See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345602849

Glass Sails of the Fondation Louis Vuitton: approach to robustness

Article  in  IABSE Congress Report · September 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 616

3 authors, including:

Jorge Hidalgo Africa Garcia

T/E/S/S Atelier d'ingénierie T/E/S/S Atelier d'ingéniérie
8 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorge Hidalgo on 09 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 40th IABSE Symposium, 19-21 September 2018, Nantes, France.
Tomorrow’s Megastructures

Glass Sails of the Fondation Louis Vuitton: approach to robustness

Matt King, Jorge Hidalgo, Africa Garcia
T/E/S/S atelier d’ingénierie, Paris, France
Contact: matt.king@tess.fr

Abstract
The Fondation Louis Vuitton, a contemporary art museum designed by architect Frank Gehry and
situated in the Bois de Boulogne in Paris, France, is a building of exceptional engineering
complexity. Central to its architectural identity are the 12 sculptural glazed sails that float off the
primary building structure. Totalling around 13,400m2, their steel and timber structure is
supported by 189 compression struts, known as Tripods.
Suspending structures of this magnitude (the largest sail is around 3,000m2 and weighs over 800
Tonnes, while the smallest is 500m² and weighs around 130 Tonnes) presents an engineering
challenge that is rarely seen in buildings and is more aligned with the scale of civil engineering or
infrastructure projects.
The structure of each sail had to respond to the constraints imposed by the building’s primary
structure, with loads at anchorage points exceeding 1,000 Tonnes. Furthermore, the design had to
accommodate the architectural demands of a sculpture, where each Tripod and principal beam
formed part of its composition.
The building was designated as Category 5 with a 100-year design life. The relative fragility of the
timber elements (particularly their connections) and the unitary nature of the Tripod strut
supports required that a full accidental loadcase verification be completed to assess the
structures’ susceptibility to progressive collapse. The impact of the failure of any major element or
connection on the stability of each sail was evaluated and the structure was iteratively refined,
adding or removing supports in response, or locally reinforcing.
This paper sets out the design process for developing the structure of the sails and focuses on the
accidental loadcase analyses completed. It explores the balance required between hyperstaticity
of redundant structures and the need to control loadpaths and forces, particularly in a timber and
steel composite structure.
Keywords: Redundancy, robustness, accidental damage, timber, architectural geometry

Boulogne, Paris, France (Figure 1). It houses

1 Introduction
The Fondation Louis Vuitton, designed by
Frank O. Gehry and completed in 2014, is a
museum for contemporary art, located next
to the Jardin d’Acclimatation in the Bois de
around 3500 m2 of exhibition space in 11
galleries of varying size and volume, a 350-
seat auditorium, a bookstore, a restaurant,
and administrative areas. The building is
organized on three main levels; basement,

1
 40th IABSE Symposium, 19-21 September 2018, Nantes, France.
Tomorrow’s Megastructures

ground floor and first floor, and is completed
by an open roof terrace over its entire
footprint.
The building superstructure is a mixed
concrete and steel construction, founded on a
cast in place concrete raft of around 2m
depth. The entire building is wrapped in a
series of glass sails, which serve as a
permeable enclosure for the terraces and
exterior circulation zones, defining their
volumes and sheltering users from the
elements.

Figure 1. The Fondation Louis Vuitton

2 Description of Sails
There are twelve sails, each one an
independent structure, supporting a total of
around 13,400m² of glazing. They vary in size
from the largest, at over 3,000m² and nearly
800 Tonnes, to the smallest at 500m² and 130
Tonnes, and range in orientation from
horizontal to vertical.
They are a central element in the external
form and identity of the building, taking their
inspiration from the sails of racing yachts. The
photo below of the America’s Cup J class
yacht Susanne, from 1911, served as a focal
image for the project (Figure 2).
Figure 2. J Class yacht
The form of each sail is part of a global
composition, developed by the architect
largely through the medium of scale models
(Figure 3). The project took shape through
multiple iterations, spanning a number of
years; from simple massing models up to
1/50th scale models of the whole building.

Figure 3. Architectural development model

40th IABSE Symposium, 19-21 September 2018, Nantes, France.
Tomorrow’s Megastructures

While each sail is unique, ten of the twelve 3 Structural Function

have a particular form, generated by two
intersecting, broadly developable surfaces Braced shell
(Figure 4). At the head of the typical sails, the
intersection is marked by a sharp fold, which
flattens out, moving down the sail, to a
central point. Beyond that the intersection
changes direction and approaches a perfect
continuity or tangency between the two
surfaces.

Fold Tripod supports

Surface 2
Figure 5. Structural system of typical sail
The typical sail functions as a braced shell
supported by a series of Tripod strut groups
(Figure 5). The steel and timber frame is
braced to provide stiffness in its plane, which
also generates out of plane stiffness due to its
Surface 1 curved and folded form. This out of plane
stiffness is highly variable, with high stiffness
Base
at the tight fold at the head of the sail and low
Figure 4. Geometry of typical sail stiffness at the flatter base of the sail.

Each component of the system plays its part
in the composition. Structure is laid out to
enhance the perception of movement and
tension in the surfaces and create the sense
of space and volume below.
The Tripod struts incorporate pin end
connections and transfer only axial loads.
They are either independent, providing
support only in one direction, or arranged in
triangulated groups of two or three members
to provide support in two or three directions
(Figure 6).

Figure 6. Tripod configurations

4 Redundancy and Robustness
The structural typology of a braced shell is, by
its nature, redundant, with multiple in plane
loadpaths. Out of plane redundancy also
exists, in part due to the bending continuity of
its principal elements, and more significantly
due to its shell action, which transforms
simple bending into membrane forces.
It is theoretically possible to develop a
configuration of Tripods, which provide a

3
 40th IABSE Symposium, 19-21 September 2018, Nantes, France.
Tomorrow’s Megastructures

perfectly isostatic support to the braced shell
(6 directional supports). However, this was
not possible in practice as such a minimal
support scheme would lead to excessive
dimensions for the principal beam elements
of the sails. Furthermore, the multiple
constraints placed on the location of Tripod
anchorages meant that it was rarely possible
to develop ideal configurations.
This led to highly variable support conditions,
often not perfectly matched to the form of
the sail. For each sail a delicate balance
needed to be found between providing
sufficient support while minimizing internal
forces generated as a result of hyperstaticity.
Controlling the stresses and deflections in the
shell structure typically required multiple
additional supports, generating a relatively
high degree of redundancy. For a typical sail
this ranged between 5 to 8 additional Tripods
beyond those required for a theoretically
isostatic configuration.
The constructive system of the sails includes
several elements with connection types which
exhibit limited robustness (Figure 7),
particularly:
• Elements incorporating pin end
connections (Tripods, bracing ties, steel
beams etc), where a single fixing
transfers all of the loads
• Timber connections, which are often
considered as non-ductile as they may
be susceptible to sudden failure in shear

Figure 7. “Non-robust” connections – typically pin connections and timber connections

40th IABSE Symposium, 19-21 September 2018, Nantes, France.
Tomorrow’s Megastructures
5 Accidental Actions and
Performance
Eurocode 0 [1] defines the principles and
potential strategies for ensuring that a
structure has adequate robustness. Clause
2.1(4)P sets out the base requirement that a
structure must not be prone to
disproportionate damage under identified
events such as explosions or collisions, or non-
identified events such as human error. The
events to be considered are determined by
the client and design team based on the
characteristics of each project.
In this case there were no “identified events”
conforming to the explosion or collision cases
set out in Eurocode 1-7 [2]. The principal risk
for the project was considered to be a local
failure of a non-robust component, such as
those listed above.
Eurocode 1-7 defines various strategies for
ensuring that non-identified events do not
result in disproportionate damage. The
strategy chosen for the project is that set out
in clause 3.3(2)P – each sail structure was
dimensioned to accommodate the loss of any
individual, non-robust element or connection
in its system.
A static structural analysis was performed
under a series of accidental cases modelling
the removal, one by one, of each non-robust
element. The GSA FE software [4] was
employed as it allows a single model to be
analysed in stages representing different
structural configurations. The loading adopted
for each analysis was simply the dead load of
the structure, coherent with the prescriptions
of Eurocode 0, and its French National
Annexe.
The intention of testing these accidental cases
was to reduce the likelihood that the removal
of any element would lead to overstress in
any other element of the system, and so limit
the risk of progressive collapse. This criterion
5
was considered to have been met in cases
where the stresses in all components were
inferior to those under ULS loadcases (i.e. all
components would be dimensioned based on
ULS cases).
The approach is necessarily a simplification of
the real impact of the loss of a component. In
particular, it does not account for dynamic
effects that might eventually accompany the
event leading to the initial loss of the element
or those generated after the initial
component has failed.
It does serves as a very effective methodology
for identifying the weak points in the system,
allowing the design team to adapt or reinforce
the structure in a targeted manner. In this
way it is possible to gain a clearer
understanding of a complex structural system
and increase its global robustness without
penalizing the entire structure.
In addition, it was decided to enhance the
robustness of certain key elements of the
system, namely:
• All Tripods and their anchorages were
dimensioned for the envelope of the
forces resulting from the ULS analysis
and the accidental cases
• The primary support structure was
similarly dimensioned to accommodate
the load take down for all of the
accidental cases
• All tension ties were independently
verified for the forces arising from all
accidental cases
The analyses identified certain accidental
cases, which clearly had a more significant
and widespread impact on the rest of the
system and were likely to generate forces
greater than the ULS envelope. These were
defined as critical accidental cases, and
formally incorporated into the contractor’s
execution studies. In this way it was assured
that every component of the system would be
 40th IABSE Symposium, 19-21 September 2018, Nantes, France.
verified for the forces resulting from the most
disruptive accidental cases.
The elements, whose loss generated critical
accidental cases, were designated “key
elements” and their execution class was
enhanced to Execution Class EXC4, requiring
stricter quality control procedures.
Finally, a number of cases led to a clear
overstress in the rest of the system, requiring
a more comprehensive re-design - typically
the addition of elements to the Tripod sub-
system.
6 Analysis Results
The approach set out above generated a total
of over 1100 accidental loadcases, broken
down into the following categories:
• Tripods and Anchorages 201 cases
• Timber Connections 344 cases
• Steel Connections 226 cases
• Bracing Struts and Ties 349 cases
These generated an average 20-25% increase
in the design force for the Tripods (and in
consequence their anchorages, and the
primary support structure) (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Maximum axial forces in Tripods for
ULS and Accidental loadcases for sail NEU2
A total number of 57 critical cases were
identified and incorporated into the
contractor’s execution calculations. Of these,
63% were cases involving Tripods and their
anchorages, 25% were timber connection
Tomorrow’s Megastructures
cases, 8% were steel connections and 4%
were bracing struts and ties.
These figures indicate the relative importance
of the Tripods – unsurprising given their role
in the global stability of the sails. The strong
impact of the timber connections was
typically due to their role in transferring loads
to the Tripods.
The principal impact to the system was
typically seen in the following components:
• Tripods were designed for higher forces
(average of around 20-25%)
• Around 1/3 of bracing ties were
dimensioned based on accidental cases
with forces increasing by 25% on
average
• The timber connections were rarely
impacted by the accidental cases as
timber has a higher resistance under
short term loading
Three cases required a re-design of the
system resulting in the addition of ties to the
Tripod sub-system. One of these cases, sail
NEU2, is described below.
Sail NEU2 is a vertical sail with around 900m²
of glazing and weighs a total of around 250
Tonnes (Figure 9). It is supported off two
independent primary structural zones,
separated by a movement joint.
Figure 9. Sail NEU2
Initially the structural system developed for
ULS loading comprised of a total of 8 Tripods
and an atypical anchorage point. Here the
40th IABSE Symposium, 19-21 September 2018, Nantes, France.
Tomorrow’s Megastructures

braced shell structure was effectively pinned and to dimension the components of the
directly to the primary structural frame, with system for the resulting forces
support provided in all three directions.
While the analysis does not fully account for
The arrangement therefore had a total of 11 dynamic effects, it does provide a
directional supports - 5 more than a methodology for testing highly variable,
theoretically isostatic solution. When tested in complex structures with a number of
the structural analysis model, the loss of advantages:
either of the Tripod pair that provided vertical
• Allows a systematic and exhaustive
and out of plane support at the western
approach
extremity of the sail generated very high
• Provides insight into the fundamental
stresses. It was not possible to add a Tripod to
characteristics of a complex system
this pair, as this would have constrained the
• Identifies critical elements and weak
sail across the movement joint in the primary
points in the system
structure.
The solution adopted was to add a support tie
to the lowest corner of the braced shell.
However, while the tie worked well in limiting
the impact of the loss of the critical Tripods, it
also generated high forces in the system
under thermal cases. In order to limit the
negative effects of the tie, a spring detail was
incorporated into its end connection (Figure
10). This was arranged to work in compression
under tension loads in the tie and calibrated
so that the tie remained soft under ULS cases,
attracting limited loads. Under critical
accidental cases the spring compresses to the
end of its travel, fully activating the tensile
rigidity of the tie.
This solution reduced maximum deflections
under accidental cases by 2.5 times and
critical stresses, particularly in timber beams,
by a factor of around 3 (Figure 11).

7 Conclusions
The high profile and innovative nature of the Figure 10. Spring detail for additional tie
project required a comprehensive, in depth
approach to limiting the consequences of an
accidental event. The impact of the analysis of accidental
loadcases was relatively modest in terms of
As no specific accidental hazards were
cost and changes to element sizes.
identified, the strategy adopted was to
complete a static analysis of the system This is principally due to the degree of
removing non-robust elements, one by one, redundancy in the system.

7
 40th IABSE Symposium, 19-21 September 2018, Nantes, France.
Tomorrow’s Megastructures

certain structures and reinforcement of

selective components. This ensured that a
coherent structural system, capable of
transferring its loads, remained in place under
each accidental scenario. This effort was
combined with enhanced quality control of
critical elements of the system, identified in
the accidental loadcase analysis. Clearly this
process has significantly increased the
ULS
robustness of the sail structures to withstand
accidental damage.

8 Acknowledgements
Client: Fondation Louis Vuitton
Client Technical Advisor: Quadrature
Ingénierie
Design Architect: Gehry Partners LPP
Accidental Envelope
Local Architect: Studios Architecture
(before tie added)
Engineering of the Sails: RFR+T/E/S/S (Joint
Venture)
Engineering of the Primary Building Structure:
SETEC
Sail Contractor: Eiffage Construction
Metallique, Bureau Greisch, Sunglass, Hess
General Contractor : Vinci Construction
Accidental Envelope
(after tie added)
9 References
Figure 11. Stress in timber beams [1] EN 1990 Eurocode 0: Basis of structural
design.
The braced shell was able to provide multiple
alternative in plane loadpaths, which also [2] EN 1991-1-7 Eurocode 1: Actions on
served to provide out of plane redundancy, structures - Part 1-7: General actions -
due to its form. The Tripod support system for Accidental actions.
the sails also presented a relatively high [3] Gulvanessian H. Calgaro J-A., Holický M.,
degree of redundancy. Controlling deflections Designer’s Guide to EN 1990 Eurocode:
and stresses in the braced shell required Basis of Structural Design, London,
significantly more Tripods than a perfectly Thomas Telford, 2002.
isostatic configuration. This combination of
factors ensured that the system was Oasys Software, Oasys GSA Analysis.
inherently robust. Available from https://www.oasys-
software.com
The 1100 accidental loadcase tests performed
on the sails, led to a targeted adaptation of

View publication stats