Recent structural developments in miter gates for navigation locks
Ryszard A. Daniel, PhD. Eng.
RADAR Structural, Gouda
Construction of navigation locks enjoys renewed interest of
inland waterways and sea harbors administrations. This also includes the upgrading and refurbishment projects at many existing lock sites. The reasons for this renewed interest are complex
and can be associated with a number of world-wide developments and concerns, like:
304
– Globalization of world economy and more demand for
waterborne transport.
– The resulting growth of both number and sizes of vessels
in navigation locks.
– Environmental advantages of inland navigation versus
land transport.
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
– Impact of processes associated with climate change, like
sea level rising and extreme weather conditions on inland
waterways.
– Growing signiicance and requirements of recreational
navigation.
This stimulates the development of lock closures, which are
often seen as the most technically demanding systems in navigation locks. Miter gates are by far the best known and usually the most eficient type of such closures. It should, therefore,
not surprise that PIANC, the World Association for Waterborne
Transport Infrastructure, established a Working Group to bring
a report on the newest state-of-art technology in this ield. This
Working Group, abbreviated as WG-154 of the PIANC Inland
Navigation Commission (InCom), has recently completed its
proceedings. The inal report [1] was presented on a workshop
in Brussels on November 6, 2017. The author of this article was
a member of the Working Group and would like to share some
conclusions of the report with the readers of our magazine.
MITER GATE CONCEPT AND MAIN FEATURES
Let us use the American spelling “miter gate” instead of British “mitre gate”, simply because most of the world largest gates
of this type operate in the United States today. Miter gates are
generally seen as a lock gate system on its own – to be distinguished from other systems, like vertical lift gates, rolling gates,
sector gates etc. However, the unquestionable advantages of this
system earned it a strong position in hydraulic engineering, re-
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of miter gates
Advantages
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Disadvantages
The most frequently used type of a lock gate – very well-proven technol- •
ogy
Single-sided operation, although low reverse loads can be carried under
some provisions
Sustainable principle of operation: “water head itself ixes and seals the
gate”
Double gates required when high water heads can occur from both
sides
•
Many different structural systems possible – nearly all in proven technol- •
ogy
Construction and maintenance costs low or moderate in a wide range of •
dimensions
•
Gate recesses along the lock chamber → small space consumption
No limit to overhead space for navigation → it for locking ships of any
height
Opening and closing times low or moderate
Can be constructed with an entirely free lock deck – valued by special
transports, mooring of large ships, emergencies, etc.
•
•
•
•
Symmetric low patterns during opening and closing – favored by navigation
•
Gate hinges can be released to pass hydraulic loads to the heel posts (freehinged gate)
•
Filling and emptying devices easy to it to gate and accessible for small
maintenance
•
Less vulnerable to sediment and sunk obstacles than rolling gates (but care
required)
•
Gate locking possible to carry limited water heads in reverse direction
•
In double-sided service, lock crowns can be shorter than for double sets
of miter gates
•
Relatively easy in transport and installation due to compact dimensions of
components
•
Architectural advantage of free horizon
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
Not economical for very wide navigation locks (e.g. in sea harbors), wider
than about 40.0 m
Closing under low very dificult
Number of system components relatively high due to two sets of gate
leaves and drives → increased risk of failure
Necessity to synchronize the motion of leaves
High motion resistance in wide locks → high drive energies and powerful
drives required
As above, with as a result slower gate opening and closing
High loads on gate hinges during motion → wear problems by intensive
operation
Some transfer of hydraulic load through gate hinges inevitable (ixedhinged gate)
Gate locking necessary if water head can appear on any of the two
sides
Gate locking against alternating water heads dificult and not leakfree
Hydraulic load transfer not entirely in plane of chamber walls → massive
crowns required
Very sensitive components (bottom pintles) practically inaccessible for
maintenance
Gate major maintenance in site possible only after (partial) dewatering of
lock chamber
Operation in winter (ice loes) and in situations with loating debris can
present a problem
305
a)
b)
c)
a 1)
Fig. 1: Three most frequently utilized types of lock gates
sulting in the development of several sub-systems of miter gates.
The common properties of all these sub-systems are:
– Miter-like shape of the two gate leaves in the top
view;
– Hydraulic load transfer by both bending and normal
force in gate leaves.
The above is illustrated in Fig. 1, which schematically shows
three most frequently used types of gates in navigation locks.
Note that in the vertical lift gate (b) and rolling gate (c) hydraulic
load is globally carried only by the bending moment, while in
the miter gate (a) it is indeed carried by both bending moment
and normal force. This combination (a1) makes miter gates very
economical when compared to most other gate types used in
navigation locks. The main disadvantage is, however, that a miter gate can basically be loaded at one side only, while the other
two gates pictured in Fig. 1 can carry hydraulic loads at both
sides. This has also been indicated in the drawing. In addition,
two different drive arrangements for a miter gate are shown in
sketch (a1), which will be discussed later in this article.
Obviously, miter gates have more advantages and disadvantages than mentioned above. A more complete list is presented
below in Table 1 after the author’s book [2] that will soon be
a)
available in bookstores. The reader should keep in mind, however, that general evaluations of this nature cannot be point-topoint applicable for all projects or studies. Local conditions may
lead to other assessments. Nevertheless, this list can be used as
guidance while weighting the pros and cons of miter gate application for a particular project.
SHORT HISTORY
The structural system of a miter gate has a long and stunning
history in hydraulic engineering. As far as traceable, it was probably irst introduced in Italy. The basic concept of a miter gate
is already to be seen in the early drawings by Leonardo da Vinci
dating from the late 15th century. However, the PIANC Working
Group could not trace whether he or another Italian engineer,
Bertola da Novate, can be credited with the irst realization of
such a lock gate. The historians are also not unanimous in this
matter. The fact is that miter gates were constructed on the water
supply side canals to Navigilio Grande. These canals were also
used to supply stones for the construction of the Milan Cathedral. The engraving in Fig. 2a shows an early Italian navigation
lock with a miter gate [3].
b)
Fig. 2. Engravings of early locks with miter gates
a) early 16-century Italian lock with a miter gate, b) late 16-century lock in Vreeswijk, the Netherlands, under siege
306
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
After that, miter gates made an impressing career in hydraulic engineering. Their advance can be seen in many countries,
including the Netherlands (Fig. 2b) [4]. The chamber widths that
could be closed by the gates of this type steadily grew. Today the
world’s widest miter gates are the old (already replaced) gates
of the Portbury Lock (width 42.7 m) at the entrance to the Bristol harbor docks in England. The early gates of this lock were
built by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, enabling him to launch his
great steamers SS Great Western in 1838 and SS Great Britain
in 1843 in the Bristol docks. The best known, however, are the
old miter gates of the Panama Canal in its Gatun and Miralores
Locks. They are shown in Fig. 3 while locking Crystal Serenity, the largest cruise ship that has ever navigated the Northwest
Passage. Yet, these 33 m wide miter gates are not the largest in
both Americas. Several miter gates in the Mississippi, Ohio and
Tennessee River are comparable or slightly larger (Fig. 4).
Modern European miter gates are, in general, smaller than in
America, but the very concept of this gate type is also favored
in most navigation locks on our continent. This particularly applies to inland navigation waterways. There has also been much
improvement, innovation and application of new materials in
Fig. 3. Old miter gates of the Panama Canal, photo author
Fig. 4. New gates of Mississippi Lock 19, Keokuk, Iowa, courtesy USACE
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
this ield in recent years. Both Europe and America beneit from
each other’s experience, but the engineers of the two continents
also maintain some traditionally different design views and
preferences. These and other developments are discussed in the
Working Group report [1].
STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS, CLASSIFICATION
The relative success of a miter gate concept resulted in the
development of several structural systems for such gates. These
systems can be classiied with respect to a number of distinctive
properties. There were some differences in the ways in which
most European and American engineers view this issue. The
prevailing American view is to consider the direction of main
girders as the only criterion that determines the systems. The
prevailing European view is to recognize several such criteria.
Below is the list of some most distinctive properties and the resulting miter gate systems. It includes – so far – 19 structural
systems, denoted (a) through (s), which is one more than distinguished in the report. The discussion and assessment of these
systems was one of the main issues in the proceedings of the
Working Group. It is also the main subject of this article.
– Character of hydraulic load transfer:
a) free hinged (load transfer through heel posts)
b) loating pintle (load transfer through heel posts)
c) ixed hinged (load transfer through hinges)
– Direction of main girders:
d) horizontally framed
e) vertically framed
– Arrangements for skin plate location:
f) plate girders with skin upstream
g) skin plate double-sided
h) plate girders with skin downstream
i) fold plate and other systems
– Arrangements for vertical load transfer:
j) bottom pintle – top hinge
k) bottom hinge – top pintle
l) support or suspension outside hinges
m) buoyancy tanks
– Drive connection:
n) direct to (top) girder
o) indirect through drive arm
The focus in all the structural systems mentioned above has
been put on the properties of the gate structure, i.e. not of the
drive mechanism. When the drive mechanism is concerned, the
following systems can additionally be identiied:
– Drive mechanism:
p) manually driven (directly or geared)
q) electro-mechanically driven
r) electro-hydraulically driven
s) hydrostatically or otherwise driven
This list may look somewhat abstract, therefore the main
differences between these structural systems are presented on
307
drawings and shortly discussed in the following sections. Obviously, it is possible to consider still more criteria as distinctive properties. One can, for example, focus on the gate material (steel, timber, composite, …), shape of its skin plate (plane,
curved, …), hydraulic loads carried (single-sided, double-sided,
frequent, occasional, …) or presence of illing and emptying
valves (in gates or in culverts). Such distinctions cover, however, fewer substantial differences in terms of gate systems.
SYSTEMS IN VIEW
OF HYDRAULIC LOAD TRANSFER
Perhaps the most essential is the gate classiication in view
of hydraulic load transfer. After all, receiving and passing hydraulic loads is what all lock gates are made for. The drawing
in Fig. 5 schematically presents the systems with respect to hydraulic load transfer. Hydraulic load can, generally, be passed
through the gate heel posts (also called “quoins”), hinges and the
bottom edge. The schemes in Fig. 5 show a number of possible
choices in this ield.
By far the most practiced is the system with hydraulic load
transfer through heel posts. This can either take place in the form
of continuously distributed compression (schemes a1, a3 and b)
or at a number of compression blocks (“saddles”) located along
the heel posts (scheme a2). Note that in most cases engineers do
not take account of an additional load transfer to the bottom sill.
In the real world, some load transfer through the gate bottom
edge will take place and the sill designers must account for that,
but the gate designer should better not do that. The reason is that
it makes the system statically indeterminate. This is not a problem when a structure remains in one position during its service
life. Hydraulic gates, however, frequently move, are exposed to
hinge wear and other geometric distortions, which makes that
the sill contribution to load transfer is uncertain.
An exception is the gates that are deliberately designed to
pass hydraulic loads to the bottom sill and are lexible enough
to adapt to the changing support conditions. Such gates are, for
example, the American vertically framed miter gates that are
discussed later in this article. In this case, the sill contribution to
the load transfer is essential.
Obviously, special arrangements must be made to let the
hydraulic load that builds up release the gate hinges and move
to the heel posts. European designers usually do it by providing suficient clearances in the gate bottom pintles and carefully
shaping the heel post contact surfaces. American designers use
sometimes so-called “loating pintles” shown in scheme (b) in
Fig. 5, which allow their base plates slide a little preventing the
response to hydraulic load. This solution is, however, vulnerable
to pollution and other external factors. It is, therefore, not recommended for new projects in the USA any more [5].
The last possibility, practiced mainly in Europe, is to pass the
hydraulic loads through the gate hinges and their anchorages.
The gate leaves are then ixed in their hinges, there is no need for
hinge clearances to enable load passage to the heel posts; and
the entire system is, so to say, “clearer”. The heel posts of the
resulting, so-called “ixed hinged” gate can then be light, as they
only stiffen the structure and hold its vertical seal. An example
of pintle assembly in such structures is shown in photos (a) in
Fig. 6. However, while there is nearly no clearance between
the pintle and its cap – here with synthetic bushing, a careful
observer will notice some clearance between these items in the
pintle in photos (b). This pintle represents a typical American
arrangement, called this “ixed” by the engineers in the USA. In
European view, it is still called “free”, as it allows for some slip
and load transfer through the quoin.
a 1)
a2)
a3)
b)
c1)
c2)
Fig. 5. Hydraulic load transfer by miter gates [2]
308
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
a)
b)
Fig. 6. Pintle assemblies in a European and American miter gate
a) Naviduct Enkhuizen, the Netherlands, photos author; b) Ohio River Louisville Lock, courtesy USACE
SYSTEMS IN RESPECT
OF MAIN GIRDERS DIRECTION
Miter gate leaves can statically be seen as plane structures,
but they carry loads both in plane and out of plane. In this sense,
their framing combines the features of plane frames and grids.
As the normal compression force N from Fig. 1 has a horizontal
direction, the most logical choice is, normally, to let the main
girders run horizontally. The resulting gate system is than called
“horizontally framed”. Hydraulic load acting on the gate skin
plate passes then through the stiffeners and (in larger gates)
crossbeams to the horizontal girders that, in turn, pass it to the
lock crown. The latter happens either directly at compression
blocks or in the form of a line load along the gate heel posts. The
second option is favored in recent decades, because the heel post
lining, for example of hard timber, not only spreads the load but
is also capable of some adaption to local surface deviations in
concrete.
The described system becomes, however, ineficient when
the gate has to close a very wide and relatively shallow opening. The common way to deal with such conditions in Europe
is to choose another gate type, for example a vertical lift gate or
rolling gate, see Fig. 1 (b) and (c). However in America, inland
navigation locks are wider and engineers are more committed to
miter gates. They invented the gate framing that better suits such
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
conditions and called it a “vertically framed” gate. The idea is
to let a gate pass a major part of its load to the bottom sill rather
than to side walls of a lock crown. This is obtained by vertical
girders and one, very stiff horizontal girder at the top of the gate
leaves. The vertical girders span the top girder with the bottom
sill, passing about 2/3 of hydraulic load to the bottom and 1/3 to
the side walls. As their span is relatively short, the whole structure can be signiicantly lighter and, therefore, more economical
than a horizontally framed gate of the same dimensions.
Fig. 7 shows the main components of both systems, drawn
after the USACE design manual [5]. According to the same
manual, the vertically framed miter gates represent an economical choice when the height to width ratio of a gate leaf is less
than about 0.5.
The latter almost does not happen on European inland waterways, therefore the development of miter gate framing in Europe
went somewhat different. The horizontal and vertical girders are
usually seen as more equivalent components, often having the
same structural height. Pre-tensioned diagonals that are crucial
in the gates from Fig. 7, are often either replaced by rigid sections in the plane of girder rear langes, or unnecessary for other
reasons. An example of the framing in recently constructed wide
miter gates in Europe is presented in Fig. 8. Note that the gate
torque stiffness is obtained here by using box sections.
309
d)
e)
Fig. 7: Horizontally (d) and vertically (e) framed miter gate, drawn after [5]
SYSTEMS IN VIEW OF SKIN PLATE LOCATION
In most cases, miter gates are designed with a single skin
plate that is located either on the upstream or on downstream
side of the gate. Exceptions to this rule apply when the gate
310
contains buoyancy tanks or chambers that must be accessible
for some reason. In those cases, the hydraulic load can be carried at both sides of such tanks or chambers, which can be seen
as a double skin plate. There also exist gate systems, in which
the skin plate and girders are integrated in a single component.
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
Fig. 8. New gates of the Kattendijk Lock in Antwarp, Belgium,
courtesy Dept. MOW
Other skin plate locations are only occasionally practiced and
can be disregarded here. This makes the total number of basic
systems in this respect 4, which is schematically shown in Fig. 9.
The schemes in this igure also indicate the resulting differences
in the action of vertical hydraulic load.
Until some 20 years ago, the most common choice was to
locate the miter gate skin plate on the upstream side, as in sketch
(f). However, this induces an alternating lift force on the gate,
that in turn leads to unfavorable, strongly varying loads on the
bottom pintles. The problem was investigated in the Netherlands
[6, 7], which resulted in a general preference for the downstream
f)
g)
skin plate location (h). Obviously, high uplift forces appear also
in a gate with double skin plate (g); and do not depend there on
the differential water head. The system (i), often used in Germany [8], is a cold folded plate structure that integrates the function
of gate skin plate and girders, resulting in a substantial decrease
of welding costs. It also reduces the uplift force, but it does not
entirely remove it.
One concern related to the uplift force was the so-called
“thread-shaped wear” of the gate pintle bearings. It occured on
manganese steel caps and sockets that were utilized in hydraulic
gate bearings in Europe since the 1950’s. The idea to apply manganese steel for these items originated from mining industry and
quarries, where this material proved to be both hard and wear
resistant. What the engineers did not consider, however, was that
both hardness and wear resistance resulted from the so-called
“strain-hardening” of directly loaded areas; and were not everywhere the same. This might not matter much in quarry machine
scoops, but it produced the thread-shaped wear in gate pintles, as
shown in Fig 10. When the gate vertical reaction strongly varies
due to the lift force, the gate may even repeatedly “climb up” the
wear groves and fall down with a shock. This was, in fact, experienced on a number of locks in the Netherlands, with various
damages and malfunctions as a result. It also inspired engineers
to apply other materials in gate pintles, like the hard synthetic
bushing pictured in Fig. 6.
The described phenomenon does not appear on most American miter gates. There are two reasons that prevent this: First,
the pintle heads of these gates are usually spherical rather than
cylindrical, so there is almost no vertical contact surface to
“climb up”. Second, the gates often contact their bottom sills not
h)
i)
Fig. 9. Skin plate locations in miter gates [1]
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 10. Thread-shaped wear in gate bottom pintle [7])
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
311
in their front plane, as on the schemes in Fig. 9, but in their rear
plane. This can be observed by comparing the Mississippi lock
gate from Fig. 4 with the Belgian miter gate from Fig. 8. Note
that the irst gate will actually overlap the sill edge when closed,
while the latter will not. The American lock gate will, therefore,
experience very little uplift load variation.
SYSTEMS IN VIEW OF VERTICAL LOAD TRANSFER
The dominant vertical load of mitre gates is their own weight.
Let us ignore other vertical loads (like buoyancy, ice, sediment
etc.) at this moment for the reasons of simplicity, although they
do exist and require consideration in detailed design. In regard
of vertical load transfer, the designer can then choose between
the mitre gate systems (j) through (m) mentioned earlier in this
article and schematically drawn below in Fig. 11.
By far the simplest and most frequently used is system (j),
in which vertical load is passed through the bottom pintle. It can
even be called a “standard” solution for a miter gate, which is
the reason why all examples discussed in this article until now
represent this system. Other systems have, however, also been
used or at least studied in diverse projects.
System (k), with a vertical support at the gate top hinge [9],
becomes more and more popular in the Netherlands in recent
decades, as it gives a better maintenance access to control the
hinge wear. System (l1), with an additional roller support, has
not been practiced for a long time, but it did enable the construction of some very wide miter gates in the 19th century, like the
Avonmouth Lock in Bristol (UK). System (l2), with a vertical
suspension of the gate, was designed to rigorously reduce the
hinge wear [10]. It has thoroughly been studied but not applied
yet in the Netherlands. System (l3), with an inclined gate suspension, has frequently been used in lood gates, for example
in New Orleans (USA) [11], [12]. System (m), vertical load
transfer through buoyancy tanks – is usually seen as an auxiliary
measure reducing the gate reactions, rather than a system on its
own. Buoyancy tanks are often used in large miter gates, like the
gates shown in Fig. 8 earlier in this article.
Examples of gates representing systems (k) and (l2) from
Fig. 11 have already been presented by the author in Poland,
e.g. in [13]. Two examples of gates that pass parts of their vertical loads outside the hinges, representing respectively systems
(l1) and (l3) are shown in Fig. 12. The irst of them is the old
miter gate in the Bristol Avonmouth Lock. That gate, shown in
photo (a), was additionally supported by a roller (b) at the bottom of its miter post. The idea was to decrease the hinge reactions that indeed were large in this 30.5 m wide sea lock. The
solution was not perfect and it required frequent cleaning of the
roller and its bottom track due to large amounts of sediment carried by the tides. Nevertheless, it operated nearly 100 years and
was replaced by conventionally hinged gates in 2004 [7]. The
gate shown in photo (c) is one of many lood gates in the New
Orleans area that utilize inclined suspension. It is a single leaf
swing gate, but there also exist miter gates of this system. Its
main beneit is the entire elimination of drive devices. Under
normal conditions, the far end of the open gate rests on a concrete foot. In the case of a lood alarm, the cable stays are manually tightened, which lifts the far end of the gate and enables its
(also manual) closing. This procedure takes about 10 to 15 min.,
which is largely satisfactory considering the early warning procedures.
j)
k)
l1)
l 2)
l3)
m)
Fig. 11. Vertical load transfer by miter gates [2]
312
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
a)
b)
c)
Fig. 12: Gates passing parts of vertical loads outside hinges: a) former Avonmouth Lock gates in Bristol, UK; b) loodgate for railway passage in New Orleans, USA
SYSTEMS IN VIEW OF DRIVE CONNECTION
Unlike most other structures, hydraulic gates are only capable of performing their function if they can be moved. This
means that the gate system must comprise a device that drives
the gate, or, at a minimum, enables driving it by an external actuator. Obviously, two sets of such devices must, normally, be
provided for a miter gate although there have been attempts to
partly integrate the drives of both leaves.
The place and manner in which the miter gates are connected to their drives can also be seen as a system distinguishing
property. Two most frequently practiced drive connections have
schematically been shown in sketch (a1) in Fig. 1, earlier in this
article. The left leaf in this sketch is driven by a hydraulic cylinder hooked to the gate top girder; while the right leaf is driven by
a cylinder hooked to a drive arm, rigidly connected to the gate.
One might expect that the system on the left side is older, since
a great majority of the operating miter gates are driven in that
way. This is, however, disputable, which can be observed in the
photos (a) through (d) in Fig. 13.
Note that applying a drive torque through a lever arm originates from a very early system of manually driven timber gates,
shown in photo (a) in Fig 13. In Poland, a number of lock gates
driven in this way still operate in the Augustowski Canal. That
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
arrangement could not bring large gates in motion. Therefore
various kinds of manually powered mechanical devices – like
winches and rack-and-pinion drives – took this task over when
the waterways grew wider in the 19th century. An example is
the connection of rack-and-pinion drives to the gate mitering
posts in photo (b). The arrangements of this kind precede the
currently used mechanical drive connections to the top girders
of gate leaves. This applies in both historical and mechanical
sense. Photo (d) presents one of many kinds of such arrangements in the navigation locks of today. Note that the drive strut
is now connected at a short distance from the leaf rotation axis,
and not at its far end as in photo (b). This is simply because the
machinery, in this case the so-called “Panama wheel”, is capable
of delivering much higher forces than what a man could do. The
drive struts of the gate in photo (d) are additionally provided
with shock absorbers, here of the so-called Belleville type.
Incidentally, the limit to “what a man could do” does not
necessarily apply to a woman, which can be observed in Fig. 14.
Although this issue falls beyond the scope of the article, engineers should, perhaps, begin to question the sense of large-scale
mechanization and automation in hydraulic structures of today.
In particular, the general tendency to develop remote controls of
these structures raises questions in many ields. More discussion
of this issue will soon be available in [2].
313
a)
b)
c)
d)
Fig. 13. Some connections of manual and mechanical gate drives: a) miter gate near Falkirk Wheel, Scotland; b) manually driven gate of the Stolwijkersluis,
Netherlands; c) gate with drive arms in the Orange Locks in Amsterdam, d) Panama wheel strut connection to the gate of the Born Lock in the Meuse, Netherlands
Fig. 14: Miter gates of the Borki Lock in Augustowski Canal, Poland
The applications of drive arms to mechanically driven gates,
like those in photo (c) in Fig. 13, are relatively new. Their idea
is to place hydraulic cylinders or other actuators in machine
rooms, which makes them less vulnerable to impact loads, ship
314
collision, pollution, extreme weather conditions and the like.
It also makes the entire drive system better maintainable and
by that cleaner for the environment. In the countries like the
Netherlands, where gate drives must occasionally hold the gates
against reverse water heads, these advantages are particularly
welcome. They increase the reliability of gated closures and the
safety of lock operation.
A remarkable structure containing miter gates with drive
arms is the twin lock on an aqueduct in Enkhuizen, the Netherlands, called “Naviduct”. This structure, its design and construction have already been presented in our magazine, see reference
[14]. Fig. 15 shows a side view of the Naviduct (a) and a layout
of miter gates in one of the two crowns (b). Note that each chamber has only one miter gate, pointing outside, although high water can in this case appear from both sides. This means that one
lock crown always carries a reverse (“negative”) load. To prevent that this load opens the gate, the hydraulic drive cylinders
pre-stress the gate in closed position. The system operates satisfactory since April 2003. Its operation conditions are, in fact,
similar to those of the lock in prospective canal through Vistula
Spit (Mierzeja Wiślana) that is being designed at the time of
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
a)
b)
Fig. 15: Naviduct Enkhuizen and its lock gates: a) 4-masted schooner passing the Naviduct; b) layout of miter gates on the IJsselmeer side
writing this article [15]. In the author’s opinion, it is regrettable
that a similar, collision-free solution has not been considered for
this project.
3. Pohl R.: History of Hydraulic Engineering, Lesson, Dresden University
of Technology, Fakultät Bauingenieurwesen, course Rehabilitation Engineering,
Dresden 2004.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
4. Arends G. J: Bouwtechniek in Nederland 5. Sluizen en stuwen – De
ontwikkeling van de sluis- en stuwbouw in Nederland tot 1940, Delftse Universitaire Pers en Rijksdienst voor de Monumentenzorg, Delft 1994.
The discussed report of the PIANC Working Group 154 “Miter Gate Design and Operation” contains, obviously, more than
the classiication and general presentation of miter gate types. It
is impossible to address every chapter of such a report in a single
article. The readers of Inżynieria Morska i Geotechnika are encouraged to take notice of the whole report, that will soon be
available on the PIANC website www.pianc.org.
It should, however, also be mentioned that reports – no matter how detailed – never contain the amount of scientiic and
technical expertise that has been shared during the meetings of
international working groups. Not to mention the social contacts
that arise during physical meetings, and help keeping the knowledge of participating organizations up to date. This applies particularly to maritime nations that, by nature, owe large parts of
their wealth to international contacts. In this view, the Polish
participation in the work groups of PIANC is, unfortunately,
very small. To say it plainly, this does not suit a maritime country. One may hope that the recent years of some renewed interest
in the inland and maritime navigation in Poland will gradually
improve this situation.
REFERENCES
1. PIANC: Miter Gate Design and Operation, report of PIANC-InCom
Working Group No. 154, PIANC Inland Navigation Commission, Brussels 2005.
2. Daniel R. A., Paulus T. M., Adams T. M: Lock gates and other closures
in hydraulic projects (to be published in 2018), Elsevier Science and Technology, Waltham (MA), 2018.
INŻYNIERIA MORSKA I GEOTECHNIKA, nr 6/2017
5. USACE: Engineering and Design Manual ETL 1110-2-584, Design of
Hydraulic Steel Structures, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C.,
30 June 2014.
6. Daniel R.A., Peters D.J.: Tweede Sluis Lith en renovatie Oranjesluizen
– Sluisdeuren op maat – traditioneel of innovatief, Bouwen met Staal 151, nov./
dec. 1999.
7. Daniel R. A.: Contact behavior of lock gates and other hydraulic closures, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken, 2011.
8. Schmaußer G., Nölke H., Herz E.: Stahlwasserbauten – Kommentar
zum DIN 19704, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2000.
9. Daniel R. A., Vrijburcht A.: Tendencies in design of lock gates under
alternating hydraulic loads, PIANC Bulletin no. 117, Brussels, October 2004.
10. Rigo Ph., Daniel R.A.: Innovative concepts in navigation lock design
and gate contact aspects, Port Infrastructure Seminar, Delft, 22-23 June 2010.
11. Daniel R. A.: Zapory morskie w Nowym Orleanie (USA) w 10 lat po
huraganie Katrina, Inżynieria Morska i Geotechnika, no. 5/2015, Gdańsk, Sept.
2015.
12. Daniel R. A.: Innovatie en proven technology in de nieuwe stormvloedkeringen van New Orleans, presentation for Royal Institution of Engineers, The
Hague, Oct. 2016.
13. Daniel R. A.: Zagadnienia kontaktowe w projektowaniu i remontach
ruchomych zamknięć wodnych, 52 Konferencja Naukowa KILiW PAN i KN
PZITB, Gdańsk –Krynica, 2006 (również w Zeszytach Naukowych Politechniki
Gdańskiej).
14. Daniel R. A.: Nawidukt – bezkolizyjne połączenie żeglugowe nad infrastrukturą lądową, Inżynieria Morska i Geotechnika, no. 4/2009, Gdańsk, July
2015.
15. Urząd Morski w Gdyni: Budowa drogi wodnej łączącej Zalew Wiślany z Zatoką Gdańską (including appendices), http://www.umgdy.gov.pl/?page_id=8064 .
315