Crush and Restitution

Institute of Police Technology and Managements 24th Annual Special Problems in Trafc Crash Reconstruction
Crush Analysis with Under-rides and the Coefcient of Restitution

Jeremy Daily Russell Strickland 27 April 2006 John Daily
Abstract In this paper, a detailed discussion of the damage momentum technique is presented which involves an interpretation of the damage proles, understanding the origin of the stiffness coefcients, and derivation of v. Also, a technique for estimating the energy dissipated during deformation based on residual crush measurements is explained in the context of the damage momentum solution. A staged crash test from the Special Problems 2005 conference is used as an example to validate the technique. Also, a discussion of the coefcient of restitution is given with the derivation of its relationship with crush energy. Finally, a discussion of the misapplication of damage energy techniques is outlined for trailer underride collisions. There were four crash tests were conducted at Special Problems 2005 in which passenger vehicles were run into a stationary tractor-trailer unit. Two of the impacts were collinear into the back of the trailer, while the other two were at right angles to the trailer tandems. Analysis for the collinear impacts was limited to standard COLM techniques, while the side impacts were analyzed by means of rotational mechanics. Damage crush proles were recorded for later use with a damage-energy technique. In this paper, we will examine the previous impacts using a damage-energy technique. Furthermore, comparison of the damage-energy solution to recorded pre-crash speed measurements will validate the technique for the side impacts. Finally, the inability to apply a damage momentum solution to trailer under-ride collisions will be explained.
Jackson
Hole Scientic Investigations, Inc., 7845 Timber Hill Dr, Huber Heights, OH 45424, (937) 235-5693, jeremy@jhscientic.com Faireld City Police Department, 5320 Pleasant Ave., Faireld, OH 45014, (513) 325-8703, russell-gina@fuse.net Jackson Hole Scientic Investigations, Inc., P.O. Box 2206, Jackson, WY 83001, (307) 733-4559, john@jhscientic.com
Contents
Contents
1. Introduction 1.1. Recap of Crash Tests from 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Review of Conservation of Linear Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Damage Momentum Analysis 2.1. Crush Energy and Equivalent Barrier Speed (EBS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. A Planar (Two Dimensional) Impact Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Relationship to v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Determining Crush Energy 3.1. The General Energy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. CRASH III Deformation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1. Determining Stiffness Coefcients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2. Crash Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3. Determining vtest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4. Determine Campbell Model Coefcients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5. Determining A, B, and G Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Determining Damage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4. Determining the Location of the Damage Centroid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1. Longitudinal Location of the Centroid in the Damage Area . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2. Lateral Location of the Centroid in the Damage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5. Crush Energy Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Relationship between Crush Energy and the Coefcient of Restitution 4.1. Physics of an Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Taxonomy of Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1. Nature of Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. Relative Velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3. Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Understanding the Coefcient of Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1. Kinematic Denition of Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2. Kinetic Denition of Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3. Energetic Denition of Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Computing Restitution based on Damage Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5. Computing Coefcient of Restitution Based on Crash Test Data . . . . . . . . . . 4.6. Concluding Remarks on Restitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 7 8 8 9 12 16 17 18 18 18 19 20 22 22 25 26 26 27 28 28 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 36 39 41 43
3.4.3. Locating the Damage Centroid with Respect to the Local Axis of the Vehicle 26
c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily
Contents
5. Analysis of Underride Collisions 5.1. 1989 Plymouth Voyager Van into the rear of the tractor-trailer . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. 1994 Jeep Cherokee into the rear of the tractor-trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. Under-ride Analysis Conclusions 6. Summary and Conclusions A. Analysis of the Nissan Crash B. Analysis of the Plymouth Van Crash C. Analysis of the Jeep Crash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43 43 45 46 47 50 51 52
Copyright Information
The following material contains excerpts from Fundamentals of Trafc Crash Reconstruction, an IPTM publication. It is copyrighted and has been reprinted with permission of the authors for use in IPTM training programs.
1. Introduction
Figure 1: Scene photo of the mini van into the rear of the trailer.
1. Introduction
1.1. Recap of Crash Tests from 2005
There were four tests performed in two days. Engineers from MacInnis Engineering used a tow cable system to pull the bullet vehicles into the trailer. The tow cable was fed through the center of the rear duals for two crashes and along the right and left side for the other two crashes. The tractor trailer was common to all crashes. The trailer was a Pine 48 ft box van with sliding tandems. The tractor was a 2004 Mack single axle day cab (VIN: 1M1AE02YX4N00138). Rear Under-ride Crash #1 A 1989 Plymouth Voyager SE (VIN: 2P4FH4531KR174080) was
pulled into a stationary tractor trailer, Figure 1. It was pulled into the left rear of the box van trailer and penetrated to the rear tires of the trailer. The tractor-trailer combination had its spring brakes applied and was pushed forward a small amount due to the impact. Rear Under-ride Crash #2 A 1994 Jeep Cherokee (VIN: 1J4FJ28S6RL225912) was run into the
right rear of the box van trailer in the same manner as crash #1. Rear Dual Axle Crash #3 A 1992 Nissan Sentra (VIN: 1N4EB32A7NC734928) was pulled by cable into the rear duals of the box van trailer. The trailer rotated and the tractor remained
1.1. Recap of Crash Tests from 2005
Figure 2: Scene photo of the Jeep into the rear of the trailer. Table 1: Comparison of speed estimates using reconstruction techniques to measured speeds in miles per hour. Bullet Test Vehicle Jeep Voyager Nissan Honda Analysis Type In-line Momentum In-line Momentum Rotational Mechanics Rotational Mechanics Lower Bound 38 30 34 27 Upper Bound 49 52 41 32 Actual Speed 37 39 39 31
stationary. The impulse of the collision rocked the tractor trailer but did not tip it over.
Rear Dual Axle Crash #4
A 1993 Honda Accord (VIN:1HGCB7693PA090661) was pulled
into the right rear duals of the box van trailer. The trailer rocked and the tractor drive axles moved about 1 inch. Table 1 shows a comparison of the reconstructed speeds with the actual speeds measured by a RADAR system. The two under-ride collisions were problematic when trying to predict impact speeds using momentum due to the high mass ratio. The impact analysis using rotational mechanics concepts proved to be accurate. Moreover, using the middle values of the ranges yielded answers within a couple miles per hour. The analysis presented herein is valid and the evidence can be easily gathered at the scene, provided
1. Introduction
Figure 3: Scene photo of the Nissan into the rear of the trailer. Notice the two units did not stick together.
Figure 4: Scene photo of the Honda into the rear of the trailer. Notice the lack of damage to the rear duals of the trailer.
1.2. Review of Conservation of Linear Momentum
the on-scene investigator is trained to look for evidence under the trailer. In this paper, we are going to analyze in detail the damage-momentum solution for the impact speed of the Honda. The other three crashes are analyzed using WinCRASH, a commercial implementation of the CRASH3 computer program.
1.2. Review of Conservation of Linear Momentum

Conservation of Linear Momentum (COLM) techniques are a proven tool in any reconstructionists toolbox. There are times, however, where using COLM is not useful (e.g., high mass ratios, insufcient evidence and so forth). A derivation of the momentum equation is provided in Section 4.3.1. A collision is considered to be a closed system. That is, the only forces acting on the vehicles during the collision phase are the collision forces themselves. Ground frictional forces are neglected. This may not be valid for low speed collisions or for collisions with high mass ratios. Collisions are inelastic, that is, kinetic energy is not conserved. Linear momentum is conserved in the collision system. In other words, system momentum before equals momentum after. Collisions may be collinear or angled. Collisions are also either central or non-central. Approach and departure angles are based upon the impact circle. See Section ?? for further review. Departure speeds are based upon calculations using the WorkEnergy Theorem. The analysis chosen is based upon the type of post-impact trajectory (spin, etc.) Change of velocity vectors (v) may be calculated in a straight-forward manner using the vector geometry with the law of cosines. The direction of the v vectors may be calculated using the Law of Sines. This gives us the Principal Direction of Force (PDOF). If both v vectors are calculated using the Law of Cosines, then Newtons Third Law may be used to check the results of the calculation. A simple geometry check may be used to see if the v vectors are actually opposite in direction.
2. Damage Momentum Analysis
We see this analysis is not dependent on the amount of vehicle damage and the energy causing the damage. Neither is it dependent on pre- or post-impact vehicle rotations, except in choosing correct trajectory type. There are some impact congurations or conditions for which conservation of linear momentum is not the sole analysis. These include, but are not limited to, barrier impacts, moving barrier impacts, xed object collisions, and in-line collisions. The in-line collisions can be either head-on or in the same direction. We will examine some of these impact types in this chapter.

2.1. Crush Energy and Equivalent Barrier Speed (EBS)
The equivalent barrier speed (EBS), sometimes referred to as the barrier equivalent velocity (BEV), is determined by calculating the amount of energy that the vehicle dissipates during a crash. The speed is determined from v= 2KE m or S= 30KE w (1)
where m is the mass (slugs or kilograms) of the vehicle and KE is the kinetic energy (ft-lb or joules) of the vehicle immediately before it was used to crush the vehicle. Therefore, there is no post-impact velocity and the vehicle comes to a complete stop. The reason it is called an equivalent speed is because it may not be an actual speed. If there is any post-impact velocity, then the EBS and the actual speed will be different. There are some instances in which the EBS will be different than the v as outlined in reference [1]: 1. The EBS will be higher than the v of a vehicle if the vehicle strikes an object that is rigid and movable. 2. The EBS will be lower than the v of a vehicle if the vehicle strikes an object that is soft and massive. An example of this would be a vehicle running into a snow bank. 3. The EBS and v will be the same whenever a vehicle strikes an object whose stiffness is proportional to the weight ratio of the object to the vehicle. In this section, we will know the equivalent barrier speed and the amount of crush energy. The coefcient of restitution will be assumed away for this section.
2.2. A Planar (Two Dimensional) Impact Model
Often, the collision force between two vehicles passes through one or both vehicles offset from the center of mass. When this situation occurs, we will see the vehicle upon which this force acts to both move in the direction of the force and also to rotate about its center of mass. A schematic is illustrated in Figure 5. Let us now relate this general collision model to our system of two eccentric, in-line vehicles shown in Figure 6. When looking at Figure 6, we would intuitively expect the acceleration of the center of mass of each vehicle to be different from each other, simply because the vehicles will tend to rotate away from the collision. In the same way, we would expect the acceleration at the centroid of the damage areas to be larger than the acceleration of the center of mass of each vehicle, respectively. Let us look at the governing equations for vehicle #1. Vehicle #2 may be analyzed in a similar way. F1 = M1 a1 1 (Newtons Second Law) (Newtons Second Law for rotation) (2) (3)
= I1 1
Recall I = moment of inertia = mk 2, where k = radius of gyration. So, 1 = m1 k 2 1 1 Torque is also dened as the product of a force and a lever arm: 1 = F1 h1 Now consider the following relationship that equates the accelerations: ac = a1 + h 1 1 From rotational mechanics a = r and r = h, so: ac a1 = h 1 1 Solving for 1 : 1 = (7) (6) (5) (4)
ac a1 h1
(8)
a F is the collision force in lbs (N). a is the translational acceleration of the center of mass, in-line with the direction of force. The units are ft/sec2 or m/sec2 . h is the lever arm upon which the force acts (ft or m). is the torque about the center of mass. Torque is the cross product of F and h. Units are lb-ft or N-m. is the angular acceleration caused by about the center of mass. Basic units are rad/sec2 for both systems of measure. Figure 5: The general case of a non-central collision. This gure shows the overall collision force acting on a vehicle.
10
a1
ac
a2
h1 M1 1 , 1 M1 and M2 are the respective vehicle masses. F is the total collision force.
F 2 , 2
h2 M2
a1 and a2 are the respective accelerations of the CM of each vehicle. In an offset collision, these probably will not be the same for each vehicle. ac is the common acceleration of the crush zone of the respective vehicles. Therefore, the centroids of the damage areas must reach a common velocity since collision times are identical. h1 and h2 are the lever arms upon which force F acts. 1 and 2 are the respective torques acting about the mass centers. 1 and 2 are the respective angular accelerations of each vehicle about their centers of mass. Figure 6: A schematic of a general non-central, in-line collision.
11
Now, the torques in Eqs. (4) and (5) are the same, so: F1 h1 = m1 k 2 1 1 Substitute for 1: F1 h1 = m1 k 2 1 Divide both sides by m1 and multiply by h1 : F1 2 h = k 2 ( ac a1 ) 1 m1 1 Recall from Newtons Second Law that F1 = m1 a1 or a1 =
F1 m1 . Substitute
(9)
ac a1 h1
(10)
(11) this value into Eq. (11):
a1 h 2 = k 2 ( ac a1 ) 1 1 a1 h 2 = k 2 ac k 2 a1 1 1 1 a1 h 2 + a1 k 2 = k 2 ac 1 1 1 a1 ( k 2 + h 2 ) = k 2 ac 1 1 1 a1 = We will dene the effective (dynamic) mass ratio as: = k2 k 2 + h2 (13) k2 1 k 2 + h2 1 1 ac (12)
Substituting the denition of an effective mass ratio into Eq. (12) gives the simple proportion: a 1 = 1 a c (14)
Equation (14) shows us the acceleration of the CM of vehicle #1 is a proportion, 1, of the acceleration of the centroid of the damage area. We may also see that will always be less than or equal to 1 because the denominator of Eq. (13) will never be less than the numerator. If = 1, then we have a central collision without rotation. This is a proof of our intuition.
2.3. Relationship to v
Consider the following general relationship: a= v t (15)
12
For vehicle #1: a1 = ac = v1 t vc t (16) (17)
So substituting Eqs. (16) and (17) into Eq. (14) yields: vc v1 = 1 t t The t terms are common in the denominators on both sides and will cancel: v1 = 1 vc (19) (18)
In offset collisions, the acceleration ac and velocity change vc of the damage centroid will always be larger than the velocity change and acceleration of the center of mass. Using an energy and momentum based approach [2, 3, 4], formulas for the change in velocity for an eccentric impact can be determined as: 21 Ecrush m1 1 +
1 m1 2 m2
v1 =
or
v1 =
2g1 Ecrush w1 1 + 1 w1 2 w2
(20)
We calculate v2 knowing the change in momentum from one vehicle has to be equal and opposite the change of momentum in the other. m1 v1 + m2 v2 = 0 v2 = m1 v1 m2 (21)
Newtons Third Law is satised because the impulse vectors, and thus the v vectors, are opposite in direction.
Example 1 Recall from 2005 that the 1993 Honda Accord crashed into the rear dual axles of a stationary semi-trailer. There was no permanent damage done to the trailer and the Honda absorbed 81,200 ft-lb (110,100 J) of crush energy. The trailer rotated around its kingpin and had a moment of inertia of 421,470 lb-ft-sec2 (571,513 kg-m2 ). The distance from the kingpin to the point of impact is 36.4 ft (11.09 m). The Honda weighs 2900 lb (1315 kg) and the trailer weighs 13,425 lb (6090 kg). Determine the impact speed of the Honda.
13
Solution
Since there is no permanent damage to the trailer wheels, there is no contribution to the total crush energy from the trailer. Therefore: Ecrush = EHonda + Etrailer = EHonda + 0 We also know that the trailer has no initial lateral acceleration. As such, the v of the trailer is its actual post-impact velocity. To determine the change in velocity of both vehicles, we will use Eq. (20). Equation (20) requires the effective mass ratios of each of the vehicles. Since the Honda hit the center of the rear duals, the collision force acts through the Hondas center of mass, so its effective mass ratio is 1. On the other hand, the effective mass ratio of the trailer must be computed from Eq. (13). The square of the radius of gyration (k 2) of the trailer was determined to be 1010.90 ft2 (93.83 m2 ). Therefore, the effective mass ratio of the trailer is: US SI
2 =
k2 2 k 2 + h2 2 2 1010.9 1010.9 + 36.42
2 =
k2 2 k 2 + h2 2 2 93.83 93.83 + 11.092
= 0.433
= 0.433
Notice that both ratios are the same because a ratio has no dimension. Let us use subscript 1 for the Honda and subscript 2 for the trailer. Thus, for the Honda:
v1 =
2g1 Ecrush w1 1 +
1 w1 2 w2
v1 =
21 Ecrush m1 1 + 1 m1 2 m2 2(1)(110, 100) 1315 1 +

1(1315) 0.433(6090)
2(32.2)(1)(81, 200) 2900 1 +

1(2900) 0.433(13,425)
= 34.68 ft/s
= 10.57 m/s
In a similar fashion, we can determine the v for the center of mass of the trailer:
14
vc v2 27.3 ft (8.32 m) 36.4 ft (11.09 m)
Figure 7: The v of the damage centroid is different than the v of the center of mass of the trailer.
v2 =
2g2 Ecrush w2 1 +
2 w2 1 w1
v2 =
22 Ecrush m2 1 +
2 m2 1 m1
2(32.2)(0.433)(81, 200) 13, 425 1 +

0.433(13,425) 1(2900)
2(0.433)(110, 100) 6090 1 +

0.433(6090) 1(1315)
= 7.49 ft/s
= 2.28 m/s
Since Eq. (20) was developed by assuming the vehicles remain in contact after the collision, the coefcient of restitution is zero. In order for the Honda to experience the v computed in this example, the impact speed must be equal to the change in velocity of the Honda plus the post-impact velocity. This post-impact velocity is the v of the damage centroid of the trailer, vc, because it was initially at rest. Computing the change in velocity of the damage centroid of the trailer involves using the concept of similar triangles. Consider Figure 7, which shows the geometric relationship of the damage centroid, the center of mass, and the point of rotation. We can consider the trailer to be a rigid body rotating about its kingpin, so the relative velocities of any point on the trailer is proportional to its distance from the kingpin. This fact allows us to use the property of equal ratios to determine a relationship between v2 and vc .
15
3. Determining Crush Energy
US vc 36.4 = = 1.333 v2 27.3 vc = 1.333v2
SI 11.09 vc = = 1.333 v2 8.32 vc = 1.333v2
= 1.333(7.49) = 9.98 ft/s
= 1.333(2.28) = 3.04 m/s
US
SI
v1 = v1 + vc
v1 = v1 + vc
= 34.68 + 9.98 = 44.66 ft/s

S = 30.46 mph
= 10.57 + 3.04 = 13.61 m/s

S = 48.99 kph
The actual speed measured of the Honda at impact for this staged crash was close to 31 mph (50 kph). The accuracy of a damage momentum analysis is not always guaranteed, because the energy absorbed in the crash by crushing the vehicle is empirically based. In other words, the techniques used to determine the energy in a crash are not based completely on physics, but rather a curve t to crash test data. The curve-tting technique is the only tractable way to obtain energy values for vehicle crashes and the details will be discussed in the next section.

The acronym CRASH stands for Computer Reconstruction of Automobile Speeds on the Highway. The CRASH3 algorithm is implemented in many commercial software packages such as EDCRASH, WinCRASH, and m-CRASH. The computer programs provide great tools to perform analysis; however, comprehension of the physics and models implemented in the computer code enable the user to make a more sound interpretation of the evidence and results of the computer analysis. CRASH has two parts: the trajectory calculator and the damage algorithm. This chapter explains some of the aspects of the damage algorithm.
16
3.1. The General Energy Model
L Narrow width rectangles
A D = Area of Damage
Figure 8: A large rectangle that represents the damage area can be broken into a series of small rectangles. Here, L is the damage width, A D is the area of the damage projection, and x is the depth of crush.
3.1. The General Energy Model

Consider Figure 8, in which we have taken a rectangular damage prole and have segmented it into smaller rectangles that are 1 unit wide. Each of these rectangles is x units in depth. We may now dene A and B stiffness coefcients for each unit of width where: The units of A are lb/inch (N/m), The units of B are lb/in2 (N/m2 ), The units of G are lb (N), and the value of G is equal to Now consider our energy equation: E = Ax + A2 Bx2 + 2 2B (22) A2 . 2B
This equation was used to determine the energy per unit width for a rectangular damage prole. There, the unit width was the entire front of the vehicle. The A and B values were also for the entire width of the vehicle. Here, since we divided the entire rectangular damage area into smaller rectangles one unit wide (e.g., 1 inch), Eq. (22) can be used to calculate the damage energy for each of the narrow rectangles. Correspondingly, the A and B values are for one of the narrow rectangular strips. If we want to calculate the total damage energy, ET , we will have to multiply E by L. ET = EL = AxL + A2 L Bx2 L + 2 2B (23)
The product of L and x is the area of the large rectangle, which is the area of the damage. If we use the variable A D to denote this area of damage, then Eq. (23) becomes: ET = A ( A D ) + Bx A2 L ( AD) + 2 2B (24)
17
Factoring out the area term gives: ET = A+ Bx 2 AD + A2 L 2B (25) x . Thus, we can 2
The centroid of a rectangle, denoted as x, in relationship to its length, x, is write Eq. (25) in terms of the centroid of the damage area: ET = ( A + B x) A D + A2 L 2B
(26)
3.2. CRASH III Deformation Model

To calculate the total energy it took to damage (crush) a vehicle, three things are needed: Stiffness coefcients. These are the A, B, and G values and come from crash test data. Ways to calculate these values are discussed in Section 3.2.1. Area of damage. This is the A D value. In essence, we integrate over the damage prole to get the damage area in square inches (or square meters). There are several ways to do this and we will explore the trapezoid rule in Section 3.3. Depth of the centroid of the damage area. This is the x value. Calculating this value is discussed in Section 3.4.1. The following discussions and the equations developed are for a collision in which the PDOF angle is 90 to the damage face. The situation in which the PDOF is not 90 is beyond the scope of this paper. 3.2.1. Determining Stiffness Coefcients The A stiffness coefcient represents the amount of force that the vehicle can sustain before it begins to permanently deform. The B stiffness coefcient represents the amount of force needed to permanently deform the vehicle structure. The G value is the area of the force-deection triangle to the left of the abscissa (y-axis) and is related to A and B by the relationship G= 3.2.2. Crash Test Data Most vehicle crashes are conducted under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), which requires a 35-mph (56 kph) full-frontal barrier crash test. Other crash tests include: angled A2 2B (27)
18
frontal-xed barrier collisions, movable barrier collisions (both deformable and non-deformable), narrow object impact tests, and side-movable deformable barrier tests. The remaining discussion on crash test data will deal only with full-frontal barrier tests. When we obtain crash test data, we will get the average crush of the vehicle. We will call this Cavg . This assumes a uniform crush prole. Procedures for dealing with a non-uniform crush prole are discussed in Ref. [5]. Test reports are available to the public through the National Highway Trafc Safety Administration web site, http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/. These reports may have a data sheet entitled Accident Investigation Division Data that will reveal: The approach speed of the vehicle in kph: vtest The test mass of the vehicle in kg: mtest Six vehicle crush depths in mm: C1 , C2 , C3 , C4 , C5 , and C6 Width of the damage prole in mm: Ltest Unit conversions will be required to work in US units. Dimensions must agree in all equations.
3.2.3. Determining vtest There are different ways in which people have dened vtest when using crush energy formulas. One method is to use the total v, which is the actual change in velocity experienced by the center of mass of the vehicle. It is dened as: v = v1 v3 where v1 is the approach velocity and v3 is the rebound velocity. Using the denition of the coefcient of restitution gives: v = v1 (1 + ) The equations for v are based on the energy, Ecrush , dissipated during the collision. These equations also assume no restitution. As such, the simplest way of computing stiffness values is to ignore the effects of restitution. This means that vtest = vapproach . The CRASH III Manual (Ref. [4]) presents the idea of using an effective energy that will account for the restitution of the crash test in the computation of the v values by introducing the effective energy term Eeff = EA (1 + )2
19
where EA is the kinetic energy of the approaching vehicle. This is misleading because the actual energy dissipated in crushing the vehicle is: Ecrush
1 2 mv A (1 2 ) 2
= EA ( 1 2 )
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the authors to either ignore restitution when computing crush energy or include the effects of restitution on total v calculation separate from the damage energy calculation. Some authors may advocate determining stiffness coefcient based on the total v. Again, this is ill-advised because using the total v will give crush energy values that are erroneously high unless restitution is near zero. For example, if = 0.1, then Eeff will be 21% higher than EA , whereas Ecrush is only 1% lower than EA . Therefore, ignoring the restitution for barrier impact tests at 30 or 35 mph will result in small errors. It will also result in a consistent denition of vtest , namely, the change in speed before rebound. Therefore, for a xed barrier test, use the actual approach speed to determine the stiffness values. 3.2.4. Determine Campbell Model Coefcients Campbell noted that, for early 1970s full-sized General Motors vehicles, the impact speed and the depth of crush followed a straight line similar to the line shown in Figure 9. The model for relating frontal barrier impact speed to crush damage takes a linear form: v = b0 + b1 C where v is the impact speed, C is the residual crush, b0 is the zero crush speed (intercept) in units of speed, and b1 is the slope in units of speed per length (i.e. mph/in). When a vehicle crashes into an object, energy is expended. The majority of the energy lost in a collision is due to the plastic (permanent) deformation of the vehicle(s) and/or the objects involved in the crash. Quantifying this energy is difcult since there are many different mechanisms of dissipating the energy. However, a model based on crash tests can approximate the amount of energy dissipated. This is called an empirical model because it is based on observations rather than physical principles. The linear model shown in Figure 9 is an empirical model. Since energy is dependent on mass as well as velocity, a standard weight was used for diagrams similar to Figure 9. This technique can be used if only a single crash test is available. We will outline a simple procedure to extract the empirical crush coefcients. These coefcients are used to determine (28)
20

60 Impact Speed, miles per hour 50 40 1 30 20 10 0 0 b0 10 20 30 40 50 Residual Crush, inches 60 b1
Figure 9: Impact speed plotted against the measured residual crush for a frontal-xed barrier impact. The slope of the line is b1 and the intercept is b0 . This plot resembles Fig. 1 from Campbells 1974 paper [6]. the energy dissipated for an irregular crush prole. The rst step is to dene a no-damage speed for our test vehicle, bo . Typical values for the speed at which no residual crush exists are 5 mph (8 kph) for front and rear impacts in which the vehicle is protected by bumpers. On the other hand, side impact no-damage speeds are typically 2 mph (3.2 kph). When using the US system of measurement, our A and B values will be in units of lb/in and lb/in2 , respectively, so we will need to express all of our no-damage speeds and v values in inches/second. In the same way, acceleration will be expressed in inches/second2 . Thus, 5 mph = 88 in/sec, 2 mph = 35 in/sec, and 32.2 ft/sec2 = 386 in/sec2 . Similarly, when using the SI system of measurement, our A and B values will be in units of newton/meter and newton/meter2 , respectively, so we will need to express all of our nodamage speeds and v values in meters/second. In the same way, acceleration will be expressed in meters/second2 . Thus, 8 kph = 2.22 m/sec, and 3.2 kph = 0.89 m/sec. Let us now determine the slope of the line that would intersect the y-axis (speed) at bo and the crash data point (Cavg , vtest ). This slope is b1 : b1 = vtest bo Cavg (29)
This equation assumes uniform crush depth. Vehicles with signicant taper on the front or
21
3. Determining Crush Energy Impact Speed
( Cavg , v )
bo Cavg Crush
Figure 10: Impact speed-crush graph. Point (Cavg , v ) is on the graph and can be used to calculate the slope, b1 , of the graph. some otherwise irregular crush prole need different crush averaging. Neptune provides a formula to determine stiffness coefcients based on irregular crush proles in Ref. [5]. 3.2.5. Determining A, B, and G Values Once we have bo and b1 , we can calculate the A, B, and G stiffness coefcients. These equations take the Campbell impact speed-crush data (Figure 9) and convert it to force-crush data (Figure 11). The A stiffness coefcient can be determined with the following equation: A= mT bo b1 Ltest (30)
where mT is the mass of the test vehicle with instrumentation. This is usually given in kilograms and needs to be in slugs for the US system (1 kg = 0.0685 slugs). The B stiffness coefcient can be determined with the following equation: B=
2 mT b1 Ltest
(31)
The G value is a straight-forward calculation based upon the triangle geometry. G= A2 2B (32)
3.3. Determining Damage Area

The initial models for the CRASH III program approximated irregular damage proles by dividing the damage area into equally spaced trapezoids. Each trapezoid was bounded on the
22
3.3. Determining Damage Area

F
x +B A B F=
A
G O x = residual crush
Figure 11: The geometric relationship between A, B, and G . ends by the damage face and the undamaged collision face prole. The trapezoids are bounded on the sides by the crush measurements, Cn . Two, four, or six crush measurements are taken and must be equally spaced. This results in one, three, or ve crush zones, as seen in Figure 12. The damage area is computed by summing the areas of all the zones, so for Figure 12: A D = A1 + A2 + A3 + A4 + A5 After some geometry and algebra, we get the damage area for six equally spaced crush measurements: AD = L ( C1 + 2C2 + 2C3 + 2C4 + 2C5 + C6 ) 10 (33)
Example 2 Determine the stiffness coefcients for a 1993 Honda Accord in SI units based on the NHTSA crash test 1875 performed by Calspan Corp. This crash test was at 56.3 kph (assume no rebound velocity) and the test weight was 1579 kg. The overall length of the damage region is Ltest = 1460mm. The crush depth dimensions reported are: Location Depth (mm) C1 423 C2 481 C3 522 C4 523 C5 483 C6 376
The mean crush depth is calculated using the area determined in Eq. (33): Cavg = AD L L (423 + 2 (481 ) + 2 (522 ) + 2 (523 ) + 2 (483 ) + 376 ) 10 L
= 482 mm = 0.482 m
23
L zone 1 C1 zone 2 C3 C2 x zone 3 C4 zone 4 C5 zone 5 C6
deformed vehicle
Figure 12: An irregular damage prole of width L pictured here is broken up into ve trapezoidal zones by taking six equally spaced crush measurements.
24
3.4. Determining the Location of the Damage Centroid
Employing Eq. (29), converting 56.3 kph to 15.64 m/s, and assuming that b0 = 2.22 m/s gives the value for b1 : b1 = vtest bo Cavg 15.64 2.22 0.482
= 27.84
This value is used in Eq. (30) to determine the A coefcient: A = mT bo b1 Ltest 1579 kg (2.22 m )(27.84 1 ) s s 1.46 m kg s2
kg-m 1 ( ), sec2 m
= 66, 842
If we multiply the units for A by m/m, we would get units of newtons/meter. The value for the B coefcient is: B =
2 mT b1 Ltest
which are units of
1579 kg (27.84 1 )2 s 1.46 m N m2
= 838, 239
The value for the G coefcient is: G = A2 2B
N 66, 842 m
N 2 838, 239 m2
= 2665 N
3.4. Determining the Location of the Damage Centroid

The damage centroid is the point within the damage prole at which the collision force acts. It can be thought of as the center of mass of the damage area. If the CRASH III model is to
25
I MPORTANT !
work for two-vehicle collisions, the damage centroids must reach a common velocity. Therefore, sideswipe collisions cannot be modeled with CRASH III. This constraint is not placed on a COLM solution! For a COLM solution, there is no requirement that the damage centroids reach a common velocity. In the interest of brevity, the results only are presented in this section. A detailed derivation can be found in Ref. [2].
3.4.1. Longitudinal Location of the Centroid in the Damage Area x=

2 2 2 2 2 2 C1 + 2C2 + 2C3 + 2C4 + 2C5 + C6 + C1 C2 + C2 C3 + C3 C4 + C4 C5 + C5 C6 3( C1 + 2C2 + 2C3 + 2C4 + 2C5 + C6 )
(34)
3.4.2. Lateral Location of the Centroid in the Damage Area Having determined the longitudinal location of the centroid, x, we will determine the lateral location of the centroid, y, which pinpoints the centroid of the damage area. We will need this location to determine where the PDOF is acting. y= L 30
13C1 18C2 6C3 + 6C4 + 18C5 + 13C6 C1 + 2C2 + 2C3 + 2C4 + 2C5 + C6
(35)
3.4.3. Locating the Damage Centroid with Respect to the Local Axis of the Vehicle Once the centroid of the damage area has been located within the damage area, we can locate the centroid with respect to the local x-y axis of the vehicle. The local axis has its origin at the center of mass (CM) of the vehicle. Positive x is forward of the CM. Positive y is to the passenger side of the CM. The x-y location of the centroid is an ordered pair with + or signs used depending on where it is with respect to the local axis.
In the x-direction The value for x locates the depth of the centroid from the damage face of the vehicle. From vehicle specication databases (such as Expert Autostats R ) we can determine various measurements such as, front overhang, wheelbase, front bumper to front axle, center of mass to front axle, etc. Using these measurements, as necessary, along with x, the location of the centroid can be located with respect to the local vehicle axis. It may be helpful to sketch a picture showing these measurements to assist in locating the centroid and to help remember the sign of the location.
26
3.5. Crush Energy Equations
In the y-direction The value for y laterally locates the centroid from the center of the damage area (half of the measured damage width). From vehicle specication databases, we can determine various measurements such as vehicle width, front overhang, wheelbase, front bumper to front axle, center of mass to front axle, etc. The center of mass of the vehicle is generally located at physically half the vehicle width. When measuring the damage area of a vehicle, the center of the damage area (half the dam age width) is located with respect to the center of mass of the vehicle and is called D. Since y is referenced to the center of the damage width, knowing D allows us to locate the centroid with respect to the local vehicle axis. It may be helpful to sketch a picture showing these measurements to assist in locating the centroid and to help remember the sign of the location.
3.5. Crush Energy Equations

In the previous sections, we have developed equations for damage area and for damage centroid depth. Now we substitute these values into Eq. (26) on page 18: ET = ( A + B x) A D + A2 L 2B
The result for six evenly spaced crush measurements (ve crush zones) is:
ET =
L 5
A ( C1 + 2C2 + 2C3 + 2C4 + 2C5 + C6) 2 B 2 2 2 2 2 2 C + 2C2 + 2C3 + 2C4 + 2C5 + C6 + C1 C2 + C2 C3 + C3 C4 + C4 C5 + C5 C6 6 1
5A2 2B
(36)
Example 3 Determine the crush energy of a 1993 Honda Accord given the following equally spaced crush measurements across a front width of L = 63.75 in: Location Depth (in) C1 3.3 C2 11.0 C3 14.78 C4 15.0 C5 14.0 C6 7.0
The A stiffness coefcient was determined from the data in Example 2 to be 396 lb/in and the B coefcient is 129 lb/in2 . This is a six-crush measurement that can be cumbersome by hand.
27
4. Relationship between Crush Energy and the Coefcient of Restitution
Therefore, let us introduce the temporary variables: x1 = C1 + 2C2 + 2C3 + 2C4 + 2C5 + C6
2 2 2 2 2 2 x2 = C1 + 2C2 + 2C3 + 2C4 + 2C5 + C6
x3 = C1 C2 + C2 C3 + C3 C4 + C4 C5 + C5 C6 So from Eq. (36) we get: ET = Solving for the x values gives: x1 = 3.3 + 2(11.0) + 2(14.78) + 2(15.0) + 2(14.0) + 7.0 = 119.86 in x2 = 3.32 + 2(11.02 ) + 2(14.782 ) + 2(15.02 ) + 2(14.02 ) + 7.02 = 1580.78 in2 x3 = 3.3(11.0) + 11.0(14.78) + 14.78(15.0) + 15.0(14.0) + 14.0(7.0) = 728.58 in2 Substituting these values into Eq. (37) yields: ET L 5 Ax1 B ( x2 + x3 ) 5A2 + + 2 6 2B (37)
63.75 5
396(119.86) 129(1580.78 + 728.58) 5(396)2 + + 2 6 2(129)
= 12.75(23, 732.28 + 49, 651.24 + 3039.07) = 974, 390 in-lb = 81, 200 ft-lb

4.1. Physics of an Impact
An impact happens when two objects interact with large forces over a short period of time. We refer to this interaction as a collision. This causes large impulsive forces which typically deform the objects. The moment two objects come together is called incidence. Immediately after incidence the compression phase begins where the colliding objects deform and absorb kinetic energy. This compression phase has a nite duration and is terminated when the dynamic deformation reaches a maximum. Following the maximum deformation, a period of restitution occurs where the object may rebound. During the rebound phase some (not all) of the stored energy is turned back into kinetic energy as the objects depart with some relative velocity. We also
28
4.1. Physics of an Impact

v = vin
Fixed Barrier Compression the collision phase. Rebound
(a) Location of the vehicle at incidence, t = 0.
v=0 Fixed Barrier
(b) Location of the vehicle at maximum crush, t = tc .
v = vout
Fixed Barrier
(c) Location of the vehicle at separation, t = ts .
Figure 13: The different phases of an impact between a vehicle and a solid xed barrier.
dene the collision as taking place with no displacement with respect to an inertial (ground) reference frame. Hence, we do not have to consider any gain or loss of potential energy during
Figure 13 shows the two phases of a collision of a vehicle into a xed barrier. In Fig. 13a, the vehicle is just touching the barrier and has some kinetic energy. The contact generates a force that acts over some distance to the point of maximum crush. The collision force acting through the distance is the work done in the crash. All of the energy used to do the work associated with deformation comes from the initial kinetic energy.
29
4.2. Taxonomy of Impacts

4.2.1. Nature of Elasticity The discussion in this section is based upon classical mechanics, which have a foundation in Newtons three laws of motion as well as the work done by Huygens and others just before Newtons time. We use classical mechanics for crash reconstruction because, in most cases, the results we obtain are reasonable and may be done with relatively simple math. The variables involved are simple to dene and are measurable by means of testing. The core of classic impact analysis is the impulse-momentum model. There are other impact models that are based upon elastic wave propagation, contact mechanics, and plastic deformation or hydrodynamic modeling which are far beyond the scope of this paper. We may place collisions into two general categories: an elastic or inelastic collision: An elastic collision is one in which kinetic energy is conserved. As such, an elastic collision is a conservative system, meaning a system in which kinetic energy is conserved. Real world systems are never completely elastic, as kinetic energy is never completely saved. The work done to deform the objects is therefore called reversible work. In elastic collisions, the colliding objects bounce off of each other. An inelastic collision is one in which kinetic energy is not conserved. This does not mean that all of the kinetic energy of the system goes away in the collision. In fact, usually it does not, as the colliding objects will move away with some velocity after the impact. The amount of kinetic energy that may be lost in a collision is consistent within the bounds set by conservation of linear momentum. In a completely inelastic collision, the kinetic energy required to do the work to deform the objects is transformed into other forms of energy, such as heat. As such, the work done to deform the colliding objects is called irreversible work, because we cannot get it back. A characteristic of inelastic collisions is the two objects tend to stick together. Real world collisions usually fall somewhere between being elastic and inelastic. A measure of the elasticity of a collision is the coefcient of restitution, which, by Newtons denition, is a ratio of the relative velocity of approach to the relative velocity of recession. The coefcient of restitution may vary between zero and one. A value of one indicates a completely elastic collision, while a value of zero indicates a completely inelastic collision. For example, if we drop a steel ball bearing on a hard steel plate, it will bounce quite a bit. We would say that collision has a relatively high coefcient of restitution. If we take a soft lead ball and drop it on the same plate, it will not bounce quite as much. Hence, its coefcient of restitution is lower than that of the steel ball, but still has some value. If we replace the lead ball with a soft lump of clay, then we will see an inelastic collision, as the clay will hit and stick to the surface. As
30
4.2. Taxonomy of Impacts
the coefcient of restitution becomes closer to zero, more of the system kinetic energy is being dissipated into other forms of energy, primarily heat. We also consider that the only forces acting on the bodies during the collision are the impulsive (collision) forces themselves. As such, for either one or two dimensional collisions, we ignore the effects of any ground frictional forces. This is an example of an unconstrained impact. In the real world, this assumption may not always be valid and depends on several things, such as relative vehicle masses, presence of signicant ground forces, or other constraints that may affect vehicle motion. 4.2.2. Relative Velocities Consider for a moment the steel plate and ball mentioned above. How might the relative velocity at impact affect the impact behavior? Let us think about what happens if we drop the steel ball on the plate from a height of 14 feet. This will result in an impact velocity of about 30 fps. If we examine this ball after the impact, we probably will not be able to discern and permanent deformation in the ball. If we do the same thing with the lead ball, then we may see a small at spot on it, but still no great deformation. Now, let us re the balls in turn out of an air gun at 300 fps. The steel ball will still bounce off the plate, but there may well be some measurable deformation in it. Its coefcient of restitution, in the sense of classical mechanics, will likely be less because of this permanent deformation. The lead ball, being softer (less internal strength), will probably be attened by the impact and may have little or no bounce at all. As a nal example, we will replace the air gun with a high velocity rie that is capable of launching the balls at 3000 fps. In this case, the steel ball will likely penetrate through the plate, resulting in large plastic ows of both the ball and the plate. This is the beginning of hydrodynamic behavior where the extreme stresses make the solid behave like a uid. In a similar way, the lead ball may also penetrate the plate, even though it is much softer than the plate. These high velocity impacts are called ballistic impacts, and we may not use classical impact mechanics to determine impact behavior. As we may see with our thought experiment, the coefcient of restitution is a function not only of the material properties of the impacting bodies, but also on the relative velocity at impact. We will discuss this further in Section 4.3. 4.2.3. Orientation There are generally two different types of impacts: collinear and oblique: A collinear impact occurs when the direction of travel coincides with the direction of force.
31
Head-on or rear-end collisions are examples of collinear impacts. Also, a collinear impact occurs whenever one vehicle or object is stationary. An oblique impact occurs when the line of force is not coincident with the direction of travel. The oblique impact is the general case of any planar (two dimensional) impact which means a central impact is a special case of an oblique impact. In trafc crash reconstruction, we may also categorize collisions as being either central or noncentral. A central collision is one in which the impulse force (PDOF) passes through the center of mass of the vehicle (object). A non-central collision means the impulse force does not go through the center of mass. In a central collision for both vehicles, we would expect the postimpact velocity (both magnitude and direction) to be similar and for the vehicles to move away from the collision with little or no rotation. These constraints are not placed on a non-central collision.
4.3. Understanding the Coefcient of Restitution

The coefcient of restitution provides the analyst with a technique of dealing with energy losses in a collision. It is fairly simple to use with in-line collisions but it fails to provide all the missing pieces to a planar impact problem. There are three basis for the denition of the coefcient of restitution: kinematic, kinetic, and energy. These denitions will be presented and the relationship between them will be explained.
4.3.1. Kinematic Denition of Restitution Sir Issac Newton provided the rst denition of restitution with a formula based on the relative velocities of each object: = v2,out v1,out v1,in v2,in (38)
where v refers to the magnitude of the velocity normal to the impact plane. For in-line collisions, these velocities are the actual velocity magnitudes. If the collision is oblique, then the velocity used in Eq. (38) is the component of the velocity vector normal (perpendicular) to the plane of impact. While Newton was correct with most everything he wrote, he mistakenly presumed the coefcient of restitution was only a material property. It has been since shown that restitution also depends on the relative velocities themselves. Also, application of Eq. 38 for eccentric impacts may lead to an apparent increase in energy which is physically inadmissible.
32
4.3.2. Kinetic Denition of Restitution
In the early 1800s Poisson developed a kinetic denition of the coefcient of restitution. This denition says the coefcient of restitution is the ratio of the magnitude of the normal rebound impulse to the magnitude of the normal deformation impulse perpendicular to the plane of contact: ( Ft )rebound = (39) ( Ft )de f orm We can show that this denition is consistent Newtons denition. When only collision forces are signicant, Newtons Second Law gives us the denition of impulse as a change in momentum: Ft = mv where the bold fonts indicate vector quantities that have both magnitude and direction. The overall change in velocity follows the kinematic denition: v = vout vin At the point of maximum deformation, the contact location reaches some unknown velocity, vc . This velocity may be zero if an object strikes a solid barrier. The peak deformation is also achieved at a unique time sometime between when the collision started and when the objects are no longer interacting. Using this point in time, we can break up the change in velocity into the sum of two distinct events: v = vout vc + vc vin
rebound de f orm
Knowing that mass is conserved in a crash, we can get the following relationship: Ft = mvout mvc + mvc mvin
rebound de f orm
and Ft = ( Ft )rebound + ( Ft )de f orm which says the total impulse is the vector sum of the deformation impulse and the rebound (restitution) impulse. In all physical cases, the deformation impulse is larger than the restitution impulse. For a central collision, the rebound impulse will be both smaller in magnitude and opposite in direction to the deformation impulse which makes the total impulse smaller than
33
the deformation impulse. The following relationships should also be noted:
( Ft )rebound = mvout mvc ( Ft )de f orm = mvc mvin
(40) (41)
The rebound and deformation impulses act along the line of impact which is perpendicular to the plane of impact. During an actual collision, the line of impact may change so the choice for which line of impact to use is based on the overall effect of the impulse. Since collision times are short, the line of impact is fairly consistent. The line of impact is also referred to as the Principal Direction of Force (PDOF). Notice that Eqs. (40) and (41) contain an unknown velocity vector vc . This unknown will be determined by using Newtons Third Law which says that impulses act equally and opposite when two objects interact. Therefore, if we have two objects, #1 and #2, then during an impact: F1 t = F2 t Since the time scale is common to both objects, we can express Newtons Third Law for both phases of the crash as:
( F1t )rebound = ( F2t )rebound ( F1 t )de f orm = ( F2t )de f orm

For the restitution phase, Newtons Third Law can be rewritten as: m1 v1,out m1 v1,c = ( m2v2,out m2 v2,c ) and for the deformation phase: m1 v1,c m1 v1,in = ( m2v2,c m2 v2,in ) (43) (42)
Notice that the collision velocities of each object do not have be the same. Solving for the collision velocity at maximum engagement of object #1 from Eq. (42): v1,c = and solving for v1,c in Eq. (43) is: v1,c = m1 v1,in + m2 v2,in m2 v2,c m1 (45) m1 v1,out + m2 v2,out m2 v2,c m1 (44)
Setting Eq. (44) equal to Eq. (45) gives the Conservation of Linear Momentum Equation that
34
says the total momentum in is equal to the total momentum out (even if the velocities v1,c and v2,c are different): m1 v1,in + m2 v2,in = m1 v1,out + m2 v2,out When dealing with two dimensions, or planar impact mechanics, the kinetic denition of restitution only characterizes the collision along the line of line of impact. In introductory dynamics textbooks, the assumption is made that the impact is frictionless for oblique collisions [7, 8]. Obviously, real impacts (car crashes) can contain friction when dealing with oblique impacts. Including the effect of tangential impulses from friction has been addressed by various authors [9, 10, 11]. Since the denition from Eq. (39) only relates the impulse vectors that are normal to the impact plane, the force and velocity vectors must be expressed in terms of their components: F = ( Fn , Ft ) and v = (vn, vt ) (46)
where the subscript n refers to the normal direction and the subscript t corresponds to the tangent direction. The statement earlier about the velocities at the point of contact being different at maximum compression can now be further qualied. In the direction normal to the contact plane, the points of contact of both bodies must reach a common velocity in the normal direction to prevent interpenetration. The velocity components of the contact points in the direction tangent to the impact plane can be different if sliding exists. Considering only the vector components in the normal direction we can substitute Eqs. (40) and (41) into Eq. (39): mvn,out mvn,c (47) = mvn,c mvn,in where n indicates the vector component normal to the impact plane. From hereon, the normal component of velocity is implied. Since mass is a scalar, it can be factored out and canceled: = vout vc vc vin (48)
Since, in the normal direction, the velocities at maximum compression are the same v1,c = v2,c = vc we can simplify Eqs. (44) and (45): vc = and vc = m1 v1,out + m2 v2,out m1 + m2 m1 v1,in + m2 v2,in m1 + m2 (49)
(50)
Substituting Eq. (50) into the numerator of Eq. (48) and Eq. (49) into the denominator of Eq. (48)
35
for object #1 gives: = v1,out

m1 v1,out +m2 v2,out m 1 +m 2 m1 v1,in +m2 v2,in v1,in m 1 +m 2
m1 v + m2 v1,out m2 v2,out m1 v1,out 1,out = + m2 v 2,in m1 v m2 v 1,in m 1 v 1,in 1,in Factoring out and canceling m2 gives the kinematic denition of restitution from Section 4.3.1: = v1,out v2,out v2,in v1,in
4.3.3. Energetic Denition of Restitution In 2000, W. J. Stronge [9] published a book where he dened the square of the coefcient of restitution based on the work done by the normal forces in the collision. This is known as Stronges Hypothesis and is stated mathematically as: 2 = Wrebound Wde f orm (51)
where Wrebound = W1,rebound + W2,rebound is the sum of the work done by both normal impulsive forces during the rebound phase of the collision. Similarly, Wde f orm = W1,de f orm + W2,de f orm is the sum of the work done by both normal impulsive forces during the deformation (or compression) phase of the collision. This denition requires the colliding objects to be deformable. This, however, is not a limitation because every real object is deformable to some extent. Energy is the ability to do work and the work done by the force normal to the impact plane is equal to the kinetic energy of the relative velocities normal to the plane. The diagram in Fig. 14 may be helpful in understanding the relationship between work, energy, impulse, velocity, force and time. The work done by the deformation force is determined as the scalar product of force and displacement: Wde f orm =
xmax 0
F ( x ) dx
(52)
which can be though of graphically as the area under the force displacement curve. If we use a simple linear spring model where F ( x ) = kx, then Wde f orm = 1 k de f orm x2 max 2 (53)
Similarly, the work done by the rebound force is Wrebound =

xresid xmax
F ( x ) dx
(54)
36
But xmax is greater than xresid , so we can swap the limits of integration: Wrebound = and for a spring: 1 Wrebound = k rebound ( x2 x2 ) max resid 2 This represents the area under the curve in Fig. 14d. (56)
xmax xresid
F ( x ) dx
(55)
The work done can be related to the impulse using a relationship developed by Poisson: W = Fv dt F dt (57) (58) (59)
= vavg
= vavg Ft
which says the work done is equal to the velocity multiplied by the impulse. Incorporating this relationship into the energetic denition of the coefcient of restitution gives: 2 = v1,avg,rebound ( Ft )rebound + v2,avg,rebound ( Ft )rebound v1,avg,de f orm ( Ft )de f orm + v2,avg,de f orm ( Ft )de f orm
F m.
(60)
We also know that vavg = aavg t and aavg =
The normal component of the rebound velocity
is opposite in direction of the deformation so the negative signs cancel. Making the appropriate substitutions: 2 =
Ft m1 ( Ft )rebound Ft m1 ( Ft )de f orm
+ +
1 1 2 m1 + m2 ( Ft )rebound 1 1 2 + m m ( Ft )de f orm

1 2
Ft m2 ( Ft )rebound Ft m2 ( Ft )de f orm
(61)
(62)
Taking the square root of both sides renders the kinetic denition of restitution: =
( Ft )rebound ( Ft )de f orm
(63)
The energetic denition of restitution has recently gained popularity as it prevents a solution that violates the conservation of energy while maintaining the classic denitions.
37
Force
displacement xmax
xres
( Ft )de f
0
( Ft )reb
tmax tsep
time 0 tmax tsep
time
(b) General representation of displacement as a function of time.
(a) General representation of force as a function of time. The areas correspond to the deformation impulse and the rebound impulse.
Impulse
Force
time 0 tmax tsep 0

(c) Impulse is always increasing
Ecrush xres
Wreb
xmax
displacement
(d) The area under the force vs. deection lines represent the work done by the collision force.
Figure 14: Illustrations of the relationship between work, energy, impulse, velocity, force, and time.
38
4.4. Computing Restitution based on Damage Energy
4.4. Computing Restitution based on Damage Energy
In this section, a relationship between the magnitude of the incoming normal velocities, damage (crush) energy, and the coefcient of restitution is given based on Stronges Hypothesis. We begin by performing an energy balance: 1 1 1 1 m1 v2 + m2 v2 = m1 v2 + m2 v2 + Ecrush 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2
KEin KEout
(64)
In an earth xed coordinate system, the point of contact may have some velocity. This velocity is unknown but special in that it is the common velocity of the damage centroids for both the objects in the collision. This common velocity is called vc . The energy balance be written with respect to the common velocity. If this is done, then the work done during deformation can be related to the kinetic energy in reference to the common velocity, vc . Therefore, Eq. (64) can be written as: 1 1 1 1 m1 ( v1 vc )2 + m2 ( v2 vc )2 = m1 ( v3 vc )2 + m2 ( v4 vc )2 + Ecrush 2 2 2 2
KEin KEout
(65)
Notice that the energy balance gives a value for the residual damage energy as: Ecrush = KEin KEout (66)
This is not the maximum crush energy as some of the maximum energy absorbed in the crushing object is returned as kinetic energy out. To do this, some work has to be done by the deforming object. This is the work done by the collision force during rebound. Since the deformation during rebound is opposite in direction to the deformation of crush, the sign on the work must be negative. The magnitude of the work done by the rebounding force is represented by the area under the grey triangle in Fig. 14. Mathematically, the work done by the rebounding force is related the the kinetic energy as: Wrebound = ( KEin Ecrush ) (67)
Also, the ability for the compressive force to do work comes from the kinetic energy relative to the common velocity. Using this statement and Eq. (65) in the energetic coefcient of restitution
39
gives: 2 = KEin Ecrush KEin E KEin crush KEin KEin Ecrush KEin
1 2 m1 ( v 1
= 1 = 1
Ecrush v c )2 + 1 m2 ( v 2 v c )2 2
(68)
It is necessary to determine the common velocity based on impulse-momentum concepts. During the compression phase, the changes in velocity are v1 = v1 vc for object #1 and v2 = v2 vc for object #2. Also, Newtons Third Law says that the compression impulses are equal and opposite: F1 t = F2 t (69)
The concept of impulse and momentum (a variant of Newtons Second Law) gives the relationships: F1 t = m1 ( v1 vc ) and F2 t = m2 ( v2 vc ) Using Eqs. (69)-(71) gives an expression for vc : vc = m1 v 1 + m2 v 2 m1 + m2 (72) (71) (70)
This equation is still valid for incredibly large masses (rigid barriers). If m1 , then vc = v1. Similarly, if m2 , then vc = v2. The difference between v1 and vc is: v1 vc = Likewise, v2 vc =
m m 1 v 1 + m2 v 1 1 v 1 m2 v 2
m1 + m2
m1 v2 + 2 v2 + m1 v1 2 v2 m m m1 + m2
(73)
(74)
Substituting these differences into Eq. (68) and simplifying gives the result: 2 = 1 2Ecrush ( m1 + m2 ) m1 m2 ( v 1 v 2 )2 (75)
40
4.5. Computing Coefcient of Restitution Based on Crash Test Data
It should be noted that Eq. (75) can be expressed as: 2 = 1 where KEin = Ecrush KEin (76)
1 2
m1 m2 m1 + m2
( v 1 v 2 )2
(77)
is the maximum amount of energy available to crush the vehicles. The derivation of this equation can also be found in Ref. [12]. For real values of the right hand side of Eq. (75) must be positive. Also, for physically plausible results, the RHS of Eq. (75) must be less than 1. Given these constraints are satised, we can take the square root to get: 2Ecrush ( m1 + m2 ) m1 m2 ( v 1 v 2 )2
(78)
The above equation gives a value for the coefcient of restitution based on the estimation of the damage energy and the solution of the incoming velocities. It is important to note that the velocities are vector quantities and we must use vector subtraction to determine the relative velocities. This means that if the velocities are the same (both magnitude and direction), then the denominator is zero and no solution exists when performing the division of Eq. (78). This corresponds to the physical fact that a collision cannot occur if both objects have the same velocity. The primary use of Eq. (78) for a sanity check on any solution based on a damage momentum technique. Since the coefcient of restitution has physical meaning and has been tested and reported in the literature, determination of should render a typical value if both the crush energy and the impact velocities were computed correctly. With measurable crush proles values of typically less than 0.30. Also, should be greater than zero if the vehicles did not stick together. Typical values are between 0.05 and 0.15. Higher relative impact velocities give lower coefcients of restitution.
4.5. Computing Coefcient of Restitution Based on Crash Test Data

In a frontal barrier crash test, the impact is collinear and the kinematic denition of restitution proves to be the easiest to compute the coefcient of restitution. The incoming velocity is known (usually 35 mph) and the exit velocity must be read from the data and graphs in the crash report. For example, well use report number CAL-93-N10 for the 1993 Honda Accord. In that report, there are nine accelerometer locations measuring acceleration in the x direction (along the direction of travel) listed on page 3-11. In Appendix B of the CALSPAN report, the acceleration, velocity and displacement curves are shown. Every acceleration trace should start
41
Table 2: Data extracted from Calspan report # CAL-93-N10 for a full frontal barrier crash test of a 1993 Honda Accord. The entrance speed was 56 kph. Accelerometer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Location Left Rear Seat Right Rear Seat Top of Engine Bottom of Engine Right Front Brake Left Front Brake Instrument Panel Left Rear Seat Right Rear Seat Exit Velocity (km/h) 4 4 Accelerometer Destroyed 0 35 30 10 8 3 Coef. of Rest. 0.071 0.071 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.18 N/A 0.054
Table 3: Mean and standard deviation of the coefcient of restitution for vehicle to barrier impacts for different types of vehicles at both 30 mph and 35 mph taken from Ref. [14]. Vehicle Type Avg. Std. Dev. Passenger Passenger Pickup Pickup SUV SUV Van Van (30mph) (35mph) (30mph) (35mph) (30mph) (35mph) (30mph) (35mph) 0.139 0.152 0.105 0.160 0.135 0.146 0.131 0.143 0.045 0.028 0.023 0.036 0.058 0.026 0.044 0.041
and end at zero. If it does not, then either the accelerometers was knocked off axis or was not calibrated. Each velocity trace should also start and end with the same velocity and the nal velocity should be negative (indicating rebound). Table 2 shows the data gathered from the report. It can be seen that the crash test only produced four physically plausible data point to determine the coefcient of restitution. The four results have a large relative spread but an overall small value for restitution. Keep in mind, the restitution values computed are for a vehicle striking a solid barrier at 35 mph. Justication of using the coefcient of restitution from crash test to actual crashes is not based on physical principle, but rather an understanding that the variation of the coefcient of restitution from the crash test most likely encompasses a particular crash in question. Recent researchers have developed techniques to determine a composite coefcient of restitution based on physical models [13]. If a crash test is not available or the coefcient of restitution is desired for different speeds and vehicles, then a literature search is necessary to justify the coefcient of restitution. A detailed paper by Monson and Germane [14] contains both results of the mean and standard deviation for coefcient of restitution based on crash test data. Some results from Ref. [14] are shown in Table 3. Another detailed report of the coefcient of restitution based on test results was written by Prasad in Ref. [15].
42
4.6. Concluding Remarks on Restitution
4.6. Concluding Remarks on Restitution

In this section, we have shown three denitions of the coefcient of restitution. All three denitions give the same results for in-line collisions. The energetic denition reects reality the best as it prevents the violation of the conservation of energy. In eccentric impacts with friction (i.e., cars stick together or slide in the impact zone) the coefcient of restitution only applies to the direction normal (perpendicular) to the contact plane. Analyzing a collision with a signicant impulse in the tangent (sliding) direction requires the introduction of additional coefcients and is beyond the scope of this paper.1 The empirical problem of high data scatter plagues the use of coefcient of restitution as well as stiffness values. One argument for using the coefcient of restitution is that it has a dened lower bound (zero) that has physical meaning. Furthermore, extensive studies in the literature can be found on restitution, for example, see Ref. [14]. Techniques have also been published on combining crush energy and planar impact mechanics (e.g. [16, 17]). Finally, the evaluation of the coefcient of restitution provides a check on a completed reconstruction.
5. Analysis of Underride Collisions

In this section we will examine the two under-ride collisions to see if we can apply a damage energy technique. We will develop the damage prole and see if we can use it to determine the impact speeds for the collisions. The damage-momentum solution was determined using WinCRASH and the detailed results are contained in the Appendix.
5.1. 1989 Plymouth Voyager Van into the rear of the tractor-trailer
At incidence, the van had a speed of 39 mph while the tractor-trailer was sitting still with the spring brakes engaged. Post collision measurements show a damage prole at two different levels: the bumper and the roof. Both levels were measured (in inches) with the following equally spaced crush measurements across a width of L = 57.7 inches: Location Bumper Roof C1 0 2 C2 10 8 C3 15 11 C4 20 30
The A stiffness coefcient was determined to be 284.2 lb/in and the B stiffness coefcient is 72 lb/in2 . If we use only the bumper crush measurements as our damage prole we get the
1A
detailed discussion of collisions with friction can be found in Refs. [9, 10, 11].
43
following WinCRASH results: Ecrush = 47, 500 ft-lb v = 19.6 mph which is far below the actual impact speed of 39 mph. This underestimation is expected because we are ignoring all the damage above the bumper. Tumbas and Smith [18] propose that we not only measure the crush at the bumper but also at the level where maximum crush occurs. They propose that we use the deepest measurement at each measurement station unless there is a difference of 5 inches or more between the two measurements. In this case we average the two measurements and use the average in calculations. When we conduct the analysis using this measurement protocol we get the following WinCRASH results: Ecrush = 55, 308 ft-lb v = 21.2 mph which still under estimates the speed. Why are the v estimates from CRASH III erroneous in the case of an underride? The following list gives some explanations: 1. Frictional forces from the tractor-trailer are impulsive in the case of an underride collision. The rst reason for this is that the tractor-trailer unit is signicantly heavier than the bullet vehicle and duration of the crash is longer. Since impulse is Ft both longer collision times and larger frictional forces push the formerly neglected impulse into relevance. 2. The collision impulse acts to rotate the rear of the bullet vehicle down and to the outside. The 2-D limitation of our analysis completely ignores this downward impulse. Furthermore, the bullet vehicle is constrained by the earth which imparts an impulsive constraining force back on the vehicle. Again, we do not have a way of quantifying the impulsive ground forces during the collision. 3. The stiffness values are empirically derived from NHTSA crash tests. These crash test then indicate stiffness for the particular conguration (e.g., frontal barrier), not the stiffness of the softer upper portion of the vehicle. 4. The measurement protocol is not well understood and differences in measuring render different results. 5. The energy absorbed by the ICC bumper of the truck was completely ignored. The coefcient of restitution can be calculated based on Eq. (78) given that m1 = 2900/32.2 = 90.06 slugs and m2 = 27, 850/32.2 = 864.9 slugs. The erroneous approach speed was given in
44
5.2. 1994 Jeep Cherokee into the rear of the tractor-trailer
WinCRASH as 25.6 mph for the bullet van. The coefcient of restitution is: = 1 2Ecrush ( m1 + m2 ) m1 m2 ( v 1 v 2 )2 2(55, 308)(90.06 + 864.9) 90.06(864.9)[25.6(1.466) 0]2
= 0.19
This value for restitution is not unreasonable for a vehicle to vehicle crash with post collision separation. However, since these vehicle remained in contact, a coefcient of restitution closer to zero would indicate closer agreement with he physical evidence. Computing a reasonable coefcient of restitution does not guarantee the validity of the solution using damage momentum because the closing speeds were based on the damage energy to begin with. If the estimated damage energy is incorrect, then the speed estimates will also be incorrect even if the ratio of crush energy and incoming kinetic energy are consistent. The real power of checking a solution is using the determination of the coefcient of restitution to assess the accuracy of the crush energy based on an independent solution for the incoming speeds. If we use the known actual impact speed of 39 mph, then the coefcient of restitution is determined as: = 1 2Ecrush ( m1 + m2 ) m1 m2 ( v 1 v 2 )2 2(55, 308)(90.06 + 864.9) 90.06(864.9)[39(1.466) 0]2
= 0.768
which is obviously way to high. Therefore, the estimated crush energy was too low.
5.2. 1994 Jeep Cherokee into the rear of the tractor-trailer

Post collision measurements show a damage prole at three different levels. Those levels are the bumper, the hood, and the roof level. All three levels were measured (in inches) with the following equally spaced crush measurements across a width L = 50.5 inches: Location Bumper Hood Roof C1 6 56 8 C2 7 48 7 C3 7 45 12 C4 0 34 1
45
The A stiffness coefcient was determined to be 358.8 lb/in and the B stiffness coefcient is 114.2 lb/in2 . If we use the bumper height measurements we get the following WinCRASH results: Ecrush = 19, 569 ft-lb v = 12 mph which is far below the actual impact speed of 37 mph. If we follow the Tumbas and Smith protocol and average the deepest crush with the bumper we get the following WinCRASH results: Ecrush = 204, 920 ft-lb v = 39 mph The WinCRASH analysis gives a closing speed of 49 mph which overestimates the speed of the Jeep by about 10 mph or 27%. Due to the shape of the Jeep, the hood was engaged with the rails of the truck from the incidence until separation and represented the most amount of crush damage. Since the hood is soft compared to the frame, the energy energy estimated based on the hood will be high.
5.3. Under-ride Analysis Conclusions

Lets examine some of the results. The v values listed are a function of post-impact velocity, effective (dynamic) mass ratio, and the damage energy. If we look at the results together we see that we have an average error of about 30%. One vehicle result is 33% below the actual speed and one vehicle result is 27% above the actual speed. One reason for this is the difference in the height and length of the front of the vehicles. This affected how much above the bumper interaction occurred before the bumper struck a solid part of the trailer. Another problem that we face is that although we are able to measure the crush and mathematically arrive at an answer for the under-ride collisions we are actually measuring the crush horizontally and using stiffness coefcients that were determined with crashes that have horizontal impulse vectors (forces parallel to the roadway) and trying to apply them to crashes where the impulse vectors are not parallel to the roadway. The impulse vectors are actually trying to drive the colliding vehicles into the roadway. This non-horizontal force is evident in the crash video and the post collision photos where we can actually see the vehicles have been crushed downward as well as to the rear. Hence, both of these collisions are constrained by the ground and we have not quantied any ground forces that may be acting on the bullet vehicle. The angle of the impulse vector in these under-ride collisions is affected by many factors. Some of these factors are vehicle shapes and sizes as well as trailer characteristics. This makes any attempt to use a damage momentum solution for this type of
46
underride collision unreliable when using current techniques.
6. Summary and Conclusions

We began by discussing the Crash III impact and energy models, dening such terms as crush energy, effective mass ratio, stiffness coefcients and the like. We have seen the purpose of the Crash III model is to ultimately calculate the magnitude of the v vector. We have seen how to calculate the Campbell model coefcients, A, B, & G, which are based upon the deformation of an ideal, inelastic (irreversible) spring. We have seen that damage energy may be determined by the planar damage area, the depth of the centroid of the damage area, and the A, B, & G coefcients. We have seen how to locate the centroid and damage area mathematically. In this paper, we have discussed classical impact models based upon Newtons Laws of Motion. We have examined the idea of coefcient of restitution in three different ways. The rst denition of coefcient of restitution is the kinematic model, based upon the ratio of the relative velocities of approach divided by the relative velocities of rescission. This is Newtons formulation. Next, we looked at the kinetic model of coefcient of restitution, as postulated by Poisson in the 1800s. This kinetic model essentially denes the coefcient of restitution as the ratio of the magnitude of the rebound impulse divided by the magnitude of the deformation impulse. Lastly, we examined an energetic denition of impulse as formulated by Stronge. Stronges Hypothesis says, in essence, that the coefcient of restitution squared is the ratio of the work done in rebound divided by the work done to deform the colliding objects. Since work is a force acting through a distance, the objects must be deformable to some degree. Most all real world objects are deformable, if only a small amount, so the method has utility for many impact congurations. We have also seen how the coefcient of restitution is a function not only of material properties, as postulated by Newton, but is also a function of the relative impact velocity. We have also seen, for oblique impacts, that the coefcient of restitution is dened normal to the impact plane. In oblique impacts, there may also be a tangent frictional force present, which may need additional terms outside the coefcient of restitution. We have not quantied any tangential (sliding) forces, but have referred the reader to several references where this topic is discussed. We have seen how to determine the maximum amount of kinetic energy that may be lost in a collision. We have presented a coefcient of restitution model that may be used to determine the coefcient of restitution using the damage energy calculated from the Crash III method. We have seen how this coefcient of restitution may be used as a sanity check on any damagemomentum solution. We have presented test data showing reasonable values for coefcient of restitution for real world crashes.
47
References
Finally, we have re-examined the crash tests from SP 2005. We see the Crash III model gives good results for the impacts that occurred at right angles into the trailer tandems. We have further shown that treating the tractor-trailer as a movable barrier and using the measurement protocol from Tumbas and Smith will result in inconsistent results and should not be used for speed reconstruction. Because the trailer was treated as a movable barrier, there was no damage energy associated with it. In reality, there was work done to deform some of the trailer structure and this work was not accounted for. In addition, the bullet vehicles in the two underride crashes were also constrained by the ground, and these increased ground forces were not quantied. As of this writing, there are no tested methods for dealing with either the ground force from this constraint nor the work required to deform the trailer structure.
References
[1] P. V. Hight, D. B. Kent-Koop, and R. A. Hight, Barrier equivalent velocity, delta v and CRASH3 stiffness in automobile collisions, SAE Technical Paper Series, no. 850437, 1985. [2] J. G. Daily, N. Shigemura, and J. S. Daily, Fundamentals of Trafc Crash Reconstruction. Jacksonville, Florida: Institute of Police Technololgy and Managment, University of North Florida, 2006. [3] B. F. Schmidt, W. R. Haight, T. J. Szabo, and J. B. Welcher, System-based energy and momentum analysis of collisions, in Accident Reconstruction: Technology and Animation VIII SP-1319, no. 980026, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, February 1998. [4] CRASH3 Technical Manual. National Highway Trafc Safety Administration, Washington D.C. Accessed on 2 Aug 2005 at http://www-nass.nhtsa.dot.gov/NASS/MANUALS/Crash3Man.pdf. [5] J. A. Neptune, G. Y. Blair, and J. E. Flynn, A method for quantifying vehicle crush stiffness coefcients, SAE Technical Paper Series, no. 920607, 1992. [6] K. L. Campbell, Energy basis for collision severity, SAE Technical Paper Series, no. 740565, 1974. [7] F. P. Beer and E. R. J. Jr., Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 5th ed., 1988. [8] R. C. Hibbeler, Engineering Mechanics: Dynamics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 10th ed., 2004. [9] W. J. Stronge, Impact Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
48
References
[10] R. M. Brach, Rigid body collisions, Transactions of the ASME: Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 53, pp. 133138, 1989. [11] J. B. Keller, Impact with friction, Transactions of the ASME: Journal of Applied Mechanics, vol. 53, pp. 14, 1986. [12] J. Daily, Fundamentals of Trafc Accident Reconstruction. Jacksonville, Florida: Institute of Police Technololgy and Managment, University of North Florida, 1988. [13] J. Coaplen, W. J. Stronge, and B. Ravani, Work equivalent composite coefcient of restitution, International Journal of Impact Engineering, vol. 30, pp. 581591, 2004. [14] K. L. Monson and G. J. Germane, Determination and mechanisms of motor vehicle structural restitution from crash test data, in Accident Reconstruction: Technology and Animation IX SP-1407, no. 1999-01-0097, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, March 1999. [15] A. K. Prasad, Coefcient of restitution of vehicle structures and its use in estimating the total v in automobile collisions, ASME AMD: Crashworthiness and Occupant Protection in Transportation Systems, vol. 126, pp. 217246, 1991. [16] J. F. Kerkoff, M. S. Varat, S. E. Husher, A. M. Busenga, and K. Hamilton, An investigation into vehicle frontal impact stiffness, BEV and repeated testing for reconstruction, SAE Technical Paper Series, no. 930899, 1993. [17] R. M. Brach, D. F. Rudny, and D. W. Sallmann, Comparison of tire friction test methodologies used in accident reconstruction, in Accident Reconstruction: Technology and Animation VIII SP-1319, no. 980367, pp. 239248, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, February 1998. [18] N. S. Tumbas and R. A. Smith, Measuring protocol for quantifying vehicle damage from and energy basis point of view, SAE Technical Paper Series, no. 880072, 1988.
49
A. Analysis of the Nissan Crash

The results for the v of the Nissan and the total damage energy are valid. The closing speed results are not valid. The program is not exible enough to impose constraints on the motion so the rotation around the kingpin is not modeled properly. Instead, we used a movable barrier with a weight of of 2 w2 = 0.433(13, 425) = 5812 lbs. This rendered accurate results only for the v of the Nissan.
File Name : Project Name : Desc :
NISSAN.SLM Nissan Crash IPTM 2005 Crash Test
Date : File Number :
4/11/2006
WinCrash Project Report
Vehicle 1 NISSAN Vehicle Description 1992 Nissan Sentra 2dr
Vehicle 2 NEWCAR2
Licensed to : Organization : Serial Number :
Russell H Strickland Fairfield Police SW200-183-144-114499
Weight and Car Data

File Name : Project Name : Desc : NISSAN.SLM Nissan Crash IPTM 2005 Crash Test Date : File Number :
Page: 2 4/11/2006
VEHICLE 1 Default Type Collision Surface Weight Radius of Gyration squared Vehicle Dimensions Roh : 38.0 in
NISSAN Sub Compact Front 2408 lb 2951 in2
Loa : 170.0 in WB : 96.0 in
Foh : 36.0 in
Wtb : 891 lb
Wta : 1517 lb Yw : 67.2 in
b : 60.5 in
a : 35.5 in
Xr : 98.5 in
Xf : 71.5 in
NEWCAR2 Moveable Barrier Front 5813 lb 4024 in2 Loa : 180.0 in WB : 120.0 in Foh : 30.0 in
Wtb : 2616 lb
Wta : 3197 lb Yw : 100.0 in
b : 66.0 in
a : 54.0 in
Xr : 96.0 in Russell H Strickland Fairfield Police SW200-183-144-114499
Xf : 84.0 in
Damage Data
Page: 3 4/11/2006
DAMAGE DATA Profile Damage Width, L Profile Offset, D Damage Offset, LR Pdof Force Location Xp Yp
NISSAN Standard 66.0 in 0.0 in -33.0 in 0.0 deg Crush Centroid 59.5 in 0.6 in
NEWCAR2 Standard 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 in 0.0 deg User Defined 84.0 in 0.0 in
Stiffness, A Stiffness, B Number of Coefficients Damage Dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 C 22.0 in 21.5 in 24.6 in 26.6 in 24.5 in 22.0 in
188.0 lb/in 41.0 lb/in2 6 L 0.0 in 13.2 in 26.4 in 39.6 in 52.8 in 66.0 in C
9999999 lb/in 9999999 lb/in2 0 L
Damage Results
File Name : Project Name : Desc : DAMAGE RESULTS Delta V EBS Force Delta Omega Moment Arm Magnification Factor Mass Ratio Damage Energy COMMON RESULTS Impulse, IMP Collision Time, Dt Total Energy, Et Closing Speed, Vd 3110.7 lb-sec +/- 116.9 lb-sec 0.081 sec +/- 0.008 sec 91423 ft-lb +/- 6864 ft-lb 40.1 mph +/- 1.2 mph NISSAN.SLM Nissan Crash IPTM 2005 Crash Test NISSAN 28.3 mph +/- 1.1 mph 33.7 mph +/- 1.3 mph 76925 lb +/- 6570 lb 6 deg/sec +/- 101 deg/sec 0.6 in +/- 10.4 in 1.00 +/- 0.00 1.00 +/- 0.00 91423 ft-lb +/- 6864 ft-lb Date : File Number :
Page: 4 4/11/2006
NEWCAR2 11.7 mph +/- 0.4 mph 0.0 mph +/- 0.0 mph 0 lb +/- 0 lb 0 deg/sec +/- 43 deg/sec 0.0 in +/- 14.7 in 0.00 +/- 0.00 1.00 +/- 0.00 0 ft-lb +/- 0 ft-lb
Project Warnings
Page: 5 4/11/2006
Current Warning Flag Settings

Vehicle Warnings NISSAN No vehicle warnings were noted Project Warnings No Project warnings were noted NEWCAR2
Confidence levels
A Stiffness Value B Stiffness Value Pdof Error Distance Error Lockup Sensitivity Separation Heading Error Approach Heading Error 10.0 % 10.0 % 10.0 deg 10.0 % 0.1 5.0 deg 5.0 deg
B. Analysis of the Plymouth Van Crash
VAN.SLM voyager1
3/28/2006
Vehicle 1 VOYAGER Vehicle Description 1989 plyouth voyager
Vehicle 2 NEWCAR2
Weight and Car Data

File Name : Project Name : Desc : VAN.SLM voyager1 Date : File Number :
Page: 2 3/28/2006
VOYAGER Van Front 3046 lb 3187 in2
Loa : 181.8 in WB : 112.2 in
Foh : 28.8 in
Wtb : 1249 lb
Wta : 1797 lb Yw : 72.0 in
b : 66.2 in
a : 46.0 in
Xr : 107.0 in
Xf : 74.8 in
Wtb : 12533 lb
Wta : 15318 lb Yw : 100.0 in
b : 66.0 in
a : 54.0 in
Xf : 84.0 in
Damage Data
Page: 3 3/28/2006
VOYAGER Standard 57.7 in 10.0 in -18.9 in 0.0 deg Crush Centroid 67.6 in 17.8 in
Stiffness, A Stiffness, B Number of Coefficients Damage Dimensions 1 2 3 4 C 0.0 in 10.0 in 15.0 in 20.0 in
284.2 lb/in 72.0 lb/in2 4 L 0.0 in 19.2 in 38.5 in 57.7 in C
9999999 lb/in 9999999 lb/in2 0 L
Damage Results
File Name : Project Name : Desc : DAMAGE RESULTS Delta V EBS Force Delta Omega Moment Arm Magnification Factor Mass Ratio Damage Energy COMMON RESULTS Impulse, IMP Collision Time, Dt Total Energy, Et Closing Speed, Vd 2728.1 lb-sec 0.084 sec 47500 ft-lb 23.7 mph VAN.SLM voyager1 Date : File Number :
Page: 4 3/28/2006
VOYAGER 19.6 mph 20.6 mph 64875 lb 111 deg/sec 17.8 in 1.00 0.91 47500 ft-lb
NEWCAR2 2.1 mph 0.0 mph 0 lb 0 deg/sec 0.0 in 0.00 1.00 0 ft-lb
Project Warnings
Page: 5 3/28/2006

Vehicle Warnings VOYAGER No vehicle warnings were noted Project Warnings No Project warnings were noted NEWCAR2
Confidence levels
VAN2.SLM voyager1
3/28/2006
Vehicle 1 VOYAGER Vehicle Description 1989 plyouth voyager
Vehicle 2 NEWCAR2
Weight and Car Data

File Name : Project Name : Desc : VAN2.SLM voyager1 Date : File Number :
Page: 2 3/28/2006
VOYAGER Van Front 3046 lb 3187 in2
Loa : 181.8 in WB : 112.2 in
Foh : 28.8 in
Wtb : 1249 lb
Wta : 1797 lb Yw : 72.0 in
b : 66.2 in
a : 46.0 in
Xr : 107.0 in
Xf : 74.8 in
Wtb : 12533 lb
Wta : 15318 lb Yw : 100.0 in
b : 66.0 in
a : 54.0 in
Xf : 84.0 in
Damage Data
Page: 3 3/28/2006
VOYAGER Standard 57.7 in 10.0 in -18.9 in 0.0 deg Crush Centroid 66.9 in 17.9 in
9999999 lb/in 9999999 lb/in2 0 L
Damage Results
File Name : Project Name : Desc : DAMAGE RESULTS Delta V EBS Force Delta Omega Moment Arm Magnification Factor Mass Ratio Damage Energy COMMON RESULTS Impulse, IMP Collision Time, Dt Total Energy, Et Closing Speed, Vd 2941.5 lb-sec 0.084 sec 55308 ft-lb 25.6 mph VAN2.SLM voyager1 Date : File Number :
Page: 4 3/28/2006
VOYAGER 21.2 mph 22.2 mph 69710 lb 120 deg/sec 17.9 in 1.00 0.91 55308 ft-lb
Project Warnings
Page: 5 3/28/2006

Vehicle Warnings VOYAGER No vehicle warnings were noted Project Warnings No Project warnings were noted NEWCAR2
Confidence levels
C. Analysis of the Jeep Crash
JEEP2.SLM jeep bumper jeep
3/28/2006
Vehicle 1 JEEP Vehicle Description 1994 jeep cherokee
Vehicle 2 NEWCAR2
Weight and Car Data

File Name : Project Name : Desc : JEEP2.SLM jeep bumper jeep Date : File Number :
Page: 2 3/28/2006
JEEP Intermediate Front 3350 lb 2626 in2
Loa : 165.4 in WB : 101.6 in
Foh : 27.6 in
Wtb : 1397 lb
Wta : 1953 lb Yw : 70.5 in
b : 59.2 in
a : 42.4 in
Xr : 95.4 in
Xf : 70.0 in
Wtb : 12533 lb
Wta : 15318 lb Yw : 100.0 in
b : 66.0 in
a : 54.0 in
Xf : 84.0 in
Damage Data
Page: 3 3/28/2006
JEEP Standard 50.5 in -12.8 in -38.0 in 0.0 deg Crush Centroid 56.8 in -14.7 in
9999999 lb/in 9999999 lb/in2 0 L
Damage Results
File Name : Project Name : Desc : DAMAGE RESULTS Delta V EBS Force Delta Omega Moment Arm Magnification Factor Mass Ratio Damage Energy COMMON RESULTS Impulse, IMP Collision Time, Dt Total Energy, Et Closing Speed, Vd 5956.3 lb-sec 0.071 sec 204920 ft-lb 46.9 mph JEEP2.SLM jeep bumper jeep JEEP 39.0 mph 41.1 mph 167117 lb -221 deg/sec -14.7 in 1.00 0.92 204920 ft-lb Date : File Number :
Page: 4 3/28/2006
Project Warnings
Page: 5 3/28/2006

Vehicle Warnings JEEP No vehicle warnings were noted Project Warnings No Project warnings were noted NEWCAR2
Confidence levels
JEEP1.SLM jeep bumper jeep
3/28/2006
Vehicle 1 JEEP Vehicle Description 1994 jeep cherokee
Vehicle 2 NEWCAR2
Weight and Car Data

Page: 2 3/28/2006
JEEP Intermediate Front 3350 lb 2626 in2
Loa : 165.4 in WB : 101.6 in
Foh : 27.6 in
Wtb : 1397 lb
Wta : 1953 lb Yw : 70.5 in
b : 59.2 in
a : 42.4 in
Xr : 95.4 in
Xf : 70.0 in
Wtb : 12533 lb
Wta : 15318 lb Yw : 100.0 in
b : 66.0 in
a : 54.0 in
Xf : 84.0 in
Damage Data
Page: 3 3/28/2006
JEEP Standard 50.5 in -12.8 in -38.0 in 0.0 deg Crush Centroid 66.8 in -16.3 in
9999999 lb/in 9999999 lb/in2 0 L
Damage Results
File Name : Project Name : Desc : DAMAGE RESULTS Delta V EBS Force Delta Omega Moment Arm Magnification Factor Mass Ratio Damage Energy COMMON RESULTS Impulse, IMP Collision Time, Dt Total Energy, Et Closing Speed, Vd 1827.0 lb-sec 0.072 sec 19569 ft-lb 14.6 mph JEEP1.SLM jeep bumper jeep JEEP 12.0 mph 12.6 mph 50820 lb -75 deg/sec -16.3 in 1.00 0.91 19569 ft-lb Date : File Number :
Page: 4 3/28/2006
Project Warnings
Page: 5 3/28/2006

Vehicle Warnings JEEP No vehicle warnings were noted Project Warnings No Project warnings were noted NEWCAR2
Confidence levels

Crush and Restitution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crush and Restitution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Institute of Police Technology and Managements 24th Annual Special Problems in Trafc Crash Reconstruction

Crush Analysis with Under-rides and the Coefcient of Restitution

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

1.1. Recap of Crash Tests from 2005

Rear Dual Axle Crash #4

A 1993 Honda Accord (VIN:1HGCB7693PA090661) was pulled

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

1.2. Review of Conservation of Linear Momentum

1.2. Review of Conservation of Linear Momentum

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

2. Damage Momentum Analysis

2. Damage Momentum Analysis

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

2.2. A Planar (Two Dimensional) Impact Model

2.2. A Planar (Two Dimensional) Impact Model

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

2. Damage Momentum Analysis

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

2.2. A Planar (Two Dimensional) Impact Model

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

2. Damage Momentum Analysis

(11) this value into Eq. (11):

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

For vehicle #1: a1 = ac = v1 t vc t (16) (17)

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

2. Damage Momentum Analysis

k2 2 k 2 + h2 2 2 1010.9 1010.9 + 36.42

k2 2 k 2 + h2 2 2 93.83 93.83 + 11.092

21 Ecrush m1 1 + 1 m1 2 m2 2(1)(110, 100) 1315 1 +

2(32.2)(1)(81, 200) 2900 1 +

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

vc v2 27.3 ft (8.32 m) 36.4 ft (11.09 m)

2(32.2)(0.433)(81, 200) 13, 425 1 +

2(0.433)(110, 100) 6090 1 +

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

3. Determining Crush Energy

US vc 36.4 = = 1.333 v2 27.3 vc = 1.333v2

SI 11.09 vc = = 1.333 v2 8.32 vc = 1.333v2

= 1.333(7.49) = 9.98 ft/s

= 1.333(2.28) = 3.04 m/s

= 34.68 + 9.98 = 44.66 ft/s

= 10.57 + 3.04 = 13.61 m/s

3. Determining Crush Energy

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

3.1. The General Energy Model

L Narrow width rectangles

3.1. The General Energy Model

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

3. Determining Crush Energy

Factoring out the area term gives: ET = A+ Bx 2 AD + A2 L 2B (25) x . Thus, we can 2

3.2. CRASH III Deformation Model

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

3.2. CRASH III Deformation Model

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

3. Determining Crush Energy

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

3.2. CRASH III Deformation Model

c 2006 Jeremy Daily, Russell Strickland, and John Daily

3. Determining Crush Energy Impact Speed

3.3. Determining Damage Area

1 1 2 m1 + m2 ( Ft )rebound 1 1 2 + m m ( Ft )de f orm