Alain Pecker -- Rion Antirion (Presentation)

8/12/2019 Alain Pecker -- Rion Antirion (Presentation)

1/78

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIONDESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RION

ANTIRION BRIDGE FOUNDATIONSANTIRION BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS

Alain PECKER

TechnischeTechnischeUniversitUniversitttHamburgHamburg--HarburgHarburg,, January 29, 2008January 29, 2008


2/78

Finance

Design

Build

Own

Operate

Transfer

Continental Greece

Peloponese


3/78

KEY DATESKEY DATES

LaunchLaunch of tender :of tender : 19921992

ContractContract awardaward:: DecemberDecember19971997

StartStart of construction :of construction : 19991999

Opening to trafficOpening to traffic :: AugustAugust 20042004

TotalTotal costcost :: 770 Mi Euros (630 construction)770 Mi Euros (630 construction)


4/78

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATIONOUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

Overview of projectOverview of project

Geotechnical and environmental conditionsGeotechnical and environmental conditions

Description ofDescription of foundationfoundation systemsystem

Design strategyDesign strategy

Construction methodsConstruction methods


5/78

Gulf of Corinth

RIONRION

ANTIRIONANTIRION


6/78

RION ANTIRION

286 560

2252

560 560 286


7/78

65 m90

m

230 m


8/78

GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONSGEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS


9/78

65 m.

RION ANTIRION

SAND AND GRAVEL

CLAYSILT

WEAK ALLUVIUMS :


10/78

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 100 200 300 400 500

Undrained shear strength (kN/m2

)

Dep

thbelowgroundsu

rface

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Shear wave velocity (m/s)

SOIL CHARACTERISTICSSOIL CHARACTERISTICS


11/78

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS


12/78


13/78

UnacceptableUnacceptable

performanceperformanceBasicobjective

Essential/Hazardousobjective

Safety

Criticalobjective

FrequentFrequent

OccasionalOccasional

RareRare

VeryVery RareRareEarthquaked

esign

Earthquaked

esignlevel

level

Earthquake performanceEarthquake performance levellevel

FullyFully

operationaloperationalOperationalOperational LifeLife

safesafe

NearNear

collapsecollapse


14/78

DESIGN SPECTRUMDESIGN SPECTRUM

SeaSeabedbedlevellevel

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Period (s)

Spectralaccele

ration

(g) Damping 5 %

M = 7.0

Return period 2000 y


15/78

TECTONIC MOVEMENTS

PLAN : HORIZONTAL OPENING : 2 m

ELEVATION :VERTICAL SLIP : 2 m

PIER BASE


16/78

180 000 t

RION ANTIRION

SHIP IMPACT :

16 knots


17/78

CONTROLCONTROLLLING FACTORSING FACTORS

No rock formation at less than 500 mNo rock formation at less than 500 m Large water depth : 65 mLarge water depth : 65 m

PerformancePerformance objectives (2000objectives (2000 yearyearreturnreturnperiodperiod))::

Damages acceptable but bridgeDamages acceptable but bridge repairablerepairable,, andandrere--usableusable

horizontal sliding acceptable ; tilt prohibited (


18/78

FOFOUNUNDATIONS ?DATIONS ?

PILESPILES

EMBEDDED CAISSONSEMBEDDED CAISSONS

SOIL SUBSTITUTIONSOIL SUBSTITUTION

SHALLOW FOUNDATIONSHALLOW FOUNDATION

Soil reinforcement with stiff inclusionsSoil reinforcement with stiff inclusions


19/78


20/78


21/78


22/78

SOIL REINFORCEMENTSOIL REINFORCEMENT

Driven steel pipesDriven steel pipes

Diameter 2 m, Thickness 20 mmDiameter 2 m, Thickness 20 mm

Length 25 m to 30 mLength 25 m to 30 m

Spacing 7 m x 7 mSpacing 7 m x 7 m

Gravel layer : 3m thickGravel layer : 3m thick

202000 INCLUSIONS UNDER EACH FOUNDATIONUNDER EACH FOUNDATION


23/78

FOUNDATION LAYOUT


24/78


25/78

ROLE OFROLE OF INCLUSIONSINCLUSIONS

+ GRAVEL LAYER+ GRAVEL LAYER


26/78

1 1 n 1 + 1

1nn ++=

N Brittle links + Ductile link = Ductile chain

PPPP

1


27/78

CAPACITY DESIGN PHILOSOPHYCAPACITY DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

Plastic hinge = Gravel bedPlastic hinge = Gravel bed FuseFuse

OverstrengthOverstrength = Reinforced soil= Reinforced soil

COMBINED EFFECT PROVIDESCOMBINED EFFECT PROVIDES

Bounds for forces in the superstructureBounds for forces in the superstructure

Control of failure modeControl of failure mode(horizontal sliding)(horizontal sliding)


28/78

Facing a new design situationFacing a new design situation

Keep things as simple as possibleKeep things as simple as possible ThreeThree stepsstepsprocessprocess

CConceptualonceptual designdesign : New: New toolstools ((YieldYieldDesignDesign TheoryTheory))

AmAmenable to parametric studiesenable to parametric studies

Validation :Validation : PhysicalPhysical modelingmodeling (centrifuge)(centrifuge)

FFinalinal designdesign : non: non linearlinearfinite element modelsfinite element modelsdynamicdynamic macromacro elementelement

Structural analysesStructural analyses

DESIGN STRATEGYDESIGN STRATEGY


29/78

SEISMIC CAPACITYSEISMIC CAPACITY


30/78

BEARING CAPACITY

underCOMBINED LOADS

xF

Q N

T

B

O

N

T

CBNN

CBTT

CBMM

/

/

/ 2

=

=

=

Yield design theory


31/78

200 400 600 800 1000

Horizontal shear force at foundation level (MN)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0

Overturningmoment(MNm)

BOUNDINGBOUNDING

SURFACESURFACE

WITHOUT

inclusions

WITH

inclusions

WITH

Gravel layer

WITHOUT

Gravel

layer

NN= 8= 8660 MN0 MN --LL = 25 m= 25 m --SS= 7 m= 7 m


32/78

0

10000

20000

30000

0 200 400 600 800

Horizontal shear force (MN)

Overt

urningmo

ment(MN

-m)

9m x 9m

7m x 7m

INCLUSIONSINCLUSIONS

SPACINGSPACING

M=V.hM=V.h


33/78

EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATIONEXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION

Centrifuge testsCentrifuge tests

Ultimate failure loadsUltimate failure loads Monotonic testsMonotonic tests

Push over testPush over test

Cyclic behaviorCyclic behavior Cyclic testsCyclic tests


34/78


35/78


36/78


37/78

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Horizontal shear force at foundation level (MN)

Ove

rturningmoment

(MN-m)

CYCLIC TEST # 2CYCLIC TEST # 2


38/78

MONOTONIC FAILURE LOADMONOTONIC FAILURE LOAD

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 50 100

Measured failure load (MN)

Com

putedfailureload(MN)

CYCLIC LOADCYCLIC LOAD


39/78

CYCLIC LOADCYCLIC LOAD

75% Failure load75% Failure load

-50

-30

-10

10

30

50

-0.50 -0.30 -0.10 0.10 0.30 0.50

Horizontal displacement (m)

Horizonta

lforce(M

N)

1

1010

1


40/78

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Horizontal shear force (MN)

Overturningm

oment(M

N-m)

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSISFINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS


41/78

GRAVEL BED DESIGNGRAVEL BED DESIGN


42/78


43/78

SEISMIC DEMANDSEISMIC DEMAND

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTIONSOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

DYNAMIC MACRO ELEMENT


44/78

V

MH

NEAR FIELD

FAR FIELD

K C

M

Nonlinearities :

geometrical (interface behaviour) :

Uplift model

material (elasto-plastic soil behaviour) :

Plasticity model

Wave propagation :

dissipation of radiation energy

Dynamic elastic impedances

DYNAMIC MACRO ELEMENT


45/78

RHEOLOGICAL MODELRHEOLOGICAL MODEL

1 2 3

1 2 3 4

0

C0

NEAR FIELDFAR FIELD

FOU

NDATION


46/78

SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTIONSOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

-500

-250

0

250

500

0 10 20 30 40 50

Simplified model

Finite element model

Time (s)Time (s)

Horizontal

Hor

izontalsh

ear

sh

earforce

(MN)

force

(MN)

PIER OFFSET DURING EARTHQUAKEPIER OFFSET DURING EARTHQUAKE


47/78

PIER OFFSET DURING EARTHQUAKEPIER OFFSET DURING EARTHQUAKE

U

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

-0.40 -0.35 -0.30 -0.25 -0.20 -0.15 -0.10 -0.05 0.05 0.10

Ux[m]

y

[m]


48/78

TECTONIC MOVEMENTSTECTONIC MOVEMENTS


49/78


50/78


51/78


52/78

CONSTRUCTION METHODSCONSTRUCTION METHODS


53/78

Off-Shore Foundations

Cable stayed

bridge


54/78


55/78


56/78


57/78


58/78


59/78


60/78


61/78


62/78


63/78


64/78

Inclusions


65/78

Steel Pipe Driving & Gravel Bed Installation


66/78


67/78


68/78


69/78


70/78


71/78


72/78


73/78


74/78


75/78

AUGUST 8AUGUST 8thth, 2004, 2004


76/78

END OF AN EXCEPTIONALEND OF AN EXCEPTIONAL

TECHNICAL CHALLENGETECHNICAL CHALLENGE

AND HUMAN ADVENTUREAND HUMAN ADVENTURE

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS


77/78

Key factors to the successKey factors to the success

Correct assessment of foundation performanceCorrect assessment of foundation performance

criterioncriterion

Time allowed for designTime allowed for design

Close collaboration andClose collaboration and confidenceconfidencebetween allbetween all

parties:parties:Owner, Contractor, Design team, CheckerOwner, Contractor, Design team, Checker

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS


78/78

GEFYRA SA (Concessionaire)GEFYRA SA (Concessionaire)

Jean PaulJean Paul TeyssandierTeyssandier

GEFYRA KINOPRAXIA (Contractor)GEFYRA KINOPRAXIA (Contractor)

Gilles deGilles de MaublancMaublanc , Pierre, Pierre MorandMorand

DESIGN JVDESIGN JVJean Marc TourtoisJean Marc Tourtois

DESIGN CHECKERDESIGN CHECKER

Peter TaylorPeter Taylor

Ralph Peck, Ricardo DobryRalph Peck, Ricardo Dobry

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jithin-payyanur
View:	241 times
Download:	13 times

Alain Pecker -- Rion Antirion (Presentation)

Documents