A Framework for Anthropometric and Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces

Transcription

1 CAN UNCLASSIFIED A Framework for Anthropometric and Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces Allan Keefe Linda Bossi DRDC Toronto Research Centre Chang Shu Pengcheng Xi National Research Council of Canada Monica Jones University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 4th International Digital Human Modeling Symposium (DHM2016). June 15 17, 2016 Montreal, Quebec Date of Publication from Ext Publisher: June 2016 Defence Research and Development Canada External Literature (P) DRDC-RDDC-2017-P082 October 2017 CAN UNCLASSIFIED

2 CAN UNCLASSIFIED IMPORTANT INFORMATIVE STATEMENTS Disclaimer: This document is not published by the Editorial Office of Defence Research and Development Canada, an agency of the Department of National Defence of Canada, but is to be catalogued in the Canadian Defence Information System (CANDIS), the national repository for Defence S&T documents. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Department of National Defence) makes no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, of any kind whatsoever, and assumes no liability for the accuracy, reliability, completeness, currency or usefulness of any information, product, process or material included in this document. Nothing in this document should be interpreted as an endorsement for the specific use of any tool, technique or process examined in it. Any reliance on, or use of, any information, product, process or material included in this document is at the sole risk of the person so using it or relying on it. Canada does not assume any liability in respect of any damages or losses arising out of or in connection with the use of, or reliance on, any information, product, process or material included in this document. This document was reviewed for Controlled Goods by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) using the Schedule to the Defence Production Act. Template in use: E cover.dotm Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Department of National Defence), 2016 Sa Majesté la Reine en droit du Canada (Ministère de la Défense nationale), 2016 CAN UNCLASSIFIED

3 Allan Keefe, Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces A Framework for Anthropometric and Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces Allan Keefe *, Linda Bossi *, Chang Shu, Pengcheng Xi, and Monica Jones *Defence Research and Development Canada National Research Council of Canada University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Abstract The intent of this paper is to provide an overview of the Defence Research and Development Canada s assessment of DND s digital human modeling requirements for the specification, design, evaluation and acquisition of clothing, equipment, workstations and platforms. Challenges and gaps posed by the unique military operational environment of the CAF are identified and a framework is proposed to assist in the development of DHM tools that will support the development of requirements, specifications, design and evaluation methods for stakeholders involved in materiel acquisition for DND and other similar defence departments. Keywords: Canadian Armed Forces, Anthropometry, Digital Human Model, Framework. 1. Introduction Canada s Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for anthropometric and digital human modeling (DHM) tools to inform the acquisition of military clothing, equipment and platforms for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Considering the size, shape and mobility of the CAF warfighter early in the acquisition process is critical to ensure cost effective procurement (e.g., right size, right quantity), ensure operator/passenger accommodation, and optimize human-system integration, performance and safety. While DHM tools are not extensively used by DND, recognition is growing with respect to the benefit to stakeholders throughout the acquisition process, from early identification of system requirements, development of system specifications and evaluation criteria by DND, through design of systems to meet those specifications by industry. DHM tools are also required by DND to support evaluation, down-selection and qualification of bid systems and through-life support of these systems. Of particular importance to DND throughout this process is the ability to model the full range of users, tasks, tools/equipment and the operational environment in which they must perform. In other words it is imperative that DHM tools enable the representation of CAF warfighters, wearing CAF clothing and personal equipment, operating within CAF vehicles and platforms in CAF-specific operational environments. 2. Background In 2011, a user needs and state of the art review was conducted with acquisition subject matter experts within DND to inform the development of an integrated physical ergonomics tool. The tool would assist in capturing engineering design requirements and specifications for clothing, equipment, and platforms so that CAF personnel could be equipped and accommodated safely and comfortably within their workspace towards successful mission completion (Tack and McKee, 2011). From this analysis and review, three priority areas were identified: 1. The capture and application of semi-nude and encumbered data for the CAF; 2. The development or provision of tools that would enable the analysis of the accommodation, biomechanical, performance, and safety implications of encumbered warfighters in dismounted or occupant applications; and 3. The requirement for easily accessible tools that allow novice to expert users the ability to apply CAF anthropometric data in the development of system requirements, specification and evaluation of bid contenders, and qualification of systems being acquired. *Corresponding author. allan.keefe@forces.gc.ca 1

4

5

6 Allan Keefe, Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces effects of encumbrance across body sizes and shapes. Recent work by Jones et al. (2015) (Figure 5) have quantified the effect and of clothing and equipment on body shape variability, while Kim et al. (2015) investigated the effect of encumbrance on reach performance in military vehicles. Figure 5. 3D representation of the effect of protective equipment on torso bulk. In order to properly leverage the power of DHM tools for occupant accommodation and task performance, it is imperative that standardized methodologies for parameterizing the effect of clothing and personal equipment on shape and mobility are developed and that a facility for importing these models into commercial DHM tools be available. 5. Platforms/workspace A suitable DHM tool should also provide the ability to create or import realistic CAD models of vehicles, workspaces, controls and equipment. Where required, the model features such as seats, controls, pedals and ingress/egress closures should be fully articulated through an accurate range of motion or adjustability. Forces required to actuate controls must be modeled as well as the mass properties of tools and objects (e.g. tires, hatches, wrenches, etc.). For vehicle or aircraft models, accurate representations of fields of view are needed of the interior and exterior as well as mirrors and heads up displays (HUDs). Seating systems, deformation of seat cushions and other soft materials such as clothing and muscle/fat tissue, should also be enabled. This is critical when determining safety clearances for blast, roll-over safety or ejection clearance in aircraft. Restraint systems should also be modeled to allow for evaluation of seated task performance with the inertial reel in either locked or unlocked position. Unfortunately, CAD drawings are not always available from the vendor. In these cases, the capability to reverse engineer workspaces through 3D scanning or coordinate measuring technologies would be required to create models of the critical aspects of the workspace to be imported into the DHM workspace. 6. Tasks Any DHM used for defence acquisition or system evaluation must enable the replication of simple or complex movements, from simple static seated posture tasks (e.g., reaching controls), to dynamic activities (such as vehicle egress or loaded marching). The tasks selected for evaluation are typically based on the most critical tasks required for mission success. Often, these tasks or task sequences are defined through task analysis (Tack et al., 2014) or by vehicle operation or flight safety manuals. Ideally, algorithms for task performance should be based on realistic movement strategies and take into account body size, clothing and equipment, collision avoidance and postural and movement/functional variability. Success may be identified as the ability to perform a given task or based on physiological criteria such as fatigue, injury or discomfort. For this reason, DHM tools are required to assess the physiological costs of performing essential tasks. 7. Physiology/Biomechanics Performance of CAF warfighters is affected by not only bulky and heavy equipment, but the environmental and physical demands of their operations can be extreme. As a result, it is imperative that DHM tools provide a capability to assess the physiological status of the test case. These models include metabolic cost, thermal models to predict heat or cold strain and hypoxia models to predict physical and visual performance at altitude or under G forces. Biomechanical models which provide accurate predictions of muscle forces, tissue loading, muscular fatigue and joint moments and compressive forces are required to identify risk of injury or limits to task performance. Additionally, fatigue models can be linked to postural models to assess occupant posture and risk of spinal injury over time. Impact models of weapon recoil, emergency landings, vehicle blast or a paratroopers landing would provide an invaluable capability to assess the efficacy of protective equipment and load distribution on warfighter safety and survivability. As an example, DRDC is currently utilizing motion capture and biomechanical modeling tools to evaluate shooter response to firearm recoil to inform future small arms requirements. 4

7 Allan Keefe, Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces 8. Environment Unlike many industrial applications, the operational environment of the CAF, like most militaries, varies dramatically, from high, arid mountain regions to the ocean depths and from the heat of the desert to the frigid cold of the arctic. As these austere environments are known to adversely affect physical performance (Pilcher et al., 2002) is it imperative that this capability exist within DHM tools. Aircrew and vehicle operators are also typically exposed to vibration and turbulence/spring action forces, pitch and roll, while aircrew are often exposed to transient or sustained g-forces such that tasks that are simple to achieve during a static evaluation are extremely difficult to complete in operations. Without the ability to evaluate the effect of these forces on performance, a task or accommodation evaluation may be invalid. Finally, the Naval diving community has a requirement to assess new and novel equipment designs (Angel and Tack, 2015). Without a capability to represent hydrostatic pressure, hydrodynamics and buoyancy forces, a virtual ergonomic assessment is impossible. 9. Tool Integration and interoperability standards The breadth of tools required throughout the procurement cycle, from requirements definition to through-life support is vast. At each step, information is generated to support its requirements and inform the following step(s) in the process. As there is currently not one tool that can do it all, there is requirement for integration and interoperability across a wide range of DHM tools. Anthropometric and encumbrance modeling tools used to specify population test cases should produce manikin models that can be imported into workspace tools used during bid evaluation. In turn, kinematic, and postural data from these models or motion capture studies should be readily available to safety engineers or medical authorities who would use biomechanical models to evaluate risk of injury due to joint and muscle loading or blast effects. Finally, these data would also inform personnel and selection officers to quantify physical task demands to determine selection standards, if required. As a multitude of DHM data exchange formats exist (Bonin et al., 2014), it is imperative that they become codified as standards to ensure interoperability across DHM tools. 10. Interpreting the results a question of accommodation. Accommodation can be defined by a number of metrics including: fit, task performance, mobility and safety. DND Project Officers, industry designers and Human Factors Engineering experts rely on standards such as MIL-STD 1472G, to inform the development of system requirements and specifications. While these standards recommend the use of multivariate methods to ensure accommodation of the central 90% of the design target population, no guidance is provided as to which tools and methods are available, how to configure a tool, what fidelity is required or how to appropriately interpret the final results. Certain aspects of accommodation can be evaluated using univariate anthropometric statistics (e.g. seated height for aircraft ejection safety), however, multivariate analysis typically involves the definition of test cases derived by statistical techniques such as Principle Components Analysis to define distributed (HFES, 2004) or boundary families of manikins based on traditional anthropometric measures (Meindl et al., 1993; Bittner, 2000) or 3D shape-based data (Azouz et al., 2006). Monte Carlo simulation has also been proposed to define test cases (Hendy, 1990), multioccupant accommodation (Gordon, 2012) and user preference (Garneau and Parkinson, 2007). Additional multivariate techniques for determining test cases or fit/accommodation include multiple regression, discriminant function analysis, fit mapping and logistic regression. The challenge for the practitioner is to understand which tools are available, how to employ them and for which application and what underlying assumptions must be satisfied to ensure that the proper results are provided. This sort of guidance is rarely included in DHM tools and needs to be clarified through proper documentation or through a smart user interface. The inappropriate use of tools or methods for determining accommodation can have devastating effects when soldier safety, performance or multi-million dollar acquisition projects are concerned. A second challenge Project Officers face is the fact that the CAF typically has little influence on specifying the design of major equipment and platforms, and is thus in a position of assessing accommodation of Military off the Shelf (MOTS). As these systems may have been designed based on another nations requirements (e.g. population, equipment and operations), the notion of central 90, 95 or 99% accommodation may not be valid. For example, an armored vehicle design may exclude larger occupants (or boundary manikins) due to competing requirements for hull strength, stowage and the requirement to wear protective equipment. In this case, a decision must be made as to the operational impact of this design constraint, can modifications be made to increase accommodation, by how much and what would be the incremental 5

8 Allan Keefe, Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces cost? In the example of an aircraft cockpit, simple modifications such as a thicker seat cushion or modification of a flight control may allow the accommodation of smaller pilots, while enlarging the cockpit to accommodate larger aircrew may be cost prohibited. In this case, the accommodation would encompass the lower, rather than central 90 or 95 percent of the population. Finally, if a system cannot be modified to accommodate a certain percentage of the population, then one must consider the implications of have to introduce personnel selection standards based on body size and shape. Thus, DHM methods and tools are required to evaluate true, not idealized, accommodation to inform acquisition and development of selection standards. 11. Walk through guidance Complementing the need for a breadth of capability within DHM tools that support defence acquisition is the requirement for systematic and standardized guidance in the selection, application and interpretation of results or analyses provided by the DHM tools. This is especially important as the Project Officer or Human Factor expert is not likely to be the end user of the tools but must have sufficient guidance in the identification and specification of appropriate DHM tools and develop achievable plans and evaluation criteria that can be implemented in a virtual environment. As part of the user needs analysis conducted by Nakaza and Tack (2015), DND subject matter experts asked for the development of a heuristic or garden path tool which would guide the user in the appropriate selection, application and interpretation of anthropometric measures, multivariate analysis techniques and recommended selection of available DHM tools. This is not a trivial challenge as the level of detail and complexity of analysis is as varied as the problems. For example, if a PCA approach to manikin is proposed, what parameters should be included in the model? How does a PCA manikin based on discrete measures perform relative to a shape-based PCA manikin? How many and which Principal Components should be selected and what does it mean in terms of accommodation if only 7 of my 8 manikins are accommodated? Recall that the CAF typically procures military of the shelf (MOTS) or commercial off the shelf (COTS) systems. As it is likely that such irregular accommodation situations are bound to occur, more sophisticated analytical and decision making tools are required to aid the non-expert, and arguably expert, end user. Similar heuristic methods have been developed by the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES, 2004) and the Australian Defence Force (Edwards et al., 2014). This tool would be based on templated case studies and provide a feature lock for novice users. When the user reaches a locked area of the tool, they would be directed to seek advice from an anthropometry, biomechanics or DHM tool subject matter expert. The tool could also be linked to relevant standards and scientific reports, use documents and libraries of predefined manikins or shape models. 12. Conclusion The CAF has a requirement for digital human modeling tools to inform the acquisition of clothing, equipment and platforms and through-life maintenance and support. While there are a vast array of tools and methodologies available, the unique population, materiel and operations demand capabilities of DHM tools beyond what is currently supported. Additionally, the users of these tools require clear guidance as to the appropriate use and interpretation of the results to make informed decisions on strategic and costly acquisitions. To this end, a notional framework of anthropometric and DHM tools has been proposed to express the unique requirements of defence acquisition, highlight current progress in tool development for military application and identify research gaps that need to be addressed in order to provide a more robust integration suite of tools. References Angel, H.A. & Tack, D.W. (2015). Human Factors Programme Plan: Canadian Armed Forces Diving Programme. DRDC Report (under review), Defence Research and Development Canada. Azouz, Z. B., Rioux, M., Shu, C., & Lepage, R. (2006). Characterizing Human Shape Variation Using 3D Anthropometric Data. Visual Computer, 22(5), Bittner A. C. (2000). A-CADRE: Advanced Family of Manikins for Workstation Design. XIVth Congress of IEA and 44th Meeting of HFES, San Diego, pp Bonin, D., Wischniewski, S., Wirsching, H-J., Upmann,A., Rausch, J., & Gunther, P. (2014). Exchanging data between Digital Human Modelling systems : a review of data formats. In 3rd International Digital Human Modeling Symposium, May , Odaiba, Tokyo, Japan. Symposium Program and Paper Abstracts, AIST, Tokyo. Choi, H.J., Hudson, J.A., & Zehner, G.F. (2009). A manual for the performance of protective equipment fit-mapping. AFRL-RH-WP-SR Air Force Research Laboratory. 6

9 Allan Keefe, Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces Daanen, H.A.M., Woering, A., Ter Haar, F.B., Kuijpers, A.A.M., Haker, J.F. & Reulink, H.G.B. (2014). Optimization of military garment fit. Ambience`14 & 10i3m, 7-9 Sept 2014 Tampere, Finland. Edwards, M., Furnell, A., Coleman, J., & Davis, S. (2014). A preliminary anthropometry standard for Australian army equipment evaluation. DSTO-TR Defence Science and Technology Organization. Jones, M.L.H., Jenkins, G., Ducharme, M.B. and Bossi, L.M. (2014 ). Relative contribution of bulk, stiffness, & load weight of PPE on soldier performance. Abstract. 3rd International Congress on Soldier Physical Performance (ICSPP), Boston, MA, August Garneau, C. J. & Parkinson, M. B. (2007). Including Preference In Anthropometry- Driven Models For Design. Proceedings of the 2007 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Las Vegas, NV. Garlie, T., & Choi, H.J. (2014). Characterizing the Size of the Encumbered Soldier. Technical Report NATICK/TR-14/019. United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick, Massachusetts Gordon, G.C., Paquette, S.P., Donelson, S.M. & Carson, E.A. (1996). Anthropometric Sizing Study for the Canadian Forces: Matched Database Validation. Technical Report NATICK/TR- 96/031. United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick, Massachusetts Gordon, C. (2012). Anthropometric foundations for Nine man Squat Space Claims [Memorandum]. United States Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center Natick, Massachusetts. Hendy, K.C. (1990). Air Crew/Cockpit Compatibility: A Multivariate Problem Seeking a Multivariate Solution. AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 491, North Atlantic Treaty Organization. HFES 300 Committee (2004). Guidelines for Using Anthropometric Data in Product Design. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA. Hicks, J. S., Durbin, D. B., & Kozycki, R. W. (2010). An Overview of Human Figure Modeling for Army Aviation Systems. ARL-TR Army Research Laboratory. Jones, M.L.H, Kim, K.H., Keefe, A.A. Farrell, P.S.E & Bossi, L.M. (2015). A Pilot Study of Three-Dimensional Equipped Anthropometry. Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August Keefe, A.A., Angel, H. & Mangan, B. (2015) Canadian forces anthropometric survey (CFAS): final report. DRDC-RDDC-2015-R186. Defence Research and Development Canada. Kim, H.K., Jones, M.L.H. Ebert, S. & Reed, M.P. (2015). Effects of protective equipment and body borne gear on seated maximum reach envelopes. Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August Meindl, R.S., J.A. Hudson & Zehner, G.F. (1993). A Multivariate Anthropometric Method for Crew Station Design, Armstrong Laboratory Technical Report AL-TR , Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH MIL-STD-1472G. (2012) Human Engineering Design Criteria for Military Systems, Equipment and Facilities. Department of Defense. Washington, D.C., 11 January Nakaza. E.. & Tack, D.W. (2015). Comprehensive Ergonomic Tools and Techniques (CETT): Web- Based Anthropometric Tool Technical Report. DRDC-RDDC-2015-C287. Defence Research and Development Canada. Pilcher, J.J., Nadler, E., & Busch, C. (2002). Effects of hot and cold temperature exposure on performance: a meta-analytic review. Ergonomics. Aug 15;45(10): Shu, C., Xi, P. & Keefe, A. (2015). Data processing and analysis for the 2012 Canadian Forces 3D anthropometric survey, International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015), Procedia Manufacturing, 3: Tack, D. W., & McKee, K. (2011). Warfighter integrated physical ergonomics tool development: acquisition stakeholder needs analysis and state-ofthe-art review. DRDC-RDDC-2015-C227. Defence Research and Development Canada. Tack, D.W. Bray-Miners, J. Nakaza, E.T., Osborne, A. & Mangan, B. (2014). Griffon helicopter neck strain project: Part1: mission function task analysis and physical demands analysis report. Part 2: Physical demand analysis 7

10 Allan Keefe, Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces library. DRDC-RDDC-2014-C22. Defence Research and Development Canada. 8

11 CAN UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security markings for the title, abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the document is Classified or Designated) 1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document. Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g., Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in Section 8.) 2a. SECURITY MARKING (Overall security marking of the document including special supplemental markings if applicable.) DRDC Toronto Research Centre Defence Research and Development Canada 1133 Sheppard Avenue West P.O. Box 2000 Toronto, Ontario M3M 3B9 Canada CAN UNCLASSIFIED 2b. CONTROLLED GOODS NON-CONTROLLED GOODS DMC A 3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in parentheses after the title.) A Framework for Anthropometric and Digital Human Modeling Tools for the Canadian Armed Forces 4. AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials ranks, titles, etc., not to be used) Keefe, A.; Bossi, L.; Shu, C.; Xi, P.; Jones, M. 5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of document.) June a. NO. OF PAGES (Total containing information, including Annexes, Appendices, etc.) 8 6b. NO. OF REFS (Total cited in document.) DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g., technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report, e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.) External Literature (P) 8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development include address.) DRDC Toronto Research Centre Defence Research and Development Canada 1133 Sheppard Avenue West P.O. Box 2000 Toronto, Ontario M3M 3B9 Canada 9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research and development project or grant number under which the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.) 9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which the document was written.) 10a. ORIGINATOR S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document number by which the document is identified by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this document.) 10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.) DRDC-RDDC-2017-P082 11a. FUTURE DISTRIBUTION (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.) Public release 11b. FUTURE DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE CANADA (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.) CAN UNCLASSIFIED

12 CAN UNCLASSIFIED 12. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.) 13. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g., Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.) Digital Human Modeling; Anthropometry; Virtual Soldier; Simulation CAN UNCLASSIFIED