Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 1

Risk Assessment Study on Bridge Foundation in Deep Overlying Stratum

Ce CHEN Jingguo WANG Manhong LIU

Civil Engineer Director Civil Engineer
Hohai University Hohai University Hohai University
J.P.C.D. Nanjing, China Nanjing, China
Taizhou, Jiangsu, China Wang_jinguo@hhu.edu.cn 277863974@qq.com
cc808cc@163.com
WANG Jingguo, born 1974, Liu Manhong, born 1985,
CHEN Ce, born 1975, received Graduated from the Hohai Graduated from the Hohai
his Master degree from the University, PhD. International University,Master's degree of
Southeast University, China. His Association for engineering Geological Engineering.
research area is long span steel geology and the environment
bridge. science and engineering members.

Summary
Based on the analysis about the hydrogeological conditions and engineering geological conditions,
the paper has made the analysis on the possible risks of the deep overlying stratum foundation and
established the risk evaluation index system during the foundation operating period. Such methods
as AHP, Delphi method and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, etc. are adopted to make the
quantitative analysis on the risk factors and establish the risk judgment model. According to the
actual engineering of Taizhou Bridge, the paper has evaluated the risk of the foundation during the
operating period at the condition of deep overlying stratum. The evaluation results can confirm the
design of the bridge site is reasonable, and provide the reference for the risk management of the
bridge foundation during the operating period.
Keywords: risk assessment, deep overlying stratum, suspension bridge, AHP (Analytic Hierarchy
Process)

1. Introduction
In recent years, China has witnessed the rapid highway construction and urban renovation. Due to
the demand of highway construction and urban development, the highway and municipal bridge
construction is on the swift rise, and a number of world-class bridges, such as Sutong Bridge,
Donghai Bridge, Hangzhou Bay Bridge and so on, have been finished in succession. Since the
bridge is an important hub of transportation, great economic losses and the extremely serious
consequences will be incurred in the event of accident. Therefore, more and more attention is paid
to the risk assessment during the life cycle of modern bridges[1-4]. Nevertheless, little concentration
had been made on the risk assessment of bridge foundation during the operation life cycle at home
and abroad. Many uncertain factors arise in the operation process, particularly for the bridges
located in the Quaternary deep overlying stratum, due to the complex geological and
hydrogeological conditions, coupled with the internal changes of foundation caused by the external
environment so it may be faced with a variety of risk factors[5].
The bridge foundation in the operation life cycle is faced with a variety of risk factors. It is
necessary to make scientific risk assessment on the risk factors affecting the bridge safety during
the life cycle to reduce risks and relevant losses , and make scientific management measures. This
paper, firstly, identifies the risks during the life cycle of bridge foundation, and then selects the
appropriate risk assessment methods and analysis models to make scientific and rational assessment
on risk factors, with a purpose of providing a scientific basis for the risk management during the life
cycle of bridge foundation.

2. Risk Assessment Index

2.1 Analysis of Risk Factors in Life Cycle of Bridge Foundation
Plenty of risk factors are involved for the risk assessment during the life cycle of bridge foundation,
1
2 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

so it is pretty difficult to make the comprehensive and systematic risk assessment. Therefore, it is
quite necessary to adopt scientific methods and approaches to make comprehensive and systematic
study on the laws of risk occurrence and changes during the life cycle of bridge foundation, so as to
approach and reflect the actual information and changes as much as possible, to rip the accident in
the bud, and minimize the losses incurred by the risks.
In combination with the characteristics of risks during the life cycle of bridge foundation, from the
perspective of making comprehensive, systematic and scientific risk assessment as well as
convenience and practical perspective, the hydrogeology, engineering geology, accident risk and
bridge foundation types are taken as the critical index factors of underground engineering
assessment for analysis.
2.1.1Hydrogeological risks
Hydrogeological conditions consist of the groundwater occurrence type, the burial conditions of
aquifer, water depth, chemical type of groundwater, salinity, corrosive level, groundwater mining,
groundwater level, groundwater recharge, runoff and discharge, hydraulic connection between
surface water and groundwater. For the foundation engineering, the hydrogeological risk factors
include groundwater quality, nature of the aquifer system, dynamic characteristics of groundwater,
etc.
① Water quality
The impact of ground water on foundation is the corrosive effect of ground water to the reinforced
concrete structure. During the assessment, the ground water quality should be analyzed according to
Code for Geology Investigation of Highway Engineering so as to measure the chemical
composition of ground water and analyze the corrosion to steel bars in reinforced concrete and the
corrosion to the steel structure. Since the groundwater environment changes will result in a certain
change of water quality, the effect of ground water on the foundation is of uncertainty.
② Nature of aquifer system
The underground aquifer system is the general term of aquifer rocks composed of aquifer media and
groundwater. According to the water passing capacity, the media are divided into the aquifer and the
relative aquiclude. According to the classification of the media, the aquifer can be divided into the
loose porous media aquifer, the fractured media aquifer, karst media aquifer; according to the
groundwater burial conditions, the aquifer can be divided into the unconfined aquifer and the
confined aquifer. For the aquifers or aquicludes and their spatial combination, in case of action with
the engineering, the nature of the aquifer system will be changed due to the load effect, causing
interaction with foundation. For example, when the foundation and its superstructure loads act on
the foundation, the different aquifer systems have different performance on the foundation
settlement. For instance, the foundation settlement is of hysteresis relative to the load due to its poor
permeability of aquitard; for another example, due to the uneven distribution of media, the
foundation settlement has uneven settlement.

