A UNIQUE BRIDGE SYSTEM By Florent Brunet Civil Engineering Diploma ESTP in Pars, 2003 Submited tothe Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In Pata Fulfillment of the Requirements forthe Degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL. ND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING atthe MASSACHUSETS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Sune 2003, Ea JUN 02 2003 (©2003 Florent Brunet [ON 8? 2003 All rights reserved LIBRARIES. The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduee and to distribute pu paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole on part, Signature of author: ge Department of Civil Bnginesring ‘ay 11,2008, aoe 9 Comer Jerome J.Connor ‘Thesis Supervisor Professor, Cpl and Environmental Engineering Accepted by: ‘Oral Buyalkozturk c-on Graduate Studies ARCHIVES:‘A UNIQUE BRIDGE SYSTEM By Florent Brunet ‘Submited tothe Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (On May 11-2003 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements forthe Degree of Master of Engineering In Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT ‘This thesis examines several remarkable bridges designed by Santiago Calatrava, @ Spanish architectengineer. In thse bridges, Cal exploits the phenomenon of torsion ofthe deck to create certain longitudinal asyrumety. This asymmetry enables the designer to inchude ‘original features like a big balcony one sie of the bridge, “to emphasize the positon ofthe ‘ridge in relationship tothe city around it, the direction ofthe water, or even the position of the sun, Ic permits to sensitize the bridge itself, as a phenomenon set into the surounding landscape” (Conversation with Studens, Calatrava), Actually an inclined arch stabilized by steel arms or hangers generates the sufficient torsion etying equilibrium rules. Bur those strctures cannot be considered a classical arch structures. They eannot be classified as usual bridges: they are unigue ‘This complex design is described through four relevant examples of bridges in which Calatrava gradually improved his technical design: the Lusitania Bridge, the La Devesa Footbridge, the Puerto Bridge and the Alameda Bridge Lastly his most recent design, even more technically advanced than the previous ones, 16 snalyzed with respect to it structural concept, its conceptual design and its exclusive ‘construction process, ‘Thesis Supervisor: Jerome J Connor Professor, Cisil and Environmental EngineeringACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wold i to express my gratiud ol those who have provided my guidance snd support In particular, I would ike thank Professor Connor for his collaboration on his thesis, his help and kind pavence during this year at MI, Professor Adams Paul Kasabian Lisa Grobner fo nver being too busy to arange site visits, conduct group meeting, oer advice on out tam project and lend a helping hand in every way. ‘And my parents, Virginie my sister, Carmen my girfiend Jean-Pierre, and Leo for ‘heir continuous suppor, patience, encouragement and love. “Massachosets Taste of Technology 3‘TABLE OF CONTENTS ‘TABLE OF FIGURES. o 6 1 INTRODUCTION, onseennnseese® CHAPTER. Senet 2 EVOLUTION OF CALATRAVA BRIDGES. oneness 21 Liana Bride in Mesa Ss. oO 21-1 Presentation m1 2-1-2. Stretural concept ON 21-3 Criticism. 1B 22 LaDevesa Footbridge in Ripa (Spain). CI 22-1 Presentation 18 222 ams 4 2.2.3 Pipe. 16 22-4 Design comment, 17 2 Pus Big in Oden Spain. 18 23:1 Presentation 18 23.2 Conceptual design 19 24 ‘Alameda Bridge in Valencia (Spain)... 21 2:1 Presentation 21 24-2 Structural concept. . 2 CHAPTER:. a 3 ORLEANS BRIDGE, 2s 3:1 Prosotation ofthe ridge. . 26 3-1-1 Why abridge in Orleans? . 26 31-2 Why Calatrava? wat 3-1-3. Overview ofthe bridge: ey 3.2 Conceptual design. 31 32:1 Deck . 31 322 arch, 35 3.23 Hangers 37 3:24 Tripods 38 3.3. Struetural concept . 39 331 Deck 39 33:2 Arch Conon 41 3.33 Hangers. 2 3:34 Tripods cd34 Construction ofthe bridges 45 341, Intoduction. 45 342. Erection ofthe deck. 46 34.2.1 Division ofthe elements INNat 342-2 Assembly site... 7 3.4.23 Launching nose i a7 3424 Erection towers. 