in Lateral Pole Impacts Michael S. Varat Stein E. Husher KEVA Engineering Copyright 0 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. ABSTRACT This paper surveys some current technologies in reconstructing lateral narrow object impacts. This is accomplished through a multi-step process. First, staged crash test data is reviewed and presented in order to understand the observable vehicle structural deformation trends. A commonly used crush energy reconstruction algorithm (CRASH) is then applied to the test data and an analysis is made of the application of this tool to this impact mode. The use of default structural parameters as used in CRASH 3 is also discussed. A linear and angular momentum analysis is developed in order to demonstrate closed form vehicle dynamics prediction methodologies for non-central lateral impacts. The momentum methods presented are compared to a commonly used impact simulation tool. Finally, change in velocity (AV) and the use and analysis of AV for lateral pole impact reconstruction is discussed. INTRODUCTION Pole impacts, especially lateral, comprise one of the most aggressive impact environments for automobile structures. Due to the close proximity of occupants to the side structure, these pole impacts represent a more severe crash exposure than comparable impacts to other structures. By their nature, these impacts concentrate the deformation energy in a narrow portion of the vehicle structure. Subsequently, vehicle deformation patterns differ from what is often seen in vehicle to vehicle side impacts. Because of the unique nature of these narrow object impacts, the reconstruction of lateral pole impacts requires a careful analysis of both vehicle structural behavior and the resulting vehicle motion dynamics. The vehicle structural behavior is dependant on many factors which include the deformed area of the vehicle, the structural properties of the vehicle, and the width of the impacting object. The resulting vehicle dynamics are a function of the amount In this paper, the algorithm for crush energy determination as used in CRASH 3 and other commercially available software will be referred to as the CRASH algorithm. 175 of deformation, the location of that deformation on the vehicle and the orientation of the impact impulse. These factors must be accounted for when performing a reconstruction or analysis of these narrow object lateral impacts. Frontal pole impacts have been well addressed in numerous, previous, technical papers. However, lateral pole impacts involve vehicle response that is not commonly seen in frontal collisions. Rotational components often become significant, vehicle structural properties differ from frontals, and crash severity assessment becomes more dependent on location within the vehicle. Though not addressed here, hard spots (e.g., wheel areas) on the sides of vehicles can also significantly influence the resulting deformation patterns and vehicle dynamics. CRUSH ENERGY DETERMINATION The structural response of an impacted vehicle may depend on many factors. These factors include construction type (unibody, frame on body), material (steel, aluminum, plastics such as SMC, etc.), and assembly methods. Additionally, impact parameters also affect the vehicle response, in some instances to a greater degree than vehicle structural properties. The impact parameters include impacting geometry (shape, width, etc.), principal impulse direction, and impact location on the vehicle. In the case of a lateral narrow object impact, the impact parameters are extremely important to the determination of a vehicles response to impact and require careful scrutiny. Vehicle crash testing exists as the most reliable method to evaluate impact response. This crash testing has historically consisted of distributed impacts by flat rigid barriers. These flat barrier impacts load the vehicle in a distributed fashion over a large surface area. This allows many different structural components of the vehicle to resist the intruding barrier and therefore the resulting crush is a function of many different vehicle components. Pole impacts, however, load the vehicle in Table 1. Repeat Barrier Moving Pole Impact Tests. an extremely concentrated fashion. These narrow object impacts concentrate the direct load over a width equal to the pole diameter, which can be extremely small. Therefore, a given amount of absorbed energy for a lateral pole impact will result in increased maximum deformation depth when compared to a flat barrier. The majority of crash test data available to the accident reconstruction engineer consists of flat barrier testing. This is due to compliance testing sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation for the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), none of which, until recently, have included narrow object impacts. Government mandated lateral crash testing has consisted of FMVSS 301 which is a 20 mph lateral impact by a moving flat barrier and FMVSS 214 which is a 33 mph lateral impact by a crabbed moving barrier equipped with a deformable honeycomb face. While FMVSS 214 is not a flat rigid barrier, it is a distributed impact that approximates the impact geometry of the frontal structures of another passenger car. Neither of these impacts serve to simulate a lateral pole impact with its associated narrow load concentration. Recently, the NHTSA has included a 20 mph lateral impact into a rigid pole as a part of the head protection standard. It is hoped, that as these tests become more widespread, that the lateral pole impact database of tests will continue to grow. When researching lateral pole impacts, several data sources become available. More recently, tests have been conducted for the development of the CRASH algorithm reformulation by NHTSA. These moving pole tests are summarized in Table 1. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which has been concerned with the design of roadside devices such as luminaire supports, roadway sign posts, and guardrails, has conducted extensive crash testing of vehicles with narrow objects. As the scope of this paper does not encompass yielding and non-rigid barriers, only the rigid pole impacts are reviewed. If desired, however, yielding and breakaway devices have also been extensively tested and provide useful vehicle response information. These tests conducted by the Federal Highway Administration at the Federal Outdoor Impact Laboratory (FOIL) [Hinch, 19871 facility are available through the National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) at George Washington University and most are summarized in the NHTSA Vehicle Crash Test Database (VCTDB) [ASG, 19851. The FHWA - FOIL database of tests contains baseline tests to evaluate the impact response into rigid poles in order to pursue design activities into breakaway poles and luminaire supports. Applicable FOIL tests are listed in Table 2. Also in Table 2 are single impact pole tests from the VCTDB. When examining Table 2, there are three listed parameters that merit further discussion, maximum crush, path travel distance and impulse moment arm. The maximum crush is listed as a single Table 2. Car to Riaid Pole Imoacts. 176 parameter. As is evident, vehicles having experienced a collision with a rigid pole have a crush profile that varies over the wi dth of di rect and i nduced damage. Historically, maximum crush has been examined in pole impact vehicle crashes because it is representative of the total deceleration distance experienced by the vehicle. Also, for much of the pole impact crash test data available in the public domain, maximum crush is the only readily available crush parameter. Therefore, it is useful to attempt to develop relationships between maximum crush to absorbed energy. Approach and absorbed energy are both listed as available in Table 2. Approach energy is the vehicles kinetic energy at the moment of impact. The absorbed energy is the difference between the vehicle pre-impact and post impact kinetic energy. For centered impacts, with no post impact travel, the approach energy approximates the absorbed energy (assumes zero restitution). For higher speed lateral pole impacts, photographic data indicates low restitution values are often observed. There are some additional tests that were done as a part of NHTSAs research into experimental safety vehicles. These 1981 VW Rabbit tests [Bell, 19841 were done with baseline production vehicles and then modified structure vehicles in order to document the response changes associated with modified vehicle structure. Only production vehicle tests are used in the present analysis. These are also listed in Table 2. There is an additional data analysis issue that must be addressed regarding Table 2. When tests are done in an oblique fashion, the actual pole deformation travel is not a distance measured perpendicularly from the vehicle side. Rather, the pole travels a greater distance while crushing vehicle structure and the actual travel distance during crush must be accounted for during the impact phase. Therefore, for the oblique collisions, the actual pole travel distance through vehicle structure is used, rather than the perpendicular crush which is generally used when reporting crash test data. The third parameter of interest is the impulse moment arm. Mechanics demonstrates that the absorbed energy in an offset impact can be shown to be: AbsorbedEnergy = i. Mass. V,f ( kk+h) (1 In Equation (l), k = radius of gyration and h = impulse moment arm. Therefore, when the impulse moment arm is known, the actual absorbed energy can be determined. This analysis is performed for each test in which the impulse moment arm could be determined. Examination of Table 2 will indicate that the impulse moment arm is unknown for three of the FOIL tests. The reader is advised that these tests must be applied with care because the actual absorbed energy may be lower than the approach energy listed. As is evident when examining this data, there is a limited set of available test data on lateral pole impacts. The test data in the public domain is only for limited vehicles ,77 and but for the repeat barrier Golf and Escort, this data is primarily concentrated at a narrow test range. Therefore, any conclusions drawn from this data must be carefully considered when attempting to apply this data to other vehicles. Figure 1 is a plot of absorbed energy versus maximum residual crush for the test data listed in Tables 1 and 2. Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 are absorbed energy versus maximum crush plots for the small cars, larger cars, and trucks / SUVs respectively. For Figures l-4 crush width is not accounted for. While encompassing several different vehicles of varying manufacturers, this data shows a relatively consistent trend. By plotting absorbed energy, the data accounts for varying test weights and impact severity. Examination of Figure 1 indicates increasing absorbed energy with increasing depth of crush. However, due to the large variability in vehicle type, the data is not well bounded and trends are not readily defined. When the smaller vehicles are considered, Figure 2, the data indicates a clearly second order relationship between absorbed energy and crush. As this is to be expected for a linear, isotropic material, Figure 2 demonstrates the linear, plastic spring may serve as an adequate model for these vehicles. Observation of the graph indicates a data point that is outside the bounds of the other data. This data point is found at 34039 ft-lb at 35 inches crush and is representative of the oblique Rabbit test conducted at 20.1 mph [Bell, 19841. When comparing this test to the other two Rabbit tests, differences in structural stiffness are apparent. This is due to the different impact configurations present among all three tests. The 19.95 mph test had an initial contact point further forward which resulted in structural engagement with the front wheel arch and a-pillar area. The 20.1 mph test however, engaged further rearward and missed this stiffer structure. Examination of the 24.9 mph test results indicates that stiffer structures located toward the aft end of the door and rear portion of the vehicle are encountered. Therefore, although the same vehicle is tested in all three impacts, different structural engagement results in different stiffness, Examination of Figure 3, the large cars also demonstrate a second order relationship between absorbed energy and residual crush. However, extrapolation of the data should be considered carefully due to the lack of lower severity data. In fact, tests with deformation less than 10 inches are not available in this data set. Figure 4, the trucks and SUV data once again demonstrates an approximate second order relationship. The minimal amount of data, however, precludes the determination of definite stiffness trends. Two full size pickup trucks are shown in Figure 4. While the absorbed energy is approximately equal between the Ford and Chevrolet, the maximum reported crush is approximately 6 % inches less for the Chevrolet. Review of the test data reports indicates that the Chevrolet impacted further aft than the Ford which engaged the stiffer forward edge of the cargo bed. As we observed in the Rabbit tests and the full size pickup truck tests, small differences in contact location can result in observable differences in structural engagement and therefore in the resulting crush response. All Vehicles mo I iaro0~ l *i i 00. 00 100 200 300 400 500 600 Crush (I, Figure 1. All Test Vehicles Energy Plot. 00 00 10 0 20.0 30 0 40 0 500 50 0 Maxmum Crush (I) Figure 2. Small Cars Test Vehicles Energy Plot. 00 50 10 0 150 Maxmum Crash (on) Figure 3. Large Cars Test Vehicles 20 0 25 0 Energy Plot. Truck I SW M)wo.o _ . -_1 . MWO.0 0.0 7 0.0 50 1 I 10.0 15.0 Maam Gush (in) 20.0 25.0 Figure 4. Truck I SUV Test Vehicles Energy Plot. PATH ANALYSIS Based on the law of Conservation of Energy, the work performed during deformation of vehicle structure is equal to the absorbed energy. This work, by definition is the scalar product: dU=&G dU = jFllds1 cos a (*I Equations (2) state that the work can be equated to the dot product of the force and the displacement along the direction of force application. Therefore, when evaluating test data, the pole displacement into vehicle structure is more meaningful than the perpendicular crush. This is because, as long as resistance is felt, energy is being absorbed along the entire path of travel of the pole into the vehicle structure. If one assumes the vehicle structure to behave as a homogeneous, isotropic material, then the structural resistance does not change as damage is seen along an oblique line of action into the vehicle. An example of this can be seen in Figure 5, which shows the 1987 VW Golf after an oblique impact [Markusic, 19911. Figure 5. VW Golf Test 2 Crush Profile. If one plots the perpendicular crush, then the maximum crush depth is 25 inches. However, if the pole path travel distance is determined, then the actual maximum crush amount is 40 inches. Therefore, for oblique impacts plotted in Figures 1-4, the structural absorbed energy is plotted versus the actual pole travel depth 178 rather than the perpendicular crush depth. While the pole travel distances are determined through the use of scale drawings of the crush profile, one can make a simplifying assumption that the pole travels straight into the vehicle, with very little curvature of path. If this is assumed, then the path crush depth can be determined from the perpendicular crush depth as follows: crushpat,, = CYushperpendicuhr c0s(e) (3) This angle, theta, is the amount in degrees that the impact varies from a perpendicular impact. If a crush energy model is to be applied that accounts for crush width, and an isotropic material is assumed for the vehicle, then crushing along this angled path also requires an adjustment (decrease) to the crush width by a factor equal to cosine(theta). CRUSH AVERAGING For some crush energy analysis methodologies, it is often required to distill the crush to a single average value. Different methodologies are available to do this. For pole impacts the typical profile is similar to a bell shaped curve, as shown in Figure 6. Upon examination, it is evident that the endpoints approach a value of zero crush. When averaging, careful consideration must be utilized so as to avoid the over or under representation of the zero values at the endpoints. CX Figuz 6. Ty$cal PolzCrush irofile. cc If the profile in Figure 6 is represented in a crash test data report, the standard 6 values, Ci would be: Cl =o C2=4 c3= IO C4=18 c5=11 C6 = 0 The length, L = 50 inches. If the average is desired to be the depth of an equivalent area of rectangular crush of same width, then that is easily determined. The area is 430 in. The C Ci = 43. If the endpoints are entirely neglected, then the C Ci /4 * L = 537.5 in2. This clearly overestimates the crush by resulting in an equivalent area that is 25% too large. If both endpoints are considered, then the equivalent area is C Ci 16 * L = 358.5 in2. This obviously underestimates the area by approximately 17%. Now, examine C Ci /5 * L = 430 in2, and, it can be seen that the correct denominator is 5 in order to match equivalent area. This follows from the assumption that areas are approximated by rectangles, but the tails are triangles, thus 4 rectangl es and 2 tri angl es are approxi matel y 5 179 rectangles. This methodology can be extended to any number of segments of the length, L. CRASH ALGORITHM ANALYSIS The CRASH algorithm is an often applied methodology for the determination of energy absorbed due to crush. Commercially available software is marketed or the algorithm is simple enough to program into a spread sheet program. However, it is critical to understand the theory behind this algorithm in order to correctly apply it to an individual case analysis. While the model is a useful predictor of crush energy, it is possible to obtain unsatisfactorily large errors due to the user mishandling some of the programs assumptions. A brief review is undertaken here of the underlying equations for crush energy determination. The integrated equation for crush energy determination takes 3 different forms depending on whether there are 2, 4, or 6 points for the measured crush profile. These 3 different forms are shown in the following equations. Equation (4) is for 6 point crush profiles, Equation (5) is for 4 points, and Equation (6) is for 2 points. ~(c,+2c,+2c,+2c4+2c,+c,) &p)~+;( 2 i c, +2c: + 24 +2c: +2c: ic: +c,cz +c2c3 + c,c, +c4cs +c,c,)} +5G 6 - pints \ i Equation (4). 6 Point Crush Profile. L I ++(ci +2c,2 +2c,2 +c; +c,c, +czc3 +c,c,)} I +3G 4 - points Equation (5). 4 Point Crush Profile. 2 - points Equation (6). 2 Point Crush Profile. Additionally, for oblique damage, a Tangential Correction Factor (TCF) is used to account for the increased crush energy due to oblique crush. This TCF is as follows: TCF = 1 + tan 8 , where 8 is the angle from normal for the PDOF. This relationship is derived in the CRASH 3 program documentation [CRASH 3, 19821. It is based on increasing the crush depth due to the oblique line of action but with no adjustment to crush width. This Tangential Correction Factor has a maximum value = 2 placed on it by the program and therefore maximizes at 45 degrees. The TCF is applied as follows: E oblique = 4ormol * TCF = J%7rmal . (1+ tan2 S). (7) Examination of the TCF demonstrates that for a given profile, the calculated energy can be increased by a factor of two due to the TCF. Therefore, care must be exercised in assigning the crush stiffness values, crush profile, and PDOF due to the sensitivity of the calculation to these inputs. When applying the CRASH methodology to a lateral pole impact, several options exist to account for the crush profile, crush stiffness, and oblique correction factor. In order to evaluate the application of these parameters to staged collision test data, twenty cases are run for each crash test where a crush profile is known. Several tests in Table 1 are not used for this CRASH analysis because test reports are not available and the reported crush profile could not be verified. The test data utilized in this analysis are listed in Table 3. Because of the different methods available to apply the CRASH algorithm, 20 cases are identified for analysis. Each case methodology is applied to all tests and the errors in predicted crush energy are evaluated. For each test, the structural stiffness values A and B are calculated based on the test data and then variations of the CRASH methodology are applied to then see whether the test measured absorbed energy could be determined. Since the test is the basis for the determination of A and B, then a correct application of CRASH should arrive back at the test absorbed energy. If there is any difference in the test and calculated absorbed energy, then that will be due to limitations in the assumptions for that particular case. An overview of the cases employed is as follows: CRASH 3 Method (default A and B) Cases l-4 B Calculation from Average Crush Cases 5-8 B Calculation from Crush Profile Cases 9-l 2 B Calculation from Crush Profile with TCF Cases 13-16 B Calculation from Crush Profile - Cosine Corrected Cases 17-l 8 B Calculation from Average Crush - Cosine Corrected Cases 19-20 These cases are programmed in a spreadsheet and the results analyzed. A discussion of each case follows. Table 3 lists the calculated B stiffness values for each case, Table 4 lists the calculated absorbed energy for each test and Table 5 lists the observed percent errors from the crush energy predictions. In order to isolate the calculation of crush energy, the kinematics equations used in CRASH are not programmed into this spreadsheet and Delta V is not calculated. Therefore, this analysis only examines the calculation of crush energy. CALCULATION OF B There are several methodologies to employ when calculating the structural parameter B, as used in CRASH. These are referred to as Methods 1 through 5 in Table 4 and will be discussed individually. Method 1: This is the recommended method for calculating B as used in many commercially available versions of the CRASH program [Hargens]. This method of calculating the B value employs the average crush, the Barrier Equivalent Velocity and the crush width. The offset velocity for zero crush is assumed to be zero for all vehicles. The B value is calculated using Equation (8). Method 2: As is found in the cases that used Method I, when the B stiffness coefficient is calculated using the average crush, and the actual crush profile is input into the CRASH method, differences will result. Therefore, Method 2 is developed which calculates B by solving the CRASH Energy equation for B with all other parameters known. A, the parameter based on the offset velocity for zero crush, is once again assumed to be zero. This method of calculating the B value employs the actual crush profile, the energy absorbed in the test and the crush width. The B value is calculated using Equation (9). B = 30E c; +24 +24 +24 +24 +c; + c,q +c2c3 +c3c4 +c4c5 +c5c6 L Equation (9). B Stiffness Calculation. Method 3: When analyzing oblique crashes, the CRASH method applies a tangential correction factor. Therefore, this can be accounted for when calculating the structural parameter B for oblique crashes. Subsequently, Method 3 employs the TCF when calculating B for the oblique crash tests. This method also employs the crush profile as with Method 2. A is once again assumed to be zero. This method of calculating the B value employs the actual crush profile, the energy absorbed in the test, the PDOF, and the crush width. The B value is calculated using Equation (19). B = 30E( c; + 24 + 24 f 24 + 24 + c; +c,cz +c2c3 + c,c, + c4c5 + C5C6 > L*(l+tan28) Equation (10). B Stiffness Calculation. Method 4: Method 4 is similar to Method 1 except that the average crush depth and width are both corrected by the cosine of the PDOF measured from normal for the oblique crash tests. This follows from the assumption of an isotropic material for the vehicle which dictates that 180 the actual crush resistance should be determined along Table 3. Crush Profiles and Stiffness Data. the axis of deformation. A is once again assumed to be zero. The B value is calculated using Equation (11). B = gL . cos I9 (11) Method 5: Method 5 is similar to Method 2 except that the average crush depth and width are both corrected by the cosine of the PDOF measured from normal for the oblique crash tests. This follows from the assumption of an isotropic material for the vehicle which dictates that the actual crush resistance should be determined along the axis of deformation. A is once again assumed to be zero. The B value is calculated using Equation (12). 30E c; + 24 + 24 + 2c: -I- 24 f c; + c,cz + CIC) + qc4 + C&5 + C& cos2 6 i / L.COSB Equation (12). B Stiffness Calculation. CRASH ENERGY CALCULATIONS Case 1: Case 1 uses the default A and B values as programmed into the CRASH 3 program. These values are based on placing the test vehicles into categories based on wheelbase or structural groupings. The actual crush profile from the test is then input along with the PDOF. This is a common application of the CRASH methodology in reconstruction programs. The energy calculated in this approach varies randomly from under predicting by approximately 93% to over predicting by approximately 75%. This wide range in error in predicting crush energy for staged crash tests indicate that the use of default structural properties is not appropriate for a reconstruction of a particular lateral pole impact. This observation is consistent with what has been observed for other crash types. Case 2: Case 2 also uses the default A and B structural properties. However, unlike Case 1, no Tangential Correction Factor (TCF) is applied to the calculated energy. As would be expected, the calculated energy is consistently lower for the oblique crash tests and this methodology consistently under-predicts crush energy for all cases. The under-prediction varied from 0 to almost 100%. While some calculations resulted in zero errors, that is not the situation for every vehicle. Therefore, unless staged collision test data is available to verify the results, this Case 2 method is not recommended for use in the reconstruction of a particular accident. Case 3: Case 3 also uses crush coefficients A and B based on default class categories. However, rather than input the test crush profile, the crush width and average crush are input instead. The average crush is determined such that the crush area will be correct. The Tangential Correction Factor is applied to the calculated crush energy. The energy calculated in this approach underestimates energy from 0 to almost 100%. Except for 2 of the oblique tests, Case 3 consistently performed worse than Case 1. Case 4: Case 4 is exactly the same as Case 3, except that no Tangential Correction Factor is applied. The energy calculated in this approach varies randomly from under predicting by approximately 95% to over predicting by almost 50%. Case 4 and Case 3 reported the same errors for the non-oblique tests. Case 5: Case 5 uses calculated structural properties ,8, based on the test data. The A value is assumed to be zero because there is no elastic energy absorption components (such as bumpers) on vehicle sides. Vehicles experience permanent damage with extremely low severity lateral impacts. The B value used is calculated by Method 1. You will note that in the calculation for is used. This average is determined in as described earlier. The energy calculation is performed B, average crush the same fashion by inputting the actual crush profile and then applying the TCF to the results. As would be expected, because B is calculated using the average crush and the energy calculation is performed on the crush profile, differences must result. The use of the Tangential Correction Factor (TCF), without accounting for this factor in the B calculation results in significant errors in the oblique tests. In fact, the range of over-prediction for this methodology is from 27 to 67% for the non-oblique tests. Over-prediction errors for the oblique tests ranged from 148% to 192%. Case 6: Case 6 is done with a B value calculated in the same fashion as Case 5 (Method 1). Unlike Case 5, there is no TCF applied when the CRASH energy equation is used to calculate absorbed energy. As in Case 5, since the B value is calculated using the average crush, and the energy is calculated using the profile crush, then there must be errors. The errors in the oblique tests decrease with this methodology showing an over prediction from 24% to 46%. The non- oblique tests reported the same errors as Case 5. Case 7: Case 7 employs the same Method 1 B calculation as Case 5. That is, B is calculated using the average crush. The energy, however is also calculated using the average crush. Subsequently, the energy is calculated using the same methodology as is assumed for the B calculation. The TCF is then applied. The TCF will only affect the results for the oblique tests. As woul d be expected, si nce the crush energy calculation is performed using the same assumptions as t he B val ue cal cul at i on, t he predi ct ed energy demonstrates zero error for the non-oblique tests. This merely proves that the assumptions in the model are consistent. If you calculate B using the average, in order to achieve the same results in CRASH, the case must be analyzed using the average crush. As would also be expected, the TCF doubles the calculated energy for the oblique tests because the TCF is neglected in the B value calculation. Subsequently, the oblique tests show 100% error in predicted crush energy. Case 8: Case 8 is conducted in a similar fashion to Case 7, except that the TCF is not employed in the energy calculation. Method 1 is used to calculate B. The calculated energy in this case predicts the test energy accurately for all tests. This is to be expected because the CRASH analysis is performed in the exact same fashion as the B value calculation. Case 9: As is found in the previous cases, when the B stiffness coefficient is calculated using the average crush, and the actual crush profile is input into the CRASH method, differences will result. Therefore, Case 9 calculates B by solving the CRASH Energy equation for B with all other parameters known. Therefore, this is Method 2 for calculating B. A is once again assumed to be zero. The actual crush profile is then input into Table 4. Energy Calculations 182 Table 5. Percent Errors in Predicted Crush Energy. CRASH with the B value consistent with that. The TCF is then applied. The TCF will only affect the results for the oblique tests. The energy calculated in this approach predicts the energy accurately for the non-oblique tests. This is of course expected, since the B value calculation and the CRASH calculation are performed using the exact same basis. For the oblique tests, the TCF causes the calculated energy to be in error by 100%. This is because all of these oblique cases are at 45 degrees which is the maximum value of 2 for the TCF. This result is also expected for the oblique cases, because the B value is calculated without accounting for the TCF. Case IO: The same B value as in Case 9 is used. That is, Method 2 is employed. However, no Tangential Correction Factor is applied in the CRASH energy calculation. The test profile is entered into the CRASH energy calculation. Since the same assumptions are used for both the B value calculation and the energy calculations, this method predicted the test energy accurately, with zero errors for all tests. Case 11: Case 11 is the same as for Case 9, except for some small variations. The same B value is used as determined through Method 2. The TCF is applied to the energy calculation. The only difference is that the average crush is used in the CRASH energy calculation. Since B is determined using the profile crush, and the energy calculation is performed using the average, errors are to be expected. This case consistently under- predicts the non-oblique tests by 20% to 40% while consistently over-predicting the oblique tests by 37% to 60%. Case 12: Case 12 is conducted in the same fashion as Case 11. The only difference, is that the TCF is not applied. Case 12 results in consistent under-prediction by 19% to 40%. The non-oblique tests showed the same errors as Case 11. The oblique test errors are all less than Case 11 oblique test errors. Case 13: In many commercially available CRASH versions (e.g. EDCRASH, SLAM, etc.), the TCF cannot be removed from the energy calculation. Therefore, it is desired to arrive at a consistent B value calculation method that will result in zero errors for all tests. Case 13 accomplishes this. The A value is set to zero for the same reasons as previously discussed. The CRASH energy calculation, including the tangential correction factor is solved for each crash test for the B value. Therefore, in the oblique tests, the calculated B assumes that the TCF will be applied later and the B value is decreased to compensate for that. This is previously described as Method 3 for calculating B. The energy calculations are then performed using the crush profile and the TCF and the resulting errors are observed. As would be expected, the calculated energy exactly matches the test recorded energy for all tests. Case 14: If the same B values (Method 3) as used in Case 13 are then applied in the CRASH energy equation, without the TCF, then the results are as expected. Here the B value is calculated to account for the TCF being applied in the energy calculations. However, the TCF is turned off for the energy calculation which results in this case accurately predicting the non- oblique tests (no TCF required) but under-predicting all of the oblique tests by 50%. Case 15: Case 15 is an exact duplication of Case 13, except that the CRASH energy equation is calculated with the average crush. That is, the 2 point version of the Crash Energy equation is applied using a E? value that is obtained by back-calculating the 6 point version of the CRASH energy equation. The TCF is applied in Case 15. Therefore, Case 15 demonstrates the situation of using the crush profile to calculate B, then using the ,83 average crush in the CRASH energy calculation. As expected, energy is under-predicted by 19% to 40%. Errors observed are the same as for Case 12, which is to be expected. Case 16: Case 16 duplicates the calculation method used for Case 15 (B from Method 3), except the TCF is not applied. As expected, the errors are the same as Case 15 for the non-oblique tests and rise considerably for the oblique tests. The energy calculated in this approach under predicts by 21 to 66%. Case 17: As seen in the earlier discussion of crush path, oblique damage is seen as an increase in crush path which is proportional to the cosine of the angle off normal. Additionally, the crush width decreases in proportion to the cosine of the angle. Therefore, based on geometry, the cosine of the angle off normal would appear to be a better factor to use to account for oblique crush than the TCF used in CRASH. The validity of this approach would depend on the assumption that the vehicle behaves isotropically. The isotropic assumption requires the structural resistance to not vary by direction. To apply this factor, a version of CRASH that allows eliminating or modifying the TCF would have to be used. This may preclude some commercial versions of the CRASH methodology. In order to investigate the use of the cosine adjustment, the following analysis is performed. For oblique crush, the pole travel distance can be determined for the six crush points by dividing by the cosine of the angle off of normal. Then, as in previous cases, the CRASH energy equation is back- calculated and solved for the B value assuming this increased crush depth and decreased crush width. This B value is then used back in the CRASH equation along with the actual crash test damage profile. For oblique crush, the crash test damage profile is also adjusted by the cosine of the angle when input into the CRASH energy equation in order to be consistent with the B value calculation method. The A value is kept at zero. This B value calculation method is described in Method 5. As expected, this case resulted in zero errors for all predicted crush energy values. The advantage of this method is that a B value may be calculated from a non- oblique crash test, and with the assumption of an isotropic material, can be applied to an oblique crash. The oblique crush damage merely has to be adjusted for the actual deformation distance into the vehicle which is dependant on the cosine of the angle off normal. The large errors sometimes seen due to the TCF are corrected with this approach. Case 18: Case 18 is conducted in the same fashion as Case 17 (B calculation by Method 5) except that the average crush is input into the CRASH energy equation. Since the B value is calculated using the profile, and the CRASH energy equation is computed using the average crush, Case 18 involved inconsistent basis and resulted in under-prediction of 19% to 40% for crush energy. As expected, the errors are the same as for Case 15 and Case 12. Case 19: In order to verify that a consistent application of data will result in correct answers, Case 17 is now recomputed using the average crush. That is, the average crush is corrected by the cosine of the angle off normal and used to calculate the B stiffness value. This is described in Method 4. Then a 2 point version of the CRASH energy equation is computed with the average crush again modified by the cosine of the angle off normal. As expected, since the average value is used for both the B calculation method and for the application of the CRASH energy equation, the results are identical and zero errors are observed for all tests. Case 20: While the Cosine Correction Method appears to accurately predict crush energy, the user has to also beware of some of the simplification errors that can result. Case 20 uses the average crush to calculate the B value (Method 4) and then inputs the actual profile into the CRASH energy equation. Since the average is used to determine B, and the actual profile is used to calculate the energy using the B determined from the average, an inconsistent basis exists. The energy calculated in this approach over predicts by 24 to 67%. This Case demonstrates the inherent, expected errors through the use of the average crush to calculate stiffness coefficients and then using the actual crush profile in the energy calculations. As expected, the observed errors are the same as for Case 6 where a similar approach is made. COMPARISON BETWEEN FLAT BARRIER AND POLE BARRIER Due to the limited availability of lateral pole impact crash test data, it is unlikely that a specific test will exist for every vehicle encountered in an actual collision analysis. However, lateral crash tests with distributed barriers are more common and may be available for a specific vehicle. It is of interest to determine how well a lateral pole impact can be reconstructed using data from a distributed impact. In order to evaluate this, an impact by a rigid moving barrier into a 1988 Ford Escort [Markusic, 19951 is analyzed and used to predict the absorbed energy for the 1986 Ford Escort lateral pole impacts [ Markusic, 19911. The crush profile for this distributed impact is shown in Figure 7. 3-6 Figure 7. Escort RMB Crush Profile This analysis is performed using several different techniques. For all techniques, the A value in the CRASH methodology is assumed to be zero. The height of crush becomes a confounding variable in this t84 analysis. The moving rigid barrier uses a front profile that approximates a car frontal shape. Therefore, the barrier slightly over-rides the side sill. Subsequently, there is greater penetration into the door at the h-point elevation than at sill elevation. A rigid pole impacted vehicle, however, experiences similar crush depth with varying elevation due to the configuration. For the following analysis, the h-point height crush and the sill elevation crush are averaged in the rigid moving barrier test to create an effective crush profile to calculate the B value. This B value is then applied to the three Escort pole impacts and absorbed energy is predicted. For example, Figure 8 is a scale plot of the second Escort pole impact which has a similar absorbed energy as the RMB impact, Figure 7. Note, however, the differences in crush profiles between the distributed impact versus the narrow object impact. Figure 8. Escort Pole. Case A: First, the B value is determined for the flat barrier test using the average crush and not corrected for the 27 degree oblique angle experienced in that test. The B value of 229 lb/in/in is obtained. This is the historical method to calculate B for staged collision testing and has been described as Method 1 previously. Case B: Method 2 is next employed to calculate B. Case B involved determination of the B value from the crash test using the crush profile and solving for the B value, without averaging. This is the proposed B value determination methodology presented earlier that involves back calculating the CRASH Energy equation to arrive at B. Again , the 27 degree oblique nature of the reference test is neglected. The B value of 194 lb/in/in is determined. The crush profile for the pole impacts in the CRASH algorithm is used. Case C: Method 3 is next employed to calculate B. Because the reference flat barrier test is oblique by 27 degrees, the B value calculated in Case B is corrected for the oblique nature of the crush by factoring out the energy due to oblique damage. This is done by accounting for the TCF as previously described in Method 3. The B value of 154 lb/in/in is determined. Case D: Case D involves calculating the B value for the actual deformation path by increasing the crush depth by cosine of 27 degrees and decreasing the width by the same amount. This is referred to as Method 4. Then, using the corrected crush values, the crush is averaged and a resulting B value of 204 lb/in/in is calculated. 185 Case E: Case E involves solving for the B value from the flat barrier test and correcting the crush depth and width by the cosine of 27 degrees. Then instead of averaging this corrected crush as is done in Case D, the CRASH energy equation is once again solved for the B value. This is described as Method 5. The B value obtained is 173 lb/in/in. The errors in this absorbed energy prediction are shown in Table 6. Table 6. Errors in Crush Energy Prediction using Fiat Barrier to Predic / Case A / Case B 1 CaseC C sum Method C Avg. C sum I+ tar+2 Method Method Corrected Escort Pole -21.8% -33.7% -47.4% Test 1 Escort Pole 88.6% 59.9% 27.0% Test 2 Escort Pole 357.5% 287.8% 207.9% Test 3 DISCUSSION OF CRASH RESULTS Pole impacts. Case D Case E Cosine Cosine Method Method C avg C sum -30.3% 40.9% 68.1% 42.5% 307.6% 245.6% This presentation has concentrated on analyzing the ability of the CRASH methodology, both in original form and modified form, to predict absorbed crush energy. While some significant errors are seen for some of the assumptions analyzed, note that calculated speed is not linearly proportional to the absorbed energy. Therefore, for a single vehicle into pole impact, the error in AV will be less than the error in absorbed energy. Since the CRASH analysis has demonstrated the possibility of 100% errors in absorbed energy calculations, a 41% error in calculated speed could be expected. Table 7 gives the relationship between observed prediction errors for absorbed energy and resulting errors in predicted AV. Table 7. Delta V Error Versus Absorbed Energy Error. Energy Error 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 200% AV Error 9.5% 18.3% 26.5% 34.2% 41.4% 73.2% Examination of the CRASH results indicates that the program may serve as a useful predictor of crush energy as long as the structural properties of the vehicle are properly analyzed. If using average crush to determine the B stiffness value, the use of average crush in the energy calculation will avoid errors. If using a crush profile in the energy calculation, then the crush profile should also be used to determine the B stiffness value. When using a distributed barrier impact to determine structural parameters to apply to a pole impact, significant errors in predicted energy may result. Therefore, eliminating inconsistencies between the data used to calculate the stiffness parameters and the application of those parameters in a reconstruction will avoid undesired simplifications from adversely affecting the results. SPIN DYNAMICS When the principal impulse line of action passes through the center of gravity, there is no moment developed around the center of gravity and therefore the vehicle cannot experience post impact spin. For this case, the vehicle stops at impact with possibly a minor amount of rebound post impact motion due to the restitution properties of the vehicle. However, a perfectly centered collision, with no induced collision moment is rare. When the principal impulse does not pass through the center of gravity, a moment is developed. This is referred to as a non-central or offset collision. When this occurs, by definition, the vehicle continues moving after impact and post impact rotation is developed. A working knowledge of dynamics indicates that this post impact rotation is dependent on the impact severity, vehicle inertial properties, and location of the principal impulse line of action. Lateral, offset pole impacts often result in large moment arms which can introduce large post impact vehicle rotations. This rotational energy must be accounted for in post impact energy analysis. Because a complete accident reconstruction attempts to account for all of the vehicle energy when analyzing speed, it is necessary to develop techniques that can predict spin rate at the instant of separation. This spin rate can then be used to calculate the post impact rotational energy which can be used in a conservation of energy analysis to arrive at a reconstructed impact speed. SPIN MODEL-l Impulse momentum relationships may be used to develop a first order approximation to the resulting post impact spin rate for an offset lateral collision. While the simplifying assumptions present in this analysis do not precisely follow real world collision behavior, this technique is useful to obtain an initial approximation to spin. Start by writing Newtons second law in time dependent form. P = Momentum = 5 Fdt = mAV (13) Multiply both sides by the moment arm of the collision impulse. This can now be thought of as the conservation of angular momentum and is equal to mk2ca: k = radius of gyration about the c.g. and h = impulse moment arm. The next st eps are al gebrai c manipulation. mk2w = mhAV k2cx = hAV ,=$AV ( 1 5 ) As can be seen in Equation (15) the resulting post impact rotation rate is a function of the collision impulse moment arm (h) as well as the severity of the collision (AV). Additionally, the radius of gyration is also present in this analysis as the only required vehicle inertial parameter. This simple relationship assumes that the vehicle rotation center is at the vehicle center of gravity. As observed by collision analysts, this is not always the case. Generally, in a lateral collision, the vehicle rotates about the collision interface. Therefore, while this is a first order approximation to the rotating vehicle analysis, it is simplified as the assumption of rotation center may not be correct for most collisions. SPIN MODEL-2 Because of the limitations inherent in the previous analysis of a spinning vehicle, it is useful to extend the development to assume rotation about the collision interface. This is done through plane kinematics. To begin this analysis, draw the free body diagram, Figure 9. Next, the kinematic diagram, Figure 10, is drawn to show the accelerations and motions. Note that tire forces are neglected in this treatment. a+- - h V Figure 9. Free Body Diagram Pe h = h SFdt = mk*w (14) 186 maP =m mhm2 Figure 10. Kinematic Diagram The first steo is to identifv the forces and resulting motions from the kinematic diagram. These identified as follows: Z=a are g = ap + (Q,l )?I + (ag,,, )! maP =ma m(ag,p)n = mhu2 f-f-G,,,>, = mha Now sum moments about the collision interface algebraically solve for the angular acceleration. C M, =~a+Cmiih=O I=mk2 =mk2 0 = mk2a + mha(h) - ma(h cos 8) k2a + h2a = ahcod ff= h ( k2 +h2 a cos 0) (17) and Note that in Equation (17), the denominator, k2 + h2, is actually the transfer of axis theorems for the radius of gyration. Therefore, rather than use the radius of gyration about the center of gravity (k), one may actually use the radius of gyration about the collision interface in place of this sum of squares (k;l = k2 + h2 ). The next step involves writing the basic kinematic equations, plug in Equation (17), integrate both sides, and algebraically solve for the angular velocity. ~oxi?u= jk2 f h2 (acos6r)di9 0 CD2 h -= k2 +h2 2 2h (18) W= k2 +h2 [a sine] Equation (18) relates the post impact angular rotation rate to the acceleration pulse. In order to apply this, the user inputs the average acceleration and the angular change of the vehicle achieved during the time the acceleration operates. As can be seen in the above analysis, there are several simplifying assumptions present which allow us to study the predicted peak spin achieved due to this offset impact. In an actual case analysis, additional forces (tire forces, etc), a time dependent acceleration profile and other factors can be also accounted for. While beyond the scope of the current presentation, the reader is encouraged to extend this analysis and to study the sensitivity of these dynamics equations to additional factors. CRASH BASED KINEMATICS EQUATIONS A widely used collision reconstruction algorithm is the CRASH methodology developed at Calspan in the 1970s. This technique uses a linear, plastic spring assumption to calculate the absorbed energy due to vehicle crush and then uses conservation of energy and momentum to calculate the vehicle change in velocity (AV) based on that absorbed energy. The following analysis uses the CRASH momentum algorithm [CRASH, 19821, simplified for a single vehicle collision into a rigid pole. What is found is that closed form relationships exists to relate vehicle AV and impact velocity based on deformation energy, vehicle geometry and inertial properties. The first step is to define the collision environment being analyzed, as shown in Figure 11. 187 b Velocity \ Point g C.G. Moment Arm Stationary Pole Point P Collision Interface igure 11. Graphical Problem Statement. The collision interface must have a different acceleration profile than the center of mass; the kinematic constraint equations are written for this relationship. This is similar to Spin Model-2. aR = Up + Uglp ag =a,+ha (19) Newtons second law is then expressed to relate forces and accelerations. F, = t-nag (20) The conservation of angular momentum is then assumed. (21) The moment of inertia can be related to the radius of gyration and plugged into (21). CM=mk2a (22) The sum of the moments also equals force multiplied by the moment arm of the force. Plugging into (22) and solving for the angular acceleration results in the following. F h Cl= x mk2 (23) Plug (19) into (20): Plug (23) into (24) and solve for the acceleration at the collision interface which results in (25) below. - F, up = (25) The above equation is merely a rewritten version of Newtons second law with a modification to the mass term. This modification indicates an effective mass operating at the collision interface due to the offset nature of this collision under study. This modification to k2 the mass term is the ratio, k2 +h2 Additionally, since ag = F, /VI , the relationship between the local (collision interface) acceleration and the center of gravity acceleration is determined: ag=( 2 k2 )a k+h2 p (26) For simplicity and ease of notation, we will declare a k2 constant, y , such that, Y = k2 + h2 Equation (25) now becomes: ag = (Y >ap (27) If one integrates Equation (27) over time, the relationship between the local AV at the collision interface and the center of gravity AV is obtained. (28) Assuming negligible pre-impact rotation, the vehicle can be though of as traveling at a single velocity into the rigid pole. Assuming zero restitution, the local (at the collision interface) AV is also equal to the impact velocity. Therefore, if the CRASH methodology is used to arrive at the center of gravity AV, then the direct calculation of the impact speed is possible for a rigid barrier impact. This direct method of calculating the impact speed may then be compared to standard reconstruction methods which use post impact runout and AV. The results should match; this will serve as an independent check on the calculated post impact runout. The present analysis now requires the relationship between the absorbed energy due to crush and the AV. Therefore, the expression for the kinetic energy change at point P is expressed, using the effective mass at point P. F, = m(ap + ha) (24) 188 Ep =;$2 +h2 k2 >.(Ay,> 2EP Avp = (y)m i- (29) We now have an expression that relates the absorbed energy to the local velocity change at the collision interface. Because this analysis is being performed for an impact into a non-yielding barrier, Point P at the collision interface comes to a stop at the end of the collision phase. Therefore, as previously identified, the local AV at Point P is also the vehicles impact speed into the barrier, assuming zero restitution and assuming negligible pre-impact rotation. Therefore, Equation (29) may be re-written as follows: 2EP Impact Velocity = - d- (r>m (30) Because the AV at the center of gravity is also desired, that relationship is easily determined. This is accomplished by plugging Equation (29) into Equation (28) to obtain: AVg = (Y) 4 2EP - (r>m (31) Equation 31 relates the center of gravity AV to the absorbed energy due to vehicle crush. This value may then be vectorially combined with the separation velocity and the impact speed calculated. Additionally, impact speed may also be directly calculated from Equation 30; the same answer should result. It is necessary for the reader to also understand that the above relationships do not account for collision restitution. Since restitution is generally quite low for higher speed lateral collisions, neglecting restitution is considered valid for this discussion. However, at low collision severity, restitution may be significant and neglecting restitution in an application to an individual collision analysis may cause undesired errors. While one may use the CRASH linear spring algorithm to calculate absorbed energy, other methodologies may also be used. Therefore, irrespective of the methodology to calculate the absorbed energy, these relationships, based on plane kinematics, may still be applied as long as the analyst understands the underlying assumptions. SMAC COMPARISON In order to eval uate the previ ousl y devel oped techniques, the following comparison is performed. The SMAC computer simulation model [McHenry, 19711 was 189 originally developed to model the dynamic response of colliding vehicles. The SMAC program has been previously validated and is accepted as satisfactory for use here to compare to the developed closed form solutions presented in Equations (15) (18), (30) and (31). While this is not a validation exercise, the comparison to an accepted simulation model does provide some meaningful insight into the expected correlation one should expect when using these equations corn bined with other reconstruction techniques. u. 0 d E * I _I Figure 12. SMAC Graphical Output The sample collision developed for analysis is a 2500 lb. vehicle, with a 100 inch wheelbase and a 60%/40% F/R weight distribution. Radius of gyration (about the c.g.) is assumed to be 50 inches. The vehicle impacts a 12 inch wide barrier, approximating a pole impact, at 35.9 mph, at an offset of 60 inches from the center of gravity. A SMAC run with these initial conditions results in a center of gravity AV of 15.4 mph and a separation velocity of 20.5 mph. Peak rotation rate is 336 deg/sec. Spin Model 1: Equation (15) is applied to this collision scenario and a post impact rotation rate of 370 deg/sec is calculated. This is a difference of 10.1% and is the largest difference seen in any of the predicted parameters when comparing to the SMAC reference simulation. Given the simplifications assumed in Equation (15) 10% difference would be considered acceptable agreement. When the instant center of rotation is examined in the SMAC simulation, it is found that the vehicle is rotating about the collision interface. Even with the different assumed rotation center of Equation (15) the agreement is satisfactory for some reconstruction uses. Spin Model 2: Equation 18 is next applied. This results in a predicted rotation rate of 353 deg/sec. This is a difference of 5.1% from the SMAC reference. CRASH Based Model: The CRASH based model is next applied. Using the same absorbed energy as given by SMAC, Equation 30 predicts the impact velocity as 36.3 mph, a difference of 1.1%. Equation 31 results in a calculated center of gravity AV of 14.5 mph, a difference of 5.8% from the SMAC simulation model reference. Subtracting the AV from the impact velocity results in a predicted separation velocity of 21.8 mph, only a 5.2% difference than predicted by SMAC. Using the SMAC computer simulation model as a reference, the developed closed form equations demonstrate satisfactory correlation in this example for many accident reconstruction purposes. The largest difference in any of the predicted parameters is 10%. The results of the comparison to the SMAC computer simulation reference are summarized in Table 8. As the closed form solutions are based on the same physics upon which the SMAC simulation is based, correlation between the techniques would be expected. Table 8. Comparison of SMAC Output to Closed Form Equations RECONSTRUCTION APPLICATIONS There has been si gni f i cant di scussi on i n t he reconstruction community concerning impact speed calculations when post impact velocity is known for a single vehicle collision into a pole. Historically, the separation velocity is calculated and the AV is vectorially added to arrive at impact velocity. Before continuing, a review of AV is required. The AV is the vector change in velocity measured at a specific point on the vehicle. Generally, for accident reconstruction speed calculation purposes, the AV at the center of gravity is required. This center of gravity AV is then added directly to the separation velocity to arrive at the impact velocity. When examining the literature, it is found that the procedure as defined in the CRASH 3 manual, states, Knowing the separation velocities, the impact speed can be estimated from momentum considerations, or by simple vector addition of AV +[separation velocity]. [CRASH 3, 19821. Unfortunately, there has also been confusion by some inexperienced reconstructionists who have continued to calculate impact velocity by adding the sum of squares of AV and separation velocity. This is incorrect. While there is absolutely no physics basis for this adding squares method, there is a historical basis for this error. When examining the kinematics equations for a different, standard accident reconstruction problem, some insight is gained into the source of the error for the pole impact reconstruction. Consider the following accident reconstruction scenario. A vehicle is travelling at some unknown initial velocity, then slams on the brakes and ultimately strikes a wall; at the end of impact with the wall, the vehicle is stopped. Figure 13 shows the velocity time graph for the described scenario. I Figure 13. Velocity Time Graph. This problem can be examined quite easily with particle kinematics. The goal is to calculate the initial vehicle velocity prior to brake application while knowing the AV and the braking deceleration level. The analysis is as follows: ds v=- dt dv a=- dt :. vdv = ads Vmpnct I vdv =askid ds 5 vinitial si z&act =vJ citial + 2a,, (s - s, > viniti*l = VZnpac* - 2as J (32) In Equation (32) the acceleration can be input as a negative value (braking). Additionally, if one assumes the coefficient of restitution to be zero, then the final velocity (impact into the wall), is also the AV. While not precisely correct, this assumption is widely used; for higher velocity collisions, this is often well within the uncertainty present in many reconstruction analysis. This is because coefficient of restitution values tend to decrease wi th i ncreasi ng seventy [Kerkhoff, 19931. Assigning these assumptions to Equation (32), results as follows: a = - a e = 0.0 190 1-w AV = vimpact (33) As can be seen in Equation (33) when assuming a zero restitution collision, and when there is absolutely no post impact velocity, then the AV and the pre-impact skidding phase may be added as a sum of squares for the above presented scenario. While this numerical value of AV is input into Equation (33), it is important to note that the physics dictates that the actual velocity at the end of the skidding is what is actually being input into the above equation. It is only because of the zero restitution assumption, and zero post impact velocity, that the AV also numerically equals the wall impact velocity and can be substituted. The pole impact reconstruction problem that arises from the above analysis, is the assumption that, because, for this specific scenario, the AV is added under a square root, the AV is an energy parameter. By erroneously assuming the AV to be an energy parameter, some analysts have tried to assign it as an energy parameter in other accident scenarios. As is previously discussed, the AV is a vector and must be treated as such in any accident reconstruction analysis. Therefore, the AV is directly added to post impact runout vectorially and not as a sum of squares. To illustrate potential problems with assuming AV to be an energy parameter, consider now the situation of a vehicle impacting a tree in an offset impact and experiencing post impact runout. Some analysts have erroneously attempted to apply the previously developed relationship to this new scenario. This new scenario is represented by the velocity time curve in Figure 14. Fig& 14. Velocity Time Graph - Vector Addition of Delta V and Separation Velocity. For the scenario demonstrated in Figure 14, the accident reconstruction use of AV would involve first using the post impact dynamics to calculate the separation velocity, then vectorially adding the separation velocity to the AV. For this situation,,one does not add the AV and runout velocity as an addrtron of squares. 191 Vimj7act = * + Vsep*ra*ion (35) Two primary fallacies exist when the impact velocity is accepted to be the sum of squares of AV and separation velocity, Equation (34). First, it is assumed that the AV can be directly converted to absorbed energy without having any other knowledge of the impact geometry. This is false and is demonstrated in Equation (31) where it is found that the AV is not only a function of the absorbed energy but also of the impulse moment arm. Therefore, to calculate absorbed energy from AV, the impulse moment arm must be accounted for. Secondly, post impact rotational energy is assumed to be zero if the AV is combined with the separation velocity as a sum of squares. This is addressed in the following conservation of energy section . CONSERVATION OF ENERGY The addition of the squares of post impact runout and AV has also been justified by some reconstructionists as the method to employ when applying the conservation of energy to a lateral pole impact collision. The attempt is made to think of the AV as representative of absorbed energy. This assumption is based on the fact that the change in kinetic energy of the vehicle can be determined from the AV and post impact runout velocity. The fallacy with this approach is evident when examining the plane kinematics relationships previously developed. If there is post impact runout, then, by definition, the impact is not a centered collision. Therefore, a moment arm has been developed by the impulse around the center of gravity. 35000 1 i 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Peak Rotation (deglsec) Figure 15. Rotational Energy Mechanics has been shown to dictate that if there is a AV and a moment arm, then by definition, there must be post impact rotation developed. To ignore this post impact rotation, is to ignore a possibly significant contribution of energy and therefore, any calculated speed will be incorrect. Additionally, determining the absorbed energy from the AV requires a careful analysis of the impact geometry. A conservation of energy analysis is performed by placing a control volume around the impact phase and summing all of the energy out to arrive at the energy coming in to the control volume. Energy to be added generally includes vehicle deformation energy, barrier deformation energy (if non-rigid barrier or breakaway pole), and post impact vehicle linear and rotational motions. The rotational components may contribute a significant amount to the overall calculation of impact velocity. Consider a 2500 lb vehicle (a small vehicle) having a 100 inch wheelbase and a 50/50 weight distribution. Considering the radius of gyration to be approximately 50 inches, Figure 15, shows the kinetic energy contributed by rotation at varying angular spin rates. Figure 15 assumes the rotation to be about the mass center of the vehicle. Since vehicles often have an instant center of rotation away from the mass center, these values are conservative (low) for many accidents. As can be seen, at 150 deg/sec, this lightweight vehicle possesses 5000 ft-lb of energy. That potentionally significant energy indicates that whenever there is post impact rotation, the collision analyst should calculate the rotational component in order to determine the rotational energy contri buti on to the vel oci ty cal cul ati on. Neglecting the rotational energy contribution may often contribute to significant errors in a reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . Techniques are presented to predict post impact rotational velocity. These prediction methodologies are shown to match the reference computer simulation (SMAC) within 10%. Further work is necessary to investigate the structural response of other vehicle types to high speed lateral pole impacts. Further work is necessary to investigate the structural response due to hard spots and pole diameter variations. The small, unibody vehi cl es of different manufacturers studied behave in a similar fashion when subjected to high speed lateral pole impacts. Default structural parameters as used in CRASH 3 are not appropriate for use to reconstruct individual lateral narrow impacts. Care should be taken when applying conservation of energy reconstruction techniques in order to carefully account for all energy, including that due to rotation. AV is a vector and should be used in reconstruction calculations appropriately. AV is not an energy parameter. Care should be taken to correctly account for the differences between local (crush zone) and center of gravity AV. When appl yi ng t he CRASH al gor i t hm, t he calculation of absorbed energy should be performed in the same manner as the structural stiffness calculation. When calculating the B structural stiffness parameter with average crush, and then applying the actual crush profile in the CRASH energy equation, over- prediction of energy occurs. When calculating the B structural stiffness parameter with the crush profile, and then applying the average crush in the CRASH energy equation, under- prediction of energy occurs. The tangential correcti on factor shoul d be considered in the structural stiffness calculation. Failure to consider the TCF in the structural stiffness calculations will result in large errors in calculated absorbed energy for oblique collisions. CONTACT Comments or questions are welcome and may be directed to the authors: KEVA Engineering Transportation Accident Analysis and Reconstruction 5636 La Cumbre Road Somis, California 93066 www.kevaena.com REFERENCES Automated Sci ences Group, NHTSA Data Tape Reference Guide, Volume I: Vehicle Crash Tests, Office of Vehicle Research, NHTSA, US DOT, 1985. Bell, L., Car To Pole Side Impact Test of a 45 Degree Crabbed Moving 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit Into a Fixed Rigid Pole at 20.1 MPH, DOT HS 840706, 1984. Bell, L., Car To Pole Side Impact Test of a 45 Degree Crabbed Moving 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit Into a Fixed Rigid Pole at 24.9 MPH, DOT HS 840803, 1984. Bell, L., Side Impact Aggressiveness Attributes: Car To Pole Side Impact Test of a 45 Degree Crabbed Moving 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit Into a Fixed Rigid Pole at 19.95 MPH, DOT HS 806853, 1984. Bell, L., Side impact Aggressiveness Attributes: Car To Pole Side Impact Test of a 45 Degree Crabbed Moving 1977 Volkswagen Rabbit Into a Fixed Rigid Pole at 25.0 MPH, DOT HS 806856, 1984. Brown, C.M., Ford Taurus Broadside Collision With a Narrow Fixed Object FOIL Test Number: 958008, Contract Number DTFHGI-94-C-00008, 1996. Brown, C.M., Ford Taurus Broadside Collision With a Narrow Fixed Object FOIL Test Number: 95so14, Contract Number DTFHGI -94-C-00008, 1996. CRASH 3 Users Guide and Technical Manual, Publication No. DOT-HS-805732, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Dept. of Transportation, Washington, DC, February 1981; Revised April 1982. EDCRASH Version 4.6 Users Manual, Engineering , 92 Dynamics Corporation 1993. Hargens, R.L., Day, T.D., Vehicle Crush Stiffness Coefficients for Model Years 1970-1984 with Damage Profile Supplement. EDC Library Reference Number 1042. Hinch, J.A., Stout, D., Thirty MPH Broadside Impact of a Mini-Sized Vehicle and A Breakaway Luminaire Support, PB89214571, 1987. , Hinch, J.A., Stout, D., Thirty MPH Broadside Impact of a ; Mini-Sized Vehicle and A Breakaway Luminaire Support, PB89214589, 1987. Hinch, J.A., Stout, D., Thirty MPH Broadside Impact of a Mini-Sized Vehicle and A Breakaway Luminaire Support, PB89214597, 1987. Pole Barrier impact Into a 1987 Volkswagen Golf 3-Door Hatchback In Support of CRASH III Damage Algorithm Reformulation, DOT HS 807 911, 1991. Markusic, C.A., Final Report of a Non-Deformable Crabbed lmpactor into a 1988 Ford Escort 3-Door Hatchback in Support of CRASH III Damage Algorithm Reformulation, PB96179213, 1995. McHenry, R.R., Development of a Computer Program to Aid the investigation of Highway Accidents, Calspan Report No. VJ-2979-V-1, December 1971, HS 800 821. Meriam, J.L., Kraige, L.G., Engineering Mechanics, Volume 2 - Dynamics, John Wiley and Sons., New York, NY, 1986. SLAM for Windows, TRANTECH, 1994. Hinch, J.A., Stout, D., Thirty MPH Broadside Impact of a Mini-Sized Vehicle and A Breakaway Luminaire Support, PB89214605, 1987. APPENDIX Hinch, J.A., Stout, D., Thirty MPH Broadside Impact of a Mini-Sized Vehicle and A Breakaway Luminaire Support, PB89214613, 1987. Hinch, J.A., Stout, D., Thirty MPH Broadside impact of a Mini-Sized Vehicle and A Breakaway Luminaire Support, FHWA-RD-89-094, 1987. Hinch, J.A., Manhard, G., Stout, D., Owings, R.., Laboratory Procedures to Determine the Breakaway Behavior of Luminaire Supports in Mini-Sized Vehicle Collisions, Volume II. Technical Report, PB87204376, 1987. Hinch, J.A., Manhard, G., Stout, D., Owings, R.., Laboratory Procedures to Determine the Breakaway Behavior of Luminaire Supports in Mini-Sized Vehicle Collisions, Volume III. FOIL Operation and Safety Plan, PB87204384,1987. Hinch, J.A., Stout, D., Thirty MPH Broadside Impact of a Mini-Sized Vehicle and A Breakaway Luminaire Support, PB89214639, 1988. Hinch, J.A., Stout, D., Thirty MPH Broadside Impact of a Mini-Sized Vehicle and A Breakaway Luminaire Support, PB89214647, 1988. Kerkhoff, J.F., Husher, S.E., Varat, M.S., Busenga, A.M., Hamilton, K., An Investigation into Vehicle Frontal Impact Stiffness, BEV and Repeated Testing for Reconstruction, SAE Paper 930899, Warrendale, PA, 1993. Markusic, C.A., Final Report of 270 Degree Moving Pole Barrier Impact Into a 1986 Ford Escort 3-Door Hatchback in Support of CRASH III Damage Algorithm Reformulation, DOT HS 807 776, 1991. The following are crush profiles or vehicle impact photos, as available, to graphically demonstrate the associated deformation patterns. 10 L-,--d IO I__- ,.,- 2-d _ OD,.~~4~.1.~(.~~11...L.~~~~oo~.. Figure Al _ Ford Escort crush profile at bumper height (DOT HS 807 776,3-4). Figure A2. Ford Escort crush profile at bumper height (DOT HS 807 776,4-4). Markusic, C.A., Final Report of a 315 Degree Moving 193