- "A Comparison of Results Obtained with Different Analytical Techniques For Reconstruction of Highway Accident".
A: The following is our response:
Thank you for the letter and paper. I shared it with Ray and he (and I) have the following comments, etc
1) Interesting you got the “proof” copy and appears to be from Calspan.
- Unfortunately they don’t have any library services anymore
- I was cleaning out things I had a LOT (and still do) of original Calspan reports (coil binder) and offered them to Calspan and they declined.
- Over 50 years of McHenry Highway Safety Publications
- Here’s that paper in SAE format McHenry SAE paper 73-0893
- We’re guessing you coded the damage analysis portion? Be interesting to see what you’ve done.
- You also mentioned you used EDC programs:
- We mainly used and updated and enhanced the original Fortran code instead of converting it to another language.
- We do make additional enhancements and most of the graphics in C++ and Visual Basic
- In modern computers all code can link at the machine level so its really a waste of time to convert languages of a computer program!
- We had done research on both the damage and trajectory portions of CRASH:
- But with speed/capabilities of modern day computers SMAC now runs in seconds and we actually did a research project on automatic iteration of SMAC:
- Mainly so users can see how damage analysis works and how to make the two programs match test results and how to convert the crush stiffness of SMAC to the virtual crush stiffness of CRASH and visa versa!
- Is CRASH damage analysis a virtual relationship? And Why don't you use the A & B Coefficients in mSMAC?
- Obviously having msmac3D to test/check the changes in CRASH is a definite plus
I’d be interested in knowing what you programmed but not sure we can use it.
Thank you for sending the paper.