This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Cylindrical Thin Concrete Shells
Structural Analysis of the Frontón Recoletos roof
JOSE ANTONIO LOZANO GALANT
Master of Science Thesis
Stockholm, Sweden 2009
Cylindrical Thin Concrete
Shells
Structural Analysis of the Frontón Recoletos roof
Jose Antonio Lozano Galant
May 2009
TRITABKN. Master Thesis 277, 2009
ISSN 11034297
ISRN KTH/BKN/EX277SE
©José Antonio Lozano Galant, 2009
Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering
Division of Structural Design and Bridges
Stockholm, Sweden, 2009
i
Preface
There are many persons who have been invaluable for the undertaking of this thesis. Some of
them who have played a special role I will take the opportunity to acknowledge here.
First, I would like to acknowledge the “Instituto Torroja” for providing me the information
necessary to know the Torroja’s structure. Then, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude
to my main supervisors Hakan Sundquinst and Ignacio Payá Zaforteza, who with never
ending patience, have shared with me their great scientific knowledge and experience.
Assistant supervisors Costin Lacoste, Jose Luís Ádam and Cárlos Lázaro deserve special
acknowledgment. Special thanks to José Antonio Torroja and Javier Antuña for the interest
showed and the help provided in the discussion of the results.
I am indebted to my mother Isabel, my father Jose Antonio, my brother Fidel, my
grandparents, my girlfriend Monte and the rest of my family and friends, who have never
failed to support me and are a constant source of encouragement.
Stockholm, May 2009
José Antonio Lozano Galant
iii
Abstract
Geometry, truth, simplicity and art are the four cardinal points that guided the work of
Eduardo Torroja and Frontón Recoletos is a clear example of its application as discussed
throughout this thesis.
El Fronton Recoletos from conception was considered as a structural challenge because it
incorporated many features that had not hitherto been studied in cylindrical concrete roofs:
bigger size, absence of beam at the connection between the two cylindrical sections, skylights
as well as asymmetrical directrix
1
. None of these conditions permitted the application of
existing methods in 1930 when the design of the shell was raised. These methods were based
on solving a system of equations that model the structural behaviour of the cylindrical thin
concrete shells. However, far from surrendering Torroja adapted these methods to a number
of simplifications in order to solve the problem by hand. Furthermore, this adaptation was
conceived as a way to improve understanding of such structures so that at different stages of
the design, the deflections and stresses were measured. Subsequently, analysis of these results
was awarded by the Royal Spanish Academy of Sciences and published in order to promote
the advancement of science. This thesis is proposed as a way to continue the legacy of Torroja
checking the arguments and assumptions that were considered throughout the design process
of this roof.
During the Spanish Civil War in the spring of 1937, the roof received several hits, which
caused severe deformations in the structure. Soon after, a design to repair the structure was
made. This design was based on reinforcement ribs in the bigger cylinder as it aims to recover
the initial geometry through braces as well as increasing the rigidity of the structure.
However, the night of the 15th August of 1939, the roof collapsed.
Given the impossibility of studying the structure at present, a structural analysis was based on
the development of successive models with the finite element program Lusas. These models
were based on the basic model used in the theoretical calculations carried out by Torroja and
different assumptions were incorporated: consideration of variation in thickness,
consideration of the wind suction effects, skylights as well as real concentrated supports, in
order to bring the model closer to the real structure by steps. Finally, the reinforcement ribs
proposed by Torroja were studied with the purpose of checking their influence on the roof.
Keywords: Thin, Concrete, Shell, Models, Torroja.
1
Directrix: Orthogonal shape to the generators, which is based on two intersected circles.
v
Resumen
Geometría, verdad, simplicidad y arte son los cuatro puntos cardinales que guiaron la obra de
Eduardo Torroja y el Frontón Recoletos es un claro ejemplo de su aplicación como se analiza
a lo largo de la tesis.
El Frontón Recoletos fue considerado desde su concepción como un reto estructural debido a
que incorporaba numerosas características que no habían sido estudiadas hasta entonces en las
cubiertas cilíndricas de hormigón: mayor tamaño, ausencia de viga en la conexión entre las
dos secciones cilíndricas, lucernarios así como la directriz asimétrica. Todas estas condiciones
no permitían la aplicación de los métodos existentes en 1930 cuando se planteó el proyecto de
la cubierta. Estos métodos estaban basados en la resolución de un sistema de ecuaciones que
modelaba el comportamiento estructural de las cubiertas cilíndricas con espesor reducido de
hormigón armado. Sin embargo, Torroja lejos de rendirse, adaptó estos métodos con una serie
de simplificaciones para poder resolver el problema manualmente. Además, esta adaptación
fue pensada como una forma de mejorar el conocimiento de este tipo de estructuras por lo que
en las diferentes etapas del proyecto, las deformaciones y esfuerzos fueron medidos.
Posteriormente, el análisis de estos resultados fue premiado por la Real Academia de Ciencias
Española y publicado con el objetivo de favorecer el avance de la ciencia. Esta tesis se planteó
como una forma de continuar el legado de Torroja comprobando los razonamientos e
hipótesis que fueron considerados en todo el proceso de diseño de esta cubierta.
Durante la guerra Civil Española, en la primavera de 1937, la cubierta del Frontón recibió
varios impactos, cuya onda expansiva causó severas deformaciones en la estructura. Poco
después, fue realizado un proyecto con el fin de reparar la cubierta. Este proyecto estaba
basado en unas costillas de refuerzo situadas en el cilindro mayor que tenían como objetivos
recuperar la geometría inicial por medio de tirantes así como aumentar la rigidez transversal
de la estructura. Sin embargo, la noche del 15 de Agosto de 1939 el techo colapsó.
Dada la imposibilidad de estudiar la estructura en la actualidad, se planteó un análisis
estructural basado en el desarrollo de sucesivos modelos con el programa de elementos finitos
Lusas. Estos modelos partían del modelo básico usado por Torroja en los cálculos teóricos e
iban incorporando diferentes hipótesis: consideración de variación de espesor, consideración
de las succiones del viento, consideración de lucernarios y consideración de apoyos reales,
con el objetivo de acercar el modelo a la estructura construida. Finalmente, se estudiaron las
costillas de refuerzo propuestas por Torroja para comprobar su influencia en la cubierta.
Palabras Clave: Hormigón, Espesor, Modelos, Torroja.
vii
Contents
Preface ........................................................................................................................................ i
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii
Resumen .................................................................................................................................... v
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Thesis ............................................................................. 1
1.2 Background ............................................................................................................. 2
1.2.1 Material ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Why shells are used in Engineering ........................................................................ 4
1.4 Classification of shells ............................................................................................. 6
1.4.1 Gaussian Curvature .................................................................................... 6
1.5 Thin Concrete Shells ............................................................................................... 9
1.5.1 History ........................................................................................................ 9
1.5.2 Characteristics .......................................................................................... 14
1.5.3 Designers .................................................................................................. 16
1.6 Cylindrical Thin Concrete Shells .......................................................................... 18
2 Frontón Recoletos .......................................................................................................... 21
2.1 Basque Pelota Sport ............................................................................................... 24
2.2 Roof design ............................................................................................................ 25
2.3 Theoretical calculations ......................................................................................... 27
3 Structural Analysis ......................................................................................................... 33
3.1 First Model: Similar to Calculus. .......................................................................... 37
3.1.1 Hypotheses and Objectives. ..................................................................... 37
3.1.2 Study of the Load cases. ........................................................................... 38
3.1.3 Analysis. ................................................................................................... 40
3.1.4 Conclusions. ............................................................................................. 49
3.2 Second Model: Variable Thickness. ...................................................................... 51
viii
3.2.1 Hypotheses and Objectives. ..................................................................... 51
3.2.2 Analysis. ................................................................................................... 53
3.2.3 Conclusions. ............................................................................................. 60
3.3 Third Model: Wind Suction Effects. ..................................................................... 61
3.3.1 Hypotheses and Objectives. ..................................................................... 61
3.3.2 Analysis. ................................................................................................... 61
3.3.3 Conclusions. ............................................................................................. 63
3.4 Fourth Model: Skylights. ....................................................................................... 64
3.4.1 Hypotheses and Objectives. ..................................................................... 65
3.4.2 Analysis. ................................................................................................... 66
3.4.3 Conclusions. ............................................................................................. 74
3.5 Fifth Model: Real Supports. .................................................................................. 75
3.5.1 Hypotheses and Objectives. ..................................................................... 77
3.5.2 Study of the Supports. .............................................................................. 78
3.5.3 Analysis. ................................................................................................... 80
3.5.4 Conclusions. ............................................................................................. 84
3.6 Sixth Model: Reinforcement Ribs. ........................................................................ 85
3.6.1 Study of the reinforcement ribs. ............................................................... 85
3.6.2 Hypotheses and Objectives. ..................................................................... 87
3.6.3 Study of the Ribs location. ....................................................................... 88
3.6.4 Analysis. ................................................................................................... 90
3.6.5 Conclusions. ............................................................................................. 92
3.7 Future research ...................................................................................................... 93
4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 95
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 97
Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 99
A Lusas calculations ........................................................................................................ 114
A.1 Lusas Elements .................................................................................................... 115
A.2 Lusas Outputs. ..................................................................................................... 117
A.3 Loads ................................................................................................................... 118
A.4 Definition of the thickness. ................................................................................. 119
A.5 Definition of the Real supports. .......................................................................... 120
A.6 Load Combination Study. .................................................................................... 123
A.7 Bending moments ................................................................................................ 128
ix
A.8 Study of the wind suction effects. ....................................................................... 133
A.9 Study of variation of parameters. ........................................................................ 138
A.10 Study of ribs. ........................................................................................................ 141
B Tables and outputs ....................................................................................................... 145
B.1 Table of similar structures ................................................................................... 145
B.2 Tables of deflections ........................................................................................... 146
B.3 Table of transversal bending moments. ............................................................... 151
B.4 Table of isobars. .................................................................................................. 154
B.5 Smallscale model deflections. ............................................................................ 156
C Pictures ......................................................................................................................... 158
D Torroja’s reflections .................................................................................................... 161
1
1
Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Thesis
My interest in the Frontón Recoletos was inspired by the enthusiasm and affection shown by
Professor Ignacio Payá Zaforteza to this structure during my civil engineering degree in
Valencia. After that, the great illusion and interest in the Torroja’s work shown by Professor
Hakan Sundquist and the proposal of the title by Professor Payá made me decide the Frontón
Recoletos as a topic of my master thesis.
The Frontón Recoletos was conceived by Torroja as a way to improve the knowledge about
the cylindrical thin concrete shells and therefore, the main purpose of this thesis is to continue
the hard work shown by the designer through the study of the roof using existing computing
resources: the finite element program Lusas.
The additional objectives of the thesis are as follow:
 Review the characteristics of the Frontón Recoletos shell.
 Study the state of the art of the cylindrical thin concrete shells.
 Analyze the Torroja’s beliefs considered in the design of the structure.
 Analyze the theoretical methods used in the shell’s calculations.
 Check the Torroja’s simplifications.
 Study of the different innovative elements: skylights, supports and reinforcement ribs,
incorporated in the Frontón Recoletos.
This thesis has been supported by three basic pillars: Firstly, the study of the state of the art of
the similar cylindrical thin concrete shells. Secondly, the research and analysis of the
characteristics of the Frontón Recoletos: constructions drawings, hypotheses, calculation
procedure, analysis’ results and structural Torroja’s beliefs. Finally, the structural analysis
based on the development of successive models, which consisted of incorporating different
hypotheses to the basic Torroja’s model used in the theoretical calculations, with the purpose
of checking all the hypotheses carried out by Torroja.
Chapter
2
1.2 Background
Shell roofs with single and double curvature have been commonly used by the nature for
different purposes. The tree leaf (figure 1), for example, carries out the photosynthesis to
obtain energy from the sun. Furthermore, these sheets are used by insects, like ants, to protect
themselves from the rain. This knowledge was imitated and improved by different
civilizations along the history. At the beginning, the humans only looked for these shapes in
the nature to refuge it from the elements, using caves and other natural constructions.
Afterwards, they were able to build new shell structures, like igloos (figure 1), to protect from
the changes in temperatures. Finally, these shells were adapted to cover large spans in
buildings, usually creating more appreciated structures than other kind of roofs without
curvature.
Figure 1: Tree leaf: Double curvature structure in the nature and Igloo: Snow house originally
constructed by indigenous people inhabiting the arctic regions, the Inuit.
2
1.2.1 Material
The material has always conditioned the engineer’s imagination, maybe more in this kind of
constructions where the importance of the shape is indisputable. Frank Lloyd argued, “Each
material has its own message to the creative artist” (Torroja 1962, p.24). Therefore, before
designing any structure, it is necessary to understand the properties of the material to use. The
first material used to build modern shell structures was stone which constructions were
monolithic mass (figure 2). Afterwards, the stone masonry, technique where the stone was cut
in equal pieces and assembled in layers, appeared. Soon after, some mechanical properties of
the masonry structures were improved with mortar joints (Torroja 1962, p.25). The problem
of the stone is the difficulty to materialize the shapes dreamed by the architect because this
material needs great mass and cannot resist tension stresses.
2
All the figures are described from left to right and the references are listed in the Figures’ Chapter.
3
Figure 2: Lion Gate in Greece: Stone gate constructed in 1350 B.C. and the Agrippa’s pantheon in
Rome: Temple of all the gods made of unreinforced concrete with pozzuolana.
The vast majority of the current shell structures have been constructed of concrete or
reinforced concrete. This material was similar to the stone masonry and was used since
centuries ago by different old villages, like Romans (Torroja 1962, p.31). The first concrete
was easily mouldable but it was relatively week in tensions. As a result the span to thickness
ratios obtained, were less than 50:1 (Chilton 2000, p.12). A wellknown example is the
Agrippa’s pantheon (figure 2), the oldest standing domed structure in Rome made of
unreinforced concrete with pozzuolana joints. In this cupola, the ratio varies between 6.4:1
and 44.8:1. Afterwards, the reinforced concrete incorporated another advantage: tensions were
resisted by steel bars. This material was described by Eduardo Torroja, as “technically the
most nearly perfect material” (Torroja 1962, p.56) With the reinforced concrete the increase
of the span to thickness ratios was possible; for instance the reinforced concrete roof structure
of the Eduardo Torroja’s sporting hall Frontón Recoletos had a ratio of 680:1.
Other materials such as prestressed concrete, material applied in the Sidney Opera (figure 3),
or steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC), used in L’Oceanográfico (figure 3), can also be
used in order to increase this ratio. However, when the ratio is increased some problems like
buckling can easily appear in the structure. Furthermore, the structural behaviour is more
difficult to understand due to the growing complexity of the stress distribution.
Figure 3: Sidney Opera designed by Jørn Utzon in 1973 and made of prestressed concrete and
L’Oceanogràfic in Valencia: Structure inspired by Felix Candela’s designs and constructed of steel
fiber reinforced concrete.
4
1.3 Why shells are used in Engineering
“In order to successfully conceive and to plan a structure or building of any kind it is
necessary to investigate and to know well its reasons for existence, its major and minor
capacities to resist and to bear” Eduardo Torroja (Torroja 1962, p.1).
Natural shells have been studied by numerous architects and engineers in order to design
organic shapes in their structures. These shapes are generally more attractive than the designs
based on the straight line. For example, the relaxation park designed by Toyo Ito in Alicante
(figure 4) shows different buildings inspired by the natural shell shape. Nevertheless, not only
the aesthetic characteristics are improved with these designs because the structural behaviour
is also usually better. Heinz Insler explained this characteristic by the next experiment
(Chilton 2000, p.12): He made two surfaces of thin plastic with the same volume of material.
The difference between these sheets was the curvature. The first surface was flat and the
second one had curvature in two perpendicular directions, like a cupola. Then he put the same
weight over the both structures. As a result, Insler stated that the singledouble curved
structures are much more efficient than the flat plate because the applied forces can be
resisted with fewer deformations and stresses.
Figure 4: Relaxation Park in Alicante designed by Toyo Ito: Building made of wood.
The efficiency of loadcarrying behaviour explained by Insler is only one more of the
numerous advantages of the shell structures. For example, shells structures are much superior
to other structural system having the same span and overall dimensions because these shapes
have a high strength to weight ratio, this criterion is commonly used to estimate the structural
component efficiency. Furthermore, more slenderness and lighter structures can be
constructed adapting better the shape to the requirements of the building (Torroja 1962, p.96).
The most structural efficient shell’s form is different for each design, according to the
building local conditions, and has to be found by the designer. There are different methods to
determine the shape of the shells’ structures. For example, the technique used by Gaudí to
design the Sagrada Familia (figure 5) in Barcelona was founded on the principle that a loaded
structure in pure tension, like centenarian (figure 5), when inverted will be the perfect form
for a similarly loaded pure compression structure. This technique was used by Heinz Insler to
design more than 1000 shells.
5
Figure 5: Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and Antonio Gaudí’s reversed model used to determine the
forces in pure compression.
The essential geometrical property of all the shell structures that distinguishes then from other
structural forms is the possession of both “surface” and “curvature” providing strength and
stiffness (Calledine 1983, p.3). Therefore, many shell structures have been constructed with
the purpose of providing roofing for temples, cathedrals, monuments or other buildings.
Nevertheless, besides of roofing, shells find application in many other fields. For example, the
shell’s shape is used to cover the Fedala water tank (figure 6) designed by Torroja.
Figure 6: Fedala water tank: hyperbolicalconcrete silo for the storage of water in Morocco.
6
1.4 Classification of shells
There are many different ways to classify shell structures. In order to better understanding the
cylindrical thin concrete shells, they were catalogued by three different criterions. The first
criterion was the material, which the shell is made of: like reinforced concrete, plywood or
steel, because each one has different properties that can determine the shape of the building
and therefore, these characteristics have to be considered in the design. The second
consideration is the shell thickness: the shells can be thick or thin. A shell is called “thin” if
the maximum value of the Ratio A (formula 1) can be neglected in comparison with unity, in
other cases, are called thick. Finally, the last criterion, which is explained in this section,
consists of using the shell Gaussian Curvature to classify the shape.
Rotio A =
1hìckncss
Rudìo ìn thc mìddIc su¡]ucc
1j
1.4.1 Gaussian Curvature
The geometry of the shell is completely described by the curved shape of the middle surface
and the thickness of the shell at all points. The Gaussian curvature K
g
is the product of the two
principal curvatures (formula 2), the maximum and the minimum, and it is used in order to
classify the shells in three different groups, according to the K
g
sign (Calladine 1983, p.124):
synclastic shells, anticlastic shells, both with double curvature, and developable shells with
simple curvature. There is other one additional group, freeforms structures, which cannot be
classified by the curvature.
K
g
= K
1
· K
2
=
1
¡
1
·¡
2
2j
wheie, r
i
=Principal ratio of curvature in each direction (Calladine 1983, p.156).
The synclastic shells are those with positive Gaussian Curvature at a given point of a curved
surface, such curvatures occurring in the two principal planes, which are perpendicular to
each other. For these surfaces, the centres of maximum and minimum curvature at a given
point lie on the same side of the surface. A dome is an example of synclastic shell; it is a
space structure covering a more or less square or circular area. The domes of revolution are
formed by a surface generated by a curve of any form revolving about a vertical line. This
surface has double curvature. The simplest dome of revolution is a portion of a sphere.
However, other curves are also satisfactory, such as the ellipse, the parabola, other conic
sections, or random curves. A wellknown dome is the Palazzetto dello Sport (figure 7),
designed by Pier Luigi Nervi in 1958, which was made of ribbed reinforced concrete. The
most remarkable factor of this structure is the lower half of the dome, which consists of
continuous windows around the circular stadium.
7
Figure 7: Palazetto dello Sport (Roma) designed by Nervi.
Other important example is the Kupolen Exhibition Hall and Sports Arena (figure 8)
constructed in 1989 in Sweden by Hakan Sundquist and T. Granaht. This design consisted of
a dome structure with a free span of 123 meters made up with beam elements. The erection of
the dome was done using an innovative system based on no false work, similar to the
procedure used in the construction of the snow igloos.
Figure 8: Kupolen Exhibition Hall and Sports Arena (Sweden) designed by Sundquist.
The second group classify by the Gaussian curvature is the developable
3
shells. These
surfaces as the name implies, are those that can be flattered into a plane superficies, either
directly or after making a simple straightline cut in the surface. These shells are characterized
by zero Gaussian curvature and are singly curved. The most common shape of this kind of
surfaces is the barrel, semicircular or parabolic. These shapes are less resistant than the
doubled curved surfaces and usually need additional flexural strength to resist the effects of
wind. An innovative solution to solve this problem was used in the Hangar d’Orly (figure 9)
by Eugene Freyssinet in 1923. In this structure, the flexural strength was increased using a
surface, which shape was similar to the accordion membrane. This procedure to increase the
lateral stiffness can also be applied by means of the combination of folded plates as for
example in the church designed by Willian Gooden in Las Vegas (figure 9).
3
The possibility to be developed or not is a geometrical property of the surface. Shells that cannot be developed,
like surfaces with double curvature, require more energy in order to be deformed. Therefore, these surfaces are
stronger and more resistant than shells that can be developed however, the frameworks are more complex and
expensive (Billington 1979, p.20).
8
Figure 9: Hangar d’Orly designed by Freyssinet, and church building in Las Vegas designed by
Gooden.
The next group is the anticlastic shells. These surfaces are characterized by negative Gaussian
curvature and therefore, the centres of maximum and minimum curvature are located on
opposite sides of the surface. Wellknown examples of this kind of shells are the conoids,
hyperbolic paraboloids and hyperboloids. The structural behaviour is different for each shape.
One of the most appreciated examples of this kind of surfaces is the restaurant designed by
Félix Candela in 1955 called Los Manantiales (figure 10). This roof consists of four
hyperboloid paraboloids intersecting to form an octagonal and very innovative shape, which
has inspired the design of current structures like the L’Oceanográfico in Valencia (figura 3).
Figure 10: Los Manantiales restaurant designed by Candela.
An additional group that cannot be classified by the Gaussian curvature is the freeform
structures, because these shapes do not have principal directions of curvature. These surfaces
allow much greater versatility and freedom of form than the preceding described surfaces.
The freeform shells can be analysed by different methods like combinations of simple
regular shell forms or experimenting with small shell models. An innovative irregular shell
structure is The Trans World Airline Terminal (figure 11) designed by Eero Saarinen in 1962.
This structure is located at Kennedy International Airport in New York. The design was based
on the Saarinen’s words "I want to catch the excitement of the trip" (Saarinen 1962, p.115).
This shape can be considered as a giant bird with it wings spread out ready for flight. This
shell is an example of how the freedom of form can be used to carry out the designer’s
aesthetic thoughts.
Figure 11: Trans World Airline Terminal in New York designed by Saarinen.
9
1.5 Thin Concrete Shells
The thin concrete shell structures are a lightweight construction composed of a relatively thin
shell made of reinforced concrete, usually without the use of internal supports giving an open
unobstructed interior. The shells
4
are most commonly domes and flat plates, but may also take
the form of ellipsoids or cylindrical sections, or some combination thereof. Most concrete
shell structures are commercial and sports buildings or storage facilities.
1.5.1 History
There are two important factors, the shape and the thickness, to be account to better
understanding the evolution of the thin concrete shell structures (figure 12). The first factor
was developed along the history of these constructions: The pioneer structures, as the dome in
Jena, can be classified as synclastic shells. As it was explained before, these shapes are more
resistant and can be erected easier than other surfaces with single curvature. Afterwards,
different developable shapes, principally consisted of barrel structures, like the elliptical
barrel build in Frankfurt in 1927 or the shallow circular barrel constructed in Budapest in
1930, were constructed. However, the designer’s incessant desire for more ambitious
structures did not stop and new shapes, consisting of intersected barrels, were designed. The
most famous examples of these shapes are the Frontón Recoletos and the Iglesia de
Villaverde, which span to thickness ratios were 690:1 and 500:1 respectively. The second
factor to be considered in the thin concrete shell structures is the thickness, which is usually
less than 10 centimetres. For example, the thickness of the Hayden planetarium was 7.6
centimetres (Appendix B.2).
4
A primary difference between a shell structure and a plate structure is that, in the unstressed state, the shell has
curvature as opposed to plate surface, which is flat. In this chapter, only the thin concrete shells structures with
curvature, which have the same structural behaviour of the Frontón Recoletos were studied.
10
Figure 12: Thin concrete shell structures. The characteristics are width in metres, w (m), length in
metres, L (m), diameter in metres, d (m), thickness in centimetres, h (m), and the span to thickness
Ratio
5
.
The modern era of thin concrete shells began in 1922 with the construction of the dome in
Jena, Germany (figure 13) by Frank Dischinger of the German engineering firm Dyckerhoff
and Widmann (Hines 2004, p.1641). This modern structure was 16 metres in diameter, 30
millimetres thick and the span to thickness ratio was near to 550:1. In 1934 Anton Tedesko,
another Dyckerhoff and Widmann engineer, introduced the thin concrete shells in U.S. with a
hemisphere structure called Hayden
6
planetarium in New York (figure 13), which ratio was
approximately 330:1 (Hines 2004, p.1642).
5
The span to thickness Ratio was calculated dividing the maximum value of span, defined as the maximum
value between the diameter and the width, by the shell’s thickness.
6
Several important thin concrete shell structures have recently been demolished, including the Hayden
planetarium in New York in 1997 due to the functional obsolescence and maintenance problems.
11
Figure 13: Dome in Jena designed by Dischinger and the Hayden planetarium in New York designed
by Tadesko.
Between the 1920s and 1960s, considered the “golden age of thin shell structures” (Meyer
2005, p.44), these constructions were developed as an engineering solution in order to
achieve large spans for industrial, commercial or public structures and it were embraced by
the architectural profession as a potent means of architectural expression. Some of the most
important shell designers in this period, whose “advanced the state of the art” (Meyer 2005,
p.43), were Pier Luigi Nervi, Eduardo Torroja, Heinz Insler and Felix Candela.
Subsequently, after these three decades, the number of new concrete shell structures
constructed declined noticeably (Meyer 2005, p.44) due mainly to the high cost of
construction and removal of temporary formwork and associated falsework for concrete
casting in the construction of a thin concrete shell. This labour intensive and costly process of
construction, coupled with the increasing ease in analyzing complex skeletal spatial structures
offered by advances in computer technology, has made concrete shells much less competitive
than they were few decades ago.
Over the years, there have been several methods for eliminating the need for temporary
formwork in the construction of thin concrete shell roofs. Until now, the most successfully
techniques have been on one hand, the use of inflated membranes as forms. On the other
hand, the use of precast concrete panels with insitu cast joints. Both methods are explained a
in this section.
The inflated membrane method was appreciated by many engineers. For example, the
President of Monolithic Constructors and Chair of Joint ACIASCE Committee 334, David
South, argued that “The construction of thin shells nearly came to a standstill until inflated
membrane forms were introduced” (Meyer 2005, p. 44).
The origin of the inflated membrane forms, also known as airinflated forms, was in 1942
when Wallace Neff received a patent on a system where the form was inflated to the shape of
the structure, and after that, the reinforcing bar and shotconcrete were placed on the exterior
of the structure. Particularly noteworthy was the system invented by Dante Bini. In this
method, in approximately 120 minutes, the formwork is constructed. Final forms are spherical
sectors with radius less than 40 metres. The Bini’s system is divided into two successive
phases. Firstly, the reinforcing steel and concrete are placed over a layer of fabric while it lies
flat on the ground. Finally, the fabric is inflated by air pressure in order to create the shell
form (figures 14 and 15).
12
Figure 14: First phase of the Bini’s System.
Figure 15: Second phase of the Bini’s System.
In the late 1970s, David and Barry South developed other system, which consisted of a
shotconcrete applied to the inside of an inflated fabric form (figure 16). This technique had
some differences compared with the Bini’s System: First, shell is inflated using polyurethane
foam. This material gives the form the stiffness required to support the weight of reinforcing
steel placed on the inside. The second difference is that the shotconcrete is applied to the
interior of the form when this shape has been inflated. According to David South, spans of up
to 300 meters can be obtained using this technique (Meyer 2005, p.45).
Figure 16: Inflating process using polyurethane foam and Application of the shotconcrete.
The shells constructed by inflated membrane techniques have some disadvantages. Firstly, the
shape and thickness of the shell as well as the position of reinforcement is difficult to control
during the construction process. The second problem is that these techniques require the use
of special construction equipment increasing the cost of the roof. Lastly, these methods are
limited to the construction of circularbased domes with a spherical or nearly spherical
meridian and therefore, the architect has less freedom in their designs because the shape of the
formwork cannot be practically changed.
13
One innovative method designed to reduce the cost of the formwork is the Precast concrete
panels with insitu cast joints. In these structures, the formwork consists of small
prefabricated panels, which are transported to the site for assembly into a shell (figure 17).
Joints between these panels are sealed by insitu casting of concrete. The latest development
in the forming of thin concrete shell roofs is the steelconcrete composite shell system, also
called Comshell system, which “is believed to be a solution to the difficult problem of
forming” (Wong 2004, p.180189).
Teng was the first who defined this system: “The Comshell roof is a steelconcrete composite
shell roof formed by pouring concrete on a thin steel base shell which serves as permanent
formwork as well as tensile steel reinforcement. The steel base shell is constructed by bolting
together modular steel units (figure 17) in the form of an opentopped box consisting of a flat
or slightly curved base plate surrounded by edge plates” (Teng 2001, p.102).
Figure 17: Modular steel units and real structure formed by the Comshell system.
The main disadvantages of the method are the following: Firstly, extra work in transportation
and assembly of the elements is required. Secondly, the Comshell system is being studied and
the structural behaviour of the structures made of this technique is not well known yet.
The future of thin concrete shells is based on the formingproblem solution. Medwadosky
argued, “Forming remains the great, unsolved problem of construction of concrete thin shell
roofs. Any and all ideas should be explored, without prejudice." (Medwadosky 1998, p. 21)
Therefore, science has to find new systems to obtain the shape of the structure using the
imagination as well as new construction techniques.
14
1.5.2 Characteristics
Since the beginning of the architecture, the designers have dreamt about one light surface, like
the skin used in the ancient tents or in the African villages (figure 18), to cover large spans in
buildings (Torroja 1976, p.69). This dream, considered before as unachievable, was come
truth when appeared the thin concrete shells. The material of these structures was able to be
casted forming any imaginable shape. For example, the tent’s shape was imitated by Candela
in the Lomas de Cuernavaca’s shell (figure 18).
Figure
7
18: African tent in the Sahara desert: the surface is made of sheepskin, Sami tent and Lomas de
Cuernavaca designed by Candela.
The thin concrete shells are designed with the purpose to resist loads through membrane
forces. These forces consist of compression stresses, resisted by the concrete, and tension
stresses, resisted by the reinforcement bars made of steel, in the direction of the tangent plane.
Consequently, shells made of reinforced concrete can resist moderate bending stresses and be
constructed thinner and lighter. Nevertheless, when the bending moments are needed in order
to achieve the equilibrium of the shell, the thickness and the reinforcements bars have to be
increased and therefore, the advantages of the thin concrete shells are reduced (Torroja 1976,
p.79).
These structures are constructed by casting onto a mould called formwork, which is kept in
place until the concrete has hardened. When the formwork is removed, the shell is obliged to
carry its own weight. The shell exists originally under condition of effectively zero gravity in
a perfect shape, and with zero stress throughout. Afterwards, at a certain time, gravity is
switched on, and the shell thereafter carries its own weight. To improve the structural
behaviour, the formwork tends to provide single or double curved surfaces. Furthermore, the
curved surfaces made of reinforced concrete, above all the synclastic shells, are naturally
7
The elements are described from up to down and from left to right.
15
strong structures, allowing wide areas to be spanned without the use of internal supports,
achieving an open and unobstructed interior usually pursued by the designer.
In addition to the possibility of covering areas without internal supports, the thin concrete
shells have the following benefits. Firstly, the efficient use of the material because the
structural lightness is the common starting point in designing. Secondly, the method of
construction has been used since the concrete was discovered and is therefore well known.
Thirdly, the concrete is relatively inexpensive and easily cast into desired curves. Finally, the
thin concrete shells offer the possibility of more visually interesting geometries to improve
the aesthetic value of the building.
Thin concrete shells have historically had the following problems: Firstly, functional
obsolescence because the small thickness makes worse the bars isolation and corrosion can
occur easily. Secondly, the structure has to be intensely maintained in order to avoid the
functional obsolescence and this factor increase the future cost of the building. Thirdly,
rainwater can seep through the roof and leak into the interior of the building because the
concrete is a porous material and therefore, this material is usually complemented with
waterproof isolation. Fourthly, the thin thickness produces that these structures usually need
thermal and acoustic insulation. For example, the air chamber layer and the cork are used to
improve the thermal conditions. Nevertheless, today the main problem of the thin concrete
shell structures is that the cost to erect the formwork is considered prohibitive in Europe. This
cost depends of the type of formwork. For example, structures with double curvatures as
domes are difficult to erect and makes it necessary to cut the panels individually into non
regular shapes and therefore, the cost of the formwork is higher. Edward DePaola mentioned
that the best way to reduce the cost of temporary formworks is to develop alternate
construction techniques like innovative forming systems: "Flexible and easily adjustable
forms would make complicated shapes easier and much less expensive to build" (Meyer 2005,
p. 46).
The problem of the forming cost could be the main explanation for the decrease of popularity
of the thin concrete shells all around the world. An interesting proposal suggested by John
Abel of Cornell University with the purpose of reducing this cost, was based on the
collaboration between the designer and the builder "the designer can work with the builder to
devise construction processes that are efficient, for example, by together designing reusable
form modules that are appropriate for the shell" (Meyer 2005, p. 48). This proposal was used
by successful shell designers, such as Torroja in the Frontón Recoletos, who maintained close
relationships with the builder of this shell, Secundino Zuazo, to both train them in proper shell
construction techniques as well as to sharpen their own insight into effective design and
construction procedure. Nevertheless, the work of Heinz Isler is an example that spectacular
shells are still constructed. Therefore, the cost cannot be the only explanation of the current
loss of popularity, according to Meyer “such cost reductions alone will not be sufficient, as
thin concrete shells need to be repopularized and reintroduced into the minds of builders if
they are to be considered as a viable structural solution at all” (Meyer 2005, p.48).
16
1.5.3 Designers
Some of the most important designers of cylindrical thin concrete shells were Eduardo
Torroja, Félix Candela and Heinz Insler. In this chapter, some of the most important factors of
these designers are analyzed.
The first designer analyzed is Eduardo Torroja (1899–1961), which was one of the most
innovative engineers of the early twentieth century, notable for the exceptional use of the
reinforced concrete and its application to the thin shell structures in Spain. His work was
based on three basic pillars. Firstly, the philosophy of the structures: Many different architects
and engineers have been influenced by the Torroja’s structural thought among, which stand
out the next three: the integration of the functional and structural requirements in the
structure, the perfect correlation between the real nature and the apparent form of the work, as
well as the formal and structural simplicity. Secondly, the geometric: Influenced by his father,
Eduarto Torroja y Caballé, Torroja looked for new innovative shapes in his designs. Well
known examples are the hyperboloids applied in the Hipódromo de la Zarzuela and Fedala
water storage (figure 6). Thirdly but not least important, the art: Torroja’s aesthetic interest
began to shine already in his first works, for example in the Tempul aqueduct (figure 19),
constructed in 1925, the designer included arches between supports of the tension members
where the faster solution would have been putting a simple straight line (Torroja 2007, p.98).
The main characteristics of one of the most emblematic Torroja’s structures, the Market Hall
in Algeciras, were studied in order to better understanding the conception of the design and
the application of Torroja’s thoughts.
The Market Hall (figure 19), constructed by Torroja in Algeciras (Spain) in 1933, is a
splendid octagonal space enclose with a bold lamella roof with 47.8 metres diameter and only
9 centimetres thickness, which is supported by eight pillars. This structure shows the three
Torroja’s thoughts, explained before, which hold the design up. The first belief is that the
architectonic requirements were integrated in the structure. On one hand in the shell that
carries out different complementary functions: encloses the space, acts as enclosure without
the need of additional elements and allows that the sun light shines by the nine skylights
8
. On
the other hand, in the connection between the wall and the shell: the structure does not use
any kind of raking shores in order to resist the forces transmitted. The shores usually allow
improving the shell aesthetic. For example, these additional elements were used in the
Palazzetto dello Sport, constructed by Nervi, to bring the beauty of the shell’s interior view
out (figure 7). Nevertheless, Torroja did not use the shores in the Market Hall because in his
aesthetical beliefs was enough with the bare geometrical shape (Torroja 2007, p.100). The
second thought observable in the structure is that geometric is used to join the sphere with the
radial cylindrical vaults defining a shape apparently simple for the observers. Finally, the last
belief is the importance of the structural truth. This thought is appreciable, for example in the
structural behaviour, which is easily understood and not hidden.
More examples of the Torroja’s thoughts are presented in the Appendix D.
8
The skylights are located at the top of the roof as well as at the connection between the walls and the octagonal
shell.
17
Figure 19: Aqueduct Tempul and Market Hall in Algeciras both structures designed by Torroja.
The second analyzed designer is Félix Candela (19101997), which is acknowledged as a
master builder and structural artist who designed and constructed great thin shell concrete
roof structures. However, he never took a formal course on this kind of constructions and all
Candela’s knowledge was acquired on his own reading articles and experimenting with the
forms. This way of understanding the thin concrete structures, based on fullscale models,
provided a new method of designing and building innovative structures, as for example the
Restaurante Los Manantiales (figure 9), which is based on the hyperbolic paraboloid form.
Finally, the third analyzed designer is Heinz Insler, which is a Swiss engineer and a pioneer
for shellform designs whose works transcends the definition of mere structural engineering to
the extent of becoming structural art.
The environment observed by Insler, for example pillows or flowers, has inspired his thin
concrete shells. These forms are calculated by experiment using catenary models, instead of
by sophisticated mathematical method, (Chilton 1979, p.32) in much the way that Antonio
Gaudí had used (figure 20). A wellknown example is the Deitingen service station on A12
motorway in Switzerland constructed in 1968 (figure 20).
Figure 20: Hanging membrane model generated by selfsetting polyester resin and Stationservice in
Deitingen designed by Isler.
18
1.6 Cylindrical Thin Concrete Shells
The cylindrical thin concrete shells should not be confused with the vaults, despite the huge
similarity in the shape of both structures, because each of these structures has a different
structural behaviour as well as different requirements in the minimum thickness and the trace
of the directrix. On one hand, the structural behaviour of the vault is based on connected
parallel arches, which transmit the same effort to the supports (figure 21). Therefore, the
materials used in these structures have to be able to resists compressions and the thickness is
usually higher. For example, stone has been commonly used as material for the vaults and the
spans to thickness Ratios for this material are usually less than 50:1. Furthermore, the
directrix shape of the vaults must be as similar as possible to the arch in order to achieve the
optimum structural behaviour. On the other hand, the structural behaviour of the cylindrical
thin concrete shell is similar to a longitudinal beam along the generator directions (figure 21)
and therefore, the materials have to resist both compression and tension stresses. This factor
takes advantage of the bars of the reinforced concrete, because these elements can be placed
where tension forces are needed and therefore, the span to thickness Ratios can be increased.
Furthermore, the directrix shape has fewer requirements than the vaults and therefore, new
curves like the ellipse or the parabola can be used improving the aesthetic quality of the
structure (Torroja 1976, p.6971).
The cylindrical thin shells, also called barrels, can be classified in three different groups: long
barrels, short barrels and intermediate barrels. The differences between these groups are the
relation between the span and the width as well as the structural behaviour.
Figure 21: Structural behaviour of the vault and structural behaviour of the long barrel
The most efficient structural behaviour of thin shells is obtained when these structures are
working as membranes. The membrane is able to resist the applied loads acting only
compression and tension in the tangent plane. Nevertheless, sometimes these stresses are not
enough to resist the applied loads and other forces, like the transversal bending moments
regarding the middle surface, have to provide additional resistance. When the bending
moments are needed, the thickness and the framework of the shell have to be prepared to
resist these stresses. Furthermore, considering the bending moments in the shell structures
means more difficult and less intuitive calculations as well as an increase of the thickness.
When the thickness is increased the main load, the dead weight, is higher and the benefits of
the thin concrete shells decreased.
The structural behaviour of the cylindrical thin concrete shell is more similar to the membrane
when the wall, where the directrix is supported, is more rigid. For example, this increase of
the stiffness was used the Frontón Recoletos by means of vertical and transversal stiffener
19
beams (figure 22), which connected the shell with the wall. The holes between the shell and
the wall were filled with bricks to achieve the continuous surface for playing pelota game
(figure 23 and 24). However, even with these rigid walls, the structure is not able to work as a
pure membrane and additional bending moment resistance is needed. This bending resistance
depends on the shape of the directrix and usually means to increase the cost of the structure
(Torroja 1976, p.79).
Figure 22: 3D model of the front walls.
21
2
Frontón Recoletos
The Frontón Recoletos (figure 23 and 24) was constructed in 1935 in the Villanueva Street in
Madrid. This structure consisted of a sport facility building designed to play pelota game, also
called jai alai. The roof is based on a thin concrete shell formed by the intersection of two
cylindrical sectors and was considered one of the most emblematic structures in the 30s.
The Frontón recoletos was designed by the collaboration of two complementary specialists:
one architect, Secundido Zuazo, and one engineer, Eduardo Torroja.
Figure 23: Picture of the inside of the structure of the Frontón Recoletos.
Chapter
22
Figure 24: Real picture of the outside of the structure of the Frontón Recoletos.
The roof of the Frontón Recoletos was considered a structural challenge since the conception
of the structure for different reasons: Firstly, the overall dimensions, 55 per 32.5 metres, were
higher than the similar roofs constructed before (figure 25), as for example the Budapest shell,
which dimensions were 40 per 11.6 metres (Appendix B.1). Secondly, the shape of the roof
incorporated two innovations that it had never been constructed before in this kind of
structures: On one hand, the asymmetric directrix without beam at the connection between
both cylindrical sectors. On the other hand, the roof included two longitudinal skylights
consisted of a lattice frame of equilateral triangles. Lastly, the roof had a variation of
thickness, from 8 centimetres, at the big lobe, to 30 centimetres, at the connection of both
cylinders. Consequently, the span to thickness Ratio (Appendix B.1) was 690:1. This value
was higher than two times the radio obtained in the first cylindrical thin concrete shell,
constructed in Jena, which value was 290:1 (Appendix B.1).
The contemporary designers were not sure if the theoretical models and the simplifications
carried out by Torroja in order to calculate the shell showed correctly the structural behaviour
of this roof because all the considered innovations had not been studied before and therefore,
a scale model was constructed.
23
Figure 25: Cylindrical thin concrete shells constructed in the 30s. The overall characteristics are
showed in the Appendix B.1.
24
2.1 Basque Pelota Sport
This structure was designed to play Basque Pelota, also called Jai Alai (figure 26). This Sport
was invented in the 19th century in the Basque region in Spain, where it remains highly
popular today. The game is played against three walls: the font wall, the back wall and the
side wall. The three walls and the court together, are known as the “frontón”.
The object of the sport is to throw the ball at the wall in such a way that it is hard for the
opponent to catch and return. The opponent needs to be able to catch it before it hits the
ground or after its first bounce and return it back to the wall. This sport is played as either
singles or doubles on a fronton with a hard rubber ball, called pelota, which is hurled with a
wicker basket
9
attached to the player arm. The speed of the fastest ball recorded is 300 km/h
(Fortin 2000, p.47) and for this reason, JaiAlai is known as the fastest game in the world.
(Guiness 1990, p.122) This factor has to be considered in the design of the structure in order
to avoid future problems caused by the ball impact.
Figure 26: Jai Alai court and Jai Alai player.
9
The cesta is basically made up of a glove, for a player to insert his/her hand, and a basket, where the ball would
go when it is caught.
25
2.2 Roof design
The design of the basque pelota facility demands very functional conditions. Firstly, the roof
has to cover a well light rectangular pitch, enclosed by three walls for the rebound of the ball
(figure 26). These walls should be at least 25 metres in height. Furthermore, the place needs
sunlight in order to play Jai Alai without any artificial light during the day (Fernández 2000,
p.130).
Torroja searched different ways to cover the building based on all the preceding factors as
well as the aesthetic design of the structure. The first solution thought was to arrange a
number of transverse trussed girders connected by longitudinal joists (figure 27) however, the
shape of these trusses were both structurally and aesthetically unsatisfactory. The next
alternative was to place two longitudinal girders across the skylights, thereby making them
support the roof (figure 27). This design had also some disadvantages: very large skylights are
needed and the left side was too much illuminated. Finally, all the conditions were solved
with the design of the constructed structure, which consisted of a very thin shell, whose
thickness varies from eight to 16 centimetres, with a tubular section of reinforced concrete
(figure 27). The directrix consisted of two sections of cylindrical sectors, which radius were
6.4 metres and 12.2 metres, intersected orthogonally along a joint forming the outline of a
seagull (Torroja 1962a, p.1).
Figure 27: Transverse trussed girders, longitudinal girders as well as two intersected lobes.
Sunlight was obtained by the construction of two skylights (figure 23), on each of the two
cylindrical sections, consisting of a lattice frame of equilateral triangles whose sides measured
1.4 metres. In the original Torroja’s design, these structures were located only along the
centre of the shell but, after the report carried out by Mr. Ribera and Aguirre with the purpose
of checking the work viability, the extension of the skylights along all the generators length
was recommended. These longer skylights improved the resistant and functional behaviour of
the shell as well as the roof aesthetic value (Torroja 1942, p.109).
The designer based the roof design on the following idea “The primarily essence of beauty is
the perfect correlation between the real nature and the apparent form” (Torroja 1962b, p.269).
In this structure, Torroja showed his deep philosophical thought using the next explanation.
“On the other hand, we thought it necessary to dismiss the idea held by traditionalists that the
project involved two barrel vaults resting on a longitudinal beam. This prevalence of this idea
would have meant an ignorance of the resistant phenomenon of the shell structure which, in
the part closest to the intersection or seagull outline has its own specific characteristics”
(Torroja 1942, p.15). Furthermore, the aesthetic value was always considered in the Torroja’s
works. In this structure, the designer tried to “suppressing superfluous elements” (Torroja
1942, p.16), which means not using anything more than what is strictly necessary because the
spaciousness inside the facility as well as the roof aesthetic value are decreased when
unnecessary elements are considered.
26
During the Spanish Civil War, the shell roof received several hits, some of them passing
through it. The shock wave from the explosions caused severe deformation in the structure.
After the war, a design to repair the structure was made. It involved reinforced concrete ribs
10
in order to improve the roof structural behaviour. However, the roof collapsed when the repair
work was beginning. Torroja argued after the incident “No doubt the collapse of the shell
could also have been avoided if these reinforcement rings had been supplied at the time of its
erection” (Torroja 1962a, p.7). Furthermore, the aesthetic and economic factors of the roof,
after this reinforcement, would have not been so much worth. This is one of the thesis
objectives: determining if the ribs would have improved the structural behaviour of the shell.
“Had I to build it again, I should provide such reinforcement ribs” (Torroja 1962a, p.7). This
declaration shows how the designer was able to develop his ideas even after that, the
structures were built; at the beginning, he said that these ribs decrease the roof aesthetic value.
However, then he changed his consideration because the ribs were finally considered by
Torroja structural elements instead of “superfluous elements”. This is one example of how the
designer is always growing up with his/her designs and how he/she is always learning from
them.
10
The study of the ribs thought by Torroja is showed in the section 3.6.
27
2.3 Theoretical calculations
Nowadays, computers can easily be used to model the behaviour of shell structures.
However, in 1952 when the Frontón Recoletos was calculated, this technology was not
available and all the calculations were done by hand. If the calculations are done by hand the
structure cannot be completely analyzed because the problem is too complex and it is
indispensable considering some hypotheses in order to simplify the problem. All the previous
theories of cylindrical shells have assumed different simplifying hypotheses. For example, the
material is considered homogeneous and follows the Hooke’s and Kirchoff’s laws as well as
all the deflections at the surface of the shell are reduced.
The Frontón Recoletos incorporate new characteristics that had never been studied in the
preceding structures and therefore, in addition to all the classics assumptions, new simplifying
hypotheses were considered: Firstly, the designer assumed that the shell had uniform
thickness, density and Elasticity Modulus. These hypotheses are not obviously justifiable in
general for the construction made of reinforced concrete: after all, one of the most important
advantages of this material is the possibility of disposing the steel reinforcing bars non
uniformly over the surface of the shell in order to give local strengthening: and this gives non
uniform Elasticity Modulus and surface density. Secondly, the skylights were modelled like a
normal shell section with the same loads, thickness, materials and stiffness because a similar
structural behaviour was assumed. Thirdly, the transverse contractions can be considered null
because the shell’s thickness was thin and therefore, the Poisson number was supposed
negligible by Torroja. This hypothesis was also considered by other designers in preceding
shell structures, like Dischinger in Budapest (Torroja 1942, p.19). Fourthly, the designer
supposed in the theoretical calculations that the edged generators and directrixes were
connected with the walls by continuous supports. However, the construction drawing showed
that the connection between the edges of the shell and the wall consisted on concentrated
connection acting as springs. Finally, the wind and snow load laws were supposed as
simplified model based on the preceding obtained results in similar structures.
The shell analysis could not be done directly because the problem presented some
mathematical difficulties. Therefore, in order to achieve the solution, the method applied by
Finsterwalder and Dischinger in the roofs of Frankfurt and Budapest was followed. This
method was based on physical and mathematical exact theories and the shell analysis was
divided into two partial problems, where different hypotheses were considered. On one hand,
the shell had different ways to working in each of these problems: as a membrane in the first
analysis, which means without considering the flexural actions and as a plate in the second
one, taking into account the flexural actions. On the other hand, different elements in each
problem were analyzed: in the first analysis the external load, while in the second one the
edge effects (Torroja 1942, p.3132).
28
Figure 28: Differential element of the shell including the stresses considered in the calculations and
reinforced plan of middle developed section of the Fronton Recoletos.
The calculations were based on a nine differential equations system obtained from the
equilibrium and compatibility conditions of the shell’s structure. Afterward, the stresses
11
and
the deflections were calculated using these equations. Once the stresses and the deflections
had been obtained for all the points of the shell, Mohr’s circles corresponding to the stresses
in the tangent plane were drawn on a plan. These circles served as a basis for drawing the
isostatic system and the isobars (figure 35) along the shell middle surface. Finally, these
diagrams were used in order to obtain the steelreinforcing bars (figure 28) (Torroja, 1942,
p.1956).
Since the conception of the building, the Frontón Recoletos was considered a structural
challenge because new structural conditions, which had never been constructed before, were
introduced in this work. The innovative Fronton’s characteristics, compared with the roof
constructed in Budapest by Dischinger, which was calculated, using the same method (Antuña
2003, p.144), were:
 Greater size: The Budapest shell was 40 metres long and 11.8 metres wide while,
Frontón Recoletos structure, only in the biggest lobe, was 55 meters long and 23
metres wide (figure 29).
 Asymmetric directrix: The Budapest roof was composed by two symmetric cylindrical
sectors. Nevertheless, in the Frontón structure the directrix consisted of two
asymmetric cylindrical sectors in size and position (figure 29).
 Absence of large beams at the intersection points between the two cylindrical sectors:
In the Budapest shell, both sectors were joined by a beam, however in the Frontón
roof both lobes were joined forming the outline of a seagull. This innovation improved
the aesthetic perception of all the structure because the connection was visually less
heavy (figure 29).
11
The stresses (figure 28) considered in the shell analysis were: the flexions along the directrix, the stresses
along the generator and directrix directions as well as the shear stresses. Nevertheless, the longitudinal bending
moments and the torsion moments were considered negligible.
29
 The Joins between the roof and the walls: In the Budapest shell, the cylindrical sectors
and the walls were connected by large beams, however in the Frontón roof, the well
known Freyssinet’s hinges made of reinforced concrete were used. In this joins, the
rotations and longitudinal movements are allowed however, the transversal
movements, vertically and horizontally, are not allowed (figure 30).
 Skylights: The Frontón Recoletos was the first thin concrete shell roof which included
this kind of longitudinal skylights with 55 metres length. Therefore, exact theoretical
model in order to analyze the structural behaviour was not available.
 Finally, the bigger size of the large slope curve of the Torroja’s structure produced
more complex load laws, like wind and snow, than the Budapest shell.
Figure 29: Size comparison in plan between the Frontón and Budapest shells and Directrix
comparison between the same both structures.
Figure 30: Joins between the wall and the shell along the generators of the Frontón Recoletos.
All these introduced structural innovations did not allow the exact mathematical solution
applying the Finsterwalder and Dischinger’s method. Nevertheless, Torroja instead of refrain
from building the structure adapted the existing methods in order to obtain an approximate
solution of the behaviour of the shells. Furthermore, the designer considered this work as a
way of developing the cylindrical shells theory. For that reason, Torroja carried out real
deflections measure during and after the construction of the structure, all the results and
calculations were published. The capacity of changing the available methods, without fear of
cannot know the exact solution, is considered a common practice in the structural artist. Other
designers who created their own structural models in order to understand, design, analyze and
calculate their new and innovative structures were for example Gaudí or Insler.
The adaptations carried out by Torroja were produced in different parts of the Finsterwalder
and Dischinger’s method. The first important modification was the absence of beam at the
connection of the cylinder sectors, which forced the designer to include a strong tie beam in
30
that location, which represents an important part of the reinforcements bars needed in the
shell (Torroja 1942, p.16). The second change consisted of including the skylights creating a
lighter and more flexible structure because the continuity of the shell was broken. However,
these structures were not considered in the differential equations because the exact
calculations would have been too much complex. The third modification consisted of the
consideration of more complex loads laws: Firstly, the wind load could not be considered
negligible because the structure was bigger than the similar preceding roofs. Secondly, the
snow load cannot be assimilated to the dead weight because more snow was accumulated over
the roof because the large slope curve of the Frontón Recoletos shell was higher. Thirdly, the
effects of the loads were studied separately and therefore, three load cases: dead weight, the
snow and the wind, were considered. The analysis of these three loads is presented in this
chapter. Lastly, the symmetric condition could not be applied because the directrix was
asymmetric and therefore, the problem was more complex.
The exact wind forces in the Frontón Recoletos shell could not easily been determined
because it shapes had not been studied before. Torroja explained that the structure should be
analyzed by wind tunnel test in order to obtain the accurate wind load laws along the shell
directrix. Nevertheless, to study the wind effect using this technique was not possible because
this test greatly increases the cost of studying the structure. Hence, a wind law was proposed
by Torroja. This law consisted of constant values at generators and sinoidal variation along
the directrix (formula 3). This variation depended on the angle between the vertical and the
directrix perpendicular line “ç" as well as on the maximum value of wind stress measured in
Madrid “A”. According to the Spanish regulation, “Instrucción para estructuras urbanas”
proposed by Mendizabal, the maximum value of wind stress was 40 kg/m
2
(Torroja 1942,
p.21). The maximum values of this law were located at the edges of the slopes as well as the
minimums on the top of the shell.
winJ = A · sin ç Sj
Torroja based the wind load on two assumptions. On one hand, the both sides of the shell
were supposed simultaneously in compression due to the existence of buildings near from the
location of the structure (figure 31). On the other hand, the wind suction was not considered
because Torroja supposed that the structural behaviour was improved when the suction effects
were considered. This Torroja’s hypothesis is checked in the section 3.3 of this thesis.
However, when the shell had been calculated, the report carried out by Mr Ribera and Aguirre
to check the work viability recommended the study of the wind suction effects in a scale
model of 1/10. Consequently, Torroja used the experimental results of the cylinder case to
approximate the wind suction law along the directrix (figure 66 and formula 4). This
hypothesis depends on the maximum pressure over the cylinder “:", which value was
approximated to 40 kg/m
2
by the formulas of Stenton, Dines and Nipher (formulas 5, 6, 7).
All these formulas depend on the maximum wind speed measured in Madrid “V”, which
value, 30 m/s, was proportioned by the Spanish Meteorological Department (Torroja 1942,
p.21 24).
31
Figure 31: Wind load law at the directrix without considering the suction
winJ Suction = S · : · cos ç +: · sinç = 12u · cos ç + 4u · sinç 4j
Stcnton : = u,7 · u,u64 · I
2
= u,7 · u,u64 · Su
2
= 4u kg¡m
2
Sj
Ðincs : = u,7 · u,u6 · I
2
= u,7 · u,u6 · Su
2
= S7 kg¡m
2
6j
Nipbcr : = u,uS · I
2
= u,uS · Su
2
= 4S kg¡m
2
7j
With the purpose of checking easily the suctions effects in the theoretical model, without the
necessity of repeating the calculations, the wind load law, considering the suctions effects,
was modified by Torroja in order to obtain a linear combination law of the other calculated
laws, snow and wind without considering the wind suction effects (formula 8). Accordingly,
the wind load law considering the suction effects were obtained (figure 28) by combination of
the wind and snow load laws. This way of defining the wind suction effects is another
example of the capacity showed by Torroja of adapting the available method to obtain useful
approximate results.
winJ Suction = 1Su · cos ç + 4u · sinç = u,4 · winJ  2 · Snow 8j
Figure 32: Wind load law considering the suction effects along the directrix.
32
The snow load law was proposed constant at generators and cosenoidal variation at directrix
(formula 9), with maximum values on the top of the cylinder and minimum at the edges of the
slope (figure 33). This hypothesis depends on the parameter “ç” explained before and on the
parameter “B”, which value, according to the same regulation proposed by Torroja, was 65
kg/m
2
(Torroja 1942, p.20).
Snow = B · cos ç 9j
Figure 33: Snow load law along the directrix.
The last load, the dead weight (figure 34), was considered 250 kg/m
2
constant in all the shell
and therefore, the difference with skylight weight was considered negligible. This constant
load was calculated considering a constant thickness of 9 centimetres along the shell (Torroja
1942, p.20).
Figure 34: Dead weight load law along the directrix.
33
Structural Analysis
The structural analysis presented in this report was based on the development of successive
models, which consisted of incorporating different hypotheses to the basic model. This initial
model tried to be as similar as possible to the structure calculated by hand, considering the
same simplifications and hypotheses, with the purpose of checking the theoretical
calculations, carried out by Torroja, using current ways to calculate shell structures.
Afterwards, this basic model was brought closer to the reality by successive steps: Firstly, it
was studied the variation of shell’s thickness, which had not been considered in the Torroja’s
model. Secondly, the wind suction effects were considered. Thirdly, the skylights were
modelled as lattice frames of equilateral triangles instead of a constantthick shell as was
supposed in the calculations done by hand. Fourthly, the effect of the real supports, modelled
by springs in the structure, was studied. Lastly, a study about the reinforcement ribs proposed
by Torroja in order to improve the structural behaviour of the shell was carried out. The
purposes of all these successive models were checking the hypotheses considered during the
simplifications assumed by the designer during the calculation of the shell as well as
comparing the behaviour of the different Lusas’ models with the values measured in the
actual structure and in the smallscale model.
The analysis was principally based on the isobars calculated by Torroja (figure 35). This
assumption can be logically assumed because these diagrams were used to calculate the
reinforcement bars in the shell. However, along the structural analysis two more factors were
supposed. The first additional study was the absence of transversal bending moments along
the shell in order to check the efficient structural behaviour of the shell working as a
membrane. This effect was studied comparing the shape and the maximum values measured
by Torroja along the central directrix (figure 36) with the results obtained by Lusas. The other
factor considered was the deformations, which were measured in the theoretical, actual
structure and smallscale model (figure 37) as well as in the smallscale tests carried out by
Torroja (Torroja 1942, p.123126), with the purpose of comparing the maximum values and
the overall shape of the deformations in the different models.
The problems found during the analysis of the structure were the following: Firstly, the load
combination used to obtain all the diagrams was not explained in all the bibliography
consulted. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, a brief study of the possible load cases
considered by Torroja in his diagrams was done. Secondly, the units of the isobar lines and
the thickness of the shell used to calculate isobar diagrams were not described. The first of
these factors, the units of the isobars obtained by Torroja, were supposed as kg/cm
2
because
Chapter 3
34
all the rest of parameters in the Torroja’s report were expressed with these units, as for
example the maximum value of concrete working load, 50 kg/cm
2
(Torroja 1942, p.20). The
second factor, the shell thickness considered in the isobars’ diagrams, was assumed to be
constant 8 centimetres to the safe side because the values of the isobars are lower when the
thickness is increased. Lastly, the location of the section where the deflections and the
transversal bending moments were measured was supposed at the central directrix because
this section is the most unfavourable section when symmetrical loads are applied.
Figure 35: Isobars of maximum compression stress and maximum tension stress obtained by Torroja.
These diagrams consist on half section
12
of the developed plan. In horizontal is located the directrix:
on the left is located the smallest cylindrical sector and on the right the biggest one.
In each successive model, the overall shape and the maximum values obtained by Torroja in
the isobars, the transversal bending moments and the deflections, were compared with the
results presented by Lusas. In order to make these comparisons easier: Firstly, the maximum
values of the isobars obtained by Torroja
13
were considered in the Lusas models by means of
the representation in different colour, red in tensions and blue in compressions, of all the
points where these maximum values of isobars were exceeded. Secondly, the Lusas
transversal bending moments were coloured in the same colours in the points where the
maximum values obtained by Torroja
14
were exceeded (Appendix B.2). Lastly, the
deflections obtained by Torroja were drawn using splines in order to join the points in a new
figure where the Lusas deflections were included.
12
Half section considering all the directrix and only half generator because the structural behaviour when
symmetric loads are applied, is symmetric.
13
The maximum values measured in the isobars presented by Torroja (figure 35) were 8·10
6
kg/cm
2
for
maximum tension stress located at the connection between both cylindrical sectors and 5.8·10
6
kg/cm
2
for
maximum compression stresses measured close form the central generator of the bigger cylindrical sector. These
values were approximated along the analysis as 8 MPa and 5.8 MPa.
14
The maximum value of the transversal bending moments was 1030 kg·m/m (Torroja 1942, p.98).
35
Figure 36: Torroja’s transversal bending moments. The maximum value, around 300 kg·m/m, is
located at the connection between both cylindrical sectors and in the middle surface of the smallest
lobe. This diagram consists of a directrix viewed in plan: On the left is located the biggest cylinder and
on the right the smallest cylinder. The vertical line represents the seagull profile.
Figure 37: Deformations obtained by Torroja in different models. The discontinue lines represent the
theoretical deformations, the biggest points represent the deformations in the smallscale model and
the smallest points represent the deformations in the actual structure.
Different simplifications along the structural analysis were carried out. Firstly, the isobars
obtained by Torroja (figure 35), maximum compressions and tensions along the middle
surface of the shell, were developed in a flat surface. However, the stress and deflection
diagrams cannot be developed easily with the programme used to analyze the structure.
Therefore, in order to simplify the model, the plan of the diagrams obtained by Lusas was
compared with the developed diagrams presented by Torroja. This simplification can be
assumed with an acceptable margin of error. On one hand, the comparison between both
methods is based on the maximum values of the isobars, which do not depend on the
development of the diagrams. On the other hand, the overall shape of the Isobars’ lines is very
similar for the both diagrams because of the high value of the large slope curve in the
cylindrical sector shape. Secondly, the deformations obtained by Torroja in the reality and in
the smallscale models consisted of noncontinuous deflections along the directrix.
Nevertheless, with the purpose of comparing easily these points with the programme outputs,
these deformations were connected by splines in order to make a deformation line for each
case, which overall shape can be easily compared. These lines were drawn trying to imitate
36
the shape presented by Torroja in the theoretical calculations (figure 36) as well as
considering that the stiffness of the seagull profile produces an orthogonal joint between both
lobes when the loads are applied (Torroja 1942, p.48). In order to model the deformation
lines, the next considerations were followed: each cylindrical sector had different spline line,
both lobes joined orthogonally at the seagull’s profile, both spline lines joined with the wall
considering vertical tangent. Thirdly, some factors, which value was not clearly stated in the
available plans, were measured directly in the diagrams presented by Torroja. For example,
the location and overall dimensions of the real supports at the generators (figure 87) and the
directrix (figure 86) or the deflections obtained by Torroja for the different models
15
. This
assumption can logically be assumed because the plans, after being printed, keep the
dimensions of the structure. Fourthly, the values of the bending moment diagram were
measured directly using the scale proposed by Torroja in figure 30. However, these values
were based on mistakes during the calculation process (Torroja 1942, figure 9). For that
reason, the maximum values measured in that diagram were considered only like approximate
numbers. Lastly, the real supports located at the connection between the shell and the walls
were approximated as beams working as springs as explained in Appendix A.5 instead of
modelling all the beams proposed by Torroja. This simplification can be considered as an
approximation of the real supports with enough accuracy considering the scope of this thesis.
At the end of this chapter, some factors that could be studied in the future in order to improve
the knowledge of the structural behaviour of the Frontón Recoletos thin concrete shell were
studied.
15
The deformation obtained by Torroja can be easily measured using the scale rule in the figure 37.
37
3.1 First Model: Similar to Calculus.
The structural analysis was based on the development of successive models, which consisted
of incorporating different hypotheses to the basic model. This initial model tried to be as
similar as possible to the structure calculated by hand, considering the same simplifications
and hypotheses, with the purpose of checking the theoretical calculations, carried out by
Torroja, using current ways to design shell structures. Afterwards, this basic model was
brought closer to the reality by successive steps, which were studied in the following models.
3.1.1 Hypotheses and Objectives.
The first model (figure 38) was considered similar to the model used by Torroja in his
calculations because it was based on the same hypotheses: Firstly, the thickness variation was
not considered and 8 centimetres constant thickness were supposed. However, in the dead
weight 9 centimetres thickness were assumed (Torroja 1942, p.20). Secondly, the skylights
were modelled as a normal closed shell section with constant thickness instead of the lattice
frames of equilateral triangles constructed in the real structure. Thirdly, the supports used by
Torroja in the theoretical calculations
16
were considered (figure 38) instead of the supports
presented in the plans. Lastly, the concrete was considered an elastic, homogeneous and linear
material that obeying Hooke's law with the Elasticity Modulus equal to 30·10
9
N/m
2
and the
Poisson number negligible as was explained at the section 2.3 of this thesis.
The Lusas model was based on the following characteristics: Firstly, the geometry consisted
of four surface elements QSI4
17
(figure 38) in order to model the support conditions. These
surfaces were meshed with 30 divisions along the both localsurface directions producing a
balanced model considering the accuracy and the speed of calculation. Secondly, the supports
in the Lusas model (figure 38) were based on two different defined elements: the “Support 1”,
which fixed all the translations and allowed the rotations, and the “Support 2”, which fixed
the translations along the Y and Xaxis and allowed the rotations. The first element was
associated to the central point of the end of the generators and the other to the rest of edged
lines. Finally, the procedure used to define the dead weight as well as the wind and snow
loads is explained in Appendix A.3.
16
The theoretical support consisted on a continuous supports permitting the longitudinal expansion of the shell at
the directrix and starting points at the edges joined to the wall at their centre, and along the rest of their length,
which rest on continuous supports similar to the directrix (Torroja 1942 page 11).
17
The elements QSI4 are usually used in the analysis of threedimensional thin shells and takes into account
both membrane and flexural deformations (Appendix A.1).
38
Figure 38: Mesh of the first Lusas model, the surfaces and the supports: all the translations are fixed at
the central points of the generators, at the rest of the edges only the vertical and horizontal translations
are fixed (X and Y
18
axis) and the rotations are free for all the edge points.
The principle objective of the first Lusas model was checking the accuracy of the theoretical
method used to calculate the structure by hand using current ways to design shell structures.
The structural analysis is divided into three parts: First, a brief analysis about the load case
used in the deflections and isobar diagrams was done because this factor was not clearly
explained in all the consulted bibliography. Secondly, the overall shape and the maximum
values of the measured deflections are studied. Thirdly, the transversal bending moments are
analyzed. Finally, the isobar diagrams are studied because the reinforcement bars were
obtained from these stresses. After that analysis, the obtained conclusions are showed.
3.1.2 Study of the Load cases.
As was explained before, in all the bibliography consulted, the load combination considered
by Torroja in the calculation of the isobars and deflections could not be found. Knowing this
load case is a crucial step in the comparison of the different models. Therefore, the starting
point of the analysis is a brief study of the load cases, which objective is obtaining the most
probable load case considered by Torroja in the isobar and deflection diagrams. In this study,
the next assumptions were supposed: Firstly, the load combination should be the same for the
calculation of the deflections and the isobars. Secondly, the Lusas results had to be as similar,
in shape and maximum values, as possible to the results obtained by Torroja. Thirdly, the
wind suction effects were considered as a combination of the wind and snow load laws when
the calculations had been done. Therefore, the wind suction effects could not be considered in
the load combination. Lastly, the most logical load combinations should be the most
unfavourable because the calculations of the reinforcement bars were based on the isobars.
The analysis was based on the comparison
19
of the isobars diagrams presented by Torroja
with the Lusas results considering four different load cases
20
:
18
The axis used in Lusas (figure 38) were X along the directrix, Z along the generators and Y along the vertical.
19
In order to make this comparison easier the Lusas diagrams were coloured, in red in tension and blue in
compression, at the points where the maximum values presented by Torroja were exceeded.
39
 Load case one: Dead weight.
 Load case two: Dead weight with wind load.
 Load case three: Dead weight with snow load.
 Load case four: Dead weight with snow load and wind load.
The study was initially based on the isobar diagrams calculated by Lusas considering the four
load cases (Appendix A.6). However, in order to compare easily the shape of these diagrams,
the isobar values along the undeveloped central directrix between the both different models
21
were compared (figures 39 and 40). The analysis of these diagrams showed some conclusions:
Firstly, the Lusas values are more similar to the results obtained by Torroja in the isobar
diagram of maximum compression stress. Secondly, the effects of the wind, without suctions,
are highly similar to the effects of the snow as is showed by the comparison between the
maximum values of both isobar diagrams in the load cases two and three. Thirdly, the most
similar results to the isobars obtained by Torroja are obtained when the first load case is
considered. For this load case, the Lusas isobars are around 2.5 times higher in tension
stresses than the values presented by Torroja (Appendix A.6). However, this load case cannot
be considered the load case used by Torroja because the reinforcement bars, which were
based on the isobar diagram, were calculated supposing the most unfavourable load
combination to be on the safe side. Lastly, the load case four is the most unfavourable load
case. For example, the maximum values of the tension stress isobars are around 3.5 times
higher than the values presented by Torroja (Appendix A.6). Therefore, analyzed all these
assumptions, the load case four: dead weight with snow and wind loads can be logically
assumed as the load case used by Torroja in the calculation of the isobar diagrams.
Figure 39: Maximum values of the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix. The
diagram is based on five lines: four load cases calculated by the first Lusas model, which are coloured
in blue, green, red and orange as well as the values presented by Torroja measured in figure 35, which
are coloured in black.
20
These four load cases were obtained considering the load cases tested by Torroja in the smallscale model
without the wind suction effects. Furthermore, in the Appendix C the same load cases were presented in the
Torroja’s deflections. Therefore, the hypothesis supposed at the beginning of the analysis that the same load case
was used in both isobars and vertical deflections diagrams can be logically assumed.
21
The values of the isobars along the central directrix supposed in the theoretical model were directly measured
from the isobars diagrams. However, these values could not be compared directly with the Lusas results because
both models were based on different hypotheses. Therefore, the central directrix of the Torroja’s model was
undeveloped in order to homogenize both methods.
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
P
a
)
Distance X (m)
Load case 1
Load case 2
Load case 3
Load case 4
Torroja
40
Figure 40: Maximum values of the compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix.
The diagram is based on five lines: four load cases calculated by the first Lusas model, which are
coloured in blue, green, red and orange as well as the values obtained by Torroja measured in figure
35, which are coloured in black.
3.1.3 Analysis.
Three different elements are analyzed in the first model: the deflections, the bending moments
and the isobars. For all these results, the load case obtained in the preceding study: dead
weight with snow and wind loads, was considered.
The analysis of the deflections is divided into two parts. First, the structural behaviour and the
overall deformations of the threedimensional Lusas model are analyzed. After that, the
deformations obtained by Torroja are compared with the Lusas results.
The analysis of the shape of the deflections in the threedimensional Lusas model (3D
model) (figure 41 and 42) showed two different conclusions: Firstly, the most unfavourable
sections are located parallel to the Zaxis because these sections act like a simply supported
beam, with 55 metres length. Therefore, as an example to better understanding these sections,
the deflections in the Yaxis at the connection between both cylindrical sectors (figure 43)
were analyzed. These vertical deformations are symmetric: starting with null value at edges,
due to the support conditions, and following a parabolic law, which maximum value, 15.3
centimetres, is located at the centre of the diagram. Furthermore, this section at the connection
between both vertical walls had a symmetric movement along the Zaxis (figure 44), which
maximum value 8 millimetres allows reducing the bending moments in the structure imitating
the membrane behaviour pursued by the designer.
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
P
a
)
Distance X (m)
Load case 1
Load case 2
Load case 3
Load case 4
Torroja
41
Figure 41: Deflections in the 3D model calculated by the first Lusas model: Isometric view and the
plan view.
Figure 42: Deflections in the in the 3D model calculated by the first Lusas model: View parallel to X
axis at the section X = 32.5 metres.
Figure 43: Absolute verticaldeflections in the connection between both cylinders (seagull profile)
along the Zaxis
22
calculated by the first Lusas model. The maximum value 15.3 centimetres is located
at the central section, Z = 27.5 metres.
22
All the axes were measured in metres and are drawn in figure 32. The Zaxis corresponds to the generators.
The Yaxis is associated with the vertical and the Xaxis with the horizontal. The common origin is the generator
joined with the wall at the biggest cylinder.
42
Figure 44: Absolute Zdeflections along the seagull profile calculated the first Lusas model. The
maximum values 8 millimetres are located at the edges, Z = 0 metres and Z = 55 metres.
The overall shape and the values obtained by Lusas were compared with the different
deflections presented by Torroja. These deflections were measured in the theoretical model, in
the actual structure as well as in the smallscale model. However, during the comparison
procedure, one problem appeared; the location of the section where the deflections had been
measured was not clearly explained (figure 37). Therefore, this directrix was supposed, to be
on the safe side, as the most unfavourable section, which corresponds to the central directrix
when symmetric loads
23
are applied, as was explained before.
The overall shape of the deformations obtained by Lusas (figure 45) was practically equal to
the theoretical Torroja’s deformations (figure 37): At the connection with the generators, null
deflections were measured as well as the deformed seagull profile kept orthogonal to the
connection between the two cylindrical sectors
24
. Therefore, both models could be compared.
Figure 45: Vertical Lusas deformations at the central directrix. The red line represents the
deformations calculated by the programme and the the black one the geometry without applied loads.
After the study of the overall shape, the absolute deflection diagrams were studied. Firstly, the
highest vertical deflections are located at the smallest cylindrical sector (figure 46). This
localization is explained by the different stiffness along the structure, which is highest at the
smallest lobe because the span was lowest. Furthermore, the points where the directrix is
23
During the research carried out by the Professor Ignacio Payá Zaforteza in the “Archivo Torroja”. A original
diagram of deflections was found. In this diagram, the hypothesis of the location of the measured deflections at
the central directrix was checked. All the taken pictures of the original diagrams calculated by Torroja are
presented in the Appendix C.
24
The orthogonality of the deformed seagull profile is checked in the diagram obtained by Torroja (Appendix
C).
43
connected with the wall had null vertical deflection due to the hypotheses considered at the
supports. Finally, some points at the biggest cylinder, where positive deflections are
measured, were identified. At these points, the position of the reinforcement bars must be
changed because the bending moments had different directions.
The comparison of the vertical deflections and deformations along the directrix (figure 47 and
48) showed: Firstly, the differences of the three models, in most of the points measured by
Torroja, are lower than 2 centimetres. However, in other points the difference is higher as for
example at the point located around the skylight of the biggest cylindrical sector, which X
coordinate was 15.3 metres. At this point, the Lusas vertical deflection is 4.2 centimetres
lower than the values presented by the other models. This value represents only 48 % of the
deflections measured by Torroja. Secondly, the maximum value obtained by Lusas, 16.4
centimetres, is around 9 % higher than the maximum value measured in the other models, 15
centimetres (Tables 2 and 3, Appendix B.2). Both discrepancies can be explained by the
higher weight and stiffness of the skylights that was not considered in the first model as well
as by the fact that all the deflections presented by Torroja were measured directly from figure
37 and this procedure has an important measurement error. However, taking the variation of
the thickness into consideration a stiffer structure is produced. Therefore, in the second model
the vertical deflections will probably be reduced regarding first Lusas model.
Figure 46: Absolute Lusas vertical deflections presented by the first Lusas model along the central
undeveloped directrix
25
. The maximum vertical deflection is 16.4 centimetres and it is located at the
point with coordinate X = 20.4 metres.
25
From the coordinate X = 0 metres to X = 23 metres defines the biggest cylindrical sector, and from coordinate
X = 23 metres to X = 32.51 metres the smallest lobe is defined. This diagram is the same for all the Lusas
vertical deflections presented in the succesive models.
44
Figure 47: Comparison of the deformations measured by different models. The Lusas deflections are
coloured in red, the shape without applied loads is coloured in black, the deflections measured in the
actual structure in blue and in the smallscale model deflections in green. These deformations are
presented along the central directrix with a scale deformation 1/200.
26
Figure 48: Absolute vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
models. The Lusas deflections are coloured in red, the results measured in the actual structure in blue
and in the smallscale model in green.
Additionally, the behaviour of the shell under symmetrical loads was checked. The procedure
used was based on the analysis of the deformation in the Zaxis along the central directrix
(figure 49). These deflections are practically negligible showing the symmetrical behaviour of
the section.
26
To make this figure, the simplifications explained in the section 3.1 of this thesis about the way of joined the
different points in each model were used. All the distortions and the Xcoordinates are presented in Tables 2 and
3 in Appendix B.2.
‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Lusas model
Small‐scale model
Actual structure
45
Figure 49: Absolute Lusas Zdeflections presented by the first Lusas model along the central
undeveloped directrix.
After the study of the deflections, the bending moments were studied in order to check the
efficient structural behaviour of the shell working as a membrane. These moments appear in
the structures in order to provide additional resistance when the membrane stresses are not
enough to resist the applied loads. However, if the bending moments are needed, the
calculations are more difficult and less intuitive as well as the thickness of the shell has to be
greater, as was explained before.
The analysis of the bending moments was divided into three parts: Firstly, the shape and the
maximum transversal bending moments presented in the diagrams presented by Torroja
(figure 36) were compared with the Lusas results. After that, the maximum values supposed
in the calculation of the reinforcement bars were studied. Finally, the absence of longitudinal
bending moments was checked.
The initial analysis of the transversal bending moments was based on the comparison between
the Lusas results (figure 50) and the diagrams obtained by Torroja (figure 36), where the
transversal bending moments along one transversal section were presented. The location of
this diagram was assumed to be at the central directrix as was explained before. The analysis
showed that the shape of both diagrams is highly similar
27
at the connection between both
cylindrical sectors as well as at the smallest lobe. However, at the connection of the biggest
lobe with the wall, the shape presents higher slope in the Lusas results. The maximum of the
values measured by Torroja in this diagram around 300 kg·m/m are approximately 33 % of the
maximum Lusas bending moments, which value was around 2000 kg·m/m. This difference
could be explained by the assumption of different hypotheses in both models, as for example
the thickness variation along the shell. However, after the analysis of the assumptions carried
out by Torroja the most logical explanation was that his calculations were not accurate
enough because the diagram was based on some previous mistakes (Torroja 1942, p.97). For
that reason, the values measured in the isobar diagrams presented by Torroja are not
considered in the next successive models and only the overall shape is compared.
27
The Lusas diagram has the opposite bending moment sign. Therefore, in order to compare the results obtained
by Lusas with the diagram presented by Torroja (figure 37) one of these diagrams was turned.
46
Figure 50: Transversal bending moments presented by the first Lusas model along the central
undeveloped directrix. The maximum value, around 20000 N·m/m or 2000 kg·m/m, is located at the
connection between both cylindrical sectors and in the middle surface of the smallest lobe.
The transversal bending moments considered by Torroja in order to calculate the
reinforcement bars along the directrix (Torroja 1942 page 98) were around three times higher
than the results presented in the bending moment diagram (figure 36). This assumption had
two opposed consequences: On one hand, the price of the structure was higher because more
steel was needed. On the other hand, the safety level of the building was also higher in order
to avoid the made mistakes in the calculation process.
In order to check if the bending moments used to define the reinforcement bars were similar
to the results presented by Lusas, both were compared drawing a common diagram
28
(figure
51). This figure showed that the bending moments calculated by Lusas are higher, above all
regarding the positive bending moments. For example, the value obtained by Torroja located
at the seagull profile is around five times lower than the Lusas bending moment (Table 16,
Appendix B.3). These differences could be explained by different hypotheses considered in
both models. Therefore, one of the objectives proposed in the next model was studying if the
variation of thickness along the shell reduced the bending moments.
Figure 51: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
models. The Lusas bending moments are coloured in red, and the results obtained by Torroja in blue.
All the coordinates and differences are presented in Table 16 in Appendix B.3.
28
The bending moment sign was based on figure 36, which was based on the theoretical calculations.
‐2,0
‐1,5
‐1,0
‐0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
s
K
N
m
/
m
Distance X (m)
First Lusas model
Torroja's bending
moments
47
After the study of the transversal bending moments, the longitudinal bending moments “My”
were studied in Appendix A.7. These stresses were supposed negligible in the theoretical
calculations carried out by Torroja. The maximum Lusas longitudinal bending moment, 456
kg·m/m, is located at the connection between the seagull and the edge. However, this value
can be considered practically negligible in comparison with the maximum value of the
transversal bending moments
29
. Therefore, the hypothesis assumed by Torroja was confirmed.
The last studied element was the isobars because the reinforcement bars were based on these
diagrams. The analysis was divided into different parts: Firstly, the overall shape and the
maximum values along the central directrix were studied. After that, the overall shape of the
along the plan of halfundeveloped section diagrams was analyzed.
The first study of the isobars, based on the values along the central directrix, consisted of the
comparison between the Lusas results, considering the load case four, and the Torroja’s
diagrams (figures 39 and 40). This analysis shows the following conclusions: Firstly, the
shapes have different peaks localization in both models. For example, in the maximum
tension stress diagram, the maximum value obtained by Torroja is reached closer from the
connection between both lobes, at the coordinate X = 20.11 metres, than in the Lusas results,
located at X = 21.59 metres (Table 19, Appendix B.4). Other example is presented in the
maximum compression stress diagram; the maximum value obtained by Torroja was located
at the smallest cylindrical sector, at X = 24.8 metres, instead of at the biggest lobe, X = 13.55
metres, as is obtained by Lusas (Table 20, Appendix B.4). Secondly, in the Torroja’s diagram
of maximum tension stress, the highest values are located around the connection between the
smallest cylinder and the wall. For example, at the point X = 32 metres, the Lusas value is 5
% of the results obtained by Torroja (Table 21, Appendix B.4). Thirdly, in the Torroja’s
diagram of maximum tension stress, more points with null value around the maximum peak
were measured. Fourthly, in the Torroja’s diagram of maximum compression stress, there was
less number of points with null value than in the Lusas results.
The second study of the isobars, based on the plan of half section of the shell, consists of the
comparison between the results calculated by Lusas (figures 52 and 53) and the Torroja’s
diagrams (figure 35). In order to make easier this comparison, the points where the maximum
values measured by Torroja were exceeded, were coloured in red for tension stress and in blue
for compression stress. After this analysis, some conclusions were obtained: Firstly, the
overall shape of both plans is highly similar. Therefore, as the reinforced bars are located
following the isobars, the localization of the reinforcement was right. Secondly, the maximum
values calculated by Lusas
30
are higher
31
than the results obtained by Torroja. These
differences observed between both models are too much notable to be explained only for
errors in the procedure of calculation. Consequently, this problem has two logical
explanations: Torroja’s calculations were wrong or some assumption introduced in the Lusas
model is not true. The possible solution of this problem was found in the last page of the
Torroja’s report where Torroja wrote a note for Dischinger, who was considered that the
29
The maximum value of the transversal bending moments was around four times higher than the maximum
value of longitudinal bending moment (Appendix A.7).
30
28 MPa for maximum tension stress.
31
3.5 times higher for the maximum tension stress.
48
thickness of 8 centimetres at the smallest cylindrical sector was too small
32
. In that note,
Torroja explained that the theoretical thickness considered at the smallest lobe was 11
centimetres, instead of the 8 centimetres supposed by Dischinger (Torroja 1942, p.166). This
thickness corresponded to the real thickness for that section. Therefore, the hypothesis of real
thickness in the theoretical calculations carried out by Torroja is more probable. For that
reason, in the second model the variation of the thickness along the shell was studied with the
purpose of identifying the observed discrepancies in the first model.
Figure 52: Maximum tension stress isobars along the plan of the halfundeveloped section in the first
Lusas model: The smallest cylindrical sector is located on the left. The maximum value, 28 MPa, is
located at the connection between both lobes.
32
Dischinger wrote this observation in his work “Entwicklung und Fortschritte im Eisenbeton”.
49
Figure 53: Maximum compression stress isobars along the plan of the halfundeveloped section in the
first Lusas model: The smallest cylindrical sector is located on the left .The maximum value, 9.39
MPa, is located at the biggest lobe.
3.1.4 Conclusions.
Along the analysis of the first model, the following conclusions were obtained. Firstly, the
model shows correctly the structural behaviour of the theoretical model considered by
Torroja. For example, symmetrical vertical deflections is obtained when symmetrical loads
are applied. Secondly, the most probable load case used by Torroja in the calculation of the
isobars and deflections is the load case four consisting of dead weight, snow and wind load.
Thirdly, the diagram of vertical deflections presented in figure 37, was measured in the
central directrix. Fourthly, the maximum values of vertical deflections are located at the small
cylindrical sector. Fifthly, the Lusas vertical deflections are generally lower than the results
obtained by Torroja. These discrepancies can be explained by the higher weight and stiffness
of the skylights because this hypothesis are not considered in the first model. Other factor that
can explain these discrepancies is the error made in the measurement of the Torroja’s
deflections, which were measured directly in figure 37. However, the assumption of the
thickness variation, carried out in the second model, produces a stiffer structure reducing the
vertical deflections. Therefore, the results obtained in the second Lusas model will probably
be more different to the Torroja’s deflections. Sixthly, the bending moments presented in
figure 36 by Torroja were based on calculation mistakes. Therefore, these values were not
considered in the following models. Seventhly, the Lusas bending moments are higher than
values supposed in the calculation of the reinforcement bars. This factor can be explained by
different hypotheses considered in both models. For example, the assumption of the thickness
variation along the shell might reduce the transversal bending moments. Eighthly, the
longitudinal bending moments can be considered negligible, as was supposed by Torroja in
the theoretical calculations. Ninthly, the peak of the isobars of maximum tension stress
50
obtained by Torroja along the central directrix is located closer from the connection between
both cylindrical sectors than in the Lusas results. Tenthly, the peak of the isobars of
compression stress obtained by Torroja was located at the biggest lobe. However, in the Lusas
model this point is located at the smallest cylindrical sector. Eleventh, the overall shape of the
Lusas isobars is highly similar to the Torroja’s diagrams. Therefore, as these diagrams were
used in order to calculate the reinforcement bars, the localization of these reinforcements were
right. Twelfth, the differences of the maximum values calculated by Lusas in the isobar
diagrams are too much pronounced to be explained only for errors in the procedure of
calculation. The possible explanation of this problem can be the assumption of the hypothesis
of real thickness in the theoretical calculations. For that reason, the second model was studied
with the purpose of identifying if the variation of thickness can explain the observed
differences in the maximum values of the isobars.
51
3.2 Second Model: Variable Thickness.
The shell was designed with thickness variation along the directrix (figure 54) in order to
optimize the structural behaviour of the roof. The thickness began with 8 centimetres at the
connection between the biggest cylindrical sector and the wall. The thickness is increased 8
centimetres in order to connect with the skylights. At the skylight edges, the thickness was not
measured in the consulted construction drawing and it was assumed 16 centimetres (Antuña
2003, p.142). The maximum thickness, 30 centimetres, was located at the seagull profile in
order to cover the tie bars proposed by Torroja (Torroja 1942, p.16). Finally, at the top of the
smallest lobe the thickness was 11 centimetres.
Figure 54: Variation of thickness along the central directrix. All the distances are measured in metres.
3.2.1 Hypotheses and Objectives.
The second model (figure 55) was studied in order to find the explanation for the values
obtained in the Lusas isobars, which were too much higher than the results presented by
Torroja. The additional objectives were checking if the hypothesis of constant thickness was
used in the calculation of the bending moments obtained by Torroja as well as if the increase
of the thickness improved the structural behaviour of the shell.
The element incorporated to the first model is only the assumption of variable thickness along
the surface of the shell. However, the dead weight of the shell was supposed to be constant
with the same value, 250 kg/m
2
, considered in the first model. Therefore, the difference
between both first models is that the second model is stiffer than the first one. The assumption
that the variation of thickness could reduce the maximum values of the isobar diagrams is a
logical because if, as approximation, the thickness used to calculate the first Lusas isobars is
52
increased by hand
33
, the value is more similar to the results presented by Torroja. For
example, the maximum tension stress obtained in the first model changes from 28 MPa to 7.5
MPa (formula 10). This stress is more similar to the maximum value calculated by Torroja, 8
MPa. However, the accurate results have to be obtained changing the thickness in all the
elements in order to consider the effects of the shell as a whole.
28 · u,u8
u,Su
= 7,S NPa 1u]
Figure 55: Variation of thickness along the directrix in the second Lusas model and zoom of the
seagull profile.
The Lusas model was based on the following characteristics: Firstly, the geometry was
defined by 36 surface elements QSI4 (figure 56) in order to model the thickness variation
along the shell as well as the support conditions (Appendix A.4). These surfaces were meshed
considering a number of finite elements that balanced the accuracy and the calculation speed
in the Lusas model. Secondly, the supports and the procedure used to define the loads
consisted of the same elements as defined in the first model.
33
Multiplying the stress for the real thickness in each point and dividing for the constant thickness considered in
the first model.
53
Figure 56: Plan of the surface elements used in the second Lusas model and plan of the mesh used in
the second Lusas model.
3.2.2 Analysis.
The analysis is divided in the same parts studied in the first model: Firstly, the overall
deformation shape and the maximum values of the deflections are studied. Secondly, the
bending moments are analyzed. Finally, the diagrams of isobars are studied.
In the second model, the load combination considered is the load case four: dead weight,
snow and wind loads.
In addition of the hypothesis explained in the section 3.1.2, the analysis started from other
additional premises: Firstly, the vertical deflections and the bending moments might be
reduced because the structure is stiffer and has to resist the same applied loads. Secondly, the
deflections should be more similar to the deformations obtained by Torroja in the actual
structure as well as in the smallscale model because both shells were constructed considering
the variation of thickness. Thirdly, the structural behaviour under symmetrical loads should be
symmetric. All these assumptions are studied along this chapter.
The first analysis was based on the vertical deflections along the central directrix as well as
along the seagull profile. In both diagrams, the shapes are similar to the results obtained in the
first Lusas model. For example, the deflection shape at the seagull profile under symmetrical
loads continues following a parabolic law (figure 57). However, the obtained deflections are
lower because the stiffness of the structure is increased by the assumption of real thickness
along the shell. For example, the maximum value of the vertical deflection, around 7
centimetres, is located at the smallest cylindrical sector. This value is approximately 10
centimetres lower than the deformation obtained in the first model, which means 50 % of the
deformations measured by Torroja in the actual structure and in the smallscale model at the
same location (Tables 4 and 5, Appendix B.2). Another example is the maximum value at the
54
seagull profile (figure 58), which is around 9 centimetres lower than the value obtained by
Torroja.
Figure 57: Absolute vertical deflections presented by the second Lusas model along the seagull profile.
The maximum vertical deflection, around 6 centimetres, is located at Z = 27.5 metres.
Figure 58: Absolute vertical deflections presented by the second Lusas model along the central
undeveloped directrix. The maximum vertical deformation 6.84 centimetres is located at X = 21.4
metres.
The analysis of the deflections lead to different conclusions: Firstly, as was supposed in the
starting premises, the vertical deflections are improved with the assumption of variable
thickness because the structure is less flexible. Secondly, Torroja probably used 8 centimetres
constant thickness in the calculation of the theoretical deflection shapes (figure 37) because
the values of the first model are more similar to the deformations obtained by Torroja than the
results calculated by Lusas in the second model. Thirdly, the results of the actual structure and
the smallscale model should be more similar to the deflections presented in the second Lusas
model than the deflections calculated in the first one because both models are based on the
hypothesis of variation of thickness (figure 59).
55
Figure 59: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Lusas deflections (red line), the results measured in the actual structure (blue line) and in the small
scale model (green line).
The second study was based on the bending moments, which analysis is divided into two
parts: Firstly, the transversal bending moments are studied. In this section, the both first
models as well as the theoretical results are compared. After that, the absence of longitudinal
bending moments is checked comparing the results also with the first model.
The first analysis of the bending moments was based on the shape of the transversal bending
moment diagrams. The shape obtained by Lusas (figure 60) is similar to the diagram
presented by Torroja. Nevertheless, the values are generally higher in the Lusas model (figure
61). For example, 937 kg·m/m higher at the point 43, located at the biggest cylinder, this value
is around three times higher than the values obtained by Torroja (Table 17, Appendix B.3).
Figure 60: Transversal bending moments presented by the second Lusas model along the central
undeveloped directrix. The maximum value, around 30000 N·m/m, is located at the smallest lobe.
The comparison between the first and the second Lusas models (figure 61) showed the
following conclusions: First of all, the variation of thickness along the shell increases the
transversal bending moments at the places where the thickness is increased, for example at the
skylights. For that reason, the maximum value, located at the point 47, is 1458 kg·m/m higher
than the results obtained in the first model. This value is aproximately three times higher than
the maximum value calculated by Torroja (Table 17, Appendix B.3).
Analyzing all the previous results, the following conclusions, regarding the transversal
bending moments, were obtained: Firstly, the assumption of constant thickness can be
logically applied in the points located at the bigger cylinder and at the connection between
both lobes because the bending moments calculated in the first model were higher. Secondly,
‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Second Lusas model
Small‐scale model
Actual structure
56
the assumption of variation of thickess increases the bending moments at the points where the
thickness is increased. Therefore, in the calculation of the reinforcement bars located in those
places, to be on the safe side, the hypothesis of constant thickness cannot be supposed
because the values obtained by Torroja were lower above all at the smallest cylinder. For
example at the point 47, the value obtained by Torroja was 2222 kg·m/m lower than the
results obtained by the second Lusas model (Table 17, Appendix B.3).
Figure 61: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
models. The values obtained by Torroja are coloured in blue, the first Lusas model is coloured in red,
and the second Lusas model is coloured in orange.
After the study of the transversal bending moments, the longitudinal bending moments were
studied. This analysis can be found in Appendix A.7. The maximum value is approximately
600 kN·m/m and is located at the connection between the seagull and the edge. However, this
value is practically negligible in comparison with the maximum value of the transversal
bending moments
34
confirming the hypothesis considered by Torroja.
The third element studied was isobars, which analysis is divided into different parts: Firstly,
the overall shape of the isobar diagrams and the maximum values measured along the central
undeveloped directrix are analyzed. After that, the overall shapes of the plan diagrams of
isobars are studied.
The first study of the isobars consisted of the analysis of the values along the central directrix
by means of the comparison between the Lusas results, considering the load case four in the
first and the second model, and the values of the diagrams obtained by Torroja along the
central directrix
35
(figures 62 and 63).
34
The maximum value of the transversal bending moments was around five times higher than the maximum
value of longitudinal bending moment (Appendix A.7).
35
As was explained before, the values of the isobars presented by Torroja along the central directrix were
measured directly from figure 35.
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
s
k
N
m
/
m
Distance X (m)
First Lusas model
Second Lusas model
Torroja's Bending
Moments
57
Figure 62: Maximum tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering
different models. The diagram is based on three lines: the first and the second Lusas model, which are
coloured in orange and red, and the values obtained by Torroja, which are coloured in black.
Figure 63: Maximum compressions stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering
the load case four. The diagram is based on three lines: the first and the second Lusas model, which
are coloured in orange and red, and the values obtained by Torroja, which are coloured in black.
The analysis of the isobars of tension and compression stress showed the following
conclusions: Firstly, the assumption of the thickness variation reduces all the maximum
values observed in the first model. For example, considering the maximum tension stress the
highest value changes from 28 MPa/m to 13.1 MPa/m. This variation means than in this peak
the compression stresses are around 50 % lower in the second model. Secondly, the maximum
value of the tension stress in the second model is located at the connection between both
cylindrical sectors, coordinate X = 23 metres. However, this peak is located in the others
models at the biggest lobe. For example, in the Torroja’s model at the coordinate X = 21.59
metres (Table 22, Appendix B.4). Thirdly, in the diagram of tension stress presented by
Torroja, highest values around the connection between the smallest cylindrical sector and the
wall were calculated as well as there were more points with null value around the maximum
peak. Fourthly, in the diagram of compression stress presented by Torroja, there was less
number of points with null value than at the Lusas results. Fifthly, the shape of the isobars of
compression stress in the Lusas models have the maximum values located at the biggest
cylindrical sector. For example, the maximum value of the isobars of compression stress in
the second model is located at the coordinate X = 15.91 metres. However, the maximum
values in the Torroja’s model were measured at coordinate X = 24.8 metres, located in the
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
P
a
)
Distance X (m)
First Lusas model
Second Lusas
model
Torroja's tension
stress
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
P
a
)
Distance X (m)
First Lusas model
Second Lusas model
Torroja's compression stress
58
smallest cylindrical sector (Table 23, Appendix B.4). Sixthly, the value of the isobars of
compressions stress in the second Lusas model located at the smallest lobe, are highly similar
to the values presented by Torroja. For example, at the point X = 24.8 metres, it was reached
the peak in the diagrams presented by Torroja, which value was 5.8 MPa/m, as well as the
value measured for the first model was 6.36 MPa/m. However, the value obtained in the
second model at the same point is only 11 % of the maximum value obtained by Torroja
(Table 24, Appendix B.4).
The second study of the isobars was based on the comparison of the plan diagrams of isobars
calculated by Lusas with the diagrams presented by Torroja in figure 35. In order to make
easier this comparison, the points where the maximum values measured by Torroja were
exceeded, were coloured in red for tension stress and in blue for compression stress.
The analysis showed that the hypothesis of variable thickness was used in the diagrams of
isobars presented by Torroja for different reasons: Firstly, the overall shapes (figures 64 and
65) are more similar to the isobars obtained by Torroja than the shapes calculated by the first
model. Secondly, the maximum Lusas values
36
are more similar to the maximum values
calculated by Torroja, for example the maximum compression stress the value is
approximately only 4 % higher in the Lusas model. However, the maximum value of the
isobars of tension stress is 63 % higher than the results presented by Torroja (Table 25,
Appendix B.4). This value showed that probably it could be errors in the calculation of the
maximum values of the tension stress calculated by Torroja. This question was raised
37
to
Jose Antonio Torroja Canavillas, Eduardo Torroja’s son, who is a very prestigious and well
known civil engineering. He argued that the observed differences can be logically assumed
because the calculations were done by hand. This procedure made usually some mistakes as a
consequence of the complexity of the calculations. For that reason, Soler explained in the
article “Eduardo Torroja profesor” published in the book “Eduardo Torroja: La vigencia de un
legado” how Torroja entrusted two calculation teams with the check of the solution of the
equation system. However, both groups presented two different solutions. After that, Torroja
tried that the solution proposed by each team would be obtained by the other team and finally
four different solutions were presented. (Soler 2002, p.221). As a consequence of this high
variation of the calculations made by hand, Torroja decided to build the smallscale model in
order to be sure of the results.
36
13.07 MPa for maximum tension stress and 6.01MPa for maximum compression stress (figures 64 and 65).
37
Consultation realized by Ignacio Payá Zaforteza. The 6
th
of April 2009 in Madrid.
59
Figure 64: Maximum tensions stress isobars in halfundeveloped plan obtained by the second Lusas
model. The maximum value, 13.08 MPa, is located at the connection between both cylinders.
Figure 65: Maximum compression stress isobars presented in halfundeveloped plan obtained by the
second Lusas model. The maximum value is 6.01MPa and is located at the biggest cylindrical sector.
60
3.2.3 Conclusions.
Along the analysis of the second model, the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly, the
shape of the deflections calculated by the second Lusas model is similar to the results
obtained by the first model. However, the vertical deflections measured in the second model
are lower because the assumption of thickness variation increases the stiffness of the model.
Secondly, Torroja probably used 8 centimetres constant thickness in the calculation of the
theoretical deflection shape (figure 37), because the values of the first model are more similar
to the deformations obtained by Torroja than the deflections measured in the second model.
Thirdly, the assumption of constant thickness can be applied in the points located at the bigger
cylinder and at the connection between both lobes because the bending moments calculated in
the first model were higher than results obtained in the second Lusas model. Fourthly, the
assumption of variation of thickess increases the bending moments at the smallest cylinder.
Therefore, in the calculations of that area, to be on the safety side, the hypothesis of constant
thickness cannot be supposed. Fourthly, the transversal bending moments supposed by
Torroja in the calculation of the reinforcement bars were on the side of the insecurity above
all at the smallest cylinder because the values were lower than the results obtained by the
second Lusas model. Fifthly, the longitudinal bending moments can be negliged, as was
supposed by Torroja. Sixthly, the maximum values of the isobars of compression stress are
located, as in the first Lusas model, at the biggest cylindrical sector instead of at the possition
supposed by Torroja at the smallest lobe. Seventhly, the maximum values of the isobars of
tension stress are located at the connection between both lobes instead of at the biggest
cylinder as was obtained by Torroja. Eightly, the consideration of thickness variation reduced
highly the isobars of compression stress at the smallest cylindrical sector. Ninetly, as was
supposed at the beginning of the study, the maximum values of the isobars are reduced
regarding the first model because the structure is less flexible. For example, the maximum
value of the compression stress is only 4 % higher than the results presented by Torroja.
However, the maximum value of the tension stress continues being too much higher and the
possible explanation is the errors produced during the calculation procedure as was explained
by José Antonio Torroja Canavillas.
