The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No.

2, 2017 123

Article citation info:

Sztwiertnia K, Guzek M. Uncertainty of determining the energy equivalent speed (EES) of a vehicle collision
by the experimental and analytical method. The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji.
2017; 76(2): 123-136, http://dx.doi.org/1014669/AM.VOL76.ART7

UNCERTAINTY OF DETERMINING
THE ENERGY EQUIVALENT SPEED
(EES) OF A VEHICLE COLLISION
BY THE EXPERIMENTAL
AND ANALYTICAL METHOD

NIEPEWNOŚĆ W OKREŚLENIU
PRĘDKOŚCI EES ZDERZENIA
SAMOCHODÓW WYZNACZANEJ METODĄ
EKSPERYMENTALNO-ANALITYCZNĄ
KAROL SZTWIERTNIA1, MAREK GUZEK2
Military Institute of Armour and Automotive Technology
Warsaw University of Technology

Summary
One of the basic ways to estimate vehicle speeds at the reconstruction of vehicle collisions is the
use of methods generally referred to as “energy methods”, where a relation between the “energy
equivalent speed” (EES) and the size of permanent vehicle deformation is described. There are several
mathematical models used in practice to describe such a relation. Usually, a linear relation between
the deformation size (depth) and the energy consumed to cause the deformation (“deformation
work”) is  assumed. In contrast, the deformation itself and the deformation energy are described in
various ways. In consequence, different EES values may be obtained from the calculations, depending

Military Institute of Armour and Automotive Technology, Department of Wheeled Vehicles, ul. Okuniewska 1,
1

05-070 Sulejówek, Poland; e-mail: karol.sztwiertnia@witpis.eu

2
Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Transport, Division of Vehicle Maintenance and Operation, ul. Koszykowa 75,
00-662 Warszawa, Poland; e-mail: mgu@wt.pw.edu.pl
124 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017

on the model used. In the accident reconstruction practice, an increasingly important role is played
by the uncertainty and reliability of the analysis results obtained. This article is dedicated to the
uncertainty of estimation of the energy equivalent speed (EES). The uncertainty calculation results
obtained with the use of one of the typical methods of determining it, i.e. the total differential method,
have been presented. The calculations were carried out for five analytical models used to determine
the deformation work, based on the deformation size, for several real cases of post-impact vehicle
deformation. The calculation results have been presented in the form of tables and graphs, thanks
to which comparisons between both the EES values and the values of their absolute and relative
uncertainty could be made. The whole analysis has ended with conclusions concerning the values
obtained; they may be a source of information on the uncertainty in determining the EES parameter
depending on the computation model used.
Keywords: deformation work, energy methods, accident reconstruction, total differential method,
uncertainty of EES

Streszczenie
Jednym z podstawowych sposobów stosowanych przy rekonstrukcji zderzeń samochodów, wykorzy-
stywanym w celu oszacowania ich prędkości, jest grupa tzw. metod energetycznych. W metodach
tych opisuje się związek między prędkością równoważną energii EES (z ang. energy equivalent speed),
a rozmiarem trwałego odkształcenia pojazdu. Istnieje kilka praktycznie wykorzystywanych modeli
matematycznych opisujących ten związek. Zazwyczaj zakładają one liniową zależność między wspo-
mnianym rozmiarem (głębokością) deformacji, a energią zużytą na jej powstanie (tzw. pracą deforma-
cji). W różny sposób natomiast opisywana jest sama deformacja oraz energia deformacji. W zależności
od zastosowanego modelu możemy otrzymać inne wartości poszukiwanej prędkości EES. W praktyce
rekonstrukcji wypadków coraz istotniejszą rolę odgrywa niepewność i wiarygodność otrzymanych
wyników. Przedmiotem artykułu jest niepewność oszacowania prędkości równoważnej energii EES.
W pracy zostały przedstawione wyniki obliczeń otrzymane przy użyciu jednej z typowych metod jej
określania – metody różniczki zupełnej. Obliczenia zostały wykonane dla pięciu modeli analitycznych
wyznaczania pracy deformacji, na podstawie jej rozmiaru, dla kilku rzeczywistych odkształceń pozde-
rzeniowych pojazdów. Wyniki przedstawiono w postaci tabelarycznej oraz wykresów, umożliwiających
porównanie zarówno wartości parametru EES, jak i wyznaczonych dla niego niepewności bezwzględ-
nych oraz względnych. Całość została podsumowana wnioskami odnoszącymi się do otrzymanych
wartości. Mogą one być źródłem informacji na temat niepewności w wyznaczaniu prędkości EES w za-
leżności od zastosowanego modelu obliczeniowego.
Słowa kluczowe: praca deformacji, metody energetyczne, rekonstrukcja wypadków, metoda różniczki
zupełnej, niepewność EES

1. Introduction
In the reconstruction of road accidents where a vehicle collision took place, the “ener-
gy methods” are often used to estimate the pre-impact speeds. In particular, the energy
equivalent speed (EES), i.e. the vehicle speed equivalent to the energy consumed to cause
the vehicle deformation, is thus determined. The EES value can be calculated from the
work done during the vehicle body deformation and this work is estimated from the defor-
mation size.
 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017 125

There are several mathematical models making it possible to determine the deformation
work. Therefore, a question arises how the model alone can affect the EES value being cal-
culated. A separate issue is the uncertainty of determining this parameter, arising from the
uncertainty of the input data. Both of these issues may be important from the point of view
of the correctness of an analysis carried out. The objective of this article is to show and
The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76 No. 2, 2017
illustrate by selected examples how the type of the analytical model used to estimate the
deformation work and
The Archives the uncertainty
of Automotive of evaluation
Engineering ofMotoryzacji
– Archiwum the vehicle body
Vol. deformation
76 No. 2, 2017 can
affect the EES calculation result and the uncertainty of this result.
uncertainty of evaluation of the vehicle body deformation can affect the EES calculation result
and the uncertainty of this result.
uncertainty of evaluation of the vehicle body deformation can affect the EES calculation result
2. Calculations
and the uncertainty of2.this result.
and measurement methods
Calculations and measurement methods
The energy methods are founded on an assumption that all the kinetic energy lost by the
The energy methods2.are founded on an
Calculations andassumption that all methods
measurement the kinetic energy lost by the
vehicle during a collision is “consumed” to deform the vehicle, which may be symbolically
vehicle during a collision is “consumed” to deform the vehicle, which may be symbolically
written
The down
energy as follows:
methods are
written down as follows: founded on an assumption that all the kinetic energy lost by the
vehicle during a collision is “consumed” to deform the vehicle, which may be symbolically
written down as follows: m ⋅ ( V 2 − V ' 2 ) m ⋅ EES 2
Ed ≅ = , (1)
2 2
m ⋅ ( V 2 − V ' 2 ) m ⋅ EES 2
where: Ed − permanent deformation E ≅ energy; = , V − pre-impact vehicle velocity; (1)
2 m −mvehicle 2mass;
d
where: E − permanent
V’ – post-impact vehicle velocity.
d
deformation energy; − vehicle mass; V − pre-impact vehicle ve-
where:V’
locity; Ed–−post-impact
permanent deformation
vehicle velocity. energy; m − vehicle mass; V − pre-impact vehicle velocity;
In the
V’ literature dealing
– post-impact vehicle with accident reconstruction (e.g. [1, 2, 4, 8]), the difference between
velocity.
squared
In velocity dealing
the literature values Vwith 2
− V’accident
2
is written as squared EES,
reconstruction (e.g.and the4,EES
[1, 2, 8]), parameter
the difference properbe-is
In the
referred literature
to as dealing
“energy
tween squared velocity values with
equivalentaccident
V speed”,
2
− reconstruction
V’ 2 i.e. the speed
is written (e.g.
as [1, 2, 4,
equivalent
squared 8]),
to and
EES, theenergy
the difference
the EES between
consumed
parameter to
squared
cause the
proper isvelocity
vehiclevalues
referred V2 − V’2EES
deformation.
to as “energy is written
is not as
equivalent squaredi.e.
identical
speed”, withthetheand
EES, theequivalent
change
speed EES parameter
in the to theproper
vehicle is
velocity
energy
referred
during theto as “energy
collision equivalent
(which can be speed”,
construed i.e.straight
the speed fromequivalent
equation to thealthough
(1)), energy consumed
it is to
directly
consumed to cause the vehicle deformation. EES is not identical with the change in the
cause
relatedthe to vehicle
the deformation.
latter and this EES isis used
relation not identical with the thechange in thevehicle
vehiclevelocities.
velocity
vehicle
during velocity
the collisionduring
(which thecancollision
be (whichfor
construed can determining
straightbefrom
construed
equation
pre-impact
straight
(1)), from equation
although it is (1)),
directly
The EES value determined from equation (1) has the form:
although it is directly related to the latter and this relation is
related to the latter and this relation is used for determining the pre-impact vehicle velocities. used for determining the pre-
impact
The EESvehicle velocities. The
value determined fromEES value(1)
equation determined
has2 ⋅the from equation (1) has the form:
Ed form:
EES = (2)
m
2 ⋅ Ed
EES = (2)
Based on empirical tests, a relation between the deformation m size and the deformation energy is
formulated. Various formal representations of this relation are available (they may be found in
Based on empirical
the accident tests, a relation
reconstruction between [1,the deformation size and the deformation theenergy is
Based on empirical tests,literature,
a relatione.g. between 2, 5, 6, 7,deformation
the 8]). Thus, a relation
size and between
the deformation vehicle
formulated.
body deformation Various formal
and the representations
vehicle velocity of this relation are
at the instant of impact available (they
may be obtained,may be found
by (they in
using
energy
the is formulated. Various formal e.g.representations
[1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8]).ofThus, this arelation
relation are available
the accident
EES parameter. reconstruction literature, between the vehicle
may
bodybe found in the
deformation andaccident
the vehicle reconstruction
velocity at the literature,
instant of e.g. [1, 2, 5,
impact may 6, 7,be8]). Thus, aby
obtained, relation
using
ThisEES
between
the article thepresents
vehicleexample
parameter. calculation and
body deformation results,theestimating the values
vehicle velocity of the
at the EES of
instant parameter
impact
may and of
beits uncertainty,
obtained, by usingfor athe fewEES realparameter.
vehicles subjected to a frontal impact. The calculations
This
were article
carriedpresents
out with example
the use ofcalculation results, estimating
the total differential method, with the values of the EES
the following five parameter
analytical
and
This of
methods itsofuncertainty,
article determining
presents forthea few
example nominal real vehicles
calculation Ed orresults,
EES subjected
values to a frontal
being
estimating used impact.
as
the values of The
models calculations
of EES
the the param-
process
were
underand
eter carried
analysis:
of its outuncertainty,
with the use for of the
a few totalreal
differential
vehiclesmethod,
subjected withtothe following
a frontal five analytical
impact. The cal-
methods of
culations weredetermining
carried out thewith
nominalthe use Ed or of EES values
the total being used
differential as models
method, withofthe thefollowing
process
–under simplified
analysis:method;
five analyticalmethod;
– Campbell methods of determining the nominal Ed or EES values being used as models
–– simplified
of the process
McHenry method;
under analysis:
method;
–
– Campbell
CRASH3
– simplified method; method;
method;
–– McHenry
method employed method; in the PC-CRASH simulation program.
– – Campbell
CRASH3 method; method;
Details of
– method employedthese methods
in themayPC-CRASH be found in the literature
simulation program.[1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8]; this article is
exclusively intended to present the impact of the said methods on determining the uncertainty.
Details of these methods may be found in the literature [1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8]; this article is
The basic equations
exclusively intendedon to which
presentthe theabove
impact methods
of the saidare founded
methodshave been specified
on determining below.
the uncertainty.
 126 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017

– McHenry method;
– CRASH3 method;
– method employed in the PC-CRASH simulation program.

