Finite Element Comparison of Human and Hybrid III Responses in the Airworthiness Certification of Normal Aircraft Civil Aviation University of China, Research Institute of Sc

Format:

Book

Conference/Event

Author/Creator:

Shi, Xiaopeng, author.

Contributor:

Ding, Xianghe

Guo, Kai

Liu, Tianfu

Xie, Jiang

Conference Name:

SAE 2024 Intelligent Urban Air Mobility Symposium (2024-09-06 : Hangzhou, China)

Language:

English

Physical Description:

1 online resource cm

Place of Publication:

Warrendale, PA SAE International 2024

Summary:

With the capability of predicting detailed injury of occupants, the Human Body Model (HBM) was used to identify potential injuries for occupants in car impact events. However, there are few publications on using HBM in the aviation industry. This study aims to investigate and compare the head, neck, lumbar spine and thoracic responses of the Hybrid III and the THUMS (Total Human Model for Safety) model in the horizontal 26g and vertical 19g sled tests required by the General Aviation Aircraft Airworthiness Regulations. The HIC of THUMS and Hybrid III did not exceed the requirements of airworthiness regulations. Still, THUMS had higher intracranial pressures and intracranial stresses, which could result in brain injury to the occupants. In vertical impact, the highest stress of the neck of THUMS appears at the cervical spine C2 and the upper neck is easily injured; in horizontal impact, the cervical spine C7 has the highest load, and the lower neck is easily injured. Due to the low biofidelity of the Hybrid III ATD neck structure, the injuries that appeared at different neck locations cannot be identified by the Hybrid III ATD. Because of the submarining phenomenon, the lumbar spine load and bending moment of the THUMS are much smaller than that of the ATD model, which shows a lower risk of injuries. In both impact scenarios, the THUMS chest deformation was higher. In the vertical 19g impact, the THUMS developed much higher shoulder belt loads than the ATD. The results indicate the Hybrid III ATD underestimates the risk of injury to passengers' heads and chests, while overestimating the risk to the lumbar spine compared to THUMS. Furthermore, due to limitations in the locations of sensors, the Hybrid III ATD is unable to identify the severe injury at lower neck and upper lumbar

Notes:

Vendor supplied data

Publisher Number:

2024-01-7018

Access Restriction:

Restricted for use by site license