spanning space, horizontal-span building structures 2, wolfgang schueller
DESCRIPTION
The theme of this presentation brings immediately to mind the spanning of bridges, stadiums, and other large open-volume spaces. However, I am not concerned only with the more acrobatic dimension of the large scale of spanning space, which is of primary concern to the structural engineer, but also the dynamics of the intimate scale of the smaller span and smaller spaces.The clear definition of the transition from short span, to medium span, to long span from the engineer's point of view, is not always that simple.• Long-span floor structures in high-rise buildings may be already be considered at 60 ft (c. 18 m) whereas the• long span of horizontal roof structures may start at 100 ft (c. 30 m).• From a material point of view it is apparent that the long span of wood beams because of lower strength and stiffness of the material is by far less than for prestressed concrete or steel beams.TRANSCRIPT
-
SPANNING SPACE
HORIZONTAL-SPAN BUILDING STRUCTURES
-
BUILDING STRUCTURES are defined by,
geometry, materials, load action, construction form, that is, its abstract dimensions as taken into account by architecture. When a building has meaning by expressing an
idea or by being a special kind of place, it is called architecture.
Although structure is a necessary part of a building, it is
not a necessary part of architecture; without structure,
there is no building, but depending on the design philosophy,
architecture as an idea does not require structure.
-
The relationship of structure to architecture or the interdependence of
architectural form and structures is most critical for the broader
understanding of structure and design of buildings in general.
On the one hand, the support structure may be exposed to be part of architecture.
On the other hand, the structure may be hidden by being disregarded in the form-giving process, as is often the case in
postmodern buildings.
One may distinguish structure from its visual expression as:
hidden structure vs. exposed structure vs. partially exposed structure
decorative structure vs. tectonic structure vs. sculptural structure
innovative structures vs. standard construction
-
The purpose of structure in buildings may be fourfold:
Support. The structure must be stable and strong enough (i.e., provide necessary strength) to hold the building up under any type of load action, so it
does not collapse either on a local or global scale (e.g., due to buckling,
instability, yielding, fracture, etc.). Structure makes the building and spaces
within the building possible; it gives support to the material, and therefore is
necessary.
Serviceability. The structure must be durable, and stiff enough to control the functional performance, such as: excessive deflections, vibrations and drift,
as well as long-term deflections, expansion and contraction, etc.
Ordering system. The structure functions as a spatial and dimensional organizer besides identifying assembly or construction systems.
Form giver. The structure defines the spatial configuration, reflects other meanings and is part of aesthetics, i.e. aesthetics as a branch of philosophy.
There is no limit to the geometrical basis of buildings as is suggested in the
slide about the visual study of geometric patterns.
-
BUILDING SHAPES and FORMS: there is no limit to building shapes ranging from boxy to compound hybrid to organic and
crystalline shapes. Most conventional buildings are derived from the rectangle, triangle, circle, trapezoid, cruciform, pinwheel,
letter shapes and other linked figures usually composed of rectangles. Traditional architecture shapes from the basic
geometrical solids the prism, pyramid, cylinder, cone, and sphere. Odd-shaped buildings may have irregular plans that may
change with height so that the floors are not repetitive anymore. The modernists invented an almost inexhaustible number of
new building shapes through transformation and arrangement of basic building shapes, through analogies with biology, the
human body, crystallography, machines, tinker toys, flow forms, and so on. Classical architecture, in contrast, lets the faade
appear as a decorative element with symbolic meaning.
-
Geometry as the basis of architecture
-
The theme of this presentation brings immediately to mind the spanning of
bridges, stadiums, and other large open-volume spaces. However, I am not
concerned only with the
more acrobatic dimension of the large scale of spanning space, which is of primary concern to the structural engineer,
but also the dynamics of the intimate scale of the smaller span and smaller spaces.
The clear definition of the transition from short span, to medium span, to long
span from the engineer's point of view, is not always that simple.
Long-span floor structures in high-rise buildings may be already be considered at 60 ft (c. 18 m) whereas the
long span of horizontal roof structures may start at 100 ft (c. 30 m).
From a material point of view it is apparent that the long span of wood beams because of lower strength and stiffness of the material is by far less than for
prestressed concrete or steel beams.
-
Scale range:
Long-span stadium:
e.g. Odate-wood dome, Odate, Japan, 1992, Toyo Ito/Takenaka, 178 m on
oval plan
Atrium structure:
e.g. San Franciscos War Memorial Opera House (1932, 1989), long-span structure behavior investigation
High-rise floor framing
e.g. Tower, steel/concrete frame, using Etabs
Short span:
e.g. Parthenon, Athens, 430 BC
-
Long-span stadium: Odate-wood dome,
Odate, Japan, 1992, Toyo Ito/Takenaka, 178
m on oval plan
-
Atrium structure:
San Franciscos War (1932, 1989) Memorial
Opera House, long-
span structure behavior
investigation
-
High-rise floor framing: Tower, steel/concrete frame
-
Example of short span: Parthenon, Athens, 430 BC (Zhou Dynasty)
-
Glass Cube, Art Museum Stuttgart,
2005, Hascher und Jehle
-
The Development of Long-span Structures
The great domes of the past together with cylindrical barrel
vaults and the intersection of vaults represent the long-span
structures of the past.
The Gothic churches employed arch-like cloister and groin
vaults, where the pointed arches represent a good approximation
of the funicular shape for a uniformly distributed load and a point
load at mid-span.
Flat arches were used for Renaissance bridges in Italy.
-
The development of the wide-span structure
The Romans had achieved immense spans of 90 ft (27 m) and more with their vaults and as so powerfully demonstrated by the 143-ft (44 m)
span of the Pantheon in Rome (c. 123 AD), which was unequaled in
Europe until the second half of the 19th century.
The series of domes of Justinian's Hagia Sofia in Constantinopel (537 A.D), 112 ft (34 m), cause a dynamic flow of solid building elements together with
an interior spaciousness quite different from the more static Pantheon.
Taj Mahal (1647), Agra, India, 125 ft (38 m) span corbeled dome St. Peters, Rome (1590): US Capitol, Washington (1865, double dome); Epcot Center, Orlando, geodesic dome; Georgia Astrodome, Atlanta (1980)
-
Pantheon, Rom, 143 ft, 44 m, c. 123 AD (HAN Dynasty)
-
Hagia Sofia, Constantinopel, 535 AD (Sui Dynasty), 112 ft (34 m)
-
Taj Mahal (1647, Quing Dynasty), Agra, India, 125 ft (38 m) span corbelled dome
-
St. Peters, Rome, 1590 US Capitol, Washington, 1865
Epcot Center, Orlando Georgia Astrodome, Atlanta, 1980
-
These early heavy-weight structures in compression were made from solid thick surfaces and/or ribs of stone, masonry or concrete.
The transition to modern long-span structures occurred primarily during the second half
of the 19th century with the light-weight steel skeleton structures for railway sheds, exhibition halls, bridges, etc. as represented by:
Arches: 240-ft (73 m) span fixed trussed arches for St. Pancras Station, London (1868); 530-ft (162 m) span Garabit viaduct, 1884, Gustave Eiffel
Frames: 375-ft (114 m) span steel arches for the Galerie des Machines (1889)
Domes: 207-ft (63 m) Schwedler dome (braced dome, 1874), Vienna
Bridges:1595-ft (486 m) span Brooklyn Bridge, New York, (1883, Roebling)
-
St. Pancras Station, London, 1868, 240 ft (73 m)
-
Garabit Viaduct, France, 530 ft (162 m), 1884, Gustave Eiffel
-
Galerie des Machines (375 ft, 114 m), Paris, 1889
-
Schwedler dome (braced dome, 1874), Vienna, 207-ft (63 m), e.g.
triangulated ribbed dome
-
Brooklyn Bridge (1595 ft, 486 m), New York, 1883,
Roebling
-
Among other early modern long-span structures (reflecting development of
structure systems) were also:
Mushroom concrete frame units (161x161-ft), the Palace of Labor, Turin, Italy, 1961, Pier Luigi Nervi
Thin-concrete shells, form-passive membranes in compression, tension and shear: 720-ft (219 m) span CNIT Exhibition Hall Paris (1958)
Space frames surface structures in compression, tension and bending; Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, New York, 1986, James Ingo Freed
Tensile membranes almost weightless i.e. form-active structures, e.g. Fabric domes and HP membranes: tentlike roofs for Munich Olympics (1972, Frei Otto)
Air domes, cable reinforced fabric structures: Pontiac Silver Dome, Pontiac, 722 ft (220 m), 1975
Tensegrity fabric domes, tension cables + compression struts + fabrics: Georgia Dome, Atlanta, 770 ft (235 m),1992
-
The Palace of Labor (49 x 49-m), Turin, Italy, 1961, Pier Luigi Nervi
-
Thin-concrete shells, form-passive membranes in compression, tension and
shear: 720-ft (219 m) span CNIT Exhibition Hall, Paris, 1958, B. Zehrfuss
-
Space frames surface structures in
compression, tension and bending;
Jacob K. Javits Convention Center,
New York, 1986, James Ingo Freed
-
Tensile membranes almost weightless i.e. form-active structures, e.g. Fabric
domes and HP membranes: tent like roofs for Munich Olympics (1972, Frei Otto)
-
Air domes, cable
reinforced fabric
structures: Pontiac
Silver Dome, Pontiac,
722 ft (220 m), 1975
-
Tensegrity fabric domes, tension cables +
compression struts + fabrics:
Georgia Dome, Atlanta, 770 ft (235m),1992
-
The Building Support Structure
Every building consists of the load-bearing structure and the non-load-bearing
portion. The main load bearing structure, in turn, is subdivided into:
Gravity structure consisting of floor/roof framing, slabs, trusses, columns, walls, foundations
Lateral force-resisting structure consisting of walls, frames, trusses, diaphragms, foundations
Support structures may be classified as,
A. Horizontal-span structure systems: floor and roof structure
enclosure structures
bridges
B. Vertical building structure systems: walls, frames cores, etc.
tall buildings
-
Horizontal-span Structure Systems
From a geometrical point of view, horizontal-span structures may consist of linear, planar, or spatial elements. Two- and three-dimensional assemblies may
be composed of linear or surface elements.
Two-dimensional (planar) assemblies may act as one- or two-way systems.
For example, one-way floor or planar roof structures (or bridges) typically
consist of linear elements spanning in one direction where the loads are transferred
from slab to secondary beams to primary beams. Two-way systems, on the other
hand, carry loads to the supports along different paths, that is in more than one
direction; here members interact and share the load resistance (e.g. to-way ribbed
slabs, space frames).
Building enclosures may be two-dimensional assemblies of linear members (e.g.
frames and arches), or the may be three-dimensional assemblies of linear or
surface elements. Whereas two-dimensional enclosure systems may resist forces
in bending and/or axial action, three-dimensional systems may be form-
resistant structures that use their profile to support loads primarily in axial action.
Spatial structures are obviously more efficient regarding material (i.e. require less
weight) than flexural planar structures.
-
Horizontal gravity force flow
-
From a structural point of view, horizontal-span structures may be organized as,
Axial systems (e.g. trusses, space frames, cables)
Flexural systems (e.g. one-way and two-way beams, trusses, floor grids)
Flexural-axial systems (e.g. frames, arches)
Form-resistant structures, axial-shear systems: (folded plates, shells, tensile membranes) - one may distinguish between,
compressive systems (arches, domes, shells)
tensile systems (suspended cables, textile fabric membranes, cable nets)
-
Some common rigid horizontal-span structure systems are
shown in the following slide:
Straight, folded and bent line elements: beams, columns, struts, hangars
Straight and folded surface elements: one- or two-way slabs, folded plates, etc.
Curved surface elements of synclastic shape: shell beams, domes, etc.
Curved surface elements of anticlastic shape: hyperbolic paraboloids
-
HORIZONTAL SPAN BUILDING STRUCTURES
rigid systems
-
Common semi-rigid composite tension-compression systems and flexible or soft
tensile membranes are organized as:
Single-layer, simply suspended cable roofs:
single-curvature and dish-shaped (synclastic) hanging roofs
Prestressed tensile membranes and cable nets
edge-supported saddle roofs
mast-supported conical saddle roofs
arch-supported saddle roofs
air supported structures and air-inflated structures (air members)
Cable-supported structures
cable-supported beams and arched beams
cable-stayed bridges
cable-stayed roof structures
Tensegrity structures
planar open and closed tensegrity systems:
cable beams, cable trusses, cable frames
spatial open tensegrity systems: cable domes
spatial closed tensegrity systems: polyhedral twist units
Hybrid structures: combination of the above systems
-
composite systems
semi-rigid structures
-
flexible structures
-
LATERAL STABILITY Every building consists of the load-bearing structure and the non-load-
bearing portion. The main load-bearing structure, in turn, is subdivided into:
(a) The gravity load resisting structure system (GRLS), which
consists of the horizontal and vertical subsystems:
Foor/roof framing and concrete slabs,
Walls, frames (e.g., columns, beams), braced frames, etc., and foundations
(b) The lateral load resisting structure system (LLRS), which supports
gravity loads besides providing lateral stability to the building. It consists of
walls, frames, braced frames, diaphragms, foundations, and can be subdivided
into horizontal and vertical structure subsystems:
Floor diaphragm structures (FD) are typically horizontal floor structure
systems; they transfer horizontal forces typically induced by wind or
earthquake to the lateral load resisting vertical structures, which then take the
forces to the ground. diaphragms are like large beams (usually horizontal
beams). They typically act like large simply supported beams spanning
between vertical systems.
Vertical structure systems typically act like large cantilevers spanning
vertically out of the ground. Common vertical structure systems are
frameworks and walls.
(c) The non-load-bearing structure, which includes wind bracing as
well as the curtains, ceilings, and partitions that cover the structure and
subdivide the space.
-
LOCATION OF VERTICAL
SUPPORT STRUCTURE
-
The basic lateral load resisting structure systems:
frames, braced frames, walls
-
Stability of basic vertical
structural building units
-
Possible location of
lateral force resisting
units in building
-
Lateral stability of buildings
-
Basic Concepts of Span
One must keep in mind that with increase in span the weight increases rapidly
while the live loads may be treated as constant; a linear increase of span does
not result merely in a linear increase of beam size and construction method.
With increase of scale new design determinants enter.
The effect of scale is known from nature, where animal skeletons become much bulkier with increase of size as reflected by the change from the
tiny ant to the delicate gazelle and finally to the massive elephant. While the ant
can support a multiple of its own weight, it could not even carry itself if its size
were proportionally increased to the size of an elephant, since the weight
increases with the cube, while the supporting area only increases with the
square as the dimensions are linearly increased. Thus the dimensions are not
in linear relationship to each other; the weight increases much faster than
the corresponding cross-sectional area. Hence, either the proportions of the
ant's skeleton would have to be changed, or the material made lighter, or the
strength and stiffness of the bones increased. It is also interesting to note that
the bones of a mouse make up only about 8% of the total mass in contrast to
about 18% for the human body. We may conclude that structure proportions in
nature are derived from behavioral considerations and cannot remain constant.
-
This phenomenon of scale is taken into account by the various structure members and
systems as well as by the building structure types as related to the horizontal span,
and vertical span or height. With increase of span or height, material, member
proportions, member structure, and structure layout must be altered and
optimized to achieve higher strength and stiffness with less weight.
For example, for the following long-span systems (rather than cellular construction
where some of the high-rise systems are applicable) starting at approximately 40- to
50-span (12 to 15 m) and ranging usually to roughly the following spans,
Deep beam structures: flat wood truss 120 ft (37 m) Deep beam structures: flat steel truss 300 ft (91 m) Timber frames and arches 250 ft (76 m) Folded plates 120 ft (37 m) Cylindrical shell beams 180 ft (55 m) Thin shell domes 250 ft (76 m) Space frames, skeletal domes 400 ft (122 m) Two-way trussed box mega-arches 400 ft (122 m) Two-way cable supported strutted mega-arches 500 ft (152 m) Composite tensegrity fabric structures 800 ft (244 m)
-
This change of structure systems with increase of span can also be seen, for
example, in bridge design, where the longer span bridges use the cantilever
principle. The change may be approximated from simple span beam bridges to
cantilever span suspension bridges, as follows,
beam bridges 200 ft (61 m) box girder bridges truss bridges arch bridges 1,000 ft (305 m) cable-stayed bridges suspension bridges (center span) 7,000 ft (2134 m) total span of AKASHI KAIKO BRIDGE (1998), 13,000 ft (4000 m)
Typical empirical design aids as expressed in span-to-depth ratios have been
developed from experience for preliminary design purposes in response to various
structure system, keeping in mind that member proportions may not be controlled by
structural requirements but by dimensional, environmental, and esthetic
considerations. For example,
Deep beams, e.g. trusses, girders L/t 12 or t L/12 Shallow beams, e.g. average floor framing L/t 24 Slabs, e.g. concrete slabs L/t 36 Vaults and arches L/t 60 Shell beams L/t 100 Reinforced concrete shells L/t 400 Lightweight cable or prestressed fabric structures not an issue
-
The effect of scale is demonstrated by the decrease of member thickness (t) as the members become smaller, that is change from deep
beams to shallow beams to slabs to envelope systems. Each system is
applicable for a certain scale range only, specific structure systems constitute
an optimum solution as determined by the efficient use of the strength-to-
weight and stiffness-to-weight ratios.
The thickness (t) of shells is by far less than that of the other systems since
they resist loads through geometry as membranes in axial and shear action
(i.e. strength through form), in contrast to other structures, which are flexural
systems.
The systems shown are rigid systems and gain weight rapidly as the span
increases, so it may be more efficient to replace them at a certain point by
flexible lightweight cable or fabric structures.
-
The large scale of long-span structures because of lack of redundancy may
require unique building configurations quite different from traditional forms, as well
as other materials and systems with more reserve capacity and unconventional
detailing techniques as compared to small-scale buildings.
It requires a more precise evaluation of loading conditions as just provided by
codes. This includes the placement of expansion joints as well as the consideration
of secondary stresses due to deformation of members and their intersection, which
cannot be ignored anymore as for small-scale structures. Furthermore a much more
comprehensive field inspection is required to control the quality during the erection
phase; post-construction building maintenance and periodic inspection are
necessary to monitor the effects of loading and weather on member behavior in
addition to the potential deterioration of the materials. In other words, the potential
failure and protection of life makes it mandatory that special care is taken in
the design of long-span structures.
-
Today, there is a trend away from pure structure systems towards hybrid solutions,
as expressed in geometry, material, structure layout, and building use. Interactive
computer-aided design ideally makes a team approach to design and construction
possible, allowing the designer to stay abreast of new construction technology at an
early design stage. In the search for more efficient structural solutions a new
generation of hybrid systems has developed with the aid of computers. These new
structures do not necessarily follow the traditional classification presented before.
Currently, the selection of a structure system, as based on the basic variables of
material and the type and location of structure, is no longer a simple choice between a
limited number of possibilities. The computer software simulates the effectiveness of a
support system, so that the form and structure layout as well as material can be
optimized and nonessential members can be eliminated to obtain the stiffest
structure with a minimum amount of material.
From this discussion it is clear that with increase of span, to reduce weight, new
structure systems must be invented and structures must change from linear beams to
arched members to spatial surface shapes to spatial pre-stressed tensile
structures to take fully advantage of geometry and the strength of material.
-
In my presentation I will follow this organization by presenting
structural systems in various context. The examples will show that
architecture cannot be defined simply by engineering line
diagrams. To present the multiplicity of horizontal-span structures
is not a simple undertaking. Some roof structures shown in the
drawings, can only suggest the many possible support systems.
Examples of horizontal-span roof structure systems
The cases may indicate the difficulty in classifying structure
systems considering the richness of the actual architecture rather
than only structural line diagrams.
-
Multi-bay long-span roof structures
-
Cantilever structures
-
Some roof support structures
-
EXAMPLES OF HORIZONTAL-SPAN
ROOF STRUCTURES
-
My presentation of cases is based on the following organization:
A. BEAMS
B. FRAMES
C. CABLE-STAYED ROOF STRUCTURES
D. FORM - PASSIVE SURFACE STRUCTURES
E. FORM - ACTIVE SURFACE STRUCTURES
-
A. BEAMS
one-way and two-way floor/roof framing systems (bottom supported and top
supported), shallow beams, deep beams (trusses, girders, joist-trusses,
Vierendeel beams, prestressed concrete T-beams), etc.
Individual beams
Floor/ roof framing Large-scale beams including trusses Supports for tensile columns Beam buildings Cable-supported beams and cable beams
-
The following examples clearly demonstrate that engineering line diagrams
cannot define the full richness of architecture. The visual expression of beams
ranges from structural expressionism (tectonics), construction, minimalism to
post-modern symbolism. They may be,
planar beams
spatial beams (e.g. folded plate, shell beams, , corrugated sections)
space trusses.
They may be not only the typical rigid beams but may be flexible beams such as
cable beams.
The longitudinal profile of beams may be shaped as a funicular form in response
to a particular force action, which is usually gravity loading; that is, the beam
shape matches the shape of the moment diagram to achieve constant maximum
stresses.
Beams may be part of a repetitive grid (e.g. parallel or two-way joist system) or
may represent individual members; they may support ordinary floor and roof
structures or span a stadium; they may form a stair, a bridge, or an entire
building. In other words, there is no limit to the application of the beam principle.
-
BEAMS as FLEXURAL SYSTEMS
There is a wide variety of spans ranging from,
Short-span beams are controlled by shear, V, where shear is a function of the
span, L, and the cross-sectional area, A: V A
Medium-span beams are controlled by flexure, where M increases with the square
of the span, L2,and the cross-section depends on the section modulus, S:
M S Long-span beams are controlled by deflection, , where deflection increases to the
forth power of L, (L4) and the cross-section depends on the moment of inertia I
and the modulus of elasticity E (i.e. elastic stiffness EI ):
EI The following examples clearly demonstrate that engineering line diagrams cannot
define the full richness of architecture. The visual expression of beams ranges
from structural expressionism (tectonics), construction, minimalism to post-
modern symbolism
-
Individual Beams
Railway Station, Munich, Germany Atrium, Germanisches Museum, Nuremberg, Germany Pedestrian bridge Nuremberg Dresdner Bank, Verwaltungszentrum, Leipzig, 1997, Engel und Zimmermann Shanghai-Pudong International Airport, Paul Andreu principal architect Petersbogen shopping center, Leipzig, 2001, HPP Hentrich-Petschnigg The asymmetrical entrance metal-glass canopies of the National Gallery of Art, Stuttgart, J. Stirling (1984), counteract and relieve the traditional post-
modern classicism of the monumental stone building; they are toy-like and
witty but not beautiful.
Documentation Center Nazi Party Rally Grounds (Nuremberg, 2001, Guenther Domenig Architect) is located in the unfinished structure of the Congress
Hall. It gives detailed information about the history of the Party Rallies and
exposes them as manipulative rituals of Nazi propaganda. A glass and steel
gangway penetrates the North wing of the Congress Hall like a shaft, the
Documentation Center makes a clear contemporary architectural statement.
-
Railway Station, Munich, Germany
-
Atrium, Germanisches Museum, Nuremberg, Germany
-
Pedestrian bridge Nuremberg
-
Dresdner Bank, Verwaltungszentrum, Leipzig, 1997, Engel und Zimmermann Arch
-
Shanghai-Pudong
International Airport,
2001, Paul Andreu
-
Petersbogen shopping center, Leipzig, 2001, HPP Hentrich-Petschnigg
-
The asymmetrical entrance metal-glass canopies of the National Gallery of Art, Stuttgart, J.
Stirling (1984), counteract and relieve the traditional post-modern classicism of the
monumental stone building; they are toy-like and witty but not beautiful.
-
Documentation Center Nazi Party Rally Grounds (Nuremberg, 2001, Guenther Domenig
Architect) is located in the unfinished structure of the Congress Hall. It gives detailed
information about the history of the Party Rallies and exposes them as manipulative rituals
of Nazi propaganda. A glass and steel gangway penetrates the North wing of the Congress
Hall like a shaft, the Documentation Center makes a clear contemporary architectural
statement.
-
Floor/ Roof Framing
Floor/ roof framing systems Floor framing structures RISA floor framing example Chifley tower , Sydney, 1992, Kohn, Pederson, Fox Farnsworth House, Mies van der Rohe, Plano, Ill (1950), USA, welded steel frame Residence, Aspen, Colorado, 2004, Voorsanger & Assoc., Weidlinger Struct. E. E European Court of Justice, Luxemburg, 1994, Atelier d'Architecture Paczowski Fritsch Associs
Central Beheer, Apeldorn, NL, Herman Hertzberger (1972): adjacent tower element about 27x 27 ft (8.23 m) square with 9 ft wide spaces between, where
basic square grid unit is about 9 ft (2.74 m); precast concrete elements; people
create their own environments. Kaifeng,
Xiangguo Si temple complex downtown Kaifeng
-
Floor/roof framing systems
-
FLOOR FRAMING STRUCTURES
-
floor framing example
-
Chifley tower , Sydney, 1992, Kohn, Pederson, Fox,
-
Farnsworth House, 1951, Mies van
der Rohe
-
Residence, Aspen, Colorado,
2004, Voorsanger & Assoc.,
-
European Court of Justice, Luxemburg, 1994, Atelier d'Architecture Paczowski
Fritsch & Associs
-
Central Beheer Insurance
Company, Apeldoorn, The
Netherlands, 1972, Herman
Herzberger
-
Xiangguo Si temple complex downtown Kaifeng
-
Large-scale Beams including trusses
Beam trusses Atrium, Germanisches Museum, Nuremberg, Germany: the bridge acts not just as connector but also interior space articulation.
National Gallery of Art, East Wing, Washington, 1978, I.M. Pei Library University of Bamberg TU Munich Library Gainesville, FL TU Stuttgart San Francisco Terminal, SOM Documentation Center Nazi Party Rally Grounds, Nuremberg,, 2001, G. Domenig Sobek House, Stuttgart Sony Center, Berlin, Rogers Petersbogen shopping center, Leipzig, 2001, HPP Hentrich-Petschnigg Tokyo Art Center, Vignoli Ski Jump Berg Isel, Innsbruck, 2002, Zaha Hadid
-
Beam trusses
-
Atrium, Germanisches Museum, Nuremberg, Germany
-
National Gallery of Art, East Wing, Washington, 1978, I.M. Pei
-
Library University of Bamberg
-
TU Munich
-
Library Gainesville, Florida
-
TU Stuttgart
-
San Francisco Terminal, 2001, SOM
-
Documentation Center Nazi Party Rally Grounds (Nuremberg, 2001, Guenther Domenig Architect)
-
Sobek House,
Stuttgart, 2001, Werner
Sobek
-
Integrated urban
buildings, Linkstr.
Potsdamer Platz),
Richard Rogers,
Berlin, 1998
-
Petersbogen shopping center, Leipzig, 2001, HPP Hentrich-Petschnigg
-
Petersbogen shopping
center, Leipzig, 2001, HPP
Hentrich-Petschnigg
-
Tokyo International Forum, 1997,
Rafael Vignoli Arch, Kunio
Watanabe Struct. Eng.
-
Ski Jump
Berg Isel,
Innsbruck,
Zaha Hadid,
2002
-
Supports for Tensile columns
5-story Olivetti Office Building, Florence, Italy, Alberto Galardi, 1971: suspended construction with prestressed concrete hangers sits on two towers supporting
trusses, which in turn carry the cross-trusses
Shanghai-Pudong Museum, Shanghai, von Gerkan Berlin Stock Exchange, Berlin, Germany, 1999, Nick Grimshaw Centre George Pompidou, Paris, Piano & Rogers 43-story Hongkong Bank, Hong Kong, 1985, Foster/Arup: The stacked bridge- like structure allows opening up of the central space with vertically stacked
atria and diagonal escalator bridges by placing structural towers with elevators
and mechanical modules along the sides of the building. This approach is quite
opposite to the central core idea of conventional high-rise buildings. The
building celebrates technology and architecture of science as art. It expresses
the performance of the building and the movement of people. The support
structure is clearly expressed by the clusters of 8 towers forming 4 parallel
mega-frames. A mega-frame consists of 2 towers connected by cantilever
suspension trusses supporting the vertical hangers which, in turn, support the
floor beams. Obviously, the structure does not express structural efficiency.
-
Visual study of Olivetti Building (5 floors), Florence, Italy, 1973, Alberto Galardi
-
Shanghai-Pudong Museum, Shanghai, (competition won 2002), von Gerkan
-
Berlin Stock Exchange,
Berlin, Germany, 1999,
Nick Grimshaw
-
Centre George Pompidou, Paris, 1978, Piano & Rogers
-
Hongkong Bank (1985), Honkong, 180m, Foster + Arup, steel mast joined by suspension trusses
-
Beam buildings
Visual study of beam buildings Seoul National University Museum, Rem Koolhaas, 2006 Clinton Library Landesvertretung von Baden-Wuertemberg, Berlin, Dietrich Bangert, 2000 Embassy UK, Berlin, Michael Wilford, 2000 Shanghai Grand Theater, Jean-Marie Charpentier, architect (1998): inverted cylindrical tensile shell
Lehrter Bahnhof, Berlin, 2006, von Gerkan, Marg and Partners Grand Arch de la Defense, Paris Fuji Sankei Building, Tokyo, Kenco Tange Sharp Centre for Design, Ontario College of Art & Design, Toronto, Canada, 2004, Alsop Architects
Porsche Museum building: images authorised by Delugan Meissl Architects 2007
-
Beam buildings
-
Seoul National University Museum, Rem Koolhaas, 2006
-
William J. Clinton Presidential Center, Little Rock, AR, 2004, Polshek Partnership
-
Landesvertretung von Baden-Wuertemberg, Berlin, Dietrich Bangert, 2000
-
Embassy UK, Berlin, Michael Wilford, 2000
-
Super C, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 2008, Fritzer +
Pape , Schlaich, Bergermann & Partner
-
Super C, RWHA, Aachen, 2008
-
WDR
Arcades/Broad
casting House,
Cologne, 1996,
Gottfried Bhm
-
Shanghai Grand Theater, Jean-Marie Charpentier, 1998
-
Lehrter Bahnhof, Berlin, 2006, von Gerkan, Marg and Partners
-
La Grande Arche, Paris, 1989, Johan Otto von Sprechelsen/ Peter Rice for the canopy
-
Fuji Sankei Building, Tokyo, 1996, Kenco Tange
-
Sharp Centre for Design Toronto, Canada, Alsop Architects, 2004
-
Porsche Museum, Stuttgart, Germany, 2009, Delugan Meissl
-
Abu Dhabi Performing Arts Centre
project, Zaha Hadid
-
Cable-Supported Beams and Cable Beams
Single-strut and multi-strut cable-supported beams
Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam, architect Ben Van Berkel Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, 1936, C.H. Purcell Old Federal Reserve Bank Building, Minneapolis, 1973, Gunnar Birkerts, 273-ft (83 m) span truss at top
World Trade Center, Amsterdam, 2003 (?), Kohn, Pedersen & Fox Luxembourg, 2007 Kempinski Hotel, Munich, Germany, 1997, H. Jahn/Schlaich. Shopping areas, Berlin, Linkstr., Rogers, 1998 Wilkhahn Factory, Bad Muender, Germany, 1992, Thomas Herzog Arch Merzedes-Benz Zentrale, Berlin, 1998, Rafael Moneo Shopping Center, Stuttgart Cologne/Bonn Airport, Germany, 2000, Helmut Jahn Arch., Ove Arup Struct. Eng Lehrter Bahnhof, Berlin, 2006, von Gerkan, Marg and Partners Theater, Berlin, Renzo Piano, 1998 Shanghai-Pudong International Airport, Paul Andreu principal architect, Coyne et Bellier structural engineers, 2001
Ski Jump Voightland Arena, Klingenthal, 2007, m2r-architecture
-
Single-strut and multi-
strut cable-supported
beams
-
Erasmus Bridge, Rotterdam, 1996, architect Ben Van Berkel
-
Golden Gate Bridge (one 2224 ft), San
Francisco, 1936, C.H. Purcell
-
Old Federal Reserve Bank Building, Minneapolis, 1973, Gunnar Birkerts, 273-ft (83
m) span truss at top
-
World Trade Center, Amsterdam, 2003 (?), Kohn,
Pedersen & Fox
-
Luxembourg, 2007
-
Kempinski Hotel, Munich, Germany, 1997, H. Jahn/ Schlaich
-
Shopping areas, Berlin, Linkstr., Richard Rogers, 1998
-
Wilkhahn-Moebelwerk, Bad Muender, 1992, Thomas Herzog
-
Mercedes-Benz Center am Salzufer, Berlin, 2000,
Lamm, Weber, Donath und Partner
-
Shopping Center, Stuttgart
-
Cologne/Bonn Airport, Germany, 2000, Helmut Jahn Arch., Ove Arup USA Str. Eng
-
Lehrter Bahnhof, Berlin, 2006, von Gerkan,
Marg and Partners
-
Debis Theater, Berlin, Renzo Piano, 1998
-
Shanghai-Pudong International Airport, 2001, Paul Andreu principal architect,
Coyne et Bellier structural engineers
-
Ski Jump Voightland Arena,
Klingenthal, 2007, m2r-architecture
-
B. Frames
FRAMES are flexural-axial systems in contrast to hinged trusses, which are axial systems, and beams, which are flexural systems. Flexural-axial
systems are identified by beam-column behavior that includes the effects of
biaxial bending, torsion, axial deformation, and biaxial shear deformations.
Here, two-dimensional skeleton structures composed of linear elements
are briefly investigated. The most common group of planar structure systems
includes
Portal frames, gable frames, etc. Arches
-
Portal Frames, Gable Frames, etc. Crown Hall, IIT, Chicago, 1955, Mies van der Rohe Visual study of single-bay portal frames Single-story, multi-bay frame systems Visual study of multiple-span frame structures Postal Museum, Frankfurt, Germany, 1990, Guenter Behnisch Arch. Indeterminate portal frames under gravity loads Indeterminate portal frames under lateral load action Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, UK, 1978, Norman Foster Visual study of Frames and arches Response of typical gable frame roof enclosures to gravity loading Pitched roof structures Joist roof construction Rafter roof construction Inclined frame structures Project for Fiumicino Airport, Rome, 1957, Nervi etc. The Novotel Belfort, Belfort, France, 1994, Bouchez BMW Plant Leipzig, Central Building, 2004, Zaha Hadid San Diego Library, 1970, Pereira 798 Beijing Art Factory, Beijing, 1956, the shape of the supporting frames (i.e. roof shape) depends on ventilation and lighting of the sheds.
