See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223468268

Finite element analysis of impact damage response of composite motorcycle

safety helmets

Article  in  Composites Part B Engineering · March 2002

DOI: 10.1016/S1359-8368(01)00066-X

CITATIONS READS

61 986

4 authors:

Vassilis Kostopoulos Yiannis P Markopoulos

University of Patras University of Patras
295 PUBLICATIONS   2,939 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   263 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Georgios Giannopoulos Dimitris E Vlachos

European Commission University of Patras
65 PUBLICATIONS   421 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   147 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

IMPROVER project View project

ESA Fly Your Thesis! 2017 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yiannis P Markopoulos on 09 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107
www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Finite element analysis of impact damage response of composite

motorcycle safety helmets
V. Kostopoulos a,*, Y.P. Markopoulos a, G. Giannopoulos a, D.E. Vlachos b
a
Applied Mechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics, University of Patras, University Campus, 26500 Patras, Greece
b
Institute of Chemical Engineering and High Temperature Chemical Processes/FORTH, Patras University Campus, GR 26500 Patras, Greece
Received 19 February 2001; revised 30 November 2001; accepted 4 December 2001

Abstract
The energy absorption during impact provided by a motorcycle safety helmet is always of critical importance in order to protect the rider
against head injury during an accident. In the present study, a parametric analysis has been performed in order to investigate the effect of the
composite shell stiffness and the damage development during impact, on the dynamic response of a composite motorcycle safety helmet. This
kind of parametric analysis may be used as a tool during helmet design for minimising testing needs.
The LS-DYNA3D explicit hydrodynamic ®nite element code was used to analyse a detailed model of the helmet-headform system
(composite shell/foam liner/metallic headform) and to simulate its dynamic response during impact. A signi®cant part of the work was
focused on the modelling of the mechanical behaviour of the composite materials, including damage and delamination development. The
dynamic response of the different helmet-headform systems was judged in terms of the maximum acceleration monitored at the centre of
gravity of the headform and the maximum value of head injury criterion.
It was shown that composite shell systems exhibiting lower shear performance provide additional energy absorbing mechanisms and result
to better crashworthiness helmet behaviour. q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Composite helmet

1. Introduction signi®cant number of failure modes and therefore the ability

The impact energy absorption provided by a motorcycle
safety helmet is always of critical importance to the survival
of the motorcyclist during an accident. A well-designed
helmet should be able to absorb as much energy as possible
and to diffuse it to the whole helmet if possible. In that sense
the development of local±global damage network mini-
mises the peak acceleration and prevents the generation of
excessive stress and strain pro®les into the brain tissue of the
motorcyclist. According to the presently available technol-
ogy, composite laminated helmet shell structures are consid-
ered to better ful®l the earlier requirements compared to the
extensively used thermoplastic shells.
In this direction polyester resin is commonly used as
matrix material reinforced by carbon, Kevlar, glass and/or
Dynema ®bres. The key feature of composite materials that
makes them ideal for the production of safety helmets is the
ability to sustain extensive damage without compromising
the integrity of the structure. Composite materials exhibit a
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 130-61-997-234; fax: 130-61-992-644.
E-mail address: kostopoulos@mech.upatras.gr (V. Kostopoulos).
1359-8368/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1359-836 8(01)00066-X
to absorb larger amounts of energy than conventional
thermoplastic isotropic materials. In addition, they offer
considerably higher speci®c stiffness and strength compared
to pure thermoplastic resins. In the present work a standard
motorcycle safety helmet consisting of a composite shell of
typical geometry and a polystyrene liner was examined.
Different combinations of reinforcing materials were used
providing different energy absorption characteristics.
The expanded polystyrene (EPS), which was used for the
liner part of the helmet, is also of crucial importance. The
EPS, through its ability to develop permanent deformation,
absorbs the energy shock during the impact of the helmet,
providing the required protection to the motorcyclist. The
mechanical properties of EPS as well as its density and
compaction rate vary signi®cantly regarding the production
procedure and the additives used. The selection of EPS
properties was based on previous studies, both numerical
and experimental, on polycarbonate helmets.
As it can be found in the literature, several studies on the
performance of motorcycle helmets have been carried out.
Most of them are experimental surveys. Many studies have
evaluated the impact performance of motorcycle helmets
100 V. Kostopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107
Fig. 1. The shell±liner±headform±anvil ®nite element model.
under direct impact conditions. Constant rate compression
and drop impact tests have been used to investigate how the
different helmet components contribute to the performance
of the helmet. Among others, Chandler et al. [1] and
Denning and Mills [2] found that maximum energy absorp-
tion may be achieved without using the shell part at all,
something that is quite impossible since the shell has the
additional `mission' of offering the necessary stiffness
performance characteristics. It was also found that the
correct ®tting of the headform into the safety helmet affects
signi®cantly the performance of the helmet. Gale and Mills
[3], Mills and Gilchrist [4] and Gilchrist et al. [5,6]
succeeded in monitoring experimentally the deformation
of the shell, either PC or composite, and correlating this
deformation to the overall performance of the helmet.
They ®rst discussed some experimental problems that may
lead to controversial results. Among others, the possible
compression of the inner liner surface by the headform
and the fact that the standard used EPS liners do not offer
the optimum ®lling of the available space inside the helmet
shell are the most important. However, all the experimental
studies performed agree that the combined dynamic
response of the shell and the liner part characterises com-
pletely the impact performance of the helmet.
Additional works focused on the dynamic response of the
helmets based on the analytical and/or numerical simulation
of the direct impact of the helmet against test anvils can also
be found in the literature.
Gilchrist and Mills [7] used an 1D analytical model to
examine the dynamic response of helmets, while Brands et
al. [8] offered a 3D helmet model for the numerical simula-
tion of head injury. Scott [9] provides a dynamic FE simula-
tion of impact behaviour of motorcycle helmets and
Yettram et al. [10] performed an FE parametric study of
the impact response of the helmets. They concluded that
the stiffness of the shell has a major effect on the helmet-
headform impact response and they used the head injury
criterion (HIC) for judging the helmet's protective perfor-
mance. The greatest drawback of this work was the limited
accuracy of the numerical results, due to the coarse mesh
used. Their model was quite stiff, giving rise to high HIC
values. However, it must be stressed that this work was a
good ®rst approach to the crashworthiness performance of
motorcyclist helmets.
Since the interest for improving impact performance of
motorcycle helmets is high and the problem is far from
solved, in 1998 Lin and Fan [11] presented a new 3D FE
simulation model of the impact response of motorcycle
helmets.
Recently Chang et al. [12] discussed analytically, using
FE simulation, the standard test methods and designs of the
chin bar of the helmet against head injuries and concluded
that denser energy absorbing liner accompanied by a less
stiff shell must be used in the chin bar design in order to
provide better protection against facial and head injuries.
In the present study the analysis of the impact response of
a composite helmet using impact energy of 150 J was
performed. The modelling considers impacts directly onto
the crown of the helmet, although it is not the most common
one. However, this kind of impact tests is suggested by the
standards.
According to a number of researchers, who study the
impact sites during motorcycle crashes, the impacts are
oblique to the helmet surface and the areas commonly hit
are on the front and sides of the helmet. Due to that Gilchrist
and Mills proposed very recently a new oblique impact test
for motorcycle helmets [13].
The impact behaviour of the helmet and the study of the
 V. Kostopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107
dynamic response of the helmet-headform system were
simulated according to the Snell M95 testing protocol
[14]. However, the latest introduced European regulation
for the crashworthiness performance of motorcycle safety
helmets, EN ECE 22-05 [15], requires peak acceleration
limit 275g and peak HIC of 2400. It seems to be more strict
compared to other test protocols such as Snell M95,
FMV55 218 [16] and BS 6658 [17]. The hemispherical
test anvil was chosen due to the fact it induces a local
interaction between the shell and liner, thus it provides a
better indication of the energy absorption capability of the
safety helmet. As stated by Gale and Mills [3], the maxi-
mum values of forces imparted to the headform are greater
for the hemispherical anvil. Furthermore, the deformation
of the liner is more extensive for impacts against a hemi-
spherical test anvil.
The `dynamic' coupling between the shell and the liner
depends upon the proper choice of their properties that may
enhance signi®cantly the protective performance of the
helmet. During the development of an optimised helmet
design a `trial and error' material selection procedure can
be conducted using an explicit dynamic FE code as LS-
DYNA without performing expensive drop test experi-
ments. The present work intends to provide general guide-
lines for the design of a composite helmet investigating the
effect of the different reinforcements on the dynamic
response of the helmet-headform system.
2. Model description
2.1. Geometry
The FEM model consists of four parts (Fig. 1).
(i) The shell of the helmet, (ii) the foam liner, (iii) the
headform and (iv) the hemispherical test anvil.
(i) The helmet model used in the present work was
constructed from a set of data points taken by using a
3D digitiser connected to a CAD application to acquire
the contour points from a prototype helmet constructed in
the laboratory. Then the model was exported in a pre-
processor application, where the ®nite element model
was developed. `The helmet's shell was modelled with
a set of 5260 solid elements. The shell consists of two
parts representing two layers of the composite structure.
Each layer has a thickness of 1 mm, which results to a
total shell thickness of 2 mm, a typical shell thickness for
a number of commercially available composite helmets
(FM helmets, Arai etc.).
(ii) The foam liner was modelled using a set of 8500 solid
elements. A typical liner thickness is about 30±40 mm, so
a value of 35 mm was adopted in the present work.
(iii) The aluminium headform was modelled using a set of
760 non-deformable (rigid) solid elements. The same
geometric modelling procedure described earlier for the
101
helmet shell was followed for the headform too, achiev-
ing a mass of 5.5 kg (Standard Large ISO headform).
(iv) The test anvil was modelled as a hemispherical punch
using 400 solid elements.
2.2. Boundary conditions-loading
An initial velocity of 6.84 m/s was given to the helmet-
headform system towards the anvil. The value of the velo-
city chosen, was based on the mass of the system (6.4 kg) in
such a way that it corresponded to an impact energy of
150 J. Different types of interface contact conditions were
introduced in the FEM model in order to achieve more
realistic behaviour of the model.
The delamination mechanism was simulated using a tie-
break interface condition between the adjacent layers of the
composite shell structure. In the tie-break interface algo-
rithm, two nodes of the model are tied together until the
interaction stresses between the two nodes satis®es the
following quadratic delamination conditions, Hallquist
[18,19]
!
s z2 s xz2 1 s yz
1 $1 …1†
S2n S2s
where s z is the out of plane normal stress, s yz and s xz are the
inter-laminar shear stress. Sn is the out of plane normal
strength and Ss is the inter-laminar shear strength.
The value of s z in Eq. (1) is non-zero for tensile values
only. When the tied connection is broken, the nodes
connected by the tied interface are released accordingly.
However, contact interface will still be maintained between
the two nodes, which means that compressive interaction
forces may be established between the nodes but not tensile
forces. From the time and the position of tie-break interface
failure one can predict the initiation, propagation, size and
orientation of the delamination during impact.
In addition, one may examine how much the out of plane
tensile stresses and the inter-laminar shear stress contribute
to the failure of a tie-break interface. Note that the tie-break
interface model is similar to the delamination failure cri-
terion as described in Chang and Springer [20]. Since in the
out of plane direction, the only load carrying mechanism is
the polyester matrix, the values of failure stresses used
correspond to polyester strength properties. Friction in the
delaminated area was not considered in the analysis.
The boundary condition between the shell and the liner
was introduced in the model assuming a sliding interface
with friction. A friction coef®cient of 0.5 was assumed.
Sliding interface with friction coef®cient equal to 0.3 was
also assumed between the liner and the headform.
In the present analysis no `comfort' fabric was assumed
inside the helmet since the major aim of the present work is
to examine the models of failure of the reinforcing layers of
the helmet shell.
102 V. Kostopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107

Table 1
Mechanical properties of woven fabric/glass mat reinforced composites and liner materials

Outer layer Inner layer Liner

Mechanical properties Carbon fabric Glass fabric Kevlar fabric Glass mat Polystyrene
reinforced polyester reinforced polyester reinforced polyester reinforced polyester

Density (kg/m 3) 1800 2000 1650 2000 50

E1 (GPa) 61.3 19.7 32.4 ± ±
E2 (GPa) 61.3 19.7 32.4 ± ±
E3 (GPa) 10 9.5 9.5 ± ±
v12 0.0313 0.1 0.0484 ± ±
v13 0.4 0.25 0.3 ± ±
v23 0.4 0.25 0.3 ± ±
G12 (GPa) 2.77 3.1 1.8 ± ±
G13 (GPa) 2 2.5 1.35 ± ±
G23 (GPa) 2 2.5 1.35 ± ±
E (GPa) ± ± ± 8 0.023
v ± ± ± 0.28 ±
Plastic tangent modulus (GPa) ± ± ± 4 See Fig. 2
Yield stress (MPa) ± ± ± 80
Remarks Composite damage model Kinematic hardening Volumetric crushing

2.3. Materials
It is commonly accepted that composite helmet shells can
be produced using woven, knitted and mat ®bre forms of
reinforcements. Unidirectional reinforcements cannot be
properly placed into the helmet's mould due to high curva-
tures they must follow. Since most FE codes do not have
composite material models that correspond to woven
fabrics, a homogenisation procedure is necessary in order
to implement realistic material properties into the FE model.
The composite shell was chosen to consist of two layers;
an outer one made of a woven fabric reinforcement either of
carbon, glass or Kevlar and an inner one made of continuous
strand glass mat. The matrix material was chosen to be a
polyester resin for both the inner and the outer layer. This
con®guration was selected because it can promote delami-
nation due to the high stiffness mismatch between the layers.
The glass mat polyester layer was modelled as an isotropic
elastoplastic material with kinematic hardening. This
assumption is generally accepted, since the mat reinforce-
ment has a random ®bre orientation.
The woven ply was modelled as an orthotropic material
with damage. In this material model the Chang and Chang
[21] failure criterion was used to calculate damage initiation
and propagation. Three basic-dominant failure modes are
promoted by the introduction of the composite material
model, which are: ®bre failure under tension, matrix failure
under tension and matrix failure under compression (matrix
crushing). The properties of the woven fabric composite
layer used in the present analysis were calculated using
the ®bre undulation model of Chou and Ko [22], based on
the unidirectional ®bre tow properties. Analytical presenta-
tion of all the material properties used in the current work is
given in Table 1. The failure stresses, which correspond to
the different failure modes and the different materials used
in this study, were taken from laboratory tests performed in
house and are presented in Table 2. Three different cases of
motorcycle helmets, which correspond to different material
combinations for the outer shell, were investigated in order
to study the damage promoted by the various materials and
how it affects the overall performance of the helmet:
Case 1. Twill weave carbon/continuous strand mat
reinforced polyester

Table 2
Strength properties of woven fabric reinforced polyester used for the outer shell

Strengths (MPa) Carbon fabric Glass fabric Kevlar reinforced

reinforced polyester reinforced polyester polyester

In-plane Longitudinal tensile (Sx) 500 300 400

Transverse tensile (Sy) 500 300 400
Transverse compressive (Sy 0 ) 300 200 200
Shear (Sxy) 100 130 50

Out of plane Normal tensile (polyester) 50 50 50

Transverse shear (Syz) 80 100 80
Transverse shear (Sxz) 80 100 80
 V. Kostopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107
Fig. 2. Foam stress±strain curve obtained by experiment.
Case 2. Plain weave glass/continuous strand mat
reinforced polyester
Case 3. Twill weave Kevlar/continuous strand mat
reinforced polyester
For convenience, in the next part of the analysis Case 1
will be referred as carbon-®bre shell, Case 2 as glass-®bre
shell and Case 3 as Kevlar-®bre shell.
In addition, the material model of the foam liner, which
behaves non-linearly, needs speci®c attention. The material
constitutive relation model was implemented in LS-DYNA.
The main feature of this model is the simulation of the foam
crushing through the volumetric deformation of the
material, Hallquist [18]. Thus, the stress vs. volumetric
strain function (Fig. 2), for the polystyrene material was
introduced. Also a tension cut-off of 0.5 MPa was used
having the volumetric crushing option on, using a bulk
modulus of 23 MPa. The density of the polystyrene material
was 50 kg/m 3.
The way the foam material is treated in the analysis is
based on two basic assumptions
² The foam material is isotropic
² The six stress components are uncoupled, namely, an
x-component of strain only generates resistance in the
local x-direction with no coupling in the local y- and
z-directions.
Therefore, the trial stress components in (n 1 1)th itera-
tion can be expressed as
s n11 ˆ s n 1 ED1 tn11 ˆ tn 1 GDg …2†
where s are the normal stress components t are the shear
stress components, E and G are the Young's and the shear
103
moduli of the isotropic foam material, respectively, and D1 ,
Dg are increments of normal and shear strains, respectively.
After the six stress components are calculated from
Eq. (2), they are examined with respect to the yield criteria
based on input load curves, respectively. If any stress
component exceeds the loading stress, a modi®cation will
be made to ensure that they do not exceed the permissible
values.
Two load curves prescribed as the yield stress vs.
volumetric strain are required when using isotropic foam
material model, one for compression and the other for
shear stress. Due to dif®culties in conducting shear tests
on foam materials the uniaxial compression test data are
often used to derive the shear stress±strain curve in many
engineering applications. Based on the assumption of
uncoupled stress components, which implies that Poisson's
ratio n ˆ 0; then the shear modulus G is
G ˆ E=2
and the shear stress±strain curve is obtained by taking
t ˆ s=2
This is in general the procedure used in literature and can be
found for example in Chen et al. [23], while a different
model for the shear stress±strain curve has been proposed
by Srivastava et al. [24], which does not show in most cases
any signi®cant difference in numerical results.
An exhaustive discussion on the problem of the models
used for the foam material into the different analysis codes
can be found in the work of Chou [25].
LS-DYNA 3D uses linearly interpolated elastic moduli
instead of the interpolated constants in Eq. (2), and this
allows the use of two independent moduli to simulate the
loading and unloading responses [18].
104 V. Kostopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107
Fig. 3. Acceleration in g's for 150 J impact energy for the three different,
helmet con®gurations.
2.4. Numerical simulation procedure
During the present analysis, special attention was given to
the Snell Memorial Foundation directives. As stated in the
introduction all helmets are subjected to 150 J impact tests.
The tests are repeated so that each helmet is impacted on at
least four different sites of its surface against either a ¯at or a
hemispherical test anvil. For all head sizes, Snell requires
that the peak acceleration should not exceed 300g's. Thus,
the peak acceleration is one of the primary design demands.
In the author's opinion, another metric, which acts comple-
mentary to the peak acceleration, is the duration of the
impact. Finally, a last metric that provides a global (in
Fig. 4. Strain energy vs. time for the three different helmet con®gurations.
time) measure of the impact intensity is the HIC which
has been mainly used for the evaluation of the car crash
performance in automotive industry, Newman [26]. Thus,
the latter was chosen and calculated for all the helmet cases
analysed. HIC is given by Eq. (3):
 2:5
1 Z t2
HIC ˆ a…t†dt …t1 2 t2 † …3†
t 1 2 t 2 t1
where a(t) is the acceleration pro®le (in g's) and t1, t2 de®ne
the time interval of interest for which HIC is calculated
during the impact-contact problem. For the needs of the
present analysis the time interval (t1 2 t2) was chosen to
be 15 ms and the HIC was marked as HIC15 [27]. The
HIC15 is the impact intensity measure that is currently
used, after long discussion in the automotive industry, and
has replaced the former HIC30. Within the frame of the
present analysis every HIC value calculated for time inter-
val greater than 13 ms concluded to the same results, since
the maximum duration of the helmet-head impact response
does not exceed 13 ms. Thus, the evaluation of the perfor-
mance, the effectiveness of the helmet shell and the impact
response of the helmet-headform system for the different
material combinations was made by using the peak accel-
eration value at the mass centre of the system, the duration
of the impact phenomenon and the HIC15.
3. Results and discussion
The helmet drop tests simulated in our analysis are a
fairly complicated problem. In order to clarify the
differences between the responses obtained for the three
 V. Kostopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107
Fig. 5. Distribution of impact energy (of total 150 J).
different cases of helmet shell analysed, acceleration,
energy and deformation data were recorded and processed.
The resultant acceleration pro®les vs. time are plotted in
Fig. 3. It is evident that carbon-®bre shell and glass-®bre
shell have very similar response, in both the duration of
impact (12 and 11.5 ms, respectively) and the maximum
acceleration (224g and 226g, respectively). Kevlar-®bre
shell, exhibits longer impact duration and lower peak
acceleration values (13.7 ms and 195g). The HIC values
calculated from the different cases analysed are 2004 for
carbon-®bre shell, 2008 for glass-®bre shell and 1700 for
Kevlar-®bre shell.
In order to obtain a better insight of the results and to
attribute the contribution of each part of the helmet system
to the overall impact performance, the energy component
introduced in each part of the helmet was plotted against
time in Fig. 4 for the three different cases of material combi-
nation. More precisely, Fig. 4 contains three sub-plots refer-
ring to the woven ply, the foam liner and the glass mat ply,
respectively. As it is shown the results that correspond to
carbon-®bre shell and glass-®bre shell are almost identical
in all sub-plots. However, differences can be easily identi-
®ed in all the sub-plots, which correspond to Kevlar-®bre
shell. A more detailed examination of the sub-plots of Fig. 4
reveals that the energy introduced in the woven fabric ply of
the carbon-®bre shell is slightly higher compared to the
results provided by glass-®bre shell. After the end of the
Fig. 6. Delamination damage predicted by FE analysis.
105
impact-contact phase the woven carbon-®bre layer keeps a
higher part of the introduced energy compared to the woven
glass fabric layer. This can be attributed to ply failure.
Kevlar-®bre shell exhibits much higher absorbed energy
both in the woven ply and the foam liner, but lower absorbed
energy in the glass mat ply. In general, the energy absorp-
tion is signi®cantly higher in Kevlar-®bre shell and this
re¯ects to the dynamic response of the system. The distribu-
tion of the total impact energy to the different failure modes
and elastic (rebound) energy is clearly demonstrated in
Fig. 5, for the three different cases of material con®guration.
As it is shown, the delamination mechanism has absorbed a
signi®cant amount of energy. The delaminated areas on the
helmet shell for each case are presented in Fig. 6. Delami-
nation and woven ply damage are more pronounced energy
absorption mechanisms in Kevlar-®bre shell, followed by
carbon-®bre shell and glass-®bre shell. Fig. 7 presents the
