Energy transformed in a collision

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToniG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Collision Energy
AI Thread Summary
In traffic accident reconstruction, "crush energy" quantifies the kinetic energy converted into permanent damage during a collision, essential for determining collision velocities. The total crush energy of two cars can be calculated using their mass ratio, as shown in the formula Et = E1*(1 + M1/M2), where Et is the total crush energy and E1 is the crush energy of one car. The discussion highlights a potential misunderstanding regarding the relationship between vehicle rigidity and energy absorption, suggesting that increased rigidity in one car may lead to less damage in the other, contrary to intuitive expectations. It is noted that vehicles prioritize occupant safety over minimizing damage, indicating a complex interplay between design and crash dynamics. The formula's validity is acknowledged despite its simplifications, emphasizing the need for further understanding of energy absorption in collisions.
ToniG
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
When reconstructing traffic accidents to obtain the collition velocities it is needed to obtain the "crush energy" which is the amount of kinetic energy transformed into permanent damage to the cars involved. From that kinetic energy we get the Energy Barrier Speed which is used with the momentum equations to determine the speed of the cars involved . The crush energy is based on measurements of the deformation of the cars involved in the collision.

When in a two car collision only one of the two cars "Crash energy" is known, the total Crash energy of the two cars can be obtained if the relationship between the masses of the two cars is known. That formula is shown in "SAE Technical Paper 920604: Wood, D., Collision Speed Estimation Using a Single Normalised Crush Depth-Impact Speed Characteristic".
I attach a snapshot of the paper showing the formula.

Et = E1*(1+ M1/M2)
Where Et is the total crush energy, E1 is the Crush energy of car 1, M1 is mass of car 1 and M2 is mass of car 2.

It is not intuitive to me how can the relationship of the energy dissipated into each body only depend on the relationship of masses. I thought that the "stiffness" of each car, or other properties should be involved but it seems not according to the paper.

Can you help understand where the above formula is derived from?
 

Attachments

  • 1611603996904.png
    1611603996904.png
    12.2 KB · Views: 156
Physics news on Phys.org
Set the magnitude of two impulses equal to each other
ebs2= m1ebs1/m2

add the crush energies
e1=0.5m1ebs1^2
e2=0.5m2ebs2^2=e1(m1/m2)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ToniG
Thank you so much :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
Even though the formulas are clear to me now, when I try to picture its implications in a car collision there is something that I don't fully understand. I am sure that I may be missing something, anyway please let me explain my reasoning:

Scenario 1: two equal cars, car1 and car2 collide when traveling at the same speed and opposite direction. The kinetic energy transformed into crush energy will be the same on both cars resulting in the same amount of damage / body deformation. Everything is clear so far.

Second 2: we increase the rigidity of car2 and keep the rest of variables as in the previous scenario (same mass for the two cars, same speeds). Since we increased the rigidity car2 the amount of energy absorbed by car 2 must be lower. According to the formula, the energy absorbed by car 1 will be lower in the same amount (since the masses of the two cars are still the same even though they have different rigidity). So we would end up with greater post collision speed for both cars and a lower deformation for both cars (less kinetic energy transformed).

What keeps me thinking is this:
How can be possible that strengthening the structure of one of the two cars results in a reduction of damage to the structure of the weaker car?
Would then a rigid barrier cause less damage than a deformable barrier in a collision?
Am I wrong when assuming that an increase in rigidity means less absorbed energy?

Sorry for asking this again even though the formula derivation is fully clear. But I needed to know if there is something missing or it is simply that what seems logic to me it is not necessarily what happens in real life.
 
Last edited:
I'm struggling to make sense of what you are assuming and what you are asking.

That said, I'm not familiar with EBS.
 
I do not know this field.

The formula was derived given that one only measured the damage to ONE car. If you had the other car, you could measure its “ebs” directly and if the vehicle had significantly different structural behavior, its “ebs” would be different than from the one derived above. It is not clear by how much. In addition to this, there is a lot of physics that is absorbed into the “ebs” variable.

The field uses this approximate formula, so I assume that it has some validity.

In general, vehicles are generally designed to protect occupants, not minimize damage. An elastic car would be much more lethal to its occupants, so there are some limitations on how much stiffer a car could be.

Given that a rigid barrier does not move, a vehicle hitting one will decelerate in a shorter distance and consequently take more damage.
 
  • Like
Likes ToniG
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top