Impact of Soldier Helmet Configuration on Survivability 

by Natalie Eberius and Patrick Gillich 

ARL-TR-5476 March 2011 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068 

ARL-TR-5476 March 2011 

Impact of Soldier Helmet Configuration on Survivability 

Natalie Eberius and Patrick Gillich 

Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704‐0188), 1215 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202‐4302.  Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 

March 2011 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

October 2009–November 2009 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Impact of Soldier Helmet Configuration on Survivability 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Natalie Eberius and Patrick Gillich 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

AH80 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: RDRL-SLB-W 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-5476 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

The survivability provided by different types of U.S. Army helmets is influenced by the ballistic protection offered and the 

geometric area of coverage. The fit and wear of each type and size of helmet is a significant factor in survivability grading. 

The modeling resolution currently available in the Army survivability/lethality/vulnerability models, MUVES-S2 and 

Operational Requirement-based Casualty Assessment (ORCA), support the ability to assess minor changes seen in helmet 

configurations and their associated effects on survivability. This report describes how MUVES-S2 with ORCA can be 

leveraged to model slight wear differences between helmet configurations and their effect on Soldier survivability. The 

sensitivity of observed fit and wear and current guidelines will be examined. While this type of assessment is not an end-all 

means for grading helmets, it can provide decision makers and personal protective equipment designers a means for evaluating 

benefits vs. costs in risk-benefit analysis. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

helmet, ORCA, survivability, injury, incapacitation, body armor 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UU 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

18 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

Natalie Eberius 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-5219 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

1. Purpose 1

2. Background 1

3. MUVES-S2 Methodology 2

4. ORCA Methodology 2

5. Modeling and Simulation Process 3

6. Summary 7

Distribution List 8 
iv 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Measurements of helmet wear on the Soldier. ................................................................4

Figure 2. Digital renderings of the PASGT, ACH, and CVC. ........................................................5

Figure 3. Grid plots comparing ACH, CVC, and PASGT. .............................................................5

Figure 4. Grid plots comparing three fits within normal wear guidelines. .....................................6

Figure 5. Grid plots comparing three measured configurations. ....................................................6
v 

List of Tables 

Table 1. MAIS levels. .....................................................................................................................3

Table 2. Effect of ACH position on personnel survivability. .........................................................7
vi 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
1 

1. Purpose 

This report describes a modeling and simulation approach and methodology used for assessing 

the effect that minor changes in helmet wear have on personnel survivability. 

2. Background 

The ballistic protection of the U.S. Army helmet is optimized when worn according to the fit and 

wear specifications provided with the helmet.1 The Soldier must first ensure proper fit followed 

by proper wear. The combination of proper fit and wear will optimize the ballistic protection of 

the helmet. Proper helmet size is determined through three head measurements. The first 

measurement is head length, which can be described as the maximum length of the head 

measured from the back of the head to the forehead. This measurement can also be described as 

the distance from the occiput to the glabella. The second measurement is head width, which can 

be described as the maximum horizontal width of the head measured above and behind the ears. 

The third measurement is head circumference, which is measured just above the bony brow 

ridges of the forehead and above both ears. 

The proper wear of the helmet is most easily obtained when the helmet has been properly fit. 

One element of proper helmet fit is the lift, or height, where the helmet sits on the head. The lift 

is deemed too high when crown pads are not touching the head or there is too much exposure of 

the forehead. Additionally, the helmet cannot sit too low, which is evident when the helmet 

covers the eyebrows and the helmet interferes with eyewear. The helmet should remain in place 

when the head is shaken. The helmet should fit so that the front rim is no more than 0.5 in above 

the eyebrows. Helmet height (advanced combat helmet [ACH] only) can be quickly assessed by 

looking at the height of the helmet relative to the ear canal openings. The bottom of the helmet 

should come to the top of the ear canal opening. This report will focus on the ACH; however, 

the CVC and personnel armor system for ground troops (PASGT) are also analyzed. 

Feedback from Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom indicates Soldiers may 

not be properly wearing the ACH. The U.S. Army disseminated a maintenance advisory 

message (MAM) which states, “This message is provided to remind commanders of the correct 

fit and wear standards of the helmet and to provide instructions for corrective actions on 

improperly worn helmets. The ACH provides the user greater situational awareness, comfort 

and fit than the standard PASGT (Kevlar) helmet. It is also compatible with the interceptor 

 1 U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command. This is Your Ballistic Helmet; Natick Pamphlet 70–2; 

Natick, MA, July 2000. 
2 

body armor (IBA), offering the Soldier improved target acquisition in all rifle and carbine firing 

positions, especially the prone position. However, in cases where the ACH is improperly fitted 

and worn too high on the head, the Soldier may be exposed to increased risk from fragmentation. 

Improper wear may be caused by misunderstanding the wear standards, poor pad placement 

inside the helmet, improper fit, the incorrect crown pad inside the helmet, or a combination of 

the above.”2

The visual differences in correct wear compared to incorrect wear may be slight and difficult to 

ascertain. These differences can pose a significant effect on Soldier survivability. These small 

wear differences will be analyzed using MUVES-S2 with embedded Operational Requirementbased Casualty Assessment (ORCA). 

3. MUVES-S2 Methodology 

The MUVES-S2 model is a stochastic, component-level survivability/lethality/vulnerability 

(SLV) software suite that simulates the effects of indirect- and direct-fire munitions against 

modeled targets. MUVES-S2 with embedded ORCA provides the standard computer simulation 

platform for evaluating effectiveness of munitions and missiles and the survivability and 

vulnerability of personnel, aircraft, missiles, and ground systems. MUVES-S2 has a long history 

of use and acceptance in the evaluation of vehicle and personnel vulnerability. Both MUVES-S2 

and ORCA have been used during all phases of system acquisition from research, design, and 

development to production, test, and evaluation and have been verified, validated, and accredited 

for major programs in acquisition. The MUVES-S2 capabilities are fully integrated into the test 

and evaluation process from concept design to production milestone decisions for SLV 

evaluations. 

4. ORCA Methodology 

ORCA determines the type, severity, and frequency of injuries sustained by personnel as well as 

the percent reduction in human capability from impacting munition fragments. Some of the 

features provided by ORCA when compared to earlier methodologies include a more precise 

anatomical representation, the ability to map injuries to physical and cognitive impairment, 

evaluation of basic human capability requirements to postinjury capabilities, and an 

accommodating methodology for improvements. 

 2

 U.S. Army MAM, Control No. 04-001-013. Correct Wear Standards and Fitting Procedures for the ACH. http://peosoldier 

.army.mil/soldierscorner/ach.asp (accessed October 2008). 
3 

ORCA development has been ongoing since 1998 by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

(ARL). The U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, other government agencies, academia, and private 

industry have also aided in model development. ORCA is a high-resolution computerized 

personnel casualty model that can be used to assess the impact of various casualty-causing 

insults on personnel. ORCA classifies each computed penetrating injury using the Abbreviated 

Injury Scale – 1985 Revision (AIS-85), which is a standard measure of individual anatomical 

injury. AIS is an anatomically-based, consensus-derived, international severity scoring system 

that classifies each injury by body region according to its relative importance on a six-point 

ordinal scale. Examples of maximum abbreviated injury scale (MAIS) levels are outlined in 

table 1. 

Table 1. MAIS levels.1

MAIS Injury Level Type of Injury 

0 No injury None 

1 Minor Superficial 

2 Moderate Reversible injuries; medical attention required 

3 Serious Reversible injuries; hospitalization required 

4 Severe Reversible injuries; not fully recoverable without care 

5 Critical Nonreversible injuries; not fully recoverable, even with care 

6 Maximal Nearly unsurvivable 

5. Modeling and Simulation Process 

The process of evaluating changes in helmet wear and the effect of Soldier survivability are 

described as follows: 

1. Helmet placement was determined by ARL’s Human Research and Engineering 

Directorate (HRED) through Soldier helmet wear. 

2. Helmet geometries were digitally scanned in three dimensions, converted to BRL-CAD 

format, and positioned on the digitized anatomical head represented in the ORCA model. 

3. The MUVES-S2/ORCA model was used to compare the ballistic protection provided by 

the helmets for a bullet threat where the measure of effectiveness was the probability of 

receiving a serious or greater injury. 

The ACH helmet was the main focus of this study; however, the CVC and the PASGT were also 

assessed to a lesser degree. The correct ACH wear positions is denoted as position X, and two 

tilts from X are denoted as X1 and X2 (3° and –3°, respectively). Additionally, two measured 

alterations of position X are denoted as positions Y and Z. The CVC and PASGT helmets wear 

were not measured from Soldier wear and were assessed analytically only. The CVC was 
4 

assessed parametrically with 4-, 6- and 8-mm lifts. The PASGT was assessed in the correct wear 

position only. The ACH helmet coverage measurements were performed by ARL/HRED. A 

depiction of the measurement process of helmet wear on a Soldier’s head is shown in figure 1. 

An overview of the targets and wear conditions assessed is outlined as follows: 

1. No helmet 

2. ACH (note: tilt is forward when angle is > 0) 

 Configuration X: 0-mm lift, tilt 0° (correct wear position) 

 Configuration X1: 0-mm lift, tilt 3° 

 Configuration X2: 0-mm lift, tilt –3° 

 Configuration Y: 4-mm lift, tilt 0° 

 Configuration Z: 7-mm lift, tilt –7° 

3. CVC 

 Correct wear position and lift of 4, 6, and 8 mm 

4. PASGT 

 Correct wear position 

Figure 1. Measurements of helmet wear 

on the Soldier.

The ACH and CVC helmets were digitally scanned and placed on the digitized ORCA man’s 

head. Renderings of the digital scans are shown in figure 2. The ballistic protection of the 

helmet was not a variable in this study; the threat was modeled as never penetrating the helmet. 

The vulnerability of the head with the various helmet configurations was assessed at 5° 

azimuthal increments around the head. Each of these azimuths was assessed for elevation 0°. 

Injury plots at each of these azimuths were modeled on a uniform grid of 1- × 1-mm shot lines. 

Each shot line is then assessed by the ORCA model, and the MAIS value is assigned to each 

1- × 1-mm grid cell. The results of the injury analysis of the head with ACH, CVC, and PASGT 
5 

helmets (correctly worn) are depicted in figure 3. The helmet with the most coverage is the 

PASGT and therefore receives the lowest probability of a serious or greater injury. However, as 

stated earlier, the ACH provides enhanced situational awareness, field of vision, hearing, 

comfort, and fit over the PASGT helmet. The ACH is also compatible with the IBA, which 

offers improved target acquisition in all rifle and carbine firing positions, especially the prone 

position. 

Figure 2. Digital renderings of the PASGT, ACH, and CVC.

Figure 3. Grid plots comparing ACH, CVC, and PASGT. 

The results of the injury analysis of the head with the ACH in the modeled configurations are 

depicted in figures 4 and 5. The configuration with a 3° forward tilt presented a small 

improvement in overall survivability. The configurations with nonstandard lifts (Y and Z) 

always resulted in a lower overall survivability, even though some aspect angles covered more of 

the head. 

PASGT 

ACH CVC 
6 

Figure 4. Grid plots comparing three fits within normal wear guidelines. 

Figure 5. Grid plots comparing three measured configurations. 

The calculated survivability data was also compiled to focus on various aspects described as the 

frontal arc, side arc, and rear arc of the head. Configuration X1 provided the lowest probability 

of serious injury overall as well as from the side and rear. The lowest probability of injury from 

the frontal arc was provided by configuration Z (7-mm lift and –7° tilt). However, as expected, 

this configuration failed at all other aspects. 

Pair-wise comparisons were used to determine whether measured differences were statistically 

significant at each azimuth and elevation grid view between the standard helmet position and 

each tested configuration (shown in table 2). A Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was applied with 

the following one-tailed hypotheses: 

 H0: E(X) ≥ E(Y), and H1: E(X) < E(Y), (1) 

where E(X) is the probability of a serious-to-maximal injury in the helmet configuration and 

E(Y) is the same measure in the standard helmet configuration. When comparing the results, the 

null hypothesis was rejected in every case with an α exceeding 0.0001 as the T values were 

always less than –3.7190. In the case which configuration Z was compared directly to 

configuration Y, the ACH with configuration Z showed a higher probability of injury vs. the 

ACH with configuration Y with a T value of –8.06. 
7 

Table 2. Effect of ACH position on personnel survivability.

Statistical Comparison T Value 

Correctly worn ACH vs. ACH with configuration Y –16.44 

Correctly worn ACH vs. ACH with configuration Z –12.43 

Correctly worn CVC vs. CVC with 4-mm lift –16.44 

ACH with configuration Y vs. ACH with configuration Z –8.06 

6. Summary 

Using the MUVES-S2 with the embedded ORCA can be a resourceful tool in ascertaining the 

effect of small or slight helmet wear changes on survivability. The variable of ballistic 

protection can be simulated, as well as other helmet add-ons that effect survivability. The 

methodology outlined in this report can be used for all current and future body armor 

survivability studies. 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

8 

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 only) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC HRR 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL CIM L 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL CIM P 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 RDRL D 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

 RDRL CIM G (BLDG 4600) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

9 

 1 ASST SECY ARMY 

 (CD ACQSTN LOGISTICS & TECH 

 only) SAAL ZS RM 3E448 

 103 ARMY PENTAGON 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0103 

 1 DIRECTOR FORCE DEV 

 (CD DAPR FDZ 

 only) RM 3A522 

 460 ARMY PENTAGON 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0460 

 1 US ARMY TRADOC ANL CTR 

 ATRC W 

 A KEINTZ 

 WSMR NM 88002-5502 

 1 USARL 

 RDRL SLE 

 R FLORES 

 WSMR NM 88002-5513 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 US ARMY DEV TEST COM 

 CSTE DTC TT T 

 314 LONGS CORNER RD 

 APG MD 21005-5055 

 1 US ARMY EVALUATION CTR 

 TEAE SV 

 P A THOMPSON 

 4120 SUSQUEHANNA AVE 

 APG MD 21005-3013 

 12 DIR USARL 

 RDRL SL 

 J BEILFUSS 

 J FEENEY 

 J FRANZ 

 M STARKS 

 P TANENBAUM 

 RDRL SLB A 

 D FARENWALD 

 G MANNIX 

 RDRL SLB D 

 R GROTE 

 RDRL SLB E 

 M PERRY 

 RDRL SLB G 

 P MERGLER 

 RDRL SLB S 

 S SNEAD 

 RDRL SLB W 

 L ROACH 
10

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.