Rephrase whatever that can be rephrased

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 3rd, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

I have this report ready and I just need it rephrased. I will attach the word file and an instruction of the assignment itself so you can get an idea of it is talking about.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Crash Analysis and Expert Witness Role Play The University of Tulsa ME 4024: Machine Dynamics Background In America and many western jurisdictions, a legal system based on tort law enables the resolution of civil disputes. A tort in these legal jurisdictions is a civil wrong, which means someone suffers unfairly as a result of another's actions or omissions. Some torts can rise to the level of criminal behavior. For example, the person committing a tortious act may have committed murder (criminal) and subsequently face a civil suit for wrongful death. The victim of harm can recover damages by filing a law suit in an appropriate court. The person filing the suit is called the plaintiff and the person, or entity, getting sued is called the defendant. Both sides hire an attorney to help represent them and conduct their legal affairs. When resolving a law suit, a plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant was liable and they are entitled to damages. Sometimes the plaintiff shares some of the liability, which may reduce the damages to which they are entitled. In many cases, the determination of liability and the extent of the monetary damages depends on understanding exactly what happened. Often subject matter experts, like engineers, are needed to conduct an analysis of the facts and evidence to determine the sequence of events. Some engineers are hired by both defense and plaintiff attorneys as expert witnesses who provide their opinions in courts and legal proceedings leading up to courts. Some engineering firms have specialized in supporting the legal system and call themselves forensic engineers. Some common torts that lead to litigation and use engineers as expert witnesses are car crashes, workplace injuries and deaths, product liability, and patent infringement. This means that the work produced by an engineer may eventually end up being used in court. Attorneys are professionally obligated to advocate for their client's interests. However, an engineer or expert witness, is professionally obligated to tell the truth according to the scientific foundations of the engineering discipline and the results of an analysis based on the available evidence. Sometimes, the opinions of the engineer may be at odds with the position of the attorney. As such, requests to modify opinions may push an engineer's ethical obligations. The experience of testing and engineer’s ethical boundaries is difficult to produce in traditional classroom activities. Therefore, this exercise promotes the experiential learning aspect of learning how a student reacts to engineering ethical decision making. Objective The objective of this exercise is to evaluate information and determine expert opinions based on dynamics concepts to determine what happened in a crash. The opinions will be presented to an attorney (or someone playing the role of an attorney) who is interested in hiring the engineering student as an expert witness. The assessment for the suitability to hire is done with a face-to-face interview. Before an expert witness testifies in front of a jury in court, the following usually happens: 1. The expert develops an expertise through his or her knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. For the purpose of this exercise, the education level needed was obtained in Physics class, emphasized in a Dynamics class and reviewed in Machine Dynamics. 1 ME4024: Machine Dynamics Crash Analysis 2. The expert will review the evidence and perform an analysis as a consultant. Preliminary findings are communicated to legal counsel verbally. 3. Once legal counsel determines that the case will move forward and they will need an expert, the expert is requested to furnish a written report. If the case is to be tried in federal court, the report has a standard form following Rule 26 of the federal rules of civil procedure. 4. Once reports and exhibits are provided, the material is discovered by opposing parties to review. Likewise, a retained expert is often asked to analyze reports submitted by opposing experts. 5. After a review period, attorneys often take the deposition of an expert. The purpose of a deposition is for attorneys to obtain sworn testimony from witnesses to understand the opinions that will be rendered in court. While the format of a deposition may vary, the following questions and themes are generally followed: a. When did you become involved with the case? b. What were you asked to do? c. What did you actually do? d. What are your opinions? e. What is the factual basis for your opinions? f. Is there any room or basis to challenge your opinions (i.e. do you make too many assumptions in your analysis)? g. Are there any other thoughts or opinions that you would present in court? 6. Many times, legal actions are settled out of court. If no settlement is agreed upon, the case will go to trial and the outcome is decided by a jury or judge, depending on the court. For this exercise, the student will prepare a written report first, then participate an interview to see if they would be hired as an expert. If selected, the student may be able to provide mock deposition or trial testimony. Scenario Two cousins, Susanne and Claire, were riding on a new 2015 Polaris RZR XP 1000 base model UTV 1 when it overturned. The accident happened on their family’s ranch, about 5 miles out of town. The girls loved playing outside on the ranch, especially with the horses. The day was perfect for playing outside. It was spring, the trees were blooming, and the sun made it feel warmer than it really was. The younger cousin, Susanne, was 15 years old when she was driving the UTV. They had a course set up where they would ride the UTV around the barn. On the east side of the barn, there was a berm they would use as a jump. If they drove fast 1 A Side by Side is a small 2-6 person four-wheel drive off-road vehicle, also called UTV (Utility Task Vehicle) or ROV (Recreational Off highway Vehicle). 2 ME4024: Machine Dynamics Crash Analysis enough, they could go airborne and treat the berm as a jump. Claire’s mother recalled the girls giggling with glee the first time they jumped off the berm. Since they could see their tire tracks, the girls would take some of the dolls they played with as little girls and set them up on the back side of the berm to jump over them. They always were pushing each other to try to do something new and daring. Claire’s mom remembers that morning when the accident happened. She was cleaning up after a late breakfast and had the windows open. The girls went outside to play on the UTV. She heard the machine start up and start driving around. She thought it was louder than normal and they might have been going too fast. Then she heard a clamoring and a crunch. The engine sputtered, and Claire’s mom knew something bad had happed. She dropped the dishes and ran out to the back side of the barn to find the UTV rolled over and Claire was sprawled out on the ground. Claire’s shoulders were heaving up and down as she tried to get up, but her legs and feet didn’t move. She had a bloody nose, but was not crying due to the shock. The helmet she was wearing was about 10 feet away from where she lay. Claire’s mom called 911 right away. The police and medics came. They put Claire on the backboard, loaded her into the ambulance and rushed her to the hospital. The broken back she sustained from the crash has left her paralyzed from the waist down. She will be wheel-chair bound for the rest of her life. Susanne said she was wearing her seat and had her helmet on. She sustained no injuries. Susanne told the investigators she heard a loud bang, like something broke, while Susanne was turning the UTV to the left after the jump. Upon further inspection, it was found that the upper control arm of the right front suspension was separated and there was dirt lodged in the rim of the right front wheel, which may have come from the rim gouging the driving surface. An aftermarket lift kit was installed on the unit. This lift was reported to raise the UTV ten inches. The lift kit was a Super ATV 7 to 10-inch Lift Kit for the Polaris RZR XP 1000. Claire’s dad (Susanne’s uncle), who was a master mechanic, correctly installed the kit on the UTV according to the provided instructions. The field investigator made a sketch of the scene and measured some tire marks that were generated by the UTV before the crash. His field sketch is included as part of the evidence for this case. The events were traumatic for the family, so they sold the ATV for half of what they paid for it on eBay. The buyer’s location and identity are unknown. No photos of the UTV or broken control arm were taken. Scene Evidence and Measurements Before the UTV rolled, it was turning hard to the left. The outside tire marks were much more prominent than the inside. In fact, the inside marks faded and went away, which indicated that the vehicle was tipping over. To determine the radius of the curving tire scuff, a 30 ft chord was laid out on the ground and a 5.75-inch middle ordinate was measured. These measurements can be used to determine the radius of curvature. 3 ME4024: Machine Dynamics Crash Analysis Before the left turn, the vehicle went airborne off the berm. The ramp going up the berm was about 16 feet long. The end of the berm where the last tire marks were seen had an angle of 5 degrees with respect to level. The tire marks showed that the landing location was 43 feet from the end of the ramp and 2 feet below the top of the takeoff area. After the vehicle landed, the tire marks showed that the driver tried to turn hard to the left. The friction factor based on 3 test runs with accelerometer measurements of an exemplar UTV on the same surface was between 0.65 and 0.74. Other potentially useful information is provided below. Summary of Evidence and Measurements Description Chord from critical speed yaw scuff Middle Ordinate of scuff Superelevation along the middle ordinate Berm take-off angle Airborne distance Landing Drop below takeoff Track Width (from factory) Wheel Base (from factory) UTV Center of Mass Height (as found) UTV dry weight Claire’s weight Claire’s height Susanne’s weight Susanne’s height Surface Friction Factor Base of Seat height from ground (factory) Track Width Increase from Lift Lift Kit Height increase Symbol C m e theta d h tw wb h W W_c H_c W_s H_s mu h_s tw_add h_add Value 30 5-3/4 -3 5 43 2 52 90 24 1379 120 58 115 60 0.65 to 0.74 22 5 10 Units feet inches % degrees ft ft inches inches inches lbs lb inches lb inches unitless inches inches inches Source Field measurements Field Measurements Field Measurements Field Measurements Field Measurements Field Measurements Spec. Sheet Spec. Sheet Tilt measurements Spec. Sheet Medical records Medical records Personal statement Personal statement field testing Exemplar Lift Kit Specs. Lift Kit Specs. Additional information may surface as the investigation ensues. Please accommodate the possibility of new information by including a clause in your report that your opinions may change if new evidence warrants modification of the opinions. Law Suit Claims A civil suit has been filed by an attorney representing Claire’s family claiming the following: 1. The UTV manufacturer was negligent for failure to warn the owners and users of the potential dangers associated with a lift kit. 2. The lift kit manufacturer is negligent for producing an unsafe device that could not withstand the loads for which it was designed. 3. The lift kit manufacturer is negligent for producing an unsafe device that increased the chances for the UTV to roll over. The plaintiffs in this case are seeking damages to cover pain and suffering, medical bills, and attorney fees. 4 ME4024: Machine Dynamics Crash Analysis Resources Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (http://www.rohva.org/) Critical Speed Yaw Book Chapter from Fundamentals of Traffic Crash Reconstruction Airborne Analysis Book Chapter from Fundamentals of Traffic Crash Reconstruction Owner’s Manual for the vehicle. Other research as needed. Assignment 1) Take the Engineering and Science Issues Test (ESIT). This is a test of moral reasoning with case examples and a series of questions. It will take about 1 hour. A web link will be e-mailed to the class to take the test. If the test is incomplete by the due date, then no points will be awarded for this assignment. 2) Write a Rule 26 Report a) Give an opinion on the speed of the UTV going off the jump b) Give an opinion on the speed of the UTV just before the rollover c) Quantify how easy the UTV can tip over (i.e. at what angle) in i) Its original configuration ii) Its lifted configuration d) Give an opinion if the broken suspension would have led to a crash. e) Determine if the stock UTV would have rolled over in this scenario f) Develop an opinion on the root cause of the crash 3) Engage in an interview to assess suitability to act as an expert witness. The time for the meeting is scheduled as part of the lab. Participation is mandatory. 4) Participate in a review session to make sense of the experience. The time for the meeting is scheduled as part of the lab. Participation is mandatory. 5) Retake the ESIT by the date on the lab schedule. This is mandatory. Rule 26 Report Format The following is an excerpt from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As a future engineer, you are being hired as an expert “Witness Who Must Provide a Written Report.” The U.S. Government publishes these rules. The pertinent data from Rule 26 is as follows: (2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. 5 ME4024: Machine Dynamics Crash Analysis (A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) 2, a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 3, 703 4, or 705 5. (B) Witnesses Who Must Provide a Written Report. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, this disclosure must be accompanied by a written report—prepared and signed by the witness—if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or one whose duties as the party's employee regularly involve giving expert testimony. The report must contain: (i) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them; (ii) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them; (iii) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support them; (iv) the witness's qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years; (v) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert at trial or by deposition; and (vi) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony in the case. The written report must adhere to these guidelines and 2 copies of the report must be provided. One copy is to be graded for technical content and format. The other copy will be submitted to the attorney so they can prepare interview questions. Please turn both copies into Dr. Daily on time. The Rule 26 report requires justification of opinions. This section should include calculations and assumptions used for those calculations. It also requires exhibits. At a minimum, the field sketch should be an exhibit. These exhibits should be included at the end of the report and labeled as “Exhibit X” where X is a specific sequence number. Witness qualification are communicated with a current resume. Please include one. Previous testimony will likely be none. Compensation is measured in terms of points towards a grade. Standard of Ethics SAE International (formerly the Society of Automotive Engineers) has published a guide to professional ethics in SAE Standard J2314: Ethics for Accident Investigation and Reconstruction. Other organizations will also publish canons of ethics. These handouts will be provided in class and made available on Harvey. 2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702 4 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_703 5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_705 3 6 Introduction: This is an analysis for a UTV vehicle that has been turned over due to the fact that it was rose up by 10 inches. This report will discuss the fact, which is if the car was not lifted is it still going to roll over or not. A sample calculation will illustrate those facts, including figures and data of speed. The speed of the UTV going off the jump: So = 2.73(Dx) cosq (h + Dx tanq ) (1) Dx = Airborne horizontal distance = 43 ft h = Landing drop below take-off = 2 ft q = Berm take-off angle = 5o So = 2.73(43) ft = 49.09mph = 72 cosq (2 + 43.tan 5) s The speed of the UTV just before the rollover: Vr = So2 + 2gh (2) Vr = (72)2 + 2(32.2)(2) = 72.889 Critical speed yawcan be calculated using Scritical = 3.86 Rf (3) * R = Radius of the curved path * f = Surface friction factor 0.65-0.74 ft = 49.7mph s The value of R can be calculated using the following equation: C2 m R= + 8m 2 (4) where C is the chord from critical speed yaw scuff, and m is the middle ordinate of scuff. C = 30 ft , m = 5.75” (30)2 (5.75 /12) R= + = 235.022 ft 8(5.75 /12) 2 Scritical = 3.86 (235.022(0.74) = 50.9 ft s Based on the calculation, the speed of the UTV is too high due to the fact that is a lot higher than the critical speed. Stock condition: f = tan -1 ( tw ) 2yc (5) tw = 52” yc = h.w ((24 /12)*1397) + (120 *(58 /12)) + (115*(60 /12)) = = 2.41ft = 29.04in w 1397 +120 +115 f = tan-1 ( 52 ) = 41.84o 2(29.04) Lifted Condition: yc = h.w ((34 /12)*1397) + (120 *(58 /12)) + (115*(60 /12)) = = 3.13 ft = 37.6in w 1397 +120 +115 f = tan-1 ( 57 ) = 37.16 o 2(37.6) If the car was not lifted it will still roll over but it is easier to roll over when lifted up because it requires a smaller angle to tip over, Figure-1 illustrates the angle f . Exhibit 1 d)-e) The broken suspension may have made the crash get worse, which has made serious injuries to the girls, but the car was going to roll over anyway because the vehicle has passed the critical speed yaw which was found to be 34.7 mph (50.9 ft/s). Even if the car was stock, it is still going to roll over based on the calculation with equation 5. The safe angle for a light vehicle to not make a lateral roll over is 20 f) In my opinion, the root cause of the crash is the fact that Susanne turned left so hard at the landing point, which has made the critical speed yaw becomes less. If she have had not turned that much, she would had greater critical speed, because the radius of the curved path will be greater and that corresponds to the value of critical speed. See equation 3 to understand the relationship. Exhibit 2 Reference: Daily, John, Nathan S. Shigemura, and Jeremy Daily. Fundamentals of Traffic Crash Reconstruction. Jacksonville, FL: Institute of Police Technology and Management, U of North Florida, 2006 ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

whgrab
School: Duke University

Ignore previous

Introduction:
The analysis is regarding UTV vehicle which has been turned over because it
increases by 10 inches. The report will state what will happen if the car is not lifted
and still it will roll over or not. An illustration based on the sample will present the
facts, along with figures and data regarding the speed.
The speed of the UTV going off the jump:

So =

2.73(Dx)
cosq (h + Dx tanq )

(1)

Dx = Airborne distance horizontally= 43 ft

h = Landing drop below take-off = 2 ft

q = Berm take-off angle = 5o

So =

2.73(43)
ft
= 49.09mph = 7...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Excellent job

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors