0
Research Papers

Simulation of Occupant Response in Space Capsule Landing Configurations With Suit Hardware

[+] Author and Article Information
Kerry A. Danelson

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery,
Wake Forest University Health Sciences,
Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Medical Center Boulevard,
Winston-Salem, NC 27157
Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences,
Blacksburg, VA 24061
e-mail: kdanelso@wakehealth.edu

Adam J. Golman

School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences,
Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Suite 120, 575 N. Patterson Avenue,
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences,
Blacksburg, VA 24061
e-mail: adam.golman@gmail.com

John H. Bolte, IV

The Ohio State University,
Room #279,
1645 Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43210
e-mail: bolte.6@osu.edu

Joel D. Stitzel

School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences,
Wake Forest University School of Medicine,
Suite 120, 575 N. Patterson Avenue,
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Virginia Tech - Wake Forest University School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences,
Blacksburg, VA 24061
e-mail: jstitzel@wakehealth.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received October 11, 2013; final manuscript received September 12, 2014; published online January 29, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Brian D. Stemper.

J Biomech Eng 137(3), 031003 (Mar 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: BIO-13-1481; doi: 10.1115/1.4028816 History: Received October 11, 2013; Revised September 12, 2014; Online January 29, 2015

The purpose of this study was to compare the response of the total human model for safety (THUMS) human body finite element model (FEM) to experimental postmortem human subject (PMHS) test results and evaluate possible injuries caused by suit ring elements. Experimental testing evaluated the PMHS response in frontal, rear, side, falling, and spinal impacts. The THUMS was seated in a rigid seat that mirrored the sled buck used in the experimental testing. The model was then fitted with experimental combinations of neck, shoulder, humerus and thigh rings with a five-point restraint system. Experimental seat acceleration data was used as the input for the simulations. The simulation results were analyzed and compared to PMHS measurements to evaluate the response of the THUMS in these loading conditions. The metrics selected to compare the THUMS simulation to PMHS tests were the chest acceleration, seat acceleration and belt forces with additional metrics implemented in THUMS. The chest acceleration of the simulations and the experimental data was closely matched except in the Z-axis (superior/inferior) loading scenarios based on signal analysis. The belt force data of the model better correlated to the experimental results in loading scenarios where the THUMS interacted primarily with the restraint system compared to load cases where the primary interaction was between the seat and the occupant (rear, spinal and lateral impacts). The simulation output demonstrated low injury metric values for the occupant in these loading conditions. In the experimental testing, rib fractures were recorded for the frontal and left lateral impact scenarios. Fractures were not seen in the simulations, most likely due to variations between the simulation and the PMHS initial configuration. The placement of the rings on the THUMS was optimal with symmetric placement about the centerline of the model. The experimental placement of the rings had more experimental variation. Even with this discrepancy, the THUMS can still be considered a valuable predictive tool for occupant injury because it can compare results across many simulations. The THUMS also has the ability to assess a wider variety of other injury information, compared to anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs), that can be used to compare simulation results.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

THUMS seating configurations for testing with different ring configurations for different test conditions. Impact types are rear, posterior to anterior (a); frontal, anterior to posterior (b); falling, superior to inferior (c); spinal, inferior to superior (d); right lateral, right to left and (e); left lateral, left to right (f).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The sternal (a, single line) and rib deflection (b, multiple lines) measurement locations for the THUMS simulations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Humerus and clavicle section plane locations

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In