Contents

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 2
CHALLENGES........................................................................................................... 3
2.1. High and low solution....................................................................................... 3
2.2. Alternative routes............................................................................................. 4
2.3. Proposals for the viaduct..................................................................................5
2.4. The piers issue................................................................................................. 7
2.5. The deck issue.................................................................................................. 8
2.6. The curve of the viaduct................................................................................ 10
CONSTRUCTION.................................................................................................. 11
3.1. Construction of piers...................................................................................11
3.1.1. Foundations................................................................................................. 13
3.1.2. Base plate................................................................................................ 13
3.1.3. How to construct...................................................................................... 14
3.2.1. Construction of deck................................................................................15
3.2.2. Movement of the decks............................................................................17
3.2.3. Launch nose operation............................................................................. 19
3.2.4. Pylons....................................................................................................... 21
3.3. Funding....................................................................................................... 22
3.3.2. Conclusion and main attributes of success..............................................23
3.3.3 Continuity of the work.............................................................................. 24

MILLAU VIADUCT
INTRODUCTION
The erection of the viaduct over the river Tarn, at Millau in central France,
began in October, 2001 and is to be completed in January, 2005. This will
be a major step forward in the design of cable-stayed bridges, with a series
of six main spans 342 meters long suspended from seven pylons. The road
will pass 270 meters above the river, and two of the piers will be about 235
Metres tall; with the corresponding pylon 90 meters tall on top, they both
will be higher than the Eiffel Tower. Two designs have been developed, one
in prestressed concrete and one in steel. The Millau Viaduct is a seminal
civil engineering structure on the Motorway A75, linking Clermont-Ferrand
to Montpellier. It belongs to the same family as the Normandy Bridge: the
family of bridges with multiple cablestayed spans. Its civil engineering
structure was originally designed by the same author, the French engineer
Michel Virlogeux, before being improved and enhanced by the collaboration
with Norman Foster & Partners, the British architectural practice.

Fig
ure 1 MILLAU BRIDGE

CHALLENGES
2.1. High and low solution
Two sets of technical solutions to cross the Tarn Valley were examined
thoroughly by the CETE Mediterranean:
the low solution whereby the road sloped down to the valley;
The high solution which comprised a bridge 200m above the valley.
Initially, the low solution was considered as the sole solution but, in the final
instance, the high solution was preferred due to safety reasons, economic
considerations the solution was shorter and thus cheaper and
geotechnical constraints. In addition, the high solution had a limited impact
on the environment and urbanization, and subsumed sufficient access to
the city of Millau via the interchange of St German.

Figure 2 High and Low solution

For the reasons mentioned, the high solution was welcomed by local
officials. Indeed, the Director of Roads, Jean Berthier, was convinced of the
relevance of this solution and approved it. This led to the Ministry Decision
of 29 October 1991, but additional studies were still required by the Minister
of the Equipment, Paul Quiles. During 1992, a project team within SETRA
led by Michel Virlogeux undertook the studies and investigated seven
bridge types. These proposed bridges were selected from amongst eight
sets of solutions, comprising technical variants of steel and concrete.
These preliminary studies confirmed the feasibility of a single bridge of
2.46km to cross the Tarn Valley. This pre-project was approved by another
Ministry Decision on 12 July 1993. Four projects were retained:
A project with a large span of 280m above the Tarn. This project had
a concrete deck at variable height level and constant access spans
150m long;
The same project as project 1, with a steel deck;
A project with cable-stayed spans of 320m, with a concrete deck and
access spans at a constant height level;
A project with a large cable-stayed span of 400m, with access spans
of 170m and a steel deck at a constant height level.

2.2. Alternative routes

Figur
e 3 Different routes

The last option was selected on 28 June 1989 under a Ministry Decision
which required further technical studies for the route and consideration of
the most appropriate type of bridge.

2.3. Proposals for the viaduct

The five sets of solutions and the entailed specifications are
a steel deck with multiple sub-bended spans;
a steel deck with continuous spans of constant depth;
a steel or concrete deck with multiple cable-stayed spans;
a concrete bridge including an arch with an opening 600m wide over
the River Tarn;
a viaduct with continuous spans of depth in concrete or composite
metal.
Here, the rationale underpinning such a procedure could be outlined:
calling for experts propositions amounted to not letting the administration
alone decide on the project to be constructed, and then ensured that the
intended project would respect the landscape and the environment.
Finally, on 12 July 1996, the maitre douvrage (a French term which refers
to the client or more specifically the owner of the infrastructure often
associated with the maitre doeuvre, which is the party in charge of
executing the work towards the delivery of the project), composed of:
Government/State representatives;
local officials;
and engineers;
chaired by Christian Leyrit, the Director of Roads,
Selected the multiple cable-stayed span project proposed by Norman
Foster in light of (1) the quality of the technical and architectural design, (2)
the execution period (3) the relative low cost compared to other solutions.
The Ministry of the Equipment ratified this choice on 15 July 1996.After the
selection of Norman Fosters project, further technical development took an
additional year, until 1 July 1997. Here, it could be stressed that this choice
amounts to the initial project planned by the administration, namely the
multiple cable-stayed span bridge proposed by the engineer who conceived
the famous Viaduct de Normandie, Michel Virlogeux. Over the additional

study year specific technical issues were examined, the 28 structures

resistance and how the design would respond to wind velocity in particular.

Figure 4 Different proposals of bridge

2.4. The piers issue

A great accuracy was desired in piers because a little distortion in one pier
could produce the huge distortion in all of the piers connected to each
other.

Figure 5 base with less rigidity more distortion

Figure 6 more rigidity no distortion

Figure 7

2.5. The deck issue

Two alternative designs A and B were proposed by the architects and
designers and tested in the wind tunnel. To further expand on the feasibility
of the construction of the bridge, the Millau Viaduct consists of a structure
of about 2.5km long and 300m above the Tarn (almost as high as the Eiffel
Tower). Yet, drawing on Professor Davenports analysis of wind forces,
Coste outlines the different steps to be taken as
Identifying the directional pattern of the wind and then measuring the
characteristics based on evaluation on site and statistical records
from local meteorological stations;
Identifying the mechanisms of wind action, such as steady and gust
forces, wake and motion induced forces
Defining the appropriate model to describe the wind and the structure
of the bridge and therefore predicting the subsequent response;
Deriving model parameters from local wind measurements and wind
tunnel tests;
Assessing the uncertainties of the model and its parameters;

Controlling the quality of the experimental and analytical results.

Figure 8 high low solution

To avoid the interference of air the wind ducts were provided in the decks
because due to the interference of air a bridge in the US was collapsed so
to prevent the damage they got the services of a wind engineer.

Fi
gure 9 wind ducts

The actual form of the deck selected after the two different proposals by the
engineers and the architects was that

Figure 10 Actual deck

2.6. The curve of the viaduct

Ultimately, the design of the Millau Viaduct and its development pay
specific attention to landscape considerations. Beside the thin and delicate
structure designed by Norman Foster, regarding the curve (see Figure 16)
it is possible to discern the early idea of the landscape designer Bernard
Lassus, also a specialist advisor to Christian Leyrit. Later during the
construction phase, SETEC, the Maitre dOuvrage, dealt with the wind
issue with an in-house developed program, Pytagore. The model and its
parameter were tested against another program developed by the
engineering office Greish and the University of Liege. In addition, the
Scientific Centre for Techniques of the Built Environment (CSTB: Centre
Scientific et Techniques.

Figure 11 Curve of the viaduct

CONSTRUCTION
3.1. Construction of piers
The Eiffage Group made a proposal for each of the two options, steel and
prestressed concrete. For the prestressed concrete option, Eiffage
Construction developed a solution with heavy precast segments, about
than 200 metric tons in weight. But the group, including a steel contractor
Eiffel Construction Mtallique could prepare a very efficient steel option.

Figure 12
Construction of piers

Figure
13 Construction of piers

3.1.1. Foundations
Each pier is founded on a plate or base, and four posts or piles.

 The piles are each 5m diameter and extend down to a max depth of
14m.
On top is the base itself, which for P2 is 6m deep.
The Initial Launch pour for the pier is conventionally shuttered.

Figur
e 14 Foundation of pier

3.1.2. Base plate

As a solid concrete entity, base was too big to tie shutters
conventionally so each base shutter was supported with PERI SB
Brace Frames anchored into purposely laid on base.
The piers together required 10,000 tones of reinforcement steel.
The bases required 13, 450 tones of rebar.
The piles required 1,200 tones of rebar.
The piles alone used 6,000m3 of concrete.

Figure 15 Base
plate of pier

3.1.3. How to construct

It was decided to pour the pier in 4m lifts using a climbing form
system. Ideally it would go something like this

Figure 16 How to construct

3.2.1. Construction of deck

Is a trapezoidal Box Girder design.

 If made from reinforced concrete it would be 7m deep and weigh

200,000 tonnes
By making it in steel, the deck can reduce in depth to 4m, and in
Weight to 36,000 tonnes
However, the reduction in dead weight on to the pier heads meant
that the deck would need stressing tendons down to the bifurcation
point for stability.
This adds 6,000 tonnes load per pier. The dead weight of the single
pier section is sufficient for stability.

Figure 17 joining the deck

The cross-sectional profile of the deck was designed by Eiffel

Constructions mtalliques so that it may be factory prefabricated,
transported to site, assembled on-site and then launching. The cross

section of the profile of the deck is broken down into a number of

manageable components.
The component members arrive on site in various stages of assembly
where they are finally welded together. Behind each abutment on the north
and south ends of the viaduct, a factory was set up. Each factory consisted
of three 171m work zones, each with its own specific activities:
The first 171m zone, farthest from the abutment, joined together the
pieces of the central box girder.
The second 171m zone was used to assemble the other elements of
the deck and to join them to the central girder.
The third 171m zone was where the completely-assembled deck was
painted, and the remaining moldings, brackets and the uprights of the
wind screen with their protective mesh were assembled.
The welding work on the site necessitated about 75 welders for each
assembly area. The complete assembly of a 171m deck section required
the use of approximately five tones of welding metal with a total
consumption of welding metal for the whole structure estimated at 150t.
After an initial bedding in period, the assembly time for each 171m section
was reduced to approximately four weeks.

Figure 18 sections of the deck

3.2.2. Movement of the decks

1. Initial position while it is difficult to see the small clearance in the
diagram, the decks weight is supported by the orange cradle through to the
balance jacks to the pier. The deck weight is not supported by the top

sliding advance plate at this stage. The advance cylinder is in the extended
position and the raise cylinders are in the retracted position. Per wedge
there is one raise cylinder and two advance cylinders. One advance
cylinder is mounted on either side of the wedge.
2. Raising the raise cylinder is extended causing the blue wedge to
force the two adjoining plates apart. The result of this is the top advance
plate is raised a small distance which in turn raises the deck clear of the
orange cradle. Either side of the wedge is a low friction treatment of PTFE
on one surface and polished stainless steel sheet on the other. The raising
capacity of each translator is 250t. The lifting forces are transferred into the
deck directly through the vertical web of the central box core of the deck.
3. Advancing while the raise cylinder is still extended, the advance
cylinders are slowly retracted, advancing the deck by 600mm. The advance
cylinders have a combined force capacity of 120t.
4. Lowering the advance cylinders remain fully retracted and the raising
cylinder is slowly retracted. As the blue wedge is retracted, the top advance
plate and deck are lowered. As soon as the deck rests on the orange
cradle, the weight is removed from the top advance plate as there is now a
small clearance between it and the underside of the deck.
5. Return to start the advance cylinders are extended, returning the
unloaded top advance plate to the initial starting position. The hydraulically
powered translators have an overall launch rate of 10 m/h or 16 cycles per
hour. During the launch, the balance jacks of the two translators on the
same side of the deck are hydraulically linked to ensure equal pressure is
maintained by all jacks on that side of the deck. This is to allow for
variations in longitudinal rotation of the deck due to deck deflection. This
load sharing feature ensures that the supporting load was evenly
distributed over each pair of longitudinally aligned translators. The
translator jacks on either side of the decks longitudinal centerline were not
normally hydraulically linked as this would create a virtual pin joint and
allow the deck to roll about its longitudinal axis. As a safety measure, the
balance jacks could be mechanically locked off by a large nut mounted to
each jacks piston. The outer advance cylinders on each translator have a
Positional transducer that indicates the amount of travel. The end of the
deck sagged under its own weight.

Figure 19 Movement of decks

3.2.3. Launch nose operation

During the launch of the cantilevered deck, the end of the deck sagged
under its own weight. This deflection was not fully controlled by erecting the
Py2 pylon to the northern end launch and Py3 pylon to the southern end
launch. The leading extremity of the cantilevered section of the deck was
fitted with a launch nose whose purpose was to facilitate docking onto the
different supports and to stabilize the leading edge in case of an
emergency stop in the launch owing to high wind. The rotation of the
launch nose could be controlled with two hydraulic cylinders. To make the
final height adjustment due to the cantilevered deflection, a pair of special
bar jacks was fitted. These jacks function in a similar manner to a
strand jack (1). This system is comprised of four 270t cylinders
with hollow pistons and 205mm of travel. The cylinders work in
pairs and transfer the load to pull bars that fastened to the
structure. In conjunction with Figure 9, a brief summary of the
operation of the launch nose is given below:
1. The launch nose and deck stop short of the translator assembly
on top of a pier (or temporary piers as the case may be). The
translator is in the start position and the orange column is above
the translator.
2. The bar jacks advance and lower an orange column onto each
translator. Further advancement of the bar jacks raise the launch
nose so that its underside and the underside of the deck are
above the advance plate.
3. The raise cylinder on the translator is extended advancing the
blue wedge plate. The full weight of the launch nose is now taken
on the advance plate.
4. The advance cylinder on the translator is now retracted
advancing the deck. This operation must occur synchronously
with all other translators to launch the deck by 600mm.
5. The bar jacks retract the orange column until the launch nose
sits on the launch plate. The orange column is then lifted clear.
The weight of the advance nose is now taken by the translator.
6. The lift cylinder is retracted which lowers the launch nose onto
the translator cradle. The advance cylinder is extended back to
the cycle start position. The launch nose/ deck are now on the
translator so the deck can now be advanced in the normal cycle.
Each deck are operated from an individual control centre on the
bridgehead. Although all hydraulic systems operating during a

launch are controlled from this central control centre, each

individual hydraulic system has its own local control panel. This
allows local movement of the translators to be made from that
pier independently.

Figure 20 launch nose operation

Figure 21
launch nose before the first and last launch

3.2.4. Pylons
After the closure above the Tarn River, on May 18, 2004, the pylons which
had been fabricated in different factories and assembled behind the bridge
abutments, were transported one by one onto the deck, each by two
crawlers. The weight of a convoy reached 8 MN, producing an extreme
load test for the structure. Then the pylon, in a horizontal position, was
tilted up by Sarens with the help of a cable-stayed temporary support tower.
The structure construction ended with the installation and tension of staycables by Freyssinet.

Figure 22
erecting of pylons

Figure 23 internal structure of pylons

3.3. Funding
The ultimate funding of the Millau Viaduct relies on users, trucks and
motorists, and depends on the BFOT PPP type of procurement.

According to P. Bourrier, PPP and concession types of procurement

introduce themselves as innovative forms of funding and financing; the
entire, or part of the, financial and construction risks are the responsibility
of the private partner. His revenues are generated from toll collection or
subsidies. Drawing on different cases of financial engineering, local
government could participate in plenty of arrangements for urban transport
systems, highways or exceptional infrastructure. In general, the principle is
the following: the concessionaire seeks to offer the best level of service to
the users and organize the operation in accordance. He evaluates the
estimated costs and maintenance expenses. Taking into consideration
specific toll rate policy, the level of traffic, or the level of services, the
concessionaire selects the most appropriate mode of financing and then
determines the financial return on his investment. For the Millau Viaduct,
the concessionaire investigated the tariff rates so as not to require any
subsidy from the State. Recalling the aim of the Viaduct, relieving Millau s
bottleneck, the adopted solution consisted in discriminating between
current and seasonal traffic. The rate was fixed at EUR 6.50 in July and
August and reduced to EUR 4.90 during the rest of the year. Neither local
governments nor the State contributes to the funding of the services in any
way, i.e through subsidies or traffic guarantees, so it does not cost
taxpayers anything.
3.3.1. Project costs
Project development: EUR 15m.
Preliminary work: EUR 10m.
Construction and delivery: EUR 320m (including 1% for economic
and regional development).
Traffic forecasts

From the opening of the Millau Viaduct the level of traffic was superior to
the forecast. The tariff policy proposed by the concession contract was
based on the predicted revenues. Eiffage relied on SETEC for the traffic
forecast. In 2005, 4,400,000 vehicles crossed the Viaduct, 20% more than
anticipated. In 2008, there were 4,670,449 vehicles and heavy goods traffic
represented 8.39% of the traffic.
OPERATION

The toll barriers of the Viaduct comprised 14 lanes in 2004, and were
extended to 18 lanes since 2005 due to traffic flows which were greater
than forecast. In this regard:
traffic flow varies from 1 to 17, from 2,500 to 62,300 vehicles per day
in July and August;
recruitment of employees adapts to the flows, with 54 permanent
cashiers and 33 additional persons over the summer;
fees are collected manually, as subscriptions systems are not
appropriate due to the absence of other tolls on the highway (the
Viaduct is on the A75 a free highway).
Besides the toll activities, the Viaduct includes four additional services:
security: five employees and five polyvalent cashiers for July and
August;
Maintenance: four employees for day-to-day maintenance (technical
care of the lanes, machines, electrical systems, etc.);
communication: six employees including four permanent tourist
guides.
The importance of the communication service could be explained by an
unexpected effect: the Viaduct became one of the most important tourist
sites in the region and receives from 600,000 to 900,000 visits per year,
15,000 visits with charge. Spin offs from the Viaduct also generate revenue.
3.3.2. Conclusion and main attributes of success
Recalling the FNTPs Conference in October 2003 chaired by the Director
of the Road Directorate Patrice Paris, Jean Francois Coste, Pascal
Lechanteur and Marc Legrand outlined the main factors of success as
decisions related to:
the initial planning and route;
the procurement decisions and the concession;
the technical choices, in particular the decision to build the bridge in
steel;
the people who contributed to the different phases of the Viaduct.
Taking the whole project process into consideration, the success of the
Millau Viaduct is manifested in:
The planning: from the studies of the initial route to the choice of the
project. The design of the Millau Viaduct consists of the original
design proposal of the Administration (SETRA) conceived by Michel
Virlogeux. However, expert and public scrutiny challenged this initial

project leading to the involvement of the British architect Sir Norman

Foster and international expertise and competencies. As a result, the
project improved over the process.
The procurement: the success of the BFOT process relies on sound
project governance and treatment of risks. The Millau Viaduct is a
case of cooperation and coordination between actors at the different
stages of the project. The procurement stage drew greatly upon the
previous conception stage led by the Administration.
The construction: the Millau Viaduct does not constitute a
technological innovation in itself but is characterized by a genuine
and innovative application of existing techniques. The decision to
build the deck in steel is part of this process and helped in reducing
delays, delivering the project on time and providing good safety
conditions for workers on site.
Ultimately, the Millau Viaduct represents a good balance between State
control and constructive interactions with the concessionaire EIFFAGE.
3.3.3 Continuity of the work

Figure 24 construction continuity

Figure 25 construction continuity

Figure 26 construction continuity

Fi
gure 27 construction continuity

Figure 28 viaduct night view