MANUSCRIPT GUIDELINES FOR THE BRIDGE ENGINEERING 2 CONFERENCE

Bryan Chapman1
1

University of Bath

Abstract: This conference paper provides detailed information on the aesthetics, design and construction of the Erasmus Bridge in Rotterdam. An Engineer s evaluation of the bridge consists of bridge aesthetics, structure, loading conditions and serviceability. Special prominence is placed on the problems of the Erasmus after opening due to Wind-Rain induced vibration and how the bridge evaluates in relation to BS 5400-21996. This paper also includes information of design, fabrication and construction methods lastly looking at the future of the bridge and any changes that could be made. Keywords: Cable-Stayed, Inclined Pylon, Wind-Rain induced vibrations

1 Introduction The Erasmus Bridge, nicknamed The Swan by local residents due to the angled central pylon, was completed in late 1996 to meet the demands of development along the South bank of the Maas River in Rotterdam, Holland. The Cable Stayed Bridge, spanning 410m with additional Bascule Bridge, was in fact designed by an architect, Ben van Berkel, and not an engineer which was a major point of concern from a structural point of view. The engineers responsible were challenged by the creative ideas, and in particular the pylons unusual shape, but were resolved mainly due to CAD and CAD-CAM technology, a revolutionary new tool back in 1992, in design, manufacture and assembly, aiding the visualisation and fabrication of numerous complex details. Since near total destruction during WWII, Rotterdam has undergone major redevelopment which, since the 1970s, has seen a radical modern identity emerge from its famous harbour history. Ben van Berkel has used this ultra-modern style in his design, adding to existing examples such as the Kubuswoningen (Cube Houses, 1984) and the Willems Bridge (1981). Ben van Berkel worked with the citys public works department in which the architect was lead, inverting the standard practice on bridge building practices. This was and still is uncommon and was reflected in the Erasmus design, which is dominated by formal consideration, aided by

the fact that the span is not so great. Although concerns from residents over need and cost, the Erasmus opened on September, 6, 1996 by Queen Beatrix the Erasmus project cost approximately 135 million pounds. Shortly after opening, observations of wind-rain induced vibrations caused the bridge closure to all traffic for safety precautions as the stays and deck moved noticeably. The owner of the bridge, Rotterdam City Development Corp. resolved the solution after analysis and the bridge was reopened in 1997. 2 Aesthetical considerations Many ideas exist on the aesthetics of bridges; however the most famous is that of Fritz Leonharts 10 areas of aesthetics of bridge design.

Figure 1- Functionality determined the pylons kink

2.1.1 Functionality

The functionality of the Erasmus is admittedly slightly more complex than that of typical symmetrical cable stayed bridges, such as the Helgeland Bridge (Norway) for example. However, the Erasmus still offers the simplistic impression of good, transparent function even to the untrained eye. The inclined tower is the result of logically working through a structural idea; bending forces in the asymmetrical pylon needed to be reduced as much as possible and numbering of cables either side of the pylon can be related to the difference in depth of the deck. The bent pylon produces more complex forces with smaller loads that the simple moment of a straight pylon. This results in a shorter pylon which uses less material to build and consequentially in a more economical construction. The thickness of pylon portrays a studied pose of structural integrity imparting feelings of stability. 2.1.2 Proportionality The proportionality of the bridge offers up room for debate especially on the subject of the transition of deck depth. From a distance on shoreline one may become lost in the thickness of the back span with the main span deck looking slightly thin, not helped due to the colour arrangement. The height of the pylon matches that of high-rise buildings in the area and is closely linked to the free span, resulting in a span-toheight ratio of approx. 2 : 1. The fan configuration from the angled pylon on the west side permits a less obstructed view of the water from the quays; to the east backstays tie down the pylon to the bascule bridge abutment. It is in this pier that the mechanics are found for the lifting bridge, the largest in Europe, allowing passage of large ships.

Figure 2- Decks changing in proportions

2.1.3 Order Unlike most bridges where engineers design bridges with simplistic order, the Erasmus has an artistic concept. Examples include the five differently shaped concrete piers and the multiple faades on the steel pylon. Van Berkel plays on the rules of order in bridge design, challenging the mind to find the beauty in the complexity and subtle mayhem. 2.1.4 Refinement The obvious refinement on the Erasmus is the pylon. Inclined to relieve the amount of bending moments at the base, the pylons slender A-frame is slightly tapered and of modern form, reflecting the new era of Rotterdam, just 3m wide at its peak. However, it is the concrete columns were most refinement is situated.

Derived from an interest in the sculpture of Constantin Brancusi, Van Berkel considered the piers to be more important that the bridge itself. By cantilevering the pedestrian and bicycle paths, refinement of the deck can be achieved, Figure 3- Refinement in pylon giving the illusion of greater thinness. 2.1.5 Integration The Erasmus modern maritime feel fits in well with the Rotterdam scenery across the busy shipping river corresponding indirectly to the large handling cranes that now epitomize the dock areas. The structure plays off the neighbouring island with an asymmetrical stay arrangement. This asymmetry reinforces urban orientation, since northern and southern ends of the pylon are so different in shape; as is each end of the bridge, symbolizing the union of the two sides of Rotterdam, the city centre and the docks of Kop van Zuid. The asymmetrical stay arrangement preserves the open views from the north shore maintaining the continuity of the river. 2.1.6 Texture Erasmus inclined pylon was originally to have been manufactured from reinforced concrete, using a 150m high pylon without the need for back-stays, but a steel construction was used to reduce handling weights. Thus, the thick plates, which are hard to shape into curves without cracking, were used in a sharply arising box construction, losing some of the feel of what would have become a sculpted A-frame. Even in coastal light, due to the pylon not being moulded, its smooth planes appear flat and hard. 2.1.7 Colour Secondary measures were undertaken on the Erasmus to alter the visual impact of the pylon proportions. The steel pylon is painted a light blue to merge into the North Sea skies as is the light cable fan arrangement supporting the main deck, readily disappearing into the haze. The backstays are considerably steeper that the front and therefore a visual inequality appears during overcast weather, however night-time lighting amends the problem. 2.1.8 Character Drawing first-hand experience from working in the office of the master, Santiago Calatrava, Van Berkel created a bridge full of character. From the inclusive (pylon, concrete columns etc.) to the exclusive walkways around and beneath the bridge to the miniature pylon designed lamps, the Erasmus follows the common characteristic of Van Berkels artistic detail. The architect has shown an obsession of incredibly subtle refinements that painters Seurat and Vermeer would be proud of. 2.1.9 Complexity

Whilst too much complexity offers confusion, the Erasmus develops a complexity in design that any engineer should find intriguing. The design, much like the Alamillo Bridge (Seville) by Calatrava, represents a new design, however, the Erasmus has greater structural honesty. The imbalance of cables and deck depths give reason to an inclination balancing respective forces. The greatest complexity comes mechanically from the Bascule Bridge hidden away in one of five columns and the structure of the pylon. Although the pylon appears to be fine and elegant, all the forces are absorbed by an invisible structure inside. 3 Pylon The pylons visually integrated shape consists of an A frame tower whilst two side legs support the backspans deck. Whilst van Berkel originally designed the pylons dimensions through visual relationships, during structural analysis plates and profiles had to be modified to maintain rigidity. Fabricated from thermomechanically rolled, high strength, S460ML Steel, the pylon was fully welded to reduce weight. As previously mentioned, the original idea was to use a moulded concrete pylon however due to issues of construction capability; a pre-fabricated steel box construction was used. Originally, a concrete pylon with low backstays was to be used to let the sheer mass of the structure resist the forces that a shorter pylon must resist, i.e. a heavier dead load. Due to the fact that fatigue and plate stability were not major concerns, thicknesses of plates could significantly decrease thereby reducing self-weight and the amount of welding. Furthermore, thermo-mechanically rolled steel has a very low carbon equivalent which allowed welding of thick plates without the need for preheating, saving both time and money. Internally, reinforcement was provided by horizontal partitions, serving as floors. Partition or stiffeners increased in mass to reduce the thickness of plates to be reinforced; from 20mm in low-load areas to 50mm in the highest load areas near the bend. Due to the large load from the rear stays, each consisting of four stay cables, the plates for the anchoring were up to 100mm thick. Two parallel partitions were installed to maintain the front stay anchor blocks in the pylon whilst the rear stays were anchored on three parallel partitions.

4 Cable Stays In a fan orientation, 32 front stays support the bridges front or river span whilst a further two join the peak of the pylon to the anchorage located at the end of the Figure 5- Anchorage detail back span. Because of the back spans great height it became inessential to use cable stays along the back span. The stay comprised strands, each developed with seven thermally chromed threads. Every cable consists of individual galvanised and polyethylene-coated strands, between 30 and 48 for each cable, inside a high density polyethylene (HDPE) cover, with some tolerance between cable and cover filled with grease. Each strand was covered in an extruded polyethylene jacket. Strands were connected to Anchor blocks fixed to partitions which in-turn was welded into the structure. Jacks were used to tighten the stays and if necessary; each strand could be individually replaced so that the entire stay wouldnt have to be removed to install a new strand. 5 Bridge Deck and Back Spans The slender deck is guided by the need for a vertical unobstructed shipping clearance, at least 12.5m, over the full a width of 200m under the main span. With the low position of the abutments either side, the maximum inclination of the deck itself is a gradient of 1:28 for the allowance of tram and bicycle traffic. Two box girders, each 2.25m by 1.24m wide, located 20m apart, support the bridge deck due to the simple design of the stay anchorage. Transverse girders were positioned between the main girders at 4.9m centres, allowing space for an inspection rail and cart as there is a height difference in comparisons with the main girders. Outside the box girders an extension of cross beams cantilevers 6.7m, supporting cycle and pedestrian lanes whilst automobile and tram lanes occupy the centre span. For aesthetics, the cantilevering consoles are unstiffened and twisted in the bottom flange, the splash force being transferred to the much thicker web plate. The bridge deck is composed of 18mm thick orthotropic steel reinforced with trapezoidal stiffeners measuring 600mm centre to centre. In addition the fully welded deck saves weight using an 8mm thick synthetic resin wear layer rather than use an asphalt mastic layer. The rear span uses main girders either side to support the deck, these being the aesthetic extension of the pylon legs. Up to 12m in height, this provides far more depth than is actually structurally required neglecting structural honesty. At the position of the pylon, stiffened skirts were used to increase the structural height of the girders. Due to the discontinuity of main girder at the pylon location, a large transverse box girder transmits the forces from the main space girders

Figure 3- Pylon design

to the pylon itself and the rear girders. To overcome the large horizontal forces from the pylon to the deck a smooth curved plate was introduced to connect the pylon river-face plate with the deck plates, up to 50mm thick in some places. 6 Supports The Erasmus rests on four columns spread unevenly across the bridges span. Horizontal and vertical responses of the bridge are absorbed by different supports; rubber packages absorb the vertical movements whilst a statically determined system of a hinge on the bascule column and roller on another column take the horizontal responses. The bascule column has several functions; anchorage of the cable bridge, providing the pivotal point of the bascule bridge and housing the bascule cellar. The pylons total load of 80,000 kN is transferred by four 1 x 2m rubber pads at each base. Extra jacks at the base of pylon is used to either replace the supports or can even be used to compensate for unexpected settling. In the other two columns, large horizontal displacements occur where a combination of rubber and Teflon was used for the supports due to the limited space. The piers used in the approach spans were developed using CAD, allowing the architect to give them expressive forms whilst not affecting the structural core and requirements. 7 Foundations The Erasmus uses a foundation system of driven piles into the shallow River Maas. Hammered into bedrock in the lower strata from surface barges, the long steel stems deliver strong and durable foundations adept at withstanding impact from ships. 8 Bascule Bridge & Approach Span The movable part of the Erasmus allows ships taller than Rhine navigation height passage. One of the largest of its kind in Europe, the moveable deck weighs 1560t measuring 52.3 by 35.4m. The complexities in design come from the awkward angle on plan that it rest at producing variation in forces across the plane. Opening and closing times are 120 and 135 seconds respectively. The Erasmus uses a steel concrete composite viaduct to connect the bascule bridge and the left bank of the River Maas. The approach span was completely prefabricated off site. 9 Fabrication CAD-CAM was an influential component of the fabrication of the bridge as many components had complex forms with small tolerances for assembly.

The same programme that was used in design was also used in manufacture. Sections of the longitudinal deck were fabricated from bottom to top in 28 sections. After the deck was preassembled together from steel plates, trapezoidal stiffeners were placed on top and welded onto the deck and cross girders could be combined. After welding the stiffeners to the cross beam, the section could be rotated and welding completed on the top side of the deck. The girders running through the main span were built as complete, 15m long units. These box-shaped sections were cut slanted to match the 1:28 gradient of the bridge. Apart from the bascule cellar, because of its necessary depth to store the bascule mechanics, all the other piers were built as prefabricated caissons. The substructure were cast in Antwerp and then floated to the bridge site, where it was sunk into position.
Figure 6- Off-site Prefabrication and pre-assembly

10 Assembly Using steel the possibility of off-site construction of the superstructure indoors became a reality, saving significant time and money whilst also providing higher quality of workmanship. Preassembly of the Erasmus Bridge pylon and back-span was completed approximately 150 km southwest of Rotterdam, in the port city of Vlissingen (named Flushing in English). Assembly of pylon was achieved by an offshore construction company, Heerema, and although had no previous experience in bridge construction had huge amounts of warehouse space and the right crane making them the only contractor possible to bring in the pylon in one piece saving approximately 8 million pounds in contractors fees. The back span was constructed in sections and assembled into complete main girders whilst the longitudinal deck was then connected and driven onto a pontoon ready for transportation by sea eliminating the hassle of transporting by road. Assembly of the pylons base leg sections were built before welding to the two to the deck section in between. Horizontally, the pylon was completed weighing 1800t whilst the back-span 2000t. The two pontoons were then towed by seagoing barges to the Caland channel, where an offshore semisubmersible double crave vessel, with a lifting capacity of well over 10,000t and height of 200m, raised the pylon to attach it with the back span. Large tubular struts between the pylons bend and the deck stabilised the pylon temporarily.

Figure 7- Pylon assembly and temporary back supports

The span between the pylon columns and Bascule Bridge was assembled without the need of temporary supports. From the pontoon, positioned between the two columns, the pylon with its back span was lowered into exact location during high tide by flooding pontoon it rested on. Thereafter the supports were cast and the pull anchoring was fitted. The main bridge span was completed in sequence of 23 weeks per section using a different contractor, Smit Tak. The assembly used a floating derrick swinging each section into place, connected to the bridge with a temporary connection of frame and jack screw. Because these floating derricks were readily available no traveller or lifting device was needed, resulting in minimal disturbance to the shipping traffic along the river. The temporary connection located on the upper side of each main girder was used to absorb the pull force, and a contact butt connection on the lower flange to absorb the pressure force. Diagonal forces were taken by extended beams under the existing main girder. The cable strands and tubular casing were welded on site with each strand being tightened in two steps; first to 70%, and when all the stands were installed, to 100%. Two stays per section were installed in tandem with each deck section. As each section was added, the tension in the existing cable had to be adjusted. Once the main section of the bridge and the pylon were almost in equilibrium (after 5 sections were added) temporary supports of the pylon positioned on the back span to support the kink in the pylon was removed with the backward slope serving as a counterweight as designed. Finally, the cable stays for the rear span were completed.

11 Structural Analysis The Erasmus Bridge consists of three main components, the cable stayed bridge of length 284m, the bascule bridge of 82m and the approach span viaduct. The bascule bridge works independently with the main span and therefore have only analysed the cable stayed section of the Erasmus. I have mainly used BS 5400-2-2006, however, due to the fact that the Erasmus, a highway bridge, lies outside Britain, some variations are assumed and will be stated as such. 11.1.0 Highway Loading 11.1.1 Dead loading The dead loading is contributed to by only the materials that are common throughout the life-span of the bridge. Assumptions were made on the thicknesses of the box girders, cantilevering sections and steel cross beams as little technical data to this magnitude was found. Steel box girders x2 (w, 1.25m / h, 2.25m / t, 30mm) Total volume= 117.23 m^3 Weight of mild steel= 7848 kg/m^3 Total weight of box girders= 0.92 x 10^6 kg Steel cross beams @ 4.9m c/c (w, 19.6 / h, 2 / t, 15mm) Total volume= 37.51m^3 Total weight= 0.29 x 10^6 kg Steel cantilever x2 @4.9 c/c (w, 6.7/ h, 1.25 av/ 15mm) Total volume= 27.54 m^3 Total weight= 0.22 x 10^6 kg Trapezoidal stiffeners x 50 @ 600mm c/c Total weight= 0.85 x 10^6 kg Orthotropic steel deck @ 18mm thickness Total weight= 1.32 x 10^6 kg Sum of Total weight= 3.39 x 10^6 kg Total Force= 3.61 kN/m^2 Comparisons can be drawn from the weight of each section at 840,000kg each giving 3.66kN/m^2. However, this is most likely a weight measured during construction and therefore hasnt taken into account the superimposed loadings from the decking. 11.1.2 Super-Imposed dead loading As previously stated, the Erasmus uses an impermeable mastic epoxy layer to save weight rather than use asphalt. With that in mind I have therefore used slightly less than an approximate decking layer. Asphalt permeable layer 75mm Total volume= 702.9 m^3 Total weight= 1.62 x 10^6 kg Mastic layer of 8mm (adds insignificant weight)

Figure 8- Construction sequence of decking sections

Fittings, approximate addition of Total weight= 0.35 x 10^6 kg Sum of Total weight=1.97 x 10^6 kg Total Force= 2.10 kN/m^2 11.1.3 Live Loading Of the 33m wide bridge deck, the deck is divided symmetrically: (from outside) a pedestrian of 2.45m width, a cycle lane of 2.6m, a carriageway of 5.6m and tram lanes of 6.3m. As the carriageway is > 4.6m and <7.6m, the number of notional lanes is 2 with each lane 2.8m wide. The two checks specified relate to the HA loading of normal traffic as well as a KEL load and an HB load representing abnormal truck loads for transporting heavy objects. 11.1.4 HA Loading In tandem with BS 5400-2-2006, as the bridge length lies between the boundaries of 50m and 1000m the bridge HA loading can be calculated using a table or the equation: W= 36* (1/L)^0.1 HA loading= 20.46 kN/m As each lane is 2.8m wide, HA intensity= 7.31kN/m^2 The KEL per notional lane is taken as 120kN 12.1.5 Pedestrian Loading For a bridge length longer than 36m , application of the following equation from BS5400 is used to calculate pedestrian and cycle path loading: W= k * 5kN/m^2, where k=(Nominal UDL*10)/(L+270) k=0.37, Hence W=1.85 kN/m^2 It is possible to reduce this load if the distance of the pathway exceeds 2m by 15% of the load and again at 30% for 3m. However, BS5400 suggests caution when applying these loads for bridges over 36m due to the possibilities of exceptional crowds. The Erasmus, although, an unlikely venue, as hosted a number of music performances which therefore has prompted the maintenance of the calculated load and hence no reductions over the length of 5.05m. 11.1.6 Tram loading In no part of BS 5400 is there mention of tram loadings and due to their lightweight nature is unreasonable to mix them in with railway bridge loadings. Instead, research into tram industry standards stated a maximum axle loading of 98kN. As the trams in Rotterdam can reach up to 30m in length a maximum load of 2000kN taken as HB loading can be assumed using the same variations in axle lengths to give account the same variations in tram lengths. In use, only 2 trams are allowed on the bridge in opposite directions due to safety specifications.

11.1.7 HB Loading Although its overall length is variable to find the worst case, full HB loadings is considered to be 45 Units. As each wheel equates to 2.5kN per wheel per unit, on a 16 wheel truck, each wheel carries a load of 112.5kN nominally. 11.1.8 Other load effects There are other load effects in which bridges may be loaded and vary it terms of their relevance. Due to the fact that the Erasmus is completely constructed using Steel, shrinkage and creep can be overlooked as they are mainly a concern with concrete bridges. Geotechnical data in detail is not provided in regards to differential settlement of supports. It will be necessary to take these into account however, as previously stated, jacks have been installed in the bases of pylons can be used to accommodate any unexpected settlement. Other loadings requiring safety checks include stress relaxation of steel tendons, residual stresses in steel bridges, erection loads, scour in rivers leading to settlements and impacts. All loadings should be checked out through specialist literature and with the approval of the relevant authority. 11.2.0 Loading Combinations Three principal and two secondary combinations of loads are specified by BS 5400 which need to be checked, at both SLS and ULS. I will only check at ULS as it seems prudent to use a lower bound SLS. Nominal loads previously calculated require the multiplication of partial safety factors, fl, a partial load factor and f3, a further factor introduced to allow for possible inaccuracy in analysis where f3=1.10 for steel design. Due to the limited space on this paper the majority of load combinations arent analysed however, the relevant loadings have been calculated for each case. Most combinations would be calculated using computer software analysis. 11.2.1 Load Combination 1 Includes all permanent loads plus primary live loads (vertical traffic loads): Load Type UDL or P Load Dead Super-Imposed Live: HA HB Tram HB2 Pedestrian 1.05 1.75 1.50 1.30 1.30 1.50 3.61 kN/m^2 2.1 kN/m^2 7.31 kN/m^2 KEL: 120kN Wheel: 112.5kN 2000kN Total 1.85 kN/m^2

Figure 13- Bending moment diagram (max. Sag)

Under BS 5400 lane factors are needed to be applied to HA loading. For a loaded length greater than 112m and or less than 6 notional lanes, lane factors are: First lane factor = 1.0 Second lane factor = 0.67 Lanes 3 and above = 0.6 Factored loads: Given by =4.17 kN/m^2 =4.04 kN/m^2 =12.06 kN/m^2 =3.05 kN/m^2

Figure 14- Bending moment diagram (max. Hog)

Figure of 9- Section produce maximum Section loading of to loading produceto maximum sagging sagging moment moment

Using Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis it is possible to calculate a rough bending moment diagrams showing the maximum sagging moment of 13,231 kN.m and a maximum hogging moment of 21,131 kN.m. 11.2.2 Cable loading As each cable supports a deck length of 15m, resolving maximum force in the cable stays are as follows. As previously shown, the maximum force are when HB and tram loadings travel along the bridge in conjunction with pedestrian & cycle, HA loading and maximum dead and superimposed loadings. This produces a total max. force of 10,866.1 kN, 5433.1 kN for per cable. The worst case on the cables can be found on the last as it has the shallowest angle and the longest horizontal distance measuring 300m in length, at an inclination Figure 15- General properties angle of 22.41. of the Cables Tension= 5433/ Sin(22.41) =13,666.2 kN If the minimum tensile strength of 1770 N/mm^4 for a steel cable; to meet the required tension load, the required cable requires: 13,666.2/1.77= 7720.99 mm^2 Required radius= (7720.99/) = 49.57 mm As you can see from the two cables there is a large difference in radius required, however, this can be explained by the arrangement of the stay cable as it is not a single cable but a multi-wire arrangement. Furthermore, the weight is very similar at 60.58 kg/m. This confirms the idea that the majority of radius is actually cavity and other materials such as grease and casing which are lightweight in comparison to the steel cables. 11.2.3 Deflection During its ULS it is important to look at the maximum deflections of the bridge. This was achieved by

Section loading to produce hogging Figure of 10Section of loadingmaximum to produce maximum moment hogging moment To help distribute the loads for the desired effect I have split the bridge up into the section lengths. Applying a concentrated load across the deck produces the worst case for sagging whilst applying maximum load across two deck sections side by side produces the maximum hogging moment. For reproducing the worst cases for sagging and hogging I have assumed that pedestrians and cyclists are only in certain locations of the bridge, creating the desired effect. The same can be said for HB and HB tram loadings. The axle length of the HB load changes either to concentrate the loading to obtain a vague point load for sagging, at 6m, or to spread the load across two decks to get the desire hogging moment, at 16m. With regards to tram loading the worst case is evidently when two trams are side-byside, simultaneously passing in opposite directions.

Loading of the decking to provide max. Sagging Figure 11Loading of deck to produce max. Hog

Figure 12- Loading of deck to produce max. Sag

simplifying each section of decking as a simply supported beam and under a UDL of 601.34 kN/m and a point load of 120 kN per notional lane for the KEL. As it an ultimate loading state with associated factors, the worst case is conservative. Even under these circumstances the deflection is extremely small. This may be in part due to the assumptions not being realistic enough. Again computer analysis would take into account more variables to achieve a more accurate outcome.

For box girders where ratio of distance between girders/depth > 7 (from BS 5400) =2.6 Pt= 1043.33 kN 11.3.4 Parapet wind loading For parapet with only two or three horizontal rails only apply the equation: PL=0.4 Pt 11.3.5 Nominal vertical wind loading Pv= q * A3 * Cl q= 614.33 N/m^2 A3= 33 * 284= 9372 m^2 Cl= 0.75 as bridge is not inclined Pv= +/- 4318.12 kN

11.3.0 Load Combination 2 Includes Combination 1, plus wind, and if erection considered, temporary loads. 11.3.1 Wind Loading In the UK wind loading on bridges is based on a 120 year return value at a height of 10m up to 300m. No such data exists for the Erasmus Bridge site on the River Maas. Netherlands and especially Rotterdam, on the West coast, is exposed to gales from the North Sea. Draft Eurocode ENV-1991-2-4 specifies three areas with 50 year return period 10-min wind speeds of 25, 27.5 and 30 m/s. Amsterdam and Rotterdam are in Area 2 (27.5m/s), Extreme wind classification: II. Using this data the maximum wind gust speeds exceed the maximum wind gust speeds on bridges with live loads set at 35m/s with winds of 43.53m/s using the BS 5400 formulae. Therefore, as am not using Dutch standards throughout this analysis I used a mean wind speed for the UK, 20m/s. 11.3.2 Maximum wind gust speeds Vd= Sg * Vs Sg= Gust factor = Sb * Kf * Tg * Sh = 1.58 * 1 * 0.94 * 1 = 1.4852 Vs= Site hourly mean wind speed = Vb * Sp * Sa * Sd = 20 * 1.05 * 1.015 * 1 = 31.66 m/S 11.3.3 Nominal Transverse Wind Load Total closed height of bridge only taken as 2.3m as parapet design consists of only railing to keep the profile as low as possible. Pt= q * A1 * Cd q= dynamic pressure = 0.613 * Vd ^2 = 614.33 N/m^2 A1= Area of Structure =L * d = 653.2 m^2 Cd= Drag Coefficient = n* b/d

11.3.6 Wind Combinations: 1.) Pt alone 2.) Pt in combination with +/- Pv 3.) Pl alone 4.) 0.5Pt in combination with Pl +/- Pv 11.4.0 Load Combination 3 Includes Combination 1, plus temperature, and if erection considered, temporary loads. 11.4.1 Temperature Effects Again there is no data for 1 in 120 year temperature lows and peaks as there are no 120 year isothermal maps for the Netherlands available. A range of -5 to 30 degrees Celsius seems appropriate to use as Rotterdam is near the sea, which usually causes a reduction in peaks. Therefore the assumption of a temperature change of 25 degrees C is assumed for the maximum change throughout the year. If multiplied to the length of the bridge, 284m, it is possible to find the expansion undergone, if unrestrained at one end. If the horizontal movement joint is blocked is anyway it is possible to check if the steel can take the required stress and not fail. Stress= Strain * Youngs modulus = 0.0003 * 200,000 = 60 N/mm^2 S355 steel, which is used in the deck construction, can easily take the apparent stress as <16mm S355 steel can take 355 N/mm^2 making the steel seem overdesigned. 12.5.0 Load Combination 4 Includes all permanent loads plus secondary live loads (skidding, centrifugal, longitudinal and collision loads) and associated primary live loads. 11.5.1 Secondary Loading Centrifugal: Not required as the radius is over 1000m

Longitudinal loading from braking trucks: Horizontal force shall be 8kN/m along a single notional lane plus a single 200kN force. Seperately, for HB loading, 25% of the total nominal HB load shall be applied over 2 axles. Accidental skidding: Modelled as a single point load of 250kN acting horizontally in any direction in one notional lane only. Collision with parapets: Based on 25 Units of HB loading colliding with parapet based on calculating impulse and momentum collision to find quasi-static force applied. The parapet design includes a temporary handrail design matching the architecture of the bridge. So suicide nettings/barriers are used as the bridge is only 12.5m above the river level. On the inside of the cable stays, adjacent to the carriageway lies the crash barrier protecting the pedestrian pathways and cables from collision. Although the cables are in a protective casing, it is important that they are not subject to collision damage as this could affect the overall structural integrity of the bridge. The bridge is allowed to take a maximum of 60t trucks as previously stated. Although no dimensions are published of the crash barriers an estimation of approximately 400mm doesnt seem able to prevent vehicles overturning. Hence the collision barriers do not meet BS 5400 design and is unsafe in the UK.

11.6.0 Load Combination 5 Includes all permanent loads, plus loads due to friction at supports. 12.0.0 Rain-wind induced vibrations 12.1.0 Natural frequency Using the Raleigh-Ritz method, based on Eulers differential equation, it is possible to estimate the natural frequency of the Erasmus. M, mass per unit length = 19,666.7 kg/m Length = 284m I = 0.289 (thickness of 2 box girders 30mm) E = 200 = 0.476 Hz Less than two months after opening by the Queen of Netherlands herself, the Erasmus cable stays started to vibrate heavily causing the deck to oscillate noticeably. Immediately the bridge was closed to all traffic as a safety precaution. Rotterdam City Council quickly ordered a research into the problem. From this publication it is possible to see the actual frequencies. As you can see my calculation was very close to the 1st mode of 0.45 Hz. During the vibration problem the local mean wind speed was 14 m/s, strong but not immense and it was raining. It became apparent that as the rain stopped so did the vibrations leading to the conclusion of rainFigure 17- Calculated natural wind induced vibrations. frequencies of deck by onsite The maximum amplitudes engineers were in the range of 3 times the diameter of the stay cables, about 0.7m causing the bridge deck to oscillate in a torsion-sway mode with maximum vertical amplitude of 25mm. When vibrating a rattling noise could be heard from the stays due to individual strands hitting one another and the HDPE cover periodically. It is important to note that only the front stays exhibited vibrations and not the back stays. In the front stays original dampeners existed of 0.3% which proved inefficient. Temporary measures were set in place, connecting the stay cables to the bridge deck using polypropylene ropes like those used in bridge erection and the vibrations ceased even under similar weather conditions. Later, ribbons we used as a substitute, interconnecting the cables in more positions at three different heights. Through research of the excitation mechanisms for rain-wind-induced vibrations and from experience in practice, cable vibrations may be prevented when the damping ratio of the stay cables is higher than 0.5% of the critical damping. Therefore hydraulic dampeners were

Figure 16- Collision barrier against cable and damper

Impact on substructure: Nominal horizontal loads on piers, however, the Erasmus piers are all below road level and can only come into contact with vessels from the river. The impact with depend on the size, speed and risk of collision. Fatigue Loading: As previously mention, the engineers on hand described the fatigue associated with the steel bridge as not a critical factor of design. Vibration due to traffic: Vibrations due to traffic do not need to be considered for highway bridges, although, the BS 5400 doesnt take into account the possibility of trams on bridges. Vibrations will occur, however, not to the extent of trains.

introduced to meet the necessities of dependability, efficiency, maintenance and aesthetics. In the case of the Erasmus, an extra 0.3% of critical dampening was targeted for a better margin of safety, taking the natural frequency to 3 Hz. The extra safety factor was considered important due the uncertainties regarding the slenderness of the deck in modelling.

parapets for example. As previously mentioned the steel deck is watertight due to epoxy resin layer. The steelwork used on the exposed areas of the deck and the pylon are not weather resistant themselves and most
Figure 19likely have been coated with an epoxy or urethane Maintenance coating. Coating would have been applied during station fabrication in an indoor, factory environment, resulting in good workmanship, effective for approximately 30 years. 13.1.0 Vandalism At the base of every cable, a stiff steel cover was used to protect the HDPE cover and cables from damage cause by vandalism.

Figure 18 Location of the temporary measures on cables

International research since 1985 has indicated that under specific wind and rain situations, one or two small streams of water form of the surface of stay cables. The size is usually insignificant to the size of the cable and location dependent on gravity acceleration, inclination, and wind velocity and direction. These small streams change the value of lift coefficient which in turn creates circumferential fluctuation on the surface which may cause aerodynamic instability of the stay cable. The Erasmus heavily used CAD during the design also using a finite element model to analyse the bridge under different loadings. In terms of the stays, geometrically linear properties were applied. In hindsight it is the non-linear properties of the cable stays and their effect on the bridge which needed to be applied to the model. The frequency dependant galloping model was applied to each stay. 13.0.0 Maintenance & Durability Due to the irregularity of the design it was important that all areas of structural concern were to be accessed for maintenance. Built into both bases of the pylon were internal stairs, ladders and platforms. Furthermore, an elevator was installed in the western base, assuring access to permit up-keep of the stay anchoring at the peak of the pylon. Although virtually impossible to design working platforms to observe all critical positions on the exterior due to the oblique angles, slanting cross beams, the shape of the pylon peak and the rejection of permanent openings, a detachable pylon cover was applied allowing a mechanical maintenance platform could be stored. The mechanically raised cover can be raised a vertical distance of 2m allowing an inspection platform, hanging from cantilevered girders. The cart can be swung around the entire perimeter used fastening points along the wall to prevent horizontal oscillations due to the wind, maintaining safety. As the Erasmus is of steel construction durability is a concern due to corrosion of the material. To protect against such attack all the cables on the bridge are encased with a HDPE casing to give a waterproof seal from water. Stainless steel has been used in all other areas which are exposed at deck level such as the

14 Lighting In Netherlands, 1% of any project must go to art, whatever that may be, and in the case of the Erasmus the lighting became the art. The lighting on the Erasmus reverses the form of the bridge from day to night. Lights only show the stay cables of the main span, the same ones that fade into the background in day light. And vice versa, the back stays and pylon which are visible during the daylight are hidden.

Figure 20 Spot lights revealing the cables at night

16 Future Changes The possibility for expansion of the Erasmus Bridge due to an ever increasing traffic flow, currently 26,000 vehicles per day, is a debate that ultimately the Rotterdam City council will have to consider in the future. There is definitely the possibility, subject to loading capabilities, that lanes can be added, replacing the cycle or tram networks. However this is unlikely in my honest opinion. In the current climate of Ecofriendliness, city councils have stepped up propaganda in using public transport or bicycles throughout the major cities of Europe. It is therefore unlikely that the cycle and tram lanes would be transformed in extra lanes. Rotterdam has a rich history of bridge construction, meeting new demand with new bridges, therefore making it likely that an increase in demand over the bridges limit would see the construction of a new bridge over the Maas. References [1] Designing the Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam. Reusink, Jaco and
Kuijpers, Martin. 4, s.l. : International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 1 November 1998, Structural Engineering International, Vol. 8, pp. 275-277(3). Numerical Modelling of Rain-Wind-Induced Vibration: Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam. Geurts, Chris, et al. 2, s.l. : International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 1 May 1998, Structural Engineering International, Vol. 8, pp. 129-135. TRAM Power Ltd. [Online] http://www.trampower.co.uk/FAQ.html. Wind loading of Structure. John D. Holmes.

[2]

[3] [4]

[5] UN Studio, Erasmus Bridge. Todd Gannon. 4 Source Books in