Cable-Stayed Bridges across the Panama Canal and the Orinoco

Karl HUMPF Reiner SAUL

Manager Bridge Dept. Consultant
Leonhardt, Andrä und Leonhardt, Andrä und
Partner GmbH Partner GmbH
Stuttgart, Germany Stuttgart, Germany
humpf@s.lap-consult.com saul@s.lap-consult.com
Karl Humpf, born 1951, received Reiner Saul, born 1938, received
her civil engineering degree his civil engineering degree from
from the University of Aachen, the University of Hannover,
Germany, in 1975. Germany, in 1963, and his Dr.-
Ing. E. h. from the University of
Braunschweig in 2003.

Summary
This paper presents two major bridges in South America which have been designed and built in
record periods in geotechnical and seismically critical areas combining effectively local workforce
and international experience.

Keywords: Design-Build, Fast-Track, cast-in-drilled-hole piles, seismic, cable-stayed, composite,

segmental launching method, free cantilevering.

1. Introduction
Important waterways as the Panama Canal and the Orinoco River allow for long distance transport
and development along those. With the growth of local communities and industry the dividing
effect of these global connections need to be alleviated by an increasing number of fixed crossings.
Therefore between 2000 and 2006 two important links were designed and built in Panama and in
Venezuela.
The Panama Canal [1] had from the beginning only two narrow roadway crossings using the lock
gates. Later in the 60ies the so-called “Puente de las Americas” was built as a four-lane tied arch at
the south entrance to the canal. Increasing traffic and safety issues on the narrow bridge led to the
planning of a second fixed highway link. The new crossing is located 15 kilometres north of the
Pacific coastline close to Panama City, Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Map Panama Fig. 2 Map Venezuela

The Orinoco River in the southern part of Venezuela dominates the flat land. Without forming a
valley the river meanders from west to east, ending with a huge delta in the Atlantic Ocean.
Between rain season and dry season the discharge varies between 65000 m³/s and 11000 m³/s. In
Ciudad Guayana, located between Ciudad Bolivar and the river delta, Venezuela built up a region of
heavy industry. In order to provide a rail and road connection to the north a new crossing was
planned and built between 2001 and 2006 which is only the second fixed crossing of this 2140 km
long river [2], Fig. 2.

2. Centennial Bridge in Panama

2.1 Description
The concrete cable-stayed structure and adjacent approach structures extend an overall length of
1052 m from abutment to abutment. The main bridge layout is 200 m – 420 m – 200 m. The
integrated approach structure on the west side of the Canal consists of three spans of 60 m + 60 m +
66 m, the east of one 46 m span. In elevation, the alignment is defined by a vertical curve of 1000 m
radius and a gradient of 3 % on either side of the bridge midspan, Fig. 3 [3].
The bridge deck is 34.10 m wide and carries 3 lanes in each direction, Fig. 4. The pylon height
above the deck is 94 m; with the fan-shaped single plane stay arrangement a constant anchorage
spacing of 6 m at the deck and 1.5 m vertical spacing at the towerhead is preserved.

Fig. 3 Layout
Fig. 4 Superstructure: a) Cross-Section,
b) Anchorage at stay cables

2.2 Design Parameters

A traditional US design and tendering process was chosen where as the consultant, hired by the
DOT, brings the design to a detailing level ready for construction. In this case a modified process,
the so-called ‘Fast Track Method’ was adopted requesting a design in stages to allow for early
tendering and start of construction in parallel to the finalisation of the design. Later, during
construction, a true design-build configuration replaced the ‘Fast Track Method’.
The basic parameters were:
- 420 m minimum clear mainspan based on the future widened canal width of 275 m.
- A navigational envelope of 80 m vertical clearance and 110 m horizontal clearance in order to
accommodate safe passage of the vintage WWII floating crane ‘Titan’
- 6 lanes of traffic: three in each direction
- 100 year service life and HS-25 truck loading permit vehicle loads (P13)
- No interuption, or water crossing of canal permitted during construction
- The bridge shall be designed to carry two future 0.60 m diameter water lines.
The design team identified which portions of the standard bridge specifications were applicable and
included additional design provisions from pertinent codes:
1. AASHTO “Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges” 16th Edition, 1996 and Interim
Specifications 1997, 1998 and 1999, AASHTO, Washington, DC.
2. “Improved Seismic Design Criteria for California Bridges”, Provisional Recommendations:
ATC32 1996 and CALTRANS Bridge Design Specifications (BDS)
3. AASHTO “Guide Specifications for Design and Construction of Segmental Concrete Bridges”,
2nd Edition
4. PTI Guide Specifications, “Recommendation for Stay Cable Design, Testing & Installation”, 4th
Edition.

2.3 Site Geology and Foundation

The geology at the bridge site is complex and highly variable between the two sides of the canal.
The geologic formations are from late, middle and early Miocene, the oldest being the Culebra,
Pedro Miguel and Cucaracha formations. Relative movements between the continents of South and
North America caused the formation of the isthmus, and the rising and sinking of the land masses
quite often oriented the strata vertically. During the late Miocene, volcanic activity produced lava
flows giving origin to isolated basalt formations.
The presence of competent basalt on the east side allowed for raft foundations. The west side of the
canal presented a much more complex and generally more difficult situation than the east, as
Culebra, Pedro Miguel and Cucaracha Formations were present in highly variable strata. The
Culebra and Pedro Miguel formations are soft to medium hard sandstones. The Cucaracha
formation is a heterogeneous conglomerate of clay shale with inclusions of sandstone, basalt and
ash that is highly variable and is prone to landslides.
On the east side, the foundations for T2, P4 and the Abutment were placed on sound basalt whose
top surface was inclined. The foundation for P2, P3 and T1 are located on Culebra Formation soils,
and required pile foundations. Raft foundations were chosen for the west abutment and pier P1,
which are supported directly on Pedro Miguel Formation soils.
2.4 Seismic Hazard and Analysis
The design seismic loading for the project was developed based on a site-specific Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA), which established the return period and the corresponding
intensity of ground shaking in the horizontal direction, in terms of response spectra. The PSHA has
identified two dominant seismic source regions that characterize the postulated ground motion
intensity at the site: (1) a Mw7.7 subduction source zone associated with the North Panama
Deformed Belt (NPDB); and (2) a Mw6.5 Rio Gatun Fault event.
In the frame of the final design, the earthquake action has been followed up in the time domain, via
a linear-elastic time history analysis. Two main earthquake propagations in longitudinal and
transverse direction have been considered. The investigations have been carried out under
application of the space-frame time-history software of SOFISTIK in combination with a
complementary software for generating excitation processes and for static analysis. The structure
has been considered to be fully-elastic, including two possible assumptions for the stiffness
configuration. The response histories have been calculated under consideration of 2nd order effects.

2.5 Construction
The bridge was delivered the 15th of August 2004 to the client within an astonishing 22 months after
the commencement of foundation works. The development of effective operating sequences, the
investment of suitable equipment, the use of innovative techniques and exceptional efforts of all
parties were the key factors to complete the project successfully.
Piles: Since no experience relating to pile capacity in the Cucaracha formation was available, at
each of the three foundations a test pile was implemented, whose load carrying capacity was
examined with multi-level Osterberg tests. At P2 and P3, the test piles were integrated into the final
foundation. The results of the load-carrying capacity confirmed the theoretically determined
parameters.
Foundations: Both the pile caps and the raft foundations were cast in one pour for time reasons and
to avoid additional construction joints in the highly reinforced elements. The largest foundation (T1)
with a concrete volume of 4500 m³ was cast in 40 hours. An active cooling system was
implemented to control excessive temperatures.
Towers: Casting heights of 4.1 m were achieved with self-climbing jump forms. The 4 levels of
working platforms on the jump form enabled several work activities, and reduced cycle times of 4
to 6 days.
Bridge Deck: The superstructure was built concurrently from both sides of the canal using the CIP
balanced cantilever method. Due to the tight schedule, all operational sequences had to be
optimised as much as possible. The form travelers were designed in such a way that they could be
used first as an integral part of the pier table falsework which was separated later in two
independent form travelers. Early post-tensioning and cable stressing was achieved by usage of
precast elements in the anchorage areas of tendons and steel delta frames. Easy lowering of the
external formwork equipped with a simple launching mechanism permitted to move the traveler
within hours. After the initial learning curve, a constant 4-day cycle for segment production was
achieved. The initially planned concrete overlay of 4 cm was replaced by an integrated concrete
overlay cast with the segment pour and grinded to the final smooth surface at the end of
construction.

2.6 Conclusion
The project’s ambitious schedule required the close coordination of the designer and the contractor
early in the design phase. The true advantages of design / build configurations could be seen during
the last phase of construction. The close interaction between the site and the designer allowed for
both design and construction optimisation. An architecturally and structurally perfect solution could
be realised in time and in spite of basic changes within the process.
3. Second Bridge over the Orinoco
3.1 Description [4]
The length of this bridge, carrying a 4 lane highway and a single track centric railway, is divided
into
- the south approach with 2 x 2 sections of 300 and 360 m, a total of 1320 m
- the main bridge, a back to back cable-stayed bridge with 1200 m and
- the north approach composed of 2 sections of 300 m, Fig. 5.
The approaches as well as the main bridge have similar cross-sections, composed of single cell steel
box under the railway line with cantilevering cross girders supported by diagonals at 3 m distance
and an edge girder to support the roadway. The deck consists of a concrete slab in full composite
action with the steel box and steel grid of cross girders and the edge girders. For the suspended deck
the edge girders are strengthened to carry the cable forces and distribute the vertical component to
2 cross girders, Fig. 6.

Fig. 5 Layout

The main bridge consists of 2 cable-stayed

bridges with spans of 3 x 60 – 300 – 4 x 60 –
300 – 3 x 60 m. Except for both end spans a
length of 1080 m is suspended by cables at 12 m
intervals. The 2 x 8 x 11 = 176 cables are
arranged in a semi-fan shape. Braking and
earthquake loads are directed to a delta shaped
pier in the center where both cable-stayed
bridges are touching each other. Fig. 6 Cross-section
The transfer of forces at this fixed point takes advantage of the highest rock elevation at the island
and the possibility to transfer as well the uplift forces from the main spans via a monolithical
connection between super and substructure.
For the approach structures a different concept was chosen to deal with seismic and braking loads.
All bearings are elastomeric bearings with guiding elements for service conditions. Between
approach sections lock-up devices are installed to distribute longitudinal loads over many piers.
Under seismic loadings the guiding structures will break and allow the superstructure to move
partially isolated with a long period, thus reducing high seismic loadings. The joints between main
bridge and approaches and at the abutments allow for the movements of the 3 independent sections
of the bridge.
Except for the south side with raft foundations most piers are founded on piles with pile caps. The
piles have typically a diameter of 2 m and lengths between 13 and 60 m. The bearing capacity is
developed in rock by tip loading. At the north side where scour and a deep sand layers require a
different pile concept based on skin friction the diameter had been increased to 2.5 m for piles up to
83 m length. At high water level the pile caps of the towers are visible, all other pile caps remain
submerged. At low water levels the pile caps and up to 7.5 m free pile length can be seen.
The towers have the typical H-shape with slightly inclined legs and 2 cross-girders. With a total
height of 120 m the legs are variable in one direction between 4 and 7.5 m and constant in the other
direction. Cross beams are of hollow section and with post tensioning in the webs. The top of the
towers with the cable anchorage zone was designed as a composite section with a steel case at the
inside of the concrete box. This steel section carries all the bearing structures for the cable
anchorages.
Generally weathering steel is used to avoid any additional corrosion protection. The concrete deck
is supplied with 4 cm of asphalt without any sealing between concrete and asphalt.

3.2 Design Parameters

First feasibility studies date back to 1966 and through a process of pre-qualification and tendering
Constructora Odebrecht, Brazil, qualified for signing a contract in the year 2000 with the local
development organisation (CVG) for the design and construction of this bridge combined with an
export credit from the Brazilian export bank.
The basic design parameters were:
- Minimum horizontal / vertical clearance of 250 / 41 m in two navigational channels
- The structure is designed disregarding ship impact. A separate, later built, protection system
shall be implemented
- Varying water levels between 0 and +12.5 m
- Maximum slope for rail traffic 1 %
- 4 lanes for roadway and 1 railway line
- Steel in weathering steel A-588 without coating.
The basic codes applied are:
1. AREMA (2002), Manual for Railway Engineers. American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association.
2. AASHTO (LRFD) Bridge Specifications (SI UNITS 1998). American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials.
3. PTI Guide Specifications ‘Recommendation for Stay Cable Design, Testing & Installation’, 4th
Ed.
4. COVENIN 2003-89 – Normas Venezolanas Acciones del Viento sobre las Construcciones.
Fondonorma, Caracas, Venezuela for the local wind loads
5. and a local code for seismic actions which is structured similar to AASHTO
Train loads were given as TREN COOPER E72 and the truck as HS20-44. Less than 10 trains will
pass the bridge per day, however these are except for the unloaded ones equal to the design load
intensity. Exceptional load cases are 1 severed cable under full service loading and seismic
acceleration up to 0,19 g.
All sections were sized according to allowable stresses and for the stability checks of the plates of
the box section verifications according to German codes as DIN 4114 / DastRi012 and DIN 18800
were provided.
In the fatigue analysis a service life of 80 years is considered. The combination of rail and roadway
traffic on one structure is not unusual in South America, however, the US codes AREMA and
AASHTO do not reflect such a combination.

3.3 Construction
Almost 6 of 12 months of a year, piling and pile cap construction had to be interrupted due to high
water levels in the river. The mobilization of huge pontoons, which are generally used in coastal
areas, characterized this site. The execution of 370 piles with a total length of 13.100 m took 1 ½
years. By the help of GPS systems the piles could be placed with tolerances in the range of
centimeters.
The bottom scaffolding of the pile caps consisted of lost precast panels and the pour of the cap was
done in two or three stages. Temperature management was important due to generally high outside
temperatures and the mass of concrete.
All piers and towers were built with sliding formwork. For the piers with constant section and
without special embedded elements or connections this approach was very efficient. For the tower
construction the sliding had to be interrupted two times to place the cross girders.
All steel was imported from Brazil. Preassembled portions of the segments were shipped from Belo
Horizonte to Ciudad Guayana. In several shops in Ciudad Guayana the 12 m long segments were
assembled and transported to the site at 16 km distance.
Behind both abutments an assembling yard was prepared
to assemble in 3 lines approach sections of 300 and 360 m
length, as well as a portion of 210 m for the main bridge.
Each bridge section was provided with steel noses at the
front and at the end and was slid by means of teflon plates
into its final position.
The centre of the main bridge (120 m to both sides at the
delta pier) was erected by the help of auxiliary trusses and
partially by sliding to its final position. Both main spans
were erected by the free cantilevering method with 4
derricks in use, Fig. 8. Fig. 8 Free cantilevering erection
Construction terminated in August 2006, and in November Hugo Chaves Frías and Luis Lula da
Silva inaugurated the structure with the official name “Puente Orinoquía”.

3.4 Conclusion
An important second link has been built over the Orinoco, which will improve the possibilities for
development of the whole region. With the official start in 2001 only a 5 year period was needed to
design and build this link, for a bridge crossing such a big and difficult river an extremely good
performance.

4. Acknowledgements
A great deal of international cooperation was the basis for the successful completion of both
structures.
Bridge over Panama Canal Orinoco River
Client Ministerio de Obras Públicas Corporación Venezolana de
(MOP) Guayana (CVG)
Contractor Bilfinger Berger Constructora Norberto Odebrecht
Preliminary Design TY Lin, San Francisco Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner,
Stuttgart, Germany / BRAVE
Caracas / Sao Paulo
Detailed Design Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner, BRAVE Caracas / Sao Paulo
Stuttgart, Germany
Construction Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner, Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner,
Engineering Stuttgart, Germany Stuttgart, Germany
Checking COWI, Copenhagen, Denmark Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner,
Stuttgart, Germany
Cables Freyssinet, Spain Freyssinet, Spain
Joints Maurer, Munich, Germany ---
Bearings Schreiber Metallbau Mainhardt Freysinnet, Spain
Traveler URSSA, Victoria, Spain Usiminas Mecánicas, Belo
Horizonte, Brazil
Heavy Lifts Freyssinet, Spain Dorman Long, UK

We thank all people who have been involved and appreciate that even in difficult situations the
cooperation was always good and governed by the common goal.
5. References
[1] McCullough, D.: The Path between the seas. The Creation of the Panama Canal 1870 – 1914.
Simon & Schuster (2005), ISBN 978-0743262132.
[2] Lustgarten, P.: Puente sobre el Orinoco – Proyecto de la Superestructura Colgante. Boletin N°
11, Asociación Venezolana de Ingeniería Estructural.
[3] Saul, R., Humpf, K., Hopf, S. and Patsch, A.: Die zweite Brücke über den Panamakanal –
eine Schrägkabelbrücke mit 420 m Mittelöffnung und Rekordbauzeit (The second Bridge
across the Panama Canal – a cable-stayed bridge with 420 m main span and a record braking
construction time). Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 100 (2005), pp. 225 – 235.
[4] Humpf, K. Second Bridge over the Orinoco – Design, Construction and Operation.
Proceedings of the 5th International Cable-Supported Bridge Operators’ Conference
(ICSBOC), New York 2006.