Structures 25 (2020) 268–273

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

An investigation on Botan Bridge (Siirt – Turkey) collapse during T

construction
Mehmet Ozcelika, Ogun Tutusb
a
Süleyman Demirel University, Engineering Faculty, Geological Engineering, Isparta, Turkey
b
Süleyman Demirel University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Geological Engineering, Isparta, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Botan Bridge, built in Siirt Pervari district, was planned to be the country’s longest free cantilever bridge
Bridge before it collapsed. Free cantilevering is a method of construction where a structure is built outward from a fixed
Construction point to form a cantilever structure, without temporary support, using staged cast-in-situ construction. The
Free cantilever method bridge was designed to connect the Southeastern Anatolia to Eastern Anatolia. It has two piers 105.88 m high
Collapse
and the complete length of the deck is 450 m. Prior to the construction of the bridge, a computer model was
Botan
generated, however there was deviation from the model during the construction without updating the model to
reflect the changes. On December 18, 2018, the bridge collapsed during construction without any casualty
recorded. Furthermore, it also suffered a partial collapse when the mid-span on the Beğendik side fell into the
river. The P1 pier was damaged because the parts falling to P1 were hit. Consequently, It was decided that it had
to be demolished and rebuilt. This article investigates the actual cause of the collapse with recommendations for
future projects.

1. Introduction
The main causes of bridge failures were classified as deficiencies in
design, specification, construction, maintenance, use of poor materials
and insufficient consideration of external events [1–3]. Failure is gen-
erally considered to be performance non-compliance with standards
[4], some structures collapsed during the construction phase while
others failed during their service life [5], which had harmful effects on
the social community and the environment [6]. Bridge failures are one
of the most serious infrastructure issues of today [7], typically causing
significant economic damage and casualties. This has drawn significant
attention from designers, engineers, researchers and policy makers [8].
The practice of engineering must gain as much information as possible
from those failures [9].
A popular technique for building concrete bridges is the free can-
tilever technique [10–13]. This method is mainly used for wide spans in
places where stationary support cannot be used. Free cantilever con-
struction is a technique of progressively building a cantilever in sections
and stitching it to pre-stressed sections [14]. This method has been used
for many bridges all over the globe. The world five longest span free
cantilever concrete bridges are Stolmasundet Bro-Norway (span 301 m,
1998), Raftsundet, Lofoten-Norway (span 298 m, 1998), Sandsfjord
Bridge-Norway (span 290 m, 2014), Humen, Pearl River-China (span
270 m, 1997), Varrod bro, Kristiansand-Norway (span 260 m, 1993)
[15].
Botan Bridge is being constructed with free cantilever technology
between Beğendik and Pervari (Siirt) town (Km 1 + 420 and Km
1 + 900). Bridge construction started in 2013 and was scheduled to end
in May 2020, but its failure delayed the end time of the bridge. The
purpose of constructing a bridge at the selected location is to reduce the
travel distance between the provinces of the region. The old stone Botan
Bridge has supported transportation until now. The Pervari Dam, built
5 km above Pervari district, in the region was constructed for hydro-
electric power generation and flood protection. The old stone Botan
bridge will submerge when the reservoir is full. The new Botan bridge
structure built with the free cantilever technology method consists of
segments produced as individual parts. The segments are converted into
moulds that are fixed to a traveler with a special structure of moving
steel. The form traveler's ideal layout and weight is crucial for the
structure's design and financial benefit. But, the Botan Bridge collapsed
while under construction in the valley of Botan. The failure began in the
mid-span on the Beğendik side near the P1 pier. The mid-span on the
Beğendik side collapsed, and a portion of the bridge fell into the Botan
River.
This article investigates the collapse of the Botan Bridge during
construction with emphasis on the cause of collapse in bridge con-
struction. In addition, the analysis of this construction methodology for
a particular project – Botan Bridge case study in Turkey - provides

E-mail address: ozcelikmehmet@sdu.edu.tr (M. Ozcelik).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.03.017
Received 1 August 2019; Received in revised form 11 March 2020; Accepted 11 March 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Ozcelik and O. Tutus
Fig. 1. Botan Bridge construction and its surrounding landscape.
Fig. 2. Longitudinal layout of the Botan Bridge [16].
better understanding of engineering practices and contributes to the
security and economy of bridge structures in the future.
2. Description of the bridge structure
Botan Valley has an appropriate landform for hydroelectric power
plant (HPP) building. One of the Botan River's last HPP projects is the
Pervari Dam. After the building of the new HPP, the ancient stone Botan
Bridge, which offers the current transport, will be totally submerged. At
the same place, the government funded a highway expansion study that
included a potential rehabilitation of the current bridge. Construction
of the Botan Bridge is the present choice (Fig. 1).
Botan Bridge piers have the heights 105.88 m. The bridge deck
consists of a mid-span of 210 m and two end spans of 120 m each. The
total bridge length is 450 m and the width of the bridge is 14 m. The
height of the box girder is 10 m on the main columns, but it decreases
parabolically 2 m at the side supports and 3 m at the expansion joint
(Fig. 2). The mid-span length will be a notable accomplishment and will
be the longest in Turkey for this type of bridge. The bridge is intended
to span the Botan River as a slender structure.
The deck of the bridge carries two lane roads and two sidewalks,
and the deck is 14 m long. In Turkey, the majority of the bridge beams
were built in concrete grade C45 (superstructure), C40 (piers), C30
Table 1
Material properties for Botan Bridge (Siirt –Turkey) [16].
Materials Elasticity modulus (N/m2)
Deck 3.36E10
Piers 3.36E10
Abutment and Foundations 2.94E10
Prestress elements 2.0E11
Rigidity elements 1.97E11
Structures 25 (2020) 268–273
Fig. 3. Designing and analysis of Botan Bridge.
(abutments and foundations). The material properties used in the
analyses are listed in Table 1 [16].
3. Project methodologies and construction stages
Bridges constructed with the free cantilever method consist of main
structural elements such as deck, piers and side abutments. The free
cantilever method is a preferred construction method is cantilevered
from each pier towards the center of the main span. In this method,
construction is completed by connecting both ends of the deck in a
cantilever state. The connection is made by installing and closing the
final segment, which is called a key segment. Free cantilever method
was chosen as the construction method of the Botan bridge.
The design and construction of bridge superstructures require
thorough planning that both calculate and evaluate the effects of the
construction method [17,18]. In the free cantilever construction, two
cantilevers must be built in a balanced manner, one on each side of a
scaffold. For this dual cantilever pair, two form travelers need. To re-
cord the number of form travelers, the original design relies on the use
of two form travelers. The primary design requirements were used by
AASHTO LRFD, 2012 [19]. Also used for local variations such as truck
loading and earthquake were local codes; TS500, KGM Technical Spe-
cification for Road Bridges [20]. The LARSA 4D software program [21]
was used for post-tensioning and earthquake assessment. The other
programs used for the evaluation are SAP2000 [22], Section Builder 8
and Design Response Spectra TR. Structural computations were based
on the analysis results and hand computation verifications. Thus, both
sides of the bridge were designed to be constructed at the same time.
Using form travellers, the primary span cantilevers were built seg-
mentally using the free cantilever technique. The travelers were then
used as shown in Fig. 3. The main openings were formed as a segment
by using form traveler. However, the bridge girder was very near to the
floor in the end span area.
The mid-span cantilever web moment is arranged to be smaller than
the bending moment caused by the cantilever side span weight [23,24].
This was to decrease in the primary pier the unbalanced time of
bending (see Fig. 3). The girder sections on the land side and the water
side were divided to accomplish this. The real height of the bridge and
Poisson’s ratio Mass per unit volume (kg/m3) Concrete class
0.2 2500 C45
0.2 2500 C40
0.2 2500 C30
– – –
0.3 – –
269
M. Ozcelik and O. Tutus Structures 25 (2020) 268–273

Fig. 4. Formwork and steel fixing work at the P1 foundation Beğendik site (a), Pervari site (b).

Fig. 5. The foundation of the P1 on Beğendik side (a), P2 on Pervari side (b).

Fig. 6. General view of free cantilever construction (a, b).

different construction phases.

All tendons were put in each section without pouring concrete.
Segment length was 3.5–5.0 m and tendons length was 4.5–10.0 m. A
frame in front of the type carrier supports the segments. The transverse
tendons of one section were extended when the concrete achieved
adequate strength. Initially, stress did not affect the first transverse
tendon at the anterior end of the section at that moment. The following
section is identified with transverse tendons. After stretching the
transverse tendons, the vertical tendons were extended. The form tra-
veler was shifted forward for the building of the next section after the
longitudinal tendons were extended. Creating a segment took about a
week. Typically, about 3-day after pouring the concrete, the tendons
were stressed. Before casting the next segment, the stress-affected ten-
dons were plated.

Fig. 7. Graphic of maximum force effect.

4. Causes of failure

the design height of the bridge are adapted or compensated for being
The Botan Bridge collapsed while under construction in the valley of
very near in the free cantilever construction. The bridge's design ele-
Botan. The construction of the bridge, which started in 2013, was to be
vation is the final grade plus the camber needed. Figs. 4–6 indicate the
completed in 2018. Construction began from both main piers and

270
M. Ozcelik and O. Tutus
Fig. 8. Botan Bridge after collapse, on December 18, 2017 (a, b).
Fig. 9. Condition of box girder top slab on Beğendik side after collapse (a, b).
Fig. 10. Condition of box girder top slab on Beğendik side after collapse.
proceeded towards the span center. This section has very critical value
according to maximum force effect graphic. As seen in the yellow/red
color in graphic (Fig. 7). In the stress analysis graph (Graphics: point1-
stage25-Max Force Effect) prepared during the construction phase
given in Fig. 7, the portion where the stress effect is critical is visible.
The critical part of the failure was this part too. The failure began in the
mid-span on the Beğendik side near the P1 pier. The mid-span on the
Beğendik side collapsed, and a portion of the bridge fell into the Botan
River (Figs. 8–10). At its final stages on Dec. 18, nearly 200
Fig. 11. Destruction of P1 (a, b).
271
Structures 25 (2020) 268–273
construction workers on the site witnessed one-eighth of the collapse of
the bridge. In January 2018, the actual repair work began.
The Botan bridge longitudinal direction modeling was done with
Larsa 4D and Larsa Section Composer program. The ‘Stage Construction
Analysis’ feature of this program allows the deflections, stresses, and
axial loads that occur at each step of the bridge to be viewed. Since the
program also provides the opportunity to perform static and earthquake
analysis, an alternative program for longitudinal design has become a
necessity [25]. In the design of the transverse direction of the upper
panel, especially the ‘Shear Lag’ effect, the analysis was carried out on a
unit section of the unit length with the maximum vehicle load applied.
In these analyzes, SAP2000 program was used. The Section Builder
program is used to design the cross section of bridge piers. Earthquake
analysis is very important for the Botan Bridge because the bridge is
sited in the first earthquake zone in Turkey [26], Approximately 40 m
of the bridge piers, which are 105.88 m in the reservoir area of the
Botan dam, will remain in the under water. Larsa 4D, Larsa Section
Composer, SAP2000, Design Spectra and Section Builder 8 programs
were used for these analyzes. Earthquake analysis has been examined in
more detail. AutoCAD 2010 program was used for architectural and
technical drawings, reinforcement settlement and mould drawings.
5. Failure mechanisms
The computer model of the Botan bridge was created before the
M. Ozcelik and O. Tutus
Fig. 12. General views of the reconstruction of the Botan bridge.
construction phase. However, changes in the site during the construc-
tion phase were not transferred to the model and the results were not
updated to reflect the current situation. That is, it took the typical op-
erating cycle five days with 12-hour shifts and alternating travelers in
two forms with the building crew. The 5-day cycle time may be reduced
with concrete admixtures to increase the early strength gain of concrete
and by the application of partial post-tensioning. But, the form traveler
was reduced to three days of the working cycle. In this case, the com-
puter model should be created. Changes to the site must be transferred
to the model and the results need to be updated to reflect the current
situation. However, the changes were not transferred to the computer
model. The main reason for the failure was the form traveler installa-
tion and working cycle. The following findings were inevitable as the
forces became too big. The concrete was not hardened during this time
and the concrete was broken when the molds were removed. The
structure was very much affected by the shear forces. Comparing this
bridge with others in the past that had no true issues like this one, it was
discovered that forces in this bridge that were almost negligible in those
of big width-to-span length ratio became dominant forces. The inter-
action of flexural time and shear force in the steel frames with haunch
or intermediate beam length and excentric braced frames with inter-
mediate connection length is a significant problem of structural analysis
and design [27]. Failure started in the mid-span near Begendik near P1
pier. The plate on the P1 side may be pinched or crushed with high
compression. In this case, the compression originally carried by the top
plate concrete was transferred to the upper part of the web and in the
longitudinal direction caused the webs to bend or crush. It led the de-
cline of the internet plates to move two components of the webs against
each other. As a consequence, the pre-tensioning force has been re-
leased in all longitudinal inner and external tendons at the site. This
eliminated shear on the base plate and improved shear force. The shear
force had to be performed by the bottom plate after the web failed.
Therefore, the lower plate failed under shear explaining vertical dis-
placement. The beam was supported with only the bottom plate. It is
thus converted into a condition that is simply supported by a very little
bending moment from a monolithic connection. The Begendik canti-
lever’s other end is supported by a monolithic mid-span connection.
Thus, the Begendik cantilever simply became a supported beam. Most
of the weight on the P1 side was shifted to the Pervari cantilever
through the monolithic linkage in the mid-span. As a result, double
drilling in the beam on both sides of the scaffold caused planes of
cutting failure. Stress patterns altered in the Begendik cantilever after
becoming a straightforward beam. The reduced plate stresses were now
under tension instead of the compression initially intended. The foun-
dation plate and the reduced portion of the net broke this stress. When
it dropped into the water, the reduced plate further harmed. When the
middle opening on the Begendik side fell into the water, Pervari can-
tilever pulled with it. There was no additional damage to the pilot
cantilever. Parts of the segment damaged P1 and decided to break down
constructor P1 (Fig. 11). General views are given on the reconstruction
of the Botan Bridge in March 2020 (Fig. 12 a-b).
272
Structures 25 (2020) 268–273
6. Conclusions
Free cantilever bridge construction method is a common method in
places where the ground is not suitable for scaffolding due to water or
deep valley crossings such as sea and river. Free cantilevering is a
building technique where, using staged cast-in-situ construction, a
structure is constructed outward from a set point to form a cantilever
structure without temporary assistance. The form traveler's ideal layout
and weight is essential to the structure's design and financial advantage.
The typical sequence of operations is summarized as: first, traveler is set
up and adapted, and aligned type of deck is obtained after reinforce-
ment and tendon ducts are placed on the stage. Concreting is accom-
plished and then pre-stressing tendons are inserted into the section. The
form traveller will be removed in due course. To begin a new cycle, the
form traveler is shifted to the next place. Each segment's building
process is repeated until the bridge is finished. Accordingly, the con-
struction stages of the free cantilever bridge should be predicted and
computer model should be established. Where necessary, the changes in
the field should be transferred to the model and the results should be
updated to reflect the current situation. However, the casting curve
must be considered and controlled with care. Achieving the necessary
strength of the concrete depends on many different variables. This
period is determined by ambient temperature, concrete form, weight,
construction method and concrete temperature. This time period was
determined as a duration period of 5-day in the experiments. The 5-day
cycle time may be reduced with concrete admixtures to increase the
early strength gain of concrete and by the application of partial post-
tensioning. However, the working cycle of the form traveler was re-
duced to 3-day and its installation was accelerated. The segment under
construction collapsed since the casting control was not carried out. The
fragments from the segment damaged P1. The contractor decided to
destroy P1 and the rebuilding of P1 began, and concluded that the re-
sults obtained at the planning stage would certainly be applied during
the construction phase, contributing to bridging security and the
economy. Botan bridge, which was built with the free cantilever
method in Turkey has the longest span.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to express their deep gratitude to the AGM and
BURAKCAN Engineering Construction and site engineers for their as-
sistance in collecting the necessary information. The authors wish to
thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their very helpful com-
ments and suggestions which allowed improving significantly the
manuscript.
M. Ozcelik and O. Tutus
References
[1] Choudhury JR, Hasnat A. Bridge collapses around the world: Causes and mechan-
isms. IABSE-JSCE Joint Conference on Advances in Bridge Engineering-III, August
21-22 2015, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Amin, Okui, Bhuiyan, Ueda (eds.) ISBN: 978-984-
33-9313-5.
[2] Cook W. Bridge failure rates, consequences, and predictive trends. PhD dissertation,
Utah State University Logan, Utah. USA. 2014.
[3] Tan J-S, Elbaz K, Wang Z-F, Shen J.S, Chen J. Lessons Learnt from Bridge Collapse:
A View of Sustainable Management. Sustainability. 2020;12(1205) doi: 10.3390/
su12031205.
[4] Feld J, Carper K. Construction failure. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.
[5] Lyu HM, Shen SL, Zhou AN, Yang J. Risk assessment of mega-city infrastructures
related to land subsidence using improved trapezoidal FAHP. Sci Total Environ
2019:135310.
[6] Elbaz K, Shen SL, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S. Geohazards induced by anthropic
activities of geoconstruction: a review of recent failure cases. Arab J Geosci
2016;9(708). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-016-2740-z.
[7] Lyu HM, Wang GF, Cheng WC, Shen SL. Tornado hazards on June 23rd in Jiangsu
Province, China: Preliminary investigation and analysis. Nat Hazards
2017;85:597–604.
[8] Hersi MI. Analysis of bridge failures in the United States (2000-2008). Master’s
Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. 2009.
[9] Hai DT, Yamada H, Katsuchi H. Present condition of highway bridges in Vietnam: an
analysis of current failure modes and their main causes. Struc Infrastruc Eng
2007;3(1):61–73.
[10] George CL, Satish BM, Chao H, Bastam NF. A study of U.S. Bridge failures, Technical
Report, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration,
MCEER-13-0008, June 15 2003, 148 pp. ISSN 1520-295X.
[11] Flint MM, Fringer O, Billington SL, Freyberg D, Diffenbaugh NS. Historical analysis
of hydraulic bridge collapses in the Continental United States. J Infrastruct Syst
2017;23(3):04017005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000354.
[12] Raphael W, Zgheib E, Chateauneuf A. Experimental investigations and sensitivity
analysis to explain the large creep of concrete deformations in the bridge of
Chevire. Case Stud Const Mat 2018;9:00176.
273
Structures 25 (2020) 268–273
[13] Feng C, Ju S, Huang H. Using a simple soil spring model and support vector machine
to determine bridge scour depth and bridge safety. 04015088-1 J Perf Const
Facilities 2016;30(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000837.
[14] Vokunnaya SS, Ravindranatha T, Thite T. Construction stage analysis of segmental
cantilever bridge. Int J Civil Eng Tech 2017;8(2):373–82.
[15] https://www.nrsas.com/ Bridge Construction Equipment. Accessed 15 January
2019.
[16] AGM Construction and Ltd. Botan Bridge project report. Ankara. 2014. (in Turkish,
unpublished).
[17] Shamass R, Cashell KA. Behaviour of composite beams made using high strength
steel. Struct 2017;12:88–101.
[18] Kirkland B, Kim P, Uy B, Vasdravellis G. Moment–shear–axial force interaction in
composite beams. J Const Steel Res 2015;114:66–76.
[19] AASHTO. LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. 2012.
[20] KGM (Turkish Republic, General Directorate of Highways). Technical Specification
for Road Bridges. https://www.tamyol.com.tr/UserFiles/Content/KGM_Teknik_
Sartnamesi_2013.pdf. 2013. Accessed 15 January 2019.
[21] LARSA “Section Composer Manual”, A manual for LARSA 4D Finite Element
Analysis and Design Software Last Revised October 2016, pp. 49.
[22] SAP2000. Integrated finite element analysis and design of structures basic analysis
reference manual. Computers and Structures Inc. Berkeley, CA, USA. 1998.
[23] Momenzadeh SB, Kazemi MT, Hoseinzadeh M. Seismic performance of reduced web
section moment connections. Int J Steel Struc 2017;17:1–13.
[24] Montuori R, Muscati R. Smart and simple design of seismic resistant reinforced
concrete frame. Compos Part B: Eng 2017;115:360–8.
[25] Dell'Aglio G, Montuori R, Nastri E, Piluso V. A critical review of plastic design
approaches for failure mode control of steel moment resisting frames. Ing Sismica
2017;34:82–102. ISSN: 0393–1420.
[26] Ulusay R, Kumsar H, Konagai K, Aydan O. The characteristics of geotechnical da-
mage by the 2011 Van-Ercis¸ earthquake. In: Proceedings of the international
symposium on engineering lessons learned from the 2011 great east Japan earth-
quake, March 1-4, 2012, Tokyo, Japan.
[27] Kazemi MT, Sharifi M, Yang J. Mechanism analysis of steel frames considering
moment-shear interaction. Adv Struct Eng 2019;22(1):254–67.