DOT/FAA/AR-05/5,I 

Office of Aviation Research 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Development and Validation of 

an Aircraft Seat Cushion 

Component Test—Volume I 

March 2005 

Final Report 

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration
NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The 

United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use 

thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely 

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. This 

document does not constitute FAA certification policy. Consult your local 

FAA aircraft certification office as to its use. 

This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. 

Hughes Technical Center’s Full-Text Technical Reports page: 

actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). 
 Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

DOT/FAA/AR-05/5,I

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report Date

March 2005 

 4. Title and Subtitle 

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF AN AIRCRAFT SEAT CUSHION 

COMPONENT TEST—VOLUME I 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

S.J. Hooper and M.J. Henderson

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

J.B. Dwerlkotte Assoc., Inc. 

429 N. St. Francis 

Wichita, KS 67202 

11. Contract or Grant No.

 

 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Aviation Research 

Washington, DC 20591

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

 

ANM-102N

15. Supplementary Notes

The FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center COTR was Mr. Timothy G. Smith. The work was performed under subcontract to 

The National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67260.

16. Abstract

A component test method was developed and validated to certify replacement bottom seat cushions for 16-g aircraft seats that 

were originally certified to the requirements of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 25.562 or Technical Standard Order C127a. 

The methodology established criteria to evaluate replacement cushions, which ensures an equivalent or improved level of safety 

to the cushions originally certified on these seats. The component test was derived from American Society for Testing and 

Materials standard test method D 3574-03 and generates load-deflection data for a cylindrical test specimen. The component test 

method was validated, using test results produced during full-scale 14-g sled tests performed at the Federal Aviation 

Administration Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. 

17. Key Words 

16-g seat, Lumbar load, Cushion properties 

18. Distribution Statement 

This document is available to the public through the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS) Springfield, Virginia 

22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

 Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

 Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

77

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank all of the aircraft seat cushion manufacturers who generously 

provided test articles for this research. They would also like to thank the following colleagues 

for their individual contributions: Terence Lim, Cessna Aircraft Corporation, for helping to 

acquire test articles; Lamia Salah and Wadii Benjilany, the National Institute for Aviation 

Research, for performing the material testing; Rick DeWeese and the staff at the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Civil Aerospace Medical Institute for producing extremely 

useful sled test data; Matt Riggins and Habtom Gebremeskel at J.B. Dwerlkotte Assoc., Inc. for 

assisting with data reduction; and Mike Thompson, Steve Soltis, Jeff Gardlin, and Rick 

DeWeese of the FAA for providing timely and useful input throughout the course of this project. 

Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the late Van Gowdy who 

enriched the lives of everyone he worked with and provided significant input to the design of this 

study. 

iii/iv 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi 

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 

1.1 Purpose 1-1 

1.2 Background 1-1 

2. RESEARCH DESCRIPTION 2-1 

2.1 Test Setup 2-1 

2.2 Test Article Descriptions 2-8 

2.3 Test Procedure 2-11 

3. RESULTS 3-1 

3.1 Material Test Results 3-1 

3.2 Nonflotation Monolithic Cushions Results 3-4 

3.3 Laminated (Flotation) Cushions Results 3-8 

3.4 Static Test Results 3-10 

3.5 Regression Analysis 3-29 

3.6 Discussion 3-34 

4. PROPOSED CUSHION REPLACEMENT METHODOLOGY 4-1 

4.1 Component Test Method 4-1 

4.1.1 Specimen Definition 4-1 

4.1.2 Test Apparatus 4-1 

4.1.3 Instrumentation 4-2 

4.1.4 Pretest Measurements 4-2 

4.1.5 Test Procedure 4-2 

4.2 Application to Monolithic (Nonflotation) Cushions 4-3 

4.3 Application to Laminated (Flotation) Cushions 4-7 

5. CONCLUSIONS 5-1 

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 6-1 

7. REFERENCES 7-1 

APPENDICES 

A—Dynamic Sled Test Results

B—Criterion Curve Stress-Strain Data

v
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

1-1 Fourteen-g Dynamic Sled Test Conditions 1-1 

1-2 Exponential Load-Deflection Curve 1-3 

1-3 Typical Stress-Strain Behavior of Cellular Solids 1-3 

2-1 MTS 220-kip Dynamic Load Frame 2-2 

2-2 Platen Design 2-3 

2-3 High-Rate Test Setup 2-3 

2-4 Typical Cushion Test Setups 2-4 

2-5 Controller 2-5 

2-6 Piezoresistive Load Cell Test Setup 2-5 

2-7 Typical Actuator Position vs Time 2-6 

2-8 Typical Actuator Velocity vs Time 2-6 

2-9 MTS 22-kip Static Test Setup 2-7 

2-10 Typical Cushion Static Test Setup 2-7 

2-11 Piezoresistive and Strain Gage Load Cell 2-8 

2-12 Bottom Cushion Geometry 2-8 

2-13 Nonflotation Cylindrical Specimen Numbering Scheme 2-10 

2-14 Laminated Flotation Cylindrical Specimen Numbering Scheme 2-10 

3-1 Load-Deflection Curve for 2-in. Nonflotation Cushion Specimens 3-1 

3-2 Load-Deflection Curve for 3 1/4-in. Nonflotation Cushion Specimens 3-1 

3-3 Load-Deflection Curve for 4 1/2-in. Nonflotation Cushion Specimens 3-2 

3-4 Load-Deflection Curve for 2-in. Flotation Cushion Specimens 3-2 

3-5 Load-Deflection Curve for 4-in. Flotation Cushion Specimens 3-3 

3-6 Load-Deflection Curve for 2-in. Nonflotation (Comfort) Foam Specimens 3-5 

vi
3-7 Load-Deflection Curve for 3 1/4-in. Nonflotation (Comfort) Foam Specimens 3-5 

3-8 Load-Deflection Curve for 4 1/2-in. Nonflotation (Comfort) Foam Specimens 3-6 

3-9 NAwa3 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Specimen Thicknesses 3-6 

3-10 Lumbar Load vs Cushion Thickness for NAwa3 Specimens 3-7 

3-11 Stress-Strain Curves for NAwa3 Specimens 3-7 

3-12 Equivalence of NAwa3 Stress-Strain Curves 3-8 

3-13 Load-Deflection Curves for Ct1 Laminated Specimens 3-8 

3-14 Load-Deflection Curves for Ct3 Laminated Specimens 3-9 

3-15 Load-Deflection Curves for Ct1 Laminated Specimens 3-9 

3-16 Load-Deflection Curves for Ct3 Laminated Specimens 3-10 

3-17 Load-Deflection Curves for 2-in. Nonflotation (Comfort) Specimens 3-10 

3-18 Load-Deflection Curves for 3 1/4-in. Nonflotation (Comfort) Foam Specimens 3-11 

3-19 Load-Deflection Curves for 4 1/2-in. Nonflotation (Comfort) Foam Specimens 3-11 

3-20 NAwa3 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Nonflotation Foam Specimen 

Thicknesses 3-12

3-21 NDwd1 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Nonflotation Foam Specimen 

Thicknesses 3-12

3-22 NDwd3 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Nonflotation Foam Specimen 

Thicknesses 3-13

3-23 Load-Deflection Curves for Ct Laminated Flotation Specimens 3-13 

3-24 Load-Deflection Curves for Ct1 Laminated Flotation Specimens 3-14 

3-25 Load-Deflection Curves for Ct3 Laminated Flotation Specimens 3-14 

3-26 FAF1wa2 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Flotation Specimen Thicknesses 3-15 

3-27 FAF2wa2 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Flotation Specimen Thicknesses 3-15 

3-28 FBEwb2 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Flotation Specimen Thicknesses 3-16 

3-29 Static and Dynamic Test Results for NAwa3 3-16 

vii
3-30 Static and Dynamic Test Results for NDwd1 3-17 

3-31 Static and Dynamic Test Results for NDwd3 3-17 

3-32 Static and Dynamic Test Results for FAF1wa2 3-18 

3-33 Static and Dynamic Test Results for FAF2wa2 3-18 

3-34 Static and Dynamic Test Results for FBEwb2 3-19 

3-35 Static vs Dynamic Comparison for CONFOR CF-42 3-19 

3-36 Load-Deflection Curves for 2-in. Nonflotation Cushions 3-20 

3-37 Load-Deflection Curves for 3 1/4-in. Nonflotation Cushions 3-20 

3-38 Load-Deflection Curves for 4 1/2-in. Nonflotation Cushions 3-21 

3-39 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Cushion Thicknesses for NAwa3 3-21 

3-40 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Cushion Thicknesses for NDwd1 3-22 

3-41 Load-Deflection Curves for Various Cushion Thicknesses for NDwd3 3-22 

 3-42 Load-Deflection Curves for Laminated 1-in. Flotation Cushions 3-23 

3-43 Load-Deflection Curves for Laminated 2-in. Flotation Cushions 3-23 

3-44 Load-Deflection Curves for Laminated 4-in. Flotation Cushions 3-24 

3-45 Load-Deflection Curves for FAF1wa2 3-24 

3-46 Load-Deflection Curves for FAF2wa2 3-25 

3-47 Load-Deflection Curves for FBEwb2 3-25 

3-48 Comparison of Cylindrical and Rectangular Responses for NAwa3 3-26 

3-49 Comparison of Cylindrical and Rectangular Responses for NDwd1 3-26 

3-50 Comparison of Cylindrical and Rectangular Responses for NDwd3 3-27 

3-51 Comparison of Cylindrical and Rectangular Responses for FAF1wa2 3-27 

3-52 Comparison of Cylindrical and Rectangular Responses for FAF2wa2 3-28 

3-53 Comparison of Cylindrical and Rectangular Responses for FBEwb2 3-28 

3-54 Typical Regression Analysis Results—Example 1 3-29 

viii
3-55 Typical Regression Analysis Results—Example 2 3-29 

3-56 Quadratic Regression 3-30 

3-57 Cubic Regression 3-31 

3-58 Regression Comparison 3-32 

3-59 Regressions at x/xmax = 0.3075 3-32 

3-60 Regressions at x/xmax = 0.63571 3-33 

3-61 Regressions at x/xmax = 0.9742 3-33 

3-62 Regression Results, 4 1/2-in. Nonflotation Foams 3-34 

4-1 Test Specimen Geometry 4-2 

4-2 Component Test Loading Impulse 4-3 

4-3 Nonflotation Criterion Curves (A = 44.18 in2

) 4-4

4-4 Case 1, Plateau Strength Exceeds Criterion Strength 4-5 

4-5 Definition of the Evaluation Region 4-5 

4-6 Case 2, Criterion Strength Exceeds Plateau Strength 4-6 

4-7 Ineligible Material 4-7 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

1-1 Fourteen-g Impulse Definition 1-2 

2-1 Nonflotation Bottom Cushions 2-9 

2-2 Laminated (Flotation) Bottom Cushions 2-9 

2-3 Foam Densities 2-11 

3-1 Summary of Sled Test Results for Nonflotation Cushions 3-4 

3-2 Summary of Sled Test Results for Flotation Cushions 3-4 

4-1 Criterion Data, Nonflotation Cushions (A = 44.18 in2

) 4-4

ix
LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AGATE Advanced General Aviation Technology Experiments 

AS SAE Aerospace Standard 

ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials 

ATD Anthropomorphic test dummy

BRP Buttock reference point 

CAMI Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DRI Dynamic response index 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

g Acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/sec2

) 

IFD Indentation Force Deflection (lb) 

MPT Multipurpose Testware 

SRP Seat reference point 

TSO Technical Standard Order 

x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report describes the methodology that was employed to develop and verify the pass-fail 

criteria associated with the aircraft Seat Cushion Component Test. This component test provides 

a pass-fail criterion based on an “equivalent or improved level of safety” and will be used in 

comparative tests of the certified bottom seat cushion and a candidate replacement cushion. The 

successful component test of a candidate replacement bottom seat cushion shows that its design 

satisfies the applicable lumbar load injury criterion specified in Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations 25.562 or Technical Standard Order C127a. 

xi/xii
1. INTRODUCTION. 

