Prof.

Wolfgang Schueller

SPANNING SPACE
HORIZONTAL-SPAN BUILDING STRUCTURES
Including student projets and SAP2000 projects

For SAP2000 problem solutions refer to Wolfgang Schueller: Building

Support Structures examples model files:
https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/sap2000/Wolfgang+Schueller%3A+Building+Su
pport+Structures+-

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

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 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.

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, longspan structure behavior

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
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)

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

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

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 formresistant 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

Flexural systems

Flexural-axial systems

Form-resistant structures, axial-shear systems:

(e.g. trusses, space frames, cables)

(e.g. one-way and two-way beams, trusses, floor grids)
(e.g. frames, arches)

(folded plates, shells, tensile membranes) - one may distinguish between,

compressive systems
tensile systems

(arches, domes, shells)

(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

Basic Structure Concepts

HORIZONTAL SPAN BUILDING STRUCTURES

rigid systems

composite systems
semi-rigid structures

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

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.

Lateral stability of buildings

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

LOCATION OF VERTICAL
SUPPORT STRUCTURE

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

Deep beam structures: flat steel truss
Timber frames and arches
Folded plates
Cylindrical shell beams
Thin shell domes
Space frames, skeletal domes
Two-way trussed box mega-arches
Two-way cable supported strutted mega-arches
Composite tensegrity fabric structures

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)

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

Shallow beams, e.g. average floor framing
Slabs, e.g. concrete slabs
Vaults and arches
Shell beams
Reinforced concrete shells
Lightweight cable or prestressed fabric structures

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 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-toweight 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.

Some roof support structures

EXAMPLES OF HORIZONTAL-SPAN
ROOF STRUCTURES

Multi-bay long-span roof structures

Cantilever 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

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:

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

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 postmodern 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

The Building Erection: tower cranes

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,

Tuskegee University
Chapel, Tuskegee,
Alabama, 1969, Paul
Rudolph Architect

The Niagara
Wintergarden, 1977,
Cesar Pelli

Farnsworth House, 1951, Mies van

der Rohe

Residence, Aspen, Colorado,

2004, Voorsanger & Assoc.,

Phillips Exeter Academy, George H.

Love'18 Athletic Facility, Exeter, New
Hampshire, 1970, Kallmann McKinnell and
Wood Arch

European Court of Justice, Luxemburg, 2008, Dominique Perrault

European Court of Justice, Luxemburg, 1994, Atelier d'Architecture Paczowski

Fritsch & Associs

Central Beheer Insurance

Company, Apeldoorn, The
Netherlands, 1972, Herman
Herzberger

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

GV Station, Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris-Roissy , 1994,

Paul Andreu/ Peter Rice

Tokyo International Forum, 1997,

Rafael Vignoli Arch, Kunio
Watanabe Struct. Eng.

Tokyo International Forum,

Tokyo, Japan, 1997, Rafael
Vinoly Arch, Kunio Watanabe
Struct Eng

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

Lyon National School of

Architecture, 1987, Jourda &
Perraudin

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 bridgelike 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.

Olivetti Building, Florence, Italy, 1973,

Alberto Galardi

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

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

Seoul National University Museum, Rem Koolhaas, 2006

William J. Clinton Presidential Center, Little Rock, AR, 2004, Polshek Partnership

Clinton Presidential Center Museum, Little Rock,

Ark, 2005, Polshek Arch, Leslie Robertson

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

La Grande Arch, Paris, 1989, Fainsilber & P. 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 multistrut 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

Office building of the

European Investment
Bank, 2009, Luxembourg,
Ingenhoven Architects

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

ShanghaiPudong
Internation
al Airport,
2001, Paul
Andreu
principal
architect,
Coyne et
Bellier
structural
engineers

Ski Jump Voightland Arena,

Klingenthal, 2007, m2r-architecture

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

Visual study of Frames and

arches

Visual study of singlebay portal frames

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

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

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.

Hysolar Institute, University of

Stuttgart, Germany, 1988, G.
Behnish and Frank Stepper

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

The International Congress Center,

Berlin, R. Schuler Architect

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

Single-layer space frame roof

The M-House, Los Angeles, 2000, Michael Jantzen, Advanced Structures Inc.

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

New Beijing Planetarium,

2005, AmphibianArc
Nanchi Wang

Study of curvilinear patterns

Arches as enclosures

Visual study of arches

Visual study of lateral thrust

Satolas Airport TGV Train

Station, Lyons, France, 1995,
Santiago Calatrava

German National Museum, Nuremberg,

1993, me di um Architects

Atrium, Germanisches Museum, Nuremberg, Germany, 1993, me di um Arch.

Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta, Riola,

Italy, 1978, Alvar Aalto

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, 2002

Chongqing Airport Terminal, 2005, Llewelyn Davies Yeang and Arup

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

10

.10

Mmax

Mmin

7.70 k
5.86'

4.29'

10'

27.32'

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

in 2004 three bridges designed by the

Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava were
opened.

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

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, New
Canaan, Conn., 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,

2009, Make Architects

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.

Folded plate structure systems

Visual study of folded plate structures

Saratoga
Performing Arts
Center, 1966,
Saratoga
Springs, NY,
Vollmer Assoc.

Neue Kurhaus addendum, Aachen, Germany

St. Foillan, Aachen, 1958,

Leo Hugot

Institute for Philosophy, Free University,

Berlin, 1980s, Hinrich and Inken Balle

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

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

Platonic Solids

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

Currigan Hall, Chicago, 1969, Michow Ream & Larson, demolished 2001

Other space frame types

Example Hohensyburg, Germany

a.

b.

c.

McCormic Place, Chicago,

1971, C.F. Murphy Assoc

Omni Coliseum, Atlanta GA,

1972, Thompson, Ventulett &
Stainbeck Inc, demolished
1997

McMaster Health
Sciences Centre,
Hamilton, Ontario,
1972, Craig, Zeidler,
Strong Arch.

George Washington Bridge Bus Station,

Pier Luigi Nervi, 1963.

Wells College Library, Aurora NY,

1968, Walter Netch SOM

St. Benedicts Abbey Church, Benet Lake,

Wisconsin, 1972, Stanley Tigerman Arch.

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

Guangzhou Opera House, Guangzhou, 2010, Zaha Hadid

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

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

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

tensile integrity

TENSEGRITY TRIPOD

DOUBLE - LAYER TENSEGRITY DOME

Examples of the spatial open tensegrity

systems are the tensegrity domes. David
Geiger invented a new generation of lowprofile 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 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.

Georgia Dome, Atlanta, 1995,

Weidlinger, Structures such as the
Hypar-Tensegrity Dome, 234 m x 186 m