International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Impact Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijimpeng

Impact dynamics of metal foam shells for motorcycle helmets:

Experiments & numerical modeling
P.K. Pinnoji a, P. Mahajan a, *, N. Bourdet b, C. Deck b, R. Willinger b
a
b

Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India
Institute of Mechanics of the Fluids and Solids (IMFS), ULP-CNRS, Strasbourg, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 13 January 2009
Received in revised form
14 May 2009
Accepted 20 May 2009
Available online 9 June 2009

To reduce the weight of motorcycle helmet, metal foam for outer shell in place of conventional thermoplastics was tested. The dynamic behaviour of this new helmet was studied through experiments and
numerical modeling. Open-face motorcycle helmets were designed with metal foam shell and impact
experiments were performed with these helmets tted on a headform. A nite element model was
developed and the predicted acceleration of headform from this model was validated against the
experiments. The mechanical behaviour of full-face helmets with metal foam shell was investigated next.
The FE analysis was performed separately with rigid and deformable heads. Head injury criterion (with
rigid head) and stresses in brain (with deformable head) were evaluated separately for metal foam shell
and ABS shell helmets. The helmet impact performance is examined with two separate densities of metal
foam. The shell with low-density metal foam (150 kg/m3) gives a better performance compared to ABS
shell. The metal foam shell showed signicant visible plastic deformation in the impact region.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Helmets
Metal foam
Impact
Finite elements

1. Introduction
Head is a sensitive part in the human body and helmet provides
good protection during an accident [1]. A motorcycle helmet
consists of outer casing (i.e. shell), liner foam, padding foam, visor
and retention system. A typical helmet including the headform is
shown in Fig. 1. The outer shell provides the defence against the
initial impact and holds all the components together. It spreads the
impact over a large area of the helmet, prevents the liner foam
fracture and its penetration by sharp objects, and protects the face
[2]. The liner foam absorbs major part of the energy during accidents. It cushions the human head by increasing the duration of
impact, thereby reducing the deceleration and forces experienced
by the head. The padding foam does not absorb energy and is used
for comfort and tting purpose. The visor protects the eyes of the
rider from rough weather conditions, dust and insects. A strap is
used for the retention system to keep the head and helmet together.
In helmet, the market dominant outer shell is made of thermoplastic (either Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) or Polycarbonate) and is typically 35 mm thick. It is heavy and stiff
compared to the liner foam. It is desirable to reduce the weight of
shell of a helmet and make it more comfortable for the motorcycle

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 1126591229; fax: 91 1126581119.

E-mail address: mahajan@am.iitd.ernet.in (P. Mahajan).
0734-743X/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2009.05.013

rider. One way of doing this is to use an outer shell of lighter material
without compromising on its dynamic performance and safety.
Composite materials, which have high specic strength, are
being used for helmet outer shells for last one decade. Experimental
investigation and numerical modeling of composite shell helmets
are reported in the literature to some extent [3,4]. Another group of
materials, which reduce weight and absorb energy, are the cellular
materials or foams. Many types of materials can be produced in the
form of foams, including metals and polymers. While polymer foam
is used for the liner it was envisioned that cellular material like
metal foam would perform well for an outer shell in helmet during
impact. It would prevent the penetration of the liner by sharp
objects, reduce the weight, and give lower impact forces on the
head. This paper reports the impact behaviour of motorcycle
helmets with metal foam shell obtained using both experiments
and numerical modeling.
2. Metal foams
Metal foams are structural materials having excellent energy
absorption capacity in conjunction with low density and high
stiffness. On account of these properties they are used in applications ranging from automobile bumpers to aircraft crash recorders.
The outer shell in motorcycle helmets can be another application of
metal foams in energy absorption, which needs to be investigated.
In a conventional helmet most of the energy is absorbed by the

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

Nomenclature

F
Yield function
se
Equivalent stress
sy
Yield stress
sVM
von Mises stress
sm
Mean stress
sp, l, a2 and b Material parameters
e
eD

ecr
a
yp
rf
rfo
s0
E
Et
S

3peff

Engineering strain
Deformation strain
Critical strain
Yield parameter
Plastic coefcient of contraction
Density of foam
Density of the base material
Initial stress
Modulus of elasticity
Tangent modulus
Deviatoric stress
Effective plastic strain

polymer (liner) foam and the ABS shell absorbs only about 1015%
of the energy. Also impact velocities of helmet above 10 m/s the
liner foam bottoms out. Since the metal foams are cellular in nature,
a shell made from them may be able to absorb more energy and it
may be possible to use them at higher speeds as compared to
conventional helmets. Metal foams also can prevent the penetration by sharp objects.
The literature on metal foams has focused mainly on the processing [5] and mechanical behaviour [6,7] but less on their
mechanical performance in various practical applications. The
advances in manufacturing processes and various ways of characterizing the properties of cellular metals, structural and functional
applications of metal foams for industrial sectors have been
reviewed by Banhart [5]. The behaviour of different types of closedcell aluminium foams under uniaxial compression has been studied
by Kriszt et al. [6]. Strong uctuations in the density distribution
were observed in Alulight foams (AlSi10Mg and AlMg1Si0.6)
whereas density distribution in Alporas foams was uniform. The
stress-strain behaviour of AlSi10Mg foam showed signicant
oscillations whereas of Alporas and AlMg1Si0.6 foams was relatively smoother. Sridhar and Fleck [7] measured the multiaxial yield
behaviour of Alulight aluminium foam after removing its surface

Fig. 1. A typical helmet.

275

skin. Their measurements on yield surface evolution showed that

the foam hardens in an approximately isotropic manner.
Santosa and Wierzbicki [8] studied the crushing behaviour of
closed-cell aluminium foam by developing analytical and numerical models. The results from analytical and numerical solutions
gave an excellent agreement with the crushing resistance of
aluminium foam obtained from experiment results. Deshpande and
Fleck [9] investigated the yield behaviour of aluminium alloy foams
for uni-axial and hydrostatic compressive states. They found that
the magnitude of hydrostatic strength and uni-axial strength was
same. They proposed two phenomenological isotropic constitutive
models for the plastic behaviour of metallic foams.
An extensive experimental database for the structural behaviour
of aluminium foam-lled extrusions has been established by
Hanssen et al. [10] who also discussed and compared various
material models for aluminium foam. Reyes et al. [11] evaluated an
existing constitutive model of Deshpande and Fleck for aluminium
foam by carrying out uni-axial and hydrostatic compression tests
on metal foam cubes. The model was implemented in LS-DYNA [12]
by including fracture criteria and statistical variation of foam
density. Ramamurty and Paul [13] examined the variability in
mechanical properties of closed-cell aluminium foam, ALPORAS,
through experiments. They showed that the variation in the
mechanical properties of aluminium foam is very large. Hanssen
et al. [14] carried out experimental bird-strike tests on aluminium
foam based double sandwich panels and predicted the failure of
structural components in bird-strike events through a numerical
model. Pinnoji and Mahajan [15] carried out numerical simulations
on two wheeler helmets with metal foam shell and ABS shell
separately and investigated the forces on the head. Pinnoji et al.
[16] carried out the rst set of experiments on motorcycle helmets
with metal foam shell and concluded that the helmet weight is
reduced by 30% compared to the conventional ABS helmet.
However, these two studies [15,16] on metal foam helmets are not
at standard impact velocities. Hence, the dynamic performance of
helmets with metal foam shell needs to be investigated further for
the successful use. In the present study, the dynamic performance
of metal foam helmets investigated at standard impact velocities
with deformable head and characterized the metal foam shell
behaviour with various densities.
2.1. Constitutive behaviour of metal foams
The mechanical performance of metal foams governs their
utility in various applications. Mechanical properties of cellular or
foamed materials are distinct from solid materials and depend on
the relative density. Gibson and Ashby [17] provide a general
overview of the mechanical properties of cellular materials. The
base material and the relative density inuence the material
properties of foam. The stress-strain curve of polystyrene foams
(like EPS) and metal foams have similar shapes although their yield
points are very different. The constitutive behaviour for a cellular
solid in compression is characterized by three regimes: elastic
regime, stress plateau, and densication. The macroscopic stressstrain curve of AlMg1Si0.6 foam for 300 kg/m3 density without
solid skin is shown in Fig. 2. This foam has yield stress of 3 MPa.
In the elastic region, the main deformation mechanisms of
closed-cell metal foam are cell edge bending and cell wall
stretching. In the stress plateau region, the plateau stress increases
slowly with increasing deformation and the maximum energy
absorption takes place. It corresponds to progressive cell collapse
by elastic buckling and plastic yielding. As the deformation reaches
the densication strain, foam densies. In the densication region,
the cell walls crush together depending on the nature of the solid
from which the material is made.

276

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

where the equivalent stress se is given by:

s2e

s2VM a2 s2m
 2
a
1

(2)

Here sVM is the von Mises stress and sm is the mean stress. The
parameter a controls the shape of the yield surface and is given by
the following relation

a2

9 1  2yp
2 1 yp

(3)

where, yp is the plastic coefcient of contraction.

In LS-DYNA, the yield stress of the metal foam sy in Deshpande
& Fleck material model is dened by the following relation, which
has also been used by Hanssen et al. [14],

1
1
C
B
e

 b C
sy sp l a2 In B
A
@
e
eD
1
eD
0

Fig. 2. Compressive stress-strain behaviour of AlMg1Si0.6 foam without solid skin;

density of sample is 300 kg/m3 (Courtesy: Alulight).

For solid metals with isotropic mechanical behaviour, the von

Mises yield criterion is widely used and the yield surface is independent of hydrostatic stress. It is assumed that the elastic volumetric energy does not affect the plastic ow of metals. Metal
foams exhibit plastic ow for a pure hydrostatic stress condition. It
follows that the elastic volumetric energy affects the plastic ow of
foams and it is necessary to extend the yield criterion to take this
effect into account. One such extension has been suggested by
Deshpande and Fleck [9] and is briey described here.
The yield stress function F is dened by:

F se  sy

(1)

(4)

Here, e is equivalent strain and eD is the densication strain while

sp, l, a2 and b are material parameters. The densication strain eD is
expressed as

eD In

rf
rf 0

!
(5)

where rf is the foam density and rf 0 is the density of the virgin

material or base material.
3. Methods
A prototype helmet with metal foam shell was designed with
dimensions similar to those of a commercial open-face helmet
shell. The schematic of metal foam helmet is shown in Fig. 3 with all

FV

SV

Fig. 3. Schematic of metal foam helmet (All dimensions in mm).