61
3.3 Third Model: Wind Suction Effects.
The effect of the wind suction was originally not considered in the theoretical calculations
because the importance of this phenomenon would be reduced regarding to the cylindrical
shape by the height and proximity of the nearby buildings as well as by the shape of the lobes.
Furthermore, Torroja supposed that the suction effects improved the structural behaviour of
the shell because its effect would be similar to reducing the dead weight and increasing the
lateral compression stress. However, when the shell had been calculated, in the report carried
out by Mr Ribera and Aguirre to check the work viability of the structure, the study of the
wind suction effects in a smallscale model of 1/10 was recommended. Consequently, Torroja
used the experimental results of the cylindrical shape to approximate the wind suction law
along the directrix (figure 66). This law consisted of a linear combination of the snow and
wind loads, which were explained before, in order to obtain the wind suction without
repeating the theoretical calculations (Torroja 1942, p. 21).
Figure 66: Suction along the directrix proposed by Torroja.
The study of the third model is divided into different parts: Firstly, the hypotheses and the
objectives are presented. Secondly, the analysis of the model is showed. Finally, the
conclusions are showed.
3.3.1 Hypotheses and Objectives.
The third model consisted of the same Lusas model used in the second model because both
models were based on the same general hypotheses. However, the incorporated difference to
the second model was the consideration of the wind load law including suction effects (figure
66) instead of the wind hypotheses supposed in the initial calculations carried out by Torroja.
The main objective of the third model is modelling the behaviour of the shell considering the
suction effects and comparing the obtained results with the Lusas model results. After that,
the different hypotheses considered by Torroja regarding the wind suction effects are
analyzed.
3.3.2 Analysis.
The analysis is divided in three different sets of results
38
: the vertical deflections, the bending
moments and the isobars. For each of these sets four load cases were studied:
38
All the diagrams of the isobars considering the different load cases are presented in Appendix A.8.
62
 Load case A: Dead weight.
 Load case B: Dead weight and wind including suction load.
 Load case C: Dead weight, snow load and wind without suction load.
 Load case D: Dead weight, snow load and wind with suction load.
The defined load cases followed two different objectives: On one hand, the purpose of the
load cases A and B was checking the hypothesis proposed by Torroja “the suction effects
reduce the dead weight” (Torroja 1942, p.21). This assumption was studied considering the
wind suction effects without other overloads. On the other hand, the objective of the load
cases C and D was analyzing the effect of the suction when all the overloads were applied.
The analysis of the deflections was divided into the two parts explained before: the
assumption of the wind suction effects without other overloads and the assumption with the
rest of overloads.
The first element studied was the deflections considering the wind suction effects without
other overloads and the analysis was based on the comparison of the vertical deflection
diagrams along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load cases A and B (figure
67). This analysis showed that the vertical deflections are highly similar for both load cases
from the connection between the biggest cylindrical and the wall, X = 0 metres, to the biggest
lobe axes, located at the coordinate X = 12.2 metres. For example, at the coordinate X = 10
metres, the vertical deflection difference is only 0.11 centimetres (Table 8, Appendix B.2).
However, in the rest of the directrix the deflection differences are higher. For example, at the
seagull profile, X = 23 metres, the vertical deflection variation between both load cases is 1.5
centimetres. Furthermore, the vertical deflections measured at the same point considering the
load case B are 67 % of the deformations measured in the load case A (Table 9, Appendix
B.2).
After the study of all the previous considerations, the next conclusion was obtained: the
assumption of the wind suction effects, when there other overloads are not applied, reduces
the vertical deflections in all the points with X coordinate higher than 12.2 metres, because
the shell is raised by the suction phenomenon. Therefore, in these points the Torroja’s
hypothesis, “the wind suction effects reduce the deflections produced by the dead weight”,
was confirmed.
Figure 67: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different load
cases in the third Lusas model. The load case A is coloured in blue, and the load case B is coloured in
green.
‐6
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Load case A
Load case B
63
The second part of the study of the deflections consisted of the analysis of the deflection
shape along the central undeveloped directrix, considering the load cases C and D (figure 68).
This analysis showed favourable differences in both cylindrical sectors. On one hand, the
assumption of the wind suction effects reduces the negative vertical deflections in the points
with X coordinate higher than 12.2 metres. For example at the seagull profile, X = 23 metres,
the vertical deflections are 2.56 centimetres higher in the load case C (Table 10, Appendix
B.2). On the other hand, the assumption of the wind suction effects reduces also the positive
deflections at the biggest cylindrical sector. For example, at the point X = 10 metres the
values measured in the load case D are practically 16 % of the results obtained in the load
case C (Table 10, Appendix B.2).
The analysis of the deflections showed as a conclusion that the assumption of the wind
suction effects reduces the vertical deflections in all points of the shell when the overloads are
or not considered. Therefore, the hypothesis supposed by Torroja in the theoretical
calculations, the wind suction effects improves the structural behaviour, was confirmed in the
vertical deflections.
Figure 68: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different load
cases in the third Lusas model. The load case C is coloured in red and the load case D in orange.
After the analysis of the deflection, the bending moments as well as the isobar diagrams were
studied. The initial consideration in the study of these stresses was that if the wind suction
effects improved the vertical deflections, the stresses would be reduced in the structure. In
order to check this hypothesis, an analysis of the bending moments and isobars along the
central undeveloped directrix, considering the four load cases, was carried out (Appendix
A.8). Analyzed the obtained diagrams, the initial supposition for both stresses were
confirmed.
3.3.3 Conclusions.
After the study of the third model, the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly, the wind
suction effects reduce the deflections, the bending moments and isobars of the dead weight.
Secondly, when the wind suction loads and the rest of overloads are considered, the Lusas
results along the central directrix are reduced. Lastly, the hypothesis that the suction
phenomenon improves the structural behaviour was confirmed. Therefore, the hypothesis
supposed in the theoretical calculations regarding not considering the wind suction effects,
can be logically assumed.
‐8
‐7
‐6
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
i
s
t
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Load case C
Load case D
64
3.4 Fourth Model: Skylights.
The sunlight was one of the initial objectives pursued in the design of the Frontón Recoletos
by Torroja. Finally, this factor was obtained by the construction of two large longitudinal
skylights, which consisted of a frame
39
of equilateral triangles (figure 69) whose sides
measured 1.4 metres. These skylights were placed close to the connection between both lobes
in the biggest cylindrical sector and close to the connection with the wall in the smallest
sector.
The Frontón Recoletos was the first thin concrete shell structure where these skylights were
used. Furthermore, the existing theoretical methods, in the period when the structure was
constructed, were based exact theoretical models resolved by hand. However, these methods
had never been used before in any discontinuous shell and therefore the structure was
considered a structural challenge and one way to improve the knowledge about the behaviour
of this kind of shells. These theoretical methods were simplified by Torroja supposing the
skylight behaviour as a normal closed shell in order to calculate the structure by hand.
Figure 69: Construction of the skylight beams using wooden frameworks.
The study of the fourth Lusas model is divided into three parts: First, the hypotheses and
objectives are explained. Secondly, the principal characteristics of the results obtained by
Lusas are analyzed. Finally, the obtained conclusions are showed.
39
The frame was based on rectangular beams 30 per 17 centimetres (Antuña 2003, p.142).
65
3.4.1 Hypotheses and Objectives.
The fourth model (figure 70 and 71) was based on the same hypotheses
40
considered in the
preceding model, incorporating the real skylights instead of the closed shell section.
Figure 70: 3D view of the fourth Lusas model. The skylights are coloured in purple as well as the
normal shell surface in green.
Figure 71: Directrix of the fourth Lusas model and zoom of the skylight in the smallest cylindrical
sector.
The Lusas model was based on the following characteristics: Firstly, the geometry (figure 72)
was divided into two different parts: On one hand, the shell consisted of 468 surface elements
QSI4 in order to model the variation of thickness and the connection with the skylights
41
.
These surfaces were meshed considering a balanced model between the accuracy and the
calculation speed. On the other hand, the skylights were modelled with 1435 beam elements
called BMS3 (Appendix A.1). These beams were divided in five finite elements. Secondly,
the supports were modelled as in the first Lusas model. Finally, the procedure used to define
the dead weight as well as the wind and snow loads, in the surfaces and skylights, is explained
in Appendix A.3.
40
Variation of thickness along the shell, homogenous material with null Poisson number, load case four: dead
weight with snow and wind loads, supports continuous along the edges.
41
At the connection between both elements were supposed beams elements in order to model correctly the real
structural behaviour.
66
The main objective of the fourth model was checking the hypothesis considered in the
theoretical calculations of replacing the skylights frames with closed surfaces in order to
simplify the mathematical analysis. The other objective is checking the comparison with the
results obtained by Torroja and the preceding models.
Figure 72: Fourth Lusas model consisted of surfaces, which are coloured in green, and beam elements,
which are coloured in purple.
3.4.2 Analysis.
The initial hypotheses considered, analyzed all the results of the preceding models, were that
the structural behaviour of the shell under symmetrical loads would probably be symmetric as
well as the vertical deflections in the fourth model might be higher than the second model
deflections because the assumption of the real skylights decreased the stiffness of the
structure.
The first element studied was the deflections. This analysis was divided into three parts. First,
the threedimension Lusas model was studied analyzing the structural behaviour of the shell.
After that, the Lusas deflections of the fourth model were compared with the results obtained
in the second model in order to study the effect of the real skylights. Finally, the Lusas
deflections obtained in the fourth model were compared with the vertical Torroja’s
deflections.
The first study of the deflections consisted of the analysis of the shape in the 3D Lusas model
(figure 73 and 74). The conclusions obtained from this analysis were the following: Firstly,
the most unfavourable sections, referring to vertical deflections, are located parallel to the Z
axis. For example, the maximum deflection, 9.2 centimetres, is located at the central directrix
(Table 6, Appendix B.2). Secondly, as was supposed at the beginning, the deflections are
symmetrical when symmetrical loads are applied. Thirdly, the longitudinal movements along
the Zaxis in the edged directrix allow reducing the bending moments in the structure
67
imitating the membrane behaviour. All these characteristics are highly similar to the previous
models, where the skylights were modelled as a closed shell. Therefore, the hypothesis
considered in the theoretical calculations of replacing the skylights frames with closed shell
surface, can be logically assumed because the general behaviour of the both models is highly
similar.
Figure 73: Deflections in the 3D view of the fourth Lusas model: Isometric view and the plan view.
Figure 74: Deflections in the 3D view of the fourth Lusas model. View parallel to Xaxis at the section
X = 32.5 meters.
The second study of the deflections was based on the comparison between the second and the
fourth Lusas model. This comparison was studied in order to know how varied the deflections
when the real skylights are introduced in the model. This study was based on the vertical
deflection diagrams along the two most unfavourable sections: the seagull profile (figure 75)
and the central directrix (figure 763). This study showed as a conclusion that the vertical
deflections along the central directrix and the seagull profile are higher when the skylights are
modelled as frames. For example, in the central directrix, at the coordinate X = 23 metres, the
deflections are 35 % higher than the results calculated by the second model (Table 13,
Appendix B.2). This conclusion can be explained by the fact that the hypothesis of real
skylights produces a more flexible structure because the shell continuity is broken.
Furthermore, the real loads in the skylights, which were heavier than the supposed in the
preceding models loads, produced higher deflections.
68
Figure 75: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models.
The results of the second Lusas model are coloured in red and results of the fourth Lusas model in
blue.
Figure 76: Vertical deflections along half seagull profile, from the coordinate Z = 0 metres to Z = 27.5
metres considering different models. The results of the second Lusas model are coloured in red and the
results of the fourth Lusas model in blue.
The next study of the deflections was based on the comparison with the results obtained by
Torroja in the actual structure and in the smallscale model. Both Torroja’s models were
based on the following hypothesis: Variation of thickness, consideration of skylights, and
consideration of real supports. This last assumption was the only difference with the fourth
Lusas model. Therefore, the last Lusas model was more similar to the Torroja’s hypotheses
than the preceding models. This conclusion implied than the vertical deflections calculated by
the fourth Lusas model might be also more similar to the results presented by Torroja. The
initial analysis was based on the comparison between the deflections measured by the fourth
Lusas model and the Torroja’ deflections considering the load case four (figure 37). This
study showed two different conclusions: Firstly, the Torroja’s deflections are higher than the
results calculated by the fourth Lusas model, above all at the connection between both
cylindrical sectors. For example, at the coordinate X = 22.5 metres, the Lusas vertical
deflections are 60 % of the deflections measured in the actual structure and the smallscale
model (Table 6 and 7, Appendix B.2). This factor is explained because the Torroja’s models
were based on discontinuous supports and therefore the structure was more flexible and
higher deflections were measured. Secondly, as was supposed before, the vertical deflections
calculated by the fourth Lusas model are more similar to the results presented by Torroja than
the second model. For example, at the same coordinate considered before, the vertical
deflections calculated by the second model were 45 % of the actual structure and the small
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Second Lusas model
Fourth Lusas model
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
m
)
Distance Z (m)
Second Lusas model
Fourth Lusas model
69
scale model deflections. This conclusion is explained because the second model was too much
rigid due to the assumption of the continuous supports and closed skylights. Therefore, when
the real skylights are considered the structure is more flexible and the results are more similar
to the deflections obtained by Torroja.
Figure 77: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models.
The results of the fourth Lusas model are coloured in red, the results obtained by Torroja in the actual
structure are coloured in blue and the deflections obtained in the smallscale model are coloured in
green. The load case four is considered in the fourth Lusas model.
The second analysis of the deflections consisted of the comparison between the fourth Lusas
model and the deflections measured in the smallscale model considering different load cases
along the central undeveloped directrix. The procedure carried out by Torroja in order to
check the structural behaviour of the smallscale model of the Frontón Recoletos consisted of
27 tests realized in different periods (Torroja 1942, p.123125). In these tests, the vertical and
horizontal deflections
42
were measured. In this section, the vertical deflections of three of
those tests were compared in order to study two additional load cases considered in the first
model:
 Load case 1: Dead weight
 Load case 3: Dead weight with snow load
In order to make easier the comparison and considering possible measurement errors in the
smallscale model, the results measured by Torroja are drawn as two lines, which values were
obtained increasing and reducing the measured values in 1 centimetre.
The study of the load case one (figure 78) was based on the tests A and B, which showed
similar deflections. However, the test B presented some measurement errors. For example, the
value obtained at the connection between the smallest cylindrical sector and the wall was 1.5
centimetres instead of the null deflection measured in the test A and supposed initially by the
support conditions (Table 1, Appendix B.5). Therefore, in order to avoid the possible
measurement errors, the average of both tests was considered. This average deflection was
compared with the Lusas results and the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly, the
Lusas shape and the maximum values are highly similar to the results measured in the small
42
All the details referring to the metering devices used were described in the Report presented to the Spanish
Sciences Academy (Torroja 1942 p.121).
‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fourth Lusas model
Small‐scale model
Actual structure
70
scale model above all at the biggest cylindrical sector. For example, the difference of
deflections at the coordinate X = 15.3 metres is only 0.3 centimetres. Secondly, the vertical
deflections measured by Lusas in the closeness of the connection between the smallest
cylindrical sector and the wall are different to the results obtained by the average test. For
example, at the point X = 31.5 the difference between both models is 3.7 centimetres (Table
2, Appendix B.5). This problem can be explained if the metering device located in that point
was broken or was based on error in the calibration process because the continuity of the
deflection shape measured by the average test was broken in that point. In order to check this
hypothesis, the average shape along the directrix without considering that anomalous result,
produced by the metering device located at the coordinate X = 31.5 metres, was presented
(figure 79). This new shape was continuous along all the directrix is more similar to the Lusas
results.
Figure 78: Vertical deflections along the undeveloped directrix considering different models. The
deflections obtained by the fourth Lusas model are coloured in blue and the values measured in the
test realized by Torroja, supposing 1 centimetre of error in the average value, are coloured in pink. The
load case one is considered.
Figure 79: Vertical deflections along the undeveloped directrix considering different models. The
deflections obtained by the fourth Lusas model are coloured in blue and the values measured in the
test
43
realized by Torroja, supposing 1 centimetre of error in the average value, are coloured in pink.
The load case one is considered.
43
Without the peak presented in figure 77 at the coordinate X = 31.5 metres.
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
0 10 20 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Lusas vertical distortions
Smale‐scale model error 1cm
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
0 10 20 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Lusas vertical distortions
Smale‐scale model error 1cm
71
The analysis of the load case three (figure 80) was based on the comparison between the test
C, where the same load case was considered, and the Lusas results. This analysis showed as a
conclusion that the vertical Lusas deflections are similar to the values presented by Torroja
above all at the smallest cylindrical sector. For example, the deflection difference at the
coordinate X = 29.6 metres is 1.8 centimetres. However, these differences are higher at the
biggest lobe. For example, the Lusas deflection at the point X = 7.2 metres is only 11 % of the
test value (Table 3, Appendix B.5).
Figure 80: Vertical deflections along the undeveloped directrix considering different models. The
deflections obtained by the fourth Lusas model are coloured in green and the values measured in the
tests realized by Torroja, supposing 1 centimetre of error in the average value, are coloured in pink.
The load case three is considered in the fourth Lusas model.
The second element studied was the bending moments, which analysis is divided into two
parts: Firstly, the transversal bending moments obtained in the second Lusas model are
compared with the fourth Lusas model. After that, the longitudinal bending moments are
studied.
The first study of the bending moments was based on the comparison between the transversal
bending moments of the second and the fourth Lusas models (figure 81). This comparison
was analyzed in order to know how the bending moments varied when the real skylights were
considered and was based on the diagrams of transversal bending moments along the central
directrix. The conclusion of this comparison showed similar values
44
and shapes in both
models as well as the fourth model presented slightly higher values at the connection with the
skylights because the discontinuity of the shell increased the stresses. For example, at the
connection between the biggest lobe and the skylights the difference is 27 % (Table 18,
Appendix B.3). Therefore, the bending moments calculated when the simplified skylights are
considered are not on the safety side.
44
The values at the connections with the skylights were not considered because in that location a beam was
placed in order to connect both structures.
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
0 10 20 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Lusas vertical distortions
Smale‐scale model error
1cm
72
Figure 81: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
models. The second Lusas model is coloured in orange, and the fourth Lusas model is coloured in
purple.
The second study of the bending moments consisted of the study of the longitudinal bending
moments. These stresses are practically located at the connection between the skylight beams
in the biggest cylindrical sector and the shell. The obtained values are higher than the
preceding models. For example, the maximum value in the central directrix represents 37 %
of the maximum transversal bending moments obtained in the same Lusas model (Appendix
A.7). Therefore, the longitudinal bending moments cannot be considered negligible in those
places.
The analysis of the isobars is divided into different parts: Firstly, the overall shape and the
maximum values measured along the central directrix are analyzed. After that, the overall
shape of the isobar plan diagrams are studied.
The first study of the isobars was based on the comparison of the values along the directrix.
These values were compared with the second Lusas results (figure 82 and 83). The main
conclusion was that the shape is highly similar in both diagrams. Nevertheless, when the real
skylights are considered the maximum values are increased. For example, the peak in the
maximum isobars of tension stress measured in the fourth model is 27 % higher regarding the
second Lusas model (Appendix B.4).
Figure 82: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. The second
Lusas model is coloured orange and the fourth one in red.
‐2
‐1
0
1
2
3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
s
K
N
m
/
m
Distance X (m)
Second Lusas model
Fourth Lusas model
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
0 10 20 30
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
p
a
)
Distance X (m)
Second Lusas model
Fourth Lusas model
73
Figure 83: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. The
second Lusas model is coloured orange and the fourth one in red.
Finally, the shape of the compression and tension stress isobars is highly similar to the shape
presented in the second model (figures 84 and 85). However, the values are higher because
when the real skylights are modelled, the structure is more flexible. For example, the
maximum value of the isobars of tension stress in the second Lusas model is 3 MPa lower
than the fourth model (figure 84).
Figure 84: Plan of the halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobar for the fourth
Lusas model. The maximum value was 16.8 MPa.
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 10 20 30
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
p
a
)
Distance X (m)
Second Lusas model
Fourth Lusas model
74
Figure 85: Plan of the half undeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobar for the fourth
Lusas model. The maximum value was 7.2 MPa.
3.4.3 Conclusions.
After the analysis of the fourth model, the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly, the
general behaviour of the shell is practically independent to the consideration of the skylights
because the threedimensional deflections were highly similar in the first and the fourth Lusas
model. This factor checked the Torroja’s assumption of considering the skylights as closed
shell in order to simplify the theoretical calculations. Secondly, the consideration of the real
skylights produces a more flexible structure than the second Lusas model because the
continuity of the shell was broken. One example of this phenomenon is the increase of the
vertical deflections when the real skylights are introduced in the model. Nevertheless, these
deflections are lower than the results obtained by Torroja because continuous supports are
considered in the fourth model. Thirdly, the structural behaviour, considering different load
cases, is highly similar to the tests carried out by Torroja in the smallscale model.
Furthermore, some problems in the measuring device have been detected. Fourthly, the shape
of the transversal bending moments along the central directrix is highly similar to the shape of
the second Lusas model. However, the fourth model presented slightly higher values at the
connection with the skylights because the discontinuity of the shell increased the stresses.
This conclusion is also obtained in the analysis of the isobars along the central directrix.
Fifthly, the longitudinal bending moments are practically located at the connection between
the skylight beams in the biggest cylindrical sector and the shell. The Lusas stresses are
higher than the preceding models and cannot be considered negligible in those places. Sixthly,
the maximum values of the isobars are higher than the second Lusas model because the
flexibility of the structure is higher in the fourth Lusas model.
75
3.5 Fifth Model: Real Supports.
In the theoretical calculations, the supports were simplified in order to calculate the shell by
hand. This simplified supports consisted of a fixed points at the central section of the
generators and free deflection along the Zaxis for the rest of edged points. However, the
supports that were constructed in the actual structure were more complex. These supports
were based on two construction drawings used by Torroja (figures 86 and 87). In these
construction drawings is showed how the generators and the directrix had different support
conditions: On one hand, the central points of the edged generators were joined to the wall at
their centre, and along the rest of their length, they rest on small connecting rods thus
permitting the longitudinal expansion of the shell (figure 87). These supports can be easily
appreciated in the smallscale model proposed by Torroja (figure 88). On the other hand, the
supports at the directrix consisted of six points, which joined the shell with the wall by means
of beams and pillars. All the procedure used in order to model the supports in the actual
structure is explained in Appendix A.5. The second element incorporated in the real supports
that had not been studied in the theoretical calculations was that at the connection between the
shell and the wall, different reinforcement beams were constructed. The size of the beam
located at the generator connection was 20 per 40 centimetres (Antuña 2003, p.140). This
beam produced an eccentric support (figure 30) that was not considered in the model.
Nevertheless, the size of the beam located at the directrix connection was not clearly defined.
Therefore, on one hand, the size of the edged beam located at the directrix was measured in
the constructions drawings and the value considered in the model was 20 centimetres on the
other hand, the size in the generator directions was supposed 30 centimetres (Antuña 2003,
p.140).
Figure 86: Construction drawing of the real supports at the directrix. The supports consisted of six
points, which connected the shell with the wall by means of beams and pillars.
76
Figure 87: Construction drawing of the real supports at the generators of half section. The central
section was fixed with anchor bars in two directions. The rest of the generators were connected by
small beams separated 1.5 metres.
Figure 88: Picture of the smallscale model tested by Torroja. The supports can be easily appreciable
at the connection between the small cylindrical sector and the wall.
The study of the fifth model is divided into different parts: Firstly, the hypotheses and the
objectives are presented. Secondly, the supports used in the constructed structure and the
effects in the structural behaviour of the model are studied. Afterwards, the fifth model is
analyzed and compared with the preceding models. Finally, the conclusions are showed.
77
3.5.1 Hypotheses and Objectives.
The fifth model (figure 89) was considered as similar as possible to the real constructed
structure. Therefore, the model was based on the Torroja’s construction drawings. In these
documents, the structure was defined considering the following characteristics: variation of
thickness along the shell, skylights defined as lattice frames of equilateral triangles made of
reinforced concrete, concentrated supports and edged beams along the shell.
In addition to all the characteristics described in the drawings, in the actual structure a Poisson
number different to zero
45
was supposed, instead of the null value used in the preceding
models. This assumption was realized in order to consider the transversal contractions and
bring the model closer to the actual behaviour of the material used in the structure. However,
in order to simplify the model, the concrete was considered to be an elastic, linear and
homogeneous material that obeyed Hooke's law with the Elasticity Modulus equal to 30·10
9
N/m
2
.
The Lusas model was based on the following characteristics: Firstly, the geometry (figure 89)
was divided in two different parts. On one hand, the shell consists of 556 surface elements
called QSI4 in order to model the variation of thickness and the connection with the
skylights
46
. The mesh used was based on the following considerations: Firstly, the finite
elements might be as similar as possible in the cylindrical sectors. Secondly, the number of
finite elements have to be balanced between the accuracy and the speed of calculation.
Finally, at the most trouble areas, as for example the connection between the shells and the
skylight beams, smallest finite elements were supposed in order to reduce errors in those
places. On the other hand, the skylights were modelled with 1435 beam elements called
BMS3. These beams were divided into five finite elements. Secondly, the supports at the
generators were modelled as “Support A”, which fixed all the translations and allowed the
rotations and “Support B”, which fixed the vertical movements and acted like springs along
both the Zaxes, parallel to the generators, and the Xaxes, orthogonal to the generators. As
was described in the construction drawings (figure 87) the first supports were located at the
edged sections of the generators along the five central metres. The Torroja’s thought pursued
with this supports was creating a stiffer shell avoiding the deflections along the Zaxis in the
centre of the structure. In the rest of the generator length, the supports were modelled as a
concentrated supports B each 1.4 meters
47
. The directrix supports (figure 89) were modelled
as concentrated supports B. The stiffness of the different springs considered in the model were
calculated supposing the simplified model of cantilever beam fixed to the wall. This
procedure is explained in Appendix A.5. Finally, the procedure used to define the dead weight
as well as the wind and snow loads in the surfaces and skylights was similar to the preceding
model and is explained in Appendix A.3.
45
Value proposed by the Professor Costin Pacoste v = 0.2.
46
At the connection between both elements, beams elements were supposed in order to model correctly the
structural behaviour of the actual structure.
47
The supports in the actual structure were separated 1.5 metres. However, the separation was supposed 1.4
metres in the Lusas model in order to simplify the model.
78
Figure 89: Fifth Lusas model consisted of surfaces, which are coloured in green, and beam elements,
which are coloured in purple and the supports conditions: “Supports A” located at the central
generator line and “Supports B” located at the rest of the generators and the directrix as concentrated
supports.
The objectives pursued by the fifth model were checking the structural behaviour of the
constructed structure as well as comparing the obtained values with the preceding models and
with the results presented by Torroja. In order to achieve these objectives, a structural analysis
was realized.
3.5.2 Study of the Supports.
The objective of the support study was understanding the structural behaviour of the Lusas
model when the supports conditions are changed. Therefore, the analysis is divided into two
successive
48
steps: Firstly, the real supports are supposed without the assumption of the edged
beams. The purpose of this analysis is checking how the stresses are more concentrated when
the edged beams are not considered. After this analysis, the reinforcement beams located at
the edges are introduced in the model. The objective of this step is checking how the edged
beams improve the structural behaviour of the shell. In order to simplify the analysis, only the
maximum values of the isobars have been studied.
.
48
A previous analysis: consideration of the real supports as spring with infinite stiffness was carried out. The
conclusions showed by this analysis were similar to the conclusions obtained in the first step.
79
The analysis of the maximum values of the isobar diagrams showed that when the supports
conditions are changed for the real supports without considering the edged beams, the
maximum values of the isobars are increased. For example, the maximum compression stress
isobars are increased 67 % regarding the maximum values of the fourth Lusas model (Table
27, Appendix B.3). Furthermore, these stresses are located at the points located at the directrix
where the shell is connected with the wall instead of at the biggest cylindrical sector (figure
90). These differences can be explained by two factors: Firstly, the real supports generate a
more flexible structure. Consequently, the maximum stresses are higher. Secondly, the
connection between the shell and the wall consists of concentrated joins at the directrix.
Therefore, the stresses are concentrated in those points
49
.
Figure 90: Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars when the
discontinuous supports are considered but not the edged beam. The zoom located at one connection
between the edged directrix and the shell where the maximum values are measured.
The stresses are reduced when the beams along the edges are considered. For example, the
value of the maximum compression stress isobars is practically the same measured in the
fourth Lusas model (Table 27, Appendix B.3). Furthermore, this maximum value is located at
the smallest cylindrical sector instead of at the connection between the directrix and the wall
(figure 91). Therefore, the assumption of these edged beams showed the following
conclusions: Firstly, the stresses are reduced because the beams along the directrix increase
the stiffness of the model. Secondly, the concentration of the maximum stresses along the
directrix supports when non continuous supports are considered, was perfectly known by
Torroja. Thirdly, the edged beams are incorporated to the model in order to avoid the increase
of stresses produced at the concentrated supports.
49
The stresses were not concentrated at the concentrated supports located at the generator because the stresses
were reduced by the shape of the shell.
80
Figure 91: Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars when the edged
beams and the discontinuous supports are considered. The maximum value is 16.75 MPa.
3.5.3 Analysis.
This analysis was based on the actual structure and therefore the real supports, including the
edged beams, were considered. In order to simplify the analysis only the fourth load case
four: dead weight, snow and wind loads, was studied.
The first element studied was the deflections. This study is divided into two analyses. The
first of these analyses was based on the comparison of the vertical deflections along the
central directrix between the fourth and the fifth Lusas model. This study showed that the real
supports produce a more flexible structure because higher deflections are obtained.
Furthermore, this increase of the deflections produces that the positive deflections measured
in the fourth model at the biggest cylindrical sector changed the sign in the fifth model.
81
Figure 92: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models.
The fourth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the fifth one in red.
The second analysis of the deflections consisted of the comparison between the fifth Lusas
model and the results obtained by Torroja. All these three models were based on the same
hypotheses and therefore, the deflections should be more similar than the preceding studied
models. However, the first model was more similar to the results measured in the actual
structure by Torroja. This factor could be explained because the actual structure was not
perfectly modelled in the Lusas model and the variation of different parameters, like the loads
conditions, the thickness variation, the supports conditions and the Elasticity Modulus, could
explain the observed differences between both models. In Appendix A.8, the variations of
these different parameters are studied in order to determine the sensitivity of the model. This
study showed as a conclusion that the variation of the loads conditions and the Elasticity
Modulus produces large deflections along the central undeveloped directrix and therefore, the
combination of both elements could explain the observed difference between both models.
The highly similarity between first Lusas model and the deflections measured in the actual
structure could be explained by the fact that the considered parameters were adapted by the
designer in order to resemble the behaviour of the theoretical model to the behaviour
measured in the smallscale structure.
Figure 93: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix comparing different models.
The fifth Lusas model is coloured in red, the smallscale Torroja’s model in blue, and the real structure
in green.
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fourth Lusas model
Fifth Lusas model
‐20
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fifth Lusas model
Small‐scale model
Actual structure
82
The second element studied were the bending moments. This study was based on two
different analyses. First of all the transversal bending moments were studied by means of the
comparison between the results obtained by the fourth and the fifth Lusas models (figure 94).
This comparison showed similar values and shapes in both models. Nevertheless, the
assumption of the real supports increased the bending moments because the structure had less
transversal stiffness. This increase of bending moments is located principally at the
connection between the directrix and the wall.
Figure 94: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
models. The fourth Lusas model is coloured in blue, and the fifth Lusas model is coloured in red.
The second study was based on the longitudinal bending moments. These stresses are
increased when the real supports are considered and cannot be considered negligible. The
maximum values are located at the connection between the directrix and the wall. The
diagrams of longitudinal bending moments are presented in Appendix A.7.
Finally, the last element studied was the isobars. This analysis is divided into two studies. The
first study consisted of the comparison of the maximum compression and tension stress
isobars along the central undeveloped directrix between the fourth and the fifth Lusas model.
(figures 95 and 96). The results of this comparison showed that when the real supports are
considered, the maximum values of the tension and compression stress isobars are reduced.
However, higher compression stress isobars values are measured at the connection between
the skylights and the shells.
Figure 95: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. The
fourth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the fifth one in red.
‐2
‐2
‐1
‐1
0
1
1
2
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
s
K
N
m
/
m
Distance X (m)
Fourth Lusas model
Fifth Lusas model
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 10 20 30
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
p
a
)
Distance X (m)
Fourth Lusas model
Fifth Lusas model
83
Figure 96: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. The fourth
Lusas model is coloured in blue and the fifth one in red.
The second study of the isobars was based on the analysis of the plans (figure 91 and 97).
This analysis showed that the maximum values of the compression stress isobars are located
at the connections between the directrix and the wall and the maximum values are increased
when the real supports are considered because the structure is more flexible.
Figure 97: Tension stress isobars along the plan of halfundeveloped section when the edged beams
and the discontinuous supports are considered. The minimum value is 10.58 MPa.
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
0 10 20 30
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
p
a
)
Distance X (m)
Fourth Lusas model
Fifth Lusas model
84
3.5.4 Conclusions.
After the study of the fifth Lusas model, the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly,
when the real supports without the edged beams are introduced in the model, the maximum
values of the isobars are increased and concentrated at the directrix points where the shell is
connected with the wall. This factor can be explained by two factors: On one hand, the real
supports generate a more flexible structure. Consequently, the maximum stresses are higher.
On the other hand, the connection between the shell and the wall consists of concentrated
joins. Therefore, the stresses are concentrated in those points. Secondly, the values of the
isobars are reduced when the beams along the edges are introduced in the model.
Furthermore, the maximum value is located at the smallest cylindrical sector instead of at the
connection between the directrix and the wall as in the model without the edged beam.
Therefore, Torroja incorporated the edged beams to the model in order to avoid the increase
of stresses produced at the concentrated supports. Thirdly, the real supports produce a more
flexible structure because higher distortions are obtained regarding the fourth Lusas model.
Furthermore, this increase of the distortions produces that the positive distortions measured in
the fourth model at the biggest cylindrical sector changed the sign in the fifth model.
Fourthly, the distortions calculated by the fifth Lusas model are higher than the preceding
model because the flexibility of the structure is increased by the concentrated supports.
Furthermore, the most similar deflections to the values obtained by Torroja are obtained in the
first Lusas model instead of in the fifth one, which is the most similar to the actual structure.
This factor can be explained because the theoretical model was adapted with the results
obtained in the smallscale model in order to make the structural behaviour of the theoretical
model as similar as possible. However, the value of these parameters, for example the loads or
the Elasticity Modulus in each point, cannot be measured in the actual structure. Therefore, a
study of the parameters that might explain the observed differences between the actual
structure and the fifth Lusas model was carried out to identify the sensitivity of the model
when these parameters were changed. This study showed that the combination of the value of
the Elasticity Modulus and the loads could explain the differences between both models and if
the real values of these factors were known, the results of the Lusas model would be closer to
the results measured in the actual structure. Fifthly, the transversal bending moments as well
as the compression and the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix are
reduced in most points regarding to the fourth model. However, a slight increase of these
stresses is observed at the connection between the shell and the skylights. Sixthly, the
longitudinal bending moments are located at the connection between the edged directrix and
the wall. Seventhly, the maximum values of the compression stress isobars are located at the
connection between the directrix and the wall instead of at the smallest cylindrical sector as
the preceding models.
85
3.6 Sixth Model: Reinforcement Ribs.
The initial reinforced shell roofs constructed at the beginning of the twentieth century were
based on a cylindrical shape constructed by arches. These arches had a tie beam to resist
thrusts and there was therefore only a vertical reaction on the piers. The arches were placed at
the bottom side of the shell (Antuña 2006, p.179).
In 1913, Eugene Freyssinet proposed an innovative construction system
50
based on the idea of
putting the reinforcement arches in the upper side of the shell improving the aesthetic factor
of the building and other characteristics as price.
“This subject, which does not appear on the surface to be very important, has had a great
influence in the development of this kind of construction; it considerably simplified their
construction and reduced the price. By putting the reinforcement beams on the upper side, the
formwork was transformed into a continuous surface, which was made easily and rapidly by
workers and could be removed quickly without breaking up the cast. The reinforced beams
are constructed after the vault has been constructed, by means of simple formwork”
E.Freyssinet (Antuña 2006, p. 179)
The study of the sixth model is divided into different parts: Firstly, the characteristic of the
ribs are studied. Secondly, the hypotheses and objectives of the analysis are explained.
Afterwards, the sixth model is analyzed and compared with the preceding models. Finally, the
conclusions are showed.
3.6.1 Study of the reinforcement ribs.
During the Civil Spanish war, in the spring of 1937, the Frontón Recoletos received several
hits, two of them passing through it. The shock wave from the explosions caused severe
deformations in the roof. After that, a design to repair the roof was drawn up. This design
consisted of the some reinforced concrete rings, similar to the Freyssinet’s arches, located
each 5 metres in the upper side of the biggest cylindrical sector along the directrix. These ribs
included a tie beam in order to correct the impact deflections, raising the shell when the
tension was applied. However, the night of the 15th August of 1939 the roof collapsed
(figure) when the repair work was about to begin.
50
For example, in 1916 eight hangars, formed by a thin vault concrete shell, and reinforced by stiffening beams
on the upper side of the vault, were constructed by E. Freysineet (Antuña, 2006, p.179).
86
Figure 98: Collapse of the roof of the Frontón Recoletos.
The restoration design was drawn up in September of 1939. This design, different to the
original structure, consisted of transversal trusses each 5.5 metres. This roof, and all the
building, was demolished in 1973. Since then, a residential building is placed at the original
location (Antuña 2003, p.148).
Torroja before the Civil Spanish War thought the necessity of the reinforcement ribs in order
to increase the transversal stiffness of the shell. “Had I to build it again, I should provide such
reinforcement ribs” (Torroja 1962, p.15). However, all the construction drawings and
sketches found were thought trying to repair the damaged shell. Therefore, the study was
based on these dates instead of the original idea of Torroja.
During the study of the reinforcement ribs, two problems were found. Firstly, the dimensions
of the reinforcement rings were not clearly explained in all the consulted bibliography. The
only available information was the construction drawings of one reinforcement rib located at
the biggest cylindrical sector (figure 99). The dimensions of the ribs, considering that
construction drawing, were supposed 45 per 30 centimetres. Secondly, two contradictory
reinforcement systems were described: On one hand, the repair sketch proposed by Fernández
(figure 102), consisted of five reinforcement ribs, each 13.75 metres, located at both
cylindrical sectors (Fernández 2000, p.143). This is a logical system because the area where
higher vertical deflections were measured in the actual structure, the smallest cylindrical
sector, was reinforced. On the other hand, Antuñez argues that the reinforcement ribs were
located each 5 metres following the directrix direction only at the biggest cylindrical sector
(Antuña 2003, p.148). This is a logical assumption because the initial work of these
reinforcements was raising the damaged shell. Therefore, this system seemed more indicated
because the higher number of ribs would have produced fewer concentrated tensions in the
shell.
87
Figure 99: Construction drawings of the reinforcement rings located at the biggest lobe proposed by
Torroja.
Figure 100: A sketch showing the proposed solution to repair the roof Frontón Recoletos
3.6.2 Hypotheses and Objectives.
The sixth model (figure 101) was supposed as similar as possible to the actual structure.
Therefore, the model was based on the same characteristics considered in the fifth Lusas
model including the consideration of the reinforcement ribs
51
.
Three different locations of the ribs were supposed along the study: Firstly, the location
explained by Antuña: At the biggest cylinder each 5 metres. Secondly, the location showed in
the sketch presented by Fernández (figure 102): At both cylinders each 13.75 metres. Thirdly,
51
These reinforcement ribs were modelled as beam elements called BMS3. The overall dimensions were 45 per
30 centimetres and the weight was supposed negligible.
88
the location showed in the sketch proposed by Fernández only in the biggest cylinder.
Furthermore, the reinforcement ties were not considered because the geometry was supposed
before the bombard and the raising of the shell was not needed.
The main objective of the study was checking if the reinforcement ribs thought by Torroja
improved the structural behaviour of the shell. The additional objective was the determination
of the most suitable ribs location considering the different proposals realized by different
authors.
Figure 101: 3D Lusas model, considering the ribs location supposed by Antuña.
3.6.3 Study of the Ribs location.
The first analysis was based on the reinforcement ribs at the smallest cylinder. Therefore, two
different models, based on the sketch presented by Fernández (figure 100), were compared
without considering the reinforcement ties
52
: In the first model, the ribs were supposed only in
the biggest cylinder and in the second one in both cylinders. One important conclusion
obtained from this analysis was that the structural behaviour is improved when the ribs at the
smallest cylinder are considered. For example, the vertical deflections along the central
directrix (figure 102) improve overall at the smallest cylindrical sector when the
reinforcement ribs are located in both cylinders. Therefore, to be on the safe side, the most
adequate disposition of the ribs, in the conception of the structure, is in both cylinders.
52
The principal objective of the reinforcement ties was raising the damage shell. However, the geometry after
the bombards could not be measured because all the measuring devices were removed during the Civil Spanish
War, as well as the characteristics of these reinforcements was not clearly explained. Therefore, the
reinforcement ties were not considered in the sixth Lusas model.
89
Figure 102: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different reinforcement
hypotheses. The model is based on five reinforcements ribs located only in the biggest cylinder is
coloured in red and in the both cylinders in blue.
The second analysis was based on the determination of the optimum number of ribs in the
biggest cylinder. If the number of ribs is increased, some undesirable factors appear; Firstly,
the prize of the structure is higher because more reinforced concrete is needed. Secondly, the
aesthetic value of the building is decreased because the shell is conceived with higher
thickness. Thirdly, the shell has more dead loads. In this study, the two compared models
were the model proposed by Antuña, which was based on eleven reinforcement ribs, and a
modification of the model proposed by Fernández considering only the ribs located at the
biggest cylinder, which consisted of only five reinforcement ribs. The comparison between
both models was based on the vertical deflections along the central directrix (figure 103)
showed that the structural behaviour is improved when more ribs are considered. However,
the improvement between both models, 3% at the seagull profile (Table 15, Appendix B.2),
cannot be considered good enough because more than the double of ribs were used in the
design proposed by Férnandez.
Figure 103: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different reinforcement
hypotheses. The model is based on five reinforcements ribs located in the biggest cylinder, proposed
by Fernández, is coloured in red and the model based on eleven reinforcements proposed by Antuña in
green.
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fernández Big
cilyinder
Fernández both
cylinders
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 10 20 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fernández Big cilyinder
Antuña big cylinder
90
3.6.4 Analysis.
The objective of this study was checking if the structural behaviour is improved when the
reinforcements are considered. In order to simplify the analysis only the model proposed by
Antuña
53
is analyzed.
The first element studied was the vertical deflections along the central directrix. This analysis
showed that these deflections are reduced (figure 104) when the ribs are considered.
Furthermore, the biggest cylindrical sector had a more homogenous behaviour because the
deflection shape had only one curvature, producing similar deflections to the simply
supported beam improving the structural behaviour of the shell.
Figure 104: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different models. The fifth
Lusas model is coloured in blue and the sixth one in red.
The other elements studied were the isobars and bending moments by means of the
comparison between the fifth and the sixth Lusas model along the central directrix (figures
105, 106 and 107). In these analyses the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly, the
assumption of ribs reduces highly the bending moments at the biggest cylindrical sector.
Therefore, the ribs could have avoided the fissures located at the biggest cylinder produced by
the torsion moment (Torroja 1942, p.147) However, the bending moments at the smallest lobe
were slightly worse. Secondly, the maximum tension and compression stress isobars are
slightly reduced when the ribs are considered.
53
Because this model was described also by Torroja in his Report (Torroja 1942, p.159).
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fifth Lusas model
Sixth Lusas model
91
Figure 105: Transversal bending moments along the central directrix considering different models.
The fifth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the sixth one in red.
Figure 106: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. The fifth
Lusas model is coloured in blue and the sixth one in red.
Figure 107: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. The
fifth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the sixth one in red.
All the diagrams of maximum compression and tension stress isobars are presented in Appendix A.10.
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
P
a
)
Distance X (m)
Fifth Lusas' model
Sixth Lusas' model
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
P
a
)
Distance X (m)
Fifth Lusas' model
Sixth Lusas' model
‐2
‐2
‐1
‐1
0
1
1
2
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
s
K
N
m
/
m
Distance X (m)
Sixth Lusas model
Fifth Lusas model with
beam
92
3.6.5 Conclusions.
The study of the reinforcement showed some conclusions: Firstly, the ribs thought by Torroja
in order to improve the original structure could not be found. Therefore, the location and
characteristics were supposed similar to the ribs designed with the purpose of repair the
damaged shell after the bombards suffered during the Spanish Civil War. Secondly, the
vertical deflections along the central directrix are improved when the reinforcement ribs were
located in both cylinders. Therefore, to be on the safe side, the most adequate disposition of
the ribs, in the conception of the structure, is located in both cylinders. Thirdly, the structural
behaviour is improved when more ribs are considered at the biggest cylindrical sector.
Fourthly, when the ribs proposed by Antuña are considered, the vertical deflections along the
biggest cylindrical sector have a more homogenous behaviour because the deflection shape
have only one curvature, producing a similar shape to the simply supported beam. Fifthly, the
assumption of the ribs in the model reduced highly the bending moments at the biggest
cylindrical sector. Therefore, the ribs could have avoided the fissures located at the biggest
lobe produced by the torsion moments described by Torroja in the actual structure (Torroja
1942, p.147). However, the bending moments at the smallest lobe are slightly worse. Sixthly,
the maximum values of the compression and tension stress isobars are slightly reduced in the
biggest lobe regarding the preceding model.
93
3.7 Future research
Some interesting future research necessary to improve the knowledge about the roof of the
Frontón Recoletos are proposed.
 Seagull
In all the preceding structures, the connection between the lobes consisted of a longitudinal
beam. However, the Frontón Recoletos was designed without that beam because the shell
worked as a laminar structure instead of two longitudinal vaults (Torroja 1942, p.15).
Therefore, a finite elements model based on substitute the connection between both
cylindrical sectors, seagull profile, with a beam could be interesting in order to compare both
structural behaviours.
 Wind suctions
The experimental wind suction effects of the cylinder case were used in order to approximate
the wind suction law along the directrix in the Frontón Recoletos. However, Torroja proposed
the study of the wind suctions in a wind tunnel test (Torroja 1942, p.21) in order to know the
accuracy effects of this phenomenon in the particular shape of the Frontón Recoletos
structure.
 Temperature dilation
Torroja described the effect of the temperature in the Frontón Recoletos: “… small
connecting rods thus permitting the longitudinal expansion of the shell. Transversal expansion
presents no problem due to the great transversal flexibility of the shell in this direction”
(Torroja 1942, p.11). This phenomenon was also analyzed in the smallscale test (Torroja
1942, p.133). Therefore, a finite elements model based on the temperature dilation in the shell
could be studied with the purpose of checking the hypotheses considered by Torroja as well
as the results of the smallscale test.
 Supports
At the connection between the biggest cylindrical sector and the wall, the supports were off
centre (figure 30). The purpose of this characteristic was centring the reactive forces in that
location (Antuña 2003, p.140). Therefore, that connection could be studied by a finite
elements analysis in order to check the effect of the support eccentricity.
 Buckling
A description of the design of the Frontón Recoletos was published by Torroja in 1942, but no
mention was made of the study of buckling.
In order to calculate the risk of buckling of a cylindrical surface Antuña applied the Foppl
formulas obtaining a safety factor of 0.88 in the Frontón Recoletos. This factor was highly
fewer than other contemporary shells. For example, the security factor of the Areneros shells
(figure 25) was 5 (Antuña 2003, p.190). Therefore, the analysis of the buckling is really
recommended in this structure.
94
 Ribs ties
After the Civil Spanish War, a design to repair the roof was drawn up. This design consisted
of the some reinforced concrete rings defined with the purpose of correcting the bombard
deflections, raising the shell. Therefore, a finite elements model based on the ribs ties
proposed in the repair works could be studied in order to check the shell raising proposed by
Torroja.
 New methods
One of the problems of the thin shells made of concrete was the forming cost. Therefore,
innovative forming systems that allow reducing that cost could be studied in the future in
order to make this kind of structures more competitive in the future.
 New materials
Studying the structure with current materials as for example, the steel fibre reinforced
concrete, which was used in the roof of the L’Oceanográfico in Valencia.
95
4
Conclusions
The Frontón Recoletos is a noteworthy example of the courage showed by Torroja along all
his extensive professional experience. This structure was considered a structural challenge
due to the innovative characteristics incorporated: the biggest size, the absence of beam at the
connection between lobes, the skylights, the support conditions as well as the asymmetrical
directrix, which did not allow the application of the theoretical methods existing in the period
when the structure was constructed. These methods were based on exact equations modelling
the behaviour of the cylindrical shells and were adapted by Torroja in order to calculate the
Fronton Recoletos shell. This adaptation and the conception of the structure was thought by
Torroja as a way to improve the knowledge about this kind of structures and therefore, all the
deflections and stresses were measured during the construction and the first years of the
building. Furthermore, this shell is a clear example of the Torroja’s thoughts about the
structures. Nowadays, the aesthetic sensibility has deeply changed. Many times the shape is
designed following only purely aesthetical reasons, without considering the structural or
functional requirements; the structural truth is not considered indispensable anymore; and
complex and attractive typologies are designed in order to amaze the observer. These
aesthetical and architectonics concepts are not better or worse of yesteryear, just completely
different to the Torroja’s beliefs, which was based on the simplicity and the truth.
Thin concrete shells are not as popular today as they once were, when famous designers such
as Torroja or Candela erected structures that became landmark examples of modern
architecture. The main reason why large thin concrete shell structures are no longer
constructed are the forming cost. This problem could be solved by the development of
alternate construction techniques like innovative forming systems. Nevertheless, the cost
alone cannot be the only explanation for the decrease in popularity of thin concrete shells.
These structures have to be also repopularized and reintroduced into the minds of designers
and builders.
The following conclusions were obtained after the structural analysis of the Frontón Recoletos
shell. Firstly, the first Lusas model, which was based on the Torroja’s hypotheses during the
theoretical calculations, showed clearly the similarity with the experimental deflections
measured in the smallscale model and the actual structure. Nevertheless, the transversal
bending moments as well as the maximum tension and compression stress isobars were higher
than the values obtained by Torroja. This factor was explained by the hypothesis of thickness
Chapter
96
variation along the shell supposed in the calculation of the stresses as well as the probable
numerical mistakes because the calculations were done by hand. Secondly, Torroja probably
adapted the parameters of the theoretical model, like the Elasticity Modulus, in order to obtain
a similar behaviour to the measured smallscale structure. For that reason, the vertical
deflections obtained by the first model were highly similar to the deflections measured in the
actual models. Thirdly, in the second model the transversal bending moments were increased
in the places where the thickness was increased, like for example the skylights, because the
structure was stiffer in those sections. Fourthly, the wind suction effects improved the
structural behaviour of the shell. Therefore, the assumption considered by Torroja of not
including these elements in the initial theoretical calculation can be logically assumed.
Fifthly, as was supposed by Torroja, the real skylights can logically be simplified as closed
shell because the structural behaviour of the second and the fourth Lusas model was highly
similar. However, the consideration of skylights increased the deflections and stresses
because the structure was more flexible as well as increased the stresses at the connection
between the shell and the skylights due to the difference of stiffness between both elements.
Sixthly, the real supports decreased the stiffness of the structure and therefore, the deflections
and stresses were increased regarding the theoretical supports. Furthermore, the concentration
of stresses produced by the concentrated supports was resolved by Torroja by means of beams
along the edges in order to distribute the forces. Seventhly, the fifth Lusas model is highly
sensible to variations in the loads and the Elasticity Modulus and these factors could not be
measured perfectly in the real structure. Therefore, variation of these elements could explain
the difference of vertical distortions between the values obtained by Torroja in the actual
structure and the fifth Lusas model, which was considered the most similar to the reality.
Eighthly, the reinforcement ribs proposed by Torroja improved the structural behaviour of the
shell, as the designer supposed, because the stresses and deflections were reduced. Ninthly,
considering that originally the structure was calculated by hand, the similarity between the
results obtained by Torroja and the Lusas program is surprising high, as for example in the
location of the reinforcement bars or in the theoretical vertical deflections. This factor showed
that the structural behaviour of the shell was perfectly known by Torroja and the
simplifications were logically applied.
All the conclusions obtained in the structural analysis showed the extraordinary talent and
courage of Eduardo Torroja, who was able to design, calculate and build perfectly the Frontón
Recoletos using his intuition and his structural knowledge in order to adapt the available
theories.
Future interesting researches, as for example the study of the temperature dilation or the
raising of the shell by means of the ribs proposed by Torroja, can be carried out in order to
continue the labour showed by Torroja of improving the knowledge about the thin concrete
shell structures.
97
Bibliography
Antuña, J., 2003. Las estructuras de edificación de Eduardo Torroja y Miret, Escuela técnica
Superior de Arquitectura Madrid.
Antuña, J., 2006. The Evolution of the Work of Eduardo Torroja, Second International
Congress on Construction History, Queens' College, Cambridge University; 29/03
02/04/2006.
Billington, D., Hines E. 2004. Anton Tedesko The Introduction of Thin Shell Concrete Roofs
in the United States. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, November 2004.
Billington D., 1979. Structural Engineering Handbook Mc Graw: Thin shell concrete
structures. Princeton University Cambridge university press.
Calladine, C.R., 1983. Theory of Shell Structures. Cambridge, Cambridge university press.
Chilton, J., 2000. Heinz Isler: The engineer contribution to contemporary architecture.
London Thomas Telford.
Fernandez, J.A., Vera, J.R., 1999. Eduardo Torroja: Ingeniero. Madrid, Pronaos.
Fortin, F., 2000. SportsThe Complete Visual Reference. Firefly Books.
Guiness, 1990. Guiness Sports Record Book 19901991. Sterling Publishing C.O.
Medwadowski, S.J., 1998. Concrete thin shell roofs at the turn of the millennium, Current
and Emerging Technologies of Shell and Spatial Structures, Proceedings of the IASS
Symposium, April 1997, Edited by J. Abel, R. Astudillo and N.K. Srivastava.
Meyer, C., Sheer M.H., 2005. Do Concrete Shells Deserve Another Look? Industry
professional give mixed opinions. Concrete International October 2005.
Teng, J.G. 2001. Steelconcrete composite shells for enclosing large spaces.
Proceedings, International Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, Pusan,
Korea, 14–16 June.
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid.
Torroja, E., 1962a. Informes de la construcción: Revista de información técnica, 1962, año
XIV, nº 137, Madrid, Instituto Eduardo Torroja.
Torroja, E., 1962b. Philosophy of structures. University of California Press Berkeley and Los
Angeles.
Torroja, E., 1976. Razón y ser de los tipos estructurales Artículo de láminas. 4ª edición,
Madrid. Instituto Eduardo Torroja.
98
Torroja, J.A. 2007, Eduardo Torroja. I.T nº 79
Wong, H. T., Teng, J.G.2004. Buckling behavior of model base shells of a Comshell roof
system. Departament of Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong University,
Hong Kong, China. Progress in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computations
Zingoni. Taylor & Francis Group London
99
Figures
Figure 1:
 Tree leaf:
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h317/labombilla/Gotasdelluvia.jpg last view 15/04/09.
 Igloo:
http://www.alaskainpictures.com/data/media/9/inupiateskimoigloo_438.jpg last view
3/3/09.
Figure 2:
 Lion Gate:
 http://i.pbase.com/o6/94/689794/1/81199881.ooJIGERc.MyceneaLionGateBW.jpg last view
2/3/09.
 Agrippa Pantheon:
http://contenidos.educarex.es/mci/2004/44/@rt.com/Arte_romano/images/Templo_Panteon_R
oma_jpg.jpg last view 15/3/09.
Figure 3:
 SidneyOpera:
http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/photos.cfm?ID=s0000073 last view 4/4/09.
 L’Oceanogràfic:
http://www.fundacioncac.es/cas/artesyciencias/mediateca/download/20049913856o
2178dig_jft.jpg last view 2/3/09.
Figure 4:
 Relaxation park:
http://www.viaarquitectura.net/10/110/11001.jpg last view 2/3/09 and
http://www.architecture.com/Images/RIBATrust/Awards/RoyalGoldMedal/2006/Pavillion,Tor
reviejaRelaxa_530x421.gif last view 2/3/09.
Figure 5:
 Sagrada Familia:
http://www.guideinbarcelona.com/images/barcelona/sagradafamiliabarcelona.jpg last view
2/3/09.
 Antonio Gaudi’s reversed model:
http://www.gaudidesigner.com/data/file/357.jpg last view 2/3/09.
100
Figure 6:
 Fedala water tank designed by Torroja :
http://en.structurae.de/files/photos/2520/shell/image17copy2.jpg last view 2/3/09.
Figure 7:
 Pallazeto dello sport designed by Nervi:
http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/palazzettodellosport/index.htm last view 2/3/09.
Figure 8:
 Kupolen stadium designed by Sundquist:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Kupolen,_Borl%C3%A4nge.jpg
/180pxKupolen,_Borl%C3%A4nge.jpg last view 9/5/09.
Figure 9:
 Hangar d’Orly:
http://www.albaiges.com/ingenieros/15sXXm1_archivos/image013.jpg last view 4/4/09 and
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/ARCH/img0086.jpg last view 4/4/09.
 Church Building:
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getpkg?id=GoddenE4244&t=10 last view 4/4/09.
Figure 10:
 Restaurante Los Manantiales designed by Candela:
http://www.arch.mcgill.ca/prof/sijpkes/abcstructures2005/concrete/HyparManantiales.jpg
last view 4/4/09 and http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/2544102546_1ab9ab8a19.jpg?v=0 last
view 4/4/09.
Figure 11:
 Trans World Airline designed by Saarinem:
http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/saartwa/angle.jpg last view 4/4/09 and
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/22/nyregion/portal600.jpg last view 4/4/09.
Figure 12:
 Table of different thin concrete shells:
Hines E., Billington, D. Anton Tedesko: The Introduction of Thin Shell Concrete Roofs in the
United States. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, November 2004 E. Hines and D.
Billington p.1640.
101
Figure 13:
 Jena Planetarium:
http://www.uniroma2.it/didattica/AT21/deposito/8_voltesottilidicementoarmato.pdf last view
12/4/09.
 Hayden Planetarium:
http://en.structurae.de/photos/index.cfm?JS=17155 last view 12/4/09.
Figure 14:
 First phase of the Bini’s System:
http://www.binisystems.com/shell12.html last view 5/3/09.
Figure 15:
 Second phase of the Bini’s System:
http://www.binisystems.com/shell34.html last view 5/3/09.
Figure 16:
 Inflating process:
http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/photos.cfm?ID=s0012106 last view 7/4/09.
Figure 17:
 Modular steel units and cylindrical shape:
Teng, J.G. 2001. Steelconcrete composite shells for enclosing large spaces. Proceedings,
International Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, Pusan, Korea, 14–16 June p.5.
 Real structure:
Comshell web site, http://www.cse.polyu.edu.hk/~cejgt/comshell/comshell.htm last view
7/4/09.
Figure 18:
 African tent:
http://www.bible‐archaeology.info/Tents_nomadic.jpg last view 5/3/09.
 Sami tent:
http://www.seaice.org.uk/research/graphics/euroclim/Sami_tent_at_Fjellheisen.jpg last
view 6/4/09.
 Structure Lomas de Cuernavaca:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/images/news/2008/10/Chapel‐Lomas‐de‐Cuernavaca‐i.jpg
last view 5/3/09.
102
Figure 19:
 Aqueduct Tempul:
 Torroja, J.A. 2007, Eduardo Torroja. I.T nº 79 p.99.
 Market Hall:
http://en.structurae.de/photos/index.cfm?JS=51698 last view 15/04/09 and
http://imagespain.com/pics/1269.jpg last view 16/04/09.
Figure 20:
 Inverted model:
Chilton, J., 2000. Heinz Isler: The engineer contribution to contemporary architecture.
London Thomas Telford. p.32.
 Station service in Deitingen:
http://en.structurae.de/structures/data/photos.cfm?id=s0030516 last view 17/04/09.
Figure 21:
 Structural behavior of the vault and long barrel:
http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~wongs30/shells__developable_shells.htm last view 15/04/09.
Figure 22:
 3D model of the supports:
Antuña, J., 2003. Las estructuras de edificación de Eduardo Torroja y Miret, Escuela técnica
Superior de Arquitectura Madrid.p.144.
Figure 23:
 Picture of the inside of the structure of the Frontón Recoletos:
http://www.urbanity.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotos
historicas87.html last view 15/05/09.
Figure 24:
 Picture of the outside of the structure of the Frontón Recoletos:
http://www.urbanity.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotos
historicas87.html last view 15/05/09.
Figure 25:
 Cylindrical thin concrete shell:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. p.17.
103
Figure 26:
 Court of Jai alai:
http://www.dania‐jai‐alai.com/page3.htm last view 15/04/09.
 Jai alai player:
http://www.nytimes‐institute.com/miami09/wp‐content/uploads/2009/01/jai‐alai‐2.jpg last
view 15/04/09.
Figure 27:
 Different Frontón de Recoletos designs:
Fernández, J.A., Vera, J.R. 1999. Eduardo Torroja: Ingeniero. Madrid, Pronaos, p. 134.
Figure 28:
 Differential element of the shell:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. p.30.
 Reinforced construction drawing:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid.
Figure18.
Figure 29:
 Comparison sizes between the Frontón and Budapest:
Figure realized by the Autocad program.
Figure30:
 Joins between the shell and the wall in the Frontón Recoletos:
Antuña, J., 2003. Las estructuras de edificación de Eduardo Torroja y Miret, Escuela técnica
Superior de Arquitectura Madrid. Figure 4.67.
Figure 31:
 Wind load law without including the suction effects along the directrix:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 32:
 Wind load law including the suction effects along the directrix:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
104
Figure 33:
 Snow load law along the directrix:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 34:
 Dead weight load law along the directrix:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 35:
 Isobars of maximum compression and tension stress presented by Torroja:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Figures
16 and 17.
Figure 36:
 Diagram of transversal bending moments along the directrix presented by Torroja:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Figure9.
Figure 37:
 Deflections along the directrix presented by Torroja for different models:
Torroja, E., 1962a. Informes de la construcción: Revista de información técnica, 1962, año
XIV, nº 137, Madrid, Instituto Eduardo Torroja, p.4.
Figure 38:
 Mesh of the first Lusas model and supports and surfaces considered in the model:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 39:
 Maximum values of the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas.
Figure 40:
 Maximum values of the compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas.
105
Figure 41:
 Deflections in the 3D model calculated by the first Lusas model:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 42:
 Deflections in the 3D model calculated by the first Lusas model:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 43:
 Absolute vertical deflections in the first Lusas model at the connection between both
cylindrical sectors:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 44:
 Absolute Zdeflections in the first Lusas model along the seagull profile:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 45:
 Vertical deflections in the first Lusas model along central directrix for the load case four:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 46:
 Absolute vertical deflections in the first Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 47:
 Comparison of the deflections measured by different models:
Figure obtained with the Autocad program cad using the results obtained by Lusas and the
Torroja’s deflections.
Figure 48:
 Absolute vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections
106
Figure 49:
 Absolute Lusas Zdeflections in the first Lusas model along the central undeveloped
directrix:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 50:
 Transversal Bending moments presented by the first Lusas model along the central
undeveloped directrix:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 51:
 Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
models:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 52:
 Maximum tension stress isobars in the first Lusas model along the plan of the half
undeveloped section:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 53:
 Maximum compression stress isobars in the first Lusas model along the plan of the half
undeveloped section:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 54:
 Variation of thickness along the central directrix:
Torroja, E., 1962a. Informes de la construcción: Revista de información técnica, 1962, año
XIV, nº 137, Madrid, Instituto Eduardo Torroja p.4.
Figure 55:
 Variation of thickness in the second Lusas model along the directrix and zoom of the
seagull profile:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 56:
 Plan of the surface elements used in the second Lusas model and plan of the mesh
used in the second Lusas model:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
107
Figure 57:
 Absolute vertical deflections along the seagull profile obtained by the second Lusas model:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 58:
 Absolute vertical deflections along the central directrix obtained by the second Lusas model:
Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 59:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 60:
 Transversal bending moments presented by the second Lusas model along the central
undeveloped directrix:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 61:
 Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 62:
 Maximum tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering different
model:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 63:
 Maximum compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering
different model:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 64:
 Maximum tension stress isobars in halfundeveloped plan obtained by the second Lusas
model:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
108
Figure 65:
 Maximum compression stress isobars in halfundeveloped plan obtained by the second Lusas
model:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 66:
 Wind suction law considered by Torroja:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Figure 6.
Figure 67:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different load cases in
the third Lusas model:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 68:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different load cases in
the third Lusas model:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 69:
 Construction of the skylight beams using wooden frameworks:
http://www.urbanity.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotos
historicas87.html last view 15/05/09.
Figure 70:
 3D view of the fourth Lusas model:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 71:
 Directrix of the fourth Lusas model and zoom of the skylight in the smallest cylindrical sector:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 72:
 Fourth Lusas model consisted of surfaces and beams:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
109
Figure 73:
 Deflections in the 3D view of the fourth Lusas model:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 74:
 Deflections in the 3D view of the fourth Lusas model:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 75:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 76:
 Vertical deflections along half seagull profile, from the coordinate Z = 0 metres to Z = 27.5
metres considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 77:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 78:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 79:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 80:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
110
Figure 81:
 Bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 82:
 Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different model:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 83:
 Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different model:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 84:
 Plan of the halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars for the fourth
Lusas model:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 85:
 Plan of the halfundeveloped section of the maximum compression stress isobars for the
fourth Lusas model:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 86:
 Real supports at the directrix:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Figure
21.
Figure 87:
 Real supports at the generators:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Figure
21.
Figure 88:
 Picture of the smallscale model tested by Torroja:
http://www.urbanity.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotos
historicas87.html last view 15/05/09.
111
Figure 89:
 Fifth Lusas model consisted of surfaces and the supports conditions:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 90:
 Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars when the
discontinuous supports were considered but not the edged beam:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program,
Figure 91:
 Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars when the edged
beams and the discontinuous supports were considered:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program,
Figure 92:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 93:
 Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 94:
 Bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 95:
 Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 96:
 Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
112
Figure 97:
 Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum compression stress isobars when the edged
beams and the discontinuous supports were considered:
Figure obtained with the Lusas program.
Figure 98:
 Collapse of the Frontón Recoletos roof:
http://www.urbanity.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotos
historicas87.html last view 15/05/09.
Figure 99:
 Construction drawings used by Torroja of the reinforcement rings located at the biggest lobe:
Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid,
Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Figure
159.
Figure 100:
 A sketch showing the proposed solution to repair the Frontón Recoletos roof:
Fernandez, J.A., Vera, J.R., 1999. Eduardo Torroja: Ingeniero. Madrid, Pronaos. p.143.
Figure 101:
 3D Lusas model, considering the ribs location supposed by Antuña:
Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 102:
 Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different reinforcement hypotheses:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 103:
 Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different reinforcement hypotheses:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 104:
 Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
113
Figure 105:
 Transversal bending moments along the central directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 106:
 Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
Figure 107:
 Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models:
Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s
deflections.
114
A
Lusas calculations
Lusas is a finite element analysis programme, also called FEAP, where the finite elements are
applied to the analysis of static or dynamic physical objects and systems. The object of the
programme is representing by a geometrically similar simplified model the structure.
Equations of equilibrium, derived from applicable physical considerations, are applied to each
element, and a system of simultaneous equations is constructed. Finally, solving this system is
obtained the outputs, which show the structural behaviour of the structure.
The FEAP is used to analyze objects and systems that are of sufficient complexity that
analysis with simpler closedform analytical methods will not yield results of adequate
accuracy, and permits the solution of problems, which could not otherwise be solved.
There are some FEA programmes adequate to solve the Frontón Recoletos, as for example
Abaqus or Ansys. However, the chosen program was Lusas.
 Units
The units used in the programme are the same defined in the International System: Newton to
forces, Metres to lengths, Seconds to times, and Calvin to temperatures.
 Version of Lusas
The calculations have been done using the programme Lusas 14.1.
Appendix
115
A.1 Lusas Elements
Two different Lusas elements were used in the different Lusas models: QSI4 in the surfaces
and BMS3 in the beams. Both elements are described in this chapter.
The first element QSI4 is used in thin shells in 3D and taking into account both membrane
and flexural deformations. As required by thin plate theory, transverse shearing deformations
are excluded. This element has six freedoms, three deformations and three rotations in each
node (figure A).
Figure A: Freedoms of the QSI4 element: three deformations (u, v, w) and three rotations (fix, fiy and
fiz), Lusas outputs for the element QSI4. These figures were obtained from Lusas manual.
The output of the Lusas program (figure A) for the element QSI4 are:
 Stress resultant: Nx, Ny, Nxy, Mx, My, Mxy: forces, moments/unit width in local
directions.
 Stress (default): σx, σy, σxy, σmax, σmin, β, σe: in local direction
 Strain: εx, εy, γxy, ψx, ψy, ψxy: membrane, flexural strains in local directions.
For the comparison with the diagrams obtained by Torroja (figure A) the maximum and
minimum values of the axial forces, called N, distributed along the thickness of the shell were
used.
The second element BMS3 is defined as a straight beam element in 3D for which shear
deformations are included and the geometric properties are constant along the length. This
element, like the surface elements, has six freedoms, three deformations and three rotations in
each node.
The output of the Lusas program (figure B) for the element QMS3 are:
 Force (default): Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz: in local directions.
 Element output is with respect to the beam centre line.
116
Figure B: Lusas outputs for the element QMS. This figure was obtained from Lusas manual.
117
A.2 Lusas Outputs.
The Lusas outputs used along the thesis were the following: Firstly, the Isobar lines, which
were obtained using the “Contour Results” option, “Stress (middle)Thin shell”, component
“S1” for the maximum, tension stress isobars and “S3” for the maximum compression stress
isobars. The display was homogenized for all the isobars with the next characteristic: in the
“Contour Display” option are checked the boxes “Filled”, “Lines” and “Smoothed” and in the
“Contour Range” option are defined 11 intervals with maximum values 8 MPa, in the case of
tensions and 5.8 MPa for compressions. These values, corresponding to the maximum
stresses obtained by Torroja in the numerical calculations, were measured in the isobars.
Secondly, deflection diagram at the central directrix was calculated using the option:
“Deformed mesh”. Thirdly, the deformations at the central directrix were obtained using the
“Graph through 2D” option, “Displacement”, Component “DY” or “DZ”. Fourthly, the
bending moments along the central directrix were calculated using the “Graph through 2D”
option, “Stress thin shell”, Component “Mx” for the transversal bending moments and “My”
for the longitudinal bending moments. Lastly, the video was obtained by the option
“Animation wizard” along the central directrix considering a sinoidal variation of the loads.
118
A.3 Loads
The snow and wind load laws along the directrix were defined by Torroja in cylindrical
coordinates depending on the angle "ç" (formula 3, 9). However, in order to introduce these
variations in the Lusas program, two cardinal coordinate systems were defined. These systems
were located at the centres of the both cylindrical sectors. In order to obtain the laws in the
new coordinate system: Firstly, the relations between both systems
54
were obtained using
trigonometry (formula A and B). After that, the values in the laws presented by Torroja were
changed (formula C, D and E).
Figure B: Local cardinal coordinate system located at the centres of the lobes
55
. This picture was
obtained using Autocad program.
sin ç =
y
ì
_x
ì
2
+ y
ì
2
A]
cos ç =
Abs(x
ì
)
_x
ì
2
+ y
ì
2
B]
Snow = 6S7,47 ·
y
ì
_x
ì
2
+ y
ì
2
C]
winJ = 98u,66 ·
Abs(x
ì
)
_x
ì
2
+y
ì
2
Ð]
54
To obtaining the relation between both coordinate system was used the absolute value in Cos(φ) because as
was explained in the section 2.3 of this thesis, Torroja supposed compressions in both sides of the shell.
55
y
ì
and x
ì
= Local cardinal coordinates in each of the cardinal coordinate systems.
119
Winu Suction =u,4 ·
Abs(x
ì
)
_x
ì
2
+ y
ì
2
 S ·
y
ì
_x
ì
2
+ y
ì
2
E]
The wind load is orthogonal to the surface in each point. Therefore, the Lusas loading option
“local distributed loads” along Z direction was used in shells and skylights beams. This
distribution is defined per unit area. However, in order to define the wind law in the skylights
beams, the original wind distribution was changed because each beam had to resist the wind
effect at the windows located in both sides of the beam, which means that the beams had a
virtual wide, called 2c (figure B). In order to obtain the parameter “c” (formulas F, G and H),
the area of the triangular windows was distributed in three virtual beams, which were formed
by the beam length per the virtual wide (figure B). As each beam is joined by two windows,
the virtual beams wide will be 2c = 0.4 metres. Therefore, the wind load along the beams per
unit length is the 40 % of the wind load for shells per unit area.
Figure B: Beam elements and triangular windows.
Irionglc Arco = S Iirtuol bcom Arco F]
b ·
_
b
2
+
b
2
2
2
= S · b · c 0]
c =
_
b
2
+
b
2
2
2
= u,2 m E]
The snow load is always vertical, therefore, the Lusas loading option “global distributed”
along Y direction was used. This load is distributed differently for shells and skylights beams:
for the first is per unit area and for the second one per unit length.
A.4 Definition of the thickness.
The variation of the thickness was defined by means of the utility called “Surface function
variation” which consists of a single function in terms of the parametric coordinates of the
surface “u”, direction along the local x axis, and “v”, direction along the local y axis.
120
A.5 Definition of the Real supports.
The real supports at the generators (figure 87) consisted of a fixed section located at the centre
and parallel beams at the rest of the generator each 1.5 meters. These beams fixed the vertical
movements and acted like springs in the Z direction, parallel to the generators, as well as in
the X direction, orthogonal to the generators.
As the beam acted like a spring in two directions, different coefficient K of stiffness was
obtained for each direction. The supports were simplified supposing a cantilever beam fixed
in the wall (figure E). For this simple structure the stiffness K can be obtained knowing the
deformation when concentrated force is applied at the edge (formula I, K and L). The
Modulus of Inertia I, (formula J) was calculated knowing the dimensions of the rectangular
section, A per B, and is different for each direction.
Figure E: Springs model, cantilever beam: the symbol P corresponds to the concentrated load applied
at the edge of the beam as well as the symbol L is defined as the longitude of the beam and model of
spring at the generators.
K · o = P I]
o =
P · I
3
S · E · I
[]
I =
A · B
3
12
K]
K =
P
o
=
S · E · I
I
3
I]
121
In the next tables, all the measured dates and the final coefficient K used in each concentrated
support are summarized. The same spring is considered for all the supports located at the
edged generators. However, different springs are considered in each point of the connection
between the shell and the wall at the directrix. This connection was based on six points, which
were listed from left to right in figure 86. Each of these points has different number of stiffer
beams and pillar and therefore, the final spring stiffness is supposed as the sum of all those
elements.
Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m)
Generators X 1.8 0.5 0.1
Generators Z 1.8 0.1 0.5
Table 1: Characteristics measured in figure 87 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the
generators. The spring generators consisted only of one pillar. All the characteristics are presented in
metres.
Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m)
Directrix support 1 X 1.5 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 1 Z 1.5 0.3 0.3
Table 2: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the first
support between the directrix and the wall. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar.
Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m)
Directrix support 2 X 2.0 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 2 X 2.0 0.6 0.3
Directrix support 2 Z 2.0 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 2 Z 2.0 0.3 0.6
Table 3: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the
second support between the directrix and the wall. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and
one beam.
Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m)
Directrix support 3 X 3.0 0.6 0.3
Directrix support 3 X 2.0 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 3 Z 3.0 0.3 0.6
Directrix support 3 Z 2.0 0.3 0.3
Table 4: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the third
support between the directrix and the wall. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and one
beam.
122
Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m)
Directrix support 4 X 3.0 0.6 0.3
Directrix support 4 X 1.5 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 4 Z 3.0 0.3 0.6
Directrix support 4 Z 1.5 0.3 0.3
Table 5: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the
fourth support between the directrix and the wall. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and
one beam.
Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m)
Directrix support 5 X 3.0 0.9 0.3
Directrix support 5 X 1.5 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 5 X 3.0 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 5 Z 3.0 0.3 0.9
Directrix support 5 Z 1.5 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 5 Z 3.0 0.3 0.3
Table 6: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the fifth
support between the directrix and the wall. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and two
beams.
Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m)
Directrix support 6 X 3.0 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 6 X 1.5 0.6 0.3
Directrix support 6 Z 3.0 0.3 0.3
Directrix support 6 Z 1.5 0.3 0.6
Table 7: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the sixth
support between the directrix and the wall. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and one
beam.
In next table are listed the values of the different K
i
coefficient in the spring X and Z
expressed in MN/m.
Kx (MN/m) Kz (N/m)
Generator 8.0 0.3
Directrix Support 1 9.0 9.0
Directrix Support 2 34.2 11.4
Directrix Support 3 12.8 6.0
Directrix Support 4 18.0 11.5
Directrix Support 5 40.5 13.5
Directrix Support 6 18.0 11.3
123
A.6 Load Combination Study.
In this section are showed the maximum tension stress and compression stress isobar
diagrams calculated by Lusas considering four different load cases:
 Load case 1: Dead weight
 Load case 2: Dead weight with wind, without suction, load.
 Load case 3: Dead weight with snow load.
 Load case 4: Dead load with snow and wind, without suction, loads.
All these diagrams are coloured in red for tension stress and in blue for compression stress
where the maximum isobars obtained by Torroja were exceeded.
Figure F: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case one. The maximum value is 19.8
MPa that means 1.5 times the maximum value measured by Torroja.
124
Figure G: Maximum compression stress isobars considering the load case one. The maximum value is
6.64 MPa that means 15 % higher than the values measured by Torroja.
Figure H: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case two. The maximum value is
23.87 MPa that means around 2 times the values measured by Torroja.
125
Figure I: Maximum compression stress isobars considering the load case two. The maximum value is 
8.1 MPa that means 40 % higher than the values measured by Torroja.
Figure J: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case three. The maximum value is
23.97 MPa that means around 2 times the values measured by Torroja.
126
Figure K: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the three. The maximum value is 8.02 MPa
that means 38 % higher than the values measured by Torroja.
Figure L: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case four. The maximum value is
28.03 MPa that means 2.5 times the values measuered by Torroja.
127
Figure M: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case four. The maximum value is 
9.39 MPa that means 62 % higher than the values measured by Torroja.
128
A.7 Bending moments
All the bending moment diagrams consist on halfundeveloped section of the plan. In
horizontal the directrix is located: On the left is located the biggest lobe and on the right is
located the smallest cylindrical sector.
In order to compare easily the values measured by Torroja: the points of the transversal
bending moment diagrams calculated by Lusas where the maximum values obtained by
Torroja
56
were exceeded are coloured in blue and red.
Figure N: Transversal bending moments calculated by the first Lusas model. The maximum value
57
,
1948 kg·m/m, is located at the smallest cylindrical sector as well as the minimum value at the
connection between both lobes and in the smallest cylinder.
56
Around 1000 kg·m/m introduced in the programme as 9.8 kN·m/m.
57
The maximum value was 19.09 kN·m/m, which corresponds with 1948 kN·m/m after changing the force units.
129
Figure P: Longitudinal bending moments calculated by the first Lusas model. The maximum values,
around 456 kg·m/m, are located at the connection between the seagull and the wall. However,
compared with the values measured in the transversal bending moments, around 4 times higher, these
stresses can be neglected.
Figure Q: Transversal bending moments calculated by the second Lusas model. The maximum value
measured in the diagram, around 3259 kg·m/m, is more than three times the maximum value obtained
by Torroja.
130
Figure R: Longitudinal bending moments calculated by the second Lusas model. The maximum value,
around 636 kg·m/m is located at the connection between both cylindrical sectors. However, this value
compared with the maximum values of the transversal bending moments, around 5 times higher, can
be neglected.
Figure S: Transversal bending moments calculated by the fourth Lusas model. The maximum value,
around 850 kg·m/m is located at the connection between the skylights and the shells.
131
Figure T: Longitudinal bending moments calculated by the fourth Lusas model. The maximum value,
around 330 kg·m/m is located at the connection between the skylights and the shell.
Figure U: Transversal bending moments calculated by the second Lusas model. The maximum value,
around 1170 kg·m/m is located at the connection between the shell and the wall.
132
Figure V: Longitudinal bending moments calculated by the second Lusas model. The maximum value,
around 2120 kg·m/m is located at the connection between directrix and the wall.
133
A.8 Study of the wind suction effects.
Figure W: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model, considering the first
load case: dead weight.
Figure X: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model, considering the
first load case: dead weight.
134
Figure Y: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model, considering the
second load case: dead weight and wind including suction effects.
Figure Z: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model, considering the
second load case: dead weight and wind including suction effects.
135
Figure A1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model, considering the
fourth load case: dead weight, snow and wind including suction effects.
Figure B1: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model, considering the
fourth load case: dead weight, snow and wind including suction effects.
136
In this Appendix the bending moments considering different load cases are presented. After
that, the comparison of the compression and tension stress isobars are showed.
Figure C1: Bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case A,
which is coloured in blue, and the load case B, which is coloured in green.
Figure D1: Bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case C,
which is coloured in red, and the load case D, which is coloured in orange.
Figure E1: Maximum values of the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix
considering the load case A, which is coloured in blue, and the load case B, which is coloured in
green.
‐15
‐10
‐5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
s
k
N
m
/
m
Distance X (m)
Load case A
Load case B
‐20
‐10
0
10
20
30
40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
B
e
n
d
i
n
g
m
o
m
e
n
t
s
k
N
/
m
Distance X (m)
Load case C
Load case D
‐2
‐
2
4
6
8
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
p
a
)
Distance X (m)
Load case A
Load case B
137
Figure E1: Maximum values of the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix
considering the load case C, which is coloured in red, and the load case D, which is coloured in
orange.
Figure F1: Maximum values of the compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix
considering the load case A, which is coloured in blue, and the load case B, which is coloured in
green.
Figure G1: Maximum values of the compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped
directrix considering the load case C, which is coloured in red, and the load case D, which is coloured
in orange.
‐2
‐
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
p
a
)
Distance X (m)
Load case C
Load case D
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
‐
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
P
a
)
Distance X (m)
Load case A
Load case B
‐7
‐6
‐5
‐4
‐3
‐2
‐1
‐
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
t
r
e
s
s
i
s
o
b
a
r
s
(
M
P
a
)
Distance X (m)
Load case C
Load case D
138
A.9 Study of variation of parameters.
In this Appendix the variations of different parameters, which could explain the differences
observed between the vertical deflections measured by Torroja in the actual structure and the
fifth Lusas model, are studied. These parameters are the following:
 Different stiffness of the concentrated supports located at the generators: In the fifth
Lusas model, nonaxial deflections were considered in determining the conditions of
supports and therefore, vertical springs were not modelled. Furthermore, the pillars
located at the generators were supposed fixed to the wall and the increase of elasticity
produced by the buckling of the wall was not considered
58
. After the analysis of the
figure H1, the obtained conclusion is that the variation of supports has practically no
influence in the vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix.
Figure H1: Vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix considering different supports
conditions. The basic fifth Lusas model is coloured in red, the model considering the axial deflections,
called K
y
, is coloured in blue and the model based on the reduction of the stiffness of the wall, is
coloured in purple.
58
The effect of buckling of the wall was supposed a 10 % reducing the stiffness of the springs that connect the
pillars on the wall with the roof.
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fifth Lusas model
Ky
‐ 10 % Kx and Kz
139
 Different loads conditions: The loads in the real structure could not be measured.
Furthermore, the wind behaviour could not be studied in the wind tunnel test and
therefore, the similarity between the theoretical and actual loads could not be verified.
Different hypothesis of increase of loads are analyzed. After the analysis of figure Y,
the conclusion is that increase of loads, especially of dead weight, can cause large
variations in the vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix.
Figure I1: Vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix considering different loads. The
basic fifth Lusas model is coloured in red, the model considering 10 % more of overloads is coloured
in blue and the model considering 10 % more in all the loads, is coloured in orange.
 Different thickness along the shell: The real thickness of the constructed structure
could be different to the thickness considered in the construction drawings. In figure
J1, different reductions of thickness are considered and compared with the fifth Lusas
model showing that reductions of one or two millimetres thickness practically have no
influence on the vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix.
Figure J1: Vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix considering different thickness.
The basic fifth Lusas model is coloured in red, the model considering one millimetre of thickness
reduction is coloured in blue and the model considering two millimetres thickness reduction, is
coloured in green.
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fifth Lusas model
+ 10 % Overloads
+ 10 % All the loads
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fifth Lusas model
‐1 mm Thickness
‐ 2 mm Thickness
140
 The variation of Elasticity Modulus: This element depends of the material
characteristics. For example, Torroja considered in the smallscale model a coefficient
between 250000 and 350000 kg/cm
2
(Torroja 1942, p.117). In figure K1, the variation
of the Elasticity Modulus was considered obtaining as a conclusion that the variation
of this factor produces highly variation of vertical deflections along the central
undeveloped directrix.
Figure K1: Vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix considering different Elasticity
Modulus. The basic fifth Lusas model is coloured in red, the model considering 5 % of Elasticity
Modulus reduction is coloured in light blue, the model considering 10 % of Elasticity Modulus
reduction is coloured in dark blue, the model considering 15 % of Elasticity Modulus reduction is
coloured in orange and the model considering 20 % of Elasticity Modulus reduction is coloured in
green.
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
m
)
Distance X (m)
Fifth Lusas model
‐ 5 % E
‐10 % E
‐15 % E
‐20 % E
141
A.10 Study of ribs.
The behaviour of the shell is studied considering different ribs hypotheses: The first and the
second models were based on the Fernández’s Sketch (figure 100), and therefore only five
reinforcement ribs are proposed. The difference between both models is that the second one
included the ribs in both lobes. The third model is based on reinforcements at the biggest
cylindrical sector each five metres (Antuña 2003, p.148).
In this appendix, the comparison of the three models is based on the diagrams of maximum
tension stress and compression stress isobars.
Figure L1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering five ribs
in the biggest cylindrical lobe.
142
Figure M1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering five ribs
in the biggest cylindrical lobe.
Figure N1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering five ribs
in both cylindrical sectors.
143
Figure O1: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering five
ribs in both cylindrical sectors.
Figure P1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering the ribs
proposed by Antuña in the biggest cylindrical sector.
144
Figure Q1: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering the
ribs proposed by Antuña in the biggest cylindrical sector.
145
B
Tables and outputs
B.1 Table of similar structures
Table 1: Overall dimensions of the similar structures to the Frontón Recoletos drawn in figure 25.
Name w(m) L(m) h(cm) Ratio
Roma ATAG 13.9 20.8 8 265:1
Jena 11.9 23.2 8 290:1
Rostow 12 21 5 420:1
Areneros 8 22 5 440:1
Hamburgo 9.2 24.4 5.5 445:1
Roma STA 15 25 8 315:1
Villaverde 17.5 25 5 500:1
Frankfurt Merk 14.1 36.9 7 525:1
Braila, Romania 10.5 30 5 600:1
Budapest 11.6 40 6 665:1
Recoletos 32.5 55 8 690:1
Dywidag‐Halle 11 35 5 700:1
Appendix
146
B.2 Tables of deflections
In this Appendix are listed the deflections measured in different Lusas models.
X (m) First Lusas model (cm) Actual structure (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding Reality
1.5 ‐0.2 1 1.2 20%
3.3 ‐0.8 1 1.8 80%
7.2 1.2 1 0.2 120%
11.3 2.7 3 0.3 90%
15.3 ‐3.8 ‐8 4.2 48%
19.2 ‐14.6
21.2 ‐15.1 ‐15 0.1 101%
22.5 ‐13.9 ‐15 1.1 93%
25.1 ‐14.7
27.2 ‐12.8 ‐12 0.8 107%
29.6 ‐5.5 ‐3 2.5 183%
31 ‐0.9 ‐1 0.1 90%
Table 2: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the first Lusas model and the actual structure.
All the deflections were measured in the same Xaxis coordinates. The column “Δ (cm)” represents
the difference between the results obtained by Lusas and the actual structure. In the last column, the
percentage regarding the value measured by Torroja is presented. The symbol
59
“+” means positive
deflections, which represents the raising of the shell. The deflections of the actual structure were
measured in the figure 37 using the proposed rule.
59
These symbols are used in all the tables of this Appendix.
147
X (m) First Lusas model (cm) Small‐scale (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding small‐scale model
1.5 ‐0.2
3.3 ‐0.8
7.2 1.2 3 ‐1.8 40%
11.3 2.7 1 1.7 270%
15.3 ‐3.8 ‐7 3.2 54%
19.2 ‐14.6 ‐15 0.4 97%
21.2 ‐15.1 ‐15 ‐0.1 101%
22.5 ‐13.9 ‐15 1.1 93%
25.1 ‐14,7 ‐11 ‐3.7 134%
27.2 ‐12.8
29.6 ‐5.5 ‐5 ‐0.5 110%
31 ‐0.9
Table 3: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the first Lusas model and smallscale model.
All the deflections were measured in the same Xaxis coordinates. The column “Δ (cm)” represents
the difference between the results obtained by Lusas and the smallscale model. The deflections of the
smallscale model were measured in figure 37 using the proposed rule.
X (m) Second Lusas model (cm) Actual structure (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding Reality
1.5 ‐0.1 1 1.1 10%
3.3 ‐0.8 1 1.8 80%
7.2 0.4 1 0.6 40%
11.3 0.7 3 2.3 23%
15.3 ‐4.2 ‐8 3.8 53%
19.2 ‐6.4
21.2 ‐6.8 ‐15 8.2 45%
22.5 ‐6.7 ‐15 8.3 45%
25.1 ‐6.5
27.2 ‐4.5 ‐12 7.5 38%
29.6 ‐1.3 ‐3 1.7 43%
31 ‐0.5 ‐1 0.5 50%
Table 4: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the second Lusas model and the actual
structure. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 2.
148
X (m) Second Lusas model (cm) Small‐scale (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding small‐scale model
1.5 ‐0.1
3.3 ‐0.8
7.2 0.4 3 2.6 13%
11.3 0.7 1 0.3 70%
15.3 ‐4.2 ‐7 2.8 60%
19.2 ‐6.4 ‐15 8.6 43%
21.2 ‐6.8 ‐15 8.2 45%
22.5 ‐6.7 ‐15 8.3 45%
25.1 ‐6.5 ‐11 4.5 59%
27.2 ‐4.5
29.6 ‐1.3 ‐5 3.7 26%
31 ‐0.5
Table 5: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the second Lusas model and the smallscale
model. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 3.
X (m) Fourth Lusas model (cm) Actual structure (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding Torroja
1.5 ‐0.4 1 1.4 40%
3.3 ‐0.5 1 1.5 50%
7.2 0.8 1 0.2 80%
11.3 0.8 3
15.3 ‐5.1 ‐8 2.9 64%
19.2 ‐8.7
21.2 ‐9.2 ‐15 5.8 61%
22.5 ‐9.0 ‐15 6.0 60%
25.1 ‐8.4
27.2 ‐5.7 ‐12 6.3 48%
29.6 ‐1.7 ‐3 1.2 59%
31 ‐0.6 ‐1 0.3 65%
Table 6: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the fourth Lusas model and the actual
structure. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 2.
149
X (m) Fourth Lusas model (cm) Small‐scale (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding Small‐scale
1.5 ‐0.4
3.3 ‐0.5
7.2 0.8 3 ‐1.8 27%
11.3 0.8 1 1.7 80%
15.3 ‐5.1 ‐7 3.2 73%
19.2 ‐8.7 ‐15 0.4 58%
21.2 ‐9.2 ‐15 ‐0.1 61%
22.5 ‐9.0 ‐15 1.1 60%
25.1 ‐8,4 ‐11 ‐3.7 76%
27.2 ‐5.7
29.6 ‐1.7 ‐5 ‐0.5 35%
31 ‐0.6
Table 7: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the fourth Lusas model and the smallscale
model. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 3.
Vertical deflection (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding load case A X (m)
Load case A 0.2 10.00
Load case B 0.31 0.11 65% 10.00
Table 8: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the third Lusas model considering different
load cases. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the difference between the both load cases. In the last
column, the percentage regarding the deflection measured in the load case A is presented. All the
deflections were measured in the coordinate X = 10 metres.
Vertical deflection (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding load case A X (m)
Load case A ‐4.60 23.00
Load case B ‐3.11 1.49 67% 23.00
Table 9: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the third Lusas model considering different
load cases. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 8, however, the vertical deflection was
measured in the point X = 23 metres also called seagull profile.
Vertical deflection (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding load case C X (m)
Load case C 1.00 10.00
Load case D 0.16 0.86 16% 10.00
Table 10: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the third Lusas model considering different
load cases. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 8.
150
Vertical deflection (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding load case C X (m)
Load case C ‐6.61 23.00
Load case D ‐4.04 2.56 61% 23.00
Table 11: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the third Lusas model considering different
load cases. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 10, however, the point where the
vertical deflections were measured is X = 23 metres.
Z Deflection (cm) X (m)
Fourth model 9.02 21.41
Table 12: Z deflections measured in centimetres in the fourth Lusas model in the coordinate X =
21.41 metres.
Vertical deflection (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding second model X (m)
Second model ‐6.61 23.00
Fourth model ‐8.84 2.33 135% 23.00
Table 13: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the second and the fourth Lusas model. The
column “Δ (cm)” represents the difference between both models. In the last column, the percentage
regarding the second model is presented. The vertical deflections were measured in the coordinate X =
23 metres.
Vertical deflection (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding second model Z (m)
Second model ‐6.61 27.50
Fourth model ‐9.09 2.43 137% 27.50
Table 14: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the second and the fourth Lusas model. The
characteristic are the same expressed in table 13, however, the point where the vertical deflections are
measured was located in the middle of the seagull profile, Z = 27.5 metres.
Vertical deflection (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding Antuña Z (m)
Antuña Big cylinder ‐9.09 23.00
Fernández Big cylinder ‐9.37 0.28 103% 23.00
Table 15: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the sixth Lusas model considering different
ribs hypotheses. The rest of characteristic are the same expressed in table 13.
151
B.3 Table of transversal bending moments.
Figure M1: Points measured by Torroja: Reference of this picture: Torroja, E., 1942. Comprobación y
comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid, Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias
Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid, figure 20.
152
Point X (m) First Lusas model (Nm/m) Torroja (Nm/m) Δ (Nm/m) % Regarding Torroja
37 0 0 0 0
38 1.5 ‐25 ‐350 325 7%
39 3.3 ‐306 ‐140 166 219%
40 7.2 5 110 105 5%
41 11.3 765 375 390 204%
42 15.3 418 150 268 279%
43 19.2 ‐992 ‐500 492 198%
44 22.8 1223 620 603 197%
44´ 23.8 357 70 287 510%
45 25.1 ‐1121 ‐1030 91 109%
46 29.6 153 500 347 31%
47 31.5 1784 1020 764 175%
48 32.51 0 0 0
Table 16: Transversal bending moments measured in Nm/m in the first Lusas model and in the
Torroja’s model
60
. The points are presented in figure A. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the
difference between both models. In the last column, the percentages regarding the values obtained by
Torroja are presented.
Point X (m) Second model (Nm/m) Torroja (Nm/m) Δ (Nm/m) % Regarding Torroja
37 0 0 0 0
38 1.5 ‐44 ‐350 306 13%
39 3.3 ‐244 ‐140 104 174%
40 7.2 41 110 69 37%
41 11.3 454 375 79 121%
42 15.3 143 150 7 95%
43 19.2 ‐1427 ‐500 927 285%
44 22.8 902 620 282 145%
44´ 23.8 309 70 239 441%
45 25.1 ‐856 ‐1030 174 83%
46 29.6 1357 500 857 271%
47 31.5 3242 1020 2222 318%
48 32.51 0 0 0
Table 17: Transversal bending moments measured in Nm/m in the second Lusas model and in the
Torroja’s model. The characteristic are the same presented in table 16.
60
The bending moments presented by Torroja can be consulted in his report (Torroja 1942, p.9798).
153
Bending moment (kNm/m) Δ (kNm/m) % Regarding second model X (m)
Second model ‐0.96 17.50
Fourth model ‐1,22 0.26 127% 17.50
Table 18: Transversal bending moments measured in kNm/m in the second and the fourth Lusas
model at the point X = 17.5 metres. The characteristics are the same presented in table 16.
154
B.4 Table of isobars.
Tension stress sobars (MPa) % Regarding Torroja X (m)
Torroja 8.00 21.59
Load Case 1 19.80 248% 20.11
Load Case 2 23.87 298% 20.11
Load Case 3 23.96 300% 20.11
Load Case 4 28.06 351% 20.11
Table 19: Peak of the maximum tension stress isobars represented in figure 39 considering the first
Lusas model and measured in MPa. These peaks are reached in different X coordinates. Furthermore,
the percentages regarding the maximum value obtained by Torroja are presented.
Compression stress isobars (MPa) % Regarding Torroja X (m)
Torroja ‐5.80 24.80
Load Case 1 ‐6.64 114% 13.55
Load Case 2 ‐8.10 140% 13.55
Load Case 3 ‐8.02 138% 13.55
Load Case 4 ‐9.39 162% 13.55
Table 20: Peak of the maximum compression stress isobars represented in figure 40 considering the
first Lusas model and measured in MPa. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 19.
Tension stress isobars (MPa) % Regarding Torroja X (m)
Torroja 3.00 32.50
Load Case 4 ‐0.14 5% 32.50
Table 21: Maximum tension stress isobars in the first Lusas model at the point X = 32.5 metres and
the percentage regarding the value measured in the Torroja’s model.
Tension stress isobars (MPa) % Regarding Torroja X (m)
Torroja 8.00 21.59
First Lusas model 13.01 163% 20.11
Second Lusas model 28.06 351% 23.03
Table 22: Maximum tension stress isobars in different models, including the percentage regarding the
maximum value measured in the Torroja’s model.
155
Compression stress isobars (MPa) % Regarding Torroja X (m)
Torroja ‐5.80 24.80
First Lusas model ‐9.39 162% 13.55
Second Lusas model ‐6.01 104% 15.91
Table 23: Maximum compression stress isobars in different models including the percentage
regarding the maximum value measured in the Torroja’s model.
Tension stress isobars (MPa) % Regarding Torroja X (m)
Torroja ‐5.80 24.80
First Lusas model ‐9.39 162% 24.80
Second Lusas model ‐0.63 11% 24.80
Table 24: Maximum tension stress isobars in different models at the point X = 24.8 metres including
the percentage regarding the maximum value measured in the Torroja’s model.
Tension stress Isobars (MPa) % Regarding Torroja
Torroja ‐8
First Lusas model ‐9.39 162%
Second Lusas model ‐6.01 104%
Table 25: Maximum tension stress isobars and percentage regarding the results obtained by Torroja.
Tension stress isobars (MPa) % Regarding Torroja
Torroja 8
First Lusas model 28.01 350%
Second Lusas model 13.08 162%
.
Table 26: Maximum compression stress isobars and percentage regarding the results obtained by
Torroja.
Tension stress isobars (MPa) % Regarding fourth Lusas model
Fourth Lusas model 16.81
Without edged beam 31.43 167%
With edged beam 16.63 99%
Table 27: Maximum tension stress isobars considering different edged beam hypotheses and
percentage regarding the maximum value of the fourth Lusas model.
156
B.5 Smallscale model deflections.
Point X (m) Test A (cm) Test B (cm)
Test Average (cm)
1 0 0 0 0
2 1.5 0 ‐0.5 ‐0.25
3 3.3 0 0.2 0.1
4 7.2 0.8 0.7 0.75
5 11.3 0.8 0.8 0.8
6 15.3 ‐4.2 ‐3.2 ‐3.7
7 19.2 ‐6 ‐5.2 ‐5.6
8 22.8 ‐5.5 ‐5 ‐5.25
9 25.1 ‐5 ‐4 ‐4.5
10 29.6 ‐3 ‐2.5 ‐2.75
11 31.5 ‐4 ‐4 ‐4
12 32.5 ‐1.5 0 ‐0.75
Table 1: Vertical deflections measured in the test A and B carried out by Torroja in the smallscale
model and the average of both tests. For these tests, the load combination is the dead weight. The
points are presented in figure 78. The symbols of the deflections are the same expressed in table 2
(Torroja 1942, p.126).
Point X (m)
Average (cm)
Fourth Lusas model (cm)
Δ (Cm)
% Regarding Average
1 0 0 0 0
2 1.5 ‐0.25 ‐0.1 0.15 40%
3 3.3 0.1 ‐0.5 0.6 500%
4 7.2 0.75 0.2 0.55 27%
5 11.3 0.8 0 0.8
6 15.3 ‐3.7 ‐3.4 0.3 92%
7 19.2 ‐5.6 ‐6 0.4 107%
8 22.8 ‐5.25 ‐6.4 1.15 122%
9 25.1 ‐4.5 ‐6.2 1.7 138%
10 29.6 ‐2.75 ‐1.4 1.35 51%
11 31.5 ‐4 ‐0.3 3.7 8%
12 32.5 ‐0.75 0 0.75
Table 2: Comparison between the average vertical deflections, measured in the test A and B, and the
vertical deflections obtained by the Fourth Lusas model. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the
difference between both models. In last column, the percentage regarding the Average value is
presented. The points are listed in figure 80.
157
Point X (m) Test D (cm)
Fourth Lusas model (cm)
Δ (Cm)
% Regarding D
1 0 0 0 0
2 1.5 0 0 0
3 3.3 0.7 ‐0.5 1.2 71%
4 7.2 2.7 0.3 2.4 11%
5 11.3 ‐0.9 ‐0.1 0.8 11%
6 15.3 ‐4 ‐4.7 0.7 118%
7 19.2 ‐6.5 ‐7,8 1.3 120%
8 22.8 ‐6 ‐8.3 2.3 138%
9 25.1 ‐5.5 ‐8 2.5 145%
10 29.6 ‐2.5 ‐1.7 1.8 68%
11 31.5 ‐1.2 ‐0.2 1 17%
12 32.5 0 0 0 0
Table 3: Comparison between the vertical deflections measured in the test D carried out by Torroja in
the smallscale model and the vertical deflections obtained in the fourth Lusas model. The
characteristics are the same expressed in figure M1. The values of the test D are obtained from the
Torroja’s report (Torroja 1942, p.126).
158
C
Pictures
In this appendix the different pictures taken in the “Archivo Torroja” by the professor Ignacio
Payá Zaforteza are presented.
Figure P1: Construction drawing where the location of the deflections, along the central directrix, are
explained.
Figure Q1: Load cases considered by Torroja in the deformations: Load case 1: dead weight, Load
case 2: dead weigh with snow, Load case 3: dead weigh with wind and Load case 4: dead weigh with
snow and wind.
Appendix
159
Figure R1: Detail of the orthogonality in the seagull profile when different load cases are applied.
Figure T1: Detail of the deformation at the connection between both lobes compared with the measure
of the real rule.
160
Figure U1: Detail of the deformations at the smallest cylindrical sector.
161
D
Torroja’s reflections
The following Torroja’s reflections were compiled by Juan Antonio Fernández Ordoñez in his
book “Eduardo Torroja: Ingeniero” (Fernández 2000, p.147).
“The following will be considered a deception, and therefore fit to be proscribed: if the
appearance of a construction induces us to think that the phenomena, functional and resistant,
are completely different from the real ones concealed in an interior structure”
“The expression of a resistant phenomenon, intrinsic and apparently impossible, is always
antiaesthetic”
“Joining together the tensile phenomenon with the aesthetic effect”
“The structure should be beautiful in itself, without needing additions or frills”
“In the purest joy of aesthetic emotion, simplicity is a virtue”
“If use is to be made of an ornamental theme, make it clearly independent and highlight it by
contrast with the austere simplicity, without pretentions that are alien to its task”
“Use the landscape as a pedestal or an accompaniment. Construction in a landscape should
rhyme with it. The building, with its dynamism and proportions, imposes itself on the
landscape and dominates it”
“Making builds with an object in mind that he is not always successful in reaching”
E. Torroja
Appendix
TRITA‐BKN. Master Thesis xxx,
Structural Design and Bridges YEAR
ISSN 1103‐4297
ISRN KTH/BKN/EX‐xxx‐SE
www.kth.se
Cylindrical Thin Concrete Shells
Structural Analysis of the Frontón Recoletos roof
Jose Antonio Lozano Galant
May 2009 TRITABKN. Master Thesis 277, 2009 ISSN 11034297 ISRN KTH/BKN/EX277SE
©José Antonio Lozano Galant. Sweden. 2009 . 2009 Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering Division of Structural Design and Bridges Stockholm.
my brother Fidel. I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my main supervisors Hakan Sundquinst and Ignacio Payá Zaforteza. who with never ending patience. Then. Special thanks to José Antonio Torroja and Javier Antuña for the interest showed and the help provided in the discussion of the results. I am indebted to my mother Isabel.Preface There are many persons who have been invaluable for the undertaking of this thesis. Some of them who have played a special role I will take the opportunity to acknowledge here. my father Jose Antonio. Jose Luís Ádam and Cárlos Lázaro deserve special acknowledgment. I would like to acknowledge the “Instituto Torroja” for providing me the information necessary to know the Torroja’s structure. First. Assistant supervisors Costin Lacoste. who have never failed to support me and are a constant source of encouragement. have shared with me their great scientific knowledge and experience. my girlfriend Monte and the rest of my family and friends. my grandparents. Stockholm. May 2009 José Antonio Lozano Galant i .
.
However. During the Spanish Civil War in the spring of 1937. 1 Directrix: Orthogonal shape to the generators. These methods were based on solving a system of equations that model the structural behaviour of the cylindrical thin concrete shells. Soon after. the deflections and stresses were measured. Given the impossibility of studying the structure at present. Models. simplicity and art are the four cardinal points that guided the work of Eduardo Torroja and Frontón Recoletos is a clear example of its application as discussed throughout this thesis. Keywords: Thin. which is based on two intersected circles. iii . skylights as well as real concentrated supports. which caused severe deformations in the structure. Shell. this adaptation was conceived as a way to improve understanding of such structures so that at different stages of the design. a structural analysis was based on the development of successive models with the finite element program Lusas. Subsequently. These models were based on the basic model used in the theoretical calculations carried out by Torroja and different assumptions were incorporated: consideration of variation in thickness. analysis of these results was awarded by the Royal Spanish Academy of Sciences and published in order to promote the advancement of science. a design to repair the structure was made. the roof collapsed. skylights as well as asymmetrical directrix 1. El Fronton Recoletos from conception was considered as a structural challenge because it incorporated many features that had not hitherto been studied in cylindrical concrete roofs: bigger size. the roof received several hits. far from surrendering Torroja adapted these methods to a number of simplifications in order to solve the problem by hand. Finally. the reinforcement ribs proposed by Torroja were studied with the purpose of checking their influence on the roof. Furthermore. This thesis is proposed as a way to continue the legacy of Torroja checking the arguments and assumptions that were considered throughout the design process of this roof. None of these conditions permitted the application of existing methods in 1930 when the design of the shell was raised.Abstract Geometry. However. in order to bring the model closer to the real structure by steps. This design was based on reinforcement ribs in the bigger cylinder as it aims to recover the initial geometry through braces as well as increasing the rigidity of the structure. consideration of the wind suction effects. truth. Torroja. Concrete. absence of beam at the connection between the two cylindrical sections. the night of the 15th August of 1939.
.
se planteó un análisis estructural basado en el desarrollo de sucesivos modelos con el programa de elementos finitos Lusas. El Frontón Recoletos fue considerado desde su concepción como un reto estructural debido a que incorporaba numerosas características que no habían sido estudiadas hasta entonces en las cubiertas cilíndricas de hormigón: mayor tamaño. lucernarios así como la directriz asimétrica. v .Resumen Geometría. Todas estas condiciones no permitían la aplicación de los métodos existentes en 1930 cuando se planteó el proyecto de la cubierta. Esta tesis se planteó como una forma de continuar el legado de Torroja comprobando los razonamientos e hipótesis que fueron considerados en todo el proceso de diseño de esta cubierta. la noche del 15 de Agosto de 1939 el techo colapsó. Estos métodos estaban basados en la resolución de un sistema de ecuaciones que modelaba el comportamiento estructural de las cubiertas cilíndricas con espesor reducido de hormigón armado. Sin embargo. simplicidad y arte son los cuatro puntos cardinales que guiaron la obra de Eduardo Torroja y el Frontón Recoletos es un claro ejemplo de su aplicación como se analiza a lo largo de la tesis. Sin embargo. adaptó estos métodos con una serie de simplificaciones para poder resolver el problema manualmente. Torroja. Dada la imposibilidad de estudiar la estructura en la actualidad. en la primavera de 1937. verdad. Estos modelos partían del modelo básico usado por Torroja en los cálculos teóricos e iban incorporando diferentes hipótesis: consideración de variación de espesor. esta adaptación fue pensada como una forma de mejorar el conocimiento de este tipo de estructuras por lo que en las diferentes etapas del proyecto. Finalmente. Espesor. cuya onda expansiva causó severas deformaciones en la estructura. consideración de lucernarios y consideración de apoyos reales. Además. Posteriormente. se estudiaron las costillas de refuerzo propuestas por Torroja para comprobar su influencia en la cubierta. Poco después. consideración de las succiones del viento. fue realizado un proyecto con el fin de reparar la cubierta. Modelos. la cubierta del Frontón recibió varios impactos. Durante la guerra Civil Española. ausencia de viga en la conexión entre las dos secciones cilíndricas. las deformaciones y esfuerzos fueron medidos. Palabras Clave: Hormigón. el análisis de estos resultados fue premiado por la Real Academia de Ciencias Española y publicado con el objetivo de favorecer el avance de la ciencia. con el objetivo de acercar el modelo a la estructura construida. Este proyecto estaba basado en unas costillas de refuerzo situadas en el cilindro mayor que tenían como objetivos recuperar la geometría inicial por medio de tirantes así como aumentar la rigidez transversal de la estructura. Torroja lejos de rendirse.
.
.............................1 2...................................................4 3.................1........................2 Hypotheses and Objectives............ 6 1................1.............................. 1 1......................1............ 24 Roof design.................... 37 Study of the Load cases................................1 Material .......................................................................................5 Purpose and Scope of the Thesis .............................................................................................................................................. .. 16 Thin Concrete Shells .......................................................3 1........................................... .............................................................................6 2 Gaussian Curvature ............................. 51 vii .....................2 1............................................................................... v 1 Introduction.......................................... ........................................... 9 Characteristics ..................................... 40 Conclusions............................................... 6 History ............................................................ 18 Frontón Recoletos ................................................................. ......................... 4 Classification of shells..Contents Preface ................. 49 Second Model: Variable Thickness.. 2 Why shells are used in Engineering ....5.................................2 1.......................................................................... 37 3.3 Basque Pelota Sport.................................................................3 1.... i Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii Resumen ..............1 1........................................................................................................................................................................................4.3 3....2 2..................................................................1 1...............1 3...........................................1 First Model: Similar to Calculus................................................................. 14 Designers ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background .1 1. ..................... 9 Cylindrical Thin Concrete Shells ..........4 1..................2........................................ 25 Theoretical calculations ... 2 1............................. 33 3........................................ 38 Analysis........2 3.. 27 3 Structural Analysis ................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................. 21 2.........5...........................1........................................5..................
.......................................... .... .........5 Definition of the Real supports..........................3...............4 3..................................................................................3......................................................................2.....................4....................................... 61 Analysis..................................................1 3...............................4............. 85 Hypotheses and Objectives. 97 Figures ................................. 51 Analysis.. ............................................................ 61 Conclusions...................................5........................................ ..........6.......7 Bending moments .................................................................................................................................................. 65 Analysis......... 60 Hypotheses and Objectives...3 3............................6......4......................2.....................................................................................................................................................2 3.................4 3. ...................................2 Lusas Outputs..................3..................................... 90 Conclusions............... 53 Conclusions......................3 Loads . 75 Sixth Model: Reinforcement Ribs....................... 117 A................................................2 3............2 3.............................. 95 Bibliography .................................................................. 61 Fourth Model: Skylights....................................................................................................................5...................................................... ............... 63 Hypotheses and Objectives... ................... 118 A............................... 80 Conclusions....................3 3............................................................................................... ............... .......................................5.............................................................5 3..... ......................... 66 Conclusions...3 3....... 74 Hypotheses and Objectives.............. ........................1 Lusas Elements .........................................................................................................6....... .. 115 A................1 3.............................................................................. .................................... 88 Analysis.... 123 A............................ 114 A................ 64 Fifth Model: Real Supports...........5 3..... 87 Study of the Ribs location................................................ .................7 4 Hypotheses and Objectives............... 119 A................ ............................. .................................6 3...........6....6................... 128 viii ....3...........................1 3..................................................................... ...4 3...............3 3..... 99 A Lusas calculations .. 93 Conclusions ......................................................................................................2 3.....................................2............. ..... 85 Future research . 78 Analysis........................................................ ..................1 3.. ..... 84 Study of the reinforcement ribs............................... 77 Study of the Supports.......................... ..................................... .......3 3......................................................3 3.........1 3......... .............................6 Load Combination Study.4 Definition of the thickness.... .................. ................................. 92 Third Model: Wind Suction Effects.................................................................................................... 120 A..5............2 3........................................................................
......3 Table of transversal bending moments...................... ..... 133 A.. ......... 145 B..1 Table of similar structures ..................... 138 A....................... 156 C D Pictures ............................... .................................................10 Study of ribs........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 145 B..............A................................................................... 141 B Tables and outputs .............................................9 Study of variation of parameters.8 Study of the wind suction effects.............................. ........................................... ............................................................................................... 161 ix .. 146 B..4 Table of isobars.5 Smallscale model deflections..... 154 B.................................................................................................................. 158 Torroja’s reflections ............2 Tables of deflections ........................................................................................................................................... 151 B...................... ................
.
with the purpose of checking all the hypotheses carried out by Torroja. incorporated in the Frontón Recoletos. 1 . supports and reinforcement ribs. the research and analysis of the characteristics of the Frontón Recoletos: constructions drawings. The additional objectives of the thesis are as follow: Review the characteristics of the Frontón Recoletos shell.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. The Frontón Recoletos was conceived by Torroja as a way to improve the knowledge about the cylindrical thin concrete shells and therefore. Analyze the Torroja’s beliefs considered in the design of the structure. Analyze the theoretical methods used in the shell’s calculations. hypotheses. Check the Torroja’s simplifications. the structural analysis based on the development of successive models. calculation procedure. the main purpose of this thesis is to continue the hard work shown by the designer through the study of the roof using existing computing resources: the finite element program Lusas. Study of the different innovative elements: skylights. which consisted of incorporating different hypotheses to the basic Torroja’s model used in the theoretical calculations.1 Purpose and Scope of the Thesis My interest in the Frontón Recoletos was inspired by the enthusiasm and affection shown by Professor Ignacio Payá Zaforteza to this structure during my civil engineering degree in Valencia. This thesis has been supported by three basic pillars: Firstly. the study of the state of the art of the similar cylindrical thin concrete shells. Secondly. Finally. After that. analysis’ results and structural Torroja’s beliefs. Study the state of the art of the cylindrical thin concrete shells. the great illusion and interest in the Torroja’s work shown by Professor Hakan Sundquist and the proposal of the title by Professor Payá made me decide the Frontón Recoletos as a topic of my master thesis.
like igloos (figure 1). 2 All the figures are described from left to right and the references are listed in the Figures’ Chapter. p.1 Material The material has always conditioned the engineer’s imagination. these sheets are used by insects. Soon after. “Each material has its own message to the creative artist” (Torroja 1962. the stone masonry. appeared. carries out the photosynthesis to obtain energy from the sun. Afterwards. before designing any structure. Finally. Afterwards. using caves and other natural constructions. p. 2 . some mechanical properties of the masonry structures were improved with mortar joints (Torroja 1962. like ants. the humans only looked for these shapes in the nature to refuge it from the elements. the Inuit. The problem of the stone is the difficulty to materialize the shapes dreamed by the architect because this material needs great mass and cannot resist tension stresses. The tree leaf (figure 1). these shells were adapted to cover large spans in buildings.2 Background Shell roofs with single and double curvature have been commonly used by the nature for different purposes. to protect from the changes in temperatures.1. for example. The first material used to build modern shell structures was stone which constructions were monolithic mass (figure 2). usually creating more appreciated structures than other kind of roofs without curvature.2. to protect themselves from the rain. it is necessary to understand the properties of the material to use. 2 1. Frank Lloyd argued. Therefore. they were able to build new shell structures.25). This knowledge was imitated and improved by different civilizations along the history. Figure 1: Tree leaf: Double curvature structure in the nature and Igloo: Snow house originally constructed by indigenous people inhabiting the arctic regions.24). Furthermore. technique where the stone was cut in equal pieces and assembled in layers. maybe more in this kind of constructions where the importance of the shape is indisputable. At the beginning.
or steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC).12). material applied in the Sidney Opera (figure 3).C. used in L’Oceanográfico (figure 3). As a result the span to thickness ratios obtained. The vast majority of the current shell structures have been constructed of concrete or reinforced concrete. for instance the reinforced concrete roof structure of the Eduardo Torroja’s sporting hall Frontón Recoletos had a ratio of 680:1. were less than 50:1 (Chilton 2000. when the ratio is increased some problems like buckling can easily appear in the structure. In this cupola. and the Agrippa’s pantheon in Rome: Temple of all the gods made of unreinforced concrete with pozzuolana. the reinforced concrete incorporated another advantage: tensions were resisted by steel bars. p. However.Figure 2: Lion Gate in Greece: Stone gate constructed in 1350 B. p. Figure 3: Sidney Opera designed by Jørn Utzon in 1973 and made of prestressed concrete and L’Oceanogràfic in Valencia: Structure inspired by Felix Candela’s designs and constructed of steel fiber reinforced concrete.8:1. p. Furthermore. Other materials such as prestressed concrete. like Romans (Torroja 1962. the ratio varies between 6. can also be used in order to increase this ratio.4:1 and 44. This material was similar to the stone masonry and was used since centuries ago by different old villages.31). Afterwards. the structural behaviour is more difficult to understand due to the growing complexity of the stress distribution. the oldest standing domed structure in Rome made of unreinforced concrete with pozzuolana joints. as “technically the most nearly perfect material” (Torroja 1962. The first concrete was easily mouldable but it was relatively week in tensions. 3 . A wellknown example is the Agrippa’s pantheon (figure 2). This material was described by Eduardo Torroja.56) With the reinforced concrete the increase of the span to thickness ratios was possible.
Insler stated that the singledouble curved structures are much more efficient than the flat plate because the applied forces can be resisted with fewer deformations and stresses. The difference between these sheets was the curvature. Heinz Insler explained this characteristic by the next experiment (Chilton 2000. Furthermore. p. not only the aesthetic characteristics are improved with these designs because the structural behaviour is also usually better. Natural shells have been studied by numerous architects and engineers in order to design organic shapes in their structures. the relaxation park designed by Toyo Ito in Alicante (figure 4) shows different buildings inspired by the natural shell shape.3 Why shells are used in Engineering “In order to successfully conceive and to plan a structure or building of any kind it is necessary to investigate and to know well its reasons for existence. For example. like centenarian (figure 5). shells structures are much superior to other structural system having the same span and overall dimensions because these shapes have a high strength to weight ratio. This technique was used by Heinz Insler to design more than 1000 shells. Figure 4: Relaxation Park in Alicante designed by Toyo Ito: Building made of wood. There are different methods to determine the shape of the shells’ structures. according to the building local conditions. like a cupola.96). and has to be found by the designer.12): He made two surfaces of thin plastic with the same volume of material. These shapes are generally more attractive than the designs based on the straight line. the technique used by Gaudí to design the Sagrada Familia (figure 5) in Barcelona was founded on the principle that a loaded structure in pure tension. The most structural efficient shell’s form is different for each design.1.1). Nevertheless. its major and minor capacities to resist and to bear” Eduardo Torroja (Torroja 1962. The first surface was flat and the second one had curvature in two perpendicular directions. For example. The efficiency of loadcarrying behaviour explained by Insler is only one more of the numerous advantages of the shell structures. this criterion is commonly used to estimate the structural component efficiency. p. 4 . As a result. more slenderness and lighter structures can be constructed adapting better the shape to the requirements of the building (Torroja 1962. For example. p. Then he put the same weight over the both structures. when inverted will be the perfect form for a similarly loaded pure compression structure.
many shell structures have been constructed with the purpose of providing roofing for temples. 5 . p. For example. the shell’s shape is used to cover the Fedala water tank (figure 6) designed by Torroja. Nevertheless.Figure 5: Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and Antonio Gaudí’s reversed model used to determine the forces in pure compression. Therefore. Figure 6: Fedala water tank: hyperbolicalconcrete silo for the storage of water in Morocco. The essential geometrical property of all the shell structures that distinguishes then from other structural forms is the possession of both “surface” and “curvature” providing strength and stiffness (Calledine 1983. cathedrals. shells find application in many other fields.3). besides of roofing. monuments or other buildings.
the maximum and the minimum. which consists of continuous windows around the circular stadium. designed by Pier Luigi Nervi in 1958. freeforms structures. [2] where. which was made of ribbed reinforced concrete. [1] 1. which is explained in this section. 6 . are called thick. such curvatures occurring in the two principal planes. the parabola. because each one has different properties that can determine the shape of the building and therefore.124): synclastic shells. which the shell is made of: like reinforced concrete. which are perpendicular to each other. This surface has double curvature. plywood or steel. In order to better understanding the cylindrical thin concrete shells. anticlastic shells. The Gaussian curvature Kg is the product of the two principal curvatures (formula 2). p. The second consideration is the shell thickness: the shells can be thick or thin. such as the ellipse.1 Gaussian Curvature The geometry of the shell is completely described by the curved shape of the middle surface and the thickness of the shell at all points.156). according to the Kg sign (Calladine 1983. other conic sections. these characteristics have to be considered in the design. other curves are also satisfactory. Finally. and developable shells with simple curvature. The domes of revolution are formed by a surface generated by a curve of any form revolving about a vertical line. There is other one additional group. A shell is called “thin” if the maximum value of the Ratio A (formula 1) can be neglected in comparison with unity. The synclastic shells are those with positive Gaussian Curvature at a given point of a curved surface.1. p. However. in other cases. it is a space structure covering a more or less square or circular area. which cannot be classified by the curvature.4 Classification of shells There are many different ways to classify shell structures. consists of using the shell Gaussian Curvature to classify the shape. The most remarkable factor of this structure is the lower half of the dome. ri =Principal ratio of curvature in each direction (Calladine 1983. the last criterion. and it is used in order to classify the shells in three different groups. The first criterion was the material. For these surfaces.4. they were catalogued by three different criterions. both with double curvature. The simplest dome of revolution is a portion of a sphere. or random curves. A dome is an example of synclastic shell. A wellknown dome is the Palazzetto dello Sport (figure 7). the centres of maximum and minimum curvature at a given point lie on the same side of the surface.
20). Other important example is the Kupolen Exhibition Hall and Sports Arena (figure 8) constructed in 1989 in Sweden by Hakan Sundquist and T. these surfaces are stronger and more resistant than shells that can be developed however.Figure 7: Palazetto dello Sport (Roma) designed by Nervi. The most common shape of this kind of surfaces is the barrel. semicircular or parabolic. p. 3 The possibility to be developed or not is a geometrical property of the surface. In this structure. This design consisted of a dome structure with a free span of 123 meters made up with beam elements. These surfaces as the name implies. similar to the procedure used in the construction of the snow igloos. Granaht. Therefore. which shape was similar to the accordion membrane. the frameworks are more complex and expensive (Billington 1979. Figure 8: Kupolen Exhibition Hall and Sports Arena (Sweden) designed by Sundquist. The erection of the dome was done using an innovative system based on no false work. the flexural strength was increased using a surface. This procedure to increase the lateral stiffness can also be applied by means of the combination of folded plates as for example in the church designed by Willian Gooden in Las Vegas (figure 9). are those that can be flattered into a plane superficies. 7 . either directly or after making a simple straightline cut in the surface. Shells that cannot be developed. These shells are characterized by zero Gaussian curvature and are singly curved. like surfaces with double curvature. An innovative solution to solve this problem was used in the Hangar d’Orly (figure 9) by Eugene Freyssinet in 1923. The second group classify by the Gaussian curvature is the developable 3 shells. require more energy in order to be deformed. These shapes are less resistant than the doubled curved surfaces and usually need additional flexural strength to resist the effects of wind.
This roof consists of four hyperboloid paraboloids intersecting to form an octagonal and very innovative shape. The next group is the anticlastic shells. An additional group that cannot be classified by the Gaussian curvature is the freeform structures. These surfaces are characterized by negative Gaussian curvature and therefore. which has inspired the design of current structures like the L’Oceanográfico in Valencia (figura 3). and church building in Las Vegas designed by Gooden. p. The design was based on the Saarinen’s words "I want to catch the excitement of the trip" (Saarinen 1962. This shell is an example of how the freedom of form can be used to carry out the designer’s aesthetic thoughts. Figure 10: Los Manantiales restaurant designed by Candela. the centres of maximum and minimum curvature are located on opposite sides of the surface.115). This structure is located at Kennedy International Airport in New York. An innovative irregular shell structure is The Trans World Airline Terminal (figure 11) designed by Eero Saarinen in 1962.Figure 9: Hangar d’Orly designed by Freyssinet. This shape can be considered as a giant bird with it wings spread out ready for flight. Wellknown examples of this kind of shells are the conoids. One of the most appreciated examples of this kind of surfaces is the restaurant designed by Félix Candela in 1955 called Los Manantiales (figure 10). These surfaces allow much greater versatility and freedom of form than the preceding described surfaces. The freeform shells can be analysed by different methods like combinations of simple regular shell forms or experimenting with small shell models. The structural behaviour is different for each shape. Figure 11: Trans World Airline Terminal in New York designed by Saarinen. 8 . hyperbolic paraboloids and hyperboloids. because these shapes do not have principal directions of curvature.
4 9 . principally consisted of barrel structures. The first factor was developed along the history of these constructions: The pioneer structures. the designer’s incessant desire for more ambitious structures did not stop and new shapes. For example. these shapes are more resistant and can be erected easier than other surfaces with single curvature. usually without the use of internal supports giving an open unobstructed interior. the shape and the thickness. 1. The shells 4 are most commonly domes and flat plates. in the unstressed state.5 Thin Concrete Shells The thin concrete shell structures are a lightweight construction composed of a relatively thin shell made of reinforced concrete. as the dome in Jena.5.1 History There are two important factors. which have the same structural behaviour of the Frontón Recoletos were studied. to be account to better understanding the evolution of the thin concrete shell structures (figure 12). Most concrete shell structures are commercial and sports buildings or storage facilities. The second factor to be considered in the thin concrete shell structures is the thickness. different developable shapes. the thickness of the Hayden planetarium was 7. can be classified as synclastic shells. which is flat. the shell has curvature as opposed to plate surface. like the elliptical barrel build in Frankfurt in 1927 or the shallow circular barrel constructed in Budapest in 1930. Afterwards. As it was explained before.6 centimetres (Appendix B.1. or some combination thereof. A primary difference between a shell structure and a plate structure is that. but may also take the form of ellipsoids or cylindrical sections. The most famous examples of these shapes are the Frontón Recoletos and the Iglesia de Villaverde. consisting of intersected barrels. In this chapter. which is usually less than 10 centimetres. However. only the thin concrete shells structures with curvature.2). were designed. which span to thickness ratios were 690:1 and 500:1 respectively. were constructed.
another Dyckerhoff and Widmann engineer. and the span to thickness Ratio 5. diameter in metres. h (m). which ratio was approximately 330:1 (Hines 2004. introduced the thin concrete shells in U. Germany (figure 13) by Frank Dischinger of the German engineering firm Dyckerhoff and Widmann (Hines 2004.1641). L (m). In 1934 Anton Tedesko. p. The modern era of thin concrete shells began in 1922 with the construction of the dome in Jena. length in metres. by the shell’s thickness. 6 10 . d (m). 30 millimetres thick and the span to thickness ratio was near to 550:1.S. 5 The span to thickness Ratio was calculated dividing the maximum value of span. Several important thin concrete shell structures have recently been demolished. thickness in centimetres. defined as the maximum value between the diameter and the width.1642). This modern structure was 16 metres in diameter. w (m). with a hemisphere structure called Hayden 6 planetarium in New York (figure 13). p. including the Hayden planetarium in New York in 1997 due to the functional obsolescence and maintenance problems.Figure 12: Thin concrete shell structures. The characteristics are width in metres.
p. This labour intensive and costly process of construction. in approximately 120 minutes. p. also known as airinflated forms. the formwork is constructed. and after that. has made concrete shells much less competitive than they were few decades ago. The origin of the inflated membrane forms. commercial or public structures and it were embraced by the architectural profession as a potent means of architectural expression. the reinforcing bar and shotconcrete were placed on the exterior of the structure. the number of new concrete shell structures constructed declined noticeably (Meyer 2005. the reinforcing steel and concrete are placed over a layer of fabric while it lies flat on the ground. the fabric is inflated by air pressure in order to create the shell form (figures 14 and 15). The Bini’s system is divided into two successive phases. were Pier Luigi Nervi. Finally. Some of the most important shell designers in this period. In this method.44) due mainly to the high cost of construction and removal of temporary formwork and associated falsework for concrete casting in the construction of a thin concrete shell. Eduardo Torroja. there have been several methods for eliminating the need for temporary formwork in the construction of thin concrete shell roofs. Until now. David South. Subsequently. Particularly noteworthy was the system invented by Dante Bini. the most successfully techniques have been on one hand. For example. coupled with the increasing ease in analyzing complex skeletal spatial structures offered by advances in computer technology. p. p. whose “advanced the state of the art” (Meyer 2005. 44). was in 1942 when Wallace Neff received a patent on a system where the form was inflated to the shape of the structure.43). 11 . Final forms are spherical sectors with radius less than 40 metres. considered the “golden age of thin shell structures” (Meyer 2005. these constructions were developed as an engineering solution in order to achieve large spans for industrial. Between the 1920s and 1960s. the President of Monolithic Constructors and Chair of Joint ACIASCE Committee 334. after these three decades. argued that “The construction of thin shells nearly came to a standstill until inflated membrane forms were introduced” (Meyer 2005. the use of precast concrete panels with insitu cast joints. The inflated membrane method was appreciated by many engineers. Both methods are explained a in this section. Heinz Insler and Felix Candela. Over the years. Firstly.44).Figure 13: Dome in Jena designed by Dischinger and the Hayden planetarium in New York designed by Tadesko. the use of inflated membranes as forms. On the other hand.
the architect has less freedom in their designs because the shape of the formwork cannot be practically changed.Figure 14: First phase of the Bini’s System. The second difference is that the shotconcrete is applied to the interior of the form when this shape has been inflated. 12 . The shells constructed by inflated membrane techniques have some disadvantages. The second problem is that these techniques require the use of special construction equipment increasing the cost of the roof. which consisted of a shotconcrete applied to the inside of an inflated fabric form (figure 16). these methods are limited to the construction of circularbased domes with a spherical or nearly spherical meridian and therefore. In the late 1970s. According to David South.45). This technique had some differences compared with the Bini’s System: First. the shape and thickness of the shell as well as the position of reinforcement is difficult to control during the construction process. p. Lastly. shell is inflated using polyurethane foam. spans of up to 300 meters can be obtained using this technique (Meyer 2005. Firstly. This material gives the form the stiffness required to support the weight of reinforcing steel placed on the inside. Figure 15: Second phase of the Bini’s System. David and Barry South developed other system. Figure 16: Inflating process using polyurethane foam and Application of the shotconcrete.
the formwork consists of smallprefabricated panels. The future of thin concrete shells is based on the formingproblem solution.One innovative method designed to reduce the cost of the formwork is the Precast concrete panels with insitu cast joints. Medwadosky argued. science has to find new systems to obtain the shape of the structure using the imagination as well as new construction techniques. p. 13 . which “is believed to be a solution to the difficult problem of forming” (Wong 2004. Figure 17: Modular steel units and real structure formed by the Comshell system. “Forming remains the great. the Comshell system is being studied and the structural behaviour of the structures made of this technique is not well known yet. p. The steel base shell is constructed by bolting together modular steel units (figure 17) in the form of an opentopped box consisting of a flat or slightly curved base plate surrounded by edge plates” (Teng 2001. 21) Therefore. Any and all ideas should be explored. also called Comshell system.180189). Teng was the first who defined this system: “The Comshell roof is a steelconcrete composite shell roof formed by pouring concrete on a thin steel base shell which serves as permanent formwork as well as tensile steel reinforcement. The main disadvantages of the method are the following: Firstly." (Medwadosky 1998. unsolved problem of construction of concrete thin shell roofs.102). p. In these structures. The latest development in the forming of thin concrete shell roofs is the steelconcrete composite shell system. which are transported to the site for assembly into a shell (figure 17). Joints between these panels are sealed by insitu casting of concrete. Secondly. without prejudice. extra work in transportation and assembly of the elements is required.
Figure 7 18: African tent in the Sahara desert: the surface is made of sheepskin.1. When the formwork is removed. above all the synclastic shells. These forces consist of compression stresses. and with zero stress throughout. like the skin used in the ancient tents or in the African villages (figure 18). Sami tent and Lomas de Cuernavaca designed by Candela. Furthermore. when the bending moments are needed in order to achieve the equilibrium of the shell. Nevertheless. the thickness and the reinforcements bars have to be increased and therefore.79). p. are naturally 7 The elements are described from up to down and from left to right. resisted by the concrete. considered before as unachievable. p. was come truth when appeared the thin concrete shells. at a certain time. which is kept in place until the concrete has hardened. The material of these structures was able to be casted forming any imaginable shape. the formwork tends to provide single or double curved surfaces. the tent’s shape was imitated by Candela in the Lomas de Cuernavaca’s shell (figure 18). and tension stresses. the advantages of the thin concrete shells are reduced (Torroja 1976. and the shell thereafter carries its own weight. in the direction of the tangent plane. These structures are constructed by casting onto a mould called formwork. 14 .2 Characteristics Since the beginning of the architecture. the designers have dreamt about one light surface. the curved surfaces made of reinforced concrete.5. to cover large spans in buildings (Torroja 1976. The thin concrete shells are designed with the purpose to resist loads through membrane forces. Consequently.69). resisted by the reinforcement bars made of steel. Afterwards. This dream. the shell is obliged to carry its own weight. To improve the structural behaviour. The shell exists originally under condition of effectively zero gravity in a perfect shape. shells made of reinforced concrete can resist moderate bending stresses and be constructed thinner and lighter. For example. gravity is switched on.
the cost of the formwork is higher. Nevertheless. In addition to the possibility of covering areas without internal supports. the concrete is relatively inexpensive and easily cast into desired curves. Therefore. Finally.48). the structure has to be intensely maintained in order to avoid the functional obsolescence and this factor increase the future cost of the building. 15 . functional obsolescence because the small thickness makes worse the bars isolation and corrosion can occur easily. the thin thickness produces that these structures usually need thermal and acoustic insulation. the cost cannot be the only explanation of the current loss of popularity. For example. p. according to Meyer “such cost reductions alone will not be sufficient. the efficient use of the material because the structural lightness is the common starting point in designing. the thin concrete shells have the following benefits. 46). this material is usually complemented with waterproof isolation. For example. the air chamber layer and the cork are used to improve the thermal conditions. for example. as thin concrete shells need to be repopularized and reintroduced into the minds of builders if they are to be considered as a viable structural solution at all” (Meyer 2005. p.strong structures. Secundino Zuazo. Fourthly. 48). Secondly. The problem of the forming cost could be the main explanation for the decrease of popularity of the thin concrete shells all around the world. Thirdly. rainwater can seep through the roof and leak into the interior of the building because the concrete is a porous material and therefore. Edward DePaola mentioned that the best way to reduce the cost of temporary formworks is to develop alternate construction techniques like innovative forming systems: "Flexible and easily adjustable forms would make complicated shapes easier and much less expensive to build" (Meyer 2005. This cost depends of the type of formwork. by together designing reusable form modules that are appropriate for the shell" (Meyer 2005. Secondly. the work of Heinz Isler is an example that spectacular shells are still constructed. Thirdly. to both train them in proper shell construction techniques as well as to sharpen their own insight into effective design and construction procedure. who maintained close relationships with the builder of this shell. the method of construction has been used since the concrete was discovered and is therefore well known. Firstly. p. the thin concrete shells offer the possibility of more visually interesting geometries to improve the aesthetic value of the building. This proposal was used by successful shell designers. Thin concrete shells have historically had the following problems: Firstly. An interesting proposal suggested by John Abel of Cornell University with the purpose of reducing this cost. Nevertheless. allowing wide areas to be spanned without the use of internal supports. structures with double curvatures as domes are difficult to erect and makes it necessary to cut the panels individually into nonregular shapes and therefore. was based on the collaboration between the designer and the builder "the designer can work with the builder to devise construction processes that are efficient. such as Torroja in the Frontón Recoletos. achieving an open and unobstructed interior usually pursued by the designer. today the main problem of the thin concrete shell structures is that the cost to erect the formwork is considered prohibitive in Europe.
This thought is appreciable. to bring the beauty of the shell’s interior view out (figure 7).8 metres diameter and only 9 centimetres thickness. for example in the structural behaviour. Thirdly but not least important. The shores usually allow improving the shell aesthetic. which was one of the most innovative engineers of the early twentieth century. the philosophy of the structures: Many different architects and engineers have been influenced by the Torroja’s structural thought among. The Market Hall (figure 19). in the connection between the wall and the shell: the structure does not use any kind of raking shores in order to resist the forces transmitted. The second thought observable in the structure is that geometric is used to join the sphere with the radial cylindrical vaults defining a shape apparently simple for the observers. as well as the formal and structural simplicity. Wellknown examples are the hyperboloids applied in the Hipódromo de la Zarzuela and Fedala water storage (figure 6). is a splendid octagonal space enclose with a bold lamella roof with 47. p. the Market Hall in Algeciras. More examples of the Torroja’s thoughts are presented in the Appendix D. constructed by Nervi.3 Designers Some of the most important designers of cylindrical thin concrete shells were Eduardo Torroja. constructed by Torroja in Algeciras (Spain) in 1933. For example. Firstly.5. The main characteristics of one of the most emblematic Torroja’s structures. Eduarto Torroja y Caballé. which hold the design up. constructed in 1925. Secondly. In this chapter. Torroja looked for new innovative shapes in his designs. Torroja did not use the shores in the Market Hall because in his aesthetical beliefs was enough with the bare geometrical shape (Torroja 2007. some of the most important factors of these designers are analyzed. His work was based on three basic pillars. 8 The skylights are located at the top of the roof as well as at the connection between the walls and the octagonal shell. which stand out the next three: the integration of the functional and structural requirements in the structure.100). p. these additional elements were used in the Palazzetto dello Sport. Finally. explained before. the designer included arches between supports of the tension members where the faster solution would have been putting a simple straight line (Torroja 2007.98). which is supported by eight pillars. the last belief is the importance of the structural truth. On the other hand. the geometric: Influenced by his father. This structure shows the three Torroja’s thoughts.1. acts as enclosure without the need of additional elements and allows that the sun light shines by the nine skylights 8. the perfect correlation between the real nature and the apparent form of the work. 16 . the art: Torroja’s aesthetic interest began to shine already in his first works. On one hand in the shell that carries out different complementary functions: encloses the space. The first belief is that the architectonic requirements were integrated in the structure. which is easily understood and not hidden. notable for the exceptional use of the reinforced concrete and its application to the thin shell structures in Spain. for example in the Tempul aqueduct (figure 19). Nevertheless. The first designer analyzed is Eduardo Torroja (1899–1961). were studied in order to better understanding the conception of the design and the application of Torroja’s thoughts. Félix Candela and Heinz Insler.
he never took a formal course on this kind of constructions and all Candela’s knowledge was acquired on his own reading articles and experimenting with the forms. based on fullscale models. as for example the Restaurante Los Manantiales (figure 9). The environment observed by Insler. Figure 20: Hanging membrane model generated by selfsetting polyester resin and Stationservice in Deitingen designed by Isler. the third analyzed designer is Heinz Insler. p. for example pillows or flowers. which is based on the hyperbolic paraboloid form. The second analyzed designer is Félix Candela (19101997). This way of understanding the thin concrete structures. (Chilton 1979. provided a new method of designing and building innovative structures. which is a Swiss engineer and a pioneer for shellform designs whose works transcends the definition of mere structural engineering to the extent of becoming structural art. instead of by sophisticated mathematical method. has inspired his thin concrete shells.32) in much the way that Antonio Gaudí had used (figure 20). These forms are calculated by experiment using catenary models. A wellknown example is the Deitingen service station on A12 motorway in Switzerland constructed in 1968 (figure 20). which is acknowledged as a master builder and structural artist who designed and constructed great thin shell concrete roof structures. However.Figure 19: Aqueduct Tempul and Market Hall in Algeciras both structures designed by Torroja. 17 . Finally.
is more rigid. because these elements can be placed where tension forces are needed and therefore. have to provide additional resistance.1. Nevertheless. where the directrix is supported. the materials have to resist both compression and tension stresses. the span to thickness Ratios can be increased. considering the bending moments in the shell structures means more difficult and less intuitive calculations as well as an increase of the thickness. also called barrels. because each of these structures has a different structural behaviour as well as different requirements in the minimum thickness and the trace of the directrix. The membrane is able to resist the applied loads acting only compression and tension in the tangent plane. stone has been commonly used as material for the vaults and the spans to thickness Ratios for this material are usually less than 50:1. this increase of the stiffness was used the Frontón Recoletos by means of vertical and transversal stiffener 18 . For example. the thickness and the framework of the shell have to be prepared to resist these stresses. despite the huge similarity in the shape of both structures. Therefore. For example. Furthermore. Figure 21: Structural behaviour of the vault and structural behaviour of the long barrel The most efficient structural behaviour of thin shells is obtained when these structures are working as membranes. The cylindrical thin shells. On one hand. new curves like the ellipse or the parabola can be used improving the aesthetic quality of the structure (Torroja 1976.6971). When the bending moments are needed. When the thickness is increased the main load. can be classified in three different groups: long barrels. On the other hand. The structural behaviour of the cylindrical thin concrete shell is more similar to the membrane when the wall. short barrels and intermediate barrels. the materials used in these structures have to be able to resists compressions and the thickness is usually higher. the structural behaviour of the vault is based on connected parallel arches. This factor takes advantage of the bars of the reinforced concrete. p. Furthermore. The differences between these groups are the relation between the span and the width as well as the structural behaviour. Furthermore. the structural behaviour of the cylindrical thin concrete shell is similar to a longitudinal beam along the generator directions (figure 21) and therefore. is higher and the benefits of the thin concrete shells decreased. the directrix shape of the vaults must be as similar as possible to the arch in order to achieve the optimum structural behaviour.6 Cylindrical Thin Concrete Shells The cylindrical thin concrete shells should not be confused with the vaults. the directrix shape has fewer requirements than the vaults and therefore. which transmit the same effort to the supports (figure 21). sometimes these stresses are not enough to resist the applied loads and other forces. the dead weight. like the transversal bending moments regarding the middle surface.
Figure 22: 3D model of the front walls. This bending resistance depends on the shape of the directrix and usually means to increase the cost of the structure (Torroja 1976. However. which connected the shell with the wall. 19 . The holes between the shell and the wall were filled with bricks to achieve the continuous surface for playing pelota game (figure 23 and 24).beams (figure 22). p. even with these rigid walls. the structure is not able to work as a pure membrane and additional bending moment resistance is needed.79).
.
This structure consisted of a sport facility building designed to play pelota game. Eduardo Torroja. The roof is based on a thin concrete shell formed by the intersection of two cylindrical sectors and was considered one of the most emblematic structures in the 30s. Secundido Zuazo. also called jai alai. and one engineer. 21 . The Frontón recoletos was designed by the collaboration of two complementary specialists: one architect. Figure 23: Picture of the inside of the structure of the Frontón Recoletos.Chapter 2 Frontón Recoletos The Frontón Recoletos (figure 23 and 24) was constructed in 1935 in the Villanueva Street in Madrid.
the span to thickness Ratio (Appendix B.6 metres (Appendix B. The contemporary designers were not sure if the theoretical models and the simplifications carried out by Torroja in order to calculate the shell showed correctly the structural behaviour of this roof because all the considered innovations had not been studied before and therefore. The roof of the Frontón Recoletos was considered a structural challenge since the conception of the structure for different reasons: Firstly. were higher than the similar roofs constructed before (figure 25). a scale model was constructed. 22 . from 8 centimetres.Figure 24: Real picture of the outside of the structure of the Frontón Recoletos. Consequently. This value was higher than two times the radio obtained in the first cylindrical thin concrete shell.5 metres. the roof included two longitudinal skylights consisted of a lattice frame of equilateral triangles. as for example the Budapest shell. which value was 290:1 (Appendix B. constructed in Jena. the asymmetric directrix without beam at the connection between both cylindrical sectors. at the big lobe. which dimensions were 40 per 11. to 30 centimetres. 55 per 32. the roof had a variation of thickness.1). Secondly. the overall dimensions. at the connection of both cylinders. the shape of the roof incorporated two innovations that it had never been constructed before in this kind of structures: On one hand.1). Lastly. On the other hand.1) was 690:1.
Figure 25: Cylindrical thin concrete shells constructed in the 30s. 23 . The overall characteristics are showed in the Appendix B.1.
This sport is played as either singles or doubles on a fronton with a hard rubber ball. This Sport was invented in the 19th century in the Basque region in Spain. 9 24 . where the ball would go when it is caught. for a player to insert his/her hand. The opponent needs to be able to catch it before it hits the ground or after its first bounce and return it back to the wall. called pelota. are known as the “frontón”.2. The game is played against three walls: the font wall. where it remains highly popular today.122) This factor has to be considered in the design of the structure in order to avoid future problems caused by the ball impact. the back wall and the side wall. (Guiness 1990. p. JaiAlai is known as the fastest game in the world. The three walls and the court together. p. which is hurled with a wicker basket 9 attached to the player arm. also called Jai Alai (figure 26). The object of the sport is to throw the ball at the wall in such a way that it is hard for the opponent to catch and return.47) and for this reason. Figure 26: Jai Alai court and Jai Alai player. and a basket. The cesta is basically made up of a glove. The speed of the fastest ball recorded is 300 km/h (Fortin 2000.1 Basque Pelota Sport This structure was designed to play Basque Pelota.
with a tubular section of reinforced concrete (figure 27). which radius were 6. Firstly. In this structure. Figure 27: Transverse trussed girders. longitudinal girders as well as two intersected lobes.1). Finally. This prevalence of this idea would have meant an ignorance of the resistant phenomenon of the shell structure which. after the report carried out by Mr. consisting of a lattice frame of equilateral triangles whose sides measured 1. the roof has to cover a well light rectangular pitch. we thought it necessary to dismiss the idea held by traditionalists that the project involved two barrel vaults resting on a longitudinal beam.15). intersected orthogonally along a joint forming the outline of a seagull (Torroja 1962a. Torroja showed his deep philosophical thought using the next explanation.2. The directrix consisted of two sections of cylindrical sectors. which means not using anything more than what is strictly necessary because the spaciousness inside the facility as well as the roof aesthetic value are decreased when unnecessary elements are considered. enclosed by three walls for the rebound of the ball (figure 26). These walls should be at least 25 metres in height. These longer skylights improved the resistant and functional behaviour of the shell as well as the roof aesthetic value (Torroja 1942.16). the extension of the skylights along all the generators length was recommended. in the part closest to the intersection or seagull outline has its own specific characteristics” (Torroja 1942. the shape of these trusses were both structurally and aesthetically unsatisfactory. In the original Torroja’s design.269). “On the other hand. the designer tried to “suppressing superfluous elements” (Torroja 1942. the aesthetic value was always considered in the Torroja’s works. p. p. This design had also some disadvantages: very large skylights are needed and the left side was too much illuminated. on each of the two cylindrical sections. all the conditions were solved with the design of the constructed structure. p.4 metres. Sunlight was obtained by the construction of two skylights (figure 23). Furthermore. Ribera and Aguirre with the purpose of checking the work viability.109).4 metres and 12.2 metres. In this structure. Furthermore.2 Roof design The design of the basque pelota facility demands very functional conditions. the place needs sunlight in order to play Jai Alai without any artificial light during the day (Fernández 2000. 25 . these structures were located only along the centre of the shell but. p. The next alternative was to place two longitudinal girders across the skylights. p. The designer based the roof design on the following idea “The primarily essence of beauty is the perfect correlation between the real nature and the apparent form” (Torroja 1962b. The first solution thought was to arrange a number of transverse trussed girders connected by longitudinal joists (figure 27) however. whose thickness varies from eight to 16 centimetres. Torroja searched different ways to cover the building based on all the preceding factors as well as the aesthetic design of the structure. which consisted of a very thin shell.130). thereby making them support the roof (figure 27). p.
would have not been so much worth. “Had I to build it again. Torroja argued after the incident “No doubt the collapse of the shell could also have been avoided if these reinforcement rings had been supplied at the time of its erection” (Torroja 1962a. I should provide such reinforcement ribs” (Torroja 1962a. then he changed his consideration because the ribs were finally considered by Torroja structural elements instead of “superfluous elements”. the structures were built. the aesthetic and economic factors of the roof. the shell roof received several hits. This is one of the thesis objectives: determining if the ribs would have improved the structural behaviour of the shell. p. However. 10 The study of the ribs thought by Torroja is showed in the section 3.During the Spanish Civil War. Furthermore. This declaration shows how the designer was able to develop his ideas even after that. after this reinforcement.7). However. The shock wave from the explosions caused severe deformation in the structure. p. the roof collapsed when the repair work was beginning.6. It involved reinforced concrete ribs 10 in order to improve the roof structural behaviour. 26 . at the beginning. After the war. some of them passing through it. he said that these ribs decrease the roof aesthetic value.7). a design to repair the structure was made. This is one example of how the designer is always growing up with his/her designs and how he/she is always learning from them.
the wind and snow load laws were supposed as simplified model based on the preceding obtained results in similar structures. the Poisson number was supposed negligible by Torroja. where different hypotheses were considered. in addition to all the classics assumptions. materials and stiffness because a similar structural behaviour was assumed. These hypotheses are not obviously justifiable in general for the construction made of reinforced concrete: after all.3 Theoretical calculations Nowadays. Secondly. computers can easily be used to model the behaviour of shell structures. However. one of the most important advantages of this material is the possibility of disposing the steel reinforcing bars nonuniformly over the surface of the shell in order to give local strengthening: and this gives nonuniform Elasticity Modulus and surface density. The Frontón Recoletos incorporate new characteristics that had never been studied in the preceding structures and therefore. density and Elasticity Modulus. while in the second one the edge effects (Torroja 1942. taking into account the flexural actions. This hypothesis was also considered by other designers in preceding shell structures. the material is considered homogeneous and follows the Hooke’s and Kirchoff’s laws as well as all the deflections at the surface of the shell are reduced.3132). the transverse contractions can be considered null because the shell’s thickness was thin and therefore. All the previous theories of cylindrical shells have assumed different simplifying hypotheses. like Dischinger in Budapest (Torroja 1942. the skylights were modelled like a normal shell section with the same loads. If the calculations are done by hand the structure cannot be completely analyzed because the problem is too complex and it is indispensable considering some hypotheses in order to simplify the problem.2. 27 . On the other hand. new simplifying hypotheses were considered: Firstly. For example. different elements in each problem were analyzed: in the first analysis the external load. the designer supposed in the theoretical calculations that the edged generators and directrixes were connected with the walls by continuous supports. which means without considering the flexural actions and as a plate in the second one. On one hand. this technology was not available and all the calculations were done by hand. Thirdly. thickness. The shell analysis could not be done directly because the problem presented some mathematical difficulties. Finally. the method applied by Finsterwalder and Dischinger in the roofs of Frankfurt and Budapest was followed. However. p. Therefore. in 1952 when the Frontón Recoletos was calculated. p. the designer assumed that the shell had uniform thickness. Fourthly. in order to achieve the solution. the construction drawing showed that the connection between the edges of the shell and the wall consisted on concentrated connection acting as springs. This method was based on physical and mathematical exact theories and the shell analysis was divided into two partial problems. the shell had different ways to working in each of these problems: as a membrane in the first analysis.19).
Frontón Recoletos structure. Absence of large beams at the intersection points between the two cylindrical sectors: In the Budapest shell. These circles served as a basis for drawing the isostatic system and the isobars (figure 35) along the shell middle surface.   The stresses (figure 28) considered in the shell analysis were: the flexions along the directrix. using the same method (Antuña 2003. p. Afterward. which had never been constructed before. Finally. 1942.1956). compared with the roof constructed in Budapest by Dischinger. Since the conception of the building. the stresses 11 and the deflections were calculated using these equations. The innovative Fronton’s characteristics.144). Nevertheless. Nevertheless. were: Greater size: The Budapest shell was 40 metres long and 11. The calculations were based on a nine differential equations system obtained from the equilibrium and compatibility conditions of the shell’s structure. only in the biggest lobe. were introduced in this work. 11 28 . p. however in the Frontón roof both lobes were joined forming the outline of a seagull. both sectors were joined by a beam. This innovation improved the aesthetic perception of all the structure because the connection was visually less heavy (figure 29). Mohr’s circles corresponding to the stresses in the tangent plane were drawn on a plan. Once the stresses and the deflections had been obtained for all the points of the shell. the stresses along the generator and directrix directions as well as the shear stresses. in the Frontón structure the directrix consisted of two asymmetric cylindrical sectors in size and position (figure 29). was 55 meters long and 23 metres wide (figure 29).Figure 28: Differential element of the shell including the stresses considered in the calculations and reinforced plan of middle developed section of the Fronton Recoletos. which was calculated. the Frontón Recoletos was considered a structural challenge because new structural conditions. Asymmetric directrix: The Budapest roof was composed by two symmetric cylindrical sectors.8 metres wide while. the longitudinal bending moments and the torsion moments were considered negligible. these diagrams were used in order to obtain the steelreinforcing bars (figure 28) (Torroja.
   The Joins between the roof and the walls: In the Budapest shell. vertically and horizontally. analyze and calculate their new and innovative structures were for example Gaudí or Insler. Figure 29: Size comparison in plan between the Frontón and Budapest shells and Directrix comparison between the same both structures. Nevertheless. The adaptations carried out by Torroja were produced in different parts of the Finsterwalder and Dischinger’s method. In this joins. is considered a common practice in the structural artist. the cylindrical sectors and the walls were connected by large beams. Therefore. which forced the designer to include a strong tie beam in 29 . The first important modification was the absence of beam at the connection of the cylinder sectors. the wellknown Freyssinet’s hinges made of reinforced concrete were used. the transversal movements. the designer considered this work as a way of developing the cylindrical shells theory. are not allowed (figure 30). design. all the results and calculations were published. than the Budapest shell. Torroja carried out real deflections measure during and after the construction of the structure. however in the Frontón roof. All these introduced structural innovations did not allow the exact mathematical solution applying the Finsterwalder and Dischinger’s method. Skylights: The Frontón Recoletos was the first thin concrete shell roof which included this kind of longitudinal skylights with 55 metres length. Furthermore. without fear of cannot know the exact solution. Torroja instead of refrain from building the structure adapted the existing methods in order to obtain an approximate solution of the behaviour of the shells. Finally. Other designers who created their own structural models in order to understand. For that reason. The capacity of changing the available methods. Figure 30: Joins between the wall and the shell along the generators of the Frontón Recoletos. the rotations and longitudinal movements are allowed however. the bigger size of the large slope curve of the Torroja’s structure produced more complex load laws. like wind and snow. exact theoretical model in order to analyze the structural behaviour was not available.
All these formulas depend on the maximum wind speed measured in Madrid “V”.21). 30 m/s.3 of this thesis. p. However. This law consisted of constant values at generators and sinoidal variation along the directrix (formula 3). were considered. Secondly.24). On one hand. the symmetric condition could not be applied because the directrix was asymmetric and therefore. This Torroja’s hypothesis is checked in the section 3. the problem was more complex. This variation depended on the angle between the vertical and the directrix perpendicular line “ " as well as on the maximum value of wind stress measured in Madrid “A”. Consequently. these structures were not considered in the differential equations because the exact calculations would have been too much complex. the wind suction was not considered because Torroja supposed that the structural behaviour was improved when the suction effects were considered. which value was approximated to 40 kg/m2 by the formulas of Stenton. 6. Thirdly. Dines and Nipher (formulas 5. the report carried out by Mr Ribera and Aguirre to check the work viability recommended the study of the wind suction effects in a scalemodel of 1/10. Torroja used the experimental results of the cylinder case to approximate the wind suction law along the directrix (figure 66 and formula 4). The analysis of these three loads is presented in this chapter. Nevertheless. [3] Torroja based the wind load on two assumptions. when the shell had been calculated. p. was proportioned by the Spanish Meteorological Department (Torroja 1942.that location. the effects of the loads were studied separately and therefore. However. The exact wind forces in the Frontón Recoletos shell could not easily been determined because it shapes had not been studied before. to study the wind effect using this technique was not possible because this test greatly increases the cost of studying the structure. On the other hand. a wind law was proposed by Torroja. the wind load could not be considered negligible because the structure was bigger than the similar preceding roofs. Hence. three load cases: dead weight. the snow load cannot be assimilated to the dead weight because more snow was accumulated over the roof because the large slope curve of the Frontón Recoletos shell was higher. “Instrucción para estructuras urbanas” proposed by Mendizabal. The maximum values of this law were located at the edges of the slopes as well as the minimums on the top of the shell. the snow and the wind. the both sides of the shell were supposed simultaneously in compression due to the existence of buildings near from the location of the structure (figure 31). 7). The second change consisted of including the skylights creating a lighter and more flexible structure because the continuity of the shell was broken. 30 . p. the maximum value of wind stress was 40 kg/m2 (Torroja 1942. This hypothesis depends on the maximum pressure over the cylinder “ ". Torroja explained that the structure should be analyzed by wind tunnel test in order to obtain the accurate wind load laws along the shell directrix. According to the Spanish regulation.16). which value. Lastly.21. which represents an important part of the reinforcements bars needed in the shell (Torroja 1942. The third modification consisted of the consideration of more complex loads laws: Firstly.
This way of defining the wind suction effects is another example of the capacity showed by Torroja of adapting the available method to obtain useful approximate results.Figure 31: Wind load law at the directrix without considering the suction 3 0. snow and wind without considering the wind suction effects (formula 8). 130 40 sin 0.4 2 [8] Figure 32: Wind load law considering the suction effects along the directrix. the wind load law considering the suction effects were obtained (figure 28) by combination of the wind and snow load laws. Accordingly.05 sin 0. 31 . the wind load law.064 30 0.7 0. was modified by Torroja in order to obtain a linear combination law of the other calculated laws.06 0.05 30 120 cos 40 sin [4] 40 kg/m [5] [6] [7] 37 kg/m 45 kg/m With the purpose of checking easily the suctions effects in the theoretical model. without the necessity of repeating the calculations.064 0.7 0. considering the suctions effects.7 0.06 30 0.7 0.
This hypothesis depends on the parameter “ ” explained before and on the parameter “B”. cos [9] Figure 33: Snow load law along the directrix.20).20). p. This constant load was calculated considering a constant thickness of 9 centimetres along the shell (Torroja 1942. the dead weight (figure 34). p. the difference with skylight weight was considered negligible. 32 . was considered 250 kg/m2 constant in all the shell and therefore. Figure 34: Dead weight load law along the directrix. with maximum values on the top of the cylinder and minimum at the edges of the slope (figure 33). was 65 kg/m2 (Torroja 1942. according to the same regulation proposed by Torroja.The snow load law was proposed constant at generators and cosenoidal variation at directrix (formula 9). The last load. which value.
this basic model was brought closer to the reality by successive steps: Firstly. modelled by springs in the structure. the effect of the real supports. which consisted of incorporating different hypotheses to the basic model. Afterwards. This effect was studied comparing the shape and the maximum values measured by Torroja along the central directrix (figure 36) with the results obtained by Lusas. considering the same simplifications and hypotheses. The analysis was principally based on the isobars calculated by Torroja (figure 35). This assumption can be logically assumed because these diagrams were used to calculate the reinforcement bars in the shell.Chapter 3 Structural Analysis The structural analysis presented in this report was based on the development of successive models. was studied. This initial model tried to be as similar as possible to the structure calculated by hand. the load combination used to obtain all the diagrams was not explained in all the bibliography consulted. Lastly. The problems found during the analysis of the structure were the following: Firstly. which had not been considered in the Torroja’s model. The purposes of all these successive models were checking the hypotheses considered during the simplifications assumed by the designer during the calculation of the shell as well as comparing the behaviour of the different Lusas’ models with the values measured in the actual structure and in the smallscale model. along the structural analysis two more factors were supposed. were supposed as kg/cm2 because 33 . which were measured in the theoretical. with the purpose of comparing the maximum values and the overall shape of the deformations in the different models. a brief study of the possible load cases considered by Torroja in his diagrams was done. in order to solve this problem. Thirdly. the skylights were modelled as lattice frames of equilateral triangles instead of a constantthick shell as was supposed in the calculations done by hand. with the purpose of checking the theoretical calculations. actual structure and smallscale model (figure 37) as well as in the smallscale tests carried out by Torroja (Torroja 1942. carried out by Torroja. The other factor considered was the deformations. using current ways to calculate shell structures. The first of these factors. Secondly. The first additional study was the absence of transversal bending moments along the shell in order to check the efficient structural behaviour of the shell working as a membrane. Therefore. However. the units of the isobar lines and the thickness of the shell used to calculate isobar diagrams were not described. Fourthly. Secondly. the units of the isobars obtained by Torroja. it was studied the variation of shell’s thickness.123126). p. a study about the reinforcement ribs proposed by Torroja in order to improve the structural behaviour of the shell was carried out. the wind suction effects were considered.
In order to make these comparisons easier: Firstly. as for example the maximum value of concrete working load. In horizontal is located the directrix: on the left is located the smallest cylindrical sector and on the right the biggest one. the maximum values of the isobars obtained by Torroja 13 were considered in the Lusas models by means of the representation in different colour. Half section considering all the directrix and only half generator because the structural behaviour when symmetric loads are applied. the Lusas transversal bending moments were coloured in the same colours in the points where the maximum values obtained by Torroja 14 were exceeded (Appendix B.98). p. In each successive model. of all the points where these maximum values of isobars were exceeded. The second factor. the shell thickness considered in the isobars’ diagrams. 34 . red in tensions and blue in compressions. 50 kg/cm2 (Torroja 1942. the transversal bending moments and the deflections. These diagrams consist on half section 12 of the developed plan. The maximum values measured in the isobars presented by Torroja (figure 35) were 8 106 kg/cm2 for maximum tension stress located at the connection between both cylindrical sectors and 5. These values were approximated along the analysis as 8 MPa and 5. were compared with the results presented by Lusas. p.8 MPa. is symmetric. Figure 35: Isobars of maximum compression stress and maximum tension stress obtained by Torroja. Lastly.20). Lastly. the deflections obtained by Torroja were drawn using splines in order to join the points in a new figure where the Lusas deflections were included. Secondly. the overall shape and the maximum values obtained by Torroja in the isobars.2). was assumed to be constant 8 centimetres to the safe side because the values of the isobars are lower when the thickness is increased.8 106 kg/cm2 for maximum compression stresses measured close form the central generator of the bigger cylindrical sector. the location of the section where the deflections and the transversal bending moments were measured was supposed at the central directrix because this section is the most unfavourable section when symmetrical loads are applied. 14 13 12 The maximum value of the transversal bending moments was 1030 kg m/m (Torroja 1942.all the rest of parameters in the Torroja’s report were expressed with these units.
the plan of the diagrams obtained by Lusas was compared with the developed diagrams presented by Torroja. with the purpose of comparing easily these points with the programme outputs. these deformations were connected by splines in order to make a deformation line for each case. However. is located at the connection between both cylindrical sectors and in the middle surface of the smallest lobe. Secondly. Nevertheless. the overall shape of the Isobars’ lines is very similar for the both diagrams because of the high value of the large slope curve in the cylindrical sector shape. On the other hand. the isobars obtained by Torroja (figure 35). in order to simplify the model. The maximum value. This simplification can be assumed with an acceptable margin of error. the deformations obtained by Torroja in the reality and in the smallscale models consisted of noncontinuous deflections along the directrix. The vertical line represents the seagull profile. The discontinue lines represent the theoretical deformations. the comparison between both methods is based on the maximum values of the isobars. which overall shape can be easily compared. Different simplifications along the structural analysis were carried out.Figure 36: Torroja’s transversal bending moments. the stress and deflection diagrams cannot be developed easily with the programme used to analyze the structure. On one hand. which do not depend on the development of the diagrams. the biggest points represent the deformations in the smallscale model and the smallest points represent the deformations in the actual structure. Therefore. Figure 37: Deformations obtained by Torroja in different models. were developed in a flat surface. around 300 kg m/m. maximum compressions and tensions along the middle surface of the shell. Firstly. This diagram consists of a directrix viewed in plan: On the left is located the biggest cylinder and on the right the smallest cylinder. These lines were drawn trying to imitate 35 .
For that reason. some factors that could be studied in the future in order to improve the knowledge of the structural behaviour of the Frontón Recoletos thin concrete shell were studied. the next considerations were followed: each cylindrical sector had different spline line. the values of the bending moment diagram were measured directly using the scale proposed by Torroja in figure 30.the shape presented by Torroja in the theoretical calculations (figure 36) as well as considering that the stiffness of the seagull profile produces an orthogonal joint between both lobes when the loads are applied (Torroja 1942. At the end of this chapter. the maximum values measured in that diagram were considered only like approximate numbers. This simplification can be considered as an approximation of the real supports with enough accuracy considering the scope of this thesis. This assumption can logically be assumed because the plans. both spline lines joined with the wall considering vertical tangent. p. Lastly. However. after being printed. 15 The deformation obtained by Torroja can be easily measured using the scale rule in the figure 37. which value was not clearly stated in the available plans. the real supports located at the connection between the shell and the walls were approximated as beams working as springs as explained in Appendix A. were measured directly in the diagrams presented by Torroja. Thirdly. the location and overall dimensions of the real supports at the generators (figure 87) and the directrix (figure 86) or the deflections obtained by Torroja for the different models 15. Fourthly. figure 9). some factors. both lobes joined orthogonally at the seagull’s profile. 36 . keep the dimensions of the structure.48). For example. these values were based on mistakes during the calculation process (Torroja 1942.5 instead of modelling all the beams proposed by Torroja. In order to model the deformation lines.
which fixed the translations along the Y and Xaxis and allowed the rotations. the procedure used to define the dead weight as well as the wind and snow loads is explained in Appendix A. homogeneous and linear material that obeying Hooke's law with the Elasticity Modulus equal to 30 109 N/m2 and the Poisson number negligible as was explained at the section 2.1 First Model: Similar to Calculus. considering the same simplifications and hypotheses. The Lusas model was based on the following characteristics: Firstly. Secondly. and the “Support 2”. the supports used by Torroja in the theoretical calculations 16 were considered (figure 38) instead of the supports presented in the plans. with the purpose of checking the theoretical calculations. 3. 17 16 The elements QSI4 are usually used in the analysis of threedimensional thin shells and takes into account both membrane and flexural deformations (Appendix A. However. the thickness variation was not considered and 8 centimetres constant thickness were supposed. This initial model tried to be as similar as possible to the structure calculated by hand. which rest on continuous supports similar to the directrix (Torroja 1942 page 11). the skylights were modelled as a normal closed shell section with constant thickness instead of the lattice frames of equilateral triangles constructed in the real structure. Afterwards. using current ways to design shell structures. The first element was associated to the central point of the end of the generators and the other to the rest of edged lines. Secondly. Thirdly. These surfaces were meshed with 30 divisions along the both localsurface directions producing a balanced model considering the accuracy and the speed of calculation. The first model (figure 38) was considered similar to the model used by Torroja in his calculations because it was based on the same hypotheses: Firstly.1. the supports in the Lusas model (figure 38) were based on two different defined elements: the “Support 1”.3. which consisted of incorporating different hypotheses to the basic model. which were studied in the following models. p. 37 . in the dead weight 9 centimetres thickness were assumed (Torroja 1942.1).3 of this thesis. The structural analysis was based on the development of successive models. Lastly. the geometry consisted of four surface elements QSI4 17 (figure 38) in order to model the support conditions. Finally. and along the rest of their length. which fixed all the translations and allowed the rotations. carried out by Torroja.1 Hypotheses and Objectives. The theoretical support consisted on a continuous supports permitting the longitudinal expansion of the shell at the directrix and starting points at the edges joined to the wall at their centre.20). this basic model was brought closer to the reality by successive steps. the concrete was considered an elastic.3.
Secondly. Therefore. As was explained before. the next assumptions were supposed: Firstly. Thirdly. the Lusas results had to be as similar. at the points where the maximum values presented by Torroja were exceeded. as possible to the results obtained by Torroja. the wind suction effects were considered as a combination of the wind and snow load laws when the calculations had been done. 19 38 . Z along the generators and Y along the vertical. the transversal bending moments are analyzed. the load combination considered by Torroja in the calculation of the isobars and deflections could not be found. the surfaces and the supports: all the translations are fixed at the central points of the generators. in all the bibliography consulted. the most logical load combinations should be the most unfavourable because the calculations of the reinforcement bars were based on the isobars. Therefore. Lastly.Figure 38: Mesh of the first Lusas model. Secondly. the isobar diagrams are studied because the reinforcement bars were obtained from these stresses. the obtained conclusions are showed. which objective is obtaining the most probable load case considered by Torroja in the isobar and deflection diagrams. at the rest of the edges only the vertical and horizontal translations are fixed (X and Y 18axis) and the rotations are free for all the edge points. the starting point of the analysis is a brief study of the load cases. The principle objective of the first Lusas model was checking the accuracy of the theoretical method used to calculate the structure by hand using current ways to design shell structures. a brief analysis about the load case used in the deflections and isobar diagrams was done because this factor was not clearly explained in all the consulted bibliography. the wind suction effects could not be considered in the load combination.2 Study of the Load cases. In this study. in shape and maximum values. In order to make this comparison easier the Lusas diagrams were coloured. The structural analysis is divided into three parts: First. the overall shape and the maximum values of the measured deflections are studied. 3. in red in tension and blue in compression. After that analysis. Knowing this load case is a crucial step in the comparison of the different models. The analysis was based on the comparison 19 of the isobars diagrams presented by Torroja with the Lusas results considering four different load cases 20: 18 The axis used in Lusas (figure 38) were X along the directrix.1. the load combination should be the same for the calculation of the deflections and the isobars. Thirdly. Finally.
6). the load case four: dead weight with snow and wind loads can be logically assumed as the load case used by Torroja in the calculation of the isobar diagrams. red and orange as well as the values presented by Torroja measured in figure 35. green. For this load case. are highly similar to the effects of the snow as is showed by the comparison between the maximum values of both isobar diagrams in the load cases two and three.6). The diagram is based on five lines: four load cases calculated by the first Lusas model. these values could not be compared directly with the Lusas results because both models were based on different hypotheses. Therefore. Load case one: Dead weight. 30 Tension stress isobars (MPa) 25 20 15 10 5 0 ‐5 0 5 10 15 20 Distance X (m) 25 30 Load case 1 Load case 2 Load case 3 Load case 4 Torroja Figure 39: Maximum values of the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix. For example. However. Load case four: Dead weight with snow load and wind load. in the Appendix C the same load cases were presented in the Torroja’s deflections. Load case two: Dead weight with wind load.5 times higher than the values presented by Torroja (Appendix A. the Lusas isobars are around 2.5 times higher in tension stresses than the values presented by Torroja (Appendix A. which were based on the isobar diagram. Therefore. the effects of the wind. the central directrix of the Torroja’s model was undeveloped in order to homogenize both methods. the isobar values along the undeveloped central directrix between the both different models 21 were compared (figures 39 and 40). Load case three: Dead weight with snow load.6). Furthermore. the maximum values of the tension stress isobars are around 3. the Lusas values are more similar to the results obtained by Torroja in the isobar diagram of maximum compression stress. the load case four is the most unfavourable load case. analyzed all these assumptions. These four load cases were obtained considering the load cases tested by Torroja in the smallscale model without the wind suction effects. which are coloured in black. in order to compare easily the shape of these diagrams. without suctions. were calculated supposing the most unfavourable load combination to be on the safe side. However. Secondly. 21 20 The values of the isobars along the central directrix supposed in the theoretical model were directly measured from the isobars diagrams. the most similar results to the isobars obtained by Torroja are obtained when the first load case is considered. which are coloured in blue. the hypothesis supposed at the beginning of the analysis that the same load case was used in both isobars and vertical deflections diagrams can be logically assumed. Thirdly. this load case cannot be considered the load case used by Torroja because the reinforcement bars. However. Therefore. 39 . The analysis of these diagrams showed some conclusions: Firstly. Lastly. The study was initially based on the isobar diagrams calculated by Lusas considering the four load cases (Appendix A.
the structural behaviour and the overall deformations of the threedimensional Lusas model are analyzed. the bending moments and the isobars. which are coloured in black. this section at the connection between both vertical walls had a symmetric movement along the Zaxis (figure 44). as an example to better understanding these sections. the load case obtained in the preceding study: dead weight with snow and wind loads. The analysis of the deflections is divided into two parts. which are coloured in blue. the deflections in the Yaxis at the connection between both cylindrical sectors (figure 43) were analyzed. the most unfavourable sections are located parallel to the Zaxis because these sections act like a simply supported beam. First. 40 . which maximum value 8 millimetres allows reducing the bending moments in the structure imitating the membrane behaviour pursued by the designer. Three different elements are analyzed in the first model: the deflections.2 Compression stress isobars (MPa) 0 ‐2 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 Distance X (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Load case 1 Load case 2 Load case 3 Load case 4 Torroja ‐10 Figure 40: Maximum values of the compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix.3 centimetres. red and orange as well as the values obtained by Torroja measured in figure 35. and following a parabolic law. 15. green. These vertical deformations are symmetric: starting with null value at edges. due to the support conditions. 3. Therefore. For all these results. with 55 metres length. After that. The analysis of the shape of the deflections in the threedimensional Lusas model (3D model) (figure 41 and 42) showed two different conclusions: Firstly.3 Analysis. The diagram is based on five lines: four load cases calculated by the first Lusas model. Furthermore. the deformations obtained by Torroja are compared with the Lusas results. which maximum value. was considered.1. is located at the centre of the diagram.
5 metres. Z = 27.5 metres. All the axes were measured in metres and are drawn in figure 32. The maximum value 15. The Yaxis is associated with the vertical and the Xaxis with the horizontal. Figure 43: Absolute verticaldeflections in the connection between both cylinders (seagull profile) along the Zaxis 22 calculated by the first Lusas model. The Zaxis corresponds to the generators.3 centimetres is located at the central section. Figure 42: Deflections in the in the 3D model calculated by the first Lusas model: View parallel to Xaxis at the section X = 32. The common origin is the generator joined with the wall at the biggest cylinder.Figure 41: Deflections in the 3D model calculated by the first Lusas model: Isometric view and the plan view. 22 41 .
the absolute deflection diagrams were studied. In this diagram. The orthogonality of the deformed seagull profile is checked in the diagram obtained by Torroja (Appendix C). the highest vertical deflections are located at the smallest cylindrical sector (figure 46). one problem appeared. the location of the section where the deflections had been measured was not clearly explained (figure 37). which is highest at the smallest lobe because the span was lowest. this directrix was supposed.Figure 44: Absolute Zdeflections along the seagull profile calculated the first Lusas model. null deflections were measured as well as the deformed seagull profile kept orthogonal to the connection between the two cylindrical sectors 24. The overall shape and the values obtained by Lusas were compared with the different deflections presented by Torroja. These deflections were measured in the theoretical model. the hypothesis of the location of the measured deflections at the central directrix was checked. as was explained before. both models could be compared. 24 23 42 . Z = 0 metres and Z = 55 metres. in the actual structure as well as in the smallscale model. The maximum values 8 millimetres are located at the edges. Furthermore. However. which corresponds to the central directrix when symmetric loads 23 are applied. to be on the safe side. All the taken pictures of the original diagrams calculated by Torroja are presented in the Appendix C. as the most unfavourable section. The red line represents the deformations calculated by the programme and the the black one the geometry without applied loads. Figure 45: Vertical Lusas deformations at the central directrix. After the study of the overall shape. Firstly. during the comparison procedure. A original diagram of deflections was found. This localization is explained by the different stiffness along the structure. the points where the directrix is During the research carried out by the Professor Ignacio Payá Zaforteza in the “Archivo Torroja”. Therefore. The overall shape of the deformations obtained by Lusas (figure 45) was practically equal to the theoretical Torroja’s deformations (figure 37): At the connection with the generators. Therefore.
Appendix B. However. At these points. taking the variation of the thickness into consideration a stiffer structure is produced. were identified.51 metres the smallest lobe is defined. in other points the difference is higher as for example at the point located around the skylight of the biggest cylindrical sector. some points at the biggest cylinder. in most of the points measured by Torroja. However.4 metres. At this point. Both discrepancies can be explained by the higher weight and stiffness of the skylights that was not considered in the first model as well as by the fact that all the deflections presented by Torroja were measured directly from figure 37 and this procedure has an important measurement error. 15 centimetres (Tables 2 and 3. Finally. the differences of the three models. and from coordinate X = 23 metres to X = 32. This diagram is the same for all the Lusas vertical deflections presented in the succesive models. Therefore.4 centimetres.2 centimetres lower than the values presented by the other models.4 centimetres and it is located at the point with coordinate X = 20.2). in the second model the vertical deflections will probably be reduced regarding first Lusas model. is around 9 % higher than the maximum value measured in the other models. the position of the reinforcement bars must be changed because the bending moments had different directions. 16. 25 43 . where positive deflections are measured.connected with the wall had null vertical deflection due to the hypotheses considered at the supports.3 metres. Figure 46: Absolute Lusas vertical deflections presented by the first Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix 25. From the coordinate X = 0 metres to X = 23 metres defines the biggest cylindrical sector. This value represents only 48 % of the deflections measured by Torroja. the maximum value obtained by Lusas. the Lusas vertical deflection is 4. are lower than 2 centimetres. Secondly. which Xcoordinate was 15. The maximum vertical deflection is 16. The comparison of the vertical deflections and deformations along the directrix (figure 47 and 48) showed: Firstly.
the behaviour of the shell under symmetrical loads was checked.1 of this thesis about the way of joined the different points in each model were used. The Lusas deflections are coloured in red.Figure 47: Comparison of the deformations measured by different models. 26 44 . the results measured in the actual structure in blue and in the smallscale model in green. 26 5 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 0 ‐5 ‐10 ‐15 ‐20 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Lusas model Small‐scale model Actual structure Figure 48: Absolute vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models. the deflections measured in the actual structure in blue and in the smallscale model deflections in green.2. These deformations are presented along the central directrix with a scale deformation 1/200. The procedure used was based on the analysis of the deformation in the Zaxis along the central directrix (figure 49). All the distortions and the Xcoordinates are presented in Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix B. The Lusas deflections are coloured in red. To make this figure. the shape without applied loads is coloured in black. Additionally. These deflections are practically negligible showing the symmetrical behaviour of the section. the simplifications explained in the section 3.
as was explained before. the absence of longitudinal bending moments was checked. For that reason. After the study of the deflections. This difference could be explained by the assumption of different hypotheses in both models. However. the shape and the maximum transversal bending moments presented in the diagrams presented by Torroja (figure 36) were compared with the Lusas results. Finally. The initial analysis of the transversal bending moments was based on the comparison between the Lusas results (figure 50) and the diagrams obtained by Torroja (figure 36). as for example the thickness variation along the shell. After that. The Lusas diagram has the opposite bending moment sign. at the connection of the biggest lobe with the wall. The location of this diagram was assumed to be at the central directrix as was explained before. the shape presents higher slope in the Lusas results. after the analysis of the assumptions carried out by Torroja the most logical explanation was that his calculations were not accurate enough because the diagram was based on some previous mistakes (Torroja 1942.Figure 49: Absolute Lusas Zdeflections presented by the first Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix. the bending moments were studied in order to check the efficient structural behaviour of the shell working as a membrane. The maximum of the values measured by Torroja in this diagram around 300 kg m/m are approximately 33 % of the maximum Lusas bending moments. where the transversal bending moments along one transversal section were presented. the calculations are more difficult and less intuitive as well as the thickness of the shell has to be greater. The analysis of the bending moments was divided into three parts: Firstly. the values measured in the isobar diagrams presented by Torroja are not considered in the next successive models and only the overall shape is compared. These moments appear in the structures in order to provide additional resistance when the membrane stresses are not enough to resist the applied loads. Therefore. the maximum values supposed in the calculation of the reinforcement bars were studied. in order to compare the results obtained by Lusas with the diagram presented by Torroja (figure 37) one of these diagrams was turned. However. p. 27 45 . However. The analysis showed that the shape of both diagrams is highly similar 27 at the connection between both cylindrical sectors as well as at the smallest lobe. if the bending moments are needed.97). which value was around 2000 kg m/m.
the price of the structure was higher because more steel was needed.Figure 50: Transversal bending moments presented by the first Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix.0 ‐1. the safety level of the building was also higher in order to avoid the made mistakes in the calculation process. is located at the connection between both cylindrical sectors and in the middle surface of the smallest lobe. both were compared drawing a common diagram 28 (figure 51). In order to check if the bending moments used to define the reinforcement bars were similar to the results presented by Lusas. which was based on the theoretical calculations.0 1. around 20000 N m/m or 2000 kg m/m.0 0. The maximum value. the value obtained by Torroja located at the seagull profile is around five times lower than the Lusas bending moment (Table 16.3. The Lusas bending moments are coloured in red.3).5 0.0 Bending moments KNm/m First Lusas model Torroja's bending moments 5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance X (m) Figure 51: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models. For example. above all regarding the positive bending moments. All the coordinates and differences are presented in Table 16 in Appendix B. one of the objectives proposed in the next model was studying if the variation of thickness along the shell reduced the bending moments. 46 .5 ‐2.0 ‐0. This assumption had two opposed consequences: On one hand. This figure showed that the bending moments calculated by Lusas are higher.5 2. The transversal bending moments considered by Torroja in order to calculate the reinforcement bars along the directrix (Torroja 1942 page 98) were around three times higher than the results presented in the bending moment diagram (figure 36). On the other hand. Therefore. These differences could be explained by different hypotheses considered in both models.5 1. and the results obtained by Torroja in blue. 28 The bending moment sign was based on figure 36. 2. Appendix B.5 0 ‐1.
in the Torroja’s diagram of maximum tension stress. The possible solution of this problem was found in the last page of the Torroja’s report where Torroja wrote a note for Dischinger. than in the Lusas results. For example.59 metres (Table 19. who was considered that the The maximum value of the transversal bending moments was around four times higher than the maximum value of longitudinal bending moment (Appendix A. After this analysis. 3.8 metres. based on the values along the central directrix. this problem has two logical explanations: Torroja’s calculations were wrong or some assumption introduced in the Lusas model is not true. the overall shape of the along the plan of halfundeveloped section diagrams was analyzed. 456 kg m/m. were coloured in red for tension stress and in blue for compression stress. the maximum value obtained by Torroja was located at the smallest cylindrical sector.55 metres. The maximum Lusas longitudinal bending moment. at the coordinate X = 20. is located at the connection between the seagull and the edge. Fourthly. the Lusas value is 5 % of the results obtained by Torroja (Table 21. the overall shape and the maximum values along the central directrix were studied. in the Torroja’s diagram of maximum compression stress. Consequently. more points with null value around the maximum peak were measured. This analysis shows the following conclusions: Firstly. After that. there was less number of points with null value than in the Lusas results. as is obtained by Lusas (Table 20. The second study of the isobars. in the maximum tension stress diagram. the longitudinal bending moments “My” were studied in Appendix A. consisted of the comparison between the Lusas results. based on the plan of half section of the shell. The analysis was divided into different parts: Firstly. The last studied element was the isobars because the reinforcement bars were based on these diagrams. These stresses were supposed negligible in the theoretical calculations carried out by Torroja.After the study of the transversal bending moments. Appendix B. For example. Other example is presented in the maximum compression stress diagram. the points where the maximum values measured by Torroja were exceeded. located at X = 21. some conclusions were obtained: Firstly. X = 13.11 metres. at X = 24. 31 47 . However. Appendix B. the localization of the reinforcement was right. These differences observed between both models are too much notable to be explained only for errors in the procedure of calculation. Therefore. 30 29 28 MPa for maximum tension stress. Thirdly.7). the shapes have different peaks localization in both models. Secondly. the maximum value obtained by Torroja is reached closer from the connection between both lobes. this value can be considered practically negligible in comparison with the maximum value of the transversal bending moments 29. In order to make easier this comparison. consists of the comparison between the results calculated by Lusas (figures 52 and 53) and the Torroja’s diagrams (figure 35).4). the maximum values calculated by Lusas 30 are higher 31 than the results obtained by Torroja.7.4).4). and the Torroja’s diagrams (figures 39 and 40). considering the load case four.5 times higher for the maximum tension stress. instead of at the biggest lobe. The first study of the isobars. at the point X = 32 metres. Secondly. Therefore. Appendix B. the highest values are located around the connection between the smallest cylinder and the wall. the hypothesis assumed by Torroja was confirmed. the overall shape of both plans is highly similar. as the reinforced bars are located following the isobars. in the Torroja’s diagram of maximum tension stress.
is located at the connection between both lobes. instead of the 8 centimetres supposed by Dischinger (Torroja 1942. the hypothesis of real thickness in the theoretical calculations carried out by Torroja is more probable. 28 MPa. Figure 52: Maximum tension stress isobars along the plan of the halfundeveloped section in the first Lusas model: The smallest cylindrical sector is located on the left. For that reason.thickness of 8 centimetres at the smallest cylindrical sector was too small 32. 32 Dischinger wrote this observation in his work “Entwicklung und Fortschritte im Eisenbeton”. Torroja explained that the theoretical thickness considered at the smallest lobe was 11 centimetres. This thickness corresponded to the real thickness for that section. p. Therefore.166). The maximum value. In that note. 48 . in the second model the variation of the thickness along the shell was studied with the purpose of identifying the observed discrepancies in the first model.
These discrepancies can be explained by the higher weight and stiffness of the skylights because this hypothesis are not considered in the first model. For example. is located at the biggest lobe. the results obtained in the second Lusas model will probably be more different to the Torroja’s deflections.1. Therefore. However. For example. Along the analysis of the first model. produces a stiffer structure reducing the vertical deflections. Therefore.39 MPa.The maximum value. the Lusas bending moments are higher than values supposed in the calculation of the reinforcement bars. Ninthly. Sixthly. Fifthly. Other factor that can explain these discrepancies is the error made in the measurement of the Torroja’s deflections. the diagram of vertical deflections presented in figure 37. as was supposed by Torroja in the theoretical calculations. the maximum values of vertical deflections are located at the small cylindrical sector. the assumption of the thickness variation along the shell might reduce the transversal bending moments. Firstly. the bending moments presented in figure 36 by Torroja were based on calculation mistakes. Fourthly. symmetrical vertical deflections is obtained when symmetrical loads are applied. the longitudinal bending moments can be considered negligible. This factor can be explained by different hypotheses considered in both models. snow and wind load. 9. which were measured directly in figure 37. the Lusas vertical deflections are generally lower than the results obtained by Torroja.Figure 53: Maximum compression stress isobars along the plan of the halfundeveloped section in the first Lusas model: The smallest cylindrical sector is located on the left . the peak of the isobars of maximum tension stress 49 . the most probable load case used by Torroja in the calculation of the isobars and deflections is the load case four consisting of dead weight. Secondly. the following conclusions were obtained. these values were not considered in the following models. was measured in the central directrix. Eighthly. Seventhly. 3. Thirdly. carried out in the second model. the assumption of the thickness variation.4 Conclusions. the model shows correctly the structural behaviour of the theoretical model considered by Torroja.
the second model was studied with the purpose of identifying if the variation of thickness can explain the observed differences in the maximum values of the isobars. the peak of the isobars of compression stress obtained by Torroja was located at the biggest lobe. in the Lusas model this point is located at the smallest cylindrical sector. Eleventh. the overall shape of the Lusas isobars is highly similar to the Torroja’s diagrams. the differences of the maximum values calculated by Lusas in the isobar diagrams are too much pronounced to be explained only for errors in the procedure of calculation.obtained by Torroja along the central directrix is located closer from the connection between both cylindrical sectors than in the Lusas results. Therefore. as these diagrams were used in order to calculate the reinforcement bars. However. the localization of these reinforcements were right. The possible explanation of this problem can be the assumption of the hypothesis of real thickness in the theoretical calculations. For that reason. Tenthly. 50 . Twelfth.
The element incorporated to the first model is only the assumption of variable thickness along the surface of the shell. 250 kg/m2. as approximation.1 Hypotheses and Objectives.3.142). the dead weight of the shell was supposed to be constant with the same value. The additional objectives were checking if the hypothesis of constant thickness was used in the calculation of the bending moments obtained by Torroja as well as if the increase of the thickness improved the structural behaviour of the shell. At the skylight edges. Therefore. However. Finally. The thickness is increased 8 centimetres in order to connect with the skylights. the difference between both first models is that the second model is stiffer than the first one. The assumption that the variation of thickness could reduce the maximum values of the isobar diagrams is a logical because if. was located at the seagull profile in order to cover the tie bars proposed by Torroja (Torroja 1942.16). p. considered in the first model. The maximum thickness. Figure 54: Variation of thickness along the central directrix. which were too much higher than the results presented by Torroja. All the distances are measured in metres. 3. The shell was designed with thickness variation along the directrix (figure 54) in order to optimize the structural behaviour of the roof.2. The thickness began with 8 centimetres at the connection between the biggest cylindrical sector and the wall. the thickness used to calculate the first Lusas isobars is 51 . the thickness was not measured in the consulted construction drawing and it was assumed 16 centimetres (Antuña 2003.2 Second Model: Variable Thickness. at the top of the smallest lobe the thickness was 11 centimetres. The second model (figure 55) was studied in order to find the explanation for the values obtained in the Lusas isobars. p. 30 centimetres.
8 MPa. However. 28 0. Multiplying the stress for the real thickness in each point and dividing for the constant thickness considered in the first model. the accurate results have to be obtained changing the thickness in all the elements in order to consider the effects of the shell as a whole.08 0.5 MPa (formula 10). the value is more similar to the results presented by Torroja. the supports and the procedure used to define the loads consisted of the same elements as defined in the first model. the maximum tension stress obtained in the first model changes from 28 MPa to 7. the geometry was defined by 36 surface elements QSI4 (figure 56) in order to model the thickness variation along the shell as well as the support conditions (Appendix A. This stress is more similar to the maximum value calculated by Torroja.30 7.4).increased by hand 33. The Lusas model was based on the following characteristics: Firstly. Secondly. These surfaces were meshed considering a number of finite elements that balanced the accuracy and the calculation speed in the Lusas model.5 MPa 10 Figure 55: Variation of thickness along the directrix in the second Lusas model and zoom of the seagull profile. 33 52 . For example.
the overall deformation shape and the maximum values of the deflections are studied. However.2. The first analysis was based on the vertical deflections along the central directrix as well as along the seagull profile. Secondly. This value is approximately 10 centimetres lower than the deformation obtained in the first model.Figure 56: Plan of the surface elements used in the second Lusas model and plan of the mesh used in the second Lusas model. which means 50 % of the deformations measured by Torroja in the actual structure and in the smallscale model at the same location (Tables 4 and 5.2. Appendix B.2 Analysis. the deflection shape at the seagull profile under symmetrical loads continues following a parabolic law (figure 57). Finally. The analysis is divided in the same parts studied in the first model: Firstly. For example. Another example is the maximum value at the 53 . the analysis started from other additional premises: Firstly. is located at the smallest cylindrical sector. the shapes are similar to the results obtained in the first Lusas model. For example. the vertical deflections and the bending moments might be reduced because the structure is stiffer and has to resist the same applied loads.1. Secondly. the obtained deflections are lower because the stiffness of the structure is increased by the assumption of real thickness along the shell. the structural behaviour under symmetrical loads should be symmetric. snow and wind loads. In the second model. the bending moments are analyzed. Thirdly. around 7 centimetres. the deflections should be more similar to the deformations obtained by Torroja in the actual structure as well as in the smallscale model because both shells were constructed considering the variation of thickness. the load combination considered is the load case four: dead weight. In both diagrams. All these assumptions are studied along this chapter. the maximum value of the vertical deflection. 3. the diagrams of isobars are studied.2). In addition of the hypothesis explained in the section 3.
seagull profile (figure 58), which is around 9 centimetres lower than the value obtained by Torroja.
Figure 57: Absolute vertical deflections presented by the second Lusas model along the seagull profile. The maximum vertical deflection, around 6 centimetres, is located at Z = 27.5 metres.
Figure 58: Absolute vertical deflections presented by the second Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix. The maximum vertical deformation 6.84 centimetres is located at X = 21.4 metres.
The analysis of the deflections lead to different conclusions: Firstly, as was supposed in the starting premises, the vertical deflections are improved with the assumption of variable thickness because the structure is less flexible. Secondly, Torroja probably used 8 centimetres constant thickness in the calculation of the theoretical deflection shapes (figure 37) because the values of the first model are more similar to the deformations obtained by Torroja than the results calculated by Lusas in the second model. Thirdly, the results of the actual structure and the smallscale model should be more similar to the deflections presented in the second Lusas model than the deflections calculated in the first one because both models are based on the hypothesis of variation of thickness (figure 59).
54
5 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 0 ‐5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Second Lusas model Small‐scale model Actual structure
‐10 ‐15 ‐20 Distance X (m)
Figure 59: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Lusas deflections (red line), the results measured in the actual structure (blue line) and in the smallscale model (green line).
The second study was based on the bending moments, which analysis is divided into two parts: Firstly, the transversal bending moments are studied. In this section, the both first models as well as the theoretical results are compared. After that, the absence of longitudinal bending moments is checked comparing the results also with the first model. The first analysis of the bending moments was based on the shape of the transversal bending moment diagrams. The shape obtained by Lusas (figure 60) is similar to the diagram presented by Torroja. Nevertheless, the values are generally higher in the Lusas model (figure 61). For example, 937 kg m/m higher at the point 43, located at the biggest cylinder, this value is around three times higher than the values obtained by Torroja (Table 17, Appendix B.3).
Figure 60: Transversal bending moments presented by the second Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix. The maximum value, around 30000 N m/m, is located at the smallest lobe.
The comparison between the first and the second Lusas models (figure 61) showed the following conclusions: First of all, the variation of thickness along the shell increases the transversal bending moments at the places where the thickness is increased, for example at the skylights. For that reason, the maximum value, located at the point 47, is 1458 kg m/m higher than the results obtained in the first model. This value is aproximately three times higher than the maximum value calculated by Torroja (Table 17, Appendix B.3). Analyzing all the previous results, the following conclusions, regarding the transversal bending moments, were obtained: Firstly, the assumption of constant thickness can be logically applied in the points located at the bigger cylinder and at the connection between both lobes because the bending moments calculated in the first model were higher. Secondly, 55
the assumption of variation of thickess increases the bending moments at the points where the thickness is increased. Therefore, in the calculation of the reinforcement bars located in those places, to be on the safe side, the hypothesis of constant thickness cannot be supposed because the values obtained by Torroja were lower above all at the smallest cylinder. For example at the point 47, the value obtained by Torroja was 2222 kg m/m lower than the results obtained by the second Lusas model (Table 17, Appendix B.3).
4 Bending moments kNm/m 3 2 1 0 ‐1 ‐2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Second Lusas model Torroja's Bending Moments First Lusas model
Distance X (m)
Figure 61: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models. The values obtained by Torroja are coloured in blue, the first Lusas model is coloured in red, and the second Lusas model is coloured in orange.
After the study of the transversal bending moments, the longitudinal bending moments were studied. This analysis can be found in Appendix A.7. The maximum value is approximately 600 kN m/m and is located at the connection between the seagull and the edge. However, this value is practically negligible in comparison with the maximum value of the transversal bending moments 34 confirming the hypothesis considered by Torroja. The third element studied was isobars, which analysis is divided into different parts: Firstly, the overall shape of the isobar diagrams and the maximum values measured along the central undeveloped directrix are analyzed. After that, the overall shapes of the plan diagrams of isobars are studied. The first study of the isobars consisted of the analysis of the values along the central directrix by means of the comparison between the Lusas results, considering the load case four in the first and the second model, and the values of the diagrams obtained by Torroja along the central directrix 35 (figures 62 and 63).
The maximum value of the transversal bending moments was around five times higher than the maximum value of longitudinal bending moment (Appendix A.7). As was explained before, the values of the isobars presented by Torroja along the central directrix were measured directly from figure 35.
35
34
56
which are coloured in black. which are coloured in orange and red. considering the maximum tension stress the highest value changes from 28 MPa/m to 13. in the Torroja’s model at the coordinate X = 21. Fifthly. Thirdly. the maximum value of the isobars of compression stress in the second model is located at the coordinate X = 15. Appendix B. Fourthly. which are coloured in orange and red.4).59 metres (Table 22. and the values obtained by Torroja. highest values around the connection between the smallest cylindrical sector and the wall were calculated as well as there were more points with null value around the maximum peak.Tension stress isobars (MPa) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ‐5 0 5 10 15 20 Distance X (m) 25 30 Second Lusas model Torroja's tension stress First Lusas model Figure 62: Maximum tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models. in the diagram of tension stress presented by Torroja. located in the 57 . 2 Compression stress isobars (MPa) 0 ‐2 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 Distance X (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 First Lusas model Second Lusas model Torroja's compression stress ‐10 Figure 63: Maximum compressions stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case four. coordinate X = 23 metres. Secondly. the maximum values in the Torroja’s model were measured at coordinate X = 24. there was less number of points with null value than at the Lusas results. the shape of the isobars of compression stress in the Lusas models have the maximum values located at the biggest cylindrical sector. The diagram is based on three lines: the first and the second Lusas model. and the values obtained by Torroja. in the diagram of compression stress presented by Torroja.1 MPa/m. the maximum value of the tension stress in the second model is located at the connection between both cylindrical sectors.8 metres. However. The diagram is based on three lines: the first and the second Lusas model. For example. For example. which are coloured in black. this peak is located in the others models at the biggest lobe. This variation means than in this peak the compression stresses are around 50 % lower in the second model. However. the assumption of the thickness variation reduces all the maximum values observed in the first model. For example.91 metres. The analysis of the isobars of tension and compression stress showed the following conclusions: Firstly.
smallest cylindrical sector (Table 23, Appendix B.4). Sixthly, the value of the isobars of compressions stress in the second Lusas model located at the smallest lobe, are highly similar to the values presented by Torroja. For example, at the point X = 24.8 metres, it was reached the peak in the diagrams presented by Torroja, which value was 5.8 MPa/m, as well as the value measured for the first model was 6.36 MPa/m. However, the value obtained in the second model at the same point is only 11 % of the maximum value obtained by Torroja (Table 24, Appendix B.4). The second study of the isobars was based on the comparison of the plan diagrams of isobars calculated by Lusas with the diagrams presented by Torroja in figure 35. In order to make easier this comparison, the points where the maximum values measured by Torroja were exceeded, were coloured in red for tension stress and in blue for compression stress. The analysis showed that the hypothesis of variable thickness was used in the diagrams of isobars presented by Torroja for different reasons: Firstly, the overall shapes (figures 64 and 65) are more similar to the isobars obtained by Torroja than the shapes calculated by the first model. Secondly, the maximum Lusas values 36 are more similar to the maximum values calculated by Torroja, for example the maximum compression stress the value is approximately only 4 % higher in the Lusas model. However, the maximum value of the isobars of tension stress is 63 % higher than the results presented by Torroja (Table 25, Appendix B.4). This value showed that probably it could be errors in the calculation of the maximum values of the tension stress calculated by Torroja. This question was raised 37 to Jose Antonio Torroja Canavillas, Eduardo Torroja’s son, who is a very prestigious and wellknown civil engineering. He argued that the observed differences can be logically assumed because the calculations were done by hand. This procedure made usually some mistakes as a consequence of the complexity of the calculations. For that reason, Soler explained in the article “Eduardo Torroja profesor” published in the book “Eduardo Torroja: La vigencia de un legado” how Torroja entrusted two calculation teams with the check of the solution of the equation system. However, both groups presented two different solutions. After that, Torroja tried that the solution proposed by each team would be obtained by the other team and finally four different solutions were presented. (Soler 2002, p.221). As a consequence of this high variation of the calculations made by hand, Torroja decided to build the smallscale model in order to be sure of the results.
36
13.07 MPa for maximum tension stress and 6.01MPa for maximum compression stress (figures 64 and 65). Consultation realized by Ignacio Payá Zaforteza. The 6th of April 2009 in Madrid.
37
58
Figure 64: Maximum tensions stress isobars in halfundeveloped plan obtained by the second Lusas model. The maximum value, 13.08 MPa, is located at the connection between both cylinders.
Figure 65: Maximum compression stress isobars presented in halfundeveloped plan obtained by the second Lusas model. The maximum value is 6.01MPa and is located at the biggest cylindrical sector.
59
3.2.3 Conclusions.
Along the analysis of the second model, the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly, the shape of the deflections calculated by the second Lusas model is similar to the results obtained by the first model. However, the vertical deflections measured in the second model are lower because the assumption of thickness variation increases the stiffness of the model. Secondly, Torroja probably used 8 centimetres constant thickness in the calculation of the theoretical deflection shape (figure 37), because the values of the first model are more similar to the deformations obtained by Torroja than the deflections measured in the second model. Thirdly, the assumption of constant thickness can be applied in the points located at the bigger cylinder and at the connection between both lobes because the bending moments calculated in the first model were higher than results obtained in the second Lusas model. Fourthly, the assumption of variation of thickess increases the bending moments at the smallest cylinder. Therefore, in the calculations of that area, to be on the safety side, the hypothesis of constant thickness cannot be supposed. Fourthly, the transversal bending moments supposed by Torroja in the calculation of the reinforcement bars were on the side of the insecurity above all at the smallest cylinder because the values were lower than the results obtained by the second Lusas model. Fifthly, the longitudinal bending moments can be negliged, as was supposed by Torroja. Sixthly, the maximum values of the isobars of compression stress are located, as in the first Lusas model, at the biggest cylindrical sector instead of at the possition supposed by Torroja at the smallest lobe. Seventhly, the maximum values of the isobars of tension stress are located at the connection between both lobes instead of at the biggest cylinder as was obtained by Torroja. Eightly, the consideration of thickness variation reduced highly the isobars of compression stress at the smallest cylindrical sector. Ninetly, as was supposed at the beginning of the study, the maximum values of the isobars are reduced regarding the first model because the structure is less flexible. For example, the maximum value of the compression stress is only 4 % higher than the results presented by Torroja. However, the maximum value of the tension stress continues being too much higher and the possible explanation is the errors produced during the calculation procedure as was explained by José Antonio Torroja Canavillas.
60
p. Torroja supposed that the suction effects improved the structural behaviour of the shell because its effect would be similar to reducing the dead weight and increasing the lateral compression stress. After that. This law consisted of a linear combination of the snow and wind loads. the different hypotheses considered by Torroja regarding the wind suction effects are analyzed. For each of these sets four load cases were studied: 38 All the diagrams of the isobars considering the different load cases are presented in Appendix A. in order to obtain the wind suction without repeating the theoretical calculations (Torroja 1942. which were explained before. Torroja used the experimental results of the cylindrical shape to approximate the wind suction law along the directrix (figure 66). The study of the third model is divided into different parts: Firstly. the hypotheses and the objectives are presented. 3. However.1 Hypotheses and Objectives. the analysis of the model is showed. Finally. Figure 66: Suction along the directrix proposed by Torroja.3. The third model consisted of the same Lusas model used in the second model because both models were based on the same general hypotheses. However.3. 61 . Consequently. 3. The main objective of the third model is modelling the behaviour of the shell considering the suction effects and comparing the obtained results with the Lusas model results. the bending moments and the isobars. the conclusions are showed. the incorporated difference to the second model was the consideration of the wind load law including suction effects (figure 66) instead of the wind hypotheses supposed in the initial calculations carried out by Torroja. 21). in the report carried out by Mr Ribera and Aguirre to check the work viability of the structure. Secondly.2 Analysis. when the shell had been calculated. The effect of the wind suction was originally not considered in the theoretical calculations because the importance of this phenomenon would be reduced regarding to the cylindrical shape by the height and proximity of the nearby buildings as well as by the shape of the lobes. the study of the wind suction effects in a smallscale model of 1/10 was recommended.3.8.3 Third Model: Wind Suction Effects. The analysis is divided in three different sets of results 38: the vertical deflections. Furthermore.
in the rest of the directrix the deflection differences are higher. in these points the Torroja’s hypothesis. This assumption was studied considering the wind suction effects without other overloads. X = 23 metres. The load case A is coloured in blue. snow load and wind with suction load. the vertical deflections measured at the same point considering the load case B are 67 % of the deformations measured in the load case A (Table 9. 1 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐1 0 ‐2 ‐3 ‐4 ‐5 ‐6 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Load case A Load case B Figure 67: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different load cases in the third Lusas model. “the wind suction effects reduce the deflections produced by the dead weight”. and the load case B is coloured in green.2).2 metres. The defined load cases followed two different objectives: On one hand.5 centimetres. the vertical deflection variation between both load cases is 1. was confirmed.11 centimetres (Table 8.2). After the study of all the previous considerations.2 metres. snow load and wind without suction load. On the other hand. because the shell is raised by the suction phenomenon. the objective of the load cases C and D was analyzing the effect of the suction when all the overloads were applied. p. Load case A: Dead weight. However. Therefore. to the biggest lobe axes. This analysis showed that the vertical deflections are highly similar for both load cases from the connection between the biggest cylindrical and the wall. Load case D: Dead weight. when there other overloads are not applied. the next conclusion was obtained: the assumption of the wind suction effects. Furthermore. X = 0 metres. For example. Appendix B. the vertical deflection difference is only 0. reduces the vertical deflections in all the points with X coordinate higher than 12. located at the coordinate X = 12. Appendix B. at the coordinate X = 10 metres. The first element studied was the deflections considering the wind suction effects without other overloads and the analysis was based on the comparison of the vertical deflection diagrams along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load cases A and B (figure 67). Load case B: Dead weight and wind including suction load. The analysis of the deflections was divided into the two parts explained before: the assumption of the wind suction effects without other overloads and the assumption with the rest of overloads. at the seagull profile. the purpose of the load cases A and B was checking the hypothesis proposed by Torroja “the suction effects reduce the dead weight” (Torroja 1942. For example.21). 62 . Load case C: Dead weight.
the wind suction effects reduce the deflections. 3.8). Lastly. Secondly. On the other hand. considering the four load cases. the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly. the stresses would be reduced in the structure. was confirmed in the vertical deflections. 2 1 0 ‐1 0 ‐2 ‐3 ‐4 ‐5 ‐6 ‐7 ‐8 Vertical distortions (cm) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Load case C Load case D Distance X (m) Figure 68: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different load cases in the third Lusas model. X = 23 metres. For example at the seagull profile. can be logically assumed.2). when the wind suction loads and the rest of overloads are considered. Therefore. the hypothesis that the suction phenomenon improves the structural behaviour was confirmed.The second part of the study of the deflections consisted of the analysis of the deflection shape along the central undeveloped directrix. the Lusas results along the central directrix are reduced. On one hand. the bending moments and isobars of the dead weight. This analysis showed favourable differences in both cylindrical sectors. Appendix B. was carried out (Appendix A. the hypothesis supposed in the theoretical calculations regarding not considering the wind suction effects.3. the initial supposition for both stresses were confirmed. at the point X = 10 metres the values measured in the load case D are practically 16 % of the results obtained in the load case C (Table 10. an analysis of the bending moments and isobars along the central undeveloped directrix. Therefore. Analyzed the obtained diagrams. The initial consideration in the study of these stresses was that if the wind suction effects improved the vertical deflections. the assumption of the wind suction effects reduces the negative vertical deflections in the points with X coordinate higher than 12. After the study of the third model. the bending moments as well as the isobar diagrams were studied. For example. considering the load cases C and D (figure 68). The load case C is coloured in red and the load case D in orange. Appendix B. The analysis of the deflections showed as a conclusion that the assumption of the wind suction effects reduces the vertical deflections in all points of the shell when the overloads are or not considered.2). After the analysis of the deflection. 63 . the wind suction effects improves the structural behaviour.56 centimetres higher in the load case C (Table 10.3 Conclusions. the vertical deflections are 2. the hypothesis supposed by Torroja in the theoretical calculations. the assumption of the wind suction effects reduces also the positive deflections at the biggest cylindrical sector. In order to check this hypothesis.2 metres.
3. Finally.142). Finally. 64 . which consisted of a frame 39 of equilateral triangles (figure 69) whose sides measured 1. The study of the fourth Lusas model is divided into three parts: First. Secondly. 39 The frame was based on rectangular beams 30 per 17 centimetres (Antuña 2003. The Frontón Recoletos was the first thin concrete shell structure where these skylights were used. in the period when the structure was constructed. the hypotheses and objectives are explained. were based exact theoretical models resolved by hand. p. this factor was obtained by the construction of two large longitudinal skylights. However. the principal characteristics of the results obtained by Lusas are analyzed. These theoretical methods were simplified by Torroja supposing the skylight behaviour as a normal closed shell in order to calculate the structure by hand. the obtained conclusions are showed. These skylights were placed close to the connection between both lobes in the biggest cylindrical sector and close to the connection with the wall in the smallest sector. the existing theoretical methods.4 metres.4 Fourth Model: Skylights. these methods had never been used before in any discontinuous shell and therefore the structure was considered a structural challenge and one way to improve the knowledge about the behaviour of this kind of shells. The sunlight was one of the initial objectives pursued in the design of the Frontón Recoletos by Torroja. Furthermore. Figure 69: Construction of the skylight beams using wooden frameworks.
Figure 71: Directrix of the fourth Lusas model and zoom of the skylight in the smallest cylindrical sector. These surfaces were meshed considering a balanced model between the accuracy and the calculation speed.1 Hypotheses and Objectives.1). in the surfaces and skylights. the shell consisted of 468 surface elements QSI4 in order to model the variation of thickness and the connection with the skylights 41. the geometry (figure 72) was divided into two different parts: On one hand. Variation of thickness along the shell. The Lusas model was based on the following characteristics: Firstly. is explained in Appendix A.3. Figure 70: 3D view of the fourth Lusas model. homogenous material with null Poisson number. 41 40 65 . On the other hand. At the connection between both elements were supposed beams elements in order to model correctly the real structural behaviour. The fourth model (figure 70 and 71) was based on the same hypotheses 40 considered in the preceding model. The skylights are coloured in purple as well as the normal shell surface in green. These beams were divided in five finite elements. the skylights were modelled with 1435 beam elements called BMS3 (Appendix A.3. supports continuous along the edges.4. the supports were modelled as in the first Lusas model. Finally. the procedure used to define the dead weight as well as the wind and snow loads. load case four: dead weight with snow and wind loads. incorporating the real skylights instead of the closed shell section. Secondly.
as was supposed at the beginning. After that. the deflections are symmetrical when symmetrical loads are applied. The conclusions obtained from this analysis were the following: Firstly.4. Figure 72: Fourth Lusas model consisted of surfaces. the maximum deflection. were that the structural behaviour of the shell under symmetrical loads would probably be symmetric as well as the vertical deflections in the fourth model might be higher than the second model deflections because the assumption of the real skylights decreased the stiffness of the structure. Appendix B. are located parallel to the Zaxis. Secondly. the longitudinal movements along the Zaxis in the edged directrix allow reducing the bending moments in the structure 66 . the threedimension Lusas model was studied analyzing the structural behaviour of the shell. For example. This analysis was divided into three parts.The main objective of the fourth model was checking the hypothesis considered in the theoretical calculations of replacing the skylights frames with closed surfaces in order to simplify the mathematical analysis. The first study of the deflections consisted of the analysis of the shape in the 3D Lusas model (figure 73 and 74).2 centimetres. 9. is located at the central directrix (Table 6. The other objective is checking the comparison with the results obtained by Torroja and the preceding models. The first element studied was the deflections. the most unfavourable sections.2). and beam elements. the Lusas deflections obtained in the fourth model were compared with the vertical Torroja’s deflections. First. Thirdly. Finally. analyzed all the results of the preceding models. The initial hypotheses considered. the Lusas deflections of the fourth model were compared with the results obtained in the second model in order to study the effect of the real skylights.2 Analysis. referring to vertical deflections. which are coloured in green. which are coloured in purple. 3.
67 . View parallel to Xaxis at the section X = 32. Figure 74: Deflections in the 3D view of the fourth Lusas model. The second study of the deflections was based on the comparison between the second and the fourth Lusas model. For example. which were heavier than the supposed in the preceding models loads. the hypothesis considered in the theoretical calculations of replacing the skylights frames with closed shell surface. This conclusion can be explained by the fact that the hypothesis of real skylights produces a more flexible structure because the shell continuity is broken. produced higher deflections. This study showed as a conclusion that the vertical deflections along the central directrix and the seagull profile are higher when the skylights are modelled as frames.5 meters. where the skylights were modelled as a closed shell. Therefore.2). This study was based on the vertical deflection diagrams along the two most unfavourable sections: the seagull profile (figure 75) and the central directrix (figure 763). the real loads in the skylights. This comparison was studied in order to know how varied the deflections when the real skylights are introduced in the model. All these characteristics are highly similar to the previous models.imitating the membrane behaviour. at the coordinate X = 23 metres. Figure 73: Deflections in the 3D view of the fourth Lusas model: Isometric view and the plan view. in the central directrix. the deflections are 35 % higher than the results calculated by the second model (Table 13. Appendix B. can be logically assumed because the general behaviour of the both models is highly similar. Furthermore.
the vertical deflections calculated by the second model were 45 % of the actual structure and the small68 . Therefore. This study showed two different conclusions: Firstly. the last Lusas model was more similar to the Torroja’s hypotheses than the preceding models. This last assumption was the only difference with the fourth Lusas model. the vertical deflections calculated by the fourth Lusas model are more similar to the results presented by Torroja than the second model. The initial analysis was based on the comparison between the deflections measured by the fourth Lusas model and the Torroja’ deflections considering the load case four (figure 37). The results of the second Lusas model are coloured in red and results of the fourth Lusas model in blue.5 metres considering different models. as was supposed before. Appendix B. the Torroja’s deflections are higher than the results calculated by the fourth Lusas model. This factor is explained because the Torroja’s models were based on discontinuous supports and therefore the structure was more flexible and higher deflections were measured. 0 Vertical deflections (m) ‐2 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 Distance Z (m) Second Lusas model Fourth Lusas model 0 5 10 15 20 25 Figure 76: Vertical deflections along half seagull profile. This conclusion implied than the vertical deflections calculated by the fourth Lusas model might be also more similar to the results presented by Torroja.5 metres.2). and consideration of real supports. the Lusas vertical deflections are 60 % of the deflections measured in the actual structure and the smallscale model (Table 6 and 7. Both Torroja’s models were based on the following hypothesis: Variation of thickness. For example. at the coordinate X = 22. The results of the second Lusas model are coloured in red and the results of the fourth Lusas model in blue. The next study of the deflections was based on the comparison with the results obtained by Torroja in the actual structure and in the smallscale model. Secondly. from the coordinate Z = 0 metres to Z = 27.2 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐2 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 Distance X (m) Fourth Lusas model 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Second Lusas model Figure 75: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models. at the same coordinate considered before. consideration of skylights. above all at the connection between both cylindrical sectors. For example.
the results measured by Torroja are drawn as two lines. 42 69 . Therefore. The second analysis of the deflections consisted of the comparison between the fourth Lusas model and the deflections measured in the smallscale model considering different load cases along the central undeveloped directrix. The load case four is considered in the fourth Lusas model.123125). For example. The results of the fourth Lusas model are coloured in red. However. the results obtained by Torroja in the actual structure are coloured in blue and the deflections obtained in the smallscale model are coloured in green. Therefore. the Lusas shape and the maximum values are highly similar to the results measured in the small All the details referring to the metering devices used were described in the Report presented to the Spanish Sciences Academy (Torroja 1942 p. which showed similar deflections. the value obtained at the connection between the smallest cylindrical sector and the wall was 1.5). The procedure carried out by Torroja in order to check the structural behaviour of the smallscale model of the Frontón Recoletos consisted of 27 tests realized in different periods (Torroja 1942. The study of the load case one (figure 78) was based on the tests A and B. This conclusion is explained because the second model was too much rigid due to the assumption of the continuous supports and closed skylights. the vertical and horizontal deflections 42 were measured. 5 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 0 ‐5 ‐10 ‐15 ‐20 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fourth Lusas model Small‐scale model Actual structure Distance X (m) Figure 77: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models. This average deflection was compared with the Lusas results and the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly. when the real skylights are considered the structure is more flexible and the results are more similar to the deflections obtained by Torroja.scale model deflections. the average of both tests was considered. p. in order to avoid the possible measurement errors. Appendix B. which values were obtained increasing and reducing the measured values in 1 centimetre. the test B presented some measurement errors. the vertical deflections of three of those tests were compared in order to study two additional load cases considered in the first model: Load case 1: Dead weight Load case 3: Dead weight with snow load In order to make easier the comparison and considering possible measurement errors in the smallscale model.121).5 centimetres instead of the null deflection measured in the test A and supposed initially by the support conditions (Table 1. In this section. In these tests.
3 centimetres. supposing 1 centimetre of error in the average value. The load case one is considered.scale model above all at the biggest cylindrical sector. 4 Vertical deflections (cm) 2 0 ‐2 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 Distance X (m) 0 10 20 30 Lusas vertical distortions Smale‐scale model error 1cm Figure 79: Vertical deflections along the undeveloped directrix considering different models. are coloured in pink. 70 . The deflections obtained by the fourth Lusas model are coloured in blue and the values measured in the test realized by Torroja. the vertical deflections measured by Lusas in the closeness of the connection between the smallest cylindrical sector and the wall are different to the results obtained by the average test. The deflections obtained by the fourth Lusas model are coloured in blue and the values measured in the test 43 realized by Torroja. In order to check this hypothesis. are coloured in pink. Secondly. was presented (figure 79). 4 Vertical deflections (cm) 2 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 Distance X (m) 10 20 30 Lusas vertical distortions Smale‐scale model error 1cm Figure 78: Vertical deflections along the undeveloped directrix considering different models. For example. produced by the metering device located at the coordinate X = 31. This problem can be explained if the metering device located in that point was broken or was based on error in the calibration process because the continuity of the deflection shape measured by the average test was broken in that point. the difference of deflections at the coordinate X = 15. The load case one is considered. the average shape along the directrix without considering that anomalous result. For example.3 metres is only 0.5 metres. at the point X = 31. supposing 1 centimetre of error in the average value.5). Appendix B. This new shape was continuous along all the directrix is more similar to the Lusas results.5 metres.5 the difference between both models is 3. 43 Without the peak presented in figure 77 at the coordinate X = 31.7 centimetres (Table 2.
are coloured in pink. However. The first study of the bending moments was based on the comparison between the transversal bending moments of the second and the fourth Lusas models (figure 81). This analysis showed as a conclusion that the vertical Lusas deflections are similar to the values presented by Torroja above all at the smallest cylindrical sector. Appendix B. supposing 1 centimetre of error in the average value. the Lusas deflection at the point X = 7.5). Appendix B.2 metres is only 11 % of the test value (Table 3. the longitudinal bending moments are studied. 44 71 . For example.8 centimetres. and the Lusas results. After that. The load case three is considered in the fourth Lusas model. the deflection difference at the coordinate X = 29. at the connection between the biggest lobe and the skylights the difference is 27 % (Table 18.3). Therefore.6 metres is 1. For example. the transversal bending moments obtained in the second Lusas model are compared with the fourth Lusas model. The deflections obtained by the fourth Lusas model are coloured in green and the values measured in the tests realized by Torroja. which analysis is divided into two parts: Firstly. This comparison was analyzed in order to know how the bending moments varied when the real skylights were considered and was based on the diagrams of transversal bending moments along the central directrix.The analysis of the load case three (figure 80) was based on the comparison between the test C. 6 Vertical deflections (cm) 4 2 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 Distance X (m) 10 20 30 Lusas vertical distortions Smale‐scale model error 1cm Figure 80: Vertical deflections along the undeveloped directrix considering different models. The second element studied was the bending moments. the bending moments calculated when the simplified skylights are considered are not on the safety side. where the same load case was considered. The values at the connections with the skylights were not considered because in that location a beam was placed in order to connect both structures. For example. these differences are higher at the biggest lobe. The conclusion of this comparison showed similar values 44 and shapes in both models as well as the fourth model presented slightly higher values at the connection with the skylights because the discontinuity of the shell increased the stresses.
7). 72 . the longitudinal bending moments cannot be considered negligible in those places. For example. The first study of the isobars was based on the comparison of the values along the directrix. the maximum value in the central directrix represents 37 % of the maximum transversal bending moments obtained in the same Lusas model (Appendix A. when the real skylights are considered the maximum values are increased. The obtained values are higher than the preceding models. For example. the peak in the maximum isobars of tension stress measured in the fourth model is 27 % higher regarding the second Lusas model (Appendix B. The analysis of the isobars is divided into different parts: Firstly. These stresses are practically located at the connection between the skylight beams in the biggest cylindrical sector and the shell. Nevertheless. These values were compared with the second Lusas results (figure 82 and 83).4). the overall shape of the isobar plan diagrams are studied.4 Bending moments KNm/m 3 2 1 0 ‐1 ‐2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Second Lusas model Fourth Lusas model Distance X (m) Figure 81: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models. 20 Tension stress isobars (Mpa) 15 10 5 0 ‐5 0 10 20 Distance X (m) 30 Second Lusas model Fourth Lusas model Figure 82: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. After that. and the fourth Lusas model is coloured in purple. the overall shape and the maximum values measured along the central directrix are analyzed. The second Lusas model is coloured orange and the fourth one in red. The main conclusion was that the shape is highly similar in both diagrams. The second Lusas model is coloured in orange. Therefore. The second study of the bending moments consisted of the study of the longitudinal bending moments.
The maximum value was 16. Finally. 73 . the maximum value of the isobars of tension stress in the second Lusas model is 3 MPa lower than the fourth model (figure 84). For example. Figure 84: Plan of the halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobar for the fourth Lusas model. the shape of the compression and tension stress isobars is highly similar to the shape presented in the second model (figures 84 and 85).8 MPa. The second Lusas model is coloured orange and the fourth one in red. the values are higher because when the real skylights are modelled.Compression stress isobars (Mpa) 2 0 ‐2 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 Distance X (m) 0 10 20 30 Second Lusas model Fourth Lusas model Figure 83: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. However. the structure is more flexible.
The maximum value was 7. these deflections are lower than the results obtained by Torroja because continuous supports are considered in the fourth model. 74 . the longitudinal bending moments are practically located at the connection between the skylight beams in the biggest cylindrical sector and the shell. the shape of the transversal bending moments along the central directrix is highly similar to the shape of the second Lusas model. This factor checked the Torroja’s assumption of considering the skylights as closed shell in order to simplify the theoretical calculations. Fifthly. Thirdly. the maximum values of the isobars are higher than the second Lusas model because the flexibility of the structure is higher in the fourth Lusas model. The Lusas stresses are higher than the preceding models and cannot be considered negligible in those places.3 Conclusions. However. the consideration of the real skylights produces a more flexible structure than the second Lusas model because the continuity of the shell was broken. Nevertheless.Figure 85: Plan of the half undeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobar for the fourth Lusas model. Secondly. 3. Fourthly. This conclusion is also obtained in the analysis of the isobars along the central directrix.2 MPa. the structural behaviour. One example of this phenomenon is the increase of the vertical deflections when the real skylights are introduced in the model.4. the general behaviour of the shell is practically independent to the consideration of the skylights because the threedimensional deflections were highly similar in the first and the fourth Lusas model. Furthermore. the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly. Sixthly. some problems in the measuring device have been detected. After the analysis of the fourth model. considering different load cases. the fourth model presented slightly higher values at the connection with the skylights because the discontinuity of the shell increased the stresses. is highly similar to the tests carried out by Torroja in the smallscale model.
the supports were simplified in order to calculate the shell by hand.3. the supports at the directrix consisted of six points. The size of the beam located at the generator connection was 20 per 40 centimetres (Antuña 2003. In the theoretical calculations. the size of the beam located at the directrix connection was not clearly defined. This beam produced an eccentric support (figure 30) that was not considered in the model. These supports were based on two construction drawings used by Torroja (figures 86 and 87). p. and along the rest of their length. Figure 86: Construction drawing of the real supports at the directrix. All the procedure used in order to model the supports in the actual structure is explained in Appendix A. On the other hand. on one hand. However. the size of the edged beam located at the directrix was measured in the constructions drawings and the value considered in the model was 20 centimetres on the other hand. which connected the shell with the wall by means of beams and pillars.140).5 Fifth Model: Real Supports. The supports consisted of six points. In these construction drawings is showed how the generators and the directrix had different support conditions: On one hand. p. The second element incorporated in the real supports that had not been studied in the theoretical calculations was that at the connection between the shell and the wall.5. Nevertheless. Therefore. These supports can be easily appreciated in the smallscale model proposed by Torroja (figure 88). the size in the generator directions was supposed 30 centimetres (Antuña 2003. 75 . This simplified supports consisted of a fixed points at the central section of the generators and free deflection along the Zaxis for the rest of edged points.140). the central points of the edged generators were joined to the wall at their centre. the supports that were constructed in the actual structure were more complex. they rest on small connecting rods thus permitting the longitudinal expansion of the shell (figure 87). different reinforcement beams were constructed. which joined the shell with the wall by means of beams and pillars.
Secondly. 76 . the fifth model is analyzed and compared with the preceding models. Figure 88: Picture of the smallscale model tested by Torroja.Figure 87: Construction drawing of the real supports at the generators of half section.5 metres. the conclusions are showed. Finally. The supports can be easily appreciable at the connection between the small cylindrical sector and the wall. The central section was fixed with anchor bars in two directions. Afterwards. The study of the fifth model is divided into different parts: Firstly. the supports used in the constructed structure and the effects in the structural behaviour of the model are studied. The rest of the generators were connected by small beams separated 1. the hypotheses and the objectives are presented.
At the connection between both elements. in the actual structure a Poisson number different to zero 45 was supposed. Finally. However. Secondly. This procedure is explained in Appendix A. which fixed the vertical movements and acted like springs along both the Zaxes. and the Xaxes.3. concentrated supports and edged beams along the shell. the supports were modelled as a concentrated supports B each 1. The directrix supports (figure 89) were modelled as concentrated supports B. at the most trouble areas. instead of the null value used in the preceding models. which fixed all the translations and allowed the rotations and “Support B”. the supports at the generators were modelled as “Support A”. beams elements were supposed in order to model correctly the structural behaviour of the actual structure. the concrete was considered to be an elastic. Therefore. In addition to all the characteristics described in the drawings. orthogonal to the generators. in order to simplify the model. the skylights were modelled with 1435 beam elements called BMS3.5.1 Hypotheses and Objectives. as for example the connection between the shells and the skylight beams. 45 Value proposed by the Professor Costin Pacoste v = 0. parallel to the generators. smallest finite elements were supposed in order to reduce errors in those places. These beams were divided into five finite elements. linear and homogeneous material that obeyed Hooke's law with the Elasticity Modulus equal to 30 109 N/m2. the structure was defined considering the following characteristics: variation of thickness along the shell. Secondly. In these documents.4 meters 47. the procedure used to define the dead weight as well as the wind and snow loads in the surfaces and skylights was similar to the preceding model and is explained in Appendix A. the model was based on the Torroja’s construction drawings. The mesh used was based on the following considerations: Firstly. As was described in the construction drawings (figure 87) the first supports were located at the edged sections of the generators along the five central metres.3. skylights defined as lattice frames of equilateral triangles made of reinforced concrete. The fifth model (figure 89) was considered as similar as possible to the real constructed structure. the shell consists of 556 surface elements called QSI4 in order to model the variation of thickness and the connection with the skylights 46.2. 47 46 77 . the geometry (figure 89) was divided in two different parts. Finally.5 metres. The Torroja’s thought pursued with this supports was creating a stiffer shell avoiding the deflections along the Zaxis in the centre of the structure. However. the separation was supposed 1. On the other hand.4 metres in the Lusas model in order to simplify the model. the finite elements might be as similar as possible in the cylindrical sectors. This assumption was realized in order to consider the transversal contractions and bring the model closer to the actual behaviour of the material used in the structure. In the rest of the generator length.5. The Lusas model was based on the following characteristics: Firstly. the number of finite elements have to be balanced between the accuracy and the speed of calculation. The stiffness of the different springs considered in the model were calculated supposing the simplified model of cantilever beam fixed to the wall. The supports in the actual structure were separated 1. On one hand.
the analysis is divided into two successive 48 steps: Firstly. which are coloured in purple and the supports conditions: “Supports A” located at the central generator line and “Supports B” located at the rest of the generators and the directrix as concentrated supports. the real supports are supposed without the assumption of the edged beams. The objective of the support study was understanding the structural behaviour of the Lusas model when the supports conditions are changed. only the maximum values of the isobars have been studied.5. A previous analysis: consideration of the real supports as spring with infinite stiffness was carried out. 3.Figure 89: Fifth Lusas model consisted of surfaces. and beam elements. The purpose of this analysis is checking how the stresses are more concentrated when the edged beams are not considered.2 Study of the Supports. In order to achieve these objectives. the reinforcement beams located at the edges are introduced in the model. . a structural analysis was realized. In order to simplify the analysis. which are coloured in green. Therefore. After this analysis. The objectives pursued by the fifth model were checking the structural behaviour of the constructed structure as well as comparing the obtained values with the preceding models and with the results presented by Torroja. The conclusions showed by this analysis were similar to the conclusions obtained in the first step. 48 78 . The objective of this step is checking how the edged beams improve the structural behaviour of the shell.
For example. Therefore. the connection between the shell and the wall consists of concentrated joins at the directrix. Furthermore. Appendix B. Appendix B. the stresses are reduced because the beams along the directrix increase the stiffness of the model. the maximum compression stress isobars are increased 67 % regarding the maximum values of the fourth Lusas model (Table 27. Consequently. Thirdly. was perfectly known by Torroja. These differences can be explained by two factors: Firstly. the edged beams are incorporated to the model in order to avoid the increase of stresses produced at the concentrated supports. Therefore. Secondly. the maximum stresses are higher.The analysis of the maximum values of the isobar diagrams showed that when the supports conditions are changed for the real supports without considering the edged beams.3).3). the value of the maximum compression stress isobars is practically the same measured in the fourth Lusas model (Table 27. 49 The stresses were not concentrated at the concentrated supports located at the generator because the stresses were reduced by the shape of the shell. The zoom located at one connection between the edged directrix and the shell where the maximum values are measured. the stresses are concentrated in those points 49. 79 . Figure 90: Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars when the discontinuous supports are considered but not the edged beam. the assumption of these edged beams showed the following conclusions: Firstly. Secondly. the maximum values of the isobars are increased. Furthermore. the concentration of the maximum stresses along the directrix supports when non continuous supports are considered. The stresses are reduced when the beams along the edges are considered. this maximum value is located at the smallest cylindrical sector instead of at the connection between the directrix and the wall (figure 91). these stresses are located at the points located at the directrix where the shell is connected with the wall instead of at the biggest cylindrical sector (figure 90). the real supports generate a more flexible structure. For example.
80 . In order to simplify the analysis only the fourth load case four: dead weight. The first of these analyses was based on the comparison of the vertical deflections along the central directrix between the fourth and the fifth Lusas model. including the edged beams. This study is divided into two analyses. The maximum value is 16. This analysis was based on the actual structure and therefore the real supports.3 Analysis. This study showed that the real supports produce a more flexible structure because higher deflections are obtained.75 MPa. were considered. Furthermore. was studied. 3. snow and wind loads.Figure 91: Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars when the edged beams and the discontinuous supports are considered.5. The first element studied was the deflections. this increase of the deflections produces that the positive deflections measured in the fourth model at the biggest cylindrical sector changed the sign in the fifth model.
the deflections should be more similar than the preceding studied models. The fourth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the fifth one in red. In Appendix A. the smallscale Torroja’s model in blue. 5 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 0 ‐5 ‐10 ‐15 ‐20 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fifth Lusas model Small‐scale model Actual structure Distance X (m) Figure 93: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix comparing different models. like the loads conditions. and the real structure in green. 81 . could explain the observed differences between both models. The highly similarity between first Lusas model and the deflections measured in the actual structure could be explained by the fact that the considered parameters were adapted by the designer in order to resemble the behaviour of the theoretical model to the behaviour measured in the smallscale structure.8. the variations of these different parameters are studied in order to determine the sensitivity of the model. The fifth Lusas model is coloured in red. The second analysis of the deflections consisted of the comparison between the fifth Lusas model and the results obtained by Torroja. All these three models were based on the same hypotheses and therefore.4 Vertical deflections (cm) 2 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 ‐12 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fourth Lusas model Fifth Lusas model Figure 92: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models. the combination of both elements could explain the observed difference between both models. This study showed as a conclusion that the variation of the loads conditions and the Elasticity Modulus produces large deflections along the central undeveloped directrix and therefore. the thickness variation. the first model was more similar to the results measured in the actual structure by Torroja. However. the supports conditions and the Elasticity Modulus. This factor could be explained because the actual structure was not perfectly modelled in the Lusas model and the variation of different parameters.
7. This comparison showed similar values and shapes in both models. The fourth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the fifth one in red. This increase of bending moments is located principally at the connection between the directrix and the wall. the assumption of the real supports increased the bending moments because the structure had less transversal stiffness. The first study consisted of the comparison of the maximum compression and tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix between the fourth and the fifth Lusas model. (figures 95 and 96). The results of this comparison showed that when the real supports are considered. and the fifth Lusas model is coloured in red. 82 . This study was based on two different analyses. the last element studied was the isobars. higher compression stress isobars values are measured at the connection between the skylights and the shells. These stresses are increased when the real supports are considered and cannot be considered negligible. However. The fourth Lusas model is coloured in blue. The diagrams of longitudinal bending moments are presented in Appendix A. This analysis is divided into two studies. the maximum values of the tension and compression stress isobars are reduced. First of all the transversal bending moments were studied by means of the comparison between the results obtained by the fourth and the fifth Lusas models (figure 94). Finally. Compression stress isobars (Mpa) 2 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 Distance X (m) 10 20 30 Fourth Lusas model Fifth Lusas model Figure 95: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. The maximum values are located at the connection between the directrix and the wall. The second study was based on the longitudinal bending moments. Nevertheless.The second element studied were the bending moments. 2 Bending moments KNm/m 2 1 1 0 ‐1 0 ‐1 ‐2 ‐2 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fourth Lusas model Fifth Lusas model Figure 94: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models.
This analysis showed that the maximum values of the compression stress isobars are located at the connections between the directrix and the wall and the maximum values are increased when the real supports are considered because the structure is more flexible. The fourth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the fifth one in red. The second study of the isobars was based on the analysis of the plans (figure 91 and 97). Figure 97: Tension stress isobars along the plan of halfundeveloped section when the edged beams and the discontinuous supports are considered.20 Tension stress isobars (Mpa) 15 10 5 0 0 ‐5 10 20 Distance X (m) 30 Fourth Lusas model Fifth Lusas model Figure 96: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models.58 MPa. The minimum value is 10. 83 .
the connection between the shell and the wall consists of concentrated joins.5. On the other hand. this increase of the distortions produces that the positive distortions measured in the fourth model at the biggest cylindrical sector changed the sign in the fifth model. However. Furthermore. Therefore. for example the loads or the Elasticity Modulus in each point. cannot be measured in the actual structure. Seventhly. However. the maximum stresses are higher. a study of the parameters that might explain the observed differences between the actual structure and the fifth Lusas model was carried out to identify the sensitivity of the model when these parameters were changed. This factor can be explained by two factors: On one hand. the results of the Lusas model would be closer to the results measured in the actual structure. the maximum values of the compression stress isobars are located at the connection between the directrix and the wall instead of at the smallest cylindrical sector as the preceding models. the stresses are concentrated in those points. the real supports generate a more flexible structure. a slight increase of these stresses is observed at the connection between the shell and the skylights. the real supports produce a more flexible structure because higher distortions are obtained regarding the fourth Lusas model. the longitudinal bending moments are located at the connection between the edged directrix and the wall. Consequently. This factor can be explained because the theoretical model was adapted with the results obtained in the smallscale model in order to make the structural behaviour of the theoretical model as similar as possible. Therefore. After the study of the fifth Lusas model. the maximum value is located at the smallest cylindrical sector instead of at the connection between the directrix and the wall as in the model without the edged beam. the maximum values of the isobars are increased and concentrated at the directrix points where the shell is connected with the wall. the distortions calculated by the fifth Lusas model are higher than the preceding model because the flexibility of the structure is increased by the concentrated supports.3. Torroja incorporated the edged beams to the model in order to avoid the increase of stresses produced at the concentrated supports. Fifthly.4 Conclusions. the values of the isobars are reduced when the beams along the edges are introduced in the model. the transversal bending moments as well as the compression and the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix are reduced in most points regarding to the fourth model. the value of these parameters. Therefore. the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly. Secondly. Sixthly. the most similar deflections to the values obtained by Torroja are obtained in the first Lusas model instead of in the fifth one. 84 . Thirdly. when the real supports without the edged beams are introduced in the model. which is the most similar to the actual structure. This study showed that the combination of the value of the Elasticity Modulus and the loads could explain the differences between both models and if the real values of these factors were known. Furthermore. Fourthly. Furthermore.
3. After that. “This subject. formed by a thin vault concrete shell. a design to repair the roof was drawn up. Eugene Freyssinet proposed an innovative construction system50 based on the idea of putting the reinforcement arches in the upper side of the shell improving the aesthetic factor of the building and other characteristics as price. Freysineet (Antuña. by means of simple formwork” E. in the spring of 1937. In 1913. However.3. This design consisted of the some reinforced concrete rings. Afterwards. The shock wave from the explosions caused severe deformations in the roof. By putting the reinforcement beams on the upper side. two of them passing through it. which was made easily and rapidly by workers and could be removed quickly without breaking up the cast. the characteristic of the ribs are studied. has had a great influence in the development of this kind of construction.6 Sixth Model: Reinforcement Ribs.1 Study of the reinforcement ribs. similar to the Freyssinet’s arches. These ribs included a tie beam in order to correct the impact deflections. the Frontón Recoletos received several hits. raising the shell when the tension was applied.179). the sixth model is analyzed and compared with the preceding models. The reinforced beams are constructed after the vault has been constructed. in 1916 eight hangars. the night of the 15th August of 1939 the roof collapsed (figure) when the repair work was about to begin.179). These arches had a tie beam to resist thrusts and there was therefore only a vertical reaction on the piers.Freyssinet (Antuña 2006. 179) The study of the sixth model is divided into different parts: Firstly.6. The initial reinforced shell roofs constructed at the beginning of the twentieth century were based on a cylindrical shape constructed by arches. the hypotheses and objectives of the analysis are explained. p. located each 5 metres in the upper side of the biggest cylindrical sector along the directrix. it considerably simplified their construction and reduced the price. and reinforced by stiffening beams on the upper side of the vault. the conclusions are showed. p. The arches were placed at the bottom side of the shell (Antuña 2006. 2006. 50 85 . p. During the Civil Spanish war. which does not appear on the surface to be very important. were constructed by E. Secondly. For example. the formwork was transformed into a continuous surface. Finally.
this system seemed more indicated because the higher number of ribs would have produced fewer concentrated tensions in the shell. Therefore. a residential building is placed at the original location (Antuña 2003. p. each 13. However. Antuñez argues that the reinforcement ribs were located each 5 metres following the directrix direction only at the biggest cylindrical sector (Antuña 2003.75 metres. all the construction drawings and sketches found were thought trying to repair the damaged shell.15). p. The dimensions of the ribs. consisted of transversal trusses each 5. were supposed 45 per 30 centimetres. Since then. Therefore. During the study of the reinforcement ribs. On the other hand. “Had I to build it again.5 metres. located at both cylindrical sectors (Fernández 2000. two contradictory reinforcement systems were described: On one hand. This roof. The restoration design was drawn up in September of 1939. p. Torroja before the Civil Spanish War thought the necessity of the reinforcement ribs in order to increase the transversal stiffness of the shell. considering that construction drawing. the dimensions of the reinforcement rings were not clearly explained in all the consulted bibliography.143). Firstly. the study was based on these dates instead of the original idea of Torroja. consisted of five reinforcement ribs. was demolished in 1973. This is a logical system because the area where higher vertical deflections were measured in the actual structure.148). Secondly. I should provide such reinforcement ribs” (Torroja 1962. and all the building. 86 .148). The only available information was the construction drawings of one reinforcement rib located at the biggest cylindrical sector (figure 99).Figure 98: Collapse of the roof of the Frontón Recoletos. This is a logical assumption because the initial work of these reinforcements was raising the damaged shell. was reinforced. p. This design. two problems were found. the repair sketch proposed by Fernández (figure 102). different to the original structure. the smallest cylindrical sector.
51 87 . the location showed in the sketch presented by Fernández (figure 102): At both cylinders each 13. Thirdly.6. Figure 100: A sketch showing the proposed solution to repair the roof Frontón Recoletos 3.Figure 99: Construction drawings of the reinforcement rings located at the biggest lobe proposed by Torroja. the location explained by Antuña: At the biggest cylinder each 5 metres. Three different locations of the ribs were supposed along the study: Firstly. The sixth model (figure 101) was supposed as similar as possible to the actual structure. Secondly. the model was based on the same characteristics considered in the fifth Lusas model including the consideration of the reinforcement ribs 51. These reinforcement ribs were modelled as beam elements called BMS3.2 Hypotheses and Objectives.75 metres. The overall dimensions were 45 per 30 centimetres and the weight was supposed negligible. Therefore.
The main objective of the study was checking if the reinforcement ribs thought by Torroja improved the structural behaviour of the shell. the geometry after the bombards could not be measured because all the measuring devices were removed during the Civil Spanish War. The additional objective was the determination of the most suitable ribs location considering the different proposals realized by different authors. based on the sketch presented by Fernández (figure 100). as well as the characteristics of these reinforcements was not clearly explained. One important conclusion obtained from this analysis was that the structural behaviour is improved when the ribs at the smallest cylinder are considered. Therefore. the vertical deflections along the central directrix (figure 102) improve overall at the smallest cylindrical sector when the reinforcement ribs are located in both cylinders. 3. The principal objective of the reinforcement ties was raising the damage shell. For example. the ribs were supposed only in the biggest cylinder and in the second one in both cylinders. considering the ribs location supposed by Antuña. Figure 101: 3D Lusas model. Furthermore.6. The first analysis was based on the reinforcement ribs at the smallest cylinder. is in both cylinders. the most adequate disposition of the ribs. in the conception of the structure. the reinforcement ties were not considered because the geometry was supposed before the bombard and the raising of the shell was not needed. Therefore. to be on the safe side. However.3 Study of the Ribs location. two different models. the reinforcement ties were not considered in the sixth Lusas model. were compared without considering the reinforcement ties 52: In the first model. Therefore.the location showed in the sketch proposed by Fernández only in the biggest cylinder. 52 88 .
proposed by Fernández. The model is based on five reinforcements ribs located in the biggest cylinder. If the number of ribs is increased.2 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐2 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 Distance X (m) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fernández Big cilyinder Fernández both cylinders Figure 102: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different reinforcement hypotheses. 89 . Appendix B. However. is coloured in red and the model based on eleven reinforcements proposed by Antuña in green. Thirdly. the aesthetic value of the building is decreased because the shell is conceived with higher thickness. 2 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐2 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 Distance X (m) 0 10 20 30 Fernández Big cilyinder Antuña big cylinder Figure 103: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different reinforcement hypotheses. some undesirable factors appear. Firstly. the improvement between both models. which was based on eleven reinforcement ribs. the two compared models were the model proposed by Antuña. the shell has more dead loads. and a modification of the model proposed by Fernández considering only the ribs located at the biggest cylinder. The comparison between both models was based on the vertical deflections along the central directrix (figure 103) showed that the structural behaviour is improved when more ribs are considered. cannot be considered good enough because more than the double of ribs were used in the design proposed by Férnandez. Secondly. The second analysis was based on the determination of the optimum number of ribs in the biggest cylinder. In this study. the prize of the structure is higher because more reinforced concrete is needed. 3% at the seagull profile (Table 15. which consisted of only five reinforcement ribs.2). The model is based on five reinforcements ribs located only in the biggest cylinder is coloured in red and in the both cylinders in blue.
3. The other elements studied were the isobars and bending moments by means of the comparison between the fifth and the sixth Lusas model along the central directrix (figures 105.6. The first element studied was the vertical deflections along the central directrix. p. 53 Because this model was described also by Torroja in his Report (Torroja 1942. This analysis showed that these deflections are reduced (figure 104) when the ribs are considered.4 Analysis. p. In these analyses the following conclusions were obtained: Firstly. Secondly. The fifth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the sixth one in red. In order to simplify the analysis only the model proposed by Antuña 53 is analyzed.159). the bending moments at the smallest lobe were slightly worse.147) However. Therefore. 90 . the ribs could have avoided the fissures located at the biggest cylinder produced by the torsion moment (Torroja 1942. the maximum tension and compression stress isobars are slightly reduced when the ribs are considered. the assumption of ribs reduces highly the bending moments at the biggest cylindrical sector. Furthermore. producing similar deflections to the simply supported beam improving the structural behaviour of the shell. The objective of this study was checking if the structural behaviour is improved when the reinforcements are considered. 106 and 107). 2 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 ‐12 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fifth Lusas model Sixth Lusas model Figure 104: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different models. the biggest cylindrical sector had a more homogenous behaviour because the deflection shape had only one curvature.
Compression stress isobars (MPa) 2 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fifth Lusas' model Sixth Lusas' model Figure 107: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. 91 .10.2 Bending moments KNm/m 2 1 1 0 ‐1 0 ‐1 ‐2 ‐2 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Sixth Lusas model Fifth Lusas model with beam Figure 105: Transversal bending moments along the central directrix considering different models. The fifth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the sixth one in red. All the diagrams of maximum compression and tension stress isobars are presented in Appendix A. The fifth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the sixth one in red. 20 Tension stress isobars (MPa) 15 10 5 0 ‐5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fifth Lusas' model Sixth Lusas' model Distance X (m) Figure 106: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models. The fifth Lusas model is coloured in blue and the sixth one in red.
the vertical deflections along the central directrix are improved when the reinforcement ribs were located in both cylinders. to be on the safe side. Therefore.3. the assumption of the ribs in the model reduced highly the bending moments at the biggest cylindrical sector. the ribs could have avoided the fissures located at the biggest lobe produced by the torsion moments described by Torroja in the actual structure (Torroja 1942. the ribs thought by Torroja in order to improve the original structure could not be found. when the ribs proposed by Antuña are considered. the location and characteristics were supposed similar to the ribs designed with the purpose of repair the damaged shell after the bombards suffered during the Spanish Civil War. the structural behaviour is improved when more ribs are considered at the biggest cylindrical sector. the bending moments at the smallest lobe are slightly worse. Secondly. p. Thirdly. the maximum values of the compression and tension stress isobars are slightly reduced in the biggest lobe regarding the preceding model. Fourthly. the vertical deflections along the biggest cylindrical sector have a more homogenous behaviour because the deflection shape have only one curvature.147). 92 . is located in both cylinders. Therefore.5 Conclusions. in the conception of the structure. Fifthly.6. The study of the reinforcement showed some conclusions: Firstly. Therefore. the most adequate disposition of the ribs. Sixthly. However. producing a similar shape to the simply supported beam.
Torroja proposed the study of the wind suctions in a wind tunnel test (Torroja 1942. This factor was highly fewer than other contemporary shells. Therefore. the security factor of the Areneros shells (figure 25) was 5 (Antuña 2003. Seagull In all the preceding structures.21) in order to know the accuracy effects of this phenomenon in the particular shape of the Frontón Recoletos structure. p. Supports At the connection between the biggest cylindrical sector and the wall. the analysis of the buckling is really recommended in this structure.11). the connection between the lobes consisted of a longitudinal beam. the supports were offcentre (figure 30). Therefore. but no mention was made of the study of buckling. the Frontón Recoletos was designed without that beam because the shell worked as a laminar structure instead of two longitudinal vaults (Torroja 1942. that connection could be studied by a finite elements analysis in order to check the effect of the support eccentricity.88 in the Frontón Recoletos. This phenomenon was also analyzed in the smallscale test (Torroja 1942. The purpose of this characteristic was centring the reactive forces in that location (Antuña 2003. with a beam could be interesting in order to compare both structural behaviours.7 Future research Some interesting future research necessary to improve the knowledge about the roof of the Frontón Recoletos are proposed.140).15).190).133). 93 . a finite elements model based on substitute the connection between both cylindrical sectors. Transversal expansion presents no problem due to the great transversal flexibility of the shell in this direction” (Torroja 1942. Therefore.3. seagull profile. p. However. p. For example. p. However. Wind suctions The experimental wind suction effects of the cylinder case were used in order to approximate the wind suction law along the directrix in the Frontón Recoletos. p. Therefore. Temperature dilation Torroja described the effect of the temperature in the Frontón Recoletos: “… small connecting rods thus permitting the longitudinal expansion of the shell. Buckling A description of the design of the Frontón Recoletos was published by Torroja in 1942. p. In order to calculate the risk of buckling of a cylindrical surface Antuña applied the Foppl formulas obtaining a safety factor of 0. a finite elements model based on the temperature dilation in the shell could be studied with the purpose of checking the hypotheses considered by Torroja as well as the results of the smallscale test.
innovative forming systems that allow reducing that cost could be studied in the future in order to make this kind of structures more competitive in the future. 94 . This design consisted of the some reinforced concrete rings defined with the purpose of correcting the bombard deflections. a design to repair the roof was drawn up. Therefore. Ribs ties After the Civil Spanish War. the steel fibre reinforced concrete. a finite elements model based on the ribs ties proposed in the repair works could be studied in order to check the shell raising proposed by Torroja. which was used in the roof of the L’Oceanográfico in Valencia. New methods One of the problems of the thin shells made of concrete was the forming cost. New materials Studying the structure with current materials as for example. raising the shell. Therefore.
These aesthetical and architectonics concepts are not better or worse of yesteryear. when famous designers such as Torroja or Candela erected structures that became landmark examples of modern architecture. This adaptation and the conception of the structure was thought by Torroja as a way to improve the knowledge about this kind of structures and therefore. and complex and attractive typologies are designed in order to amaze the observer. This problem could be solved by the development of alternate construction techniques like innovative forming systems. which was based on the Torroja’s hypotheses during the theoretical calculations. These methods were based on exact equations modelling the behaviour of the cylindrical shells and were adapted by Torroja in order to calculate the Fronton Recoletos shell. The main reason why large thin concrete shell structures are no longer constructed are the forming cost. this shell is a clear example of the Torroja’s thoughts about the structures. This factor was explained by the hypothesis of thickness 95 . the absence of beam at the connection between lobes. Firstly. Nowadays. Thin concrete shells are not as popular today as they once were. the structural truth is not considered indispensable anymore. the support conditions as well as the asymmetrical directrix. Nevertheless. This structure was considered a structural challenge due to the innovative characteristics incorporated: the biggest size. The following conclusions were obtained after the structural analysis of the Frontón Recoletos shell. showed clearly the similarity with the experimental deflections measured in the smallscale model and the actual structure.Chapter 4 Conclusions The Frontón Recoletos is a noteworthy example of the courage showed by Torroja along all his extensive professional experience. the aesthetic sensibility has deeply changed. Furthermore. Nevertheless. just completely different to the Torroja’s beliefs. all the deflections and stresses were measured during the construction and the first years of the building. the skylights. which was based on the simplicity and the truth. which did not allow the application of the theoretical methods existing in the period when the structure was constructed. the transversal bending moments as well as the maximum tension and compression stress isobars were higher than the values obtained by Torroja. without considering the structural or functional requirements. the cost alone cannot be the only explanation for the decrease in popularity of thin concrete shells. These structures have to be also repopularized and reintroduced into the minds of designers and builders. the first Lusas model. Many times the shape is designed following only purely aesthetical reasons.
as for example the study of the temperature dilation or the raising of the shell by means of the ribs proposed by Torroja. Fourthly. This factor showed that the structural behaviour of the shell was perfectly known by Torroja and the simplifications were logically applied. calculate and build perfectly the Frontón Recoletos using his intuition and his structural knowledge in order to adapt the available theories. Seventhly. 96 . who was able to design. Furthermore. as was supposed by Torroja. considering that originally the structure was calculated by hand. the real supports decreased the stiffness of the structure and therefore. as the designer supposed. the deflections and stresses were increased regarding the theoretical supports. the vertical deflections obtained by the first model were highly similar to the deflections measured in the actual models. All the conclusions obtained in the structural analysis showed the extraordinary talent and courage of Eduardo Torroja. can be carried out in order to continue the labour showed by Torroja of improving the knowledge about the thin concrete shell structures. the fifth Lusas model is highly sensible to variations in the loads and the Elasticity Modulus and these factors could not be measured perfectly in the real structure. the similarity between the results obtained by Torroja and the Lusas program is surprising high. because the structure was stiffer in those sections. Torroja probably adapted the parameters of the theoretical model. because the stresses and deflections were reduced. Thirdly. Sixthly. the wind suction effects improved the structural behaviour of the shell. Future interesting researches. Ninthly. variation of these elements could explain the difference of vertical distortions between the values obtained by Torroja in the actual structure and the fifth Lusas model. in the second model the transversal bending moments were increased in the places where the thickness was increased. the consideration of skylights increased the deflections and stresses because the structure was more flexible as well as increased the stresses at the connection between the shell and the skylights due to the difference of stiffness between both elements. the concentration of stresses produced by the concentrated supports was resolved by Torroja by means of beams along the edges in order to distribute the forces. which was considered the most similar to the reality. the real skylights can logically be simplified as closed shell because the structural behaviour of the second and the fourth Lusas model was highly similar. Secondly. like the Elasticity Modulus. Therefore. Eighthly. However. For that reason. Therefore. like for example the skylights. Fifthly. the reinforcement ribs proposed by Torroja improved the structural behaviour of the shell. in order to obtain a similar behaviour to the measured smallscale structure.variation along the shell supposed in the calculation of the stresses as well as the probable numerical mistakes because the calculations were done by hand. the assumption considered by Torroja of not including these elements in the initial theoretical calculation can be logically assumed. as for example in the location of the reinforcement bars or in the theoretical vertical deflections.
.. Firefly Books... Guiness. 4ª edición. Teng. SportsThe Complete Visual Reference.. Pusan. J. 1999. nº 137.K. Proceedings. Torroja. Torroja. 14–16 June. Instituto Eduardo Torroja.. J. Princeton University Cambridge university press. 2001. E. Medwadowski. Madrid. November 2004. Guiness Sports Record Book 19901991. 2003. Las estructuras de edificación de Eduardo Torroja y Miret. Concrete International October 2005.J. Escuela técnica Superior de Arquitectura Madrid. Cambridge university press. año XIV. 2004.. Calladine. Sterling Publishing C. 1990. London Thomas Telford. Steelconcrete composite shells for enclosing large spaces. Proceedings of the IASS Symposium. 1962a. Astudillo and N. Torroja.. 29/0302/04/2006. R. 2006. Instituto Eduardo Torroja. D. April 1997. Torroja. Meyer.. Vera. Sheer M.. Cambridge University. C. The Evolution of the Work of Eduardo Torroja. Eduardo Torroja: Ingeniero. 2000. J. Theory of Shell Structures. Informes de la construcción: Revista de información técnica. F. Billington D. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Anton Tedesko The Introduction of Thin Shell Concrete Roofs in the United States. Heinz Isler: The engineer contribution to contemporary architecture.. Korea.R. E. Do Concrete Shells Deserve Another Look? Industry professional give mixed opinions.. University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles. Cambridge. 1962b. Queens' College. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE. Billington.. Structural Engineering Handbook Mc Graw: Thin shell concrete structures. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. Chilton. International Conference on Steel and Composite Structures.. Madrid. Hines E. 2000.. S.. C. 97 . 1998.R. Razón y ser de los tipos estructurales Artículo de láminas. Fortin. Madrid.O. Edited by J. 1962. Concrete thin shell roofs at the turn of the millennium. 1979. Srivastava. 1942. Pronaos.G. Fernandez. 2005. Second International Congress on Construction History. Abel. 1983.Bibliography Antuña. J. J. Philosophy of structures. E. J. E. Current and Emerging Technologies of Shell and Spatial Structures. Madrid. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid.H.A. 1976. Antuña.
Departament of Civil and Structural Engineering. Hong Kong.2004. I. Eduardo Torroja. 2007. J.G. China.Torroja. H. J. Buckling behavior of model base shells of a Comshell roof system. Teng.T nº 79 Wong.. T. Mechanics and Computations Zingoni. Taylor & Francis Group London 98 . The Hong Kong University. Progress in Structural Engineering.A.
com/albums/h317/labombilla/Gotasdelluvia.ooJIGERc.  99 . Agrippa Pantheon: http://contenidos. Figure 5: Sagrada Familia: http://www.Figures Figure 1: Tree leaf: http://i67.MyceneaLionGateBW.photobucket.alaskainpictures.com/images/barcelona/sagradafamiliabarcelona. Figure 2: Lion Gate: http://i.net/10/110/11001.es/mci/2004/44/@rt.architecture.pbase.com/o6/94/689794/1/81199881.jpg last view 2/3/09.cfm?ID=s0000073 last view 4/4/09.de/structures/data/photos.structurae.fundacioncac.viaarquitectura.gif last view 2/3/09.com/data/file/357.jpg last view 2/3/09.com/Arte_romano/images/Templo_Panteon_R oma_jpg.gaudidesigner.guideinbarcelona.com/data/media/9/inupiateskimoigloo_438.es/cas/artesyciencias/mediateca/download/20049913856o2178dig_jft. Antonio Gaudi’s reversed model: http://www. L’Oceanogràfic: http://www.jpg last view 2/3/09 and http://www.jpg last view 2/3/09. Figure 4: Relaxation park: http://www.Tor reviejaRelaxa_530x421.com/Images/RIBATrust/Awards/RoyalGoldMedal/2006/Pavillion. Igloo: http://www.educarex.jpg last view 3/3/09.jpg last view 2/3/09.jpg last view 15/3/09.jpg last view 15/04/09. Figure 3: SidneyOpera: http://en.
November 2004 E.structurae.jpg http://graphics8._Borl%C3%A4nge.ca/prof/sijpkes/abcstructures2005/concrete/HyparManantiales. Hines and D.jpg /180pxKupolen.galinsky. Billington.jpg last view 2/3/09.htm last view 2/3/09.jpg last view 4/4/09 and http://farm4.com/ingenieros/15sXXm1_archivos/image013.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/BSI/ARCH/img0086.jpg last view 9/5/09.com/3148/2544102546_1ab9ab8a19.._Borl%C3%A4nge.edu/elibrary/getpkg?id=GoddenE4244&t=10 last view 4/4/09.jpg last view 4/4/09.  Figure 10: Restaurante Los Manantiales designed by Candela: http://www.Figure 6: Fedala water tank designed by Torroja : http://en.jpg last view 4/4/09.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Kupolen. Figure 11: Trans World Airline designed by Saarinem: last view 4/4/09 and http://www.flickr.static.jpg last view 4/4/09 and http://www.albaiges.edu/~sullivanm/saartwa/angle. Billington p. D.nytimes. 100 .de/files/photos/2520/shell/image17copy2. Church Building: http://nisee. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE. Figure 7: Pallazeto dello sport designed by Nervi: http://www.columbia. Anton Tedesko: The Introduction of Thin Shell Concrete Roofs in the United States. Figure 8: Kupolen stadium designed by Sundquist: http://upload.wikimedia.1640. Figure 9: Hangar d’Orly: http://www.jpg?v=0 last view 4/4/09.com/images/2008/02/22/nyregion/portal600.bluffton.mcgill.com/buildings/palazzettodellosport/index. Figure 12: Table of different thin concrete shells: Hines E.arch.berkeley.
Proceedings.5.cse.uniroma2.structurae.seaice.cfm?JS=17155 last view 12/4/09. Structure Lomas de Cuernavaca: http://www.cfm?ID=s0012106 last view 7/4/09. Korea.binisystems.princeton.structurae. 2001.de/photos/index.hk/~cejgt/comshell/comshell.edu/main/images/news/2008/10/Chapel‐Lomas‐de‐Cuernavaca‐i.bible‐archaeology. International Conference on Steel and Composite Structures.de/structures/data/photos. Steelconcrete composite shells for enclosing large spaces. Figure 15: Second phase of the Bini’s System: http://www.htm last view 7/4/09.  Figure 18: African tent: http://www.binisystems. Sami tent: http://www. Real structure: Comshell web site. Hayden Planetarium: http://en. J.it/didattica/AT21/deposito/8_voltesottilidicementoarmato.org. 14–16 June p.html last view 5/3/09.jpg last view 5/3/09.com/shell34.jpg last view 5/3/09.polyu.com/shell12. Figure 16: Inflating process: http://en.uk/research/graphics/euroclim/Sami_tent_at_Fjellheisen.  Figure 14: First phase of the Bini’s System: http://www.jpg last view 6/4/09.html last view 5/3/09. Pusan.pdf last view 12/4/09. http://www.  101 .G.Figure 13: Jena Planetarium: http://www. Figure 17: Modular steel units and cylindrical shape: Teng.info/Tents_nomadic.edu.
A.cfm?JS=51698 last http://imagespain. view 15/04/09 and Figure 20: Inverted model: Chilton.jpg last view 16/04/09.99.. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. J. I.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotoshistoricas87. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Figure 24: Picture of the outside of the structure of the Frontón Recoletos: http://www. J. Heinz Isler: The engineer contribution to contemporary architecture. Eduardo Torroja.cfm?id=s0030516 last view 17/04/09.structurae. Station service in Deitingen: http://en. Madrid.uwa.com/pics/1269.  Figure 21: Structural behavior of the vault and long barrel: http://www. p.. Figure 25: Cylindrical thin concrete shell: Torroja. London Thomas Telford. Market Hall: http://en. Las estructuras de edificación de Eduardo Torroja y Miret.17. J. 2000.html last view 15/05/09.T nº 79 p.htm last view 15/04/09.p.structurae.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotoshistoricas87. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. 2003. 102 . Escuela técnica Superior de Arquitectura Madrid. Figure 22: 3D model of the supports: Antuña.urbanity. E. p.student.de/structures/data/photos.32.Figure 19: Aqueduct Tempul: Torroja. 2007..de/photos/index.html last view 15/05/09. Figure 23: Picture of the inside of the structure of the Frontón Recoletos: http://www.edu.144.urbanity.au/~wongs30/shells__developable_shells. 1942.
Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Jai alai player: http://www. 1999. E. Reinforced construction drawing: Torroja. Figure 4. Madrid.nytimes‐institute. J. Figure 32: Wind load law including the suction effects along the directrix: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Las estructuras de edificación de Eduardo Torroja y Miret. Pronaos. Madrid.jpg last view 15/04/09. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar..htm last view 15/04/09.dania‐jai‐alai. E. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar.. Vera. Figure 31: Wind load law without including the suction effects along the directrix: Figure realized by the Lusas program. p. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. J.com/page3. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. 103 .A.. Madrid.30. 134. Escuela técnica Superior de Arquitectura Madrid. Figure 28: Differential element of the shell: Torroja. 2003.Figure 26: Court of Jai alai: http://www.67. 1942. Figure18. Figure30: Joins between the shell and the wall in the Frontón Recoletos: Antuña.. p. Eduardo Torroja: Ingeniero. J. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas.  Figure 29: Comparison sizes between the Frontón and Budapest: Figure realized by the Autocad program. Figure 27: Different Frontón de Recoletos designs: Fernández. 1942.R.com/miami09/wp‐content/uploads/2009/01/jai‐alai‐2.
. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Instituto Eduardo Torroja. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Madrid.. Figure 34: Dead weight load law along the directrix: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 37: Deflections along the directrix presented by Torroja for different models: Torroja. año XIV. 104 . Figure 40: Maximum values of the compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas. Figure 36: Diagram of transversal bending moments along the directrix presented by Torroja: Torroja. Madrid. Figure 38: Mesh of the first Lusas model and supports and surfaces considered in the model: Figure realized by the Lusas program. p. 1962. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. 1942. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. E. Madrid. Informes de la construcción: Revista de información técnica. Figures 16 and 17.4. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Figure 35: Isobars of maximum compression and tension stress presented by Torroja: Torroja. Figure9. nº 137. E. E. 1962a. Figure 39: Maximum values of the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas.. 1942. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid.Figure 33: Snow load law along the directrix: Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 47: Comparison of the deflections measured by different models: Figure obtained with the Autocad program cad using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 45: Vertical deflections in the first Lusas model along central directrix for the load case four: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 46: Absolute vertical deflections in the first Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix: Figure realized by the Lusas program.Figure 41: Deflections in the 3D model calculated by the first Lusas model: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 44: Absolute Zdeflections in the first Lusas model along the seagull profile: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 48: Absolute vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections 105 . Figure 42: Deflections in the 3D model calculated by the first Lusas model: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 43: Absolute vertical deflections in the first Lusas model at the connection between both cylindrical sectors: Figure realized by the Lusas program.
Figure 54: Variation of thickness along the central directrix: Torroja. Figure 53: Maximum compression stress isobars in the first Lusas model along the plan of the halfundeveloped section: Figure realized by the Lusas program.4. Figure 56: Plan of the surface elements used in the second Lusas model and plan of the mesh used in the second Lusas model: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Informes de la construcción: Revista de información técnica..Figure 49: Absolute Lusas Zdeflections in the first Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 51: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 52: Maximum tension stress isobars in the first Lusas model along the plan of the halfundeveloped section: Figure realized by the Lusas program. nº 137. 106 . Instituto Eduardo Torroja p. 1962. Figure 55: Variation of thickness in the second Lusas model along the directrix and zoom of the seagull profile: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Madrid. E. Figure 50: Transversal Bending moments presented by the first Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix: Figure realized by the Lusas program. año XIV. 1962a.
Figure 63: Maximum compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering different model: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 60: Transversal bending moments presented by the second Lusas model along the central undeveloped directrix: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Figure 58: Absolute vertical deflections along the central directrix obtained by the second Lusas model: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 62: Maximum tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering different model: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.Figure 57: Absolute vertical deflections along the seagull profile obtained by the second Lusas model: Figure realized by the Lusas program. Figure 59: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 61: Transversal bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 64: Maximum tension stress isobars in halfundeveloped plan obtained by the second Lusas model: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. 107 .
es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotoshistoricas87. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. E. Figure 72: Fourth Lusas model consisted of surfaces and beams: Figure obtained by the Lusas program.html last view 15/05/09. Figure 6.. 108 . 1942. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. Figure 70: 3D view of the fourth Lusas model: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Madrid. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Figure 69: Construction of the skylight beams using wooden frameworks: http://www.urbanity. Figure 71: Directrix of the fourth Lusas model and zoom of the skylight in the smallest cylindrical sector: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Figure 67: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different load cases in the third Lusas model: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 68: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different load cases in the third Lusas model: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.Figure 65: Maximum compression stress isobars in halfundeveloped plan obtained by the second Lusas model: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Figure 66: Wind suction law considered by Torroja: Torroja.
Figure 74: Deflections in the 3D view of the fourth Lusas model: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Figure 75: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 77: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 79: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 78: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. from the coordinate Z = 0 metres to Z = 27. Figure 76: Vertical deflections along half seagull profile. Figure 80: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.5 metres considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. 109 .Figure 73: Deflections in the 3D view of the fourth Lusas model: Figure obtained by the Lusas program.
Figure 21. E.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotoshistoricas87. Figure 21. E. Figure 86: Real supports at the directrix: Torroja. Madrid. Figure 84: Plan of the halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars for the fourth Lusas model: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Figure 88: Picture of the smallscale model tested by Torroja: http://www. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Figure 82: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different model: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. 1942. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Madrid..Figure 81: Bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.urbanity. 110 . Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Figure 83: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different model: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.html last view 15/05/09. Figure 87: Real supports at the generators: Torroja. 1942. Figure 85: Plan of the halfundeveloped section of the maximum compression stress isobars for the fourth Lusas model: Figure obtained by the Lusas program..
Figure 92: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.Figure 89: Fifth Lusas model consisted of surfaces and the supports conditions: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Figure 90: Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars when the discontinuous supports were considered but not the edged beam: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Figure 96: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 93: Vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 95: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 91: Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum tension stress isobars when the edged beams and the discontinuous supports were considered: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. Figure 94: Bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. 111 .
Figure 99: Construction drawings used by Torroja of the reinforcement rings located at the biggest lobe: Torroja.. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. 1942. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas.. Madrid. E. Figure 103: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different reinforcement hypotheses: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.A. Vera. J.urbanity. p. Figure 101: 3D Lusas model. Figure 100: A sketch showing the proposed solution to repair the Frontón Recoletos roof: Fernandez.. Figure 102: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different reinforcement hypotheses: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 104: Vertical deflections along the central directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. 1999. considering the ribs location supposed by Antuña: Figure obtained by the Lusas program. J. Figure 159. 112 .143. Pronaos. Figure 98: Collapse of the Frontón Recoletos roof: http://www. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Eduardo Torroja: Ingeniero.es/foro/urbanismomad/893demadridalcieloalbumdefotoshistoricas87.R.Figure 97: Plan of halfundeveloped section of the maximum compression stress isobars when the edged beams and the discontinuous supports were considered: Figure obtained with the Lusas program. Madrid.html last view 15/05/09.
113 . Figure 106: Tension stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.Figure 105: Transversal bending moments along the central directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections. Figure 107: Compression stress isobars along the central directrix considering different models: Figure obtained with the Excel program using the results obtained by Lusas and the Torroja’s deflections.
Appendix A Lusas calculations
Lusas is a finite element analysis programme, also called FEAP, where the finite elements are applied to the analysis of static or dynamic physical objects and systems. The object of the programme is representing by a geometrically similar simplified model the structure. Equations of equilibrium, derived from applicable physical considerations, are applied to each element, and a system of simultaneous equations is constructed. Finally, solving this system is obtained the outputs, which show the structural behaviour of the structure. The FEAP is used to analyze objects and systems that are of sufficient complexity that analysis with simpler closedform analytical methods will not yield results of adequate accuracy, and permits the solution of problems, which could not otherwise be solved. There are some FEA programmes adequate to solve the Frontón Recoletos, as for example Abaqus or Ansys. However, the chosen program was Lusas. Units
The units used in the programme are the same defined in the International System: Newton to forces, Metres to lengths, Seconds to times, and Calvin to temperatures. Version of Lusas
The calculations have been done using the programme Lusas 14.1.
114
A.1 Lusas Elements
Two different Lusas elements were used in the different Lusas models: QSI4 in the surfaces and BMS3 in the beams. Both elements are described in this chapter. The first element QSI4 is used in thin shells in 3D and taking into account both membrane and flexural deformations. As required by thin plate theory, transverse shearing deformations are excluded. This element has six freedoms, three deformations and three rotations in each node (figure A).
Figure A: Freedoms of the QSI4 element: three deformations (u, v, w) and three rotations (fix, fiy and fiz), Lusas outputs for the element QSI4. These figures were obtained from Lusas manual.
The output of the Lusas program (figure A) for the element QSI4 are: Stress resultant: Nx, Ny, Nxy, Mx, My, Mxy: forces, moments/unit width in local directions. Stress (default): σx, σy, σxy, σmax, σmin, β, σe: in local direction Strain: εx, εy, γxy, ψx, ψy, ψxy: membrane, flexural strains in local directions.
For the comparison with the diagrams obtained by Torroja (figure A) the maximum and minimum values of the axial forces, called N, distributed along the thickness of the shell were used. The second element BMS3 is defined as a straight beam element in 3D for which shear deformations are included and the geometric properties are constant along the length. This element, like the surface elements, has six freedoms, three deformations and three rotations in each node. The output of the Lusas program (figure B) for the element QMS3 are:


Force (default): Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My, Mz: in local directions. Element output is with respect to the beam centre line.
115
Figure B: Lusas outputs for the element QMS. This figure was obtained from Lusas manual.
116
the bending moments along the central directrix were calculated using the “Graph through 2D” option. the Isobar lines. The display was homogenized for all the isobars with the next characteristic: in the “Contour Display” option are checked the boxes “Filled”. tension stress isobars and “S3” for the maximum compression stress isobars. “Stress (middle)Thin shell”. the video was obtained by the option “Animation wizard” along the central directrix considering a sinoidal variation of the loads. Lastly. Secondly. deflection diagram at the central directrix was calculated using the option: “Deformed mesh”. Fourthly. Thirdly. Component “Mx” for the transversal bending moments and “My” for the longitudinal bending moments.8 MPa for compressions. “Stress thin shell”. Component “DY” or “DZ”. component “S1” for the maximum. corresponding to the maximum stresses obtained by Torroja in the numerical calculations. “Lines” and “Smoothed” and in the “Contour Range” option are defined 11 intervals with maximum values 8 MPa.2 Lusas Outputs. were measured in the isobars. The Lusas outputs used along the thesis were the following: Firstly. which were obtained using the “Contour Results” option.A. the deformations at the central directrix were obtained using the “Graph through 2D” option. in the case of tensions and 5. “Displacement”. 117 . These values.
Figure B: Local cardinal coordinate system located at the centres of the lobes 55.A.47 980.3 Loads The snow and wind load laws along the directrix were defined by Torroja in cylindrical coordinates depending on the angle " " (formula 3. However. These systems were located at the centres of the both cylindrical sectors. Torroja supposed compressions in both sides of the shell. the relations between both systems 54 were obtained using trigonometry (formula A and B). 637. and 55 = Local cardinal coordinates in each of the cardinal coordinate systems. 118 . In order to obtain the laws in the new coordinate system: Firstly. in order to introduce these variations in the Lusas program.66 54 To obtaining the relation between both coordinate system was used the absolute value in Cos φ because as was explained in the section 2. the values in the laws presented by Torroja were changed (formula C. After that.3 of this thesis. 9). This picture was obtained using Autocad program. two cardinal coordinate systems were defined. D and E).
Figure B: Beam elements and triangular windows.4 metres. This load is distributed differently for shells and skylights beams: for the first is per unit area and for the second one per unit length. the wind load along the beams per unit length is the 40 % of the wind load for shells per unit area. direction along the local x axis.4 3 The wind load is orthogonal to the surface in each point. The variation of the thickness was defined by means of the utility called “Surface function variation” which consists of a single function in terms of the parametric coordinates of the surface “u”. As each beam is joined by two windows. G and H).4 Definition of the thickness. This distribution is defined per unit area. the Lusas loading option “global distributed” along Y direction was used. the virtual beams wide will be 2c = 0. in order to define the wind law in the skylights beams. which means that the beams had a virtual wide. which were formed by the beam length per the virtual wide (figure B). However. the original wind distribution was changed because each beam had to resist the wind effect at the windows located in both sides of the beam. called 2c (figure B). and “v”. Therefore. 119 . In order to obtain the parameter “c” (formulas F. direction along the local y axis. the Lusas loading option “local distributed loads” along Z direction was used in shells and skylights beams. therefore.Wind Suction 0. A. 2 2 2 2 3 3 0. the area of the triangular windows was distributed in three virtual beams.2 The snow load is always vertical. Therefore.
different coefficient K of stiffness was obtained for each direction. As the beam acted like a spring in two directions. The real supports at the generators (figure 87) consisted of a fixed section located at the centre and parallel beams at the rest of the generator each 1. For this simple structure the stiffness K can be obtained knowing the deformation when concentrated force is applied at the edge (formula I. and is different for each direction.5 meters. cantilever beam: the symbol P corresponds to the concentrated load applied at the edge of the beam as well as the symbol L is defined as the longitude of the beam and model of spring at the generators. The supports were simplified supposing a cantilever beam fixed in the wall (figure E).5 Definition of the Real supports. Figure E: Springs model. These beams fixed the vertical movements and acted like springs in the Z direction. K and L). The Modulus of Inertia I. as well as in the X direction. (formula J) was calculated knowing the dimensions of the rectangular section. A per B. 3 12 3 120 . orthogonal to the generators.A. parallel to the generators.
Generators Generators Direction of the spring X Z H (m) 1.3 Table 4: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the third support between the directrix and the wall.5 0.8 A (m) 0. Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m) Directrix support 2 X 2. which were listed from left to right in figure 86.3 0. This connection was based on six points.0 0.3 Directrix support 3 Z 3.3 0.In the next tables.6 Directrix support 3 Z 2. Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m) Directrix support 3 X 3. different springs are considered in each point of the connection between the shell and the wall at the directrix.6 Table 3: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the second support between the directrix and the wall. The same spring is considered for all the supports located at the edged generators.6 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 Table 2: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the first support between the directrix and the wall. Each of these points has different number of stiffer beams and pillar and therefore.3 Directrix support 3 X 2.3 Directrix support 1 Z 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 B (m) 0.5 Table 1: Characteristics measured in figure 87 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the generators. 121 . The spring generators consisted only of one pillar. Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m) Directrix support 1 X 1.3 Directrix support 2 Z 2.3 Directrix support 2 X 2.6 0.5 0. all the measured dates and the final coefficient K used in each concentrated support are summarized.0 0. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and one beam.3 0. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar. All the characteristics are presented in metres. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and one beam.0 0.5 0. However. the final spring stiffness is supposed as the sum of all those elements.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 Directrix support 2 Z 2.
0 40.3 Directrix support 5 Z 3.0 0.3 Table 5: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the fourth support between the directrix and the wall. In next table are listed the values of the different Ki coefficient in the spring X and Z expressed in MN/m.5 11.0 0.4 6.9 Directrix support 5 Z 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0. Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m) Directrix support 5 X 3.5 0.3 Directrix support 4 Z 3.5 18.0 9.6 0.3 Directrix support 5 Z 3.0 11. Generator Directrix Support 1 Directrix Support 2 Directrix Support 3 Directrix Support 4 Directrix Support 5 Directrix Support 6 Kx (MN/m) 8. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and two beams.3 Directrix support 6 X 1.5 0. Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m) Directrix support 6 X 3. Direction of the spring H (m) A (m) B (m) Directrix support 4 X 3.0 0.3 0.5 13.0 0.3 Directrix support 5 X 3.0 Kz (N/m) 0.0 0.0 11.3 Directrix support 6 Z 1.0 34.5 0.3 0.3 Directrix support 5 X 1.6 Table 7: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the sixth support between the directrix and the wall.3 0.3 9.3 0.3 Directrix support 6 Z 3.6 0.5 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 Directrix support 4 Z 1. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and one beam.3 Directrix support 4 X 1.3 0.8 18. The spring in this point consisted of one pillar and one beam.0 0.3 Table 6: Characteristics measured in figure 86 in order to obtain the stiffness of the spring in the fifth support between the directrix and the wall.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 122 .2 12.
All these diagrams are coloured in red for tension stress and in blue for compression stress where the maximum isobars obtained by Torroja were exceeded. In this section are showed the maximum tension stress and compression stress isobar diagrams calculated by Lusas considering four different load cases: Load case 1: Dead weight Load case 2: Dead weight with wind. 123 . Figure F: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case one. Load case 4: Dead load with snow and wind. without suction. The maximum value is 19. without suction.6 Load Combination Study.A. load.5 times the maximum value measured by Torroja.8 MPa that means 1. Load case 3: Dead weight with snow load. loads.
64 MPa that means 15 % higher than the values measured by Torroja.87 MPa that means around 2 times the values measured by Torroja. 124 . The maximum value is 6.Figure G: Maximum compression stress isobars considering the load case one. The maximum value is 23. Figure H: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case two.
Figure I: Maximum compression stress isobars considering the load case two. The maximum value is 8. The maximum value is 23. 125 .1 MPa that means 40 % higher than the values measured by Torroja. Figure J: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case three.97 MPa that means around 2 times the values measured by Torroja.
02 MPa that means 38 % higher than the values measured by Torroja. The maximum value is 28.Figure K: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the three. Figure L: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case four. 126 . The maximum value is 8.03 MPa that means 2.5 times the values measuered by Torroja.
39 MPa that means 62 % higher than the values measured by Torroja. 127 .Figure M: Maximum tension stress isobars considering the load case four. The maximum value is 9.
Figure N: Transversal bending moments calculated by the first Lusas model.7 Bending moments All the bending moment diagrams consist on halfundeveloped section of the plan. 1948 kg m/m. is located at the smallest cylindrical sector as well as the minimum value at the connection between both lobes and in the smallest cylinder. 56 Around 1000 kg m/m introduced in the programme as 9. In order to compare easily the values measured by Torroja: the points of the transversal bending moment diagrams calculated by Lusas where the maximum values obtained by Torroja 56 were exceeded are coloured in blue and red. The maximum value 57. In horizontal the directrix is located: On the left is located the biggest lobe and on the right is located the smallest cylindrical sector. which corresponds with 1948 kN m/m after changing the force units. The maximum value was 19.8 kN m/m. 57 128 .09 kN m/m.A.
around 456 kg m/m. 129 . The maximum values.Figure P: Longitudinal bending moments calculated by the first Lusas model. around 4 times higher. The maximum value measured in the diagram. However. compared with the values measured in the transversal bending moments. around 3259 kg m/m. is more than three times the maximum value obtained by Torroja. these stresses can be neglected. Figure Q: Transversal bending moments calculated by the second Lusas model. are located at the connection between the seagull and the wall.
Figure R: Longitudinal bending moments calculated by the second Lusas model. around 5 times higher. However. this value compared with the maximum values of the transversal bending moments. around 636 kg m/m is located at the connection between both cylindrical sectors. Figure S: Transversal bending moments calculated by the fourth Lusas model. The maximum value. 130 . around 850 kg m/m is located at the connection between the skylights and the shells. can be neglected. The maximum value.
131 . The maximum value. The maximum value. Figure U: Transversal bending moments calculated by the second Lusas model. around 1170 kg m/m is located at the connection between the shell and the wall. around 330 kg m/m is located at the connection between the skylights and the shell.Figure T: Longitudinal bending moments calculated by the fourth Lusas model.
Figure V: Longitudinal bending moments calculated by the second Lusas model. 132 . The maximum value. around 2120 kg m/m is located at the connection between directrix and the wall.
Figure W: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model. 133 . considering the first load case: dead weight.8 Study of the wind suction effects. considering the first load case: dead weight.A. Figure X: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model.
134 . considering the second load case: dead weight and wind including suction effects. considering the second load case: dead weight and wind including suction effects.Figure Y: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model. Figure Z: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model.
Figure A1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model. considering the fourth load case: dead weight. snow and wind including suction effects. snow and wind including suction effects. 135 . considering the fourth load case: dead weight. Figure B1: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the third Lusas model.
and the load case B. and the load case B. 30 Bending moments kNm/m 25 20 15 10 5 0 ‐5 0 ‐10 ‐15 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Load case A Load case B Figure C1: Bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case A. which is coloured in blue.In this Appendix the bending moments considering different load cases are presented. and the load case D. 136 . 40 Bending moments kN/m 30 20 10 0 ‐10 ‐20 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Load case C Load case D Distance X (m) Figure D1: Bending moments along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case C. which is coloured in blue. which is coloured in green. the comparison of the compression and tension stress isobars are showed. which is coloured in red. 10 8 Tension stress isobars (Mpa) 6 4 2 ‐ ‐2 0 5 10 15 20 Distance X (m) 25 30 Load case A Load case B Figure E1: Maximum values of the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case A. After that. which is coloured in green. which is coloured in orange.
which is coloured in orange. and the load case D.14 Tension stress isobars (Mpa) 12 10 8 6 4 2 ‐ ‐2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Distance X (m) Load case C Load case D Figure E1: Maximum values of the tension stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case C. which is coloured in red. and the load case B. and the load case D. which is coloured in green. which is coloured in blue. 1 Compression stress isobars (MPa) ‐ ‐1 0 ‐2 ‐3 ‐4 ‐5 ‐6 ‐7 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Load case C Load case D Figure G1: Maximum values of the compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case C. which is coloured in orange. 137 . Compression stress isobars (MPa) 1 ‐ ‐1 0 ‐2 ‐3 ‐4 ‐5 Distance X (m) Load case B 5 10 15 20 25 30 Load case A Figure F1: Maximum values of the compression stress isobars along the central undeveloped directrix considering the load case A. which is coloured in red.
Furthermore. 58 138 . After the analysis of the figure H1. is coloured in blue and the model based on the reduction of the stiffness of the wall. called Ky. These parameters are the following: Different stiffness of the concentrated supports located at the generators: In the fifth Lusas model. 2 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 ‐12 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fifth Lusas model Ky ‐ 10 % Kx and Kz Figure H1: Vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix considering different supports conditions. In this Appendix the variations of different parameters. The basic fifth Lusas model is coloured in red.9 Study of variation of parameters. the model considering the axial deflections. The effect of buckling of the wall was supposed a 10 % reducing the stiffness of the springs that connect the pillars on the wall with the roof. are studied. which could explain the differences observed between the vertical deflections measured by Torroja in the actual structure and the fifth Lusas model. the pillars located at the generators were supposed fixed to the wall and the increase of elasticity produced by the buckling of the wall was not considered 58. vertical springs were not modelled. the obtained conclusion is that the variation of supports has practically no influence in the vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix.A. nonaxial deflections were considered in determining the conditions of supports and therefore. is coloured in purple.
Furthermore. In figure J1. The basic fifth Lusas model is coloured in red. the conclusion is that increase of loads. the wind behaviour could not be studied in the wind tunnel test and therefore. Different loads conditions: The loads in the real structure could not be measured. 2 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 ‐12 ‐14 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fifth Lusas model + 10 % Overloads + 10 % All the loads Figure I1: Vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix considering different loads. the model considering one millimetre of thickness reduction is coloured in blue and the model considering two millimetres thickness reduction. is coloured in orange. especially of dead weight.  Different thickness along the shell: The real thickness of the constructed structure could be different to the thickness considered in the construction drawings. After the analysis of figure Y. is coloured in green. the model considering 10 % more of overloads is coloured in blue and the model considering 10 % more in all the loads. 139 . the similarity between the theoretical and actual loads could not be verified. different reductions of thickness are considered and compared with the fifth Lusas model showing that reductions of one or two millimetres thickness practically have no influence on the vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix. 2 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 ‐12 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fifth Lusas model ‐1 mm Thickness ‐ 2 mm Thickness Figure J1: Vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix considering different thickness. The basic fifth Lusas model is coloured in red. can cause large variations in the vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix. Different hypothesis of increase of loads are analyzed.
the model considering 5 % of Elasticity Modulus reduction is coloured in light blue. the variation of the Elasticity Modulus was considered obtaining as a conclusion that the variation of this factor produces highly variation of vertical deflections along the central undeveloped directrix. In figure K1. 140 . The variation of Elasticity Modulus: This element depends of the material characteristics.117). p. Torroja considered in the smallscale model a coefficient between 250000 and 350000 kg/cm2 (Torroja 1942. For example. 2 Vertical deflections (cm) 0 ‐2 0 ‐4 ‐6 ‐8 ‐10 ‐12 ‐14 ‐16 Distance X (m) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Fifth Lusas model ‐ 5 % E ‐10 % E ‐15 % E ‐20 % E Figure K1: Vertical distortions along the central undeveloped directrix considering different Elasticity Modulus. The basic fifth Lusas model is coloured in red. the model considering 15 % of Elasticity Modulus reduction is coloured in orange and the model considering 20 % of Elasticity Modulus reduction is coloured in green. the model considering 10 % of Elasticity Modulus reduction is coloured in dark blue.
considering five ribs in the biggest cylindrical lobe. In this appendix.A.10 Study of ribs. and therefore only five reinforcement ribs are proposed. Figure L1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model.148). The difference between both models is that the second one included the ribs in both lobes. The behaviour of the shell is studied considering different ribs hypotheses: The first and the second models were based on the Fernández’s Sketch (figure 100). The third model is based on reinforcements at the biggest cylindrical sector each five metres (Antuña 2003. the comparison of the three models is based on the diagrams of maximum tension stress and compression stress isobars. p. 141 .
Figure M1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering five ribs in the biggest cylindrical lobe.
Figure N1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering five ribs in both cylindrical sectors.
142
Figure O1: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering five ribs in both cylindrical sectors.
Figure P1: Maximum tension stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering the ribs proposed by Antuña in the biggest cylindrical sector.
143
Figure Q1: Maximum compression stress isobars calculated by the sixth Lusas model, considering the ribs proposed by Antuña in the biggest cylindrical sector.
144
2 15 17.Appendix B Tables and outputs B.9 12 8 9.6 32.2 21 22 24.9 11.1 10.9 30 40 55 35 h(cm) 8 8 5 5 5.5 14.5 11 L(m) 20. Romania Budapest Recoletos Dywidag‐Halle w(m) 13.1 Table of similar structures Name Roma ATAG Jena Rostow Areneros Hamburgo Roma STA Villaverde Frankfurt Merk Braila.5 8 5 7 5 6 8 5 Ratio 265:1 290:1 420:1 440:1 445:1 315:1 500:1 525:1 600:1 665:1 690:1 700:1 Table 1: Overall dimensions of the similar structures to the Frontón Recoletos drawn in figure 25. 145 .4 25 25 36.8 23.5 11.
2 1 1.5 ‐0.6 ‐15.B.8 ‐3 2.1 ‐13.1 % Regarding Reality 20% 80% 120% 90% 48% 101% 93% 107% 183% 90% Table 2: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the first Lusas model and the actual structure.9 Actual structure (cm) Δ (Cm) 1 1. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the difference between the results obtained by Lusas and the actual structure.6 31 First Lusas model (cm) ‐0.2 11. which represents the raising of the shell. 59 These symbols are used in all the tables of this Appendix. X (m) 1.1 27.1 ‐12 0.8 ‐14.7 ‐12.2 ‐15 0.3 7.5 ‐1 0.2 22.2 21.8 ‐5.3 19.5 25.5 3. All the deflections were measured in the same Xaxis coordinates.9 ‐14. The deflections of the actual structure were measured in the figure 37 using the proposed rule.7 ‐3.2 2. In the last column.1 ‐15 1.8 1.3 ‐8 4.2 ‐0. the percentage regarding the value measured by Torroja is presented.8 1 0. The symbol 59 “+” means positive deflections.3 15.2 3 0.2 29. 146 .2 Tables of deflections In this Appendix are listed the deflections measured in different Lusas models.
4 ‐15 ‐0.5 ‐1.9 ‐14.2 ‐6.5 % Regarding Reality 10% 80% 40% 23% 53% 45% 45% 38% 43% 50% Table 4: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the second Lusas model and the actual structure.4 ‐6.5 ‐3 1.2 22. The deflections of the smallscale model were measured in figure 37 using the proposed rule.4 0. All the deflections were measured in the same Xaxis coordinates.3 19.5 ‐0.1 27.1 ‐13. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 2.7 ‐4.8 ‐6. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the difference between the results obtained by Lusas and the smallscale model. 147 .2 22.5 Actual structure (cm) Δ (Cm) 1 1.3 15.2 11.3 15.8 1 0.3 ‐8 3.2 ‐15 0.1 ‐0.2 11.5 ‐4.8 1 1. X (m) 1.8 ‐15 8.3 7.7 ‐1 0.5 % Regarding small‐scale model 40% 270% 54% 97% 101% 93% 134% 110% Table 3: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the first Lusas model and smallscale model.2 29.7 ‐3.X (m) 1.7 ‐12.2 ‐15 8.2 2.8 0.1 1 1.3 19.3 ‐12 7.2 21.9 Small‐scale (cm) Δ (Cm) 3 ‐1.6 ‐15.5 25.7 ‐7 3.2 ‐0.5 25.3 ‐0.2 29.6 31 First Lusas model (cm) ‐0.6 31 Second Lusas model (cm) ‐0.8 ‐5.5 3.7 ‐5 ‐0.7 ‐6.1 ‐11 ‐3.6 3 2.1 27.8 ‐14.3 7.8 1.1 ‐15 1.5 3.2 21.
2 ‐9.X (m) 1.2 22.8 6.6 ‐15 8.3 15.0 ‐8.9 5.2 29.4 1.5 ‐5 3.1 ‐8.1 ‐0.2 11.5 3.5 25.4 ‐6.1 27.6 31 Fourth Lusas model (cm) ‐0.3 % Regarding Torroja 40% 50% 80% 64% 61% 60% 48% 59% 65% Table 6: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the fourth Lusas model and the actual structure.2 ‐15 8. 148 .3 1.3 7.3 19.3 7.5 ‐4.3 ‐0.5 0.3 15.6 Actual structure (cm) 1 1 1 3 ‐8 ‐15 ‐15 ‐12 ‐3 ‐1 Δ (Cm) 1.8 0.2 0.7 ‐6.7 ‐1.2 22.2 21.6 31 Second Lusas model (cm) ‐0.2 21.8 0.0 6.5 Small‐scale (cm) Δ (Cm) 3 2.4 ‐5.2 ‐6.2 29.6 1 0.5 25.4 ‐0. X (m) 1. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 2.8 ‐15 8.5 0.8 ‐6.7 ‐4.3 ‐7 2. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 3.5 ‐1.7 % Regarding small‐scale model 13% 70% 60% 43% 45% 45% 59% 26% Table 5: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the second Lusas model and the smallscale model.5 3.3 19.3 ‐11 4.8 ‐5.1 27.2 11.7 ‐9.7 ‐0.2 2.4 0.
0 ‐8.00 Table 8: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the third Lusas model considering different load cases.2 29.7 3.86 16% 10.49 67% 23.5 25.2 22. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the difference between the both load cases.1 1.8 0. 149 .7 ‐0.00 0.2 0.11 65% 10.00 Table 9: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the third Lusas model considering different load cases.2 11.2 0.6 31 Fourth Lusas model (cm) ‐0.00 0. the percentage regarding the deflection measured in the load case A is presented.16 Δ (Cm) % Regarding load case C X (m) 10. All the deflections were measured in the coordinate X = 10 metres. In the last column. Load case A Load case B Vertical deflection (cm) 0. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 8.60 ‐3.8 ‐5.1 27.5 0.6 Small‐scale (cm) Δ (Cm) % Regarding Small‐scale 3 1 ‐7 ‐15 ‐15 ‐15 ‐11 ‐5 ‐1.00 0.3 7.7 ‐1.4 ‐0.1 ‐3. Load case C Load case D Vertical deflection (cm) 1. the vertical deflection was measured in the point X = 23 metres also called seagull profile.3 19.1 ‐8.8 1.11 Δ (Cm) % Regarding load case A X (m) 23. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 3.3 15. Load case A Load case B Vertical deflection (cm) ‐4.00 Table 10: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the third Lusas model considering different load cases.00 1.5 27% 80% 73% 58% 61% 60% 76% 35% Table 7: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the fourth Lusas model and the smallscale model.2 ‐9.5 3.31 Δ (Cm) % Regarding load case A X (m) 10.X (m) 1.4 ‐0.7 ‐9.7 ‐0. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 8.4 ‐5.2 21. however.
Z Deflection (cm) Fourth model X (m) 9. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the difference between both models.00 Table 13: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the second and the fourth Lusas model.61 ‐9. the point where the vertical deflections were measured is X = 23 metres.09 Δ (Cm) % Regarding second model Z (m) 27. The characteristic are the same expressed in table 13.84 Δ (Cm) 2.00 2.56 61% 23. In the last column.00 0.09 ‐9. Second model Fourth model Vertical deflection (cm) ‐6.28 103% 23.61 ‐8. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 10. Z = 27. the percentage regarding the second model is presented.41 metres. Second model Fourth model Vertical deflection (cm) ‐6.41 Table 12: Z.00 Table 11: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the third Lusas model considering different load cases. Load case C Load case D Vertical deflection (cm) ‐6.00 135% 23.50 2.33 % Regarding second model X (m) 23.00 Table 15: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the sixth Lusas model considering different ribs hypotheses. Vertical deflection (cm) Antuña Big cylinder Fernández Big cylinder ‐9. 150 .43 137% 27.02 21. The vertical deflections were measured in the coordinate X = 23 metres. the point where the vertical deflections are measured was located in the middle of the seagull profile.deflections measured in centimetres in the fourth Lusas model in the coordinate X = 21. however.50 Table 14: Vertical deflections measured in centimetres in the second and the fourth Lusas model. however.61 ‐4. The rest of characteristic are the same expressed in table 13.5 metres.04 Δ (Cm) % Regarding load case C X (m) 23.37 Δ (Cm) % Regarding Antuña Z (m) 23.
3 Table of transversal bending moments. Físicas y Naturales de Madrid. Figure M1: Points measured by Torroja: Reference of this picture: Torroja.B. Comprobación y comportamiento de un estructura laminar. Madrid. figure 20. E. 151 . 1942. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas..
6 1357 47 31. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the difference between both models.8 1223 44´ 23.3 454 42 15. p.3 ‐244 40 7. The points are presented in figure A.5 ‐44 39 3.Torroja (Nm/m) Δ (Nm/m) % Regarding Torroja 0 0 ‐350 325 7% ‐140 166 219% 110 105 5% 375 390 204% 150 268 279% ‐500 492 198% 620 603 197% 70 287 510% ‐1030 91 109% 500 347 31% 1020 764 175% 0 0 Table 16: Transversal bending moments measured in Nm/m in the first Lusas model and in the Torroja’s model 60.9798).2 ‐992 44 22.5 1784 48 32.2 ‐1427 44 22. Point X (m) First Lusas model (Nm/m) 37 0 0 38 1. the percentages regarding the values obtained by Torroja are presented.8 309 45 25.51 0 Point X (m) Second model (Nm/m) 37 0 0 38 1.51 0 Torroja (Nm/m) 0 ‐350 ‐140 110 375 150 ‐500 620 70 ‐1030 500 1020 0 Δ (Nm/m) 0 306 104 69 79 7 927 282 239 174 857 2222 0 % Regarding Torroja 13% 174% 37% 121% 95% 285% 145% 441% 83% 271% 318% Table 17: Transversal bending moments measured in Nm/m in the second Lusas model and in the Torroja’s model.1 ‐856 46 29. The characteristic are the same presented in table 16.2 5 41 11.3 143 43 19.1 ‐1121 46 29.3 ‐306 40 7. In the last column.3 418 43 19. 60 The bending moments presented by Torroja can be consulted in his report (Torroja 1942.3 765 42 15.2 41 41 11.5 3242 48 32.8 902 44´ 23.8 357 45 25.5 ‐25 39 3. 152 .6 153 47 31.
26 % Regarding second model X (m) 17. The characteristics are the same presented in table 16.96 ‐1.22 Δ (kNm/m) 0. Second model Fourth model Bending moment (kNm/m) ‐0.50 127% 17.50 Table 18: Transversal bending moments measured in kNm/m in the second and the fourth Lusas model at the point X = 17. 153 .5 metres.
96 28.03 Table 22: Maximum tension stress isobars in different models. The characteristics are the same expressed in table 19.55 13.55 13.11 20. Torroja Load Case 1 Load Case 2 Load Case 3 Load Case 4 Compression stress isobars (MPa) ‐5.14 % Regarding Torroja 5% X (m) 32.00 19.59 20.64 ‐8.00 ‐0.06 % Regarding Torroja 248% 298% 300% 351% X (m) 21.39 % Regarding Torroja X (m) 114% 140% 138% 162% 24. including the percentage regarding the maximum value measured in the Torroja’s model. the percentages regarding the maximum value obtained by Torroja are presented.00 13.11 20.B.4 Table of isobars. Tension stress isobars (MPa) Torroja First Lusas model Second Lusas model 8.55 13.50 Table 21: Maximum tension stress isobars in the first Lusas model at the point X = 32. Torroja Load Case 1 Load Case 2 Load Case 3 Load Case 4 Tension stress sobars (MPa) 8.11 Table 19: Peak of the maximum tension stress isobars represented in figure 39 considering the first Lusas model and measured in MPa.59 20. Furthermore.06 % Regarding Torroja 163% 351% X (m) 21.10 ‐8. Torroja Load Case 4 Tension stress isobars (MPa) 3.87 23.80 23. These peaks are reached in different X coordinates.5 metres and the percentage regarding the value measured in the Torroja’s model.80 13.11 23.02 ‐9.01 28.55 Table 20: Peak of the maximum compression stress isobars represented in figure 40 considering the first Lusas model and measured in MPa. 154 .50 32.11 20.80 ‐6.
43 16. Torroja First Lusas model Second Lusas model Tension stress Isobars (MPa) ‐8 ‐9. Fourth Lusas model Without edged beam With edged beam Tension stress isobars (MPa) 16.80 24.80 13.80 Table 24: Maximum tension stress isobars in different models at the point X = 24.39 ‐6. Torroja First Lusas model Second Lusas model Compression stress isobars (MPa) ‐5.80 ‐9. Torroja First Lusas model Second Lusas model Tension stress isobars (MPa) ‐5.01 % Regarding Torroja 162% 104% Table 25: Maximum tension stress isobars and percentage regarding the results obtained by Torroja. 155 .63 % Regarding Torroja X (m) 162% 11% 24.01 % Regarding Torroja X (m) 162% 104% 24.08 % Regarding Torroja 350% 162% .39 ‐0. Torroja First Lusas model Second Lusas model Tension stress isobars (MPa) 8 28. Table 26: Maximum compression stress isobars and percentage regarding the results obtained by Torroja.63 167% 99% % Regarding fourth Lusas model Table 27: Maximum tension stress isobars considering different edged beam hypotheses and percentage regarding the maximum value of the fourth Lusas model.81 31.39 ‐6.55 15.8 metres including the percentage regarding the maximum value measured in the Torroja’s model.80 24.80 ‐9.01 13.91 Table 23: Maximum compression stress isobars in different models including the percentage regarding the maximum value measured in the Torroja’s model.
156 . Point X (m) Average (cm) 0 1 0 ‐0.5 ‐2.55 0.75 10 29.5 0.1 ‐5 29.8 15. In last column.1 ‐2.7 ‐5. the percentage regarding the Average value is presented.3 0.75 % Regarding Average 40% 500% 27% 92% 107% 122% 138% 51% 8% Table 2: Comparison between the average vertical deflections.3 ‐5.3 ‐4.25 2 1.6 7 19.6 ‐4 11 31.35 3.15 0.8 ‐3.126).5 ‐1.4 ‐0.25 8 22.8 ‐4. Point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X (m) Test A (cm) 0 0 1.5 Test B (cm) 0 ‐0.2 19.5 Fourth Lusas model (cm) 0 ‐0.75 4 7.7 6 15.2 0. For these tests.2 0 ‐3.8 ‐3.B.75 0. The column “Δ (cm)” represents the difference between both models.7 1.5 9 25.2 ‐5.4 ‐6. p.15 1.8 5 11.3 0 7.1 ‐0. measured in the test A and B.2 0.8 ‐5. The symbols of the deflections are the same expressed in table 2 (Torroja 1942.1 3 3.7 0.6 ‐3 31.75 Table 1: Vertical deflections measured in the test A and B carried out by Torroja in the smallscale model and the average of both tests.5 ‐0.3 0 Δ (Cm) 0 0.5 0 3. The points are listed in figure 80. the load combination is the dead weight.25 ‐4.1 0.3 ‐3.6 0.2 ‐5.5 0.75 ‐4 ‐0.75 12 32.6 ‐5.5 ‐4 0 Test Average (cm) 0 ‐0.8 0.2 0.5 Smallscale model deflections.3 0.5 25.4 1.7 0.25 0.5 0.2 ‐1.3 0.2 ‐5 ‐4 ‐2.5 ‐4 32. The points are presented in figure 78.4 ‐6 ‐6.8 11.2 ‐6 22. and the vertical deflections obtained by the Fourth Lusas model.
5 10 29. p.2 ‐6.5 11 31.5 0 Fourth Lusas model (cm) 0 0 ‐0. 157 . The characteristics are the same expressed in figure M1.1 ‐4.4 0.3 ‐0.5 8 22.7 ‐0.9 6 15.7 5 11.3 ‐4 7 19.7 4 7.5 0.3 ‐8 ‐1.6 ‐2.8 ‐6 9 25.2 2.1 ‐5.2 12 32. The values of the test D are obtained from the Torroja’s report (Torroja 1942.3 0.3 2.8 0.3 ‐0.3 2.8 1 0 % Regarding D 71% 11% 11% 118% 120% 138% 145% 68% 17% 0 Table 3: Comparison between the vertical deflections measured in the test D carried out by Torroja in the smallscale model and the vertical deflections obtained in the fourth Lusas model. Point X (m) Test D (cm) 1 0 0 2 1.5 ‐1.7 ‐7.2 0 Δ (Cm) 0 0 1.5 0 3 3.8 ‐8.7 1.5 1.2 2.126).
Figure Q1: Load cases considered by Torroja in the deformations: Load case 1: dead weight. Figure P1: Construction drawing where the location of the deflections. Load case 2: dead weigh with snow. 158 . Load case 3: dead weigh with wind and Load case 4: dead weigh with snow and wind. along the central directrix.Appendix C Pictures In this appendix the different pictures taken in the “Archivo Torroja” by the professor Ignacio Payá Zaforteza are presented. are explained.
Figure T1: Detail of the deformation at the connection between both lobes compared with the measure of the real rule. 159 .Figure R1: Detail of the orthogonality in the seagull profile when different load cases are applied.
160 .Figure U1: Detail of the deformations at the smallest cylindrical sector.
without pretentions that are alien to its task” “Use the landscape as a pedestal or an accompaniment. without needing additions or frills” “In the purest joy of aesthetic emotion. p. are completely different from the real ones concealed in an interior structure” “The expression of a resistant phenomenon. The building. Torroja 161 . simplicity is a virtue” “If use is to be made of an ornamental theme. imposes itself on the landscape and dominates it” “Making builds with an object in mind that he is not always successful in reaching” E. and therefore fit to be proscribed: if the appearance of a construction induces us to think that the phenomena. Construction in a landscape should rhyme with it. intrinsic and apparently impossible. make it clearly independent and highlight it by contrast with the austere simplicity. functional and resistant.Appendix D Torroja’s reflections The following Torroja’s reflections were compiled by Juan Antonio Fernández Ordoñez in his book “Eduardo Torroja: Ingeniero” (Fernández 2000.147). “The following will be considered a deception. with its dynamism and proportions. is always antiaesthetic” “Joining together the tensile phenomenon with the aesthetic effect” “The structure should be beautiful in itself.
se . Master Thesis xxx.TRITA‐BKN. Structural Design and Bridges YEAR ISSN 1103‐4297 ISRN KTH/BKN/EX‐xxx‐SE www.kth.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.