Method for Estimating Vehicle-Specific Frontal Stiffness Values in the Absence of an Applicable Crash Test Using Methodically-Distilled Data from the NHTSA Crash Database (Phase 1)

Gaffney, Tia Lange; Winter, Blake; Elston, Arky; Sandvik, Andreas; Pok, Tandy; Richardson, Shane; Josevski, Nikola

doi:10.4271/2015-01-0027

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the discussed parameters belongs b 0 , which represents the impact speed at which no residual structural damage is expected to occur. In our analysis the used range (6–12 km/h) of b 0 values chosen based on literature review [ 2 , 11 , 14 , 23 – 25 ] did not lead to statistically significant differences in the resulting EES in the whole dataset. The used b 0 range had a significant effect on the resulting EES value only in the case of SUVs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Limit speed b 0 is the maximum flat fixed barrier impact speed which produces no residual crushing. Previous papers refer to several b 0 value ranges [ 2 , 11 , 14 , 17 , 23 – 25 ] in relation to the type of impact (front, rear or side impact), the wheelbase, vehicle type, etc. Used b 0 values usually range from 6 km/h up to 14 km/h.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Daily et al [ 14 ] a value of 5 mph (8 km/h) is typically assigned for front and rear impacts and a value of 2 mph (3 km/h) for side impacts. Vangi [ 2 ] and Gaffney et al [ 23 ] state that b 0 is around 8 km/h for both front and rear impacts and basically constant for all vehicles. Kubiak et al [ 24 ] stated that based on NHTSA data, b 0 ranges from 2 to 4 m/s (7.2 to 14.4 km/h).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What should I use to calculate vehicle EES?

Moravcová,

Bucsuházy,

Zůvala

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comprehensive crash analysis includes calculating impact speed, which requires the determination of kinetic energy expended on the deformation of the vehicle’s structural elements at the point of contact during a collision. The accuracy of the input data affects the resulting analysis of the crash. Therefore, this article aims to analyse selected factors influencing the determination of Energy Equivalent Speed (EES) determination using the CRASH3 algorithm: the extent of damage using defined measurement points, deformation width, and also limit speed b0. The variables were varied depending on selected factors such as the extent of damage, the type of collision (overlap), and also vehicle type (vehicle category classification). The presented study concluded that using 2 equally spaced measurement points to define the deformation profile should not be recommended in forensic practice when using CRASH3 algorithm. Using 7 measurement points seems more appropriate in case of equal spacing, even though the differences in calculated EES are not high when using 5 or 6 measurement points, especially with respect to the inaccuracy/technically acceptable tolerance of the EES value determination. The resulting EES is significantly influenced by variation of the deformation width. The used b0 range had a significant effect on the resulting EES value only in the case of SUVs. These vehicles show higher stiffness, which supposes the use of lower b0 values should not be recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What should I use to calculate vehicle EES?

Moravcová,

Bucsuházy,

Zůvala

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the previous studies used for the analysis of the methods accuracy simulated accident scenario (e.g. Randles, 2010;Gaffney, 2015;Castaneda, 2012). As one of the main advantages of the study could be mentioned that not only the deformation of the vehicles damaged during crash tests or simulated accident scenarios were analysed, but also the real accidents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Comparison of 3D and 2D Measurement Techniques Used for the Analysis of Vehicle Deformation

Bradáč

Zůvala

Moravcová

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As one of the main assumptions for the accident analysis has been detailed information about vehicle deformation. The precise deformation depth allows to quantify deformation energy and related impact speed. The aim of this paper has been the comparison of two selected methods used for the determination of deformation depth. For the purpose of this paper were selected top-view photography as basic and cheap method and 3D scanning as modern and advanced method. Different vehicles and 2 basic types of damagefrontal and side impact-were chosen for the analysis. Also, the different range of vehicle deformation depth were selected. On the basis of obtained results is possible to determine the applicability of these methods, their advantages and limitations.

show abstract

Method for Estimating Vehicle-Specific Frontal Stiffness Values in the Absence of an Applicable Crash Test Using Methodically-Distilled Data from the NHTSA Crash Database (Phase 1)

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

What should I use to calculate vehicle EES?

What should I use to calculate vehicle EES?

The Comparison of 3D and 2D Measurement Techniques Used for the Analysis of Vehicle Deformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About