User Manual: Finite Element Model of 2016 Xenith X2E (Safety Equipment Institute Model X2E) Version 1.0 For LS-DYNA

Copyright 2018 Biomechanics Consulting and Research (Biocore) LLC.
All Rights Reserved
NFL Engineering
Roadmap: Numerical
Model Crowdsourcing
User Manual
Finite Element Model of 2016 Xenith X2E
(Safety Equipment Institute model X2E)
Version 1.0 for LS-DYNA
Authors:
Duane Cronin, Jeff Barker, Donata Gierczycka, David Bruneau, Michael Bustamante, Miguel
Corrales
Date: May 9th, 2018, Document Version (v) 1.0
i
Copyright 2018 Biomechanics Consulting and Research (Biocore) LLC. All Rights Reserved
Biomechanics Consulting and Research, LLC (Biocore) and Football Research Inc. (FRI) with support from
the National Football League (NFL) have collaborated with Centers of Expertise (COEs) at their university
partners to develop open-source finite element (FE) models of four modern football helmets and
associated test equipment and methods. These publicly available FE models were created as a platform
and baseline resource for injury prevention research and to stimulate the development of novel and highly
effective helmet designs. These FE models are licensed and distributed by Biocore subject to the terms of
the Licensing Agreement and Citation Policy.
The COE for this helmet model is the University of Waterloo.
Helmet COE contact information

University of Waterloo, Impact Mechanics and Material Characterization (IMMC) Group
E5, 200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, ON, CAN N2L 3G1
POCs:
Duane S. Cronin, Ph.D.
dscronin@uwaterloo.ca
COE Web:
impact-mechanics-material-characterization.uwaterloo.ca/
Biocore contact information

1621 Quail Run
Charlottesville, VA 22911
www.biocorellc.com
models@biocorellc.com
ii
Contents
NFL Engineering Roadmap: Numerical Model Crowdsourcing ...................................................................... i
1. About this Document ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. About the Project .................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1. The Model Package ....................................................................................................................... 2
3. Helmet Model Development Summary ................................................................................................ 3
3.1. Helmet Geometry Development................................................................................................... 3
3.2. Material Characterization ............................................................................................................. 6
3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations........................................................................................ 9
3.4. Summary of helmet positioning on headforms ............................................................................... 10
4. Xenith X2E Model Information ........................................................................................................... 10
4.1. Running the Model ..................................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Organization of the Helmet Keyword Cards ............................................................................... 13
4.3. Model Output Information ......................................................................................................... 15
4.4. Model Number Conventions ....................................................................................................... 16
5. Review of Model Components............................................................................................................ 18
5.1. Interior Components: Shock Bonnet Suspension System ........................................................... 18
5.2. Interior Components: Comfort Foam ......................................................................................... 19
5.3. Chin cup and Helmet Straps ........................................................................................................ 20
6. Model Validation................................................................................................................................. 20
6.1. Material Validation ..................................................................................................................... 21
6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation ............................................................................................................ 21
6.3. Helmet Model Validation ............................................................................................................ 23
6.4. Objective Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 27
7. Technical Notes ................................................................................................................................... 28
8. Troubleshooting .................................................................................................................................. 28
9. Model Updates.................................................................................................................................... 30
10. Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 31
11. References ...................................................................................................................................... 32
12. Appendix A ...................................................................................................................................... 33
iii
Figures
Figure 1. Xenith X2E helmet (2016 model). .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Progression of the helmet shell from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT
scan, and right: meshed)............................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Progression of the facemask from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan,
and right: meshed). ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4. Progression of a compression shock from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT
Figure 5. Progression of a mandible shock from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT
Figure 6. Progression of the Shock Bonnet Suspension System (SBSS) from a CT scan to a meshed model
(left: Image, middle: CT scan, and right: meshed). ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 7. Progression of the front comfort pad from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle:
CT scan, and right: meshed). ......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 8. Progression of the crown pad from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan,
and right: meshed). ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 9. Progression of the chincup from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan,
and right: meshed). ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 10. Global Coordinate system sign convention, shown for a Frontal HIII Linear Impact. ............... 11
Figure 11. DYNA file include hierarchy. ...................................................................................................... 14
Figure 12. Helmet numbering convention diagram. ................................................................................... 17
Figure 13. Xenith X2E Helmet Model, Outermost Components. ................................................................ 18
Figure 14. Xenith X2E Helmet Model, Shock Bonnet Suspension System and Comprising Components. . 19
Figure 15. Xenith X2E Helmet Model, Comfort Padding System and Components. .................................. 19
Figure 16. Chin cup and helmet strap system............................................................................................. 20
Tables
Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the model. ........................................................................................ 6
Table 2. Summary of apparatus and instrumentation used for material characterization. ......................... 7
Table 3. Material-level test matrix. Refer to Section 5 for precise locations. .............................................. 8
Table 4. Summary of impact conditions used for helmet validation. ........................................................... 9
Table 5. Xenith X2E helmet model summary. ............................................................................................. 10
Table 6. Mesh quality details. ..................................................................................................................... 10
Table 7. Helmet model unit system. ........................................................................................................... 10
Table 8. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging. ........................................................ 11
Table 9. Required keyword cards included in each main impact condition keyword file. ......................... 14
Table 10. Model outputs found in helmet model. ...................................................................................... 16
Table 11. LS-DYNA Component Model Description. ................................................................................... 22
iv
Table 12. Sub-assembly validation cases. ................................................................................................... 23

Table 13. Pendulum impact (PI) validation tests. ....................................................................................... 24
Table 14. Linear impactor (LI) validation tests. ........................................................................................... 24
Table 15. Drop impact (DI) validation tests with NOCSAE headform. ........................................................ 25
Table 16. Drop impact (DI) validation tests with HIII headform. ................................................................ 26
Table 17. Overall CORA evaluation. ............................................................................................................ 27
Table 18. Control card changes from default values. ................................................................................. 29
Table 19. Pendulum impact CORA scores. .................................................................................................. 33
Table 20. Linear impact CORA scores. ........................................................................................................ 34
Table 21. NOCSAE drop impact CORA scores (NOCSAE_v1.0.k was used). ................................................ 35
Table 22. HIII drop Impact CORA scores. .................................................................................................... 35
v
Helmet Model Xenith X2E v1.0
1. About this Document

This manual applies to the 2016 Xenith X2E helmet model (Safety Equipment Institute model X2E) finite
element (FE) model developed by the University of Waterloo under the contract ID: SRA074194,
“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 as 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 –

2016_Xenith_X2E_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 four steps: geometry development, material characterization, sub-
component validation, and full helmet model validation.
3.1. Helmet Geometry Development

Five Xenith X2E helmets from the 2016 model year (Figure 1) were provided to the University of Waterloo
to develop the computational model geometry. To capture the helmet geometry in detail and provide a
reference for location and orientation of the components inside the assembled helmet, the face mask and
the helmet were scanned separately using Computer Tomography (CT) (General Electric Phoenix-
V|tome|x-s, 2014). The helmet was then completely disassembled, and all components (Figure 2 – 9) and
fixtures were disconnected and CT-scanned individually to provide reference geometry for each individual
part. Scans of the individual components were converted to a stereolithographic (STL) format and then
used to develop Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline (NURBS) surfaces, generated at the external and
internal layer of each component to capture the thickness. The full helmet, and each component were
weighed, and exterior dimensions were measured for comparison to the components and full helmet
model. The modeling strategy involved developing models of the individual components, verifying and
validating them at the material and part level, and assembling the validated component models into a
complete helmet. Helmet details are listed in Table 1.
Figure 1. Xenith X2E helmet (2016 model).
To construct the finite-element (FE) model, a mid-surface was generated in between the external and
internal surfaces for each thin-walled component. The mid-surface was then discretized with quadratic
shell elements, and the thickness from the CT-scans and physical measurements was assigned to the
elements. Thick components, such as the foam pads, were discretized using solid hexagonal elements.
The face mask was discretized using beam elements that were located at the midline of the scanned wires.
The measured cross-sectional area was assigned to the beam elements. Each component was assigned to
a specific part within the helmet model, defining the element formulation, thickness, number of
integration points through the thickness, and material constitutive model.
3
Figure 2. Progression of the helmet shell from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan, and right: meshed).
Figure 3. Progression of the facemask from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan, and right: meshed).
Figure 4. Progression of a compression shock from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan, and right:
meshed).
4
Figure 5. Progression of a mandible shock from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan, and right: meshed).
Figure 6. Progression of the Shock Bonnet Suspension System (SBSS) from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle:
CT scan, and right: meshed).
Figure 7. Progression of the front comfort pad from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan, and right:
meshed).
5
Figure 8. Progression of the crown pad from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan, and right: meshed).
Figure 9. Progression of the chincup from a CT scan to a meshed model (left: Image, middle: CT scan, and right: meshed).
Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the model.
Baseline Helmet Model Data

Make Model Size Date of Manufacture
Xenith X2E (2016) Large July 2016
3.2. Material Characterization

Creating a helmet model capable of integrating with a surrogate head and predicting head kinematics for
a wide range of impact cases requires modelling the critical components driving the dynamics for a wide
range of load cases. Therefore, the materials of the critical helmet components were extracted and tested
under representative modes of loading (tension or compression) across the range of expected strain rates.
Decades of strain rate were identified ranging from quasi-static (up to 0.01 s-1), intermediate rates (0.1 to
100 s-1) and high deformation rates (up to 1000 s-1). Table 2 summarizes several testing apparatus and
instrumentation used to obtain loading at the different strain rates. For quasi-static rates, a standard
hydraulic-driven test frame was used for both compressive and tensile material tests. Load was measured
using an appropriately-sized strain gauge-based load cell and deformation was measured using optical
tracking with high resolution imaging. For intermediate rates in compression, a pendulum impact
apparatus was used with a piezoelectric load cell to measure load. Intermediate rate tensile testing was
undertaken using a specialized intermediate-strain rate hydraulic frame with a piezoelectric load cell.
Deformation was measured using a high-speed camera. Lastly, a Polymeric Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar
(PSHPB) was used to achieve high deformation rates in compression. The material stress and strain were
determined using a viscoelastic wave propagation code coupled with the traditional bar analysis
6
equations. High-speed imaging and the two-force method were used to ensure the test samples achieved
dynamic equilibrium during the test.
Table 2. Summary of apparatus and instrumentation used for material characterization.
Nominal Rate Apparatus Load Sensor Amplifier and Image Capturing and
Decades Controller Analysis
0.01 - 10 s-1 Hydraulic Frame LC412-500, Controller: FlexTest SE, D3200, Nikon;
Omega MTS at 1.2 kHz; 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS
Macro lens, Sigma;
1280x720 resolution at 60
fps;
Tracker v4.9.8, Open
Source Physics
100 s-1 Pendulum 9051A, Kistler Amplifier: Type 5010 FASTCAM SA5 Model
(compression) Dual Mode Amplifier, 1300K-M1, Photron, 20,000
Kistler; fps with 512x352 resolution
Controller: BNC-2110,
National Instruments at
2 MHz;
100 s-1 (tension) Hydraulic Intermediate 9314B, Kistler Controller: USB-2651, FASTCAM SA5 Model
Strain Rate frame National Instruments at 1300K-M1, Photron, 62,500
(Taamjeed Rahmaan et al. 62.5 kHz; fps with 128x600
2017; T Rahmaan et al. resolution;
2016; Wojcik et al. 2010) Tracker v4.9.8, Open
Source Physics
1000 s-1 Polymer Split Hopkinson CEA-13-250UW- Amplifier: 2210B Signal FASTCAM SA5 Model
Pressure Bar apparatus 120, Micro- Conditioning Amplifier, 1300K-M1, Photron, 50,000
(Salisbury, Cronin, and Measurements Vishay; fps with 512x272 resolution
Lien 2015b; Salisbury, Controller: BNC-2110,
Cronin, and Lien 2015a; National Instruments at
Bustamante, Singh, and 2 Mhz;
Cronin 2017)
Test samples for each material were extracted directly from the provided helmets, and so the test sample
dimensions were controlled in part by the size of the components. Cylindrical samples used for
compressive tests were cored out using standard coring tools. The sample diameter and height were
different for each rate performed to ensure the aspect ratio (height:diameter) yielded force equilibrium.
For example, the height of a sample tested with the PSHPB required that multiple stress wave reflections
(3-5) occur within the sample during the rise time of the loading to ensure force equilibrium within the
test sample. Due to the geometric limitations of the components, compression samples of appropriate
aspect ratio could not be produced from a single continuous piece; therefore, in some cases multiple low-
aspect ratio cylinders were stacked on top of each other. Tensile test samples were made with a custom
geometry like the ASTM Type V sample. The tensile test samples were created with the same dimensions,
unless the component geometry dictated the need for smaller samples.
At least three different samples were tested in tension and compression for each strain rate (Table 3). The
measured force-displacement results were averaged to obtain a single force-displacement curve for
tension and compression representing each rate. Lastly, the individual tension and compression curves
7
were paired, scaled, and consolidated following the assumption of a log-linear relationship for stress
versus strain rate. This yielded a single curve for each rate spanning the tensile and compressive regimes.
Appropriate constitutive models were identified for each material (described below in section 6.1). The
measured force-displacement material data was converted to stress and strain for use in the constitutive
models and single element simulations at the various strain rates were undertaken to verify that the
model performed as expected.
Table 3. Material-level test matrix. Refer to Section 5 for precise locations.
Strain Rate (nominal)

Component Material Modes (C = compression; T = Images of testing
tension)
Compression Thermoplastic 0.01 C 0.01 T
Shocks Polyurethane 0.1 C 0.1 T
10 C 1.0 T
150 C 10 T
100 T2000
Comfort Pad High Density 0.0078 C

Polyurethane Foam 0.1 C
1.0 C
30 C
250 C
1200 C
Comfort Pad Low Density 0.0078 C

1.0 C
25 C
185 C
Crown Pad Medium Density 0.0078 C
1.0 C
30 C
130 C
1400 C
Bonnet Thermoplastic 0.01 T
Polyurethane 0.1 T
1.0 T
8
Chin Strap Polymer and fiber 0.01 T

composite 0.1 T
1.0 T
Helmet Shell Polycarbonate 0.1 T

10 T
3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations

Three levels of simulation were performed to verify and validate the computational model.
• Level 1 simulations were single element tension and compression tests to verify that the
constitutive model implementation was performing as expected.
Level 2 validation tests were undertaken at the component level. For example, the compression
shocks were tested at three different compression rates (0.2mm/s, 2.9m/s, 4.4m/s) and the
component level compression shock finite element model was run and compared to the physical
test data. Level 2 simulations are described in detail in Section 6.2,
• Table 1.
• Level 3 validation tests were full helmet impact tests.
For Level 3, 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 60 simulations were performed with the
full helmet, using either a Hybrid III (HIII) or NOCSAE headform (Table 4). 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 60 simulations with experimental data comparison: 12 VT pendulum tests, 24 linear
impactor tests, 12 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.
9
Table 4. 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
NOCSAE Front, Side, Top 2.9; 3.7; 4.9; 6.0 12
DI Back, Front,
HIII 2.9; 4.9; 6.0 12
Side, Top
3.4. Summary of helmet positioning on headforms

The helmet assembly was integrated with the NOCSAE and HIII headforms following the same procedure.
First, the helmet and the headform models were read into the pre-processor (LS-PrePost). The head or
head-neck original position was preserved, and the helmet was translated and rotated until it reached the
desired position and orientation, comparable to the available measurements and photographic
documentation of the physical tests. In the second step, a new part consisting of a layer of shell elements
was created on the outer surface of the head form to replicate the geometry for fitting purposes only. The
original head or head-neck model was removed from the pre-processor, and the remaining new part (shell
mesh) replicating the geometry of the head was scaled down in all three global directions, until there were
no intersections between the scaled-down head part, and the helmet interior.
The scaled-down head shell mesh was then integrated with the helmet assembly. Constraints (6-DOF)
were applied to the nodal coordinates of the helmet shell and face mask to keep them in a desired
orientation. A *BOUNDARY_PRESCRIBED_FINAL_GEOMETRY condition was applied to the scaled-down
head shell mesh, to expand it to the reference head form geometry. After the head expansion simulation
was complete, a quality check was performed on the deformed mesh, and initial penetrations or element
deformations were removed. The nodal coordinates of the helmet were then exported as a reference
initial geometry for both head forms (NOCSAE and HIII).
4. Xenith X2E Model Information

Table 5 provides general information regarding the helmet model.
Table 5. Xenith X2E helmet model summary.
Main file name (02_Helmet): XenithX2E_v1.0_0main_Nofit.dyn

Elements (thousands): 128216
Nodes (thousands): 129425
Number of Parts: 93
Measured Helmet Mass (kg) 1.846
Model Helmet Mass (kg): 1.844
Measured Moment of Inertia (kg-mm²) Ixx = 18620, Iyy = 24430, Izz = 26640
Model Moment of Inertia (kg-mm²) Ixx = 18480, Iyy = 23500, Izz = 25530
10
The file naming is based on the helmet make, model, and version. Details on the mesh quality are
summarized in Table 6. The unit system used in the model is shown in Table 7. Deviations from this unit
system will require the use of a unit transform in LS-DYNA (see *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM).
Table 6. Mesh quality details.
Jacobian Warpage Aspect ratio Skew

(elements < 0.7): 4% (elements > 5°): 9% (elements > 5): 0% (elements > 60°): 0%
Minimum: -0.02 Maximum: 170° Maximum: 18.4 Maximum: 74°
Table 7. Helmet model unit system.
Time Length Mass Force Stress

ms mm kg kN GPa
The model is in a global coordinate system (CS) defined by the SAE J211/1 sign convention. A diagram of
the CS and origin can be seen below in Figure 10. The origin was located at the H-point of the model
(Barker et al., 2017).
Figure 10. Global Coordinate system sign convention, shown for a Frontal HIII Linear Impact.
11
4.1. Running the Model

The helmet finite element model was developed, verified and validated in the LS-DYNA finite element
code. The Xenith COE at UW currently uses LS-DYNA symmetric multiprocessing (smp) version 7.1.2
revision 95028 with Intel i7 processors on a Windows platform. Table 8 summarizes the current LS-DYNA
build used for model development and debugging.
Table 8. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging.
Version Precision Revision SVN Ver. Platform OS

7.1.2 Single 95028 PC / Intel i7 Windows 10
Executable
ls-dyna_smp_s_R712_winx64_ifort131.exe
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_Xenith_X2E_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_Xenith_X2E_Helmet_Model_v1.0.docx
b. Impactor_Users_Manual_v1.0.docx
3. Within 02_Helmet (unfitted helmet model files)
a. Xenith_v1.0_0main_Nofit.dyn
b. Xenith_v1.0_chinstrap_Nofit.k
c. Xenith_v1.0_control.k
d. Xenith_v1.0_helmet.k
e. Xenith_v1.0_nodes_Nofit.k
4. Within 03_BoundaryConditions (includes fitted helmet model)
• 0Includes (listed alphabetically)
a. 0Main_DI_HIII_XenithX2E_v1.0.k
b. 0Main_DI_NOCSAE_ XenithX2E_v1.0.k
c. 0Main_LI_HIII_XenithX2E_v1.0.k
d. 0Main_PI_HIII_ XenithX2E_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
12
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. XenithX2E_v1.0_0main_HIIIfit.dyn
u. XenithX2E_v1.0_0main_NOCSAEfit.dyn
v. XenithX2E_v1.0_chinstrap_HIIIfit.k
w. XenithX2E_v1.0_chinstrap_NOCSAEfit.k
x. XenithX2E_v1.0_control.k
y. XenithX2E_v1.0_helmet.k
z. XenithX2E_v1.0_nodes_HIIIfit.k
aa. XenithX2E_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.
13
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”_XenithX2E_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 11 and notable
included files are listed for each impact condition file (Table 9). Outputs defined in the included keyword
files are also noted. Refer to Section 4.3 for a detailed description of the model outputs.
Figure 11. DYNA file include hierarchy.
Table 9. Required keyword cards included in each main impact condition keyword file.
Pendulum Impact: 0Main_PI_HIII_XenithX2E_v1.0.k

Included File Include Card Description Outputs
Head
accelerometer,
HIII H-N model
Head rotation,
HIII_headneck.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to
Lower neck load
impact 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 on the head
XenithX2E_0main_HIIIfit.dyn *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM N/A
according to COE
specification
14
Standardized card that

**XenithX2E_v1.0_control.k *INCLUDE includes all control and N/A
database cards
Linear Impact: 0Main_LI_HIII_XenithX2E_v1.0.k
Head
accelerometer,
HIII H-N model
Head rotation,
HIII_headneck.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM positioned according to
Lower neck load
impact 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
Helmet model
positioned on the head
XenithX2E_0main_HIIIfit.dyn *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM N/A
according to COE
specification
database cards
Drop Impact: 0Main_DI_HIII_XenithX2E_v1.0.k
0Main_DI_NOCSAE_XenithX2E_v1.0.k
Dummy headform
HIII_head_0main.k
model positioned Head
*NOCSAEv1.0.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM
according to impact accelerometer
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
**DropImpactor_LC.k *INCLUDE_TRANSFORM Load cell
location with ID’s offset
through transformation
Helmet model
XenithX2E_0main_HIIIfit.dyn positioned on the head
*INCLUDE_TRANSFORM N/A
XenithX2E_0main_NOCSAEfit.dyn according to COE
specification
15

database cards
*
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 10 below provides a summary of available preprogrammed model output information for the
helmet model. These outputs are useful for tracking kinematics and quantifying deformations. Current
outputs preprogrammed into the model are located within keyword file banners. In addition, users can
specific unique outputs for their cases as needed.
Table 10. Model outputs found in helmet model.
Value LS-DYNA Output Notes

Contact force between the helmet shell and the impactor
Contact force RCFORC: Contact ID #101 Select Resultant Force
Contact force between the facemask and the impactor

Contact force RCFORC: Contact ID #102 Select Resultant Force
HIII Headform kinematics
Nodout:
HIII head CG kinematics
(NID: 17905) –
NOCSAE Headform kinematics
Nodout:
NOCSAE head CG kinematics
(NID: 61099) –
4.4. Model Number Conventions

A consistent numbering convention is used throughout model and is summarized in Figure 12. This applies
to all nodes, elements, parts, sets and contacts in the model.
16
Region Number Range for parts, nodes, elements, sets, contacts, etc.
Helmet Exterior Shell (1 part) 1000000
Facemask (4 parts) 2000001, 2000002, 2100000, 2100002
Bonnets (3 parts) 3100000, 3200000, 3300000
Clips (2 parts) 3400000, 34500000
Mandible shock holders (2 parts) 3500000, 35500000
Shock Absorbers (32 parts) 4010000 - 4585000
Ear mandible foam and shocks 4800000 – 4800021
(14 parts) 4850000 - 4850021
Comfort pad vinyl cover (6 parts) 5100010, 5200010, 5300010, 5400010, 5450010, 5500010
Comfort Pad vinyl base (6 parts) 5100011, 5200011, 5300011, 5400011, 5450011, 5500011
Comfort pad LD foam (5 parts) 5100020, 5200020, 5300020, 5400020, 5450020
Comfort pad MD foam (1 part) 5500021
Comfort pad HD foam (5 parts) 5100021, 5200021, 5300021, 5400021, 5450021
Chin Cup (2 parts) 6000000, 6000001
Straps (4 parts) 7010001, 7500001 - 7500003
Figure 12. Helmet numbering convention diagram.
17
5. Review of Model Components

The Xenith X2E football helmet consists of a traditional polycarbonate helmet shell with a carbon steel
face mask (Figure 3). The chin straps are made of high-strength nylon and the chin cup is made of vented
synthetic leather. The helmet liner consists of a complex energy absorbing thermoplastic polyurethane
(TPU) structure called the “Shock Bonnet Suspension System”, and vinyl-covered, vented foam pads called
“Comfort Pads”. The Shock Bonnet Suspension System can slide inside the helmet shell but is attached to
the helmet shell by 11 screws.
Figure 13. Xenith X2E Helmet Model, Outermost Components.
5.1. Interior Components: Shock Bonnet Suspension System

The Shock Bonnet Suspension System is the primary energy absorbing component in the helmet (Figure
14). It is located in between the helmet shell and the Comfort Padding System. It consists of 18 air-filled
shock absorbers called “Compression Shocks”, held in place by a thin sheet of Thermoplastic Polyurethane
(TPU). The compression shocks have 3 distinct geometries.
18
Figure 14. Xenith X2E Helmet Model, Shock Bonnet Suspension System and Comprising Components.
5.2. Interior Components: Comfort Foam

The Comfort Padding System is a layer of vinyl-covered foam pads that line the helmet, located in between
the player’s head and the Shock Bonnet Suspension System (Figure 15). Each pad consists of air filled foam
pad assembles (5 of which have different geometries), each of which consists of a certain number of air
and foam-filled chambers. There are 6 different comfort pad structures in the helmet.
Figure 15. Xenith X2E Helmet Model, Comfort Padding System and Components.
19
5.3. Chin cup and Helmet Straps

The chin cup and helmet straps maintain the helmet position on the headform to some extent during an
impact. The degree of retention depends on the interaction between the chin cup and the headform, and
the initial tension on the strap system. The chin cup and straps were modeled using 1d beam elements,
2d shell elements, and four retractors (Figure 16). The four retractors were placed on the helmet at the
location where the straps are clipped onto the helmet. The initial tensile force in the retractors was set
to 50 N and this is a user adjustable parameter in the model.
Figure 16. Chin cup and helmet strap system.
6. Model Validation
Model verification and validation was completed in three stages:
In the first stage, single element simulations were used to verify that LS-DYNA material characterization
matched the experimental testing. The material properties, derived from experimental testing, were
integrated into the material models, and the single element simulations in tension and compression were
performed as verification that the model response matched the characterization data.
In the second stage, sub-assemblies were tested experimentally in various representative loading
scenarios. The component models were simulated with the same boundary conditions as the experiments,
using the measured material properties to validate the models at the component level.
In the third stage, the HIII and NOCSAE headforms were fit inside the helmet and simulated in 60 distinct
impact configurations, corresponding to the experimental tests. The resultant headform kinematics,
impactor accelerations, and load cell forces were objectively compared with a cross correlation tool
(CORA) to assess the performance of the helmet model relative to the experimental tests.
20
6.1. Material Validation

Measured material response curves were validated in parallel with the sub-assembly through an iterative
process. Initially, single element simulations were performed at various strain rates to ensure that the
identified material models worked as intended. The material models were then implemented into the
sub-assembly simulations for validation at various rates (described below in section 6.2).
Each material in the helmet (Table 3) was characterized by an LS-DYNA material model that best
represented its response (Table 11). The foam and TPU material models followed stress strain load curves
that were inputted into the material model. These load curves were obtained by fitting the average
engineering stress versus engineering strain curves calculated from the measured force versus
displacement (described above in section 3.2). To ensure stability of polyurethane foam and TPU
components during extreme compression, a smooth transition to 99% engineering strain was calculated
for the fitted curves (Serifi et al. 2003). To model the strain rate dependency of the TPU and foam
components in LS-DYNA, *MAT_SIMPLIFIED_RUBBER/FOAM_LOG_LOG_INTERPOLATION (Du Bois et al.
2003) and *MAT_FU_CHANG_FOAM_LOG_LOG_INTERPOLATION (Chang et al. 1998) were used,
respectively, because both models allow for the input of stress versus strain curves at discrete strain rates.
Single element simulations were performed (at the experimental strain rates) to ensure that the material
model parameters were inputted correctly, and the models performed as intended. Once the material
models were verified, they were implemented into the sub-assemblies for component level validation
6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation

Compressive tests at rates of 0.05mm/s to 3mm/s were performed on a hydraulic frame with
displacement control (FlexTest SE, MTS), and a load cell (LC412-500, Omega) was used to measure force.
Displacement was measured using image tracking (D3200, Nikon; 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS Macro lens,
Sigma; 1280x720 resolution at 60 fps; Tracker v4.9.8, Open Source Physics). Compression tests at rates
from 2.9m/s to 4.3 m/s were performed using a pendulum apparatus with a load cell (9051A, Kistler) and
a high-speed camera (FASTCAM SA5 Model 1300K-M1, Photron, 20,000 fps with 512x352 resolution)
captured images for measuring sample displacements through image tracking. The data was amplified
(Type 5010 Dual Mode Amplifier, Kistler) and recorded (BNC-2110, National Instruments) at 2 MHz.
For the compression tests of the compression shocks, polycarbonate platens were machined, with a small
hole aligned with the shock vent hole, to allow air to escape. Otherwise, aluminum platens were used.
A summary of the helmet component models (Table 11) describes the element type, element formulation
and the material model. The compression shock components also included an airbag model with an orifice
to model escaping air during compression. Sub-assembly validation is summarized in
21
Table 2.
Table 11. LS-DYNA Component Model Description.
Element Total # of Mesh

Component Material Material Model
Type Elements Size
Helmet Shell Polycarbonate *MAT_ELASTIC Shell 6000 5mm
Face Mask Carbon Steel *MAT_ELASTIC Beam 433 5mm
Carbon Steel, Welds *MAT_ELASTIC Beam 24 5mm
Shock
Bonnet
White TPU *MAT_SIMPLIFIED_RUBBER Shell 10351 3mm
Suspension
System
Nylon Webbing,
Chin Straps Polyurethane *MAT_ELASTIC Shell 1136 2.5mm
Coating
Synthetic Leather,
Chin Cup *MAT_ELASTIC Shell 612 2.5mm
Fabric Liner
Compression
Shock (24 Black TPU *MAT_SIMPLIFIED_RUBBER Shell 49088 1.2mm
and 27mm)
Mandible
Black TPU* *MAT_SIMPLIFIED_RUBBER Shell 12442 1.2mm
Shock
Grey High-Density
*MAT_FU_CHANG_FOAM Solid 570 2mm
Foam
White Low-Density
*MAT_FU_CHANG_FOAM Solid 1860 2.5mm
Foam
Rubber Covering *MAT_BLATZ_KO_RUBBER Shell 2210 2mm
Comfort Pad White Medium-
*MAT_FU_CHANG_FOAM Solid 5632 2.5mm
(Crown) Density Foam
Vinyl Covering *MAT_BLATZ_KO_RUBBER Shell 3632 3mm
Comfort Pad Grey High-Density
(Others) Foam
White Low-Density
Foam
Vinyl Covering *MAT_BLATZ_KO_RUBBER Shell 16322 3mm
TOTAL - - - 128420
22
Table 12. Sub-assembly validation cases.
Evaluatio
Test Mode Rate(s) Experiment Simulation
n Criteria
Helmet Shell Lateral 0.001/s F vs. D
Compression 0.01/s
Helmet Shell Anterior- 0.001/s F vs. D

Posterior
Compression
Face Mask Lateral 0.05 F vs. D

Compression mm/s
Compression Through- 0.2mm/ F vs. D

Shock Thickness s
(24mm and Compression 2920m
27mm) m/s
Mandible Through- 0.2mm/ F vs. D
Compression Thickness s,
Shock Compression 4350m
m/s
Comfort Through- 0.05mm F vs. D
Pads Thickness /s
(all) Compression 2920m
m/s
23
6.3. Helmet Model Validation

A total of 60 simulations were run with the full helmet, using either a HIII or NOCSAE headform. The HIII
H-N and the NOCSAE headform were impacted using a drop test. The HIII H-N was used for two others
sets of tests incorporating a linear impactor and a pendulum impactor. There were 12 tests with the HIII
H-N in the drop tower setup, 12 tests with the NOCSAE headform, 24 tests with the linear impactor and
the HIII H-N, and 12 tests with the pendulum impactor and the HIII H-N (Tables 13 – 16). The
NOCSAE_v1.0.k file was used for drop impact simulations (*MAT_KELVIN_MAXWELL_VISCOELASTIC)
model head skin model.
Table 13. Pendulum impact (PI) validation tests.
Impact
Evaluation Criteria
Configuration
Impact Simulation
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)
3.0 Head Impactor

Front
4.6 CG (Impact Head CG (XYZ)
Boss
3.0 Head Impactor

Side 4.6 CG (Impact Head CG (XYZ)
3.0 Head Impactor

Back 4.6 CG (Impact Head CG (XYZ)
*Videos of pendulum testing were not available
Table 14. Linear impactor (LI) validation tests.
Impact
Evaluation Criteria
Configuration
Impact Simulation Experiment
Force versus Linear Acceleration Angular
Velocity
Time versus Time Velocity
[m/s]
24
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)
*Error termination at 29.6 ms due to negative volume element 5103159 in part 5100020. **Error termination at
11.3 ms due to negative volume element 4807454 in part 4800020.
25
Table 15. 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
2.9
Side
4.9 Force (XZ) (YZ) Acc. Z
6.0
2.9
Top
4.9 Force (XZ) (XZ) Acc. Z
6.0
Table 16. 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 (XZ) (XYZ) Acc. Z
6.0*
2.9
Front 4.9
6.0
26
2.9
Side 4.9
6.0
2.9
Top 4.9
6.0
*Error termination at 9 ms due to segmentation error.
6.4. Objective Evaluation

CORA is a software program that compares two, time signals: a reference signal (in the case of this project,
the experimental measure vs. time) and a simulation signal (the model measure vs. time). If there are
many repeats of the same experimental tests, the simulation signal can be compared against the
experimental corridors, where the corridors can be specified by the user. Usually, the corridors represent
a measure of the variability in the experimental data. However, for this development, corridors were not
available, so the simulation response was compared to the reference signal using the cross correlation
tool. The cross correlation tool compares the signal and reference response, and generates three output
ratings: shape, size, and phase. These ratings are between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates the signals are not
similar, and 1 indicates that the signals are similar. A detailed explanation for the mathematical calculation
of the shape, size, and phase rating is presented in the CORA user manual (Thunert, 2012 – Partnership
for Dummy Technology and Biomechanics). CORA has been utilized in academic publications to assess
model biofidelity (Vavalle 2015, Miller 2016, Barker 2017). The three cross correlation ratings are
combined into one final rating for each signal response using a weighting factor system. For each
experimental versus model comparison, there may be several kinematic metrics (ex. three axes of
translation and rotational acceleration, impact force). Therefore, for each experimental test comparison,
the user must develop a second weighting system to prioritize certain response metrics over others.
For the first weighting system, the shape rating is multiplied by 0.5, and the size and phase ratings are
multiplied by 0.25. For the second weighting system, the multiplication factors are based on experimental
peak magnitude values 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., Stapp
Car Crash Conference, 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
27
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 17. Individual CORA
scores are presented in Appendix A.
Table 17. Overall CORA evaluation.
7. Technical Notes
This section describes some of the modeling techniques used to recreate the physical helmet and the
limitations of the model.
• An airbag model was included in each compression shock. The enclosed air (cv = 0.718, cp = 1.01,
at 22 degrees Celsius) volume was enclosed by the shock on the sides, the top, and by the bonnet
on the bottom.
• The facemask was fixed to the helmet at 24 attachment points with rigid beams. Each beam was
given its own part number so that the facemask could deform on impact.
• Each mandible ear shock holder was connected to the helmet at two locations. To connect the
two parts, nodes from both were included in a node set that was then included in a constrained
nodal rigid body so that all the nodes moved together.
• Physical foam materials were initially compressed due to fitting the helmet on the head. In the
model, there was no initial stress included in the foam material model resulting from fitting on
the head.
• Model material properties do not account for humidity and were measured only at a temperature
of 22 degrees Celsius.
• In each comfort pad assembly, except for the crown pad, there are two foams encased inside a
thin vinyl cover. Although the two foams and the vinyl are separate parts, they share nodes at
their interface with each other, which ties the three parts together into one continuous mesh.
• The crown pad was not included in all experimental tests but is included in the helmet model. This
may affect the response comparison between the model and the experiments in some load cases
but has not been assessed quantitatively for the current model.
• The helmet shell was excluded from the global control to calculate the shell thickness. This was
applied to improve numerical stability as suggested by LS-DYNA support:
http://www.dynasupport.com/howtos/general/internal-energy
28
• In the physical helmet, the straps are designed to be in tension to obtain a snug fit to the player’s
head. However, in the model, an initial tensile force was applied using four retractors located at
the end points where the straps clip to the exterior of the helmet. The pretension is a helmet
fitting variable that can be adjusted by the user.
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. The current time step is 0.3 μs. All elements in the helmet meet the minimum time step
criterion upon initialization, but during simulation, an element could be distorted so that it no longer
meets the minimum time step criterion. Therefore, a minimum time step through mass-scaling
(DT2MS on the *CONTROL_TIMESTEP card) has been included. Caution should be exercised when
mass scaling, the user should investigate the total mass increase during the simulation, and the
location(s) of the additional mass.
• Control Cards: The model was developed and tested with specific control card parameters. These
parameters were selected based on model performance as well as inclusion with other components.
Default values were selected for most control parameters to reduce model incompatibilities. Control
cards were included for the following: contact, energy, output, shell, solid, and solution. Termination
time was set to 30ms for all simulations. Some of the important control card changes from the default
values are summarized in Table8.
Table 18. Control card changes from default values.
Control Card Flag Value (Default Reason for Change

in brackets)
Contact islchk 2 (1) Initial penetration check included in the model. No

effect on results as the check simply displays the results
of the check in the output file
ignore 1 (0) By default, any slave node that is penetrating a master
surface upon initialization is moved back to the
penetration is removed. Value = 1 instructs the code to
not move any initial penetrating nodes
Energy hgen 2 (1) By default, hourglass energy is not included in the
matsum asci output. However, due to the soft foams
and potential for hourglass control to have a significant
effect on stiffess, the hourglass energy has been
included in the matsum output
Output msgmax 0 (50) No limit to the number of warning messages displayed
in the messag file during initialization
29
Shell istupd 1 (0) By default, shell element thickness doesn’t vary with
membrane strain. However, for the helmet model, shell
thickness changes are permitted
psstupd -1000000 (0) The helmet shell is the only part in the model that does
not have element thickness changed activated. Shell
thickness stays the same no matter the element strain
Solution lcint 201 (100) By default, the solver code redefines every *DEFINE_
CURVE with 100 points no matter how many points are
in the define card. This default of 100 points has been
changed to 201 points to capture the compressive and
tensile behavior of the TPU and foam materials
Timestep dt2ms 3.33 E-04 Minimum timestep set to 0.3 μs
• Material Properties: The current model uses material properties based on mechanical testing of the
specific components in the helmet. Altering the material properties within the model will alter the
performance of the helmet model.
• Hourglass Control: It has been shown that hourglass control has an influence on model performance,
particularly for foam materials. The Xenith X2E helmet model has been developed to achieve model
stability and without incorporating modified hourglass control for some of the materials. The model
response may be affected by the addition of hourglass formulations. Users can refer to the FAQ page
for a list of technical resources available to model users.
• Early model termination in some circumstances: It has been noted that early termination may occur
in some circumstances without a termination message when running the model in the SMP code. It
has been found that restarting the model and/or changing the number of CPUs can enable the model
to run to completion. The root cause of the early termination is currently under investigation.
• Contact Definitions: Modifications to contact parameters 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). To reduce negative volume errors in LS-DYNA, the use of *CONTACT_INTERIOR is recommended
to help prevent elements from inverting. The current model has a part set that is included in
*CONTACT_INTERIOR card (psid: 1990001). A part that is experiencing negative volumes may
therefore be added to this set if instability occurs. Users can refer to our FAQ page for a list of technical
resources available to model users.
• Retractor Properties: The four helmet strap retractors are governed by two curves: a loading curve,
and an unloading curve. The four retractors in the Xenith X2E helmet model are defined using the
same load curves. The load curves define the force vs. pullout distance for loading and unloading
conditions. The first point in the loading curve, at zero pullout distance, defines the initial tension,
and the second point defines the slope of the force vs. pullout distance relationship. The loading
and unloading curves should have the same slope. Currently, the initial tension is 50N, but this
value can be varied by the use through altering the loading and unloading curves.
30
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.
31
10. Acknowledgements
The Xenith X2E COE at University of Waterloo gratefully acknowledges the following organizations and
individuals for their generous support and hard work.
Sponsors: University Collaborators

National Football League
Schutt Air XP Pro COE
Football Research, Inc. Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Co-PIs: Scott Gayzik, Joel Stitzel
Biocore, LLC
Richard Kent, PhD Lead Engineer: William B. Decker
Principal Engineering Consultant and co-Founder
Engineering Team: Alex Baker, Xin Ye, Philip
Ann Bailey Good, PhD Brown
Senior Engineer
Riddell Revolution Speed Classic COE
Gwansik Park, PhD KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Senior Engineer Co-PIs: Peter Halldin, Madelen Fahlstedt
Lee Gabler, PhD Engineering Team: Marcus Arnesen, Erik

Senior Engineer Jungstedt
Roberto Quesada, MS Vicis Zero 1 and Impactor COE

Engineer University of Virginia, Center for Applied
Biomechanics
Brian McEwen, BS PI: Matthew Panzer
Engineer
Lead Engineer: J. Sebastian Giudice
Xenith X2E COE
University of Waterloo Engineering Team: Adrian Caudillo, Sayak
PI: Duane Cronin Mukherjee, Kevin Kong, Wei Zen
Engineering Team: Jeffrey Barker, Donata

Gierczycka, Michael Bustamante, David Bruneau,
Miguel Corrales
32
11. References
Barker, J. B., Cronin, D. S., Nightingale, R. W., 2017. Lower Cervical Spine Motion Segment
Computational Model Validation: Kinematic and Kinetic Response for Quasi-Static and Dynamic
Loading. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 139(6), 61009.
http://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036464
Chang, F.S.; Song, Y.; Lu, D.X.; DeSilva, C.N.;Unified Constitutive equations of foam materials, Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology, V 120 p. 212-217, 1998
Cobb, B.R., Zadnik, A.M., Rowson, S., 2016. Comparative analysis of helmeted impact response of Hybrid
III and National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment headforms. Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. Part P J. Sports Eng. Technol. 230, 50–60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337115599133
Davis, M. L., Koya, B., Schap, J. M., Gayzik, F. S., 2016. Development and Full Body Validation of a 5th
Percentile Female Finite Element Model. Stapp Car Crash Journal, 60(11), 509–544.
Du Bois, P., 2003. A simplified approach to the simulation of rubber-like materials under dynamic
loading. 4th European LS-DYNA Users Conference, 31–46. Retrieved from
http://www.dynalook.com/european-conf-2003/a-simplified-approach-to-the-simulation-of-
rubber.pdfMiller, L. E., Urban, J. E., Stitzel, J. D., 2016. Development and validation of an atlas-
based finite element brain model. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology, 15(5), 1201–
1214. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-015-0754-1
Serifi, E., Hirth, A., Matthaei, S., & Mullerschon, H., 2003. Modelling of Foams using MAT83 –
Preparation and Evaluation of eperimental data. 4th European LSDYNA Users Conference, (0),
59–72.
Thunert, C., 2012. CORA Release 3.6 User ’s Manual. Ingolstadt, Germany.
Vavalle, N. A., Davis, M. L., Stitzel, J. D., Gayzik, F. S., 2015. Quantitative Validation of a Human Body
Finite Element Model Using Rigid Body Impacts. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 43(9), 2163–
2174. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-015-1286-7Viano, 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
33
12. Appendix A
Individual CORA scores are presented in Error! Reference source not found.9 – 22. All results were
obtained from simulations using LS-DYNA smp R7.1.2 single precision. CORA analyses were performed
over a 30ms time window from the start of impact. Simulations were also performed using multi parallel
processing (mpp); however, there were negligible differences in results.
Table 19. Pendulum impact CORA scores.
34
Table 20. Linear impact CORA scores.
35
Table 21. NOCSAE drop impact CORA scores (NOCSAE_v1.0.k was used).
Table 22. HIII drop Impact CORA scores.
36

User Manual: Finite Element Model of 2016 Xenith X2E (Safety Equipment Institute Model X2E) Version 1.0 For LS-DYNA

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

User Manual: Finite Element Model of 2016 Xenith X2E (Safety Equipment Institute Model X2E) Version 1.0 For LS-DYNA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright 2018 Biomechanics Consulting and Research (Biocore) LLC.

All Rights Reserved

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

The COE for this helmet model is the University of Waterloo.

Helmet COE contact information

Biocore contact information

Table 12. Sub-assembly validation cases. ................................................................................................... 23

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. Xenith X2E helmet (2016 model).

Table 1. Baseline geometrical data of the model.

Baseline Helmet Model Data

3.2. Material Characterization

Table 2. Summary of apparatus and instrumentation used for material characterization.

Table 3. Material-level test matrix. Refer to Section 5 for precise locations.

Strain Rate (nominal)

Comfort Pad High Density 0.0078 C

Comfort Pad Low Density 0.0078 C

Chin Strap Polymer and fiber 0.01 T

Helmet Shell Polycarbonate 0.1 T

3.3. Validation and Verification Simulations

Table 4. Summary of impact conditions used for helmet validation.

3.4. Summary of helmet positioning on headforms

4. Xenith X2E Model Information

Table 5. Xenith X2E helmet model summary.

Main file name (02_Helmet): XenithX2E_v1.0_0main_Nofit.dyn

Table 6. Mesh quality details.

Jacobian Warpage Aspect ratio Skew

Time Length Mass Force Stress

4.1. Running the Model

Table 8. LS-DYNA build used in model development and debugging.

Version Precision Revision SVN Ver. Platform OS

1. Unzip the file (2016_Xenith_X2E_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 11. DYNA file include hierarchy.

Pendulum Impact: 0Main_PI_HIII_XenithX2E_v1.0.k

Standardized card that

Standardized card that

4.3. Model Output Information

Table 10. Model outputs found in helmet model.

Value LS-DYNA Output Notes

Contact force RCFORC: Contact ID #101 Select Resultant Force

Contact force between the facemask and the impactor

4.4. Model Number Conventions

5. Review of Model Components

Figure 13. Xenith X2E Helmet Model, Outermost Components.

5.1. Interior Components: Shock Bonnet Suspension System

5.2. Interior Components: Comfort Foam

5.3. Chin cup and Helmet Straps

Figure 16. Chin cup and helmet strap system.

6.1. Material Validation

6.2. Sub-Assembly Validation

Table 11. LS-DYNA Component Model Description.

Element Total # of Mesh

Table 12. Sub-assembly validation cases.