Models of behavior of forests under influence of wind loads
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33408/2519-237X.2017.1-3.323Keywords:
wind load, uprooting, stem breakage, critical wind speed, breaking stress, turning momentAbstract
Purpose. To analyse two independently mathematical models (GALES and HWIND) for predicting the critical wind speed and turning moment needed to uproot and break the tree stems.
Methods. The GALES model calculates the aerodynamic roughness and zero-plane displacement of a forest stand. The aerodynamic roughness provides a measure of the stress (force: unit area) imposed on the canopy as a function of wind speed and the zero-plane displacement provides a measure of the average height on the tree at which the wind acts. This allows calculation of the bending moment imposed on the tree for any wind speed, as a result is the model to make predictions of the wind speed at which the tree will be overturned and broken. In the HWIND model the turning moment arising from the wind drag on the crown is calculated assuming a logarithmic upwind profile. Based on the sum of wind load and the contribution from the overhanging weight of the stem and branches the total bending moment is calculated. The breaking strength of the stem and the support given by the root-soil plate are calculated from previous experiments.
Findings. This allows calculating the wind speed required to break and overturn the tree.
Application field of research. Forecasting the consequences of emergency situations connected with strong winds. Conclusion. Models comparisons showed that it is necessary to improve existing models and to develop new ones which will be more accurate.
References
Schelhaas M.-J., Nabuurs G.-J., Schuck A. Natural disturbances in the European forests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Global Change Biology, 2003. Vol. 9, Iss. 11. Pp. 1620-1633.
Gardiner B., Blennow K., Carnus J.-M., Fleischer P., Ingemarson F., Landmann G., Lindner M., Marzano M., Nicoll B., Orazio C., Peyron J.-L., Reviron M.-P., Schelhaas M.-J., Schuck A., Spielmann M., Usbeck T. Destructive Storms in European Forests: Past and Forthcoming Impacts. Final report to European Commission. DG Environment, 2010. Pp. 12-30.
Schelhaas M.-J., Hengeveld G., Moriondo M., Reinds G.J., Kundzewicz Z.W., terMaat H., Bindi M. Assessing risk and adaptation options to fires and windstorms in European forestry. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 15. Pp. 681-701.
Albrecht A., Hanewinkel M., Bauhus J., Kohnle U. How does silviculture affect storm damage in forests of south-western Germany? Results from empirical modeling based on long-term observations. Eur J Forest Res, 2012. Vol. 131. Pp. 229-247.
Gardiner B., Marshall B., Achim A., Belcher R., Wood C. The stability of different silvicultural systems: a wind-tunnel investigation. Forestry, 2005. Vol. 78, No. 5. Pp. 471-484.
Valinger E., Fridman J. Factors affecting the probability of windthrow at stand level as a result of Gudrun winter storm in southern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 2010. Vol. 262. Pp. 398-403.
Schmidt M., Hanewinkel M., Kändler G., Kublin E., Kohnle U. An inventory-based approach for modeling single-tree storm damage – experiences with the winter storm of 1999 in southwestern Germany. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2010. Vol. 40 (8). Pp. 1636-1652.
Peltola H., Kellomäki S., Väisänen H., Ikonen V.-P. A mechanistic model for assessing the risk of wind and snow damage to single trees and stands of Scots pine, Norway spruce, and birch. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 1999. Vol. 29. Pp. 647-661.
Ancelin Ph., Courbaud B., Fourcaud Th. Development of an individual tree-based mechanical model to predict wind damage within forest stands. Forest Ecology and Management, 2004. Vol. 203. Pp. 101-121.
Gardiner B., Peltola H., Kellomaki S. Comparison of two models for predicting the critical wind speeds required to damage coniferous trees. Ecological Modelling, 2000. Vol. 129. Pp. 1-23.
Nicoll B., Gardiner B., Rayner B., Peace A.Anchorage of coniferous trees in relation to species, soil type, and rooting depth. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2006. Vol. 36. Pp. 1871-1883.
Gardiner B.A., Suarez J., Achim A., Hale S.E., Nicoll B.C. ForestGALES 2 – a PC-based Wind Risk Model for British Forests. User Guide. Forestry Commission. Edinburgh, 2004.
Raupach M.R. Simplified expressions for vegetation roughness length and zero-plane displacement as functions of canopy height and area index. Boundary Layer Meteorology, 1994. Vol. 71. Pp. 211-216.
Forestry Commission, Operational Guidance Booklet No. 9 «Thinning» (Internal Guidance). Forestry Commission. Edinburgh, 2010.
Byrne K.E. Critical Turning Moments and Drag Equations for British Columbia Conifers. MSc thesis. University of British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada, 2005.
Cucchi V., Meredieu C., Stokes A., de Coligny F., Suarez J., Gardiner B. Modelling the windthrow risk for simulated forest stands of maritime pine (PinuspinasterAit.). Forest Ecology and Management, 2005. Vol. 213. Pp. 184-196.
Kamimura K., Gardiner B., Kato A., Hiroshima T., Shiraishi N. Developing a decision support approach to reduce wind damage risk e a case study on sugi [Cryptomeria japonica (L.f.) D.Don] forests in Japan. Forestry, 2008. Vol. 81. Pp. 429-446.
Mikklesen S.K. «Stormfald» : a Further Developed Version of ForestGALES Tested under Danish Conditions. MSc Thesis. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2007.
Moore J.R., Somerville A.R. Assessing the risk of wind damage to plantation forests in New Zealand. N. Z. For., 1998. Vol. 31. Pp. 25-29.
Ruel J.-C., Quine C.P., Meunier S., Suarez J. Estimating windthrow risk in balsam fir stands with the ForestGALES model. For. Chron., 2000. Vol. 76. P. 329-337.
Gardiner B.A., Stacey G.R., Belcher R.E., Wood C.J. Field and wind tunnel assessments of the implications of respacing on tree stability. Forestry, 1997. Vol. 70 (3). P. 233-252.
Raupach M.R. Drag and drag partition on rough surfaces. Boundary Layer Meteorol, 1992. Vol. 60. Pp. 375-395.
Ray D., Nicoll B.C. The effect of soil water-table depth on root-plate development and stability of Sitka spruce. Forestry, 1998. Vol. 71 (2). P. 169-182.
Orlov S.A., Shrager L.A. Research of the resistance coefficient of cedar pine crown elements. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, Matematika i mekhanika, 2011. No. 14. Pp. 103–110.(rus)
Vollsinger S., Mitchell S.J., Byrne K.E., Novak M.D., Rudnicki M. Wind tunnel measurements of crown streamlining and drag relationships for several hardwood species. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 2005. Vol. 35. P. 1238-1249.
Mayhead G.J. Some drag coefficients for British forest trees derived from wind tunnel studies. Agricultural Meteorology, 1973. Vol. 12. Pp. 123-130.
Borisevich S.A., Kamluk A.N., Rebko D.V. Opredelenie soprotivleniya dvizheniyu krony dereva [Determination of resistance to movement of the crown of a tree]. Trudy BGTU, Ser.VI fiz.-mat. nauki i inform, 2013. No. 6 (162) Pp. 34-36.(rus)
HaleaS.E., Gardinera B., Peacea A., Nicolla B., Taylora Ph., Pizzirania St. Comparison and validation of three versions of a forest wind risk model. Environmental Modelling & Software, June 2015. Vol. 68. Pp. 27-41.
Dupont S. A simple wind-tree interaction model predicting the probability ofwinddamage at stand level. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 15 August 2016. Vol. 224. Pp. 49-63.
Locatelli T., Tarantola St., Gardiner B., Patenaude G. Variance-based sensitivity analysis of a wind risk model – Model behaviour and lessons for forestmodelling. Environmental Modelling & Software, January 2017. Vol. 87. Pp. 84-109.
Duponta S., Pivatoa D., Bruneta Y. Wind damage propagation in forests. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 15 December, 2015. Vol. 214-215. Pp. 243-251.
Locatelli T., Gardiner B., Tarantola St., Nicoll B., Bonnefond J.-M., Garrigou D., Kamimura K., Patenaude G. Modelling wind risk to Eucalyptus globulus (Labill.) stands. Forest Ecology and Management. 1 April, 2016. Vol. 365. Pp. 159-173.
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Rebko D.V., Kamlyuk A.N., Borisevich S.A.
CC «Attribution-NonCommercial» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование») 4.0
