International Journal of Crashworthiness

ISSN: 1358-8265 (Print) 1754-2111 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Vehicle/occupant movement in moderate speed

in-line collisions

R. L. Huston

To cite this article: R. L. Huston (2008) Vehicle/occupant movement in moderate

speed in-line collisions, International Journal of Crashworthiness, 13:1, 41-48, DOI:
10.1080/13588260701731591

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588260701731591

Published online: 23 Jan 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcrs20

Download by: [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] Date: 05 January 2016, At: 08:08
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Vol. 13, No. 1, February 2008, 4148

Vehicle/occupant movement in moderate speed in-line collisions

R.L. Huston
Department of Mechanical, Industrial, and Nuclear Engineering, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0072, USA
(Received 8 August 2006; final version received 30 September 2007)

This article presents a simple, but yet quantitative model of vehicle and occupant movement in moderate-speed, in-line colli-
sions. The modelling is based upon established and validated representations of force-deflection relations during frontal/rear-
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 08:08 05 January 2016

end collisions. The developed model is applicable with head-on, rear-end, and fixed structure collisions. The modelling results
show that the vehicle and occupant movement during collision is well described by sinusoidal and linear functions. The model
shows that in the beginning stages of an accident, the occupant movement relative to the vehicle is proportional to the cube
of the accident time. Thus, the occupant movement in the vehicle is initially slow but then rapidly increasing. Thus, from the
perspective of safety, the beginning stages of an accident provide the greatest opportunity for implementation/deployment of
air bags, pretensioners, and adaptive head restraint systems.
Keywords: vehicle; occupant; in-line collisions; moderate speed; accident

Notation a1avg , a2avg Average accelerations and/or deceler-

,
/ Vehicles 1 and 2, also designated as: Veh 1 ations of Veh 1 and Veh 2 Veh 1, Veh 2
and Veh 2 Vehicles 1 and 2
X Coordinate axis k Composite stiffness of Equation (7)
V1 , V2 Vehicle speeds Solution parameter of Equation (13)
u1 , u2 Vehicle deformation due to collision forces Magnitude of maximum mutual pen-
x1 , x2 Displacements of undeformed portions of etration
the vehicles occ Displacement of a vehicle occupant
V10 , V20 Initial vehicle speeds relative to the vehicle
t Time
F1 , F2 Forces on Veh 1 and 2 during collision Introduction
k1 , k2 Stiffnesses of Veh 1 and 2 In the beginning stages of a frontal motor vehicle collision,
u The sum of vehicle deformations, total pen- as the forward structures of the vehicle (the bumper, grille,
etration and radiator) begin to deform, the rearward structures, in-
F Mutual interactive force between the vehi- cluding the occupant compartment, are not affected. Indeed,
cles during collision for a relatively soft, easily deforming front end, the rearward
M Mass matrix defined in Equation (11) structures are neither deformed nor measurably slowed by
K Stiffness matrix defined the initial impact forces. Consequently, in the beginning
x Displacement array defined in Equation (11) stages of a crash a vehicle occupant is little affected by the
i Imaginary: 1 collision dynamics.
p Stiffness/mass parameter defined in Equa- This period of tranquility, however, is very short lived:
tion (18) For example, for a 30 mph (48.3 km/h) barrier impact, 6
A, B, C, D Constant arrays in the governing equation inches (15.24 cm) of crush can occur in less than 12 ms.
solution Then as the vehicle structure is deforming, the collision
a, b, c, d Integration constants in the governing equa- forces increase, approximately linearly with the amount of
tions solutions crush. As these forces increase, the undeformed portions of
tf Time of maximum deformation and/or mu- the vehicle will begin to slow and the occupants will begin
tual penetration to move forward within the vehicle.
Vf Speed at time tf A question arising as a result of this phenomenon is:

V Velocity change (delta V ) How much does the occupant move relative to the vehicle

Corresponding author. Email: ron.huston@uc.edu
ISSN: 1358-8265
Copyright 
C 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13588260701731591
http://www.informaworld.com
 42 R. L. Huston

in relation to the collision time? The answer to this question

depends upon the speed of the vehicle just prior to impact,
the stiffness of the frontal vehicle structures, and the char-
acteristics of the occupant restraint systems.
A detailed knowledge of the movement of the occu-
pants relative to the vehicle is needed for the development
of precision safety and restraint systems, for crashworthy
analysis, for comprehensive accident reconstruction, and Figure 2. Initial contact in the collision of Veh 1 and Veh 2.
for injury analysis.
Attempts to quantify occupant/vehicle movement dur- represent and measure the shortening of the vehicles due to
ing crashes go back continuously to the mid-60s with the the collision forces, and where x1 and x2 now represent the
development of crash dummies and of biodynamic com- displacements of the undeformed portions of the vehicles.
puter models [118]. Dummy features and crash-victim Let the collision occur at time t = 0, and at this initial
computer modellings are still being refined. time, let the displacements x1 and x2 be zero. Let the initial
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 08:08 05 January 2016

A difficulty with the use of dummies and crash tests is
the expense and the limited range of applicability of the
test results. A difficulty with computer models is also the
expense, the unavailability of the software to most analysts,
and the difficulty of use of the software.
The objective of this article is to present an accurate
and readily usable mathematical model of vehicle/occupant
movement during in-line frontal collisions. The analysis de-
veloping the model is based in part upon a previous analysis
of Grau and Huston [5], modelling right angle collisions.
The balance of the article is divided into seven parts
with the first of these describing the class of collisions
considered and the variables used in the modelling and
analysis. The next part presents a modelling of the vehicle
stiffness and deformation behaviour. The subsequent two
parts then provide the governing differential equations and
their solutions. The fifth and sixth parts present validations
of the solutions and areas of application, with a focus upon
vehicle occupant movement. The final part is a discussion
with concluding remarks.
Collision configurations and variable definitions
Consider an in-line vehicle collision as represented in Fig-
ures 1 and 2 where and / designate the vehicles. Let the
speed V1 of Veh 1 exceed that of Veh 2 (V1 > V2 ) (Figure 1)
so that a collision occurs as in Figure 2. Alternatively, Veh
2 may be moving to the left (V2 < 0). In this way we may
simulate either a rear-end of a frontal (head-on) collision.
Let the vehicles come together with initial contact as in
Figure 2, where x1 and x2 represent the displacements of
Veh 1 and Veh 2, positive to the right. After collision, let the
vehicles deform as represented in Figure 3, where u1 and u2
vehicle speeds be V10 and V20 with V10 > V20 . That is,
at t = 0 : x1 = x2 = 0 and x1 = V10 , x2 = V20
(1)
Vehicle stiffness and deformation
Tests and analyses show that as vehicles collide and deform,
the greater the deformation, the greater is the interactive
force between the vehicles [2, 5, 7, 11]. The deformation
itself is initially elastic, but then primarily plastic. As the
deformation increases, more and more of the vehicle struc-
ture is affected. If F1 and F2 represent the resultant forces
exerted on Veh 1 and Veh 2 as the vehicles are deforming,
then
F1 = k1 u1 and F2 = k2 u2 , (2)
where u1 and u2 represent the deformations (shortening) of
the vehicles and k1 and k2 represent the respective vehicle
stiffnesses, which may be evaluated from barrier impact
tests.
To develop the analysis consider the collision of Figure 3
in more detail: specifically, consider force representations
of the vehicles during collision, as in Figure 4. From the
law of actionreaction, we have
F1 = F2 or |F1 | = |F2 | = F, (3)
where F is the mutual interactive force.

Figure 1. Pre-impact of in-line vehicles (V1 > V2 ). Figure 3. Representation of vehicle deformation.
 International Journal of Crashworthiness 43

The governing equations for x1 and x2 are then

m1 x1 + k(x1 x2 ) = 0 and m2 x2 k(x1 x2 ) = 0.

