Results for “Seat” — Page 13

NASA NTRS1986

Structural loads preliminary results

From a total of 351 instrumentation channels, 341 channels (97%) were in operation during the initial impact of the airplane. Both NASA seats, the energy absorbing seat and the standard seat, maintained their integrity during the impact. The floor accelerations at the seat locations were lower than the accelerations required for the energy absorbers to stroke; consequently, the energy absorbing seat did not stroke. The two seats remained firm in place during the crash and no seat attachment failures were observed. Due to the low accelerations experienced during the crash, both seats performed as standard seats. In the airplane structure, the accelerations were higher at both the point of impact in the left wing and at the forward end of the fuselage. The accelerations on the floor were higher toward the front than toward the rear and the floor accelerations on the left side were higher than on the right side at the front of the fuselage, but toward the rear they evened out.

Alfaro-Bou, E.↗

NASA NTRS2007

Electromechanically Actuated Valve for Controlling Flow Rate

A proposed valve for controlling the rate of flow of a fluid would include an electric-motor-driven ball-screw mechanism for adjusting the seating element of the valve to any position between fully closed and fully open. The motor would be of a type that can be electronically controlled to rotate to a specified angular position and to rotate at a specified rate, and the ball screw would enable accurate linear positioning of the seating element as a function of angular position of the motor. Hence, the proposed valve would enable fine electronic control of the rate of flow and the rate of change of flow. The uniqueness of this valve lies in a high degree of integration of the actuation mechanism with the flow-control components into a single, relatively compact unit. A notable feature of this integration is that in addition to being a major part of the actuation mechanism, the ball screw would also be a flow-control component: the ball screw would be hollow so as to contain part of the main flow passage, and one end of the ball screw would be the main seating valve element. The relationships among the components of the valve are best understood by reference to the figure, which presents meridional cross sections of the valve in the fully closed and fully open positions. The motor would be supported by a bracket bolted to the valve body. By means of gears or pulleys and a timing belt, motor drive would be transmitted to a sleeve that would rotate on bearings in the valve body. A ball nut inside the sleeve would be made to rotate with the sleeve by use of a key. The ball screw would pass through and engage the ball nut. A key would prevent rotation of the ball screw in the valve body while allowing the ball screw to translate axially when driven by the ball nut. The outer surface of the ball screw would be threaded only in a mid-length region: the end regions of the outer surface of the ball screw would be polished so that they could act as dynamic sealing surfaces. The inlet end (the right end as depicted in the figure) of the ball screw would be the main seating valve element: in the fully closed position, it would be pressed against the valve seat, as depicted in the upper part of the figure. A retainer would hold the valve seat in an inlet fitting. In addition, the retainer would be contoured to obtain a specified flow rate as a function of axial position of the ball screw. In the fully closed position, little force would be needed to press the ball screw against the seat because the push bore area upon which the upstream pressure would act would be small. The motor would position and hold the ball screw against the seat, providing the force necessary for sealing. To open the valve to a particular position, the motor would be commanded to rotate to a particular angular position (equivalently, a particular number of revolutions) at a particular rate of rotation within its torque limitations. Once the valve was open, fluid would flow through the inlet fitting and the chamber in the inlet housing, past the seat and its retainer, along the hollow core of the ball screw, and through the outlet housing and outlet fitting. The net force generated from fluid pressure in the open position would be small because the pressure exposed to the push bore areas at the inlet and outlet are nearly equal and the forces generated would be in opposing directions.

Patterson, Paul↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sleep Obtained by Cabin Crewmembers during a Long-haul Flight

