Santiago Calatrava’s Alamillo Bridge and the Idea

of the Structural Engineer as Artist

James K. Guest, A.M.ASCE1; Powell Draper, A.M.ASCE2; and David P. Billington, Hon.M.ASCE3

Abstract: The structures of Santiago Calatrava are noted for their adventurous forms, and Calatrava is heralded as a hybrid architect/engineer
whose works represent an integration of both disciplines. While there have been a number of publications on the structures of Calatrava, nearly
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

all have focused on the architecture or artistry of them without addressing how well they fulfill the requirements or represent great works of
structural engineering. Here a thorough structural analysis of one of Calatrava’s most well known bridges is performed to determine how
well it achieves the goals of structural engineering. This provides insight as to how well Calatrava’s works represent engineering as art and what
we can learn from his works in the context of great works of structural art. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000445. © 2013 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Cable-stayed bridges; Structural design; Aesthetics; Architecture.
Author keywords: Cable-stayed bridges; Structural design; Aesthetics; Structural art; Architecture.

Introduction Santiago Calatrava

Santiago Calatrava is currently one of the most celebrated designers
of structures in the world. He is lauded not only for his striking works
but also for integrating architecture and structural engineering, as
he was educated in both fields and practices both disciplines. His
bridges and buildings have been the focus of numerous monographs,
papers, and articles. Yet nearly all of these publications focus on
the architecture, or sculptural qualities, of Calatrava’s designs rather
than an investigation into the structure, or engineering, of them. Thus
there is little published information allowing for a critique of either
the structural engineering behind his works or how well they rep-
resent structures as art.
This paper explores the design concept of Calatrava’s 1992
Alamillo Bridge in Seville, Spain (Fig. 1). This cable-stayed bridge
is one of Calatrava’s most celebrated structures and is emblematic
of the dramatic forms for which he is known. It also holds the
distinction of being one of the few works of Calatrava’s for which
structural details have been published. By studying the engineering
of the bridge, we seek to critique one of Calatrava’s works of
structural engineering by the standards of that field. With a thorough
understanding of the structure of the bridge, we may then turn to
a consideration of if and how it represents a great work of structural
engineering or a work of structural art.
1 Among prominent, contemporary individual architects, Calatrava
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Johns Hopkins Univ.,
Baltimore, MD 21218 (corresponding author). E-mail: jkguest@jhu
.edu
2
Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, Planning & Preservation,
Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.
3
Gordon Y. S. Wu Professor of Engineering Emeritus, Dept. of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ
08544.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 12, 2011; approved
on September 27, 2012; published online on September 29, 2012. Discus-
sion period open until March 1, 2014; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 10, October 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/
2013/10-936–945/$25.00.
Santiago Calatrava was born in Valencia, Spain, in 1951. With formal
training in drawing and painting through high school, Calatrava en-
rolled in the architecture program at Escuela Technica Superior de
Arquitectura de Valencia. Following graduation, he left his homeland
of Spain to pursue studies in engineering at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland. ETH-Zurich, whose
alumni also include the engineers Robert Maillart, Othmar Ammann,
and Christian Menn, has continuously passed on to its students the
great tradition of Swiss bridge design. Menn also continued a tradition
of great designers lecturing at ETH (such as Maillart) by returning
to teach while Calatrava was a student there. Calatrava studied civil
engineering and then earned a Doctorate in Technical Science in the
Department of Architecture. In 1981, upon finishing his formal edu-
cation, Calatrava opened an architectural office in Zurich (Calatrava
2010).
Since that time, Calatrava has become one of the most successful
designers in the world. His honors include both the Gold Medal from
the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Gold Medal from the
American Institute of Architects. His acclaim is also evidenced by
the exhibition of his work in 2005–2006 at the Metropolitan Mu-
seum of Art, “an institution that rarely presents a living architect and
obviously endorses this one,” according to the noted architecture
critic Ada Louise Huxtable (2005). The exhibition title, Sculpture
into Architecture, provides insight into Calatrava’s vision of design.
is unique for earning commissions to serve as both the architect and
the structural engineer. Yet while there are a great number of pub-
lished reviews of his architecture and sculpture, there is little in-
formation available on the engineering of his works. His Alamillo
Bridge in Seville, Spain, therefore, provides an opportunity to in-
vestigate Calatrava’s approach to engineering.
Alamillo Bridge: Background and Design Concept
The Alamillo Bridge was one of six bridges commissioned and built
to improve infrastructure for the 1992 Universal Exposition hosted
on La Cartuja, an island located just outside the city of Seville. The

