AD-A168 458 UNDERWLATER INSPECTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEBRIGHTON DAM ACOUSTIC F (U) NAVAL FACILITIESENGINEERING COMMAND WRSHINTTON DC CHESAPEAKE

UNLSIID WN SEELIG ET AL MAR 85 F/G 1322 N

OEElsonhhE

-24

-1p2

NAINA WAUO4.,-Y SLU TS

jFPO O

8440 OTIC

00CD Z4,1,.~.

Di MA

00-..

NAA FAIIS ENIERN 0 0 M *

WASHINGIM NAVY YARD

WASHINGION, DC 20374

MO TA-,E-

APSW~ed fmpubhic roIeoinqDelution Unlimiled

voriginal contains colorplates: All DTIC reproduict-long will be 3m blackc and

white*

86 6 12 135~

SDTIC

S L E C T ED

UNDERWATER INSPECTION* , AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE

BRIGHTON DAM ACOUSTIC FACILITYNaval Surface Weapons Center

Brighton. Maryland

FPO-1-84 (40)March 1985

p .4 by

William N. Seelig. P.E.

James Hansen

APPROVED BY:

-= ANDREW DEL COLLODirector (A)Engineering Analyses Div.

OCEAN ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OFFICECHESAPEAKE DIVISION

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMANDWASHINGTON. DC 20374

Aprvdgpulcpla

Dislibtio Unimite

%

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEla. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGSUnclassified

2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY OF RE£Approved for public release;distribution is unlimited

2b. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

4. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 5. MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORTFPO-l-84(40)

6a. NAME OF PERFORM. ORG. 6b. OFFICE SYM 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATIOf" - Ocean Engineering

& ConstructionProject OfficeCHESNAVFACENGCOM

A 6c. ADDRESS (City, State. and Zip Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City. State, and Zip )* BLDG. 212, Washington Navy Yard

Washington, D.C. 20374-21218a. NAME OF FUNDING ORG. 8b. OFFICE SYM 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT INDENT #

8c. ADDRESS (City. State & Zip) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERSPROGRAM PROJECT TASK WORK UNITELEMENT * * * ACCESS *

11. TITLE (Including Security Classification)Underwater Inspection and Recommendations for the Brighton Dam AcousticFacility Naval Surface Weapons Center Brighton, Maryland12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)William N. Seelig & James Hansen13a. TYPE OF REPORT 13b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REP. (YYMMDD) 15. PAGES

FROM TO 85-03 5516. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION

17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if nec.FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Underwater inspection. Barges, Brighton Da-_ _ _ _ _ _Acoustic Facility, Naval Surface Weapons_ _._ _ _ _ _Center, Brighton. MD

19. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary & identify by block number)The Chesapeake Division. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (CHESDIV) Ocean

. Engineering and Construction Project Office conducted an underwater inspectionof the Brighton Dam Acoustic Facility barge on 1 November 1984. Theinspection was made by U.S. Navy and Army diving officers and civilian (Con't20. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF ABSTRACT 21. ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATIO

SAME AS RPT.22a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE 22c. OFFICE SYMBOJacqueline B. Riley 202-433-3881DD FORM 1473, 84MAR SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAG

BLOCK 19 (Con't) .~-

engineers. Analysis of NSWC barge freeboard measurements and the inspectiondata show: (1) a safe barge freeboard has been maintained for the past sevenyears with little change in freeboard observed, (2) the 44 "P' pontoonssupporting the instrument house are in good structural condition with somepitting and beaching of the metal near the waterline and (3) pitting andbreaching are not critical because the pontoons are foam filled. Wood beamsbetween the pontoons are instrument house are in good condition.

Based on the results of the underwater inspection and analysis of additionaldata we conclude: (a) The facility is in good condition and should continueto give service at current rates of maintenance funding. (b) Pontoonreplacement is not needed and not recommended. (c) Replacement of the bargeis not recommended. (d) The receiving float could be replaced at a cost ofapproximately $20 K to reduce the draft of the pontoons by 2 feet. This wouldreduce the impact of low lake levels. (e) The crane rails on the barge andshore cannot be upgraded to 3,000 pounds capacity without significantmodifications. (f) Monthly barge freeboard measurements should be taken and aswim-by inspection of the underwater portions made every three years.

r;c' /

L 1AV -odes

A

UNDERWATER INSPECTION AND RECOMMENATIONS FORTHE BRIGHTON DAM ACOUSTIC FACILITY

Naval Surface Weapons Center (NSWC)

by

William N. Seelig. P.E.James Hansen

"'* EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Chesapeake Division. Naval Facilities Engineering Command(CHESDIV) Ocean Engineering and Construction Project Officeconducted an'nderwater inspection of the Brighton Dam Acoustic

./IFacility bargtion 1 November 1984.... The inspection was made by U.S.Navy and Army diving officers and civilian engineers. >Analysis ofNSWC barge freeboard measurements and the inspection data show: (1)a safe barge freeboard has been maintained for the past seven yeara.with little change in freeboard observed; (2) the 44 6P pontoonssupporting the instrument house are in good structural conditionwith some pitting and breaching of the metal near the waterline~and(3) pitting and breaching are not critical because the pontoons arefoam filled. Wood beams between the pontoons and instrument houseare in good condition. - , -2 ', I ,(

Based on the results of the underwater inspection and analysisof additional data we conclude:

-(a) The facility is in good condition and should continue to give, service at current rates of maintenance funding.

*(b) Pontoon replacement is not needed and not recommended.

