applied

sciences
Article
A Finite Element Investigation into the Impact
Performance of an Open-Face Motorcycle Helmet
with Ventilation Slots
De-Shin Liu and Yao-Te Chen *
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Advanced Institute of Manufacturing for High-tech Innovations,
National Chung Cheng University, 168 University Rd., Minhsiung, Chiayi 62102, Taiwan; imedsl@ccu.edu.tw
* Correspondence: walter.yaote@gmail.com; Tel.: +886-5-272-0411 (ext. 33305); Fax: +886-5-272-0589

Academic Editor: Stefano Invernizzi

Received: 11 January 2017; Accepted: 6 March 2017; Published: 16 March 2017

Abstract: Motorcycle helmets are essential for reducing the risk of head injuries in the event of an
impact. However, during the design of helmets, a compromise must be made between user safety and
user comfort. Accordingly, the present study proposes a novel open-face helmet design, in which the
helmet features three ventilation slots in the upper-head region. Finite element analysis (FEA) models
were constructed for both a prototype helmet design, and three traditional helmet designs (full-face,
open-face, and half-face helmets). In simulating the proposed open-face helmet, this study considered
three different ventilation slot widths, namely 8, 14, and 18 mm. The simulation results showed that
of all the helmet designs, the half-face helmet resulted in the greatest headform acceleration (303 G).
The internal ventilation helmet achieved a lower peak acceleration than that of the full-face helmet.
By contrast, the proposed open-face helmet with ventilation slots resulted in the lowest acceleration,
irrespective of the ventilation slot width. The 8-mm ventilation slot width resulted in the optimal
impact performance level (i.e., a peak headform acceleration of 160 G). Overall, the results suggest
that the proposed open-face helmet design with ventilation slots provides a promising solution for
ensuring both user protection and user comfort in warm climates.

Keywords: finite element analysis; motorcycle helmet; impact severity; head injury; safety

1. Introduction
Comfort is a decisive factor for motorcycle riders when selecting a helmet for use in warm
climates [1,2]. Given the lack of appropriate headgear, riders may dispense with a helmet entirely.
For example, in a recent study of novice motorcycle riders in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, it was
found that 10% of the subjects did not wear a helmet while riding in traffic [3]. Moreover, self-reported
helmet use among teenage motorcyclists in Taiwan was found to be just 55% in summer months [4].
Accordingly, when designing helmets for motorcycle use, it is imperative that a compromise is reached
between user safety and user comfort.
In general, South East (SE) Asia provides an ideal location for studying the efficacy of helmets,
since motorcycles and scooters represent the most common form of transportation [5]. Various helmet
designs are available, including full-face, open-face, and half-face models. The choice of helmet
depends on the particular preferences of the user, regarding comfort and safety. Due to the hot and
humid conditions which are prevalent throughout SE Asia, open-face and half-face helmets tend to be
the most frequently worn. However, wearers of open-face or half-face helmets suffer head injuries
more than twice as often as wearers of full-face helmets [6]. Of the two types of helmet, open-face
helmets provide a better user safety level, but at the expense of comfort. Thus, it is necessary to
improve the ventilation efficiency of open-face helmets, without sacrificing their impact performance.

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279; doi:10.3390/app7030279 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 2 of 12

Many different safety standards have been proposed for motorcycle helmets, including ECE
R22.05, Snell M2010, and DOT FMVSS 218 [7]. In general, these standards present the requirements
for the performance of a helmet, taking into consideration impacts to the top of the helmet at various
energies and speeds [8]. However, while the strict test conditions prescribed in these standards are
necessary to facilitate standardized testing, the collected data are only of limited use in analyzing actual
crash scenarios, in which motorcycle helmets face widely varying impact angles, impact surfaces,
and impact speeds. Accordingly, De Marco et al. [6] proposed a new test protocol for examining the
crashworthiness performance of helmets under impacts at oblique angles. The impact performance
of ECE-approved helmets has been investigated at various speeds in the range of 0.5 to 10.0 m/s [9].
However, few studies have investigated the impact performance of motorcycle helmets under realistic
surface conditions (e.g., asphalt or vehicle bodies), or have examined the performance of common
Asian helmets at typical impact speeds.
Experimental investigations provide a detailed insight into the mechanical response of motorcycle
helmets under impact. However, experimental tests are time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, it is
impossible to accurately recreate all of the crash scenarios which may occur in real life. Consequently,
the use of finite element analysis (FEA) simulations to evaluate the conformance of different
helmet designs to safety standards, has attracted an increasing amount of attention in recent years.
Liu et al. [10,11] performed LS-DYNA simulations of the impact response of several common helmet
designs, based on the material mechanical properties obtained from experimental quasi-static impact
tests. In addition, Pinnoji et al. [11] used a numerical modeling approach to evaluate the head injury
criterion and brain stress for open-face motorcycle helmets, in which the conventional thermoplastic
outer shell was replaced with a lightweight metal foam.
Previous studies on helmet safety generally focus on just one particular helmet design
(e.g., full-face or open-face), and investigate the performance of the helmet with regard to specific
safety regulations. However, the present group recently investigated the impact performance of three
different types of motorcycle helmet (full-face, open-face, and half-face), with respect to three different
helmet safety regulations (ECE R22.05, Snell M2010, and DOT FMVSS 218) [8,12]. In the present
study, a further investigation is performed, focusing on the head protection performance of a novel
open-face helmet incorporating three parallel ventilation slots into the upper-head region. By contrast,
the present study investigates the impact performance of various types of motorcycle helmet with
respect to three different helmet safety regulations (ECE R22.05, Snell M2010. and DOT FMVSS 218).
Four helmet designs are considered, namely full-face, open-face, half-face, and a novel open-face
design in which three parallel ventilation slots are incorporated into the upper-head region of the
helmet structure.
This study commenced by simulating the linear headform acceleration induced in a drop test,
performed at an impact speed of approximately 6 m/s by using a full-face helmet. The validity of
the simulation results was demonstrated by comparing the acceleration profile during the simulated
impact event with that measured experimentally. Additional simulations were then performed to
evaluate and compare the performance of the four helmet designs under identical impact conditions.

2. Materials and Methods

Figure 1 shows the three traditional helmet designs considered in the present study. The full-face
helmet covers the entire head, and comprises a rear section which covers the back of the skull and
the top of the neck, a protective section which covers the top of the head and the cheekbones, and
a further protective section which covers the jaw bone and chin (Figure 1a). The open-face helmet
covers the same area as the full-face helmet, but leaves part of the face (usually the lower chin) exposed
(Figure 1b). Finally, the half helmet has essentially the same design as the open-face helmet, but leaves
the lower rear region of the head and the cheeks exposed (Figure 1c).
 Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 3 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 3 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 3 of 12

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1.
Figure Motorcycle helmet
1. Motorcycle helmet designs:
designs: (a)
(a) full-face;
full-face; (b)
(b) open-face;
open-face; and
and (c)
(c) half.
half.
Figure 1. Motorcycle helmet designs: (a) full-face; (b) open-face; and (c) half.
The
The crashworthiness
crashworthiness of of motorcyclehelmetshelmets is generally evaluated by means of free-fall
dropdrop
The crashworthiness of motorcycle
motorcycle helmetsisisgenerally
generally evaluated
evaluated by means
by means of free-fall
of free-fall tests,
drop
tests,
in in
which which
the the
helmet helmet
is is positioned
positioned on a on
test a test headform
headform and and
then then
droppeddropped vertically,
vertically, onto onto
a a fixed
fixed steel
tests, in which the helmet is positioned on a test headform and then dropped vertically, onto a fixed
steel
anvil.anvil.
Figure Figure
2 2 presents
presents a a schematic
schematic illustration
illustration of the of rig
test theused
test inrigthe
used in the
present present
study to study to
investigate
steel anvil. Figure 2 presents a schematic illustration of the test rig used in the present study to
investigate
the impactthe the impact performance
performance of the full-faceWhen
of the full-face helmet. When performing the test, the helmet was
investigate impact performance of the helmet.
full-face helmet.performing
When performingthe test,the
thetest,
helmet was placed
the helmet was
placed over
over anover an
aluminum aluminum
headform headform attached
attached attached
to a ball arm to a ball arm and was then dropped onto a flat
placed an aluminum headform to aand was
ball armthenanddropped
was thenontodropped
a flat tetragonal
onto a anvil
flat
tetragonal anvil
containinganvil containing
a circular impactaaareacircular impact
withimpact
a diameter area with
127aamm.
diameter of 127 assembly
mm. The (minus
moving assembly
tetragonal containing circular area ofwith The moving
diameter of 127 mm. The moving the helmet)
assembly
(minus
had a the
total helmet)
mass of had
5 kg a total
and mass
exhibited of 5
no kg and
resonant exhibited no
frequencies resonant
below frequencies
2000 Hz. The below 2000
free-fall Hz.
height
(minus the helmet) had a total mass of 5 kg and exhibited no resonant frequencies below 2000 Hz.
The free-fall
of the ball armheight of
wasofsetthe ball arm was set to 1830 mm; resulting in an impact velocity of 598.9 cm/s.
The free-fall height thetoball
1830armmm;wasresulting
set to 1830 in an
mm;impact velocity
resulting in anofimpact
598.9 cm/s.
velocityThe helmet
of 598.9 was
cm/s.
The helmet
positioned was
on the positioned
headform on the headform in such a way that the impact occurred against the top
The helmet was positioned onin thesuch a way in
headform that theaimpact
such way that occurred
the impactagainst the top
occurred of thethe
against helmet;
top
of the helmet; thereby avoiding the air vent regions. The headform acceleration during impact was
ofthereby avoiding
the helmet; the air
thereby vent regions.
avoiding the airThe
vent headform
regions.acceleration
The headform during impact was
acceleration measured
during impact using
wasa
measured
MAU-1055 using a MAU-1055
accelerometer accelerometer
(Superpro Technology (Superpro
Corp., Technology
Taipei, Corp., Taipei, Taiwan).
Taiwan).
measured using a MAU-1055 accelerometer (Superpro Technology Corp., Taipei, Taiwan).

(:(t,~
~-
SUPPORT ARM

BALL SOCKET

HEL!fET ~ TESTHEADFORM

ACCELEROMTER

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Experimental
Experimental setup
setup for
for free-fall
free-fall impact
impact tests.
tests.
Figure 2. Experimental setup for free-fall impact tests.
The present study evaluated the performance of the four helmets (i.e., full-face, open-face, half-
Thepresent
The presentstudy
study evaluated
evaluated thethe performance
performance of four
of the the four helmets
helmets (i.e., full-face,
(i.e., full-face, open-face,
open-face, half-
face, and open-face with ventilation) with regards to three different standards, namely ECE R22.05,
half-face,
face, and open-face
and open-face with ventilation)
with ventilation) with regards
with regards to threeto three different
different standards, standards, namely
namely ECE ECE
R22.05,
Snell M2010, and DOT FMVSS 218. As shown in Table 1, all three standards prescribe a peak
R22.05, Snell M2010, and DOT FMVSS 218. As shown in Table 1, all three standards
Snell M2010, and DOT FMVSS 218. As shown in Table 1, all three standards prescribe a peak prescribe a peak
acceleration limit for the headform center of gravity (COG), while the DOT standard imposes an
accelerationlimit
acceleration limitfor
forthe
theheadform
headformcenter
centerofofgravity
gravity(COG),
(COG),while
whilethe theDOTDOTstandard
standardimposes
imposesanan
additional limit on the acceleration duration [8].
additionallimit
additional limiton
onthe
theacceleration
accelerationduration
duration[8].
[8].
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 4 of 12

Table 1. Basic requirements of motorcycle helmet safety standards.

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 4 of 12

Standard ECE R22.05 Snell M2010 DOT FMVSS 218

Table 1. Basic requirements of motorcycle helmet safety standards.
Allowed Impact Duration N/A N/A 150 G for no more than 4 ms 200 G for no more than 2 ms
Standard ECE R22.05 Snell M2010 DOT FMVSS 218
Allowed Peak Acceleration 275 G 300 G 400 G
Allowed Impact Duration N/A N/A 150 G for no more than 4 ms 200 G for no more than 2 ms
Allowed Peak Acceleration 275 G 300 G 400 G
2.1. Peak Linear Acceleration
2.1. Peak Linear Acceleration
The peak linear acceleration described in helmet safety standards is essentially the maximum
allowed Theacceleration
peak linear ofacceleration
the COG described in helmetduring
of the headform safety impact.
standardsAs
is shown
essentially the maximum
in Table 1, the peak
allowed acceleration
acceleration of the
is stated as COG ofof
a multiple thethe
headform duringacceleration
gravitational impact. As constant
shown in G Table
(1 G1,=the
9.81peak
m/s2 ).
acceleration is stated as a multiple of the gravitational acceleration constant G (1 G
The peak acceleration value ignores the duration of the impact. However, there is a strong body = 9.81 m/s 2).
of
The peak
evidence toacceleration
suggest thatvalue ignoresof
the severity the duration
head of depends
injuries the impact.
notHowever, there
only on the is a strong
magnitude of body of
the impact,
evidence to suggest that the severity of head injuries depends not only on the magnitude of the
but also on the duration over which the impact energy acts [13]. Thus, DOT FMVSS 218 not only
impact, but also on the duration over which the impact energy acts [13]. Thus, DOT FMVSS 218 not
prescribes a maximum headform acceleration (400 G), but also places limits on the time for which
only prescribes a maximum headform acceleration (400 G), but also places limits on the time for
certain accelerations are permitted to exist (e.g., an acceleration of more than 200 G should not persist
which certain accelerations are permitted to exist (e.g., an acceleration of more than 200 G should not
for more than 2 ms) [14].
persist for more than 2 ms) [14].
2.2. Finite Element Models
2.2. Finite Element Models
Helmets were purchased from a commercial vendor in Taiwan and were scanned using a
Helmets were purchased from a commercial vendor in Taiwan and were scanned using
three-dimensional (3D) optical measurement system (COMET 5, Steinbichler Optotechnik, Munich,
a three-dimensional (3D) optical measurement system (COMET 5, Steinbichler Optotechnik, Munich,
Germany).
Germany). For each helmet,
For each helmet, 3D3D modeling
modelingdata datawere
wereobtained
obtainedthrough
through eight
eight scans,
scans, performed
performed at at
intervals ◦
intervalsofof4545°.. The
The eight scans were
eight scans were combined
combinedinto intoa asingle
single3D3Dmodel
model using
using Geomagic
Geomagic Studio
Studio
software
software (Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA). The dimensions of the helmet and solid structures in the in
(Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA). The dimensions of the helmet and solid structures
the
3D3D model
model were
were determined
determined using
using SolidWorks
SolidWorks software
software (version
(version 2013,
2013, Dassault
Dassault Systemes
Systemes Corp.,
Corp.,
Waltham,
Waltham,MA, MA,USA).
USA). Finally,
Finally, the
the 3D model
model waswas converted
convertedtotoa afinite
finiteelement
element (FE)
(FE) format,
format, using
using
ABAQUS
ABAQUSsoftware
software(Version
(Version 6.12,
6.12, Dassault SystemesCorp.,
Dassault Systemes Corp.,Waltham,
Waltham, MA,
MA, USA).
USA). When
When constructing
constructing
the
themodels, the small
models, the holes
small in holes
the inner
in andtheouter surfaces
inner and ofouterthe helmet (e.g., those
surfaces of the usedhelmet
for visor
or(e.g.,
chinthose
strapused for visorpurposes)
attachment or chin strap
were attachment
retained, purposes)
since theywere act asretained, since they
stress raisers, act as affecting
therefore stress
raisers,
the thereforeresponse
mechanical affecting ofthethe
mechanical
helmet. response
However,of the helmet.such
features However,
as airfeatures
vents andsuchplate
as air surfaces,
vents
and plate surfaces, which are only used for aerodynamics and styling purposes,
which are only used for aerodynamics and styling purposes, were excluded, in order to simplify were excluded, in the
order to simplify
modeling process. the modeling process.
InInaddition
addition to to the
the three
three traditional
traditional helmet
helmet designs
designsdescribed
describedabove,above, thethe
present
presentstudy
studyalsoalso
considereda novel
considered a novel open-face
open-face helmet
helmet designdesign in which
in which three parallel
three parallel ventilationventilation
slots wereslots were
incorporated
incorporated into the upper-head region. As shown in Figure 3, each ventilation slot had a length of
into the upper-head region. As shown in Figure 3, each ventilation slot had a length of 150 mm and
150 mm and was separated from its neighbor by a distance of 10 mm. To determine the helmet design
was separated from its neighbor by a distance of 10 mm. To determine the helmet design with an
with an optimal compromise between user safety and user comfort, the simulations considered three
optimal compromise between user safety and user comfort, the simulations considered three different
different slot widths, namely 8, 14, and 18 mm.
slot widths, namely 8, 14, and 18 mm.

8, 14, 18mm

Figure 3. Prototype open-face helmet design with additional ventilation slots.

Figure 3. Prototype open-face helmet design with additional ventilation slots.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 5 of 12

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 5 of 12

2.3. Finite Element Models
Each of the helmets considered in the present study consisted of two components, namely
2.3. Finite
a hard outer Element
shellModels
and a foam inner liner. When performing the simulations, the shell and liner were
assumed to be fabricated of Acrylonitrile
Each of the helmets considered Butadiene
in the present Styrene
study (ABS)
consisted of and
two Expanded
components, Poly-Polystyrene
namely a hard
(EPS),shell
outer respectively.
and a foamThe material
inner data performing
liner. When for the ABSthe shell were taken
simulations, thefrom previous
shell and studies
liner were [9,15].
assumed
Similarly, the material properties of the foam liner were derived from
to be fabricated of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) and Expanded Poly-Polystyrene (EPS), the stress-strain curves
presented inThe
respectively. previous
materialexperimental
data for thestudies by Liu
ABS shell were ettaken
al. [15].
fromAs previous
shown instudies
Figure [9,15].
4, the static stiffness
Similarly, the
of the foam
material materialoflinearly
properties the foam increased
liner were with an increasing
derived from thecompression
stress-strain rate, in both
curves the elastic
presented regime
in previous
and the plastic
experimental regime.
studies by ItLiu
is et
worth noting
al. [15]. that this
As shown infinding
Figure 4, is the
consistent with theofresults
static stiffness the foam of Chang
material et
al. [16], based on an empirically-derived constitutive model. The headform
linearly increased with an increasing compression rate, in both the elastic regime and the plastic was modeled using solid
hexahedron
regime. elements
It is worth withthat
noting single integration
this finding is points and was
consistent withassumed to be
the results fabricated
of Chang of [16],
et al. aluminum.
based
The model stiffness was deliberately increased, in order to prevent
on an empirically-derived constitutive model. The headform was modeled using solid hexahedron elastic deformation of the
headformwith
elements during impact;
single thereby
integration interfering
points and was with the foam
assumed to beenergy absorption
fabricated results.The
of aluminum. (Note that
model
stiffness was deliberately increased, in order to prevent elastic deformation of the headform duringis
while the headform could have been modeled using a rigid material, contact with elastic materials
more stable.)
impact; thereby Table 2 summarizes
interfering with the thefoam
material
energyproperties
absorption used for the(Note
results. various helmet
that whilecomponents
the headform in
the simulations.
could have been modeled using a rigid material, contact with elastic materials is more stable). Table 2
summarizes the material properties used for the various helmet components in the simulations.

0.8

ii'
0.
~ 0.6
1/1
1/1

i 0.4 ~ 0.025mm/s
- &0.1mm/s
1.5mm/s
0.2 3mm/s

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Strain

Figure 4. Experimental stress vs. strain curves for Expanded Poly-Polystyrene (EPS) foam (reproduced
Figure
with 4. Experimental
permission stress vs.
from [15], Elsevier, strain curves for Expanded Poly-Polystyrene (EPS) foam
2003).
(reproduced with permission from [15], Elsevier, 2003).
Table 2. Finite element model details *.
Table 2. Finite element model details *.

Item Item Elastic

Elastic Modulus
Modulus (GPa)
(GPa) Poisson’s Ratio
Poisson’s Ratio Density (kg/m3(kg/m
Density ) 3)

Headform
Headform 45 45 0.3 0.3 1750 1750
ABS shell 1.867 0.35 1390
ABS shell 1.867 0.35 1390
* Data from Liu et al. [10,15].
* Data from Liu et al. [10,15].

Figure 5a–c
Figure 5a–c shows
shows the
the FEA
FEA models
models ofof the
the full-face,
full-face, open-face,
open-face, and
and half
half helmets,
helmets, respectively.
respectively.
(Notethat
(Note thatthe
theFE
FEmodel
modelof ofthe
theprototype
prototypeopen-face
open-facehelmet
helmetisisshown
shownin inFigure
Figure5d–f.)
5d–f.)The
Themodel
modelused
used
to simulate the impact test for the full-face helmet consisted of a total of 8950 elements,
to simulate the impact test for the full-face helmet consisted of a total of 8950 elements, including including
1864quadrilateral
1864 quadrilateraltype
typeS4R
S4Relements
elementsfor forthe
theABS
ABSshell,
shell,4775
4775hexahedral
hexahedraltypetypeC3D8R
C3D8Relements
elementsforforthe
the
EPS liner,
EPS liner,1332
1332rigid
rigidhexahedral
hexahedral typetypeC3D8R
C3D8R elements
elements forforthe
theheadform,
headform, and and 979
979 hexahedral
hexahedral type
type
C3D8R elements for the flat steel anvil. For the impact tests performed with the remaining
C3D8R elements for the flat steel anvil. For the impact tests performed with the remaining helmets, helmets,
the headform
the headform andand anvil
anvil models
models werewere unchanged,
unchanged, and and the
the open-face
open-face and
and half-face
half-face helmet
helmet models
models
consisted of
consisted of2532/4875
2532/4875 andand 2189/8784
2189/8784 (S4R/C3D8R)
(S4R/C3D8R) elements,
elements, respectively.
respectively. For each helmet,
For each helmet, the
the
headform acceleration during impact was computed in the Z-axis direction, over an
headform acceleration during impact was computed in the Z-axis direction, over an interval of 20 ms.interval of 20 ms.
The simulations were performed using ABAQUS/Explicit software with the large deformation option.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 6 of 12

The simulations were performed using ABAQUS/Explicit software with the large deformation
option.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 6 of 12

initial
velocity

(b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure5.5. Finite
Figure Finite element
element models
models of:
of: (a)
(a) full-face;
full-face; (b)
(b)open-face;
open-face; (c)
(c)half-face;
half-face; (d)
(d)prototype
prototypeopen-face
open-face
helmet 8 mm design; (e) prototype open-face helmet 14 mm design; and (f)
helmet 8 mm design; (e) prototype open-face helmet 14 mm design; and (f) prototype prototype open-face helmet
open-face
18 mm design helmets used in simulated impact tests.
helmet 18 mm design helmets used in simulated impact tests.

2.4.
2.4. Contact
Contact Conditions
Conditions
The
The contact
contact surfaces
surfaces of
of the
thehelmet
helmetmodels
modelswere
wereimplemented
implemented usingusing general
general automatic
automatic contact
contact
type elements. The 3D dynamic FE models involved multipoint, tie, and contact
type elements. The 3D dynamic FE models involved multipoint, tie, and contact constraints. constraints. Moreover,
the relative the
Moreover, motion between
relative thebetween
motion contact surfaces wassurfaces
the contact constrained to the parallel
was constrained todirection.
the parallelIn direction.
addition,
penalty contact algorithms were applied at the interfaces, and automatic surface-to-surface
In addition, penalty contact algorithms were applied at the interfaces, and automatic surface-to- contact
options were used between the EPS foam liner and the ABS shell, as well as between
surface contact options were used between the EPS foam liner and the ABS shell, as well as between the foam and
the
the headform
foam andmodel, to prevent
the headform interpenetration.
model, A friction coefficient
to prevent interpenetration. of 0.3 was
A friction assigned
coefficient ofbetween
0.3 was
the outer shell and the foam liner, and between the foam liner and the headform
assigned between the outer shell and the foam liner, and between the foam liner and the headform [17]. Finally, in
accordance
[17]. Finally,with the recommendations
in accordance of the ABAQUSofmanual,
with the recommendations the ABAQUSthe shear of thethe
manual, scalp layer
shear prior
of the to
scalp
the slip was modeled using an elastic slip condition.
layer prior to the slip was modeled using an elastic slip condition.

3.
3. Results
Results
Figure
Figure 66 shows
shows thethe experimental
experimental results
results obtained
obtained forfor the
the variation
variation of of the
the peak
peak headform
headform
acceleration
acceleration over time, in the impact test conducted using the full-face helmet. The acceleration
over time, in the impact test conducted using the full-face helmet. The acceleration
increases
increases rapidly
rapidly toto aa maximum
maximum value value ofof 204
204 GG at
at 33 ms,
ms, falls
falls toto around
around 190190 GG atat 44 ms,
ms, and
and then
then
increases
increasesonce
onceagain
againtotoa alocal maximum
local maximum value of 196
value G atG5 at
of 196 ms. The The
5 ms. acceleration then then
acceleration reduces to zero,
reduces to
after
zero,approximately 12 ms.12
after approximately A ms.
small local acceleration
A small peak ispeak
local acceleration observed at approximately
is observed at approximately11 ms.11 ms.
Figure
Figure 77 compares
compares the the simulation
simulation results
results for
for the
the headform
headform acceleration
acceleration in in the
the full-face
full-face helmet
helmet
impact
impact test with the experimental results. It is observed that the simulated value of maximum
test with the experimental results. It is observed that the simulated value of the global the global
acceleration (197 G) is slightly
maximum acceleration (197 G)lower than lower
is slightly the experimental value (204 G).
than the experimental Similarly,
value (204 G).the simulated
Similarly, the
value of the local acceleration peak (186 G) is also slightly lower than the experimental
simulated value of the local acceleration peak (186 G) is also slightly lower than the experimental value (196 G).
The tendency of the simulation model to understate the acceleration is most likely
value (196 G). The tendency of the simulation model to understate the acceleration is most likely due due to the model
error
to thevalue.
modelHowever, in However,
error value. general, theinsimulated
general, the acceleration profile is in good
simulated acceleration qualitative
profile is in good agreement
qualitative
with the experimental
agreement results, thus confirming
with the experimental results, thusthe confirming
general validity of the modeling
the general validity method.
of the modeling
method.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 7 of 12

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 7 of 12

Appl. Sci.250
2017, 7, 279 7 of 12

200

150
~
C:
0

~
Q)
al 100
""
ct

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (ms)

L 0 OL

Time(ms)
Figure 6. Experimental results for impact energy dissipation in the full-face helmet impact test.

Figure 6. Experimental results for impact energy dissipation in the full-face helmet impact test.
Figure 6. Experimental results for impact energy dissipation in the full-face helmet impact test.
250~ - - - - - ~ - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - -
~ exp
B-fEA
200

~ 150
C:
0

~
~ 100
""
ct

50

Time (ms)

Figure 7. Comparison of simulated and experimental acceleration profiles for a full-face helmet.
Time (ms)
Figure 7. Comparison of simulated and experimental acceleration profiles for a full-face helmet.
Figure 8 presents the simulated headform acceleration profiles for the full-face, open-face, and
Figure
half-face
Figure 8 7.
presents
helmets, given
Comparison the
ansimulated
impact
of headform
speed
simulated acceleration
andofexperimental
6 m/s. A good profiles
general
acceleration for the
agreement
profiles forfull-face,
aexists open-face,
between
full-face and
helmet.all three
half-face
profiles. helmets,
However, given an impact
a close speed
inspection of 6 m/s.
reveals someA good
subtle general agreement
differences between exists between
them. all three
For example,
profiles.
the half
FigureHowever,
and8 open-face
presents a close
the inspection
helmets have reveals
simulated some subtleof
peak accelerations
headform acceleration differences
303 G andbetween
profiles 235the
for them. For
G, full-face,
respectively, example,
whereasand
open-face, the
the
half and helmets,
full-face
half-face open-face
helmet has helmets
givena much have
lowerpeak
an impact peakaccelerations
speed acceleration
of 6 m/s. A goodof 197
of 303 G andagreement
G.
general 235 G, respectively,
exists between whereas the
all three
full-face
profiles. helmet
Figure
However, hasaaclose
9 compares muchthe lower
inspection peak
simulated acceleration
acceleration
reveals of 197
profile
some subtle G.
of the original
differences betweenopen-face
them. For helmet, withthe
example, the
half Figure
profiles 9
and obtainedcompares
open-facefor the simulated
the prototype
helmets have peak acceleration
helmet profile
design with
accelerations of the original
ventilation
of 303 G and 235slotG, open-face
widths helmet,
of 8 mm,whereas
respectively, with
14 mm, thethe
and
profiles
18 mm, obtained
full-face respectively.
helmet has fora As
thediscussed
much prototype helmet
above,
lower peak thedesign
original
acceleration with197ventilation
of open-face
G. helmetslothas
widths of 8 mm,
a maximum 14 mm,
acceleration
and
value18ofmm,
Figure respectively.
approximately
9 compares the AsIndiscussed
235 simulated
G. contrast, above,
the peakthe
acceleration original
acceleration
profile open-face
of thevalue of the
original helmet
prototype
open-face has a maximum
helmet
helmet, is 160
with theG
acceleration
profiles value
for a slotobtained
width 8ofmm,
of for approximately
the 175 235
G for a slot
prototype G. Indesign
width
helmet contrast,
of 14 mm,
with the
andpeak
150 acceleration
G forslot
ventilation a slot value
width
widths ofofof818the prototype
mm.
mm, In mm,
14 other
helmet18 isfor
words,
and 160
mm,allG for a slot
values of the
respectively. width
As of 8 mm,
ventilation
discussed 175
slot G forthe
width,
above, a slot
the peak width of 14 mm,
acceleration
original open-face and 150 G
experienced
helmet hasforthe
by aa maximum
slot width
headform
of 18 mm.
during impact
acceleration In other
is lower
value words, for all
than that produced
of approximately values
235 G. In of the
by contrast,ventilation
the original slot
the open-face width, the
helmet design.
peak acceleration peak acceleration
value of the prototype
experienced
helmet is 160by the aheadform
G for slot widthduring
of 8 mm,impact
175 Gis for
lower than
a slot thatof
width produced
14 mm, and by the150original
G for a slotopen-face
width
helmet design.
of 18 mm. In other words, for all values of the ventilation slot width, the peak acceleration
experienced by the headform during impact is lower than that produced by the original open-face
helmet design.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 8 of 12

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 8 of 12

350
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279

300 ·1 n
'~,hi,
lj//11"'
~I

0
'•
l
11•1.,,i
!!/,i,/.,11·
l,j
-AJUII
t tope n-face
~ alf
8 of 12

250 half
j:l•h r1·1
JI '
,.,,/,,11:~-
nl
6" ~:;f. 1i11~
,,..,,!ti ..
~ 11iff 1
··1:11,,11..
"'E' 200
0
open-fa ce ·1111)r·%~
!., 150 ~'! -/IJ!JJ~
11/11111' 1
.;
1 ha lf
(,,)

i1r
fl~~
(,,)
<(
100
full
50

0
0 4 6 12
Time(ms)

u.,
0' 2' 4' 6' 8' '
10 12

Figure 8. Simulated headform acceleration profiles

Time(ms)for full-face, open-face, and half-face helmets.

Figure 8. Simulated headform acceleration profiles for full-face, open-face, and half-face helmets.
Figure 8. Simulated headform acceleration profiles for full-face, open-face, and half-face helmets.
250
8mm

~ open-face
-a-smm
200 + 14mm
18mm

6" 150
"'E'
0
~
; 100
.;
(,,)
(,,)
<(

50

0
0 4 6 8 14
Time(ms)

" 0' 9. Simulated2' headform acceleration

Figure 4
I
profiles
6
I
for the open-face
8
I
helmet
' and prototype
10 12 open-face14'
helmet with three different ventilation slot widths.
Figure 9. Simulated headform acceleration profiles for the open-face helmet and prototype open-face
Time(ms)

helmet with three different ventilation slot widths.

Figure 10 shows the magnitude of the stress and displacement contours of the full, open-face,
Figure
and Figure
8-mm 9. 10 shows the
Simulated
ventilation slotmagnitude
headform of level
acceleration
helmets. The theprofiles
stress and displacement
for recorded
of stress the open-face thecontours
for helmet
8-mm of the full,
andventilation
prototype open-face,
open-face
slot helmet is
and helmet
8-mm
2 Mpa, with three
ventilation
whereas different
the displacementventilation
slot helmets. The slot
value is widths.
level21ofmm.
stress recorded
However, infor
thethe
case8-mm ventilation
of a full helmet,slot
the helmet
level of
isstress
2 Mpa,
is 1.3whereas the displacement
Mpa, whereas value isvalue
the displacement 21 mm.
is 15However,
mm; however,in thefor
case of a full helmet,
an open-face helmet,thethelevel
level
of Figure
ofstress
stress 10Mpa,
isis1.3
1.5 shows thethe
MPa whereas
and magnitude of thevalue
the displacement
displacement stressis and
value displacement
is 15 mm; however,
approximately contours
16 mm. for an of
Thus, the8-mm
full, helmet,
open-face
the open-face,
the
ventilation
and
level 8-mm
of ventilation
stress is 1.5 slot
MPa helmets.
and the The level
displacementof stress recorded
value is for the
approximately
slot helmet possesses the ability to achieve buffer distances that absorb energy. 8-mm 16 ventilation
mm. Thus, slot
the helmet
8-mm
is 2 Mpa, whereas
ventilation the displacement
slot helmet possesses the value
abilityisto21achieve
mm. However, in the case
buffer distances thatof a fullenergy.
absorb helmet, the level
of stress is 1.3 Mpa, whereas the displacement value is 15 mm; however, for an open-face helmet, the
level of stress is 1.5 MPa and the displacement value is approximately 16 mm. Thus, the 8-mm
ventilation slot helmet possesses the ability to achieve buffer distances that absorb energy.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 9 of 12
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 9 of 12

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (!)

Figure 10. Stress contours of (a) the full; (b) open-face; and (c) 8-mm ventilation slot helmets; and
Figure 10. Stress contours of (a) the full; (b) open-face; and (c) 8-mm ventilation slot helmets; and the
the displacement contours of (d) the full; (e) open-face; and (f) 8-mm ventilation slot helmets during
displacement contours of (d) the full; (e) open-face; and (f) 8-mm ventilation slot helmets during
simulated impacts.
simulated impacts.

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
The experimental and simulation results show two main peaks in the headform acceleration
The experimental and simulation results show two main peaks in the headform acceleration
profile for the full-face helmet: an initial peak with a value of 204 G/197 G (experimental/simulation)
profile for the full-face helmet: an initial peak with a value of 204 G/197 G (experimental/simulation)
after nearly 3 ms, and a second peak with a value of 196 G/186 G (experimental/simulation) after
after nearly 3 ms, and a second peak with a value of 196 G/186 G (experimental/simulation) after
approximately 5 ms (Figures 6 and 7). The first peak corresponded to the initial moment of contact
approximately 5 ms (Figures 6 and 7). The first peak corresponded to the initial moment of contact
between the helmet and the anvil block, when the helmet first started to slow down and undergo rapid
between the helmet and the anvil block, when the helmet first started to slow down and undergo
deceleration. In contrast, the second peak corresponded to the point of full contact between the helmet
rapid deceleration. In contrast, the second peak corresponded to the point of full contact between the
and the block. In particular, the second peak could be attributed to the high-density rebound of the
helmet and the block. In particular, the second peak could be attributed to the high-density rebound
liner material (EPS foam), which limited the amount of energy that could be absorbed by the liner,
of the liner material (EPS foam), which limited the amount of energy that could be absorbed by the
thus increasing the energy transferred to the shell upon impact with the anvil [18].
liner, thus increasing the energy transferred to the shell upon impact with the anvil [18].
The simulation results presented in Figure 8 show that the full-face helmet resulted in a lower
The simulation results presented in Figure 8 show that the full-face helmet resulted in a lower
peak headform acceleration (197 G) than either the open-face helmet (235 G) or half-face helmet (303 G).
peak headform acceleration (197 G) than either the open-face helmet (235 G) or half-face helmet
Thus, of the three helmets, the full-face design provides the best user protection. Notably, however,
(303 G). Thus, of the three helmets, the full-face design provides the best user protection. Notably,
both the full-face and open-face helmets were observed to satisfy the ECE standard (275 G), whereas
however, both the full-face and open-face helmets were observed to satisfy the ECE standard
all three designs were determined to conform to the Snell standard (300 G) and DOT standard (400 G).
(275 G), whereas all three designs were determined to conform to the Snell standard (300 G) and DOT
In general, half-face helmets are more easily fabricated than open-face (or full-face) helmets, because
standard (400 G). In general, half-face helmets are more easily fabricated than open-face
the need for additional vents and cooling structures is removed in such helmets. However, according
(or full-face) helmets, because the need for additional vents and cooling structures is removed in such
to the results presented in Figure 8, the peak headform acceleration associated with the use of the
helmets. However, according to the results presented in Figure 8, the peak headform acceleration
half-face helmet (303 G) was approximately 54% higher than that associated with the use of the full-face
associated with the use of the half-face helmet (303 G) was approximately 54% higher than that
helmet (197 G) and 29% higher than that associated with the use of the open-face helmet (235 G).
associated with the use of the full-face helmet (197 G) and 29% higher than that associated with the
Hence, from a safety perspective, the use of a half-face helmet should be avoided. In other words,
use of the open-face helmet (235 G). Hence, from a safety perspective, the use of a half-face helmet
the open-face design provides a better compromise between rider safety and rider comfort under
should be avoided. In other words, the open-face design provides a better compromise between rider
warm conditions.
safety and rider comfort under warm conditions.
Helmets protect the head in two ways. First, the hard outer shell resists penetration and absorbs
Helmets protect the head in two ways. First, the hard outer shell resists penetration and absorbs
the initial shock. Subsequently, the softer foam liner progressively absorbs the impact energy by
the initial shock. Subsequently, the softer foam liner progressively absorbs the impact energy by
gradually collapsing. Previous studies have shown that the stress–strain response of polystyrene foam
gradually collapsing. Previous studies have shown that the stress–strain response of polystyrene
contains three characteristic regions under compression loading, namely linear elasticity (because of
foam contains three characteristic regions under compression loading, namely linear elasticity
cell wall bending), plastic deformation (because of cell wall collapse), and densification (because of
(because of cell wall bending), plastic deformation (because of cell wall collapse), and densification
(because of contact and crushing between opposing cell walls). Thus, a study reported that the force
rises rapidly at strains greater than approximately 80% [19]. The results presented in Figure 9 show
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 10 of 12

contact and crushing between opposing cell walls). Thus, a study reported that the force rises rapidly at
strains greater than approximately 80% [19]. The results presented in Figure 9 show that the prototype
open-face helmet with ventilation slots resulted in a lower peak headform acceleration than the original
open-face design, irrespective of the ventilation slot width. This finding is reasonable because the
ventilation slots in the shell/liner increase the space available for the foam liner to freely deform
under impact, thus increasing the amount of impact energy that can be absorbed prior to densification.
Notably, however, the ability of the liner to absorb the impact energy is not directly correlated with
the ventilation slot width. For example, the maximum headform acceleration associated with a slot
width of 14 mm (175 G) was greater than that associated with a smaller slot width of 8 mm (160 G).
This result is reasonable because the absorbed energy is greater at a smaller width, thus enabling
the helmet to withstand more impact. The minimum headform acceleration (150 G) was obtained
using the maximum slot width of 18 mm. However, as shown in Figure 9, the acceleration profile
obtained for this slot width had a two-peak characteristic (whereas those obtained for the 8-mm and
14-mm designs only had one). This suggests that, given a lower level of support of the foam liner
by the outer shell, the foam more readily enters the densification region of the stress–strain curve,
consequently resulting in the partial collapse of the liner material. Although the subsequent peak
headform acceleration (150 G) was lower than that of the other two designs, the ability of the liner to
support the head during impact was reduced, thus increasing the risk of head injury. Consequently, of
the three prototype designs, the results presented in Figure 9 suggest that a ventilation slot width of
8 mm yields the best compromise between rider comfort and rider safety.
The peak headform acceleration associated with the use of the 8-mm ventilation slot width (160 G)
was approximately 32% lower than that of the original open-face design (235 G) and 19% lower than
that of the full-face helmet (197 G). Thus, the suitability of the proposed open-face prototype design for
head protection in warm climates is further confirmed. Figure 10 shows the stress and displacement
contours for the three helmet models. The 8-mm ventilation slot model exhibits significant stress and
displacement induced in the headform and helmet. Thus, the suitability of the proposed open-face
prototype design for head protection in warm climates is further confirmed.

5. Conclusions
Existing motorcycle helmets generally provide an adequate performance level in terms of
protecting the head during impact. However, even the most sophisticated and expensive of helmets
are ineffective when not actually worn. Many studies have shown that wearers in hot climates tend to
dispense with helmets for comfort. Thus, during the design of a motorcycle helmet, it is necessary
to consider not only the protection afforded to the rider, but also the level of comfort. Accordingly,
this study proposes a novel open-face helmet design in which three parallel ventilation slots are
incorporated into the upper-head region of the helmet structure. The impact performance level of the
proposed helmet was compared with those of three traditional helmet designs (full-face, open-face,
and half-face helmets), by simulating free-fall drop impact tests at a speed of approximately 6 m/s.
The results obtained in this study support the following conclusions:

1. Of the three traditional helmet designs (full-face, open-face, and half-face helmets), the half
helmet resulted in the greatest peak headform acceleration (303 G), whereas the full-face helmet
resulted in the lowest acceleration (197 G). Thus, although the half-face helmet can provide the
greatest degree of user comfort, because of its lighter weight and better ventilation, it offered
the poorest head protection performance out of the three designs. Notably, however, all of the
three helmets were seen to satisfy the Snell standard (300 G) and DOT standard (400 G) for the
maximum headform acceleration.
2. The peak headform acceleration of the open-face helmet (235 G) was just 19% higher than that of
the full-face helmet (197 G). Thus, if the additional protection afforded to the chin and frontal-face
area of the rider in the event of an accident is disregarded, an open-face helmet provides both a
good level of protection, and an improved level of user comfort. Consequently, it is a reasonable
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 11 of 12

choice for motorcycle riders in warm climates. However, further research is required to improve
the ventilation performance of open-face helmets, in order to enhance the number of riders which
are actually wearing them.
3. The proposed prototype open-face helmet with ventilation was observed to result in a lower peak
headform acceleration than the original open-face helmet, irrespective of the slot width (8, 14, or
18 mm). The improved energy absorption performance of the proposed design was attributed to
the greater freedom of movement available to the liner; this freedom of movement enables the
liner to deform under impact, due to the absence of foam in the slot regions of the helmet.
4. Of the three open-face helmets with ventilation slots, the helmet with the slot width of 18 mm
resulted in the lowest peak headform acceleration (150 G). However, the acceleration profile for
this helmet was observed to have a two-peak characteristic, indicating the partial collapse of the
liner under impact, and thus, a lower protection afforded to the head. Therefore, the optimal
prototype design was determined to be that with a ventilation slot width of 8 mm, for which the
acceleration profile had a single-peak characteristic and a maximum headform acceleration of
160 G.
5. The peak headform acceleration associated with the use of the 8-mm ventilation slot width (160 G)
was approximately 32% lower than that of the original open-face design (235 G) and 19% lower
than that of the full-face helmet (197 G). Therefore, this confirms the feasibility of the proposed
design for motorcycle riders in warm climates.

In general, the present results indicate that of all the helmet designs considered in this study, the
full-face design provides the rider with maximum protection in the event of an accident. However,
comfort is a decisive factor when selecting a helmet for use in SE Asia and other warm climes.
Thus, effective helmet design must consider both user protection and user comfort. The simulation
results presented in this study suggest that open-face helmets with additional ventilation slots in the
upper-head region may allow both requirements to be simultaneously achieved. However, further
research is required to explore the optimal size and configuration of the ventilation slots (e.g., their
number, size, arrangement, and positioning).

Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the Thank you for your suggestions, it is correct.udy
by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under Grant Nos. MOST 104-2221-E-194-001-MY3 and
MOST 104-2622-E-194-014-CC2.
Author Contributions: De-Shin Liu and Yao-Te Chen conceived and designed the simulations and experiments;
De-Shin Liu and Yao-Te Chen performed the experiments; De-Shin Liu and Yao-Te Chen analyzed the data;
De-Shin Liu and Yao-Te Chen wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References
1. Bogerd, C.P.; Aerts, J.M.; Annaheim, S.; Bröde, P.; De Bruyne, G.; Flouris, A.D.; Kuklane, K.; Mayor, T.S.;
Rossi, R.M. A review on ergonomics of headgear: Thermal effects. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2015, 45, 1–12. [CrossRef]
2. Patel, R.; Mohan, D. An improved motorcycle helmet design for tropical climates. Appl. Ergon. 1993, 24,
427–431. [CrossRef]
3. De Rome, L.; Ivers, R.; Haworth, N.; Heritier, S.; Du, W.; Fitzharris, M. Novice riders and the predictors of
riding without motorcycle protective clothing. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1095–1103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Keng, S.H. Helmet use and motorcycle fatalities in Taiwan. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2005, 37, 349–355. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
5. Peden, M. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention; World Health Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2004.
6. DeMarco, A.L.; Chimich, D.D.; Gardiner, J.C.; Nightingale, R.W.; Siegmund, G.P. The impact response
of motorcycle helmets at different impact severities. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1778–1784. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 279 12 of 12

7. Hurt, H.; Thom, D.; Smith, T.A. Updating the twenty-year old DOT helmet standard. In Proceedings of the
1996 Association for the Advancement of Auto Medicine, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–9 October 1996.
8. Thorn, D.R.; Hurt, H.H., Jr.; Smith, T.A. Motorcycle helmet test headform and test apparatus comparison.
In Proceedings of the 16th ESV Conference, Windsor, ON, Canada, 31 May–4 June 1998. Paper No.
98-SlO-P-29.
9. Mitsuishi, H.; Ono, K.; Nishimoto, T.; Nakamura, N. Present and future performance levels of head injury
protection for motorcycle helmets. An attempt to search for better impact energy absorption property for
helmets. In Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury Conference,
Lyon, France, 21–23 September 1994; Volume 22, pp. 259–270.
10. Liu, D.S.; Fan, C.M.; Lee, M.C.; Yen, C.Y. A dynamic finite element simulation of the impact of motorcycle
helmets. In Crashworthiness, Occupant Protection and Biomechanics Transportation Systems; American Society of
Mechanical Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
11. Pinnoji, P.K.; Mahajan, P.; Bourdet, N.; Deck, C.; Willinger, R. Impact dynamics of metal foam shells for
motorcycle helmets: Experiments & numerical modeling. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2010, 37, 274–284.
12. Yu, W.Y.; Chen, C.Y.; Chiu, W.T.; Lin, M.R. Effectiveness of different types of motorcycle helmets and effects
of their improper use on head injuries. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 40, 794–803. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Fernandes, F.A.O.; Alves De Sousa, R.J. Motorcycle helmets—A state of the art review. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2013, 56, 1–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Margulies, S.S.; Thibault, L.E. A proposed tolerance criterion for diffuse axonal injury in man. J. Biomech.
1992, 25, 917–923. [CrossRef]
15. Liu, D.S.; Chang, C.Y.; Fan, C.M.; Hsu, S.L. Influence of environmental factors on energy absorption
degradation of polystyrene foam in protective helmets. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2003, 10, 581–591. [CrossRef]
16. Chang, F.S.; Song, Y.; Lu, D.X.; DeSilva, C.N. Unified Constitutive Equations of Foam Materials. Trans. ASME
1998, 120, 212–217. [CrossRef]
17. Afshari, A.; Rajaai, S.M. Finite element simulations investigating the role of the helmet in reducing head
injuries. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2008, 1, 42–51. [CrossRef]
18. Mills, N.J.; Wilkes, S.; Derler, S.; Flisch, A. FEA of oblique impact tests on a motorcycle helmet. Int. J.
Impact Eng. 2009, 36, 913–925. [CrossRef]
19. Gilchrist, A.; Mills, N.J. Deformation analysis for motorcycle helmets. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 8–10 September 1993; pp. 269–281.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).