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

Injury Risk Predictions in Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Extravehicular Activities (EVAs): A Pilot Study

Extravehicular activities will play a crucial role in lunar exploration on upcoming Artemis missions and may involve astronauts operating a lunar terrain vehicle (LTV) in a standing posture. This study assessed kinematic response and injury risks using an active muscle human body model (HBM) restrained in an upright posture on the LTV by simulating dynamic acceleration pulses related to lunar surface irregularities. Linear accelerations and rotational displacements of 5 lunar obstacles (3 craters; 2 rocks) over 5 slope inclinations were applied across 25 simulations. All body injury metrics were below NASA's injury tolerance limits, but compressive forces were highest in the lumbar (250-550N lumbar, tolerance: 5300N) and lower extremity (190-700N tibia, tolerance: 1350N) regions. There was a strong association between the magnitudes of body injury metrics and LTV resultant linear acceleration (ρ = 0.70-0.81). There was substantial upper body motion, with maximum forward excursion reaching 375 mm for the head and 260 mm for the chest. Our findings suggest driving a lunar rover in an upright posture for these scenarios is a low severity impact presenting low body injury risks. Injury metrics increased along the load path, from the lower body (highest metrics) to the upper body (lowest metrics). While upper body injury metrics were low, increased body motion could potentially pose a risk of injury from flail and occupant interaction with the surrounding vehicle, suit, and restraint hardware.

Assessment of finite element human body and ATD models in estimating injury risk in far-side impacts using field-based injury risk

The objective of this study was to assess the ability of finite element human body models (FEHBMs) and Anthropometric Test Device (ATD) models to estimate occupant injury risk by comparing it with field-based injury risk in far-side impacts. The study used the Global Human Body Models Consortium midsize male (M50-OS+B) and small female (F05-OS+B) simplified occupant models with a modular detailed brain, and the ES-2Re and SID-IIs ATD models in the simulated far-side crashes. A design of experiments (DOE) with a total of 252 simulations was conducted by varying lateral ΔV (10-50kph; 5kph increments), the principal direction of force (PDOF 50°, 60°, 65°, 70°, 75°, 80°, 90°), and occupant models. Models were gravity-settled and belted into a simplified vehicle model (SVM) modified for far-side impact simulations. Acceleration pulses and vehicle intrusion profiles used for the DOE were generated by impacting a 2012 Camry vehicle model with a mobile deformable barrier model across the 7 PDOFs and 9 lateral ΔV's in the DOE for a total of 63 additional simulations. Injury risks were estimated for the head, chest, lower extremity, pelvis (AIS 2+; AIS 3+), and abdomen (AIS 3+) using logistic regression models. Combined AIS 3+ injury risk for each occupant was calculated using AIS 3+ injury risk estimations for the head, chest, abdomen, and lower extremities. The injury risk calculated using computational models was compared with field-based injury risk derived from NASS-CDS by calculating their correlation coefficient. The field-based injury risk was calculated using risk curves that were created based on real-world crash data in a previous study (Hostetler et al., 2020). Occupant age (40 years), seatbelt use (belted occupant), collision deformation classification, lateral ΔV, and PDOF of the crash event were used in these curves to estimate field injury risk. Large differences in the kinematics were observed between HBM and ATD models. ATD models tended to overestimate risk in almost every case whereas HBMs yielded better risk estimates overall. Chest and lower extremity risks were the least correlated with field injury risk estimates. The overall risk of AIS 3+ injury risk was the strongest comparison to the field data-based risk curves. The HBMs were still not able to capture all the variance but future studies can be carried out that are focused on investigating their shortfalls and improving them to estimate injury risk closer to field injury risk in far-side crashes.

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.

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.

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.