Let It Crash! Energy Equivalent Speed Determination

Pavlína Moravcová

1,2 a

, Kateřina Bucsuházy

1,2 b

, Martin Bilík

1 c

, Michal Belák

1 d

and Albert Bradáč

1 e

Institute of Forensic Engineering, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic

Transport Research Centre, Brno, Czech Republic

Keywords: Crash Test, Crash, EES, Impact Speed, Vehicle Age.

Abstract: Crash analysis including calculation of the impact speed and related determination of deformation energy is

one of the main assumptions for the clarification of mostly negligent crimes. In this article were introduced

results of two crash tests representing the comparison of the stiffness and technological obsolescence and their

influence on the resulted vehicle deformation. Different extent of vehicle deformation was used to

demonstrate the limits of selected methods for Energy Equivalent Speed determination as a value which

expresses the kinetic energy dissipated by the vehicle during the contact phase.

1 INTRODUCTION

The comprehensive crash analysis includes the

impact speed determination and related determination

of vehicle energy loss during impact or more

precisely the deformation energy expressed by the

Energy Equivalent Speed parameter (EES).

Deformation energy determination in EES form is

important especially when the availability of

objective evidence is limited (Macurová et al, 2019).

The methods for crash documentation and analysis

are selected by individuals (Vangi, 2019). The

accuracy of obtained crash reconstruction results is

dependent on the accuracy of the input data.

Current methods for EES determination have

some limitations in terms of usability. This article

aims to compare the limitation of selected methods

for EES determination especially concerning the

vehicle age and related differences in vehicle parts

stiffness as one of the main parameters influencing

the deformation energy determination. (Bradáč,

1999; Coufal, 2014; Semela, 2014). The usability of

selected methods will be demonstrated on the

determination of the EES parameters of the vehicles

after the crash test realised by the Institute of Forensic

Engineering, Brno University of Technology. For the

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9005-703X

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1247-6148

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3796-4658

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6923-8725

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7587-1474

EES determination can be used a number of methods,

some of these methods will be briefly introduced in

the following chapters.

1.1 EES Calculation using PC–Crash

(CRASH 3)

The EES determination using software PC–Crash

programme CRASH 3 assumed the linear dependence

between the force and plastic deformation. One of the

main limitations is the one central stiffness

characteristics (Macurová et al., 2019). The vehicle

database contains US market vehicles, the use in the

EU could be limited. The EU market vehicles could

have different stiffness (Burg et al, 2017; Coufal,

2014; Görtz, 2018).

1.2 Numerical Modelling (FEM)

Finite elements method used the fully deformable

vehicle model and allows comprehensive analysis of

the individual impact phases and identification of

damaged vehicle parts. The FEM is mainly used for

the vehicle components development. Burg (2017)

described FEM as sufficient tool for substation of

crash testing with a pre-series model. The time-

Moravcová, P., Bucsuházy, K., Bilík, M., Belák, M. and Bradá

c, A.

Let It Crash! Energy Equivalent Speed Determination.

DOI: 10.5220/0010449005210528

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS 2021), pages 521-528

ISBN: 978-989-758-513-5

521

consumption, computational requirements, and

related costs eliminate the usability of the method in

forensic practice (Vangi, 2010; Burg, 2017).

1.3 Energy Raster

The energy raster method is based on the Campbell

assumption of the linear impact speed – deformation

depth relationship. The method was further developed

by W. Röhrich, D. Schapera, D. Vangi, H. Burg

and H. Rau (Vangi, 2009, 2010). For the EES

estimation is the vehicle front subdivided into energy

fields with the deformation in these sectors. Based on

the deformation depth in the sectors, the total amount

of deformation energy is subtracted. The energy

raster usability could be limited for the collision with

partial overlapping. The method is suitable for front-

end collisions with full overlapping and older

vehicles with rectangle shapes (Semela, 2014;

Coufal, 2014; Čopiak, 2019; Macurová et al, 2019).

1.4 The Comparison Method

The comparison method is one of the basic and also

most often used methods. The deformation of the

vehicle is compared with the vehicle with known EES

(EES

etalon

) in the EES catalogue. Vehicles weight

differences are considered.

















 



(1)

Most of the used catalogues do not contain

modern vehicles. The methodology of the catalogue

vehicles EES determination is not specified. In the

Czechia, the Melegh catalogue is mostly used

(Melegh, 2005) or PC-Crash database.

2 CRASH TESTS

The EES determination methods have various

limitations (especially concerning the different

structures of modern vehicles deformation parts)

(Bradáč, 1999; Coufal, 2014; Semela, 2014). Crash

tests could serve as a basis for the determination of

selected parameters (vehicle stiffness included) for

the purpose of crash analysis. To point out the

different extent of deformations depending on the

deformation elements stiffness, two almost identical

crash tests were performed - similar vehicles (the

modern vehicle Skoda Rapid and older Skoda

Felicia), similar impact speed, and impact scenario

(side impact). During the first crash test the modern

vehicle hits the side of the older vehicle, the second

crash test was reversal – the older vehicle hits the side

of the modern vehicle.

Table 1: Vehicle parameters.

parameters

crash test 1

crash test 2

Rapid

Felicia

Rapid

Manufacture

year

2016

1996

2016

Length

(mm)

4 304

3 855

4 304

Width

(mm)

1 706

1 635

1 706

Height

(mm)

1 459

1 415

1 459

Wheelbase

(mm)

2 602

2 450

2 602

Weight (kg)

1 294

931

892

1 294

Impact

speed

(km/h)

Figure 1: Crash tests configuration.

2.1 Crash Test 1

In the first crash test vehicle Skoda Rapid crashed in

approximately 55 km/h into the side of the vehicle

Skoda Felicia.

Figure 2: Damage correspondence - crash test 1.

Skoda Rapid has significant damage in the area of

the front right corner including right headlight and

fender, front bumper and bonnet. The headlight and

bonnet were damaged due to contact in the area of

vehicle Skoda Felicia A-pillar respectively the front

VEHITS 2021 - 7th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

522

edge of the vehicle front door as the area with higher

stiffness. The Skoda Rapid bumper was horizontally

broken also due to contact with the front edge of the

Skoda Felicia front door. On the Skoda Rapid bumper

in the area of the right front corner is the imprint of

the Skoda Felicia tyre.

Figure 3: Vehicle Skoda Rapid after crash test 1.

Skoda Felicia was significantly damaged on the

right side of the vehicle. Due to the vehicle age and

related extensive corrosion of the load-bearing parts

of vehicle bodywork, the vehicle bodywork collapsed

(evident from the damage of the vehicle sill and

vehicle floor in the area of the front passenger seat

and vehicle roof braking), front door breakage and

damage of the front door under A-pillar caused by

front bumper reinforcement of the vehicle Rapid.

The entire area of Felicia's B-pillar intruded into

the vehicle interior. The vehicle components

collapsed and the occupant survival space was

impaired (vehicle model has almost no deformation

zones). On the right side of the vehicle Felicia is a

clear imprint of the vehicle Rapid mask, bonnet edge,

and front bumper reinforcement.

Figure 4: Vehicle Skoda Felicia after crash test 1.

The impact force was also transferred to the

vehicle's left side – the front fender and door

displacement.

Figure 5: Vehicle Skoda Felicia after crash test 1.

2.2 Crash Test 2

In the second crash test vehicle Skoda Felicia crashed

at approximately 57 km/h into the side of the vehicle

Skoda Rapid.

Figure 6: Vehicle Skoda Rapid after crash test 2.

Figure 7: Vehicle Skoda Felicia after crash test 2.

Let It Crash! Energy Equivalent Speed Determination

523

The whole front part of the vehicle Skoda Felicia

was damaged –both fenders, front bumper and mask,

broken bonnet. Slightly left from the vehicle emblem

on the bonnet, mask and bumper is a clear imprint of

the vehicle Rapid B-pillar.

On the vehicle Skoda Rapid is damaged the right

side in the area of both vehicle doors. The sill and

both doors were damaged. There is no significant

deformation of the B-pillar and the occupant survival

space was not significantly impaired.

2.3 Comparison of the Crash Tests

The Skoda Felicia vehicle damage is significantly

extended in comparison with the modern vehicle

Skoda Rapid. The vehicle obsolescence is manifested

in the vehicle's active and passive safety and also in

the construction itself and used materials. The vehicle

age has also a negative effect on the properties of

some elements. With age increase, the probability of

corrosion is higher, which reduces the rigidity and

leads to the more extensive deformation of vehicle

exterior and interior. The vehicle age increase is also

related to the higher probability of serious injuries

during a traffic crash.

Table 2: The comparison of vehicle damage.

The vehicle front

Skoda Rapid

Skoda Felicia

Slight damage on the right

front corner including the

bonnet, right headlight, and

fender, broken front bumper

Flat deformation of vehicle

front including the broken

bonnet, both fenders, front

bumper, damaged mask

The vehicle side

Skoda Felicia

Skoda Rapid

Extensive corrosion of the

load-bearing parts of vehicle

bodywork

Vehicle bodywork collapsed

Damage of the sill and

vehicle floor in the area of

the front passenger seat,

deformation of the vehicle

roof, deformation of the

B-pillar, and impairment of

the occupant survival space

damaged sill and both right

doors

no significant deformation

of the B-pillar, and

impairment of the occupant

survival space.

3 EES DETERMINATION USING

SELECTED METHODS

For the quantification of the EES parameter was used

comparison method and PC-Crash CRASH 3 module.

PC-Crash is one of the most widely used programs for

collision reconstruction worldwide (Richardson et al.,

2015) The obtained results were compared with the

EES determined using data from crash tests.

3.1 Crash Tests

The crash parts could be divided into following

stages: (Coufal, 2014, Daily at al., 2006):

• Collision – two objects interactions with large

forces over a short time.

• Compression – the kinetic energy is absorbed and

the object is deformed. The compression phase is

terminated when a dynamic deformation reaches

a maximum.

• Restitution – during the rebound phase is some

stored energy turned back into kinetic energy and

the object departs with some relative speed.

For the determination of vehicle deformation during

crash tests were considered these individual parts of a

crash and quantified corresponding energy in these

individual crash parts - the plastic deformation

energy, the elastic deformation energy, and also the

maximum of deformation energy which corresponds

with the sum of elastic and plastic deformation

energy. The maximum deformation depth at the end

of compression was measured using a top-view photo

from drones.

3.2 Comparison Method

For the EES determination of the damaged vehicle is

necessary to find comparably damaged vehicles with

known EES in the EES catalogue. The Skoda Felicia

front deformation was compared e.g. with the vehicle

Skoda Favorit and Suzuki Swift (Figure 7 and Table

3).

Figure 8: Comparison method.

Table 3: The example of the comparison method.

[kg]

EES

[km/h]

[kg]

EES

[km/h]

Skoda

Favorit

870

931

28,0

Suzuki

Swift

775

931

26,5

VEHITS 2021 - 7th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

524

3.3 PC-Crash (CRASH 3)

PC–Crash programme CRASH 3 use NHTSA vehicle

databank, where the comparable vehicle needs to be

found for the EES calculation. In the deformation

section is necessary to set the measured permanent

deformation depth in the constant distance with the

maximum 12 sections c

to c

; k-factor and direction

of the action force. The weight of the analysed vehicle

must be considered, also the impact speed,

deformation depth, and maximum speed in which

deformation does not occur (b

) need to be

comparable (Semela, 2012, Brach, 2012). For the

deformation depth measurement were used data from

3D scanner and also top-view photography from

drones. The deformation depth using 3D scan was

averaged from 3 sections in the area of maximum

deformation depth.

Figure 9: The measurement of deformation depth using 3D

scanner.

Software PC–Crash programme CRASH 3

considers one central stiffness characteristic of the

whole vehicle front. EES (respectively deformation

energy) of the front damaged vehicle was used for the

determination of the vehicle side damaged vehicle.

For both vehicles is calculated maximum deformation

depth X using the average plastic deformation depth

and elastic deformation depth X











 

  



(2)











(3)

For the determination of maximum impact force F

max

is used the quantified maximum deformation energy

of the front damaged vehicle:









 











(4)

where E

is the plastic deformation energy of

vehicle 1:











 



 







(5)

And E

DE1

is elastic deformation energy of vehicle 1:











 



  





(6)

The maximum Impact Force F

max

could be then

determined as:







  









(7)

The maximum impact force is equal for both vehicles

and could be used for the determination of maximum

deformation energy E

of vehicle two:



















(8)

The elastic deformation energy of vehicle 2 could be

then determined as:















(9)

and the plastic deformation energy of vehicle 2 as:









 





(10)

EES of the side damaged vehicle is determined using

equation:









  









(11)

4 RESULTS: EES

EES parameter was determined using the comparison

method (EES catalogue) and PC-Crash CRASH 3

module. For EES determination in PC–Crash

CRASH 3 module is necessary to determine the

deformation depth. Two methods of deformation

depth measurement were used – measurement from

top-view photography and 3D scans. For the

measurement of deformation depth from 3D scans

were averaged values from three sections (cuts) in the

area of maximum deformation. The EES of the

vehicle side damaged were determined based on the

EES of the crash opponent.

The obtained EES values were compared with the

EES determined using data from crash tests. Table 2

illustrates the obtained EES results in relation to the

used method. Table 4 illustrates calculated EES using

selected methods (comparison methods, a calculation

based on the crash test data, PC-Crash, and

Let It Crash! Energy Equivalent Speed Determination

525

deformation depth obtained from top-view

photography and 3D scanner). The procedure of EES

determination using these methods was described in

the previous chapter.

Table 4: Determined EES using selected methods.

Crash

Comparison

method

[km/h]

PC-crash

Crash

test

[km/h]

Top-view

[km/h]

Scanner

[km/h]

Rapid

18-22

14 - 16

14 - 17

13 - 16

Felicia

26-30

30 - 37

32 - 39

23 - 28

Felicia

24-29

28 - 34

31 - 38

25 - 32

Rapid

19-24

12 - 14

16 - 19

10 - 15

Besides the comparative method, there are

significant deviations of determined EES only in the

case of the side-damaged Skoda Felicia vehicle. This

deviation can be caused by the extent vehicle

corrosion, inappropriate selection of stiffness in the

PC-Crash software, or distortion of deformation

depth measurements. The results can be also

influenced by the set speed value b

Resulting EES from the comparison methods is

comparable with data obtained from crash tests for

the Skoda Felicia vehicle. Usability of the

comparison method for the vehicle Skoda Rapid is

limited because the used EES catalogue (Melegh,

2005) contains mostly older vehicle models.

5 DISCUSSION

This article aimed to introduce the results of two crash

tests representing the comparison of the stiffness and

technological obsolescence. On these crash tests were

analysed limits of the selected methods for EES

determination. The EES value expresses the kinetic

energy dissipated by the vehicle during the contact

phase i.e energy converted to thermal energy through

deformation (Berg, 1998).

Structural behavior and properties differ

depending e.g. on the vehicle model. Even similar

vehicles (similar weight/length/width) could have

different deformation characteristics, especially

depending on the vehicle stiffness influenced by the

degradation of vehicle bodywork (Abellán-López,

2018; Vangi, 2020).

Realised crash tests of comparable vehicles in

similar impact speed only inverted collision scenario

(first crash scenario – modern vehicle Skoda Rapid

crashed into the side of old vehicle Skoda Felicia,

second crash scenario – old vehicle Skoda Felicia

crashed into the side of the Skoda Rapid) demonstrate

the influence of the vehicle age (and related

degradation – corrosion of the bodywork),

respectively technological obsolescence (and the

related difference in the stiffness) to the resulting

extent of the damage. Deformation of Skoda Felicia

is significantly more extensive in comparison with the

modern vehicle Skoda Rapid. During side impact into

the vehicle Skoda Felicia was impaired the occupant

survival space.

The EES were determined for all tested vehicles

using selected methods - based on the crash test

results, using PC–Crash CRASH 3 module and

comparison method. The deformation depth was

measured using a top view photo from a drone and 3D

scans.

The calculated EES values for the frontal damage

of vehicle Skoda Felicia are comparable. Used EES

catalogue (Melegh, 2005) contains mostly older

vehicle models. Used database in the module

CRASH 3 in PC-Crash software is applicable

primarily on the frontal damage. Top-view

photography use for the frontal deformation depth

measurement is mostly not affected by significant

deviation, because the damage is mostly not covered

by other vehicle parts – as vehicle hood (which could

be a limitation of the top-view photography usage for

deformation depth measurement of the vehicle side

deformation).

The EES values determined using comparison

with the damage of vehicle with known EES value

could be inaccurate for the modern vehicles, as

proved by EES values of Skoda Rapid vehicle. The

EES catalogues mostly do not contain modern

vehicles. The limitation is also the subjectivity of the

extent of vehicle damage assessment during the

determination of similarly damaged vehicles for

comparison.

Determination of the EES using module

CRASH 3 in the PC-Crash software is influenced by

accessible vehicle and their stiffness. The users have

to select a vehicle from the NHTSA databank, US

vehicles could have different stiffness in comparison

with vehicles in the European market (Macurová,

2019). Coufal (2014) compared EES calculation

using correlation diagram, comparison method and

CRASH 3. As one of the main limitations author

concluded that the different stiffness of individual

vehicle parts is not considered, as these methods

assume homogeneous rigidity for the front of the

vehicle.

Results can be also influenced by the inaccuracy

of the deformation depth measurement

(Żuchowski, 2015). Deformation depth measurement

using a top-view photo is limited especially during

vehicle side deformation, where could be the

maximum deformation depth covered by vehicle roof

or other vehicle parts (Moravcová, 2019). Usability

VEHITS 2021 - 7th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

526

of the 3D scanner could be also limited, it is not

possible to document plastic deformation - coverage

of deformation by another vehicle part or detachment

of vehicle body part as a result of the collision. For

elimination of results, distortion could be in some

specific cases most appropriate combine several

measurement methods. Papić et al. (2017) emphasize

the usability of a 3D model (which allows to analyse

of deformation depth in individual sections) in

combination with crash reconstruction software.

As evidenced by obtained results, the EES

parameter could be determined in a relatively wide

range. Quantified deformation energy is one of the

basic parameters for the crash analysis. Significant

inaccuracy in the EES determination could influence

determined impact speed. The methods for crash

documentation and subsequent analysis need to be

used concerning the collision type, deformation

character and extent, and vehicle characteristics.

Future research activities will be focused on the

analysis of efficiency, usability and accuracy of

various methods for documentation and vehicle

deformation quantification. Selected methods will be

experimentally verified during crash tests and real

traffic crashes documentation and their subsequent

analysis.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Crash analysis including determination of the impact

speed is one of the main assumptions for the

clarification of mostly negligent crimes. For crash

reconstruction, various simulation models can be

used. During crash reconstruction is necessary to

considered specifics and limitations of used methods,

thus different methods should be used depending on

the collision types and specific condition (Hoxha,

2017). The inaccuracy of the input affects the output,

to achieve more credible output is necessary to used

sophisticated and precise methods which allow to

document values corresponding with the real

situation Svatý (2020). Precise documentation of

crashes (especially brake traces) is crucial for the

subsequent crash analysis.

The impact speed determination could be based

not only on the crash reconstruction but also obtained

from vehicle cameras or Event Data recorders (EDR).

Previous studies prove the necessity to verify

obtained values. The results distortion could occur

e.g. due to significant deformation, the control unit

damage, recording algorithm delay, or insufficient

recording memory or vehicle skidding

(Gwehenberger, 2020). The usability of EDR is

currently limited in the EU due to legislation.

Therefore, it is still necessary to improve methods for

crash documentation and analysis (including EES

determination).

The parameters which could serve as a basis for

the crash analysis (such as vehicle stiffness) could be

obtained from the vehicle crash tests (Dima, 2019).

Crash tests are realized by many organizations mostly

to ensure vehicle safe design e.g. Insurance Institute

for Highway Safety (IIHS), National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DEKRA, Transport

Research Laboratory (TRL), Dynamic Test Center

(DTC), Crashtest-service (CTS), etc. The usability of

data from commercial crash tests focused on vehicle

safety testing or homologation is limited for forensic

engineering purposes. Crash tests are mainly realised

with the new vehicles that are not affected by material

degradation. A number of studies pointed to the

differences in the deformation behaviour in relation

to the vehicle age or obsolescence. There are also

differences in brands or vehicle models (Kullgren,

2010, Görtz, 2018; Covaciu, 2016). For the crash

analysis in the forensic engineering is necessary to

conducted not only crash tests of new vehicles, but

also of older vehicles, which may have different

characteristics. For these purposes also data

collection from real traffic crashes and the subsequent

validation of the calculated data within crash tests

could be beneficial. Experimentally obtained data

enable improvement and refinement of input values

for simulation modelling and crash calculation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The article was produced with the financial support

of the Ministry of Transport within the programme of

the long-term conceptual development of research

institutions on the research infrastructure acquired

from the Operation Programme Research and

Development for Innovations

(CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0064) and within the project of

specific research ÚSI-J-20-6378.

REFERENCES

Abellán-lópez, D., Sánchez-lozano, M., & Martínez-sáez,

L. (2018). Frontal crashworthiness characterisation of

a vehicle segment using curve comparison metrics.

Crash Analysis & Prevention, 117, 136–144.

Berg, F. A., Walz, F., Bürkle, H., & Epple, J. (1998).

Implications of velocity change delta-v and energy

equivalent speed ees for injury mechanism assessment

Let It Crash! Energy Equivalent Speed Determination

527

in various collision configura tions. In Proc. IRCOBI

Conf. on Biomechanics, Göteborg.

Bradáč, A. a kol. Soudní inženýrství. 1. vydání. Brno:

Akademické nakladatelství CERM s.r.o., 1999. 725 s.

ISBN 80-7204-133-9.

Brach, R. M., Brach, R. M., & Louderback, A.

(2012). Uncertainty of CRASH3 ΔV and Energy Loss

for Frontal Collisions. SAE Technical Paper Series.

doi:10.4271/2012-01-0608.

Burg, H., & Moser, A. (Eds.). (2017). Handbuch

Verkehrsunfallrekonstruktion.

Čopiak, M. 2019. Špecifiká problematiky energeticky

ekvivalentnej rýchlosti pri analýze nehodového deja:

Projekt k dizertačnej práci. Žilina: UZVV UNIZA,

2019.

Čopiak, M., Korbeľ, T. a Imrich, L. Princíp určenia

energeticky ekvivalentnej rýchlosti s využitím programu

pc-crash. Trilobit [online]. 2019(1).

Coufal, T. Analýza tuhosti přední části vozidel. Brno:

Vysoké učení technické v Brně, Ústav soudního

inženýrství, 2014.

Covaciu, D., & Dima, D. S. (2016). Crash Tests Data

Acquisition and Processing. CONAT 2016

International Congress of Automotive and Transport

Engineering, 782–789.

Daily, Jeremy, Russell Strickland a John Daily Crush

Analysis with Under-rides and the Coefficient of

Restitution: Institute of Police Technology and

Management’s. 2006, 1-77.

Dima, D. S., & Covaciu, D. (2019). Vehicles Frontal

Impact Analysis Using Computer Simulation and Crash

Test. International Journal of Automotive Technology,

20(4), 655–661. doi:10.1007/s12239-019-0062-3.

Görtz, M. 2018. Model určovania deformačných energií na

vozidlách po dopravných nehodách: Dizertačná práca.

Žilina: UZVV UNIZA, 2018.

Gwehenberger, J., Braxmeier, O., Lauterwasser, Ch.,

Kreutner, M., Borrack M., and Reinkemeyer, C. Needs

and Requirements of EDR for Automated Vehicles -

Analysis Based on Insurance Claims Reported to

Allianz Germany. 2020.

Hoxha, G., Shala, A., Likaj, R. (2017). Vehicle Speed

Determination in Case of Road Crash by Software

Method and Comparing of Results with the

Mathematical Model. Journal of Mechanical

Engineering, 67(2), 51–60.

Kullgren A., Anders Lie & Claes Tingvall (2010)

Comparison Between Euro NCAP Test Results and

Real-World Crash Data, Traffic Injury Prevention,

11:6, 587-593,

Macurová L., Kohút, P, Čopiak, M, Imrich L., Rédl, M.

Determinig the Energy Equivalent Speed by Using

Software Based on the Finite Element Method,

Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 44,

2020,Pages 219-225,ISSN 2352-1465.

Melegh, G. CD-EES 4.0 [CD-R]. Hungary: AutoExpert

Hungary, 2005.

Moravcová, P.; Bucsuházy, K.; Zůvala, R.; Bilík, M. and

Bradáč, A. (2020). The Comparison of 3D and 2D

Measurement Techniques Used for the Analysis of

Vehicle Deformation. In Proceedings of the 6th

International Conference on Vehicle Technology and

Intelligent Transport Systems - Volume 1:

VEHITS, ISBN 978-989-758-419-0, pages 195-202.

Papić, Z., Bogdanović, V., Štetin, G., Saulic, N. (2018).

Estimation of ees values by vehicle 3-d modelling.

Mobility and Vehicle Mechanics. 44. 29-41.

10.24874/mvm.2018.44.01.03.

Richardson, S., Moser, A., Orton, T. L., & Zou, R. (2015).

Simulation of vehicle lateral side impacts with poles to

estimate crush and impact speed characteristics (No.

2015-01-1428). SAE Technical Paper.

Semela, M. Analýza silničních nehod I. 1. vydání ÚSI VUT

v Brně, 2012. ISBN 978-80-214-4559-8.

Semela, M. Analýza silničních nehod II, Ústav soudního

inženýrství, VUT v Brně. 2014.

Svatý, Z., Mičunek, T a Nováček J. ExFoS 2020: Využití

prostorových dat pro účely simulace nehodového děje.

2020. ISBN 978-80-214-5829-1.

Sztwiertnia K, Guzek M. Uncertainty of determining the e

nergy equivalent speed (EES) of a vehicle collision by

the experimental and analytical method.

The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum

Motoryzacji. 2017; 76(2): 123-136,

Vangi D., Vehicle Collision Dynamics, Butterworth-

Heinemann, 2020, Page xv, ISBN 9780128127506,

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812750-6.00013-5.

Vangi, D., Begani, F. The Triangle Method for Evaluation.

In 19th EVU Congress. Brno: Tribun EU s.r.o., 2010. s.

265-299. ISBN 978-80-7399-128-9.

Vangi, D., Cialdai C. and GULINO, M. Vehicle stiffness

assessment for energy loss evaluation in vehicle

impacts. Forensic science international. Elsevier B.V,

2019, 300, 136-144. ISSN 0379-0738.

Vangi, Dario. Simplified method for evaluating energy loss

in vehicle collisions. Crash analysis and

prevention [online]. Elsevier, 2009, 41(3), 633-641 [cit.

2020-11-27]. ISSN 0001-4575.

Żuchowski A. The use of energy methods at the calculation

of vehicle impact velocity. The Archives of Automotive

Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji. 2015;68(2):85-

111.

VEHITS 2021 - 7th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

528