ARTICLE IN PRESS

Materials
& Design
Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/matdes

A new motorcycle helmet liner material: The finite element

simulation and design of experiment optimization
F.M. Shuaeib, A.M.S. Hamouda *, S.V. Wong, R.S. Radin Umar, M.M.H. Megat Ahmed
Road Safety Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Received 5 January 2005; accepted 22 April 2005

Abstract

This paper is devoted to study and verify the suitability of the expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam as a liner for motorcycle
helmet and to perform helmet design optimization. This EPP foam has a multi-impact protection performance and also has a poten-
tial for ventilation system improvement due to its resiliency. This resiliency allows for the ease of ventilation holes and channels
molding without the foam breakage at the stage of mold extraction. The large scale, non-linear, dynamic finite element package
LS-DYNA3D is used as a verification tool for motorcycle helmet design. Then the simulation work is carried further to provide
data for helmet design analysis and optimization using the response surface methodology (RSM). The foam thickness, the foam
density, and shell thickness being selected as the design factors for the response surface generation and design optimization. The
results showed that the EPP satisfies the 300g headform center of gravity acceleration limit required by most of the international
standards. The extended simulation output data is then used to create the response surface and determine the optimum design
points. Therefore, two main contributions on motorcycle helmet design are achieved. The first is on the use of the EPP as a helmet
energy absorption liner for the motorcycle helmet application, and the second is that by combining the simulation output with the
design of experiment (DOE) method to study the effects of the various factors on helmet design optimization.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Design; Helmet; Simulation; Energy absorption; Foam

1. Introduction
EPS foam is a single impact performance and, from

Helmets for motorcyclists are basically made form
two main parts. The outer shell which is either made
from thermoplastic material such as ABS or the polycar-
bonate, or composite material such as GRP or Kevlar.
The inner liner, which is our focus here, is generally
made from the expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam. This
type of foam, in spite of its excellent first impact perfor-
mance, has some essential performance deficiencies,
which can be formulated as follows [9,10,23–25].
motorcycle crash kinematics studies it was evident
that motorcycle crash is a multi-impact situation,
particularly the most dangers high-speed crash.

EPS foam is brittle in its nature. This brittleness has
led to two design problems, which is related to manu-
facturability. The former is the helmet roll-off due to
the lack of fitness of the inside helmet contour, unless
additional pads made from other resilient foams such
as polyurethane are added in suitable locations. The
later is the difficulty in introducing ventilation chan-
nels or ducts in the foam. This is important for coun-
tries with tropical climate including Malaysia.

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +603 89466330; fax: +603 86566061. The expanded polypropylene (EPP) foam shows
E-mail address: hamouda@eng.upm.edu.my (A.M.S. Hamouda). strong potential in overcoming such problems

0261-3069/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2005.04.015
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
[9,20,12]. However its suitability as a motorcycle helmet
liner needs to be thoroughly investigated from the
mechanical performance point of view. Another objec-
tive which is included in this work is the helmet design
optimization. This later objective was a challenging task
in the previous research work due to the complex nature
of the helmet structure and the various factors involved.
Therefore, the two main objectives, which are tar-
geted in this paper, namely; the verification of the
EPP foam as a suitable liner for motorcycle helmet
application, while the later is to develop helmet design
optimization. The finite element simulation was the
most suitable choice for such objectives, as once the
design is found to be acceptable; the model parame-
ters can easily be changed for parametric study. This
is not feasible experimentally even if few EPP foam
helmet prototypes where manufactured. This is be-
cause that any required change in the helmet design
parameters needs some sort of modification to the
molding facility, which is generally not feasible or ex-
tremely cost offensive.
In the next paragraphs a brief review about the previ-
ous studies on the motorcycle helmet design and analysis
is presented.
At the early stage, solution of the helmeted-head im-
pact problem was tackled either by experimental test-
ing or by using analytical methods. The later
techniques involves the development of simplified ana-
lytical models, which are composed of springs and
dashpots to represent the helmet components. Then
the analytical model is solved by basic dynamics meth-
ods. In the experimental investigation the results were
restricted to varying the impact parameters such as
the impact speed or the shape of the anvil. Varying hel-
met parameters experimentally were impossible due to
testing sample manufacturing constraints. This had
limited the benefits gained from the experimental stud-
ies to the standards requirements satisfaction. In the
analytical solution, helmet impact on the crown against
flat anvil was analytically modeled by Gilchrist and
Mills [14]. The solution obtained, which is usually
either one or two dimensional, had limited advantages
due to the approximation involved and the disability of
representing most of the essential impact features
encountered in real accidents.
The problem of helmet impact modeling and crash
simulation is facilitated after the tremendous develop-
ment in the computer technology and the development
of the advanced simulation packages such as the LS-
DYNA3D [21] and the PAM CRASH [7].
Vetter et al. [30] conducted a finite element simula-
tion of football helmet. Their study involves the simu-
lation of helmet subjected to a static load on the
crown. The effects of the variation of helmet structural
and material properties were studied. Some principles
of their research methodology can be utilized for dy-
namic simulation, which will have a more realistic
meaning for motorcycle helmet crash studies. Yetham
et al. [31] have developed a simplified finite element
model for studying motorcycle helmets using LS-DY-
NA3D code. They model the impact of a helmet fitted
on a wooden headform. The headform was given a
simplified spherical shape, while the helmet was given
a hemispherical shape. Various types of helmet shell
materials were used in the analysis, such as GRP,
PC, and LDPE. However, the widely used ABS shell
material was not considered. Three densities of EPS
foam were used. Their study has provided an excellent
start of motorcycle helmet simulation and parametric
studies using the finite element simulation techniques.
Recently, Liu et al. [20] carried more advanced helmet
crash simulation using the same LS-DYNA3D code.
They have used ABS material for the shell and the
EPS foam as the helmet liner. Their main concern
was to develop a helmeted-head finite element model
and carry out a validation process rather than perform-
ing parametric studies or optimization. The mechanical
properties for these components were obtained experi-
mentally under quasi-static conditions. Their simula-
tion was carried out using both standard headform
model and biomechanical head model. The impact site
was rotated between the front to the back of the hel-
met. The heights of impact simulated were relatively
small, and not conforming to any well known helmet
testing standards. However, their study is another
essential step in this field. In our study the previously
described modeling techniques can be considered in
the development of the EPP foam liner helmet model.
The material model will be different from those models
utilized for the EPS.
In this study the finite element method is used for the
helmet impact solution. The choice of using the finite
element method is taken because of its capability to
analysis metal and non-metal structures in an accurate
way, and its availability as a finite element package
(such as LS-DYNA3D), coupled with easy access to
the required computing resources.
The design analysis and optimization is performed
using the response surface method (RSM) in the de-
sign of experiment (DOE) statistical methods. This
method is easy to apply and provides a comprehensive
overview on the factors effecting a targeted response
[27]. Also it is the only method to investigate interac-
tion effects between the considered factors [28]. This
method is extensively used for experimental work,
and its use for simulation oriented research work is
a recent trend. In this regard, few programs are re-
cently developed that uses the RSM with the finite ele-
ment simulation as a predicted response. Among those
are the LS-DYNA-OPT [21]. Therefore it is selected in
this research work to perform helmet design analysis
and optimization.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 3

2. The research methodology
The methodology followed in this study is shown in
the flowchart of Fig. 1. First, in order to model the hel-
met components, the material properties for each com-
ponent needs to collected. Then helmet model can be
built using Hypermesh pre-processor. After model
translation to LS-DYNA3D, the helmet model impact
is simulated using LS-DYNA3D finite element solver;
the output is displayed using both LS-DYNA3D Finite
Element Model Builder (FEMB) for the basic results
visualization and the Hypermesh post-processor [1] for
more detailed display features. The simulation results
are categorized to two types. The first is the helmet de-
sign verification simulations while the second is the re-
sponse surface DOE simulations. In the former the
model is checked against the Malaysian helmet standard
MS 1: 1996 which quotes the 300g peak acceleration lim-
it of the headform center of gravity. However, this limit
is the same for other international helmet standards
such as the British standards BS 6658: 1985 [3]. In the
later simulations, the impact anvil is kept to the flat type
and the helmet design parameters are varied according
Start
Data Collection
Model Building
Pre-processing
( Hypermesh program )
Processing
Standards Simulations
verfication required by
simulation the RSM
to the response surface method requirements. The peak
linear acceleration, which is the predicted response in
the DOE, is recorded in each case. The simulation data
are inserted in the response surface design matrix, then
the response surface is created. After the response sur-
face creation, the surface can be analyzed, and the 3 D
response surface and contours can be plotted. Also opti-
mization process can be performed. In this research
work both tasks are performed to have a comprehensive
helmet design analysis and optimization. Results are
then discussed, and conclusions are withdrawn.
3. Material properties
Modeling of the complete helmet requires the input
data of the constituentÕs materials of the helmet. As
mentioned previously, the two main components of
the helmet are the shell and the liner. As the target in
this study is the energy absorption of the new foam can-
didate, the shell material is selected to be the current
market dominant shell material which is the ABS. This
material has good impact properties, and possesses a
cost effective manufacturing method. It has some draw
back which is discussed elsewhere under the same re-
search program [9,10]. The use of this material allows
for comparing results with helmets made from the same
shell material and the current EPS foam liner with more
accurate judgment than composite shell. The liner is the
material under investigation which is the EPP foam. The
EPP foam can be manufactured with the bead molding
process as for the EPS. Therefore, the most crucial liner
design constraint which is the manufacturability is elim-
inated from the comparison, and more realistic judg-
ment can be made on the mechanical performance.

