Hey, everybody. In this article I’m passing along a conversation I recently had with Will Bortles of Kineticorp about the research he just published at the 2017 Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress. This research relates to methods for acquiring data from passenger vehicle infotainment systems.
If you missed Parts I or II of this series, here are links to those: Part I and Part II. In this installment, I review the prior literature related to using PC-Crash software to simulate rollover crashes. In a future installment, I will extend this prior literature and present analysis of a full-scale, steering-induced rollover crash test with PC-Crash.
PC-Crash is a vehicular accident simulation software that is widely used in the accident reconstruction community. Later parts of this article will review the prior literature that has addressed the capabilities of PC-Crash along with its accuracy and reliability for various applications (planar collisions, rollovers, and human motion). I actively use PC-Crash software in my accident reconstruction practice.
The following mechanisms of energy dissipation may need to be considered when calculating the initial speed of a vehicle that impacted a wooden utility pole: (1) crushing of the vehicle; (2) full or partial fracture of the pole; (3) moving and tilting of the pole within the ground; (4) acceleration of the pole after a full fracture; and (5) tire, and other dragging forces, acting on the vehicle during its post-impact motion [Daily, 2009; Cofone, 2007 and 2012].
When we are analyzing a crash, how should we as accident reconstructionists approach what eyewitnesses and involved drivers say about what happened? For some reason, I feel obligated to say the obvious - yes, witnesses are poor estimators of speed and distance. We all know that. But today, I want to encourage you not to use that as an excuse to dismiss everything that a witness says.