Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235636133

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on


alluvial soils
ARTICLE in GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING JANUARY 2006
Impact Factor: 1.06 DOI: 10.1680/geng.2006.159.1.19

CITATION

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

41

180

5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Jacques Monnet
Gaiatech ; previously : University Joseph Fo
63 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Jacques Monnet


Retrieved on: 23 July 2015

Proceeding of the Institution of


Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 159
January 2006 Issue GEI
Pages 19-28
Paper 13533
Received 10/10/2003
Accepted 08/08/2005
Keywords
bridges / design methods &
aids / site investigation

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

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils


J. Monnet, D. Allagnat, J. Teston, P. Billet and F. Baguelin
The Crozet bridge is located on the Grenoble-Col du
Fau motorway, on the Grenoble-Sisteron route, fifteen
kilometres south of Grenoble, France. It crosses a 350 m
wide valley and the RN75 national road. The adaptation
of the bridge into the landscape has involved an arch
design with three bays (direction Grenoble-Sisteron)
and one bay (direction Sisteron-Grenoble). The
supports of the structure were difficult to build because
of the huge horizontal force and the low displacement
tolerance. The low stiffness and strength characteristics
foreseen led to a geotechnical investigation by cyclic
pressuremeter tests with a friction angle and cohesion
interpretation. The foundation calculations were carried
out by a Finite Element calculation using CESARLCPC program to determine the support rigidity. The
complete computation of the bridge was done with the
calculated support rigidity which showed that
displacements of the arches were lower than the
tolerance. The bridge is located in low seismic area of
France and the design takes into account the maximum
foreseeable magnitude, and analysis of the soil
liquefaction risk. Monitoring carried out for completion
of the bridge in 1999 and along the surveying shows
displacements lower than tolerance values. Since 1999,
the bridge has withstood huge service weights without
any difficulty.
NOTATION
a
radius of the borehole
static horizontal acceleration equivalent to a seism
amax
aN
nominal acceleration
c
cohesion
Cr
correction coefficient from Seed function of K0
EM
pressuremeter modulus from Mnard test
Ee
elastic modulus
F
safety coefficient
g
gravity acceleration
G
shear modulus of the soil
h
depth of the sample
khx , khy , ks ,
kv , k1 , k2 : stiffness of the soil for displacements and rotations
K0
coefficient of earth pressure at rest
n
number of cycles
Pl
limit Pressure of Mnard test
Rd
reduce coefficient from Seed function of depth
displacement at the borehole wall
ua

V, H, M
z

vertical, horizontal forces and bending


moment applied to the foundation
depth of the pressuremeter test
unit weight of the soil

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

sat

d
v0
3

eq
l
[l]n

unit saturated specific weight


Poissons ratio
effective deviatoric stress
effective initial vertical stress
lateral stress on triaxial test

equivalent shearing stress


cyclic shearing stress
cyclic equivalent shearing stress at n cycles
drained friction angle
interparticle angle of friction

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

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

Monnet et al.

19

crossing), and an arch of a 120 m radius and 143.5 m long


which is supported on two end columns and six central
columns of a 1 m diameter. For the western deck, land
surveying and architectural control led to a three-arch
design, two of which are 101.5 m in long, and the third one
is 87 m long supported on 6 and 5 small columns. The total
height of the bridge is 30 m above the Crozet stream
3. GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Geological and geotechnical environment
The geology of the Crozet valley is quite simple. It is a
fluvio-glacial deposit (Fig. 3), which is modelled by a
thalweg with gentle slopes. At the bottom, a small stream
flows. The site is classified as a low seismic area.
Fig. 1: General view of the bridge

Various investigations reveal recent deposits of a few


meter thickness above quaternary alluvial and glacial
deposits, the thickness of which is greater than 10 m. The
bedrock comprises black marl and was not reached by
the boreholes at 40 m depth. Recent deposits are made up
of gravely clay and modern alluvial deposits found at
depth ranging from 7 to 10 m. The former alluvial and
glacial deposits can be described in four different families
of soils, which are function of the depth:
(a) Family F1: clayey gravel with sandy levels of around
100 mm. The thickness of this loose layer ranges from
8 to 15 m. This thickness is of 2 m in the thalweg due
to channelling of the recent alluvial deposits. This
stratum is part of the Wrm Formation.
(b) Family F2: Clayey and loamy sandy moraine grey,
very stiff, with scarce sandy and gravely levels. This
formation is channelled by the family above, and
different thicknesses are found.
(c) Family F3: Grey yellow sandy moraine with some clay;
it is very stiff and its thickness varies from 15 to 8 m

Fig. 2: Plan view of the bridge

Fig. 3: Geological situation and elevation view of the bridge

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

Monnet et al.

20

from north to south, and it disappears under the south


side of the thalweg.
(d) Family F4: Clayey loamy grey moraine, very stiff, overconsolidated, with a thickness greater than 25 m, very
homogeneous.
The last three levels are part of Riss formation.
3.2 Results of investigation and tests
Investigations were conducted with a lot of in situ and
laboratory tests, sixteen classical pressuremeter boreholes,
three boreholes with undisturbed samples for laboratory
tests, two boreholes were drilled for fifty-nine high-pressure
pressuremeter tests with three cyclical loadings undertaken
in the four old formations (F1-F4), several triaxial tests were
performed to measure the shearing characteristics of the
soils. The statistical analysis allows the determination of the
mean values shown on Table 1.

3.2.1 Triaxial Drained Consolidated Tests. Tests were


carried out in the LIRIGM laboratory of the Joseph Fourier
University in Grenoble on remoulded samples, matched to
the in-situ effective lateral pressure with a pore pressure of
100kPa.
There was lateral drainage during the consolidation phase.
Dimensions of the samples were 70 mm in diameter and 150
mm in height without any lubrification on each end. The test
was drained with a speed of 0.01 mm/mn. The final
consolidation wasreached in 90 minutes and the test took 22
h, which is 15 times the consolidation duration. The
measurement of the volume variation is done from the
measurement of the inner volume of the sample. The results
of triaxial tests are shown in Table 2 and physical
characteristics of samples are shown in Table 3. The
interparticle angle of friction is the minimum value of the
friction angle as shown by Rowe1. It measures the friction
between two different particles of soil and it is found by the
Frydman et al.2 theory.

Cyclical pressuremeter tests. The pressuremeter


3.2.2
was designed by Menard3,4 to find the pressuremeter
Family of soil

modulus and limit pressures of the soil. The pressuremeter


tests are used here to find the elastic modulus and the
friction angle of the soil. The tests were carried out with a
slotted tube of 63 mm external diameter 1090 mm long and
slots was 915 mm long. The thickness of the tube is 2 mm.
The interpretation of the tests was carried out by the
Gaiatech5 patent, which takes into account the corrections to
volume and pressure based in the French standard6, but also
takes into account the influence of the shape of the probe
under pressure as shown by Fawaz et al.7, the nonuniformity of the pressure distribution along the probe,
which was found by Basudhar and Kumar8, and the
difference between the external and internal radii of the
probe.
The process leads to the determination of the mechanical
characteristics in four different steps:
(a) The determination of the angle of interparticle friction
measured on the consolidated drained triaxial test, as
reported by Monnet and Gielly9.
(b) The determination of the elastic shearing modulus along
the unloading-reloading cycle of the pressuremeter test.
The cycle is carried out in the so-called linear range
of the soil behaviour of the pressuremeter test.
(c) The determination of the angle of internal friction of the
soil by measurement of the slope of the linear relation
between logarithms of the pressure versus radial strain of
the pressuremeter results as shown by Hughes et al.10 and
Monnet and Khlif11. The undrained cohesion is
determined by the slope of the linear relation between the
pressure and the logarithm of the radial strain, as shown
by Gibson and Anderson12 and Monnet and Chemaa13.
(d) Control of the mechanical characteristic of elasticity
(shear modulus) and strength (cohesion or friction
angle). The Gaiapress14 program is used to check the
correct comparison between experimental and theoretical
pressuremeter curves (Fig. 4) and experimental and
theoretical limit pressures. The shear modulus value is
controlled by the correspondence between experimental
and theoretical cycles. Values of friction angle and
cohesion are controlled by the correspondence between

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

Table 2: Results of Drained Consolidated triaxial tests on intact samples.

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

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 :

Ln a .(1 + n ) C1 = .Ln( p ) .Ln( .z )


a

(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.

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

The theoretical curve for the cohesive soil (6) assumes an


elasto-plastic behaviour, with total stress, no volume
variation when plasticity occurs and a three dimensional
equilibrium as shown by Monnet and Chemaa13 :

ua

6 Ln

c u p .z
.z c u

+ Ln 1 K 0 .
+
=

2.G cu cu
2.G 2.G

Results of pressuremeter interpretation are shown on Table


4. The interpretation is made with the assumption of no
friction for a cohesive soil and no cohesion for a friction
soil. As the pressuremeter test mainly shears the soil in the
horizontal plane between the radial and the circumferential
stress, it can be considered as equivalent to a single Mohr
circle. For soil with cohesion and friction, the value of the
equivalent friction angle, measured by this method, is
overestimated by the imposed condition of no cohesion. On
the other hand, the value of the equivalent cohesion is also
overestimated by the imposed condition of no friction.
The mean value of the ratio between elastic modulus and
pressuremeter modulus Ee/EM is 3.07 in the fluvial-glacial
deposit with a large variation from 1.37 to 4.77. The ratio is
3.31 in the grey clay and 2.06 in the grey sand. The elastic
modulus is high and greater than 80 MPa. The fluvio glacial
deposits and grey sandy moraine (F1 and F2) have a huge
Elastic modulus Ee :
MPa
80 to 280
100 to 220
180 to 350

Ratio
Ee / EM
3.07 +/- 1.70
3.31 +/- 0.88
2.06 +/- 0.67

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

cu : kPa

: degree

900 to 1200
600 to 1000
0

0
0
40 to 45

Monnet et al.

22

undrained cohesion without friction angle. For family F3,


the interpretation is made with an assumption of no
cohesion, and all the shearing strength of the soil is
calculated with a friction. For the grey sand, this leads to a
friction angle of 40 to 45, which is in the range of
expected values.

3.2.3 Cyclical triaxial tests.

These tests were conducted


in the LIRIGM laboratory of the Joseph Fourier University
in Grenoble. Samples from the F2 family were selected to
study liquefaction under seismic excitation. The Association
Franaise de Gnie Parasismique (AFPS) calculation was
followed to define test procedure.
Samples 70 mm in diameter and 140 mm high were used.
The cell is connected to a cyclical hydraulic press of 20kN
maximum load. This press is connected to two hydraulic
systems, one for the axial force, the other one for the lateral
pressure of the triaxial cell. For a constant lateral pressure,
the number of cycles, axial displacement, axial force and
pore pressure are recorded.
The bridge is located in low seismic area (low magnitude IB
classification of the French territory by French authorities)
and is classified category C (public construction on
motorway, with a high level of risk due to frequent
utilization and huge economic importance). This leads to a
nominal acceleration aN equal to 2 m.s-2 ( Table 5)
The current sample is tested under the equivalent seismic
shearing eq imposed by AFPS 9215:

a max
.Rd = 36kPa

2
3

eq = sat .h.

[ ]

1 n

d'
d'

= C r .
= 78.3. '
'

2
.
. n

kPa
n

where Cr equal to 0.6; Rd is the reduction coefficient defined


by Seed and Idriss16 and Seed17 equal to 0.7; amax equal to
0.9. aN; sat equal to 21kN/m3; h the depth of the foundation
equal to 16 m; v0 equal to 261kPa; d is equal to (1 3); [l]n is the shearing resistance of the sample when
liquefaction appears after n cycles.
A safety coefficient F is defined as the ratio between [l]n the
laboratory stress which leads to liquefaction phenomena, and
eq the calculated equivalent stress for n cycles so that

Areas

The experimental conditions are:


10

3 = 100kPa, d = 45.9.F kPa, 0.5 Hz frequency.

We have carried out a test with d equal to 58.4 kPa.


The AFPS 9215 rules that the liquefaction shear stress must
be lower than the of the limit shear stress of the soil. It
appears for 2.5% of strain after 5 cycles in IB area, 10 cycles
in II area, 25 cycles in III area.
For a liquefaction phenomenon that occurs on the fifth cycle,
the safety coefficient is 1.27. By applying a deformation
criterion (2.5% of strain) it can be seen on Fig. 5 that
liquefaction does not appear in the first five cycles but at the
17th cycle. Thus, the risk of liquefaction is very low.
4. FOUNDATION DESIGN
The general design of the bridge was carried out so as to
integrate the anticipated foundation stiffness into the
structural analysis according to the organization of
calculations indicated in Fig. 6.
4.1
General design of arch foundations
Preliminary studies for the design of the principal supports
of the arch led to massive and rigid foundations made of a
unit of orthogonal bars organised in a box with three webs.
The continuity of the reinforcements had to be ensured. This
solution was regarded as the basis of Contractor tenders for
the project. As the deformation of the structure had to be
limited, it was necessary to use a very rigid foundation.
As there is no major hydraulic constraint, the Contractor
suggested elliptic box foundations. For the arch of the
eastern deck, the boxes are 13 m long, 10 m wide for a
maximum depth of 16 m. These hollow boxes are filled with
soil for stability, and rest on a 2 m thick reinforced concrete
raft foundation (Fig. 7).
The well foundations excavated by 1 m steps are followed
immediately by a reinforced concrete lateral support and an
elliptic truncated cone formwork. After setting up a
reinforcement cage , a second form is placed in order to

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

Fig. 5: Results of triaxial liquefaction tests:


displacements against number of cycles
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

Monnet et al.

23

Fig. 6: Hierarchical organisation used for the bridge design

Fig. 7: Mesh used for finite element calculations and


the mesh used for the foundation well
make the 2 m thick final walls. After filling with granular
soil, a concrete roof slab, 1 m thick, is poured to close the
foundation box.

foundations, which are introduced in the general seismic


calculation of the bridge. The model suggested by the
Contractor for the foundation of the P5/P6 supports of the
eastern and western arch decks is an elastic node-beam
where the elliptical well foundation is modelled (Fig. 8) by a
vertical beam (along z) and two orthogonal horizontal beams
(along x and y). Along the vertical beam, there are
continuous horizontal springs khx and khy so that the
horizontal reactions are mobilized along the body of the
well foundation. At the ends of the horizontal beams, there
are vertical springs of rigidity ks that represent the side
friction mobilized along the side of the well foundation. A
vertical spring of rigidity kv is placed at the lower end of the
vertical beam to represent the ground vertical stiffness under
the foundation, reduced by the four springs stiffness ks. The
model has also local differential springs of stiffness k1 and

A cement grouting system with pipes uniformly distributed


perpendicular to the lateral supporting walls allows the
improvement of the contact between the surrounding soil
and the foundation. For the supports that bears the force of a
single arch, the horizontal component is very large (close to
47.2 MN), and equal to the vertical component (close to 47.9
MN) for support P13/P14 of eastern deck) with a stabilizing
moment of 122 MN.m for the permanent service load. The
elliptical shape of the foundation improves the rigidity of the
foundation as the long axis of the ellipse is in the direction
of the horizontal component. The aim is to keep horizontal
displacement under a 2 cm threshold.
4.2 Organization of the calculation
The method of the bridge structural calculation requires
knowledge of the stiffness matrix of the soil mass around the
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

Fig. 8: The node beam model used to represent the


well foundation in 3D FEM calculus

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

Monnet et al.

19

k2 to represent the difference of vertical pressure from the


anchorage along the foundation that are linked to the
rotation of the horizontal beams.
The 3D model that is used for the foundation support is
calibrated based on finite element calculation (Fig. 7 and 8)
with the LCPC CESAR program. The calibration of the
node-beam model is carried out as follows.
(a) k1 and k2 are calculated from the model of axial rigidity
as defined in Fascicule 6218 as a deep foundation and
from the inertia of the foundation base (elliptic surface)
(b) khx and khy are calculated from the results of
pressuremeter tests EM(z) as proposed in Fascicule 6119
(c) ks is found from the calculated settlement of the
foundation well, by finite element program CESAR-3D
(d) kv is found from the calculated result of the rigidity at the
top kv0, by the finite element calculation, reduced by the
ks rigidity:
11

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

4.3.1 The CESAR 3D model The model of the southern


arch foundation was 45 m deep, 110 m wide and 110 m long
leading to more than 6500 elements and 7000 nodes (Lac20).
An elasto-plastic calculation with non-standard MohrCoulomb criteria was carried out to check the validity of the
elastic solution. The results showed that the foundation
behaves in elastic conditions, which validates the previous
elastic analysis. The linear elastic calibration of the nodebeam model was carried out without contact elements.
However the model includes an intermediate layer between
the external side of the foundation and the soil in order to
take into account decompression of the near field soil due to
excavation of the well foundation. As the injected volumes
were small, it was decided to give the same characteristics of
the intermediate layer as the soil. The values of the
geotechnical parameters are shown in table 6 and the loading
are shown in table 7. The values of the elastic modulus were
chosen in the range of the results given by cyclic
pressuremeter analysis. The shearing characteristics came
from the pressuremeter analysis. The boundary conditions
are no vertical displacement at the bottom of the mesh and
no horizontal displacements at the vertical edges of the
mesh. Other displacements are free.
The 3D finite element simulation allows the determination
of the elastic settlement of the foundation and its rotation.
The settlement obtained for this support is 7 mm in the
center of the foundation, with a rotation of 6.10-4rad
(settlements at the two ends of the box are 2 mm and 10
mm). The ground under the raft is under compression (max
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

= 450kPa) except at the end of the long axis where tension


of 50kPa is found. This tension was removed by elastoplastic computing and the interface elements were
suppressed in tension area. Complementary parameter
calculations show that the separation is sensitive (extent and
value of the tensile stress) to an increase in the stiffness of
the soil under the raft. The numerical results are shown in
table 7.

4.3.2 The node-beam model The explicit structural


node-beam model along (xyz) was applied to all the
supports by taking into account the results of the 3D model,
especially for the settlement of the box and the magnitude of
the rotation. This calibration allows the lateral compression
of the box to be taken into account. For the south support
(P13) of the eastern deck, the results are shown in Table 7
for the permanent loads.
5. CONSTRUCTION AND MONITORING
5.1 Final controls
The final controls were focused on three different objects,
stratification of the soil, methods used for the construction,
displacements of the foundations under the loading forces.

5.1.1 Stratification of soil during excavation. During


construction of the foundation box (Fig. 9), the excavation
of the foundation well allowed confirmation of the position
of soil layers, and the geological and geotechnical models,
which were used in the design. Many boreholes were made
and the knowledge gained during excavation did not show
any significant difference from the geotechnical model of
the preliminary study. This control also confirmed the
stiffness of the Riss formations, which were used for the
direct support of the foundations.

5.1.2 Effects of the method of construction. The control


used during the construction checked that the building
process does not unload the soils. Following special methods
of construction ensured this limitation:
(a) The excavation and construction of the retaining wall (of
the well foundation) are made in a very short delay.
Thus, the construction management led to a depth of
excavation of 1 m per stage, with a delay of 18h to build
the retaining wall. This wall was made of concrete
sleeves of 0.3 m thickness.
(b) The excavation is made by mechanical power (high
power shovel)
(c) Decompression of the soil is restrained by injections
after concrete work of the foundation well. These
injections were made into the interface between soil and
foundation under low pressure. with one injection point
per 1 m2. The construction work did not exhibit special
difficulties. The injected volumes were small, lower than
1 liter/m2 of interface with a pressure close to 1 MPa.
5.1.3 Displacements of foundations under loading
forces. During construction special measurements were

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

Monnet et al.

25

made, with special techniques such as the measurement of


forces on the jacks supporting the arches by the knowledge
Family
Soil description
E : MPa
c : kPa

:
:
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

planned to observe the long-term behaviour of the


foundations and to ensure a creep smaller than tolerance.
These measurements (Table 7) allowed the experimental
loading curve to be drawn and to compare it with the
theoretical ones (Fig. 10), which are drawn for two different
stiffness of the soil. The arch was built on a support, which
allow rotation so that bending moments are not transferred
to the foundation. Furthermore, the foundation rotation has
no influence on the stability of the arch. As expected, the
measured rotations are so small that the clinometers could
not measure anything. On Fig. 10. one can see that the soil
is stiffer then the stiff hypothesis. Long-term measurements
will be carried out to measure creep of the soil under
permanent loads.
Fig. 9: General view of the foundation well

of the hydraulic pressures, the measurement of relative


displacements between the foundations and the basis of the
arches by four gages, the measurement of foundation
displacements and rotations by topographic surveying of
targets with a motorised theodolite and by clinometers fixed
on top of the foundation, the measurement of the
displacements of the arch by topographic targets.
During the construction of the deck, topographic
measurements were carried out. New periodical controls are
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

5.2 Performance Monitoring and Surveying


The Crozet bridge is located in south east France, and is
maintained by company AREA (socit des Autoroutes
RhnE Alpes), whose goals are to keep each structure
functional and safe. Bridges usually longer than 100 m,
allow deep and wide breaches to be crossed. They are
essential to the continuity of the motorway traffic but also to
the stability of economic exchanges for the area crossed.
They are supervised and monitored as a main priority.
Moreover, maintenance and repair of these bridges are very

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

Monnet et al.

26

sensitive because of their length and because each working


site causes great constraint to traffic over a very long time.

Figure 10:
Achievement control for the
displacements on the support P13

total

The management of AREA construction works is based on


periodic detailed inspections as defined in ITSEOA21.
Inspections are carried out every 6 years. The damages are
visually observed and the corresponding reports give a state
index based on IQOA22 classification given by the French
Road Authority so that the maintenance work can be carried
out.
The Crozet bridge was built in 1998 and was inspected for
the first time in 1999 before it was used. The inspection
report described a construction in good condition (index
IQOA: 1). The next detailed inspection is planned for 2005.
Because of its particular structure, decks supported by
prestressed concrete arches founded on a soil with a medium
bearing capacity, it is necessary to check the movements of
the arches precisely and especially the separation between
the arch foundations.

(b) Reference targets of target type fixed at the top of the


columns and on arches,
(c) Reference targets of rivet type fixed on the pavements of
the bridge.
Finally XYZ measurements were carried out on 28th May
1999. A new series of measurements was carried out on 17th
August 2002. No significant displacement was found within
the precision of the measurement, which are 1 mm along
vertical and 2 mm along horizontal.
5. CONCLUSION
The Crozet bridge is an arch viaduct founded on soil, which
is not a stiff formation for this structure with strict
displacement limitations. The calculation which was used
for the design, took into account of both characteristics of
structural deformation and subgrade deformation with an
iterative process. The stiffness of the soil was a function of
the displacements but the displacements modified the forces
on the foundation. A total analysis both in static and
dynamic mode was considered and the seismic risk was
taken into account. To achieve this aim, geotechnical
modelling was carried out with the help of cyclical
pressuremeter tests with slotted tube and laboratory cyclical
triaxial tests for liquefaction analysis.
Performance tests were performed at each stage of
construction, and when the bridge was used for the first
time. This showed that displacements were lower then
expected.
The design and the grouting of the space between the well
foundation and the soil allowed the achievement of a
foundation with high horizontal force but low horizontal
displacement.
The bridge has been used since 1999 without any trouble.
This design method is now available for other arch bridges
founded on soft ground.
REFERENCES

Calculation showed that the bridge stability can be lost when


the arches move apart from one another. For the eastern arch
of 140 m, a maximum displacement of 5cm is allowed. For
the western deck which is supported by three arches, the
displacement of the central supports are not taken into
account because it is supposed to be compensated for by the
efforts of the two end arches, so that the maximum
displacements of one support are 1.5 cm maximum allowed
for the arch in the Grenoble direction, 87 m long., 2.5 cm
maximum allowed for the arch in the Sisteron direction, 102
m long. The relative displacements of one support to the
other one are twice these values.
When these displacements are reached, special execution
processes with recovery of the hydraulic jacks of the arches
will be carried out. The process is designed so that it is
possible to tighten the prestressed cables of the foundation
boxes. Topographical reference targets were fixed on the
construction so that displacements can be measured:
(a) Reference targets of medallion type fixed on each
foundation boxes, 0.8 m above ground level,

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

1. ROWE , The stress dilatancy relation for static


equilibrium, Proceeding Royal Society, 1962, N1,
p.75-86
2. FRYDMAN, ZEITLEN, ALPAN, The yielding behaviour of
particulate media, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
1973, 10, N3, 341-362
3. MENARD L, Pressiomtre, Brevet Franais, 1955, N
1.117.983, Paris.
4. MENARD L, Mesures des proprits physiques des
sols, Annales des Ponts et Chausses, Paris, 1957,
14, N3, 357-377.
5. GAIATECH, Procd d'essai de forage, Brevet
Franais, 1989, N 89 09674, Lyon.
6. FRENCH STANDARD, NF P 94-110, Essai
pressiomtrique Mnard, Norme Franaise, 1991,
AFNOR
7. FAWAZ A., BIGUENET G., BOULON M., Dformations
dun sol pulvrulent lors de lessai pressiomtrique,
Revue Franaise de Gotechnique, 2000, 90, N1,
3-13.

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

Monnet et al.

27

8. BASUDHAR P. KUMAR D., Performance studies of


cavity expansometer, A monocell pressuremeter,
The pressuremeter and its new avenues, Proc. 4th
Int. Symp., Sherbrooke, 1995, 73-80.
9. MONNET J. and GIELLY J, Dtermination dune loi de
comportement pour le cisaillement des sols
pulvrulents, Revue Franaise de Gotechnique,
1978, 7, N2, 45-66.
10.HUGHES J.M.O, WROTH C.P., Windle D,
Pressuremeter test in sand, Gotechnique, 1977,
27, N4, 455-477.
11.MONNET J, KHLIF J., Etude thorique et
exprimentale de l'quilibre lasto-plastique d'un
sol pulvrulent autour du pressiomtre, Revue
Franaise de Gotechnique, 1994, 65, N1, 71-80.
12.GIBSON R.E., ANDERSON W.F., In situ measurement
of soil properties with the pressuremeter, Civil
Engineering, Londres, 1961, 56, 3-6.
13.MONNET J., CHEMAA T., Etude thorique et
exprimentale de l'quilibre lasto-plastique d'un
sol cohrent autour du pressiomtre, Revue
Franaise de Gotechnique, 1995, 73, N4 15-26.
14.GAIAPRESS, http://www.gaiatech.info, web site,
2000,
15.AFPS 92, Guide AFPS 92 pour la protection
parasismique des ponts, Presses de lEcole
nationale des Ponts et Chausses, Paris, 1992.

16.SEED H.B., IDRISS I.M., Simplified procedure for


evaluation soil liquefaction potential, Journal of the
Soils Mechanics and Foundation Division, 1971,
19, SM9, 1249-1273
17.SEED H.B., Test procedures for measuring soil
liquefaction characteristics, Journal of the Soils
Mechanics and Foundation Division, 1971, 58, N5.
1099-1119
18.CAHIER DES CLAUSES TECHNIQUES GENERALES APPLICABLES
AUX MARCHES PUBLICS DE TRAVAUX, Ministre de
lEquipement, du Logement, des Transports, , 1993
Fascicule 62, Titre V.
19.BULLETIN OFFICIEL, Ministre de lEquipement, du
Logement, des Transports, 1971, Fascicule 61, Titre
II .
20.LAC C., Analyse tridimensionnelle de la fondation
d'un viaduc en arc, Journes d'tude de l'ENPC : La
pratique des calculs tridimensionnels en
gotechnique,
, Actes des journes d'tudes ENPC, Presses de
l'ENPC, Paris, 1998, 131-141.
21.ITSEOA, Fascicules de l'Instruction Technique de la
Surveillance et de l'Entretien des Ouvrages d'Art de
la Direction des Routes et de la Circulation
Routire, Ministre de lEquipement, du Logement,
des Transports, 1995.
22. IQOA, Image de la Qualit des Ouvrages d'Art,
SETRA, 1994.

What do you think ?


To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceeding journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000-5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals
for author guideline and further details.

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1

Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils

Monnet et al.

28

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen