Manual 2016 Riddell Revolution Classic Helmet Model v1.0

Helmet Model Riddell Revolution Speed Classic v1.
NFL Engineering
Roadmap: Numerical
Model Crowdsourcing
User Manual
Finite Element Model of 2016 Riddell Speed Classic
(Safety Equipment Institute model R41179)
Version 1.0 for LS-DYNA
Authors:
Madelen Fahlstedt, Marcus Arnesen, Erik Jungstedt, Peter Halldin
Date: May 9th, 2018, Document Version (v) 1.0

Helmet Model Riddell Revolution Speed Classic v1.0
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 this helmet model is the KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
Helmet COE contact information

KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Neuronic Engineering
Hälsovägen 11C,
SE-141 57 Huddinge
Sweden
POCs:
Madelen Fahlstedt, Ph.D.
madelenf@kth.se
Peter Halldin, Ph.D.

peterh@kth.se
COE Web:
www.kth.se/mth/neuronik
Biocore contact information

1621 Quail Run
Charlottesville, VA 22911
www.biocorellc.com
models@biocorellc.com
Contents
NFL Engineering Roadmap: Numerical Model Crowdsourcing ..................................................................... 1
1. About this Document ............................................................................................................................ 5
2. About the Project .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1. The Model Package ....................................................................................................................... 6
3. Helmet Model Development Summary ................................................................................................ 7
3.1. Helmet Geometry Development................................................................................................... 7
3.2. Material Characterization ............................................................................................................. 7
3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations........................................................................................ 8
4. Riddell Revolution Speed Classic Model Information ........................................................................... 9
4.1. Running the Model ..................................................................................................................... 10
4.2. Organization of the Helmet Keyword Cards ............................................................................... 12
4.3. Model Output Information ......................................................................................................... 14
4.4. Model Number Conventions ....................................................................................................... 15
4.5. Model Naming Conventions ....................................................................................................... 16
5. Review of Model Components............................................................................................................ 16
5.1. Interior View ............................................................................................................................... 16
6. Model Validation................................................................................................................................. 18
6.1. Material Validation ..................................................................................................................... 18
6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation ............................................................................................................ 19
6.3. Helmet Validation ....................................................................................................................... 20
6.4. Objective Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 23
7. Technical Notes ................................................................................................................................... 24
8. Troubleshooting .................................................................................................................................. 25
9. Model Updates.................................................................................................................................... 26
10. Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 27
11. References ...................................................................................................................................... 28
12. Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................... 29
Figures
Figure 1. The different helmet components (left). The padding at the rear, top and jaw is built of two
foam materials (right). .................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2. Summary of the process of fitting the helmet to a headform. ...................................................... 9
Figure 3. Global coordinate system sign convention. ................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. DYNA file include hierarchy. *Indicates the HIII fit version used (v1.1 for PI, v1.0 for LI and DI).
.................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Riddell Revolution Speed Classic helmet numbering convention diagram. ................................ 15
Figure 6. Naming convention for the padding system. ............................................................................... 16
Figure 7. Full helmet model. ....................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8. The padding system consist of five components. The light blue is indicating the plastic shells
joining the pads together, dark blue the comfort foam and grey the foam in between these two layers.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9. The naming of the crown pads. ................................................................................................... 17
Figure 10. The naming of the rear pads. ..................................................................................................... 18
Tables
Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the helmet model. ............................................................................ 7
Table 2. Summary of impact conditions used for full helmet validation. ..................................................... 8
Table 3. Riddell Revolution Speed Classic helmet model summary. ............................................................ 9
Table 4. Mesh quality details. ....................................................................................................................... 9
Table 5. Helmet model unit system. ............................................................................................................. 9
Table 6. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging. ........................................................ 10
Table 7. Required keyword cards included in each main impact condition keyword file. ......................... 13
Table 8. Model outputs in helmet model. .................................................................................................. 14
Table 9. Material level validation cases. ..................................................................................................... 18
Table 10. Sub assembly validation cases. ................................................................................................... 19
Table 11. Pendulum impact (PI) validation tests. ....................................................................................... 20
Table 12. Linear impact (LI) validation tests. .............................................................................................. 21
Table 13. Drop impact (DI) validation tests with NOCSAE headform. ........................................................ 22
Table 14. Drop impact (DI) validation tests with HIII headform. ................................................................ 23
Table 15. Overall CORA evaluation. ............................................................................................................ 24
Table 16. Pendulum impact CORA scores (Test 1). ..................................................................................... 29
Table 17. Pendulum impact CORA scores (Test 2). ..................................................................................... 29
Table 18. Linear impact CORA scores. ........................................................................................................ 30
Table 19. NOCSAE drop impact CORA scores (Test 1, NOCSAE_v1.0.k was used)...................................... 31
Table 20. NOCSAE drop impact CORA scores (Test 2, NOCSAE_v1.0.k was used)...................................... 31
Table 21. HIII drop impact CORA scores (Test 1). ....................................................................................... 32
Table 22. HIII drop impact CORA scores (Test 2). ....................................................................................... 32
1. About this Document

This manual applies to the 2016 Riddell Revolution Speed Classic helmet model (Safety Equipment
Institute model R41179) finite element (FE) model developed by the KTH Royal Institute of Technology,
division of Neuronic Engineering, under the contract ID: 121765005826, “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 document is intended to serve as a manual and quick start guide for users, and provides general
information on the FE model, including best practices for running the model. This manual applies only to
the use of the model 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
finite element (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.
2.1. The Model Package

The following items are included in the model package:
• A compressed file containing the model –

2016_Riddell_Revolution_Speed_Classic_Helmet_Model_v1.0.zip
Extracting this file will create three folders
o 01_Manual
o 02_Helmet
o 03_BoundaryConditions
Details on the contents are found below in Section 4.

3. Helmet Model Development Summary

This helmet model was developed in three general steps: geometry development, material
characterization, and model validation.
3.1. Helmet Geometry Development

A view of the different component in the helmet is presented in Figure 1. The helmet shell, facemask and
front foam were developed from Computer Aided Design (CAD) models. The surfaces were cleaned from
small edges and holes. All the meshing was performed in HyperMesh (Altair HyperWorks version 13). The
shells were modelled with mainly quadrilateral shell elements with a uniform thickness. The facemask
was modelled with beam elements that were created at the center of the facemask pipe. The front foam
was meshed with hexahedral elements. Helmet details are listed in Table 1.
The helmet foam at the jaw, crown and rear location were created from two-dimensional drawings. The
foam was extruded from the bottom layer. These foam parts consist of 2 layer of foam material (Figure
1), the bottom layer with a harder foam material (foam layer 1) and the top closest to the head with a
softer foam material (foam layer 2). The extruded foam material was then fit to the interior of the helmet.
Figure 1. The different helmet components (left). The padding at the rear, top and jaw is built of two foam materials (right).
Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the helmet model.
Baseline Helmet Model Data

Make Model Size Year of Purchase
Revolution Speed
Riddell Large 2016
Classic
3.2. Material Characterization

Three different foam materials were characterized: front foam, foam layer 1, and foam layer 2 (Figure 1).
The front foam and foam layer 1 were tested under compression, tension and shear. All tests were
performed at quasi-static and low rates. The compression test for the front foam and foam layer 1 were
also performed at intermediate rates.
The material samples were taken from three Riddell Revolution Speed Classic helmets from the market.
At least three samples were tested for each test configuration. More information about the material tests
can be found in section 6.1.
3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations

Validation was performed both on component level and full helmet model level. Quasi-static component
compression tests were performed for the helmet shell in both lateral and anterior-posterior direction,
facemask in lateral direction and in the thickness direction of the padding system. The tests were non-
destructive. Every test configuration had three tests. More information about the component test can be
found in section 6.2.
The full helmet model was validated for the following three impact conditions: Pendulum Impact (PI),
Linear Impact (LI), and Drop Impact (DI). A total of 62 simulations were performed with the full helmet,
using either a Hybrid III (HIII) or NOCSAE headform (Table 2). The Hybrid III head-neck (HIII H-N) was used
in a series of pendulum (Cobb et al., 2016) and linear impact (Viano et al., 2012) tests. A drop impact test
condition was also used with the HIII and NOCSAE headforms with rigid necks. The final test matrix
consisted of 12 VT pendulum tests, 24 linear impactor tests, 10 drop impact tests with the NOCSAE
headform, 16 drop tower tests with the HIII headform. Please refer to the impactor user’s manual
(Impactor_Users_Manual_v1.0.docx) for additional details on the development and use of the headforms
and impactor models. Further description of the impact conditions used for helmet validation and results
are provided in Section 6.3.
Table 2. Summary of impact conditions used for full helmet validation.
Impact Velocity
Impact Condition Dummy Impact Location Number of Tests
(m/s)
Back, Front,
PI HIII H-N 3.0; 4.6; 6.1 12
Front Boss, Side
A, AP, B, C,
LI HIII H-N 5.5; 7.4; 9.3 24
D, F, R, UT
Front, Mask*,
NOCSAE 2.9; 3.7; 4.9; 6.0 10
Side†, Top‡
DI
Back, Front,
HIII 2.9; 3.7; 4.9; 6.0 16
Side, Top
*NOCSAE Mask impacts at 4.9 and 6.0 m/s were not evaluated. †NOCSAE Side impact was evaluated only at
2.9m/s. ‡NOCSAE Top was not evaluated at 6.0 m/s. See section 6.3 for further detail on excluded tests.
The helmet was fit to the headform by performing a simulation where the headform was scaled from 80%
to 100% of its original size (Figure 2). The contact between the headform and foam materials during this
simulation created pre-deformed padding. Helmet-to-headform positioning was based on available
measurements and photographic documentation of the physical test (Section 6.3). No initial stress was
prescribed between the headform and foam materials for the helmet validation cases.
Figure 2. Summary of the process of fitting the helmet to a headform.
4. Riddell Revolution Speed Classic Model Information

Table 3 below provides general information about the model.
Table 3. Riddell Revolution Speed Classic helmet model summary.
Main file name (02_Helmet): RiddellRSC_v1.0_0main_Nofit.dyn

Elements: 147384
Nodes: 141007
Number of Parts: 53
Mass (kg): 1.98
Moments of Inertia (principal axes kg-mm²) Ixx = 21289; Iyy = 26648; Izz = 26656
The file naming is based on the helmet make, model, and version. Details on the mesh quality are
summarized in Table 4. The unit system used in the model is shown in Table 5. Deviations from this unit
system will require the use of a unit transform in LS-DYNA (see *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM).
Table 4. Mesh quality details.
Jacobian Warpage Aspect ratio Skew

(elements < 0.7): 4% (elements > 5°): 3% (elements > 5): 0% (elements > 60°): 0%
Minimum: 0.27 Maximum: 72° Maximum: 4.42 Maximum: 58°
Table 5. Helmet model unit system.
Time Length Mass Force Stress

ms mm kg kN GPa
The helmet model is in a global coordinate system that is defined by SAE J211/1 sign convention. The
helmet and the global coordinate system is presented in Figure 3. The origin is located at the center of
gravity of the FE helmet.
Figure 3. Global coordinate system sign convention.
4.1. Running the Model

The specific COE, as well as others in this project have exclusively used LS-DYNA in the model development
for this version of the model. This COE has used LS-DYNA multi parallel processing (mpp) R7.1.2 single
precision for the development of the helmet model. Table 66 summarizes the current LS-DYNA build used
for model development and debugging.
Table 6. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging.
Version Precision Revision SVN Ver. Platform OS

mppR7.1.2 Single 95028 95028 Xeon64 System Linux 2.6.18 uo
precision
Executable
ls-dyna_mpp_s_r7_1_2_95028_x64_redhat54_ifort131_sse2_platformmpi
Use the following steps to open and run the model. While file structure is meant to be consistent across
different helmet models; material formulations, control cards, parts, elements, etc. were developed based
on the COE’s discretion and will vary between helmet models.
1. Unzip the file (2016_Riddell_Revolution_Speed_Classic_Helmet_Model_v1.0.zip) to a location

on your system. This creates three folders (01_Manual, 02_Helmet, 03_BoundaryConditions).
2. Within 01_Manual are two files
a. Manual_2016_Riddell_Revolution_Speed_Classic_Helmet_Model_v1.0.docx
b. Impactor_Users_Manual_v1.0.docx
3. Within 02_Helmet (unfitted helmet model files)
a. RiddellRSC_v1.0_0main_Nofit.dyn
b. RiddellRSC_v1.0_chinstrap_Nofit.k
c. RiddellRSC_v1.0_control.k
d. RiddellRSC_v1.0_helmet.k
e. RiddellRSC_v1.0_nodes_Nofit.k
4. Within 03_BoundaryConditions (includes fitted helmet model)
• 0Includes (listed alphabetically)
a. 0Main_DI_HIII_RiddellRSC_v1.0.k
b. 0Main_DI_NOCSAE_RiddellRSC_v1.0.k
c. 0Main_LI_HIII_RiddellRSC_v1.0.k
d. 0Main_PI_HIII_RiddellRSC_v1.0.k
e. DropImpactor_0main_HIII.k
f. DropImpactor_0main_NOCSAE.k
g. DropImpactor_Arm_HIII.k
h. DropImpactor_Arm_NOCSAE.k
i. DropImpactor_Carriage.k
j. DropImpactor_LC.k
k. HIII_head.k
l. HIII_head_0main.k
m. HIII_headneck.k
n. HIII_neckmount_LI.k
o. HIII_neckmount_PI.k
p. LinearImpactor.k
q. NOCSAE_v1.0.k
r. NOCSAE_v1.1.k
s. PendulumImpactor.k
t. RiddellRSC_v1.0_0main_HIIIfit_v1.0.dyn
u. RiddellRSC_v1.0_0main_HIIIfit_v1.1.dyn
v. RiddellRSC_v1.0_0main_NOCSAEfit.dyn
w. RiddellRSC_v1.0_chinstrap_HIIIfit_v1.0.k
x. RiddellRSC_v1.0_chinstrap_HIIIfit_v1.1.k
y. RiddellRSC_v1.0_chinstrap_NOCSAEfit.k
z. RiddellRSC_v1.0_control.k
aa. RiddellRSC_v1.0_helmet.k
bb. RiddellRSC_v1.0_nodes_HIIIfit_v1.0.k
cc. RiddellRSC_v1.0_nodes_HIIIfit_v1.1.k
dd. RiddellRSC_v1.0_nodes_NOCSAEfit.k
• Drop_Impact
• Linear_Impact
• Pendulum_Impact
5. Within the desired impact condition folder (Drop_Impact, Linear_Impact, or Pendulum_Impact),

there are nested folders containing preset main files (0Main.k) for each impact condition, dummy,
location, and speed that was targeted for model validation (Section 6.3):
a. 03_BoundaryConditions\“impact condition”\XX_“dummy”_”location”_“speed”\0Main.k
where XX indicates the impact condition (PI, LI, or DI).
6. Load the desired 0Main.k file into LS-DYNA and execute the simulation.
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.
Details on parameter naming and referencing within keyword files is included in the impact user’s manual.
Although main files have been preset to the validation conditions (Section 6.3), the user should confirm
these parameters prior to simulation (see notes within each 0Main.k file banner for important details).
Information on technical support and other resources to assist model users is available at our FAQ page.
4.2. Organization of the Helmet 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”_RiddellRSC_v1.0.k), where XX indicates the impact condition (PI, LI, or
DI) which includes additional simulation files. An include hierarchy is shown in Figure 4 and notable
included files are listed for each impact condition file (Table 7). Outputs defined in the included keyword
files are also noted. Refer to Section 4.3 for a detailed description of the model outputs.
Figure 4. DYNA file include hierarchy. *Indicates the HIII fit version used (v1.1 for PI, v1.0 for LI and DI).
Table 7. Required keyword cards included in each main impact condition keyword file.
Pendulum Impact: 0Main_PI_HIII_RiddellRSC_v1.0.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
RiddellRSC_0main_HIIIfit_v1.1.dyn *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM on the head according to N/A
COE specification
Standardized card that
**RiddellRSC_v1.0_control.k *INCLUDE includes all control and N/A
database cards
Linear Impact: 0Main_LI_HIII_RiddellRSC_v1.0.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
RiddellRSC_0main_HIIIfit_v1.0.dyn *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM on the head according to N/A
COE specification
database cards
Drop Impact: 0Main_DI_HIII_RiddellRSC_v1.0.k
0Main_DI_NOCSAE_RiddellRSC_v1.0.k
Dummy headform model
HIII_head_0main.k Head
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to
*NOCSAEv1.0.k accelerometer
impact location
DropImpactor_0main_HIII.k Impactor transformation
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM N/A
DropImpactor_0main_NOCSAE.k and sub-part definitions
Drop carriage arm

positioned according to
**DropImpactor_Arm_HIII.k
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM impact location with ID’s N/A
**DropImpactor_Arm_NOCSAE.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
RiddellRSC_0main_HIIIfit_v1.0.dyn
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM on the head according to N/A
RiddellRSC_0main_NOCSAEfit.dyn
COE specification
database cards
*
NOCSAE file version 1.0 was used for model validation (Section 6.3); file version 1.1 has not been verified through
simulation. **Files are included indirectly.
4.3. Model Output Information

Table 88 provides a summary of available preprogrammed model output information for the helmet
model used with the different boundary conditions. These are useful for tracking kinematics and
quantifying deformations. Current outputs preprogrammed into the model are located within keyword
file banners.
Table 8. Model outputs in helmet model.
Value LS-DYNA Output Notes

Outer Shell
Contact force RCFORC: Contact ID 1
Facemask
Contact force RCFORC: Contact ID 2
HIII Headform in Boundary Conditions
HIII head CG accelerometer NODOUT (NID: 17905) Local CS IDs: 2
HIII head rotation NODOUT (NID: 17906) Local CS IDs: 5
HIII Neck in Boundary Conditions
HIIII neck upper load cell (T1) ELEOUT (EID: 56421)
HIIII neck lower load cell (OC) ELEOUT (EID: 56422)
NOCSAE Headform in Boundary Conditions
NOCSAE head CG accelerometer NODOUT (NID: 61099) Local CS IDs: 1
Carriage in Boundary Conditions (Drop Tower)
Carriage NODOUT (NID: 10002458)
MEP Plate in Boundary Conditions
Load cell ELEOUT (EID: 10016033)
Impactor in Boundary Conditions (Linear Impactor)
Load cell ELEOUT (EID: 61000)
Impactor accelerometer NODOUT (NID: 70075)
4.4. Model Number Conventions

A naming convention for the different parts of the padding system has been applied and is summarized
in Figure 55. This applies to all nodes, elements, parts, sets and contacts in the model.
Region Range of Range of Node Range of

Range of Set Others
Part Number Number Element Number
Shell 100-199 1000000-1999999 100000-199999 100-199 100-199
Padding 200-299 2000000-2999999 200000-299999 200-299 200-299
- Crown
200-219 2000000-2199999 200000-219999
Padding
- Front
220-229 2200000-2299999 220000-229999
Padding
- Jaw Padding
230-239 2300000-2399999 230000-239999
(Left)
- Jaw Padding
240-249 2400000-2499999 240000-249999
(Left)
- Rear
250-279 2500000-2799999 250000-279999
Padding
Facemask 300-399 3000000-3999999 300000-399999 300-399 300-399
Chinstrap 400-499 4000000-4999999 400000-499999 400-499 400-499
Figure 5. Riddell Revolution Speed Classic helmet numbering convention diagram.
4.5. Model Naming Conventions

A naming convention for the different parts of the padding system has been applied and are
summarized in Figure 66.
Figure 6. Naming convention for the padding system.
5. Review of Model Components

The different components of the FE model are presented Figure 77.
Figure 7. Full helmet model.
5.1. Interior View

The interior padding system consists of three different layers: the outer plastic shell foam layer 1 and
foam layer 2 (also called comfort foam) (Figure 88). The padding system consist of five parts: the crown,
rear, front and the both jaw pads. The front pad is made of a different material. The numbering convention
used for the different pads are shown in Figure 99 and Figure 1010.
Figure 8. The padding system consist of five components. The light blue is indicating the plastic shells joining the pads
together, dark blue the comfort foam and grey the foam in between these two layers.
Figure 9. The naming of the crown pads.

Figure 10. The naming of the rear pads.
6. Model Validation
A hierarchical validation was performed to validate the helmet model. First, the foam material models for
the different components were evaluated against test data from the actual helmet materials. Next, the
different helmet components were evaluated against experimental component test data. Finally, the fully
assembled helmet model was compared to laboratory helmet tests for various impact conditions.
6.1. Material Validation

The foam material models were compared to experimental tests. The front foam and foam layer 1 were
compared to compression tests (0.01-160/s), shear tests (0.01-1/s) and tension tests (0.01-1/s). The
comfort foam was evaluated against compression tests (0.01-1/s). Single element simulations were
performed for compression and tension. A summary of the material evaluation is presented in Table 99.
Table 9. Material level validation cases.
Evaluation
Test Mode Rate(s) Simulation Experiment
Criteria
Padding Force vs.

Compression QS, D
(front foam) Displacement
Padding Force vs.

Tension QS
Padding Force vs.

Shear QS
Padding
Force vs.
(Foam Layer Compression QS, D
Displacement
1)
Padding
Force vs.
(Foam Layer Tension QS
Displacement
1)
Padding
Force vs.
(Foam Layer Shear QS
Displacement
1)
Padding
Force vs.
(Foam Layer Compression QS
Displacement
2)
QS – quasi-static, D - dynamic
6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation

The shell, facemask and padding system were evaluated against component test data. The loading was
quasi-static (1mm/s). A summary is presented in Table 1010.
Table 10. Sub assembly validation cases.
Evaluation
Test Mode Rate(s) Simulation Experiment
Criteria
Facemask Compression QS Force vs.
(lateral) Displacement
Shell Compression QS Force vs.

(Anterior- Displacement
Posterior)
Shell Compression QS Force vs.

(Lateral) Displacement
Padding Compression QS Force vs.

Displacement
QS – quasi-static
6.3. Helmet Validation

A total of 62 simulations were performed with the full helmet model, using either a HIII or NOCSAE
headform. The HIII H-N was evaluated in pendulum (PI) and linear impact (LI) conditions (Table 1211 and
12). Pendulum impacts were run per the Star rating system developed at Virginia Tech, while the linear
impacts consisted of those reported Viano et al., 2012. A drop impact (DI) condition was also used with
both the NOCSAE (Table 13s 13) and HIII (Table 14) headforms. Nine cases were excluded from the
NOCSAE drop tower tests, since a fixed boundary condition was assumed for modeling, and peak head
angular velocities in the experimental tests exceeded 10 rad/s, thus indicating that the headform was not
rigidly attached to the drop apparatus. The specific conditions not included in the assessment are provided
in Section 3.3, Table 2. All NOCSAE drop impact simulations were performed using version 1.0 of the
NOCSAE headform (NOCSAE_v1.0.k). More details on the impactors and headform models can be found
in the impactor user’s manual. The helmet model normal terminated in all 62 simulations (Table 6).
Table 11. Pendulum impact (PI) validation tests.
Impact
Evaluation Criteria
Configuration
Impact Simulation Experiment
Linear Acceleration
Velocity Angular Velocity
versus Time
[m/s]
3.0 Head Impactor

Front
4.6 CG (Impact Head CG (XYZ)

6.1 (XYZ) direction)
Front Boss 3.0 Head Impactor

3.0 Head Impactor

Side

3.0 Head Impactor

Rear

Table 12. Linear impact (LI) validation tests.
Impact
Evaluation Criteria
Configuration
Impact Simulation Experiment
Force versus Linear Acceleration Angular
Velocity
Time versus Time Velocity
[m/s]
5.5 Contact Force Head Impactor

Head
A 7.4 (Impact CG (Impact
CG (XYZ)
9.3 direction) (XYZ) direction)

Head
AP 7.4 (Impact CG (Impact
CG (XYZ)

Head
B 7.4 (Impact CG (Impact
CG (XYZ)

Head
C 7.4 (Impact CG (Impact
CG (XYZ)

Head
D 7.4 (Impact CG (Impact
CG (XYZ)

Head
F 7.4 (Impact CG (Impact
CG (XYZ)

Head
R 7.4 (Impact CG (Impact
CG (XYZ)

Head
UT 7.4 (Impact CG (Impact
CG (XYZ)
Table 13. Drop impact (DI) validation tests with NOCSAE headform.
Impact
Evaluation Criteria
Configuration
Impact Force Simulation Experiment
Linear Acceleration
Velocity versus
versus Time
[m/s] Time
2.9
3.7 Contact Head CG Carriage
Front
4.9 Force (XZ) (XZ) Acc. Z
6.0

Mask
3.7 Force (XZ) (X) Acc. Z
Contact Head CG Carriage

Side 2.9
Force (XZ) (YZ) Acc. Z
2.9
Contact Head CG Carriage
Top 3.7
Force (XZ) (XZ) Acc. Z
4.9
Table 14. Drop impact (DI) validation tests with HIII headform.
Impact
Evaluation Criteria
Configuration
Impact Force Simulation Experiment
Linear Acceleration
Velocity versus
versus Time
[m/s] Time
2.9
Back
4.9* Force (XZ) (XYZ) Acc. Z
6.0
2.9
Front
4.9 Force (XZ) (XYZ) Acc. Z
6.0
2.9
Side
6.0
2.9
Top
6.0
*FE simulation was performed at 4.89 m/s.
6.4. Objective Evaluation

CORA is a software program that quantitatively compares two signals: a reference signal (experimental
test data in current study) and a simulation signal (model measurements in current study). The current
study utilized the cross-correlation score to compare the experimental and model responses, and
generated three output ratings based on shape, size and phase agreement. The corridor rating was not
used, but a cross correlation score was calculated for all experimental tests, even repeated tests, and
scores were averaged.
CORA ratings range between 0 and 1, where 0 means the two signals compared are completely different,
and 1 indicates the signals are identical, thus it is like a grading system. A detailed explanation for the
mathematical calculation of the shape, size, and phase rating can be referenced in the CORA user manual
(Thunert, 2012 – Partnership for Dummy Technology and Biomechanics). Weighting factors based on
experimental peak magnitude values were applied to determine the overall average objective evaluation
rating for a signal 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., X, Y, and Z, by the sum of peaks for each orthogonal signal (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. The overall score is the mean of all tests in the series. CORA scores were
evaluated over the first 30ms of impact. The overall CORA score is presented in Table 155. Individual CORA
scores are presented in Appendix A.
Table 15. Overall CORA evaluation.
Drop
Drop Linear
Tower Pendulum
Tower HIII Impactor
NOCSAE
Overall Weighted CORA Score 0.80 0.76 0.76 0.80
Legend 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
7. Technical Notes
The following are some limitations of the model:
• In the physical models there is a plastic sheet covering the pads. This enclosed volume can be
filled with air with help of an external pump. In the FE model, the plastic sheet is only modelled
on at the back of the pads. The air between the plastic sheet and the foam is not modelled. This
may be a significant simplification in the model. However, component tests, both dynamic and
quasi-static, showed little or no effect of the air-filled foam pads compared to no air or no plastic
covering of the pads.
• In the FE model the comfort foam and the foam are sharing nodes at the connecting surface,
whereas in the physical model the foams are not joined. The same is for the plastic shell and foam.
• The comfort foam stiffness was increased by a factor 2.5 compared to the experimental results to
prevent instabilities. However, when evaluating the two stiffness for some linear impactor
simulations this difference was negligible.
• All the validation cases were performed without any initial stress between the headform and
foam. However, a sensitivity study was performed for all LI tests at 5.5 m/s with keyword:
*INITIAL_FOAM_REFERENCE_GEOMETRY and without initial stress. The difference in peak linear
acceleration was < 4% (mean 1.8%) and peak angular velocity was < 3% (mean 0.8%).
• In the FE model the attachment between the facemask and the shell is modelled with a rigid
constraint. In the physical helmet you can notice from the full helmet experiments with impacts
to the facemask that this connection is partly deformable.
• Foam material can be sensitive to temperature and humidity, which were not considered in the
foams used in this model.
• In the physical linear impactor test the puck of the VN600 and the endcap separated from the
impactor in the front impact condition (F). In the FE simulations the impactor and VN/endcap puck
were fixed together. This may influence the results since the impactor may be restricting the
helmet/head motion in the FE simulations.
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 step of the model is 0.6 μs. The user can specify a time-step
through mass-scaling (DT2MS on the *CONTROL_TIMESTEP card). The model has not also been tested for
mass scaling. Caution should be exercised when mass scaling, the user should investigate the total mass
gained and the location of the additional mass.
Control Cards: The model was developed and tested with the same control cards developed for the
impactor (see Impactor_Users_Manual_v1.0.docx).
Material Properties: The current model uses material properties based on reverse engineering. Altering
the material properties within the cards of the model will alter the performance of the models.
Hourglass Control: It has been shown that hourglass control has a large influence on stability and
compliance of soft materials, specifically foams in LS-DYNA. The COE has developed and refined the
hourglass control in the model 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,
mst, sfst, sfmt) or scale factor (sfs, sfm). Users can refer to our FAQ page for a list of technical resources
available to model users.
9. Model Updates
This model may be updated over time. 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.
10. Acknowledgements
The Riddell Revolution Speed Classic COE at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Division of Neuronic
Engineering, 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 Schutt Air XP Pro COE
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Gwansik Park, PhD Co-PIs: Scott Gayzik, Joel Stitzel
Senior Engineer
Lead Engineer: William B. Decker
Lee Gabler, PhD
Senior Engineer Engineering Team: Alex Baker, Xin Ye, Philip
Brown
Roberto Quesada, MS
Engineer
Vicis Zero 1 and Impactor COE
Brian McEwen, BS University of Virginia, Center for Applied
Engineer Biomechanics
PI: Matthew Panzer
Riddell Revolution Speed Classic COE
KTH Royal Institute of Technology Lead Engineer: J. Sebastian Giudice
Co-PIs: Peter Halldin, Madelen Fahlstedt
Engineering Team: Adrian Caudillo, Sayak
Engineering Team: Marcus Arnesen, Erik Jungstedt Mukherjee, Kevin Kong, Wei Zeng
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., Kova, B., Schap, J.M., Gayzik, F.S., 2016, Development and Full Body Validation of a 5th
Percentile Female Finite Element Model, Stapp Car Crash Journal, 60:509-544
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
12. Appendix A
Individual CORA scores are presented in Table 186 – 22. All results were obtained from simulations using
LS-DYNA mpp R7.1.2 single precision. CORA analyses were performed over a 30ms time window from the
start of impact. Two sets of full scale experimental helmet validation data were available for the pendulum
and drop impact conditions (Test 1 and Test 2); CORA scores are provided for both, and the overall CORA
scores are based on all test results (Table 15). Simulations were also performed using symmetric multi-
processing (smp); however, there were negligible differences in results.
Table 16. Pendulum impact CORA scores (Test 1).
Head Head. Pendulum

Overall
Test Condition Lin. Acc. Ang. Vel. Lin. Acc.
Back (3.0 m/s) 0.86 0.76 0.80 0.81
Back (4.6 m/s) 0.94 0.81 0.89 0.88
Back (6.1 m/s) 0.90 0.86 0.88 0.88
Front (3.0 m/s) 0.42 0.55 0.67 0.55
Front (4.6 m/s) 0.42 0.63 0.40 0.48
Front (6.1 m/s) 0.48 0.68 0.79 0.65
Front Boss (3.0 m/s) 0.73 0.79 0.92 0.81
Front Boss (4.6 m/s) 0.80 0.86 0.92 0.86
Front Boss (6.1 m/s) 0.70 0.87 0.97 0.84
Side (3.0 m/s) 0.86 0.93 0.92 0.90
Side (4.6 m/s) 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.96
Side (6.1 m/s) 0.90 0.97 0.84 0.90
Average 0.75 0.81 0.83 0.79
Table 17. Pendulum impact CORA scores (Test 2).
Head Head. Pendulum

Test Condition Overall
Lin. Acc. Ang. Vel. Lin. Acc.
Back (3.0 m/s) 0.84 0.88 0.77 0.83
Back (4.6 m/s) 0.96 0.84 0.85 0.88
Back (6.1 m/s) 0.91 0.83 0.88 0.87
Front (3.0 m/s) 0.30 0.50 0.62 0.47
Front (4.6 m/s) 0.66 0.64 0.43 0.57
Front (6.1 m/s) 0.45 0.66 0.76 0.62
Front Boss (3.0 m/s) 0.76 0.84 0.95 0.85
Front Boss (4.6 m/s) 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.85
Front Boss (6.1 m/s) 0.79 0.83 0.96 0.86
Side (3.0 m/s) 0.87 0.95 0.95 0.92
Side (4.6 m/s) 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.94
Side (6.1 m/s) 0.91 0.96 0.88 0.91
Average 0.76 0.81 0.83 0.80
Table 18. Linear impact CORA scores.
Head Head Impact Impactor

Overall
Lin. Acc. Ang. Vel. Force Lin. Acc
A (5.5m/s) 0.62 0.87 0.91 0.74 0.78
A (7.4m/s) 0.66 0.86 0.94 0.92 0.84
A (9.3m/s) 0.60 0.66 0.83 0.64 0.68
AP (5.5m/s) 0.75 0.67 0.82 0.70 0.73
AP (7.4m/s) 0.59 0.63 0.60 0.60 0.60
AP (9.3m/s) 0.40 0.58 0.60 0.56 0.53
B (5.5m/s) 0.73 0.76 0.59 0.67 0.69
B (7.4m/s) 0.81 0.80 0.73 0.78 0.78
B (9.3m/s) 0.83 0.86 0.76 0.89 0.84
C (5.5m/s) 0.82 0.84 0.91 0.77 0.84
C (7.4m/s) 0.80 0.76 0.85 0.84 0.81
C (9.3m/s) 0.84 0.74 0.79 0.87 0.81
D (5.5m/s) 0.80 0.85 0.89 0.90 0.86
D (7.4m/s) 0.80 0.88 0.85 0.83 0.84
D (9.3m/s) 0.83 0.91 0.90 0.86 0.87
F (5.5m/s) 0.69 0.71 0.71 0.62 0.68
F (7.4m/s) 0.55 0.62 0.56 0.58 0.58
F (9.3m/s) 0.54 0.62 0.61 0.65 0.60
R (5.5m/s) 0.82 0.74 0.96 0.81 0.84
R (7.4m/s) 0.88 0.77 0.91 0.89 0.86
R (9.3m/s) 0.86 0.75 0.94 0.94 0.87
UT (5.5m/s) 0.77 0.83 0.83 0.57 0.75
UT (7.4m/s) 0.68 0.73 0.70 0.62 0.68
UT (9.3m/s) 0.78 0.90 0.88 0.73 0.82
Average 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.75 0.76
Table 19. NOCSAE drop impact CORA scores (Test 1, NOCSAE_v1.0.k was used).
Head Carriage
Test Condition Force Overall
Lin. Acc. Acc.
Front (2.9m/s) 0.63 0.92 0.86 0.78
Front (3.7m/s) 0.69 0.97 0.91 0.83
Front (4.9m/s) 0.70 0.95 0.89 0.83
Front (6.0m/s) 0.73 0.95 0.91 0.84
Mask (2.9m/s) 0.77 0.69 0.64 0.73
Mask (3.7m/s) 0.60 0.72 0.75 0.66
Side (2.9m/s) 0.74 0.94 0.91 0.84
Top (2.9m/s) 0.97 0.92 0.93 0.94
Top (3.7m/s) 0.90 0.85 0.87 0.88
Top (4.9m/s) 0.74 0.70 0.78 0.72
Average 0.75 0.86 0.85 0.80
Table 2020. NOCSAE drop impact CORA scores (Test 2, NOCSAE_v1.0.k was used).
Head Carriage
Lin. Acc. Acc.
Front (2.9m/s) 0.73 0.96 0.89 0.84
Front (3.7m/s) 0.66 0.95 0.90 0.81
Front (4.9m/s) 0.71 0.95 0.88 0.83
Front (6.0m/s) 0.75 0.95 0.88 0.85
Mask (2.9m/s) 0.83 0.72 0.68 0.77
Mask (3.7m/s) 0.61 0.71 0.72 0.66
Side (2.9m/s) 0.75 0.87 0.87 0.81
Top (2.9m/s) 0.80 0.76 0.78 0.78
Top (3.7m/s) 0.82 0.75 0.77 0.79
Top (4.9m/s) 0.84 0.75 0.85 0.80
Average 0.75 0.84 0.82 0.79
Table 21. HIII drop impact CORA scores (Test 1).
Head Carriage
Lin. Acc. Acc.
Back (2.9m/s) 0.78 0.95 0.70 0.81
Back (3.7m/s) 0.82 0.96 0.87 0.88
Back (4.9m/s) 0.78 0.90 0.84 0.84
Back (6.0m/s) 0.56 0.61 0.65 0.61
Front (2.9m/s) 0.67 0.79 0.72 0.73
Front (3.7m/s) 0.70 0.86 0.71 0.76
Front (4.9m/s) 0.72 0.77 0.69 0.73
Front (6.0m/s) 0.73 0.81 0.69 0.75
Side (2.9m/s) 0.68 0.71 0.84 0.74
Side (3.7m/s) 0.73 0.78 0.83 0.78
Side (4.9m/s) 0.43 0.33 0.33 0.36
Side (6.0m/s) 0.76 0.90 0.82 0.83
Top (2.9m/s) 0.68 0.83 0.70 0.74
Top (3.7m/s) 0.64 0.67 0.83 0.71
Top (4.9m/s) 0.76 0.88 0.89 0.84
Top (6.0m/s) 0.76 0.86 0.85 0.82
Average 0.70 0.79 0.75 0.75
Table 22. HIII drop impact CORA scores (Test 2).
Head Carriage
Lin. Acc. Acc.
Back (2.9m/s) 0.86 0.96 0.88 0.90
Back (3.7m/s) 0.82 0.95 0.84 0.87
Back (4.9m/s) 0.70 0.67 0.77 0.71
Back (6.0m/s) 0.70 0.73 0.82 0.75
Front (2.9m/s) 0.67 0.73 0.72 0.71
Front (3.7m/s) 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.70
Front (4.9m/s) 0.73 0.82 0.69 0.75
Front (6.0m/s) 0.71 0.77 0.68 0.72
Side (2.9m/s) 0.63 0.71 0.79 0.71
Side (3.7m/s) 0.70 0.74 0.85 0.76
Side (4.9m/s) 0.74 0.82 0.77 0.78
Side (6.0m/s) 0.74 0.85 0.80 0.80
Top (2.9m/s) 0.63 0.70 0.81 0.71
Top (3.7m/s) 0.71 0.84 0.88 0.81
Top (4.9m/s) 0.76 0.88 0.90 0.84
Top (6.0m/s) 0.71 0.77 0.80 0.76
Average 0.72 0.79 0.79 0.77

Manual 2016 Riddell Revolution Classic Helmet Model v1.0

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Manual 2016 Riddell Revolution Classic Helmet Model v1.0

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Helmet Model Riddell Revolution Speed Classic v1.

Madelen Fahlstedt, Marcus Arnesen, Erik Jungstedt, Peter Halldin

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

Helmet COE contact information

Peter Halldin, Ph.D.

Biocore contact information

1. About this Document

2. About the Project

Wake Forest University

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Principal Investigator: Madelen Fahlstedt, Ph.D. and Peter Halldin, Ph.D.

2.1. The Model Package

• A compressed file containing the model –

Details on the contents are found below in Section 4.

3. Helmet Model Development Summary

3.1. Helmet Geometry Development

Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the helmet model.

Baseline Helmet Model Data

3.2. Material Characterization

3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations

Table 2. Summary of impact conditions used for full helmet validation.

Figure 2. Summary of the process of fitting the helmet to a headform.

4. Riddell Revolution Speed Classic Model Information

Table 3. Riddell Revolution Speed Classic helmet model summary.

Main file name (02_Helmet): RiddellRSC_v1.0_0main_Nofit.dyn

Table 4. Mesh quality details.

Jacobian Warpage Aspect ratio Skew

Table 5. Helmet model unit system.

Time Length Mass Force Stress

Figure 3. Global coordinate system sign convention.

4.1. Running the Model

Table 6. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging.

Version Precision Revision SVN Ver. Platform OS

1. Unzip the file (2016_Riddell_Revolution_Speed_Classic_Helmet_Model_v1.0.zip) to a location

5. Within the desired impact condition folder (Drop_Impact, Linear_Impact, or Pendulum_Impact),

1. Open a 0Main.k file.

4.2. Organization of the Helmet Keyword Cards

Pendulum Impact: 0Main_PI_HIII_RiddellRSC_v1.0.k

Drop carriage arm

4.3. Model Output Information

Table 8. Model outputs in helmet model.

Value LS-DYNA Output Notes

Impactor accelerometer NODOUT (NID: 70075)

4.4. Model Number Conventions

Region Range of Range of Node Range of

4.5. Model Naming Conventions

Figure 6. Naming convention for the padding system.

5. Review of Model Components

Figure 7. Full helmet model.

5.1. Interior View

Figure 9. The naming of the crown pads.

Figure 10. The naming of the rear pads.

6.1. Material Validation

Table 9. Material level validation cases.

Padding Force vs.

Padding Force vs.

Padding Force vs.

6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation

Table 10. Sub assembly validation cases.

Shell Compression QS Force vs.

Shell Compression QS Force vs.

Padding Compression QS Force vs.

6.3. Helmet Validation