PSI - Issue 72

Boris Folić et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 72 (2025) 286 – 293

288

worked on the project, the bridge still had to be repaired, primarily due to the displacement of the right caisson during the flood of 1965. This paper deals with the impacts that occurred during that flood.

Fig. 2. (a) Longitudinal section and plan of the bridge, by Žeželj (1969). (b) Cross section of the bridge, by Trojanović (1961).

2. Foundation on caisson

Fig. 3. (a) Cross section of the caisson, left bank of Danube, by Žeželj (1969); (b) Cross section of the caisson, right bank of Danube, Šram (1970).

Table 1. Left and Right bank Caisson. Soil layer. Left bank Caisson “E”

Right bank Caisson “B”

Middle Caisson

Df =62 mv I layer: 10-12m sandy clay

D f =64 mv I layer: thin surface layer of muddy sand

D f =55 mv

II layer: 12-15m fine-grained gravel III layer: blue highly compacted clay B=25m; L=20m;

II layer: fine compacted gravel

B=24m; L=16m; H=9.68m

B=39.5m; L=24.5 m;

It is interesting to note that the horizontal force on the left side of the Danube, i.e. on the caisson of the larger arch, from its own weight is 8700t, or 87 MN, and on the smaller arch it is 5600t, or 56 MN.