SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER 947

Spacecraft re-entry strategies: meeting debris mitigation

and ground safety requirements
W H Ailor and R P Patera
Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California, USA

The manuscript was received on 15 January 2007 and was accepted after revision for publication on 16 April 2007.
DOI: 10.1243/09544100JAERO199

Abstract: Re-entry of space hardware into the atmosphere is a recommended technique for
disposal of space hardware at end of life. However, while aerodynamic heating and loads will
break a reentering object apart and a substantial fraction of the object’s mass will be melted away,
evidence shows that large and potentially hazardous fragments can survive re-entry and impact
the Earth’s surface. Standards and regulations are emerging that will limit the acceptable hazard
and require that space hardware exceeding a survivability threshold be deorbited into a safe
ocean area. The current paper provides an overview of re-entry breakup, presents on-the-ground
evidence that large, hazardous objects survive, highlights current guidelines, and requirements
to limit the hazard to people and property, and discusses how re-entry hazards are estimated.

Keywords: re-entry, satellite, breakup, casualty, casualty expectation, space debris, re-entry
disposal, debris mitigation, ground safety

1 INTRODUCTION long and 40 km wide. The mass of the debris recovered

When orbiting space hardware enters the earth’s
atmosphere, it does so with a velocity generally
exceeding 7 km/s. Over a period of tens of minutes,
the re-entry process slows the object to a few hun-
dred meters per second. Much of the object’s original
kinetic energy is converted to heat in a pulse that
lasts 6 min or less. This intense heating can melt struc-
tures and, combined with the increasing aerodynamic
forces, generally disassemble an object that may have
taken years to construct, spreading remaining debris
over a ground footprint that can be tens of kilometres
wide and hundreds of kilometres long.
On average, there are about 100 re-entries of large
objects each year [1] and debris from each re-entry
generally survives to impact on the ground or in the
water. A rule of thumb suggests that the mass of sur-
viving debris will total between 10 and 40 per cent of
the pre-re-entry mass of the object [2]. Major debris
from the Columbia accident, more than 84 000 objects,
was spread over a footprint approximately 1000 km
∗ Corresponding author: Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris
Studies, The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957,
USA. email: william.h.ailor@aero.org
from the Columbia accident totals 38 000 kg, approx-
imately 38 per cent of the dry mass of Columbia (It
should be noted that Columbia’s thermal protection
likely contributed to the large fraction of surviving
debris.).
Unfortunately, debris from re-entering objects is
rarely found on the ground, and any that is found is
rarely analysed. Exclusive of Columbia debris, it is esti-
mated that fewer than 250 items have been recovered
over the 45-plus years mankind has been launching
hardware into space. During this period, a number of
large and potentially deadly (due to their size) objects
have survived to impact, but there have been no
known injuries or deaths caused by re-entered mate-
rial. Exclusive of the Columbia debris, it is estimated
that fragments from fewer than a dozen re-entries
have been analysed in laboratories. To illustrate, Fig. 1
shows a rocket stage similar to that used to loft a satel-
lite into orbit in 1996. Nine months later, the stage
re-entered and the debris shown in Fig. 2 was found in
Texas and Oklahoma. The small fragment reportedly
brushed the lady holding it on the shoulder.
Should debris from a space object re-entry survive
and cause injury or property damage, United Nations
resolutions state that ‘A launching state shall be abso-
lutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused

JAERO199 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering

Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014

948 W H Ailor and R P Patera

Fig. 1 Delta II second stage similar to that which re-entered on 22 January 1997 (photo courtesy NASA)

Fig. 2 Debris from 22 January 1997, re-entry of Delta II second stage: clockwise from top left:
lightweight fragment, propellant tank, sphere, thrust chamber. Photos courtesy Tulsa World
(staff photo by Brandi Stafford), NASA, Aerojet, NASA, respectively

Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering JAERO199 © IMechE 2007

Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014

 Spacecraft re-entry strategies
by its space object on the surface of the Earth or to
aircraft in flight’ [3], and ‘Upon request of the launch-
ing authority, objects launched into outer space or
their component parts found beyond the territorial
limits of the launching authority shall be returned to
or held at the disposal of representatives of the launch-
ing authority, which shall, upon request, furnish
identifying data prior to their return’ [4].
As a result of increasing recognition that debris does
survive and that it does pose a potential hazard, recent
guidelines suggest and regulations [5, 6] state that
space hardware must be deorbited in a controlled
fashion if the casualty expectation for an uncontrolled
re-entry exceeds a defined threshold – in the USA, this
threshold is 1 × 10−4 . These emerging requirements
place increased emphasis on our ability to develop
accurate estimates of what will and will not survive
re-entry and to estimate the final hazard associated
with each surviving fragment.
As a final thought, one might ask: How does the
risk from space hardware reentries compare to that
from meteors? It is estimated that about a dozen
meteors survive entry into the Earth’s atmosphere per
day (approximately 4000 per year), and that about
a three per day (approximately 1000 per year) yield
fragments that impact on solid ground and the rest
impact in water. Most of these objects are small and
relatively harmless, while there are occasional impacts
of larger objects with associated casualties and dam-
age to property – about three meteors the size of a
basketball impact on solid ground per year [7]. For-
tunately, objects much larger than these enter much
less frequently.
2 DISPOSAL BY RE-ENTRY
One way to remove hardware from operational regions
is to dispose of orbiting objects at end of mission
by either allowing them to re-enter the earth’s atmo-
sphere randomly and ‘burn up’, or to purposefully
deorbit objects into ocean areas where the risk to peo-
ple and property is minimized. As noted, some fraction
of the mass of re-entering objects does not burn up, so
some care must be exercised to limit the hazard posed
by such debris.
2.1 Uncontrolled deorbit
The easiest method of deorbiting a satellite is to move it
to a ‘disposal orbit’ – lowering the perigee altitude such
that atmospheric drag causes the orbit to slowly decay
to the point where the object re-enters the denser
atmosphere and is destroyed. While the overall life-
time of the disposal orbit can be estimated, variations
in atmospheric density due to solar and other effects
JAERO199 © IMechE 2007
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014
949
make precise estimates of the re-entry time impossi-
ble. As a result, the spacecraft can re-enter anywhere
within a latitude band defined by its orbit inclination.
For example, if the spacecraft is in an orbit inclined
at 28.5◦ , it can re-enter anywhere in the area between
28.5◦ north and 28.5◦ south latitudes.
As noted, a major characteristic of this disposal
method is the lack of knowledge of exactly when
or where on Earth the object will actually come
down. Even during the last orbits, predicting the exact
orbital revolution in which re-entry occurs is diffi-
cult, with prediction uncertainty roughly 10 per cent
of the remaining lifetime. Since the uncertainty is in
the time of re-entry, a 10 min error corresponds to
approximately 3000 miles (5000 km) of uncertainty in
the impact point. Thus, without accurate tracking very
near the re-entry point, warning population centres of
an impending re-entry is virtually impossible.
If the estimated hazard associated with uncon-
trolled re-entry of a specific object is within acceptable
limits (as noted earlier, the USA has specified that the
casualty expectation be less than 1 × 10−4 ), this is an
acceptable technique for removing space hardware
from orbit at end of life. Guidelines and regulations for
space debris mitigation currently specify that the life-
time of the disposal orbit not exceed a specified value
(25 years for US systems [6]). If a spacecraft is in rea-
sonable health and has sufficient propellant, insertion
into an orbit with a low perigee altitude can be accom-
plished with existing spacecraft attitude control and
propulsion systems. This technique is used to dispose
of satellites in the Iridium constellation.
2.2 Controlled deorbit
Disposal by controlled deorbit provides certainty in
the impact location by targeting the spacecraft to a
safe area, generally a broad ocean area, to minimize
the hazard to people and property. Controlled deorbits
are most desirable when (a) the mass of the satellite is
so large that the number of surviving debris objects is
thought to pose an unacceptable risk to life and prop-
erty, (b) the satellite contains hazardous materials, or
(c) the satellite contains sensitive components, and
recovery of these is not desirable. Disposal via con-
trolled deorbit requires a relatively healthy spacecraft
and more propellant than the orbit decay method. The
re-entries of NASA’s Compton Gamma Ray Observa-
tory (CGRO) [8] and the Russian Mir space station [9]
are examples of controlled deorbits.
In addition to disposing of satellites at end of mis-
sion, disposal of any upper-stage rocket bodies or
other equipment associated with satellite deployment
or operations is also of great concern. Any hardware
released in orbit poses a collision hazard, and rocket
stages can explode if passivation measures such as
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
950
propellant venting, battery discharging, and ordnance
safing are not performed. The 1996 explosion of a
Pegasus upper stage, which created over 700 pieces
of debris [10], is an excellent example of the potential
hazard. Therefore, in addition to safing these stages,
methods for their speedy removal from orbit are being
developed. Options being considered are (a) mission
modifications that result in lower perigee altitude,
(b) post-separation manoeuvres using residual pro-
pellant to lower perigee altitude, (c) use of tethers
or other devices to increase the decay rate of spent
hardware, and (d) using small solid rocket motors
to lower perigee altitude. Note that this hardware is
also subject to the re-entry casualty expectation limits
discussed earlier.
3 PREDICTING RE-ENTRY HAZARDS
3.1 Probability of debris striking a unit area
For an object re-entering randomly from a decaying
circular orbit, the impact probability density on the
Earth’s surface, the probability that the re-entering
object will impact a specific unit area, is given by [11]
1 tributed. Therefore, only the population density as a
σ (L, i) =
2π2 R 2 (sin2 (i) − sin2 (L))1/2
where L is the latitude of impact, i the inclination of the
orbit of the re-entering object, and R Earth’s spherical
radius.
If it is assumed that the debris object has a negligi-
ble cross-sectional area and that the area of an average
person, Ah , is 4 square feet (0.3716 m2 ) then the prob-
ability that an unsheltered person at 30◦ latitude will
struck by a piece of re-entering debris from an orbit
inclined at 45◦ is

π π
P = Ah σ (L, i) = 4σ ,
6 4
= 4(2.314 × 10−16 ) = 9.255 × 10−16 (2)
If the entire global population of about 6 billion peo-
ple was unsheltered and was located at latitude 30◦
north or south and distributed in longitude to prevent
occupying the same location, the probability of a sin-
gle person being struck by a debris piece from an orbit
inclined at 45◦ is given by

π π
P = 6 × 109 Ah σ (L, i) = 24 × 109 σ ,
6 4
= 24 × 109 (2.314 × 10−16 ) = 5.553 × 10−6
The finite area of a debris piece can be treated by
replacing Ah in equation (3) by an effective area, Aeff ,
that combines the human area, Ah and the debris area,
Ad . One method is to simply combine the radii of
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014
W H Ailor and R P Patera
equivalent circular areas, as in equation (4). Another
method is illustrated in a later section
  2
Aeff = Ad + Ah (4)
Of course, the above computation assumes that a sin-
gle object survives re-entry and that the population
is located at the same latitude. Further, it does not
address the possibility that the individual or property
would be injured or damaged by the strike. To compute
the casualty expectation associated with re-entering
debris, one must properly treat the global population
density. In addition, the interaction between the debris
and population must be included in the formulation.
3.2 Global population density
The global population density can be computed
numerically using a database containing population
as a function of latitude and longitude [12, 13]. The
longitude dependence only matters if the location of
the re-entry impact footprint is fairly well known. As
the interest lies only in random re-entry where the
location of impact is unknown, it is assumed that the
longitude of the impact footprint is uniformly dis-
(1)
function of latitude is needed for casualty expectation
analysis.
A 1995 global population database was processed
to obtain the population density as a function of lat-
itude [12]. Figure 3 contains the population density
as a function of the sine of the latitude. Included
is the distribution function, which is essentially the
integral of the probability density starting in the South-
ern hemisphere and integrated northward through
the Northern hemisphere. The higher population den-
sity in the Northern hemisphere is clearly visible. One
(3)
Fig. 3 Variation of population and population density
with latitude
JAERO199 © IMechE 2007
 Spacecraft re-entry strategies 951

