22 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2005Fig. 2: Main bridge concept – general viewFig. 1: Desig...
Structural Engineering International 1/2005 Structures Worldwide 23ments of this innovative concept led togiving up the in...
24 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2005For this purpose the reinforced soil wasmodelled as a t...
Structural Engineering International 1/2005 Structures Worldwide 25can be adjusted subsequently to an ac-ceptable geometry...
26 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2005Pylon BasePylon bases were built in two stagesnear Anti...
Structural Engineering International 1/2005 Structures Worldwide 27forms as well as sophisticated equip-ment.The construct...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

S7

420 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
420
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

S7

  1. 1. 22 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2005Fig. 2: Main bridge concept – general viewFig. 1: Design spectrumpseudoacceleration[g]1,41,210,80,60,40,200,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0Period [s]Rion-Antirion Bridge, Greece – Concept, Design, andConstructionJacques Combault, Technical Advisor, Montesson, France; Alain Pecker, Managing Dir., Géodynamique et Structures, Bagneux,France; Jean-Paul Teyssandier, Managing Dir. , GEFYRA S.A.,Athens, Greece; Jean-Marc Tourtois, Design Manager,Vinci-Construction, Rueil-Malmaison, FranceIntroductionThe Rion Antirion crossing consists ofa main bridge, 2252 m long and 27,20 mwide, and two approaches, respectively392 m and 239 m long, one on each sideof the Corinth Strait.The main bridge islocated in an exceptional environmentwhich consists of deep water (65 m),deep soil strata consisting of weakalluvium (the bedrock being probablymore than 500 m below the sea bedlevel) and strong seismic activity withpossible slow but important tectonicmovements. Of course, if all these diffi-culties could have been taken into ac-count separately, there would havebeen no problem, but the conjunctionof all these unfavourable conditionslead to unusual conceptual problems.As the seismic activity in the area is se-vere, it is clear that an earthquake willunavoidably lead to high soil structureinteraction forces at any bridge sup-port location. As these high forceshave to be resisted by weak layers ofsoil, the foundation of any support un-der more than 60 m of water was a ma-jor point of concern.Design CriteriaThe seismic condition is based on re-sponse spectrum at the sea bed levelwhich corresponds to a 2000 year re-turn period (Fig. 1). The peak groundacceleration is 0,48 g and the maxi-mum spectral acceleration is equal to1,2 g over a rather large period range.As previously mentioned the bridgealso has to accommodate possible faultmovements which could lead to a 2 mvertical and horizontal displacement ofone part of the main bridge with regardto the other part, the pylons being si-multaneously subjected to small incli-nations due to the corresponding re-arrangement of the sea bed below thefoundations.In addition,the pylons haveto withstand the impact of a big tanker(180000 t) moving at a speed of 30 km/h.Main Bridge ConceptTaking into account this range of pos-sible occurrences, the span length ofthe main bridge had to be adjusted toreduce as much as possible the numberof supports in the strait. Clearly, theseconditions would have favoured the de-sign of a suspension bridge but a majorslope stability problem on the Antirionside excluded such a solution from thevery beginning of the conceptual designstage. Instead, an exceptional cablestayed bridge (Fig. 2) made of 3 centralspans 560 m in length and 2 side spans286 m long was selected [1].The corresponding four pylons rest onlarge concrete substructure foundations,90 m in diameter, 65 m high, which dis-tribute all the forces to the soil. Belowthis substructure, the bearing capacityof the heterogeneous and weak soilwas improved by means of inclusions,which consist of 20 mm thick steelpipes, 25 to 30 m long and 2 m in diam-eter, driven at a regular spacing of 7 or8 m. The top of the steel pipes is cov-ered by a calibrated gravel layer whichprovides a transition from the struc-ture to the reinforced soil.Initially, a concrete block which acts asthe base of 4 concrete legs convergingat the top of the pylons and giving themthe appropriate rigidity was supportedby these huge foundations through oc-tagonal pylon shafts, pyramidal capitalsand a sophisticated set of bearing de-vices, post-tensioned tendons andspring dampers. This was absolutelynecessary since each pylon supported asymmetrical cantilever 510 m long andeach cantilever was connected to theadjacent one or to the approaches by asimply supported deck girder 50 mlong. Careful analyses of the behaviourof the reinforced soil and improve-
  2. 2. Structural Engineering International 1/2005 Structures Worldwide 23ments of this innovative concept led togiving up the initial static scheme of themain bridge and to adopt a much moreefficient structure with a continuous py-lon (from sea bed to pylon head) and acontinuous fully suspended deck isolat-ed as much as possible from the pylons.This allowed the depth of the deck andtherefore also the wind effects on thebridge to be reduced.The deck is a composite steel-concretestructure, 27,20 m wide, consisting of aconcrete slab, 25 to 35 cm thick, con-nected to twin longitudinal steel I-girders, 2,20 m high, braced every 4 mby transverse cross beams (Fig. 3). It iscontinuous over its total length of2252 m, with expansion joints at bothends, and is fully suspended by 8 sets of23 pairs of cables. In the longitudinaldirection the deck is free to accommo-date all movements due to thermal andseismic actions and the joints are de-signed to accommodate 2,5 m displace-ments under service conditions andmovements of up to 5,0 m in an ex-treme seismic event.In the transverse direction it is con-nected to each pylon with 4 hydraulicdampers of 3500 KN capacity each anda horizontal metallic strut of 10000 KNcapacity.The stay cables are arranged in two in-clined planes in a semi-fan configura-tion.They are made of 43 to 73 parallelgalvanised strands individually pro-tected by an HDPE sheath.Design PhaseAccording to the previous general pres-entation of the project, it is clear thatthe design of the main bridge has main-ly been governed by the ability of thestructure as a whole to resist the majorseismic events including a possible faultmovement. This means that the struc-ture had first to be designed to resistwhat will be the main actions during itsdesign life (i.e. for the classical service-ability limit states and the correspond-ing ultimate limit states). Then the ca-pacity of the main components of thestructure was adjusted to accommo-date the demands during the designearthquake without exceeding the ac-ceptable damage.This was the best wayto get the most flexible structure andtherefore the most favourable conceptfrom a seismic point of view.Since the signing of the contract wasdelayed by the banks and the bridgewas really an enormous undertaking, itwas decided to spend about one yearcarrying out sophisticated parametricstudies with a view to optimising theconcept and the structure as well.Reinforced Soil and FoundationConceptThe foundations are a typical exampleof a major part of a structure wherethe performance of the concept had tobe evaluated through the capacity ofthe soil, to resist the soil-structure in-teraction during the earthquake event,and the ability of the structure to ac-commodate the exceptional displace-ments (generated by the ground mo-tion) with a controlled damage consid-ered as acceptable.In the case of the Rion-Antirion mainbridge, the foundations of the structureconsist of two separate parts (Fig. 4):– the reinforced soil, which is a clay-steel composite 3D volume– the pylon bases, which are rigid bod-ies not subject to any unusualstrength problemsThese parts are made partially inde-pendent by the gravel layer, which wasdesigned to transfer a range of horizon-tal forces compatible with the strengthof the reinforced soil,the global stabilityof the structure and the acceptable per-manent displacements of the pylons.Although the foundations look likepile foundations, they do not at all be-have as such: no connection exists be-tween the inclusions and the pylonrafts. The pylon bases are therefore al-lowed to experience uplift or to slidewith respect to the reinforced soil. Thecapacity design philosophy, introducedin foundation engineering for the eval-uation of the seismic bearing capacityof shallow foundations based on theyield design theory, was then extendedto this innovative foundation conceptin seismic areas [2]. Using the yield de-sign theory, through a set of appropri-ate kinematic mechanisms (Fig. 5) itwas possible to derive an upper boundestimate of the global bearing capacityof the reinforced soil (Fig. 6).Fig. 3: Composite deck conceptFig. 4: Reinforced soil and foundation con-ceptFig. 5: Kinematic mechanismBF␭B␮␧Љ␣␦␻⍀
  3. 3. 24 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2005For this purpose the reinforced soil wasmodelled as a two-dimensional contin-uum appropriately connected to beamssimulating the stiff inclusions. Conse-quently, the calculations took into ac-count the contribution of the inclusionsfor the overall resistance of this newconcept.The simplicity of such calcula-tions allowed optimizing the size andthe spacing of the inclusions. A set ofcentrifuge tests was run to validate theconcept and the theoretical approaches.Analyses of Reinforced SoilNonlinear finite element analyses werethen carried out. They lead to the con-stitutive laws for the reinforced soil,which were used in the general analy-sis of the structure (Fig. 7).All these calculations, adequately com-bined with a global dynamic analysis,demonstrated that the coupled gravellayer and soil reinforcement improvedthe bearing capacity of the whole foun-dation system while controlling thefailure mode:– The transition provided by the gravellayer limits the maximum shear forceat the interface, dissipates energy bysliding and forces the foundation “toyield” according to a mode that iscompatible with an acceptable be-haviour of the structure.– The stiff inclusion reinforcement in-creases the strength capacity of thesoil in order to eliminate undesirablefailure modes, like rotational failurewhich would compromise danger-ously the global stability of the struc-ture, and dissipates an importantamount of energy as was anticipatedfrom the Force-Displacement Dia-gram (Fig. 8).Dynamic Analysis of BridgeAll the previous calculations and re-sults were used to carry out detailedand carefully executed 3D dynamicanalyses of the whole structure [3].Thanks to the development of a cer-tain number of calculation tools inter-facing with a powerful commerciallyavailable computer software, the fol-lowing very important properties weretaken into account:– Nonlinear hysteretic behaviour ofthe reinforced soil– Possible sliding of the pylon bases onthe gravel beds precisely adjusted tothe accompanying vertical force– Nonlinear behaviour of the rein-forced concrete of the pylon legs (in-cluding cracking and stiffening ofconcrete due to confinement)– Nonlinear behaviour of the cablestays– Nonlinear behaviour of the compos-ite bridge deck (including yielding ofsteel and cracking of the reinforcedconcrete slab)– Second order effects (or large dis-placements, if any).Several sets of independent artificialaccelerograms conforming to the seis-mic design spectrum for the 3 compo-nents of the ground motion (the verti-cal one being scaled to 70% of the hor-izontal) were used. From these calcu-lations, the way the reinforced soilbehaves and the bases slide could becarefully checked.Behaviour of Reinforced SoilThe overall analysis of the Bridge, in-cluding a lumped parameter model ofthe reinforced soil, allowed checkingthe results obtained with the varioussoftware components specifically de-veloped for this bridge. The resultswere consistent with the assumptions.They showed that the forces and over-turning moments applied to the soil al-ways remain within the bounding sur-face.They confirmed the very good be-haviour of the fully suspended deck,which is isolated as much as possible.The relative displacement of the pylonbases with respect to the gravel layerevidenced some sliding, which never-theless is acceptable and if, for anyreason, this sliding could not occur ithas been checked that this is not a ma-jor point of concern. Under the mostsevere seismic event, the substructureof the bridge will slide (Fig. 9); the py-lon bases will rotate slightly; but allthis will happen without any detrimen-tal effect on the structure of the bridgeas the fully suspended and flexibledeck is able to align automatically andFig. 6: Reinforced soil interaction diagram Fig. 7: Behaviour curves of reinforced soilFig. 9: Controlled response of structureFig. 8: Soil horizontial force-displacementdiagramHorizontal shear force at foundation level (MN)Overturningmoment(MN-m)350003000025000200001500010000500000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800W= 900 MNW= 700 MNW= 500 MNFE AnalysisResultsForce(MN)900,00800,00700,00600,00500,00400,00300,00200,00100,000,000 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8Force-Displacement RelationshipsDisplacement (m)N=1200 MNN=1000 MNN=700 MNN=600 MNN=300 MNN=1200 MNN=1000 MNN=700 MNN=600 MNN=300 MNMoment-Rotation RelationshipsMoment[NMm]Rotation [rad]Ur[m]Time [s] Ux [m]150010005000-500-1000-1500-1,0 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0350003000025000200001500010000500000 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0.0050 5 10 15 20 25 30 350.350.300.250.200.150.100.050.00Uy[m]–0.40 –0.35 –0.30 –0.25 –0.20 –0.15 –0.10 –0.05 0.00 0.05 0.100.150.100.050.00–0.05–0.10–0.15Residual:24.6 cm
  4. 4. Structural Engineering International 1/2005 Structures Worldwide 25can be adjusted subsequently to an ac-ceptable geometry by re-tensioning thestay cables.Behaviour of StructureBecause the stability of the fully sus-pended multi cable-stayed span deck issecured by the stiffness of the pylons,these were the most critical part of theStructure. The stiffness is achieved byhaving the four legs converge at midheight of the anchorage zone. The dy-namic analyses showed that the pylonsand shortest cable-stays are indeedheavily loaded during the earthquakeevent. Clearly, from this point of view,there is a contradiction between whatis required for the normal operation ofthe bridge and the demand when a se-vere earthquake occurs. Indeed, thepylons are too stiff and the shortest ca-bles as designed for serviceability arenot flexible enough.Dynamic calculations have shown thatthe extreme vibrations generate vari-ous crack patterns, distributed alongthe legs, due to both bending and ten-sion (Fig. 10). On the one hand, itcould be observed that this cracking isfavourable as it generates the neces-sary flexibility of the legs without lead-ing to unacceptable strains in the ma-terials (i.e. unacceptable damage). Onthe other hand, it was not an easy taskto get a global view of the behaviour ofthe pylon as the information producedby a sophisticated analysis is too volu-minous. With time steps of 0,02 s – i.e.2500 steps for a 50 second event – andthe number of cross-sections in themodel of one pylon leg being 13 – thismeans that there would be 130000configurations of reinforced concretecross-sections to be checked for eachpylon in order to evaluate the globalbehaviour of the structure at any time.To evaluate this vast quantity of infor-mation, it was decided to check, for theduration of the earthquake, that thestrains in the materials (concrete andsteel) in each cross-section do not ex-ceed the acceptable limits that guaran-tee a controlled damage of the pylons.The general consistency of these so-phisticated calculations can be verifiedfor time history peak values of these pa-rameters by checking the correspon-ding deflection shapes of the legs, axialshear forces and bending momentsgenerated in each cross-section.Push-Over Analyses of PylonsUnder these conditions, it made senseto carry out a push-over analysis of thepylons to evaluate their global behav-iour and compare their capacity to thedemand, in terms of displacements, dur-ing the extreme seismic event. Itshould be observed that such a push-over analysis is common-place nowa-days. Moreover, this analysis is ex-tremely simple for a tall pier of abridge which behaves as a single de-gree of freedom system and is there-fore loaded by a shear force acting atthe level of the centre of gravity of thebridge deck. It is no longer simplewhen the pier is a pylon group madeup of four legs converging in a zonewhere a large number of cables aregenerating many forces at various lev-els. In this case, one way of performingsuch a push-over analysis is to repro-duce the state of equilibrium at a stageof the dynamic analysis which can beconsidered as the most unfavourablesituation during the 50 second event –i.e. when forces, bending moments anddisplacements are the most severe.This approach allowed assessing theeffect of the displacement demand ona pylon as well as its displacement ca-pacity as estimated from the 3D dy-namic analysis.In a static analysis on an exact modelof the pylon,inertial forces coming fromthe deck through the cables and fromthe pylon concrete mass accelerationwere gradually increased by a magnifi-cation factor while gravity or initially ap-plied forces (permanent loads) were not.The diagram showing the displacementD at the top of the pylon legs versusthe magnification factor A allowed aclear differentiation of the various stepscharacterising the behaviour of a wholepylon group (Fig. 11). As the displace-ment is mainly diagonal, these stepsare as follows:– Step 1 (0 < A < 0,4) – Elastic behav-iour 0 < D < 0,10 m– Step 2 (0,4 < A < 1,2) – Axial crack-ing in the tension leg, hinges formingat the top of this leg then at the top ofthe middle legs (0,10 m < D < 0,45 m)– Step 3 (1,2 < A < 1,4) – Yielding ofsteel in the tension leg (0,45 m < D< 0,60 m)– Step 4 (1,4 < A < 1,6) – Hinge form-ing at the top of the compression leg(0,60 m < D < 0,90 m).Such a push-over analysis showed thatthe displacement demand (D = 0,36 mfor A = 1) is far below the displace-ment capacity of the pylon legs whichis of the order of 0,90 m at maximumand, therefore, either that the damageshould be limited in the case of an ex-treme event or that any deviation withregard to the input motion should nothave any bad consequences.ConstructionThe main bridge concept underwent aspectacular evolution, which took intoaccount all the aspects of project costsand was the result of the close interac-tion between design and the study of re-alistic construction methods.Unusual AspectsAs already mentioned, the construc-tion of the main bridge faced the majordifficulty of great water depth, whichreaches 65 m for central piers, and poorgeotechnical properties of the seabed.As a result, foundation works, includ-ing not only dredging and steel pipedriving but also exceptional works likethe precision laying of an 8000 m2grav-el bed, presented a formidable chal-lenge, requiring unusual skill and equip-ment. To successfully complete thistask a combination of the latest tech-nologies available in the construction ofconcrete off-shore oil drilling platforms,immersed tunnels and large cable-stayed bridges was extensively used.Fig. 10:Typical deflection shape of pylonsFig. 11: Displacement at top of pylonlegs/magnification factor21,81,61,41,210,80,60,40,200 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1u = 36cm
  5. 5. 26 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2005Pylon BasePylon bases were built in two stagesnear Antirion: the footings were castfirst in a dry dock 230 m long and 100 mwide; the conical shafts were complet-ed later in a wet dock with sufficientwater dept.In the dry dock two cellular pylon foot-ings were cast at a time (Fig. 12). In fact,two different levels in the dock provid-ed 12 m of water for casting a leadingfooting and 8 m for the next one.Whenthe first footing, including a leading3,2 m lift of the tapering shaft, wascomplete, the dock was flooded and thenearly 17 m tall structure was towed afew hundred metres to deep water. Avery original idea allowed saving muchtime in the production cycle of the py-lon bases. Before the first tow-out, thedry dock was closed using a typicalsheet pile protection dyke, which thenhad to be completely removed.Clearly, building and removing such adyke again would have been extremelytime-consuming. In fact, as long as theless advanced second footing was float-ed forward into the deeper dock andsunk by flooding, it was possible to useit as a gate, providing that everythingwas designed to do so. Instead of build-ing a dyke again, temporary steel wallsaround the base top slab and sheetpiles projecting from its sides couldeasily seal the dock mouth, allowing itto be de-watered.As work resumed in the dock, the coni-cal shaft of the leading base anchoredwith chains in the wet dock was pro-gressively cast with standard jump formson top of the footing. Cells in the basewere progressively flooded to sink thestructure and maintain a constant heightabove water (Fig. 13). When a pylonbase was tall enough to stand a few me-ters above water, tugs took it to its pre-pared bed where it was ballasted andplaced at its final location. It was thenpre-loaded by filling with water, tospeed up and anticipate settlements(between 20 and 30 cm) during pylonshaft and capital construction, thus al-lowing a correction for differential set-tlements when erecting the pylon legs.Foundations and Tension LegPlatformFoundation work began in October1999 by dredging the seabed at pylonlocations, laying a 90 cm thick sand lay-er, driving the inclusions and leavingthem projecting 1,5 m above the sandto be finally covered by a 1,6 to 2,3 mthick layer of rounded river gravel anda 50 cm thick layer of crushed gravel.Gravel was laid in parallel berms, 2 mwide, separated by V shaped cuts about30 cm deep to provide some flexibilitywhen placing the pylon bases.All these marine works were per-formed, step by step, from a 60 m longand 40 m wide tensioned leg platformanchored with adjustable chains tomovable concrete blocks. Equipmentfor driving soil reinforcing tubes andpreparing the seabed was mounted onsubmersible pontoons anchored to oneend of the platform with steel arms. Amovable steel tube, reaching nearly tothe sea floor, guided piling equipmentand deposited sand and gravel on thepre-dredged bed. This equipment per-mitted the necessary works to be per-formed on a 14 m wide, 28 m long area.The platform then had to be movedfrom one area to the next by a bargeequipped with a dynamic positioningsystem. Permanent sonar scanning ofthe finished gravel bed allowed precisechecking of the achieved foundationlevel from the platform and showed itwas generally within a 5 cm tolerance.To prepare the sea bed under each py-lon base it was necessary to place theplatform, at forty different locations,over the course of about five months.Upper Part of PylonsFor the remaining sections of the py-lons, all materials, concrete, reinforce-ment, post-tensioning and equipmentwere provisioned by a support barge,used as a fixed base, and a roll-on roll-off barge transporting the truck mixersand the reinforcement from the shoreto the pylons. The octagonal shafts ofthe pylons were cast in place using selfclimbing formworks.The huge inverted pyramidal capitalsare key elements of the pylon struc-tures; they have to withstand the tremen-dous forces coming from the legs, main-ly during a seismic event, and to trans-fer them to the shafts. This is the rea-son why they are heavily reinforcedand prestressed. The construction ofthese components, which were cast inplace, took seven months and required4000 m3of concrete, 1750 t of steel re-inforcement and 30000 m2of externalFig. 12: Construction of pylonbases in dry dock Fig. 13:Towing out a pylon base
  6. 6. Structural Engineering International 1/2005 Structures Worldwide 27forms as well as sophisticated equip-ment.The construction of the pylon legs pro-gressed step by step, in 4,8 m long sec-tions, up to the point where they mergeto support the cable anchoring zone.Heavy temporary bracing providedseismic resistance during construction(Fig. 14). The steel core of the pylonhead was made of two units placed attheir final location by a huge floatingcrane able to reach a height of 170 mabove sea level.DeckThe construction method of the com-posite steel – concrete deck was similarto the one successfully used on the sec-ond Severn crossing. Deck elements,12 m long and including the concreteslab, were prefabricated at a pre-as-sembly yard. They were placed in theirfinal location by the floating crane andbolted to the previously assembledsegments using the balanced cantilevererection method (Fig. 15). Only smalljoints providing enough space for anappropriate steel reinforcement over-lapping had to be cast in place.ConclusionThe Rion-Antirion Bridge is a majorand impressive link when compared toother major cable-stayed bridges suchas the second Severn Bridge and evento the Normandy Bridge. The designand construction of this $ 750 millionproject undertaken under a privateBOT (build-operate-transfer) schemecould overcome an exceptional combi-nation of adverse environmental condi-tions thanks to the choice of an appro-priate concept and seismic design phi-losophy. The pylons are founded di-rectly on a gravel layer placed on thesea bed allowing them to undergo con-trolled displacements under the mostsevere earthquake and, based on an in-novative concept, the top 20 m of soillocated under the large diameter bases(90 m) of the pylons are reinforced bymeans of steel inclusions to resist highsoil-structure interaction loads. The2252 m long deck of the cable-stayedbridge is continuous, fully suspendedand therefore isolated as much as pos-sible from the worst seismic motions.If small damage is experienced in thepylon legs after the big seismic event,the whole bridge will be safe and stillopened to emergency traffic if neces-sary. Completed in August 2004, theRion-Antirion Bridge was opened totraffic 4 months before the contractualdeadline.AcknowledgementsThe BOT contract has been signed by the Min-istry of Environment and Public Works and theconcessionaire which consists of the same com-panies as the contractor.References[1] TEYSSANDIER, J.P.; COMBAULT, J.;MORAND, P. The Rion-Antirion Bridge Designand Construction. 12th World Conference onEarthquake Engineering. Auckland, New Zealand,2000.[2] PECKER, A. A Seismic Foundation DesignProcess, Lessons learned from two major proj-ects: The Vasco da Gama and the Rion-AntirionBridges. ACI International Conference on Seis-mic Bridge Design and Retrofit. La Jolla, Califor-nia, 2003.[3] COMBAULT, J., MORAND, P., PECKER,A.Structural Response of the Rion-Antirion Bridge.12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineer-ing. Auckland, New Zealand, 2000.SEI Data BlockPublic Authority:Ministry of Environment and PublicWorks,Athens, GreeceArchitect:B. Mikaelian, Paris, FranceStructural Engineers:VINCI Construction Grands Projets,Paris, FranceINGEROP, Paris, FranceDOMI,Athens, GreeceBuckland and Taylor,Vancouver, CanadaDENCO,Athens, GreeceContractor:VINCI, Paris, FranceElliniki Technodomiki – TEV,Athens,GreeceJ & P –AVAX,Athens, GreeceAthena,Athens, GreeceProodeftiki,Athens, GreecePantechniki,Athens, GreeceConcrete (m3): 210000Reinforcing steel (t): 57000Structural steel (t): 28000Stay cables (t): 3800Total cost (EUR million): 750Service date: August 2004Fig. 15: Deck as per April 2004Fig. 14: Construction of pylon legs

×