Shannon G.

Kroeker
MEA Forensic Engineers & Scientists,
11-11151 Horseshoe Way,
Richmond, BC V7A 4S5, Canada
Stephanie J. Bonin
MEA Forensic Engineers & Scientists,
23281 Vista Grande Drive,
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Alyssa L. DeMarco
MEA Forensic Engineers & Scientists,
11-11151 Horseshoe Way,
Richmond, BC V7A 4S5, Canada
Craig A. Good
Collision Analysis,
43 Skyline Crescent NE,
Calgary, AB T2K 5X2, Canada;
Schulich School of Engineering,
University of Calgary,
2500 University Drive NW,
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
Gunter P. Siegmund1
MEA Forensic Engineers & Scientists,
11-11151 Horseshoe Way,
Richmond, BC V7A 4S5, Canada;
School of Kinesiology,
University of British Columbia,
210-6081 University Boulevard,
Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada
e-mail: gunter.siegmund@meaforensic.com
Age Does Not Affect the Material
Properties of Expanded
Polystyrene Liners in Field-Used
Bicycle Helmets
Bicycle helmet foam liners absorb energy during impacts. Our goal was to determine if
the impact attenuation properties of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam used in bicycle
helmets change with age. Foam cores were extracted from 63 used and unused bicycle
helmets from ten different models spanning an age range of 2–20 yrs. All cores were
impact tested at a bulk strain rate of 195 s1. Six dependent variables were determined
from the stress–strain curve derived from each impact (yield strain, yield stress, elastic
modulus, plateau slope, energy at 65% compression, and stress at 65% compression),
and a general linear model was used to assess the effect of age on each dependent vari-
able with density as a covariate. Age did not affect any of the dependent variables; how-
ever, greater foam density, which varied from 58 to 100 kg/m3, generated significant
increases in all of the dependent variables except for yield strain. Higher density foam
cores also exhibited lower strains at which densification began to occur, tended to stay
within the plateau region of the stress–strain curve, and were not compressed as much
compared with the lower density cores. Based on these data, the impact attenuation
properties of EPS foam in field-used bicycle helmets do not degrade with the age.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4032804]
Keywords: bicycle helmet, expanded polystyrene foam, impact, age, compression,
material properties

1 Introduction densification phase [8–10]. During the linear elastic phase, cell
walls bend or stretch and the stress increases at a near constant
Bicycle helmet foam liners absorb energy during impacts. They
rate with strain. In the plateau phase, the cell walls collapse and
also distribute the impact force over a larger area of the head and
stress in the foam remains relatively constant while the foam con-
reduce head accelerations compared to a bare head impact. While
tinues to compress. During the densification phase, opposing cell
new helmets offered for sale to the public are required to meet
walls come into contact and the stress rises quickly with relatively
minimum impact attenuation standards [1–3], there are no regula-
small increases in strain. The majority of the impact attenuation
tions governing their impact performance over time. Helmet man-
benefits provided by helmets is in the plateau region where the
ufacturers recommend replacing a helmet after an impact or if
stress, and hence the force applied to the head, remains relatively
there is visible damage (e.g., crushed or cracked liner, or a
constant while the foam collapses.
cracked outer shell), but some manufacturers also provide specific
The impact properties of closed cell foams have been exten-
recommendations in their product manuals to replace a helmet
sively studied, including the effects of strain rate and density. For
every 2–10 yrs regardless of impacts or visible damage (e.g.,
increasing strain rates, the yield stress increases, the elastic modu-
Bern—2 yrs; Giro, CCM, Lazer, Supercycle—3 yrs; Specialized,
lus increases, the plateau region becomes narrower, and the strain
Alpina—5 yrs; and Nutcase—10 yrs). The Snell Memorial Foun-
at which densification begins to occur decreases [10–13]. A simi-
dation also recommends that helmets be replaced after 5 yrs of
lar change in behavior occurs as density is increased [8,9,11,13].
use, or less if recommended by the manufacturer [4]. The scien-
The material properties of foam are also affected by high heat and
tific basis for this replacement period is unclear, and it remains
high humidity [5]. Understanding how a variety of conditions and
unknown if helmet impact performance changes with age.
material property changes affect the impact response of foam pro-
Foam liners in bicycle helmets are generally made of EPS, a
vides an opportunity to optimize the foam properties and improve
closed cell polymeric foam [5–7]. In compression, polymeric
the benefit provided by a helmet foam liner.
foams exhibit a typical behavior that can be described by three de-
When used in helmets, EPS foam liners are exposed to heat,
formation phases: a linear elastic phase, a plateau phase, and a
humidity, sweat, oxygen, ultraviolet (UV) light, and other factors
that can degrade their performance over time [14–16]. Degrada-
1
Corresponding author.
tion from one or more of these factors can decrease the yield stress
Manuscript received November 8, 2015; final manuscript received February 4, and yield strain, and increase the elastic modulus of polymeric
2016; published online March 3, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Barclay Morrison. foams [17]. Few studies have focused on the effect age has on the

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Copyright V

C 2016 by ASME APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 041005-1

Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Table 1 Summary of helmet make, model, size, certification (cert), and years of manufacture. Model is shown in parentheses fol-
lowing the make. Testing was performed in January 2014. Certification 1 5 CPSC, B90A, B90, ASTM 1447/2040/1952/1751, Snell
1984, and certification 2 5 AS/NZS, CE/EN, CSA. The bold/underlined “x” indicates old but unused helmets included in the study.

Year of manufacture

Make (models) Sizes Cert 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Traditional
Giro (Torrent, Venus) 1S, 4M 1 x x x x x
Bell (Adrenaline, Blade, 1S, 5M 1 x x x x x x
Belisima)
Oro, CCM, XTRAZ 3S, 2M, 1, 2 x x x x x x
(Ice, unknown) 1L
Bell (Avalanche, 4M, 1L 1, 2 x x x x x
Oasis Pro),
unknown (Tango II)
Bell Amigo 1XS, 4S 1 x x x x x
Kids Visor
LG (Oro, Terrible X, 4XS, 6S 1 x x x x x x x x x x
unknown)
LG (Terrible, unknown) 3XS, 3S 1 x x x x x x
Giro (Rodeo, ME2) 2XS, 5S 1 x x x x x x x
BMX
Bell (Barbie, Rumor, 2XS, 3S, 1 x x x x x x
Psycho, Headspace) 1M
Bell Faction 1S, 6M 1 x x x x x x x

Note: XS ¼ extra small, S ¼ small, M ¼ medium, L ¼ large, and LG ¼ Louis Garneau.

Fig. 1 Helmet types tested in this study (left to right: Traditional, Kids Visor, and BMX)

impact attenuation properties of EPS bicycle helmet foam liners.
Age is briefly mentioned in Ref. [9], where they reported that the
value of the elastic modulus “…is rarely known with precision for
polymer foams because it depends on the degree of polymer-chain
alignment, on chemical changes brought about by the foaming
agent and on the gradual ageing and oxidation of the polymer.”
Pearsall et al. [18,19] studied age effects directly and observed
increased peak headform accelerations in 10-yr-old hockey hel-
mets, but not in 6 - or 2-yr-old helmets; however, they tested
multi-impact helmets constructed of expanded polypropylene and
vinyl nitrile foam that is different from the EPS used for single-
impact bicycle helmets. Based on these limited data, it remains
unclear whether age affects the impact attenuation properties of
bicycle helmets.
The goal of this study was to determine if the impact attenua-
tion properties of EPS foam in bicycle helmets change with age.
Based on manufacturer recommendations that bicycle helmets be
replaced every 2–10 yrs, we hypothesized that the old helmet
foam would exhibit poorer impact attenuation properties com-
pared with new helmet foam.
2 Materials and Methods
Cylindrical foam cores (19 mm diameter  19 mm height) were
extracted from 63 new and used helmets drawn from a pool
of >1500 helmets donated by the public. Potential test helmets
were first selected from the donated pool of helmets using the
following criteria: (i) legible labels specifying their date of manu-
facture, (ii) no evidence of impact-related damage, and (iii) certi-
fied to a helmet standard. Helmets were then sorted into matched
sets, which were defined as helmets of essentially identical design
and construction, though of potentially different makes, models,
colors, and sizes. Only matched sets that contained 5 different
manufacturing years were selected for testing here. This selection
process resulted in 63 helmets from ten matched sets with helmets
manufactured between 1994 and 2012 (Table 1). Five matched
sets were traditional-style bike helmets, three matched sets were
kids helmets with built-in EPS visors, and two matched sets were
BMX-style helmets (not full-face) (Fig. 1). All helmet liners
were composed of EPS and no cores appeared to be made of dual-
density foam. Average polystyrene bead sizes were about
1.5–2 mm, which resulted in about 9–12 intact beads across the
diameter of each core sample (Fig. 2).
All helmets had been previously drop tested as part of a larger
study using a 5 kg trolley/headform mass onto a flat anvil at
both the left and right front regions, at 3.0 m/s on one side and at
6.2 m/s on the opposite side. Damage from these impact tests
typically included cracked shells and/or cracked/compressed foam
liners and was greatest near the location of impact. All foam cores
tested here were taken from the undamaged occipital region of the
helmets.
Core size and extraction location were limited by helmet design
and vent location. All foam cores from helmets within a matched
set were taken from the same location, but this location varied

041005-2 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Fig. 2 Exemplar foam cores before and after testing (from Giro
Torrent helmet)
between matched sets. Cores were extracted using a dowel/plug
cutter aligned approximately normal to the inside helmet liner sur-
face. Cores were then trimmed to a fixed 19 mm height by cutting
off both ends with a sharp knife. Foam density was determined by
dividing the core mass by the volume. Volume was calculated
using the average of three measurements each for diameter and
height. Mass was measured using a jeweller’s scale (MyWeigh
Gempro-250 Precision, Vancouver, BC) and ranged from 306 to
544 mg. Repeated mass measurements varied by no more than
2 mg.
Foam cores were stored for 24 hrs between 20 and 26  C prior
to testing. All tests were performed on a single day under condi-
tions of 20–23  C and at 32–35% relative humidity. The foam
cores were compressed at a bulk strain rate of 195 s1 (nominally
equivalent to the bulk strain rate during the 6.2 m/s helmet impact
tests) by a 1.26 kg aluminum impactor (32 mm  58 mm face)
dropped from about 749 mm above the platform (730 mm above
the top of the foam core) using a monorail/trolley system (Fig. 3).
The foam cores were attached using double-sided tape to a steel
platform (32 mm diameter) on a load cell (LC203-2 K, Omega
Engineering, Inc., Sunbury, OH). A uniaxial accelerometer was
attached to the impactor (7264B-2000 T, Endevco, San Juan
Capistrano, CA). The load cell and accelerometer were sampled
at 100 kHz and digitally low-pass filtered at 1650 Hz using a
fourth-order dual-pass Butterworth filter conforming to SAE J211
Channel Class 1000.
Impact onset was defined as the first digitized sample where the
force data were one standard deviation greater than the no-load
condition and remained above that level. Accelerometer data were
double integrated from initial contact to obtain compression data.
This method was validated against high-speed video acquired at
100,000 Hz, and the peak strain was found to be within
2.2 6 0.1% of the video-based strain measurements. Engineering
stress (r) and strain (e) were calculated according to the following
equations:
F DL
r¼ ; e¼ (1)
A Li
where F is the force, A is the initial contact area, Li is the initial
core height, and DL is the change in core height. All data were
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Fig. 3 Test equipment. The foam core rested on top of a plat-
form mounted on a load cell. The impactor was dropped from
749 mm above the platform onto the top of the foam core. An ac-
celerometer was attached to the impactor.
postprocessed in MATLAB (R2007a, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick,
MA) to calculate the following dependent variables: elastic modu-
lus (E), yield stress (ry), yield strain (ey), plateau slope (mp), and
the absorbed energy and stress at 65% compression (E65, r65).
The elastic modulus was determined from the slope of the
stress–strain curve between 2% and 5% compression. The slope
of the plateau was calculated using a least-squares-fit line between
15% and 65% compression. The point of intersection between the
lines through the elastic and the plateau regions was used to define
the yield stress and yield strain (see inset of Fig. 5). The energy at
65% compression was calculated by integrating the stress–strain
curve up to 65% compression.
A general linear model was used to assess the effect of age and
density on each of the dependent variables (Eq. (2)). The coeffi-
cients b00, b10, and b20 capture the intercept, density, and age
effects on the entire sample, and the coefficients b0j and b2j cap-
ture the deviations in the intercept and age effects from the entire
sample within each matched set (j). Analyses were performed in
SAS using PROC GLM (v9.3, Cary, NC) at a significance level of
0.05 (a)
yij ¼ b00 þ b10  densityij þ b20  ageij
X
N
þ ðb0j þ b2j  ageij Þ þ eij (2)
j¼1
3 Results
The pre-impact density of the foam cores ranged from 58 to
100 kg/m3. The Bell BMX-style helmets (e.g., Barbie, Rumor,
Psycho, and Headspace) had the lowest average density
(62.7 6 2.6 kg/m3), and the Giro traditional-style helmets (e.g.,
Torrent and Venus) had the highest average density
APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 041005-3
 Fig. 4 Exemplar data. The photographs show the sequence of foam compression at initial
contact, at maximum compression, and after impact to a foam core. Representative plots for
acceleration, force and crush versus time, and stress versus strain show that the foam cores
exhibit typical impact responses for EPS foam. Initial contact occurred at time 5 0 ms.

(90.7 6 10.2 kg/m3). The range in densities for the BMX helmets
was 58–82 kg/m3, for the kids visor helmets was 64–88 kg/m3,
and for the traditional helmets was 60–100 kg/m3.
The foam cores were compressed in about 6 ms with a rapid
increase in force and acceleration at maximum compression
(Fig. 4). The bulk strain rate at impact was 195.2 6 0.2 s1
(impact speed was 3.73 6 0.04 m/s). Maximum foam core com-
pression ranged from 73% to 96% of the initial height. All foam
cores exhibited the typical stress–strain behavior for foam (Fig. 5
and Table 2). No significant associations were observed between
helmet age and any of the dependent variables within matched
sets or among the whole population (Fig. 6 and Table 3). Age was
also not related to density; however, density had a significant
effect on all of the dependent variables (p < 0.001), except for
yield strain (p ¼ 0.29) (Fig. 7 and Table 3). When ranked by foam
density, the stress–strain curves revealed that the lower density
foam cores displayed higher degrees of densification and wider
plateaus (Fig. 8).
4 Discussion
Our goal was to determine if the impact attenuation properties
of bicycle helmet foam changed with age. Based on our tests of
foam cores extracted from ten matched sets of 63 helmets
between 2 and 20 yrs old, age does not affect the dynamic me-
chanical properties of the EPS foam liners used in bicycle hel-
mets. As a result, we reject our hypothesis that age affects the
impact attenuation properties of the EPS liners used in bicycle
helmets. Based solely on impact attenuation properties, we find
no support for replacing a bicycle helmet every 2 or more years
as suggested by some manufacturers. Despite these findings, we
recognize that other helmet components, i.e., straps, buckles,
shell, etc., also affect a helmet’s overall performance and we
did not test these components to assess how age affects their
performance. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that consumers
should not discard or avoid wearing an old helmet simply
because it is old.

041005-4 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Fig. 5 Stress versus strain plots for all 63 foam cores. The response consists of three phases:
elastic, plateau, and densification. Foam properties were calculated from the elastic (dashed
black line on inset) and plateau (solid black line on inset) regions of a foam core’s stress ver-
sus strain plot (thick gray line on inset).

Foam density had a large effect on the mechanical properties of we saw that higher density foams generated higher initial acceler-
the foam we tested and similar behavior with density has been ations but lower peak accelerations, whereas lower density foams
reported previously [8,9,11,13]. Increased density resulted in an generated slightly lower initial accelerations but much higher
increased elastic modulus, increased yield stress, and decreased peak accelerations (see thin gray lines in Fig. 9). This relationship
strain at the onset of densification. The range of our foam densities between density and acceleration highlights the danger of letting
and the mechanical properties we observed during our dynamic the foam reach densification and also suggests that helmet design-
tests were similar to those reported previously by others (Table 4), ers might be able to use foam density to tune a helmet’s response.
and therefore suggests that our findings are not likely an artifact For instance, using low-density foam could potentially minimize
of our sample or our sampling method. the peak head acceleration for impacts well below the level used
The density-related differences we saw in the foam’s mechani- in helmet certification standards at the price of potentially rapid
cal properties manifested as very different peak accelerations densification in more severe impacts. Alternatively, use of high-
during our tests. For the 9.03 6 0.18 J of energy we applied to density foam could potentially avoid densification in impacts
each foam core, higher density foams generated lower peak accel- above certification levels, but expose users to slightly higher peak
erations (see thick solid line at the top of Fig. 9). When we head accelerations in lower severity impacts. Helmet design, how-
extracted the instantaneous acceleration after specific increments ever, is complicated by foam thickness and foam area (e.g., vents
of absorbed energy (e.g., 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 J) during the impact, and coverage), which affect the amount of foam recruited and
thus the amount of energy absorbed during different kinds of
impacts.
We extracted and tested only one foam core sample from each
helmet and assumed that it reflected the overall density and
Table 2 Material properties of the foam core samples response of the helmet. To evaluate this assumption we extracted
ten cores from a Giro Rodeo helmet (included in our sample) and
Dependent variable Units Mean 6 SD 16 cores from a Supercycle helmet (not in our sample) and found
3 that foam density varied by 6 5.7 and 6 4.3 kg/m3, respectively
Density (p) kg/m 72.7 6 9.1
Elastic modulus (E) MPa 14.0 6 3.5 [26]. Based on this finding, the density obtained from a single
Yield stress (ry) MPa 0.8 6 0.2 sample may not accurately represent the density throughout the
Yield strain (ey) 0.08 6 0.01 entire helmet, and therefore, several samples from the same
Plateau slope (mp) MPa 1.7 6 0.3 helmet might better describe the overall response of a particular
At 65% compression helmet’s foam. Since here we measured the density of the sample
Energy absorbed (E65) J 4.3 6 0.9 we tested, we do not expect that this within-helmet variation in
Stress (r65) MPa 1.9 6 0.4 density would change our findings with respect to the absence of
age effects.

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 041005-5

Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Fig. 6 The variation in each of the six dependent variables with the year of manufacture. Helmet age was not significantly
associated with any of the dependent variables.

Table 3 Statistical results (p-values) from the general linear model for each material property’s relationship to density (coefficient
b10) and age for the entire population (coefficient b20) and within the matched sets (coefficient b2j). The p-values represent whether
the coefficient was significantly different from 0, i.e., no effect.

Dependent variable Density Age (population) Age (matched sets)

b10 b20 b2j

Elastic modulus E <0.0001 0.6800 0.1328–0.9532

Yield stress ry <0.0001 0.8474 0.1300–0.8340
Yield strain ey 0.2885 0.6451 0.0730–0.9174
Plateau slope mp <0.0001 0.9183 0.2003–0.9367
At 65% compression
Energy absorbed E65 <0.0001 0.7311 0.2375–0.9248
Stress r65 <0.0001 0.9446 0.5863–0.9462

To obtain foam cores with similar heights, the outermost layers
of polystyrene beads were trimmed from each end of the cylindri-
cal cores. The surface of the foam helmet liner contains cells that
are flattened during the molding process and are more exposed to
the environment than the inner cells we tested. If material prop-
erty changes related to age are concentrated on the inner and outer
surfaces of the liner, then these age effects may have been
eliminated by our foam core preparation methods. If present, we
expect that the influence of these surface effects would be small
given that we compressed the foam cores by 73–90% of their orig-
inal length.
We chose to test field-used helmets rather than new helmets
exposed to accelerated aging (e.g., ISO 2440 or ASTM
D3045). With field-used helmets, we knew that the aging

041005-6 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Fig. 7 The variation in each dependent variable with foam core density. All dependent variables, except for yield strain (top
left panel), increased significantly with density.
processes (e.g., heat, humidity, salt, oxygen, UV light, and
time) experienced by each helmet represented a real combina-
tion of these processes, although we did not know what combi-
nation of these processes a particular helmet had experienced
and thus could not quantify the variability in these processes
within our sample. With accelerated aging of new helmets, we
would have been able to better control each process and reduce
the variability between helmets, but different protocols would
be needed for different aging processes, and we could not be
certain that the sequence and combination of aging protocols
we selected captured the spectrum of these effects that existed
in the field. The larger variability due to these aging processes
in our field sample could have masked an age effect that might
be detectable in a sample exposed to controlled accelerated
aging; however, the dominant effect of density on our mechan-
ical property measures suggests that any age related effects are
likely small by comparison.
Environmental and use factors that may be expected to influ-
ence the material properties of polymers include UV radiation,
exposure to fluids and chemicals, changes in temperature, and a
history of impacts. While we excluded helmets that had evidence
of impact-related damage, exposure to these other factors remains
unknown, but are potential causes of cross-linking or chain
Journal of Biomechanical Engineering
Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
scission that may lead to an embrittled surface and a variation in
the material properties along the depth of the foam [15,16].
Changes in the material properties may include a decrease in the
yield strength and yield strain, and an increase in the elastic mod-
ulus [17]. These exposure effects vary with the levels and time of
exposure and can in some cases be mitigated. For example, stabil-
izers in the foam can help reduce the effects of UV radiation and
temperature [16]. In addition to not knowing the exposure history
for each helmet, we do not know what design or manufacturing
changes occurred over the range of manufacturing years we
tested. We attempted to minimize design changes by grouping
helmets into similar matched sets and specifically controlling for
changes in foam density in our analysis. Nevertheless, the manu-
facturing history of our sample remains unknown.
In summary, we tested EPS foam cores extracted from 63 hel-
mets grouped into ten matched sets spanning 20 yrs and found
that the age of the sample did not influence the mechanical proper-
ties related to its impact attenuation performance. Instead, we
found that the density of the foam core significantly affected all of
the mechanical properties except the yield strain. Based on these
data, old helmets should not be discarded based on an incorrect
assumption that their impact performance has deteriorated with
time.
APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 041005-7
 Fig. 8 As foam core density increased, peak foam core stress and strain decreased. Lower
density cores exhibited all three phases of the typical stress–strain response (elastic, plateau,
and densification). The lower density cores also displayed higher degrees of densification and
wider plateaus.

Fig. 9 The peak acceleration (1) during impact decreased as the density of the foam core
increased (shown by the exponential curve fit—thick solid line). As the foam core absorbed
increasing amounts of energy, the more dense specimens had smaller increases in accelera-
tion. This is depicted by the instantaneous acceleration corresponding to different levels of
energy absorption: 1J (w), 3J (䊊), 5J (䉫), 6J (䉬), 7J ($), and 8J (N).

041005-8 / Vol. 138, APRIL 2016 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Table 4 Comparison of previously reported mechanical prop- [8] Di Landro, L., Sala, G., and Olivieri, D., 2002, “Deformation Mechanisms and
erties of EPS helmet foam and those used in finite-element Energy Absorption of Polystyrene Foams of Protective Helmets,” Polym. Test.,
models (FEM) of helmets to the results of the current study 21(2), pp. 217–228.
[9] Gibson, L. J., and Ashby, M. F., 1997, Cellular Solids: Structure and Proper-
ties, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Elastic Yield Yield [10] Ouellet, S., Cronin, D., and Worswick, M., 2006, “Compressive Response of
Density modulus stress strain Polymeric Foams Under Quasi-Static, Medium and High Strain Rate
Prior study P (kg/m3) E (MPa) ry (MPa) ey Conditions,” Polym. Test., 25(6), pp. 731–743.
[11] Maji, A. K., Schreyer, H. L., Donald, S., Zuo, Q., and Satpathi, D., 1995,
Helmet EPS foam “Mechanical Properties of Polyurethane-Foam Impact Limiters,” J. Eng. Mech.,
Mills and Gilchrist [6] 32–68 — 0.27–1.06 — 121(4), pp. 528–541.
[12] Nagy, A., Ko, W. L., and Lindholm, U. S., 1974, “Mechanical Behavior of
Mills and Gilchrist [20] 71–101 — — —
Foamed Materials Under Dynamic Compression,” J. Cell. Plast., 10(3),
Di Landro et al. [8] 31–71 6.3–32.3 — — pp. 127–134.
Gale and Mills [21] 34–94 — — 0.05–0.1 [13] Thomas, T., Mahfuz, H., Carlsson, L. A., Kanny, K., and Jeelani, S., 2002,
FEM of EPS liners “Dynamic Compression of Cellular Cores: Temperature and Strain Rate
de Sousa et al. [22] 30–60 7.42–12.75 0.15–0.57 — Effects,” Compos. Struct., 58(4), pp. 505–512.
[14] Kockott, D., 1989, “Natural and Artificial Weathering of Polymers,” Polym.
Asiminei et al. [23] 24–58 2.5–19.9 — —
Degrad. Stab., 25(2–4), pp. 181–208.
Fernandes et al. [24] 65–90 7.51–8.64 0.31–0.61 — [15] Andrady, A. L., and Pegram, J. E., 1991, “Weathering of Polystyrene Foam on
Mills and Gilchrist [7] 35–83 10–40 0.29–1.1 — Exposure in Air and in Seawater,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 42(6), pp. 1589–1596.
Mills and Gilchrist [25] 35–101 10–59 0.29–1.3 — [16] White, J. R., and Turnbull, A., 1994, “Weathering of Polymers: Mechanisms of
Current study 58–100 7.3–26.3 0.06–1.57 0.06–0.11 Degradation and Stabilization, Testing Strategies and Modelling,” J. Mater.
Sci., 29(3), pp. 584–613.
[17] Xu, T., Li, G., and Pang, S.-S., 2011, “Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation
on Morphology and Thermo-Mechanical Properties of Shape Memory Polymer
Based Syntactic Foam,” Composites, Part A, 42(10), pp. 1525–1533.
[18] Pearsall, D. J., and Dowler, P. M., 2008, “A Longitudinal Study of Ice Hockey
Helmet Shelf Life,” J. ASTM Int., 5(8), pp. 1–5.
[19] Pearsall, D. J., Lapaine, P., and Ouckama, R., 2015, “Ten Years Later: Ice
Hockey Helmet Impact Mechanics Change With Age,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.,
Acknowledgment Part P (in press).
The authors thank Mr. Mircea Oala-Florescu, Mr. Jeff Nickel, [20] Mills, N. J., and Gilchrist, A., 2008, “Oblique Impact Testing of Bicycle
Helmets,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 35(9), pp. 1075–1086.
and Mr. Jason Lam for their help in conducting the tests. [21] Gale, A., and Mills, N. J., 1985, “Effect of Polystyrene Foam Liner Density on
Motorcycle Helmet Shock Absorption,” Plast. Rubber Process. Appl., 5,
pp. 101–108.
References [22] de Sousa, R. A., Goncalves, D., Coelho, R., and Teixeira-Dias, F., 2012,
[1] ASTM International, 2010, “Standard Specification for Helmets Used for “Assessing the Effectiveness of a Natural Cellular Material Used as Safety
Downhill Mountain Bicycle Racing, F1952-10,” ASTM International, West Padding Material in Motorcycle Helmets,” Simulation, 88(5), pp. 580–591.
Conshohocken, PA. [23] Asiminei, A. G., Bosche, K. V., Van der Perre, G., Verpoest, I., and Goffin, J.,
[2] Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1998, “Safety Standard for Bicycle 2008, “An Approach to Model the Head-Bicycle Helmet Dynamic Behaviour
Helmets; Final Rule,” 16 CFR Part 1203, Consumer Product Safety Commis- Through Transient Finite Element Analysis,” 15th Finite Element Workshop,
sion, Washington, DC. The Finite Element Method in Biomedical Engineering, Biomechanics and
[3] AS/NZS 2063, 2008, “Bicycle Helmets,” Standards Australia, Sydney/NSW Related Fields, Ulm, Germany, July 16–17.
and Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. [24] Fernandes, F. A. O., de Sousa, R. J. A., Willinger, R., and Deck, C., 2013,
[4] Snell, 2000, “1995 Standard for Protective Headgear—1998 Revision—For “Finite Element Analysis of Helmeted Impacts and Head Injury Evaluation
Use in Bicycling,” Snell Memorial Foundation, North Highlands, CA. With a Commercial Road Helmet,” International Research Council on the Bio-
[5] Liu, D.-S., Chang, C.-Y., Fan, C.-M., and Hsu, S.-L., 2003, “Influence of Envi- mechanics of Injury (IRCOBI) Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, Sept. 11–13,
ronmental Factors on Energy Absorption Degradation of Polystyrene Foam in Paper No. IRC-13-48.
Protective Helmets,” Eng. Failure Anal., 10(5), pp. 581–591. [25] Mills, N. J., and Gilchrist, A., 2008, “Finite-Element Analysis of Bicycle
[6] Mills, N. J., and Gilchrist, A., 1991, “The Effectiveness of Foams in Bicycle Helmet Oblique Impacts,” Int. J. Impact Eng., 35(9), pp. 1087–1101.
and Motorcycle Helmets,” Accid. Anal. Prev., 23(2–3), pp. 153–163. [26] Kroeker, S. G., Bonin, S. J., DeMarco, A. L., Good, C. A., and Siegmund,
[7] Mills, N. J., and Gilchrist, A., 2006, “Bicycle Helmet Design,” Proc. Inst. G. P., 2014, “Does Age Affect the Impact Properties of Helmet Foam Liners?,”
Mech. Eng., Part L, 220(4), pp. 167–180. World Congress of Biomechanics, Boston, MA, July 6–11.

Journal of Biomechanical Engineering APRIL 2016, Vol. 138 / 041005-9

Downloaded From: http://biomechanical.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jbendy/935010/ on 02/08/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo