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.