Current Delaware Memorial Bridge Protection System
Post on 19-Jan-2016
24 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Transcript
Current Delaware Current Delaware Memorial Bridge Memorial Bridge Protection SystemProtection System
Bridge Protection SystemBridge Protection System
Team:Team: 98.6 98.6 Members: Members: Nikhil Bhate, Brandon Clark, Neil Smith, Scott Nikhil Bhate, Brandon Clark, Neil Smith, Scott
SuhmannSuhmann Direct Customer:Direct Customer: Hardcore DuPont Composites, LLC Hardcore DuPont Composites, LLC Advisor:Advisor: Dr. Jack Vinson Dr. Jack Vinson Mission: Mission: By the end of Spring Semester 1998, design, By the end of Spring Semester 1998, design,
fabricate, and test a working unit section model of a fabricate, and test a working unit section model of a bridge protection system that gives meaningful bridge protection system that gives meaningful information towards replacing the current fender system information towards replacing the current fender system on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Approach:Approach: Use Total Quality Design principles to provide Use Total Quality Design principles to provide a background for concept generation and evaluation.a background for concept generation and evaluation.
Customers List:Customers List:
Hardcore DuPont:Hardcore DuPont:• George Tunis, Dave HarrisGeorge Tunis, Dave Harris
Delaware River Bay Authority (DRBA):Delaware River Bay Authority (DRBA):• Joe Volk, Rick Volk, Steve MooreJoe Volk, Rick Volk, Steve Moore
Delaware Pilot’s Association:Delaware Pilot’s Association:• Captain LintonCaptain Linton
Army Corps Of Engineers:Army Corps Of Engineers: Governmental Agencies:Governmental Agencies: Construction Crew:Construction Crew: Other Ships and Vessels:Other Ships and Vessels:
• Maurice Richard, Tony SmithMaurice Richard, Tony Smith
Wants, Metrics, and Target Wants, Metrics, and Target ValuesValues
Prioritized Wants Associated Metrics Target ValuesNo damage to bridge. Deflection
Energy<20 ft6.24x107 ft-lbs.
Use composites Percent HardcoreComposite
10%-100% byvolume
Easy to install Construction Time 1 ConstructionSeason: 6months
Elastic Yield Strength 75000 psi incomposite8000 psi inconcrete
Easy to maintain Maintenance time < 1 week peryear
Wants, Metrics, and Target Wants, Metrics, and Target ValuesValues
Prioritized Wants Associated Metrics Target ValuesProfitable Cost < $30 millionQuick to replacedamaged components
Repair Time < 6 months
Easily dockable System Height Level withfooting
Minimal ship damage Hull Deformation
Wide passage System Width < 325' frombase
Aesthetically pleasing Appearance Conventionallooking,available indifferent colors
Constraints:Constraints:
Cannot Alter Bridge FoundationCannot Alter Bridge Foundation Cannot Obstruct 1000 foot channelCannot Obstruct 1000 foot channel VisibleVisible No CreosolsNo Creosols No Lead Based PaintsNo Lead Based Paints
BenchmarkingBenchmarking
System BenchmarkingSystem Benchmarking• Protection Systems for smaller Protection Systems for smaller
vesselsvessels– Camels, Fenders, SpringsCamels, Fenders, Springs
• Protection Systems for larger vesselsProtection Systems for larger vessels– Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Golden Gate Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Golden Gate
Bridge, Great Belt Easter BridgeBridge, Great Belt Easter Bridge
BenchmarkingBenchmarking
Functional Functional BenchmarkingBenchmarking• Energy Absorbing Energy Absorbing
SystemsSystems– Hex-Foam, Cushion Hex-Foam, Cushion
Wall, Hexalite, Wall, Hexalite, Fluidic ShocksFluidic Shocks
Cushion Wall
Hex-Foam Sandwich
Concept GenerationConcept Generation
Artificial IslandArtificial Island Stand Alone Dolphin SystemStand Alone Dolphin System Horizontal Piling StructureHorizontal Piling Structure Pile Supported Fender with Large Pile Supported Fender with Large
Protective CellsProtective Cells
Artificial IslandArtificial Island
Large island Large island surrounding surrounding footing, made of footing, made of any materialany material
Easy to ConstructEasy to Construct Difficult to apply Difficult to apply
compositescomposites
Dolphin SystemDolphin System
Two or more Two or more composite walled composite walled structures filled structures filled with crushed stone with crushed stone or sea shells or sea shells around footingaround footing
Prevents head-on Prevents head-on impactimpact
Too expensive to Too expensive to protect side impactprotect side impact
Horizontal Piling StructureHorizontal Piling Structure
Filled Pilings arranged Filled Pilings arranged horizontally outward horizontally outward from footing.from footing.
Device attached to Device attached to induce fracture inside induce fracture inside piling on impactpiling on impact
Dissipates energy Dissipates energy through fracture through fracture mechanicsmechanics
Theory difficult to apply Theory difficult to apply to ship impactto ship impact
Destroyed during useDestroyed during use
Pile Supported Fender with Pile Supported Fender with Protective CellsProtective Cells
Takes advantage of Takes advantage of large protective cells for large protective cells for head on impacthead on impact
Channel side protected Channel side protected by smaller fender by smaller fender structurestructure
Uses composites to aid Uses composites to aid installationinstallation
Makes use of structural Makes use of structural aspects of composite aspects of composite materialsmaterials
Complex designComplex design
Concept SelectionConcept Selection
Evaluated advantages and Evaluated advantages and shortcomings of concepts through shortcomings of concepts through an iterative design process (SSD).an iterative design process (SSD).
Pile Supported Fender System Pile Supported Fender System determined to be the best in terms determined to be the best in terms of satisfying wants and metricsof satisfying wants and metrics
Advantages of DesignAdvantages of Design
Uses composites to reduce Uses composites to reduce installation timeinstallation time
Composite adds structural Composite adds structural advantagesadvantages• Composite replaces rebar by taking Composite replaces rebar by taking
tensile loadstensile loads• Composite confines concrete Composite confines concrete
eliminating the need for stirrups in eliminating the need for stirrups in support columnsupport column
Concept DiscussionConcept Discussion
Choosing a design vessel:Choosing a design vessel:
An 80,000 ton ship was chosenAn 80,000 ton ship was chosen
Channel Traffic Over 3 Years
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Tonnage of Ships (x 100)
Nu
mb
er
of
Sh
ips
Concept DiscussionConcept Discussion
Vessel Speed and Vessel Speed and Orientation:Orientation:• Using tactical Using tactical
diameter, depth diameter, depth conditions, and conditions, and current flow data current flow data an angle of attack an angle of attack of 30°, and speed of 30°, and speed of 4 knots was of 4 knots was calculated.calculated.
Design DetailsDesign Details
Protective Cells:Protective Cells:• 80 ft dia.80 ft dia.• Situated at footing Situated at footing
end to prevent end to prevent head on collisionhead on collision
• Composite sheath, Composite sheath, filled with gravel, filled with gravel, and capped with and capped with concreteconcrete
Design DetailsDesign Details
Support ColumnsSupport Columns• 12 ft dia.12 ft dia.• 1” thick carbon glass hybrid pile1” thick carbon glass hybrid pile• Installed in sectionsInstalled in sections• Filled with concreteFilled with concrete• Assumed to be cantilevered at 500 Assumed to be cantilevered at 500
year scouryear scour
Design DetailsDesign Details
Support ColumnSupport Column• Applied load: 1.11E6 lbs. Applied load: 1.11E6 lbs. • EI total: 2.17E13 lb.-in^2EI total: 2.17E13 lb.-in^2• Base Bending Moment: 1.07E9 in-lb.Base Bending Moment: 1.07E9 in-lb.• Tube tensile stress: 5.37E4 psiTube tensile stress: 5.37E4 psi• Filler compression stress: 7.4E3 psiFiller compression stress: 7.4E3 psi
Design DetailsDesign Details
FenderFender• 20 ft. x 15 ft. x 36 20 ft. x 15 ft. x 36
ft.ft.• Concrete encased Concrete encased
with ‘bottle core’ with ‘bottle core’ compositecomposite
• Cone at base for Cone at base for installationinstallation
• Rebar used to Rebar used to distribute load to distribute load to pilepile
Design MethodologyDesign Methodology
Energy vs. Velocity
0.00E+00
5.00E+07
1.00E+08
1.50E+08
2.00E+08
2.50E+08
3.00E+08
0 2 4 6 8 10
Velocity (knots)
En
erg
y (f
t-lb
s)
Design MethodologyDesign Methodology
Design focus on support column Design focus on support column and fenderand fender• Protective cell size benchmarkedProtective cell size benchmarked
Iterative design process for Iterative design process for support columnsupport column• analyzed diameters of 10 ft. to 14 ft.analyzed diameters of 10 ft. to 14 ft.• determined the flexural rigidity of determined the flexural rigidity of
composite column with concrete fillercomposite column with concrete filler
Force - DisplacementForce - Displacement
TestingTesting
Tested to determine distribution Tested to determine distribution factor due to the adjacent piles.factor due to the adjacent piles.
Force vs Diplacement
y = 12.371x - 2.5591
y = 115.42x - 8.9752
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Force (lbs.)
Dis
pla
ce
me
nt
(in
/10
00
)
One Pile
Eleven Piles
Linear (Eleven Piles)
Linear (One Pile)
DF=9.33
CostingCosting
Concrete: $875,000Concrete: $875,000 Composites:Composites:
• Protection Cell -- $400,000Protection Cell -- $400,000• Support Columns -- $165,000Support Columns -- $165,000• Bottle Core Wall -- $3,750,00Bottle Core Wall -- $3,750,00
Total: $10.3 millionTotal: $10.3 million Labor: $9.5 millionLabor: $9.5 million
Issues for Further Issues for Further InvestigationInvestigation
Further costing analysis Further costing analysis Connecting fender to end Connecting fender to end
protection cellsprotection cells Test a larger scale prototype for Test a larger scale prototype for
further proof of distribution factor.further proof of distribution factor.
top related