## 4 Results
### Impact Analysis at Speed of 22 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\) (80 km/h)  
The results of speeds higher than 60 km/h have only been rarely published. Few such cases include experimental crashworthiness analysis covered by [PERSON] and [PERSON] (1998). Because of the lack of validation sources, this section is dedicated to publishing novel results so that stress distribution, deformation of the street pole, and internal energies are further understood at impact velocities of 22 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\) or greater. Figure 16 shows that at such speeds, the aluminum street poles exhibit major damage, regardless of the direction of impact, while the steel pole impacted by a frontal colliding vehicle suffers major fracture on its structure. The deformations of the street pole's geometry are further shown in Figure 17. From viewing Figures 10, 14 and 17, it is evident that frontal vehicle collisions cause more deformations and higher fracturing on poles when compared to corner collisions. However, unlike corner collisions, frontal collisions transfer more internal energy to the street pole, as seen in Figure 18. This analysis is significant because the drivers and passengers may have a significant amount of energy mitigated onto them during a frontal collision. This is safer compared to corner collisions, where residual kinetic energy of the vehicle may be transferred onto them or may cause vehicles to hit other obstacles too, risking major injuries to them if these kinetic energies are not mitigated as much as possible. Figure 14: Comparison of absorbed energies at 48 km/h conducted by [PERSON] et al. (2014) (**down image**) and the absorbed energies of the street pole in this study (**up image**). Figure 16: Mises stress distribution of center and corner impact at 22 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\). (**a**) Center impact on steel street pole, (**b**) corner impact on steel street pole, (**c**) center impact on aluminum street pole, and (**d**) corner impact on aluminum street pole. Figure 15: Contours on the deformation of the steel or aluminum street poles at impact velocities of 17 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\). (**a**) Center impact on steel street pole, (**b**) corner impact on steel street pole, (**c**) center impact on aluminum street pole, and (**d**) corner impact on aluminum street pole. Figure 17: Contours on the deformation of the steel or aluminum street poles at impact velocities of 22 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\). (**a**) Center impact on steel street pole, (**b**) corner impact on steel street pole, (**c**) center impact on aluminum street pole, and (**d**) corner impact on aluminum street pole. Figure 18: Total kinetic energies of frontal and corner collisions onto a steel streetlamp pole at 22 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-1}\). Notice that at corner impacts, the vehicle still attains kinetic energy, indicating that further motion of the vehicle is expected after a corner collision. Furthermore, when the SEA was recorded, as shown in Figure 19, it was seen that although the increase in speed will obviously lead to an increase in the SEA, the SEA of aluminum and steel are almost similar. This suggests that as the speed of the vehicle greatly increases, the influence of the material's properties on the model's SEA may decrease. Therefore, there are other property factors that could affect the SEA in such scenarios. These could possibly include factors such as momentum and the presence of increased kinetic energies of the vehicle at such speeds. The validity of this claim can be strengthened when viewing Figure 20. At lower velocities, while the kinetic energies of both pole types were similar until 0.045 s, the aluminum pole's kinetic energy increases as it is fractured from the base (and becomes dynamic rather than a structure), while the steel pole loses its kinetic energies gradually since most of its structure does not suffer complete fracture and the total mass of the pole is probably enough to slow the car down to a stationary point.