1.1 PURPOSE. 

The research documented in this report was conducted to develop and validate a component test 

method that can be used to show compliance with the lumbar load injury criterion specified in 

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 25.562 for replacement aircraft bottom seat 

cushions. 

1.2 BACKGROUND.

The properties of aircraft bottom seat cushions are known to have a strong influence on the 

lumbar load performance of 16-g (acceleration of gravity) dynamically certified aircraft 

passenger seats. Aircraft seat cushions must be periodically replaced due to wear and abuse 

during normal service. Most airlines acquire replacement cushions that are identical to those 

originally certified by the seat supplier. However, operators cannot count on the availability of 

identical cushions since the foam materials used in the cushion fabrication may no longer be 

produced. If this is the case, operators are required to conduct full-scale dynamic seat tests, 

illustrated in figure 1-1 for the purpose of certifying a replacement cushion. This has motivated 

industry and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop a suitable component seat 

cushion test as an alternative method to certify replacement bottom seat cushions. 

The current regulations, i.e., the emergency landing dynamic conditions (14 CFR 25.562(c)(2)) 

[1], require that seat designs satisfy the requirements in vertical and horizontal test conditions. 

The lumbar load injury criterion is generally critical for the vertical test conditions of 14 CFR 

25.562(b)(1) and, thus, is the subject of in this report. Full-scale dynamic seat testing, per 14 

CFR 25.562(b)(1), requires a specific minimum velocity, minimum acceleration, and maximum

rise time, as listed in table 1-1. These requirements are also required by Technical Standard 

Order (TSO) C127a [2]. 

y 

60°

x

V

acceleration

g p

t

g 

tr

time

FIGURE 1-1. FOURTEEN-g DYNAMIC SLED TEST CONDITIONS 

1-1
TABLE 1-1. FOURTEEN-g IMPULSE DEFINITION 

Velocity Change ∆V ft/sec 35

Peak Acceleration gp g’s 14

Rise Time tr sec 0.080

Stech and Payne were among the first to address the spinal injury problem for aircraft seats when 

they developed a spring-mass model to predict an occupant response during ejection seat testing 

[3]. This model represented the biodynamic properties of the human body and suggested a 

spinal injury mechanism that is especially sensitive to the spring force in the spinal column. 

This injury mechanism has become known as the Dynamic Response Index (DRI) and is 

currently used by the Department of Defense as a criterion with which to evaluate the 

performance of ejection seats [4]. While the DRI measure is appropriate for the relatively stiff

ejection seats installed in military aircraft, its application to civil aircraft seats has produced 

unrealistic results [5]. Subsequent research, at the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute 

(CAMI) [6], led to the development of the 1500-lb spinal injury criterion contained in 14 CFR 

25.562 and TSO-C127a. The spinal injury criterion was developed using a modified 49 CFR 

Part 572, support B anthropomorphic dummy, which continues to be used in dynamic seat tests. 

The dummy modifications are described in SAE International Aerospace Standard (AS) 8049 

Rev(A) [7]. The 1500-lb load limit corresponds to a DRI of about 19. Data for the military 

population at that time indicate that the probability of detectable spinal injury at DRI = 18 is 

about 5 percent and about 20 percent at a DRI of 22. Thus, a DRI of 19 corresponds to a 

probability of spinal injury of about 9 percent. 

Other researchers developed a number of occupant models to investigate spinal injuries for 

ejection seats and crashworthy seat designs. These initially included a number of lumped 

parameter models [8 and 9] as well as the commonly known SOM-LA and MADYMO computer 

programs described in references 10 and 11. Many of these early models [10 and 12] simplified 

the seat cushion behavior by representing the relationship between cushion force and 

displacement with a simple exponential function. 

 ] = [ −1 (1-1) Bδ F C e

where F and δ represent the cushion force and displacement, respectively, and B and C are 

material properties. This function is plotted in figure 1-2, where it is seen that the cushion force 

asymptotically approaches zero as the displacement approaches zero. 

The load-deflection curve reflects the common perception regarding cushion behavior, and it is 

commonly used in biodynamic simulations. The problem is that cushion data attracts attention to 

that portion of the curve with the greatest load and displacement. Unfortunately, if one selects a 

load cell to measure the highest load, it cannot accurately measure the lower load levels. 

1-2
Deflection - δ

Force -

F

FIGURE 1-2. EXPONENTIAL LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE 

The furniture industry has traditionally used the Indentation Force Deflection (IFD) test to 

characterize foam materials. The IFD is defined in American Society of Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) standard test method B1 method D 3574-03 [13] and is commonly used by the aircraft 

seating industry. The forces are recorded at 25% and 65% of the cushion thickness during static 

tests that are typically performed using screw-driven material test stands. 

Gibson and Ashby [14] published a comprehensive text on cellular solids in 1997 in which they 

identify typical load-deflection curves, as shown in figure 1-3. The functional form of these 

curves possesses three distinct regions: the initial linear elastic region, the plateau region (which 

may show some increase in strength as the deformation increases such as shown in figure 1-

3(b)), and the densification region. 

εD 

STRESS

σ 

STRAIN, ε 

(a) (b) 

FIGURE 1-3. TYPICAL STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOR OF CELLULAR SOLIDS 

The densification strain, εD, is defined as the strain where the stress approaches a vertical 

asymptote. The linear elastic region is generally very small for the foam materials used in 

furniture and seat cushions. The plateau strength region spans most of the stress strain curve 

along the strain axis, and the densification region is limited to a relatively small portion of the 

strain axis where the highest stresses occur. 

1-3
It should be noted that IFD data are simply two points in the plateau region. Early dynamic seat 

researchers did not recognize the significance of the plateau strength, in part because they were 

focused on ejection seat performance, and the cushions in the early ejection seats were not 

constructed of the same kinds of materials as cushions used in transport aircraft seats. Early 

studies by Payne and others simply concluded that seat cushions tended to amplify the lumbar 

load, an effect that is minimized by increasing the firmness of the seat cushion. In retrospect, the 

importance of the plateau strength should have been suspected when the importance of the 

1-g dummy preload was recognized and new dynamic seat test procedures developed and 

incorporated into AS8049 Rev(A) and Advisory Circular 25.562 Rev 1A [7 and 15]. 

It is appropriate to review the definitions of stress and strain prior to presenting the results of this 

research. Engineering strain is defined as 

d x

d u

x

u

e x

= ∆

∆ = ∆ → 0

lim (1-2)

which is commonly expressed as 

0 l

∆l

e = where 1

0

<<

∆

l

l (1-3)

where represents the initial unloaded specimen length and 0 l ∆l represents the change in its 

length. Clearly, the material performance presented in figure 1-3 involves strains whose 

magnitude approaches unity. Therefore, it is necessary to employ an appropriate definition of 

strain. The logarithmic, or true, strain and the Green-Lagrange strain [16 and 17] represent two 

appropriate possibilities. The logarithmic, or true, strain is employed in the following analysis 

and is defined as 

l

dl dε = (1-4)

which upon integration gives 

= ( + e ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = ln ln 1

0 l

l

ε ) (1-5)

Foam materials possess limited tensile strength and are nearly always loaded in compression. 

The common convention is to characterize foam properties in terms of compressive strength and 

strain, which are both presented as positive quantities. The above equations are easily 

transformed to this coordinate system, which results in the following expressions for engineering 

strain and logarithmic strain. 

0 l

− ∆l

e = where 1

0

<< − ∆

l

l (1-6)

1-4
where represents the initial unloaded length and 0 l − ∆l represents the shortening of its length. 

The corresponding logarithmic, or true, strain is subsequently expressed as 

 

= − ( − e ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = − ln ln 1

0 l

l

ε ) (1-7)

where positive values of e are used to represent compressive deformations. Engineering stress is 

defined as 

A

F

A

F

A

− = ∆− ∆ = ∆ → 0

σ lim (1-8)

where A represents a surface area in the unloaded geometry and F represents a force acting on 

this surface area. This definition also employs the convention that compressive stresses are 

reported as positive numbers. 

The deflection and force data for a single layer of foam are calculated from stresses and strains 

by the following equations 

= − ( − 1) −ε δ h e (1-9)

F = −σ A (1-10)

where h represents the thickness of the material specimen. The force and deflection data for 

laminated materials subject to uniaxial loading are extracted by recognizing that the same force, 

F, is applied to both material layers. The displacements in the top and bottom layers, δ 1 and δ 2, 

can be written as 

(F) δ 1 = δ 1 (1-11)

(F) δ 2 = δ 2 (1-12)

The load-deflection data generated during the materials tests were represented by a smooth 

sequence of straight-line segments where δ varies monotonically with F. This allows equations 

1-11 and 1-12 to be evaluated by a simple linear interpolation algorithm. The total displacement 

of a laminated cushion is the sum of these 

δ = δ 1 + δ 2 (1-13)

The importance of rate sensitivity has been the subject of a number of industry discussions over 

the past several years. Gibson and Ashby concluded that all polymeric foams exhibit rate 

sensitive behavior to some degree since their glass transition temperature ,TG, is so close to 

ambient room temperature. Consequently, Hooper and Henderson developed a dynamic 

component test, which could be used to test the performance of cushions and diaphragms [18]. 

Another cushion component test was developed during the FAA/NASA Advanced General 

1-5
Aviation Technology Experiments (AGATE) program [19] that employed a rate relaxation test 

to address the rate sensitivity issue. The AGATE method has not been validated, and the 

Hooper-Henderson method includes a seat pan or diaphragm as part of the test article, a 

requirement that many perceive as too costly and complicated. 

1-6
2. RESEARCH DESCRIPTION. 

This research was performed to develop and validate a component cushion test that can be used 

to certify bottom seat cushions for 16-g aircraft seats. One of the first issues was to determine 

whether typical seat cushion materials are rate sensitive or not. Material tests were performed 

statically and at relatively high loading rates of 30 in./sec using MTS Servohydraulic test stands. 

EAR CONFOR® specimens were also tested since this material is known to possess significant 

rate sensitivity [20]. 

The test fixture and methodology for the cushion component tests were adapted from the IFD 

method described in ASTM D 3574-03. 

The test fixture and methodology for the cushion component tests were adapted from the IFD 

method described in ASTM D 3574-03. The component tests differed from the IFD test in 

following ways: 

• They employed a 30-in./sec loading rate rather than a static loading rate. 

• Data were collected for the complete loading and unloading curve rather than just 

measuring the indentation force at 25% and 65% of the unloaded cushion thickness. 

Nonflotation and flotation cushion specimens were tested during the component tests. The latter 

were fabricated as a soft foam layer that was laminated on top of a rigid flotation foam substrate. 

The rigid foams are distinguished from the soft foams by the fact that they sustain permanent 

damage that can be detected either by a visual inspection or by carefully examining the test data. 

The data acquired during these tests were analyzed and used to select nonflotation and flotation 

cushions for lumbar load evaluation in dynamic sled tests. The flotation specimens were 

designed to satisfy the requirements of TSO-C72c [21]. The cushions selected for the dynamic 

sled test program represented the strongest, weakest, and those exhibiting intermediate strength 

properties. 

The lumbar loads of selected cushions were evaluated with an anthropomorphic test dummy

during dynamic sled tests performed per 14 CFR 25.562(b)(1) at the FAA CAMI laboratory in 

Oklahoma City. A rigid seat was used during these tests. The results are shown in appendix A. 

2.1 TEST SETUP. 

The dynamic component tests were performed in the Wichita State University Composites 

Laboratory using a 220-kip MTS load frame (see figure 2-1) equipped with a 110-kip 

servohydraulic actuator and instrumented with two load cells: a conventional 150-kip strain 

gage-type load cell and a 10-kip piezoresistive load cell. This load frame is fitted with a 

180-GPM servovalve and a large oil accumulator bank. This configuration enables the machine 

to displace large amounts of oil at very high speeds, thus generating very high loading rates. The 

dynamic testing was performed at a loading rate of 30 in./sec. The static tests were conducted 

 

® Registered trademark licensed to the AERO Company. 

2-1
using a conventional 22-kip servohydraulic MTS load frame at a loading rate of 0.033 in./sec. 

The rate sensitivity of a cushion can be determined by comparing the static and dynamic test 

results. These results will be nearly identical for non-rate-sensitive materials, and they will 

differ significantly for rate-sensitive materials. 

FIGURE 2-1. MTS 220-kip DYNAMIC LOAD FRAME 

The MTS test equipment was calibrated and verified according to ASTM E 4 to ensure the 

accuracy of the applied loads and displacements. After calibration, the MTS machine was tuned 

to ensure that the load and displacement feedbacks follow, as closely as possible, the 

corresponding command. 

The material is specified as either 2024-T351 or 7075-T651 aluminum. All fillet radii are 

specified as 1/4 in. The platen was perforated per ASTM D 3574-03 with 1/4-in. holes on 3/4-in. 

centers (approximately) as shown in figure 2-2. These holes allow the trapped air in the cushion 

material to escape during the test. The close-up view of the test setup is shown in figure 2-3 and 

shows the conventional strain gage-type load cell and the piezoresistive load cell as well as the 

8-in.-diameter foot used to load the specimens. The foot was bolted to an MTS hemispherical 

platen, which was attached to the actuator. 

2-2
FIGURE 2-2. PLATEN DESIGN 

Springs Foot 

Platen 

Actuator

Piezoresistive 

type load cell 

PCB Model 

206 M33 

MTS 

hemispherical 

platen 

Strain gage type 

load cell MTS 

Model 254 

FIGURE 2-3. HIGH-RATE TEST SETUP 

The apparatus was designed to accommodate 7 1/2-in.-diameter specimens, per ATSM D 3574-

03, or full size bottom cushions, as shown in figure 2-4. The foot was designed as an 8-in.-

diameter, self-aligning aluminum cap, which was placed over the MTS hemispherical platen. 

The springs that align the hemispherical platen are visible in this figure. 

2-3
FIGURE 2-4. TYPICAL CUSHION TEST SETUPS 

The upper platen was bolted to the load cell, which is bolted to the load frame’s fixed cross 

beam. Cylindrical specimens are placed on the 8-in.-diameter foot prior to a test. Seat cushions 

were attached to the lower platen surface with Velcro hook and loop fasteners just as they are in 

typical seat installations. The “upside down” arrangement is advantageous since it enables the 

test to be performed by accelerating the lightest, smallest, and, therefore, stiffest items while 

restraining the heavier more flexible items in a fixed position. This arrangement tends to reduce 

the noise level in the data caused by the fixture response. 

The load frame was controlled using the MTS Testar-IIm system. The MTS multipurpose 

testware (MPT) software was used to program the parameters for controlling the tests and 

acquiring data. This software was installed on the PC shown in figure 2-5. A procedure written 

in MPT specified the different test parameters, including displacement rates, data acquisition 

intervals, number of data points to acquire, etc. The high-rate procedure was subdivided into 

two main segments: a ramp up at 30 in./sec and a ramp down at 30 in./sec. Dynamic 

piezoresistive load cell data, static load cell data, and actuator displacement data were acquired 

simultaneously at 12,288 Hz. Simultaneous sample and hold data acquisition systems minimize 

the time skewing of acquired data by sampling all the data channels at the same time rather than 

sequentially at different times. Data from the piezoresistive load cell were acquired using the 

system described in the schematic shown in figure 2-6. 

2-4
FIGURE 2-5. CONTROLLER 

Force Sensor 

 Sensor Signal Conditioner 

MPT High-Rate Data Acquisition System

MTS Testar IIm Controller 

Low Noise Cable 

Output Cable 

FIGURE 2-6. PIEZORESISTIVE LOAD CELL TEST SETUP 

2-5
Typical actuator displacement and velocity time histories are shown in figures 2-7 and 2-8. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Time (sec)

A

ctu

ator P

o

sition (in.)

FIGURE 2-7. TYPICAL ACTUATOR POSITION VS TIME 

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Time (sec)

A

ctuat

or V

elocity (in/sec) FIGURE 2-8. TYPICAL ACTUATOR VELOCITY VS TIME

Unfiltered displacement data are presented in figure 2-7. The velocity was computed using these 

unfiltered data and the standard central difference formula. 

2-6
The static seat cushion test setup is shown in figures 2-9 and 2-10 and is similar to that used for 

the dynamic tests. These tests were conducted using a 22-kip load frame. The piezoresistive 

load cell was not used during these tests. 

FIGURE 2-9. MTS 22-kip STATIC TEST SETUP 

FIGURE 2-10. TYPICAL CUSHION STATIC TEST SETUP 

The procedure used to conduct the static tests was very similar to the one used for dynamic tests 

with two segments: a ramp up at 0.033 in./sec and a ramp down at 0.033 in./sec. Static data, 

load and actuator displacement, were acquired at 151 Hz. 

2-7
Piezoresistive load cells are typically used for dynamic testing and are commonly used for 

dynamic sled testing of aircraft seats. This type of load cell is constructed using a crystal 

material, as shown in figure 2-11(a). By comparison, standard strain gage-type load cells, 

typically used for static testing, are constructed using strain gages, as shown in figure 2-11(b). 

Conductivity in the piezoresistive load cell is influenced by a change (compression or stretching 

of the crystal grid) that is produced by a small deformation. The resistance change in a 

piezoresistive load cell is substantially higher than that in a standard strain gage-type load cell 

whose change in resistance is proportional to its strain. The supported mass in a piezoresistive 

load cell is much less than the supported mass in the standard strain gage-type load cell. 

Therefore, the former will produce less error due to inertia loading than the latter. Both the 

piezoresistive and the strain gage-type load cells were acquired in the dynamic material testing. 

Load 

Strain Gages

 (a) (b) 

FIGURE 2-11. PIEZORESISTIVE AND STRAIN GAGE LOAD CELL 

2.2 TEST ARTICLE DESCRIPTIONS.

Component material tests (static and dynamic) were conducted for the cushions. Dynamic rigid 

seat tests were performed for a subset of the cushion designs. The rectangular cushion geometry 

is defined in figure 2-12. 

Fwd 

d 

t 

w 

FIGURE 2-12. BOTTOM CUSHION GEOMETRY 

2-8
The rectangular cushion specimens were fabricated with nominal dimensions of d = 18.5 in., 

w = 19.0 in., and thickness, t in., where the thickness, t, is defined in tables 2-1 and 2-2. 

TABLE 2-1. NONFLOTATION BOTTOM CUSHIONS 

Polymer A Polymer B Polymer C Polymer D 

Density 

(lb/ft3

) 

Thickness 

(in.) 

Density 

(lb/ft3) 

Thickness 

(in.) 

Density 

(lb/ft3) 

Thickness 

(in.) 

Density 

(lb/ft3) 

Thickness 

(in.) 

wA1 2.0 wB1 2.0 NA NA wD1 2.0 

wA1 3.25 wB1 3.25 NA NA wD1 3.25 

wA1 4.5 wB1 4.5 NA NA wD1 4.5 

wA2 2.0 wB2 2.0 wB2 2.0 wD2 2.0 

wA2 3.25 wB2 3.25 wB2 3.25 wD2 3.25 

wA2 4.5 wB2 4.5 wB2 4.5 wD2 4.5 

wA3 2.0 NA NA NA NA wD3 2.0 

wA3 3.25 NA NA NA NA wD3 3.25 

wA3 4.5 NA NA NA NA wD3 4.5 

Thickness tolerance = ±1/8 in. 

Polymers B and C are expected to produce different IFDs, but will possess the same densities. (They are 

fabricated from the same polymer family.) 

TABLE 2-2. LAMINATED (FLOTATION) BOTTOM CUSHIONS 

Polymer A + Flotation 1 Polymer A + Flotation 2 Polymer B + Ethafoam

Density 

(lb/ft3

) 

Thickness 

(in.) 

Density 

(lb/ft3) 

Thickness 

(in.) 

Density 

(lb/ft3) 

Thickness 

(in.) 

wA1 tf + 1.0 NA NA wB1 tf + 1.0 

wA1 tf + 3.0 NA NA wB1 tf + 3.0 

wA2 tf + 1.0 wA2 tf + 1.0 wB2 tf + 1.0 

wA2 tf + 3.0 wA2 tf + 3.0 wB2 tf + 3.0 

wA3 tf + 1.0 NA NA NA NA 

wA3 tf + 3.0 NA NA NA NA 

Thickness tolerance = ±1/8 in. 

The densities herein refer to the density of the nonflotation comfort foam. 

tf = the thickness of the flotation foam (nominally tf = 1.0 in.) and is a constant for a given polymer. 

