The Comparison of 3D and 2D Measurement Techniques Used for the

Analysis of Vehicle Deformation

Pavlína Moravcová

1,2 a

, Kateřina Bucsuházy

1,2 b

, Robert Zůvala

, Martin Bilík

and Albert Bradáč

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

Transport Research Centre, Brno, Czech Republic

Keywords: Vehicle, Deformation, 2D, 3D, Accident Analysis, Laser Scan.

Abstract: As one of the main assumptions for the accident analysis has been detailed information about vehicle

deformation. The precise deformation depth allows to quantify deformation energy and related impact speed.

The aim of this paper has been the comparison of two selected methods used for the determination of

deformation depth. For the purpose of this paper were selected top-view photography as basic and cheap

method and 3D scanning as modern and advanced method. Different vehicles and 2 basic types of damage -

frontal and side impact - were chosen for the analysis. Also, the different range of vehicle deformation depth

were selected. On the basis of obtained results is possible to determine the applicability of these methods,

their advantages and limitations.

1 INTRODUCTION

Vehicle damage analysis (the vehicle deformation

respectively) has been one of the main assumptions

and inputs for the subsequent accident analysis (speed

calculation, determination of impact configuration,

etc.). The accident reconstruction based on energy

conservation principle was described by e.g.

(Campbell, 1974 or McHenry, 1986). In the Czech

Republic, the accident documentation and subsequent

accident analysis is conducted separately. The

documentation is usually carried out by Police

immediately after the accident occurrence at the

accident place. For the accident technical cause

determination (which usually involves vehicle speed

calculation) is usually required forensic expert. The

accuracy of the accident analysis is dependent on the

accuracy of the input data.

For the deformation measurement could be used a

variety of methods – the simplest is manual

measurement using measurement tape, deformation

jigs or grids (Brown, 1987). A detailed measurement

methodology using deformation jigs has been

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

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

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

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

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

published by e.g. Tumbas. For the deformation

measurement could be also used measurement from

photographs (especially top-view photo) as the low-

cost method for accident documentation. However,

photographs are sometimes unable to capture the

extent of damage. It is sometimes necessary to

combine top-view photo with photographs from

different angles, because some of the deformation can

be hidden under the hood (Boddorff, 1990). As the

modern methods are for documentation of vehicle

deformation used e.g. geodetic total stations,

quadrocopter, photogrammetry and especially 3D

scanning.

For some types of vehicle damage, only the 2D

representation (e.g. photography) is sufficient, some

types of vehicle deformation require detailed 3D

imaging (scanners, photogrammetry, etc.) (Massa,

Barrete; 1998). The accuracy of selected methods for

accident documentation was studied by a number of

previous studies. Comeau (1996) compared the

manual measurement with total station measurement.

The accuracy has been significantly influenced by

initial settings, especially accuracy of the manual

Moravcová, P., Bucsuházy, K., Z˚uvala, R., Bilík, M. and Bradá

c, A.

The Comparison of 3D and 2D Measurement Techniques Used for the Analysis of Vehicle Deformation.

DOI: 10.5220/0009353601950202

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS 2020), pages 195-202

ISBN: 978-989-758-419-0

195

measurement has been influenced by precision of the

investigator. The maximum deviation between

manual measurement and total station was 3 cm in the

maximum deformation region. The top view

photography was used by Boddorff (Boddorf, 1990),

the average measurement deviation ranged from 6 to

18 %. Significant differences could be influenced e.g.

by the hood of the vehicle which overlaps some of the

damaged measured parts. Also, the three-dimensional

imaging as photogrammetry and its accuracy has been

studied e.g. by (Tumbas, 1994, Fenton and Kerr,

1997; Neale, 2004). Using high resolution digital

images in conjunction with control points and

constraints from three-dimensional data has proven to

be an effective way to reconstruct vehicle damage

(Buck, 2007;

arczewsk, 2019). Nowadays,

especially high-resolution laser scanning is used for

the vehicle damage documentation (Callahan, 2012;

Kang, 2017). Laser scanning has been also widely

used for traffic accident documentation (Kamnik,

2020) or 3D human body analysis. Laser scanning

allows to detect traces which are unrecognizable at

the accident scene. Subsequent analysis also allows to

analyse traces from different perspective (Harrington,

2018). In terms of both financial and time

requirements, only photographs are still available in

most cases. The aim of this study has been the

comparison of two selected measurement methods –

2D (top-view photographs) and 3D (laser scanners)

and determine the applicability of these methods in

different types of impacts (frontal and side impacts).

2 METHODS

For the purpose of this study was selected two

methods: photography (top-view) as the widely used,

simplest and cheapest method and 3D laser scanning

as one of the most modern method. The vehicle

deformation analysis using 3D scanning has been

performed by comparison of the damaged vehicle

scan with the similar undamaged vehicle model

(figure 2). 3D view allows to select the maximum

area of the vehicle damage (figure 1). The

measurement from the 3D scanning was realized

using 2D cut in the level of the maximum deformation

depth. As the software tool for the analysis of vehicle

scans were used Geomagic Control.

For the measurement of the deformation depth

using the top-view photography were used the photo

of damage vehicle and undamaged vehicle model

from the software Autoview (figure 3).

Predefined measurement points were defined on

each of the vehicles. The measurement points were

distributed equally by every 10 cm. The predefined

points allowed direct point-by-point comparison of

both used methods. The number of measured points

on each vehicle varied depending on the deformation

magnitude.

Figure 1: Analysis of 3D scans at maximum deformation

depth.

Figure 2: Analysis of 3D scans at maximum deformation

depth.

Figure 3: Analysis of photography – top-view.

For the analysis of the methods accuracy were

used 3 frontal and 3 side impacts. Selected vehicles

have not identical characteristics as e.g. vehicle body

stiffness, there has been not common feature.

Vehicles were selected on the basis of their

deformation in order to compare selected methods

over a wide range of deformation depth values.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Frontal Impacts

Figure 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 show the obtained results – the

deformation depth in predefined measurement points

on the vehicle front. Figure 4 shows the deformation

depth measurement using the top-view photography

(left) and 3D scan (right) of the Skoda Karoq vehicle

VEHITS 2020 - 6th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

196

(F1). The vehicle front has been damaged over the

almost entire width - the front bumper, bonnet,

longitudinal beams including damage of the vehicle

deformation elements. The maximum deformation

depth determined using the top-view photography

was 21 cm, minimum about 3 cm. After a three-

dimensional analysis of the maximum damage area, a

2D cut was made at the height of 55 cm. The

maximum deformation depth determined using the

scan was 12 cm, minimum similarly as using top-

view photo about 3 cm.

Figure 4: Skoda Karoq frontal impact – top-view (left) vs.

scanner (right).

Figure 5: Skoda Karoq front impact measurement method

comparison.

Comparison of the measured deformation depth

value using the two selected methods demonstrates a

considerable difference of the obtained data.

Differences of the deformation depth could be

influenced mainly by the quality of the top-view

photography – e.g. taking photography at the wrong

angle which can subsequently distort the deformation

analysis.

Figure 6 shows full-width deformation of the Fiat

Multipla frontal part (F2). Compared to the previous

case study, the deformation magnitude was larger –

the front beams at the both sides of vehicle were

damaged.

The maximum deformation depth determined

using the top-view photography was 53 cm, minimum

about 2 cm. After a three-dimensional analysis of the

maximum damage area, a 2D cut was made at the

height of 50 cm. The maximum deformation depth

determined using the vehicle scans was 70 cm,

minimum about 6 cm.

Figure 6: Fiat Multipla frontal impact – top-view (left) vs.

scanner (right).

While in the previous case, the deformation depth

values were small and the comparison of the selected

methods showed significant differences, in this case

the comparison of the selected methods shows only

small differences. Larger differences of these

individual methods have been caused by the covering

of the deformation with the vehicle bonnet or other

vehicle parts (bumper, etc.).

Figure 7: Fiat frontal impact measurement method

comparison.

The following frontal collision of the Skoda

Felicia (hereinafter referred to as F3) is the most

prominent of the presented collisions. There was a

complete destruction of the front side of the vehicle,

including the front cross member, the left side beam

and significantly damaged front axle.

In case of measuring the deformation depth using

the top-view (Figure 8), the maximum deformation is

1,13 m and minimum is 13 cm. With the help of three-

dimensional analysis, the cut was made in a 50 cm

height, with a maximum deformation about 1,27 m

and minimum about 4 cm.

The Comparison of 3D and 2D Measurement Techniques Used for the Analysis of Vehicle Deformation

197

Figure 8: Skoda Felicia frontal impact – top-view (left) vs.

scanner (right).