(LS-DYNA3D program) 3.1. Mechanical properties of ABS material

Post-processing
To model the ABS material, the stress–strain behav-
(FEMB, GRAPH, Hypermesh programs)
ior is required. Therefore, three specimens cut from hel-
DOE met shells supplied by local manufacture (SolidGold)
Results and discussion Response [29], and another three cut from flat ABS sheet supplied
surface creation by industrial hardware supplier (FARNELL) [8] are
tested in tension. The helmet specimens were not com-
Response surface Response surface pletely straight, and no any measure is made to straight-
optimization analysis en them as it is believed that any mechanical or thermal
treatment may alter the mechanical properties of the
Results and discussion specimens. The helmet specimens are cut from the sides
of the helmet shell where they have the least curvature.
Then the slightly curved specimens are inserted to the
Instron universal testing machine, where they have been
Conclusions straightened during fixing and jigs clamping. The tests
are carried on quasi-static strain rate of 60 mm/min
End which might be the reason behind the relatively fast
breaking points of the tests specimens. As shown in
Fig. 1. The flowchart for the research methodology. Fig. 2 the behavior of the experimental test results and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
40
35
30
Stress MPa
25
20 Farnnel
15 Helmet
10 Dean&Read
5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Strain %
Fig. 2. ABS experimental tensile stress–strain curves. The first is for a
flat plate cut from ABS sheet produced by FARNNEL Company, the
second is specimens cut from SolidGold helmet shell, while the third is
the literature data [6].
other published test results [6] are very close particularly
in the yield stress, and the youngÕs modulus. Therefore
the general trend of later data are considered for the re-
gion beyond the tested range.
3.2. Mechanical properties of EPP foam
The quasi-static mechanical properties of the EPP
foams are reasonably available in recent publications,
whereas impact properties are very limited [13]. This
might be attributed to the fact that low density EPP
foam type is newly developed and not much literature
is published on its characteristics. As the required data
of this type of foam is not sufficiently available in the lit-
erature, more detailed investigation and analysis is nec-
essary. Accordingly the experimental data quoted by
various references is described in Appendix A, and foam
mathematical modeling theoretical review is also in-
cluded in this work.
Theoretical modeling: The mathematical approaches
to model the static and dynamic behavior of the closed
cell semi-rigid EPP foam are described. Typically, the
EPP foam stress–strain behavior can be divided into
three regions. The first region is the linear elasticity,
the second is the non-linear or long plateau elasticity,
and the third is the densification. Mathematical model-
ing of the first two regions is the most essential require-
ment for the foam finite element modeling. Therefore it
will be descried in more details hereafter.
The elasticity region: Theoretical modeling of the
highly non-linear polymeric foams is still a wide area
for further studies. Most of the previous work was car-
ried out for the static behavior of foams. Many empiri-
cal and semi-empirical equations have been developed,
and some of which are applicable for certain foams
and under specific conditions [13].
Eq. (1) is a simple and widely used relation which pre-
dicts the elastic mechanical properties of EPP foam.
This equation correlates the mechanical properties of
the foam to the density. For mechanical properties Xf
(strength, modulus, etc.) a power law relationship has
been found to apply in most cases
X f ¼ X s Un ; ð1Þ
where U is the relative foam property with respect the
solid-state property.
‘‘Xs’’ refers to the property of the solid matrix param-
eter and the exponent ‘‘n’’ depends on the property in
equation. It is usually lies in the range of 1.0 < n < 2.0
and for the closed cell EPP foam it takes the following
values: for strength = 2, for modulus = 2, and for the
shear stress = 1 [13].
The non-linear elasticity region: Linear elasticity is
limited to small strains, typically 5% or less. The EPP
foam can be compressed much larger than this. The
deformation is still recoverable (and thus elastic), but
it is non-linear. In compression the stress strain curve
shows an extensive plateau stress starting form O0el the
elastic collapse stress. This elastic collapse is caused by
buckling of cell walls. For the closed cell EPP foam
the compression of the gas within the cells, together with
the membrane stresses, which appears in the cell faces,
gives a curve of stress which rises with the strain.
At present a general model, which predicts all the ef-
fects for the EPP mechanical behavior does not exist.
This may be due to the complex nature of the foam
behavior and the large number of factors, which affect
its behavior. Factors such as density, temperature, strain
rate, and manufacturing process are found to have a
greater effect than others [13,14].
A theoretical expression for the yield stress increase
based on cell gas compression was initially developed
by Rusch [11] for closed cell foams and then verified
by several researchers ([13,26]).
This expression uses the isothermal compression of
the air in the closed cells. The gas in the cells obeys Boy-
leÕs law, initially its at the atmospheric pressure of
p0 = 0.1 MPa (1 atm) and it occupies a fractional vol-
ume (1-D) of the foam. When the compressive strain is
e the gas in the foam exerts a pressure p on the loading
surface equals to:
p0 e
p¼ . ð2Þ
1eD
If there is also a constant contribution of r0 to the
yield stress due to the compressive buckling of the cell
elements, the compressive stress is given by
p0 e
r ¼ r0 þ . ð3Þ
1eD
The gas pressure contribution explains part of the
stress increase at higher strains. Mills [24] reported that
by plotting the compressive stress for polyfin foams such
as expanded polypropylene, or polyethylene against the
strain function (the right part excluding r0) in Eq. (3)
above, the slope p values ranges from 0.08 to 0.2 MPa.
The high pressure values can be explained by saying that
other processes, such as induced cell face tensions, are
equivalent to the foam being filled by a gas at a pressure
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
greater than atmospheric. It means that the parameter p
in Eq. (3) must be treated as a curve fitting constant, and
therefore its necessary to find its value as a function of
the foam density for each range of foams.
Recently, Mills and Gilchrist modeled the impact of
the BASF EPP foam with Eq. (3) [26]. The foam density
range used is 20–90 kg/m3, and the gas pressure is
0.2 MPa. There results from the mathematical model
show good correlation with the experimental results.
Therefore, the same approach is used in this research
and stress–strain curves for EPP foam are generated
using Eq. (3) and the results are shown in Fig. A.1(a)
of Appendix A. As can be noticed the theoretical curves
reasonably well approximates the BASF experimental
results of Fig. A.1(b) and also very close to reported
data by Mills [24] which is shown in Fig. A.2 of Appen-
dix A. These results are also found to well agree with
data published by other researchers for the same type
of foam [5].
4. Finite element modeling and simulation
The finite element simulation aspects for helmet im-
pact are presented here. At the beginning the simulation
tools are described, then the helmet components model-
ing are presented and discussed. Afterwards, the com-
plete helmet model is verified against the helmet
standard and simulations are extended for the response
surface DOE requirements.
Simulation tools: Finite element simulation of struc-
tural problems involves three basic steps. The first is
the pre-processing step; then the analysis step; and the
post-processing step. In this study, the Hypermesh com-
puter code has been used for the first step. Hypermesh is
part of the hyperworks finite element package produced
by Altair Engineering. This program is a high perfor-
mance finite element pre and post processor that enables
the user to generate finite element models for engineer-
ing simulation and analysis.
The analysis step involves the non-linear transient
prediction for dynamic behavior. The LS-DYNA3D
has been used herein. Finally, the Finite Element Model
Builder (FEMB), GRAPH, and Hypermesh are used for
post processing the results.
LS-DYNA3D is a large-scale non-linear finite ele-
ment package [18]. This code performs a non-linear
transient dynamic analysis of three-dimensional struc-
tures. Originally developed by DYNA3D-family of
computer codes at the Livermore National Laboratory,
LS-DYNA represents the commercial version of these
codes and is available through the Livermore Software
Technology Corporation [21]. LS-DYNA has a wide
variety of analysis capabilities including a large number
of material models, a variety of contact modeling op-
tions, a large library of beam, plate, shell, and solid ele-
5
ments and robust algorithms for adaptively controlling
the solution process. The transient analysis is performed
using an explicit direct time integration procedure and
thereby avoids the need for matrix evaluation, assembly
and decomposition at each time step as required by
many implicit time-integration algorithms. LS-DYNA
automatically examines the finite element mesh and
material properties in order to determine an appropriate
time step size for numerical stability. This time step size
is then automatically adjusted throughout the transient
analysis to account for contact local material and geo-
metric non-linearities.
4.1. Finite element modeling of ABS shell material
According to test results described previously for the
ABS shell material, the stress–strain data are averaged
taking into consideration the test results of the helmet,
the FARNNEL flat plate specimens and also literature
test results [6]. These data is then converted into true
stress and strain values as required by material model
M-24, linear piecewise plasticity model of LS-DYNA3D
materials library. The selection of this model is recom-
mended by the LS-DYNA3D user manual for crashwor-
thiness applications and also used by other researchers
for the same ABS material [20]. The results are shown
in Table 1.
4.2. Finite element modeling of EPP foam liner
In order to model and validate this type of foam the
experimental impact test results of Chou et al. [5] and
the stress strain input data of Eq. (3) are used in this
work. Chou et al. experimental test results involves the
impact of a hemispherical aluminum headform of
4.5 kg weight on a cubical 63.3 kg/m3 EPP foam sample
with the dimension of 254 mm · 254 mm · 76 mm. The
impact speed is 6.7 m/s for the experimental test results,
which is very close to the 6 m/s of the Malaysian stan-
dards speed requirement. The small difference between
the two speeds is assumed to be negligible.
Foam Model Selection: The low-density foam model
M-57 of LS-DYNA3D material library is selected for
modeling the EPP foam behavior. This selection is made
according to LS-DYNA3D user manual and also used
for polypropylene foam modeling by other researchers
[4,5]. Furthermore, this model is found to be the most
suitable among the other LS-DYNA3D foam models
in terms of representing physical EPP foam behavior un-
Table 1
True stress and true strain of data for tensile test of ABS material used
in shell modeling
True strain 0 0.0174 0.0371 0.095 0.182 0.26
True stress 0 35.6 32.17 34.6 37.8 44.2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
der compression and simplicity of input data. This mod-
el requires uniaxial stress–strain data and other param-
eters, which can obtained by standard laboratory tests,
unlike other foam models, which requires the dynamic
pressure against volumetric strain experimental data
and other parameters that is currently not available
and/or difficult to obtain. Furthermore, helmet impact
condition involves mainly a uniaxial compression load-
ing. This is also confirmed by Gilchrist, and Mills who
had large contribution in helmet and foam studies [16].
Foam Modeling and Validation: Upon simulation tri-
als of EPP foam using this model, it is found that the im-
pact stress–strain curve needs to be calibrated in order
to fit the experimental results. The most sensitive param-
eter found to be the collapse stress, which is in some ref-
erences termed the yield stress. The slight tuning of this
parameter has a little change on the overall shape of the
experimental foam stress–strain curve, but it consider-
ably affects the simulation peak acceleration results.
The EPP foam is modeled using solid hexagon element
type with full integration points to avoid hourglassing
effects as recommended by the user manual for compo-
nents that undergoes large deformations [18]. The gen-
eral automatic contact type is used to model all
contact surfaces in this validation model. The contact
stiffness has to be scaled up to avoid significant penetra-
tion of the element edges between the contacted parts.
The element type selected for the headform is also solid
hexagonal type with single integration points. The mate-
rial of the headform is aluminum, which is modeled
using the elastic material model M-1 of the LS-DY-
NA3D material library. The stiffness of the model is in-
creased to avoid headform elastic deformation, which
may interfere with the foam energy absorption results.
A rigid material can be selected, but the contact with
elastic materials is more stable. Fig. 3(a) and (b) shows
the model used and the validation results, respectively.
Fig. 3. The EPP foam model validation.
The good correlation can be clearly seen between the
experimental and the simulation results.
4.3. The helmet finite element modeling
The task here is to model the complete helmet–head-
form system and impact anvil. This model will be used
for impact simulation of the helmet design verification
and also fore response surface design analysis and opti-
mization. Some of the geometrical details, which are
generally meant for other than mechanical performance
requirements such as aerodynamics and styling, are
omitted in this study. This is also necessary because re-
sponse surface analysis and optimization requires the
generation of many complete helmet models with differ-
ent helmet parameters. Therefore building excessively
detailed model for each simulation run will make this
job completely tedious and not practical to perform.
This computational helmet–headform model consists
of a hemispherical aluminum headform, the EPP foam
liner and the ABS shell. The headform used has a hemi-
spherical shape. Several materials can be used for head-
form such as magnesium, aluminum, or hardwood (MS1
1996, and BS 6658:1985). As experimental test results
for aluminum headform impact is currently available
which is used for EPP foam model validation explained
previously, it is used in the helmet–headform simulation
model. The headform, and the foam liner are modeled
using hexagon solid element type of the LS-DYNA3D
element library, while the shell is modeled using the
thick shell element type. Table 2 shows modeling details
of the complete helmet system under consideration. The
helmet models are shown schematically in Fig. 4(a) and
(b). Two types of anvils are used in helmet design verifi-
cation. The first is circular flat with diameter of 125 mm,
while the second is hemispherical shape with 50 mm ra-
dius. These types of anvils are typical for almost all mo-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 7

