Rapidly Deployable Flood Protection Mechanism for Small Structures

Aaron Holub, Olivia Derise, Jeanne Steyer, Cameron Larks, Grace Rozanski
Advisor: Dr. Dorin Boldor
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering

INTRODUCTION:: STAKE DESIGN: RESULTS & OBSERVATIONS:

Flooding is the overflow of various depths of water onto the • Due to the high rate of
• According to the Federal Highway Administration, the minimum
seepage, the water level
land that is ordinarily dry. Aside from wildfires, flooding is factor of safety of 1.5 against sliding should be used for footings. was not able to reach 3 ft.
the most widespread and destructive natural disaster. The • The water reached a height
Federal Emergency Management Agency offers flood map of 25.5 inches. At this
services to determine flood risks. The families in those flood height the braces did not
zones need an inexpensive, flood protection device that can move at all and none of the
be set up quickly. Knowing this need, a small-scale prototype carabiners bent.
was designed to withstand the hydrostatic force of three • However, the tarp ripped
• In order to have multiple stakes, they must be Figure #. Change in water height over the time period that seepage was
away from a few of the
feet of water. A pump will be used with the design to get rid calculated for.
far enough apart to be out of the failure grommets after being
of water seepage entering the device.
surface. A common assumption for the friction subjected to the force from
angle of silty loam is 30°. the 25.5 inch water for 1
OBJECTIVES: hour.
• The main focus of the design is to construct a framework that • There was also a much
will remain upright even with the high hydrostatic force higher rate of seepage than
created by rising water without debris. what was anticipated as
shown in figure #. The
• The device will withstand 3ft of water without the braces
• Fabricated from ASTM A36 flat, steel, seepage came from under
breaking or the fabric collapsing.
rectangular bar. Figure # Quantity of seepage through the device over half hour periods. the tarp and through the
• Two people will be able to have the device set up within 90 zipper.
minutes. • Welded onto the base of the horizontal
rectangular channel.
• The device will handle a maximum seepage of 50 gal/hr. CONCLUSION:
The flood protection device designed for this project unfortunately, met
only one of the initial objectives. The device was not able to withstand
BRACE DESIGN: DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION: more than two feet of water, due to the weakness of the tarp. Testing
• The tarp was connected to the braces by the device’s ability to withstand three feet of water was not possible,
• Fabricated from two 4 ft ASTM A36 steel because the seepage per hour was eventually became greater than the
attaching grommets on the tarp to
rectangular channels and one 4 ft ASTM carabiners on the braces.
amount of water filling the device. The braces proved to be successful
in holding back two feet of water, but again testing was not possible for
A36 steel U-channels. three feet of water. Since the device failed to meet one of the objectives
• One layer of sand bags were placed on the
• The two rectangular channels are welded trap skirt.
and was not able to be
together to form a 90° angle.
• One pump with an attached float switch
• The U-channel is welded to the two was placed inside the device.
rectangular channels so that it forms two • •It took 43 minutes to set up the device
45° angles. FUTURE TESTING:
with two people. • A thicker tarp and stronger grommets
• Designed to a factor of safety of 2.6. • Test the device with the correct side facing out
• Calculations: TESTING: • Observations from testing showed that seepage came from under
the tarp and through the zipper. Ways to address this problem
• Due to testing constraints (well include:
dysfunction, pool failure), the braces • A zipper that is better protected from the water. This could be
and tarp were turned in to form an tackled by using the same design as a kayak dry bag zipper.
eight foot diameter circle that was • Another layer of sand bags around the bottom of the device.
then filled with water using two
hoses (The second hose was added ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
an hour into testing).
Dr. Boldor, BE department, Dr. Willson, Dr. Jafari, ...
• Hose 1 Flow Rate: 4.03 gal/min
• Hose 2 Flow Rate: 5 gal/min