Campbell
Campbell
Campbell
IMPACT VELOCITIES
Jiang T.1, Grzebieta R.H.1, Rechnitzer G.1,
Richardson S.2 and Zhao X.L.1
1
Department of Civil Engineering,
Monash University, 2DV Experts
Australia
Paper Number 439
ABSTRACT
This paper reviews different force versus crush
empirical equations for cars used in accident
reconstruction over the past three decades. These
equations are compared to numerous data obtained
from various sources. A strategy for selecting the
most appropriate equations to use for determining
the frontal stiffness characteristics of a car for
accident reconstruction, simulation modeling, and
design purposes is also proposed. Estimates of error
bands for a particular strategy chosen given
available crash test data, are also provided.
INTRODUCTION
Estimates of vehicle speed changes during impacts
are important for assessing the impact speed and
hence crash severity of real world road accidents
for research, insurance claims and litigation
purposes. The term commonly used to define the
speed change during an impact is Delta V. A
method, essentially empirical, based on a vehicles
crush deformation and crush energy has been
widely used to determine Delta V. Generally, for a
frontal collinear car-to-car impact, from the crush
profiles of the two cars involved, the crush energy
can be calculated as
E1 =
w01
C1
F1 (C )dCdw
0 0
w02 C 2
E2 =
F2 (C )dCdw
(1).
(2).
2M 2 ( E1 + E2 )
;
M 1 (M 1 + M 2 )
Delta V2 =
2M 1 ( E1 + E2 )
M 2 (M 1 + M 2 )
(3).
V
= b0 + b1C
3.6
(4).
Jiang 1
Mb0 b1
w0
(6).
B=
Mb12
w0
(7).
50
Impact Speed (mph)
A=
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Jiang 2
40
30
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
E=
1 2
kx
2
E 1 k 2
= ( )x
w0 2 w0
(9).
2E
=
w0
k
x
w0
(10).
2E
and B = k , and
w0
w0
considering that some initial elastic deformation
energy is required before permanent crush results,
the following equation is arrived at
Assigning
EAF =
EAF = EAF0 + B x
(11).
50
(8).
Jiang 3
300
EAF
250
200
300
R^2 = 0.989
150
100
250
50
200
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
EAF
0
Crush (inches)
150
100
300
50
EAF
250
200
150
R^2 = 0.990
10
20
30
40
50
Crush (inches)
100
50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Crush (inches)
EAF
Engine
Compartment
Crush
Neptune [8] also found that while a linear forcecrush relationship could be demonstrated up to 56
km/h for 1981 to 1985 model Ford Escort cars,
when the impact speed was greater than 56 km/h,
the vehicle no longer displayed a linear
relationship. The Escort dissipated less energy per
unit crush above 56 km/h (see Figure 8). Neptune
further concluded that in high severity collisions,
the crush response characteristic of this vehicle
could be divided into two regions, the engine
compartment crush region and the occupant
compartment crush region. Hence, the vehicle
could be modelled as a bi-linear dissipator where
the second dissipator (occupant compartment) does
not compress until the first dissipator (engine
compartment) bottoms out.
Engine
Compartment
Crush
Occupant
Compartment
Crush
EAF
56 km/h
(35 mph)
(Repeat Series)
1986-91 Full
Crush (inche s)
8 to 64 km/h
63 to 64 km/h
80 km/h
Crush (inche s)
Bi-Linear Equation
Some vehicles crash test data also showed a nonlinear trend. Strother et al [5], using EAF versus
Jiang 4
EAF
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Crush (inches)
200
EAF
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
Crush (inches)
Data Analysis
Jiang 5
2E
M (V / 3.6) 2
=
w0
w0
(12).
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
300
600
900
1200
EAF
EAF =
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
300
600
900
1200
Average Crush (m m)
As can be seen from Figure 12, an approximate bilinear trend can be observed for all passenger cars.
With regards to vans, pickup trucks and 4WDs,
crash data over 56 km/h is not available, and there
are only several crash tests available at low impact
speeds. Nevertheless, a linear trend up to 56 km/h
is evident as shown in Figures 13, 14 and 15.
