Proceedings of Bridge Engineering 2 Conference 2011

April 2011, University of Bath, Bath, UK

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PONTE DELLA COSTITUZIONE, VENICE

Kathryn R. Heath1
1
Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering, University Of Bath

Abstract: Santiago Calatrava’s Ponte della Costituzione is a steel arched pedestrian bridge built in 2007,
crossing over the Grand Canal in Venice. This paper aims to provide a critical analysis of this modern bridge
built in such a historical City. It will look in detail into the design, aesthetics and construction as well as
including simple calculations to assess how the structure behaves under different loading conditions. The
geology and durability will also be analysed and possible future changes looked at.

Keywords: Ponte della Costituzione, Calatrava, Steel Arch, Pedestrian Bridge, Grand Canal

1 Introduction 2 History and Location

In 1999 the Council of Venice opened submissions Venice is a City steeped in history and is well
for a new pedestrian bridge to be built over the Grand known for its architecture, particularly for its arched
Canal. The bridge was to be the fourth ever built across bridges, of which it has over 400. What makes this
the canal and would provide access from the central bridge stand out so much is its location and modern
train station Santa Lucia to the bus terminal Piazzale design.
Roma, a span of roughly 79m. The challenge they The Grand Canal is the main canal through Venice
faced was finding a design that was functional, and travels through the center of the Island, splitting
beautiful and in keeping with the traditional Venetian the City in two. Until 1853 when the Ponte
architecture. dell’Accademia was built the only way to cross was
The person commissioned to create this design over the Rialto bridge (or by boat). The third and most
was Santiago Calatrava, who beat 70 other entries for recent bridge in Venice is the Scalzi Bridge, which was
the project. Calatrava was selected on his reputation for originally built in 1859 and then replace in 1934.
being an Architect and Engineer well known for
creating sculptural, landmark bridges such as the
Puente del Alamillo in Seville and the Puente del
Campo Volantin in Bilbao. The Engineering was
conducted by Enzo Siviero and the construction works
were carried out by Cignoni. Works started in 2007 and
the bridge opened in September 2008 at a total cost of
around £10m.
There was some controversy about the bridge Figure 1: The Scalzi and Rialto bridges
around the opening time as many locals didn’t think the There are a lot of differing opinions on new builds
City needed it, especially since the Scalzi bridge is not in Venice, with the majority of the local population
far away and because the design does not incorporate wanting to protect it from any change.
access for the disabled. Many applications from renowned Architects have

Figure 2: View of the Ponte della Costituzione

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
been rejected in the past including most famously 3.2 The Deck
designs from Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright. The deck varies in width along its length with its
As it is a historical City some people feel it should be greatest width of 9m at the mid-span and narrowest
preserved as much as possible whereas others think it width of 6.5m at the abutments. This design detail may
should embrace change and be brought into the present be to allow for some pedestrians to stop at the mid-
times. Modern architecture could add another span to look at the views, allowing others to pass un-
dimension to the City although many people are interrupted along the central walkway to the other side.
attracted to it due to its ‘untouched’ state. The depth of the deck also varies along its length,
3 Design being deepest at the center and shallower at the
The final design decided upon was of a slender, low abutments. This is in contrast to the Rialto and Scalzi
rise, steel arched girder. Particular attention to detail bridges which have deep sections at the abutments to
was paid to the finishes to make the bridge as help minimize the horizontal thrust.
aesthetically pleasing as possible. The abutments are
reinforced concrete clad in local Istrian stone, the deck
is also paved in Istrian stone and interspersed with
translucent glass panels. The parapets are solid glass
with bronze handrails and the whole structure is lit up
at night with LED’s under the deck and at the base of
the parapets.
Figure 4:Cross-section through deck at mid-span

Figure 3:Plan view of deck

3.1 The Arch
The arch spans 80.8m over the Canal with a Figure 5:Cross-section through deck at abutments
maximum height of 4.67m. This gives a span/rise ratio
of around 16:1. Traditionally the bridges in Venice are The main structure consists of a central triangular
built with much steeper arches at a ratio of around 7:1. steel box girder, which changes in dimensions along
This is partly as they are built over shorter spans and the length of the arch. Below this main arch is a lower
need a high rise to allow boats to pass but more arch made up of two circular hollow sections. This
importantly; because the poor soil conditions meant lower arch follows a different radius and therefore has
that any arch built with a higher span/rise ratio was an even greater span/rise ratio than the main arch. A
likely to collapse. The methods of construction used steel star-shaped section connects both arches. This
meant the foundations would not be able to cope with section also supports the deck, which is cantilevered
the large horizontal forces generated. The Scalzi bridge from the main arch.
has a span/rise ratio of around 4:1 and the Rialto It seems as though the lower arch may not be
around 4.5:1. providing much support to the structure as its greatest
Calatrava’s design of such a low rise seems to be depth is in the center where the greatest support is
both for functionality and aesthetics. It allows needed. If the section was deepest at the abutments and
pedestrians to walk over without it being too steep shallowest at the center this may result in a more
while still giving an uninterrupted pathway for boats to efficient structure however the aesthetic appeal would
pass underneath. The problem of the large horizontal be compromised. Another issue with the structure is
thrust is compensated for by a jacking system at the that it doesn’t appear to have any diagonal bracing
abutments, installed to cope with any horizontal against torsional effects.
displacements.

Figure 6: Elevation

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
4 Aesthetics nor does it stand out as the dark red of the steelwork is
The majority of people who visit this bridge think it overshadowed by the deck above.
is a beautiful structure, however there are some who do
not agree, which demonstrates that aesthetics are
subjective. Fritz Leonhardt, a prominent bridge
engineer, gives 10 concepts that should be considered
during bridge design. This paper will look at some of
these concepts in order to better analyse the aesthetics.
The arched form of the bridge demonstrates a clear
structural function, sweeping in a single span from Figure 9: View from embankment
bank to bank, no part of the structure being hidden.
Unlike in the Rialto and Scalzi bridges, the geometry One of the major aesthetic responsibilities for this
of the long span and slenderness at supports may instill bridge is to integrate itself into the environment.
a slight feeling of instability. However the revealed Although it is obviously a modern structure and cannot
steel framework below counteracts this, seen from be mistaken for a traditional Venetian bridge there are
underneath the deck and partly from above through the aspects of the bridge that link it to its surroundings and
glass. The spine-like steel structure shows all the help it to blend in. The Istrian stone used on the deck
structural components and gives a great feeling of and abutments continues as paving on the
stability. embankments of the bridge and surrounding areas. This
stone is a traditional local material that is found
throughout the City. The ‘Venetian Red’ colour of the
structure is reflected in the surrounding red brick
buildings and adds a sense of richness to the bridge. It
also separates the bridge from Calatrava’s other works
where he has always used white for the steelwork.
Perhaps the most extravagant part of the bridge
aesthetically is the bronze handrails that run on top of
Figure 7: Revealed steel structure the glass parapets. These chunky bronze rails give the
feeling of expense and make the bridge seem more of a
Calatrava has designed the proportions of the bridge sculpture. At the ends of the rails where they meet the
so well that it almost looks as though it is floating. The abutments there are engraved connection details. This
glass parapets and dark red structure make the light seems to be Calatrava’s subtle stamp on the bridge as
Istrian stone of the deck really stand out from a the detail is of the crest of the Knights of Calatrava.
distance, making the bridge appear to be an elegant
strip of white stone. This gives the impression the deck
is even more slender than it already is. The lighting
effect at night also adds to this impression as a thin
strip of LEDs run along the base of the glass parapet
forming a line of light. The proportions of the bridge
can also be appreciated when walking over it. The
gradient of the slope means that pedestrians cannot see
what is on the other side and the widening of the deck
in the center opens out to allow people to stop and look
at the surroundings. Figure 10: Crest detail on handrail

Calatrava is well known for creating bridges

inspired by nature and this bridge is no exception. It is
not known if there was a specific inspiration however
the steel ‘spine’ supporting the bridge has been likened
to a fish skeleton and a leaf. More locally it is referred
to as the dinosaur bridge as they think it looks slightly
Figure 8: The bridge at night Jurassic and some call it the lobster due to its deep red
colour.
There is order in the lines of the arch. On elevation A bridge with character will make it a memorable
there are three clear curves following the same path – bridge. This is a bridge with lots of character and is
the handrail, the deck and the steel work. These lines certainly very memorable. From the low rising span to
are uninterrupted and give the structure a sleek look. the changing geometry along its length it arches
On closer inspection the lines of the steelwork are gracefully over the canal. It is an example of a
clearly visible, if looked at from an angle they do cross combination of great architecture and engineering put
over. This does not seem to complicate the structure into context, achieving a stunning end result.

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
4 Loading 4.3 Live Loading
The bridge is designed for pedestrian loads only. For pedestrian bridges over 36m a factor, k can be
The following section will provide a brief overview of used to estimate the live load.
possible loading conditions in order to better
understand the structure. The assessment was carried k = nominal HA UDL x 10
out using DMRB Part 3 BD21/01 with methods of L+270
analysis taken from BS5400: Part 1. Since BD21/01 is Where,
for short span bridges, it ignores the effects of wind,
temperature and secondary loadings, where these are
looked at BS5400 has been followed.
This gives a value of 0.375 for k and a live load of
4.1 Assessment Loads 1.79kN/m2. This is a very low load for such a crowded
The assessment load (QA) can be found from the bridge and so a load of 4kN/m2 will be assumed. This
following equation: gives a total factored live load of 6kN/m2.

QA= γfl QK An important loading case to consider for this

bridge is parapet loading. It is often very crowded and
Where QK is the nominal load and γfl is a partial safety the combination of many people leaning on the parapet
factor. The table below gives the partial factors used. on one side for a particular occasion could lead to a
substantial moment being generated.
Table 1: Loading factors

Loading γfl

Dead 1.05
Superimposed Dead
-Surfacing 1.75
-Parapets 1.20
Live 1.5

For loading conditions it will be assumed that the Figure 11: Parapet Loading
bridge has a uniform width.

The assessment load effects (SA) uses a further (Factored load = 11.34kNm)
safety factor (γf3) to take into account possible
inaccurate assessment. In this particular case it could Due to the stepped nature of the bridge it is not
compensate for inaccuracies in dimensions and steel accessible by cars and so no secondary live loads will
section properties, as many will be assumed. be taken into account.

SA= γf3 QK 4.4 Wind Loading

The amount of wind experienced around a structure
will be determined by several factors. Geographical
4.2 Dead and Superimposed Dead Loads location, the terrain of the area, local topography, the
From [1] the total weight of the steel framework is fetch of terrains upwind of the area, the height above
given as 4073kN. For the bridge length of 80.8m this ground and the dimensions all play a part in the overall
gives a factored dead load of 58.2kN/m pressure exerted on the structure due to wind. The
following analysis is to BS5400-2 and will take into
The superimposed dead load includes the surfacing account horizontal and vertical loading only. It is not
and parapets. The surfacing is known to be Istrian thought that longitudinal loading will have a great
stone and tempered glass. It will be assumed that the effect on the structure and so for the purposes of this
total factored weight is 16kN/m. The parapets consist paper it has been ignored.
of tempered glass with a bronze handrail. Their According to BS5400-2, pedestrian bridges over
factored load has been assumed at 1kN/m line load. 30m spans need to take into consideration the lateral,
vertical and torsional effects due to turbulence. This
paper however will provide only a simple analysis of
the approximate pressure exerted on the bridge.
To calculate the maximum gust speed (Vd) it is
necessary to find the gust factor (Sg) and the site hourly
mean wind speed (Vs).

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
 Vd = Sg Vs best aesthetic effect. The final shape was decided upon
after extensive Finite Element modeling to understand
The site hourly mean wind speed can be found from better the effects of loading, temperature and seismic
the equation: effects. The structure was also pre-assembled offsite
and static loading tests were carried out.
Vs = Vb Sp Sa Sd

The basic hourly mean wind speed (Vb ) can be

taken as 3.5m/s [9] for Venice. The probability factor
(Sp) can be taken as 1.0 as it is assumed a 1 in 50 year
design period. The altitude factor (Sa) is 1.0 as it is 0m
above sea level and the direction factor (Sd) is 0.91 as
the bridge is facing the North West.

Vs = 3.5 x 1 x 1 x 0.91 = 3.19m/s

The gust factor can be found from the equation:

Sg = Sb Tg Sh’

Where Sb can be found from multiplying the bridge

and terrain factor (Sb’) by the fetch correction factor Figure 12: Load Testing
(Kb). Sb’ is taken as 1.59 for the bridge length of
80.8m, 8m above ground (water level). Kb is taken as For the purposes of this paper a basic strength
0.88 for its distance of >100km upwind from the sea. analysis will be conducted on the bridge. Since the
This gives a value of 1.4. Tg is a town reduction factor steel sections were all custom made, it is not known
and is taken as 0.91 as the bridge is located less than what exact section properties and dimensions are used
3km from the edge of town. Sh’ is a topography factor and so they will be estimated where necessary.
and can be taken as 1.0 as there is not likely to be local
funneling of wind. 5.1 Arch
The arch will be assessed under two loading
Sg = 1.4 x 0.91 x 1 = 1.27 conditions. The first will consider a uniform dead load
along its length and the second will consider the worst
Therefore, Vd = 1.27 x 3.19 = 4.05m/s case loading condition which is the effect of live load
over one half of the bridge.
The nominal transverse wind load (Pt) can be found
using the equation:

Pt = qA1CD

Where q is the dynamic pressure head:

Figure 13: Case 1- dead load only
q = 0.613 Vd2 = 10.05N/m2
As an arch it is assumed that under uniform loading
A1 is the solid area exposed to the wind load which the section is in compression and no bending moments
has been estimated at 150m2. CD is a coefficient of drag will be generated only axial force.
which has been assumed as 1.4.

Pt = 10.05 x 150 x 1.4 = 2111N = 0.026kN/m

The nominal vertical wind load (Pv) can be found

using the equation:

Pv = qA3CD

Where A3 is the plan area of the deck.

Resultant force = 10703kN

5 Strength In order to calculate the Euler Buckling load, the

The shape of the steel structure was designed to second moment of area must be found. The primary
give the highest strength possible but also to give the structural element is a triangular steel box girder
running along the center of the arch. The approximate

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
dimensions of the triangle are 1.4m breadth and 0.8m
depth and the I-value is approximately 10.94 x 10-3m4.

Figure 17: Deck loading diagram

Figure 15: Triangular girder section
The maximum moment will be as a result of the
dead load, live load and parapet loading calculated in
4.3.

This is much smaller than the compressive force

calculated in the arch and so it would theoretically
buckle. However, it is likely that the secondary lower
arch, which is not accounted for in these calculations, σ = 216 N/mm2
will provide substantial buckling resistance.
For the yield strength of 355N/mm2 this is an
acceptable bending stress.