Table 1 Re-entry survivability models 3.4 Casualty expectation calculation

Model name Type Originator For a random re-entry, the impact probability density
is a function of latitude and orbital inclination only,
ORSAT [14] 3-DOF, assumes breakup NASA
at 78 km altitude and the global population density as a function of lati-
SCARAB [15] 6-DOF, predicts breakup ESA tude can be computed from a population database and
AHaB [16] 3-DOF, predicts breakup Aerospace is illustrated in Fig. 3. Using this information, the casu-
DAS [17] Scaled trajectory, assumes NASA
major breakup at 78 km alty expectation for an object re-entering randomly
from an orbit with inclination i is [11]

π/2
εi
can account for population density in years later than pi = F  (sin(i) sin(θ )) dθ (5)
1995 by simply assuming a constant 1 per cent growth 2π2 R 2 0

rate.
where sin(L) = sin(i) sin(θ ), and the function F  (sin(i)
sin(θ )) is related to the population density as plotted
in Fig. 3. εi is used to quantify the severity of the influ-
3.3 Surviving debris
ence of the debris impact and R is Earth’s spherical
The first step in predicting that hazards to people and radius. εi includes the effective area, Aeff , of human
property associated with a particular re-entry is to and debris object as well as the impact energy, which
develop a prediction of what objects will survive re- could increase or decrease the casualty region. If the
entry. As shown in Table 1, several models of varying size, mass, and energy of impacting debris are large,
complexity have been developed for this task. Mod- then εi will be large as well. On the other hand, if
els vary from those that assume a re-entering object the population is sheltered by strong housing units,
breaks into simple components at a specified altitude εi will be smaller. One hundred per cent sheltering of
to models that simulate the full six degree-of-freedom the population implies that εi is zero.
motion of an object and the heating and loads to indi- For a given orbital inclination, the integrand of
vidual components to the greatest extent possible. In equation (5) is evaluated based on the data in Fig. 3.
all cases, engineers have been forced to use best judg- The integral can be easily computed and results in
ment as a substitute for relevant experimental data casualty expectation per unit area as a function of
to calibrate these models. The 78 km breakup altitude orbital inclination as illustrated in Fig. 4. The peak in
used in several models is based on previous analyses Fig. 4 occurs near 35◦ inclination and indicates high
of data from spacecraft deorbits [18]. population density in the Northern hemisphere near
Since very little data accumulated during the 35◦ latitude.
breakup of an unprotected spacecraft is available Since some pieces of debris are not very massive and
(although an approach for collecting such data is may have a low impact velocity, they may not have
being developed [19]), analysis of recovered debris sufficient energy to pose a hazard. Therefore, debris
must be used to gather insights on the breakup pro- pieces should be screened based on impact energy
cess. It should be noted that, given reliable data on before they are included in the casualty expectation
space hardware demise during re-entry, specific fea-
tures could be included in the design of hardware
to assure that hazard is minimized during re-entry
disposal. For example, structural members could be
designed to release large, dense objects early in the
trajectory so that these objects will be exposed to max-
imum total heating. Other features might include use
of lower melting point materials in the construction of
hardware or in components critical to breakup.
Typical output from a re-entry analysis is a list of
the size, mass, impact velocity, and kinetic energy of
debris pieces at impact, and this information is used
in conjunction with a population density model to
compute a casualty expectation for a particular re-
entry event. Reference [20] provides a good overview of
standard re-entry breakup modelling techniques. Ref-
erence [21] is recommended as an additional source
of information on both technical and practical issues Fig. 4 Casualty expectation for a random re-entry as a
related to spacecraft re-entry. function of orbital inclination

JAERO199 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering

Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014

952
calculation. One can exclude objects having impact
energies less than a chosen threshold in the range of
15–35 ft lbs (20–47 N m) [22].
The impact velocity and energy can be expressed in
terms of object mass and ballistic coefficient, β.

2β
VI =
ρo
mβ
EI =
ρo
where
mg
β=
Cd A
and m is the mass of the debris piece, g the
gravitational acceleration, A the drag area, Cd the drag
coefficient, and ρo the atmospheric density at the
Earth’s surface. As an example, a one-pound object
with a ballistic coefficient of 12 lbs/ft2 (575 N m−2 )
impacts the ground at 104 ft/s (32 m/s) with 167 ft lbs.
(226 N m) of energy.
As stated earlier, the effective area, Aeff , depends
on the area of each piece of the debris and the area
of a typical person. For debris objects rough rectan-
gular in shape, each dimension of the debris piece
should be increased by a man border in the range
of 0.5–1.0 ft (0.15–0.30 m). For example, a piece of
debris having impact cross-sectional area of 3 ft by
2 ft (0.91 × 0.61 m) is increased to 4 ft by 3 ft (1.22 ×
0.91 m) when given a 0.5 ft (0.15 m) man border. For
debris objects roughly circular in shape, the radius is
simply increased by the man border. Thus, a debris
object having a circular cross-sectional radius of 2 ft
(0.61 m) would have its radius increased to 2.5 ft
(0.76 m) with a 0.5 ft (0.15 m) man border.
The effective interaction area, εi , is computed using
Aeff and engineering judgment as to how much the
impact energy increases the casualty region. Once
evaluated, εi , is used in equation (5) to calculate the
respective casualty expectations. The total casualty
expectation is obtained by summing over all debris
objects
 orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/USG_OD_Standard_
CE = pi
i 7 Cosmic Earth impacts. NASA History Office, 14
Since the population is expected to continue growing
at 1.099 per cent per year, the casualty expectation will
increase at the same rate. Since the population data in
Fig. 2 is from 1995, the casualty expectation in years
beyond 1995 is obtained from
CE(t) = CE(1995)(1 + 0.010 99)(t−1995)
Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering
Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014
W H Ailor and R P Patera
4 SUMMARY
Disposal of space objects by re-entry into the Earth’s
atmosphere has been defined to be an acceptable
mechanism for reducing the space debris population.
Hazardous fragments can and do survive re-entry, so
care must be taken to understand the hazard associ-
(6) ated with re-entry of a given object. In cases where
the risk to people and property is deemed unaccept-
able, objects can be re-entered so that debris falls
(7) into safe ocean areas; but even in these cases, notices
should be given so that aircraft and ships can avoid
the hazardous area during the time of the re-entry.
Several re-entry breakup models are used to predict
the quantity, size, and shape of objects that might sur-
(8) vive re-entry, but since only a few objects have been
recovered on the ground, calibration of these models
has been limited. New devices are being developed to
record data during re-entry breakup.
REFERENCES
1 Annual Reentry Data. The Aerospace Corpora-
tion, June 2007, available from http://www.aero.
org/capabilities/cords/reentry-stats.html
2 Ailor, W., Hallman, W., Steckel, G., and Weaver, M.
Analysis of reentered debris and implications for surviv-
ability modeling. In 4th European Conference on Space
Debris, April 2005.
3 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused
by Space Objects (United Nations resolution 2777
(XXVI), annex) – adopted on 29 November 1971, opened
for signature on 29 March 1972, entered into force
on 1 September 1972. See United Nations Treaties
and Principles on Outer Space, available from http://
www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
4 The Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return
of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched
into Outer Space (United Nations resolution 2345
(XXII), annex) – adopted on 19 December 1967, opened
for signature on 22 April 1968, entered into force
on 3 December 1968. Available from http://www.
unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
5 US National Space Policy of 2006 (paragraph 11), avail-
able from http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%
20Space%20Policy.pdf
6 US Government Orbital Debris Mitigation Stan-
dard Practices, February 2001, available from http://
(9) Practices.pdf
October 1998, available from http://www.hq.nasa.
gov/office/pao/History/impact.html
8 Nemiroff, R. and Bonnell, J. Astronomy picture
of the day. NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center, 11
August 1995, available from http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.
gov/apod/ap950811.html
9 ‘The End is Mir,’ NASA @Science Headline News,
NASA, 10 March 2001, available from http://science.
(10) nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast10mar_1.htm
JAERO199 © IMechE 2007
 Spacecraft re-entry strategies 953

10 Johnson, N. Major satellite breakup in June. Orbital 21 Rainey, L. B. (ed.), Space modeling and simulation roles
Debris Quarterly News, NASA JSC, September 1996, and applications throughout the system life cycle. 2005,
p. 2 and 11. Available from http://www.orbitaldebris. pp. 699–744 (The Aerospace Press, El Segundo, CA,
jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNV1i2.pdf American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
11 Patera, R. P. Hazard analysis for uncontrolled space Reston, VA).
vehicle reentry. In AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechan- 22 Refling, O. and Stern, R. Review of orbital reentry risk
ics Conference and Exhibit, Keystone, Colorado, August predictions. Aerospace Report No. ATR-92(2835)-1, The
2006, paper no. AIAA 2006-6500. Aerospace Corporation, July 1992.
12 Tobler, W., Deichmann, U., Gottsegen, J., and Maloy, K.
The global demography project. Technical report
TR-95-6, Department of Geographic Information and APPENDIX
Analysis, University of California at Santa Barbara, April
1995.
13 Gridded population of the world (GPW), version 2. Notation
Center for International Earth Science Information Net- g gravitational acceleration at Earth’s
work (CIESIN), Columbia University; International Food surface
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); and World Resources i orbital inclination
Institute (WRI), Palisades, NY, 2000. m mass of debris object
14 Rochelle, W. C., Kirk, B. S., Ting, B. C., Smith, L. N., and pi casualty expectation for the ith debris
Smith, R. N. Modeling of space debris reentry surviv- object
ability and comparison of analytical methods. In 50th A drag area
International Astronautical Congress, IAA-99-IAA.6.7.03, Ad casualty area of debris object
Amsterdam, October 1999.
Aeff effective area of human and debris
15 Lips, T., Fritsche, B., Koppenwallner, G., and
Klinkrad, H. Spacecraft destruction during re-entry –
object
latest results and developments of the SCARAB soft- Ah casualty area of an average human
ware system. In 34th Scientific Assembly of COSPAR, Cd drag coefficient
PEDAS1-B1.4-0030-02, Houston, October 2002. CE(t) casualty expectation at year t
16 Atmospheric Heating and Breakup (AHaB) tool, no exter- EI debris impact energy
nal reference, The Aerospace Corporation. F population density as a function of the
17 Reynolds, R. C. and Soto, A. Debris assessment software sine of the latitude
operator’s manual v1.5. Orbital Debris Program Office, L latitude
NASA Johnson Space Center, April 2001. R radius of the Earth
18 Patera, R. and Ailor, W. The realities of reentry dis- VI debris impact speed
posal. In 8th AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting,
Monterey, CA, 9–11 February 1998, pp. 98–174.
19 Kapoor, V. B. and Ailor, W. H. The reentry breakup
β ballistic coefficient
recorder: a ‘Black Box’ for space hardware. In 17th Annual θ integration parameter
AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, SSC03-VIII-3, εi effective interaction area of impacting
Salt Lake City, Utah, 2003. debris
20 Klinkrad, H. Space debris: models and risk analysis. ρ0 atmospheric density at the Earth’s
In Springer-Praxis books in astronautical engineering, surface
2006, pp. 256–265. σ impact probability density

JAERO199 © IMechE 2007 Proc. IMechE Vol. 221 Part G: J. Aerospace Engineering

Downloaded from pig.sagepub.com at UNIV OF PITTSBURGH on December 18, 2014