The World’s Footbridges for Berlin by DETAIL

FOOTBRIDGE THE WORLDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S

FOOT BRIDGES for Berlin

76 DESIGN IDEAS

IN THE CITY OF BERLIN

FOR SIX LOCATIONS

5 Preface

The Invitation

7 8

The Task 9 FOOTBRIDGE DESIGNS

Index Footbridge Designs

1 BROMMY

6 LOCATIONS

100

4 MOABIT

156

3 GLEISDREIECK 5 SPANDAU CITADEL 6 WAISEN

122 198 228

APPENDIX

Index Designers

Committees

Design Bases For The Six Locations Sponsors

Imprint

282 286 286 287 288

CONTENTS

2 EUROPACITY

7 Footbridge 2017 in Berlin is the 6th International Footbridge Conference and its title is “tell a story”. It was conceived as an experiment, as it will be neither the classic engineer’s posterpaper-keynote lecture conference nor a sponsored architects meeting. Experiments are risky and the main risk of this independent and non-profit conference was to invite the participants to submit a footbridge design rather than a paper. Who wants to travel far, pay for a conference and on top of it give away a design idea? But it has worked out, the footbridge community is thinking in other terms!

The text on the following two pages is taken from www.footbridge2017.com where the conference was announced. For each of the six locations, engineering students of the Technische Universität Berlin prepared the design bases. Their texts and drawings introduce each location and are then followed by the pertinent designs. Most gratefully acknowledged is the support for this experiment by the Scientific Committee of this Conference co-chaired by Laurent Ney and José Romo and the Organising Committee chaired by Arndt Goldack. Mike Schlaich, Berlin

PREFACE

This book is the precious collection of this international joint effort. The World’s Footbridges for Berlin contains around 76 footbridge design ideas for six locations in the city of Berlin. It demonstrates the creativity and generosity of engineers and architects, young or established, and from all over the world at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The book—in addition to the conference proceedings which contain the stories to be told and papers on footbridge dynamics— shall serve as a souvenir for all the participants of the conference to remember the three Berlin days of debating our designs and telling our stories. Certainly this large variety of design ideas demonstrates what an important contribution to the culture of building footbridges can make.

10 6 LOCATIONS 1 BROMMY

Basler & Hofmann AG

INV(GRUBENMANN) 22

b-tu Cottbus-Senftenberg

BROMMY— ONE MORE TIME BROMMY SETS SAILS (AGAIN)

BROMMYBRIDGE 2.0—WATERSTEPS

A NEW BROMMY BRIDGE CROSSES THE SPREE

DTAH Architects Ltd Blackwell Structural Engineers

RECONNECTION FOOTBRIDGE

Federal Institute of Technology

Dietmar Feichtinger Architectes

CURVED BALANCE OVER THE SPREE

GmasP Engineering & Architecture

BROMMY ON THE WATER

BROMMY BRIDGE—REFINDING A PLACE

UNIFYING BERLIN BROMMY PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

CITY WAVE

Ingeni SA

TIE DOWN FOR MORE SLENDERNESS

Knight Architects

LINK TO INNOVATION

CONNECTION 58

Brownlie Ernst and Marks (BEaM)

INDEX FOOTBRIDGE DESIGNS

CNT Consult Engenharia Studio MK27

GRASSL Consulting Engineers

ifb frohloff staffa kühl ecker SAUERZAPFE ARCHITEKTEN Interconstech

Magnone-Pollio UDELAR

OJO 61

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

HÄNGEMATTENBRÜCKE 64

Norwegian University of Technology and Science

Dr.-Ing. Christian Müller GmbH BROMMY—RESIDENTIAL TOWER WITH BRIDGE GO+ architekten Tegeler Ingenieure GmbH

Royal HaskoningDHV

DIE BROMMY-KREUZUNG

WEAVING PATTERNS ON THE URBAN FABRIC: FOOTBRIDGE FROM FIBRE REINFORCED POLYMER

WHAT WILL I TAKE? WHAT MUST I LEAVE BEHIND? WHO WILL HELP ME?

Mark Schirmer

schlaich bergermann partner

FOOTBRIDGE OVER THE RIVER SPREE, BROMMY STRASSE, BERLIN

BROMMY NEW FOOTBRIDGE PROPOSAL JOINING SPIRALS AS AN ACT OF REGENERATION AFTER RESISTANCE

BROMMY FOOTBRIDGE

BROMMY FOOTBRIDGE—REUNITING THE EAST SIDE GALLERY WITH THE SPREE RIVER

GALLERY BRIDGE

BROMMY BRIDGE 2 A CURVED COLUMN AS MINIMAL ARCH

BERLIN’S PHOENIX

SPANS associates Systra

Sweco

TU Dresden

Universidade da Beira Interior

Integra Università G. D’Annunzio di Chieti

INDEX FOOTBRIDGE DESIGNS

12 2 EUROPACITY

Brandenburgische Technische Universität WELCOME_LIGHT_BERLIN 106 Cottbus-Senftenberg / Eisat GmbH Kolb Ripke Architekten Planungsgesellschaft mbH

INDEX FOOTBRIDGE DESIGNS

gmp Architekten HMI Ingenieure

SSF Ingenieure AG

Technische Universität Berlin

Universidade da Beira Interior

3 GLEISDREIECK

Basler & Hofmann AG

Brownlie Ernst and Marks (BEaM)

STRAIGHT IN MOMENT—MOABIT LINK TO EUROPA CITY

109

FOOTBRIDGE EUROCITY—CROSSING RAILWAY TRACKS IN FRONT OF BERLIN CENTRAL STATION

112

ORIGAMI BRIDGE IN TEXTILE CONCRETE

115

INNOVATIVE ARCH FOOTBRIDGE FOR EUROPACITY

118

GREEN WAVE

128

MORE IS MORE— A LATERALLY CABLE-STAYED FOOTBRIDGE 131 FOR GLEISDREIECK

134

Adrian Cabello ALXN arquitectes

GLEISDREIECK—TILLA DURIEUX SITE: BUCKNELL-POTSDAMER BRIDGE A REVOLUTIONARY CABLE-TRUSS BRIDGE FOR GLEISDREIECK

137 140

Ingenieurbüro Mierbach

CURVES AND TRIANGLE A CARBON CONCRETE COMPOSITION BRIDGE DESIGN AT GLEISDREIECK, BERLIN TIMBER GRANITE APPROACH

143

Bucknell University

HafenCity Universität Hamburg Knippers Helbig GmbH

Dr.-Ing. Christian Müller GmbH GO+ architekten Tegeler Ingenieure GmbH

GLEISDREIECK 146 THE RAMP WITH COMMERCIAL USE

WTM Engineers Junker + Kollegen

STONE SKIPPING FROM PARK TO PARK

149

‘TILLA DURIEUX’ AND ‘GLEISDREIECK’ UNITED AGAIN!

152

Ney and Partners

13 4 MOABIT

MOABIT CONFLUENCE S-BRIDGE ACROSS THE SPREE

162

COWI Moxon Architects Premier Composite Technologies

MOABIT FOOTBRIDGE DESIGNS

165

AN ADAPTABLE ADVANCED COMPOSITE FOOTBRIDGE

168

Bucknell University

Delft University of Technology BuroHappold Engineering

SHARC 171 A SHELL THAT IS AN ARC AS WELL

Dr.-Ing. Christian Müller GmbH GO+ architekten Tegeler Ingenieure GmbH

MOABIT 177 A BRIDGE AS A TRIBUNE

Meinhardt UK Ltd AECOM

Guy Nordenson and Associates

THE ESSENTIAL BRIDGE

174

MOABIT 180 AN INVESTIGATION OF MATERIAL EXPRESSION

A PROPOSAL: FOOTBRIDGE DESIGN FOR BERLIN AS A FLYING OPEN GALLERY AT MOABIT

183

TECHNICAL IRRATIONALITY

186

SPREE ENCOUNTER

189

BERLIN SPIRIT

192

THE SKEWED TWINS: FALSE SYMMETRY AND STABILITY

195

Design Studio K. Takenouchi Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University WSP Cityfoerster

INDEX FOOTBRIDGE DESIGNS

Aurecon Wells Architects Planners Ltd

14 5 SPANDAU CITADEL Alfred Benesch & Co

INDEX FOOTBRIDGE DESIGNS

Freyssinet International & Cie JEMS Architekci

SPANDAU CITADEL—RELAXATION

204

C-SHAPE PEDESTRIAN INTERCHANGE FOR SPANDAU NATURE PARK

207

National Taiwan University

THE PEACOCK BRIDGE

210

BRIDGE OF TRANSMUTATION— CONNECTING THE ANCIENT AND THE FUTURE

213

SPIDER WEB HILL IN SPANDAU CITADEL

216

CONCERTINA CITTADELLA

219

THE BRYDGE

222

AN ECCENTRICALLY SUPPORTED FOOTBRIDGE PROPOSAL NEARBY SPANDAU CITADEL, BERLIN

225

Marc Mimram architecture & engineering

Marco Peroni Engineering

schlaich bergermann partner schlaich bergermann partner

Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena Anta Ingeniería Civil

15 6 WAISEN

WAISEN—A WING OVER THE SPREE

234

BuroHappold Engineering

LOVE HOTEL WAISEN BRIDGE BBB

237

THE MISSING LINK

240

WAISEN: TIMBER LENS

243

PLAYING WITH FINK

246

WAISEN NETWORK ARCH FOOTBRIDGE

249

THE GATE OF WAISEN— A PROJECTION OF THE TOWN PICTURE

251

THIN & LIGHT

254

BEYOND BARRIERS A REINTERPRETATION OF THE PARAPET

257

Studio Bednarski Ltd COWI VIA Architecture

DISSING+WEITLING

Efla Consulting Engineers

Graz University of Technology

Ingeni AG

Toon Maas Gersom Wursten

Dr.-Ing. Christian Müller GmbH GO+ architekten Tegeler Ingenieure GmbH

WAISENBRÜCKE 260 THE “LIVING” BRIDGE

Norwegian University of Technology and Science Trondheim

DIGITAL STRUCTURAL CONCEPTUAL BRIDGE DESIGN

263

Norwegian University of Technology and Science Trondheim

BRIDGE TETHYS

266

Jim Rounsevell

Technische Universität Berlin

TWISTED PRETZEL

269

THE WAISENBRÜCKE—RESPECT THE PAST, SPEAK FOR THE PRESENT AND POINT THE WAY TO THE FUTURE

272

DIE RAUPE

275

WAISEN ARCH FOOTBRIDGE

278

SMEC

UCAM Murcia Univeristy of Seville

INDEX FOOTBRIDGE DESIGNS

alterARC

BROMMY

52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E

52° 31' 54.5" N 13° 21' 48.5" E

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E

52° 31' 26.5" N 13° 19' 09.7" E

52° 30' 13.0" N 13° 22' 24.8" E

The Brommy Bridge was built in 1909 and demolished in 1945. It is bridging the river Spree between the downtown districts Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain and is close to the Berlin Wall (East Side Gallery).

HISTORY

BROMMY

There were two previous bridges on the site. The first bridge was constructed for coal trains and was only later used by pedestrians. It was replaced by a road bridge in 1909, which was named after Admiral Karl Rudolf Bromme. This arch bridge was made of compressed concrete and a limestone covering. It was decorated with masonry ornaments. In 1945 it was demolished by German troops, leaving only the abutments, a pier in the river and the access from Brommystraße, which remain to this day. After the Second World War the Spree was used as a natural border between the American and Soviet sector and along the northern waterfront the Berlin Wall was erected, which inhibited any reconstruction of the bridge. Reconstruction plans only began after reunification.

SURROUNDINGS

The Brommybrücke should arch over the river Spree in Berlin, which divides the areas of Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain. Most parts to the north and south of the bridge were previously used as industrial areas and are now gradually developing and revitalizing. Many new construction projects are planned on both sides of the bridge. The bridge is therefore a crucial connection for the future developments in the area.

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

19 On the southern abutments (head of the Brommystraße) a grated viewing platform, called the Spreebalkon, was constructed in 2007. It towers over the river Spree and is used as a viewing point by many tourists. The platform gives an indication of the value a bridge at this location would have as a tourist attraction and as a local landmark.

The whole area on the river shore is now being developed under the label Media Spree, which consists of building projects by communication and media companies. Hence most of the area towards Ostbahnhof is now under construction. This development is highly controversial since some fear further gentrification of the area. The discussion about the development also influences the design of the Brommybrücke. Public debate rejected a previous plan for a road bridge, because it would have meant more disturbances by traffic. Thus public interests have to be respected in the further design process.

City developers formulated two main goals. One is to allow for more views of the river and to open more water accesses. So far there are only a few public places at the Kreuzberg waterfront which allow for a view over the river. With this in mind a path along the river is also planned. The other main goal is connecting the neighborhoods and connecting them to public transportation.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

The bridge should serve pedestrian and biking purposes. Bicycle traffic should be able to cross both ways while pedes trians should be able to stroll and linger— to appreciate the view for example. However, traffic should be able to pass continuously. The design can therefore include platforms, which can be furnished with seating areas. The bridge should serve as a local landmark and tourist attraction. A width of at least 4 m is necessary, and the railing needs to be at least 1.3 m high.

The use by road traffic is not intended but the design should allow for the weight of heavy vehicles. The crossing of a 12-t vehicle should be possible in the event of a rescue.

Frequent ship traffic is usual in this section of the Spree. Glare-free lighting should therefore be incorporated. Regarding the lighting it is important to note that: •• The height of the point of light is between 3 and 5 m. •• The setting angle is 0 degrees. •• The glass cover is clear and flat. •• There are reflectors. •• The discharging lamps are tubular. Additionally, it is required that the construction does not interfere with ship navigation systems. It has to be radar suitable. It is required that: •• Big, parallel areas should be avoided. •• Cavities should be avoided. •• Slanted construction elements should be avoided. •• A radar-absorbing coating should be applied (in the form of mats/pads). Extraordinary strains, like a ship collision, should be factored into the design, even though it is very unlikely. The construction should be accessible for all people, also for people with special needs or disabilities. This has to be especially incorporated into the choice of the covering of the floor and the design of the entrance.

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

As a footbridge, the vibrations from side winds and traffic have to be reduced. The new bridge spans about 110 m over the Spree. The construction of new piers is prohibited, because they would disturb the ship traffic. The remaining pier in the river can be used. However, it should not carry any weight because its stability is not confirmed. The same applies for the remaining abutments on the shore. The current construction (Spreebalkon) on the southern shore will be removed and reconstructed at another location and does not need to be considered in the design of the bridge. The soil material onsite has been analyzed. The southern building site consists mainly of sand of various grain sizes. On the northern site the topsoil also contains construction debris. The ground water runs on both sides about 4m below the surface. Additional foundational work is not required. The site’s height is about 36.8 m above mean sea level. The highest level of the Spree is assumed to be about 32.49 m. The lower edge of the construction should be at least 4.5 m over the river’s water level. With respect to the topographic circumstances the bridge does not need any special elevation. A 20 cm height difference to the bridge’s surroundings is sufficient.

BROMMY

On the northern shore there is an openair museum called the East Side Gallery. It contains the remnants of a painted section of the Berlin Wall, which reminds people of Berlin’s recent history. Directly next to the wall a 14-story residential building was newly constructed. Due to this construction the bridge cannot directly cross the Spree. However, the city owns an area to the building’s west, which is designated for the access to the bridge.

FUTURE CITY DEVELOPMENT PLANS

BROMMY Figure 2: Vizualisation of the Brommy Bridge structure during daytime. Note the trough cantilever of the walkway near the abutments. These perform the task of a bracket, adding support to prevent the structure from tilting.

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

BROMMY

Figure 3:Visualization: view along the Spree river, exposing soffit and historic pier

Figure 4:Visualization: Brommy at night (- techno event)

CONSIDERATIONS ON STRUCTURE AND MATERIAL

The Membrane will have to be flexible as well as tough. Due to the sheer size of it’s surface area, one would want it to be structural as well as functional. Steel could be an option in today’s available and tested materials. However, one would want this membrane to be a secure surface to walk and sit on. This would call for a coating, which also could provide maintenance benefits. Additionally, and looking further into the future, a durable, multi-layered membrane with photovoltaic capability could be an interesting solution. This membrane could consist of a structural base layer, an interstitial photovoltaic layer and a translucent outer coating. In designated areas, this coating could provide grip for walking on it. Footbridges, like the presented concept, provide stepping-stones for new technological adaptations – much in the spirit of Karl Rudolf Brommy.

We claim with this conceptual proposal, that a hypar surface structure, usually known from roof structures, can be adopted and designed to fulfill the requirements of a footbridge. In order to span the Spree river without the use of supports in the river, this will come at a price: height of structure and forces at the abutments. The latter will be the primary engineering challenge. However, we claim that the cycle/footway on either side could be made into a supporting overlaying bracket, by designing it as a cantilevered trough near the abutments. The trough sides will also add security for the user entering the passage. The walkway follows the sloping of the structural membrane, allowing a gentle inclination for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Clearly, the main material challenge will be the membrane.

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

In summertime, in a near future, it will be possible to swim on the spree. The pathways can then go down to water level. This happens by a hydraulic cylinder that helps the articulated pillars of the bridge to slide and deck WATER to descend. BROMMY ONtheTHE The deck becomes a pier over theMORE Spree. THAN 2 LINES PLEASE DO NOT USE When both pathways are lowered, a river swimming pool is created between them. José Luis FUENTES A slight movement can transform the use of a bridge, giving a new value to the Architect river. Feichtinger Architectes Dietmar The new Brommy Montreuil, France bridge becomes the event of this evolving part of Berlin. jl.fuentes@feichtingerarchitectes.com

bridge up, street level

Schème of the circulations and levels. bridge down, water level

Figure 8, above: The two levels of the new Brommy bridge, street level or river level. The story

BROMMY

The story of Brommy bridge Is the existing The stpry can be rebuilt. A destroyed bridge on an industrial aerea. Only on pillar, as memory of this The cities need access to water Uses of rivers Bridges are public space Rivers are public space Figure 10, below: The profile of the steel beams spanning over the Spree and supporting accessible wooden decks. Navigationthe can be closed at some times 4% 4% Movable bridges as events 4%

Figure 9, above: on the new Brommy bridge when down at river level. 4%

Figure 1: Historic Brommy bridge “Slinky springs to fame”, Oberhausen, Germany, 2011. 4% a) Sketch by Tobias Rehberger, b) Photo by Roman Mensing

A slight movement can transform the use And give a new value to the river 52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

BROMMY BRIDGE—REFINDING A PLACE BROMMY BRIDGE REFINDING A PLACE

Gonzalo GOBERNA Mechanical Engineer GmasP Engineering & Architecture Valencia, Spain ggoberna@gmasp.es

Mar GOBERNA Architect GmasP Engineering & Architecture Valencia, Spain mgoberna@gmasp.es

This new connection, now as a footbridge, offers the possibility of walking down the existing pier which is part of the history of Berlin. The result is not just a bridge to pass by, but to stay in a unique spot over the Spree.

General overview 52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

General layout

1/3

BROMMY

The Brommybrücke was built between 1907 and 1909 and destroyed in the Second World War in 1945. This design aims to be a contemporary approach to a footbridge solution, keeping the essence of the place, looking back to what defined the former bridge, a vault outline which shaped the views over the river.

Brommybrücke (1910) . Photography by Hermann Rückwardt

CONNECTION

III

VI VII

VII VI

I IV

CONNECTION

I I

III

II I

(II)

VII

I I

I (III)

(III)

Alexandra Vocht Architect Knight Architects High Wycombe, UK a.vocht@knightarchitects.co.uk

II I

I I

The river Spree and the wall seperate Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain.

Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain are two areas of different character. The North Bank is under-developed.

III

III III

VI VI

VII VII

VII

VI VI

V V

V II

I IV

IV IV

VI VI

II I

BROMMY

I I

III

III III

IIII

II I

(II)

(II) (II)

VII

IIII

VII I VII

I I

II IIII

II II

(III) (III)

(III) I

I I

IIII

I I

The new bridge will connect Kreuzberg with the Ostbahnhof, Mercedes-Benz Arena and the North Bank.

The ancient pier will be the platform for the new pylon.

III

VII

III

(II)

I I

(II)

VII

I VII

(III)

The new bridge will link places which have not been connected for over 70 years. This will transform areas in Friedrichshain, and the bridge will be the driving force for urban renewal on the North Bank of the Spree.

II II IV IV

I I

On the South Bank the Brommystraße will once again lead - as it did historically - towards the Brommybrücke. The ancient pier will be the platform for the new pylon, and on the North Bank the bridge will split into four distinct routes. The new Brommybrücke will act as a connection for pedestrians and cyclists coming from Kreuzberg to four different places on the North Bank. One route, designed for cyclists, will reach over an existing part of the ancient wall (which today functions as a museum) and will lead towards the Ostbahnhof, and another route for pedestrians will also pass over the wall, heading towards the Mercedes-Benz Arena. The other two routes (one for cyclists and one for pedestrians) will extend towards the North-West along the North Bank.

II II

IV I I

The Brommybrücke in Berlin was originally built as a railway bridge connecting coal trains coming from the Ostbahnhof in Friedrichshain with different stations over the river Spree in the southern part of the town. In 1909 it was rebuilt as a 95 meter long bridge for automotives, but in 1945 it was destroyed by the Nazis. Nowadays just one of the three piers of the arched bridge remains. Between 1945 and 1990 the river Spree defined the border between West and East Berlin, dividing the Russian and American Sectors in Berlin. During this time all industrial and residential buildings along the Brommystraße - which once led to the Brommybrücke - were displaced or demolished. Today the North Bank of the Spree remains under-developed, characterised by rundown buildings and unused plots of land.

I I

Two routes will connect cyclists and pedestrians coming from Kreuzberg towards Friedrichshain. 52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

I I

Areas in Friedrichshain will be transformed and the bridge will be the driving force for urban renewal.

III

I I

Ostbahnhof

Spree

Brommystraße

Wall

Urban plan 1:2500

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

BROMMY

III

On the northern side, a new 60m high building overlooks the area. The height of the pylon is chosen to reach the same height as the existing building when it is seen from the other side of the river, and the ratio between the bridge length and the building height is equal to the golden number. For aesthetic reasons, we considered one single, central line of cable. To limit the dead loads, the deck consists of a steel box girder supporting a nonstructural concrete slab.

between the retaining cable and the pylon equals the angle between the pylon and the resultant force of the stay cables.

DESIGN OF THE PYLON AND CABLES

BROMMY

The pylon will be founded in the existing pier. This pier can support the vertical loads, but horizontal reactions and support moments must be limited. The horizontal forces introduced at the top of the pylon by the cables supporting the longest span are balanced by a backstay cable fixed on the southern bank of the river.

Figure 4: a) 3D view of the bridge b) Inclination of the pylon in transverse direction

The pylon will be made in steel with variable circular hollow section that is currently done for such inclined structure.

Figure 3: Position of the anchor

The anchor of the retaining cable is aligned with the southern abutment of the bridge, parallelly to the river. The lateral position is chosen to align the retaining cable with the farthest stay cable. That position makes the bridge’s geometry slimmer and reduces the distance between the abutment and the anchor. The pylon is inclined longitudinally and transversally to simplify the balance of the tension forces between the stay cables and the retaining cable. The inclination of the pylon is determined in both directions so that the angle

Figure 5: Inclination of the pylon in longitudinal direction

In this geometry, the forces in the cables are balanced. The loads due to the weight of the deck and tension in the cables only give compression in the pylon. Bending moment at the foot of the pylon will be only due to its dead loads and live loads acting on the deck. The inclination of the pylon can be adjusted to limit this moment. The more efficient geometry is obtained when the support

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

moment due to live loads is twice bigger and opposite to the moment due to dead loads. The design moment is then divided by two and equals the half moment of the live loads. This optimization in only possible for steel pylon because the strength of the section does not depend on the direction of the forces. Also, steel is not sensible to creep effect, then it is possible to design it with a permanent moment. SUPPORT REACTIONS Figure 7: a) Front view of the transfer beam between the anchor of the retaining cable and the abutment of the bridge b) Plan view of the transfer beam

Transversal forces due to the inclination of the cables cannot be transferred to the abutment. They are transmitted to the existing pier. The pier can resist these forces because they are pushing in the direction of its biggest inertia. The deck has to resist horizontal bending moment due to these transversal forces.

Figure 8: a) Support reaction in transversal direction b) Displacements under live loads

Figure 6: Horizontal forces in longitudinal direction

The transfer beam also helps the equilibrium of the vertical forces. The weight of the shortest span and the self-weight of the transfer beam will balance the uplift reaction of the retaining cable.

CONCLUSION From a simple context, a relatively complex structure is born, where everything can be explained through this story.

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

BROMMY

The tension forces acting in the cables have longitudinal and transversal components. The longitudinal components will create important compression forces in the deck. To avoid loading the existing pier, these compression forces are transmitted to the southern abutment. As the cables are not aligned with the deck, the tension force in the retaining cable (T) is not balanced directly by the compression force in the deck (Fx). A transfer beam is created between the anchor of the retaining cable and the abutment to equilibrate these forces.

BROMMY

Figure 3: General plan

Figure 4: Conceptual prospective

Figure 5: Conceptual front view

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

BROMMY

52° 30' 20.4" N 13° 26' 11.5" E 1 / 6

102

Location at the entrance of the future city quarter “Europacity”, bridging several train tracks, located close to Berlin Central Station.

SITE SPECIFICATIONS

The Europacity is a planned development area with a sustainable design concept which will be located north of the central station (Hauptbahnhof) in Berlin. In this development process a new link for pedestrians and cyclists between the quarters Moabit and Mitte has been proposed. To complete this link a bridge crossing the tracks emerging from the central station has yet to be planned.

EUROPACITY

HISTORY

During the 19th century the area around Heidestraße developed into a site for railroads. Three railroad stations were constructed, one of them was called Hamburger Bahnhof located right next to Heidestraße. After the Second World War the area was severely destroyed by bombs. During the division of Berlin, the quarter got into a peripheral location and became a no man's land. Since that time, it was used as a container terminal. Up until 2003 the area was dominated by its railroads, when the Berlin senate decided to build a new depot station elsewhere. After 150 years of being designated to railroads the area has the chance for new developments.

52° 31' 54.5" N 13° 21' 48.5" E 2 / 6

103 TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

The central station with its connection to the train, S-Bahn, tram, bus and underground network creates the main access point to public transport. An existing bus line through Lehrter Straße and future bus lines through the Europacity complete an integrated network. A new S-Bahn line (S 21, currently in construction) will also enable quick connection with the northern part of the ring network.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

With a new horizontal link between the quarters of Moabit and Mitte, at the heart of the Europacity, new possibilities for pedestrians and cyclists alike will be en abled. Currently the only options are to use the roads north and south of the area or use the walkway along the river Spree even further to the south. On the eastern edge of the Europacity one footbridge already exists and two more are planned, crossing the Berlin-Spandau Ship Canal. These bridges will connect the Europacity to a highly frequented walkway along the eastern banks of the canal. Thus the necessity for a link of the rail tracks is further underlined.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT

The new Europacity will be a show-piece for modern architecture like no other, combining aspects of living, working, shopping, culture and leisure. On the western side of the tracks, with a green strip in between, a new residential area is also in development. The leisure area in and around the Post stadion, with its park, stadium, tennis courts, public pool, spa and climbing center, west of the Lehrter Straße, is another crucial part to be connected by the new bridge over the tracks.

The following specifications should be met if possible. Also, the boundaries of the marked areas for the construction of the ramps should not be exceeded. •• Deck width— railing to railing — 4 m •• Headroom underneath the footbridge over the bridge deck — 2.5 m •• Maximum slope of the ramps — 6 % •• Intermediate landings according to Eurocode •• Required clearance for trains — 6.2 m + adjustment of the overhead cable, in coordination with the DB Netz AG (it is suggested to work with just the 6.2 m clearance, otherwise the standard clearance would be set to 7.7 m) •• High-voltage protection according to RiZ-ING Elt 2 •• Bridge loads according to Eurocode •• Impact protection and calculation according to Eurocode •• Safety distance of the base structures to the rails according to DS 804 •• Handrails for cyclists and pedestrians — 1.3 m •• The ground in and around the proposed bridge is peat over sludge over sand •• The stable subsoil of the sand can be expected in the range of 4 — 6 m beneath the ground

52° 31' 54.5" N 13° 21' 48.5" E 2 / 6

DESIRED SPECIFICATIONS

•• Vibration should be kept at a minimal

level, without dampers

•• Cavities, especially open ones, should

be avoided

EUROPACITY

The traffic in the area is heavily dominated by the Heidestraße, which is also a part of the federal highway B 96. It connects the northern part of Berlin with the south, entering the Tiergartentunnel at the southern tip of the Europacity, next to the central station. Also heavily frequented roads are the Perleberger Straße and the Invalidenstraße, creating the northern and southern borders of the area. The Lehrter Straße at the western edge of the area is a less frequented road crossing through a residential area.

PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE CONNECTIVITY

108

EUROPACITY Perspektive 52° 31' 54.5" N 13° 21' 48.5" E 2 / 6

109

STRAIGHT IN MOMENT—MOABIT LINK TO EUROPA CITY Moabit

Straight in Moment

Mitte

Moabit Link to Europa City

HMI Ingenieure

Hubert Nienhoff, Hans-Joachim Paap, Markus Pfisterer, Helge Lezius Hardenbergstrasse 4-5 10623 Berlin

Joachim Hartwich, Uwe Bernhardt, Arkadiusz Jaschke Helmholtzstrasse 2-9 10587 Berlin

berlin@gmp-architekten.de

info@hming.de

Europa City

EUROPACITY

gmp Architekten

With Europacity, a completely new city centre is being constructed, right within the heart of the city. Situated just north of Berlin‘s main railway station, in the area of Heidestrasse, mixed use, living urban spaces are being developed on the unused former railway stations of the Hamburger Bahnhof and Lehrter station. Although the area is well developed along its north-south axis; the Berlin-Spandauer-Ship Canal to the east and the existing railway lines leading to the main station in the west act as development barriers, which strongly interfere with the neighboring districts of Mitte and Moabit.

gmp HMI 52° 31' 54.5" N 13° 21' 48.5" E 2 / 6

118

INNOVATIVE ARCH FOOTBRIDGE FOR EUROPACITY INNOVATIVE ARCH FOOTBRIDGE FOR EUROPACITY Clemente PINTO Professor Universidade da Beira Interior Covilhã, Portugal cmp@ubi.pt

João FONSECA Professor Universidade da Beira Interior Covilhã, Portugal jfonseca@ubi.pt

Figure 1: Solution for long span arch bridge with hinged arch and an additional system of stiffness through vertical ties (“invisible columns) [2].

EUROPACITY

INTRODUCTION Arch bridges allow long spans without intermediate supports, equilibrating vertical loadings in a very efficient way. Typical arch bridges carry nonuniform live loads with bending in the arch or in the deck. The Salginatobel and the Schwandbach bridges [1] are major references of the two types of solutions. In Salginatobel the global equilibrium under asymmetric loads results from bending in a stiff arch and in Schwandbach in a stiff deck. According to [2], it is possible to design arch bridges in which the arch is slender, and the deck is thin, mobilizing external reactions through definitive ties (Figure 1). The prestressed ties, externally anchored and strategically connected to the bridge structure, transfer tension and relative compression forces. The transference of compression forces is only possible due to prestressing, for which the arch is the system of reaction. It seems possible to consider the added permanent ties as “invisible" columns, due to the relation between the slenderness and the load transferred. The solutions developed in [2] were motivated by the goal to use high strength granite in the construction of new long span arch bridges, making also use of lateral bracing through prestressed cables to construct slender ashlar columns (Figure 2). However, the more modest span and rise of the Europacity bridge justify the use of steel elements for the arch, without additional bracing system.

Section 1-1 1

Figure 2: High strength granite ashlar column braced by prestressed cables and transversal struts [2].

PROPOSED SOLUTION The conceptual design aims a slender and “minimal” structure, for which the added permanent ties have a fundamental role. The idea of “minimal” corresponds in this case to have a minimum number of hangers and a slender polygonal arch. The proposed solution for Europacity corresponds to two parallel tied arches with 90 m span and 15 m rise. The arch supports the deck by four hangers, with a clear span equal to 30 m (Figure 3). The added permanent ties are connected to the girders in the same section of the hangers. The position in the vertical direction corresponds to the maximum efficiency concerning stiffness. These prestressed ties work as paths that directly transfer vertical loads, alleviating the deck and the arch. Thus, it is possible to have a slender arch, made by a steel tube with 500 mm

52° 31' 54.5" N 13° 21' 48.5" E 2 / 6

119

diameter, corresponding to a slenderness of the polygonal parts (l/d) equal to 64. Two parallel girders with 700 mm height, spaced by 4 m, connected by transversal beams and containing a bracing system composes the deck structure. The platform is obtained with to timber boards over a steel grid.

The equilibrium under wind loads is warranted by common X-bracing systems placed in the deck and between the two arches. FINAL REMARKS

PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL DESIGN

REFERRENCES

The added permanent ties transfer by compression almost 50% of the applied live loads, which is possible with 20 cm2 cross-section and a prestressing force equal to 400 kN in each tie. The arch has an anti-funicular shape for the permanent loads, which implies lower bending moments and permits higher slenderness. A non-linear geometric analysis was a preliminary confirmation of the safety in ULS. The strategy for the analysis was to model a geometric imperfection, corresponding to L/300 in relation to the adopted anti-funicular shape and based on the buckling modes.

[1] Billington D. Robert Maillart Bridges, The Art of Engineering. Princeton University Press, 1979. [2] Pinto, C. – Contribuição para a concepção e dimensionamento de novas estruturas em granito de alta resistência Contribution for the design and project of new structures with high strength granite. (Portuguese). Phd. Thesis. University of Beira Interior, 2015, 136p. [3] SÉTRA, Footbridges – Assessment of vibrational behaviour of footbridges under pedestrian loading, Association Française de Génie Civil, Paris, 2006, 131 pp.

52° 31' 54.5" N 13° 21' 48.5" E 2 / 6

EUROPACITY

The solution is globally flexible due to the slenderness of the arch and the reduced stiffness of the deck girders. Thus, the added ties have also a significant role in the service behavior concerning vibrations and deformations. A preliminary analysis for a dense crowd of pedestrians indicates a maximum level of comfort which, according to [3], implies a maximum vertical acceleration equal to 0,5 m/s2. Based on [3], the range of natural frequencies of the horizontal vibration modes imply a “low risk of resonance for standard loading conditions”. The maximum vertical displacement of the deck under a asymmetrical rare loading is close to 8,4 cm, corresponding to 1/350 of the distance between the hangers.

An arch footbridge seems to be an adequate solution, taking into consideration the conditions of Europacity. The proposed design aims a flexible structure with a minimum of structural elements and connections, which differs from typical arch bridges. That goal is possible due to the added permanent ties, which increase the structural stiffness using slender elements. The footbridge with the permanent prestressed ties corresponds to an innovative solution in which the added permanent ties replaces the role of a stiff arch or deck. Thus, it is possible a global reduction of the self-weight and increasing of flexibility, which also implies a reduction of internal forces in the arch and the deck.

124

GLEISDREIECK

Situated in Berlin’s new highrise area “Potsdamer Platz”, the bridge for this site should connect the two inner city parks “Tilla Durieux” and the “Park am Gleisdreieck” over the ship canal “Landwehrkanal”.

SITE SPECIFICATIONS HISTORY

Until the end of World War II, what is now Tilla Durieux Park used to be Potsdamer Bahnhof — Berlin’s first railway terminus. The new footbridge is to be built where once the tracks leading to it crossed the channel (and the two adjacent roads). But the old bridge does not exist anymore: the end of the war left Berlin divided and once central, bustling Potsdamer Platz found itself integrated into the death strip that separated East from West with the Berlin Wall running right through it. Thus, rebuilding the destroyed railway station next to the wall in no man’s land of West Berlin made no sense. The area north of the channel was used only to build an elevated Maglev train line that was rendered redundant when Berlin became reunified; the area south of the channel was simply used as a stockyard. Today, two parks can be found here: Smaller Tilla Durieux Park (named after a stage actress who was very popular during the 1920s) in the north and Park am Gleisdreieck (“Park at Triangular Junction”) in the south.

52° 30' 13.0" N 13° 22' 24.8" E 3 / 6

125 THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

The two parks are part of the attempt to create 20 green pathways through Berlin. Planned by Amsterdam-based “DS Landschapsarchitecten”, Tilla Durieux Park is known for its lawn sculpture with a length of 450 metres and five seesaws with a length of more than 20 metres each splitting the “lawn cushions” into two parts.

After 1990, Potsdamer Platz became Europe’s largest building site. One of the tower buildings is located close to the channel and will be clearly visible from the new bridge: the 21-storey Atrium Tower (formerly debis tower) designed by Renzo Piano.

A shipping pier is located at the northern bank of the channel; its design may be changed and the location slightly moved, but the ability to embark or disembark a ship there must remain. Furthermore, the width of the channel must not be narrowed.

A new railway line “S 21” is scheduled to be built by 2025. It will be located on the east side of the parks, parallel to the existing railway route that is above ground. It will pass through the car park, which will soon be partially converted into apartments (with view of the park).

A free view into the parks and the visual axis from one park to the other should remain.

Besides the four train tunnels, a longdistance heat pipeline runs under the channel at a depth of 10.00 metres. Wastewater disposal lines can be found underneath the forecourt of Tilla Durieux Park (1,800 mm), as well as below the two streets and between rescue area and street (1,000 mm). An underground wastewater pressure line runs on the eastern edge of the public property; the top of the small rampart is private property. The sites east and west of the parks are privately owned as well.

Also, at the southern end of the forecourt of Tilla Durieux Park an entrance to underground parking is located.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

There are several general requirements that must be met: First of all, the bridge must be at least 4 metres wide, as pedestrians and cyclists are to cross it in both directions.

The height of the guard rail must measure at least 1.30 metres. Please keep in mind that wheelchair users cross the bridge as well, so please avoid any line-of-sight obstructions for them. The ramp gradient must be at a maximum of 6%. The Berlin administration requires a possible loading of 12 tons.

52° 30' 13.0" N 13° 22' 24.8" E 3 / 6

Several criteria regarding the height of the bridge must be met: above the street, the required clearance is 4.50 metres (this will be decisive), and the clearance above the channel is 3.00 metres above flood level. The northernmost part of Park am Gleisdreieck is a rescue area for the four train tunnels located 12.15 metres below ground level. The required clearance of this area is 3.5 metres, and a helicopter must be able to land there. Ship impact does not need to be included in the design unless pillars are at least 5 metres away from the embankments, which consist of walls of various heights and slopes. At a depth of 1 metre, noncohesive soil can be found. Regarding the design of the bridge, bear in mind that its vibration must be low. Additionally, it should be protected against vandalism, and “dirt traps” should be avoided so that maintenance requirements would be low. Finally, its lightning must not impede the traffic.

GLEISDREIECK

Park am Gleisdreck is much larger than Tilla Durieux Park and the citizens of Berlin participated in its planning. It is characterized by lawn areas for playing and sunbathing, some copses, long wooden benches, playgrounds and paved paths for pedestrians, cyclists and skaters plus some historic relicts from its time of trains and tracks. In fact, you can still find some railway sidings throughout the park.

The bridge will not only connect the two parks, but furthermore provide a “missing link” of the long-distance cycle track “Berlin-Leipzig“, which runs through both parks (at present, the routes are located on the west side of Tilla Durieux Park and on the east side of Park am Gleisdreieck; cyclists must cross the streets and use a bridge east of the parks to continue on the track).

132

GLEISDREIECK

Figure 3 Aerial View. The deck occupies a transitional space between canal banks.

ALIGNMENT AND CONFIGURATION The bridge crosses the Landwehrkanal on an extremely exaggerated skew, following a plan trajectory that is almost parallel to the canal being crossed. Pedestrians are cradled above the water in a valley of pylons and stays and can engage with the space between canal banks in a more meaningful way than would be permitted by a more orthogonal crossing of the water. The deck is supported from stay cables which are hung laterally from multiple pylons at the canal banks rather than by stays arranged longitudinally suspended from mast(s) at the ends of the span as is the more common arrangement. The deck occupies a spatially charged “no-man’s land” between pylons, occupying neither parkland but supported from structure allied to both. As the bridge user moves over the water, the pylon array on one side diminishes in height as the opposing array grows, symbolically handing the pedestrian over from one park to the next. The approaches to the bridge utilise the topography and geometry of the existing landscape with ramps configured as extensions of the existing embankment in Tilla Durieux Park to the north and to the primary axial route in Gleisedreieck Park to the south.

STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT Although the pylon array is highly visible in axial views from each greenspace, the structure itself is filigree. The linear arrangement of pylons and stays across the water make the crossing visually permeable to views across the canal. The structure has an undeniable presence but does not restrict local vistas. Each pylon leans incrementally across the canal in a plane that is perpendicular to the canal bank and not to the deck being supported. Each pylon suspends a small portion of the footway deck via two stays. Loads from the deck are shared equally with the pylon at the opposing canal bank such that the weight and live load of the whole bridge deck is distributed between twenty pylons. This makes the forces in each member relatively modest such that the base of each pylon can be founded on a simple strip footing, eliminating the need for piled foundations next to the existing canal wall. The forward rake of each pylon is restrained by a single back stay, aligned in-plane with the individual pylon it supports. The backstays pass above Schöneberger Ufer to the south of the canal and above Reichpietschufer and the entrance to the carpark to the north so that the bridge engages spatially with the canalside roads at ground level. The arrangement extends the influence of the greenspaces over the highway, portalising the road so that drivers legibly experience a sense of passing through, not passing by, the parkland on each side. Loads from backstays are relatively modest and the intent is that tension forces will be resisted using mass concrete foundations and ground beams, avoiding the need for expensive tension piles.

52° 30' 13.0" N 13° 22' 24.8" E 3 / 6

Figure 4 View of skewed bridge deck from Landwehr Canal.

133

Figure 6 Transverse Section through Bridge Deck

DECK SUPERSTRUCTURE The deck is supported laterally from multiple stay cables and pylons. All stay cables have an identical transverse inclination such that the deck is perfectly balanced under dead-load conditions, despite its skewed trajectory. Live-load torsion effects are resisted by a tapered deck box, 4m in width and 500mm in depth. The deck box is stiffened by transverse diaphragms which are skewed to the bridge deck in plan such that they directly link opposing stay cables from opposing masts. The diaphragms are expressed as ribs at the deck soffit and manifest as baluster posts above deck level, skewed relative to the deck edge, which support a continuous handrail. The skewed arrangement increases the visual permeability of the superstructure in long views and reinforces the axis of the two parks in views from the bridge. A stainless steel tension mesh is used to infill the void between baluster posts and to provide seamless protection at the deck edge for bridge users. A continuous anchorage plate links adjacent diaphragms longitudinally at low level to distribute loads into the stays. The plate is planar with the stays and its rear face is used to reflect light from a linear LED luminaire concealed in the handrail to the underside of the structure without the need for direct access to the soffit.

Figure 7 View of Laterally Cable-Stayed Bridge from George C Marshall Brücke.

52° 30' 13.0" N 13° 22' 24.8" E 3 / 6

GLEISDREIECK

Figure 5 View west from Reichpietschufer. Space captured beneath the backstay array portalises the roadway at the end of Tilla Durieux Park.

CONCLUSION The bridge is a bespoke and poetic solution to a unique set of physical, social, historic and spatial parameters. The structure not only provides a physical connection across the Landwehrkanal, but also makes an intervention into the fabric of Berlin to provide visual connectivity on an urban scale and an engaging spatial sequence for the bridge user.

138

 2

Global stiffness is provided by inertia I = A1 x e /2 = 172.9 cm x 7.662 / 2 m , giving a maximum vertical deflection = 26mm < L/1000. Cross sections for both type of trusses are represented below. 3 Fully Locked Cables (FLC) φ92, modelled for analysis as one equivalent diameter 148.4mm.

GLEISDREIECK

Struts SHS 100x100x10 (tapered). They transfer compression due to the change of curvature of the cable. e Deck girder RHS 450x250x14.2. Works in bending and compression.

Fig. 4. Real-scale comparison of 3xFLC φ92 to CHS 324x16

An important consequence of the conventional truss option is that the chords must be continuous and fully welded to the struts so that the whole system Deck + Struts + Chords has to be welded on workshopand transported to the site as one piece.   The design of the cable truss is governed by buckling phenomena. The prestress force (PS) is optimized to give the maximum buckling factor for the deck. Struts are optimized to get similar bucklingcapacity. Under an input prestress (PS) = 1620 KN/cable the global bucklingfactor (GBF) = 2.7 and the strut local buckling factor (SBF) = 2.9.

If it is sought the same stiffness without prestress, the truss buckles at factor 0.09. Hollow tubes are required or f the chords and they will look as follows:

Size dictated by buckling of the upper chord. Minimum commercial profile to achieve better buckling factor than the cable truss, without increasing the area, is CHS 324x16. A2 =A1 e

Deck girder can be slightly reduced because it works only in bending but SLS criteria (deformations, vibrations) will prevent a significant weight drop.

A2 =A1 Struts size can be reduced because they take less compression but care should be taken since they are involved in the global buckling phenomena.

Fig. 5. Left: First global buckling mode of the system. Right: Result of the optimization process

The fundamental frequency of the deck is 2.0 Hz, corresponding to the second vertical sinusoidal shape. Hivoss guideline for footfall analysis advises the critical range of natural frequencies of footbridges is from 1.25 Hz to 2.3 Hz. By adding diagonal cables φ24 the fundamental frequency of the deck rises to 3.9 Hz. These diagonals help also to cope with unbalanced loads and increase the global buckling factor.

52° 30' 13.0" N 13° 22' 24.8" E 3 / 6

139



GLEISDREIECK

Fig. 6. Left: Detail of the clamp to connect cables to struts. Centre: Strut pinned to the girder to enable prestress sequence, but fixed for moments about the deck axis. Right: sketch in plan of the prestress sequence. This is a sensitive operation that requires the 4 jacks working at once or at small intervals and a thorough monitoring of the sequence.

The deck (main girders + secondary beams) is to be shipped to the site and erected with a crane. The beams remain elastic subjected only to bending from the selfweight. Once in position, cables come with the clamps attached at the exact location required for the nominal geometry (Dead Load + PS) and with the struts hanging from the clamps. Struts are manually pinned. Lastly, 4 jacks are placed at girder end-anchorage points and cables are prestressed until being pinned. The deck is inspired in wooden sleepers and the cables evoke the catenary of a railway that once dominated the surroundings

52° 30' 13.0" N 13° 22' 24.8" E 3 / 6

158

The location of this bridge family is at the confluence of the river Spree and the ship canal “Landwehrkanal” connecting the downtown districts Charlottenburg and Moabit.

SITE SPECIFICATIONS

The bridges are to connect Charlottenburg and Moabit, two quarters of Berlin which are located in the center of the capital of Germany.

MOABIT

The area contains mainly sports infrastructure such as sports fields, a ball court, playgrounds and a gymnasium. The most important buildings in the area are the thermal power station Charlottenburg, the Water Police station, a car service station, the Technical University Berlin, an IWF factory and office buildings. On the banks of the river there are also some cafes.

HISTORY

Charlottenburg was once the center of the former West Berlin and is now popular for its shopping district and many wellknown hotels. On the contrary Moabit was an industrial suburb district, where because of its proximity to the city centre a government quarter and central rail station were built. One of the bridges will connect the banks of the Spree River and the other will serve as a link between Goslarer Ufer with Neues Ufer. Both of the bridges can be found on the city plans from the late XIX century and the early XX century in almost exactly the same spots.

52° 31' 26.5" N 13° 19' 09.7" E 4 / 6

159 WATERWAYS

The bridges are located near Spreekreuzplace where the Spree River connects with Charlottenburg Canal and Landwehrkanal. While Spree and Landwehrkanal are two of the most popular waterways of Berlin, the Charlottenburg Canal (over which one of the bridges is to be built) is not very popular and usually omitted during city tours.

CYCLING AND WALKING INFRASTRUCTURE

Another advantage would be the connection between the apartments which are being built near Goslarer Ufer and the sports fields, playgrounds and school on the other side of the waterway.

The bridge over the Spree River will be located on the Salz-Ufer side between Clara von Simson street and Carnot street and near the sports field on the other side. The second bridge will connect the Quedlinburger Street to the other bank of Charlottenburg Canal. The land is the property of the State of Berlin and the sites are in public use.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

•• The minimum width of the bridges is

4,0 m. Their minimum height over the water is 4,5 m. •• The maximum gradient of the walkways of the bridges is 6 %. •• The clear height under the bridges cannot be less than 2,5 m above the road. •• Their load capacity cannot be less than 5 kN/m. •• Within the project area the height coordinates lie between approximately 34,10 m (sports fields) to 34,00 m (Neues Ufer), 32,8 m (Salz-Ufer), and 36,70 m (at the junction of Goslarer Ufer with Quedlinburger Straße).

SOIL

The foundation soil is in bad condition and consists mainly of sludge and sand. The height of the banks in the area is around 1.3 m. The loadbearing soil is located 2—3 m deep on both sides of the river and 3—4 m deep on both sides of the canal. The height of the main aquifer is 30,5—31,0 m.a.s.l. The exchange frequency of the water in the area is very high.

TRANSPORT

The nearest metro and city-rail stations are relatively far away. The bridge over the Spree River would shorten the way to the nearest bus stop for the students of the Technical University and the inhabitants in the area of the campus.

OTHER

The bridges have to be illuminated, but the lights should not impede the shipping traffic. Precautions should be taken against vandalism at both bridges.

52° 31' 26.5" N 13° 19' 09.7" E 4 / 6

MOABIT

There are cycling and pedestrian routes on both sides of the Spree. One of them is a part of Berlin's green-ways, a route for pedestrians and cyclists which offers a great view of the river. Due to the locations of bridges nearby (or rather the lack of them) many cycle routes are disconnected from each other and long detours are necessary. The bridges would make travelling easier by providing a link between these routes. They would enrich Berlins cycling and walking infrastructure, offering people more variety in choosing routes for their workouts or tourist trips. Also, the bridges would serve as another attraction for tourist boat trips.

LOCATION

162

MOABIT CONFLUENCE S-BRIDGE ACROSS THE SPREE MOABIT CONFLUENCE S- BRIDGE ACROSS THE SPREE

MOABIT

John McNEIL Techncial Director Bridges Aurecon Auckland, New Zealand john.mcneil@aurecongroup.com

Oliver de LAUTOUR Associate - Bridges Aurecon Auckland, New Zealand oliver.delautour@aurecongroup.com

Jeff WELLS Bridge Architect Wells Architects Planners Ltd Auckland, New Zealand jeff@wapl.co.nz

Rowland BURKE Professional Engineer - Bridges Aurecon Tshwane, South Africa rowland.burke@aurecongroup.com

INSPIRATION Our team was inspired by the Moabit site, particula rly as it required crossing both a canal and the Spree, providing the opportunity to develop structures which are connected. On investigation of the location we found that the confluence of canals with the Spree to the south pr ovided an opportunity to create a unique crossing. Footbridges provide connections across roads and waterways. While the meeting of four roads is common, bridges at such anintersection are not. Unlike road intersections, waterway crossroads are rare and limited to the few cities in the world defined by their canal systems. We were inspired to develop a solution to cross at the confluence of the Spree, Landwehr and Charlottenburg canals and seamlessly link all four corners of this intersection.

52° 31' 26.5" N 13° 19' 09.7" E 4 / 6

163

OUR PROPOSAL – THE S-BRIDGE Our proposal is to cross four water ways with an S-shaped alignment supported from two suspension masts. The cables are anchored with a combination of self-anchor system in the deck and back stays on the approaches. The deck is a four metre wide steel box with torsion capacity to allow cables to be connected to one side of the deck. We want to create a fun playful experience for users, allowing them to access all corners of the canals at this location. It provides a four point connection in a unique way and may provide users with a feeling of floating surrounded by water, but also provide a clear route to get to all corners

We considered the idea of activating the masts by incorporating a lift to provide access to a lookout from a “crows nest” atop each mast. A more suitable solution might be to encourage storks to nest. Why should bridges be only for people?

52° 31' 26.5" N 13° 19' 09.7" E 4 / 6

MOABIT

A suspension cable support system is chosen to provide a cable arrangement which visually complements the curvaceous alignment, while keeping the mast heights lower than required for a cable stayed solution. Connections at each node are provided with ramps linking to existing paths along the river banks.

184

2. Proposal - illustration

MOABIT

Figure: 3 cross section of the deck

Figure: 4 lateral view of the glass fence(above), concreate fence as some counterweight (below)

Figure 2: a ground design plan

52° 31' 26.5" N 13° 19' 09.7" E 4 / 6

185

3. Proposal-impression CG

Figure: 7 some sort of Illuninants leading to the pathway, and letting them joy in the night. CG@atelier taf

Figure: 5 bird’s-eye view of the bridge

52° 31' 26.5" N 13° 19' 09.7" E 4 / 6

MOABIT

Figure: 6 oval upper deck during the daytime

200

This bridge family is located 20 minutes outside of Berlin in the district Spandau close to the historic monument Spandau Citadel.

IN GENERAL: CITADEL PART OF SPANDAU

Spandau, as one of the oldest districts of Berlin, has a diverse historical background, including Spandau Citadel. The translation of “Spandau” from the Slavic word “Spandowe” means confluence and shows the importance of the location of Spandau Citadel and the bridges which are planned to reach the citadel.

SPANDAU

First mentioned in the 12th century as a fortress city, Spandau became part of Berlin in 1913. A long time it was the guardian of Berlin because of its geographical location and the direct connection to the Havel. Spandau was the military hotspot and also a great emporium on the route of commerce from Magdeburg to Poland. Being one of the main producers of military equipment, the citadel was used as a store and retreat for the military.

52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E 5 / 6

201 HISTORY OF THE SPANDAU CITADEL

TODAY

Since the end of the 19th century, the Spandau Citadel has lost its defensive purpose while the importance of civil purpose and cultural use has increased steadily. More and more buildings were converted to museums and exhibitions and the place has become a popular tourist spot. More than just an old fortress to visit, the citadel became a place of joy. Almost every night the citadel hosts concerts and other events. A theatre in the middle of the building assures the pleasure for young and old. The former laboratory of warfare agents has been converted to ateliers for painters, sculptors and other artists.

The Juliusturm (Tower) is one of the town’s landmarks although the year of construction is unknown. The building, 30m in height, stands next to the south western bastion “König” and was probably used as a peel or even a dungeon. After World War II the Juliusturm was part of a saying to describe the situation of owning more money than spending it. So the tower pictures safety and affluence. The historic center of Spandau is located in the south-west of the citadel. Since it is surrounded by water, it is often described as an island. Even though the city was almost completely destroyed by the end of 1945, architects and engineers were able to rebuild the old town’s houses and streets and revive the character of the fortress city.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

The Spandau Citadel and its surroundings need to go through an environmental and visitor friendly development in order to preserve the ecological balance of this area and simultaneously increase the experiential value of Spandau Citadel. At the moment there is only one way to reach the island—the “Zitadellenbrücke” (citadel bridge). Therefore, two new bridges are planned: 1. Footbridge north of Juliusturm-Bridge 2. Footbridge over ditch

On the one hand bridges influence the environment, improving the route guidance of cyclists and pedestrians by linking existing routes. On the other hand an increase of visibility of the fortress can be reached as the footbridges serve as viewing platforms. Nevertheless, several limiting conditions and requirements have to be taken into account.

CHALLENGES OF THE BRIDGES

According to German regulations, footbridges have to be accessible for people with impairments, therefore the ramp’s gradient should not exceed more than 6°. Moreover, the bridges are used by pedestrians and cyclists, so a width of at least 4.00 m and a railing height of 1.30 m are demanded. Cars are not allowed to pass the bridges, although footbridges are designed to carry maximum loads of 12 t (see National Annex of EC 3). Aside from that, this area is listed as an urban heritage, a protected landscape, an area of species protection and a Flora-FaunaHabitat. This is the reason why both bridges have to have low maintenance requirements in order to prevent nature gaining prevalence in hollow spaces. The foundation soil can be described as boggy.

52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E 5 / 6

FOOTBRIDGE NORTH OF JULIUSTURM-BRIDGE

As the Spandau citadel is located at the confluence of the rivers Havel and Spree shipping and transport have a special importance. The confluence is part of the Havel-Oder-Waterway and includes a watergate between the glacis of the fortress and the neighbourhood Kolk of Spandau. The owner of the waterway and watergate is the “Bundeswasserverwaltung”, which imposed the following regulation: Bridge and watergate have to be separate buildings spatially and legally. It is not allowed to build a bridge over, above or across the watergate, so that a compromise was reached by choosing the site for the new bridge north of the Juliusturm-Bridge. Nevertheless, this location still includes shipping and traffic as well during the time of building. The traffic of container vessels requires at least a clear height of 5.25 m above water surface and pillars are suggested at the riversides. The bridge has to span about 50 m. The operating water level amounts to 30 m above sea level. Unfortunately at both riversides the space for ramps is limited.

FOOTBRIDGE OVER DITCH

The bridge at the second site is the smaller one as it only spans about 17 m from the glacis of the fortress to the street “Am Juliusturm”. Its necessary clearance is 2.80 m because this waterway is only used by smaller boats for the purpose of inspection.

SPANDAU

With the development of firearms medieval castles lost their importance. However, the fear of the invasion of the Ottomans demanded buildings for defence throughout Europe. This was the reason why the Italian architect Rochus Graf zu Lynar designed a fortress instead of a castle in Spandau in 1559. After 35 years of building time, the citadel was finished to fulfil its main aim of protecting the town Spandau and the water route to Berlin. Even though the Ottoman invasion has never taken place, the citadel was a site of war several times during history. During World War II hundreds of scientists experimented here with warfare agents such as sarin, tabun or hydrogen cyanide on behalf of the Nazi Regime.

GENIUS LOCI

204

SPANDAU CITADEL— RELAXATION SPANDAU CITADEL – RELAXATION Hossam ABDOU Sr. VP, Chief Structural Engineer Alfred Benesch & Co. Chicago, Illinois, USA habdou@benesch.com

SPANDAU

Muthiah KASI Chairman Emeritus Alfred Benesch & Co. Chicago, Illinois, USA mkasi@benesch.com

The new transportation structure is surrounded by beautiful greenery and peaceful water, making it the ideal place to relax; a destination for pedestrians and bicyclists alike.

Kenneth HOLT Sr Technical Specialist Alfred Benesch & Co. Chicago, Illinois, USA kholt@benesch.com

The destination area is a circular space lined with benches and greenery. The surrounding water makes for a serene stopping point. This area features a ramp as well as stairs, making it accessible to all. Pedestrians and bicyclists can relax with a drink and snacks, provided by vendors. Tourists will also be able to purchase small gifts. Plan of two bridges and center recreational space.

52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E 5 / 6

205

The steps leading up to the destination area will be lined with plants for added beauty. The walk way to the destination spot will also feature beautiful plant life. This stopping point is a lovely relaxing area accessible with ample transition

from existing grades. The center hub can be sheltered with a tent for special events and community activities.

Structural Because of the constraints on the horizontal and vertical clearances for Bridge 1 and the fact that no supports are to be located in the river, the span for Bridge 1 over the river had to be 60 meters long (~ 200 feet). Also because of the ramp gradient constraint to accommodate people with disabilities, we preferred to limit the depth of construction in order not to increase the ramps lengths. Moreover we shied away from a tall columns or pylons for cable stayed or suspension structures in order not to take away from the low key features of the site and also not to overwhelm the nearby Citadel and the Juliusturm. In order to limit the depth of construction we decided to use a maximum of 1.4 meter (4.5 feet) deep from the top of the deck to the bottom of the carrying member. Taking into account the constraints discussed above, we decided to use a single low profile tied arch as the supporting element of the pedestrian bridge. The deck of the bridge is cantilevered off the pipe tie. The connection of the cantilever brackets to the pipes has to be able to resist the full bending applied at the end of the bracket. It is envisioned that a local

Artist’s concept sketch.

52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E 5 / 6

SPANDAU

Elevation view of Bridge 1 with waterfall feature.

212

The delicate structure, sensitive and movable make the link between the citadel and the city. The movable feathers-beams are suspending the deck that can be fixed to the platforms on each side. This structure is flexible and can accommodate different urban functionalities.

SPANDAU 52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E 5 / 6

213

BRIDGE OF TRANSMUTATION— CONNECTING THE ANCIENT AND THE FUTURE

BRIDGE OF TRANSMUTATION - CONNECTING THE ANCIENT AND THE FUTURE Pei-Chen HSIEH Graduate Dept. of Civil Engineering National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan

Yen-Han LIU Graduate Dept. of Civil Engineering National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan

markmark217@gmail.com

peterhcu@gmail.com

audreyliu617@gmail.com

The interaction between Pretzel Bridge and Spandau Citadel as well as the moving flows of tourists are the two main considerations in this design. Bridge of Transmutation is designed to face the fortress of Spandau Citadel to create their dialogues. (Fig. 2) Divided by the moat, visitors get the chance to view Spandau Citadel in a more complete perspective. The bridge site is a perfect spot of viewing Spandau Citadel. In order to satisfy both demands of crossing the Havel from the west side and the south side as well as enjoying the antique and fabulous scenery, we create another viewing platform on the bridge to scatter the crowd. Visitors who stay on the platform can get fantastic views of Spandau Citadel without being disturbed by other travelers. STRUCTURAL DESIGN Bridge of Transmutation is composed of three different types of arch structures. (Fig. 1) By creating harmonic but changing structural rhythms, it is able to mutual echo with the art and cultural side of Spandau Citadel.

Figure 1: Over view of “Bridge of Transmutation” and three different types of arch structures, Spandau Citadel, Germany, 2017.

52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E 5 / 6

SPANDAU

Yu-Hsuan TUNG Graduate Dept. of Civil Engineering National Taiwan University Taipei, Taiwan

DESIGN CONCEPT

226

The proposed all-steel footbridge links, with a single line, the three points to be connected (Fig. 3). Besides, sharp turns have been eliminated to make cycle traffic easier. It is composed of the functional elements shown in Fig. 4.

SPANDAU

Fig.3 Plan view.

The last span creates a bench (and a viewpoint), because part of the crosssection protrudes over the deck (See Fig. 5). From the structural point of view, all the structural elements, mainly eccentrically supported arches, are composed of only two elements: 1. The cross section of the deck, a 4.20 m wide (4.00 m for pedestrians) hollow-box steel cross-section. 2. A eccentric trapezoidal hollow box section that defines the structural elements by changing its relative location with respect to the deck. This trapezoidal hollow-box box is located always within a plane inclined 67º with respect to the vertical. Thus, in the main and second span, the two elements, deck and box, are contained within a vertical inverted cone.

The initial ramp is necessary to give the pedestrian a comfortable access from the embankment to the main span (see Fig. 2). It is designed as a ribbon among the trees, and intends to provide the pedestrian with an experience similar to a top-tree walk. The proposed solution connects points 1 and 3 with a curved deck, and make available the access to the point 2 (impassable for disabled people) by means of a set of steps attached to the leaning support of the haunched girder. BENCH AND VIEWPOINT STEPS ATTACHED TO LEANING SUPPORT

3 2 RAMP – RIBBON AMONG THE TREES

Fig.5 Structural elements (eccentrically supported arches) and cross-sections generated by changing the elevation of the trapezoidal hollow- box.

Fig.4 Functional elements.

52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E 5 / 6

227

Fig.8 Lateral view, showing the eccentric arch and the ribbon among the trees.

Fig.7 General view

Fig.9 Detail of the zone of the bench and viewpoint

52° 32' 19.9" N 13° 12' 34.4" E 5 / 6

SPANDAU

Fig.6 General view

230

The Waisen Bridge in downtown Berlin is one of the oldest bridge sites in Berlin. All former bridges from medieval times until its last design as an arched stone bridge in 1894 have been destroyed.

HISTORY

The Lindholz-Plan from 1660 is the first known document which aims to connect the medieval cities of (Old-) Berlin and Coelln. The draft included several bridges. Some of the most prestigious bridges ultimately originated from the Lindholz Plan, two of them being the Waisen Bridge and the Oberbaum Bridge. At the beginning of the 18th century, the first blockhouse-bridge was constructed at the location where the Waisen Bridge would ultimately be built.

WAISEN

The early construction was a wooden pile bridge with a central movable section, used for watercraft passage. With a length of approximately 83 m (~ 250 ft) and a width of about 7 m (~ 21 ft), this bridge was of great significance for the cities at that time. It was the first connection that allowed carriages and livestock to cross without hindering transport via water. With the completion of the Berbaum Bridge in 1724 and the subsequent demolition of the now unserviceable blockhouse, the bridge came to be called Waisen Bridge. It was named after the adjacent hospital, Grosse-Friedrich-Hospital, which also functioned as an orphanage — “Waisen Bridge” translates to “orphan bridge”. The hospital was demolished in the early 1900s.

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E 6 / 6

231 In 1831 the royal building deputation decided to remove the old bridge and completely rebuild it, since it was frail and prone to reparations. The Waisen Bridge was designed as a wooden bridge again. In 1876, when the bridge fell into the cities ownership, Berlin‘s city administration decided to rebuild the bridge in a way that was meant to last.

It was designed to withhold any traffic loads from carriages and motorized vehicles. Surviving World War I and almost the entire World War II without any greater damage, the Germans demolished the southern end of the bridge in a last attempt to protect themselves from Allied Troops. After the war, a temporary wooden construction was put in place to offer a crossing-point, since the surrounding bridges had also been destroyed.

SURROUNDING AREA

The area surrounding the location of the former Waisen Bridge is a place of historical significance. In north-western direction the Marienviertel is located. It is dated back to the early 13th century and was the first recorded settlement of the former cities Berlin and Coelln. Crossing over to the “Märkisches Ufer” on the south shore, one can visit the “Märkisches Museum” (Marcher Museum), which was built from 1899 to 1907 and was the first museum in Berlin to be completely independent of the Prussian crown. Apart from the “Märkisches Museum”, several embassies are located on the south shore, e.g. the Brazilian or Chinese embassy. The “Fischerinsel” towards the west is a vivid place that also offers large green spots to relax.

The Jannowitz Bridge in the east is the main crossing point for all kinds of traffic, including a train station for both, a subway station and regular. Furthermore, the present city site plan offers a clear vanishing point, in which the new bridge should be built in order to link the “Rolandufer” in the north, with the “Märkisches Ufer” to the south and the “Littenstraße” with the street “Am Köllnischen Park”.

DESIGN

•• Pillar-free spanning of the bridge

across the Spree

•• Low-maintenance in the style of

the historic site

•• Limit bridge‘s motions to a minimum

to where its virtually free of vibration

•• The artificial lighting must not be

distracting for passing ships

•• Vanishing point as a projection

of the town picture

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ••T he bridge has to have a minimal

width of 4 m and a handrail which must not be any lower than 1,30 m ••T he required clearance above the water level amounts to 4,50 m ••T he required clearance above the sidewalk amounts to 2,50 m ••T he bridge must be handicapped accessible with a ramp’s gradient no greater than 6 % •• Furthermore, the bridge and its waterside bearing must sustain a ship collision without collapsing (bridge bearing in question is already in existence) •• A minimum carrying capacity of 12 t is required, according to the Euro-Code •• The technical details regarding the waterside bridge bearing are no longer in existence and therefore must be newly calculated, but it should be included in the new draft

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E 6 / 6

WAISEN

The new design was constructed between 1892 and 1894. The Waisen Bridge was redesigned as an arched stone bridge, with the two outer arches having a clear width of 18.5 m (~ 55.5 ft) and the middle arch a clear width of 20 m (60 ft). The bridge was now made of clinker brick and sandstone, spanning about 90 m (~ 270 ft) in total length, with a width of 20 m (~ 60 ft).

In 1960, after the adjacent Jannowitz Bridge was rebuilt, the responsible authorities deemed that it was not viable to rebuild the Waisen Bridge. It was too severely damaged and its maintenance no longer made sense economically, leading to its demolition later that year.

244

The central span uses a lenticular truss to BRIDGE BRIDGE DESIGN DESIGN TITLE TITLE give shear stiffness to the span. Cables run beneath the span 2 to provide the tie force PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT DO NOT USE USE MORE MORE THAN THAN 2 LINES LINES with the upper rib providing compression.

Grete MUELLER Grete MUELLER Professor Professor Technische Technische Universität Universität Berlin Berlin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Germany grete.mueller@tu-berlin.de grete.mueller@tu-berlin.de

In cross section, the soffit of the central span is level transversely, with steps up

The bridge The bridge design design “paper”“paper” ID is a ID number is a number ascribed ascribed to abstract to abstract submission submission and and can becan found be in found yourin Converia your Converia user account. user account. In this example In this example the unique the unique Paper Paper ID corresponds ID corresponds to 261.toPlease 261. Please note that note hard thatcopies, hard copies, e-mailse-mails or fax or fax submissions submissions will notwill be not accepted. be accepted.

Hans from MEYER Hans MEYER the edges of the deck. This produces a tapered section that is deeper at the web. Civil Engineer Civil Engineer MeyerAMeyer and Partners Gem Partners on and the Spree Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany Germany This bridge is designed as an experience. hans.meyer@mrpartner@com hans.meyer@mrpartner@com

WAISEN

The triumphant masonry masts grasping the tension members create a dynamic portal, defining the entry point. As one continues across the stone deck, the pathway tapers, the paving grid compresses, and steel Participants Participants wishingwishing to present to present a design a design for onecross for or one more orfootbridge(s) more footbridge(s) for the for member provides the connection be- the tween cantilever spanthis and central theme theme Footbridges Footbridges for Berlin for are Berlin invited are invited to submit to submit a the “paper” a “paper” using using template. thisspan, template. with a strong gesture of engaging the cable elements. As one passes this transition, SUBMISSION SUBMISSION the mass timber central span reveals itself Figure 1: Figure Bridge 1: Sculpture Bridge Sculpture “Slinky springs “Slinky springs to fame”, to Oberhausen, fame”, Oberhausen, Germany, Germany, 2011. a)2011. as the final point of discovery. At this point, Sketch Sketch by Tobias by Rehberger, Tobias Rehberger, b) Photob)by Photo Roman by Roman MensingMensing The idea The is idea that you is that choose you choose one outone of six outproposed of six proposed locations locations for your for bridge your bridge the pathway splits into three, with a shared design design in Berlin. in Berlin. The “paper” The “paper” of yourof design your design should should be no longer be no up longer than than three A4 use travelway heading and three over theA4 central rib, and side paths spills out into new to pages in pages landscape in landscape format format using this using template. this template. Please Please note, that note, wethat want wetoawant urban space.

collect collect all designs all designs in a book in athat book willthat be will published be published in DIN in A4DIN landscape A4 landscape format.format. Truly bridge, thetext, fluid milled You areYou completely are completely free to free choose to choose the layout the of layout the an three ofinhabitable thepages three pages using using text, trussplease form serves as an inspiration for chil- with photos,photos, sketches, sketches, renderings renderings etc., however etc., however please maintain maintain the headline the headline with dren to explore and play. These organic FOOTBRIDGE FOOTBRIDGE 2017 Berlin. 2017 Berlin. portals carved out of the wooden clad web allow users place to curl up intention with a book or Since this Since is not thisaisdesign not a design competition competition and theand city the has city noa has immediate no immediate intention to to pass from one side of the deck to the other. build, your build,design your design does not does have nottohave be strictly to be strictly buildable, buildable, but innovative. but innovative. Still, we Still, we The warmth of the wood is inviting as an have tried have totried provide to provide sufficient sufficient information information so that so you that canyou can prepare also prepare a fullyanda fully urban place of also repose, conversation, river reflection. Users can find a seat on feasiblefeasible solution. solution. Do not Do forget not to forget tell atostory. tell a story. the terraced steps where the section steps The “paper” The “paper” of yourof design your design shall beshall submitted be submitted as a pdf-file as a pdf-file byedges. the deadline by the deadline on down towards the The mass timber on 7th April 7th2017. April It2017. should It should includeinclude the name the and name e-mail and e-mail address address of thetheauthors. oforiginal the authors. lenticular truss celebrates cenlifting span, as it hovers suspended over PleasePlease uploadupload the file the using filethe using Converia the Converia onlinetralsystem online system the Spree. At night, the webs are washed https://express2.converia.de/frontend/index.php?folder_id=841. https://express2.converia.de/frontend/index.php?folder_id=841. with light defining its volume by the warmth of itsSurname_Paper surfaces. Similarly, inclined(example: struts PleasePlease use thisuse filename: this filename: BD_First BD_First Author Author Surname_Paper ID.docthe ID.doc (example: are illuminated to define this new gateway. SV_Mueller_261.doc) SV_Mueller_261.doc)

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E 6 / 6

245

BRIDGE BRIDGE DESIGN DESIGN TITLE TITLE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT DO NOT USE USE MORE MORE THAN THAN 2 LINES 2 LINES Grete MUELLER Grete MUELLER Professor Professor Technische Technische Universität Universität Berlin Berlin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Germany grete.mueller@tu-berlin.de grete.mueller@tu-berlin.de

Hans MEYER Hans MEYER Civil Engineer Civil Engineer Meyer Meyer and Partners and Partners Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany Germany hans.meyer@mrpartner@com hans.meyer@mrpartner@com

SUBMISSION SUBMISSION

WAISEN

Participants Participants wishingwishing to present to present a design a design for onefor or one moreorfootbridge(s) more footbridge(s) for the for the theme theme Footbridges Footbridges for Berlin for are Berlin invited are invited to submit to submit a “paper” a “paper” using this using template. this template.

Figure 1: Figure Bridge 1: Sculpture Bridge Sculpture “Slinky springs “Slinky springs to fame”, to Oberhausen, fame”, Oberhausen, Germany, Germany, 2011. a)2011. a)

by Tobias by Rehberger, Tobias Rehberger, b) Photob)by Photo Roman by Roman MensingMensing The idea The is idea that you is that choose you choose one outone of six outproposed of six proposed locations locations for yourforbridge your bridge Sketch Sketch design design in Berlin. in Berlin. The “paper” The “paper” of yourof design your design should should be no longer be no longer than three thanA4 three A4 pages in pages landscape in landscape format format using this using template. this template. PleasePlease note, that note, wethat want wetowant to collect collect all designs all designs in a book in athat book willthat be will published be published in DIN in A4DIN landscape A4 landscape format.format. You areYou completely are completely free to free choose to choose the layout the of layout the three of thepages three pages using text, using text, photos,photos, sketches, sketches, renderings renderings etc., however etc., however please please maintain maintain the headline the headline with with FOOTBRIDGE FOOTBRIDGE 2017 Berlin. 2017 Berlin. Since this Since is not thisaisdesign not a design competition competition and theand citythe hascity nohas immediate no immediate intention intention to to build, your build,design your design does not does have nottohave be strictly to be strictly buildable, buildable, but innovative. but innovative. Still, weStill, we have tried have totried provide to provide sufficient sufficient information information so thatso you that canyou also can prepare also prepare a fully a fully feasiblefeasible solution. solution. Do not Do forget not to forget tell atostory. tell a story. The “paper” The “paper” of yourof design your design shall beshall submitted be submitted as a pdf-file as a pdf-file by the deadline by the deadline on on 7th April 7th2017. April It2017. should It should includeinclude the name the and name e-mail and e-mail address address of the authors. of the authors. PleasePlease uploadupload the file the using filethe using Converia the Converia online system online system https://express2.converia.de/frontend/index.php?folder_id=841. https://express2.converia.de/frontend/index.php?folder_id=841. PleasePlease use thisuse filename: this filename: BD_First BD_First Author Author Surname_Paper Surname_Paper ID.doc ID.doc (example: (example: SV_Mueller_261.doc) SV_Mueller_261.doc)

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E 6 / 6

260

WAISENBRÜCKE THE “LIVING” BRIDGE WAISENBRÜCKE THE “LIVING” BRIDGE Christian MÜLLER Civil Engineer Dr.-Ing. Christian Müller GmbH Berlin, Germany christian.mueller@cmib.de

Bridge costs Bridge with approx. a 4-5 m pedestrian areas - house with 14.2 m Bridge length approx. 79 m Costs: 916 x 2.500.00 € = 2.3 Mio € Building rights for 2267 m € WFL á 1000.00 € / m² = 2.3 Mio €

Susanne GLADE Christoph OSTERMEYER Architects GO+ architekten Hamburg, Germany studio@goplusarch.de

Synergy effect: Only foundations on the shore and a double three-storey rack

Kerstin TEGELER

WAISEN

Civil Engineer + Architect Tegeler Ingenieure GmbH Berlin, Germany tegeler@tegeler-ingenieure.de The old three-arched Waisenbrücke connected the two river banks over a great width. After the destruction during the war, the bridge was demolished and never rebuilt, which was a relief to shipping traffic. The new pedestrian bridge should therefore have no river pillars. Because higher houses on the waterfront are difficult to imagine the type of an inhabited bridge is suggested here. Due to the Fact, that an inhabited bridges are a difficult option, here an appartement Hostel is imaginable. The bridge would then span across the river as a three-storey structure and would have statically reasonable heights. The clearance height for shipping would thus be a maximum, and the ramps would be very low. Supporting structure Two 3-storey trusses span over 70 m and will be build with two residential floors, which extend laterally, partly with balconies to the west and east. The pedestrian platform also forms the lower base for the access to the residential units.

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E 6 / 6

261

WAISEN

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E 6 / 6

276

WAISEN

Figure 2: Plan & Elevation Figure 3: Cross Section A-A

Structural Design and Aesthetics The structure consists of a 6 m diameter steel tube with a 72.6 m clear span (Figure 2 & 3). The view ports on the sides of the tube form a decorative pattern, evolving along the span in response to the force path. The advantages of a tube are enhanced by turning it into a space truss, with stiffened members where needed and openings where possible to decrease the self-weight. Stiffener plates are provided on the outer edges of the truss members to avoid buckling failure of the curved compression members (Figure 4 & 5). The stiffeners also create a drainage system on the bridge that channels water flow and limits streaking of the tube. These structural details add texture to the tube surface, subtly alluding to the caterpillar reference. The walkway comprises of a structural screed supported by a steel plate. A mass tuned damper may be used to limit pedestrian induced vibrations.

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E 6 / 6

Figure 4: Partial elevation of stiffener plate.

Figure 5: Sectional elevation X-X

277

Constructability and Maintenance The tube will be manufactured in six units. Each unit is divided into four plate elements, to limit dimensions to 12.1 x 4 m curved plates for easy transportation to site. The plate elements will be bolted on-site to form circular units. The units will be assembled on-site, using a barge to provide intermediate temporary supports. The tube will be manufactured with a horizontal curve, and rotated around the longitudinal axis so that it appears to be on a horizontal and vertical curve. Applying this principle increases the constructability significantly (Figure 6).

Figure 7: View from inside Die Raupe.

Figure 8: Lighting as seen from the inside.

WAISEN

Figure 6: Manufactured and constructed cross section at apex.

Local manufacturing companies can manufacture the plates by laser cutting the diagonal openings, limiting local stress concentrations in the rounded corners. Weathered steel will be used for the tube and stainless steel for the handrails to minimise maintenance.

Die Raupe combines structural efficiency and aesthetics to create a unique user experience. A functional landmark is created that will entice the public to enjoy the facility and experience the bridge with the playful boldness of a child. The bridge may become a public sculpture, attracting people and invigorating the area.

52° 30' 53.1" N 13° 24' 54.7" E 6 / 6

286 SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

COMMITTEES

Mike Schlaich (Chair) Germany

Ken’Ichi Kawaguchi

Japan

Arndt Goldack (Chair) Germany

Laurent Ney (Co-Chair) Belgium

Andreas Keil

Germany

Nicolas Janberg (Co-Chair) Germany

José Romo (Co-Chair) Spain

Martin Knight

United Kingdom

Silke Burkard-Mies

Germany

António Adão da Fonseca

Portugal

Jan Knippers

Germany

Stephanie Mand

Germany

John Anderson

South Africa

Serge Montens

France

Monika Jocher

Germany

Ursula Baus

Germany

Iván Muñoz

Spain

Guido Morgenthal

Germany

Cezary Bednarski

United Kingdom

Sriram Narasimhan

Canada

Helena Russell

United Kingdom

Jorge Bernabeu

Spain

Yves Pagès

France

Volker Schmid

Germany

Jan Biliszczuk

Poland

Alberto Patrón Solares

Mexico

James Brownjohn

United Kingdom

Miguel Rosales

USA

Elsa Caetano

Portugal

Enzo Siviero

Italy

Pablo Castro

Uruguay

Juan Sobrino

Spain

Fabián Consuegra

Colombia

Jiri Strasky

Czech Republic

Jürg Conzett

Switzerland

Kyo Takenouchi

Japan

Wolfgang Eilzer

Germany

Mahesh Tandon

India

Christian Ernst

Germany

Peter Van den Broeck

Belgium

Ian Firth

United Kingdom

Philippe Vion

France

Maria Lorenz (Co-Editor)

Yozo Fujino

Japan

Krzysztof Zółtowski

Poland

Mareike Lebkücher, Ulrike Seddig (Brommy)

Arndt Goldack

Germany

Mario Guisasola

Spain

Wasoodev Hoorpah

France

Hongwei Huang

China

Rein Jansma

Netherlands

Manuel Jara

Mexico

Poul Ove Jensen

Denmark

Stephanie Stanko, Giovanni Wodetzki (Spandau Citadel)

Akio Kasuga

Japan

Reyk Maukisch, Fabian Windisch (Waisen)

DESIGN BASES FOR THE SIX LOCATIONS Dirk Peissl (Editor and Supervisor)

Maximilian Schubert, Raphael Walach (Europacity) Katharina Fricke, Marius Hanniske (Gleisdreieck) Maria Dworzynska, Pavel Susanov, Marcin Fokczynski (Moabit)