1. P15550: Customized Personal Protection Headwear Final DDR
CHRIS
Team Leader: Chris Casella
Nate Marshall
Tiffany Gundler
Scott Quenville
Christian Blank
Kayla Wheeler

2. AGENDA Background General Information Current Product
Additional Deliverables
Stakeholders
Problem Definition
Customer and Engineering Requirements
Benchmarking Specifications
System Analysis
House of Quality
Functional Decomposition
Systems Design
Alternatives Considered and Pugh Charts
System Architecture
Engineering Analysis
Weeks Update
Expert Advice
Padding Design
Test Plan and Results
Test Rig Design and Bill of Materials
Workflow Document
Project Planning
Risk Management Update
Updated Project Plan
CHRIS

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT Current State:
Limited to manufactured helmets in contact sports
Desired State:
Custom Fit helmets using 3D printed Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU) as the padding to absorb energy from the impact
Project Constraints:
Overall helmet weight (benchmarked against competitors)
Durability (Target Age: 15-25)
Manufacturability
Biocompatability
$1000 budget
Key Goals and Deliverables
CAD models of different 3D printed cellular materials
Semi-automated workflow for sending scanned dimensions to SolidWorks to the 3D printer
3D printed, customized, energy absorbent pads
Custom fitted football helmet with pads
Drop test rig with impact sensor feedback
Christian

4. BACKGROUND
Christian

5. BACKGROUND 1.6-3.8 million sports related head injuries in the U.S.
diagnosed concussions
.81 conc/game
diagnosed concussions
.71 conc/game
Repeated head injuries result in Chronic traumatic encephalopathy
On august 29th, 2013 a lawsuit was taken against the NFL for a total of 765 million dollars.
Manufacturers Include: Riddell, Schutt, Rawlings, and Xenith.
CHRISTIAN

6. CURRENT PRODUCT- Schutt ION 4D Adult Football Helmet
The new Schutt helmet uses a unique facemask design that allows easy removal
Uses Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU) padding that allows for higher cushioning value
Scored better ratings in impact testing than the Xenith X1
Christian

7. STAKEHOLDERS Denis Cormier Athlete Trainer Medic Manufacturer Hospital
Insurance
Christian

8. Problem Definition
Nate

9. CUSTOMER NEEDS
Nate
Key: 9-Very Important 3- Important 1- Somewhat Important

10. ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS
Nate
Key: 9-Very Important 3- Important 1- Somewhat Important

11. BENCHMARKING SPECS
Nate
A - instantaneous acceleration

12. SYSTEM ANALYSIS
Tiffany

13. HOUSE OF QUALITY
Tiffany
Key: ϴ- Strong Correlation O- Moderate Correlation Weak Correlation

14. FUNCTIONAL DECOMPOSITION
TIFFANY
2141 MSD annotated System Level Design Review Presentation

15. Systems Design
Chris

16. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Chris

17. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED (PUGH EVALUATION CHART)
Chris

18. SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
Chris

19. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS NEEDED
G-Force requirement
What will the helmet need to withstand in order to protect players from concussions?
Durability
How many impacts will the padding have to be reliable for? How many seasons?
Test Rig
Can we design a test rig that matches the specifications of standard testing equipment that is repeatable, and will allow us to test different impact scenarios?
Prototype Cost
Approximately how much will a prototype cost?
Scott

20. Week Update
Chris

21. Expert Advice Rachel Silvestrini-ISE Department
Chris Pietrzak- BRG sports
Joe Abraham- Materials Testing Lab
Patent Attorney
Chris

22. Padding Design
Kayla

23. Test Plan
Expert Advice: Rachel Silvestrini (ISE)
Kayla

24. Test Plan
Kayla

25. Compression Test Results
Expert Advice: Joe Abraham (Materials Testing Lab)
Sample
Schutt
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
Block 4
Block 5
Block 6
Block 7
Block 8
Peak Force (lbs)
504.1
41.1
86.0
132.2
173.2
26.4
120.4
266.0
457.1
Deflection (inches)
0.40
0.11
0.19
0.18
PSI
298.1
10.27
21.5
33.05
43.3
6.6
30.1
66.5
114.28
Tiffany/Nate
Block 1: 5% Ninjaflex
Block 2: 15% Ninjaflex
Block 3: 30% Ninjaflex
Block 4: 45% Ninjaflex
Block 5: 5% Filaflex
Block 6: 15% Filaflex
Block 7: 30% Filaflex
Block 8: 45% Filaflex

26. TEST RIG Design Considerations from Week 6:
Accelerometer inside the helmet, on the base or both?
Must be dropped from a height that will allow 72 in. of free fall.
Single rail or twin wire guided?
Is there a way to capture rotational forces on the head?
SCOTT

27. WEEK 9 TEST RIG ● Two Rail vs. Single Rail Guided ● Pin Release vs.
Mechanical Latch
Scott

28. WEEK 12 DESIGN ● Two-Wire Guided ● Aluminum Carriage Bill of Materials
Scott

29. WEEK 15 DESIGN ● Two-Wire Guided ● Aluminum Carriage 1-½” Steel Base
Suspending Brackets
Strut Mount Shelf Bracket
Scott

30. Addressing Design Considerations from Week 6:
Accelerometer will be placed at the center of gravity in the headform to measure G-force on head
To measure energy that padding absorbs, an additional accel. can be placed on outside
Will allow 72” of free fall.
Is there a way to capture rotational forces on the head?
Scott
Expert Advice: Chris Pietrzak (BRG sports)

31. UPDATED BILL OF MATERIALS
Scott

32. PENDING TEST RIG ACTION ITEMS
Scott

33. Workflow Diagram
Kayla

34. Workflow Document
Kayla

35. FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Using computer software we can analyse the effects of multiple forces on
By changing the material density in solidworks we can get a general idea of the change in print density
Christian

36. Filaflex Samples 5%
30%
45%
15%
Christian

37. Solidworks 3D Scans
Tiffany

38. Combined Scans
Tiffany: Meshlab (Decimate) to Instep(Import as a solid into SW) to Solidworks (Create assembly)

39. Extra Testing Protocols
Cleaning Test
Disinfectant wipes - 24 hour exposure test
Soak Test
ISO standard Specific Solution - 3 hrs in solution ranging from 20F-100F
Durability Test
20 iterations - check foam position
Customer Survey
Ask fellow msd students to fill out a survey (6 questions)
Nate

40. Project Planning
Nate

41. RISK ASSESSMENT NATE ID Risk Item Effect Cause Likelihood Severity
Importance
Action to Minimize Risk
Owner
Describe the risk briefly
What is the effect on any or all of the project deliverables if the cause actually happens?
What are the possible cause(s) of this risk?
L*S
What action(s) will you take (and by when) to prevent, reduce the impact of, or transfer the risk of this occurring?
Who is responsible for following through on mitigation? 1
Is TPU foam the best option for preventing concussion impacts
Won’t change our project. However future MSD projects could be focused on the new material
New types of foam are discovered 3
This concern is outside the scope of the project. We accept that this is a high possibility
None 2
Cell wall stiffness will affect density calculations and segment size
This will primarily determine how big our foam segments are
Printer capability 4
Design around this parameter
Kayla/Tiffany
Time requirements to scan, import, and print must be short to make production practical
Slow production will hinder product adoption
Printer speed, material required 6
Reduce material requirement without increasing impact force’s to the head
Nate/Tiffany
Will the design and testing phase require more material than expected
Increased project cost
Varied designs to test
Use computer modeling to insure the design is viable before actual testing
NATE

42. 5
How will 3-D printed foam help reduce concussions from rotational impacts
Effectiveness at concussion prevention is reduced
Foam is primarily used for linear impacts. Straps can help with rotational impacts 3 9
A neck guard while not within the scope of the project could be helpful in reducing rotational forces on the neck
Nate/Scott 6
Printer failure
Delayed printing time
Human error or machine malfunction 9+
Learn how to properly operate printer within its parameters
Tiffany/Kayla 7
Printer availability
Other students needing printer time 1
Plan printing time a week in advance with customer
Chris 8
Printer printing size
Limits printing segment size
Defined printer capability 2 4
Design the segment size within printer capability
Kayla 9
Printer operability
Printer can malfunction and delay printing requirements
Ignorant operation of printer 3
Learn required skills to operate printer efficiently
Chris 10
Customer accessibility
Required answers could delay schedule
Dennis likes to travel 2 6
Plan meetings in advance. Constant contact with customer 12
High test rig costs/failure
Go over budget building test rig/failure can delay foam testing
Expensive parts/sensors. Improper build techniques
Visit material design lab to witness proper build techniques
Scott 13
Sense software and scanner produce incomplete scans
Extra time reproducing complete scans
Limited capability of Sense hardware and software
Expect extra time to obtain complete and usable head scans/check with Dennis
Nate/Tiffany 14
Integrating solidworks and scanning software
Frustration with obtaining custom segment sizes
Limited capability of “Talking” between software’s
Check with Dennis/team members
NATE

43. NATE 15 Acceleration sensor accuracy
Inaccurate measurements of impact forces
Inefficient placement or lower quality sensor 1 2
Preliminary testing will show how good a sensor we need
Christian 16
Failing to meet project plan deadlines
Fall behind schedule and miss deliverable due dates
Related to numerous other concerns and risks 4
Constant contact with team members. Be willing to ask if you need help
Chris 17
Cracked plastic helmet during testing
Increased cost for extra helmet and delayed testing time
Hard testing impact 3 6
Research previous test plans. Did they have this problem within test parameters?
Scott 18
All printed designs do not meet requirements spec
Unmarketable idea.
Maybe printed TPU is inefficient compared with marketed helmet foams 9
Complete lots of testing. Exhaust all options
Kayla 19
Adhesive failing
Inaccurate force measurements. Failed test
Adhesive used to apply foam segments fails
Durability issue most likely apparent during testing. Apply more adhesive 20
Material sensitivity to water/sweat and cleaning solutions
Does not meet bio-compatibility and testing parameters
TPU form does not respond well to wet conditions
Prior TPU material analysis has shown this is a non-issue with this foam. However printing could change this
NATE 21
Helmet durability
Test fails the required parameter
Foam is not durable/helmet breaks during testing 2 4
Redo design for next test with high emphasis on durability
Scott 22
Loss of parts
Increased budget cost. Delayed project
We lose parts for the project 3 6
Materials required to be locked up after use
Chris

44. PROJECT PLAN UPDATE
CHRIS

45. PROJECT PLAN UPDATE
CHRIS

46. PROJECT PLAN UPDATE Continue testing Saved for MSD II
Chris
Continue testing
Print more padding (Work through testing plan)
Work Towards Gate Review
Saved for MSD II
Finishing Up MSD I

47. QUESTIONS
CHRIS