Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:14:16.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards meeting VLTA challenges for evacuation slides and slide-rafts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

P. D. Gosling  and
C. G. Riches
P. D. Gosling
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, UK
C. G. Riches
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The intrinsic dependence on the necessary minimum structural performance of inflatable aircraft evacuation slides and slide-rafts in the event of and emergency or precautionary aircraft evacuation is described in the context of the certification of both new (or modified) aircraft and slide designs. The concepts of the pneumatic structure with analytical and numerical methodologies are briefly reviewed. Fundamental principles of inflatable evacuation slide performance and assessment are presented, while the characteristics of typical structural responses are identified for single deck aircraft. The implications of evacuation from an upper deck of a VLTA are identified in the interpretation of two new commercial inflatable evacuation slide designs. Alternative meso and macro pneumatic structural forms are proposed as evolutions of the conventional inflated tube. Outline details of a simple mixed finite element and vector-based simulation algorithm for the analysis of pneumatic structures precede examples verifying the numerical formulation and demonstrating the potential of multi-cell beam (meso) and “semi-pneumatic shell membrane” (macro) pneumatic concepts. Recommendations for future research conclude the paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 107 , Issue 1070 , April 2003 , pp. 185 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1972 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Office of Technology Assessment, Aircraft Evacuation Testing: Research and Technology Issues, Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress, OTA-BP-SET-121.Google Scholar
2. McLean, G.A., George, M.H., Funkhouser, G.E. and Chittum, C.B. aircraft evacuations onto escape slides and platforms I: effects of passenger motivation. CAMI Report DOT/FAA/AM 96/18, 1996.Google Scholar
3. McLean, G.A., George, M.H., Funkhouser, G.E. and Chittum, C.B. Aircraft evacuations onto escape slides and platforms II: effects of exit size. CAMI Report DOT/FAA/AM 99/10, 1999.Google Scholar
4. Taylor, A.F. A Review of fire related accidents, 1985-1995, 88th Symposium on propulsion and energetics panel, dresden, Germany, 14-17 October 1996.Google Scholar
5. Muir, H.C. Research into factors influencing survival in aircraft accidents, Aeronaut J, May 1996, 100, (995), pp 177–181.Google Scholar
6. Marrison, C. and Muir, H.C. Passenger evacuation: behavioural aspects of passenger evacuation, Cranfield Institute of Technology Report, 1987.Google Scholar
7. Tomita, A.F. For less injuries after emergency evacuation, Int Conf Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research, Atlantic City, New Jersey, 16-20 November 1998.Google Scholar
8. Williams, J.C. Rates of egress and performance on the slide in simulated aircraft evacuations from type I exits.Google Scholar
9. Galea, E.R., Owen, M., Lawrence, P.J. and Filippidis, L. Computer-based simulation of aircraft evacuation and its application to aircraft safety, Int Conf Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research, Atlantic City, New Jersey, 16-20 November 1998.Google Scholar
10. Parks, D.L. and Ostrand, R.A. EVAC Computer simulation of personnel performance in airplane evacuation, 26th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 1982, Santa Monica, pp 974–978.Google Scholar
11. Nishizaki, R.S. Simulation model for passenger evacuation. http://www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/projects/air/8186.htm, 2000.Google Scholar
12. Helbing, D., Farkas, I. and Vicsek, T. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic, Nature, 407, 28 September 2000, pp 487–490.Google Scholar
13. Low, D.J. Following the crowd, nature, 28, 407, September 2000, pp 465–466.Google Scholar
14. Leonard, R.W., Brooks, G.W. and McComb, H.G. Structural considerations of inflatable re-entry vehicles, NASA TN D-457, 1960.Google Scholar
15. Harris, J.T. and Stimler, F.J. Expandable structures for Space, Astronautics, 6(30), April 1961.Google Scholar
16. Bernasconi, M.C. Inflatable, Space rigidised structures overview of applications and their technological impact, Acta Astronautica, 1986, 13, pp 455–465.Google Scholar
17. Miura, K., Natori, M. and Sakamaki, M. Technological developments of large membrane structures in Space, Proceedings of IASS Symposium, Shells, membranes and space frames, 1986, Osaka, Japan, 2, pp 225–232.Google Scholar
18. Steinberg, E.P. and Bulleit, W. Consideration of deign criteria for Lunar structures, J. Aerospace Engineering, 1994, 7 (2), pp 188–198, 1994.Google Scholar
19. Drake, R.M. and Richter, P.J. Concept evaluation methodology for extraterrestrial habitats, J Aerospace Engineering, 1992, 5 (3), pp 282–296.Google Scholar
20. Chow, P.Y. Construction of a pressurised, self-supporting membrane structure on the Moon, J Aerospace Engineering, 1992, 5 (3), pp 274–281.Google Scholar
21. Sadeh, W.Z., Arbarbanel, J.E. and Criswell, M.E. structural analysis of an inflatable module for lunar/martian surface, proceedings of 47th international Astronautical Congress, 7-11 October, 1996.Google Scholar
22. Webber, J.P.H. Deflections of inflated cylindrical cantilever beams subjected to bending and torsion, J Aeronautical, 1982, 86 (984), pp 306–312.Google Scholar
23. Rivellini, T.P. Development testing of the Mars pathfinder inflatable landing system, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space, Pasadena, CA, USA, 2, pp 1059–1068.Google Scholar
24. Festo, KG, Corporate Design, Heugasse 1, D-73728, Esslingen.Google Scholar
25. http://www.aerotube.com/html/tube-structure.html Google Scholar
26. Jenkins, C.H. Non-linear dynamic response of membranes: state-of-theart – update, Applied Mechanics Review, 1996, 44 (10), pp S41–S48.Google Scholar
27. Comer, R.L. and Levy, S. Deflections of an inflated circular-cylindrical cantilever beam, J AIAA, 1 (7), 1652-1655, 1963.Google Scholar
28. Main, J.A., Peterson, S.W. and Strauss, A.M. A preliminary structural analysis of Space-based inflatable frame structures, Engineering Systems Design and Analysis, 1992, 1, pp 115–121.Google Scholar
29. Main, J.A., Peterson, S.W. and Strauss, A.M. Load-deflection behaviour of space-based inflatable fabric beams, J Aerospace Engineering, 1994, 7 (2), pp 225–238.Google Scholar
30. Main, J.A., Peterson, S.W. and Strauss, A.M. Beam-type bending of space-based inflatable membrane structures, J Aerospace Engineering, 8(2),pp 120–128.Google Scholar
31. Levy, R. and Spillers, W.R. Analysis of Geometrically Non-Linear Structures, Chapman and Hall, London, 1994.Google Scholar
32. Kyriacou, S.K., Schwab, C. and Humphrey, J.D. Finite element analysis of non-linear orthotropic hyperelastic membranes, Computational Mechanics, 1996, 18 (4), pp 269–278.Google Scholar
33. Ishii, K. Stress concentrations for fabric structures, Proceedings of IASS Symposium, Shells, membranes and space frames, 1986, Osaka, Japan, 2, pp 25–32.Google Scholar
34. Kawabata, M., and Ishii, K. Study on structural characteristics of airinflated beam structures, Proceedings of the IASS-ASCE International Symposium on Spatial, Lattice and Tension Structures, 1994, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp 742–751.Google Scholar
35. Nishimura, T., Tosaka, N. and Honma, T. Membrane structure analysis using the finite element technique, Proceedings of IASS Symposium, Shells, membranes and space frames, Osaka, Japan, 2, pp 9–16, 1986.Google Scholar
36. Berry, D.T. and Yang, H.T.Y. Formulation and experimental verification of a pneumatic finite element, Int. J Numerical Methods in Engineering, 1996, 39, pp 1097–1114.Google Scholar
37. Lewis, W.J. and Gosling, P.D. Stable minimal surfaces in the formfinding of lightweight tension structures, Space Structures, 1993, 8 (3), pp 149–166.Google Scholar
38. Gosling, P.D. and Lewis, W.J. Optimal structural membranes - 1. Formulation of a curved quadrilateral element for surface definition, Computers and Structures, 1996, 61, pp 871–883.Google Scholar
39. TSO-C69b, Emergency Evacuation Slides, Ramps, and Slide/raft Combinations, FAA, 1988.Google Scholar
40. McLean, G.A., Palmerton, D.A., Chittum, C.B., George, M.H. and Funkhouser, G.E. Development of an inflatable escape slide beam strength test to support revision of TSO C-69b, CAMI Report DOT/FA A/AM 96/P, 1996.Google Scholar
41. O'Donnell, J.W. and Staudt, D. Inflatable evacuation slide, U.S. patent application 09/130, 771, patent 5, 975, 467.Google Scholar
42. Barnes, M.R. Form and stress engineering of tension structures, Structural Engineering Review, 6 (3-4), 1994, pp 175–202.Google Scholar
43. Day, A.S. An introduction to Dynamic Relaxation, The Engineer, January 1965, pp 218–221.Google Scholar
44. Trostel, R. Calculation of Membranes in Tensile Structures, 1962, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar