Torben Forsberg and Anton Petersen are two renowned civil engineers with qualifications from the Technical University of Denmark. In their article The Challenge of Constructing a Bridge over the Chacao Channel, the authors describe possibilities of improving the design of a new bridge. The authors’ arguments on alternative possibilities are based on the fact that the construction of the new bridge has many challenges.
The challenges mentioned in the article include large tides and currents, strong seismic loads, wind and unstable ground conditions. According to the authors, the proposed design is compromised and requires technical review to ensure that the bridge is aesthetically pleasant and cost-effective.
However, the article provides a solution by proposing new bridge alternatives. The authors review new bridge alternatives in relation to existing challenges. In each of the new bridge alternatives, a clear discussion with technical details is outlined. In this regard, the reader detects advantages of using various design alternatives in respect to technical demands and cost-efficiency.
The article describes the construction project, its geographical location, as well as environmental challenges associated with the new bridge. Examples of such conditions include possible earthquakes, wind and strong currents. The authors’ description of the Chacao channel as extremely challenging is effective. This description justifies the need to initiate technical competency in construction of the new bridge.
The authors also estimate the depth, tidal variation and the speed of water. Besides, they mention the possible magnitude of earthquakes expected in the region. Moreover, a description of the climatic conditions such as wind speed provides insight into the technical demands of the project.
The authors’ description of bridge alternatives follows technical logic by providing specifications of each design. In this regard, the authors explain why each design is only effective in prevailing environmental conditions. For example, the authors give details and advantages of using a continuous two-main-span suspension bridge.
The article evaluates alternative bridge designs that can withstand the existing environmental challenges. In this regard, the authors evaluate both classical and conventional bridge solutions.
The main strength of the article is the focus on a factual project that exists in a geographically known territory. This is important to the reader who may decide to research further about the project and on the engineering design used to build the bridge. The authors’ credibility as civil engineers from a reputable engineering school is additional strength of the article’s content.
The article’s weakness that can be highlighted is that the article does not entirely solve the challenges of building the bridge. In fact, the authors offer a detailed research of other alternatives that could improve the construction of the bridge, but do not provide details of how the construction of the bridge was completed. Moreover, the authors fail to give examples of replicas of bridge designs in other regions.
The credibility of the authors as civil engineers is effectively felt in the article, though it is not emphasized. In my opinion, the article content is clear, accurate and insightful. The authors have been able to engage the reader’s mind using simple terms and graphics.
For example, the authors have used graphs and maps to emphasize on their arguments. Another important aspect of the article’s strength is the use of Chacao channel topography. In addition, the article is useful in providing future research material.