9 342.5 Launching system 0 3.4.3. Erection of the arch. cnn 32 Soh3-1 Assembling ofthe arch elements 33 34.32 Weld ofthe stubs. : 3 3-433 Erection ofthe hangers, 33 343.4 Installation of te sx pot bearings. 3 3-4-3.5 Comments on bearings atthe abutments. 33 CHAPTER, 4 CONCLUSION. 7 s4 BIBLIOGRAPHY cc APPENDIX: ‘CALATRAVA'S BIOGRAPHY. 0 “Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3‘TABLE OF FIGURES ‘Figure 1: Model of Lusitania Bridge o Figure 2: Cenral walkway of the Lusitania Bridge igure 3: Calatrava’ sketch forthe Lusitania Bridge, Figure 4: Cross section ofthe Lusitania Bridge Figure 5: View ofthe twin pilot and the conerete abutment of the Lusitania Bridge Figure 6: Model of the original project of La Devesa Footbridge with stel arch support Figure 7: View of the walkway of the La Devesa Footbridge Figure 8: Projctviow explaining the global stability ofthe La Devesa Footbridge Figure 9: Mid-span section showing maximum depth of arch ofthe La Devesa Footbridge Figure 10: Global rotation of te La Devesa Footbridge with walkway loads Figure 11: Overview showing the appendage onthe right pat of the La Devesa Footbridge Fee 12 Overview ofthe Ondaros Faro ith te Pero Br. igure 13: The Puerto Bridge. ‘igure 14: Puerto Bridge cross section. Figure 15. Arms and cables ofthe Puerto Bridge Figure 16: Curved cantilevered pedestrian deck ofthe Puerto Bridge. Figure 17: Separation between the main deck and te cantilevered pedesivian deck Figure 18: Overview of the Alameda Bridge Figure 19: Longitudinal view and eross section of the entire complex Figure 20; Overview ofthe Alameda Bridge with the metro entrance onthe right Figure 21: Night view ofthe Alameda Bridge Figure 22: View ofthe walkway and waffic lanes ofthe Alameda Bridge Figure 23: Overview ofthe Orleans Bridge... Figure 24: Orleans Bridge arch Figure 25: Calarava sketch ofthe Orleans Bridge tripods gw 26 Calarava kth of th nen edge rps Figure 27: Model ofthe Orleans Bridge Figure 28: Night view of the Orleans Bridge Figure 29: Cross section ofthe Orleans Bridge Figure 30: Longitudinal View of the Orleans Bridge Figure 31: Orleans Bridge roadway. Figure 32: Orleans Bridge tripod Figure 33: Static analysis ofthe Orleans bridge Figure 34: Static analysis ofthe cantilevered walkway ofthe Orleans Bridge Figure 38: Static analysis ofthe Orleans Bridge decks Figure 36; Calatrava sketch ofthe cros soction ofthe Orleans Bridge Figure 37: View ofthe clevated walkway and the arch of the Orleans Bridge Figure 38: Static analysis ofthe Orleans Bridge eatied out with Pythagore Figure 39: Static analysis ofthe Orleans Bridge during is construction. "gre 40: Hangers ofthe Orleans Bridge Figure 4 Static analysis ofthe northern tripod ofthe Orleans bridge Figure 42: View of the tripod base ofthe Orleans Bridge ‘igure 43: Cross section ofthe Orleans Bridge deck Figure 44: Orleans Bridge arch fassachuseds Institute of Technology 10 n nL 2 B B 8 15 6 7Figure 4S: Orleans Bridge cables. Figure 46: Connection of the cables tothe arch inthe Orleans Bridge. Figure 47: Souther tripod ofthe Orleans Bridge. Figure 48: Reinforcing bars located in the base ofthe Orleans Bridge ipod. Figure 49: Tripod reinforcement inthe Orleans Bridge Figure 50: Overview ofthe site before the construction ofthe Orleans Bridge Figure 51: Consuetion phases ofthe Orleans Bridge. Figure 52: Assembly ste ofthe Orleans Bridge located on the southern riverbank. Figure 53: Launching nose system, ‘Figure 54: Launching nose ofthe Orleans Bridge Figure 55: Location ofthe erection towers during the Orleans Bridge construction Figure 56: Erection tower ofthe Orleans Bridge Figure 57: Concrete rails supporting the Orleans Bridge launching system Figure 58: Launching system ofthe Orleans bridge deck Figure 59: Arch elements on the Orleans Bridge deck Figure 60: 400 tons mobile crane lifting an arch element of the Orleans Bridge Figure 61: Tripod foundation ofthe Orleans Bridge. Figure 62: Floods ofthe Loire River during the Orleans Bridge construction Figure 63: Alamillo Bridge spanning 200 meters with a 142 meters high mas. “Massachoseits Institute of Technology 2 43 45 0 7 30 50 31 32 32 35 35 36(CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction Inde eighteenth, nineteenth, and even the earliest rwentoth conury’ a lot of eate Was given to the bridge