This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Effects of Aircraft Size on Cabin Floor Dynamic Pulses
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
Recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulatory actions (both a rule and proposed rules) have introduced dynamic test requirements for seats in the form of acceleration versus time triangular pulses. This paper summarizes a recent FAA sponsored effort to update size scaling trends for airplane cabin floor crash pulses.
The dynamic pulses for different category airplanes are summarized and compared. An investigation into the effect that airplane size has on dynamic floor pulses generated within the airplane cabin during a crash impact event is discussed, including:
-
A review of narrow-body and wide-body section test results and supporting analytical model results.
-
The utilization of the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) validated KRASH model to perform additional parametric studies.
-
The definition of relationships between parameters which influence aircraft structure dynamic response.
-
The development of airplane preliminary size effect trend curves for cabin floor dynamic pulses in terms of triangular pulse, acceleration magnitude, velocity change and pulse duration.
A simple approximate expression relating aircraft fuselage crush energy dissipation and kinetic energy was utilized to generate a set of triangular pulse velocity - crush distance - peak acceleration curves. Estimated effective crush distances for various classes of airplane sizes or categories and measured acceleration, velocity and crush data were plotted. Blots for vertical-direction and longitudinal-direction are presented. A preliminary size trend curve range is established for each of the two directional pulses. The vertical pulse trend curves are based on enveloping all the applicable measured and analytically developed data. The longitudinal trend curves assume that the survivable envelope ranges from the fringes of known survivable conditions to nonsurvivable crash test results.
The size effect study emphasizes that the results are more configuration sensitive and not directly related to mass. Large airplanes with limited effective crush regions could behave more like some smaller airplanes with regards to the character of the cabin floor pulses.
Recommended Content
Technical Paper | Failure Analysis in Support of Aircraft Accident Investigations |
Aerospace Standard | Nose Gear Towbarless Tow Vehicle Basic Test Requirements |
Aerospace Standard | Aircraft Ground Support Equipment - Wind Stability Determination |
Authors
Topic
Citation
Caiafa, C. and Neri, L., "Effects of Aircraft Size on Cabin Floor Dynamic Pulses," SAE Technical Paper 881379, 1988, https://doi.org/10.4271/881379.Also In
References
- Notice Number 86-19, Small Airplane Airworthiness Review Program Notice No. 1, Federal Register 51 239 December 12 1986
- Notice Number 87-4, Occupant Restraint in Normal and Transport Category Rotorcraft, Federal Register 52 106 June 3 1987
- Notice Number 88-8, Retrofit of Improved Seats in Air Carrier Transport Category Airplanes, Federal Register 53 95 May 17 1988
- Amendment Number 25-64, Final Rule, Improved Seat Safety Standards, Federal Register 53 95 May 17 1988
- Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 23, Airworthiness Standards: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes
- Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 25, Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes
- Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 27, Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft
- Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 29, Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Rotorcraft
- Wittlin G. Lackey D. “Analytical Modeling of Transport Aircraft Crash Scenarios to Obtain Floor Pulses,” DOT/FAA/CT-83/23, NASA CR 166089 April 1983
- Pugliese S.M. “B707 Fuselage Drop Test Report,” Calspan Report No. 7252-1 March 1984
- Hayduk R. Williams S. “Vertical Drop Test of Transport Fuselage Section Located Forward of the Wing,” NASA Tech Memo 85679 August 1983
- Johnson D. Wilson A. “Vertical Drop Test of a Transport Airframe Section,” DOT/FAA/CT-TN 86/34 October 1986
- “DC-10 Fuselage Drop Test,” Report No. 7251-2, Arvin Calspan report prepared for the FAA Technical Center Atlantic City, N.J. September 1984
- “DC-10 Fuselage Drop Test,” FAA Preliminary Data 1987
- Johnson D. Garodz L. “Crashworthiness Experiment Summary Full-Scale Transport Controlled Impact Demonstration Program” DOT/FAA/CT-85/20 June 1986
- Wittlin G. LaBarge W.L. KRASH Dynamics Analysis Modeling - Transport Airplane Controlled Impact Demonstration Test,” DOT/FAA/CT-85/9 May 1985
- Wittlin G. “KRASH Analysis Correlation - Transport Airplane Controlled Impact Demonstration Test,” DOT/FAA/CT-86/13 December 1986
- Wittlin G. “KRASH Parametric Sensitivity Study - Transport Category Airplanes,” DOT/FAA/CT - 87/13 December 1987
- Reed W.H., et al “Full-Scale Dynamic Crash Test of a Lockheed Constellation Model 1649 Aircraft,” FAA Technical Report ADS-38 October 1967
- Wittlin G. Gamon M.A. “Full-Scale Crash Test Experimental Validation of Methods of Analysis for General Aviation Airplane Structural Crashworthiness,” FAA-RD-77-I88 February 1978
- Vaughan V.L. Jr. Hayduk R.J. “Crash Tests of Four Identical High-Wing Single-Engine Airplanes,” NASA Technical Paper 1699 August 1980
- Castle C.B. Alfaro-Bou E. “Crash Tests of Three Identical Low-Wing Single-Engine Airplanes,” NASA Technical Paper 2190 September 1983
- Wittlin G. Neri L. “The Effect of Aircraft Size on Floor Dynamic Pulses,” BOT/FAA/CT-88/18