Table 2 the shape of the flat anvil impact curve for uniform shell
Finite element model details and liner deformation.
Component Material Element type No. of elements As shown, the model predicts lower peak acceleration
Headform Aluminum Solid 330 value for the hemispherical anvil impacts compared to
Foam EPP Solid 564 the flat anvil. This might be attributed to the ABS shell
Shell ABS Thick shell 564 local buckling, which led to more shell and liner energy
Flat Anvil Steel Solid 252
absorption contributions. This is a positive point in EPP
Total 1710 lined helmet design, as the helmet design for flat anvil
which is the most frequent impact shape [14] will be
more conservative for hemispherical and other similar
objects. However, this finding cannot be generalized
for all shapes as very sharp object will result in different
mode of helmet failure and the acceleration limit criteria
will not be applicable. This suggests that if a precise ef-
fect of the impactor shape is needed a further study on
this particular item might be performed.
In summary, the previous results proved that the use
of the EPP foam as a helmet liner is found to satisfy the
helmet standards in terms of the peak acceleration. The
general acceleration trend is similar to the EPS lined hel-
met. Therefore these results encouraged the authors to
extend the simulation work to cover the helmet design
analysis and optimization using the response surface
method. This method is explained in the next section.
Fig. 4. The finite element helmet models used in the simulation.

