International Journal of Crashworthiness
International Journal of Crashworthiness
International Journal of Crashworthiness
To cite this article: H Nagarajan , M McCoy & H M Lankarani (2005) Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin
class divider panels, International Journal of Crashworthiness, 10:5, 525-534, DOI: 10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
Abstract: The need for head injury protection has been addressed with the inclusion of the Head
Injury Criteria, (HIC), in the dynamic seat certification requirements specified in paragraph 562
of the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 23, 25, 27, and 29. Compliance with the HIC poses a
significant problem for many segments of the aircraft industry. The certification requires engineers
to demonstrate that a head strike into any one of several cabin furnishing complies with a HIC
threshold of 1000. The problem encountered in the certification of 16G seats, referred to as the front
row HIC problem, occurs for seats located behind bulkheads and cabin class dividers. These structures
are typically stiff and hence produce unacceptably large HIC values. This paper deals with the design
and fabrication of a bulkhead for HIC attenuation, meeting the industrys appearance and aesthetic
requirements as well.
This paper addresses the study conducted on various honeycomb materials for HIC attenuation.
MADYMO biodynamic simulations, supported by simple quasi-static tests, were developed for the
design of HIC compliant bulkheads which effectively attenuated HIC below the injury levels. The
validated MADYMO models were utilized for a parametric study of the effects of stiffness and
strength of the bulkhead on HIC levels and to develop design heuristics for the fabrication of HIC
compliant bulkheads. New bulkhead designs and materials were derived, statically tested for the loaddeflection properties and the results were compared with design curves. The compliance of the new
bulkheads for HIC was then assessed by conducting full-scale dynamic sled tests on these structures
at both small and large seat setback distances. A detailed methodology for the design and development
of HIC compliant bulkheads is also explained in this paper.
Key words: Head Injury Criteria, component tester, aircraft seats, biodynamic modeling, sled testing,
aircraft certification.
INTRODUCTION
Corresponding Author:
Harishanker Nagarajan
National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University
1845 N. Fairmount
Wichita, KS 67260 0133, USA
Tel: +1 (316) 978 6383 Fax: +1 (316) 978 3236
Email: [email protected]
0367
4
6
8
10
12
4
6
8
10
12
14
14
16
16
18
2.6
2.7
2.8
18
2.95
2.9
3.05
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
3.1
3.15
Panel
Seat
30
62.0
30.2
30
Seat setback
94
34.5
21.9
Seat reference
point
14.3
20 (typ)
0.5-in.
15.9 Bulkhead fixture
18.7
40
60
526
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin class divider panels
Figure 3 Full scale sled test setup with cabin class divider
panel.
systems and contact surfaces representing arbitrary forcedeflection characteristics of lap belts and shoulder
harnesses. The contact algorithm allows the belts to slide
over the occupant body and also generates friction forces
and normal forces in addition to the kinematics constraints.
The MADYMO biodynamic model is shown in Figure 6.
This model has been validated during dynamic sled tests
at 34-inch seat setback distance [4]. Figure 7 shows the
methodology for the validation of the analytical model at
34-inch seat setback distance. Figure 8 shows a sample of
the head acceleration comparison of the full-scale sled
test and the analytical model results.
Test pulse
(g)
Seat setback
distance
(in)
Head impact
angle
(degrees)
Head impact
velocity
(ft/sec)
HIC
HIC window
t = t2 t1
(ms)
97191001
97191002
16.7
16.3
35 (0.89 m)
34 (0.86 m)
53
42
45 (13.7 m/s)
45 (13.7 m/s)
823
1394
19.0
11.0
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
527
80
60
40
20
0
2.8
2.82
2.84
2.86
2.88
Time (sec)
2.9
100
80
60
40
20
3.07
2.92
tc2=3.1343
120
t2=3.0984
140
tc1=t1=3.0859
100
tc2 = 2.9070
120
160
t2 = 2.8440
140
3.08
3.09
3.1
3.11
Time (sec)
3.12
3.13 3.14
Figure 5 Resultant head C.G. acceleration profile for full-scale sled tests 97191-001 & 002.
Bulkhead
structure
Seat back
Seat pan
Lap belt
Floor
Static test
Load deflection
characteristics
Attachment points
Hybrid II ATD
Aluminum panel
honeycomb
Fixture
Analytical model
528
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin class divider panels
160
Sled test 97191-002
Analytical model
140
Aluminum
honeycomb
100
80
Fiberglass face
sheets on either side
60
40
20
0.04
0.08
0.12
Time (sec)
0.16
0.2
t
(ms)
Test
Head peak
acceleration (g)
Average acceleration
(g)
HIC
97191-02
156
106
1394
11.0
Analysis
144
101
1376
13.7
Figure 8 Resultant head C.G. acceleration comparison of fullscale sled test with analytical model.
