This article was downloaded by: [Virginia Tech Libraries]

On: 14 March 2015, At: 10:20

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Science Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

STUDY OF FACTORS AFFECTING STRESS

DISTRIBUTION IN DOUBLE-LAYER GRIDS OF THE
SOUARE-AND-DIAGONAL TYPE
a b
Hung-gum Lee & Zygmunt Stanislaw Makowski
a
The Architectural Office, Public Works Department , Hong Kong
b
University of Surrey , United Kingdom
Published online: 10 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Hung-gum Lee & Zygmunt Stanislaw Makowski (1977) STUDY OF FACTORS AFFECTING STRESS
DISTRIBUTION IN DOUBLE-LAYER GRIDS OF THE SOUARE-AND-DIAGONAL TYPE, Architectural Science Review, 20:3-4,
90-102, DOI: 10.1080/00038628.1977.9696379

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00038628.1977.9696379

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of
information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in
any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 27. AULICIEMS, A,: Thermal requirements of secondary
schoolchildren in winter. Journal of Hygiene. Vol. 67
(1969). pp. 59-65.
28. BALLANTYNE, E. R., AIRAH, M., HILL, R. K. and
SPENCER, J. W.: Probit analysis of thermal sensation
assessments. Presented to Australian Institute of
Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating Melbourne
(1976).
29. WONG, F. M.: The significance of work comfort in
architecture. Architectural Science Review. Vol. 10, No. 4
( 1967). pp. I 19- 130.
30. MacPHERSON, R. K.: Between - group difference in
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015
STUDY OF FACTORS AFFECTING STRESS
DISTRIBUTION IN DOUBLE-LAYER GRIDS OF THE
SQUARE-AND-DIAGONAL TYPE
Hung-gum Lee* Zygmunt Stanislaw Makowski**
The popularity of double-layer grids is growing steadily
and numerous structures of this type have been erected in
various countries to cover large-span industrial buildings,
exhibition centres, assembly halls and sport centres.
The development of this form of construction has been
discussed by one of the authors elsewhere.
Double-layer grids are structures of a type which can be
assembled from a large number of prefabricated modular units
or from individual members to form a rigid but lightweight
framework. These structures are specially suitable for large
spans: they require very few supports and are easy to erect.
They are also extremely efficient in resisting concentrated
loads.
An approximate analysis of stress distribution in these
structures can be obtained readily through plate or slab
analogies - and many such techniques have been developed
during the last few years. Their exact analysis, even for
complex sophisticated configurations, can be carried out by
electronic computer, either using matrix methods, or discrete
field analysis. The flexibility and stiffness methods are
frequently used in analysis and are already well known.
Fig. I shows the most popular types of double-layer grids.
Olien they are classified as latticed grids if they consist of
latticed units arranged into a two- or three-way pattern or
space grids if they consist of prefabricated skeletal pyramidal
units interconnected to form various configurations. The grid
pattern of the top layer may be identical with that of the
bottom layer. or i t may differ. Two types frequently used in
practical applications are considered to be more efficient in
their stress distribution (Fig. 2): square on diagonal and
diagonal on square, in which the top and bottom layers have
their members aligned in either a diagonal or square direction.
* Structural Engineer. The Architectural Office. Public Works
Department. Hong Kong
* * Professor o f Civil Engineering & Head of Department, University
of Surrey. United Kingdom
Page 90
thermal comfort standards. Proc. Sym. on Arid Zone
Research, Environmental Physiology and Psychology in
Arid Conditions. Lucknow, UNESCO 1964.
31. CHAKRAVARTI, I . M.. LAHA, R. G. and ROY, J.:
Handbook of Methods of Applied Statistics, Vol. 1. Wiley,
New York 1967.
32. HUMPHREYS, M. A.: Field Studies of Thermal
Comfort Compared and Applied. Building Research
Establishment. Note PD 72/75, May (1975).
33. H U M P H R E Y S , M. A.: C o m f o r t a b l e Indoor
Temperatures Related to the Outdoor Air Temperature.
Building Research Establishment Note PD 117/76 (1976).
In practice double-layer grid structures are frequently known
by their trade names e.g. Space Deck, Mero, Unistrut,
Oktaplatte, Pyramitec. Pyramroof, Unibat, Nodus etc. With
the growing interest in this form of construction numerous
papers have been published during recent years on various
methods of analysis. The publications which resulted from the
1st and 2nd international conferences on space structures
organized in 1966 and 1975 by the Department of Civil
Engineering of the University of Surrey contain papers dealing
with various aspects of analysis, design and construction of
double-layer grids. Designers interested in this form of
construction are now needing more comprehensive practical
knowledge about the behaviour of these grids under load. In
this article the authors have looked in detail at the behaviour of
square and diagonal type grids paying particular attention to
the effect of boundary conditions on the stress distribution
throughout the structure. Grids which are simply supported
along all four sides are taken as the standard case for
comparison. i.e. the maximum member force in such a case is
referred to as the 100% member force and the maximum
deflection is taken as the 100% deflection. Changes in the
boundary conditions are reflected in the corresponding changes
in the percentage of maximurn member force, maximum
reaction or maximum deflection of the standard case.
A . COMPARISON OF SOUARE AND DIAGONAL GRIDS
The most common arrangements of the top and bottom
layers of double-layer grids follow rectangular and diagonal
pattern. Some designers use the diagonal-on-square
arrangement. whereas others prefer the square-on-diagonal
type. Usually the choice of one or the other depends on
architectural reasons. The authors decided to carry out a
detailed study to find out whether the square-on-diagonal or
the diagonal-on-square configuration is more efficient i n
member force distribution and also to determine which
configuration will lead to smaller deflections.
ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
 Double - layer grids
basic unit

