This appendix documents a few deterministic examples using the empirical formula discussed in

paragraph B-2 as well as a detailed PBIA for an upper guide wall. The examples shown use typical design

parameters (velocity, angle, and mass) used for design of navigation structures. The values selected also

fit into the limitation of the empirical model.

This example is for the design of an approach wall for a new lock on the Ohio River. Based on present

traffic predictions and navigation model testing at ERDC, a 15-barge tow and input parameters selected

for the usual load case are as follows:

θ = 10 degrees

(*F*w)max = 0.435*(30000*2/32.2)*(1.5*sin (10) + 0.05*cos (10)) = 1,116 kN (251 kips)

The empirical correlation is expressed in specific non-SI (English) units. The result for (*F*w)max can then

be converted to SI (metric) units.

This example is for the design of an approach wall for a new lock on the Mississippi River. Based on

present traffic predictions and navigation model testing at ERDC, the 9-barge tow and input parameters

selected for the usual load case are as follows:

θ = 15 degrees

(*F*w)max = 0.435*(13500*2/32.2)* (1.5*sin (10) + 0.05*cos (10)) = 916 kN (206 kips)

and dam project. The purpose of the example is to show how to implement the methods and empirical

model defined in paragraph B-2 of this ETL to determine the return periods for the design of the guide

wall. This example uses data for impact angle and velocity from 1:120-scale model hydraulic experiments

that were conducted at ERDC. The hydraulic conditions for the experiments were conducted under a flow

regime of 708 cu m/sec (25,000 cu ft/sec). The data have been processed to determine the annual distri-

butions and statistical parameters for the random variables in the PBIA. Data for loss of power, loss of

D-1