SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES

1999-01-0099

Crush Energy and Structural Characterization

Kevin J. Welsh and Donald E. Struble
Struble-Welsh Engineering, Inc.

Reprinted From: Accident Reconstruction: Technology and Animation IX (SP-1407)

International Congress and Exposition Detroit, Michigan March 1-4, 1999

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAEs 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 Sections 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 1999 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

1999-01-0099

Crush Energy and Structural Characterization

Kevin J. Welsh and Donald E. Struble
Struble-Welsh Engineering, Inc.
Copyright 1999 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

ABSTRACT
A key aspect of accident reconstruction is the calculation of how much kinetic energy is dissipated as crush. By far the most widely used methods are derivatives of Campbell's work, in which a linear relationship between residual crush and closing speed is shown to imply an underlying linearity between force and crush. Consantstiffness model is the term used for such a representation of structural behavior. Difficulties arise, however, when significant non-uniformities are present in the crush pattern (as in narrow-object and/or side impacts, for example). The term "residual crush" becomes more ambiguous. Do we mean maximum crush, area-weighted average crush, or some other measure of residual deformation? And is it sufficient to represent the non-uniform crush pattern by a single parameter? Such considerations led to a re-development of the fundamental structural models, with an eye to determining whether the classical constant-stiffness model is the most appropriate. For narrow-object side impacts, a constant-force model was developed. For wide-object impacts, constant-stiffness and constant-force models were developed, along with a three-parameter model. These models were applied to published side impact and narrow-object data. The constant-force model emerged as the preferred formulation for narrow-object side impacts, and was at least on a par with the constant-stiffness model for wide-object side impacts. For frontal impacts, wide-object test data could not predict narrowobject behavior with acceptable results.

impact tests were run in order to derive stiffness values. When the derived stiffness values were applied to the test vehicle crush profiles, the test speeds were not reproduced. For stiffness values derived from only two tests, this should be possible. A different problem exists in the basic behavior of side structures themselves. Static crush tests of whole-car side structures conducted at Minicars in the mid 70's, as well as analysis (conducted by the authors) of data from narrow-object side impact tests, suggest that a constantforce model is worthy of consideration for side structures. To attack these problems, it was decided to take a fresh look at the analysis of side impact crashes, and to derive a constant-force model and a three-parameter model (using force saturation) for side structures. These new tools were then applied to available crash test data to examine their relative accuracy in predicting crash test crush energy.

NARROW-OBJECT SIDE IMPACTS

Side impacts with narrow fixed objects do not occur often relative to other types of crashes, but when they do happen they pose special risks to vehicle occupants, particularly if the occupants happen to be seated at the location of the pole impact. Dramatic amounts of crush and intrusion may be created at speeds that, in a different crash mode, may be deemed by lay persons to be non-threatening. Even if structural deformation were somehow to be avoided, an occupant's head could still be exposed to a direct contact, through the window opening, with an unyielding object. Such accidents also pose special problems to the accident reconstructionist. One would like to turn to narrowobject side impact tests for engineering results upon which to build a reconstruction. However, there are precious few such tests to be found in the literature. The tests that do exist utilize inconsistent crush measurement protocols that have little or no documentation, and some of them present difficulties in calculating an energy balance, due to lack of data regarding post-impact motions of the vehicle.

INTRODUCTION
The calculation of crush energy for reasonably uniform crush shapes, as detailed by Campbell [Campbell 1972], [Campbell 1974] is well understood. For non-uniform crush, as seen in narrow-object impacts and most side impacts, the calculation of crush energy is not as straightforward. One example of this problem is demonstrated in the work by Willke and Monk [Willke 1987] in which side

One way of dealing with this situation is to perform a narrow-object crash test in which the test vehicle structure will be exercised in a fashion similar to the way it was in the accident vehicle. Often, one does not have this luxury. Even if one can perform a crash test, it is necessary to make some pre-test calculations so that usable data can be obtained. It is thus useful to examine the available test data, however sparse, and derive some insights that may be useful to the reconstructionist. SOME STRUCTURAL INSIGHTS FROM STATIC CRUSH TESTS We start by examining static crush tests of vehicle side structures, in which the force generated by the structure is plotted against its crush. One might think of looking at certification test data from the former version of FMVSS 214. This standard entailed a static crush test in which a rigid cylindrical indenter was pushed into a door. However, such data are generally not in the public domain, and in any case the test is usually terminated as soon as the required force levels are generated. Consequently, the crush may be much less than what one might encounter in injury-producing narrow object impacts. We should also point out that the indenter, unlike most trees and poles, does not extend down to ground level, or even to a level at which the rocker panel would be engaged [FMVSS 214]. So we must look elsewhere for data. Early in the Minicars RSV program, some preliminary crush tests were performed on Ford Pintos [DiNapoli 1977]. Two different rigid indenters were used: either a 14-inch pole, or a concrete-filled 1974 Pinto front end. Four different tests were conducted: 1. 2. 3. 4. Pinto corner into 1971 Pinto side at 300 degrees Pinto front into 1974 Pinto side at 90 degrees Pinto corner into 1974 Pinto side at 300 degrees Pole into 1974 Pinto side at 90 degrees.