936 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945

 bridge provides a 200-m crossing over the Canal de Alfonso XIII,
a low-flow channel marking the original path of the Guadalquivir
River. For symbolic reasons, piers were prohibited in this channel
(Pollalis 1999). From the outset, Calatrava envisioned a cable-stayed
bridge with inclined pylon and proposed that the same concept be
used for a bridge across the island, so as to create a symmetric effect
(Calatrava 2002). Backstays were included in the original concept but
were later eliminated for visual impact (Fig. 2). Although clearly more
striking, the added complexity of this design concept and estimated
cost increases reportedly led to conversion of the second bridge to
a more traditional multispan beam form (piers were not prohibited
in the channel it spans). From a structural engineering perspective,
Calatrava’s idea was that the weight of the pylon would balance with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
main span forces transmitted by cable stays, creating a resultant force
acting along the pylon axis [Fig. 3(a)]. This resultant force would then
balance with the deck axial force to produce a vertical resultant re-
action [Fig. 3(b)]. Such a system would require a pylon of extreme size
and mass to balance the forces but, it was believed, would minimize
shear and bending moment in the pylon and at the support.
While Calatrava had successfully implemented similar concepts in
sculpture, including the pieces known as Toro and Musical Star, the
application and scale-up of sculpture to a civil engineering structure
can be problematic. Sculptures tend to be of relatively small scale and
thus are generally constructed in a controlled environment where tight
precisions might be achieved. They are also not typically subjected to
Fig. 1. Alamillo Bridge
Fig. 2. Elevation view of the Alamillo Bridge; annotations A, B, and C indicate locations of cross sections shown in Fig. 4
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 937
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945
a wide range of load sources. Civil engineering structures, on the other
hand, are far more susceptible to construction errors and are subjected
to a conservative bevy of load cases and safety factors, including
large-magnitude loads introduced during low-probability events.
While it is theoretically possible to achieve the force balance for
a single load case using the design concept of Fig. 3, changing live (or
dead) loads destroys this balance and introduces bending moment into
the pylon. This effect is minimized in cable-stayed bridges whose
towers have backstays as cables on either side of the tower provide
a restoring force to prevent displacement in the opposite direction.
This is true even for structures with inclined towers, such as Pier
Nervi’s Burgo Paper Mill (Nervi 1965) or the Erasmus Bridge in
Rotterdam, Netherlands (Reusink and Kuijpers 1998).
Structural Model
At least two previous groups have published engineering analyses
of the Alamillo Bridge. Aparicio and Casas of the Technical Uni-
versity of Catalunya, Barcelona, outfitted the structure with sensors
to monitor member weights and cable tensions during construction.
Their work focused on capturing deviations from design magnitudes
and adapting construction accordingly by, for example, adjusting
post-tensioning forces in yet to be installed cables (Aparicio and
Casas 1997; Casas and Aparicio 1998). Continued monitoring after
construction was also used to study the dynamic properties (Casas
1995) and creep behavior of the bridge (Aparicio and Agullo 1993).
In 1999, Spiro Pollalis of Harvard University’s Graduate School of
Design published a book documenting the design and construction
of the Alamillo Bridge (Pollalis 1999). Pollalis’s What Is a Bridge?
The Making of Calatrava’s Bridge in Seville offers first-hand insight
into the design development of the Alamillo Bridge and contains
technical data, including detailed drawings, a finite-element (FE)
model, and bending moment diagrams for several considered load
cases.
While these important works have described detailed structural
analyses, their presented results focus on supporting the target
message of the work. For example, Aparicio and Casas (1997) fo-
cused on experimental construction monitoring and Pollalis (1999)
on the bending moment response under complete load cases with-
out simulating the effects of construction sequencing and cable re-
laxation. No works to our knowledge have reported deck and pylon
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. The design concept for the Alamillo Bridge was based on a balance of forces: (a) cable forces were to balance out pylon weights, resolving
to a purely axial force in the pylon; and (b) the resultant pylon axial force was to balance with the deck axial force to create a purely vertical reaction at
the support
member axial force demands, which are typically quite large in
cable-stayed bridges, nor their stress states, which are needed to
gauge component efficiency. This is not a criticism by any means,
but rather explains the motivation for our present study utilizing
a thorough structural analysis to explore and evaluate the efficiency
and appropriateness of the design concept.
We therefore used the available structural data to create a two-
dimensional FE model. All model input, including structure geome-
try, section properties, material properties, and boundary conditions, is
provided in Pollalis (1999). Section properties were verified through
hand computation by the authors using data contained in the con-
struction drawings (Guest 2001). The majority of cross-section
properties were found to be within 5% of the model data reported
in Pollalis. However, a typographical error was noted in Table 4.4 of
Pollalis (1999), where cable cross-sectional areas are reported as an
order of magnitude too small. Discrepancies were also found in the
lower pylon members, where a curved pedestal provides a smooth
transition between the pylon and deck (below point A in Fig. 2).
This region is mechanically complex, required construction in two
phases, exhibited cracking during the pylon construction process,
and was experimentally monitored for stiffness during construction
(Aparicio and Casas 1997). For these reasons, and given the con-
firmed accuracy of the noncable member calculations, we used
Pollalis’s published values for all pylon and deck members.
The structural model was analyzed using first-order and second-
order elastic analysis. Maximum bending moments were found to
increase less than 7% using nonlinear analysis for the governing load
cases. This supports the findings of Aparicio and Casas (1997), who
reported that linear and nonlinear analysis yielded comparable
results for the Alamillo Bridge. As this increase is relatively minor,
linear elastic analysis was deemed sufficient to explore the design
concept herein.
Structural Components
The bridge features three primary structural components. The in-
clined pylon is 134 m (440 ft) tall, 159 m (520 ft) long, and composed
938 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945
of 16 RC caissons. Each caisson is encased in a steel shell that serves
as permanent formwork and contains an interior stairwell running
along the longitudinal axis [Fig. 4(a)]. The average dimension of
a caisson is approximately 12 m 3 8 m (39 ft 3 26 ft), and the pylon
footprint is approximately 110 m2 ð1180 ft2 Þ directly above the
pedestal and approximately 158 m2 ð1700 ft2 Þ at the pylon base. The
deck spans nearly 200 m (656 ft) and is composed of a 4.4 m (14.4 ft)
deep steel box girder constructed from 5 cm (2 in.) thick plates [Figs. 4
(b and c)]. The girder contains 18 steel T-stiffeners welded along its
entire length, with stiffening diaphragms every 3 m (10 ft), and is filled
with concrete at sections nearest the pylon [for example, Fig. 4(b)].
Load is transferred between the deck and pylon via 13 pairs of cables.
These pairs range in cross-sectional area from 169 cm2 ð26 in:2 Þ to
124 cm2 ð19 in:2 Þ and are made of 270 grade steel. Detailed cross-
section drawings can be found in Pollalis (1999).
Construction Sequence
The construction sequence has been discussed extensively in pre-
vious works and has been labeled as technically challenging and
expensive as a result of the unconventional design concept (Pollalis
1996, 1999; Aparicio and Casas 1997; Lopez and Halpin 2000). We
highlight here only a few key points as they relate to the structural
engineering and economy of the bridge. First, the bridge was out-
fitted with an extensive system of sensors to enable careful moni-
toring during construction (Aparicio and Casas 1997; Casas and
Aparicio 1998). This system was used to detect and mitigate errors
in geometry, section weights, and resultant forces in the cables
and temporary supports. Second, cantilever construction, typically
a cost-effective approach to cable-stayed bridge construction, was
not viewed as a viable option because of the potential for force
imbalance in the pylon or deck. Instead, the river channel was
temporarily dammed and the entire deck was constructed with the
use of temporary supports. Individual pylon segments and their
corresponding cables were then installed and tensioned, with cor-
responding deck temporary supports removed along the way [see
Pollalis (1996, 1999) for detailed sequencing].
 Although individual cables were checked the day after ten-
sioning to ensure no cable relaxation had occurred, they were “not
tensioned again” (Pollalis 1999). This is interesting, as one would
expect cable tensions to deviate from their design magnitudes
because of local force imbalances that develop during continued
construction. In terms of structural modeling, such deviations
would mean that one may not simply apply the design cable
posttension forces to the final (as-constructed) structural model.
Given the importance of these forces to the Alamillo Bridge be-
havior, the entire construction sequence was simulated. In general,
cable tensions were found to decrease between 1 and 3% from their
design values (Guest 2001). Aparicio and Casas (Aparicio and
Casas 1997; Casas and Aparicio 1998) experimentally measured
the final cable forces and report significantly larger reductions from
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
construction monitoring suggested these discrepancies were pri-
marily because of construction errors. The constructed deck was
measured at 4% heavier than designed (Casas and Aparicio 1998),
while the pylon was estimated 2% heavier than designed (Pollalis
1999). The potential for construction errors in this unconventional
design was considered in the design process and is described
further in the following.
Dead Load Analysis
The finite-element model of the Alamillo Bridge was first analyzed
under dead loads of self-weight and cable posttensioning forces.

Under the assumption of linear elastic behavior, the principle of

the design magnitudes, particularly in cables near the base of the superposition applies and thus the dead load components can be
pylon, which were the first to be installed and tensioned. In addition investigated independently to explore the design concept. The
to the local force imbalances captured by our model, their resulting bending moment diagrams are presented in Figs. 5(a–c).

Fig. 4. Sample cross sections of the Alamillo Bridge: (a) pylon caisson number 4; (b) largest steel box deck section, which is reinforced with concrete in
the area between the outer plates and the inner rectangular space; and (c) typical hollow steel box deck section; these cross sections are located at points
A, B, and C in Fig. 2; sections are shown without stiffening diaphragms and deck sections without longitudinal stiffeners

Fig. 5. Bending moment diagrams under (a–c) independent dead load cases; (d) design dead load combination; and considering 10% construction
safety factors that maximize (e) positive and (f) negative bending moments in the pylon

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 939

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945

 Bending moment diagrams throughout this paper are plotted on
the tension side of the members and use a consistent scale.
Focusing our discussion on the base of the pylon, where moment is
maximum, the plots show bending moment magnitudes of 4,800,000
and 21,980,000 kN×m ð3,540,000 and 21,460,000 kip-ftÞ under py-
lon and deck dead loads, respectively. This difference emphasizes
the enormous mass of the pylon compared with the deck. The
resulting imbalance of 2,820,000 kN×m ð2,080,000 kip-ftÞ must be
recovered by the cable posttensioning forces, with actual response
shown in Fig. 5(c). It is interesting to note that these applied forces are
required to be larger than the tension forces naturally developing under
the deck dead load alone. Summing these three independent diagrams
yields Fig. 5(d), the bending moment diagram for the Alamillo Bridge
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
under dead load. Although the magnitudes are significantly reduced
from the independent load cases, the bending moment at the base of
the pylon remains substantial at 802,000 kN×m ð592,000 kip-ftÞ. For
comparison, symmetric cable-stayed bridges with vertical towers
naturally achieve a (near-) zero-moment state in the pylon under dead
loads.
The bending moment diagrams for the independent dead load
cases also provide insight into the consequence of construction errors,
or deviations from the designed weights and cable forces. Such errors
routinely occur in all construction projects and, because of its un-
conventional design, the Alamillo Bridge was viewed as particularly
susceptible to them. Construction safety factors of 10% were included
on the pylon and deck design dead loads to account for any such
imbalances, and they were considered as compounding (Aparicio and
Casas 1997; Pollalis 1999). The effect of a 10% heavier pylon and
10% lighter deck, for example, will nearly double the bending mo-
ment demand on the pylon to 1,480,000 kN×m ð1,090,000 kip-ftÞ
[Fig. 5(e)]. Reversing the dead load variations leads to maximum
negative moment of 2439,000 kN×m ð2324,000 kip-ftÞ [Fig. 5(f)].
Dead load design amplification factors would ultimately increase
these magnitudes another 50%. Deviations of 10% were also con-
sidered for the cable posttensioning forces independently of deck and
pylon dead load errors. Such deviations would have approximately the
same impact on pylon bending moments as deviations in deck dead
loads. It is interesting to note that the potential for 10% errors in all
three loads cases was not considered. These may be readily estimated
from Fig. 5 and would have added 202,000 kN×m ð149,000 kip-ftÞ
and 2159,000 kN×m ð2117,000 kip-ftÞ to the pylon maximum
moments in Figs. 5(e and f), respectively.
The dead load analysis results are in good agreement with Casas
and Aparicio (1998) and Pollalis (1999). Deviations are likely due
to assumptions about the boundary conditions, connections, and
loads. For example, we have fully released bending moments in the
cable elements of our model to prevent shear and bending moment
transfer, while the deflected shapes presented in Pollalis (1999)
appear to suggest bending in elements representing the cables. Casas
and Aparicio (1998) collected experimental data that may have been
used to update their models.
Although the overall design objective is to minimize the bending
moment envelope, the extreme value of pylon bending moment
under dead loads alone indicates the inefficiency of the no-backstay
design concept. The large bending moments require large cross
sections, which in turn increase structure weight and the impact of
imbalances.
Live Loads
The structural model was also subjected to the full suite of design
load combinations to explore the bending moment demand envelope.
These load combinations were dictated by the Spanish design code
940 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945
(MOPT 1991) for ultimate strength design and were augmented by
the previously discussed 10% construction safety factors on design
dead loads. The traffic, wind, and thermal live loads are described
briefly as follows.
The design traffic load for the Alamillo Bridge includes distrib-
uted loads of approximately 18:8 kN=m ð1,290 lbs=ftÞ applied to
each of the six traffic lanes and 15:0 kN=m ð1,030 lbs=ftÞ applied to
the pedestrian walkway. This lane load is more than twice that of
the commonly used American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) HS20–44 load with reduction
factor for six lanes. In addition to the distributed load, a 600 kN
(135 kip) concentrated load is applied to the deck at locations that
maximize pylon and deck bending moments. This load is quite small
compared with the uniform traffic load but is often governing in the
design of local elements such as the deck slab and beams.
The Alamillo Bridge was designed considering a 500-year wind
event with maximum design wind speeds estimated at 263 km=h
ð164 mphÞ and 186 km=h ð116 mphÞ at the top and bottom of the
pylon, respectively. These wind velocities, which are characteristic
of Category 5 and 3 hurricanes, were converted to static concentrated
nodal loads using drag coefficients of 1.78 for the pylon and 1.30 for
the bridge deck [see Pollalis (1999) for additional details].
Thermal loads of 626
C were considered for the cables and
623:3 and 613:5
C for the deck and pylon members, respectively.
Thermal gradients of 21 and 4.5
C were also applied to the deck
and pylon members, respectively, to account for the nonuniform
thermal distribution across these very large members (Pollalis 1999).
Live Load Analysis
The full suite of possible load combinations, including alternating
construction safety factors, wind directions, and thermal directions,
were considered. We present here only the cases and results that
produce the maximum bending moments in the pylon and deck.
Governing Load Cases
Examining each load independently helps determine the combina-
tions that will create the largest moments in the pylon. As summa-
rized in Table 1, applied loads will cause the pylon to rotate either
clockwise or counterclockwise. The load combinations producing
maximum positive and negative bending moments in the deck and
pylon may then readily be identified using this classification, with
construction safety factors applied accordingly. These combinations
and corresponding load factors are defined in Table 2.
It should be noted that the load cases in Table 2 and associated
results include the effects of thermal loads. Their contribution is
relatively minor—for example, thermal loads contribute approxi-
mately 2 and 3% to pylon bending moment magnitudes for cases A
and B, respectively. Although minor here, we note that such loads
are typically neglected in ultimate strength design under the
Table 1. Breakdown of Load Effects on Pylon Rotation (Orientation as
Shown in Fig. 2)
Inducing clockwise rotation Inducing counterclockwise rotation
Deck dead load Pylon dead load
Cable post-tensioning Deck thermal gradient
Eastward pylon thermal gradient Westward pylon thermal gradient
Cold thermal loads Warm thermal loads
Eastward wind Westward wind
Traffic load —
 assumption that the concrete cracks and steel yields, releasing
thermal stresses.
Pylon Resultant Force Vectors
The resultant force vectors of the pylon dead loads, cable force, and
wind load (if applicable) are plotted in Fig. 6 for the dead load and
pylon governing live load cases. Fig. 6(a) illustrates that the design
concept of Fig. 3(a) is nearly achieved under design (no errors) dead
loads, with the exception of the heaviest sections at the base of the
pylon that have no cable to provide a countering force. The resultant
vectors swing counterclockwise off the pylon axis under load com-
bination A, leading to a monotonically increasing shear and bend-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing moment. Although the angle appears relatively small, the vector
magnitudes and pylon length are quite large, leading to extremely
large magnitude bending moments. The resultant vectors swing
more dramatically clockwise under combination B, although the
unsupported pylon weights at the base now reduce the effect. This
will be shown to translate into double curvature in the pylon.
The design concept is relatively successful at reducing horizontal
thrust at the support as motivated in Fig. 3(b). The horizontal re-
action at the base of the pylon is approximately 7,000 kN (1,600 kip)
for load combination A, significantly less than the vertical reaction
of 339,000 kN (76,200 kip) at this location.
Table 2. Factored Load Cases Producing Maximum Bending Moments in
Pylon and Deck
Case Load combination
A. Maximum positive 0:9 ½1:5 ð1:1 PDL 1 0:9 DDL 1 1:0 CFÞ
pylon bending moment 1 1:5 westward wind 1 warm thermal load
1 westward thermal gradient
B. Maximum negative 0:9 ½1:5 ð0:9 PDL 1 1:1 DDL 1 1:0 CFÞ
pylon bending moment 1 1:5 traffic load 1 1:5 eastward wind
1 cold thermal load 1 eastward thermal gradient
C. Maximum positive 0:9 ½1:5 ð1:1 PDL 1 0:9 DDL 1 1:0 CFÞ
deck bending moment 1 1:5 westward wind 1 cold thermal load
1 eastward thermal gradient
D. Maximum negative 0:9 ½1:5 ð0:9 PDL 1 1:1 DDL 1 1:0 CFÞ
deck bending moment 1 1:5 traffic load 1 1:5 eastward wind
1 warm thermal load
Fig. 6. Resultant vectors at each pylon node for comparison with Fig. 2(a) for load cases: (a) design (no errors) dead loads; (b) governing positive
pylon bending moment; and (c) governing negative pylon bending moment; all vectors are normalized against the maximum resultant in (a)
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 941
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945
Internal Moment and Force Demands
The bending moment demands under the governing load cases
are displayed in Fig. 7. The pylon must be designed to carry
maximum positive and negative magnitudes of 2,439,000 kN×m
ð1,799,000 kip-ftÞ and 21,793,000 kN×m ð21,322,000 kip-ftÞ, re-
spectively. As these are on the same order, this suggests that the
bending moment envelope is reasonably centered about zero and thus
that cable posttension forces were selected appropriately. However,
the large swing in bending moment magnitudes illustrates the wide
range of loads that structures must carry and thus the inadequacy of the
assumption that cable forces will balance with pylon dead loads to
create primarily axial forces.
It is worth discussing here the role that backstays would play in
the behavior of this structure. The presence of backstays without
posttensioning would not in itself affect the bending moment dis-
tribution under counterclockwise rotation of the pylon [Fig. 7(a)].
They would, however, provide a restoring force under clockwise
rotation, leading to significant reduction in bending moment mag-
nitudes in Fig. 7(b). This would allow pylon weight to be reduced,
leading to a recentering and further reduction in magnitude of the
bending moment envelope, and further reduction in member sizes.
Figs. 7(c and d) indicate that the deck deflection exhibits double
curvature under bending, with the inflection point occurring east-
ward of the third cable pair. For load combinations that amplify
clockwise rotation of the structure, the deck behaves very similarly
to a cantilever beam over the clear span region and simply supported
beam where the deck is supported by cables [Figs. 7(b and d)]. In this
case, bending introduces tension in the top plates of the steel box in
the cantilever zone and in the bottom plates in the simply supported
zone. The force couple is reversed for combinations that amplify
counterclockwise rotation of the pylon [Figs. 7(a and c)].
The extremely large bending moment demands necessitate
the use of deep members to reduce the corresponding longitudinal
stresses. This increases structure weight and amplifies axial force
demand, which is the primary internal force developing in typical
cable-stayed bridges. Each cable introduces a compressive axial
force into the deck and pylon, increasing axial force as we move
westward along the deck and downward along the pylon. This trend
is clearly illustrated in Fig. 8 for pylon dead load and the live load
combination A. The locations of maximum axial force and maxi-
mum bending moment are coincident in the pylon and deck
members, leading to a cumulative effect on the compressive stress
demand. In the case of the deck, the steel box girder is almost
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Bending moment diagrams for load combinations producing (a) maximum positive moment in the pylon; (b) maximum negative moment in the
pylon; (c) maximum positive moment in the deck; and (d) maximum negative moment in the deck

Fig. 8. Axial force diagram under (a) design pylon dead loads and (b) the pylon bending moment governing load case [Fig. 7(a)]

completely filled with concrete westward of the first cable pair
[Fig. 4(b)] and transitions to a larger concrete deck as it joins the
pedestal. An interesting point here is that the axial forces developing
in the deck under pylon weight alone account for 26% of the axial
force demand under load combination A [Fig. 8(a) amplified by
a 1.485 load factor]. For comparison, vertical towers carry their own
self-weight and do not induce axial forces in the deck.
Pylon Stress Distributions
Given the bending moment and axial force demands, we can esti-
mate the longitudinal stresses that develop in the pylon concrete and
steel. This is a complicated endeavor given the complexity of the
cross-section geometry (and reinforcement schedule), and its be-
havior at ultimate limit state. The primary motivation for this stress
analysis, however, is not to model structural failure mechanisms but
rather to determine if the extremely large pylon sections are over-
designed at the component level or are the result of an inefficient
structural form.
As indicated in the preceding figures, the axial force diagram
[Fig. 8(b)] is nearly linear, while the bending moment diagram
[Fig. 7(a)] increases dramatically as we approach the pylon base.
Although the moment of inertia also increases in this region, the
resulting tensile bending stresses near the base are much larger than
the compressive axial stresses, leading to concrete cracking. The
tensile stresses in the outermost (eastern) face of the steel caisson are
estimated to approach 400 MPa (58 ksi), larger than the yield
strength but less than the ultimate strength of the A52d structural
steel. Compressive longitudinal steel stresses are significantly less
on the western side of the pylon, ranging from approximately
70 MPa (10 ksi) to 140 MPa (20 ksi) over the bottom three steel
caissons. The compressive stress in the concrete is estimated to be
12 MPa (2 ksi) to 26 MPa (4 ksi) over this same region. These stress
magnitudes are below 35 MPa (5 ksi), the ultimate strength of the
concrete (Pollalis 1999), although the maximum is slightly larger
than the factored ultimate strength of 23.5 MPa (3.4 ksi).
The stresses are significantly lower in the pylon’s upper caissons.
At a height of approximately 80 m (260 ft), the compressive axial

942 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013

J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945

 forces are larger than the tensile bending stresses, leading to neg-
ligible compressive longitudinal stresses in the concrete under load
combination A. The steel caisson experiences stresses of approxi-
mately 30 MPa (4 ksi) and 15 MPa (2 ksi) in compression and
tension, respectively. These stress values are well below the respec-
tive material strengths, although it is noted that only load combi-
nation A is considered, which maximizes bending moment at the
pylon base. The concrete experiences tensile longitudinal stresses
and thus cracks near the top of the pylon.
While it is emphasized that the presented longitudinal stress
magnitudes are estimates, it appears that the steel and concrete
stresses approach the ultimate strength of the materials near the base
of the pylon. The key take-away from this finding is that the pylon
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sections at these locations are appropriately sized considering the
large internal force demands that develop for this structural system.
One could then argue that any deemed inefficiencies are due to
system-level, and not component-level, design.
Integration of Aesthetics and Structural Engineering
(and Construction)
A recent graduate civil engineering thesis investigating modern
pedestrian bridge design revealed severely high costs and com-
plicated construction required of bridges designed by Calatrava
(Woodruff 2005). This has also been documented for the Alamillo
Bridge (Aparicio and Casas 1997) and the Sundial Bridge in
Redding, California, of similar form (Melnick 2004), as well as
Calatrava’s most recent structures (Newcomb 2011). Simplified
analyses in the thesis also echo the lack of cohesion between the form
and structure of Calatrava’s bridges; this includes reference to slack
cables apparent during a visit to Calatrava’s Campo Volantin
footbridge in Bilbao, Spain.
From our investigation of his Alamillo Bridge, we are able to
discern a mark of Calatrava’s work. His forms are undoubtedly
aesthetically adventurous, signifying a daring approach to archi-
tecture. But with a thorough structural investigation of a signature
work of his such as the Alamillo Bridge, we can now address the
merits of his structural engineering. The Alamillo Bridge, while
dramatic, is shown to have an inefficient structural form. A clear
indication of this is the extreme weight of the pylon member
compared with other cable-stayed bridges. The Erasmus Bridge in
Rotterdam, for example, serves as a good comparison because it
likewise features an inclined pylon but uses a single pair of backstays
to provide a restoring force under changing loads. The main span of
the Erasmus Bridge is 284 m (932 ft), 40% longer than the main span
of the Alamillo Bridge, and it carries a slightly smaller traffic load
(two lanes each of auto, tram, pedestrian, and bicycle). The pylon of
the Erasmus Bridge is a steel box, yet at 1,800 t (1,984 tons) (Reusink
and Kuijpers 1998), it uses only 10% more structural steel than the
pylon of the Alamillo Bridge, a RC pylon encased in a steel shell.
Considering the total mass, the pylon of the Alamillo Bridge is
18,860 t (20,794 tons), over 10 times the mass of the Erasmus Bridge
pylon. This is remarkably high, particularly given the significantly
longer span of the Erasmus Bridge. Dividing these total masses by
the surface area of the main span deck gives a deck-adjusted pylon
mass measure of 2:947 t=m2 ð0:302 ton=ft2 Þ for the Alamillo
Bridge, 16 times greater than the Erasmus pylon at 0:281 t=m2
ð0:029 ton=ft2 Þ.
This enormous material requirement appears to arise directly out
of the structural form. Our results show the bending moment en-
velope is balanced reasonably well about zero, suggesting that cable
posttensioning forces were selected appropriately. Longitudinal
stress estimates also indicate reasonable component sizing for the
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 943
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945
given internal force demands at the base of the pylon. The large
moment demands therefore appear to be driven by the structural
form. Although the Erasmus likewise presented numerous con-
struction challenges (Reusink and Kuijpers 1998), the inclusion of
even a single pair of backstays to provide a large countering force
proves critical to structural effectiveness of the inclined pylon form.
Architecture and structural engineering are professions that have
a historically close relationship. Among the distinguishing charac-
teristics between the two is the issue of cost (Saint 2007). While
architects may emphasize economy to varying degrees, engineers
must design economically because that is one of the central goals of
structural design. And the greatest works of structural engineering
integrate economy, efficiency, and elegance (Billington 1983).
Previous designers who have successfully produced works that
integrate aesthetics and structure demonstrated a focus on low cost
by also integrating a thoughtful or innovative approach to con-
struction in their works. Robert Maillart, Pier Luigi Nervi, and Felix
Candela all either served as contractors as well as designers or
collaborated closely with builders. Nervi has been described as “a
hero of Calatrava’s” (Dunlap 2003). Calatrava even studied under
Candela for a time (D. Candela, personal communication, 2005).
Calatrava’s origins, education, and accolades would appear to
make him an ideal inheritor of this tradition of the master builder.
However, it is difficult to see an integration of constructability and
structural rationality in works such as the Alamillo Bridge. Clearly
striking, the bridge nonetheless created many difficulties to build,
reflecting his “preference for bravura effect at the expense of function”
(Filler 2005). Unlike his predecessors, Calatrava does not integrate the
role of contractor or a sense of construction into his designs. As noted
in a compilation of his works, “Calatrava shows himself more in-
terested in getting his work built rather than how it is built” and also
“exposes an impatience with the vagaries of construction” (Frampton
et al. 1996). A result of this disconnect between design and con-
struction is that Calatrava’s works frequently prove quite costly to
build. Seville public officials recognized such construction and
budgetary challenges as the Alamillo Bridge concept took shape and
canceled plans for a second, sister bridge across Cartuja Island
(Pollalis 1999). Piers were not prohibited in the waterway at this
location and thus officials instead approved a more traditional mul-
tispan beam form. As for actual cost, the Alamillo Bridge is estimated
to have cost $5,470 per m2 of deck according to Pollalis (1999). Cost
comparisons between bridges are always a delicate matter, as bridges
rarely have similar design conditions and itemized costs are not
typically available. The Erasmus Bridge, for example, includes
several side spans, one of which is a bascule span, making comparison
with the Alamillo nonviable. For comparison, we therefore consider
the cable-stayed East Huntington Bridge, an elegant bridge without
significant additional cost (Billington and Nazmy 1991). The East
Huntington Bridge features a vertical delta tower with main and back
spans of 274 m (900 ft) and 185 m (608 ft), respectively (Grant 1987).
Despite a significantly longer main span, the cost of the East Hun-
tington Bridge is estimated at a much lower (inflation-adjusted)
$2,960 per m2 (Buchwalter 1994).
To be fair, Calatrava does not subscribe to this way of thinking,
nor agree with such criticism: “A current problem is that in the world
of criticism certain people are developing moral criteria about en-
gineering. The laws of statics say that there are things you can do and
can’t do. But the new moralists say there are things you shouldn’t
do. . . . Why is it not permissible when it is possible? If you asked me
why, for example, I designed columns in the shape of my hand, I
would say because it is possible. That is what engineering is: the art
of the possible” (Lyall 1992).
Communities, owners, or developers may at times seek a distinc-
tive structure where cost is of little or no concern. And this freedom
 may enable particular designers to create works of great visual dis-
tinction. But those works would not demonstrate the unique capa-
bilities of great engineering or construction. Our study of the Alamillo
Bridge therefore, despite Calatrava’s notoriety and accomplishments,
unfortunately does not show his work to be truly representative of
integrating aesthetics and structural engineering (or construction).
Idea of Structural Engineer as Artist
The Canadian bridge designer/scholar Paul Gauvreau posits that
bridge engineers must not be subservient to architects, writing of the
tradition of aesthetic, efficient bridges that “It is significant that all of
the designers within this tradition are engineers, for if we accept that
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
technological innovation is the link between the need to minimize
cost and new opportunities for aesthetic expression, then it follows
that only those people who understand the technical aspects of
bridges can follow the creative process thus defined” (Gauvreau
2006–2007). Yet three phenomena are making this increasingly
challenging for modern designers. The first is the trend of com-
missioning architects to consult or even design bridges. While the
design of buildings has long relied upon the dynamic of architects
designing the form and engineers designing the structure, bridges
were traditionally the exclusive domain of engineers. Now architects
are called upon to participate in bridge design, particularly when
municipalities, owners, or the public deem the necessity for an
attractive or signature bridge.
The second phenomenon is a diminishing respect for structure by
some architects. Whereas many years ago structural engineering and
architecture were essentially practiced by the same individual (Saint
2007), now many architects see the engineering of their projects as
one of many necessary technical requirements rather than an op-
portunity for collaboration or integration of structure and form. This
may in part be because of a diminishing emphasis on structures in
schools of architecture. At Yale University, for instance, graduate
students of architecture were required to take six semesters of structures
courses in 1965; three in 1970; and two in 1999 (Foug and Joyce 2000).
The third phenomenon is the lack of emphasis on aesthetics or
creative design in the modern engineering curricula. Unlike the
Swiss tradition of ETH, few engineering schools include an em-
phasis on design in their courses, outside of code-based courses such
as the design of structures in concrete or steel or senior-level cap-
stone courses. This can be seen in the “Criteria for Accrediting
Engineering Programs” published by ABET, the accreditation or-
ganization for schools of engineering in the United States (ABET
2011). The criteria include no mention of aesthetics and only one
mention of creative. This does not prepare engineers to understand
how to integrate efficiency, economy, and elegance in bridge design,
when they might be the best suited to do so if better trained.
So there arises an opportunity for a renewed interest in the idea of
the structural engineer as artist. This concept can have multiple con-
notations, but primarily we hope it to mean a designer who seeks
aesthetic structures that are also structurally rational and are not ex-
travagantly costly to build or maintain. This perhaps is a large part of
the interest in Calatrava and his works. In today’s environment, ar-
chitecture is perceived as attractive yet costly and engineering is seen
as humdrum and practical. A structural artist could instead be relied
upon to again find innovative ways, like predecessors such as Maillart,
Nervi, and Candela, to design efficient, economical, elegant structures.
Conclusion
The architecture critic Herbert Muschamp saw Calatrava’s work “as
the product of a contest between” architecture and engineering:
944 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945
“Rather than fusing architecture and engineering, [his]designs arise
from the struggle between them” (Muschamp 2004). If that is true,
then perhaps the work of Calatrava is representative of the modern
dynamic between architecture and engineering. Many structural
engineers and firms seem satisfied with serving architects. The de-
sign will be under the architect’s aegis, and the engineer will be
