PISTOL MATCH EQUIPMENT OVERVIEW Issued equipment Non-issued equipment.
· 2016-11-11 · / , rev. 2 Revision Date Reason for Issue Prep. by Contr. by Appr. by 01...
Transcript of · 2016-11-11 · / , rev. 2 Revision Date Reason for Issue Prep. by Contr. by Appr. by 01...
-
REPORT
BJØRNAFJORD SUBMERGED FLOATING TUBE BRIDGE
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT
-
/ , rev.
2
Revision Date Reason for Issue Prep. by Contr. by Appr. by
01 04.05.16 Issued for client review Proj.team THS SAH
02 31.05.16 Issued for Approval Proj.team THS SAH
REPORT
Project name:
BJØRNAFJORD SUBMERGED FLOATING TUBE BRIDGE
Document name:
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT Project number : 12149-03
Document number : 12149-OO-R-310
Date : 31.05.2016
Revision : 02
Number of pages : 340
Prepared by : Project Team
Controlled by : Tore H. Søreide
Approved by : Stein Atle Haugerud
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
3 Table of Content
PREFACE ................................................................................... 6
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................... 7
1.1 Technical solutions .................................................................................... 7
1.2 Major features .......................................................................................... 8
1.3 Challenges ............................................................................................... 9
2 OPPSUMMERING ........................................................... 11
2.1 Beskrivelse av tekniske løsninger ............................................................... 11
2.2 Viktige egenskaper .................................................................................. 12
2.3 Utfordringer ........................................................................................... 13
3 INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 15
3.1 Project context ....................................................................................... 15
3.2 Terms and definitions .............................................................................. 16
4 SFTB TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 17
4.1 SFTB Simply Explained ............................................................................. 17
4.2 Proven technology ................................................................................... 19
4.3 Water tightness ...................................................................................... 21
5 CONCEPT ROBUSTNESS ................................................. 22
5.1 Definition ............................................................................................... 22
5.2 Sensitivity studies ................................................................................... 22
5.3 Relevant experience ................................................................................ 23
5.4 Ballast operation ..................................................................................... 24
5.5 Concrete tubes capacity ........................................................................... 24
5.6 Tethers ................................................................................................. 27
5.7 Pontoons ............................................................................................... 29
5.8 Design status ......................................................................................... 30
6 DESIGN PREMISES ........................................................ 31
6.1 Design codes .......................................................................................... 31
6.2 Functional requirements ........................................................................... 32
6.3 Bjørnafjorden bathymetry and soil conditions ............................................... 37
6.4 Environmental conditions .......................................................................... 40
7 PROPOSED LAYOUT ....................................................... 44
7.1 General ................................................................................................. 44
7.2 Pontoon variant ...................................................................................... 55
7.3 Tether variant......................................................................................... 65
7.4 Key figures ............................................................................................ 76
8 ARCHITECTURAL INTENT ............................................... 77
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 77
8.2 Pontoons – “Islands in the stream” ............................................................. 77
8.3 The submerged tunnel “The world’s longest gallery” ...................................... 78
9 DESIGN APPROACH ....................................................... 80
9.1 General ................................................................................................. 80
-
/ , rev.
4 9.2 Design philosophy ................................................................................... 80
9.3 Concept screening and design considerations ............................................... 81
9.4 Response analyses .................................................................................. 83
9.5 Structural design ..................................................................................... 91
10 LOADS ......................................................................... 97
10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 97
10.2 Self-weight ............................................................................................ 98
10.3 Deformation loads ................................................................................. 102
10.4 Traffic loads ......................................................................................... 103
10.5 Wave loads .......................................................................................... 103
10.6 Current loads ....................................................................................... 109
10.7 Tidal loads ........................................................................................... 110
10.8 Temperature loads ................................................................................ 111
10.9 Water pressure on Tether SFTB ............................................................... 111
10.10 Earthquake load .................................................................................... 112
10.11 Combination of environmental loads ......................................................... 112
10.12 Accidental loads .................................................................................... 113
10.13 Design combinations .............................................................................. 117
11 GLOBAL RESPONSE ANALYSES ..................................... 121
11.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 121
11.2 Eigenperiods ........................................................................................ 130
11.3 Global static response ........................................................................... 139
11.4 Global Response ................................................................................... 170
11.5 Sensitivity studies ................................................................................. 194
12 STRUCTURAL DESIGN .................................................. 200
12.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 200
12.2 Design parameters ................................................................................ 201
12.3 Cross sections ...................................................................................... 206
12.4 Design of concrete tubes with ShellDesign ................................................. 209
12.5 Tether-stabilized SFTB ........................................................................... 218
12.6 Pontoon-stabilized SFTB ......................................................................... 234
12.7 Design of Crossbars ............................................................................... 244
12.8 Design of horizontal bracing .................................................................... 248
12.9 Design of Pontoons ................................................................................ 255
12.10 Submarine impact - Local design of tube wall ............................................. 257
13 SFTB OUTFITTING ....................................................... 268
13.1 Ballast system ...................................................................................... 268
13.2 Drainage system ................................................................................... 274
13.3 Ventilation ........................................................................................... 275
13.4 Electrical installations............................................................................. 276
13.5 Fire protection ...................................................................................... 279
14 CONSTRUCTION.......................................................... 280
14.1 Major fabrication scope .......................................................................... 280
14.2 SFTB elements ...................................................................................... 280
14.3 Tether fabrication .................................................................................. 285
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
5 14.4 Tether foundations ................................................................................ 285
14.5 Pontoons ............................................................................................. 286
14.6 Caissons .............................................................................................. 287
14.7 Jointing of elements .............................................................................. 287
14.8 Ground works at bridge site .................................................................... 293
14.9 Schedule ............................................................................................. 293
15 INSTALLATION ........................................................... 295
15.1 General ............................................................................................... 295
15.2 SFTB Dock Operations and Element Tow ................................................... 299
15.1 Temporary mooring system and SFTB assembly ......................................... 303
15.2 Installation of tunnel rock plugs and landfalls ............................................. 306
15.3 Installation of rock anchors (for tether alternative only) ............................... 307
15.4 Pre-installation of tethers (for tether alternative only) ................................. 310
15.5 Submergence test of assembled SFTB ....................................................... 312
15.6 SFTB tow and landfall hook-up ................................................................ 315
15.7 Tether hook-up (Tether alternative) ......................................................... 322
15.8 Pontoon installation (Pontoon alternative) ................................................. 324
15.9 Marine operation vessel overview ............................................................. 325
16 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................... 328
16.1 Objective and scope, delimitation ............................................................. 328
16.2 Operation overview ............................................................................... 329
16.3 Traffic safety ........................................................................................ 330
16.4 Maintenance guidelines .......................................................................... 331
16.5 Design for minimum maintenance ............................................................ 331
16.6 Restricted operation .............................................................................. 332
16.7 Availability ........................................................................................... 332
17 RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES ........................................ 334
17.1 Risk analyses HAZID and FMECA .............................................................. 334
17.2 Uncertainties ........................................................................................ 335
18 REFERENCES .............................................................. 340
-
/ , rev.
6 PREFACE This report presents the assessment study for a Submerged Floating Tube Bridge (SFTB)
over the Bjørnafjord. The study is commissioned by the Norwegian Public Road
Administration Region West under contract no. 2014072111 awarded October 2014. Client
representative has been Jorunn Hillestad Sekse.
The three companies of consulting engineers Reinertsen, Dr. techn. Olav Olsen and
Norconsult have entered a partnership for execution of the Submerged Floating Tunnel
Bridge (SFTB) study for the Bjørnafjorden crossing. The objective is to take the engineering
of the SFTB alternative to a level of detail where we can have adequate confidence in the
technical feasibility and construction costs. Thereby, the SFTB can be regarded as a safe,
robust and viable option in the governmental regional plan for E39 Stord-Os.
Reinertsen and Olav Olsen have been involved in most of the floating bridge- and SFTB
studies completed in Norway, and have extensive experience with offshore structures.
Norconsult is the largest multidiscipline consultant in Norway, and is a leading player within
engineering for transportation and communication.
The partnership has been strengthened with selected subcontractors who are all highly
qualified within their respective areas of expertise. Among them we find dr.ing Arne
Nestegård (DNV GL), with 30 years’ experience in research and development of methods for
calculation of wave loads and response. You also find Aker Solutions, a global supplier of
products and services within offshore oil and gas, who has advised the partnership on marine
operations, mooring- and ballasting systems. The following companies have contributed to
the study:
— Reinertsen
— Dr.techn. Olav Olsen
— Norconsult
— DNV GL
— Aker Solutions
— Snøhetta
— Marintek
— Svend Ole Hansen ApS
Finally, we would like to thank the NPRA for the opportunity of working with this state of the
art project, both highly interesting and highly technically challenging.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
7 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Technical solutions
In the optimization phase for the Submerged Floating Tube Bridge (SFTB) across the
Bjørnafjord the western corridor between Svarvhella and Røtinga is still the crossing corridor,
however as shown in Figure 1-1 the route is moved towards west out of the shelter Flua
area. The background is the cost estimate made during the previous feasibility stage, coming
up with the bottom stabilized solution from Flua to shore as a cost driver.
> Figure 1-1: Western corridor for SFTB alternatives
The span is now 5350m for the pontoon stabilized concept and 5495 for the tethered
solution. The routings at shore approaches are adjusted correspondingly to fit the SFTB
alignment.
As concerns the present concept optimization further experience from offshore solutions has
been incorporated on concrete structures, tether solutions and marine operations,
respectively. The two concepts have been run in parallel through the same set of design
premises, both satisfying current regulation requirements on safety and risk assessment.
The safety format is based on Eurocode as the structure code regime in Norway since year
2010.
The tether-stabilized SFTB is vertically anchored to the seabed by steel tube tethers for
every 200 m. With top bridge at -30 m, the tethered concept allows free surface ship
passage. It also allows submarines to navigate in submerged position over the tubes. By the
submerged solution a major part of the wave excitation is eliminated, giving a calm tube
bridge without operational restrictions even for the 100-year wave condition.
The pontoon-stabilized SFTB is vertically supported by the water plane stiffness of the
pontoons. This allows for free submarine passage under the bridge, but restricted surface
ship traffic. As the pontoons attract loads from surface waves, the present concept shows
more vertical flexibility and motion than tether-stabilized SFTB. However, the motions are
still well below comfort and driving limits also for 100-year return conditions.
-
/ , rev.
8 The tube cross-section is mainly determined by the size of the standard tunnel profile as
prescribed by the NPRA for the two running bores. Initially, in the first project phase a tunnel
profile T12.5 including two driving lanes and a continuous shoulder (3.0 m) was specified for
the running bores. For the current phase the Norwegian Public Road Authority (NPRA)
altered the tunnel profile to T9.5 (tunnel class E), see Figure 1-2.
> Figure 1-2: Typical layout of cross tube with lay-by arrangement (pontoon variant)
The fabrication in dry dock and floating of each 200 m element prior to coupling, allows for
accurate weight control of the installed SFTB. Weight variation during operation due to
technical equipment, water absorption in concrete, marine growth, asphalt thickness as well
as traffic itself is a part of the design loads, together with buoyancy variation due to
seawater density. These loads are given their safety factors according to Eurocode for the
design control. There is a large volume for water ballast, which may be activated for possible
extra unexpected weight variation over time, if occurring. This is an extra redundancy in
design beyond safety factors and normal practice for bridges.
1.2 Major features
Characteristics for the two SFTB concepts are:
The SFTB submergence eliminates most loads from wind generated sea. The vertical
motions become small and well below the project specific acceptance limits, even for
100 year storm condition. For SLS the acceleration is in the range of 0.05 m/s2.
Horizontally, the arch geometry implies flexibility for thermal expansion. The twin tube
cross section in combination with curved geometry guarantees acceptable slenderness
and resistance regarding environmental loads. Also horizontal motions become small,
and well below the project specific acceptance limits. For SLS the acceleration is around
0.1 m/s2.
As a consequence of small motions, traffic can be maintained during the most extreme
storm conditions. Although no criterion is specified for operational regularity, zero
downtime due to weather is seen as a major advantage for the SFTB.
Two tubes with two driving lanes and one service lane together with a flat vertical
profile gives high tunnel safety. There are escape routes between the two tubes every
200 m, both in the traffic level and bicycle/footpath level.
Water leakage is eliminated by strict water tightness requirements, and the fact that
there is no penetration to sea. The reinforcement strain limit on 2.17 ‰ in tension for
SLS 100-year combination together with requirement on minimum compression zone
over wall thickness are based on offshore design practice.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
9 Impact from surface ships on the tubes is not possible due to large clearance above
the tubes. The SFTB is designed to resist ship impact on the pontoons and submarine
impact on the tubes. For the SFTB it is consequently not necessary to introduce speed
limitations on the ship traffic.
The SFTB is almost neutrally buoyant vertically and is stabilized either by tethers to
seabed or by pontoons to the surface. The tethers are pre-stressed to take care of load
variations, the requirement being no loss of tension. For the pontoon solution the
vertical stiffness is the waterline area of the pontoons, and load variations is taken
care of by variation in pontoon draught.
Both concepts are characterized by low structural and hydrodynamic damping. For the
tether stabilized SFTB the design philosophy has thus been to tune the governing
natural periods of the bridge outside the range of excitation period, heave and roll in
particular. The stiffness governs tether cross-section area instead of the ultimate
strength. For the pontoon solution similar tuning is not possible within practical
pontoon dimensions. Benefit is here taken of higher hydrodynamic damping than for
tethered concept.
The low damping makes especially the tether concept sensitive to variation in wave
period. In parallel with ongoing site measurements analytic and numerical simulations
for wind generated sea should form the basis for a conservative period range to go
into further design.
The twin tube cross-section has by tests shown stable behavior under current and
wave action, eliminating the need for extra design remedies to eliminate uncontrolled
motion. Wind tunnel tests underline twin tube as the preferable cross-section rather
than a rectangular box. Independent of doubts among experts on the validity of the
wind tunnel tests, the conclusion hereof is in line with sound engineering judgement.
The SFTB is designed for minimum maintenance with materials that are not sensitive
to deterioration. Structural elements in the splash zone are particularly exposed to
corrosion, and that is the reason for concrete pontoons. The concrete platforms in the
North Sea with sufficient concrete cover and low permeability concrete have
demonstrated excellent durability over 40 years of service.
Seabed properties vary over the span, with soft soil in the mid and deeper part, turning
to harder soil and rock towards the ends. For the tether stabilized concept this makes
extra need for a flexible foundation design, going from conventional gravity anchor
into possible rock drilling solutions. During the present optimization phase, with limited
input on seabed parameters available, the foundation alternatives have been generally
outlined rather than presenting foundation solution for each specific support location.
There is among users a general reservation on road tunnels, also affected by some recent fire
accidents here in Norway. Independent of concept, any subsea solution adds extra arguments.
To change the opinion can only be reached by fair information and is outside the scope of this
study, however during the optimization phase effort has been placed on obtaining high level
safety for all foreseen hazard scenarios as fire, submarine impact and ship collision.
1.3 Challenges
Both SFTB concepts have been designed according to Eurocode with national application
addendum for Norway. The design control concerns the completed bridge in operation with
the final shore connections and moorings established. Construction, tow and installation
phases have not undergone the same level of detailed analysis, though the free floating
bridge is evaluated regarding tug forces, needed waterline area of preliminary towers and
-
/ , rev.
10 VIV. The large mass distributed along a flexible structure makes the bridge in installation
phase a more complex system than for operation phase, and this is to be given major
attention in upcoming design work.
The shore connections including establishment of fixed support by ballasting the SFTB down
to pre-installed caisson are also part of marine operations that need further outline. The idea
is now that the connection to rock tunnel will be free of global forces that require complex
operations and rock anchoring. A step-by-step evaluation of the shore connection procedure
also needs additional effort.
The seabed foundations represent a heavy element for the tethered SFTB. Due to the lack of
data during the present optimization phase, the effort has been more on foundation concept
evaluation than on detailed calculations. In this respect it is fair to say that even though
solutions are outlined for soft soil and rock conditions there is still a major technical step up
to the design level obtained for the bridge structure.
The environmental loads applied, and waves in special, are considered conservative with
significant wave height 3.0 m. Current velocities seem a bit more uncertain at present stage,
and high current velocities may impact design to avoid dynamic load effect such as VIV. As
concerns accidental scenarios as submarine impact, ship collision and explosions these
depend on risk studies instead of nature, and may be subject to change during upcoming
design process. The coordination with Norwegian Navy to verify future design loads from
submarine impact has up to now been held within a limited forum, and should be subject to
a more formal documentation where a variety of relevant submarine hulls are considered.
The safety format for the present study is based on Eurocode which by its origin was
intended for conventional land based bridges. For the SFTB additional loads apply from
marine growth, water ingress and variation in sea water density. Also, the reference stage is
now the balanced as installed situation which in addition to as built properties also includes
ballast pattern. So both load pattern as well as reference level are different from what is
relevant for a bridge on shore. An evaluation of the applicability of the Eurocode design
format is required before going into the detail design phase.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
11 2 OPPSUMMERING
2.1 Beskrivelse av tekniske løsninger
Studiet har konkludert med to alternative løsninger for krysningen over Bjørnafjorden;
Rørbru med stagforankringer til bunnen og rørbru med pongtonger i overflaten. Begge
løsninger ligger i bue i horisontalplanet, og sideveis stivhet oppnås med buevirkning samt
bøyestivhet og innspenninger i begge landfester.
Omfattende erfaring fra offshore virksomheten er benyttet i dette prosjektet, både innen
marine betongkonstruksjoner, strekkstagløsninger og marine operasjoner.
De to alternative bruløsningene er utviklet parallelt og med de samme forutsetninger, og
tilfredsstiller dagens krav til sikkerhet i henhold til Eurokodene.
I dette studiet av rørbru over Bjørnafjorden er den vestre linjen mellom Svarvhella og
Røtingen valgt som hovedkorridor, men nå flyttet lenger vest i forhold til den første fasen av
prosjektet som der det var en bunnforankring på grunnen Flua. Bakgrunnen for endringen er
å unngå kostbare grunnarbeider under vann fra Flua til Røtinga. Et lenger rørbruspenn gir
beskjeden økning i horisontale reaksjonskrefter.
Spennet er nå 5350 m for det pontongforankrede alternativet og 5495 for det
stagforankrede. Den horisontale linjeføringen er tilpasset tilførselsveiene i begge ender av
brua.
> Figure 2-1 Vestre corridor for rørbrualternativer
Strekkstagløsningen er vertikalforankret til sjøbunnen med forankringsgrupper med typisk
avstand 150 meter. Overkant av rørbrua ligger i 30 meters dybde, noe som sikrer at
skipstrafikken kan gå uhindret over brua. Det tillater også ubåter å gå i neddykket posisjon
over brua. Når brua ligger så dypt, vil mye av bølgevirkningen være borte, slik at man får en
bru med relativt små bevegelser selv for en 100 års bølgetilstand.
Pongtongløsningen opplagret på pongtonger i overflaten med typisk avstand 150 meter, der
pongtongenes vannplan gir nødvendig stivhet i vertikal retning. Ved å unngå forankringer til
-
/ , rev.
12 bunnen, vil det være fri passasje for ubåter under brua. Det vil imidlertid være restriksjoner
for skipstrafikken på overflaten. Pongtongene er både mykere vertikalt enn strekkstagene,
og pådrar seg i tillegg bølgekrefter. Denne løsningen har derfor større vertikalbevegelser enn
strekkstagløsningen, men bevegelsene er likevel godt innenfor komfortkravene.
Det doble rørtverrsnittet, som tilsvarer standardprofilet T9,5 for aktuell ÅDT, gir rom for to
kjørebaner, i tillegg til gang- og sykkelbane samt servicetunnel. Mellom rørene er det
tverrforbindelser for hver 200 meter med plass for rømningsvei mellom de to
kjøreretningene, se figur Figure 2-1.Figure 1-1
Brua bygges i 200 meter lange seksjoner i tørrdokk. Ved å utføre flytetester før
sammenkobling av seksjoner, vil man oppnå en langt mer nøyaktig vektkontroll enn på
ordinære konstruksjoner. Laster fra toleranser, marin begroing, vannabsorpsjon, varierende
utstyrsvekter, varierende asfalttykkelser, trafikk og variasjon i oppdrift grunnet endringer i
vannets tetthet, behandles alle som ordinære laster med lastfaktorer i henhold til Eurokode.
Det er store ballastvolumer i brua, noe som gir muligheter for å ballastere brua dersom man
får varige endringer av laster over tid. Dette gir reservekapasitet utover det som er vanlig
for ordinære bruer.
2.2 Viktige egenskaper
Viktige egenskaper for rørbruene er:
Stor dypgang eliminerer mye av belastningen fra bølger. Vertikalbevegelsene blir
små, og godt innenfor kravene til bruer, selv for en 100 års bølgetilstand.
Akselerasjonen er i størrelsesorden 0,05 m/s2 i bruksgrensetilstand. Dette gir seg
også utslag i reduserte spenninger i brua.
I horisontalretning gir buen brua mulighet for å bevege seg på grunn av
temperaturendringer. Det doble rørtverrsnittet i kombinasjon med bueformen, gir
høy bøyestivhet og kapasitet mot horisontale laster fra bølger og strøm. Det gir også
små bevegelser horisontalt, godt innenfor kravene. Akselerasjonen er i
størrelsesorden 0,1 m/s2 i bruksgrensetilstand.
Som en konsekvens av de små bevegelsene, vil trafikken gjennom brua gå uhindret
selv under ekstreme værforhold.
To adskilte kjørebaner med bred skulder og horisontal vertikalkurvatur, gir en veg
med høy sikkerhet. Det er rømningsveier for hver 200 meter både i nivå med
kjørebanene og i nivå med gang- og sykkelveien.
Vannlekkasjer vil ikke være et problem, da det er svært strenge tetthetskrav til
betongen, samt at det ikke er gjennomføringer av rør eller lignende i veggene mot
sjøen. Armeringstøyningen i strekk er begrenset til 2.17 ‰ i SLS med 100 års
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
13 returperiode for lastene, som sammen med minimum trykksonehøyde over
veggtykkelsen utgjør vanlig prosjekteringspraksis for offshorekonstruksjoner.
Skipsstøt mot rørene er umulig da brua ligger så dypt. Brua er dimensjonert for og
tåler både ubåtstøt mot selve brua og overflate skipsstøt mot pongtongene.
Rørbruene har nær oppdriftsnøytrale rør stabilisert med enten strekkstag eller
pongtonger. Stagløsningen har strekkstag med en forspenning som sikrer at de ikke
går i slakk i noen lasttilstand. For pongtongløsningen sikrer man tilsvarende at det er
tilstrekkelig fribord på pongtongene.
Begge løsninger kjennetegnes av liten struktur- og hydrodynamisk dempning. Et
viktig prinsipp i studiet har derfor hvert å prøve å styre egenfrekvensene spesielt i
hiv og rull unna frekvensområdet for vindgenererte bølger.
Ved hjelp av vindtunneltester, har man påvist at brua oppfører seg stabilt under
påvirkning av bølger og strøm uten at man må ta i bruk avbøtende tiltak. Testene
viste også at dobbelt rørtverrsnitt var klart å foretrekke fremfor et rektangulært
tverrsnitt.
Den neddykkede rørbrua er utformet for et minimum av vedlikehold med
motstandsdyktige materialer. Konstruksjoner i skvalpesonen er spesielt utsatt for
korrosjon, og følgelig er det valgt pongtonger i betong. Betongplattformene i
Nordsjøen, med god armeringsoverdekning og lav permeabilitet, viser meget god
bestandighet.
Grunnforholdene varierer langs brulengden og dette gir behov for fleksible
forankringsløsninger for strekkstagalternativet. Her er det mulig med konvensjonelle
gravitasjonsankere (senkekasser) eller boret og gyst fjellforankring
En rørbru med bue i horisontalplanet vil være en sikker og trygg bruløsning gjennom hele
den planlagte levetiden. Brua har kapasitet til å motstå alle laster den utsettes for med god
margin. Bevegelser i brua fra bølger, strøm og vind er relativt små, og de vil ikke skape
ubehag for trafikantene eller forårsake hindringer for trafikken, selv under helt ekstreme
værforhold. Den utførte risikoanalysen konkluderte med at brua har tilstrekkelig robusthet til
å motstå alle relevante ulykkes- og uforutsette hendelser.