evaluation of the impact phenomenon in the case of carbon-
®bre shell for different time intervals.
These differences in the impact performance of the
helmet for the three examined cases of material combination
can be attributed to the values of shear strength and G12
shear modulus of the woven plies used. In-plane moduli
of elasticity and normal strength seem not to have any
signi®cant direct effect on the obtained results, since the
woven Kevlar case con®guration has an intermediate
value for both modulus of elasticity (Table 1) and strength
106 V. Kostopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107
Fig. 7. Deformation of the impacted shell±liner±headform system in 1.5, 4.5, 7.5 and 13.5 ms in the case of carbon-®bre shell.
compared to carbon and glass, but still it performed better.
Carbon and glass have comparable values of G12 and shear
strength and as a result their dynamic response was almost
identical. The effect of shear strength in the failure modes of
the composite helmet is a very important parameter, since
the deformation of the shell in the vicinity of the impact area
is dominated by shear stress development.
It must be stressed that the main energy absorption
mechanism is the permanent deformation of the foam
liner, since it absorbs a 30±50% of the total energy imparted
to the helmet system. The shell's primary role is to provide
integrity against multiple impacts and this makes it irre-
placeable in a helmet design. However, it has a negative
contribution to the overall dynamic performance of the
helmet due to its contribution to stiffness. Composite shells,
although they have the ability to absorb energy through
failure, are very stiff. It is obvious that composite shells
contribute signi®cantly to the protective performance of
the helmet at higher impact energy levels (.300 J), where
the ®bre fracture damage mode is active and absorbs part of
the impact energy. At low energy impacts, a polycarbonate
helmet might be more effective. The results of a previous
study on polycarbonate helmets have revealed that lower
shell stiffness results to better protective characteristics
[28].
In order to overcome the problems of high stiffness of the
composite shells and to promote the energy absorption capa-
city of the helmet, a layered structure that consists of thin
composite plies adjacent to foam layers may be an ideal
con®guration. Then, due to the low thickness of the compo-
site plies, they will fail at the early stages of impact thus
offering a signi®cant contribution to energy absorption with
no stiffness increase.
4. Conclusions
A comparative study on the effect of the different materi-
als combination of the outer composite shell on the impact
performance of composite helmets has been performed
 V. Kostopoulos et al. / Composites: Part B 33 (2002) 99±107
using FE simulation of drop tests. A basic shell structure
comprising of a woven fabric and a glass mat ply with three
different woven fabric reinforcement materials (carbon,
glass and Kevlar) were examined in the analysis. The
dynamic response of the helmet system was almost identical
in the case of carbon and glass woven fabric reinforcements.
The woven Kevlar con®guration responded much better and
this is attributed to its lower shear strength and stiffness that
resulted to a more extensive damage (matrix cracking and
delamination). The most signi®cant drawback in applying
composite shells for the manufacturing of safety helmets is
their high stiffness that leads under certain circumstances to
substantial accelerations. In contrast, their energy absorbing
capacity relies mainly to ®bre breakage that cannot be
achieved at low energy impacts. It is believed that at higher
energy impacts composite shells provide substantial protec-
tion to the rider due to the large amounts of impact energy
the helmet system absorbs until its ®nal failure.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the signi®cant
contribution of Dip. Eng. A. Raptopoulos at the early stages
of the present work.
References
[1] Chandler S, Gilchrist A, Mills NJ. Motorcycle helmet load
spreading performance for impacts into rigid and deformable objects,
IRCOBI Biomechanics of Impacts conference, Berlin, 1991, p. 249±
61.
[2] Denning A, Mills NJ. The deterioration of thermoplastic motorcycle
helmet shells after outdoor exposure. Plast Rubber Compos Process
Appl 1992:17.
[3] Gale A, Mills NJ. Effect of polystyrene foam liner density on motor-
cycle helmet shock absorption. Plast Rubber Process Appl
1985;5:101±8.
[4] Mills NJ, Gilchrist A. The effectiveness of foams in bicycle and
motorcycle helmets. Accident Anl Prev 1991;23:153±63.
[5] Gilchrist A, Mills NJ, Khan T. Survey of head, helmet and headform
sizes related to motorcycle helmet design. Ergonomics
1988;31:1395±412.
[6] Gilchrist A, Mills NJ, Rowland FJ. Mathematical modelling of the
effectiveness of helmets in head protection, IRCOBI Biomechanics of
Impacts conference, Bergisch Gladbach, 1988. p. 215±26.
[7] Gilchrist A, Mills NJ. Modelling of the impact response of motorcycle
helmets. Int J Impact Engng 1994;15:201±17.
[8] Brands DWA, Thunnissen JGM, Wismans JSHM. Modelling head
injury countermeasures: a 3D helmet model, AGARD Meeting on
View publication stats
107
Impact Head Injury, New Mexico; November 7±9 1996, AGARD
conference proceedings 597, 1997.
[9] Scott RS. A dynamic FE simulation of the impact of motorcycle
helmets. Crashworthiness, occupant protection and biomechanics in
transportation systems, AMD vol. 225. New York: ASME, 1997.
[10] Yettram AL, Godfrey NPL, Chinn BP. Materials for motorcycle crash
helmetsÐa ®nite element parametric study. Plast Rubber Process
Appl 1994;22:215±21.
[11] Lin DS, Fan CM. Development and application of a 3D ®nite element
model of impact motorcycle helmet, International Crashworthiness
Conference IJ CRASH '98, Dearborn, Michigan, USA, 1998.
[12] Chang C-H, Chang L-T, Chang G-L, Huang S-C, Wang C-H. Head
injury in facial impactÐa ®nite element analysis of helmet chin bar
performance. J Biomech Engng 2000;122:640±6.
[13] Halding P, Gilchrist A, Mills NJ. A new oblique impact test for
motorcycle helmets, International IIWPG/IRCOBI Conference, Isle
of Man, UK, October 2001.
[14] Snell Memorial Foundation M95, Standard for protective headgear
for use with motorcycles and other motorized vehicles, North High-
lands, CA, 1995.
[15] 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.
[16] FMVSS 218, Motorcycle helmets, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard, Washington, 1992.
[17] British Standard 6658. Protective helmets for vehicle users. London:
British Standard Institution, 1985.
[18] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA 940 users manual. Livermore: LSTC, 1998.
[19] Hallquist JO, Stillman DW, Lin TL. LS DYNA 3D, nonlinear
dynamic analysis of structures in three dimensions. Livermore:
LSTC, 1992.
[20] Chang FK, Springer GS. The strength of ®bre reinforced composite
bends. J Compos Mater 1986;20:30±40.
[21] Chang FK, Chang KY. A progressive damage model for laminated
composites containing stress concentrations. J Compos Mater
1987;21:834±55.
[22] Chou TW, Ko FK. Textile structural composites, Composite materials
series 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1989.
[23] Chen P, Bhimaraddi A, Saha NK. Comparison of different material
models in simulating compression and energy absorption of bumper
foam during low-speed impact. Crashworthiness and occupant protec-
tion in transportation systems 1996;AMD vol. 218:171±80.
[24] Srivastava S, Wu CC, Fraruque O. General modelling guidelines for
foam using, RADIOSS, International Report T 241-94-007, Ford
Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan, USA, 1994.
[25] Chou CC. Honeycomb material models for simulating responses of
foams, Fifth International LS-DYNA Users Conference, LSTC South-
®eld, Michigan, USA, 1998.
[26] Newman JA. Head injury criteria in automotive crash testing, Society
Automotive Engineers, SAE 700426, 1970.
[27] Mertz HJ, Prasad P, Irwin AL. Injury risk curves for children and
adults in front and rear collisions, Society Automotive Engineers,
SAE 973318, 1999.
[28] Markopoulos YP, Vlachos DE, Kostopoulos V. Impact response of a
polycarbonate motorcycle safety helmet, Third National Congress on
Computational Mechanics, Volos, Greece, 1999, p. 609±16.