Bus Stop Aachen, 1998, Peter Eisenman, folded steel structure that resembles a giants claw grasping the paving, or the folded steel shelter perches crablike on the square
Zueblin AG Headquarters, Stuttgart, Germany, 1985, Gottfried Boehm Miyagi Stadium, Sendai City, Japan, 2000, Atelier Hitoshi Abe
-
Visual study of single-
bay portal frames
-
Visual study of Frames and
arches
-
Crown Hall, IIT, Chicago, 1955, Mies van der Rohe
-
Postal Museum, Frankfurt, Germany, 1990, Guenter Behnisch Arch
-
Single-story, multi-bay frame
systems
-
Visual study of multiple-span frame structures
-
Indeterminate portal frames under gravity loads
-
Indeterminate portal frames under lateral load action
-
Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts,
UK, 1978, Norman Foster
-
Response of typical gable frame roof enclosures to gravity loading
-
Pitched roof structures
-
Joist roof construction
-
Rafter roof construction
-
Inclined frame structures
-
Project for Fiumicino Airport, Rome, 1957, Nervi etc
-
The Novotel Belfort, Belfort,
France, 1994, Bouchez
-
Barajas Airport, Madrid, Spain, 2004, Richard Rogers,
Anthony Hunt Associates (main structure), Arup (main
faade)
-
BMW Plant Leipzig, Central Building,
2004, Zaha Hadid
-
San Diego Library, 1970, William L. Pereira
-
798 Beijing Art Factory, Beijing, 1956
-
Suzhou Museum, China, 2007, Suzhou I. M. Pei
-
Bus Stop, Aachen, 1998, Peter Eisenman
-
Zueblin AG Headquarters, Stuttgart, 1985, Gottfried Boehm
-
Miyagi Stadium, Sendai City, Japan, 2000, Atelier Hitoshi Abe
-
Miyagi Stadium, Sendai ,Japan ,Atelier
Hitoshi Abe , 2000
-
Arches Study of curvilinear patterns Arches as enclosures Visual study of arches Visual study of lateral thrust Olympic Stadium Montreal, 1975, Roger Taillibert Dresden Main Train Station, Dresden, 2006, Foster United Airlines Terminal at OHare Airport, Chicago, 1987, H. Jahn Museum of Roman Art, Mrida, Spain 1985, Jose Rafael Moneo City of Arts & Sciences, Valencia ,Spain ,Santiago Calatrava, 2000 Geschwungene Holzbruecke bei Esslingen (Spannbandbruecke), 1986, R. Dietrich
La Defesa Footbridge, Ripoll, Spain, S. Calatrava, torsion Bridge over the Rhein-Herne-Canal, BUGA 1997, Gelsenkirchen, Stefan Polnyi
Rotterdam arch Kansai International Airport Terminal in Osaka, Japan, 1994 , Renzo Piano San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, 2004, Renzo Piano Center Paul Klee, Bern, 2005, Renzo Piano Waterloo Terminal, London, Nicholas Grimshaw + Anthony Hunt
-
Traditional bridge, China
-
Salignatobel Bridge, Switzerland, 1930, Robert Maillart
-
Cathedral of Palma, Majorca - photoelastic Study by Robert Mark
-
Study of curvilinear patterns
-
Arches as enclosures
-
Visual study of arches
-
Visual study of lateral thrust
-
Olympic Stadium Montreal,
1975, Roger Taillibert
-
Dresden Main Train Station, Dresden, 2006, Foster
-
Dresden Main Train Station, Dresden, 2006, Foster
-
Bodegas Protos,
Peafiel, Valladolid,
Spain, 2008, Richard
Rogers, Arup
-
Lanxess Arena, Cologne, 1998, Peter Bhm Architekten
-
United Airlines Terminal at
OHare Airport, Chicago, 1987, H. Jahn
-
Museum of Roman Art, Mrida,
Spain 1985, Jose Rafael Moneo
-
'Glass Worm' building - new
Peek & Cloppenburg store,
Cologne, Renzo Piano, 2005
-
Cathedral of Christ the Light, Oakland, CA, 2008, SOM
-
City of Arts & Sciences, Planetarium, Valencia ,Spain ,Santiago Calatrava, 2000
-
City of Arts & Sciences, Planetarium, Valencia, Spain, Santiago Calatrava, 2000
-
The Metro station at Blaak, Rotterdam, 1993, Harry Reijnders of Movares; the arch
spans 62.5 m, dome diameter is 35 m
-
Space Truss Arch Axial Force Flow
-
Kansai International
Airport Terminal in
Osaka, Japan, 1994 ,
Renzo Piano
-
Terminal 5 Roof Heathrow Airport, London, 2005, Rogers/Arup
-
Terminal 5 Roof Heathrow Airport, London, 2005, Rogers/Arup
-
Ningbo Air terminal
-
Ningbo Air terminal
-
Shenyang Taoxian International Airport
-
Chongqing Airport Terminal, 2005, Llewelyn Davies Yeang and Arup
-
San Giovanni Rotondo,
Foggia, Italy, 2004, Renzo
Piano
-
San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, 2004, Renzo Piano
-
Center Paul Klee, Bern, Switzerland, 2007, Renzo Piano Building Workshop , Arup
-
Center Paul Klee, Bern, 2005, Renzo Piano, Paul Klee
-
Waterloo Terminal, London, 1993, Nicholas Grimshaw
+ Anthony Hunt
-
5.86'
27.32'10'
4.29'
10.1
0 k
7.70 k
Mmax
Mmin
-
BCE Place, Toronto, 1992, Santiago Calatrava
-
Subway Station to Allians Stadium, Froettmanning,
Munich, 2004, Bohn Architekten, fabric membranes
-
New TVG Station, Liege, Belgium, 2008,
Santiago Calatrava
-
Olympic Stadium Athens, 2004, Santiago Calatrava
-
Pedestrian bridge in Cologne,
Germany
-
Suspended arch wood bridge, Esslingen, Germany, 1986, R. Dietrich
-
La Devesa Footbridge, Ripoll, Spain, 1991, S. Calatrava, torsion
-
Bac de Roda Felipe II Bridge,
1987, Barcelona, S. Calatrava
-
Bridge over the Rhein-Herne-Canal, BUGA 1997, Gelsenkirchen, Stefan Polnyi
-
C. CABLE-STAYED ROOF STRUCTURES
Examples of cable-stayed roof structures range from long-span structures for
stadiums, grandstands, hangars, and exhibition centers, to smaller scale buildings for
shopping centers, production or research facilities, to personal experiments with
tension and compression. Many of the general concepts of cable-stayed bridges, as
discussed in the previous section, can be transferred to the design of cable-stayed
roof structures. Typical guyed structures, used either as planar or spatial stay
systems, are the following:
Cable-stayed, double-cantilever roofs for central spinal buildings
Cable-stayed, single-cantilever roofs as used for hangars and grandstands
Cable-stayed beam structures supported by masts from the outside
Spatially guyed, multidirectional composite roof structures
-
Visual study of cable-supported structures
-
Force flow in cable-supported roofs
-
Visual study of cable-supported structures
Force flow in cable-supported roofs Patscenter, Princeton, 1984, Rogers/Rice, Fleetguard Factory, Quimper, France, 1981, Richard Rogers
Shopping Center, Nantes, France, 1988, Rogers/Rice Horst Korber Sports Center, Berlin, 1990, Christoph Langhof, The Charlety Stadium, Cite Universitaire, Paris, 1994, Henri and Bruno Gaudin Lufthansa Hangar, Munich, 1992, Buechl + Angerer Bridge, Hoofddorp, Netherlands, S. Calatrava The University of Chicago Gerald Ratner Athletic Center, Chicago, 2002, Cesar Pelli Melbourne Cricket Ground Southern Stand , 1992, Tomkins Shaw & Evans / Daryl Jackson Pty Lt
Bruce Stadium , Australian Capital Territory, 1977, Philip Cox, Taylor and Partners City of Manchester Stadium, UK, 2003, Arup Munich Airport Center, Munich, Germany, 1997, Helmut Jahn Arch
-
Patcenter, Princeton, 1984, Richard Rogers
-
Fleetguard Factory, Quimper, France, 1981, Richard Rogers
-
Shopping Center (1988), Nantes, France, Rogers/Rice
-
Horst Korber Sports Center
(1990), Berlin, Christoph
Langhof
-
The Charlety Stadium at the
City University in Paris, 1994,
Henri and Bruno Gaudin
-
Lufthansa Hangar (153 m), Munich, 1992, Buechl + Angerer
-
Bridge, Hoofddorp, Netherlands,
2004, Santiago Calatrava
-
The University of Chicago Gerald Ratner
Athletic Center, Cesar Pelli, 2002
-
Melbourne Cricket Ground Southern Stand, 1992, Jolimont, Victoria, Tomkins Shaw & Evans
-
Gravitational load systems
-
Radial lateral load resisting system
-
Uplift resisting system
-
Bruce Stadium , Philip Cox, Taylor and Partners ,1977, Bruce , Australian Capital Territory
-
City of Manchester Stadium, UK, 2003, Arup
-
The Munich Airport Business Center, Munich, Germany, 1997, Helmut Jahn Arch
-
D. FORM-PASSIVE SURFACE STRUCTURES
Slabs Folded Plates Space frames Tree columns supporting surfaces Skeleton dome structures Thin shells: rotational, synclastic forms vs. translational, anticlastic surfaces
-
Slabs Visual study of floor/ roof structures Slab analogy and slab support Multi-story building in concrete and steel Hospital, Dachau, Germany Ramp (STRAP) for parking garage Government building, Berlin Government building, Berlin Glasshouse, 1949, Philip Johnson New National Gallery, Berlin, 1968, Mies van der Rohe Sichuan University, Chengdu, College for Basic Studies, 2002 Civic Center, Shenzhen Science and Technology Museum Shanghai, 2002, RTKL/Arup Akron Art Museum, Akron, 2007, Wolf Prix and Helmut Swiczinsky (Himmelblau) BMW Welt, Munich, 2007, Coop Himmelblau
-
Visual study of floor/ roof structures
-
Visual study of floor/ roof
structures
-
Stress flow, multi-story building in concrete and steel
-
Stress flow, Hospital, Dachau, Germany
-
Computer modelling, ramp for parking garage
-
Glasshouse, 1949, Philip Johnson
-
New National Gallery, Berlin, 1968, Mies van der Rohe
-
Sichuan University, Chengdu,
College for Basic Studies, 2002
-
Paul Lbe and Marie-Elisabeth
Lders House in the German
Government Building, Berlin, 2001,
Stephan Braunfels
-
Government building,
Berlin, 2001
-
Federal Chancellery Building, Berlin, 2001, Axel Schultes and Charlotte Frank
-
Civic Center, Shenzhen
-
Science and Technology Museum Shanghai, 2002, RTKL/Arup
-
Akron Art Museum, Akron, 2007, Wolf Prix and Helmut Swiczinsky (Himmelblau).
-
BMW Welt, Munich, 2007, Coop Himmelblau
-
Phaeno Science Center, 2005, Wolfsburg, Germany, Zaha Hadid
-
Folded Plates
Folded plate structures Folded plate structure systems Alte Kurhaus, Aachen, Germany St. Foillan, Aachen, Leo Hugot Arch. Institute for Philosophy, Free University, Berlin, 1980s, Hinrich and Inken Baller Church of the Pilgrimage, Neviges, Germany, Gottfried Boehm, 1968, Velbert, Germany
Air force Academy Chapel, Colorado Springs, 1961, Walter Netsch (SOM) Center Le Corbusier, Zurich, 1967, Le Corbusier, hipped and inverted hipped roof, each composed of four square steel panels
Salone Agnelli, Turin Exhibition Hall, 1948, Pier Luigi Nervi Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts, Philadelphia, 2001, Rafael Vinoly Sydney Olympic Train Station, 1998, Homebush, Hassell Pty. Ltd Arch, vaulted leaf roof truss
Addition to Denver Art Museum, 2006, Daniel Libeskind/ Arup Eng.
-
Visual study of folded plate structures
-
Folded plate structure systems
-
Alte Kurhaus, Aachen, Germany
-
St. Foillan, Aachen,, Leo Hugot
-
Institute for Philosophy, Free University,
Berlin, 1980s, Hinrich and Inken Balle
-
Church of the Pilgrimage, Neviges, Germany,
Gottfried Boehm, 1963, 1964-68, Velbert,
Germany
-
Air force Academy Chapel, Colorado Springs, 1961, Walter Netsch (SOM); trusses
-
Center Le Corbusier, Zurich, 1967, Le Corbusier, hipped and inverted hipped roof,
each composed of four square steel panels
-
21_21 Design
Sight, Tokyo,
2007, Tadao Ando
-
Salone Agnelli, Turin Exhibition
Hall, 1948, Pier Luigi Nervi
-
Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts,
Philadelphia, Rafael Vinoly, 2001
-
Sydney Olympic Train Station, 1998,
Homebush, Hassell Pty. Ltd Arch
-
Addition to Denver Art Museum, 2006, Daniel Libeskind/ Arup Eng
-
Space Frames
Polyhedral roof structures Single-layer three-dimensional frameworks Double-layer space frame systems 1 Double-layer space frame systems 2 Common polyhedra derived from cube Generation of space grids by overlapping planar networks National Swimming Center, Beijing, RANDOM ARRANGEMENT OF SOAP BUBBLES
Structural behavior of double-layer space frames Common space frame joints Case study of flat space frame roofs Other space frame types Example Hohensyburg Robson Square, Vancouver, 1980, Arthur Erickson Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, New York, 1986, James Ingo Freed/ Weidlinger
Dvg-Administration, Hannover, 2000, Hascher/ Jehle Crystal Cathedral, Garden Grove, CA, 1980, Philip Johnson Tomochi Forestry Hall, Kumamoto, Japan, 2005, Taira Nishizawa Architects National Swimming Center, Beijing, 2008, Arup Arch and Eng.
-
Three-dimensional structures may be organized as follows:
Spatial frameworks: such as space truss beams, derricks, building cores, towers, guyed structures, etc
Single-layer three-dimensional frameworks are folded or bent latticed surface structures such as folded plate planar trusses,
polyhedral dome-like structures and other synclastic and anticlastic
surface structures. They obtain their strength through spatial geometry
that is their profile.
Multi-layer space frames are generated by adding polyhedral units to form three-dimensional building blocks. In contrast to single-layer
systems, the multi-layer structure has bending stiffness and does not
need to be curved; a familiar example are the flat, double-layer space
frame roofs and the sub-tensioned floor/ roof structures.
-
Visual study of polyhedral roof structures
-
Visual study of single-layer
three-dimensional
frameworks
-
Double-layer space frame systems 1
-
Double-layer space frame systems 2
-
Common polyhedra derived from cube
-
Generation of space grids by overlapping planar networks
-
National Swimming Center, Beijing, Arup Arch and Eng.; RANDOM ARRANGEMENT OF SOAP BUBBLES
-
Strurctural behavior of double-layer
space frames
-
Common space
frame joints
-
Case study of flat space frame roofs
-
Other space frame types
-
Example Hohensyburg, Germany
-
a.
b. c.
-
Robson Square, Vancouver, 1980, Arthur Erickson
-
Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, New York, 1986, James Ingo Freed
-
Dvg-Administration, Hannover, 2000,
Hascher/Jehle
-
Crystal Cathedral, Garden Grove, CA, 1980, Philip Johnson
-
Kyoto JR Station, Kyoto, Japan, 1998, Hiroshi Hara Arch.: the
urban mega-atrium. The building has the scale of a horizontal
skyscraper - it forms an urban mega-complex. The urban
landscape includes not only the huge complex of the station,
but also a department store, hotel, cultural center, shopping
center, etc. The central concourse or atrium is 470 m long, 27 m
wide, and 60 m high. It is covered by a large glass canopy that
is supported by a space-frame. This space acts a gateway to
the city as real mega-connection.
-
Tomochi Forestry Hall,
Kumamoto, Japan, 2005,
Taira Nishizawa Architects
-
Serpentine Gallery 2002, London, England Toyo Ito + Cecil Balmond
-
National Swimming Center, Beijing, 2008, Herzog de Meuron, Tristram Carfrae of
Arup structural engineers
-
Tree Columns
Ningbo Air Terminal Shenyang Airport Terminal Stanted Airport, London, UK, 1991, Norman Foster/ Arup Terminal 1 at Stuttgart Airport, 1991, von Gerkan & Marg. The huge steel trees of the Stuttgart Airport Terminal, Stuttgart, Germany with their spatial strut
work of slender branches give a continuous arched support to the roof
structure thereby eliminating the separation between column and slab. The
tree columns put tension on the roof plate and compression in the branches;
they are spaced on a grid of about 21 x 32 m (70 x 106 ft).
-
Ningbo Air Terminal
-
Shenyang Airport Terminal
-
Stanted Airport, London, UK, 1991, Norman Foster/ Arup
-
Terminal 1, Stuttgart Airport, 1991, von Gerkan & Marg
-
concept of tree
geometry
-
Skeleton Dome Structures typical domes, inverted domes, segments of dome assembly, etc.
Major skeleton dome systems Dome shells on polygonal base Dome structure cases Little Sports Palace, Rome, Italy, 1960 Olympic Games, Pier Luigi Nervi U.S. Pavilion, Toronto, Canada, Expo 67, Buckminster Fuller, 250 ft (76 m) diameter sphere, double-layer space frame
Jkai Baseball Stadium, Odate, Japan Philological Library, Free University, Berlin, 2005, N. Foster National Grand Theater, Beijing, 2006, Paul Andreu Bent surface structures Grand Louvre, Paris, 1993, I. M. Pei MUDAM, Museum of Modern Art, Luxembourg, 2006, I.M. Pei The dome used for dwelling Ice Stadium, Davos, Switzerland Reichstag, Berlin, Germany, 1999, Norman Foster Arch/ Leonhardt & Andrae Struct. Eng.
Beijing National Stadium, Beijing, 2008, Herzog and De Meuron Arch/ Arup Eng.
-
Major skeleton dome systems
-
Dome structure cases
-
Little Sports Palace, 1960 Olympic Games, Rome, Italy, Pier Luigi Nervi,
-
Biosphere, Toronto, Expo 67, Buckminster Fuller, 76 m, double-layer space frame
-
Jkai Baseball Stadium, Odate,
Japan
-
Philological Library of Freie Universitaet Berlin, 2005, Foster
-
National Grand Theater, Beijing, 2007, Paul Andreu
-
Visual study of bent
surface structures
-
Grand Louvre, Paris, 1993, I. M. Pei
-
MUDAM, Museum of Modern Art, Luxembourg, 2006, I.M. Pei
-
Vacation home,
Sedona, Arizona, 1995
-
Ice Stadium, Davos, Switzerland
-
Reichstag, Berlin, Germany, 1999, Norman Foster Arch. Leonhardt & Andrae Struct. Eng
-
Beijing National
Stadium, 2008, Herzog
and De Meuron Arch,
Arup Eng
-
RIGID SURFACES: Thin Shells, GRID SHELLS
Shell shapes may be classified as follows:
Geometrical, mathematical shapes Conventional or basic shapes: single-curvature surfaces (e.g.
cylinder, cone), double-curvature surfaces (e.g. synclastic surfaces
such as elliptic paraboloid, domes, and anticlastic surfaces such as
hyperbolic paraboloid, conoid, hyperboloid of revolution)
Segments of basic shapes, additions of segments, etc. Translation and/or rotation of lines or surfaces Corrugated surfaces Complex surfaces such as catastrophe surfaces
Structural shapes Minimal surfaces, with the least surface area for a given boundary, constant skin stress, and constant mean curvature
Funicular surfaces, which is determined under the predominant load Optimal surfaces, resulting in weight minimization Free-form shells, may be derived from experimentation Composed or sculptural shapes .
-
Introduction to Shells and Cylindrical Shells
Surface structures in nature Surface classification 1 and 2 Examples of shell form development through experimentation Basic concepts related to barrel shells Slab action vs. beam action Cylindrical shell-beam structure Vaults and short cylindrical shells Cylindrical grid structures Various cylindrical shell types St. Lorenz, Nuremberg, Germany, 14th cent Airplane hangar, Orvieto 1, 1939, Pier Luigi Nervi Zarzuela Hippodrome, Madrid, 1935, Eduardo Torroja Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, 1972, Louis Kahn Terminal 2F, Orly Airport, Paris, 2002, Paul Andreu, elliptical concrete vault Alnwick Gardens Visitor Center roof, UK, 2006, Hopkins Arch., Happold Struct. Eng. Museum Courtyard Roof, Hamburg, 1989, von Gerkan Marg und Partner DZ Bank, glass roof, Berlin, Gehry + Schlaich Exhibition hall Leipzig, Germany, 1996, von Gerkan, GMP, in cooperation with Ian Ritchie
-
Surface
structures in
nature
-
Surface classification 1
-
Surface classification 2
-
Suspended models of Isler Soap models of Frei Otto
Examples of shell form development through experimentation
-
Basic concepts related to barrel shells
-
Basic concepts related to barrel shells
-
Cylindrical shell-beam
structure
-
Vaults and short cylindrical shells
-
Cylindrical grid structures
-
Various cylindrical
shell types
-
Cologne Cathedral (1248 19th. Cent.), Germany
-
St. Lorenz, Nuremberg,
Germany, 14th cent
-
Airplane hangar, Orvieto 1, 1939, Pier Luigi Nervi
-
Zarzuela Hippodrome, Madrid, 1935, Eduardo Torroja
-
Kimball Museum, Fort Worth, 1972, Louis Kahn
-
Orly Airport, section E, with an elliptical vault
made out of concrete, 2004, Paul Andreu
-
Wood and steel diagrid shell-lattice supports the Alnwick Gardens Visitor Center
roof, UK, 2006, Hopkins Arch., Happold Struct. Eng.
-
Museum Courtyard Roof (1989), Hamburg, glass-covered grid shell over L-shaped
courtyard, Architect von Gerkan Marg und Partner
-
DZ Bank, glass roof, Berlin, Gehry + Schlaich
-
Exhibition Hall, Leipzig, Germany, 1996, von Gerkan, GMP, Ian Ritchie
-
P&C Luebeck, Luebeck, 2005, Ingenhoven und Partner, Werner Sobek
-
Central Railway Station Cologne, Germany
-
CNIT Exhibition Hall, Paris, 1958, Bernard Zehrfuss Arch, Nicolas Esquillon Eng
-
Other Shell Forms
Dome shells on polygonal base Keramion Ceramics Museum, Frechen, 1971, Peter Neufert Arch., the building reflects the nature of cera. Kresge Auditorium, MIT, Eero Saarinen/Amman Whitney, 1955, on three supports
Eden Project in Cornwall/England Humid Tropics Biome, Nicholas Grimshaw, Hunt Delft University of Technology Aula Congress Centre, 1966, Bakema Hyperbolic paraboloids Hypar units on square grids Case study of hypar roofs Membrane forces in a basic hypar unit Some hypar characteristics Examples Felix Candela, Mexico Bus shelter, Schweinfurt Greenwich Playhouse, 2002, Austin/Patterson/Diston Architects folded plate behavior Garden Exhibition Shell Roof, Stuttgart, 1977, Jrg Schlaich Expo Roof, Hannover, EXPO 2000, 2000, Thomas Herzog Intersecting shells Other surface structures TWA Terminal, New York, 1962, Saarinen Sydney Opera House, Australia, 1972, Joern Utzon/ Ove Arup Mannheim Exhibition, 1975, Frei Otto etc., DZ Bank, amoeba-like auditorium, Berlin, 2001, Gehry + Schlaich Phaeno Science Centre Wolfsburg, Germany, 2005, Zaha Hadid BMW Welt, Munich, 2007, Coop Himmelblau Centre Pompidou-Metz, 2008, architects Shigeru Ban and Jean de Gastines Fisher Center, Bard College, NY, Frank Gehry, DeSimone, 2004 A model of the London Olympic Aquatic Center, 2004 by Zaha Hadid. Congress Center EUR District, Rome, Italy, Massimiliano Fuksa Metropol Parasol", Jrgen Mayer Arch
-
Dome shells on
polygonal base
-
Keramion Ceramics Museum, Frechen, 1971, Peter Neufert Arch.
-
Kresge Auditorium, MIT, Eero
Saarinen/Amman Whitney, 1955, on three
supports
-
Ecological Center, St. Austell, Cornwall,
England,1996, Nicholas Grimshaw,
Anthony Hunt
-
Delft University of Technology Aula Congress Centre, 1966, Bakema
-
Social Center of the Federal Mail, Stuttgart, 1989, Architect Ostertag
-
Hyperbolic paraboloids
-
Hypar units on square grids
-
Case study of hypar roofs
-
Membrane forces in a basic hypar unit
-
Some hypar
characteristics
-
Hypar examples
-
Felix Candela, Mexico
-
Bus shelter, Schweinfurt
-
Greenwich Playhouse, 2002,
Austin/Patterson/ Diston Architects
-
Garden Exhibition Shell Roof, Stuttgart, 1977, Jrg Schlaich
-
Expo Roof, Hannover, EXPO 2000, 2000,
Thomas Herzog
-
Intersecting shells
-
Other surface structures
-
TWA
Terminal,
New York,
1962,
Saarinen
-
Sydney Opera House, Australia, 1972, Joern Utzon/ Ove Arup
-
Multi Hall Mannheim, 1975, Timber Lattice
Roof , Frei Otto
-
DG Bank, Berlin, Germany
2001, Frank Gehry, Schlaich
-
Phaeno Science Centre, Wolfsburg, Germany, 2005, Zaha Zadid, Adams Kara Taylor
-
BMW Welt, Munich, 2007, Coop Himmelblau
-
Centre Pompidou-Metz, 2008, architects
Shigeru Ban and Jean de Gastines
-
Fisher Center, Bard College, NY, Frank Gehry, DeSimone, 2004
-
A model of the London Olympic Aquatic Center, 2004 by Zaha Hadid
-
Congress Center EUR District, Rome,
Italy, Massimiliano Fuksa
-
Metropol Parasol, Seville, Spain, 2008, Jrgen Mayer
-
E. Form-active surface structures: soft shells, TENSILE MEMBRANES, textile fabric membranes, cable
net structures, tensegrity fabric composite structures
Suspended surfaces (parallel, radial)
Anticlastic, pre-stressed structures
Edge-supported saddle roofs
Mast-supported conical saddle roofs
Arch-supported saddle roofs
Pneumatic structures Air-supported structures
Air-inflated structures (air members)
Hybrid air structures
Hybrid tensile surface structures possibly including tensegrity
-
In contrast to traditional surface structures, tensile cablenet and
textile structures lack stiffness and weight. Whereas
conventional hard and stiff structures can form linear surfaces,
soft and flexible structures must form double-curvature
anticlastic surfaces that must be prestressed (i.e. with built-in
tension) unless they are pneumatic structures. In other words,
the typical prestressed membrane will have two principal
directions of curvature, one convex and one concave, where the
cables and/or yarn fibers of the fabric are generally oriented
parallel to these principal directions. The fabric resists the
applied loads biaxially; the stress in one principal direction will
resist the load (i.e. load carrying action), whereas the stress in
the perpendicular direction will provide stability to the surface
structure (i.e. prestress action). Anticlastic surfaces are directly
prestressed, while synclastic pneumatic structures are tensioned
by air pressure. The basic prestressed tensile membranes and
cable net surface structures are
-
Methods for stabilizing cable
structures
-
Anchorage of tension forces
-
Suspended Surfaces
Simply-suspended structures Dulles Airport, Washington, 1962, Eero Saarinen/Fred Severud, 161-ft suspended tensile vault
Trade Fair Hall 26, Hanover, 1996, Herzog/ Schlaich National Indoor Sports and Training Centre, Australia, 1981, Philip Cox Olympic Stadium for 1964 Olympics, Tokyo, Kenzo Tange/Y. Tsuboi, the roof is supported by heavy steel cables stretched between concrete towers and tied
down to anchorage blocks.
-
Simply-suspended structures
-
Dulles Airport, Washington, 1962, Eero Saarinen/ Fred Severud, 161-ft (49 m)
suspended tensile vault
-
Trade Fair Hall 26, Hanover, suspension roof structure, timber panels on steel tie
members, 1996, Architect Herzog + Partner, Mnchen; Schlaich Bergermann.
-
National Indoor Sports and Training Centre , Philip Cox and Partners, 1981
-
Olympic Stadium, 1964, Tokyo, Kenzo Tange/ Y. Tsuboi
-
Anticlastic Tensile Membranes
Tent architecture
Dorton (Raleigh) Arena, 1952, North Carolina, Matthew Nowicki, with Frederick Severud
Subway Station to Allianz Arena, Stadium Railway Station Froettmanning, Munich
IAA 95 motor show, Frankfurt New roof for the Olympic Stadium Montreal, 1975, Roger Taillibert Grand Arch de la Defense, Paris, Paul Andreu Olympic Stadium, Munich, 1972, Behnich/Frei Otto/Leonardt King Fahd International Stadium, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1986, Horst Berger Canada Place, Vancouver, 1986, Eberhard Zeidler/ Horst Berger San Diego Convention Center, 1989, Arthur Erickson/ Horst Berger Schlumberger Research Center, Cambridge, UK, 1985, Hopkins/Hunt International Airport Terminal, Denver, 1994, Horst Berger/
Hybrid tensile surface structures
-
Tensile Membrane Structures
In contrast to traditional surface structures, tensile cablenet and textile
structures lack stiffness and weight. Whereas conventional hard and stiff
structures can form linear surfaces, soft and flexible structures must
form double-curvature anticlastic surfaces that must be prestressed (i.e.
with built-in tension) unless they are pneumatic structures. In other words,
the typical prestressed membrane will have two principal directions of
curvature, one convex and one concave, where the cables and/or yarn
fibers of the fabric are generally oriented parallel to these principal
directions. The fabric resists the applied loads biaxially; the stress in one
principal direction will resist the load (i.e. load carrying action), whereas
the stress in the perpendicular direction will provide stability to the surface
structure (i.e. prestress action). Anticlastic surfaces are directly
prestressed, while synclstic pneumatic structures are tensioned by air
pressure.
-
Dorton (Raleigh) Arena, 1952,
North Carolina, Matthew Nowicki,
with Frederick Severud
-
Tent architecture
-
Subway Station Froettmanning, Munich, 2005, Bohn Architect, PTFE-Glass roof
-
IAA 95 motor show,
Frankfurt, BMW
-
New roof for the Olympic Stadium Montreal, 1975, Roger Taillibert
-
Grand Arch de la Defense, Paris, 1989, Paul Andreu, Peter Rice
-
Olympic Stadium, Munich, Germany, 1972, Frei Otto, Leonhardt-Andrae
-
Soap models by Frei Otto
-
Stadium Roof, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1984, Architect Fraser Robert, Geiger & Berger,
-
Canada Place, Vancouver, 1986, Eberhard Zeidler/ Horst Berger
-
San Diego Convention Center, 1989, Arthur Erickson/ Horst Berger
-
Schlumberger Research Center, Cambridge, UK, 1985, Hopkins/ Hunt
-
Denver International Airport Terminal, 1994, Denver, Horst Berger/ Severud
-
Hybrid tensile surface structures
-
Pneumatic Structures
Air supported structures
Air-inflated structures
-
Classificati
on of
pneumatic
structures
-
Air-supported structures
high-profile ground-mounted air structures
berm- or wall-mounted air domes
low-profile roof membranes
Pneumatic structures Low-profile, long-span roof structures Soap bubbles To house a touring exhibition Examples of pneumatic structures Norways National Galery, Oslo, 2001, Magne Magler Wiggen Architect Effect of wind loading on spherical membrane shapes Metrodome, Minneapolis, 1981, SOM
-
Air-supported structures form synclastic, single-membrane structures, such as
the typical basic domical and cylindrical forms, where the interior is
pressurized; they are often called low-pressure systems because only a small
pressure is needed to hold the skin up and the occupants dont notice it.
Pressure can be positive causing a convex response of the tensile membrane
or it can be negative (i.e. suction) resulting in a concave shape. The basic
shapes can be combined in infinitely many ways and can be partioned by
interior tensile columns or membranes to form chambered pneus.
The typical normal operating pressure for air-supported membranes in the USA
is in the range of 4.5 to 8 psf (22 kg/m2 to 39 kg/m2) or roughly 1.0 to 1.5 inches
of water as read from a water-pressure gage. Air-supported structures may be
organized as
-
Pneumatic structures
-
Low-profile, long-span roof structures
-
Soap bubbles
-
To house a touring exhibition
-
Examples of pneumatic structures
-
Kiss the Frog: the Art of Transformation, inflatable pavilion for Norways National Galery, Oslo, 2001, Magne Magler Wiggen Architect,
-
Effect of wind loading on
spherical membrane
shapes
-
Metrodome, Minneapolis, 1981, SOM
-
Airinflated structures: air members
Air inflated structures or simply air members, are typically,
high-pressure tubes
lower-pressure cellular mats: air cushions
Air members may act as columns, arches, beams, frames, mats, and so
on; they need a much higher internal pressure than air-supported
membranes
Expo02 Neuchatel, air cussion, ca 100 m dia. Roman Arena Inflated Roof, Nimes, France, Schlaich Festo A.G. Stuttgart
-
Expo02 Neuchatel, air cussion, ca 100 m dia.
-
Roman Arena Inflated Roof, Nimes, France, removable
membrane pneu with outer steel, 1988, Architect Finn
Geipel, Nicolas Michelin, Paris; Schlaich Bergermann und
Partne.internal pressure 0.40.55 kN/m2
-
Festo A.G. Stuttgart
-
Tensegrity Structures
PLANAR OPEN TENSEGRITY SYSTEMS
SPATIAL OPEN TENSEGRITY SYSTEMS
SPATIAL CLOSED TENSEGRITY SYSTEMS
Buckminster Fuller:
small islands of compression in a sea of
tension
-
Tensegrity Structures
Buckminster Fuller described tensegrity as, small islands of compression in a sea of tension. Ideal tensegrity structures are self-stressed systems, where few non-touching straight compression struts are suspended in a continuous cable
network of tension members. The pretensioned cable structures may be either
self-balancing that is the forces are balanced internally or non-self-balancing
where the forces are resisted externally by the support structure. Tensegrity
structures may be organized as
Planar open tensegrity systems: cable beams, cable trusses, cable frames
Planar closed tensegrity systems cable beams, cable trusses, cable frames
Spatial open tensegrity systems Spatial closed tensegrity systems
-
Tensegrity sculptures by K. Snelson
-
Tensegrity by Karl Ioganson, 1920, Russian
artist
-
TENSEGRITY TRIPOD
TENSEGRITY
tensile integrity
-
DOUBLE - LAYER TENSEGRITY DOME
-
Examples of the spatial open tensegrity
systems are the tensegrity domes. David
Geiger invented a new generation of low-
profile domes, which he called cable domes.
He derived the concept from Buckminster
Fullers aspension (ascending suspension) tensegrity domes, which are triangle based
and consist of discontinuous radial trusses
tied together by ascending concentric tension
rings; but the roof was not conceived as
made of fabric.
-
Olympic Fencing and Gymnastics Arenas,
Seoul, 1989, Geiger
-
The worlds largest cable dome is currently Atlantas Georgia Dome (1992), designed by engineer Mattys Levy of Weidlinger Associates.
Levy developed for this enormous 770- x 610-ft oval roof the hypar
tensegrity dome, which required three concentric tension hoops. He
used the name because the triangular-shaped roof panels form
diamonds that are saddle shaped.
In contrast to Geigers radial configuration primarily for round cable domes, Levy used triangular geometry, which works well for
noncircular structures and offers more redundancy, but also results in
a more complex design and erection process. An elliptical roof differs
from a circular one in that the tension along the hoops is not constant
under uniform gravity load action. Furthermore, while in radial cable
domes, the unbalanced loads are resisted first by the radial trusses
and then distributed through deflection of the network, in triangulated
tensegrity domes, loads are distributed more evenly.
-
The oval plan configuration of the roof consists of two radial circular
segments at the ends, with a planar, 184-ft long tension cable truss at
the long axis that pulls the roofs two foci together. The reinforced-concrete compression ring beam is a hollow box girder 26 ft wide and
5 ft deep that rests on Teflon bearing pads on top of the concrete
columns to accommodate movements.
The Teflon-coated fiberglass membrane, consisting of the fused
diamond-shaped fabric panels approximately 1/16 in. thick, is
supported by the cable network but works independently of it (i.e.
filler panels); it acts solely as a roof membrane but does contribute to
the dome stiffness. The total dead load of the roof is 8 psf.
The roof erection, using simultaneous lift of the entire giant roof
network from the stadium floor to a height of 250 ft, was an
impressive achievement of Birdair, Inc.
-
Georgia Dome, Atlanta, 1995,
Weidlinger, Structures such as the
Hypar-Tensegrity Dome, 234 m x 186 m