For vehicle to vehicle collisions methods validation, obviously cars are mass produced and so full scale tests can be performed from which validations of computer models can be ascertained (RICSAC tests, etc).
There was a group at SAE 15 years or so ago that I participated in which was trying to come up with a validation comparison of computer models.
- First item: What Tests to use for validation'?
- RICSAC is fine, however there was some rumblings back then about problems with RICSAC.
- In response we did research and prepared a SAE paper in 1997: which demonstrated that there are no problems with the RICSAC tests.
- In 2002, Brach & Smith’s published SAE paper which confirmed our findings
- NOTE: We attach to this thread our comments relayed to the authors of 2002-01-1305 prior to publication and which were also attached the 2002 paper, which help explain the reasons for the discrepancies reported in the 2002 findings. Bottom line was sideslaps
- Some of the more recent full scale tests (MacInnis, various NYSTAR, etc) have problems with post-impact speeds, etc due to post-impact arbitrarily steering and braking which were not documented (with limited test space they needed to brake/steer the vehicles to prevent errant vehicle problems and did not keep track of the extent and magnitude of post impact steering and/or braking).
- Second Item: What are the inputs required for each technique to reconstruct the collision?
- Many techniques have inputs which can be somewhat subjective, particularly when performing a validation run (since the answer is known in most validation tests), and so the question is:
- How can the technique be applied in an objective way, what are the inputs required, such that a dozen people applying it to a particular collision will get the same results?
- Many techniques have inputs which can be somewhat subjective, particularly when performing a validation run (since the answer is known in most validation tests), and so the question is:
- Third Item: HOW to present the validation results?
- The use of ‘combined impact speeds’ and ‘95% confidence’ as suggested by Terry Day and Engineering Dynamics in their validation of the EDCRASH program Further Validation of EDCRASH Using the RICSAC Staged Collisions, SAE paper 89-0740 is an attempt to hide the over 40% errors which can occur in some of the individual reconstructions included in the validations. It is misleading and inappropriate.
I shudder when I wonder how many people have been wrongly convicted by police using EDCRASH or similar techniques while the police claimed accuracy which isn’t really there.
Sure in many cases, CRASH and momentum techniques are reasonably accurate.- However how do you know if the case you are examining is one of the 40% error cases or one which is reasonably accurate?
You should always test and refine any momentum/CRASH type results by application of simulation or other technique to verify the results
- However how do you know if the case you are examining is one of the 40% error cases or one which is reasonably accurate?
- The use of ‘combined impact speeds’ and ‘95% confidence’ as suggested by Terry Day and Engineering Dynamics in their validation of the EDCRASH program Further Validation of EDCRASH Using the RICSAC Staged Collisions, SAE paper 89-0740 is an attempt to hide the over 40% errors which can occur in some of the individual reconstructions included in the validations. It is misleading and inappropriate.