5.4 Temperature
The effect of temperature needs to be considered as
it may cause the steel structure to expand or contract,
which will affect the internal stresses.
Figure 16: Case 2 - worst loading case The difference in temperatures between the bridge
deck and the steel structure should not cause any
problems, as they are not structurally reliant on each
other.
The temperature can range from –25oC to +40oC in
Venice. As this is a pedestrian bridge and has an
assumed design life of 1 in 50 years we can add +/-2 oC
to these values. This gives a temperature difference of
61oC. Using a coefficient of expansion (α) of 12x10-6
for steel the following equation can be used to find the
possible change in length (e) for the central triangular
girder:

For a S355 section with yield strength of

355N/mm2 this bending stress is acceptable. The possible change in length can be used to find
any additional stress in the section. To do this we can
5.2 Deck
take half the change in length, as we will assume the
The deck consists of the central triangular girder temperature during construction was at the median of
with ribs consisting of rectangular hollow sections the temperature range.
cantilevered off either side. These ribs are spaced
approximately every meter along the length of the deck
and are welded onto the central section. As the exact
dimensions are not known, a similar steel section taken
from the Corus steel book will be analysed. The Under the worst case loading this gives a possible
section used will be S355, 450mm deep by 250mm overall stress of 397N/mm2. This is more than the yield
wide and 16mm thick with an I value of 5.57 x 10-3m4. strength of a S355 section. This stress may actually be

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
an overestimate as when considering the cross section 6 Geology and Foundations
of the deck the secondary arch was not taken into The Island of Venice is situated in an enclosed
consideration. This secondary arch would reduce the lagoon and as such has great difficulties with
overall bending stress and so the effects of temperature increasing water levels and settlements of structures.
may not be problematic.

5.5 Natural frequency

Vibrations in footbridges are more common than in
highway bridges. Due to being relatively lightweight
structures they often experience a high live load in
proportion to dead load so when loaded are more prone
to oscillations. With such a heavily crowded bridge as
this it is important that the natural frequency is
checked. According to BS5400-2, if the natural
frequency (fo) is greater than 5Hz then the bridge
design is adequate against vibrations. For the purposes
of this paper it has been assumed that the bridge is a
single spanning continuous beam that is straight in plan
Figure 18: Satellite view of Venice
and elevation.
The soil is normally consolidated and consists of
alluvial deposits with layers of sand and silt nearer the
surface and clay at greater depths. Traditionally the
buildings and bridges in Venice were built using
Where C is a configuration factor, for a single span wooden piles that reached down to the clay layer.
continuous beam it has a value of PI. The acceleration
due to gravity (g) will be taken as 9.81 and the weight
per unit length (m) will be taken as 76.2kN/m. The I
value of the cross section is estimated as
10.94x10-3m4.

If fo is less than 5Hz the maximum vertical

acceleration (a) must be less than 0.5sqrt fo, which is Figure 19: Soil Profile
1.01. Where,
As shown in the structural analysis, the Ponte Della
Costituzione has a very large horizontal thrust
generated at the abutments due to the low rise and long
The value ys is the static deflection at the midpoint span of the bridge. This force needs to be resisted by
with a point load of 0.7kN. K is a configuration factor the foundations and as a result several piles over 20m
and for a single spanning beam has a value of 1. ψ is a deep were used. The ground was also strengthened
dynamic response factor and will be assumed at 15 prior to construction. The piles are laid on compacted
bedrock beneath the alluvial layer and provide
considerable strength however they are still subject to
settlements.
Calatrava could have designed the bridge to deal
This value is much bigger than 1.01 and so it seems with a known amount of settlement however it is likely
the bridge is not capable of withstanding vibrations. to be subject to continuous settlements throughout its
However this method is based on a single spanning lifetime. A further problem is that due to the design of
continuous beam with a constant cross section and does the bridge, too much horizontal settlement will have a
not take into account the secondary arch. It is not massive effect on how the structure behaves.
obvious whether any damping measures were used on As an arch the structure is designed to withstand
the bridge although it is likely as such high live loads high compressive axial forces and low bending
were anticipated. stresses. Due to the low span/rise ratio of the bridge a
small horizontal displacement at the foundations would
result in the structure behaving as a girder rather than

