daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Highways & Autobahns

Highways & Autobahns All about automobility



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 28th, 2014, 02:47 PM   #11161
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,974
Likes (Received): 5831

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisZwolle View Post
A proposed new solution in the Netherlands, the tilting sluice (kantelsluis). A possible alternative for an aquaduct. It has a neutral energy balance, and can be applied at existing bascule bridges. Most bascule bridges in the Netherlands only open for yachts, commercial shipping can usually pass under bridges without having to open them. This solution has been proposed for the Haringvliet Bridge (A29) south of Rotterdam.

Do you the status of this proposal? It is quite genius and would allow a much smoother passage of all traffic over this bridge without the need to construct a new higher mounted bridge.

Especially with the A4-South which is due to open early 2015 if I am not mistaken, the Haringvlietbridge can not open as much as they do now. Especially to accommodate the passage of some recreational yachts which has hardly any benefit to the economy where as the traffic on the bridge is mostly economically driven.
__________________
.
"Atheism is more than just the knowledge that Gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature" - Carl Sagan
EPA001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 28th, 2014, 11:16 PM   #11162
verfmeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 174
Likes (Received): 51

The question is if it is cheaper then a higher bridge. Especially if you consider that the current bridge only has room for 2x3 lanes if the lanes for non-highway traffic (bicycles, Agricultural vehicles). If 2x3 becomes necessary due to increased trafic, new plans have to be made, which might include a new bridge. That one could be higher so this is not necessary.
verfmeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 28th, 2014, 11:52 PM   #11163
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2155

Quote:
Originally Posted by verfmeer View Post
The question is if it is cheaper then a higher bridge. Especially if you consider that the current bridge only has room for 2x3 lanes if the lanes for non-highway traffic (bicycles, Agricultural vehicles). If 2x3 becomes necessary due to increased trafic, new plans have to be made, which might include a new bridge. That one could be higher so this is not necessary.
Building new bridge doesn't increase the maintenance. The maintenance costs of that sluice will be substantial.

At first I thought it a nice design, but I am not sure what kind of advantages does it have over a normal sluice design anyway.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2014, 12:24 AM   #11164
verfmeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 174
Likes (Received): 51

At a normal sluice one end must have a higher water level then the other side. In this case, both ends are part of the same body of water and therefore have the same water level.
verfmeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2014, 02:58 AM   #11165
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2155

Quote:
Originally Posted by verfmeer View Post
At a normal sluice one end must have a higher water level then the other side. In this case, both ends are part of the same body of water and therefore have the same water level.
What do you mean? You need to lower the water level in order to increase the clearance for the ships and then you need to increase it again. This means you need to exert work because you need to lift the water. I am not so sure that this design requires less energy for moving the water away than the traditional design.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2014, 04:51 PM   #11166
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,603
Likes (Received): 19391

A4 Delft - Schiedam

A new connector at the 'Kethelplein' motorway interchange opens to traffic this night. It is a two-lane connector from A4 to A20 west (right to below in the image). It replaces a cloverleaf loop.

[img]http://i59.************/23ts8ye.jpg[/img]
__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

McBeans, EPA001 liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2014, 09:56 PM   #11167
verfmeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 174
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surel View Post
What do you mean? You need to lower the water level in order to increase the clearance for the ships and then you need to increase it again. This means you need to exert work because you need to lift the water. I am not so sure that this design requires less energy for moving the water away than the traditional design.
In the traditional design the water level is lowered by opening holes in the doors so the water flows out to the lower part. Therefore a normal sluice (also called lock), needs a height difference. If you want to build a lower stretch of water under the bridge, water will be pouring in everytime the lock is operated. Within a few times the stretch under the bridge will be filled to the old level. It would need continuous pumping to prevent it from reaching that old water level. That pumping would cost a lot of energy.

In this design, one stretch of water is lifted while the other is lowered. That costs very little energy, because the center of mass doesn't change. Although lifting the boats will cost some energy, it costs less than it would could cost to lift the whole stretch of water. The question is if the higher number of moving parts and the higher material costs will cost more or less than the energy profit. That needs to be investigated by engineers.
verfmeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2014, 10:58 PM   #11168
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2155

Quote:
Originally Posted by verfmeer View Post
In this design, one stretch of water is lifted while the other is lowered. That costs very little energy, because the center of mass doesn't change. Although lifting the boats will cost some energy, it costs less than it would could cost to lift the whole stretch of water. The question is if the higher number of moving parts and the higher material costs will cost more or less than the energy profit. That needs to be investigated by engineers.
And that is what I am not so sure about. You need to displace the same amount of water. Thus you should need to exert the same amount of energy. In fact the whole tilting sluice works as one giant water pump or am I missing something?
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 29th, 2014, 11:45 PM   #11169
verfmeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 174
Likes (Received): 51

It's more like a huge log. Such large piece of wood is hard to lift, but easy to rotate. I am unable to do the calculations without more specifications, but the theory says it cost less energy. That is because the conventional design requires the water to make a free fall, and all that splatter is useless energy. In here you only lose energy when you have to brake the sluice to stop it rotating. It all depends on the mass and the volume of the water, but this new option might be cheaper than the old one.
verfmeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2014, 03:15 AM   #11170
julesstoop
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Leiden, The Netherlands
Posts: 1,334
Likes (Received): 80

If you manage not to (or at least as little as possible) move the centre of mass of the whole system, it can be done very easily.
__________________
--
Lapinisme blijft relevant...
julesstoop no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2014, 04:56 AM   #11171
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

Yes, the weight of water on one side will counterbalance the one on the other side. Just the same as in an elevator. You don't need energy to actually raise it, since while you raise one you lower the other.

Energy here is needed to win the inertia of the whole structure and make it spin, but -as said- it's much less than when lifting the whole thing.
__________________
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!

Marchionne means never having to say you're sorry.

Due to Photobucket f*cking up, most images won't be visibile in my old posts. If you need anything specific, please write me.
Wilhem275 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2014, 05:27 PM   #11172
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2155

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhem275 View Post
Yes, the weight of water on one side will counterbalance the one on the other side. Just the same as in an elevator. You don't need energy to actually raise it, since while you raise one you lower the other.

Energy here is needed to win the inertia of the whole structure and make it spin, but -as said- it's much less than when lifting the whole thing.
I don't seem to be getting it.

Imagine a normal design. You got a chamber, the boat gets in. The door closes. The water is pumped out and you need energy for that. The boat moves to the second door. The water flows in, and you could make energy of that. The boat flows out.

The problem is that you are not able to harvest the potential energy of the water completely, thus you are never able to recover the energy invested into pumping the water out.

Now, since this tilting design should work better, it should be able to recover that energy more efficiently. I donīt see how does it do that. I donīt see how does this system converse the change in the potential energy to use it later on.

Please donīt forget that if you want to push a floating glass half full with water deeper inside the water, you need energy as well. You need to overcome the buoyancy. And if you want to pull it up from the water, you need energy as you need to overcome the gravity.

EDIT. I am not sure, but I guess that this is the trick. The buoyancy exerts force on the center of gravity, which would be the axle of the whole cylinder. Thus you would not have to deal with it and it would have only very slight effect on the increased friction in the axle.

So I imagine it as this. There is a cylinder with two chambers that are connected with each other and with the outside water. The water is equal with the outside. The inner and left connection closes. We rotate it counterclockwise and the water pours out from the right chamber. We donīt need to overcome the buoyancy as the buoyancy is felt at the axle which is hold tight and bound to earth, the friction increases a bit. We get to the desired point. The boat gets in the right chamber. The door closes on right side and opens on the left side and we rotate clockwise till desired point. The boat on the left side gets in and the door on the left side closes. We rotate again counterclockwise till the level in the right chamber equalizes with the outside water. The boat gets out.

I was playing a bit in paint .


Sorry for the OT. But could anyone confirm this? Especially the solution to the buoyancy problem?

Last edited by Surel; August 30th, 2014 at 06:15 PM.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2014, 06:13 PM   #11173
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

Actually in this design you don't have to think about the potential energy given by the weight of the water pumped in or out, because in fact you are not displacing water at all, it just stays inside the chambers in constant volumes. In fact you don't have any energy to recover, it just stays in the whole time, as in roped elevators:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/flas...ator-cable.swf

The energy here is needed to take this whole bunch of steel, water and boats into spinning, and then stopping it again. It's a serious job. But the interesting part is that using electric motors you can recover part of the energy when stopping the rotation.


Buoyancy could be a problem of this design, but I see they already solved it by shaping the whole thing as a cylinder: in this way while it rotates it still occupies the same exact space in the water. You will not then have differences in water pressure depending on the position of the cylinder.

Since the structure is linked to the ground, you will have a constant buoyancy force pushing it upwards; this force will insist on the two pivots. But it will be then mostly counterbalanced by the weight of the water inside (which will occupy almost the same volume of the water displaced) and of the structure itself. It's in fact a boat full of water. So, it could even reach a good equilibrium with the external pressure and thus not insist too much upwards on the pivots and foundations (probably weight will be higher than buoyancy, in the end).

This is a very intelligent design because it uses a lot of different huge forces in a smart way, keeping them in a general equilibrium.
As said by verfmeer calculations must be done on the convenience of building and mantaining this peculiar system, but the concept is very well thought.
__________________
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!

Marchionne means never having to say you're sorry.

Due to Photobucket f*cking up, most images won't be visibile in my old posts. If you need anything specific, please write me.

Suburbanist liked this post
Wilhem275 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2014, 06:19 PM   #11174
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2155

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhem275 View Post
Actually in this design you don't have to think about the potential energy given by the weight of the water pumped in or out, because in fact you are not displacing water at all, it just stays inside the chambers in constant volumes. In fact you don't have any energy to recover, it just stays in the whole time, as in roped elevators:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/flas...ator-cable.swf

The energy here is needed to take this whole bunch of steel, water and boats into spinning, and then stopping it again. It's a serious job. But the interesting part is that using electric motors you can recover part of the energy when stopping the rotation.


Buoyancy could be a problem of this design, but I see they already solved it by shaping the whole thing as a cylinder: in this way while it rotates it still occupies the same exact space in the water. You will not then have differences in water pressure depending on the position of the cylinder.

Since the structure is linked to the ground, you will have a constant buoyancy force pushing it upwards; this force will insist on the two pivots. But it will be then mostly counterbalanced by the weight of the water inside (which will occupy almost the same volume of the water displaced) and of the structure itself. It's in fact a boat full of water. So, it could even reach a good equilibrium with the external pressure and thus not insist too much upwards on the pivots and foundations (probably weight will be higher than buoyancy, in the end).

This is a very intelligent design because it uses a lot of different huge forces in a smart way, keeping them in a general equilibrium.
As said by verfmeer calculations must be done on the convenience of building and mantaining this peculiar system, but the concept is very well thought.
Yeah. I came to that after a while of thinking . The buoyancy force will be dealt by the pivots exerting the exact same force in the opposite direction. There might be only problems with increased friction. I am not so sure if they can make it weight enough to replace 8 m height of water.

Thx. for the confirmation! It was nice puzzle.
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2014, 06:22 PM   #11175
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,603
Likes (Received): 19391

The projected cost estimate is € 60 million.

That means it's mostly feasible to avoid long fixed bridges or tunnels.
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2014, 06:31 PM   #11176
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surel View Post
I am not so sure if they can make it weight enough to replace 8 m height of water.
Wait: you don't have to actually replace them, since almost the same amount of water is inside the structure and pushes downwards on the pivots.
__________________
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!

Marchionne means never having to say you're sorry.

Due to Photobucket f*cking up, most images won't be visibile in my old posts. If you need anything specific, please write me.
Wilhem275 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 30th, 2014, 11:59 PM   #11177
Surel
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,702
Likes (Received): 2155

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilhem275 View Post
Wait: you don't have to actually replace them, since almost the same amount of water is inside the structure and pushes downwards on the pivots.
The water level in one chamber would bee around 7 - 8 meter under the outside water level, right? The water level in the other chamber would not be above the outside water level, right?
Surel no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 31st, 2014, 01:42 AM   #11178
verfmeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 174
Likes (Received): 51

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surel View Post
The water level in one chamber would bee around 7 - 8 meter under the outside water level, right? The water level in the other chamber would not be above the outside water level, right?
Yes, but that only requires to pump out the water once at construction. And since the center of rotation will be around 3-4 meter below the outside water level (as seen in the video), the sluice is still balanced around the center of rotation and the center of mass (which will probably be at the same spot).

And I don't think it will be buoyant due to the fact that they use steel. Steel is 8 times denser than water, so it could compensate for the lack of water in one chamber. The doors of the sluice are usually around 50 centimeters thick, which make it way 4 metric tonnes per square meter. You also see parts of the sluice rising above the water adding weight to the sluice, without displacing water. If the designers are any good, they make the sluice weigh slightly more than the water displaced, so the water will carry most of the weight, and the support structures don't need to be very strong.
__________________

Wilhem275 liked this post

Last edited by verfmeer; August 31st, 2014 at 01:57 AM.
verfmeer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2014, 03:44 PM   #11179
ChrisZwolle
Road user
 
ChrisZwolle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Zwolle
Posts: 43,603
Likes (Received): 19391

A4 Steenbergen

The planned opening of A4 has been moved forward from March 2015 to 24 November 2014. It is weather-dependent, the alternate date is 1 December 2014.
__________________

my clinched highways / travel mapping • highway photography @ Flickr and Youtube

Slagathor, Billly, EPA001, MichiH liked this post
ChrisZwolle no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old September 4th, 2014, 08:23 PM   #11180
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,974
Likes (Received): 5831

Great news. Earlier then expected.
__________________
.
"Atheism is more than just the knowledge that Gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature" - Carl Sagan
EPA001 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
congestion, dutch, friesland, highways, motorways, netherlands

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium