4.5 Article

Fundamental studies of bloodstain formation and characteristics

期刊

FORENSIC SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL
卷 219, 期 1-3, 页码 76-87

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.12.002

关键词

Forensic; Bloodstain; Blood dynamics; Blood splash; Blood spatter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A detailed understanding of blood droplet impact dynamics and stain formation is an essential prerequisite to the interpretation of both individual bloodstains and spatter patterns. The current literature on theoretical models for the spreading and splashing of liquid drops on surfaces relevant to the forensic context of bloodstain formation has been reviewed. These models have been evaluated for a paper substrate using experimental data obtained as function of droplet size, impact velocity and angle. It is shown that for perpendicular impact there are fairly simple mathematical models for the spreading diameter and the number of scallops or spines formed around the stain though these have quite limited ranges of validity in their basic form. In particular, predictions for the diameter are best for small droplets impacting at high velocity and the number of spines saturates for higher impact velocities. In the case of spreading, a modification to the energy conservation model is found to provide excellent agreement with experimental stain diameters across a wide range of impact velocities. For non-perpendicular impact, the width of stains is found to depend principally on the normal component of impact velocity and may be predicted by an appropriate modification to the expression for the perpendicular case. Limitations in the calculation of impact angle from the stain aspect ratio are identified and a theoretical basis for the prediction of spines around an elliptical stain is proposed. Some key issues for future research are identified which include a systematic, quantitative study of the effect of surface properties on bloodstain formation. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据