Comparison of AC and Original Formulation Confor™ Foam Performance in Civil Aircraft Vertical Impact Tests

Taylor A, DeWeese R, Moorcroft

FAA Office of Aerospace Medicine - Civil Aerospace Medical Institute

关键词: Confor™;    Cushion comparison;    FAA Hybrid III Vertical;    Lumbar load;   

RP-ID  :  DOT/FAA/AM-17/1

美国|英语

来源: Federal Aviation Administration

【 摘 要 】

Rate sensitive foams are often used in aircraft seat designs; recently, the formulation of one of the more common types of foam, Confor™, was changed. The previous Standard version came in four stiffness levels, which all met aircraft flammability requirements. The new version still has four stiffness levels; however, each type will consist of two formulations, one designated Confor™ M and one designated Confor™ AC.The Federal Aviation Administration's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) conducted testing to determine whether occupant injury risk during vertical impacts would be affected by substitution of the AC material in place of the original material in seat bottom cushions incorporated in dynamically qualified seats. A combination of original Confor™ foams obtained from stock at CAMI and the reformulated aerospace Confor™ supplied by Skandia, Inc., were dynamically tested on a rigid seat. The anthropomorphic test dummy used was the 50th percentile male FAA Hybrid III. In addition to lumbar loads, occupant kinematics, as well as seat pan loads and floor loads were gathered.Confor™ foam comes in four different degrees of stiffness and is color-coded to avoid confusion. The two mid-stiffness foams, CF-42 (pink) and CF-45 (blue), were selected for this evaluation because they are the most commonly used types in aviation. The Confor™ original and AC formulation foams were evaluated at two test severities and two thicknesses. Due to limited material availability, only one test configuration was repeated. The 4-inch thick, AC formulation pink foam was tested three times at 19 G, producing a lumbar load range of 25 lb.The 4-inch buildup blue Confor™ foam produced a difference in the normalized lumbar load of 14 lb more for the AC version at 14 G and 44 lb less for the AC at 19 G. The 4-inch buildup pink Confor™ foam produced a difference in the normalized lumbar load of approximately 53 lb more for the AC version at 14 G and 190 lb more for the AC at 19 G. The largest difference in peak lumbar load produced by the AC version was 11% greater than the original version. If some level of production variability is assumed, then these values suggest that there may not be a significant difference between the impact performance of the original and AC formulation for aircraft bottom seat cushion applications.