Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) (Orion) Occupant Protection

The purpose of this study was to determine the similarity between the response of the THUMS model and the Hybrid III Anthropometric Test Device (ATD) given existing Wright-Patterson (WP) sled tests. There were four tests selected for this comparison with frontal, spinal, rear, and lateral loading. The THUMS was placed in a sled configuration that replicated the WP configuration and the recorded seat acceleration for each test was applied to model seat. Once the modeling simulations were complete, they were compared to the WP results using two methods. The first was a visual inspection of the sled test videos compared to the THUMS d3plot files. This comparison resulted in an assessment of the overall kinematics of the two results. The other comparison was a comparison of the plotted data recorded for both tests. The metrics selected for comparison were seat acceleration, belt forces, head acceleration and chest acceleration. These metrics were recorded in all WP tests and were outputs of the THUMS model. Once the comparison of the THUMS to the WP tests was complete, the THUMS model output was also examined for possible injuries in these scenarios. These outputs included metrics for injury risk to the head, neck, thorax, lumbar spine and lower extremities. The metrics to evaluate head response were peak head acceleration, HIC15, and HIC36. For the neck, N (sub ij) was calculated. The thorax response was evaluated with peak chest acceleration, the Combined Thoracic Index (CTI), sternal deflection, chest deflection, and chest acceleration- 3 ms clip. The lumbar spine response was evaluated with lumbar spine force. Finally the lower extremity response was evaluated by femur and tibia force. The results of the simulation comparisons indicate the THUMS model had a similar response to the Hybrid III dummy given the same input. The primary difference seen between the two was a more flexible response of the THUMS compared to the Hybrid III. This flexibility was most pronounced in the neck flexion, shoulder deflection and chest deflection. Due to the flexibility of the THUMS, the resulting head and chest accelerations tended to lag the Hybrid III acceleration trace and have a lower peak value. The results of the injury metric comparison identified possible injury trends between simulations. Risk of head injury was highest for the lateral simulations. The risk of chest injury was highest for the rear impact. However, neck injury risk was approximately the same for all simulations. The injury metric value for lumbar spine force was highest for the spinal impact. The leg forces were highest for the rear and lateral impacts. The results of this comparison indicate the THUMS model performs in a similar manner as the Hybrid III ATD. The differences in the responses of model and the ATD are primarily due to the flexibility of the THUMS. This flexibility of the THUMS would be a more human like response. Based on the similarity between the two models, the THUMS should be used in further testing to assess risk of injury to the occupant.