Modeling and simulation credibility assessments of whole-body finite element computational models for use in NASA extravehicular activity applications.

Computational finite element (FE) models are used in suited astronaut injury risk assessments; however, these models' verification, validation, and credibility (VV&C) procedures for simulating injuries in altered gravity environments are limited. Our study conducts VV&C assessments of THUMS and Elemance whole-body FE models for predicting suited astronaut injury biomechanics using eight credibility factors, as per NASA-STD-7009A. Credibility factor ordinal scores are assigned by reviewing existing documentation describing VV&C practices, and credibility sufficiency thresholds are assigned based on input from subject matter experts. Our results show the FE models are credible for suited astronaut injury investigation in specific ranges of kinematic and kinetic conditions correlating to highway and contact sports events. Nevertheless, these models are deficient when applied outside these ranges. Several credibility elevation strategies are prescribed to improve models' credibility for the NASA-centric application domain.

Effect of Active Muscles on Astronaut Kinematics and Injury Risk for Piloted Lunar Landing and Launch While Standing.

While astronauts may pilot future lunar landers in a standing posture, the response of the human body under lunar launch and landing-related dynamic loading conditions is not well understood. It is important to consider the effects of active muscles under these loading conditions as muscles stabilize posture while standing. In the present study, astronaut response for a piloted lunar mission in a standing posture was simulated using an active human body model (HBM) with a closed-loop joint-angle based proportional integral derivative controller muscle activation strategy and compared with a passive HBM to understand the effects of active muscles on astronaut body kinematics and injury risk. While head, neck, and lumbar spine injury risk were relatively unaffected by active muscles, the lower extremity injury risk and the head and arm kinematics were significantly changed. Active muscle prevented knee-buckling and spinal slouching and lowered tibia injury risk in the active vs. passive model (revised tibia index: 0.02-0.40 vs. 0.01-0.58; acceptable tolerance: 0.43). Head displacement was higher in the active vs. passive model (11.6 vs. 9.0 cm forward, 6.3 vs. 7.0 cm backward, 7.9 vs. 7.3 cm downward, 3.7 vs. 2.4 cm lateral). Lower arm movement was seen with the active vs. passive model (23 vs. 35 cm backward, 12 vs. 20 cm downward). Overall simulations suggest that the passive model may overpredict injury risk in astronauts for spaceflight loading conditions, which can be improved using the model with active musculature.

Development and Validation of an Active Muscle Simplified Finite Element Human Body Model in a Standing Posture.

Active muscles play an important role in postural stabilization, and muscle-induced joint stiffening can alter the kinematic response of the human body, particularly that of the lower extremities, under dynamic loading conditions. There are few full-body human body finite element models with active muscles in a standing posture. Thus, the objective of this study was to develop and validate the M50-PS+Active model, an average-male simplified human body model in a standing posture with active musculature. The M50-PS+Active model was developed by incorporating 116 skeletal muscles, as one-dimensional beam elements with a Hill-type material model and closed-loop Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller muscle activation strategy, into the Global Human Body Models Consortium (GHBMC) simplified pedestrian model M50-PS. The M50-PS+Active model was first validated in a gravity standing test, showing the effectiveness of the active muscles in maintaining a standing posture under gravitational loading. The knee kinematics of the model were compared against volunteer kinematics in unsuited and suited step-down tests from NASA's active response gravity offload system (ARGOS) laboratory. The M50-PS+Active model showed good biofidelity with volunteer kinematics with an overall CORA score of 0.80, as compared to 0.64 (fair) in the passive M50-PS model. The M50-PS+Active model will serve as a useful tool to study the biomechanics of the human body in vehicle-pedestrian accidents, public transportation braking, and space missions piloted in a standing posture.

Effects of Standing, Upright Seated, vs. Reclined Seated Postures on Astronaut Injury Biomechanics for Lunar Landings.

Astronauts may pilot a future lunar lander in a standing or upright/reclined seated posture. This study compared kinematics and injury risk for the upright/reclined (30°; 60°) seated vs. standing postures for lunar launch/landing using human body modeling across 30 simulations. While head metrics for standing and upright seated postures were comparable to 30 cm height jumps, those of reclined postures were closer to 60 cm height jumps. Head linear acceleration for 60° reclined posture in the 5 g/10 ms pulse exceeded NASA's tolerance (10.1 g; tolerance: 10 g). Lower extremity metrics exceeding NASA's tolerance in the standing posture (revised tibia index: 0.36-0.53; tolerance: 0.43) were lowered in seated postures (0.00-0.04). Head displacement was higher in standing vs. seated (9.0 cm vs. 2.4 cm forward, 7.0 cm vs. 1.3 cm backward, 2.1 cm vs. 1.2 cm upward, 7.3 cm vs. 0.8 cm downward, 2.4 cm vs. 3.2 cm lateral). Higher arm movement was seen with seated vs. standing (40 cm vs. 25 cm forward, 60 cm vs. 15 cm upward, 30 cm vs. 20 cm downward). Pulse-nature contributed more than 40% to the injury metrics for seated postures compared to 80% in the standing posture. Seat recline angle contributed about 22% to the injury metrics in the seated posture. This study established a computational methodology to simulate the different postures of an astronaut for lunar landings and generated baseline injury risk and body kinematics data.

Simulated Astronaut Kinematics and Injury Risk for Piloted Lunar Landings and Launches While Standing.

During future lunar missions, astronauts may be required to pilot vehicles while standing, and the associated kinematic and injury response is not well understood. In this study, we used human body modeling to predict unsuited astronaut kinematics and injury risk for piloted lunar launches and landings in the standing posture. Three pulses (2-5 g; 10-150 ms rise times) were applied in 10 directions (vertical; ± 10-degree offsets) for a total of 30 simulations. Across all simulations, motion envelopes were computed to quantify displacement of the astronaut's head (max 9.0 cm forward, 7.0 cm backward, 2.1 cm upward, 7.3 cm downward, 2.4 cm lateral) and arms (max 25 cm forward, 35 cm backward, 15 cm upward, 20 cm downward, 20 cm lateral). All head, neck, lumbar, and lower extremity injury metrics were within NASA's tolerance limits, except tibia compression forces (0-1543 N upper tibia; 0-1482 N lower tibia; tolerance-1350 N) and revised tibia index (0.04-0.58 upper tibia; 0.03-0.48 lower tibia; tolerance-0.43) for the 2.7 g/150 ms pulse. Pulse magnitude and duration contributed over 80% to the injury metric values, whereas loading direction contributed less than 3%. Overall, these simulations suggest piloting a lunar lander vehicle in the standing posture presents a tibia injury risk which is potentially outside NASA's acceptance limits and warrants further investigation.

Investigation of the THOR Anthropomorphic Test Device for Predicting Occupant Injuries during Spacecraft Launch Aborts and Landing.

The objective of this study was to investigate new methods for predicting injury from expected spaceflight dynamic loads by leveraging a broader range of available information in injury biomechanics. Although all spacecraft designs were considered, the primary focus was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Orion capsule, as the authors have the most knowledge and experience related to this design. The team defined a list of critical injuries and selected the THOR anthropomorphic test device as the basis for new standards and requirements. In addition, the team down-selected the list of available injury metrics to the following: head injury criteria 15, kinematic brain rotational injury criteria, neck axial tension and compression force, maximum chest deflection, lateral shoulder force and displacement, acetabular lateral force, thoracic spine axial compression force, ankle moments, and average distal forearm speed limits. The team felt that these metrics capture all of the injuries that might be expected by a seated crewmember during vehicle aborts and landings. Using previously determined injury risk levels for nominal and off-nominal landings, appropriate injury assessment reference values (IARVs) were defined for each metric. Musculoskeletal deconditioning due to exposure to reduced gravity over time can affect injury risk during landing; therefore a deconditioning factor was applied to all IARVs. Although there are appropriate injury data for each anatomical region of interest, additional research is needed for several metrics to improve the confidence score.