E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 20163rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
|Number of page(s)||10|
|Section||Performance and behaviour of flood defences|
|Published online||20 October 2016|
Evaluation of temporary flood-fighting structures
1 U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd. Vicksburg, MS 39180 USA
2 U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd. Vicksburg, MS 39180 USA
a Corresponding author: Johannes.L.Wibowo@usace.army.mil
Sandbags have traditionally been the product of choice for temporary, barrier-type, flood-fighting structures. However, sandbag structures are labor intensive and time consuming to construct and may not always be the best choice when selecting a flood-fighting barrier. To compare different barriers, the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) developed a standard protocol to evaluate flood-fighting structures. Rapid Deployment Flood Wall (RDFW), Portadam, and Hesco Bastion were selected for testing based on technical merit from proposals submitted by companies that manufacture barrier-type, flood-fighting products. A standard sandbag structure was also tested.
The evaluation included time, ease, and cost of construction, performance under hydrostatic and wave loading, overtopping, debris impact, possible repair, reuse, environmental impact, and cost. The results of the evaluation showed that the RDFW performed well but is more expensive than the other structures and also not easy to dis-assemble. The Portadam was efficient under hydraulic loading but did not test well in the debris impact tests. The Hesco levee performed well except for the amount of seepage that was observed. The Hesco levee was later retested after the company improved the product, and much less seepage was observed during the retest. The sandbag levee failed during the overtopping test. These results provide the flood-fighting community with results that will assist in the selection of the product that best fits their need.
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2016
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.