Aside from these observations, the significant fact is that in each test, the structure displayed constant-force behavior to a surprising extent. One could say that the most noteworthy difference between the wide- and narrow-object tests was in the plateau force level. In narrowobject tests, the plateau level was remarkably independent of the shape of the indenter, and whether a door beam was present.

Figure 1. Preliminary Lateral Crush Test Results Further tests were conducted using a rigidized RSV nose as an indenter. To evaluate the effect of struck car size and body style (two or four doors), four 1976-model production vehicles were selected: a two door-Chevette, two- and four-door Datsun B-210s, and a two-door Chevelle Malibu Classic. For each vehicle, two tests were performed: one at 90 degrees with four inches of overlap between the indenter bumper and the A-pillar, and one at 300 degrees with the indenter corner just missing the Apillar. Results of the corner tests are shown in Figure 2. At first glance, it appears that we do not see constant-force plateaus, except for the two-door Datsun B-210. However, it is worth noting that the tests were stopped at about 13 inches of crush. In that range the constant-force behavior in the narrow-object tests of Figure 1 would not show up either. At low values of crush, the force levels of the Chevelle Malibu are seen to be very low compared to those of the smaller (unibody) vehicles. It is not difficult to imagine the length of the Malibu door being a factor here. However, the force levels start to climb rapidly beyond five inches or so, most likely due to the involvement of the Malibu's frame at that point. Figure 3 shows the results with the indenter at 90 degrees and engaging the A-pillar. Once again we see essentially constant-force plateaus, with a substantial difference between the large and small cars. Virtually no difference is seen between the two-door and the four-door vehicles, however.

The corner tests were such that the corner just missed the A-pillar. In the 90-degree test with the rigidized Pinto front, the A-pillar was engaged. The pole indenter was located at the driver H-point. The difference between wide and narrow indenters is easily seen in Figure 1. In Test 2, not only were the forces distributed over a wider area, but direct engagement of the A- and B-pillars was obtained. We see that a corner engagement (Test 3) initially produces a softer response than a pole (Test 4), but after 10 inches or so the responses are similar. Since the 1971 Pinto did not have a door beam, whereas the 1974 vehicle did, we see from Tests 1 and 3 that the effect of the door beam is to stiffen the door early, just as one would expect. Beyond 14 or 15 inches, however, the responses are again similar.

Figure 4. Effect of A-Post Engagement 90 Degree Impact Mode into Chevette MORE INSIGHTS FROM FHWA POLE RESEARCH Four tests were conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (Fhwa), in which vehicles were launched directly sideways into a rigid, instrumented pole [Hargrave 1989]. These tests involved three small cars (Honda Civic - SI#1, Volkswagen Rabbit - SI#2, Dodge Colt - SI#3) and a large car (Dodge St. Regis - SI#8). Department of Transportation (DOT) numbers for these tests were 907 through 909, and 911. Figure 5, taken from [Hargrave 1989], shows the vehicle force-deflection curves. Again, a ramping is seen until 10 to 12 inches of crush, followed by a force plateau. It is noteworthy how similar the plateaus are, including the Dodge St. Regis, which weighed more than 2.5 times as much as the small cars. (The St. Regis crushed less, not because it was stiffer, but because it was crashed at 10 mph instead of 25 mph for the small cars.) The FHwA conducted other tests into breakaway poles. In all but one of these tests, there are sufficient data regarding post-impact motions of the car and the pole to perform an energy balance. However, that remaining test, DOT 857, does provide insights regarding head contact hazards. Head contact on the pole produced a Head Injury Criterion (HIC) of over 2800, even though the pole was very light weight and on a breakaway base, and the vehicle velocity change (V) was "only" 13.3 mph. (High speed film shows the reason: the dummy's head contacted the pole directly through the window opening, before the pole achieved detectable motion. Thus head contact occurred at or above the closing speed of 29.2 mph, not at the V. The pole's reduced mass and slip base mount did not come into play as far as occupant injury was concerned.)

Figure 2. Static Crush Test Results 300 Degree Impact Mode No A-Post Engagement

Figure 3. Static Crush Test Results 90 Degree Impact Mode Engaging A-Post To study the effect of missing the A-pillar in a 90-degree wide-object impact, an additional 90-degree Chevette test was run, without such engagement. Figure 4 shows a surprising similarity in the results, suggesting that the A-pillar provides lateral resistance to crush, even if it is not engaged directly. This is probably due to a strong load path through the door hinges, and to the fact that the intruding door tends to engage the cowl structure. When the A-pillar/hinge complex is just missed by the impacting bumper, it is loaded more in shear than in torsion, and it seems to carry such loads well.

Figure 5. Side Impact Force Deflection Characteristics for Four Vehicles INSIGHTS FROM NHTSA RIGID POLE TESTS The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has conducted rigid pole side impact tests of both baseline and structurally modified vehicles. In DOT 755, a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit was towed at a yaw angle of 45 degrees into a fixed, rigid pole, the diameter of which was not reported. The 20 mph impact occurred on the driver's side (315 degrees), with initial contact at 34.5 inches ahead of wheelbase center. Thus the pole was lined up to partially engage the A-pillar [DOT 755]. In this test, the driver dummy head passed through the window opening and contacted the pole, producing a HIC of 977. Force-deflection curves are not presented, but the force-time curve shown in Figure 6 again indicates a force plateau. In DOT 749, conducted a week later, another 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit was crashed under similar conditions, except that the initial contact point was adjusted to 26.5 inches forward of wheelbase center. It appears that such an alignment placed the edge of the pole on a line with the door cut line, just missing the A-pillar [DOT 749]. Again, the driver dummy head passed through the window opening and contacted the pole. This time the HIC was over 2900, and the dummy's right leg was severed above the knee. Figure 7 indicates a force plateau. After another month or so, NHTSA conducted another 315 degree pole impact; the impact point was moved still farther aft, to nine inches forward of wheelbase center. The test vehicle was a modified Volkswagen Rabbit with alterations to both structure and interior padding. The test speed was increased to 25 mph [DOT 768]. This time the dummy's head just grazed the pole, and the HIC was 152. The peak force was raised to about 46,000 pounds, as seen in Figure 8, despite the pole being further away from the A-pillar and cowl structures. However, the big factor in reducing the HIC was keeping the head trajectory away from the pole.

Figure 6. 45 Degree Crabbed Volkswagen Rabbit into Fixed Pole Total of Four Pole Channels

Figure 7. 45 Degree Crabbed Volkswagen Rabbit into Fixed Pole Total of Four Pole Forces

Figure 8. 45 Degree Crabbed Volkswagen Rabbit into Fixed Pole Total of Four Pole Forces

Table 1. Pole Tests

BUILDING A STRUCTURAL MODEL FOR POLE IMPACTS Available pole impact test data were assembled in order to determine what sort of structural model would best relate crash severity to post-crash measurements. These tests are listed in Table 1. Despite obvious variations in car size, pole diameter, mass, and rigidity, and vehicle angle and impact point, nine of the ten tests were analyzed as a group. Only Test 3, DOT 857, was excluded due to lack of information on the struck pole motion. Metrics considered for vehicle damage (dependent variable) included (weighted) average crush, maximum crush, and area under the crush profile. Metrics of crash severity (independent variable) included vehicle weight and initial speed, momentum, and kinetic energy. Also considered was system loss of kinetic energy (i.e., crush energy). Of all the relationships considered, easily the best fit to the data was a model in which crush energy and maximum crush were linearly related. The implication of this finding is that the underlying structural behavior reflects a constant-force crush characteristic. To see that this is so, consider the idealized forcedeflection characteristic of Figure 9. Here the structure resists crush by generating a force per unit width that rises rapidly (in a linear fashion) to some peak value F s. Cs is the deflection (saturation crush) at which that occurs. As crush increases beyond Cs the force per unit width remains constant at Fs. (Note that the basic formulation is similar to a constantstiffness model with force saturation, except that in this case the crush characteristic goes through the origin. In addition, a constant-force model emphasizes the plateau force per unit width Fs by subjecting it, rather than the initial slope, to statistical analysis procedures.)

The crush energy CE associated with a crush of C is simply the area under the crush characteristic of Figure 9. We have

(1) The factor of 12 reflects crush C and width L being measured in inches, and crush energy in foot-pounds. If we were to plot 12CE/L as the ordinate, as a function of the abscissa C, we would have a linear relationship between crush energy CE and the crush C, as noted in the study of pole crash test data. Thus the pole test data do indeed suggest a constant force model. Moreover, if we were to plot the data with ordinate and abscissa as described, the slope of such a line fitted to the data would be Fs. The intercept of the line is the term -FsCs, from which the saturation crush value Cs could be determined.

Figure 9. Constant Force Model

IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLE TEST DATA Figure 10 is a plot of the nine pole impacts. The regression line is based on Tests 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (the circles), but not Tests 4, 6, and 10 (the triangles). Test 4 involved a structurally stiffened vehicle, as mentioned previously. It is not surprising that it lies above the line (i.e., requires more energy to produce a certain amount of crush). Test 10 involved the only large car in the group, a 4490-pound Dodge St. Regis. Its softer behavior is not surprising. Only one other data point, Test 6, is significantly off the regression line. The reasons are unknown. The six tests on the regression line involve both rigid and breakaway poles. They involve three different vehicle designs: Honda Civics, a Dodge Colt, and Volkswagen Rabbits. The Rabbit model years included 1976, 1979, and 1981. Angles of impact ranged from 270 to 315 degrees, and impact points varied from the A-pillar to different locations along the door. In view of these differences, it is surprising how well the data are fitted by a single model, and a constant-force model at that, until one considers the underlying structural behavior discussed previously.

ever, larger cars and those which have been structurally stiffened should be treated separately.

ANALYSIS OF COLLINEAR VEHICLE-TOVEHICLE IMPACTS

Another valuable source of data comes from running a rigid, but movable barrier into the side of a vehicle. There are numerous problems associated with the use of moving barrier impacts for derivation of stiffness values, the most significant being post-impact run-out. In an attempt to deal with this problem, an analysis was undertaken of uniaxial (collinear) vehicle-to-vehicle impacts in which restitution is included. This analysis should apply to both fixed and moving rigid barrier impacts; to front and rear as well as side impacts as long as yaw rates post-impact are not significant. The analysis resulted in the following relationship between energy dissipated (in crush) and closing velocity:

(2) where CE denotes energy dissipated (ft-lb), W1 and W2 are vehicle weights (lb), g is the gravitational constant (ft/ s2), Vcl is closing velocity (ft/s), and is the restitution coefficient, for which we used 0.10 in our analysis. Note that, in general, the energy term on the left side of this equation pertains to the total energy dissipated by both vehicles in crush. In the special case of a rigid moving barrier impact, it is assumed that all of the crush energy is absorbed by the struck vehicle. This value for energy absorbed can then be equated to the integration of the crush shape as proposed by Campbell [Campbell 1972]. STRUCTURAL MODEL AND CRUSH MAGNITUDE METRIC To date, the preferred structural model for vehicle structures has been a constant stiffness model, originally proposed by Campbell [Campbell 1972]. In order to determine whether a constant force structural model is more appropriate for side structures, both a constant force and a constant stiffness analysis were developed. The question also arose of whether using maximum crush or weighted average crush as the crush magnitude metric would produce the better results. It was therefore decided to proceed with four separate developments: two structural models, each using one of the two crush magnitude metrics. CONSTANT STIFFNESS MODEL The most general development turns out to be that for a constant stiffness structural model using the maximum crush to characterize the deformation, which was previously discussed by Smith, et. al. [Smith 1987]. In that development, one obtains the familiar equation

Figure 10. It is noteworthy that the maximum crush produces a better fit than does average crush. From a theoretical point of view, one would expect the average crush to work better. However, the average crush is a function of the whole crush profile -- most notably the crush width. It is therefore a more complex measurement to make, and is more subject to uncertainties regarding how to define the crush width and how to include the effects of bowing. (We should note that the nine tests were conducted by two different Government agencies, each of which used at least two different measurement protocols.) It is probably this reduced dependence on measurement techniques which allows the maximum crush to produce a better statistical fit to the test data. It would appear that small car structures behave similarly when struck in the side by poles, be they rigid or breakaway. Therefore, disparate test data can be combined to produce a good model of the structural behavior. How6

(3)

where c = c(x) = crush, and x represents crush width. As usual, A is in pounds per inch, B is in pounds per square inch, and CE is in foot-pounds. Introducing c(x) = Ef(x) (where E is max crush and f(x) is the function which represents the crush shape), and performing the algebra to determine G, the equation becomes

Beta in this equation has the same form as the in Equation (9), but with E replaced by , the average crush. Again equating this result with Equation (2) then results in the equation

(4) where

(12) This equation can be used to plot (/L) vs the left side of equation (12) to obtain a straight line with a slope of B and intercept of A/B.

(5) and

(6) For a piecewise-linear crush profile, where the shape function is defined as

Note that the form factor does not show up in this equation. This is because by definition, deviations from the average crush balance each other and thus integrate to zero when the crush profile is integrated over the crush width. By contrast, deviations from the maximum crush do not integrate to zero, and the form factor remains in the equation. Also, the stiffness B is multiplied by the square of c; the variations do not average out in the integration of c2 but are carried along in the factor. Further, it can be shown that these two developments are, in fact, equivalent. Therefore, only the weighted average crush development will be included in the analysis of test data. CONSTANT FORCE MODEL Now considering a constant force model using maximum crush as the crush magnitude metric, we start with the basic assumption that we have a constant force per unit width (13)

(7) the form factor is determined to be

(8) while the form factor is

(9) Equating the crush energies in Equations (2) and (4) results in the relationship

The crush energy density per unit width is then

(14) Introducing c = Ef(x), where E is max crush, and integrating gives the expression for crush energy (10) where Weff = WvWb/(Wv+Wb), Wv is test vehicle weight in pounds, Wb is barrier weight in pounds, L is the crush width in inches, and Vcl is closing velocity in mph. This equation then allows the plot of [(/L)/(/L)]E vs. the left hand side of equation (10) to produce a straight line with a slope of B and an intercept of A/B. Following this same development, but using weighted average crush as the magnitude metric, rather than max crush, yields the equation (15) where CE is in foot pounds, A is in pounds per inch, G is in pounds, and is as defined previously. Thus, a plot of 12CE/L vs (/L)E will be a straight line with a slope of A and an intercept of G. Note that with the constant stiffness model, the form factor was associated with the stiffness B. Since this formulation does not involve stiffness, neither B nor shows up. This same development using weighted average crush gives the result

(11)

(16)

where is the average crush. So for the constant force model using weighted average crush, a plot of 12CE/L vs will give a straight line with a slope of A and an intercept of G. Again, the developments for max crush and weighted average crush turn out to be equivalent. This can be quickly verified by multiplying the definition for (Eq. 8) by E, which results in

(17) The right side of this equation is the area under the crush curve divided by the crush width, which is the definition of weighted average crush ( ). So Equation (15) reduces to Equation (16) (as do the crash-plot abscissa definitions) and the two developments are equivalent. Comparison of Equations (1) and (17) allows the following physical interpretation: A is the constant force level and that the saturation crush Cs can be computed once A and G are known. RELATING WIDE TO NARROW-OBJECT IMPACTS In the previous work by Smith [Smith 1987], the constant stiffness/max crush analysis was used to predict frontal narrow object crush energy in tests of a 1984 Honda Accord, 1983 Renault Fuego, 1983 Dodge Omni, and a series of repeated impact tests of a 1975 Olds Delta 88. For comparison, we ran the constant stiffness/weighted average crush analysis for the Honda and Omni tests to examine the effect of the difference in crush magnitude metric. As expected, the results for both developments were almost identical. For the Omni, Smith's predicted crush energies (with max crush metric) for the two tests were 32% and 53% of actual, while our development using weighted average crush predicted 33% and 56% of actual, respectively. For the Honda, Smith's analysis predicted crush energies at 50% and 65% of actual, while our average crush development predicted 52% and 66% of actual, respectively. As has been noted, the developments for both magnitude metrics are equivalent, and so it is not surprising that the results are so similar. One possible explanation for why they are not identical is that and are not included in the definition of G in the Smith paper, as they are here. As these results show, the prediction of narrow object impact crush energy from frontal barrier data is prone to gross under-estimation. One obvious problem is that induced damage in the form of reduced crush width is actually causing a decrease in the estimate of crush energy, when in fact this reduction in crush width required energy, and therefore should somehow be included as an increase in crush energy. Smith recommended multiplying the predicted crush energy by a correction factor equal to the undamaged width divided by the damaged width. This is certainly a step in the right direction, but as shown in the Smith paper, this does not go far enough to correct the under-estimation. 8

