How Should I Measure Vehicle Deformation Depth?

Pavlína Moravcová

1,2 a

, Robert Zůvala

and Kateřina Bucsuházy

1,2 c

Transport Research Centre, Brno, Czech Republic

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

Keywords: Deformation Depth, Profile Deformation, Deformation Energy, EES, Equal Spacing, non-Equal Spacing,

Vehicle Accident, Vehicle Analysis, Impact, Vehicle.

Abstract: Determination of deformation energy is an integral part of the accident analysis. Deformation energy could

be expressed by parameter EES, which could directly enter the calculation or serve as a control parameter.

To determine the EES parameter, it is necessary to know the depth of plastic deformation. There is a lack of

standardization in the process of deformation profile determination, because several mathematical models

focus on the deformation profile according to established procedures, or the deformation depth is measured

along the entire width of the deformation using evenly spaced points. Equal spacing of measurement points

can be an unnecessary restriction when documenting traffic accident on accident scene. In the presented

article, the differences between equal and non-equal spacing of measurement points and the subsequent

influence on the EES calculation are analyzed. Statistical analysis confirmed that equal non-equal distribution

of measurement points does not cause significant differences in the determined EES value, so equal spacing

is not required. The non-equal spacing could better approximate the deformation profile including subsequent

calculation of the EES value, when following certain rules.

1 INTRODUCTION

The crash analysis requires valid and precise data

including deformation depth. Vehicle damage can be

documented by several methods such as 2D

measurement methods (photo documentation with

measuring rods etc.) or 3D measurement methods

(total station, photogrammetry, or 3D scanning). The

purpose of the vehicle damage documentation needs

to be considered to correctly select the most

proprietary method and means with respect to their

benefits and limitations (Bucsuházy et al., 2023;

Topolšek et al., 2019).

The documentation process is influenced by

various factors including the methods or means used,

weather conditions, etc. The method usage should

consider not only different conditions but also the

crash type or damage extent (Hoxha et al., 2017). The

damage profile serves as a basis for determining

deformation energy, respectively energy equivalent

speed (EES). EES express the deformation energy

absorbed by a vehicle during a crash (e.g. Riviere et

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

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2038-7292

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

al., 2006), so EES is manifested in a form of plastic

energy (Zeidler et al., 1985; Appel et al., 2002; Vangi,

2020). Therefore the EES value is usually not

identical as vehicle impact speed. The EES and

impact speed could be theoretically similar if the

vehicle collided with a rigid non-deformable barrier

and only plastic deformation occurred (e.g.

Bucsuházy et al., 2023, Vangi, 2020, Daily and

Shigemura, 2005). The EES value serves as a control

parameter when analysing crash or could directly

enter calculation e.g. using an Energy ring or Energy

conservation law (Bradáč, 1999; Semela, 2014; Burg

and Moser, 2014, 2017; Bucsuházy et al., 2023).

When documenting a real vehicle accident, the

question of how to correctly measure the deformation

profile arises to accurately reflect the damage. The

number of measuring points when analysing

deformation depth needs to reflect not only the

deformation extent but also used calculation method

(Nordhagen et al., 2006). When using the CRASH3

algorithm, six equally distributed measuring points

along the entire length of the vehicle's deformation

are widely used in forensic practice (Daily,

Moravcová, P., Z˚uvala, R. and Bucsuházy, K.

How Should I Measure Vehicle Deformation Depth?.

DOI: 10.5220/0012632300003702

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS 2024), pages 125-133

ISBN: 978-989-758-703-0; ISSN: 2184-495X

125

2005,2006; Burg and Moser, 2014, Vangi 2020;

Struble, 2020; Bucsuházy et al., 2023). Even though

equal spacing is not required, the calculation process

is simpler, so some calculation software assume equal

spacing. In practice, uniform spacing could be an

unnecessary restriction for crash investigators when

documenting real traffic accidents (Struble, 2020;

Vomhof, 2016). If the maximum deformation is not

measured, the deformation profile can be distorted,

which could influence the resulting analysis. Even

though the maximum crush depth does not coincide

with a crush measurement, it should be located and

measured (Daily, 2015).

Singh (2005) analyzed how equally spaced

measuring points and their number affect stiffness

coefficients used to determine EES value using the

CRASH3 algorithm. The author also highlighted that

each analyzed traffic accident required individual

expert judgment. Moravcová et al. (2024) analysed

selected variables influencing EES calculation

including number of measurement points, but only

equal spacing was analysed. Vomhof (2016) on some

case studies demonstrated the advantages and

limitations of equally and non-equally distributed

measuring points using the Force Balance calculation

tool included in 4N6XPRT StifCalcs. Using a strictly

equal measurement process could in some cases lead

to significant deformation profile loss.

Despite the growing trend of using EDR, it is still

necessary to validate the calculation methodology

and crash reconstruction. The vehicle fleet's age does

not allow EDR data to be used when analyzing all

crashes until EDR technology becomes sufficiently

widespread. EDR data can be beneficial for crash

reconstruction and significantly reduce subjective

errors such as errors arising when documenting

a crash at a crash scene. When using EDR data for

crash reconstruction, these still need to be verified

and subsequently analyzed. Some crash types or

conditions could lead to inaccuracy of the data or the

possibility of obtaining the data may be also limited

due to the collision character (such as significant

deformation, control unit damage, vehicle skid before

the crash, lower impact speed, significant mass

difference etc.) (Struble, 2020; Nouzovský et al.,

2021; Coyne, 2010; Bortles, 2016; Bohm, 2020).

Even though some of the previous papers

demonstrated in selected case studies differences of

equal and non-equal spacing of measurement points,

the authors mostly do not further address the question

of what effect the measurement process has on the

resulting EES calculation. To fill this gap, this paper

aims to analyse potential differences in the calculated

EES when using equal and non-equal spacing. With

regard to the difficulties associated with the equal

spacing of measuring points when documenting

vehicle damage directly at the accident scene, this

article aims to analyze whether an even distribution

of measuring points is necessary to be required.

2 METHODS

For the EES calculation, the CRASH3 algorithm will

be used as one of the most frequently used calculation

methods (Mrowicki et al., 2020). The crush profile

will be determined using six measurement points as it

is widely used in forensic practice when using the

CRASH3 algorithm (Daily, 2005,2006; Burg and

Moser, 2014, Vangi 2020; Struble, 2020; Bucsuházy

et al., 2023). The effect of measurement point number

on the resulting EES value is not the subject of this

study.

2.1 Data Set

The used dataset contains 28 vehicles (see Table 1

and Table 2) with different stiffness characteristics,

different classes, and manufactured years (model

years 1994 to 2019). For the purpose of the study

were used real traffic accident data collected by the

Czech In-Depth Investigation team (project CzIDAS

conducted by Transport Research Centre) and also

crash tests data conducted by IFE BUT. The crash

overlap varied, and so did the resulting crash

deformation extent. The vehicles in the dataset were

Table 1: Dataset – vehicle characteristics (Frontal Impact).

Vehicle Weight [kg] Year Offset [%]

Frontal Impact

Skoda Fabia I

1000 2000 30

Skoda Fabia III

1100 2015 30

Opel Astra

950 1991 100

Mitsubishi Carisma

1100 1995 100

VW Bora

1555 2000 80

Skoda Octavia I

1364 2004 50

Skoda Octavia I

1365 2011 50

For

Focus

1352 2007 30

Skoda Fabia

1490 2006 100

Skoda Octavia I

1305 2011 80

Honda Civic

1170 1996 100

Skoda Felicia

892 1994 100

Skoda Rapi

1294 2016 100

Skoda Superb III

1476 2016 80

Subaru Foreste

1424 2002 45

Toyota Corrola

1003 1989 100

Opel Omega

1655 1998 100

multipla č.

1337 2000 100

Karo

1661 2017 100

Škoda Fabia

1058 2004 100

VEHITS 2024 - 10th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

126

Table 2: Dataset – vehicle characteristics (Side Impact).

Vehicle Weight [kg] Year Offset [%]

Side Impact

Skoda Fabia III

1100 2015 50

Skoda Superb III

1470 2015 35

Skoda Karo

1658 2019 25

Peugeo

207

1324 2010 40

Skoda Rapi

1294 2016 45

Skoda Felicia

931 1994 60

Chrysle

Voyage

1762 1999 50

Kodia

1879 2016 40

subsequently divided based on the damage type

(frontal and side crash). Twenty vehicles were

damaged in the front part (full-overlap and damage

off-set) and eight vehicles were damaged on the left

or right side of the vehicle in the area between the

A to C pillar. Analysed vehicles were not equipped

with EDR.

2.2 Vehicle Profile Documentation

The vehicle damage was documented using 3D

scanning - Faro Focus 120 laser scanner or a Leica

RTC360 laser scanner - as the most precise method

which allows efficient, accurate, and quick data

collection. Besides the conventional methods for

measuring vehicle damage (such as photo-

documentation of damage with a measuring rod),

laser scanning allows also variation in post-process

measurement (Morales et al.., 2015; Coleman et al.,

2015, Tandy et al., 2012, Grimes et al., 2018; Kamnik

et al., 2020; Kamnik et al., 2022).

The processing procedure will be demonstrated

by the example from a real traffic accident.

Figure 1: Point cloud processing of a nighttime traffic

accident.

The postprocessing was realised using Geomagic

Control software. Using 3D model obtained from

laser scanning allows to select a 2D cut at a defined

height. The cut for frontal damage was determined at

the bumper height (respectively height of the vehicle

impact bar) and for side damage at the collision

opponent's bumper height (respectively height of the

collision opponent's impact bar).

Before measuring the deformation profile, it is

necessary to determine the deformation width -

considering the character of the deformation, the

width was defined either from the edge to the edge of

the vehicle, from the edge of the vehicle to the end of

the deformation or from the beginning of the

deformation to the end of the deformation. The

vehicle deformation profile was determined using six

measuring points (5 zones). When using equal

spacing of measuring points, the width of the

deformation was subdivided by the number of zones.

Figure 2: Processing a scan of the Skoda Octavia vehicle in

the Geomagic Control software.

Figure 3: 2D cut at the height of Skoda Octavia vehicle

bumper.

Figure 4: Comparison of a 2D cut of a damaged vehicle and

an undamaged Skoda Octavia vehicle model.

How Should I Measure Vehicle Deformation Depth?

127

When using a non-equal spacing of measuring points,

the measuring points were considered at deflection

points, i.e. points at which the deformation profile

significantly changes. Such spacing allows us to

accurately approximate the deformation profile incl.

determining the maximum deformation.

Figure 5: Measuring the depth of deformation of the Skoda

Octavia vehicle.

3 RESULTS

The paper aims to analyse potential differences in the

calculated EES value when using equal and non-equal

measuring points for crush measurement.

For the comparison were used differences in the

calculated EES when using equal and non-equal

measuring points for crush measurement and

analysed EES value. Analyzed EES value was

determined based on vehicle crash tests (measured

values in crash tests) and using a combination of

methods for EES determination (Triangle method,

Comparison method, CRASH3 software using

various number of measuring points, Energy grid, or

Estimation by a Professional/Expert – see e,g,

Campbell, 1974; Shaper, 1981; Bradáč, 1999; Vangi,

2020, Bucsuházy et al., 2023).

EES when using equal and non-equal measuring

points for deformation profile determination was

calculated using CRASH3 software for frontal

impacts. Determination of the vehicle side EES value

was based on Newton's third law (Use of the Law of

Action and Reaction) with the known EES value of

the collision opponent. The deformation depth is also

part of this calculation.

The differences among calculated EES when

using equal and non-equal measuring points for crush

measurement and analyzed EES value are illustrated

in the following figures (see figure 6 and 7).

Figure 6: The difference in the analyzed and calculated EES

value using equal and non-equal spacing crush

measurement.

Figure 7: The difference in the analyzed and calculated EES

value using equal and non-equal spacing crush

measurement – frontal and side collision.

Significant outliers (especially in the case of

a side impact) illustrated in figures 6 and 7 are caused

by the diversity of the condition of vehicles in the

dataset (such as significant corrosion). This incorrect

EES estimation was realized when calculating the

EES of the Skoda Felicia vehicle, whose load-bearing

parts of the body incl. impact bar were subjected to

a high degree of corrosion. The calculation does not

consider such a significant degree of corrosion, which

can lead to an incorrect determination of the EES

value. Calculated EES value does not correspond

with EES value obtained based on the vehicle crash

test. High deviation can be also caused by

an inaccurate determination of the opponent's EES

value, which could negatively affect the subject

vehicle EES calculation. The sensitivity of the EES

opponent's EES value is not subject of this study.

There were also higher deviation in the EES

calculation of the Skoda Superb III vehicle (side

collision), where the EES value was underestimated

by 35% when using equal spacing and by 28% when

using non-equal spacing. The underestimation of EES

when using the equal distribution of the measuring

points was mainly influenced by the fact that the

measuring points did not coincide with a maximum

VEHITS 2024 - 10th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

128

deformation depth. The EES calculation for side

collision is very sensitive to parameter average crush

depth.

A slight overestimation of the EES value was

detected also when analyzing VW Bora (frontal

collision) - by 16% when using equal spacing (see

figure 8). While in the case of non-equal spacing, the

measuring points (see figure 9) are focused mainly in

the region of the impact bar, the equal spacing

includes the maximum deformation depth outside the

impact bar, which may subsequently affect the EES

calculation.

Figure 8: VW Bora – equal spacing.

Figure 9: VW Bora – non-equal spacing.

An analogous problem led to slight inaccuracies

in the EES calculation of the Ford Focus vehicle when

using non-equal spacing (overestimation of EES by

13%). The maximum deformation depth when using

non-equal spacing was measured outside the impact

bar region (see figure 10). When using equal spacing,

the EES value was determined correctly – in this case

study the maximum deformation depth measured

coincided with the measuring points in the region of

impact bar (see figure 11).

Figure 10: Ford Focus – non-equal spacing.

Figure 11: Ford Focus – equal spacing.

Based on the case studies (VW Bora and Ford

Focus) the question of using deformation width only

in the region of impact bar arises. However, the

analysis of deformation width variation is not the

subject of the study. Measuring of the maximum

deformation depth should consider the location of the

impact bar considering the stiffness of the vehicle and

its parts.

Overestimation or underestimation of EES value

can also be caused by using the inappropriate

substitute vehicle (vehicle with known EES value or

stiffness) from the crash test database, which is used

to determine the stiffness characteristic. The most

frequently used and publicly available crash test

databases (NHTSA, IIHS) contained new vehicles.

Even if a parametrically similar substitute vehicle is

found in the crash test database, in case of an

extensive corrosion of the vehicle in question is not

possible to create appropriate stiffness characteristics

(as could be seen from the already mentioned Skoda

Felicia or the analyzed Toyota Corolla where the

calculated EES values do not correspond with the

How Should I Measure Vehicle Deformation Depth?

129

EES values obtained based on measured data from

vehicle crash tests).

To analyse potential differences in the calculated

EES value when using equal and non-equal

measuring points for crush measurement, the

obtained values were statistically tested. Mann-

Whitney Test confirmed that the differences between

calculated EES when using equal and non-equal

spacing of measuring points are not statistically

significant. Similarities in the resulting EES

differences are illustrated also by box plots on the

figures (see figure 6 and 7). The differences are not

statistically significant even when considering

separately frontal and side impacts (see figure 7).

The equal spacing shows slightly higher

variability in resulting EES, but the difference in the

median values is approx. 2 km/h which is not

significant especially considering the fact that the

EES value is determined in technically acceptable

range frequently with e.g. 5% tolerance. So the

median difference and also 25. and 75. Percentile

values are in the tolerance with respect to the

inaccuracy/technically acceptable tolerance of the

EES determination.

Figure 12 and 13 demonstrates the influence of

the average crush depth on the resulting EES value

when using equal and non-equal spacing. The

resulting EES obviously increases with the higher

average deformation depth. A trend line better fits the

data when using equally spaced measuring points.

The data visualisation confirmed negligible

difference when using equal and non-equal crush

profile measurement for both frontal and side

impacts/damage.

Figure 12: Dependence of the average deformation depth

on the resulting EES value in frontal impacts.

Figure 13: Dependence of the average deformation depth

on the resulting EES value in side impacts.

The correlation between measured and calculated

EES values when using equal and non-equal spacing

was also analyzed.

For frontal and also side impacts are the

correlation coefficients almost identical for equal and

non-equal spacing. For frontal impacts (figure 14)

reached 0.958 for both types of spacing. For side

impacts (figure 15) are correlation coefficients lower

than for frontal impact (0.7 for equal spacing and 0.68

for non-equal spacing, so the difference is negligible).

The lower correlation coefficient and also lower

reliability of trendlines are mainly influenced by the

limited number of side impacts in analyzed dataset.

Figure 14: Correlation between measured and calculated

EES values - frontal impact.

If the deformation profile character is

significantly heterogeneous (does not have a simple

geometry) it seems more at deflection points (where

the deformation profile changes), so the measured

VEHITS 2024 - 10th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

130

Figure 15: Correlation between measured and calculated

EES values - side impact.

profile more corresponds with the real deformation

profile extent. In the case of equal spacing, these

points may be omitted (ie, for example, the maximum

deformation depth), which may lead to an

underestimation of the calculated EES value. This can

be illustrated by figure 16, where equal spacing is

marked in red and non-equal spacing in blue.

The procedure of non-equal spacing seems more

feasible even in real conditions.

Figure 16: Measurement crush depth – equal and non-equal

spacing.

5 DISCUSSIONS

The paper aims to analyze differences in EES

calculation when using non-equal and equal spacing

of measurement points for the deformation profile

determination. For the purpose of the analysis dataset

used includes 28 vehicles from real traffic accidents

and crash tests. The EES calculation was conducted

using CRASH3 algorithm. The deformation profile

was analyzed using 6 measuring points, which is

common in forensic practice (Daily, 2005,2006; Burg

and Moser, 2014, Vangi 2020; Struble, 2020;

Bucsuházy et al., 2023).

Equal spacing is widely used when analyzing

deformation in laboratory conditions (crash tests) or

when postprocessing the data obtained from the

accident scene. But it is necessary to highlight that

equal spacing deformation profile measurement

could be difficult in the practise when documenting

real crashes as described e.g by Struble (2020). Crash

tests into rigid non-deformable barrier lead to

an almost rectangular deformation profile, so equal

spacing is suitable.

However, in real accidents (especially narrow

obstacle impacts, crashes with overlap, etc.) is the

resulting deformation rectangular only rarely. In most

cases, the resulting deformation profile is irregular.

Using strictly equal spacing in case of an irregular

deformation profile can cause the maximum

deformation depth to be missed (not measured).

Demonstrated case studies shows that non-equal

spacing of measurement points can lead to more

accurate EES calculation, which confirms the

conclusions described by Vomhof (2016). But certain

rules need to be followed. When using non-equal

spacing and deformation width from edge to edge of

the vehicle, the first and last measuring points should

be on the vehicle edge, but the other measuring points

should be concentrated into the region of impact bar.

Positioned of measuring points outside the impact bar

leads to incorrect calculation of the EES value.

With regard to the difficulties associated with the

equal spacing of measuring points when documenting

vehicle damage directly at the accident scene, this

article aims to confirmed that equally spacing is not

required (which was shows using statistical analysis

of EES calculated based on deformation profile

determined using equal and also non-equal spacing of

measurement points).

Study faced several limitations:

- Dataset included only 8 side impacts, which

is insufficient for detailed statistical analysis.

The increase of the vehicles in the dataset

could increase the precision of obtained

results.

- For the deformation profile determination

was used six measurement points – which is

widely used in forensic practise especially

using CRASH3 algorithm. The increase of

measurement points should lead to better

approximation of the deformation profile.

The analysis of measurement point variation

is not the subject of the study and should be

further analysed.

- Calculated EES was compared with analysed

EES obtained based on vehicle crash tests

(measured values in crash tests) and using

a combination of methods for EES

How Should I Measure Vehicle Deformation Depth?

131

determination. The EES is determined in

technically acceptable range.

- Resulting EES value could be significantly

affected by the selected substitute from the

crash test database. Using of CRASH3

algorithm faced also limitations related to

assumption of linear stiffness characteristics.

Deformation profile is not the only factor affecting

the EES calculation. The EES calculation is influenced

by various factors such as mentioned vehicle stiffness,

conditions of the vehicle, used method and means etc.).

The further research should be focused on the

comprehensive analysis of more factors which enters

the calculation (such as the number of measurement

points, deformation width etc.).

6 CONCLUSION

The accident analysis i.e. reconstruction approach

works backward from the evidence of the crash

investigation which includes vehicle damage

analysis. The determination of deformation energy

which could be expressed by the EES parameter is

influenced by the accuracy of input parameters

including the deformation depth. While documenting

traffic accidents at the accident scene, the conditions

and time restrictions could influence the precision of

the obtained data. Equal spacing of measurement

points can be an unnecessary restriction and, in some

cases, can also lead to inaccuracy in the resulting

analysis. Statistical analysis confirmed that equal non-

equal distribution of measurement points does not

cause significant deviations in the determined EES

value, so equal spacing is not required. The determined

EES values are within the technically accepted range.

The non-equal spacing could better approximate the

deformation profile incl. subsequent calculation of the

EES value, when following certain rules.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article was produced with the financial support

of the Ministry of Transport within the program of

long-term conceptual development of research

organizations.

REFERENCES

Appel, H., Krabbel, G. und Vetter, D. (2002).

Unfallforschung, Unfallmechanik und Unfall-

rekonstruktion. 2. Aufl. 2002. ISBN 978-3-528-04123-

Böhm, K., Kubjatko T., Paula D and Schweige H. (2020).

New developments on EDR (Event Data Recorder) for

automated vehicles. 140 - 146. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1515/eng-2020-0007.

Bortles, W., Biever, W., Carter, N., and Smith, C. (2016).

A Compendium of Passenger Vehicle Event Data

Recorder Literature and Analysis of Validation Studies.

SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1497. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1497.

Bradáč, A. a kol. (1999). Soudní inženýrství. 1. vydání.

Brno: Akademické nakladatelství CERM s.r.o., 725 s.

ISBN 80-7204-133-9.

Bucsuházy, K. et al. (2023). VEHICLE CRUSH

INVESTIGATION: A Guidebook to Documentation and

Analysis. Transport Research Centre, Brno University

of Technology – Institute of Forensic Engineering,

Brno, Czech Republic. 978-80-88655-02-2.

Burg, H., Moser, A. (2014). Handbook of Accident

Reconstruction. Accident invegastion, vehicle dynamic,

simulation. 1nd Edition. ISBN 9781492328421.

Burg, H., Moser, A. (2017). Handbuch Verkehrsunfall-

rekonstruktion: Unfallaufnahme, Fahrdynamik,

Simulation. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-16143-9.

Campbell, K. L. Energy Basis for Collision Severity.

Online. Warrendale: SAE International, 1974.

Available from: https://doi.org/10.4271/740565. [cit.

2023-11-16].

Coleman, C., Tandy, D., Colborn, J. and Ault, N. (2015).

Applying Camera Matching Methods to Laser Scanned

Three Dimensional Scene Data with Comparisons to

Other Methods (No. 2015-01-1416). SAE Technical

Paper, 2015. Online. Available from:

https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-1416. [cit. 2022-12-06].

Coyne, M. Spek, A., Reynolds, J., van Essen, J., Bot, H.

(2010) Vehicle Fault Memory Data Extraction and

Interpretation. 19. EVU Conference, Prague

Daily, J., Shigemura N. (2005). Damage Profile Measuring

Procedures, prezentation, online, Available from:

http://www.jhscientific.com/downloads/DamageProfil

eMeasuringProcedures.pdf. [cit. 2023-04-01]

Daily, J., Strickland, R. and Daily, J. (2006) Crush Analysis

with Under-rides and the Coefficient of Restitution:

Institute of Police Technology and Management’s, 24th

Annual Special Problems in Traffic Crash

Reconstruction. 2006, s. 1-77.

Grimes, C., Roescher, T., Suway, J.A., and Welcher, J.

(2018). Comparing the Accuracy of Image Based

Scanning Techniques to Laser Scanners, SAE

Technical Paper 2018-01-0525. DOI:10.4271/2018-01-

0525.

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. DOI:10.1515/scjme-2017-

0017.

Kamnik, R., Nekrep Perc, M. and Topolšek, D. (2020).

Using the scanners and drone for comparison of point

VEHITS 2024 - 10th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

132

cloud accuracy at traffic accident analysis. Online.

Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2020, Vol. 135. ISSN

00014575. Available from:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.105391. [cit. 2023-

04-03].

Kamnik, R., Topolšek, D. and Laković, S. (2022). Modern

technologies and methods of data collection in the

function of making better traffic analysis of forensic

traffic experts. Environmental engineering. DOI:

10.37023/ee.9.1-2.1.

Morales, A., Gonzalez-Aguilera, D., Gutiérrez, M. and

López. (2015). Alfonso. Energy analysis of road

accidents based on close-range photogrammetry.

Online. Remote Sensing. Vol. 7, No. 11, pp. 15161-

15178. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/

rs71115161. [cit. 2023-11-20].

Moravcová P, Bucsuházy K, Zůvala R, Semela M, Bradáč

A (2024) What should I use to calculate vehicle EES?

PLoS ONE 19(2): e0297940. Available from:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297940 [cit.

2024-02-21]

Mrowicki A., Krukowski M., Turoboś F., Kubiak P. (2020).

Determining vehicle pre-crash speed in frontal barrier

crashes using artificial neural network for intermediate

car class. Forensic Science International. Volume 308.

ISSN 0379-0738. Available from: https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110179.

Nordhagen, R., Warner, M., Perl, T., Kent, R. (2006).

Accident Reconstruction for Rear Pole Impacts of

Passenger Cars (No. 2006-01-0899), SAE Technical

Paper, DOI: 10.4271/2006-01-0899.

Nouzovský, L., Kostěncová, V., Frydrýn, M. (2021).

Využitelnost dat EDR pro analýzu silničních nehod.

Soudní inženýrství, 32(4), 9–18. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13164/SI.2021.4.9. ISSN 1211-

443X

Riviere, C., Lauret, P., Ramsamy, J. M., & Page, Y. (2006).

A Bayesian neural network approach to estimating the

energy equivalent speed. Accident Analysis &

Prevention, 38(2), 248-259. Available from:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.08.008.

Schaper, D. (1981). Určení střetové rychlosti podle

deformace havarovaného vozidla. Online. Available

from: http://bulletin.csm.cz/Bull_1988_2.pdf. [cit.

2023-10-04].

Semela, M. (2014). Analýza silničních nehod II, Ústav

soudního inženýrství, VUT v Brně.

Singh, J. (2005). The Effect of Residual Damage

Interpolation Mesh Fineness on Calculated Side Impact

Stiffness Coefficients. SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-

1205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-1205.

Struble, D. (2020). Automotive Accident Reconstruction:

Practices and Principles. 2nd Edition. Boca Raton:

CRC Press, ISBN 9781003008972.

Tandy, D., Coleman, C., Colborn, J., Hoover, T. and Bae,

J. (2012). Benefits and Methodology for Dimensioning

a Vehicle Using a 3D Scanner for Accident

Reconstruction Purposes. Online. SAE Technical Paper

Series: SAE 2012 World Congress & Exhibition. 2012,

Vol. 1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4271/2012-

01-0617. [cit. 2023-09-04].

Topolšek, D., Kamnik, R. and Perc, M. (2019). Using the

scanners and drone for comparison of point cloud

accuracy at traffic accident analysis. Accident; analysis

and prevention. 135. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2019.105391.

Tumbas, N. S., Smith, R. A. (1988). Measuring Protocol

for Quantifying Vehicle Damage from an Energy Basis

Point of View. SAE Technical Paper Series.

DOI:10.4271/880072.

Vangi, D. Vehicle Collision Dynamics. Online.

Butterworth-Heinemann, 2020. ISBN 9780128127506.

Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-

812750-6.00013-5. [cit. 2023-11-20].

Vomhof, D. (2016). Equal Spacing NOT Required for

Speed from Crush Calculation. Equally Spaced Crush

measurements - take them in the field or in the office -

which is the better location? WORLD

RECONSTRUCTION EXPOSITION 2016. Florida,

Orlando. Available from: https://www.4n6xprt.com/

WREX2016-4N6XPRT-poster.pdf [cit. 2023-11-20]

Zeidler F., Schreier H., Stadelmann R. (1985). Accident

Research and Accident Reconstruction by the EES-

Accident Reconstruction Method Warrendale, PA:

Society of Automotive Engineers. SAE Paper 850256.

Available from: https://doi.org/10.4271/850256. [cit.

2024-02-21]

How Should I Measure Vehicle Deformation Depth?

133