charged with finding a way to make it stand up. This relationship
ignores the possibility of the structural engineer as artist or a truly
collaborative relationship between architect and structural engineer,
which great structural artists and collaborations have shown us. If
there is currently a struggle between architecture and engineering,
architecture now seems to be winning that struggle. So it is with the
work of Calatrava. If his “designs arise from [that] struggle,” he too
apparently sides with architecture over engineering.
The Alamillo Bridge, while striking, does not represent a work of
structural art, but rather an aesthetic work at the expense of structure.
While the form appears efficient in concept (Fig. 3), it becomes
irrational when placed in the context of structural engineering, where
the bevy of load cases and potential for deviations in construction
lead to extremely high internal forces and moments, requiring
disproportionate volumes of material and leading to a bridge that
was complex and costly to build.
Architects have taught us and continue to explain the importance
of aesthetics in our structures. But this need not cause us to confuse
architecture with aesthetics in bridge design. Engineers such as
Thomas Telford, Gustave Eiffel, and John Roebling have shown us
how great works of structural art result when a designer creates
a bridge in which aesthetics are integrated with a rational design of
the structure. An emphasis on one should not be associated with the
subjugation of the other.
Santiago Calatrava’s education, accomplishments, and acclaim
provide him with the opportunity to create bridges and buildings
that are aesthetically striking as well as structurally rational and
straightforward to build. Instead, he has apparently chosen, as
shown in the Alamillo Bridge, to promote aesthetics at the expense
of an efficient structure or economical construction. For designers,
scholars, and students interested in works of structural engineering
as art, his works unfortunately thus far represent an opportunity lost.
References
ABET. (2011). “Criteria for accrediting engineering programs.” Æhttp://
www.abet.org/uploadedFiles/Accreditation/Accreditation_Process/
Accreditation_Documents/Current/abet-eac-criteria-2011-2012.pdfæ
(Apr. 14, 2012).
Aparicio, A. C., and Agullo, L. (1993). “Creep studies for the Alamillo
Bridge.” Proc., 5th Int. RILEM Symp. on Creep and Shrinkage of
Concrete, E&FN Spon, London, 757–768.
Aparicio, A. C., and Casas, J. R. (1997). “The Alamillo cable-stayed
bridge: Special issues faced in the analysis and construction.” Proc.
Inst. Civ. Eng., Struct. Build., 122(4), 432–450.
Billington, D. P. (1983). The tower and the bridge, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ.
Billington, D. P., and Nazmy, A. (1991). “History and aesthetics of cable-
stayed bridges.” J. Struct. Eng., 117(10), 3103–3134.
Buchwalter, A. M. (1994). “An inquiry into bridge design: The historic
design competition on the Ohio River,” M.S.E. thesis, Princeton Univ.,
Princeton, NJ.
Calatrava, S. (2002). Santiago Calatrava: Conversations with students,
C. L. Kausel and A. Pendleton-Jullian, eds., Princeton Architectural
Press, New York.
Calatrava, S. (2010). “Calatrava.” Æhttp://www.calatrava.comæ (Jun. 14,
2010).
Casas, J. R. (1995). “Full-scale dynamic testing of the Alamillo cable-stayed
bridge in Sevilla (Spain).” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam., 24(1), 35–51.
 Casas, J. R., and Aparicio, A. C. (1998). “Monitoring of the Alamillo cable-
stayed bridge during construction.” Exp. Mech., 38(1), 24–28.
Dunlap, D. W. (2003). “The station master.” New York Times, Oct. 22, NY
Region Section.
Filler, M. (2005). “The bird man.” New York Rev. Books, 52(20), 15.
Foug, C. A., and Joyce, S. L., eds. (2000). Perspecta 31: Reading structures,
The Yale Architectural Journal, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Frampton, K., Webster, A. C., and Tischauser, A. (1996). Calatrava bridges,
Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 239–241.
Gauvreau, P. (2006–2007). “Innovation and aesthetics in bridge engi-
neering.” Canadian Civil Engineer, 23(5), 10–12.
Grant, A. (1987). “Design and construction of the East Huntington Bridge.”
PCI J., 32(1), 20–29.
Guest, J. K. (2001). “A critique of Calatrava’s Alamillo Bridge.” M.S.E.
thesis, Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by CASA Institution Identity on 04/22/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Huxtable, A. L. (2005). “Too much of a good thing?” Wall Street Journal,
Dec. 8, D8.
Lopez, R. A. Y., and Halpin, D. W. (2000). “A computer simulation of
the construction of the Alamillo Bridge in Seville, Spain.” Proc.,
Construction Congress VI, ASCE, Reston, VA, 121–130.
Lyall, S. (1992). Santiago Calatrava, D. Sharp, ed., E&FN Spon, London.
Melnick, S. L. (2004). “Sun sculpture.” Modern Steel Construction,
24(10), 24–28.
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2013 / 945
J. Bridge Eng., 2013, 18(10): 936-945
MOPT. (1991). EH-91 Instrucción para el proyecto la ejecución de obras de
hormigón en masa o armado, Comisión Permanente del Hormigón,
Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, Madrid.
Muschamp, H. (2004). “House of games.” New York Times Magazine,
July 18, Style Section, 43.
Nervi, P. L. (1965). Aesthetics and technology in building, Trans. Robert
Einaudi, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Newcomb, T. (2011). “Calatrava-designed span is a tough build.” En-
gineering News-Record, Æhttp://enr.construction.com/infrastructure/
transportation/2011/0216-CalatravaDesignedSpan.aspæ (Feb. 21,
2011).
Pollalis, S. N. (1996) “A contractor’s challenge: The making of Alamillo
Bridge in Seville.” Uncertainty and risk in international construction
markets, S. N. Pollalis, ed., Harvard Univ. Graduate School of Design,
Cambridge, MA, 23–47.
Pollalis, S. N. (1999). What is a bridge? The making of Calatrava’s Bridge
in Seville, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Reusink, J., and Kuijpers, M. (1998). “Designing the Erasmus Bridge,
Rotterdam.” Struct. Eng. Int., 8(4), 275–277.
Saint, A. (2007). Architect and engineer: A study in sibling rivalry, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
Woodruff, S. J. (2005). “A critical analysis of recently built pedestrian
bridges.” M.S.E. thesis, Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ.