Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “ergonomics”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1988

Ergonomic Models of Anthropometry, Human Biomechanics and Operator-Equipment Interfaces

The Committee on Human Factors was established in October 1980 by the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council. The committee is sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. The workshop discussed the following: anthropometric models; biomechanical models; human-machine interface models; and research recommendations. A 17-page bibliography is included.

Kroemer, Karl H. E.↗
NASA NTRS1993

The Goddard Space Flight Center ergonomics program

Since the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Cardiovascular Screening Program started in 1984, we have made many changes to accommodate the growing number of participants. As a result of these changes, screening of KSC employees has become more efficient and productive. Various aspects of the program are covered.

Batson, Eileen↗
NASA NTRS1999

Ergonomic Evaluation of the Foot Restraint Equipment Device (FRED)

Within the scope of the Microgravity Workstation and Restraint Evaluation project, funded by the NASA Headquarters Life Sciences Division, evaluations were proposed to be conducted in ground, KC-135, and/or Shuttle environments to investigate the human factors engineering (HFE) issues concerning confined/unique workstations, including crew restraint requirements. As part of these evaluations, KC-135 flights were conducted to investigate user/ workstation/ restraint integration for microgravity use of the FRED with the RMS workstation. This evaluation was a pre-cursor to Detailed Supplementary Objective (DSO) - 904 on STS-88. On that mission, a small-statured astronaut will be using the FRED restraint while working at the Aft RMS workstation. The DSO will collect video for later posture analyses, as well as subjective data in the form of an electronic questionnaire. This report describes the current FRED KC-135 evaluations. The primary objectives were to evaluate the usability of the FRED and to verify the DSO in-flight setup. The restraint interface evaluation consisted of four basic areas of restraint use: 1) adjustability; 2) general usability and comfort; 3) usability at the RMS workstation; and 4) assembly and disassembly.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗
NASA NTRS2000

Ergonomic Evaluation of Space Shuttle Light-Weight Seat Lever Position and Operation

During a Shuttle flight in the early part of 1999, one of the crewmembers was unable to operate the backrest lever for the light-weight seat in microgravity. It is essential that the crewmembers are able to adjust this back-rest lever, which is titled forward 2 degrees from vertical during launch and then moved backwards to 10 degrees aft of vertical upon reaching orbit. This adjustment is needed to cushion the crewmembers during an inadvertent crash landing situation. The original Shuttle seats, which had seat controls located on the front left and right sides of the seat, were replaced recently with the new light-weight seats. The controls for these new, seats were moved to the night side with one control at the front and the other at the back. While it was uncertain whether the problem encountered was unique to that crewmember or not it was clear to the personnel responsible for maintaining the Shuttle seats that not knowing the cause of the problem posed a safety concern for NASA. Hence the Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility (ABF) of the Johnson Space Center was requested to perform an evaluation of the seat controls and provide NASA with appropriate recommendations on whether the seat lever positions and operations should be modified. The ABF designed an experiment to investigate the amount of pull force exerted by subjects, wearing an unpressurized or pressurized crew launch escape suit, when controls were placed in the front and back (on the right side) of the light-weight seat. Single-axis load cells were attached to the seat levers, which measured the maximum static pull forces that were exerted by the subjects. Twelve subjects, six male and six female, participated in this study. Each subject was asked to perform the pull test at least three times for each combination of lever position and suit pressure conditions. The results from this study showed that as a whole (or in general), the subjects were able to pull on the lever at the back position with only about half the amount of force that they were able to exert on the lever at the front position. In addition, the results also showed that subjects wearing the pressurized suit were unable to reach the seat lever when it was located at the back. Furthermore, the pull forces on the front lever diminished about 50 % when subjects wore the pressurized suits. Based on these results from this study, it was recommended to NASA that the levers should not be located in the back position. In addition, further investigation is needed on whether the levers at the front of the seat could be modified or adjusted to increase the leverage for crew members wearing pressurized launch/escape suits.

Maida, J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

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.

England, Scott↗
NASA NTRS2012

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.

England, Scott↗
NASA NTRS2014

The Potential of Wearable Sensor Technology for EVA Glove Ergonomic Evaluation

Injuries to the hands are common among astronauts who train for extravehicular activity (EVA). Many of these injuries refer to the gloves worn during EVA as the root cause. While pressurized, the bladder and outer material of these gloves restrict movement and create pressure points while performing tasks, sometimes resulting in pain, muscle fatigue, abrasions, and occasionally a more severe injury, onycholysis (fingernail delamination). The most common injury causes are glove contact (pressure point/rubbing), ill-fitting gloves, and/or performing EVA tasks in pressurized gloves. A brief review of the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health's injury database reveals over 57% of the total injuries to the upper extremities during EVA training occurred either to the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, fingernail, or the fingertip. Twenty-five of these injuries resulted in a diagnosis of onycholysis.

Reid, Christopher R.↗
NASA NTRS2014

The Potential of Wearable Sensor Technology for EVA Glove Ergonomic Evaluation

Injuries to the hands are common among astronauts who train for extravehicular activity (EVA). Many of these injuries refer to the gloves worn during EVA as the root cause. While pressurized, the bladder and outer material of these gloves restrict movement and create pressure points while performing tasks, sometimes resulting in pain, muscle fatigue, abrasions, and occasionally a more severe injury, onycholysis (fingernail delamination). The most common injury causes are glove contact (pressure point/rubbing), ill-fitting gloves, and/or performing EVA tasks in pressurized gloves. A brief review of the Lifetime Surveillance of Astronaut Health's injury database reveals over 57% of the total injuries to the upper extremities during EVA training occurred either to the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint, fingernail, or the fingertip. Twenty-five of these injuries resulted in a diagnosis of onycholysis

Reid, Christopher R.↗
NASA NTRS2014

An Ergonomic Evaluation of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) Space Suit Hard Upper Torso (HUT) Size Effect on Metabolic, Mobility, and Strength Performance

The objective of this project was to assess the performance differences between a nominally sized Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) space suit and a nominal +1 (plus) sized EMU. Method: This study evaluated suit size conditions by using metabolic cost, arm mobility, and arm strength as performance metrics. Results: Differences between the suit sizes were found only in shoulder extension strength being 15.8% greater for the plus size. Discussion: While this study was able to identify motions and activities that were considered to be practically or statistically different, it does not signify that use of a plus sized suit should be prohibited. Further testing would be required that either pertained to a particular mission critical task or better simulates a microgravity environment that the EMU suit was designed to work in.

Reid, Christopher↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Factors Engineering and Ergonomics in Systems Engineering

The study, discovery, and application of information about human abilities, human limitations, and other human characteristics to the design of tools, devices, machines, systems, job tasks and environments for effective human performance.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