载人空投着陆冲击下不同乘员姿态的损伤影响

戴俊超; 周云波; 张进成; 张明; 王显会; 孙晓旺

doi:10.11883/bzycj-2020-0073

载人空投着陆冲击下不同乘员姿态的损伤影响

doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2020-0073

南京理工大学机械工程学院，江苏南京 210094

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金(11802140)

详细信息

作者简介:
戴俊超（1994－　），男，硕士研究生，19910625452@163.com

通讯作者:
周云波（1980－　），男，博士，副教授，yunbo31983@163.com

中图分类号: O382; E923.3
计量
- 文章访问数: 705
- HTML全文浏览量: 300
- PDF下载量: 78
- 被引次数: 1
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-03-19
- 修回日期: 2020-06-22
- 刊出日期: 2021-01-05

Effects of different postures on crew damage under the impact of manned airdrop landing

School of Mechanical Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, Jiangsu, China

摘要

摘要: 针对某军用车辆在1 m高度进行无缓冲平台空投实验，并建立座椅与乘员的模拟模型。利用实验获取的座椅安装点冲击信号作为模拟模型的输入数据，并通过实验结果与模拟结果的对比验证了该模型的可靠性。借鉴航空工程相关研究，提出了一种将各关键损伤指标加以归一化的权重评价指标—加权损伤准则(weighted injury criteria，WIC)。研究了乘员仰卧角度和大小腿夹角两个姿态参数对乘员损伤的影响，并以WIC为优化目标，利用遗传算法完成参数优化工作。研究发现：对乘员小腿运动进行约束能降低乘员整体损伤响应，乘员对抗着陆冲击的最佳姿态为仰卧角47°～56°、大小腿夹角62°～68°。
- 载人空投 /
- 着陆冲击 /
- 乘员姿态 /
- 权重评价指标 /
- 加权损伤准则
Abstract: For a military vehicle, an unbuffered platform airdrop test was performed at a height of 1 m. And a seat-crew model was built. The impact signals at the seat installation point were obtained by the test. The obtained signals were used as the input of the simulation model, and the reliability of the model was verified by comparing the test and simulation data. Based on the aeronautical engineering related research, a weight evaluation index named weighted injury criteria (WIC) was presented by normalizing each key damage index. The influence of two posture parameters, namely the crew’s supine angle and the angle between the calf and the thigh, on the crew’s injury was studied. With the WIC as the optimization target, the genetic algorithm was used to obtain the optimized parameters. The study finds that to restrain the motion of the crew’s calf can reduce his overall injury response. The optimal posture of the crew against the landing impact is the supine angle range from 47° to 56°, and the angle between the upper and lower legs is from 62° to 68°.
- manned airdrop /
- landing impact /
- crew posture /
- weight evaluation index /
- weighted injury criteria

HTML全文

图 1 实验装置整体布置

Figure 1. Overall arrangement of the experimental setup

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 车内实验假人的姿势及加速度传感器的布置

Figure 2. The test dummy posture in vehicle and the acceleration sensor arrangement on the joist

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 座椅安装点Z向加速度时间历程

Figure 3. Change of acceleration along Z direction with time at the mounting point on the seat

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 假人的运动状态

Figure 4. Motion statuses of the dummy

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 乘员约束系统有限元模型

Figure 5. A finite element model of the crew restraint system

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 坐垫靠垫和安全带材料应力应变曲线

Figure 6. Stress-strain curves of cushion and seat belt materials

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 实验与模拟假人损伤对比

Figure 7. Comparison of experimental and simulated dummy damage

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 乘员约束系统设计

Figure 8. Passenger restraint system design

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 小腿约束对乘员响应的影响

Figure 9. Effect of calf restraint on passenger response

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 10 不同仰卧角度对成员身体几个关键部位动态响应的影响

Figure 10. Effects of different supine angles on dynamic responses of several key parts of a passenger’s body

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 11 大小腿的不同夹角对成员身体几个关键部位动态响应的影响

Figure 11. Effects of different angles between the calf and the thigh on dynamic responses of several key parts of a passenger’s body

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 12 第50代优化解集

Figure 12. The 50th generation optimization solution set

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 13 加权损伤准则优化解集

Figure 13. Optimized solution set based on weighted injury criteria

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 不同部位伤害标准和限值

Table 1. Injury standards and threshold values for different parts

部位	损伤标准	注解	损伤指标	损伤指标限值
头部	G_X/g	头部X向加速度	G_X,lim/g	26
头部	G_Z/g	头部Z向加速度	G_Z,lim/g	20
颈部	F_n,Z/kN	颈部压缩轴向力	F_n,Z,lim/kN	−1.3
	M_n,Y/(N·m)	颈部力矩	M_n,Y,liml/(N·m)	135
	N_ij	轴向力和弯曲力矩线性合成准则		1
腰椎	F_lum,Z/kN	腰椎轴向力	F_lum,Z,lim/kN	8
腰椎	M_lum,Y/(N·m)	腰椎Y向弯矩	M_lum,Y,lim/(N·m)	400
盆骨	G_p/g	盆骨Z向加速度
盆骨	λ_dri	动态响应指数	λ_dri,lim	13.4

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 主要结构材料参数

Table 2. Main structural material parameters

材料	密度/(g·cm⁻³)	弹性模量/GPa	泊松比	屈服极限/MPa	拉伸失效应变
Q235	7.8	210.0	0.31	235.0	0.24
泡沫	0.2	28.3	0.40	19.7	0.50
A3003H14铝	2.7	70.0	0.30	110.0	0.10

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 实验与模拟数据对比

Table 3. Comparison of experimental and simulated data

方法	G_Z/g	F_n,Z/kN	M_n,Y/(N·m)	F_lum,Z/kN	M_lum,Y/(N·m)	G_p/g
实验	16.7	0.79	56.7	4.65	126.7	17.9
模拟	18.8	0.76	63.9	4.52	151.2	15.6
相对误差/%	12.6	3.5	12.7	2.6	19.3	12.8

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 设计变量选取

Table 4. Selection of design variables

设计参数	采样点
α/(°)	0	10	20	30	40	50	60	70
β/(°)	60	90	120	150

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 小腿有、无约束模拟数据对比

Table 5. Comparison of simulation data between the calf with and without restraint

模拟条件	G_X/g	G_Z/g	F_n,Z/kN	M_n,Y/(N·m)	F_lum,Z/kN	M_lum,Y/(N·m)	I_d	I_w
小腿无约束	10.2	18.80	0.763	63.9	4.52	157	3.76	0.536 0
小腿有约束	8.7	15.38	0.715	59.3	3.92	122	3.66	0.411 6
相对差值/%	14.7	18.2	5.7	7.2	13.4	21.8	2.7	23.2

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 不同仰卧角度的仿真数据对比

Table 6. Comparison of simulation data of different supine angles

α/(°)	G_X/g	G_Z/g	F_n,Z/kN	M_n,Y/(N·m)	F_lum,Z/kN	M_lum,Y/(N·m)	I_d	I_w
0	8.7	15.38	0.593	0.318	3.92	112.8	3.46	0.411 6
10	9.31	14.05	0.558	0.291	4.45	149.0	3.18	0.425 3
20	10.88	13.96	0.575	0.260	4.28	176.2	3.1	0.432 6
30	13.22	12.33	0.565	0.208	3.46	223.9	1.84	0.410 5
40	15.95	11.20	0.587	0.128	2.85	225.0	1.82	0.385 6
50	13.05	11.70	0.545	0.104	2.27	202.0	1.85	0.343 6
60	13.80	11.89	0.564	0.080	1.79	239.0	1.47	0.346 6
70	13.90	10.30	0.5249	0.090	1.43	279.0	1.49	0.349 3

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 不同大小腿夹角的空投冲击工况模拟数据对比

Table 7. Comparison of simulation data among airdrop impact conditions with different angles between the calf and the thigh

β/(°)	G_X/g	G_Z/g	F_n,Z/kN	M_n,Y/(N·m)	F_lum,Z/kN	M_lum,Y/(N·m)	I_d	I_w
60	9.8	11.66	0.491	0.247	3.87	104.3	3.55	0.365 2
90	8.7	15.38	0.593	0.318	3.92	122.8	3.66	0.411 6
120	11.8	13.2	0.566	0.316	4.74	127.9	3.82	0.435 5
150	8.39	13.47	0.528	0.270	4.53	105.5	4.42	0.405 6

下载: 导出CSV

表 8 优化结果和仿真结果的对比

Table 8. Comparison of optimization results and simulation results

项目	G_X/g	G_Z/g	F_n,Z/kN	M_n,Y/(N·m)	F_lum,Z/kN	M_lum,Y/(N·m)	I_d	I_w
优化结果			0.4987	0.103 1	1.70	201	1.35	0.326
优化后模拟结果	13.3	10.4	0.5158	0.106 0	1.72	229	1.04	0.328
误差/%			3	2.8	1.2	13.9	22.9	0.6

下载: 导出CSV

表 9 优化后方案与原始方案的对比

Table 9. Comparison between the optimized solution and the original solution

项目	G_X/g	G_Z/g	F_n,Z/kN	M_n,Y/(N·m)	F_lum,Z/kN	M_lum,Y/(N·m)	I_d	I_w
初始值	10.2	18.8	0.720 2	0.570	4.52	157	3.76	0.536
优化后模拟结果	13.3	10.4	0.515 8	0.106	1.72	229	1.04	0.328
相对差值/%	−30	44.7	20.4	81.4	61.9	−45	72	38.8

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(16)

[1]	刘鑫. 基于气囊缓冲的载人空降乘员防护理论与方法[D]. 长沙: 湖南大学, 2009. DOI: 10.7666/d.d146725.
[2]	刘鑫, 张志勇. 基于气囊缓冲的载人空降乘员防护装置优化设计 [J]. 机械工程学报, 2010, 48(21): 168–174. DOI: 10.3901/JME.2012.21.168. LIU X, ZHANG Z Y. Optimal design of passenger’s protection devices in manned airdrop based on airbag cushion [J]. Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2010, 48(21): 168–174. DOI: 10.3901/JME.2012.21.168.
[3]	STAPP J P, TAYLOR E R. Space cabin landing impact vector effects on human physiology [J]. Aerospace Medicine, 1964, 35: 1117–1133.
[4]	成自龙, 韩延方, 曾文艺, 等. 人体坐姿着陆冲击(+G _z)耐限区间的研究 [J]. 航天医学与医学工程, 1997, 10(5): 340–343. DOI: 10.16289/j.cnki.1002-0837.1997.05.008. CHENG Z L, HAN Y F, ZENG W Y, et al. Human tolerance to landing impact (+G _z) in sitting position [J]. Space Medicine and Medical Engineering, 1997, 10(5): 340–343. DOI: 10.16289/j.cnki.1002-0837.1997.05.008.
[5]	刘炳坤, 王宪民, 王玉兰, 等. 不同体位着陆冲击时人体的动态响应 [J]. 航天医学与医学工程, 2001, 14(2): 121–123. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0837.2001.02.010. LIU B K, WANG X M, WANG Y L, et al. Human dynamic response to landing impact in selected body orientations [J]. Space Medicine and Medical Engineering, 2001, 14(2): 121–123. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0837.2001.02.010.
[6]	冯宇, 于广春, 吴增斌, 等. 某轮式空降战车模拟着地冲击试验方法研究 [J]. 车辆与动力技术, 2019(2): 62–64. DOI: 10.16599/j.cnki.1009-4687.2019.02.012. FENG Y, YU G C, WU Z B, et al. Research on the simulated landing impact test method of a wheeled airborne fighting vehicle [J]. Vehicle and Power Technology, 2019(2): 62–64. DOI: 10.16599/j.cnki.1009-4687.2019.02.012.
[7]	俞彤, 王显会, 周云波, 等. 爆炸环境下车辆地板加速度对乘员小腿损伤的影响 [J]. 科学技术与工程, 2018, 18(21): 339–344. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1815.2018.21.053. YU T, WANG X H, ZHOU Y B, et al. The effects of vehicle floor acceleration on the damage of occupant's tibia in explosive environment [J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2018, 18(21): 339–344. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-1815.2018.21.053.
[8]	梁锐, 黄世霖, 杜汇良, 等. 高G值复合着陆冲击下头、颈部损伤成因 [J]. 中国临床康复, 2005, 9(25): 28–30. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1673-8225.2005.25.014. LIANG R, HUANG S L, DU H L, et al. Causes of head and neck injury under high G landing impact [J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Rehabilitation, 2005, 9(25): 28–30. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1673-8225.2005.25.014.
[9]	North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Procedures for evaluating the protection level of armored vehicles-mine threat: AEP-55: Volume 2[S]. Brussels: Allied Engineering Publication, 2011.
[10]	通过载人航天器发射、中止、着陆引起的伤害来确定NASA风险准则[J]. 载人航天信息, 2015(2): 1−13. Determine NASA risk criteria through injuries caused by manned spacecraft launch, suspension, and landing[J]. Manned Spaceflight Information, 2015(2): 1−13.
[11]	ECE UN. Uniform provision concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the emission of pollutants according to engine fuel requirements [J]. UN ECE Regulation, 2005(83).
[12]	VIANO D C, AREPALLY S. Assessing the safety performance of occupant restraint systems [M]. DOI: 10.4271/902328.
[13]	BROWN W K, ROTHSTEIN J D, FOSTER P. Human response to predicted Apollo landing impacts in selected body orientations [J]. Aerospace Medicine, 1966, 37(4): 394–398.
[14]	TABIEI A, LAWRENCE C, FASANELLA E L. Validation of finite element crash test dummy models for predicting orion crew member injuries during a simulated vehicle landing: NASA TM-2009-215476 [R]. 2009.
[15]	王心怡, 刘晓颖, 陈聪, 等. 跌落工况下的人体腰椎损伤风险的几种影响因素 [J]. 汽车安全与节能学报, 2018, 9(2): 178–185. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2018.02.008. WANG X Y, LIU X Y, CHEN C, et al. Factors for affecting risk of human lumbar spine injuries under dropping conditions [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2018, 9(2): 178–185. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2018.02.008.
[16]	SIMPSON T M, MAUERY T M, KORTE J J, et al. Kriging models for global approximation in simulation-based multidisciplinary design optimization [J]. AIAA Journal, 2001, 39(12): 2233–2241. DOI: 10.2514/2.1234.