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.