Trans RINA, Vol 156, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Dec 2014
comparable to a scenario in a rail carriage, where the maximum deceleration is about 8.0g, but only lasting 200ms [24].
This highlights the need to apply interior design
regulations from the automotive and rail industry such as UN-ECE21 which requires all radii within 0.5 m radius of the H-point of the occupant to be greater than 3.0mm to minimise trauma upon surface impact and respecting a head deceleration not exceeding 80g during a 3ms duration. This area of analysis will be investigated by the authors in further work to quantify risk based on GA location and potential people flow scenarios. The use of airbag technology and restraints for seated passengers would at first seem to be an obvious
transfer of
innovation to mitigate the risk of injury [17] [18]. Installation and maintenance costs combined would need to be
investigated as additional the user has in the weight may be
prohibitive. More importantly the sense of confidence that
compromised, which is one of the reasons trains do not have seatbelts.
Prediction for occupant/pedestrian knee-thigh-hip (KTH) injuries at the tissue level for various loading conditions observed in automotive crashes is still challenging. Hu et al [25] developed a model-based tissue injury criteria and a tool to predict occupant KTH injuries subject to different postures and loading rates. They produced an effective plastic strain based injury criterion, with a defined universal threshold developed for identification of the potential injury locations in the KTH body region. The simulation results indicated a possible mode shift of the impact rate-associated injury with assumptions of viscous effects on hip-joint. A high rate impact more likely generates a fracture at the femur shaft; and the impact at a lower rate more likely fractures the hip-joint. The validated KTH injury criteria and tool were applied to full frontal and offset frontal impacts, where the simulations matched the injury outcomes of the reported field observations. In
further work these advanced
validated injury prediction models will be applied to both seating and standing positions, to simulate injuries and trauma at selected positions throughout the ship. This will be repeated for the different accident scenarios to develop a probabilistic prediction of fatalities or disabling injuries that would compromise escape and egress from a damaged vessel. The results of this task will feed into the evacuation models.
Integrated occupant-vehicle analysis plays an important role in vehicle safety developments. Car manufacturers are using detailed full system models consisting of vehicle structure, interior, restraint systems, barrier, and occupant
to risks
configurations taking the interactions of all participating components into account, reduced models can be useful
The on-board comfort of large motoryachts has become the object of specific attention by most Classification Societies which issued new rules and regulations for the evaluation of noise and vibration maximum levels; this is an equivalent
to NVH analysis in the automotive develop safety measures and assure
compliance with legal requirements and vehicle safety in real life crash configurations. While full models are best suited to evaluate occupant
in complex crash
industry. In a comprehensive investigation into the dynamic behaviour of superyacht structures, Boote et al [28] carried out a detailed FEA analysis of a 60.0m superyacht. In order to investigate the natural frequencies of the main steel deck and of the superstructure aluminium alloy decks. The numerical results were validated with experimental data of components carried out
during vessel analysis process resulted
construction. This marine NVH in the addition
of extra
structural mass to reduce aft deck vibration. In the context of the CLF design such structural modification would need to be evaluated in the context of crash behaviour.
vessel would be severely
Other models, like the THUMS4.0 (Total Human Model for Safety), shown in Figure 25, is proposing a deterministic rather than a probabilistic model of trauma assessment [27]. Such human computer model would be ideal to use to capture a more realistic throw away kinematics during the vessel crash event, as well as specific organ injury patterns. Such model however would be very computer intensive and work requires a ‘sled’ type analysis scenario configuration in order to allow interior cabin design for safety.
for developing new restraint systems or other component models. Reichert methodologies for
et al [26] fully integrated
described efficient occupant-vehicle
simulations as well as sub-system evaluations using prescribed motion in LS-DYNA. This included short duration impacts such as frontal impact with termination times of less than 200ms and long duration impacts such as rollover events having termination times of 400 to 2500ms. For the frontal offset impact with a hybrid III dummy model,
the sub-system evaluation of occupant
area and dummy had a model size of 190 000 elements vastly reduced from the 1 600 000 of the full model, resulting in a 1hr run time, which is 20% of the full model run time.
Figure 25 THUMS4.0 Toyota Human Model [27]
© 2014: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects
C-147
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188