Sleep loss and circadian disruption pose a significant risk in safety-sensitive occupations. In aviation, many studies have demonstrated how inflight rest locations influence alertness and performance among pilots, but few studies have evaluated cabin crew. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate sleep outcomes among cabin crewmembers sleeping in a bunk compared to a jump seat during one long-haul route. Thirty-one (6 male) cabin crewmembers (age M = 30, SD = +/-13) flew the same long-haul route (outbound and return) with a flight duration of 10:41 (± 0:14) hours. Participants were randomly assigned to fly on an aircraft with a bunk or a jump seat for their sleep opportunity. Participants wore an Actiwatch (Phillips-Respironics Spectrum) throughout the entire study and completed a sleep diary at bedtime and upon waking. During flight they completed a nap diary entering the start time of the inflight sleep (if any) and the duration. Sixty-five flights (32 outbound and 33 return) were included in the analyses. Seventy-seven percent of the flights had a bunk and 23% had a jump seat. Crewmembers obtained M = 146.46 (± 67.20) minutes of rest out of which they slept M = 125.33 (± 64.91) minutes in the bunk. While using the jump seat, crewmembers obtained M = 169.53 (± 133.30) minutes of rest out of which they slept M = 142.92 (± 149.72) minutes. When crewmembers slept in the bunk, sleep latency was shorter (M = 13.69 ± 12.64 minutes) and efficiency was better (M = 76.16 ± 16.09 %) compared to the jump seat (sleep onset: M = 16.77 ± 13.89 minutes; sleep efficiency: M = 60.64 ± 17.42 %). We found that cabin crewmembers slept for longer time when they used the jump seat. They fell asleep faster and their sleep efficiency was better when using the bunk compared to the jump seat. Further research is needed to understand how sleep quality and subsequent performance are influenced by sleep opportunity in a bunk compared to a jump seat.

cabin crew↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sleep Obtained by Cabin Crewmembers during a Long-haul Flight

Sleep loss and circadian disruption pose a significant risk in safety-sensitive occupations. In aviation, many studies have demonstrated how inflight rest locations influence alertness and performance among pilots, but few studies have evaluated cabin crew. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate sleep outcomes among cabin crewmembers sleeping in a bunk compared to a jump seat during one long-haul route. Thirty-one (6 male) cabin crewmembers (age M = 30, SD = +/-13) flew the same long-haul route (outbound and return) with a flight duration of 10:41 (± 0:14) hours. Participants were randomly assigned to fly on an aircraft with a bunk or a jump seat for their sleep opportunity. Participants wore an Actiwatch (Phillips-Respironics Spectrum) throughout the entire study and completed a sleep diary at bedtime and upon waking. During flight they completed a nap diary entering the start time of the inflight sleep (if any) and the duration. Sixty-five flights (32 outbound and 33 return) were included in the analyses. Seventy-seven percent of the flights had a bunk and 23% had a jump seat. Crewmembers obtained M = 146.46 (± 67.20) minutes of rest out of which they slept M = 125.33 (± 64.91) minutes in the bunk. While using the jump seat, crewmembers obtained M = 169.53 (± 133.30) minutes of rest out of which they slept M = 142.92 (± 149.72) minutes. When crewmembers slept in the bunk, sleep latency was shorter (M = 13.69 ± 12.64 minutes) and efficiency was better (M = 76.16 ± 16.09 %) compared to the jump seat (sleep onset: M = 16.77 ± 13.89 minutes; sleep efficiency: M = 60.64 ± 17.42 %). We found that cabin crewmembers slept for longer time when they used the jump seat. They fell asleep faster and their sleep efficiency was better when using the bunk compared to the jump seat. Further research is needed to understand how sleep quality and subsequent performance are influenced by sleep opportunity in a bunk compared to a jump seat.

cabin crewmembers↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Component Characterization of an eVTOL Reference Model for Crashworthiness Studies

Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) have conducted a series of structural component and seat level tests to improve finite element model (FEM) characterization of a representative vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) test article developed by NASA. A full-scale dynamic test was conducted on the representative eVTOL test article in November of 2022. The test article represented a high wing, six passenger eVTOL design concept and is referred to as the lift plus cruise (LPC) test article. The full-scale test identified limitations in the analytical models used to predict aircraft structural response, in particular the composite material models did not effectively capture brittle failure of the structure which were measured during dynamic loading. To better understand the mechanism behind the composite material failure mechanisms observed and to improve the FEM, intact sample specimens of the composite airframe structure were recovered from the test article post-test and used in material characterization testing. In addition, the seat configurations used in the LPC test article were further studied using isolated seat and anthropomorphic test device (ATD) drop tower testing. Dynamic compression tests and three-point bend tests, conducted at varied impact speeds, were performed on the recovered frame section specimens. Additional testing was conducted to characterize the material properties of the forming foam, which remained in the frames after fabrication. These tests were used to improve characterization of the damage and failure parameters of the composite material model used in the FE model of the LPC test article. Seat level tests were conducted on the seats used in the LPC test article using acceleration pulses inclusive of current general aviation and rotorcraft certification load levels as well as conditions representative of those measured at the seat base during the LPC test. The structural material models and seat environment models of the LPC test article FEM were calibrated using the generated component test data. The updates made to these models were then integrated into the LPC FEM and simulated in the full-scale test condition. Results demonstrated the effectiveness of component testing to improve predictive capability of composite aerospace structural models within the crash and dynamic loading environments. Demonstration of the LPC FEM response across an accumulation of coupon, component, seat environment, and full-scale test levels provides confidence in the predictive capability of this model for future use in the study of occupant safety within eVTOL relevant crash environments.

Craswhorthiness↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Component Characterization of an eVTOL Reference Model for Crashworthiness Studies

Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) have conducted a series of structural component and seat level tests to improve finite element model (FEM) characterization of a representative vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) test article developed by NASA. A full-scale dynamic test was conducted on the representative eVTOL test article in November of 2022. The test article represented a high wing, six passenger eVTOL design concept and is referred to as the lift plus cruise (LPC) test article. The full-scale test identified limitations in the analytical models used to predict aircraft structural response, in particular the composite material models did not effectively capture brittle failure of the structure which were measured during dynamic loading. To better understand the mechanism behind the composite material failure mechanisms observed and to improve the FEM, intact sample specimens of the composite airframe structure were recovered from the test article post-test and used in material characterization testing. In addition, the seat configurations used in the LPC test article were further studied using isolated seat and anthropomorphic test device (ATD) drop tower testing. Dynamic compression tests and three-point bend tests, conducted at varied impact speeds, were performed on the recovered frame section specimens. Additional testing was conducted to characterize the material properties of the forming foam, which remained in the frames after fabrication. These tests were used to improve characterization of the damage and failure parameters of the composite material model used in the FE model of the LPC test article. Seat level tests were conducted on the seats used in the LPC test article using acceleration pulses inclusive of current general aviation and rotorcraft certification load levels as well as conditions representative of those measured at the seat base during the LPC test. The structural material models and seat environment models of the LPC test article FEM were calibrated using the generated component test data. The updates made to these models were then integrated into the LPC FEM and simulated in the full-scale test condition. Results demonstrated the effectiveness of component testing to improve predictive capability of composite aerospace structural models within the crash and dynamic loading environments. Demonstration of the LPC FEM response across an accumulation of coupon, component, seat environment, and full-scale test levels provides confidence in the predictive capability of this model for future use in the study of occupant safety within eVTOL relevant crash environments.

Craswhorthiness↗

NASA NTRS1985

Design and testing of an energy-absorbing crewseat for the F/FB-111 aircraft, volume 1

A program to determine if the injury potential could be reduced by replacing the existing crewseats with energy absorbing crewseats is explored. An energy-absorbing test seat was designed using much of the existing seat hardware. An extensive dynamic seat test series, designed to duplicate various crew module ground impact conditions, was conducted at a sled test facility. Comparative tests with operational F-111 crewseats were also conducted. After successful dynamic testing of the seat, more testing was conducted with the seats mounted in an F-111 crew module. Both swing tests and vertical drop tests were conducted. The vertical drop tests were used to obtain comparative data between the energy-absorbing and operational seats. Volume 1 describes the energy absorbing test seat and testing conducted, and evaluates the data from both test series.

Shane, S. J.↗

NASA NTRS1959

Human Tolerance to Rapidly Applied Accelerations: A Summary of the Literature

The literature is surveyed to determine human tolerance to rapidly applied accelerations. Pertinent human and animal experiments applicable to space flight and to crash impact forces are analyzed and discussed. These data are compared and presented on the basis of a trapezoidal pulse. The effects of body restraint and of acceleration direction, onset rate, and plateau duration on the maximum tolerable and survivable rapidly applied accelerations are shown. Results of the survey indicate that adequate torso and extremity restraint is the primary variable in tolerance to rapidly applied accelerations. The harness, or restraint system, must be arranged to transmit the major portion of the accelerating force directly to the pelvic structure and not via the vertebral column. When the conditions of adequate restraint have been met, then the other variables, direction, magnitude, and onset rate of rapidly applied accelerations, govern maximum tolerance and injury limits. The results also indicate that adequately stressed aft-faced passenger seats offer maximum complete body support with minimum objectionable harnessing. Such a seat, whether designed for 20-, 30-, or 40-G dynamic loading, would include lap strap, chest (axillary) strap, and winged-back seat to increase headward and lateral G protection, full-height integral head rest, arm rests (load-bearing) with recessed hand-holds and provisions to prevent arms from slipping either laterally or beyond the seat back, and leg support to keep the legs from being wedged under the seat. For crew members and others whose duties require forward-facing seats, maximum complete body support requires lap, shoulder, and thigh straps, lap-belt tie-down strap, and full-height seat back with integral head support.

Eiband, A. Martin↗

NASA NTRS2009

Human Factors Assessment of Vibration Effects on Visual Performance During Launch

The Human Factors Assessment of Vibration Effects on Visual Performance During Launch (Visual Performance) investigation will determine visual performance limits during operational vibration and g-loads on the Space Shuttle, specifically through the determination of minimum readable font size during ascent using planned Orion display formats. Research Summary: The aim of the Human Factors Assessment of Vibration Effects on Visual Performance during Launch (Visual Performance) investigation is to provide supplementary data to that collected by the Thrust Oscillation Seat Detailed Technical Objective (DTO) 695 (Crew Seat DTO) which will measure seat acceleration and vibration from one flight deck and two middeck seats during ascent. While the Crew Seat DTO data alone are important in terms of providing a measure of vibration and g-loading, human performance data are required to fully interpret the operational consequences of the vibration values collected during Space Shuttle ascent. During launch, crewmembers will be requested to view placards with varying font sizes and indicate the minimum readable size. In combination with the Crew Seat DTO, the Visual Performance investigation will: Provide flight-validated evidence that will be used to establish vibration limits for visual performance during combined vibration and linear g-loading. o Provide flight data as inputs to ongoing ground-based simulations, which will further validate crew visual performance under vibration loading in a controlled environment. o Provide vibration and performance metrics to help validate procedures for ground tests and analyses of seats, suits, displays and controls, and human-in-the-loop performance.

Kritina Holden↗

NASA NTRS2014

Evaluation of the First Transport Rotorcraft Airframe Crash Testbed (TRACT 1) Full-Scale Crash Test

In 2012, the NASA Rotary Wing Crashworthiness Program initiated the Transport Rotorcraft Airframe Crash Testbed (TRACT) research program by obtaining two CH-46E helicopters from the Navy CH-46E Program Office (PMA-226) at the Navy Flight Readiness Center in Cherry Point, North Carolina. Full-scale crash tests were planned to assess dynamic responses of transport-category rotorcraft under combined horizontal and vertical impact loading. The first crash test (TRACT 1) was performed at NASA Langley Research Center's Landing and Impact Research Facility (LandIR), which enables the study of critical interactions between the airframe, seat, and occupant during a controlled crash environment. The CH-46E fuselage is categorized as a medium-lift rotorcraft with fuselage dimensions comparable to a regional jet or business jet. The first TRACT test (TRACT 1) was conducted in August 2013. The primary objectives for TRACT 1 were to: (1) assess improvements to occupant loads and displacement with the use of crashworthy features such as pre-tensioning active restraints and energy absorbing seats, (2) develop novel techniques for photogrammetric data acquisition to measure occupant and airframe kinematics, and (3) provide baseline data for future comparison with a retrofitted airframe configuration. Crash test conditions for TRACT 1 were 33-ft/s forward and 25-ft/s vertical combined velocity onto soft soil, which represent a severe, but potentially survivable impact scenario. The extraordinary value of the TRACT 1 test was reflected by the breadth of meaningful experiments. A total of 8 unique experiments were conducted to evaluate ATD responses, seat and restraint performance, cargo restraint effectiveness, patient litter behavior, and photogrammetric techniques. A combination of Hybrid II, Hybrid III, and ES-2 Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) were placed in forward and side facing seats and occupant results were compared against injury criteria. Loads from ATDs in energy absorbing seats and restraints were within injury limits. Severe injury was likely for ATDs in forward facing passenger seats, legacy troop bench seats, and a three-tiered patient litter. In addition, two standing ATDs were used to evaluate the benefit of Mobile Aircrew Restraint Systems (MARS) versus a standard gunner's belt. The ATD with the MARS survived the impact, while fatal head blunt trauma occurred for the standing ATD held by the legacy gunner's belt. In addition to occupant loading, the structural response of the airframe was assessed based on accelerometers located throughout the airframe and using three-dimensional photogrammetric techniques. Analysis of the photogrammetric data indicated regions of maximum deflection and permanent deformation.

Annett, Martin S.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Summary of Test Results from a NASA Lift + Cruise eVTOL Crash Test

On November 9, 2022, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted a full-scale crash test of the NASA Lift+Cruise (LPC) reference vehicle at the NASA Langley Research Center Landing and Impact Research Facility (LandIR) under combined vertical and horizontal impact conditions to simulate a severe but survivable crash. The LPC test article is a carbon-composite skin/frame structure design, developed and fabricated for the cabin section only. The test utilized various configurations of seats and Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs, a.k.a. crash test dummies) intended to encompass a variety of occupant conditions. In addition, an in-house developed energy absorbing subfloor was utilized for the evaluation of load attenuation. Overhead mass was simulated using attached lifting hardware and other systems were simulated using ballast mass. The test article impacted the ground with velocities of 38.1 ft/s horizontal and 31.4 ft/s vertical. During the first approximately 38 milliseconds (ms), the cabin section experienced a large amount of acceleration on the belly which was attenuated by the subfloor structures and seats. Over the next approximately 160 ms, the test article experienced failure in the a-, b- and c-pillars, leading to a partial collapse of the overhead structure. Test data was collected on the belly, floors, seats, overhead mass, and tail. In addition, there was high speed full-field digital image correlation analysis data collected on the port side skin surface. Collected ATD data showed that the ATDs seated in the energy absorbing seats experienced loads at limits below the those in current regulations. Even without an energy absorbing seat, the energy absorbing subfloors crushed as intended, and limited the load on the large 95 th percentile ATD to 10% over suggested limits. The collapse of the roof did affect the 95 th percentile ATD, which showed high neck loading values due to head contact, whereas survivable volume was maintained for the other ATDs. While the energy absorbing subfloor and energy absorbing seats both contributed to occupant load attenuation, further optimization is suggested to increase their robustness.

evtol↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Summary of Test Results from a NASA Lift + Cruise eVTOL Crash Test

On November 9, 2022, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted a full-scale crash test of the NASA Lift+Cruise (LPC) reference vehicle at the NASA Langley Research Center Landing and Impact Research Facility (LandIR) under combined vertical and horizontal impact conditions to simulate a severe but survivable crash. The LPC test article is a carbon-composite skin/frame structure design, developed and fabricated for the cabin section only. The test utilized various configurations of seats and Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs, a.k.a. crash test dummies) intended to encompass a variety of occupant conditions. In addition, an in-house developed energy absorbing subfloor was utilized for the evaluation of load attenuation. Overhead mass was simulated using attached lifting hardware and other systems were simulated using ballast mass. The test article impacted the ground with velocities of 38.1 ft/s horizontal and 31.4 ft/s vertical. During the first approximately 38 milliseconds (ms), the cabin section experienced a large amount of acceleration on the belly which was attenuated by the subfloor structures and seats. Over the next approximately 160 ms, the test article experienced failure in the a-, b- and c-pillars, leading to a partial collapse of the overhead structure. Test data was collected on the belly, floors, seats, overhead mass, and tail. In addition, there was high speed full-field digital image correlation analysis data collected on the port side skin surface. Collected ATD data showed that the ATDs seated in the energy absorbing seats experienced loads at limits below the those in current regulations. Even without an energy absorbing seat, the energy absorbing subfloors crushed as intended, and limited the load on the large 95 th percentile ATD to 10% over suggested limits. The collapse of the roof did affect the 95 th percentile ATD, which showed high neck loading values due to head contact, whereas survivable volume was maintained for the other ATDs. While the energy absorbing subfloor and energy absorbing seats both contributed to occupant load attenuation, further optimization is suggested to increase their robustness.

evtol↗

NASA NTRS1985

Design and testing of an energy-absorbing crewseat for the F/FB-111 aircraft. Volume 3: Data from crew module testing

Over the past years, several papers and reports have documented the unacceptably high injury rate during the escape sequence (including the ejection and ground impact) of the crew module for F/FB-111 aircraft. This report documents a program to determine if the injury potential could be reduced by replacing the existing crewseats with energy absorbing crewseats. An energy absorbing test seat was designed using much of the existing seat hardware. An extensive dynamic seat test series, designed to duplicate various crew module ground impact conditions, was conducted at a sled test facility. Comparative tests with operational F-111 crewseats were also conducted. After successful dynamic testing of the seat, more testing was conducted with the seats mounted in an F-111 crew module. Both swing tests and vertical drop tests werre conducted. The vertical drop tests were used to obtain comparative data between the energy absorbing and operational seats.

Shane, S. J.↗

NASA NTRS1985

Dynamic response of film thickness in spiral-groove face seals

Tests were performed on an inward- and an outward-pumping spiral-groove face seal to experimentally determine the film thickness response to seal seat motions and to gain insight into the effect of secondary seal friction on film thickness behavior. Film thickness, seal seat axial motion, seal frictional torque, and film axial load were recorded as functions of time. The experiments revealed that for sinusoidal axial oscillations of the seal seat, the primary ring followed the seal seat motion very well. For a skewed seal seat, however, the primary ring did not follow the seal seat motion, and load-carrying capacity was degraded. Secondary seal friction was varied over a wide range to determine its effect on film thickness dynamics. The seals were tested with ambient air at room temperature and atmospheric pressure as the fluid medium. The test speed ranged from 7000 to 20,000 rpm. Seal tangential velocity ranged from 34 to 98 m/sec (113 to 323 ft/sec).

Dirusso, E.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Innovative, High-Pressure, Cryogenic Control Valve: Short Face-to-Face, Reduced Cost

A control valve that can throttle high-pressure cryogenic fluid embodies several design features that distinguish it over conventional valves designed for similar applications. Field and design engineers worked together to create a valve that would simplify installation, trim changes, and maintenance, thus reducing overall cost. The seals and plug stem packing were designed to perform optimally in cryogenic temperature ranges. Unlike conventional high-pressure cryogenic valves, the trim size can be changed independent of the body. The design feature that provides flexibility for changing the trim is a split body. The body is divided into an upper and a lower section with the seat ring sandwiched in between. In order to maintain the plug stem packing at an acceptable sealing temperature during cryogenic service, heat-exchanging fins were added to the upper body section. The body is made of stainless steel. The seat ring is made of a nickel-based alloy having a coefficient of thermal expansion less than that of the body material. Consequently, when the interior of the valve is cooled cryogenically, the body surrounding the seat ring contracts more than the seat ring. This feature prevents external leakage at the body-seat joint. The seat ring has been machined to have small, raised-face sealing surfaces on both sides of the seal groove. These sealing surfaces concentrate the body bolt load over a small area, thereby preventing external leakage. The design of the body bolt circle is different from that of conventional highpressure control valves. Half of the bolts clamp the split body together from the top, and half from the bottom side. This bolt-circle design allows a short, clean flow path, which minimizes frictional flow losses. This bolt-circle design also makes it possible to shorten the face-toface length of the valve, which is 25.5 in. (65 cm). In contrast, a conventional, high-pressure control valve face-to-face dimension may be greater than 40 in. (>1 m) long.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2006

Aircraft Cabin Turbulence Warning Experiment

New turbulence prediction technology offers the potential for advance warning of impending turbulence encounters, thereby allowing necessary cabin preparation time prior to the encounter. The amount of time required for passengers and flight attendants to be securely seated (that is, seated with seat belts fastened) currently is not known. To determine secured seating-based warning times, a consortium of aircraft safety organizations have conducted an experiment involving a series of timed secured seating trials. This demonstrative experiment, conducted on October 1, 2, and 3, 2002, used a full-scale B-747 wide-body aircraft simulator, human passenger subjects, and supporting staff from six airlines. Active line-qualified flight attendants from three airlines participated in the trials. Definitive results have been obtained to provide secured seating-based warning times for the developers of turbulence warning technology

Bogue, Rodney K.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Finite Element Simulations of Two Vertical Drop Tests of F-28 Fuselage Sections

In March 2017, a vertical drop test of a forward fuselage section of a Fokker F-28 MK4000 aircraft was conducted as part of a joint NASA/FAA project to investigate the performance of transport aircraft under realistic crash conditions. In June 2017, a vertical drop test was conducted of a wing-box fuselage section of the same aircraft. Both sections were configured with two rows of aircraft seats, in a triple-double configuration. A total of ten Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) were secured in seats using standard lap belt restraints. The forward fuselage section was also configured with luggage in the cargo hold. Both sections were outfitted with two hat racks, each with added ballast mass. The drop tests were performed at the Landing and Impact Research facility located at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. The measured impact velocity for the forward fuselage section was 346.8-in/s onto soil. The wing-box section was dropped with a downward facing pitch angle onto a sloping soil surface in order to create an induced forward acceleration in the airframe. The vertical impact velocity of the wing-box section was 349.2-in/s. A second objective of this project was to assess the capabilities of finite element simulations to predict the test responses. Finite element models of both fuselage sections were developed for execution in LS-DYNA(Registered Trademark), a commercial explicit nonlinear transient dynamic code. The models contained accurate representations of the airframe structure, the hat racks and hat rack masses, the floor and seat tracks, the luggage in the cargo hold for the forward section, and the detailed under-floor structure in the wing-box section. Initially, concentrated masses were used to represent the inertial properties of the seats, restraints, and ATD occupants. However, later simulations were performed that included finite element representations of the seats, restraints, and ATD occupants. These models were developed to more accurately replicate the seat loading of the floor and to enable prediction of occupant impact responses. Models were executed to generate analytical predictions of airframe responses, which were compared with test data to validate the model. Comparisons of predicted and experimental structural deformation and failures were made. Finally, predicted and experimental soil deformation and crater depths were also compared for both drop test configurations.

Jackson, Karen E.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Lunar Transient Accelerations White Paper

Recently, the United States announced a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2024 [8]. Lunar landing (and subsequent Mars landing) architecture was not considered when the current NASA standards and vehicle design requirements for crew injury risk were developed. Therefore a gap exists in protecting the crew in planetary landing scenarios. One of the interesting aspects of this design reference mission (DRM)is the consideration of having the crew stand during dynamic phases of flight. Although this approach was contemplated for the Apollo Lunar Module, current NASA standards do not address design solutions that allow the crew to stand. Currently, NASA uses several tools and associated limits to mitigate crew injury because of dynamic loads. Some of these tools are the Brinkley Dynamic Response Criterion (BDRC) model and Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) [10]; and these have several limitations for assessing spaceflight loading environments, as well as specific underlying assumptions that may not be applicable in planetary landing vehicles. The BDRC is a simple lumped mass parameter model developed by the U.S. military, and has been used primarily to evaluate injury risk associated with aircraft ejection systems. The model evaluates seat accelerations in each axis to determine injury risk. Because the model treats the human-seat-restraint system as a single system, it is contingent on a restraint system and seat with similar characteristics of the original test data underlying the model. In particular, the model requires a rigid seat with a minimum natural frequency of 15Hz, minimal seat pan padding, side supports, and multipoint harness. The BDRC model uses undamped natural frequency and damping coefficients based on these requirements and any deviations may render the model injury predictions void. In lunar landing, one expects that a minimal or even no seat with minimal restraints will be employed. In this case, the original model parameters are likely to not be applicable. For capsule-based spacecraft returning crew to Earth, the Hybrid III ATD in various sizes also is used to supplement the BDRC. This analytical tool was added to address limitations in the BDRC related to spacecraft landings while wearing a pressure garment and helmet. Although the Hybrid III ATD has additional measurement capability; head, neck,and lumbar spine responses were the only metrics included because of the limitations imposed by the model.Lunar landing acceleration limits must assume the crew is standing during landing, an orientation for which we have limited data.Although the Apollo missions did employ a standing orientation for the crew, much of the data is lost. Therefore data from othersources havebeen examined to inform lunar landing acceleration limits.

Jeffrey T Somers↗