Pacheco P., Multi-Span Large Bridges, 2015

(1)

(2)

(3)

PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTI-SPAN LARGE BRIDGES, 1–3 JULY 2015, PORTO, PORTUGAL

Multi-Span Large Bridges

Editors

Pedro Pacheco & Filipe Magalhães

Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal

(4)

Organized by:

CRC Press/Balkema is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the publishers.

Although all care is taken to ensure integrity and the quality of this publication and the information herein, no responsibility is assumed by the publishers nor the author for any damage to the property or persons as a result of operation or use of this publication and/or the information contained herein.

Published by: CRC Press/Balkema

P.O. Box 11320, 2301 EH Leiden, The Netherlands e-mail:[email protected]

www.crcpress.com–www.taylorandfrancis.com ISBN: 978-1-138-02757-2 (Hbk + CD-ROM)

ISBN: 978-1-315-68719-3 (eBook)

(5)

Keynote Lectures

General presentation of the Keynote Lectures 3

Large viaducts, some executions a few ideas 9

J. Manterola

Design and construction of sea-crossing bridges – A review 17

N. Hussain

Viaducts with progressively erected decks 27

J. Strasky

Betwixt and between Portus and Cale 37

A. Adão da Fonseca

The Octavio Frias de Oliveira and Anita Garibaldi cable-stayed bridges 51

C.F. Ribeiro

Multi-span extradosed bridges 67

A. Kasuga

Multi-span large bridges – interaction between design and construction 83

A.F. Bæksted

Recent achievements in the design and construction of multi-span cable supported

bridges in China 93

A. Chen, R. Ma & X. Zhang

Multi-span large decks – the organic prestressing impact 103

P. Pacheco

Experts, Experiences & Landmark projects

Crossing of Bjørnafjorden – Floating bridge 127

B. Villoria, J.B. Wielgosz & S.M. Johannesen

Rion-Antirion Bridge – Challenging earthquakes 135

E. Joly, P. Moine & A. Pecker

Innovative erection methods of steel cable-stayed bridges 143

M. de Miranda

Viaduct over river Ulla in the Spanish Atlantic high speed railway line:

An outstanding composite steel-concrete truss bridge 151

F. Millanes, L. Matute & M. Ortega

(6)

Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge, Brasília, Brazil 159

F.B. de Barros & J. de Freitas Simões

Bridge over the Cádiz Bay, Spain 167

J. Manterola, A. Martínez, J.A. Navarro, S. Criado, S. Fuente, M.A. Gil, L. Blanco, G. Osborne, M. Escamilla & J.M. Domínguez

Baluarte Bridge executive project 173

G.R. Argüelles

Queensferry Crossing: Role of concrete in the design and execution of the project 179

P. Curran

New Pumarejo Bridge over the river Magdalena in Barranquilla, Colombia 187

J. Manterola, J. Muñoz-Rojas, S. Fernández, J.A. Navarro & S. Fuente

Delivering the Padma Multipurpose Bridge project, Bangladesh 193

W.K. Wheeler & C.J. Tolley

The tied arch bridge of the Saale-Elster-Viaduct 201

W. Eilzer, R. Jung, T. Mansperger & K. Humpf

Construction and design features of the bridge over the Danube River, Bulgaria 209

J. Manterola, A. Martínez, J.A. Navarro, J.L. Alvárez & J.I.D. de Argote

TUNeIT – Towards a global World 215

E. Siviero, A.B. Amara, M. Guarascio, G. Bella, M. Zucconi, A. Adão da Fonseca & K. Slimi

The Russky Bridge: Pylons design approach optimization 223

L.V. Miklashevich & V.E. Rusanov

Bridge across the Waschmühl Valley, Kaiserslautern, Germany: A harmonic

symbiosis between a historic monument and a new innovative bridge 231

K. Humpf, V. Angelmaier & W. Eilzer

Viaduct over river Deba in the “Y-Basque” high speed railway line

in the north of Spain 239

F. Millanes, M. Ortega, P. Solera, H. Figueiredo & J. Ugarte

Structural solutions and construction methods for the main crossing

of the Mersey Gateway Bridge Project 247

G.D. Moir, S.H. Jang, J. Seo & P. Sanders

Design of the long-span footbridge over the Bug River in Niemirów 257

J. Biliszczuk, J. Onysyk, W. Barcik, P. Prabucki, K. Ste˛pie´n, J. Szczepa´nski, R. Toczkiewicz, A. Tukendorf, K. Tukendorf & P. Wo´zny

Design and proof checking of foundation, substructure and superstructure

of Rail cum Road Bridge at Munger, Bihar, India 263

H.M. Farook & G.S. Babu

Multi-span bridge bypass over the Dziwna Strait 271

J. Hołowaty

Large multi-span bridges built in recent years in Poland 277

J. Biliszczuk, J. Onysyk, P. Prabucki & R. Toczkiewicz

Kassuende Bridge over Zambezi River in Tete, Mozambique 285

T. Mendonça, V. Brito & M. Monteiro

(7)

Multi-span bridge crossings for improved road access to Szczecin sea port 293

J. Hołowaty

Armado Guebuza Bridge over Zambezi River in Caia, Mozambique 301

T. Mendonça, V. Brito & M. Almeida

Design and construction of a long-span continuous fin-back bridge 309

Y. Lu, M. Fu, X. He & C. Zhou

Pinhal Interior Motorway Concession – IC3 – Section Condeixa – Coimbra –

Special engineering structures – Construction processes 317

T. Nogueira, A. Hipólito & N. Amaro

Viaduct Araranguá – The alternative design of viaduct of 1661.59 meters

in the BR-101/SC Brazil 325

I.C. Santos & F.P.S. Nunes

Design and construction of flyovers in Outer Ring Road, Delhi 331

K. Ganesh & V. Shanmugham

Haramain high speed railway line 337

J.M.G. Parejo, M.T. Serrano, M.M. Cañueto, M.B. García & F.J.M. López

Design and construction of viaduct to Mumbai International Airport 345

P.G. Venkatram & K. Ganesh

Meriç Bridge: Construction and quality control 351

S. Uluöz, S. Düzbasan, T. Uluöz, E. Yakıt & U. Akyazı

Design and construction of elevated viaduct at Nashik, India 357

K. Ganesh & P. Murali

Conceptual design

Development of a submerged floating tube bridge for crossing of the Bjørnafjord 365

M. Reiso, T.H. Søreide, S. Fossbakken, A.S. Brandtsegg, S.A. Haugerud, A. Nestegård, J.H. Sekse & A. Minoretti

Three span floating suspension bridge crossing the Bjørnafjord 373

J. Veie & S.H. Holtberget

Long railway viaducts with special spans: Part 1. Arch construction by balanced

cantilever with auxiliary cables 381

J. Manterola, A. Martínez, B. Martín, J.A. Navarro, M.A. Gil, S. Fuente & L. Blanco

Long railway viaducts with special spans: Part 2. Arch construction by tilting 389

J. Manterola, J. Muñoz-Rojas, A. Martínez & S. Fernández

Long railway viaducts with special spans: Part 3. Precast girders 395

J. Manterola & A. Martínez

Four spans continuous cable stayed bridges without extra cables 401

J. Romo

Particular design features for a long span cable-stayed bridge over the

Harbour of Port Louis, Mauritius 409

J. Jungwirth, J. Casper & A. Baumhauer

A study on vehicular live load design based on actual vehicular load

for a multi-span large cable-stayed bridge 417

H. Sugiyama, H. Kanaji, H. Watanabe & O. Aketa

(8)

Comparison of variants for New Peljesac Bridge in Croatia 427

J. Radic, Z. Savor, M. Srbic & M. Pipenbaher

Gebze–Orhangazi–Izmir Motorway, Izmit Bay Suspension Bridge 435

N. Güngör & F. Zeybek

Construction of cable-stayed bridge over the Drava River

on Corridor Vc, Croatia 443

P. Sesar, M.M. Buhin, D. Bani´c & S. Kralj

Strait crossing of the Thermaikos Gulf with a mixed long-span bridge

and subsea tunnel system 451

M. Malindretou-Vika & P. Spyridis

Segmental prestressed concrete multispan large bridges 459

V. Barata, J.P. Cruz & P. Pereira

Experience of some long multi-span bridges in Queensland, Australia (Part 1) 467

J.A. Hart & E. Kittoli

Experience of some long multi-span bridges in Queensland, Australia (Part 2) 475

J.A. Hart & E. Kittoli

Multi-span bridges: The first Chilean experience and future challenges 483

M.A. Valenzuela, M. Márquez & I. Vallejo

Optimization of cable weight in multi-span cable-stayed bridges.

