The Accuracy of Photogrammetry vs. Hands-on Measurement Techniques used in Accident Reconstruction Biomechanical Research and Testing

Format:

Conference/Event

Author/Creator:

Randles, Randles, author.

Contributor:

Elliott, David

Jones, Brian

MacAdams, Cameron

Szabo, Thomas

Welcher, Judson

Conference Name:

SAE 2010 World Congress & Exhibition (2010-04-13 : Detroit, Michigan, United States)

Language:

English

Physical Description:

1 online resource

Place of Publication:

Warrendale, PA SAE International 2010

Summary:

A study was conducted to assess the relative accuracy of twomeasurement techniques commonly used for vehicle measurements indamaged-based accident reconstruction. The traditional technique ofhands-on measurement was compared with the use of photogrammetryfor measurement of targeted damaged vehicles. Three undamagedvehicles were subjected to 4 impacts, resulting in 4 damaged areas(two front, one side and one rear). The study's intent was onlyto examine the accuracy of each measurement technique. Theinfluence of other confounding independent variables such asselection of measurement location on the vehicle, reference linelocation, and definitions of what constitutes "damage,"etc., were controlled for and minimized by using predefinedmeasurement points on the vehicles and prescribed stationlines.The points on each vehicle were measured using both techniques,and compared to baseline reference measurements obtained via aTOPCON GPT-7005i prismless imaging total station. PhotoModeler wasemployed as the photogrammetry technique, and photographs of thepost-impact vehicles were obtained using several different camerasand photographers, including an adjuster with no formal training orinstruction in photographing for photogrammetric analysis. Hands-onmeasurements were obtained via two groups of qualifiedprofessionals in the field of accident reconstruction, with accessto both the vehicles and traditional measuring equipment such astape measures, crush jig and plumb bobs.The results found that both methods effectively measured thevehicle points, with a mean difference between the baseline andhands-on measurements of 0.6 ± 1.4 cm, and a mean differencebetween the baseline and photogrammetry measurements of 0.1 ± 1.0cm. The accuracy of the photogrammetry method was found to beslightly greater than that for hands-on physical measurements. Theresults indicated that both physical inspection of a damagedvehicle and photogrammetric analysis from photographs are suitablyaccurate techniques for vehicle damage measurement, and in somecases the photogrammetric analysis may even yield superiorresults

Notes:

Vendor supplied data

Publisher Number:

2010-01-0065

Access Restriction:

Restricted for use by site license