| Title |
Ranges of Injury Risk Associated with Impact from Unmanned Aircraft Systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10439-017-1921-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eamon T. Campolettano, Megan L. Bland, Ryan A. Gellner, David W. Sproule, Bethany Rowson, Abigail M. Tyson, Stefan M. Duma, Steven Rowson |
| Abstract |
Regulations have allowed for increased unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations over the last decade, yet operations over people are still not permitted. The objective of this study was to estimate the range of injury risks to humans due to UAS impact. Three commercially-available UAS models that varied in mass (1.2-11 kg) were evaluated to estimate the range of risk associated with UAS-human interaction. Live flight and falling impact tests were conducted using an instrumented Hybrid III test dummy. On average, live flight tests were observed to be less severe than falling impact tests. The maximum risk of AIS 3+ injury associated with live flight tests was 11.6%, while several falling impact tests estimated risks exceeding 50%. Risk of injury was observed to increase with increasing UAS mass, and the larger models tested are not safe for operations over people in their current form. However, there is likely a subset of smaller UAS models that are safe to operate over people. Further, designs which redirect the UAS away from the head or deform upon impact transfer less energy and generate lower risk. These data represent a necessary impact testing foundation for future UAS regulations on operations over people. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 36% |
| China | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Finland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 13 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 86% |
| Scientists | 3 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 20 | 34% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 19 | 32% |