TV

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

views (front view, side view and top view). It was then got fabricated from Alulight International GmbH, Austria who used the
powder metallurgy process to produce these [18]. A uniformly
mixed powder blend of atomized aluminium alloy powder was
consolidated into a dense body of foamable precursor material. The
compacted foamable precursor was then placed inside a mould
having the shape of helmet shell and heated to a temperature near
the melting point of aluminium alloy. The foaming agent decomposed forming a gas, which created voids within the part, leading to
closed-cell metal foam shell after solidication. The metal foam
shell has a thin casting skin on the surface which was approximately 0.10.3 mm thick. The total thickness of the metal foam
shell was 8 mm including the surface skin. The foam core is coarse
and the casting skin on the surface is solid. The density of metal
foam shell without surface skin was 300 kg/m3. Fig. 4 shows some
pictures and section of the undeformed metal foam shell. The
energy absorbing liner foam was made of expanded polystyrene
(EPS) and manufactured by Alta Pack Pvt. Limited, India. The EPS
liner foam thickness and density are 30 mm and 44 kg/m3,
respectively.
Impact experiments as discussed in Section 3.1 are performed
on these open-face helmets with metal foam shell. The predicted
results from the numerical modeling are validated with the
experiments. Then the mechanical behaviour of full-face helmets
with metal foam and ABS shells is investigated separately through
nite element analysis.

3.1. Experiments
The impact tests on metal foam shell helmets were conducted at
Impact laboratory of IMFS in Strasbourg in accordance with EC
Regulation 22 and IS 4151 standards [19]. These standards require
impacting a helmet tted with headform on a at anvil at a velocity
of 7.5 m/s. Various impact sites on the helmet are also suggested in
these standards. Fig. 5 shows the helmet impact test rig for performing this test. The test rig has a freely moving headform and xed
at anvil. A rigid headform was used as it resists damage and does
not absorb energy, so the test results are reproducible. It was
assumed that, if a human head and a headform undergo the same
impact while wearing a helmet, the acceleration of headform
correlates with the strains in the human brain, and hence with the
injury severity [20]. The headform had a circumference of 57 cm
with a mass of 4.5 kg. It was tted in the helmet and tied with a strap.
The helmet and headform assembly was initially supported in
a carriage, which moves on a guideway, in the test rig. The assembly
was released from the carriage before hitting the anvil. The speed of
the carriage was controlled by a pneumatic system. The piston
holds back the headform in order to prevent it from damage after

277

impact. The impact velocity was measured by using the photoelectric sensors linked to the test rig. The impact tests were performed for front and top sites mentioned in the standards and are
shown in Fig. 6.
Measurements were acquired by a tri-axial accelerometer
(Model: Kisler K-Shear 8794A500, Specications: 500 g with
10 mV/g), which was placed at the centre of mass of the headform.
A 12-bit resolution data acquisition card (Model: E6070E, National
Instruments) with a sampling rate of 10 000 Hz was used. A helmet
was impacted only once. Total 16 tests were carried out on metal
foam helmets. The helmet standards require that the head injury
criterion (HIC) should be less than 2400 and the peak head acceleration should not exceed 300 g at 7.5 m/s impact velocity [19].
Fig. 7 shows the deformed shape of the metal foam shell after
impact at top site. It is visible from the gure that the metal foam
shell attened in the impact region in the shape of circle. However,
only a small change in thickness was observed in the metal foam
shell unlike EPS liner foam. The impact area was marked on the
metal foam shell after impact and the diameter of the circular
region is 100 mm approximately.

3.2. Numerical model

Helmet-head impacts are best considered by explicit dynamic
nite element analysis (FEA) because load acts on the helmet
head for a very short duration. The experiments in Section 3.1 were
simulated using the explicit nite element code LS-DYNA. The
numerical modeling is divided in to two parts. First, the simulations
with prototype test geometry of metal foam shell (open-face)
helmets supplied by Alulight are validated with experimental tests.
Second, the impact behaviour of full-face helmets with metal foam
shell is investigated and compared with full-face ABS helmets. For
full-face helmets, simulations were performed both with rigid head
model and a deformable head model.
The FEA of helmet-head impact required inputs consisting of
geometry, initial and boundary conditions, interface conditions and
material properties. The geometry and initial conditions are same
as in Section 3.1. A normal helmet consists of an outer shell, liner
foam, comfort foam and strap. Comfort foam was not modeled here
because it is very thin and soft with negligible stiffness and used
only for tting different head sizes. For metal foam shells, Deshpande and Fleck [9] model which is available as material model 154
in LS-DYNA is used. This model is continuum based and includes
a hydrostatic stress term in the yield function to take into account
the volume changes in the foam. The density of present metal foam
shells without surface skin was 300 kg/m3 and the uni-axial
compression curves for this were provided by Alulight International GmbH, Austria. Simulation of the uniaxial compression test

Fig. 4. Pictures of the metal foam shell for the helmet (a) shell (b) a section of the shell.