Crash data of passenger cars was further grouped
according to engine configurations. Data was
segregated and graphed for cars with the same
engine placement (transverse or inline), the same
number of cylinders (4 cylinders, V6 cylinders,
Straight 6 cylinders or V8 cylinders) and with
similar engine capacity. Only the data for cars that
were crash tested over a range of impact speeds are
shown here. Where cars were only tested at two
speeds (48 km/h and 56 km/h) data was omitted as
these were effectively single point tests.
600
EAF
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
300
600
900
1200
EAF
EAF
700
600
500
400
300
200
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1.6L
1.7L
1.8L
1.9L
1-1.5L
100
0
0
300
600
900
1200
Average Crush (m m)
Figure 14.
300
600
900
Average Crush (m m )
1200
Figure 16. EAF vs crush for cars with a 4cylinder transverse engine (1.0L~1.9L).
Jiang 6
600
500
EAF
EAF
700
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
400
2.5L
300
200
100
0
300
600
900
Average Crush (m m )
1200
Figure 17. EAF vs crush for cars with a 4cylinder inline engine (1.3L~2.6L).
300
600
900
Average Crush (mm)
1200
Figure 20. EAF vs crush for cars with a 4cylinder transverse engine (2.5L).
500
400
300
S6
200
100
0
0
300
600
900
Average Crush (mm)
1200
Figure 18. EAF vs crush for cars with an S6cylinder transverse engine (2.5L~3.8L).
Figure 19 shows data for cars that have a V8cylinder inline engine with engine capacities
ranging from 4.9 L to 6.9 L. The maximum impact
speed in this case is 57 km/h. Figure 20 shows data
for cars that have a 2.5L 4-cylinder transverse
engine where the maximum impact speed is 56.6
km/h. Both data plots indicate that a linear
relationship exists between EAF and average crush.
ECF =
2E
=
w0
M (V 2 VR2 )
w0
(13).
700
600
5.0L
500
EAF
5.2L
400
5.7L
300
5.8L
200
5.9-6.9
100
4.9L
0
0
300
600
900
Average Crush (mm)
B = ( slope) 2
A = EAF0 B
(14).
(15).
1200
Figure 19. EAF vs crush for cars with a V8cylinder inline engine (4.9L~6.9L).
Jiang 7
(V / 3.6) b0
b1 =
C
ERROR BANDS
50
Line 2
40
30
Line 2
20
(16).
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
2 / 3
(17).
where: = C1 + 2(C 2 + C3 + C 4 + C5 ) + C 6
b0' =6.7 m/s and the 48 km/h crash test point, b1'
can be obtained via Equation 16 or 17. Similarly,
coefficients for the second phase linear equation
can be determined using Equations 6 and 7.
Crash test data also indicate that even for the same
model car tested at the same impact speed, the test
results differ, as shown in Figure 22. To illustrate
the effect of test data variation (scatter) on the
estimation of Delta V, an example is given here.
2001 Toyota Echo 1.5L
1999 Hyundai Accent1.5L
1999 GM Saturn 1.9L
1999 Audi A8 3.7L
b1 = b0 +
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
300
600
900
Average Crush (mm)
1200
Jiang 8
-1
(V / 3.6) b0 (48.3 / 3.6) 2.2
=
= 32.0 (ms /m)
C
0.350
CONCLUSION
w0 C
1
M ( Delta V ) 2 = F (C )dCdw
0
0
2
w0
( A + BC )dCdw
w0
= ( AC +
0
1
1
BC 2 + G )dw = w0 ( AC + BC 2 + G )
2
2
Delta V =
2w0 ( AC +
1
A2
BC 2 +
)
2
2B
M
(18).
1
49431 49431
718992 0 .468 0 .468 +
2 718992
2
1242
Jiang 9
1.7L
1.8L
1.9L
1-1.5L
700
600
EAF
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Crush (mm)
Figure 23. EAF vs crush of cars with a 4-cylinder transverse engine (1.0L~1.9L) and its data band.
90
72.1
(50 %)
80
60.5
(26 %)
Delta V (km/h)
70
60
56.7
(18 %)
48.1
41.2
(14 %)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Actual result
Using average
F(C) line
Figure 24. Comparison of the actual Delta V and predicted Delta V using different F(C) lines.
Jiang 10
REFERENCES
Jiang 11