The Place of Aesthetics in Bridge Design
Christian Menn, Prof. em.
Chur. Switzerland
Bridges occupy locations of promi-
nence in both natural and man-made
landscapes. Indeed, they are often the
only visible structures along highways
and railways. Visual prominence has
brought many bridges recognition
as landmarks in their surroundings.
Bridges are powerful reflections of
both the state of technological devel-
opment and of the intellectual climate
at the time of their construction. Those
bridges for which artistry has tran-
scended mere craftsmanship in design
have become unique cultural monu-
ments. Spanning over obstacles and
linking the banks of wide rivers and
deep canyons, bridges have acquired a
strong symbolic meaning that tran-
scends their purely technical function.
It is perhaps for this reason that
bridges have been a source of fascina-
tion to poets and painters throughout
the ages.
Design Objectives
Bridges must satisfy specific functional
requirements and constraints such as
clearance and construction schedule.
In addition to these requirements. the
most important design objectives are:
— structural safety
— serviceability
— economy
— elegance.
Criteria defining structural safety and
serviceability are specified in design
standards, which reflect the current
state of the art of the technical aspects
of bridge design. Structural safety and
serviceability are achieved by engi-
neers working primarily as craftsmen,
i.e., through the logical application of
well-established principles.
The cost of a given bridge can be esti-
mated based on experience and on
studies of alternative concepts. Econo-
my depends mainly on the design con-
cept.
Elegance relates primarily to impact
Structural Engineering International 2/96
on the environment and beauty of the
structures themselves. Although it is
impossible to quantify elegance ratio-
nally. the interaction between the tech-
nical and the visual aspects of bridge
design implies that elegance is also
governed by certain criteria. In partic-
ular, elegance can be judged objective-
ly with a well trained sensitivity for
visual form.
Economy and elegance cannot be opti-
mized independently of each other.
For a wide range of cases, these two
objectives are closely related. Design-
ers must determine the relative impor-
tance of economy and elegance for a
given bridge, and decide how much
money can be spent to improve aes-
thetic impact. Additional costs ranging
from 5 to 20% (or even higher for
pedestrian bridges) above the least ex-
pensive solution can be justified to im-
prove the visual appearance of bridges.
(Additional costs greater than this
range have been seen for special struc-
tures, such as bridges intended to be
symbols of world's fairs or urban de-
velopments.)
The optimization of economy and ele-
gance requires more than the crafts-
manship component of engineering.
It requires creativity, fantasy, and sen-
sitivity to visual form. These talents
collectively constitute the art of engi-
neering.
The Importance of Bridge
Aesthetics
The aesthetic aspects of bridge design
are more important than commonly
admitted. Engineering structures usu-
ally produce significant impact on the
natural and human environments. The
users of bridges also produce new and
usually unpleasant effects on the envi-
ronment, such as noise and exhaust
gases. For these reasons, bridges are
often regarded negatively in society.
In spite of this situation, there is sup-
port in society for visually elegant
bridges, which can become objects of
pride for communities. Proper atten-
tion to the visual and environmental
aspects of bridge design is therefore
not only important of itself, but also
because it increases the likelihood that
new structures will be accepted in soci-
ety. Cost savings achieved through
avoiding community opposition to
projects. and the associated reduction
in time required to bring projects to
completion can easily outweigh the ad-
ditional cost incurred by designs that
are visually elegant and mindful of the
environment.
Pressure to minimize construction
costs has led to aesthetically unsatis-
factory bridges. Concern over the ap-
pearance of bridges has prompted
transportation authorities and other
owners of bridges to give architects
equal or even superior roles to engi-
neers in bridge design competitions.
Collaboration between engineers and
architects in the design can be positive.
provided it is based on mutual respect
and recognition. Bridge concepts aris-
ing from capriciously chosen architec-
tural themes are of dubious value,
however, particularly when the archi-
tects involved have little or no experi-
ence with bridges, and are not used to
using structure as a means of visual ex-
pression. Under these circumstances,
engineers are forced into subordinate
roles as analytical specialists. Unfortu-
nately, many engineers do not find
anything wrong with collaboration of
this kind.
Damage to the professional image of
engineers due to poorly designed and
poorly received bridges, and the sec-
ond-class status of engineers on some
bridge projects. are indeed disconcert-
ing. As the image of the profession be-
comes further eroded, so do the quali-
fications of the next generation of en-
gineers. This disastrous downward spi-
ral must be stopped. Bridges of high
technical and aesthetic merit, and a
leading role for engineers in any col-
laboration between engineers and ar-
chitects in bridge design are two ways
in which this can be achieved.
Aesthetics in Structural Engineering 93
 Design concept for a cable-stayed bridge on tall piers at Kiosters, Switzerland
Aesthetic Criteria for Bridge
Design
Bridges must be compatible with their
environment, and visually pleasing as
entities unto themselves. These are the
two most important aesthetic criteria
for bridge design.
Environment is understood here to in-
clude both space and time. The follow-
ing two components must therefore be
considered when evaluating the com-
patibility of bridges with their environ-
ment:
Spatial component
— Scale and character of the landscape
and topography
— Scale and character of the man-
made environment.
Temporal component
— History and tradition of local bridge
construction
— State of technology and culture.
In the design of bridges themselves,
the following three major components
niust be considered:
Visualization of technical efficiency
— Transparency (particularly for sub-
structures)
— Slenderness (particularly for super-
structures)
— Spatial, stabilizing development of
the structural system
— Integral structural action.
Order and unity of the entire structure
— Clear organization of the structural
system
94 Aesthetics in Structural Engineering
— Coherent, unified shaping of the
cross-sections of all structural com-
ponents.
Artistic shaping
— Refinement of the raw statical form
through visual expression of the
flow of forces, light and shadow ef-
fects through shaping, and clean de-
tailing
— Structural ornamentation, for ex-
ample. with evolving arrangements
of structural members
— Non-structural ornamentation
through the use of non structural
components, color, etc.
All of these criteria except artistic
shaping must generally be considered
during the development of the engi-
neering concept. Architects participat-
ing in bridge design could usefully con-
tribute to the task of shaping structural
members artistically. Since important
aesthetic issues must often be dealt
with during preparation of the engi-
neering concept, however, participa-
tion and advice from architects can be
desirable during this phase.
The preceding description of the tasks
required in the visual design of bridges
clearly shows, however, that engineers
themselves must have a good sense of
visual form. For a variety of reasons,
severe shortcomings in this area exist
among structural engineers. The visual
aspect of design has long been neglect-
ed in engineering education and prac-
tice. Far more importance is currently
placed on exhaustive and often unnec-
essary calculations and tests. This is
due in part to the excessive complexity
of current design standards. Most stu-
dents and practising engineers are not
even interested in visual aspects of de-
sign, and for many owners of bridges,
aesthetics has little relevance.
Meaning of the Design Concept
The design concept is understood here
to include not only the overall concept
for the entire structure, but also the
concept for structural members and
details. The design concept, from over-
all structure to details, is always the
most important, challenging and cre-
ative part of engineering. It defies ana-
lytical treatment and conventional
quality control measures. Good design
concepts minimize difficulties both in
the design office and on the construc-
tion site. Since it is possible today to
calculate and build just about any-
thing, many engineers are unfortu-
nately of the opinion that the quantity
of problems considered in design di-
rectlv assure the quality of the design.
It is not true that visually pleasing
forms are guaranteed by either struc-
tural efficiency or economy. Good en-
gineering concepts are always a sound
basis for high aesthetic quality, howev-
er. since visually pleasing designs can
generally be achieved through refine-
ment and artistic shaping of the basic
form. Many examples have shown that
the converse of this statement is also
true, i.e., when the form is not satisfac-
tory, the engineering concept also
tends to be unsatisfactory. It follows
that shortcomings in the engineering
concept can often be detected by a
careful review of visual form.
The only adequate means of reviewing
visual form is a scale model. Models
must be built to a sufficiently large
scale and must incorporate the sur-
rounding area to reveal the interaction
between the structure and its environ-
ment. Since sensitivity to visual form
in bridges must include an informed
understanding of the flow of forces, it
follows that the suitability of a given
Structural Engineering International 2/96
visual form would be more appropri-
ately assessed by engineers rather than
architects.
Measures to Improve the
Aesthetic Quality of Bridges
The following two measures are of
critical importance for the improve-
ment of the aesthetic quality of
bridges:
— Comprehensive training in the visu-
al aspects of design for engineering
students at the undergraduate level
— Support for aesthetic quality by
transportation authorities.
Comprehensive training in the visual
aspects of design would require sub-
stantial changes to current engineering
curricula. Changes of this nature will
invariably meet with considerable op-
position. It would be possible, howev-
er, to exert some influence on the engi-
neering curriculum from outside the
academic world.
Stronger and more carefully directed
support for aesthetic quality by engi-
neers representing the owners of
bridges would be extremely valuable.
Although transportation authorities
that consider bridge aesthetics to be
important exist in all parts of the
world, owners are in general not pre-
pared to accept any increase in cost to
achieve better visual design. It is often
the case that engineers who make poli-
cy decisions on behalf of owners have
little sensibility for problems involving
the visual aspect of bridges.
Although lectures at conferences on
the topic of bridge aesthetics are
worthwhile, they are unfortunately of-
ten disappointing, because the speak-
ers normally concentrate on polishing
their own image rather than on the ac-
tual problem at hand.
What is required is a long-term strate-
gy to support and promote the cultural
value of engineering structures. Such a
strategy would begin with the educa-
tion of young engineers. Only when
the majority of engineers have been
sensitized and are ready to design
bridges giving serious attention to the
visual aspects can true progress be ex-
pected. As changed attitudes towards
bridge aesthetics become widespread.
economic benefits will follow. The
process proposed is long and difficult.
It will clearly take a lot more than a
few pretty pictures of bridges taken
against a blazing sunset.

IABSE recognizes the importance of aesthetics in structural

engineering. At the 15th Congress of IABSE in Copenhagen a
Plenary Session will be devoted to this topic, with invited lectures
by distinguished architects and engineers. Topics will include:
15th Congress of IABSE — The Aesthetic Potential of Structures
Copenhagen, Denmark — Structural Criticism and the Aesthetics of Structures
June 16—20, 1996 — Design for Coming Generations
Structural Engineering — Bridges and Structural Art.
in Consideration of
Economy, Environment, Meeting the aesthetic expectations of society requires consideration
of a new structure's surroundings, especially in areas of natural
Energy
beauty and/or historical significance. The topic of the design context
For more information will be addressed, for example, in presentations on
and to register,
— Relating Bridge Aesthetics to the Indian Architectural Heritage
contact
— The Cable-Stayed Bridges in the Finnish Lake and River Districts

IABSE Congress 1996 — Integrated Design of River Dikes.

c/o DIS Congress Service Similar considerations will also be the focus of a presentation on the
Copenhagen A/S
"Aesthetic Design of the Tatara Bridge" in Japan, currently the
2C, Herlev Ringvej
longest cable-stayed bridge in the world. And structural aesthetics in
DK-2730 Herlev
Japan will be further explored in a separate lecture.
Denmark
The Session will allow engineers and architects to explore and
Phone: +45-4492 4492
expand their views, and promises to be a lively meeting on a topic of
Fax: +45-4492 5050
real professional and social importance.
or
It is one more reason to catch up with the state-of-the-art of structural
IABSE Headquarters in Zurich engineering at the 15th Congress of IABSE in Copenhagen!

Structural Engineering International 2196 Aesthetics in Structural Engineering 95