Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235636133
CITATION
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
41
180
5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Jacques Monnet
Gaiatech ; previously : University Joseph Fo
63 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Jacques Monnet
Associate Professor, LIRIGM
Universit Joseph Fourier,
Grenoble, France
D.ominique Allagnat
Manager, Scetauroute
38180, Seyssins, France
Jean Teston
Building Manager, AREA
Bron, France
Pierre Billet
Franois Baguelin
Associate Professor, LIRIGM Technical Manager,
Universit Joseph Fourier,
FondaConcept, la Plaine St
Grenoble, France
Denis, france
V, H, M
z
sat
d
v0
3
eq
l
[l]n
dilatancy angle
1. INTRODUCTION
The Crozet bridge is located on the A51 motorway
Grenoble-Col du Fau on the Grenoble-Sisteron route
fifteen kilometres to the south of Grenoble. It spans a
distance of 350 m across a small valley where the national
road RN75 lies. An embankment was initially foreseen,
but a bridge has now been built with two separate decks.
The first deck is on a single arch (Eastern way SisteronGrenoble) and the second, on three arches (Western way
Grenoble-Sisteron). The arch design was chosen from an
architectural point of view, so that the bridge could be
integrated into the natural site of the Crozet valley. The
design of the foundations on simple supports is
conventional (drilled piles), but the design of the
foundations of the arches is rather complex due to the low
stiffness and strength characteristics of the soil.
This paper presents the original geotechnical approach for
the soil investigation, the design of the foundation and the
design of the bridge, which takes into account the
displacements of the structure and the soil, and the
arrangements used to build the foundation. Foundation
displacements were measured to monitor the behaviour of
the bridge in this seismic area.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE
The Crozet bridge (Fig. 1) runs from northeast to
southwest and is made up of two decks of 313 m for the
eastern deck and 335 m for the western deck (Fig. 2). The
arch design is chosen from an architectural point of view,
so that the bridge is integrated into the natural site of the
small Crozet valley. Each deck supports three lanes. This
paper focuses on the eastern deck (Fig. 3), which is made
up of spans 13 to 20 m long (locally 28 m for RN75
Monnet et al.
19
Monnet et al.
20
Description
EM
(MPa)
3
5
6
30
60
100
60
Made ground
Colluvium
Modern alluvial deposits
F1
Clayey gravel
Quaternary alluvial and F2
Clayey and loamy sandy moraine
glacial deposits
F3
Grey yellow sandy moraine
F4
Clayey loamy grey moraine
Table 1: Results of the Menard pressuremeter tests
Recent deposits
Family
of soil
F2
F2
F3
F4
Description
Loamy sandy moraine (Riss)
Clayey sandy moraine stiff (Riss)
Grey yellow sandy moraine (Riss)
Clayey loamy grey moraine (Riss)
Depth
(m)
10
15.7
29
31
Number
of tests
3
3
3
3
(degree)
33.8
21.5
29.5
31.9
c'
(kPa)
7
80
0
4
Pl
(MPa)
0.3
0.5
0.7
2
5.4
6.5
6.2
'
(degree)
41.5
31
37.5
38.5
Monnet et al.
21
Family of
soil
Description
Depth
(m)
F2
Loamy sandy moraine
12.5
F2
Clayey sandy moraine
20.8
F3
Grey yellow sandy moraine
25
F3
Grey yellow sandy moraine
32.5
F4
Clayey loamy grey moraine
32
Table 3: Results of physical classification of soils
Methyl
blue test
(g/100g)
0.85
1.19
0.23
0.23
0.30
Per cent
Passing
75 sieve
90.5
94.3
30.
33.5
55.2
Classification
ASTM
D32-82
A6
A6
A2-4
A2-4
A6
Classification
USCS
CL
CL
SM
SM
CL
N=
1 sin '
1 + sin '
n=
1 sin
1 + sin
and
= -
5
Fig. 4: Control of mechanical characteristics by
comparison between experimental and theoretical
curves: Test 23 m deep.
experimental and theoretical pressuremeter curves above the
creep pressure. The theoretical curve for the granular soil (1)
assumes an elasto-plastic behaviour, with effective stress, a
non-standard dilatancy and a three dimensional equilibrium
as shown by Monnet and Khlif11 :
(1 + n ) C
+ Ln (1 K 0 ). .z.
1
2.G
where
= 1+n
1 N
and
( )
.z
.z
n. ua .(1+ n ). +(1+ n )(. N K0 ).
2
.G
a
p
C1 =
.z
1+n.
p
where
Soil family
Description
F1
Clayey gravel
F2
Clayey sandy moraine very stiff
F3
Grey yellow sandy moraine, stiff
Table 4: Results of cyclical pressuremeter tests.
ua
6 Ln
c u p .z
.z c u
+ Ln 1 K 0 .
+
=
2.G cu cu
2.G 2.G
Ratio
Ee / EM
3.07 +/- 1.70
3.31 +/- 0.88
2.06 +/- 0.67
cu : kPa
: degree
900 to 1200
600 to 1000
0
0
0
40 to 45
Monnet et al.
22
a max
.Rd = 36kPa
2
3
eq = sat .h.
[ ]
1 n
d'
d'
= C r .
= 78.3. '
'
2
.
. n
kPa
n
Areas
Classes
B
IA
IB
II
III
Table 5 : Values of
classification
d'
= 0.459.F
3'
C
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
aN (m/s2) for theFrench
D
2.0
2.5
3.5
4.5
Monnet et al.
23
Monnet et al.
19
kv = kv0 4. ks
(e) The length of beam l is based on the results of CESAR3D calculation so that a similar rotation is obtained.
The sensitivity of this type of structure (arch bridge) to the
foundation stiffness was investigated by parametric
calculations with characteristics raised by 30% (stiff ground)
or undervalued by 30% (soft ground).
4.3 Results
Monnet et al.
25
:
:
degree
degree
Modern alluvial deposits
30
0.3
0
30
0
F1
Clayey gravel
162
0.3
0
30
0
F2
Clayey and loamy sandy moraine
220
0.3
0
40
10
F3
Grey yellow sandy moraine
270
0.3
0
40
10
F4
Clayey loamy grey moraine
270
0.3
0
38
8
Table 6: Values of the geotechnical parameters used in the FEM calculation
Applied forces
MN
41.54
Settlement
mm
6.7
3.8
2.4
8
4.3
Horizontal displacement
mm
3.7
2
0.5
3.8
2
Rotation
1000.rad
0.4
0.2
0
0.5
0.2
9.5
5.2
3.8
11.4
6.2
4.8
2.6
1
5.4
2.9
0.5
0.3
0
0.6
0.3
16.4
9
5.2
15.9
8.6
6
3.2
1.5
5.9
3.2
1
0.5
0
0.9
0.4
Soft Hypothesis
Stiff Hypothesis
Measurements
Soft Hypothesis
45.11
Stiff Hypothesis
Measurements
Soft Hypothesis
60.09
Stiff Hypothesis
Measurements
Soft Hypothesis
74.52
Stiff Hypothesis
Measurements
Soft Hypothesis
96.8
Stiff Hypothesis
Measurements
Soft Hypothesis
93.85
Stiff Hypothesis
Measurements
Table 7: Displacements found by finite element
deck
analysis and measurements for the south support (P13) of the eastern
Monnet et al.
26
Figure 10:
Achievement control for the
displacements on the support P13
total
Monnet et al.
27
Monnet et al.
28