Some aspects of Rion-Antirion bridge foundation design

G. Auvinet
Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM

ABSTRACT: This paper presents some aspects of the analysis and design of the foundation of the Rion-Antirion bridge
(Greece). The general concept of the foundation as proposed by Pecker et al. is briefly reviewed. The bridge piers were
founded on large circular gravity caissons placed on the sea bottom. The soil was reinforced with metallic inclusions.
This paper is mainly focused on the subsoil geomechanical characteristics. Due to the heterogeneity of marine and
alluvial deposits found on the site, no homogeneous layers could be defined for design purposes. A geostatistical model
was then developed to assess spatial variations of soil properties. The main features of this model and some of the results
obtained are presented. It could be shown that in spite of sharp contrasts between cohesionless and soft clayey materials,
the medium could be reasonably considered as statistically homogeneous. The technique used to estimate piers
settlements taking into account the presence of inclusions is also discussed.

RESUMEN: Esta ponencia presenta diversos aspectos del análisis y diseño de la cimentación del puente Rion-Antirion
(Grecia). El concepto general propuesto para esta cimentación por Pecker et al. se expone brevemente. Las pilas del
puente fueron cimentadas sobre grandes cajones circulares descansando sobre el fondo del mar. El suelo fue reforzado
con inclusiones metálicas. En este trabajo, se presta una atención particular a las características geomecánicas del
subsuelo. Debido a la heterogeneidad de los materiales marinos y aluviales del sitio, no fue posible definir estratos
homogéneos para fines de diseño. Se desarrolló entonces un modelo geoestadístico para describir las variaciones
espaciales de las propiedades del suelo. Se presentan las principales características de este modelo y algunos de los
resultados obtenidos con el mismo. Fue posible mostrar que, a pesar de los contrastes existentes entre materiales
granulares y arcillas blandas, el medio puede razonablemente considerarse como estadísticamente homogéneo. Se
expone por otra parte la técnica empleada para estimar los asentamientos tomando en cuenta la presencia de inclusiones.

Key words: Bridge, foundation, marine soil, inclusions, geostatistics, settlements.

In this paper, the general concept of the foundation system

1 INTRODUCTION
The Rion-Antirion Bridge, located 250 km west of Athens
(Greece) spans the Gulf of Corinth. It consists of a 2,250m
“cable-stayed” road bridge - its deck is attached by cables
directly to its pylons - with over 1,000m of approach
viaducts, constructed in an area of extreme environmental
conditions, deep sea waters (65 m+), poor soils and high
seismicity. The site is one of the most seismic areas in
Europe with design peak ground acceleration 0.48g at
seabed level. The bridge has been designed to withstand
the collision of a 180,000-ton oil tanker traveling at 16
knots and winds of up to 250 km/hour. l. It was named
2005 ASCE outstanding civil engineering achievement
award winner.
The foundations of the four piers (M1 to M4) and the pier
bases were constructed using off-shore oil platform
technology. They were cast in a dry dock on-site before
being floated into position in the Gulf, and lowered onto
the seabed using water as ballast. This ballast was also
used to preload the ground during construction.
as proposed by Pecker et al. (1998) is briefly reviewed.
The geostatistical model developed to represent spatial
variations of soil properties is then presented. The
technique used to estimate pier settlements is also
exposed.
2 FOUNDATION CONCEPT (Pecker, 1998; Pecker &
Salençon, 1999; Simon & Schlosser, 2006)
In order to prevent any damage due to the adverse
environmental conditions and to withstand large seismic
forces (500MN shear force, 18 000MN.m overturning
moment for a buoyant pier weight of 750MN), the design
concept finally adopted consisted of a circular gravity
caisson, 90m in diameter at the sea bed level, resting on
the reinforced natural ground (Fig. 1a and 1b)
The soil beneath piers M1 to M3 was reinforced below
and outside the foundation footprint by driven steel tubes,
2m in diameter, 20mm thick, 25 to 30m long and with 7m
x 7m spacing (8x8m for pier M1). Between 110 and 200
inclusions were driven per pier.
A 2.8m thick (10-100mm) gravel layer (Fig 1b) was
interposed between the top of the reinforced soil and the
base of the caisson. The purpose of this layer is to act as a
fuse under seismic loading in limiting the maximum shear
force at the interface, dissipating energy by sliding and
forcing the foundation to “fail” according to a mode
compatible with an acceptable behaviour of the structure,
i.e. a horizontal translation.
The steel tube reinforcement increases the bearing
capacity of the soil in order to eliminate detrimental
failure modes, like rotational failure which would
dangerously compromise the global stability of the
structure. It dissipates an important amount of energy as
well.
Figure 1a Caisson on soil reinforced by inclusions. Rion-
Antirion Bridge, Greece.
Figure 1b Foundation details
The seismic capacity of the foundation system was
determined in three steps:
- calculation of the ultimate capacity by using a limit
analysis theory, the yield design theory (Salençon, 1983),
extended to reinforced soil media (de Buhan and
Salençon, 1990), and determination of the inclusions
layout (length and spacing);
- checking of the ultimate capacity and determination of
the strain-stress behaviour with a non linear two or three-
dimensional finite element analysis considering an
adapted constitutive model for the soils;
- checking of the tools developed in the first step with
centrifuge model tests.
The first step applied to a critical kinematically acceptable
mechanism of failure by overturning (Fig. 2, Pecker and
Salençon, 1990) leads to a bounding surface Φ(N, V, M) =
0 , N being the vertical force, V the horizontal one and M
the overturning moment. Figure 3 shows a cross-section of
this bounding surface by a plane N = constant
corresponding to the vertical weight of the pier
Figure 2. Kinematic mechanism
Two boundary curves F (M, V) = 0 are presented: the
dotted line for the soil alone and the solid one for the
inclusion reinforced soil. Vertical segments correspond to
failure by sliding and upper inclined ones to failure by
overturning. Straight lines starting from the origin point
correspond to loadings at M/V = constant and points on
these lines to F.E. calculations of the bearing capacity.
Such stress paths are considered to correspond to the
response of the pier governed by the fundamental mode.
Figure 3 Cross-section of the bounding surface (dotted line:
without inclusions; solid line: with inclusions).
In the third step, four centrifuge model tests at 100g and a
scale of 1/100 were performed in a 200 g-ton geotechnical
centrifuge. The soil material had been sampled at the
location of a pier and reconsolidated prior to the tests.
Loading paths are at N = constant and consist of a cyclic
shear force V and overturning moment M. At the end of
the tests the models are loaded to failure with a constant
M/V ratio (Fig. 4).
1 SPT and dilatometer boreholes (60m, 40m for M4) and
seismic reflection profiles down to approximately 100m.
Fig. 6 and 7 respectively present typical water content and
CPT point resistance profiles for pier M2. The soil profile
consists of rather erratic sequences of marine and alluvial
materials consisting of gravel, sand and silty sands, sandy
clays and medium plastic clays, with a predominance of
clayey layers in the upper 100 m. The cu values of the
clayey soils increase slowly with depth from 30-50kPa at
the sea bed level to 80-100kPa at 50m depth.
W (%)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
60.00

70.00

80.00

Figure 4. Failure mechanism developed during centrifuge testing 90.00

The main results are summarized in figure 5 which 100.00

Depth (m)
compares theoretical predictions to the experimental
110.00
values of the at failure loads. Disregarding the preliminary
tests carried out with another centrifuge, all four tests 120.00
show a very good agreement.
130.00

140.00

150.00

160.00

Figure 6 Water content profile (Pier M2)

Cone resistance
Cone penetration test
Borehole M2- C2
qc (MPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
60.00

70.00

80.00

Figure 5. Computed versus measured failure loads in centrifuge

tests (diamonds for preliminary tests; triangle for final tests) 90.00

100.00

3 SUBSOIL PROPERTIES
Depth (m)

110.00
The sedimentary pattern in the Gulf of Corinth is mostly
controlled by the tectonic activity and the sediment 120.00

sources. The basin is often actively filled by axial drainage

system with transverse fans and cones. Two major fan 130.00

delta lobes, one issued form the Mornos river, the other
from the Boliviatos river are probably of major
importance in the sedimentary process of the area.
Geological surveys have indicated a rock substratum
deeper than 500m.
An extensive geotechnical investigation was performed to
define the geomechanical characteristics of the subsoil.
This included for each pier: 3 borelogs, 100m deep below
sea floor (80m for M4), 4 piezocone testing profiles (60m,
40m for M4), 2 seismic cone profiles (60m, 40m for M4),
Figure 7 CPT point resistance Profile (Pier M2)
Some difficulties were encountered in the attempts made
at defining a typical soil profile for design purposes. As
underlined by Prof. Ralph B. Peck, consultant of this
project, serious uncertainties were introduced by the fact
that the site information was not uniform in plan.
Furthermore, the soil appeared to have non-uniform
properties in both plan and elevation and to be
characterised by lenses, some of them with low over-
consolidation ratio. It was considered that some features
of the spatial variation of soil properties could be better
represented by a stochastic model rather than a
deterministic one.
4 GEOSTATISTICAL MODEL
calculated horizontal correlation distance is much larger
than the vertical one and appears to be of the same order
of magnitude as the footing diameter. This large value of
the horizontal correlation distance reflects the lenticular
structure of the medium where continuity does exists but
only in a statistical sense.
W ater content average for each borehole

Statistical methods can be helpful for evaluating field and 35

32.5
laboratory tests results. They can contribute to remove a M4-S2

30
substantial amount of the subjectivity generally involved 27.5
C400
M3-S3
C300
M2-S2
M2-S3

in the definition of soil profiles for design purposes. They 25

C-500
M4-S3 M3-S2
M2-S1 M1-S1

C100
M1-S3

can also be used to detect inconsistencies in the data and 22.5 M4-S1
M3-S1
C200
M1-S2

20
conflicts between results obtained using different field or

W(%)
17.5 y = 2E-11x 4 - 1E-07x 3 + 0.0002x 2 - 0.1223x + 49.903
laboratory testing techniques. When the volume, quality 15

and behavior of data are adequate, statistical analyses can 12.5

also provide the elements necessary to develop a 10

7.5
stochastic or geostatistical model describing spatial 5
variation of soil properties (Matheron, 1965; Auvinet, 2.5

2002). This type of model uses the mathematical 0

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 225
formalism of random fields. The basic parameters required Position (m)

for defining a random field are: expected value, variance Figure 8 Average water content values for all boreholes.
and autocorrelation function. The autocorrelation function
W ater content autocorrelation function
(generally highly anisotropic in alluvial soils) represents Pier M 2

the degree of statistical dependency existing between 1

properties at different points of the medium. When these 0.8

parameters can be reliably defined by statistical analysis 0.6

of the available data, punctual or average values of the 0.4

Autocorrelation coefficient

properties of interest can be estimated for any point, 0.2

surface or volume within the medium using standard 0 mo

conditional estimation techniques. Simulations of -0.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

plausible spatial distributions of the property of interest, -0.4

compatible with the available data, can also be performed. -0.6

A geostatistical model describing spatial variations of the -0.8

physical and mechanical properties of the subsoil -1

underneath each footing of the Rion-Antirion bridge, was D istance (m )

A V E RA G E S erie1

developed (Auvinet, 1998). Due to the large volume of

available data for both properties, the attention was mainly Fig. 9 Vertical autocorrelation function for water content,
focused on water content and CPT point resistance values. (Pier M2)
As a previous step, simple statistical analyses were
performed in order to assess the general trends detectable An orthotropic random field model was defined for each
in the medium. As an example, Figure 8 shows the pier taking into account the above results. A simple
(vertical) average water content for the different boreholes exponential model of the type:
on the site. It can be observed that this average value is
remarkably constant. This type of evidence indicates that,
ρ x , y , z = exp⎨− 2
⎧⎪ (x 2
+ y2 )+ z 2 ⎫⎪
⎬ (1)
in spite of the sharp variations from soft clays to gravel
observed in the soil profiles, the soil mass can reasonably ⎪⎩ (δ H )2 (δ Z )2 ⎪⎭
be considered as statistically homogeneous. It also
suggests that no large differential settlements should be was fitted to the data in order to define an orthotropic
expected. autocorrelation function. In this model δ H and δ Z
Figure 9 presents the vertical autocorrelation function for represent respectively the horizontal and vertical
water content for pier M2. It can be fairly approximated correlation distance. Parameters values for the water
by an exponential function. As seen on the figure, water content random fields are indicated in Table I for each
content values corresponding to two points on the same pier.
vertical axis present some correlation as long as they are
not separated by a vertical distance larger than 10m or so.
This correlation distance varies from one site to another
reflecting specific local sedimentation conditions. The
 between index and mechanical properties that were
Table I Random fields parameters (water content) validated with the site data.
Pier δ ,m δ ,m Expected Standard
H Z
Value (%) deviation (%) Computed stresses and compressibility parameters were
M1 36.4 4.0 23.9 5.4 then used to compute settlements for each borehole. The
M2 105.3 10.0 26.8 6.0 general behavior of footings was assessed adjusting a
M3 20.0 4.2 25.6 4.4 linear trend to these computed settlements. This was
M4 100.0 6.2 26.9 7.5 considered justified considering the high stiffness of the
caisson and the settlement averaging that takes place due
Conditional estimations and simulations could then be to the scale effect that affects the compressibility field
performed to define a series of radial cross-sections where (Auvinet, 2002).
spatial variations of water content (Fig. 10) and cone point
resistance could be observed.

WATER CONTENT, PIER M2

South-North profile

-70.00
52.00
50.00
-80.00 48.00
46.00
44.00
-90.00 42.00
40.00
38.00
-100.00 36.00
34.00
32.00
-110.00 30.00
28.00
26.00
-120.00
24.00
22.00
-130.00 20.00
18.00
16.00
-140.00 14.00
12.00
10.00
-150.00 8.00

4241330.00 4241350.00 4241370.00 4241390.00 4241410.00 4241430.00

Y, South - North (m)

Fig. 10 Cross-section, water content (Pier M2).

This permitted in turn to verify that the medium can be

considered as fairly homogeneous. However, the soil
beneath pier M4, closer to the coast and thus more
affected by alluvial fans, was found to be significantly
Figure 13 Vertical stress distributions (Pier M2).
more heterogeneous.
The differential settlements for Pier M2 are presented on
5 SETTLEMENTS ESTIMATION Fig. 14 and for all piers on Table II. The larger expected
tilt for pier M4 reflects the heterogeneity of the soil
Total and differential settlements of each footing were beneath this pier.
estimated using the traditional soil mechanics approach
(Auvinet, 1999).

Vertical stresses were computed using a 3D finite element

model taking into account the footing stiffness and the
presence of all inclusions individually. The results
obtained with this 3D model were complemented for large
depths with Boussinesq stress distributions, taking into
account Saint Venant’s principle (Fig. 11). The figure
shows that vertical stress in the soil is substantially
reduced in the soil layer corresponding to the length of the
inclusions but that, on the other hand, it increases
significantly below the tip level of these elements. Figure 14 Estimated differential settlements (Pier M2)
Compressibility parameters were defined taking into
accounts both actual data and statistical correlations
 Table I Estimated tilt
Pier M1 M2 M3 M4
Maximum 0.000733 0.00126 0.00109 0.00267
tilt
Azimuth 86.6 NE 19.81 SE 6.19 NE 18.6 SW
The order of magnitude of the computed total (20 to
40cm) and differential (less than 0.003) settlements was
found to be in good agreement with the results of the
measurements performed during the bridge construction.
It should be taken into account that the soil was preloaded
and that part of the settlements could be corrected at the
deck level before constructing the pylons.
A comparative analysis was performed to compare
settlements of the footing with and without inclusions. In
this particular case, it could be concluded that the
inclusions, although obviously useful for improving the
bearing capacity of the soil under eccentric and inclined
loading, did not contribute so effectively to reduce
settlements due to the large spacing (7 to 8 m) between
these elements. As a matter of fact, the computed
settlements taking into account the inclusions were
slightly larger that in the other case due to the existence of
compressible materials below the tip of the inclusions
(Auvinet, 1999).
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The very valuable participation of Zenón Medina and Juan
Félix Rodríguez in the geostatistical analyses and
settlement computations is acknowledged.
The author would also like to mention that participating
in this stimulating project has constituted a strong
incentive for the development of reinforcement of soft
soils with inclusions as a solution for foundations of light
buildings in the lacustrine zone of Mexico City.
(Rodriguez, 2001; Auvinet, 2006; Rodriguez & Auvinet,
2002 and 2006)
7 REFERENCES
Auvinet G. (1998). Geostatistical analysis of soil data on the site of
Rion-Antirion bridge, Greece. Final report submitted to
Géodynamique et Structure, France, September.
Auvinet G. (1999). Geostatistical analysis of soil data on the site of
Rion-Antirion bridge, Comparative analysis of settlements of piers
foundation on soil with and without inclusions. Complementary
report submitted to Géodynamique et Structure, France, February
Auvinet G. (2002). Uncertainty in Geotechnical Engineering. Sixteenth
Nabor Carrillo Lecture, Special bi-lingual publication, SMMS,
Querétaro, Mexico.
Auvinet (2006). Rigid inclusions in Mexico City soft soils, history and
perspectives. Proceedings, International Symposium on rigid
inclusions in difficult soft soils conditions. ISSMGE TC 36, SMMS,
Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM. Mexico City, May.
Matheron G. (1965). Les variables régionalisées et leur estimation.
Masson et Cie éditeurs, Paris
Pecker A. (1998). Capacity design principles for shallow foundations in
seismic areas. Keynote lecture, 11th European Conf. on Earthquake
Engineering, September, Paris.
Pecker A. & Salençon J. (1999). Ground reinforcement in seismic areas.
Proceedings, 11th Panamerican Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Aug. 1999, Vol. 2, Foz de Iguazu.
Pecker A. (2004). Design and construction of the Rion Antirion bridge.
Proc. ASCE Geo-Trans 2004 on Geotechnical Aspects of
Transportation Engineering.
Rodríguez J.F. (2001). Uso de inclusiones rígidas para el control de
asentamientos en suelos blandos, Master degree thesis, DEPFI,
UNAM, México D.F.
Rodríguez, J.F. & Auvinet G. (2002). Cap. 9: Inclusiones. Manual de
Construcción Geotécnica, Sociedad Mexicana de Mecánica de
Suelos, México, D.F, Vol. II, pp. 403-406.
Rodríguez & Auvinet G. (2006). Rigid inclusions in Mexico City soft
clays. Case histories. Proceedings, International Symposium on rigid
inclusions in difficult soft soils conditions. ISSMGE TC 36, SMMS,
Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM. Mexico City, May.
Simon & Schlosser (2006). Soil reinforcement by vertical stiff inclusions
in France. Proceedings, International Symposium on rigid inclusions
in difficult soft soils conditions. ISSMGE TC 36, SMMS, Instituto de
Ingeniería, UNAM. Mexico City, May.