Plan
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

Lattice grids

Space prids

Flg. 1

DECEMBER 1977
 Flg. 2 9b
t
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

Top Layer & Bracings/Bottom Layer

Edge Braclngs
4b f 4

A 9 x 9 Diagonal-on-Square Grid

1
1
1 3 =~ gb
t

Top Layer & Bracings/Bottorn Layer

1 Edge Bracings

A 13 x 13 Square-on-Diagonal Grid
Page 92 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW
 Table 1. Evaluation of total member lengths and number of joints

I Layout
Case I
9 x 9 diagonal-on-square
Case 11
13 x 13 square-on-diagonal

I Top Layer 324 no. x 2.36 m = 764.64

72 no. x 1.66 m = 119.52
144 no. x 3.33 m = 479.52
338 no. x 2.31 = 780.78

144 no. x 3.26 = 469.44

72 no. x I .66 m = 119.52 52 no. x 1.63 = 84.76
36 no. x 1.66 m = 59.76 52 no. x 2.31 = 120.12
Bracings 324 no. x 2.36 m = 764.64 340 no. x 2.33 = 792.20
Edge Bracings 72 no. x 1.66 m = 119.52 52 no. x 1.66 = 86.32
72 no. x 2.36 m = 169.92 56 no. x 2.85 = 159.60
2597.04 m 2493.22 m

I 1 I
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

No. ofjoints 305 332

Fig. 2 shows the layout of a 9 x 9 diagonal-on-square grid
(referred to as case I) and a 13 x 13 square-on-diagonal grid
(referred to as case 11) which have been used for comparison.
The two layouts have approximately identical pyramidal units
and a very similar total length of their members assuming that
their structural depths are kept constant. In each case a grid
covering an area of 30 metres by 30 metres has been chosen
with a structural depth of 1.66 metres.
Table I gives the evaluation of the total length of their
members and number of joints. It can be seen that the square-
on-diagonal grid has 96% of the total member length and 109%
of number of joints if compared with a diagonal-on-square grid
covering the same area.
The analysis has been carried out assuming pin-jointed bars,
constant cross-sectional area A for all members, the same
intensity q of the uniformly distributed loading covering the
whole structure and vertical unyielding supports along the
edges at all division points. The results of the stress analysis are
shown in Fig. 3 for case I, and Fig. 4 for case 11. Comparison
of the member forces indicates that in case I the maximum
member force exists in the bottom layer and is in tension, its
magnitude being twice the maximum compression force in the
top layer. In case I I the maximum forces in the top and bottom
layers are identical being some 30% smaller than the maximum
force existing in case I.
The first reaction to this discovery may lead to the
assumption that the square-on-diagonal grid is more efficient
in force distribution. However, because of the possibility of
buckling a member in compression is likely to require a larger
cross-sectional area than a tensile member subjected to the
same magnitude of axial load and the comparison is not
necessarily so simple. It should be noted therefore that whereas
the maximum tensile load in case I1 is appreciably smaller than
in case I, the maximum compression load in case I1 has been
increased by some 20% in terms of its equivalent in case I.
Therefore the advantage of lowering the member forces in case
I 1 is counteracted by the raising of the compression forces in
the top layer. Comparison of deflections shows that a grid
having a layout used in case I I has some 5% reduction as
compared with the maximum deflection of case 1. While it is
difficult to produce a definite general conclusion, this study
shows that especially for grids with limited headroom
requirements and short member lengths, the two-way
rectangular top layer with a diagonal layout on the bottom
layer provides slightly improved stiffness. However, in the final
cost analysis one must take into account the increased number
of joints required for case 11.
DECEMBER 1977
B. EFFECT OF NUMBER OF SUPPORTS ON STRESS
DlSTRlBUTlON
A 9 x 9 diagonal-on-square double-layer grid shown in Fig. 5
has been chosen for a detailed study. This layout represents a
type often used in industrialised building design. The analysis
has been carried out assuming a structure consisting of
members having equal cross-sectional area A, and uniformly
distributed loading over the whole grid with 9 supports on each
side. This constitutes case (a). The number of supports is
gradually reduced to 5 along each side (case b), then 3 (case c)
and finally only two supports at the corner points (case d).
The first case (i.e. the arrangement with 9 supports along
each edge representing a structure simply supported along all
four sides) is taken as the basic case for comparison purposes.
For the configuration shown in Fig. 5 the bar forces, the
reaction at the supports and the deflection of the joints can be
obtained by using the following equations:
force in member (in kN)
= 0.00157 x p x q x L!
reaction at support (in kN)
= 0.01 x p x q x L:
deflection of joint (in metres)
= 0.00472 x p x q x x
EA
Where
p = numerical coefficients as given in the enclosed
diagrams
q = intensity of u.d. loading, k N / d
E = modulus of elasticity, kN/mz
A = cross sectional area of members, m:
L = span of grid in metres
For easy reference, the results of this study, represented in
Figs. 6 - 9, are divided into six sections illustrating force
coefficients in the
edge bracings
top layer
bottom layer
diagonals
reactions
and
deflections
The exact computer analysis provides the forces in all members
of the structure and allows a study of the pattern of stress dis-
tribution L ':r uniformly distributed loading covering the
whole grid igs. 6, 7, 8 and 9 give the results for case (a), case
(b), case (I and case (d) correspondingly.
Page 93
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015
Edge BracIngs
Top layer/ B o t t o m layer
Flg. 4 Axlal forces In members Case 11, Pln-connected structure
sity for the maximum downward load would become
+
1.10 0.75 = 1.85 kN/mz
and for the maximum upward load
1.90 - 1.10 = 0.80 kN/m'
assuming
modulus of elasticity E = 210,000 kN/m'
shear modulus G = 78,950 kN/mz
and Poisson's ratio p = 0.33
The most suitable cross section to resist the applied load would
be a steel circular hollow section having
dia = 114.3 mm
area = 15.4 cm'
moment of inertia I = 232 cm'
radius of gyration r = 3.89 cm
section modulus Z = 40.8 cm'
with a unit weight = 12.1 kg/metre length
The exact analysis for rigidly jointed structures shows that in
all cases (a), (b), (c) and (d) member forces follow exactly the
trend of variation illustrated above by the pin-jointed analyses.
Again, the differences between the first three arrangements
(cases (a), (b) and (c)) are quite small. Only in the corner-
supported arrangement maximum member force concentrates
at the centre for top layer and in case of bottom layer reduces
the maximum force at the centre, but increases twice the
maximum member force at midspan of the edges. As far as
deflections are concerned, the pattern developed for pin-
connected structure is reflected also for the rigidly connected
systems. Fig. 1 I shows the typical analytical results for a
rigidly connected grid supported at 9 points along each side for
the conditions mentioned above.
DECEMBER 1977
Table 11 gives a comparison of maximum deflections. I t
shows that for the particular grid considered in this analysis
(30m x 30m) the rigidity of the joints result in reduction of
some 10% of maximum deflection in comparison with the pin-
connected case.
Table I I . Comparison of Maximum Deflections
5 each edge
3 each edge
2 each edge
I 1 1 I
A diagram illustrating the differences between pin-connected
and rigidly connected grid is shown in Fig. 12. Undoubtedly the
rigidity of joints helps to reduce deflection.
Detailed analysis showed that as a rule the rigidity of joints
does not help in reducing the member forces due to the
presence of accompanying bending moment. Several trial
designs showed that the increased second moment of area I has
helped to even out the maximum axial forces to a small extent
but this leads to an adverse effect on bending moment. Deflec-
tionwise the effect is negligible.
Table I 1 1 gives the maximum deflection of two grids design-
ed with members consisting of circular hollow section (CHS)
having a dia. of 168.3 mm thickness 6.3 mm and the other one
Page 95
 Grid for Study
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

Top L a y e r & Bracings/Bottom L a y e r

,~ Edge Bracings

A 9 x 9 Diagonal-on-Square Double-Layer Grid

( i )+supports ( i i ) 5 - s u p p o r t s (iii) 3 - s u p p o r t s ( i v ) 2-supports

e a c h edge e a c h edge e a c h edge each edge

Four arrangements of supports

Fig. 5

Page 96 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW

 Members Cross sectional
(CHS) area of members
cm’
Grid A 168.3 mm dia 32. I
x 25.2 kg/m
1
Grid B 193.7 mm dia 31.9
1 x 25.1 kg/m
with CHS of dia. 193.7 mm and thickness of 5.4 mm.
This comparison shows that 33% increase in the second mo-
ment of area I of the tubular members leads to only 1.7%
reduction in the maximum deflection. This emphasises the fact
that in double-layer grids the effect of increased I, without an
actual increase of the actual cross-sectional area, is very small.
C. In an attempt to obtain an economical solution at the
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015
beginning of the design the structural designer has to take into
account various factors which may influence the final cost of
his structure.
A compromise must be reached between the number of
subdivisions of the grid and the resulting size of the
component parts. Large grids with large pyramidal units
will lead to a saving in the number of joints, but, at the
same time, the length of members carrying large
compressive loads may result in uneconomical sections
required to resist bending. The requirement of handling,
transportation and erection may impose restrictions on
the maximum size of unit.
The type of covering to be used on the structure has a
great influence on the number of subdivisions to be
adopted for the top layer of the main grid, e.g. steel
decking has a larger optimum size and support spacing
than asbestos sheeting which may require additional
supporting and bracing members. I t is good practice to
avoid secondary members and to support the roof
covering by the main members of the top layer.
The depth of the grid depends on the total span of the
structure and obviously ‘the subdivision adopted should
not lead to the diagonal bracing members in the grid
having too steep or too flat a slope.
Services accommodated between the top and bottom
layers of the grid require adequate support and a bottom
grid with too coarse a mesh would give rise to problems of
supporting and fixing ducts, pipes, etc.
The economical use of prefabricated systems leads always
to a logical restriction in the number of different sizes of
joint. I t is always cheaper to order standard sizes from
stock. This applies particularly to systems like Nodus and
Mero.
The authors have taken all these factors into account when
deciding the configuration of a square-on-diagonal type of
I I
Layout ( i ) 13x 13
Top layer 364 x 2.31 = 841
Bottom layer 144 x 3.26 = 469
52x 1.63 = 85
,52 x 2.31 = 120
Bracings 340 x 2.87 = 976
Edge bracings 52 x 2.36 = 123
56 x 3.30 = 185
Total length 2799 m
Ratio I .oo
No. ofjoints 322
>
Second moment Maximum
of area I deflection
cm’ mm
1053 87.012
I
1417 85.51 I
double-layer grid having three different sizes of subdivision (i.e.
9 x 9, 1 I x 1 I and 13 x 13). As previously mentioned a grid
covering an area of 30m x 3Om has been used in this study
having for all three layouts a constant depth of 2.357 metres.
Figs. 13 (i), 13 (ii) and 13 (iii) give the details of the layouts
used in the analysis. The assumed depth of 2.357 metres gives
diagonal members making an angle with the horizontal, vary-
ing between 45O and 55O. The three layouts analysed in this
study thus avoid a too sharp or too flat angle.
Table I V allows the comparison to be made between the
three layouts. The analysis has been based on the assumption
of pin-jointed members, continuous support along all four
sides, uniformly distributed load over the whole area and all
members having an identical constant cross section A.
With the square-on-diagonal type of double-layer grid the
maximum stresses in both top and bottom layers are
approximately the same. Comparing the member forces of the
three cases it can be seen that forces vary approximately in a
linear manner with the reciprocal of the ratio of the total
member length, i.e. the ratio of cross-sectional area of
members, if an equal volume of material is used for all three
layouts.
Table V giving the variation of maximum member force
shows that the “equal volume” member stress is almost
constant and barely affected by the change in number of
divisions.
Comparison of maximum deflections (Table V I ) shows a
very similar variation; the “equal volume” maximum
deflection is again very close to a constant value, which means
that the amount of deflections is almost irrelevant to the
fineness of mesh used in the grid structure provided that the
same amount of material is used in it.
D. Normally the double-layer grids are enclosed and
stiffened along their boundary by edge trusses or edge bracing
members which in practical designs often are of much more
substantial size than the members framing the main part of the
grid. As far as the authors are aware so far no detailed study
has been carried out on the effectiveness of the edge bracing on
the deflection and stress distribution of forces. To study this
effect a 9 x 9 square-on-diagonal double-layer grid has been
chosen (Fig. 14). I t represents a grid of 30m x 30m having a
(ii) 11 x 11 (iii)9 x 9
264 x 2.73 = 721 180 x 3.33 = 599
100 x 3.86 = 386 6 4 ~ 4 . 7 1= 301
44x 1.93 = 85 3 6 ~ 2 . 3 6= 85
44 x 2.73 = 120 36 x 3.33 = I20
244 x 3.05 = 744 I64 x 3.33 = 546
44 x 2.36 = 104 3 6 ~ 2 . 3 6= 85
4 8 ~ 3 . 6 1= 173 4 0 ~ 4 . 0 8= 163
2333 m 18YY m
0.83 0.68
248 I76
 I.ayout ( i ) 13 x 13 (ii) I1 x I I (iii)9x9
' Ratio of total member lengths
Reciprocal of ratio
I .o
I .o
0.83
1.20
0.68
I .47
%of max. member force 100 118 I42
'Equal vol.' max. member stress 100 98.3 96.6

1,ayuut ( i ) 13 x 13 ( i i ) 1 1 x 11 (iii)9 x 9
Ratio of total member lengths I .oo 0.83 0.68
Reciprocal of ratio I .00 I .20 1.47
% of max. deflection I00 I18 I45
'Equal vol.' max. deflection I00 98 98
depth of 2.357111 and the maximum member length of 4.7m. Change in the number of supports
The grid has been analysed for the following conditions: This study shows that the effect of boundary conditions on
(a) fully supported at all division points member forces and deflections is small provided that there is at
least one intermediate support at the mid-length of each edge.
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

and
(b) supported only at the corners
taking the cross-sectional area of bracings with values 1 .O, 2.0,
4.0 and 8.0 times the cross-sectional area of all the other grid
members. The results prove that for a fully supported structure
the effect of change in the cross-sectional areas of bracing
members is small and of local character. An increase of the
bracing members by a factor of 8 will reduce the maximum
force in the top layer only by 4% and at the bottom layer only
by 5%. The increase in deflection is also small, reducing the
maximum by only 6%. Therefore, it can be safely concluded
that for structures supported along all four sides, the influence
of the bracing members along the edges has little effect. In the
case of grids supported at the corners only the influence is much
more pronounced. The edge bracings are acting then as edge
girders spanning from one corner to another. The detailed
analysis shows that with an increased rigidity of the edge
trusses (due to an increase in their cross-section area) the edge
bracings become almost simply supported beams with max-
imum stresses near their mid-sections. In the top layer, an in-
crease in the cross-sectional area produces a reduction in the
maximum forces in the central area of the grid, with some 30%
increase of forces in the edge bracings for an 8 times increase of
their cross-section areas A. I n the bottom layer the forces in
the central area are reduced with a rather significant increase
of the forces in the members along the edges; these rise to a
value of 1.7 times the original magnitude when the area of the
edge bracing members is increased to 8 times. The effect of
edge bracing is much more pronounced on deflection. With the
area of edge bracings doubled, the deflection is reduced to
nearly two-thirds and with four times the area, the deflection is
reduced only half. Nevertheless, as the areas of the edge
bracings are increased further and further, the effect of change
becomes less and less significant. Fig. I5 shows the variation of
deflection as a function of the increased cross-sectional area of
edge bracing.
The authors are aware of the limitations of their studies and
although !;,is work is far from comprehensive even within the
particular xtegory chosen they believe that it gives useful
indications \,f the effects produced by various changes and they
hope that It will be of help to practising engineers designing
double-layer grids.
SUMMARY
Con. jarison of square-and-diagonal grids
This study reveals that in theory a square-on-diagonal grid
will lead to a more even stress distribution and a slight
reduction in deflection as compared with a diagonal grid.
However, the square-on-diagonal grid leads to a small increase
in the number ofjoints and on a cost basis it is almost identical
with the diagonal-on-square grid.
The rigidity of joints usually helps to relieve excessive
deformations in case of grids supported only at the corners but
at the expense of increasing member forces produced by
additional bending moments.
Effect produced by a change in the number of bays (or
subdivisions)
The study shows that the maximum stress in the cross-
section of members forming the grid and the maximum
deflections of the whole structure depend almost exclusively on
the total volume of material used and not on the number of
subdivisions.
Effect due to the increase of the cross-sectional area of edge
bracing
Significant advantage can be achieved only when the
structure is supported only at the corners. It is not worthwhile
to increase the sizes of the edge bracing members for structures
supported in a continuous fashion along their sides.
REFERENCES
I . Bibliography on latticed structures, by the Subcommittee on lat-
ticed structures of the Task Committee on Special Structures of the
Committee on Metals of the Structural Division, J. Struct. Divsn.
Proc. Amer. Scty. Civil Engineers, ST7 (July 1972). pp. 1545-1566.
2. CLARK, D. J. and MAKOWSKI, Z . S.: Analysis of a novel type
of prefabricated double-layer grid roof structure. Proc. Intern. Sym.
on Prefabricated Shells, Haifa 1973, Volume 11. pp. 387-41 I.
3. CROOK. G. M. and MAKOWSKI, Z . S.: Prefabricated double-
layer grid framework for the BOAC car park at Heathrow, London
Airport. Proc. Intern. Sym. on Prefabricated Shells, Haifa 1973,
Volume 11. pp. 412-423.
4. DAVIES, R. M. (Ed.): Proceedings of the 1st International Confer-
ence on Space Structures. University of Surrey, September 1966,
Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh 1967.
5. GIBSON. J . E.: Computing in Structural Engineering, Applied
Science Publishers Limited, London 1975.
6. Latticed structures. state of the art report, by the Task Committee
on Latticed Structures of the Committee on Special Structures of
the Committee on Metals of the Structural Division, J . Struct.
Divsn. Proc. Amer. Scty. Civil Engineers. STI I , November 1976.
pp. 2 197-2230,
7. LEE. H. G.: An Analytical Study into the Effect by Boundary Con-
ditions on Double-Layer Grids of the Square- and Diagonal-Type.
M.Sc. thesis, University of Surrey, 1976.
8. MAKOWSKI, Z. S.: Steel Space Structures. Michael Joseph, Lon-
don 1965.
MAKOWSKI. Z. S.: Double-layer grid structures. Architectural
Assoc. Jnl.. London, March 1961. pp. 218-238.
MAKOWSKI, Z . S.: Double-layer long span roofs. Consulting
Engineer. July 1973. pp. 23-29.
9. SUPPLE, W. J. (Ed.): Proceedings of 2nd International Conference
on Space Structures. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of
Surrey, 1975.
10. ZEEGEN, A. S.: Comparison of Double-Layer Grids of the Uni-
bat Type. M S c . thesis, University of Surrey, 1970.

Page 98 ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW

 -T-
.,J’

26
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

61 41

100
I
95
I
78
I
52
I
IC-

Dlasonsls/deflectlon6 - IeaCtlYC forces

Flg. 6 Axlal forces In members, Case a - (9 supports) Pln connected structure.

__-
10
I 15-
62

go---

r 55--

I
19-

1C1 95
i
79
I
53
I
-7;

Edge Bracinqs
Tcp L a y e r ’ BOZtor La)er

Flg. 7 Axlal forces In members, Case b - (5 supports) Pln-connected structure.

 Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

( O ' S L -zC-,

Z L-
9-sz

l O ' E L - 9
bZ
05

9s

6b
59

LB

69
L6
EO L
60 L
 I
' I
I

(a) TOP Layer-compression

I I
I ! I I
250..
200..
150..
100.. ( b ) Bottom Layer-tension
50..
0,

1
900..
250..
,700..
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

150..
1 , I
100.. ( c ) Deflection-domward
50..

