Engineering topics
Cowley, Matthew
Publications and source records attributed to Cowley, Matthew.
Spherical Coordinate Systems for Streamlining Suited Mobility Analysis
Introduction: When describing human motion, biomechanists generally report joint angles in terms of Euler angle rotation sequences. However, there are known limitations in using this method to describe complex motions such as the shoulder joint during a baseball pitch. Euler angle notation uses a series of three rotations about an axis where each rotation is dependent upon the preceding rotation. As such, the Euler angles need to be regarded as a set to get accurate angle information. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to visualize and understand these complex motion representations. It has been shown that using a spherical coordinate system allows Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) personnel to increase their ability to transmit important human mobility data to engineers, in a format that is readily understandable and directly translatable to their design efforts. Objectives: The goal of this project was to use innovative analysis and visualization techniques to aid in the examination and comprehension of complex motions. Methods: This project consisted of a series of small sub‐projects, meant to validate and verify a new method before it was implemented in the ABF's data analysis practices. A mechanical test rig was built and tracked in 3D using an optical motion capture system. Its position and orientation were reported in both Euler and spherical reference systems. In the second phase of the project, the ABF estimated the error inherent in a spherical coordinate system, and evaluated how this error would vary within the reference frame. This stage also involved expanding a kinematic model of the shoulder to include the rest of the joints of the body. The third stage of the project involved creating visualization methods to assist in interpreting motion in a spherical frame. These visualization methods will be incorporated in a tool to evaluate a database of suited mobility data, which is currently in development. Results: Initial results demonstrated that a spherical coordinate system is helpful in describing and visualizing the motion of a space suit. The system is particularly useful in describing the motion of the shoulder, where multiple degrees of freedom can lead to very complex motion paths.
Space Suit Performance: Methods for Changing the Quality of Quantitative Data
NASA is currently designing a new space suit capable of working in deep space and on Mars. Designing a suit is very difficult and often requires trade‐offs between performance, cost, mass, and system complexity. To verify that new suits will enable astronauts to perform to their maximum capacity, prototype suits must be built and tested with human subjects. However, engineers and flight surgeons often have difficulty understanding and applying traditional representations of human data without training. To overcome these challenges, NASA is developing modern simulation and analysis techniques that focus on 3D visualization. Early understanding of actual performance early on in the design cycle is extremely advantageous to increase performance capabilities, reduce the risk of injury, and reduce costs. The primary objective of this project was to test modern simulation and analysis techniques for evaluating the performance of a human operating in extra‐vehicular space suits.
Human Performance in Simulated Reduced Gravity Environments
NASA is currently designing a new space suit capable of working in deep space and on Mars. Designing a suit is very difficult and often requires trade‐offs between performance, cost, mass, and system complexity. Our current understanding of human performance in reduced gravity in a planetary environment (the moon or Mars) is limited to lunar observations, studies from the Apollo program, and recent suit tests conducted at JSC using reduced gravity simulators. This study will look at our most recent reduced gravity simulations performed on the new Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) compared to the C‐9 reduced gravity plane. Methods: Subjects ambulated in reduced gravity analogs to obtain a baseline for human performance. Subjects were tested in lunar gravity (1.6 m/sq s) and Earth gravity (9.8 m/sq s) in shirt‐sleeves. Subjects ambulated over ground at prescribed speeds on the ARGOS, but ambulated at a self‐selected speed on the C‐9 due to time limitations. Subjects on the ARGOS were given over 3 minutes to acclimate to the different conditions before data was collected. Nine healthy subjects were tested in the ARGOS (6 males, 3 females, 79.5 +/- 15.7 kg), while six subjects were tested on the C‐9 (6 males, 78.8 +/- 11.2 kg). Data was collected with an optical motion capture system (Vicon, Oxford, UK) and was analyzed using customized analysis scripts in BodyBuilder (Vicon, Oxford, UK) and MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). Results: In all offloaded conditions, variation between subjects increased compared to 1‐g. Kinematics in the ARGOS at lunar gravity resembled earth gravity ambulation more closely than the C‐9 ambulation. Toe‐off occurred 10% earlier in both reduced gravity environments compared to earth gravity, shortening the stance phase. Likewise, ankle, knee, and hip angles remained consistently flexed and had reduced peaks compared to earth gravity. Ground reaction forces in lunar gravity (normalized to Earth body weight) were 0.4 +/- 0.2 on the ARGOS, but only 0.2 +/- 0.1 on the C‐9. Discussion: Gait analysis showed differences in joint kinematics and temporal‐spatial parameters between the reduced gravity simulators and with respect to earth gravity. Although most of the subjects chose a somewhat unique ambulation style as a result of learning to ambulate in a new environment, all but two were consistent with keeping an Earth‐like gait. Learning how reduced gravity affects ambulation will help NASA to determine optimal suit designs, influence mission planning, help train crew, and may shed light on the underlying methods the body uses to optimize gait for energetic efficiency. Conclusion: Kinematic and kinetic analysis demonstrated noteworthy differences between an offloaded environment and 1‐g, as would be expected. The analysis showed a trend to change the ambulation style in an offloaded environment to a rolling‐loping walk (resembling crosscountry skiing) with increased swing time. This ambulation modification, particularly in the ARGOS, indicated that the relative kinetic energy of the subject was increased, on average, per the static body weight compared to the 1‐g condition. How much of this was influenced by the active offloading of the ARGOS system is unknown.
Comparative Ergonomic Evaluation of Spacesuit and Space Vehicle Design
With the advent of the latest human spaceflight objectives, a series of prototype architectures for a new launch and reentry spacesuit that would be suited to the new mission goals. Four prototype suits were evaluated to compare their performance and enable the selection of the preferred suit components and designs. A consolidated approach to testing was taken: concurrently collecting suit mobility data, seat-suit-vehicle interface clearances, and qualitative assessments of suit performance within the volume of a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle mockup. It was necessary to maintain high fidelity in a mockup and use advanced motion-capture technologies in order to achieve the objectives of the study. These seemingly mutually exclusive goals were accommodated with the construction of an optically transparent and fully adjustable frame mockup. The construction of the mockup was such that it could be dimensionally validated rapidly with the motioncapture system. This paper describes the method used to create a space vehicle mockup compatible with use of an optical motion-capture system, the consolidated approach for evaluating spacesuits in action, and a way to use the complex data set resulting from a limited number of test subjects to generate hardware requirements for an entire population. Kinematics, hardware clearance, anthropometry (suited and unsuited), and subjective feedback data were recorded on 15 unsuited and 5 suited subjects. Unsuited subjects were selected chiefly based on their anthropometry in an attempt to find subjects who fell within predefined criteria for medium male, large male, and small female subjects. The suited subjects were selected as a subset of the unsuited medium male subjects and were tested in both unpressurized and pressurized conditions. The prototype spacesuits were each fabricated in a single size to accommodate an approximately average-sized male, so select findings from the suit testing were systematically extrapolated to the extremes of the population to anticipate likely problem areas. This extrapolation was achieved by first comparing suited subjects performance with their unsuited performance, and then applying the results to the entire range of the population. The use of a transparent space vehicle mockup enabled the collection of large amounts of data during human-in-the-loop testing. Mobility data revealed that most of the tested spacesuits had sufficient ranges of motion for the selected tasks to be performed successfully. A suited subject's inability to perform a task most often stemmed from a combination of poor field of view in a seated position, poor dexterity of the pressurized gloves, or from suit/vehicle interface issues. Seat ingress and egress testing showed that problems with anthropometric accommodation did not exclusively occur with the largest or smallest subjects, but also with specific combinations of measurements that led to narrower seat ingress/egress clearance.
Evaluating Suit Fit Using Performance Degradation
The Mark III planetary technology demonstrator space suit can be tailored to an individual by swapping the modular components of the suit, such as the arms, legs, and gloves, as well as adding or removing sizing inserts in key areas. A method was sought to identify the transition from an ideal suit fit to a bad fit and how to quantify this breakdown using a metric of mobility-based human performance data. To this end, the degradation of the range of motion of the elbow and wrist of the suit as a function of suit sizing modifications was investigated to attempt to improve suit fit. The sizing range tested spanned optimal and poor fit and was adjusted incrementally in order to compare each joint angle across five different sizing configurations. Suited range of motion data were collected using a motion capture system for nine isolated and functional tasks utilizing the elbow and wrist joints. A total of four subjects were tested with motions involving both arms simultaneously as well as the right arm by itself. Findings indicated that no single joint drives the performance of the arm as a function of suit size; instead it is based on the interaction of multiple joints along a limb. To determine a size adjustment range where an individual can operate the suit at an acceptable level, a performance detriment limit was set. This user-selected limit reveals the task-dependent tolerance of the suit fit around optimal size. For example, the isolated joint motion indicated that the suit can deviate from optimal by as little as -0.6 in to -2.6 in before experiencing a 10% performance drop in the wrist or elbow joint. The study identified a preliminary method to quantify the impact of size on performance and developed a new way to gauge tolerances around optimal size.
Spacesuit and Space Vehicle Comparative Ergonomic Evaluation
With the advent of the latest manned spaceflight objectives, a series of prototype launch and reentry spacesuit architectures were evaluated for eventual down selection by NASA based on the performance of a set of designated tasks. A consolidated approach was taken to testing, concurrently collecting suit mobility data, seat-suit-vehicle interface clearances and movement strategies within the volume of a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle mockup. To achieve the objectives of the test, a requirement was set forth to maintain high mockup fidelity while using advanced motion capture technologies. These seemingly mutually exclusive goals were accommodated with the construction of an optically transparent and fully adjustable frame mockup. The mockup was constructed such that it could be dimensionally validated rapidly with the motion capture system. This paper will describe the method used to create a motion capture compatible space vehicle mockup, the consolidated approach for evaluating spacesuits in action, as well as the various methods for generating hardware requirements for an entire population from the resulting complex data set using a limited number of test subjects. Kinematics, hardware clearance, suited anthropometry, and subjective feedback data were recorded on fifteen unsuited and five suited subjects. Unsuited subjects were selected chiefly by anthropometry, in an attempt to find subjects who fell within predefined criteria for medium male, large male and small female subjects. The suited subjects were selected as a subset of the unsuited subjects and tested in both unpressurized and pressurized conditions. Since the prototype spacesuits were fabricated in a single size to accommodate an approximately average sized male, the findings from the suit testing were systematically extrapolated to the extremes of the population to anticipate likely problem areas. This extrapolation was achieved by first performing population analysis through a comparison of suited subjects performance to their unsuited performance and then applying the results to the entire range of population. The use of a transparent space vehicle mockup enabled the collection of large amounts of data during human-in-the-loop testing. Mobility data revealed that most of the tested spacesuits had sufficient ranges of motion for tasks to be performed successfully. A failed tasked by a suited subject most often stemmed from a combination of poor field of view while seated and poor dexterity of the gloves when pressurized or from suit/vehicle interface issues. Seat ingress/egress testing showed that problems with anthropometric accommodation does not exclusively occur with the largest or smallest subjects, but rather specific combinations of measurements that lead to narrower seat ingress/egress clearance.
Evaluating Suit Fit Using Performance Degradation
The Mark III suit has multiple sizes of suit components (arm, leg, and gloves) as well as sizing inserts to tailor the fit of the suit to an individual. This study sought to determine a way to identify the point an ideal suit fit transforms into a bad fit and how to quantify this breakdown using mobility-based physical performance data. This study examined the changes in human physical performance via degradation of the elbow and wrist range of motion of the planetary suit prototype (Mark III) with respect to changes in sizing and as well as how to apply that knowledge to suit sizing options and improvements in suit fit. The methods implemented in this study focused on changes in elbow and wrist mobility due to incremental suit sizing modifications. This incremental sizing was within a range that included both optimum and poor fit. Suited range of motion data was collected using a motion analysis system for nine isolated and functional tasks encompassing the elbow and wrist joints. A total of four subjects were tested with motions involving both arms simultaneously as well as the right arm only. The results were then compared across sizing configurations. The results of this study indicate that range of motion may be used as a viable parameter to quantify at what stage suit sizing causes a detriment in performance; however the human performance decrement appeared to be based on the interaction of multiple joints along a limb, not a single joint angle. The study was able to identify a preliminary method to quantify the impact of size on performance and to develop a means to gauge tolerances around optimal size. More work is needed to improve the assessment of optimal fit and to compensate for multiple joint interactions.
Improving Realism in Reduced Gravity Simulators
Since man was first determined to walk on the moon, simulating the lunar environment became a priority. Providing an accurate reduced gravity environment is crucial for astronaut training and hardware testing. This presentation will follow the development of reduced gravity simulators to a final comparison of environments between the currently used systems. During the Apollo program era, multiple systems were built and tested, with several NASA centers having their own unique device. These systems ranged from marionette-like suspension devices where the subject laid on his side, to pneumatically driven offloading harnesses, to parabolic flights. However, only token comparisons, if any, were made between systems. Parabolic flight allows the entire body to fall at the same rate, giving an excellent simulation of reduced gravity as far as the biomechanics and physical perceptions are concerned. While the effects are accurate, there is limited workspace, limited time, and high cost associated with these tests. With all mechanical offload systems only the parts of the body that are actively offloaded feel any reduced gravity effects. The rest of the body still feels the full effect of gravity. The Partial Gravity System (Pogo) is the current ground-based offload system used to training and testing at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The Pogo is a pneumatic type system that allows for offloaded motion in the z-axis and free movement in the x-axis, but has limited motion in the y-axis. The pneumatic system itself is limited by cylinder stroke length and response time. The Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) is a next generation groundbased offload system, currently in development, that is based on modern robotic manufacturing lines. This system is projected to provide more z-axis travel and full freedom in both the x and y-axes. Current characterization tests are underway to determine how the ground-based offloading systems perform, how they compare to parabolic flights, and which of the systems is preferable for specific uses. These tests were conducted with six degree of freedom robots and manual inputs. Initial results show a definitive difference in abilities of the two offload systems.