(c) Replacement of the barge is not recommended.

(d) The receiving float could be replaced at a cost of approximately$20 K to reduce the draft of the pontoons by 2 feet. This wouldreduce the impact of low lake levels.

(e) The crane rails on the barge and shore cannot be upgraded to3,000 pounds capacity without' significant modifications.

(f) Monthly barge freeboard measurements should be taken and aswim-by inspection of the underwater portions made every three years.

;. .

V -.., ..., . .-... , .. . , . , . . ... .. . ..,

CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION 1

STUDY PURPOSES 1

THE BARGE FREEBOARD 4

UNDERWATER INSPECTION PROCEDURE 5

RESULTS 7

SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9

REFERENCES 10

List of Tables

1. Project History Summary 2

* 2. Studies and Recommendations to Date 3

N 3. Key Personnel 6

List of Figures

1. Location Map 11

2. Plan of the Facility 12

3. Barge Freeboard Measurements 1978 thru 1984 13

4. Pontoon Designation 14

5. Inspection Notes 15

6. Percent of Cleaned Area that has Pitting 16

LAppendices

A. Reserve Buoyancy Calculations

B. Selected Photographs

C. Analysis of the Receiving Pontoon at Low Lake Levels

D. Analysis of the Monorail Cranes on the Barge and Onshore

UNDERWATER INSPECTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

THE BRIGHTON DAM ACOUSTIC FACILITY

Naval Surface Weapons Center

by

William N. Seelig. P.E.

S BACKGROUND AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION

The Naval Surface Weapons Center (NSWC). White Oak. MD has a

floating acoustic facility located at Brighton Dam, ND (Figure 1).

S The facility consists of a barge supported by 44 "P11 pontoons and a

floating walkway connecting the barge to shore (Figures 1 and 2).

The facility is over thirty years old (Table 1) and only one other

underwater inspection was made in February 1981 (Reference (1)). A

number of widely varying recommendations have been made as to what

S to do with the facility (Table 2).

STUDY PURPOSES

The purposes of this report are to:

(1) Report results of an analysis of barge freeboard measurementsmade by NSWC.

(2) Report on the results of the underwater inspection of thebarge.

*r (3) Make recommendations based on inspections and analyses.

510~~ ~

Table 1

Project History Summary

Hydroacoustic Measurements Facility. Brighton Dam

Naval Surface Weapons Center

1940's Facility built and installed

1952 Barge moved to Brighton Dam

1953 Barge installed and put into operation

' 1968-69 Foam added to pontoons

9-11 Feb 81 Underwater inspection of hull madeReport "Hull Survey-"Brighton Dam..."

20 Apr 81* by EPOCH with recommendations (Ref 1)

". . 10 Feb 82* Report "Brighton Dam Acoustic Facility-." Study" by NSWC with recommendations

(Ref 2)

17 May 82* MEMO "A New Proposal ..." NSWC memowith more recommendations" (Ref 3)

7 Nov 83 Public Works letter to NCEL askingfor recommendations

21 Dec 83* NCEL letter to NSWC withrecommendations (Ref 4)

23 Apr 84 CHESDIV (Hansen) visits site

T 27 Apr 84 NSWC ESR-WOL-392 to CHESDIV

22 Jun 84 CHESDIV letter to NSWC*-- ". with scope of work and requesting

funds

5 Oct 84 CHESDIV (Seelig) visits site

1 10 Oct 84 CHESDIV received funding from NSWC

1 Nov 84 CHESDIV performs underwaterinspection of barge

.

: * Contains recommendations2

. p

Table 2

Brighton Dam Acoustic FacilityStudies and Recommendations to Date

Date Reference Epoch Engineering made anFeb 81 (1) underwater inspection

February 1981 and concluded:4,a. "approximately 1/3 of

the flotation pontoonsrequire immediate attention

b. "the flotation systemshould be. as a minimum.

.~. t~updated to currentstate-of-the-art withrespect to weathering.

'4. -corrosion and quietness".

Feb 82 (2) In-house NSWC study recommended:a. Replace instruments

($143,000) 2rb. Replace/repair facility

for long term continuedoperation ($436,700).or close the facility($64, 800).

May 82 (3) In-house MEMO with newrecommendations:a. continue testingb. monitor barge freeboard

N. ~-c. keep expenditures forimprovement to a minimum.

De 3(4) NCEL reviewed Epoch Engineeringreport (Reference 1) and stated:a. "Water is absorbed by the foam

very slowly, so;. CCdeterioration of the

steel shell can occurwithout serious danger.

b. "The third alternative.to fabricate a completenew barge, is recommended".

'33

THE BREFREEBOARD

One of the most important questions to ask about a floating

vessel is "Is it sinking?". NSWC wisely has been measuring the barge

freeboard of the Brighton Dam facility from 1978 to the present.

These measurements show that the barge is not sinking and that the

average freeboard has not varied more than 1/2 inch from the mean

value of 28.7 inches for the past seven years (Figure 3).

In fact. the freeboard increased during the latter portion of

C 1984 (Figure 3). The increase in freeboard is a direct result

of removing heavy electronic gear from the barge and

installing lightweight equipment in early 1984 (W. Phelps. personal

communication, 5 November 1984).

These measurements also show that the barge is slightly listing

S with greater freeboard to the west and north corners (see Figure 3.

S upper right). The freeboard of the west corner of the barge is

2.7 inches above the average barge freeboard and the east corner is

3.3 inches below average. Listing of the barge is due to the

combined effects of: (1) the weight distribution and (2) pontoons on

. .~the east corner of the barge were not completely filled with foam

*: (W. Phelps, personal communication, 5 November 1984).

-p This slight listing is not imp ,ortant.

Calculations show that the barge has on the order of 80.000

pounds of reserve buoyancy and the water temperature will only have

a very minor influence on freeboard (Appendix A).

4

p:0Z

UNDERWATER INSPECTION PROCEDURE

< The underwater inspection included three levels of effort:

LEVEL I: Examine undisturbed sections of the pontoons, collect

- samples of corrosion products and a grab sample of the

- ~ foam. Photograph undisturbed sections. Examine the condition

of wood.

LEVEL II: Clean 8"x 8" areas of the pontoons on all exposed pontoon

faces underwater. Cleaning was done on the center of the

bottom of each pontoon and just below the water line in the

center on each accessible pontoon side. Visual observations

were made and photos taken.

LEVEL III: Make metal thickness measurements.

A list of personnel participating in the inspection is given in

Table 2.

* Figure 4 indicates the code used to identify individual pontoons.

. %

4-1:

'.°

"' ".-II"

• ,,',,,W'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . ....--.-. .... . . .%.'..-.--. .. o...-'.... .... .-. .. , -. *,%% " - .%"

Table 3. Key Personnel

S~: SDivers

CDR H. S. Stevenson. CEC. USN CHESNAVFACENGCOM(FPO-l)

Mr. Herb Herrmann NAVFACENGCOM(FAC-07)

LCDR A. E. Bertsche. CEC. USN CHESNAVFACENGCOM(FPO-I)

LCDR J. M. Cherry. CEC. USN NAVELEXSYSCOM(PDE-124)

-- LCDR G. S. Guthrie. Jr.. CEC. USN NAVSEASYSCOM(PMS-395)

- -, LCDR R. B. Steimer. CEC. USN NAVFACENGCOM(FAC-07)

LT M. B. Samuels. CEC. USN CHESNAVFACENGCOM(FPO-I)

(Diving Officer)

1 ILT D. A. Sykes, CEC, USA 86th Engineering Detachment(Diving)

Mr. Allan Hubler, Ocean Engineer CHESNAVFACENGCOM(FPO-I)

Record Keeping

Mr. Bill Seelig. Civil Engineer CHESNAVFACENGCOM(FPO-l)

Observers

Mr. Glenn Reid, Facility Manager NSWC (Code U42E)

Dr. Shun Ling. Director. EngineeringAnalyses Division CHESNAVFACENGCOM(FPO-l)

Assistance

Mr. G. B. Phelps, NSWC (Code U42E)Engineering Technican

Mr. Tom Kelly. NSWC (Code U42E)Engineering Technican

6

RESULTS

Cleaning and visual inspections show that:

1. Conditions are similar to those reported as a result of the

February 1981 inspection (Reference (1)). In fact, areas

cleaned in 1981 could easily be seen indicating little change.

2. Most regions are in good shape and the original paint can be

~ ~ seen in some areas. The bottoms of the pontoons are in

especially good shape. All areas can be classified as

"structurally sound" meaning that they can support load and

retain structural integrity.

3. Corrosion occurs from the waterline to one-foot below the

waterline on the faces of the pontoons (see Figure 5). A

number of holes are present in pontoons A-S. C-5 and K-3. The

combined action of small waves and/or ice motion is probably

responsible for the corrosion and damage near the waterline.

4. Pitting type corrosion controls elsewhere (Figure 6). The

amount of pitting varies from one pontoon to the next and from

-~ one spot on a pontoon to another. These "hot spots" of

corrosion may be in part due to imperfections in the metal and

~ break down in the coating system.

$ ~ Selected photographs are given in Appendix B.NO "..

r

7

Analysis of the underwater inspection data and subsequentanalyses reveal that:

1. Most of the original metal remains and that selective

~ -. 'pitting and corrosion in isolated spots controls.

2. A grab sample of the foam from pontoon A-5 shows the foam to be

in gjood condition with only the outer few millimeters damaged.

As Reference (4) states "Water is absorbed by the foam very

slowly..." Analysis of the barge freeboard shows that the

barge has 80,000 pounds of reserve buoyancy (Appendix A).

.7 3. The receiving float could be redesigned with a number of small

floats (Appendix C). The proposed receiving float would have

a draft at least 2 feet less than the present float, therefore.

-~ low lake levels would have less of an impact on facility

operations. However, the two foot decrease in draft would

cost approximately $20 K.

~.4. Analysis of the monorail crane steel beams on shore and

on the barge (Appendix D) shows that the capacity rating of the

cranes cannot be increased above 2.000 pounds without

significant structural modification. The rail crane on shore

is especially weak (has a low section modulus) in light of the

design manual (NAVFAC DM 38.1. "Weight Handling Equipment".

June 1982).

8

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The underwater portions of the 44 foam-filled "P. pontoons

supporting this facility are in good condition. This surprisingly

good condition occurs because the facility has been well maintained

I. and is in sheltered fresh water.

Pitting controls corrosion and there is some penetration on

exposed faces of the barge just below the water level. Overall the

underwater steel has good structural strength and pits/penetrations

are largely irrelevant because pontoons are foam filled. Seven

years of barge freeboard measurements by NSWC show the barge has

significant reserve buoyancy. A grab sample of the foam from

pontoon A-5 showed that then foam is in good condition.

The facility is well maintained. is in good condition and no

major increase in maintenance funding should be needed in the near

future.

Replacement of the pontoons or the barge is not necessary, based

on the condition of the facility.

ANSWC can replace the pontoon receiving float for approximately

$20 K to reduce the impact of low lake levels on the transfer of

equipment and personnel (Appendix C).

shreThe rated capacity of the monorail cranes on the barge and

shore cannot be increased without major structural modification

(Appendix D). For example, analysis of the support beams using the

present code shows that the beams should not be rated for 3000

pounds. The shore rail is especially weak when compared to the

latest code.

As an absolute minimum NSWC should make: (1) monthly barge

A, freeboard measurements and (2) a swim-by underwater inspection

every three years.9

- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -............. S ft rwrnw wi-in'. n Cl'X- ui% wb - -P

Ref erences

1. "Hull Survey-Brighton Dam Instrumentation Barge", Epoch

Engineering. Inc.. 20 April 1981. study performed for NSWC.

S 2. "Brighton Dam Acoustic Facility Study". NSWC. 10 February 1982.

* 3. "A New Proposal Concerning the Operation of the Brighton Dam

Acoustic Facility". NSWC Memo of 17 May 1982 from Code U45 to

S 4. NCEL letter of 21 December 1983 to NSWC. subj: TechnicalSurvey of Floating Laboratory Hull at Brighton Dam Facility.

5. Pontoon System Manual, NAVFAC P-401, October 1982.

6. Handbook of ocean and Underwater Engineering. J. Myers. Editor.

McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1969.

7. Bureau of Yards and Docks Drawings dated 4 June 1952:

Sheet Number Title of SheetNo.-_ _ __ __ _ _ _ _

1 528203 Site and Mooring Plans2 528204 Grading Plan & Profile3 528205 Typical Road Sections4 528206 Pier & Bulkhead -Plans & Details5 528207 Pontoon Bridge -Plan & Details6 528208 Float & Walkway Plans & Details7 528209 Shore House Plans & Details8 528210 Barge House Plans & Sections9 528211 Barge House Elevations & Details10 528212 Barge House Sections & Details

~ ''11 528213 Barge House - Mechanical12 528214 Barge House - Electrical13 528215 Shore House - Mechanical14 528216 Shore House - Electrical

10

IN

TRIADELPHIA ATIMOR

LAKE/

r'" \ \BRIGHTON

RT 108 DAM

RT 650 9

49-

N -N

"

'.r : WASH DC :

Fu 1

Figure 1. Location Map

P m'

/ n

p.: :..

"*"4-'i i

TRIADEIPHIA LAKE

CRNE

appX. Shoreline

50 ft

RAIL* CRANE

Figure 2. Plan of the Facility

12,

LLi

+

co Lii

U)w

Uir

C1 C14+ <mI

I.-r u U L

<LL 0

Lai Co>

0)6 4) (n'< C) co4-

CA) a) L- CLLJ < 4) . 4-r

mL -0 4) -

>4) W 0MRX:LL. L3 c4-

EU M~ M

EU+ z) W)

I.- >- 4) 4

CnI 3D z >

0 0

L.

co4

M a%m r"

>)

EGo

V13.

% %

CONCRETE PATIO

A-i A-2 A-3 A-5

///////// / 'I/////// / / ''

::C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5

. . D-1 D-2 D-4 D-5

pp I! E-1 E-2 E-4E-

F-i F-2 F-4 F-5

TEST- LIi WELL" '"G-1 G-2 ] G-4 G-5

H-1 H-2 H-4 H-5

.:.J. -1 J-2 J-4 J-5

~I

.K-1 - K-2 - K-3 - K-4 - K-5-.

Figure 4. Pontoon Designation

:1 (after Ref (1))

14.,17

L Grab sample of foam

from hole in pontoon

Concrete Patio Deep pitting at waterline (foam looks good)

/" ///i > H o le s 2" 1

' ' ~ waterline/A/Gapsbetween

- pontoons

Z relative- wood

ly clean abovevery- pontoonswhere in good

condition

0(ITEST=rI

WELL

U,-. Ittlt

holes, Pontoon bottom steel in

various much better condition

sizes than on exposed sides

LI Figure 5. Underwater Inspection Notes

is.. t...I S

P Concrete PatiO

N N 50I 3 INN Nt

25 10 N 70

N N

N N 40 60

TESTIN N 50 N 0

10 N 60

I TESTWELL3' 0o 25 50o

N tl25 N 40

-"10 15 10 5 60

30 30 30 30 5 10

Pontoon) PontoonN not measured Bottom Side

Figure 6. Percent of Cleaned AreaThat has Pitting

16.

9

P

p~-J

4.

.1

APPENDIX A. RESERVE BUOYANCY CALCULATIONS

p.p..

V~u%

4.. .4.

* I

~L

-4

4.~

4 4 4 . *t*t~.~44*.*~. c,-.g~ ~'' .,*. -. ~

***4 *.~***~ -,~-*..* '4

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: Grihrv% rhxAMNaval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station: Ace ULS 47 Faeclih~

E DISCIPLINE E S R: Ns wNc. Contract: 6i.~edCals adeby IV Se dte wiv AS6~

Calc mad by .J~4..... ate:II I Calculations for: 1514sXA-c'* Caics ck'd by: date: i . . __________ ___________

"P", It cil 6&o4W# (SeC N4Vr-4c P-'VOIJ '1o'k)'1~4t

7',~

£h:Assu'-4 wx~vtjk a~i'cs a Aifi afevox (mifo *P

/ I i t /

* /2 -14t

k, i res.ev'e- by, ancy c4

Av4 M178 tl!hv(A 118 Y) 9. 7

kestwe Fv:<elo6&4 Q8.7"-/9" /6,7"

V WVV~ /6 7 d'-~Soo 16.r

45saw- 3 pon4 wo~s cmut- iyocL (ov- less depepJ on amoutir-_ of-I 1e~katx 4'4z ed4r

~4cx ib~pageL Of

OPO s@$-5

~ *~~~jt ~V -*.---* * **; *-.Lit**

SCHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: Avmh4rA~ Da,,.Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Staton: Acw~hz , C 1)DICIsIN maeb:tl.S'~~dt: E S R: A'sw c Contract:DICLINE mad _by _W._____ ate_110_9 Calculations for: I54uoY&,s-CiCaics ck'd by:4 A~czz..... date: IL/~____________________

*WIN0* is 4(k ete+-ZL ev%

FvesI Lvte&A ew4r;f 1 Vv13w' Re+ (6))

W ~ ~ ~ I~ Aj f -V 1ifs+

32 l~~,q3lq6 41

co. 139S~ 66LL+c-139A C~A& sdie7 ~ ~ ~ ~~I qf~i 3Mb~~y 61,115sd 4~AJ~LA

c4J o, (,, JJ-0ic b"i~~) Sctla $e da~i.

So e~~~- - w zat u-

"al V*VDP"

-62 u-.

Gpo 685-653

APPENDIX B. SELECTED PHOTOS

. . . ,-A4 - - / , : . m : ., . . - 7 ,. ,, , , . . . - . . : 2 . . , ,, . - .

iQ-

44ml~4' . 4

o'S.

".4- .. ,

.? :

'Jr'.:}:.

N' '~.

~

*%.*' %~*,..- .p

*~V

'N4

A~N-.,

~. ~-4**

Photo 2. Pontoon B-3 (BOTTOM) (Condition good with most-. ~, 'J. paint present

~. -I

*1

-. r

A

-p-p . S.

p.

p- r

b

p

Photo 3. Pontoon B-4 (Note localized pitting in metalto the left of the ruler)

.J.*d ~

*1I.

4'.-

:' ~

'p.

.~. -I

-A

Ld

Photo 4. Pontoon J-2 (Most of the metal in goodcondition with paint; localized pitting)

-o

'S

° , P". d A j *~ ~ . . . . . S-

A

.~. .,,'

~.\ ~-:

r~ 'I

* *

~.4

.1's Appendix C. Analysis of the ReceivingFloat at Low Lake Levels

A.4' ~-

~

... *.J

A

- - *~ - ~ , 4,

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROECT: NSWC ACOUSTIC FACILITY

Naval Facilities Engineering Comuand NOW Station: _ _ _ _ _ __UN DAM

* DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Calcs made by: W.- SEELIG date:3/12/85 Calculations for: Receiving Pontoon

"". ; c -- ReplacementCalcs ck'd by: 4 date: 4R a

Background

Men and equipment are presently transfered from shore tothe Brighton Dam Acoustic Facility via a floating bridge. Thefirst segment of this bridge is a receiving float (see Sketch 1,next page). As long as the lake level is above approximately354.8', then the receiving platform floats and works fine.

Problem (Sketches 1 & 2)

. When the lake level is less than 357.8', then the pontoonsrest on the lake bed and the receiving float slopes (see Sketch 2).The lake level is lowered for periodic maintance of the damconducted every four or five years (phonecall to Michael Greer,WSSC, 3/25/85 phone 774-9124) or when emergency repairs need to bemade. Repairs are most often made during the winter months ofJanuary and February. For example, 21-23 Jan 85 the lake levelwas drawn down to 348.4' for dam repairs. The lake level is mostoften low during the winter. Ice on the sloping receiving platformproduces hazardous working conditions.

Solution (Sketch 3)

Redesign of the receiving float could save between 2.0'and 2.7'of pontoon draft (depending on loading) and thereby reduce the rangeof conditions when the pontoon hits the lake bed. The attachedanalysis outlines a proposed design and compares performance with the

.. . present float. A new receiving float is estimated to cost $20 K.Replacing the present float would result in minimum down time atthe facility.

Alternatives (NOT RECO.MENDED)

Dredging - Would produce pollution, result in down time andcould reduce the strength of the pier piles.

Extend Pier - Expensive, would result in significant down timeV. / -. ) and would require dismantling of the rail crane on the;[, pier.

page of

**.! GPO S See-69

-2

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:

DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:

Calcs made by: 4,'P £uL! date: 3/Z 5S Calculations for:

Caics ck'd by: SD - date: __ __/__"

8'ile,rii ' .

4*I

I )L

3S7,r,'

I (.a')

N4o Loa

-~ 3'

'

4" .. :

" o. o

Ske~t-\ .1. PO $*V-OSU

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-..

. . . . . . . . . ... ... - . . .

:- CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT:Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:

. DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Caics made by: 9 0. 2 date: 3/zz/- Calculations for:Calcs ck'd by: ) - c- date: I t- __

r4-

,

-- Po e o

,-..e.k

r&It~e/f~me ofK-- P 86"53J

! CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT:Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station: Erij Airy, Da.,jDISCIPLINE ESR: Contract:Calcs made by:.,. See ILt date: (D C lS fortract:" • ~~~Calculations for: EMo-4 0, , yo

, . Calcs ck'd by: - A date: tts I ___,

- PreseoA' Syem /6 "

L7 '-5 5Va 9o/ dIso/ 7, k /1 7 a /CC 7 -'P

"o o o64 2.4 "L 7.:e 1I ba4t ip

.

~oIl etp

900 16s/ , l/" 3

-. tol10 /j~ rce. DM U-r 0 0644#

pale of

..

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: _____________

* Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station: ________________

* DISCIPLINE IE S R: _ ____Contract _______

S Caics made by: d ate: 31-752s Calculations for: ______________

.. Caics ck'i by:4 L - - . date: _________ ______________

2. 44-. o

on

L4

O. sw-e

A4.~ 4-..

- 'o R. **W u - . - .r

Y CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT:

Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station: k~- v h- Lo-'. DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:

Calcs made by: W. - 'i date:3 z8 Calculations for: F/oo / ,i,/kzCaics ck'd by: . date: 4/s/ ___-

3 .4.., o,- S -7

/-A LIS

TOAL tf I~ 16. 2,(sea M&e,44"

Icev

•%

, .-. I--. 3,,S,,IJ') ) 4

03

page 4 ofGPO sea-sa

.DOCK BUILDING COMPONENT* Constructed of high density polyethy- Poly-Floats are scientifically designed to provide the maximum.lene casings filled with expanded in safety and environmental protection.

polystyrene-lightweight yet heavyduty-won't warp or crack. Poly- e No damaging sharp edgesFloat versatility, durability and effi- e Will not conduct electricity

- ciency of installation mean topvalue for every dollar invested. No metal parts to rust

and contaminate

*Won't break or pollutewaterways likefoam blocks

e Doesn't sink, even whenseverely damaged.

' Mounting pads are furnished TL'mm, A& 6FJUlhto facilitate end attachment

,,of each Poly-Float to yourd ock. No extra straps orcables are required to se-

cure floats permanent-ly to structure.

Recesses are incorporated An inside look at ruggedalong sides of each float of- I Poly-Float construction withfering additional or optional ' total fill foamed-in-place closed-mounting areas should your cell polystyrene. The ruggedspecific design require cus- polyethylene casing is imper

. tom fitting. Ample wrench vious to gasoline and oils,, .----- . -._ - - clearance for convenient supplying permanent protec

- -- assembly. tion for the inner foam.

- Specifications :. , ' +20 T8- " 210/" 1J= 1"17-/4": I F;

I 16- 14'/2" .,, _ ___

.14.

)*" : 12-..

1-0-a 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

LOAD IN POUNDS

Chart above shows the depth to which a Poly-Float will be sub- Poly-Floats have been tested and certified by the Marinemerged at specific loads. Calculate the "dead weight" plus the Testing Institute, Inc. Dimensions shown here will assist youanticipated "live weight" of your system, then determine the in designing your system. Poly-Floats assemble readily intofreeboard required and find the load per float allowed at that depth 2' x 4' or 2' x 2' supporting structures. Your local distributorto ascertain the number of floats needed. Mounting flanges are will be glad to help you determine the number of floats re-located at 131/" submersion level. This equates to approximately quired and the best layout for even support.450 lbs. of load bearing capacity per float when submerged atflange level.

A REIDSVILLE, N.C. 27320<'." .ZARN, INC.

PHONE 919-349-3324®Copyright 1950 ZARN. INC

% %, %* %-.

.s.

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT:Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:

i DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:• Calcs made by: date: Calculations for:

Calcs ck'd by: date:

5,,"

~/6-

194~1

Ii

:p.: ) I I

T6ThL tO-o PC F Ptr

pge1., of -~ SD CPO 685-653

Receiving Float Draft

Condition Present Proposed Savings inPontoon Draft

Dead Load 26" 2.5" 23.5" (2.0')

Dead Load+Men & Equip. 30" 5.0" 25" (2.1')

Dead Load+Men & Equip 43.8" 11.2" 32.6" (2.7')+Snow & Ice

[ r. -

. .'. , .,

:- CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: NsWc- Ac tci/JatNaval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station: 2-ri n khoDISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Calcs made by: 'e date: -1 Calculations for: P'ec6,v, F/coud P,?/acp, .-l

-. Calcs ck'd by: 4W date: 7_ ___ _ _

2 j A) 3vD C,-<..-L : /-A.-i . , -c -'." (

- . o,, $ < ,. < z iAL ,-, /__L<

6 QL 2- 15Z13 L

L +Q L . -

r ":. 'CO, -CI cr t .

/C

page ofGpo set-65S

. . . . .*-..... .. ,,......24

+ .: ,;-<<. _ _ -z

Appendix D. Analysis of the Monorail Cranes

on the Barge and Onshore

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: .,T-..v-._ _...-Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:

Calcs made by: -. , date: > - Calculations for: - -< o -Calcs ck'd by: 1 '.*-.7 date: /5-LL~.__

L_ 0. A

- i \ 0 ree 1 F~

A. ,,, ,o-e." I:i -<, ' c<e 0-",-,, ut 1' 03~ ~ r~

- 2 rA Lo Aiv'%,-] .. C . _,O', ,, . .4e. -1 Coc . €,- cL ..

I, -0 e C_ *% -i_ cease

" |.

A , .. ,

... .:

page oof .°,, 1

- so -so& - .

., CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: _ ,-___,_-,__._,__,_,._., :Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:

DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Calcs made by: .. . date: ,20ar. Calculations for: -. &- o, oCalcs ck'd by: -,' date: YL2L ? __

..o,-o 11. 0.,-,%e Na oor, I a" V Fs n 21 A- e. I"W (,a k

Fokc S, c L o oA S L~~5Ola~ LL -bL.; ';, Y,. -r' -t -. _L oo., = aQ -16 -~ uu -0-IL4-s

-Q

4 .

K /1.- -L _- -.9 -.,P--

"-

page -of

V -t-V 0' -

:'."- -- . s o

"." ~ Z 4-:1L9,

- . ~ CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: __ ,______-_: Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:

DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Calcs made by: - . eMe. date: i Iz-71 Calculations for: -PoA, -n.,- aovr.

Calcs ck'd by: d ate: v/ / _ _

"--- .F.F .61'g - ',-, .1 FT 75 F-1

8.4- 0 -I,0'8 1.47% 0 -. 4-76 cO I

-0,739 -0,739 0.39 ." -0,73q -0.139 0.139 0.7?,9 %1T 2..

-0.',9 0 0,V,.,9 -0, ,9 -0."},(, o1.6 O.'j,q -0,169 o 0, C.26.

.,7,.9 O0,i10 -0.15S 0,1 0, 0.'jbq -O.j#r -0o-Si O, 1BS' 0,I13!5 -O.Ibq 'ST I

o - 0,12. 0,il 3,q 1- .6 ,. -,I.k9 -0.92,0.4. 0 Io

pK,

,,.. '.V 4

page L of*:: :iPO *es-eIa*° 6-" •'

. -, ,. .,: ,": ,a,..-. :",, .¢ . ,':,; .;-;-,::,.;:::.:---.;:::;.::::::::::::::::::::,. :-..:---: .:- ::z:: ::

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: ;o ,..Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Calcs made by: 3. 14c i.. date: "// Calculations for: oAlo CW \,oft-%I

Calcs ck'd by: date: _ __._ _ __-_....__ _

V(k)

44,,

page 4 of

.2l Mea M

Vde,

. CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: - '

Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Calcs made by: J. , date: /X7 Calculations for: -'

Calcs ck'd by: .h. -Swi .date: I///_ _ _

?,N

.' ,=,'',

".'.c.t

.,

A, Ia k of c * 6 0,(6

8.r• .. - 4.o,-,;,4

SeF

DA ,1 erL4ui@.& =A-v IA& - BA& - Avi 14C4 (-"s)~ __

"IFi o, 64. 7.r k

page .. LOf i.S~~p @"omea.

Z.

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: ~eX~SNaval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station: ________________

DISCIPLINE E S R: _ _____Contract: ________

3 Calcs made by: 'e date: 02. Calculations for: ?Ponk~oa... %&at-i wooro&lCalcs ck'd by: d~-~-.-- da te:S&L...______________________

m,~rei 17 M use,1 wo4o7 C-x~1% SAO,-.,e

-rk 79L4,O . ovecsre.s Is smfl 4 II ?Cf-1tACV L-xf

14 (~Ae~ +ke W-4 IteOSv.C +t~t 0i I-eCUAe0t 49..

R A*-

page ... Lof -L-

* GpO Bsgs$

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: r- ,, ib0,,

: ."- Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: ContractCalcs made by: 3, , date: s/1/s Calculations for: , o -Calcs ck'd by: date: Z4L// __

A,, - L oo.A

c. eo -; L oo

L .oLA c.^c 1o..c

:pag of.c

,: " " 1 ' i. t ~ e o.t.-_<J t,,, io,, ,I-., ;,,oI Iocj!,;c< - g ., /,.r-. Iooa4

",""" b. -v,',e ,e+ L oo

IO,

.-L T C ,,,,,l r;,,,.. ,,,. r-i~o-A-O

I.,l

~/.d

pagep L. of -1-2O

\- *GP as -

- = % * . % * , " " % " ' " " ' % " " % * * " % "*% ' = " % " * ' % '" * " * "

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: ', -'.- -c-Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Calcs made by: A , date:3/7/3 Calculations for: -e c on o o,,Calcs ck'd by: -& i date: '/5s _

T, o+,c S a L4--1

IP'

O-O a "e

.a,. " LL.- O7

!'¢ ' L0 o= A Cc¢~.<<e A.-y; - 3 -o,,io.

". -', ~~I. po,,,,'l" oo~d =.' e ,iJ oC c,,.,r-leoe,- - O.

' "" 2. po;,,* lad-A" c. Ce er--o Ii.-' pov

page .. of _1.2_

." : • '... . --. ',' ,., . . [

Ii P . :' TM . *LI,' . .'.:'..#... , P_, 6... 38l < ,

L CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: , .

Naval Facilities Engineering Command NDW Station: _

DISCIPLINE E S R: _ ___Contract: _____

Cacs made by: J. IA,,,- date:! - Calculations for: le< ' N,o,-.,%Calcs ck'd by: 4Y date:___

F F- w .

.0. .,S e ) K 4

12.. 15.

.4)., -"

= .. ve 44

-T4

[! page__ of 1o__0

i+ SPO Ill-Ill

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION POJECT: , -Naval Facilities Engineering Command I t'ticw "___,"#" ,. DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:Caics made by: -. , date: 'J/i1- Calculations for: .Calcs ck'd by: . date:!-i-"-i __

S 2.(r :

0,4-i(

5_-.." F z =

-.-. -. _ : .4- .

.:page. of

.po0 Go$.$"

• = ...- ,

° -. * -

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: _ -_ __ _ _ _-_ _

Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: _ _____Contract:_________

I. Calcs made by: . - date: ALL, Calculations for: P;e, Nooic2Calcs ck'd by: .Y- " date: _/__-_ _ _

MOMENT DISTRIBUTION4-SECTIONS

DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTIONFACTORS 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5214 0.4786 0.5000 0.5000 1.0000 FACTORS

FEN 43.562 -0.29 0.29 -0.29 0.29 1 -0.34 0.34 -0.338 0.338 FENDist.-l 1 -43.28 0.00 i 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 -0.34 Dist.-I

-------- --------- --------- ----- ----- ------- I-CO- 0.00 -21.64 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 1 -0.17 0.00 CO-I

Dist.-2 0.00 10.81 10.81 0.00 1 0.00 0.09 0.08 0.00 Dist.-2--------- -------- -.-.-.. .. . .. . . .. . . - -......... .......-- - - - - - --- - ----... .......

" " CO-2 5.41 0.00 0.00 5.41 1 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 1 CO-2Dist.-3 1 -5.41 0.00 0.00 -2.84 1 -2.61 0.00 0.00 -0.04 1 Dist.-3

: ----- ----- --- - -- -- -- -- ---- ---- ---------------

CO-3 0.00 -2.70 1 -1.42 0.00 1 0.00 -1.30 1 -0.02 0.00 CO-3Dist.-4 0.00 2.06 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.66 1 0.66 0.00 Dist.-4

----- ----- ----- ,---- ---- ---- ---- -------------

CO-4 i 1.03 0.00 0.00 1.03 : 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.33 CO-4Dist.-5 -1.03 0.00 i 0.00 -0.71 1 -0.65 0.00 1 0.00 -0.33 Dist.-5

----- ---- ---- ----- i----------i------------- -----

. CO-5 0.00 -0.52 1 -0.35 0.00 1 0.00 -0.33 1 -0.17 0.00 CO-5Dist.-6 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.00: 0.00 0.25 1 0.25 0.00 Dist.-6

----- ---- --------------------- ------- - --- -----

CO-6 0.22 0.00 1 0.00 0.22 1 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.12 CO-6Dist.-7 1 -0.22 0.00 i 0.00 -0.16 -0.16 0.00 0.00 -0.12 1 Dist.-7

: ---- ---------- ---------- ------------ --------- -----

C0-7 0.00 -0.11 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.09 -0.06 0.00 CO-7Dist.-B 0.00 0.10 I 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.07 1 0.07 0.00 Dist.-8

FINAL FINALMOMENTS 43.562 -43.562 -11.273 11.273 3.241 -3.241 -0.303 0.303 0.000 0.000 MOMENTS

page .. i of -2--GPO 905-39 -

% :

* CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: -r;4A Thv-.-Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station: ________________

*DISCIPLINE ESR _____ otat ________

S Cacs made by: 3.1 tk- ,%e% date:* 13 I Cac lai n for R: Contr c

Caics ck'd by Z L date: -I Calculations_ ___ __ ____for:__

4,5

4 A 42

-P %1,~ - Ie-

Ft, V7,,-

SIX r e in

7,G(.* *S

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: rc; Y-,,, ,

Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:

_ Calcs made by: 3. date: 4-t N:- Calculations for: Cn a ,_o,_-_, _

Calcs ck'd by: 4.1 date: 4/'/ ___

Or ca^ :xe e p-r 4a - 4 .,

.. 4

-4, n,- j ' C.C3 p.- -A 0.0

pageS,. L. z...2..

S.9 P 6\ .0I

V7

,.-. ... page of /_ .

.:. @S - e

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: _ ,_-,___,___, __,,-_-

Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:* Calcs made by: 3. I4,,, e, date: 4-1 s5 Calculations for: e o a.

Calcs ck'd by: . date: _ _/_ _ _

A1 LA,

I-S ' '9,- . . - -7.I , ;'4,

. •., .. ,,-,.

2V~~~~d)~5 irk,'e T.J4

0~~~~~~pg of~-'~~;.~ 7 -s- *

Lii

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: , -Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract:

i Calcs made by:. .\,<ae.- date: - Calculations for: -;,,- or'. -aCalcs ck'd by: date: . /____-

I I esA, "e.r

sv\ 0 1A-I CJ'Atqev L-o s golve +kp pvc.\tYvk.

.,"'. 6,- c c e,,

Y (016le.7,0 v-n

.Z.a . paeS

:q :,:,',,..,.:.:a->:¢ ... _.. 7 .. ,;, ,,..,,i, .,( .. , ,,'-- .-"- ,'-'- .. ,; .%...,.,,-,- - - ,~( .-- ..,..,_ 7.. ,.. .. ,q... ,..

CHESAPEAKE DIVISION PROJECT: r, u-i, b 0,E - Naval Facilities Engineering Command NOW Station:

DISCIPLINE E S R: Contract: .. ........~ Calcs made by: o ,, date: '/4' Calculations for: e- 1~..o ',A

Calcs ck'd by: -- . - date: / / = _

.a 4

IL e C(.~~ S %-e -Q6tA4

ef %'wc 44-.e 6e%4'~ 4 - -a% w e xAe;

Vkf.3tLL. -e~ Jro-% e8Ip4e, ke- of-___

ON pg---0 o

C_.c

N OO. go""

-..- -. ,. ,,,e . . - - , , e r - cA.0 o W 3

page -12.o f ;.2.. -

4.14..,

'.4

- ..~. 'I-,~

*~~'~* .?

E~ '.a. ~