(10)
Figure 4. Interactive forces on the vehicles during the collision. Equation (1) may be cast into the compact and conve-
nient matrix form as
Let u be the total penetration, or closing of the vehi-
cles. That is, let u be M x + Kx = 0, (11)

where by inspection the arrays M, K, and x are

u = u1 + u2 . (4)
m 0  k k  x 
1 1
Then F and u are related by the mutual stiffness k of M= , K= , x= . (12)
the vehicles as 0 m2 k k x2
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 08:08 05 January 2016

F = ku. (5) Equations (10) and (11) have the form of governing
equations of a coupled linear vibration system. Here, how-
By combining the results we have ever, instead of having an elastic system, we have a plastic
(one-way spring) system.
u = u1 + u2 = (F1 /k1 ) + (F2 /k2 )


k 1 + k2 Governing equations solutions
= F [(1/k1 ) + (1/k2 )] = . (6)
k1 k2 The solution of Equation (11) may be written in the form

Then by comparison with Equation (5), we have x = Xet , (13)

k = k1 k2 /(k1 + k2 ). (7) where X is an array of constants given by

 
X1
X= (14)
X2
Governing equations
With the foregoing variable definitions and force analy- and is a parameter (to be determined). By substituting from
sis, it is relatively easy to construct governing differential Equation (13) into (11), we have
equations of motion for the vehicles and subsequently for
vehicle occupants during the collision. To this end, consider (2 M + K)X = 0. (15)
free-body diagrams of the vehicles during deformation as
in Figure 5, where as before the positive direction is to the Equation (15) is a matrix equation equivalent to two si-
right. multaneous linear algebraic equations for X1 and X2 . Since
From Figure 5 we immediately obtain the expressions: these equations are homogeneous (right sides zero), there
is a non-zero solution only if the determinant of the coeffi-
m1 x1 + ku = 0 and m2 x2 ku = 0. (8) cients is zero. That is,
 2 
 m 1 + k k 
From the definitions of the vehicle displacements and  
det(2 M + K) = 0 or   = 0.
deformations, we see that the mutual deformation u may be k ( m2 + k)
2

expressed in terms of the displacements x1 and x2 as

(16)
u = x1 x2 . (9)
By expanding the determinant, we have

(2 m1 + k)(2 m2 + k) k 2 = 0 or 2 [2 m1 m2
+ k 2 (m1 + m2 )] = 0

or
Figure 5. Free-body diagrams of the vehicles during deforma-
tion. 2 = 0 and 2 = k(m1 + m2 )/m1 m2 . (17)
 44 R. L. Huston

Since the vehicle masses and stiffnesses are positive it A similar analysis with x = B sin pt, Ct, and D yields
is convenient to define p2 as
b1 = (m2 /m1 )b2 , c1 = c2 , and d1 = d2 . (28)
p2 D k(m1 + m2 )/m1 m2 . (18)
Therefore A, B, C, and D may be written as
The roots j (j = 1, . . . , 4) of Equation (17) are then
m /m  m /m 
2 1 2 1
1 = ip, 2 = ip, 3 = 0, 4 = 0, (19) A=a , B=b ,
1 1

where i is the imaginary 1. 1 1
Then, from Equation (13) we see that the general solu- C=c , D=d , (29)
tion to Equation (11) may be expressed as 1 1

x = X(1) e1 t + X(2) e2 t + X(3) e3 t + X(4) e4 t , (20) where a, b, c, and d are now constants replacing a2 , b2 , c2 ,
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 08:08 05 January 2016

and d2 .
where the X(j ) (j = 1, . . . , 4) are constant arrays to Finally, by substituting from these results into Equation
be determined from auxiliary initial conditions of the (22) we obtain the solutions to Equation (10) as
collision.
In view of the values of the roots of Equation (19), it is x1 = a(m2 /m1 ) cos pt + b(m2 /m1 ) sin pt
convenient to employ the identities + ct + d (30)

eipt cos pt + sin pt and e0 1, (21) and

then with the repeated zero roots (3 = 4 = 0) we see that x2 = a cos pt + b sin pt + ct + d. (31)
the solution may be expressed as
Equations (30) and (31) provide expressions for the dis-
x = A cos pt + B sin pt + Ct + D, (22) placements of the undeformed portions of the vehicles dur-
ing the collisions.
where A, B, C, and D are arrays of constants given by
By differentiating in Equations (30) and (31) we ob-
        tain expressions for the velocities and accelerations of the
a1 b1 c1 d1 undeformed portions of the vehicles as
A= ,B = ,C = ,D = . (23)
a2 b2 c2 d2
x1 = ap(m2 /m1 ) sin pt + bp(m2 /m1 ) cos pt

Observe that since the governing equations (Equations +c (32)

(10) and (11)) are linear, each term of Equation (22) must x2 = ap sin pt + bp cos pt + c (33)
individually satisfy the equation. Thus, if x = A cos pt we
have and

p2 MA + KA = 0 (24) x1 = ap2 (m2 /m1 ) cos pt + bp2 (m2 /m1 ) sin pt (34)

or x2 = ap2 cos pt bp2 sin pt. (35)

(p2 m1 + k)a1 ka2 = 0 (25)

and Validation and application

We can use Equations (30) and (31) to obtain immediate
ka1 + (p2 m2 + k)a2 = 0. (26) insight into vehicle/occupant behaviour in in-line collisions
including rear-end collisions, frontal, head-on collisions,
In view of the definition of p2 in Equation (18), these and in wall (barrier) impacts.
last two equations are each seen to be identical to the
expression:
Rear-end collisions
Consider first a rear-end collision with the vehicles going in
a1 = (m2 /m1 )a2 . (27) the same direction and the rear vehicle (Veh 1) overtaking
 International Journal of Crashworthiness 45

Veh 2. (Alternatively, the front vehicle (Veh 2) could be From Equations (42) and (43) we see that the penetration
stopped.) The following initial conditions represent these x1 x2 is
scenarios.
x1 x2 = (1/p)(V10 V20 ) sin pt. (49)
At t = 0 : x1 = 0, x2 = 0, x1 = V10 ,
Therefore, at the time tf of maximum penetration we
x2 = V20 , V10 > V20 . (36)
have
Then from Equations (30)(33), we have
= (1/p)(V10 V20 ) sin pt. (50)
0 = a(m2 /m1 ) + d, (37)
Also, from Equations (44) and (45) we see that the
0 = a + d, (38) relative penetration speed x1 x2 is
V10 = bp(m2 /m1 ) + c, (39)
x1 x2 = (V10 V20 ) cos pt.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 08:08 05 January 2016

(51)
V20 = bp + c. (40)
Therefore, at the time tf of maximum penetration we
Solving for a, b, c, and d we obtain have

m1 (V20 V10 ) m1 V10 + m2 V20 0 = (V10 V20 ) cos ptf or cos ptf = 0 or ptf
a = 0, b= , c= ,
p(m1 + m2 ) m1 + m2 = /2. (52)
d = 0. (41)
In view of Equations (50) and (52) and the definitions of
Then from Equations (30)(35) the displacements, ve- k and p of Equations (7) and (18) we see that the maximum
locities, and accelerations of the undeformed positions of mutual penetration of the vehicles is related to the initial
the vehicles are vehicle speeds, masses, and stiffnesses as


m2 (V20 V10 ) m1 V10 + m2 V20 = (1/p)(V10 V20 )
x1 = sin pt + t, (42)
p(m1 + m2 ) m1 + m2

 = (V10 V20 )[m1 m2 /k(m1 + m2 )]1/2
m1 (V20 V10 ) m1 V10 + m2 V20
x2 = sin pt + t, (43)
p(m1 + m2 ) m1 + m2 or
m2 (V20 V10 ) m1 V10 + m2 V20
x1 = cos pt + , (44) 2 = (V10 V20 )2 m1 m2 (k1 + k2 )/k1 k2 (m1 + m2 ).
(m1 + m2 ) m1 + m2
(53)
m1 (V20 V10 ) m1 V10 + m2 V20 (Note that sin ptf = 1.)
x2 = cos pt + , (45)
(m1 + m2 ) m1 + m2
m2 (V20 V10 ) Frontal, head-on collisions
x1 = p sin pt, (46)
(m1 + m2 ) Analytically, a head-on collision may be modelled using the
m1 (V20 V10 ) results for the rear-end collision and replacing the sign of
x2 = p sin pt. (47) the initial velocity for Veh 2. That is,
(m1 + m2 )

As the vehicles come together and deform they reach a at t = 0, x2 = V20 (54)
point of maximum deformation, or maximum mutual pen-
etration. For plastic deformation, the undeformed portions Then, from Equations (52) and (53) we have
of the vehicles will at that instant move together at the
same speed. Let the magnitude of the maximum mutual pt f = /2 and = (1/p)(V10 + V20 )
penetration be and let tf be the time when the maximum
penetration occurs. That is, = (V10 + V20 )[m1 m2 /k(m1 + m2 )]1/2 . (55)

when t = tf , x1 x2 = , x1 = x2 = Vf
and
(48) Barrier or wall impact
where Vf is the instantaneous common speed of the unde- Here we have a single vehicle collision, or alternatively, a
formed portions of the vehicles. collision with an infinite mass, rigid vehicle at rest. Let Veh
 46 R. L. Huston

1 be the colliding vehicle. Consequently, we have

m2 , k2 , V20 = 0, x2 0. (56)

Further, if we neglect rebound effects, or alternatively

only consider the vehicle movement up to maximum en-
gagement, we have

Vf = 0. (57)

Then from Equations (42) and (44), the movement of

the vehicle upon impact is Figure 6. Undeformed vehicle movement during barrier impact.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 08:08 05 January 2016

x1 = (V10 /p) sin pt (58)

and then

x1 = V10 cos pt. (59)

Analogous to the development of Equation (50) we have

= (V10 /p) sin ptf = V10 /p, (60)

where is now the crush distance of the vehicle at the time

Figure 7. Undeformed vehicle movement during barrier impact.
tf of maximum deformation. From the definition of p in
Equation (18), we have
That is,
p2 = k(m1 + m2 )/m1 m2
= k[1 + (m1 /m2 )]/m1 k/m1 . (61) m1 V10 + m2 V20 = m1 x1 + m2 x2 = (m1 + m2 )Vf .
(64)
Also, from the definition of the mutual stiffness k of By substituting from Equations (44) and (45), we im-
Equation (7), we have mediately see that the principle is satisfied.
A second frequently used concept in accident recon-
struction is velocity change (or delta V (
V )) dur-
k = k1 k2 /[(k1 /k2 ) + 1] k1 . (62)
ing the impact phase of the collision. By knowing the

V an investigator can estimate the average acceleration
Therefore, from Equation (60) we have the crush-
and/or deceleration during impact and consequently the
stiffness-speed relation:
average forces occurring during impact and in particular
those forces applied to vehicle occupants (so-called inertia
k1 2 = m1 V10
2
. (63) loading).
Finally, Figures 6 and 7 provide graphical representation To illustrate this, consider the movement of Veh 1: in
of Equations (58) and (59). The sinusoidal form represent- our notation,
V1 is
ing the movement of the undeformed portion of the vehicle
during the barrier impact is the same as that repeatedly
V1 = Vf V10 . (65)
found experimentally in crash tests [7].
Then the average acceleration a1avg of Veh 1 is

