Search results for: Mark Nicholas L. Yow

Authors: Christian J. Kennett, Mark A. Baldwin

Abstract:

As several companies are working towards returning American astronauts back to space on US-made spacecraft, NASA developed a human flight certification-by-test and analysis approach due to the cost-prohibitive nature of extensive testing. This process relies heavily on the quality of analytical models to accurately predict crew injury potential specific to each spacecraft and under dynamic environments not tested. As the prime contractor on the Orion spacecraft, Lockheed Martin was tasked with quantifying the correlation of analytical anthropometric test devices (ATDs), also known as crash test dummies, against test measurements under representative impact conditions. Multiple dynamic impact sled tests were conducted to characterize Hybrid III 5th ATD lumbar, head, and neck responses with and without a modified shuttle-era advanced crew escape suit (ACES) under simulated Orion landing and abort conditions. Each ATD was restrained via a 5-point harness in a mockup Orion seat fixed to a dynamic impact sled at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) Biodynamics Laboratory in the horizontal impact accelerator (HIA). ATDs were subject to multiple impact magnitudes, half-sine pulse rise times, and XZ - ‘eyeballs out/down’ or Z-axis ‘eyeballs down’ orientations for landing or an X-axis ‘eyeballs in’ orientation for abort. Several helmet constraint devices were evaluated during suited testing. Unique finite element models (FEMs) were developed of the unsuited and suited sled test configurations using an analytical 5th ATD model developed by LSTC (Livermore, CA) and deformable representations of the seat, suit, helmet constraint countermeasures, and body restraints. Explicit FE analyses were conducted using the non-linear solver LS-DYNA. Head linear and rotational acceleration, head rotational velocity, upper neck force and moment, and lumbar force time histories were compared between test and analysis using the enhanced error assessment of response time histories (EEARTH) composite score index. The EEARTH rating paired with the correlation and analysis (CORA) corridor rating provided a composite ISO score that was used to asses model correlation accuracy. NASA occupant protection subject matter experts established an ISO score of 0.5 or greater as the minimum expectation for correlating analytical and experimental ATD responses. Unsuited 5th ATD head X, Z, and resultant linear accelerations, head Y rotational accelerations and velocities, neck X and Z forces, and lumbar Z forces all showed consistent ISO scores above 0.5 in the XZ impact orientation, regardless of peak g-level or rise time. Upper neck Y moments were near or above the 0.5 score for most of the XZ cases. Similar trends were found in the XZ and Z-axis suited tests despite the addition of several different countermeasures for restraining the helmet. For the X-axis ‘eyeballs in’ loading direction, only resultant head linear acceleration and lumbar Z-axis force produced ISO scores above 0.5 whether unsuited or suited. The analytical LSTC 5th ATD model showed good correlation across multiple head, neck, and lumbar responses in both the unsuited and suited configurations when loaded in the XZ ‘eyeballs out/down’ direction. Upper neck moments were consistently the most difficult to predict, regardless of impact direction or test configuration.

Keywords: impact biomechanics, manned spaceflight, model correlation, multi-axial loading

Procedia PDF Downloads 115

Authors: Liane J. Ioannou, Jonathan Serpell, Cino Bendinelli, David Walters, Jenny Gough, Dean Lisewski, Win Meyer-Rochow, Julie Miller, Duncan Topliss, Bill Fleming, Stephen Farrell, Andrew Kiu, James Kollias, Mark Sywak, Adam Aniss, Linda Fenton, Danielle Ghusn, Simon Harper, Aleksandra Popadich, Kate Stringer, David Watters, Susannah Ahern

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There are significant variations in the management, treatment and outcomes of thyroid cancer, particularly in the role of: diagnostic investigation and pre-treatment scanning; optimal extent of surgery (total or hemi-thyroidectomy); use of active surveillance for small low-risk cancers; central lymph node dissections (therapeutic or prophylactic); outcomes following surgery (e.g. recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, hypocalcaemia, hypoparathyroidism); post-surgical hormone, calcium and vitamin D therapy; and provision and dosage of radioactive iodine treatment. A proven strategy to reduce variations in the outcome and to improve survival is to measure and compare it using high-quality clinical registry data. Clinical registries provide the most effective means of collecting high-quality data and are a tool for quality improvement. Where they have been introduced at a state or national level, registries have become one of the most clinically valued tools for quality improvement. To benchmark clinical care, clinical quality registries require systematic measurement at predefined intervals and the capacity to report back information to participating clinical units. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a core set clinical indicators that enable measurement and reporting of quality of care for patients with thyroid cancer. We hypothesise that measuring clinical quality indicators, developed to identify differences in quality of care across sites, will reduce variation and improve patient outcomes and survival, thereby lessening costs and healthcare burden to the Australian community. METHOD: Preparatory work and scoping was conducted to identify existing high quality, clinical guidelines and best practice for thyroid cancer both nationally and internationally, as well as relevant literature. A bi-national panel was invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. Panelists were asked to rate each proposed indicator on a Likert scale of 1–9 in a three-round iterative process. RESULTS: A total of 236 potential quality indicators were identified. One hundred and ninety-two indicators were removed to reflect the data capture by the Australian and New Zealand Thyroid Cancer Registry (ANZTCR) (from diagnosis to 90-days post-surgery). The remaining 44 indicators were presented to the panelists for voting. A further 21 indicators were later added by the panelists bringing the total potential quality indicators to 65. Of these, 21 were considered the most important and feasible indicators to measure quality of care in thyroid cancer, of which 12 were recommended for inclusion in the final set. The consensus indicator set spans the spectrum of care, including: preoperative; surgery; surgical complications; staging and post-surgical treatment planning; and post-surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a core set of quality indicators to measure quality of care in thyroid cancer. This indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research. Inclusion of these quality indicators into monitoring databases such as clinical quality registries will enable opportunities for benchmarking and feedback on best practice care to clinicians involved in the management of thyroid cancer.

Keywords: clinical registry, Delphi survey, quality indicators, quality of care

Procedia PDF Downloads 185