Banthorpe Cm Juscelino Kubitschek

7/28/2019 Banthorpe Cm Juscelino Kubitschek

1/10

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OFJUSCELINO KUBITSCHEK BRIDGE, BRASLIA, BRAZIL

Charlie Banthorpe1

Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering, University of Bath

Abstract: This conference paper gives a critical analysis of the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge in Braslia,Brazil. An appraisal of the bridge's aesthetic qualities is conducted according to Leonhardt's rules of bridgeaesthetics, the structure is interrogated according to the current British Standards for bridge loading and design,and the construction process is discussed.

Keywords: Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge, President JK Bridge, Asymmetric Arch Bridge, Steel ArchBridge, Iconic Structure.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge, also known asthe President JK Memorial Bridge or simply the JKBridge, is a motorway bridge spanning 1,200m acrossLake Parano - a man-made lake which stretchesaround the eastern edge of Braslia, the capital ofBrazil (Figure 1). The JK Bridge is the third crossing of

Lake Parano, and was built to accommodate theincrease in traffic flow into Braslia from the stylishLago Sul housing sector.

Since its completion in December 2002, theJuscelino Kubitschek bridge has afforded its designersthe Gustav Lindenthal Medal for design and theABCEM Steel Structure of the Year Award 2003. Thisaward winning structure has established itself as avisual icon for the community, and is often cited as a

prime example of architect-engineer collaboration.

2 BRIDGE CONCEPT & AESTHETICS

Architect Alexandre Chan and structural engineerMario Vila Verde produced the winning concept for the

bridge in response to a design competition in 1998.Chan envisaged creating a landmark for the enjoymentof the community as much as to simply transverse a

body of water. [1] The asymmetric arch concept was

designed to reduce the span, fill some of the emptinessof the crossing and add an intuitive, humorous andinteresting aspect: reminiscent of a repeated jump overthe rocks of a stream or the movement of a thrown flatstone on a quiet surface.[2]

In terms of aesthetics, many regard the JK bridgeto be as much a sculpture as a structure, and there can

be no doubt that the asymmetric arches give the bridgea magnificent visual fluidity. The following sectionlooks deeper into the aesthetics of the JK Bridge.

1 Mr C M Banthorpe, [email protected]

Proceedings of Bridge Engineering 2 Conference 2010April 2010, University of Bath, Bath, UK

Figure 1: Aerial view of Braslia and the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge over Lake Parano.


2/10

Fritz Leonherdt's first rule of bridge aestheticssays that a bridge should reveal its structure in a pure,clear form and impart a feeling of stability. The JKBridge has clarity in its structural function the groupof three arches provide support for the central span viasteel cable stays, and their asymmetric configurationencompasses the roadway, giving the necessary senseof security to those travelling across the bridge.However, on closer inspection you will notice the

presence of additional supporting piers at the base ofeach arch (Figure 2). These are a structural necessity,and accommodate the eccentricity of the deck inrelation to the arches. According to an interview withChan inArchitecture Week[1], the initial concept wasto have two pylons per arch, not four. So that eacharch would cross the road in diagonal jumps, addingfurther emotion and tension to the structure-sculpture.The piers are clearly a late addition to the scheme, andan architectural compromise, confusing the structuralfunction and causing the interaction between thewaterline and the structure to look clumsy andunorthodox.[3]

The aesthetic success of a bridge is also heavilydependant upon its proportions. The approach spans ofthe JK Bridge are in good proportion, with leaf wallsspaced at regular increments. The slender profile of theleaf walls works well with the relatively small spans.The scale and weight of the arches in relation to the

piers and deck reinforces their status as the primarystructure and feature. The tapered profile of the bridgedeck, along with the open parapet design, keeps the

deck looking light in comparison to the bridgesuperstructure.

Order is achieved within the structure throughrepetition of the arch form. However, their positioningout of the plane of the bridge deck gives a variance anda level of complexity which makes for an intriguingand unique design. The arrangement of cable stayslooks very neat when viewed from the side. Theirvarying inclination, due to the skew of the arches,offers an interesting visual effect when travelling overthe bridge.

Refinements have been made to the shape of thearches the top face tapers towards the base of thearches (Figure 3). The illumination and shading on thetapered faces eases the appearance of these substantialelements. The supporting piers at the base of each ofthe arches are inclined and curved to the same degreeas the arches themselves. This has been implemented inorder to reduce the impedance of the piers on theoverall appearance of the bridge when viewed from theside (Figure 4).

Braslia established itself as the new capital city of

Brazil in the 1950's, where the soaring, curved concretestructures of architect Oscar Niemeyer prevailed. Thesweeping, sculptural form of the JK Bridge feels athome next to this modernist urban environment.Further integration has been achieved by introducing aslight curvature to the roadway, providing views acrossthe lake and connecting the bridge to its surroundings.

Although not immediately obvious, the first 18mof each arch is constructed from reinforced concrete,with prefabricated steel sections fixed to these starters.The fair-faced finish and smooth texture achieved onthese concrete starters has given the arch elements anapparent continuity, integral to the overall image of the

bridge. The polished steel sections of the asymmetricarches glint in the Brazilian sunshine, and whenilluminated at night (Figure 5), accentuating itssculptural form and iconic status.

Figure 3: Refinement of arch geometry.

Figure 2: Additional piers supporting the bridge deck.

Figure 4: Refinement of pier geometry.

Figure 5: The JK Bridge illuminated at night.


3/10

There can be no doubt that the JK Bridge hasheaps of character. It's unconventional asymmetric archconfiguration has been said to resemble a dancing childhopping across a stream, or a flat stone skimmingacross the water's surface.

3 GEOLOGY

The JK Bridge is located on a geological fault line(Figure 6), where the river that today forms LakeParano once ran. [4] The ground conditions are

predominantly poor quality sedimentary deposits, withsparse bands of quartzite. As the area beneath the lakewas previously a river basin, the soil conditions areextremely variable, with pockets of silt and alluvium inunknown locations.

These varying ground conditions meant that thefoundation scheme could not be finalised until specificinformation and data had been obtained from more

intensive site investigations, carried out at the specificlocations of each pier and foundation block. Archstructures are very sensitive to settlement, so given thevariable geological conditions and the location of the

bridge on a fault line, it was of utmost importance togain a detailed understanding of how the structurewould interact with the ground, in order to design theappropriate foundation scheme.

4 GEOMETRY

Figures 7 and 8 show the geometry of theJuscelino Kubitschek Bridge. The three arches are

parabolic in shape with a peak height of 62m, eacharch supports a 240m span. The clearance to theunderside of the deck is 18m, allow small vessels to

pass under the three main spans. Leaf walls support 5spans of 48m, forming the approach spans. The cablesare arranged such that there are 8 stays on either side ofthe deck per arch. The inclination of the stays gives a4.6m clearance to the carriageway [2]. The roadwayitself is also slightly curved in plan, of radius 3,150m.

Each foundation block is 24m x 40m x 4m deep,with their top surface 1.5m below the waterline to givethe impression that the structure rises out from thewater. Note the difference in pile configuration fromeast to west, shown in Figure 7.

Figure 8 shows the bridge deck section at a hangeranchorage point. The roadway and pedestrian/cycle

paths have a total width of 24m. This consists of six3.5m traffic lance (three in each direction) and two1.5m side walks. The central depth of the deck is3020mm, tapering to an edge thickness of 1500mm.

5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

The following sections outline a number ofstructural analyses which have been carried outaccording to BS5400 in order to check the structuralintegrity of the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge againstcurrent British Standards.

Figure 7: Geometry - Elevation/Long-section.

Figure 8: Geometry - Section through bridge deck.

Figure 6: Geological map, Braslia [5].


4/10

5.1 LOADING

Loads to be considered:

1. Dead.2. Superimposed dead.3. Live traffic: primary and secondary.4. Wind.

5. Temperature.6. Erection: temporary loads.7. Earthquake.

Load combinations:

1. All permanent loads + primary live loads.2. Combination 1 + wind + temporary loads.3. Combination 1 + temperature + temporary.4. All permanent loads + secondary live loads

(skidding, centrifugal, longitudinal andcollision loads) and associated primary liveloads.

5. All permanent loads + loads due to friction atsupports.

The appropriate partial load factors, fl and f3,have been obtained from BS5400 and are displayed inTables 1 and 2 below:

Table 1: Partial load factors fl.

LoadLimitState

fl

Dead ULSSLS

1.051.00

Superimposed dead ULSSLS

1.751.20

Reduced load factor ULS 1.00

HA alone ULSSLS

1.501.20

HA with HB or HB alone ULSSLS

1.301.10

Centrifugal load &associated primary live load

ULSSLS

1.501.00

Accidental skidding load &associated primary live load

ULSSLS

1.251.00

Vehicle collision withparapet & associated primary

ULSSLS

1.251.00

Wind ULSSLS

1.401.00

Temperature ULSSLS

1.301.00

Erection: temporary loads ULS 1.15

Earthquake ULS N/A

Table 2: Partial load factors f3.

Bridge type LimitStatef3

Steel bridge SLSULS

1.001.10

5.1.1 DEAD LOAD

An interview with architect Alexandre Chan[4] puts the weight of the steel deck at 12,580 tons,over an area of 28,800m2. These figures have beenused as the basis for determining the dead load.

Dead weight of steel [4]

12,580 tons

= 11,400 tonnes

= 114,000 kN

Over an area of 28,800 m2 or length 1,200 m

= 3.96 kN/m2

= 95.1 kN/m

5.1.2 SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD

According to a report by Bayer Material Science

[6], the roadway is surfaced with a lightweightpolyurethane surfacing.

Polyurethane surfacing:

= 0.0134 kN/m2

= 0.321 kN/m

Finishes, lighting & bridge furniture:

0.5 kN/m2

= 12 kN/m

Total superimposed dead load:

= 12.3 kN/m

5.1.3 TRAFFIC LIVE LOADS

HA loading - the carriageway has a width of 21m(24m less two 1.5m foot/cycle paths), and therefore has6 notional lanes of 3.5m each. Over a loaded length of240m, this corresponds to a nominal UDL of 11.2kN/m

per notional lane. The knife edge load (KEL) pernotional lane is taken as 120kN, also applied to givethe most severe effect.

HB loading due to an exceptionally heavy vehicle

= 45 units of HB loading (1 unit = 10kN) over 4 axlesof variable dimensions, to give the most severe effecton the member under consideration. The worst case isshown below in figure 9. The highest loadconcentrations are located on the outside edge of thedeck, giving the worst case in torsion. Also, an axlelength of 16m has been selected for the HB vehicle(total length = 19.6m), so that the axles are positionedat the midpoint between the stays.

Horizontal centrifugal loading, Fc, is given byequation (1) below. An associated vertical loading of300kN is also applied.

Fc= 30,000 r150(1)

= 30,000/(3,150 + 150)

= 9.10 kN


5/10

Longitudinal loading from the mechanical brakingof vehicles is taken as 8kN/m along a single notionallane, plus an additional single 200kN force.

= (240m x 8kN/m) + 200kN

= 2,120 kN

Accidental skidding is modelled as a single pointload of 250kN acting horizontally in any directionwithin one notional lane only. Vehicular collisions withthe parapets are based on 25 units of HB loadingcolliding with the parapet. This corresponds to:

= 25 x 10kN

= 250 kN

Table 3: Load summary table.

LoadLimitState

FactoredLoad

Dead ULSSLS

110 kN/m95.1 kN/m

Superimposed dead ULSSLS

23.7 kN/m14.8 kN/m

HA alone ULS

SLS

18.5 kN/m(KEL = 198 kN)

13.4 kN/m(KEL = 144 kN)

HA with HB ULSSLS

See section5.1.3

Centrifugal load &associated primary live load

ULS

SLS

15.1 kN (H)495 kN (V)9.10 kN (H)300 kN (V)

Accidental skidding load &associated primary live load

ULSSLS

344 kN250 kN

Vehicle collision withparapet & associated primary

ULSSLS

344 kN250 kN

5.1.4 WIND LOADING

Local wind data has been obtained from an onlineresource [7] where statistics have been collected overthe past 5 years. The data shows an extremely flat windspeed distribution for Braslia month-on-month, with

the prevailing north-easterlies remaining at an averageof 8 knots (4.12 m/s) throughout the year.

As there is no 1:120 year wind data available,similar to that used for wind loading in the UK, I shallmultiply the average daily wind speed by a factor of 5,to give a conservative estimate to a 1:120 year returnevent.

1:120 wind speed, v = vav x factor

= 4.12 m/s x 5

= 20.6 m/s

The maximum wind gust, vc, is calculated usingequation (2) below, where K1, S1 and S2 are the windcoefficient, funnel factor and gust factorcorrespondingly. For the purpose of this

approximation, I have assumed the height aboveground to be 30m (half the total height) of thestructure.

vc = v.K1.S1.S2 (2)

= 20.6 x 1.40 x 1.00 x 1.21

= 34.9 m/s

The horizontal wind load, Pt, can then becalculated using equations (3) and (4); where A1 is thehorizontal projected area; and CD is the dragcoefficient. Pt acts at the centroid of the section in

question.

Pt= q.A1.CD (3)

q = 0.613.vc2 (4)

= 0.613 x 34.92

= 746.6 N/m2

Pt = 746.6 x 3.02 m2/m x 1.25

= 2,818 N/m

= 2.82 kN/m

In addition to the horizontal wind loading, winduplift should also be considered. The vertical windaction is calculated using equation (5); where A3 is the

plan area; and CL is the lift coefficient.

Figure 9: Worst case HA and HB combined traffic loading.


6/10

Pv = q.A3.CL (4)

= 746.6 x 24 m2/m x 0.4

= 7,167 N/m

= 7.17 kN/m

5.1.5 CONSTRUCTION/TEMPORARY LOADINGDuring the construction of the JK Bridge, the steel

arches were supported on truss form work which wasitself supported by the deck and temporary piers below(see section 6). According to one commentator [4],1,350 tons of steel was used in auxiliary and temporarystructures. This figure has been used to estimate thetemporary loads which the structure would have beensubjected to during its construction.

Weight of steel in temporary structures [4]

1,350 tons

= 1,225 tonnes

= 12,250 kN

Over an area of 17,280 m2 or length 720 m

= 0.71 kN/m2

= 17.0 kN/m

Factored by fl=1.15:

= 0.82 kN/m2 (ULS)

=19.6 kN/m (ULS)

5.1.6 SEISMIC LOADING

Although the JK Bridge is located over a fault line,there is a very low risk of a substantial earthquakeoccurring in this region [8]. Therefore this paper doesnot further investigate the effects of seismic loading.

5.2 ARCH

For the purpose of these simple calculations, it hasbeen assumed that the arch is loaded along its centralaxis, thus ignoring any torsional effects which may be

imposed upon the arch. I have considered two loadcases for the arch: full loading over the length of thearch (Figure 10); and an asymmetric loading case(Figure 11). The arch is modelled as a 3-pinned arch,with fixed supports.

Loading:

Dead = 110 kN/m

Superimposed dead = 23.7 kN/m

Live traffic loading = 61.7 kN/m

Total UDL, w = 196 kN/m (ULS)

Vertical Reaction:

RV=wl

2

(5)

RV= (196 x 240) / 2

RV= 23.5 MN

Horizontal Thrust:

wl2

8=hR

H

(6)

RH= 7200w / 60

RH= 23.5 MN

Compression in Arch:

C=wl

2cos45

(7)

C = (196 x 240) / (2 x cos45)

C = 33.3 MN

Equation (8) is now used to determine the Eulerload, and thus check the arch for buckling resistance.

PE=2EI

l2(8)

PE = 43.4 MN buckling OK

Loading:

Dead = 110 kN/m

Superimposed (fl= 1.75) = 23.7 kN/m

Superimposed (fl= 1.00) = 13.5 kN/m

Live traffic loading = 61.7 kN/m

UDL 1, w1 = 196 kN/m (ULS)

UDL 2, w2 = 123.5 kN/m (ULS)

Figure 11: Load case 2 - Asymmetric loading.

Figure 10: Load case 1 - Full UDL.


7/10

Maximum bending moment:

The maximum bending moment occurs at distance along the arch, and is calculated by taking afree body at this point.

MMAX= 69.1 MNm

5.3 CABLE STAYS

The cable stays support the deck at 18mincrements, and are inclined at approximately 35. Asthe cables may be repaired or adjusted in-situ, I shallassume the worst load case to be under normal loadingconditions, but with a single cable removed.

Loaded length, l = 27m

UDL = 196 kN/m

Total load = 1,764 kN

TMAX= 1,764 / sin35

TMAX= 3.075 MN

Given the tensile strength of steel to be 460 MPA,the minimum cross sectional area required is7,688mm2, or a stay diameter of 99 mm.

5.4 DECK

Four load cases have been considered for thedeck, as follows: worst case sagging constructionloading over 3 temporary supports; worst case hogging

construction loading over 3 temporary supports; HBwith HA traffic loading plus wind uplift to give theworst case for torsion; and a lateral load case withsecondary vehicular loads plus wind.

Load case 1: construction loading, worst casesagging. In this case, load combination 2 (see section5.1) acts on alternate spans, and the unfactored deadload acts on the remaining spans, to give the worst casesagging moment.

Load combination 3, w3 = 215.6 kN/m (ULS)

Unfactored dead load, w4 = 95.1 kN/m (ULS)

Maximum sagging moment, MMAX_SAG

= 32.4 MNm

Load case 2: construction loading, worst casehogging. Case 2 is as case 1, however the two centralspans are subjected to load combination 2, and the twoend spans are subjected to the unfactored dead loadonly.

Maximum hogging moment, MMAX_HOG

= 40.5 MNm

Load case 3: torsion induced by HA and HBloading plus wind. The worst HA and HB combinedcase shown in Figure 9 is applied to the deck at theworst possible location (the span between the pier andthe first stay). In addition, wind uplift is then applied

the the underside of one half of the deck.

T = 5.03 MNm

Load case 4: lateral loading due to secondaryvehicular loads plus wind. For this load case a span of240m has been selected.

Horizontal load, H:

= Centrifugal + Skidding + Wind

= 15.1 + 344 + (2.82 x 240 x fl)

= 1,307 kN

5.5 PARAPETS

No detail for parapet detail could be found, withwhich to perform the necessary structural andserviceability checks.

5.6 TEMPERATURE EFFECTS

Overall temperature changes within the structuredue to daily and seasonal variations in temperature,cause a bridge to expand and contract. This change in

length will transfer a force and induce a moment on thepiers due to the friction of supports.

As the bridge deck is comprised of a steel deck ona steel box girder, it is classed as a group 1 deck. Forthe purpose of this calculation, I have assumed themaximum shade air temperature to be 38C (effectivetemperature = 47C), and the minimum to be 15C.This gives a maximum effective temperature differenceof 32C.

Expansion = LT

= (12 x 10-6) x 240 x 32

= 92 mm

Using basic stress and strain relationships, thestress in the deck due to temperature effects can becalculated.

Strain=Changeof Length

Length

= 127.8

Stress=E x Strain

= 26.8 N/mm2

Figure 12: Deck - load case 1.


8/10

6 CONSTRUCTION

The Juscelino Kubitschek bridge was inauguratedin December 2002, after a two year construction

period, at a total cost of R $160,000,000 [4] (about60m). The construction process is reviewed in thefollowing paragraphs.

Foundation blocks, of dimensions 24 x 40 x 4m,

were cast 1.5m below the water surface forarchitectural effect. Steel shuttering was installed andthe water extracted before the concrete was poured inshallow layers, thus avoiding excessive thermal effectsand cracking. 1.2m diameter piles were driven todepths in excess of 50m. Looking back to Figure 7, youwill notice that the foundations are much deeper on theright hand side than on the left. The largely poor andextremely variable ground conditions meant that pileswere driven until the desired capacity was reached,often exceeding the expected depths. Horizontal thrustsare transmitted into the foundations due to the rotationof the arches out of their normal plane. To

accommodate these residual forces, the pileconfiguration has both vertical and inclined piles.

The inclined piers and arch starters were thenconstructed on the completed foundation blocks readyto accept the deck and prefabricated arch sections. Thearch starters are comprised of a curved and taperedconcrete hollow section, as shown in Figure 13. [8]

Two types of deck construction have been usedfor the JK Bridge: the approach spans comprises of a

profiled steel under tray and concrete slab; whereasthe central 720m supported by the three arches iscomprised of a steel under tray and orthotropic plate.Temporary piers were erected to support the central

portions of the bridge whilst the deck was constructed(Figure 14).

Once the deck substructure had been completed,gigantic steel truss falsework was erected from this

platform, with the temporary piers remaining in placebelow. A total of 1,350 tons (approx. 1,225 tonnes) ofsteel was used in auxiliary structures during the bridgesconstruction. With the falsework in place, the

prefabricated steel arch sectors could lifted into placeand welded (Figure 15). The final closing weld waswelded completed over night to limit internal strainwithin the arches due to daily temperature fluctuations.

The stays are made of galvanised steel strands,protected by a coat of wax and sheaths of high-densitypolyethane (HDPE). The stay head shown Figure 16and is fixed, whilst the upper anchor point is turntableallowing for corrections to be made to the staytensioning. [1]

The inclined cable configuration has been adoptedto achieve a greater level of lateral restraint within thedeck when subject to wind and transverse vehicularloading. The stays were installed in stages (Figures 17

21) whilst the temporary supports were still in place,to avoid over stressing and damaging the arch. [8]

Figure 13: View inside the hollow arch starters.

Figure 14: Temporary piers and deck construction.

Figure 15: Falsework supporting one arch.

Figure 16: Stay head.

Figure 17: Cable installation stage A.


9/10

An array of 60 load cells and sensors wereinstalled, along with surveying targets, to monitor thestresses and deformations within the bridge structureduring its construction. Many of these devices remain

in place today, collecting data to produce a DynamicSignature which is used to evaluate bridgeperformance over its service life, and to inform themaintenance programme.

A large problem encountered during theconstruction process was the lack of local skilledlabour and knowledge of steel construction. Brazil'ssteel industry is relatively small, and the subsequentlack of use of the material has left the work forceunskilled in steel construction techniques. The nation'sdesigners also have limited knowledge and experienceof working with steel, so the structural design for thearches was outsourced to Danish consultancy COWI.

Architect Alexandre Chan hopes that this iconic bridgewill act to encourage a wider use of steel withindesigners, and ultimately stimulate the growth ofBrazil's steel industry.

7 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

The Gustav Lindenthal Medal was awarded toAlexandre Chan, architect of the JK Bridge, for the it'sgroundbreaking innovation, style and aesthetics, andharmony with the surroundings and environment thathave come to define this award.[5] However, I havenot been able to find any evidence to support the

bridges sustainable credentials and alleged harmonywith the environment.

8 REFINEMENTS AND FUTURE CHANGE

Figure 22 shows some staining which has takenplace on one of the inclined piers. This is likely to bedue to moisture ingress and water run-off carrying soiland dust particles (as the local soil is red-brown).Greater consideration should have been given to thedetailing of the deck joint and pier head in order to

prevent this from occurring, and the connectionsshould be periodically inspected, to ensure they haven't

been damaged by corrosion, or clogged with debris.

The bridge's asymmetric arch design leaves noscope for future expansion or carriageway widening, ifthe traffic volume should once again exceed theinfrastructure capacity (see Figure 23). However, theJK Bridge was not designed to simply fulfil a function.It was intended as a new symbol of the thriving capitalcity and a celebration of the vibrant community, and toachieve this, the functionality has understandably been

compromised.

Figure 18: Cable installation stage B.

Figure 21: Cable installation stage E.

Figure 19: Cable installation stage C.

Figure 20: Cable installation stage D.

Figure 22: Staining of pier due to moisture ingress.

Figure 23: JK Bridge viewed from above.


10/10

9 CONCLUSION

To conclude, the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge is aremarkable piece of design and engineering; its uniquearch configuration stepping over the deck, instils asense of joy and fun to its onlookers. The aestheticqualities of the bridge have been rewarded with twodesign awards, although the technicalities of producing

such an ambitious design have made some architecturalcompromises necessary specifically the additional

piers.The basic structural calculations in this paper

suggest that the bridge conforms to the current BritishStandards. However, with the lack of depth to theseanalyses and limited information available, thereliability of these checks is questionable for such acomplicated structure.

The construction process used a lot of temporarystructures and supports, and in this sense was ratherinefficient in the use of materials. However, theconstruction stages were very logical and

straightforward, appropriate to the workforce andtechnology available.

Overall the Juscelino Kubitschek bridge is a hugesuccess it's bold, innovative design is very much theicon for Braslia that it set out to become.

CREDITS

Owner: Governo do Distrito Federal

Client: Novacap

Architect: Alexandre Chan

Structural Engineer: Mario Vila Verde

Consultant: Beton EngenhariaCOWI Consulting Engineers

Contractor: Usiminas Mecnica (Steel)Via Dragados (Concrete)

REFERENCES

[1] Architecture Week, 2004.Bridging Braslia. URL:

http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0609/design_1-1.html

[2] Ghaly, A. M., 2007. Concrete Today: BrazilErects Cable-Stayed Bridge with Samba Dancing

Arches. URL:

http://www.concretetoday.com/pdfs/jan07/Jan07_world.pdf

[3] Brenner, B.R., 2009.Bridginess: More of the CivilEngineering Life, American Society of CivilEngineers, Virginia.

[4] Metal Construction Magazine Issue No. 60.Melhores Obras com Ao: Ponte Juscelino

Kubistchek em Braslia, DF, ABCEM. URL:

http://www.metalica.com.br/melhores-obras-em-aco-ponte-jk-em-brasilia

[5] Mapa Realizado Pelo DNPM Para o Programma

de intergrao Nacional, 1982. Braslia. Mapa

Geolgico. Folha SD.23. Volume 29. World Soil

Information Datatbase, URL:

http://library.wur.nl/isric/index2.html?

url=http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/isric/21489

[6] Bayer Material Science AG, 2003. BrazilianArchitect Receives Gustav Lindenthal Medal forMonumental President JK Bridge. URL:

http://www.newmaterials.com/Customisation/New

s/General/General/Brazilian_Architect_Receives_Gustav_Lindenthal_Medal_for_Monumental_President_JK_Bridge.asp

[7] Windfinder.Brasilia Wind Statistics. URL:

http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatistic_brasilia.htm

[8] Shedlock, K. M., 1993. Status of Seismic HazardsAssessment Around the Globe: North and South

America, U.S Geological Survey. URL:

http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/annals/article/viewFile/4258/4327

[9] Oliveira Almeida, P. A., 2006. Installating theCable Stays in the Basilia Bridge. URL:

http://www.lsetech.com.br/artigos/fib-naples-20060607-presentation.pdf

Figure 24: The JK Bridge viewed from Lago Sul.

Documents

Banthorpe Cm Juscelino Kubitschek