Page 1 of 1

Where can I find the RICSAC crush measurements?

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:25 pm
by MSI
Q: Where can i find the RICSAC crush measurements?
A: The damage measurements, photos, and test reports and data aquisition information is contained in the original reports on RICSAC.
A summary of the tests was created in 1980 by Smith & Noga "Examples of Staged Collisions in Accident Reconstruction".
We also refer you to our 1997 SAE paper 970961 RICSAC-97 - A Reevaluation of the Reference Set of Full Scale Crash Tests for more accurate impact speed change (DeltaV) values.
The original reports are also posted up: (please let us know if these are unreadable as we have the original documents and at some point may post up better scans)
For additional information see our RICSAC thread.

Re: Where can I find the RICSAC crush measurements?

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:03 pm
by brian
Q: I tried to compare RICSAC tests' total energy loss values with CRASH 3 algorithm and planar impact mechanics. I used NHTSA's stiffness coefficient values for wheelbase category and crush measurements in the papers you sent me. I found total energy loss values so different between 2 methods. Sometimes CRASH 3 results are 2 times higher than planar impact mechanics, and sometimes lower. Why like this do you think? Maybe it is because i used general stiffness coefficients, not the individual real values of vehicles?

  • How do each analytical technique compare with the full scale tests?
    How do your results for CRASH3 compare with the results reported in the literature?
  • To be sure your MATLAB implementation is performing properly you should probably try to duplicate the reported results in the literature. For a presentation and discussions of the original CRASH reconstructions of the RICSAC tests, see the Jones report:
    "Research Input for Computer Simulation of Automobile Collisions Volume IV - Staged Collision Reconstructions", Jones, I.S., Baum, A.S., Calspan Report ZQ-6057-V-6, Contract DOT-HS-7-01511, December 1978
    Some differences in correlation may be due to the Monk & Guenther “Update of CRASH2 Computer Model Damage Tables”, DOT-HS-806446, March 1983 (note: file is 5 megs)
The problem with the CRASH3 update by Monk & Guenther of the Damage tables was that the authors had problems with the fitting procedure and so they ended up averaging the stiffness tables between the CRASH2 and their ‘update’ and so the tables have some issues. Quoting from our 1986 paper "A Revised Damage Analysis Procedure for the CRASH Computer Program":
  • “(4) The test data upon which the CRASH3 empirical fits of the Monk & Guenther report Update of CRASH2 Computer Model Damage Tables are based should be carefully re-examined. In the development of those fits, it has been assumed that common crush properties exist within each size category of vehicle, regardless of differences in the basic layouts of components and in overhang dimensions. The total numbers of included vehicles are limited, and substantial adjustments have been made in the results. A fresh look, with the CRASH4 data needs in mind, may define more proper categories on the basis of stiffness and restitution. It may also eliminate any need for adjustment of the results”.
So the original ‘categories’ from CRASH2 may created a better comparisons than those with the CRASH3 tables.
And one would expect that using custom fitted coefficients for the individual vehicles should also help the CRASH results to better correlate with the full scale tests.

One last important note: A couple of things to be sure to include in any comparison of analytical techniques:
  • How each individual analytical techniques compares with reality (as in full scale tests results)
    A comparison of the input requirements for each technique: Are all directly measurable? Or are some subjective?
    If something isn't measurable, how does an analyst objectively determine the input? Many analytical technique comparisons contain bias when the ‘answers are known’ during the comparisons. Subjective inputs can be arbitrarily adjusted for better correlation. The true test of an analytical technique is applying the technique blindly as is the case when used for actual applications in the field. What are the guidelines for a user to estimate the subjective inputs? And what is the range of possible variation of inputs?

Re: Where can I find the RICSAC crush measurements?

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:08 am
by MSI
Q: Where can I obtain the original CRASH II and CRASH3 parameter data for comparision?
A: The original CRASH parameter data including damage coefficients 1976 "User's Manual for the CRASH Computer Program", McHenry, R. R, January 1976, ZQ-5708-V-3, DOT-HS-5-01124.
CRASH2ParameterData.jpg (47.72 KiB) Viewed 3679 times
The CRASH3 damage tables are contained in the NHTSA CRASH3 Technical Manual (note:the file is 8 megs, we have also posted up a local copy of the CRASH3 Manual in the event the NHTSA site is unavailable). We also have the tables posted up CRASH3 Table 8.1Vehicle Size catagories by Wheelbase and CRASH3 Table 8.2 Vehicle Stffness Catagories
Table8.1.jpg (78.87 KiB) Viewed 3679 times
Table8.2.jpg (101.77 KiB) Viewed 3679 times

Re: Where can I find the RICSAC crush measurements?

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:55 am
by MSI
The following are a few samples from the Monk & Guenthe Report. Note the questionable fits (with 'no damage' intercept of >10 MPH) and then an arbitrary adjustment.
  • MonkGuenthCrasherDamUpdatesamp1.jpg
    MonkGuenthCrasherDamUpdatesamp1.jpg (24.69 KiB) Viewed 3670 times
    MonkGuenthCrasherDamUpdatesamp2.jpg (21.29 KiB) Viewed 3670 times
  • MonkGuenthCrasherDamUpdatesamp3.jpg
    MonkGuenthCrasherDamUpdatesamp3.jpg (25.68 KiB) Viewed 3670 times
Here is a link to a few more pages from the report: