Upload
jens
View
31
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Virtual Prototyping and Analysis Ed Winkler Technical Fellow Human Systems Boeing Phantom Works St. Louis. Percentiles. Progression of Accommodation Expansion. F-22 (1-99). JSF (JPATS). F/A-18 (3-98). Male / Female. F-15 (5-95). Male only. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Virtual Prototyping and Analysis
Ed Winkler
Technical FellowHuman Systems
Boeing Phantom WorksSt. Louis
Percentiles
Male / Female
60s 70s 80s 90s
F-15 (5-95)
F/A-18 (3-98)
F-22 (1-99)
JSF(JPATS)
Progression of AccommodationExpansion
Male only
Background Current Accommodation Problems
(AFI 48-123 = 64” to 77” Standing height and 34” to 40” Sitting Height.)
Ref: Dr. Zehner
BackgroundJPATS (Joint Primary Aircraft Training System)
• 1994 - Congress directed that the JPATS would accommodate 95% of female military population.
• This translates to a 58” Standing Height and 31” Sitting Height minimum
Ref: Dr. Zehner
Sum of 5th %ile Parts= 136.89 cm 5th %ile Height= 152.50 cm Difference= 15.61 cm
Sum of 95th %ile Parts= 188.81 cm 95th %ile Height= 173.06 cm Difference= 15.75 cm
SAMPLE SIZE=3235
Percentiles Are Not Additive
*From Robinette and McConville 1982
Percentile Fallacy
If 5th to 95th percentile limits are applied to each of the following:
0-5% 95-100%Sitting Ht.
Butt-Knee Lth
Knee Ht. Sit.
Shoulder Brth
Functional Reach
90%
82%
78%
71%
67%
Remaining Percentage
2
2
2Average
Subject 2
Subject 2
Average is Different From Everyone!
Subject 1Subject 1
Subject 3
x y z
2 3 1
1 2 3
3 1 2
• Average Person? Does Not Exist (Daniels 1952)• Summary Statistics Are Not Good Data Reduction Tools for Engineering Models
1
2
33
2
1
Subject 3
3
1
2
Average 2 2 2
Boundary Points and Principal Components(JPATS Cases)
SECOND
COMPONENT
FIRST COMPONENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8
Challenge: Is a biomechanical model needed? Model actual data instead?
Can Also Create Dynamic 3-D Simulations with 3-D Scans
A CAESAR Subject Standing Pose Segmented and Joint Center Linked Then Repositioned to a Seated Pose
A 10 segment CAESAR subject standing pose.
Can Use 3-D Scans to Characterize Cases
• With 3-D Have a Model so Can Have Set of 3-D Cases
• Can Visualize Real People As a Reference During Design
•3-D Shape or Size Statistics are Limited
•To Select Cases Still Limited to Traditional Measurements
Advantage
Issues and Challenges
Distributed Cases
1
2
3
45
6
7 8
9
Issues: 1) How to Select Measurements 2) Where to Select Cases
Characterizing Populations
Left Pupil Distribution
Right Pupil Distribution
Center of Gravity Distribution
HGU 55/P Helmet
Right Ear Distribution
Challenge: Full Population Data is Difficult to Visualize
Background Small Subject ( 5’- 0”) in the T-38
Inertial reels locked
Eye Height
Shoulder Height
Arm SpanButtock-Knee Length
Knee Height Sitting Height
Stature and Sitting Height Are Not Enough
• Original design eye line = -10 deg.
• Base of windscreen wiper
• Verified through study flights as
minimum for no-flap landing
Male
Female
Military Population
Pilot Population
91% 96%
47% 91%
T-1 Results: VisionMinimum Eye Height = 29.6”
Percent Accommodated
Male
Female
MilitaryPopulation
Pilot Population
• To recover from a blown tire on landing
• Pilot tightly restrained
T-38 Results: RuddersMinimum Leg Length = 43”
95% 97%
46% 81%
Requirement: Full rudder and full brake at the same time
Percent Accommodated:
EXPANDED ACCOMMODATION5-95 PERCENTILE DESIGN POPULATION WITH JPATS OVERLAY5-95 PERCENTILE DESIGN POPULATION WITH JPATS OVERLAYCOMPARISON.COMPARISON.
3535 4040
5555
5050
4545
4040
3535
3030 4545
Approx. 5-95%Approx. 5-95%MALEMALEUSAF RangeUSAF Range
COMBINEDCOMBINEDACCOMMODATIONACCOMMODATION
- JPATS Manikins- JPATS Manikins
SITTING HT. (in.l)SITTING HT. (in.l)
LEG
LE
NG
TH
(in
.)LE
G L
EN
GT
H (
in.)
15.3 inch
6.3 inch
Large Male97.5 Percentile
Small Female2.5 Percentile
Accommodation Limits
31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.0 36.0 37.0 38.0 39.0 40.0
F-22 Requirements.5 - 99.5 %ile Male AF Pilots
F-22 Requirements.5 - 99.5 %ile Male AF Pilots
UPTEntrance Requirements
UPTEntrance Requirements
"Traditional"Design Standards, 5th - 95th %ile
Air Force Pilots
"Traditional"Design Standards, 5th - 95th %ile
Air Force Pilots
5th - 95th %ile Female Pilots5th - 95th %ile Female Pilots
JPATS 1-8JPATS 1-8
Case 7
Design Goal
95% of U.S
College womenAge 22-
27
Case 7
Design Goal
95% of U.S
College womenAge 22-
27
Case 1
Spec. Reqmt., 82% of
U.S College Women Age 22-
27
Case 1
Spec. Reqmt., 82% of
U.S College Women Age 22-
27
67.5 % of U.S
College Wome
n
Age22-27
67.5 % of U.S
College Wome
n
Age22-27
39 % of U.S
College Women
Age 22-27
39 % of U.S
College Women
Age 22-27
41.0
Sitting Height - inches
USN41 in.
Sit. Ht.
JPATS Multivariate CasesJPATS Multivariate Cases
• Case 1 -- Small
• Case 2 -- Medium build, Short limbs
• Case 3 -- Medium build, Long limbs
• Case 4 -- Tall sitting height, Short limbs
• Case 5 -- Overall large
• Case 6 -- Longest limbs
• Case 7 -- Overall small
• Case 8 -- Largest torso
Thumb tip reach
Buttock knee ln
Knee height
Sitting height
16 20 24 28 32 36 40
inches
** *
* *
*
* *
**USAF 5-95 %
EXPANDED ACCOMMODATION ANALYSIS TOOL- Variables
BUTTOCK BUTTOCK KNEE LENGTHKNEE LENGTH
SITTING SITTING HEIGHTHEIGHT
EYE EYE HEIGHT HEIGHT SITTINGSITTING
THUMBTIP THUMBTIP REACHREACH
KNEE HEIGHT KNEE HEIGHT SITTINGSITTING
SHOULDER SHOULDER HEIGHT SITTINGHEIGHT SITTING
Example: JPATS Cases
Table 1: Multivariate Cases 1 - 7
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
Thumb tip reach 27.0 27.6 33.9 29.7 35.6 36.0 26.1
Buttock-knee length 21.3 21.3 26.5 22.7 27.4 27.9 20.8
Knee-height sitting 18.7 19.1 23.3 20.6 24.7 24.8 18.1
Sitting height 32.8 35.5 34.9 38.5 40.0 38.0 31.0
Eye height sitting 28.0 30.7 30.2 33.4 35.0 32.9 26.8
Shoulder height sitting
20.6 22.7 22.6 25.2 26.9 25.0 19.5
Overall Large
Long limbs
Longest torsoLong torso/short limbs
Medium torso/long limbs
Small torso
/
short l
imbs
Overall Small
Small torso/Long limbs
GENERALLY AVERAGE7
2
6
4
1
3
8
5
Statistical portion(PCA)
Geometry portion
Expanded AccommodationAnalysis Technique
• % Accommodation of a given design• Impact of a geometry change on accommodation
• $$ estimate impact against geometry change vs accommodation achieved
…………………………………..…………….…………………………………..…………….
…………………………………..…………….…………………………………..…………….
…………………………………..…………….
…………………………………..…………….…………………………………..…………….…………………………………..…………….
…………………………………..…………….…………………………………..…………….…………………………………..…………….
…………………………………..…………….
• Various Populations• Combined Populations• Defined Requirements
• New design• Re-design• Competitor evaluation
.. .
. ..
.
Rapid Prototyping
Now Allows
EXPANDED ACCOMMODATION ANALYSIS TOOL- Data Analysis
MULTIVARIATE ACCOMMODATION METHOD (PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS)
• REDUCES A LIST OF VARIABLES TO A SMALL MANAGEABLE NUMBER
• ENABLES DESIGNERS TO SELECT DESIRED PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF A POPULATION TO BE ACCOMMODATED
• PERCENTAGE LEVEL TAKES INTO ACCOUNT NOT ONLY SIZE DIFFERENCES BUT PROPORTIONAL VARIABILITY AS WELL
• INDICATES WHICH VARIABLE PROVIDES MOST ACCOMMODATION
Bottomline: Determines % population bounded by the requirements
Principal Component Analysis--What is it?
PCA- Statistical Multi-variate analysis approach that simultaneously converts large sets of multi-dimension data into 2D or 3D linear principal components
How is this accomplished•Compute variance - Square of deviations•Compute Covariance - Product sums/Product of variances
- Correlation matrix between variables•Compute Eigenvalues- Similar to regression--goodness of fit
-Contribution of each data set variable (indication of percentage ofvariance of data)
•Compute Eigenvectors - Indicates weights of each variable in transformation - Each eiganvalue corresponds to a set of eiganvectors - Vectors position values
•Compute Principal Component - First component corresponds to with highest eiganvalue - Second component corresponds to the next highest value
…... Component 1
Com
pone
nt 2
(Subject representation)
•Component is a linear combination of original data set which accounts for most of sample variation
*Very effective in analyzing variability of human body anthropometrics
• PC based
• User friendly, rapid response
• Variable seat/cockpit geometry
• Direct manikin selection (single, multiple)
• Zone 1 and 2 reach to individual controls
• Miss distance calculation, Interference assessment
• Head clearance
• Rudder pedal reach
• Population percentage accommodation analysis
• Male, Female or Male and Female populations
General Capabilities - Cockpit Module
• Direct geometry input (make new or modify any geometry)• Direct seat/motion input (standard or variable)• Instant picture re-draw• No need for complex file transfers
• 1-7 JPATS • plus #8 JSF• plus 1 additional
Manikin Anthropometry
• Based on JPATS Manikin Anthropometry
female
male
male/female
Analysis of population accommodation
Principal Component Analysis
Direct calculationof PercentAccommodated
• 3-D Component Analysis• Subject Exclusion
Additional Analysis Capabilities
• Completing program with Tennessee State University
• Additional capabilities/modules being added
• Initial validation complete
• Validation appears to be well within 1 Standard Error from actual physical measurements
Current Status
Canopy Jetison zone 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72
Span
Mis
s di
stan
ce Data
Model
Linear (Data)
Comboleg vs rudder miss
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
36 38 40 42 44 46
Comboleg
Mis
s fu
ll r
ud
der
/fu
ll b
rake
Series1
Series2
Linear (Series1)
Now the fun is over
Here is the homework
Oh yea, I get to leave town
• Problem 1.• This problem illustrates
developing a design with large latitude in design options. The goal is maximum accommodation of a combined male/female population.
• Eye position either 1) Get the eye up to or along the ONV line (11-18 degrees) Zone 1 or 2) in the eye box Zone 2.
• Have full rudder travel for accommodation range.
• Zone 2 reach, 14 inches below Design Eye Position and just forward of ejection line.
• Problem 2. • This problem looks at a range of
fixed designs (do not change any geometry numbers). The goal is to rank each design for the best accommodation and estimate accommodation for 1) all male and 2) male/female populations.
• Reach points given are Zone 2 (do not change locations)
• Problem 3.• This problem looks at a design
problem that has many restrictions for possibly a specialty design.
• Manikin 4, 5, 6 and 8 must be shown to be accommodated as well as maximizing overall male/female percentage.
• Optimize and develop a design for maximum accommodation, male/female plus 4, 5, 6 and 8.
• Seat contact (8 inches) below SRP to floor and floor to canopy is 50 inches.
• Rudder travel from any horizontal SRP is 30-50 inches.
• Range of seat or ejection angle is 11-25 degrees.
• Top of head in Zone 1 is minimum of 3 inches to canopy.
• Reach point Zone 2 is now 2 inches forward of ejection line and 14 inches down from DEP.
• Problem 4.• This problem is a specialized
design with constraints associated with moving devices (rudder and seat).
• Maximum linear rudder travel plus (+) maximum linear seat travel totals 12 inches or less.
• Must reach in Zone 2 a point 14 inches down from DEP and forward of ejection line
• SRP to floor under seat is 8 inches minimum.
• Goal is maximum accommodation.
• Notes:• All reaches for the model in Zone 1 and Zone 2 are a “Functional reach”, i.e., pinch.• Canopy clearance is 3 inches minimum from Zone 1 posture (top of head to inside mold line).• SRP to Floor is a minimum of 8 inches (estimates kit/seat thickness).• Ejection clearance is 28 inches or greater.• For eye position either 1) Get the eye to the ONV line (11-18 degrees) Zone 1 or 2) in the eye box
Zone 2.• Rudder accommodation (manikin foot just touching rudder circle).• Do not exceed 5 degree delta between back angle and ejection angle.• Shin contact radius min. 2 inches.
• Model notes– You have to change manikin sizes from geometry screen, then select them from
Boundaries/Others/browse menu – When you change manikin do it proportionally …torso (eye ht, sit ht, shl ht), same for butt
knee and knee ht. – Might crash if too many manikins on screen and you change zone 1 or 2 – Only edit the MODE 1, 2, 3 manikins for problems– Up and forward seat adjust is for 30 deg is 330, back 15 is 15 – DO NOT…DO NOT edit or change any link equations– Help screen gives general methods for making everything run– If it locks up or manikin positions itself funny….close and re-open it.
• Problem 1.• This problem illustrates
developing a design with large latitude in design options. The goal is maximum accommodation of a combined male/female population.
• Eye position either 1) Get the eye up to or along the ONV line (11-18 degrees) Zone 1 or 2) in the eye box Zone 2.
• Have full rudder travel for accommodation range.
• Zone 2 reach, 14 inches below Design Eye Position and just forward of ejection line.
• Problem 2. • This problem looks at a range of fixed designs (do
not change any geometry numbers). The goal is to rank each design for the best accommodation and estimate accommodation for 1) all male and 2) male/female populations.
• Reach points given are Zone 2 (do not change locations)
• Problem 3.• This problem looks at a design problem
that has many restrictions for possibly a specialty design.
• Manikin 4, 5, 6 and 8 must be shown to be accommodated as well as maximizing overall male/female percentage.
• Optimize and develop a design for maximum accommodation, male/female plus 4, 5, 6 and 8.
• Seat contact (8 inches) below SRP to floor and floor to canopy is 50 inches.
• Rudder travel from any horizontal SRP is 30-50 inches.
• Range of seat or ejection angle is 11-25 degrees.
• Top of head in Zone 1 is minimum of 3 inches to canopy.
• Reach point Zone 2 is now 2 inches forward of ejection line and 14 inches down from DEP.
• Problem 4.• This problem is a specialized design
with constraints associated with moving devices (rudder and seat).
• Maximum linear rudder travel plus (+) maximum linear seat travel totals 12 inches or less.
• Must reach in Zone 2 a point 14 inches down from DEP and forward of ejection line
• SRP to floor under seat is 8 inches minimum.
• Goal is maximum accommodation.