33-in
1200
0
0
35-in
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
Carpet typically
used in aircraft
installations
120
100
800
Teklam N510
first series
Teklam N510E
second series
Teklam
third series
Honeycomb core
Face sheets
Nomex
Phenolic/7781
Fiberglass
1.0(0.025 m)
0.74 (3.6 kg/m2)
0.04(0.01 m)
1/8(0.003 m)
3.0 (48 kg/m3)
310 (2.13 MPa)
Nomex
Epoxy/7781
Fiberglass
1.0(0.025 m)
0.74 (3.6 kg/m2)
0.04(0.01 m)
1/8(0.003 m)
3.0 (48 kg/m3)
275 (1.90 MPa)
Aluminum
Fiberglass
1.0(0.025 m)
0.74(3.6 kg/m2)
0.04(0.01m m)
1/8(0.01 m)
1.0(16 kg/m3)
NA
No
Yes
Yes
Thickness (in)
Weight (lb/sq ft)
Facings (in)
Core (in)
Density (lb/ft3)
Flat wise
Compression (psi)
Carpet
Woodhead Publishing Ltd
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
529
Loading curve
Unloading
curve
Bulkhead
Series I
Series II
Series III
2.46(0.06m)
2.24(0.05m)
2.79(0.07m)
1217(5413N)
1137(5057N)
1115(4960N)
Stiffness (lb/in)
511(9133 kg/m)
509(9098 kg/m)
Tracking
points
Hybrid II
ATD
Rigid iron
seat
Bulkhead
Attachment
points
530
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin class divider panels
120
100
t2=3.2272
tc1=t1=3.2013
140
tc2=3.2273
80
60
40
20
0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Test
Sled test
acceleration
(g)
Seat
setback
distance
(in)
01008-3
16.7
35(0.89m)
Head peak
Average
acceleration acceleration
(g)
(g)
149.1
82
HIC
t
(ms)
1046
39.9
40(12.2m/s)
Figure 14 Resultant head C.G. acceleration and HIC value for series I bulkhead at 35-inch seat setback distance (test 01008-3).
Attachment
points
90
160
110
100
180
tc2 = 3.3148
120
t2 = 3.2522
130
t1=tc1=3.2079
140
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
tc1=t1=3.1819
Rigid iron
seat
140
120
100
tc2 = 3.3399
Bulkhead
(with carpet)
Hybrid II
ATD
t2 = 3.2025
Tracking
points
Time (sec)
80
60
40
20
10
3.15
3.2
3.25
3.3
Time (sec)
35-inch seat setback
0
3.1
3.35
3.15
3.2
3.25
Time (sec)
33-inch seat setback
3.3
Figure 16 Resultant head C.G. acceleration and HIC value for second series bulkhead (test 01008-8 & 9).
Woodhead Publishing Ltd
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
531
Sled test
acceleration
(g)
Seat setback
distance
(m)
Head peak
acceleration
(g)
Average
acceleration
(g)
HIC
t
(ms)
01008-4
01008-6
01008-8
01008-7
01008-9
16.0
15.6
16.0
17.4
16.0
35 (0.89 m)
35 (0.89 m)
35 (0.89 m)
33 (0.84 m)
33 (0.84 m)
160
139
132
218
165
57
53
50
103
82
617
754
783
1383
1259
25.0
36.8
44.4
12.9
20.6
56
64
59
46*
53
46 (14.0 m/s)
41 (12.5 m/s)
54 (16.5 m/s)
48 (14.6 m/s)
43 (13.1 m/s)
*High sled pulse resulted in a large seat belt stretch thus lowering the head impact angle
80
60
40
20
0
2.9
80
70
60
t2 = 3.1714
tc1=t1=3.1346
90
100
tc2 = 3.0880
120
t2 = 3.0651
tc1=t1=3.0280
140
tc2 = 3.1716
50
40
30
20
10
3.1
Time (sec)
33-inch seat setback
3.2
3.05
3.1
3.15
Time (sec)
33-inch seat setback
3.2
3.25
Figure 18 Resultant head C.G. acceleration and HIC value for third series bulkhead (test 01008-13 & 14).
IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5
532
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin class divider panels
Table 4 Summary of the test results for third series bulkheads
Test
Sled test
acceleration
(g)
Seat setback
distance
(in)
Head peak
acceleration
(g)
Average
acceleration
(g)
HIC
t
(ms)
01008-13
01008-16
01008-14*
01008-15
16.4
16.2
16.0
16.0
33 (0.84 m)
33 (0.84 m)
35 (0.89 m)
35(0.89 m)
144
134
92
103
55
58
45
58
623
955
512
496
27.7
37.1
36.8
23.9
55
60
69
74
48 (14.6 m/s)
46 (14.0 m/s)
46 (14.0 m/s)
53 (16.2 m/s)
* The second peak in the acceleration profile is due to the secondary head impact with the femur.
Utilizing hybrid
analytical methods
Modify design
Is
stiffness
less than
limiting
stiffness
No
Yes
No
35-in
1000
Dynamic tests with aluminum bulkhead
at 35-inch seat setback distance
800
600
400
Dynamic tests with series III bulkhead
at 35-inch seat setback distance
200
0
0
100
800
Figure 20 Stiffness of the aluminum panel and bulkheads on the design curves.
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
1. 14 CFR Part 23 Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility
and Acrobatic Category Airplanes, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., Revised Jan. 1, 1986.
2. 14 CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards: Transport
Category Airplanes, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., Revised Jan. 1, 1986.
3. MADYMO Theory Manual, Version 5.4, Anon., TNO
Road Vehicle Research Institute, Delft, Netherlands.
4. HOOPER, S J and LANKARANI, H M. Parametric Study of
Crashworthy Bulkhead Designs FAA Report Submitted in
March 2001 (To be Published).
534
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367