SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

2003-01-0489

Evaluating Uncertainty in Accident

Reconstruction with Finite Differences
Wade Bartlett
Mechanical Forensics Engineering Services

Albert Fonda
Fonda Engineering Associates

Reprinted From: Accident Reconstruction 2003

(SP-1773/SP-1773CD)

2003 SAE World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 3-6, 2003
400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.
For permission and licensing requests contact:
SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax:
724-772-4028
Tel:
724-772-4891

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service
Tel:
877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel:
724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax:
724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright 2003 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA

2003-01-0489

Evaluating Uncertainty in Accident

Reconstruction with Finite Differences
Wade Bartlett
Mechanical Forensics Engineering Services

Albert Fonda
Fonda Engineering Associates
Copyright 2003 SAE International

ABSTRACT
The most effective allocation of accident investigation
resources requires knowledge of the overall uncertainty
in a set of calculations based on the uncertainty of each
variable in real-world accident analyses. Many of the
methods
currently
available
are
simplistic,
mathematically intractable, or highly computationintensive. This paper presents the Finite Difference
method, a numeric approach to partial differentiation
with error analysis that requires no high-level
mathematical ability to apply, uses very little
computation time, provides good results, and can be
used with analysis packages of any complexity.
The Finite Difference method inherently incorporates an
error treatment which provides investigators a basis to
qualitatively rank from dominant to trivial the effects of
uncertainty and errors in measured and estimated
values. In this way, greater efforts in an accident
investigation can be directed to the most influential of
the measurements, while less effort need be expended
on the values which have trivial effect on the analysis
results. Three examples of uncertainty evaluation using
the Finite Difference method in accident analyses are
presented.
INTRODUCTION
In accident investigation, as in any scientific endeavor,
no measurement is ever exact; uncertainty and
measurement errors in some variables in an analysis
may result in a large reduction in accuracy. There are
several methods available for assessing the overall
uncertainty in the result of a set of calculations based on
the uncertainty in or probable error of each input
variable. Classic treatment of possible error combinations uses a Root Sum of Squares method in cases
of simple combinations, as described in Lindgren and
McElrath (1959) and Taylor and Kuyatt (1994). For
more complicated systems, Brach (1994) described
three methods (upper and lower bounding, and algebraic
partial differentiation to evaluate a Taylor series, first

without and then with use of a statistical method). The

brute force get a bigger hammer approach of Monte
Carlo Analysis was demonstrated by Kost and Werner
(1994), Wood and O'Riordan (1994), and Rose, Fenton,
and Hughes (2001). Application of the algebraic partial
differentiation method to the momentum equation was
demonstrated by Slakov and McInnis (1991) and
Tubergen (1995), but to date the application to more
complex systems has not been discussed.
This paper describes the Finite Difference method and
presents its mathematical basis.
This means of
evaluating the overall uncertainty in an analysis is
essentially a numeric approach to partial differentiation
of the equation under consideration. This method
obviates the requirement for algebraic partial
differentiation in terms of each input variable, and
requires significantly less computation than the Monte
Carlo method.
It provides meaningful statistical
information, and can be automated with relative ease
given todays computer capabilities. It can be applied
manually to simple closed-form analyses in a spread
sheet environment or more complicated reconstruction
algorithms, or can be embedded directly in such
programs. In the late 1980's, Fonda embedded the
method in an automated fashion in the CRASHEX
program (Fonda 1995). However, absent a valid array
of probable measurement uncertainties none of these
approaches could be exercised to their full potential.
The Finite Difference method inherently provides a
choice of a structured sensitivity analysis or a Paretotype evaluation of the input affects to identify the vital
few among the trivial many as described by Juran
(1951, 1974).1 This isolates the most influential
uncertainties or measurement errors on the basis of
objective and qualitative criteria rather than on the usual
subjective basis. Such an evaluation can assist the
investigator in determining where best to spend
resources to improve the result of an analysis.
1 For further reading on the history of Pareto charts, see
J.M. Jurans article The Non-Pareto Principle; Mea
Culpa at www.juran.com/research/articles/SP7518.html

The steps to apply the method in practice are presented.

A comparison of the results as calculated by the Finite
Difference method with those calculated by the Monte
Carlo Analysis method, partial differentiation method,
and Taylor series expansion method for one non-linear
analysis
commonly
undertaken
in
accident
reconstruction is presented.
The Finite Difference
method results for two more complex cases are also
shown and discussed.

the pertinent data are summarized in Appendix A. Only

with the availability of the new data could any of the preexisting methods become efficacious.
IMPLEMENTATION
The series of steps necessary to conduct a Finite
Difference analysis is fairly short, and can be used with
both spreadsheet analyses and more complicated
accident reconstruction analysis packages:

MATHEMATICAL BASIS
Step 1: Determine the nominal (mean) value for each
independent variable in the equation or equations.

