Advertisement

International Journal of Legal Medicine

, Volume 133, Issue 4, pp 1089–1106 | Cite as

A case-oriented approach for analyzing the uncertainty of a reconstructed result based on the evidence theory

  • Tiefang ZouEmail author
  • Hua Li
  • Ming Cai
  • Yuelin Li
Original Article

Abstract

Uncertainty analysis is an effective methodology to improve the reliability of an accident reconstruction result. Many existing methods can be employed in this field, which can confuse a practicing engineer who does not know these methods well. To make the selection easier, a case-oriented approach was proposed based on the evidence theory. Users only need to input uncertain traces and a selected accident reconstruction model to calculate the uncertainty of reconstructed results using the proposed approach. Three basic steps of the case-oriented approach are as follows: first, all types of input traces should be transformed into their evidence form; then, focal elements of the reconstructed result and their corresponding basic probability assignment (BPA) need to be calculated; finally, the belief function (Bel) and plausibility function (Pl) of the reconstructed results are calculated. Three common conditions, which are accidents with all interval traces, accidents with all probabilistic traces, and accidents with interval and probabilistic traces, were discussed based on the basic steps of the case-oriented approach. Furthermore, methods for how to transform different traces to their evidence form, how to calculate the interval of the response efficiently, and how to fuse high conflict evidence were presented. Numerical cases showed that the approach worked well in all conditions. Finally, a vehicle collisions accident case was presented to demonstrate the application of the proposed approach in practice.

Keywords

Accident reconstruction Uncertainty Evidence theory Interval traces Probabilistic traces 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51775056), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou City, China (No. 201704020142), the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province (2018JJ3544), and the China Scholarship Council (CSC).

References

  1. 1.
    Brach RM, Brach RM (2005) Vehicle accident analysis and reconstruction methods. SAE International Publisher, WarrendaleGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wach W (2013) Structural reliability of road accidents reconstruction. Forensic Sci Int 228(1–3):83–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.02.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Du XG, Jin XL, Zhang XY, Shen J, Hou XY (2009) Geometry features measurement of traffic accident for reconstruction based on close-range photogrammetry. Adv Eng Softw 40(7):497–505.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Su S, Liu WJ, Li K, Yang GY, Feng CJ, Ming JX, Liu GD, Liu SX, Yin ZY (2016) Developing an unmanned aerial vehicle-based rapid mapping system for traffic accident investigation. Aust J Forensic Sci 48(4):454–468.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2015.1073787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osman MR, Tahar KN (2016) 3D accident reconstruction using low-cost imaging technique. Adv Eng Softw 100:231–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2016.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wood DP, Simms CK, Walsh DG (2005) Vehicle-pedestrian collisions: validated models for pedestrian impact and projection. P I Mech Eng D-J Aut 219(2):183–195.  https://doi.org/10.1243/095440705X6703 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zou TF, Zhang YG, Yin RY (2016) Two simple formulas for evaluating the lower bound of the impact velocity in vehicle-pedestrian accidents. J Forensic Sci 61(4):959–965.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li ZG, Liu WG, Zhang JH, Hu JW (2015) Prediction of skull fracture risk for children 0–9 months old through validated parametric finite element model and cadaver test reconstruction. Int J Legal Med 129(5):1055–1066.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-015-1190-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wen YL, Jin XL, Zhao ZJ, Zhang XY (2010) Car-to-pedestrian collision reconstruction with injury as an evaluation index. Accid Anal Prev 42(4):1320–1325.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xu J, Li YB, Lu GQ, Zhou W (2009) Reconstruction model of vehicle impact speed in pedestrian-vehicle accident. Int J Impact Eng 36(6):783–788.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2008.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peng Y, Yang JK, Deck C, Willinger R (2013) Finite element modeling of crash test behavior of windshield laminated glass. Int J Impact Eng 57:27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2013.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zou TF, Cai M, Shu X (2012) Response surface methodology and improved interval analysis method—for analyzing uncertainty in accident reconstruction. Forensic Sci Int 222(1–3):306–312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wong TW, Tao CH, Cheng YK, Wong KH, Tam CN (2014) Application of cross-ratio in traffic accident reconstruction. Forensic Sci Int 235:19–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.11.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Han I (2016) Car speed estimation based on cross-ratio using video data of car-mounted camera (black box). Forensic Sci Int 269:89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chung Y, Chang I (2015) How accurate is accident data in road safety research? An application of vehicle black box data regarding pedestrian-to-taxi accidents in Korea. Accid Anal Prev 84:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yuan Q, Li Y, Sing S, Lv Y (2015) Correlation between residual speedometer needle reading and impact speed of vehicles in traffic accident. Int J Automot Technol 16(6):1057–1063.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-015-0108-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zou TF, Cai M, Du RH, Liu JK (2012) Analyzing the uncertainty of simulation results in accident reconstruction with response surface methodology. Forensic Sci Int 216(1–3):49–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lozia Z, Guzek M (2005) Uncertainty study of road accident reconstruction—computational methods. SAE Technical Paper 2005–01-1195.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-1195
  19. 19.
    Fonda A (2004) The effects of measurement uncertainty on the reconstruction of various vehicular collisions. SAE Technical Paper 2004–01-1220.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2004-01-1220
  20. 20.
    Han I (2016) Impulse- momentum based analysis of vehicle collision accidents using Monte Carlo simulation methods. Int J Automot Technol 16(2):253–270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12239-015-0027-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cai M, Zou TF, Luo P, Li J (2014) Evaluation of simulation uncertainty in accident reconstruction via combining response surface methodology and Monte Carlo method. Transp Res C 48:241–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wach W (2016) Calculation reliability in vehicle accident reconstruction. Forensic Sci Int 263:27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.03.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yuan Q, Li YB (2002) Uncertainty evaluation on the energy method of vehicle traffic accident reconstruction. China J Highw Transp 15(1):110–112 (In Chinese) http://zgglxb.chd.edu.cn/CN/ Y2002/V15/I1/110 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zou TF, Peng XL, Wu WG, Cai M (2017) Methods for analyzing the uncertainty of a reconstructed result in a traffic accident with interval and probabilistic traces. Forensic Sci Int 270:200–210.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multiple mapping. Ann Math Stat 38(2):325–339 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2239146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Toor A, Araszewski M (2003) Theoretical vs. empirical solutions for vehicle/ pedestrian collisions. SAE Technical Paper 2003–01-0883.  https://doi.org/10.4271/2003-01-0883
  28. 28.
    Zou TF, Yu Z, Cai M, Liu JK (2010) Two non-probabilistic methods for uncertainty analysis in accident reconstruction. Forensic Sci Int 198(1–3):134–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zou TF, Hu L, Li PF, Wu HQ (2012) A simple algorithm for analyzing uncertainty of accident reconstruction results. Forensic Sci Int 257:229–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.08.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang QY (1996) Foundation of grey mathematics. Huazhong University of Science & Technology Press, WuhanGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shou H, Lin H, Martin R, Wang G (2003) Modified affine arithmetic is more accurate than centered interval arithmetic or affine arithmetic. In: Wilson MJ, Martin RR (eds) Mathematics of surface. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2768. Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39422-8_23 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zou TF, Peng HT, Cai M, Wu HQ, Hu L (2016) A Taylor-affine arithmetic for analyzing the calculation result uncertainty in accident reconstruction. Forensic Sci Int 266:502–510.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Automobile and Mechanical EngineeringChangsha University of Science and TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Safety Design and Reliability Technology for Engineering VehicleChangshaChina
  3. 3.School of EngineeringSun Yat-sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations