FORENSIC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

CASE STUDIES
CASE N° 30
CHIRAJARA BRIDGE

MARTIN POLIMENI
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
EEPP SA
eeppsaingenieria@gmail.com
CHIRAJARA BRIDGE COLLAPSE
On January
15, 2018, the
Chirajara
bridge near
Bogotá,
Colombia,
collapsed
during
construction.
CHIRAJARA BRIDGE COLLAPSE
Probable cause:
• Structural failure of a
pylon during
construction due to
design mistakes.
Consequences:
o 9 people dead and
8 people injured.
CHIRAJARA BRIDGE COLLAPSE
Principal structural
system.
Cable stayed bridge.
Main span: 286 m
Lateral spans: 80 m
Deck: Longitudinal steel
girders, transverse steel
beams and CIP concrete
slab
Pylon diamond-shape:
Steel superior pylon.
Reinforced concrete
superior and inferior arms.
Post tensioned concrete
transverse slab.
Reinforced concrete wall.
Concrete caisson
foundation.
 CHIRAJARA BRIDGE COLLAPSE

Incorrect structural hypotheses about the Typical Chirajara Pylon

combined work of the post-tensioned slab and Pylon (unusual)
the reinforced concrete wall. The tension level of diamond- Diamond-shape
the post-tensioned cable system was insufficient. shape
CHIRAJARA BRIDGE COLLAPSE
Ductile fracture surfaces of
the steel reinforcing bars and
tendons. This indicate the
yielding of the bars and
tendons, and the consequent
increment of the lateral
deformation that generates
the progressive instability of
the arms of the pylon up to its
fracture and collapse.
 CHIRAJARA BRIDGE COLLAPSE
Important not conservative differences, in the
distributions of the deformations and loads within
the height of the wall, between the numerical
analysis and the original design.
 CHIRAJARA BRIDGE COLLAPSE
Lessons learned:
 According with the investigation report that is the public domain, the
main cause of the collapse was instability, during construction, of one
of the pylons due to structural design mistakes.
 The fracture surfaces of cables and reinforcement bars indicates that
there was a ductile fracture due to an excessive lateral deformation.
This assumption was corroborated, in the investigation, by analytical
and numerical analyses.
 The design of the pylons was unusual. It´s no usual to use a wall to
transfer the forces generated by the change of the loads direction.
More adequate would have been a transverse beam or slab to transmit
the deviation forces through sufficient post-tensioned.
 Unusual designs can be done, and in some cases may be welcomed,
but in that cases, deeper structural analyses must be done. Sensitivity
analyses, with different hypotheses, must be done in order to assess
how these hypotheses affect the structural behavior.
 Once again like in others great projects, the peer review also failed.