Figure 9: Skoda Felicia front impact measurement method

comparison.

The graph (figure 9) shows us that even if such a

significant deformation of frontal vehicle part occurs,

the deviations are quite minimal. Deviations in

measurement in this case occurs due to overlap of the

deformation by the windscreen. In case of using

combination of methods (e.g. top-view photography

and photographs from different angles using of

levelling meter), this deviation could be completely

eliminated.

3.2 Side Impacts

The problematics of deformation measurements in

the side collisions is very actual. For the comparison

of selected methods were chosen three collision with

different character of deformation. Figures 10, 11, 12,

13, 14, 14 show the results for the measurement

points of the vehicles side.

First case shows side impact of a Skoda Kodiaq

(hereinafter referred to as S1). The deformation

occurs on the left side of the vehicle, between the A

and C pillars. The left front and rear doors were

damaged and the B pillar was slightly deformed.

Figure 10 (up) shows the measurement of the

deformation depth using the top-view, where the

maximum deformation was about 10 cm and the

minimum was about 4 cm. In three-dimensional

analysis, the maximum deformation section was

measured at a height of 55 cm from the ground

(Figure 10 - down). The maximum deformation of

that section was about 14 cm and the minimum about

4 cm.

Figure 10: Skoda Kodiaq side impact – top-view (up) vs.

scanner (down).

In the graph (figure 11) below could be observed

that in case of deformation up to 10 cm the deviations

are not significant, but above 10 cm the deviation is

already visible, even if it is not a significant

deformation.

Figure 11: Skoda Kodiaq side impact measurement method

comparison.

Another example of a side impact is presented in

the following figure. This is the side impact of the

Voyager Chrysler (S2). The deformation produced by

this impact was already greater than in the previous

example. The deformation depth of the S2 collision

using the top-view is shown in Figure 12, where the

maximum deformation was about 16 cm and the

minimum about 2 cm. In a three-dimensional

analysis, the maximum deformation section was at a

height of 60 cm (Figure 12 - down). The maximum

deformation was about 27 cm and the minimum about

3 cm.

0,3

0,6

0,9

1,2

1,5

123456789101112131415

Maximum deformation depth [m]

measurement points

SkodaFeliciafrontimpactmeasurementmethod

comparison

scaner top‐view

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

1234567891011121314151617

Maximum deformation depth [m]

measurement points

SkodaKodiaqsideimpactmeasurement

methodcomparison

scaner top‐view

VEHITS 2020 - 6th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

198

Figure 12: Chrysler Voyager side impact – top-view (up)

vs. scanner (down).

The following graph (figure 13) shows similarly

as in previous case study not significant deviation in

case of deformation up to 10 cm. A significant change

occurs in the case of more extent side deformation,

such a large deformation may not be apparent from

the photograph. As can be seen e.g. in case of

maximum deformation. When using a scanner,

maximum deformation was measured about 27 cm.

Using the top-view photograph at the same point

there was the depth of deformation only about 12 cm.

Figure 13: Voyager Chrysler side impact measurement

method comparison.

The last example of a side impact is the Skoda

Felicia (hereinafter referred to as S3). The

deformation of the S3 impact can be quantified as the

most significant of the side impact measurement

series. Almost the entire right side of the vehicle has

been damaged. The apparent deformation was

between the right A and C pillars and both vehicle

doors were dented inside the vehicle. Furthermore,

the right B pillar and the right doorsill (at the B pillar

level) were broken.

When subtracing the deformations of the S3

impact using the top-view of the photograph (Figure

14 - up), the maximum deformation was about 26 cm

and the minimum of 6 cm. The three-dimensional

analysis was again performed at the maximum

deformation level and subsequently confirms that the

impact was really striking (the greatest). The cut was

measured at a height of 50 cm above the ground, the

maximum deformation is was around 42 cm and a

minimum about 10 cm.

Figure 14: Skoda Felicia side impact – top-view (up) vs.

scanner (down).

The case of side impact of S3 and the subsequent

comparison of the two measurement methods shows

that in the case of significant deformation, there are

significant deviations between these methods as its

shown in the graph below. Similarly as during

analysis of F3 impact, this deviation can be

eliminated by combination of top-view photography

with another method of deformation measurement

(e.g. levelling rod, meter, crush jigs, etc.). Case S3

also illustrate limitation of using this methodology for

analysis of deformation from 3D scanner. Using only

one 2D cut in the maximum deformation level can

lead to inaccuracy in local maximum – e.g. in point 7

of S3 is the level of deformation higher in comparison

with the other points. The maximum value could be

caused e.g. by local crack. To achieve precise values

and eliminate local errors would be more appropriate

to use average of multiple sections (2D cuts).

Figure 15: Skoda Felicia side impact measurement method

comparison.

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213

Ma ximum deformation depth [m]

measurement points

SkodaFeliciasideim pactmeasurementmethod

comparison

scaner top‐view

The Comparison of 3D and 2D Measurement Techniques Used for the Analysis of Vehicle Deformation

199

3.3 Comparison of Selected Methods

Accuracy

The deformation depth at the measured points was

subsequently evaluated and plotted. From the graphs

below, it is evident that in lateral impacts (Figure 16),

the depth of deformation up to 10 cm is within a slight

but acceptable tolerance. As the depth of deformation

increases, so does the deviation from the ideal

tendency. In some cases, it is up to 50% deviation,

especially in the area of maximum deformation depth.

There are several limitations of top-view

photography. The accuracy of the obtained data is

significantly influenced by the quality of

photography, very important influence has been also

the angle of taken photo. In cases where deformation

interferes to the vehicle interior, the top-view

photography method is not applicable for

deformation analysis. Therefore, when evaluating

these types of deformation, a combination of

measurement methods must be considered to achieve

higher measurement accuracy.

Figure 16: Side impact measurement differences

comparison.

In the case of frontal impact and subsequent

comparison of the measurement methods, the

deviation is significantly lower compared to the side

impact. With increasing depth of deformation, the

deviation is higher but not as significant as in side

impacts. But even here it is necessary to consider the

so-called hidden deformations, which may not be

obvious at first sight. These are, for example,

deformations occurring at lower velocities, where

elastic deformation is largely occurring plastic

deformation is “hidden”. The elasticity of the material

has an overall effect on the measurement of the

deformation depth (regardless of the type of used

method), the measured values will be lower compared

to the real vehicle damage.

Figure 17: Frontal impact measurement differences

comparison.

The basic statistical parameters were analysed to

compare the methods of measuring the deformation

depth. The deviation of the vehicle frontal

deformation measurement is given in the table below

(Table 1). The average deviation of the measurement

increases with the depth of the deformation and

ranges up to about 10 cm. The maximum deviation is

around 43 cm, this significant deviation being found

at F3 (see figures 8 and 9), in this case the

deformation depth was covered by the windshield of

the vehicle by using the top-view method. As

mentioned above, this inaccuracy can be eliminated

by using multiple methods.

Table 1: Frontal impact measurement deviation

comparison.

deviation Mean [cm]

Minimum

[cm]

Maximum

[cm]

to 10 c

7,1 0,8 14,2

from 11 c

9,4 1,1 42,6

In case of lateral deformation (Table 2), the

measurement deviation increases substantially. The

average deviation up to 10 cm of the deformation

depth is about 1 cm, above 11 cm this deviation

increased. Increasing deviation is evident in all

measurement cases (S1, S2 and S3). Above 31 cm,

the average deviation is about 15 cm and maximum

up to 21 cm. This is the case of S3 (see Figure 15),

where a significant deformation of the vehicle interior

occurred, therefore it was not possible to identify the

real deformation extent using only the top-view

photography.

R²=0,8826

R²=0,5419

R²=0,0597

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

0,45

0 0,10,20,30,40,5

To p-Vie w [m]

Scaner [m]

Sideimpactmeasurementdiff erences

comparison

upto10cm 11‐30cm

31cmandmore idealstate

R²=0,3518

R²=0,8413

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,2

1,4

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4

To p-Vi e w [m]

Scaner [m]

Frontal impactmeasurementd iffer ences 

comparison

upto20cm ideal 21cmandmore

VEHITS 2020 - 6th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

200

Table 2: Side impact measurement deviation comparison.

deviation Mean [cm]

Minimum

[cm]

Maximum

[cm]

to 10 c

0,8 0,0 2,2

from 11 to 30 cm 8,5 2,2 15,5

from 31 c

15,1 7,1 20,8

4 DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to compare selected

methods (top-view photography as basic and cheap

method and 3D scanning as modern and advanced

method) with respect to the achieved accuracy of

deformation depth values as one of the basic

parameters for the analysis of the accident. Similar

methodology was used by Randles (2010) for the

comparison of the photogrammetry and hands-on

measurement. Different vehicles and 2 basic types of

damage - front and side impact - were chosen for the

analysis. Also, the different range of vehicle

deformation depth were selected. Differences of the

deformation depth measurement using scanning and

top-view photography were illustrated by Figure 16

and Figure 17.

Obtained results illustrate not significant

differences between the selected methods used for the

analysis of frontal impact. Inaccuracy could be

caused if the vehicle deformation has been covered by

some of the vehicle parts (e.g. bonnet, bumper). This

is however limitation of most of the used methods.

Similar results have been proved also by some of the

previous studies – e.g. (Boddorff, 1990). As stated by

Comeau or Boddorf (Comeau, 1996; Boddorff,

1990), more accurate results could be achieved by

understanding of the methods for accident

reconstruction and documentation limitation. These

conclusions illustrate the importance of these type of

studies.

The highest deviations of the obtained results

were related to the analysis of side impact. The usage

of top-view photography has been very limited in

case of side impact. While there are no significant

deviations in the case of minor damage (up to 10 cm),

bigger deformation depth (from 20 cm) shows

significant inaccuracies when using top-view

photography. It is therefore necessary to use a

combination of several methods in such cases. The

use of modern methods such as 3D scanning allows

to achieve accurate results. The biggest disadvantage

of three-dimensional methods has been the high

purchase price and especially in case of

photogrammetry the lack of time at the accident

scene. (Massa a Barrette, 1998; Terpstra 2019).

Three-dimensional methods could serve not only for

the analysis of vehicle damage but also can provide a

comprehensive view of the whole accident site.

(Coleman 2015; Callahan, 2012; Terpstra 2019).

The aim of the follow-up studies will be the

comparison of some of the other commonly used

methods for the deformation depth determination

(photogrammetry, total geodetic station, crash jigs,

etc.). The methods will be evaluated with respect to

the achieved accuracy, but also in relation to the type

of vehicle damage or the extent of vehicle

deformation respectively. Most of the previous

studies used for the analysis of the methods accuracy

simulated accident scenario (e.g. Randles, 2010;

Gaffney, 2015; Castaneda, 2012). As one of the main

advantages of the study could be mentioned that not

only the deformation of the vehicles damaged during

crash tests or simulated accident scenarios were

analysed, but also the real accidents. Working on the

scene of real accidents has certain specifics compared

to crash tests - especially time pressure due to road

closure and related congestion, the accident

participant presence on spot, etc. These factors could

significantly affect the achieved accuracy and thus

distort the obtained results. In the future work, the

comprehensive assessment will be carried out with

the aim to create the methodology for vehicle

deformation documentation with respect to the extent

and type of the vehicle damage.

5 CONCLUSIONS

With increase of the traffic intensity also the number

of accidents increases. The traffic accident

occurrence is associated with society-wide losses not

only directly from the accident itself but also in

relation to the congestion due to the road closures at

the accident sites. The duration of the accident site

documentation as well as vehicle deformation

documentation has been important parameter. The

time pressure during accident documentation may

subsequently resulted to the insufficient

documentation of the accident site and vehicles as

well as the overall data quality (Topolšek 2013). The

financial demand of the acquisition and data storage

requirements are also necessary to take into account.

The aim of this article was to determine the

applicability of selected methods depending on their

accuracy in relation to the various types of collisions

and extent of vehicle damage. On the basis of the

selected results could be established that for the

frontal impacts is mostly sufficient to use

conventional methods. These methods are also

The Comparison of 3D and 2D Measurement Techniques Used for the Analysis of Vehicle Deformation

201

suitable for small deformation (up to 10 centimetres).

For the purpose of the side impacts and large

deformation depth it is necessary to use modern

documentation methods (e.g. scanner) or at least the

combination of several methods.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This article was produced with the financial support

of the Ministry of Transport within the programme of

long-term conceptual development of research

institutions on the research infrastructure acquired

from the Operation Programme Research and

Development for Innovations (CZ.1.05/2.1.00/

03.0064).

REFERENCES

Brach, M., & Brach, R. M. (1998). Crush Energy and Planar

Impact Mechanics for Accident Reconstruction. SAE

Technical Paper Series. doi:10.4271/980025

Campbell, K. L. (1974). Energy Basis for Collision

Severity. SAE Technical Paper

Series. doi:10.4271/740565

McHenry, R. R., & McHenry, B. G. (1986). A Revised

Damage Analysis Procedure for the CRASH Computer

Program. SAE Technical Paper Series.

doi:10.4271/861894

Brown, D. R., Wiechel, J. F., Stansifer, R. L., & Guenther,

D. A. (1987). Practical Application of Vehicle Speed

Determination from Crush Measurements. SAE

Technical Paper Series. doi:10.4271/870498

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

Boddorff, T. C. and Jones, I. S., “Simple Overhead

Photography Techniques for Vehicle Accident

Reconstruction,” SAE Technical Paper 900370, 1990.

Comeau, J.-L., Dalmotas, D. J., German, A., Monk, B., &

Trépanier, D. (1996). Crush Measurement for Side

Impacts Using a Total Station. SAE Technical Paper

Series. doi:10.4271/960100

Massa, D. J., & Barrette, R. W. (1998). Using Three-

Dimensional Digitization to Model a Vehicle. SAE

Technical Paper Series. doi:10.4271/980377

Terpstra, T., Dickinson, J., Hashemian, A., and Fenton, S.,

"Reconstruction of 3D Accident Sites Using USGS

LiDAR, Aerial Images, and Photogrammetry," SAE

Technical Paper 2019-01-0423, 2019

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

Applying Camera Matching Methods to Laser Scanned

Three Dimensional Scene Data with Comparisons to

Other Methods. SAE Technical Paper Series.

doi:10.4271/2015-01-141

Tumbas, Nicholas, S., Kinney, J., Rolly, Smith, C.,

Gregory, C., “Photogrammetry and Accident

Reconstruction: Experimental Results,” SAE 940925,

1994

Fenton, Stephen, Kerr, Richard, “Accident Scene

Diagramming Using New Photogrammetric

Technique”, SAE 970944, 1997

Neale, W. T. C., Fenton, S., McFadden, S., & Rose, N. A.

(2004). A Video Tracking Photogrammetry Technique

to Survey Roadways for Accident Reconstruction. SAE

Technical Paper Series. doi:10.4271/2004-01-1221

Callahan, M., LeBlanc, B., Vreeland, R., and Bretting, G.,

"Close-Range Photogrammetry with Laser Scan Point

Clouds," SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-0607, 2012

Randles, B., JoneS, B., Welcher, J., Szabo, T. et al., "The

Accuracy of Photogrammetry vs. Hands-on

Measurement Techniques used in Accident

Reconstruction," SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-0065,

2010

Gaffney, T., Winter, B., Elston, A., Sandvik, A. et al.,

"Method for Estimating Vehicle-Specific Frontal

Stiffness Values in the Absence of an Applicable Crash

Test Using Methodically-Distilled Data from the

NHTSA Crash Database (Phase 1)," SAE Technical

Paper 2015-01-0027, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-0027

Harrington, S., & Lebak, G. (2018). The Placement of

Digitized Objects in a Point Cloud as a

Photogrammetric Technique. SAE International

Journal of Transportation Safety, 6(2). doi:10.4271/09-

06-02-0007

Karczewski, M.. Influence of 3D scanner parameters on

accuracy evaluation of vehicle element deformation. In:

AIP Conference Proceedings, 2019, 2078(1). DOI:

10.1063/1.5092015.

Kang, H. J. a I. Han. 3-Dimensional Scanning/Modeling for

Analysis of Vehicle Collision Accidents. Transactions

of the Korean Society of Automotive Engineers. 2017,

(25), pp. 541-547. DOI: 10.7467/KSAE.2017.25.5.541.

Buck, U., Naether, S., Braun, M., Bolliger, S., Friederich,

H., Jackowski, C., … Thali, M. J. (2007). Application

of 3D documentation and geometric reconstruction

methods in traffic accident analysis: With high

resolution surface scanning, radiological MSCT/MRI

scanning and real data based animation. Forensic

Science International, 170(1), 20–28.

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.08.024

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

Using the scanners and drone for comparison of point

cloud accuracy at traffic accident analysis. Accident

Analysis & Prevention, 135, 105391.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2019.105391

VEHITS 2020 - 6th International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems

202