Conservation of momentum and delta V a1avg =
V1 /tf = (Vf V10 )/tf . (66)
The principle of conservation of linear momentum is a basis
for frequently used procedures in accident reconstruction But from the conservation of linear momentum principle
analyses. For in-line collisions, the principle simply states of Equation (64), Vf is
that the linear momentum of the system just before col-
lision is the same as that during and just after collision. Vf = (m1 V10 + m2 V20 )/(m1 + m2 ). (67)
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
But substituting into Equation (66) a1avg becomes
a1avg = m2 (V20 V10 )/tf (m1 + m2 ).
(68)
The average acceleration of Veh 1 can also be obtained
by integrating in Equation (47):
tf
a1avg = (1/tf ) x1 dt
0
tf
m2 (V20 V10 )
= (1/tf ) p sin pt dt
(m1 + m2 )
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 08:08 05 January 2016
or
a1avg = (1/tf )m2 (V20 V10 )/(m1 + m2 ) (69)
a result identical to that of Equation (68).
Occupant movement analysis
A principal advantage of having a mathematical model, or
expression, for the movement of the undeformed portion
of a vehicle during a collision is that we can then similarly
model the movement of occupants during the collision. This
in turn provides insight into how they will subsequently
collide with interior vehicle structures, or be restrained and
protected from such collisions by seat belts, pretensioners,
and air bags.
To explore these concepts consider again the sinusoidal
pattern of the undeformed vehicle displacement: Observe
that the extent to which the vehicles displacement differs
from being linear is a measure of the occupant movement
relative to the vehicle interior. That is, from the perspective
of an observer on the ground, just before and during the ini-
tial stages of the collision a vehicle occupant is moving at a
uniform speed and thus displacing linearly with time. But
the vehicles displacement is being retarded sinusoidally.
Therefore, the occupant movement relative to the vehicle
is simply the difference between the occupants linear time
displacement and the vehicles sinusoidal displacement, as
represented by Equations (42), (43), and (58) and graphi-
cally by Figure 6. Then if occ is the displacement of the
occupant in the vehicle, occ is
occ = V10 t x1
 With knowledge of the undeformed vehicle motion dur-
m2 (V20 V10 )
= V10 t sinpt
p(m1 + m2 )


m2 V10 + m2 V20
+ t
m1 + m2
47
or
m2 (V10 V20 ) m2 (V20 V10 )
occ = t+ sin pt. (70)
m1 + m2 p(m1 + m2 )
In the initial stages of the collision (for small t), we can
accurately represent sin pt by a power series as
sin pt = pt (pt)3 /3! + (pt)5 /5! (71)
By substituting into Equation (43) and by retaining only
two terms in the expansion, we obtain
occ = p2 (t 3 /6)m2 (V10 V20 )/(m1 + m2 ). (72)
Observe that the occupants movement in the vehicle is
proportional to the cube of the time in the beginning stages
of the collision.
We can further explore the occupant movement by con-
sidering a barrier impact: That is, in Equation (45), let V20
be zero and m2 be large. Then occ becomes
occ = V10 p2 t 3 /6 = (V10 k1 /6m1 )t 3 , (73)
where the last equality follows from Equations (7) and (18)
with k1 being the occupant vehicle stiffness and with the
barrier stiffness k2 assumed to be large.
Equations (72) and (73) show that in the beginning
stages of a crash the occupant has relatively little move-
ment with respect to the undeformed portion of the vehicle.
But shortly thereafter, there is dramatic occupant move-
ment. Indeed, the movement increases exponentially, as the
cube, with time.
Discussion
Equations (72) and (73) provide a concise but yet detailed
description of the movements of undeformed portions of the
vehicles during a rear-end collision. They are also applica-
ble for head-on collisions by simply changing the sign of
the initial speed of Veh 2. Equation (58) provides the anal-
ogous undeformed vehicle motion description for a barrier
impact. These equations are a direct result of modelling
the vehicle deformation by a one-way, dissipative spring. A
central concept in the modelling is that the crush is plas-
tic and thus that the elastic spring-back effect is relatively
small.
ing a crash, we can readily determine the movement of ve-
hicle occupants during the crash. Equations (45) and (46)
provide approximations of this movement during the critical
beginning stages of the collision. With this movement being
proportional to the cube of the collision time we see from
 48 R. L. Huston
a safety perspective that we can provide occupant protec-
tion against interior vehicle impacts by an early arresting of
the movement. Seatbelts with pretensioners and the timely
deployment of air bags can provide this early arrest.
Finally, the simulation results provide an accurate rep-
resentation of vehicle and occupant movements, during in-
line collisions, in terms of elementary functions. Thus, by
using Equations (42), (43), and (72) an analyst can obtain a
quick and accurate approximation of vehicle and occupant
behaviour during these common, high incidence accidents
and then possibly avoid costly computer simulations and/or
crash tests.
Downloaded by [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] at 08:08 05 January 2016
References
[1] K. Campbell, Energy basis for collision severity, SAE Paper
740565, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA,
1974.
[2] G.W. Cooper, Work, energy, and speed from damage in traffic
accidents, in Traffic Accident Investigation Manual, Topic
870, L B Fricke (Ed.), Evanston, IL, Northwestern Univer-
sity Traffic Institute, 1990.
[3] F. El-Khatib and R.L. Huston, Simulation of accident ve-
hicle occupant motion under varying constraint conditions,
International Conference of Computer-Aided Ergonomics
and Safety CAES 2001, Maui, Hawaii, 2001.
[4] R.I. Emori, Analytical approach to automobile collisions,
SAE Paper 680016, Automotive Engineering Congress, So-
ciety of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1968.
[5] C.A. Grau and R.L. Huston, Validation of an analytical
model of a right-angle collision between a vehicle and a
fixed, rigid object, Int J Crashworthiness. 3 (3) (1998), pp.
249264.
[6] M. Huang et al., Characterization of vehicle deceleration
time histories in the analysis of impact dynamics, SAE Pa-
per 770013 International Automotive Engineering Congress
and Exposition, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warren-
dale, PA, 1977.
[7] M. Huang, Vehicle Crash Mechanics, Boca Raton, CRC
Press, 2002, pp. 3639, 51, 196.
[8] R.L. Huston, R.E. Hessel and C.E. Passerello, A three-
dimensional vehicle-man model for collision and high accel-
eration studies, SAE Paper 740275, Society of Automotive
Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1974.
[9] R.R. McHenry and K.N. Naab, Computer simulation of the
crash victimA validation study, Proceedings, 10th Stapp
Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper 660792, Society of Au-
tomotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1966, 106163 .
[10] G.A. Nystrom, Stiffness parameters for vehicle collision
analysis, an update, Paper 200101-0502, SAE 2001 World
Congress, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale,
PA, 2001.
[11] A.K. Prasad, CRASH 3 damage algorithm reformulation for
front and rear collisions, SAE Paper 900098, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1990.
[12] A.K. Prasad, Energy dissipated in vehicle crasha study us-
ing the repeated test technique, SAE Paper 900412, Society
of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1990.
[13] D.H. Robbins, B.M. Bowman and R.O. Bennett, The MVMA
two-dimensional crash victim simulation, Proceedings, 18th
Stapp Car Crash Conference, SAE Paper 741195, Soci-
ety of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1974, 657
678.
[14] L.E. Schwer and R.G. Whirley, Lessons learned in modeling
a moving deformable barrier (MDB) impacting a rigid wall,
Int J Crashworthiness. 1 (1) 1996, pp. 7391.
[15] D. Strother et al., Crush energy in accident reconstruction,
SAE Paper 860371, Society of Automotive Engineers, War-
rendale, PA, 1986.
[16] M.S. Varat et al., An analysis of trends of vehicle frontal
impact stiffness, SAE 940914, Int Congress and Exposition,
Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 1994.
[17] J. Wismans and J.H.A. Hermans, MADYMO 3D simulations
of Hybrid III dummy sled tests, SAE Paper 880645, Interna-
tional Congress, Society of Automotive Engineers, Detroit,
1988.
[18] S.R. Wu, X. Zhang and P. Lenk, Step functiona measure
for frontal crash pulse and its applications, Int J Vehicle
Design. 26 (4) 3(2001), pp. 85394.