5. Response surface DOEs analysis and optimization

torcycle helmet standards. The impact speed is 6 m/s.
The liner and shell thickness are 25 and 5 mm, respec-
tively. The thickness is selected according to the current
helmet design with plastic shell and EPS foam liner. This
will allow for meaningful comparison between the new
and existing designs. The result of the simulation is
shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b), and discussed in the follow-
ing section.
4.4. Discussion of the computational results
In general, from the simulation output results shown
in Fig. 5(a) and (b), it can be observed that this helmet
design which uses the EPP foam as a liner satisfy the
Malaysian Standards MS1: 1996 [22] requirements,
which is the 300g-peak acceleration limit. This limit is al-
most the same for most of the well-known international
helmet standards.
For the flat anvil the peak acceleration is about 235g
accruing at about 6.5 ms. The total impact duration for
the flat anvil impact is about 11 ms. This is of similar
trend compared with the EPS lined helmet from both
the peak acceleration and impact duration [14,15,20].
For the hemispherical anvil there are two peaks. The
first is equal 150g occurring at 2 ms and has a sharp
drop, which might be due to shell buckling and element
instability might be the reason behind the very sharp tip
of the curve. The second is equal to 140 occurring
approximately at 7 ms. The peak is smoother and takes
5.1. Theoretical background
Response surface methodology is a collection of sta-
tistical tools and techniques used for constructing an
approximate functional relationship between response
(calculated and/or measured phenomenon) and design
variables (a number of independent factors or variables
that affect the response) [17,27,28]. The approximate
function relation, typically in the form of low order
polynomial, is referred as the response surface. Re-
sponse surface approximations were originally devel-
oped for fitting data from physical experiments.
However, in our case the physical experiments are re-
placed with the simulation results. This approach is
becoming increasingly popular in recent years which
may represent a mile stone in mechanical design analysis
and optimization.
The response surface serves the purpose of filtering
the noise and providing the designer with a simple sur-
rogate model to describe the response. The relationship
between the response (y) and the independent variables
(x) can be expressed using a mathematical model of
the general form,
y ¼ f ðx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xn Þ þ e; ð4Þ
where e is the ‘‘total error’’ (that is the difference be-
tween the actual values and the predicted values) and
n is the number of the predictor variables in the model.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
Fig. 5. The results of the helmet impact simulation using the EPP(65 kg/m3) foam. (a) Headform CG acceleration for helmet impact on flat anvil.
(b) Headform CG acceleration for Helmet impact on hemispherical anvil.
The function f(x) is normally chosen to be a low or-
der polynomial, typically linear or quadratic. A qua-
dratic model may be represented mathematically as
follows:
X X
y ¼ b0 þ bi xi þ bij xi xj ; ð5Þ
i i<j
where bÕs are the coefficients that describe the response
function. The estimated coefficients of the fitted model
will be denoted by b, for n variables, the quadratic mod-
el equation (5) has a total of p = (n + 1)(k + 2)/2
coefficients.
Response surface construction: If f(x) accurately de-
scribes the process being modeled, e may be considered
as a random error, often assumed to have a normal dis-
tribution with zero mean. In this case f(x) is an unbiased
estimate of y and e accounts for sources of variation not
accounted for by f(x), but which are still inherent to the
process such as noise and measurement errors.
Once the model to characterize the response is se-
lected, then the coefficients b0. b1, bn will have to be esti-
mated. Typically, a least squares method that minimizes
the error residual is utilized for estimating the coeffi-
cients of the model equation [27].
Response surface DOEs: RSM has methods for select-
ing data points at which the response function should be
evaluated. The procedure of choosing a small set of opti-
mal points in the design space to fit the approximation is
termed ‘‘design of experiments’’. The design points are
chosen to maximize the predictive capabilities of the re-
sponse function. In cases where there are significant
noise (variance) errors, the points are chosen such that
they minimize the variance error in the fitted coefficients.
For problems with small numbers of design variables in
regularly shaped domains, selection schemes, called
standard designs, are available.
In the present research the standard DOE scheme is
adopted. The former is the central composite experi-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
ment, and the later is the Box–Behnken designs. The fea-
tures of each schemes is highlighted in the forthcoming
paragraphs and a selection of the most suitable scheme
for this research is made.
Central composite designs: Central composite designs
are often recommended when the design plan calls for
sequential experimentation because these designs can
incorporate information from a properly planned facto-
rial experiment. The factorial or ‘‘cube’’ portion and
center points may serve as a preliminary stage where a
first-order (linear) model can be fitted, but still provide
evidence regarding the importance of a second-order
contribution or curvature. Central composite designs
usually have axial points outside the ‘‘cube’’ (unless 
parameter is specified that is less than or equal to
one). These points may not be in the region of interest,
or may be impossible to run because they are beyond
safe operating limits. Central composite designs also al-
low for efficient estimation of the quadratic terms in the
second-order model, and it is easy to obtain the desir-
able design properties of orthogonal blocking and rotat-
ability. Orthogonally blocked designs allow for model
terms and block effects to be estimated independently
and minimize the variation in the regression coefficients.
Rotatable designs provide the desirable property of con-
stant prediction variance at all points that are equidis-
tant from the design center, thus improving the quality
of the prediction.
Box–Behnken designs: Box–Behnken designs are gen-
erally recommended when performing non-sequential
experiments. That is, when planning to perform the
experiment once. These designs allow for efficient esti-
mation of the first and second order coefficients. Because
Box–Behnken designs have fewer design points, they are
less expensive to run than central composite designs with
the same number of factors.
Also, Box–Behnken designs can prove useful if the
safe operating zone for the design under consideration
is known. Box–Behnken designs do not have axial
points, thus, all design points will fall within the safe
operating zone and also Box–Behnken designs ensure
that all factors are never set at their high levels
simultaneously.
5.2. The response surface solution
According to the above reasons, and due to fact that
simulation results are constant response results and
either randomization or replication will not alter the re-
sponse. Therefore, the most economical design scheme
which is the Box–Behnken design is adopted in this re-
search program. In the next paragraphs the procedure
followed in the response surface solution is described.
The response surface design factors and their levels:
For the response surface to be created the design factors
and their levels need to be specified first. The three de-
9
Table 3
The response surface design levels
Level Foam Foam Shell
density (kg/m3) thickness (mm) thickness (mm)
(1) Low 45 15 3
(0) Medium 55 20 4
(+1) High 65 25 5
sign factors considered in this helmet design research
are, the foam density, the foam thickness, and the shell
thickness. Their levels are estimated based on several
factors. Among those are the current helmet designs
with EPS foam liner, and some simulation trials with
EPP foam as a liner. The factors and their design levels
are shown in Table 3.
Response surface creation and analysis: After the de-
sign factors and their levels are set, the DOE matrix
based on the Box–Behnken method is created. The finite
element helmet model parameters are then varied
according to the DOE matrix settings. Crash simulation
is carried out for each design point (helmet model) and
the peak linear acceleration (response) is recorded and
keyed into the design matrix as appropriate. When all
data are completed the response surface is analyzed.
The full quadratic model is selected to analysis the re-
sponse surface. This model is selected because few vari-
ables are involved in this study and the selected model
will allow for the detection of even small curvature in
the response surfaces. This is beneficial for more detailed
investigation of the parameters effects. The output re-
sults are generated in the form of three dimensional re-
sponse surface plots and contour plots. The discussion
of these results is given in the next section.
5.3. Response surface results and discussion
The response surface design matrix with the simula-
tion results keyed in is shown in Table 4 and the re-
sponse surface graphs and contour graphs are shown
in Figs. 6–11.
Each graph have the peak linear acceleration ‘‘ACC’’
as a response parameter plotted against two of the three
helmet design factors, which are the foam density
‘‘ROW’’, the foam thickness ‘‘T-foam’’ and the shell
thickness ‘‘t-shell’’.
Fig. 6 shows the peak linear acceleration in gÕs plotted
against the foam thickness and the foam density. As can
be seen, the curve has a smooth slope upward in the
foam density face, while it show a steeper downward
curve for the foam thickness effect face. Investigating
each parameter at a time, so considering the foam den-
sity effect, the acceleration has a value of about 275g at
the lower foam density level of 45 kg/m3. Then, the
acceleration starts to smoothly increases as the foam
density increase until reaching to about 290g at the
65 kg/m3 end. This might give impression that if the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

10 F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

Table 4 Contour Plot of Acc

Data Matrix in coded units (randomized)
25
Run Row T-foam t-shell 230
24
1 0 0 0 250
23 270
2 + + 0
3  0 + 22 290
4  + 0 21

T-foam
5 +  0 20
6 0 0 0
19
7 0 + 
8 + 0  18
9 0   17
10 0  + 16
11  0 
15
12 0 + +
13   0 45 55 65
14 0 0 0 Row
15 + 0 +
Fig. 7. The contour plot of the acceleration against the foam thickness
and the foam density.

Surface Plot of Acc

clude the contour plots for the same design parameters
here. In this regard, Fig. 7 shows the contour plot of
the peak linear acceleration against the foam density
295
and the foam thickness. As shown by the constant accel-
285 eration lines, if the acceleration needs to be kept below
275 270g, then the foam thickness needs to be equal to or
265
more than 17 mm for the foam density between 45 and
Acc

255
245
235
225
215 25
205
20 T-foam
45
55 15
65
Row
Fig. 6. The response surface of the acceleration against the foam
thickness, and the foam density, ROW: Foam density (kg/m3), T-
foam: Foam thickness (mm), t-shell: Shell thickness (mm), Acc: Peak
Headform CG acceleration (gÕs).
peak acceleration needs too be kept below 300g it will be
necessary to keep the foam density below the 65 f kg/m3.
This could be further investigated on the other graphs.
Considering the foam thickness effects, as can be seen,
the acceleration decreases as the foam thickness in-
crease. The amount of decrease is quite considerable
as compared to the foam density, which shows that
the foam thickness effect is more important for lowering
the acceleration level. However, for the selected thick-
ness range, the observation is that there is no curve
inversion (rise portion) as the foam thickness increase.
This is expected as theoretically, by increasing the foam
thickness, the acceleration will keep in decreasing, and
no any reason will return the acceleration to the increas-
ing stage again.
Furthermore, to complete the analysis of these
parameters effect on the acceleration, it is worth to in-
65 kg/m3. If the acceleration needs to be kept below
230g, the foam thickness needs to be equal to or more
than 19.5 mm for foam density below 60 kg/m3. This
type of plot can be very useful in design as once one
parameter is specified the other parameter can be deter-
mined based on a given acceleration limit.
Therefore both graphs had explored a significant part
of helmet design. It is now required to have the same
investigation of each of the previous factors with the
shell thickness parameter.
Fig. 8 shows the peak acceleration plotted against the
foam density and the shell thickness. The significant ef-
fect of the foam density is evident as compared to the
shell thickness. The shell thickness seams to have very
little effect on the peak acceleration. This is clear from
the shallow curvature of the response surface toward
increasing the shell thickness. However, both the foam
density and the shell thickness design values did not
show any risk of approaching the helmet standard injury
limit of 300g. This can be further investigated from the
contour plots, which is presented hereafter.
Fig. 9 shows the contour plot of the peak linear accel-
eration against the foam density and the shell thickness.
As shown, from this curve less information can be ob-
tained about the foam density effects. However, the shell
thickness effects are more noticeable. This can be seen
from the 232g and the 252g constant acceleration lines.
For instance, if the 4 mm shell thickness with the corre-
sponding foam density of 52.5 kg/m3, which is the
curve inversion point, is considered as a reference point
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx 11

Surface Plot of Acc Fig. 10 shows the response surface graph of the peak
linear acceleration against the foam thickness and the
shell thickness. As can be seen, the acceleration in-
creased from about 220g to about 280g by decreasing
the foam thickness from 25 to 15 mm. However, the
shell thickness effect is of minor significance. This is evi-
250
dent from the small increase of the peak acceleration by
increasing the shell thickness from 3 to 5 mm. These ef-
240 fects can also be observed from Fig. 11, which shows the
Acc

contour plot of the peak acceleration against the foam

230 thickness and the shell thickness. Again the shell thick-
5 ness is of little importance in the performance response
220 particularly at the lower foam thickness designs.
4
45 In summary, the helmet design is thoroughly ana-
55 3 t-shell
65 lyzed by the response surfaces and the contour plots
Row generated. The two dominate factors seams to be the
Fig. 8. The response surface of the acceleration against the shell foam density, and the foam thickness, while the shell
thickness, and the foam density.

Surface Plot of Acc

Contour Plot of Acc
5
232
242
252
280
270
t-shell

260
4
250
Acc

240
230
220 5
210 4
3 15
3 t-shell
20
45 55 65 25
T-foam
Row
Fig. 10. The response surface of the acceleration against the foam
Fig. 9. The contour plot of the acceleration response against the shell
thickness, and the shell thickness.
thickness and the foam density.

in the 232g line. Then, by decreasing the shell thickness Contour Plot of Acc
to 3 mm, the density needs to be increased to 55 kg/m3 5
230
to lie on the 232g acceleration line. On the other hand, 240
increasing the shell thickness to 5 mm needs that the 250
foam density be increased to 55 kg/m3 to achieve the 260
270
same result. From the previous it cab be concluded that
280
the 4 mm and the 52.5 kg/m3 are the optimum setting
t-shell

4
for the 232g line. However, the situation is different
for the 252g acceleration line, which is almost straight
line. In this later line, changing the shell thickness dose
not seem to have any effect on the foam density. So by
comparing the two curves, we can conclude that the
3
shell thickness effect is more evident for the lower den-
sity designs, than the higher ones. In general, this curve 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
needs to be investigated in conjunction with other re- T-foam
sponse and contour graphs to have a more comprehen- Fig. 11. The contour plot of the acceleration against the foam
sive visualization. thickness and the shell thickness.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

12 F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx

thickness is of minor importance. This is agrees well

with the helmet design principle as the function of the
shell is to protect against penetration and basically is
not considered for energy absorption. The next step re-
quired is to determine the optimum helmet design taking
into consideration the three design factors all together.
This is presented in the following section.

5.4. Optimal design

For irregularly shaped design space, several com-

puter-generated designs that are usually based on an
optimality criterion are available. The best known
among them is the D-optimal design. The D-optimal cri-
terion minimizes the value of the variance error in the
fitted coefficients. There are also other criteria available
for selecting minimum variance design points (e.g., A-
optimality, G-optimality) that derived from minimizing
other measures, such as trace error or maximum value
of the diagonal [5,17,19,27].
Using the D-optimal method the results of the opti-
mization are shown in Table 5, and discussed hereafter.
Table 5 shows summary of the D-optimal design that
was obtained by considering all the 15 points. The phi-
losophy followed in this work is to include all the design
points in the optimization solution. Obtain the optimum Fig. A.1. (a) The predicted EPP foam data plotted using Eq. (1).
design points on a descending order of preference. Then (b) The dynamic properties of BASF EPP foam for different densities
[2].
select the most suitable first four alternatives. Therefore
the four most attractive design alternatives are summa-

Table 5
The D-optimal design matrix (Box–Behnken design)
Order Run order Row T-foam t-shell Peak acceleration (g)
14 1 55 20 4 235
4 2 65 25 4 240
7 3 45 20 5 223
3 4 45 25 4 204
2 5 65 15 4 296
15 6 55 20 4 235
10 7 55 25 3 221
6 8 65 20 3 245
9 9 55 15 3 282
11 10 55 15 5 266
5 11 45 20 3 220
12 12 55 25 5 224
1 13 45 15 4 280
13 14 55 20 4 235
8 15 65 20 5 254

Table 6
The selected D-optimal design points
Foam Foam Shell Peak
density (kg/m3) thickness (mm) thickness (mm) acceleration (g)
55 15 5 266
55 20 4 235
Fig. A.2. The dynamic stress strain curves for PP and rigid PU foam
65 20 5 254
of various densities [24].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
rized in Table 6. It is to be emphasized here that these
points are selected among the optimization results of
Table 5. However the practical aspects of the current de-
sign is also taken into consideration. For example the 4
and 5 mm shell thickness designs are preferred to the
3 mm thickness designs due to other consideration such
as the penetration resistance and shell rigidity. These se-
lected points agreed well with the analysis made in the
previous section.
6. Conclusions
The main conclusions of this study can be summa-
rized in the following points:

Current helmet design using the EPS foam as a liner
material is not optimum considering the multi-impact
performance, fitness and thermal comfort aspects.

EPP foam material is suitable for multi-impact, and
has ventilation system improvements potential due
to its resilience nature. Therefore, based on the finite
element simulation, this foam material is investigated
for the motorcycle helmet application. This EPP
foam is found to be suitable energy absorption helmet
liner according to Malaysian Standards MS1: 1996
[22] requirements.

A method to investigate the effects of helmet design
parameters including the interaction effects between
these parameters, and also to optimize helmet design
is successfully developed. This method is based on the
response surface technique of the DOE statistical
method. The philosophy is that by using the finite ele-
ment simulation results as a response in the response
surface model the helmet design can be analyzed and
optimum design determined. Furthermore, this
method can effectively be used in further investigation
of helmet design studies.

Based on the previous methodology solution, the
foam thickness and the foam density are found to
be the most contributing factors in preventing head
injury represented by the peak linear acceleration
limit of the 300g.

The shell thickness is found to be of minor impor-
tance from the energy absorption consideration.

The optimum helmet design using the EPP foam as a
helmet liner is found to be a helmet with 55 kg/m 3
EPP foam density, 15 mm foam thickness, and
5 mm shell thickness.
Acknowledgement
The financial support provided by the Ministry of
Transportation, Malaysia is gratefully acknowledged.
13
Appendix A.
See Figs. A.1 and A.2.
References
[1] Altair Engineering, available at the internet at web site: http://
www.altair.com. Interred at May 2002.
[2] BASF Corporation, available at the Internet at web site http://
www.basf.com/index.html. Interred at May 2002.
[3] British Standards, BS 6658:1985, Specification for protective
helmets for vehicle users.
[4] Burr ST, Vogel DG. Material model development for impact
analysis of oriented polypropylene foam structure, DOW Auto-
motive, SAE No. 2001-01-0310, 2001.
[5] Chou CC, Zaho Y, Lim GG, Patel RN, Shahab SA, Patel PJ.
Comparative analysis of different energy absorbing materials for
interior head impact. SAE No. 950332, 1995.
[6] Dean G, Read B. Modeling of the behaviour of plastics for design
under impact. Polymer Testing 2001;20:677–83.
[7] ESI Group, Pam-Crash Software, France, available at the internet
at web site: http://www.esi-group.com, Interred at May 2002.
[8] FARNELL COMPONENTS (M) SDN BHD, Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
[9] Shuaeib FM, Hamouda AMS, Radin Umar RS, Hamdan MM,
Hashmi MSJ. Motorcycle helmet, Part II. Materials and design
issues. J Mater Process Technol 2002;123(3):422–31.
[10] Shuaeib FM, Hamouda AMS, Radin Umar RS, Hamdan MM,
Hashmi MSJ. Motorcycle helmet, Part III. Manufacturing issues.
J Mater Process Technol 2002;123(3):432–9.
[11] Rusch KC. Load-compression behavior of brittle foams. J Appl
Polym Sci 1970;14:1263–76.
[12] Gandhe GV, Tusim MH. High efficiency energy absorption olefin
foam, SAE Paper No. 1999-01-0296. The Dow Chemical Com-
pany; 1999. p. 196–199.
[13] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular Solids structures and properties.
2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
[14] Gilchrist A, Mills NJ. Modeling of the impact response of
motorcycle helmets. Int J Impact Eng 1994;15(3):201–18.
[15] Gilchrist A, Mills NJ. Impact deformation of ABS and GRP
motorcycle helmet shells. Plastics, Rubber Composite Process
Appl 1994;21:141–50.
[16] Gilchrist G, Mills NJ. Impact deformation of rigid polymeric
foams, experiments and FEA modelling. Int J Impact Eng
2001;25:767–86.
[17] Grove DM, Davis TP. Engineering, quality, and experimental
design. New York: Longman Scientific and Technical; 1992.
[18] Hallquist JO. User Manual for LS-DYNA, LSTC Lab., USA.
Livemore Software Technology, 1997.
[19] Law AM, Kelton WD. Simulation modeling and analysis. 3rd
ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2000.
[20] Liu DS, Fan CM, Lee MC, Yen CY. A dynamic finite element
simulation of the impact of motorcycle helmets. Crashworthiness,
Occupant Protection and Biomechanics in Transportation Sys-
tems, ASME 1997, AMD-Vol. 225/BED-Vol. 38; 1997. p. 199–
207.
[21] LS-DYNA. Software home page available at the internet at web
site: http://www.ls-dyna.com, Interred at May 2002.
[22] Malaysian Standards, MS1 1996, Specification for protective
helmets for vehicle Users, Second Version, 1996.
[23] Mills NJ, Gilchrist A. Motorcycle helmet shell optimization: 36th
Annual Proceedings, Association for the Advancement of Auto-
motive Medicine, Portland, OR; 1992. p. 149–62.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 F.M. Shuaeib et al. / Materials and Design xxx (2005) xxx–xxx
[24] Mills NJ. Impact response. In: Halyard NC, Cunningham A,
editors. Low density cellular plastics. Physical Basis of Behavior;
1994.
[25] Mills NJ. Accident investigation of motorcycle helmets. J Inst
Traffic Accident Investigations, Aut. 1996;5:41–56.
[26] Mills NJ, Gilchrist G. Shear and compressive impact of PP bead
foam. Cell Polym 1999;18:157–74.
[27] Montgomery DG. Design and analysis of experiment. New
York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.; 1991.
[28] Montogmery DC, Runger GC, Hubel NF. Engineering statistics;
2001.
[29] SolidGold Helmet Sdn.Bhd., Balakong, Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia.
[30] Vetter L, Vanderby R. Influence of materials and structure on
performance of a football helmet. Polym Eng Sci 1987;27(15):1113–20.
[31] Yetham LA, Godfreg PM, Chinn PB. Materials for motorcycle
crash helmets: a finite element parametric study. Plastics, Rubber
Compos Process Appl 1994(22):215–21.