P Tubular Structures X — Jaurrieta, Alonso & Chica (Eds.) ©2003 Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, ISBN 90 5809 552 5 ‘The analysis of a great roof and the design criteria F Esorig, J. Sanchez & E. Vazquez ‘Professors at the School of Architecture of Seville, Spain ABSTRACT: When we planned to construct a large span roof with a tubular hollow section space structure ‘using rigid joints instead of pinned connections we thought that the main problem would be the local tension ‘concentration. We carried out detailed analysis as well as model tests to determine whether the plastic concen- tration around the welded connections was dangerous. In this paper, we discuss the problems found in the construction, welding and stress distribution when submitted to different test, including Finite Element Method and real scale tests. The final space structure chosen confirmed the results obtained by the Finite Element Method and we were satisfied with its good behaviour. 1 DESIGN OF THE ROOF Our first job was to find an adequate shape that would at the same time provide beauty, economy and safety and also be adapted to the existing building without any hindrance. The site, a velodrome with seating for three ‘thousand, with an oval perimeter of 145 m anda 114m axis is shown in Figurel. The alternatives shown in Figure 2 were discarded owing to thei complexity ot lack of image. Finally, we chose the design of a shape obtained by the intersection of two cylinders (Figure 3) thus offering several advantages: a. The roof is supported on only four piers. Figure 2. Different shapes considered. Figure 1. Uncovered site. Figure 3, Final design.b, A favourable mesh structure is achieved as all the hollow sections are circular. ©. All forces are drawn to the girders of the perimeter. 2 DESIGN OF THE SPACE STRUCTURE ‘When deciding on the kind of mesh to use (Figure 4), ‘we considered that rigid joints were better than pinned ones, lattice girders. When in Figure 5 we compare a girder with a span similar to that of the central beam of our design, the difference is obvious. The lattice girder is very satisfactory whereas the. Vierendee! girders offers poor results. Nevertheless, the results are differ- ent when we do the same with an arch, The lattice beam is less satisfactory when considering weight. In all cases, we considered joints as rigid and the hollow sections have been calculated according to elastic Figure 4. Space structure model. ULTIMATE ELASTIC LMT Crs 358.620 Use 82 aay m4 tm 2a _son_-26| eas a aa ae design (Figure 6). All the examples shown have the same length. We also had to study the following possibility. Could the depth influence the results of the arch design? Figure 7 shows how the single layer space frame is opti- mum if we do not take overall buckling into account, It is very complicated to check this type of behaviour and not included in normal analysis programs. So to test general buckling, we compared the space frame toa shell using References 2 and 3. being hm the equivalent depth and cr the tension which cause buckling. p, - 4__(wipe_section) ™ ~~ d (depth_of _the_mesh) = 213%? _ 01559 0m 250 hy = Equivalent_Inertia_ Modulus. it 2 n (24 (ees 13x18)" _ y99 d L = Length_of the_cylinder = 10000 R = GylinderRadius = 10200__E = 2.1 X 10°Kg/em? DEFLECTION SELF WEIGHT: 165 Kpmi WEIGHT: 28.4007 TOTAL HOLLOW LENGTH: 172.1m ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIM CHS Zoo DEFLECTION LAA we SELFWEIGHT: 97.8 Kplmi WEIGHT: 9.2977 TOTAL HOLLOW LENGTH: 259.1m Figure S Comparing results of Vierendeel and lattice girders.ULTIMATE ELASTIC LINT CHS 2005 aioe ne Z ee eT “ i $1444 est Gaur WEIGHT: 24.0 Koni WEIGHT: 42127 TOTAL HOLLOW LENGTH: 176.5m ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIMIT CCHS 20008 “ der “SELF WEIGHT:97.8Kolm WEIGHT: 9.8527 TOTAL HOLLOW LENGTH: 255.5m Figure 6. Comparing results of Vierendeel and lattice girders arch. ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIMIT CHS 200%8 vast SELF WEIGHT: 37.8 Kom WEIGHT: 5.912 T TOTAL HOLLOW LENGTH: 156.5m ULTIMATE ELASTIC Liar oy ane CHS 2008 su DEFLECTION DEFLECTION DEFLECTION DEFLECTION SELF WEIGHT: 5788 Kpini WEIGHT: 9,429T TOTAL HOLLOW LENGTH: 223m vitae esr uN we CHS 200%12.5 —— ier 19.80 SELF WEIGHT: 57,8 Timi WEIGHT:9,757 TOTAL HOLLOW LENGTH: esm Figure 7. Comparison between different depths of arches. DEFLECTIONIf we had used a real depth of 200em. er = 264,50 fg/cm’, lesser than the Elastic Limit of the steel. 3. ANALYSIS OF LOCAL BEHAVIOUR To analyze the behaviour of the selected space structure joints we carried out a test that had never been done before and had been studied only in theory. It was dif- ficult to reproduce a large area of mesh to be tested so we decided to make a model 5m wide by 2.5m deep diagonally loaded. (Figure 8) The layout of the model to be used in the compres- sion test machine is as follows: 1. Place the model in a horizontal position in such a way that it cannot buckle outside its plane. If this is guaranteed the vertical position is admitted. 2. ‘The model is made to a real scale. The hollow sections used are the same as those used in the real structure and the process is described below. 1, Ascertain the structural behaviour of this element by means of finite elements and find the: Pz (Elastic load) is the load responsible for making some sections reach the elast Pa (Ultimate load) is the load responsible for mak- ing some sections reach the ultimate limit. (extensometers were used to measure the elastic, and ultimate limit) 2. Apply the Pz load gradually step by step. 3. Discharge taking intermediate readings. 4, Load to Pg+ {(Py ~ P_)/4] taking intermediate readings again. 5. Continue loading until Pp taking intermediate readings. 6. Discharge until reaching Py taking intermediate readings. 7. Continue loading until Py + [Px ~ P intermediate readings. 8. Discharge until P, taking intermediate readings. 9. Continue loading until Ps + [3(Px — Ps)/4] taking, intermediate readings. )] taking Figure 8. Model to be tested. 10. Discharge until Ps taking intermediate readings. 11. Load until Pg taking intermediate readings if possible. 12. Finally, measure the deformed geometry of all the hollow sections. Loads are applied in 5 ton steps until reaching the elastic limit. This is obtained by the SAP2000 FEM. The diagonal load needed to reach the elastic limit was eval- uated at 25 tons. Figures 9 and 10 show the result in local tension and displacement. After this, we carried out a more complete analysis by means of ANSYS FEM (Figure 11). Figure 12 shows the stress-strain curve considered. We can check that the curve load-displacement is Jinear until 30 tons and the breaking ultimate load is 100 tons. (Figure 13). Figures 14 to 19 show stresses increasing with loads. 4 LOADS TO BE CONSIDERED Load Case 1. Self weight. Done automatically by ‘means of the (SAP2000) analysis programme Figure 9. Figure 10, General displacement.rr Case 2. The weight of the steel sheet and insula- 0) qm. . ts Snow load and maintenance. 60kp/sqm. Load Case 4. Machinery. 40 kp/sqm. wr A { a son B vot A sont B x _yeoRoo DF 008 HFAAYAS. URSA DECAREA DELUARCD MODEL SOLO Figure 11, Mathematical model by FEM. Joint A. (x1o"s) Modded Etasicidad Bincal (102) 18 2 2s tas"? 175° 225 EPS, 25 75 Figure 12, Bilinear curve stress-strain, Curve load-displacement. Figure 13. ers {cum cans YON 95 vo ES E400 CONMAR AON, Figure 14, Curve stress-strain in the most stressed element, Figure 15. (20 tons). Maximum Von Misses stress in the joint BiB # i i) | MBI BFF TREE ft Figure 16. Maximum Von Misses stress in the joint A 20 tons). Figure 17, Actual stress/Breaking stress inthe joint B (15). L x _t Figure 18, Actual stress/Breaking stress in the joint B (20 tons). af ' ii i Dnt a Figure 19. Actual stress/Breaking stress in the joint B (30 tons). Figure 20, Wind load coefficients (cpe). Load Case 5, Wind loads. Tested in wind tunnel (Reference 8) according to q = 150 (epi — cpe). Fig- ure 20 shows the coefficient epe (external pression coefficient). cpi (internal pression coefficient) = —1 Load Case 6. Dynamic Analysis. We consider only the first five modes. Load Case 7. Thermal changes of +/—30°C. ‘We combine these cases according to the codes of practice. The SAP2000 Programme checks local buckling.| 9 S18 98 ZG aN 2 OEM O ENA 9 SUD SH Ts 88 snc aD ou? q q 3 a 4 5 q 4 ce. Figure 21, Actual stresses/elastic limit stress at the top layer X and Y. zen YSN A a sm zen Ye 12 el werent 4 we gousen't ase on 208 eMUMeEe *% 4 een eT secon rm naman ee : yo yee mace seen sik SR : es avn cn eR ce INL IER ssn asa 92 SHA et eee Se eee Tes senmcnoenscancrosnsow’s S461 S02 4 ct ak Ca 69 20 prereset Figure igure 22. Actual stresses/elastic limit stress at the bottom layer X and Y.Figure 23. Complete space structure from different angles. 5. ANALYSIS OF THE SPACE STRUCTURE Asa result of the analysis carried out we have arrived at the stresses contained in Figures 20 and 21, Three types of hollow sections are used: a, Main span directions CHS 355 x 6.3mm. b, Secondary directions CHS 273 X 6.3mm. ©. Special hollow sections CHS 355 X 7mm. d. Vertical internal members between two layers CHS 355 X 63mm, Complete spatial structure from different angles (Figure 22) REFERENCES 1. Chilton, John “Space Grid Structures” Architectural Press, 2000, 10. ul Buchert, Kenneth P. “Buckling of Shell & Shell like Structires” K.P. Buchert & Associates. 1973. Escrig, Felix “Pandeo de Estructuras” Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. 1986, Escrig, F. Sinchez, J. “Great Space Curved Structures with rigid joints”. Theory, Design and Realization of Shell and Spatial Structures. [ASS, Nagoya 2000. Escrig, F Sanchez, J. Valcarce, IP “The Roman Oval”. Fifth international Conference on Space Structures Univ of Surrey. UK. Thomas Telford. 2002 BUROCODE 1. “Basis of Design and Actions on Struc- tures, Part2-4: Action on Structures: Wind Actions” 1995, Ishii, Kazuo. “Structural Design of Retractable Roof Structures” WIT Press. 2000, Ishii, Kazuo, “Membrane Structures in Japan” SPS Publishing Company. 1995. Meseguet, J. “Aerodinémica de Instalaciones Aero- portuarias”. Fundacién Aena. 2000. SAP 2000, FEM. ‘ANSYS v.6.00, 2002. FEM.