This article was downloaded by: [Wichita State University]

On: 08 August 2014, At: 09:44

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Crashworthiness

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin

class divider panels
H Nagarajan , M McCoy & H M Lankarani
a

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS

67260-0193, USA
b

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS

67260-0193, USA
c

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS

67260-0193, USA
Published online: 08 Jul 2010.

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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads

and cabin class divider panels
doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367

H Nagarajan, M McCoy and H M Lankarani

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260-0193, USA

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

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.

stiff and strong and therefore produce very high HIC

values as a result of head impacts. Industry has addressed
this problem using a number of approaches with mixed
results.
This paper elucidates the engineering rationale behind
selection of potential bulkhead material and demonstrates
the Proof of Concept that there are potential solutions
for the bulkhead-HIC problem. The paper also addresses
the development of design heuristics for the fabrication
of HIC compliant bulkheads. This research was supported
by the William J. Hughes Technical Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Atlantic City.

INTRODUCTION

The compliance with the head injury criteria (HIC)

specified in 14 CFR 23.562 [1] and CFR 25.562 [2] poses
a significant problem for many segments of the aerospace
industry. The airlines and the manufacturers of jet
transports have experienced high costs and significant
schedule overruns during the development and certification
of 16G seats because of the difficulties encountered in
meeting this requirement. Problems in the certification
of 16G airline seats, referred to as the front-row HIC
problem, occurs for seats located directly behind bulkheads
or cabin class dividers. These structures are typically both

BASELINE STUDY AND HIC TESTS

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]

Woodhead Publishing Ltd

0367

Dynamic full-scale sled tests, 97191-001 and 97191-002,

were conducted at the Impact Dynamics laboratory of
the National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR), to
measure the head accelerations of a Hybrid-II
Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (ATD) as specified in
525

IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5 pp. 525534

FAR 25.562. The tests were conducted at different seat

setback distances using some typical production cabin
class dividers, which had Nomex honeycomb core with
fiberglass facings and were covered with carpet typically
used in aircraft applications. The purpose of these tests
was to quantify the kinematics of the ATD such as head
impact angle and velocity as well as the resulting HIC for
typical cabin class divider panels at different distances
from the seat. The NIAR sled is a pneumatically propelled
deceleration-type sled. As per the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR), a triangular deceleration pulse with a
peak of 16G and a rise time of 90 ms was targeted for all
the tests. The ideal pulse shape and the actual sled test
deceleration pulse for the two baseline tests are shown in
Figure 1.
Seat setback distance is defined as the horizontal distance
between the seat reference point, i.e. the intersection point
between the seat back and the seat pan, and the outer
surface of the bulkhead. An iron seat fabricated from 2in. square steel tubing was used in the dynamic sled test.
To maximize the energy transferred to the head, no yaw
was given to the seat in these tests. The seat back and seat
pan were constructed from 1/8-in. aluminum plate. The
geometry of the seat, shown in Figure 2, is representative
of a typical airline economy class seat with the seat back
2

fixed in the upright position. Seat cushions were not used

during the test. A typical polyester seat belt was used for
all the tests. Figure 3 shows the sample full-scale sled test
setup with cabin class divider panel.
A tri-axial accelerometer was mounted at the center of
gravity of the ATD head to determine the resultant head
acceleration. Figure 4 shows the kinematics of the baseline
full-scale sled test 97191-002. Test results are summarized
in Table 1. Figure 5 shows the resultant head center of
gravity (C.G.) acceleration profile for the test series.
As observed, at 34-inch seat setback distance, the head
impact angle is small and most of the energy of the head
is transferred in the normal direction to the frontal
structure, resulting in a high HIC (above the threshold).
At 35-inch seat setback distance, the head impact angle is
larger as the head moves both in the normal and tangential
direction to the frontal structure.
DESIGN CURVES FOR HIC ATTENUATION

A MADYMO [3] biodynamic model was utilized to

establish design guidelines for developing energy absorbing
HIC compliant bulkheads. MADYMO possesses both
multibody dynamic and nonlinear finite element analysis
capabilities in addition to robust tools for modeling restraint
2

Sled acceleration profile test 97191-001

Sled acceleration (g)

Sled acceleration (g)

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

H Nagarajan, M McCoy and H M Lankarani

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

Sled acceleration profile test 97191-002

3.05
Time (sec)

Time (sec)

3.1

3.15

Figure 1 Idealized triangular pulse and actual deceleration pulse.

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

Figure 2 Seat setback measurement convention for sled tests.

IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5

526

doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367

Woodhead Publishing Ltd

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin class divider panels

The analytical model represents the standard 50th

percentile male Hybrid-II ATD and bulkhead geometry
evaluated during the baseline dynamic tests. The bulkhead
was modeled as a rigid plane with an assigned loaddeflection response, which was determined by the static
tests. The contact force was defined as force acting on the
head of the ATD in a direction normal to the bulkhead.
The pelvic restraint was represented by a simple onedimensional spring element. An additional plane was
defined to represent the fixture beam positioned directly
in front of the ATDs feet providing the boundary condition
for the ATDs lower extremities. The contact forces between
these planes and the appropriate ATD body segments
were defined in terms of loading and unloading curves.
The contact characteristics of the bulkhead plane were
varied to simulate different material properties. The
performance was characterized in terms of the expected
HIC values.
The MADYMO model was then utilized to conduct a
parametric study on the variation of HIC versus stiffness
of the bulkhead material at the point of head impact.
Figure 9 shows the derived stiffness curves (design curves)
from the parametric studies for seat setback distances of
33 and 35-in. The derived stiffness curves indicate that
the allowable threshold for the bulkhead stiffness at the
point of head impact is 480 lb/in at 33 inches seat setback
distance and 709 lb/in at 35-in seat setback distances for
the HIC to be below 1000.

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.

CANDIDATE HIC COMPLIANT BULKHEADS

Candidate bulkheads were selected based on earlier

experience in NIAR and FAA Civil Aero Medical Institute
(CAMI), Oklahoma City, tests. The following parameters

Table 1 Baseline full-scale sled test results

Test

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

Figure 4 Kinematics of baseline full-scale sled test 97191-002.

Woodhead Publishing Ltd

doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367

527

IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5

H Nagarajan, M McCoy and H M Lankarani

Full scale sled test 97191-001

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

tc1-Contact start time

tc2-Contact end time
HIC-1394

tc2=3.1343

120

t2=3.0984

140

tc1=t1=3.0859

Head C.G. resultant acceleration (g)

100

tc2 = 2.9070

120

Full scale sled test 97191-002

160

tc1 Contact start time

tc2-Contact end time
HIC-823

t2 = 2.8440

tc1 = 2.8250 t1 = 2.8250

Head C.G. resultant acceleration (g)

140

3.08

3.09

3.1
3.11
Time (sec)

3.12

3.13 3.14

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

Figure 5 Resultant head C.G. acceleration profile for full-scale sled tests 97191-001 & 002.

were considered for the selection of bulkhead material:

(a) loading conditions (b) panel type, (c) physical/space
constraints, (d) panel deflection, (e) crush strength, and
(f) stiffness [4]. A sandwich structure of honeycomb core
glued between two fiberglass face sheets was selected for
the bulkheads. The honeycomb core, with fiberglass face
sheets, was either metallic or non-metallic and characterized
by its stiffness which has to be below the threshold value
specified in the design curves.
Based on bulkhead seat dynamic test data from CAMI
and NIAR, the bulkhead panels selected for HIC
compliance are listed below. The panels were selected based
on manufacturers information from the stiffest (Series I)
to the softest (Series III). The panels are machined into
48 48-inch bulkheads to be mounted on the fixture.
Table 2 summarizes properties of the different bulkhead
series.

Bulkhead
structure

Seat back

Seat pan

Lap belt

Floor

Figure 6 MADYMO biodynamic model.

Static test

Load deflection
characteristics

Attachment points
Hybrid II ATD

Aluminum panel
honeycomb

Rigid iran seat

Seat belt

Fixture

Dynamic sled test

Analytical model

Figure 7 Methodology used for validation.

IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5

528

doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367

Woodhead Publishing Ltd

Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin class divider panels

Head C.G. resultant acceleration (gs)

160
Sled test 97191-002
Analytical model

140

Aluminum
honeycomb

100
80

Fiberglass face
sheets on either side

60
40

Figure 10 Bulkhead panel lay-up.

20
0.04

0.08
0.12
Time (sec)

0.16

series were subjected to static testing (Figure 11) to evaluate

their stiffness values. The test setup is shown in Figure
11A. An actuator assembly with a 16-lb bowling ball
attached to one end was used to apply the static load. The
load was gradually increased to a maximum applied load
of approximately 1200 lbs at which time the bulkhead was
crushed (Figure 11B). Figure 12 shows the load deflection
characteristics and stiffness values for the three bulkheads.
The slope of the loading curve gives the initial stiffness of
the bulkhead.
As observed, the initial stiffness of all the three bulkheads
is within a narrow range of about 60 lb/in. Comparing
their stiffness values to the design curves, it can be
postulated that for a 33-in seat setback distance, a HIC
value over 1000 can be expected for series I and series II,
and a HIC value less than 1000 for series III bulkheads.
For a 35-inch seat setback distance, all the series appear
to provide a possible solution. Validation of this conclusion
was assessed by conducting dynamic sled tests.

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

HIC (from dynamic test)

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

0
0

35-in

1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

Carpet typically
used in aircraft
installations

120

100

200 300 400

500 600 700
Stiffness (lb/in) (from static test)

DYNAMIC TESTS OF THE DESIGNED BULKHEADS

800

Figure 9 Derived stiffness curves from parametric studies for

33 and 35-inch seat setback distances.

A series of 10 full-scale sled tests were conducted on

three different series of bulkheads to determine their
performance for HIC compliance.

A carpet typically used in aircraft installations was used

to cover both the face sheets. The lay-up of the bulkhead
panels is shown in Figure 10. Three honeycomb bulkhead

Dynamic tests on first series of bulkheads

One full-scale sled test (01008-3) was conducted on a

Table 2 Properties of the different bulkhead series

Property

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

IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5

H Nagarajan, M McCoy and H M Lankarani

(a) Test setup

(b) Bulkhead deflection (series III) under

normal load

Figure 11 Static testing of honeycomb bulkhead.

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

Loading curve

Unloading
curve

Bulkhead

Series I

Series II

Series III

Maximum deflection (in)

2.46(0.06m)

2.24(0.05m)

2.79(0.07m)

Maximum crush load (lbf)

1217(5413N)

1137(5057N)

1115(4960N)

Stiffness (lb/in)

511(9133 kg/m)

509(9098 kg/m)

452 (8079 kg/m)

Figure 12 Load-Deflection characteristics of series I, series II and series III bulkheads.

first series bulkhead to measure the accelerations in the

head of the Hybrid II ATD. The test was conducted at a
seat setback distance of 35-inch (Figure 13). A polyester
lap belt was used to restrain the ATD. An iron seat with
no seat cushions and a zero degree yaw plate was used to
isolate the response of the Hybrid II ATD from the
complications that might arise from the structural crash
response of a deformable seat.
Three optical targets were attached to the seat to
establish a moving reference frame. Four additional targets
were mounted on the ATD, to track the dummy motion.
Triaxial accelerometers were mounted in the ATD head
C.G. to record head accelerations. The optical speed trap
system was adjusted so that it triggered the high-speed

video system just prior to the start of the sled deceleration.

The sled deceleration pulse shapes were captured from
two longitudinally sensing accelerometers that were
mounted on the sled. The resultant head C.G. acceleration
and HIC calculation are shown in Figure 14.
Although the design curves predict a HIC of about
700, the dynamic test produced a higher HIC. Since the
first series bulkheads (the stiffest ones) did not produce
HIC value less than 1000 for a seat setback distance of 35inch, further tests with these bulkheads at smaller seat
setback distances were not conducted.
Dynamic tests on second series bulkheads

A series of five full-scale sled tests were conducted at

different seat setback distances. Test 01008-4 was conducted
at 35-inch seat setback distance. Tests 01008-6 and -8 were
conducted with the same configuration for repeatability.
The test setup for test 01008-8 is shown in Figure 15.
The resultant peak head acceleration for the test was
132 g and the HIC was 783. Figure 16 shows the resultant
head C.G. acceleration.
Tests 01008-7 and 9 were conducted at 33-inch. seat
setback distance. Table 3 summarizes the test results
obtained on the second series bulkheads. As observed,
series II bulkheads fail to produce a HIC of less than 100
at 33-inch seat setback distance.

Tracking
points
Hybrid II
ATD

Rigid iron
seat

Bulkhead

Attachment
points

Figure 13 Setup for full-scale sled test 01008-3 on a series i

bulkhead.
IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5

530

doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367

Woodhead Publishing Ltd

Design of HIC compliant aircraft bulkheads and cabin class divider panels

120
100

t2=3.2272

tc1=t1=3.2013

Head C.G. resultant acceleration (g)

140

tc2=3.2273

Full scale sled test 01008-03

tc1-contact start time

tc2-contact end time
HIC-1046

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

Head Head impact

impact
velocity
angle
(ft/s)
(deg)
57

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).

Dynamic tests on third series bulkheads

Four full-scale sled tests (Tests 01008-13 through-16) were

conducted at both 33-inch and 35-inch seat setback
distances. Figure 17 shows the setup for sled test 0100813 for 33-inch seat setback distance. The HIC value
obtained from this test was 623. The head peak and average
accelerations were 144 g and 55 g with a HIC window of
27.7 ms. Figure 18 shows the resultant head C.G.
acceleration and HIC value.
Test 01008-14 was conducted with a seat setback distance
of 35-inch. The HIC value obtained for this test was 512,

Attachment
points

Figure 15 Setup for full-scale sled test 01008-8 on series II

bulkhead.

90

Full scale sled test 01008-9

160

Head C.G. resultant acceleration (g)

110
100

180

tc2 = 3.3148

120

t2 = 3.2522

130

t1=tc1=3.2079

140

Full scale sled test 01008-8

tc1 contact start time
tc2 contact end time
HIC = 783

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

tc1=t1=3.1819

Rigid iron
seat

140
120
100

tc1 contact start time

tc2 contact end time
HIC = 1259

tc2 = 3.3399

Bulkhead
(with carpet)

Hybrid II
ATD

t2 = 3.2025

Tracking
points

Head C.G. resultant acceleration (g)

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

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

IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5

H Nagarajan, M McCoy and H M Lankarani

Table 3 Summary of the test results for second series bulkheads
Test

Sled test
acceleration
(g)

Seat setback
distance
(m)

Head peak
acceleration
(g)

Average
acceleration
(g)

HIC

t
(ms)

Head impact Head impact

angle
velocity
(deg)
(ft/s)

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

A methodology developed for the design of a HIC

compliant bulkhead is shown in Figure 19. The initial
bulkhead design is based on aircraft cabin requirements
and previous experience. The stiffness of the bulkhead is
determined by: (a) hybrid analytical method, (b) finite
element analysis, or (c) static test. The initial stiffness of
the bulkhead at the point of head impact is compared
with the allowable threshold from the design curves. If
the stiffness is below the limiting value of 480 lb/in for
33-in seat setback and 709 lb/in for 35-in seat setback
distance, the design should meet the HIC requirement.
This shall then be verified by dynamic sled test(s)
performed on the bulkheads.
Aluminum 2024 T3 bulkhead panels (28.5 31.0
0.063-in.) were used to describe the design methodology.
Hybrid, finite element as well as static tests on the
aluminum panels resulted in a stiffness of approximately
591 lb/in. Dynamic sled test 96288-004, conducted on
the same aluminum 2024 T3 panel, resulted in a HIC of
694. This was plotted against the design curve for a 35inch seat set back distance (Figure 20). Dynamic tests on
series III bulkheads at seat setback distances of 33 and 35-

which could be attributed to the fact that the ATD

head just scraped through the face of the bulkhead. The
resultant head peak and average accelerations obtained
for this test were 92 g and 45 g with a HIC window of
36.8 ms. The resultant head C.G. acceleration and HIC
value obtained are shown in Figure 18. Tests 01008-15
and -16 were conducted for repeatability. The test results
for the full-scale sled tests on third series bulkheads are
given in Table 4.

Full scale sled test 01008-14

tc1 contact start time
tc2 contact end time
HIC = 955

80
60
40
20
0
2.9

80
70
60

t2 = 3.1714

tc1=t1=3.1346

90

Head C.G. resultant acceleration (g)

100

tc2 = 3.0880

120

t2 = 3.0651

Full scale sled test 01008-16

tc1=t1=3.0280

140

tc1 contact start time

tc2 contact end time
HIC = 512

tc2 = 3.1716

Figure 17 Setup for full-scale sled test 01008-13 on third

series bulkhead at 33-inch seat setback distance.

Head C.G. resultant acceleration (g)

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

DESIGN METHODOLOGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

HIC COMPLIANT BULKHEADS

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

Woodhead Publishing Ltd

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)

Head impact Head impact

angle
velocity
(deg)
(ft/s)

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.

Design a bulkhead based on the

required cabin configuration and
previous experience
Perform FEM analysis

Utilizing hybrid
analytical methods

Conduct static tests to obtain

load-deflection characteristrics

Modify design
Is
stiffness
less than
limiting
stiffness

No

Yes

Compare the stiffness to design curve

Fabricate and conduct dynamic

full-scale sled tests
Yes
Is
HIC less
than
1000
Utilization of analysis tools (occupant model) to
obtain design curves

No

Fabricate and install the bulkhead in an aircraft

Figure 19 Design methodology for HIC compliant bulkhead.

33-in
1200

HIC (from dynamic test)

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

Estimate the stiffness of the

bulkhead

35-in

1000
Dynamic tests with aluminum bulkhead
at 35-inch seat setback distance

800
600

Dynamic tests with series III bulkhead

at 33-inch seat setback distance

400
Dynamic tests with series III bulkhead
at 35-inch seat setback distance

200
0
0

100

200 300 400 500 600 700

Stiffness (lb/in) (from static test)

800

Figure 20 Stiffness of the aluminum panel and bulkheads on the design curves.

inch have also been plotted against the design curve in

Figure 20. The stiffness of the Series III bulkhead is below
480 lb/in, hence it produces HIC values below the
threshold of 1000 for both 35-inch and 33-inch seat setback
distances.
Woodhead Publishing Ltd

doi:10.1533/ijcr.2005.0367

It is important to note that the stiffness values for the

design curves were developed for a specific head impact
location on the bulkhead, for a particular type of seat belt
and for given size and boundary conditions of the bulkhead
supporting structure. For the same bulkhead supporting
533

IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5

H Nagarajan, M McCoy and H M Lankarani

structure, the stiffness could vary at different impact

locations.

are recommended for the design of aircraft bulkheads or

cabin class divider panels:
(a) The initial stiffness of the panel should be less than
480 lb/in for 33-inch seat setback distance;
(b) The initial stiffness of the panel should be less than
709 lb/in for 35-inch seat setback distance;
(c) The panel should be able to permanently crush 2-4
inches.

Downloaded by [Wichita State University] at 09:44 08 August 2014

CONCLUSIONS

Three series of honeycomb type bulkhead materials were

evaluated for HIC compliance. The bulkheads were
subjected to static tests in order to evaluate their initial
stiffness at the head impact location. The bulkheads were
then tested dynamically to evaluate the HIC and related
head acceleration data. It was observed that the first
bulkhead series failed to meet the HIC requirement for a
35-inch seat setback distance. The second series bulkheads
failed at 33-inch seat setback distance but may be a potential
solution at a 35-inch seat setback distance. Series III
bulkheads performed well at both 35-inch and 33-inch
seat setback distances.
The study also produced some generic design guidelines
for the selection of the bulkhead material. The methodology
requires an estimate of the initial stiffness of the bulkhead.
This may be accomplished by: hybrid analytical method,
finite element method, or static test. The following criteria

IJCrash 2005 Vol. 10 No. 5

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

Woodhead Publishing Ltd