Application to the Forth Replacement Crossing 491

A. Baldomir, E. Tembrás & S. Hernández

Design parameters of suspension bridges: Updates of state of art

and its application on multi-span typology 499

I. Vallejo, M.A. Valenzuela & M. Márquez

Comparative study of prestressing consumptions in 7 different constructive

methods for 75 m multi-span box girders 507

A. Ferreira, B. Lima, F. Lopes & P. Pacheco

KaTembe Bridge over Espírito Santo Estuary, in Maputo 513

T. Mendonça, V. Brito & M. Monteiro

The South Approach Viaduct of Izmit Bay Crossing Project 521

N. Güngör

Effect of hangers disposal on the steel consumption for bowstring arch bridges 527

M. Daraban & I.R. R˘ac˘anel

Strategy for durability of structural concrete in Mega-Sealinks

in tropical sea-waters 533

V.K. Raina

Project Westgate – Lekki Beltway Bridge, Lagos, Nigeria 549

C.M. Bednarski & A. Adão da Fonseca

Innovative construction methods

High productivity in bridge construction – the OPS effect 559

P. Pacheco, H. Coelho, A. Resende, D. Carvalho & I. Soares

FlexiArch-Stress Ribbon combination for multi-span pedestrian bridges 567

A.E. Long, D. McPolin, S. Nanukuttan, A. Gupta & D. Robb

(9)

Balanced lift method for the construction of bridges with two spans 575

S. Foremniak, W. Weiss & J. Kollegger

An innovative system of precast segmental span-by-span construction

for span lengths of above 100 m 583

J. Muñoz-Rojas, S. Fernández, C. Iglesias, P. Pacheco, H. Coelho & A. Resende

Launching of fully welded steel long span bridges: Bogibeel bridge 591

A.K. Mathur, S.S. Shukla & J. Gupta

Swivel lowering operation of the viaduct over the River Tera 599

F.J.M. López, M.B. García, M.M. Cañueto, J.M.G. Parejo & M.T. Serrano

Deck forces of a cable-stayed bridge – “Analysis of the construction

and the in-service phases” 607

P. Almeida & R.C. Barros

Building the decks of the world’s largest high speed train arch bridges with movable

scaffolding systems 615

A.A. Póvoas

The Patani Bridge (Nigeria): Innovative construction methods 625

P. Stellati & L. Marenzi

Innovative spliced girder method for multi span bridges 633

I.Z. Stern

Innovative formwork systems in bridge construction – Case studies 641

A. Preuer, M. Kamleithner, M. Mihal & C. Beer

Prestressed I-beams made of ultra-high performance concrete

for construction of railway bridges 649

P. Tej, J. Kolísko, P. Bouška, M. Vokáˇc & J. ˇCech

Preliminary assessment of wind actions in large span MSS 655

A. Resende, H. Coelho & P. Pacheco

Cabriel River Viaduct in Cofrentes (Valencia, Spain) bypass at N-330.

Construction design 663

J.F.M. Soriano, J.I.C. Vázquez & B.D. Santana

Segmental precast technology for multi-span bridges

(production, transportation and launching) 673

V.N. Heggade

Construction of Panipat Elevated Expressway on NH-1 on BOT basis 701

P.N.S.S. Sastry

Mold for full span method 707

M. Kye

Special foundations and geotechnical site investigations

Offshore pile driving foundations monitored by PDA® Test at Puente Nigale 715

M. Rojas, I. Miquilena & A. Souza

Ceira bridge foundations: Combined Micropile and Footing Foundations (CMFF).

Static load tests 721

J.M.S. Cruz, M.S. Neves & S. Gil

(10)

Tresfjord Bridge – Foundation of main span on 40 m caisson on soil seabed 729

K.B. Dahl, L. Toverud & D.E. Brekke

Chiapas Bridge 737

G.R. Argüelles

Life cycle

Life-cycle costs of bridge bearings – Key considerations for bridge designers

and owners 743

T. Spuler, N. Meng & G. Moor

Application of the Monte-Carlo method to calculate the life-cycle costs of bridges 751

C. Hofstadler & M. Kummer

Selective use of non-corrosive rebar to increase concrete durability 759

A.E.C. Borderon

Monitoring, maintenance and management

Dynamic characterization and continuous dynamic monitoring of long span bridges 771

E. Caetano, A. Cunha, C. Moutinho & F. Magalhães

Investigation and countermeasures for fatigue cracks that emerged

on the finger joint of the cable-stayed bridge 781

T. Kosugi, M. Takahashi, Y. Nakamura & H. Dobashi

Management of the Severn Bridge Suspension Bridge 789

C.R. Hendy, C. Mundell & D. Bishop

Surveillance of continuous precast concrete bridge decks supported

by monitoring-based techniques 799

H. Sousa, C. Sousa, A.S. Neves, J. Figueiras & J. Bento

Implementation of a B-WIM system in a centenary steel truss bridge 807

F. Cavadas, B.J.A. Costa & J. Figueiras

A novel inspection method for orthotropic steel decks using phased

array ultrasonic testing 815

T. Makita, H. Sakai, T. Suzuki & N. Yagi

Self-evaluating smart expansion joints of multi-span and long bridges 823

K. Islami & N. Meng

Evaluation of fatigue crack formation in cantilever brackets

of a multi-span railway steel box girder bridge 831

L.R.T. Melo, R.M. Teixeira, A.P. da Conceição Neto & T.N. Bittencourt

Investigations of post tensioned bridges with critical prestressing steel

regarding hydrogen induced cracking (HIC) 841

A.W. Gutsch & M. Walther

Fatigue management of the midland links steel box girder decks 847

C.R. Hendy & S. Chakrabarti

Improved structural health monitoring strategies for better management

of civil infrastructure systems 855

J. Winkler, C.R. Hendy & P. Waterfall

(11)

Assessment of thermal actions in the steel box girder of the Millau Viaduct 863

L. Defaucheux, H. Desprets, Z. Hajar, C. Servant & M. Virlogeux

Delayed deformations of concrete structures: The Savines bridge and the Cheviré bridge 871

J.-P. Sellin, J.-F. Barthélémy, G. Bondonet, B. Cauvin & J.-M. Torrenti

Laser scanner in identification of pathological manifestations in concrete 879

S. Pavi, P. Gorkos, F. Bordin, M. Veronez & M. Kulakowski

Management of the M4 Elevated Section substructures 887

C.R. Hendy, C.T. Brock, A.D.J. Nicholls & S. El-Belbol

Using data mining and numerical simulations for on-line monitoring

of long span bridges 895

J. Santos, P. Silveira, C. Crémona, A. Orcesi & L. Calado

Monitoring based assessment of fatigue resistance of 40 year old pc bridges 903

H. Weiher & K. Runtemund

Maintenance method for cable-stayed and extradosed bridge

with composite main girder 911

H. Sakai

Construction control of a long-span single pylon cable-stayed bridge 919

C. Liu, L.J. Sun, Y.S. Ni & D. Xu

Effect of cable corrosion on the structural response of cable-stayed bridges 927

O.A. Olamigoke, G.A.R. Parke & M. Imam

Fatigue analysis of cable anchorages on cable-stayed bridges 937

N.A.M. Khairussaleh, G.A.R. Parke & M. Imam

Monitored-based methodology to predict the initiation of corrosion in RC structures 947

E.A. Tantele, R.A. Votsis & T. Onoufriou

Analysis of indicators in concrete production decrease in Distrito Federal –

DF: problem notes and solutions 955

R.S. Simões, H.R. Filho, C.D.U. Palacio, M.T.M. Carvalho & S. da Silva Araújo

Incidents and accidents

Structural performance of cable-stayed footbridges to the loss of cable(s) 967

O.A. Olamigoke, G.A.R. Parke & M. Imam

Causes of the bridge falsework collapse near Levoˇca in Slovakia 975

P. Paulík, J. Halvoník, V. Benko & L’. Fillo

New materials and special devices

Lightweight concrete for long-span bridges 985

R.W. Castrodale

Cable stayed footbridge with the deck made of UHPC 993

J.L. Vítek & M. Kalný

Non-destructive measurements to evaluate fiber dispersion and content

in UHPFRC reinforcement layers 1001

S. Nunes, F. Ribeiro, A. Carvalho, M. Pimentel, E. Brühwiler & M. Bastien-Masse

(12)

New test methods for stay cable systems 1009

A.W. Gutsch, M. Laube & T. Nolte

Mechanical properties and explosive spalling behavior of the recycled steel

fiber reinforced ultra-high-performance concrete 1019

G.F. Peng, J. Yang, Q.Q. Long, X.J. Niu & Y.X. Shi

Extreme loads

Characteristic of traffic loading response for multi-span large bridge 1029

J.Y. Zhou, X. Ruan & C.C. Caprani

Multivariate probabilistic seismic demand analysis of steel-concrete composite

bridges under near-fault pulse-like ground motions 1037

Y. Liu, D.G. Lu & F. Paolacci

Rehabilitation

Innovative rehabilitation of large bridges – the Indian way 1049

P.Y. Manjure

Widening of San Timoteo and Canero viaducts 1057

F.J.M. López, M.B. García, M.M. Cañueto, J.M.G. Parejo & M.T. Serrano

Impregnation technique provides corrosion protection to grouted

post-tensioning tendons 1065

D. Whitmore, I. Lasa & L. Haixue

Assessment of epistemic uncertainties in the resistance of RC columns

confined by CFRP 1073

J.R. Ferreira & S.M.C. Diniz

Expansion joint renewal – Solutions that minimise impacts on the bridge’s

structure, its users and its owner’s finances 1081

G. Moor, N. Meng & T. Spuler

Safety and serviceability

An efficient methodology for fatigue damage assessment of critical details

on a long span composite railway bridge 1091

C.M.C. Albuquerque, A.L.L. Silva, A.M.P. de Jesus & R. Calçada

Cyclic behavior of continuous railway viaducts made with U-shaped precast

concrete girders 1099

C. Sousa, R. Calçada & A.S. Neves

Concrete box girder bridge assessment – a stiffness adaptation approach 1107

G. Schreppers, A. de Boer & D. Begg

Residual bridges bearing capacity analysis during service period subject to

safety variability 1115

L.V. Miklashevich, L.A. Chernyshova & V.E. Rusanov

Alkali-Silica Reaction, ASR – Review on how to deal with ASR

in concrete structures 1121

J. Custódio, A.B. Ribeiro & A.S. Silva

(13)

Structural analysis

Non-linear ULS analysis of long-span reinforced concrete arches to EN 1992 1129

J. Nebreda & F. Millanes

Stressing sequence of steel cable-stayed bridges built by cantilevering 1137

A. Recupero, M. Calvo, M.F. Granata & M. Arici

Dynamic analysis for fatigue assessment of reinforced concrete slabs

in railway viaducts 1143

J. Malveiro, C. Sousa, R. Calçada & D. Ribeiro

Optimized bridge deck design using a genetic algorithm 1151

B. Lima & A. Ferreira

Stiffened flanges used in steel box girder bridges 1163

P.S. Ferreira & F. Virtuoso

Finite Element Modeling of the Fatih Sultan Mehmet Suspension Bridge 1169

S.A. Kilic, H.J. Raatschen, B. Körfgen, A. Astaneh-Asl & N.M. Apaydin

Numerical simulation of wind pressure of a continuous fin-back bridge 1175

M. Fu, X. Li, Z. Nie & Z. Tang

Modeling bridge construction phasing by the balanced cantilever method –

“Comparison between predicted and real camber values” 1181

L.G. Castro, R. Bastos & R.C. Barros

Fatigue analysis induced by vibrations in stay-cables subjected to along

wind turbulence component 1189

I. Failla, A. Recupero, G. Ricciardi & F. Saitta

Rational and practical method for camber control in bridges built by

successive segments 1197

R.N. Oyamada, H. Ishitani, R.A. Oshiro & A.M.L. Cardoso

Application of nonlinear FEM to evaluate load bearing capacities –

Capability and limitations 1203

S. Kattenstedt & R. Maurer

Thermal analysis of a fin-back bridge under sudden drop in temperature 1211

F. Tian, Y. Lu & P. Zhu

Comparison study of aeroelastic analysis of a pylon of the Mersey Gateway

Bridge with its 2D/3D wind tunnel tests 1217

S.B. Kim, J. Rees, J.Y. Chung, S.H. Jang, G.D. Moir & J.H. Seo

Numerical models used to simulate the “in situ” testing of a bridge

on A1 motorway in Romania 1223

I.R. R˘ac˘anel

Wind effects analysis on cable stayed bridges decks 1231

V.D. Urdareanu & I.R. R˘ac˘anel

“Beam sectional analysis” an innovative technique for analysis of bridge superstructure 1239

K. Kashefi & A.H. Sheikh

Large bridge in pergola for high velocity trains in Spain 1247

C. Jurado

(14)

Advances of external prestressing tendons in multi-span curved box-girder bridges 1255

Y. Shen, T.Y. Song & G.P. Li

Reinvestigation of post–tensioned bridge over Bitlis river 1263

B.D. Öztürk, E. Löker, E. Ökte & E. Talıblı

A graphic exact method for analyzing hyperstatic spatial pergolaes 1271

A.G. Lacort

Investigation on stability problems as a second order theory problem

for piers with practically infinite bending stiffness 1279

V. Karatzas, G. Karydis, E.K. Roussou & T. Konstantakopoulos

Suspension cables bridge and arches 1287

L.M. Laginha

Author index 1295

(15)

Preface

Throughout the last decades, the increasing development of the urban metropolis and the importance of establishing fundamental infrastructure networks promoted the development of important infra-structure projects worldwide and several multi-span large bridges have been erected. Some are sea-crossing bridges, some are long viaducts and others include both sea-links and large viaducts. Moreover, due to their significant benefits to society, multi-span large bridges are being studied for potential execution in several countries over the next decades. Some are already underway.

There are definitely several problems/solutions which are common to the wider field of bridge engineering and certainly many lessons emerge from there. However, the approach to multi-span

large bridges comprises a specific knowledge in design, construction and managing points of view,

where the scale – large – the repetition property – multi-span – and the frequent inclusion of main

bridges– demand integrated solutions to satisfy society’s requests.

The aim of the Multi-Span Large Bridges International Conference is to aggregate experts and

experiencesin a global meeting where the outputs – interaction and documents – are to effect an

increase in the performance and knowledge of all participants.

There is also the purpose of sharing state-of-the-art achievements not necessarily originating in this specific field of bridge engineering, but which clearly demonstrate a potential for application in multi-span large bridges.

The increasing demand on safety, time and economic issues represents a challenge to all sub-communities of bridge engineers. In the particular case of the Multi-Span Large Bridges experts community, the knowledge is actually somehow limited to a restricted number of companies and entities in dispersed countries – sometimes only with singular, but important, experiences. That

is the main goal of the conference: merge knowledge of disperse experiences.To this end,

worldwide prestigious bridge engineers, from different regions of the world, were invited to share their experiences. Nearly 150 contributions from designers, constructors, members of academia and researchers were selected within an intensive undertaking of the conference’s Scientific Committee, who reviewed papers of more than 400 authors. These contributions were organized in 13 thematic sessions, as follows:

• Experts, Experiences & Landmark projects • Conceptual design

• Innovative construction methods

• Special foundations and geotechnical site investigations • Life cycle

• Monitoring, maintenance and management • Incidents and accidents

• Durability

• New materials and special devices • Extreme loads

• Rehabilitation

• Safety and serviceability • Structural analysis

All the papers were peer reviewed by the Scientific Committee which, itself, also comprises distinguished bridge engineers and academics from more than 30 countries.

Multi-Span Large Bridges is already a fact for the bridge engineering worldwide community –

more than 50 countries are actively involved. An important part of the shared knowledge is in this book.

Pedro Pacheco & Filipe Magalhães

(16)

(17)

Acknowledgements

Multi-Span Large Bridges International Conference and this book are the result of an intensive contribution of a plethora of members of the bridge engineering worldwide community.

Thus, the Editors are deeply grateful:

To their colleagues of the Organizing Committeewho shared their knowledge, their experience

and their time, to prepare this conference;

To the Invited Keynote Speakerswho, with generosity, found the time to share their knowledge,

experience and vision;

To the Scientific Committee Memberswho are responsible for the quality of the conference and

of the book;

To the Technical Committee Memberswhose work is to be done after this book edition and before

the conference, but who already found time and availability for cooperation;

Of course, the Editors deeply thank the Authorswhose projects, research works and experiences

are the core of this book.

The Editors and the Organizing Committee wish to thank the International Co-Sponsors who gave so much support to the Organization and to the quality of the event.

and the main Sponsors, whose contribution is of major importance to provide the necessary means for the organization. A grateful word to all the remaining Sponsors whose names will be published on the conference website.

Finally, a special acknowledgement of the Conference Secretariat: fundamental for this event.

(18)

(19)

Committees

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Pedro Pacheco, University of Porto, FEUP – Chairman Filipe Magalhães,University of Porto, FEUP – Co-Chair João Almeida,University of Lisbon, IST – Co-Chair

Manuel Pipa,National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, LNEC Paulo Cruz,University of Minho, EAUM

Rui Calçada,University of Porto, FEUP António André,University of Algarve, UA

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Raimundo Delgado,Professor, FEUP – Honorary Chairman Pedro Pacheco,FEUP – Chairman

Filipe Magalhães,FEUP – Co-Chair Adrian Long,United Kingdom Airong Chen,China

Alan O’Connor,Ireland Alvaro Viviescas,Colombia Amin Ghali,Canada Aníbal Costa,Portugal

António Adão da Fonseca,Portugal Antônio Laranjeiras,Brazil Antonio Martinez-Cutilhas,Spain António Reis,Portugal

Atorod Azizinamin,USA Azlan Bin Adnan,Malaysia

Bratilslav Stipanic,Serbia Catão Francisco Ribeiro,Brazil Christian Cremona,France Christos T. Georgakis,Denmark Dan Frangopol,USA

Elsa Caetano,Portugal Erhan Karaesmen,Turkey Fernando Branco,Portugal Fernando Sima Brum,Uruguay Francisco Milanes Mato,Spain Galo Valdebenito,Chile Gordon Clark,United Kingdom György Balázs,Hungary Hanz Rudolf Ganz,Switzerland Helmut Wenzel,Austria Hugo Corres Pireti,Spain

Jan Biliszczuk,Poland Jan Vitek,Czech Republic Jens Sandager Jensen,Denmark Jin-Guang Teng,China

Jiri Strasky,Czech Republic Joan Ramon Casas Rius,Spain João Almeida,Portugal

João Almeida Fernandes,Portugal João Pires da Fonseca,Portugal Joaquim Figueiras,Portugal John Anderson,South Africa John O. Sobanjo,USA Juan Sobrino,Spain Júlio Appleton,Portugal Jung-hwi Noh,South Korea Ken Wheeler,Australia Luís Oliveira Santos,Portugal Makoto Kawakami,Japan Manuel Jara Díaz,Mexico Manuel Pipa,Portugal Marco Rosignoli,USA Mario Petrangeli,Italy

Mauricio Lustgarten,Venezuela Michael Daebritz,Germany Miguel Angel Astiz,Spain Mike Schlaich,Germany Milan Kalny,Czech Republic Mirek Olmer,USA

(20)

Mourad Bakhoum,Egypt Murat Dicleli,Turkey Nikolaos Malakatas,Greece Paulo Cruz,Portugal Paulo Lopes Pinto,Portugal Paulo Silveira,Portugal Peter Paulik,Slovakia Rui Calçada,Portugal Rui Faria,Portugal Santinho Horta,Portugal Serge Montens,France

Stein Atle Haugerud,Norway Thomas Vogel,Switzerland Tiago Abecassis,Portugal Tor Ole Olsen,Norway Victor Barata,Portugal Vinay Gupta,India

Vincent de Ville de Goyet,Belgium Virindra Kumar Raina,India Walter Dilger,Canada Wolfgang Eilzer,Germany Yozo Fujino,Japan

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

Ademir Santos,Brazil Alípio Ferreira,Portugal António Fonseca,Portugal António Hipólito,Portugal António Souza,Brazil Campos e Matos,Portugal Chris Hendy,United Kingdom David Ramos,Portugal Elbasha Nuri Mohamed,Libya Eneo Palazzi,Brazil

Erik Andersen,Denmark Filemon Botto de Barros,Brazil Guy Fremont,France

Gustavo Rocha Arguelles,Mexico Hugo Coelho,Portugal

Javier Muños-Rojas,Spain

Joaquín Arellano Casanova,Mexico Jorge Fandiño,Colombia

José Carlos Clemente,Portugal José Hemilio Herrero,Spain Luís Afonso,Portugal Luis Gustavo Zanin,Brazil Luis Matute,Spain Mihai Predescu,Romania Nelson Vila Pouca,Portugal Paulo Barros,Portugal Pedro Borges,Portugal Pedro Moás,Portugal Pedro Morujão,Brazil

Raja Rizwan Hussain,Saudi Arabia Renan Ribeiro Setubal Gomes,Brazil Renato Bastos,Portugal

Tiago Mendonça,Portugal Venkatram PG,India Ziad Hajar,France

SECRETARIAT

Brigitte Rouquet Manuel Carvalho

(21)

(22)

General presentation of the Keynote Lectures

Since an early stage of the Conference preparation, it was established, as a priority, that some of the most prestigious and experimented Bridge Engineers worldwide could share their knowledge and vision in the Conference.

The invitation criteria comprised the intention of benefiting of different experiences, from diverse countries.

The 10 invited Key Note Speakers are presented in the following paragraphs in a sequence that respects the antiquity of their activity in Bridge Engineering, with no further criteria.

The very summarized presentations don’t need additional words – they talk by themselves. After this introduction of the Invited Key Note Speakers, manuscripts are presented for 8 of the Key Note Lectures. An additional Lecture of one of the Editors is added.

JAVIER MATEROLA ARMISEN Carlos Fernández Casado, S.L.

Spain

– Education: M.Sc.C.E., 1962, Technical University of Madrid; Ph. D., 1964, Technical University of Madrid.

– Memberships: Association of Spanish Civil Engineers (CICCP); Spanish Association of Con-crete (ACHE); International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS); American Concrete Institute (ACI); International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering (IABSE); Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Fernando (Spain).

– Resume of Experience: Since 1966 Mr. Manterola has been one of the leading engineers in Carlos Fernández Casado, S.L. and has specialised on bridge design. He is one of the founders of the company.

– Projects Undertaken: Author of more than 200 works, mainly bridges.

– Last Distinctions: Medal Féderation Internationale de la Précontrainte (F.I.P.), 1996; National Award for Civil Engineering, 2001; IABSE Award (Spain), 2002; IABSE International Award of Merit, 2006; Civil Engineering Foundation Award, Galicia 2010; Puente Alcantara Award, 2010; Gold Medal of Fine Arts Circle of Madrid, 2010; Honorary member of the Italian Association of Concrete Armato and Presforzado, 2011; Outstanding Engineer Award, College of Civil Engineering and Ports of Madrid, 2013.

(23)

NAEEM HUSSAIN Director, ARUP

Hong Kong, China

Naeem Hussain graduated from the West Pakistan University of Engineering and Technology in 1962 and joined Kenchington Little and Partners now WSP in East Pakistan as a structural engineer, before transferring to their London office in 1964. In London he studied architecture at the Architectural Association School of Architecture and then went on to obtain a Masters degree in Concrete Structures at Imperial College.

He is Fellow of the IABSE, Fellow of the IStructE, Fellow of the ICE, Fellow of the HKIE, and Fellow of the HKEng.

He is currently an Arup Fellow, Director and Arup’s Global Leader for Bridges. Amongst the notable bridges that he has designed are Oresund Crossing between Denmark and Sweden, and Stonecutters Bridge in Hong Kong. He is the concept designer for the new Forth Bridge in Scotland currently under construction and the designer for the 30 km Brunei Muara–Temburong Sea Crossing in Brunei.

JIRI STRASKY

Technical Director Strasky, Husty and Partners

Czech Republic

M.Sc. and Ph.D. from the Technical University of Brno, Czechoslovakia, DSc. from the Czech Academy of Science. Professional Engineer in 7 states of the USA and in the Czech and Slovak Republic.

Professor of concrete structures at Brno University of Technology & Technical director of the design office Strasky, Husty and Partners, Brno, Czech Republic and Greenbrae, California, USA. Expertise in concrete and steel bridge design and construction. Experience in practically all struc-tural systems – suspension, cable-stayed, stress-ribbon arch, cantilever and technologies – span by span and cantilever erection, launching and lifting of steel or concrete structures. Experience with elastic and plastic design of bridges built in severe seismic areas of California, Oregon and Taiwan.

MICHEL VIRLOGEUX

Michel Virlogeux Consultant SARL

France

Graduated from the École Polytechnique in 1967 and from the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées in 1970. From 1970 to 1973 he served in Tunisia on road projects and at the same

(24)

time gained his Engineering Doctorate from the Pierre et Marie Curie University. In January 1974 he joined the Bridge Department of SETRA.

In 1980 he became Head of the Large Concrete Bridge Division, and in 1987 of the large Bridge Division, Steel and Concrete. During twenty years he designed more than 100 bridges. In 1995 he set up as independent consulting engineer; his major achievements include his participation in the construction of the ‘Second Tagus Crossing’, the Vasco da Gama Bridge in Lisbon and the design of the Normandy Bridge and Millau Viaduct in France. Several of his bridges have received architectural awards.

Since 1977 Dr Virlogeux has been a part-time professor of structural analysis at the prestigious École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées and at the “Centre des Hautes Études du Béton Armé et Précontraint” in Paris. He also has been very active in technical associations.

Dr. Virlogeux received the inaugural IABSE Prize in Venice in 1983 and has received many other international awards.

He was appointed an International Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2012.

ANTÓNIO ADÃO DA FONSECA Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto

Portugal

– Civil Engineering Diploma in 1971 – University of Porto (FEUP), Portugal.

– PhD in Structural Engineering in 1980 – Imperial College, University of London, United Kingdom.

– Fellow and Specialist in Structural Engineering of “Ordem dos Engenheiros” – Portugal. – Professor of Bridges at FEUP, until 2010.

– Member of the Council of Ethics of University of Porto.

– Research Fellow of Engineering Research Centre of Sustainable and Innovative Bridges, Fujian University, China, from 2013.

– National President of Civil Engineering College of “Ordem dos Engenheiros”, in 1995–1999. – President of ECCE – European Council of Civil Engineers, in 1998–2002.

– Vice-President of APEE – Portuguese Structural Engineering Association” – Portuguese Collective Member of IABSE.

– President and Technical Director at “AFA – Consultores de Engenharia”, in 1985–2005. – Designer of bridges and special structures at “Adão da Fonseca – Engenheiros Consultores”

(Portugal), from 2006, and at “ADEAM – Engenharia e Consultoria (Brazil)”, from 2012.

CATÃO FRANCISCO RIBEIRO ENESCIL – Engenharia de Projetos, Ltda

Brazil

Acknowledged as one of the most respected Brazilian engineers specialized in the field of bridges and viaducts, he is the technical manager at ENESCIL (Design Engineering) since 1976, immedi-ately after receiving his professional degree in Civil Engineering from the Polytechnic School of the University of São Paulo.

(25)

Winner of three editions of the Prize “Gerdau Talent of Structural Engineering” (2008, 2010 and 2014) and of two honourable mentions in the same Prize (2011 and 2013), he displays in his curriculum the executive design of the Cable-stayed Bridge for the Roberto Marinho Avenue Roadway Complex (in São Paulo), the Cable-stayed Bridge over the Guama River (in Belém), the João Isidoro França Cable-stayed Bridge (over the Poti River in Teresina), the Negro River (in Manaus), the Cable-stayed Bridge over the Guanabara Bay (in Rio de Janeiro), the Cable-stayed Bridge with a viewing deck across the Piaui river (in Sergipe), and of the Basic Design for the 12.5 kilometres-long Cable-stayed Bridge linking the city of Salvador to Itaparica Island in the Bay of All the Saints (Bahia), the latter carried out in partnership with COWI International, amongst many others.

His design work is guided by the quest for economy, construction simplicity and great durability, allied to a bold aesthetics, always integrated to the environment. Until now, he has participated in more than 3000 projects of special engineering works of art, with the most varied structural concepts, from cable-stayed works to works with pre-fabricated beams and slabs.

WOLFGANG EILZER

Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner Beratende Ingenieure VBI AG

Germany

Wolfgang Eilzer graduated as Diplom-Ingenieur (M.Sc.) Structural Engineering from the Uni-versity of Stuttgart in 1982. The same year he started his career with Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner.

He has extensive experience within bridge engineering from numerous bridge projects world-wide, but especially from the transportation projects after the German reunification. In 1991 he established a branch office in Dresden, in 2001 he was appointed executive director, in 2013, when LAP changed its legal form to a corporation, Chief Executive Officer of Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner Beratende Ingenieure VBI AG.

Wolfgang Eilzer was awarded with the Structural Award 2008 for the Roadway Bridge across the Lockwitz Valley, the Structural Award 2014 for the Elbe Bridge Schönebeck and with the German Bridge Award 2010 for the Design of the Elbe Bridge Mühlberg.

Numerous bridges that have been designed under his responsibility won prizes in design com-petitions and have been awarded with national and international engineering awards and prizes. He is amongst others registered with the German Chamber of Engineers and with the German Association of Consulting Engineers.

AKIO KASUGA

Sumitomo Mitsui Construction

Japan

– Born in 1957, Graduated in Civil Engineering (1980) from Kyusyu University. – Working for Sumitomo Mitsui Construction since 1980.

– Technical Director & Bridge Designer.

– Design & Construction of more than 200 Bridges.

(26)

– Visiting Scholar of The University of Texas at Austin in USA (1989–1990). – R&D of Stay Cable Damper, Optimization and New Bridge Systems. – Technical Adviser of St. Croix River Crossing in USA (2011–2012). – fib Presidium Member (2015–2018).

– fib Awards for Outstanding Structure 2006. – Premier Prix of Tropfy Freyssinet 2013.

ARNE FREDERIKSEN BAEKSTED COWI

Denmark

Mr. A. Frederiksen Baeksted has an all round experience in bridge engineering covering different sizes and types of bridge structures and all of the design stages within bridge design. Project management of bridge projects and integrated road/rail and bridge design including also other value engineering aspects. Leadership of teams capturing integration of requirements in tender documents, design intentions and adaptation of Contractor driven requests and preferred methods and equipment are one of his focal points.

AIRONG CHEN

Department of Bridge Engineering, Tongji University

Shanghai, P.R. China

In 1983, he got his B.S. of Bridge Engineering from Tongji University. In 1989, he got his M.S. of Bridge Engineering from Xi’an Highway Institute. In 1993, he got his PhD of Bridge Engineering fromTongji University. He served president of Chinese Group of international association of Bridge Maintenance and safety (IABMAS), vice chairman of China Institute of Highway Bridge and Structural Engineering Branch. His research interests focus on life cycle design theories of bridge engineering, structural performance of bridge engineering under extreme events, wind-resistance and CFD technique study of bridge engineering, bridge forms and Topology Optimization. He was in charge of numerous major national scientific research projects and professional design guidelines. He has published 7 books and more than 200 journal papers. And he was awarded many national prizes for Progress in Science and Technology and many provincial prizes for progress in Science and Technology.

(27)

Large viaducts, some executions a few ideas

J. Manterola

Carlos Fernández Casado S.L., Spain

ABSTRACT: In large viaducts it is crucial to be spot-on regarding the bridge typology chosen as well as the building procedure, two facts that generally go hand in hand. The typology also depends on the characteristics intrinsic to the site, whether it is a river, a sea, a great valley, etc.

1 BRIDGE OVER THE BAY OF CÁDIZ

The overall viaduct length totals 3,082 m (Fig. 1) which may be divided into four stretches.

1.1 The approach viaduct on the Cadiz side

This stretch has an overall length of 570 m, and a 5% longitudinal slope necessary to reach the 69 m clearance gauge on the navigation canal. The 34.3 m wide deck has a constant cross section all along the bridge, made up of a 3.0 deep trapezoid in the centre, 10 m wide at the lower end.

In this area the cross section is composite, with a concrete deck and steel trapezoid and webs. The typical span in this area is 75.0 m (Fig. 2).

The whole access from the Cadiz side is carried out by incrementally launching the steel structure, assisted by a small cable staying at the front end of the first span.

1.2 The demountable stretch

This stretch responds to a request by Navantia shipyards to allow for the passage of 100 m tall vessels unable to pass through the main bridge’s 69 m clearance. The demounting operations, however, are likely to happen few times throughout the bridge existence.

(28)

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

(29)

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

The demountable stretch has a 150 m long span and its cross section is based on the standard one with the following difference: the central trapezoidal area varies from the 3 m depth of the typical cross section to 8 m in depth in the middle (Fig. 3).

The piers are also the same along the whole viaduct excepting the approach viaduct from the Puerto Real side where the shape of a double trapezium joined by the wider side is more pronounced. Here the highest piers are 10 m wide at the base, 4.5 m wide at the “waist” and then widen again to form 10.5 m wide capitals.

1.3 The cable-stayed stretch

The cable-stayed stretch is 1,180 m long. This is the stretch spanning the navigable canal that runs from the Cabeziela Pier towards Cadiz. Due to the conditions imposed by the maritime Authority the bridge’s main pier had to be built 70 m into the Pier (Fig. 4).

(30)

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

The cross section is composite, steel and concrete, where concrete is present through precast slabs. The span distribution along the cable-stayed stretch is 120 m + 200 m + 540 m + 200 m + 120 m. The length of 200 m on the direct compensation span was adopted instead of smaller lengths that produce greater stiffness in the main span but in turn have an ill effect in the middle of the Bay. The towers, whose vertical design leaves a grommet for the deck to pass through, are 180 m high and their cross section is a double trapezium joined by the long base. The dimensions at the base are 94 m × 9 m. There are 176 stay cables.

1.4 The Puerto Real stretch

The access to the main bridge from Puerto Real, the side opposite Cadiz, has the same cross section only in this case it is wholly made up of prestressed concrete. The spans remain 75 m long, with the exception of the final area where they turn into 40 m (Fig. 5).

(31)

Figure 9.

This stretch presents two particularities.

The shape of the piers changes at a certain point and opens up to make way for the longitudinal road traffic carriageway in the bridge axis. The opening is archived by simply separating the two trapeziums forming the pier.

The second particularity of this stretch lies in the deck. The concrete deck is carried out in two phases: the first includes the building of the central, 10 m box girder, while in the second phase the transverse cantilevers that complete the cross section are built.

2 BRIDE OVER THE TAGUS RIVER

The High-Speed Railway Line between Madrid and Extremadura crosses the Tagus River at its partial outlet into the Alcántara Reservoir. The layout runs 60 m above ground (Fig. 6).

The bridge overall length totals 1,488 m. with a 60 m long typical span and the Reservoir crossing resulting in a 324 m span.

The deck width is 14.00 m. It accommodates the double railway line and is composed of a 4.00 m deep box girder, 5.00 m wide at the lower slab and 6.5 m wide at the upper slab that forms part of the deck(Fig. 7).

The cross section is identical on either side of the bridge. The arch has a box girder cross section of a variable depth, 4.00 m at the abutment and 3.50 m at midspan. Its width varies linearly from 12.00 m at the abutment to 6.00 m at midspan (Fig. 8).

The piers connecting the deck to the ground have a variable height ranging from 9.6 m to 7.5 m. The thickness is constant amounting to 3.00 m while the depth varies ranging from 5.00 m at the top to 3.2 m at the “waist” to 5.5 m at the bottom. All piers are deduced from this basic model depending on their height.

(32)

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

The deck is built using a 60 m span scaffolding truss (Fig. 9). The arch is carried out applying the free cantilever method, cable staying the cantilevers from the piers founded over the arch abutment and a 54 m high superposed steel tower, with 9 pairs of cables coming out of the tower itself, −14 pairs of cables altogether, counting those coming out of the piers (Fig. 10).

3 THE VIDIN (BULGARIA) – CALAFAT (ROMANIA) BRIDGE OVER THE DANUBE The crossing of the River Danube presents at this point two clearly differentiated areas. The first one lies between Vidin and an islet situated in the center of the river (non-navigable part) and the other lies between the islet and Calafat (navigable part).

A 150 m horizontal clearance was required on the navigable part, thus determining that the configuration of the bridge be ordered as follows: 124 m + 3 × 180 + 115 m.

(33)

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

On the non-navigable area 80 m spans were adopted, repeated along 612 m.

As it disembarks on the Vidin side, the railway originates a series of 40 m long spans, split away from the road deck due to its smaller longitudinal slope (Fig. 11).

The transverse cross section of the entire viaduct, excepting the mentioned final railway spans, is constant. It consists of a central box-girder of a 4.5 m depth along which runs the railway, plus two cantilevers on either side supported by inclined struts resting upon the central box girder. The overall width thus totals 31.35 m (Fig. 12).

The construction on the non-navigable part of the river was carried out using precast segments to build the central box girder. The strutted lateral cantilevers were built subsequently by means of a form traveler rolling along the completed box girder (Fig. 13).

(34)

Figure 14.

The 180 m span over the navigable part of the river keeps the same cross section assisted by an extradorsed cable staying system hanging from small-height towers erected over the piers (Fig. 14).

(35)

Design and construction of sea-crossing bridges – A review

N. Hussain

Arup Fellow and Director, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT: The paper describes the author’s personal experience and involvement in the design of large sea-crossing bridges. The approach to design has been based on construction methods that allow fast-track quality construction with use of large pre-fabricated bridge elements in both steel and concrete.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Need for large sea-crossing bridges

Infrastructure plays a key and vital role in the economic development and well-being of a region or country. In many parts of the world waterways whether wide rivers, bays and estuaries have meant large detours and/or use of ferries thus severely hindering the movement of people and goods and limiting economic development. This has led to the bridging of these waterways with road and rail bridges and since the 1990’s several large sea-crossing bridges have been built mainly in the Far-East. The methods of construction have varied for these crossings but the driver has invariably been fast construction with pre-fabricated elements.

Another feature of the crossings has been bridging of navigation channels associated with long waterway crossings which has led to the development of long span cable supported bridges. 1.2 Development and features of crossings

The features and development of the crossings which also depends upon its location is described with reference to Oresund Crossing Denmark-Sweden, Shenzhen Crossing Hong Kong, Incheon Bridge Korea, Hong Kong Zhuhai Macao Bridge, Queensferry Bridge Scotland and Brunei Temburong Bridge, all of which are sea-crossing bridges. The primary feature of all these bridges is that foundation and substructure construction can proceed in parallel with precast or prefabricated superstructure elements off-site in factory conditions, thus appreciably shortening the construction period. Design for ship impact is also an important feature of the navigation channel bridges, that are invariably associated with long sea crossings, and various protection methods have been devised to safeguard the bridge towers adjacent to the navigation channels.

2 ORESUND CROSSING DENMARK-SWEDEN 2.1 Location and general features

Oresund Crossing across the Danish Straits connects Copenhagen in Denmark with Malmo in Sweden and was opened in July 2000. The Danish Straits are of special importance because they provide the only natural connection between the Baltic and the open seas. The straits also function as hydraulic links and are profoundly important for the maintenance of water quality and survival of marine life within the Baltic. Any scheme for the crossing had to ensure that obstruction of water flow was as little as possible. The total length of the link is 16 km and comprises of an 4 km immersed tunnel, 4 km of artificial island and 8 km of bridge. The final alignment is shown in (Fig. 1).

(36)

Figure 1. Figure 2.

Figure 3. Figure 4.

2.2 Alignment and standard spans

The Treaty specified an alignment which was simply a straight line from the artificial island south of Saltholm to the landfall in Sweden. We proposed a S-curve alignment for the bridge to give users of the Link more interesting views (Fig. 2). The bridge reference design in the treaty comprised of single level bridge structures carrying two tracks of high speed rail and a dual 2-lane with hardshoulder road. In the ARUP competetion winning design the road and rail was separated with the road above and rail below. With this arrangement the most economical structural solution was to use steel trusses with diagonals connecting the upper and lower decks. These trusses are uniform throughout the bridge, but modified at the cable-stayed main spans so that every other diagonal has the same direction as the cables. The 20 m bay length of the truss is constant along the bridge and imposes a modular discipline on all the spans. The deep composite girders lead naturally to longer spans, which have environmental as well as visual and construction advantages. Longer spans meant less obstruction to water flow to meet the limit to blocking set by the environmental authorities in both countries at 0.5%.

We were aware of the special floating heavy lift ‘the Swanen’ which can lift a 7200 t payload out of which 6000 t can be a structural element. The water depth along the alignment is shallow and foundation bedrock is also at shallow depth. Pad foundations could be used and hence precast cellular foundations were designed which could be lifted into place by the Swanen. The Swanen was also able to lift precast hollow columns and whole 140 m long bridge spans into place (Figs 3, 4). The chosen construction method meant that both the substructure and superstructure could comprise of large concrete and steel bridge elements that could be precast or prefabricated in controlled factory type environment with good quality control thus ensuring a long life durable structure in an aggressive marine environment.

2.3 Navigation span

ARUP proposed a single navigation span of 490 m over Flintrannan instead of the 330 m and 290 m spans over Flintrannan and Trindelrannan specified in the Treaty. A truss sufficiently deep

(37)

to accommodate the railway is naturally stiff enough to act as a deck for a cable-stayed span considerably longer than that required by the brief, so the opportunity was taken to provide only one navigation span at Flintrannan.

The inherent stiffness of the truss deck was also a factor in choosing a harp configuration for the cables. The live load moments in a slender deck are sensitive to the vertical stiffness of the cable system, which strongly suggests a fan arrangement. This does not apply to the truss deck. Its repeating geometry has also a natural affinity with the harp, which can be emphasised by adjusting the angles of the diagonals to match those of the cables.

The harp system has a visual formality, particularly apparent when cable planes are vertical, and the towers were designed to express this. The effect is further enhanced because each cable plane is supported by independent towers unconnected above deck level and was a major visual feature of the bridge.

2.4 Ship impact protection

As the water was relatively shallow, approximately 12 m at the navigation span and for aesthetic purposes the ship protection to the towers is provided by submerged artificial earth mounds.

3 SHENZHEN CROSSING AND DEEP BAY LINK HONG KONG 3.1 Location and general features

The Shenzhen Crossing and Deep Bay Link (DBL) connects Yuen Long Highway and the future Route 10 in Hong Kong with Shenzhen in China (Fig. 5).

DBL is approximately 5.4 km long and Shenzhen Crossing across Deep Bay is approximately 5.0 km long. The design and construction of the bridge whilst being of fast-track nature also had to take into account the minimisation of ecological damage. Following the concept ARUP had developed for the Oresund Crossing between Denmark and Sweden, ARUP proposed an S-shaped horizontal alignment for the bridge as shown onFigure 8.

3.2 Marine viaduct

The marine viaduct is formed in modules of bridges. Each bridge consists of 8 continuous span concrete boxes with 75 m internal spans and 70 m end spans (Fig. 6). The constant depth viaducts were built by the precast segmental balanced cantilever technique using a combination of external and internal prestressing cables. The precast segments were constructed in China and delivered to the bridge site by barge. Precasting allowed quality construction of the segments.

3.3 Navigation spans

There are two navigation channels in the bay, and each of them is bridged with a single inclined tower cable stay bridge. One cable stay bridge is in Chinese waters and the other in Hong Kong waters. The inclination of the towers are deliberately inclined towards each other to indicate amity between the Shenzhen and Hong Kong people (Fig. 7).

The deck of the navigation channel bridges are orthotropic steel box girders. Almost the full length of the main was fabricated off-site, brought to site by barge and lifted by strand jacks into place.

The foundations of the towers are large diameter bored piles. Piled dolphins are used for protecting the towers (Fig. 7).

(38)

Figure 5. Alignment.

Figure 6. Figure 7.

4 INCHEON BRIDGE KOREA 4.1 Location and general features

Incheon Bridge is a 12.3 km long sea crossing in South Korea. It connects the new Incheon Inter-national Airport on Yeongjong island to Songdo (New City). The majority of the length of the bridge is constructed as low level viaduct structures with pretensioned precast 50 m long concrete box girder spans. Where the alignment rises to cross the navigation channel, precast segmental balanced cantilever approach bridges with 145 m spans link the viaducts to the cable stayed bridge which provides the 800 m long navigation span (Fig. 8).

4.2 Low level marine viaducts

The low level viaducts consist of 50 m spans and 250 m long five span bridge units. The soffit of the bridge is typically 4.5 m above H.H.W.L. and the substructure generally consists of pile bents with pile caps only adopted in deeper water. The 50 m spans are pre-tensioned and precast in a single pour in the contractor’s specially constructed casting yard. The spans are then erected using the Full Span Launching Method (FSLM). Since much of the viaduct is in shallow water and tidal flats which are inaccessible by floating cranes a self launching overhead gantry system was used to erect the deck (Fig. 9). However, the end of the viaduct is in deeper water and so each 1350 t precast span is lifted by floating crane onto multi-wheel transporter units which then deliver the span to the erection front.

4.3 Navigation span bridge

The cable stayed bridge is a 1480 m long structure with an 800 m main span. Two planes of stay cables support a 33.4 m wide orthotropic steel box girder. The pylon is a reinforced concrete hollow section in a diamond configuration which provides torsional stability to the main span and minimises the size of foundation which must be protected from ship impacts.

(39)

Figure 8. Incheon bridge. Figure 9. Viaduct and launching gantry.

Ship impact protection is provided in the form of circular sheet piled dolphins filled with crushed rock and tied together with a reinforced concrete cap. The dolphins were designed to provide both deterministic and probabilistic protection, the former being to stop a 100,000 DWT design vessel travelling at 4.5 m/s directly towards the cable stayed bridge pylon and the latter being to reduce the annual collapse frequency to less than 1 in 10,000 when considering a distribution of design vessels heading towards any point on the bridge axis in any direction.

The dolphins work by dissipating energy through various mechanisms; crushing of the ships bow, local deformation of the dolphin, passive resistance of the soil and friction between ship and dolphin. A reliable way to estimate impact dissipation in soil structures is through testing of a physical model in a centrifuge which allows earth pressures to be correctly modelled at a reduced scale. However, due to the time and expense required for centrifugal model testing it is preferred to use the results to calibrate a non-linear finite element analysis which will then allow analysis of different configurations. This method, which had previously been adopted for Stonecutters Bridge (Lee & Peiris 2004), was followed for the design of the Incheon Bridge ship impact protection. 5 HONG KONG ZHUHAI MACAO BRIDGE

5.1 Location and general features

The alignment of the bridge is shown in (Fig. 10). Currently the delta is bridged approximately 50 m upstream of the mouth of the delta and the journey time between Hong Kong and Zhuhai/Macao is about 4 hours by road and 1 hour by fast ferries. The new link will reduce the journey time to approximately 30 minutes and more importantly provide a safe and fast link to Hong Kong International Airport and Hong Kong Shipping Container Terminals. The link with a total length of 42 km will have one of the longest sea-crossing bridges in the world.

Generally the orientation of the alignment has been kept normal to the water flow in order to minimize obstruction to flow of water and horizontal curves have been introduced to provide interesting views of the main bridge as seen by the driver and occupants of the vehicles. The alignment starts from the Boundary Crossing Facilities opposite Zhuhai & Macao, runs in open waters and ends at the Boundary Crossing Facilities at the north-east tip of Hong Kong Airport.

The general arrangement of the link in mainland waters comprises of: 75 m short span viaducts approximately 7 km in length; 110 m long span viaducts approximately 14 km in length; Jiuzhou Navigation Bridge approximately 500 m in length; Jianghai Navigation Bridge approximately 700 m in length; Qing Zhou Navigation Bridge approximately 900 m in length; Approximately 5 km of immersed tunnel with two artificial islands.

The Hong Kong section is approximately 12 km long and generally comprises of viaducts with spans ranging from 70 m–180 m.

5.2 Marine viaducts

A number of long sea and river crossings have recently been constructed in China such as Sutong Bridge, Donghai Bridge, Hangzhou Bridge. In all of these bridges two separate prestressed concrete

(40)

Figure 10. HKZMB components.

Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13.

box girder decks have been used, each supported by single column piers under each deck. For this bridge, from environmental considerations, it was decided to use a single column piers to support either two separate decks or a single wide deck. The reason for this is to provide the least obstruction to water flow specially as the water flow is not always normal to the alignment of the bridge. To further minimize obstruction to water flow, the piles are going to be buried in the sea-bed. 5.2.1 Short span viaducts

The construction and whole life cost of the structure is dependent upon the cost of site establishment and preliminaries such as fabrication and assembly yards, transportation, availability and cost of large floating cranes, launching gantries, maintenance costs etc. The exercise showed that whilst the precast concrete boxes were possibly the cheapest, the single wide composite box with a span of 75 m is the optimum solution (Fig. 11).

5.2.2 Long span viaducts

Cost analyses of concrete, composite and orthotropic steel boxes showed that the single wide orthotropic steel box girder with a span of 110m is the optimum solution taking into consideration quality construction, construction equipment, and construction period. (Fig. 12).

5.2.3 Foundations

The substructure comprises of piles, pile-caps and pier columns with large diameter bored piles, buried pile-caps using precast housing as permanent formwork for the pile-caps and precast hollow pier columns. This construction method limits insitu concrete construction to piles and pile-caps, thus helping in minimising environmental impact and shortening the construction period.

(41)

Figure 14. Options to stabilize the internal towers

n a multi-span cable-stayed bridge. Figure 15.

5.3 Navigation channel bridges

There are three navigation channel bridges. Jizhou Bridge near Zhuhai with a cable stayed main span of 260 m is visually the most interesting design with a distinctive central sail tower and composite deck,Figure 13.

6 FORTH REPLACEMENT CROSSING (QUEENSFERRY BRIDGE) 6.1 Location and general features

The Forth Replacement Crossing is currently being built across the Firth of Forth to maintain and improve reliability of a vital transport link in Scotland. The total length of the new bridge, including approach viaducts, is approximately 2.7 km. The cable stayed section will include two 650 m spans to cross the two major navigation channels – the Forth Deep Water channel and the Rosyth Navigation channel. Beamer Rock divides the two channels, and forms the location for the central tower. The cable-stay bridge is a unique 3-tower cable stayed bridge with a pair of 650 m main spans across and overlapping stay cables in the middle of the main spans to stabilize the central tower.

With two main spans required over the navigation channels, a major challenge the design had to address was the stability of the internal tower. As the internal tower is not connected to a stiff back span structure, out of balance live loading on only one of the main spans causes a significant sway of the tower resulting in large deflections of the tower and deck and large bending moments in the tower.

This issue is well known for multi-span cable stayed bridges, and there are a number of config-urations which can be adopted to stabilise the internal tower. The simplest of these is to adopt a very stiff deck, or very stiff towers. Other configurations are shown inFigure 14in the following order: Provide anchor piers; Tie the top of the towers with stabilising horizontal cables; Use sloping stabilizing cables from the top of each internal tower to the junction of the deck with the adjacent towers Use overlapping stay cables.

The option to extend the length of the stay cable fans beyond mid-span, so that they overlap in the central region of each span was investigated in detail to ascertain if this configuration provided a good solution. Parametric studies were carried out to investigate the ability of the overlapping cables to provide the stiffness required. As the length of the overlapping zone is increased, the system becomes stiffer, and the bending moments in the tower and deck reduce. The arrangement adopted in the final scheme is to overlap the stay cables over approximately 25% of the main span. (Fig. 15).

The southern main span crosses the Forth Deepwater Channel, the main access to the upstream ports (Fig. 16). The northern main span crosses the approach into Rosyth port. A quantitative

(42)

Figure 16.

Figure 17. Ship impact – workflow.

marine collision risk assessment (Carter et al. 2010), based primarily on Eurocode, was carried out to determine the appropriate design impact forces for the foundations and substructures.

This risk assessment, based primarily on BS EN 1991-1-7 (2006), forms the backbone for determining the actual ship impact forces on the structure (Fig. 17). The navigational conditions in the vicinity of the bridge are complex, with bends in the navigation channels and significant obstructions, not least of which is the existing Forth Rail Bridge as shown in Figure 16. The holistic model of AASHTO (2009) was not adequate to address this and a semi-holistic model was developed following the principles of Eurocode and taking account of specific features of the site. The semi-holistic model considers: vessel aberrancy at any point on the transit paths in the vicinity of the bridge leading to a large number of aberrancy scenarios (defined solely by the point of aberrancy); post-aberrancy behaviour of the vessel in a holistic manner without attempting to explicitly track the path and velocity of the vessel taking into account specific human, mechanical and metocean factors.

7 TEMBURONG LINK BRUNEI 7.1 Location and general features

The new 30 km Cadangan Projek Jambatan Temburong (Temburong Bridge Project) in Brunei will connect the relatively isolated district of Temburong with the more developed Brunei-Muara district (Fig. 18). link will comprise 14,6 km long marine viaducts, two cable stayed bridges across