Given an equation describing a system:

r = f ( X 1 , X 2 ... X j )

EQ.1

Coleman and Steele (1998) noted that the uncertainty of

the result can be expressed as:

and that the finite-difference approximation to solve

EQ.2 can be written as:

This assumes that the equation under consideration is

nearly linear near the nominal values and the
independent variables are not related to one another
statistically. The ranges selected for each variable must
have the same confidence-level (1-sigma or 2-sigma, for
instance).
Shigley and Miscke (1986) published an equivalent form
of EQ.2 using standard deviations in place of the
uncertainty terms above, specifically noting that the
standard deviation of the combined result can be
evaluated based on the standard deviations of each
variable.
DATA SOURCES
One of the limitations to the use of this and other
uncertainty analysis methods has been the dearth of
useful data defining actual uncertainty ranges in many of
the measurement tasks common to accident
reconstruction. Other than modest information regarding
the measurement of vehicle crush (Smith and Noga
1982; Tumbas and Smith 1988; Brown et al. 1987), the
assignment of error ranges was rather speculative. This
state persisted until relevant experimental studies
performed at the WREX-2000 Conference2 were
analyzed and reported by Bartlett, et al. (2002) Some of

Step 2: Determine the high and low values for each

independent variable at the selected confidence level, or
the range about the mean values one wishes to
consider. Values are commonly reported as the nominal
value plus-or-minus one standard deviation.
This
defines a range of values that will occur 68.3% of the
time. One can use any level of confidence one prefers,
as long as the same probability level is selected for all
values. Selection of high and low bounding values two
standard deviations from the mean will include 95.5% of
all cases.
Step 3: Calculate the nominal result for the dependent
variable of interest using all the nominal values of the
independent variables using either a spreadsheet or a
more complex algorithm.
Step 4: With all other independent variables at their
nominal values, set each independent variable in turn at
its highest value, find the result for the selected
dependent variable and find the departure of this result
from the nominal result.
Step 5: Repeat Step 4 for the lowest values of each
variable.
Step 6: For each input variable, average the squares of
the results of steps 4 and 5. This represents the mean
of the output variances for positive and negative input
deviations, where the variance is the square of the
deviation.
Step 7: Take the square root of the sum of these
averaged squares, on the basis that the variance of the
sum is the sum of the variances. This gives the
uncertainty range around the nominal result to the
selected confidence level.
If in Step 2 the range about the mean values is 1.0, that
is, if one chooses to consider variation of one unit of the
input variable whatever that may be, then the result of
World Reconstruction Exposition 2000 (WREX-2000),
September 24-29, 2000. College Station, Texas, hosted
by the Texas Association of Accident Reconstruction
Specialists (TAARS) and 21 other accident investigation
and accident reconstruction organizations
2

Steps 4 and/or 5 is a sensitivity analysis, giving the

influence coefficients or sensitivities as X units of each
dependent variable per unit of increase and/or decrease
of the independent variable. Alternatively, if one selects
a range of a particular likelihood (1-sigma or 2-sigma for
instance) for each input variable, the result of Steps 4
and/or 5 reveals which input parameters have the
greatest influence on the uncertainty of the final answer.
This process can be automated. In the late 1980's, as a
part of the development of an algorithm for accident
reconstruction, Fonda adopted the Finite Difference
method, as he reported in 1995, as "a programmed
procedure for evaluating the bands of uncertainty about
a developed base case, due to the estimated errors of
observation for that case. This 'Deviation Analysis'
procedure begins [as the algorithm is exercised] with a
return from the output screen to a data-less input
screen, where likely perturbations or deviations on all
the base inputs can be entered. The differential effects
of each input deviation then are found in one run per
input, [repeated] for all inputs of interest. These results
can be used as-is for sensitivity studies and imposition
of constraints. Furthermore, the root of the sum of the
squares of all the deviations of each output can be
found." (Fonda 1995) On the assumption that the inputs
were all independent and equally probable at any given
confidence level, the latter option gives the equally
probable combined output deviations for the input
polarities selected. Both polarities may be investigated,
but as averaging of the resulting variances is rarely
critical, in order that sensitivity analysis may also be
performed variance averaging is not provided in Fondas
automated procedure.

the nominal value is found to be 105.2 feet. Combining

the 1-sigma bounds so as to generate absolute high and
low bounding values yields a range of 77.4 to 137.9 feet.
The nonlinearity in the system is hinted at here in that
the low bound is 27.8 feet lower than the nominal value,
but the high bound is 32.7 feet higher.
Shigley and Mischke (1989) reported that the mean
result of EQ.4 could be found by evaluating the equation
using the mean input values, and the standard deviation
for the distance traveled could be estimated using the
Taylor-series expansion shown in EQ.5:

The Shigley and Mischke estimate for mean value was

the same nominal value as calculated above (105.2
feet), with an estimated standard deviation of 19.8 feet.
This result is approximately 4% higher than most of the
other methods shown here. The truncation of higherorder terms in the Taylor series may be the reason for
this difference.
To evaluate the uncertainty in the fashion of Coleman
and Steele, EQ.2 would be rewritten as follows:

After partially differentiating EQ.4 for each variable, the

uncertainty of the result can be expressed as:

EXAMPLE 1: SIMPLE CASE

A common non-linear accident reconstruction calculation
is finding the distance required for a vehicle to stop
given an average deceleration value once braking is
initiated, including pre-braking perception time during
which the vehicle travels at a constant-speed. The
equation of interest can be written as:

Substituting the nominal and 1-sigma uncertainty values

for each variable yields the following:

or an overall 1-sigma uncertainty of 19.14 feet.

Where d = travel distance to stop, feet
v = initial velocity, feet/sec
t = time to perceive and react, seconds
a= average acceleration, feet/sec2

Using the Finite Difference method yields the nominal

value of 105.2 feet and a standard deviation of 19.15
feet. This method required fewer than 100 calculations
in approximately 40 cells, as shown in Figure 1.

The means and standard deviations of each of the four

variables xa can be written as a and a respectively.
Using the following input values:

A Monte-Carlo type analysis was conducted using a

typical spreadsheet program using techniques
discussed by Bartlett (2003). With 25,000 trials using
normally distributed input variables, the average
distance was found to be 105.7 feet and the standard
deviation was 19.1 feet. A histogram of these results is
shown in Figure 2. The nonlinearities noted above
reveal themselves in the histogram in the form of a
slight

v = 45 4 ft/sec
t = 1.4 0.3 seconds
a = -24 2 ft/s/s (-0.745 0.062 gs)

(originally an input) is unconstrained, as if it were an

output. This amounts to solving the original set of
equations for a different set of parameters (equal to the
number of equations), which is always permissible, and
which as an algorithm is a quicker means to this
particular end. It is this logic which renders differing
solutions of the same set of equations equivalent, even if
not equally efficacious; whatever can be accomplished
with one arrangement can be accomplished with the
other, but the values of all parameters involved must be
examined and confirmed to have credible values.
When the Finite Difference method is used not for
sensitivity analysis but for uncertainty analysis, it gives
the user the ability to assess which input uncertainties
have the greatest effect on the outcome of the
calculation. In the preceding example, for instance,
increasing the acceleration rate by 1-sigma changed the
final result by less than 4%, but changing either the
reaction time or the initial speed by the 1-sigma levels
defined altered the result by over 12%. Clearly, a tighter
range on either of the latter two variables will yield the
greatest benefits in terms of narrowing the result.
2500

The benefits of conducting a sensitivity analysis of

accident reconstruction analyses have long been
recognized (Metz and Metz 1998; Limpert and Andrews
1991; Jones 1974). An auxiliary benefit of the Finite
Difference method is that a sensitivity analysis is integral
to the method. From a sensitivity analysis, one may rule
out parts of the range of uncertainty of some inputs on
the basis of excluding results which are not credible. For
instance, the preliminary uncertainty analysis might
permit too much rebound between the vehicles; but if it
is noted that the rebound is quite sensitive to an input
which has a high uncertainty, the extreme values of the
input can be reduced, to reduce the rebound to a more
credible level. In the end this amounts to a change of
constraints; the rebound (originally an output) is
constrained as if it were an input, and the other variable

1000

500

152-156

144-148

136-140

128-132

120-124

112-116

96-100

104-108

Distance, feet

88-92

80-84

72-76

64-68

56-60

0
48-52

Each 25,000-repetition Monte-Carlo analysis required

approximately 700,000 calculations in 225,000
spreadsheet cells. Simplified analysis algorithms could
dramatically reduce the number of cells used but would
be unlikely to significantly reduce the number of
calculations required.

1500

40-44

skewing from the ideal normal curve based on the

sample mean and standard deviation (shown as the
single line). The high-value tail is much longer than the
low-value tail, weighting the overall average somewhat
higher than the median value of 104.9 feet, and pushing
the apparent peak slightly lower than predicted. A
second run of 25,000 repetitions confirmed this result,
with a mean of 106.00 19.29.

2000
Frequency

Figure 1: Spreadsheet evaluation of uncertainty using

Finite Difference method, for Example 1.

Figure 2: Normal curve based on results average and

standard deviation superimposed on histogram results
of Monte-Carlo analysis for Example 1.

Method

Mean

1-Sigma

High-Low range

107.7* ft

n/a

Partial Differentiation

105.19

19.14

Monte Carlo

105.7

19.10

Finite Difference

105.19

19.15

Taylor Series
(Shigley & Mischke)

105.19

19.80

Table 1: Summary of uncertainty results for Example 1,

as calculated by several methods. *High-Low Range
method generated a high of 137.9 and a low of 77.4.

EXAMPLE 2: FINITE DIFFERENCES WITH A/R

SOFTWARE

From Figure 4, it can be seen that the input variables

which had the most effect on the V2-impact speed result
were the approach and departure angles for V1.

The Finite Difference method can be used with any

closed-form accident analysis software package
(including CRASH3-type programs) with some hand
calculation. For purposes of accident reconstruction this
method is not conveniently performed with simulation
(SMAC-type) packages because many of the dependent
variables in simulation are independent variables in
accident reconstruction; and vice versa. This concept
was explored, though, by Spek (2000) and Moser, et al.
(2003). The momentum analysis module in a commonly
used accident analysis program, RECTEC, was used to
evaluate a 90-degree intersection collision, with the
nominal values shown in Figure 3: These inputs
resulted in a calculated vehicle 2 (V2) impact speed of
50.2 mph.
By altering each input value in turn first by 2-sigma high
then by 2-sigma low, a table of results was created in a
spreadsheet, shown in Figure 4. For instance, with all
variables at their nominal value, the approach angle for
Vehicle 1 was changed to +3 degrees and then -3
degrees, resulting in a calculated V2 impact speed of
47.62 mph and then 52.74 mph. The change from the
nominal value was calculated for each result (Steps 4
and 5). In the first line, the nominal result was subtracted
from the new result to get (47.62 - 50.18) = -2.56 and
(52.74 - 50.18) = +2.56 mph. These and all other such
differences were then squared and averaged (Step 6).
Finally, the square root of the sum of these was taken
(Step 7), to find the combined 2-sigma range of 4.92
mph. This indicates that given the 2-sigma inputs
selected and the nominal values used, one can be 95%
confident that the true result is 50.18 4.92 mph
(between 45.3 mph and 55.1 mph).

Figure 3: Screen shot of RECTEC momentum analysis

module input screen used for Example 2.

Figure 4: Spreadsheet used to calculate overall uncertainty in Vehicle 2 impact speed for Example 2.

EXAMPLE 3: INTERSECTION IMPACT

The uncertainty in the results of another right-angle
intersection collision were evaluated with the CRASH3
solution and the Finite Difference (Deviation) Analysis
module contained in CRASHEX using the experimental
measurement errors summarized in Appendix A. The
CRASH3 option (zero impact duration) was chosen to
exemplify a simple vector solution as used in RECTEC.
The case selected is a right-angle intersection impact
with both vehicles traveling at 40 mph, Vehicle 2 having
been Eastbound when impacted on the right side by the
Northbound, smaller Vehicle 1, giving the trajectories
shown in Figure 5. This collision configuration was used
by Severy in staged impacts in the 1950's, McHenry in
the 1970's in the development of both SMAC and
CRASH, Fonda in the 1980's in the development of
CRASHEX, and was the most-severe case within the
family of EDSMAC simulations provided as an accident
reconstruction baseline by Kinney and Woolley (1994).
An EDSMAC simulation of RICSAC 10 with both
vehicles at exactly 40 mph (and with the struck vehicle
reversed) established the scene and vehicle data to be
reconstructed. The location and path of Vehicle 1 were
considered to have established the reference axes,
which are otherwise arbitrary.
Figure 6 shows the input data for the CRASH3 analysis
that formed the basis for Figure 5. These inputs, which
along with crush-data comprised a total of 60 variables,
produced a 7 by 10 array of output parameters, not
shown (see Fonda 1995, 2000) and not all of equal
significance to the reconstructionist. By adopting this
solution as the base case during a Finite Difference
analysis, with unit input deviations one can assess the
sensitivity of each of the 70 outputs to variation in each
of the 60 inputs, for a potential of 60x70=4,200
sensitivities in this (typical) instance. Or, by inputting
instead the uncertainties and likely errors listed in the
Appendix, one can determine the individual uncertainties
in each output and thence the 4200 individual and 70
combined (root-sum-square) uncertainties. The task
then is to locate the vital few variables which most
significantly affect the outcome.

Table 2 shows that for all levels of error the calculation

was found to be most sensitive to errors of
measurement of the tire-road friction or vehicle drag
(which were varied jointly), with the exception of a
greater sensitivity to a High (6 degree) error in the
relative directions of approach (and heading) of the
vehicles. Otherwise there was secondary or tertiary
(and quite minor) sensitivity to path curvature errors, and
to error in the weight of the striking vehicle if all errors
were Low or Medium.
The High levels of error (11.3 and 5.5 mph) might
correspond to a quite tentative reconstruction; yet such
results could be quite adequate when a gross
approximation would settle the issue at hand. Otherwise
all of the data should be collected with greater care,
especially (if nothing else) with regard to the angle of
convergence between the vehicles.
The Medium levels of error (3.0 and 2.8 mph) require at
least the better friction look-up values of Ebert (1989)
(see Appendix A), an allowance for likely occupant and
cargo loading of the generic vehicles, and careful
treatment of well-documented tire tracks; yet if initially

Figure 5: Intersection impact for complex example

Identification of the vital few begins with selection of

outputs of interest. For the present study, there are only
two: the impact speeds based on momentum. This
means that for present purposes the crush-data inputs
will be ignored.
For the inputs of Figure 6 the CRASH3 impact speeds
for Vehicle 1 and Vehicle 2 respectively were found to
be 38.2 and 37.7 mph. Thus the errors of treatment
were
-1.8 and -2.3 mph using CRASH3. Taking that
solution as a base case all variable uncertainties were
set to twice the 1SD values outlined in the table in the
Appendix for Low, Medium, and High uncertainties.
Then in each instance the three largest resulting
uncertainties in the two impact speeds, which are for the
present the vital few we seek, are found to have the
values shown (in order of magnitude) in Table 2.

Figure 6: Site and vehicle input values for Example 3.

well investigated by others a further site visit may not be

necessary. At this level the results could be quite
acceptable when approach speeds were not crucial to
the issue at hand. Significant improvements in the end
result could be made, however, by on-site friction
measurements (see Appendix A), on-site studies to
refine the vehicle paths, and accompanying adoption of
a method of treatment not presuming instantaneous
impact (as do CRASH3 and RECTEC). As noted in
Fonda 2000, "If all relevant inputs have been perturbed
and each relevant root-sum is at least twice the likely
error of treatment as indicated by the present study or
others, the treatment is as good as it needs to be, and
there need be no specific allowance for errors of
treatment." In an intersection impact such as described
here, with Medium errors this would apply if CRASHEX
were used, but not if CRASH3 or the like were used.
The Low levels of error (both 0.6 mph) presume the use
of laser instruments applied to precisely defined targets
along tire marks still visible or recreated at the site,
careful estimation of specific occupant and cargo loading
and tare weights of replicate or (preferably) the involved
vehicles, and onsite friction measurements. While such
use of computer-aided electronic instrumentation always
may be justifiable for its speed, convenience, credibility,
and avoidance of inadvertently gross error, its lavish
accuracy is effective only in a similarly superior method
of treatment, one not degraded by the presumption of
instantaneous impact.
Once the measurement influences have been identified
in this manner, the more critical data may be collected
initially or eventually with better equipment and more
care. Conversely as to all the quantities not explicitly
noted in Table 2; the end results would hardly be
affected even by reasonably large (but admissible)
changes in value thereof.
Typically a preliminary Finite Difference study for a given
impact configuration will show which of the possible
observational uncertainties are the trivial many, and do
not significantly affect the issue at hand, leaving the vital
few to be more carefully investigated. Thus,

expenditures available for investigation, always limited,

can be more judiciously allocated through the application
of the Finite Difference Method.
CONCLUSIONS
With the advent of quantitative, juried data as to likely
errors of measurement in accident investigation, a
long-known but little-used tool, Finite Difference
Analysis,
has
become
useable
in
accident
reconstruction. This procedure has been shown to be
useful in identifying the vital few measurements among
the trivial many by quantifying the effects of input
uncertainty on calculated results in accident
reconstruction analyses.
The technique has been
described and demonstrated.
In evaluating a non-linear equation with three variables
of normal probability, the Finite Difference method was
shown to compare favorably with a traditional analysis
as conducted with the Monte Carlo method. Both
methods can narrow the range of results as compared to
simple high-low bounding. Histogram representation of
Monte Carlo results provides more graphic information
regarding the non-linearities in the result, but requires
three orders of magnitude more computation to
generate.
The Finite Difference method provides an immediate
uncertainty evaluation both when implemented by
means of hand calculations and with more complicated
accident reconstruction algorithms. When combined
with an existing algorithm for accident reconstruction it
preserves the sophistication of that specialized
procedure while adding the benefits of a sensitivity
analysis and statistical information on the accuracy of
the outputs of the reconstruction.
Without even any further application of the analytical
procedure, the numerical results in the present paper
provide the accident investigator an initial guide for the
allocation of resources for the field investigation of a
typical intersection impact. In future Finite Difference
studies, regardless of the method of reconstruction
similar results can be developed for other dependent
variables given the same impact configuration and for a
variety of other impact configurations as well.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Ray Brach for his kind
assistance.
CONTACT
Wade Bartlett can be contacted through the website
http://mfes.com or by email at wade@mfes.com

Table 2: Ranked uncertainties of Example 3 reconstruction

due to measurement uncertainties.

Albert Fonda can be contacted through the website

www.crashex.com or by email at afonda@crashex.com.

REFERENCES
Bartlett, W.D., Wright, W., Masory, O., Brach, R., Baxter,
A., Schmidt, B., Navin, F., Stanard, T., Quantifying The
Uncertainty in Various Measurement Tasks Common to
Accident Reconstruction, SAE Paper 2002-01-0546
Bartlett, W.D., Monte Carlo Analysis Using Spreadsheet
Programs, SAE Paper 2003-01-0487
Brach, R., Uncertainty in Accident Reconstruction
Calculations, SAE Paper 940722
Brown, D.R., Wiechel, J.F., Stansifer, R.L., Guenther,
D.A., Practical Application of Vehicle Speed
Determination from Crush Measurements, SAE Paper
870498
Coleman, H., Steele, W.G. Jr, Experimentation and
Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers, 2nd Edition, John
Wiley & Sons, 1998, ISBN: 0471121460 (pp 78-79)
CRASHEX Operations Manual, Fonda Engineering
Associates, 649 S Henderson Rd Suite C307, King of
Prussia PA 19406
Ebert, N., Tire Braking Traction Survey Comparison of
Public Highways and Test Surfaces, SAE Paper 890638
Eubanks, J.J., Haight, W.R., Malmsbury, R.N., Casteel,
D.A., A Comparison of Devices Used to Measure
Vehicle Braking Deceleration, SAE Paper 930665
Fonda, A.G., Nonconservation of Momentum During
Impact, SAE Paper 950355
Fonda, A.G., Partially-Braked Impact and Trajectory
Benchmarks, and Their Application to CRASH3 and
CRASHEX, SAE Paper 2000-01-1315
Garrott, W. R., Measured Vehicle Inertial Parameters
NHTSA's Data Through September 1992, SAE 930897,
as treated in Fonda, A G, Report of the Yaw Inertia
Evaluation Forum to the Accident Investigation Practices
Committee of the SAE, March 5, 1993
Jones, I.S., Results of Selected Applications to Actual
Highway Accidents of SMAC Reconstruction Program,
SAE Paper 741179
Jones, I.S., Baum, A.S., Research Input for Computer
Simulation of Automobile Collisions, Volume IV. Staged
Collision Reconstructions, December 1978. DOT HS
805 040.
Juran, J.M., Editor, Quality Control Handbook, First
Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1951;
third edition, 1974
Kost, G., Werner, S., Use of Monte Carlo Simulation
Techniques in Accident Reconstruction, SAE Paper
940719
Limpert, R., Andrews, D.F., Linear and Rotational
Momentum for Computing Impact Speeds in Two-car
Collisions (LARM), SAE Paper 910103
Lindgren, B.W., McElrath, G.W., Introduction to
Probability and Statistics, Macmillan Company, 1959

Metz, L.D., Metz, L.G., Sensitivity of Accident

Reconstruction Calculations, SAE Paper 980375
Maryland Association of Traffic Accident Investigators,
Joint Conference in Waldorf Maryland, September 1998
Moser A., Steffan H., Spek A., Makkinga W., Application
of the Monte Carlo Methods for Stability Analysis within
the Accident Reconstruction Software PC-CRASH,
submitted to SAE for publication 2003
Rose, N., Fenton, S., Hughes, C., Integrating Monte
Carlo Simulation, Momentum-Based Impact Modeling,
and Restitution Data to Analyze Crash Severity, SAE
Paper 2001-01-3347
Shigley, J.E., Mischke, C.R., Standard Handbook of
Machine Design, McGraw Hill, 1986, ISPB: 0-07056892-8 (pp 4.15)
Shigley, J.E., Mischke, C.R., Mechanical Engineering
Design, McGraw-Hill, NY, 5th Ed, 1989
Slakov, G.A., and MacInnis, D.D., The Uncertainty of
Pre-Impact Speeds Calculated using Conservation of
Linear Momentum, CMRSC7-242, June 17-19, 1991.
Smith, R.A., and Noga, J.T., Accuracy and Sensitivity of
CRASH, DOT HS 806-152, March 1982. (The SAE
version is 821169, Accuracy and Sensitivity of CRASH,
but omits the analytic derivation and the juried crush
measurement results.)
Spek, A., Implementation of Monte Carlo Technique in a
Time-Forward Vehicle Accident Reconstruction
Program, presented at the seventh IES Conference,
Krakow, Poland, 2000
Taylor, B., and Kuyatt, C., Guidelines for Evaluating and
Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement
Results, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Technical Note 1297, 1994
Tubergen, R.G., The Technique of Uncertainty Analysis
as Applied to the Momentum Equation for Accident
Reconstruction, SAE Paper 950135
Tumbas, N.S., Smith, R.A., Measurement Protocol for
Quantifying Vehicle Damage from an Energy Basis Point
of View, SAE Paper 880072
Wood, D., O'Riordain, S., Monte Carlo Simulation
Methods Applied to Accident Reconstruction and
Avoidance Analysis, SAE Paper 940720
Woolley, R.L., Kinney, J.R., Reference Cases for
Comparison of Collision Algorithms Used in Accident
Reconstruction, SAE Paper 940567

APPENDIX A
The choice of Finite Difference inputs will be aided by
the 2002 SAE paper Quantifying The Uncertainty in
Various Measurement Tasks Common to Accident
Reconstruction by Bartlett, et al., and Smith and
Tumbas 1982 SAE paper Accuracy and Sensitivity of
CRASH.
Some representative findings from both
papers are summarized below (see the papers for
clarification).
Distance by Total Station. In the WREX-2000 studies,
variations using laser instruments applied to precisely
defined targets were vanishingly small for accident
reconstruction purposes (0.02 feet or less, depending
on equipment).
Distance. The standard deviation of errors in
measurement of distances exceeding about 30 feet or
10 meters is typically not over 0.07% using a tape
(taken as Medium uncertainty in the present study), or
0.21% using a wheel (taken here as High uncertainty).
Arc. Assuming that the chord is measured precisely,
the standard deviation of the uncertainty in
measurement of the middle-ordinate of an arc fitted to
tire marks may be 0.042 ft (0.012 m) if the arc is
scribed (taken here as Low uncertainty), or 0.14 feet
(0.040 m), when an actual yaw-mark is measured (taken
here as a Medium uncertainty). In cases where the arc
cannot be clearly and positively identified, the High
uncertainty value, taken here as 0.7 feet, should be
assessed at the site given scene evidence.
Angle. The WREX-2000 participants, when asked to
measure an angle by striking and measuring two sides
of a right triangle, reported a mean of 36 degrees with
SD = 0.56 degrees.
However, the participants
expressed aversion to the task, perhaps because the
locations of points rather than the magnitudes of angles
usually are measured. But if so this implies that, lacking
approach tire marks, the directions of approach to
impact are often taken to be exactly along the known
right-of-way; no feature is actually measured (and none
may be detectable). To allow for error in this regard this
SD for angles is here taken as Medium, while as a
High error a significantly larger SD of 3 degrees (a 2
SD error of 6 degrees) allows for unobserved,
occasionally significant angulation during an approach.
It would be unduly adverse, however, to apply this to
every angular input; any one input direction should be
exempt, being taken to be the exact reference direction.
Likewise any one input X, Y location should be exempt.
Right Angle. If Cartesian coordinates are used (setting
aside as beyond the scope of this paper the method of
triangulation, measurement to each target from two fixed
points), such measurements would be made normal to
possibly inexact reference axes. It can be shown that,
using a tape a right angle may be established with useful
accuracy, such that for Medium accuracy we may
estimate the 1SD errors in the location of a point (X, Y)

as Y=0.003X and X=0.003Y. The High level of error is

about 10 times that amount, based on the WREX-2000
data.
Weight.
Smith (1982) reported a 1SD range for
passenger vehicle weight as 65 pounds, taken here as
Medium uncertainty. In cases where the number of
passengers or their weights are unknown, or contents of
the vehicle may have exited the vehicle during collision,
the High uncertainty level, taken here as 400 pounds,
and will have to assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Mass Dispersion. Yaw moment of inertia in inertial units
can hardly be estimated by eye, is difficult to actually
measure, and even if measured and published is easy to
misquote. To avoid these difficulties, in CRASHEX it is
entered in the form of a dimensionless ratio, k/ab. The
mass of any vehicle tends to be distributed as if it were
all at the axles, a condition for which k/ab = 1 where k is
the radius of gyration, a is the distance from the front
axle to the center of mass, and b is the distance from the
rear axle to the center of mass. More exactly, this ratio is
about 1.1 for most vehicles; or still more exactly k is just
under 30% of the vehicles overall length (Garrott, 1993).
Errors in mass dispersion tend to be modest because
most vehicles are morphologically similar. Errors, taken
here to be 0, 0.02, or at worst 0.20, affect the relative
effects of impact forces (during impact) and tire forces
(after impact) on linear as opposed to angular speed
changes.
Wheelbase. In data included in the summary WREX2000 report but not included in the SAE paper (Bartlett
et al. 2002), 16 participants measured the left and right
wheelbase of a damaged passenger vehicle using steel
tape measures. The standard deviation of their results
from the average of their results was approximately 1.0
inch (1% of the measured value), taken here as Medium
uncertainty; and 3 inches was taken to be High
uncertainty.
Tire-Road Friction, in situ. WREX-2000 follow-up
testing showed that given a common instruction set,
many people could generate very tight data if given the
same drag sled and measurement tool. In the limited
number of tests where a variety of drag sleds have been
employed by their individual owners and the results
compared to vehicle testing, the results have generally
been reasonably close. For instance, ten participants at
WREX-2000 using their own drag sleds measured on
a concrete surface to be 0.81 with SD = 0.019, while an
ASTM drag-testing trailer measured =0.846, 0.802, and
0.821 at 22, 31, and 41.5 mph respectively (35, 50, and
66 kph), averaging 0.823.
At an earlier conference (Maryland, 1998), 20
participants, using their own drag sleds, measuring on
an asphalt surface on which a Maryland DOT trailer
measured =0.829, reported a mean of 0.81 with SD =
0.028. This value should be representative of the
scatter from results of testing the accident vehicle or a

replicate at the scene with accurate measurement

equipment (in essence using the vehicle as a drag sled).
This result is taken here as Low uncertainty.
Tire-Road Friction, generic. Ebert (1989) reported the
peak and slide friction values as measured in 1986
during 102 tests on an array of US-highways by six tire
manufacturers using cars from two manufacturers, two
test speeds, and two tire loads. Though this data may
be a little dated, it is newer than the data now found in
many of the commonly used reference tables. For the
present study the Medium and High uncertainties were
taken to be 0.07 (as below) and 0.12, respectively. Note
that the latter uncertainty allows 5% of the values to fall
outside the range of (say) 0.66 to 0.94, which should
indeed encompass nearly all the values likely with but
little knowledge of the particular tire and surface
involved.
Average

SD

Low

High

Dry Peak

0.90

0.069

0.75

1.08

Dry Slide

0.69

0.075

0.45

0.87

Wet Peak

0.65

0.072

0.47

0.81

Wet Slide

0.43

0.065

0.28

0.58

Lateral Friction, generic. Multiple tests of the lateral

dry tire-road friction on Road and Tracks dry skid pad
found the maximum possible lateral acceleration to be
0.800.056g at 1SD for an array of commonly available
passenger cars. However, for lack of a driver in control,
after impact steady limit cornering is rarely if ever
achieved, and these values were not used in the present
study.
Post-Impact Unbraked Drag. In collisions commonly
reconstructed, panic braking to rest is the exception.
More typically there is only parasitic (engine) drag,
perhaps assisted by one or more wheels locked by
damage. The same relative accuracies of measurement
were assumed as for the lateral limits of tire-road friction.
Crush Depth. The errors of crush measurement by
digital means should be trivially small, other than
misidentification of what counts as crush. At WREX2000, 16 participants measured the crush on a vehicle
after a partial-overlap collision. The average crush
depth reported was 19.9 inches, with 1SD of 5.2 inches
(26% of the average).
The crush measurements
individually reported at each of 6 locations had average
uncertainties of slightly over 40%, reported here as High
uncertainty.
Smith (1982) reported crush depth
uncertainty at the 1SD level to be 1.5 inches with an
average crush depth of 7.3 inches (20% of the average
depth) with a single trained but less skilled and
experienced investigator, relative to a crack team.
These results are reported here as Medium uncertainty.

