Anurag Sonar | Dimitri Nalmbantis | Mike van Weerdenburg 5201756 | 4577906 | 467040
1
LOCATION & DESIGN VISION Our research started with the analysis of two possible locations for a bridge over the Maashaven. The goal of this research was to choose one of the locations and generate a design vision for it.
GREENERY When looking at greenery, the end near the Euromast tunnel has the largest park in the region. On the other side of the Maashaven, the city of Rotterdam is also planning to locate a park. With walkways on both the north and south wharf of the Maashaven, these two parks will be well connected.
Developing park Park Other type of green space
500m
1:10000
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
3 | 60
DEVELOPMENT Other developments in the region are planned on the southern side, where locations of culture campuses will be planned. Other major developments are happening in the Waalhaven in the west, Rijnhaven in the east, and in at the other side of the Maastunnel.
Developing park Search area Planning Under construction
500m
1:10000
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
4 | 60
MAAS ACTIVITY Looking into the activity around the main river of Rotterdam, the Maas, a lot of things are happening. Landmark architecture, parks, and other important functions. Yet, when looking at the western tip of the Katendrecht peninsula, there is nothing but a parking space. The municipality has a search area for future development here. Since this is so far to the tip of Katendrecht, it can be excluded from the urban network easily.
P
Active functions along the Maas Parking space
500m
1:10000
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
5 | 60
TRANSPORT Right now, there is only a small boat making the crossing which can carry just a handful of cyclists and pedestrians per ride.
Main ferry route Secondary ferry route Bus / tram lines Metro line Station / stop
500m
1:10000
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
6 | 60
SLOW TRAFFIC To include this area to the city’s network, and keep the city dynamics close to the Maas, the northern bridge location is more logical to design for according to us. Other reasons for choosing the northern route is the close connection with Rotterdam North through the Maastunnel and the bridge span, which is way shorter than other options.
Cycling route Future cycling route / walkway
500m
1:10000
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
7 | 60
REACH The compromise for the northern location is that it takes a slight detour of 400 m, yet the reach of people in the south is not much smaller. This comparison can be seen in the corresponding drawings, where the dotted line forms the border of people that will go around the Maashaven and the people that will use the bridge, based on a distance from the separation line to the start of the Erasmusbrug.
Routes location 1 Routes location 2 Maximum reach division
500m
1:10000
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
8 | 60
THE SITE A bridge should make use and reflect the character that the site has. In our case it’s the openness of the area. Long views ranging from the skyscrapers at Kop van Zuid all the way to the Euromast and even the harbour cranes.
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
9 | 60
THE SITE The view to the east especially highlights a unique perspective on the skyline of three main bridges in Rotterdam crossing the Maas. That these bridges are so visible, forces us to think about the design style being a correct addition, since we are a continuation of the rich history of connecting north and south.
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
10 | 60
BRIDGE EVOLUTION When looking at the bridge evolution, each design came with a new form of mobility. The Hef was for the train, Willemsbrug for the car, Erasmusbrug a mobility mix, and recently the Rijnhavenbrug for the transition towards a cyclist and pedestrian city
N PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
11 | 60
AESTHETICS When viewing the aesthetics of the bridges, the Hef was designed with a bare and raw structure. This fine grain allowed for a visual experience from up close. In contrast, the later bridges are sculptural landmarks. In these, a particular shape of the pylon is to be viewed as a sculptural gesture from a far distance. From close up, there’s less detail visible. To be an honest addition, the PanoraMAAS bridge will incorporate an experience from afar, close up and additionally from the bridge deck itself. To achieve this a fine grain of the structure is needed, but it also has to be elegant like the modern bridges.
PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision
12 | 60
2
VORM STUDY This next chapter will focus on how we came to our final shape. Studies to other shapes and other variants are located in the appendix.
FORM
To start with the most basic understanding of a bridge, it has to connect two areas by going over a barrier. The barrier is in our case the water.
PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study
14 | 60
FORM
Even though a barrier sounds negative, the water gives some very good qualities, namely the views over the city. A curved shape would force the people to look towards the Maas, giving them a true sensation of crossing the water. There is no particular sightline that we want to highlight on the deck itself, it’s the full 180 degrees panorama over the Maas that counts equally. Therefore, the curved plan allows for a gradual reveal of the panorama. The only sight line that we highlight is from the landing on towards the Erasmusbrug, Hef and Willemsbrug. We achieved this by aligning the northern landing and the axis of the self-designed park to a sight line facing these bridges.
PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study
15 | 60
FORM
With a curved shape, there are some limitations for the design of certain openable bridge typologies. Our main aim was to form a true gateway to the Maashaven, since the bridge location is on the t-shaped crossing with the Maas. Trying a bascule bridge, it was technically too complicated with the curve we aimed for, since we would’ve needed to balance the structure stupidly out of the curved grid, so the counter weight would’ve been aligned through the pivoting point. We found that a rotating bridge is technically less complex. Architecturally, we were very comfortable with this option too, since a rotation fits with a round/curved shape. To create a grand entrance to the Maashaven, we made it a double opening. This would keep the movement and shape symmetrical.
PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study
16 | 60
FORM
To make the bridge also structurally logical, we looked into the moment line. The tricky thing about moveable bridges is that the openings often look different than the fixed parts. When exactly following the moment line, the harsh spikes that would emerge at the positions of the pillars were actually the complete opposite of the curve shape in plan, which was continuous and elegant. Drawings of this preliminary design can be found in the appendix. So to make it architecturally in harmony, we filleted the sharp edges of the moment line, to make it a smooth continuous profile.
PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study
17 | 60
FORM
To achieve our goal of experiencing the small grain of the bridge from close by, we found that this works the strongest in open structure bridges. Therefore, we came up with a series of vertical members that allow for this openness. The member structure forms the middle, whereas it can separate the fast moving cyclists from the slower pedestrians. As a result, both can safely enjoy the views and the structure of the bridge. But since pedestrians have more time to view, they will be located around the outside.
PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study
18 | 60
FORM
PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study
19 | 60
VERTICAL MEMBERS We have designed this raw cross section that divides the deck based on its function. The total width of the deck is 8m. On the left we have placed the pedestrian activities to get a worthwhile experience of the harbour. The clear height when the bridge is stationary is 6.5m from water level, thus allowing small boats to easily pass through it.
PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study
20 | 60
3
THE DESIGN This next chapter will focus on the plans and elevation of our bridge and it will show our bridge in full glory inside the side. The background here shows a part of the Grasshopper Script that was used to make the bridge.
TITLE TEXT PLAN On the south side, our bridge will be connecting close to the Maastunnel entrance. At the northern side, we designed a park to bring more activity to this location.
100m
PanoraMAAS | The Design
1:2000
22 | 60
PLAN
100m
PanoraMAAS | The Design
1:2000
23 | 60
ELEVATIONS
Now we will explain some practical design decisions we made for the design. The large ships need to go through the opening in the middle, therefore we added a structural rhythm in the positions of the columns. The spans between columns are getting bigger from the wharf towards the middle. This will automatically lure boats to use the middle part primarily. Especailly for the larger boats it’s the logical position for the opening.
25m
PanoraMAAS | The Design
1:200
24 | 60
11.00(CANTILEVER) 12.30
21.70
36.50 (ROTATING DECK)
36.50 (ROTATING DECK)
27.00
11.00(CANTILEVER)
42.00
27.00
21.70
13.50
21.70
6.00
5.50 2.50 26.10 (CLEAR NAUTICAL WIDTH)
15.00
6.00
42.00
27.00
4.00
4.30
4.90
5.80
6.00
1.20 15.00
2.30
1.65
2.30 13.50 12.30
1.65
6.00
5.80
4.90
4.30
4.00
1.20
2.50
5.50
TECHNICAL PLAN AND ELEVATION
13.50 27.00
21.70
13.50
1:200
25m
2.0
2.0 3.5
8.80
8.80
3.5
2.5
2.5
For the large swing, we need long fenders. These fenders are also curved, to prevent ships from hitting the head side of the open deck. The rotation inward keeps the size of these fenders smaller than a rotation outward because of the geometry. This is also a safer option, since the deck ends will point away from the passage, making it difficult for boats to collide on. To make this curve inward possible, we had to trim the decks in a circular way. Therefore, the middle vertical member doesn’t go straight like the others, but is placed under an angle.
11.80
11.80
13.50
N
13.50
PanoraMAAS | The Design
21.70
6.00 27.00
15.00
26.10 (CLEAR NAUTICAL WIDTH) 42.00
15.00
6.00
13.50 27.00
21.70
21.70
25 | 60
21.70
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
13.50
2.70
2.8
0
3.2
0
3
3.2
.20
0
3
3.2
0
3.2
0
3.2
0
0
3.2
3.4
0
3.4
0 3.2
0
0
3.2
3.4
0 3.4
0
25
°
3.4
0
3.4
0 3.5
0 3.5
0 3.5
0
0
3.5
3.5
0 3.5
0
3.6
0
3.6
2.5
0
55
3.6
5
3.6
°
5
2.0
3.7
0 3.7
.75
5
3
3.5
8.80
0
3.7
8.80
2.5
21.70
2.80
.20
°
4.00
13.50
2.70
0
25
4.30
4.90
5.80 6.00 27.00
2.8
3.5
4.00
2.50 6.00
1.20 15.00
42.00
2.80
3.80
3.80
3.85
3.85
3.90
3.90
3.90
1:200
2.30
1.65
1.65
26.10 (CLEAR NAUTICAL WIDTH)
15.00
2.70
11.80
13.50
5.50
5.50 2.50 6.00
2.30 6.00 27.00
2.70
2.0
21.70
27.00
1.20
5.80
4.90
13.50
21.70
° 55
4.30
11.00(CANTILEVER)
42.00
25m
4.30
4.00
36.50 (ROTATING DECK)
27.00
In elevation, the landing positions at the wharf have a starting height of 4 meters above the water level. The deck height increases to 6 meters within the fixed parts (slope is permitted 1 m per 20 m ratio for wheelchair regulations). Therefore we achieve the 5 meters clearance under the bridge (we have 5,5 m) in the middle. Also the rotatable decks can remain flat now without any inline, making it well suited for the rotation mechanism. We also have a 26 m clear nautical width in the middle, since this is equal to the Rijnhavenbrug. Therefore, similar types of boats can enter the Rijn- and Maashaven. 12.30
4.90
36.50 (ROTATING DECK)
11.00(CANTILEVER) 12.30
4.80
4.90
4.30
4.00
5.5 (CLEAR)
TECHNICAL PLAN AND ELEVATION
3.90
3.90
3.90
11.80
47°
31
°
31
°
73 °
19°
° ° 19
16 °
16
90 °
N 13.50
PanoraMAAS | The Design
21.70
27.00
42.00
27.00
21.70
21.70
26 | 60
PILLARS We designed the two main pillars to mimic a vertical member on top to keep the same design philosophy, even though it is thicker to endure the forces during rotation. On the bottom we have a larger shape to form the foot on the rotation mechanism. Here is also a maintenance bay to work on the mechanism. To keep the same design language on the bottom of the deck, we designed the side pillars to correspond with the main pillar, but of course much thinner.
PanoraMAAS | The Design
27 | 60
2.70
4 0 2 . 3
DETAILS AND FORCES 0
2.8
The next chapter will focus on detail drawings and force diagrams, to explain how our bridge functions.
0 2 . 3
2.80
FORCE DIAGRAM The triangular shaped vertical frames carry compression and are connected with a tie beam (tension member) on the top. The deck beams carry the compressive force acting on these vertical frames and transfer them to the main pylon. As the bridge is curved, diagonal tension and compression bars are introduced between the vertical frames to resist torsion. The underside of the deck has similar vertical members connected together with a tie beam that carry compressive forces from the deck to the main pylon. The steel deck sits over cantilever steel beams that are connected to primary deck beams.
The bridge is divided into 2 parts; 1. Fixed part which is simply supported with overhang on one side. The center column has a rolled support to take care of the moment forces. 2. Rotating part which is principally designed as a cantilever and truss type. The bridge follows the Bending moment and the form is directly derived from it.
PanoraMAAS | Details & Forces
Tension Compression
29 | 60
DETAIL DRAWINGS
500 EQ.
75
40
5000
100
20
6000(BRIDGE CLEAR HEIGHT)
20
75
6000(BRIDGE CLEAR HEIGHT)
5500
160
35
35
500
2000
50
1300
350
500
500
150
50
1100
1100
70
250
70 150
20
40
EQ.
35
150
The central pylons are connected to the circular steel plate. The steel plate is placed over ring gear and rotating mechanism that allows the bridge to open and close. The rotating deck slides over the fixed deck during bridge movement and is connected with an expansion joint. The other 4 steel pylons are designed specifically to support the fixed part of the bridge. The first pylon on either side are moment connections. These pylons are fixed on top of the concrete base
35
3200 5500
1100
100
150
2500 2000 8000 (DECK)
PanoraMAAS | Details & Forces
1000
2300
2300 1000 2500 (PEDESTRIAN)
400
1000 1385 2000
150
5500
1100
3200
35 100
1000 3500 (CYCLING)
2500
1000 750
4520 3750
3750
750 1000 2500
750
30 | 60
5
75
20 35 0
0
20
425
60
150
10
1000
75
425
DETAIL DRAWINGS
90
55
15
320
85 150 85
65
20
76°
200
145
200
200
1100
1100 30 10
1100
150
500
500
10 5
350
50
100 125
250
10 10
100 150
10
5000
30 20 15
75 50
50
23°
60
100 125 1250
250
130
150
165
10
15
2500
77°
65 10
230
110
2500 (PEDESTRIAN)
2000
3500 (CYCLING)
8000 (DECK)
PanoraMAAS | Details & Forces
31 | 60
2550
5850
8250
525
2250
150
1200
150
1650
750
1650
DETAIL DRAWINGS
1200
750
2250
350 2500 (PEDESTRIAN)
800 3000
350
350 3500 (CYCLING)
800
350
2250
8000
PanoraMAAS | Details & Forces
32 | 60
5
VISUALS This next chapter focusses on visuals of the bridge. These visuals will be from multiple angles highlighting some of the detailed aspects that are visable inside the bridge. Besides the shown images here, there is also a video showing of our bridge
VIEW FROM WATER LEVEL
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
34 | 60
UNDERSIDE DECK
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
35 | 60
VIEW FROM WATER LEVEL - NIGHT VIEW
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
36 | 60
VIEW FROM CYCLE DECK
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
37 | 60
BIRDSEYE VIEW
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
38 | 60
VIEW FROM THE WARF
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
39 | 60
VIEW ON THE BRIDGE APROACH AND ERASMUS VIEW
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
40 | 60
VIEW FROM THE DECK
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
41 | 60
3D SECTION
PanoraMAAS | Visuals
42 | 60
6
APPENDIX In this appendix extra files are added to show our progress, show more detail or highlight some details. There are also some pictures of physical models that have been made.
MATERIAL LIST
Section
Part
Material
Color
RAL-code
Vertical frame
Steel
off white
RAL 9016
Top Beam
Steel
off white - light grey
RAL 9018
Floor Ped
Asphalt coat on epoxy
dark grey
Floor Cycle path
Asphalt coat on epoxy
dark grey
Floor Support
Steel
off white
RAL 9016
Diagonal Rod
Steel
off white - light grey
RAL 9018
Middle Beam
Steel
off white - light grey
RAL 9018
Main vertical frame
Steel
off white
RAL 9016
Underside Pillar
Steel
off white
RAL 9016
Side Pillar
Steel
off white
RAL 9016
Pedestal
Concrete
concrete grey
Railing
Stainless steel
dark grey
RAL 7037
Mesh Fence
Aluminium/Steel
dark grey
RAL 7037
Vertical support
Steel
dark grey
RAL 7037
Spots vertical frame
LED
multi color light*
Deck light in fence
LED
multi color light*
Bridge
RAL 9016
RAL 9018
RAL 7037
Pillar
Fence
Lighting
*colors will change red when the bridge opens
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
44 | 60
MAIN CONCEPT STUDY
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
45 | 60
FIRST SKETCHES
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
46 | 60
MODEL STUDY
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
47 | 60
FIRST FORCE DIAGRAM STUDY
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
48 | 60
DETAIL EXPERIMENTATION
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
49 | 60
DETAIL EXPERIMENTATION
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
50 | 60
ROUND INSTANCE STUDY
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
51 | 60
FIRST OPENING TEST
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
52 | 60
FIRST SHAPE BRIDGE
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
53 | 60
BRIDGE OPENING STUDY
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
54 | 60
POINTS OF INTEREST
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
55 | 60
Commercial
y
ner
e Gre
BASIC FUNCTIONS
Housing
Greenery School
Housing
Housing
Par
ery
en Gre
kin
Hot
g
el
Greenery
School
Greenery
Housing
Future Culture Zone
Future Culture Zone
Industry
trial
Future Amusement Park
Housing Commercial Greenery
Housing
Housing
Industry School
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
s Indu
Housing
56 | 60 Greenery
BRIDGE 1 LOCATION RANGE
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
57 | 60
BRIDGE 2 LOCATION RANGE
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
58 | 60
BRIDGE 1 VS 2 LOCATION RANGE
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
59 | 60
BRIDGE 1 VS 2 LOCATION RANGE
PanoraMAAS | Apendix
60 | 60