Studiet konkluderer med to alternative løsninger. Både rørbru med strekkstagforankringer og
rørbru med pongtonger er teknisk gjennomførbare, og kan tas med i betraktningen ved
videre planlegging av krysning av Bjørnafjorden. Dersom grunnforholdene er gode nok, vil vi
anbefale den strekkstagforankrede rørbrua, da denne har større robusthet og er mindre
påvirket av miljølaster som bølger, strøm og tidevann. Den ligger i sin helhet under
vannoverflaten og vil ikke være synlig i landskapet.
2.3 Utfordringer
Begge rørbrualternativer er prosjektert i henhold til krav i Eurokoden med nasjonalt tillegg
for Norge. Dimensjoneringen omhandler hovedsakelig ferdig tilstand med landfester og
forankring på plass. Bygge-, taue- og installasjonsfaser er vurdert, men ikke analysert i
samme detaljgrad. Egne analyser er kjørt for flytefaser for å evaluere kapasitet mot
tauekrefter, nødvendig vannplansareal for midlertidige tårn, VIV etc. Utfordringen her er en
stor masse fordelt over en lang og fleksibel konstruksjon, og dette bør analyseres videre i en
detaljeringsfase.
-
/ , rev.
14 Ilandføring er planlagt ved å ballastere rørbrua ned i en preinstallert senkekasse som gir en
fast innspenning i ferdig tilstand. Dette gjør overgangen til fjelltunnel fri fra globale
reaksjonskrefter som krever komplekse installasjonsoperasjoner og fjellforankring med høy
kapasitet. Videre stegvis detaljering av senkekassekoblingen er et område som krever
ytterligere arbeid.
Strekkstagforankringen er et viktig element for dette alternativet. Ettersom det underveis i
prosjektet var et mangelfullt grunnlag på grunnforhold er det brukt mer ressurser på å
utvikle flere gjennomførbare løsninger enn å detaljere det foretrukne. Det er derfor
fremdeles et stort gap mellom detaljnivået oppnådd for brukonstruksjonen og detaljnivået
for forankringsløsning.
Miljølastene i prosjekteringsgrunnlaget, og spesielt bølgelastene, synes å være konservative.
Strømhastighetene er noe mer usikre, både til positiv og negativ side, og økte
strømhastigheter kan påvirke design av rørene for å unngå dynamiske lasteffekter som VIV.
Ulykkeslasttilfellene, eksempelvis skipsstøt, ubåtstøt og eksplosjon, baserer seg på en
risikoanalyse, og resultatene av disse vil kunne endres dersom forutsetningene endres. Når
det gjelder ubåtstøt har dette vært behandlet i et begrenset forum, og dette bør
dokumenteres mer formelt hvor flere relevante skrogtyper vurderes.
Formatet for konstruksjonssikkerhet er Eurokode, som opprinnelig er tiltenkt konvensjonelle
bruer på land og ikke marine konstruksjoner. Før detaljprosjektering bør egnetheten til
Eurokode som prosjekteringsstandard evalueres.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
15 3 INTRODUCTION
3.1 Project context
The Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) has been commissioned by the
Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications to develop plans for a ferry free
coastal highway E39 between Kristiansand and Trondheim. The 1 100 km long coastal
corridor comprises today 8 ferry connections, most of them are wide and deep fjord
crossings that will require massive investments and longer spanning structures than
previously installed in Norway. For some of these fjords the Submerged Floating Tube Bridge
(SFTB) is regarded as an attractive crossing solution.
Based on the choice of concept evaluation (KVU) E39 Aksdal Bergen, the ministry of
transport and communications has decided that E39 shall cross Bjørnafjorden between
Reksteren and Os.
The NPRA has commenced the work on a
governmental regional plan with
consequence assessment for E39 Stord-Os.
This plan will recommend a route from Stord
to Os, including crossing solution for
Bjørnafjorden, and shall be approved by the
ministry of Local Government and
Modernisation.
NPRA pursues the development of a
permanent link over the Bjørnafjord through
parallel studies comprising both floating and
submerged floating bridge concepts. The
assessment study for the SFTB is carried out
by the design group REINERTSEN – Olav
Olsen – Norconsult et al.
The applicability of the SFTB technology has
recently been proven in a feasibility study for
the 3.7 km wide and 1 300 m deep
Sognefjord. The study takes the SFTB
alternative to a higher level of detail to give
great confidence in the technical feasibility
and construction costs. Thereby, the SFTB
can be regarded as a safe, robust and viable
option in the governmental regional plan for
E39 Stord-Os.
> Figure 3-1: Area included in regional plan E39 Stord-Os
-
/ , rev.
16 3.2 Terms and definitions
3.2.1 Terminology
Atmospheric zone: The external surfaces
of the unit above the splash zone Bulkhead: Interior watertight diaphragm
or wall for watertight partition of compartments. Caisson: Prefabricated, temporary floating
structure installed on the seabed by ballasting.
Compartment: Enclosed volume bounded
by watertight structural elements consisting of a single cell or an array of communicative cells. Cell: Unit volume in a compartment
bounded by structural elements. Immersed tunnel: Prefabricated fully
submerged tunnel resting on the sea bed. Return period: Average interval of time in
years between exceedances of an event magnitude. Splash zone: The external surfaces that
are periodically in and out of the water. Submerged Floating Tube Bridge
(SFTB): A free spanning, fully submerged
tunnel floating in water partly supported by it’s buoyancy (also termed Archimedes bridge). Submerged zone: The part of the unit
which is below the splash zone.
Free-floating body motions
3.2.2 Notations
H Height
D Diameter
F Force
f Natural frequency
g Acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s2)
3.2.3 Abbreviations
ALS Accidental Limit State
EQU Loss of equilibrium
FE Finite element
FEM Finite element model
FLS Fatigue Limit State
GEO Failure of ground
GM Metacentre Height
HAZID Hazard Identification
HAT Highest Astronomical Tide
LPT Linearized Potential Theory
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
MSL Mean Sea Level
SFTB Submerged Floating Tube Bridge
NOS Numbers
NPRA Norwegian Public Roads
Administration
NTP National Transportation Plan
OD Outer Diameter
ROV Remotly Operated Vehicle
SLS Serviceability Limit State
STR Failure of structure
ULS Ultimate Limit State
VIV Vortex-induced vibrations
TLP Tension Leg Platform
RP Return Period
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
17 4 SFTB TECHNOLOGY
4.1 SFTB Simply Explained
The SFTB differs from the conventional immersed tunnels as a free floating structure in
water at some depth below sea surface. The vertical forces are in a SFTB mainly carried by
buoyancy of the bridge structure. The SFTB’s may be classified into two categories, based on
the type of vertical support:
Tether stabilized SFTB
Pontoon stabilized SFTB
An explanation of each concept is further given.
4.1.1 Tether stabilized SFTB
A tether stabilized SFTB is stabilized by tension legs. Hence the SFTB has to have positive
net buoyancy in order to maintain tension in the tethers for all relevant load cases. The net
buoyancy can be distributed along the length of the SFTB, and/or have concentrated
buoyancy near the tether connections. Only vertical tethers are considered in this study. A
principle sketch of the tether stabilized SFTB is shown in Figure 4-1.
> Figure 4-1 Tether stabilized SFTB
The anchoring of the tethers are by gravity anchors which are designed for large and
permanent tension. The anchors can be gravity and/or suction anchors or rock anchors
drilled and grouted into bedrock.
The horizontal alignment can be either straight or curved. A solution with an arc is often
seen, as the arc action is more efficient than beam action. Also, for longer spans the arc
geometry allows thermal deformation without large axial forces being built in.
One of the big advantage for the tether stabilized SFTB is that it is unaffected by surface
induced loads such as tidal loads, ship impact, wave slam etc. Even a 100-year storm
condition has minor impact on the SFTB, and there is thus no weather restriction on
operation. Also, the environmental impact is minimized by the invisible SFTB with subsea
connection to rock tunnels at each end.
-
/ , rev.
18
The disadvantage by the tether stabilized SFTB at present stage of the project is the risk
regarding challenging seabed topography and uncertainty in seabed conditions and effect on
anchoring. Gravity based foundation is sensitive to seabed topography and soft soil, whereas
drilled anchors to bedrock are more flexible, but requires heavy installation vessel for
installation and testing.
The concept involves a minimum of structure and hydrodynamic damping, and is thus tuned
out of the period range of wind generated sea to limit wave response.
4.1.2 Pontoon stabilized SFTB
The pontoon stabilized SFTB is supported by pontoons in the waterline. The SFTB can have
either positive or negative net buoyancy, or be neutral in water. Vertical loads such as traffic
or marine growth are taken by adjustment of pontoon waterline. The bridge can hence be
seen as a beam on flexible supports. An illustration is shown in Figure 4-2.
> Figure 4-2 Pontoon stabilized SFTB Horizontally, the pontoon bridge act similar to the tether stabilized bridge by the arc bending stiffness governing wave response. The pontoons will however attract additional forces from wind, tide and surface waves compared to the fully submerged tether stabilized SFTB.
The major advantage by the pontoon stabilized SFTB as compared with the tether stabilized solution is the avoidance of seabed mooring. Also the pontoons add damping, however still
the damping ratio is moderate as related to a surface floating structure. For the present design, the pontoon stabilized concept shows some more wave motion than the tether stabilized SFTB, however still there is no operation restriction even for the 100-
year storm condition. Tuning of resonance periods in heave out of wave excitation range is not obtainable within practical pontoon dimensions.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
19 4.2 Proven technology
The two concepts are characterized by implementing existing and well documented
technology into a new structure system, rather than developing components from scratch.
Major elements representing proven technology are summarized in the table below.
> Table 4-1 Examples of existing technology
Concrete tubes
Experience on design, fabrication and
maintenance is taken from offshore oil
and gas platforms as well as from
existing bottom stabilized submerged
tunnels. The design criterion on water
tightness is handled by post tensioning
combined with reduced allowable strain
in reinforcement, as implemented in
floating offshore concrete structures.
Figure: Concert by Katie Melua inside the
shaft of Troll A GBS, 303 m below sea
level.
Joining of tubes
The joining of concrete tubes has
previously been made on Troll A. The
purpose of the connection for the SFTB is
to create emergency gates between the
tubes, and for buoyancy reserves.
Figure: Troll A foundation design. Four
columns are joined at the mid height
-
/ , rev.
20 Tethers
Tether elements are taken from offshore
TLPs in the form of steel pipes. These are
air filled and buoyancy neutral in water
and with D/T-ratio close to 30. Diameter
up to 44 inch is within proven technology
offshore and so is depth of 1’500 meter.
Figure: Heidrun TLP in operation since
1995. Four tethers per corner, length
approximately 260 m.
Tether foundations, either gravity
based or driven piles, is proven
technology from offshore, including
tether connection details. The solution
depends on seabed properties,
hereunder soil type and slope. For soft
soil conditions the dynamic part of tether
tension may be taken as suction by skirts
on a gravity foundation as is done
offshore. On the other hand, the dynamic
response is a smaller part of total tether
tension for the SFTB than for an offshore
TLP, thus the benefit of suction skirt is to
be reconsidered.
Figure: Gravity foundation for Snorre A
before installation. The tether porches
are protected by yellow covers.
Pontoons in the form of concrete
floating elements have been in operation
on the two Norwegian floating bridges for
more than 20 years. Experience with
concrete elements in the splash zone
may also be taken from offshore floating
concrete platforms like the Troll B semi
and the Heidrun TLP, respectively.
Figure: Nordhordlandsbrua outside
Bergen. In operation since 1994
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
21 Link between pontoon and bridge
A steel truss structure is well proven
both within the oil and gas industry and
the renewable energy industry.
Especially for bottom fixed offshore wind
turbines such jacket structures are mass
produced for wind turbine generator
foundation.
Figure: Production facility for steel truss
structures.
Marine operations with large
displacement structures
Moving of large displacement concrete
structures is well known from installation
of the offshore GBS platforms. The most
known structures is Gullfaks C
(displacement of 1.4 million tons) and
Troll A which has the record of being the
tallest man-made structure ever moved
(472 m).
Figure: Transportation of Gullfaks C
4.3 Water tightness
The water tightness of the structure is crucial for the integrity of the SFTB. Special
requirements are hence introduced for the SFTB design to ensure that the structure is
watertight for all design stages and events.
For the concrete tubes this goes mainly on the amount of longitudinal prestressing to secure
that the cross section is always in compression, and hence not experience cracking for the
serviceability limit states.
For accidental events and ultimate limit states, the criterion for water tightness is a strain
limitation in the reinforcement ensuring no plastic yielding to occur in the rebars. This is
identical to the design criteria’s for the existing concrete floaters for oil and gas production.
-
/ , rev.
22 5 CONCEPT ROBUSTNESS
5.1 Definition
The wording “robustness” is central in below evaluation, and a definition is needed:
Robustness is normally meant as the structures ability to sustain unexpected
exposures during operation without undergoing global collapse or overall damage that is out of proportion to the event. The requirement on maintaining global stability in case one element failure is a mean to incorporate robustness in design, being a
normal requirement for offshore structures.
In present stage of the Bjørnafjorden project where the SFTB concepts are under development, the wider definition is forwarded:
Concept robustness is the ability to withstand unexpected situations, both in
upcoming design and in operation, without the concept undergoing major changes. Modified input parameters in the form of wave height, current velocity or seabed
parameters outside the values used in present optimization study now come in as additional “unexpected” events.
This chapter aims to underline the robustness of the concepts. Both the system robustness and the robustness of each of the main components are described.
5.2 Sensitivity studies
Load combinations
During the design phase of the SFTB, the loads are combined according to the rules in N400
and NS-EN 1990. Environmental loads (wave, current, tide and wind) have been considered
as one load group with one load factor. 100 year return period for all environmental loads
has been considered in the combination. The concepts shows sufficient capacity with full
traffic loads during a 100 year storm, and all of the functional requirements are met.
Parameter variation
A common mean to document robustness is to perform sensitivity studies on relevant
parameters. During the design stages of the SFTB several key parameters for the crossing
have been investigated:
Diameter of tubes
Alignment
SFTB length
Depth profile
Environmental conditions
The concept shows remarkable robustness against such changes. To highlight this, the
changes from the first phase to the second phase of the concept development are presented
in short:
Bridge length extended from some 3500 m to approximately 5000m
From T12.5 to T9.5 tunnel profile
From center distance 150 m to 200 m between vertical supports
From 6 to 4 tethers per group for tether solution
New location and depth profile of foundations for tether solution
Improve and uniform tether anchor concept; drilled and grouted rock anchors
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
23
The utilizations for the main components still remain in the same range as for the first
phase.
The key for such behavior is the ability to limit the responses to the governing environmental
data:
Heave motions tuned by steel area in tethers/waterline stiffness of pontoon and
distance between tether groups/pontoons
Sway motion tuned by center distance between tubes and radius of arch
Tuning of ballast in tubes for optimizing static response
In addition to the parameters described above, parameter variation for the governing design
drivers has been performed during the project.
Sensitivity to changes in wave height and period. Worst wave period for wind sea
and swell combined to find characteristic response.
Study on influence of wave direction.
Pontoon size. Final configuration based on optimization based on both static and
hydrodynamic behavior.
Several options for tether foundation (gravity based for flat rocky seabed, gravity
base with skirts for clay or drilled rock anchors for steep and rocky areas)
The sensitivity of the above parameters is low, ensuring good robustness of the final
solution.
5.3 Relevant experience
The experience by more than 40 years operation of concrete platforms in the North Sea is
relevant in view of the design lifetime of 100 years for the SFTB. The experience from the
oil/gas is the following:
Environmental loads. Generally moderate increase in wave height is seen for some
locations. More serious is the experience with individual extreme waves towards
topside and shafts creating extreme local pressures up to 5 MPa (500 tons/m2). This
is a surface phenomenon in open sea and not considered relevant for the submerged
SFTB in a fjord.
Response characteristics. As part of reassessment programs there has been
situations where new model tests have revealed larger response than used for detail
design, mostly connected to higher order load effects such as “ringing”. For our SFTB
with minimum damping this situation is relevant.
Design technique. The experience is that by reassessing offshore structures under
increased loading much design capacity is gained by going from classical linear
analysis in design into nonlinear regime modeling, especially for local capacity
control due to impact, explosion etc.
In case a reassessment of structure reliability has to be performed due to increased
environmental or operation actions, as built concrete properties are expected to be a benefit.
During fabrication in dock concrete testing is part of the quality control. Extra element tests
to document as built design parameters should be carried out.
-
/ , rev.
24 5.4 Ballast operation
The SFTB is designed to sustain all relevant loads during the entire lifetime of 100 years. It is
hence not planned to adjust the ballast level to compensate for e.g. marine growth, water
absorption in concrete etc. unless the values are exceeding the large margins are accounted
for in the design.
Flexibility with respect to amount- and location of ballast will however result in the possibility
to adjust for unexpected actions or effects during the construction and operation phase. It is
also possible to tune the ballast to achieve the “correct” design self weight if there is
difference between the self weight used in design and the measured actual weight during
construction.
Ballast handling concerns the global stability requirement of the structure and is thus closely
linked to global collapse of the SFTB. This calls for clear operation routine on ballast
handling. The current design includes no penetrations of the SFTB to sea, and “fail-safe”
ballasting scheme with a controlled volume reservoir.
5.5 Concrete tubes capacity
The driving criterion for the design of the concrete tubes is the water tightness criterion in
SLS. It states that the membrane forces in the concrete shall be below 0, i.e. always
compressive membrane forces in the tubes in SLS, and hence a stadium I concrete behavior.
This criterion governs the amount of prestressing and prestressing level in the concrete
tubes.
Based on experience, the SLS criterion is far on the conservative side, and if needed a
modified crack width criterion may be applied based on factored ULS.
The typical prestressing level to avoid membrane tensile stresses in the tube section in the
SFTB is between 7.5-12 MPa, depending on crossing solution and location in the tubes.
Normal reinforcement comes in addition for ULS/ALS capacity, where the concrete is allowed
to develop cracks and redistribute forces internally (stadium II). The strain in the
reinforcement is limited to 2.17 per mille in ULS to avoid plastic deformations and potentially
open cracks. Safety against leakage is covered by this control.
The design of the concrete tubes is designed by the FE-software ShellDesign. As a control of
the software, and for a better visual presentation of the results, MN capacity curves have
been created based by conventional methods by use of the SFTB geometry and amount of
reinforcement. The concrete capacity for the different limit states is depicted in this MN
capacity curve in Figure 5-1.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
25
> Figure 5-1 SFTB tube capacity diagram. Shown for tether solution
Figure 5-1 shows a MN diagram of the concrete tube for vertical loads. The vertical axis
depicts the axial force in the tube while the horizontal axis depicts the bending moment. The
following can be noted:
Axial force in tube: contribution from prestressing shown as horizontal black line.
Variation in axial force due to global bending about vertical axis from wave and
current shown as dotted horizontal lines.
SLS capacity as function of axial force is shown by the light blue lines.
ULS capacity is shown as the dark blue/green graph.
ULS bending capacity is in the range of 4 times the SLS capacity for relevant values
of axial force.
To highlight the influence of each load, the load effects in terms of bending moment about
the horizontal axis in one section of the SFTB is summarized in the MN diagram. The load
effects are shown for both the tether and pontoon solution. The chosen section is in the mid
part of the bridge, located towards a cross bar for both alternatives. The unfactored load
effects for the sections are depicted in Figure 5-2.
-
/ , rev.
26
> Figure 5-2 SLS loads in section, the upper red line shows the pontoon solution loads and the lower blue line shows the tether solution loads
The following can be noted from the drawing:
SLS capacity sufficient for both alternatives with no tensile membrane forces
The bending moment in the unloaded situation for the tether solution is positive
(compression in top of the section towards support). The bridge is tuned with some
hogging to counteract for long term loads such as marine growth and water
absorption, and also a portion of the traffic load. For the pontoon solution, the
bending moment when unloaded is close to zero, indicating a neutral configuration
Governing loads:
o Tether solution: Traffic load governing for bending moment, wave actions
governing for overall capacity due to sway response which gives
positive/negative axial forces in the tubes, and subsequently reduced
capacity for bending moment
o Pontoon solution: In general higher response with approximately equal
contribution to bending moment from traffic and waves. Higher amount of
prestressing hence needed to fulfill the SLS criterion.
Figure 5-3 shows the corresponding ULS loads and capacity for the considered section.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
27
> Figure 5-3 ULS actions in tubes, the upper red line shows the pontoon solution loads and the lower blue line shows the tether solution loads
The labels for each load effect are here omitted, but the sequence for each load is identical
as in Figure 5-2. As seen, the capacity in ULS is the very large compared to the load effects
for both alternatives.
This introduces robustness for the tube, as the SLS criterion with no membrane tensile forces
may be harsh for the dynamic characteristics of the SFTB. Analyses made to control the
water ingress rate during such event with loading beyond the SLS criterion shows that water
will not penetrate through the cracks during the dynamic event of opening and closing a
crack. The short duration of the crack opening and closing time (assumed 3-4 s based on
heave characteristics), low external water pressure and the dynamics of the front in the
crack are included in the analyses.
5.6 Tethers
Tether capacity
The purpose of the tethers is to stabilize the buoyant SFTB vertically and to provide vertical
stiffness to the SFTB. The key is then to have sufficient tether tension when installed, so that
time varying loads and operational loads do not lead to tether slack.
The SFTB is installed with a nominal tether tension of approximately 10 MN.
There are two main criteria for the tether:
1. Avoid tether slack during the lifetime (ULS criterion, EQU)
2. No overstressing of the tethers (ULS criterion, STR)
The load effect on an individual tether is depicted in Figure 5-4. The criterions above can be
found as the horizontal line at 0 tether force (1) and the dotted line at 22 MN tether force
(2).
-
/ , rev.
28
> Figure 5-4 Load contribution in tethers
Figure 5-4 is further explained:
The red vertical arrow shows the un-factored (“SLS”) condition in the tether.
o As seen, tolerances on the self-weight, buoyancy etc. has a significant
impact. Some of this uncertainty can be further reduced by production follow
up and weighing in dock. A portion of this load is variable buoyancy due to
salinity in water, temperature, etc. which has to be designed for. Inaccuracy
in pretension level achieved during installation is also to be considered in the
tolerance.
o The contribution from water absorption in the concrete and ballast, and
marine growth is also accounted for. No planned maintenance to removing
growth, re-ballast the tubes etc. is needed for the tether integrity during the
lifetime of the SFTB.
o Traffic load is the governing load for tether slack criterion
o Hydrodynamic actions from a 100 year storm give additional load in the
tether to both sides.
The green vertical arrow shows the EQU control, which documents the tether slack
control. This is factored by the EQU control in NS-EN-1990.
o Load factor 0.9 on favorable loads (nominal pretension and tolerances), 1.35
for traffic (governing variable load), 1.05 for marine growth and water
absorption and 1.15 for hydrodynamic contribution (1.6x0.7).
o Tether force not below 0 for the combination -> No tether slack
o Correlation factor is 1.0 for all loads in the combination. In principle this
means that the following must be fulfilled at the same time to have tension
close to 0:
Salinity very low for minimum buoyancy
All tolerances during production to “wrong” side
Full marine growth on the full surface of the concrete tubes and
maximum water absorption in concrete and ballast.
Full traffic load in both tubes (total 54 kN/m).
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
29 Full load in pedestrian lane. Corresponds to 10 kN/m, approximately
5 persons per square meter during a length of approximately 400
m(!) bridge
All of the above effects during a 100 year storm.
The blue vertical arrow shows the STR control, which covers the tether capacity
control (yielding of tether).
o Extra uplifting forces after the SFTB is installed considered
o The structural tolerances and buoyancy variances are the governing loads
o Hydrodynamic actions and some effects of traffic is addition
o No water absorption, marine growth or traffic present to produce this case
o Capacity sufficient compared to the dotted line.
o Small response compared to Offshore TLP’s. Tethers with yield strength of
235 MPa used. The reason for this selection is that the present concept need
the steel area for stiffness rather than the strength. As comparison, the
tethers of Heidrun TLP has a yield strength of 480 MPa
Tether slack
As a part of a robustness assessment, a separate study has been performed to investigate
the consequences if tether slack should occur. This means that all static contributions to
minimum tether tension is present simultaneously, and the dynamic contribution from the
wave action will govern the slack. The heave period of the SFTB is around 3 s, meaning that
time where the tether experience heave will be very short. The study concludes that the
tether may have some lifting in the tether porch (a few cm). This is not critical as the
porches are designed for this. Transient stresses in the tethers were not seen in the study,
concluding that tether slack due to wave dynamics is not critical.
Loss of tether
An investigation has been made to investigate the effect of unexpected loss of one tether.
This may be due to submarine impact, foundation failure etc. and is considered as an
accidental limit state. The study concludes that the SFTB can be operated normally with loss
of one tether. The tether should be however be replaced after such event to maintain the
robustness of the system.
5.7 Pontoons
The robustness of the pontoon stabilized SFTB is ensured by the following:
Sufficient freeboard for all load combinations
Change in the draft of the pontoon due to unexpected events or loads are visible
Compartmentation of the pontoons. Puncture of up to two compartments will not
lead to damage of the SFTB
Designed for ship impact. The tunnel has sufficient capacity for a design ship impact
Weak link between pontoon and tubes to prevent overloading of the tubes in case of
severe unexpected loads
SFTB dimensioned to be able to operate with loss of one pontoon. Limitation in traffic
is then foreseen until the pontoon is replaced.
Experience on concrete pontoons has been gained through 20 years of operation for the two
floating bridges in Norway.
-
/ , rev.
30 5.8 Design status
The present design phase has proven technical feasibility of the two SFTB concepts, and
further come up with dimensions as basis for cost estimate. The safety format of Eurocode is
implemented together with the N400 guideline on SFTB.
With major attention to dynamic load effects the design work has been verified by simplified
frequency domain response estimate in Abaqus together with 3rd party verification by
Marintek. The dynamic analysis scheme in time domain by 3Dfloat is thus proven fit for
purpose.
To verify the dynamic characteristics of the SFTB cross-section, especially the flow-induced
forces on low-density SFTB structure, wind tunnel tests have been carried out by Svend Ole
Hansen ApS. Single tube, double tubes and rectangular box have been analysed.
Uncertainty still exists on environmental loads, hereunder wind generated sea and current.
Presumably, conservative waves and load combinations are used in design, therefor no
major modification of structure is foreseen due to variation in environmental input. The
pontoon concept is considered less sensitive to future variation in design input, whereas the
tether stabilized SFTB depends on seabed soil, rock and slope parameters.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
31 6 DESIGN PREMISES
6.1 Design codes
For the assessment study for the Submerged Floating Tube Bridge (SFTB), NPRA’s Handbook
N400 will be applicable as a road standard. This manual provides reference to other relevant
standards combined with a document hierarchy with priority order A - I. Within each group,
the order of priority is: 1. Regulations, 2. Standards and 3. Guidelines.
The documents relevant for the current study are listed in order of priority:
A Handbooks - Norms - Handbook N400 sec. 13.12 “Flytebruer og rørbruer”
B Guideline Handbooks
C Other NPRA books / internal reports
D Norwegian engineering standards (NS and Eurocode)
E Norwegian materials and workmanship standards
F Standards for drawings and project documents
G Regulations, policies, standards or publications not covered above
H Other Standards
I Publications from industry associations
Where relevant information is missing in NPRA’s handbooks and Norwegian engineering
standards, the project group will suggest using supplemental standards. These will be in the
category G (Table 6-1). The safety level of the Eurocode system shall be obtained even if
other standards are used.
As per Handbook N400 structural analysis and design is to be in compliance with the
Eurocodes. NS-EN 1992-1-1 for concrete design does not cover specific aspects of marine
structures, and a clarification has been made with Standard Norge that the concrete design
still may follow Eurocode. The background is that a revision of EN 1992-1-1 is under
development including marine structures.
> Table 6-1: Relevant standards
Priority Most relevant standards Description
A Handbook N400, kap. 13.11 Floating and tube bridges
A Handbook N100 Road and Street Design
A Handbook N500 Road tunnels
B Handbook V420 Guidance, design of bridges
C Rapport: Krav til plass og rom i rørbru,
SVV, 2011
Overview of the requirements and
challenges in the current legislation
with respect to space and room in tube
bridges.
D NS-EN 1990 Basis of structural design
D NS-EN 1991 - Eurocode 1 Actions on structures
-
/ , rev.
32 D NS-EN 1992 - Eurocode 2 Design of concrete structures
D NS3473 Design of concrete structures
D NS-EN 1993 - Eurocode 3 Design of steel structures
G DNV-RP-C205 Environmental Conditions and
Environmental Loads
G DNV-RP-F105 Free Spanning Pipelines
G ISO-21650 Actions from waves and current on
coastal structures
G NORSOK N-003 Actions and action effects
G Estimat på bølge og strøm,
Mulighetsstudie for kryssing av
Sognefjorden Oppedal – Lavik, Sintef
Site-dependent wave and current for
design purpose
G DNV-OS-H101 Marine Operations, General
G DNV-RP-H103 Modeling and Analysis of Marine
Operations
6.2 Functional requirements
6.2.1 Design life
The operational design life for the crossing shall be 100 years, according to handbook N400.
Easily replaceable components, moving parts and outfitting may be designed for a shorter
design life, minimum 20 years.
6.2.2 Reliability class
The bridge structure has the Reliability Class RC3 according to N400. Elements may have
different classification, depending on importance for structural integrity.
6.2.3 Structural requirements
Deflections
The limitation of short time deflections is controlled for infrequent load combinations in the
Serviceability Limit State. No requirements to deflections are given specifically for SFTBs in
N400, hence NPRA has advised the limiting values as per Table 6-2.
> Table 6-2: Limiting deflections
Direction Total deflection
Horizontal L / 200
Vertical L / 350
http://exchange.dnv.com/publishing/Codes/download.asp?url=2011-04/rp-h103.pdfhttp://exchange.dnv.com/publishing/Codes/download.asp?url=2011-04/rp-h103.pdf
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
33
For deflections in the horizontal direction, L will be taken as the total length between the
abutments. The dynamic contribution shall not exceed L / 350.
For vertical deflections L will be taken as the distance between the vertical supports, i.e.
pontoons or tether groups.
Accelerations and vibrations
Accelerations and vibrations shall be evaluated with respect to user comfort. NPRA has
recommended the following maximum accelerations to ensure pedestrian comfort:
0.5 m/s2 for vertical vibrations
0.3 m/s2 for horizontal vibrations
Water tightness
Structural elements subjected to permanent or potential water pressure difference shall be
watertight. Particularly strict requirements, given below, for tightness according to NS
3473:2003 A.15.5 shall be applied for ensuring water tightness in operation and temporary
conditions. The reason for using this superseded standard is its specific requirements
regarding water tightness which have no equivalent in the Eurocode, a standard not intended
for marine concrete structures.
The minimum depth of the compression zone xc shall not be smaller than the lesser of
0.25 h and 100 mm
If the tensile membrane stress is larger than zero, the minimum compression zone
shall be larger than 200 mm
Water tightness criteria are checked in the Serviceability limit state for characteristic load
combinations.
In Ultimate and Accidental limit state the reinforcement strain shall be limited to the elastic
domain.
6.2.4 Floating stability
Intact stability criteria
Watertight integrity and hydrostatic stability in temporary phases shall comply with
requirements given in DNV-OS-C301.
Damage stability criteria
The SFTB shall provide sufficient buoyancy and stability in accordance with the requirements
in DNV-OS-C301. The extent of the damage shall be assumed to two compartments unless it
is proven that the bulkheads remain intact. The consequences on the tubes shall be
evaluated. The bulkheads are to be designed for plausible impact loads in addition to the
pertinent water pressure difference.
6.2.5 Traffic requirements
Road category
The road standard and tube bridge class shall be selected based on the following
parameters:
– Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) : >20 000 ADT
– Design speed limit : 110 km/h
-
/ , rev.
34 The crossing shall at least satisfy the requirements for primary road class H9.
Bicycle access
The tube bridge shall accommodate a bicycle access in a dedicated gallery separated from
the road traffic compartments. Tube tunnel profile T4 may be adopted provided the
accessibility for emergency vehicles can be demonstrated.
Alignment
The horizontal alignment is chosen based on what is most favourable for the concept
considered. The minimum radius for horizontal alignment without width extension is taken as
2 350 m reflecting a future design speed limit of 120 km/h.
According to N500, the maximum gradient for the tube bridge shall not exceed 5 % including
potential tidal variations (1 year RP).
The vertical alignment shall satisfy a ship clearance of minimum 20 m above the tube bridge
within the fairway(s).
Minimum radii for vertical alignment shall be taken in compliance with Handbook N100 Tab.
C.2 to:
– Minimum radius, crest curve : 2 356 m
– Minimum radius, sag-curve : 4 112 m
Slope discontinuity
Reference is made to Handbook N400, section 13.11.1. The requirements regarding
maximum admissible angular change in joints according to N400 are not deemed relevant for
the SFTB.
Tube bridge cross section
Tube bridge class and tube bridge configuration for circular cross sections are determined
according to Handbook N500 and is based on Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and tube
bridge length. For the anticipated ADT (15 000 in 2040), tunnel class E with tunnel profile
T9.5 with a total road width of 9.5 m is used (Figure 6-1). The requirement for free
headroom measured normal to the road surface from the edge line is 4.60 m. Minimum inner
radius for a circular tube bridge cross section is 5.02 m with centre 1.57 m above road
surface.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
35
> Figure 6-1: Tunnel profile T9,5 from N500 and minimum inner tube diameter The road design manual Handbook N100 requires the possibility to pass damaged vehicles
and tunnel class E requires emergency lay-bys at 500 m ±50 m intervals (Handbook N500).
For the 3.0 m lay-by lane tunnel profile T12,5 (Figure 6-2) shall be used. Minimum inner
radius for a circular tube bridge cross section is 6.52 m with centre 1.44 m above road
surface. For plan layout of the lay-by lane reference is made to Handbook N500 sec. 4.6.1.
> Figure 6-2: Tunnel profile T12.5 from N500 for lay-by and minimum inner tube diameter
Emergency evacuation of persons shall be accommodated every 250 m according to N500.
Tube bridge profile for bicycle gallery shall be T4 and need to be accessible for emergency
vehicles. Reference is made to N500.
-
/ , rev.
36 6.2.6 Navigational channel
The required navigation channel will be determined on the basis of a risk assessment in
dialogue with the bridge designers. The following numbers have been established as a
starting point for the design:
Dimensions of ship clearance (fairway)
Width : 400 m
Depth : 20 m
Outside the fairway
Depth : 15 m at shores
6.2.7 Equipment
Technical rooms in tube bridges
Tube bridges with a length of more than 2 000 m shall provide place for technical rooms in
order to house cabling for electrical installations, emergency power supply,
telecommunications and accumulators. Specifications on operation criteria and placement of
technical rooms are included in NPRA report regarding requirements for space and room in
an SFTB [4].
Ventilation in running bores
Tube bridges need appropriate ventilation for operational phases and accidental phases
(fire). For the case of fire, ventilation should provide overpressure in emergency exits and
exhaust dangerous gasses through separate canals. Maintenance on the ventilation system
should not require taking the tube bridge out of operation, e.g. by using sufficiently
redundant systems.
Drainage in tube bridge
Any water in the tube bridge has to be collected and pumped out of the tube bridge.
Penetrations of the main hull in permanent condition are not permitted. The draining system,
reservoirs, pumping stations and conduits for the traffic compartments shall be designed to
collect and handle surface water, wall washing water, firefighting water and spillage from a
road tanker. If transport of dangerous goods is permitted, the safe drainage of flammable
and toxic liquids shall be given due consideration.
6.2.8 Inspection
All equipment requiring regular inspection or maintenance must be accessible.
6.2.9 Instrumentation
The structural behaviour and any protective systems (corrosion protection etc.) shall be
surveyed. The measurement of water levels in each compartment shall be connected to an
alarm system.
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
37 6.3 Bjørnafjorden bathymetry and soil conditions
Since results from detailed seabed survey became available first at the end of the project
phase, the available site and soil investigations were very limited, and the assessment study
has been mostly based on the following:
Engineering geological mapping: 18th March 2015 a site visit and engineering
geological mapping of available areas was carried out by Norconsult
Acoustic profiling: An acoustic survey by "sparker" (reflection seismic survey) was
performed along the strait crossing area in 2012; "Bjørnafjorden – Bruforbindelse,
Løsmassekartlegging for vurdering av ankringsforhold", GeoMap March 2012.
Acoustic profiling: Another series of "boomer" profiling in the shallow waters near the
shoreline was performed in 2014; "E39 state municipal plan Aksdal-Bergen, Acoustic
profiling with boomer to map bedrock horizon", GeoMap November 2014.
Test samples of clay material: A total of 4 sample series from the clay from the
sediments in the deep part of the fjord have been recovered and tested.
At the bridge site, Bjørnafjorden has water depths down to about 500 m. The near-shore
areas are characterized by undulating surface, covered by limited soil. There are steep
underwater slopes down to the middle part of the fjord from the shoreline on both sides of
the crossing. The slopes are assumed to have outcropping rock. The middle part is covered
by varying types of sediments, described as moraine, mixed deposits and clay.
-
/ , rev.
38
> Figure 6-3: Bathmetry (survey April 2016)
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
39
> Figure 6-4: Sediment thickness (survey April 2016)
-
/ , rev.
40
> Figure 6-5: Seabed profile (centerline tether-stabilized SFTB)
Figure 6-3 to Figure 6-5 show the bathymetry and seabed conditions across Bjørnafjorden
obtained from the recent survey campaign (April 2016). The crossing alignments are
indicated by the two curved lines, where the tether-stabilized SFTB is represented by the
western curved line and the pontoon-stabilized SFTB by the eastern line curve. The
coordinates refer to easting and northing based on EUREF 89 UTM 32N.
Figure 6-3: Bathymetry in Bjørnafjorden, thick black lines show 50 m countours, and grey
lines are 5 m contours, illustrating variable depth conditions, where the basin is 560 m deep.
Figure 6-4: Isopach results in Bjørnafjorden based on 50 m grid. This illustrates sediment
thicknesses between 0 and 80 m. The deepest areas (560 m) contain the thickest sediment
sequences (80 m). On the slope areas the sediment thickness generally varies between 10-
20 m. In the northernmost areas there is less sediments, and the bedrock is outcropping,
seen as grey areas.
Figure 6-5: Seabed profile along the tension leg SFTB, illustrating variable depth conditions
with steepest slope in the south and a gentler, but more variable slope in the north.
6.4 Environmental conditions
6.4.1 Water level
Sea water level: High 2.32 m (from LAT)
Low -0.32 m (from LAT)
Correction of sea water level related to MSL = 0.9 m:
High: 1.42 m
Low: -1.22 m
Correction of sea water level due to variation in seawater density:
Sea water density: max =1028 kg/m3
mean =1023 kg/m3
min =1018 kg/m3
-
K3/K4 TECHNICAL REPORT / 12149-OO-R-310, rev. 02
41
Corrected High sea water level used in analyses: 1.42*1028/1023 = 1.43 m
Corrected Low sea water level used in analyses: -1.22*1018/1023 = -1.21 m
6.4.2 Current velocities
A numerical simulation of the current conditions at the site has been conducted. The
current is found to be strongest in the middle of the fjord. The predicted omnidirectional
extreme current speeds are shown in the table below.
> Table 6-3 Omnidirectional extreme current velocity for given return period
Depth 10 year 100 year 10000 year *
Surface 1.13 m/s 1.33 m/s 1.69 m/s
30 m 0.46 m/s 0.54 m/s 0.69 m/s
*) 10000 year value extrapolated from 10 and 100 year values. To be used for VIV
predictions.
6.4.3 Sea states - wind induced waves
The significant wave height and corresponding wave directions for wind generated waves for
given return periods are presented in Design Basis[9] and given in Table 6-4.
For wind sea the NPRA has specified a 100 y Hs = 3.0 m with period range 4 < Tp < 6 s (for
both crossings). When calculating dynamic response of the tube bridge in a sea state, the
sea state characteristics (Hs, Tp, direction) should be considered constant along the bridge.
> Table 6-4: Highest significant wave height Hs (m) with corresponding peak spectral period range to be checked in dynamic analysis. 330 degrees correspond to a
perpendicular angle of attack on the bridge
Return
period
Scaling
from 100 y
Hs
(m)
Tp, min
(s)
Tp, max
(s)
γ
(-)
Spread
n
Dir
(deg)
1 y 0.67 2.0 4.0 6.0 2 - 4 5 - 10 330o
10 y 0.81 2.4 4.0 6.0 2 - 4 5 - 10 330o
100 y 1.00 3.0 4.0 6.0 2 - 4 5 - 10 330o
1000 y 1.19 3.6 4.0 6.0 2 - 4 5 - 10 330o
10000 y 1.29 3.9 4.0 6.0 2 - 4 5 - 10 330o
6.4.4 Sea states - swell
Swell sea states in the fjord are determined by transferring offshore wave