2017 ARC- - CSI CONFERENCE DATA
ollision C The International Compendium for Crash Research
Volume 12 Issue 2
forensic Methods
damaged acm components
residual damage
Consent & Court Orders crash data Access and Authority
electric golf cart & Scooter acceleration, hard brake, stability
based accident reconstruction collisionmagazine.com FrontCover.indd 1
8/27/2018 2:20:06 PM
Read more, on page 57
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 2
8/24/2018 4:53:01 PM
Contents
Volume 12 Issue 2
inside 4
Industry Partners
5
Advertiser Index and Digital Download Information
6
Letter From the Editor
8
features 8
Electric Golf Cart and Scooter Acceleration, Hard Brake, and Stability Testing by Robert D Anderson, Michael Rosenfield, and Russell Anderson
30
Estimated Likelihood Of Obtaining The NonDeployment Event Of Interest And Pre-Crash Data Guide For The Toyota Gen1 Airbag Control Modules
36
by Robert D Anderson
36
Revisiting Caterpillar ECMs
42
Forensic Methods for Dealing with Damaged ACM/ECM Components
by Tim Austin
by Shanon R. Burgess and William F. Messerschmidt
50
Reconstruction From Body Worn Camera Videos
62
Residual Damage Based Accident Reconstruction: Accounting For Mismatched Residual Damage Profiles
42
by Bobby J Mullinax
by Jai Singh
82
90
A Summary of Recent NTSB Highway Crash Investigation Products by Thomas Barth
90
Crash Data Access and Authority: Consent, Court Orders, and more W. R. Rusty Haight
www.collisionmagazine.com
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 3
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 3
8/24/2018 4:53:09 PM
Electric Golf Cart and Scooter Acceleration, Hard Brake, and Stability Testing Robert D Anderson, Michael Rosenfield, and Russell Anderson
8
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 8
www.collisionmagazine.com
8/24/2018 4:53:13 PM
I
ntroduction
Low speed vehicles (LSV) have been thought of as a low-cost, eco-friendly way to tool around in locations where there would be little interaction with larger vehicles. As of 2010, practically every state allowed LSV’s on roadways with speed limits up to 35 mph.1 LSV use on public roads experienced rapid growth since the phenomena began in resort and retirement communities in the 1990’s.2 The standard golf cart is typically limited by speed governors or gearing to a top speed of 15 mph. Allowing a golf cart to attain speed of 20 to 25 mph creates a new class of vehicle known as the neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV). Aftermarket conversions, especially for electric carts, can significantly increase the top speed of these vehicles.3 Unfortunately, golf cart-related injuries have steadily increased with the increased popularity and growing capabilities of these vehicles.4 A compilation of golf cart and scooter acceleration, hard brake, stability testing and specifications are presented to add to the existing published information. The EZGO RXV used in this testing had headlights, mirrors, tail lights, turn signals, and a horn, making it street legal. The E Wheels EW-36 Scooter had street legal features including a seat belt, head lights, turn signals, a horn, tail lights and turn signals, but its lower top speed might preclude it from being street legal in some areas. The remainder of the test vehicles were golf carts that were not street legal and were from a variety of golf courses in and around Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. All test vehicles (Table 1) were battery powered. The static stability factor (SSF) was used to rate rollover risk for two golf carts. The SSF evaluates single vehicle crashes as part of the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and
Model Make and Model Year 2018 E Wheels EW-36* 2013 2009 2012 2013 2006
Year Type Tested 2017 3-wheel scooter Club Car 2014 golf cart Club Car Precedent i2 2013 golf cart EZGO TXT 48 2014 golf cart EZGO RXV* 2017 golf cart Fair Play ZX 2013 golf cart
star rating program.5 The SSF is also known as T/2h since it is calculated by dividing the track width by twice the center of gravity (CG) height. Vehicles with static stability factors below 1.2 are generally considered at increased risk for rollover, while SSF of 1.2 and above are generally considered stable with respect to passenger vehicle rollovers.
B
ackground Current golf cart designs, which employ rear braking only, have been shown to have reduced braking capability compared to four wheel braking, and exhibit directional instability that can lead to a rollover, particularly when braking downhill.2,6
In 1998, a gas powered Yamaha G-16A golf cart was tested by NHTSA. The unloaded weight was 688 pounds. The dealer indicated that the electric and gas powered carts had similar performance and that the electric version weighed about 100 pounds less. The cart did not have a windshield or canopy. Its height, wheel base, length, width were 43½, 65½, 93¾ and 46 inches, respectively. The rear axle had drum brakes. The 14 inch CG height increased to 20.8 inches with ballast equivalent to two 50th percentile male adults, which dropped the SSF from 1.3 (stable) to 0.88 indicating a higher potential for rollover. The average acceleration during hard braking was -0.36 g’s. Impending rollover instability was observed for speed above the 15 mph intended operating speed with constant steer in 50 foot radius turn. NHTSA expressed concern that the standard golf cart was easy to modify in order to increase their top speeds to beyond their designed operational speeds to where they may be, or are, inherently unstable. Long, et al. presented the results of top speed, acceleration and braking test for three golf carts.7 The average parameters for each golf cart is shown in (Table 2). The test vehicle model, vehicle weight, dimensions, motor/ engine type, and test surface were not specified. The distance, speed, or acceleration vs time or speed vs distance relationships were not included their study. It was reported that the potential for a rollover increases with speed. The study showed that passengers could be ejected while cornering at speeds as low as 11 mph and that the hip restraint orients the ejected occupants into a head first dive toward the ground.
* Street legal
Table 1: Test Vehicles
www.collisionmagazine.com
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 9
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 9
8/24/2018 4:53:14 PM
Estimated Likelihood Of Obtaining The Non-Deployment Event Of Interest Robert Anderson And Pre-Crash Data Guide For The Biomechanics Analysis Toyota Gen1 Airbag Control Modules
S
tored crash data event from a non-deployment is generally vulnerable to replacement by subsequent recorded events if that vehicle has been returned to service. The average risk of event replacement is related to the average time between recorded events, which are called triggers (TRG’s) in Toyota vehicles. This information is a useful guideline to evaluate the chance of successfully recovering an unlocked non-deployment event of interest from a Toyota vehicle equipped with an 02EDR airbag control module (ACM) that has been returned to service. A review of over 500 Toyota CDR reports grouped by EDR category (00EDR through 13EDR) found that it is reasonable to expect that non-deployment data of interest may be obtainable from vehicles from the Toyota Line with 02EDR ACM’s for at least 3 to 5 years after the vehicles have been returned to service post-crash.
B
ackground
Toyota Gen1 00EDR was excluded since the data limitations confirms that the modules renumber the stored events starting with TRG0 every time the ignition is turned on (Figure 1). Therefore, the TRG number of the most recent event (MRE) generally does not represent the actual number of TRG’s that vehicle has experienced. In fact, every single CDR report without a freeze signal, or deployment, had TRG0, TRG1, and TRG2. Out of 31 00EDR CDR reports reviewed, no lateral or rollover events were recorded. When there is a freeze signal present the MRE TRG number was usually 3, 4 or 5, as these modules appear to always have the three memory locations occupied (TRG0, TRG1, and TRG2). Therefore it cannot be concluded that the reported highest TRG number was the total number of TRG’s seen by each of these vehicles in their service lives.
30
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 30
"TRG Count" value is rewritten by the airbag ECU every time the ignition is switched ON. At this time, the "TRG Count" values become 0, 1, or 2 in order from the smallest to the largest "TRG Count" value of each recorded frontal/rear page (memory map). For example, if the frontal/rear "TRG Count" values before rewriting are 2 for Page 0, 3 for Page 1, and 4 for Page 2, the rewritten "TRG Count" values will be 0 for Page 0, 1 for Page 1, and 2 for Page 2. However, the values are not rewritten when the "Freeze Signal" is set "ON".
Figure 1: Data limitations text from Toyota 00EDR modules Toyota Gen1 02EDR modules assign TRG numbers only for longitudinal events even if some of the modules may have recorded lateral and rollover events. The TRG number of the MRE can simply be used as the total number of longitudinal (Front/Rear) TRG’s in the service life of these vehicles and their modules. Therefore an average time separating longitudinal TRG’s can be derived from the estimated vehicle age and total number of TRG’s. Analysis of the CDR files from Toyota Gen2 04EDR/06EDR and Gen3 12EDR/13EDR modules is outside the scope of this paper as these modules assign trigger numbers to all events that meet the recording criteria. Gen2 modules wake threshold and re-
www.collisionmagazine.com
8/24/2018 4:53:46 PM
www.collisionmagazine.com
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 31
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 31
8/24/2018 4:53:47 PM
Revisiting Caterpillar ECMs Tim Austin
Wisconsin State Patrol
36
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 36
www.collisionmagazine.com
8/24/2018 4:53:49 PM
I
ntroduction
The use of Heavy Vehicle Event Data Recorders associated with electronic engine controllers is well established in the crash investigation community. References to specific casework involving crash related data being recovered from a Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) can be found as far back as 1998 in the Accident Reconstruction Journal and two years later in a 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers technical paper1,2. Both of these publications stemmed from an investigation of a 1996 crash that involved a CMV with a Caterpillar engine. In fact, engines manufactured by Caterpillar were some of the first in heavy vehicles to potentially store event data surrounding a crash event. Starting with the 1994 engine model year, their Advanced Diesel Engine Management (ADEM) system has had the capability of recording information surrounding certain events. These files, which are called “snapshots,” have proven very beneficial to those interested in determining how and why a particular incident occurred. However, in the nearly twenty years that have passed since the first formal publication, there have been several observations made by the crash investigation community that both validate this data, and show a need for very careful examination of the information.
C
aterpillar Snapshots
Caterpillar Electronic Control Modules (ECMs) have the capability of recording three different types of snapshots. These include Diagnostic Events, External Triggers, and Quick Stop Occurrences. A Diagnostic Event is recorded when most engine or electronic system faults take place. In these cases, the ECM will record a file that consists of a time period of approximately 9.12 seconds before the event and 3.36 seconds after at a rate of about 2 Hz. However, as was pointed out in the Fall 2012 edition of Collision, the time from the onset of the condition to the actual fault being recorded in the snapshot3 can vary considerably between different faults. So, this does not necessarily mean that the user will see a true nine seconds worth of data before the event. A Caterpillar boost pressure fault, for example, requires the fault condition to be active for about two seconds before the event is documented. So, only seven seconds of preevent information can be expected. In contrast, a barometric pressure fault typically requires 30 seconds before the fault is recorded. In this situation, the snapshot would actually only contain post-event information.
The second snapshot type is the External Trigger. This is a Caterpillar feature that allows the vehicle driver or engine operator to manually trigger an event. This is done by toggling between “set” and “resume” on the cruise control switch in a specified order. While it is intended for the operator to document a specific condition, many crash investigators have found these files to be written when the driver is simply trying to set the cruise control at a desired wheel speed during normal operation. These snapshots show information similar to those for Diagnostic Events, and record the same timeframe of 9.12 seconds before the trigger and 3.36 seconds after. The third snapshot recorded by Caterpillar ECMs records data surrounding a Quick Stop Occurrence. These are triggered when the system detects a decrease in wheel speed in excess of a set threshold rate. This rate is a programmable value that is expressed as miles per hour per second. As most investigators have found, this value is typically set at zero, which means that the parameter is turned off and the ECM will not record a Quick Stop snapshot. However, when it is turned on and the threshold is met, the information contained in the subsequent snapshot file has proven valuable to those completing an analysis of the collision. In most cases, the snapshot will contain 44 seconds of pre-event
www.collisionmagazine.com
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 37
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 37
8/24/2018 4:53:52 PM
Forensic Methods for Dealing with Damaged ACM/ECM Components Shanon R. Burgess William F. Messerschmidt
T
here you are, elbows deep in grease, oil, jagged metal, and who knows what else, trying to remove the engine control module (ECM) from a severely damaged truck before the wrecker yard closes…you’ve got one stubborn bolt that seems to be longer than a night in jail. There isn’t much left of what once was a tractor-trailer and you can’t actually see the ECM through the mangled metal, but you know it’s there. At this point, all you can think about is getting the ECM out, getting connected to it, and getting data so you can get home from the wrecker yard. The last bolt falls to the ground and you manage to wiggle the ECM out of the metal coffin it has come to call home. But the ECM you remove from the wreck looks something like Figure 1. Your day just got a little more interesting…
42
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 42
www.collisionmagazine.com
8/24/2018 4:53:56 PM
Figure 1: Example ECMs removed from a crash ntroduction Under ideal circumstances, data can be imaged through the Diagnostic Link Connector, or DLC, which also may be referred to as a Deutsch connector in heavy trucks or an OBD II connector in light vehicles. When data cannot be imaged through the DLC, direct connection to the module - often using a passive sensor interface - or connection via surrogate vehicle must be used. However, sometimes modules are damaged to such a degree, or in such a manner, that direct imaging of the data is impossible. This occurs when there is damage to the circuit board and/or its components.
memory chips. Very often chip-swap forensics, defined as removing the memory chips from a damaged module and transferring them to a working, surrogate module; allows a complete forensic image to be obtained from the damaged module. With this method, we are essentially disconnecting the data storage component from the damaged module and re-connecting it to a working, surrogate module. When done properly this technique allows reconstructionist to transfer all stored data from one ACM/ECM to another, so that data from the damaged module can then be retrieved using traditional data recovery tools.
This paper describes how it is often possible to obtain a complete forensic image of the ACM or ECM even if damage prevents imaging data using some form of direct connection (e.g., CDR Tool direct to module cables, Synercon Smart Sensor Simulator 2, a custom passive sensor interface, or surrogate vehicle). Chip level forensic techniques, though relatively recently applied to vehicle accident reconstruction, have been shown to produce valid data when done properly (Daily, 2015, Muir, 2015).
This paper describes how it is often possible to obtain a complete forensic image of the ACM or ECM if damage prevents imaging data using some form of direct connection
I
First, we need to understand that an ACM/ECM is an embedded system containing embedded memory chips, often referred to as flash memory. What is an embedded system? It is a computer system designed with a specific function or set of functions within a larger system. While this paper focuses on ACMs and ECMs, flash memory is used in a vast majority of electronic devices, almost any electronic devices that are capable of storing data, all of which carry their own specific set of difficulties when attempting to transplant or extract data. The challenge for forensic scientists and engineers is to to devise a method for obtaining a full forensic image from a severely damaged ACM/ECM that contains embedded-
www.collisionmagazine.com
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 43
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 43
8/24/2018 4:53:59 PM
Reconstruction From
Body Worn Camera Videos Bobby J Mullinax
I
t’s 3:00 A.M. and the on-call collision investigator has responded to the scene of a severe pedestrian involved vehicle collision. The investigator arrives on scene only to discover that the location of the pedestrian was not documented before being transported by emergency medical services. The investigator also discovers that several items the pedestrian was wearing and/or holding were bagged up and taken to the hospital by the ambulance crew. The investigator is already at an extreme disadvantage in the investigation. This is not a unique scenario. Many times an investigator, whether law enforcement or the private sector, is tasked with attempting to complete a complex puzzle, in which
50
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 50
all the pieces aren’t there. In the past, guesswork or other methods have been employed to attempt to solve these puzzles, however with new technology comes new opportunities. With the usage of body worn camera technology continuing to soar in North America, investigators will now have the opportunity to place themselves at the initial collision investigation. These videos will present opportunities for an investigator to place themselves in the shoes of the initial responding officer, and to hear and see everything the initial officer heard and saw. If any of the first officers on scene are wearing body worn cameras, the chance is great that the officers captured locations of key pieces of evidence, before they were moved or otherwise compromised.
www.collisionmagazine.com
8/24/2018 4:54:10 PM
In 2014, the Spartanburg (S.C.) Police Department began testing the usage of body worn cameras for their officers. As part of the pilot test program, the department issued body cameras to members of the traffic division. In 2015, one of the officers participating in this test program responded to a vehicle vs. pedestrian crash in downtown Spartanburg, South Carolina. The pedestrian did not appear to be seriously injured to the original responding officer and no photographs or measurements were obtained during the initial investigation. Approximately one-week later the pedestrian died as a result of the injuries sustained and the case was given to the department’s reconstruction unit to review. The author utilized the video evidence of the initial crash investigation to place the vehicle and pe-
destrian back in their original locations, allowing for a full reconstruction to be completed, including a speed estimate for the striking vehicle. This investigation pioneered efforts in using body worn camera technology to reconstruct and recreate collision scenes, while the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy continues to refine methods used and validate their results. These methods have gone from the earliest form of simply locating reference points to place back items of evidentiary value along the roadway, to today’s methods of using photogrammetric principles and techniques to locate evidence with a high degree of accuracy.
www.collisionmagazine.com
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 51
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 51
8/24/2018 4:54:11 PM
Residual Damage Based Accident Reconstruction: Accounting For Mismatched Residual Damage Profiles Jai Singh, BS, MS, MA, ACTAR Biomechanical Engineering Analysis & Research, Inc.
62
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 62
www.collisionmagazine.com
8/24/2018 4:54:16 PM
bstract Two primary foci serve as the primary objectives for the subject study. The first is the evaluation of the role of mismatched discretized residual damage profiles, for a two collision partner system, under the confines of the Campbell and CRASH3 modeling methodologies. Specifically, within the modeling confines, excluding the locations of the boundary nodes of the residual damage profiles, does there exist a necessity for matching the locations of interior nodes along the common l-axis of the l-c(l) space? The evaluation of this objective is first approached from the theoretical perspective in regards to the residual damage area, the geometric centroid of the residual damage area, the Campbell b1 coefficient and the CRASH3 A and B coefficients. The second approach is by means of reduction of a small cohort of FMVSS 214D lateral impact collision test data. Both approaches reveal, for the collision partner for which the residual damage model coefficients are initially unknown, that collocation of internal nodes at the l-axis values of the opposing collision partner (and with the employment of piecewise linear interpolation using the nodal values of the former) is extraneous. The second primary objective is the theoretical development of a vector algebra based solution for determining the moment arm of the collision force and using this result to determine the effective mass ratio and the impact of the effective mass for the quantified stiffness coefficients of the test vehicles within the cohort.
A
confines of the Campbell and CRASH3 modeling methodologies, as a means of quantifying collision severity, remains relevant in regards to the field of motor vehicle accident reconstruction. In the private sector, there often exists a substantial delay between the occurrence of a collision event and when the incident is presented for evaluation. This, in turn, may lead to the preclusion of the ability for direct examination of the involved collision partners and even if a direct examination is conducted, the loss of data from vehicle fixed onboard instrumentation. When coupled with a lack of documentation regarding the interaction of the collision partners with the environment (e.g. roadway based evidence such as tiremarks), if such evidence was actually present, residual damage based methods serve as the sole method for quantifying collision severity. Even when vehicle fixed onboard instrumentation data is present, a standard caveat, paraphrased, is that it should be considered within the context of the totality of the available evidence. In the government sector, residual damage based methods within the structural confines of the Campbell and CRASH3 modeling methodologies remain the primary approach (Sharma et al. 2007) for quantifying collision severity for field study investigated accidents and in regards to inclusion in the National Accident Sampling Survey (NASS).
ntroduction The evaluation of the residual damage profiles, following an impact, retained by the collision partners, within the structural
I
www.collisionmagazine.com
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 63
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 63
8/24/2018 4:54:17 PM
Crash Data Access and Authority Consent, Court Orders, and more W. R. Rusty Haight Collision Safety Institute
90
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 90
www.collisionmagazine.com
8/24/2018 4:54:53 PM
B
ackground With The Driver Privacy Act of 20151, the US Congress codified, at least at the federal level, what had previously only really been seen at state levels starting with the passage of California Vehicle Code Section 99512 in 2004 as it relates to the statutory authority required to access and retrieve crash data from a vehicle system. Between 2004 and 2007, that California Vehicle Code (CVC) section was essentially duplicated or assimilated by more than 20 other states in whole or in part. In 2012, 49CFR5633 took effect and generally raised public not to mention legislative awareness of the presence of Event Data Recorders (EDRs) in passenger cars, light trucks and SUVs and their potential for use in litigation which ultimately lead, at least in part, to the passage of The Driver Privacy Act of 2015.
This article summarizes some of the existing litigation and legislation and examples of search warrants, court orders and consent forms with an eye toward assisting the reader in the development of a best practice for search warrant/ court order applications and/or the development of a consent document which might be used to authorize imaging data from a vehicle system (i.e.: the airbag control module). Examples of both effective and “less than effective” verbiage relative to search warrant/court order applications and consent documents are offered for consideration or, perhaps at least “food for thought,” for the reader going forward. To narrow the scope of the narrative portion of the suggested consent form and search warrant/court order documents, this article will focus on data which might be accessed and retrieved using the Bosch Crash Data Retrieval (CDR) Tool. The analysis would have, by extension, application to similar crash data retrieval tools not made by Bosch. However, this article leaves off the immediate application of these documents to non-traditional crash data which might be found in, for example, a navigation or infotainment system and then accessed and retrieved by another system or tool. In the discussion found in this article, a central focus area relates to data privacy and access authority. The data or information which might be accessed and retrieved using the Bosch CDR Tool is different - in many significant and remarkable ways - than that which might be recovered from a navigation or infotainment system. For that reason, the end user is left to evaluate locally whether or not to include reference to access to such system into the suggested form or application. The information assembled for this article is drawn from a variety of sources including police agency search warrant/court order example documents, various EDR consent documents, input from civil lawyers, prosecutors and more and the hope is that this article might help streamline the process of developing such documents or templates for local application and then if not eliminating at least reducing the necessity of fully “reinventing the wheel.” Where there are opinions expressed in this article, they are those of the author and the overall content of this article is offered as informational and not for the purpose of providing any specific legal advice or guidance. One should work with a client attorney, affiliated colleague prosecutor or other interested and informed attorney to develop a local application and jurisdiction-specific search warrant/court order application template and/or consent form.
www.collisionmagazine.com
Volume 12 Issue 2.indd 91
Collision Magazine - Volume 12 Issue 2 91
8/24/2018 4:54:53 PM