- Email: [email protected]
Computer simulation of the accident with nine victims
Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165 www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint
Computer simulation of the accident with nine victims Jozˇe Balazˇic a,*, Ivan Prebil b, Niko Cˇertanc c a
Institute of Forensic Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Korytkova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia b Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Asˇkercˇeva 6, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia c Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Jamova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Received 19 February 2003; received in revised form 19 March 2003; accepted 6 May 2003 Available online 12 March 2005
Abstract In the paper we wish to emphasise the significance of vehicle driving dynamics analysis in the collision phase and occupant load analysis by means of using a software environment. Thereby we also wish to present the results of the simulation of the course of a traffic accident with nine victims that arose from a collision between an Audi A6 passenger car and the VW Caravelle van. In treating the traffic accident the forensic expert was faced with the questions about what caused the injuries to the front passenger in the Audi A6 passenger car, about the way the two vehicles had collided, about their collision velocities, about the way the two vehicles were handled and about the causes that originated the traffic accident. The critical situation on the road was a consequence of the tiredness of the van driver, the inadequate use of the passive safety systems and overloading the van. # 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Traffic accident; Computer simulation; Expertise
1. Introduction Forensic experts, when working on a scene of a severe traffic accident, are often faced with problems that cannot be objectively solved only by analysing the autopsy results and the data about the event. The usable data about the course of the traffic accident, the load and the movement of the occupants, can only be obtained from a computer simulation. Analysis and reconstruction of a traffic accident is a demanding task, because in a given traffic situation it is dealt with the influence of the driving dynamics, vehicle handling and terrain configuration at the same time. Reconstruction of a traffic accident is performed in three phases, the phase immediately prior to the collision, the collision phase and the phase after the collision. Today the analysis is performed by complex mathematical models that can only be successfully mastered by using a computer with specialised software * Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 1 5243 903; fax: +386 1 5243 864. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Balazˇic).
environment Computer Aided Reconstruction of Accidents in Traffic (CARAT) [1], PC Crash [2], etc. A significant part of the software are also the mathematical models that perform analysis of the dynamical response of the occupants to the loads that are characteristic for a traffic accident. For analysing movement of the human body in the threedimensional space and its interaction with the interior of the vehicle we use software packages MADYMO; ADAMS, PAM-SAFE, CASIMIR, RAMSIS, ATB [3], etc. Parallel with the experimental work ran the development of the criteria for prediction and analysis of injuries caused by different loads. The most well established are Head Injury Criteria, Thoracic Trauma Index, Severity Index and Probability of Death Score which can only be plausibly applied if we have a suitable system of human body and vehicle mechanical and mathematical models at our disposal [4]. The intention of this paper is to show the significance of the vehicle dynamic analysis in the collision phase by using the CARAT software environment. As an example we have used a traffic accident case with nine victims that were a consequence of the tiredness of the van driver,
0379-0738/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2003.05.001
J. Balazˇic et al. / Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165
162
Fig. 1. Driving direction, collision spot and rest position of the vehicles. Lower right corner: the collision phase.
misuse of passive safety equipment and overload of the van.
3. Traffic accident research 3.1. Vehicle damage
2. Case study On a main road that follows virtually horizontal course, the driver of the VW Caravelle van had suddenly swerved to his left onto the service lane and collided with the Audi A6 passenger car that was coming against him. The Audi driver had braked and avoided to the right to the service lane where the collision took place. After the collision the van had pushed the passenger car back for 7 m (Fig. 1). Two occupants in the passenger car and four occupants in the van had died on the accident scene; another three occupants from the van had died later on in the hospital. Beside the driver there were nine occupants in the van’s passenger cell as well as some incorrectly loaded and unfastened ski equipment. In the Audi passenger car, the driver and the front passenger were fastened by the seatbelts; the two airbags were activated. The front passenger in the Audi suffered from fracture of the six thoracic vertebra and rupture of the aorta with haemorrhage into the thoracic cavity. The Audi driver suffered injuries to his rib cage (serial rib fractures, breastbone fracture and lung contusions) and fracture of both thighbones. The rear seat passenger in the Audi was not wearing the seatbelt. In the collision he had suffered severe head and brain injuries and a liver contusion with internal haemorrhage into the abdominal cavity. Passengers in the van had suffered severe head and brain injuries. None of the deceased passengers from the passenger area behind the driver in the van was wearing a seatbelt.
The expert examination of the vehicles after the accident has confirmed that both vehicles were in technically faultless state before the collision. In the traffic accident the two vehicles had collided head-on with their front left parts. The frontal coverage of the two vehicles amounted to about 75%. The vehicle longitudinal axes enclosed the angle of about 58. The Audi passenger vehicle was severely damaged over its entire front portion, more severely on the driver’s side (Fig. 2). Longitudinal deformation of the front right portion of the vehicle amounted to about 55 cm with the passenger space undeformed. Longitudinal deformation of the vehicle’s driver’s side amounted to 100 cm, causing the driver’s space to shorten by 30 cm. The van was also damaged over its entire front portion, more severely on the left, driver’s side (Fig. 3). The deformation amounted about 90 cm, leaving the vehicle interior almost undamaged (Fig. 3).
4. Determining the driving velocities of the two vehicles During the course of performing the traffic accident analysis we have considered geometrical, mass and stiffness characteristics of the vehicles, their powertrain characteristics, the braking system construction, etc. The data is obtained from the vehicle manufacturers and are the same in both software environments, CARAT and PC Crash. The common database of more than 2000 vehicles is accessible to traffic accident research experts throughout the EU. The
J. Balazˇic et al. / Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165
163
Fig. 2. Damage to the Audi A6 passenger vehicle.
real configuration of the terrain was also taken into account, as well as was the road surface friction coefficient, which was measured on the scene (m = 0.8). Simulation of the driving dynamics of the vehicles and the collision between them, computed by CARAT software gave the collision velocities of the vehicles of about 110 km/ h for the van and about 65 km/h for the passenger car. Considering the reactions of the van driver before the collision, it is unlikely that he would have influenced the velocity of his vehicle in any way in the phase before the collision. The passenger car driver had reacted to the situation by avoiding to his right and, according to his own statements, also by braking. Because the Audi was fitted with anti-lock brakes, its velocity in the phase before the collision could not be determined accurately. In the collision, the majority of the kinetic energy was used up for vehicle deformation. The decrease of the energyequivalent speed (EES), which is the base for determining the loss of kinetic energy of the vehicles taking part in a
collision, amounted around 80 km/h for the van and around 85 km/h for the passenger car. The van with its gross mass of 2155 kg had pushed back the passenger car (1650 kg) for about 7 m against its prior direction. After the collision the van came to rest parallel to the passenger car (Fig. 1). The rest positions of the vehicles indicate that only a minor part of the kinetic energy was used up for moving the vehicles into their rest positions, while the largest part of it was used up for the sum of 1.7 m of longitudinal deformation of both vehicles during the compression part of the collision. The collision lasted 40 ms, which is the cause for the severe injuries of the occupants, caused by the deceleration that, according to the simulation, did not exceed 75 g [1,2]. The velocities of the vehicles before the collision was determined from translational, rotational and deformational energy of the vehicles. We have only neglected the energy, required for instantaneous lifting of the vehicles because of collision, skidding of the wheels upon exit of the collision and the rotation of the
Fig. 3. Damage to the VW Caravelle van.
164
J. Balazˇic et al. / Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165
Fig. 4. Acceleration of front passenger’s chest and head.
wheels and other parts of the drivetrain. This energy is negligible in general.
5. Discussion 5.1. Vehicle handling The examination of the vehicles after the accident has confirmed that both vehicles were in a technically faultless state before the accident. The analysis of the bodily fluids of the two drivers indicated that there were no traces of alcohol (0.0%) or any other psychoactive substances present in vascular system of either of them. From the course of driving of the van in the phase before the collision and from the statements given by the accident survivors among the van passengers, one can conclude that the cause for the van swerving to the left can be found in the psycho-physical state of its driver who apparently did not percept the situation on the longer straight part of the road some 3 s before the accident. In the last 90 m he was driving to the left over the opposite drive lane. At that time the Audi passenger car was at least 50 m away from the collision point. Around 20 m from the collision point the van driver regained his perception of the road situation and reacted by sharply turning to the right (Fig. 1), but until the collision point the vehicle remained entirely on the service lane, on the right of which the driver of the passenger car was driving, trying to avoid the collision. In the moment of the van driver’s reaction the passenger car was still at least 10 m from the collision point. 5.2. Function of the passive safety systems The injuries of the front passenger in the Audi passenger car arose because of overload in the area of contact with the safety belt. The front passenger belt was yielding in the length of 100 cm. The question was set whether this yield was a consequence of the impact of the rear-seat passenger or was the front passenger belt perhaps malfunctioning.
Considering the force of 57 kN (equal to the gravity force caused by a mass of 5700 kg), with which the unbelted rear passenger, weighing 76 kg, impacted the front passenger seat with the acceleration equal to the vehicle deceleration, it is obvious that the belt could not withstand such a force and had begun to yield. The analysis of the load on the front passenger, computed with ATB [3] (Fig. 4) has shown that his head and his chest was subject to heavy load even without the impact from behind. A seatbelt built according to ECE-R 16 has to withstand a static tensile force of 14.7 kN (equal to the gravity force caused by a mass of 1470 kg) [6,7,8]. The force that was applied to the rear of the front passenger seat by the impact of the rear passenger impact had torn the front passenger seat from its anchor points in the vehicle body. The severe injuries to the front passenger arose as a consequence of clenching his body between the instrument panel and the torn-off seat together with tightened seatbelt. Considering the known measurements of time in which it comes to application of force because of the rear passenger impact and with respect to the known airbag activation times we conclude that the force from the behind was applied within 40–50 ms, which is before the passenger airbag had even activated. The airbag requires more than 60 ms to activate [6,9,10]. In this case the front passenger was suspending the entire load only in the area where he was in contact with the safety belt since the airbag was not able to suppress the impact yet. 5.3. Loads and injuries to the occupants Seven deadly injuries were not caused only by the vehicle collision when all the occupants from the rear of the van were catapulted forwards. They suffered additional injuries from the impact of the ski equipment (11 pairs of jumping skis) which was transported in the vehicle and inadequately fastened. All the deadly injured occupants in the van suffered severe head and brain injuries [5], which is confirmed by the calculated deceleration of 75 g in duration of 40 ms in the collision phase. None of the deceased van occupants were wearing seatbelts.
J. Balazˇic et al. / Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165
In the passenger car the two front airbags were activated. The driver and the front passenger were both wearing seatbelts. Regardless of the fact that there were not any severe deformation of the vehicle interior in front of the front passenger, the front passenger himself suffered deadly injuries—fracture of the sixth thoracic vertebra and rupture of the aorta in the same height causing haemorrhage. The rear seat passenger in the Audi passenger car was not wearing the seatbelt. After the collision he impacted heavily into the rear side of the front passenger seat, suffering severe head and brain injuries and contusion of liver. The driver survived the collision. He suffered fracture of both legs under the shanks.
6. Conclusions The cause of the traffic accident can be found in psychophysical state of the van driver. The deadly injuries of the van occupants were partly caused by inadequately fastened ski equipment. The front passenger in the passenger car hit the instrument panel because of the heavy impact of the rear seat passenger into the front seat. The seatbelt could withstand such a force and yielded. The airbag did not activate in time to suppress the impact. Because of the massive deceleration of both vehicles during the collision all the deadly injured who were not wearing seatbelts had severe head and brain injuries. The computer simulation of the course of the traffic accident and the load upon the front passenger body has shown that in the situation that arose in the Audi passenger car the deadly injuries of the front and rear passenger arose despite the fact that all the passive safety systems were functioning correctly. The main reason for the severity of
165
the injuries was the fact the rear passenger was not wearing a seatbelt.
References [1] H. Burg, CARAT, IBb Wiesbaden. [2] H. Steffan, PC Crash, DSD Ges.m.b.H. [3] J. Pellettiere et al., Articulated Total Body (ATB) Model, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, USA. [4] I. Prebil, I. Ciglaricˇ, M. Ambrozˇ, D. Ravnik, Sensitivity analysis of the human body mechanical model. V: ATLURI, Satya N. (ur.), BRUST, Frederick W. (ur.), Advances in Computational Engineering and Sciences: 2000, Tech Science Press Corp., Palmdale, vol. 2, str. 1699–1704, 2000 [COBISSID 5612566]. [5] D. Ropohl, Die Rechtsmeidcinische Rekonstruktion von Verkehrsunfa¨llen, DAT (1990). [6] F.A. Berg, R. Mattern, D. Kallieris, V. Cott, G. Schmall, Schutzwirkung von Airbags fu¨r angegurtete und nicht angegurtete Insassen in Standard-Sitzhaltung und In-Out-Of Position-Situationen, Verkehrsunfall und Fahrzeugtechnik 9 (1998) 251–258. [7] ECE R16, Belt&Restraints, Uniform provisions concerning the approval of safety belts and restraint systems for adult occupants of power-driven vehicles, 77/541 EEC, 90/628 EEC, 96/36 EC, 2000/3 EC, OJEC Nr.1, 220/77. [8] Schmitz, Sitzposition – Einfluss auf den Insassenschutz, Verkehrsunfall und Fahrzeugtechnik 2 (1997) 47–53. [9] T.T. Gordon, R. Hopkins, Parametric identification of multibody models for crash victim simulation, Multibody Syst. Dynam. 1 (1997) 85–112. [10] R. Happee, R. van Hasaster, L. Michaelsen, R. Hoffmann, Optimisation of vehicle passive safety for occupants with varying anthropometry, ESV – Conference, Windsor, Canada, Paper number 98-S9-O-03, 1998, pp. 1919–1924.
Computer simulation of the accident with nine victims Jozˇe Balazˇic a,*, Ivan Prebil b, Niko Cˇertanc c a
Institute of Forensic Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Korytkova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia b Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Asˇkercˇeva 6, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia c Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Jamova 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Received 19 February 2003; received in revised form 19 March 2003; accepted 6 May 2003 Available online 12 March 2005
Abstract In the paper we wish to emphasise the significance of vehicle driving dynamics analysis in the collision phase and occupant load analysis by means of using a software environment. Thereby we also wish to present the results of the simulation of the course of a traffic accident with nine victims that arose from a collision between an Audi A6 passenger car and the VW Caravelle van. In treating the traffic accident the forensic expert was faced with the questions about what caused the injuries to the front passenger in the Audi A6 passenger car, about the way the two vehicles had collided, about their collision velocities, about the way the two vehicles were handled and about the causes that originated the traffic accident. The critical situation on the road was a consequence of the tiredness of the van driver, the inadequate use of the passive safety systems and overloading the van. # 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Traffic accident; Computer simulation; Expertise
1. Introduction Forensic experts, when working on a scene of a severe traffic accident, are often faced with problems that cannot be objectively solved only by analysing the autopsy results and the data about the event. The usable data about the course of the traffic accident, the load and the movement of the occupants, can only be obtained from a computer simulation. Analysis and reconstruction of a traffic accident is a demanding task, because in a given traffic situation it is dealt with the influence of the driving dynamics, vehicle handling and terrain configuration at the same time. Reconstruction of a traffic accident is performed in three phases, the phase immediately prior to the collision, the collision phase and the phase after the collision. Today the analysis is performed by complex mathematical models that can only be successfully mastered by using a computer with specialised software * Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 1 5243 903; fax: +386 1 5243 864. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Balazˇic).
environment Computer Aided Reconstruction of Accidents in Traffic (CARAT) [1], PC Crash [2], etc. A significant part of the software are also the mathematical models that perform analysis of the dynamical response of the occupants to the loads that are characteristic for a traffic accident. For analysing movement of the human body in the threedimensional space and its interaction with the interior of the vehicle we use software packages MADYMO; ADAMS, PAM-SAFE, CASIMIR, RAMSIS, ATB [3], etc. Parallel with the experimental work ran the development of the criteria for prediction and analysis of injuries caused by different loads. The most well established are Head Injury Criteria, Thoracic Trauma Index, Severity Index and Probability of Death Score which can only be plausibly applied if we have a suitable system of human body and vehicle mechanical and mathematical models at our disposal [4]. The intention of this paper is to show the significance of the vehicle dynamic analysis in the collision phase by using the CARAT software environment. As an example we have used a traffic accident case with nine victims that were a consequence of the tiredness of the van driver,
0379-0738/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2003.05.001
J. Balazˇic et al. / Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165
162
Fig. 1. Driving direction, collision spot and rest position of the vehicles. Lower right corner: the collision phase.
misuse of passive safety equipment and overload of the van.
3. Traffic accident research 3.1. Vehicle damage
2. Case study On a main road that follows virtually horizontal course, the driver of the VW Caravelle van had suddenly swerved to his left onto the service lane and collided with the Audi A6 passenger car that was coming against him. The Audi driver had braked and avoided to the right to the service lane where the collision took place. After the collision the van had pushed the passenger car back for 7 m (Fig. 1). Two occupants in the passenger car and four occupants in the van had died on the accident scene; another three occupants from the van had died later on in the hospital. Beside the driver there were nine occupants in the van’s passenger cell as well as some incorrectly loaded and unfastened ski equipment. In the Audi passenger car, the driver and the front passenger were fastened by the seatbelts; the two airbags were activated. The front passenger in the Audi suffered from fracture of the six thoracic vertebra and rupture of the aorta with haemorrhage into the thoracic cavity. The Audi driver suffered injuries to his rib cage (serial rib fractures, breastbone fracture and lung contusions) and fracture of both thighbones. The rear seat passenger in the Audi was not wearing the seatbelt. In the collision he had suffered severe head and brain injuries and a liver contusion with internal haemorrhage into the abdominal cavity. Passengers in the van had suffered severe head and brain injuries. None of the deceased passengers from the passenger area behind the driver in the van was wearing a seatbelt.
The expert examination of the vehicles after the accident has confirmed that both vehicles were in technically faultless state before the collision. In the traffic accident the two vehicles had collided head-on with their front left parts. The frontal coverage of the two vehicles amounted to about 75%. The vehicle longitudinal axes enclosed the angle of about 58. The Audi passenger vehicle was severely damaged over its entire front portion, more severely on the driver’s side (Fig. 2). Longitudinal deformation of the front right portion of the vehicle amounted to about 55 cm with the passenger space undeformed. Longitudinal deformation of the vehicle’s driver’s side amounted to 100 cm, causing the driver’s space to shorten by 30 cm. The van was also damaged over its entire front portion, more severely on the left, driver’s side (Fig. 3). The deformation amounted about 90 cm, leaving the vehicle interior almost undamaged (Fig. 3).
4. Determining the driving velocities of the two vehicles During the course of performing the traffic accident analysis we have considered geometrical, mass and stiffness characteristics of the vehicles, their powertrain characteristics, the braking system construction, etc. The data is obtained from the vehicle manufacturers and are the same in both software environments, CARAT and PC Crash. The common database of more than 2000 vehicles is accessible to traffic accident research experts throughout the EU. The
J. Balazˇic et al. / Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165
163
Fig. 2. Damage to the Audi A6 passenger vehicle.
real configuration of the terrain was also taken into account, as well as was the road surface friction coefficient, which was measured on the scene (m = 0.8). Simulation of the driving dynamics of the vehicles and the collision between them, computed by CARAT software gave the collision velocities of the vehicles of about 110 km/ h for the van and about 65 km/h for the passenger car. Considering the reactions of the van driver before the collision, it is unlikely that he would have influenced the velocity of his vehicle in any way in the phase before the collision. The passenger car driver had reacted to the situation by avoiding to his right and, according to his own statements, also by braking. Because the Audi was fitted with anti-lock brakes, its velocity in the phase before the collision could not be determined accurately. In the collision, the majority of the kinetic energy was used up for vehicle deformation. The decrease of the energyequivalent speed (EES), which is the base for determining the loss of kinetic energy of the vehicles taking part in a
collision, amounted around 80 km/h for the van and around 85 km/h for the passenger car. The van with its gross mass of 2155 kg had pushed back the passenger car (1650 kg) for about 7 m against its prior direction. After the collision the van came to rest parallel to the passenger car (Fig. 1). The rest positions of the vehicles indicate that only a minor part of the kinetic energy was used up for moving the vehicles into their rest positions, while the largest part of it was used up for the sum of 1.7 m of longitudinal deformation of both vehicles during the compression part of the collision. The collision lasted 40 ms, which is the cause for the severe injuries of the occupants, caused by the deceleration that, according to the simulation, did not exceed 75 g [1,2]. The velocities of the vehicles before the collision was determined from translational, rotational and deformational energy of the vehicles. We have only neglected the energy, required for instantaneous lifting of the vehicles because of collision, skidding of the wheels upon exit of the collision and the rotation of the
Fig. 3. Damage to the VW Caravelle van.
164
J. Balazˇic et al. / Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165
Fig. 4. Acceleration of front passenger’s chest and head.
wheels and other parts of the drivetrain. This energy is negligible in general.
5. Discussion 5.1. Vehicle handling The examination of the vehicles after the accident has confirmed that both vehicles were in a technically faultless state before the accident. The analysis of the bodily fluids of the two drivers indicated that there were no traces of alcohol (0.0%) or any other psychoactive substances present in vascular system of either of them. From the course of driving of the van in the phase before the collision and from the statements given by the accident survivors among the van passengers, one can conclude that the cause for the van swerving to the left can be found in the psycho-physical state of its driver who apparently did not percept the situation on the longer straight part of the road some 3 s before the accident. In the last 90 m he was driving to the left over the opposite drive lane. At that time the Audi passenger car was at least 50 m away from the collision point. Around 20 m from the collision point the van driver regained his perception of the road situation and reacted by sharply turning to the right (Fig. 1), but until the collision point the vehicle remained entirely on the service lane, on the right of which the driver of the passenger car was driving, trying to avoid the collision. In the moment of the van driver’s reaction the passenger car was still at least 10 m from the collision point. 5.2. Function of the passive safety systems The injuries of the front passenger in the Audi passenger car arose because of overload in the area of contact with the safety belt. The front passenger belt was yielding in the length of 100 cm. The question was set whether this yield was a consequence of the impact of the rear-seat passenger or was the front passenger belt perhaps malfunctioning.
Considering the force of 57 kN (equal to the gravity force caused by a mass of 5700 kg), with which the unbelted rear passenger, weighing 76 kg, impacted the front passenger seat with the acceleration equal to the vehicle deceleration, it is obvious that the belt could not withstand such a force and had begun to yield. The analysis of the load on the front passenger, computed with ATB [3] (Fig. 4) has shown that his head and his chest was subject to heavy load even without the impact from behind. A seatbelt built according to ECE-R 16 has to withstand a static tensile force of 14.7 kN (equal to the gravity force caused by a mass of 1470 kg) [6,7,8]. The force that was applied to the rear of the front passenger seat by the impact of the rear passenger impact had torn the front passenger seat from its anchor points in the vehicle body. The severe injuries to the front passenger arose as a consequence of clenching his body between the instrument panel and the torn-off seat together with tightened seatbelt. Considering the known measurements of time in which it comes to application of force because of the rear passenger impact and with respect to the known airbag activation times we conclude that the force from the behind was applied within 40–50 ms, which is before the passenger airbag had even activated. The airbag requires more than 60 ms to activate [6,9,10]. In this case the front passenger was suspending the entire load only in the area where he was in contact with the safety belt since the airbag was not able to suppress the impact yet. 5.3. Loads and injuries to the occupants Seven deadly injuries were not caused only by the vehicle collision when all the occupants from the rear of the van were catapulted forwards. They suffered additional injuries from the impact of the ski equipment (11 pairs of jumping skis) which was transported in the vehicle and inadequately fastened. All the deadly injured occupants in the van suffered severe head and brain injuries [5], which is confirmed by the calculated deceleration of 75 g in duration of 40 ms in the collision phase. None of the deceased van occupants were wearing seatbelts.
J. Balazˇic et al. / Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 161–165
In the passenger car the two front airbags were activated. The driver and the front passenger were both wearing seatbelts. Regardless of the fact that there were not any severe deformation of the vehicle interior in front of the front passenger, the front passenger himself suffered deadly injuries—fracture of the sixth thoracic vertebra and rupture of the aorta in the same height causing haemorrhage. The rear seat passenger in the Audi passenger car was not wearing the seatbelt. After the collision he impacted heavily into the rear side of the front passenger seat, suffering severe head and brain injuries and contusion of liver. The driver survived the collision. He suffered fracture of both legs under the shanks.
6. Conclusions The cause of the traffic accident can be found in psychophysical state of the van driver. The deadly injuries of the van occupants were partly caused by inadequately fastened ski equipment. The front passenger in the passenger car hit the instrument panel because of the heavy impact of the rear seat passenger into the front seat. The seatbelt could withstand such a force and yielded. The airbag did not activate in time to suppress the impact. Because of the massive deceleration of both vehicles during the collision all the deadly injured who were not wearing seatbelts had severe head and brain injuries. The computer simulation of the course of the traffic accident and the load upon the front passenger body has shown that in the situation that arose in the Audi passenger car the deadly injuries of the front and rear passenger arose despite the fact that all the passive safety systems were functioning correctly. The main reason for the severity of
165
the injuries was the fact the rear passenger was not wearing a seatbelt.
References [1] H. Burg, CARAT, IBb Wiesbaden. [2] H. Steffan, PC Crash, DSD Ges.m.b.H. [3] J. Pellettiere et al., Articulated Total Body (ATB) Model, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, USA. [4] I. Prebil, I. Ciglaricˇ, M. Ambrozˇ, D. Ravnik, Sensitivity analysis of the human body mechanical model. V: ATLURI, Satya N. (ur.), BRUST, Frederick W. (ur.), Advances in Computational Engineering and Sciences: 2000, Tech Science Press Corp., Palmdale, vol. 2, str. 1699–1704, 2000 [COBISSID 5612566]. [5] D. Ropohl, Die Rechtsmeidcinische Rekonstruktion von Verkehrsunfa¨llen, DAT (1990). [6] F.A. Berg, R. Mattern, D. Kallieris, V. Cott, G. Schmall, Schutzwirkung von Airbags fu¨r angegurtete und nicht angegurtete Insassen in Standard-Sitzhaltung und In-Out-Of Position-Situationen, Verkehrsunfall und Fahrzeugtechnik 9 (1998) 251–258. [7] ECE R16, Belt&Restraints, Uniform provisions concerning the approval of safety belts and restraint systems for adult occupants of power-driven vehicles, 77/541 EEC, 90/628 EEC, 96/36 EC, 2000/3 EC, OJEC Nr.1, 220/77. [8] Schmitz, Sitzposition – Einfluss auf den Insassenschutz, Verkehrsunfall und Fahrzeugtechnik 2 (1997) 47–53. [9] T.T. Gordon, R. Hopkins, Parametric identification of multibody models for crash victim simulation, Multibody Syst. Dynam. 1 (1997) 85–112. [10] R. Happee, R. van Hasaster, L. Michaelsen, R. Hoffmann, Optimisation of vehicle passive safety for occupants with varying anthropometry, ESV – Conference, Windsor, Canada, Paper number 98-S9-O-03, 1998, pp. 1919–1924.