Factor in Hearing Disorders.
Acta Acust. United Acust. 2019, 105, 904–911. [CrossRef]
85. Stewart, M. What to Know about Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss: Does a firearm suppressor always
do enough to protect hearing? No. Should firearm users also wear hearing protection? Yes. ASHA Lead.
2018, 23, 18–20. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 961 14 of 14

86. Murphy, W.J.; Campbell, A.R.; Flamme, G.A.; Tasko, S.M.; Lankford, J.E.; Meinke, D.K.; Finan, D.S.;
Stewart, M.; Zechmann, E.L. Developing a method to assess noise reduction of firearm suppressors for
small-caliber weapons. Proc. Meet. Acoust. 2018, 33, 040004.
87. Murphy, W.J.; Campbell, A.R.; Flamme, G.A.; Tasko, S.M.; Lankford, J.E.; Meinke, D.K.; Finan, D.S.;
Zechmann, E.L.; Stewart, M. The attenuation of firearm suppressors as a function of angle and bullet velocity.
In Proceedings of the National Hearing Conservation Association, Orlando, FL, USA, 15–17 February 2018.
88. Murphy, W.J.; Flamme, G.A.; Campbell, A.R.; Zechmann, E.L.; Tasko, S.M.; Lankford, J.E.; Meinke, D.K.;
Finan, D.S.; Stewart, M. The reduction of gunshot noise and auditory risk through the use of firearm
suppressors and low-velocity ammunition. Int. J. Audiol. 2018, 57, S28–S41. [CrossRef]
89. Yue, B.; Guddati, M.N. Dispersion-reducing finite elements for transient acoustics. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005,
118, 2132–2141. [CrossRef]
90. Kilikevičienė, K.; Matijošius, J.; Fursenko, A.; Kilikevičius, A. Tests of hail simulation and research of the
resulting impact on the structural reliability of solar cells. Ekspolatacja Niezawodn. Maint. Reliab. 2019,
21, 275–281. [CrossRef]
91. Kilikevičius, A.; Skeivalas, J.; Kilikevičienė, K.; Matijošius, J. Analysis of Dynamic Parameters of a Railway
Bridge. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2545. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).