User Manual: Finite Element Models of Helmet Assessment Tools Version 1.0 For LS-DYNA

Copyright 2018 Biomechanics Consulting and Research (Biocore) LLC.
All Rights Reserved
NFL Engineering
Roadmap: Numerical
Model Crowdsourcing
User Manual
Finite Element Models of Helmet Assessment Tools
(Hybrid III Head-Neck, NOCSAE Headform, Linear Impact, Pendulum Impact, Drop Impact)
Version 1.0 for LS-DYNA
Pendulum Impact (PI) Linear Impact (LI)
NOCSAE (left) and HIII (right)

Drop Impact (DI)
Authors:
J. Sebastian Giudice, Kevin Kong, Adrian Caudillo, Sayak Mukherjee, Matthew B. Panzer
Date: May 9th, 2018, Document Version (v) 1.0
i
Copyright 2018 Biomechanics Consulting and Research (Biocore) LLC. All Rights Reserved
Biomechanics Consulting and Research, LLC (Biocore) and Football Research Inc. (FRI) with support from
the National Football League (NFL) have collaborated with Centers of Expertise (COEs) at their university
partners to develop open-source finite element (FE) models of four modern football helmets and
associated test equipment and methods. These publicly available FE models were created as a platform
and baseline resource for injury prevention research and to stimulate the development of novel and highly
effective helmet designs. These FE models are licensed and distributed by Biocore subject to the terms of
the Licensing Agreement and Citation Policy.
The COE for these helmet assessment models is the University of Virginia Center for Applied
Biomechanics.
Helmet COE Contact Information

University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics
4040 Lewis and Clark Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
POCs:
Matthew Panzer, Ph.D.
panzer@virginia.edu
COE Web:
www.centerforappliedbiomechanics.org
Biocore contact information

1621 Quail Run
Charlottesville, VA 22911
www.biocorellc.com
models@biocorellc.com
ii
Contents
NFL Engineering Roadmap: Numerical Model Crowdsourcing ...................................................................... i
1. About this Document ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. About the Project .................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Impactor Models Overview................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.1 Pendulum Impact (PI) .................................................................................................................. 2
2.1.2 Linear Impact (LI) ......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.3 Drop Impact (DI)........................................................................................................................... 3
3. Impactor Model Development Summary ............................................................................................. 4
3.1. Geometry Development ............................................................................................................... 4
3.1.1 Hybrid III Head-Neck Model ......................................................................................................... 4
3.1.2 NOCSAE Headform ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.1.3 Pendulum Impactor ..................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.4 Linear Impactor ............................................................................................................................ 5
3.1.5 Drop Tower .................................................................................................................................. 5
3.2. Material Characterization ............................................................................................................. 5
3.2.1 Hybrid III Head-Neck .................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.2 NOCSAE Headform ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.2.3 Pendulum Impactor ..................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.4 Linear Impactor ............................................................................................................................ 7
3.2.5 Drop Tower .................................................................................................................................. 7
3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations........................................................................................ 8
4. Dummy and Impactor Models Information .......................................................................................... 8
4.1. Running the Model ..................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 General Instructions................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.2 Pendulum Impact (PI) ................................................................................................................ 12
4.1.3 Linear Impact (LI) ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.1.4 Drop Impact (DI)......................................................................................................................... 13
4.2. Organization of the Impactor Keyword Cards ............................................................................ 14
4.3. Toggles Programmed into the Model ......................................................................................... 16
4.4. Model Output Information ......................................................................................................... 16
4.5. Model Number Conventions ....................................................................................................... 17
5. Review of Model Components............................................................................................................ 18
6. Model Validation................................................................................................................................. 21
6.1. Material Optimization ................................................................................................................. 21
6.2. Model Validation......................................................................................................................... 22
iii
6.3. Objective Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 24

7. Technical Notes ................................................................................................................................... 25
8. Troubleshooting .................................................................................................................................. 26
8.1 Time Step ...................................................................................................................................... 26
8.2 Control Cards: ............................................................................................................................... 26
8.3 Material Properties ....................................................................................................................... 26
8.4 Hourglass....................................................................................................................................... 26
8.5 Contact Definitions ....................................................................................................................... 26
9. Model Updates.................................................................................................................................... 27
10. Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 28
11. References ...................................................................................................................................... 29
12. Appendix ......................................................................................................................................... 30
Figures
Figure 1: Pendulum impact locations. .......................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Linear impact locations. In this document A’ is denoted as “AP”.................................................. 3
Figure 3: Drop impact locations. ................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 4: CT images of the NOCSAE headform were obtained and the outer surface was segmented to
create the 3D geometry of the rubber skin layer. This figure shows the segmentation of the outer skin
layer (red) as well as the internal components of the headform. ................................................................ 4
Figure 5: Uniaxial true stress-strain response curve of the HIII head skin rubber. An Ogden constitutive
model was used to obtain this curve. Strain is negative in compression. .................................................... 6
Figure 6: VN600 true stress-strain curves over strain rates between 10-3 – 102 1/s. Strain is positive in
compression. ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 7: Local coordinate systems definitions for the HIII H-N (left) and NOCSAE (right) models. .......... 10
Figure 8: Representative examples of the orientation of the global coordinate systems in the pendulum
impact (left), linear impact (middle), and drop impact (right). .................................................................. 10
Figure 9: DYNA file include hierarchy. See helmet user’s manuals for details on naming conventions used
in quotes. .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 10: Correct spacing when using parameters and numerals in a model card. ................................. 16
Figure 11: Overview of the HIII H-N model. ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 12: Overview of the NOCSAE headform model. .............................................................................. 19
Figure 13: Overview of the pendulum impactor model (isometric view)................................................... 19
Figure 14: Overview of the linear impactor model. .................................................................................... 20
Figure 15: Overview of the drop impact model (isometric view). .............................................................. 20
iv
Figure 16. Results of the HIII H-N component level tests: head drop certification (top, left), static neck
bending (top, right), neck flexion certification (bottom, left), neck extension certification (bottom, right).
.................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 17. Results from the rigid VN600 pad drop test simulations. .......................................................... 22
Figure 18. Results from the rigid MEP pad drop test simulations. ............................................................. 22
Tables
Table 1: Summary of simulations used to develop and validate the helmet assessment dummy and
impactor models. .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2. HIII H-N and NOCSAE model summaries. ........................................................................................ 8
Table 3. Impactor model summaries. Moments of inertia are irrelevant for linear and drop impacts. ...... 9
Table 4. Helmet model unit system. ............................................................................................................. 9
Table 5. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging. ........................................................ 11
Table 6. Redundant impact condition parameters. .................................................................................... 12
Table 7. Pendulum impact condition-specific parameter definitions. ....................................................... 12
Table 8. Linear impact condition-specific parameter definitions. .............................................................. 13
Table 9. Drop impact condition-specific parameter definitions. ................................................................ 13
Table 10: Required keyword cards included in each main impact condition keyword file. ....................... 14
Table 11. Model outputs. ............................................................................................................................ 16
Table 12: Conversion between model discrete beam force/moment outputs and load cell components.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 13: Numbering convention for the HIII H-N and NOCSAE headform models. .................................. 17
Table 14. Numbering convention for the HIII H-N and NOCSAE headform models. .................................. 18
Table 15: Simulation matrix used to assess the HIII H-N and NOCSAE models. ......................................... 23
Table 16. Overall CORA evaluation. ............................................................................................................ 25
Table 17: Impactor models time-steps. ...................................................................................................... 26
Table 18. Overall CORA scores for the pendulum impact. ......................................................................... 30
Table 19. Overall CORA scores for the linear impact. ................................................................................. 30
Table 20. Overall CORA scores for the drop impact. .................................................................................. 30
v
Helmet Assessment Models v1.0
1. About this Document

This manual applies to the helmet assessment finite element (FE) model package developed by the
University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics under the contract ID: GI14729, “Crowdsourced
Helmet Model Development” (v1.0 at the time of release of this manual), sponsored by Biomechanics
Consulting and Research, LLC (Biocore) and Football Research Inc. (FRI), with support from the National
Football League (NFL). This package includes the Hybrid III Head-Neck (HIII H-N) and NOCSAE headform
models as well as linear impactor, pendulum impactor, and drop tower model files used for helmet
validation. This document is intended to serve as a manual and quick start guide for users, and provides
general information on the FE models, including best practices for running the models. This manual applies
only to the use of the models with LS-DYNA solver (LSTC, Livermore, CA).
2. About the Project

The NFL has convened academics with entrepreneurs to stimulate innovation of player-ready safety
equipment. It’s part of what the NFL calls the Engineering Roadmap. The Engineering Roadmap is a
comprehensive and dedicated plan to try and bring knowledge, research and tools together to develop
and improve protective equipment for the head. As part of this Roadmap, Biocore and FRI with support
from the National Football League have collaborated with university partners to develop open-source FE
models of four modern football helmets and associated test equipment and methods. These publicly
available FE models are available as a platform and baseline resource for injury prevention research and
to stimulate the development of novel and highly effective helmet designs. The models were developed
by Centers of Expertise (COEs) at the University of Virginia, Wake Forest University, KTH Royal Institute of
Technology, and the University of Waterloo. Technical specifications and experimental validation data for
the models were developed by Biocore and provided to these COEs, who created the computational
models using physical helmets. The COEs are listed below.
University of Waterloo
Xenith Model COE
Principal Investigator: Duane Cronin, Ph.D.
University of Virginia
Vicis Model COE and Helmet Assessment Models COE
Principal Investigator: Matthew B. Panzer, Ph.D.
Wake Forest University

Schutt Model COE
Principal Investigators: Joel Stitzel, Ph.D. and Scott Gayzik, Ph.D.
KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Riddell Model COE
Principal Investigator: Madelen Fahlstedt, Ph.D. and Peter Halldin, Ph.D.
1
2.1 Impactor Models Overview

Three impactor models were developed for the assessment of American football helmet FE models. The
following sections provide a summary of these test conditions. In addition to the impactor models, two
dummy models (HIII H-N and NOCSAE headform) were developed. The HIII H-N model was used in the
pendulum and linear impacts and the NOCSAE headform was used in the drop impact.
2.1.1 Pendulum Impact (PI)

The pendulum impact model was adapted from Cobb et al. (2016) and Rowson et al. (2015). The pendulum
was composed of a rectangular tube with a 15.5 kg cylindrical impactor mounted 190.5 cm from the
revolute joint. The overall mass of the pendulum, including the impactor, was 37 kg and the inertia
(measured from center of rotation) was 72 kg-m2. A nylon cap was attached to the cylindrical impactor at
the striking surface. For each helmet, a series of 12 pendulum impacts was conducted. These impacts
were delivered to four helmet locations at 3.0, 4.6, and 6.1 m/s (Figure 1). The helmets were donned on
the HIII H-N, which was mounted to a linear sliding table with a mass of 17.7 kg. Local head kinematics,
neck kinetics, and ram acceleration were measured (Cobb et al., 2016; Rowson et al., 2015).
Figure 1. Pendulum impact locations.
2.1.2 Linear Impact (LI)

The linear impact model was adapted from Viano et al. (2012). The impactor was composed of a ram, load
cell, backing plate, vinyl nitrile (VN600) foam, and a nylon end cap. The VN600 foam was located between
the nylon striking surface and the backing plate, and a load cell attached the backing plate to the ram
cylinder. Overall, the impactor weighed 15.4 kg (including mass of load cell; 14.3 kg without load cell).
Helmets were donned on the HIII H-N, which was mounted on a linear sliding table with mass of 17.7 kg.
Impacts were delivered to eight helmet locations and included frontal, rear, lateral, and oblique impacts
2
at velocities of 5.5, 7.4, and 9.3 m/s (Figure 2). Local head kinematics, neck kinetics, and ram forces were
measured (Viano et al., 2012).
Figure 2. Linear impact locations. In this document A’ is denoted as “AP”.
2.1.3 Drop Impact (DI)

A series of drop impacts were performed with the helmets donned on the NOCSAE headform. Five helmet
impact locations were tested at impact velocities of 2.9, 3.7, 4.9, and 6.0 m/s (Figure 3). The NOCSAE
headform was rigidly constrained at the neck to the drop carriage, which weighed 6 kg (10.4 kg including
mass of the headform). The NOCSAE ½” Modular Elastomer Programmer (MEP) pad was used as an impact
surface. Head kinematics were measured and a 6 degree-of-freedom (DOF) load cell was positioned under
the MEP pad to measure impact force.
Figure 3. Drop impact locations.
3
3. Impactor Model Development Summary

The impactor models were developed in three general steps; geometry development, material
characterization and optimization, and model validation and verification.
3.1. Geometry Development

3.1.1 Hybrid III Head-Neck Model
The HIII H-N geometry was obtained from technical drawings published by the U.S. Department of
Transportation. The HIII head was simplified to include only the head skin rubber layer, rigid skull, and
head mount. The neck included parts representing the occipital condyle (OC) pin joint, neck butyl rubber
discs, aluminum discs, neck cable, and nodding block. The head was mounted on the neck based on index
points measured from head landmarks relative to the OC pin joint. A coordinate system at the head center
of gravity (CG) was positioned and constrained to the rigid skull based on its location in the technical
drawings. Head mass and inertial properties were explicitly defined for the rigid skull part and set to match
technical specifications of the physical dummy.
The HIII head skin, head mount, and neck were meshed using hexahedral solid elements. The rigid skull
was meshed using quadrilateral shell elements and the neck cable was represented using a series of 50
1D cable elements (cross-sectional area of 50 mm2). Finally, a zero-length discrete beam element was
used to constrain the head to the neck at the center of the OC pin joint. This discrete beam was given
properties to represent the behavior of the nodding block. A detailed review of the model components is
available in Section 5.
3.1.2 NOCSAE Headform

The NOCSAE headform geometry was obtained by reconstructing computed tomography (CT) scans of the
headform. CT images were segmented and used to generate the 3D geometry of the NOCSAE head skin
layer (Figure 4). The model headform was simplified to include only the head skin rubber layer, rigid skull,
and rigid neck. The head skin layer was meshed using hexahedral solid elements. A rigid shell was meshed
on the internal surface of the head skin layer to represent the rigid inner skull part. Internal structures
were not represented in the FE model.
Figure 4. CT images of the NOCSAE headform were obtained and the outer surface was segmented to create the 3D geometry
of the rubber skin layer. This figure shows the segmentation of the outer skin layer (red) as well as the internal components
of the headform.
4
A coordinate system at the head CG was positioned and constrained to the rigid skull. Head mass and
inertial properties were explicitly defined for the rigid skull part and set to match technical specifications
of the physical dummy. The NOCSAE neck was meshed as a solid, rigid cylinder positioned within the neck
cavity. The neck was constrained to the rigid skull using a zero-length discrete beam with very stiff
properties. A detailed review of the model components is available in Section 5.
3.1.3 Pendulum Impactor

The geometry of the pendulum impactor was obtained from technical drawings of the test equipment
provided by the Virginia Tech Helmet Ratings Laboratory. The pendulum comprises the pendulum arm
assembly (which includes rigid impactor cylinder) and a nylon end cap (impact surface). Mass and inertial
properties were prescribed to the pendulum arm, and the center of rotation was defined at the location
of the revolute joint. A coordinate system was defined at the posterior surface of the impactor cylinder.
All parts were meshed with hexahedral solid elements, and the nylon end cap was attached to the
pendulum arm assembly through shared nodes. A detailed review of the model components is available
in Section 5.
3.1.4 Linear Impactor

The geometry of the linear impactor was obtained from technical drawings of the test equipment
provided by Biokinetics and Associates Ltd. The linear impactor model includes the ram, backing plate,
vinyl nitrile (VN600) foam, and nylon end cap (impact surface). Densities of the different parts were tuned
to match their reported masses. A stiff zero-length discrete beam was defined to constrain the ram and
backing plate parts. Half of the load cell mass was added to the mass of the backing plate and ram, each.
All parts were meshed with hexahedral elements, and the backing plate, VN600, and nylon striking face
were constrained through shared nodes. A coordinate system was also defined between the ram and
backing plate. A detailed review of the model components is available in Section 5.
3.1.5 Drop Tower

The geometry of the drop test apparatus was obtained from technical drawings provided by Biocore. The
model includes parts that comprise the drop carriage and parts that comprise the anvil. Densities of the
different parts in the drop carriage were tuned to match their reported masses. The anvil model was
composed of a MEP pad layer and load cell. A stiff zero-length discrete beam was defined to constrain the
MEP pad base to the load cell. The base of the load cell was constrained in all degrees of freedom. The
drop carriage was free to translate in the z-direction, only. All parts were meshed with hexahedral
elements and the different parts were constrained through rigid body constraints. A detailed review of
the model components is available in Section 5.
3.2.Material Characterization
3.2.1 Hybrid III Head-Neck
Isolated material testing data was not available for the HIII H-N. Therefore, material properties were
determined through an inverse FE approach. The NHTSA head drop certification test with a drop height
of 376 mm was simulated to optimize the head rubber material response. The deformable head skin was
modeled using MAT_SIMPLIFIED_RUBBER/FOAM, which prescribed the uniaxial stress-strain response of
5
the HIII head skin (Figure 5). Rate effects were not considered. The head skull and head mount were
modeled as rigid parts. The simulation result of the head drop certification test is shown in Section 6.
Figure 5. Uniaxial true stress-strain response curve of the HIII head skin rubber. An Ogden constitutive model was used to
obtain this curve. Strain is negative in compression.
The neck rubber was modeled using MAT_VISCOUS_FOAM, a constitutive model that consists of a
nonlinear spring in parallel with a viscous damper. To capture the inherent incompressibility of the butyl
rubber, the Poisson’s ratio was defined as 0.48. The neck cable beams were elastic with a Young’s modulus
of 70 GPa. Force-displacement and moment-angle curves were used to define the properties of the
nodding block to the 6 DOF, zero-length discrete beam joining the head and neck at the OC pin joint. The
y-direction moment-angle curve was nonlinear and represented the behavior of the rubber stoppers in
the physical nodding block. In the other DOFs, the force-displacement and moment-angle curves were
defined to constrain relative head-neck motion to the y-axis (sagittal plane) only. Static neck extension,
flexion, and lateral bending tests were simulated to optimize the elastic response of the neck rubber. The
HIII neck flexion and extension certification tests were simulated to tune the viscous parameters of the
material model and further refine the combined response of the HIII head and neck models. All other
parts in the neck were assigned rigid properties. Results from these simulations are shown in Section 6.
3.2.2 NOCSAE Headform

Isolated material testing data was not available for the NOCSAE headform. Therefore, the front and top
location drop impact tests were simulated to optimize the head skin rubber properties. These simulations
were conducted after the optimization of the MEP material properties (see Section 3.2.5). The deformable
head skin was modeled using a linear viscoelastic constitutive model. Two different sets of material
properties are available for the NOCSAE headform head skin: NOCSAE_v1.0.k which consists of stiffer skin
properties (*MAT_KELVIN-MAXWELL_VISCOELASTIC) and a second version with softer skin properties,
NOCAE_v1.1.k (*MAT_VISCOELASTIC). All results presented in this document were obtained using
NOCSAE_v1.1.k. The inner skull and neck were assigned rigid material properties. A 6 DOF, zero-length
discrete beam was defined to join the NOCSAE skull and neck parts. This beam was assigned very stiff
properties to eliminate any relative head-neck motion.
6
3.2.3 Pendulum Impactor

The pendulum arm assembly was assigned rigid material properties. The nylon end cap was assigned
elastic properties with a Young’s modulus of 2.4 GPa.
3.2.4 Linear Impactor

The ram and backing plate were assigned rigid material properties. Like the pendulum impactor, the Nylon
end cap was modeled as elastic with a Young’s modulus of 2.4 GPa. A series of experimental tests were
performed to characterize the VN600 foam material properties. Quasi-static compression tests were
performed using an Instron Universal Test Machine at strain rates of 10-3, 10-2, and 10-1 1/s. Dynamic tests
were performed using a powered drop tower with impact velocities of 4.6, 8.0, and 9.3 m/s. These
dynamic tests resulted in peak strains of 0.18, 0.26, and 0.6 and strain rates of 84, 97.5, and 131 1/s,
respectively. These test data were used to fit a 3D response surface (stress vs. strain vs. strain rate), which
was used to interpolate data for the intermediate rates not represented in the quasi-static or dynamic
tests. The VN600 was modeled using MAT_FU_CHANG_FOAM_LOG_LOG_INTERPOLATION, which
referenced a lookup table that included the experimental and interpolated stress-strain curves. Nine total
stress-strain curves covering strain rates from 10-3 to 102 1/s were included to account for rate effects
(Figure 6). An additional unloading stress-strain curve was also included. Finally, separate drop tests
conducted at Biocore were simulated to assess the fidelity of the VN600 foam. These simulation results
are shown in Section 6.
Figure 6. VN600 true stress-strain curves over strain rates between 10-3 – 102 1/s. Strain is positive in compression.
3.2.5 Drop Tower

The load cell and base of the MEP pad were modeled as rigid parts. The MEP pad rubber was 6” in diameter
and modeled using hexahedral elements. A series of rigid-impactor drop tests were performed at impact
velocities of 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, and 4.0 m/s to characterize the MEP material properties. The MEP pad was
modeled using MAT_OGDEN_RUBBER with optional relaxation parameters defined. The rigid impacts
were simulated and used to tune the Ogden rubber and viscoelastic parameters. These simulation results
are shown in Section 6. All other drop fixture parts were assigned rigid material properties.
7
3.3.Validation and Verification Simulations

A summary of the simulations used to validate and verify these models are summarized in Table 1. All
simulations were run with LS-DYNA smp v9.1.0, double precision. More information is found in Section 6.
Table 1. Summary of simulations used to develop and validate the helmet assessment dummy and impactor models.
Model Component Verification Simulation Results

NHTSA Head Drop Certification Test
Head Figure 6
(376 mm; NHTSA, 2008)
Static Neck Bending
HIII H-N Neck Figure 6
(Flx., Ext., Lat.; Spittle et al., 1992)
NHTSA Neck Certification
Neck Figure 6
(Flx., Ext.; NHTSA, 2008)
NOCSAE Head Drop Impact (Front, Top) N/A
Linear Impactor VN600 Rigid Drop Impact Figure7
Drop Impact MEP Pad Rigid Drop Impact Figure 8
Flexion (Flx.), Extension (Ext.), and Lateral (Lat); Not Applicable (N/A).
4. Dummy and Impactor Models Information

Table 2 and Table 3 below provide general information about the dummy and impactor models. Mass and
inertia measurements were obtained from the d3hsp files generated when running the simulations. The
files referenced in Tables 2 and 3 have a “.k” extension and can be found within a specific helmet file
directory: \03_BoundaryConditions\0Includes. The unit system used for the dummy and impactor models
is summarized in Table 4 and specified in each model “.k” file.
Table 2. HIII H-N and NOCSAE model summaries.
HIII H-N
Main file name: HIII_headneck.k
Elements: 56,038
Nodes: 58,061
Number of Parts: 15
Mass (kg): 5.74
Moments of Inertia+;
Ixx = 39500; Iyy = 33500; Izz = 1.9300
principal axes (kg-mm2):
NOCSAE
Main file name: NOCSAE_v1.0.k & NOCSAE_v1.1.k
Elements: 62,997
Nodes: 66,391
Number of Parts: 4
Mass (kg): 5.01
Moments of Inertia+;
Ixx = 23500; Iyy = 29600; Izz = 17500
principal axes (kg-mm2):
+
Moments of inertia measurements include all model components.
8
Table 3. Impactor model summaries. Moments of inertia are irrelevant for linear and drop impacts.
Pendulum Impact
Main file name: PendulumImpactor.k
Elements: 38,503
Nodes: 56,907
Number of Parts: 2
Mass (kg): 37.0
Moments of Inertia*;
Ixx = 72.0; Iyy = 72.0; Izz = 72.0
principal axes (kg-m2):
Linear Impact
Main file name: LinearImpactor.k
Elements: 9,409
Nodes: 10,733
Number of Parts: 5
Mass (kg): 15.4
Drop Impact
Main file name: DropImpactor_0main_“dummy”.k
Elements: 20,197
Nodes: 30,512
Number of Parts: 12
Drop Carriage Mass+ (kg): 3.81
*
Measurement does not include the nylon end cap”;
+
Measurement made using only parts from “DropImpactor_Carriage.k”.
Table 4. Helmet model unit system.
Time Length Mass Force Stress

ms mm kg kN GPa
All local coordinate systems (CS) used for defining model outputs in the dummy models are defined by
SAE J211/1 sign convention (Figure 7). Note that the global coordinate system may be defined differently
for each impactor model, and/or helmet model. For each impact simulation, the global coordinate system
is consistent with the global coordinate system used in the experiment (Figure 8).
9
3,5
4
HIII H-N NOCSAE
CS Function CS Function
Skull (Inertia): Defines location and orientation of Defines location and orientation of head CG
1 head CG. Application of head part inertia properties. 1 accelerometer. Allows for output of local head
Constrained to head (not shown in figure). accelerations. Constrained to head.
Head Accelerometer (Local): Defines location and Defines location and orientation of discrete beam
2 orientation of head accelerometer. Allows for output 2 joining head and neck. Orientation of this CS is
of local head accelerations. Constrained to head. arbitrary and not used as a model output.
Head OC (Local): Defines location and orientation of
3 nodding block discrete beam at the Occipital Condyle.
Constrained to head (not shown in figure).
Neck Lower (T1): Defines location and orientation of
4 discrete beam joining neck to neck mount. Allows for
output of lower neck forces. Constrained to neck.
Neck Upper (OC): Defines location and orientation of
upper neck mounting. Allows for output of relative
5
head-neck motion and upper neck forces.
Constrained to neck.
Figure 7. Local coordinate systems definitions for the HIII H-N (left) and NOCSAE (right) models.
Figure 8. Representative examples of the orientation of the global coordinate systems in the pendulum impact (left), linear
impact (middle), and drop impact (right).
10
4.1. Running the Model

These models were developed for use on a standalone PC platform using Symmetric Multiprocessing
(SMP). All simulations were executed using a PC running Windows 10 x64 with an Intel CORE i7 processor
with 4 cores. Table 5 summarizes the current LS-DYNA build used for model development and debugging.
Table 5. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging.
Version Precision Revision SVN Ver. Platform OS

smp d R9.1.0 Double 113244 113244 Windows x64 Windows 7/8/10
Executable
ls-dyna_smp_d_R910_winx64_ifort131.exe
4.1.1 General Instructions

Instructions to run the impactor simulations with a helmet model can be found within the helmet user’s
manuals. General comments and recommendations for positioning the impactor models relative to a
helmeted dummy are provided in the following sections. Information on technical support and other
resources to assist model users is available at our FAQ page.
For each helmet model, a preset, main simulation input file (0Main.k) has been provided for each impact
condition, dummy, location, and speed. Main files are located using the following path syntax:
“helmet”\03_BoundaryConditions\“impact condition”\XX_“dummy”_“location”_“speed”\0Main.k,
where XX indicates the impact condition (PI, LI, or DI), “dummy” is either HIII or NOCSAE, and “location”
and “speed” are defined in Section 2.1. See user manual for naming convention used with “helmet”. A
main file can be used directly for simulation or modified by the user for an arbitrary impact condition. To
modify the file for an arbitrary condition:
1. Open a 0Main.k file.

2. Change the desired parameters under the *PARAMETER keyword.
3. Save the file to another directory. If the main file is moved to a different directory, ensure that
the 0Includes path in 0Main.k is referenced accordingly under *INCLUDE_PATH_RELATIVE.
4. Load the modified 0Main.k file into LS-DYNA and execute the simulation.
Parameters in main files are preset to their default values, which are based on Section 2.1. Values used
for full helmet validation are helmet model dependent and given within each COE’s helmet user’s manual.
Details on parameter naming and referencing within keyword files are included in Section 4.3. Impact
condition-specific parameter definitions are provided in sections 4.1.2 – 4.1.4. Be advised that when
changing parameter values, ensure the use of the unit system specified in the header. Also ensure that
parameter names and their associated numerical values are separated by a comma. The following
parameters are specified for every impact condition in 0Main.k (Table 6):
11
Table 6. Redundant impact condition parameters.
Reference
Parameter Reference File Reference Keyword
Description Keyword
(0Main.k) (0Includes) (title)
(name)
simulation
endt *CONTROL_TERMINATION endtim
termination time
“helmet”_control.k
d3plot file output
d3dt *DATABASE_BINARY_D3PLOT dt
frequency
4.1.2 Pendulum Impact (PI)

General comments:
• All pendulum ID’s are offset by 10000000 using *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM

• Confirm position of the pendulum relative to the head (see positioning guidelines, Figure 1)
• Confirm contact frictions are reasonable for the helmet design
Preset values for the pendulum impact condition are based on Figure 1 (Table 7). The only parameter that
may need to be adjusted is the head x-translation (xtran), to account for the size of the helmet; there is
no experimental specification. This parameter should be checked prior to simulation to ensure that there
is no initial contact or overlap between the impactor and helmeted dummy.
Table 7. Pendulum impact condition-specific parameter definitions.
Reference
Description Keyword
(name)
pendulum *PART_INERTIA
vry
V impactor PendulumImpactor.k (Arm Assembly)
velocity *INITIAL_VELOCITY_GENERATION omega
HIII H-N
yrot, zrot y- and z- a7
rotation angles *DEFINE_TRANSFORMATION
0Main_PI_HIII_“Helmet”.k
HIII H-N (HIII Rotation)
xtran,
x-, y-, and z- a1, a2, a3
ytran, ztran
translation
4.1.3 Linear Impact (LI)

General comments:
• No offset applied to linear impactor ID’s

• Confirm position of the ram relative to the head (see positioning guidelines, Figure 2)
Preset values for the linear impact condition are based on Figure 2 (Table 8). The only parameter that may
need to be adjusted is the impactor x-translation (x), to account for the size of the helmet; there is no
12
experimental specification. This parameter should be checked prior to simulation to ensure that there is
no initial contact or overlap between the impactor and helmeted dummy.
Table 8. Linear impact condition-specific parameter definitions.
Reference
Description Keyword
(name)
linear impactor
veli *INITIAL_VELOCITY vx
velocity
HIII H-N *DEFINE_TRANSFORMATION
alpha, beta 0Main_LI_HIII_“Helmet”.k a7
rotation angles (HIII Rotation)
impactor
*DEFINE_TRANSFORMATION
x, y, z x-, y-, and z- a1, a2, a3
(Impactor Adjustment)
translation
4.1.4 Drop Impact (DI)

General comments:
• All Drop Impactor ID’s are offset by 10000000 using *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM

• Confirm position of the pendulum relative to the impactor (see positioning guidelines, Figure 3)
Preset values for the drop impact condition are based on Figure 3 (Table 9). The only parameter that may
need to be changed is the load cell z-translation (LC_z), to account for the size of the helmet; there is no
experimental specification. This parameter should be checked prior to simulation to ensure that there is
no initial contact or overlap between the impactor and helmeted dummy.
Table 9. Drop impact condition-specific parameter definitions.
Reference
Parameter Reference Keyword
Description Reference File (0Includes) Keyword
(0Main.k) (title)
(name)
Drop
V carriage 0Main_DI_“dummy”_“Helmet”.k *INITIAL_VELOCITY_GENERATION vz
velocity
Drop arm
armrot rotation a7
(Drop Arm Rotation)
angles
DropImpactor_0main.k
Load cell
LC_x, *DEFINE_TRANSFORMATION
x-, y-, and z- a1, a2, a3
LC_y, LC_z (LC Position Adjustment)
translation
Headform
y- and z-
yrot, zrot a7
rotation
angles 0Main_DI_“dummy”_“Helmet”.k
(HIII or NOCSAE Rotation)
NOCSAE
xtran,
x-, y-, and z- a1, a2, a3
ytran, ztran
translation
13
4.2.Organization of the Impactor Keyword Cards

Main simulation input files (0Main.k) rely on a series of other keyword files that are incorporated through
several *INCLUDE or *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM cards. Each main input file includes a main impact condition-
helmet file (0Main_XX_“dummy”_“Helmet”.k), where XX indicates the impact condition (PI, LI, or DI)
which includes additional simulation files. An include hierarchy is shown in Figure 9 and notable included
files are listed for each impact condition file (Table 10). Outputs defined in the included keyword files are
also noted. Refer to Section 4.4 for a detailed description of the model outputs.
Figure 9. DYNA file include hierarchy. See helmet user’s manuals for details on naming conventions used in quotes.
Table 10. Required keyword cards included in each main impact condition keyword file.
Pendulum Impact: 0Main_PI_HIII_“Helmet”.k

Included File Include Card Description Outputs
Head
accelerometer,
HIII H-N model positioned
Head rotation,
HIII_headneck.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM according to impact
Lower neck load
location
cell, Upper neck
load cell
HIII neck mount
HIII_neckmount_PI.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to N/A
impact location
Pendulum impactor
Pendulum
PendulumImpactor.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM model with ID’s offset
accelerometer
through transformation
Helmet model positioned
“Helmet”_0main_“dummy”fit.dyn *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM on the head according to N/A
COE specification
Standardized card that
**“Helmet”_control.k *INCLUDE includes all control and N/A
database cards
14
Linear Impact: 0Main_LI_HIII_“Helmet”.k

Head
accelerometer
HIII H-N model positioned Head rotation
HIII_headneck.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM according to impact Lower neck load
location cell
Upper neck load
cell
HIII neck mount
HIII_neckmount_LI.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to N/A
impact location
Linear impactor model Impactor
Linear_Impactor.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to accelerometer
impact location Impactor load cell
COE specification
database cards
Drop Impact: 0Main_DI_“dummy”_“Helmet”.k
HIII_head_0main.k Dummy headform model
Head
*NOCSAE_v1.#.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to
accelerometer
impact location
DropImpactor_0main_ Impactor transformation
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM N/A
“dummy”.k and sub-part definitions
Drop carriage arm
positioned according to
**DropImpactor_Arm_
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM impact location with ID’s N/A
“dummy”.k*
offset through
transformation
Drop carriage positioned
to impact location with Carriage
**DropImpactor_Carriage.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM
ID’s offset through accelerometer
transformation
Drop load cell positioned
to impact location with
**DropImpactor_LC.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM Load cell
ID’s offset through
transformation
COE specification
database cards
*
NOCSAE headform files include an associated version number. **Files are included indirectly.
15
4.3. Toggles Programmed into the Model

Input parameters are coded into the main impactor model files (0Main.k) to set the initial impact velocity
and the positioning of the dummy model. Guidelines for setting these parameters can be found in Section
4.1. Parameters are defined in the main files under the *PARAMETER card, which is located after banner
comments and *KEYWORD card. Parameters defined in the main file are preceded by an “R”. For example,
a parameter called “vel0” would be defined as “Rvel0”. Parameters are called in subsequent cards with
the prefix “&”. For example, when using a parameter called “endt” to define the simulation termination
time, it would be called as “&endt” in the *CONTROL_TERMINATION card (Figure ).
IMPORTANT: LS-DYNA generally allocates 10 spaces for each input field in a card (there are a few
exceptions). When filling a field with numerals (i.e. not using a parameter), the numerals must occupy the
last spaces in the field. When filling a field with a string (i.e. using a parameter), the characters have the
occupy the first spaces in the field. This can be a source of error, especially when there are characters and
strings defined in the same line. In the example in Figure 10, the parameter “&endt” (5 characters,
including the “&”) occupies the first 5 spaces in the field. The “0.0” in the second field under “dtmin” (3
characters, including the “.”) occupies the last three spaces in the field. An alternative option is to use
commas between every entry on a single line of the card.
Figure 10. Correct spacing when using parameters and numerals in a model card.
4.4.Model Output Information

Table11 provides a summary of the available preprogrammed model outputs for the dummy and impactor
models. These are required to measure kinematics and kinetics from the impact simulations. Current
model outputs preprogrammed into the model are located within the keyword file per the description
found in Table – 9 and according to the coordinate systems described in Figure 7. Users may define
additional outputs for their own purpose.
IMPORTANT: Experimental data may not be in the same coordinate system as those defined in the model.
All local coordinate systems used to define model outputs are in SAE J211/1 sign convention (Figure 7).
Table 11. Model outputs.
HIII H-N: “HIII_headneck.k”

Value Model Output Comments
Head CG Kinematics NID: 17905
Head Rotation About OC Pin NID: 17906 Not measured in experiments
Lower Neck Load Cell EID: 56421 Located between neck and mount
Upper Neck Load Cell EID: 56422 Located at OC pin
16
+
NOCSAE Headform: “NOCSAEv1.#.k”
Head CG Kinematics NID: 61099
Pendulum Impact: “PendulumImpactor.k”
Pendulum Accelerometer NID: 10023382 Offset by 10000000 in *INCLUDE_TRANSFORMATION
Linear Impact: “LinearImpactor.k”
Ram Accelerometer NID: 70075
Ram Load Cell EID: 61000 Located between backing plate and ram
Drop Impact: “DropImpactor_Carriage.k” and “DropImpactor_LC.k”
Drop Carriage
NID: 10002458 Offset by 10000000 in *INCLUDE_TRANSFORMATION
Accelerometer
Load Cell EID: 10016033 Offset by 10000000 in *INCLUDE_TRANSFORMATION
+
NOCSAE headform files include an associated version number.
Load cells are modeled through the use of zero-length 6 DOF discrete beams. Element force outputs and
the corresponding force and moment components are summarized in Table 12. These are specific to the
coordinate systems used to define the load cell outputs in these models.
Table 12. Conversion between model discrete beam force/moment outputs and load cell components.
Model Output Load Cell Component

axial Force – X
shear_s Force – Y
shear_t Force – Z
torsion Moment – X
moment_s Moment – Y
toment_t Moment – Z
4.5.Model Number Conventions

A consistent numbering convention was used for the HIII H-N and NOCSAE headform models and is
summarized in Table 13. The numbering system was designed to facilitate the incorporation of the
headform and helmet models without the need to offset the headform IDs.
Table 13. Numbering convention for the HIII H-N and NOCSAE headform models.
Headform Model ID Range

IDs
HIII H-N NOCSAE
1 – 11,856 (shell)
1 – 13,520 (shell)
11857 – 56,370 (solid)
Elements 1 – 49,476 (solid)
56,371 – 56,422 (beam)
56,421 (beam)
37,039 – 37,043 (mass)
Nodes 1 – 58,574 1 – 66,392
1 – 14 (solid/shells)
Parts 1–4
22 – 23 (beams)
17
The linear impactor model was relatively small in element count and did not require an ID offset when
included in the linear impact main simulation file. The pendulum and drop test simulations were larger in
element count, and the IDs were offset by 10000000 to be compatible with the helmet models. Users can
modify this offset in the *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM cards in the main files, if needed. The numbering scheme
(including offsets) currently adopted in the impactor models is outlined in Table 144.
Table 14. Numbering convention for the HIII H-N and NOCSAE headform models.
Impactor Model ID Range

IDs
Pendulum Impactor Linear Impactor Drop Impact
Elements 10000001 - 10038503 61,000 – 70,408 10000001 – 10020197
Nodes 10000001 - 10056907 61,000 – 71,732 10000001 – 10030512
Parts 10000001 – 10000002 50 – 54 10000001 – 10000012
5. Review of Model Components

Detailed overviews of the HIII H-N and NOCSAE headforms are shown in Figure 11 11 and 12Figure 12. In
these figures, the head skin rubber is transparent allowing the rigid skull shell parts to be visible. The
locations of the local coordinate systems used to define headform model outputs are shown in Figure 7.
The impactor models are shown in Figure 133 - Figure 155. The locations of the model outputs specific to
each impactor model are included in these figures.
Figure 11. Overview of the HIII H-N model.
18
Figure 12. Overview of the NOCSAE headform model.
Figure 13. Overview of the pendulum impactor model (isometric view).
19
Figure 14. Overview of the linear impactor model.
Figure 15. Overview of the drop impact model (isometric view).
20
6. Model Validation
The HIII H-N and NOCSAE models were developed and validated using a hierarchical approach. Since
material data was not available for the HIII H-N and NOCSAE materials (e.g. head skin rubber, neck rubber
in the HIII), an inverse approach was used to optimize model material properties using component-level
simulations. This process was detailed in Section 3.2. The HIII H-N and NOCSAE models were subsequently
validated in the appropriate impact cases (HIII: pendulum and linear impact; NOCSAE: drop impact).
6.1. Material Optimization

Final model results in the simulation cases used to optimize HIII H-N material properties are shown in
Figure 6. Results from the rigid drop tests performed on the VN600 foam are shown in Figure7. Results
from the rigid drop tests performed on the MEP pad are shown in Figure 8.
Figure 16. Results of the HIII H-N component level tests: head drop certification (top, left), static neck bending (top, right),
neck flexion certification (bottom, left), neck extension certification (bottom, right).
21
Figure 17. Results from the rigid VN600 pad drop test simulations.
Figure 18. Results from the rigid MEP pad drop test simulations.
6.2.Model Validation
The impact simulations were executed to assess the HIII H-N and NOCSAE models. The HIII H-N model was
assessed in the pendulum and linear impacts. Both versions of the NOCSAE model (v1.0 and v1.1) were
assessed in the drop impact. Please refer to the COE’s helmet manual for details regarding the use of
NOCSAE headform version for validation of helmet response. In addition to being performed on helmeted
headforms, all impact tests were performed at the lowest impact velocity on the respective bare heads (
22
Table 5). An overview of the impact tests and impact locations are available in Section 2.1.
Table 15. Simulation matrix used to assess the HIII H-N and NOCSAE models.
HIII H-N: Pendulum Impact (PI)

Impact Configuration Evaluation Criteria (vs. time)
Model Setup
Location Velocity Lin. Acc. Ang. Vel.
Back 3.0 m/s Head CG (X) Head CG (Y)
Front 3.0 m/s Head CG (X) Head CG (Y)
Front Boss 3.0 m/s Head CG (XYZ) Head CG (XYZ)
Side 3.0 m/s Head CG (XYZ) Head CG (XYZ)
HIII H-N: Linear Impact (LI)

Impact Configuration Evaluation Criteria
Model Setup
Location Velocity Imp. Forc. Lin. Acc. Ang. Vel.
Impactor Head CG Head CG

A 5.5 m/s
Load Cell (X) (XYZ) (XYZ)

AP 5.5 m/s
23

B 5.5 m/s

C 5.5 m/s

D 5.5 m/s

F 5.5 m/s

R 5.5 m/s

UT 5.5 m/s
NOCSAE Headform: Drop Impact (DI)

Impact Configuration Evaluation Criteria
Model Setup
Location Velocity LC Force
Front 2.9 m/s Load Cell (Z)
Top 2.9 m/s Load Cell (Z)
24
6.3.Objective Evaluation
The CORA objective rating method (Gehre et al., 2009) was used to quantitatively compare the simulation
and experimental responses for each evaluation criteria listed in
Table 5. The CORA standard assigns a score from 0 to 1 to assess similarity in phase, size, and progression.
A score of 0 indicates no correlation and a score of 1 indicates a perfect match between the two responses.
The recommended CORA parameters were utilized.
Weighting factors based on experimental peak magnitude values were applied to determine the overall
average objective evaluation rating for each evaluation criteria with orthogonal components. This factor
is referred to as the Test Magnitude Factor, or TMF (Davis et al., 2016). Weighting was only applied to the
orthogonal component signals from the same sensor. Weight factors were derived by normalizing the
peak value for each orthogonal signal of a single sensor (e.g. the X, Y, and Z signals) by the sum of peaks
for each orthogonal signal as per Equation 1.
𝑅𝑖
𝑇𝑀𝐹 = (1)
𝑅𝑥 + 𝑅𝑦 + 𝑅𝑧
Where Ri is the peak value of the test trace for a given signal. The magnitude factor is then applied to the
CORA score for each respective orthogonal signal. The final CORA score for a sensor is then considered to
be the sum of the magnitude weighted orthogonal components. The overall score for a given test is the
mean of all sensors in the test, and the overall score is the mean of all tests in the series. Overall CORA
scores are shown in Table 6. CORA scores for each metric for each test are shown in Tables 18 – 20.
Table 16. Overall CORA evaluation.
Drop Tower
Linear Impactor Pendulum
(NOCSAE v1.0/v1.1)
Overall Weighted CORA Score 0.79/0.81 0.87 0.69
Legend 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
7. Technical Notes
Users should be mindful of the following points:
• All models were developed and validated in the specific loading conditions presented in this
document. These models may be used in other loading conditions; however, we highly
recommend further validation in extrapolated conditions.
• User modifications to the material properties defined in the model will lead to different results
• Several simplifications were made in the HIII H-N model:
o The HIII head was reduced to three parts. The head inertia is correct and represents the
contribution of all head components in the physical dummy.
o The geometry of the eyes, nose, and jaw were simplified.
25
• The geometry of the NOCSAE headform was also simplified to be represented by a deformable
skin layer and a rigid inner skull.
• In the actual linear impactor, the VN600 foam is connected to the nylon end cap and the backing
plate with Velcro. In the model, the VN600 foam is connected to the nylon end cap and the
backing plate through shared nodes.
• There is no computational treatment of temperature and humidity effects.
• There is no computational treatment of the inherent variability across dummy headforms and
materials used in the test apparatus.
• The models have been validated in a specific version and release of LS-DYNA (Table 5). Their
stability in other versions and releases cannot be guaranteed.
8. Troubleshooting
Technical support and other resources to assist model users is available at our FAQ page.
Time Step: The model was developed and tested with specific time step targets for the explicit time
integration. Without mass scaling, the time steps of the impactor models are listed in Table 7. The user
can specify a time-step through mass-scaling (DT2MS in the *CONTROL_TIMESTEP card). Caution should
be exercised when mass scaling, the user should investigate the total mass gained and the location of the
additional mass.
Table 17. Impactor models time-steps.
Model Time-Step (s)

Pendulum Impact 4.0573E-04
Linear Impact 4.0573E-04
Drop Impact 5.7755E-04
Control Cards: The model was developed and tested with specific control cards parameters. These
parameters were selected based on model performance as well as inclusion with other boundary
conditions. Default values were selected for most control parameters to reduce model incompatibilities.
However, some specific changes to the default control card parameters were required for human model
development and should be noted prior to running with another model.
Material Properties: The current model uses material properties based on inverse approaches. Altering
the material properties within the cards of the model will alter the performance of the models.
Hourglass: Hourglass control has a large influence on stability and compliance of soft materials,
specifically foams. We have developed and refined the hourglass control in the models to tradeoff model
stability and response. The model response may be affected using different hourglass formulations. Users
can refer to our FAQ page for a list of technical resources available to model users.
Contact Definitions: Modifications to contact parameters in a region where instability is occurring may be
investigated if contact stability is an issue. This refers to parameters such as SOFT, contact thickness (sst,
26
mst, sfst, sfmt) or scale factor (sfs, sfm). To reduce negative volume errors in LS-DYNA, the use of
*CONTACT_INTERIOR to prevent elements from inverting is recommended. Users can refer to our FAQ
page for a list of technical resources available to model users.
9. Model Updates
These models may be updated. Users should refer to the models download page for the latest model
version. If users identify features of the model that may be improved or enhanced, they should contact
Biocore at models@biocorellc.com.
27
10. Acknowledgements
The Helmet Assessment Models COE at the University of Virginia, Center for Applied Biomechanics
gratefully acknowledges the following organizations and individuals for their generous support and hard
work.
Sponsors: University Collaborators

National Football League
Xenith X2E COE
Football Research, Inc. University of Waterloo
PI: Duane Cronin
Biocore, LLC
Richard Kent, PhD Engineering Team: Jeffery Barker, Donata
Principal Engineering Consultant and co-Founder Gierczycka, Michael Bustamante, David
Bruneau, Miguel Corrales
Ann Bailey Good, PhD
Senior Engineer Riddell Revolution Speed Classic COE
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Gwansik Park, PhD Co-PIs: Peter Halldin, Madelen Fahlstedt
Senior Engineer
Engineering Team: Marcus Arnesen, Erik
Lee Gabler, PhD Jungstedt
Senior Engineer
Schutt Air XP Pro COE
Roberto Quesada, MS Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Engineer Co-PIs: Scott Gayzik, Joel Stitzel
Brian McEwen, BS Lead Engineer: William B. Decker

Engineer
Engineering Team: Alex Baker, Xin Ye, Philip
Vicis Zero 1 and Helmet Assessment Models COE Brown
University of Virginia, Center for Applied
Biomechanics
PI: Matthew B. Panzer
Lead Engineer: J. Sebastian Giudice
Engineering Team: Adrian Caudillo, Sayak

Mukherjee, Kevin Kong, Wei Zeng
28
11. References
Cobb, B.R., Zadnik, A.M., Rowson, S., 2016. Comparative analysis of helmeted impact response of Hybrid
III and National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment headforms. Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. Part P J. Sports Eng. Technol. 230, 50–60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337115599133
Davis, M.L., Koya, B., Schap, J.M., Gayzik, F.S., 2016. Development and full body validation of a 5th
percentile female finite element model. Stapp Car Crash J. 60, 509.
Gehre, C., Gades, H., Wernicke, P., 2009. Objective rating of signals using test and simulation responses,
in: 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart,
Germany.
NHTSA, 2008. TP 208-14: Part 572E (50th Male) Dummy Performance Calibration Test Procedure
Appendix A.
Rowson, B., Rowson, S., Duma, S.M., 2015. Hockey STAR: A Methodology for Assessing the
Biomechanical Performance of Hockey Helmets. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 43, 2429–2443.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7
Spittle, E.K., Miller, D.J., Shipley Jr, B.W., Kaleps, I., 1992. Hybrid II and hybrid III dummy neck properties
for computer modeling. ARMSTRONG LAB WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB OH.
Viano, D.C., Withnall, C., Halstead, D., 2012. Impact Performance of Modern Football Helmets. Ann.
Biomed. Eng. 40, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-011-0384-4
29
12. Appendix
Individual CORA scores are presented in Error! Reference source not found.8 – 20. All results were
obtained from simulations using LS-DYNA smp v9.1.0, double precision. CORA analyses were performed
over a 30ms time window from the start of impact.
Table 18. Overall CORA scores for the pendulum impact.
Impact Configuration CORA SCORES

Location Velocity Lin. Acc. Ang. Vel.
Back 3.0 m/s 0.76 0.82
Front 3.0 m/s 0.75 0.57
Front Boss 3.0 m/s 0.70 0.27
Side 3.0 m/s 0.78 0.84
AVERAGE 0.75 0.63
TOTAL 0.69
Table 19. Overall CORA scores for the linear impact.

Location Velocity Imp. Forc. Lin. Acc. Ang. Vel.
A 5.5 m/s 0.89 0.87 0.91
AP 5.5 m/s 0.87 0.73 0.91
B 5.5 m/s 0.91 0.92 0.90
C 5.5 m/s 0.85 0.85 0.84
D 5.5 m/s 0.88 0.87 0.94
F 5.5 m/s 0.75 0.81 0.72
R 5.5 m/s 0.87 0.91 0.95
UT 5.5 m/s 0.89 0.91 0.90
AVERAGE 0.86 0.86 0.88
TOTAL 0.87
Table 2021. Overall CORA scores for the drop impact.

Location Velocity LC Force (NOCSAE_v1.0.k) LC Force (NOCSAE_v1.1.k)
Front 2.9 m/s 0.78 0.81
Top 2.9 m/s 0.79 0.80
AVERAGE 0.79 0.81
30

User Manual: Finite Element Models of Helmet Assessment Tools Version 1.0 For LS-DYNA

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

User Manual: Finite Element Models of Helmet Assessment Tools Version 1.0 For LS-DYNA

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Copyright 2018 Biomechanics Consulting and Research (Biocore) LLC.

All Rights Reserved

Pendulum Impact (PI) Linear Impact (LI)

NOCSAE (left) and HIII (right)

Date: May 9th, 2018, Document Version (v) 1.0

Helmet COE Contact Information

Biocore contact information

6.3. Objective Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 24

1. About this Document

2. About the Project

Wake Forest University

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

2.1 Impactor Models Overview

2.1.1 Pendulum Impact (PI)

Figure 1. Pendulum impact locations.

2.1.2 Linear Impact (LI)

Figure 2. Linear impact locations. In this document A’ is denoted as “AP”.

2.1.3 Drop Impact (DI)

Figure 3. Drop impact locations.

3. Impactor Model Development Summary

3.1. Geometry Development

3.1.2 NOCSAE Headform

3.1.3 Pendulum Impactor

3.1.4 Linear Impactor

3.1.5 Drop Tower

3.2.2 NOCSAE Headform

3.2.3 Pendulum Impactor

3.2.4 Linear Impactor

3.2.5 Drop Tower

3.3.Validation and Verification Simulations

Model Component Verification Simulation Results

4. Dummy and Impactor Models Information

Table 2. HIII H-N and NOCSAE model summaries.

Table 4. Helmet model unit system.

Time Length Mass Force Stress

4.1. Running the Model

Table 5. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging.

Version Precision Revision SVN Ver. Platform OS

4.1.1 General Instructions

1. Open a 0Main.k file.

Table 6. Redundant impact condition parameters.

4.1.2 Pendulum Impact (PI)

• All pendulum ID’s are offset by 10000000 using *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM

Table 7. Pendulum impact condition-specific parameter definitions.

4.1.3 Linear Impact (LI)

• No offset applied to linear impactor ID’s

Table 8. Linear impact condition-specific parameter definitions.

4.1.4 Drop Impact (DI)

• All Drop Impactor ID’s are offset by 10000000 using *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM

Table 9. Drop impact condition-specific parameter definitions.

4.2.Organization of the Impactor Keyword Cards

Pendulum Impact: 0Main_PI_HIII_“Helmet”.k

Linear Impact: 0Main_LI_HIII_“Helmet”.k

4.3. Toggles Programmed into the Model

4.4.Model Output Information

Table 11. Model outputs.

HIII H-N: “HIII_headneck.k”

Model Output Load Cell Component

4.5.Model Number Conventions

Headform Model ID Range

Impactor Model ID Range

5. Review of Model Components

Figure 11. Overview of the HIII H-N model.