Results for “Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs)” — Page 3

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-33512-DND

INTRODUCTION: In an effort to quantify the predictive capability of the Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC)-provided Hybrid III (small female, mid-size male, and large male) anthropomorphic test device (ATD) finite element models (FEMs) within aerospace loading environments, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) performed a series of sled tests with the isolated head-neck complex of each ATD. These tests and subsequent modeling efforts revealed significant deficiencies in the large male head neck FEM. Differences in both the shape and material properties between the FEM and the physical ATD were identified. In order to improve the predictive response of the FEM, a model development effort was undertaken to update the head-neck complex to better represent the geometric and material properties of the physical ATD.METHODS: To better match the physical geometry, a new neck component model was meshed and implemented into the Hybrid III large male head-neck complex. The updated geometry and weight were verified against measurements of the physical ATD to insure accuracy. The primary source of material discrepancy between the physical ATD and FEM was found to be in the material definition of the rubber neck pucks. Using LS-Opt the material properties of this part were calibrated to match physical response of the head-neck complex in the isolated head-neck testing performed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The updated geometry and calibrated material properties were shown to significantly improve the FEM predictive accuracy under lateral, rear, and frontal impacts with combined horizontal and vertical loading. The results of this study demonstrate an effective means for improving ATD FEM response through isolated component level testing and material parameter optimization. The improved and quantified accuracy of the Hybrid III large male FEM head-neck complex stemming from with work lends to confidence in its future use for occupant protection evaluation of large male occupants

J Putnam↗

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↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Comparative Analysis of Occupant Response Between Component and Full Vehicle Tests of Fokker F28 Aircraft Hardware

In 2019, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) conducted a full-scale crash test of a Fokker F28 MK1000 aircraft. This test concluded a multi-year research effort in which two component fuselage sections of a matching Fokker F28 aircraft were previously tested under similar vertical impact conditions. Due to facility and cost constraints of full-scale testing, aircraft are typically evaluated through component level tests (i.e. vertical drops of fuselage subsections or isolated seat tests). Although more practical, these tests are limited in their ability fully replicate the complex multi-axis loading environment induced on the occupants during a full-aircraft crash event. Because of this, there is risk that component level testing does not provide a complete assessment of vehicle crashworthiness. Comparative analysis between full-scale and component level testing of the Fokker F28 aircraft provides an excellent opportunity to evaluate differences in crashworthiness prediction made between these levels of test fidelity. In this study, Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD, a.k.a crash test dummies) responses measured during the Fokker full scale impact test were compared to those measured in the component fuselage section drops. A variety of ATD configurations (5th, 50th, 95th) and positions (upright, braced) were tested in both the full-scale and component tests. ATD injury metric response comparisons were made across these ATD variations in addition to comparisons made with respect to ATD location within the vehicle. Results found the addition of horizontal impact velocity, achieved in the full-scale testing, along with aircraft structural effects altered ATD based crashworthiness assessment of the vehicle.

Crashworthiness↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Soyuz Landing Reconstructions

Introduction: Recent data show a landing-attributed injury rate among Soyuz crew members to be higher than predicted in original certification analysis. New vehicles being developed for NASA are being certified using analytical tools to quantify injury risk. This assessment will provide data to allow the Agency to evaluate whether these tools are able to capture true injury risk and allow a comparison between Soyuz landings and upcoming vehicles. Methods: A finite element model (FEM) of the Soyuz descent module (DM) and its landing environment were developed to recreate Soyuz landing conditions. Occupant breakout models composed of the Soyuz seat and Sokol helmet were then developed to evaluate occupant response. These models included both anthropomorphic test device (ATD) and human body model (HBM) surrogates in three anthropometric sizes. A generalized distribution analysis of the Soyuz landing environment was performed using landing variable distributions from available literature. Results were used to identify trends in vehicle landing acceleration with landing conditions and to compare landing model injury risk predictions with those estimated in vehicle certification analysis. Next, historic Soyuz landings identified as inducing occupant injury during were reconstructed using the developed landing model and estimated landing conditions. Results and Discussion: This assessment demonstrated the capability of certification metrics, which include a combination of vehicle- and occupant-level injury risk analysis, to identify elevated injury risk landing conditions. However, the developed landing load predictions were limited by available vehicle and landing condition data. Additional data, particularly landing acceleration data specific to historic Soyuz landing conditions, would greatly enhance this assessment’s findings.

