Journal cover Journal topic
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 2.883 IF 2.883
  • IF 5-year value: 3.321 IF 5-year
    3.321
  • CiteScore value: 3.07 CiteScore
    3.07
  • SNIP value: 1.336 SNIP 1.336
  • IPP value: 2.80 IPP 2.80
  • SJR value: 1.024 SJR 1.024
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 81 Scimago H
    index 81
  • h5-index value: 43 h5-index 43
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-164
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-164
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Submitted as: research article 27 May 2019

Submitted as: research article | 27 May 2019

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).

Sandbag Replacement Systems – Stability, Functionality and Handling

Lena Lankenau, Christopher Massolle, Bäbel Koppe, and Veronique Krull Lena Lankenau et al.
  • Institute for Hydraulic and Coastal Engineering, Hochschule Bremen – City University of Applied Sciences, Bremen, 28199, Germany

Abstract. The classic aid in operative flood defence is the sandbag. Over the past few decades, though, so-called sandbag replacement systems (SBRS) have also been available for flood fighting. Although the use of sandbags is time-consuming as well as highly intensive in terms of materials and personnel, so far SBRS are rarely used in Germany. However, owing to their functionality and their labour and time-saving characteristics, they can make an essential contribution to flood protection – and this all the more so in view of the expected consequences of climate change. In order to foster confidence in such systems, the Institute of Hydraulic Engineering at the Hochschule Bremen – City University of Applied Sciences (IWA) carried out a series of systematic tests of SBRS that focused on the functionality, stability and handling of the systems. The experience gained shows that SBRS have the potential to make flood defence more efficient than the use of sandbags alone. Since SBRS are technical systems whose functional capability must be proven before they can be used, it is recommended to introduce an official test and certification procedure.

Lena Lankenau et al.
Interactive discussion
Status: open (extended)
Status: open (extended)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Lena Lankenau et al.
Lena Lankenau et al.
Viewed  
Total article views: 215 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
161 54 0 215 0 0
  • HTML: 161
  • PDF: 54
  • XML: 0
  • Total: 215
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 27 May 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 May 2019)
Viewed (geographical distribution)  
Total article views: 172 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 170 with geography defined and 2 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Cited  
Saved  
No saved metrics found.
Discussed  
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 22 Aug 2019
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Owing to their material, personnel and time-saving characteristics, sandbag replacement systems (SBRS) can make an essential contribution to flood protection. In order to foster confidence in the systems, systematic test set-ups were carried out with the focus on functionality, stability and handling of SBRS. Experience from the tests shows that SBRS have the potential to make flood protection more efficient than the use of sandbags alone.
Owing to their material, personnel and time-saving characteristics, sandbag replacement systems...
Citation