Stilling basin optimization for a combined inlet-outlet sluice in the framework of the Sigmaplan

Within the framework of the so-called Actualised Sigmaplan, i.e. the masterplan to create a sustainable Schelde estuary, flood control areas (FCA) are setup in well-chosen polders along the tidal part of the river Scheldeand its tributaries. In some of these FCAs a semi-diurnal, controlled reduced tide (CRT) is introduced, by means of simple inlet and outlet sluices. Nowadays, it is preferred to combine in- let and outlet sluices in one single structure, in which the inlet culverts are situated on top of the outlet culverts. At inflow, energy is dissipated by means of a vertical drop and a stilling basin. In this paper, results are presented of a physical model study (scale 1:8) aiming at the optimization of the inlet configuration, i.e. the stilling basin, starting from the desktop design of the in- and outlet construction for FCACRT Bergenmeersen

On hawser force criteria for navigation lock design: Case study of maritime locks in port of Antwerp

The first part of this paper offers a general reflection upon the issue of mooring line forces and ship behaviour during filling/emptying of (maritime) navigation locks. The philosophy behind the so-called hawser force criterion and the classical approach to deal with it in design studies, is described first. Secondly, some innovations in the definition, verification and validation of the design criteria are highlighted. In the second part of this paper, a case study is presented focusing on two maritime locks in the Port of Antwerp (Belgium): the Zandvliet lock (L x W = 500m x 57m) and the Berendrecht lock (L x W = 500m x 68m). To illustrate and comment upon the hawser force issues, results of scale modelling, in situ measurements and numerical modelling are discussed, in comparison to published hawser force criteria

Mechanism matters: mortality and endothelial cell damage marker differences between blunt and penetrating traumatic injuries across three prehospital clinical trials

Injury mechanism is an important consideration when conducting clinical trials in trauma. Mechanisms of injury may be associated with differences in mortality risk and immune response to injury, impacting the potential success of the trial. We sought to characterize clinical and endothelial cell damage marker differences across blunt and penetrating injured patients enrolled in three large, prehospital randomized trials which focused on hemorrhagic shock. In this secondary analysis, patients with systolic blood pressure 108 were included. In addition, patients with both blunt and penetrating injuries were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Mortality was characterized using Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional-hazards models. Generalized linear models were used to compare biomarkers. Chi squared tests and Wilcoxon rank-sum were used to compare secondary outcomes. We characterized data of 696 enrolled patients that met all secondary analysis inclusion criteria. Blunt injured patients had significantly greater 24-h (18.6% vs. 10.7%, log rank p = 0.048) and 30-day mortality rates (29.7% vs. 14.0%, log rank p = 0.001) relative to penetrating injured patients with a different time course. After adjusting for confounders, blunt mechanism of injury was independently predictive of mortality at 30-days (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06–3.20, p = 0.029), but not 24-h (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.86–3.18, p = 0.133). Elevated admission levels of endothelial cell damage markers, VEGF, syndecan-1, TM, S100A10, suPAR and HcDNA were associated with blunt mechanism of injury. Although there was no difference in multiple organ failure (MOF) rates across injury mechanism (48.4% vs. 42.98%, p = 0.275), blunt injured patients had higher Denver MOF score (p < 0.01). The significant increase in 30-day mortality and endothelial cell damage markers in blunt injury relative to penetrating injured patients highlights the importance of considering mechanism of injury within the inclusion and exclusion criteria of future clinical trials. © 2024, The Author(s).Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]