This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
People and vehicle safety in flooding waters Ron Cox
Convenor, Australian Climate Change Adaptation Research Network for Settlements Settlements and Infrastructure Water Research Laboratory, Civil and Environmental Engineering, UNSW
Acknowledgements - Tom Shand, Matt Blacka & Grantley Smith - WRL
Safety of people and vehicles in areas of high flow such as may occur in streets and floodways during floods or broader coastal areas in the event of a cyclone or tsunami Safety criteria - depth & velocity of flow
Foster & Cox (1973)
Flume exposure testing of 9 and 13 year olds Simple depth vs velocity safety criteria Preliminary and limited laboratory work Affected by age, size and weight Psychological factors (confident or fearful) Orientation of child to flow (stand, sit, turn) Clothing and footwear
Hazard Criteria adopted
Limited work at WRL for ACT generally used in adoption of flood hazard criteria (NSW and beyond) Current AR&R specify human safety limit for floodway design as DxV = 0.4 m2 s-1 Figure 1 - DPW 1986 EMA advice is that wading by adults becomes difficult and dangerous when the depth of still water exceeds 1.2 m or when the velocity of shallow water exceeds 0.8 m/s and for various combinations of DxV between these limits.
4-1. Endoh &Muro (1992) RESCDAM (2001) – 7 adult rescuers (M&F) D=0. HM=62-173 mKg Test .1 m. Figure 1 Hazard Rating DPW NSW 1986 Testing .Takahashi etal (1992) .Abt etal (1989) – 20 adults (M&F) D=0. velocity. Endoh & Muro (1992) Karvonen et al . HM=77-195 mKg Port safety criteria in Japanese literature Prototype human testing Depth.6-1. Yee & Ball (2004) Jonkman and Penning-Rowsell (2008).6-1.6-2 m/s.3 adult males D=0. V=0.9 m. Taylor and Love (1989) Takahashi.Laboratory tests – world data base • • • • • • Foster & Cox (1973) Abt.1 m2 s-1.4-0. V=0.2m. DV=0.8-3m/s. DV=0.6 m/s.7-2. V=0.3 m2 s-1. friction and drag measured 3 subjects in different clothings Different shoes and contact surfaces Different orientations to the flow Move subjects through water to ascertain conditions in which rescue workers can operate . HM=107-134 mKg Flow funnelled from headbox to short flume Takahashi.RESCDAM (2001) Cox.6-2.3 m2 s-1. Wittler.4-1. DV=0.
V=0.5 V elo c ity (m / s) 2.D vs V 1. 6 Fo st e r & C o x 0. (2000) study.5 0. Ta k a ha shi e t a l.5 m). buoyancy and moment stability mass lever arm (distance from heel to centre of gravity). (1992) and Karvonen et al. (2004) concluded that. DV=0. RESC DA M Ye e & C o x 0.5 m. 8 0.DxV vs HxM 2. 0 0. Clothing had lower drag than that for tests by Takahashi et al. 0 De p th ( m ) 0.4 1 1. al.9-2 m/s. (1992) and Keller and Mitsch (1993). drag.0 Yee & Cox Jonkman All data .95% CI 1. The model predicts both sliding (friction) or tumbling (moment) failure.5 0. mass and body shape. The model incorporates velocity. Human Safety Failure Modes .5 Excl.0 0. Takahash et al.0 1. Yee & Ball (2004) D=0. 2.5 3.3-0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 H. 0 0. 4 A b t e t a l. Overview .V (m2/s) Data excl. Ramsbottom et al.95% CI Excl. 2 1.6 m2 s-1.best fit 1. subject height. (2000) and subject performance was noted to improve with practice.1-0.M (m.kg) 120 140 160 180 200 Computational models Yee (2003) developed a predictive computational model based on the work of both Takahashi et al. Abt . Abt . friction. 0 2. the data of Abt et al is statistically significantly different to that of Karvonen et al which is consistent with all other test data. based on a Student T test. 2 0.5 Abt etal data ?? Abt et al. HM=21-33 mKg Extension of Foster & Cox testing of smaller children – 4 (M&F) from 6 to 8 yrs 1.best fit D. depth (up to 1. 4 Overview . Karvonen et. (1989) data shows much higher stability than all other data for adults – this cannot be fully explained Partially explained in that the experiments determined the absolute limit of stability of the subjects (personal communication with Abt 10 October 2003) who were made to fail as opposed to determining if safety was compromised so defining the limits for a safe rescue action which was the objective of the Karvonen et al.0 3.5 1. Abt .Cox.5 Foster & Cox Abt et al.
H=1.5 Velocity (m /s) Proposed hazard regimes Discussion • The most important factors affecting human stability in floodways are firstly depth and secondly velocity. slippery.0 1.4 m2/s is suitable for children (H*M 25 to 50 mKg) BUT conservative for healthy adults who if trained could be expected to work in conditions up to D*V= 0. definition of stability limit (i. either sliding (friction) or tumbling (moment) failure.7 0.0 2.care is required in locating aged care and retirement villages as well as childcare centres and kindergartens.3 0.6 0. M=100kg.1.8 m2/s.2 1 Depth 0.8 0. • Extreme hazard is indicated for all adults at D*V > 1. H=1.0 3. • High depths increase buoyancy and reduce friction underfoot.4 0.1 0 0. M=25kg 0.8 0. poor visibility.6 De pth (m ) Model Experiment Unsaf e Experiment Safe 0.0 0. feeling unsafe or complete loss of footing).0 2. unsteady flow and flow aeration •Human subject: standing or moving.2 m2/s.2 0 0. physical attributes additional to height and mass including muscular development and/or other disability.95m 100Kg Subject 2. clothing and footwear. • Depth dictates what type of failure is to occur.4 m2/s.5 3.5 3. • Low depth-high velocity flows may cause instability but the chances of drowning are less than in the more dangerous deepwater situations Overview • The current AR&R guideline of D*V=0. • Small children and frail older persons are unlikely to be safe in any flow regimes .5 1. poor lighting. experience and training.4 0.Yee computational model vs tests RESCDAM (2001) Subject 2 . • Small children with H*M less than 25 mKg are not safe at D*V as high as 0.0 Model Experimental Expon.6 1.1.e.2 0.other factors It should be noted that loss of stability could occur in lower flows when adverse conditions are encountered including: •Bottom conditions: uneven. obstacles •Flow conditions: floating debris.5 2.3m. (Experimental) Application of Yee (2003) to all data Yee (2003) Subject 3 . low temperature. HM=195 1. • It is most likely that many frail/older persons may also not be safe under this criteria.0 1.5 Velocity 2.95m.0 0.4 1.3m 25Kg Subject 3. psychological factors •Others: strong wind. .5 0.5 1. Discussion .
Shand and Blacka.likely that earlier criteria no longer hold for contemporary vehicles. • With the exception of the Public Works Department (1986)/NSW Floodplain Development Manual (2005) and AusRoads (2008) criteria.Vehicle stability update • Vehicle stability criteria expressed as depth D X velocity V are based on experimental investigations of stationary vehicle stability by Bonham and Hattersley (1967) and Stone and Gordon (1973) and theoretical analysis Keller and Mitsch (1993).6 m2/s. the proposed vehicle safety criteria remain below the moderate hazard criteria for adults (Cox. Vehicle stability update • Existing guidelines and recommendations for limits of vehicle stability have been compared to experimental and analytical results. interim criteria for stationary vehicle stability are proposed for three vehicle classes • small passenger cars. vehicle weight and ground clearance . large passenger cars and large 4WD vehicles • Floating and high velocity limits are proposed – between which constant D×V relations are recommended in accordance with proposed human stability criteria. • An extensive literature review did not discover any further relevant research data and showed that international standards by and large referenced these same Australian research publications. • Substantial changes in vehicle planform area. all other criteria are found to be non-conservative at some flow regime when compared to experimental and computational test results. • For all flow conditions in all vehicle classes. 2010) ie DXV < 0. . Draft. Vehicle stability update • Based on the available experimental and analytical data.
warning and evacuation Thank you Questions firstname.lastname@example.org .edu. education.Vehicle stability update People safety dependent upon design. awareness. planning.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.