Flood Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
flood fighting structures demonstration and evaluation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Flood Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 21, 2023 128 likes •462 views

Flood Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program (FFSD) George Sills Infrastructure Conference August 2005 Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory ERDC US Army Corps Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory of Engineers Flood

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Flood Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program (FFSD)

George Sills

Infrastructure Conference August 2005

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

  • 1. Background
  • 2. Product Selections
  • 3. Laboratory Testing
  • 4. Field Testing
  • 5. Product Summaries

Flood Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program (FFSD)

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Not a New Problem Lake Chicot Sand Boil (1973)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Background

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Background

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Flood Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program (FFSD) Authorization

“The conferees therefore direct the Corps of Engineers to act immediately to devise real world testing procedures for Rapid Deployment Flood Wall (RDFW) and other promising alternative flood fighting technologies.” 2004 Energy and Water Development Bill

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Laboratory Testing

  • Dr. Johannes Wibowo (GSL)

Perry A. (Pat) Taylor (GSL)

  • Dr. Donald Ward (CHL)

FFSD Study Team Leaders

Field Testing George Sills (GSL) Fred Pinkard (CHL)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Product Selections

  • 1. Congressional Directive – Rapid

Deployment Flood Wall (RDFW)

  • 2. Standard for Comparison - Sandbags

RDFW Sandbag Structure

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Product Selections

  • 1. Develop Evaluation/Selection Criteria
  • 2. Issue Solicitation for Technical Proposal
  • 9 Proposals Received
  • Categories – Product Type

Impermeable Liner (with or without frame) Granular Filled Container Water Filled Bladder

  • 3. Evaluate Proposals and Make Selections
  • Based on Technical Merit
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Product Selections

  • Competitive Technical Proposals

Portadam Hesco Bastion

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

  • 1. Product Requirements

Footprint and ROW requirements Durability Ease of Construction and Removal Time / Manpower/ Equipment Adaptability to Varying Terrain Seepage Fill Requirements Cost Repair and Reusability Ability to Raise During Flood

Evaluation Parameters

  • 2. Tests

Static Loading Overtopping Wave Impact Debris Impact

  • 3. Performance on

Various Surfaces

Freshly Graded Grass / Weeds Finished Concrete

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Laboratory Testing

Construction Footprint

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Laboratory Testing

Sandbag Structure RDFW

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Laboratory Testing

Debris Impact

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Laboratory Results

Construction Removal Effort Effort Structure (man hours) (man hours)

Portadam 24.4 4.4 Hesco 20.8 13.4 Sandbags 205.1 9.0 RDFW 32.8 42.0

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Sandbags Hesco- Bastion RDFW Portadam Gpm/ft

Static 1 ft Static 2 ft Static 95%

Laboratory Results

Seepage

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Field Testing

Site Selection

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC Vicksburg Harbor Test Site Portadam Hesco Bastion Sandbag Structure RDFW

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Portadam Structure

Construction Testing Removal

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Hesco Bastion Structure

Testing Construction Removal

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Hesco Bastion

Installation Modification

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Sandbag Structure

Construction Testing Removal

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

RDFW Structure

Construction Testing Removal

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

RDFW

Post Testing Modifications

  • Color Coded for Accurate Installation
  • Rounded Corners
  • Suction Trailer Available to Expedite Removal
slide-25
SLIDE 25

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Field Testing

Construction and Removal

Construction Removal Time Effort Time Effort Structure (hours) (man hours) (hours) (man hours) Portadam 5.1 26.2 2.9 12.6 Hesco Bastion 8.9 57.5 8.7 36.3 Sandbags 30.5 453.1 2.6 3.5 RDFW 7.5 48.4 17.3 113.4

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Field Testing

Seepage

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Wetted Surface Area (Square Feet) Seepage (Gallons/Hour) Sandbags RDFW Hesco Bastion Portadam

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

Portadam

None - 100% reusable

Hesco Bastion

Bent some panels and coils Over 95% reusable

Sandbags

Bags began to deteriorate All sandbags disposed

RDFW

Broke some unit pieces 95% of pieces reusable

Field Testing - Damage

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Strengths

  • Ease of Construction/Removal

(Time, Manpower, Equipment)

  • Low seepage rates
  • No fill required
  • High degree of reusability
  • Least ROW Required

Portadam Summary

Weaknesses

  • Punctured during debris impact test
  • Can’t be raised in typical application
slide-29
SLIDE 29

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Strengths

  • Ease of Construction/Removal

(Time, Manpower)

  • Low cost
  • High degree of reusability
  • Can be raised

Hesco Bastion Summary

Weaknesses

  • Significant ROW required

due to granular fill

  • Highest seepage rates
slide-30
SLIDE 30

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Strengths

  • Cost (volunteer / prison labor)
  • Conforms well to varying terrain
  • Low seepage rates
  • Can be raised

Sandbag Summary

Weaknesses

  • Very labor intensive
  • Not reusable
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Strengths

  • Ease of construction

(Time, Manpower)

  • Low seepage rates
  • High degree of reusability
  • Can be raised (8 inch units)

RDFW Summary

Weaknesses

  • Significant ROW required due to

granular fill

  • High cost
  • Most difficult to remove
slide-32
SLIDE 32

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

  • 1. Place testing data and results on

publicly accessible web page.

  • 2. Conduct pilot tests at 3 locations

around the country.

Philadelphia / Baltimore Districts Omaha District Sacramento District

  • 3. Use purchased products in actual

flood events.

Remaining Work

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory

US Army Corps

  • f Engineers

ERDC

Flood Fighting Structures Demonstration and Evaluation Program