Preston Greenhalgh↗

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 NTRS2023

Numerical Investigation of Occupant Injury Risks During A Realistic Transport Aircraft Crash Conditions

Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center (LaRC) have conducted a full-scale crash test of a Fokker F28 MK1000 aircraft to investigate the performance of transport aircraft under realistic crash conditions. This crash test was computationally recreated using finite element (FE) human body models (HBMs) to further explore potential injury risks to occupants and analyze the utilization of HBMs in the aerospace crash environment. The Global Human Body Model Consortium (GHBMC) male 50th percentile occupant detailed model (v6.0) and the Toyota Human Model for Safety (THUMS) male 50th percentile occupant model (v6.1) were selected to be used in the crash simulations. The HBMs were simulated in conditions matching those of anthropomorphic test device (ATD) experiments included within the aircraft cabin during the crash test. Seven occupant locations within the cabin were simulated utilizing each of the models. The models were positioned in a neutral upright posture with hands resting on the legs and the feet contacting the floor. Head, brain, neck, and lumbar vertebra injury metrics were calculated for all trials. Both HBM models required minor modifications to stabilize these simulations. The GHBMC model required added erosion for six parts while the THUMS model only required one in order to complete the full simulation. The THUMS model, however, required a much smaller timestep for stability and therefore took significantly more computational time. In addition the GHBMC model includes integrated instrumentation while the THUMS model requires development and implementation of instrumentation. Both models predicted 100% injury risk for lumbar vertebra fracture in all test conditions. This prediction was in family with high lumbar load values measured by the ATDs during the crash test. The THUMS model consistently predicted lower injury risks than the GHBMC model in all three other metrics varying depending on the crash pulse. Overall, the THUMS model required less modifications to allow for this study. However, the GHBMC models significantly faster run time and integrated instrumentation make it a more intuitive model for this research.

Crashworthiness↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Device and human Volunteer Responses in Landing Impact Tests of U.S. Space Vehicles

United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to validate the safety of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and the vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded in human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.

Teresa Reiber↗

NASA NTRS2024

Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Device and Human Volunteer Responses in Simulated Landing Impact Tests of U.S. Space Vehicles

United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to assess flight-like landing conditions of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and U.S. vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded for human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, and 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.

Teresa M Reiber↗

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 NTRSDate not supplied

Study of Advanced Occupant Models to Quantify Injury Risk for eVTOL Vehicles

Urban transportation is currently evolving from traditional ground-based vehicles (cars, taxis, and buses) to include air-based electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) vehicles which can be utilized for on-demand transportation, cargo transport, and emergency services. These new eVTOL vehicles are designed to be small, lightweight, and able to operate autonomously without user intervention. Safety is a big part of eventual eVTOL adoption, however gaps in the consideration of safety features exist. Anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are used in aerospace crashworthiness standards to quantify occupant injury risk and develop improved safety designs for emergency landing situations, but the ATDs currently used in aircraft certification requirements were developed many decades ago. Developments have occurred over the years involving ATD technology, which includes a host of newer and more biofidelic ATDs such as the Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR). Increased computing power has also allowed for detailed computational human body models (HBMs) to be created, such as the Global Human Body Model Consortium (GHBMC). This study aims to assess the capability of both HBMs and new ATD designs to identify injury mechanisms within eVTOL relevant emergency landing conditions. Finite element (FE) analysis was used to expand upon full-scale and seat level impact testing conducted by researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to look at effects of occupant model configurations on prediction of injury. The GHBMC HBM and THOR ATD models were simulated in the seat level test conditions to characterize differences between these advanced assessment tools and traditional ATDs in the isolated seat loading environment. Results identified key differences in the responses from each of the models utilized and compared their impact response in head, neck, and spinal injury metrics. The THOR model identified potential risks for head injuries due to head impacts on the seat, however it predicted lower spinal loads than the other occupant surrogates. The GHBMC showed distinctly different biomechanical responses compared to the ATD. The GHBMC model is much more deformable than the ATDs and it exhibited higher distribution of forces and increased sensitivity to the duration of acceleration pulses. Both models incorporated into this study identified key mechanisms for injury that should be considered for passenger safety in the development of these novel aircraft. In addition, this study demonstrated the value of FE modeling for running a variety of complex human surrogates to identify potential injury mechanisms for consideration in regulation and development of new aircraft. Continued research in this field to improve validation these models will only lead to safer aircraft and more comprehensive safety measures.

