Background/Discussion. cont'd

Appendix A References - TL-1110-2-5630003

References cont'd - TL-1110-2-5630004

Appendix B Design Guidance for Barge Impact Loads on Rigid Walls

Figure B-3. Deck lashing

Objectives. This ETL provides the following:

Return Periods for Barge Impact Analysis

Table B-1 Preliminary Level Design Return Periods for Barge Impact

Parameters for Barge Impact

Figure B-7. Site constraints for a typical lock structure

Barge train mass.

Hydrodynamic added mass.

Hydrodynamic added mass. cont'd

Figure B-8. Scale navigation model of Greenup L&D used for impact testing

Figure B-9. Demonstration of time-lapse equipment installed at Kentucky Loc

Barge Impact Analysis for Rigid Walls - TL-1110-2-5630017

Figure B-10. Examples of impact loads on lock structures

Data from Previous Studies cont'd

Figure C-2. Hydraulic flow results from navigation model for Olmsted L&D

Figure C-4. Probability distribution of impact angle for Olmsted upper river approach wall

Figure C-5. Probability distribution of longitudinal impact velocity V0x for Olmsted upper river approach wall

Figure C-7. Probability distribution of tow mass for Olmsted upper river approach wall

Figure C-8. Upper approach guard wall at Winfield L&D

function for forward velocity at Winified upper approach guard wall

Figure C-10. Histogram and probability distribution function for impact angle at Winfield upper approach guard wall

Table C-2 Lognormal Distribution Parameters for Impact Variables at Winfield Upper Approach Guard Wall

Figure C-13. Probability distribution function for impact angle at Kentucky Locks upper landside guide wall

Table C-3 Lognormal Distribution Parameters for Impact Variables at Kentucky L&D Upper Approach Guide Wall

Figure C-18. Flow vectors from navigation model for Marmet L&D

Table C-4 Summary of Model Experiments for Marmet Lock and Dam (Patev 2000)

Figure C-19. Flow vectors from navigation model at London L&D

Figure C-21. Probability distribution for impact angle at London Locks upper landside guard wall

Figure C-22. Flow vectors from navigation model for Greenup L&D

Figure C-23. Physical contraints on impact angles at Greenup Locks

Figure C-25. Histogram of upbound tow weight distribution for Greenup L&D

Figure C-27. Probability distributions for forward velocity at Greenup L&D

Appendix D Examples of Probabilistic Barge Impact Analysis (PBIA) for Rigid Walls

PBIA data. cont'd

Table D-1 Raw Data from Scale Model Experiments at ERDC

Figure D-1. Histogram for longitudinal x-velocity (V0x) component

Figure D-3. Histogram for approach angles

Figure D-5. Histogram of longitudinal velocity from experiments

Figure D-7. Histogram of impact angle from experiments

Figure D-8. Excel and @Risk spreadsheet cell formulas

Figure D-9. Histogram of impact forces

Table D-5 Percentiles for Impact Load

Figure D-11. Return period versus impact load for upper guide wall

Appendix E Empirical Method for Barge Impact Analysis for Rigid Walls

Figure E-1. Barge train and velocity vector transformation from local (barge) to global (wall) axis

Summary of Results

Figure E-3. Cone shape of coefficient of variation of model uncertainity

Appendix F Field Experiments

Figure F-1. Barge train used for full-scale experiments

Figure F-2. Impact angle and velocities matrix for load beam experiments

Figure F-3. Statnamic device and experimental setup during experiment

Summary of Experimental Results.

TL 1110-2-563

Integrated Publishing, Inc. |