Abstract:
Urban transportation is currently evolving from traditional ground-based vehicles (cars, taxis, and buses) to include air-based electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) vehicles which can be utilized for on-demand transportation, cargo transport, and emergency services. These new eVTOL vehicles are designed to be small, lightweight, and able to operate autonomously without user intervention. Safety is a big part of eventual eVTOL adoption, however gaps in the consideration of safety features exist. Anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) are used in aerospace crashworthiness standards to quantify occupant injury risk and develop improved safety designs for emergency landing situations, but the ATDs currently used in aircraft certification requirements were developed many decades ago. Developments have occurred over the years involving ATD technology, which includes a host of newer and more biofidelic ATDs such as the Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR). Increased computing power has also allowed for detailed computational human body models (HBMs) to be created, such as the Global Human Body Model Consortium (GHBMC). This study aims to assess the capability of both HBMs and new ATD designs to identify injury mechanisms within eVTOL relevant emergency landing conditions. Finite element (FE) analysis was used to expand upon full-scale and seat level impact testing conducted by researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to look at effects of occupant model configurations on prediction of injury. The GHBMC HBM and THOR ATD models were simulated in the seat level test conditions to characterize differences between these advanced assessment tools and traditional ATDs in the isolated seat loading environment. Results identified key differences in the responses from each of the models utilized and compared their impact response in head, neck, and spinal injury metrics. The THOR model identified potential risks for head injuries due to head impacts on the seat, however it predicted lower spinal loads than the other occupant surrogates. The GHBMC showed distinctly different biomechanical responses compared to the ATD. The GHBMC model is much more deformable than the ATDs and it exhibited higher distribution of forces and increased sensitivity to the duration of acceleration pulses. Both models incorporated into this study identified key mechanisms for injury that should be considered for passenger safety in the development of these novel aircraft. In addition, this study demonstrated the value of FE modeling for running a variety of complex human surrogates to identify potential injury mechanisms for consideration in regulation and development of new aircraft. Continued research in this field to improve validation these models will only lead to safer aircraft and more comprehensive safety measures.