Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wolfgang Schueller
SPANNING SPACE
HORIZONTAL-SPAN BUILDING STRUCTURES
Including student projets and SAP2000 projects
If you do not have the SAP2000 program get it from CSI. Students should
request technical support from their professors, who can contact CSI if necessary,
to obtain the latest limited capacity (100 nodes) student version demo for
SAP2000; CSI does not provide technical support directly to students. The reader
may also be interested in the Eval uation version of SAP2000; there is no capacity
limitation, but one cannot print or export/import from it and it cannot be read in the
commercial version. (http://www.csiamerica.com/support/downloads)
See also,
(1) The Design of Building Structures (Vol.1, Vol. 2), rev. ed., PDF eBook by
Wolfgang Schueller, 2016, published originally by Prentice Hall, 1996,
(2) Building Support Structures, Analysis and Design with SAP2000 Software, 2nd
ed., eBook by Wolfgang Schueller, 2015.
The SAP2000V15 Examples and Problems SDB files are available on the
Computers & Structures, Inc. (CSI) website:
http://www.csiamerica.com/go/schueller
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 o
crystalline shapes. Most conventional buildings are derived from the rectangle, triangle, circle, trapezoid, cruciform
letter shapes and other linked figures usually composed of rectangles. Traditional architecture shapes from the ba
geometrical solids the prism, pyramid, cylinder, cone, and sphere. Odd-shaped buildings may have irregular plans th
change with height so that the floors are not repetitive anymore. The modernists invented an almost inexhaustible n
new building shapes through transformation and arrangement of basic building shapes, through analogies with biol
human body, crystallography, machines, tinker toys, flow forms, and so on. Classical architecture, in contrast, le
appear as a decorative element with symbolic meaning.
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
Short span:
e.g. Parthenon, Athens, 430 BC
Atrium structure:
San Franciscos War
(1932, 1989) Memorial
Opera House, longspan structure behavior
Taj Mahal (1647, Quing Dynasty), Agra, India, 125 ft (38 m) span corbelled dome
The transition to modern long-span structures occurred primarily during the second half
of the 19th century with the light-weight steel skeleton
railway sheds, exhibition halls, bridges, etc. as represented by:
structures for
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)
Frames: 375-ft (114 m) span steel arches for the Galerie des Machines (1889)
Schwedler dome (braced dome, 1874), Vienna, 207-ft (63 m), e.g.
triangulated ribbed dome
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
Axial systems
Flexural systems
Flexural-axial systems
compressive systems
tensile systems
composite systems
semi-rigid structures
flexible structures
LATERAL STABILITY
Every building consists of the load-bearing structure and the non-loadbearing 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.
Possible location of
lateral force resisting
units in building
LOCATION OF VERTICAL
SUPPORT STRUCTURE
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,
120 ft (37 m)
300 ft (91 m)
250 ft (76 m)
120 ft (37 m)
180 ft (55 m)
250 ft (76 m)
400 ft (122 m)
400 ft (122 m)
500 ft (152 m)
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)
L/t 12 or
L/t 24
L/t 36
L/t 60
L/t 100
L/t 400
not an issue
t L/12
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.
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.
EXAMPLES OF HORIZONTAL-SPAN
ROOF STRUCTURES
Cantilever structures
A. BEAMS
B. FRAMES
C. CABLE-STAYED ROOF STRUCTURES
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
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.
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.
VA
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:
MS
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 postmodern symbolism
Individual Beams
Shanghai-Pudong
International Airport,
2001, Paul Andreu
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
Tuskegee University
Chapel, Tuskegee,
Alabama, 1969, Paul
Rudolph Architect
The Niagara
Wintergarden, 1977,
Cesar Pelli
Beam trusses
TU Munich
TU Stuttgart
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
Ski Jump
Berg Isel,
Innsbruck,
Zaha Hadid,
2002
Visual study of Olivetti Building (5 floors), Florence, Italy, 1973, Alberto Galardi
Hongkong Bank (1985), Honkong, 180m, Foster + Arup, steel mast joined by suspension trusses
Beam buildings
Beam buildings
Charles A. Dana
Creative Arts Center,
Colgate University,
Hamilton, New York,
1966, Paul Rudolph
Herbert F. Johnson
Museum of Ar, Cornell
University. Ithaca, 1973,
I.M. Pei
Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University, 1973, I. M. Pei, constructivist sculpture
William J. Clinton Presidential Center, Little Rock, AR, 2004, Polshek Partnership
WDR
Arcades/Broad
casting House,
Cologne, 1996,
Gottfried Bhm
La Grande Arche, Paris, 1989, Johan Otto von Sprechelsen/ Peter Rice for the canopy
La Grande Arch, Paris, 1989, Fainsilber & P. Rice for the canopy
Old Federal Reserve Bank Building, Minneapolis, 1973, Gunnar Birkerts, 273-ft
(83 m) span truss at top
Cologne/Bonn Airport, Germany, 2000, Helmut Jahn Arch., Ove Arup USA Str. Eng
ShanghaiPudong
Internation
al Airport,
2001, Paul
Andreu
principal
architect,
Coyne et
Bellier
structural
engineers
Frames
The Hysolar Institute at the University of Stuttgart, Germany (1988, G. Behnish and Frank Stepper) reflects
the spirit of deconstruction, it looks like a picture puzzle of a building - it is a playful open style of building
with modern light materials. It reflects a play of irregular spaces like a collage using oblique angles causing
the structure to look for order. The building consists of two rows of prefabricated stacked metal
containers arranged in some haphazard twisted fashion, together with a structural framework
enclosed with sun collectors. The interior space is open at the ends and covered by a sloped roof
structure. The bent linear element gives the illusion of an arch with unimportant almost ugly
anchorage to the ground.
The M-House, Los Angeles, 2000, Michael Jantzen, Advanced Structures Inc.
Arches
Arches as enclosures
Bodegas Protos,
Peafiel, Valladolid,
Spain, 2008, Richard
Rogers, Arup
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
Kansai International
Airport Terminal in
Osaka, Japan, 1994 ,
Renzo Piano
Center Paul Klee, Bern, Switzerland, 2007, Renzo Piano Building Workshop , Arup
10
.10
Mmax
Mmin
7.70 k
5.86'
4.29'
10'
27.32'
C.
CABLE-STAYED
ROOF STRUCTURES
Melbourne Cricket Ground Southern Stand, 1992, Jolimont, Victoria, Tomkins Shaw & Evans
Bruce Stadium , Philip Cox, Taylor and Partners ,1977, Bruce , Australian Capital Territory
The Munich Airport Business Center, Munich, Germany, 1997, Helmut Jahn Arch
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
Glasshouse, New
Canaan, Conn., 1949,
Philip Johnson
Government building,
Berlin, 2001
Federal Chancellery Building, Berlin, 2001, Axel Schultes and Charlotte Frank
Akron Art Museum, Akron, 2007, Wolf Prix and Helmut Swiczinsky (Himmelblau).
Folded Plates
Saratoga
Performing Arts
Center, 1966,
Saratoga
Springs, NY,
Vollmer Assoc.
Church of the
Pilgrimage, Neviges,
Germany, Gottfried
Boehm, 1972, 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
Space Frames
Platonic Solids
National Swimming Center, Beijing, Arup Arch and Eng.; RANDOM ARRANGEMENT OF SOAP BUBBLES
Common space
frame joints
Currigan Hall, Chicago, 1969, Michow Ream & Larson, demolished 2001
a.
b.
c.
McMaster Health
Sciences Centre,
Hamilton, Ontario,
1972, Craig, Zeidler,
Strong Arch.
Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, New York, 1986, James Ingo Freed
Tree Columns
concept of tree
geometry
Little Sports Palace, 1960 Olympic Games, Rome, Italy, Pier Luigi Nervi,
Vacation home,
Sedona, Arizona, 1995
Reichstag, Berlin, Germany, 1999, Norman Foster Arch. Leonhardt & Andrae Struct. Eng
Beijing National
Stadium, 2008, Herzog
and De Meuron Arch,
Arup Eng
Surface
structures in
nature
Surface classification 1
Surface classification 2
Cylindrical shell-beam
structure
Various cylindrical
shell types
Wood and steel diagrid shell-lattice supports the Alnwick Gardens Visitor Center
Museum Courtyard Roof (1989), Hamburg, glass-covered grid shell over L-shaped
courtyard, Architect von Gerkan Marg und Partner
Exhibition Hall, Leipzig, Germany, 1996, von Gerkan, GMP, Ian Ritchie
CNIT Exhibition Hall, Paris, 1958, Bernard Zehrfuss Arch, Nicolas Esquillon Eng
Dome shells on
polygonal base
Hyperbolic paraboloids
Some hypar
characteristics
Hypar examples
Intersecting shells
TWA
Terminal,
New York,
1962,
Saarinen
Phaeno Science Centre, Wolfsburg, Germany, 2005, Zaha Zadid, Adams Kara Taylor
Pneumatic structures
Air-supported structures
Air-inflated structures (air members)
Hybrid air structures
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
Tent architecture
New roof for the Olympic Stadium Montreal, 1975, Roger Taillibert
Stadium Roof, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1984, Architect Fraser Robert, Geiger & Berger,
Pneumatic Structures
Classificati
on of
pneumatic
structures
Air-supported structures
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
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
Soap bubbles
Kiss the Frog: the Art of Transformation, inflatable pavilion for Norways National
Galery, Oslo, 2001, Magne Magler Wiggen Architect,
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
Tensegrity Structures
PLANAR OPEN 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
tensile integrity
TENSEGRITY TRIPOD
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 reinforcedconcrete 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.