1 / 16

SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF JUMPS IN SKI RACING

SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF JUMPS IN SKI RACING. Nachbauer, W. 1 , Mössner, M. 2 and Schindelwig , K. 1 1) Department of Sport Science, University of Innsbruck, Austria 2) Centre of Technology of Ski- and Alpine Sport . Introduction. Statistic world cup ski racing

stacia
Download Presentation

SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF JUMPS IN SKI RACING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF JUMPS IN SKI RACING Nachbauer, W.1 , Mössner, M.2and Schindelwig, K.1 1) Department of Sport Science, University of Innsbruck, Austria 2)Centreof Technology of Ski- and Alpine Sport

  2. Introduction Statistic world cup ski racing From 1605 athletes of the Austrian Ski Federation winter seasons of 1995/96 to 2012/13 595injuries - from these 237 severe (Nachbauer et al., 2013) Landing back-weighted after jumps second most common skiing situation of an ACL injury (Nachbauer et al., 2013) Accurate prediction only with wind tunnel experiments (drawback - high costs) (Brownlie et al., 2010, Chowdhury et al., 2010) 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 2

  3. Goal Develop a simulation model to predict the injury hazard of jumps in downhill ski races Hazard measure - equivalent fall height (EFH) Variable inclination landing area – concept of effective landing height (ELH) 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 3

  4. Method: field measurement 4 jumps – 145 jumps analysed Sprung ins Himmelreich(SH), Panorama Sprung (PS), Mausefalle (MF), Kamelbuckel (KB) 3 Cameras 20 Hz, 6 MP (Casio Exilim EX_F1) 300 HZ, 0.2 MP (Casio Exilim EX_F1) Theodolite (CTS-2B) position of cameras, gates, … Inclinometer(Pieps 30° Plus) slope inclination 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 6

  5. Method: 3d reconstruction 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 5

  6. ε π Method: 3d reconstruction skier’s plane imagecoordinates 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 5

  7. Method: simulation model Forces Equation of motion – point mass 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 7

  8. Method: simulation model Integration of the equation of motion Runge-Kuttascheme Δt of 0.01 s Drag and Lift determined by parameter identification Least squares fit the solution of the equation of motion is fitted to the measured trajectory 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 7

  9. Method: simulation model Equivalent fall height (Hubbard (2008) (valid for landing area with const. inclination) Equivalent landing height v2-1 v2 v1 t1 t2 v1 v2 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 7

  10. Results: reconstruction accuracy max. differencebetweencameras: 11.8 cm forcenterofmass Eq rmsdeviationfortheski lenght: 2.2 cm 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 10

  11. Results: high speed video of landing movement 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 10

  12. Method: jump parameter α0- β0 3 0 -3 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 7

  13. Results: EFH take-off angle – approach speed jump „Mausefalle“ 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 10

  14. Results: EFH versus ELH jump „Kamelbuckel“ EFH (m) ELH (m) 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 10

  15. Diskussion: summary Accurracy greatest difference of vertikal position: 118 mm  error of determination of drag and lift area +/- 0.3 m² EFH versus ELH equivalent fall height (EFH) assess the energy absorbed upon landing, if inclination of landing area is constant equivalent landing height (ELH) is needed, if inclination of landing area is NOT constant Simulation model a prediction of the injury hazard of a jump is possible 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 10

  16. Conclusion Simulation model was developed to predict the equivalent fall height for jumps Necessary parameters were measured for four jumps during world cup races. Take-off angle, velocity and steepness of landing area are the most dominant factors for the equivalent fall height. The equivalent fall height is an important measure to assess the effect of possible impact hazards and, thus, the given simulation model can be used to improve the safety for jumps in ski racing. 18thannualCongressofthe EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE, 26th – 29th June 2013 10

More Related