|
|
典型返回再入体位对HUMOS假人动态响应影响研究
|
Abstract:
为探索飞船返回再入加速度过载下人体姿态对乘员动力学响应的影响，本文利用Pro-E和HyperWorks软件建立了仰姿和躺姿两种典型人体姿态的假人–座椅系统模型。模型中使用了HUMOS II (Human Model for Safety Version II)人体生物力学模型。根据实际离心试验数据对假人–座椅系统模型进行了标定和验证。论证并分析了在高加速度过载(峰值为6.4 g)条件下，人体姿态对人体关键器官包括心脏、肺、膈肌、肝脏和腹部脏器过载响应的影响。仿真结果表明，膈肌的位移和变形是影响人体对再入过载耐受力的最重要因素。膈肌在卧姿时受到其他器官的作用力大于躺姿时的作用力。因此，飞船设计人员应更多地关注人体内部器官的受力状态，选择一个在飞船返回时对乘员具有更好保护作用的体位姿态，本文建议飞船乘员的姿态设计应优先选择躺姿。
To demonstrate the effect of body posture on the occupant dynamic response under a spacecraft high-level re-entry acceleration overload, seat-dummy system models with typical body positions, including supine and lying positions, are established in this study using Pro-E and Hyper Works software. A human model for safety (Version II) dummy was used in the model. Seat-dummy system models were calibrated and validated according to actual centrifugal test data. The effect of body posture on the overload response of key body organs, including the heart, lung, diaphragm, liver, and abdominal viscera are demonstrated and analyzed under a high-level acceleration overload (a peak value of 6.4 g as input). Simulation results show that the displacement and deformation of the diaphragm are the most important factors affecting human tolerance to re-entry overload. The acting force of the diaphragm from other organs’ inertial reaction in supine position is larger than that in the lying position. Therefore, spacecraft designers should focus more on the mechanical status of human internal organs and provide a body posture for better protection of the crew during spacecraft re-entry.
| [1] | Miller, H., Riley, M., Bondurant, S. and Hiatt, E. (1959) The Duration of Tolerance to Positive Acceleration. Journal of Aviation Medicine, 30, 360-366. |
| [2] | Sieker, H.O. (1952) Devices for Protection against Negative Acceleration: Part 1, Centrifuge Studies. WADC TR 52-87. Par t 1 (AD 2135). Wright Air Development Center, Ohio. https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0002135 |
| [3] | Creer, B., Smedal, H. and Wingrove, R. (1960) Centrifuge Study of Pilot Tolerance to Acceleration and the Effects of Acceleration on Pilot Performance. NASA TN D-337 (AD 245411), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington DC. |
| [4] | Clarke, N., Bondurant, S. and Leverett, S. (1959) Human Tolerance to Prolonged Forward and Backward Acceleration. Journal of Aviation Medicine, 30, 1-21. |
| [5] | Gray, R. and Web, M. (1960) High G Protection. NADC-MA-5910 (AD 235338). US Naval Air Development Center, Penn-sylvania. |
| [6] | Harris, C. and Sommer, H. (1971) Centrifuge Record Books. AMRL-70-21. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. |
| [7] | Ballinger, E. and Dempsey, C. (1952) The Effects of Pro-longed Acceleration on the Human Body in the Prone and Supine Positions. WADC TR 52-250 (AD 5352). Wright Air Development. Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0005352 |
| [8] | Liu, B., Ma, H. and Jiang, S. (2008) Dynamic Responses to Landing Impact at Different Key Segments in Selected Body Posi-tions. Aerospace Science and Technology, 12, 331-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2007.08.004 |
| [9] | Ma, H., Zhu, Y., Xiao, Y., Liu, B., Jin, X., Yang, K. and King, A. (2014) Biomechanical Sex Differences of Crewmembers during a Simulated Space Capsule Landing. Aviation Space Environment Medicine, 85, 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.3890.2014 |
| [10] | Fu, W., Zhang, X. and Ma, H. (2017) Simulation Study on the Gender Differences of the Occupant Dynamic Response during Spacecraft Landing Impact Condition. International Journal of Crashworthiness, 4, 1-7. |
| [11] | Brown, W., Rothstein, J. and Foster, L. (1966) Human Response to Predicted Apollo Landing Impacts in Selected Body Orientations. Aerospace Medicine, 37, 394-398. |
| [12] | Graves, C. and Harpold, J. (1972) Apollo Experience Report Mission Planning for Apollo Entry. NASA TN 6725. |
