Current Delaware Current Delaware Memorial Bridge Memorial Bridge Protection SystemProtection System

Bridge Protection SystemBridge Protection System

Team:Team: 98.6 98.6 Members: Members: Nikhil Bhate, Brandon Clark, Neil Smith, Scott Nikhil Bhate, Brandon Clark, Neil Smith, Scott

SuhmannSuhmann Direct Customer:Direct Customer: Hardcore DuPont Composites, LLC Hardcore DuPont Composites, LLC Advisor:Advisor: Dr. Jack Vinson Dr. Jack Vinson Mission: Mission: By the end of Spring Semester 1998, design, By the end of Spring Semester 1998, design,

fabricate, and test a working unit section model of a fabricate, and test a working unit section model of a bridge protection system that gives meaningful bridge protection system that gives meaningful information towards replacing the current fender system information towards replacing the current fender system on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.on the Delaware Memorial Bridge.

Approach:Approach: Use Total Quality Design principles to provide Use Total Quality Design principles to provide a background for concept generation and evaluation.a background for concept generation and evaluation.

Customers List:Customers List:

Hardcore DuPont:Hardcore DuPont:• George Tunis, Dave HarrisGeorge Tunis, Dave Harris

Delaware River Bay Authority (DRBA):Delaware River Bay Authority (DRBA):• Joe Volk, Rick Volk, Steve MooreJoe Volk, Rick Volk, Steve Moore

Delaware Pilot’s Association:Delaware Pilot’s Association:• Captain LintonCaptain Linton

Army Corps Of Engineers:Army Corps Of Engineers: Governmental Agencies:Governmental Agencies: Construction Crew:Construction Crew: Other Ships and Vessels:Other Ships and Vessels:

• Maurice Richard, Tony SmithMaurice Richard, Tony Smith

Wants, Metrics, and Target Wants, Metrics, and Target ValuesValues

Prioritized Wants Associated Metrics Target ValuesNo damage to bridge. Deflection

Energy<20 ft6.24x107 ft-lbs.

Use composites Percent HardcoreComposite

10%-100% byvolume

Easy to install Construction Time 1 ConstructionSeason: 6months

Elastic Yield Strength 75000 psi incomposite8000 psi inconcrete

Easy to maintain Maintenance time < 1 week peryear

Wants, Metrics, and Target Wants, Metrics, and Target ValuesValues

Prioritized Wants Associated Metrics Target ValuesProfitable Cost < $30 millionQuick to replacedamaged components

Repair Time < 6 months

Easily dockable System Height Level withfooting

Minimal ship damage Hull Deformation

Wide passage System Width < 325' frombase

Aesthetically pleasing Appearance Conventionallooking,available indifferent colors

Constraints:Constraints:

Cannot Alter Bridge FoundationCannot Alter Bridge Foundation Cannot Obstruct 1000 foot channelCannot Obstruct 1000 foot channel VisibleVisible No CreosolsNo Creosols No Lead Based PaintsNo Lead Based Paints

BenchmarkingBenchmarking

System BenchmarkingSystem Benchmarking• Protection Systems for smaller Protection Systems for smaller

vesselsvessels– Camels, Fenders, SpringsCamels, Fenders, Springs

• Protection Systems for larger vesselsProtection Systems for larger vessels– Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Golden Gate Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Golden Gate

Bridge, Great Belt Easter BridgeBridge, Great Belt Easter Bridge

BenchmarkingBenchmarking

Functional Functional BenchmarkingBenchmarking• Energy Absorbing Energy Absorbing

SystemsSystems– Hex-Foam, Cushion Hex-Foam, Cushion

Wall, Hexalite, Wall, Hexalite, Fluidic ShocksFluidic Shocks

Cushion Wall

Hex-Foam Sandwich

Concept GenerationConcept Generation

Artificial IslandArtificial Island Stand Alone Dolphin SystemStand Alone Dolphin System Horizontal Piling StructureHorizontal Piling Structure Pile Supported Fender with Large Pile Supported Fender with Large

Protective CellsProtective Cells

Artificial IslandArtificial Island

Large island Large island surrounding surrounding footing, made of footing, made of any materialany material

Easy to ConstructEasy to Construct Difficult to apply Difficult to apply

compositescomposites

Dolphin SystemDolphin System

Two or more Two or more composite walled composite walled structures filled structures filled with crushed stone with crushed stone or sea shells or sea shells around footingaround footing

Prevents head-on Prevents head-on impactimpact

Too expensive to Too expensive to protect side impactprotect side impact

Horizontal Piling StructureHorizontal Piling Structure

Filled Pilings arranged Filled Pilings arranged horizontally outward horizontally outward from footing.from footing.