Details of these methods may be found in the literature [1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8]; this article is exclu-
sively intended to present the impact of the said methods on determining the uncertainty.

The basic equations on which

The Archives the above
of Automotive methods
Engineering are founded
– Archiwum have been
Motoryzacji Vol. specified below.
76 No. 2, 2017
The Archives
• For the simplified of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76 No. 2, 2017
method:
The Archives of Automotive
The Engineering
Archives of – Archiwum
Automotive EngineeringMotoryzacji
– ArchiwumVol. 76 No. 2, Vol.
Motoryzacji 201776 No. 2, 2017
1
The Archives of Automotive Engineering 1
Ed = ⋅ K–⋅Archiwum
Cśr2 = ⋅ wMotoryzacji 2 Vol.*
d ⋅ hd ⋅ C śr ⋅ k ,
76 No. 2, 2017 (3)
12 12
Ed = ⋅ K ⋅ Cśr2 = ⋅ wd ⋅ hd ⋅ Cśr2 ⋅ k * , (3)
where: K − vehicle 1 body2 stiffness 112 coefficient; 2 Cśr − permanent vehicle deformation depth;
21 *
wd −Kaverage Ed deformation
1⋅ K ⋅stiffness
= body CE = 1⋅ w
śr d=width; Kd ⋅hhCddśr−⋅ C=average
śr ⋅ k ⋅C w,dśr ⋅−hdeformation k* −(3)
where: − vehicle 2 2 *
⋅coefficient; permanent vehicle
d ⋅ C śr ⋅ k , height; deformation depth;
unit bodywork (3)
where:
wd −stiffness
average Ed = 2 ⋅body
K −deformation
vehicle K ⋅ width; = 22h⋅ w−dcoefficient;
Cśr2stiffness ⋅ hd ⋅ Cśr22 ⋅deformation
average k* C , śr − permanent height; vehicle
k* − deformation
unit (3)
bodywork depth;
stiff-
coefficient. 2 2 d hd − average deformation height; k* − unit bodywork
− average deformation
wdcoefficient. width;
where: Kness − vehicle
where: body
K − stiffnessbody
vehicle coefficient;
stiffness śr − permanent
Ccoefficient; −vehicle
Cśr one): permanent deformation
vehicle depth;
deformation depth;
wwhere: K●− vehicle
For the body
stiffness
d − average wdeformation
Campbell
coefficient.
d − average deformation
method (considered
stiffness
width; hcoefficient; śr −
width; Chdeformation
d − average
aspermanent
the basic
d − average deformation
vehiclek*deformation
height; − unit
height; *depth;
bodywork
k − unit bodywork
w − average
• For
stiffness coefficient.
d ● For deformation
the Campbell
the Campbell
stiffness width;
coefficient. method h −
method (considered
d average
(considered deformation
V =asb0 the as the
+ b1basic basic height;
⋅ Cśr , one): one): k *
− unit bodywork (4)
stiffness coefficient.
For the Campbell
● For where: method
the VCampbell (considered
− velocity of theas
method the basic
(considered V one):
=asb0 the + b1basic⋅ Cśr , one): (4)
● For the Campbell method (considered asvehicle
the basic one): hitting a rigid barrier; b0 − minimum velocity at
frontally
which permanent deformation of the V, = vehicle body occurs; b1 − slope of the (4) straight line
where: V − velocity ofVthe = bvehicle
0 + b1 ⋅ C śr frontally 1 ⋅ C śr , a rigid barrier; b − minimum velocity(4)
b0 + bhitting at
where: V=V V(C ).
− śrvelocity of the V vehicle ⋅ Cśr ,
= b0 + b1 frontally hitting a rigid barrier; b00− minimum (4) velocity at
which permanent deformation of the vehicle body occurs; b1 − slope of the straight line
where: V which
− velocity
where: of −the vehicle
velocity offrontally
the vehicle ofhitting a rigidhitting
frontally barrier; b0 − minimum b0velocity at straight
where:permanent V
V − velocity V(CVof
=permanent
According śr).the
deformation
to vehicle
the definition
frontally ofthe
hitting
vehicle
velocity body
rigidV,barrier;
avehicle an aoccurs;
rigid
assumption barrier;
b0 − minimum
b1 − slope
may − minimum
of the
be
velocity made velocity
at straight
at
that itline
is
which V = which
V(C deformation
). permanent of the
deformation vehicle of body
the occurs; b1 − slope
body occurs; of bthe straight
1 − slope of line
the line
approximately equal to EES.
Vwhich
= V(Cpermanent deformation of the vehicle body occurs; b1 − slope of the straight line
śr
śr). V According
= V(C śr). to the definition of velocity V, an assumption may be made that it is
V = V(CśrAccording
●). approximately
For the to McHenry equalmethod:
the definition to EES. of velocity V, an assumption may be made thatisit is approxi-
According toAccording the definition to theofdefinition
velocity V, an assumption
of velocity V, an may assumption be made maythat be itmade that it is
According
approximatelymatelyto the
equal
equal
● approximately
For definition
the McHenry to EES.
to EES.equal of
method: velocity
to EES. V, an assumption2 may be made
2 that it is
B ⋅ Cśr A
approximately equal to EES. Ed = wd ⋅ ( A ⋅ Cśr + + G ) and G = , (5)
For the McHenry
● For
• For the method:
the McHenry method:
McHenry method: B ⋅2Cśr2 2AB2
● For the McHenry method: Ed = wd ⋅ ( A ⋅ Cśr + + G ) and G = , (5)
