Citation

Singh J. Traffic Injury Prev. 2013; 14(7): 718-724.

Affiliation

a Biomechanical Engineering Analysis and Research, Inc. , Thousand Oaks , California.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15389588.2012.751489

PMID

23944384

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was a thorough reconsideration, within the framework of Newtonian mechanics and work-energy relationships, of the empirically interpreted relationships employed within the CRASH3 damage analysis algorithm in regards to linearity between barrier equivalent velocity (BEV) or peak collision force magnitude and residual damage depth. METHODS: The CRASH3 damage analysis algorithm was considered, first in terms of the cases of collisions that produced no residual damage, in order to properly explain the damage onset speed and crush resistance terms. Under the modeling constraints of the collision partners representing a closed system and the a priori assumption of linearity between BEV or peak collision force magnitude and residual damage depth, the equations for the sole realistic model were derived. RESULTS: Evaluation of the work-energy relationships for collisions at or below the elastic limit revealed that the BEV or peak collision force magnitude relationships are bifurcated based upon the residual damage depth. Rather than being additive terms from the linear curve fits employed in the CRASH3 damage analysis algorithm, the Campbell b 0 and CRASH3 AL terms represent the maximum values that can be ascribed to the BEV or peak collision force magnitude, respectively, for collisions that produce zero residual damage. Collisions resulting in the production of non-zero residual damage depth already account for the surpassing of the elastic limit during closure and therefore the secondary addition of the elastic limit terms represents a double accounting of the same. This evaluation shows that the current energy absorbed formulation utilized in the CRASH3 damage analysis algorithm extraneously includes terms associated with the A and G stiffness coefficients. This sole realistic model, however, is limited, secondary to reducing the coefficient of restitution to a constant value for all cases in which the residual damage depth is nonzero. CONCLUSION: Linearity between BEV or peak collision force magnitude and residual damage depth may be applicable for particular ranges of residual damage depth for any given region of any given vehicle. Within the modeling construct employed by the CRASH3 damage algorithm, the case of uniform and ubiquitous linearity cannot be supported. Considerations regarding the inclusion of internal work recovered and restitution for modeling the separation phase change in velocity magnitude should account for not only the effects present during the evaluation of a vehicle-to-vehicle collision of interest but also to the approach taken for modeling the force-deflection response for each collision partner. Supplemental materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Traffic Injury Prevention to view the supplemental file.

Language: en