Development of a Component Head Injury Criteria (HIC ... - FAA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In general, it appears that for simple geometries, such as panels, the NHCT device tends to produce results that are close but slightly greater than the results from FSSTs. Thus, HIC for the NHCT are conservative for the cases tested. The effects causing descrepancies can be categorized into the following groups: • Variations in the behavior of the test articles. These variations, such as unpredictable inertia-induced flexing of tall divider panels or different failure modes of tray tables, are unavoidable and difficult to correct. • Variations caused by kinematic approximations in the NHCT. While the NHCT approximates a kinematic copy of the 50 th percentile male Hybrid II ATD as closely as possible, some differences are present, such as lack of a flexible neck, incompressible spine, and a different lower torso friction properties. Simulations have shown that while the contribution of a flexible neck to the HIC may not be a substantial contributing factor in causing HIC values to vary from FSST values for simple target geometries, it could have a more pronounced effect for more complex targets, such as seat backs with tray tables. Designs for rectifying these limitations are available and can be implemented with relative ease. • Variations in FSST-NHCT test conditions. As noted previously, HIC in general is extremely sensitive to test parameters, i.e., impact velocity and impact angle. This being the case, one would expect that validation of the NHCT would be difficult using a one-toone comparison of the FSST and NHCT test data. 11. REFERENCES. 1. Chandler, R.F., “Human Injury Criteria Relative to Civil Aircraft Seat and Restraint Systems,” SAE Paper 851847, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1985. 2. Lissner, H.R., Lebow, M., and Evans, F.G., “Experimental Studies on the Relation Between Acceleration and Intracranial Pressure Changes in Man,” Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics, V. 111, 1960, pp 329-338. 3. Gadd, C.W., “Use of a Weighted Impulse Criterion for Estimating Injury Hazard,” SAE Paper 660793, Proceedings of the Tenth Stapp Car Crash Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1966, pp. 16-174. 4. Versace, J., “A Review of the Severity Index,” SAE Paper 710881, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Stapp Car Crash Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 1971, pp. 771-796. 5. Gurdjian, E.S., Lissner, H.R., Latimer, F.R., Haddad, B.F., and Webster, J.E., “Quantitative Determination of Acceleration and Intercranial Pressure in Experimental Head Injury,” Neurology 3,4, 1953, pp. 4223. 42
6. Gurdjian, E.S., Roberts, V.L. and Thomas, L.M., “Tolerance Curves of Acceleration and Intercranial Pressure and Protective Index in Experimental Head Injury,” J. of Trauma, Vol. 6, 1964, pp. 600. 7. “Department of Transportation (1971) Occupant Crash Protection-Head Injury Criterion,” NHTSA Doc Number 69-7, Notice 19, S6.2 of FMVSS 208, March 1971. 8. Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 23, Amendment 23-39, Section 23.562, published in the Federal Register, August 14, 1988. 9. Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25, Amendment 25-64, Section 25.562, published in the Federal Register, May 17, 1988. 10. Hooper, S.J., Lankarani, H.M., and Mirza, M.C., “Parametric Study of Crashworthy Bulkhead Designs,” FAA report, DOT/FAA/AR-02/103, December 2002. 11. Lankarani, H., “Development of a Component Head Injury Criteria (HIC) Tester for Aircraft Seat Certification—Phase 1,” FAA report, DOT/FAA/AR-02/99, November 2002. 12. MADYMO V6.2, TNO Automotive, May 2004. 13. DeWeese, Richard L. and Moorcroft, David M., “Evaluation of a Head Injury Criteria Component Test Device” Office of Aerospace Medicine, Washington, DC, 20591, DOT/FAA/AM-04/18. 43/44
Page 1 and 2:
DOT/FAA/AR-06/47 Air Traffic Organi
Page 3 and 4: 1. Report No. 2. Government Accessi
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SU
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Desig
Page 9 and 10: 45 Simulation Sequence of Foam Defo
Page 11 and 12: LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ACRONYMS ATD c.
Page 13 and 14: 1. INTRODUCTION. One of the problem
Page 15 and 16: distribution was obtained by optimi
Page 17 and 18: 4. MODIFICATION OF THE NHCT. Since
Page 19 and 20: Figure 8. Pressure Sensor Once the
Page 21 and 22: Table 1. Test Results of FSST 96288
Page 23 and 24: Table 3. Test Results of NHCT Tests
Page 25 and 26: From the above data plots and the r
Page 27 and 28: Test 01057-82 conducted at NIAR was
Page 29 and 30: Figure 20. MADYMO Model Setup for F
Page 31 and 32: 6.3 PARAMETRIC STUDY OF IMPACT SURF
Page 33 and 34: Figure 30 shows the MADYMO model si
Page 35 and 36: 3500 3000 y = 5.5408x R 2 = 0.9801
Page 37 and 38: The equations obtained can be used
Page 39 and 40: Table 10. Results of the FSST and N
Page 41 and 42: 8.1 RAW TEST DATA. The raw data use
Page 43 and 44: Figure 41. MADYMO Model Developed f
Page 45 and 46: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 45. Simulation S
Page 47 and 48: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Figure 48. Simulation S
Page 49 and 50: Table 15. Comparison of HIC Results
Page 51 and 52: when the actuator is firing. This r
Page 53: Table 17. Comparison of FSST Result
show all

Development of a Component Head Injury Criteria (HIC ... - FAA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?