Multi-Direction Validation of a Finite Element 50th Percentile Male Hybrid III Anthropomorphic Test Device for Spaceflight Applications

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.

Variations in User Implementation of the CORA Rating Metric

The CORA rating metric is frequently used in the field of injury biomechanics to compare the similarity of response time histories. However, subjectivity exists within the CORA metric in the form of user-customizable parameters that give the metric the flexibility to be used for a variety of applications. How these parameters are customized is not always reported in the literature, and it is unknown how these customizations affect the CORA scores. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how variations in the CORA parameters affect the resulting similarity scores. A literature review was conducted to determine how the CORA parameters are commonly customized within the literature. Then, CORA scores for two datasets were calculated using the most common parameter customizations and the default parameters. Differences between the CORA scores using customized and default parameters were statistically significant for all customizations. Furthermore, most customizations produced score increases relative to the default settings. The use of standard deviation corridors and exclusion of the corridor component were found to produce the largest score differences. The observed differences demonstrated the need for researchers to exercise transparency when using customized parameters in CORA analyses.

Head injury metric response in finite element ATDs and a human body model in multidirectional loading regimes

Objective: The objective was to quantify head injury metric sensitivity of the 50th percentile male Hybrid III, THOR, and Global Human Body Models Consortium simplified occupant (GHBMC M50-OS) to changes in loading conditions in loading regimes that may be experienced by occupants of spaceflight vehicles or highly autonomous vehicles (HAVs) with nontraditional seating configurations.Methods: A Latin hypercube (LHD) design of experiments (DOE) was employed to develop boundary conditions for 455 unique acceleration profiles. Three previously validated finite element (FE) models of the Hybrid III anthropomorphic test device (ATD), THOR ATD, and GHBMC M50-OS were positioned in an upright 90°-90°-90° seat and with a 5-point belt. Acceleration pulses were applied to each of the three occupants in the ± X, +Y, and ± Z directions, with peak resultant acceleration magnitudes ranging from 5 to 20 G and times to peak ranging from 32.5 to 120.8 ms with duration 250 ms, resulting in 1,248 simulations. Head injury metrics included peak linear head acceleration, peak rotational head acceleration, head injury criteria (HIC15), and brain injury criteria (BrIC). Injury metrics were regressed against boundary condition parameters using 2nd order multiple polynomial regression, and compared between occupants using matched pairs Wilcoxon signed rank analysis.Results: Across the 416 matched-simulations that reached normal termination with all three models, HIC15 values ranged from 1.0-396.5 (Hybrid III), 1.2-327.9 (THOR), and 0.6-585.6 (GHBMC). BrIC ranged from 0.03-0.95 (Hybrid III), 0.03-1.21 (THOR), and 0.04-0.84 (GHBMC). Wilcoxon signed rank analysis demonstrated significant pairwise differences between each of the three occupant models for head injury metrics. For HIC15, the largest divergence between GHBMC and the ATDs was observed in simulations with components of combined underbody and rear impact loading. The three models performed most similarly with respect to BrIC output when loaded in a frontal direction. Both the GHBMC and the Hybrid III produced lower values of BrIC than the THOR on average, with the differences most pronounced in rear impact loading.Conclusion: In conclusion, observed differences between the occupant models' head injury metric output were quantified. Loading direction had a large effect on metric outcome and metric comparability across models, with frontal and rear impacts with low vertical acceleration tending to be the most similar. One explanation for these differences could be the differences in neck stiffness between the models that allowed more rotation in the GHBMC and THOR. Care should be taken when using ATDs as human volunteer surrogates in these low energy events.