Bridge name

Refinement phasethe Mountain PathMiguelRalHkanCarlIsakCastroEspasandnHaglundHoffNslund

1

Raul Espasandin (RE) - Comments also exits on Pow

Location: Constraints and PossibilitiesStigberget

Boat traffic - Stena Line - lvsnabben - Industrial - PersonalCan connect different heights

Clayey soil in the bottom of the river

SlottsbergetLindholmen

2

Evaluation criteriaEnjoyable to walk acrossBeautiful designComfortable to walk/stand onSpectacular opening mechanismEasy accessible for everyoneLow effort to maintainHigh structural and material efficiencyLow disruption of traffic in building phaseConnect to multiple infrastructuresShort opening timeHeight of the main spanEasy to buildLow cost to open the bridgeLow cost of non-structural maintenanceSeparation of traffic in structureSustainable materialsBridge should be/have:

More importantLess important

3

Very highRiskHighModerateFailure of auxiliary servicesLowProject changesFail of opening mechanismVery lowFireFail of non-structural partsSabotageFail of the structureConsequenceMinorSmallModerateSevereCatastrophic

Risk analysisVery highRiskHighProject changesModerateFailure of auxiliary servicesLowFail of opening mechanismVery lowFail of non-structural partsFireShip collisionSabotageFail of the structureConsequenceMinorSmallModerateSevereCatastrophic

Doppler EffectLowTrefoils ModerateCobras Moderate - High

the Trefoils

Very highRiskProject changesHighModerateFailure of auxiliary servicesFail of opening mechanismLowVery lowFail of non-structural partsSabotageFireFail of the structureConsequenceMinorSmallModerateSevereCatastrophic

the Cobras

the Doppler Effect

Risk analysis

4

Carl Hoff (CH) - Attach information on risk analysis.CobrasTrefoilsDoppler EffectRiskModerate - HighModerateLowEnjoyable to walk acrossAverageGoodGoodBeautiful designAverageGoodGoodComfortable to walk/stand onGoodAverageGoodSpectacular opening mechanismVery GoodGoodAverageOther design criteriaBadAverageGood-WINNER?WINNER?

Conclusions

5

Design intentionTo create a spectacular event that connects the city and widens the city center

In our design process we have used the design intention as our original idea, the general intention of what is important to us when designing this bridge. In a general design task it is usually quite easy to get lost along the way and forget ones original idea. We have therefore chosen to go back to our original design intention which shows what we originally intended for this bridge.6

The chosen design

the Trefoils

Design IntentionSpectacular event;Connects the city;Widens the city centre.

Other characteristics:Leisure/resting platforms;Doesnt disrupt river traffic;

7

Design proposal

To LindholmenTo MajornaTo city centreTo Eriksberg

1193

16Viewing platformViewing platform

8

Design proposal

120m span7 m high supports1 m high support4 m wide bridge deck10 m, height above water11 m high support17 m high landing

9

Opening mechanism

45 seconds to open and 45 seconds to close10

Structural behaviour

Loads:5kN/m2 (crowd load) * 1,5Self-Weight * 1,35Closed positionAxial Stress:Max Axial Force: 8200kN on the column and foundations1200kN on the most critical cable

11

Structural behaviour

Open position

Loads:5kN/m2 (crowd load) * 1,5Self-Weight * 1,35Max Axial Force: 9100kN on the column and foundations1300kN on the most critical cableLoads:5kN/m2 (crowd load) on one armSelf-Weight on all the armsMax Bending Moment:48 400kN on the base of the tower

Axial Stress:Moment:

12

Buckling of the bridge deckDynamic behaviour due to pedestrians

Structural behaviour

13

Bridge deckBox beam in steel S450

Structural solution

Carbon fibre cables 66 mmTowers in steel S450:30 metres highSection - baseSection - topDeflection is dimensioning - Open position worst case - Allows for structural redundancy

fk= 1 863 MPa, E=122 GPa

14

Structural solution

15

Shear connection

Openable shear connectionDesigned to hide the connectionTransmits shear between the two bridge decksSlender deck important for visual impressionDesign intention:

Structural solution

16

Structural solutionRotation ringTrunnion carrying vertical load from pylonOpening mechanismGears that drive the opening Ball bearings allows rotation and transfer force from moment to column

Reinforced concrete support

17

9100 kN~10 000 kN~ 10 000 kN Foundations of the main towersReactionsStrut and tie for bendingStructural solution

The forces are calculated for a moment of 55 000 kNm, which with a distance of 5.5 m between the corresponding reaction forces gives a resulting force of about 10 000 kN. In order to do this calculation more correctly, a lot of more information is needed. Crucial information is capacity and detailed structural behavior of the ball bearings and trunnion, and a knowledge of the area required inside the structure for inspection of the machinery. 18

Way of production

Build the foundations and towers

Build the arms section by section in the open position

Possible to build from only one place if the bridge can rotate during construction

19

Functional qualities

Owners perspective:

Users perspective:Connects different places and different heights

Transports people both across and along the river

An eventful experience when openingUnique concept which can attract tourists and city residents

Quick opening

A new connection to enhance public transportation

20

Development of solution

Critical issue:Deflections in open position - Worst case is imposed loads on only one arm

Max 400 people

Increase stiffness in cables?

or

Monitor number of people on bridge?

21

Development of solution

Risk mitigationStructural redundancyFire proof coating around carbon fibre cablesDolphin defence against ship collisionDolphins against ship collisionLanterns for night time alertWaiting area for ships going upstreamWaiting area for ships going downstreamStructural redundancy in cables Effect from deflection governed design

22

How many times will the bridge have to open?During rush hour the bridge needs to open every 20 minutesScheduled openings

Signs to announce next openingBRIDGEWILL OPEN IN13:1413:1313:1213:1113:1013:0913:0813:0713:0613:0513:0413:0313:0213:0113:0012:5912:5812:5712:5612:5612:55

Development of solution

23

Critical review

Disadvantages:Advantages:Connects four places instead of twoAn attraction for the cityStructurally efficient

Needs to open more frequentlyExpensiveMay be a regulations challenge to allow people on the bridge while moving

24

Further investigationsDynamic loadsEmergency exits:FireFail of opening mechanismNo electricity

Platforms near the foundationsin case of emergencyPedestrian traffic may cause large vibrations

Constant cross section makes it vulnerable to wind induced oscillationTurbulence

Critical review

25

Thank you for your attention!