Introduction to Structures in Europe: Italy

and the Adriatic Region

The Adriatic region of Europe can boast a long and out-
standing history in the field of structural engineering. Roman
structures and infrastructures are still admired and used.
Some countries in this region are characterized by an extreme-
ly high concentration of artworks, monuments and historic
buildings and by valuable and varied natural environment.
Furthermore, designing and building new structures and in-
frastructures in a densely populated context which is typically
that of Europe, means dealing with a huge number of con-
straints and variables.
When the issues of sustainability and ethical behavior are
considered, the design and construction process, in the men-
tioned region, must deal with social, historical, environmental
and political constraints, which are added to the usual techni-
cal and economical aspects.
This process is characterized by a high level of complexity
and is the main issue characterizing the outstanding struc-
tures presented in this number of SEI.
The Italian Group of IABSE invites you to Venice to at-
tend the IABSE Symposium on “Large structures and infra-
structures for environmentally constrained and urbanized
areas”.
The Symposium is intended to give the opportunity to
academics, practitioners, researchers, builders and inter-
ested people to present their work and research aiming
to supply a worldwide contribution to the definition of
the state-of-the-art and the state-of-research in the field of
design and construction dealing with severely bounding
conditions.
All information about the 2010 Venice Symposium can be
found at www.iabse.org.
We look forward to welcoming you in Venice in September
2010.
Prof. Enzo Siviero, Chair of the Organizing Committee
IABSE Symposium Venice 2010

The Fourth Bridge over the Grand Canal in Venice:

From Idea to Analysis and Construction
Tobia Zordan, Prof., College of Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; Bruno Briseghella, Prof., College of
Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China; Enzo Siviero, Prof., University IUAV of Venice, Venice, Italy.
Contact: zordan@bolinaingegneria.com

Abstract
The new Fourth bridge over the Grand
Canal, designed by the Spanish archi-
tect Santiago Calatrava; which was
recently completed in Venice, is char-
acterized by some original solutions in
the Venetian panorama of traditional
bridge design.
Its stunning elevation, on a single 80 m
span depressed “Vierendeel” arch with
a span/rise ratio of 1/16, implies an ex-
traordinary challenge for the founda-
tion system in the muddy Venetian soil.
The cross section of the bridge pres-
ents an open star-shaped layout with
a central triangular steel box girder,
thus implying a remarkable torsional
deformability.
The loose mechanical properties of the
Venetian soil, together with the pecu-
liar intrinsic structural and geometric
characteristics of the footbridge, im-
posed a careful revision of the original
design and some modifications aimed
at achieving a globally stiffer structure
without any alteration to its external
outfit.
The footbridge was pre-assembled
and loaded prior to erection trying to
simulate its final condition in terms of
external restraints. In this phase a mon-
itoring instrumentation was installed in
order to better investigate its response.
The erection design was conceived
in order to take into account the ex-
tremely bounding conditions of the
project area.
A set of full-scale static tests of the
structure was carried out before and
after the erection to check the behav-
iour of the bridge.
Keywords: conceptual design; full-scale
tests; FE analysis; erection design.
Introduction
Speaking about the new Fourth
Bridge over the Grand Canal of Ven-
ice (Fig. 1), it comes rather naturally
to make a comparison between the
last steel bridge spanning the most fa-
mous of Venetian canals and its elder
neighbour, the concrete Scalzi Bridge
(Fig. 2), located in front of the Santa
Lucia railway station, not far away
from the first, designed and built in
1934 by one of the most eminent Ital-
ian engineers of the first half of 1900,
Eugenio Miozzi.
The comparison between the works
of Santiago Calatrava and Eugenio
Miozzi is representative of the differ-

6 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2010

X476_6-12.indd 6 2/1/10 10:15:46 AM

 S1,3

80,8 m

Fig. 1: The Fourth Bridge over the Grand Canal of Venice (2008). Rise/span ratio approximately 1/16

Fig. 2: The Scalzi Bridge in front of the Santa Lucia railway station (1934). Rise/span ratio approximately 1/4

ent approaches of two separate gener-
ations of masters of engineering art on
the same theme. Less than a century of
time has marked a profound distance
between the two methodologies. Today,
differently from 70 years ago, structur-
al engineering bases a large part of its
operational capabilities on the power-
ful means supplied by finite element
(FE) computational software. FE anal-
ysis allows for structural achievements
otherwise unattainable for the largest
majority of designers.
The work of Santiago Calatrava rep-
resents the peak of this approach
towards design, whereas the tradi-
tional, well consolidated and reliable
solutions adopted by Eugenio Miozzi
are denied in the name of the op-
portunities supplied by FE tools. But
the difference does not reside just in
the static scheme adopted or in the
choice of construction materials. The
Scalzi Bridge, with its harmonious and
simple but extremely elegant eleva-
tion and a rise/span ratio of approxi-
mately 1/4, accomplishes the function
of “crossing device”, offering the user
an extraordinary and totally new view
point for observing the monumental
surroundings of the city.
A totally different philosophy is the
Fourth Bridge which with a stunning
rise/span ratio of 1/16 is conceived as
a landmark bridge, an object created
to be admired from all around and to
mark the opening of the city towards
modern architecture. The new bridge
appears to be completely disconnected

Structural Engineering International 1/2010 Structures Worldwide 7

X476_6-12.indd 7 2/1/10 10:15:47 AM


(1) Cross section with poor bending stiffness
(2) Cross section with high bending
stiffness
h 0,5 0,4
l h= 1
Fig. 3: Comparison between the difference in horizontal thrust (H) according to rise/span (h/l) for different arch bridges
from the city fabric and the local
tradition in terms of materials and
structural types.
And the discontinuity with the Vene-
tian tradition is profound: it goes be-
yond the choice of the colour or the
scenic lighting reaching the most inti-
mate aspects of the footbridge like its
structural response.
Santiago Calatrava apparently has
chosen to ignore one factor that clearly
represented one of the major matters
of concern for Eugenio Miozzi: the
horizontal thrust (Fig. 3).
Miozzi has designed every part of the
bridge in order to minimize the hori-
zontal thrust, relieving the structure at
mid-span and loading it in proximity to
the abutments. This allows for nearly
vertical forces (due to dead loads) act-
ing on foundations, contrary to what
happens in the Fourth Bridge where
the horizontal thrust on foundations
turns out to be almost seven times
higher than the vertical one. This is
due to the proportions characterizing
the arch of the Fourth Bridge where
Span
Cross section width
Cross section thickness
Rise
Rise/span ratio
Static scheme
Weight of steel structure
Final assembly
Opening
Table 1: Main characteristics of the Fourth Bridge
8 Structures Worldwide
X476_6-12.indd 8
Fourth bridge
Scalzi
0,3 0,2 0,1 0,05
Arches
the raise/span ratio is limited to 1/16
(Table 1).
As a consequence of this extreme value,
the response of the Fourth Bridge is
highly conditioned by the settlements
at foundations. The usual stress dis-
tribution acting on arched structures
and originating mainly from compres-
sion axial forces tends to be replaced
by the typical bending moment stress
distribution acting on girder structures
(Fig. 3). Hence, the structural response
of the footbridge varies from that of an
arch to that of a girder as the settle-
ments increase.
This aspect is accentuated by the lim-
ited bending stiffness of the structure
of the Fourth Bridge.
The uncertainties deriving from the
structural response of the bridge so
heavily conditioned by the stiffness
of its foundations implied the installa-
tion of a system of hydraulic jacks at
the connection between the abutments
and the superstructure. Jacks are meant
to intervene when horizontal displace-
ments would become higher than 20
80,80 m
Minimum 6,50 m; maximum 9,00 m
Minimum 0,875 m; maximum 2,084 m
4,76 m
Approximately 1/16
Depressed arch
407,300 kg (⬵ 6,50 kN/m2)
August 2007
September 2008
P
H
h= 1
l l 2
H=1
h= 1
l 3
H = 1,5
h= 1
l 4
H=2
h= 1
l 8
O
l H=4
0,02
l 16
Girders l
H=8
mm on each abutment in order to re-
store the initial geometry of the foot-
bridge (Fig. 4).
This was decided in spite of the choice
made during construction of enlarging
the original dimensions (diaphragms
with length L = 22 m and cross section
B1 = 9 m; B2 = 22,5 m) of the founda-
tions, changing the cross section from
an open to a closed one.
Furthermore, great attention was
devoted to the identification of the
expected response of the open star-
like cross section (Fig. 5) because of
its large deformability under non-sym-
metric live loads condition.
FE Analysis and Loading Tests
Despite the great diffusion of the
modelling techniques for structural
analysis, the FE models are not always
reliable in simulating the real static
and dynamic behaviour of complex
structures such as, for instance, those
of some footbridges of recent construc-
tion. In order to decrease the model-
ling uncertainties (such as stiffness of
supports and non-structural elements,
material properties, and so on) as well
as inevitable differences between the
properties of the designed and as-
built structure, experimental tests on
full-scale structures constitute a suit-
able tool and especially static loading
tests and dynamic tests often turn out
to be extremely helpful in the inter-
pretation of the structural response
and the calibration of the FE model
(Fig. 6).
Two different 3D FE models (the beam
model and the plate model) based on
Structural Engineering International 1/2010
2/1/10 10:15:50 AM
 Fig. 4: System of hydraulic jacks at the connection between the abutments and the superstructure. Jacks (n = 2; P = 4000 kN) acting on
the central arch of the footbridge; n = number of jacks
L = 8,33 m
Fig. 5: Typical cross section at mid-span and at abutments (variable height hmax = 2084 mm; hmin =875 mm)
2
2 compared with experimental ones, as
1 1
1
1 in order to achieve the level of load-
2 2
Fig. 6: The two FE models
detailed drawings and experimental
tests were developed. Specifically:
1. The beam model (7a) results in 1050
nodes, 1345 beam elements and 18
links.
2. The plate model (7b) is much more
detailed and results in a total of 51
551 nodes, 7205 beam elements, 44
370 shell elements and 14 494 links.
The plate model was used for the final
detail analysis, even if in this case the
complex geometry of the bridge and
its sensitivity to potential founda-
tion settlements and final geometrical
configuration determined the necessity
to carry out a set of static loading tests1
on the central segment (L = 50 m) of
the pre-assembled structure prior to its
Structural Engineering International 1/2010
X476_6-12.indd 9
y ing prescribed by the Italian code. The
z x
transportation to the construction site in
order to assess the agreement between
its stiffness and the stiffness of the calcu-
lation model and to predict the real be-
haviour of the final footbridge (Fig. 7).
Three load conditions were consid-
ered: in the first one (symmetrical con-
dition) five concentrated loads with
maximum value of 150 kN were applied
(total 750 kN) at the middle point of
the central arch; in the second one
(torsional condition) five concentrated
loads with maximum value of 100 kN
were applied (total 500 kN) at the mid-
dle point of the side upper arch; in the
third one (non-symmetrical condition)
two point loads with maximum value
of 150 kN (total 300 kN) were applied
to the end section of the central arch.
L = 5,72 m
The displacements and strains were
measured with 12 transducers and 12
strain gauges.
Expected theoretical results were
shown in the following Table 2.
After the erection of the footbridge
was completed, some static tests on
the whole structure were performed
design total load (dead + live) was
simulated by loading some specifically
designed water tanks positioned in the
central zone of the bridge and using
hydraulic jacks restrained to provi-
sional piers built in the Grand Canal
(Table 3). Symmetric and non-symmet-
ric loading of the structure was carried
out to maximize axial forces, bending
moment and torsion (Fig. 8).
The test was simulated with a 3D FE
model tuned on the basis of the results
of the previous static tests.
During the load tests, the displace-
ments of the bridge were measured in
19 different cross sections of the deck.
A maximum vertical deflection of 104
mm was measured in the central arch for
a symmetric load condition and a good
agreement was found with the predic-
tion provided by the theoretical model.
Structures Worldwide 9
2/1/10 10:15:51 AM
 (a) (b)

Fig. 7: Static loading tests carried out on the structure of the pre-assembled Fourth Bridge. (a) Symmetrical condition and (b) torsional
condition

Displacements (mm) The transportation of all segments was

Applied done at night and was characterized by
force (kN) yFEM yEXP ⌬ Dy (%) highly spectacular and complex phases
0 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 such as the passage under the Rialto and
Accademia bridges, possible just with the
50 1,90 1,93 0,03 1,38
lowest tide condition within a window of
100 3,30 3,85 0,55 16,74 few minutes every day (Fig. 9).
150 5,55 5,78 0,23 4,12
The two side segments were installed
200 7,10 7,70 0,60 8,52 first. The installation of the central
250 9,05 9,63 0,58 6,42 segment, which followed, required a
delicate procedure of rotation and up-
300 10,90 11,56 0,66 6,03
lifting on the barge (Figs. 10 and 11).
350 11,60 13,48 1,88 16,23
This was necessary because of the im-
400 13,10 15,41 2,31 17,63
possibility of transporting the segment
450 14,95 17,34 2,39 15,95 with the longitudinal axis perpendicu-
500 16,80 19,26 2,46 14,65 lar to the order of march of the barge
550 18,30 21,19 2,89 15,78 determined by the limited width of the
Grand Canal.
600 20,10 23,11 3,01 15,00
The temporary static scheme of the
Table 2: Symmetrical condition 1. Vertical displacements (yFEM displacements obtained from central segment during lifting, the lack
FE model; yEXP displacements measured during experimental tests) of end restraints and the extremely low
rise/span ratio made the structure behave
Erection Design phase was simulated during the pre- like a beam rather than an arch with un-
assembly of the footbridge. The expe- bearable bending stress distribution. This
The FE model, tuned on the basis of rience gained during the simulation of required the installation of a number of
the results of the static loading tests each construction phase allowed for a provisional pre-stressing cables connect-
carried out on the pre-assembled simplified and easy procedure on site. ing the ends of the segment (Fig. 11).
structure away from the construction
The footbridge,2 divided into three The three segments were temporarily
site, was used to design and simulate positioned onto provisional supports
segments, was transported on a barge
the erection phases. for final welding. After the comple-
from the harbour of Venice where it
Again, due to the extremely difficult was pre-assembled and tested, to its tion of welding, the temporary sup-
conditions of the construction site, each final location (Fig. 9). ports were released and the first

Yfem (mm) Yexp (mm)

Step Jacks (kN) Water level (mm) A (lateral arch) B (central arch) C (lateral arch) B (central arch)
1 30 275,0 –26,14 –25,35 –26,14 —
2 60 550,0 –52,27 –50,69 –52,27 —
3 90 825,0 –78,41 –76,04 –78,41 —
4 120 1100,0 –104,54 –101,38 –104,54 –96,55
0 0 0 0 0 0 –7,2

Table 3: Static test: measured (Yexp) and theoretical (Yfem) vertical displacements of the central section

10 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2010

X476_6-12.indd 10 2/1/10 10:15:59 AM

 Fig. 8: Static test
Commercial harbour
Fig. 9: The “journey” of the bridge segments from the harbour of Venice to the final construction site downtown and the passage under-
neath “Rialto” and “Accademia” bridges at the lowest tide level
settlements of the foundations were
recorded.
Horizontal movements of the foun-
dations have been recorded since the
temporary supports were released.
Conclusions
The new Fourth Bridge over the Grand
Canal introduces some unusual and,
for some reasons, totally new solu-
tions in Venetian tradition concerning
bridge design.
The bridge, aesthetically detached from
the context, was built as a landmark, con-
ceived to be admired from all around,
instead of just being a crossing device,
able to offer a new point of observation
for the monumental surroundings.
Furthermore, the extreme value of
1/16 for the rise/span ratio implies an
Structural Engineering International 1/2010
X476_6-12.indd 11
Downtown
extraordinary commitment for the
bridge foundations and, according to
their settlements, can imply a varia-
tion of the static scheme from the one
of an arched structure where axial
forces are largely predominant to
that of a girder structure with a pre-
ponderance of bending moment.3 The
theoretical change in static scheme
will apply if the recorded horizontal
settlement would exceed the value of
20 mm on each abutment. In case the
settlement would exceed the critical
threshold, a system of hydraulic jacks
will intervene in order to bring back
the footbridge to its initial deformed
shape after installation. Large founda-
tion settlements are the rule for Vene-
tian soils.
Response of the footbridge to stat-
ic live loads was simulated on the
pre-assembled structure and inter-
preted with an FE model, finding
good agreement between expected
and experimental results. The open
star-like cross section appears to be
remarkably deformable against non-
symmetrical live loads, but so far no
problems towards the comfort of the
users have been observed after the
opening of the bridge.
A monitoring system will be installed
on the bridge in order to assess its long
term behaviour and further research
will be carried out.
Acknowledgements
The authors are pleased to acknowledge the
contractor, Cignoni Srl, for the support and
the availability supplied during loading tests
and the erection phases. Authors special
thanks is also addressed to Mr. Luca Greggio,
responsible on site for construction.
Structures Worldwide 11
2/1/10 10:16:01 AM
 Fig. 10: Rotation and uplifting of the central segment for final positioning

Fig. 11: The central segment, after being rotated, is lifted and slid into final position

References SEI Data Block

[1] Briseghella B, Siviero E, Tolaccia P, Zordan T.
Experimental campaign on the IVth bridge over Owner:
Municipality of Venice
the Grand Canal. Proceedings of the Confer-
ence “Sperimentazione su Materiali e Strutture”, Architectural and structural design:
Univeristy IUAV of Venice, December 2006 (In
Arch. Eng. Santiago Calatrava, Zurich
Italian).
Erection design:
[2] Briseghella B, Siviero E, Zordan T. Erection
Bolina Ingegneria, Padua and Venice
design and testing of the IVth bridge over the
Grand Canal in Venice. Proceedings of the Third Supervision of the erection phases and
International Conference Footbridge 2008, Porto, of the steel structures:
2–4 July 2008. Ing. Giorgio Romaro, Padua
[3] Siviero E. Independent check design of the Check engineer:
IVth bridge over the Grand Canal. Final Report, Prof. Eng. Enzo Siviero, University
Padua, 2007. IUAV of Venice
General contractor:
Cignoni srl, Lendinara (RO)
Contractors:
1. Steel:
Lorenzon Techmec System SpA,
Noventa di Piave (VE);
Siro Marin, Correzzola (PD);
Officina Metalmeccanica di Inzitari
Obenito, Arquà Polesine (RO);
Omar Costruzioni, Pegolotte (VE)
2. Erection and transportation over the
Canal Grande:
Fagioli SpA, Reggio Emilia
3. Temporary pretensioning system:
Tensacciai SpA, Milan
4. Monitoring system and hydraulic jacks:
4Emme Service SpA, Bolzano
Structural steel (t) (S355K2G3): 400
Non-structural elements (t): 200
Estimated cost (EUR million): 12
Service date: September 2008

12 Structures Worldwide Structural Engineering International 1/2010

X476_6-12.indd 12 2/1/10 10:16:06 AM