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
an arch. This would mean high bending stresses being 6 Construction
generated which it is not designed to cope with. One of the most important considerations in the
The solution to this problem was to set up a erection of the bridge was the possible disruption
permanent jacking system in the bridge and a caused on site. In such a busy area with lots of traffic
permanent monitoring system, which continuously on the Canal, any prolonged construction works could
measures the displacements of the foundations. If a cause huge problems. In order to cause the least impact
displacement of over 20mm is recorded on both sides possible the steelwork was prefabricated offsite and the
of the canal then the hydraulic jacks will be used to erection of the bridge took place over a few days with
bring the bridge back to its original shape. The jacks the Canal traffic being stopped for only two nights.
are installed permanently in the bridge between the The first step in construction which took place in
abutment and steel structure, which is extended into the January 2007 was preparing the foundations. This
abutment. When needed it pushes the extended steel included strengthening the ground due to poor soil
out so that the shape of the arch is restored. conditions. The piles were then driven into the ground
and substantial reinforcement assembled before
pouring the concrete. Once the abutments were finally
constructed the steel structure could be brought onto
site.
The arch was prefabricated in three parts, these
Figure 20: Horizontal displacement of foundations consisted of two side sections and a central span. All
the steel was fabricated at a site on the edge of the
lagoon so that it could be easily transported by barge.

Figure 21: Jacks return bridge to original shape

Although this system will restore the arch to its

original shape it is not preventing the movement of the
foundations and this could possibly have an effect on
the surrounding buildings. It seems like a fairly costly
solution to a problem that could have been reduced by
a change in design. A higher span/rise ratio or
changing the proportions of the abutments to take more
loading would have reduced the displacement. It
seems as though the aesthetic design might have been Figure 23: Transportation by barge along the Canal
more of a deciding factor over the final design than the
structural implications. The first parts to be transported were the side
sections, which were carried on separate barges along
the canal. Each section was 15m long and had a weight
of around 100tonnes. Once on site the sections were
crane lifted into place. A temporary platform with piled
foundations for stability was used to support the steel
frame and a hydraulic jacking system was installed at
the abutment to control the geometry of the section.

Figure 24: Lifting of end segment and jacking system

The second part to be transported along the Canal

Figure 22: Cross section through abutment was the central section. This was done in the middle of
the night as to minimize the disruption to traffic and
more importantly at low tide so that it could pass under
the other bridges on the Canal. The central section was

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
around 60m long and around 270tonnes. Transporting arch was loaded with its worst case loading condition -
it along the Canal took a long time, as it had to asymmetrical loading to test for deflections.
navigate its way carefully around the bends.

Figure 25: Rotation and lifting of central section

Once on site the barge had to perform a careful Figure 27: Load testing on assembled structure
rotation so that the section was placed in the right
direction. Due to the limited width of the Canal, it had The last stage in construction included the paving of
to be transported the wrong way round to navigate the the deck and installation of the parapets, handrails and
corners. Finally in the correct position, the hydraulic LED lighting. Finally, after almost a year since the
jacks lifted the structure until it was above the two side first sections were installed, the bridge was opened to
segments before lowering it into place. The sections the public.
were then quickly welded together. Once welded the
temporary supports could be removed as the bridge
7 Durability and Vandalism
was self-supporting.
Without end restraints the central section would be Durability is of great importance to this structure as
subject to very high bending stresses as it would it was built to be a landmark bridge which will
behave as a beam rather than an arch. The section was hopefully remain standing for many years to come, as
not designed to cope with these high stresses and the the Rialto, Accademia and Scalzi bridges have.
solution to this problem was to use tensioning cables An area of concern for this bridge in particular is the
along the length of the arch. corrosive properties of salt water on the steel structure.
Although none of the steel is in constant contact with
the water there will be some splashing and perhaps
flooding throughout its lifetime. It is assumed that a
suitable coating will have been used to protect against
this happening and will be easily reapplied if needed.
As all the steel work is exposed and the decking is
laid directly on top, it is not expected that there will be
any problems with maintenance as all parts of the
bridge seem to be easily accessible. If the bridge did
have to be closed for a period of time it would not be
catastrophic as the Scalzi bridge provides an alternative
crossing point and is not far away.
Vandalism does not seem to have been an issue for
the bridge so far. In an area which is almost always
crowded it is unlikely that any vandalism would be
carried out.

8 Future Changes
Figure 26: Tensioning cables
One of the great subjects of controversy
surrounding this bridge when it was first built was its
Three cables were used in total and were tensioned lack of disabled access. On the one hand, was the
all the way through construction until all the segments design and vision of the bridge more important than
had been welded together, at which point they were de- making it accessible for everyone? Or on the other
tensioned. The assembly of the steel structure took two hand, as Venice has over 400 stepped bridges that
days in total, causing minimum disruption to the local don’t provide for disabled users why should this one be
canal traffic. any different? Calatrava says that he provided designs
with access but the Council of Venice preferred this
The next stage before adding the decking was to do one and ultimately the final decision was up to them.
load testing to confirm the strength of the arch. The However, due to the number of complaints received the

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]
council decided they should incorporate a lift into the
design. This was meant to be implemented soon after
the opening of the bridge but does not seem to have
been carried out yet. Figure [28] shows the final
design, which should soon be in use. It consists of an
eggshaped capsule that rises from the banking onto the
side of the bridge, attaching itself to a set of rails which
will be incorporated into the framework.

Figure 29: View on the bridge

References
[1] Zordan., T, Briseghella, B., Siviero, E., 2010. The
Fourth Bridge over the Grand Canal in Venice,
from idea to analysis and construction, Structural
Engineering International 1/2010
Figure 28: Egg-shaped capsule
[2] Tzonis, A., Caso Donadei, R., 2005 Calatrava
Bridges Thames and Hudson
10 Conclusion [3] BS5400-2:2006 Steel, Concrete and Composite
Throughout this paper the aesthetics, design and Bridges-Part 2: Specification for loads BSI
other important aspects of this bridge have been looked [4] Part 3 BD21/01 The Assessment of Highway
at and analysed. To arrive at the final design this Bridges and Structures DMRB
bridge had to overcome several hurdles including weak [5] Chajes, M., 2002. Load Rating of Arch Bridges
ground conditions, delays in construction and University of Delaware
escalating costs. [6] Citta di Venizia The works for assembling the
As shown in the analysis, there may be ways in fourth Bridge on the Grand Canal 2008
which the design could have been made more efficient www.commune.venizia.it
however it does provide a solution to the large [7] Romaro, G., Romaro, C., Ziero, L., 2007 The New
horizontal thrusts generated which have caused Footbridge in Venice technical presentation SAIE
problems in so many other Venetian bridge designs in 2007 exhibition
the past. It has also proven through extensive testing [8] Wright, H 2008. Calatrava Bridge Venice
that the structure works efficiently under the worst Blueprint Magazine Issue 271
loading cases and so really there is no reason to change [9] My Forecast, 2010. Almanac: Historical
the design and compromise on aesthetics. Information www.myforecast.com
What ultimately defines this bridge are its
surroundings and location in such a historical City,
which seems to have dictated almost every design
decision, from the arched shape to the paving on the
deck.
In conclusion, this elegant structure described by
Calatrava as a ‘carpet of light’ and the ‘most beautiful
bridge he has every created’ aims to provide a balance
between the old and the new and does so very
successfully. It is a shame that the controversy
surrounding its implementation has overshadowed its
overall design and that it has not received more
recognition. Hopefully over time the locals will come
to appreciate the design more and it will become
globally recognized as a landmark feature of Venice.

1
Kathryn R. Heath – [email protected]