Head injury is a growing concern within contact sports, including American football. Computational tools such as finite element (FE) models provide an avenue for researchers to study, and potentially optimize safety tools, such as helmets. The goal of this study was to develop an accurate representative helmet model that could be used in further study of head injury to mitigate the toll of concussions in contact sports. An FE model of a Schutt Air XP Pro football helmet was developed through three major steps: geometry development, material characterization, and model validation. The fully assembled helmet model was fit onto a Hybrid III dummy head–neck model and National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) head model and validated through a series of 67 representative impacts similar to those experienced by a football player. The kinematic and kinetic response of the model was compared to the response of the physical experiments, which included force, head linear acceleration, head angular velocity, and carriage acceleration. The outputs between the model and the physical tests were quantitatively evaluated using CORelation and Analysis (CORA), amounting to an overall averaged score of 0.76. The model described in this study has been extensively validated and can function as a building block for innovation in player safety.

Objective: The significant computational resources required to execute detailed human body finiteelement models has motivated the development of faster running, simplified models (e.g., GHBMC M50-OS). Previous studies have demonstrated the ability to modularly incorporate the validated GHBMC M50-O brain model into the simplified model (GHBMC M50-OS+B), which allows for localized analysis of the brain in a fraction of the computation time required for the detailed model. The objective of this study is to validate the head and neck kinematics of the GHBMC M50-O and M50-OS (detailed and simplified versions of the same model) against human volunteer test data in frontal and lateral loading. Furthermore, the effect of modular insertion of the detailed brain model into the M50-OS is quantified. Methods: Data from the Navy Biodynamics Laboratory (NBDL) human volunteer studies, including a 15g frontal, 8g frontal, and 7g lateral impact, were reconstructed and simulated using LS-DYNA. A five-point restraint system was used for all simulations, and initial positions of the models were matched with volunteer data using settling and positioning techniques. Both the frontal and lateral simulations were run with the M50-O, M50-OS, and M50-OS+B with active musculature for a total of nine runs. Conclusion:The greatest departure from the detailed occupant models were noted in lateral flexion, potentially indicating the need for further study. Precise modeling of the belt system however was limited by available data. A sensitivity study of these parameters in the frontal condition showed that belt slack and muscle activation have a modest effect on the ISO score. The reduction in computation time of the M50-OS+B reduces the burden of high computational requirements when handling detailed HBMs. Future work will focus on harmonizing the lateral head response of the models and studying localized injury criteria within the brain from the M50-O and M50-OS+B.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract