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 Engineers 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 5400-2-
1996. 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

the fact that the span is not so great. Although concerns

1 Introduction from residents over need and cost, the Erasmus opened
on September, 6, 1996 by Queen Beatrix the Erasmus
The Erasmus Bridge, nicknamed The Swan by local
project cost approximately 135 million pounds.
residents due to the angled central pylon, was
Shortly after opening, observations of wind-rain
completed in late 1996 to meet the demands of
induced vibrations caused the bridge closure to all
development along the South bank of the Maas River
traffic for safety precautions as the stays and deck
in Rotterdam, Holland. The Cable Stayed Bridge,
moved noticeably. The owner of the bridge, Rotterdam
spanning 410m with additional Bascule Bridge, was in
City Development Corp. resolved the solution after
fact designed by an architect, Ben van Berkel, and not
analysis and the bridge was reopened in 1997.
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 2 Aesthetical considerations
the pylons unusual shape, but were resolved mainly
Many ideas exist on the aesthetics of bridges; however
due to CAD and CAD-CAM technology, a
the most famous is that of Fritz Leonharts 10 areas of
revolutionary new tool back in 1992, in design,
aesthetics of bridge 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 Figure 1- Functionality determined the pylons kink
practice on bridge building practices. This was and still
is uncommon and was reflected in the Erasmus design, 2.1.1 Functionality
which is dominated by formal consideration, aided by
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-to-
height 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 back-
spans 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 thermo-
mechanically 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 pre-
heating, 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.
Figure 3- Pylon design
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
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 semi-
submersible 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 2-
3 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.
Figure 8- Construction sequence of decking sections
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)
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 1.05 3.61 kN/m^2
Super-Imposed 1.75 2.1 kN/m^2
Live:
HA 1.50 7.31 kN/m^2
KEL: 120kN
HB 1.30 Wheel: 112.5kN
Tram HB2 1.30 2000kN Total
Pedestrian 1.50 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 Figure 14- Bending moment diagram (max. Hog)
=4.17 kN/m^2
=4.04 kN/m^2
=12.06 kN/m^2
=3.05 kN/m^2

Section 9- Section
Figure of loading of
to loading
produceto produce maximum
maximum sagging Using Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis it is
sagging moment
moment 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.

Section 11.2.2 Cable loading

Figure of
10-loading
Sectiontoofproduce
loadingmaximum
to producehogging
maximum As each cable supports a deck length of 15m, resolving
moment
hogging moment maximum force in the cable stays are as follows. As
To help distribute the loads for the desired effect I have previously shown, the maximum force are when HB
split the bridge up into the section lengths. Applying a and tram loadings travel along the bridge in
concentrated load across the deck produces the worst conjunction with pedestrian & cycle, HA loading and
case for sagging whilst applying maximum load across maximum dead and superimposed loadings. This
two deck sections side by side produces the maximum produces a total max. force of 10,866.1 kN, 5433.1 kN
hogging moment. For reproducing the worst cases for for per cable. The worst
sagging and hogging I have assumed that pedestrians case on the cables can be
and cyclists are only in certain locations of the bridge, found on the last as it
creating the desired effect. The same can be said for has the shallowest angle
HB and HB tram loadings. The axle length of the HB and the longest
load changes either to concentrate the loading to obtain horizontal distance
a vague point load for sagging, at 6m, or to spread the measuring 300m in
load across two decks to get the desire hogging length, at an inclination
angle of 22.41. Figure 15- General properties
moment, at 16m. With regards to tram loading the of the Cables
worst case is evidently when two trams are side-by- Tension= 5433/ Sin(22.41)
side, simultaneously passing in opposite directions. =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.
Loading This confirms the idea that the majority of radius is
Figure 11-ofLoading
the decking to provide
of deck max.
to produce Sagging
max. Hog 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

Figure 12- Loading of deck to produce max. Sag

simplifying each section of decking as a simply For box girders where ratio of distance between
supported beam and under a UDL of 601.34 kN/m and girders/depth > 7 (from BS 5400)
a point load of 120 kN per notional lane for the KEL. =2.6
As it an ultimate loading state with associated factors, Pt= 1043.33 kN
the worst case is conservative. Even under these
circumstances the deflection is extremely small. This 11.3.4 Parapet wind loading
may be in part due to the assumptions not being For parapet with only two or three horizontal rails only
realistic enough. Again computer analysis would take apply the equation:
into account more variables to achieve a more accurate PL=0.4 Pt
outcome.
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 11.3.6 Wind Combinations:
considered, temporary loads. 1.) Pt alone
11.3.1 Wind Loading 2.) Pt in combination with +/- Pv
In the UK wind loading on bridges is based on a 120 3.) Pl alone
year return value at a height of 10m up to 300m. No 4.) 0.5Pt in combination with Pl +/- Pv
such data exists for the Erasmus Bridge site on the
River Maas. Netherlands and especially Rotterdam, on 11.4.0 Load Combination 3
the West coast, is exposed to gales from the North Sea. Includes Combination 1, plus temperature, and if
Draft Eurocode ENV-1991-2-4 specifies three areas erection considered, temporary loads.
with 50 year return period 10-min wind speeds of 25,
27.5 and 30 m/s. Amsterdam and Rotterdam are in 11.4.1 Temperature Effects
Area 2 (27.5m/s), Extreme wind classification: II. Again there is no data for 1 in 120 year temperature
Using this data the maximum wind gust speeds exceed lows and peaks as there are no 120 year isothermal
the maximum wind gust speeds on bridges with live maps for the Netherlands available. A range of -5 to 30
loads set at 35m/s with winds of 43.53m/s using the BS degrees Celsius seems appropriate to use as Rotterdam
5400 formulae. Therefore, as am not using Dutch is near the sea, which usually causes a reduction in
standards throughout this analysis I used a mean wind peaks. Therefore the assumption of a temperature
speed for the UK, 20m/s. change of 25 degrees C is assumed for the maximum
change throughout the year.
11.3.2 Maximum wind gust speeds
Vd= Sg * Vs If multiplied to the length of the bridge,
Sg= Gust factor 284m, it is possible to find the expansion
= Sb * Kf * Tg * Sh undergone, if unrestrained at one end.
= 1.58 * 1 * 0.94 * 1 If the horizontal movement joint is blocked is
= 1.4852 anyway it is possible to check if the steel can
Vs= Site hourly mean wind speed take the required stress and not fail.
= Vb * Sp * Sa * Sd
= 20 * 1.05 * 1.015 * 1 Stress= Strain * Youngs modulus
= 31.66 m/S = 0.0003 * 200,000
= 60 N/mm^2
11.3.3 Nominal Transverse Wind Load S355 steel, which is used in the deck construction, can
Total closed height of bridge only taken as 2.3m as easily take the apparent stress as <16mm S355 steel
parapet design consists of only railing to keep the can take 355 N/mm^2 making the steel seem over-
profile as low as possible. designed.
Pt= q * A1 * Cd
q= dynamic pressure 12.5.0 Load Combination 4
= 0.613 * Vd ^2 Includes all permanent loads plus secondary live loads
= 614.33 N/m^2 (skidding, centrifugal, longitudinal and collision loads)
A1= Area of Structure and associated primary live loads.
=L * d = 653.2 m^2
Cd= Drag Coefficient 11.5.1 Secondary Loading
= n* b/d 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.
Figure 17- Calculated natural
frequencies of deck by onsite
engineers
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.
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 rain-
wind induced vibrations.
The maximum amplitudes
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
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.
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
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
likely have been coated with an epoxy or urethane Figure 19-
coating. Coating would have been applied during Maintenance
fabrication in an indoor, factory environment, station
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.
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 Figure 20 Spot lights revealing
the daylight are hidden. 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 Eco-
friendliness, 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).
[2] 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.
[3] TRAM Power Ltd. [Online]
http://www.trampower.co.uk/FAQ.html.
[4] Wind loading of Structure. John D. Holmes.
[5] UN Studio, Erasmus Bridge. Todd Gannon. 4 Source Books in
Architecture, Knowlton School of Architecture, Ohio State University