Cite this article Research Article Keywords: concrete structures/history/

Riegelmann P, Schumann A, May S et al. Paper 2000012 rehabilitation, reclamation & renovation
Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a solution to avoid demolition. Received 31/05/2020; Accepted 02/09/2020
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Engineering History and Heritage,
https://doi.org/10.1680/jenhh.20.00012 ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Engineering History and Heritage

Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a

solution to avoid demolition
1 Philipp Riegelmann Dipl-Ing 4 Jakob Bochmann Dr-Ing
Project Manager, CarboCon GmbH, Dresden, Germany Project Manager, CarboCon GmbH, Dresden, Germany
(corresponding author: riegelmann@carbocon-gmbh.de) (Orcid:0000-0002-5866-6695)
2 Alexander Schumann Dipl-Ing 5 Maria Patricia Garibaldi Dr-Ing
Managing Director, CarboCon GmbH, Dresden, Germany Research Associate, Institute of Concrete Structures, Technische
3 Sebastian May Dipl-Ing Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Managing Director, CarboCon GmbH, Dresden, Germany 6 Manfred Curbach Dr-Ing, Eh
Institute Director, Institute of Concrete Structures, Technische
Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

1 2 3 4 5 6

This article is intended to give an overview of an almost forgotten construction form – a great innovation not only
in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) but for the whole world. This type of construction, made of
reinforced-concrete shell structures, was brought to perfection, inter alia, by the outstanding civil engineer Ulrich
Müther, who was one of the most important engineers in Germany. These structures stand out due to their
appearance and their very slim design with large spans. The material shortage in the GDR catalysed the pioneering
spirit of Ulrich Müther and resulted in the possibility of building those slender structures. This article should give an
overview of the life and work of Ulrich Müther, highlighting his most important shell constructions. Furthermore,
the current condition state and the possibilities for preserving these architectural artworks will be discussed. By
taking the example of the Hyparshell in Magdeburg, it is shown that the use of the innovative and high-
performance building material carbon-reinforced concrete as a strengthening or rehabilitation system allows to keep
the slim and filigree nature of the concrete structures and prevent them from being demolished.

1. Introduction In this article, selected shell structures designed and planned by

Nowadays, one of the most common building materials in Germany
and all over the world is steel-reinforced concrete. Because of its
advantageous properties, many impressive structures were planned
and erected with it for the last century, and they have remained as an
important legacy in the history of construction. Among these
important and extraordinary milestones of the architectural history of
steel-reinforced structures are a lot of thin shell structures, like the
LÒceanografic in Valencia, Spain (2003), by F. Candelas; the Zeiss
Planetarium in Jena, Germany (1926), by F. Dischinger; shells by H.
Isler; or the Hyparshell by Müther in Magdeburg (Germany).
Shell structures are characterised by their excellent and efficient load-
bearing behaviour, which leads to thin concrete members that can
span large distances. In the history of building construction, a lot of
renowned civil engineers, like F. Candelas, P. L. Nervi or H. Isler,
were involved in the creative design phase and construction of those
structures. In Germany, where a lot of shell constructions were built
during the twentieth century, Ulrich Müther was one of the well-
known representatives of these civil engineers (Joedicke, 1962).
Ulrich Müther, who died in 2007 at the age of 73, was a civil engineer
and one of the pioneers in building shell structures in Germany.
Ulrich Müther are presented and described. Moreover, it will be
shown which problems occurred in connection with those shell
constructions and how the German society has dealt with
Müther’s legacy. In some of the cases described in this paper,
problems arising from the techniques used in their construction
accelerated the decay of these unique buildings, which in turn
lead to their demolition. But there is a silver lining for saving
these remarkable structures from decay and demolition. By using
the Hyparshell in Magdeburg as an example, one innovative way
will be shown to strengthen and repair thin shells by maintaining
the original shape and load-bearing behaviour with the use of the
new material ‘carbon-reinforced concrete’.
2. Shell structures of Ulrich Müther in
Germany
2.1 The life of Ulrich Müther and his shell structures
Ulrich Müther was born in 1934 in Binz (Rügen), Germany, as
the oldest of two sons of the architect and building contractor
Willy Müther (Weller and Tasche, 2009). After he studied civil
engineering in Neustrelitz and Dresden, Germany, Müther took

1
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
 Engineering History and Heritage Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a
solution to avoid demolition
Riegelmann, Schumann, May et al.

over his father’s family business in 1958 (Lubitz, 2015). During

his thesis, Müther designed his first shell structure, inspired by the
work of I. Schönrock and F. Candela (Weller and Tasche, 2009),
which aroused his interest in this kind of structures. In the course
of this, Müther specialised in concrete shell constructions. With
his working team, Müther designed and built more than 50 of
these unique and artistic shell structures between 1963 and 1991
(Seeböck, 2012, 2016). A more accurate number of his shell
structures and the still existing ones are currently not possible to
give, because of the lack of a complete database (Weller and
Tasche, 2009). The building constructions designed and planned Figure 2. Teapot in Warnemünde, Germany (von Brilon, 2013)
by Müther were always distinguished by their aesthetics and
extreme filigree, and established Müther’s remarkable reputation
within the building industry in Germany and all over the world.
Additionally, he not only designed extreme filigree shells but also
developed a new manufacturing method, especially for concrete
shells. For this purpose, he refunded the wet-spraying process,
which was only used for repairing work at this time, by including
a fine-meshed steel grid between the reinforcement layers to erect
shells without complex and expansive formwork (Weller and
Tasche, 2009).

In general, Müther’s work focused on shells with hyperbolic

shapes at first. Further, he experimented with ferrocement shell
structures in different shapes and used his developed spraying
technique to build bobsleigh and cycling tracks. Later, he
designed and built shells for planetariums and shells following the
theories of Isler (Weller and Tasche, 2009).
Figure 3. Water Lily restaurant in Potsdam, Germany (Felix, 1990)
In the following, some examples of Müther’s shells are given:
Müther’s first shell construction, called the ‘House of Steelworkers’,
in Binz (Rügen), which he planned during his thesis, was finished in Germany (Figure 3), which has a strong resemblance to the
1964. The roof of the building was made of four hyperbolic LÒceanografic structure in Valencia, Spain, designed by Félix
paraboloids and spanned an area of 14.20 × 14.20 m with a concrete Candela (Ackermann, 2001). The Teapot, built in 1968 in
thickness of barely 7 cm (Dechau, 2000; Figure 1). Warnemünde, Germany, consists of three hyperbolic paraboloids
with a thickness of 7 cm at the thinnest point (Seeböck, 2016).
Other examples for Müther’s shell construction are the teapot in The shell construction still has a high symbolic value for the city
Warnemünde (Figure 2) or the Water Lily restaurant in Potsdam, of Warnemünde.

This filigree quality is exemplary for the concrete constructions

created by Müther. In addition to the aforementioned constructions,
Müther also contributed to the design of planetariums, among them,
the planetarium Spacemaster in Tripolis, Libya, built from 1979 to
1981. The shell construction has a diameter of 17.80 m at its base,
and it was constructed using the Zeiss–Dywidag shell building
system, in the same way as the Zeiss Planetarium in Jena, Germany,
was built 53 years earlier (Schmidt, 2005).

Nearly all of the buildings built by Müther were and remain

Figure 1. Hyparshell roof over the lounge in the holiday home
‘House of Steelworkers’ in Binz, Germany (BMV, 1964)
landmarks for the respective areas. He achieved this despite the
situation in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) with the
shortage of building materials and money at the time. He was able
to design economically competitive structures by using just a
small amount of materials at the cost of extensive manual labour,
which was quite cheap at the time (Weller and Tasche, 2009).

2
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
 Engineering History and Heritage Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a
solution to avoid demolition
Riegelmann, Schumann, May et al.

2.2 The decay of the shell structures built by Müther
Müther was well known for his slim and beautiful shell structures
made of steel-reinforced concrete all over the world. Unfortunately,
not all of these unique and special buildings of Müther survived
due to different problems. On the one hand, there were structural
problems, like too small concrete covers of the steel reinforcement
or a poor execution quality at the construction site, which was
common because of the material shortage in the GDR at the time.
On the other hand, many of the buildings suffer from vacancy after
1990, which led to various forms of damage after time, due to the
absence of maintenance. Therefore, the structures showed concrete
spalling and heavily corroded reinforcement, for example, because
of faulty or damaged waterproofing. Consequently, those buildings
had to be renovated or retrofitted. But, in some cases, no suitable
and affordable retrofitting method could be found, which caused the
demolition of a few buildings of Müther. In addition, political
decisions and missing utilisation concepts led to further
demolitions. A famous example for these was the demolition of the
‘Maple Leaf’ (Ahornblatt) in Berlin, Germany (Seeböck, 2012).
After 1990, the work of Müther did not get any public attention,
which contributed to the demolition and the lack of interest to repair
the shells. Only after the demolition of the famous shell structure, the
Maple Leaf in Berlin, Germany (in 2000), did the public start to
recognise the historical value of Müther’s constructions. The Maple
Leaf, which was built in 1973, consisted of five hyparshells with a
span of 22 × 35 m of each segment and a concrete thickness of only
7 cm (Figure 4). The reality of losing an important landmark due to
the lack of a feasible rehabilitation technology and especially political
mismanagement became evident. The demolition of the Maple Leaf
was seen as a scandal from an architectural and engineering point of
view. On the positive side, the events awoke the consciousness of
people all over Germany. Many architects, planners and institutions
got involved to make sure that this will not happen again for another
shell structure (Seeböck, 2012) and to preserve historical buildings
that are part of the German history of construction.
3. Restoration of Müther’s shell structures
3.1 Classical reservation and retrofitting methods of
Müther’s concrete shell structures
Many concrete shell structures of Müther had to be retrofitted or
renovated. For example, the shell construction of the Teapot in
Warnemünde was renovated in 2001, about 34 years after its
erection. In the course of this, additional supports were placed
under the shell structure. As a result of the renovation, the nature
of the filigree shell structure was significantly reduced. At that
time, however, this was the only way to preserve the shell from
being demolished (BTU, 2017).
In most cases, a restoration of the original load-bearing behaviour,
without additional supports, in the form of an additional layer of
steel-reinforced concrete (e.g. shotcrete) results in a significant
increase of the dead load. Additional self-load is a problem for
Müther’s Hyparshells due to bending within the structure, which
occurs combined with the normal forces in the concrete member.
The conventional strengthening by steel-reinforced concrete not
only would reduce the filigree of the shell but would also, in
many cases, be suitable due to the structural problems with the
additional self-weight.
For example, one of the first case studies regarding the
strengthening of the Hyparshell in Magdeburg showed that using
conventional shotcrete, applied as two strengthening layers with a
thickness of only 70 mm each (one on the top and one on the
bottom of the existent shell structure), resulted in an additional
self-weight load that could not be carried by the shell structure
and the support parts.
Analogous to the Hyparshell in Magdeburg, many shell structures
from Müther and of other architects or engineers had the same
problem in the past. There was not a lightweight and efficient
strengthening method for these slim and thin buildings.

72.00
8.50 27.50 27.50 8.50
14.00 14.00

Column
Tie rod Æ1.0 m
I prestressed V
1.00 × 0.40 m

0.24 Hollow-core
thickness 1.00 m

1.10 0.32
1.50
II Shell thickness IV
0.07 m
III Support 1.00−1.20 m

11.38 11.38

(a) (b)

Figure 4. The Maple Leaf in Berlin, Germany (Ackermann, 2001; Weller, 2009)

3
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
 Engineering History and Heritage
3.2 Strengthening the Hyparshell in Magdeburg with
carbon-reinforced concrete
3.2.1 The Hyparshell in Magdeburg
The Hyparshell in Magdeburg, Germany, was built in 1969 by
Ulrich Müther. The building was used for concerts and fairs and
was an architectural landmark for the city of Magdeburg for many
years. The Hyparshell is shown in Figure 5 shortly before its
completion.
Figure 5. View of the Hyparshell shortly before completion
(GFA, 1969)
Figure 6. Historical reinforcement drawing of one segment of the Hyparshell in Magdeburg, Germany (Schumann et al., 2019)
4
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a
solution to avoid demolition
Riegelmann, Schumann, May et al.
The reinforced-concrete shell consists of four hyperbolic paraboloids,
each segment measuring 24 × 24 m and having a thickness of planed
7 cm. Therefore, a total area of 48 × 48 m is spanned without
columns. To increase the structural stiffness of the shell elements,
they are provided with additional 50 cm wide beams at their edges
with a varying thickness between 20 and 60 cm. In addition to steel
supports, which are arranged below these beams, a total of eight
diagonal supports transfer the loads into the ground (see Figures 5
and 6). The diagonal supports are also connected with pre-stressed
concrete tie rods to carry the high horizontal loads and reduce the
shear forces on the ground. The planned reinforcement is shown in
Figure 6 in a floor plan of one shell segment and in the cross-section.
As shown in the cross-section, there is always a trajectories
reinforcement in the middle of the shell with a diameter of 10 mm
and spacing is varied to carry the normal stresses, which predominate
in the shell structure. The trajectories reinforcement is built like a grid
in the direction of the principal stresses. In addition, there are lower
and upper bending reinforcement (see Figure 6) to carry local positive
and negative moments within the shell (Schumann et al., 2019).
Initial damages, such as cracks in the area of the diagonal supports,
were detected just a few years after completion of the Hyparshell. The
increase in damage over the years resulted in the closure of the
building in 1997. The demolition of the prestigious building requested
by the city of Magdeburg a year later could have been prevented due
to an expert report regarding the rehabilitation potential of the shell.
The first restoration concept in 2002 provided a 70 mm thick
shotcrete layer on the top and bottom of the shell. The
 Engineering History and Heritage
implementation of this concept repeatedly failed due to the lack of
financing and a utilisation concept for the project (Hentschel et al.,
2019). In 2017, after a long break and further structural damage,
because of lack of maintenance, further feasibility studies were carried
out. In the course of this study, the conditions of the Hyparshell were
examined again. Figure 7 shows exemplarily the current conditions of
the construction before the now planned restoration.
Particularly at its lowest point, the shell is exposed to heavy
infestation of vegetation (Figure 7(b)). In addition, the waterproofing
of the shell is damaged. All over the shell, the steel reinforcement is
exposed to moisture and shows increasing corrosion. In general, a
poor manufacturing of the concrete members in combination with the
absence of maintenance was responsible for the concrete spalling.
For example, delamination, gravel pockets and small planed concrete
cover of approximately 12 mm (Weller and Tasche, 2009) were
observed. The reinforcement is also exposed in the area of the
diagonal supports due to the very low concrete cover provided in the
construction process (Figure 7(c)). The corrosion of the steel bars
was not so extensive that the recalculations of the structure had to
assume smaller steel diameters. A bigger problem was that during an
investigation of the structure it was also determined that the
originally planned shell thickness of 70 mm had not been provided in
(a)
(c)
Figure 7. Condition of the construction in the year 2017
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a
solution to avoid demolition
Riegelmann, Schumann, May et al.
almost all areas. In the majority of the investigated places (drill
cores), the thickness that was measured was only between 50 and
60 mm. Further, concerning the used reinforcement, deviations were
found between the planning and the as-built conditions. Instead of
the intended mesh reinforcement with a diameter of 8 mm and a
spacing of 20 mm, the one with a diameter of 6 mm and a spacing of
20 mm was used (MPA, 2014). Both findings led to structural
problems during the recalculations, which made strengthening of the
reinforcement and the cross-section inevitable. The study concluded
that only the use of the new and innovative material carbon-
reinforced concrete would give an efficient solution to restore the
Hyparshell in Magdeburg and save it from demolition. A big
advantage was the thinness and flexibility of the strengthening
method to save the filigree of the shell structure. In addition,
compared to the conventional strengthening with two 7 cm thick
shotcrete layers, the introduced dead load is minimised, which is
positive for the design of bending of the shell and the load capacity
of the original support structure (edge beam and supports).
3.2.2 Carbon-reinforced concrete in general
Carbon-reinforced concrete is a relatively new and innovative
composite material that shows high potential in civil engineering.
The main advantage of carbon-reinforced concrete is its use of non-
(b)
(d)
5
 Engineering History and Heritage
corrosive and high-strength carbon fibres, which are manufactured as
carbon grids or carbon rebars; the use of concrete can be
considerably cut down, because of the thinner structures (smaller
concrete cover). This leads to slim and lightweight carbon-reinforced
concrete elements for new buildings (May et al., 2018; Rempel
et al., 2017; Schumann et al., 2018) or lightweight strengthening
methods (Scheerer et al., 2019; Schladitz et al., 2018).
Carbon-reinforced concrete is a composite material consisting of
fine-grained concrete and carbon reinforcement, arranged in the
direction of the tension stresses in the concrete cross-section.
Concretes with very small aggregates and high strength are
usually used for the manufacture of carbon-reinforced
components; this is why such a special concrete is called fine-
grained concrete. The maximum grain size is selected depending
on the mesh width of the carbon grid or its concrete cover. For
the strengthening of existing concrete structures, different
methods can be used in combination with those fine-grained
(a)
Figure 8. Strengthening methods for carbon-reinforced concrete: (a) spraying and (b) laminating
Textile
reinforcement
(a)
Figure 9. Basic structure of textile reinforcement (taken from Lorenz (2014))
6
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a
solution to avoid demolition
Riegelmann, Schumann, May et al.
concretes. The most common strengthening methods are spraying
or laminating the fine-grained concrete on the surface of the
existent concrete structure (Figure 8).
The reinforcement used for carbon-reinforced concrete is in the
form of a grid or a bar. Both types are based on single carbon
fibres (Figure 9).
For the strengthening of existing concrete structures, carbon grids
are usually used.
The linear fibres are impregnated together with a polymer matrix and
combined to fibre strands, which are then further processed in a
layered process for textile reinforcement. The basic structure of a
textile reinforcement is shown in Figure 9. One of these fibre strands
consists of more than 50 000 individual fibres. Some kind of
profiling, which is usual for steel reinforcement, has not yet been
incorporated into the industrial production of the reinforcement but is
under current development for future applications.
(b)
Fibre strand
Fibre
(b)
 Engineering History and Heritage
Above all, the corrosion sensitivity of the steel reinforcement used
in conventional concrete construction makes carbon-reinforced
concrete structures a resource saving and often the more durable
solution in the construction process. When steel reinforcement is
used, a minimum concrete covering between 1.5 and 5.0 cm must
be provided to protect the reinforcement against corrosion. This
results in minimum dimensions of 4–11 cm for reinforced-
concrete components (Jesse and Curbach, 2010). Because of the
resistance of the carbon fibres against corrosion, there is no need
for a concrete cover to protect the reinforcement, which allows
thin structures. The concrete covering of carbon-reinforced
components is usually between several millimetres and a few
centimetres. It serves to ensure a sufficient bond and thus load
transfer between concrete and reinforcement.
In 2016, a national technical approval for the reinforcement of the
flexural tensile strength of concrete components with carbon
concrete was issued (DIBt, 2016). It is the first normative
regulation for the strengthening of concrete structures with
carbon-reinforced concrete in Germany.
3.2.3 The strengthening of the Hyparshell in
Magdeburg with carbon-reinforced concrete
The planned concept for the strengthening of the Hyparshell in
Magdeburg with carbon-reinforced concrete comprises a
strengthening with a fine-grained concrete and a carbon grid. The
fine-grained concrete Pagel TF10 (Pagel Spezial Beton GmbH,
2018), which is applied in two layers with a thickness of 5 mm each
to the existing structure on the top and bottom of the shell, has a
compression strength of more than 80 N/mm2 after 28 days. For the
calculation of the strengthening, the concrete was considered as a
C20/25 (safe approach), like the existing concrete of the shell, which
is possible because of the comparable modulus of elasticity. A layer
of carbon grid ‘SITgrid041’ is placed in the middle of these two
concrete layers on both sides of the shell. The grid, shown in
Figure 10, provides a reinforcement area of 70.5 mm2/m with a
design tensile strength of about 1.100 N/mm2. The grid participates
in the load transfer in both directions, because the warp and weft
threads consist of an equal reinforcement area. Besides the structural
strengthening, a waterproofing and insulation layer is applied to
ensure that the serviceability of the construction can be restored.
The purpose of the strengthening is to increase the load-bearing
capacity of the shell with respect to bending and normal forces. The
additional concrete cover increases the height of the shell and
therefore the load-bearing capacity in terms of bending and
compression loads. Regarding the existing shell thickness of
approximately 5 cm, the additional layers of carbon concrete led to
the originally planned shell thickness of 7 cm. Further, the added
reinforcement improves the tensile strength of the cross-section. For
the recalculations, the interaction of moment and normal forces were
considered as well as the pre-deformation of the shell under self-
weight. To ensure the load-bearing function of the composite section
between the original concrete structure and the carbon-reinforced
layers, the existing concrete surface must be sandblasted to get a
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a
solution to avoid demolition
Riegelmann, Schumann, May et al.
Weft
Warp
25.4 mm
25.4 mm
Figure 10. Carbon grid SITgrid041
rough void (roughness depth >1.0 mm). The calculation showed that
this kind of void preparation is sufficient to transfer the shear between
the layers without any shear connectors. Detailed information of the
design process is shown in Schumann et al. (2019).
The planned renovation concept deviates from the previously
explained national technical approval due to a different carbon
grid that is used for the restoration, and so the approval had to be
extended by a project-related approval in this individual case.
This approval regulates the required characteristic values of textile
and concrete as well as the exact course of the manufacturing of
the strengthening, based on additional experimental investigations.
The approval, however, is strongly based on the national technical
approval for the reinforcement of the flexural tensile strength of
concrete components with carbon concrete (DIBt, 2016).
For the implementation of the strengthening of the Hyparshell with
carbon concrete, preparations for the existing concrete surface are
necessary, as mentioned before. Any vegetation and loose parts must
be removed from the shell surface. Also, materials such as release
agents, oil or old coatings must be removed from the surface. The
concrete is also roughened by sandblasting. If necessary, the prepared
concrete surface must be reprofiled. For example, areas with exposed
steel bars or voids in the concrete shell have to be repaired under
current standards with conventional concrete repair mortars to ensure
the conditions of the strengthening calculations and an even surface.
After preparation, the first layer of fine-grained concrete with a
thickness of 5 mm is applied. Then the textile reinforcement is placed
on top of this fine-grained concrete layer and slightly pressed in. The
second layer of fine-grained concrete, also 5 mm thick, completes the
reinforcing layer. The reinforcement measures are carried out on both
the inside and outside of the shell. To ensure proper hydration of the
concrete during hardening, after-treatment or curing must begin as
soon as possible after the final concrete layer has been applied.
Appropriate after-treatment can be achieved by covering the
reinforcing layer with wet hessian, for example. For the existing size
of the area to be reinforced, a curing period of 7 days must be ensured.
After the strengthening measure has been completed, a waterproofing
7
 Engineering History and Heritage
and an insulating layer are applied. In addition to the shell, the beams
on the edge will be strengthened by carbon concrete as well.
3.2.4 The current state of the strengthening work and
outlook
After a long period of planning the strengthening of the shell with
carbon-reinforced concrete, the construction work started in spring
of 2020. Figure 11 shows the construction work in Magdeburg in
May 2020. In July 2020, the first segment was strengthened on the
outside. Only after the complete application of carbon concrete on
the top of the shell the layer on the bottom will be executed. This
strengthening order was considered during the planning.
The completion date of the project is expected by the end of 2020
or the beginning of 2021. Once the structural integrity of the
Hyparshell in Magdeburg has been restored and improved with
carbon-reinforced concrete, the structure will be renovated to
showcase the unique beauty of the shell structures built by Ulrich
Müther. Once again, it will be seen as one of the landmarks of
Magdeburg (Figure 12).
4. Conclusions
In this paper, some shells of the engineer Ulrich Müther were
presented; especially, the current condition and strengthening of
the Hyparshell in Magdeburg was featured.
(a)
(b)
Figure 11. Actual pictures of the work on the construction site
8
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a
solution to avoid demolition
Riegelmann, Schumann, May et al.
After discussing the work of Müther by focusing on some
selected examples, the current situation of Müther’s shell
structures was described. Due to the lack of interest and
utilisation concepts, many of Müther’s shells were vacant for a
long time, which accelerated the decay of these structures.
Moreover, it can be seen that many of Müther’s shell structures
have several structural damages and their as-built dimensions
deviate considerably from those specified by Müther in his design
documents. Due to these various reasons, some of Müther’s
special und unique structures had to be demolished because of
political reasons and the absence of suitable and effective
strengthening methods.
The disadvantages of conventional strengthening methods, for
example, strengthening with shotcrete, and especially the huge
additional weight associated to them, often make them not suitable
for thin and lightweight concrete shell structures. Therefore, an
example of a new and high-potential strengthening method for the
Hyparshell in Magdeburg was shown in this paper – the
strengthening of existing concrete structures with carbon-reinforced
concrete. With the help of the new composite material, and with only
thin strengthening layers of 10 mm on the top and bottom of the
existing shell structure, the unique building of Ulrich Müther can be
saved from demolition and retrofitted, extending its service life for
the next decades. Moreover, with thin layers of 10 mm fine concrete
combined with one carbon grid, the load-bearing capacity of the shell
structure with respect to the current standards could be shown. Due
to the very thin reinforcing layer (only 10 mm), the increase in the
dead weight of the shell is rather small compared to that in the
originally planned shell structure and the first restoration concept in
(a)
(b)
Figure 12. New look of the Hyparshell in Magdeburg after the
retrofitting (GMP, 2017)
 Engineering History and Heritage
2002 with a 70 mm thick shotcrete layer. The construction method
allows the preservation of a very special building, which will be
placed back in the socio-cultural centre of the city of Magdeburg by
the renovation with carbon-reinforced concrete.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the project partners gmp
Generalplanungsgesellschaft mbH, Prof. Rühle, Jentzsch and
Partner GmbH, Technische Universität Dresden and Eigenbetrieb
Kommunales Gebäudemanagment (Eb KGm), which collectively
funded this project.
REFERENCES
Ackermann G (2001) Der Bau von Schalen für Dachtragwerke aus
Stahlbeton im Osten Deutschlands (1945–1985). Bautechnik 78(1):
18–35, https://doi.org/10.1002/bate.200100050 (in German).
BMV (Baukunstarchiv MV an der Hochschule Wismar) (1964) Haus der
Stahlwerker. Baukunstarchiv MV an der Hochschule Wismar, Wismar,
Germany. See https://www.hs-wismar.de/en/networking/institutionen-
hochschulunternehmen/muether-archiv/recherche-datenbank/ (accessed
17/09/2020).
BTU (Brandenburgische Technische Universität) (2017) Ulrich Müther
(1934–2007). BTU Cottbus–Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany (in German).
See http://www.b-tu.de/great-engineers-lexikon/ingenieure/muether-ulrich-
1934-2007/projekte#c147321 (accessed 06/08/2020).
Dechau W (2000) Kühne Solitär Ulrich Müther – Schalenbaumeister der
DDR. Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt DVA, Stuttgart, Germany (in German).
DIBt (Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik) (2016) Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche
Zulassung (abZ) Z-31.10-182: Verfahren zur Verstärkung von Stahlbeton
mit TUDALIT (Textilbewehrter Beton) (in German).
Felix O (1990) Restaurant Seerose Potsdam. CC BY-SA 2.0, https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0 See https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/File:Restaurant_Seerose_Potsdam.jpg (accessed 10/03/2020).
GFA (German Federal Archive) (1969) Bild 183-H0929-0018-001. CC-BY-
SA 3.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de See https://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H0929-0018-
001,_Magdeburg,_Mehrzwckhalle_im_Bau.jpg (accessed 10/03/2020).