At present, it does not appear that a single structural characterization (i.e., a single set of parameters such as A and B, for example) will accurately predict crush energy for both side and narrow-object impacts. However, in narrow-object impacts we have developed a single characterization for a variety of vehicles, pole configurations, impact angles and locations. This could be used to reconstruct a particular narrow-object impact, even if the subject accident involved a different vehicle and impact conditions. Such an approach appears preferable to extrapolating from wide-object crash test data, even if such testing involved the "right" vehicle. If a choice has to be made, it is better to match the crash mode, compared to matching the vehicle. THREE-PARAMETER MODELS As noted earlier, the crush characteristic for a constant-force model passes through the origin, whereas for a constant-stiffness model, it does not. Otherwise, a constant-stiffness model with force saturation would have a similar appearance to a constant-force model (although it is the initial slope in the former, and the plateau force in the latter, which are subjected to statistical analysis procedures). Such thoughts give rise to a three-parameter model, which is sort of a combination of the two. The underlying crush characteristic for such a model is shown in Figure 11, in which the force-deflection curve is described by three parameters: the force intercept F0, the force saturation level (plateau) Fs, and the saturation crush Cs.

Figure 11. At first glance, it might appear that three parameters would enable a perfect fit to the data from a three test series. However, the three resulting equations are nonlinear, and such is not the case. The best one can do is obtain a "best fit" solution. APPLYING THE MODELS TO VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE SIDE IMPACT TEST DATA As with the analysis of impacts with narrow fixed objects, it is necessary to fully account for post-impact kinetic energies of the collision partners, as well as the allocation of crush energy between them. Unfortunately, the second consideration virtually eliminates the use of the dynamic FMVSS 214 crash tests, because the total crush energy is distributed in some unknown way between the struck vehicle and the

moving barrier. We must therefore search for tests involving an unyielding impactor. The search narrows quickly to rigid moving barrier side impacts performed by Willke and Monk [Willke 1987], and by Aloke Prasad [Prasad 1991]. In the Willke work, twotest series were run on a Ford Escort, Mitsubishi Tredia, Chevrolet Citation, and Ford LTD, at 10 and 20 mph delta-V. A third 25 mph delta-V test was run on the Citation. In the Prasad tests, the repeated impact method (as described by Warner, et.al. [Warner 1986]) was used to run three- and four-test series on a 1983 Ford Tempo, 1984 Honda Prelude, 1985 Nissan Sentra, 1985 Chrysler LeBaron, and 1985 Chevrolet Celebrity. The proposed constant-force and constant-stiffness structure models involve two parameters. Therefore, if one has only two tests from which to determine these parameters, the resulting structural characterization should fit perfectly. Stated another way, if one is drawing a straight line between two test data points, it should be possible to make the line go through the points exactly. The model would then "close the loop," meaning that the model would accurately predict the crush energies in the crash tests from which the stiffness values were derived. Recall that Willke and Monk reported some difficulties in this regard. The two structure models (constant force and constant stiffness) were evaluated in this way against the two-test Ford Escort series run by Willke and Monk. The highest error in predicting the test crush energy was 0.08 per cent, which can be assumed to be due to round off. Therefore, both models do indeed close the loop. Beyond merely closing the loop, the models should accurately predict crush energy over a range of crash severities. To examine goodness of fit in this way requires a series of at least three tests. The Prasad tests meet this requirement. Since they entailed repeated impacts, the

procedures as outlined by Warner [Warner 1986] were included in the analysis. For each vehicle, two crash plots were generated -- one for the constant force model, and one for the constant stiffness model. The form factors and were calculated for each crush profile, and regression techniques were used to determine the model parameters A and B or A and G, as appropriate. Since two of the vehicles (Prelude and LeBaron) were hit four times, there was a choice in determining the parameters for these vehicles: use all four tests or only three (the first three or the last three). For the Prelude and LeBaron, therefore, three sets of parameters were generated for each of the constant-force and constant-stiffness models. A set of parameters for the three-parameter model were also developed for each test series, and combination of tests, as described above. The parameters derived for each vehicle and series of tests are shown in Table 2. The three models and derived parameters were then used to calculate a predicted crush energy for each crash test. The percent error in each prediction is shown in Table 3. In this table, "Lo" indicates that the first three tests in a four test series were used in deriving the parameters, "Hi" indicates that the last three tests were used, and "All" indicates all four tests were used. RESULTS OF THE VEHICLE-TO-VEHICLE SIDE IMPACT TEST DATA ANALYSIS For the three-parameter model, the saturation crush levels ranged between 4.2 and 9.8 inches. This parameter tended to increase somewhat when the fourth test was included in the calculations. The force intercept values were surprisingly close to zero, ranging from 0.05 to just over one pound per inch. A strong similarity to the constant-force model is thus indicated, and indeed the results for these two models track each other closely.