Device attached to Device attached to induce fracture inside induce fracture inside piling on impactpiling on impact

Dissipates energy Dissipates energy through fracture through fracture mechanicsmechanics

Theory difficult to apply Theory difficult to apply to ship impactto ship impact

Destroyed during useDestroyed during use

Pile Supported Fender with Pile Supported Fender with Protective CellsProtective Cells

Takes advantage of Takes advantage of large protective cells for large protective cells for head on impacthead on impact

Channel side protected Channel side protected by smaller fender by smaller fender structurestructure

Uses composites to aid Uses composites to aid installationinstallation

Makes use of structural Makes use of structural aspects of composite aspects of composite materialsmaterials

Complex designComplex design

Concept SelectionConcept Selection

Evaluated advantages and Evaluated advantages and shortcomings of concepts through shortcomings of concepts through an iterative design process (SSD).an iterative design process (SSD).

Pile Supported Fender System Pile Supported Fender System determined to be the best in terms determined to be the best in terms of satisfying wants and metricsof satisfying wants and metrics

Advantages of DesignAdvantages of Design

Uses composites to reduce Uses composites to reduce installation timeinstallation time

Composite adds structural Composite adds structural advantagesadvantages• Composite replaces rebar by taking Composite replaces rebar by taking

tensile loadstensile loads• Composite confines concrete Composite confines concrete

eliminating the need for stirrups in eliminating the need for stirrups in support columnsupport column

Concept DiscussionConcept Discussion

Choosing a design vessel:Choosing a design vessel:

An 80,000 ton ship was chosenAn 80,000 ton ship was chosen

Channel Traffic Over 3 Years

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Tonnage of Ships (x 100)

Nu

mb

er

of

Sh

ips

Concept DiscussionConcept Discussion

Vessel Speed and Vessel Speed and Orientation:Orientation:• Using tactical Using tactical

diameter, depth diameter, depth conditions, and conditions, and current flow data current flow data an angle of attack an angle of attack of 30°, and speed of 30°, and speed of 4 knots was of 4 knots was calculated.calculated.

Design DetailsDesign Details

Protective Cells:Protective Cells:• 80 ft dia.80 ft dia.• Situated at footing Situated at footing

end to prevent end to prevent head on collisionhead on collision

• Composite sheath, Composite sheath, filled with gravel, filled with gravel, and capped with and capped with concreteconcrete

Design DetailsDesign Details

Support ColumnsSupport Columns• 12 ft dia.12 ft dia.• 1” thick carbon glass hybrid pile1” thick carbon glass hybrid pile• Installed in sectionsInstalled in sections• Filled with concreteFilled with concrete• Assumed to be cantilevered at 500 Assumed to be cantilevered at 500

year scouryear scour

Design DetailsDesign Details

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

Design DetailsDesign Details

FenderFender• 20 ft. x 15 ft. x 36 20 ft. x 15 ft. x 36

ft.ft.• Concrete encased Concrete encased

with ‘bottle core’ with ‘bottle core’ compositecomposite

• Cone at base for Cone at base for installationinstallation

• Rebar used to Rebar used to distribute load to distribute load to pilepile

Design MethodologyDesign Methodology

Energy vs. Velocity

0.00E+00

5.00E+07

1.00E+08

1.50E+08

2.00E+08

2.50E+08

3.00E+08

0 2 4 6 8 10

Velocity (knots)

En

erg

y (f

t-lb

s)

Design MethodologyDesign Methodology

Design focus on support column Design focus on support column and fenderand fender• Protective cell size benchmarkedProtective cell size benchmarked

Iterative design process for Iterative design process for support columnsupport column• analyzed diameters of 10 ft. to 14 ft.analyzed diameters of 10 ft. to 14 ft.• determined the flexural rigidity of determined the flexural rigidity of

composite column with concrete fillercomposite column with concrete filler

Force - DisplacementForce - Displacement

TestingTesting

Tested to determine distribution Tested to determine distribution factor due to the adjacent piles.factor due to the adjacent piles.

Force vs Diplacement

y = 12.371x - 2.5591

y = 115.42x - 8.9752

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Force (lbs.)

Dis

pla

ce

me

nt

(in

/10

00

)

One Pile

Eleven Piles

Linear (Eleven Piles)

Linear (One Pile)

DF=9.33

CostingCosting

Concrete: $875,000Concrete: $875,000 Composites:Composites:

• Protection Cell -- $400,000Protection Cell -- $400,000• Support Columns -- $165,000Support Columns -- $165,000• Bottle Core Wall -- $3,750,00Bottle Core Wall -- $3,750,00

Total: $10.3 millionTotal: $10.3 million Labor: $9.5 millionLabor: $9.5 million

Issues for Further Issues for Further InvestigationInvestigation

Further costing analysis Further costing analysis Connecting fender to end Connecting fender to end

protection cellsprotection cells Test a larger scale prototype for Test a larger scale prototype for

further proof of distribution factor.further proof of distribution factor.