Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

214 vues

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Accident Reconstruction
- Rice Allen IL State Police Crash Reconstruction Report
- Crash Equations
- Accident Reconstruction
- Kinematics Cheat Sheet
- Vibration - Freeplay
- Vehicle Crash Worthiness Complete
- Traffic Accident InvestigationText
- Practice Projectiles 2
- M1 June 2009
- Heinemann Physics 12 Text
- Motion Graphs
- HS Physiscs Text book.pdf
- 03. motion in a straight line.pdf
- LS DYNA Basic Cards
- Knight Ch01
- Lesson Plan Momentum
- 27.IJMPERDAPR201827
- Assignment 2.pdf
- Sample Paper

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Version 5

Prepared by:

R. Ross

J. Lenard

B. Hurley

P. Thomas

D. Otte

G. Vallet

December 1998

1. COLLISION SEVERITY AS A FUNDAMENTAL CRASH PARAMETER ........................................... 3

2. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS:.................................................................................................... 3

3.DELTA-V: ................................................................................................................................................... 4

5. PRACTICAL RESTRICTIONS............................................................................................................... 12

5.2. METHODOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 12

5.3. ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS ..................................................................................... 13

5.4. MISSING VALUES ................................................................................................................................. 13

DETERMINATION OF COLLISION SPEED IN CAR PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS............................. 15

6.1. ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE BODY MOTION DURING THE CRASH ................................................. 15

6.2. MATHEMATICAL / PHYSICAL CALCULATION OF SPEED............................................................................ 16

1. Collision severity as a fundamental crash parameter

Collision severity is a measure of the violence of the crash and is usually measured in terms

of the speed change of either vehicle during the crash or the amount of energy dissipated in

the crush. It is a measure describing a fundamental crash parameter. For example it is

impossible to compare the relative performance of two safety systems if it is not known that

the two groups were exposed to crashes of similar severities - if they were different then the

lower speed group would be expected to result in fewer severe injuries. The measurement of

collision severity is an essential measurement but there are a number of practical difficulties

in making an accurate assessment to give comparable results between various data samples.

2. Theoretical considerations:

Within the current area of vehicle safety research there is discussion surrounding crash

severity and the most appropriate methodology to use in its calculation. Many of the problems

associated with these conflicts rest upon the misunderstandings surrounding them. Within in-

depth research there are two widely accepted practical calculations for crash severity in use:

• ∆V (Delta V),

• EES (Energy Equivalent Speed).

The explanation of these two methods are underpinned by classical Newtonian mechanics and

general reconstruction principles from widely used computer programs.

3. ∆V - Delta-V:

It has both direction and magnitude and is therefore a vector. The draft International standard

(ISO/DIS 12353-1:1996(E)) defines it as the:

This means the change in velocity over the impact phase (from the point in time when the

vehicles start exerting a force on each other, to the point in time when the resultant force is

negligible or equal to that of the frictional forces of the system).

In order to calculate this quantity, all the energy dissipated within the system investigated is

required to be known. For the purposes of crash investigation this would mean the details

from all vehicles involved in the collision. Delta-V cannot be calculated from the details of

part of the system (i.e. from only one vehicle).

Example 1:

a - Pre-impact b - Impact

V2

M2

M2

V2i

M1

V1

M1

V1i

V1f

M1

M2

V2f

c - Post impact phase (immediately after separation).

For example 1

∆V for vehicle 2 = V2f - V2 i (2.3)

In crash investigation there is currently no method of always knowing the pre- and post-

velocities of the vehicles involved at the actual time of the crash. However, there are methods

of calculating the change in velocity using two basic methodologies. One we will call work

energy analysis and the other deformation energy analysis.

The work energy analysis method utilises trajectory data and is based on work-energy

relationships and the principal of conservation of linear momentum. Most of this type of

information is ‘volatile’ and has to be collected at the scene (skid marks on the road surface

and debris that can indicate the point of contact) so that the vehicle direction and point of

impact can be measured as accurately as possible.

The other method mainly used is deformation energy analysis. For this type of calculation the

principals are based on:

1. Conservation of energy

2. Conservation of momentum

3. Vehicle damage

Both methods use a set of assumptions within their calculations based on vehicle crash testing

under laboratory conditions (stiffness) or field testing (road friction).

work energy analysis methodologies use the work energy dissipation due to friction (using the

length of residual skid marks), pre- and post-crash trajectories and the distance travelled to

rest to make their ∆V calculations, but can also use the deformation of the vehicles as an

adjunct to this. The deformation energy analysis method uses vehicle deformations only (i.e.

the deformations from all vehicles involved in the collision).

In order to calculate ∆V using the retrospective method it is accepted that the change in

kinetic energy is equal to the energy dissipated by the crashed vehicles i.e. the ‘energy of

deformation’. The energy of deformation is based on crash tests that provide vehicle damage

profiles from a known velocity and direction. Consequently, any crash configurations that are

not complimentary to the tests, cannot be compared. It is also assumed that the contacting

surfaces of the crash partners reach a common velocity during the crash phase. Some

configurations are non-complimentary, and are therefore excluded from ∆V calculations using

this methodology (see example 2).This includes ‘side-swipes’ and ‘glance-off’ collisions

where very little of the vehicle is involved in contact with a crash partner and ‘non-horizontal’

crashes or rollovers.

Example 2

V2

M1 M1

V1

M2 M2

V1 V2

a - Pre-impact b - Post-impact (No common velocity reached)

4. EES - Energy Equivalent Speed:

The current draft International Standard definition of this term (ISO/DIS 12353-1:1996(E))

is:

“The equivalent speed at which a particular vehicle would need to contact any fixed

rigid object in order to dissipate the deformation energy corresponding to the observed

vehicle residual crush.”

No direction is assigned to this quantity and it is therefore a scalar. The calculation for EES

is:

(where m is the mass of the vehicle)

For example, for a given damaged vehicle whose energy of deformation was known or

considered to be 50,000 J, and which has a mass of 1,000 kg:

Edef = ½ m(EES)2

50,000 = ½ . 1,000 . (EES)2

→ EES = 10 m/s (36 km/h)

The link between Edef (or EES) and crush may be obtained from crash tests in a similar way to

∆V. Other methods used to calculate EES are: energy grids, approximation equations or

damaged based algorithms. EES can work with partial information from the crash (i.e. the

damage profile from one vehicle only) as it is only a measure of the energy dissipated by that

vehicle.

The results of EES can be misleading if you consider that a small change in velocity at high

speed can have the same kinetic energy dissipated as that of a large change at low speeds:

Kinetic energy

1400

1200

1000

∆KE2 800

600

400

200

∆KE1 0

Velocity

0 10 20 30 40 50

∆V ∆V

Example 3+

In example 3, a change in velocity from 30 m/s to 10 m/s (i.e. a change of 20 m/s), does not

give the same outcome as a calculation based on an initial velocity of 20 m/s to rest.

Although both ranges have a difference of 20 m/s, the calculations are:

E = ½ mv2

∆KE = ½ m (502 - 302)

= 800 x mass

E = ½ mv2

∆KE = ½ m (202 - 02)

= 200 x mass

This example shows that comparable changes in initial and final velocities do not equate to a

comparable ∆V i.e. ∆V1 = ∆V2 but ∆KE1 ≠ ∆KE2

There is a further measure that is sometimes used in crash reconstruction called ETS

(Equivalent Test Speed). It involves both magnitude and direction and is therefore a vector. It

uses only part of the information from a crash system (i.e. details from only one of the

vehicles involved) and is therefore not as useful as the previous measures. It assumes that the

crash is an impact into a solid, immovable barrier. However, ETS does not assume that the

vehicle comes to rest and can take into account a final velocity of more than 0 km/h. The

crash is of an appropriate configuration in order to approximate the observed damage seen on

the subject vehicle.

1. Impact against a narrow object along vehicle centre line (in line with centre of mass)

Vehicle mass = 1000 kg

Field width = 40 cms

Crush = 200 cms

Field offset = 0 cms

Results:

Delta V (ETS) = 95.9 km/h

Energy = 354400.9 Nm

EES (from energy) = 95.8 km/h

Here, due to the impact being along the line of the centre of mass the vehicle will come to rest

and therefore the results are the same (the slight discrepancy is due to the barrier being

assigned a finite mass in the Crash 3 program).

2. Impact against a narrow object on edge of vehicle

Vehicle mass = 1000 kg

Field width = 40 cms

Crush = 200 cms

Field offset = 60 cms

Results:

Delta V (ETS) = 88.7 km/h

Energy = 354400.9 Nm

EES (from energy) = 95.8 km/h

This example gives a lower ETS due to the fact that “spin-off” would occur (i.e. final velocity

≠ 0) within this configuration. It also highlights EES as being ‘crush energy’ (not velocity)

orientated.

5. Practical restrictions

The two most commonly used measures of collision severity are Energy Equivalent Speed

(EES) and speed change during the crash phase (delta-v). As has been shown they are not the

same but measure different aspects of the collision severity. Broadly speaking delta-v is an

indication of the acceleration experienced by car occupants while EES assesses the work done

in crushing the car structure.

Understanding is complicated by the two values often but not always being similar. Under

some circumstances they take the same value but they can also be radically different. One

common confusion is when to use each measure analytically and there is a need to clarify this

use so that all groups use the most appropriate measure for the analysis.

A second difficulty arises when different methods are used to estimate a measure. For

example delta-v can be calculated on the basis of the difference between the approach and exit

velocities of a vehicle into and out of a crash, it can also be estimated using the deformation

of all the vehicles. In theory the two methods should give exactly the same result however

differences in the calculation method can give slightly different estimates. For example some

methods of calculating delta-V include rebound velocity (which is a consequence of the

elastic properties of the material) while others exclude it. EES can be calculated using a

variety of methods - computer software can estimate the deformation energy directly, accident

damaged vehicles can be compared photographically with crash tested vehicles, special

software can compare measurements of the damage with equivalent measures of crash test

vehicles. These methods are chosen usually because of restrictions in the opportunities to

collect relevant data concerning the crash. There are subtle differences between these methods

that can result in very real effects when the results are applied to the development of suitable

crash test procedures to reproduce the crash severity. There is a need to assess the importance

of these effects and to establish that in practise each of the methods really does give

comparable estimates of the key parameters.

5.3. Accuracy of measurements and methods

In practise all methods used to estimate delta-v and EES have a limited accuracy that further

clouds the degree of comparability. They are based on physical measures that all have a

measurement error (length of skid marks, depth of crush etc). Many of the methods include

approximations and extrapolations that increase the degree of uncertainty. Delta-v

calculations based on skid marks and residual environmental data are sometimes considered

to be very close to the fundamental physics of the system and therefore have a very small

error. However uncertainty in the practical application (e.g. determination of collision point

or rest position of pedestrian) can introduce error and this frequently is not assessed when

the estimates are employed analytically. Damage based methods often used the US CRASH

3 software package or one of its derivatives, this system includes a number of assumptions

of the stiffness of cars in the US which may not apply to the European fleet.

A search of published literature shows that CRASH 3 is often considered to give an accuracy

of ±10% while the accuracy of on-scene methods is not reported. Frequently one data

collection team will employ a number of methods to calculate collision severity for as many

cases as possible but all of the values will be combined so that it is not possible to assess the

resulting accuracy on the basis of other research.

There is a need to assess the accuracy of each of the commonly used method of measuring

collision severity both under experimental and under real-world conditions. The implications

of combining different methods needs to be understood better and it is likely that new

methods are needed to calculate the values to a much greater accuracy.

All of the available methods have restrictions in their applicability. Scene based methods of

calculating delta-v can only be used when there is sufficient information available to provide

the necessary inputs. Photographic and software based methods of calculating EES can only

be used when there are appropriate crash test data available. CRASH 3 assumes that a

common velocity has been reached during the collision phase. There are many frontal and

side collisions in the real-world that do not comply with these assumptions, there are many

other collisions, particularly rollovers for which no method is available. The result of these

restrictions is that most datasets have many collision severity estimates missing and over 50%

of cases will have an unknown severity. The practical and theoretical restrictions may mean

that there is some bias in these estimates and typically the higher speed crashes may be under-

represented (e.g. it may not be possible to use damage based methods for crashes involving

gross structural deformation such as high speed truck crashes).

There is a need to assess the implications of these missing values and any biases and to

develop better methods to calculate delta-v in a wider variety of real-world collisions. Even

advanced methods, such as the use of crash pulse recorders, will have restrictions in the

applicability to the range of crashes in the real world. Development is needed to find the most

appropriate ways to collect and analyse this data.

6. Possibilities and Limitations of the Estimation Method for the

Determination of Collision Speed in Car Pedestrian Accidents

reconstruct its motion during a collision with a vehicle that can be seen as a one mass body,

but with various body shapes.

Two different steps are required for the process of determination of collision speed and later

on for the driving speed.

6.1. Analysis and assessment of the body motion during the crash

deformations, accident traces and injuries are available. For the explanation of injury

mechanisms and biomechanics it is important to know the mechanisms under which the

injuries occurred. These injuries must correlate to the different impact points on the vehicle as

well as on road surface.

Many accident investigations have been carried out world wide, all of these deliver

information about the relationship between speed and injury occurrence. On the other hand

crash tests with dummies were carried out in the past, measuring speed related throwing

distances of pedestrians and showing other aspects of the kinematics like scooped-up

distances and the motion of the body with rotation influence. These relationships and other

details can be used for the assessment of the speed.

6.2. Mathematical / physical calculation of speed

As the rule the speed at the time of the collision is calculated by a backward analysis from the

final position to the point of collision via the existing traces. All procedures of the process are

shown in figure 1. If the length of braking marks is known and an assessment of the point of

collision can be made the collision speed is calculated with the following simplified formula

vc = vc' ⋅ mR

with

mc + m p

vc' = 2 ⋅ a ⋅ s and mR =

mc

Definitions:

vc' = speed at end of collision [m/s]

a = mean deceleration [m/s²]

s = distance impact point to final position of car [m]

mR = mass ratio

mc = mass of car [kg]

m p = mass of pedestrian [kg]

Such a result, however, cannot be regarded as complete, in view of the fact that the driving

speed is an interesting parameter for the forensic experts. This is calculated when further

traces, i.e. braking, drifting and slinging traces, prior to the collision phase are known, which

would permit a further speed evaluation.

Determination of Collision Speed of Cars / Trucks

in Pedestrian Accidents

vehicle person object

EKin = Ework

1

⋅ m ⋅ vc2 = m ⋅ µ ⋅ g ⋅ s ------------------------------------------ empirical----------------------------------------------------------------------------

2

vc' = 2 ⋅ a ⋅ s crash test results

mass relation: accident analysis

mveh ⋅ vc = mveh ⋅ vc + m ped ⋅ vc

' '

mveh + m ped

vc = ⋅ vc'

mveh

assessment process

criteria:

minimal overlapping of speed range

collision speed

- Accident ReconstructionTransféré parGeorge Tsakataras
- Rice Allen IL State Police Crash Reconstruction ReportTransféré parnphillips0304
- Crash EquationsTransféré parskizzy
- Accident ReconstructionTransféré parsilviovictor
- Kinematics Cheat SheetTransféré parAndrew Bammel
- Vibration - FreeplayTransféré parSean Mortara
- Vehicle Crash Worthiness CompleteTransféré parmuscogiuri
- Traffic Accident InvestigationTextTransféré parSteve Bishop
- Practice Projectiles 2Transféré parfatpelican
- M1 June 2009Transféré parmarkodeano
- Heinemann Physics 12 TextTransféré parJarbyDerby
- Motion GraphsTransféré parxsdfvr
- HS Physiscs Text book.pdfTransféré parSiti Rohmah
- 03. motion in a straight line.pdfTransféré parK.A Padmanabham
- LS DYNA Basic CardsTransféré paranmol6237
- Knight Ch01Transféré parkgdasldh
- Lesson Plan MomentumTransféré parFazli Sarin
- 27.IJMPERDAPR201827Transféré parTJPRC Publications
- Assignment 2.pdfTransféré parAhmed Attalla
- Sample PaperTransféré parRishabhshah007
- Stewart_5.3-5.5_Notes.docTransféré parderekg608
- Kinematics Using GraphsTransféré parCraazy
- Lab 5Transféré parEvi Susilowati
- [1516.2S] Physics 71 LE 1 - Answer Key - ACADSTransféré parElah Palaganas
- results and analysis lab report 2Transféré parapi-255992481
- CALA, FERNANDO ANDRE R. PHY11L C1 E202 2Q1819.docxTransféré parAndre Cala
- M1A1probs1Transféré parSean Le
- Phy 1 (3).pdfTransféré parGarlapati Srinivasa Rao
- Osho on Deeksha.pdfTransféré parAvinash Jagarlamudi
- DependentTransféré parUrahara Kisuke

- proc esm.pdfTransféré parAlok Kumar Singh
- BREAST CANCER DATASETTransféré parChong SiowHui
- Handbook of Missing Data MethodologyTransféré pargasibutea
- Missing Data PptTransféré parGuja Nagi
- Pi is 009167491401118 xTransféré parAditya Praja'sch
- Lab1DataScreening 2Transféré parZohaib Ahmed
- Guidelines for Handling Missing Data in Social Science Research by Carpenter and KenwardTransféré parSiti Robi'ah Nurhafsari
- Andrade Et Al. - 2014 - Maintaining High Activity Levels in Sedentary Adults With a Reinforcement-thinning ScheduleTransféré parJohn
- Data Preparation: Missing Values (Excel)Transféré parSpider Financial
- 2015 Calibrated Hot Deck ImputationTransféré parjanobuffon
- Preverbal SkillsTransféré parPablo
- SAS Miner TrainingTransféré parAli Raza Anjum
- Don’t You Think If I Were Wrong, I’d Know It?Transféré parBrian Verdine
- UserGuideTransféré parfonnesbeck
- DMA-Cwk-4257293Transféré parAigerim Tulegenova
- PCORI-Methodology-Standards.pdfTransféré pariggybau
- Improving the Performance of K-nearest Neighbor Algorithm for the Classification of Diabetes Dataset With Missing ValuesTransféré parIAEME Publication
- plugin-art%253A10.1007%252Fs10479-011-0945-9Transféré pardelia2011
- endersMLprimer.pdfTransféré parDavid A. Barraza
- Data mng trees 1.pdfTransféré parGhettoopressed
- Performance Implications of Transformational Supply Chain Leadership and FollowershipTransféré parKnowledge Exchange
- Chocolate cake. Guilt or celebration? Associations with healthy eating attitudes, perceived behavioural control, intentions and weight-lossTransféré parThanit Paopao Vinitchagoon
- An Exploratory Study of the Reciprocal... Interactive Use MCS (Janke Et Al, 2014)Transféré parJogja Antiq
- Table 8.5.D_ Criteria for Judging Risk of BiasTransféré parrocolmar
- 10.1.1.534.6057.pdfTransféré parFerdy Lainsamputty
- 7 the Private–Public Literacy Divide Amid Educational Reforn in QuatarTransféré parMillea Vlad
- A Complete Tutorial to Learn Data Science With Python From ScratchTransféré parabhijitch
- Store24 a and B Questions -- Fall_2010Transféré parArun Prasad
- 12 Useful Pandas Techniques in Python for Data ManipulationTransféré parxwpom2
- Estimating Missing Data Using InterpolationTransféré parmeghal