Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018
2018-01-1057 Published 03 Apr 2018
Development of a Helmet Liner through
Bio-Inspired Structures and Topology
Optimized Compliant Mechanism Arrays
Joel C. Najmon, Jacob DeHart, Zebulun Wood, and Andres Tovar Indiana University, Purdue University
Citation: Najmon, J.C., DeHart, J., Wood, Z., and Tovar, A., “Development of a Helmet Liner through Bio-Inspired Structures and
Topology Optimized Compliant Mechanism Arrays,” SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-1057, 2018, doi:10.4271/2018-01-1057.
Abstract
T
he continuous development of sport technologies
persistently demands advancements in protective
headgear (helmets) to reduce the risk of head injuries.
This paper introduces the development of a new helmet liner,
developed through the performance study of two different
design approaches. The first approach is to design liners
through the study of biological structures. The second
approach is to use topology optimization to design an array
of compliant mechanisms. Bio-inspired designs are generated
through the study of biological micro and macro hierarchical
structures. An emphasis is given on biological mechanisms
that serve similar concussion reducing functions as a helmet
liner. Inspiration was draw from bone, animal infrastructures,
and microscopic skeletal structures. Compliant mechanism-
based designs start with the synthesis of two types of compliant
Introduction
I
n recent years, the short and long term effects of sports
related head injuries, like traumatic brain injuries (TBI)
and mild traumatic brain injuries (mTBI), more commonly
referred to as concussions, have become apparent. A recent
study found that 99% of the brains of deceased National
Football League (NFL) players (87% across all levels of play),
were found to have chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE),
which has been associated with memory and mood impair-
ments and dementia [1]. Furthermore, athletes who received
head injuries in the past are more susceptible to mTBIs, inten-
sifying their effects [2]. These facts show the inadequacies in
traditional approaches to helmet design, and call for disrup-
tive technologies to escalate helmet safety and alleviate uneasi-
ness of head injury prone sports.
Since the introduction of commercially available high-
fidelity finite element solvers, like LS-Dyna (LSTC, California),
initial design development has seen a shift towards simulation-
based design over prototype-based design. Testing high-
fidelity simulation models allows for increased control of
design factors, such as loads, materials, and measurements,
while reducing design time and cost. This revolution allows
for the rapid analysis of complex bio-inspired designs without
being hindered by physical technicalities of manufacturing.
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
mechanisms, designed through traditional density-based
topology optimization techniques. The first mechanism
operates with a positive Poisson’s ratio, where the Poisson’s
ratio, in this case, is defined as the displacement ratio between
the input and output ports of the compliant mechanism. The
second mechanism operates with a negative Poisson’s ratio.
These different mechanisms are assembled into three different
liner arrangements. Liner implementation into the helmet is
done by embedding the liner between an inner and outer
polycarbonate shell, replacing the traditional expanded poly-
propylene foam liner of a standard sports helmet. Prospective
liners are further developed through a series of ballistic impact
tests to determine the final design and its rubber properties.
The final liner is compared against an expanded polypro-
pylene foam liner to appraise the protection capabilities of the
proposed liner.
In turn, these designs can be studied and used in the creation
of an optimized design that is significantly easier to prototype,
test, and implement.
Designs coached by nature have impacted several indus-
tries including, automotive, architecture, and robotics. These
designs are driven by the desire to capture the outstanding
features and performance seen in biology, and integrate these
benefits into engineering designs. The study and analysis of
biological structures is additionally beneficial as it promotes
a more comprehensive understanding of life, leading to well-
rounded research and innovation.
Bio-inspired designs methods for impact-absorbing
structures have been proposed in the past; however, applica-
tions on helmet liner designs remain scarce [3]. Some of these
bio-inspired designs can be seen in attempts to emulate struc-
tures found in nature that could offer solutions to the circum-
stances faced by certain sports, like football. This work
expands the relationship between biologically inspired designs
and engineered designs, through the co-designing and
comparison of the two.
Properties of bio-inspired materials tend to surpass prop-
erties of man-made materials making the production and
practical application of bio-inspired materials a subject of
increasing interest in a variety of fields [4]. Inspiration for
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

2 DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES

structures in this paper drew from a variety of micro and  FIGURE 1   Bio-inspired designs: (a) pumpkin, (b) stacked
macro structures found in nature. Repeated cellular units of diatom skeletal, (c) internal Fibonacci spiral, (d) haystack, (e)
bio-inspired structures were created in attempts to reproduce wheel spoke, (f) external Fibonacci spiral, (g) spiral wave, (h)
similar or improved effects to reduce concussions. double helix, (i) hexagonal spring.
The most common multi-impact sports liner material is
expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam. This liner is used in
helmets for football, baseball, and lacrosse, among other
sports. The liner developed in this study aims at replacing this
sports liner. For one-time-impact helmets, such as bike and
horse riding helmets, a non-reusable foam liner is used, typi-
cally expanded polystyrene (EPS). Other less common liners
use thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), shock absorbing
liquids (SALi), air bladders, buckling columns, and non-
Newtonian fluids [5].
This study presents the development of a bio-inspired

© SAE International
helmet liner, and a topology optimized compliant mechanism-
based helmet liner. Three bio-inspired designs are created into
liners. Additionally, two compliant mechanisms which are
formed into helmet liners of three arrangements. These liners
are put through a series of tests to determine a liner design
and rubber Shore A hardness. Performance criterion evalua-
tion is discussed and tabulated on all liner designs. The final
liner of this process is compared with a traditional EPP foam
 FIGURE 2   Flow-chart of the Bio-Inspired Design Process.
liner to gauge protection performance gains.

Designs from Nature

© SAE International
When investigating biological designs to emulate, three cate-
gories were set up for reference: (1) organic mechanisms
directly related to head impact injury prevention, (2) organic
mechanisms and structures directly related to impact energy
reduction, either through material structure or a cushioning
deformation, and (3) miscellaneous structural patterns and
forms that could be utilized.
Examples of head injury reduction mechanism were
found in animals such as bighorn sheep, muskox, and wood-  FIGURE 3   (a) Diatom skeletal remains under an electron
peckers. One biological mechanism related to brain injury microscope and a mimicked (b) 3D model made in Zbrush.
reduction that they share, but is more optimized in big horn Example of mimicked natural design.
sheep, is what will be referred to as the bubble wrap effect [6].
It is when, before and during impact, the vascular tree of the
brain has increased blood volume. This effect fulfills the same
general role as the helmet liner being tested. Impact absorbing
structures investigated include primarily sections of compact
bone and spongy bone.
Inspiration found from organic structural patterns came
© SAE International

from a wide variety of sources. From microscopic skeletons

of sea life (radiolarians, diatoms, and other plankton) that
accumulate on the sea floor, to patterns found in forests and
foliage, to the hierarchical ordered structure of bone. Figure 1
shows bio-inspired designs.

this case, the problem is concussions in sports, resulting in

Bio-Inspired Design Process
The bio-inspired design process, from motivation by a
problem to a design product, is shown in Figure 2. The process
involved identifying design issues and searching for designs
that have already solved the problem being addressed [3]. In
the identification test. Research was conducted before, after,
and during the creation of models. Some designs, such as
Figure  3, show designs that are directly mimicked from
nature. A volume fraction constraint was not applied to these
designs due to the associated difficulty of constraining
manually created designs.
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES 3

Arching Cell Design
The pattern of Figure 4 will be referred to as the arching cell
design. This design is focused primarily on the cell neighbors
providing resistance when deforming. It is loosely inspired by
the organization of cells in leaves, and has a loose hexagonal
pattern with the top and bottom hexagons being cut into by
the arch that separates the cells. The space added in-between
each arch provides deformation that pushes the arches into
one another. Input force is intended to deform the lower half
of the design as the top and middle hexagons cannot further
deform once the arches meet. The volume fraction of the
arching cell design is 59%.
created with a dense outer layer and porous inner layer.
Osteons (circular pattern), Haversian canals (center of circular
patterns), and the spongy bottom bone layer, see in Figure 6,
were observed and implemented.
There were attempts to tailor the Poisson’s ratio by
creating designs with connecting perforations that represent
alternating layer spirals. The Osteon-like alternating direc-
tions of separated spiral columns inspired the interlocking ‘S’
pattern. This attempts to modify the Poisson’s ratio by leaving
room for a compressive force to press each inner circle down-
wards. The perforated curves connect each sphere to its
neighbor as shown in Figure 7. The volume fraction of the
bone inspired design is 68%. Figure 8 shows liner assemblies
for the three bio-inspired designs.

Spiral Design
The pattern of Figure 5 will be referred to as the spiral design  FIGURE 6   Structure of compact bone. a) Osteons, b)
in this paper. This pattern was primarily inspired by the
periosteum, c) interstitial lamellae, d) trabeculae of spongy
bubble wrap effect, caused by the vascular tree in the brain
bone, e) central canal, f) perforating canal,
being engorged with blood. The circle, that the interlocking
(Pearson Education).
spiral pattern creates, represents the veins. Spirals were chosen
with the assumption that they would work well in maintaining
a uniform deformation under impact. The internal spirals
were added as a packing measure with the goal of reducing
impact deformation through the binding and catching of the
spirals. Each cell is placed next to each other, but are not
rigidly connected with their neighboring cell (except the top
and bottom walls). The volume fraction of the spiral design
is 75%.

Bone Inspired Design

Taking inspiration from sections of long bone and focusing
© SAE International

on the hierarchical structure of separating compact bone, the

bone inspired design (referred to as the bone design) was

 FIGURE 4   1x3 section of the diamond skeletal design.

 FIGURE 7   1x3 section of an untested model’s sketch.

Inspired by osteons in bone. Example of bone
© SAE International

structural hierarchy.

 FIGURE 5   1x3 section of repeated spiral pattern using

Fibonacci spirals inside of circles.
© SAE International
© SAE International

© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018
4 DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES
 FIGURE 8   Liner Assemblies. Top) arching cell liner. Middle)
spiral liner. Bottom) bone liner.
Model Production Process
Digital production can begin in any file format, but must be
converted to a parametric file suitable for computer aided
design (CAD) programs. There are a handful of file types that
can be exchanged between CAD software in general and read
by LS-Dyna such as .igs or .stp. The default file type, used to
exchange models, for this study was .stp.
Initial designs were either sketched by hand or roughly
modelled in 3D programs like Maya (Autodesk, California)
or Zbrush (Pixologic, California) in order to better grasp the
form and patterns being created. Tested models were made in
Geomagic’s Design X (3D Systems, South Carolina) using
sketch lines to draw a design on a single plane. Sketches were
extruded to a depth of 5mm and exported to .stp file type for
LS-Dyna simulations.
Compliant Mechanism-
based Designs
A topology optimization code was developed capable of
synthesizing compliant mechanisms. This code operates
through use of the solid isotropic material parametrization
(SIMP) to perform density-based topology optimization [7].
The compliant mechanism design problem is defined as
finding the optimal density distribution x Î R n in a discretized
design domain that maximizes the mutual potential energy
(MPE) resulting from the application of input and output loads
(Figure 9) subjected to a volume constraint v ( x ) . This is
find x Î Rn
MPE ( x ( x ) ) = U ( x ( x ) ) K ( x ( x ) ) U ( x ( x ) )
T
max
2 1
n ( x ( x ) ) = x ( x ) v - v £ 0
T
s.t.
{
x Î c , c = x Î Rn : 0 £ x £ 1 ,
where xi ( xi ) , i = 1, ¼, n , are the filtered variables
defined by
xi ( xi ) =
å jÎN i
H ij v j x j
,
å
H ij v j
jÎN i
 FIGURE 9   a) Positive mechanism and b) negative
mechanism load and boundary conditions.
© SAE International
© SAE International
and N i is the neighborhood of the element xi with
volume vi and weight factor H ij . The maximization of MPE
maximizes the displacement of the output nodes for a given
input force. The sensitivity coefficients of MPE are obtained
with the adjoint method [7]. The optimization problem is
numerically solved using the method of moving asymptotes
(MMA) [8]. For this study, all liner performance simulations
are carried out in equivalent 2D extruded versions. This was
done to analyze the performance of different liners and deter-
mine which liner is best suited for impact energy management
while maintaining a computationally feasible simulation. The
best candidate was selected for the final design of the liner.
Compliant Mechanism
Synthesis
There are two primary designs for compliant mechanisms for
use in the protective liner. Both function by redirecting an
incoming radial force to a tangential direction. The first design
for the compliant mechanism redirects forces out from the
point of impact. Holistically, this gives the mechanism a
positive Poisson’s ratio. This mechanism will be referred to as
the positive mechanism. The second design redirects the
incoming force inwards, translating to a negative Poisson’s
ratio for the mechanism. This mechanism will be referred to
as the negative mechanism.
Applying symmetric boundary conditions, only one-
quarter of the mechanism needs to be optimized. Each
problem was ran with a 30×30 mesh. For the positive mecha-
nism, an input load was specified in the upper left corner and
a dummy output load was specified in the lower right corner
of the design domain. Similarly, for the negative mechanism,
an input load was defined in the upper right corner with a
(1) dummy output load specified in the lower right corner of the
design domain. Each load was given a width of 10% of the
} edge length, to achieve a large enough connection area so that
implementation into the liner was robust. Roller supports were
applied to the nodes along the left and bottom edges of the
design domain for both mechanisms. Figure 9 shows the
loaded nodes, load orientations, and supports for the positive
and negative mechanisms.
By performing topology optimization on these compliant
mechanisms we obtain a 2D topology, which can be extruded
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES 5

 FIGURE 10   Optimized topology for a) positive mechanism  FIGURE 12   Simulation of NOCSAE Drop Test Method ND
and b) negative mechanism problems. c) Full positive mechanism 001 on a basic foam-based helmet to determine width of (top
structure. d) Full negative mechanism structure. side) impact area.

© SAE International
liner with the alternating positive and negative mechanism
© SAE International

arrangement is referred to as the net zero liner.

for performance analysis using LS-Dyna. The volume fraction
was set to 40%, and the penalization value for SIMP was set
to a value of 3. A filter radius of 3 elements was also added to
prevent the creation of spindly members. Figure 10 shows the
results of the topology optimization code.
Each mechanism is 19.05 mm × 19.05 mm (0.75” × 0.75”)
with an extruded depth of 5.0 mm. The mechanism array sits
between two polycarbonate shells that are 2.0 mm thick. To
determine a suitable number of mechanisms, or liner section
length, a helmet drop test simulation on an EPP foam helmet
was studied to determine the impact area, shown in Figure 12
[9]. From this simulation, it was found that the projected
impact area of a 4.9 kg headform moving at 5.46 m/s is approx-
imately an oval with a major axis of 85 mm and a minor axis
of 80 mm. Nine mechanisms were selected for each liner,
covering over twice the length of the impact area’s major axis.

Mechanism Arrangements and

Liner Architecture Numerical Results
Three different arrangements of mechanisms are assembled
into liners for testing. These arrangements use (1) all positive Testing Setup
mechanisms, (2) all negative mechanisms, and (3) alternating Each liner design is put through a simple ballistic test, using
positive and negative mechanisms, shown in Figure 11. The LS-Dyna (with base units of g, mm, ms). A rigid impactor
impacts the top surface of the liner at 5 mm/ms and has a
diameter of 100 mm and mass of 70 g. The bottom and side
 FIGURE 11   Liner assemblies. Top) positive arrangement surfaces nodes are given roller supports, modeling the support
liner. Middle) negative arrangement liner. Bottom) net of the helmet lining from the head and other mechanisms
zero liner. respectively. An additional roller support was added to the
front and back sides of the 2D extrusion to prevent buckling
and mimic support from 3D versions of the design (see the
Appendix for full 3D versions). Figure 13, shows the initial
test simulation setup for the positive arrangement liner test.

Model Details
The polycarbonate shells are modeled as a simple elastic solid,
© SAE International

since the given application is under yield stress for

p olyc a rbonate. E ach shel l ha s d i mensions of
­
171.45 mm × 5.0 mm × 2.0 mm. A polycarbonate impactor is
modeled as a rigid shell cylinder, and has a diameter of 100 mm,
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

6 DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES

 FIGURE 13   Initial ballistic test setup for the positive rise to a high peak acceleration. Therefore, the HIC, a measure
arrangement liner. of the likelihood of a head injury resulting from an impact, is
used to capture the significance of the slope of a resultant
acceleration curve [14]. The HIC is given by
ì é 1 ù
2.5
ü
ï t2
ï
HIC = í( t 2 - t1 ) ê
ïî êë ( t 2 - t1 ) ò t1
a ( t ) dt ú
úû
ý , (2)
ïþmax

where, a ( t ) is the headform’s acceleration measured in

g (standard gravity), and t1 and t 2 (seconds) are the initial
and final times that correspond to a maximum HIC value.
The ballistic test in this study does not accurately model
impact on a human head, consequently, HIC values in this
paper are used exclusively for comparison purposes, and

© SAE International
should not be compared with external HIC measures. For this
analysis we use HIC15, which sets the integral’s interval to 15
ms. When t 2 = t1 + 0.015 ms, HIC15 is defined as

ìï 1.5 é
t1 + 0.015
ù
2.5
üï
depth of 5.0 mm, and mass of 70 g. Bio-inspired designs have
their top and bottom surfaces glued to the adjacent sides of
HIC15 = í( 0.015 ) ê
ïî ë ò t1
a ( t ) dt ú
û
ý . (3)
ïþmax
the top and bottom surfaces, respectively. Compliant mecha-
nism designs have their array mechanisms glued to each other, TABLE 1  Bio-Inspired Designs Performance Values.
at their respective output ports, and to the top and bottom
Bio-Inspired Designs Arching Cell Spiral Bone
polycarbonate shells, at their respective input ports.

© SAE International
The bio-inspired designs and compliant mechanisms, Peak Resultant Acceleration 706.9 848.7 876.5
of Impactor ( g )
were both modeled with the simple 2-parameter Mooney-
HIC15 of Impactor 598.6 672.8 655.8
Rivlin rubber model, as vulcanized natural rubber [10]. The
parameters, C10 and C01, are obtained from a correlation Peak Displacement (mm) 4.4 4.1 3.8
study between Shore A hardness and the Mooney-Rivlin
parameters [11]. Shore A hardness is a measure of the hardness  FIGURE 14   Deformed Liners at peak impactor
of the material, using the type A scale (typical for softer mate- displacement. Top) arching cell liner. Middle) spiral liner.
rials). A Shore A hardness of 60A was used for the bio-inspired
Bottom) bone liner.
simulations and mechanism arrangement comparison ballistic
test. The mechanism hardness evaluation test compares the
effects of using Shore A hardnesses of 50A, 60A, 70A, and 80A
on the liner’s protection capabilities.
For the baseline simulation, LS-Dyna’s low density foam
model was used to model EPP foam [12]. All simulation vari-
ables not dependent on liner topology and hardnesses were
kept consistent across ballistic tests. This includes timestep
options, hourglass control, contact definitions, initial veloci-
ties, boundary conditions, element formulations, and other
model options. Complete LS-Dyna material model keycards
details can be found in the Appendix.

Performance Evaluation
Criterion
It is widely known that TBIs and mTBIs are linked with the
linear and rotational accelerations experienced by the brain
[13]. Consideration of injurious accelerations are evaluated
through the peak resultant acceleration and the head injury
criterion (HIC) of the impactor.
The peak resultant acceleration of the impactor is the
© SAE International

maximum value of the resultant acceleration experienced by

the impactor. However, peak resultant acceleration does not
capture all of the severity behind an impact. A steep spike to
a low peak acceleration, can be just as detrimental, as a gradual
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES 7

For reference, at an HIC15 = 1000, there is 18% probability TABLE 2  Bio-Inspired Designs Performance
of severe head injury, 55% probability of serious head injury, Normalized Values.
and 90% probability of a moderate head injury, for the average Bio-Inspired Designs Arching Cell Spiral Bone Weight
human [15]. While it may seem suitable to analyze liners
Peak Resultant 0.807 0.968 1.000 0.375
through their energy absorption capabilities, these evaluations Acceleration of Impactor
are irrelevant within a simple impact test, as all liners absorb

© SAE International
(g)
all of the initial kinetic energy when the impactor is brought HIC15 of Impactor 0.890 1.000 0.975 0.4375
to a stop (before rebounding). A more relevant evaluation
Peak Displacement (mm) 1.000 0.932 0.864 0.1875
would be to observe how the impact energy is managed within
Weighted Score 0.880 0.975 0.963 --
the array. To this end, the internal energy distribution among
the compliant mechanism array is evaluated through the
mean and standard deviation (SD) of the distribution of each
mechanism’s peak internal energy (PIE). The last performance shows the results of these test simulations. Here, one finds
metric considered is the peak displacement seen by the impac- that the arching cell design is the best overall design. A
tor’s center of mass. Large liner displacements could prove to tradeoff can be witnessed between the acceleration based crite-
be uncomfortable for the wearer, if there is significant defor- rion and peak displacement. The less displacement that occurs
mation of the inner polycarbonate shell. into the liner, the worse protection it provides. Table 2 shows
To aid with design evaluation, performance values, f j ( x ) , the normalized performance values. From this table, we can
are normalized. A subsequent weighted sum is calculated and observe that the arching cell design has the highest weighted
used for justification of selecting designs for further analysis. score defined by (4). Figure 14, shows the deformation of the
The resulting weighted score is then defined as bio-inspired liners when the impactor is at max deformation.

F (x) = åw f ( x ) (4)
j j
j
Rubber Hardness Analysis
where f j ( x ) is the normalized performance value and
w j the corresponding weight. Performance values in this
of Bio-Inspired Designs
analysis include peak resultant acceleration amax , HIC15, mean
The second series of ballistic test simulations are designed to
PIE, SD of PIE, and peak displacement dmax . Normalization
determine an ideal rubber hardness for the arching cell liner.
is done as a fractional percent of the maximum value. Since
Table 3 shows the results of these test simulations. Table 4
most of the performance values are desired to be minimized,
shows the normalized versions of these results along with the
the best design is the one with the lowest weighted score. Note
design’s weighted score. Observing Table 3 it can be seen that
that the mean PIE criteria is desired to be maximized, so the
increasing the Shore A hardness of the rubber, beyond the
sign was flipped for this row.
original value of 60A, results in a decrease in protective capa-
The weights for each performance measure was decided
bilities. However, decreasing the Shore A hardness, results in
by a paired comparison method comparing each performance
improvements in protective capabilities.
measure against the others. The pair comparison table used
These observations lead to the conclusion that the arching
for calculating weight values for CM-based analysis can be
cell design with rubber Shore A hardness of 50A has the best
found in the Appendix. Weight values for bio-inspired analysis
were found with the same methods.
TABLE 3  Bio-Inspired Design Shore A Hardness
Performance Values.
Bio-Inspired Designs Shore A Hardness 50A 60A 70A 80A
© SAE International

The weighted score (4) is used to evaluate the bio-inspired Peak Resultant Acceleration of 658.9 706.9 862.6 956.8
designs and the compliant mechanism arrangements. Rubber Impactor ( g )
Shore A hardness is evaluated as well. The final design is HIC15 of Impactor 536.8 598.6 712.1 756.2
compared with a traditional foam liner to evaluate perfor- Peak Displacement (mm) 5.1 4.4 3.9 3.5
mance gains over current helmets.

TABLE 4  Bio-Inspired Design Shore A Hardness Performance

Normalized Values.
Performance Analysis of Shore A Hardness 50A 60A 70A 80A Weight
Bio-Inspired Designs Peak Resultant
Acceleration of
0.689 0.739 0.902 1.000 0.375

Impactor ( g )
The bio-inspired design simulations were performed to deter-
© SAE International

mine the potential of various structures at providing protec- HIC15 of Impactor 0.710 0.792 0.942 1.000 0.4375
tion. This comparison does not consider PIE and SD of PIE Peak Displacement 1.000 0.863 0.765 0.686 0.1875
as the bio-inspired designs are a continuous layer and not (mm)
comprised of an array of compliant mechanisms. Table 1 Weighted Score 0.756 0.785 0.893 0.941 --
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

8 DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES

protective capabilities out of the tested bio-inspired show the results of these test simulations and their
design configurations. normalized values.
The positive and negative arrangements have similar peak
Compliant Mechanism-based resultant accelerations, HIC15 values, and mean PIE, with the
negative arrangement having the best overall. The significant
Designs difference between these two arrangements is the distribution
As before, the weighted score (4) is used to evaluate mecha- of PIE, seen through the SD. The negative arrangement has
nism arrangement and hardness. A comprehensive accelera- double the SD of PIE compared to the positive arrangement.
tion vs. displacement plot of all tested liner configurations is This is undesirable as failure to efficiently distribute energy
shown in Figure 16. Additional acceleration and displacement into the compliant mechanism array leads to unnecessarily
plots can be found in the Appendix. The final design is high stresses and strains, increasing the risk of
compared with a traditional foam liner to evaluate perfor- mechanism failure.
mance gains over current helmets. The net zero arrangement exhibited very poor impact
protection capabilities, obtaining nearly all normalized values
of 1.0. This poor performance is due to lack of straining
Performance Analysis of between adjacent positive and negative mechanisms. In the
positive and negative arrangements, the output ports apply a
CM-based Designs compressive and tensile load (respectively) on their members,
converting kinetic energy to strain energy. In the net zero
liner, input and output ports move together, collapsing the
The first series of ballistic test simulations were used to analyze
structure with little strain and thus, poor energy management
different compliant mechanism arrangements; all of which
(Figure 15).
have a volume fraction of 40% (Figure 11). Table 5 and Table 6
The peak displacement across all arrangements were close
to each other, with the negative arrangement having the
TABLE 5  Mechanism Arrangement Performance Values. smallest at 11.1 mm, due to the large void in the center of the
Mechanism topology. This void prevented the top shell from completely
Arrangement Positive Negative Net Zero collapsing the structure, as was the case with the positive and
Peak Resultant 391.6 350.9 951.7 net zero arrangements. Figure 15 shows the deformed topolo-
Acceleration gies at their respective peak displacement. The positive mecha-
of Impactor nism arrangement had the best weighted score, and will be
(g) used for the following series of ballistic tests.
HIC15 of 273.3 255.3 768.3
Impactor
Mean PIE of 71.4 72.7 70.2
Compliant
Mechanisms
Rubber Hardness Analysis
(N∙mm)
SD of PIE of 40.3 80.6 70.9
of CM-based Designs
Compliant
Mechanisms The second series of ballistic test simulations are designed to
© SAE International

(N∙mm) determine an ideal rubber hardness for use in the positive

Peak 13.0 11.1 13.4 mechanism arrangement.
Displacement
(mm)
 FIGURE 15   Deformed Liners at peak impactor
displacement. Top) positive arrangement liner. Middle)
TABLE 6  Mechanism Arrangement Performance negative arrangement liner. Bottom) net zero liner.
Normalized Values.
Mechanism
Arrangement Positive Negative Net Zero Weight
Peak Resultant 0.411 0.369 1.000 0.30
Acceleration of
Impactor ( g )
HIC15 of Impactor 0.356 0.332 1.000 0.35
Mean PIE of Compliant -0.982 -1.000 -0.966 0.05
Mechanisms (N∙mm)
SD of PIE of Compliant 0.500 1.000 0.880 0.15
© SAE International

© SAE International

Mechanisms (N∙mm)
Peak Displacement 0.970 0.828 1.000 0.15
(mm)
Weighted Score 0.419 0.451 0.884 –
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES 9

 FIGURE 16   Acceleration vs. displacement simulation TABLE 8  Mechanism Arrangement Shore A Hardness
responses for bio-inspired (Bio), EPP foam, and compliant Performance Normalized Values.
mechanisms (CM)-based designs with positive (+), negative (-), Shore A
and net zero (0) Poisson’s ratio and different shore (A) Hardness 50A 60A 70A 80A Weight
hardness values. Peak Resultant 1.000 0.644 0.447 0.463 0.30
Acceleration of
Impactor ( g )
HIC15 of 1.000 0.600 0.463 0.440 0.35
Impactor
Mean PIE of -0.980 -1.000 -0.986 -0.965 0.05
Compliant
Mechanisms
(N∙mm)
SD of PIE of 0.772 0.712 0.818 1.000 0.15
Compliant
Mechanisms
(N∙mm)
Peak 1.000 0.949 0.869 0.796 0.15
© SAE International

© SAE International
Displacement
(mm)
Weighted 0.867 0.602 0.499 0.514 –
Score

Table 7 shows the results of these test simulations. As with

the last series of tests, Table 8 has the normalized results.
Observing Table 8, it can be seen that increasing the Shore A
hardness of the rubber, beyond the original value of 60A, leads
to an increase the protective capabilities. Conversely,
decreasing the Shore A hardness, leads to significant deprecia-
tion of the liner’s protective capabilities.
Although these trends are apparent, they disseminate
around Shore A hardnesses of 70A and 80A, where the
normalized values become close to one another. A Shore A
hardness of 80A sees improvement over 70A in HIC and peak
displacement, despite experiencing a decrease in the peak
resultant acceleration of the impactor. PIE distribution is also
significantly worse moving from 70A to 80A, increasing from
46.4 N∙mm to 56.6 N∙mm.
From Table 8, a Shore A hardness of 70A is the best
natural rubber hardness to use with the positive mechanism
arrangement. In actuality, due to the closeness of the weighted
scores between 70A and 80A, an ideal Shore A hardness lies
between these two values. The 70A hardness design is used in
the following section in comparison with a traditional
expanded polypropylene foam liner.
Expanded Polypropylene
Foam Liner Comparison
Comparing the proposed liner design to a traditional
expanded polypropylene foam liner, Table 9 is similar to prior
performance value tables, however PIE distribution, of the
compliant mechanism array, has been withdrawn as it is not
applicable for the foam liner.
The proposed design shows significant benefits over a
standard EPP liner with respect to acceleration-based crite-
rion. Both the peak resultant acceleration and HIC of the
impactor had improved values over the EPP foam liner. On
the other hand, the compliant mechanism array deforms more
than the EPP foam liner which could be uncomfortable for
the user. Given these trade-offs, the proposed liner still
demonstrates net improvements, in protection capabilities,
over traditional EPP foam liners, as resultant acceleration is
a far more frequent cause of head injuries than
liner displacement.

TABLE 7  Mechanism Arrangement Shore A Hardness

TABLE 9  Expanded Polypropylene Foam vs. Proposed
Performance Values.
Design, Performance Comparison.
Shore A Hardness 50A 60A 70A 80A
Percent Change
Peak Resultant Acceleration of 608.1 391.6 271.8 281.7 Proposed from EPP Foam to
Impactor ( g ) EPP Foam Design Proposed Design
HIC15 of Impactor 455.8 273.3 210.9 200.7 Peak Resultant 327.4 271.8 16.98% ⇧
Mean PIE of Compliant 70.0 71.4 70.4 68.9 Acceleration of
© SAE International

© SAE International

Mechanisms (N∙mm) Impactor ( g )

SD of PIE of Compliant 43.7 40.3 46.3 56.6 HIC15 of Impactor 265.3 210.9 20.51% ⇧
Mechanisms (N∙mm) Peak Displacement 6.55 11.9 81.68% ⇩
Peak Displacement (mm) 13.7 13.0 11.9 10.9 (mm)

© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018
10 DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES
Conclusion
In this study, we have developed several designs for liners
through bio-inspired design processes and through topology
optimized compliant mechanism liners. Bio-inspired designs
were generated from studying selected biological mechanisms
that functioned similarly to the role of a helmet liner. It was
shown how topology optimization can be used to develop an
individual compliant mechanism suitable for array construc-
tion. It was further shown how mechanisms designed for
different types of redirection, can be arranged in a conflicting
order, to absorb strain energy. A series of ballistic tests were
carried out on all proposed liners, to determine the ideal
design and rubber hardness. The proposed final solution
utilizes a complete positive mechanism arrangement, with a
hardness of 70A and boasts an improvement in peak accelera-
tion and HIC values of 16%-20%. This liner prioritizes mini-
mizing the acceleration experienced upon impact over the
displacement of the liner, as seen when comparing the EPP
foam and CM+, 70A plots of Figure 16. The proposed liner
design can be easily converted to a 3D variant for full-helmet
model simulation and prototyping via additive manufacturing.
References
1. Mez, J., Daneshvar, D.H., Kiernan, P.T., Abdolmohammadi,
B. et al., “Clinicopathological Evaluation of Chronic
Traumatic Encephalopathy in Players of American Football,”
The Journal of the American Medical Association 318(4):360-
370, 2017, doi:10.1001/jama.2017.8334.
2. Collins, M.W., Lovell, M., Iverson, G., Cantu, R. et al.,
“Cumulative Effects of Concussion in High School Athletes,”
PubMed Neurosurgery 51(5):1175-1179, 2002,
doi:10.1097/00006123-200211000-00011.
3. Mehta, P., Solis Ocampo, J., Tovar, A., and Chaudhari, P.,
“Bio-Inspired Design of Lightweight and Protective
Structures,” SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-0396, 2016,
doi:10.4271/2016-01-0396.
4. Wang, Jun, and Rahul Rai. “Classification of Bio-Inspired
Periodic Cubic Cellular Materials Based on Compressive
Deformation Behaviors of 3D Printed Parts and FE
Simulations.” Volume 7: 28th International Conference on
Design Theory and Methodology, 2016, doi:10.1115/detc2016-
59729.
5. “Bicycle Helmet Liners: Foam and Other Materials.” BHSI
- Helmets, Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, Rev. Oct. 2017,
www.helmets.org/liners
6. Myer, G., Yuan, W., Barber Foss, K.D., Thomas, S. et al.,
“Analysis of Head Impact Exposure and Brain
Microstructure Response in a Season-Long Application of a
Jugular Vein Compression Collar: A Prospective,
Neuroimaging Investigation in American Football,” British
Journal of Sports Medicine 50:1276-1285, 2017, doi:10.1136/
bjsports-2016-096134.
7. Liu, K. and Andres, T., “An Efficient 3D Topology
Optimization Code Written in Matlab,” Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization 50(6):1175-1196, 2014,
doi:10.1007/s00158-014-1107-x.
8. Svanberg, K., “The Method of Moving Asymptotes - A New
Method for Structural Optimization,” International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 24(2):359-373, 1987,
doi:10.1002/nme.1620240207.
9. National Operating Committee of Standards for Athletic
Equipment. “Standard Test Method and Equipment used in
Evaluating the Performance Characteristics of Headgear/
Equipment.” NOCSAE ND 001 - 15m17, Rev. Jan. 2017.
10. Mott, P.H. and Roland, C.M., “Limits to Poisson’s Ratio in
Isotropic Materials,” Physical Review B 80(13):132104, 2009,
doi:10.1103/physrevb.80.132104.
11. Altidis, P., and Warner, B., “Analyzing Hyperelastic
Materials - With Some Practical Considerations.” Midwest
ANSYS Users Group, 18 May 2005.
12. Bouix, R., Viot, P., and Lataillade, J., “Polypropylene Foam
Behavior under Dynamic Loadings: Strain Rate, Density and
Microstructure Effects,” International Journal of Impact
Engineering 36(2):329-342, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.
ijimpeng.2007.11.007.
13. Gennarelli, T.A., Thibault, L., Tomei, G., Wiser, R. et al.,
“Directional Dependence of Axonal Brain Injury Due to
Centroidal and Non-Centroidal Acceleration,” SAE
Technical Papers 872197, SAE International, 1987,
doi:10.4271/872197.
14. McHenry, B., “Head Injury Criterion and the ATB,”ATB
Users’ Group, 2004, www.mchenrysoftware.com.
15. Mackay, M., “The Increasing Importance of the
Biomechanics of Impact Trauma,” Sadhana 32(4):397-408,
2007, doi:10.1007/s12046-007-0031-9.
Contact Information
Joel Najmon
Phone no: +1 (317) 627-2393
jnajmon@iupui.edu
Jacob DeHart
Phone no: +1 (269) 240-7737
jjdehart@iupui.edu
Zebulun Woods
Phone no: +1 (317) 278-4140
jjdehart@iupui.edu
Andres Tovar (corresponding author)
Phone no: +1 (317) 278-7090
tovara@iupui.edu
Acknowledgments
This research has been supported by a grant from the Sports
Innovation Institute at Indiana University-Purdue University
Indianapolis (IUPUI). The authors want to thank Darin Grice,
President of Turtle Shell Protective Systems, LLC, for feedback
on helmet design and testing.
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES 11

Appendix
3D Versions of Compliant Mechanisms
 FIGURE A17   3D version of the Positive Mechanism.
© SAE International

 FIGURE A18   3D version of the Negative Mechanism.

© SAE International

Acceleration and Displacement vs. Time Plots for Ballistic

Testing Simulations
 FIGURE A19   Displacement vs. time simulation responses  FIGURE A20   Acceleration vs. time simulation responses
for bio-inspired (Bio), EPP foam, and compliant mechanisms for bio-inspired (Bio), EPP foam, and compliant mechanisms
(CM)-based designs with positive (+), negative (-), and net zero (CM)-based designs with positive (+), negative (-), and net zero
(0) Poisson’s ratio and different shore (A) hardness values. (0) Poisson’s ratio and different shore (A) hardness values.
© SAE International
© SAE International

© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.

 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Michigan, Saturday, July 28, 2018

12 DEVELOPMENT OF A HELMET LINER THROUGH BIO-INSPIRED STRUCTURES

Pair Comparison Table for Weight Calculation

TABLE A10  Pair Comparison Table for Weight Calculation (Compliant Mechanism Based Analysis).

Performance Criteria Comparisons Total Weight

Peak Resultant Acceleration of 0 1 1 1 3 0.3
Impactor
HIC15 of Impactor 1 1 1 0.5 3.5 0.35

© SAE International
Mean PIE of Compliant Mechanisms 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.05
SD of PIE of Compliant Mechanisms 0 0 1 0.5 1.5 0.15
Peak Displacement 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.15
Sum: 10 1

LS-Dyna Material Model Keycard Details

Keycard parameters that are not in the table, were left at default values. LS-Dyna simulations ran with base units of g, mm, ms.

TABLE A11  Polycarbonate Shell Material Keycard. TABLE A13  Natural Rubber Material Keycard.

MAT 001 - RO E PR MAT 027 Shore A RO PR A B

ELASTIC 0.012 2390 0.37 - Hardness

© SAE International
MOONEY 50 0.012 0.4999 0.302 0.076
© SAE International
- RIVLIN
60 0.012 0.4999 0.474 0.118
RUBBER
70 0.012 0.4999 0.736 0.184
80 0.012 0.4999 1.038 0.260
TABLE A12  Impactor Material Keycard.

MAT 020 RO E PR CON1 TABLE A14  Expanded Polypropylene Foam Material Keycard.

© SAE International
- RIGID 0.045 2390 0.37 3
MAT 057 RO E TC HU DAMP SHAPE
© SAE International
- LOW 8.6e-5 1 1e+10 0.2 0.1 5
DENSITY
FOAM

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the
content of the paper.

ISSN 0148-7191