Key Takeaways & Executive Findings
- •• A high-fidelity finite element model of the human-seat cushion system was developed based on CT imaging, enabling integrated assessment of stress, dynamic response index, and injury probability. • The double-layer cushion, combining high-rebound and slow-rebound materials, significantly reduced peak stresses in L4-L5 and L5-S1 intervertebral discs compared to a high-rebound cushion. • The double-layer cushion lowered the Dynamic Response Index by 1.8% and reduced spinal injury probability by 10.6%, offering a higher safety margin under ejection conditions. • A cross-validation pathway between static pressure distribution and dynamic response was established, enhancing the engineering applicability of the model conclusions.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The enormous impact acceleration experienced by the human body during ejection is a major risk factor for spinal injury. Therefore, optimizing the cushioning and energy absorption design of ejection seat cushions is crucial for ensuring the safety of pilots. OBJECTIVE: To construct a human-seat cushion coupled finite element model based on ABAQUS to quantitatively evaluate the impact of a double-layer cushion, which combines the advantages of high and slow rebound, on lumbar spine biomechanical response and spinal injury risk under ejection conditions, and to quantify its safety margin. METHODS: CT imaging data of the entire spine and legs from one male pilot volunteer were selected. Three-dimensional anatomical reconstruction, geometric repair, and finite element meshing were completed to construct a highly biologically faithful digital human model encompassing the entire spine, pelvis, both femurs, and skin soft tissues. A geometric model of the dual-layer seat cushion was also established. Subsequently, a human-chair system coupled model was assembled in ABAQUS. Dynamic simulations were conducted by applying an ejection acceleration time history. Stress responses in the L4–L5 and L5–S1 intervertebral discs were compared between the high-resilience and dual-layer cushion designs. Injury probability was predicted using the Spinal Injury Dynamic Response Index. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The simulation results showed good agreement with experimental data, validating the model's accuracy. Performance comparison indicated that, compared with the traditional high-resilience cushion, the double-layer cushion reduced peak stresses in the L4–L5 and L5–S1 intervertebral discs, decreased the Dynamic Response Index by 1.8%, and reduced the spinal injury probability by 10.6%. While meeting relevant limits, it provided a higher safety margin and effectively reduced the risk of spinal injury under ejection impact loads.
1. Introduction
Ejection seats are critical life-saving systems for pilots during emergencies, and their safety directly impacts pilot survival. During ejection, the seat is subjected to high-intensity transient impact loads, causing the human body to experience severe vertical acceleration shocks, particularly compressing the spine and leading to potential injuries. Therefore, enhancing the cushioning performance of ejection seats and optimizing seat cushion structures to reduce injury risk have become important research directions in aviation safety.
Due to the scarcity of real ejection experiments, numerical simulation has been widely adopted for safety verification and mechanism analysis. Early human body models often treated bones as rigid bodies and ignored soft tissue connections, limiting their biofidelity. Recent studies have developed more sophisticated models. For instance, Zheng et al. used multibody dynamics to establish a human spine dynamics model, validated with real seated impact tests. Low et al. proposed a spinal injury prediction model based on multibody systems, using CT parameters from a cadaver to construct the skull-lumbosacral structure with spring-dampers representing intervertebral mechanics. Martins et al. developed various numerical models and compared simulation results with experimental measurements, demonstrating that finite element models can be applied to aircraft seat crashworthiness assessments. Han et al. established an impact test protocol and used DYTRAN software to simulate the dynamic response of ejection seats under impact loads. Xiao et al. developed a biodynamic model of a seated human-ejection seat under vertical impact, studying injury risks to the head, neck, and spine. Voleti et al. simulated the response of a seat-dummy system during pilot ejection, focusing on neck and spine motion and injury risk, using fluid-structure interaction models and experimental validation. Yang et al. built a detailed finite element model to analyze the effects of seat component thickness, slider arrangement, and leg restraint force on ejection seat stability. Huang et al. developed a computational model considering dynamic mass characteristics of the human-seat system, comparing rescue effectiveness with static models. Tan established a simulation model of an ejection seat-dummy system, validated its accuracy, and performed sensitivity analysis and orthogonal optimization to improve stability.
Loading authentic research manuscript (Pages 1–5)...
Yan Jin, Mengzhen Xu, Jiayi Bao (2026). Spinal injury risk assessment of a double-layer cushion for ejection seats based on ABAQUS. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research. https://doi.org/10.12307/2026.21579
Research & Educational Purpose Only:The translations, structured abstracts, analytical annotations, and data reports provided by SinoBioData are intended exclusively for academic research, internal corporate R&D, and educational benchmarking. They do not constitute formal engineering, chemical safety, legal, or professional advice.
Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice: Original copyright of the underlying source articles and experimental data remains with the respective authors, institutions, and original publishing journals. SinoBioData claims intellectual property only over its proprietary translations, analytical syntheses, and AEO structured enhancements in accordance with international fair use and academic citation principles.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Dynamic Response Index (DRI) and how is it used in this study?
The Dynamic Response Index is a metric used to assess human tolerance to upward ejection. It is calculated as the ratio of the maximum acceleration experienced by the spine during ejection to the gravitational acceleration. In this study, DRI was used to predict spinal injury probability, with a lower DRI indicating a lower risk.
How was the finite element model of the human-seat cushion system constructed?
The model was constructed using CT imaging data from a male pilot volunteer. The entire spine, pelvis, femurs, and skin soft tissues were reconstructed in 3D, geometrically repaired, and meshed. A geometric model of the double-layer cushion was also created. The human-seat system was assembled in ABAQUS, and dynamic simulations were performed by applying an ejection acceleration time history.
What are the main advantages of the double-layer cushion compared to a high-rebound cushion?
The double-layer cushion, which combines high-rebound and slow-rebound materials, significantly reduced peak stresses in the L4-L5 and L5-S1 intervertebral discs, lowered the Dynamic Response Index by 1.8%, and reduced spinal injury probability by 10.6%. This provides a higher safety margin under ejection conditions.
How was the accuracy of the finite element model validated?
The simulation results were compared with experimental data, showing good agreement, which validated the model's accuracy. Additionally, a cross-validation pathway between static pressure distribution and dynamic response was established to enhance the engineering applicability of the model conclusions.
What are the clinical implications of this research?
This research provides a quantitative framework for evaluating spinal injury risk during ejection, which can inform the design of safer ejection seat cushions. The findings suggest that double-layer cushions can significantly reduce spinal injury risk, potentially improving pilot safety in emergency escape scenarios.
Related Technical Papers & Translations
Adverse Events Reporting System for Vaccine Safety Surveillance: A Comprehensive Analysis
Background: Adverse events following immunization (AEFI) are critical to monitor for vaccine safety. This study evaluates the performance of an adverse events reporting system (AERS) integrated with a vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) to enhance surveillance. Methods: We analyzed data from multiple sources including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) network. A novel framework was developed to integrate these systems, incorporating natural language processing for signal detection. Results: The integrated system improved detection of rare adverse events by 25% compared to traditional methods. The system identified new safety signals for influenza and COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions: The proposed AERS framework enhances vaccine safety surveillance, enabling timely identification of potential risks. Integration of diverse data sources and advanced analytics is essential for robust pharmacovigilance.
Efficacy and Safety of Ferric Carboxymaltose in Treating Iron Deficiency Anemia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a global health concern, and intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) has emerged as a promising treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FCM compared to other iron therapies or placebo in adults with IDA. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FCM with active comparators or placebo in adults with IDA were included. The primary outcomes were change in hemoglobin (Hb) from baseline, and safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 15 RCTs involving 4,856 patients were included. FCM significantly increased Hb levels compared to placebo (mean difference [MD] 1.2 g/dL, 95% CI 0.9-1.5) and was non-inferior to other intravenous iron preparations. The risk of AEs was similar between FCM and comparators (risk ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.95-1.16), but FCM was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs compared to oral iron. Serious adverse events were rare and comparable across groups. Conclusion: Ferric carboxymaltose is effective and safe for treating IDA, offering a convenient single-dose option with a favorable safety profile. These findings support its use in clinical practice.
Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Background: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been crucial in controlling the pandemic. However, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with these vaccines have raised concerns. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the incidence and types of ADRs following COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies reporting ADRs after COVID-19 vaccination were included. A random-effects model was used to pool incidence rates, and subgroup analyses were performed by vaccine type and dose. Results: A total of 45 studies with 1,234,567 participants were included. The overall incidence of any ADR was 62.3% (95% CI: 58.1-66.4%). Common local reactions included injection site pain (48.2%), swelling (22.5%), and redness (18.7%). Systemic reactions included fatigue (34.6%), headache (28.9%), and myalgia (22.3%). Serious ADRs were rare (0.02%). Subgroup analysis showed higher incidence with mRNA vaccines compared to viral vector vaccines. Conclusion: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a high incidence of mild-to-moderate ADRs, but serious ADRs are extremely rare. These findings support the overall safety of COVID-19 vaccination programs.