Sie sind auf Seite 1von 45

COWIs international

bridge projects

Lars Jensen
Project Director
Design of major bridges

Our major bridge types

Suspension bridges

Cable stayed bridges

Arch bridges

Marine crossings of any combination

Highway bridges

Railway bridges

Our bridge design services


Feasibility Studies
Conceptual Design
Basic Design and Tender Design
Detailed Design

Independent Design Check


Design Advice and Consulting
Construction Engineering
Construction Supervision

Our specialist fields


Risk analysis:
Operational risk analysis incl. e.g.
Ship collision risk analysis
Accidental loads (explosions, fire etc.)
Construction risk analysis

Dynamics:
Wind engineering
Railway dynamics (runability)
Seismic design
Vibration control (damping systems)
Structural health monitoring systems

Lilleblt, Denmark, 1970


Detailed design
600 m main span
Road traffic
Closed steel box girder

Aerodynamically shaped box girder


Corrosion of box girder
interior by dehumidification

Great Belt, Denmark, 1989-1997


Detailed design
1624 m main span
Road traffic
Continuous deck at pylons

Hga Kusten, Sweden, 1992-1996

Detailed design

1210 m main span


Road traffic
Unusual pylon layout
Allow for snow accumulation at edge of deck

Chacao/Chilo, Chile, 1999 and 2005


Tender design
1180 m main span
Road traffic
3 pylon suspension bridge

High seismic load

Hlogaland, Norway, 2007-ongoing

Basic and detailed design


1145 m main span
Road traffic
Very slender bridge (span to cable distance ratio is high)

Stonecutters Bridge, Hong Kong, 2001-03

Basic and detailed design


1018 m main span
Road traffic
First twin box design
Typhon wind load

Messina Strait Crossing, Italy, 2005 and 2010-11


Tender and detailed design
3300 m main span
Road and rail traffic
First triple box girder
Steel pylons

High seismic load

Bridge deck
cross sections

Yemen-Djibouti, 2008
Sketch design
4 x 2700 m main spans
Road and rail traffic

Foundations at up to 300 m water depth

Izmit Bay, Turkey, 2010-ongoing


Tender and detailed design
1550 m main span
Road traffic
Extremely high seismic load
Steel pylons

Sungai Johore Bridge, Malaysia, 2006

Tender and detailed design


500 m main span
Road traffic
Composite box girder design

Busan-Geoje Fixed Link, Korea


Tender and detailed design
490 m main span
3 pylon cable stayed bridge
Road traffic

resund Link, Denmark-Sweden


Tender and detailed design
490 m main span
Road and rail traffic
Two level truss girder

Fehmarn Belt, Denmark-Germany, 2010

Tender and detailed design

724 m main span


Road and rail traffic
Two level truss girder
3 pylon cable stayed bridge

Ponte Nigale, Venezuela, ongoing

Basic design
460 m main span
Road and rail traffic
Two separate parallel concrete girders
Common pylon for both decks

Sutong Bridge, P.R. China, 2003-2008


Design review
Aerodynamic investigations

Construction management
1088 m main span
Road bridge

Russky, Russia, 2010-11


FE analyses, reviews, wind analyses
1104 m main span
Road traffic

IZMIT BAY BRIDGE Detailed Design


World no. 4 - 1550m main span suspension bridge
Extremely high seismic load
Short construction period - 38 months

General
Major infrastructure project in
Turkey. New highway from Gebze
to Izmir.
Approx. $11 billion construction
cost bridge $1.2 billion
Site location approx. 50
kilometers East of Istanbul

BOT project

Project Organisation
Owner:

KGM Turkish Ministry of Traffic

Employer:

OTOYOL / NMAYG Joint Venture

Bridge contractor:

IHI, Japan

Bridge designer:

COWI

COWI

General layout

Navigational clearance profile 64x1000m

Tower foundations at approx. 40 m water depth with base isolation


Steel towers
South piers supported on South anchor block (integrated structure)

General layout

Main cable support at side span piers

Hydraulic buffers at side span piers

Bridge deck

Closed steel box girder with truss diaphragms at 5 m spacing


14mm deck plate, trough depth 360 mm and 60mm surfacing
Corrosion protection of box interior by dehumidification

