Engineering topics

F N Matari

Publications and source records attributed to F N Matari.

3 records

NASA NTRS2024

Kinematic Sensors Evaluation for Spaceflight Exercise Data Collections

INTRODUCTION: On the International Space Station (ISS), exercise feedback from astronauts is very important to diagnose and mitigate any form-related injuries and ensure efficacious exercise prescriptions and systems. Going forward, exploration exercise efforts seek to gain further quantitative data of human and system performance. Currently, methods of collecting in-flight exercise data on the ISS are limited to marker-based motion capture (MoCap) where astronauts must wear reflective markers over their clothes and specialized cameras are used. The main objective of this work was to investigate the following alternative tracking options: markerless video-based MoCap and inertial measurement units (IMUs). These were compared against traditional marker-based MoCap to evaluate kinematic accuracy and inform feasible methods for future exercise data collections on the ISS, especially in support of future Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system development. METHODS: Three test subjects performed a variety of flight-like resistance and aerobic exercises using the Miniature Exercise Device (MED-2), Concept-2 rowing ergometer, barbell mockup, bench (e.g., for bench press, hip thruster, and cycling), and a custom structure for dips. These were intended also to represent exercises which could be performed on the multi-modality European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D) [1]. The marker-based MoCap data, collected through a 16-camera OptiTrack MoCap system, was regarded as the gold standard to compare the data against. Passive markers were affixed to each subject according to a modified full body Plug-in Gait marker set [2] with 46 total markers. The markerless MoCap data was collected using two GoPro Hero7 cameras and one GoPro Hero11 camera. For the IMU data, a full body set of 17 Xsens DOTs were placed on the subject: 10 upper body and 7 lower body IMUs. Biomechanical modeling and evaluation was conducted through OpenSim [3] (MoCap), OpenSense [4] (IMU), OpenCap [5] (markerless), ENABLE [6] (markerless), and other modeling software. Secondary objectives included comparing the volume of equipment, reducing mass and crew set-up time. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: While there were issues with initial processing for the IMUs and markerless MoCap, the results aided in the understanding of each sensor, developing end-to-end processes, and identifying future needs. Some observed concerns with the markerless MoCap approaches included being cognizant of a cluttered background, number of people in field of view, camera number and placement. Some challenges with the IMUs included possible sliding, early deactivation possibly due to exercise pose, and large quantity sensor synchronization. Overall, the markerless MoCap option may be the preferred method of data collection and processing as it provides a solution for certain IMU shortcomings and may be least in equipment volume, upmass, and crew setup time. CONCLUSIONS: While this work was mainly focused on ISS data collection, these sensor data along with continued evaluation and development efforts will help to establish best methods for exercise data collection on Gateway, for other Artemis missions, and beyond. Details on the latest end-to-end processing of the data and results will be presented, along with lessons learned and recommended sensor selection and methods.

S Faragalla↗

NASA NTRS2021

Comparing Theoretically Scaled Biomechanical Models

BACKGROUND An investigation into incorporating space suit aspects required a 50th-percentile male model which was not part of the existing dataset of models. Previously, theoretical models for 5th-percentile female and 95th-percentile male were created utilizing a scaled test subject as close as possible to the target height and weight. Scaling factors were created by taking the height ratio and applying it uniformly to the model body segments, then fine tuning to ensure the theoretical model’s height is as expected. This study was initiated to examine the existing method of isometrically scaling in OpenSim [1,2] and to create alternative methods which do not rely on an existing subject being close in height and weight to the theoretical model of interest. Generating a theoretical biomechanical model provides additional abilities without the reliance on available OpenSim models or real subjects. Gained abilities include creating different percentile models and attaining representative anthropometry for any target height/weight, such as targeting specific crew populations or gaps within the current dataset. METHODS AND RESULTS This study includes 3 methods for generating the theoretical model; utilizing the modified unscaled OpenSim Full Body Rajagopal Model (FBRM) [3,4], a dataset of scaled OpenSim models, and existing scaling factors from Dumas et al. [5]. All methods use the Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel (ANSUR II) [6] as an input of necessary anthropometric measurements. The following measurements are retrieved from the ANSUR II collection: mass, stature, cervicale height, acromial height, axilla height, waist height, trochanterion height, lateral femoral epicondyle height, lateral malleolus height, acromion-radiale length, radiale-stylion length, palm length, ball of foot length, bicristal breadth, bimalleolar breadth. Some of the measurements are direct segment lengths and others are utilized to derive segment lengths. Height, weight, and age ranges are the required inputs to parse the collection for a mean value of the measurements. A simple iterative process may be necessary for the output of mean mass and stature consistent with the theoretical model of interest. In some cases, one may specify exact values instead of a range but that is dependent upon whether those exact values pertain to a single subject from the ANSUR II collection. Equations from Dumas et al. were used to calculate scaling factors for the two methods that utilize OpenSim scaled and unscaled models. In the third method, Dumas’ scaling factors were used directly instead of generating our own. After scaling factors are achieved, they are applied along with the mass and segment lengths retrieved from ANSUR II in order to calculate the segment mass, Center of Mass (CoM), mass Moment of Inertia (MoI), and the joint location in the parent frame. The theoretical models from the different methods were compared to the previous existing method of isometrically scaling in OpenSim, as well as the standards found in NASA STD-3000 [7] and the NASA Human Integration Design Handbook [8]. The whole-body center of mass is the main comparison performed between the models and the standards. The body segment mass properties were also compared when possible. In some cases, the standards do not provide complete data, or the center of mass location is not provided with respect to the appropriate joint coordinate system. For a 50th-percentile male subject, results from isometric scaling in OpenSim and the method utilizing the unscaled FBRM were compared to the standards in NASA STD-3000. According to the standard, the whole-body vertical CoM location was taken from the head vertex to the CoM. The standards provide 80.2 cm for the CoM vertical component whereas isometric scaling in OpenSim and utilizing the unscaled FBRM provide 82.2 and 82.3 cm, respectively. Through definition, the whole-body CoM in the medial/lateral direction agreed across the models. Investigation is on-going to clearly identify the reference point pertaining to dorsal/ventral whole-body CoM position in standards and relate that to the theoretical models. REFERENCES [1] Delp, S.L., et al., “OpenSim: Open-source Software to Create and Analyze Dynamic Simulations of Movement”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, (2007). [2] Seth, A., Hicks J.L., Uchida, T.K., Habib, A., Dembia, C.L., Dunne, J.J., Ong, C.F., DeMers, M.S., Rajagopal, A., Millard, M., Hamner, S.R., Arnold, E.M., Yong, J.R., Lakshmikanth, S.K., Sherman,n M.A., Delp, S.L. OpenSim: Simulating musculoskeletal dynamics and neuromuscular control to study human and animal movement. Plos Computational Biology, 14(7). (2018) [3] R. K. Huffman, W. K. Thompson, C. A. Gallo, L. J. Quiocho, “Improvement of Scaling and Inverse Kinematic Results with Additional Upper Body Joints Added to Opensim Rajagopal Model”, NASA Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop, (2019). [4] Huffman R.K., Thompson W., Gallo C., “Modified OpenSim Rajagopal Full Body Model”, New Technology Report, MSC-26872-1. (August 2020). [5] Dumas R., Cheze L. and Verriest J., 2007. “Adjustments to McConville et al. and Young et al. body segment inertial parameters”. Journal of Biomechanics 40, pp. 543-553 [6] Gordon C.C., 2012 “Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics”, US Army Natick Soldier RD&E Center. [7] NASA STD-3000/REV-B, 1995. “The Man-System Integration Standards” [8] NASA/SP-2010-3407/REV-1, 2014. “The Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)”

F N Matari↗

NASA NTRS2020

Multibody Based Digital Astronaut Dynamics Simulation

BACKGROUND: This study provides the Software, Robotics, & Simulation Division at the NASA Johnson Space Center with a verification tool for multibody dynamics simulation requiring human motion. The motivation stems from current studies of several Vibration Isolation & Stabilization(VIS)system designs that attenuate the moments and forces which would be transmitted to a spacecraft during an exercise. A multibody dynamics model for a proposed VIS was available previously[1], therefore modeling of the VIS was not needed for this work. The interest here is in creating the multibody dynamics model of an astronaut in motion which may be utilized independently or while attached to a mechanism. An existing simulation [2] that utilizes OpenSim [3,4] and an in-house multibody dynamics package (MBDyn) [5] is used in order to verify the astronaut model. The main advantage this model will have over the existing simulation is that everything will be processed in one tool. METHODS AND RESULTS: Creating the simulation required; estimation of Body Segment Inertial Parameters (BSIP),a multibody model of the human-VIS system, joint acceleration profiles, and input files for MBDyn, which is used for this analysis. The scaling factors provided by Dumas et al. [6] are utilized in estimating the BSIP. Anthropometric data are used for estimating these parameters, the Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel (ANSUR II) [7] was the source. The astronaut model consists of 15 bodies, 14 joints and 32 degrees of freedom, with the dynamics topology generated using the center of mass locations and anthropometric data. MBDyn has an option for prescribed joint motion (PJM), which requires joint acceleration data as input. The joint angle data is first obtained from a motion capture system and then processed through code that has been created to generate approximate joint acceleration profiles. The topology tree for the astronaut model begins at the right foot up to the pelvis where there is one branch for going down the left leg and another for the torso. The torso branch leads to branches for the arms and a leaf body for the head/neck segment. For attachment to the VIS, the heel of the right foot is connected to the VIS platform through a fixed joint, resembling a foot restraint. The left foot does not attach to the platform in order to prevent a system with a closed loop. Topology and symmetry of the astronaut model were verified through kinematic analysis. Further verification of the forces and moments transmitted to the VIS were verified against the existing simulation. There was a satisfactory level of agreement when testing a simple motion, for example, rocking back and forth. Full exercise motions are to be tested soon. The main outcome has been a novel application of MBDyn for biomechanics modeling that is now available for dynamic simulations involving human motion. The estimation of BSIP was another useful result of this study, requiring only 15 inputs for generating mass properties of a theoretical astronaut model. Expansion on this work is possible by going through an alternative route in obtaining the joint motion data. Instead of high-tech and often expensive motion capture systems, an individual may watch videos with high focus and at a slow motion for each individual segment in order to determine the initial and final time and angle for that specific degree of freedom. Synthetic trajectories may also be created if there is no video reference available.

F N Matari↗