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

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JUSCELINO 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 bridge aesthetics, 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 Arch Bridge, Iconic Structure.

1 INTRODUCTION The Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge, also known as the President JK Memorial Bridge or simply the JK Bridge, is a motorway bridge spanning 1,200m across Lake Parano - a man-made lake which stretches around the eastern edge of Braslia, the capital of Brazil (Figure 1). The JK Bridge is the third crossing of Lake Parano, and was built to accommodate the increase in traffic flow into Braslia from the stylish Lago Sul housing sector. Since its completion in December 2002, the Juscelino Kubitschek bridge has afforded its designers the Gustav Lindenthal Medal for design and the ABCEM Steel Structure of the Year Award 2003. This award winning structure has established itself as a visual 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 engineer Mario Vila Verde produced the winning concept for the bridge in response to a design competition in 1998. Chan envisaged creating a landmark for the enjoyment of 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 emptiness of the crossing and add an intuitive, humorous and interesting aspect: reminiscent of a repeated jump over the rocks of a stream or the movement of a thrown flat stone on a quiet surface.[2] In terms of aesthetics, many regard the JK bridge to be as much a sculpture as a structure, and there can be no doubt that the asymmetric arches give the bridge a magnificent visual fluidity. The following section looks deeper into the aesthetics of the JK Bridge.

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

Mr C M Banthorpe, cmb27@bath.ac.uk

Fritz Leonherdt's first rule of bridge aesthetics says that a bridge should reveal its structure in a pure, clear form and impart a feeling of stability. The JK Bridge has clarity in its structural function the group of three arches provide support for the central span via steel cable stays, and their asymmetric configuration encompasses the roadway, giving the necessary sense of security to those travelling across the bridge. However, on closer inspection you will notice the presence of additional supporting piers at the base of each arch (Figure 2). These are a structural necessity, and accommodate the eccentricity of the deck in relation to the arches. According to an interview with Chan in Architecture Week [1], the initial concept was to have two pylons per arch, not four. So that each arch would cross the road in diagonal jumps, adding further emotion and tension to the structure-sculpture. The piers are clearly a late addition to the scheme, and an architectural compromise, confusing the structural function and causing the interaction between the waterline and the structure to look clumsy and unorthodox.[3]

Order is achieved within the structure through repetition of the arch form. However, their positioning out of the plane of the bridge deck gives a variance and a level of complexity which makes for an intriguing and unique design. The arrangement of cable stays looks very neat when viewed from the side. Their varying inclination, due to the skew of the arches, offers an interesting visual effect when travelling over the bridge. Refinements have been made to the shape of the arches the top face tapers towards the base of the arches (Figure 3). The illumination and shading on the tapered faces eases the appearance of these substantial elements. The supporting piers at the base of each of the arches are inclined and curved to the same degree as the arches themselves. This has been implemented in order to reduce the impedance of the piers on the overall appearance of the bridge when viewed from the side (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Refinement of pier geometry. Braslia established itself as the new capital city of Brazil in the 1950's, where the soaring, curved concrete structures of architect Oscar Niemeyer prevailed. The sweeping, sculptural form of the JK Bridge feels at home next to this modernist urban environment. Further integration has been achieved by introducing a slight curvature to the roadway, providing views across the lake and connecting the bridge to its surroundings. Although not immediately obvious, the first 18m of each arch is constructed from reinforced concrete, with prefabricated steel sections fixed to these starters. The fair-faced finish and smooth texture achieved on these concrete starters has given the arch elements an apparent continuity, integral to the overall image of the bridge. The polished steel sections of the asymmetric arches glint in the Brazilian sunshine, and when illuminated at night (Figure 5), accentuating its sculptural form and iconic status.

Figure 2: Additional piers supporting the bridge deck. The aesthetic success of a bridge is also heavily dependant upon its proportions. The approach spans of the JK Bridge are in good proportion, with leaf walls spaced at regular increments. The slender profile of the leaf 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 primary structure and feature. The tapered profile of the bridge deck, along with the open parapet design, keeps the deck looking light in comparison to the bridge superstructure.

Figure 3: Refinement of arch geometry.

Figure 5: The JK Bridge illuminated at night.

There can be no doubt that the JK Bridge has heaps of character. It's unconventional asymmetric arch configuration has been said to resemble a dancing child hopping across a stream, or a flat stone skimming across the water's surface. 3 GEOLOGY The JK Bridge is located on a geological fault line (Figure 6), where the river that today forms Lake Parano once ran. [4] The ground conditions are predominantly poor quality sedimentary deposits, with sparse bands of quartzite. As the area beneath the lake was previously a river basin, the soil conditions are extremely variable, with pockets of silt and alluvium in unknown locations.

intensive site investigations, carried out at the specific locations of each pier and foundation block. Arch structures are very sensitive to settlement, so given the variable geological conditions and the location of the bridge on a fault line, it was of utmost importance to gain a detailed understanding of how the structure would interact with the ground, in order to design the appropriate foundation scheme. 4 GEOMETRY Figures 7 and 8 show the geometry of the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge. The three arches are parabolic in shape with a peak height of 62m, each arch supports a 240m span. The clearance to the underside of the deck is 18m, allow small vessels to pass under the three main spans. Leaf walls support 5 spans of 48m, forming the approach spans. The cables are arranged such that there are 8 stays on either side of the deck per arch. The inclination of the stays gives a 4.6m clearance to the carriageway [2]. The roadway itself 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 give the impression that the structure rises out from the water. Note the difference in pile configuration from east to west, shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 shows the bridge deck section at a hanger anchorage point. The roadway and pedestrian/cycle paths have a total width of 24m. This consists of six 3.5m traffic lance (three in each direction) and two 1.5m side walks. The central depth of the deck is 3020mm, tapering to an edge thickness of 1500mm. 5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Figure 6: Geological map, Braslia [5]. These varying ground conditions meant that the foundation scheme could not be finalised until specific information and data had been obtained from more

The following sections outline a number of structural analyses which have been carried out according to BS5400 in order to check the structural integrity of the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge against current British Standards.

Figure 7: Geometry - Elevation/Long-section.

Figure 8: Geometry - Section through bridge deck.

5.1 LOADING Loads to be considered: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Dead. Superimposed dead. Live traffic: primary and secondary. Wind. Temperature. Erection: temporary loads. Earthquake.

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 been used as the basis for determining the dead load. Dead weight of steel 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 lightweight polyurethane surfacing. Polyurethane surfacing: = 0.0134 kN/m2 = 0.321 kN/m Finishes, lighting & bridge furniture: fl
1.05 1.00 1.75 1.20 1.00 1.50 1.20 1.30 1.10 1.50 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.30 1.00 1.15 N/A

[4]

Load combinations: 1. 2. 3. 4. All permanent loads + primary live loads. Combination 1 + wind + temporary loads. Combination 1 + temperature + temporary. All permanent loads + secondary live loads (skidding, centrifugal, longitudinal and collision loads) and associated primary live loads. All permanent loads + loads due to friction at supports.

5.

The appropriate partial load factors, fl and f3, have been obtained from BS5400 and are displayed in Tables 1 and 2 below: Table 1: Partial load factors fl. Load Dead Superimposed dead Reduced load factor HA alone HA with HB or HB alone Centrifugal load & associated primary live load Accidental skidding load & associated primary live load Vehicle collision with parapet & associated primary Wind Temperature Erection: temporary loads Earthquake Limit State
ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS ULS

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 has 6 notional lanes of 3.5m each. Over a loaded length of 240m, this corresponds to a nominal UDL of 11.2kN/m per notional lane. The knife edge load (KEL) per notional lane is taken as 120kN, also applied to give the most severe effect. HB loading due to an exceptionally heavy vehicle = 45 units of HB loading (1 unit = 10kN) over 4 axles of variable dimensions, to give the most severe effect on the member under consideration. The worst case is shown below in figure 9. The highest load concentrations are located on the outside edge of the deck, giving the worst case in torsion. Also, an axle length of 16m has been selected for the HB vehicle (total length = 19.6m), so that the axles are positioned at the midpoint between the stays. Horizontal centrifugal loading, Fc, is given by equation (1) below. An associated vertical loading of 300kN is also applied.
F c= 30,000 r 150

Table 2: Partial load factors f3. Bridge type Steel bridge Limit State
SLS ULS

f3
1.00 1.10

(1)

= 30,000/(3,150 + 150) = 9.10 kN

Figure 9: Worst case HA and HB combined traffic loading. Longitudinal loading from the mechanical braking of vehicles is taken as 8kN/m along a single notional lane, plus an additional single 200kN force. = (240m x 8kN/m) + 200kN = 2,120 kN Accidental skidding is modelled as a single point load of 250kN acting horizontally in any direction within one notional lane only. Vehicular collisions with the parapets are based on 25 units of HB loading colliding with the parapet. This corresponds to: = 25 x 10kN = 250 kN Table 3: Load summary table. Load Dead Superimposed dead HA alone Limit State
ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS

the prevailing north-easterlies remaining at an average of 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 shall multiply the average daily wind speed by a factor of 5, to give a conservative estimate to a 1:120 year return event. 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 using equation (2) below, where K1, S1 and S2 are the wind coefficient, funnel factor and gust factor correspondingly. For the purpose of this approximation, I have assumed the height above ground to be 30m (half the total height) of the structure. vc = v.K1.S1.S2 = 20.6 x 1.40 x 1.00 x 1.21 = 34.9 m/s The horizontal wind load, Pt, can then be calculated using equations (3) and (4); where A1 is the horizontal projected area; and CD is the drag coefficient. Pt acts at the centroid of the section in question. Pt = q.A1.CD q = 0.613.vc2 = 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, wind uplift should also be considered. The vertical wind action is calculated using equation (5); where A3 is the plan area; and CL is the lift coefficient. (3) (4) (2)

Factored Load
110 kN/m 95.1 kN/m 23.7 kN/m 14.8 kN/m 18.5 kN/m (KEL = 198 kN) 13.4 kN/m (KEL = 144 kN) See section 5.1.3 15.1 kN (H) 495 kN (V) 9.10 kN (H) 300 kN (V) 344 kN 250 kN 344 kN 250 kN

HA with HB Centrifugal load & associated primary live load Accidental skidding load & associated primary live load Vehicle collision with parapet & associated primary 5.1.4 WIND LOADING

ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS ULS SLS

Local wind data has been obtained from an online resource [7] where statistics have been collected over the past 5 years. The data shows an extremely flat wind speed distribution for Braslia month-on-month, with

Pv = q.A3.CL = 746.6 x 24 m2/m x 0.4 = 7,167 N/m = 7.17 kN/m

(4)

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)

5.1.5 CONSTRUCTION/TEMPORARY LOADING During the construction of the JK Bridge, the steel arches were supported on truss form work which was itself 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 temporary structures. This figure has been used to estimate the temporary loads which the structure would have been subjected to during its construction. Weight of steel in temporary structures 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 earthquake occurring in this region [8]. Therefore this paper does not further investigate the effects of seismic loading. 5.2 ARCH For the purpose of these simple calculations, it has been assumed that the arch is loaded along its central axis, thus ignoring any torsional effects which may be imposed upon the arch. I have considered two load cases for the arch: full loading over the length of the arch (Figure 10); and an asymmetric loading case (Figure 11). The arch is modelled as a 3-pinned arch, with fixed supports. [4]

Vertical Reaction:
RV = wl 2

(5)

RV = (196 x 240) / 2 RV = 23.5 MN Horizontal Thrust:

wl = hR H 8
2

(6)

RH = 7200w / 60 RH = 23.5 MN Compression in Arch: C= wl 2 cos45 (7)

C = (196 x 240) / (2 x cos45) C = 33.3 MN Equation (8) is now used to determine the Euler load, and thus check the arch for buckling resistance. P E =
2

EI l2 buckling OK

(8)

PE = 43.4 MN

Figure 11: Load case 2 - Asymmetric loading. 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 Figure 10: Load case 1 - Full UDL. UDL 2, w2 = 123.5 kN/m (ULS) (ULS)

Maximum bending moment: The maximum bending moment occurs at distance along the arch, and is calculated by taking a free body at this point. MMAX = 69.1 MNm 5.3 CABLE STAYS The cable stays support the deck at 18m increments, and are inclined at approximately 35. As the cables may be repaired or adjusted in-situ, I shall assume the worst load case to be under normal loading conditions, 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

Maximum hogging moment, MMAX_HOG = 40.5 MNm Load case 3: torsion induced by HA and HB loading plus wind. The worst HA and HB combined case shown in Figure 9 is applied to the deck at the worst possible location (the span between the pier and the 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 secondary vehicular loads plus wind. For this load case a span of 240m has been selected. Horizontal load, H: = Centrifugal + Skidding + Wind = 15.1 + 344 + (2.82 x 240 x fl) = 1,307 kN 5.5 PARAPETS

Given the tensile strength of steel to be 460 MPA, the minimum cross sectional area required is 7,688mm2, or a stay diameter of 99 mm. 5.4 DECK Four load cases have been considered for the deck, as follows: worst case sagging construction loading over 3 temporary supports; worst case hogging construction loading over 3 temporary supports; HB with HA traffic loading plus wind uplift to give the worst case for torsion; and a lateral load case with secondary vehicular loads plus wind.

No detail for parapet detail could be found, with which to perform the necessary structural and serviceability checks. 5.6 TEMPERATURE EFFECTS Overall temperature changes within the structure due 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 the piers due to the friction of supports. As the bridge deck is comprised of a steel deck on a steel box girder, it is classed as a group 1 deck. For the purpose of this calculation, I have assumed the maximum shade air temperature to be 38C (effective temperature = 47C), and the minimum to be 15C. This gives a maximum effective temperature difference of 32C. Expansion = LT

Figure 12: Deck - load case 1. Load case 1: construction loading, worst case sagging. In this case, load combination 2 (see section 5.1) acts on alternate spans, and the unfactored dead load acts on the remaining spans, to give the worst case sagging 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 case hogging. Case 2 is as case 1, however the two central spans are subjected to load combination 2, and the two end spans are subjected to the unfactored dead load only.

= (12 x 10-6) x 240 x 32 = 92 mm Using basic stress and strain relationships, the stress in the deck due to temperature effects can be calculated.
Strain = Change of Length Length

= 127.8 Stress = E x Strain = 26.8 N/mm2

6 CONSTRUCTION The Juscelino Kubitschek bridge was inaugurated in December 2002, after a two year construction period, at a total cost of R $160,000,000 [4] (about 60m). The construction process is reviewed in the following paragraphs. Foundation blocks, of dimensions 24 x 40 x 4m, were cast 1.5m below the water surface for architectural effect. Steel shuttering was installed and the water extracted before the concrete was poured in shallow layers, thus avoiding excessive thermal effects and cracking. 1.2m diameter piles were driven to depths in excess of 50m. Looking back to Figure 7, you will notice that the foundations are much deeper on the right hand side than on the left. The largely poor and extremely variable ground conditions meant that piles were driven until the desired capacity was reached, often exceeding the expected depths. Horizontal thrusts are transmitted into the foundations due to the rotation of the arches out of their normal plane. To accommodate these residual forces, the pile configuration has both vertical and inclined piles. The inclined piers and arch starters were then constructed on the completed foundation blocks ready to accept the deck and prefabricated arch sections. The arch starters are comprised of a curved and tapered concrete hollow section, as shown in Figure 13. [8]

Once the deck substructure had been completed, gigantic steel truss falsework was erected from this platform, with the temporary piers remaining in place below. A total of 1,350 tons (approx. 1,225 tonnes) of steel was used in auxiliary structures during the bridges construction. With the falsework in place, the prefabricated steel arch sectors could lifted into place and welded (Figure 15). The final closing weld was welded completed over night to limit internal strain within the arches due to daily temperature fluctuations.

Figure 15: Falsework supporting one arch. The stays are made of galvanised steel strands, protected by a coat of wax and sheaths of high-density polyethane (HDPE). The stay head shown Figure 16 and is fixed, whilst the upper anchor point is turntable allowing for corrections to be made to the stay tensioning. [1]

Figure 13: View inside the hollow arch starters. Two types of deck construction have been used for the JK Bridge: the approach spans comprises of a profiled steel under tray and concrete slab; whereas the central 720m supported by the three arches is comprised 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). Figure 16: Stay head. The inclined cable configuration has been adopted to achieve a greater level of lateral restraint within the deck when subject to wind and transverse vehicular loading. 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 14: Temporary piers and deck construction.

Figure 17: Cable installation stage A.

7 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY The Gustav Lindenthal Medal was awarded to Alexandre Chan, architect of the JK Bridge, for the it's groundbreaking innovation, style and aesthetics, and harmony with the surroundings and environment that have come to define this award.[5] However, I have not been able to find any evidence to support the bridges sustainable credentials and alleged harmony with the environment. 8 REFINEMENTS AND FUTURE CHANGE Figure 22 shows some staining which has taken place on one of the inclined piers. This is likely to be due to moisture ingress and water run-off carrying soil and dust particles (as the local soil is red-brown). Greater consideration should have been given to the detailing of the deck joint and pier head in order to prevent this from occurring, and the connections should be periodically inspected, to ensure they haven't been damaged by corrosion, or clogged with debris.

Figure 18: Cable installation stage B.

Figure 19: Cable installation stage C.

Figure 20: Cable installation stage D.

Figure 22: Staining of pier due to moisture ingress. The bridge's asymmetric arch design leaves no scope for future expansion or carriageway widening, if the traffic volume should once again exceed the infrastructure capacity (see Figure 23). However, the JK Bridge was not designed to simply fulfil a function. It was intended as a new symbol of the thriving capital city and a celebration of the vibrant community, and to achieve this, the functionality has understandably been compromised.

Figure 21: Cable installation stage E. An array of 60 load cells and sensors were installed, along with surveying targets, to monitor the stresses and deformations within the bridge structure during its construction. Many of these devices remain in place today, collecting data to produce a Dynamic Signature which is used to evaluate bridge performance over its service life, and to inform the maintenance programme. A large problem encountered during the construction process was the lack of local skilled labour and knowledge of steel construction. Brazil's steel industry is relatively small, and the subsequent lack of use of the material has left the work force unskilled in steel construction techniques. The nation's designers also have limited knowledge and experience of working with steel, so the structural design for the arches was outsourced to Danish consultancy COWI. Architect Alexandre Chan hopes that this iconic bridge will act to encourage a wider use of steel within designers, and ultimately stimulate the growth of Brazil's steel industry.

Figure 23: JK Bridge viewed from above.

9 CONCLUSION To conclude, the Juscelino Kubitschek Bridge is a remarkable piece of design and engineering; its unique arch configuration stepping over the deck, instils a sense of joy and fun to its onlookers. The aesthetic qualities of the bridge have been rewarded with two design awards, although the technicalities of producing such an ambitious design have made some architectural compromises necessary specifically the additional piers. The basic structural calculations in this paper suggest that the bridge conforms to the current British Standards. However, with the lack of depth to these analyses and limited information available, the reliability of these checks is questionable for such a complicated structure. The construction process used a lot of temporary structures and supports, and in this sense was rather inefficient in the use of materials. However, the construction stages were very logical and straightforward, appropriate to the workforce and technology available. Overall the Juscelino Kubitschek bridge is a huge success it's bold, innovative design is very much the icon for Braslia that it set out to become.

CREDITS Owner: Client: Architect: Structural Engineer: Consultant: Contractor: REFERENCES [1] Architecture Week, 2004. Bridging Braslia. URL: http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0609/desi gn_1-1.html [2] Ghaly, A. M., 2007. Concrete Today: Brazil Erects 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 Civil Engineering Life, American Society of Civil Engineers, 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-emaco-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. Brazilian Architect Receives Gustav Lindenthal Medal for Monumental President JK Bridge. URL: http://www.newmaterials.com/Customisation/New s/General/General/Brazilian_Architect_Receives_ Gustav_Lindenthal_Medal_for_Monumental_Presi dent_JK_Bridge.asp [7] Windfinder. Brasilia Wind Statistics. URL: http://www.windfinder.com/windstats/windstatisti c_brasilia.htm [8] Shedlock, K. M., 1993. Status of Seismic Hazards Assessment Around the Globe: North and South America, U.S Geological Survey. URL: http://www.annalsofgeophysics.eu/index.php/anna ls/article/viewFile/4258/4327 [9] Oliveira Almeida, P. A., 2006. Installating the Cable Stays in the Basilia Bridge. URL: http://www.lsetech.com.br/artigos/fib-naples20060607-presentation.pdf Governo do Distrito Federal Novacap Alexandre Chan Mario Vila Verde Beton Engenharia COWI Consulting Engineers Usiminas Mecnica (Steel) Via Dragados (Concrete)

Figure 24: The JK Bridge viewed from Lago Sul.