The cylindrical cushion specimens are 7 1/2 in. in diameter, as specified in ASTM D 3574-03. 

The upper and lower surfaces of the specimens were required to be parallel. Figures 2-13 and 

2-14 show the numbering scheme used to identify the specimens. 

2-9
FIGURE 2-13. NONFLOTATION CYLINDRICAL SPECIMEN NUMBERING SCHEME 

For example, the number NAwa3R200_510 denotes a rectangular nonflotation cushion, comfort 

foam A (or a), density wA3, thickness code 200, and serial number 510. 

NαwαiCT_xxx 

Specimen type (C denotes cylinder, R denotes rectangular)

Specimen density (for comfort foam α, density i)

Nonflotation cushion, comfort foam α

FαβwαiCT_xxx 

serial number

Specimen type (C denotes cylinder, R denotes rectangular)

Specimen density (for comfort foam α, density i) 

Flotation cushion, comfort foam α. flotation foam β

thickness

serial number

thickness

FIGURE 2-14. LAMINATED FLOTATION CYLINDRICAL SPECIMEN 

NUMBERING SCHEME

For example, the number FAF2wa2C325_600 denotes a cylindrical laminated (flotation) 

cushion, comfort foam A (or a), density wA2, thickness code 325, and serial number 600. The 

test program used the specimens identified in tables 2-1 and 2-2. The test articles were 

fabricated from comfort foam materials with densities ranging from 3.1 to 4.3 lb/ft

3

. 

The flotation specimens consisted of a layer of nonflotation comfort foam that was bonded on 

top of a nominal 1-in. layer of flotation foam. The specific thickness of the flotation foam was 

established to satisfy the flotation requirements of TSO-C72c and, thus, varied for each flotation 

foam material. 

2-10
The densities of the nonflotation comfort foams and flotation foams are summarized in table 2-3. 

The flotation cushions, being laminated, were constructed with a layer of comfort foam bonded 

on top of a layer of flotation foam. The nonflotation cushions, thus, had the same densities as the 

nonflotation foams. However, the flotation cushions contained densities somewhat greater than 

the densities of the flotation foam. The same comfort foam materials were used in the 

fabrication of the flotation and nonflotation cushions. 

TABLE 2-3. FOAM DENSITIES 

Nonflotation Flotation

Material w (lb/ft3) Material w (lb/ft3)

NAwa1 4.3 Flotation 1 1.5

NAwa2 3.8 Flotation 2 2.2

NAwa3 4.3 Flotation 3 1.7

NBwb2 4.3 ETHAfoam 2.4

NCwb2 3.4

NDwd1 3.1

NDwd2 3.2

NDwd3 4.4

A muslin cover was bonded to the upper and lower surfaces of test articles fabricated from firehardened materials such as DAX foam. A fire-blocking material was bonded to the bottom

surface and a muslin cover to the upper surface of test articles fabricated from other materials. 

2.3 TEST PROCEDURE.

The data recording procedure consisted of defining a specimen name and entering it into the 

MPT program. A digital still photograph was taken of the test setup, then the test was 

conducted. 

The tests were conducted in stroke control, i.e., loads were imposed as specified displacements. 

Stroke control was selected rather than load control since this is less likely to damage the 

fixtures and transducers. The system is capable of generating loading rates up to 30 in./sec for 

the amount of stroke required during these tests. 

An examination of the test results reveals some oscillations in the unloading curve. These 

continue to the end of the test and may be the modal response of the upper platen to the 

impulsive loading, or they might reflect the intrinsic dynamic response of the servohydraulic 

system. In any event, they do not pose a problem in terms of extracting the material properties 

from the data. 

2-11/2-12
3. RESULTS.

3.1 MATERIAL TEST RESULTS. 

The unfiltered material test data acquired during testing of the cylindrical specimens are 

presented in figures 3-1 through 3-5 for the nonflotation and laminated (flotation) cushions, 

respectively. 

FIGURE 3-1. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR 2-in. NONFLOTATION 

CUSHION SPECIMENS 

FIGURE 3-2. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR 3 1/4-in. NONFLOTATION 

CUSHION SPECIMENS 

3-1
FIGURE 3-3. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR 4 1/2-in. NONFLOTATION 

CUSHION SPECIMENS 

FIGURE 3-4. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR 2-in. FLOTATION 

CUSHION SPECIMENS 

3-2
FIGURE 3-5. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR 4-in. FLOTATION 

CUSHION SPECIMENS 

The third set of flotation cushions were defined as the required thickness of flotation foam

without the usual layer of comfort foam. 

A number of cushion tests were conducted at the FAA CAMI to the conditions specified in 14 

CFR 25.562(b)(1), as described in section 1.2. The cushion test articles corresponded to specific 

material test articles, which were fabricated with the same lamination design. The sled test 

articles were selected to obtain lumbar load data for the strongest, weakest, and intermediate 

strength materials. At least three cushions were tested for each cushions thickness. In selected 

cases, five cushions were tested. The CAMI sled test results are summarized in tables 3-1 and 

3-2. These results have all been scaled to a 14-g deceleration impulse. The cushion-loading rate 

produced during these sled tests was established from photometric analyses of the data and found 

to range from 42-108 in./sec [22]. 

3-3
TABLE 3-1. SUMMARY OF SLED TEST RESULTS FOR NONFLOTATION CUSHIONS 

Material NAwa3 Nawa2 NCwb2 NDwd1 NDwd3

Thickness 

(in.) 

Lumbar Load 

(lb) 

2 1856.2 1173.1 1232.5

2 1186.5*

3 1/4 1778.7 1199.7 1195.0 

3 1/4 1171.9 

4 1/2 1698.5 2136.7 1794.5 1253.8 1155.8 

* Repeat test

TABLE 3-2. SUMMARY OF SLED TEST RESULTS FOR FLOTATION CUSHIONS 

Material FAF1wa1 FAF1wa2 FAF1wa3 FAF2wa2 FAF3wa2 FBEwb2

Thickness 

(in.) 

Lumbar Load 

(lb) 

1 1127.3 1178.6 1085.1

2 1300.7 1465.6 1408.1 1313.9 1261.4

4 1829.7 1761.4 1839.7 1834.9 1410.7

3.2 NONFLOTATION MONOLITHIC CUSHIONS RESULTS.

The load-deflection curves acquired during dynamic component tests of the nonflotation 

cushions are presented in figures 3-6 through 3-8. The scaled lumbar loads acquired during the 

CAMI sled tests are presented as well. The term scaled lumbar load refers to the lumbar load 

that is computed to a 14-g impulse. 

A few general observations are in order before analyzing the properties of this material in detail. 

When comparing these curves, the most distinguishing feature is the plateau strength. It is 

important to remember that the peak strength on the right-hand side of these plots is an artifact of 

the particular test, since this magnitude is not a material property but simply depends on the 

maximum displacement of the actuator. The maximum possible magnitude of the peak load is 

limited either by the capability of the test stand or the melting pressure of the foam’s cell wall 

material.

Load-deflection curves for three different thicknesses of this material are presented in figure 3-9, 

and the scaled lumbar load is plotted versus thickness in figure 3-10. 

3-4
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

NAwa3C200 Dynamic

NDwd1C200 Dynamic

NDwd3C200 Dynamic

1232.5 lb. 

1856.2 lb. 

1186.5 lb.

FIGURE 3-6. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR 2-in. NONFLOTATION (COMFORT) 

FOAM SPECIMENS 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NAwa3C325 Dynamic

NDwd1C325 Dynamic

NDwd3C325 Dynamic

1195.0 lb.

1778.7 lb. 

1199.7 lb. 

FIGURE 3-7. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR 3 1/4-in. NONFLOTATION (COMFORT) 

FOAM SPECIMENS 

3-5
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

012 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

NAwa3C450 Dynamic

NDwd1C450 Dynamic

NDwd3C450 Dynamic

NAwa2C450 Dynamic

NCwb2C450 Dynamic

1155.8 lb. 

2136.7 lb. 

1698.5 lb. 

1253.8 lb. 

1794.5 lb. 

FIGURE 3-8. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVE FOR 4 1/2-in. NONFLOTATION (COMFORT) 

FOAM SPECIMENS 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

012 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NAwa3C200 Dynamic

NAwa3C325 Dynamic

NAwa3C450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-9. NAwa3 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS 

SPECIMEN THICKNESSES 

3-6
y = -63.08x + 1982.8

R2

 = 0.9999

1680

1700

1720

1740

1760

1780

1800

1820

1840

1860

1880

1.522.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Cushion Thickness (in.)

Lu

mbar Load (lb.)

5

FIGURE 3-10. LUMBAR LOAD VS CUSHION THICKNESS FOR NAwa3 SPECIMENS 

The fact that the load-deflection data generate generic material properties is established by 

computing stress-strain curves from these data. The stress-strain curves, which correspond to the 

load-deflection curves presented in figure 3-9, are presented in figure 3-11. 

-20.000

0.000

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500

Log Strain

Stress (psi)

NAwa3C200

NAwa3C325

NAwa3C450

FIGURE 3-11. STRESS-STRAIN CURVES FOR NAwa3 SPECIMENS 

To evaluate whether these are generic data, the unloading curves for the 3 1/4- and 4 1/2-in. 

specimens, i.e., curves NAwa3C325 and NAwa3C450, are shifted to the left so that they 

intersect their loading curves at a log strain of 1.917. This is the standard procedure for a 

material nonlinear analysis and results in the stress-strain curves presented in figure 3-12. 

3-7
-10.000

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000

Log Strain

Stress (psi)

NAwa3C200

NAwa3C325

NAwa3C450

FIGURE 3-12. EQUIVALENCE OF NAwa3 STRESS-STRAIN CURVES 

The significance of the unloading curves and their significance on lumbar load is not as obvious 

as the significance of the loading curve. The unloading characteristics undoubtedly affect 

lumbar load, but it is not possible to quantify this effect without knowing the magnitude of the 

cushion load during the seat test. This load level varies from test to test and cushion to cushion. 

3.3 LAMINATED (FLOTATION) CUSHIONS RESULTS. 

The load-deflection curves for the laminated cushions are shown in figure 3-13. The first set of 

laminated cushions was constructed as a 1-in. layer of soft comfort foam that was bonded on top 

of a layer of flotation foam. The thickness of the flotation foam was determined so that the 

cushion would satisfy the flotation requirements. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 0.511.5 2

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct1 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Ct1 Dynamic

FBEwb2Ct1 Dynamic

FAF1wa1Ct1 Dynamic

FAF1wa3Ct1 Dynamic

1261.4 lb.

1300.7 lb. 

1465.6 lb. 

1313.9 lb. 

1408.1 lb.

FIGURE 3-13. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR Ct1 LAMINATED SPECIMENS 

3-8
A second set of laminated cushions was constructed of a 3-in. layer of soft comfort foam that 

was bonded on top of a layer of flotation foam. 

Examining figures 3-13 and 3-14, it is seen that these curves haves a form similar to that 

exhibited by the nonflotation cushions; however, the data does not bracket the curve developing 

the maximum lumbar load in figure 3-14 and barely brackets it in figure 3-13. One cannot 

reliably identify a relative maximum lumbar load in these figures. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct3 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Ct3 Dynamic

FBEwb2Ct3 Dynamic

FAF1wa3Ct3 Dynamic

FAF3wa2Ct3 Dynamic

1834.9 lb.

1829.7 lb. 

1410.7lb. 

1839.7 lb.

1761.4 lb. 

FIGURE 3-14. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR Ct3 LAMINATED SPECIMENS 

The stress-strain data presented in figure 3-12 was used to compute criteria curves for the 2-in. 

(Ct1) and 4-in. (Ct3) cushion thicknesses. The corresponding lumbar loads were computed for 

the criteria curves using the linear regression presented in figure 3-10. The results are presented 

in figures 3-15 and 3-16. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct1 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Ct1 Dynamic

FBEwb2Ct1 Dynamic

NAwa3C325 Dynamic

1261.4 lb. 1778.7 lb.

1465.6 lb.

1313.9 lb.

FIGURE 3-15. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR Ct1 LAMINATED SPECIMENS 

3-9
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct3 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Ct3 Dynamic

FBEwb2Ct3 Dynamic

NAwa3C450 Dynamic

1829.7 lb. 

1410.7lb. 

1839.7 lb. 

1698.5 lb. 

FIGURE 3-16. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR Ct3 LAMINATED SPECIMENS 

These results show that the criterion curve proposed for the nonflotation cushions is 

inappropriate for use with the laminated flotation cushions. The reason is due to the significant 

difference in the densification displacements of the flotation cushions, which are much lower 

than the densification displacements of the nonflotation cushions. This represents a significant 

difference between the responses of flotation and nonflotation cushions. 

3.4 STATIC TEST RESULTS. 

A series of static tests were performed to address two issues: (1) to assess the rate sensitivity of

these foam cushions and (2) to assess whether the component test could use static testing rather 

than dynamic testing. The static test data for the cylindrical test specimens are presented in 

figures 3-17 through 3-22. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Deflection (in.)

F

orce (lb.)

NAwa3C200 Static

NDwd1C200 Static

NDwd3C200 Static

FIGURE 3-17. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR 2-in. NONFLOTATION 

(COMFORT) SPECIMENS 

3-10
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

01234

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NAwa3C325 Static

NDwd1C325 Static

NDwd3C325 Static

FIGURE 3-18. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR 3 1/4-in. NONFLOTATION 

(COMFORT) FOAM SPECIMENS 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

NAwa3C450 Static

NDwd1C450 Static

NDwd3C450 Static

FIGURE 3-19. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR 4 1/2-in. NONFLOTATION 

(COMFORT) FOAM SPECIMENS 

3-11
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

012 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NAwa3C200 Static

NAwa3C325 Static

NAwa3C450 Static

FIGURE 3-20. NAwa3 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS NONFLOTATION 

FOAM SPECIMEN THICKNESSES 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

NDwd1C200 Static

NDwd1C325 Static

NDwd1C450 Static

FIGURE 3-21. NDwd1 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS NONFLOTATION 

FOAM SPECIMEN THICKNESSES

3-12
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 345

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NDwd3C200 Static

NDwd3C325 Static

NDwd3C450 Static

FIGURE 3-22. NDwd3 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS NONFLOTATION 

FOAM SPECIMEN THICKNESSES 

The static test results of the flotation cushions are presented in figures 3-23 through 3-28. These 

figures illustrate the effects of varying the thickness of the comfort foam layer. Recall that the 

data presented in figure 3-23 are for specimens fabricated of flotation foam only. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct Static

FAF2wa2Ct Static

FBEwb2Ct Static

FIGURE 3-23. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR Ct LAMINATED 

FLOTATION SPECIMENS 

3-13
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct1 Static

FAF2wa2Ct1 Static

FBEwb2Ct1 Static

FIGURE 3-24. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR Ct1 LAMINATED 

FLOTATION SPECIMENS 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct3 Static

FAF2wa2Ct3 Static

FBEwb2Ct3 Static

FIGURE 3-25. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR Ct3 LAMINATED 

FLOTATION SPECIMENS 

3-14
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

012 3 4

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct Static

FAF1wa2Ct1 Static

FAF1wa2Ct3 Static

FIGURE 3-26. FAF1wa2 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS FLOTATION 

SPECIMEN THICKNESSES 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FAF2wa2Ct Static

FAF2wa2Ct1 Static

FAF2wa2Ct3 Static

FIGURE 3-27. FAF2wa2 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS FLOTATION 

SPECIMEN THICKNESSES

3-15
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FBEwb2Ct Static

FBEwb2Ct1 Static

FBEwb2Ct3 Static

FIGURE 3-28. FBEwb2 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS FLOTATION 

SPECIMEN THICKNESSES 

Static component tests were conducted using the modified ASTM D 3574 IFD procedure to 

determine whether they could be used rather than the dynamic test procedure. The results from

these tests are presented in figures 3-29 through 3-31. Cylindrical specimens were used in both 

series of these tests. Results for the nonflotation specimens are presented first. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 345

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NAwa3C200 Static

NAwa3C325 Static

NAwa3C450 Static

NAwa3C200 Dynamic

NAwa3C325 Dynamic

NAwa3C450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-29. STATIC AND DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS FOR NAwa3 

3-16
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

NDwd1C200 Static

NDwd1C325 Static

NDwd1C450 Static

NDwd1C200 Dynamic

NDwd1C325 Dynamic

NDwd1C450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-30. STATIC AND DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS FOR NDwd1 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 123 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

NDwd3C200 Static

NDwd3C325 Static

NDwd3C450 Static

NDwd3C200 Dynamic

NDwd3C325 Dynamic

NDwd3C450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-31. STATIC AND DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS FOR NDwd3 

Static tests were also conducted on the laminated flotation specimens. The results of these tests 

are presented in figures 3-32 through 3-34. 

3-17
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 234

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct Static

FAF1wa2Ct1 Static

FAF1wa2Ct3 Static

FAF1wa2Ct Dynamic

FAF1wa2Ct1 Dynamic

FAF1wa2Ct3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-32. STATIC AND DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS FOR FAF1wa2 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

01234

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

FAF2wa2Ct Static

FAF2wa2Ct1 Static

FAF2wa2Ct3 Static

FAF2wa2Ct Dynamic

FAF2wa2Ct1 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Ct3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-33. STATIC AND DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS FOR FAF2wa2 

3-18
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 234

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FBEwb2Ct Static

FBEwb2Ct1 Static

FBEwb2Ct3 Static

FBEwb2Ct Dynamic

FBEwb2Ct1 Dynamic

FBEwb2Ct3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-34. STATIC AND DYNAMIC TEST RESULTS FOR FBEwb2 

CF-42 pink CONFOR foam was tested statically and dynamically. CONFOR is recognized as a 

rate-sensitive foam and, thus, can serve as a benchmark to determine the degree to which a foam

exhibits significant rate properties. It is available in a number of densities, with CF-42 being one 

of the softer of these. The results of the tests for 2-, 3 1/4-, and 4 1/2-in. CF-42 specimens are 

presented in figure 3-35. Note the much greater difference in the dynamic-to-static strengths for 

this material compared to the results for the other materials presented in figures 3-29 through 

3-34. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

CPC200 Static

CPC325 Static

CPC450 Static

CPC200 Dynamic

CPC325 Dynamic

CPC450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-35. STATIC VS DYNAMIC COMPARISON FOR CONFOR CF-42 

3-19
Component tests were also conducted on the rectangular seat cushions to investigate the 

differences between the responses produced by these specimens and those produced by standard 

cylindrical specimens. The nonflotation cushion test results are presented in figures 3-36 

through 3-41. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

NAwa3R200 Dynamic

NDwd1R200 Dynamic

NDwd3R200 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-36. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR 2-in. NONFLOTATION CUSHIONS 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

NAwa3R325 Dynamic

NDwd1R325 Dynamic

NDwd3R325 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-37. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR 3 1/4-in. NONFLOTATION CUSHIONS

3-20
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

NAwa3R450 Dynamic

NDwd1R450 Dynamic

NDwd3R450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-38. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR 4 1/2-in. NONFLOTATION CUSHIONS

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

012 345

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

NAwa3R200 Dynamic

NAwa3R325 Dynamic

NAwa3R450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-39. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS CUSHION 

THICKNESSES FOR NAwa3 

3-21
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NDwd1R200 Dynamic

NDwd1R325 Dynamic

NDwd1R450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-40. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS CUSHION 

THICKNESSES FOR NDwd1 

FIGURE 3-41. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR VARIOUS CUSHION 

THICKNESSES FOR NDwd3 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

012 345

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NDwd3R200 Dynamic

NDwd3R325 Dynamic

NDwd3R450 Dynamic

3-22
Dynamic component tests were also conducted on rectangular flotation cushions. The results are 

presented in figures 3-42 through 3-47. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Rt Dynamic

FAF2wa2Rt Dynamic

FBEwb2Rt Dynamic

FIGURE 3-42. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR LAMINATED 1-in. 

FLOTATION CUSHIONS 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Rt1 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Rt1 Dynamic

FBEwb2Rt1 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-43. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR LAMINATED 2-in. 

FLOTATION CUSHIONS 

3-23
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 234

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Rt3 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Rt3 Dynamic

FBEwb2Rt3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-44. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR LAMINATED 4-in. 

FLOTATION CUSHIONS 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

FAF1wa2Rt Dynamic

FAF1wa2Rt1 Dynamic

FAF1wa2Rt3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-45. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR FAF1wa2

3-24
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 123 4

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

FAF2wa2Rt Dynamic

FAF2wa2Rt1 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Rt3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-46. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR FAF2wa2 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

Forc

e (lb.)

FBEwb2Rt Dynamic

FBEwb2Rt1 Dynamic

FBEwb2Rt3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-47. LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FOR FBEwb2 

Dynamic material tests were conducted for both cylindrical and rectangular cushion specimens 

to gain insight into the behavior of typical foam materials. One-dimensional stress-strain data 

are often used to model foam materials, and the cylindrical specimen tests can be thought of as 

this kind of one-dimensional problem. The rectangular specimen tests, on the other hand, clearly 

represent a three-dimensional boundary problem. Examining these data, it is seen that the data 

for the rectangular specimens reflects a stronger material than that obtained during the cylinder 

tests. This difference is a measure of foam materials to transfer shear forces through the material 

3-25
and, as such, provides a measure of the differences between a one-dimensional boundary value 

problem and a multidimensional boundary value problem. The differences between the test 

results for the cylindrical and rectangular specimens are evident in figures 3-48 through 3-53. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

012 345

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NAwa3C200 Dynamic

NAwa3C325 Dynamic

NAwa3C450 Dynamic

NAwa3R200 Dynamic

NAwa3R325 Dynamic

NAwa3R450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-48. COMPARISON OF CYLINDRICAL AND RECTANGULAR 

RESPONSES FOR NAwa3 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

For

c

e (lb.)

NDwd1C200 Dynamic

NDwd1C325 Dynamic

NDwd1C450 Dynamic

NDwd1R200 Dynamic

NDwd1R325 Dynamic

NDwd1R450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-49. COMPARISON OF CYLINDRICAL AND RECTANGULAR 

RESPONSES FOR NDwd1 

3-26
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

NDwd3C200 Dynamic

NDwd3C325 Dynamic

NDwd3C450 Dynamic

NDwd3R200 Dynamic

NDwd3R325 Dynamic

NDwd3R450 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-50. COMPARISON OF CYLINDRICAL AND RECTANGULAR 

RESPONSES FOR NDwd3 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 234

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

FAF1wa2Ct Dynamic

FAF1wa2Ct1 Dynamic

FAF1wa2Ct3 Dynamic

FAF1wa2Rt Dynamic

FAF1wa2Rt1 Dynamic

FAF1wa2Rt3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-51. COMPARISON OF CYLINDRICAL AND RECTANGULAR 

RESPONSES FOR FAF1wa2 

3-27
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0123 4

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

FAF2wa2Ct Dynamic

FAF2wa2Ct1 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Ct3 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Rt Dynamic

FAF2wa2Rt1 Dynamic

FAF2wa2Rt3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-52. COMPARISON OF CYLINDRICAL AND RECTANGULAR 

RESPONSES FOR FAF2wa2 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 234

Deflection (in.)

F

orce (lb.)

FBEwb2Ct Dynamic

FBEwb2Ct1 Dynamic

FBEwb2Ct3 Dynamic

FBEwb2Rt Dynamic

FBEwb2Rt1 Dynamic

FBEwb2Rt3 Dynamic

FIGURE 3-53. COMPARISON OF CYLINDRICAL AND RECTANGULAR 

RESPONSES FOR FBEwb2 

3-28
3.5 REGRESSION ANALYSIS. 

The criterion force-deflection curve was determined for the nonflotation cushions by performing 

a series of regression analyses along the family of curves as shown in figures 3-54 and 3-55. In 

these figures, F represents nondimensional force, which is defined as the force divided by the 

maximum force, and δ represents nondimensional deflection, which is defined as the deflection 

divided by the maximum deflection. Note, the data presented in these figures are illustrative; it 

is not test data. 

FIGURE 3-54. TYPICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS—EXAMPLE 1 

FIGURE 3-55. TYPICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS—EXAMPLE 2 

0

100

200

300

400

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Deflection - δ - in.

For

c

e -

F - l

b.

1500 lb.

1000 lb.

1200 lb.

1300 lb.

1150 lb.

Parabolic

Cubic

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10

Deflection - δ - in.

Force -

F - lb.

1500 lb.

1000 lb.

1200 lb.

1300 lb.

1150 lb.

Parabolic

Cubic

ξ

φ

The regression analyses determined the locations of two curves, which maximize the lumbar 

load at each point along the pseudocriterion curve. The pseudocriterion curve is defined as the 

curve associated with the maximum lumbar load measured during the dynamic cushion tests. 

Thus, in this example, the pseudocriterion curve is associated with the 1500-lb curve. The 

regression analysis determined the location of the maximum lumbar load along the φ axis, as 

shown in figure 3-55. Therefore, the ξ−φ coordinate system is defined with the ξ axis bisecting 

3-29
the angle formed by the two adjacent line segments on the pseudocriterion curve. The φ i 

coordinates for each of the load deflection curves are now conveniently determined by a simple 

linear interpolation of the form

 

( ) φ j = φ j ξ i (3-1)

where ξ and φ = computational coordinates representing transformed nondimensional forcedeflection data. 

where the subscripts refer to the i

th point and the jth curve. The transformation to the ξ−φ

computational coordinates is conveniently computed as 

(3-2)

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

− =

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

F

d

θ θ

θ θ

φ

ξ

sin cos

cos sin

which is also written as 

[ ] (3-3)

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧ =

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

F

d

T

φ

ξ

where: 

T = transformation matrix relating ξ and φ to nondimensional force-deflection data 

d = cushion depth (in.) 

F = force (lb) 

The lumbar loads for each of the cushions can now be plotted versus φ and a quadratic curve fit 

to the data, as shown in figure 3-56. 

P = -32.537φ

2

 + 440.01φ - 2.8138

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

φ

Lu

m

bar L

oad (lb.)

FIGURE 3-56. QUADRATIC REGRESSION

3-30
A cubic regression was also performed, as shown in figure 3-57. 

P = 5.6398φ

3

 - 155.18φ

2

 + 1272.4φ - 1748.8

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

φ

Lu

m

bar L

o

ad (lb.)

FIGURE 3-57. CUBIC REGRESSION 

The location of the maximum lumbar load can now be determined by the following * φ

∑ (3-4) =

=

N

i

i P ai

0

φ

( ) 0

1

1

*

= ∑ = =

− N

i

i

i i a

d

dP

φ

φ

φ (3-5)

For the quadratic case, this equation yields 

 0 2 (3-6) 1

* a2 φ + a =

The cubic case yields a similar equation 

3 ( ) 2 1 0 *

2

2 * a3 φ + a φ + a = (3-7)

Recalling that 

= = constant (3-8) ξ ξ i

*

These equations are solved for φ

*

, and the location of the corresponding point on material loaddeflection curve is subsequently computed as 

 [ ] (3-9)

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧ =

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧

*

*

*

*

φ

T ξ T

F

d

3-31
The criterion curve is represented as the curve passing through the loci of the points . 

The cushion force-deflection data was nondimensionalized for numerical implementation of this 

analysis by dividing the force and deflection data by the largest force and largest displacement, 

respectively. The results of the quadratic and cubic regression analyses for the 4 1/2-in. 

nonflotation cushion materials are compared in figure 3-58. 

( , ) * * ξ φ

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0 1 2 3 4

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

Quadratic

Cubic

5

FIGURE 3-58. REGRESSION COMPARISON 

The goodness of the regressions are assessed in figures 3-59 through 3-61, which represent 

section cuts through the data. The first of these represents the data at the beginning of the loaddeflection curves. Note that the direction of the φ* axis is reversed from that shown in 

figure 3-55. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

φ*

Lumbar Load (lb.)

0.3075

Quadratic

Cubic

FIGURE 3-59. REGRESSIONS AT x/xmax = 0.3075 

3-32
A section cut near the center of the load deflection curve is shown in figure 3-60. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0

φ*

Lumbar Load (lb.)

0.63571

Quadratic

Cubic

FIGURE 3-60. REGRESSIONS AT x/xmax = 0.63571 

The final section cut shows the regressions in the densification region, which is at the right side 

of the load-deflection plots. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

-0.95 -0.9 -0.85 -0.8

φ*

Lu

m

b

ar Load (lb.)

0.9742

Quadratic

Poly. (0.9742)

FIGURE 3-61. REGRESSIONS AT x/xmax = 0.9742 

An examination of figures 3-59 through 3-61 show that the second data point from the left in 

these figures, NCwb2C450, does not fit these regressions as well as the other four points. This is 

not evident at the beginning of the load-deflection curve, but develops quickly and persists for 

3-33
the remainder of the curve. This is evidence that another effect, not entirely reflected in the 

regression analysis, influences the lumbar load for this material. This data point has a greater 

affect on the cubic distribution than on the quadratic distribution. Fortunately, it does not 

produce a significant shift in the location of the maximum lumbar load, since the difference 

(along the displacement axis) between the criterion curves predicted by the quadratic and cubic 

regressions is less than the typical thickness tolerance for seat cushion. Nevertheless, the 

quadratic curve is judged to be the better fit of the data and is, thus, selected as the basis for the 

criterion curve. 

A re-examination of the dynamic sled test data reveals that the static deflection for this cushion 

was significantly less than the static deflection for all of the other cushions. This could produce 

a significant increase in the lumbar load, as evidenced by the outlying data point shown in the 

figures 3-60 and 3-61. 

This quadratic curve is superimposed on the experimental load-deflection curves in figure 3-62. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

NAwa3C450 Dynamic

NDwd1C450 Dynamic

NDwd3C450 Dynamic

NAwa2C450 Dynamic

NCwb2C450 Dynamic

Quadratic

FIGURE 3-62. REGRESSION RESULTS, 4 1/2-in. NONFLOTATION FOAMS 

3.6 DISCUSSION. 

The load-deflection data presented above is consistent with the form described by Gibson and 

Ashby. The plateau and densification regions are obvious for all the materials, and the linear 

elastic region is evident during the initial response for most of them. The qualitative correlation 

of lumbar load with the cushion properties suggests the existence of a specific load-deflection 

curve that maximizes the lumbar load for a given cushion thickness. This means that the lumbar 

load associated with curves, either above or below the critical curve, will produce lower lumbar 

loads. It is also noted that for a given thickness of material, the densification strain (or 

displacement) decreases as the plateau strength increases. Conversely, the densification strain is 

also frequently observed to increase as the plateau strength decreases. The data presented in this 

3-34
report clearly shows that the material response generated by a simple foam specimen is quite 

complicated and cannot be completely characterized by a two-point IFD test. 

The results presented also point to the fact that one cannot assume that either the softest cushion, 

i.e., the cushion with the lowest IFD, or the firmest cushion, i.e., the cushion with the greatest 

IFD, will produce the greatest lumbar load. 

The following mental experiment serves as a sanity test for this observation. A 14-g rigid, iron 

seat test dynamic download seat test (without a cushion), per 14 CFR 25.562(b)(1), produced a 

lumbar load well below 1000 lb. One might mentally plot the load-deflection curve for the iron 

seat and compare it with the cushion data presented in this report. Obviously, the load-deflection 

curve for a rigid seat lies above all the cushion data presented in this report. This leads to the 

hypothesis that the lumbar loads associated with the family of load-deflection curves above the 

criterion curve will asymptotically approach the rigid seat load, or about 1000 lb. This, too, is 

consistent with the data produced by this research. 

As a second mental experiment, consider a very soft seat cushion that is placed on the iron seat. 

Imagine a cushion that is so soft that it is completely consolidated under the occupant’s weight. 

Thus, this load-deflection curve lies below all the cushion data presented in this report. 

Recalling that a 1-g preload is imposed on the cushion before conducting a dynamic seat test and 

assuming that this will completely consolidate the extremely soft cushion, one can conclude that 

the post 1-g cushion/seat pan load-deflection curve will be nearly as stiff as the steel plate 

considered in the first mental experiment. Therefore, the lumbar load for this cushion will 

approach 1000 lb as well, thus implying that the lumbar loads associated with the family of loaddeflection curves below the criterion curve will asymptotically approach the rigid seat load at or 

about 1000 lb. 

A review of the results for the laminated cushions reveals that their responses contain both 

similarities and differences when compared to the results for the nonflotation cushions. The 

most obvious similarity is that the criterion curve for the laminated flotation cushions is similar 

to those for monolithic cushions. However, a significant difference lies in the fact that the 

laminated cushion criterion curve is positioned along one side of all the laminated cushion 

properties rather than in the middle of the data. This is consistent with the discussion presented 

above if one recognizes that the rigid layer of flotation foam will never generate the same kind of 

response as a very soft, very weak foam, i.e., the subject of the first mental experiment described 

above. Thus, all flotation cushions inherently behave in a manner that is similar to the forcedeflection curves presented in figures 3-42 through 3-44. However, examining the flotation data 

presented in these figures, it is seen that the flotation criterion curve must lie below and to the 

right of the set of curves presented in these figures. 

3-35/3-36
4. PROPOSED CUSHION REPLACEMENT METHODOLOGY. 

The following method can be used to show that a replacement seat cushion satisfies the lumbar 

load injury criterion of 14 CFR 25.562 or TSO C-127A. This methodology requires that the 

replacement cushions possess the same thickness as the original cushions. The term “same 

thickness” refers to a comparison of the cushion thicknesses in the buttock reference point (BRP) 

region, (which is defined as the area 1 to 9 in. forward of the seat reference point (SRP) and 

±7 in. on each side of the seat centerline). The difference between the thicknesses of the original 

and replacement cushions should differ by no more than 1/2 in. It is expected that a comparison 

of fore-aft section cuts is sufficient to evaluate this requirement. This method was developed for 

cushions whose load-deflection curves can be described by the functional form presented in 

figure 1-3. For example, the nonflotation cushion load-deflection curves presented in figures 3-1 

through 3-3 all possess the same functional form, as do the load-deflection curves for the 

flotation cushions presented in figures 3-13 and 3-14. 

The cushion replacement methodology is, in part, based on the fact that a criterion curve exists, 

which enables the cushion designer and the certification engineer to define and certify a 

replacement cushion that produces a lower lumbar load than the originally certified cushion. 

Note that this evaluation is based on the loading portion of the load-deflection curve. The 

unloading portion is not judged to be as critical for cushions constructed of materials of highly 

rate-sensitive materials or crushable materials. CONFOR is an example of a highly ratesensitive material, and honeycomb or rigid-tooling foams are examples of crushable materials. 

4.1 COMPONENT TEST METHOD.

This test is called the dynamic indentation force deflection test, and the results are called the 

dynamic force-deflection data. The test is appropriate for typical upholstery and flotation foams 

used in the construction of aircraft seat bottom cushions. The method is not intended for use in 

evaluating energy-absorbing seat cushion designs that use honeycomb, highly rate-sensitive 

foam, or rigid-tooling foam in their construction. 

4.1.1 Specimen Definition. 

The specimen shall consist of a 7 1/2-in.-diameter cylinder. The unloaded specimen thickness 

shall represent the unloaded cushion thickness at the position of the anthropomorphic test 

dummy (ATD) ischial tuberosity (BRP) when the dummy is placed in the seat. The BRP is 

located 4 1/2 in. forward of the SRP [22]. The specimens shall feature a similar type of material, 

i.e., fireblocking or muslin, as the certified seat cushion to be replaced. 

4.1.2 Test Apparatus. 

The test shall employ the perforated platten and foot described in ASTM D 3574, Test B1 –

Indentation Force Deflection Test-Specified Deflection. The foot shall be mounted on a 

hemispherical bearing. The platen (horizontal plate) shall be perforated with 1/4-in. holes on 

approximately 3/4-in. centers. It is suggested that the platen be reinforced as described in 

section 2. 

4-1
4.1.3 Instrumentation. 

Instrumentation shall include a force transducer appropriate for the measurement of dynamic 

force data, such as a pzieoresistive load cell or equivalent. 

4.1.4 Pretest Measurements. 

The following pretest measurements should be taken: 

• Measure and record specimen thicknesses at points A-D, shown in figure 4-1. 

• Measure and record specimen diameters A-B and C-D. 

C 

D 

B 

A 

FIGURE 4-1. TEST SPECIMEN GEOMETRY 

It is suggested that the test setup be photographed prior to the test. 

4.1.5 Test Procedure. 

The cushions and fixtures shall be maintained at a temperature between 66o to 78oF for a 

minimum of 4 hours prior to and during the test. The cushions shall be maintained at a relative 

humidity of 10% to 70% for a minimum of 4 hours prior to and during the test. 

The specimen shall be centered under the foot which shall be raised (or lowered) to be nearly in 

contact with the surface of the specimen. Note that the specimens are not to be preflexed as 

required by ASTM D 3574 since this may damage flotation cushions. 

The load cells shall be zeroed (or a tare reading recorded) just prior to the test. 

The specimen shall be loaded in compression, under displacement control, at a loading rate of 

approximately 27-33 in./sec to a maximum deflection corresponding to a L

∆L of 0.9 (or the 

maximum value achievable without risking damage to the test stand and instrumentation). The 

ideal loading curve is shown in figure 4-2, where τ represents the nondimensional time required 

to load and unload the specimen. L represents the original specimen thickness and represents 

the change in thickness, or ram displacement. 

∆L

4-2
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Nondimensional Time − τ

Engineering Strain - ∆L / L

FIGURE 4-2. COMPONENT TEST LOADING IMPULSE 

where 

total t

t

τ = (4-1)

Force and deflection data shall be recorded at a minimum sampling rate of 10,000 samples per 

second. Posttest filtering is not required. 

4.2 APPLICATION TO MONOLITHIC (NONFLOTATION) CUSHIONS. 

The component test for monolithic nonflotation seat cushions is described as follows: 

• Fabricate specimens per section 4.1.1. 

• Perform a component cushion test of the original certified cushion material and the 

proposed replacement cushion material per the procedures described in section 4.1.5. 

The material specimen should represent the cushion material and geometry. 

• Compute the load-deflection criterion curve for the original certified cushion thickness at 

the BRP (using equations 1-9 and 1-10, and the loading portion of the stress-strain data 

for the nonflotation criterion curve presented in figure B-1 and table B-1 in appendix B). 

Typical results for cushions with thicknesses ranging from 2 to 5 inches are presented in 

figure 4-3 and table 4-1 to validate these calculations. 

4-3
0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Deflection (in.)

Force (lb.)

t = 2.0 in.

t = 3.0 in.

t = 4.0 in.

t = 5.0 in.

FIGURE 4-3. NONFLOTATION CRITERION CURVES (A = 44.18 in2) 

TABLE 4-1. CRITERION DATA, NONFLOTATION CUSHIONS (A = 44.18 in2

) 

P (lb) δ2 (in.) δ3 (in.) δ4 (in.) δ5 (in.) 

0.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

101.4 0.102 0.153 0.204 0.255

123.1 0.186 0.280 0.373 0.466

114.9 0.379 0.568 0.758 0.947

128.7 0.552 0.828 1.104 1.380

158.8 0.737 1.105 1.474 1.842

195.6 0.938 1.407 1.876 2.346

230.6 1.058 1.587 2.117 2.646

263.1 1.157 1.736 2.314 2.893

304.7 1.243 1.865 2.486 3.108

356.6 1.342 2.013 2.684 3.355

485.9 1.445 2.168 2.891 3.613

566.1 1.494 2.240 2.987 3.734

643.9 1.522 2.283 3.044 3.805

742.5 1.553 2.329 3.105 3.882

905.6 1.593 2.390 3.187 3.983

1065.0 1.623 2.435 3.247 4.058

1207.6 1.646 2.469 3.292 4.115

1414.8 1.672 2.508 3.344 4.180

1572.7 1.687 2.531 3.375 4.218

1772.4 1.706 2.558 3.411 4.264

2017.0 1.725 2.587 3.450 4.312

2206.9 1.738 2.607 3.475 4.344

2542.8 1.760 2.640 3.520 4.401

4-4
The nonflotation data are also tabulated in table 4-1, where δ i denotes the deflection for a 

cushion of thickness i (i = 2, 3, 4, and 5 in.). 

The performance requirements are as follows. 

1. If the original load-deflection curve possesses a greater plateau strength than the criterion 

curve, as shown in figure 4-4, then the replacement cushion must possess a strength equal 

to or greater than the original cushion material at all points in the Evaluation Region 

defined in figure 4-5. Thus, the Usable Region is defined as the area above the loaddeflection curve for the certified cushion. Note that the loading portion of the material 

response is used to determine the relative position of the certified cushion curve relative 

to the criterion curve. 

Criterion Curve

Certified Cushion

USABLE REGION

Deflection 

Force 

FIGURE 4-4. CASE 1, PLATEAU STRENGTH EXCEEDS CRITERION STRENGTH 

USABLE REGION 

Criterion

Curve

Evaluation 

Region Certified 

Cushion 

Force 

Deflection 

FIGURE 4-5. DEFINITION OF THE EVALUATION REGION 

4-5
2. If the original load-deflection curve possesses a lesser plateau strength than the criterion 

curve in the evaluation region, as shown in figure 4-6, then the replacement cushion must 

possess a strength equal to or lesser than the original cushion material for all points in the 

evaluation region. 

Certified Cushion

Force 

Criterion 

Deflection

FIGURE 4-6. CASE 2, CRITERION STRENGTH EXCEEDS PLATEAU STRENGTH 

3. The determination of whether a specific data set should be analyzed as Case 1 or Case 2 

depends on the data in the evaluation region of the load deflection curve shown in 

figure 4-6. The initial portion of the load-deflection curve controls the 1-g preload 

position, which is known to have a significant affect on the dynamic seat performance. 

The dynamic performance of a seat cushion is also sensitive to the latter part of the 

plateau strength region, i.e., the portion just preceding the densification region. Thus, the 

relative positions of the force-deflection curve and the criterion curve in the evaluation 

region are used to determine whether the plateau strength of the original certified cushion 

is above or below the criterion curve. Note also that the densification displacement of the 

certified cushion is less than densification displacement of the criterion curve when the 

plateau strength of the certified cushion is greater than the plateau strength of the 

criterion curve. Conversely, when the plateau strength of the certified cushion is less 

than the strength of the criterion curve, then the densification displacement of the 

certified cushion is greater than the criterion curve. 

The compliance methodology described in this report cannot be applied to cushions 

possessing a force-deflection curve such as illustrated in figure 4-7. This material is 

identified as one where the load-deflection for the test data intersects the criterion curve 

in the densification region. (An intersection of these curves during the first 1/2 of the 

load-deflection curve is not a problem.) This kind of behavior was not observed during 

this research and may not exist. However, if it is encountered, further research is 

required to develop an appropriate evaluation methodology for these materials. 

4-6
Criterion 

Curve 

Test Data

Evaluation 

Region 

Force 

Deflection 

FIGURE 4-7. INELIGIBLE MATERIAL 

4. The deflection of the proposed cushion must be greater than or equal to the deflection of 

the certified cushion when subjected to a 1-g static preload, which is imposed by placing 

a 50th percentile male ATD on the cushion. This criterion is necessary because the 

component test evaluates the plateau strength region of the material response, not the 

initial response. The static performance may be evaluated by comparing the deflections 

at the SRP positions by placing an ATD on the cushions or by comparing the static 

deflections of component specimens produced by a 130-lb uniformly distributed static 

load using the component test fixture. 

4.3 APPLICATION TO LAMINATED (FLOTATION) CUSHIONS. 

The research results for laminated flotation seat cushions did not lead to a robust component test 

methodology. Therefore, additional tests and analyses are required before the method can be 

extended to these cushions. 

4-7/4-8
5. CONCLUSIONS. 

A qualitative correlation of lumbar load data generated during dynamic sled tests at the Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute with dynamic load-deflection properties generated during material 

tests at Wichita State University shows that a critical load-deflection curve can be identified for 

monolithic nonflotation cushions. This critical curve, or criterion, produces the maximum

lumbar load when compared with other nearby cushion properties. A seat cushion replacement 

methodology was developed and validated, based on these data. This methodology can be used 

to show that a potential replacement seat cushion produces a greater or lesser lumbar load than a 

baseline cushion for which lumbar load data have been measured. 

The load-deflection data for laminated flotation cushions show a trend that is similar to that 

shown for the nonflotation cushions. These data are similar to, but more complicated than, the 

corresponding data for nonflotation cushions. Therefore, additional sled and material test data 

are required to produce a robust methodology for flotation cushions. 

Analyses of the materials data also show that all the cushions exhibit measurable rate sensitivity. 

Not surprisingly, the dynamic results represent a stronger, stiffer response compared to the static 

results. The static load-deflection curves for cushions are similar to the dynamic curves, but it is 

much easier to discriminate between different types of cushions using dynamic data rather than 

static data. Therefore, it is concluded that dynamic tests at 30 in./sec, such as conducted in this 

research, are necessary for the seat cushion component test. 

5-1/5-2
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH. 

The use of a validated biodynamic simulation with MADYMO or modified version of SOM-LA 

to investigate the performance of hypothetical cushions would lead to valuable understanding of 

the physics governing lumbar load performance. This would be particularly useful in 

establishing the significance of the unloading curve and the energy absorbed by the cushion on 

lumbar load. Such a model would facilitate the identification of the criterion curves discussed in 

this report. 

The statistical quality of the data would improve with the inclusion of additional test data. 

Additional tests are also appropriate to investigate the affects of thickness variations in the BRP 

region and the lamination of different layers of soft comfort foams. The possibility of placing a 

limit on how far one is allowed to extrapolate away from the criterion curve should be 

investigated. This is only an issue for cushions that are stronger than the criterion curve. 

Further analytical and experimental studies would contribute to the definition of the criterion 

curve for laminated flotation cushions. The data set presented in this report are insufficient to 

quantify the affects of cushion thickness on these curves. 

6-1/6-2
7. REFERENCES. 

1. Anon., Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25 Airworthiness Standards: 

Transport Category Airplanes, U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of 

Documents, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, D.C. 20402-9328. 

2. FAA TSO-C127a, “Rotorcraft, Transport Airplane, and Normal and Utility Airplane 

Seating Systems,” Technical Standard Order, Federal Aviation Administration, 

Washington, D.C., August 1998. 

3. Stech, E.L. and Payne, P.R., “Dynamic Models of the Human Body,” Frost Engineering 

Development Corp., AMRL Technical Report 66-157, Aerospace Medical Research 

Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, November 1969, AD 701383. 

4. Anon., Department of Defense Joint Service Specification Guide - Crew Systems Crash 

Protection Handbook, JSSG-2010-7, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, October 30, 1998. 

5. Alfaro-Bou, E., Fasanella, E.L., and Williams, M.S., “Crashworthy Design 

Considerations for General Aviation Seats,” SAE 850855, Society of Automotive 

Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1985. 

6. Chandler, R.F., “Human Injury Criteria Relative to Civil Aircraft Seat and Restraint 

Systems,” SAE Paper 851847, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1985. 

7. SAE AS8049, Rev. A, “Performance Standard for Seats in Civil Rotorcraft and Transport 

Aircraft, and General Aviation Aircraft,” SAE Standard, SAE International, Warrendale, 

PA, September 1997. 

8. Desjardins, S.P., et. al., “Aircraft Crash Survival Design Guide Volume IV – Aircraft 

Seats, Restraints, Litters, and Cockpit/Cabin Delethalization,” Aviation Applied 

Technology Directorate, USAAVSCOM TR 89-D-22D, U.S. Army Aviation Research 

and Technology Activity (AVSCOM), Fort Eustis, VA 23604, December 1989. 

9. Auyer, W.L., “A Study of the Dynamic Response of a Damped Multi-Degree of

Freedom, Spring-Mass System Which Simulates a Seat, Seat Cushion, and Seat Occupant 

Subjected to a Vertical Impact Acceleration,” Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe, 

AZ 85287, September 1969. 

10. Laananen, D.H. “Computer Simulation of an Aircraft Seat and Occupants(s) in a Crash 

Environment – Program SOM-LA/SOM-TA User Manual,” FAA report DOT/FAA/CT90/4, May 1991. 

11. MADYMO website: http://www.automotive.tno.nl/smartsite.dws?id=1530, September 

2004. 

12. Coltman, J.W., “Design and Test Criteria for Increased Energy-Absorbing Seat 

Effectiveness,” FAA-AM-83-3. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace 

Medicine, Washington, D.C., 1983. 

7-1
13. Standard Test Methods for Flexible Cellular Materials-Slab, Bonded, and Molded 

Urethane Foams, Standard D 3574-03, American Society for Testing and Materials, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 2003. 

14. Gibson, L.J. and Ashby, M.F., Cellular Solids – Structure and Properties, second ed., 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997. 

15. Anon., Advisory Circular AC 25.562-1A, Dynamic Evaluation of Seat Restraint Systems 

& Occupant Protection on Transport Airplanes,” U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, D.C. 20402-9328. 

16. Bathe, K.J., Finite Element Procedures, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 

07632, 1996. 

17. Hosford, W.F. and Caddell, R.M., Metal Forming- Mechanics and Metallurgy, 2nd ed., 

PTR Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, 1993. 

18. Hooper, S.J. and Henderson, M.J., “Development of a Component Test for Crashworthy 

Seat Bottom Cushions,” JBDA Report No. JBDA-01013RR, Final Report: NASA 

Contract No. NAS1-01013, February 13, 2003. 

19. Anon., “Development of a Seat Cushion Replacement Component Test Method for 

Dynamically Certified Seats,” AGATE Report, C-GEN-3433B-1, NASA AGATE Final 

Report, AGATE Alliance, Inc., Hampton, VA, June 6, 2001. 

20. http://www.earsc.com/HOME/products/CushioningMaterials/CONFORFoams/, 

September 2004. 

21. FAA TSO-C72c, “Individual Flotation Devices,” Technical Standard Order, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., February 1987. 

22. DeWeese, R., Personnel Communications, September 2004. 

7-2
APPENDIX A—DYNAMIC SLED TEST RESULTS

The results of the dynamic seat tests conducted at the Federal Aviation Administration Civil 

Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City are summarized in table A-1. 

TABLE A-1—SUMMARY OF DYNAMIC SLED TEST RESULTS 

Specimen 

Name

Matl. Spec. 

No. 

(NIAR) 

Cush. Spec. 

No. 

(CAMI) 

CAMI 

Test No. 

(Sled Test) 

Sled 

Peak G 

Pelvis 

Peak Fz 

Pelvis Fz 

Normalized 

NAwa2C450 311 508 A04090 15.2 1948.3 1794.5

NAwa3C200 313 510 A04061 14.3 1896 1856.2

NAwa3C325 315 511 A04065 14.7 1867.6 1778.7

NAwa3C450 317 512 A04069 15.6 2380.9 2136.7

NCwb2C450 329 526 A04086 15 1819.8 1698.5

NDwd1C200 331 528 A04035 13 1089.3 1173.1

NDwd1C325 333 529 A04055 14.7 1259.7 1199.7

NDwd1C450 335 530 A04058 14.7 1316.5 1253.8

NDwd3C200 343 537 A04057 14.9 1311.7 1232.5

NDwd3C325 345 538 A04063 14.6 1222.1 1171.9

NDwd3C450 347 539 A04066 14.7 1213.6 1155.8

FAF1wa1Ct1 351 541 A04093 14.9 1384.3 1300.7

FAF1wa2Ct 355 543 A04052 14.7 1183.7 1127.3

FAF1wa2Ct1 357 545 A04060 14.4 1507.5 1465.6

FAF1wa2Ct3 359 547 A04068 15.1 1973.5 1829.7

FAF1wa3Ct1 363 550 A04091 15 1508.7 1408.1

FAF1wa3Ct3 365 551 A04087 15.2 1912.4 1761.4

FAF2wa2Ct 367 552 A04054 14.7 1237.5 1178.6

FAF2wa2Ct1 369 554 A04059 14.7 1379.6 1313.9

FAF2wa2Ct3 371 556 A04067 15.1 1984.2 1839.7

FAF3wa2Ct3 377 562 A04089 15.1 1979.1 1834.9

FBEwb2Ct 379 567 A04053 14.9 1154.9 1085.1

FBEwb2Ct1 381 569 A04056 14.8 1333.5 1261.4

FBEwb2Ct3 383 571 A04064 14.5 1461.1 1410.7

A-1/A-2 
APPENDIX B—CRITERION CURVE STRESS-STRAIN DATA 

The stress-strain data for the criterion curves are provided in this appendix. These data are 

abbreviated forms of the complete data sets, but provide sufficient precision for most 

applications. The nonflotation cushion criterion curve is based on the stress-log strain curve 

presented in figure B-1. These data are also presented in table B-1. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2

Log Strain

Stress (

psi)

.5

FIGURE B-1. NONFLOTATION CRITERION STRESS-STRAIN CURVE 

B-1 
TABLE B-1. NONFLOTATION CRITERION DATA 

Log Strain

(ε) 

Stress 

(σ) 

(psi) 

0.05243 2.44

0.09787 2.96

0.20997 2.76

0.32303 3.10

0.45947 3.82

0.63318 4.70

0.75321 5.55

0.86420 6.33

0.97180 7.33

1.11172 8.58

1.28252 11.69

1.37348 13.62

1.43147 15.49

1.49758 17.86

1.59271 21.78

1.66936 25.62

1.73150 29.05

1.80730 34.03

1.85584 37.83

1.91604 42.64

1.98360 48.52

2.03137 53.09

2.12113 61.17

 

B-2