Panoramaas

Anurag Sonar | Dimitri Nalmbantis | Mike van Weerdenburg 5201756 | 4577906 | 467040

1

LOCATION & DESIGN VISION Our research started with the analysis of two possible locations for a bridge over the Maashaven. The goal of this research was to choose one of the locations and generate a design vision for it.

GREENERY When looking at greenery, the end near the Euromast tunnel has the largest park in the region.

On the other side of the Maashaven, the city of Rotterdam is also planning to locate a park. With walkways on both the north and south wharf of the Maashaven, these two parks will be well connected.

Developing park Park Other type of green space

500m

1:10000

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

3 | 60

DEVELOPMENT Other developments in the region are planned on the southern side, where locations of culture campuses will be planned. Other major developments are happening in the Waalhaven in the west, Rijnhaven in the east, and in at the other side of the Maastunnel.

Developing park Search area Planning Under construction

500m

1:10000

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

4 | 60

MAAS ACTIVITY Looking into the activity around the main river of Rotterdam, the Maas, a lot of things are happening.

Landmark architecture, parks, and other important functions. Yet, when looking at the western tip of the Katendrecht peninsula, there is nothing but a parking space. The municipality has a search area for future development here. Since this is so far to the tip of Katendrecht, it can be excluded from the urban network easily.

P

Active functions along the Maas Parking space

500m

1:10000

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

5 | 60

TRANSPORT Right now, there is only a small boat making the crossing which can carry just a handful of cyclists and pedestrians per ride.

Main ferry route Secondary ferry route Bus / tram lines Metro line Station / stop

500m

1:10000

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

6 | 60

SLOW TRAFFIC To include this area to the city’s network, and keep the city dynamics close to the Maas, the northern bridge location is more logical to design for according to us. Other reasons for choosing the northern route is the close connection with Rotterdam North through the Maastunnel and the bridge span, which is way shorter than other options.

Cycling route Future cycling route / walkway

500m

1:10000

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

7 | 60

REACH The compromise for the northern location is that it takes a slight detour of 400 m, yet the reach of people in the south is not much smaller. This comparison can be seen in the corresponding drawings, where the dotted line forms the border of people that will go around the Maashaven and the people that will use the bridge, based on a distance from the separation line to the start of the Erasmusbrug.

Routes location 1 Routes location 2 Maximum reach division

500m

1:10000

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

8 | 60

THE SITE A bridge should make use and reflect the character that the site has. In our case it’s the openness of the area. Long views ranging from the skyscrapers at Kop van Zuid all the way to the Euromast and even the harbour cranes.

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

9 | 60

THE SITE The view to the east especially highlights a unique perspective on the skyline of three main bridges in Rotterdam crossing the Maas. That these bridges are so visible, forces us to think about the design style being a correct addition, since we are a continuation of the rich history of connecting north and south.

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

10 | 60

BRIDGE EVOLUTION When looking at the bridge evolution, each design came with a new form of mobility. The Hef was for the train, Willemsbrug for the car, Erasmusbrug a mobility mix, and recently the Rijnhavenbrug for the transition towards a cyclist and pedestrian city

N PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

11 | 60

AESTHETICS When viewing the aesthetics of the bridges, the Hef was designed with a bare and raw structure. This fine grain allowed for a visual experience from up close. In contrast, the later bridges are sculptural landmarks. In these, a particular shape of the pylon is to be viewed as a sculptural gesture from a far distance. From close up, there’s less detail visible. To be an honest addition, the PanoraMAAS bridge will incorporate an experience from afar, close up and additionally from the bridge deck itself. To achieve this a fine grain of the structure is needed, but it also has to be elegant like the modern bridges.

PanoraMAAS | Location & Design Vision

12 | 60

2

VORM STUDY This next chapter will focus on how we came to our final shape. Studies to other shapes and other variants are located in the appendix.

FORM

To start with the most basic understanding of a bridge, it has to connect two areas by going over a barrier. The barrier is in our case the water.

PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study

14 | 60

FORM

Even though a barrier sounds negative, the water gives some very good qualities, namely the views over the city. A curved shape would force the people to look towards the Maas, giving them a true sensation of crossing the water. There is no particular sightline that we want to highlight on the deck itself, it’s the full 180 degrees panorama over the Maas that counts equally. Therefore, the curved plan allows for a gradual reveal of the panorama. The only sight line that we highlight is from the landing on towards the Erasmusbrug, Hef and Willemsbrug. We achieved this by aligning the northern landing and the axis of the self-designed park to a sight line facing these bridges.

PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study

15 | 60

FORM

With a curved shape, there are some limitations for the design of certain openable bridge typologies. Our main aim was to form a true gateway to the Maashaven, since the bridge location is on the t-shaped crossing with the Maas. Trying a bascule bridge, it was technically too complicated with the curve we aimed for, since we would’ve needed to balance the structure stupidly out of the curved grid, so the counter weight would’ve been aligned through the pivoting point. We found that a rotating bridge is technically less complex. Architecturally, we were very comfortable with this option too, since a rotation fits with a round/curved shape. To create a grand entrance to the Maashaven, we made it a double opening. This would keep the movement and shape symmetrical.

PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study

16 | 60

FORM

To make the bridge also structurally logical, we looked into the moment line. The tricky thing about moveable bridges is that the openings often look different than the fixed parts. When exactly following the moment line, the harsh spikes that would emerge at the positions of the pillars were actually the complete opposite of the curve shape in plan, which was continuous and elegant. Drawings of this preliminary design can be found in the appendix. So to make it architecturally in harmony, we filleted the sharp edges of the moment line, to make it a smooth continuous profile.

PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study

17 | 60

FORM

To achieve our goal of experiencing the small grain of the bridge from close by, we found that this works the strongest in open structure bridges. Therefore, we came up with a series of vertical members that allow for this openness. The member structure forms the middle, whereas it can separate the fast moving cyclists from the slower pedestrians. As a result, both can safely enjoy the views and the structure of the bridge. But since pedestrians have more time to view, they will be located around the outside.

PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study

18 | 60

FORM

PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study

19 | 60

VERTICAL MEMBERS We have designed this raw cross section that divides the deck based on its function. The total width of the deck is 8m. On the left we have placed the pedestrian activities to get a worthwhile experience of the harbour. The clear height when the bridge is stationary is 6.5m from water level, thus allowing small boats to easily pass through it.

PanoraMAAS | Vorm Study

20 | 60

3

THE DESIGN This next chapter will focus on the plans and elevation of our bridge and it will show our bridge in full glory inside the side. The background here shows a part of the Grasshopper Script that was used to make the bridge.

TITLE TEXT PLAN On the south side, our bridge will be connecting close to the Maastunnel entrance. At the northern side, we designed a park to bring more activity to this location.

100m

PanoraMAAS | The Design

1:2000

22 | 60

PLAN

100m

PanoraMAAS | The Design

1:2000

23 | 60

ELEVATIONS

Now we will explain some practical design decisions we made for the design. The large ships need to go through the opening in the middle, therefore we added a structural rhythm in the positions of the columns. The spans between columns are getting bigger from the wharf towards the middle. This will automatically lure boats to use the middle part primarily. Especailly for the larger boats it’s the logical position for the opening.

25m

PanoraMAAS | The Design

1:200

24 | 60

11.00(CANTILEVER) 12.30

21.70

36.50 (ROTATING DECK)

36.50 (ROTATING DECK)

27.00

11.00(CANTILEVER)

42.00

27.00

21.70

13.50

21.70

6.00

5.50 2.50 26.10 (CLEAR NAUTICAL WIDTH)

15.00

6.00

42.00

27.00

4.00

4.30

4.90

5.80

6.00

1.20 15.00

2.30

1.65

2.30 13.50 12.30

1.65

6.00

5.80

4.90

4.30

4.00

1.20

2.50

5.50

TECHNICAL PLAN AND ELEVATION

13.50 27.00

21.70

13.50

1:200

25m

2.0

2.0 3.5

8.80

8.80

3.5

2.5

2.5

For the large swing, we need long fenders. These fenders are also curved, to prevent ships from hitting the head side of the open deck. The rotation inward keeps the size of these fenders smaller than a rotation outward because of the geometry. This is also a safer option, since the deck ends will point away from the passage, making it difficult for boats to collide on. To make this curve inward possible, we had to trim the decks in a circular way. Therefore, the middle vertical member doesn’t go straight like the others, but is placed under an angle.

11.80

11.80

13.50

N

13.50

PanoraMAAS | The Design

21.70

6.00 27.00

15.00

26.10 (CLEAR NAUTICAL WIDTH) 42.00

15.00

6.00

13.50 27.00

21.70

21.70

25 | 60

21.70

2.60

2.60

2.60

2.60

2.60

2.60

13.50

2.70

2.8

0

3.2

0

3

3.2

.20

0

3

3.2

0

3.2

0

3.2

0

0

3.2

3.4

0

3.4

0 3.2

0

0

3.2

3.4

0 3.4

0

25

°

3.4

0

3.4

0 3.5

0 3.5

0 3.5

0

0

3.5

3.5

0 3.5

0

3.6

0

3.6

2.5

0

55

3.6

5

3.6

°

5

2.0

3.7

0 3.7

.75

5

3

3.5

8.80

0

3.7

8.80

2.5

21.70

2.80

.20

°

4.00

13.50

2.70

0

25

4.30

4.90

5.80 6.00 27.00

2.8

3.5

4.00

2.50 6.00

1.20 15.00

42.00

2.80

3.80

3.80

3.85

3.85

3.90

3.90

3.90

1:200

2.30

1.65

1.65

26.10 (CLEAR NAUTICAL WIDTH)

15.00

2.70

11.80

13.50

5.50

5.50 2.50 6.00

2.30 6.00 27.00

2.70

2.0

21.70

27.00

1.20

5.80

4.90

13.50

21.70

° 55

4.30

11.00(CANTILEVER)

42.00

25m

4.30

4.00

36.50 (ROTATING DECK)

27.00

In elevation, the landing positions at the wharf have a starting height of 4 meters above the water level.

The deck height increases to 6 meters within the fixed parts (slope is permitted 1 m per 20 m ratio for wheelchair regulations). Therefore we achieve the 5 meters clearance under the bridge (we have 5,5 m) in the middle. Also the rotatable decks can remain flat now without any inline, making it well suited for the rotation mechanism. We also have a 26 m clear nautical width in the middle, since this is equal to the Rijnhavenbrug. Therefore, similar types of boats can enter the Rijn- and Maashaven.

12.30

4.90

36.50 (ROTATING DECK)

11.00(CANTILEVER) 12.30

4.80

4.90

4.30

4.00

5.5 (CLEAR)

TECHNICAL PLAN AND ELEVATION

3.90

3.90

3.90

11.80

47°

31

°

31

°

73 °

19°

° ° 19

16 °

16

90 °

N 13.50

PanoraMAAS | The Design

21.70

27.00

42.00

27.00

21.70

21.70

26 | 60

PILLARS We designed the two main pillars to mimic a vertical member on top to keep the same design philosophy, even though it is thicker to endure the forces during rotation. On the bottom we have a larger shape to form the foot on the rotation mechanism. Here is also a maintenance bay to work on the mechanism. To keep the same design language on the bottom of the deck, we designed the side pillars to correspond with the main pillar, but of course much thinner.

PanoraMAAS | The Design

27 | 60

2.70

4 0 2 .

3

DETAILS AND FORCES 0

2.8

The next chapter will focus on detail drawings and force diagrams, to explain how our bridge functions.

0 2 .

3

2.80

FORCE DIAGRAM The triangular shaped vertical frames carry compression and are connected with a tie beam (tension member) on the top. The deck beams carry the compressive force acting on these vertical frames and transfer them to the main pylon. As the bridge is curved, diagonal tension and compression bars are introduced between the vertical frames to resist torsion. The underside of the deck has similar vertical members connected together with a tie beam that carry compressive forces from the deck to the main pylon. The steel deck sits over cantilever steel beams that are connected to primary deck beams.

The bridge is divided into 2 parts; 1. Fixed part which is simply supported with overhang on one side. The center column has a rolled support to take care of the moment forces.

2. Rotating part which is principally designed as a cantilever and truss type.

The bridge follows the Bending moment and the form is directly derived from it.

PanoraMAAS | Details & Forces

Tension Compression

29 | 60

DETAIL DRAWINGS

500 EQ.

75

40

5000

100

20

6000(BRIDGE CLEAR HEIGHT)

20

75

6000(BRIDGE CLEAR HEIGHT)

5500

160

35

35

500

2000

50

1300

350

500

500

150

50

1100

1100

70

250

70 150

20

40

EQ.

35

150

The central pylons are connected to the circular steel plate. The steel plate is placed over ring gear and rotating mechanism that allows the bridge to open and close. The rotating deck slides over the fixed deck during bridge movement and is connected with an expansion joint. The other 4 steel pylons are designed specifically to support the fixed part of the bridge. The first pylon on either side are moment connections. These pylons are fixed on top of the concrete base

35

3200 5500

1100

100

150

2500 2000 8000 (DECK)

PanoraMAAS | Details & Forces

1000

2300

2300 1000 2500 (PEDESTRIAN)

400

1000 1385 2000

150

5500

1100

3200

35 100

1000 3500 (CYCLING)

2500

1000 750

4520 3750

3750

750 1000 2500

750

30 | 60

5

75

20 35 0

0

20

425

60

150

10

1000

75

425

DETAIL DRAWINGS

90

55

15

320

85 150 85

65

20

76°

200

145

200

200

1100

1100 30 10

1100

150

500

500

10 5

350

50

100 125

250

10 10

100 150

10

5000

30 20 15

75 50

50

23°

60

100 125 1250

250

130

150

165

10

15

2500

77°

65 10

230

110

2500 (PEDESTRIAN)

2000

3500 (CYCLING)

8000 (DECK)

PanoraMAAS | Details & Forces

31 | 60

2550

5850

8250

525

2250

150

1200

150

1650

750

1650

DETAIL DRAWINGS

1200

750

2250

350 2500 (PEDESTRIAN)

800 3000

350

350 3500 (CYCLING)

800

350

2250

8000

PanoraMAAS | Details & Forces

32 | 60

5

VISUALS This next chapter focusses on visuals of the bridge. These visuals will be from multiple angles highlighting some of the detailed aspects that are visable inside the bridge. Besides the shown images here, there is also a video showing of our bridge

VIEW FROM WATER LEVEL

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

34 | 60

UNDERSIDE DECK

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

35 | 60

VIEW FROM WATER LEVEL - NIGHT VIEW

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

36 | 60

VIEW FROM CYCLE DECK

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

37 | 60

BIRDSEYE VIEW

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

38 | 60

VIEW FROM THE WARF

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

39 | 60

VIEW ON THE BRIDGE APROACH AND ERASMUS VIEW

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

40 | 60

VIEW FROM THE DECK

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

41 | 60

3D SECTION

PanoraMAAS | Visuals

42 | 60

6

APPENDIX In this appendix extra files are added to show our progress, show more detail or highlight some details. There are also some pictures of physical models that have been made.

MATERIAL LIST

Section

Part

Material

Color

RAL-code

Vertical frame

Steel

off white

RAL 9016

Top Beam

Steel

off white - light grey

RAL 9018

Floor Ped

Asphalt coat on epoxy

dark grey

Floor Cycle path

Asphalt coat on epoxy

dark grey

Floor Support

Steel

off white

RAL 9016

Diagonal Rod

Steel

off white - light grey

RAL 9018

Middle Beam

Steel

off white - light grey

RAL 9018

Main vertical frame

Steel

off white

RAL 9016

Underside Pillar

Steel

off white

RAL 9016

Side Pillar

Steel

off white

RAL 9016

Pedestal

Concrete

concrete grey

Railing

Stainless steel

dark grey

RAL 7037

Mesh Fence

Aluminium/Steel

dark grey

RAL 7037

Vertical support

Steel

dark grey

RAL 7037

Spots vertical frame

LED

multi color light*

Deck light in fence

LED

multi color light*

Bridge

RAL 9016

RAL 9018

RAL 7037

Pillar

Fence

Lighting

*colors will change red when the bridge opens

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

44 | 60

MAIN CONCEPT STUDY

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

45 | 60

FIRST SKETCHES

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

46 | 60

MODEL STUDY

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

47 | 60

FIRST FORCE DIAGRAM STUDY

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

48 | 60

DETAIL EXPERIMENTATION

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

49 | 60

DETAIL EXPERIMENTATION

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

50 | 60

ROUND INSTANCE STUDY

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

51 | 60

FIRST OPENING TEST

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

52 | 60

FIRST SHAPE BRIDGE

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

53 | 60

BRIDGE OPENING STUDY

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

54 | 60

POINTS OF INTEREST

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

55 | 60

Commercial

y

ner

e Gre

BASIC FUNCTIONS

Housing

Greenery School

Housing

Housing

Par

ery

en Gre

kin

Hot

g

el

Greenery

School

Greenery

Housing

Future Culture Zone

Future Culture Zone

Industry

trial

Future Amusement Park

Housing Commercial Greenery

Housing

Housing

Industry School

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

s Indu

Housing

56 | 60 Greenery

BRIDGE 1 LOCATION RANGE

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

57 | 60

BRIDGE 2 LOCATION RANGE

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

58 | 60

BRIDGE 1 VS 2 LOCATION RANGE

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

59 | 60

BRIDGE 1 VS 2 LOCATION RANGE

PanoraMAAS | Apendix

60 | 60