Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r -.. <br /> <br />Human Stability in a High Flood Hazard Zone <br /> <br />from Eq, 2 is closely aligned to the flume test results for <br />the 117.5Ib monolith. <br />The results of the monolith analysis are considered <br />valuable as they represent an extrapolation scenario for <br />the young and aged that could not be tested in this <br />study" Although the analysis is very conservative, it <br />provides a starting point for future work, <br /> <br />Human Subjects <br /> <br />Twenty human subjects were prepared and tested in <br />the experimental program. Each subject was tested un- <br />til the individual indicated a loss of stability or maneu- <br />verability in the flow. Since each human subject had to <br />determine at what point they lost their maneuverability <br />in the flow, there exists a potentially wide range of <br />product numbers that portray subject instability. <br />The product numbers at instability of each subject <br />for each test condition is presented in Table 2 for the <br />0,005 channel slope and Table 3 for the 0,015 channel <br />slope. Product numbers at subject instability ranged <br />from 7.56 for subject 2 (124.5 Ibs) to 22.84 for subject 6 <br />(201lbs). <br />It is evident that the product number range at <br />instability of a human subject weighing 124.5 Ibs (7,56- <br />15,18) is significantly greater than the range of product <br />numbers at toppling for the monolith (2,95-4.2). The <br />human subjects possess the innate skill to compensate <br />for varying flow conditions and bed slope by adjusting <br /> <br />body stance and body position. Figure 4 illustrates the <br />upright position of a 1611b subject in a flow with prod- <br />uct number of approximately 9, As the flow increases, <br />the subject tends to lean into the flow using arms and <br />hands to maintain balance as indicated in Figure 5 <br />where the product number is approximately 14. When <br />the subject approached instability, the subject leaned <br />into the flow in an exaggerated manner. Periodically, <br />the subject shifted his/her weight seemingly <br />involuntarily to resist the force of the flood flow. <br />In an attempt to provide a means to quantitatively <br />predict the point of instability of the human subject, an <br />empirical analysis was conducted to relate the product <br />number to weight and height of the subject. A semi,log- <br />arithmic representation was formulated as shown in <br />Figure ~ 6 relating the square root of the product num- <br />bers from Table 2 and Table 3 to the product of the ap- <br />propriate subject weight (Ib) and height (inches). A lin- <br />ear regression, r" = 0.48, was performed yielding the <br />expression <br /> <br />P.N. = [exp[0,222(wt x htllOOO) + 1.088]) (5) <br /> <br />where P,N. is the product number, wt is subject weight <br />in pounds, and ht is the subject height in inches. <br />Equation 5 provides a numerical means of defining the <br />point of instability of a human subject in flood flow. <br />Stability was not found to be a function of surface type <br />for the surfaces tested in this study. <br /> <br /> <br />Figure 4. Human Subject in Flume, P.N. - 9. <br /> <br />887 <br /> <br />WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN <br />