appearance, especially in Europe. The piles and the handrails were seulpted, the lighting judiciously chosen. They were esthetcally pleasing but also very resistant co time ‘You can easily find in Europe intact bridge built four, Five hundred yeas ago. AL that time architecture and engineering wore very close. All the design was thought from an architectural view. “Architecture was not only leave the bridge standing” (Conversations with Students, that you can took away from a bridge to alata). But Europe experienced an important population growth during the twentieth century. Many bridges had to be built. The only specificities required were efficiency for low cost, The aesthetic did't matter so much. Now nothing has changed, economic criteria still govern bridges design. Tis very hard to design bridges tha ae Functional and beauifl unless the architecture is an cemtre par of the design “Massachusetts Toate of Technology 3At the end of the eighties, a man had a bright idea. What about exploiting the torsional stifess of the deck, Actually most of time the bridges are longitudinally symmetrical so the ‘orsion is very limited. Furthermore by exploiting the torsional resistance ofthe roadway a certain asymmetry could be created in the bridge design. Ths could be originally used at an schitectural level ‘This man was Santiago Calatrava. His objective was to be an arhitect-engincer characterized by Impressive creativity. He illustrated his talent in numerous bridges and buildings W-Exupery train statin, Trinity footbridge. rava is very interested in bridges for their power on urbanism, Indeed “when ‘Milwaukee Museum, Lyon: Santiago Cal you want to regenerate a place, bridges introduce a very good reason to restructure the surrounding area and, in so doing, make more livable these parts in city that are rather fost” (Conversation with Students, Calatrava), Moreover be is very dedicated to integrating bridges withthe envionment, the city, Calatrava is a perfectionist. For example he will efer tothe history ofthe city by including dowil in the bridge design related to previous bridges, he will take into account the bridge reflection on ‘wate, the relationship between the design and the water flow, he will aificialy illuminated in such & way as to emphasize its structural dynamic. So Calatrava developed his smart idea of using torsional stiffness in the deck through the Inclined arch principle. He experimented with tis principe in different brides in Spain His most relevant work is the Orleans Bridge in France, also called the European Bridge. “Massachoselts Institute of Technology reCHAPTER 2 EVOLUTION OF CALATRAVA BRIDGES 2. Rvolution of Calatrava Bridges 2-1, Lusitania Bridge in Meri (Spain) ‘Mansachusets Insitute of Technology 1024-1 Presentation igure 2: Conral walkway ofthe Lastania Beige ‘This bridge was designed in 1988 and completed in 1991. The design is quite close to a classical atch bridge, The erossing is divided in three parts: the ied arch fom which the roadbed is suspended, and (wo 138 meters pars simply supported by piers. The atch span reaches 189 meters giving tothe bridge a total length of 465 meters. Figure 3 Calataras ketch fr the Lastaia Brae A bull inspired the form ofthe bridge cross section ‘Massachusets Institute of Technology 121-2 Structural concept AA unique feature of the bridge is its absence of expansion joints as it was designed as an inogral structure. Figure : Cros ection of he Lastani Bridge Just focusing on the center span, one will nosce thatthe walkway is cast with the reinforced ‘concrete box section, Twenty three stel rod pars suppor this hox gder that acts as & torque tube, Actually the 5.5 meter wide walkway separates (wo 7-meter cantilevered decks supporting the highway. Those pre-stressed concrete wings are posttensioned to the box Binder. The walkway elevated 1S mowers shove the divided highway offers fantastic Panoramic view. “Massachuseits Institute of Technology 2Two twin pil carry the weight of the 32 meter deep central arch. The arch is made up of aS bby 2.5 meter triangulated section in tubular set 21-3. Criticism (One could criticize the use of concrete for the full span since a stool span would have reduced. the dead load and avoided the ponderous appearance of the arched concrete abutments Furthermore, other designs were possible forthe concree transition. 2-2 La Devesa Footbridge in Ripol Spal Figure 6: Modelo the original proectof La Deven Footbridge with ste atch support “Massachasets Institute of Technology 522:1 Presentation This pedestrian bridge was built between 1989 and 1991. It was designed to cross the Ter River, which has the unusual feature ofa 5 meters difference in height between the two banks ofthe river. This footbridge connects La Devesa witha alway station across the river. The height diference is handled by keeping the bridge's walkway atthe higher bank's level until it is fully across the river, and then reversing direction with a stir that leads the pedestrian down othe lower bank's ground level It's the frst bridge with an inclined arch constructed by Calatrava, One could say it isthe iret application of the projects proposals of the Genil Bridge in Paris in 1988 and the ‘Miraflores Bridge in Cordoba (Spain) in 1989, The bridge is quite small comparing to she previous wih a otal length of 65 meters. ‘The canted steel arch, spanning 44 meters, transmits the walkway loads to the existing retaining wall and roa new conerete pylon, The arch is only 6.4 meter deep. 22-2 Ams Figere 7: View ofthe wallnay ofthe Lt Deve Fothrige ‘Massachusetts Insitute of Technology 1%‘Steel arms have replaced the classical rods. Those arms reduce the movements of the ath oUt ofits plane and prevent it from buckling. Calatrava handled the buckling through the arms ‘hat have stiTness. n the Merida Bide, Calatrava was afta of buckling and therefore made ahuge arch igure 8: Projst ew explaining the bal stability ofthe La Devesa Fothldge ‘The arch isnot in @ vertical plane, thus the arms have to resist vertical and horizontal foree ‘components. The 6S degrees angle ofthe arms was chosen in order to keep them leaded in pure tension. Consequently the “arch-shapo” is loaded in its plane which ensures thatthe structure works as an archstueture and not asa curved beam. The vertical force component inthe arms comes from the walkway Toad. The horizontal component is developed by a cross ‘russ structure located below the walkway. In fact this structure reduces lateral distortion ‘towards the arch, thus creating this horizontal component. "Massachasets Tatts of Technology 1s223 Pipe Figure 9: Mid-span section showing maximum depth fash othe La Devesa Footbridge The pipe is located atthe base ofthe arch However whereas the bridge can appear reassuring by its solidly proportioned strctue, one ‘could wonder how it ean stayin static equilibrium with such an inclined arch on one side of the bridge. Indeed the weight of che walkway and the arms are not centered under the arch Tike ina classical ure bridge. The sseret les ina large pipe atthe hase ofthe arch, This very sft pipe estries the load through torsional action tothe reining wall and to the pytom under small deformation. “Massachusets Institute of Technology 16“The walkway load tends to move the arch toa vertical position. Furthermore it tends to stiff it end provide further protection from buckling. 224 Design comment ight prt ofthe La Devesa Footbridge [New the ugly concrete appendage added a the retaining wall. Construction authorities wanted to move the pylon. This action would have resulted in increasing the span and forcing a redesign the idge. To express his impatience, Calatrava added this crude corbel Massachusetts ‘of Technology2.3. Puerto Bridge in Ondérroa (Spain) Fipure 12: Overview of the Ondaros Harbor withthe Pesto Bridge 2341 Presentation ‘The Puerto Bridge located not far from Billo was completed in sx years between 1989 and 10995. The Puerto Bridge was commissioned to relive traf within the congested harbor ata ofthe town of Ondérroa. The maximum span corresponds tothe total length: 1.5 meters. The ‘overall deck width varies between 20:91 and 23.7 meters at mid-span, The main deck reaches 1 meter wide, “Massachussts Institute of Technology ie‘The Puerto Bridge is constituted by an asymmetric arch, which separates the box girder carriage dock from the curved pedestrian deck. Ths box girder supports a pedestrian way and ‘motorway so it caries real waffic load unlike the La Devess Footbridge 2.3.2 Conceptual design igure Pact Bdge croserection In this bridge, the const width arch appears lke a further investigation ito the inclined arched principle. Figure 15: Acms and cables ofthe Pert Bridge “Massachusetts Institute of Technology »oowever it ust works like a classical arch with the suspension cables, The arms suppost the cantilevered curved deck. Those arms placed every 2.86 meters give the erisp acral outlines ofthe 15-meter deep arch Figure 16: Curved cantilevered pedestrian deck of he Puerto Bridge The arms angle was chosen lke in the La Devesa Footbridge taking into account the vertical and horizon ‘component crested by the truss. All the main deck i very sif soit can ress against the torsion created by the asymmetric position of the arc, The curved cantilevered deck reduces this torsion that is finally transmitted to the ground support through the main ‘deck. Consequently the lateral box replaces in a way the pipe ofthe La Devesa Footbridge. igure 17: Separation between the main deck nd he cntleveredpedetian deck Moreover the pedestrian deck is given major importance by separating it fom the roadway. This walkway acting lke a balcony, offers a superb view on the seaport. Massachusetts tate of Technology 22-4 Alameda Bridge in Valencia (Spain) igre 18: Overview of the Alsmed Bridge 24-1 Prsentation ‘The Alameda Bridge was constructed between 199Land 1993. Simultaneously anoter project vas carried out: the mera station Figure 19: Lonstoinal view and crow section f teenie compen [Note thatthe roof ofthe metro entrance is used as arch support ie af Technology 2This project is independent of Calatava's work. This underground station is aligned on the longitudinal axis ofthe Alameda Bridge. As a consequence, 0 avoid obstruction on the site, the bridge was assembled to one side, and then moved into its final postion on a system of ral and jacks. Structural concept ‘The Alameda bridge has gota design close o the La Devesa footbridge and the Puerto Briége but on a diferent scale: the 26 meter wide deck spans 130 meters! The deck is slightly caned or 6 longitudinal axis. ‘Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2Figure 2 Nght view of the Alameda Bridge Like a number of other Calatrava bridge projects, the bridge employs a 70 degree inclired arch, As a remindor, the La Dovesa Footbridge uses 6S-degree angle arch. Furthermore tis arc rises some 14 meters above the road surface at its apogee, igure 22 View ofthe allway ad efile of the Alameda Bridge ‘Two traffic lanes and two walkways lke in the Puerto Bridge constitute the bridge. The two vwalkyays are cantilevered off 0 each side ofthe main vehicle deck. Four cells that provide a ‘very important torsional stiffness constitute the main deck ~ MassachusesTastinte of Technology 2‘The stability of the tube-made ach is stil ensured by tension arms placed at regular intervals, of 5.88 meters “Massachusetts Institute of Technology %CHAPTER 3 3 Orleans Bridge Figur 2: Overview ofthe Orlane Brides ‘Masrachusots Insitute of Technology ORLEANS BRIDGE341 Presentation ofthe Bridge 3-141 Why abridge in Orleans? ‘Over the past two decades, Orleans has experienced one ofthe highest population growths in France. Major traffic problems were observed a the level af the Loite River. To relieve traffic ‘over the three other heavily congested bridges, Orleans organized a bridge design competition atthe end of 1996, Orleans desire an original and beautiful bridge This bridge located at the South of Orleans would link the village of SsintJean de la Ruel With that of Saint Privé Saint-Mesmin, igure 2 Orleans Bldg arch Tree projects were presented: two classical arch designs while the last one offered an inclined arch. "Ths unusual design was prefered; it was Calatrava's concept ‘Massachuseus Institute of Technology 263-1-2 Why Calatrava? Calatrava bridge was chosen for its numerous architectural qualities and its integration inthe Figure 25: Calatrava sketch f the Orleans Brie tripods Plgure 26 Calatrava sketch ofthe Orleans Brie trips For example, look atthe piles and notice that they were reduced to @ strict minimum. This ‘choice is aot dictated by the sol instability along the Loite River. Indeed Calatrava main aim was to conserve the flow, the bed, and the reflection of the Loire. The existing natural sandbanks appeared to be the best location for the piles in order to minimize their environment impact. Two concrete tripods consisting of three inclined branches support the ‘Massachuseits Istituie of Technology 2central arch span, T tripods, which represent thee thin Fingers of hand, are visualized as ‘he natural extension ofthe arch. Asa conseque 1, ane observes from the bank a perfect oval ‘on the water, the election of the arch ‘igure 7s Model ofthe Orleans Bridge Note the arch reflection on water During the night, an ingenious light system integrated inthe deck and the piles reinfores the appeal ofthe bridge, which is painted entirely in white, For Calatrava, lighting isan essential element of the bridge Figure 2: Nigh view of the Ortean Bridge This inctined arch gives vitality tothe bridge symbolizing the entrance to Orleans. Four tafe lanes, eyelist and pedestrian paths on both sie ofthe bridge constitute the deck. As in most of Calatrava bridges, the deck isnot a simple single horizontal surface it has been built up in astute of Technology 2view offered: motorist, the fantastic cerazes kein a het 96 tt people can SAF cyelisis,pedestans sngre 2: Crossman BEE those details ar just an over of CEN perfectionism, Fr tose innovative Hess otatava was declared winner of the COMPETI 51.3 Overview ofthe bridge: igure 30 Longin Vio Oras BE atone side of the briage deck, between IRF is located ‘of 8 floors, Ties at at teat and pedestin lanes, This Banat ach & tall as a building Tatas of Technology 3 ‘Massachusets| ste arch, which is extremely sende,inclination of 68 degrees and spans 201.6 meters! As @ reminder the Alameda Bridge in ‘Valencia spans 130 meters “The spans between the intersection points ofthe branches ofthe tripods and abutments reach both $8.2 meters. Those 3 spans constitute the central arch bridge witha final Iength of 378 is part of the bridge is entirely made of steel ‘Two small concrete bridges at the embankments of respectively 336 and $88 meters complete the contra arch bridge, This gives & total length of 470 meters, (One can distinguish wo different slopes along the longitudinal axis of the deck: 2.0866 and 0.5006 igre 31 Orleans ridge roadnay “The deck is 25.74 meter wide at mid-span and is composed of four traffic lanes of 13 meter ‘wide, two cycle paths of 2 meters each, and 1wo walkways of 1S meters Unlike the previous bridges presented, the bridge is suspended by two series of 28 cables placed in «reversed V-form, Those cables are placed at regular intervals of approximately 4.2m slong the elevated walkway. The elevated walkway and the arch are Toested on the \wester side, the downstream side ofthe bridge. “Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8Figure 32 Orleans Bridge triped ‘Bodh tripeds consist of one branch of “finger” in the visual continuation ofthe arch, another in the same plane supporting the 88.2 meters spans, while she third branch isin the erthogonal ireesion ofthis pan 32 Conceptual design [AG a first glance, one could wonder hove thie bridge defying the gravity laws does not collapse! si the nove expression ofthe state of equilibrium’? Institute of TechnologyFigure 3 Static analysis ofthe Orleans bridge ‘Simplifying die complex design dhe roadway which supports the structure aes as a horizontal ‘beam between the tripods, delivering gravity loads tothe cables and developing the necessary components of force required to load the two series ofeables purely within the desired plane Actually the beam prevents lateral distortion creating this horizontal component while the vertical component comes from the weight of the roadway. Thus the beam acts as « perforated torsion box to resist rotation of the arch into position of equilibrium as a resultant of the horizontal and vertical forces. Is lke a system of weight and counterweight igure 34 State analysis the camtevered walkway of the Orlane Beige ‘The hangers regularly placed along the dock not only stabilize the arch but also longitudinally distribute the torsion (created by the arch inclination) all along the deck. The torsional stifaess ofthe box girder is very important. “Massachuses Institute of Technology 3igure 38: State analyse ofthe Orleans Bridge deck ‘Bu the Fst function ofthe rch i o ensue the longitudinal bending resistance ofthe bridge by limiting the vertical deflection, In this particular bridge, the vertical loads reas bending in 4 horizontal plane asa result of the inclined load transfer from the hangers and bring about the resulting deformations into the deck had tobe horizontal deflection. As a consequence, ‘aken into account using pre-camber The geomet empenstions found are the following: a ‘erticalpre-camber at midspan respectively of 6 and 30 centimeters for east and west sides, a ‘ovizomtalpre-camber at mid span of 23 centimeters, a torsional pre-camber and a shortening ‘ofthe bridge deck. me — “Massachusets Institute of Technology 3igor Calatrava seth ofthe cos aston ofthe Orleans Bridge [Note that actually the cross section represents a boat ‘The asymmetrical deck shaped like a wing was designed with the help of the Danis Maritime Institue. Thus wind tunnel (ests were cartied out to obtain the bast design. Finally the deck: chosen has its curved bottom flange in a form of a wing or more probably a ship's hull Indeed in that ease the arch could represent the mast ofthe boat as clay illustrated in the sketch above from Calatrava, “Massachasens Institut of Technology SSS32-2 Arch Plgure ST: View ofthe elevated walkway and the arch he Orleans Bridge Inthe design phase, a fist order analysis was cared out to determine the buckling modes of the arch, Afterwards, a second order analysis was made using the real buckling mode Actually, when the bridge is used by people, the sravty loading displace the arch to a more vertical positon, slightly stiffening it and providing futher protection from buckling “Massachusetts Insututo of Technology wFigure 3 Static analysis the Orleans Bg ale ot with Pythagire The siruetral eam fr the static and dynamic analysis used the software Pythagore. Figure 3 State analy the Orleans ridge during ts constr otion Note shat the hangers are not attached During the construction period, when the arch was not atached tothe dock by the hangers, the bridge acted as areal howstring Thus 2 tensile force ito the deck balanced the compressive forces in the ach, At that moment temporary piles supported the bridge, Once the connection With the two tripods was carried out, the bridge behaved like a real arc bridge. Consequently now the compressive arch forces ate directly transmitted to the tripod and the foundations. ‘Tis is noe the case forthe thermal actions. Massachusets Institue of Technology 36‘For each construction phase a static analysis was performed out to determine the ability of tho struct. 3.2.3 Himgers a igure Hangers of he Oreos Bridge [Note the masses attached tothe cables ‘A dynamic analysis ofthe bridge revealed that under sind loading, for certain modes, the harmonic frequencies of the atch and the hangers ate very elose, Consequently under wind loading, the arch and the hangers can be simulkancously excited by certain vibration modes. Furthermore all thse vibrations creat fatigue into the hangers. Especially concerned, the connections with de rods undergo the very important numberof stress eyeles. “Massachusetts Insitute of Technology 7Sos was decided to reat specific dampers to reduce al those vibrations, Actually the best. Slaton found consisted in equipping the hangers with simple masse. The ticky part was to «detcmine the optimal location and weight ofthe masses. 3.2.4 Tripods igre: Static analysis the northern tripod of he Orleans bridge ‘The right eipod supports the arch, the left rivod supports the 8.2 meters span ‘The two branches of the tipo in visual continuation with the ach only recsive compressive forces from the arch ‘Te fhe brances inthe same plan suport the $8.2-meter spans ofthe ental ach bridge entirely made of see, ‘Te two last branches perpendicular to ths plan resist the torsion tansfemed by the asymmetrical deck, ‘Massachasets Tsttate of Technology coFaure 2: View fhe tripod bate ofthe Ores Belge ins fam of his bigly aymmeical ek ads ingot ifeences in he locaton of the SRE of Ba of he estan scion, the comer of gavily ofthe permanent lads, we ‘shear center, This is why during the static analysis of the ridge, the arch inclination was ‘chosen to have the resultant of the nanent loads passing through the point of intersection i ite branches ofthe pods. AS a cntequence, the bending moments were reacca ate 3:3. Structural concept 341 Beck ‘ee ox girder es depth of 3.25 meters. ts width reaches 25.4 metecs a span and ties neds to cexe space between the roudvay andthe elevated walway. Moore the sol box ser wih te onhotopic dec e diely in conaet with the nn Paves have been caniovered on bth sds. They wil suport the cyte ana Pedestrian paths Massachasets institute of Technology »igure 3c Cro seton of he Orleans Bridge dec Besides the box girder is reinforced th trapezoidal stiffeners atthe top Mange and Ma plates ‘the bottom flange. Their trapezoidal stiffeners have a constant thickness of 1.4 centimeters Whereas the fat plates thickness oscillates between 1.4 and 2.4 centimeters, Diaphragms are placed every 42 meters either out ofthe flat plate atthe supports or in the form of a K-brace. This K-brace is made with UPN 300 profiles, Furthermore three cells constitute dhe box ginder. So the different units are transportable by trucks from the north of Belgium and the East of France where they were made. Depending on the material thickness, steel grades $355)2G3, S3SSN, S3S5NL were used. To Protect them from corrosion a three-coat paint system was selected in addition of a dehydration system forthe interior. ‘The exterior elements of the deck are painted in white. An original detail: the balusrades follow the cables inclination, “Masiachasets Institute of Technology 0322 Arch Figure 4 Orleans Bridge arch ‘The arch is 25 meter deep. The cross setion ofthe slender arch isa apedium of 1.65 meters ‘eight with wo bases of 0.55 and 1.40 meters. The top flange of the arch is always horizontal SS45OM and SA6OMI. high-grade steel were used to diminish the plate thickness to only 48 Lite for the deck, every 4.2 meters where hangers are connected, diaphragms have been inate. ‘Massachasots Insutte of Technology33.3 Hangers Figure 4S: Oran Bridge cables Paced every 4.2 meters in a reversed V-form, the cables have respectively a diameter of 5.5 centimeters forthe connections in the plane of the arch and 3.6 far the connections tthe downstream (exterior) side ofthe elevated walkway Massachusets Taste of Technology‘They are joined tothe arch via traditional pinhole coanection and tothe deck via te rods. Plates fixed in the box gitder maintain those tie rods. Those plates are machined in a bicylindreal form to reduce the “parasitic moments” in the rods and the cable acting like hinges Also, the connections atthe level of the deck are protected from corrosion with conical shells 33-4 Tripods Figure $7: Southern rp of the Orleans Bridge ‘The tripods were built with white concrete BAO. The bridge is not symmetical as the two levels atthe end ofthe deck are quite different Asa consequence the tripod Pé located atthe ‘Massachusetts Insitute of Technology 3south is smaller than PS. The longest branch of the tripods is about 26 meter lor, Furthermore the branches in visual continuation withthe arch are inclined of 20 degrees tote hertzomtl Note the high density of bars A profiled slab enables a good draining of the water. The cross section of the branches is elliptical. Those branches are connected to the deck with pot bearing which ean be injectedin fonder to counteract the ereep.Indoed the creep can bing about an eventual shortening of he branches ‘Mansachusets Instat of Technology ry344 Construction of the bridge 3-41 Introduction ‘igne 50: Overview ofthe site before the comirustion ofthe Orleans Bridge The bridge constuction lasted two years: between July of 1998 and July of 2000, The complex construction was virtually carried out with three-dimensional CAD models to ‘ensue a beter erection on site 122 road ransponts were completed from the workshops located in France and Belgium tothe site. Actually the Loe River is not navigable so the road was the ky way to transport the elements ofthe bridge to the Consequently the deck for example vas divided in 108 lifferent elements in order tobe tanspontable ‘Massachusets Insitute of Technology s