A feasability study How to cross the wide and deep Sognefjord

SUMMARY

REPORT

Projects Division

Norwegian Public Roads Administration - Western Region Projects Division Dated: March 2011

Norwegian Public Roads Administration

The Norwegian Public Roads Administration is responsible for the planning, construction and operation of the national and county road networks, vehicle inspection and requirements, driver training and licensing.

ThisreportisashortenedversioninEnglishoftheoriginalreportinNorwegian, seenabove. Formoreinformation,contact: Mr.OlavEllevset,ProjectManager,olav.ellevset@vegvesen.no Mr.LidvardSkorpa,lidvard.skorpa@vegvesen.no

INTRODUCTION
SUMMARYANDRECOMMENDATIONS.3 1. INFORMATIONABOUTALTERNATIVES6 2. FLOATINGBRIDGE.7 2.1 Recommendedpriorities 2.2 Necessaryclarificationsandfurtherstudies.11 3. SUBMERGEDFLOATINGTUNNEL(SFT)12 3.1 Recommendedpriorities..12 3.2 Necessaryclarificationsandfurtherstudies.16 4. SUSPENSIONBRIDGE17 4.1 Recommendedpriorities..17 4.2 Necessaryclarificationsandfurtherstudies.18 5. SPECIALPROBLEMSCOMMONTOSEVERALALTERNATIVES19

5.1Foundationsatextremewaterdepth..............................19 5.2Useofhorizontaltensionanchorcables..19 5.3 Safety,accidentsandexcessiveloadsituations19 CONCLUDINGREMARKS.20

3 INTRODUCTION TheultimategoalforcoastalhighwayE39betweenKristiansandandTrondheimistoreplace theeightferrycrossingswithfixedlinksusingtunnelsorbridges. TheWesternRegionoftheNorwegianPublicRoadsAdministrationhasinitiatedaseriesof technologydevelopmentstudiestoinvestigatethepossibilitiesforcrossingtheseverydeep andwidefjords.TheSognefjordcrossinghasbeenchosenforprefeasibilitystudies,this crossingbeing3700metreswidewithdepthsdownto1300metres. Itishopedthatstudiesofthisextremelychallengingcrossing,combiningexperienceand technologyfromoffshoreoilfieldsandotherplaces,willsolvemanyproblemsforcrossing narrowerandshallowerfjordslater. Thefinalaimofthisstudyistopresentconcretealternativesforfixedlinks,excluding subseatunnels,whichwouldbepartofotherfeasibilitystudies. ThisprefeasibilitystudyhasbeenorganisedbytheProjectDivisionoftheNorwegianPublic RoadsAdministration,WesternRegion. Membersoftheprojectgrouphavebeen: LidvardSkorpa,headofproject,WesternRegion BjrnIsaksen,RoadDirectorate KristianBerntsen,RoadDirectorate JorunnHillestadSekse,WesternRegion Hvardstlid,privateconsultant BerntJakobsen,COWIAS/privateconsultant SveinErikJakobsen,Dr.Ing.A.AasJakobsenA/S Thefirstpartofthisfeasibilitystudywastwothinktankseminarswherekeypersonswere invitedtodiscussasmanyaspectsaspossibleofsubmergedfloatingtunnels,floatingbridges, suspensionbridgesandanycombinationofthesealternatives. Thisworkwascompletedduringsummer2010. Sincetheseseminars,theproposedalternativesandothernewalternativeshavebeen studiedanddevelopedfurtherbytheprojectgroup.Keyelementsinthesestudieshavebeen themostcentralissues,rangingfromsafety,geometricaldetailsanddynamicconsiderations toconstructability. Thisreportpresentsashortoverviewoftheprefeasibilitystudiesandrecommendationsfor furtherwork.

4 SUMMARYANDRECOMMENDATIONS Theprojectgroupconsiderstheresultsfromtheseminarsandinitialfeasibilitystudiestobe veryencouraging.TheseresultsindicatethatseveralalternativesforcrossingtheSognefjord aretechnologicallypossible.Furtherworkshouldnowconcentrateonbringingforward necessarydocumentationtoverifythisasfaraspossibleatthisstageofthedevelopment. Resultsfromthesestudieshavealreadyprovedtobeveryusefulforfjordcrossingsinother locations. Theprojectgrouphasconcentratedonthreeprincipalalternatives.Themostpromisingones usefloatingpontoonsorsimilarelementsasfoundations.Afloatingbridgeisonesuch alternative;anotherisasubmergedfloatingtunnel.Thelattertypeofstructurehasnotyet beenbuiltanywhere,butmanyplansexist. Thethirdmainalternativeisasuspensionbridgeorsimilarconstructionspanningthewidth offjord.Thiswouldbealmostdoublethelengthofthelongestexistingbridgespaninthe world. Thechallengetothesestructuresistowithstandthehorizontalforcesfromwind,currents andwavesinlongspansituations. ForfurtherstudyofcrossingtheSognefjord,thegrouprecommendsthethreebridge alternativesasshowninthetablebelow: Bridgetype Alternative Floatingbridge Highlevel,onpontoons,shoreanchoredonly,midfjord shipspassage Floatingbridge Shoreanchored,highlevelbridgenearshoreforships passage Floatingbridge Combinedwithsubmergedfloatingtunnelasshipspassage Submergedfloatingtunnel Twoparallelcrossconnectedtubesinhorizontalcurvewith surfacepontoons Submergedfloatingtunnel Singletubeinhorizontalcurvewithsurfacepontoonsand horizontalanchorcablestoshore Suspensionbridgetype Singlespanacrossthefjord Suspensionbridgetype Foundationsonpontoons,shorteningthespan Basedonthetableabove,furtherworkwillconcentrateondevelopingandpossibly documentingcriticalelementsintheproposals. Inadditionthegrouprecommendsthatstudiesondeepseafoundationsbeinitiatedassoon aspossible.

1.

GENERALINFORMATIONABOUTALTERNATIVES

Thealternativespresentedinthefollowingareonlyaselectionoftheresultsfromthe seminarsandlaterworkbytheprojectgroup. Thevariousbridgealternativesareorganisedaccordingtoprincipalconstructiontype. CommentsanddiscussionsarenotlimitedtotheSognefjordcrossingatLavikOppedal,but includesomeobservationsabouttheotherextremefjordcrossings. Thisreportpresentstheviewoftheprojectgroup,withimportantemphasisonthe thefactorsshownbelow: Safetyfortrafficandstructure(shipsimpact,redundancies,knownhazards andsoon) Constructability(abilitytoprovidecapacitytowithstandallrelevantloads andalsonecessarytechnologydevelopment) Robustnessofstructuresatvarioussitespecificconditions(widthsand depths,waves,windandcurrents,shipstrafficandsoon) Leastpossiblehindranceforfuturepassageofshipsandminimum deviationsfromapplicablepresentrulesandregulations Robustnessandsimplicityforfuturecontrol,operationandmaintenance Theproposedworkplanandprioritieshavebeendrawnupusingexperiencefromdeepsea foundationsinconnectionwithbridgeconstructions.Itisimportantthatthealternativesput forwardareconsideredrealisticinlightofexistingrequirements,rulesandregulations. Theprojectgrouphasconcentrateditseffortsonpresentinganddiscussingrelevant problemsandchallengesforeachofthealternatives.Somepreliminarycalculationshave beenmadetoidentifyspecialareasneedingfurtherworkatthisstageofthevarious alternatives.Thiswork,whichwasaimedatidentifyingsafetyortechnicalproblemsatan earlystage,hasresultedintherejectionofanumberofproposalsatleastforthetime being. Thevolumeoffuturetraffichasbeenusedtoestablishthenecessarygeometryandother requirementsforthetrafficsituationintheyear2040. Thesecrossings,whichareintendedtobeopentoallgroupsofusers,satisfythe requirementsofuniversaldesign.

2.

FLOATINGBRIDGE

2.1 Recommendedpriorities Thefollowingalternativeswillbedevelopedfurther. CrossingtheSognefjord Becauseofthegreatdepthofthefjord,morethan1250metresattheproposedplaceof crossing,ithasbeendecidednottohaveanyfixedfoundationsonthefjordbottom. Thewidthofthefjord,3700metres,callsforspecialmeasurestoensuresufficienthorizontal strengthandstiffnessofallstructureswithstandingmovementsandforcesfromcurrents, wavesandwind. ThetwomostpromisingalternativesforcrossingatLavikOppedalarebrieflydescribedinthe following: Floatingbridgewithhighbridgemidfjordforshipspassage.

Fig.1Thebuckethandlealternative Thisisabridgewithcolumnsonpontoons,wherethebridgeiscurvedhorizontallywith descendingheighttowardstheshorelines.Thisstructure,whichissometimesreferredtoas thebuckethandlealternative,providesthenecessaryclearanceforfuturecruiseships.

7 Althoughthisalternativehasnotyetbuiltanywhere,itisbelievedtohandlethehorizontal forcesadequately. Asastartingpoint,singlepontoonsareconsideredtoprovideenoughstiffnessacrossthe bridgealignmentand,whenplacedparalleltotheshores,willexperienceminimumeffect fromconditionsatsea. Alternatively,secondarysupportsmayhavetobeprovidedinadifferentway.Anexampleis showninFig.2;introducingseparatebridgedeckswillalsoincreasehorizontalstiffness. Separatebridgedecks,withpedestriansinthe middle Fig.2 Principlesketch,separatebridgedecksandpedestrianlane Floatingbridgewithahighbridgeorsimilarconstructionclosetoshore Thisalternativeisthesameasanexistingfloatingbridge:theNordhordlandsbrunearBergen onthewestcoastofNorway.Thisbridgehasahighbridgefromlandtoafoundationinthe seaatadepthof35metresandatotalbridgelengthof1614metres.Itistheonlyfloating bridgewithnoanchorsexceptatlandfalls.

8 Fig.3TheNordhordlandsbru,openedin1994 ThecrossingoftheSognefjordwillrequiresomerockblastingtocreatethenecessaryspace forshipstocrossunderthebridge. Thebridgedesigncanbeseeninfig.4.

Fig.4 Floatingbridgewithcablestayedbridgeoverpassagepartlycreatedbyrockblasting Oneimportantpointishowdeepitispossibleandeconomicallyviabletoplacethe foundationofthebridgeandwhetheritispossibletoavoidanytypeofanchoring, horizontallyorvertically. Acharacteristicofthisalternativeisthelongrampdownfromthebridgetothefloating bridgesection.Ifnecessary,greaterhorizontalstiffnessmaybeobtainedbyusingseparate bridgedecks.

9 Floatingbridgeandsubmergedfloatingtunnelwithpontoons

Fig.5 Floatingbridgewithpontoonsforenteringthesubmergedfloatingtunnelatmid fjord Furtherworkisnecessarytostudythecombinationoffloatingbridgeandlargepontoons takingthetrafficdowntothesubmergedfloatingtunnelanduptofloatingbridgelevel. Anotheralternativemightbethisarrangementneartheshore,thenusingonlyonepontoon andconnectingthesubmergedfloatingtunnelatdepthwitharocktunnel. Thefloatingbridgecouldalsoconnecttoasubmergedfloatingtunnelthroughafloating structureandthenapproachtheshoresintwoseparatetunnels,creatingaYtoprovide extrastiffnesstotheconstruction.

10

11 Fig.5 FloatingbridgeconnectingwithYshapedsubmergedfloatingtunnel Generalcommentsregardingotherfjordcrossings Mostoftheotherplacesforcrossingfjordsonthewestcoastwouldbedifferentfromthe Sognefjordcrossing;somewouldbeshorterandothercrossingswouldbeconsiderably shallower. Optimallocationsofcrossingscouldfavouralternativeswithcrossingsinastraightline insteadofcurved,withsimplerfoundationsatshallowerdepthsandsoon. Floatingbridgesdirectlyexposedtotheopenseawouldpresentsubstantialproblemsand arenotrecommendedinthisstudy. Withtheseargumentsinmind,alargenumberofotherfjordcrossingsmaybefeasible, andintheseinstancesthelocalenvironmentswillplayanimportantrole. 2.2 Necessaryclarificationsandfurtherstudies Thetablebelowpresentsalimitednumberofthemesandactionsdeemednecessaryfor furtherdevelopmentofthealternatives. Themes Actions Safety Acceptableriskof: Lossoflives Lossofconstruction Lossofships Whichextremeloadsituationsshouldbeconsidered Impactofclimaticchanges Roadstandardsetc. Separatepedestrian/cyclistlanes Heightofsailingclearance Studiesofpontoonroadspiralandmovablefloatingsections Specialstudies Shipimpactstudiesandshipsailingpaths Specialstudies Statisticalanddynamicanalysisandpreliminarydesigntocheckfor constructabilityandmaindimensions Specialstudies Overallconstructionandinstallationmethods

12 3. SUBMERGEDFLOATINGTUNNEL(SFT) 3.1 Recommendedpriorities Thefollowingalternativesforasubmergedfloatingtunnelcrossingaretentatively presented: CrossingtheSognefjord Atthechosenlocationofcrossing,waterdepthsmaybeasgreatas1250to1300metres, andanchoringtotheseafloorisconsideredimpractical. Thewidthofthefjord,3700metres,requiresspecialdesigntosecuresufficienthorizontal strengthandstiffnessandalsolimitmovementtoacceptablevalues. Oneofthemostpromisingalternativesisshowninfig.6. Doubletunnelsinhorizontalcurve,usingpontoonsandcrossovertunnelsfor stiffnessandalsoescapefacilities.

Fig.6 Doubletubesinhorizontalcurve,usingpontoonsandcrossovertunnelsfor stiffnessandalsoescapefacilities. Eachtunnelhastwolanes,ensuringtrafficflowduringmaintenanceandaccidents. Ifextralaybysarerequiredforaccidentpreparedness,theymaybelocatedintheareaof thecrossovertunnels. Alternatively,theremaybeonelargetunnelfortrafficandasmallerparalleltunnelfor pedestriansandcyclists.

13

Fig.7 Freepassagebetweenpontoons,butvulnerabletocollisionwithships

Fig.8 Submergedfloatingtunnelseenfromunderneath. Theweaklinkconstructionbetweentunnelsandpontoonsproducesnecessaryredundancy. Thisalternativeisarelativelysimpleconstructionalsystemhavingsufficientpotentialfor adequatestiffnessandstrengthtowithstandloadsandmovementsfromwind,wavesand currents.

14 Singletunnelsubmergedfloatingtunnelwithpontoonsandhorizontalanchorsat pointstoshores

Fig.8 Singletunnel,pontoonsandhorizontalanchors Thesingletunnelobtainsverticalstiffnessfromsufficientlylargepontoonsandhorizontal stiffnessfromthecurveandthehorizontallyanchoredcables.Insomecasesthesecables maybeusedinadifferentconfiguration,possiblyonbothsidesofthetunnel.Inallcases thesecableshavetobeintensionandadjustableovertime. Thissystemmaybearealisticalternativeforcrossingsupto2000metres. Generalcommentsregardingotherfjordcrossings Mostoftheotherrelevantplacesforfjordcrossingsonthewestcoastwouldbedifferent fromtheSognefjordcrossing.Bothwaterdepthsandwidthsofthecrossingswouldbeless, makingcrossingssimplertoconstructwithanchoringdowntotheseabottom. Fjordcrossingsexposeddirectlyexposedtoopenseawouldrequireothersolutionsthan proposedfortheSognefjordcrossingatLavikOppedal.

15 Submergedfloatingtunnelwithoutpontoons,withadequatestiffnessensuredboth horizontallyandverticallybyinclinedtetherstoseabottom

Fig.9 Tetheredalternative Thetunnelhastohavesufficientbuoyancytomaintaintensioninthetethersatalltimes, whileatthesametimetheseforcesshouldbebalancedtoavoidunnecessaryoverdesign. Thetetherswillproducetensionforthefoundation,whichcallsforusingsomesortof caissonswithadeadweightthatisheavyenough,evenifthiswilllatercausesettlingand requireadjustabletethers.Othermethodsforanchoringmaybetensionpilesorvacuum caissons. Theheavycaissonanchorisregardedasthesimplestandsafestanchor.Itsfeasibilitywas provenintheHgsfjordProject,whichdevelopedseveraldesignsingreatdetail. Thisalternativeisexpectedtobethemostpracticalandsafeforfoundationswhere seaconditionsarerough.Itisalsoindependentofthelengthofcrossing.

16 3.2 Necessaryclarificationsandfurtherstudies Thetablebelowpresentsalimitednumberofthemesandactionsdeemednecessaryfor furtherdevelopmentofthesubmergedfloatingtunnelalternatives. Themes Safety Actions Acceptableriskof: Lossoflives Lossofconstruction Lossofships Whichextremeloadsituationsshouldbeconsidered Fireandexplosions Separatepedestrian/cyclistlane Widthofshipspassage Turnbackpossibilityinsingletunnels Acceptedtunnelcrosssectionsforsingleanddoubletunnel Shipimpactstudiesandshipsailingpaths Statisticalanddynamicanalysisandpreliminarydesigntocheckfor constructabilityandmaindimensions Overallconstructionandinstallationmethods

Roadstandardetc.

Studies Studies

Studies 4. SUSPENSIONBRIDGE 4.1 Recommendedpriorities Suspensionbridgecrossingthefjordinasinglespan,3700metres CrossingtheSognefjordwithatraditionaltypeofsuspensionbridgeisagreatchallenge.A mainspanof3700metresisabouttwicethespanofthelongestexistingsuspensionbridge, AkhasiKaikyoinJapan,whichhasafreespanof1991metres. Extensive,sustainedresearchanddevelopmentoveraperiodofperhaps1015yearswillbe necessarytoaccomplishtheSognefjordcrossing.Onekeyandhighlycomplexissueinthis connectionisaerodynamicstability. Whenafreespanexceedsabout1500metres,itmaybenecessarytochangethecross sectiondesignpresentlyusedinthiscountry.Therequiredcrosssectionwouldbeseparated bycrossbracedroaddeckstoimprovethedynamicstability. Thedistancebetweenthelowestandhighestpointofthesuspensioncablesisusuallyabout 1/10ofthefreespan.Inthiscasethiswouldprobablyrequireapylonheightof4500metres, whichalsowouldbegreatchallengetoconstruct. Thecableswouldbeproducedbyspinningonsite.Severalcableconfigurationswouldbe

17 consideredwithaerodynamicstabilityinmind.Normally,onecableoneithersideisused, butacableorcablesmayalsobepositionedalongthecentralaxisofthebridge.

Suspensionbridgewithoneortwopylonsonpontoons Thecostofsuspensionbridgesnormallyincreasesexponentiallywiththelengthofthemain span.Atthesametime,theaerodynamicproblemsincrease. Reducingthemainspanmaybepossibleifoneorbothpylonsarefoundedonfloating pontoons.Fig.10illustrateshowthismightbedone.

Fig.10 Pylononpontoonconnectedtolandsidebyheavyconcretestructure. Pontoonmaybeadditionallystabilisedusinghorizontalcableanchors.

18 Generalcommentsregardingotherfjordcrossings ManyofthefuturefjordcrossingsinNorwaywillhavesuspensionbridgesorsimilartypesof bridges.Sitespecificconditionswillalwaysplayanimportantrole. 4.2 Necessaryclarificationsandfurtherstudies Themes Safety Roadstandardetc. Studies Studies Studies Studies 5. SPECIALPROBLEMSCOMMONTOSEVERALALTERNATIVES Actions Effectofclimaticchanges Loadrequirements Clearanceforships Shipimpactstudies Calculationsandconstructionalanalysis Windtunneltesting Selectedareasforfullscaletesting(HardangerBridge)

5.1Foundationsatextremewaterdepth Thepossibilityofplacingfoundationsatverygreatwaterdepthswillbeakeyfactorwhen designingalternativesforcrossingNorwegianfjords.Developingtechnologyfordeepwater foundationscouldthereforebeadecisivefactorforfuturewideanddeepcrossings. Experiencefromexistingbridgefoundationsandfromfoundationsforoilplatformswillbe ausefulsourceofinformation.Reuseofobsoleteplatformfoundationsmayalsoofinterest. 5.2Useofhorizontaltensionanchorcables Someofthealternativesrequireuseofhorizontalanchoringinordertowithstandhorizontal forcesbroughtaboutbywind,wavesorcurrentsorforotherreasons. Thesearenotwellknowntechnologies,andstudiesofbothmaterialsandmethodswillbe necessary. 5.3 Safety,accidentsandexcessiveloadsituations Safetyrelatedtonormalelementsindesignfollowsrulesandregulationslaiddownby nationalandinternationalstandardsandisnotdiscussedinthesereports. Allknowntypesofaccidents,extremeweathersituationsandpossiblefailuresofsafety systemshavebeenidentifiedanddiscussed.Thisisaspecialchallengewhendealingwith

19 newtypesofstructures,whichisthesituationincrossingtheSognefjordbetweenLavikand Oppedal. CONCLUDINGREMARKS Theinitialseminarsbroughtforwardmanynewalternativesforcrossingtheverydeepand wideSognefjord. Furtherstudiesbytheprojectgrouphaveconcludedthatanumberofthealternativesare realistic,andtheprojectgroupiscontinuingthisworkwiththeaimofproducing documentationasthebasisformoredetaileddevelopmentstudies. Theresultsfromtheseminarsandlaterworkbytheprojectgrouphavealreadybeenusedas abasisforfeasibilitystudiesoffjordcrossingselsewherealongcoastalhighwayE39.