Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 980027

Comparison of Modelled and Actual Car Dynamic

Frontal Crush
Denis P. Wood
Denis Wood Associates

Reprinted From: Accident Reconstruction: Technology and Animation VIII

(SP-1319)

International Congress and Exposition

Detroit, Michigan
February 23-26, 1998

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.

SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

980027

Comparison of Modelled and Actual Car Dynamic Frontal Crush

Denis P. Wood
Denis Wood Associates

Copyright © 1998 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT third, lesser force region linked with crushing of the occu-
pant compartment.
The results of the comparison of actual dynamic frontal
Separate modelling (3) of the behaviour of cars in
crush behaviour from initial contact to maximum dynamic impacts with narrow objects for the purposes of speed
crush of 8 cars in 45% frontal overlap and 30 degree rigid estimation from residual crush proposed that the overall
barrier impacts at 50 and 56 kph respectively with the car front could be regarded as deforming in a geometric
predicted responses from an overall frontal crush model way. The same model proposed that the energy
are presented. The model used is based on the assump- absorbed by the car front was related to the average
tions of the overall front structure deforming in a geomet- crush depth when this was calculated on the extent of
ric manner and of the energy absorption properties in the rearward displacement of all parts of the car front.
full width barrier impact being the same as the energy
absorption characteristics in other frontal crush configu-
rations for identical average crush depths. The model
uses a fundamentally different method of calculating
average crush depth to that used in CRASH.
The actual and predicted acceleration-displacement
responses show very similar acceleration patterns while
comparison of predicted and actual energy equivalent
speeds shows for the cars examined that the 98% (+/-
1%) confidence limits between actual and predicted
energy equivalent speeds are -8.2 kph to + 6.0 kph for
energy equivalent speeds up to 56 kph where energy
equivalent speed is the square root of twice the specific
energy (energy divided by mass).

INTRODUCTION

Studies (1,2) of the overall dynamic frontal crush behav-

iour of 8 cars in full width rigid barrier, 45% overlap rigid
barrier and 30 degree angled barrier impact tests in
terms of the energy absorption - dynamic displacement
characteristic of the cars showed similar patterns of
energy absorption in all three impact configurations albeit
with different displacements in each impact configuration
for the same degree of energy absorption. This similarity
of energy absorption patterns indicates that similar pat-
terns of energy absorption occur in all other frontal crush
configurations in which the full front is engaged in the Figure 1. Geometric Model. (ref. 3)
deformation process. The studies suggested that the
frontal impact behaviour of cars could be represented by First attempts to model the overall dynamic behaviour of
3 constant force regions, an initial low force region on ini- car fronts (4,5) used an idealised form of force displace-
tial crushing followed by the highest force levels associ- ment for the full width crush behaviour. However a sim-
ated with crushing of the engine and front structure pler approach (2,6) proposed that the energy absorption-
immediately ahead of the front bulkhead/firewall and a displacement characteristics of a car in the full width bar-
rier impact could be regarded as being the energy

1
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

absorbed-average displacement characteristic for all TEST DATA

other frontal crush configurations and geometries when
the average displacement is calculated on the rearward The model is applied to 8 cars on which full width barrier,
displacement of the front as defined in ref. 3. 30 degree angled barrier and 45% overlap rigid barrier
This paper extends the analysis of this approach and tests were carried out at 56 kph and 50 kph respectively.
examines the acceleration-displacement characteristics The tests were carried out at the Biomechanics Labora-
of the 8 cars and also compares the energy absorption tory of INRETS at Lyon, France, the French Government
properties of the car front structures, actual versus pre- Road and Transport Research Organisation as part of an
dicted. In the paper in place of directly comparing energy overall programme of investigation into the comparative
absorption the comparison is made of its surrogate, the safety of various types of cars. A single test of each type
energy equivalent speeds which are the square root of was carried out on each car type, a total of 24 tests.
the energy divided by the mass (the specific energy). Analysis of the actual frontal crush behaviour of these
cars is detailed in refs. 1 and 2.
ASSUMPTIONS FOR MODELLING FRONTAL
The 30 degree angled rigid barrier test has been used for
CRUSH many years by European researchers and car manufac-
turers as one of the development tools to evaluate car
Figure 1 illustrates the geometric aspects of the model.
impact behaviour. Its use originated from observations at
The assumptions for the idealisation of the overall car
in many real life frontal accidents the crushed car fronts
front crush are;
took on a triangular shape. The 45% overlap rigid barrier
• The energy absorption-crush depth characteristic for test originated in a similar manner and is the precursor of
full width rigid barrier crushing for the car type under the deformable offset barrier test which is due to become
consideration represents the energy absorption-aver- part of the legal test certification requirements in both
age depth characteristic for all crush configurations. Europe and the U.S.
• The external profile of the car can be considered as
taking a geometric profile with the non contact
side(s) hinging at the leading edge of the front 45% Overlap 30 degree
door(s) of the car.
• The energy absorption of the car front is related to
the extent of rearward deformation of each portion of
the front - the influence of bending can be ignored.
• The “width” of the crushable elements of the car front
remains constant but during crushing some elements
take up angled attitudes.
• The energy absorption properties are uniform across
the width of the car.
The model assumes, though parts of the car front can be
pulled towards the centreline of the car, that the essential
displacement of all elements of the car front is rearward.
Simple geometric study shows that this is so for idealised
structures. On the basis that the deformation is rearward
and that the width of the front is inextensible, see ref. 3,
then the integration of the crush depth across the car
front is carried out over the deformed front profile in the
manner shown in Figure 1. This method of calculating
average crush depth is different to that used in CRASH
and its variants.
One consequence of this representation of frontal crush Figure 2. Modelled Impact Behaviour
behaviour is, for the same amount of energy absorbed by
the structure, that greater displacements occur when The details of the car sizes and masses have been previ-
there is partial contact across the car front. For these cir- ously reported (2). All cars are front wheel drive and all
cumstances, the crushing forces and accelerations are have transverse engines with the exception of car 3
correspondingly lower than for the full width impacts at which has a longitudinal engine. Accelerometers with
the same speeds. 1000 Hz. filters were mounted on the central tunnel at the
C.G. and at both “B” pillars. The output of all accelerome-
ters was summed and averaged. The dynamic displace-
ment up to maximum dynamic crush was obtained by

2
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018
double integration of the averaged acceleration response
and compared with high speed film records. The
absorbed energy-dynamic displacement characteristic of
each car in each test was obtained by the integration and
transformation of the acceleration-time responses of the
cars. The absorbed energy and acceleration characteris-
tics were then determined for dynamic displacements
increments of 20 mm.
MODELLING
The modelling of the car deformation during impact was
carried out on the basis that the crush profile was similar
to that shown in Figure 2 for the 45% overlap and 30
degree impacts respectively and that the average instan-
taneous crush depth was calculated using the procedure
outlined in Figure 1 and ref. 3. This is referred to in the
remainder of the paper as the “geometric model”.
Table 1. 45% Offset Tests - EES Difference Analysis
CAR t Mean EES kph Std. Dev. Kph
1 -0.62 -0.24 2.35
2 -1.97 -1.01 3.08
3 18.03 6.26 2.48
4 3.23 0.99 2.01
5 1.05 0.26 1.48
6 13.3 4.33 1.95
7 4.15 1.22 1.79
8 9.78 2.61 1.77
ALL 16.49 2.0 2.17
The geometric model was used to calculate the relation-
ship between the instantaneous centre of gravity dis-
placement and the corresponding instantaneous average
crush depth. The equations detailing this relationship are
given in Reference 3. Then, from the full width energy
absorption-dynamic displacement characteristic the level
of energy absorbed corresponding to the instantaneous
centre of gravity displacement was obtained. The accel-
eration response was calculated by dividing the incre-
mental change in specific energy by the incremental
change in instantaneous centre of gravity displacement.
In the case of the 30 degree angled barrier test, the mod-
elling was based on the assumption that the angle of the
car front progressively increased until 30 degrees was
reached at which point the full width of the car front was
incrementally crushed by the same amount with the car
front profile remaining at 30 degrees. Over this portion of
crushing the incremental change in C.G. displacement is
the same as the incremental change in average crush
depth. The consequence of this is that the model predicts
acceleration levels in this region of the same magnitude
as obtained in the full width barrier tests.
RESULTS
The fundamental purpose of this work is to compare the
predicted and actual frontal crushing force versus dis-
placement characteristics for cars when the frontal con-
tact width is less than full width as it is the force versus
displacement behaviour of the car front which determines
the impact behaviour of the car. The comparisons used
are for evaluation of the model are the responses in the
45% overlap rigid barrier test at 50 kph and the 30
degree angled barrier test because of the availability of
this test data. For each car type the acceleration versus
displacement responses times the mass are the same as
the force versus displacement responses. The accelera-
tion versus displacement comparisons are used here
instead of force versus displacement because of the gen-
eral use of acceleration responses in car impact perfor-
mance evaluation.
A second comparison is the energy absorption versus
displacement behaviour of the car front structure. This is
in effect the integration over displacement of the force
versus displacement characteristic. The energy absorp-
tion capability of cars can be normalised in terms of spe-
cific energy ( energy per unit mass) and in terms of the
energy equivalent speed. The energy equivalent speed
(EES) is the square root of twice the specific energy. The
N comparison of the energy versus displacement and of its
37 surrogate, the EES versus displacement characteristics,
36 will highlight any cumulative difference between the pre-
51 dicted and actual behaviour of the car front.
43
36
The graphs of the acceleration versus displacement and
36 of the EES comparisons, Figures 3 to 6 inclusive, are
37 appended to the rear of the paper.
44
320 ACCELERATION VERSUS DISPLACEMENT
RESPONSES
The acceleration behaviour was evaluated in two ways.
Firstly, the patterns of the actual and predicted accelera-
tion-displacement characteristics were compared, and
secondly, the variations in acceleration difference (pre-
dicted acceleration minus actual acceleration) with dis-
placement were examined.
Figures 3.1 to 3.8 show the results for the 45% overlap
rigid barrier tests at 50 kph. In general both sets of accel-
eration responses are similar for all cases albeit that the
peaks and valleys in the accelerations do not occur at the
same displacements in the actual and predicted
responses. There appears to be a general tendency for
the actual accelerations at high displacements to be
lower than the calculated values. However this tendency
is not supported by examination of the acceleration differ-
ence characteristics. These show that the variation in
acceleration difference is independent of displacement.
Figures 4.1 to 4.8 show the comparisons for the 30
degree angled barrier tests at 56 kph. Again there is a
high degree of matching between the experimental and
modelled responses with some displacement offset
between corresponding acceleration peaks and valleys.
However the underlying patterns are similar. The acceler-
ation difference characteristic again shows that the accel-
eration difference is independent of displacement. There
is no systematic acceleration difference-displacement
trend or bias.
3
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Comparison of the 45% and 30 degrees predicted

responses shows that on average the predicted accelera- Table 2. 30 Degree Angled Tests - EES Difference
tion is higher than the actual for the 45% overlap while it Analysis
is lower than the actual for the 30 degree impacts. CAR t Mean EES kph Std. Dev. Kph N
1 0.008 0.006 4.87 41
ENERGY EQUIVALENT SPEED RESPONSES 2 8.8 3.86 3.07 49
3 - 2.08 - 1.48 4.88 47
The energy absorbed by the car front can be expressed 4 4.31 1.54 2.50 49
in terms of the energy equivalent speed (EES). The 5 - 5.35 -1.50 1.84 43
6 0.78 0.56 4.59 41
model and experimental responses are compared in two
7 - 2.06 - 0.55 1.77 44
ways, firstly experimental EES is plotted as a function of
8 - 0.70 - 0.41 4.16 50
predicted EES and secondly the variations in EES differ- ALL 1.55 0.30 3.66 364
ence ( predicted EES minus experimental EES) with pre-
dicted EES are examined. Validation of the repeated impact test procedure by
Prasad ,ref. 7, among others, has demonstrated that
Figures 5.1 to 5.8 shows the comparisons for the 45% there is no significant impact velocity or “strain rate” type
overlap rigid barrier tests at 50 kph while Figures 6.1 to effect for car structures in frontal collisions.
6.8 shows the results for the 30 degree angled barrier
tests at 56 kph. Consequently we can consider that the energy versus
displacement characteristics of the cars in lower speed
For the 45% overlap tests, inspection indicates that there
impacts would be the same as the tests up to the maxi-
is a high degree of similarity between the experimental
mum dynamic displacement appropriate to the particular
and modelled energy equivalent speeds for 5 of the 8
impact speed. Therefore the differences between actual
cars. Cars 2,3 and 6 show greater divergence between
and predicted energy equivalent speeds over the 20 mm
actual and calculated responses. For cars 3 and 6 the
increments of dynamic displacement used in the analysis
calculated EES’s are greater than the actual while for car
can be used as a measure of the variation between the
2 the experimental EES’s are greater than calculated at
model and actual impact behaviour over the range of
low and high speeds with reversal at intermediate
impact speeds up to the maximum used in the tests.
speeds. Examination of the variation in EES difference as
a function of calculated EES shows that the variation is Analysis of the EES differences were separately carried
independent of EES. Also the pattern of variation is not out for the 45% and 30 degree tests and for both com-
consistent and is different between cars. bined together. The results are detailed in Tables 1 to 3.
Table 1 shows the EES difference data for the 45% over-
For the 30 degree angled barrier tests, the experimental
lap tests. The analysis confirms that Car 3, the car with
values of energy equivalent speed are less than the cal-
the longitudinal engine has the greatest divergence both
culated values at low speeds. At higher speeds there is
in terms of scatter and offset between actual and calcu-
closer correspondence between the calculated and
lated EES values.
actual values. Again, for the 30 degree tests the variation
in EES difference is independent of calculated EES. Table 2 shows the statistical data for the 30 degree angle
barrier test. Comparison with Table 1 shows that the scat-
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ter for the 30 degree angled barrier comparisons are
higher than for the 45% offset tests. This is partially due
The model proposed here is used to predict the accelera- to the divergence between EES values at low speeds.
tion (force) versus displacement characteristics of cars in Here the difference between Car 3 with the longitudinal
frontal impacts when the direct frontal contact width is engine and the rest of the cars is not as pronounced.
less than 100%. The predicted acceleration versus dis- Combining the results from both sets of tests gives a
placement characteristic is obtained from the derivation measure of the overall comparison between actual and
of the prediction of the energy absorption capability of the modelled behaviour for each of the 8 car types examined.
car as a function of crush displacement in the particular The results of this are shown in Table 3.
frontal impact. Examination of Figures 3 and 4 show that
the patterns of acceleration versus displacement pre-
dicted by the model are similar to the actual acceleration Table 3. Combined Results - EES Difference Analysis
versus displacement behaviour of the cars in the tests. In CAR t Mean Vel. Kph Std. Dev. Kph N
this paper the absorbed energy versus displacement 1 0.273 0.12 3.88 78
characteristics are expressed in terms of the energy 2 4.29 1.43 3.07 85
equivalent speed, EES. The energy characteristics of the 3 6.06 2.39 3.82 98
car front are the integration of the acceleration (force) 4 5.39 1.28 2.28 92
5 3.68 0.70 1.69 79
versus displacement characteristics and these will accen-
6 5.65 2.32 3.61 77
tuate any differences between the model and actual car
7 1.31 0.26 1.78 81
behaviour. 8 2.99 1.00 3.27 94
ALL 9.39 1.10 3.05 684

4
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Evaluation of the data in Table 3 shows that while Car 3
with the longitudinal engine has the largest mean EES
difference value of 2.39 kph, this is not greatly different
than the mean value for car 6, 2.08 kph. Also while Car 3
has a high overall standard deviation, 3.82 kph it does not
have the highest value. The overall analysis shows that
the calculated EES value is, on average, higher than the
actual EES by 1.1 kph with a standard deviation of 3.05
kph. This yields a 98% confidence interval (+/- 1%) from -
8.2 kph to + 6.0 kph.
GEOMETRIC MODEL
The validity of using the geometric representation of the
frontal crushing process can be evaluated by examina-
tion of the variation in EES difference with calculated
EES value. If the geometric model does not represent
the actual crushing behaviour then a systematic
pattern of deviation in EES difference with magnitude of
calculated EES would be expected. This pattern could be
either a positive or negative trend in magnitude of EES
difference or could be a form of cyclic variation in differ-
ence with magnitude of calculated EES or a combination
of both.
Figures 7 and 8 show the patterns of variation in EES dif-
ference (predicted EES minus actual EES) for the 45%
overlap and the 30 degree tests respectively. For the 45%
overlap tests there are 3 different patterns of variation in
EES difference while for the 30 degree angled barrier
tests there are 4 different patterns of variation in EES dif-
ference.
tions examined the geometric model is a valid
representation of the manner in which the overall car
fronts dynamically deform. Also the different patterns of
variation in EES difference for each car in the 45% and
30 degree tests indicate that the specific manner in which
the structural crushing force varies with crush depth for
each car alters with the type and nature of overall crush
profile in a manner which can only be predicted by the
application of complex, detailed finite element modelling
of the particular car structure under evaluation.
In a more general way, the differences in EES difference
patterns for individual car types as between the 45%
overlap and 30 degree angled barrier tests highlight an
inherent limitation, irrespective of modelling method, in
the prediction of the energy absorbed and equivalent
velocity from a single impact configuration, i.e., the full
width barrier behaviour. The statistical data here suggest
that the minimum confidence limits for the prediction of
absorbed EES and collision speed in a two car frontal
impact for the reasons just described is in the area of - 12
kph to + 9 kph (98% confidence limits).

Figure 8. 30 Degree Angle Barrier Tests. EES

Figure 7. 45% Overlap Tests. EES Difference Patterns.
The patterns in both sets of tests are different from each
other and no two cars have the same pattern of variation
in both the 45% overlap and the 30 degree angled barrier
tests.
This absence of a systematic pattern of EES difference
variation either for an individual car type or test configura-
tion indicates that for the direct frontal impact configura-
Difference Patterns.
DISCUSSION
Comparison of the modelled and actual acceleration
responses shows that the predicted responses are simi-
lar in profile and magnitude to the actual responses albeit
with the peaks and valleys in the predicted and actual
acceleration levels offset from one another. In relation to
the energy equivalent speed responses there is good

5
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018
matching between predicted and actual EES values for 6
of the 8 cars, the other two cars having greater diver-
gence. Despite this the overall mean value of the pre-
dicted EES is 1.1 kph greater than the actual with a 98%
confidence range (+/- 1% confidence limits) of - 8.2 kph
to + 6.0 kph (- 3.7 to 5.1 mph).
The analysis shows that the geometric representation of
frontal crush deformation combined with using the full
width barrier energy absorption characteristics as being
the mean crush depth-energy absorption characteristics
for all frontal crush patterns gives a first order prediction
of the overall energy absorption and acceleration versus
displacement responses of cars in frontal impacts as evi-
denced by the 30 degree and 45% rigid barrier compari-
sons.
Previous studies of the frontal crush behaviour of cars
(1,2) showed for the 30 degree angled barrier tests that
the average crushing forces during crushing of the
engine and rear front structure directly ahead of the front
bulkhead/firewall was the same as for the full width bar-
rier test. The geometric model predicts this result on the
basis that when the angle of the front profile reaches 30
degrees thereafter the full width of the car front crushes
equally. In actual car to car collisions where the car fronts
take up triangular crush profiles this phenomenon will not
occur and profiles angles greater than 30 degrees will be
obtained in severe impacts. Also the acceleration pulses
imposed on the car structure will be substantially less
than obtained in the 30 degree angle barrier test.
The calculation method used here for determination of
the average crush depth in non full width frontal impacts
is fundamentally different to that used in CRASH and
unlike CRASH and its variants, takes account of the nar-
rowing of the car front without the need to resort to arbi-
trary correction factors.
While the model detailed in the paper has been applied,
in this instance, to the dynamic crushing behaviour a sim-
ilar approach can be applied to estimation of crush
energy from residual crush by expressing the full width
rigid barrier energy absorption characteristics in terms of
residual crush. In this context a single high speed full
width barrier test has the potential to yield all the neces-
sary information for all frontal collisions up to the full
width rigid barrier test speed.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the comparisons detailed in the paper show,
for the assumptions proposed for the prediction of the
dynamic frontal crush behaviour of cars that:
• the acceleration-displacement characteristics and
hence the force-displacement characteristics pre-
dicted by the model are similar in magnitude and pro-
file to the actual characteristics.
• the overall frontal shape in the course of crushing
can be represented by the geometric model.
6
• the assumptions provide the explanation for the high
accelerations obtained in the 30 degree angled bar-
rier tests.
• the differences in crushing force-crushing depth
behaviour between the predictions from the full width
impact and the actual 45% overlap and 30 degree
angled frontal impacts for individual cars are due to
differences in the structural collapse behaviour of the
individual front structures under different impact con-
figurations.
• the calculation method used here for determination
of average crush depth takes account of the narrow-
ing of the width of the car front with impact severity
without having to introduce correction factors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance of Mr. G.Vallet, INRETS, in analysing the
test data is gratefully acknowledged. I would also like to
thank Mr. D. King for his helpful advice and comments.
REFERENCES
1. Wood D., O’Riordain S. and Vallet G. “Car Frontal Crush - a
New Perspective” International IRCOBI Conference, Dublin,
Ireland, 1996, p 201-210.
2. Wood D. and Mooney S. “Modelling of Car Dynamic Frontal
Crush” SAE Technical Paper 970943, Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc. Warrendale, Pennsylvania, USA, 1997.
3. Wood D., Doody M. and Mooney S. “Application of a Gen-
eralised Frontal Crush Model of the Car Population to Pole
and Narrow Object Impacts” SAE Technical Paper 930894,
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Warrendale, Penn-
sylvania, USA, 1993.
4. O’Riordain S., Vallet G., and Wood D. “Modelling of Car
Dynamic Crush Behaviour in Frontal Impact” International
IRCOBI Conference, Lyons, France September 1994.
5. Wood D. “Determination of Speed from Crush” Chapter 7
from “Forensic Accident Investigation : Motor Vehicles”,
editors Bohan T.L. and Damask A.C. publ. Michie Butter-
worth, Charlottesville, Virginia , USA, 1995.
6. Wood D., Mooney S. and Vallet G. “An Estimation Method
for the Frontal Impact Response of Cars” International
IRCOBI Conference, Hannover, Germany, 1997, p 321-
336.
7. Prasad A.K. “Energy Dissipated in Vehicle Crush - a Study
Using the Repeated Test Technique” SAE Technical Paper
900412, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. Warrendale,
Pennsylvania, USA, 1990.
 Accel-'g' Accel -'g' Accel -'g'

-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.01 0.01 0.03

0.07 0.05 0.07

0.09 0.11
0.13
0.13

Figure 3.1.a

Figure 3.3.a
Figure 3.2.a
0.15
0.19
0.17 0.19
0.25
0.21
0.23
0.31 0.25
0.27
0.37 0.29
0.31
0.43 0.33
0.35
0.37
0.49 0.39
0.41
0.55 0.43

Crush Distance
0.45
0.47

Crush Distance m

Car 3 45% O.lap

Car 2 45% O.lap
0.61

m
0.49
0.51

Crush Distance m
Car 1 45% O.lap

0.67 0.53
0.55
0.73 0.57
0.59
0.79 0.61
0.63
0.65
0.85 0.67
0.69
0.91 0.71
0.73
0.75
0.97
0.77
0.79

0.83

7
Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g' Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g' Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'
APPENDIX

-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30

0.01 0.03 0.01

0.07 0.07 0.05

0.09
0.13 0.11
0.13

Figure 3.3.b
Figure 3.2.b
Figure 3.1.b

0.15
0.19 0.17
0.19
0.25 0.21
0.23 0.25
0.31
0.27 0.29
0.37
0.31 0.33
0.43 0.37
0.35
0.41
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

0.49
0.39
0.45
0.55
0.43
0.49
0.61
Crush Distance m

Crush Distance m
Car 3 45% O.lap

0.47
Car 2 45% O.Lap
Car 1 45% 0.lap

0.53
0.67 0.51 0.57

0.73 0.55 0.61

0.65
0.79 0.59
0.69
0.85 0.63
0.73
0.91 0.67
0.77
0.71 0.81
0.97
Crush Distance m

0.85
 Accel -'g' Accel -'g' Accel -'g'

-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.01 0.01 -0.01 35
0.05 0.05 0.05
0.09 0.09
0.11
0.13 0.13

Figure 3.6.a
Figure 3.5.a
Figure 3.4.a
0.17
0.17 0.17
0.21 0.23
0.21
0.25 0.25 0.29

0.29 0.29 0.35

0.33 0.33 0.43
0.37 0.37
0.49
0.41
0.41
0.45 0.55
0.45

Crush Distance m
0.61

Crush Distance m
Crush Distance m

Car 6 45% O.lap

Car 5 45% O.lap
Car 4 45% O.lap

0.49
0.49
0.53 0.67
0.53
0.57
0.57 0.73
0.61
0.61 0.79
0.65
0.65
0.85
0.69
0.69
0.73 0.91
0.73
0.77 0.97
0.77
0.81

8
Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g' Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g' Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25

0.01 0.01 -0.01

0.05 0.03
0.05
0.07
0.09 0.09
0.11

Figure 3.6.b
Figure 3.5.b
Figure 3.4.b

0.13
0.13 0.15
0.17
0.17 0.19
0.21 0.23
0.21
0.25 0.27
0.25
0.29 0.31
0.29 0.33 0.35
0.41
0.33 0.37
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

0.45
0.37 0.41
0.49
0.41 0.45
0.53

Crush Distance m
Crush Distance m
Crush Distance m

Car 6 45% O.lap

Car 5 45% O.lap
Car 4 45% O.lap

0.49 0.57
0.45
0.53 0.61
0.49
0.57 0.65
0.53
0.69
0.61
0.57 0.73
0.65
0.77
0.61
0.69
0.81
0.65 0.73 0.85
0.69 0.77 0.89
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 7 45% O.lap Car 7 45% O.lap

45 25

40 20

35 15

Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

30
10
Accel -'g'

25
5
20
0

0.01

0.05

0.09

0.13

0.17

0.21

0.25

0.29

0.33

0.37

0.41

0.45

0.49

0.53

0.57

0.61

0.65

0.69

0.73
15
-5
10
-10
5
-15
0
0.01

0.05

0.09
0.13

0.17

0.21

0.25
0.29

0.33

0.37

0.41

0.45

0.49

0.53

0.57

0.61

0.65

0.69

0.73

0.77

0.81
-20
Crush Distance m Crush Distance m

Figure 3.7.a Figure 3.7.b

Car 8 45% O.lap Car 8 45% O.lap

50 40

45
30
40

Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

35 20
30
Accel -'g'

10
25

20
0

0.01
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.25
0.29
0.33
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.49
0.53
0.57
0.61
0.65
0.69
0.73
0.77
0.81
0.85
0.89
15

10 -10

5
-20
0
0.01
0.05
0.09
0.13
0.17
0.21
0.25
0.29
0.33
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.49
0.53
0.57
0.61
0.65
0.69
0.73
0.77
0.81
0.85
0.89
0.93

-5 -30
Crush Distance m Crush Distance m

Figure 3.8.a Figure 3.8.b

Figure 3: Acceleration versus Displacement Comparison 45% Overlap Rigid Barrier Impacts at 50 kph. —— Experimental
Acceleration ; —O— Calculated Acceleration

Car 1 30 Deg Car 1 30 Deg

15
40
10
35
5
30
Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

0
25 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Accel -'g'

-5
20
-10
15
-15
10 -20

5 -25

0 -30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
-35
Crush Distance m
Crush Distance m

Figure 4.1.b
Figure 4.1.a

9
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 2 30 Deg Car 2 30 Deg

40
15
35
10
30

Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

5
25
Accel -'g'

20 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
15 -5

10 -10

5 -15

0
-20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Crush Distance m
-5
Crush Distance m

Figure 4.2.b
Figure 4.2.a

Car 3 30 Deg
Car 3 30 Deg
20
60
10

Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g

50
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
40
-10

30
-20
Accel -'g'

20
-30

10
-40

0 -50
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Crush Distance m
-10

-20
Crush Distance m

Figure 4.3.a Figure 4.3.b

Car 4 30 Deg
Car 4 30 Deg
45
25
40

35 20

30 15
Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

25
Accel -'g'

10
20
5
15
0
10 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-5
5
-10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 -15
-5
Crush Distance m -20

-25
Crush Distance m

Figure 4.4.a
Figure 4.4.b

10
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 5 30 Deg Car 5 30 Deg

70 30

60
20

50

Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

10
40
Accel -'g'

0
30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

20 -10

10
-20

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 -30
-10
Crush Distance m -40
Crush Distance m

Figure 4.5.a Figure 4.5.b

Car 6 30 Deg Car 6 30 Deg

40 20

15
35
10
30

Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

5
25
0
Accel -'g'

20 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

-5

15 -10

10 -15

-20
5
-25
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 -30

Crush Distance m Crush Distance m

Figure 4.6.a Figure 4.6.b

Car 7 30 Deg Car 7 30 Deg

45 20

40 15

35 10
Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g

30 5

25 0
Accel -'g'

20 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

-5
15
-10
10
-15
5
-20
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 -25
-5
Crush Distance m -30
Crush Distance m

Figure 4.7.a Figure 4.7.b

11
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 8 30 Deg

60 50
Car 8 30 Deg

50 40

30

Accel Calc - Accel Exp -'g'

40

20
Accel -'g'

30

10
20

0
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-20
-10
Crush Distance m -30
Crush Distance m

Figure 4.8.a Figure 4.8.b

Figure 4: Acceleration versus Displacement Comparison 30 Degree Angled Rigid Barrier Impacts at 56 kph. ——
Experimental Acceleration ; —O— Calculated Acceleration

Car 1 45% O.lap

60 Car 1 45% O.lap 4

3
50
2

1
40

V calc - V exp kph

0
V exp kph

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30 -1 V calc kph

-2
20 -3

-4
10
-5

-6
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -7
V calc kph

Figure 5.1.a Figure 5.1.b

Car 2 45% O.lap Car 2 45% O.lap

60 6

50 4

40
V calc - V exp kph

2
V exp kph

30
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
20 V calc kph
-2

10
-4

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -6
V calc kph

Figure 5.2.a Figure 5.2.b

12
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 3 45% O.lap Car 3 45% O.lap

60 12

50 10

V calc - V exp kph

40 8
V exp kph

30 6

20 4

10 2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V calc kph V calc kph

Figure 5.3.a Figure 5.3.b

Car 4 45% O.lap Car 4 45% O.lap

60 4

50 3

2
40

V calc - V exp kph

kph

1
30
V exp

0
20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-1 V calc kph
10
-2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -3
V calc kph

Figure 5.4.a Figure 5.4.b

Car 5 45% O.lap Car 5 45% O.lap

60 5

4
50
3

40 2
V calc - V exp kph
V exp kph

1
30
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-1
20 V calc kph
-2

10 -3

-4
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -5
V calc kph

Figure 5.5.a Figure 5.5.b

13
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 6 45% O.lap Car 6 45% O.lap

60 9

8
50
7

V calc - V exp kph

40 6
V exp kph

5
30
4

20 3

2
10
1

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V calc kph V calc kph

Figure 5.6.a Figure 5.6.b

Car 7 45% O.lap Car 7 45% O.lap

60 6

5
50

4
40

V calc - V exp kph

3
V exp kph

30
2

20 1

0
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-1 V calc kph
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -2
V calc kph

Figure 5.7.a Figure 5.7.b

Car 8 45% O.lap

Car 8 45% O.lap
60 6

5
50

4
40
V calc - V exp kph

3
V exp kph

30
2

20 1

0
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-1
V calc kph
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -2
V calc kph

Figure 5.8.a Figure 5.8.b

Figure 5: Energy Equivalent Speed Comparison 45% Overlap Rigid Barrier Impacts at 50 kph.

14
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 1 30 Deg Car 1 30 Deg

60 8

6
50
4

V calc-V exp kph

40 2
V exp kph

0
30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-2
20
-4

10 -6

-8
0 V calc kph
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V calc kph
Figure 6.1.b
Figure 6.1.a
Car 2 30 Deg
Car 2 30 Deg
12
60

10
50

V calc - V exp kph

8
40
Exp vel kph

30 6

20 4

10 2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Calc vel kph
V calc kph

Figure 6.2.a
Figure 6.2.b

Car 3 30 Deg
Car 3 30 Deg
60
6

50 4

2
40
Exp vel kph

V calc - V exp kph

0
30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-2

20
-4

10 -6

-8
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
-10
Calc vel kph
V calc kph

Figure 6.3.a Figure 6.4.b

15
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 4 30 Deg Car 4 30 Deg

60 10

8
50

6
40

V calc - V exp kph

V exp kph

4
30

2
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
10
-2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -4

V calc kph V calc kph

Figure 6.4.a Figure 6.4.b

Car 5 30 Deg Car 5 30 Deg

60 3

2
50

1
40
Exp vel kph

V calc - V exp kph

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30
-1

20 -2

-3
10

-4
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -5
Calc vel kph
-6

Figure 6.5.a V calc kph

Figure 6.5.b
Car 6 30 Deg

60 Car 6 30 Deg

50 6

4
40
V exp kph

2
30
V calc - V exp kph

0
20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-2
10
-4

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -6
V calc kph
-8

Figure 6.6.a
-10
V calc kph

Figure 6.6.b

16
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018

Car 7 30 Deg Car 7 30 Deg

60 3

2
50
1

V calc - V exp kph

40 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V exp kph

-1
30
-2

20 -3

-4
10
-5

0 -6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 V calc kph
V calc kph

Figure 6.7.b
Figure 6.7.a

Car 8 30 Deg
Car 8 30 Deg
8
60
6

50 4

V calc - V exp kph

2
40
0
V exp kph

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
30 -2

-4
20
-6

10 -8

-10
0
V calc kph
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V calc kph
Figure 6.8.b
Figure 6.8.a

Figure 6: Energy Equivalent Speed Comparison 30 Degree Angled Rigid Barrier Impacts at 56 kph.

17