278

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of helmet test rig.

on metal foam in LS-DYNA gave the following values of the

parameters appearing in Eqs. 2 and 4; E 5000 MPa, yp 0.005,
a 1.55, g 6.0 MPa, 3D 3.5, a2 60.0 MPa, b 3.1, sp 3.0 MPa,
ecr 0.1.
The liner foam of EPS was modeled by the crushable foam
material model 63 in LS-DYNA. It is anisotropic foam model that
crushes one-dimensionally with a Poissons ratio that is almost
zero. This model transforms the stresses into the principal stress
space where the yield function is dened. Yielding is governed by

the largest principal stress. If the largest principal stress exceeds the
yield stress they are scaled back to the yield surface [12]. Once the
principal values are scaled, the stresses are transformed back into
the global system. The EPS liner foam has Youngs modulus of
1.8  107 N/m2 with zero Poissons ratio and a compressive yield
stress (Yo) of 0.6  106 N/m2 [21].
The Acrylo-Butadiene Styrene (ABS) for the helmet shell is
assumed as elastic and perfectly plastic in nature. The material
model 3, which is elastic plastic with kinematic hardening, in LSDYNA is used to model ABS. The yield condition of this material
model is
2

s
1
x x  y 0
2 ij ij
3

(6)

where,

Fig. 6. Front and top impact sites in the helmet test.

xij sij  aij

(7)

sy s0 bEp 3peff

(8)

Fig. 7. A section of the metal foam shell after top impact at 7.5 m/s velocity.

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

For ABS, both aij and b are zero. The properties of ABS are given in
Table 1.
A solid layer of 0.2 mm thick with aluminium was modeled over
the coarser metal foam core to represent the thin casting skin of the
metal foam shell. The material properties of solid skin are:
r 2700 kg/m3, E 70 GPa, y 0.3, sy 364 MPa, Et 700 MPa. A
nylon strap of 1 mm thick was modeled for retention system of
helmet.
The eight-node brick element of LS-DYNA with one point
reduced integration was used for both metal foam core and EPS
liner foam. The solid surface skin of metal foam was modeled using
four noded shell elements based on Belytschko-Tsay formulation.
Automatic surface-to-surface contact options were used between
metal foam shell-EPS foam and between EPS foam-head model to
prevent the inter-penetration. A coefcient of friction of 0.3 was
assigned between the outer shell and EPS foam, and between EPS
foam and head model.
A three-dimensional nite element model of human head
developed at ULP by Willinger et al. [22] is used. This FE head model
developed under RADIOSS code includes the main anatomical
features: skin, face, skull, cerebro-spinal uid (CSF), falx, tentorium
and brain. Skin, CSF and brain are modeled with solid elements; falx
and tentorium have a layer of shell elements. Shell elements are used
to model the face and skull. The various layers of the head like other
biological materials do not follow the constitutive relations for
common engineering materials and they are generally non-homogeneous, anisotropic, non-linear and viscoelastic. However, for
modeling purposes here, they are assumed as homogeneous,
isotropic and linearly elastic, except for the brain, which is assumed
as viscoelastic in nature, all mechanical parameters for each part are
summarized in Tables 2 and 3. Mass of the nite element model of
head is 4.5 kg with 11939 nodes and 13193 nite elements. This
model has been validated under cadaver tests and used to reconstruct real world accidents in order to establish some head tolerance
limits to specify injury mechanisms [23]. Moreover tolerance limits
for this FE human head model were identied by Raul et al. [24].
Once the simulations of open-face helmet had been validated
a commercial helmet with full-face and without a visor was used in
helmet-head impact analysis. The full-face helmet covers larger
part of the head and commonly used by motorcycle riders. The
nite element model of a full-face commercial helmet with ABS
shell validated by Pinnoji et al. [25] is used, here, with the ABS shell
replaced by metal foam. The thickness of the EPS liner foam in fullface helmets was not uniform and varied from 30 mm in front to
40 mm in the vertex region. In the helmet model, the metal foam
core has 4260 brick elements, the solid skin has 2130 shell
elements, liner foam has 7360 elements and strap has 858
elements. Fig. 8 shows the FE models of full-face helmet and head
in front and top impacts with at surface. Head model is the same
as used for open-face helmets.
Numerical simulations with full-face helmets were also carried
out to investigate the mechanical behaviour of metal foam shells
when the density of metal foam reduced to 150 kg/m3. The material
properties for these are same as used by Hanssen et al. [14]. For
metal foam density rf 150 kg/m3 the material properties used
are: E 300 MPa, yp 0.05, a 2.1, g 1.19 MPa, 3D 2.89,
a2 52.1 MPa, b 3.26, sp 0.93 MPa, 3cr 0.1.

279

Table 2
Material properties of head.
Part

Density
(kg/m3)

Elastic modulus
(N/m2)

Poissons
ratio

Thickness (mm)

Skin
Skull (outer table)
Skull (inner table)
CSF
Face
Falx
Tentorium

1200
1800
1500
1040
3000
1140
1140

16.7  106
1.5  109
4.5  109
12.0  103
5.0  109
31.5  106
31.5  106

0.42
0.21
0.0
0.49
0.21
0.23
0.23

7
2
3
5
2
1

The metal foam shell obtained from Alulight has a skin of

0.2 mm on both inside and outside. This skin is relatively stiff and
there is a possibility of removing it. In our simulations, we compare
the performance of helmets with and without skin on both sides of
the metal foam shell. Since these studies are performed for two
different densities of metal foam four different cases named as MF1
to MF4 are considered in proceeding sections. The two cases MF3
and MF4 are repeat of the rst two cases MF1 and MF2 for metal
foam of density 150 kg/m3.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Experimental results and validation of the numerical model
with open-face helmet
The impact performance of prototype helmets with metal foam
shell was analyzed numerically and validated against the experimental data. The geometry of helmet with metal foam shell and
headform was same as that used in experiments. The thickness of
the solid skin in the metal foam shell samples varies between
0.1 mm and 0.3 mm and therefore an aluminium face sheet with an
average thickness of 0.2 mm was considered on the outer and inner
surface of the foam core. The headform was assumed as rigid for
predicting the peak acceleration during impact.
The predicted deformation in the metal foam shell after top
impact at 7.5 m/s velocity is shown in Fig. 9. Metal foam shell
attened in the impact area. The impact area is circular in shape
with a diameter of approximately 111 mm and is close to that of
experimentally observed value 100 mm. Initially the shell contacts
the rigid surface at a point and subsequently undergoes considerable plastic deformation due to bending of shell in the contact
region during impact. This has changed its shape and is similar to
that observed in experiments. A comparison of acceleration traces
at centre of gravity (C.G.) of headform between the predicted values
and experimental results is shown in Fig. 10.
In front impact, the predicted initial slope of the acceleration
trace deviates from the experimentally observed but the qualitative
trend matches well with the experiments which can be seen in
Fig. 10a. The predicted value of headform acceleration in front
impact is 275 g where as from the experiments it is 248 g
approximately. In front impact, the predicted impact duration is
8  103 s, which is of the same order as the experimental value.
For top impact at a velocity of 7.5 m/s the predicted headform
acceleration trace matches well with the experiments but peak
values and the contact duration are different as can be seen in
Fig. 10b. The rise in headform acceleration both in experiments and

Table 1
Material properties for ABS shell and strap in helmet.
Part

Density
(kg/m3)

Elastic modulus
(N/m2)

Yield stress
(N/m2)

Poissons
ratio

Thickness
(mm)

ABS shell
Strap (Nylon)

1200
1100

2.0  109
3.0  109

34.3  106

0.37
0.42

4
1

Table 3
Material properties of brain.
Part
Brain

Density (kg/m3)
1040

Bulk modulus (N/m2)

1.125  10

G0 (N/m2)
49.0  10

GN (N/m2)

b (/s)

16.7  103

145

280

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

Fig. 8. Finite element model of full-face helmet and head for front and top impacts.

in FE analysis starts at the same time. In top impact, helmet touched

the at surface at 1.0  103 s and maximum acceleration was
reached at 4.2  103 s approximately.
In top impact, the contact duration predicted by the numerical
model was lower compared to experiments whereas for front
impact the prediction was better. The peak acceleration was overpredicted by approximately 11% compared to experiments in both
front and top impacts. The slope of acceleration curves showed
a better match for top impact as compared to front impact. There
was a good agreement between the predicted and experimental
results.
4.2. Dynamics of full-face metal foam helmets
Next, impact behaviour of full-face helmets was evaluated with
both ABS shell and metal foam shell helmets. First, the head model
was assumed as rigid to investigate the peak acceleration during
impact with all helmets. Then, to examine the biomechanical
response in terms of stresses in the brain, the human head model
was considered as deformable instead of rigid.
4.2.1. Front impact
The helmet performance was investigated at 7.5 m/s impact
velocity with all helmets. The head peak acceleration and HIC were
evaluated using rigid headform. The peak acceleration of headform

Fig. 9. Deformation of the metal foam shell in top impact at 7.5 m/s velocity.

Fig. 10. Comparison of numerically predicted and experimentally determined headform acceleration traces with metal foam helmet at 7.5 m/s velocity (a) Front impact
(b) Top impact.

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

and HIC are listed in Table 4 for front impact at 7.5 m/s velocity with
all helmets. The helmet with metal foam shell and without solid
skin i.e. MF4 shell which has the mass of 0.248 kg gave lowest peak
acceleration amongst all helmets. With the metal foam shell having
0.2 mm solid skin on both sides i.e. MF1 shell there is a 17%
reduction in mass as compared to the ABS shell. This reduction in
mass is only for shell and not for the complete helmet. With MF2,
MF3, and MF4 shells there is a 49%, 41%, and 73% reduction in the
mass of shell compared to the ABS shell.
Later to get the biomechanical response in terms of stresses in
the brain, the human head [22] was considered as deformable so
that the head response can be predicted in a realistic way. The EPS
foam deformed locally and the area of deformation is small. The
head did not penetrate the inner surface of liner foam.
The deformation in helmet with MF4 shell in front impact at
7.5 m/s velocity is shown in Fig. 11. The EPS liner foam was
deformed from inside by the head. Metal foam shell was also
compressed by the EPS liner foam and the head. The through
thickness deformation of shells is more in low-density metal foams.
In the ABS shell, the main deformation is elastic which recovered
when the helmet rebounds. The elastic deformation in ABS shell is
of the same order as plastic deformation. The equivalent strain in
ABS shell is 2.7%. A large permanent plastic deformation was
observed with helmets of metal foam shell and the equivalent
plastic strain is larger in MF3 at 62.7%. The impact forces on the
head at a velocity of 7.5 m/s are shown as a function of time in
Fig. 12 for front site. The head experienced a force of 9566 N with
MF1 shell (i.e. having stiffer solid skin on both sides of the shell)
helmet and is higher compared to 8465 N by ABS shell helmet. The
head experienced a force of 7198 N with MF4 shell (i.e. low-density
shell without solid skin) and is much lower compared to other
helmets.
The force experienced by the head with all the helmet models is
below 9900 N, which was the skull fracture force in front impact
predicted by Willinger et al. [22] and is within the range of fracture
force 4.514.1 kN determined by Yoganadan et al. [26]. Various
performance parameters are listed in Table 5 with all helmets for
front impact at 7.5 m/s velocity.
The effective stress in all metal foam shells, which was calculated by Eq. 2, exceeds their corresponding yield stress which tells
that the metal foam shell had undergone considerable plastic
deformation during impact. The last column in Table 5 depicts the
internal energy in different shells, before rebound. At a rst glance,
the energy absorbed by ABS shell seems very high. However, as
seen in Fig. 13a this energy absorbed is almost same as the initial
kinetic energy of the shell. High density metal foam with skin (i.e.
MF1) absorbed 13% more energy than its initial kinetic energy. The
same high density metal foam without skin (i.e. MF2) absorbed
3.8% more energy than its initial kinetic energy. On the other hand
the energy absorption in low-density metal foam shells is much
higher. It can be seen in Fig. 13b that the initial kinetic energy of
MF4 shell is 7 J but it absorbed 16 J. The low-density metal foam

281

Fig. 11. Deformation in helmet with MF4 shell during front impact at 7.5 m/s velocity.

absorbed more energy than its own kinetic energy and reduced the
forces on the head. A probable reason for this high absorption is
the crushing of the cells in low-density foam. As mentioned in the
Section 3.1 experiments on high density foam showed only bending
deformation of the shell and no crushing was observed. High
density foams were therefore not very effective in absorbing
energy. The energy absorption in EPS foam is same in all the
helmets.
The difference in the maximum von Mises stress in the brain is
small with high density metal foam shell helmets compared to ABS
shell helmet. The distribution of von Mises stress in the brain with
MF4 shell helmet is shown in Fig. 14. Among all helmets, the
maximum von Mises stress in the brain is lowest with MF4 shell
helmet at 18.0 kPa. However, the von Mises stress in all cases is well
below the tolerance limit of 27 kPa for moderate diffuse axonal
injuries (DAI) with 50% risk as reported in Raul et al. [24].
Investigations were also carried out for impact velocity of 10 m/s.
At this velocity the force on the head rises rapidly as the EPS foam
bottomed out with all helmets except MF4 shell helmet. The forces
on the head with metal foam shell having 300 kg/m3 density are
approximately same to that of ABS shell. The forces on the head are
lower with metal foam shell having 150 kg/m3 density (i.e. MF4
shell) compared to other helmets. The through thickness shell
deformation was smaller with 300 kg/m3 density compared to

Table 4
Full-face helmet impact simulation at 7.5 m/s velocity.
Outer shell

ABS
MF300-with skin
MF300-without skin
MF150-with skin
MF150-without skin

Mass (kg)

0.938
0.777
0.547
0.479
0.248

Front impact

Top impact

Peak
acceleration
(in g)

HIC

Peak
acceleration
(in g)

HIC

205
225
197
195
150

1069
1953
1597
1741
787

330
335
300
298
245

3650
3568
3080
3277
2358

Fig. 12. Comparison of resultant force on the head during front impact at 7.5 m/s
velocity with shells of ABS and metal foam of different densities.

282

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

Table 5
Performance parameters with full-face helmet and deformable head in front impact
at 7.5 m/s velocity.
Helmet

Equivalent
plastic strain
in shell

Effective
stress in
shell (MPa)

Max. von Mises

stress in
brain (kPa)

Internal
energy in shell
before rebound (J)

ABS
MF300-with
skin
MF300-without
skin
MF150-with
skin
MF150-without
skin

0.027
0.213

34.3
5.23

24.0
26.9

26.7
25.0

0.09

5.11

26.2

16.2

0.627

2.43

21.8

28.7

0.60

2.16

18.0

16.0

150 kg/m3 density metal foam shells. With low-density metal foam
helmet, the crushing and buckling of the cells of foam probably
occurs whereas for high density foams only local bending at point
of impact is predominant. The forces on the head are shown as
a function of time in Fig. 15.

Fig. 14. von Mises stress in the brain with MF4 helmet at 7.5 m/s impact velocity.

The force experienced by the head at 10 m/s impact velocity

with all the helmet models is above 9900 N, which was the skull
fracture force in front impact predicted by Willinger et al. [22] but is
within the range of fracture force 4.514.1 kN determined by
Yoganadan et al. [26].
4.2.2. Top impact
The full-face helmet performance was rst investigated for top
point at 7.5 m/s impact velocity. The shape of the helmet at top
seems to make the shell stiffer as compared to its front, leading to
higher impact forces during top impact. At the front of the helmet,
the shell stiffness is lower due to the proximity of a free edge. The
predicted variations of the head forces with time are shown in
Fig. 16. The resultant forces on the head are lower with MF4 shell
compared to other helmets.
In top impact, the liner foam compressed 50% of the total
thickness. i.e. there was 20 mm compression in the liner foam out
of its 40 mm thickness at the vertex. The impact duration is almost
same with all the metal foam helmets. The magnitude of the
resultant force on head with MF1 shell helmet is 14 272 N. With the
ABS shell helmet the force on the head was 13 913 N. The force on
head predicted by Gilchrist and Mills [20] for top impact at 7 m/s
impact velocity with ABS shell helmet was 15 000 N approximately.
The predicted force on the head in top impact with all helmets is

Fig. 13. Variation of kinetic energy (KE) and internal energy (IE) in the outer shell at
7.5 m/s velocity a. ABS shell b. MF4 shell.

Fig. 15. Comparison of resultant force on the head during front impact at 10 m/s
velocity with shells of ABS and metal foam of different densities.

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

283

Fig. 16. Comparison of resultant force on the head during top impact at 7.5 m/s
velocity with shells of ABS and metal foam of different densities.

Fig. 17. Comparison of resultant force on the head during top impact at 10 m/s velocity
with shells of ABS and metal foam of different densities.

higher than the skull fracture force predicted by Willinger et al. [22]
but is within the range of fracture force determined by Yoganandan
et al. [26]. Various performance parameters of helmet are detailed
in Table 6. Equivalent plastic strain is high in the helmet with metal
foam shell having 150 kg/m3 density. The maximum von Mises
stresses in brain are 28.1 kPa, 26.7 kPa, 26.0 kPa, 24.2 kPa and
21.8 kPa with ABS, MF1, MF2, MF3, and MF4 shell helmets respectively. The maximum von Mises stress in the brain with metal foam
shell helmets is below the tolerance limit of 27 kPa for moderate
diffuse axonal injuries (DAI) with 50% risk.
The effective stress in all metal foam shells, which was calculated by Eq. 2, exceeds their corresponding yield stress which tells
that the metal foam shell had undergone considerable plastic
deformation during top impact also. The internal energy absorbed
by the outer shell per unit mass is high in metal foam shells
compared to shells made of ABS.
The forces on the head are next evaluated at an impact velocity
of 10 m/s. Similar trend in forces on the head was observed with all
the helmets. The EPS liner foam did not bottom out in any helmet.
Fig. 17 shows the resultant force on head with ABS and MF shell
helmets. The forces experienced by the head are lower with lowdensity metal foam helmet (i.e. MF4) compared to ABS shell helmet
and other metal foam helmets. However, the predicted force on the

head in top impact at 10 m/s velocity with all helmets is higher than
the skull fracture force predicted by Willinger et al. [22] and also
that of fracture force determined by Yoganandan et al. [26].

Table 6
Performance parameters with full-face helmet and deformable head in top impact at
7.5 m/s velocity.
Helmet

Equivalent plastic
strain in shell

Effective
stress
in shell
(MPa)

Max. von
Mises
stress in
brain (kPa)

Internal energy
in shell before
rebound (J)

ABS
MF300-with
skin
MF300without
skin
MF150-with
skin
MF150without
skin

0.04
0.21

34.3
5.28

28.1
26.7

30.5
37.1

0.11

5.31

26.0

21.0

0.71

2.38

24.2

44.1

0.50

2.46

21.8

23.1

5. Conclusions
Motorcycle helmets with metal foam shell are developed.
Impact experiments are carried out on prototype open-face
helmets with shell of metal foam at front and top impact locations.
For metal foam with density 300 kg/m3 and solid skin on the inner
and outer surface of shell, the FE model of open-face helmet is
validated against experiments.
The dynamic performance of full-face helmets with metal foam
shell is next investigated by nite element modeling. Two different
densities of metal foam shell are considered. With the metal foam
shell of density 300 kg/m3 and 0.2 mm solid skin on both sides
there is approximately 17% reduction in mass as compared to the
ABS shell of 4 mm thickness. The impact forces on the head are
marginally higher in both top and front impacts. For the same
density of metal foam shell but without solid skin there is
approximately 41% reduction in mass compared to that of ABS shell
and the impact forces on the head are also lower in both front and
top impacts.
With the metal foam shell of density 150 kg/m3 and 0.2 mm
solid skin on both sides there is approximately 49% reduction in
mass as compared to the ABS. The lower density metal foam
undergoes large plastic deformation locally in the impact region.
The impact forces on the head and peak acceleration of head are
low compared to that of ABS. For the same density of metal foam
shell but without solid skin there is approximately 73% reduction in
mass compared to that of ABS shell and also the impact forces on
the head are lower in both front and top impacts.
The von Mises stress in the brain with all helmets is within the
injury tolerance limits at 7.5 m/s impact velocity except for ABS
helmet in top impact. In front and top impacts, the von Mises stress
in the brain is reduced by approximately 25% and 22%, respectively
for helmet with low-density metal foam shell and without solid
skin as compared to the ABS helmet. It is observed that the resultant force on head is less with lower density metal foam helmet as
compared to the ABS helmet.

284

P.K. Pinnoji et al. / International Journal of Impact Engineering 37 (2010) 274284

Acknowledgement
Authors gratefully acknowledge the nancial and academic
support from Volvo Research and Educational Foundation of
Sweden; Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme of IIT Delhi, India; and Institute of Mechanics of the Fluids
and Solids, ULP-CNRS, France.

References
[1] Patel R, Mohan D. An improved motorcycle helmet design for tropical
climates. Applied Ergonomics 1993;24(6):42731.
[2] Mills NJ. Polymer Foam Handbook: Engineering and Biomechanics Applications and Design Guide. Elsevier Ltd.; 2007.
[3] Kostopoulos V, Markopoulos YP, Giannopoulos G, Vlachos DE. Finite element
analysis of impact damage of composite motorcycle safety helmets.
Composites Part B: Engineering 2002;33(2):99107.
[4] Aiello M, Galvanetto U, Iannucci L. Numerical simulations of motorcycle
helmet impact tests. International Journal of Crashworthiness 2007;12:17.
[5] Banhart J. Manufacture, characterization and application of cellular metals and
metal foams. Progress in Material Science 2001;46:559632.
[6] Kriszt B, Foroughi B, Faure K, Degischer HP. Behaviour of aluminium foam
under uniaxial compression. Materials Science and Technology
2000;16:7926.
[7] Sridhar I, Fleck NA. The multiaxial yield behaviour of an aluminium alloy foam.
Journal of Materials Science 2005;40:40058.
[8] Santosa S, Wierzbicki T. On the modeling of crush behaviour of a closed-cell
aluminium foam structure. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids
1998;46(4):64569.
[9] Deshpande VS, Fleck NA. Isotropic constitutive for metallic foams. Journal of
the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 2000;48:125383.
[10] Hanssen AG, Hopperstad OS, Langseth M, Ilstad H. Validation of constitutive
models applicable to aluminium foams. International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences 2002;44:359406.

[11] Reyes A, Hopperstad OS, Berstad T, Hanssen AG, Langseth M. Constitutive

modeling of aluminium foam including fracture and statistical variation of
density. European Journal of Mechanics A: Solids 2003;22:81535.
[12] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA Theoretical Manual. Livermore Software Technology
Corporation; 1998.
[13] Ramamurty U, Paul A. Variability in mechanical properties of a metal foam.
Acta Meterialia 2004;52:86976.
[14] Hanssen AG, Girard Y, Olovsson L, Berstad T, Langseth M. A numerical model
for bird strike of aluminium foam-based sandwich panels. International
Journal of Impact Engineering 2006;32:112744.
[15] Pinnoji PK, Mahajan P. Two wheeler helmets with ventilation and metal foam.
Defence Science Journal 2008;58(2):30411.
[16] Pinnoji P K, Bourdet N, Mahajan P, Willinger R. New motorcycle helmets with
metal foam shell, In: Proceedings of the International Research Council of
Biomechanics of Impact (IRCOBI), Bern, Switzerland, 2008.
[17] Gibson LJ, Ashby MF. Cellular Solids. Oxford: Pergamon; 1988.
[18] Alulight International GmbH, Austria.
[19] Indian Standards Specication for Protective Helmets for Scooter and Motorcycle Riders, IS 4151: 1993. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 1993.
[20] Gilchrist A, Mills NJ. Modelling of the impact performance of motorcycle
helmets. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1994;15(3):20118.
[21] Yettram AL, Godfrey NPM, Chinn BP. Materials for motorcycle crash helmets
a nite element parametric study. Plastics, Rubber and Composites Processing
and Applications 1994;22(4):21521.
[22] Willinger R, Diaw BM, Ho-Sung Kang. Finite element modeling of skull fractures caused by direct impact. International Journal of Crashworthiness
2000;5(3):24958.
[23] Deck C, Willinger R. Improved head injury criteria based on head fe model.
International Journal of Crashworthiness 2008;13(6):66778.
[24] Raul JS, Deck C, Willinger R, Ludes B. Finite element models of the human head
and their applications in forensic practice. International Journal of Legal
Medicine 2008;122:35966.
[25] Pinnoji PK, Haider Z, Mahajan P. Design of motorcycle helmets: computational
uid and impact analyses. International Journal of Crashworthiness
2008;13(3):26578.
[26] Yoganandan N, Pintar FA, Sances Jr A, Walsh PR, Ewing CL, Thomas DJ,
Snyder RG. Biomechanics of skull fracture. Journal of Neurotrauma
1995;12(4):65968.