Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “OpenSim”

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.

36 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Biomechanical Modeling of Split-leg Squat and Heel Raise on the Hybrid Ultimate Lifting Kit (HULK)

Long duration space travel will expose astronauts to extended periods of reduced gravity. Since gravity is not present to aid loading, astronauts will use resistive and aerobic exercise regimes for the duration of the space flight to minimize the loss of bone density, muscle mass and aerobic capacity that occurs during exposure to a reduced gravity environment. Unlike the International Space Station (ISS), the area available for an exercise device in the next generation of spacecraft is limited and therefore compact resistance exercise device prototypes are being developed. The Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED) currently on the ISS is being used as a benchmark for the functional performance of these new devices. Biomechanical data collection and computational modeling aid the device design process by quantifying the joint torques and musculoskeletal forces that occur during exercises performed on the prototype devices. Computational models currently use OpenSim software, an open source code for musculoskeletal modeling, with biomechanical input data from subjects for estimation of muscle and joint loads. Subjects are instrumented with reflective markers for motion capture data collection while exercising on the Hybrid Ultimate Lifting Kit (HULK) prototype device. Ground reaction force data is collected with force plates under the feet and device loading is recorded through load cells internal to the HULK. This data is input into the OpenSim biomechanical model, which has been scaled to match the anthropometrics of the test subject, to calculate the loads on the body. Multiple exercises are performed and evaluated during a test session such as a full squat, single leg squat, heel raise and dead lift. Variables for these exercises include applied device load, narrow or wide foot stance, slow or fast cadence and the harness or long bar interface between the test subject and the device. Data from free weights are compared to the resistively loaded exercise device. The focus of this presentation is to summarize the results from the single-leg squat and heel raise exercises performed during three sessions occurring in 2015. Differences in loading configuration, cadence and stance produce differences in kinematics, joint toques and force and muscle forces.

computational modeling↗
NASA NTRS2017

MPCV Exercise Operational Volume Analysis

In order to minimize the loss of bone and muscle mass during spaceflight, the Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) will include an exercise device and enough free space within the cabin for astronauts to use the device effectively. The NASA Digital Astronaut Project (DAP) has been tasked with using computational modeling to aid in determining whether or not the available operational volume is sufficient for in-flight exercise.Motion capture data was acquired using a 12-camera Smart DX system (BTS Bioengineering, Brooklyn, NY), while exercisers performed 9 resistive exercises without volume restrictions in a 1g environment. Data were collected from two male subjects, one being in the 99th percentile of height and the other in the 50th percentile of height, using between 25 and 60 motion capture markers. Motion capture data was also recorded as a third subject, also near the 50th percentile in height, performed aerobic rowing during a parabolic flight. A motion capture system and algorithms developed previously and presented at last years HRP-IWS were utilized to collect and process the data from the parabolic flight [1]. These motions were applied to a scaled version of a biomechanical model within the biomechanical modeling software OpenSim [2], and the volume sweeps of the motions were visually assessed against an imported CAD model of the operational volume. Further numerical analysis was performed using Matlab (Mathworks, Natick, MA) and the OpenSim API. This analysis determined the location of every marker in space over the duration of the exercise motion, and the distance of each marker to the nearest surface of the volume. Containment of the exercise motions within the operational volume was determined on a per-exercise and per-subject basis. The orientation of the exerciser and the angle of the footplate were two important factors upon which containment was dependent. Regions where the exercise motion exceeds the bounds of the operational volume have been identified by determining which markers from the motion capture exceed the operational volume and by how much. A credibility assessment of this analysis was performed in accordance with NASA-STD-7009 prior to delivery to the MPCV program.

mathematical models↗
NASA NTRS2021

Analysis of Exercise Loads to Inform Vibration Isolation System Design

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted with the primary interest of providing data that would inform Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system design and performance for the European Enhanced Exploration Exercise Device (E4D). In preparation for the International Space Station (ISS) in-flight demonstration, a list of critical Human Health Countermeasures (HHC) exercises was compiled [1]. The goal of this study was to assess the ground reaction forces and moments imposed by an exercising subject in each of the six VIS Degrees of Freedom (DOFs) during a comprehensive set of these critical exercises performed on the E4D. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ISS in-flight demonstration list of critical exercises included seated aerobic rowing, bent-over rowing, cycling, front squats, back squats, conventional deadlifts, Romanian deadlifts, heel raises, overhead presses, reverse chops, and power clean presses. At the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Prototype Immersive Technology (PIT) laboratory, motion capture data were collected on critical E4D exercises for six subjects. At the NASA JSC Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) facility, additional motion capture and load cell data were collected on offloaded trials for four subjects. Select data were extrapolated to represent a 5th percentile female subject and a 95th percentile male subject. A previous investigation comparing the forces obtained from the load cell and from motion capture based data found a satisfactory level of agreement between the two measurements [2]. The motion capture based data were analyzed for this study since it is driven by the subject’s trajectory alone, automatically excluding any forces exerted on the subject by the ARGOS offloading harness. The OpenSim [3, 4] biomechanical simulation inverse kinematics tool was used to calculate the joint angles based on the locations of motion capture markers placed at key positions on the subject’s body. An OpenSim plugin was then used to obtain the forces and moments generated by the subject during each trial, with the moments computed relative to the equilibrium location of the subject’s feet [5]. The force of gravity was also removed to simulate the loads generated by the exercise when performed in microgravity. The load plots for each trial were generated and visually analyzed to obtain the magnitudes of the peak loads for each exercise in each DOF. The typical period of exercise for each trial was also estimated and used to calculate the frequency for each trial. The exercise loads data was then organized in multiple ways to capture different aspects of the data. As a result of this study, we present a summary of the load magnitudes observed during these critical exercises utilizing the E4D.

C A Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Accuracy of Center of Pressure Determination via Motion Capture

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to support the stability assessment for tasks in lunar gravity and exercises on a Vibration Isolation and Stabilization (VIS) system in microgravity based on the dynamic feasibility criterion of whether the calculated position of the center of pressure (COP) falls within the base of support (BOS) which outlines the subject’s feet. Motion capture data combined with biomechanical modeling and simulation allows the forces and moments between the human and the VIS platform to be computed and the position of the COP as well as the location and shape of the BOS to be determined. The goal of this study was to assess the accuracy of the COP trajectory calculated using motion capture-based data. METHODS AND RESULTS: To obtain the dynamic quantities from which COP is calculated, motion capture data is first collected in the 1g lab environment by recording the trajectories of passive retroreflective markers placed on a subject during exercise or performance of a given task. The OpenSim [1] inverse kinematics (IK) tool is used to fit a scaled subject model to recorded marker trajectories while minimizing marker error to obtain joint angles. Then, a custom OpenSim plugin [2] is used to determine the subject’s time-varying moment of inertia and its time derivative, center of mass (CM) position, velocity, and acceleration, as well as the angular momentum and its time derivative relative to the subject’s CM. Some of these quantities are not needed for modeling tasks performed on a stationary lunar surface but, due to the moving exercise platform, are needed to model VIS response to the subject’s motion. Hand positions, used in calculating a cable force if present, are recorded as well. These quantities are used to calculate the total force (F ⃗^((plate) )) and moment (M ⃗^((plate) )) exerted by the lunar surface or the VIS plate on the subject’s shoe soles. COP is then calculated from the following equations: r_x^((cop) )= M_z^((plate) )/F_y^((plate) ) and r_z^((cop) )= 〖-M〗_x^((plate) )/F_y^((plate) ), where the y axis is normal to the surface. COP accuracy for feasibility assessments is then determined by whether it falls within the BOS, which is also computed by the plugin. To study the accuracy of COP calculated from motion capture, we first investigated whether COP remained within the BOS, as it must, for exercises performed in the 1g lab environment. Standard exercises such as back squat and deadlift were analyzed, as well as more explosive exercises including hang clean and press. Cases in which the COP exited the BOS indicated that COP accuracy required further investigation. In this study, an exercise device with cables was used, so cable force modeling accuracy should also be considered. In a separate study, we collected motion capture and force plate data for twenty-seven motions not involving an exercise device. About a third were genuine countermeasures exercises (e.g., hang clean and press), some were relevant for lunar tasks (e.g., object pick up), and the rest were of a “unit test” nature (e.g., swaying back and forth or side to side). Motion capture-based COP positions were compared with force plate measured COP. We found that while force plate measured COP remained within the BOS, motion capture-based COP was observed to briefly exit the BOS on occasion. Techniques to mitigate IK artifacts and filtering of calculated data could be used to improve the agreement of calculated and measured results, resolving excursions from the BOS within this dataset. The mean error between calculated and measured COP was found to be less than 6 mm. Additionally, we derived and investigated equations for the COP in terms of the cable force, cable location, as well as the human CM position, acceleration, and angular momentum with respect to the CM, and analyzed them for sensitivity to errors in individual quantities. Several were found, but the most significant one was that when the vertical force on the feet approaches zero, indicating a near-detachment or ‘jump off’ condition, errors are amplified. This is consistent with the observation that in the absence of pressure, the concept of the center of pressure would become meaningless.

C A Bell↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TOWARD A METHOD FOR SCALING HUMAN BODY MODELS IN AN IMU-BASED WORKFLOW

BACKGROUND Scaled biomechanical models can more accurately inform crew health decisions when tailored to the wide range of astronaut sizes. One component to improve scaling of existing models to better represent each unique astronaut’s size is the individual length scaling of limbs. Traditionally, these lengths are determined by motion capture or manual measurement. A new method is herein proposed for length scaling which can be done by measuring linear and angular accelerations at a desired point during isolated motion around a point of rotation, then calculating the distance between the desired point and point of rotation. When an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) device is placed at the distal point of a limb, the isolated motion is about that limb’s proximal joint. For example, to measure forearm length, an IMU is placed at the wrist, the point of rotation is at the elbow, and the isolated motion is forearm flexion and extension. These calculated lengths are then used to scale models to each unique astronaut’s size, thereby improving the applicability of the model. This method of scaling limb segments can be used for any limb that has an easily defined proximal joint for the limb to rotate around including hands, arms, legs, feet. Utilizing IMUs for data collection also provides the synergistic ability to record data without a dedicated space in a room with many cameras, therefore reducing the data collection footprint, or record data where optical motion capture is not possible, such as inside a spacesuit. METHODS AND RESULTS To test this method, upper body data collection was performed with 5 Xsens DOT IMUs on a single subject. IMUs consist of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer which collect linear acceleration, angular velocity, and magnetic fluctuations, respectively. Before any ground-based laboratory collection, the magnetic fluctuations are used to correct the heading of the IMU in space relative to the Earth’s magnetic field. The direct measurement of angular velocity is integrated to calculate angular acceleration. Then the linear acceleration ( a ) and angular acceleration (α) are solved using r = at/α to calculate the radius, which in this case is the distance between the IMU and the point of rotation (i.e., segment length). The IMU must be placed at the most distal point of the limb being measured (i.e., ankle if measuring lower leg length) and the test plan must consist of an isolated motion about that limb’s proximal joint (i.e., knee flexion and extension if measuring lower leg length). The distances (radii) calculated at every time interval were filtered (bandpass filter keeping 5th-90th percentile data) to eliminate outliers and spurious data that occur when the isolated motion was stopped or nearly stopped. The remaining distances were averaged, resulting in the calculated limb length. Scaling factors were then computed by dividing the calculated limb length by the unscaled model’s length. These scale factors are plugged into the Scale Tool in OpenSim [1,2] to apply the scaling to the OpenSim Full Body Rajagopal Model [3,4]. Manual measurements of limb lengths were taken before data collection started and used for comparing against the calculated lengths. The Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel (ANSUR II) [5] was also used as a third source of reference for limb length measurements. The following measurements were retrieved from the subject before data collection: 34.5 cm from L1 to C7 (thorax), 25.7 cm from C7 Joint Center (JC) to head vertex (neck and head), 36.3 cm from shoulder JC to elbow JC (humerus), 29.5 cm from elbow JC to wrist JC (forearm), and 16.2 cm from clavicle to acromion (clavicle). Of those five, forearm and humerus lengths were calculated using this proposed method to obtain preliminary results. The forearm length after filtering and averaging was calculated to be 37.6 cm. This is a 28% overestimation from the measured forearm length (29.5 cm). The humerus length after filtering and averaging was calculated to be 47.8 cm. This is a 31% difference from the measured subject length (36.3 cm). Sources of error include imperfect isolated motion (method currently expects that motion should be perfectly circular in a 2D plane, include no rotation of the IMU, and be relatively smooth; a more secure IMU attachment method will help), unrefined filter techniques (removed highest and lowest values with 20% high and low pass filters and no smoothing filters), arbitrary removal of stopped or near stopped data (kept data for only a short range before and after the angular velocity peaking), and a more representative method for removing gravitational acceleration is needed (current method is to zero all accelerations against a baseline taken just before the isolated motion which does not account for the gravitational acceleration changed due to IMU rotation during movement). Addressing these error sources will improve the accuracy of the limb length calculation. Next steps include creating a method for whole-body scaling estimation using individual limb scale factors. Continued pursuit of these techniques is expected to enable acquiring anthropometric information using only IMUs in real-time.

E. K. Marecki↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Dynamics of A Vibration Isolation System Including Inertia of the Human Body

Using an exercise device in a spacecraft is liable to transmit an unacceptable amount of vibration to that vehicle. This is commonly mitigated by a Vibration Isolation System (VIS), whose dynamics must be analyzed to confirm that the oscillatory forces on the spacecraft remain within allowed range, both from a structural and microgravity perspective (see, e.g., [1]). When modeling a VIS for countermeasures devices, one common approach is to record forces and moments applied on the floor while exercising, and then drive the VIS simulation by applying these recorded loads to the exercise platform part of the VIS mechanical model. This approach misses the fact that when exercising on a moving platform, the force and moment on it will differ from that on the stationary floor due to inertial effects involving the human body. For example, standing up on a platform as it gives under the subject’s feet reduces the foot force on it, and such inertial effects are especially complex for rotational motion. In principle, one could model both the motion of the human body and dynamics of the VIS mechanism in a single combined simulation, e.g., employing a tool such as the commonly used biomechanical simulation OpenSim. Here, the joints of the human body would be driven kinematically along prescribed exercise trajectories while the dynamics engine computed the response of the VIS degrees of freedom. However, mechanism designers and biomechanics experts have their own established tools, making it very desirable to have a way of decoupling the biomechanics from the VIS modeling, simulation, and analyses. We have derived a set of equations that rigorously accomplishes this goal, and have implemented them as an interface function that provides an alternative driving mechanism for an existing force-based VIS analysis simulation. When enabled, the simulated human/VIS system dynamics is now driven by this function, instead of the recorded force methodology described above. The function is designed to accept input from a data file containing the required time-stamped human motion and inertia terms corresponding to the specific exercise in question. This data file is generated by an OpenSim plugin written for that purpose. The existing VIS analytical simulation is developed using NASA’s Trick Simulation Environment [2], as well as its MBDyn multibody dynamics [3] package. The presentation will provide a detailed overview of the mathematical formulation, assumptions, plugin implementation, software interfaces, and results for a sample set of representative exercises. The results from this work aim to better inform VIS design efforts, as well as countermeasure device/protocol designs with respect to exercise type and frequency effects on vehicle structural and microgravity restrictions.

Countermeasures↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Next Generation Exercise Device (NGED): Advancing Exercise Capabilities for Future Space Missions Through Biomechanical Modeling

BACKGROUND As space exploration extends to long-duration missions on the Moon and Mars, maintaining astronaut health and fitness becomes increasingly critical. The Next Generation Exercise Device (NGED), developed and tested by the HumanWorks Lab in NASA Johnson Space Center's (JSC) Software, Robotics, and Simulation Division, aims to address this challenge through innovative approaches. This study presents the development and evaluation of an NGED system, focusing on its adaptability to various mission scenarios, including prospective use in a Lunar Pressurized Rover (LPR). Central to this project is the application of biomechanical modeling to optimize exercise efficacy and safety in microgravity and partial gravity environments. The project is a collaborative effort with the Human Health and Performance group at Johnson Space Center, ensuring a comprehensive approach to astronaut well-being that integrates biomechanical principles with practical exercise solutions. The NGED represents the next generation of exercise capabilities for missions in space, on the Moon and Mars, with a specific focus on applications such as the LPR. METHODS AND RESULTS Data collection for NGED development was conducted with two motor-driven Beyond Power Voltra I [1] systems and a custom test structure to allow placement of the cable-based devices on the ground, at shoulder height, and overhead. The collection was performed in JSC’s Prototype Immersive Technology (PIT) Lab, utilizing an OptiTrack motion capture system and AMTI force platform, to enable detailed biomechanical analysis via OpenSim [2,3]. Motion capture data were collected for three subjects representing different body types and statures. The marker set used was an enhanced version of the full-body Plug-in Gait marker set [4], with additional markers strategically placed for the primary objective of informing exercise volume requirements. Subjects performed a series of 17 exercises, carefully selected to engage various muscle groups, including novel spaceflight exercises such as skiing (ergometer style), lateral pulldowns, wood chops, triceps extensions, and flies, with load variations ranging from 10 to 90 pounds to maintain kinematic form. This comprehensive approach allowed for a thorough evaluation of the NGED's performance across a wide range of motions and loads. The biomechanical modeling and analysis were conducted using a modified OpenSim Full Body Rajagopal Model [4,5] and also scaled to the maximum and minimum anthropometry provided in NASA-STD-3001 [6]. Volumetric convex hulls were generated based on model marker trajectories and aggregated into geometric assemblies. These can be placed in models of vehicle designs to assess fit to protect for exercise as well as to adapt NGED exercise to fit available space. Preliminary findings from the collection indicate that the NGED prototype demonstrates significant adaptability across varying user anthropometrics and exercise types. The device showed consistent performance in load-bearing exercises, with subjects able to perform exercises effectively while maintaining proper biomechanical form. CONCLUSION NGED represents a forward-looking advancement in exercise capabilities for future space missions. In the future, this system can be used to capture valuable metrics (e.g., isometric mid-thigh pull for force output measurements, assessments of postural muscle strength, overall isometric strength). Its versatility in accommodating various exercises and user physiques, coupled with the ability to provide targeted biomechanical loading, makes it a promising approach for maintaining astronaut health during long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars. Future work will focus on refining the NGED based on initial biomechanical findings, leveraging the detailed insights provided by motion capture and analysis techniques. Particular emphasis will be placed on optimizing its use within the confined spaces of a LPR and other space habitats. This work contributes significantly to NASA's goals of supporting human health and performance in deep space exploration, paving the way for sustainable long-term presence beyond Low Earth Orbit through advanced, biomechanically-informed exercise solutions.

C Wang↗
NASA NTRS2011

Kinematics and Kinetics of Squat and Deadlift Exercises with Varying Stance Widths

The primary motion of squat and deadlift exercise involves flexion and extension of the hips, knees, and ankles, but each exercise can be performed with variations in stance width. These variations may result in differing kinematics and ground reaction forces (GRF), which may in turn affect joint loading. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare ankle, knee, and hip kinematics and kinetics of normal squat (NS), wide-stance squat (WS), normal deadlift (ND), and sumo deadlift (SD). We hypothesized that hip joint kinematics and work at each joint would differ between exercise variations. METHODS: Six subjects (3 m/3 f; 70.0 plus or minus 13.7 kg; 168 plus or minus 9.9 cm) performed each lift in normal gravity on the ground-based version of the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED) used on the International Space Station. The ARED provided resistance with a combination vacuum tube/flywheel mechanism designed to replicate the gravitational and inertial forces of free weights. Subjects completed each lift with their 10-repetition maximum load. Kinematic data were collected at 250 Hz by a 12-camera motion-capture system (Smart-D, BTS Bioengineering, Milan, Italy), and GRF data were collected at 1000 Hz with independent force platforms for each leg (Model 9261, Kistler Instruments AG, Winterhur, Switzerland). All data were captured simultaneously on a single workstation. The right leg of a single lift for each motion was analyzed. Modeling software (OpenSim 2.2.0, Simbios, Palo Alto, CA) determined joint kinematics and net positive and negative work at each lower extremity joint. Total work was found as the sum of work across all joints and was normalized by system mass. Effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals were computed between conditions. RESULTS: Peak GRF were similar for each lift. There were no differences between conditions in hip flexion range of motion (ROM). For hip adduction ROM, there were no differences between the NS, WS, and SD. However, hip adduction ROM was greater during the NS and SD than during the ND. Hip rotation ROM was greater during the WS than during the NS and SD, and was greater during the SD than during the ND. For knee and ankle flexion ROM, the ND, WS, and SD were not different, but ROM was greater during the NS than the ND and greater during the WS than the SD. Total eccentric work was greater during the WS than the SD. Otherwise, there were no differences in eccentric or concentric work between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Although squat and deadlift exercises consist of similar motions, there are kinematic differences between them that depend on stance width. Total eccentric and concentric work are similar for different lifts, but differing kinematics may require activation of different musculature for each variation. With respect to each condition, in the ND the ROM of each joint tended to be less, and the WS tended to trade knee motion for hip motion. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Knowledge of differences in kinematics and kinetics between different squat and deadlift variations is important for coaches and rehabilitation personnel to understand when prescribing exercise. Our results suggest that each variation of the squat and deadlift should be considered a separate exercise that may induce different long-term training effects.

DeWitt, John K.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Digital Astronaut Project Biomechanical Models: Biomechanical Modeling of Squat, Single-Leg Squat and Heel Raise Exercises on the Hybrid Ultimate Lifting Kit (HULK)

The NASA Digital Astronaut Project (DAP) implements well-vetted computational models to predict and assess spaceflight health and performance risks, and to enhance countermeasure development. The DAP Musculoskeletal Modeling effort is developing computational models to inform exercise countermeasure development and to predict physical performance capabilities after a length of time in space. For example, integrated exercise device-biomechanical models can determine localized loading, which will be used as input to muscle and bone adaptation models to estimate the effectiveness of the exercise countermeasure. In addition, simulations of mission tasks can be used to estimate the astronaut's ability to perform the task after exposure to microgravity and after using various exercise countermeasures. The software package OpenSim (Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA) (Ref. 1) is being used to create the DAP biomechanical models and its built-in muscle model is the starting point for the DAP muscle model. During Exploration missions, such as those to asteroids and Mars, astronauts will be exposed to reduced gravity for extended periods. Therefore, the crew must have access to exercise countermeasures that can maintain their musculoskeletal and aerobic health. Exploration vehicles may have very limited volume and power available to accommodate such capabilities, even more so than the International Space Station (ISS). The exercise devices flown on Exploration missions must be designed to provide sufficient load during the performance of various resistance and aerobic/anaerobic exercises while meeting potential additional requirements of limited mass, volume and power. Given that it is not practical to manufacture and test (ground, analog and/or flight) all candidate devices, nor is it always possible to obtain data such as localized muscle and bone loading empirically, computational modeling can estimate the localized loading during various exercise modalities performed on a given device to help formulate exercise prescriptions and other operational considerations. With this in mind, NASA's Digital Astronaut Project (DAP) is supporting the Advanced Exercise Concepts (AEC) Project, Exercise Physiology and Countermeasures (ExPC) laboratory and NSBRI-funded researchers by developing and implementing well-validated computational models of exercises with advanced exercise device concepts. This report focuses specifically on lower-body resistance exercises performed with the Hybrid Ultimate Lifting Kit (HULK) device as a deliverable to the AEC Project.

health↗
NASA NTRS2016

Biomechanical Modeling of the Deadlift Exercise to Improve the Efficacy of Resistive Exercise Microgravity Countermeasures

During long-duration spaceflight missions, astronauts exposure to microgravity without adequate countermeasures can result in losses of muscular strength and endurance, as well as loss of bone mass. As a countermeasure to this challenge, astronauts engage in resistive exercise during spaceflight to maintain their musculoskeletal function. The Hybrid Ultimate Lifting Kit (HULK) has been designed as a prototype exercise device for an exploration-class vehicle; the HULK features a much smaller footprint than previous devices such as the Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED) on the International Space Station (ISS), which makes the HULK suitable for extended spaceflight missions in vehicles with limited volume. As current ISS exercise countermeasure equipment represents an improvement over previous generations of such devices, the ARED is being employed as a benchmark of functional performance. This project involves the development of a biomechanical model of the deadlift exercise, and is novel in that it is the first exercise analyzed in this context to include the upper limbs in the loading path, in contrast to the squat, single-leg squat, and heel raise exercises also being modeled by our team. OpenSim software is employed to develop these biomechanical models of humans performing resistive exercises to assess and improve the new exercise device designs. Analyses include determining differences in joint and muscle forces when using different loading strategies with the device, comparing and contrasting with the ARED benchmark, and determining whether the loading is sufficient to maintain musculoskeletal health. During data collection, the number of repetitions, load, cadence, stance, and grip width are controlled in order to facilitate comparisons between loading configurations. To date, data have been collected for two human subjects performing the deadlift exercise on the HULK device using two different loading conditions. Recorded data include motion capture, electromyography (EMG), ground reaction forces, device load cell data, photos and videos, and anthropometric data. Work is ongoing to perform biomechanical analyses including inverse kinematics and inverse dynamics to compare different versions of the deadlift model in order to determine which provides an appropriate level of detail to study this exercise. This work is supported by the National Space Biomedical Research Institute through NCC 9-58.

physical exercise↗
NASA NTRS2018

Influence of Load Profile on Biomechanics of the Squat and Deadlift

Long duration space travel will expose astronauts to extended periods of reduced gravity. Since gravity is not present to assist loading, astronauts will use resistive and aerobic exercise regimes for the duration of the space flight to counteract the effect reduced gravity has on the body. Astronauts will exercise on a flywheel based device on the second Orion Exploration Mission (EM2). The effect that the flywheel load profile has on biomechanics is unknown when compared to free weights or a simulated free weight profile. The purpose of this evaluation is to compare the differences in lower body kinematics and kinetics between the flywheel and free weight profile. Test subjects were instrumented with reflective markers for motion capture data collection while exercising on the Device for Aerobic and Resistive Training (DART) prototype developed by TDA Research, Inc. of Wheat Ridge, CO. Exercises performed were either the squat while wearing a harness or deadlift while grasping a T-bar, both of which interfaced with the DART through a rope cable. The DART, a motorized device controlled via software, is capable of producing different load profiles. Profiles include simulated free weights with adjustable eccentric overload capability and flywheel. Test variables included the applied device load and the load profile, both set through the DART software interface. Motion capture data was collected with a 12 camera system (Smart-DX, BTS Bioengineering, Brooklyn, NY). Bilateral ground reaction force data were collected with force plates (P6000, BTS Bioengineering). DART cable force was recorded through an internal load cell. Data was collected from a total of four test subjects. The three repetition maximum was determined for each test subject for both squat and deadlift. High, medium and low loads were determined based on this maximum. The test subject performed five repetitions of each exercise at each load and each test trial was repeated twice. Cadence was controlled during exercising. Biomechanical data were used to drive the models utilizing the OpenSim software platform. Subject specific models were scaled to match the anthropometrics of the test subjects and used to estimate the peak joint angle, joint range of motion, the peak joint moment and the joint moment impulse of the lower extremity joints and the lumbar joint.These are preliminary results because the data analysis is ongoing. There was a lot of inter-subject variability, however, in general, there was a greater peak lumbar flexion angle for the flywheel squat exercise. There was a trend towards a greater range of motion at the hip for the squat exercise with free weight. There was also a greater hip extension, lumbar extension and ankle plantar flexion impulse moment during the squat exercise with free weight. During the deadlift exercise, the peak knee flexion angle and peak knee extension moment were greater when using the free weight profile. For deadlift, the hip extension, lumbar extension and ankle plantar flexion impulse moment tended to be greater with the free weight profile. Overall, the kinematic and kinetic outcomes for the flywheel profile were either statistically the same as free weight profile in many cases, significantly reduced in a few cases, and rarely higher.

Bioengineering↗
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↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Credibility Assessment and Evaluation of the Astronaut Musculoskeletal Boot/Ankle Injury Scenario Using Open SIM(TM) Computational Modeling

The musculoskeletal system of astronauts is subject to physiological changes, potentially leading to injuries due to the exposure to different gravitational environments experienced during spaceflight. These injuries can occur while an astronaut is performing an extravehicular activity (EVA) in space, on lunar or planetary surfaces or while wearing a spacesuit during terrestrial training for an EVA. One area of concern are injuries occurring at the feet and ankles due to a poor fit of the spacesuit boot. These injuries can occur if the boot does not support the ankle sufficiently and the astronaut steps awkwardly, twisting the ankle or foot, during an EVA. The OpenSimTM software can assess EVA induced musculoskeletal injuries for muscle strains, ligament injuries and joint injuries. A modeling and simulation credibility assessment of the OpenSim musculoskeletal modeling and simulation procedures, applied to the boot/ankle injury scenario injury mechanisms that may occur while carrying out tasks in these environments, is performed. These modeling and simulation credibility assessments give information on the credibility of the model’s use in simulating foot/ankle related injury mechanisms.

C A Gallo↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

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 NTRS2023

Plugin for Integrated Exoskeleton Simulations (PIES)

Upper extremity offload is a new capability to be developed for the Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) at the Johnson Space Center. To address the need, the Actuated Real-time Control for ARGOS Negation of Gravitational Effects on the Limbs (ARC-ANGEL) system is being designed and developed by the HumanWorks team in the Flight Systems Branch (ER3). The Plugin for Integrated Exoskeleton Simulations (PIES) is a multibody modeling and analysis capability developed by the Digital Astronaut Simulation (DAS) team in the Simulation and Graphics Branch (ER7). The C++ plugin is used in the open source biomechanics software, OpenSim (Stanford University), and integrates human multibody modeling with system dynamic modeling. The latest ‘flavor’ is the ANGEL with Passive and Powered Line of force Evaluation (APPLE) PIES.

Kaitlin Lostroscio↗
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 NTRSDate not supplied

Volumetric Assessment of UPRITE Exercises From Marker-Based Motion Capture

BACKGROUND Lack of volumetric data on full-body movement of exercises presents a challenge to ensuring the fit of crew member’s full range of motion on the International Space Station (ISS). The Upright Proprioception Retention via In-flight Training and Evaluation (UPRITE) is a sensorimotor countermeasure device designed for maintaining crew members’ proprioception in a microgravity environment. A footplate—attached to a static base—rotates in two degrees of freedom (pitch and roll) up to a 20 deg angle. An initial volumetric assessment assuming an upright standing posture produced a cone-like shape with a narrow bottom and wide top. Such general volumetric assessments risk creating an overly conservative volume estimate, taking up more space than is necessary on the already limited interior space of the ISS, and neglecting necessary volume due to oversimplifying assumptions. Rather, higher-fidelity volumetric assessments offer more comprehensive insights in an environment where every area counts. The main objective of this work is to provide the spatial parameters of exercises on the UPRITE such that it is placed on the ISS according to its volumetric demands or that usage is adjusted to fit the available space. METHODS In 2023, a data collection was performed originally to inform loads and dynamics of system use and was recently leveraged for volumetric assessment. Three human subjects representing different body types (~63-76 inches in stature) performed a variety of board manipulations using UPRITE with body weight offload. The test collected the 3D positional data of a modified full-body Plug-in Gait marker set [1] via a 16-camera OptiTrack MoCap system. After processing – filling marker gaps and trimming data – in OptiTrack Motive, the recorded marker location data, which included device markers, was exported to a readable trajectory file. To accurately represent the full volume defining landmarks, additional markers were digitally added to an unscaled Modified Full Body Model [2]. The model was then scaled according to its subject parameters upon which an inverse kinematics analysis was performed. A custom plugin yielded model marker location data files. Volumetric analyses were performed on the recorded trajectory and model trajectory files using a custom Python-built tool that extracted the marker location data and plotted it in a 3D space. Concerned with only the maximum volume of the motion, a 3D convex hull analysis was applied to the plot, extracting the vertices or external points of the eventual 3D CAD output, dubbed aptly as a “volume shell”. This overall approach was based on guidance in a NASA-STD-3001 Technical Brief [3]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Batch volumetric assessment on the exercises for each subject was performed, producing high-fidelity volume shells in minimal time. Preliminary results highlighted the value in higher-fidelity volumes based on collected data when possible. For example, revolving a single posture in the cone assessment would not have sufficiently captured a single leg stance; rather, it would need to involve swinging the leg both forward and back. Additional observations and the maximal dimensions of the volumes, including those based on scaled data for ISS anthropometric requirements, will be presented at the Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop. CONCLUSIONS While this work’s primary objective was for the UPRITE-to-ISS integration, the tool built to conduct this analysis has wide applications for future exercise systems as an informational tool for optimal device placement. The tool and its findings also have implications for exercise device design and spacecraft interior considerations on Gateway, the Lunar Pressurized Rover, and beyond. REFERENCES [1] Bell, C. A., et al. (2023) Recent Improvements and Verification of a Full Body Model in OpenSim. NASA Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230001080 [2] Lostroscio, K., et al (2023) The Digital Astronaut Simulation. AHFE International Conference on Human Factors in Design, Engineering, and Computing for All. [3] Exercise Overview. (2023) NASA-STD-3001 Technical Brief. https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ochmo-tb-031-exercise-overview.pdf?emrc=9d454c?emrc=9d454c

L D Quinto↗
NASA NTRS2023

The Digital Astronaut Simulation

The Digital Astronaut Simulation provides a human biomechanics modeling, simulation, and analysis capability that is enabling spaceflight hardware design to incorporate the human dynamic input early in development cycles as well as characterize performance after prototypes are built. The enhanced toolset includes a modified multibody model, updated motion capture marker sets, and refined methods for scaling and inverse kinematics. These provide increased accuracy for applications in exercise and extravehicular tasks in reduced gravity, especially where upper extremity motion is involved. A core capability highlighted is the calculation of ground reaction forces, moments, and center of pressure based on motion capture. Verification and validation efforts include comparison with force platform measurements.

Human Spaceflight↗