Main cables
Sag-to-span-ratio 1:9
Prefabricated strands

110 strands each with


127 nos. 5.91 mm
diameter wires
1770 MPa

781 mm diameter

Clamps and saddles

Towers
Steel towers / low weight /
increased flexibility / reduced weight
/ fast construction
Seismic load combinations and
normal ULS combinations are more
or less equal in governing the tower
design
Constructed by prefabricated
elements 22 blocks
Horizontal joints by combined
welding and bolting

Towers

Tower foundations

Reinforced soil with steel


inclusion piles (~200 nos.
2m dia.)
Gravel bed (3m thick)
allowing caisson to slide
during earthquake
Pre-fabricated caisson
(54x68x15m)
Composite steel/concrete
shafts (16m dia, t = 1.2m)
with high robustness against
ship impact
Solid plinths with anchor bolts
for fixing of the steel tower

South Anchor Block


Gravity based solution founded on
dense sand
Foundation massif 124x58x16m

Circular diaphragms walls due to


construction preferences

South Anchor Block

Tectonic
environment

North Anatolian Fault


rupture history
Progression of 20th
century earthquakes
along the NAF
1999 earthquakes
surface ruptures map
Glck 1999 earthquake
7.4 magnitude

Seismic performance criteria


Ground Motion
Return Period

Service
Performance
Level

Damage
Performance
Level

Functional
Evaluation
Earthquake (FEE)

150 years
(50% in 100 years)

Immediate Access

No
Damage

Safety
Evaluation
Earthquake (SEE)

1000 years
(10% in 100 years)

Limited Access

Repairable
Damage

No Collapse
Earthquake (NCE)

2500 years
(4% in 1000 years)

No collapse, life safety


Damage

Seismic Event

Seismic load response spectra at rock level


FEE 150 years:

Functional Evaluation Earthquake = 1999 earthquake

SEE 1000 years:

Safety Evaluation Earthquake

NCE 2500 years:

Non collapse Earthquake


North_A nchorage_150 yrs

2.5

North_A nchorage_1000yrs

5 %Dampi ng

North_A nchorage_2500yrs
Kocaeli-IZT090

Kocaeli-IZT180

Spectral Acceleration (g)

Kocaeli-GBZ000
Kocaeli-GBZ270

1.5

Duzce-531-E
Duzce-531-N
Median+1sigma (1999-Duzce & 1999-Kocaeli
Recordings)
Median (1999-Duzce & 1999-Kocaeli
Recordings)

0.5

0
0.01

0.1

1
Period (s)

10

Level of bedrock

NT FN Response Spectra at 12m Depth for 1000 Year Event

ST FN Response Spectra at 12m Depth for 2475 Year Event

1.4
1.6

EQ No: 1

EQ No: 1

EQ No: 2

EQ No: 2

EQ No: 3

1.2

1.4

EQ No: 3

EQ No: 4

EQ No: 4

EQ No: 5

EQ No: 6

EQ No: 7

Response Acceleration (g)

Response Acceleration (g)

EQ No: 5

1.2

EQ No: 6

Mean
Mean+Std Dev

0.8

0.6

EQ No: 7
1

Mean
Mean+Std Dev

0.8

0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

Period (s)

10

Period (s)

10

Global IBDAS time history analyses


Advantages compared to modal analyses:
Non linear soil springs can be applied
Soil fuse below tower foundations can be modelled

Permenent displacement at soil fuse can be determined


Different earthquake time histories can be applied at each foundation
Wave passage effects can be included

Basis of analyses:
7 sets of earthquake time histories at each of the 4 foundations,
for each of the 3 design earthquake return periods (FEE, SEE, NCE),
each comprising 3 components (2 horizontal and 1 vertical),
in total 252 very time consuming excessive amount of output

TH illustration

(NCE, Serie 5, Scale 10)

Mid span deflection (vert.) ~ +/- 2m

Tower deflection (long.) ~ + 2/-1.5 m

Seismic results for towers


d (m)

Tower

Transient (max)

Permanent

SEE

NCE

SEE

NCE

Longitudinal

North
South

0.20
0.45

0.45
0.87

0.06
0.08

0.21
0.28

Transverse

North
South

0.14
0.24

0.27
0.40

0.05
0.03

0.12
0.07

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen