Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 159
January 2006 Issue GE1
Pages 19–28

Paper 13533
Received 10/10/2003
Accepted 08/08/2005
Keywords: Jacques Monnet Dominique Allagnat Jean Teston Pierre Billet François Baguelin
bridges/design methods & aids/site Associate Professor, LIRIGM, Manager, Scetauroute, Building Manager, AREA, Associate Professor, LIRIGM, Technical Manager,
investigation Université Joseph Fourier, Seyssins, France Bron, France Université Joseph Fourier, FondaConcept, La Plaine St
Grenoble, France 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 V, H, M vertical, horizontal forces and bending moment
motorway, on the Grenoble–Sisteron route, 15 km south applied to foundation
of Grenoble, France. It crosses a 350 m wide valley and z depth of pressuremeter test
the RN75 national road. The adaptation of the bridge into ª unit weight of soil
the landscape has involved an arch design with three bays ªsat unit saturated specific weight
(in the Grenoble–Sisteron direction) and one bay (in the
Poisson’s ratio
Sisteron–Grenoble direction). The supports of the 9d effective deviatoric stress
structure were difficult to build because of the huge 9v0 effective initial vertical stress
horizontal force and the low displacement tolerance. The 93 lateral stress on triaxial test
low stiffness and strength characteristics foreseen led to a eq equivalent shearing stress
geotechnical investigation by cyclic pressuremeter tests l cyclic shearing stress
with a friction angle and cohesion interpretation. The [l ] n cyclic equivalent shearing stress at n cycles
foundation calculations were carried out by a finite 9 drained friction angle
element calculation using the CESAR-LCPC program to  interparticle angle of friction
determine the support rigidity. The complete ł dilatancy angle
computation of the bridge was done with the calculated
support rigidity, which showed that displacements of the 1. INTRODUCTION
arches were lower than the tolerance. The bridge is The Crozet bridge is located on the A51 Grenoble–Col du Fau
located in a low seismic area of France, and the design motorway on the Grenoble–Sisteron route 15 km to the south of
takes into account the maximum foreseeable magnitude, Grenoble. It spans a distance of 350 m across a small valley where
and analysis of the soil liquefaction risk. Monitoring the national road RN75 lies. An embankment was initially
carried out for completion of the bridge in 1999 and along foreseen, but a bridge has now been built with two separate
the surveying shows displacements lower than tolerance decks. The first deck is on a single arch (eastern route, Sisteron–
values. Since 1999, the bridge has withstood huge service Grenoble) and the second on three arches (western route,
weights without any difficulty. Grenoble–Sisteron). The arch design was chosen from an
architectural point of view, so that the bridge could be integrated
NOTATION into the natural site of the Crozet valley. The design of the
a radius of borehole foundations on simple supports is conventional (drilled piles), but
amax static horizontal acceleration equivalent to a the design of the foundations of the arches is rather complex,
seism owing to the low stiffness and strength characteristics of the soil.
aN nominal acceleration
c cohesion This paper presents the original geotechnical approach for the
Cr correction coefficient from Seed function of K0 soil investigation, the design of the foundation and the design
EM pressuremeter modulus from Ménard test of the bridge, which takes into account the displacements of
Ee elastic modulus the structure and the soil, and the arrangements used to build
F safety coefficient the foundation. Foundation displacements were measured to
g gravitational acceleration monitor the behaviour of the bridge in this seismic area.
G shear modulus of soil
h depth of sample 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE BRIDGE
khx , kh y , ks , The Crozet bridge (Fig. 1) runs from north-east to south-west
kv , kŁ1 , kŁ2 stiffness of soil for displacements and rotations and is made up of two decks of 313 m for the eastern deck and
K0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest 335 m for the western deck (Fig. 2). The arch design was
n number of cycles chosen from an architectural point of view, so that the bridge
Pl limit pressure of Ménard test is integrated into the natural site of the small Crozet valley.
Rd reduction coefficient from Seed function of depth Each deck supports three lanes. This paper focuses on the
ua displacement at borehole wall eastern deck (Fig. 3), which is made up of spans 13–20 m long

Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1 Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils Monnet et al. 19

Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 (locally 28 m for the RN75 crossing), and an arch of 120 m
radius and 143.5 m long, which is supported on two end
columns and six central columns of 1 m diameter. For the
western deck, land surveying and architectural control led to a
three-arch design: two of the arches are 101.5 m long, and the
third is 87 m long, supported on six and five small columns
respectively. 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
Fig. 1. General view of the bridge gentle slopes. At the bottom, a small stream flows. The site is
classified as a low seismic area.

Various investigations reveal recent deposits of a few metres

thickness above quaternary alluvial and glacial deposits, the
Grenoble
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 gravelly clay and modern
alluvial deposits found at depths ranging from 7 to 10 m. The
former alluvial and glacial deposits can be described in four
Le Crozet different families of soils, which are a function of the depth.

Crozet bridge (a) Family F1: clayey gravel with sandy levels of around
100 mm. The thickness of this loose layer ranges from 8 to
Sisteron 15 m. This thickness is 2 m in the thalweg owing to
channelling of the recent alluvial deposits. This stratum is
part of the Würm Formation.
(b) Family F2: clayey and loamy sandy moraine, grey, very
stiff, with scarce sandy and gravely levels. This formation
100 200m is channelled by the family above, and different
thicknesses are found.
Fig. 2. Plan view of the bridge (c) Family F3: grey yellow sandy moraine with some clay; it is
very stiff, its thickness varies from 15 to 8 m from north to

106·50 m 143·50 m 63·35 m

Northern abutment P13 Southern abutment

P6 M 5 122 MN.m
P5 V 5 47·2 MN P14
Grenoble Sisteron
H 5 47·9 MN

Bridge road

RN 75 Crozet stream
M H
V

Modern alluvial deposit F1 Clayey gravel

Colluvium

F2 Clayey and loamy sandy moraine F3 Grey yellow sandy moraine F4 Clayey loamy grey moraine

Fig. 3. Geological situation and elevation view of bridge

20 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1 Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils Monnet et al.

Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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 the Riss Formation.
3.2. Results of investigation and tests
Investigations were conducted with numerous in situ and
laboratory tests: 16 classical pressuremeter boreholes; three
boreholes with undisturbed samples for laboratory tests; two
boreholes drilled for 59 high-pressure pressuremeter tests with
three cyclical loadings undertaken in the four old formations
(F1–F4); and several triaxial tests performed to measure the
shearing characteristics of the soils. Statistical analysis allows
determination of the mean values shown in 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 100 kPa.
There was lateral drainage during the consolidation phase. The
samples were 70 mm in diameter and 150 mm high, and
without any lubrication on each end. The test was drained at a
speed of 0.01 mm/min. The final consolidation was reached in
90 min and the test took 22 h, which is 15 times the
consolidation duration. The volume variation is measured from
the inner volume of the sample. The results of the triaxial tests
are shown in Table 2, and the physical characteristics of the
samples are shown in Table 3. The interparticle angle of
friction   is the minimum value of the friction angle, as
shown by Rowe. 1 It measures the friction between two different
particles of soil, and it is found by the theory of Frydman
et al. 2
3.2.2. Cyclical pressuremeter tests. The pressuremeter was
designed by Ménard3,4 to find the pressuremeter 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 and 1090 mm long, with slots 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 on the
French standard, 6 but also takes into account the influence of
the shape of the probe under pressure as shown by Fawaz et
al.,7 the non-uniformity of the pressure distribution along the
probe, which was found by Basudhar and Kumar, 8 and the
difference between the external and internal radii of the probe.
The process leads to the determination of the mechanical
characteristics in four steps.
(a) Determination of the angle of interparticle friction
measured on the consolidated drained triaxial test, as
reported by Monnet and Gielly.9
(b) 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) Determination of the angle of internal friction of the soil
by measurement of the slope of the linear relation between
logarithms of the pressure against radial strain of the
pressuremeter results, as shown by Hughes et al. 10 and
Monnet and Khlif. 11 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
Anderson 12 and Monnet and Chemaa. 13
(d) Control of the mechanical characteristics of elasticity (shear
modulus) and strength (cohesion or friction angle). The
Gaiapress 14 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

Soil family Description EM : MPa Pl : MPa

Recent deposits Made ground 3 0.3

Colluvium 5 0.5
Modern alluvial deposits 6 0.7
Quaternary alluvial and glacial deposits F1 Clayey gravel 30 2
F2 Clayey and loamy sandy moraine 60 5. 4
F3 Grey yellow sandy moraine 100 6.5
F4 Clayey loamy grey moraine 60 6.2

Table 1. Results of the Ménard pressuremeter tests

Soil family Description Depth: m Number of   : degrees c9: kPa 9: degrees
tests

F2 Loamy sandy moraine (Riss) 10 3 33.8 7 41.5

F2 Clayey sandy moraine stiff (Riss) 15.7 3 21.5 80 31
F3 Grey yellow sandy moraine (Riss) 29 3 29.5 0 37.5
F4 Clayey loamy grey moraine (Riss) 31 3 31.9 4 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

Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Soil family Description Depth: m Methyl blue Per cent passing Classification Classification
test: g/100 g 75  sieve ASTM D32-82 USCS

F2 Loamy sandy moraine 12.5 0.85 90.5 A6 CL

F2 Clayey sandy moraine 20.8 1.19 94.3 A6 CL
F3 Grey yellow sandy moraine 25 0.23 30 A2-4 SM
F3 Grey yellow sandy moraine 32.5 0.23 33.5 A2-4 SM
F4 Clayey loamy grey moraine 32 0.30 55.2 A6 CL

Table 3. Results of physical classification of soils

8000 1
sin 9
3 N¼
7000
1 þ sin 9
Test SP708_23
6000 Theoretical results
Pressure: kPa

5000 1
sin ł
4 n¼
4000 1 þ sin ł
3000
2000
1000 and
0
0 0·05 0·10 0·15 0·20 0·25 0·30
dR/R0 5 ł ¼ 9
  :

Fig. 4. Control of mechanical characteristics by comparison

between experimental and theoretical curves; test 23 m deep The theoretical curve for the cohesive soil assumes an elasto-
plastic behaviour, with total stress, no volume variation when
plasticity occurs, and a three-dimensional equilibrium as
cohesion are controlled by the correspondence between shown by Monnet and Chemaa: 13
experimental and theoretical pressuremeter curves above
the creep pressure. The theoretical curve for the granular    
ua cu p ªz ªz cu
soil assumes an elasto-plastic behaviour, with effective 6 ln þ ¼
þ ln ð1
K 0 Þ þ
a 2:G cu cu 2G 2G
stress, a non-standard dilatancy and a three-dimensional
equilibrium as shown by Monnet and Khlif: 11
Results of the pressuremeter interpretation are shown in Table
  4. The interpretation is made with the assumption of no friction
ua for a cohesive soil and no cohesion for a friction soil. As the
ln ð1 þ nÞ
C 1 ¼  lnð pÞ
 lnðªzÞ
a pressuremeter test mainly shears the soil in the horizontal
1   plane between the radial and the circumferential stress, it can
ð1 þ nÞ
þ ln ð1
K 0 Þªz
C1 be considered as equivalent to a single Mohr circle. For soil
2G
with cohesion and friction, the value of the equivalent friction
angle, measured by this method, is overestimated by the
where 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.
1þ n
¼ and
1
N The mean value of the ratio between elastic modulus and
2

n(ua =a)(1 þ n)( yz= p) þ (1 þ n)(N
K 0 )( yz=2G) pressuremeter modulus, Ee /EM , is 3.07 in the fluvial-glacial
C1 ¼ deposit, with a large variation from 1.37 to 4.77. The ratio is
1 þ n:( yz= p)
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
where deposits and grey sandy moraine (F1 and F2) have a huge

Soil family Description Elastic modulus, Ee : Ratio Ee /EM cu : kPa : degrees

MPa

F1 Clayey gravel 80–280 3.07  1.70 900–1200 0

F2 Clayey sandy moraine very stiff 100–220 3.31  0.88 600–1000 0
F3 Grey yellow sandy moraine, stiff 180–350 2.06  0.67 0 40–45

Table 4. Results of cyclical pressuremeter tests

22 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1 Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils Monnet et al.

Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 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 40–458,
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
Française de Génie Parasismique (AFPS) calculation was
followed to define the test procedure.
Samples 70 mm in diameter and 140 mm high were used. The
cell is connected to a cyclical hydraulic press of 20 kN
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 a 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 utilisation and huge
economic importance). This leads to a nominal acceleration aN
equal to 2 m/s2 (Table 5).
The current sample is tested under the equivalent seismic
shearing eq imposed by AFPS 92: 15
 
2 amax
7 eq ¼ ªsat h Rd ¼ 36 kPa
3 g
   
 d9  d9
8 ½1  n ¼ C r  v90 ¼ 78:3 kPa
2 39 n  39 n
where Cr ¼ 0.6; Rd , the reduction coefficient defined by Seed
and Idriss 16 and Seed 17 ¼ 0.7; amax ¼ 0.9aN ; ªsat ¼ 21 kN/m3 ;
h, the depth of the foundation ¼ 16 m;  v90 ¼ 261 kPa;  d9 ¼
 19
 39 ; and [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 that leads to liquefaction phenomena, and eq ,
the calculated equivalent stress for n cycles, so that
Areas Classes
B C
IA 1.0 1.5 2.0
IB 1.5 2.0 2.5
II 2.5 3.0 3.5
III 3.5 4.0 4.5
Table 5. Values of aN (m/s2 ) for French classification
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1 Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils
Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 d9
9 ¼ 0:459F
 39
The experimental conditions are:
10  39 ¼ 100 kPa,  d9 ¼ 45:9F kPa, with a 0:5 Hz frequency
We have carried out a test with  d9 ¼ 58:4 kPa.
AFPS 92 15 rules that the liquefaction shear stress must be
lower than three-quarters of the limit shear stress of the soil. It
appears for 2.5% of strain after 5 cycles in the IB area, 10
cycles in the II area, and 25 cycles in the 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 in Fig. 5 that
liquefaction appears not 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 organisation 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 and 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 make the
1
0
21 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
22
2·5% of strain
23
D
mm
24
25
26
27 Cycles
28
29
Fig. 5. Results of triaxial liquefaction tests. displacements
against number of cycles
Monnet et al. 23
 Geology

Investigation Laboratory tests

In situ tests

Choice of foundation type

Foundation design Preliminary study

Loading calculation

3D calculation of foundation Design of bridge with

‘node-beam’ model
and fixed supports

Calculation of rigidity of supports

Final calculation of bridge

and foundation
with elastic supports
Execution study
Construction of bridge Performance monitoring
of construction work

Final control and handover

Fig. 6. Hierarchical organisation used for bridge design

calculation of the bridge. The model suggested by the

Fig. 7. Mesh used for finite element calculations and mesh
used for foundation well
2 m thick final walls. After filling with granular soil, a concrete
roof slab, 1 m thick, is poured to close the foundation box.
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 kh y so that the
horizontal reactions are mobilised 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
mobilised 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 with stiffness ks . The
model also has local differential springs of stiffness kŁ1 and

A cement grouting system with pipes uniformly distributed z

perpendicular to the lateral supporting walls allows
improvement of the contact between the surrounding soil and
Subgrade reaction Subgrade reaction
the foundation. For the supports that bear the force of a single khx khy
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 the eastern deck, with a
stabilising moment of 122 MN m for the permanent service
l
load. The elliptical shape of the foundation improves the
rigidity of the foundation, as the long axis of the ellipse is in ks ks
the direction of the horizontal component. The aim is to keep kè1 kè2
horizontal displacement below a 2 cm threshold. kv
ks ks
y
x
4.2. Organisation of the calculation
The method of the bridge structural calculation requires
Fig. 8. Node-beam model used to represent well foundation in
knowledge of the stiffness matrix of the soil mass around the 3D FEM calculations
foundations, which are introduced in the general seismic

24 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1 Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils Monnet et al.

Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 kŁ2 to represent the difference of vertical pressure from the
anchorage along the foundation, linked to the rotation of the
horizontal beams.
The 3D model that is used for the foundation support is
calibrated based on finite element calculations (Figs 7 and 8)
with the LCPC CESAR program. The ‘node-beam’ model is
calibrated as follows.
(a) kŁ1 and kŁ2 are calculated from the model of axial rigidity
as defined in Fascicule 62 18 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 61. 19
(c) ks is found from the calculated settlement of the
foundation well, by the 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 ¼ kv0
4ks
(e) The length of the beam, l, is based on the results of the
CESAR-3D 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. 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. 20 An
elasto-plastic calculation with non-standard Mohr–Coulomb
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 ‘node-beam’ 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 to the intermediate
layer as to the soil. The values of the geotechnical parameters
are shown in Table 6 and the loadings 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 determination of the
elastic settlement of the foundation and its rotation. The
settlement obtained for this support is 7 mm in the centre of
the foundation, with a rotation of 6 3 10
4 rad (settlements at
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1 Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils
Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
the two ends of the box are 2 mm and 10 mm). The ground
under the raft is under compression (max ¼ 450 kPa) except at
the end of the long axis, where tension of 50 kPa is found. This
tension was removed by elasto-plastic computing and the
interface elements were suppressed in the 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 (x, y, z) 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, the methods used for construction, and
displacements of the foundations under loading forces.
5.1.1. Stratification of soil during excavation. During
construction of the foundation box (Fig. 9), 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 drilled, 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 construction method. The control used during
the construction checked that the building process does not
unload the soils. The following special methods of construction
ensured this limitation.
(a) Excavation and construction of the retaining wall (of the
well foundation) are performed with a very short delay.
Thus the construction management led to a depth of
excavation of 1 m per stage, with a delay of 18 h 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 reduced by injections after the
concrete work for 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 l/m2 of interface,
with a pressure close to 1 MPa.
5.1.3. Displacements of foundations under loading
forces. During construction, special measurements were made,
with techniques such as: measurement of the forces on the
jacks supporting the arches by knowledge of hydraulic
pressures; measurement of the relative displacements between
Monnet et al. 25
 Soil family Soil description E: MPa
c: kPa : ł:
degrees degrees

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 geotechnical parameters used in FEM calculation

Applied forces: Settlement: Horizontal displacement: Rotation:

MN mm mm 1000 rad

Soft hypothesis 41.54 6.7 3.7 0.4

Stiff hypothesis 3.8 2 0.2
Measurements 2.4 0.5 0
Soft hypothesis 45.11 8 3.8 0.5
Stiff hypothesis 4.3 2 0.2
Measurements
Soft hypothesis 60.09 9.5 4.8 0.5
Stiff hypothesis 5.2 2.6 0.3
Measurements 3.8 1 0
Soft hypothesis 74.52 11.4 5.4 0.6
Stiff hypothesis 6.2 2.9 0.3
Measurements
Soft hypothesis 96.8 16.4 6 1
Stiff hypothesis 9 3.2 0.5
Measurements 5.2 1.5 0
Soft hypothesis 93.85 15.9 5.9 0.9
Stiff hypothesis 8.6 3.2 0.4
Measurements

Table 7. Displacements found by finite element analysis and measurements for the south support
(P13) of the eastern deck

observe the long-term behaviour of the foundations and to

Fig. 9. General view of the foundation well
the foundations and the bases of the arches by four gauges;
measurement of foundation displacements and rotations by
topographic surveying of targets with a motorised theodolite,
and by clinometers fixed on top of the foundation; and
measurement of the displacements of the arch by topographic
targets.
During construction of the deck, topographic measurements
were performed. New periodical controls are planned to
ensure a creep smaller than tolerance. These measurements
(Table 7) allowed the experimental loading curve to be drawn,
and to be compared with the theoretical curves (Fig. 10), which
are drawn for two different stiffnesses of the soil. The arch was
built on a support that allows 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. In Fig. 10 we can see
that the soil is stiffer than the stiff hypothesis. Long-term
measurements will be carried out to measure creep of the soil
under permanent loads.
5.2. Performance monitoring and surveying
The Crozet bridge is located in south-east France, and is
maintained by the company AREA (les Autoroutes Rhône
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 not only 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 sensitive because of their
length, and because each working site causes great constraint
to traffic over a very long time.

26 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1 Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils Monnet et al.

Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.

120
Total force on support: MN 100
80
60
40
20
0 limitations. The calculation that was used for the design took
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement: mm
Fig. 10. Achievement control for total displacements on
support P13
The management of AREA construction works is based on
periodic detailed inspections, as defined in ITSEOA. 21
Inspections are carried out every 6 years. Damage is visually
observed, and the corresponding reports give a state index
based on the IQOA 22 classification issued 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, with decks supported by
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.
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 5 cm is allowed. For the
western deck, which is supported by three arches, the
displacement of the central supports is 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, and 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 by 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 box, 0.8 m above ground level
(b) reference targets of target type fixed at the top of the
columns and on the arches
(c) reference targets of rivet type fixed on the pavements of
the bridge.
Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1
Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Finally, XYZ measurements were carried out on 28 May 1999.
A new series of measurements was carried out on 17 August
2002. No significant displacement was found within the
precision of the measurements, which are 1 mm along the
vertical direction and 2 mm along the horizontal.
Soft hypothesis
Stiff hypothesis 6. CONCLUSIONS
Measurement The Crozet bridge is an arch viaduct founded on soil, which is
not a stiff formation for this structure with strict displacement
16 18 20
into account the characteristics of both 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 in both 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 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 bridges founded on
soft ground.
REFERENCES
1. ROWE P. W. The stress dilatancy relation for static
equilibrium of an assembly of particles in contact.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A,
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 1962, 269, 500–527.
2. FRYDMAN S., ZEITLEN J. G. and ALPAN I. The yielding
behaviour of particulate media. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 1973, 10, No. 3, 341–362
3. MÉNARD L. Pressiomètre. Brevet Français, 1955, No.
1.117.983, Paris.
4. MÉNARD L. Mesures des propriétés physiques des sols.
Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, 1957, 14, No. 3, 357–377.
5. GAIATECH. Procédé d’essai de forage. Brevet Français, 1989,
No. 89 09674, Lyon.
6. AFNOR. Essai pressiométrique Ménard. AFNOR, Saint-
Denis la Plaine, 1991, French standard NF P 94-110.
7. FAWAZ A., BIGUENET G. and BOULON M. Déformations d’un
sol pulvérulent lors de l’essai pressiométrique. Revue
Française de Géotechnique, 2000, 90, No. 1, 3–13.
8. BASUDHAR P. and KUMAR D. Performance studies of cavity
expansometer: a monocell pressuremeter. Proceedings 4th
International Symposium, The Pressuremeter and Its New
Avenues, Sherbrooke. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1995, 73–80.
9. MONNET J. and GIELLY J. Détermination d’une loi de
comportement pour le cisaillement des sols pulvérulents.
Revue Française de Géotechnique, 1979, 7, No. 2, 45–66.
10. HUGHES J. M. O., WROTH C. P. and WINDLE D. Pressuremeter
test in sand. Géotechnique, 1977, 27, No. 4, 455–477.
11. MONNET J. and KHLIF J. Etude théorique et expérimentale de
Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils Monnet et al. 27
 l’équilibre élasto-plastique d’un sol pulvérulent autour du
pressiomètre. Revue Française de Géotechnique, 1994, 65,
No. 1, 71–80.
12. GIBSON R. E. and ANDERSON W. F. In situ measurement of
soil properties with the pressuremeter. Civil Engineering
and Public Works Review, 1961, 56, 3–6.
13. MONNET J. and CHEMAA T. Etude théorique et expérimentale
de l’équilibre élasto-plastique d’un sol cohérent autour du
pressiomètre. Revue Française de Géotechnique, 1995, 73,
No. 4, 15–26.
14. GAIAPRESS. http://www.gaiatech.info, 2000.
15. AFPS 92. Guide AFPS 92 pour la protection parasismique
des ponts. Presses de l’Ecole nationale des Ponts et
Chaussées, Paris, 1992.
16. SEED H. B. and IDRISS I. M. Simplified procedure for
evaluation of soil liquefaction potential. Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 1971, 19, No.
SM9, 1249–1273.
17. SEED H. B. Test procedures for measuring soil liquefaction
characteristics. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 1971, 58, No. 5, 1099–1119.
18. Cahier des clauses techniques générales applicables aux
marchés publics de travaux. Ministère de l’Equipement, du
Logement, et des Transports, 1993, Fascicule 62, Titre V.
19. Bulletin Officiel. Ministère de l’Equipement, du Logement,
et des Transports, 1971, Fascicule 61, Titre II.
20. LAC C. Analyse tridimensionnelle de la fondation d’un
viaduc en arc. Journées d’étude de l’ENPC: La pratique des
calculs tridimensionnels en géotechnique. Presses de
l’ENPC, Paris, 1998, pp. 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 Routière. Ministère
de l’Equipement, du Logement, et des Transports, Paris, 1995.
22. IQOA. Image de la Qualité des Ouvrages d’Art. SETRA,
Bagneux, 1994.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings 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
guidelines and further details.

28 Geotechnical Engineering 159 Issue GE1 Foundation design for a large arch bridge on alluvial soils Monnet et al.

Downloaded by [ Distributed Tech Svcs-Sci] on [19/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.