2 9 5 9

Nunber O f S ~ ~ p o r lA sl o n ~eacl FCge

Note: Max. member force and deflection in bottom layer of g r i d

with 9 supports is taken as 1OOX member force and 100%
deflection respectively.
Flg. 10 Varlatlon of maxlmum member lome and deflectlon as
a functlon 01 a number of supports.
'ole: I n - rlnle? ---- ri.ld-,clnted -
-i4 17 -46 11 /:I2 11 -25 /;1 0 0
,ectlon used C 5 1 1 4 . 9 P T x 12.1 )IT

/'
-25 -24 -17 -17 -17 -17 -17 -17 1 Flg. 12 Comparlson 01 results lor Pln-connected and Rlgldly-
connected structures.

--- -1- -

i
I -;t

j
A x l a 1 forces In edqe B r d c i n q 5
Top L a y e r / Bottom Layer .-t
..1 . ,
I

Flg. 11 Axlal tomes In member8 Case a - (9 supports) Rlgldly Connected Structure.

SEPTEMBER 1977 Page 101
 e
111
+ _
Grid_ _Study
for _
t-
t

> ..* 9b
I

?
I
1 Tap Layer (i ,;racings/Battom Layer
7cl-- Edze B r a c i n g

Flg. 14

REFERENCES
Downloaded by [Virginia Tech Libraries] at 10:20 14 March 2015

I . Bibliography on latticed structures, by the Subcommittee

on latticed structures of the Task Committee on Special
Structures of the Committee on Metals of the Structural
Division, J. Struct. Divsn. Proc. Amer. Scty. Civil
Engineers, ST7 (July 1972). pp. 1545-1566.
2. CLARK, D. J. and MAKOWSKI, Z. S.: Analysis of a
novel type of prefabricated double-layer grid roof struc-
ture. Proc. Intern. Sym. on Prefabricated Shells, Haifa
1973, Volume 11. pp. 387-411.
Flg. 13 3. CROOK, G. M. and MAKOWSKI, Z. S.: Prefabricated
double-layer grid framework for the BOAC car park at
Heathrow, London Airport. Proc. Intern. Sym. on
Prefabricated Shells, Haifa 1973, Volume 11. pp. 412-423.
4. DAVIES, R. M. (Ed.): Proceedingsofthe 1st International
Conference on Space Structures. University of Surrey,
September 1966, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford
109
and Edinburgh 1967.
5. GIBSON, J. E.: Computing in Structural Engineering,
Applied Science Publishers Limited, London 1975.
80 6. Lattice structures, state of the art report, by the Task
Committee on Latticed Structures of the Committee on
Special Structures of the Committee on Metals of the
63
Structural Division, J. Struct. Divsn., Proc. Amer. Scty.
i Civil Engineers, STI I , November 1976. pp. 2197-2230.
2 40 D e f l e c t i o n o f G r i d when f u l l y - s u p p o r t e d 7. LEE, H. G.: An Analytical Study into the Effect by
0
and Area o f Edge 3 r a c l n g s = l . O Boundary Conditions on Double-Layer Grids of the
5 Square- and Diagonal-Type. M.Sc thesis, University of
;
I 20 I i Surrey, 1976.
L
/I I I I I
8. MAKOWSKI, Z. S.: Steel Space Structures. Michael
I' I I I i
Q II I I I 'I
Joseph, London 1965.
I 1') 2'0 30 4c 50 MAKOWSKI, Z. S.: Double-layer grid structures.
Architectural Assoc. Jnl., London, March 1961. pp. 218-
Prea o f Edge B r a L i n g s
238.
MAKOWSKI, Z. S.: Double-layer long span roofs. Con-
: ; a t e : 2d,:* i r r a c l n p s i r . c l u d e :eriFeter. 1.rrbcrs o f t o n and sulting Engineer, July 1973. pp. 23-29.
t.cttor: l i v e r s .
Area n f Ed,re Eracin.-s is t::e . x l t i r l e o f c r o s n - 9. SUPPLE, W. J. (Ed.): Proceedings of 2nd International
c e c t i o n a l * r e ? o f 3 t t e r mer.brrs ( w n i c h is assumed Conference on Space Structures. Dept. of Civil
t ? be r w ? 1 t o 1.0)
Engineering, University of Surrey, 1975.
Flg. 15 Varlatlon of rnaxlmurn deflectlon as a functlon of the 10. ZEEGEN, A.S.: comparison of Double-Layer Grids of
cross-rsctlonal e m corner supported structure 9x9 grld. the Unibat Type. M.Sc thesis, University of Surrey, 1970.

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCE REVIEW

Page 102