PIANC Smart Rivers 2022
Reviewing Presentation documents
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):
Author
2
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)
The worldwide increasing number of national guidelines and growing experience with realized green bank protections (constructions using as far as possible living or at least wooden construction material) in navigable waters, led to install a PIANC INCOM Working Group (WG) to collect and condense expert knowledge in this field of work and prepare it for practitioners for design purposes. The corresponding PIANC report, named "Design Guidelines for Technical-Biological Bank Protections for Inland Waterways" is foreseen to be released this year. The report, whose structure, content, key findings and approach will be highlighted briefly in this contribution to the Smart Rivers Conference, tries to overcome the usual problems in design cases, which needs knowledge and experience of civil engineers, eco-engineers and ecologists all together and the way how the success of bank stabilization measures will be noticed and rated. The WG members had to notice that functionality assessment is not that simple, whereby partly huge differences between those who designed, realized and maintained measures and external parties as well as cultural differences occurred. To overcome these problems and thus to objectivise the choice and layout of alternative solutions, which may help to convince people responsible for waterway development and maintenance to use green measures instead of traditional bank protections as riprap, a Best Practice Approach was developed, basing on a catalogue of numerous realized measures, which are described in e.g. in so-called Fact Files. The content of these descriptions, especially the local boundary conditions and the balance between aims and achieved functionality issues, was used to assess the possible suitability of a chosen measure under generally different design conditions than those in the described realizations. This was achieved inter alia by a scoring system, assessing differences between Design- (DC) and Analysis Cases (shortly ACs from the catalogue of measures), which is called Feasibility Check (it answers the question, whether experiences made with the AC-cases can be transferred to the DC) and differences between user-specified aims in the DC and expected performance issues from the ACs, called "Suitability Check" (answers the question, how far expected functionality issues may probably be achievable). This was done both for technical and ecological issues, whereby the scores were chosen and reviewed interdisciplinary and internationally to overcome the aforementioned assessment differences. The paper concentrates on the EXCEL-based Pre-Selection tools, basing on this approach and demonstrates its applicability by examples.
Key words:
(max: 5)
Reference no.
Slides:
click to download
Reject
Accept
Confirm Submission