2.1.2 Engineering geological risk

The engineering geological conditions refer to the regional crustal stability, bedrock depth, basic
condition of deep overlying stratum, lithology of foundation bearing stratum, bearing capacity,
engineering geological zoning of rock and soil bodies, adverse geological conditions and special
geotechnical conditions, etc. Due to the complex geological origin and complex geological changes,
the composition and structure of rock-soil body are of severe heterogeneity, anisotropy and
discontinuity. The heterogeneity, anisotropy and discontinuity of the composition and structure of
rock-soil body lead to the complex physical properties of the rock-soil body[6]. The mechanical
properties of the rock-soil body reflected by the mechanical parameters from limited engineering
exploration and geotechnical tests have some uncertain deviations inevitably from the actual
mechanical properties of the rock-soil body.
① Geological structure
The geological structure refers to the developed faults, folds, joint fissure in the working area. What
is of great impact upon the project is the existence of active structure[7].

2
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 3

② Deep overlying stratum and distribution

The lithology of the project area is the basis of foundation construction, for different lithology and
distribution characteristics will cause different interaction with foundation. For example, the work
area of Taizhou Bridge has distributed with deep overlying stratum, and the strata distribution is
uneven, so the physical and mechanical properties and special distribution also show immediate
characteristics.
③Conditions of bearing stratum of the foundation
The conditions of bearing stratum of the foundation mean to analyze the impact of geotechnical
bearing stratum in the bridge site upon the safety of the bridge foundation according to results of
drilling, geophysical exploration, in-situ tests of rock-soil layers in the bridge site as well as the
geotechnical test results.
2.1.3 Accident risk
The accident risk refers to possible incidents occurring during the life cycle of bridge foundation,
including primarily: hydraulic accident, collision accident, earthquake, etc.
① Hydraulic accident
Hydraulic accident means to analyze the impact of flood, hydraulic erosion and drifters in river
water upon the bridge foundation according to the water flow status and hydraulic accident statistics
in the bridge site area.
② Collision accident
The collision accident means to analyze the probability of vessel collision on the bridge foundation
and determine the collision risk on the bridge foundation according to the bridge accident statistics
in combination with the regional location of the bridge foundation[8-10].
③ Earthquake accident
The earthquake accident means to determine the seismic activity level in the bridge site area and
analyze the earthquake risk on the bridge foundation according to the seismic activity
characteristics in the bridge site area.

2.1.4 Bridge foundation form

The bridge foundation form is the form of foundation adopted by the bridge. According to the
structural type, the foundation can be divided into strip foundation, independent foundation,
full-space foundation and pile foundation. Among them, the full-space foundation is further divided
into the raft foundation and the box foundation. The different types of foundation have different
adaptability on the same ground. For a given foundation type, the risk assessment should be made
primarily on such particular foundation form.
2.2 Risk Assessment System
The complexity of the bridge foundation make the risk assessment system during the bridge
foundation life cycle complicated, for many influence factors are involved. The following principles
should be noted in the formation of the bridge foundation risk assessment system: systematic and
comprehensive principle, scientific principle, independence principle, hierarchy principle and
operational principle. The selection of index and assessment methods should be contributive to the
comprehensiveness of assessment results as well as the operability of assessment process[11].
The above principles should be considered comprehensively and treated differently as well when
setting up the index system. On the one hand, the assessment principles should be considered
comprehensively, and the index can not be accepted or rejected just on the basis of only one certain
principle; on the other hand, the measurement methods and accuracy of all principles can not be
placed on the Procrustean bed since various principles are of respective particularities and
difference in realization. On these grounds, the risk assessment system is built as follows in Fig.1.

3
4 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

River water quality

Bridge site water Ground water quality

quality risk
Risk Assessment System during Service Life of Bridge Foundation on Deep Overlying Stratum

Water evolution
Hydrogeologic risk
Aquifer distribution

Aquifer
Aquifer condition recharging/discharging
in bridge site
Aquifer permeability

Fault distribution

Geologic structure Fracture distribution

in bridge site
Rupture activity

Overlay distribution

Engineering geologic Deep overlying Overlay thickness

risk stratum Physical mechanic
index
Bearing stratum
distribution
Bearing stratum
Condition of thickness
foundation bearing Bearing stratum
stratum depth

Flood accident

Hydraulic accident Erosion accident

drifter

Vessel collision
Accident risk Collision accident
Train collision

Seismic accident Seismic accident

Fig.1: Risk Assessment System of Bridge Foundation on Deep Overlying Stratum during Life Cycle

3. Risk Assessment on Middle Tower Foundation of Taizhou Bridge

3.1 Project Overview
The middle tower of Taizhou Bridge adopts the caisson foundation with depth of more than 70m.
The middle tower column is located in the middle of the Yangtze River, more than 1km away from
the bank. The caisson is the huge steel composite structure, with length of 58.5m and width of
44.4m, and the thickness of the caisson wall is1.8m. 12 compartments are arranged inside with the
compartment length of 12.6m, width of 12.6m and the thickness of the compartment wall is 1.5m.
The caisson is 70m high with the top elevation of +6.0 m and the bottom elevation of-82m, located
in the silt layer, with the back cover concrete thickness of 10m and the roof bearing platform
thickness of 5m.

The overlying layer at the site of middle tower is very thick, and the thickness of the deep bottom
section is about 175m. The overlying layer can be divided into silty loam, medium sand layer,
4
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 5

medium, grit gravelly soil from top down. According to the geological survey data, the geological
stratification is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Geologic Stratification of Middle Tower
Elevation Scope(m) Allowable Utmost Frictional
Layer
Stratum No Soil Layer Bearing Capacity Resistance
Top Bottom thickness (m)
(kPa) (kPa)
1-3/1-4 Silt -15.0 -25.7 10.7 130 35
2-2 Loam -25.7 -37.7 12.0 120 30
2-4/4-2 Loam mixed with silt -37.7 -41.7 4.0 150 40
4-3 Silt -41.7 -54.2 12.5 180 45
4-4 Medium sand -54.2 -63.7 9.5 400 55
5-2 Silt -63.7 -75.1 11.4 250 55
5-3 Medium sand -75.1 -79.5 4.4 450 60
5-4 Silt -79.5 -82.0 2.5 200 55

3.2 Risk Assessment

The weight analysis of risk index is primarily obtained through the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP). The impact of various risk indicators upon the overall risk is determined by the Delphi
expert scoring method, and then the comprehensive assessment on the risk of the middle tower
foundation is made by the comprehensive fuzzy assessment method.
3.2.1 AHP to determine the weight
Various factors, according to different attributes, are decomposed into several levels from top down.
By making up a judgment matrix, calculate the largest eigenvalue and corresponding eigenvector,
which, as normalized, is the relative importance weight of a certain level indicator to a relevant
upper-level indicator. Main steps are as follows[12]:
(1) Configure the pairwise comparative judgment matrix
From layer 2 of the hierarchical structure model, various factors on the same layer subordinated to
every factor on the upper layer are built into the pairwise comparative matrix in the pairwise
comparative method and 1-9 comparative scale till the lowest layer. The following judgment matrix
can be obtained by the indicator comparison scores:
é a11 a12 . a1n ù
êa a 22 . a 2n úú
A= ê 21 (1)
ê . . . . ú
ê ú
ëa n1 a n2 . a nn û
(2) Calculate the weight vector and make the consistency test
For each pair-wise comparison matrix, the maximum characteristic root and the corresponding
eigenvector are calculated, and the consistency check by means of the consistency index, the
random consistency index and the consistency ratio is implemented. If the check is passed, the
eigenvector (normalized) is the weight vector then. If not passed, it should be re-configured into the
pair-wise comparison matrix.
3.2.2 Score index by Delphi method
The Delphi method is employed to consult on the forecast opinions of the expert panel by means of
back-to-back communications[13]. After several rounds of consultation, the forecast opinions of the
expert panel tend to reach a consensus. In accordance with the system procedures, the opinions are
expressed in the anonymous manner, that is, the experts shall not discuss with each other, or have
lateral contact with each other except for the contact with investigating officers. Through
multi-round survey on experts’ view on the issues raised in the questionnaire, after repeated
consultation, summary, modification, the basically unanimous opinion of experts is summarized in
the end, which is considered as the forecast result. This approach is broadly representative and more
5
6 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

reliable accordingly.
3.2.3 Make overall assessment by fuzzy assessment method
Fuzzy assessment method uses the fuzzy set theory to evaluate the construction project risks. The
great majority of the project risks can not be described by completely quantitative data, and such
non-quantitative or non-precise property is fuzziness. The basic methods and steps are as
follows[14].
(1) Determine the factors set of comprehensive fuzzy assessment
Factor set is an ordinary set composed of various elements affecting the assessment target. It is
usually expressed by U, that is:
U= {u1 ,u 2 ,u 3 ...... u m } (2)
Where, the element u i (i=1,2,3......m) represents No i element affecting the assessment target.
(2) Determine the weight vector A of assessment factors
During assessment work, all factors have different importance degrees, so the factor
uni (i = 1, 2,3......n) has a weight a i (i=1,2,3......n) , and:
åa
i =1
= 1, ai ³ 0, (i = 1, 2,3......n) (3)
i

The distribution of all factor weights is the fuzzy set on U A = {a1 , a2 , a3 ...... an } .
(3) Set up the comprehensive assessment set
The assessment set is a set consisting of a variety of assessment results made by evaluators on the
assessment target. Usually it is represented by V, i.e. V= {v1 ,v 2 ,v3 ......v n } . Wherein,
Vj = ( j=1,2,3......n ) represents No j assessment result. It can be expressed by different grades,
comments, or numbers according to the actual situation.
(4) Make the single factor fuzzy assessment, and get the assessment matrix R
Setting the membership ri1 grade of No i element in the factor set U to No 1 element in the
assessment set V is , thus the assessment result of No i by a single factor is expressed in the
fuzzy set as follows:
R i = ( r1 ,r2 ,r3 ...rm ) ( i=1,2,3...m ) (4)
Making up a matrix with m single factor assessment set R1 ,R 2 ,R 3 ......R n , one has:

é r11 r12 . . r1n ù

êr r22 . . r2 n úú
ê 21 (5)
R=ê . . . . . ú
ê ú
ê . . . . . ú
êë rm1 rm 2 . . rmn úû

Which is called the comprehensive fuzzy assessment matrix.

(5) Build the assessment model for the comprehensive assessment
After R and A are determined, the fuzzy vector A on U is transformed by fuzzy transformation into
the fuzzy vector B on V, i.e.
B=AoR= ( b1 ,b 2 ......b n ) (6)
“ o ” is called the comprehensive assessment composite operator. B is called the comprehensive
assessment vector, and the elements b j ( j=1,2,3......n ) are called the fuzzy comprehensive
assessment indicator. It means the membership grade to No j assessment element in the assessment
set when the impacts of all factors are considered.
3.2.4 Assessment results
According to the actual survey data of the middle tower of Taizhou Bridge, the risk index system is

6
 Innovative Infrastructures - Toward Human Urbanism 7

set up as shown in Fig. 1. According to the index system, the middle tower risk assessment index
hierarchical structure has several layers:
Target layer: risks of Taizhou Bridge middle tower foundation during life cycle. Criterion layer:
A-hydrogeological risk; B-engineering geological risk; C-accident risk. Sub-criteria layer:
A1-bridge site area water quality risks, A2-bridge site aquifer condition; B1- geological structure of
the bridge site area, B2- status of deep overlying stratum, B3-status of foundation bearing stratum;
C1-hydraulic accident, C2 – collision accident, C3-earthquake accidents; D1-caisson foundation.
Further analysis of risk indicators on sub-criteria layer: A11-river water quality, A12-groundwater
quality, A13-water quality evolvement; A21-aquifer distribution, A22-aquifer recharge and
discharge, A23-aquifer permeability; B11-fault distribution, B12 –fissure distribution, B13-fault
activity; B21-cover layer distribution, B22-cover thickness, B23-physical-mechanical indexes;
B31-bearing stratum distribution, B32-bearing layer thickness, B33 - buried depth of bearing
stratum; C11-flood accident, C12-erosion accident, C13-drifter, C21-vessel collision, C22-vehicle
collision; C31-earthquake accident.
The weights of the fourth index layer relative to the target layer obtained by AHP are as follows: A=
（0.0109，0.0194，0.0025，0.0054，0.0286，0.0152，0.0096，0.0038，0.0405，0.0142，
0.0953，0.0425，0.0185，0.0066，0.0035，0.0805，0.0181，0.0102，0.2403，0.0601，
0.0394，0.2346）
General risk fuzzy assessment matrix R:
é0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 ù
ê0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 úú
ê
ê0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.6 ú
ê ú The comprehensive assessment vector can be obtained from equation
ê0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 ú (6), and the values corresponded by level-5 risk are shown in Table 2. It
ê0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3ú is indicated in the table that the risk assessment value in level-5 risk
ê ú assessment of the target level is maximal. According to the maximal
ê0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 ú
subordinate degree principle in the membership grade, the fuzzy
ê0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 ú
ê ú comprehensive assessment risk level of the target level in “risk of
ê0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 ú middle tower foundation in the life cycle” is: medium.
ê0.0 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1ú
ê ú
ê0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 ú Table 2: Overall Risk Assessment of Target Layer
ê ú
0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 ú
R= ê Risk Occurrence Level
ê0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 ú
ê ú Risk Indicator Very Relatively Relatively Very
Medium
ê0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 ú High High Low Low
ê0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 ú Risk of middle tower
ê ú 0.0673 0.0968 0.3792 0.3344 0.1222
foundation in life cycle
ê0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 ú
ê 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 ú
ê ú
ê 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1ú
ê ú
ê0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1ú
ê 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.0 ú
ê ú
ê 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 ú
ê 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 ú
ê ú
êë0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 ûú

4. Conclusion
This paper makes the risk assessment on the bridge foundation in the deep overlying stratum,
primarily from the perspectives of engineering geology risk, hydro-geological risk, and possible
accident factors, and builds up the risk assessment system of bridge foundation in the deep
overlying stratum. Taking the middle tower of Taizhou Bridge for example, the paper makes the
weight analysis by means of AHP and makes the assessment by means of fuzzy comprehensive
7
8 18TH CONGRESS OF IABSE, SEOUL, 2012

assessment method. The assessment results are of a certain reference value to the project
management.

References
[1] RUAN X., CHEN A., SHI X., Bridge Engineering Risk Assessment [M], China
Communications Press, 2008.
[2] LI W., ZHANG H.,Risk Assessment on River Bed Change in Bridge Engineering [J], Water
Transport Engineering, 2004 (3) ,pp.30-33.
[3] GENG B., WANG J., Overall Study on Vessel Collision Risk for Bridge [J], Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2007 (5) , pp.34-40.
[4] JIANG H., WANG J., Review on American Highway and Bridge Risk Method to Determine
the Fortification for Vessel Collision [J], World Bridges, 2008 (4) , pp.64-67.
[5] ZHANG F., Study on Bridge Risk Assessment Methods and Development [J], Urban Roads
Bridges & Flood Control, 2007 (5), pp.164-167.
[6] WANG Z., WANG J., FAN L. Research and Management on Vessel Collision on Bridge
Risk Assessment Method and Development [J], Journal of Natural Disasters, 2008 (4),
pp.7-11.
[7] ZHANG S., BAI Y., TANG W., Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering Risk Assessment
[M], National Defence Industry Press, 2003.
[8] XU K., ZHU Z., Structural Geology [M], Beijing, Geological Publishing House, 2003.
[9] LU Z., Engineering Geology [M], Beijing, China Water Power Press, 2001.
[10] LI J., ZHAO Z., Hydraulics [M], Nanjing, Hohai University Press, 2001.
[11] LIU K., Mathematical Treatment and Application of Uncertain Information [M], Science
Press, 1999.
[12] XU S., The Analytic Hierarchy Process Principle: Practical Decision-making Method [M],
Tianjin University Press, 1988.
[13] Guo Yajun, et al. ed, Theory and Method of Comprehensive Assessment [M], Science Press,
2002.
[14] LIU K., WU H., PANG Y., MABM Method in Comprehensive Treatment of Expert
Opinions [M], Practice and Recognition of Mathematics, 2001(4).