where: A − coefficient defining B ⋅ Cśr22 the Bminimum ⋅2Cśr2 A 2unit threshold
2 2AB2 force at which plastic
Ed = wd ⋅ ( A ⋅ C Edśr =+ wBd ⋅C ( A+⋅ CGśrb)+⋅and G =+ GA) ,and G = , (5) (5)
where: EAd −= coefficient
deformation w ⋅ Cśr +defining
d ⋅ ( A place
takes (A 2 =śr m+ ⋅G the0) b 1 2 G = 2 B unit
minimum
and ); B − vehicle , threshold
body force coefficient,
2 Bstiffness at (5)
which plastic
which
2 m ⋅w b0d unit
⋅ bminimum 2B
where: A − coefficient
where:
deformation A −defining
coefficient
takes the defining
place minimum
( A = the 1
); threshold
B − unitforce
vehicle bodyat stiffness
threshold whichforceplastic
at which plastic
coefficient, which
where: A where: A − coefficient
− coefficient defining defining the minimum
the⋅ b minimum w unit unit m ⋅ b1threshold
threshold 2
forceforce at at whichplastic
which plastic deforma-
defines the unit m ⋅ b
longitudinal m ⋅ b
1 stiffness0 ( B1 = d ⋅ b ); G − energy of the elastic deformation.
deformation deformation
takes place (takes A = place 0
m ⋅ b ⋅ b( A); =B − vehicle); body Bw −2 vehiclestiffness body coefficient,
stiffness whichcoefficient, which
deformation takes place
tiondefines
takes place = wd0 1 ); BB−−vehicle
( Alongitudinal wvehicle
d( B = body
mbody⋅ db1 stiffness
stiffness coefficient,
coefficient, which
which defines the
the unit wd stiffness ); G − energy of the elastic deformation.
If the above formulas for A, mB,⋅ band 2 w
G arem substituted
⋅ db1 2
to equations (5) and (2) then the
defines the unitunit longitudinal
defines
longitudinal theand unit stiffness
longitudinal
stiffness ( B =stiffness 1
m ⋅ b12may);(GG B−− energy
=energy ofGthe
);of the
−be elastic
energy
elastic deformation.
of thewith
elastic
deformation. deformation.
defines the unit Campbell
longitudinal McHenry
stiffness ( methods
B = w ); G be− shown
energy
w tothe
of identical
elastic deformation. each other. Since
If the above formulas for A, B, d and G are substituted d to equations (5) and (2) then the
“separate” datasets can be
for A,methodsfound w
B, andd Gmayin the literature for each of them (i.e. recommended values
If the Campbell
above formulasand McHenry arebe shown to be
substituted identical with
to equations each (2)
(5) and other.
thenSince
the
If the above If of b0 and
formulas
the above 1 for
bfor A,the B, Campbell
formulas andforG A, aremethod
B,substituted
and Gandare recommended
tosubstituted
equations to values
(5) andof(2)
equations coefficients
then
(5) the (2)
and A and
then for
B the
If the above “separate”
Campbell formulas and datasets
McHenry
formethods can
B, and be
methods found
Gbeare may in the
be
substituted literature
shown to to for
be
equationseach
identical of them
with (i.e.
each recommended
other. Since values
“sep-
Campbell the
andCampbellMcHenry
McHenry and A,
method),
McHenry maythesemethodstwoshown methods
may to be bewere identical
shown treated
to with
be in(5) and other.
further
each
identical (2)
with then
calculationstheother.
Since
each as separate
Since
Campbellarate” 0 and b1 for
of bMcHenry
datasets can the Campbell
bein found bemethod
in the and
literature recommended values ofother.
coefficients
Since A andvaluesB for
“separate” andfrom
datasets each
“separate” can be methods
other.
found
datasets canthe may
be literature
found shown to be
for literature
inmethods
the each offor each
identical
them
for
of
(i.e.
each withthem each
recommended
of further
them
(i.e. recommended
(i.e. values
recommended values
b the McHenry
b method), these two were treated in calculations as separate
“separate”
of b0 and b1datasets
of for
of
0 b
and
the
0 and
canfor
Campbell
1 b1 befor
thefound
the in theand
Campbell
method
Campbell literature
methodrecommended
method forand
and each
recommended of them
values
recommended of(i.e. recommended
values
coefficients
values of B for A and BB for
and values
coefficients
ofAcoefficients A and for
of b and ●
theb For
from
for
McHenrythe
theeach CRASH3
other.
Campbell
method), method:
method
these and
two recommended
methods were values
treated of coefficients
in further A and
calculations B for as separate
the McHenry
0 1 themethod),
McHenry these two methods
method), these two weremethods
treated were in further treated calculations
in further as separate as separate
calculations
the McHenry
from eachfrom
●other.
Formethod),
each
from the
eachother.
CRASH3 these two
other. method: methods were wd treatedAα Bin β further calculations as separate
from each other. Ed = ( + + ( n − 1 )G ) , (6)
For the CRASH3● For the method:
CRASH3 method: nw− 1 A2α B6β
● For the CRASH3 method: Ed = d
( + + ( n − 1 )G ) , (6)
where: α, β − constants wd of AαdeformationBnβw−d 1 A2αat the B6βi point (see Fig. 1); n − number of the points
th

of measurement Ed =of thew ( AEαd += Bβ + depth. ( n − 1+)G ) , + ( n − 1 )G ) , (6) (6)

where: α, β −Econstants d =
n −d1 deformation
(of2 deformation
+ n6 − 1+ ( n2−at1the )G6)ith, point (see Fig. 1); n − number (6)of the points
This
of is a modified
measurement ofnthe− 1deformation
version 2 of the 6 McHenry
depth. method, differing from the latter in the way of
where: α, β −where: constants α, βof− deformation
constants of at the ith pointat(see
deformation the Fig.
ith point 1); n(see − number
Fig. 1);ofn the points of the points
− number
where: α, β −representing
constants ofthe deformation.
deformation Coefficients
at the ith point (see α and Fig. β have
1); n the form:
− number of the points
 wd
If the above formulas for A, B, and G are substituted to equations (5) and (2) then the
Campbell
If the above andformulas
McHenry formethods
A, B, and may G beareshown to betoidentical
substituted equationswith (5)each
and other.
(2) then Since
the
“separate” and
Campbell datasets can be methods
McHenry found in may
the literature
be shown for to
each
be of them (i.e.
identical withrecommended
each other. values
Since
B 127
The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017
of b0 and bdatasets
“separate” 1 for the can
Campbell
be foundmethod
in theand recommended
literature for each of values
themof(i.e.
coefficients
recommended A andvalues for
thebMcHenry
of 0 and b1 formethod), these two
the Campbell methodmethods were treated in
and recommended further
values calculations Aasand
of coefficients separate
B for
from each other.
the McHenry method), these two methods were treated in further calculations as separate
• from
For theeach other. method:
CRASH3
● For the CRASH3 method:
● For the CRASH3 method:
w Aα Bβ
Ed = d ( + + ( n − 1 )G ) , (6)
w Aα Bβ
Ed = n −d 1 ( 2 + 6 + ( n − 1 )G ) , (6)
n −1 2 6 th
where: α, β − constants of deformation at the ith point (see Fig. 1); n − number of the points
where: α, β − constants of deformation at the i thpoint (see Fig. 1); n − number of the points
of measurement
where: of the deformation
α, β − constants of deformation depth.
at the i point (see Fig. 1); n − number of the points
of measurement of the deformation depth.
of measurement of the deformation depth.
This is a modified version of the McHenry method, differing from the latter in the way of
ThisThis
is aismodified
representing version
versionofofthe
the deformation.
a modified theMcHenry
McHenryαmethod,
Coefficients and β have
method, differing
the form:
differing from the
from thelatter
latterininthethe
waywayof
representing the
of representing thedeformation.
deformation.
n −1
Coefficients
Coefficients α α
andandβ β
have the
have
n −1
form:
the form:
n −1
α = C1 + Cn + 2∑
n −1 Ci β = C12 + Cn2 + 2∑
n −1 Ci + ∑
2
n −1 Ci Ci +1 (7)
α = C1 + Cn + 2∑
i =2 C
i β = C1 + Cn + 2∑ Ci + ∑
2 2 i = 2 2 i =1 C C
i i +1 (7)
● For theThemethod
Archivesemployed
of Automotive
in theEngineering
i =2
PC-CRASH – Archiwum Motoryzacji
simulation program: Vol. 76 No. 2, 2017
i=2 i =1

• For the method employed in the PC-CRASH simulationprogram:

● For the method employed in the PC-CRASH simulation program:
i = n −1
A B Ci3+1 − Ci3 
Ed = ∑w ci ⋅  ( Ci +1 + Ci ) +
2 6 C − C
+ G (8)
i =1  i +1 i 
where: wci − width between successive points of measurement of the deformation depth
where: wci − width between successive points of measurement of the deformation depth
(see Fig. 1) .
(see Fig. 1) .
In the PC-CRASH program, the CRSH3 method has been employed, except for that the
method
In of enteringprogram,
the PC-CRASH the deformation profile
the CRSH3 has been
method has modified to enableexcept
been employed, the introduction of
for that the
various wofci values.
method entering the deformation profile has been modified to enable the introduction
of various wci values.

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the parameters that define the vehicle body
deformation size
A detailed description of the method of measuring the vehicle body deformation and the results
of such measurements have been presented in [3]. The deformation size was estimated by
measuring its geometrical
Fig. 1. Schematic dimensions
diagram illustrating at severalthat
the parameters points
defineas
theshown in Fig.
vehicle body 1. The size
deformation average
deformation depth was calculated from a formula:

 C1 i =n −1 C 
C
A detailed description of the method
śr =  +of∑ Ci + n  /(the
measuring 1) ,
n −vehicle body deformation and the (9)
 2 i =2 2 
results of such measurements have been presented in [3]. The deformation size was es-
where: Cby
timated i −measuring
deformationitsdepth at the ith dimensions
geometrical measuring point; n − number
at several pointsof
asthe measuring
shown in Fig.points
1. The
(equal to deformation
average 5 or 6 at the measurements carried out).
depth was calculated from a formula:
For the purposes of this article, an assumption was made that the only source of uncertainty
was the measurement of the geometrical quantity that described the deformation. The
uncertainty was determined with the use of the total differential method, where the total
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the parameters that define the vehicle body
Fig. 1. deformation size illustrating the parameters that define the vehicle body
Schematic diagram
A detaileddeformation
descriptionsize
of the method of measuring the vehicle body deformation and the results
128 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017
A detailed description ofhave
of such measurements been presented
the method of measuring in [3].the The deformation
vehicle size wasand
body deformation estimated by
the results
measuring its geometrical
of such measurements havedimensions
been presented at several
in [3].points as shown insize
The deformation Fig.
was1. estimated
The average by
deformation
measuring its depth was calculated
geometrical from a at
dimensions formula:
several points as shown in Fig. 1. The average
deformation depth was calculated from  C a formula:
i =n −1
C 
C śr =  1 + i∑ C + n  /( n − 1 ) ,
=n −1 i
(9)
 C2 C2 
C śr =  1 + ∑ Ci + n  /( n − 1 ) ,
i =2
(9)
 2 th i =2 2 
where: C − deformation depth at the i measuring point; n − number of the measuring points
where: Cii − deformation depth at the ith measuring point; n − number of the measuring
(equal toC 5−ordeformation
where: 6 at the measurements at thecarried out). point; n − number of the measuring points
points (equal
i to 5 or 6 atdepth
the measurements ith measuring carried out).
(equal
For thetopurposes
5 or 6 at of
thethis
measurements carried out).was made that the only source of uncertainty
article, an assumption
was
For thepurposes
the
For the measurement
purposes of this of the geometrical
of this article,
article,
an assumption
an assumption quantity
was that
was made
madedescribed
that the onlythe
that the only deformation. The
source of uncer-
source of uncertainty
uncertainty
tainty was was
the determined
measurement with
of thethe use
geometrical of the total differential
quantity that
was the measurement of the geometrical quantity that described the deformation. The method,
described where
the the total
deformation.
differential
The
uncertainty was
wasexpressed
uncertainty was
determined in the
determined withfollowing
with
the use thegeneral
use
of theofform:
the total
total differential
differential method,
method, wherewhere the
the total
total differential was expressed in the following
differential was expressed in the following ngeneral form: general form:
∂y
∆y = n ∑ i =1 ∂ ∂xyi
⋅ ∆xi , (10)
∆y = ∑ ∂x
i =1
⋅ ∆xi , (10)
where: Δy − uncertainty of the quantity to be found
i (ΔEES); Δxi − uncertainty of the known
parameters x (C ); ∂y/∂x − value of the first-order
where: Δy − uncertainty of the quantity to be found (ΔEES); Δx coefficient of sensitivity of y relative to xi
i − uncertainty of the known
i i i
for the
where: Δy
nominal value
uncertainty of x .
of
i the quantity to be found (ΔEES); Δx
parameters xi (Ci); ∂y/∂xi − value of the first-order coefficient ofi sensitivity of yofrelative
− − uncertainty the known
to xi
parameters
for the x
nominal (C
i value
); ∂y/∂x −
of xiwere
i.
value of the first-order coefficient of sensitivity of y relative to x
The nominal EES i values calculated with the use of formulas (3) to (8) and the first-orderi
for the
total nominal
differential value of x .
EESmethod
values (TDM) was employed
with theforuse
determining
of formulasthe(3)uncertainty. In this work,
i
The nominal were calculated to (8) and the first-order
totalnominal
The differential
EESmethod
values (TDM) was employed
were calculated with for
the determining the uncertainty.
use of formulas In this
(3) to (8) and thework,
first-
order total differential method (TDM) was employed for determining the uncertainty. In
this work, only the impact of the estimation of vehicle body deformation was investi-
gated; hence, an assumption was made that the uncertainty was exclusively caused by
the measurements of the geometrical quantities that described the deformation under
analysis.

3. Data used for the calculations

The calculations were carried out for eight example vehicles subjected to frontal colli-
sions, for which the deformation measurement results have been presented in Table 1. For
the measurements, a laser distance meter was used. The uncertainty of measurements
of geometrical quantities (Δxi) was assumed as equal to 0.02 m. The values of the other
parameters necessary for further calculations have been given in Table 2. In particular, the
values of parameters (k*, b0, b1) were assumed on the grounds of literature recommenda-
tions [1, 6], appropriately to the vehicle and collision type. The values of coefficients A and
B were calculated according to the equations specified above, for the assumed values
of b0 and b1. Tables 3 and 4 include photographs that illustrate the range of deformations
of the vehicles under consideration.
 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017 129

Table 1. Geometrical parameters defining the deformation size for the eight vehicles under
consideration

Parameter Citroen Berlingo Mercedes Benz C-class Opel Combo Opel Vectra
wd [m] 1.40 ± 0.02 1.35 ± 0.02 1.00 ± 0.02 0.80 ± 0.02
hd [m] 0.83 ± 0.02 0.89 ± 0.02 0.93 ± 0.02 0.78 ± 0.02
wci [m] 0.28 ± 0.02 0.27 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.02 0.20 ± 0.02
C1 [m] 0.43 ± 0.02 0.28 ± 0.02 0.65 ± 0.02 0.19 ± 0.02
C2 [m] 0.37 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.02 0.52 ± 0.02 0.23 ± 0.02
C3 [m] 0.26 ± 0.02 0.26 ± 0.02 0.46 ± 0.02 0.17 ± 0.02
C4 [m] 0.29 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.02 0.28 ± 0.02 0.13 ± 0.02
C5 [m] 0.24 ± 0.02 0.35 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.02
C6 [m] 0.16 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.02 – –
Parameter Skoda Octavia Suzuki Splash Toyota Corolla VW Golf IV
wd [m] 1.40 ± 0.02 1.50 ± 0.02 1.50 ± 0.02 1.40 ± 0.02
hd [m] 1.05 ± 0.02 0.76 ± 0.02 0.82 ± 0.02 0.87 ± 0.02
wci [m] 0.28 ± 0.02 0.30 ± 0.02 0.30 ± 0.02 0.28 ± 0.02
C1 [m] 0.31 ± 0.02 0.19 ± 0.02 0.36 ± 0.02 0.36 ± 0.02
C2 [m] 0.26 ± 0.02 0.17 ± 0.02 0.19 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.02
C3 [m] 0.24 ± 0.02 0.20 ± 0.02 0.16 ± 0.02 0.28 ± 0.02
C4 [m] 0.09 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.02 0.15 ± 0.02 0.30 ± 0.02
C5 [m] 0.05 ± 0.02 0.13 ± 0.02 0.26 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.02
C6 [m] 0 ± 0.02 0.14 ± 0.02 0.02 ± 0.02 0.27 ± 0.02

Table 2. Parameter values assumed for the eight vehicles under consideration

Parameter Citroen Berlingo Mercedes Benz C-class Opel Combo Opel Vectra
m [kg] 1 225 1 450 1 290 1 270
k* [(N/m)/m2] 17×105 7.65×105 17×105 11×105
b0 [m/s] 1.34 3.35 1.34 3.35
b1 [(m/s)/m] 23.76 15.84 23.76 15.84
A [N/m] 27 859 56 995 41 072 84 239
B [N/m2] 493 970 269 491 728 254 398 313
Parameter Skoda Octavia Suzuki Splash Toyota Corolla VW Golf IV
m [kg] 1 275 1 075 1 140 1 185
k* [(N/m)/m ]
2
20×10 5
20×10 5
17×10 5
17×105
b0 [m/s] 3.35 1.34 1.34 1.34
b1 [(m/s)/m] 15.84 23.76 23.76 23.76
A [N/m] 48 326 22 818 24 197 26 949
B [N/m2] 228 503 404 585 429 049 477 841
130 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017

Table 3. Illustrations showing deformations of the vehicles subjected to frontal collisions

Citroen Berlingo Mercedes Benz C-class

Opel Combo Opel Vectra

 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017 131

Table 4. Illustrations showing deformations of the vehicles subjected to frontal collisions

(continued)

Skoda Octavia Suzuki Splash

Toyota Corolla VW Golf IV

4. Calculation results
The calculation results in the form of nominal EES values and of the uncertainty of their
estimation, specified as absolute and relative values, have been presented in Table 5 and,
as histograms, in Figs. 2 to 4. Fig. 2 shows the nominal EES values obtained from the cal-
culations and Figs. 3 and 4 show the EES estimation uncertainty in terms of absolute and
relative values, respectively.
132 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017

Table 5. Nominal EES values obtained from the calculations, with their estimation uncertainty
specified as absolute and relative values

Parameter Citroen Berlingo Mercedes Benz C-class Opel Combo Opel Vectra
Simplified 41.9 3.7 8.8
Campbell 29.6 1.7 5.8
Citroen Berlingo McHenry 29.6 1.9 6.5
CRASH3 30.3 0.5 1.8
PC-CRASH program 30.3 6.2 20.6
Simplified 27.2 2.3 8.5
Campbell 29.2 1.1 3.9
Mercedes Benz
McHenry 29.2 1.4 4.7
C-class
CRASH3 29.3 0.7 2.4
PC-CRASH program 29.3 5.2 17.7
Simplified 50.4 3.6 7.1
Campbell 39 1.7 4.4
Opel Combo McHenry 39 2.1 5.2
CRASH3 41.7 0.7 1.6
PC-CRASH program 41.7 6.6 15.8
Simplified 14.2 2 14.3
Campbell 21.8 1.1 5.2
Opel Vectra McHenry 21.8 1.4 7.1
CRASH3 21.8 0.9 4.3
PC-CRASH program 21.8 4.7 21.6
Simplified 27.7 3.9 14.2
Campbell 21.2 1.1 5.4
Skoda Octavia McHenry 21.2 1.3 6.1
CRASH3 21.9 0.8 3.7
PC-CRASH program 21.9 4.6 20.9
Simplified 29.8 3.9 13.1
Campbell 20.2 1.7 8.5
Suzuki Splash McHenry 20.2 1.9 9.2
CRASH3 20.5 0.6 3
PC-CRASH program 20.5 5.4 26.3
Simplified 29.3 3.6 12.4
Campbell 21.1 1.7 8.1
Toyota Corolla McHenry 21.1 1.9 8.8
CRASH3 21.8 0.6 2.7
PC-CRASH program 21.8 5.4 24.9
Simplified 45.2 3.9 8.5
Campbell 30.5 1.7 5.6
VW Golf IV McHenry 30.5 1.9 6.3
CRASH3 30.8 0.5 1.8
PC-CRASH program 30.8 6.3 20.5
 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017 133

Fig. 2. Nominal EES values for the vehicles under consideration

Fig. 3. Absolute uncertainty of the EES estimation depending on the method of evaluating the deformation
work done during the collision
134 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017

Fig. 4. Relative uncertainty of the EES estimation depending on the method of evaluating the deformation work
done during the collision

An analysis of the nominal EES values shows that the highest values of this parameter
were obtained when the simplified method was used. Only for the second and fourth car
(Mercedes Benz C-class and Opel Vectra, respectively), the results were lower in com-
parison with those obtained from the other methods. The differences were quite big, from
several to more than ten kilometres per hour (i.e. from 2.1 km/h for Mercedes Benz C-class
to 14.3 km/h for Volkswagen Golf IV, as an example). In terms of relative values, the differ-
ences ranged from 7.8 % to 31.7 %.

Simultaneously, considerable similarity between the results obtained by the Campbell,

McHenry, CRASH3, and PC-CRASH methods may be seen. This becomes clear when the
mathematical models used in these methods are analysed. As mentioned previously, the
Campbell and McHenry methods are identical to each other and the CRASH3 and PC-CRASH
methods derive from the McHenry method, but the deformation profile is represented
there in a different way (averaged deformation Cśr is used in the McHenry method).The EES
values in the CRASH3 and PC-CRASH methods are equal to each other because an exactly
identical method of defining the vehicle deformation is employed in both of them, with
identical wci values being used in both cases (see Fig. 1).

As regards the results of determining the uncertainty ΔEES, absolute values ranging from
about 0.5 km/h to about 7 km/h were obtained, depending on the energy method used,
which translated into a range from 2 % to 26 % in terms of relative values. The definite-
ly lowest uncertainty values were obtained for the CRASH3 method (0.5÷0.9) km/h, i.e.
(2÷4) %, in terms of absolute and relative values, respectively). The Campbell and McHenry
methods are the next in this ranking, with the uncertainty values obtained being close
 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017 135

to each other and ranging in both cases from 1.1 km/h to 2 km/h, i.e. from 4 % to 9 % in
relative terms. The simplified method yielded uncertainty values from 2.2 km/h to almost
4 km/h from 8 % to 14 %. The uncertainty values were definitely highest for the formula of
the PC-CRASH program. In this case, the absolute uncertainty values ranged from about
4.5 km/h to more than 6 km/h, with the relative values varying from 14 % to 26 % (close to
20 % in most cases). The reasons for this high uncertainty should be sought in the form
of the mathematical model (equation (8)). The adding operation present in this model and
applied to data obtained from individual deformation measuring points results in the sum-
ming-up of component uncertainties of deformation measurements. In the other methods
under consideration, such an effect does not occur (because of averaging the deformation
at determining the deformation energy).

5. Recapitulation and conclusions

Based on a series of example calculations and on actual deformation measurements car-
ried out on post-crash vehicles, a statement may be made that the energy equivalent
speed (EES) cannot be accurately estimated if the data available are limited to the perma-
nent bodywork deformation values. The energy equivalent speed depends on many fac-
tors, especially on the measuring method, measuring instrument, EES value determining
method, etc. All these factors cause the EES value to be burdened with an error, the range
of which is defined by the estimation uncertainty discussed herein.

Based on an analysis of the results presented, the following conclusions have been
formulated.
– The highest nominal EES values are usually obtained when the simplified method is
used; for the other methods, these values reach a similar level.
– The lowest uncertainty values, amounting to (2÷4) % in all the cases under analy-
sis, were achieved when the CRASH3 method was used; somewhat higher values, of
(9÷14) %, were obtained in the case of using the simplified method.
– The uncertainty reaches the highest values, at a level of about 20 %, when the method
employed in the PC-CRASH program is used.
– A relative uncertainty level of 30 % was not reached for any of the EES values deter-
mined in this work.

It should be stressed here that only the uncertainty related to the measurements of vehi-
cle body deformation was taken into account in the calculations carried out. The impact of
the uncertainty of other factors, e.g. bodywork stiffness and values of other coefficients in
the mathematical model, was not analysed in this work. Nevertheless, the analysis results
and the conclusions presented may be a source of knowledge of the uncertainty arising
from a specific EES determination method used.

In the future, an increased interest in the energy methods may be expected. When com-
bined with modern methods of deformation measurements, e.g. three-dimensional scan-
ning together with the use of appropriate computer software, where a verified database of
technical parameters of motor vehicles would be available, the energy methods will make
136 The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji Vol. 76, No. 2, 2017

it possible to obtain the EES values in a quick way and to reduce the uncertainty of their
estimation.

The full text of the article is available in Polish online on the website
http://archiwummotoryzacji.pl.

Tekst artykułu w polskiej wersji językowej dostępny jest na stronie

http://archiwummotoryzacji.pl.

References
[1] Campbell K L. Energy basis for collision severity. SAE 740565, 1974.
[2] Prochowski L, Unarski J, Wach W, Wicher J. Pojazdy samochodowe. Podstawy rekonstrukcji wypadków dro-
gowych (Motor vehicles. Fundamentals of the reconstruction of road accidents). WKŁ, Warszawa 2008.
[3] Sztwiertnia K. Niepewność oszacowania prędkości przedzderzeniowej pojazdu na podstawie jego defor-
macji (Uncertainty of the estimation of the pre-impact vehicle speed from the vehicle deformation). Master’s
graduation work, supervised by Marek Guzek, D. Eng., Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Transport,
Warszawa 2013.
[4] Tomasch E. Accident Reconstruction Guidelines. Graz University of Technology, Graz 2004.
[5] Unarski J, Zębala J. Zbiór podstawowych wzorów i równań stosowanych w analizie wypadków drogowych
(A book of basic formulas and equations used in the analysis of road accidents). Issue 2, Institute of Forensic
Research Publishers (IES), Kraków 2012.
[6] Wach W. PC-Crash. Program do symulacji wypadków drogowych. Poradnik użytkownika (PC-Crash. A simula-
tion program for vehicle accidents. User’s manual). Institute of Forensic Research Publishers (IES), Kraków
2001.
[7] Wach W. Symulacja wypadków drogowych w programie PC-Crash (Simulation of road accidents in the PC-
Crash programs). Institute of Forensic Research Publishers (IES), Kraków 2009.
[8] Wierciński J., Reza A. (ed.): Wypadki drogowe. Vademecum biegłego sądowego (Road accidents. Forensic
expert’s vade mecum). Issue 2, Institute of Forensic Research Publishers (IES), Kraków 2011.