Skip to main content

Review of Department of Defense Test Protocols for Combat Helmets (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

4 Combat Helmet Testing
Pages 25-31

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 25...
... Nonballistic tests assess other helmet capabilities, including impact resistance, pad compression durability, coating adhesion durability, Test Processes and helmet compression resistance testing. Helmets are During a test, the helmet being tested is affixed to a also subjected to a series of inspections, such as whether headform packed with modeling clay, and a rifle-like device the shell dimensions meet those specified in the purchase is used to fire various projectiles into the helmet.
Read the entire page →
From page 26...
... Under the DOT&E etration and BFD, a measure of the indent in the clay caused protocol, within each set of tests (shell, hardware, and small by the ballistic forces from the bullet, are measured. Current protocol also tests the V50 ballistic limit using a series of 6 to 3The helmets the Army procures are used DoD wide, including both the 14 shots to the five regions of the helmet at varying velocities Navy and the Coast Guard.
Read the entire page →
From page 27...
... projectile (DOT&E, 2011) , and per the DOT&E protocol, 5Kyle Markwardt, Test Officer, Aberdeen Test Center, "Helmet IOP PED-003 Briefing to NRC Helmet Protocols Committee," presentation to 4See Chapter 9 for a discussion of assessing helmet performance at other the committee on March 22, 2013.
Read the entire page →
From page 28...
... Furthermore, the helmet testing, so this type of variation is not appli- required level of measurement precision should be linked cable at this time, but it could be in the future. to and driven by the overall variation in the testing process • Environmental conditions variability arises to the where, for example, excessively precise measurements add extent that the testing is dependent on environmental little value to a testing process that is itself inherently highly conditions such as ambient test range temperature variable.
Read the entire page →
From page 29...
... In particular, the eliminate one source of variation in helmet testing that arises Phase III body armor report recommended that DOT&E and because different sizes of helmets interact with the current the Army expedite the development of a replacement for the single-size headform in different ways. current Roma Plastilina #1 clay that can be used at room temperature (NRC, 2012)
Read the entire page →
From page 30...
... 2012. Standard for Lot Acceptance Ballistic Testing of Military testing efforts, the Department of Defense should assess the Combat Helmets.
Read the entire page →
From page 31...
... Figrue 4-3 fixed FIGURE 4-4 Peepsite headforms: five headforms, one for each shot direction. SOURCE: Robert Kinsler, Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate, Army Research Laboratory, "The Peepsite Headform," presentation to the committee on January 24, 2013.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • helmet testing
  • combat helmet
  • body armor
  • combat helmets
  • variability arises

  • ballistic testing
  • peepsite headform
  • recording medium
  • article testing
  • helmet performance

  • testing methodology
  • defense test
  • phase iii
  • helmet sizes
  • aberdeen test

  • operational test
  • test center
  • advanced combat
  • army research
  • atc headform

  • aberdeen proving
  • lot acceptance
  • proving ground
  • current testing
  • helmet ballistic

  • testing methods
  • current test
  • testing variation
  • test process
  • limited test


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.