• No results found

Preferred solution, K12 – Appendix C - Architectural evaluation

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Share "Preferred solution, K12 – Appendix C - Architectural evaluation"

Copied!
28
0
0

Laster.... (Se fulltekst nå)

Fulltekst

(1)

02 SPAN LENGTHS

(2)

SUMMARY - SPAN LEGHTS

1 0 0 M A span of 125m is preferred to achieve the

most open structure as possible.

1 2 5 M

(3)

B A S E C A S E 1 0 0 M

(4)

B A S E C A S E 1 2 5 M

(5)

B A S E C A S E 1 0 0 M

(6)

B A S E C A S E 1 2 5 M

(7)

B A S E C A S E 1 0 0 M

(8)

B A S E C A S E 1 2 5 M

(9)

B A S E C A S E 1 0 0 M

(10)

B A S E C A S E 1 2 5 M

(11)

03 CABLE STAYED BRIDGE

(12)

SUMMARY - CABLE STAYED BRIDGE

B A S E C A S E S I D E S PA N The inclining vertical profile and one sided

navigational span at the Southern landing asks for an assymetrical bridge.

The BASECASE cable stayed sidespan has assymmetry to some degree and quite short spans.

The sidespan stay arrangement is combined by two systems which can look unorganized from some angles.

The proposed OPTIONAL sidespan underlines the assymetry even more and extends the backspans with 50% which is more pleasing from an aestetical point of view.

The fan stay arrangement has the same sim- plicity as the mainspan which is our preferred option.

O P T I O N A L S I D E S PA N

(13)

B A S E C A S E S I D E S PA N

(14)

O P T I O N A L S I D E S PA N

(15)

B A S E C A S E S I D E S PA N

(16)

O P T I O N A L S I D E S PA N

(17)

B A S E C A S E S I D E S PA N

(18)

O P T I O N A L S I D E S PA N

(19)

04 TOWER

(20)

SUMMARY - TOWER

O P T I O N A L T O W E R B A S E C A S E T O W E R

The A-tower stands out as the most logical structure for the mainspan, both structurally and aestetically.

The simple pointiness of the A-shaped tower creates a natural focus point in the landscape and has a strong “signal” effect.

The flared legs below deck feels like the right answer to the horizontal forces that needs to be taken in the deck.

The Pylon is located on Svarvhelleholmen adjacent to the navigational clearance.

This gives us the opportunity to have the tapered legs, standing on a small area on the island and the foundation below the ground covered by rocks.

The preferred OPTIONAL tower is more refined and has a lighthouse beacon on top.

With an elegant lightsceme, the tower will be visible from a great distance at night.

It will visually give the pylon a certain lightness and elegance – an Icon for the link.

(21)

B A S E C A S E T O W E R

(22)

O P T I O N A L T O W E R

(23)

O P T I O N A L T O W E R

(24)

05 LANDINGS

(25)

L A N D I N G S O U T H - V I E W I N G P L AT F O R M

(26)

L A N D I N G N O RT H - C U LV E RT, T U N N E L P O RTA L , V I E W I N G P L AT F O R M

(27)

L A N D I N G N O RT H - T U N N E L P O RTA L , V I E W I N G P L AT F O R M

(28)

L A N D I N G N O RT H - T U N N E L P O RTA L , V I E W I N G P L AT F O R M

Referanser

RELATERTE DOKUMENTER

Preferred solution, K12 – main report 3 Description, evaluations and risk assessment of K12 base case solution The overall roll stability of the high part of floating bridge

From the south, the drivers will experience a dramatic “revealment” of the main span, tower, fjord and floating bridge when driving through the terrain cuts and onto the bridge.. 3

Appendix E – Aerodynamics, K12 3 Wind input Aerodynamic load coefficients for the tower in the cable stayed bridge is given in Amendment A of this document.. In addition shielding

Calculated fatigue lives for the combined effect of global and local load effects at the selected sections along the bridge is shown in Figure 5-4. The lowest calculated fatigue

Concept development, floating bridge E39 Bjørnafjorden.. Appendix I –

Pontoon collision and deckhouse collision cause a somewhat different response, with pontoon collisions giving higher torsional response in the bridge girder and deckhouse collisions

Loads from ULS (intact condition) and ALS (ship collision, two line failure, 10,000 year condition) has been found and design loads established for each anchor. Details about

During the workshop, the risks from the pre-identified register (based on the risks identified from the previous phases of the project) were discussed and their relevance and