Aerospace Science and Technology 12 (2008) 331–336

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Dynamic responses to landing impact at different key segments in selected

body positions
Bingkun Liu a,∗ , Honglei Ma b , Shizhong Jiang b
a Department of Aviation and Space Medicine, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
b Institute of Space Medico-engineering, Beijing, China

Received 28 October 2006; received in revised form 27 August 2007; accepted 27 August 2007
Available online 31 August 2007

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to observe the acceleration responses of the key body segments to the landing impact in selected body positions.
5 young male subjects in 45 experiments were voluntarily exposed to the peak from 4 to 10g and duration from 50 to 80 ms acceleration pulses
at 20◦ supine angle and the peak 10g and duration 50 ms impact at the supine angles from 20 to 60◦ . The acceleration responses on the dropping
platform of the impact tower, the seat, the subject’s head, shoulder, chest and ilium, as well as ECG of the subject were measured. The results
demonstrated that the acceleration peaks of these key body segments in the chest-back direction had a highly significant positive correlation with
the impact level. But their correlation in the head-foot direction was lower than that in the chest-back direction except that of the head. The
acceleration peaks of these key body segments in the chest-back direction had a negative correlation with the supine angle. But the acceleration
peaks of ilium in the head-foot direction had a positive correlation with the supine angle, and that of the chest almost bore no correlation. There
were nonlinear relations between acceleration peak and supine angle at the head and the shoulder respectively, and the acceleration peaks of the
head and shoulder in the head-foot direction reached minimum at about 40◦ supine angle. It is concluded that the acceleration responses of the key
body segments demonstrate different properties between the chest-back direction and the head-foot direction. It is recommended that the angle of
the seat back be adjusted about 40◦ before the spacecraft landing in order to prevent potential head injuries.
© 2007 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Landing impact; Dynamic responses; Impact acceleration; Human safety

1. Introduction in which subjects were exposed to the acceleration peak from

When a manned spacecraft descends to an Earth landing
by parachute, the crewmen are exposed to the ground impact
forces because of an abrupt deceleration. Our previous studies
have demonstrated that human body can tolerate certain lev-
els of landing impact forces, but the high-level impact forces
may cause disadvantageous influence on the human body, and
even threaten the lives of crew in case of emergencies occurring
during a spacecraft landing, such as the failure of the brak-
ing rockets ignition [3]. In order to study human responses to
impact forces in certain body orientations likely to occur dur-
ing the landing of Apollo command model, Brown et al. [1]
simulated 24 body positions and conducted 288 experiments
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: liubk2005@126.com (B. Liu).
1270-9638/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ast.2007.08.004
5.5 to 30.7g and the onset from 300 to 2500 g/sec. It was
observed that impact forces produced effects to the nervous,
cardio-respiratory and musculoskeletal systems; and that man
can endure certain predicted Apollo landing impact forces in
different body orientations without significant incapacitation
or undue pain. Weis et al. [9] exposed 20 different volunteer
subjects in 75 experiments to six different impact configura-
tions in seven different body orientations by means of a vertical
drop tower decelerating with a water inertia-piston and cylin-
der brake. The drop velocity at brake entry ranged from 4.28
to 8.47 m/s, the peak from 13.5 to 26.6g, the onset from 386
to 1380 g/sec, and the duration from 56 to 75 ms. Neither the
subjective reports nor clinical findings indicated that the toler-
ance end point had been reached in Weis’ series. Stapp et al.
[4,5] summarized the human tolerance to the deceleration and
reported a series of impact experimental results by using the
332 B. Liu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 12 (2008) 331–336
rocket sled in which 58 human volunteer subjects in 146 ex-
periments were exposed to 16 body positions, 7 configurations
of the onset (1000, 1500 and 2000 g/sec), magnitude (10, 15,
20 and 25g) and duration from 60 to 130 ms. The results indi-
cated that all the body positions and impact configurations were
within voluntary tolerance limits except the forward facing 45◦
reclining position at 25.4g measured on the sled with the onset
of 1000 g/sec and the duration of 60 ms, in which compression
of soft tissues around 6th, 7th, 8th thoracic vertebrae caused
pain and stiffness for 60 days. Head fixation, automation retrac-
tion of harness before impact, and energy attenuation to keep
the impact force magnitude below 20g and pulse duration less
than 60 ms were recommended. Wang Yulan, Cheng Zilong et
al. [7,8] conducted many experiments on men, dummies and
animals by means of a vertical drop tower, and presented the hu-
man tolerance limitations to deceleration. Zhuang Xiangchang
et al. [10] summarized the application of the mechanical model
in the analysis of human responses to impact forces. In a word,
we have known that human responses have relation to the peak
g, onset and duration as well as orientations [6]. However, the
previous researches had been in general limited to the patho-
logical and physiological effects of the impact. This study was
initiated to observe the acceleration responses of the key body
segments to the landing impact. This information would fur-
nish guidelines to be used in setting human body position in the
spacecraft.
2. Methods
2.1. Test program
A total of 45 human impact tests were conducted on 5 young
male subjects. All subjects were chosen from male volunteers
who met the requirements of a thorough medical evaluation.
Selected subjects ranged in age from 19 to 21 years, in height
from 166 to 173 cm, and in weight from 59 to 65 kg.
There were 4 impact levels for the test of supine angle 20◦ .
The acceleration peak ranged from 4 to 10g and the duration
from 50 to 80 ms (measured on the dropping platform). The
impact level was increased by increment of 2g if the test subject
felt little or no effect. The occurrence of adverse reaction, based
on an evaluation of the subjective, clinical and physiological
responses of the subject by a medical monitor, determined next
level of the impact forces tested. Each subject was exposed to
4 impacts in 4 days and to only one impact on the same day
lest there would be any accumulated injury effect due to the
repetitious impact forces.
5 body positions were selected at the supine angles from
20 to 60◦ . At each body position, the impact peak of 10g and
duration of 50 ms (measured on the dropping platform) kept
constant. The supine angle was increased by increment of 10◦
if the test subject felt little or no effect. Each subject was ex-
posed to 5 impacts in 5 days and to only one impact on the
same day lest there would be any accumulated injury effect due
to the repetitious impact forces.
Fig. 1. Acceleration curve on the platform.
2.2. Test equipment
The laboratory test equipment used in these experiments was
the ISME Vertical Deceleration Tower. It is a guided free-fall
device with a controlled deceleration produced by a plunger
which displaces water from a cylinder. The entry velocity is
controlled by the drop height. The peak of acceleration from 4
to 10g is produced by the rising height of the dropping plat-
form from 1.2 to 1.8 m respectively with the corresponding
entry velocities from 4.90 to 6.00 m/s. The deceleration pat-
tern is controlled by the plunger shape. The deceleration pattern
(Fig. 1) is readily reproduced.
A space seat was installed on the dropping platform of the
tower (Fig. 2(a)). The foot-end of the seat was connected to a
rigid support frame by a hinge, and the head of the seat was
fixed with a metal pole. The angle between the seat back and
horizontal plane could be adjusted from 20 to 60◦ (increment
of 10◦ ) by increasing the height of the head supporting. The
interior profile of the seat was molded closely to the exterior
surface of the seat cushion used in these tests. The interior pro-
file of the seat cushion was molded closely to the test subject’s
body contour. Before used in these experiments, the seat cush-
ions had been tested to determine their mechanical properties
[2]. The seat cushion was made of dacron web and polyurethane
foam.
The restraint system used is shown in Fig. 2(b). It consists
of the chest and leg complex, all of straps 5 cm width dacron
webbing and 4000 kg test strength. The chest complex consists
of two torso straps and two shoulder belts fastened with a safety
belt latch anterior to the sternum. The leg complex consists of
a continuous belt on each side which starts at the seat hitch,
passes through the knee and connects with the other side seat
hitch.
2.3. Instrumentation and measurement
Acceleration instrumentation consisted of strain gage ac-
celerometers: one accelerometer (EG&G 3145-20, weight
0.013 kg, measurement range: 20g, frequency responses
0–1050 Hz) mounted in the direction of linear motion on the
platform of the impact tower; another same model accelerome-
ter was mounted to the seat lateral frame (approximately to the
plane of man–seat system gravity center) in the direction of lin-
 B. Liu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 12 (2008) 331–336
(a)
Fig. 2. Installation of seat and the body position, the restraint system and the fixation of the accelerometer on the subject’s head, shoulder, chest and ilium.
ear motion; four accelerometer clusters of two oriented in the
subjects chest-back and head-foot directions (EG&G 3145-20,
weight 0.046 kg, measurement range: 20g, frequency responses
0–1050 Hz) were secured by strap fasteners over the subject’s
head, shoulder, chest and ilium respectively (Fig. 2(b)). The
acceleration signals picked up by the accelerometers were am-
plified and filtered by a voltage amplifier and a low-pass filter
with the cut-off frequency of 500 Hz (model A4100), and
they were recorded on the magnetic tape by a SONY-1021
magnetic recorder. A DATA-6000 signal analysis instrument
processed, displayed and printed these signals. At the same
time, the electrocardiogram of the test subject was recorded
by a remote ECG-5403 instrument, which was used to moni-
tor the physiological responses pre-run, impact and 5-minute
post-impact. In the time domain we made statistical analysis on
the peaks of acceleration at the key segments including mean,
standard deviation and linear or nonlinear regression analy-
ses.
2.4. Subject protocol
The subject was examined and instrumented one hour be-
fore the test. After instrumentation checkout in a medical room,
the subject put on the “SZ” space-suit (weight 9.8 kg includ-
ing helmet) and walked to the platform of the impact tower,
and then was positioned and strapped into the seat, and briefed
about the expected impact by the medical monitor. A 40-second
333
(b)
countdown was begun. ECG data were continuously collected
from 40 seconds pre-impact to at least 5 minutes post-impact.
The restraints were loosened from the subject immediately af-
ter the impact. He was asked about the test and observed for
physical signs of the impact. After leaving the impact tower,
the subject walked to the checkout room for a medical exami-
nation. The examination consisted of checking the vital signs,
deep tendon reflexes, ocular reflexes and fundi, heart, lungs, ab-
domen and gross evaluation of the musculoskeletal system. The
subject submitted a written description of his reaction immedi-
ately and 24 hours following the impact test.
3. Results
3.1. Dynamic responses at different impact levels
The typical acceleration-time curves measured at the head,
shoulder, chest and ilium are shown in Fig. 3. Their pat-
terns are similar to damped concussive waves. It can be seen
that there are dynamic overshoots at the subject’s head and
chest.
The results of statistic analyses of acceleration peaks at the
head, shoulder, chest and ilium under 4–10g landing impacts
are shown in Table 1. It shows that human acceleration re-
sponses at different segments vary with the level of landing
impact, and there is a certain individual variation. In order
to observe the changes in these key segments responses with
334 B. Liu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 12 (2008) 331–336

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 3. Variations of acceleration with time at the subject’s head (a), shoulder (b), chest (c) and ilium (d). (Note: ax denotes acceleration in the chest-back direction;
az denotes acceleration in the head-foot direction; aseat denotes acceleration at the seat in the impact direction.)

Table 1 Table 2
Peak acceleration of human body responses at different g levels of impact Regression equation between acceleration and impact level
Position Peak acceleration (mean ± s, n = 5) unit: g Body Direction Equation Correlation
g-level 1 g-level 2 g-level 3 g-level 4 segment coefficient

platform 4.27 ± 0.12 5.80 ± 0.06 7.43 ± 0.23 9.32 ± 0.17 head Z Y = −3.18548 + 2.25553u (4  u  10) 0.83
seat 4.27 ± 0.12 5.43 ± 0.05 7.59 ± 0.29 9.36 ± 0.11 X Y = −1.44832 + 2.12414u (4  u  10) 0.87
head z 6.38 ± 1.62 9.34 ± 2.93 13.57 ± 4.81 18.07 ± 3.29 shoulder Z Y = 2.13763 + 0.62666u (4  u  10) 0.39
head x 8.05 ± 1.68 10.12 ± 2.98 13.74 ± 4.00 18.89 ± 1.85 X Y = −1.32584 + 1.34704u (4  u  10) 0.83
shoulder z 3.93 ± 1.02 5.92 ± 1.38 8.65 ± 5.43 6.75 ± 1.82 chest Z Y = 4.59038 + 0.59239u (4  u  10) 0.37
shoulder x 4.84 ± 1.72 5.84 ± 2.31 7.99 ± 2.27 11.92 ± 0.93 X Y = 1.52128 + 1.69247u (4  u  10) 0.87
chest z 6.30 ± 1.87 8.86 ± 3.53 8.45 ± 2.59 10.39 ± 3.97 ilium Z Y = 5.15827 + 0.09019u (4  u  10) 0.06
chest x 8.40 ± 1.51 11.19 ± 2.42 13.93 ± 1.56 17.67 ± 2.16 X Y = 1.99133 + 1.39181u (4  u  10) 0.91
ilium z 5.48 ± 3.62 5.66 ± 4.69 5.89 ± 2.24 6.00 ± 1.12 Note: Y , response acceleration (g); u, input acceleration (g). z denotes head-
ilium x 8.14 ± 1.44 9.50 ± 1.04 12.20 ± 2.04 15.21 ± 1.17 foot direction; x denotes chest-back direction.
Note: z denotes head-foot direction; x denotes chest-back direction.
3.2. Dynamic responses in different body positions
the impact level, we conducted the linear regression analy-
ses shown in Table 2. The results show that the peaks at The results of statistic analyses of acceleration peaks at the
the head, shoulder, chest and ilium in the chest-back direc- head, shoulder, chest and ilium under 10g at different supine
tion have a highly significant correlation with the impact level, angles from 20 to 60◦ are shown in Table 3. It shows that hu-
and increase with the rise of the impact level. But the in- man acceleration responses at different segments vary with the
creasing rate is faster at the head, followed by the chest, il- supine angle, and there is a certain individual variation. In order
ium and shoulder. In the head-foot direction, the peaks at the to observe the changes in the key segments responses with the
head have a higher correlation and increase with the impact supine angles, we conducted the linear and nonlinear regres-
level, but the peaks at the shoulder and chest have a lower sion analyses shown in Table 4. It can be seen that the peaks
correlation, and the peaks at the ilium have almost no corre- at the head, chest and ilium in the chest-back direction have a
lation. higher correlation, and decrease with the rise of the supine an-
 B. Liu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 12 (2008) 331–336 335

Table 3
Peak acceleration of human body responses in different body positions
Position Peak acceleration (mean ± s, n = 5) unit: g
20◦ 30◦ 40◦ 50◦ 60◦
platform 9.32 ± 0.17 9.67 ± 0.20 9.35 ± 0.35 9.61 ± 0.62 9.50 ± 0.10
seat 9.36 ± 0.11 9.69 ± 0.30 9.55 ± 0.41 10.00 ± 1.02 10.29 ± 0.56
head z 18.07 ± 3.29 11.81 ± 3.00 10.36 ± 2.44 15.32 ± 3.92 16.66 ± 4.26
head x 18.89 ± 1.85 16.67 ± 2.17 12.91 ± 0.81 10.91 ± 1.78 7.58 ± 1.18
shoulder z 6.75 ± 1.82 6.29 ± 0.95 4.93 ± 0.56 8.55 ± 1.78 8.83 ± 1.75
shoulder x 11.92 ± 0.93 13.43 ± 0.78 12.87 ± 2.49 10.71 ± 3.92 9.24 ± 2.73
chest z 10.39 ± 3.97 15.42 ± 3.61 15.38 ± 3.52 12.60 ± 2.37 12.13 ± 1.53
chest x 17.67 ± 2.16 15.21 ± 1.86 12.07 ± 1.30 10.05 ± 1.86 7.21 ± 1.99
ilium z 6.00 ± 1.12 8.11 ± 3.03 12.70 ± 3.76 13.83 ± 1.97 13.04 ± 1.21
ilium x 15.21 ± 1.17 13.88 ± 1.45 12.72 ± 2.89 7.79 ± 1.01 6.19 ± 2.11
Note: z denotes head-foot direction; x denotes chest-back direction.

Table 4
Regression equation between acceleration and supine angle
Body Direction Equation Correlation
segment coefficient
head Z Y = 0.0158α 2 − 1.2559α + 35.76 (20◦  α  60◦ ) 0.88
X Y = 24.7396 − 0.28378α (20◦  α  60◦ ) 0.94
shoulder Z Y = 0.0048α 2 − 0.3291α + 11.402 (20◦  α  60◦ ) 0.79
X Y = 14.86 − 0.08066α (20◦  α  60◦ ) 0.43
chest Z Y = 12.9232 + 0.00652α (20◦  α  60◦ ) 0.03
X Y = 22.8624 − 0.26056α (20◦  α  60◦ ) 0.91
ilium Z Y = 2.8156 + 0.19794α (20◦  α  60◦ ) 0.74
X Y = 20.8104 − 0.24132α (20◦  α  60◦ ) 0.87
Note: Y , response acceleration (g); α, supine angle (◦ ). z denotes head-foot direction; x denotes chest-back direction.

gle. But the peaks at the shoulder in the chest-back direction
have a lower correlation although they decrease with the rise
of the supine angle. There are nonlinear relations between ac-
celeration peak and supine angle at the head and the shoulder
respectively (Fig. 4), and the acceleration peaks of the head and
shoulder in the head-foot direction reached minimum at about
40◦ supine angle. The peaks at the ilium in the head-foot direc-
tion increase with the rise of the supine angle, but the peaks at
the chest in the head-foot direction have almost no correlation
with the supine angle.
3.3. Physiological reactions
The subjects complained that they had a feeling of shock at
the head and ilium after exposed to the peak from 4 to 10g du-
ration from 50 to 80 ms at 20◦ supine angle and the peak 10g
duration 50 ms at the supine angles from 20 to 60◦ , and that they
were nervous before the test. The subject’s heart rate speedup
was observed from recordings in ECG of the subject during the
landing impact because of nervousness. As soon as the platform
of impact tower rose, the heart rate of the subject began to speed
up. At the moment of landing, the heart rate speeded up again.
The maximum heart rate reached 113 per minute. After the im-
pact the heart rate slowed down and recovered one minute later.
The ECG of the subject also showed that decreases in the ampli-
tude of R and T wave existed simultaneously with the increase
of heart rate during the impact. But the changes could recover
within one minute after the impact. Except these changes in
ECG of the subject there were no other abnormalities.
4. Discussion
When the human body is exposed to the landing impact in
supine position, it will make dynamic responses to the impact
in both the chest-back and head-foot directions. There are dy-
namic overshoots at the head and chest, which reflects the vis-
coelastic behavior of the human body. According to the results
of the experiments, human dynamic responses increase with the
rise of impact level, but the increase rates are not the same at
different parts of the human body. The reason may be related
to the body segment’s mechanical properties. With the increase
of the angle of body position, human responses demonstrate
different properties between the chest-back direction and the
head-foot direction. These characteristics may be determined
by the biomechanical properties of the human spine.
The tolerance of the human body to the overload along the
chest-back direction is higher than that along other directions.
So astronauts are usually restrained in the seat at about 20◦
supine angle during the spacecraft launch. But what is the suit-
able body position before the landing in the stage of the space-
craft reentry? The greater a local acceleration is, the worse the
damage. So we hope that the acceleration responses of human
body, especially at the head, can be minimized during a land-
ing. This experiment indicated that acceleration response at the
head reached minimum at about 40◦ body position. Therefore,
it may be advantageous that the angle of the seat back is ad-
justed about 40◦ before the spacecraft landing.
Why do the acceleration responses at the head and shoulder
reach the minimum at about 40◦ supine angle? We think it may
336 B. Liu et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 12 (2008) 331–336
(a)
Fig. 4. Nonlinear regression between acceleration and supine angle. (a) At head in the head-foot direction. (b) At shoulder in the head-foot direction.
be related to the muscle tension near the head-neck or upper
limbs. As we know, at different levels of external forces, mus-
cle tissues conduct static or dynamic contraction with different
strengths to resist the impact load. When the body position an-
gle is about 40◦ , the muscle near the head-neck or upper limbs
may be in the best tension state. In this condition, the stiffness
of the head-neck and the shoulder may increase. Therefore, the
acceleration responses at the head and shoulder reach the min-
imum. In addition, we also found that it is very useful that the
subjects contract the skeletal muscles actively before and dur-
ing the landing impact.
5. Summary
45 human impact tests were accomplished. The results in-
dicated that a set of impact conditions was tolerable. The ac-
celeration responses of key body segments were measured. The
peaks of the responses of these segments at different impact
levels and supine angles were statistically analyzed. The re-
sults showed that the acceleration responses of the key body
segments demonstrated different properties between the chest-
back direction and the head-foot direction. It is recommended
that the angle of the seat back be adjusted about 40◦ before the
spacecraft landing in order to prevent potential head injuries.
(b)
References
[1] W.K. Brown, J.D. Rothstein, L.P. Foster, Human response to pre-
dicted Apollo landing impacts in selected body orientations, Aerospace
Med. 37 (4) (1966) 394–398.
[2] B. Liu, H. Liu, Experimental research on mechanical properties of seat
cushions, AF Tech. Report Z006, 2005.
[3] B. Liu, H. Ma, Effect of impact factors on human body and evaluation
method of human safety. GF-A0067076M, 2005.
[4] J.P. Stapp, Human tolerance to deceleration: Summary of 166 runs,
J. Aviat. Med. (1951) 22–42.
[5] J.P. Stapp, E.R. Taylor, Space cabin landing impact vector effects on hu-
man physiology, Aerospace Med. 35 (1964) 1117–1132.
[6] H.E. Von Gierke, J.W. Brinkley, Impact acceleration, in: M. Calvin, O.G.
Gazenko (Eds.), Foundations of Space Biology and Medicine, II(1)6, Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration and Academy of Science of
Russia, Washington, DC, 1975, pp. 214–246.
[7] Y. Wang, Z. Cheng, Y. Han, Characteristic of human responses to
+Gx landing impact, Space Med. Med. Eng. China 5 (2) (1992) 96–
100.
[8] Y. Wang, J. Luo, Z. Cheng, An experimental study on +Gx landing impact
injury, Space Med. Med. Eng. China 7 (3) (1994) 157–161.
[9] E.B. Weis, N.P. Clarke, J.W. Brinkley, Human response to several
impact orientations and patterns, Aerospace Med. 34 (1963) 1122–
1129.
[10] X. Zhuang, F. Wang, F. Xiao, Application of model in study of impact
overload, Space Med. Med. Eng. China 2 (2) (1989) 101–107.