Tubular structures for the Seville April Fair.

A complex geometry exercise

M.T. Rodrguez Len, F. Escrig Pallars & J. Snchez Snchez
Department of Mechanics and Structures, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

ABSTRACT: Every year, Sevilles city council orders a giant gateway to the fairground enclosure to be built. This construction is comprised of a mesh of pipes connected by clamps. In order to analyze it, we used calculation programs based on the FEM that consider each of the elements to be of individual form and determine their efforts. This research is intended to study a way of assimilating spatial meshes of pipes to constant surfaces. This assimilation is developed first on generic models composed of a fictitious material, the purpose of which is to determine density and modulus of elasticity so that displacements are equivalent to the displacements obtained on the spatial model. Once the displacement has been equalized on these generic models, it is verified on specific models corresponding to the Seville Gateways if equivalence exists between the efforts obtained in a discrete way and in a constant way.

1 ASSIMILATION OF SPATIAL MESHES OF PIPES TO CONSTANT SURFACES In 1972, J. Margarit and C. Buxad published a text which was fundamental for the analysis of spatial meshes of pipes. In this text they proposed a method to determine the efforts of traction and compression to which the bars that compose a spatial mesh are submitted from the efforts found in constant structures of assimilation, both homogeneous and isotropic. This method of calculation consisted of determining parameters from the deformations suffered by the spatial mesh of pipes, submitted to a particular condition of loads in joints. These parameters, of height h and module of elasticity E, allow us to define the constant shell of assimilation. Once this has been defined, it is subject to the same condition of loads and its efforts are obtained, which are then decomposed to obtain the tensions and compressions in the pipes of the mesh (Buxad & Margarit, 1970). In our own particular proposal, we start by working on simplified models, which correspond with spatial meshes of pipes that work in the shape of brackets and are shaped by three layers or vertical planes. The work to be undertaken consists of two well differentiated phases: to obtain the characteristics of the assimilation shell and then, once this has been calculated, to decompose the efforts generated in it on the pipes that shape the spatial mesh which is the object of study. The module that constitutes the spatial mesh is a double module that originates a triple layer spatial mesh in the OY direction, diagonalized in a single direction in each and every face, and for which we can consider all the joints as articulated (Fig. 1). The dimensions of this module are 1.00 m in the OX direction, 1.70 m in the OZ direction and variable thickness in the OY direction to adjust to the corresponding thicknesses in each case. This module is composed of S275JR steel pipes, with an outer diameter of 48 mm and an inner diameter of 42 mm. The main characteristics of S275JR steel are: density 78.50 kN/m3 and modulus of elasticity 2.1E+08 kN/m2.

Figure 1. Element of mesh considered for the study.

Figure 2. Groups of modules: a) 2 Modules OX. b) 2 Modules OX + 2 Modules OZ.

With respect to the primitive method, when determining the characteristics of the assimilation shell we will establish a significant difference, and we are going to set the shell thickness as h' corresponding to the spatial mesh, so that we are going to give the assimilation shell a fictional material with new properties of density and modulus of elasticity. Given that the density of S275JR steel is 78.50 kN/m3, and knowing that the area of the pipe section is 4.242E-04 m2 and that the sum of the lengths of the pipes that make up the simple module is 22.7899 meters, we obtain the total weight of this module, which is 0.759 kN. If we divide this total weight by the total volume of the assimilation shell, we get the density of the fictional material, which becomes 0.223 kN/m3. Obviously, once given the weight of a single module, the total weight of a structure of n modules is equal to the result of multiplying the weight of a module by the number of modules (Table 1) (Fig. 2).
Table 1. Determination of density of fictional material in different groups of modules. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Group Density S275JR Pipe area Length Weight Volume Fictional density m2 m kN m3 kN/m3 kN/m3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 OX 78.500 4.242E-04 22.789 0.759 3.400 0.223 2 OX 78.500 4.242E-04 45.580 1.518 6.800 0.223 2 OX + 2 OZ 78.500 4.242E-04 91.160 3.036 13.600 0.223 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Then, to determine the modulus of elasticity of the fictitious material we will match the displacements of the pipe model and the continuous model to a wind load applied on the joints of the spatial mesh (0.84 kN/m2). The process to follow will be to get the horizontal displacement at any point on the upper level of the pipe structure. Then, we determine which modulus of elasticity the assimilation material is to have, so that the horizontal displacement at the same point is homologous, applying, to do so, the formulation for the horizontal displacement at the top of a cantilever subjected to continuous load (1).
=
ql 4 8E I

(1)

where = horizontal displacement [m]; q = continuous load [kN/m]; L = height [m]; E = modulus of elasticity [kN/m2]; and I = Inertia [m4]. The development process is as follows: it begins with the calculation of an isolated module, and determining the modulus of elasticity of the fictional material. By progressively increasing the height of our model (Fig. 3), we obtain a new fictitious modulus of elasticity in each case to achieve a closer value (Table 2). At this point we can draw two conclusions. First, as our model improves its slenderness, its behavior is becoming more and more like that of a cantilever, obtaining in each iterative step closer horizontal displacements between the two models. Second, we can state that the modulus of elasticity of the continuous model is variable depending on the dimensions of the model, al-

though it is sensed that this is a value you can get to stabilize as the number of modules is increased in the OZ direction.
Table 2. Values on the simple model 2x(1x1x1.70) m when increasing the height OZ of the model. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Group m kN/m m % kN/m m % ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1OX 2.48E-05 52,946.49 3.09E-05 1OX + 9OZ 3.49E-02 52,946.49 2.47E-05 606.24 376,813.45 3.46E-02 -0.77 1OX + 19OZ 0.44 376,813.45 0.56 25.45 474,941.99 0.44 -0.47 1OX + 23OZ 0.90 474,941.99 0.92 1.79 485,412.32 0.89 -0.40 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pipes

E Material
2

Shell Difference

E Material
2

Shell

Difference

Figure 3. Overlapping modules in the OZ direction. Load case: Wind.

Once the height corresponding to the real height of the model to be studied is reached, we likewise begin to increase the number of modules in the OX direction in order to also achieve the length corresponding to the different gateways of the Seville April Fair (Table 3) (Fig. 4).
Table 3. Values on the simple model 2x(1x1x1.70) m when increasing the width OX of the model. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Group E Material Shell Difference E Material Shell Difference m kN/m2 m % kN/m2 m % ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10OX+23OZ 1.18 485,412.32 0.87 -25.84 370,480.08 1.15 -2.83 30OX+23OZ 1.17 370,480.08 1.11 -5.31 373,869.57 1.10 -6.17 50OX+23OZ 1.27 373,869.57 1.07 -15.26 344,562.50 1.17 -8.05 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pipes

Figure 4. Overlapping modules in the OX direction. Load case: Wind.

As we increase the number of modules in the OX direction there is less correspondence between the displacements of both models, i.e. as the structure is less slender, the application of

the formulation that allows us to determine the displacement of a cantilever head under linear load is less valid. In any case, in the model for 50OX + 23OZ, which is adjusting to the real dimensions of the different gateways for the Seville April Fair, the difference between the displacements of both models is located at -8.05%. Therefore, an acceptable solution could be to consider the modulus of elasticity obtained from the formulation but being reduced by -8.05%. Indeed, it is found that the new received modulus of elasticity (E = 316,823.84 kN/m2 changed) gets the displacements between both models equal to 0%. 2 CORRELATION OF RESULTS The next step is to test the adaptability of the results obtained on the models for the Seville April Fair gateways. To do so, we must have additional conditions such as the introduction on the external nodes of the load for the panels covering the structure (0.20 kN/m2), or the introduction of prestressed (-4 T / Cable) to brace the spatial structure to horizontal actions. Finally, subtract the modules required in each case to set the desired shape. If we had a pipe model and a continuous model in which both the overall weight of the structure and horizontal displacement at the horizontal wind action had been matched, are these equally matched values maintained when we introduce these new variants? Let us check step by step what happens in each case on a generic model (Table 4).
Table 4. Comparison of displacements after considering additional conditions. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Combination Displacements pipe model (OY) Displacements continuous model (OY) 2x(50OX + 24OZ) m m _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1V 0.6641 0.6641 1CC + 1V 0.6641 0.6641 1CC + 1V + 1PT 0.2163 0.2123 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The model on which we will work will consist of 50 modules in the OX direction + 24 modules in the OZ direction, with a depth of module of 1.5 m (being a triple layer model, the total depth of the model will be 3 m). According to this, and applying the above procedure, the rectified modulus of elasticity will take a value of 211,128.9035 kN/m2, so that horizontal displacement between the two models is the same for any generic point A for the combination 1V. Then we introduce the load for cladding panels and consult the displacements for a new combination: 1 CC + 1 V. It is found that introducing a gravitational load of equal value in both models does not alter the horizontal displacements. Then we introduce the cables that brace the structure and the prestressed load on them. We will consult combination: 1 CC + 1 V + 1 PT. We found that although the horizontal displacements begins to differentiate between the two models, they do so around a differential variation of 1.84%. Finally, we suppress certain modules (Fig. 5), and again consult the combination: 1 CC + 1 V + 1 PT (Table 5). In this case the differential variation of displacement depends on the point consulted, so that it takes its maximum value at around 2.66% at one end of the model. We believe that this difference is not significant enough to invalidate the proposed method.
Table 5. Comparison of displacements after supressing modules. Combination: 1CC + 1V + 1PT _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Joint Displacements pipe model (OY) Displacements continuous model (OY) 2x(50OX + 24OZ) m m _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ A 0.1727 0.1681 B 0.1426 0.1425 C 0.1983 0.1996 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 5. Generic model 2x(50OX + 24OZ). Application of additional conditions.

While it seems that so far we can consider the conclusions drawn to be valid, the ultimate goal is to apply this knowledge to the Seville April Fair gateways, leaving aside generic models such as those discussed so far. 3 PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS To begin working, we will adopt a mesh thickness of 3 meters corresponding to two modules of 1.5 m depth for the gateways of 2005, 2006 and 2007, while for the gateways of 2008 and 2009 we will have a net thickness of 2 meters for two modules of 1 m depth. The combination to study in each of the discussed models will be: CI = 2 PP + 135 CC + 15 V + 1 PT.

Figure 6. General designs for the Seville April Fair of the last few years.

Once obtained the density and modulus of elasticity parameters of the continuous model, (Table 6), enabling us to match the displacements between both models in each case (Figs 7-8) (Table 7) the next step is to get the efforts on the pipes from the stresses obtained in the continuous model (Figs 9- 10). To find the value of the effort on the shell acting on the studied element, its value is multiplied by the length of the side of the element on which it acts, divided between the three sides of the model by considering its scope on the middle plane.
Table 6. Characteristic parameters of the Seville April Fair gateways. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gateway Length pipes Weight S275JR Total weight Total volume Fictional density Fictional E m kN/m kN m3 kN/m3 kN/m2 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2005 12,497.500 0.033 416.167 2478.600 0.168 207,493.626 2006 13,013.100 0.033 433.336 2468.400 0.176 207,493.626 2007 13,244.300 0.033 441.035 2611.200 0.169 207,493.626 2008 15,371.100 0.033 511.858 2203.200 0.232 316,823.842 2009 13,236.500 0.033 440.775 1876.800 0.235 316,823.842 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table 7. Comparison of displacements. Pipe model vs. Continuous model. CI. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gateway Displacements pipe model (OY) Displacements continuos model (OY) Difference Joint m m % __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2005 - A 0.0588 0.0560 -4.76 2005 - B 0.0823 0.0779 -5.34 2005 - C 0.1234 0.1151 -6.73 2007 - A 0.0475 0.1013 -4.63 2005 - B 0.1013 0.1013 0.00 2005 - C 0.1307 0.1336 2.22 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figures 7- 8. Displacements on the gateways of 2005 and 2007. Pipe model vs. Continuous model. CI.

Figures 9-10. Decomposition of stress N1 obtained on the assimilation shell.

Then, in some bars near to the foundation, we compare the efforts obtained in the pipe model calculated by FEM compared to those obtained by the assimilation method (Table 8).
Table 8. Comparison of the efforts between both methods. CI. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Gateway Axial force - FEM Axial force Assimilation method Difference Frame kN kN % _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2005 Bar AC -98.81 -96.42 -2.42 2005 Bar AB 29.61 32.38 9.35 2005 Bar BC -84.57 -79.61 -5.86 2006 Bar AC -119.85 -116.07 -3.15 2006 Bar AB 16.31 15.33 6.00 2006 Bar BC -55.43 -59.63 7.58 2007 Bar AC -110.75 -115.10 3.93 2007 Bar AB 17.47 17.73 1.49 2007 Bar BC -60.49 -68.25 12.83 2008 Bar AC -66.50 -60.32 -9.29 2008 Bar AB 11.14 13.36 19.93 2008 Bar BC -35.36 -32.38 -8.43 2009 Bar AC -70.13 -68.13 -2.85 2009 Bar AB 11.92 10.45 -12.33 2009 Bar BC -36.55 -34.28 -6.21 _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figures 11-12. N1 [kN, m]. CI. Gateways 2005 and 2009.

Figures 13-14. N2 [kN, m]. CI. Gateways 2006 and 2007.

4 CONCLUSIONS After analyzing the five selected models, we found that variations between horizontal displacements ranged from 0% to 10% depending on the point considered, and on the geometry for the model studied. For example, in the 2008 gateway differences over 3% are not obtained, since the opening of holes is much lower than that occurring in other models, such as in the 2009 gateway, in which variation of around 10% occurs at certain points. In any case, remember that the ultimate goal is not to obtain the axial force in a given concrete pipe, but we will move within certain ranges that result in a number of pipes. Therefore, we consider that variations of around 10% can become acceptable, especially if they occur in a specific model and at a very narrow point, thus accepting the developed method as valid. It validates the proposed method of assimilation, since the differences of efforts in pipes obtained by this method compared with those obtained by finite element method are acceptable, particularly bearing in mind that absolute precision is not required for the particular case we are covering, as we are working with intervals of efforts corresponding to the number of pipes to set. The analytical advantage is enormous as the information of all the pipes is not necessary for calculating, and this facilitates the definition of the computer model. 5 CONSTRUCTED STRUCTURES With this method we have tested the construction of real structures (Fig. 15).

Figure 15. 2007 and 2008 Seville April Fair gateways in construction.

REFERENCES
Buchert, K. 1973. Buckling of shell and shell like structures. Buxad, C. & Margarit, J. 1970a. Clculo de mallas espaciales. Barcelona: Escuela Tcnica Superior de Arquitectura. Buxad, C. & Margarit, J. 1970b. Clculo matricial de estructuras de barras. Barcelona: Blume. Buxad, C. & Margarit, J. 1970c. Las mallas espaciales en arquitectura. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili. CIDECT. 1996. Construir con perfiles tubulares de acero. Bilbao: Altos Hornos de Vizcaya. CIDECT. 1996. Gua de diseo para nudos de perfiles tubulares circulares bajo cargas predominantemente estticas. TV Rheinland, Kln. Cobreros, M.A. et al. 1999. Mallas de barras. Sevilla: Universidad, Grupo de Investigacin Tecnolgica Arquitectnica. Eekhout, M. et al. 2002. Analysis, design and construction of steel space frames. London: Thomas Thelford. Gentil Baldrich, J.M. & Yanguas lvarez de Toledo, A. 2006. Rito y fiesta: Una aproximacin a la arquitectura efmera sevillana. Sevilla: FIDAS. Makowski, Z.S. 1981. Analysis, design and construction of double-layer grids. London Applied Science. Rondal, J. 1996. Estabilidad estructural de perfiles tubulares. TV Rheinland, Kln.