GMP (2017) Hyperschale Magdeburg. gmp Architekten, Hamburg, Germany.
See https://www.gmp.de/de/projekte/7875/hyparschale-magdeburg
(accessed 10/03/2020).
Hentschel M, Schumann A, Ulrich H and Jentzsch S (2019) Sanierung der
Hyparschale Magdeburg. Bautechnik 96(1): 25–30, https://doi.org/10.
1002/bate.201800087 (in German).
Jesse F and Curbach M (2010) Verstärken mit Textilbeton. In Beton-
Kalender 2010 (Bergmeister K, Fingerloos F and Wörner J-D (eds)).
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA, vol. 1,
pp. 459–565 (in German).
Joedicke J (1962) Schalenbau. Konstruktion und Gestaltung. Karl Krämer
Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany (in German).
Lorenz E (2014) Endverankerung und Übergreifung texiler Bewehrungen
in Betonmatrices. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany (in German).
Lubitz J (2015) Architektenportrait Ulrich Müther (in German). See http://
architekten-portrait.de/ulrich_muether/index.html (accessed 10/03/
2020).
MPA (Materialprüfanstalt) für das Bauwesen (2014)
Untersuchungsbericht, Bauwerksuntersuchungen an der Hyparschale
Magdeburg. Braunschweig, Germany.
May S, Michler H, Schladitz F and Curbach M (2018) Lightweight ceiling
system made of carbon reinforced concrete. Structural Concrete 19:
1862–1872, https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700224.
Pagel Spezial Beton GmbH (2018) Datenblatt Feinbeton Pagel TF10.
Pagel Spezial-Beton GmbH & Co. KG., Essen, Germany (in German).
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage
Müther’s shell structures in Germany – a
solution to avoid demolition
Riegelmann, Schumann, May et al.
See http://www.pagel.com/de_mobile/products/tf10.html (accessed 19/
12/2019).
Rempel S, Kulas C, Will N and Bielak J (2017) Extremely Light and
Slender-Precast Pedestrian-Bridge Made Out of Textile-Reinforced
Concrete (TRC). In High Tech Concrete: Where Technology and
Engineering Meet, Proc. of the 2017 fib Symposium, June 12-14 2017,
Maastricht, the Netherland.
Scheerer S, Zobel R, Müller E et al. (2019) Flexural strengthening of RC
structures with TRC – experimental observations, design approach and
application. Applied Sciences 9(7): 1322, https://doi.org/10.3390/
app9071322.
Schladitz F, Tietze M, Schumann A and Garibaldi PM (2018) Carbon
reinforced concrete in construction practice. In Engineering the
Developing World – Proceedings of the 2018 IABSE Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 24–25 April 2018. IABSE c/o ETH Zurich,
Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 348–355.
Schmidt H (2005) Von der Steinkuppel zur Zeiss-Dywidag-
Schalenbauweise. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 100(1): 79–92, https://
doi.org/10.1002/best.200590016 (in German).
Schumann A, Hentschel M, Zobel R and Curbach M (2019) Strengthening
of the hyper shell in Magdeburg with carbon reinforced concrete –
design and calculations. In Form and Force – Joint International
Conference of IASS Symposium 2019 and Structural Membranes 2019,
Barcelona, Spain, 7–10 October 2019 (Lázaro C, Bletzinger K-U and
Oñate E (eds)). International Association for Shell and Spatial
Structures (IASS), Madrid, Spain, pp. 855–862.
Schumann A, May S and Curbach M (2018) Design and testing of various
ceiling elements made of carbon reinforced concrete. In Proceedings
of the 18th International Conference on Experimental Mechanics
(ICEM 2018), Brussel, Belgium, 1–5 July 2018 (Van Hemelrijck D,
Aggelis D, De Belie N et al. (eds)). MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland,
pp. 1–7.
Seeböck T (2012) Ulrich Müthers Schalenbauten im Bauwesen der DDR.
Deutschland Archiv. See http://www.bpb.de/geschichte/zeitgeschichte/
deutschlandarchiv/147753/ulrich-muethers-schalenbauten?p=all
(accessed 10/03/2020).
Seeböck T (2016) Schwünge in Beton: Die Schalenbauten von Ulrich
Müther (Beiträge zur Architekturgeschichte und Denkmalpflege in
Mecklenburg und Vorpommern). Helms-Verlag, Schwerin, Germany
(in German).
von Brilon F (2013) Teepott und Leuchtturm von der Seeseite. CC BY-SA
3.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de See https://
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Rostock_Geb%C3%
A4ude_und_Turm_2.JPG (accessed 10/03/2020).
Weller B and Tasche M (2009) Ingenieurbaukunst: Die Betonschalen von
Ulrich Müther (1934–2007). Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 104(7):
438–446, https://doi.org/10.1002/best.200902013 (in German).
How can you contribute?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to
the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial board, it will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions from the
civil engineering profession (and allied disciplines).
Information about how to submit your paper online
is available at www.icevirtuallibrary.com/page/authors,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
9