Virtual testing of helmets using finite element (FE) analysis can be a valuable tool during product development. Still, its usefulness is limited by the quality of the constitutive model of the energy-absorbing material, usually foam. Built-in constitutive models in commercial FE software are developed for traditional linear compression loading. However, modern oblique test methods load the foam in combined compression and shear. Therefore, we aim to evaluate to what extent built-in constitutive models in commercial FE software can represent Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam during combined compression and shear loading (CCSL). EPS foam is tested experimentally in a newly developed test rig for CCSL (V-test). The response is compared against the simulation using three different constitutive models available in LS-DYNA (M83, M126, and M181). The models are assessed by their ability to capture the correct response, focusing on how well the continuum models can capture the phenomenological events seen in the experiments. The results show that the models perform well in compression, as expected. However, we point out limitations in the shear response and significant limitations in the unloading response, both important for oblique helmet testing. Due to these limitations, we conclude that the existing models are inadequate for accurately simulating oblique helmet impacts. There is a clear need to develop and implement new constitutive models focused on capturing CCSL including the unloading. Additionally, frictional sliding was found to substantially influence the measured response in the V-test method. Minimizing interface sliding is therefore critical for isolating the material behavior.

The anatomy of children’s heads is unique and distinct from adults, with smaller and softer skulls and unfused fontanels and sutures. Despite this, most current helmet testing standards for children use the same peak linear acceleration threshold as for adults. It is unclear whether this is reasonable and otherwise what thresholds should be. To answer these questions, helmet-protected head responses for different ages are needed which is however lacking today. In this study, we apply continuously scalable PIPER child head models of 1.5, 3, and 6 years old (YO), and an upgraded 18YO to study child helmet protection under extensive linear and oblique impacts. The results of this study reveal an age-dependence trend in both global kinematics and tissue response, with younger children experiencing higher levels of acceleration and velocity, as well as increased skull stress and brain strain. These findings indicate the need for better protection for younger children, suggesting that youth helmets should have a lower linear kinematic threshold, with a preliminary value of 150g for 1.5-year-old helmets. However, the results also show a different trend in rotational kinematics, indicating that the threshold of rotational velocity for a 1.5YO is similar to that for adults. The results also support the current use of small-sized adult headforms for testing child helmets before new child headforms are available.

Recent studies have found that alpine helmets reduce the risk of focal injuries associated with radial impacts, which is likely due to current alpine helmet standards requiring helmets to be drop-tested on flat anvils with only linear acceleration pass criteria. There is a need to evaluate the performance of alpine helmets in more realistic impacts. The current study developed a method to assess the performance of alpine helmets for radial and oblique impacts on snow surfaces in a laboratory setting. Snow samples were collected from a groomed area of a ski slope. Radial impacts were performed as drop tests onto a stationary snow sample. Oblique impacts were performed as drop tests onto a snow sample moving horizontally. For radial impacts, snow sample collection time was found to significantly (p = 0.005) influence mean peak linear headform acceleration with an increase in ambient temperature softening the snow samples. For oblique tests, the recreational alpine sports helmet with a rotation-damping system (RDS) significantly (p = 0.002) reduced mean peak angular acceleration compared to the same helmets with no RDS by approximately 44%. The ski racing helmet also significantly (p = 0.006) reduced mean peak angular acceleration compared to the recreational alpine sports helmet with no RDS by approximately 33%, which was attributed to the smooth outer shell of the ski racing helmet. The current study helps to bridge the knowledge gap between real helmet impacts on alpine snow slopes and laboratory helmet impacts on rigid surfaces.

Head injuries are among the most common injuries in motorcycle accidents, where the helmet is the main protection. Until recently, the test standards have only evaluated protection against linear impacts. Evaluating protection against rotational impacts has been recently introduced. The objective of this study was to evaluate how current motorcycle helmets perform in ECE R22.06 rotational impact tests. The rotational impact tests were performed on three helmet models and the linear impact tests were performed on one helmet model. All the helmets passed the rotational impact tests. The maximum value for the experimental tests was 4.5 krad/s2 for PRA and 0.48 for BrIC compared to the threshold values of 10.4 krad/s2 and 0.78. In the linear impact tests five out of twenty-two impact tests failed the threshold for peak linear acceleration or head injury criterion. The results from this study suggest that motorcycle helmets will be more optimised towards reducing linear-induced injuries and not rotational-induced injuries in the newly introduced test standard ECE R22.06. This is not responding to the protection requirements when evaluating the accident statistics, which shows that rotational-induced injuries are as common or even more common than linear-induced injuries in helmeted motorcycle accidents. 

Numerous helmet rating methods have been proposed to assess the safety and effectiveness of bicycle helmets. The methods usually involve a series of experimental impact tests using an Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) headform. There are several headforms available for the purpose and this study sought to assess how the choice of headform influences the safety assessment and ratings of bicycle helmets by following four proposed rating programs using three commonly used headforms. 19 head impact cases were evaluated computationally using the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) headform, Hybrid III (HIII) headform, and standard EN960 headform. The results show that for most oblique impact cases, EN960 produced considerably lower Peak Angular Acceleration (PAA), Peak Angular Velocity (PAV) and head injury risk compared to HIII and NOCSAE. This implies that the safety performance of bicycle helmets could be rated higher when using uncoated metal headforms compared to rubber-coated ones. The different headforms' tendency to produce varying rotational motion in oblique impacts raises questions about which of the headforms are suitable for such impact tests. The results presented in this study emphasize the occasional contradictions in helmet ratings presented by helmet rating programs. 

New oblique impact methods for evaluating head injury mitigation effects of helmets are emerging, which mandate measuring both translational and rotational kinematics of the headform. These methods need headforms with biofidelic mass, moments of inertia (MoIs), and coefficient of friction (CoF). To fulfill this need, working group 11 of the European standardization head protection committee (CEN/TC158) has been working on the development of a new headform with realistic MoIs and CoF, based on recent biomechanics research on the human head. In this study, we used a version of this headform (Cellbond) to test a motorcycle helmet under the oblique impact at 8 m/s at five different locations. We also used the Hybrid III headform, which is commonly used in the helmet oblique impact. We tested whether there is a difference between the predictions of the headforms in terms of injury metrics based on head kinematics, including peak translational and rotational acceleration, peak rotational velocity, and BrIC (brain injury criterion). We also used the Imperial College finite element model of the human head to predict the strain and strain rate across the brain and tested whether there is a difference between the headforms in terms of the predicted strain and strain rate. We found that the Cellbond headform produced similar or higher peak translational accelerations depending on the impact location (-3.2% in the front-side impact to 24.3% in the rear impact). The Cellbond headform, however, produced significantly lower peak rotational acceleration (-41.8% in a rear impact to -62.7% in a side impact), peak rotational velocity (-29.5% in a side impact to -47.6% in a rear impact), and BrIC (-29% in a rear-side impact to -45.3% in a rear impact). The 90th percentile values of the maximum brain strain and strain rate were also significantly lower using this headform. Our results suggest that MoIs and CoF have significant effects on headform rotational kinematics, and consequently brain deformation, during the helmeted oblique impact. Future helmet standards and rating methods should use headforms with realistic MoIs and CoF (e.g., the Cellbond headform) to ensure more accurate representation of the head in laboratory impact tests.

Bicycle helmets are shown to offer protection against head injuries. Rating methods and test standards are used to evaluate different helmet designs and safety performance. Both strain-based injury criteria obtained from finite element brain injury models and metrics derived from global kinematic responses can be used to evaluate helmet safety performance. Little is known about how different injury models or injury metrics would rank and rate different helmets. The objective of this study was to determine how eight brain models and eight metrics based on global kinematics rank and rate a large number of bicycle helmets (n=17) subjected to oblique impacts. The results showed that the ranking and rating are influenced by the choice of model and metric. Kendall’s tau varied between 0.50 and 0.95 when the ranking was based on maximum principal strain from brain models. One specific helmet was rated as 2-star when using one brain model but as 4-star by another model. This could cause confusion for consumers rather than inform them of the relative safety performance of a helmet. Therefore, we suggest that the biomechanics community should create a norm or recommendation for future ranking and rating methods.

Work-related traumatic brain injuries (wrTBIs) in the construction industry have been studied in North America but, to the best of our knowledge, not in Europe. This study analyzed sets of public data on head injuries occurring in the construction industry from the workers' compensation systems in Sweden and Germany, 2014 - 2018. The ratio of wrTBI varied from 11% to 61% of all head injuries, with higher ratios for more severe injuries. The average yearly incidence (per 100,000 FTE) of wrTBI resulting in more than four days absence from work was nine in Sweden and 117 in Germany, as compared to 22-212 in North American studies. A limitation of studies based on workers' compensation claims is that they underestimate the true burden of wrTBI. The most frequent events leading to wrTBI were falls, followed by loss of control, failure of material agents, and body movements without stress. Falls from a height caused 35% of all wrTBI with more than 14 days off work in Sweden and 57% of all new injury pensions granted in Germany. In North American studies, 52-78% of the wrTBI were caused by falls. This highlights the relevance of fall safety measures to reduce wrTBI in the construction industry, such as avoiding work at heights, use of safety nets, education, and etcetera. The energy absorption of safety helmets mainly protects the head excluding face of which 49-62% were wrTBI, indicating that helmet testing standards should evaluate protection against TBI as well as skull fractures.

The motorcyclist is exposed to the risk of falling and impacting ground head-first at a wide range of travellingspeeds – from a speed limit of less than 50km/h on the urban road to the race circuit where speed can reach well above 200km/h. However, motorcycle helmets today are tested at a single and much lower impact speed, i.e. 30km/h. There is a knowledge gap in understanding the dynamics and head impact responses at high travelling speeds due to the limitation of existing laboratory rigs. This study used a finite element head model coupled with a motorcycle helmet model to simulate head-first falls at travelling speed (or tangential velocity at impact) from 0 to 216km/h. The effect of different falling heights (1.6m and 0.25m) and coefficient of frictions (0.20and 0.45) between the helmet outer shell and ground were also examined. The simulation results were analysed together with the analytical model to better comprehend rolling and/or sliding phenomena that are often observedin helmet oblique impacts. Three types of helmet-to-ground interactions are found when the helmet impacts ground from low to high tangential velocities: (1) helmet rolling without slipping; (2) a combination of sliding and rolling; and (3) continuous sliding. The tangential impulse transmitted to the head-helmet system, peak angular head kinematics and brain strain increase almost linearly with the tangential velocity when the helmet rolls but plateaus when the helmet slides. The critical tangential velocity at which the motion transit from the rolling regime to the sliding regime depends on both the falling height and friction coefficient. Typically, for a fall height of 1.63m and a friction coefficient of 0.45, the rolling/sliding transition occurs at a tangential velocity of 10.8m/s (38.9 km/h). Low sliding resistance in helmet design, i.e. by the means of a lower friction coefficient between the helmet outer shell and ground, has shown a higher reduction of brain tissue strain in the sliding regime than in the rolling regime. This study uncovers the underlying dynamics of rolling and sliding phenomena in high-speed oblique impacts, which largely affect head impact biomechanics. Besides, the study highlights the importance of testing helmets at speeds covering both the rolling and sliding regime since potential designs for improved head protection at high-speed impacts can be more distinguishable in the sliding regime than in the rolling regime.