Crush Width. In measuring damage with an average

reported width of 48 inches, Smith found the crush width
to have 1SD = 3.0 inches (6% of the total average
width). This value is taken here as Medium uncertainty.
In measuring damage with an average reported value of
62 inches, Bartlett et al. found 1SD = 9.9 inches (16% of
the total average value), taken here as High uncertainty.
Crush Location.
Smith reported that for an
experienced technician the 1SD value for location of the
center of vehicle damage was 1.8 inches.
Crush Direction. The principal direction of force as
measured on damaged vehicles was studied by Smith
as well as Bartlett, et al. Smith found that 3 of 34 PDOF
estimates differed from the others by one clock sector
(30 degrees). From this, he concluded that the 1SD
level of accuracy was 10 degrees. Though not reported
in Bartlett, 15 participants at WREX offered their
estimate of the PDOF of the partial-overlap vehicle. The
values ranged from 0 to 45. Discarding the one highoutlier (45 degrees) resulted in 14 accepted responses,
with an average of 9.6 degrees, and a 1SD of 11.5
degrees.
Tiremark Measurement. Of 24 participants, asked to
measure the left front skid-mark length produced when
an on-board VC2000 indicated a stopping distance of 67
feet, 14 included the mark made by a rear wheel
(wheelbase 11.7 feet), and reported a mean length of
75.2 feet (high by 8.2 feet; or short of 67+11.7=78.7 by
3.5 feet, or 4.4%), with an SD of 1.7 feet (2.2% of 78.7).
The remaining 10 participants measured the skidmark
as requested, reporting a mean length of 67.0 feet with a
SD of 1.7 feet (2.5% of 67).
Thus, as to skid marks prior to impact (not a part of a
post-impact reconstruction), or travel after impact if skid
marks alone designate point of rest, observers often
mistakenly include wheelbase when measuring skid
marks. At best, when the single-wheel skid mark is
correctly identified, the SD is typically 2.5%.
There is insufficient data at the present time to
determine the relationship of the uncertainty to the skidlength under consideration, if one exists.
It is
recommended that investigators use 1SD=1 ft for Low
uncertainty (in cases where marks are absolutely clear
and unequivocal in their start/finish points), 1SD=2 ft for
Medium uncertainty, and 1SD=5 ft for High uncertainty
(in cases of casual estimation).

Values for one standard deviation (1 SD)

Measurement

Low
Uncertainty

Medium
Uncertainty

High
Uncertainty

Units

Range1

0.07

0.19

X (from Y axis2)

0.17

1.4

% of Y

Y (from X axis2)

0.17

1.4

% of X

Chord Rise3

0.04 (0.01)

0.14 (0.04)

0.7 (0.2)

feet (meters)

Angle4

0.6

degrees

Weight5

10 (44)

65 (286)

400 (1778)

pounds (newtons)

Mass Dispersion

0.02

0.20

unitless

Wheelbase

1 (2.5)

3 (7.5)

inches (cm)

Tire-Road dry-slide 6

0.03

0.07

0.12

g's

Crush Depth 7

0.5 inches
(1.2 cm)

20%

40%

Crush Width 7

0.5 inches
(1.2 cm)

6%

16%

Crush Direction8

10

20

degrees

Crush Properties9

10

20

40

Skidmark Measurement

1 (0.3)

2 (0.6)

5 (1.5)

feet (meters)

TABLE A: Typical values for Low/Medium/High uncertainty

measurements common to accident reconstruction.

Low error by laser or digital sensor is trivial for all distances and angles. (1) Range 30 to 90 feet, for points near the
major axis of an elongated cluster. (2) Cartesian distance, about equally far from each axis. (3) Low for scribed mark,
Medium for tire mark, High for casual estimate. (4) Medium by dubious jury, High if object uncertain. (5) Low
established by on-site test, typical scale resolution; Medium per Smith (1982), High for casual estimate; In cases where
the number of passengers or their weights are unknown, or contents of the vehicle may have exited the vehicle during
collision, the high-uncertainty level may be much higher, and will have to assessed on a case-by-case basis. (6) Low
established by on-site test with actual or replicate vehicle and accurate equipment, Medium for less accurate on-site
tests or Eberts generic values, High for casual estimates. (7) Low is based on uncertainty in vehicle dimensional data
for very well defined features from WREX-2000, Medium per Smiths NHTSA investigator(s), High based on WREX2000 results. (8) Medium per Smith and Bartletts results from WREX; High denotes a casual estimate. (9) Low if from
tests of the same or replicate vehicle; Medium if based on vehicle size; High denotes a casual estimate.