Part of the DoW SBIR/STTR FY27 Release 2 topic list. Browse all 83 topics by industry or service.
Topic DTR27BZ02-NV004 from the DoW SBIR 2027 BAA, Release 2. Pre-release now; proposals due January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET.
Quick answer
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) wants an independent group to verify and validate the human blast injury model its Technical Reachback team is building for battlefield medical planning and casualty estimation. This is an SBIR topic that starts with a Phase I effort to set validation standards. Proposals are due January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET.
Solicitation at a glance
- Topic number: DTR27BZ02-NV004
- Official title: Validation and Verification of Computational Modeling of Human Blast Injury on Battlefield
- Agency: Defense Threat Reduction Agency
- Program: SBIR (DoW SBIR 2027 BAA, Release 2)
- Award type: Phase I (see topic text for Phase II)
- Award amount: Up to $250,000 (7 months, plus up to $6,500 TABA). Source: DTRA Release 2 instructions in DSIP.
- CMMC level: Level 1
- ITAR: Yes. Export-controlled (ITAR/EAR); see topic text
- Technology areas: Bio Medical
- Pre-release (direct TPOC contact allowed): November 4 to December 2, 2026, 8:00 AM ET
- Opens in DSIP: December 2, 2026, 8:00 AM ET
- Proposals due: January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET
- Official source: DSIP Topics app (search DTR27BZ02-NV004)
BW&CO's take
What the Defense Threat Reduction Agency wants
DTRA Technical Reachback is building a model to estimate battlefield blast injuries so planners can forecast medical supplies, staff, and PPE. Existing tools such as ORCA, INJURY, AUDITORY, and the UK HIP tool model isolated injuries and cannot handle multiple, multi-modal injuries. This topic funds independent validation of DTRA's ongoing approach, aligned with ASME V&V 40 and DoDI 5000.61. Phase I reviews existing tools and blast injury pathophysiology, sets validation methods, and identifies where synthetic data is enough versus where lab or field testing is needed. Phase II builds structured databases of existing and synthetic data, common data elements, and test plans ready for IACUC/IRB submission.
Who is a good fit
- Model credibility work under ASME V&V 40 or DoDI 5000.61 verification, validation, and accreditation practice
- Blast injury biomechanics and pathophysiology, including TBI, primary blast lung injury, and auditory damage
- Experience with shock tube, PMHS, or ATD data and with FEA, CFD, or human body models used to generate synthetic data
- Machine learning and structured data curation (data cards, common data elements), which the topic encourages
Watch-outs
- The topic is ITAR-restricted, which generally limits participation by foreign nationals; confirm your team's eligibility before proposing.
- Access to sensitive battle databases is limited to need-to-know personnel, and the references mention security clearances for JTAPIC access and HRPO approvals; plan for these controls.
- The work is multidisciplinary (medicine, military operations, weaponeering, epidemiology, PPE, computational modeling); a narrow modeling-only team may look thin.
- The topic lists CMMC Level 1. Direct contact with the topic authors is allowed only during pre-release, which ends when the topic opens December 2, 2026, 8:00 AM ET.
Think your company fits DTR27BZ02-NV004? Talk with BW&CO before the January 6 deadline.
Plan Your DTR27BZ02-NV004 Submission
Official topic text (verbatim from DSIP)
The text in this section is copied word for word from the official DSIP topic as published on November 4, 2026. DSIP is the official source and topics can be amended. Always confirm the current version at dodsbirsttr.mil before you submit. Our commentary above is BW&CO's interpretation, not Government guidance.
Title
Validation and Verification of Computational Modeling of Human Blast Injury on Battlefield
Objective
Computational modeling and simulation of human blast injury on the battlefield has been a gap for the Department of War (DoW). DTRA Technical Reachback is tasked with supporting operational decision-making by providing advanced analytics, modeling, and simulation. The Command Surgeon General Office has submitted numerous requests to estimate human blast injuries on the battlefield to inform medical planning purposes—specifically to forecast requirements for medical supplies, medical staff, and personal protective equipment (PPE). Furthermore, Combatant Commanders require assessment of casualty tolerance thresholds for specific operation environments.
To address these analytics requirements, Technical Reachback initiated and continued a human blast injury modeling effort in the past three years. As development is ongoing, it is crucial to integrate the verification and validation effort early during the data collection and model development stage to ensure sound technical approaches, data application, and expected outputs.
Description
Blast events accounted for over 70% of casualties among service members engaged in ground combat events. The energy generated by an explosion can cause devastating physical trauma, affect multiple body systems and result in severe injuries or even fatalities (1.2). Although there has been extensive research into injury mechanisms of blast trauma, including primary overpressure effects, secondary fragmentation wounds, tertiary blunt trauma, and quaternary thermal or chemical injuries, there are no modeling & simulation (M&S) tools currently available which can provide a comprehensive view of the types and severity of injuries in the context of the uncertainties and complexities of realistic battlefield scenarios.
Existing injury modeling tools, such as Operational Requirements-based Casualty Assessment model (ORCA) developed by US Army DEVCOM, the INJURY code developed by the Medical Research and Development Command, and the AUDITORY model developed by the Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office (JIFCO), each model individual injuries occurring to a single person in the absence of PPE. They are not designed to address multiple, multi-modal injuries that may occur in ground combat, and they model wounds from the “skin in,” rather than accounting for the effects of clothing or PPE. These tools can only be used for research purposes and are not designed to support battlefield operation.
In contrast, the Human Injury Prediction (HIP) tool, developed by Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) of United Kingdom, predicts injuries to multiple people from a terrorist attack. Unfortunately, this tool is limited to modeling the effects of only a single blast event caused by a terrorist weapon detonated in an urban environment. And, again, HIP models isolated injuries and cannot address multiple, multi-modal injuries.
Finally, a major challenge of leveraging these tools in DTRA Technical Reachback mission is that injuries are predicted based upon biomechanical effects, and do not address human physiology. This shortcoming becomes particularly critical with multiple injuries, where the human body response to injuries is intact and synergetic among organs/tissues.
Apart from the specific challenges of modeling injuries and the associated changes in physiology, a comprehensive battlefield blast injury M&S tool is a multidisciplinary endeavor, requiring expertise in diverse domains, to include medicine, military operations, weaponeering, synthetic population modeling, epidemiology, structures, machine learning, computational modeling, and PPE.
ASME V&V 40 serves as the gold standard for computational model credibility in biomedical applications, and DoD Instruction 5000.61 (Modeling and Simulation Verification, Validation, and Accreditation) requires human injury models to be validated before moving to support military operation (3,4,5). The modeling effort should align with the Blast Injury Research Coordinating Office (BIRCO) and the Blast Injury Prevention Standards Recommendation (BIPSR) process. The access to sensitive battle databases must be tightly controlled and limited to need-to-know personnel (6). Based on the regulation and scientific merit, the current request for proposal (RFP) will focus on validation of the on-going approach by using independent groups.
Phase I
Phase I will focus on establishing standards to validate the current technical approach, data source, computational codes, medical definition, injury codes, environmental conditions (topography), generic weapon information and synthetic population. The offeror should thoroughly study all available injury modeling tools and provide detailed pros and cons summary for the existing methodologies (1.7,8). The contractor shall conduct a comprehensive review of pathophysiology of blast injuries and the established injury codes. Key validation methods shall be established. Due to complexity of the effort, machine learning is highly encouraged. A key requirement in this phase is delineation of where existing or synthetic data (based upon first principles modeling) may suffice, as compared to where laboratory or field testing will be required. By the end of Phase I, the offeror should deliver a preliminary approach and document all technical challenges for phase II work.
Phase II
The validation methods proposed in Phase I should be applied in Phase II. Data sources from historical shock tube experiments, postmortem human surrogates (PMHS) testing, anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and computational models must be clearly identified and studied. Key challenges, such as material data gaps, incomplete injury criteria, military operational requirements and emerging weapons should be addressed in Phase II. The focus of this phase will be aggregating existing data and generating synthetic data. Test plans developed to fill in remaining gaps will be executed in Phase III.
Key deliverables include but are not limited to:
- A structured database of pre-existing data used in validation, and associated data cards.
- A list of common data elements (CDEs) associated with the database of pre-existing data. This list should be forward-looking in that if many CDEs were not collected in the historical data, they would be recommended for inclusion in future data collection efforts.
- A structured database of synthetic data and associated data cards used in validation, along with detailed documentation of assumptions to include (1) loading conditions; (2) material properties; (3) tissue/human body models; and (4) first principal codes. This information should be sufficient for a third party to replicate analyses.
- Detailed test plans with test protocols suitable for submission to IACUC/IRB authorities.
Phase III Dual Use Applications
In Phase III, the offeror will focus on the continued refinement and execution of the validation approach. This will primarily include execution of one or more test plans prepared in Phase II. In addition, the performer will have a strategy for ensuring that databases developed in Phase II are accessible to the broader DoW community, with mechanisms for integrating the latest research findings. The performer will work closely with the Blast Injury M&S team to recommend and evaluate changes to the models based upon validation findings. Finally, because new weapons or operational conditions may expand the ranges over which validation data is needed, ongoing collaboration with military medical professionals and other stakeholders is required.
References
Morena, A., Peroni, L., & Scapin, M. (2024). Numerical Investigation of the Blast-Induced Injuries Using an Open-Source Detailed Human Model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1002/cnm.3879
Tan, X. G., Przekwas, A. J., & Gupta, R. K. (2017). Computational modeling of blast wave interaction with a human body and assessment of traumatic brain injury. Shock Waves, 27, 889–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00193-017-0740-x
ASME V&V 40 Standard Alignment: Built core Technical Requirements around risk-risk mapping, Context of Use (COU), and quantitative credibility goals for medical modeling applications.
DoDI 5000.61 & MIL-STD-3022 Compliance: Incorporated mandatory M&S VV&A procedures into the Statement of Work (Task 3.5) and delivery schedule (CDRL A007).
Multi-Injury Modality Scope: Outlined validation tasks for high-risk military blast injuries: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Primary Blast Lung, and Auditory damage.
Acquisition Controls: Integrated DoD acquisition requirements including HRPO approvals, data rights, security clearances (for JTAPIC access), and ITAR restrictions.
Liang, R., et al. (2025). Assessment model of blast injury: A narrative review. iScience, 28, 112830.
Roberts, J.C., et al. (2012). Human head–neck computational model for assessing blast injury. Journal of Biomechanics, 45, 2899–2906.
Keywords
Human blast injury; Model verification and validation (V&V); Computational modeling; Battlefield blast injury; Modeling and simulation (M&S); Medical planning; Blast biomechanics; Injury prediction; Casualty estimation; Biomedical computational models; Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), Primary Blast Lung Injury (PBLI), Auditory Damage, Overpressure, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), Human Body Models (HBM);
Frequently asked questions
What is DTR27BZ02-NV004?
It is a DTRA SBIR topic in the DoW SBIR 2027 BAA seeking independent verification and validation of an ongoing DTRA Technical Reachback effort to model human blast injury on the battlefield.
When is DTR27BZ02-NV004 due?
Proposals are due January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET. Pre-release began November 4, 2026, and direct contact with the topic authors is allowed only until the topic opens on December 2, 2026, 8:00 AM ET.
Is this a Phase I or Direct-to-Phase II topic?
The topic describes a Phase I effort that establishes validation standards and delivers a preliminary approach, followed by Phase II, which applies those methods and aggregates existing and synthetic data. It does not describe a Direct-to-Phase II option.
Does Phase II include running new lab or animal tests?
No. Phase II focuses on aggregating existing data and generating synthetic data, and it delivers detailed test plans suitable for IACUC/IRB submission. Executing those test plans is planned for Phase III.