PIANC Smart Rivers 2022
Reviewing full paper
Topic:
Inland Navigation Structure
Logistics
River System Management
Smart Shipping
Special Sessions
Waterway Infrastructure
Title:
Author(s):
Author
1
Name:
Affiliations:
Region:
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
America
Andorra
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Barbados
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
British Virgin Islands
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
China(Hong Kong)
China(Macao)
China(Tai wan)
Colombia
Comoros
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestine
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent And The Grenadine
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States of America
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Wallis and Futuna
Western Samoa
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Email:
Is corresponding author or not (one only):
Abstract :
*(250~1000 words)
Hydraulic structures are long usable infrastructure assets that have been designed for a long service life since time immemorial. Age statistics with approx. 30 % of hydraulic structures that have exceeded so far the service life of 100 years to be applied today should rather fill with pride than indicate the obsolescence of the structures. Nevertheless, structural verifications are necessary for existing hydraulic structures, because some structures show damage, others have changed their boundary conditions in the course of time, and others were built according to ear-lier standards, in whose verifications changes and further developments were made (conceptual ageing). In many cases, normative safety can no longer be verified with the relevant standards. From the discrepancy that structures can no longer be verified numerically, i.e. they are "unsafe", and the fact that they have been operated inconspicuously for decades in some cases, a frame-work was developed to get to the bottom of this discrepancy and to clarify the facts leading to the uncer-tainty. A subsequent adjustment or change of the procedures and standards that have been maintained for a long time cannot be ruled out. The framework for a more realistic assessment provides for the following three categories: 1. observations, experimental tests and monitoring, 2. revision of actions and verification formats in current standards, 3. considerations of the safety concept and reliability. As an example for category 1, the application of test loads that exceed normal actions and a sub-sequent post-calibration can be mentioned. The middle wall of an existing twin ship lock, built in 1925, in the Neckar River has already been proven to be unsafe under service loads, i.e. for characteristic actions and resistances. The concrete has low strength. Higher water levels, which occurred several times in the past, could be used as test loads to calibrate a minimum safety lev-el by calculation, from which a remaining service life was determined. Within the framework for category 2, the application of tensile strength in massive concrete cross-sections is investigated, which is not yet permitted in the current codes. Applying tensile strength, even if only to a limited extent, reduces the tensile zone in the concrete cross-section and thus the crack and pore water pressure, which would lead to iterative cracking of the cross-section. With the application of a tensile strength, not only bending verifications but also shear force verifications would succeed more reliably. The safety level for hydraulic structures is based on that for buildings and engineering struc-tures; an independent reliability level BETA for hydraulic structures has not yet been defined. In particular, if existing hydraulic structures would have to be upgraded to a considerable extent, the question of economic efficiency and acceptable risk within category 3 arises. A risk-based methodology allows a decision to be made on necessary upgrading measures. The individual investigations within the above criteria for the evaluation of existing hydraulic structures are shown and some of them are explained by way of examples.
Key words:
(max: 5)
Reference no.
Paper:
click to download
Reject
Accept
Confirm Submission
Accept
Reject
Revise
Comments:
Confirm