FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF MOTORCYCLE HELMET

MATERIAL AGAINST IMPACT VELOCITY DURING ACCIDENT

SIRIGINEEDI VENKATA SEKHAR MTECH
AVANTHI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,Bhogapuram(M), Vizianagaram (Dist).

V. SARAN TEJ, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,

AVANTHI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY,Bhogapuram(M), Vizianagaram (Dist).

A finite element helmet model was created for chin bar impacts by carrying out component tests on the chin bar padding,
helmet shell and the chinstrap. Addition of two composite layers to the chin bar, stiffening the shell, reduced the peak head form center
of gravity acceleration from 168.3 g to 122.6 g in the UNECE 22.05 chin bar impact test configuration. Numerical approach to simulate
the Impact of motor-cycle helmet with a speed of 7500mm/s till 0.08 Sec (as per the “EC Regulation 22 and IS4151 Standards”). Then,
to determine the material for the metal foam by meeting all “Head impact criteria (HIC)”. To carry out the test in 2 different directions.
Straight top impact. Impact at an angle on the front. Model is done in Solid works and FEA part will from Hyper mesh. The fact that
chinstrap pre-test tightness influences the head form acceleration response is important for the helmet test technician.

INTRODUCTION
Protective helmets and their design have been the subject of
research in many different fields [1–11]. In the structural
mechanics community, several studies have addressed the
material characteristics and the mechanical behaviour of the
helmet, either as lumped mass models or as finite el- ement
models [6–10]. In the biomechanics community, motorbike
helmets and bicycle helmets have been coupled with
biomechanical models of the human head in order to
understand possible mechanisms of head injuries and helmet
performance with a realistic head form [1–5]. The majority of
these articles cast doubt on the current helmet standard
procedures, which may not reproduce effectively real-world
motorcycle injuries, particularly in the use of a rigid head form
that does not represent a realistic compliant human head, and the
use of Head Injury Criterion (HIC) that does not take into
account rotational acceleration, head kinematics and direction
of impact. The use of an anvil, which is excessively rigid, is
also critically reviewed [4–6].
The European regulations outline the production, certi-
fication and the commercialisation of motorcycle helmets. The
helmets, which must adhere to the necessary require- ments,
preventing head injuries by understanding the forces and
displacements experienced by the head of the helmet user. The
primary objective of this work was to simulate the impact tests
of a commercially available motorcycle hel- met (Airstream
by Dainese Spa, Italy) according to the European Regulation
ECE 22.05 [12], which limits peak
acceleration to 275 g and HIC to 2400.
The work presents an approach that aims at deriving a virtual
testing procedure for commercially available motor- bike helmets
within the limitation of known experimental data. The helmet
impact tests are simulated using LS- DYNA finite element
software [13]. The two principal structural components of
the helmet are the stiff outer shell and the energy-absorbing
undergo a series of experimental tests to evaluate their effectiveness.
These tests are expensive, require a considerable amount of time and
often are affected by a high level of uncertainty or variability; it is not
unusual that the same impact test applied to nominally identical
helmets can produce different impact results. One possi- ble way
forward to partially avoid these uncertainties or variabilities is to
perform virtual impact tests. These tests consist of a mathematical
representation of an object whose behaviour needs to be simulated with the
relevant material properties, loading and boundary conditions. The
virtual test can reduce the number of experimental tests. One of the
main problems in the use of virtual testing in an indus- trial environment
is the definition of material properties; suppliers of glass fibres or foams
are not always able to pro- vide the data in a form required by finite
element model codes. Similarly, helmet producers do not have
detailed instrumentation to determine these properties to the rel- evant
standards. In this work, ‘best’ estimates of material constants have been
assumed from existing published data. These material constants were then
adjusted to match the conditioning of the helmets for each test, thus the
‘best’ estimate of material constants for a particular experimen- tal data
was derived. The helmet model can be used to investigate new
materials in a virtual sense and can con- tribute to the development of
new testing standards for
foam liner. The outer shell is made from thermoplastic materials, e.g.
acrylonitrile bu- tadiene styrene copolymer or toughened polycarbonate,
or composite materials, which is the case for the helmet inves- tigated in
this article. Composite materials have replaced thermoplastic materials
due to their superior ability to ab- sorb energy by material failure,
such as fibre breaking, matrix cracking and delamination, and to their
capability of supporting damage without completely compromising the
integrity of the helmet. The foam liner is made from a crushable
material such as expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam. EPS, which has
highly non-linear properties, must be specifically characterised to
provide realistic force dis- placement behaviour, i.e. crush.
Deformation of EPS is considered as the main energy absorption
mechanism, with permanent deformation absorbing 30% to 50% of the
total energy imparted to the helmet system [10].
The following sections of the article present a brief de- scription of
the helmet, followed by an overview of the ECE regulation and a
description of the numerical simulations, and finally results and
discussions followed by conclusions and a short description of
future work.
BRIEF HELMET DESCRIPTION
ester matrix reinforced with glass, kevlar and carbon fibres.
The manufacturing process is based on the use of a pressure
bag moulding technique [14]. The foam liner is made of
EPS, which is fabricated into closed cell foam by the injection
moulding process. A typ- ical mould for an EPS helmet liner has
a core and a cavity;
Figure 1 Dainese Airstream helmet.
The shape of the components of the helmet is more clearly
shown in the ‘Numerical simulation’ section, where the
mathematical model of the helmet is described.
REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTORCYCLE HELMETS
the gap between them defines the shape of the helmet.
The core is generally hemispherical in shape and config- ured
to roughly match the shape of the top of the human
head [11].
The main function of the outer shell is to distribute the
impact load on a large area and to protect the head from the
penetration of pointy objects, whereas the function of the foam
is to absorb most of the energy of the impact.
The helmet used in the simulation is a full-face certified helmet
“Dainese Airstream” (Figure 1) made by Dainese SpA, Italy. The
main helmet components are the outer shell and the inner foam
liner. The shell component is made of a vinyl
Currently, the European standard on helmet design is the ECE
Regulation 22.05 [12]. This regulation sets the tech- nical framework
for the approval of protective helmets. The helmet should be able to
withstand an impact against a steel anvil, against which the helmet is
launched with an initial velocity of at least 7.5 m/s. The points of
impact for each helmet are defined respectively in the top, frontal,
lateral and rear areas of the helmet, usually as points P, B, X and R
(Figure 2).
There are two types of anvil for which experimental tests have
been performed; a flat cylindrical anvil and a kerbstone anvil, as
shown in Figure 3.
Different conditions for each helmet type are consid- ered by the
European standards before the impact tests. Table 1 shows the
number of the helmets that have to be conditioned for different tests
and the types of condition- ing. The temperature conditions are
50◦C ( 2◦C) and + ±
20◦C ( 2±
− ◦
C).
The only test considered in this work is the impact absorption
test in which the head form–helmet system is dropped in guided free
fall at a specific velocity against a steel anvil. The impact absorption
capacity is determined by recording the acceleration against time at the
centre of gravity of the head form. The ECE requires that the peak
acceleration of the head and the HIC do not exceed 275 g and 2400,
respectively.
The HIC is calculated as the maximum of Eq. (1):
Σ ∫ Σ2.5
t
1
1
HIC = a (t2 − t1) , [1]
t (t)
2
dt
t2
−
t
1
where a is the resultant acceleration as a multiple of g and
t1 and t2 are any two points in time (s) during the impact.
The helmet was assembled with a magnesium alloy head form in
accordance with the regulation. The total mass of the helmet was
1.350 kg, while the head form was 6.1 kg.
 P Central vertical axis Rear
Reference plane

B
B R

12.7 mm
Z
A 20 20
X Z
F X X

l
G G
Basic plane
D E

25.5 mm

Figure 2 Identification of points of impact.

Flat anvil Kerbstone anvil

130 mm (+3 mm)

Radius = 15 mm (+0.5)

>50 mm

>125 mm

Figure 3 Anvil geometries.

NUMERICAL SIMULATION Finite element modelling

Temperature conditioning of the shell

Temperature fluctuations may cause changes in the me-
chanical characteristics of a material. In accordance with the
ECE Regulation 22.05, which requires each helmet type to
be conditioned before the impact test, the effect of the
temperature conditions for the composite material are taken
into account by using Eq. (2) [14]:
PHTM Σ TGW −Σ
= T 1/2 , [2]
P0
TGD −
T0
where PHTM and P0 represent respectively the property of the
material at a given temperature and at the reference
temperature. T, T0, TGW and TGD represent respectively the
generic given temperature, the reference temperature, the glass
transition temperature of wet resin and the glass transition
temperature of dry resin. The glass transition temperature of
wet resin TGW can be estimated according to Eq. (3) [14]:
. Σ
TGW = 0.005M2 − 0.10Mm + 1.0
m TGD,
where Mm is the matrix moisture content.
In this study, the explicit LS-DYNA finite element code was used to
simulate the impact tests of the helmet. The computational results were
compared with experimental tests supplied by Dainese. The computer-
aided designs provided by Dainese were used to generate the finite ele-
ment models of the helmet components; shell (Figure 4(a)), foam (Figure
4(b)) head cap (Figure 4(c)) and head form (Figure 4(d)). The four
components were then assembled in the single model shown in Figure 5.
An additional com-
ponent, the chinstrap, is not visible in Figure 5.
Several different models, with various level of refine- ment, were
generated. The model shown in Figure 5, which
presents a medium level of discretisation, is defined by the following
mesh details: 3308 triangular and quadrilateral shell elements and 3281
nodes for the shell; 94,002 tetrahe- dral solid elements and 22,051 nodes
for the foam; 19,393 tetrahedral solid elements and 4912 nodes for the
head cup; and 12,990 rigid solid elements and 3060 nodes for the head
form. The chinstrap was simulated using two non-linear springs
connecting points of the shell with points of the head form. The flat
anvil was simulated using the ‘rigid wall’ capability offered by the
LS-DYNA library, while the kerbstone anvil was modelled with
[3] 25,296 nodes and 116,793 solid rigid elements. In any case, the model
very accurately represents the geometry of the real system, while
 (a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 4 Components of the helmet and the head form.

1.2
1

Stress (MPa)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Strain
Exp Comp

Figure 6 Stress versus strain for the simulation of expanded polystyrene

Figure 5 Finite element model for the helmet.
foam liner based on the impact experiment of Yettram et al [8].

the material parameters are necessarily affected by a much higher 10

degree of uncertainty. 8
Force (kN)

The shell component of the helmet is made of 3-mm thick 6

vinyl ester reinforced with glass, kevlar and carbon fibres. The 4
fibre orientation was assumed to be quasi- isotropic. The 2
material was modelled as an orthotropic composite with 0
damage. The shell was modelled as a (0, 90)s lay-up with the 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (ms)
local material axes (a, b, c) deter- mined by the element nodal
Comp Exp
coordinates, where a and b are the in-plane directions and c is the
through-the-thickness plane. Table 2 reports the mechanical Figure 7 Force versus time for the simulation of expanded polystyrene
characteristics used for the shell. Reasonable values were foam liner based on the impact experiment of Yettram et al [8].
taken for the vari- ous values of Young’s modulus at room
temperature, and Eq. (2) was used to estimate the same 7
parameters at differ- ent temperatures. 6
Nominal yield stres

The characterisation of the mechanical properties of the foam 5

room temp.
(MPa)

material is of critical importance because of its role in absorbing 4

3
the impact energy. The foam and the head cup are made of EPS
2
material and have a density of 60 kg/m3. These were modelled
1
using a crushable foam material. This material requires a 0.5
0
compaction curve of volumetric strain against stress to define its 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
mechanical properties. An inverse matching technique using a Volumetric strain
finite element model based on the impact experiments of
Yettram et al. [8] was developed. The foam material constants Figure 8 Stress versus volumetric strain at the room temperature for the
foam.
used within this finite element model were then iteratively
altered until a match was observed with the load cell response
shown in the work of Yettram et al. Figures 6 and 7 show the Figure 8 shows the corresponding stress versus volu- metric strain
results for the simulation of EPS foam liner based on the curves used to reproduce the tests at room temperature.
impact experiments of Yettram et al.
 5 6

Nominal yield stress

Nominal yield stress

5
4
(MPa) 20C 4
+50C

(MPa)
3
3
2 2
1 1

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Volumetric strain Volumetric strain
(a) (b)
◦ ◦
Figure 9 Stress versus volumetric strain at (a) −20 C and (b) +50 C temperatures for the foam.

Figure 10 Helmet–head form impact configurations: flat and kerbstone anvils.

Moreover, since polymers behaviour is very sensitive to The different components of the model were linked us- ing contact
changes in temperature, the constitutive behaviour at 50◦C algorithms available in LS-DYNA. A ‘tiebreak’ interface condition
and+ − 20◦C was investigated for the foam material. was used to simulate the contact be- tween the shell and the foam so
Generally, polymeric foams become stiffer, tougher and more that the motion was re- stricted before onset of failure. Because of the
brittle when the temperature decreases; two separate curves were large dif- ference in the elastic bulk modulus of shell and foam, the soft
generated for the two conditioning tempera- tures. Figures constraint formulation, which is based on the nodal mass and the
9(a) and (b) show these curves−for global time step size, was used to define the interface stiffness.
+ 20 C and 50◦C, respectively. The isotropic
◦
The LS-DYNA finite element system is based on ex- plicit time
foam model used is assumed to crush one-dimensionally, the integration procedure to advance in time. A Lagrangian formulation
unloading path to be fully elastic and the Poisson’s ratio is zero is used, and the equations of mo- tion for a continuum in time are
[13]. The ten- sile response follows an elastic–perfectly plastic solved by the central difference method. To assure stability, the time
behaviour, with a defined tension cut-off value of 0.5 MPa. step for the whole model is computed from the element that re- quires
The me- chanical characteristics used for the foam are also the smallest time step, on the basis of its dimension, distortion and
reported material properties [13].
in Table 2.
The head form is made of magnesium/zirconium alloy, with
a mass of 6.1 kg and is simulated using a rigid material. This
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
assumption is made because the deformation of the head form
during an impact is negligible with respect to that of the The helmet model described was used in the simulation of the impact
helmet components. drop test required by the ECE Regulation
The chinstrap is modelled using discrete springs that 22.05. The helmet model was impacted against the flat and kerbstone
provide the relative stiffness between the head form and the anvils, as shown in Figure 10, with an initial
helmet. The springs have a non-linear elastic behaviour. This
behaviour was described using a force versus displace- ment
curve that was obtained from simple experimental tests.
 50 50
40 40

acc (g)/cost
acc (g)/cost

30 30
20
20
10
10
0
0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
0 0.01
t time (s)
0
.005 i 0.015
m
e

(
s
)
Exp Comp constitutive be- haviour of the shell. Moreover, the simple technique
used to model the chinstrap can be enhanced and the correlation
Figure 11 Acceleration versus time of the head form for impact improved.
point P: flat anvil and temperature conditioning of
Figure 13 Acceleration versus time of the head form for impact point R: flat
50◦C.
+ Comparison between numerical and experimental results.
anvil and temperature conditioning of
+ 50◦C. Comparison between numerical and experimental results.
50
50
40
acc (g)/cost

40

acc (g)/cost
30
30
20
20
10
10
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
0.012 0.014
time (s)
time (s)
Exp Comp
Exp Comp

Figure 12 Acceleration versus time of the head form for impact Figure 14 Acceleration versus time of the head form for impact point
point B: flat anvil and temperature conditioning of R: kerbstone anvil and temperature conditioning of 20◦C.
20◦C.
− Comparison between numerical and experimental results. − numerical and experimental results.
Comparison between

velocity of 7.5 m/s at different impact points in accordance with
the ECE regulation. The HIC and the acceleration of the centre
of gravity of the head form were computed and compared
with experimental data. In particular, the simulation of the first
impact test, point P, was used to slightly adjust the
parameteric values.
Figures 11 to 14 show the acceleration time history of the
centre of mass of the head form for both experimental and
numerical results for different cases of impact with a flat or a
kerbstone anvil.
Table 3 shows the comparison between the experimental and
numerical results for the accelerations at the centre of gravity of
the head form and the HIC values for impact with flat and
kerbstone anvils, respectively. [For confidentiality, the numerical
and experimental values of the accelerations have been
modified by a constant factor ‘cost’.]
A good agreement was obtained between experimen- tal
and numerical values. For the simulation against the flat anvil,
the peak accelerations were very similar in all cases except
one, the simulation of the impact at point X, for which the
peak acceleration was low compared with the experimental
value. The agreement is slightly worse for impacts with the
kerbstone anvil, but overall, it is very satisfying. We believe
that possible differences can be attributed to the ‘best’ estimate
made when defin- ing the response for the foam and the
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Impacts of motorcycle helmets were simulated using the LS-DYNA
finite element code in order to demonstrate its applicability to the
virtual testing of motorcycle helmet within the design process.
The simulations produce good agreement with experi- mental data,
indicating that different types of impact can be simulated in a
conceptually simple way with this proposed approach.
It may be possible to simulate the actual ‘real’ accident scenarios if
the properties of the shell and foam liner are accurately known, i.e. if
standard high-strain tests are per- formed on all helmet materials. The
head form used was based on the standard regulation requirement, and
does not represent the ‘real’ human head. In reality, the head is
compliant and would absorb energy during the impact. Detailed finite
element models of the human head can provide a powerful tool to
investigate methods of pre- venting injury by examining
accelerations, forces and stress and strain in the skull, brain and
surrounding tissues.
In this work, the initial step towards such a design pro- cess is
presented; a realistic modelling of the helmet re- sponse has been
accomplished. The approach can allow an improvement in the quality of
the experimental test and a reduction in the
 the potential to improve manufacturing processes that can be
difficult to control, especially with inherent variabilities within
composite material, which could affect the helmet response.
REFERENCES
1. M Richter, D Otte, U Lehmann, B Chinn, E Schuller, D Doyle, K
Sturrock and C Krettek, ‘Head injury mechanisms in helmet-protected
motorcyclists: prospective multicenter study’, J Trauma, 2001 51
949–958.
2. S Sarkar, C Peek and J F Kraus, ‘Fatal injuries in
motorcycle riders according to helmet use’, J Trauma, 1995 38 242–245.
3. Greg “Doc”, ‘Head Injury With Helmet Use’, Vol. 202, The
Motorcycle Riders Foundation, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 546–983.
4. C H Chang, L T Chang, G L Chang, S C Huang and C H Wang,
‘Head injury in facial impact – a finite element analysis of helmet chin bar
performance’, J Biomech Eng, 2000 122 640–646.
5. F M Shuaeib, A M S Hamouda, R S Radin Umar, M M Hamdan and M
S J Hashmi, ‘Motorcycle helmet; part I: biomechanics and computational
issues’, J Mater Process Technol, 2002 123 406–421.
6. A Gilchrist and N J Mills, ‘Modelling of the impact response of
motorcycle helmets’, Int J Impact Eng, 1994 15 201–218.
7. R Willinger, D Baumgartner and T Guimberteau, ‘Dynamic characterization of
motorcycle helmets: modelling and coupling with the human head’, J Sound Vib,
2000 235 (4) 611–625.
8. A L Yettram, N P M Godfrey and B P Chinn, ‘Materials for motorcycle crash
helmets – a finite element parametric study’, Plast Rubber Compos Process Appl,
1994 22 215–221.
9. R Willinger, B M Diaw, D Baumgartner and B Chinn, ‘Full face protective helmet
modelling and coupling with a human head model’, Int J Crashworthiness, 2002
7 2.
10. V Kostopoulos, Y P Markopoulos, G Giannopoulos and D E Vlachos, ‘Finite
element analysis of impact damage response of composite motorcycle safety
helmets’, Composites, 2002 33B 99–107.
11. F M Shuaeib, A M S Hamouda, M M Hamdan, R S Radin Umar and M S J
Hashmi, ‘Motorcycle helmet; part III: manufacturing issues’, J Mater Process
Technol, 2002 123 422–431.
12. ‘ECE Regulation 22.05. Uniform provisions concerning the approval of protective
helmets and of their visors for drivers and passengers of motorcycles and
mopeds’, Geneva,
1995.
13. J O Hallquist, ‘LS-DYNA 970 User’s Manual’, Livermore Software
Technology Corporation, Livermore, CA, USA, 2000.
14. J W Weeton, D M Peters and K L Thomas, ‘Engineers’ Guide to Composite
Materials’, American Society for Metals, Metals Park, OH, USA, 198