Table 2. Derived Model Parameters

Across the board, the models perform better for the higher energy tests. It is also noteworthy that the constant stiffness model over-estimated the energy for every one of the lowest energy tests but one. This is not so for the constant force and three-parameter models, which tended to under-estimate the energy in many of the lowest energy tests. So for low-speed impacts, the constant force and three-parameter models give the most conservative estimate of energy dissipated. For either four-test series, the inclusion of the fourth test in the calculations caused a dramatic increase in the error associated with the first test -- particularly if the first test was not used in the calculations. The implication is that if one is attempting to reconstruct a low- or moderate-severity impact, one should exclude the higher-severity tests in the calculation of model parameters. For either four-test series, the exclusion of the fourth test in the calculation of model parameters leads predictably to the highest error in that fourth test. If all four tests are used, the prediction of crush energy in the fourth test is improved, but if one bases the model parameters on the last three tests only, the crush energy predictions are even better in the fourth tests. The moral to this story is that the best results are obtained from test data nearest the subject crash in severity, and that extrapolating to speeds beyond the crash test data should be avoided whenever possible. In general, the constant-stiffness model performed better for the Prelude and Sentra, while the constant-force and three-parameter models were better predictors for the Tempo, LeBaron, and Celebrity. There is no wisdom forthcoming on why one model works better than another for a given vehicle. However, as one would predict from the constant force behavior of side structures in static crush and narrow object impact tests, the constant force model is capable of providing good crush energy estimates for side structures.

Table 3.

Comparison of Percent Error in Predicting Crash Test Crush Efficiency

CONCLUSIONS
Side pole test data were analyzed and found to be best fit by a constant-force model using only the maximum crush measurement to characterize the residual crush pattern. Maximum crush out-performs other metrics such as average crush, perhaps because they may be more sensitive to ambiguities in determining crush width, or to any failure of six-measurement crush profiles to capture the maximum crush. Despite a diversity of vehicles, poles, and test conditions, a single model was able to adequately predict the crush energy. The underlying explanation of why such a model works so well can be found by examining the forcedeflection characteristics of both static and dynamic narrow-object tests.

For frontal impacts, models were developed for wideobject tests, and the resulting parameters were then applied to narrow-object impacts. The ability to predict the crush energy in the narrow-object tests was slightly improved relative to previous models, but still far short of acceptable. In reconstructing narrow-object impacts, it is more appropriate to use narrow-object test data (from other vehicles) to derive a structural model for a given vehicle than it is to use wide-object testing for that vehicle itself.

10

For wide-object side impacts, it was found that a single parameter was insufficient information with regard to the residual crush pattern. Additional form factors and are necessary in some cases for a fully-accurate calculation of crush energy. When such factors are incorporated properly, both maximum crush and area-weighted average crush turn out to be equivalent measures of damage severity. The fact that both the constant-force and constant-stiffness models "closed the loop" when fitting a model to the two-test Ford Escort series indicates that the addition of form factors is the necessary ingredient, compared to earlier analyses. For wide-object side impacts, constant-force, constantstiffness, and three-parameter models were developed. These models were applied to rigid moving barrier impacts into the sides of vehicles. With the three-parameter model, the zero-crush intercept was so close to zero force that the three-parameter model behaved very much like its constant-force cousin. On this basis, one would expect better prediction ability from the constant-force model than from the constantstiffness model. This turned out to be only slightly true, as both formulations gave good results as long as the accident vehicle crush is within the range of the three crash tests used to determine the model's parameters. No pattern was seen as to why one model would work slightly better than the other for a particular vehicle. Generally, attempts to extend the range of applicability of either model by adding the fourth data point are counterproductive. If a data point is added to one end of the range of crush magnitude, the crush energy prediction at the opposite end of the range is degraded. Similarly, both models were sensitive to extrapolation, particularly when using higher-severity test data to predict low-speed crush energy. The best results are obtained from test data nearest the subject crash in severity. If one must extrapolate, the conservative approach would be to use a constant force-model. It tended to under-predict crush energy at the ends of crash severity ranges, whereas the constant-stiffness model tended to over-predict in these circumstances. If a test at higher crash severity results in structural separation, recommended procedure has been to use sill crush averaging, which tends to reduce the crush magnitude (while at the same time introducing discontinuities in the crush measurement protocol). An alternate recommendation has been to adjust the crush profile to reflect the deformed shape without separations (i.e., to move the separated portion of the profile so as to close the gaps). Either procedure tends to result in a lowered estimate of crush energy.

The latter procedure requires that the crush be mapped in all its detail. If this is done, all the raw crush information is preserved and can be used later to make adjustments or consider new means of characterizing the crush. Consequently, we recommend mapping whenever crush data are being collected. When using a constant-stiffness model, either procedure appears to be a useful counterweight to the model's overprediction tendencies at the high end. For a constantforce model, however, such adjustments would not be recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Esther Welsh and Donald L. Struble for their help in preparing the figures.

REFERENCES
1. [Campbell 1972] Energy as a Basis for Accident Severity -A Preliminary Study, KL Campbell, Doctoral Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Madison, Wisconsin, 1972. 2. [Campbell 1974] Energy Basis for Collision Severity, KL Campbell, Society of Automotive Engineers Paper 740565. Presented at the 3rd International SAE Conference on Occupant Protection, July 1974. 3. [DiNapoli 1977] Research Safety Vehicle, Phase II - Volume II Comprehensive Technical Results, N DiNapoli, M Fitzpatrick, C Strother, D Struble, and R Tanner, Minicars, Inc., November 1977. 4. [DOT 442] Test Report, Car-To-Pole Side Impact of a 1976 Volkswagen Rabbit Into a Breakaway Pole at 30.4 Mph, Ensco, Inc. 5. [DOT 469] Laboratory Procedures to Determine the Breakaway Behavior of Luminaire Supports in Mini-Sized Vehicle Collisions: Low Speed Forty-Five Degree Impact of a Minicompact Sedan and a Validated Surrogate Breakaway Luminaire Support - Test Results Report - Test Number 1469-5A82, ED Howerter, JA Hinch, and RP Owings, Ensco, Inc., 28 June 1982. 6. [DOT 749] Side-Impact Aggressiveness Attributes - Car-ToPole Side Impact Test of a 45 Crabbed Moving 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit Into a Fixed Rigid Pole at 20.1 Mph, L. Bell, NHTSA, September 1984. 7. [DOT 755] Side-Impact Aggressiveness Attributes - Car-ToPole Side Impact Test of a 45 Crabbed Moving 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit Into a Fixed Rigid Pole at 19.95 Mph, L. Bell, NHTSA, August 1984. 8. [DOT 768] Side-Impact Aggressiveness Attributes - Car-ToPole Side Impact Test of a 45 Crabbed Moving 1977 Volkswagen Rabbit Into a Fixed Rigid Pole at 25.0 Mph, L. Bell, NHTSA, September 1984. 9. [DOT 857] Laboratory Procedures to Determine the Breakaway Behavior of Luminaire Supports in Mini-Sized Vehicle Collisions: Thirty Mph Broadside Impact of a Honda Civic and a Breakaway Luminaire Support - Test Results Report - Test Number 1469-SI#4-85, JA Hinch, Ensco, Inc., February 1986.

11

10. [FHwA 1986] Laboratory Procedures to Determine the Breakaway Behavior of Luminaire Supports in Mini-Sized Vehicle Collisions: Side Impact - Rigid Pole Test Results Report - Test No's SI#1, SI#2, SI#3, and SI#8, JA Hinch, G Manhard, and RP Owings, Ensco, Inc., February 1986. (DOT 907, 908, 909, and 911). 11. [FMVSS 214] Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571, Section 214. 12. [Hargrave 1989] "A Summary of Recent Side Impact Research Conducted by the Federal Highway Administration," MW Hargrave, AG Hansen, and JA Hinch, SAE Paper 890377, February 1989. 13. [Prasad 1991] "Energy Absorbed by Vehicle Structures in Side-Impacts," AK Prasad, SAE Paper 910599, 1991. 14. [Smith 1987] "Frontal Crush Energy and Impulse Analysis of Narrow Object Impacts," GC Smith, MB James, TR Perl, and DE Struble, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Winter Annual Meeting, December 1987. 15. [Warner 1986] "A Repeated-Crash Test Technique for Assessment of Structural Impact Behavior," CY Warner, DL Allsop, GJ Germane, SAE Paper 860208, 1986. 16. [Willke 1987] Crash III Model Improvements: Derivation of New Side Stiffness Parameters from Crash Tests, Volume 2, DT Willke, and MW Monk, DOT HS No. 807 353, June 1987

12