PCI Construction Feature

CONSTRUCTION OF
RIO COLORADO
BRIDGE
T. Y. Lin*
Professor of Civil Engineering
University of California
Berkeley, California

Felix Kulka
President
T. Y. Lin International
Consulting Engineers
San Francisco, California

Describes the construction of a 480-ft long precast,

post-tensioned concrete, inverted suspension bridge
which was recently constructed near San Jose,
Costa Rica.
This functional and economically built bridge shows
how, with some ingenuity, the principles of
suspension, arch, and cantilever theory can be applied
with relatively simple construction techniques to
span a deeply inclined canyon in remote and very
rugged terrain.
Initially, the piers of the bridge were built vertically.
They were then rotated 30 deg so that they could
provide beneficial arch and cantilever action and
also to insure a safe foundation.
Precast concrete segments form the soffit along the
suspended cables. In turn, the soffit was used as a
working platform on which precast bents and roadway
beams were erected.
This article describes the construction sequence of
the bridge erection with the aid of diagrams and
photographs.
*Also, Board Chairman, T. Y. Lin International,
Consulting Engineers, San Francisco, California.

92
 Fig. 1. Rio Colorado Bridge nearing completion.
A precast, post-tensioned concrete sus-
pension bridge (see Fig. 1) was recent-
ly completed 22 miles (37 km) north-
west of San Jose, Costa Rica. The over-
all length of the bridge is 673 ft (204
m). The bridge spans the 330 ft (100
m) deep Rio Colorado canyon linking
San Ramon and Coco. It forms part of
the Pan American Highway System
through the Central Americas. The
width of the bridge is 28 ft (8.5 m)
forming a two-lane highway. Fig. 2
shows a plan and elevation of the struc-
ture.
Optimum structural design is
achieved by combining major advan-
tages of suspension, arch, and cantile-
ver construction. Unlike a conventional
suspension bridge, the Rio Colorado
Bridge does not have any high towers.
Instead the deck is situated above rath-
er than below the cables. This was
made possible because of the depth of
the canyon and thus there were no
clearance limitations.
PCI Journal/November-December 1973
A conventional arch bridge was con-
sidered, but this would have been too
expensive to build, because it would
have required extensive falsework to
support it during construction. The
slopes of the canyon were too steep.
Similarly, a cantilevered structure
was considered but rejected because
the concrete members would have been
too heavy to transport and handle easi-
ly.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
HIGHLIGHTS
The two inclined piers of the bridge
function similarly to the towers of a
suspension bridge. However, because of
their inclination, they also provide ben-
eficial arch and cantilever effects. Their
large thrust against the abutments in-
creases the safety of the foundation.
Two main suspension cables were
draped between the piers of the 407-ft
93
CO

rte'

In l.V

8.500

PLAN

204.000 68.300

6.000 15.000` 25.000 5 x 21.600 108.000 8.000 25.000 ! 15.000' 6.000

L: K.

ELEVATION

Fig. 2. Plan and elevation of bridge. Note that the dimensions are in meters (1 m = 3.3 ft).
STAGE

STAGE 2

STAGE 3

STAGE 4

STAGE 5

STAGE 6

STAGE 7

Fig. 3. Construction sequence. For detailed description see text.

(124 m) center span. Each cable con-
sisted of four separate sets of seven
tendons.
Between the tendons thirty 13 x 26-
ft (4 x 8 m) precast concrete sections
were fastened to form the bridge's low-
er chord. This made the lower chord
rigid enough to serve as a work plat-
form.
Thus, the suspension system acted as
a stiffening truss and wind truss and
also served as a work platform during
construction.
Each precast section has a pair of
troughs at each side for the tendons to
pass through. The sections were placed
with the aid of a 40-ton capacity cable-
way (highline) situated high above the

PCI Journal/November-December 1973 95

Fig. 4. Leaning of pier and erection of
tee girders on approach span.

Fig. 5. The inclined pier was cast

straight and leaned into position by
using the temporary cables shown. The
cables which are loose are those reach-
ing from the anchor block to the pier
head.

Fig. 6. Stringing of cables for the main

span of bridge. Note that the tee sec-
tions of the approach spans have al-
ready been erected.

Fig. 7. Pier head atop inclined pier.

Here the cables coming from the anchor
block and those of the main span cross.
This permits adjustment of the stress
in the cables, and hence the position of
the inclined pier. This is necessary be- Fig. 8. Cable detail at pier head. Cables
cause the loads progressively increase were of the BBRV type and grouted
as erection proceeds. after erection of all members.

96
Fig. 9. Precast section for platform of
main span. The trough which can be
seen accommodates the cables of the Fig. 10. Erection of precast sections of
main span. The holes shown house the platform for main span. Note the high-
pipes which actually hold the section line (cableway) used.
to the cables.

Fig. 11. First sections of platform in

place. The connection of the precast
sections to the main cables can be seen.

Fig. 12. Elevation show-

ing erection of precast
sections for main span.

PCI Journal/November-December 1973 97

 Fig. 13. Erection of pre-
cast sections of main span.
Note that the section had
to be slung under the ca-
bles, then brought up to
allow the engagement of
the cables in the trough
and placement of the pipes
in the appropriate holes.

Fig. 14. Detail showing

engagement of pipes and
cables of main span in ca-
ble trough in precast sec-
tion of main span.

Fig. 15. Erection of last piece in main

span. The platform is actually a usable
bridge in itself, except that it is too
steep for comfortable driving.

98
Fig. 16. Erection of bot-
tom diaphragms of column
bents for suport of road-
way. These sections did
not rest on the precast
sections of the platform
but engaged the cables
directly.

Fig. 17. Erection of columns for sup-

port of roadway girders.

Fig. 18. Erection of tee

sections for roadway.

Fig. 19. Structure near-

ing completion, ready for
cast-in-place roadway
deck.

PCI Journal/November-December 1973 99


main suspension cables. A flying fox
picked up the sections near the on-site
precasting yard, tilted them down be-
tween the tendons, and brought them
back up. When the tendons bottomed
in the troughs, 4-in. (100 mm) steel
pins were slipped through holes in the
sides to hold the cables.
When all the cables were in place the
tendons were stressed to 160,000 psi
(11,200 kg/cm'). This stress is be-
lieved to be more than twice the usual
working stress of standard suspension
bridge cables. Grout then encased the
ducted cables in the troughs. Tendons
running out from the abutments over-
lap the suspension cables and are an-
chored atop the main piers.
During construction the piers were
tied back with cables to the abutments.
By letting the cables out after the forms
were stripped, the piers were rotated
30 deg downward into position on Tef-
lon-coated semicylindrical steel plates
in their hinges. Concrete around the
hinges fixed the piers in place. Then the
highline was used to draw the tendons
over them.
Thus, the slanted piers are able to
transfer loads back into the abutments
of the slopes. They also shorten the
main span by about 80 ft (24 m).
With the stiffening girder in place
and tensioned, the highline was used to
set precast concrete column bents that
support the center span's deck members
over the stiffening girder.
The precast bents were set on steel
shoes over the tendons. Steel dowels
100
Fig. 20. Bridge open to
vehicular traffic.
and cast-in-place concrete connect the
base of the bents to the girder.
On top of the bents went post-ten-
sioned tee beams with flanges 8 ft (2.4
m) wide. In turn, these support a cast-
in-place deck up to 6 in. (15 cm) thick.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
Fig. 3 is a simplified diagram show-
ing the basic steps in erecting the
bridge.
In Stage 1 the foundations for the ap-
proach spans and vertical piers are con-
creted. Also, tunnels are dug to cast the
cable anchorage (far left and far right
in Stage 1). The passages must be ac-
cessible for future stress readjustment
of the cables. Next, the end abutments
and approach span piers are cast.
In Stage 2 the precast tee beams of
the approach spans are erected. The
vertical piers are cast on hinges and the
first-stage cables stressed to about 750
kips at the end anchorages. In the
meantime the scaffolding for the high-
line is setup for transporting the precast
sections of the main span.
In Stage 3 the vertical piers are
leaned downward 30 deg by adjusting
the anchorage cables. The base of the
piers are then fixed.
In Stage 4 the main span cables are
strung and the topping of the approach
spans completed.
The center span sections are fas-
tened to the cables symmetrically from
each end in Stage 5. Then the vertical
column bents are attached to the ca-
bles.
In Stage 6 the tee sections of the
roadway are lowered into place.
Finally, Stage 7 shows the completed
roadway.
Figs. 4 through 20 show pictorially
the sequence of operations in putting
the bridge components together.
CONCLUSION
Economy and simple erection tech-
niques dictated the final design choice
of this bridge. Simplicity was necessary
in a country where equipment and
skilled labor are not readily available.
Furtheremore, locally available raw
materials make concrete cheaper than
imported structural steel. By combin-
ing the advantages of precasting and
post-tensioning maximum economy was
achieved.
The bridge cost about $1 million to
Discussion of this paper is invited.
Please forward your discussion to PCI Headquarters
by April 1, 1974, to permit publication in the
May-June 1974 PCI JOURNAL.
PCI Journal/November-December 1973
construct. Since being built it has per-
formed as predicted in the design cal-
culations.
In retrospect, the successful comple-
tion of this bridge shows that the de-
sign principles and construction tech-
niques used on this project can also be
readily adapted to other canyon cross-
ings.
CREDITS
Design Engineers: T. Y. Lin Interna-
tional, San Francisco, California; In-
deca Ltd., San Jose, Costa Rica.
Supervising Engineers: T. Y. Lin Inter-
national, San Francisco, California;
Baltodano, Echandi y Lara, Ltd., San
Jose, Costa Rica.
Contractor: Harbert Construction Co.,
Birmingham, Alabama; Carrez Inter-
national, San Jose, Costa Rica.
Owner: Ministry of Transport, Repub-
lic of Costa Rica.
101