1 / 27

Current Delaware Memorial Bridge Protection System

Current Delaware Memorial Bridge Protection System. Bridge Protection System. Team: 98.6 Members: Nikhil Bhate, Brandon Clark, Neil Smith, Scott Suhmann Direct Customer: Hardcore DuPont Composites, LLC Advisor: Dr. Jack Vinson

curt
Download Presentation

Current Delaware Memorial Bridge Protection System

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Current Delaware Memorial Bridge Protection System

  2. Bridge Protection System • Team: 98.6 • Members: Nikhil Bhate, Brandon Clark, Neil Smith, Scott Suhmann • Direct Customer: Hardcore DuPont Composites, LLC • Advisor: Dr. Jack Vinson • Mission: By the end of Spring Semester 1998, design, fabricate, and test a working unit section model of a bridge protection system that gives meaningful information towards replacing the current fender system on the Delaware Memorial Bridge. • Approach: Use Total Quality Design principles to provide a background for concept generation and evaluation.

  3. Customers List: • Hardcore DuPont: • George Tunis, Dave Harris • Delaware River Bay Authority (DRBA): • Joe Volk, Rick Volk, Steve Moore • Delaware Pilot’s Association: • Captain Linton • Army Corps Of Engineers: • Governmental Agencies: • Construction Crew: • Other Ships and Vessels: • Maurice Richard, Tony Smith

  4. Wants, Metrics, and Target Values

  5. Wants, Metrics, and Target Values

  6. Constraints: • Cannot Alter Bridge Foundation • Cannot Obstruct 1000 foot channel • Visible • No Creosols • No Lead Based Paints

  7. Benchmarking • System Benchmarking • Protection Systems for smaller vessels • Camels, Fenders, Springs • Protection Systems for larger vessels • Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, Great Belt Easter Bridge

  8. Benchmarking • Functional Benchmarking • Energy Absorbing Systems • Hex-Foam, Cushion Wall, Hexalite, Fluidic Shocks Hex-Foam Sandwich Cushion Wall

  9. Concept Generation • Artificial Island • Stand Alone Dolphin System • Horizontal Piling Structure • Pile Supported Fender with Large Protective Cells

  10. Artificial Island • Large island surrounding footing, made of any material • Easy to Construct • Difficult to apply composites

  11. Dolphin System • Two or more composite walled structures filled with crushed stone or sea shells around footing • Prevents head-on impact • Too expensive to protect side impact

  12. Horizontal Piling Structure • Filled Pilings arranged horizontally outward from footing. • Device attached to induce fracture inside piling on impact • Dissipates energy through fracture mechanics • Theory difficult to apply to ship impact • Destroyed during use

  13. Pile Supported Fender with Protective Cells • Takes advantage of large protective cells for head on impact • Channel side protected by smaller fender structure • Uses composites to aid installation • Makes use of structural aspects of composite materials • Complex design

  14. Concept Selection • Evaluated advantages and shortcomings of concepts through an iterative design process (SSD). • Pile Supported Fender System determined to be the best in terms of satisfying wants and metrics

  15. Advantages of Design • Uses composites to reduce installation time • Composite adds structural advantages • Composite replaces rebar by taking tensile loads • Composite confines concrete eliminating the need for stirrups in support column

  16. Concept Discussion • Choosing a design vessel: • An 80,000 ton ship was chosen

  17. Concept Discussion • Vessel Speed and Orientation: • Using tactical diameter, depth conditions, and current flow data an angle of attack of 30°, and speed of 4 knots was calculated.

  18. Design Details • Protective Cells: • 80 ft dia. • Situated at footing end to prevent head on collision • Composite sheath, filled with gravel, and capped with concrete

  19. Support Columns 12 ft dia. 1” thick carbon glass hybrid pile Installed in sections Filled with concrete Assumed to be cantilevered at 500 year scour Design Details

  20. Design Details • Support Column • Applied load: 1.11E6 lbs. • EI total: 2.17E13 lb.-in^2 • Base Bending Moment: 1.07E9 in-lb. • Tube tensile stress: 5.37E4 psi • Filler compression stress: 7.4E3 psi

  21. Design Details • Fender • 20 ft. x 15 ft. x 36 ft. • Concrete encased with ‘bottle core’ composite • Cone at base for installation • Rebar used to distribute load to pile

  22. Design Methodology

  23. Design Methodology • Design focus on support column and fender • Protective cell size benchmarked • Iterative design process for support column • analyzed diameters of 10 ft. to 14 ft. • determined the flexural rigidity of composite column with concrete filler

  24. Force - Displacement

  25. Testing • Tested to determine distribution factor due to the adjacent piles.

  26. Costing • Concrete: $875,000 • Composites: • Protection Cell -- $400,000 • Support Columns -- $165,000 • Bottle Core Wall -- $3,750,00 • Total: $10.3 million • Labor: $9.5 million

  27. Issues for Further Investigation • Further costing analysis • Connecting fender to end protection cells • Test a larger scale prototype for further proof of distribution factor.

More Related