Crashworthiness↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Study of Advanced Occupant Models to Quantify Injury Risk for eVTOL Vehicles

Urban transportation is currently evolving from traditional ground-based vehicles (cars, taxis, and buses) to include air-based electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) vehicles which can be utilized for on-demand transportation, cargo transport, and emergency services. These new eVTOL vehicles are designed to be small, lightweight, and able to operate autonomously without user intervention. Safety is a big part of eventual eVTOL adoption, however gaps in the consideration of safety features exist. Anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are used in aerospace crashworthiness standards to quantify occupant injury risk and develop improved safety designs for emergency landing situations, but the ATDs currently used in aircraft certification requirements were developed many decades ago. Developments have occurred over the years involving ATD technology, which includes a host of newer and more biofidelic ATDs such as the Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR). Increased computing power has also allowed for detailed computational human body models (HBMs) to be created, such as the Global Human Body Model Consortium (GHBMC). This study aims to assess the capability of both HBMs and new ATD designs to identify injury mechanisms within eVTOL relevant emergency landing conditions. Finite element (FE) analysis was used to expand upon full-scale and seat level impact testing conducted by researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to look at effects of occupant model configurations on prediction of injury. The GHBMC HBM and THOR ATD models were simulated in the seat level test conditions to characterize differences between these advanced assessment tools and traditional ATDs in the isolated seat loading environment. Results identified key differences in the responses from each of the models utilized and compared their impact response in head, neck, and spinal injury metrics. The THOR model identified potential risks for head injuries due to head impacts on the seat, however it predicted lower spinal loads than the other occupant surrogates. The GHBMC showed distinctly different biomechanical responses compared to the ATD. The GHBMC model is much more deformable than the ATDs and it exhibited higher distribution of forces and increased sensitivity to the duration of acceleration pulses. Both models incorporated into this study identified key mechanisms for injury that should be considered for passenger safety in the development of these novel aircraft. In addition, this study demonstrated the value of FE modeling for running a variety of complex human surrogates to identify potential injury mechanisms for consideration in regulation and development of new aircraft. Continued research in this field to improve validation these models will only lead to safer aircraft and more comprehensive safety measures.

Crashworthiness↗

NASA NTRS2024

Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Device and Human Volunteer Responses in Simulated Landing Impact Tests of U.S. Space Vehicles

United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to assess flight-like landing conditions of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and U.S. vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded for human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, and 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.

Teresa M Reiber↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Anthropomorphic Test Device and Human Volunteer Responses in Simulated Landing Impact Tests of U.S. Space Vehicles

United States (U.S.) crewed vehicles are being designed to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) human spaceflight programs. Vehicles must be designed to meet NASA’s occupant protection requirements including landing injury assessment with anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and analytical models. However, these tools are limited in capturing all injuries that might occur during spacecraft landings. A NASA study of injuries during Soyuz vehicle landings has shown that analytical models are underpredicting occupant injury. Because of the inherent limitations with our analytical tools, human volunteer impact testing was employed to assess flight-like landing conditions of U.S. crewed vehicles. A total of 84 human volunteer tests in 11 different test orientations and g-levels were completed as part of this effort in collaboration with the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and U.S. vehicle development companies. Human subjects were tested at various realistic landing loads and in the highest fidelity seat and suit components that were available at the time of testing for two U.S. vehicles. Matched-pair ATD tests in the same test conditions were also conducted with small female and midsized male Hybrid III ATDs. ATDs were fully instrumented. Head accelerations and subjective responses were recorded for human subjects. In some cases, chest accelerations were captured. Responses of the ATDs and humans in matched-pair tests were compared. No ATD tests showed evidence for risk of injury based on NASA occupant protection requirements. Human subjects reported 17 cases of discomfort or pain, and 1 human subject was diagnosed with a minor injury that was not evident in the ATD tests. These results provide evidence that ATDs do not capture all potential injury risks, namely lower severity injuries, discomfort, pain, and fit issues. Overall, human testing is beneficial to understanding the true risk of injury to crewmembers during Earth landings.

Teresa M Reiber↗

NASA NTRS2014

How Well Does the Latest Anthropomorphic Test Device Mimic Human Impact Responses?

One of the goals of the NASA Occupant Protection Group is to understand the human tolerance to dynamic loading. This knowledge has to come through indirect approaches such as existing human response databases, anthropometric test devices (ATD), animal testing, post‐mortem human subjects, and models. This study investigated the biofidelity of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ATD named the THOR (test device for human occupant restraint). If THOR responds comparably to humans, then it could potentially be used as a human surrogate to help validate space vehicle requirements for occupant protection. The THOR responses to frontal and spinal impacts (ranging from 8 to 12 G with rise times of 40, 70, and 100 ms) were measured and compared to human volunteer responses (95 trials in frontal and 58 in spinal) previously collected by the U. S. Air Force on the same horizontal impact accelerator. The impact acceleration profiles tested are within the expected range of multi‐purpose crew vehicle (MPCV) landing dynamics. A correlation score was calculated for each THOR to human comparison using CORA (CORrelation and Analysis) software. A two‐parameter beta distribution model fit was obtained for each dependent variable using maximum likelihood estimation. For frontal impacts, the THOR head x‐acceleration peak response correlated with the human response at 8 and 10‐G 100 ms but not 10‐G 70 ms. The phase lagged the human response. Head z‐acceleration was not correlated. Chest x‐acceleration was in phase, had a higher peak response, and was well correlated with lighter subjects (Cora = 0.8 for 46 kg vs. Cora = 0.4 for 126 kg). Head x‐displacement had a leading phase. Several subjects responded with the same peak displacement but the mean of the group was lower. The shoulder x‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks than the human response. For spinal impacts, the THOR head x‐acceleration was not well correlated. Head and chest z‐acceleration was in phase but had a higher peak response. Chest z‐acceleration was highly correlated with heavier subjects at lower G pulses (Cora = 0.86 for 125 kg at 8 G). The human response was variable in shoulder z‐displacement but the THOR was in phase and was comparable to the mean peak response. Head xand z‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks. Seat pan forces were well correlated, were in phase, but had a larger peak response than most subjects. The THOR does not respond to frontal and spinal impacts exactly the same way that a human does. Some responses are well matched and others are not. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of this ATD is an important first step in determining its usefulness in occupant protection at NASA

Newby, N.↗

NASA NTRS2014

How Well Does the Latest Anthropomorphic Test Device Mimic Human Impact Responses?

One of the goals of the NASA Occupant Protection Group is to understand the human tolerance to dynamic loading. This knowledge has to come through indirect approaches such as existing human response databases, anthropometric test devices (ATD), animal testing, post-‐mortem human subjects, and models. This study investigated the biofidelity of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's ATD named the THOR (test device for human occupant restraint). If THOR responds comparably to humans, then it could potentially be used as a human surrogate to help validate space vehicle requirements for occupant protection. The THOR responses to frontal and spinal impacts (ranging from 8 to 12 G with rise times of 40, 70, and 100 ms) were measured and compared to human volunteer responses (95 trials in frontal and 58 in spinal) previously collected by the U. S. Air Force on the same horizontal impact accelerator. The impact acceleration profiles tested are within the expected range of multi-‐purpose crew vehicle (MPCV) landing dynamics. A correlation score was calculated for each THOR to human comparison using CORA (CORrelation and Analysis) software. A two-‐parameter beta distribution model fit was obtained for each dependent variable using maximum likelihood estimation. For frontal impacts, the THOR head x-‐acceleration peak response correlated with the human response at 8 and 10-‐G 100 ms but not 10-‐G 70 ms. The phase lagged the human response. Head z-‐acceleration was not correlated. Chest x-‐acceleration was in phase, had a higher peak response, and was well correlated with lighter subjects (Cora = 0.8 for 46 kg vs. Cora = 0.4 for 126 kg). Head x-‐displacement had a leading phase. Several subjects responded with the same peak displacement but the mean of the group was lower. The shoulder x-‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks than the human response. For spinal impacts, the THOR head x-‐acceleration was not well correlated. Head and chest z-‐acceleration was in phase but had a higher peak response. Chest z-‐acceleration was highly correlated with heavier subjects at lower G pulses (Cora = 0.86 for 125 kg at 8 G). The human response was variable in shoulder z-‐displacement but the THOR was in phase and was comparable to the mean peak response. Head x-‐ and z-‐displacement was in phase but had higher peaks. Seat pan forces were well correlated, were in phase, but had a larger peak response than most subjects. The THOR does not respond to frontal and spinal impacts exactly the same way that a human does. Some responses are well matched and others are not. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of this ATD is an important first step in determining its usefulness in occupant protection at NASA

Newby, Nate↗