Manual 2017 Vicis Zero1 Helmet Model v1.0-1

Copyright 2018 Biomechanics Consulting and Research (Biocore) LLC.
All Rights Reserved
NFL Engineering
Roadmap: Numerical
Model Crowdsourcing
User Manual
Finite Element Model of 2017 Vicis Zero1 Helmet
(Safety Equipment Institute Model 01)
Version 1.0 for LS-DYNA
Authors:
J. Sebastian Giudice, Sayak Mukherjee, Adrian Caudillo, Kevin Kong, Wei Zeng, Matthew B.
Panzer
Date: November 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 this helmet model 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 B. Panzer, Ph.D.
panzer@virginia.edu
COE Web:
http://www.centerforappliedbiomechanics.org/
Biocore contact information

1627 Quail Run
Charlottesville, VA 22911
www.biocorellc.com
models@biocorellc.com
ii
Contents
1. About this Document ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. About the Project .................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1. The Model Package ....................................................................................................................... 2
3. Helmet Model Development Summary ................................................................................................ 3
3.1. Helmet Geometry Development................................................................................................... 3
3.2. Material Characterization ............................................................................................................. 4
3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations........................................................................................ 4
3.4. Helmet Fitting ............................................................................................................................... 5
4. Vicis Zero1 Model Information ............................................................................................................. 5
4.1. Running the Model ....................................................................................................................... 6
4.2. Organization of the Helmet Keyword Cards ................................................................................. 8
4.3. Model Output Information ......................................................................................................... 10
4.4. Model Number Conventions ....................................................................................................... 11
5. Review of Model Components............................................................................................................ 13
5.1. Interior View ............................................................................................................................... 13
5.2. Deep Layer View ......................................................................................................................... 14
6. Model Validation................................................................................................................................. 15
6.1. Material Validation ..................................................................................................................... 15
6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation ............................................................................................................ 17
6.3. Helmet Validation ....................................................................................................................... 19
6.4. Objective Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 23
7. Technical Notes ................................................................................................................................... 23
8. Troubleshooting .................................................................................................................................. 24
9. Model Updates.................................................................................................................................... 25
10. Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 26
11. References ...................................................................................................................................... 27
12. Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................... 28
iii
Figures
Figure 1. Modeling approach for the buckling columns ............................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Helmet front view (Left) and side view (Right) with global coordinate system sign convention. . 6
Figure 3. DYNA file include hierarchy. .......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Vicis Zero1 numbering convention diagram. ............................................................................... 12
Figure 5. Full helmet model with labels of components from outermost view. Colors are used for
visualization and may not reflect product colors. ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 6. Helmet model with labels of components from interior view. Colors are used for visualization
and may not reflect product colors. ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. Helmet model with labels of components from deep layer view. Colors are used for
visualization and may not reflect product colors. ...................................................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the model. ........................................................................................ 4
Table 2. Summary of impact conditions used for helmet validation. ........................................................... 5
Table 3. Vicis Zero1 helmet model summary................................................................................................ 5
Table 4. Mesh quality details. ....................................................................................................................... 6
Table 5. Helmet model unit system. ............................................................................................................. 6
Table 6. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging. .......................................................... 7
Table 7. Required keyword cards included in each main impact condition keyword file. ........................... 9
Table 8. Model outputs found in helmet model. ........................................................................................ 11
Table 9. Material level validation cases. ..................................................................................................... 15
Table 10. Sub assembly validation cases. ................................................................................................... 17
Table 11. Pendulum impact (PI) validation tests. ....................................................................................... 19
Table 12. Linear impactor (LI) validation tests. ........................................................................................... 20
Table 13. Drop impact (DI) validation tests with NOCSAE headform. ........................................................ 21
Table 14. Drop impact (DI) validation tests with HIII headform. ................................................................ 22
Table 15. Overall CORA evaluation. ............................................................................................................ 23
Table 16. Pendulum impact CORA scores ................................................................................................... 28
Table 17. Linear impact CORA scores. ........................................................................................................ 29
Table 18. NOCSAE drop impact CORA scores (NOCSAE_v1.1.k was used) ................................................. 30
Table 19. HIII drop impact CORA scores ..................................................................................................... 30
iv
2017 Vicis Zero1 v1.0
1. About this Document

This manual applies to the 2017 Vicis Zero1 (Safety Equipment Institute Model 01) finite element (FE)
model developed by the University of Virginia Center for Applied Biomechanics under the “Crowdsourced
Helmet Model Development” project 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.
1
2.1. The Model Package

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

2017_Vicis_Zero1_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.
2
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

Model geometry was obtained from a series of computed tomography (CT) scans of a Vicis Zero1 helmet.
Scans were obtained with the helmet fully assembled, fully disassembled, and fully assembled fit with a
3D printed NOCSAE headform. The facemask and all other metal components were removed. Helmet
components were then segmented from the helmet scans and converted to stereolithography files (.stl).
The facemask and chinstrap were scanned using a commercially available handheld 3D scanner and
processed similarly to the CT images.
Thin structures were discretized using 2-D quadrilateral elements. With the exception of the outer shell,
uniform thicknesses obtained from the CT images were assigned to the thin structures. For the outer shell,
element thickness was assigned at the nodal-level (using *ELEMENT_SHELL_THICKNESS) to represent the
thickness distribution of the outer shell. The padding components were meshed using 3-D hexahedral
elements. The facemask and buckling columns were meshed using 1-D elements located at the midline of
the cylindrical geometry. To recreate the correct buckling mode for the buckling columns (fixed-fixed
boundary condition), each buckling column was split into 18 elements along its length and propped up by
additional support columns connecting the penultimate node of each column to the four nodes of the
supporting shell elements on either end of the column Figure 1.
Figure 1. Modeling approach for the buckling columns
The masses of the full helmet and individual components were measured and used to verify the masses
of each model part. Helmet details are listed in Table 1.
3
Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the model.
Baseline Helmet Model Data

Make Model Size SEI Model Number
Vicis Zero1 A 01
3.2. Material Characterization

A total of 25 material characterization tests were conducted to characterize the 16 different materials
found in the Vicis Zero1 helmet. Material specimens were extracted from the helmet and loaded in
tension and/or compression over a range of strain rates from quasi-static (10-1 1/s) to dynamic; football
relevant rates (102 1/s). Helmet materials tested included the padding foams (green, black, yellow, jaw,
ear, forehead), padding liners (fabric, webbing, strap), outer and inner shell polycarbonate plastic,
buckling column rubber, bracket polycarbonate plastic, and chinstrap materials. Low rate (10-3 – 10-1 1/s)
and low force (< 200 N) material tests were conducted using a Bose ElectroForce TestBench configured
for either compression or tension loading modes (Bose Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN). High force (> 200
N) and low rate (10-3 – 10-1 1/s) material tests were conducted using an Instron test device configured for
either compression or tension loading modes (Model 8874, Canton, MA). At least three different samples
were tested for each strain rate.
Constitutive models were selected for each material and tuned using single element simulations at the
different strain rates. Dimensions and stress-strain curves from a single specimen were used to tune each
material model and data from the remaining specimens were used to verify the material response.
Further details regarding material characterization are provided in Section 6.1.
3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations

Component-level tests were performed to assess the functional response of several critical helmet
components such as the buckling components, outer and inner shell, facemask, and padding units (Confor
foam, base foam, fabric, and webbing) in low-rate and dynamic loading. These experiments were
simulated to verify the constitutive models assigned to the helmet parts. Low rate component tests were
performed using an Instron Model 8874 test device and dynamic tests were performed on the padding
units using a drop-tower with impact velocities of 5 m/s. Further details regarding component-level
validation are provided in Section 6.2.
The fully assembled helmet model was validated using a suite of dynamic helmet impact simulations.
These included Pendulum Impact (PI), Linear Impact (LI), and Drop Impact (DI) conditions. A total of 67
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, 19 drop impact tests with the NOCSAE headform, and 12 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.
4
Table 2. Summary of impact conditions used for 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
Back, Front,
NOCSAE 2.9; 3.7; 4.9; 6.0 19
Mask*, Side, Top
DI
Back, Front,
HIII 2.9; 4.9; 6.0 12
Side, Top
*NOCSAE Mask impact at 6.0 m/s was not evaluated.
3.4. Helmet Fitting

The helmet model was fit onto FE models of the HIII and NOCSAE headforms using a standardized fitting
procedure. First, the helmet model was positioned relative to the headform. Helmet positioning was
dictated by index points physically measured on the helmet and headform with the helmet positioned
according to experimental protocols. Using these target points, spatial rigid body transformations were
applied to transform the helmet model to the headform coordinate system. Once positioned, the
headform model was scaled down by 30 – 50% so that the headform fit within the helmet space without
penetrating any internal helmet components. The *BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_FINAL_GEOMETRY
boundary condition was used to simulate the expansion of the scaled headform to its original size. The
nodal coordinates of the compressed padding components were exported and used in the HIII- and
NOCSAE-specific helmet models. Element quality and initial penetrations checks were performed.
Remeshing of heavily distorted elements was performed if needed and initial penetrations were removed.
Initial stress of the foam parts was implemented after fitting using the initial foam geometry as the
undeformed reference state.
4. Vicis Zero1 Model Information

Table 3 below provides general information about the model.
Table 3. Vicis Zero1 helmet model summary.
Main file name (02_Helmet): VicisZ1_v1.0_0main_Nofit.dyn

Elements: 128,1231
Nodes: 124,643
Number of Parts: 58
2
Mass (kg) : 2.23
Moments of Inertia (principal axes, kg-mm²)2 Ixx = 23600, Iyy = 26010, Izz = 27550
1
Number of helmet elements varies for different headform fits due to use of different chinstrap models.
2
Negligible change in helmet mass for the different headform fits.
5
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): 9% (elements > 5°): 5% (elements > 5): 0% (elements > 60°): 0%
Minimum: 0.27 Maximum: 74.1° Maximum: 6.7 Maximum: 65.9°
Table 5. Helmet model unit system.
Time Length Mass Force Stress

ms mm kg kN GPa
The model is in a global coordinate system defined by SAE J211/1 sign convention. A diagram of the
coordinate system and model orientation can be seen below in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Helmet front view (Left) and side view (Right) with 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. All jobs were performed on a high performance computing cluster
maintained by the Center for Applied Biomechanics at the University of Virginia using LS-DYNA version
9.1.0 revision 113621 with shared memory processing (SMP). Table 6 summarizes the current LS-DYNA
build used for model development and debugging.
6
Table 6. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging.
Version Precision Revision SVN Ver. Platform OS

SMP R9.1.0 Single 113621 113621 Xeon 64 System Linux 2.6.18 ul
Executable
ls-dyna_smp_s_r910_x64_redhat56_ifort131.gz
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 (2017_Vicis_Zero1_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_2017_Vicis_Zero1_Helmet_Model_v1.0.docx
b. Impactor_Users_Manual_v1.0.pdf
c. READ_ME.txt
3. Within 02_Helmet (unfitted helmet model files)
a. VicisZ1_v1.0_0main_Nofit.dyn
b. VicisZ1_v1.0_chinstrap_Nofit.k
c. VicisZ1_v1.0_control.k
d. VicisZ1_v1.0_helmet.k
e. VicisZ1_v1.0_nodes_Nofit.k
4. Within 03_BoundaryConditions (includes fitted helmet model)
• 0Includes (listed alphabetically)
a. 0Main_DI_HIII_ VicisZ1_v1.0.k
b. 0Main_DI_NOCSAE_ VicisZ1_v1.0.k
c. 0Main_LI_HIII_ VicisZ1_v1.0.k
d. 0Main_PI_HIII_ VicisZ1_v1.0.k
e. DropImpactor_0main.k
f. DropImpactor_Arm.k
g. DropImpactor_Carriage.k
h. DropImpactor_LC.k
i. HIII_head.k
j. HIII_head_0main.k
k. HIII_headneck.k
l. HIII_headneck_v1.1.k
m. HIII_neckmount_LI.k
n. HIII_neckmount_PI.k
o. LinearImpactor.k
p. neck_mount_0deg_impactor.k
q. NOCSAE_v1.0.k
r. NOCSAE_v1.1.k
7
s. PendulumImpactor.k
t. VicisZ1_v1.0_0main_HIIIfit.dyn
u. VicisZ1_v1.0_0main_NOCSAEfit.dyn
v. VicisZ1_v1.0_chinstrap_HIIIfit.k
w. VicisZ1_v1.0_chinstrap_HIIIfit_out.k
x. VicisZ1_v1.0_chinstrap_NOCSAEfit.k
y. VicisZ1_v1.0_control.k
z. VicisZ1_v1.0_foam_prestress.k
aa. VicisZ1_v1.0_helmet.k
bb. VicisZ1_v1.0_nodes_HIIIfit.k
cc. VicisZ1_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 condition 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). In
additional to the main three folders, a helmet color map (01_Manual) that was used to render the helmet
in the color scheme shown in this manual when using LS-PrePost, and a READ ME.txt file have been
included in the model package. 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”_ VicisZ1_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 3 and notable included
8
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 3. DYNA file include hierarchy.
Table 7. Required keyword cards included in each main impact condition keyword file.
Pendulum Impact: 0Main_PI_HIII_VicisZ1_v1.0.k

Included File Include Card Description Outputs
Head
accelerometer,
HIII H-N model positioned
Head rotation,
HIII_headneck_v1.1.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
VicisZ1_0main_HIIIfit.dyn *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM on the head according to N/A
COE specification
Standardized card that
** VicisZ1_v1.0_control.k *INCLUDE includes all control and N/A
database cards
Linear Impact: 0Main_LI_HIII_ VicisZ1_v1.0.k

Head
HIII H-N model positioned
accelerometer,
HIII_headneck_v1.1.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM according to impact
Head rotation,
location
Lower neck load
9
cell, Upper neck

load cell
HIII neck mount
HIII_neckmount_LI.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to N/A
impact location
Impactor
Linear impactor model
accelerometer
Linear_Impactor.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to
Impactor load
impact location
cell
VicisZ1_0main_HIIIfit.dyn *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM on the head according to N/A
COE specification
database cards
Drop Impact: 0Main_DI_HIII_ VicisZ1_v1.0.k
0Main_DI_NOCSAE_ VicisZ1_v1.0.k
Dummy headform model
HIII_head_0main.k Head
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to
*NOCSAEv1.0.k accelerometer
impact location
Impactor transformation
DropImpactor_0main.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM N/A
and sub-part definitions
Drop carriage arm
positioned according to
**DropImpactor_Arm.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM impact location with ID’s N/A
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
VicisZ1_0main_HIIIfit.dyn
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM on the head according to N/A
VicisZ1_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 8 below provides a summary of available preprogrammed model output information for the helmet
model. These are useful for tracking kinematics and quantifying deformations. Current outputs
preprogrammed into the model are located within keyword file banners.
10
Table 8. Model outputs found in helmet model.
Value LS-DYNA Output Notes

Drop Test: Outer Shell, Facemask
Contact force ELOUT: (EID: 10016033) Force output for drop tests
Carriage acceleration NODOUT: (NID: 10002458) Acceleration for drop carriage
Linear Impactor Test: Outer Shell, Facemask
Contact force ELOUT: (EID: 61000) Force output for linear impactor
Impactor acceleration NODOUT: (NID: 70075) Acceleration for ram
HIII Headform in BC
HIII head CG accelerometer NODOUT: (NID: 28119) Head CG acceleration
HIII head OC rotation NODOUT: (NID: 28122) Head rotation about OC pin
Lower Neck Load Cell (T1) ELOUT: (EID: 56421) Load cell for T1
Upper Neck Load Cell (OC) ELOUT: (EID: 56422) Load Cell for OC
NOCSAE Headform in BC
NOCSAE head CG
NODOUT: (NID: 61099) Head CG acceleration
accelermometer
4.4. Model Number Conventions

The numbering convention is used throughout model and is summarized in Figure 4.
Region Part Name Part Number Range of Element Number

Outer_Shell 100 (2D)
Shells
Inner_Shell 101 (2D)
Buckling Layer 1F_Top 110 (2D)
11
1F_Bottom 111 (2D)

2C_Top 120 (2D)
2C_Btm 121 (2D)
3L_4R_Top 130 (2D)
3L_4R_Side 131 (2D)
3L_4R_Bridge 132 (2D)
3L_4R_Btm 133 (2D)
5L_6R_Top 140 (2D)
5L_6R_Top 141 (2D)
7B_Top 150 (2D)
7B_Btm 151 (2D)
Temple_Top 160 (2D)
Temple_Btm 161 (2D)
Beam_Diam_5.0 170 (1D)
Beam_Diam_5.25 171 (1D)
Beam_Diam_5.75 172 (1D)
Beam_Diam_6.3 173 (1D)
Temple_Beam_Diam_5.0 174 (1D)
Support_Beams 177 (1D)
Bracket_Front 196 (2D)
Bracket_Rear 197 (2D)
Brackets
Bracket_Rear_Chamfer 198 (2D)
Bracket_Rear_Trans 199 (2D)
Padding_Confor_Foam 200 (3D)
Padding_Base_Black 201 (3D)
Padding_Base_Yellow 202 (3D)
Padding_Webbing 240 (2D)
Padding_Fabric 241 (2D)
Padding_Strap 242 (2D)
Padding
Padding_Webbing_Edge 243 (2D)
Padding_Forehead 250 (3D)
Padding_Ear 260 (3D)
Padding_Ear_Base 261 (3D)
Padding_Jaw 270 (3D)
Padding_Jaw_Base 271 (3D)
Facemask_Frame 300 (1D)
Facemask Facemask_Ancillary 301 (1D)
Facemask_Clips 310 (2D)
Chinstrap_Cup 400 (2D)
Chinstrap
Chinstrap_Strap 401 (2D)
Figure 4. Vicis Zero1 numbering convention diagram.
12
5. Review of Model Components

The helmet model included a total of 45 parts. Below is the visualization of the virtual helmet model, with
labels denoted each part (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Full helmet model with labels of components from outermost view. Colors are used for visualization and may not
reflect product colors.
5.1. Interior View

The interior view of the helmet model is shown below in Figure 6.. The components were highlighted
with labels for visualization.
13
Figure 6. Helmet model with labels of components from interior view. Colors are used for visualization and may not reflect
product colors.
5.2. Deep Layer View

The deep layer structure is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Helmet model with labels of components from deep layer view. Colors are used for visualization and may not
reflect product colors.
14
6. Model Validation
A hierarchical approach was used for model validation. First, single element simulations were performed
to optimize individual material models. Next, the different helmet subassemblies were evaluated against
experimental component test data. Finally, the fully assembled helmet was validated to laboratory helmet
impact tests. The following sections detail the validation performed in these three stages.
6.1. Material Validation

Material models were optimized by matching single-element LS-DYNA simulations to experimental
results. Thick structures (pad foam, buckling columns) were tested in compression. Conversely, thin
structures (padding fabric and webbing, bracket, shells) were tested in tension. The list of materials and
associated evaluation criteria can be found in Table 9.
*MAT_LOW_DENSITY_VISCOUS_FOAM was used to model the padding foams. For each of these
materials, a quasi-static stress-strain curve was used to define the static response of the material. This
stress-strain curve was obtained directly from quasi-static material tests (0.1 1/s). The higher rate material
test and dynamic component tests were used to tune linear viscoelastic coefficients (shear moduli and
time constants) that governed the rate-dependent behavior. *MAT_VISCOELATIC was used to model the
viscoelastic properties of the buckling structure (columns and shells). The viscoelastic parameters were
tuned using single element simulations and verified in a component-level simulation. *MAT_FABRIC was
used to model the padding webbing that covered the base of the padding foam as well as the fabric that
coated the outer surface that interacts with the headform. In these materials, a stress-strain curve defined
the loading and unloading response in the normal and shear directions. *MAT_ELASTIC was used for all
other materials. Young’s moduli were obtained directly from the stress-strain curves of the respective
materials. All materials were isotropic.
Table 9. Material level validation cases.
Evaluation
Component Material Mode Rate(s) Experiment
Criteria
Green Confor
Padding (polyurethane) Compression QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
foam
Black
Padding polyurethane Compression QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
foam
Yellow
Padding polyurethane Compression QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
foam
15
Evaluation
Criteria
Padding Fabric Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
Webbing base
Padding Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
layer
Padding Elastic strap Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
Jaw
Jaw Pad polyurethane Compression QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
foam
Polycarbonate
Jaw Pad Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
plastic base
Ear
Ear Pad polyurethane Compression QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
foam
Polycarbonate
Ear Pad Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
plastic base
Bracket Polycarbonate Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
16
Evaluation
Criteria
Outer Shell Polycarbonate Tension QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
Inner Shell Polycarbonate Tension QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
Tension
Column Rubber QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
Compression
Temple Tension
Rubber QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
Column Compression
Chinstrap Polycarbonate Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀
QS – Quasi-static, Dyn – Dynamic, 𝜎 – Stress, 𝜀 – strain, F – Force, D – Displacement
6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation

A series of validation tests and simulation were also performed at the sub assembly level (Table 10).
Table 10. Sub assembly validation cases.
Evaluatio
Test Mode Rate(s) Simulation Experiment
n Criteria
Outer shell Compression QS F vs. D
17
Inner Shell Compression QS F vs. D
Padding Compression QS, Dyn F vs. D

Component
*
Forehead Compression QS, Dyn F vs. D

Pad
Jaw pad Compression QS, Dyn F vs. D
Ear pad Compression QS, Dyn F vs. D
Column Compression QS F vs. D

Buckling
18
Facemask Compression QS F vs. D
* Padding components included confor foam, base foam (yellow or black), fabric, and webbing. Four
padding components were tested and simulated.
QS – Quasi-static, Dyn – Dynamic, F – Force, D – Displacement
6.3. Helmet Validation

A total of 67 simulations were run with the full helmet, using either a HIII or NOCSAE headform. The HIII
H-N and was used to evaluate the helmet in pendulum (PI) and linear impact (LI) conditions (Table 2).
Pendulum impacts were run per the Star rating system developed at Virginia Tech (Rowson et al., 2015),
while the linear impacts consisted of those reported in Viano et al., 2012. Drop impacts were performed
with the model fit to both HIII and NOCSAE headforms. The “NOCSAE_v1.0.k” file was used for the NOCSAE
drop impact simulations (*MAT_KELVIN_MAXWELL_VISCOELASTIC) head skin model. The final simulation
matrix consisted of 24 linear impactor tests, 12 pendulum impacts, 19 NOCSAE drop impacts, and 12 HIII
drop impacts. The helmet model normal terminated in 65 simulations. In the PI and LI simulations, the
“_v1.1” version of the HIII H-N model was used. This model included a slight change to the HIII neck that
did not affect HIII H-N performance. In the LI and PI simulations, the frontal impacts were used to test
robustness and were not considered in the CORA evaluation, due to an interaction between the impactor
and helmet that was not captured in the simulations. In the NOCSAE headform drop impacts, the back
impacts were used to test robustness and were not considered in the CORA evaluation, due to excessive
rotation in the nominally rigid connection between the headform and drop carriage that could not be
captured in the model. More details on the impactors and headform models can be found in the impactor
user’s manual.
Table 11. Pendulum impact (PI) validation tests.
Impact
Evaluation Criteria
Configuration
Impact Simulation
Force versus Linear Acceleration Angular
Velocity
Time versus Time Velocity
[m/s]
Contact
3.0 Head Impactor
Force Head CG
Front* 4.6 CG (Impact
(Impact (XYZ)
6.1 (XYZ) direction)
direction)
19
Contact
3.0 Head Impactor
Front Force Head CG
4.6 CG (Impact
Boss (Impact (XYZ)
direction)
Contact
3.0 Head Impactor
Force Head CG
Side 4.6 CG (Impact
(Impact (XYZ)
direction)
Contact
3.0 Head Impactor
Force Head CG
Back 4.6 CG (Impact
(Impact (XYZ)
direction)
*Cases not included in overall CORA rating, used for robustness only.
Table 12. Linear impactor (LI) validation tests.
Impact
Evaluation Criteria
Configuration
Impact Linear Simulation Experiment
Force versus Angular
Velocity Acceleration
Time Velocity
[m/s] versus Time
Contact
5.5 Head Impactor Head
Force
A 7.4 CG (Impact CG
(Impact
9.3 (XYZ) direction) (XYZ)
direction)
Contact
Force
AP 7.4 CG (Impact CG
(Impact
direction)
Contact
Force
B 7.4 CG (Impact CG
(Impact
direction)
20
Contact
Force
C 7.4 CG (Impact CG
(Impact
direction)
Contact
Force
D 7.4 CG (Impact CG
(Impact
direction)
Contact
Force
F* 7.4 CG (Impact CG
(Impact
direction)
Contact
Force
R 7.4 CG (Impact CG
(Impact
direction)
Contact
Force
UT 7.4 CG (Impact CG
(Impact
direction)
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
Contact
3.7 Head CG Carriage
Back* Force
4.9 (XZ) Acc. Z
(Res.)
6.0
2.9
Contact
Front Force
4.9 (XZ) Acc. Z
(Res.)
6.0
21
2.9
Contact
Mask Force
4.9 (X) Acc. Z
(Res.)
6.0
2.9
Contact
Side Force
4.9 (YZ) Acc. Z
(Res.)
6.0
2.9
Contact
Top Force
4.9 (XZ) Acc. Z
(Res.)
6.0
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 Contact
Head CG Carriage
Back 4.9 Force
(XYZ) Acc. Z
6.0 (Res.)
2.9 Contact
Head CG Carriage
Front 4.9 Force
(XYZ) Acc. Z
6.0 (Res.)
2.9 Contact
Head CG Carriage
Side 4.9 Force
(XYZ) Acc. Z
6.0 (Res.)
2.9 Contact
Head CG Carriage
Top 4.9 Force
(XYZ) Acc. Z
6.0 (Res.)
22
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). Additionally, 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 applied only 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 15. Individual CORA
scores are presented in Appendix A.
Table 15. Overall CORA evaluation.
Drop Tower Drop Tower Linear

Pendulum
Overall Weighted CORA Score NOCSAE HIII Impactor
0.83 0.86 0.73 0.74
Legend 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
7. Technical Notes
Some assumptions were made in the development of the model and are detailed below:
• To capture the correct buckling response of the column layer, additional support columns (PID
177) were included to enforce the fixed-fixed boundary condition on either end. These columns
are not in the physical helmet and have been excluded in all contact definitions. For visualization,
the support columns should be hidden.
23
• Compression of the buckling columns creates significant point-loads on the column shell
structures to which they are attached. To distribute these loads more evenly on the column shells,
the connected shell elements have been sorted into different parts with stiffer material
properties.
• The FE model defined the plastic connections of the facemask to the helmet shell as rigid body
connections (through *CONSTRAINED_NODAL_RIGID_BODIES). Similarly, button connections of
the padding webbing to the brackets, padding webbing to the inner shell, and brackets to the
outer shell were modeled as rigid body connections.
• Adhesive connection between the forehead pad and forehead buckling component was modeled
as a tied contact. All components attached with an adhesive in the physical model were attached
using tied contacts.
• *CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_GENERAL was implemented as a self-contact for the buckling columns
and the chinstrap and facemask. This contact is required to capture the column-to-column and
chinstrap to facemask contacts. If using older versions of LS-DYNA, users should ensure that this
contact formulation is supported and works correctly.
• 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.
• In the physical pendulum impact test the pendulum-facemask interaction was unclear. There is a
discrepancy between the simulation and model results in this case, particularly in angular head
kinematics, which is likely due to this interaction that was no captured in the model.
• Note that environmental factors such as temperature and humidity were not considered during
model development. The current parameters are default and were chosen to optimize model
response to physical test data.
• All simulations were performed without foam prestress enabled. However, a file to include foam
prestress (“VicisZ1_v1.0_foam_prestress.k”) is included in the file hierarchy that can be included
in the main helmet files.
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 0.18 μs. The user can specify a time-step
through mass-scaling (DT2MS on the *CONTROL_TIMESTEP). Less than 1% mass should be gained if scaling
to a time step of 0.4 μs. This is the default mass scaling. The model has not been tested with mass scaling
above 0.4 μs. Caution should be exercised when mass scaling, the user should investigate the total mass
gained and the location of the additional mass. Added mass can artificially lead to higher forces and
spurious energy gain observed in the simulation.
24
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 model
development and should be noted prior to running with another model.
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.
25
10. Acknowledgements
The Vicis Zero1 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
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Roberto Quesada, MS Co-PIs: F. Scott Gayzik, Joel D. Stitzel
Engineer
Engineering Team: William B. Decker, Alex M.
Brian McEwen, BS Baker, Xin Ye, Philip J. Brown
Engineer
Vicis Zero 1 and Helmet Assessment Models COE

University of Virginia, Center for Applied
Biomechanics
PI: Matthew B. Panzer
Engineering Team : J. Sebastian Giudice, Adrian

Caudillo, Sayak Mukherjee, Kevin Kong, Wei Zeng
26
11. References
Cobb BR, Zadnik AM, Rowson S. Comparative analysis of helmeted impact response of Hybrid III and
National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment headforms. Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology.
2016;230(1):50-60.
Davis ML, Koya B, Schap JM, Gayzik FS. Development and full body validation of a 5th percentile female
finite element model. Stapp Car Crash Journal. 2016;60:509-544.
Rowson B, Rowson S, Duma SM. Hockey STAR: a methodology for assessing the biomechanical
performance of hockey helmets. Annals of biomedical engineering. 2015;43(10):2429-2443.
Viano DC, Withnall C, Halstead D. Impact performance of modern football helmets. Annals of biomedical
engineering. 2012;40(1):160-174.
27
12. Appendix A
Individual CORA scores are presented in Table 16Table 19. All results were obtained from simulations
using LS-DYNA smp R9.1.0 single precision. CORA analyses were performed over a 30ms time window
from the start of impact.
Table 16. Pendulum impact CORA scores
Pendulum Head Head

Test Condition Overall
Lin. Acc. Lin. Acc. Ang. Vel.
Back (3.0 m/s) 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.78
Back (4.6 m/s) 0.90 0.60 0.70 0.73
Back (6.1 m/s) 0.80 0.57 0.77 0.71
Front (3.0 m/s)* 0.70 0.57 0.08 0.45
Front (4.6 m/s)* 0.85 0.63 0.39 0.62
Front (6.1 m/s)* 0.89 0.61 0.44 0.65
Front Boss (3.0 m/s) 0.91 0.62 0.51 0.68
Front Boss (4.6 m/s) 0.95 0.61 0.59 0.71
Front Boss (6.1 m/s) 0.94 0.65 0.66 0.75
Side (3.0 m/s) 0.91 0.74 0.81 0.82
Side (4.6 m/s) 0.78 0.63 0.78 0.73
Side (6.1 m/s) 0.84 0.61 0.810.76
0.74
28
Table 17. Linear impact CORA scores.
Impactor Head Linear Head Angular

Test Condition Impactor Force Overall
Lin. Acc. Acceleration Velocity
AP (5.5m/s) 0.86 0.82 0.55 0.71 0.74
AP (7.4m/s) 0.55 0.53 0.35 0.62 0.51
AP (9.3m/s) 0.60 0.56 0.29 0.58 0.51
A (5.5m/s) 0.83 0.82 0.60 0.60 0.71
A (7.4m/s) 0.79 0.79 0.55 0.59 0.68
A (9.3m/s) 0.61 0.61 0.45 0.66 0.58
B (5.5m/s) 0.86 0.84 0.61 0.82 0.78
B (7.4m/s) 0.89 0.87 0.63 0.86 0.81
B (9.3m/s) 0.87 0.84 0.57 0.84 0.78
C (5.5m/s) 0.91 0.87 0.54 0.76 0.77
D (5.5m/s) 0.88 0.84 0.69 0.78 0.80
D (7.4m/s) 0.87 0.85 0.68 0.78 0.79
D (9.3m/s) 0.86 0.86 0.67 0.84 0.80
F (5.5m/s)* 0.68 0.71 0.54 0.68 0.65
F (7.4m/s)* 0.63 0.62 0.45 0.65 0.59
F (9.3m/s)* 0.56 0.69 0.42 0.66 0.58
R (5.5m/s) 0.91 0.89 0.61 0.82 0.81
R (7.4m/s) 0.83 0.81 0.52 0.80 0.74
R (9.3m/s) 0.80 0.78 0.52 0.81 0.73
UT (5.5m/s) 0.82 0.85 0.58 0.73 0.74
UT (7.4m/s) 0.83 0.91 0.57 0.68 0.75
UT (9.3m/s) 0.84 0.91 0.57 0.74 0.76
0.73
29
Table 18. NOCSAE drop impact CORA scores (NOCSAE_v1.1.k was used)
Carriage Head Linear

Impact Condition Load Cell Force Overall
Lin. Acc. Acceleration
Back (2.9m/s)* 0.90 0.93 0.57 0.80
Back (3.7m/s)* 0.90 0.91 0.54 0.79
Back (4.9m/s)* 0.88 0.91 0.64 0.81
Back (6.0m/s)* 0.78 0.83 0.60 0.74
Front (2.9m/s) 0.81 0.84 0.71 0.79
Front (3.7m/s) 0.80 0.87 0.73 0.80
Front (4.9m/s) 0.88 0.94 0.78 0.87
Front (6.0m/s) 0.91 0.96 0.78 0.88
Side (2.9m/s) 0.85 0.85 0.77 0.82
Side (3.7m/s) 0.84 0.85 0.74 0.80
Side (4.9m/s) 0.92 0.92 0.81 0.88
Side (6.0m/s) 0.93 0.95 0.75 0.88
Top (2.9m/s) 0.81 0.79 0.70 0.77
Top (3.7m/s) 0.87 0.88 0.71 0.82
Top (4.9m/s) 0.81 0.85 0.72 0.80
Top (6.0m/s) 0.88 0.90 0.78 0.86
Face Mask (2.9m/s) 0.71 0.89 0.87 0.82
Face Mask (3.7m/s) 0.77 0.82 0.73 0.77
Face Mask (4.9m/s) 0.82 0.99 0.86 0.89
0.83
Table 19. HIII drop impact CORA scores
Carriage Head Linear

Impact Condition Load Cell Force Overall
Lin. Acc. Acceleration
Back (2.9m/s) 0.80 0.86 0.67 0.78
Back (4.9m/s) 0.83 0.94 0.72 0.83
Back (6.0m/s) 0.87 0.95 0.74 0.85
Front (2.9m/s) 0.95 0.95 0.79 0.90
Front (4.9m/s) 0.93 0.97 0.76 0.88
Front (6.0m/s) 0.91 0.98 0.67 0.85
Top (2.9m/s) 0.90 0.97 0.76 0.88
Top (4.9m/s) 0.92 0.96 0.79 0.89
Top (6.0m/s) 0.90 0.99 0.77 0.88
Side (2.9m/s) 0.73 0.96 0.58 0.76
Side (4.9m/s) 0.89 0.96 0.79 0.88
Side (6.0m/s) 0.92 0.91 0.81 0.88
0.86
30

Manual 2017 Vicis Zero1 Helmet Model v1.0-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual 2017 Vicis Zero1 Helmet Model v1.0-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright 2018 Biomechanics Consulting and Research (Biocore) LLC.

All Rights Reserved

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

Helmet COE contact information

Biocore contact information

1. About this Document

2. About the Project

Wake Forest University

KTH Royal Institute of Technology

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

Figure 1. Modeling approach for the buckling columns

Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the model.

Baseline Helmet Model Data

3.2. Material Characterization

Further details regarding material characterization are provided in Section 6.1.

3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations

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

3.4. Helmet Fitting

4. Vicis Zero1 Model Information

Table 3. Vicis Zero1 helmet model summary.

Main file name (02_Helmet): VicisZ1_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

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 (2017_Vicis_Zero1_Helmet_Model_v1.0.zip) to a location on your system. This

1. Open a 0Main.k file.

4.2. Organization of the Helmet Keyword Cards

Figure 3. DYNA file include hierarchy.

Pendulum Impact: 0Main_PI_HIII_VicisZ1_v1.0.k

Linear Impact: 0Main_LI_HIII_ VicisZ1_v1.0.k

cell, Upper neck

4.3. Model Output Information

Table 8. Model outputs found in helmet model.

Value LS-DYNA Output Notes

4.4. Model Number Conventions

Region Part Name Part Number Range of Element Number

1F_Bottom 111 (2D)

5. Review of Model Components

5.1. Interior View

5.2. Deep Layer View

6.1. Material Validation

Table 9. Material level validation cases.

Padding Fabric Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀

Padding Elastic strap Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀

Bracket Polycarbonate Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀

Outer Shell Polycarbonate Tension QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀

Inner Shell Polycarbonate Tension QS, Dyn 𝜎 vs. 𝜀

Chinstrap Polycarbonate Tension QS 𝜎 vs. 𝜀

QS – Quasi-static, Dyn – Dynamic, 𝜎 – Stress, 𝜀 – strain, F – Force, D – Displacement

6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation

Table 10. Sub assembly validation cases.

Inner Shell Compression QS F vs. D

Padding Compression QS, Dyn F vs. D

Forehead Compression QS, Dyn F vs. D

Jaw pad Compression QS, Dyn F vs. D