Appendix

Master thesis: Movable water barrier for the 21st century

Technical University Delft Section: Hydraulic Structures F. van der Ziel BSc September 15, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Literature Study (conclusions only) ...... 2 B. Inland Water Navigations...... 3 B.1 CEMT-classes ...... 3 B.2 Current Navigation ...... 5 B.3 Future Navigation ...... 6 C. Locations Descriptions and Selections ...... 9 C.1 Criteria ...... 9 C.2 Spui ...... 11 C.3 Dordtsche Kil ...... 16 C.4 Beneden Merwede ...... 20 C.5 Lek ...... 26 D. Dimensions UOOC Barriers ...... 28 D.1 Sill depth ...... 28 D.2 Required Width ...... 29 E. Water-storage and Water Heads...... 30 E.1 Storage Capacity ...... 30 E.2 System Management ...... 35 E.3 Expected Water Heads ...... 40 F. Costs UOOC Barriers ...... 42 F.1 Barrier Table ...... 42 F.2 Costs estimation UOOC barriers ...... 44 G. Materials ...... 49 G.1 Comparison Synthetic Fibers ...... 49 G.2 Detaild Information Dyneema® Fiber ...... 54 G.3 Information PA Fibers ...... 58 H. Variants ...... 60 H.1 Design Tree ...... 60 H.2 Design Ideas ...... 63 I. Calculations ...... 80 I.1 Definitions, Hydraulic loads and Safety Factors ...... 80

I.2 Feasibility PA screen and Dyneema® cables ...... 84 I.3 A-frame (support towers) ...... 86 I.4 Cable Stayed Bridge ...... 92 I.5 NPV ...... 119

Used Sources Appendix ...... 128 Contents of Table : : List of Figures ...... 130

List of Tables ...... 132 Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 1

A. LITERATURE STUDY (CONCLUSIONS ONLY) The arguments for the construction of a water barrier from fabric are not changed over the years. A simple, fast construction, that is almost maintenance free and therefore a barrier with low total costs should be possible.

In the 80teens and 90teens it was demonstrated that an ‘open fabric’ movable water barrier is technical possible. This was demonstrated by several researches that calculated a pre-chosen barrier and by Delft Hydraulics in a scale model test. The main reasons for not building a barrier with fabric were safety concerns. The prediction of the behaviour of the barrier and the lifetime of the material itself were difficult to estimated. These reasons are nowadays less significant. The ability to predict the behaviour of the barrier is increased by the fact that computers programs can simulate the mechanical behaviour of the barrier. Furthermore the lifetime of the material is proven to be long enough based on experience of a numeral applications in inflatable dams and separation screens.

Another outcome of the literature study is that an elaborate research and optimization is not made for fabric water barriers. There were several problems indicated that can be (probably) solved with a good structural design. There is one thesis found that give some structural considerations but still focus on a pre-chosen type of fabric barrier. For example one of these barriers is called the “spinnaker” barrier. To open and close this barrier, the barrier is moved in the vertical and horizontal plane, there are several movable parts that make the barrier complex. Presumably there are some possibilities to design a more simplified structure. The literature study also indicates that an ‘open fabric’ water barrier is presumably more suitable in rivers as a weir or high water diverting structure, than as a storm surge barrier at sea or at a lake. This mainly because off the lack of high waves. Nevertheless the own-periods of the barrier are still very important for the stability of the barrier. Several possibilities are indicated to solve this issue of resonation.

Going into more detail many design questions are unanswered. For example: - Is it useful to connect the fabric/screen on the sill? - How can the connection of the screen with the floating body or sill be detailed? - What is the best way to open and close the barrier? - How to minimize the wearing damage to the fabric when shifting along the sill and pillars? - How to store the fabric/screen?

Overall; it can be concluded that the feasibility and restrictions of a open fabric water barrier are still not known. By given more inside information about the possibilities of this type of barrier, by several configurations, and a more optimized design this type of barrier may become the 21e century water barrier.

MAIN RESOURCES: Driessen, A.H.K. "Berekening van de Spinnakerkering." Afstudeerrapport. 1998. Karelse, M.K. "Een flexibel separatiescherm in een drinkwaterbekken." Master Thesis. 1996. Knippels, A. and E. Pechtold. "Project Keersluis Heusdensch Kanaal." Thesis. Netherlands, 1992. Pilarczyk, Krystian W. "Geosynthetics and Geosystems in Hydraulic and Coastal Engineering." Rijkswaterstaat, Delft: A.A. Balkema, 2000.

Regeling, H. J. Bouwdienst Rijkswaterstaat. "Spinnakerkering, oriëntatie onderzoek." only) (conclusions Study Literature : :

Modelonderzoek. 1989. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 2

B. INLAND WATER NAVIGATIONS In this appendix the inland (water/vessel) navigation in the Northern delta area is specified. The CEMT-classes, current and future navigation are mentioned.

B.1 CEMT-CLASSES All the inland waterways are divided in CEMT-classes. These Europe navigation classes, defined by the Conférende Européenne des Ministres the Transport, indicated the maximum standard size of vessels that can be (and must be) accommodated on the waterway. In Figure 1 the classes for the northern delta are given for each waterway.

Figure 1: CEMT-classes. (RWS 'c' 2007) (AVV)

In Table 2 (on the next page) the standard vessel sizes are given for normal vessel, and for push- towing navigation (in Dutch ‘duwstel’). These values are the boundary conditions for the dimensioning of the barriers. Furthermore along the waterways, Lek, Beneden Merwede, Dordtsche Kil and Spui, are existing structures like bridges with navigation clearance and widths that can be taken as a minimum boundary condition. In Table 1 these values are given.

Beneden [m] Lek Dordtsche Kil Spui Merwede construction 11.62 (movable) 15.54 (fixed) - - (bridge) height 13,06 (fixed) construction 29,98 (movable) 110 220 (tunnel) -

(bridge) width + 2*75 (fixed) draught at water 5.0 4.4 4.9 3.35 level = NAP Table 1: Constructions along the four waterways. (RWS 'b' 2007)

At the Lek the bridges are fixed, no movable bridge exist, and at this moment at the Spui and

Dordtsche Kil there are no bridges at all.

Inland Water Navigations Water Inland

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 3

Table 2: CEMT-classes specifications. (RWS 'b' 2007) *) 30 cm of safety freeboard is considered and the height depends on the number of stacked containers.

Inland Water Navigations Water Inland

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 4

B.2 CURRENT NAVIGATION An indication of the number of vessel-passages per year in the northern delta is given in Figure 2. (Dashed lines are estimations.) It can be concluded that the Beneden Merwede and Dordtsche Kil are key waterways for the inland navigation. And that at the Spui a minimum of vessel passages take place. Nevertheless it is still a Va class waterway so navigation is taken place.

Figure 2: Number of (inland) vessel-passages per year. (RWS 'c' 2007) (AVV)

It is mentioned that not only ‘normal’ sized vessels and push-towing combinations are using these waterways. Also vessels with exceptional sizes have to be accommodated in the Beneden Merweden and Dordsche Kil; like crane vessels and sea pontoons.

The vessel-passages in Figure 2 are mainly due to cargo shipping. Recreational navigation, as can be seen in Figure 3, is avoiding some of the big shipping waterways.

Figure 3: Number of recreation passages per year. (RWS 'c' 2007) (AVV)

A special group of recreational navigation is the ‘standing mast route’. This vessel-route is going through the Dordtsche Kil. A special requirement for this waterways is that unhindered passage of 30 m height must be guaranteed. In case of a bridge a movable bridge is required. (RWS 'f' 2008) (RWS 'g' 1999)

Inland Water Navigations Water Inland

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 5

B.3 FUTURE NAVIGATION

B.3.1 INTENSITY VS. TONNAGE For the new container terminal on the second ‘Maasvlakte’ (big port area in the north sea that is under development) it is stated that 45% of the cargo is transferred onto inland vessels. If this is reasonable is a point of argument; because of the climate changes and the (frequenter) interference in the water-system (like the UOOC). These two factors lower the reliability of the water network.

The inland water navigation had a percentage of over 40% in freight transport in the year 2000. Between 2000 and 2020 the inland transport will grow from 39 up to 58-69 billion tonnage- kilometers. Nonetheless the number of inland Dutch vessels (largest inland navigation fleet of Europe) is declining. The tonnage per vessel, on the other hand, is strongly increasing. This can be seen in Figure 4 where the percentage of tonnage classes is given in the past; see Table 3 which lested a prognoses for 2015. (RWS 'h' 2004)

Figure 4: Percentages of the tonnage classes in the Dutch active inland vessel fleet. (RWS 'h' 2004) (AVV)

Table 3: Percentages of the tonnage classes with prognoses for 2015. (RWS - ZL 2000) (AVV)

It can be concluded that scaling-up is the trend instead of intensification. However there are

some studies to lengthen certain vessels up to 150 m. These bulk cargo vessels will operate Inland Water Navigations Water Inland (mainly) in the port area, and it has to be stated that the push-towing vessels in this area are still : far much longer already.

Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 6

For the recreational navigation some intensification is forecasted. In Table 4 it is assumed to have an increase of 1% per year. The underlined sluices are near the area of interest.

Table 4: Increase of passage recreational navigation.(RWS - ZL 2000)(AVV)

B.3.2 UOOC For the UOOC research a prognoses up to 2050 or even further is required. This information is (for now) not available. However the tendency shown, decrease of passages and enlargement of the tonnage, will probably proceed (to a certain extend). This is logical because the current infrastructure cannot cope with increasing vessel sizes. (Alteration of the infrastructure would be extremely costly.)

With no increasing of the intensity no additional shipping lanes, than already required, have to be considered for the new barriers. Normally two shipping lanes are required, so no overtaking is at the structure possible. Because some of the barriers are located in intensive used waterways this local obstruction can induce too much hindrance for the shipping industry. In many big waterways there are four shipping lanes beside each other. Consequently more than two shipping lanes have to be considered for the Dordtsche Kil and Beneden Merwede. This local decrease of capacity could be a less of a problem for the Lek, because the waterway is more stretched and has fewer branches and turns.

The UOOC provide no extra value and, as can be concluded, induce possible negative issues for the (inland) shipping industry.

B.3.3 LOCKS One of the questions for the UOOC research is if there is a need for one or more locks alongside of the barriers.

The main matter for the need of the locks is the closing frequency of the barriers. Locks are assumed to be required if the barriers will close every year. If the frequency is one in ten years: no locks will be required. Also the issue of how many locks are required depends on the closing frequency and on some other issues that are stated below. The frequency depends on the management of the new water-system as discussed in appendix E.2 and in the main report in paragraphs 3.3 and 5.2.

Another point of considerations is the duration that the barriers are closed. High water waves on

the rivers have a duration time of several days. When the UOOC barriers open after the wave is Inland Water Navigations Water Inland passed the inland navigation will suffer great hazards. A conclusion can be that a number of : locks are required. Within this thesis it is stated that the UOOC barriers have to be able to open

with a head difference and let the water wave partial discharge through the New Waterway. (It Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 7 must be stated that we speak of a relatively high water wave where navigation is presumably still possible.)

The main water transport system have to available for 99.5% of the time. Not including natural circumstances that can cause interruptions. Deviation from this figure is possible when alternative routes are available. (RWS 'g' 1999) During a storm surge or high water wave conditions inland navigation is in principle only to a small extend hindered. There can be restrictions for navigation because of the waves induced by the vessels can weaken the levees during high water levels. However there are no regulations concerning restrictions of navigation during high water levels. Moreover it is not clear if the barriers have to fulfill the requirement of ‘De Akte van Mannheim’, that stated there has to be a free passage along the Rhine into the sea. This is during storm conditions already not possible due to the fact that the Maeslant and Hartel barrier are closed and the lock near the Hartel barrier is not in operation.

It can be stated that along the Spui barrier no lock is required. Since there is a relatively low intensity of navigation and an alternative route is available. The need for a lock along the Lexmond barrier is mainly depending on the closing frequency. The need for a lock in the Dordtsche Kil and one in the Beneden Merwede can be a point of discussion. If one of the two is realized there is an alternative navigation route. The choice for one or two locks depends on the closing frequency and the required capacity. Two locks besides each other in one of the two waterways is, of course, also a possibility. The Dordtsche Kil can be a good option for the lock if there is a single one required. This because the “standing mast route” is going through the Dordtsche Kil. However the chosen barrier types in the waterways are maybe more normative for this case. (The new barrier may restrict the clearance height.)

For the possible required locks the CEMT-classes are normative for the dimensions of the locks. This is because push-towing combinations have to be accommodated in the northern delta area that are far longer than the normative 135 m long locks, as specified by regulations.

Inland Water Navigations Water Inland

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 8

C. LOCATIONS DESCRIPTIONS AND SELECTIONS This chapter is not an extensive research to get the best possible location pinpointed within meters. The choices are based on reason and gives an idea where the ultimate location might be. At first, in this chapter, the criteria for the location choices are described in a technical and social (architectural) point of view. The social viewpoint in this chapter is partly done by A. Dijk. Second: each waterway is illustrated and described and a location choice for the barrier has been made.

C.1 CRITERIA The barrier locations, for each new barrier, are chosen with a few criteria in mind.

C.1.1 TECHNICAL VIEWPOINT The technical criteria that are used: - Costs:  total length new barrier;  length connection required connection dam with primary levees;  length possible strengthening (or heightening) of the existing levees in rural area;  length possible strengthening (or heightening) of the existing levees in urban area;  possible alteration/reconstruction hydraulic structures; - Free space for a lock (if required); - Clear approach for vessels; - Avoiding obstructions like urban areas, harbours, etc.; - Integrated with existing structures like for instance (low) levees; - Locations of existing tunnels or other structures that are loaded by water levels.

And the costs-indicators 1, to give an indication of the costs ratio between the different locations along the waterways, are: - strengthen (or heighten) the levees in a rural vs. urban area a costs factor of 1:3 is used. Costs indication: €2.5 M and €7.5 M per kilometre is used. - alter an in- or outlet: from €0.5 M up to €3.0 M per in- or outlet. An average of €1.5 M is used. This figure is also used for alterations on small harbours and marinas. - constructed a new primary levee: about €4.2 M per kilometre. (WsHD 2007)

C.1.1.1 Elaboration As stated: it is not certain that strengthening (or heightening) of the existing levees and altering existing hydraulic structures is required. This because of the uncertainties, at this moment, about the future water levels in the Haringvliet. It is assumed that water-storage on the Haringvliet cause higher water levels than can be expected without storage on the Haringvliet. Consequently it is assumed that strengthening is required. It is also assumed that only one lock in Dordtsche Kil or Beneden Merwede will be required.

Along the Spui, Dordtsche Kil and the Beneden Merwede, a lot of water in- and outlets are located. The largest inlet construction along the Spui is the Bernisse inlet. In Figure 5 this inlet is shown. These hydraulic structures are located in and on the levees and are part of the primary water defence. They have to be altered or reconstructed if the maximum water level raises.

and Selections Descriptions Locations : :

1 These cost-indicators includes; purchase assets, design, construction, overhead and BTW. The

cost indicators are estimations based up on a report from Waterschap Hollandse Delta in 2007. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 9

Figure 5: Hydraulic structure along the Spui.

All the hydraulic structures (levees, inlets, etc) between the new barrier and the Haringvliet or Hollands Diep have to be altered because of the higher expected water levels. Also in front of the new barrier in the Beneden Merwede the maximum water level will presumable raise. But also hydraulic structures at the back of the new barrier can be subjected to different hydraulic loads than without a barrier. In case of the Spui, Dordse Kil and Beneden Merwede: flow from the Old Meuse could cause damming up water at the back of the barrier. To which extend is highly uncertain and this phenomenon is (for now) not further considered.

Small hydraulic structures like in- and outlets, marinas and small harbours are taken in consideration for the location choice. Because of the many uncertainties towards the extend of alteration that is required, they all count as one object without distinction between the different objects. (It is assumed that all these or similar structures are still present in 2050. There is no extensive research done about construction-plans of hydraulic structures.) An exception is made for large hydraulic structures, like for instance tunnels that are running underneath a waterway, these are considered separately because they require in potential large and costly alterations.

C.1.2 SOCIAL VIEWPOINT The social criteria that are used: - Avoiding demolition of cultural values; - Possible impact of heightening of the existing levees; - Desired functions around the waterways:  enhance mobility by connecting urban areas;  possible green connection to enhance nature and recreation functions;  other possible functions for the “barrier building” - Future location federal highway A4 near the waterway Spui; - Impact of the barrier itself on the landscape.

Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 10

C.2 SPUI

C.2.1 TECHNICAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION The Spui channel connect the Old Meuse (near Spijkenisse) and the Haringvliet and is approximately 16 km long width a mean depth of NAP -5.55 m. To the north-west from the Spui is dyke-area Voorne-Putten (nr. 20) located, and to the south-east dyke-area Hoeksche Waard (nr. 21). (RWS Website 2009) In Figure 6 the Spui is shown with the current levees (aprox. +4.2 m NAP) and three possible barrier locations.

Figure 6: Spui channel and possible barrier locations. (Google Maps (adapted))

Figure 7 gives information about existing in- and outlets of the polders around the waterway Spui.

Figure 7: Hydraulic structures Spui. (Watermanagement map, WsHD (adapted))

In Figure 8 the first picture is taken at the first location. On the right (on the first picture) a low

levee is shown of the polder: “Zuidoord”. The second picture illustrate a typical levee and and Selections Descriptions Locations foreland along the waterway Spui. This picture gives an good indication for location 2 and 3. :

Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 11

Figure 8: Spui location 1, and Spui between location 2 and 3.

In Table 5 a comparison is made between the three locations. For the comparison it is stated that location one is the reference location for the other two locations. (That’s why the kilometers levee heightening is zero for location one.) The width of the waterway, as mentioned in the table, is almost similar to the current-carrying profile because of the steep banks. (See also Figure 8.) Most parts along the Spui are rural areas. Strengthening of the levees is, in comparison with the Beneden Merwede (urban area), not a really big issue.

width connection rural levee urban levee structure vessel waterway dam / levee heightening heightening alterations approach [m] [m] [km] [km] [number] [+ or -] Location 1 200 1000 - - 2 + Location 2 140 120 2.3 0.2 3 - Location 3 150 160 20 0.5 14 + Table 5: Technical comparison Spui.

The first location is the nearest to the Haringvliet. Only a few existing levees have to be heightened. A long connection dam must be constructed. A part of the dam runs along an existing low levee. Only two water in and outlets structures have to be altered. Vessels have a clear view when approaching the barrier.

The second location is situated further away from the Haringvliet. Some kilometers of levee heightening is required, but this location gives a smaller total width (width barrier and length

connection dam). One harbour, two houses on the foreland and some in and outlets must be altered or replaced. This locations is just to the North of a new natural area (Natura 2000). The location is placed in the middle of the bends, this can be a problem for inland water navigation.

Location three is further to the north. This location is also considered because of the future construction of the federal highway A4. Location three gives a similar total width as location two. Vessels have a clear view and straight approach towards the barrier. Several harbours, houses and in- or outlets have to be altered. Another possible problem are the main outlets that are located in front of the barrier. During a storm these outlets have to discharge rain water on a higher water level.

C.2.1.1 Costs comparison In Table 6 an costs indication is given in million euro’s for the three locations without the costs

for the new movable barrier. (See also costs-indicators mentioned in chapter C.1.1 Technical and Selections Descriptions Locations : : Viewpoint.)

Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 12

connection rural levee urban levee structure M € dam strengthening strengthening alterations

Location 1 4.20 0 0 3.0 7.20 Location 2 0.50 5.75 1.5 4.5 12.25 Location 3 0.67 50 3.75 21.0 75.42 Table 6: Costs indication locations Spui. 2

The second location is little less than twice as expensive as the first. The third is ten times more expensive than the first.

C.2.2 SOCIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION There are several opportunities to combine functions and fulfil several needs and or wishes from society. In Figure 9 the current and future developments along the waterway Spui are presented. As mentioned before the federal highway A4 is planned to run nearby Oud-Beijerland and Spijkenisse. Also some recreational and environmental wishes are being fulfilled. The low levees around the polders Leenheeren, Beningerwaard and Zuidoord will be partial removed so the water can goes in and out with the tide. (Tide is at the mouth of the Spui more than a meter.) The inundated polders will form with the shallow banks in front of the polders a differential natural area. Plans are made to open the Bernisse creek for motorboats. Beside the inlet of Bernisse a small lock will be constructed if the plans are followed through.

Figure 9: Current and future developments along the Spui. (Beijer, Ravenstijn en Bossenbroek 2008)(Google Maps)

For location one the conclusion can be made that the barrier will be located right beside an environmental area. The barrier could be an barrier for the ecological system.

The waterway is a natural barrier in the landscape. To cross the waterway, one can only use the ferry at Nieuw-Beijerland. A bicycle and food crossing between Spijkenisse and Oud-Beijerland

2 - For now it is assumed that the cost for a movable barrier is the same at every location.

- The cost for strengthening the levees in front of location one is not calculated. and Selections Descriptions Locations : : - In the comparison table under the structure alterations are the in- and outlets and harbours/marinas counted. The few houses that are located on the foreland are not considered

in the cost comparison. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 13 would be of added value to the area. Not only the villages will be connected but also the rural landscape Polder Beijerland and the more urban green areas near Spijkenisse will be connected. A new crossing can give an economic and a recreational push forward. In Figure 10 the new highway and barrier with the crossing functions is drawn.

Figure 10: Architectural idea Spui location 3. (A. Dijk)

Beside the functions that are already mentioned, combining even more functions would be possible. This location is on the edge of a vast urban area. The region is used to see large hydraulic structures and statements in architecture. This urban landscape give the opportunity to combine for example a hotel, spa or marina with the new water barrier and waterway crossing.

The “barrier building” could create awareness of water risks and opportunities. An idea for the ”barrier building” is to make the main barrier function; provide safety, more noticeable in the landscape around it. In Figure 11 this landscape idea is illustrated.

Figure 11: Barrier function visible in landscape. (A. Dijk)

In front of the barrier is a rural polder area where long lines from the water and levees will Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations dominate. (Right side of the illustration.) At the back, at the ”tamed water” side, some urban : development can take place along the water front. For instance amphibian housing and

recreation could take place. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 14

For the first and second proposed barrier location it is desirable to design a barrier that has a minimal impact on the rural landscape as possible. The third location have less impact on landscape and environment because of the more urban area. Because of this urban area the barrier, as a large civil structure, can be more embedded in the existing landscape.

C.2.3 CHOICE BARRIER LOCATION; SPUI The first location would be preferred because of costs and technical aspects. For this location a minimum amount of structures have to be adapted, therefore the costs are low. Though the new barrier could have a negative impact on the environmental area nearby. The second location is a good alternative, however has negative consequences for the village nearby.

For social and architectural reasons; combining this barrier with other functions, create awareness of the risks and opportunities of the water and also considering landscape values the third location is preferable.

ns and and Selections ns

Locations Descriptio Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 15

C.3 DORDTSCHE KIL

C.3.1 TECHNICAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION The waterway Dordtsche Kil connects the Old Meuse and Hollands Diep and flows between dyke-area nr. 21 and 22. Length approximately 9 km and mean depth is NAP -10.00 m. (RWS Website 2009) In Figure 12 the waterway is given and one of the main aspects are the two tunnels that run underneath the Dordtsche Kil. Increasing maximum water levels causes increasing loads on these tunnels. Further investigation is required about the considered design loads and the life time of the two tunnels. In the north, along both sides of the waterway, the area is dominated by harbours and other urban development. This urban area will increase in time; in the near future a, just to the north of location 3 east bank, a business park is planned. To the south of the waterway more rural view dominates the landscape.

Figure 12: Dordtsche Kil and possible barrier locations. (Google Maps)

Because of the urban area to the north and the Kilttunnel (road tunnel N217) the possible locations are chosen to the south. This will also diminish the length of levees that need

heightening or strengthening. Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

Another issue is Willemsdorp and the small marina beside it. In every case alterations have to be : made.

Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 16

Figure 13 gives information about existing in- and outlets of the polders around the waterway Dordtsche Kil.

Figure 13: Hydraulic structures Dordtsche Kil. (Water-management map, WsHD (adapted))

In Table 7 a comparison is made between the three locations. For the comparison it is stated that location one is the reference location for the other two locations. (That’s why the kilometers levee heightening is zero for location 1.) The width of the waterway, as mentioned in the table, is almost similar to the current-carrying profile because of the steep banks. (Except the first location.)

width connection rural levee urban levee structure vessel space waterway dam / streng- streng- alterations approach for lock [m] levee [m] thening thening [number] [+ or -] [+ or -] [km] [km] Location 1 900 650 - 1.0 2 - + Location 2 260 90 1.8 0.25 2 + - Location 3 240 70 5.2 0.25 2 + + Table 7: Technical comparison Dordtsche Kil.

The first location connects the tip of Willemsdorp with the levees of the Maria Polder. It might by difficult to construct an good connection because a primary connection dam have to be constructed through Willemsdorp. (Willemsdorp is for most part a camping holiday.) Also the construction is assumed to be more challenging because of accessibility reasons. Narrowing the mouth of the Dordtsche Kil has possible large influence on the tide and sediment transport through the waterway. The elevation of the bottom of the waterway could be altered

which is not preferred for inland navigation. Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

Also navigation towards the barrier (from the Hollands Diep) might be a problem because the : vessels have to turn more towards the middle of the Hollands Diep. If a lock will be constructed

the navigation would be even more complex. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 17

The second location is just to the south of the rail tunnel. In is necessary to look in more detail to the required space for the barrier and (possible) lock and available space between the tunnel and the first buildings of Willemsdorp. The foundations of the barrier and lock cannot be placed on the already constructed tunnel and also scour protection on top of the tunnel could be undesirable. The total width is far less than at location one. The length of urban levee strengthening is lesser than at location one because Willemsdorp is situated outside the primary levees. Good navigation is possible, however if a lock is required the desirable width of the vessel lanes could be in jeopardy.

The third location is further to the north. If the other two options are not preferable , then this third option could only be an option if the rail tunnel (either designed, altered, reconstructed) can cope with the increased loads. (Or the tunnel is removed.) Also: good navigation is possible, however if a lock is required the desirable width of the shipping lanes could be in jeopardy.

C.3.1.1 Costs comparison In Table 8 a costs indication is given in million euro’s for the three locations. (See also costs- factors mentioned in chapter C.1.1 Technical Viewpoint.)

connection rural levee urban levee structure M € dam strengthening strengthening alterations

Location 1 8.19 0 0 7.50 15.69 Location 2 0.38 6.50 4.5 1.88 13.26 Location 3 0.29 16.75 13.00 1.88 31.92 Table 8: Costs indication locations Dordtsche Kil. 3

The costs of the connection dam that is required at location one is three times higher estimated than for the other locations because at location one the dam had to be constructed in the Dordtsche Kil and Hollands Diep. The depth at this location is similar than the Dordtsche Kil. (RWS 'b' 2007) The costs for the alterations at Willemsdorp and the marina are for all the three locations the same. (Local flood-protection, individual for each house, could be a solution for Willemsdorp.)

Location three is already more expensive than location two without considering the costs of possible alteration to the (currently build) rail tunnel.

C.3.2 SOCIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION The south of the Dordtsche Kil can be seen as a rural area that is divided by transport lanes. Figure 14 gives a typical levee with a small foreland along the Dordtsche Kil that indicated this rural feeling and transport.

3 - For now it is assumed that the cost for a movable barrier is the same at every location.

- The cost for strengthening the levees in front of location one is not calculated. and Selections Descriptions Locations : : - In the comparison table under the structure alterations are the in- and outlets and harbours/marinas counted. The few houses that are located on the foreland are not considered

in the cost comparison. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 18

Figure 14: Picture at Dordtsche Kil location 2.

The Dordtsche Kil is a part of the inland water shipping route between Rotterdam and Antwerp. From the port Rotterdam a lot off cargo is shipped to Belgium (and Germany). Because it’s a busy shipping waterway the new barrier could be a landmark for this industry and for the trading spirit of the Netherlands. This concept is even more interesting because not only a waterway is present, but also a federal highway and a high speed rail track are coming together. This is particularly the case for the second proposed location.

The first location gives the largest impact on the landscape. A barrier and a new primary dam in open water. Further no environmental areas have to be considered.

C.3.3 CHOICE BARRIER LOCATION; DORDTSCHE KIL There is little difference between the locations along the Dordtsche Kil by means of architecture and landscape values. Looking at the technical criteria; location two is preferred since the first location has too many negative concerns and this location is estimated to be the cheapest option. However further investigation is required about the available space for the barrier. Foundation near and erosion protection on top of the rail tunnel could induce challenging design issues.

Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 19

C.4 BENEDEN MERWEDE

C.4.1 TECHNICAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION The Beneden Merwede is approximately 14.8 km and has a mean depth of NAP – 5.90 m. Along the north side of the several villages are located. Almost the entire length of the primary levee runs through or just in frond houses and roads. At the south of the waterway a part of the National Park ‘De Biesbosch’ is located: the Sliedrechse Biesbosch. This land is unprotected against floods. (RWS Website 2009) Figure 15 shows the Beneden Merwede and three possible locations for the new Barrier. Because of the highly urban north side of the waterway long connection dams are considered. These connections dams run over already existing low crested levees. To locate the barrier further downstream (than location one) is possible but then expensive strengthening of the levees at both sides of the Beneden Merwede is required. A small movable barrier in the Wantij is with every option required.

Figure 15: Beneden Merwede and possible barrier locations. (Google Maps)

All the connection dams runs to the Noord Bovenpolder; west from the city Dordrecht. This way the Second Merwede Harbour, the two harbours at the north side and some house districts are save behind the barrier. Also the water-treatment-plant (dark blue in the figure) will be behind the primary barrier. Another issue is the landfill. An investigation about the amount and in which degree the ground is contaminated and to what extent the pollution spread when a flooding occur could be

recommended.

In Figure 16 the Beneden Merwede is shown from the side of Sliedrecht looking back at location one. In the background the Railroad bridge cross the waterway. Also some high-voltage cables are grossing the Beneden Merwede. It’s not recommended to build the movable barrier under one of these high-voltage cables.

Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 20

Figure 16: Picture Beneden Merwede upstream of and looking back at the railroad bridge.

The multiple land use and almost the impossibility to strengthen or heighten the levees to the north side is pointed out with Figure 17 and Figure 18. Houses directly behind a levee, in front of the levee and on top of a levee is a common side along the Beneden Merwede.

Figure 17: Urban areas along the Beneden Merwede.

Figure 18: Multiple land use along the Beneden Merwede.

In Figure 19 hydraulic structures are indicated along the Beneden Merwede. Three structures at the north side play a role in the location choice.

Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 21

Figure 19: Hydraulic structures Beneden Merwede. (Water-management map, WsHD (adapted))

In Table 9 a technical comparison is made for the three locations. The width of the waterway, as mentioned in the table, is almost similar to the current-carrying profile because of the steep banks. (See also Figure 17.)

width connection rural levee urban levee structure vessel space waterway dam [m] streng- streng- alterations approach for lock [m] thening thening [number] [+ or -] [+ or -] [km] [km] Location 1 310 1950 2 11.5 9 + + Location 2 340 7500 2 3.7 3 + + Location 3 230 14000 - - 0 -+ + Table 9: Technical comparison Beneden Merwede. 4

For all three locations the structures at the south side of the waterway have to be altered. Only the harbours and the three smaller constructions as shown in Figure 19 are counted. (The last three as one object; similar costs to alter one harbour.) There is enough space for a lock, and if there is one required in the Dordtsche Kil or Beneden Merwede, the Beneden Merwede seems to be more suitable because of the greater width of the waterway.

The first location is the shortest connection between the primary levees of Dordrecht (dyke-area 22) and Sliedrecht (dyke-area 16). However the length of urban (primary) levees that has (presumably) to be strengthened is more than eleven kilometers. The barrier has to line up with railroad bridge that has some pillars splitting up the waterway.

The second location is at Giessendam. A longer connection dam where Sliedrecht and the landfill are situated behind the new primarily water-barrier.

The third location is at Hardinxveld Giessendam, in line with the bank of the Nieuwe Merwede. A problem can be that this location provokes to much water to pile up in front of the water and causes water problems up streams of the barrier. Furthermore the idea of “Ruimte voor de

and Selections Descriptions Locations : : 4 - For now it is assumed that the cost for a movable barrier is the same at every location. - The cost for strengthening the levees in front of location three is not calculated.

- The few houses that are located on the foreland are not considered in the cost comparison. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 22

Rivier” is undermined. However to the south, within the “Noordwaard” and the “Brabantse Biesbosch” already extra stream channels and overflow area’s are created for the river. Some more ‘room’ for the river is there possible. The navigation or vessel approach towards the barrier and possible lock are slightly less preferable, but depends on the final positioning of the barrier and lock. The available space is limited, and there is the probability that the barrier will be slightly oblique in respect to the middle line of the waterway / the water-flow. This indicates that there is specially attention required when detailing the barrier.

C.4.1.1 Costs comparison In Table 10 a costs indication is given in million euro’s for the three locations. (See also costs- factors mentioned in chapter C.1.1 Technical Viewpoint.)

connection rural levee urban levee structure M € dam strengthening strengthening alterations

Location 1 8.19 5.00 86.25 90.00 189.44 Location 2 31.5 5.00 27.75 30.00 94.25 Location 3 58.8 0 0 0 58.8 Table 10: Costs indication locations Beneden Merwede.

The costs indicators that are used are subjective and gives a First estimation. Especially for the Beneden Merwede is it at most important to make a better estimated of the costs for strengthening the levees. Research have to be done to know if the levees have to be strengthened or heightened and to wat extent. Also formulation of the possibilities to strengthened the levees along Sliedrecht, Nederhardinxveld and Hardinxveld Giessendam have to be formulated. The structural alterations are all relatively (to the other in the Spui and Dordtsche Kil) large harbours. A costs indication of 10 M euro’s per harbour is used. Furthermore the connection dam is not a totally new dam or levee to construct. Several levees, that are not high enough to retain the highest river discharges, already exist in the landscape. The costs estimation shows that it is preferred to investigate the third location more closely.

C.4.2 SOCIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION The Sliedrechtse Biesbosch is one of the largest natural areas in the Netherlands. A barrier with a

bicycle- and footbridge could give an impulse for the living conditions and recreation in the area.

A connection between an absolute urban and absolute natural area. Figure 20 illustrates this. To which extent recreation is desired in this natural area has to be investigated. At this moment the policy, for the Sliedrechtse Biesbosch, is to keep the recreation level low.

Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 23

Figure 20: Beneden Merwede urban vs. natural area. (A. Dijk)

Also a landmark; ‘the Watergate’ to the Dordrecht and Rotterdam could be an option. Rotterdam is known by its state of the art architecture and high-rise (in Dutch perspective) buildings. Beneden Merwede is one of the main waterways in the Netherlands that connects port of Rotterdam with Germany.

Strengthening and heightening of the levees at the Northern side, at the dense urban waterfront, induce a great social impact on the living conditions along the waterway. For the connection dam (levee) at the south side it is perhaps possibilities to construct an ecological, environmental friendly, connection dam that diminish the impact on or even enhance the natural-values of the National Park De Biesbosch. And moreover; reduce the social impact of looking up to a relatively high levee at the other side of the Beneden Merwede.

Furthermore a cycling track on the levee is a possibility. Looking at Figure 21 this cycling pad good enhance the current and future cycling network of the Province “Zuid Holland”.

Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 24

Figure 21: Cycling network Province "Zuid Holland". (yellow: current cycling pads, blue and purple: planned cycling pads, green: proposed cycling pad across water barrier.) (Provincie Zuid Holland 2009)

C.4.3 CHOICE BARRIER LOCATION; BENEDEN MERWEDE The third location is preferable due to the fact that there will be no need for strengthening levees in this dense urban waterfront. Not only the social impact is kept as low as possible, but also the costs are assumed to be low. It has to be stated that this costs prediction is very roughly done to get a first indication. The possibility that the barrier causes problems up stream and possible counter actions have to be investigated. Furthermore an investigation must be done about the possibilities to connect the barrier at the north side. There is little space and if required space have to be created.

s Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions s

Location

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 25

C.5 LEK It is assumed that the Nieuwe Lek begins at Lexmond. Because there is no issue about the location of the new barrier, this chapter will only elaborate shortly about the required width of the new barrier(s) and the desired type of barrier(s) at Lexmond.

C.5.1 TECHNICAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION The Lek at Lexmond has a typical cross-section for a river in the Netherlands. Approximately, the summer-bed is 250 meter, and mean winter-bed is 800 meter wide. As indicated in Figure 22 one or two movable barriers are required to divert the high water to the South into the Nieuwe Lek towards the Nieuwe Merwede.

Figure 22: Possible barrier location at Lexmond. (Google Maps)

Figure 23 shows pictures that are taken at the location of the barrier at Lexmond.

Figure 23: Pictures of the Lek at the location of the new barrier.

Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 26

Figure 24 is a picture of the levee at location 1b where the Nieuwe Lek has to run through. In the pictures the construction of the Room for the River program is visible. Floodplains are lowered, small creeks are excavated and levees are placed back.

Figure 24: Picture of the levee where the Nieuwe Lek will be running through.

At location 1a a movable barrier will push the water into the Nieuwe Lek. To what extent the pushing up is need and also the width of the construction at 1b depends on the type of construction at 1b. There are two design possibilities: a sill (a low reinforced levee) or a movable barrier that is closed at normal river discharge and open (when desired) at extreme river discharges. The sill must be high enough to keep the water in the Lek at normal discharges, but low enough to let the extreme discharges pass over the sill. If possible, the sill solution would be the best option in the matter of costs. The required water level (and head over the sill) to generate enough discharge could be too high. And the required width of the sill could be far more than is available at the location site. The width of the sill will presumably be somewhat more than the width of the winter-bed. A movable barrier on the other hand gives more depth and therefore less resistance to the water-flow that enters the Nieuwe Lek.

The possible required width of the Nieuwe Lek is in range of the winter bed of the Lek. Probable even more because of the design plans to construct a green environmental river.

C.5.2 SOCIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION

Because of the rural landscape and natural values along the Lek, think of the floodplains that are no longer farmland because of the Room for the River programme, the impact of the barrier should be as low as possible. A barrier that is for most of the time invisible is preferred. To at other functions to the barrier, besides the water-retaining function, is not further considered at this location.

Locations Descriptions and and Selections Descriptions Locations

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 27

D. DIMENSIONS UOOC BARRIERS The required width and depth of the barrier is dependent on erosion and accretion, navigation capacity and limit flow velocities on the sill for navigation. In Table 11 the required width for different criteria and the required depth; sill height, are calculated.

WATERWAY NAVIGATION REQUIRED WIDTH width min. / max. CEMT class required sill sedim navig flow < average daily /max. lanes height ent ation 1.5 m/s [m] water dischar width (capacity NAP trans (capa (naviga level NAP ge /max. ) port city) tion) [m3/s] draught Spui (2) - 0.05 / Va / 11.4 / 140 786 1x1 -5.1 84 57 96 0.4 4.5 Dordtsche VIc / 34.2 / 260 -0.1 / 0.5 1894 2x2 -5.1 156 268 225 Kil (2) 4.5 Beneden VIc / 34.2 / Merwede 230 -0.1 / 0.6 1030 2x2 -5.1 138 268 120 4.5 (3) Lek (-) VIa / 22.8 250 0.2 / 0.8 1090 3 lane -4.8 150 142 130 / 4.5 Table 11: Dimensions UOOC barriers. (RWS 'a' 1998)(RWS 'b' 2007)(RWS 'g' 1999)(MVW waterstat 2009)(TUDelft; d'Angremond; Bezuyen; Van der Meulen 2003)

The minimum water levels are the normative low water levels with an under frequency (probability) of 1%. (RWS 'a' 1998) (RWS 'g' 1999) (The width and water levels are average estimated values.) The maximum discharge is the average maximum discharge of the ebb or flood tide. The frequency of occurrence is not clear, so the velocity criteria are only an (assumed maximum) indication for the required barrier width. The maximum draft is from a push-towing vessel and the required shipping lanes are estimated by looking at the present width, capacity and transport intensity. For this estimation and more details about the navigation on the four waterways see appendix B.

D.1 SILL DEPTH For each (UOOC) barrier, with the chosen location indicated in the table between the brackets (see appendix C for location selection), the required depth or sill height is calculated. For a new channel/waterway the depth is calculated with 1.4 time the draught of the normative vessel plus a safety factor. (TUDelft; d'Angremond; Bezuyen; Van der Meulen 2003) When we

apply this rule of thumb the required depth is over 6.3 meters (from normative minimum water level). However the existing waterways do not qualify this supposed required depth. Rijkswaterstaat guarantees a navigation depth, for example, on the Beneden Merwede of NAP - 4.4m with a water level at NAP 0.0 m. (RWS 'b' 2007) The requirement, according to Rijkswaterstaat, is that a depth of 4 m below the normative minimum water level is guaranteed. (Vessels with a deeper draught can navigated during high tides.) (See also main report paragraph 4.1.) (RWS 'g' 1999) The sill depth in the table is calculated as the normative low water level minus 4 meters draught and minus 1 meter for safety reasons. The extra safety is regarding to wind and vessel induced

waves and the fact that the sill is made from concrete and can induce more damage than a Dimensions UOOC Barriers UOOC Dimensions

sandy river bed. : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 28

D.2 REQUIRED WIDTH The required width for the four barriers are calculated for three different criteria, namely: sediment transport (prevention of aggregation and erosion), vessel navigation and flow velocity (also for navigation reasons).

In is stated in the requirements that no erosion or aggregation may occur due to the new barrier. It is assumed that with a width of 60% of the original waterway the sediment transport is not altered to a great extend.

The required width for navigation is depending on the normative vessel width and the required capacity: number of navigation lanes. It is assumed that the total required width of barrier is continuous. (No middle pillars.) For Spui the width is 4 times the vessel width plus 11 m of side wind safety (SWS) (coastal area). (RWS 'g' 1999) For the Dordtsche Kil and Beneden Merwede this is 7.5 times the vessel width plus SWS. And for the barrier in the Lek: 5.75 times the vessel width plus SWS. (TUDelft; d'Angremond; Bezuyen; Van der Meulen 2003)

It is also stated in the requirements of this report that the maximum water velocity going through the barrier, under normal conditions and when there is a navigation function, is limited to 1.0 m/s and preferred 0.5 m/s. However the used discharge is the maximum tide discharge and there for 1.5 m/s is used to give an rough indication. The required width is then the discharge divided by 1.5 times the average water depth at the sill. (When applying 0.5 m/s the required width is far greater than the existing waterway.)

Dimensions UOOC Barriers UOOC Dimensions

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 29

E. WATER-STORAGE AND WATER HEADS This quick scan in storage capacity of the Northern and Southern Delta gives some insight in the system management and water levels that can be expected when the UOOC barriers are in operation. This appendix has three sections, namely: storage capacity, corresponding system management and the expected water difference over the barriers; the water heads. This appendix gives additional information for paragraph 3.3.2 ‘Management of the new water- system’ and paragraph 4.3 ‘General Assumptions’ of the main report and specify the water levels for chapter 7 ‘Design Specifications’ of the main report.

E.1 STORAGE CAPACITY In this chapter a rough calculation is made about the required water-storage in case of a storm surge event and closed UOOC barriers.

E.1.1 STARTING POINTS

E.1.1.1 Room for the River Within the ‘Room for the River’ program a study is made for water-storage on the Volkerak- Zoommeer. (South of the Hollands Diep and Haringvliet.) Also water-storage on the basins Grevelingen and Oosterschelde were investigated.

Some conclusions: - Depending on the which basins are used for water storage; the water levels are expected to be equal or up to 60% lower than the (current) NHW levels on the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep (in a future long term scenario); - To obtain this in the model the Europoort was closed at a predicted +2.5m NAP (instead of +2.9m NAP) the discharge sluices in the “Philipsdam” and “Krammer” were altered and the Oosterschelde barrier was early closed at low tide one tide cycles before the storm surge. This means less sea water in the system and lower water levels to begin with; - The measure is predicted for 1/1430 year in the year 2015 and 1/25 year in the long term (2050 – 2100); - Due to leakage of the Oosterschelde barrier the effective water-storage on the Oosterschelde is roughly the same as on the Grevelingen basin; (Although the Grevelingen basin is 1.5 times smaller.) - When looking only at hydraulic aspects; storage on the Grevelingen is more desirable than on the Oosterschelde; - The ecological consequences on the short term are small because there is time enough, for the salt ecological systems, to recover. (Relatively low storage frequency of fresh water.) However, on the long term the ecological damage could by extensive with extinction of certain flora and fauna; - Moreover, water-storage on the Grevelingen (that is a salt lake) and the Volkerak- Zoommeer (future salt lake) is undesired; - The high water levels occur for approximately 1.5 days if the capacity of the discharge sluices are increased; (RWS 'i' 2004)

Heads Water and storage - In comparison with the UOOC concept even lesser sea water is flowing into the system. The

Europoort is not early closed (this is currently highly undesired due to economic reasons), but Water

the UOOC barriers separate the Northern basin around Rotterdam and the Southern basins. : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 30

Furthermore the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep (Southern basin) can be used more effective as water-storage basins. The Northren basin on the other hand, is not or barely used for water- storage.

E.1.1.2 Assumptions - Relatively high river discharge is already present before storm event; - Average water level at the Meuse (Northern basin) just after closure of the Europoort: +2.8m NAP; - If the water level at the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep is not decreased before the storm surge; than the water level at the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep, just after closing Europoort and Haringvliet barrier, is +1.8m NAP. (This relatively high water level is due to the already relatively high runoff from the rivers.); - If the water level at the Haringvliet is decreased before the storm surge, the water level is 0.0m NAP just before the storm surge; - Maximum discharge of the Waal in 2100: 11,350 m3/s (Deltacommissie Veerman 2008); - Maximum discharge of the Lek in 2100: 3,350 m3/s (Deltacommissie Veerman 2008); - Because of the leakage of the Oosterschelde barrier this basin is just as effective as the Grevelingen basin (RWS 'i' 2004); - The connection (discharge sluices) between the basins are wide enough to assume open connection; - Drainage of surrounding polders on the basins is negligible; - Water level at Grevelingen is in the future +0.45m NAP because of sea level rise (RWS 'i' 2004); - Water level at Volkerak-Zoommeer is +0.15m NAP (winter level) (RWS 'i' 2004); - No increase in the normative high water level is assumed: maximum water level at Haringvliet, Hollands Diep, Grevelingen and Volkerak-Zoommeer is +2.7m NAP. (More or less current NHW including the probability of failure of Maeslant barrier.)

In Table 12 the storage surface and assumed water levels are stated. The storage area Northern Basis is the storage surface between the UOOC and the sea barriers. Water levels at t=0 are the (mean) water levels just before closure of the Europoort. The maximum water levels are the present NHW levels.

Discharges: maximum discharge Lek 3350 m3/s maximum discharge Waal 11350 m3/s

Storage surfaces: (H) Haringvliet 116.6 km2 (HD) Hollands Diep 107.4 km2 storage area Southern basin 224 km2

Outer dyke area Lek 40 km2

Outer dyke area Krimpen 3.7 km2 storage and Water Heads Water and storage New Meuse 50.8 km2 - Old Meuse 26.6 km2

2 Water Merwede 33.4 km :

Waal 10.5 km2 Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 31

Spui and Dordtsche Kil 20 km2 storage area Northern basin 185 km2

(VZ) Volkerak-Zoommeer 90.5 km2 (O) Oosterschelde 354.7 km2 (G) Grevelingen 141.8 km2 storage area Zeeland 587 km2

Water levels: water level t=0 Rotterdam 2.80 m + NAP water level t=0 Haringvliet 1.20 m + NAP water level t=0 Grevelingen 0.45 m + NAP water level t=0 Volkerak 0.15 m + NAP max. water level H and HD 2.70 m + NAP max. water level other basins 2.70 m + NAP Table 12: Storage areas and water levels. (Rijn op termijn 2007) (WsHD 2007) (RWS 'i' 2004)

The uses storage surface figures are estimated water surfaces during a high water event. It has to be stated that these are only rough figures . The storage capacity is highly dependable on the level of the outer dyke areas along the waterways and corresponding water levels. In addition polders that are allowed to flood and ‘Room for the River’ projects are not considered. Also discharge of water into the sea during low tides (throughout a storm event) is not considered.

E.1.2 STORAGE CALCULATION The storage calculations are made with average water levels which is a highly simplification of the reality which involve gradients. Nonetheless it is assumed that these calculations can give more insight in the proposed UOOC water-system. In Table 13 a calculation is made for the possible river discharge and the closure time of the Maeslant barrier (and UOOC barriers) for different water-storage systems. The water-storage capacity between the UOOC and sea barriers (Northern basin) is not used in this calculation.

storage and Water Heads Water and storage

-

Water

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 32

available Maximum allowed water discharge Maximum allowed closure time for .. storage for .. hour closure time MB [m3/s] m3/s river discharge [hour] [m3] 18 24 30 36 42 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 (1): H + HD (t=0; 1.8m 3.36E+08 5185 3889 3111 2593 2222 46.7 23.3 15.6 11.7 9.3 NAP)

(1) + VZ 5.67E+08 8747 6560 5248 4373 3749 78.7 39.4 26.2 19.7 15.7 (1) + VZ + 8.86E+08 13670 10253 8202 6835 5859 123.0 61.5 41.0 30.8 24.6 O (2): H + HD (t=0; 0.0m 6.05E+08 9333 7000 5600 4667 4000 84.0 42.0 28.0 21.0 16.8 NAP) (2) + VZ 8.36E+08 12895 9671 7737 6447 5526 116.1 58.0 38.7 29.0 23.2 (2) + VZ + 1.15E+09 17818 13364 10691 8909 7636 160.4 80.2 53.5 40.1 32.1 O Table 13: Indication for the required storage capacity.

Two different water levels at t=0 are investigated. In the first option (1) the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep (Southern basin) has a water level of +1.2m NAP just before closure of the sea barriers. In the second (2) the water level is lowered to (or kept low at) 0.0m NAP. (More or less mean water level.) This difference in system management is further addressed in the next chapter of this appendix.

In the two tables below (Table 14 and Table 15) these two starting points are taken. Further it is assumed that there will be only water-storage on the Southern Basin and that the levees surrounding theses basins will be heightened and strengthened to cope with the increased normative high water level. The Grevelingen and Oosterschelde are not used as water-storage basins for ecological reasons. Volkerak-Zoommeer and the Northern basin are not taken into account. Making use of the Volkerak-Zoommeer lowers the water levels approximately from 0.2m up to 0.5m. (In the current water-system 0.2m is predicted during a high water wave. However, with the UOOC concept a more closed system is obtained: only the water levels of the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep are lowered.) The Northern basin is further addressed in the next section; ‘System management’.

[m] river discharge [m3/s] storm duration [hour] 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 18 1.8 2.4 2.9 3.5 4.1

24 2.0 2.7 3.5 4.3 5.1

storage and Water Heads Water and storage - 30 2.2 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.0 r

36 2.4 3.5 4.7 5.8 7.0 Wate : : 42 2.6 3.9 5.3 6.6 8.0

Table 14: Expected NHW levels (+ NAP) at Haringvliet and Hollands Diep, t=0: +1.2m NAP. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 33

[m] river discharge [m3/s] storm duration [hour] 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 18 0.6 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.9 24 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.1 3.9 30 1.0 1.9 2.9 3.9 4.8 36 1.2 2.3 3.5 4.6 5.8 42 1.4 2.7 4.1 5.4 6.8 Table 15: Expected NHW levels (+ NAP) at Haringvliet and Hollands Diep, t=0; +0.0m NAP

Higher levees are required in the future for the increasing water discharge from the rivers. The idea here is to give the levees around the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep some extra overhead to cope with the event of a storm surge and a high water wave on the rivers. In the tables the new NHW level is calculated. As indication: the red boxes indicated an increase of 0.6m or larger; a NHW of +3.3m NAP.

E.1.3 CONCLUSIONS It is impossible to formulate a good prediction about the amount of water-storage that is required without knowing the closing frequency and strategy of the UOOC barriers. This frequency depends on the required safety level, the safety/failure probability and the frequency of a storm surge and high water wave event.

Table 13 gives an indication of the required storage surface. Assuming a water discharge of 8000 m3/s and a closure time of the Maeslant barrier of 30 hours: than the storage basins Southern and Volkerak-Zoommeer are required with a lowered water level (of 0.0m NAP at t=0) for the Southern basin.

If even more water has to be stored when the Oosterschelde and Grevelingen are not preferred due to ecological reasons. (Assuming that the UOOC concept is useful: the frequency of closing is in comparison with ecological recovery relatively high.) Moreover, there are studies to open up the basins to introduce tide influence once again. Within these plans also a non closable Oosterschelde is proposed which means that water-storage during storm conditions is not

possible. Heightening the levees around the Haringvleit and Hollands Diep is as well an option to consider. At this moment the levees have to be strengthened. In the future, with higher water waves, the levees probably have to be heightened. With an extra head these levees can also provide for more water-storage. This is as stated in the mean chapter under the assumptions.

Water-storage in the Northern waterways is not taken into account. Looking from a hydraulic perspective, water-storage around Rotterdam is possible. However it is highly unpredictable due

to unknown water levels and political choices of maximum allowed water levels. In the following storage and Water Heads Water and storage chapter some elaboration is presented on this possibility. -

Water

: Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 34

E.2 SYSTEM MANAGEMENT Until thus far the UOOC barriers were closed at the same time as the Maeslant barrier. An optimization is possible by alter the closing sequence of the barriers. The assumption that the high water wave is already occurring and a storm surge is predicted still stands.

E.2.1 LOWERING WATER LEVELS BEFOREHAND When using, besides Haringvliet and Hollands Diep, Grevelingen, Oosterschelde and Volkerak as temporary water-storage basins; the maximum water level will be under the current normative high water level of +2.7m NAP. However as mentioned, Grevelingen is a salt water basin with rare ecological values and the Oosterschelde is salt sweet gradient basins. So using this basins for storing of fresh water can be environmental catastrophic.

When applying the second option; lowering the water level at the Haringvliet, the water level must be lowered to approx. 0.0m NAP. (This is more or less the normal mean water level.) Accordingly the idea is to avoid build up of the water level in the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep (Southern basin) before the storm event occurs. This seems to be possible by closing off the Spui and Drecht barriers before the other barriers (UOOC and sea barriers). This is illustrated in Figure 26 and Figure 26. (The closing management of the Haringvliet barrier during a surge is not altered; at low tide discharging river water, at high tide closed.)

Figure 25: Lowering water level Southern basin before storm event.

To which extent this is possible and also the duration of the closure of the UOOC barriers depends on the (future) discharge capacity of the Haringvliet barrier and Volkerak sluices, tides and the (already high) water discharge from the rivers. The discharge capacity of the Haringvleit barriers is already relatively large, if required the discharge capacity towards sea (through the Haringvliet barrier and through the Volkerak sluices, Krammer sluices and Oosterschelde barrier) can be increased. (This can have several benefits that are further discussed in paragraph E.2.4.) In this cause water is avoided from flowing in, and a large amount of water can be discharges during ebb conditions.

Approximated water levels at t=0 at the Southern basin:

- Closing the UOOC at the same time as the Maeslant barrier: +1.2m NAP (or even higher); storage and Water Heads Water and storage - Avoiding sea water from flowing in: +0.8m NAP (still high water wave flowing in); -

- Avoiding sea water and increasing discharge capacities towards sea a level of 0.0m NAP Water

or even lower can be viable. : (If the high water wave is not yet according a lower water levels can be obtained. Assumed

that the predictions are more accurate in the future than nowadays.) Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 35

In Figure 26 the time sequence of closure is indicated. The Spui and Drecht barriers are closing early at t=-2 the other barriers closes at t=0. T=-2 is stated as an indication for 2 tide cycles.

Figure 26: Avoiding water build up in at the Haringvliet and the Hollands Diep.

The closure time depends on the above stated factors. By closing of the two waterways the inland navigation is hazard, however an optional route through the Boven Merwede is available. A structural disadvantage is that he Spui and Drecht barrier have to be able to withstand a water difference in both direction. (Also illustrated in Figure 26.)

A great management disadvantage could be that this strategy might induce early closure of the Europoort, as explained in the main report paragraph 3.3.2.

E.2.2 DIVERTING RIVER WATER BEFOREHAND Another strategy is to divert the river water before the storm surge take place. Closing the Lexmond and the Merwede barrier induces lower water levels around Rotterdam (Northern basin) before the actual storm surge occurs. Not only less river water is flowing in, also the incoming sea water is still able to flow into the Southern basin (through the Spui and Dordtsche Kil). (See also Figure 27.)

Figure 27: Avoiding high water wave flowing into the Northern basin.

The prior disadvantage of invoking early closing of the Europoort (as in the previous strategy) is counteracted. This strategy could delay or even prevent closure of the Measlant barrier. To which extent the water levels in the Northern basin can be lowered and which effect this has on the closing frequency of the Maeslant barrier is highly unpredictable without an extended model

study. Also the assumed that is made in the main report that it is undesired to close the Heads Water and storage - Measlant barrier more frequentl in the future, is highly discussible because of the development

of the second Maasvlakte. Water : To discharge a high water wave without the New Waterway is only possible to a certain extent.

The discharge capacity of the Haringvliet barrier towards the sea is however probably sufficient. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 36

When required, a larger discharge capacity can be obtained by increasing the capacity of the Volkerak sluices, Krammer sluices.

The Lexmond and Merwede barrier are closed at the start of the surge build up. Approx. one tide cycles before the actual storm. The Beneden Merwede and the Lek are closed for inland navigation, however for the Merwede an optional route is available through the Dordtsche Kil.

E.2.3 COMBINATION It is also possible to combine both strategies by first lowering the water levels in the Southern basin and then diverting the river water beforehand into the Southern basin. (As is illustrated in Figure 28.) The indicated time steps represent approximately one tide cycle or 12 hours for each step.

Figure 28: Combining management strategies.

The complexity of the water management is highly increased and inland navigation has varying orders which introduce a higher probability of ship collisions. The communication towards the inland navigation (directly towards the vessels) have to improve or the inland water navigation have to halt for a longer period.

E.2.4 EXTREME OPEN In the ‘extreme open’ strategy the capacity of the discharge sluices and barriers are increased extensively. Both strategies from above can perform better if the discharge capacity towards the sea is increased. The ‘extreme open’ strategy can enhance both strategies, but another option is to increase the discharge capacity even to such extend that the UOOC barriers don’t have to be closed before the sea barriers do. Furthermore, this strategy diminish the hazards for inland navigation and extra discharge capacity also means the possibility of lowering the closing frequency of the UOOC barriers and Europoort. (See also above and section 3.3.2 mean report.) Additionally more water disposal

during low tides throughout the storm event is possible. An extra benefit from increasing the discharge capacities is that after the storm surge the river water can be disposed relatively fast, and consequently lowers the water levels in front of the UOOC barriers. This does not only shortening the closure time of the barriers but maybe also make it possible to open the UOOC barriers without a head difference over the barriers. In addition, the delays in water levels throughout the basins are diminished and provides more control and adjustment at all times if required. Heads Water and e

To which extent these benefits holds, in relation to the already relatively large discharge capacity storag of the Haringlviet barrier, is uncertain. - In addition this strategy holds many alterations in the water-system of the Northern delta which

is expensive and makes the system even more complex. Water

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 37

E.2.5 LEAKING In the storage calculation from above the possible water-storage on the Northern basin is not taken into account. In this paragraph the possible storage is estimated and translated in a ‘leaking discharge’ of the UOOC barriers. The design of the UOOC barriers can be simplified if leakage is allowed.

The amount of river discharge that is required to invoke closure of the UOOC barriers is up till now unknown. The Europoort closes at the water levels of +2.9 NAP Rotterdam and +2.7 NAP Dordrecht. Water runoff from the rivers will increase the water levels in the Northern Delta. However there is no data available about the current increase in water level (due to river discharge) or which amount of runoff can be stored causing no safety problems. In Table 16 an estimation is made about the available water-storage between the sea and UOOC barriers and the corresponding possible leaking discharge.

Rotterdam Rotterdam storage surface 145 km2 water level t=0 Rotterdam 2.80 m + NAP estimated average water slice 0.15 m + NAP Rotterdam storage capacity 21750000 m3

Lek 2 Lek storage surface 40 km water level t=0 Lek 1.00 m + NAP max. water level Lek 3.30 m + NAP 3 Lek storage capacity 92000000 m

storm duration (closed Europoort) 30 hours

Allowed leakage Rotterdam (Merwede barrier) 201 m3/s 3 Lek (Lek barrier) 852 m /s 3 total allowed leakage 1053 m /s %

13.2 3 from river discharge of 8000 m /s Table 16: Estimation leaking discharge UOOC barriers.

The maximum water level at the Lek is the current NHW level. (MVW waterstat 2009) (The maximum discharge through the Lek is not altered in the future. (Deltacommissie Veerman 2008)) The possible storage around Rotterdam is hard to predict because it is more a political choice

than a costs optimization. The lowest outer dyke area lays at +3.25m NAP. To keep this area storage and Water Heads Water and storage from flooding no water-storage is possible at all. - The two considered basins are connected and therefore this estimation has an even greater fault

margin. Water : :

The storm duration; closed Europoort, has the most impact on the allowed leaking discharge.

This dependence can be seen in Figure 29. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 38

2000

1500

1000

500 leakage [m3/s] leakage 0 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 storm duration [hours]

Figure 29: Leaking discharge vs. storm duration.

It is assumed that the UOOC barriers, Lexmond and Merwede barrier in particular are allowed to leak several percentages of the river discharge.

E.2.6 CONCLUSION To strategies are discussed for the management of the new water-system. For both the assumption is made that only the Haringlviet, Hollands Diep and Volkerak-Zoommeer are used for water-storage. ‘Lowering water levels beforehand’ increase the storage capacity be means off lowering the water levels in het Haringvliet and Hollands Diep before the storm surge occurs. The possible discharge towards sea (in capacity and time) is normative for the degree of increased water- storage. ‘Diverting river beforehand’ focus on the river discharge and delaying closure of the Europoort. It is assumed that extra discharge capacity towards sea is required for this strategy. Also a combination could be promising if the strategies are placed in order. However the complexity of the water-system is then highly increased. It is possible that the water-storage is not enough. In that case the levees around the Haringvliet and Hollands Diep have to be heightened. Grevelingen and Oosterschelde are ‘spared’ because of environmental values. (These assumptions are made in the mean report.)

A better performance can be expected for both strategies if the discharge capacities towards the sea, Haringvliet barrier and Volkerak, Krammer sluices, are relatively large and therefore (if sufficient enough) increased. The extent of the benefits are uncertain. This ‘extreme open’ option is in line with current ‘Room for the River’ projects and studies, and also with the ecological wishes to enhance the delta area by more water basins that are under the influence of the tides. The ‘extreme open’ concept does not only delay closure of the Europoort but also insures a faster level drop after the storm event. This is promising for the design of the UOOC barriers because the barriers are not required anymore to open with a head difference. (This can be the case with the other strategies already. Therefore it is assumed, in the mean report, that the barriers can open without a water difference.) Further benefits are that the water discharge into sea is also increased during the storm surge

and delays between the basins are diminished and provide more control and adjustment at all Heads Water and storage times. -

Water

In addition it is assumed that the UOOC barriers, Lexmond and Merwede barrier in particular are : allowed to leak several percentages of the river discharge.

Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 39

E.3 EXPECTED WATER HEADS The expected water heads over the UOOC barriers can be roughly estimated with help of the calculations from above.

With the assumptions made in the conclusions from above the NHW level at the Haringvliet will increase from (nowadays) +2.7m NAP up to +3.2m NAP.

The actual water level in front of the barrier depends on, among other things, wind setup or setdown. With a North-West wind, which is typical for a storm surge, there will be setdown in front of and setup at the back of the barrier. The water head over the UOOC barriers is in this case decreased. (As illustrated in Figure 30.)

Figure 30: Wind setup North-West wind.

However, to take a more conservative approach the wind setup (0.5m) and setdown (0.5m) are assumed the other way around. Also to be conservative the water level in the Old Meuse is set on t=0, and at the Haringvliet at a late time with maximum water-storage.

The Lexmond and Merwede barrier have to cope with an incoming river and divert this stream in another direction. It is assumed that this cause so called ‘flow setup’ of 1.0m at both locations. The Lexmond barrier ‘have to rise’ the water level to go into the Nieuwe Lek and the Merwede barrier has the total discharge to turn, but is placed in line with the stream bed of the New Merwede.

There will be a negative head acting on the UOOC barriers (Lek, Drecht) if the choice will be made to increase the storage capacity on the Haringvliet and the Hollands Diep by lowering the water levels at for hand. It was stated that a water level of 0.0m NAP should be sufficient. The water level at the Old Meuse is chosen to be the (average of Rotterdam and Dordrecht) closure level of 2.8m NAP.

E.3.1 CONCLUSION Here the estimated normative expected water heads are given for each barrier. Worst-case scenario is taken in terms of closing strategy and above mentioned hydraulic loads. So the presented figures are not at the same time, nor with the same strategy.

Spui barrier: storage and Water Heads Water and storage Positive head = - water level Old Meuse at t=0 (+2.8m NAP) + water level Haringvliet (+3.2m -

NAP) + 2*wind (0.5m) = 1.4m Water

Negative head = water level Old Meuse at t=0 (+2.8M NAP) – water level Haringvliet (0.0m NAP) : + 2*wind (0.5m) = 3.8m

Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 40

Figure 31: Normative water levels Spui and Drecht barrier.

Drecht barrier: The same as the Spui barrier.

Merwede barrier: Positive head = - water level Old Meuse at t=-1 (+0.8m NAP) + water level Nieuwe Merwede (+3.2m NAP) + 2*wind (0.5m) + ‘flow setup’ (1.0m) = 4.4m Negative head = non

Figure 32: Normative water levels Merwede barrier.

Lexmond barrier: Positive head = - water level Lekback at t=-1 (+1.0m NAP) + water level Lekinfront (+3.4m NAP) + 2*wind (0.5m) + ‘flow setup’ (1.0m) = 4.4m Negative head = non

Heads ter Figure 33: Normative water levels Lexmond barrier.

storage and Wa and storage

-

Water

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 41

F. COSTS UOOC BARRIERS Within this appendix the costs for the UOOC barriers are estimated by using reference projects.

F.1 BARRIER TABLE Within Table 17 the functions, the type of gates, barrier dimensions, hydraulic loads and costs are indicated for several existing movable water barriers. With the help of this table there is a (rough) costs estimation made for the UOOC barriers in the next paragraph.

Costs UOOC Barriers UOOC Costs

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 42

Costs UOOC Barriers UOOC Costs : :

Table 17: Comparison existing barriers. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 43

F.2 COSTS ESTIMATION UOOC BARRIERS In this appendix a costs evaluation for the UOOC barriers is made. In Table 17 an overview of movable barriers is given, and by means of this overview a (rough) costs estimation is made. The stated costs are the construction (material, labour, equipment), the uplift (profit, risk, overhead) and the design costs. The maintenance and operation costs are not included, these are addressed in the conclusions.

F.2.1 ESTIMATION BY MEANS OF GRAPHS Using the barrier table three graphs are drawn. (See Figure 34 and Figure 35.) In the first graph the dependence between the costs and the width of the gate (or barrier width) are drawn, in the second the costs and the gate height, in the third the costs and the corresponding surface area of the gates. In the used data set the gradient (water head difference over the barrier) is found to be independent of the barrier costs. The Lith and Thames barrier are left out because the indicated costs of these two barriers are strongly questionable.

450 25 400 350 20 300 250 15 200 10

150 gate width [m] width gate 100 [m] height gate 5 50 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 cost [million €] cost [million €]

Figure 34: Gate width and height vs. barrier costs.

In the first graph the “balgstuw” at Ramspol and the Ems barrier are located above the drawn line. (These two barriers seems to be a good design given the width of the structure and the structure costs.) The distance between the dots and line give an indication about the accuracy to use the graph (line) for the UOOC barrier costs prediction. For now it seems that a prediction by means of the gate height give a better prediction, although it would be logical that the width of the gate is a better indicator. Also the spread of the points signify that there are not enough data points and the costs estimations made by these graphs are just rough estimations. For the third graph the Maeslant barrier is left out because of the extreme large gate surface area.

Costs UOOC Barriers UOOC Costs

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 44

3500

] 3000 2 2500 2000 1500 1000

gate surface [m surface gate 500 0 0 100 200 300 400 cost [million €]

Figure 35: Gate surface area vs. barrier costs.

In Table 18 the costs for the UOOC barrier are given that are estimated with these three graphs. The barrier (or gate) width for the UOOC barriers are the chosen widths that corresponds with the required widths in appendix D; ‘Dimensions UOOC barriers’. The gate height is just a first estimation. Furthermore a minimum barrier costs is set for the Spui barrier at 60 M euro’s and at the Lek barrier: a second inlet barrier for the Nieuwe Lek is not considered.

*M€+Estimated costs by means of; barrier gate surface width height surface average 2 width [m] height [m] [m ] Spui 100 8.8 880 60 100 60 73 Drecht 240 8.8 2112 290 100 190 193 Merwede 210 9.9 2079 240 155 190 195 Lexmond 120 9.8 1176 75 150 100 108 total: 670 37.3 6247 665 505 540 570 Table 18: UOOC barrier costs estimation.

The average costs estimation is the average of the costs prediction by means of the gate width, gate height and gate surface area. If the Maeslant and Ems barrier are not taken into account, because of the exceptional great width, the costs estimation is merely altered. Not included in the table is that, for instance, for the Merwede barrier a long connection levee is required that cost around 60 M euro. (See appendix C for location choice.)

F.2.1.1 Accuracy Within this paragraph the accuracy of the graphs and thus the barrier costs estimations is elaborated. In the previous paragraph only the graphs are specified, in this paragraph Table 19 is presented where a costs estimation of the existing barriers (as described in Table 17) is made. This table give some insight in the variances of the different estimations and if they under- or overestimating the UOOC barrier costs. Within the table the stated ‘real costs’ are the actual costs of the barriers.

Estimated costs by means of; DIFFERENCE gate gate gate average real gate gate gate average

[M €] width height surface costs width height surface

Costs UOOC Barriers UOOC Costs : : Visor 60 40 70 57 62 -2 -22 8 -5

Ramspol 290 85 170 182 95 195 -10 75 87 Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 45

Hartel 110 130 120 120 140 -30 -10 -20 -20 Ems 550 90 250 297 290 260 -200 -40 7 Maeslant 550 690 660 633 650 -100 40 10 -17 total: 1288 1237 323 -202 33 51 abs. total: 587 282 153 135 Table 19: Accuracy of the graphs for barrier costs prediction.

The green columns on the right side specify the difference in the estimated and real costs. A plus sign is an overestimation and a minus sign an underestimation of the costs. It can be seen that the “balgstuw” at Ramspol is strongly overestimated and that the Ems and Maeslant barrier are even more out the equilibrium. (All highlighted in red.) The total ‘fault’ and the absolute total ‘fault’ are also given. In Figure 36 the deviation of the estimations can be seen in a diagram.

width height surface average real

690 660633650 550 550

290 297290 250 170182 140 110130120120 70 85 95 90 60 40 57 62

Visor Balgstuw Hartel Ems Maeslant

Figure 36: Accuracy costs estimation. *M €+

The estimations by means of the gate height is underestimating the barrier costs except for the Measlant barrier. This costs prediction is assumed to be inaccurate, also because of the fact that the majority of gates are in the same ranch of height, where the Maeslant barrier is an exception. However the average costs estimation over all five barriers seems to be the most accurate, followed by the surface area. Especially the “balgstuw” at Ramspol and Ems barrier are overestimated. Considering the average costs estimation only the “balgstuw” is overestimated. It seems to that this barrier is, considering the costs, well designed.

In can be assumed that the costs estimation by means of the width, overestimate the barrier

costs and that the 670 M euro’s (without maintenance and operation costs) can be seen as an upper limit. However the number of barriers that are compared is low and therefore the estimation can only be seen as a (very) rough estimation.

F.2.2 ESTIMATION BY MEANS OF RATIO’S Another method to give a costs estimation is by means of ratio. For seven barriers the ratios;

costs-width and costs-surface are given in Table 20. The highest and lowest ratios are highlighted Costs UOOC Barriers UOOC Costs in red. It can be concluded from this data that the “balgstuw” at Ramspol is the less expensive : barrier.

Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 46

costs UOOC barriers by; costs width surface costs /widt costs / costs / width costs / 2 [M €] [m] [m ] h [M € / surface [M ratio [M €] surface m] € / m2] ratio [M €] Kromme Nol 39 50 425 0.780 0.092 546 600 H. IJssel 97 81 934 1.195 0.104 836 679 Visor 62 108 810 0.574 0.077 402 501 Hartel 140 147 1370 0.950 0.102 665 668 Ramspol 95 240 1968 0.396 0.048 277 316 Ems 290 360 3060 0.806 0.095 564 620 Maeslant 650 360 7920 1.806 0.082 1264 537 average: 196 192 2355 0.929 0.086 651 560 Table 20: Costs estimation by means of ratios.

The two green columns on the right are the costs estimations for all four UOOC barriers. This costs estimation can be seen as the lower limit of the barrier costs, because this estimation considers the total width of the four barriers and not four barriers separately. Considering the existing barriers with a gate width and surface area that is in range with the UOOC barriers, namely; Visor, Ramspol, “Hollandsche IJssel” and Hartel barrier: in that case the UOOC barriers cost 550 M euro. It is assumed that this is the lower limit.

F.2.3 INVESTMENT In Figure 37 a graph is shown with on one hand the costs of five barriers and on the other axes the length of the levees that did not (or to a less extend) have to be strengthened or heightened due to the construction of the corresponding barrier. (The Hartel and Maeslant barrier are taken together as the Europoort barrier.)

350 300 250 200 150

100 heightening [km] heightening

reduced length levee levee length reduced 50 0 0 500 1000 investment [million €]

Figure 37: Investment – length reduced levee heightening.

This graph gives some inside in the investments of a movable barrier project. The length of riers levees that do not have to be altered determines the investment that can be made for the construction of a barrier. It have to be stated that the costs of levee alteration is far more expensive in urbanized areas than in rural areas. (Factor 1:3.) This is not taken into account.

Costs UOOC Bar UOOC Costs If an investment is made for the UOOC barriers of 900 M euro’s the length of avoided levee :

alteration has to be around 350 km. This is quite possible in the (urbanized) Northern Delta area. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 47

F.2.4 COSTS EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS The construction costs of the UOOC barriers are roughly estimated to be in the range of 550 M up to 670 M euro’s. (These are the construction, uplift and design costs, and without maintenance and operation costs.) When considering a life-cycle costs analysis, the required investment (at present time) for the construction, maintenance and operation of the barrier for the required life-time of 100 years, an extra 30% has to be taken into account for a conservative construction like a vertical lifting gate. Considering an inflatable dam, like a the “balgstuw” at Ramspol, an extra 45% should be taken into account. This higher value is due to the fact that is it assumed that the fabric must be replaced every 30 years. The life-time of the fabric has a great influence on the investment. The extra costs, in this case, for 120 years life-time is minimal. Even considering these figures an inflatable dam can be 15% up to 50% less expensive. (WsHD 2007)(Beijer, Ravenstijn en Bossenbroek 2008) (GSW 2002)

In addition some costs issues concerning fabric as a construction material is that there is little experience with designing and construction of a fabric water barrier. Therefore the ‘repetition- effect’ that normally decreases the costs is minimal. However this can be seen as an opportunity to increase knowhow, for Dutch companies, about fabric barriers, especially due to the fact that there are four barriers required for a UOOC Rhine Mouth. Furthermore these barriers could be design and constructed in such way that they are adaptable in time. Furthermore; in paragraphs 5.3 and 7.4 of the main report some design issues are discussed. The costs of the UOOC barriers is also influenced by these unusual design issues. It is assumed that the barriers don’t have to be water tide, which reduces the costs. The barriers that have to be able to withstand also a (large) negative head are probably more expensive.

Eventually it can be stated that the required investment for the UOOC barriers with a life span of 100 year, lays between the 700 M and 1000 M euro’s. The difference are due to the uncertainties about the design issues and applying fabric or steel as an construction material.

Costs UOOC Barriers UOOC Costs

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 48

G. MATERIALS First an introduction and a comparison is given about synthetic fibers. Within this first paragraph a conclusion is formed about the material choice for the movable ‘open fabric’ water barrier. Second; detailed information about the chosen materials are given.

G.1 COMPARISON SYNTHETIC FIBERS High strength fibers perform especially good under tensile conditions. This characteristic is due to the configuration of the polymers. Normally these polymers are randomly placed and slides along each other when the material is under tensile loading. (The material will extend drastic.) However when the polymers are placed straight along each other more friction within the material can be obtained. Higher stresses can be endured and there is less strain. In other words; the contact area is increased and there for the ‘van der Waals’ forces are increased. This straitening of the fibers can be done in several ways. The molecules in aramid plastics straiten themselves under the right conditions. Akzo and Dupont invented this method. For Dyneema® no special molecules are required. Here polyethylene is in hot water swollen and through “gel spinning” and cooling made into high strength fibers. (Stiching Nationaal Centrum voor Wetenschap en Technologie 2009) Furthermore Vectran® fiber is thermotropic, it is melt-spun, and it melts at a high temperature. Aramid fibers are isotropic, it is solvent-spun, and it does not melt at high temperature. HMPE fibers, like Dyneema®, are gel-spun, and it melts at a low temperature.

PP (polypropylene) and PA (polyamide) area general synthetic fibers that are often used (in combination with rubber) for inflatable dams. Nylon is a polyamide and is used in the “balgstuw” at Ramspol in the Netherlands. PET (polyethylene terephtalate; a polyster) and PE (polyethylene) are other general purpose synthetics polymers.

Some high strength fibers are 5: - Stabilenka®, from Akzo Nobel, is made from PET; HMPET (High Molecular Polyester). - Kevlar®, from DuPont, and Twaron®, from Teijin, are made from PA polyesters, also called aramid; UHMPET (Utra High Molecular Polyester). - Dyneema®, from DSM Dyneema, is made from PE polyesters; UHMPE (Utra High Molecular Polyethylene) - Vectran®, from Kuraray America, Inc, is a liquid crystal polymer (LCP) fiber.

Carbon fibers are not mentioned because of the minor strain, fragile and great weir and tear of the material. E-glass, or glass-fibers, are used in combination with the general synthetic materials and also to enhance LCP materials. E-glass is a relatively heavy fiber with relatively high tensile strength. When applied as an additive fiber the material will be stronger but also more fragile with less strain. (Naeff 2009) Stabilenka® is one of the materials that can be glued, however these parts (or repairs) are strongly weakened. The material is relatively new and used for geotechnical purposes.

Materials

: 5 Stabilenka® is a registered trademark of Akzo Nobel. Dyneema® is a registered trademark of DSM. Kevlar® is a registered trademark of DuPont. Twaron® is a registered of Teijin. Vectran® is a registered

trademark of Kuraray America, Inc. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 49

The Dyneema® fiber has an extreme high strength weight ratio. It is 15 times stronger than steel on a weight-to-weight basis. And the weight of a cable made from aramid-polymers with the same strength as a cable made from Dyneema® weighs 50-80% more. In Table 21 and Table 22 some strength, diameter and weight comparison are presented for two Dyneema® ropes, four ropes manufactured with different fibers and two steel wires.

Table 21: Strength and weight for various diameter ropes. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

Table 22: Diameter and weight for various rope strengths. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

It can be seen that the strength of the synthetic ropes from the UHM type (in the table indicated with; high tenacity fiber types) are far greater than that of normal synthetic polymers and steel wires. The difference between Dyneema® and the other UHM ropes lies not only in the weight. In Table 23 the chemical resistance and the fatigue of three main fiber types are presented.

Polyethylene Aramid Polyamide distilled water ++ ++ ++ sea water ++ ++ ++ ammonium hydroxide ++ + + benzene ++ ++ ++ kerosene ++ ++ ++ toluene ++ + + UV resistance + - 0 fatigue bending + 0 0

fatigue wear and tear + 0 0 cutting resistance ++ + 0 Table 23: Chemical resistance and fatigue. (Driessen 1998)(Naeff 2009)

Materials First of all; all fibers are sensitive for UV-light but the aramid high strength fibers are especially :

sensitive. Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 50

The wear and tear resistance of the material that is made with the fibers is normally provided by the added material to ‘hold’ the synthetic fibers in place. In case of a “balgstuw”; reinforced rubber with polyamide is used. However Dyneema® fibers have already a good resistance against wear and tear. Furthermore; aramid and other polyester products (UHMPET) are more sensitive for fatigue than Dyneema®. Polyamide (PA) is better resistance against fatigue than polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE) and polyethylene terephtalate (PET). In Figure 38 the first difference is presented in a graph.

Figure 38: Tensile fatigue life compared. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

It can be seen that the endurance of aramid is poor in comparison with Dyneema® and LCP. (Vectran® (LCP) is the most flexible fiber available. Strength and other properties of Vectran® are similar to that of Kevlar®.) Looking in the lower range of loading (percentage of the breaking strength) PET performance far better than steel. For a water barrier that is in operation ones every few years it can be (too) easily said that the endurance is not normative. However due to waves, repeated loading is present.

More important is the extension / elongation of the ropes. In Table 24 the strains-parameters for several materials are given. And in Table 25 a comparison is made with normal construction steel.

elongation at break [%] Nylon / balgstuw (PA) 20 Stabilenka (HMPET) 10 Kevlar and Twaron (HMPET) 3 - 4 Dyneema (HMPE) 3 - 4

Vectran (LCP) 3 Table 24: Strain for several fibers.(Naeff 2009)(Driessen 1998)(DSM - Dyneema 2009)

steel fabric Materials : : S355 S460 Dyneema PA

tensile strength [Gpa] 0.51 0.53 3.6 1.0 Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 51

design strength (0,2% strain) [Gpa] 0.355 0.46 - - E - module [Gpa] 210 210 116 12 density [kg/m3] 7850 7850 975 1140 elongation at break [%] - - 3à4 20 strain; yield value [%] 1.69 2.3 - - Table 25: Steel vs. fabric. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) (Driessen 1998) (TUDelft 2003)

For the fabric, the screen, of the barrier a material is desired that has a great strain. This is because the fabric has to withstand peak stresses that are hard to predict. A great strain can spread these stresses and provide therefore more safety. If we look at the general synthetic materials like PET, PP and PA small difference in strain and strength are present. PP is the weakest, but has the greatest strain. PA and PET are similar in strength, however the strain of PA is far greater. This was one of the reasons to design the “balgstuw” at Ramspol with PA. Another reason was, as already mentioned, that PA is less sensitive to fatigue than the others. (Naeff 2009)

For the cables of the ‘open fabric’ barrier a great tensile strength in combination with a low train is required. The stresses in the cables can be relatively accurate predicted and the safety is given by a safety factor, or in other words a bigger diameter cable. This has almost no influence on the costs nor design of the barrier. However the strain of the cable can have great consequences for the barrier. If the extension of the cables are relatively large the barrier can move too far out of position to keep aligned with the sill and / or land heads. In addition the behavior of the barrier is harder to predict because of the different tensile tresses in, and consequently different extensions of, the cables. Vibrations however are decreased when applying Dyneema® ropes. The strain of a Dyneema® robe is greater than for a normal steel cable.

A extensive costs prediction for the synthetic cables are not made. This depends on the composition of the material, coatings, storage, required life time, etc. Merely a ratio of the costs, strictly as an indication, is given in Table 26.

costs ratio indication Balgstuw (PA) 1 Stabilenka (HMPET) 3.5 Kevlar and Twaron (HMPET) 5 Dyneema (HMPE) 5 Vectran (LCP) 5.5 Table 26: costs ratio indication synthetic fibers. (Driessen 1998)(DSM - Dyneema 2009)

G.1.1 CONCLUSION First of all a distinction in material have to made for the two main components of the ‘open fabric’ movable water barrier. Namely the screen itself and the cables that are holding the

screen in place.

G.1.1.1 Screen For the screen PA is assumed the best option. Robustness is given by the large strain capacity of

the material that is capable of dispersing peak-stresses. Also for the “balgstuw” at Ramspol PA Materials was chosen for PA within multiple rubber layers. The required thickness and weight of the : material is greater than Dyneema®, however the barrier is hanging in the water and the weight

is assumed not to be normative. (This depends highly on the final design.) Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 52

PA is similar to PET and performs better in the endurance test than steel, however less than Dyneema® or LCP. Furthermore, in combination with rubber, the surface of the material is more roughly than the other synthetic materials. As a result the connecting between the screen and for instance the sill is easier to construct. Stabilenka® could be an alternative because it still has a great strain capacity. But considering the costs; PA is chosen above Stabilenka®.

G.1.1.2 Cables For the cables of the ‘open fabric’ barrier a synthetic cable is desired mainly due to the strength weight ratio. Dyneema® fibers looks to be the best option for the barrier cables. UV resistance, wear and tear and the endurance of this fiber are better than Arimed (Kevlar® and Twaron®) and LCP fibers (Vectran®). The costs of these fibers are in the same range.

Materials

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 53

G.2 DETAILD INFORMATION DYNEEMA® FIBER Dyneema® is a very strong fiber, invented and manufactured by DSM Dyneema. It is a HMPE (High Modulus Polyethylene) fiber made from UHMwPE (Ulra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene). The strength of the fiber is due to an unique gel spinning process, also developed by DSM Dyneema. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

G.2.1 FIBERS In Table 27 Dyneema® fiber range is given. The SK78 and SK75 are suitable fibers for the cables of an ‘open fabric’ water barrier.

Table 27: Dyneema® fiber range. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

In Table 28 and Table 29 the mechanical and physical properties of the Dyneema® fibers are given.

Table 28: Mechanical properties Dyneema® fiber. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

Materials

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 54

Table 29: Physical properties Dyneema® fiber. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

Every synthetic material is influenced by UV-light. The ultraviolet radiation from sunlight accelerates the oxidative reactions of the polymers. In Figure 39 a graph is presented about the strength retention of an uncoated 8 mm diameter Dyneema® robe.

Figure 39: Strength retention Dyneema® fiber. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

Theoretically large diameter ropes are less sensitive to ultraviolet radiation, however the rope construction is normative. In most laid and braided rope constructions, each strand comes to the outer surface. It is advisable to use protective measures such as coatings or non-load bearing jackets. Dyneema® and polyester have after nine Months almost the same retention rate, however polyester is far more quicker at it is 50% strength.

In Table 30 the resistance of the Dyneema® fiber against the most important chemicals are given.

Materials

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 55

Table 30: Chemical resistance Dyneema® fiber. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

In can be concluded that the resistance against chemicals is good. The strength of Dyneema® ropes do not decrease in water. On the contrary; properties like tensile fatigue are even increase by the cooling effect of the water. Although, when the ropes are used in salt water and afterward dried out the strength is reduced. (A fresh water wash after usage is required to remain full strength.) Also biological Dyneema® fibers causes no problems. The fiber does not stimulate undesired growth and not is sensitive to any attack by micro-organisms. (DSM - Dyneema 2009)

G.2.2 ROPES / CABLES As mentioned the cables or ropes are made with the Dyneema® fibers and among others coatings are added. However the required strength and corresponding diameter of the ropes, for using in a water barrier design, are exceeding the existing maximum Dyneema® rope of 183mm. In 2009 a test was performed with such a rope and the maximum tensile strength before breaking was 20040 kN. (Concerning a Quintas Gama98® HMPE Dyneema® rope, tested by Lankhorst Ropes, QUINTAS & QUINTAS – OFFSHORE.) (Lankhorst Ropes 2009)

It is possible to make large ropes and rule of thumb can be applied for estimating the breaking strength of these ropes: the breaking strength increases with the square root of the diameter. (R. Bosman, DSM Dyneema)

For example: A Dyneema® rope of 100mm has a strength of 6,000 kN, thus: 1.83^2*6000 = 20,093 kN This gives almost the same figuere as tested.

With this rule of thumb Table 31 and Figure 40 are optained.

Dyneema® SK75 diameter breaking Materials : : cable strength

D T,SK75 T,γ Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 56

mm kN kN 24 500 455 50 1,500 1,364 100 6,000 5,455 150 13,500 12,273 200 24,000 21,818 250 37,500 34,091 300 54,000 49,091 350 73,500 66,818 400 96,000 87,273 Table 31: breaking strength Dyneema® SK75 ropes. (For T,y a material safety factor of 1.1 is applied.)

100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000

20000 breaking strength [kN] strength breaking 10000 0 24 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 rope diameter [mm]

Figure 40: Breaking Strength Dyneema® SK75 ropes. (With a material safety factor of 1.1.)

In comparison with a steel cable: For a 200mm steel calbe A=31416 mm2. With fy,d = 900 N/mm2 gives a strengt of 28,274 kN. For a Dyneema® rope of 200mm the strength is 24,000 kN.

Materials

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 57

G.3 INFORMATION PA FIBERS There are many different combinations with general purpose synthetic materials. In this chapter PA combined with rubber will be discussed on the basis of a reference project; namely the “balgstuw” at Ramspol in the Netherlands.

G.3.1 REVERENCE PROJECT “BALGSTUW” The fabric that is used for the “balgstuw” at Ramspol is made by Bridgstone Japan. Multiple layers of polyamide (PA; nylon) and rubber in rolls of three meter wide. These rolls were “weld” together. In Table 32 some figures are given about the fabric.

LOADING: head 4.4 [m] max. water level +3.55 [m NAP] sill height -4.65 [m NAP} design probability of failure 1/2000 [year] closing frequency 1.1 [../year] average loading 200 [kN/m] max. Loading *) 936 [kN/m] SCREEN: weight 19.2 [kg/m3] Thickness 1.6 [cm] length fabric (across) 24.3 [m] tensile strength 1300 [kN/m] shear modulus 100 [kN/m] bending stiffness 10 [Nm2/m] Table 32: Figures fabric inflatable barrier the "balgstuw" at Ramspol. ( *) with safety factors.) (GSW 2002) (J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants 2004)

After fatigue loading, ageing and relaxation from pre-stresses the strength of the fabric/screen was still over 1300 kN/m. The dynamic forces, due to wave loading, were approximated at 25% of the static load. The average static loading on the fabric during a storm is 200 kN/m. With a safety factor for the load of 1.2, a dynamic factor of 1.3, a material factor of 1.1 and an extra slope factor (geometry factor / peak-stress factor) of 3.0 the total (design) loading is was 936 kN/m. During maintenance small cracks can be filled with self-curing rubber and bigger cracks are covered with a “sticker”. (GSW 2002) (J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants 2004)

In Figure 41 the cross section is illustrated from the screen that is used for the “balgstuw” at Ramspol. PA wires are embedded in the rubber cover layers that provides protection against UV- light, chemicals and debris.

Materials : :

Figure 41: Design screen "balgstuw" at Ramspol. (J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants 2004) Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 58

The surface roughness of the rubber is used to diverted the forces from the screen into the foundation by means of friction. This is more preferable than a clamping mechanism where the fabric is pinned down and pulls on the bolts. The water absorption of PA is relatively high with 8.5%. The water absorption of the screen (PA with rubber) is unknown but must be taken into account for a detailed stress calculation. The barrier responds passively with frequency equal to the wave frequency. No real dynamic amplifications observed. However, the dynamic response of the membrane force upstream are not equal to the forces downstream. Dynamic factor upstream is around 1.6 and downstream 1.1. (GSW 2002) (J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants 2004)

Materials

: : Appendix Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 59

H. VARIANTS In this appendix design ideas for an ‘open fabric’ movable water barrier are presented and considered with the structural design aspects, that are stated in the main report, in mind.

H.1 DESIGN TREE In Figure 42 a design tree is presented. It is used as a design method to think of new ‘open fabric’ movable water barriers. The design ideas in the three are further explained in the next chapter.

Variants Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 60

Variants

Figure 42: Design tree. (part 2) Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 61

Variants

Figure 42: Design tree. (part 1) Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 62

H.2 DESIGN IDEAS From the design tree twelve design ideas are taken and further discussed in this chapter.

H.2.1 MODULAR PARACHUTES With a modular system the stability of the individual parachutes is can be highly unpredictable because of the currents along the parachutes. Furthermore, the operation of closing can be very complex. In Figure 43 a design idea is presented where small parachutes are hanging on cables that are strained at both sides of the waterway.

Figure 43: Modular parachute barrier (top view, cross section waterway).

At first the cables and the cylinders, in which the parachutes are stored, are pulled towards the other side, second the cables are lowered. The cylinders will catch the water flow and thereby open the parachutes automatically. This can induce peak stresses in the cables. The design is flexible, no high quality foundation is needed and the storage of the screen is excellent. However the dynamic response, the abrupt closing mechanism and uncertainty about the possibility to store and open such parachutes are great drawbacks.

Other designs are possible when for instance the screen is stored submerged on the sill and pulled up by cables or struts. Or when the parachutes are hanged in place by means of a vessel or barge.

H.2.2 LAMPION-CAP BARRIER The ‘shoulder’ barrier distribute the hydraulic loads in vertical and horizontal direction. At the bottom the screen is clamped on the sill and at the sides to a beam ore disc that can rotate around a pivot in the sill. In Figure 44 this barrier is sketched.

Variants Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 63

Figure 44: ‘Lampion’ barrier (top view, cross section waterway, cross section barrier).

The needed height of the beam or disc to introduce a vertical force that is high enough for avoiding a so called ‘V-notch’ is not designed. The screen is stored (loosely) on the concrete sill which cause wear and tear problems when tide and vessel induced currents pass over the screen. Also sediment can cause problems for operation (at the pivot and stored screen). Maintenance and inspection costs is relatively high due the submerged pivot. Furthermore a sill structure is required that can distribute horizontal loads.

H.2.3 SHOULDER The ‘shoulder’ barrier distributes the hydraulic loads in vertical and horizontal direction. At the bottom the screen is clammed on the sill, at the sides and top the screen is pulled in horizontal and vertical direction by cables. The screen is pulled over a shoulder concrete structure at the sides. In Figure 45 this barrier is sketched. (In red the screen is indicated.)

Figure 45: ‘Shoulder’ barrier (top view, detail).

The shoulder (on the right sketched) insures a good connection with the embankments and

therefore a water tide barrier. No hydraulic jacks or other high maintenance mechanical parts Variants

are needed. Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 64

The screen is stored (loosely) on the concrete sill which cause wear and tear problems when tide and vessel induced currents pass over the screen. Also sediment can cause problems. Furthermore a sill structure is required that can distribute horizontal loads.

H.2.4 STEPPED KITE BARRIER Because a screen barrier is cheaper than a conventional barrier it might be interesting to investigate the possibility for a ‘stepped’ barrier. This type of barrier overcomes the design head in multiple steps. The force acting on each screen are this way reduced and might make it possible to distribute the vertical loads in another manor than mentioned thus far. In Figure 46 a ‘stepped’ barrier is sketched where floating bodies are used to overcome the vertical hydraulic loads. The bodies and the screen are stored in the sill.

Figure 46: 'Stepped' barrier with floating bodies.

The screen is stored on or in the sill and is more or less tight down duo to the floating body. The floating body is stored in the sill which increase the construction costs because of the larger required depth. Furthermore inspection is difficult.

A first estimation is made about the diameter of a cylindrical floating body from steel and a synthetic material. In Table 33 and Figure 47 the calculation is given. (Blue is input, green is output.) For the calculation a water head of 1 meter over each screen is assumed. The calculation is made per meter width, constructive safety factors are not considered and the buoyancy of the screen is neglected.

'STEPPED KITE' BARRIER without horizontal cables gravitation g 9.81 m/s^2 density water ρ 1000 kg/m^3 head (over one screen) h 1 m water depth H 8.5 m top angle screen α 30 degrees (between 25 and 90 degrees) (assumed screen shape) 0.52 radial density screen G,f 19.4 kg/m^2 thickness approx. the same as at Ramspol

STEEL FLOATING BODY diameter floating body D,s 1.7 m this is 20.0 % of the depth thickness steel body t,s 20 mm density steel G,s 7850 kg/m^3 Variants own weight steel body V,s 32.5 kN π*(D,s^2-(D,s-2*t,S/1000)^2)

*G,s*g/1000 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 65

length factor l 1.3 - estimated screen length L,s 17.7 m (H-D)*l/sin(α) own weight screen V,s,f 3.4 kN L,s*G,f*g/1000

water pressure at z=D p 9.8 kN ρ*g*h/1000 hor. water pressure F 78.5 kN p*(H-h)+0.5*p*h ver. water pressure V 45.3 kN F*sin(α)/cos(α)

total ver. load V,s,tot 81.2 kN V+V,s+V,s,f max. buoyancy B,u 89.1 kN π*D,s^2*g*ρ/1000 residual buoyancy B,r 7.9 kN B,r=> 0 TRUE SINTHETIC FLOATING BODY diameter floating body D,y 1.4 m this is 16.5 % of the depth thickness synthetic body t,y 35 mm density synthetic material G,y 900 kg/m^3 own weight polyester body V,y 5.3 kN π*(D,y^2-(D,y-2*t,y/1000)^2) *G,y*g/1000 estimated screen length L,y 18.5 m (H-D,y)*l/sin(α) own weight screen V,y,f 3.5 kN L,y*G,f*g/1000

total ver. load V,y,tot 54.1 kN V+V,y+V,y,f max. buoyancy B,u 60.4 kN π*D,y^2*g*ρ/1000 residual buoyancy B,r 6.3 kN B,r>= 0 TRUE Table 33: Buoyancy calculation 'stepped kite' barrier.

Figure 47: Calculation buoyancy.

It can be concluded that: - The needed diameter is greater than the head difference over the barrier. Especially if wave loading is taken into account wherefore more residual buoyancy is required;

- The needed buoyancy also depends highly on the top angle of the screen. A smaller angle invokes less vertical load. Thus the configuration of the screen is important to decrease the vertical load component in the screen. For instance, when considering a

“spinnaker” type of barrier the length of the screen determines the top angle; a longer Variants screen give a smaller top angle and, therefore, a smaller floating body; - A synthetic cylinder is lighter but needs a larger thickness. Therefore it is estimated that

the diameter of the floating body is reduced with only 20%; Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 66

- The weight of the screen and synthetic floating body are roughly the same order and are together 15% of the total vertical load (with a head of 1m); - A ‘stepped kite’ barrier whit this screen orientation is not suitable for the UOOC barriers because of the water heads that have to be diverted are more than 3m; - A different screen orientation could be possible and could give different conclusions.

H.2.5 FLOATING BODIES As can be seen in the calculation of the ‘stepped kite’ barrier that a floating body, that distributes the vertical forces in the screen, has to be large or supported by for instance cables. Also the orientation of the screen can be adjusted in such way that the angle at the top of the screen and therefore the vertical stress component is very small. In Figure 48 the orientation of the screen is altered.

Figure 48: Fabric barrier. (Knippels en Pechtold 1992)

However, due to the cables that are connected to the bottom of the river still a relatively large vertical load has to be diverted by the floating body. Long cables are required and the screen width as to be relatively large to make this design possible. This also increases the sill and abutment width. (Knippels en Pechtold 1992) It can be expected that the costs of the screen, sill and abutments are relatively high.

Another option is to increase the buoyancy by a second floating body or air pockets stitched in or attached to the screen. See also Figure 49.

Figure 49: Air pockets and second floating body.

The length of the screen is decreased, however manufacturing of the gate is more complex and an extra air pump installation is needed.

Still the storage of the screen (and the floating body) is a design problem; storing the floating Variants bodies in the sill and wear and tear of the screen that is shifting on the sill due to tidal currents

and ship induced waves. Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 67

If the screen is not attached to the sill, but attached to (horizontal) cables tightened between the abutments the gate can be stored at the sides in the abutments. This is done in the ‘barge’ barrier design concept.

H.2.6 BARGE Another option could by to make the floating bodies not cylindrical but use for instance a (special) barge. The buoyancy is increased and when floated in from the sides the quality of the storage of the screen is also increased. See also Figure 50.

Figure 50: 'Barge' concept. (Top view)

The screen is connected to the abutments and the barges with cables. The barges are floated in towards the middle of the waterway and are connected to each other.

In Figure 51 two screen option are presented in black and green. For the black option the screen is bended in the horizontal and vertical plane.

Figure 51: ‘Barge’ concept, two screen geometries. (cross section waterway and cross section barrier)

At the underside of the screen cables can be stitched in to distribute the loads horizontal towards the abutments. By using this method the screen will close of the waterway at the sill by Variants the vertical water pressure. (This also holds for the “spinnaker” barrier.) The cable needs to be pushed down by a hydraulic jack or hold down by a pulley.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 68

The green option is to bend the screen only it in the horizontal plane. The red circles in Figure 51 indicates current and wear problems that are discussed in the ‘side wing’ barrier design.

The design of the barge is not further detailed, however, the screen must be connected in such way that wrinkles are minimized (green option) or the screen has to form itself against the barge due to the water pressure (black option). (As with the “spinnaker” barrier at the abutments.)

H.2.7 STRUTS Trusts can be used to get the screen up or down and to distribute the vertical hydraulic load. However the number of required hinges and (assumed) steel struts invokes high maintenance costs. See Figure 52 for two possible design with struts.

Figure 52: Struts design examples.

These designs are not further discussed. Except in the form of floating vertical bodies that also can act as struts. See the ‘side wing’ design idea.

H.2.8 MATTRESS Two possible mattress ‘open fabric’ barrier design are presented in Figure 53.

Figure 53: Mattress designs, on rail and independent with vertical floating bodies.

The first one is with steel or high strength concrete beams and slides along a rail system at the bottom of the sill. The screen is connected between each vertical beams that slides along the rail. When also a bridge is required the beams can distribute the loads to the sill and bridge. If not, a more complex beam structure is required. The second design idea is to attach the screen to two vertical floating bodies that are connected to the sill and or abutments due to multiple cables. To keep the barrier stable the screen needs to be stiffened in the vertical direction. For example, steel pins can be sew into the screen. Instability due to rotation or torsion is uncertain. At both the concepts water flows occur underneath the screen. To which extent this cause Variants instability or wear to the screen is not known. In the next design idea, the ‘side wing’, more

considerations are made regarding these design problems. Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 69

H.2.9 SIDE WING This movable water barrier concept distributes the hydraulic loads in the horizontal plane towards the abutments. From both sides, where the screen is stored, the barrier closes by means of several cables. The screen is retained in vertical position with the help of vertical floating bodies. The cables are attached on these bodies. See Figure 54 for an illustration. At first sight the barrier seems to be straightforward, however the complexity increases when looking into more detail.

Figure 54: 'Side wing' design 1.

Figure 55: 'Side wing' design 2.

The floating bodies can be made from a synthetic material and together with the screen the buoyancy is similar to the weight of the elements. (No vertical hydraulic loads are present.) These bodies stiffen the screen in the vertical plane and prevent the so called ‘V-notch’. Several design issues have to be addressed, in Figure 56 two of these are pinpointed. The first issue is the sagging of the screen between the stiff bodies. If the screen is sliding on the sill great wear to friction can occur. The stiff bodies have to prevent this and have to be able to withstand

the wear, which is the second issue.

Variants Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 70

Figure 56: 'Side wing' design problems. (correspond with design 1.)

This barrier will have a relatively high leakage discharge. For the UOOC barrier this might not be a problem, however the currents underneath the screen through could cause instability of the barrier and current induced abrasion. Wear and abrasion protection are assumed to be required at the underside of the screen. To overcome the currents underneath the screen the stiff bodies may not be designed as floating bodies but as heavy sliding pillars to keep the screen close to the sill in its position.

Instability due to rotation or torsion of the whole screen can be controlled by cables that are stitched in the top and underside of the screen. These cables have to be adjustable and tightened separately from the main operation cables. Furthermore instability can occur due to wave action. The mass inertia of the barrier have to be great enough which is doubtful if floating bodies are used. This has to be further investigated. Also instability due to currents can occur when the two screens meet each other in the middle of the waterway.

All together the stability of the ‘side wing’ barrier cannot be guaranteed without extensive model testing.

H.2.10 SUPPORT TOWERS Another possibility to deal with the vertical hydraulic loads, assumed that the screen is horizontal bended, is to distribute these force into guys and support towers / pylons, the same as for a suspended (cable-stayed) bridge. In Figure 57 a possible design is presented; the so called ‘A-frame’ concept. The figure is just an indication because the height of the pylons cannot be estimated without calculations about the load distribution and comparison of costs between the height of the pylons and the length of the screen. Assumable the pylons can be somewhat lower and maybe guys at the back of the pylons are not required.

Variants Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 71

Figure 57: 'A-frame', support towers and guys, design concept.

The guys and support towers distribute the vertical and partly the horizontal forces. At the underside of the screen a cable (or cables) is attached and diverts only horizontal force toward the abutments. (See also Figure 58.) This cable is kept in place by a hydraulic jack on each side. The jacks also controls the closing and opening of the barrier. Because of the force are horizontal distributed at the underside of the screen no expensive sill structure is needed. Because of this: inland navigation will experience little hazards during construction. The barrier will be water tight due to the water pressure that press the screen onto the sill and the abutments.

Figure 58: Principle cross section guy barrier.

A benefit of this structure is that the needed length of the screen is relatively small because large vertical force can be distributed. Furthermore there is the possibility to divert water from Variants both sides as sketched in Figure 59.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 72

Figure 59: Left: diverting positive and negative water head. Right: Prefabricated top of the pylon, Martwa Wisla River Bridge, Gdansk, Poland.

The guys are not connected to the support towers, but are running through a steel frame (which is not new) that gives space for movement (which is new).

To close the barrier some extra cables are needed. In Figure 60 two sketches are presented. Both are using cables to pull the screen, that is stored at each side of the waterway, horizontal in place. After that the hydraulic jacks can lower the screen. The first sketch correspond with the sketches from above, the second is an alternative solution.

Figure 60: Closure guy barrier. (Top view)

As can be seen; even more movement of the guys at the support tower is required when looking at Figure 60. Storing the screen straight under the A-frame is assumed to be a better solution. However, still two screens are needed that have to act as one. Another solution could be to decouple the screen and guys when the screen is stored. (This can also be in a building close to the barrier.) When closure of the barrier is needed, the screen is connected to the guys and spread out over the waterway. (Two cranes, a barge and some temporary cables are required.)

The hydraulic jacks brings the screen towards the sill.

H.2.11 BRIDGE+SCREEN

The combination of an ‘open fabric’ movable water barrier and a bridge could be promising Variants because the load distribution of the two structures can be combined. Furthermore the

possibilities to store and close the barrier are increased and the behavior of the barrier when Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 73 closing is more controlled and predictable. In addition the screen length can be relatively short due to the possibility of a large vertical load distribution. In Figure 61 a rough sketch is given of such a ‘bridge water barrier’.

Figure 61: Fabric water barrier combined with a bridge.

There are several option for the storage of the screen and for the operation of the barrier. The first option (see also Figure 62) is to store the screen in a building next to the barrier. The screen is stored in a controlled environment which can extends its life-time. When needed the screen is attached to the bridge with the help of crane(s), lorry(s) and possible a barge. These machines have to be available and the closing of such a barrier is highly depended on humans and there possible mistakes. This is a major drawback.

Figure 62: Closure bridge barrier concept 1; ‘crane lift’. Variants

The second option is to attach the screen to several beams that are located under the bridge.

These beams can be lowered and pulled up again turning around a hinge. (See Figure 63.) Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 74

Because of the beams ads extra deadweight to the bridge and have to be in the order of twenty meters long this option is not considered as a good option. Another options is roll the screen down around a steel cylinder. The screen is than stored in the bridge itself. (See Figure 63.) This is somewhat similar to the early 20st century rolling gates. However, it is not sure if this option can be realized and therefore it is considered not to be a good option.

Figure 63: Closure bridge barrier concept 2 (‘hinged struts’) and 3 (‘rolling’).

Another option could be to integrate a small vertical lifting gate to drop a beam down from the bridge onto the sill as sketched in Figure 64. The bridge have to be large enough to accommodate the screen.

Figure 64: Closure bridge barrier concept 4; ‘vertical’.

However the beam must be well fitted into the sill to divert the horizontal forces. This can be an very complex and costly beam and sill design. A hydraulic jack with a cable at the bottom of the screen looks more suitable, as in closure concept 6.

The last two options are somewhat similar. In both cases the hydraulic loads are distributed vertical towards the bridge at the top of the screen and the a cable at the bottom of the screen. The bridge and cable divert the loads to the abutments and (possible) middle pillars. In the fifth option the screen is stored in one of the abutments. When needed the screen is pulled horizontally in position as with a normal curtain; this is revert as the transport stage.

Second the screen is pulled down with the help of a hydraulic jack at each abutment. (See also Figure 65.)

Variants Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 75

Figure 65: Closure bridge barrier concept 5; ’horizontal-vertical’.

In the sixth option the screen is stored under the bridge. At first cables will release the screen until it reach the water surface. After that two hydraulic jacks will pull the screen further down with the help of a lower cable. (See also Figure 66.)

Figure 66: Closure bridge barrier concept 6; ‘vertical-vertical’.

The last two option seems more realistic and promising than the other three. In both concepts the screen is stored in such manor that UV-lighting has little impact on the material. At the fifth option bypassing vessels can cause movement of the stored screen along the concrete abutment which can cause wear and biomass can grow on the screen if no water gates are installed. Furthermore, the rail system have to cope with high tensile stresses (during operation of the barrier) or additional measure have to be taken to secure the positions of the vertical cables wile diverting high water. The (dynamic) loads during the transport stage are diminished in comparison with a “spinnaker” barrier however they are still present, also in the vertical cables that are attached to a rail system. In the sixth option a system have to be designed that insures a sheltered storage for the screen (against wind loads, UV-light and for instance vandalism) and a robust simple releasing mechanism of the screen. The bridge have to be large enough to accommodate the screen.

As mentioned: the bridge ensures that there is more control, in contrast to the “spinnaker” barrier that has a similar closing mechanism, of the movement and the (lower) dynamic forces during transport and closure of the water barrier.

Also the dynamic response to wave loading is altered and assumable resonance is less likely to occur. Instead of a creating a relatively low natural frequency with a relatively large screen width, it is now possible to design the screen width (very) short. This gives a relatively high

natural frequency (in comparison to the wave loading). Variants Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 76

H.2.12 SPINNAKER The “spinnaker”, see Figure 67, is designed by prof.dr.ir. J.K. Vrijling in the 80teens. The barrier has a horizontal load distribution with at the top and bottom of the screen several cables made from synthetic fibres.

Figure 67: “Spinnaker”. (J.K. Vrijling) (top view (Regeling 1989), cross section abutment, cross section screen.

The screen is stored in one of the abutments and when needed pulled towards the other side; transport phase. After that the lower cable is lowered with two hydraulic jacks located at the abutments. The water flow and water pressure ensures that the screen will (stay) open (with some help of hydraulic jacks at both abutments). Thus the barrier is water tight due to the water pressure that presses the screen onto the sill and the abutments. The hydraulic jacks have to withstand not only the vertical but also the horizontal forces.

Small scale model test where made for testing the closing mechanism and the behavior of the screen. It was concluded that the barrier is water tight due to the water pressure that pushes the screen onto the sill and abutments, and that in principle it is possible to construct a “spinnaker” barrier. However, due to the relatively uncontrolled movement of the screen during closing, which induce high dynamic loads on the cables, and the uncertainties about the probability of failure this barrier is never designed in detail, let alone ever constructed.

The model test that was made in 1989 by Delft Hydraulics, (Regeling 1989), was a model test of a barrier with a width of 53.6m, radios 35m and a screen length of 76.8m. The required width for the UOOC barriers are around the 200m instead of 53.6m. It is questionable if the barrier will still function with this width. The loads induced by the screen transport will increase tremendously and the same holds for the closure of the screen. In addition the vertical reaction force that the hydraulic jacks can deliver during operation are possible to small.

Four hydraulic jacks, a relatively long screen, and large (diameter) cables (due to the large width when using one screen) are required.

H.2.13 VISOR+FABRIC The Visor gate (see Figure 68) is designed in the 50ties and three similar visor gates where Variants constructed in the Netherlands along the river Lek at Amerongen, Driel and Hagestein.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 77

Figure 68: Vizor gate (wier) Amerongen.

The First design idea was to bent the gate in the vertical and horizontal plane to get only tensile stresses in the gate and thereby minimizing the amount of steel that was required to contrast the gates. However, the manufacturing of such a gate was too complex for tat time and the gates where designed to only bent in the horizontal plane. (De waterstaat 1952)

When the gates where constructed bending in both planes the steel gate would be similar to a fabric screen. In Figure 69 the steel gate is replaced by a screen with at the bottom a stiff element (from steel or a hard synthetic material that is bended in the horizontal plane) and at the top a cable. (See also Figure 70.)

Figure 69: Steel gate replaced by fabric screen.

There are now two closure steps, first the whole gate is lowered and second the cable(s) that are connected to the (cable at the) top of the screen as to be kept elevated and under tension. (If more control is required for the top of the screen, hydraulic jacks can be introduced.)

Variants Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 78

Figure 70: Cross section gate and view hinge.

The stiff element ensure a water tight connection with the concrete sill and at the side the gate is (similar to the original design) encased in the abutments which insures (almost) a water tight barrier. The still element has to be designed able to divert the tensile stresses when the barrier is closed, the pressure stresses when the barrier is open and the bending loads during closure.

The water barrier is not suited for diverting a negative head. The barrier is probably suited for closure during flow conditions, and for opening under a head difference.

The lighter gate makes the closing and opening of the gate more easily. In addition the maintenance costs can be reduced because less or even no steel elements have to be maintained. This is depending on the possibilities for the stiff gate element. If steel is required the maintenance frequency is not reduced and the benefits concerning maintenance costs are small. Moreover the screen has to be replaced every 30 years or perhaps even more frequent if the fabric is not well enough protected against UV-light. To be able to draw up conclusion about the possible reduction of the maintenance costs more research is required.

Variants Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 79

I. CALCULATIONS In this appendix several calculations are made. First of all some definitions are presented and the hydraulic pressure on the screen is calculated. In appendix I.2 the feasibility of PA screen and Dyneema® ropes is investigated. In appendix I.3 a calculation for the A-frame is made and in I.4 the proposed Merwede Barrier, a ‘bridge+screen’ barrier is calculated and structural designed. The last appendix, I.5, a costs estimation is made with NPV calculation.

I.1 DEFINITIONS, HYDRAULIC LOADS AND SAFETY FACTORS

I.1.1 DEFINITIONS First of all the definitions for the screen and barrier dimensions are presented in Figure 71 and Figure 72.

Figure 71: Definitions screen dimensions (1 and 3). (Top view; R,s=radios screen, R,c=cable radius, L,s=screen length, L,c=cable length, B= barrier/channel width, ß=angle screen-abutment, Ø=screen-waterway angle.)

Figure 72: Definitions screen dimensions (2 and 4). (W=screen width, α,t=top angle screen, α,b=bottom angle screen, c= screen ‘creep length’, h1=high water level, h2=low water level, Δh= water head, b,u/b,l=upper and lower ‘cross screen width’ (R,s-R,c), a,u/a,l=upper and lower ‘cable low water line’ length.)

I.1.2 HYDRAULIC LOADS The horizontal hydraulic loads are illustrated in Figure 73.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 80

Figure 73: Horizontal hydraulic loads.

Corresponding equations: 푝 = 휌𝑔ℎ 푝1 = 0.5휌𝑔(ℎ1)2 푝2 = 0.5휌𝑔(ℎ2)2

The vertical water pressure induced by the high water level, h1, are illustrated in Figure 74.

Figure 74: Vertical hydraulic loads from high water (h1).

The vertical water pressures due to the low water level, h2, are illustrated in Figure 75.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 81

Figure 75: Vertical hydraulic loads from low water (h2).

The residual horizontal and vertical loads are illustrated in Figure 76.

Figure 76: Residual hydraulic loads.

The corresponding equations are: Residual horizontal load per running meter: 퐹 푚 = 0.5휌𝑔 ℎ12 − ℎ22 Residual vertical load per running meter: 푉/푚 = 휌𝑔∆ℎ( 푎, 푙 − 푐 − 0.4푎, 푢) (The 0.4 value is depending of the shape of the barrier, for “spinnaker” barrier type 0.4 is an estimation.)

Wave and current induced loads are not further detailed. There are discussed and taken into account within the safety factors.

I.1.3 SAFETY FACTORS In Table 34 the safety factors for the movable water barrier are presented. They are based on the safety factor used for other water barrier such as the “baglstuw” at Ramspol.

SAFETY FACTORS tions hydraulic load γ,l 1.2

dynamic factor screen γ,d,s 1.3 Calcula dynamic factor cables γ,d,c 1.6

material γ,m 1.1 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 82 folding / peak stresses γ,p 2.0 dead load y,D 1.2 variable load y,v 1.5 dynamic wind load y,d,w 1.7 Table 34: Safety factors movable water barrier.

For the horizontal and vertical hydraulic loads a factor of 1.2 is used because for these loads good calculation or estimation methods are present. The dynamic factor for the screen is somewhat lower than for the “balgstuw” at Rampspol and other water barriers due to the relatively low intensity of the wave climate. (For the “balgstuw” 1.25 was tested, 1.3 estimated and used for the design.) The dynamic factor for the cables is somewhat higher because of the current induced dynamic loads during (for instance) closure of the barrier. A material factor of 1.1 is used. For the screen also a folding/peak stress factor is used. The folding of the screen will be less severe than at the ”baglstuw” at Ramspol, (as discussed in paragraph 7.4 of the main report). Therefore a factor of 2 is used. (Still conservative considering test at the “balgstuw” at Ramspol a factor of 1.7 was found. For the design a factor of 3 was used.) (J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants 2004)

I.1.4 HYDRAULIC LOADS PER UOOC BARRIER In Table 35 the parameters and the calculated horizontal hydraulic load (per running meter barrier width or screen length) is presented. The horizontal load is calculated with: 퐹 푚 = 0.5휌𝑔(ℎ12 − ℎ22) 퐹 푚 , 푦, 푠 = 퐹 푚 ∗ 훾, 푙 ∗ 푦, 푑, 푠 ∗ 푦, 푝 ‘F/m’ is the horizontal hydraulic loads for each barrier (or screen) without safety factors. ‘F/m,y,s’ is the horizontal load with safety factors corresponding the screen.

UOOC max. barrier/ water water hor. barriers sill water channel level in level max. hydr. hor. screen depth level width front back head load load .. m .. m B h1 *) h2 *) h1 h2 Δh F/m F/m,γ.s **) NAP NAP m m NAP m NAP m m m kN/m kN/m Spui -5.1 3.7 100 -0.5 3.3 4.6 8.4 3.8 242 756 Drecht -5.1 3.7 240 -0.5 3.3 4.6 8.4 3.8 242 756 Merwede -5.1 4.7 210 4.7 0.3 9.8 5.4 4.4 328 1024 Lexmond -4.8 4.9 120 4.9 0.5 9.7 5.3 4.4 324 1010 Table 35: Hydraulic loads (only the horizontal) for all four UOOC barriers. ( *)wind and current setup and setdown are taken into account; **)with safety factors)

The vertical hydraulic load is not presented in this table because this load depends on the shape of the screen. At the Spui and Drecht barrier a negative water head is normative. (Therefore h1and h2 are switched in high and low water level.)

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 83

I.2 FEASIBILITY PA SCREEN AND DYNEEMA® CABLES In this chapter a calculation is made to investigate the feasibility of the PA screen and Dyneema® cables: are the materials strong enough are the needed dimensions in range of existing fabricated screens and ropes/cables. In the following table, Table 36, the calculation for the Merwede barrier of a “spinnaker” type of barrier is made as a reference design. This because the Merwede barrier has to cope with the largest hydraulic loads and a “spinnaker” barrier invokes relatively high stresses for the cables and screen. The screen and cable stresses can be slightly higher for a ‘guy supported’ barrier but are assumed to be in the same order of magnitude.

Merwede barrier hor. hydraulic load screen /m F/m,γ,s 1023.5 kN/m hor. hydraulic load cable /m F/m,γ,c 629.8 kN/m no peak stresses

gravity velocity g 9.81 m/s2 density water ρ 1000 kg/m3

Type "spinnaker" barrier: distance lower cable - low water a,l 10.5 m distance upper cable - low water a,u 8.0 m creep-length screen c 3.0 m screen width W,s 24.0 m screen angle with waterway Ø 50 ° 0.87 rad angle screen-abutment ß 40 ° 90-Ø 0.70 rad screen radius (estimation) R,s 147.6 m a,l+R,c=a,l+0.5B/sinØ screen length L,s 257.6 m 2ØR,s Main loads: estimation vertical load V/m 185.6 kN/m ρgΔh((a,l-c)-0.4a,u) ver. hydraulic load cable V/m,y,c 356.4 kN/m V/m*y,l*y,d,c ver. hydraulic load screen V/m,y,s 579.1 kN/m V/m*y,l*y,d,s*y,p

total hor. hydraulic load cables F,y,c 162220.4 kN F/m,y,c*L,s total ver. hydraulic load cables V,y,c 91782.6 kN V/m,y,c*L,s tensile stress in cables T,y,c 105881.8 kN 0.5(sqrt(F,y,c^2+V,y,c^2))/cosß

screen tensile stress T/m,s 376.9 kN/m sqrt(V/m^2+F/m^2) T/m,y,s 1176.0 kN/m sqrt(V/m,y,s^2+F/m,y,s^2) Cables:

ropes from Dyneema® SK75 fiber (Lankhorst Ropes 2009) cable diameter D 200 mm nr. of required cables 4.85 - T,y,c/T,y,200

k 5.0 - Calculations

cable diameter D 250 mm

nr. of required cables 3.11 - T,y,c/T,y,250 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 84

k 4.0 - Screen: screen from PA ("balgdoek" Ramspol) (J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants 2004) average loading (Ramspol) T/m,R 200 kN/m without safety factors max. loading (Ramspol) T/m,y,R 936 kN/m with safety factors max. breaking strength (test) T/m,max 1300 kN/m after fatigue and endurance T/m,R >= T/m,s FALSE T/m,y,R >= T/m,y,s FALSE T/m,max >= T/m,y,s TRUE Table 36: Calculation feasibility PA screen and Dyneema® cables.

In this calculation it is assumed that the screen only divert the hydraulic loads in a vertical direction and the cables, that are at the top and bottom of the screen, in a horizontal direction. The vertical load is estimated and a small floating body is not considered; the vertical load is diverted by the upper cable.

It can be concluded that the screen tresses (per running meter) in the Merwede barrier are almost two times the stresses in the “balgstuw” at Ramspol. However, the stresses are still within the testes maximum breaking stress after fatigue and endurance of the fabric. It is recommended to produce a stronger screen with more or greater PA wires imbedded in the rubber outer layers. (See for more detail appendix G.)

The Dyneema® cables are strong enough and the existing larges fabricated cable, with a diameter 183mm and a strength of 20,000 kN, almost fulfils the needed diameter and strength (for an ‘open fabric’ water barrier of the “spinnaker” type with a cable and screen length well over 250m). See for more information on Dyneema® ropes appendix G. (Lankhorst Ropes 2009)

Within this calculation there are several loads not considered, these loads are of less importance, and not normative. However, when applying a ‘guy supported’ barrier where the screen is slightly lifted out off the water, or the screen does not follow the waves, the screen could catch wind and an extra dynamic loading is introduced which could be substantial.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 85

I.3 A-FRAME (SUPPORT TOWERS) It is discussed and assumed that within the UOOC there are two movable barriers that have to divert a large negative head. Therefore the ‘A-frame’ concept, the only concept that can cope with a large negative head, is further discussed with the help of some calculations.

Two different designs are presented. The first one splits the waterway is into two channels and each channel is closed by a screen supported by one pylon. This way the screen can be stored without the need of detaching the guys and the upper cable. The second design, one screen is closing off the entire waterway and is connected to two support towers; one at each abutment. The screen is stored at one side of the channel and has to be connected with the guys during the closing operation.

I.3.1 TWO SEPARATED SCREENS For the two separated screens a calculation is made to investigate the tensile forces in the guys (or stay ropes) and the effect on the screen of these forces. Also the position and height of the pylon is discussed. In Figure 77 a top view is sketched with all the dimension parameters that are used in the calculation.

Figure 77: ‘Support tower’ barrier with two separated screens.

The coordination midpoint (0,0,0) is chosen directly under the top of the pylon at the level of the upper cable during closure; thus at the high water level. The direction of the ‘x’ and ‘y’ coordinates are given in Figure 77, the ‘z’ axes is directed upwards. The Merwede barrier is chosen as input for the hydraulic loads. In Table 37 the input parameters and a part the calculation is presented. (The calculation is only done for one screen and support tower.) In blue are the input variables given. The top of the pylon is for now chosen to be 30m above the high water level and directly above the connections of the upper and lower cable of the screen (p,h=30; p,1=0). The pylon is ‘hanging back’ and therefore the top of the pylon is 15m away from Calculations the edge of the abutment (p,2=15m).

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 86

Merwede barrier hor. hydraulic load /m F/m 328 kN/m hor. hydraulic load cables /m F/m,γ,c 629.8 kN/m no peak stresses hor. hydraulic load screen /m F/m,γ,s 1023.5 kN/m

gravity velocity g 9.81 m/s2 density water ρ 1000 kg/m3 Type 'guy supported' barrier; 'two separated screens' channel width per channel B 97 m number of guys/tower nr.g 4 - screen angle with waterway Ø 50 degrees 0.87 rad angle screen-abutment ß 40 degrees 90 -Ø 0.70 rad angle per guy (hor. plane) φ 20 degrees 2Ø/(nr.g+1) 0.35 rad distance lower cable - low water a,l 8.0 m distance upper cable - low water a,u 4.5 m creep-length screen c 2.5 m screen width W,s 19.0 m upper cable radius R,c 63.3 m 0.5B/sinØ screen radius (estimation) R,s 71.3 m a,l+0.5B/sinØ screen length L,s 124.5 m 2ØR,s cable length L,c 110.5 m 2ØR,c R,c- r 22.6 m R,c*cosØ position top pylon p,h 30.0 m p,1 0.0 m p,1=0 by A-frame pylon p,2 15.0 m p,1+r 22.6 m p,1+r < = R,c WAAR vertical load estimation V/m 179.1 kN/m V=ρgΔh((a,l-c)-0.3a,u) ver. load for cables and guys V/m,y,c 343.9 kN/m ver. load per guy V,g 10701.7 kN V/m,y,c*L,s/nr.g Table 37: Input and calculation ‘support towers’ barrier.

With the chosen screen angles, radius and chosen pylon position and height the coordinates of the guys are fixed. In Table 38 the coordinates are presented for several points of the upper cable. At ‘A’ and ‘B’ the cable is connected with the abutments and at ‘G1’ to ‘G4’ the guys are connected. ‘P’ is the top of the pylon. These coordinates are connected in Figure 78 which gives

a simplified position of the screen.

Coordinates w.r.t. (0,0,0) [m] x y z P 0 0 30 Calculations A 15.0 0.0 0

G1 31.8 14.1 0 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 87

G2 52.5 21.7 0 G3 74.5 21.7 0 G4 95.2 14.1 0 B 112.0 0.0 0 Table 38: Top pylon, screen connection and guy coordinates.

30,0

20,0

10,0

0,0 15,0 31,8 52,5 74,5 95,2 112,0

Figure 78: Simplification screen position. In Table 39 the guy angle in the horizontal plane (x-y plane) and the guy length is given.

Guy angle and length angle hor. guy length plane [rad] [m] guy1 0.418 46.0 guy2 0.391 64.2 guy3 0.283 83.2 guy4 0.147 100.8 Table 39: Guy angles and length.

For the calculation of the guy and cable stresses it is assumed that the guys divert all the vertical hydraulic loads. These are estimated in Table 37 at 10702 kN per guy. With the angles fixed the horizontal components (in ‘x’ and ‘y’ direction) are calculated; see Table 40.

Forces per guy [kN] z hor. plane x y T,g guy1 -10702 -12428 -11359 -5042 16401 guy2 -10702 -20260 -18730 -7725 22913 guy3 -10702 -27674 -26574 -7725 29671 guy4 -10702 -34317 -33944 -5042 35947 total: -42807 -94679 -90608 -25533 104931 Table 40: Calculation guy forces.

The Total horizontal hydraulic load, F,y,c is 78393.1 kN; this is in the same order as the horizontal

forces induced by the guys. Moreover, the cable forces (looking at the “spinnaker” calculation) are also in the same order. Therefore it can be expected that the deformations of the upper cable and screen are very large. Especially the ‘x’ component is very large, this means that the screen is pulled towards the

pylon. Increasing p,2 gives a large ‘x’ component, increasing p,1 a large ’y’ component. The only Calculations way to decrease the ‘x’ component is to heighten the pylon (p,h), as can be seen in Figure 79.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 88

350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 hor. plane 'x' component 'y' component

Figure 79: Pylon height (x-axes, [m]) vs. forces in horizontal plane (y-axes, [kN]).

However, even with a relatively high (and expensive) pylon the forces are still too large: the reaction force in the ‘x’ direction, to divert all the vertical hydraulic loads, is greater than the reaction force in ‘x’ direction that can be expected with a “spinnaker” type of barrier. (These are namely around the 51,000 kN.) The guys are pulling the upper cable of the screen towards one side and therefore a large reaction force at the middle pillar (opposite to the pylon) is required. In Figure 80 this deformation (gray line) is sketched. Correspondingly the upper cable have to cope with a relatively high tensile stress.

Figure 80: Deformation upper cable.

The lower cable will stay more or less in the ‘original’ position. Due to this difference in positions (asymmetry) of the upper and lower cable the screen will form “plooien” / will fold and peak stresses occur. In addition the large reaction force in the middle pillar is directed more perpendicular to the waterway which is also undesirable.

Of course, if the deformations are too large, the guys lose their tension and are not able to divert all the vertical hydraulic loads; which should be the conclusion following from the Calculations

calculation. Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 89

When multiple barriers are constructed within smaller channel widths this type of barrier could be a solution. As indicated above, for large widths this design concept is not feasible.

I.3.2 ONE SCREEN In appendix H.1; ‘Design Tree’, the ‘A-frame’ concept was presented as a single screen barrier with to support towers. See also the design sketch in Figure 81 and a top view in Figure 82.

Figure 81: 'A-frame', support towers and one screen, design concept.

Figure 82: Top view ‘A-frame’ design concept.

This design is more symmetrical and therefore it has less negative consequence as the previous design. The two tower keep each other in balance and the deformation of the upper cable don’t cause asymmetry. In Figure 83 the deformation is sketched (gray line), assuming that the pylons and guys cause an

extra/higher tensile stress in the upper cable in comparison to a “spinnaker” type of barrier.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 90

Figure 83: Deformation upper cable one screen to support towers.

The deformation is similar to the original form and similar to the form when one of the cables is further tightened in a “spinnaker” barrier. The different position of the upper and lower cable can be expected to be less and cause no addition “plooi”. The largest tensile stresses in the upper cable will occur in the middle of the cable and these are higher in comparison with a “spinnaker” barrier (with the same channel width.) These can be decreased with higher pylons; an optimum have to be found. Also the screen-abutment angle is increased, however, because the stresses and deformations are better predictable compensation can be made by installing a longer screen.

It has to be mentioned that peak stresses can occur in the screen at the points where the guys are connected with the upper cable. Maybe more guys are required, than the six guys that are sketched, when considering these peak stresses. More insight must be provided by model tests.

s

Calculation Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 91

I.4 CABLE STAYED BRIDGE In chapter 9 of the main report a proposed bridge barrier is presented with an assumed load distribution. In this appendix some dimensions and strength calculations will be made to investigate the feasibility of the proposed structure. In addition the screen width/dimensions and pylon height are altered to provide more insight in the structure.

I.4.1 MAIN DIMENSIONS As presented and explained in chapter 9 of the main report the main dimensions are given in Figure 84 and Figure 85.

Figure 84: Sketch overview cable stayed bridge. [m]

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 92

Figure 85: Simplified pylon cross section. [m]

The design is optimized towards a minimum pylon height with two criteria, namely; a minimum guy angle of 25° and a logical standard c.t.c. guy distance for the back and main (mid) span. The number of guys at the back and main span are varied and to get a minimum pylon height and (no extreme) tensile stresses in the back stayed cables BG1 and BG10. A choice have been made for five back guys and four main guys with resp. 11 and 12m c.t.c. distance.

Furthermore in short: - a bi-stayed fan system; - one row of guys; - pylon under an angle of 70 degrees; - bottom pylon has a hinged bearing at deck height; - additional back stayed cables at the middle pillars; - continuous deck with bearings at the abutments (rolling) and middle pillars (stiff); - screen storage under the bridge; - transition cables at each guy and at the middle pillars; - upper cable (if required) attached to the deck with a smaller radius; - the lower cable diverting the hydraulic loads towards the abutments; - 50/50 horizontal hydraulic load distribution towards the lower and transition cables.

I.4.1.1 Bridge dimensions First of all the bridge and barrier dimensions are further determined in Table 41. A bridge and upper radius is chosen and the deck parameters are estimated.

Merwede barrier; type ‘bridge+screen’ barrier Dimensions: barrier width B 210 m sill depth S,z -5.1 m NAP Calculations deck width d,w 9.0 m

deck bottom height D-,z 18.0 m NAP Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 93

deck thickness d,t 1.5 m estimates storage thickness d,s 3.0 m max. guy-guy c.t.c. distance 12.0 m same as the guy connection points max. c.t.c dist. trans. cables w,max 12.0 m (in length parallel to the bridge) middle pillar length 25.0 m height middle pillar I,z 5.0 m length middle (P,z+D-.z+d,t- pillar+pylon+0.5bridge 27.5 m S.z)/tanθ)+2*2+0.5*d,w pylon height above deck P,z 27.5 m 0.25*l,ms pylon angle (local-axes) θ 70 [°] (first starting point) 1.222 rad length mid span (x-axes) l,ms 110.8 m length back span (x-axes) l,bs 49.6 m pylon position: x y middle deck at pylon 1 [m] P1,b 49.6 153,7 top pylon 1 [m] P1 58.9 127,8 bridge: upper cable: radius-waterway angle Ø 40 [°] Ø,c 55 [°] *) 0.698 rad 0.960 rad screen abutment angle ß 50.0 [°] ß,c 35.0 [°] 0.873 rad 0.611 rad radius R,b 163.4 m R,c 128.2 m R-RcosØ or R-Rsinß r,b 38.2 m r,c 54.7 m point A y-axes A,b,y 125.1 m A,c,y 116.9 m average radius difference y- axes 43.4 m A,c 73.5 m (local) angle up to pylon 1 / P1,b 1.225 rad 1.124 rad 70.2 [°] 64.4 [°] angle back span 0.352 rad 0.513 rad angle main span 0.692 rad 0.894 rad

curved length main span l,ms,c 113.1 m l,c,ms 114.6 m curved length back span l,bs,c 57.5 m L,c,bs 65.7 m total curved length L,b 228.1 m L,c 246.1 m Table 41: Dimensions Merwede barrier; type ‘bridge+screen’ barrier. *) angle bridge and lower cable.

I.4.1.2 Position deck, upper cable and guy In Figure 86 an overview is given of the bridge with several points where the guys or middle

pillars are attached to the deck.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 94

Figure 86: 3D sketch bridge and position points.

The positions of the guy connection with the bridge deck and the position of the deck itself in comparison with the upper cable are presented in Table 42. At first, in blue, the distance between the guy-connections are chosen. This is done in a way that the deck lengths between the guys at the back span are all similar (11m) and the deck lengths at the main span are similar (12m). (At the middle pillar P1,b a bearing length of 5m decreases the 13.5 and 14.5m with 2.5m.)

bridge: upper cable: difference: diff. L L,i ß,b,i y-axes x-axes ß,c,i y-axes y-axes [m] [m] [rad] [°] [m] [m] [rad] [°] [m] [m] A,b - 0.0 0.873 50.0 125.1 0.0 0.611 35.0 116.9 -8.2 GB1 0.0 0.0 0.873 50.0 125.1 0.0 0.611 35.0 116.9 -8.2 GB2 11.0 11.0 0.940 53.9 131.9 8.7 0.720 41.3 127.9 -4.0 BG3 11.0 22.0 1.007 57.7 138.1 17.8 0.822 47.1 137.3 -0.8 BG4 11.0 33.0 1.075 61.6 143.7 27.2 0.919 52.7 145.3 1.6 BG5 11.0 44.0 1.142 65.4 148.6 37.1 1.012 58.0 152.1 3.5 P1,b 13.5 57.5 1.225 70.2 153.7 49.6 1.124 64.4 159.0 5.3 MG1 14.5 72.0 1.313 75.3 158.0 63.4 1.240 71.1 164.6 6.7 MG2 12.0 84.0 1.387 79.5 160.6 75.1 1.336 76.5 168.0 7.4 MG3 12.0 96.0 1.460 83.7 162.4 87.0 1.430 81.9 170.3 7.9 MG4 12.0 108.0 1.534 87.9 163.2 99.0 1.524 87.3 171.4 8.2 M 6.0 114.0 1.571 90.0 163.4 105.0 1.570 90.0 171.6 8.2 MG5 6.0 120.0 1.607 92.1 163.2 111.0 1.617 92.7 171.4 8.2 MG6 12.0 132.0 1.681 96.3 162.4 122.9 1.711 98.0 170.3 7.9

MG7 12.0 144.0 1.754 100.5 160.6 134.8 1.806 103.4 168.1 7.4 Calculations MG8 12.0 156.0 1.828 104.7 158.0 146.5 1.901 108.9 164.7 6.7

P2,b 14.5 170.5 1.916 109.8 153.7 160.3 2.017 115.6 159.0 5.3 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 95

BG6 13.5 184.0 1.999 114.5 148.6 172.8 2.129 122.0 152.1 3.5 BG7 11.0 195.0 2.066 118.4 143.7 182.7 2.222 127.3 145.3 1.6 BG8 11.0 206.0 2.134 122.3 138.1 192.2 2.319 132.9 137.3 -0.8 BG9 11.0 217.0 2.201 126.1 132.0 201.3 2.421 138.7 128.0 -4.0 BG10 11.0 228.0 2.268 130.0 125.2 209.9 2.530 145.0 117.0 -8.2 B,b 0.0 228.0 2.268 130.0 125.2 209.9 2.530 145.0 117.0 -8.2 Table 42: Bridge, upper cable and guy positions. (A,b is at the beginning of the bridge, P1,b at the middle pillar.)

An optimization is possible in the sense that different guy-connection lengths can diminish the normal and bending stresses in the deck and pylons; however, during construction simplicity and repetition is desired for controlling the costs.

In Figure 87 the curvature of the bridge, upper cable and the difference of the two are plotted. At x=20.7m the upper cable will cross the deck underneath.

Figure 87: Bridge and upper cable position. [m]

I.4.1.3 Guy positions The guy positions with respect to the x-y-axes and wrt. the pylon top, P1, with the corresponding angels and guy lengths are presented in Table 43. In Figure 89 the distance wrt. P1 and the guy length are presented in a diagram.

x wrt. y wrt. x-y angle angle angle angle x-y length x-axes y-axes P1 P1 wrt. P1 x-z y-z x-y - P1 guy [m] [m] [m] [m] [m] [°] [°] [°] [°] [m] A,b 0.0 125.1 -58.9 -2.7 59.0 - - - - -

GB1 0.0 125.1 -58.9 -2.7 59.0 -25.0 -84.4 2.6 25.0 65.1

GB2 8.7 131.9 -50.2 4.1 50.4 -28.7 81.5 -4.7 28.6 57.4 BG3 17.8 138.1 -41.1 10.3 42.4 -33.8 69.5 -14.0 33.0 50.5 BG4 27.2 143.7 -31.7 15.8 35.4 -41.0 60.1 -26.6 37.8 44.8

BG5 37.1 148.6 -21.8 20.7 30.1 -51.6 53.0 -43.5 42.4 40.8 Calculations P1,b 49.6 153.7 -9.3 25.8 27.5 - - - - -

MG1 63.4 158.0 4.5 30.1 30.5 80.7 42.4 81.5 42.1 41.1 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 96

MG2 75.1 160.6 16.2 32.8 36.6 59.5 40.0 63.7 36.9 45.8 MG3 87.0 162.4 28.1 34.5 44.5 44.4 38.5 50.9 31.7 52.3 MG4 99.0 163.2 40.1 35.4 53.5 34.5 37.8 41.5 27.2 60.1 M 105.0 163.4 46.1 35.5 58.2 - - - - - Table 43: Guy position, guy angles and guy length.

As an example back guy 3 is sketched in Figure 88 in the local coordinate system at deck level with x and y is zero right under the pylon top.

Figure 88: Position back guy 3.

The ‘angle x-y – P1’, is the angle between the guy connection at the deck and the pylon top disregarding the coordinate system; angle in the horizontal plane. The design rule is followed that this angle is not smaller than 25.0°. This rule of thumb is used for cable stayed bridges with steel cables. Because ropes made from Dyneema® much lighter this rule might be conservative when wire sag is normative. (Staalkundig Genootschap 1996)

Calculations Figure 89: Guy position wrt. P1 and guy length. [m]

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 97

I.4.1.4 Screen The screen dimensions (see Table 41) are estimated for the ‘bridge+screen’ barrier concept. The screen is somewhat shorter than for a “spinnaker” type of water barrier. The screen dimensions determine the hydraulic loads. The mentioned screen width in the table is including elongation, screen width is 15m without.

screen: distance lower cable - low water a,l 9.5 m distance upper cable - low water a,u 3.0 m creep-length screen c 3.0 m screen width W,s 18.0 m (including strain) screen radius (estimation) R,s 186.2 m R,b+(D-,z - high water level)/cosα,u screen length L,s 260.0 m 2ØR,s Table 44: Screen dimensions.

I.4.2 LOADS The hydraulic, dead/own-weight and variable deck surface loads are determined. Distinction is made in two situations, namely: stored screen and barrier operation. During operation of the water barrier the bridge will be closed off. Wind and temperature loads are not calculated.

I.4.2.1 Hydraulic The hydraulic loads per running meter for the Merwede barrier that are determined by the water heads are already calculated and presented in appendix I.1.4. The specific hydraulic loads for the ‘bridge+screen’ barrier are presented in Table 45.

Hydraulic loads: hor. hydraulic load screen /m F/m,γ,s 1023.5 kN/m hor. hydraulic load cable /m F/m,γ,c 629.8 kN/m no peak stresses

estimation vertical load V/m 228.8 kN/m ρgΔh((a,l-c)-0.4a,u) ver. hydraulic load cable V/m,y,c 439.2 kN/m V/m*y,l*y,d,c ver. hydraulic load screen V/m,y,s 713.8 kN/m V/m*y,l*y,d,s*y,p

screen tensile stress T/m,s 399.9 kN/m sqrt(V/m^2+F/m^2) T/m,y,s 1247.8 kN/m sqrt(V/m,y,s^2+F/m,y,s^2)

total hor. hydraulic load cables F,y,c 163730.0 kN F/m,y,c*L,s total ver. hydraulic load cables V,y,c 114180.1 kN V/m,y,c*L,s total tensile stress lower cable T,l 127359.3 kN 0,5*F,y,c/cosß **) Table 45: Hydraulic loads ‘bridge+screen’ barrier. **) 50/50 load distribution to lower cable and deck.

The vertical load acting on the screen is, as expected, somewhat larger than for a “spinnaker” type of barrier. The vertical load, diverted by the transition cables, are with this estimation 70% of the horizontal hydraulic load. This vertical hydraulic load seems relatively high, however, this

figure is highly dependable on the assumed shape (and corresponding width) of the screen. Calculations It could be that the approach, no numeric prediction the shape, is too far simplified for the purpose of this report. Also for the “spinnaker” calculation the vertical component was relatively

high. Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 98

I.4.2.2 Other loads In Table 46 the used safety factors and densities are given. safety factors: dead load y,D 1.2 - variable load y,v 1.5 - dynamic wind load y,d,w 1.7 - densities: density steel 7850 kg/m3 density concrete 2400 kg/m3 screen density 21 kg/m2 Table 46: Bridge safety factors for deck loads and material densities.

Stored screen: The deck surface loads when the bridge is in use and the screen is stored under the bridge are estimated and presented in Table 47. The deck is an combination of steel and concrete, for each material an average thickness is estimated which determines the own-weight of the deck. Also the closing and opening system of the barrier is included. The weight if the guys are neglected. Next to the own-weight variable loads are estimated for a pedestrian bridge. screen is stored: dead loads: deck own-weight 12.0 kN/m2 (rough estimation) screen own weight /m bridge 4.1 kN/m +10% water absorption total dead load /m bridge D,s 112.5 kN/m D,s,y 135.0 kN/m D,s*y,D 15.0 kN/m2 D,s,y/d,w variable and dynamic loads: deck var. Load distributed 5.0 kN/m2 both at the same time deck var. Load concentrated 10.0 kN both at the same time q,y 7.5 kN/m2 G,y 15.0 kN Table 47: Deck loads with stored screen.

Barrier in operation: During barrier operation the bridge is closed and only the own-weight of the deck is taken into account. See Table 48 for the loads during barrier operation. barrier in operation: hydraulic loads as above dead loads:

deck own-weight /m bridge 130.1 kN/m (rough estimation) screen own-weight /m bridge 4.4 kN/m total: D,o 134.6 kN/m Table 48: Deck loads with barrier in operation.

Calculations Other loads like wind and temperature elongation are not considered. However, the wind load is

an important dynamic load for the stability of the structure. Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 99

During barrier operation strength criteria should be used, during stored screen situations displacement criteria (discomfort for the pedestrians) should be used.

I.4.3 GUY FORCES With help of Table 43, guy positions, and the assumptions about the load distribution made in the main report chapter 9 the guy forces can be calculated. In Table 49 and Table 50 this is done for the two distinct different situations.

screen is stored guy in-between T,j,z T,j,x-y T,j,x T,j,y T,j distance [m] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] BG2 11.0 2242.5 4110.4 4096.9 -333.3 4682.3 BG3 11.0 2242.5 3458.2 3355.2 -837.5 4121.6 BG4 11.0 2242.5 2886.1 2581.4 -1290.7 3654.9 BG5 11.0 2242.5 2454.1 1778.7 -1690.8 3324.4 MG1 12.0 2445.0 2709.9 -402.2 -2679.9 3649.9 MG2 12.0 2445.0 3251.1 -1443.0 -2913.3 4067.9 MG3 12.0 2445.0 3957.7 -2498.1 -3069.7 4652.1 MG4 12.0 2445.0 4753.8 -3561.9 -3148.3 5345.7 P1 - -18749.9 - -3907.1 15963.5 - Table 49: Guy forces during stored screen/bridge usage.

barrier in operation guy bearing t,i,v= t,i,h= α,u t,i T,j,z T,j,x-y T,j,x T,j,y T,j distance t,i,z t,i,x-y [m] [kN] [kN] [°] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] BG2 11.0 4831.6 3464.2 54.4 5945.2 6311.7 11569.1 11531.0 -938.0 13178.9 BG3 11.0 4831.6 3464.2 54.4 5945.2 6311.7 9733.4 9443.6 -2357.3 11600.7 BG4 11.0 4831.6 3464.2 54.4 5945.2 6311.7 8123.1 7265.5 -3632.9 10287.0 BG5 11.0 4831.6 3464.2 54.4 5945.2 6311.7 6907.4 5006.4 -4759.0 9356.8 MG1 12.0 5270.8 3779.1 54.4 6485.6 6885.5 7631.5 -1132.6 -7547.0 10278.6 MG2 12.0 5270.8 3779.1 54.4 6485.6 6885.5 9155.6 -4063.6 -8204.4 11455.8 MG3 12.0 5270.8 3779.1 54.4 6485.6 6885.5 11145.7 -7035.1 -8644.9 13101.0 MG4 12.0 5270.8 3779.1 54.4 6485.6 6885.5 13387.5 -10030.8 -8866.1 15054.4 P1 ------52788.8 - -10984.5 44949.4 - Table 50: Guy and transition cable forces during barrier operation.

It is assumed that the vertical hydraulic forces are for 100% diverted by the guys. (Except at the middle pillars where no guy is present.) These vertical forces in the guys induce horizontal force,

partly these force counteract the hydraulic vertical loads, the residual (horizontal) forces have to be diverted by the deck and or upper cable.

The forces at P1 are the reaction forces that are required from the pylon top. The back stayed

cables BG1 and BGP1 will be calculated in such manner that the summation of forces at P1 is Calculations zero except for the pressure component in the pylon, parallel to the pylon. This is done in section I.4.6.2.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 100

I.4.4 DECK STRESSES (MAIN SYSTEM) The deck will be under pressure due to the main system of the cable stayed bridge. The local bending, torsion and shear forces in the deck are not calculated. In addition the required strength in the transversal direction is not calculated.

Stored screen – deck curvature vs. no deck curvature: First of all the x-component of the guys, that have to be diverted by the deck, are summated towards P or M, as in a straight bridge. Second, the deck compression force in the deck is estimated with the parallel guy forces (form the x- an y-component) are summated (again towards P and M) to estimated the pressure force for a curved bridge deck. Towards P is done for a strength calculation at the middle pillar if a rigid moment stiff connection with the deck is constructed. Towards M is the situation when the deck is placed on roller bearings and the residual normal force in the deck at the first pylon will counteract the normal force of the second pylon. This force (normal stress at the left side off the pylon minus the that at the right side of the pylon) is not zero because of the back stayed cable and the curvature of the deck. A tensile stress can be expected in the middle of the bridge.

without curvature with curvature x cum. x. cum. // bridge // bridge x to P To M // bridge cum. To P to M BG2 4096.9 4096.9 4096.9 3111.9 3111.9 3111.9 BG3 3355.2 7452.1 7452.1 2389.3 5501.2 5501.2 BG4 2581.4 10033.5 10033.5 1655.7 7156.9 7156.9 BG5 1778.7 11812.2 11812.2 914.7 8071.7 8071.7 MG1 -402.2 -7905.1 11410.0 -1071.0 -9519.5 7000.6 MG2 -1443.0 -7502.9 9967.1 -1951.4 -8448.4 5049.2 MG3 -2498.1 -6060.0 7469.0 -2821.2 -6497.0 2228.0 MG4 -3561.9 -3561.9 3907.1 -3675.8 -3675.8 -1447.8 Table 51: Deck compression straight and curved deck during stored screen. [kN]

In Figure 90 the table is plotted and the difference between a straight and curved deck is made more clear. A negative force means a pressure in negative x direction (towards the left), a positive force means a pressure force in the x-direction (towards the right). Except for the cumulative force towards M where positive means pressure and negative tensile.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 101

Figure 90: Deck normal loading for straight and curved deck during stored screen. [kN]

It can be seen that when a straight bridge is considered a pressure force at M (mid bridge) can be expected (due to the difference in normal deck force at the left and right of the pylon.) When the curved bridge is considered a tensile stress can be expected. This is also logical because of the back stayed cables BG1 and BG10.

Barrier in operation: In Table 52 the transition cable and guy forces are presented and the residual forces in x- and y- direction are calculated which are the forces acting on the deck. (Transition cable forces plus the guy forces.)

t,i,h= angle t,i,x t,i,y T,j,x T,j,y resi. X resi. y t,i,x-y x-y t,i,x+T,j,x t,i,y+T,j,y [kN] [rad] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] BG2 3464.2 0.940 -2043.1 2797.5 11531.0 -938.0 9487.9 1859.5 BG3 3464.2 1.007 -1850.2 2928.7 9443.6 -2357.3 7593.4 571.4 BG4 3464.2 1.075 -1649.0 3046.5 7265.5 -3632.9 5616.5 -586.3 BG5 3464.2 1.142 -1440.2 3150.6 5006.4 -4759.0 3566.1 -1608.4 MG1 3779.1 1.313 -961.9 3654.6 -1132.6 -7547.0 -2094.5 -3892.3 MG2 3779.1 1.387 -691.1 3715.4 -4063.6 -8204.4 -4754.7 -4489.0 MG3 3779.1 1.460 -416.5 3756.1 -7035.1 -8644.9 -7451.6 -4888.8 MG4 3779.1 1.534 -139.7 3776.5 -10030.8 -8866.1 -10170.5 -5089.6 Table 52: Transition cable, guy and residual forces during barrier operation.

The residual forces are the summation of the hydraulic force diverted by transition cables and the guy forces. It can be concluded that the greater part of the deck will be under pressure and not under tensile stresses due to the hydraulic load. In other words: the horizontal guy component (induced by the vertical component) is large than the horizontal component from the transition cable. (This will become more clear in figures below in this paragraph.) It can be concluded that the upper cable is not necessary to divert the hydraulic loads. Different guy and cable angels, and consequently different pylon position and screen length will decrease the residual forces. Further optimization to decrease the residual forces is more than Calculations recommended.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 102

Barrier in operation - deck curvature vs. no deck curvature: Table 53 and Figure 91 are similar to Table 51 and Figure 90, but now for the situation that the barrier is in operation. The residual forces from Table 52 are used.

without curvature with curvature x cum. To x cum. To // bridge // bridge x // bridge P M cum. to P cum. to M [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] BG2 9487.9 9487.9 9487.9 8758.8 8758.8 8758.8 BG3 7593.4 17081.3 17081.3 6724.8 15483.6 15483.6 BG4 5616.5 22697.8 22697.8 4660.3 20143.8 20143.8 BG5 3566.1 26264.0 26264.0 2574.6 22718.5 22718.5 MG1 -2094.5 -24471.3 24169.5 -3016.2 -26808.4 19702.3 MG2 -4754.7 -22376.8 19414.8 -5495.4 -23792.2 14206.8 MG3 -7451.6 -17622.1 11963.2 -7945.0 -18296.7 6261.8 MG4 -10170.5 -10170.5 1792.7 -10351.7 -10351.7 -4089.9 Table 53: Deck compression straight and curved deck during barrier operation.

Figure 91: Deck normal loading around P1 for a straight and curved deck during barrier operation. [kN]

(In Figure 91 a negative force means a pressure in negative x direction (towards the left), a positive force means a pressure force in the x-direction (towards the right). Except for the cumulative force towards M where positive means pressure and negative tensile.) Again tensile stresses, at MG4 and at the middle of the span, can be expected for this curved bridge with a back stayed cable at the abutments.

Comparison: A comparison is made between the deck forces during barrier operation (residual forces) and the stored screen situation. See Table 54 and Figure 92 for the comparison.

barrier operation stored screen Calculations x x cum. x x. cum.

[kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 103

BG2 9487.9 9487.9 4096.9 4096.9 BG3 7593.4 17081.3 3355.2 7452.1 BG4 5616.5 22697.8 2581.4 10033.5 BG5 3566.1 26264.0 1778.7 11812.2 MG1 -2094.5 -24471.3 -402.2 -7905.1 MG2 -4754.7 -22376.8 -1443.0 -7502.9 MG3 -7451.6 -17622.1 -2498.1 -6060.0 MG4 -10170.5 -10170.5 -3561.9 -3561.9 Table 54: Comparison deck forces (x-direction) barrier in operation (residual) and stored screen situation.

Figure 92: Deck normal loading (x-direction) barrier in operation (residual) and stored screen situation. [kN]

The large increase in force during the barrier operation can be seen; this situation should be considered to be normative for strength calculations.

Also a comparison is made between the guy forces of the two distinct situations. See Table 55 and Figure 93.

barrier operation (residual) stored screen diff. (residual-stored) x y guy x y guy x y guy [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] [kN] BG2 9487.9 1859.5 13178.9 4096.9 -333.3 4682.3 5391.1 2192.8 8496.5 BG3 7593.4 571.4 11600.7 3355.2 -837.5 4121.6 4238.2 1408.9 7479.1 BG4 5616.5 -586.3 10287.0 2581.4 -1290.7 3654.9 3035.1 704.4 6632.1 BG5 3566.1 -1608.4 9356.8 1778.7 -1690.8 3324.4 1787.4 82.4 6032.4 MG1 -2094.5 -3892.3 10278.6 -402.2 -2679.9 3649.9 -1692.3 -1212.5 6628.7 MG2 -4754.7 -4489.0 11455.8 -1443.0 -2913.3 4067.9 -3311.7 -1575.7 7387.9 MG3 -7451.6 -4888.8 13101.0 -2498.1 -3069.7 4652.1 -4953.5 -1819.1 8448.9 MG4 -10170.5 -5089.6 15054.4 -3561.9 -3148.3 5345.7 -6608.7 -1941.3 9708.7 Table 55: Comparison guy forces for the two distinct situations.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 104

Figure 93: Comparison guy forces for the two distinct situations. [kN]

The x directed guy force are increased, the y directed forces are not only increased but the hydraulic load, diverted by the transition cable, are at BG2 and BG3 even higher than the guy forces. The relatively large differences between the forces can be seen in Figure 93. In Figure 94 the difference in force, barrier in operation/residual forces minus the stored screen forces, is presented.

Figure 94: Difference in guy forces for stored screen and barrier in operation.

As mentioned an optimization should be made to diminish the force or even induce tensile stresses in the deck during barrier operation. In Figure 93 one can already see that the residual

y-component gives tensile stresses at BG2 and BG3. With a wider screen (especially larger a,u in comparison to a,l) and corresponding lower vertical hydraulic loads also at BG4 and BG5 tensile stresses will occur. The normal deck compression force will also decrease with a higher pylon and the difference

between the stored screen and barrier operation situation will diminish. These two alterations, Calculations wider screen and higher pylon, are further investigated in appendix I.4.7.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 105

I.4.5 REACTION FORCES The reaction force at the middle pillar 1 and abutment A are presented in Table 56. The forces are calculated in the previous and upcoming paragraphs. For this overview it is assumed that the deck is fixed to the middle pillar in all directions and moment stiff.

Reaction forces middle pillars and abutments Deck dimensions: length bearing at P,b b 5.0 m deck bearing length at P,b 16.5 m deck bearing length at A 5.5 m cross section: width inner deck d,i 3.0 m width middle deck d,m 3.0 m width outer deck d,o 3.0 m total width d,w 9.0 m deck thickness d,t 1.5 m =concrete thickness at P,b,i distance to P,b,i d,i-P,b,i 1.5 m d,m-P,b,i 4.5 m d,o-P,b.i 7.5 m Deck loads during stored screen: surface load q,y 7.5 kN/m2 concentrated load G,y 15.0 kN dead load D,s,y 135.0 kN/m (slightly higher due to pillar dead load near P1,b D,s,y,p 148.5 kN/m connection) Deck loads during barrier operation: dead load D,o 134.6 kN/m transition cable per location Reaction forces at A during barrier operation: tensile forces from lower cable: T,l 127359.3 kN ß 50.0 [°] T,l,x -81865.0 kN T,l,y -97562.9 kN vertical and horizontal bearing force deck: R,z 740.0 kN R,x-y 17283.3 kN BG2,3

back guy BG1:

T,BG1 5771.9 kN T,BG1,z -2437.7 kN T,BG1,x -5226.4 kN

T,BG1,y -239.1 kN Calculations transition cable:

half of T,BG2 T,A 2972.6 kN Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 106

T,A,x-y 1732.1 kN l bridge T,A,z 2415.8 kN Reaction force at P1,b during barrier operation: deck reaction forces: R,z 2220.1 kN R,x-y -21657.3 kN l bridge; BG4,5 + MG1,2,3,4 normal pressure force deck R,x-y -4089.9 kN // bridge transition cable: T,P1,max 8917.7 kN T,P1,x-y 5196.3 kN l bridge T,P1,z 7247.4 kN moments at P,b,i in vertical plane: local system M,z,l 605.5 kNm only dead load transition cable M,z,s 32613.3 kNm T,i,z*d,m-P,b,i not at P1,b: BGP1 T,BGP 78494.7 kN pylon N,p 139708.9 kN Reaction force at P1,b,i during stored screen: deck reaction forces: R,z 3207.7 kN R,x-y -15520.8 kN l bridge; BG4,5 + MG1,2,3,4 Moments at P,b,i in vertical plane: main system, torsion M,z,m 14392.8 kNm q,y*0.5*(l,ms,c+l,bs,c)*d,o*d,o-P,b,i local system M,z,l 14479.8 kNm concentrated load on outer deck pressure force deck: normal pressure force deck R,x-y -1447.8 kN // bridge not at P1,b: BGP1 T,BGP - kN (not calculated) pylon N,p - kN (not calculated) Table 56: Reaction forces middle pillars and abutments.

Add. to Table 56: - the calculated moments are first estimations; - during barrier operation the bridge is closed; - ‘-‘ and ‘+’ indicate the director of the force; - the local system is the deck area where the loads are diverted by the middle pillar; - the middle pillar has to divert the forces from one transition cable; - BG1 and BG10 are connected directly to the abutments; - the reaction forces at the abutment during stored screen are not calculated; - the reaction forces at the abutment due to torsion in the deck are not calculated;

- wind and temperature loads are not considered; - “spatkrachten” / buckling forces due to the normal force in the curved deck are not calculated.

In Figure 100 moments are presented at the connection of the deck and middle pillar. These Calculations moments are invoked by the torsions of the deck and local bearing reaction forces of the deck (own-weight and variable loads) and due to the transition cable. This is illustrated in Figure 95

and Figure 96. Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 107

Figure 95: Local system, deck torsion; left: during store screen, right: during barrier operation. Moment M,z is at P,b,i. [m]

Figure 96: Main system, deck torsion due to loading of the outer deck.

Within the calculation the deck is at the middle pillar fixed is all directions and moment stiff. A strength calculation is made for the feasibility of the concrete cross section that connects the deck in section I.4.6.3. The pylon is supported on an hinged bearing, therefore, during construction a support structure is needed. The pylon is also further dimensioned in section I.4.6.2.

I.4.6 STRENGTH CALCULATIONS

I.4.6.1 Guys and cables In Table 57 the required rope diameters are presented. These are calculated with all safety factors taken into account and the (Dyneema® SK75 fibre rope) strength parameters from appendix G.2. It is assumed that the situation where the barrier is in operation is normative for all the guys, however, it has to be checked if only variable loading on the main span invokes higher tensile stresses in the back stayed cables. These diameters are without possible required additional protection layer(s).

guys and transition cables; Dyneema® ropes

position trans. cables guys [kN] [mm] [kN] [mm] BG1,10 2972.6 80 5771.9 100 BG2,9 5945.2 100 13178.9 150 BG3,8 5945.2 100 11600.7 140 Calculations BG4,7 5945.2 100 10287.0 140

BG5,6 5945.2 100 9356.8 130 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 108

P1,2,b 8917.7 130 - - MG1,8 6485.6 110 10278.6 140 MG2,7 6485.6 110 11455.8 140 MG3,6 6485.6 110 13101.0 150 MG4,5 6485.6 110 15054.4 160 BGP1,2 - - 78494.7 370 or 4 times 200 Table 57: Rope diameters.

In Table 58 a 250mm rope is chosen and the number of needed ropes is calculated. These ropes can be (partly) stitched into the fabric / screen. lower cable diameter: ropes from Dyneema® SK75 fiber lower cable diameter D 250 mm nr. of required cables 3.74 - T,l/T,y,250 k 4.0 - Table 58: Diameter lower cable.

I.4.6.2 Pylon In Table 59 the pylon and back guy forces are calculated. The guys at the pylon top support the pylon which is placed at the bottom on a hinged bearing at deck level. So no bending moments may/can occur in the pylon. The summated guy forces in x and y direction (BG2-5 and MG1-4) are not in balance and the back stayed cables, BG1 and BGP1, have to balance the pylon. This is done, in Table 59, by a balance of moments around the pylon bottom. For illustration see Figure 97.

No bending forces in pylon Dimensions pylon: Py,x-y 10.01 m P,z/tanθ Py,x 3.40 m x diff P1 - P1,b Py,y 9.42 m y diff P1 - P1,b moments in hor. Plane: 152634.8 kNm ΣT,j,y*Py,x -103424.9 kNm ΣT,j,x*Py,y M,x-y 49209.9 kNm summation BG1 required tension: T,BG1,x 5226.4 kN M,x-y/Py,y (in x direction) T,BG1 5771.9 kN moments in ver. plane: N,P1,x-y 47783.3 kN force at P1 parallel to pylon in hor. plane

-528372.2 kNm ΣT,j,x*Py,x-y 1314039.6 kNm P,z*N,P1,x-y M,z 785667.4 kNm summation

BGP required tension: Calculations T,BGP -78494.7 kN (in z direction)

pylon pressure: Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 109

N,p 139708.9 kN sqrt((N,P1,x-y)^2+(T,BGP)^2) Table 59: Pylon and back guy (BG1,10, BGP1,2) forces.

Figure 97: Pylon, BG1 and BGP1 calculations.

For the calculation of T,BG1,x, T,BG1,y is neglected because this force component is (really) small. Within this calculation it is also possible to calculated the required pylon angle (now assumed to be θ=70°) when no back stayed cable / back guy (BGP) at the middle pillar us used. The force parallel to the pylon in the x-y plane [kN]:

2 2 N, p, x − y = sgrt 푇, 푗, 푦 + − 푇, 푗, 푥 + 푇, 퐵퐺1, 푥

푇, 푗, 푡 표푟 sin 70.2

− 푇, 푗, 푥 + 푇, 퐵퐺1, 푥 표푟 cos 70.2

- 70.2° is the angle of the middle pillar with the x-axes - j= nr. of guy; BG1,BG2, ..

The required angle [°]: 푁,푝,푥−푦 θ, r = 90 − tan−1 − 푇,푗,푧

In this case the required angle is 47.8°. This relatively small angle is not desired because of the increased difficulty in construction, the increase in length of the pylon and the overall cost of the structure. It can be concluded that within the proposed design back stayed cables are needed at the middle pillars.

In Table 60 the dimensions of the steel pylon is investigated. A first calculation is made with a square steel pylon with no inner flenses nor multiple trucks/ducts. Calculations Also the required size of the concrete foot is calculated for the pressure forces.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 110

Pylon dimensions / cross section steel S355: fy;d 355 N/mm2 slenderness flow mark λ,e 76.4 - square pylon b*b b,p 3000 mm gyration radius i,p 1200 mm ≈0,40b buckling length l,buc,p 29264.9 mm P,z/sin(θ) slenderness λ,p 24.39 - l,buc,p/i,p rel. slenderness λ,rel,p 0.319 - λ,p/λ,e buckling factor ω,buc,p 0.954 - NEN6770 table 24 curve b required surface A,p 412522.2 mm2 N,p/(ω,buc,p*fy;d) required steel thickness t 34.4 mm Concrete pylon foot concrete C45/55: pressure cube strength f'ck 55 N/mm2 pressure calc. value f'b 33 N/mm2 f'ck*0,6 required surface A 4233603.0 mm2 N,p/f'b 4.2 m2 square b,c 2.06 m Table 60: Pylon cross section. (Staalkundig Genootschap 1996)

Add. to Table 60: - The slenderness at which the buckling graph is going into steel flow is indicated with λ,e; - The guys keep the pylon at the top in place, the bottom is placed on a hinged bearing at deck level, therefore, the buckling length is similar to the pylon length;

Within this calculation the needed size for the steel pylon is to great (width and thickness). Also a more slender structure is desired for architectural reasons; the pylon foot is designed to be somewhat larger than the pylon. In can be concluded that the pylon foot won’t be a problem and that the pylon has to be constructed out of several trunks to decrease the diameter.

I.4.6.3 Strength calculation concrete connection at P,b,i For this calculation it is assumed that the deck is fixed to the middle pillar and moment stiff in all directions. The concrete connection is at one cross section checked on strength and the possibility to divert the loads within the concrete cross section. Point P1,b,i is at the middle on the edge of the deck at the inner bend of the deck. Here the proposed concrete cross section is 5*1.5 m. Presumably great enough to divert the moments, induced by torsion and the transition cable, with regular reinforcement. Also a normal and a shear force have to be diverted. The main reinforcement due to bending moments and shear stresses are designed. The maximum pressure stresses in the cross section, summation of the different loadings, are not calculated; it is assumed that these stresses are not normative. (Lower than the concrete pressure strength.) The calculation, presented in Table 61 is made for the two different situations; barrier in operation and stored screen. The considered cross section is just next the bridge deck and is a square cross section of 5000*1500 mm. Calculations

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 111

Strength calculation middle pillar - deck connection strength calculation at P1,b,i during barrier operation: loads M,d 33218.8 kNm M,z V,d 2220.1 kN R,z V,x-y,d 4089.9 kN R,x-y // bridge pressure stress N,d -16461.0 kN T,P1,x-y + R,x-y l bridge reinforcement steel FeB500 f's 435 N/mm2 concrete class C45/55 2 pressure strength f'b 33 N/mm tensile strength f,b 1.9 N/mm2 ω0 min 0.25 % ω0 max 3.05 % reinforcement bars: concrete coffer c 50.0 mm stirrup diameter φ,b 14.0 mm estimated D reinforcement bars φ,s 32.0 mm 804.2 mm2 φ,s^2*π/4 min. dist. between bars 21.3 mm 2/3φ,s min. c.t.c. distance bars 53.3 mm ≥2/3φ,s + φ,s concrete chute 50.0 mm two chutes at minimum one row: d 1420.0 mm d,t-c-φ,b-0.5*φ,s internal arm z 1207.0 mm 0.85*d steel tensile force N's 27521.8 kN M,d/z required steel surface A,s 63268.5 mm2 N's/f's number of bars k 79 - required bearing length 4.3 m smaller then bearing length? TRUE one row is possible double row: d 1366.7 mm d,t-c-φ,b-2.333*φ,s internal arm z 1161.7 mm 0.85*d steel tensile force N's 28595.8 kN M,d/z required steel surface A,s 65737.6 mm2 N's/f's number of bars k 82 - 2.3 m

smaller then bearing length? TRUE double row

A,s 65948.3 mm2 k*πφ,s^2/4 ω0 0.97 % A,s/bd ω0 > ω0 min TRUE (economic percentage is ±1.1%)

ω0 < ω0 max TRUE Calculations shearing force / shear stirrups (dubble row):

average pressure stress σ'bmd 2.19 N/mm2 N,d/(d,t*b) Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 112

k,h 1 - 1.6-d,t ≠<1,0 k,λ 1 - 2 τ,1 N/mm 0.4*f,b*k,λ*k,h*sgrt3(ω0) 2 τ,1 ≠<0.4f,b 0.76 N/mm 0.4*f,b 2 thus: τ,1 0.76 N/mm k,n 1.6 - 5/3*(1-ς'bmd/f'b) ≠> 1.0 1 - thus: k,n 1 - k,θ 1 - τ,2 6.6 N/mm2 0.2*f'b*k,n*k,θ 0.15ς'bmd increase due to pressure stress τ,n 0.33 N/mm2 (ς'bmd≠>0.4f'b=13.2) τ,1 new 1.09 N/mm2 τ,1-τ,n τ,d 0.92 N/mm2 (V,z,d+V,x-y,d)/bd τ,d < τ,1 new TRUE no shear stirrups required strength calculation at P1,b,i during stored screen: loads M,d 28872.6 kNm M,z due deck loads V,z,d 3207.7 kN R,z V,x-y,d 1447.8 kN R,x-y // bridge pressure force N,d -15520.8 kN R,x-y l bridge reinforcement steel FeB500 f's 435 N/mm2 concrete class C45/55 2 pressure strength f'b 33 N/mm tensile strength f,b 1.9 N/mm2 ω0 min 0.25 % ω0 max 3.05 % reinforcement bars: concrete coffer c 50.0 mm stirrup diameter φ,b 14.0 mm estimated diameter bars φ,s 32.0 mm 804.2 mm2 φ,s^2*π/4 min. dist. between bars 21.3 mm 2/3φ,s min. c.t.c. distance bars 53.3 mm ≥2/3φ,s + φ,s concrete chute 50.0 mm two chutes at minimum one row: d 1420.0 mm d,t-c-φ,b-0.5*φ,s internal arm z 1207.0 mm 0.85*d steel tensile force N's 23920.9 kN M,d/z 2

required steel surface A,s 54990.6 mm N's/f's number of bars k 69 - required bearing length 3.8 m smaller then bearing length? TRUE one row is possible double row: Calculations d 1366.7 mm d,t-c-φ,b-2.333*φ,s

internal arm z 1161.7 mm 0.85*d Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 113

steel tensile force N's 24854.4 kN M,d/z required steel surface A,s 57136.6 mm2 N's/f's number of bars k 72 - 2.0 m smaller then bearing length? TRUE double row A,s 57905.8 mm2 k*πφ,s^2/4 ω0 0.82 % A,s/bd ω0 > ω0 min TRUE (economic percentage is ±1.1%) ω0 < ω0 max TRUE shearing force / shear stirrups (double row): average pressure stress σ'bmd 2.07 N/mm2 N,d/(d,t*b) k,h 1 - 1.6-d,t ≠<1.0 k,λ 1 - 2 τ,1 0.71 N/mm 0.4*f,b*k,λ*k,h*sgrt3(ω0) 2 τ,1 ≠<0.4f,b 0.76 N/mm 0.4*f,b 2 thus: τ,1 0.76 N/mm k,n 1.6 - 5/3*(1-ς’bmd/f'b) k,n ≠> 1.0 1 - thus: k,n 1 - k,θ 1 - τ,2 6.6 N/mm2 0.2*f'b*k,n*k,θ increase due to pressure stress τ,n 0.31 N/mm2 0.15ς'bmd(ς'bmd≠>0.4f'b=13.2) τ,1 new 1.07 N/mm2 τ,1-τ,n τ,d 0.68 N/mm2 (V,z,d+V,x-y,d)/bd τ,d < τ,1 new TRUE no shear stirrups required Table 61: Strength calculation concrete connection deck- middle pillar. (NEN6720 1995)

The required, double row, reinforcement is presented in Figure 98 with minimal stirrups of φ14:300mm.

Calculations

Figure 98: Main reinforcement. [mm]

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 114

It can be concluded that the situation where the barrier is in operation is normative for the bending and shear reinforcement. One row of reinforcement bars is possible, consequently, the reinforcement percentage will be slightly lower than calculated for a double row bars. Because the maximum reinforcement percentage (±0.97%) is slightly under the economic percentage (±1.1%) it is recommended to design a smaller cross section with one row or partly one row of reinforcement bars. An alternative cross section, to the square 5000*1500mm, is given in Figure 99. No stirrups for diverting shear forces are required. With a smaller cross section minimum shear reinforcement can be expected.

Figure 99: Alternative cross section.

I.4.7 ALTERED SCREEN SIZE Considering different parameters as in Table 62, Figure 93 changes in Figure 100 and Figure 94 in Figure 101. pylon height above deck P,z 27.5 m 0.32*l,ms screen: distance lower cable - low water a,l 8.5 m distance upper cable - low water a,u 11.5 m creep-length screen c 3.0 m screen width W,s 25.0 m (including strain) R,b+(D-,z - high screen radius (estimation) R,s 177.0 m water level)/cosα,u screen length L,s 247.2 m 2ØR,s max. ver. load trans. cable t,v 895.0 kN V/m,y,c*w,max max. hor. load per trans. cable t,h 3779.1 kN 0,5*F/m,y,c *w,max screen top angle α,u 0.233 rad 13.3 [°] max. total tensile stress trans. cable t,v 3883.6 kN Table 62: Parameters adjusted.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 115

Figure 100: Guy forces with altered screen width. [kN]

All the y-residual forces are positive, which means that the bridge deck is pulled in the direction of the low waterside and in the deck (or upper cable) tensile stresses have to be diverted towards the middle pillars and abutments. Bending moments in the deck in the transversal direction can be expected when no upper cable is used.

Figure 101: Differences in guy forces with altered screen width.

The difference in guy forces during stored screen and barrier in operation are negligible, as can be seen in Figure 101. The bridge and barrier structure acts almost separately from each other.

As an indication for the reduction for the forces and corresponding dimensions see Table 63 with required dimensions for a short and a wide screen.

[mm] BG1,10 MG4,5 pylon (b,p*b,p*t) short screen 100 150 3000*3000*34.4 wide screen 60 90 2000*2000*19.0 Table 63: Difference indication short vs. wide screen.

Calculations Especially the shape of the screen is important; or more precise the ratios a,l over a,u. In Figure

102 the previous presumed screen shape and the new presumed shape are sketched. Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 116

The first shape induce a vertical hydraulic load component of 0.70 time the horizontal load component. The second induce a factor of 0.12.

Figure 102: Two extreme screen orientations.

The second screen shape invokes long transition cables, a long sill structure and a different placement of the hydraulic jacks/connection point lower cable along the abutments.

The vertical load has great influence on the design and a numeric simulation of the screen in a further design stage is highly recommended. It is also recommended to investigate a screen width and lower cable position between the two extreme situations as sketched in Figure 102.

I.4.8 ALTERED PYLON HEIGHT When the top of the pylon is raised the horizontal forces, acting on the deck, will be decreased. The forces in the y-direction will not change from sign as with the wider screen, the forces (residual x residual y and guy) are only decreased; as can be seen in Table 53. Here the pylon top is raised to 60.0m above deck level.

The decrease in forces is lesser than the decrease in force by the wider screen.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 117

Figure 103: Guy forces with altered pylon height. [kN]

The difference between the stored screen and barrier in operation situation is consequently also decreased; as can be seen in Figure 104.

Figure 104: Differences in guy forces with altered pylon height.

As an indication for the reduction of the forces and corresponding dimensions see Table 64.

[mm] BG1,10 MG4,5 pylon (b,p*b,p*t) P,z=27.5m 100 150 3000*3000*34.4 P,z=60.0m 80 130 3000*3000*23.2 Table 64: Difference indication pylon height 27.5m and 60.0m above deck level.

It was anticipated that if the angle of the guys with the pylon in the horizontal plane are close to the angle of the transition cables the deck forces will diminish. However, looking at the data of a +79.5m NAP high pylon these forces are not diminished, regardless of the similar angles. Moreover; to be able to divert the loads without a back guy at the middle pillar the pylon has to be raised to a staggering +120m NAP. Calculations

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 118

I.5 NPV

I.5.1 INPUT A life-time costs estimation is made for the ‘bridge+screen’ barrier at the Beneden Merwede. The input from the barrier and bridge dimensions is given in Table 65. barrier info barrier width 210 m screen length 216 m screen width 15 m erosion length 120 m deck length 228 m Table 65: Barrier input costs estimation. - The erosion length is an estimation considering; no great stream constriction and during closure a well spread under flow is present; - The screen length and width is without elongation of the screen.

The construction cost of the barrier and bridge are estimated in resp. Table 66 and Table 67.

Barrier amount total abutments + foundation € 4,500,000 /piece 2 - € 9,000,000 transition cables € 12 /kg 24469 kg € 293,630 sill € 300 /m3 9000 m3 € 2,700,000 erosion protection € 600 /m2 25200 m2 € 15,120,000 guiding works € 6,000,000 - 1 - € 6,000,000 terrain preparation € 1,400,000 - 1 - € 1,400,000 screen € 5,500 /m2 3240 m2 € 17,820,000 lower cable € 12 /kg 431576 m2 € 5,178,915 operation system € 5,500,000 /piece 1 - € 5,500,000 TOTAL: € 63,012,545 Table 66: Construction costs movable 'open fabric' water barrier. (WsHD 2007) 6 - The sill is a simple concrete slap, steel founded; - Screen costs is an estimation based on the costs of the “balgstuw” at Ramspol. A slightly higher costs figure is used.

Calculations

6 These costs estimations are with 22% profit, risks and overall costs, 20% unforeseen, 10% preparation,

tender and supervision and 19% GVA (“BTW”). Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 119

Bridge amount total pylon (€7/kg) € 663,826 /piece 2 - € 1,327,652 deck **) € 28,860 /m 228 m € 6,580,080 top deck *) € 640 /m 428 m € 273,840 terrain preparation € 1,600,000 - 1 - € 1,600,000 guys € 12 /kg 191847 kg € 2,302,169 middle pillar + foundation € 5,500,000 /piece 2 - € 11,000,000 ramps € 10 /m3 16200 m3 € 162,000 TOTAL: € 23,245,741 Table 67: Construction costs pedestrian bridge and barrier support structure. *)asphalt (€30/m2) and ‘furniture’ (€100/m2), **)steel: €5/kg, concrete; €400/m3.

For the cables and guys the costs estimation is made when using steel instead of Dyneema® ropes. This is there is no good estimation possible about the cost of Dyneema° ropes with diameters above 100mm. A possible increase in construction costs can be expected, however, the performance of Dyneema® ropes is batter and requires less maintenance.

The estimated large maintenance costs are presented in Table 68 for the barrier and Table 69 for the bridge. These are presented per time cycle. Accordingly; for year 30 (after construction) the maintenance costs of time cycle ‘10’ and ‘30’ has to be taken into account.

barrier time cycle 10 20 30 40 50 abutments € 200,000 € 3,600,000 sill € 2,700,000 erosion protection € 15,120,000 guiding works € 65,000 € 140,000 € 175,000 terrain preparation € 25,000 screen+trans.+lower cable(s) € 23,292,545 operation system € 5,500,000 Table 68: Large maintenance costs movable 'open fabric' water barrier. (WsHD 2007)7

bridge time cycle 10 20 30 40 50 pylon € 21,071 deck € 342,000 € 3,290,040 top deck € 30,000 € 115,560 € 136,920 middle pillar € 300,000 € 4,400,000 guys € 2,302,169 terrain preparation € 30,000 Table 69: large maintenance costs pedestrian bridge and barrier support structure. - For preserving of the steel €30/m2 is taken into account with a time cycle of 20 years; - New asphalt is placed every 20 years on deck and ramps/abutments.

Calculations

7 These costs estimations are with 22% profit, risks and overall costs, 20% unforeseen, 10% preparation,

tender and supervision and 19% GVA (“BTW”). Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 120

Small yearly maintenance cost are estimated at 400 euro per meter barrier for the barrier, and for the bridge 600 euro per m bridge span: together €220,800 per year.

I.5.2 NPV CALCULATION The net present values (NPV) are calculated for the barrier (see Table 70) and for the bridge (seeTable 70) separated with an inflation rate of 2.5% and a reference rate (“discontovoet”) of 4.5%.

Barrier inflation: 2.5 % per year reference rate / "discontovoet": 4.5 % per year year construction yearly large balance NPV cost maintenance maintenance 0 € 63,012,545 € -63,012,545 € 63,012,545 1 € 84,000 € -84,000 € 80,383 2 € 86,100 € -86,100 € 78,844 3 € 88,253 € -88,253 € 77,335 4 € 90,459 € -90,459 € 75,855 5 € 92,720 € -92,720 € 74,403 6 € 95,038 € -95,038 € 72,979 7 € 97,414 € -97,414 € 71,583 8 € 99,850 € -99,850 € 70,213 9 € 102,346 € -102,346 € 68,869 10 € 104,904 € 115,208 € -220,112 € 141,736 11 € 107,527 € -107,527 € 66,258 12 € 110,215 € -110,215 € 64,990 13 € 112,971 € -112,971 € 63,746 14 € 115,795 € -115,795 € 62,526 15 € 118,690 € -118,690 € 61,329 16 € 121,657 € -121,657 € 60,156 17 € 124,698 € -124,698 € 59,004 18 € 127,816 € -127,816 € 57,875 19 € 131,011 € -131,011 € 56,767 20 € 134,287 € 9,159,866 € -9,294,153 € 3,853,754 21 € 137,644 € -137,644 € 54,615 22 € 141,085 € -141,085 € 53,570 23 € 144,612 € -144,612 € 52,545 24 € 148,227 € -148,227 € 51,539 25 € 151,933 € -151,933 € 50,553

26 € 155,731 € -155,731 € 49,585 27 € 159,625 € -159,625 € 48,636 28 € 163,615 € -163,615 € 47,705 29 € 167,706 € -167,706 € 46,792 30 € 171,898 € 49,759,642 € -49,931,540 € 13,331,722 Calculations 31 € 176,196 € -176,196 € 45,018

32 € 180,601 € -180,601 € 44,157 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 121

33 € 185,116 € -185,116 € 43,312 34 € 189,743 € -189,743 € 42,483 35 € 194,487 € -194,487 € 41,670 36 € 199,349 € -199,349 € 40,872 37 € 204,333 € -204,333 € 40,090 38 € 209,441 € -209,441 € 39,323 39 € 214,677 € -214,677 € 38,570 40 € 220,044 € 15,479,393 € -15,699,437 € 2,699,184 41 € 225,545 € -225,545 € 37,108 42 € 231,184 € -231,184 € 36,398 43 € 236,964 € -236,964 € 35,701 44 € 242,888 € -242,888 € 35,018 45 € 248,960 € -248,960 € 34,348 46 € 255,184 € -255,184 € 33,690 47 € 261,563 € -261,563 € 33,045 48 € 268,103 € -268,103 € 32,413 49 € 274,805 € -274,805 € 31,793 50 € 281,675 € 73,932,209 € -74,213,884 € 8,216,193 51 € 288,717 € -288,717 € 30,587 52 € 295,935 € -295,935 € 30,002 53 € 303,333 € -303,333 € 29,428 54 € 310,917 € -310,917 € 28,865 55 € 318,690 € -318,690 € 28,312 56 € 326,657 € -326,657 € 27,770 57 € 334,823 € -334,823 € 27,239 58 € 343,194 € -343,194 € 26,717 59 € 351,774 € -351,774 € 26,206 60 € 360,568 € 128,573,055 € -128,933,623 € 9,191,550 61 € 369,582 € -369,582 € 25,213 62 € 378,822 € -378,822 € 24,730 63 € 388,292 € -388,292 € 24,257 64 € 398,000 € -398,000 € 23,793 65 € 407,950 € -407,950 € 23,337 66 € 418,148 € -418,148 € 22,891 67 € 428,602 € -428,602 € 22,452 68 € 439,317 € -439,317 € 22,023 69 € 450,300 € -450,300 € 21,601 70 € 461,558 € 506,889 € -968,447 € 44,457 71 € 473,097 € -473,097 € 20,782

72 € 484,924 € -484,924 € 20,385 73 € 497,047 € -497,047 € 19,994 74 € 509,473 € -509,473 € 19,612 75 € 522,210 € -522,210 € 19,236

76 € 535,265 € -535,265 € 18,868 Calculations 77 € 548,647 € -548,647 € 18,507

78 € 562,363 € -562,363 € 18,153 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 122

79 € 576,422 € -576,422 € 17,805 80 € 590,833 € 41,563,158 € -42,153,991 € 1,246,050 81 € 605,604 € -605,604 € 17,130 82 € 620,744 € -620,744 € 16,803 83 € 636,262 € -636,262 € 16,481 84 € 652,169 € -652,169 € 16,166 85 € 668,473 € -668,473 € 15,856 86 € 685,185 € -685,185 € 15,553 87 € 702,315 € -702,315 € 15,255 88 € 719,872 € -719,872 € 14,963 89 € 737,869 € -737,869 € 14,677 90 € 756,316 € 218,931,961 € -219,688,278 € 4,181,583 91 € 775,224 € -775,224 € 14,120 92 € 794,605 € -794,605 € 13,850 93 € 814,470 € -814,470 € 13,585 94 € 834,831 € -834,831 € 13,325 95 € 855,702 € -855,702 € 13,070 96 € 877,095 € -877,095 € 12,820 97 € 899,022 € -899,022 € 12,574 98 € 921,498 € -921,498 € 12,334 99 € 944,535 € -944,535 € 12,098 100 € 968,148 € -968,148 € 11,866 net present value (barrier): € 109,193,732 Table 70: NPV 'open fabric' water barrier; Merwede barrier.

The additional investments cost for a 100 year life-time is in this case 73% of the construction costs.

Bridge inflation: 2.5 % per year reference rate / "discontovoet": 4.5 % per year year construction yearly large balance NPV cost maintenance maintenance 0 € 23,245,741 € -23.245.741 € 23.245.741 1 € 136,800 € -136.800 € 130.909 2 € 140,220 € -140.220 € 128.404 3 € 143,726 € -143.726 € 125.946 4 € 147,319 € -147.319 € 123.536 5 € 151,002 € -151.002 € 121.171 6 € 154,777 € -154.777 € 118.852 7 € 158,646 € -158.646 € 116.578 8 € 162,612 € -162.612 € 114.346

9 € 166,678 € -166.678 € 112.158 Calculations 10 € 170,844 € 76,805 € -247.650 € 159.468

11 € 175,116 € -175.116 € 107.906 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 123

12 € 179,493 € -179.493 € 105.841 13 € 183,981 € -183.981 € 103.815 14 € 188,580 € -188.580 € 101.828 15 € 193,295 € -193.295 € 99.879 16 € 198,127 € -198.127 € 97.968 17 € 203,080 € -203.080 € 96.093 18 € 208,157 € -208.157 € 94.254 19 € 213,361 € -213.361 € 92.450 20 € 218,695 € 882,609 € -1.101.304 € 456.648 21 € 224,163 € -224.163 € 88.945 22 € 229,767 € -229.767 € 87.243 23 € 235,511 € -235.511 € 85.573 24 € 241,399 € -241.399 € 83.935 25 € 247,434 € -247.434 € 82.329 26 € 253,620 € -253.620 € 80.753 27 € 259,960 € -259.960 € 79.208 28 € 266,459 € -266.459 € 77.692 29 € 273,121 € -273.121 € 76.205 30 € 279,949 € 1,042,323 € -1.322.272 € 353.047 31 € 286,947 € -286.947 € 73.316 32 € 294,121 € -294.121 € 71.913 33 € 301,474 € -301.474 € 70.536 34 € 309,011 € -309.011 € 69.186 35 € 316,736 € -316.736 € 67.862 36 € 324,654 € -324.654 € 66.563 37 € 332,771 € -332.771 € 65.289 38 € 341,090 € -341.090 € 64.040 39 € 349,617 € -349.617 € 62.814 40 € 358,358 € 1,446,258 € -1.804.616 € 310.265 41 € 367,317 € -367.317 € 60.433 42 € 376,500 € -376.500 € 59.276 43 € 385,912 € -385.912 € 58.142 44 € 395,560 € -395.560 € 57.029 45 € 405,449 € -405.449 € 55.938 46 € 415,585 € -415.585 € 54.867 47 € 425,975 € -425.975 € 53.817 48 € 436,624 € -436.624 € 52.787 49 € 447,540 € -447.540 € 51.777 50 € 458,728 € 34,550,534 € -35.009.262 € 3.875.863

51 € 470,196 € -470.196 € 49.814 52 € 481,951 € -481.951 € 48.860 53 € 494,000 € -494.000 € 47.925 54 € 506,350 € -506.350 € 47.008

55 € 519,009 € -519.009 € 46.108 Calculations 56 € 531,984 € -531.984 € 45.226

57 € 545,284 € -545.284 € 44.360 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 124

58 € 558,916 € -558.916 € 43.511 59 € 572,889 € -572.889 € 42.679 60 € 587,211 € 2,186,344 € -2.773.554 € 197.724 61 € 601,891 € -601.891 € 41.061 62 € 616,939 € -616.939 € 40.275 63 € 632,362 € -632.362 € 39.504 64 € 648,171 € -648.171 € 38.748 65 € 664,375 € -664.375 € 38.006 66 € 680,985 € -680.985 € 37.279 67 € 698,009 € -698.009 € 36.565 68 € 715,460 € -715.460 € 35.866 69 € 733,346 € -733.346 € 35.179 70 € 751,680 € 337,926 € -1.089.606 € 50.018 71 € 770,472 € -770.472 € 33.845 72 € 789,733 € -789.733 € 33.198 73 € 809,477 € -809.477 € 32.562 74 € 829,714 € -829.714 € 31.939 75 € 850,457 € -850.457 € 31.328 76 € 871,718 € -871.718 € 30.728 77 € 893,511 € -893.511 € 30.140 78 € 915,849 € -915.849 € 29.563 79 € 938,745 € -938.745 € 28.998 80 € 962,214 € 3,883,295 € -4.845.508 € 143.231 81 € 986,269 € -986.269 € 27.898 82 € 1,010,926 € -1.010.926 € 27.364 83 € 1,036,199 € -1.036.199 € 26.841 84 € 1,062,104 € -1.062.104 € 26.327 85 € 1,088,656 € -1.088.656 € 25.823 86 € 1,115,873 € -1.115.873 € 25.329 87 € 1,143,770 € -1.143.770 € 24.844 88 € 1,172,364 € -1.172.364 € 24.369 89 € 1,201,673 € -1.201.673 € 23.902 90 € 1,231,715 € 4,586,003 € -5.817.718 € 110.735 91 € 1,262,508 € -1.262.508 € 22.996 92 € 1,294,070 € -1.294.070 € 22.556 93 € 1,326,422 € -1.326.422 € 22.124 94 € 1,359,583 € -1.359.583 € 21.701 95 € 1,393,572 € -1.393.572 € 21.285 96 € 1,428,411 € -1.428.411 € 20.878

97 € 1,464,122 € -1.464.122 € 20.478 98 € 1,500,725 € -1.500.725 € 20.087 99 € 1,538,243 € -1.538.243 € 19.702 100 € 1,576,699 € -1.576.699 € 19.325

net present value (bridge): € 34,236,243 Calculations Table 71: NPV pedestrian bridge and barrier support structure; Merwede barrier.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 125

It is assumed that the residual value is zero, however, parts of the barrier and support structure could be reused as basic material or if a similar barrier and or bridge is constructed at the time. The possibility exists that the need for a movable barrier at the same location is still present and in that case the abutments could be renovated and the old screen can be reinstalled. Furthermore, is has to be stated that the requirement of a 100 year life-time is not ideal for a ‘fabric water barrier’. The life-time of the screen is at the moment commonly estimated to be 30 years and therefore a required barrier life-time of 90 or 120 years would be more suitable for this type of barrier.

The total investment costs for the “bridge barrier’ at Merwede Barrier, at the present time with a life-time of a 100 years, are estimated on €143.4 M. This is lower than the first costs estimation, made in appendix F, of €220M.

I.5.3 GATE LIFE-CYCLE COSTS Just looking at the difference in life-cycle costs of a screen and a steel gate a good first estimation can be made for the total cost reduction if chosen for an alternative design instead of for a know conservative one. (Construction and large maintenance costs are compared.) In Table 72 the life-cycle cost of the screen (for the Merwede barrier) are given, in Table 73 the large maintenance costs for a steel drop gate are estimated and in Table 74 the life-cycle cost for a steel drop gate are presented. Furthermore, a percentage is given in Table 72 for the total screen costs of the total barrier costs as calculated in Table 70.

screen + lower cable year construction replacement NPV 0 € 22,998,915 € 22,998,915 30 € 47,065,151 € 12,566,396 60 € 98,722,334 € 7,037,817 90 € 207,076,768 € 3,941,534 TOTAL: € 46,544,662 42,6% Table 72: Life-cycle costs screen. (Construction and replacement screen and lower cable.)

Steel gate time cycle 0 10 20 30 40 50 construction € 58,800,000 maintenance € 294,000 € 1,155,000 € 2,940,000 € 17,640,000 Table 73: Large maintenance steel vertical drop gate.

steel gate year construction maintenance NPV

0 € 58,800,000 € 58,800,000

10 € 367,166 € 236,428 20 € 2,316,444 € 960,497

30 € 6,618,082 € 1,767,028 lculations

40 € 3,795,763 € 652,601 Ca 50 € 60,137,666 € 6,657,820

60 € 13,881,873 € 989,625 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 126

70 € 1,615,452 € 74,157 80 € 10,191,867 € 301,266 90 € 29,118,167 € 554,240 TOTAL: € 70,993,662 Table 74: Life-cycle costs steel drop gate. (Construction and large maintenance.)

The difference between the two gates in life-cycle costs is estimated at €24.4M; costs screen / costs steel gate = 0.66. Further costs differences between a fabric and steel gate can be found in the small maintenance, construction of the abutments and operation costs. These are all in favour of the ‘fabric barrier’. Furthermore, the maximum width of a steel drop gate is about a 100m. This means that (at least) two gates are required for the Merwede barrier, and consequently increasing the costs by the need for middle pillars and more operation systems.

I.5.4 CONCLUSIONS The total life-time costs to invest at this moment for the Merwede barrier, a movable ‘open fabric’ water barrier suspended on a guy/stay roped bridge, are estimated at: €109.2M for the barrier and €34.2M for the bridge with barrier support structure. The total investment costs are estimated at €143.4M.

Furthermore it is indicated that for the Merwede barrier a ‘fabric barrier’ is far less expensive than a steel vertical lifting/drop gate. Only for the gate itself approx. 24.4M euro’s can be saved, let alone the costs for small maintenance, the abutments construction costs, operation costs and the possible need for middle pillars.

The costs of obstructing inland navigation during construction is not considered, however, it is expected that the construction time of a fabric barrier is shorter and with less hazards than for the construction of a conventional water barrier.

It has to be stated that the costs estimation of the screen is a rough estimation based on the costs of the “balgstuw” at Ramspol. This has large consequences for the estimated total cost of the Merwede Barrier. Te life-time costs of the screen are 43% of the NVP of the barrier and 33% of the whole NPV of the ‘bridge+screen’ barrier.

It is stated in the main report that costs can be reduced with a shorter screen width. In the NVP calculation of this chapter each meter screen width costs approximately €2.81M. As a result a larger screen width from 15 to 25m, to decrease the stresses in the bridge structure, cost €28M. The benefits of a more slender bridge structure are not more than a few million (total costs of the bridge are €34M). Let alone that an upper cable and a large sill structure is needed. In other words, optimization towards a small screen is recommended.

Calculations Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 127

USED SOURCES APPENDIX

Beijer, ing. A.J.W. de, ir. P. Ravenstijn, and ir. J.C. Bossenbroek. “Waterschap onderzoekt haalbaarheid hoogwaterkeringen Spui.” Land + Water, 2008: 16-18.

De waterstaat. Stuwcomplex Hagestein. Rijkswaterstaat, Directie Sluizen en Stuwen, 1952.

Deltacommissie Veerman . Samen Werken met water. Een land dat leeft, bouwt aan zijn toekomst. Deltacommissie, 2008.

Driessen, A.H.K. Berekening van de Spinnakerkering. Afstudeerrapport, TUDelft; faculty Civil Engineering; section Hydraulic Structures, 1998.

DSM - Dyneema. Dyneema, Byond strength. Information flyers, Urmond: DSM - Dyneema, 2009.

GSW. Bijlage 9. De balgstuw bij Ramspol en Dijkversterking Achter Ramspol. Groot Salland Waterschap, 2002.

J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants. Inflatable Barriers. presentation, Delta Marine Consultants, 2004.

Knippels, A., and E. Pechtold. “Project Keersluis Heusdensch Kanaal.” Thesis, Netherlands, 1992.

Lankhorst Ropes. www.lankhorstropes.com. June 2009. http://www.lankhorstropes.com/news.php?id=17 (accessed June 2009).

MVW waterstat. Waterstat.nl, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 2009. http://www.waterstat.nl/ (accessed 2009).

—. Waterstat.nl, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat. 2009. http://www.waterstat.nl/ (accessed April 2009).

Naeff. Naeff nv, kunstofproducten. 2009. http://www.naeff.nl/ (accessed april 2009).

NEN6720. “Voorschrigten beton TGB1990, NEN6720.” Regulations for concrete Structural requirements and calculation methods. Nederlands Normalisatie-Instutuut, 1995.

Provincie Zuid Holland. Provincie Zuid Holland. 2009. http://www.zuid-holland.nl/index.htm

(accessed maart 2009).

Regeling, H. J. Bouwdienst Rijkswaterstaat. Spinakerkering, oriëntatie onderzoek. Modelonderzoek, WL | Delft Hydraulics, 1989.

Rijn op termijn. Rijn op termijn. 2007. http://rijnoptermijn.wldelft.nl/vna02-b.htm (accessed april 2009).

RWS - ZL. Scheepvaart in de Blauwe Delta. Rotterdam: Provincie Zeeland and Rijkswaterstaat, Appendix Sources Used 2000.

Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 128

RWS 'a'. MER Beheer Haringvlietsluizen; Over de grens van zout en zoet; Deelrapport De sluizen op een kier. Rijkswaterstaat, Directie Zuid-Holland, 1998.

RWS 'b'. Vaarwegen in Nederland. Rijkswaterstaat, Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, 2007.

RWS 'c'. Kerncijfers Scheepvaart. Rijkswaterstaat, 2007.

RWS 'f'. Routeakkoord Staande Mast Route 2008-2013. contract, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2008.

RWS 'g'. Functionele eisen hoofdvaarwegen. Rijkswaterstaat, 1999.

RWS 'h'. Ontwikkelingen Verkeer en Vervoer 1990 - 2020. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Rijkswaterstaat, Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer, 2004.

RWS 'i'. Verdiepingsslag Volkerak-Zoommeer (Ruimte voor de Rivier). Dordrecht: Rijkswaterstaat; Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2004.

RWS Website. www.rijkswaterstaat.nl. 2009. (accessed January 2009).

Staalkundig Genootschap. Overspannend staal, deel 3 - Construeren B. Rotterdam: Kennisoverdracht SG in opdracht van het Staalkundig Genootschap, 1996.

Stiching Nationaal Centrum voor Wetenschap en Technologie. kennislink.nl . 2009. http://www.kennislink.nl/web/show (accessed 2009).

TUDelft. “Constructieleer (infomap ACL).” In Infomap algemene constructieleer; behorende bij college CT1050, CT2050 en CT2150, by L.A.G Wagemans and Faculteit der Civiele Techniek en Geowetenschappen TU Delft. TUDelft, Faculty Civil Engineering, 2003.

TUDelft; d'Angremond; Bezuyen; Van der Meulen. Inleiding Waterbouwkunde. TUDelft; faculty Civil Engineering and Geosciences; section Hydraulic Engineering, 2003.

WsHD. Haalbaarheidstudie (hoog)waterkering(en) Spui. Waterschap Hollandse Delta, Afdeling Planvorming, 2007.

< Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 129

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: CEMT-classes. (RWS 'c' 2007) (AVV) ...... 3 Figure 2: Number of (inland) vessel-passages per year. (RWS 'c' 2007) (AVV) ...... 5 Figure 3: Number of recreation passages per year. (RWS 'c' 2007) (AVV) ...... 5 Figure 4: Percentages of the tonnage classes in the Dutch active inland vessel fleet. (RWS 'h' 2004) (AVV) ...... 6 Figure 5: Hydraulic structure along the Spui...... 10 Figure 6: Spui channel and possible barrier locations. (Google Maps (adapted)) ...... 11 Figure 7: Hydraulic structures Spui. (Watermanagement map, WsHD (adapted))...... 11 Figure 8: Spui location 1, and Spui between location 2 and 3...... 12 Figure 9: Current and future developments along the Spui. (Beijer, Ravenstijn en Bossenbroek 2008)(Google Maps) ...... 13 Figure 10: Architectural idea Spui location 3. (A. Dijk) ...... 14 Figure 11: Barrier function visible in landscape. (A. Dijk) ...... 14 Figure 12: Dordtsche Kil and possible barrier locations. (Google Maps) ...... 16 Figure 13: Hydraulic structures Dordtsche Kil. (Water-management map, WsHD (adapted)) ..... 17 Figure 14: Picture at Dordtsche Kil location 2...... 19 Figure 15: Beneden Merwede and possible barrier locations. (Google Maps) ...... 20 Figure 16: Picture Beneden Merwede upstream of and looking back at the railroad bridge...... 21 Figure 17: Urban areas along the Beneden Merwede...... 21 Figure 18: Multiple land use along the Beneden Merwede...... 21 Figure 19: Hydraulic structures Beneden Merwede. (Water-management map, WsHD (adapted)) ...... 22 Figure 20: Beneden Merwede urban vs. natural area. (A. Dijk) ...... 24 Figure 21: Cycling network Province "Zuid Holland". (yellow: current cycling pads, blue and purple: planned cycling pads, green: proposed cycling pad across water barrier.) (Provincie Zuid Holland 2009) ...... 25 Figure 22: Possible barrier location at Lexmond. (Google Maps) ...... 26 Figure 23: Pictures of the Lek at the location of the new barrier...... 26 Figure 24: Picture of the levee where the Nieuwe Lek will be running through...... 27 Figure 25: Lowering water level Southern basin before storm event...... 35 Figure 26: Avoiding water build up in at the Haringvliet and the Hollands Diep...... 36 Figure 27: Avoiding high water wave flowing into the Northern basin...... 36 Figure 28: Combining management strategies...... 37 Figure 29: Leaking discharge vs. storm duration...... 39 Figure 30: Wind setup North-West wind...... 40 Figure 31: Normative water levels Spui and Drecht barrier...... 41 Figure 32: Normative water levels Merwede barrier...... 41 Figure 33: Normative water levels Lexmond barrier...... 41 Figure 34: Gate width and height vs. barrier costs...... 44 Figure 35: Gate surface area vs. barrier costs...... 45 Figure 36: Accuracy costs estimation. *M €+ ...... 46 Figure 37: Investment – length reduced levee heightening...... 47

Figure 38: Tensile fatigue life compared. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 51 Figure 39: Strength retention Dyneema® fiber. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 55 Figure 40: Breaking Strength Dyneema® SK75 ropes. (With a material safety factor of 1.1.) ...... 57 Figure 41: Design screen "balgstuw" at Ramspol. (J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants 2004) 58 Figure 42: Design tree. (part 2) ...... 62 Figure 43: Modular parachute barrier (top view, cross section waterway)...... 63 Figures of List Figure 44: ‘Lampion’ barrier (top view, cross section waterway, cross section barrier)...... 64

Figure 45: ‘Shoulder’ barrier (top view, detail)...... 64 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 130

Figure 46: 'Stepped' barrier with floating bodies...... 65 Figure 47: Calculation buoyancy...... 66 Figure 48: Fabric barrier. (Knippels en Pechtold 1992) ...... 67 Figure 49: Air pockets and second floating body...... 67 Figure 50: 'Barge' concept. (Top view) ...... 68 Figure 51: ‘Barge’ concept, two screen geometries. (cross section waterway and cross section barrier) ...... 68 Figure 52: Struts design examples...... 69 Figure 53: Mattress designs, on rail and independent with vertical floating bodies...... 69 Figure 54: 'Side wing' design 1...... 70 Figure 55: 'Side wing' design 2...... 70 Figure 56: 'Side wing' design problems. (correspond with design 1.) ...... 71 Figure 57: 'A-frame', support towers and guys, design concept...... 72 Figure 58: Principle cross section guy barrier...... 72 Figure 59: Left: diverting positive and negative water head. Right: Prefabricated top of the pylon, Martwa Wisla River Bridge, Gdansk, Poland...... 73 Figure 60: Closure guy barrier. (Top view) ...... 73 Figure 61: Fabric water barrier combined with a bridge...... 74 Figure 62: Closure bridge barrier concept 1; ‘crane lift’...... 74 Figure 63: Closure bridge barrier concept 2 (‘hinged struts’) and 3 (‘rolling’)...... 75 Figure 64: Closure bridge barrier concept 4; ‘vertical’...... 75 Figure 65: Closure bridge barrier concept 5; ’horizontal-vertical’...... 76 Figure 66: Closure bridge barrier concept 6; ‘vertical-vertical’...... 76 Figure 67: “Spinnaker”. (J.K. Vrijling) (top view (Regeling 1989), cross section abutment, cross section screen...... 77 Figure 68: Vizor gate (wier) Amerongen...... 78 Figure 69: Steel gate replaced by fabric screen...... 78 Figure 70: Cross section gate and view hinge...... 79 Figure 71: Definitions screen dimensions (1 and 3). (Top view; R,s=radios screen, R,c=cable radius, L,s=screen length, L,c=cable length, B= barrier/channel width, ß=angle screen-abutment, Ø=screen-waterway angle.) ...... 80 Figure 72: Definitions screen dimensions (2 and 4). (W=screen width, α,t=top angle screen, α,b=bottom angle screen, c= screen ‘creep length’, h1=high water level, h2=low water level, Δh= water head, b,u/b,l=upper and lower ‘cross screen width’ (R,s-R,c), a,u/a,l=upper and lower ‘cable low water line’ length.) ...... 80 Figure 73: Horizontal hydraulic loads...... 81 Figure 74: Vertical hydraulic loads from high water (h1)...... 81 Figure 75: Vertical hydraulic loads from low water (h2)...... 82 Figure 76: Residual hydraulic loads...... 82 Figure 77: ‘Support tower’ barrier with two separated screens...... 86 Figure 78: Simplification screen position...... 88 Figure 79: Pylon height (x-axes, [m]) vs. forces in horizontal plane (y-axes, [kN])...... 89 Figure 80: Deformation upper cable...... 89

Figure 81: 'A-frame', support towers and one screen, design concept...... 90

Figure 82: Top view ‘A-frame’ design concept...... 90 Figure 83: Deformation upper cable one screen to support towers...... 91 Figure 84: Sketch overview cable stayed bridge. [m] ...... 92 Figure 85: Simplified pylon cross section. [m] ...... 93

Figure 86: 3D sketch bridge and position points...... 95 Figures of List Figure 87: Bridge and upper cable position. [m] ...... 96

Figure 88: Position back guy 3...... 97 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 131

Figure 89: Guy position wrt. P1 and guy length. [m]...... 97 Figure 90: Deck normal loading for straight and curved deck during stored screen. [kN] ...... 102 Figure 91: Deck normal loading around P1 for a straight and curved deck during barrier operation. [kN] ...... 103 Figure 92: Deck normal loading (x-direction) barrier in operation (residual) and stored screen situation. [kN] ...... 104 Figure 93: Comparison guy forces for the two distinct situations. [kN] ...... 105 Figure 94: Difference in guy forces for stored screen and barrier in operation...... 105 Figure 95: Local system, deck torsion; left: during store screen, right: during barrier operation. Moment M,z is at P,b,i. [m] ...... 108 Figure 96: Main system, deck torsion due to loading of the outer deck...... 108 Figure 97: Pylon, BG1 and BGP1 calculations...... 110 Figure 98: Main reinforcement. [mm] ...... 114 Figure 99: Alternative cross section...... 115 Figure 100: Guy forces with altered screen width. [kN] ...... 116 Figure 101: Differences in guy forces with altered screen width...... 116 Figure 102: Two extreme screen orientations...... 117 Figure 103: Guy forces with altered pylon height. [kN] ...... 118 Figure 104: Differences in guy forces with altered pylon height...... 118

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Constructions along the four waterways. (RWS 'b' 2007) ...... 3 Table 2: CEMT-classes specifications. (RWS 'b' 2007) *) 30 cm of safety freeboard is considered and the height depends on the number of stacked containers...... 4 Table 3: Percentages of the tonnage classes with prognoses for 2015. (RWS - ZL 2000) (AVV) ..... 6 Table 4: Increase of passage recreational navigation.(RWS - ZL 2000)(AVV) ...... 7 Table 5: Technical comparison Spui...... 12 Table 6: Costs indication locations Spui...... 13 Table 7: Technical comparison Dordtsche Kil...... 17 Table 8: Costs indication locations Dordtsche Kil...... 18 Table 9: Technical comparison Beneden Merwede...... 22 Table 10: Costs indication locations Beneden Merwede...... 23 Table 11: Dimensions UOOC barriers. (RWS 'a' 1998)(RWS 'b' 2007)(RWS 'g' 1999)(MVW waterstat 2009)(TUDelft; d'Angremond; Bezuyen; Van der Meulen 2003) ...... 28 Table 12: Storage areas and water levels. (Rijn op termijn 2007) (WsHD 2007) (RWS 'i' 2004) ... 32 Table 13: Indication for the required storage capacity...... 33 Table 14: Expected NHW levels (+ NAP) at Haringvliet and Hollands Diep, t=0: +1.2m NAP...... 33 Table 15: Expected NHW levels (+ NAP) at Haringvliet and Hollands Diep, t=0; +0.0m NAP ...... 34 Table 16: Estimation leaking discharge UOOC barriers...... 38 Table 17: Comparison existing barriers...... 43 Table 18: UOOC barrier costs estimation...... 45 Table 19: Accuracy of the graphs for barrier costs prediction...... 46 Table 20: Costs estimation by means of ratios...... 47 Table 21: Strength and weight for various diameter ropes. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 50 Table 22: Diameter and weight for various rope strengths. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 50 Table 23: Chemical resistance and fatigue. (Driessen 1998)(Naeff 2009)...... 50

Table 24: Strain for several fibers.(Naeff 2009)(Driessen 1998)(DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 51 Tables of List Table 25: Steel vs. fabric. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) (Driessen 1998) (TUDelft 2003) ...... 52

Table 26: costs ratio indication synthetic fibers. (Driessen 1998)(DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 52 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 132

Table 27: Dyneema® fiber range. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 54 Table 28: Mechanical properties Dyneema® fiber. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 54 Table 29: Physical properties Dyneema® fiber. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 55 Table 30: Chemical resistance Dyneema® fiber. (DSM - Dyneema 2009) ...... 56 Table 31: breaking strength Dyneema® SK75 ropes. (For T,y a material safety factor of 1.1 is applied.) ...... 57 Table 32: Figures fabric inflatable barrier the "balgstuw" at Ramspol. ( *) with safety factors.) (GSW 2002) (J.S. Reedijk, Delta Marine Consultants 2004) ...... 58 Table 33: Buoyancy calculation 'stepped kite' barrier...... 66 Table 34: Safety factors movable water barrier...... 83 Table 35: Hydraulic loads (only the horizontal) for all four UOOC barriers. ( *)wind and current setup and setdown are taken into account; **)with safety factors) ...... 83 Table 36: Calculation feasibility PA screen and Dyneema® cables...... 85 Table 37: Input and calculation ‘support towers’ barrier...... 87 Table 38: Top pylon, screen connection and guy coordinates...... 88 Table 39: Guy angles and length...... 88 Table 40: Calculation guy forces...... 88 Table 41: Dimensions Merwede barrier; type ‘bridge+screen’ barrier. *) angle bridge and lower cable...... 94 Table 42: Bridge, upper cable and guy positions. (A,b is at the beginning of the bridge, P1,b at the middle pillar.) ...... 96 Table 43: Guy position, guy angles and guy length...... 97 Table 44: Screen dimensions...... 98 Table 45: Hydraulic loads ‘bridge+screen’ barrier. **) 50/50 load distribution to lower cable and deck...... 98 Table 46: Bridge safety factors for deck loads and material densities...... 99 Table 47: Deck loads with stored screen...... 99 Table 48: Deck loads with barrier in operation...... 99 Table 49: Guy forces during stored screen/bridge usage...... 100 Table 50: Guy and transition cable forces during barrier operation...... 100 Table 51: Deck compression straight and curved deck during stored screen. [kN] ...... 101 Table 52: Transition cable, guy and residual forces during barrier operation...... 102 Table 53: Deck compression straight and curved deck during barrier operation...... 103 Table 54: Comparison deck forces (x-direction) barrier in operation (residual) and stored screen situation...... 104 Table 55: Comparison guy forces for the two distinct situations...... 104 Table 56: Reaction forces middle pillars and abutments...... 107 Table 57: Rope diameters...... 109 Table 58: Diameter lower cable...... 109 Table 59: Pylon and back guy (BG1,10, BGP1,2) forces...... 110 Table 60: Pylon cross section. (Staalkundig Genootschap 1996) ...... 111 Table 61: Strength calculation concrete connection deck- middle pillar. (NEN6720 1995) ...... 114 Table 62: Parameters adjusted...... 115 Table 63: Difference indication short vs. wide screen...... 116 Table 64: Difference indication pylon height 27.5m and 60.0m above deck level...... 118 Table 65: Barrier input costs estimation...... 119 Table 66: Construction costs movable 'open fabric' water barrier. (WsHD 2007) ...... 119 Table 67: Construction costs pedestrian bridge and barrier support structure. *)asphalt (€30/m2) 2 3 and ‘furniture’ (€100/m ), **)steel: €5/kg, concrete; €400/m ...... 120 Tables of List Table 68: Large maintenance costs movable 'open fabric' water barrier. (WsHD 2007) ...... 120

Table 69: large maintenance costs pedestrian bridge and barrier support structure...... 120 Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 133

Table 70: NPV 'open fabric' water barrier; Merwede barrier...... 123 Table 71: NPV pedestrian bridge and barrier support structure; Merwede barrier...... 125 Table 72: Life-cycle costs screen. (Construction and replacement screen and lower cable.) ..... 126 Table 73: Large maintenance steel vertical drop gate...... 126 Table 74: Life-cycle costs steel drop gate. (Construction and large maintenance.) ...... 127

List of Tables of List Appendix: Appendix: Appendix: Movable water barrier for the 21st century F. van der Ziel BSc, TUDelft 134