The Mero Legacy

Two engineers recall the progress made in the construction of space structures

by Herbert Klimke and Jaime Sanchez

Herbert Klimke Jaime Sanchez

*1939 in Berlin * 1951 in Mexico City

1966 Dipl.-Ing. TU Berlin 1976 Architect, National University of Mexico

1966 – 1971 Steel Construction 1977-80 PhD Civ. Eng., Surrey University, UK

with Krupp in Rheinhausen and 1981-2012 Design Engineer, 3D Geometry

Berlin and with Noell in Würzburg Specialist, Mero Space Structures

1971 – 2004 Mero Space Structures 2012-2019 Design Engineer, 3D Geometry

1976 Dr.-Ing. TH Karlsruhe Specialist, Lindner Steel & Glass, Germany

herbert.klimke@yahoo.de jaime.sanchez@t-online.de
 Preface
The objective of this report is the documentation of some notable achievements in the design and
construction of space trusses and space frames, which are special classes of lightweight structures.
The selected examples are embedded in a history that starts with the English greenhouses of the
19th century, such as the London Crystal Palace from 1853, and leads to the free form structures of
the 21st century, such as the Singapore Arts Centre from 2002 (see chapter Cladding).

The authors were involved in design and construction development as Mero* employees for a
period of about 30 years, starting 1970 and 1980, respectively. Chronologically, this period reaches
from the mere introduction of computers in structural analysis to the sophisticated interactive
computer aided design (CAD/CAM) systems and the modelling of 3D geometry for production at
the turn of the millennium.

Nevertheless, basic analysis tools, such as the “continuum analogy”, will be discussed, since they
can be helpful at the initial design phase as well as for checking the reliability of results produced
with computer programs. The discussion of the geometrical basis for the design of space
structures will be particularly comprehensive, starting with the so-called Platonic Polyhedrons up
to the current available modelling software tools such as Rhinoceros (also Rhino). In any case,
knowledge of basic Euclidian geometry is a necessary precondition to use the mentioned tools
efficiently.

Other important aspects of this report are the qualitative discussion of the load carrying behavior
of space trusses and space frames, their structural layout and their dimensioning. Further subjects
are cladding and construction or assembly, both having a major influence on the design of the
structural layout.

The fundament of this report, beside the experience of the authors, is a seminar for Master-
students that was held at the University of Darmstadt and which began in 2011 with the
participation of the authors. The authors thank Prof. Schneider and his team for converting the
Seminar Power Point presentation into an initial draft of this report. It must be noted that this
document, more than a teaching text, is meant to be an inspiration for architects and engineers
for their own work in the field of lightweight space structures and last not least to maintain the
knowledge that was accumulated by Mero in the above mentioned period of time.

The authors

*Mero was re-founded as Mero-Raumstruktur GmbH &Co. in 1945 in Würzburg/Germany by Max

Mengeringhausen and is continued since 2004 by MERO-TSK International GmbH & Co. KG.

i
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope of work 1
1.2 The architectural context 2
1.3 Classification and Application of Space Structures 3
1.3.1 Classification 3
1.3.2 Plane Structures 4
1.3.3 Structures on conical surfaces 4
1.3.4 Grid structures on cylindrical surfaces 5
1.3.5 Structures on spherical surfaces 6
1.3.6 Structures on hypar surfaces 8
1.3.7 Form finding 9

2. Geometry
2.1 Elements of Geometric Structures 10
2.2 Order principles of geometric structures 11
2.3 Topology und Metrics 12
2.4 Derivation of spatial lattices from sphere packings 14
2.5 The Platonic Solids 16

2.5.1 Space structures derived from the hexahedron group 18

2.5.2 Geodesic domes derived from the DI-group 23

2.6 Generation of Surfaces 26

2.6.1 General Concepts 26

2.6.2 Structural Nets on Translation Surfaces 27
2.6.3 Translation Surface with Elliptic Paraboloid 28
2.6.4 NURBS-Surfaces 30

3. Load Carrying Behavior of Space Structures

3.1 Static Determinacy and Kinematic Stability 33

3.2 The elastic stability of single layer grid shells 36

ii
3.3 Continuum analogy of space trusses 38
3.4 Application of space trusses 40

3.5 Shell structures 41

3.5.1 Spherical shells 42

3.5.2 Barrel vaults 43
3.5.3 Hyperbolic shells 46

4. Analysis and Dimensioning

4.1 Analysis and Mero Program 48

4.2 Dimensioning of Mero Space Trusses 49

4.2.1 Parameter for single bolt truss members 49

4.2.2 Verification concept 50
4.2.3 Bending limit capacities of single bolt connections 51
4.2.4 Dimensioning of spherical nodes 53

4.3 Weight Optimization 54

4.3.1 Iterative adjustment… 54

4.3.2 A mathematical approach to …. plastic reserves 56
4.3.3 An iterative approach to limit load calculation 56
4.3.4 Optimization with the evolution strategy 58

5. Cladding

5.1 Sheet metal cladding on purlins 59

5.2 Cladding with acrylic glass vaults 61
5.3 Panel cladding 61
5.4 A hybrid cladding system 62
5.5 Cladding with ETFE foil cushions 63
5.6 Cladding with textile membranes 65
5.7 Glazed space trusses 66
5.8 Direct supported glazing 66
5.9 Point supported glazing 69

iii
6. Construction

6.1 Free cantilevering assembly 70

6.2 Construction of the Split stadium roof 71
6.3 Construction of the Stockholm Globe Arena 71
6.4 Lifting of assembled structure and … 72
6.5 Assembly on full scaffolding 74
6.6 Erection by folding technique, the Pantadome system 75
6.7 Erection by pre-stressing, the STRARCH system 76
6.8 The last step: cable trusses 77

7. Projects

7.1 The East-West Roof of the Berlin main station 78

7.2 The Glass Hall for the New Fair in Leipzig 81
7.3 Singapore Arts Centre – The Esplanade 84
7.4 The Museum of Modern Art in Montreal 88
7.5 The Tensegrity Tower in Rostock /FRG 90
Epilog 92

Literature Reference 93

Picture Credits 96

Appendix A : Transformation of Platonic solids 98

Appendix B : Nurbs 101
Appendix C : Membrane analogy of grid structures 104
Appendix D : Membrane theory of spherical shells 105
Appendix E : Limit capacities of single screw connections 108
Appendix F : Derivation of nonlinear bending moments … 113

iv
1. Introduction

1.1 Scope of work

As already mentioned above, this report describes design and construction of space trusses
and space frames. The difference between trusses and frames is that space frames require
bending stiff connections between members in order to achieve stable structures. Fig. 1.1
shows a space truss, constructed from tubular members and spherical nodes with single bolt
connectors, which are assumed to be pin-jointed, e.g. not bending stiff. The stability of the
space truss is achieved by the (in this case triangular) configuration of the truss members.
In contradiction, fig. 1.2 shows a space frame, where the connections need to be bending
stiff to make the space frame stable.
The peculiarity of the structures described in this report is the dissolution in nodes and
members. This enables the adjustment of the structures to all kinds of design, from simply
flat and stepped to double curved structures.
When in the beginning of the development the use of uniform member length and node
types was the central objective, today the objective is more concentrated on the use of
standardized cladding techniques. This is especially important for, but not only, the design
of glazed structures. Consequently, the design is focused on the generation of a maximum
of uniform facets in the structural surfaces. This development was supported by appropriate
software tools, which will be discussed in this text.
Similar developments can be observed in the joining technology. At the beginning, the
spherical node (ball) was used to join tubes and nodes at random angles by a single bolt
connector (fig.1.1). When tubes change to rectangular hollow sections, cylindrical or even
block nodes are required to allow multi bolt connections. Eventually, cast or welded nodes
are used for special, mostly bigger structures as represented by the tubular structure of fig.
1.2.
Special attention however is given to the derivation of a design concept for single bolt
connections which are not covered by building standards.

fig. 1.1 Church in Erkrath,

Arch. Gottfried Böhm, Eng. Mero
fig. 1.2 Glass hall in Leipzig, Arch. gmp with
Ian Ritchie , Eng. Mero

1
1.2 The architectural context

The development of space structures is embedded in our present architectural context and it
is characterized by a wide variety of special “free forms”, examples of which are presented in
fig. 1.3. The common denominator of this kind of structures is that form does not -have to-
follow function, a feature that strongly contradicts the basic principle of the so called
“modern” functional architecture dominating our cityscapes throughout the major part of
the twentieth century.

fig. 1.3 Some free forms in the current architectural context and its architects:
a) Hippotamus house Berlin-Zoo/ sbp; b) Museum Bilbao/ Gehry Partners LLP;
c) Metropol Parasol in Sevilla/ J. Mayer H. and Partner; d) “The Cloud“ at the
Congress Center Rom/ Studio Fuksas; e) Olympic Stadium Peking/ Herzog & de
Meuron; f) Singapore Arts Centre-The Esplanade/ DP-Architects with Michael
Wilford and Partners

2
1.3 Classification and Application of Space Structures

1.31 Classification

Structures can be generally

classified according to their load
carrying behavior, depending on
which kind of structural work
dominates: compression,
tension and bending and/or the
combinations of them. Fig.1.4
organizes the different structural
systems in four sectors
according to their load carrying
behavior: compression, above;
tension, below; combined
compression, tension and
bending, on the left and on the
right sectors.

fig. 1.4 Classification of structures

1.3.2 Plane Structures

For more than a decade plane space trusses represented the standard solution to span wide
open spaces. Assembly halls like the Mitsubishi Electric Hall in Düsseldorf/Germany, built
with the Mero System, (fig. 1.5) and the testing hall workshops in Nigeria, built with the
Space Deck System, represent typical applications. Here, the Space Deck System consists of
prefabricated pyramidal units (fig. 1.6)

fig. 1.5 Mitsubishi Electric Hall fig. 1.6 Testing Hall in Nigeria

3
1.3.3 Structures on conical surfaces

The 1936 Olympic Stadium in Berlin was complemented with a roof over each of the long
grandstands for the World Soccer Games 1974. The supporting roof structure was a space
truss on a conical surface with a cantilever of 57.4 m, which was sparsely supported with a
few tree-columns in the upper grandstand area (fig. 1.7). In order to minimize the amount of
different basic parts, the radial member lengths followed a special geometric series which
yielded only two node types for the whole structure (geometry by Prof. Helmut Emde).

fig. 1.7 Olympic Stadium Berlin, Arch. Stefan Polónyi, Eng. Mero -- Grandstand cross section

1.3.4 Grid structures on cylindrical surfaces

An early example of a lightweight glazed barrel vault is the roof shopping mall GUM in
Moscow (fig. 1.8) built in 1891 by Wladimir G. Schukow [51]. The glass supporting structure
lies on a series of arches, which are stiffened by a fan-type arrangement of steel rods
(spiders).

fig. 1.8 GUM shopping mall in Moscow fig. 1.9 Museum for Hamburg History

About 100 years later, the idea of stiffening a barrel vault by spiders was used by Jörg
Schlaich/sbp for the roof of the Museum for Hamburg History. Here, the number of spiders
was reduced by using pre-stressed cables as surface diagonal members, which are clamped
from below to the crossing points (nodes) of the vault’s grid.
4
 These combined measures, namely, spiders and surface tension diagonals, turned the whole
structure into a very economical space truss (fig. 1.9).
This development described above was also foreseen for the design of the train station in
Spandau/Berlin. The cross sections of the vaults are not circles but basket arches, which
facilitated the geometric adjustment of the vault’s section to the required gauge of the
trains (fig. 1.10). The vaults are supported and stiffened by frames every 18 m, the maximum
length of the roof structure is 410 m, the maximum individual width is 18 m and 51.6 m for
the whole roof (fig. 1.11).

fig. 1.10 Station roof in Spandau, Arch. gmp, Eng. sbp fig. 1.11 Compressed plane view
A further example of a cylindrical barrel vault is the Winter Garden for the GM Head-
quarters in Detroit/USA built in 2001.The barrel vault is inclined backwards by 10 degrees.
The trapezoidal ground plane required the cutting of the vault by two inclined side planes,
thus creating elliptical side edges (fig.1.12).

fig. 1.12 GM Winter Garden structure animation

Arch. SOM/Chicago, Eng. Mero

A peculiarity of the structural layout is the spiders

stiffening the frames, which are positioned every 6.5
m along the vault. Because of the kink between arches
and columns, the spiders had to be space trusses and
required spreading posts (fig. 1.13) fig. 1.13 Roof view from below

1.3.5 Structures on spherical surfaces

5
The first reticulated space trusses on spherical surfaces were used as formwork for the
erection of the Zeiss planetarium domes. The first dome was built in 1925 in Jena/Germany
by Dyckerhoff and Widman AG (Dywidag), giving the method the name of Zeiss-Dywidag.
Fig. 1.14 shows the erection process, using the Torkret method for casting the structure and
fig. 1.15 shows the dome after completion. The spherical grid was designed by the engineer
Walther W. Bauersfeld (1879-1959), who has applied the concept of geodesic domes much
earlier than Buckminster Fuller, but obviously not to this (ringmesh-) dome (see [52]).

fig. 1.14 Erection 25 m planetarium dome fig. 1.15 Dome after completion

A similar step in the development of structural meshes on spherical surfaces as described for
barrel vaults can be observed for the dome at the Aquatoll swimming hall in Neckarsulm/
Germany . Again, the use of cables for stiffening the grid, which has a constant mesh length
of 1 m, was the key optimization feature. The mesh deforms to rhombic, when the plane
quadrilateral grid is “laid” over the spherical surface (see fig. 1.16 and [40]).

fig. 1.16 Aquatoll Neckarsulm, design by Schlaich, Bergermann Partner (sbp), 1989

6
In the same year, a quite different spherical dome was opened in Stockholm/Sweden: The
Globe Arena, a 110 m diameter hemispherical dome, resting on a conventional steel
structure below the equator. The structure is a double-layer space truss, comprising a
constant 4.7 m member length for the top-layer meridians and a maximum of 3.6 m length
for the top-layer ring members. All top-layer members are rectangular hollow sections (RHS)
to directly support the sandwich cladding panels via a gasket-system (fig. 1.17).

fig. 1.17 Stockholm Globe Arena, Arch. Berg Arkitekt Kontor, Eng.Mero

1.3.6. Structures on hypar surfaces

Early hyperbolic paraboloidal (hypar) structures are the concrete shells of Felix Candela
(1910-1997). For their scaffolding Candela took advantage from the fact, that a hypar surface
can be generated as a ruled surface, that is by straight lines. Fig. 1.18 shows a design sketch
and the cast concrete structure of a hypar shell from 1959.

fig. 1.18 Church San Obrero in Nuevo Leon/Mexico, designed by Felix Candela

7
As a pleasant surprise, the authors came in contact with Felix Candela for the design of a
stadium roof for the Islamic University in Riyadh having about 150 m free span. Candela
assisted the architects of TYPSA in Madrid and not surprisingly he proposed a hypar
structure for the roof (fig. 1.19). From his experience with extremely thin shell structures, he
anticipated a single-layer reticulated shell structure. This brought us in big difficulties, since
we were not able to get such a large span hypar shell stable with a reasonable single layer
truss structure. Eventually, Candela accepted a sparse double-layer space truss which
delivered the required stability and was well below the weight of a concrete shell with a
thickness of only 4 cm (see 3.5.3)

fig. 1.19 Stadium roof for the Islamic University in Riyadh/SA, Arch. TYPSA, Eng. Mero

8
1.3.7 Form finding

Until analytical methods and related computer programs were available, form finding was
done with hanging chain models. Famous examples are the models for the church of the
Colonia Güell in Barcelona by Antoni Gaudi (fig.1.20) and for the Multi Hall at the Buga
(Bundesgartenschau/federal garden show) in Manheim by Frei Otto (fig.1.21).
For structures with predominant dead load, the inverse hanging form creates a structure,
which carries the loads predominantly by compression. In fact, though, lightweight
structures created with a dominant compression force are always accompanied by bending
under real loading conditions.

fig. 1.20 Church of Colonia Güell in Barcelona, 1908, model reconstructed by IL/Frei Otto,
figure taken from IL34 report (1989)

fig. 1.21 Buga Multi Hall in Mannheim, 1975, Arch. Mutschler, Langner, Frei Otto, Eng. Ove
Arup & Partners, London: hanging model and grid shell under construction

Today, form finding problems can be solved analytically with numerical methods, like the
force density method, developed by Klaus Linkwitz, or the dynamic relaxation method (see
[47]).

9
2. Geometry

There is a well-known saying related to the design of spatial structures stating that
Geometry is not everything, but without Geometry nothing is possible. Following this line of
thinking, this chapter introduces the Geometry fundamentals for the design of spatial
structures, starting with the structures derived from the Platonic Solids [1] and [5], reaching
out to the structures on freeform surfaces [11] and[47].

2.1 Elements of Geometric Structures

According to the space dimensions there are four geometric element types for the design of
structures made from nodes and bars (NBS = node-bar structures): the 0-dimension of the
point and the three dimensions of space; as shown in fig. 2.1:

- a point as the intersection of two curves,

- a curve as the intersection of two surfaces

- a surface as the limiting layer between two spaces, where space is the “contents” of a body
or solid

fig. 2.1 Elements of the geometric structures

10
2.2 Order principles of geometric structures

Geometric structures are ordered according to the dimensions of their elements:

- Polygon (multiple lines) 1-dimensional (points and curves)

- Polyhedron (multiple faces) 2-dimensional (points, curves and surfaces)

- Polytope (multiple space) 3-dimensional (points, curves, surfaces and spaces)

For regular polyhedra, Euler’s polyhedron rule states: Vertices – Edges + Faces = 2

fig. 2.2 Polygon, Polyhedron, Polytope

11
2.3 Topology und Metrics

The term „topology of a net” describes the arrangement properties of the net. A special
case is given by the homogeneous nets, where all points have the same number of incident
faces and edges. In turn, the metrics of a net describes the measure properties of the net. A
special case are the regular nets, where all angles between neighbour lines and all lengths
between neighbour point-pairs are equal (see fig. 2.3).

fig. 2.3 Homogeneity and Regularity

Application examples

Through the separation of Topology and Metrics it is possible two perform two basic
operations:

1.) Transformation of a planar structure onto a carrying surface in space. Here, figs. 2.4
and 2.5 show the transformation of a planar “unit” grid (Topology) onto a spherical surface
(Metrics). The advantage of the Topology definition in a two-dimensional “unit” grid,
especially at the net “transition” zones, should be clear considering the more complex three-
dimensional net generation on the surface of the sphere,.

2.) Projection of a planar net on a carrying surface. Here, a planar homogeneous net
(Topology, fig. 2.6) located at the middle plane of a sphere is projected from the nadir point
to the upper part of the sphere to generate a spatial homogeneous net ( fig. 2.7)
Another type of projection is the Parallel Projection, which is frequently used to generate
nets on freeform surfaces. (see fig. 2.56 ff.)

12
fig. 2.4 Planar net in a „unit“ grid fig. 2.5 Transformation onto a spherical surface
.
for one quarter dome TOP/OG = Top layer
DIA = Diagonals
BOTTOM/UG = Bottom layer

fig 2.6 Definition of a

homogeneous net

fig. 2.7 Projection on spherical carrier surface

13
2.4 Derivation of spatial lattices from sphere packings

The spatial lattice of the cubic closest packing of spheres

The following derivations follow the logic developed in [2] by Max Mengeringhausen.

fig. 2.8 Cubic closest packing of fig. 2.9 View of the cubic closest
spheres in space packing of spheres in space

The cubic closest packing of spheres can be obtained by arranging spheres on a plane in such
a way that every sphere touches four neighbour spheres, as Figs. 1.8 and 1.9 show. As a
result, the spheres centres have a distance in between that is equal to the spheres diameter.
Here, the midpoints of four neighbour spheres define a square. In the superposition of layers
of spheres, eight spheres of two superimposed layers define the vertices of a cube.
Moreover, every sphere touches in space six other spheres in three layers. Thus, a space
lattice is created, with three reference axes forming an orthogonal coordinate system X,Y,Z,
with axis length a = M. M is the symbol for the basic module, as shown in Figs. 2.10 and 2.11.

fig. 2.10 Dimensions scheme of the fig. 2.11 Scheme for the closest packing
cubic closest packing in space of cubic elements
The space lattice of the hexagonal closest packing of spheres
14
 fig. 2.13 Cube of spheres with
fig. 2.12 Hexagonal closest packing of
hexagonal closest packing in space
spheres in space

Besides the space lattice of the spheres cubic closest packing, there is a second space lattice
which displays a square net layout on plan view. However, the vertical height of the module
differs from the one of the horizontal grid. This sphere packing results from placing an upper
sphere in the gap between 4 spheres in a layer, as in fig. 2.12. In this way, five spheres form
a half-octahedron, where the height of the upper sphere above the middle level of the lower
spheres is equal to a/√2, as shown in Fig. 2.13.

fig. 2.14 Space packing of fig. 2.15 Space lattice for the hexagonal
octahedra and tetrahedra closest packing of spheres

15
The resulting space lattice has the following properties:

1. Every sphere touches twelve neighbour spheres in three layers.

2. The lines connecting the spheres centres form alternating half-octahedron and
tetrahedron.
3. The half-octahedron can be completed to be octahedron.
4. The half-octahedron and tetrahedron form together a space packing without any gaps.

In this geometric construct the sphere centres can be replaced by nodes, which can in turn
be connected with bars of equal length in order to build space structures, as shown in figs.
2.16 and 2.17.

fig. 2.16 Pyramid of spheres in the fig. 2.17 Model of nodes and bars
hexagonal closest packing
of spheres

2.5 The Platonic Solids

General concepts

There are only five regular convex polyhedra which are known as the Platonic Solids, as
depicted in Tab. 2.1.
The name refers to the Greek philosopher Plato (428-347 B.C.), who described these
geometric objects in his dialogue Timaeus, Chap. 20. Tetrahedron, octahedron and
hexahedron form the hexahedron group, while icosahedron and dodecahedron
constitute the DI-group.
The hexahedron group is the basis to design plane, terraced and folded-plate space
trusses, which metrics is based on √2 and √3. But it can also lend the topological basis for
space structures on curved carrier surfaces. The DI-group is in turn the basis to design
geodesic domes, which metrics is related to the Golden Section.

16
The “number of different nets” in Tab. 2.1 indicates the number of different planar
developments from which a solid can be built.

The Platonic Solids as Basis for Geometric Design

Duality
The duality of two solids describes their topological relation obtained by connecting the
midpoints of the adjacent faces of a solid, where the midpoints of both solids are identical.
In this way, every solid can be obtained from its dual, as fig. 2.18 demonstrates.

(a) Tetrahedron in tetrahedron (b) Hexahedron in octahedron (c) Octahedron in hexahedron

(e) Icosahedron in dodecahedron (d) Dodecahedron in icosahedron

fig. 2.18 Duality of the Platonic Solids

17
Polarity
Polarity describes the arrangement of two polyhedra with a
common sphere touching their edges. Here, the edges at the
contact points cross perpendicularly. Thus, the face of a polyhedron
lies as “polar” surface underneath a vertex of the other solid.
Through the transformation processes of “truncate“ and “stellate“ it
is possible to obtain 13 semi-regular polyhedra from the Platonic
Solids, respectively. These solids are known as the “Archimedean”
and the “Catalan” solids and they provide an extended inventory of
basic polyhedral units for the design of space structures. The
derivation and appearance of these solids is given in Appendix A. fig. 2.19 Polarity of
hexa- and
octahedron
2.5.1 Space structures derived from the hexahedron group

Metrics of the spatial components

The most common node-bar space structures can be built with the spatial components
tetrahedron, half-octahedron and half-cuboctahedron (variants 1 and 2), from which
tetrahedron and half-octahedron are the most frequently used. Figs. 2.20 to 2.23 show the
metrics of the mentioned space units.

fig. 2.20 Half-octahedron and fig. 2.21 Octahedron and tetrahedron (O + T)

tetrahedron (½ O + T)

fig. 2.22 Half-cuboctahedron_1 and fig. 2.23 Half-cuboctahedron_2 and

half-octahedron (½ O + ½ CO) half-octahedron (½ O + ½ CO)

18
The next sections show examples of plane, terraced and curved space structures, which are
built with the basic components introduced above.

Examples on planar carrier surfaces

fig. 2.24 Two-layered, square-on- offset -square grid fig. 2.25 Remains of the giant
space truss for the Expo 1970
Osaka

fig. 2.26 Two-layered, triangle-on- fig. 2.27 Rendering of a two-layered,

offset-triangle grid triangle-on-offset-triangle grid
The Giant Truss of fig. 2.28 covered the Festival Plaza of the International Exhibition 1970 in
Osaka, with plan dimensions of 291.6 m x 108.0 m, a module of a= 10.8 m and a natural
structural depth of a/√2. The truss sections consisted of round tubes of 500 mm diameter for
the main chords and 350 mm diameter for the space diagonals. The casted nodes had a
diameter of 800 to 1000 mm.

fig. 2.28 The Festival Plaza in Osaka

Arch. Kenzo Tange
Eng. Mamoru Kawaguchi

19
Example of a terraced space structure

Section

Plan View

fig. 2.29 A typical indoor swimming pool of the 1970s with space structure ½ O + T

Examples of space structures on curved carrier surfaces

Section

fig. 2.30 Tokuyama multipurpose hall fig. 2.31 Cultural Center in Baku, Mero-System
Taiyo Kogyo TM-System

Sparse nets on curved carrier surfaces

Double-layered sparse grids can be built with half-cuboctahedra_1 (see fig .2.22) and half-
octahedra as in fig. 2.32, or with ½ octahedra_2 (see fig. 2.23) and with tetrahedra and
octahedra, as in fig. 2.34. The latter is particularly reasonable when the primary grid is
curved and the extension to form a space structure is a medium to stabilize the primary grid.

20
 fig. 2.32 Double-layered square fig. 2.33 Roof of the Leipzig
sparse net ½ CO_1 + ½ O University Library

fig. 2.34 Double-layered triangular sparse fig. 2.35 Dome of Al Ain

net (1/2 CO_2+ O +T) University, UAE

Special case: grillage of trusses in cubic system

The transparency of a roof construction can be increased by using the cube as a basic unit to
design the roof supporting structure and thus avoid the space diagonals of other “more
spatial” space truss layouts, as figs. 2.36 and 2.37 illustrate.

fig. 2.36 Section and plan view of the roof structure for fig. 2.37 Internal view; Arch.: JSK with
Terminal 2, Frankfurt (M) Airport Perkins and Will
21
Special case: three-layered space structure for large spans

Three-layered systems can be efficiently used for large spans. The main objective is to
achieve a grid design with a minimum of material at the middle neutral layer, which
minimally contributes to the overall structural work. Such a grid can be obtained by using
the cuboctahedron (fig. 2.38) with a reduced height if necessary.

fig. 2.38 CO + O Geometry with reduced height for the Iran Air Hangar in Teheran

22
2.5.2 Geodesic domes derived from the DI-group

Geodesic domes became generally known through Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983).

However, it is much less known that geodesic structures had already been used in the 1920s
by Walther Bauersfeld (1879-1959) to build the Zeiss-Domes in Jena, Germany.
The metrics of the geodesic domes can be specified in terms of the Golden Section
g = ½ (√5-1). The derived basic coordinates and the arc lengths on the unit sphere are
shown in tab. 2.2. Connecting the DI-points with straight lines produces the edges of a
rhombic triacontahedron (see 𝐷2′ in appendix A, fig. A.4)

fig. 2.39 The 31 Great Circles of the DI-group

fig. 2.40 The four characteristic triangles in a face of the rhombic triacontahedron

23
The generation of the geometry for a spherical geodesic dome can be reduced to the
specification of its metrics in a characteristic triangle, which is 1/120th of a sphere. Fig. 2.40
shows one of 30 spherical faces in the rhombic triacontahedron with 10 subdivisions
(frequency) of the icosahedron edge. Here, the Cartesian coordinate system is defined by
the Z-axis starting at the sphere’s centre and passing through the middle of the D-Great
Circle, while the X-axis runs through the end points of the I-Great Circle. The Y-axis results
as the orthogonal to the X-Y plane (fig. 2.40).

DI subdivision of the sphere

The publication of Buckminster Fuller’s fundamental patent for geodesic domes in 1954
started a number of worldwide endeavours aimed to reduce the number of element types
for nodes, lines and faces. These efforts lasted initially some decades mainly because of the
lack of proper computerized tools in the pioneer times.
An important contribution in the field of geodesic domes was provided by Helmut Emde of
the University of Darmstadt in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century in conjunction with the
Mero-Raumstruktur company in Würzburg. Results of this collaboration are the domes for
the International Exhibition 1970 in Osaka and the greenhouse for the University of
Düsseldorf, which are illustrated in figs. 2.41 and 2.42, respectively.

fig. 2.41 Net layout of icosahedral domes fig. 2.42 Greenhouse dome in Düsseldorf
with frequency 8

The relevance of the efforts to reduce element types came to be suddenly questioned
when Jörg Schlaich applied for the first time the “kitchen sieve” principle with constant
mesh lengths for the Aquatoll Dome in Neckarsulm (see Introduction, fig. 1.16) combined
with a cable network of mesh diagonals.
Nevertheless, geodesic domes keep their significance and reason for application, as it is
demonstrated in the design of the greenhouse domes for the Eden Project in South England
shown in fig. 2.45. Here, the search for a minimum number of “almost plane” panel types

24
becomes critical in relation to the fabrication limits and costs of the PTFE-foil cushions to
cover the entire domes.
The derivation of the domes Geometry from the icosahedron and the dodecahedron is
illustrated in fig. 2.43, where the basic reference frame is given by the two basic polyhedra,
which are placed concentric to each other with their vertices touching the same sphere.
Next, the coordinates for the Characteristic Triangle I2-D1-DI_1 are determined as shown
above in fig. 2.40 and suggested in fig. 2.43-C, where a basic hexagonal net is defined. This
basic net is then reproduced by means of reflections and rotations to cover the complete
sphere (from [33]).

fig. 2.44 Rendering of the dome

surface with almost
equal hexagons

fig. 2.45 Overview of 4 inter-

connected domes of the
fig. 2.43 Geometry derivation from the DI-group Eden Project

25
2.6 Generation of Surfaces

2.6.1 General Concepts

The main operations for the geometric generation of surfaces are translation, stretching or
contraction, rotation and their combinations. In addition, special procedures, implemented
with custom programs, as in the case of geodesic domes, and freeform surfaces, which are
usually generated with NURBS techniques, complete the range.

An overview of surface generation possibilities is summarized in fig. 2.52. Although

translation and freeform surfaces seem to be counterparts, in practical design it is often
pursued to approximate freeform surfaces with translation surfaces to obtain planar
quadrangular meshes, especially for glazed constructions. Examples for this are given
through figs. 2.47 to 2.50.

fig. 2.46 Genealogy of surfaces according to their generation mode

26
 2.6.2 Structural Nets on Translation Surfaces

A translation surface is generated by displacing a curve called generatrix, parallel to itself,

along another curve called directrix, as shown on the left of fig. 2.53. The meshes or panels
of the resulting net are planar. The generatrix can also be affinely stretched or contracted at
individual translations. Here, the meshes remain planar only if the generatrix remains
parallel to itself. A light diversion of the case is shown on the right picture of Fig. 2.53, where
generatrices are additionally rotated.

fig. 2.47 Translation surfaces + generatrices additionally with +/-stretching and rotations
The introduction of rotations in addition to the translations with stretching of the generatrix
is applied in the geometric design of the glazed roof for the main railway station in Berlin in
order to gradually fit the structural grid along the curved rails path within the given
boundary (fig. 2.48).

fig. 2.48 Due to the small magnitude of the rotations the glass meshes remain almost planar

27
2.6.3 Translation Surface with Elliptic Paraboloid

Line networks with planar faces can be generated as the elliptic paraboloid as a translation
surface. The glazed roof of the Rostock Hof is an example (fig. 2.49)

Geometry layout Roof view from below

fig. 2.49 Example of glazed roof, the Rostock Hof, ASP Architects B+B Kohl with sbp, 1996

Example: Industry Palace Leipzig / sbp

The glazed roof for the Industry Palace in Leipzig is generated as a hyperbolic paraboloid on
an elongated trapezium shaped horizontal boundary. The grid results by translating a
polyline arch along the opposite long edges of the trapezium-shaped boundary (fig. 2.50).

Geometry layout
Roof view from below

fig. 2.50 Example Industry Palace, Leipzig, sbp, 1994

28
Generation of structural grid

The basic generation approach is given in terms of the Industry Palace in Leipzig (fig. 2.51)

1. Definition of plan edge lines 2. Definition of the edge arch

3. Translation of the edge arch 4. Generation of all arches

fig. 2.51 Generation of the structural grid for the Industry Palace Leipzig with Rhino

A translation surface over an “arbitrary” plan view was applied for the hippos house at the
Zoo in Berlin (sbp). The implementation and realization of the project is illustrated in fig.
2.52.

Edge lines and directrices

fig. 2.52 Translation surface for the “hippos” house at Berlin zoo / sbp
29
2.6.4 NURBS-Surfaces

NURBS-Surfaces is a general term used by form designers and modellers to identify free form
surfaces, that is, to tell them apart from other kind of surfaces, such as the classical
analytical surfaces that can be specified by relatively simple formula of analytic geometry, or
surfaces that are numerically obtained by simulating a form-giving agent like gravity on a
flexible hanging membrane. The term NURBS represents the result of several decades of
development and search of adequate mathematical and numerical tools to describe free
forms in a precise and consistent way, which could be reliably used for the computerized
fabrication of construction components in the automobile and ship fabrication industries of
the 1950s and 60s. Later, computer graphics artists, mathematicians and character
developers in the film animation industry adopted and further developed the early NURBS
techniques, which were eventually “discovered” by product designers and architects as
adequate tools for free form design in their areas of activities.

The term NURBS stands for “non-uniform rational B-Splines” and it designates a particular
kind of mathematical description of free form curves and surfaces. The NURBS mathematics
and numerical methods constitute themselves a field of activity for mathematicians,
informatics specialists and computer program developers. The form designer in
architecture, product design, structural engineering and construction design do not normally
deal with NURBS mathematics, but he/she uses the implemented NURBS methods as design
“tools” within a computer program that has been especially developed to model and design
free forms. An example is the widely spread program Rhinoceros and its multiple add-ons
and plug-ins, which are mainly aimed to facilitate the algorithmic and parametric modelling
of free forms and networks, their presentation and their geometric analysis.

A detailed introduction into NURBS mathematics can be found in [11], while Appendix B is an
excerpt of this source, for those interested in getting quickly familiar with the main concepts
and objects of NURBS mathematics.

A NURBS-surface can be described in terms of a grid of curves running in the u- and v-

directions of the surface, where u- and v- are the intrinsic coordinate directions in the two-
dimensional space of the surface. Fig. 2.53 shows a standard way of representing a NURBS-
surface, its iso-curves and its control-points framework. But a NURBS-surface can be also
defined for practical applications by a series of arbitrary curves representing sections of the
sought surface.

In the context of a NURBS-design computer program like Rhinoceros (Rhino), the resulting
shape of a NURBS-surface is generated -in a similar way as for curves- by the in-built NURBS-
surface generator.

30
fig. 2.53 The control points structure of a NURBS-surface, with red iso-curves in the u-
direction and green iso-curves in the v-direction.

Generation of a structural grid

The generation of a structural network requires in general the following processing steps:

1. Definition of boundary and sections curves

either as simple analytical curves (arc, parabola, ellipse, etc.) or as free form curves
(splines) (fig. 2.54)

2. Generation of the free form

by initially creating a macro-grid with the boundary and section curves, followed by
the generation of individual patches within the grid meshes. In turn, these patches
are to be interconnected to build a single surface, taking care of satisfying continuity,
curvature and tangential conditions at the common inter-boundaries, as suggested in
fig. 2.55.
Simpler customised procedures are provided by many NURBS-programs. such as the
“loft”-function, which can generate a continuous free form surface through an
ordered sequence of individual free form curves.

3. The net generation on a free form surface

can be approached in various forms. A simple way is to interconnect the intersection
points of a grid of u and v isocurves, which has been extracted from the NURBS-
surface in the desired net density.

A free form structural net generated as described above does not often satisfies ideal
requirements of homogeneity, planarity and perfect rectangularity of quadrangular meshes,
which are obvious properties of planar regular nets. In order to come closer to these ideal
targets, one often applies further optimisation processes, such as Dynamic Relaxation after
[47], with the aim of improving the homogeneity of the net, or certain quads planarization
31
algorithms aimed to minimise the mesh twist for practical architectural cladding purposes.
Another alternative is not to use the surface iso-curves directly for the net generation, but
map or project a planar network on a surface, as illustrated in fig 2.7 for the Homogeneous
Projection.
For instance a parallel projection method was used to create most of the structural grid for
the glazed roof of the New Milan Fair. Here, a planar horizontal diagonal grid was projected
onto the free form surface provided by the architect (Massimiliano Fuksas). Some stages of
the net generation process are shown in figs. 2.54 through 2.56.
The roof has a length of some 1200 m by a width of round 30 m. A portion of the
construction is shown in Fig. 2.58. The glass surface amounts approximately to 46300 m² (fig.
2.59).

fig. 2.54 Definition of boundary and section curves fig. 2.55 Macro-net

fig. 2.56 Projection of a diagonal net fig. 2.57 The glazed roof with architectural volumes

fig. 2.58 Structural grid during assembly fig. 2.59 The glass cladding on the structural grid

32
3. Load Carrying Behaviour of Space Structures

3.1 Static Determinacy and Kinematic Stability

The development of a general theory of spatial frame-

works began in 1892, when August Föppl published his
book Das “Fachwerk im Raume”[4].
The impulse for the elaboration of a consistent theory
was then the collapse of the Birsbrücke, a bridge near
Münchenstein next to Basel/CH on June 14th, 1891,
which was in fact an unstable structure in space. This is
also the reason to discuss here the aspect of kinematic
instability, since not every statically stable truss is
necessarily kinematical stable, as the following
considerations will show.
The principle developed by Föppl for the stability of
spatial trusses, which is known in the English- speaking
world as the Maxwell Rule, states that 3 ∙ k - n - c = 0 ,
were k = number of nodes, n = number of bars and
c = number of supports.
A nice and simple example is the dome, named after Schwedler, which is clearly statically
stable as a truss: -> 3 x 24 - 56 - 16 = 0 (fig. 3.1)

fig. 3.1 Statically determinate Schwedler dome

an answer to the question whether a statically determinate space truss can also be The
Föppl/Maxwell rule for spatial trusses was extended by Calladine. The extension allows
kinematical determinate (stable). Calladine [12] proposed to include the number of
mechanisms m and the number of possible residual stress states s as follows:
3∙k-n-c=m–s
The number of self-stress states s can be determined by using the rank R of the equilibrium
matrix A as s = n - R.

33
The following series of simple examples illustrates this relationship: The pictures d.1 and d.2
in fig. 3.2 show the difference between an infinite and a finite mechanism: the former exists
if the displacement is only possible with bar elongation, the latter when the displacement is
also possible without bar extension.

fig. 3.2 Static and kinematic classification of simple bar arrangements

A simple plane example

The determination of the rank of the equilibrium matrix shall be presented at a simple plane
bar model (fig. 3.3), which is statically indeterminate by one degree: 2k-n-c = 8-3-4 = 1.

fig. 3.3 A simple plane bar model

The equilibrium matrix A multiplied by the displacement vector t yields the bar forces f:
A∙ t = f, which written in matrix form and extended with the unit matrix I leads to:

After the pivot search which leads to swap the third and the second lines, the rank results R
= 2 (i.e. number of occupied diagonal members of the modified equilibrium matrix) and thus
the number of the self-stress states is s = 3 - 2 = 1. This self-stress state (𝑡𝐼 , 𝑡𝐼𝐼 ) is then
determined by re-substitution in the modified equilibrium matrix with 𝑡𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 1:

34
Thus, the number of independent mechanisms is m = 2∙k –n –c +s = 8-3-4+1 = 2 .
That means that the indeterminate system has two infinite mechanisms, which lead to an
antimetric finite displacement of the middle nodes.

An example in space

A phenomenon known to the designer of space truss structures of type (1/2 O + T) is given
by strain-less deformations, which allow the structure to adapt geometrically to bearing
settlements without generating residual stress in the structure. The following small model of
fig. 3.4 illustrates this effect:

fig. 3.4 Residual stress state and kinematic deformation of a space truss module.
Dotted lines indicate the deformed structure.

The Föppl/Maxwell rule for the structure with stable supports (6 tie rods) delivers:
3∙k-n-6 = 0 → 3 ∙12-30-6 = 0 → statically determinate.
When using the extended Föppl/Maxwell approach of Calladine, however, the following
result is obtained with R = 29 (calculations not explicitly shown here):
s = n-R = 30-29 = 1 and m = 3∙k-6-n = 3∙12-6-29 = 1
i.e., the statically determinate structure has one internal stress state and one infinite
mechanism. This explains the “insensitivity” of this truss type to bearing displacements.

Special case hypar shell

A particularly interesting case to inspect kinematic stability is the hypar grid shell, were the
strain-less deformations known from concrete shells will appear as infinite mechanisms in
the form of multi-wave deflections as fig. 3.5 shows.
For a hypar grid with even edge subdivisions x > 2, the condition m = s = x - 2 must be
satisfied to avoid the mechanisms (according to [13]).

35
 fig. 3.5 A hypar net. The dotted lines indicate the strainless deformation

3.2 The elastic stability of single layer grid shells

Nonlinear calculation and experiments

The iterative equilibrium calculation of member forces ri with the node loads p in the
deformed state di leads to the equation of the nonlinear calculation (Theory II. order):
(p − 𝐇𝒊 𝒓𝒊 ) = 𝐇𝐢 𝐊 𝐦𝐢 𝐇𝐢𝐭 (d− di)
The notation follows the one used by Livesley in [9]. The term in parenthesis on the left
represents the out of balance forces, K mi is the matrix of element stiffness in the deformed
state di.
The method of the iterative solution with tangential stiffness, which in each iteration step
requires the triangular decomposition of the stiffness matrix Hi K mi Hit for the calculation of
the deformations d (Newton-Raphson method), can be modified in particular with
incremental load steps in such a way that the out of balance forces are iterated keeping a
constant stiffness matrix (Modified Newton-Raphson method, see fig. 3.6).

fig. 3.6 Normal and modified Newton-Raphson method

36
Tests and calculation results

The key stability problem of single layer grid shells is the buckling failure of the structure.
To demonstrate the possible modes of failure, a test was carried out at the University of
Cambridge/GB, Engineering Department, by R. McConnel and T. See with a small model
consisting of rods with 1.6 mm diameter and 342 mm length. The chosen pre-deformations
were 0.1 and 0.01 inch (0.25 and 2.5 mm), respectively. The modes of failure and the
associated limit loads can be taken from fig. 3.7. The bifurcation points were calculated at
the perfect structure with symmetric loading as the solution to the eigenvalue problem.

fig. 3.7 The elastic stability of a test model

37
3.3 Continuum analogy of space trusses

As already indicated in the preface, the continuum analogy for plates and shells can be
advantageously used for preliminary design and control checks of computer calculations.
Here, the analogous calculation of single- and multi-layer space trusses requires the initial
specification for the conversion of membrane forces into member forces. According to Witte
[7], three types of nets, namely, A, B, C (as in fig. 3.8) are required to cover the grids
commonly used for plane space trusses.

fig. 3.8 Grid types A, B, C

The derivation of member forces for the three grid types is documented in appendix C and it
can readily be used for the analysis of single layer shells, provided that the membrane forces
are known. For the analysis of double layer space trusses a sandwich analogy was also
proposed by Witte. The calculation of deformations and internal forces can be performed
with table tab. 3.1. The required coefficients are given in tab. 3. 2 to tab. 3. 4 with the
following assumptions: All edges are supported by free rotating bearings and p is a uniformly
𝑙
distributed load. With the plate dimensions 𝑙𝑥 and 𝑙𝑦 , the coefficient λ is calculated by 𝑥 .
𝑙𝑦

tab 3.1 Formulas for the calculation of deformations and member forces of space trusses

38
 Note: the decimal
symbol in the
(originally German)
tables 3.2 to 3.4 is a
“comma” and not a
“point” as in most
English-speaking
countries.

A sample problem

To demonstrate the application of the

continuum analogy, a type A space truss (fig.
3.9) will be calculated with tab. 3.1 and tab.
𝑘𝑁
3.2 for a uniform load of p=1.5 2 and the
𝑚
following dimensions:
a = 3.0 m 𝑙𝑥 = 𝑖𝑥 ∙ a = 30 m
h = 1.5 m 𝑙𝑦 = 𝑖𝑦 ∙ a = 30 m

All members have a round section 139.7 x 4

mm with A = 17.1 cm2
fig. 3.9 Topology of a type A space truss

39
The analogy calculation:

𝐸𝐴 ℎ2 210∙106∙17,1∙10−4 1,52
𝐷𝐴 = ∙ = ∙ = 134,662.5 kNm
𝑎 2 3 2

𝑙𝑥
with 𝜆= = 1,0 −> 𝑘𝑤 = 122 , 𝑘𝑀 = 13.1
𝑙𝑦

𝑝⋅𝑙𝑥2 𝑎 1,5∙302 ⋅3,0

follows 𝑃𝑜 = − 𝑘𝑀
⋅ = = −206 kN
ℎ 13,1∙1,5

and 𝑃𝑢 = +206 kN

Comparison with electronically computed results: 𝑃𝑜 = -196 kN, 𝑃𝑢 = +199 kN

𝑝∙𝑙𝑥4 1,5∙304
After analogy: 𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = 134.663∙122 = 74 mm
𝐷𝐴 ∙𝑘𝑤

Comparison with electronically computed result: 𝑤𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 72 mm

3.4 Application of space trusses

Space trusses were a very popular solution for wide span roofs from 20 to 80 m span in the
70s and 80s of the past century. The Mitsubishi Electric Hall in Düsseldorf and the Iran Air
Hangar in Teheran are representative examples for this application (fig. 3.10).

fig. 3.10 Mitsubishi Electric Hall in Düsseldorf and Iran Air Hangar in Teheran (during
construction)

The Iran Air Hangar with a span of 80 x 80 m indicates the economical limit for the
application of standard space truss systems, such as Mero in this case. Hangar roofs with
open door spans beyond this span require front truss girders, as Hangar 4 in Munich with
about 150 m free span (fig.3.11).

40
fig. 3.11 Hangar 4 at Munich Airport with 150 m span truss girder

3.5 Shell structures

The surfaces of shells can be single or double curved. This allows a load-carrying behaviour
which is similar to that of an arch. In the case of parabolic (actually, hanging chain-) shapes
only membrane forces are generated under dead weight. The transfer of unsymmetrical
loads, however, requires some bending capacity.
Many different forms of shells are possible (fig. 3.12), where double curved shell structures
are particularly efficient.

fig. 3. 12 Forms of shells: a. cylindrical and conical, b. spherical, c. saddle shells from [50]

3.5.1 Spherical shells

If a hemispherical shell is divided in plan into various segments, the cross-section curves
(meridians) of opposite segments do not coincide with the inverse hanging chain line. At
about 52°, measured from the apex, the sign of the deviation from the hanging chain line
does change. Under the influence of dead weight the upper areas of the segments lower and
give rise to an overlapping of the segments, while the lower areas deform outwards and
create gaps between the segments. Fig. 3.13 illustrates this behaviour.

41
fig. 3.13 Tension and compression at a hemispherical dome from [49]

Closing overlaps and gaps creates ring forces, compressive forces in the upper area, tension
forces in the lower area. This spatial load-carrying behaviour makes shells very efficient.
Also, the boundary conditions at the base supports are determinant for this phenomenon. If
the supports are specified in the direction of the cross-sections and are free to move, a pure
membrane stress state with theoretically no edge
disturbances occurs. However, in real structures
bending disturbances due to friction at the supports
appear. Bending disturbances also occur at the edge
if, for instance, a support ring is introduced at the
base of the shell. An example shows the load
transfer as member forces of a spherical “ring net”
dome with 43 m diameter, which extends
underneath the equator having 33 m diameter at
the base (fig. 3.14 and fig. 3.15).
fig. 3.14 Spherical ring net dome

fig. 3.15 Member forces of a spherical dome, red=tension, blue=compression (flattened

representation including area underneath the equator)

42
Membrane theory of shells

As for the continuum analogy of flat space trusses, the membrane theory of shells can be
advantageously used for pre-design purposes or for checking the results obtained with a
computer program.
The membrane forces for rotationally symmetrical loads (dead weight and snow) and for
non-symmetrical loads (simple wind assumptions) can be taken from the literature (e.g. from
[6]). For any non-symmetrical load, e.g. a realistic wind action, the determination of the
membrane forces requires the solution of three coupled differential equations with
combined symmetrical and non-symmetrical loads.
The derivation of the member forces is documented in appendix D, but a simple example for
a spherical dome under dead weight is presented here.

Sample calculation of member forces

A hemispherical triangular grid dome with 40 m diameter and a constant member length of
3 m shall be calculated for a dead weight of g= 0.2 kN/m². With the formulas from appendix
B, the membrane forces 𝑛𝜑 and 𝑛𝜗 at the base of the dome can be calculated as:

𝑔∙𝑑 0.2∙40
𝑛𝜑 =− = = − 4 kN/m and
2(1+cos 𝜑) 2(1+cos 90)
𝑑 1 1
𝑛𝜗 = g ∙ ( − 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑) = 0.2∙ 20 ( − cos 90) = 4 kN/m²
2 1+cos 𝜑 1+cos 𝜑

And the member forces with the formulas from appendix A are:
𝑛𝜑 4
𝑃 𝑟 = 𝑃𝑠 = √3 ∙ ∙ 𝑎 = −√3 ∙ 3 ∙ 3 = −6.9 kN
3
𝑛𝜗 𝑛𝜑 4 4
𝑃𝑥 = √3 ∙ ( − ) ∙ 𝑎 = √3 ∙ (2 + 6) ∙ 3 = 13.9 kN
2 6

3.5.2 Barrel vaults

An early example of a thin concrete vault shell is

the Great Market Hall in Frankfurt /Main from
1928, designed by Martin Elsaesser and built by
Dyckerhof and Widmann AG using the Torkret
method for casting the shell roof (fig. 3.16).
The free opening of the shell is 14 m with a stitch
of 4 m and a thickness of 7.5 cm, the span is 37 m.
The market hall was
integrated in 2009 in the
construction of the new
European Central Bank.

fig. 3.16 The market hall

after clearance
and the casting
of the grid shell
43
A similar long leap as from the GUM gallery in Moscow to the Hamburg History Museum
(see Introduction) is the development from the Crystal Palace in London, build for the World
Fair of 1851, to the glass hall for the New Fair in Leipzig, built in 1994. The objective was to
provide a free ground space of 250 x 80m. The architects gmp (Gerkan, Marg and Partner)
together with Ian Ritchie, former partner of RFR (Rice, Francis, Ritchie), designed a glazed
single layer barrel vault as a space frame, which was to be stiffened by external arch trusses
every 25 m. The suspended glazing covers an area of 26.000 m² (fig. 3.17).

fig. 3.17 Single layer space frame for the glass hall at the Leipzig Fair, stiffened by trusses

fig. 3.18 Deformation of a windward gable wall and part of the adjacent structure

Of particular importance for the aesthetics of the hall was the omission of wind bracings.
The wind loads must therefore be transferred along the entire length of the hall, a condition
which was realized by using elastomer bearings. Fig. 3.18 shows that the wind loads deform
the free-standing gable wall and the hall structure simultaneously. That is, it was not
necessary to couple the walls with the vault, which was a desired feature by the architect.

44
An even larger span was realized for a stadium roof in Split, Croatia, for the Mediterranean
Games 1979. Basically, the roof is an inclined barrel vault space truss, using a standard Mero
type A truss configuration. The free opening at the interior of the stadium is about 200 m
and the construction depth 3 m. In fig. 3.19, the originally full coloured plot (see left corner),
represents the member forces in terms of the line thickness and it shows that the space
truss carries the loads basically like an arch.
A special problem of the roof´s space truss was the proof for stability. It was performed as
described under section 3.2., that is, by a nonlinear calculation under design loads. The
actual problem appeared, when the measured deflection under dead load of the uncovered
space truss was significantly larger than the calculated deflection.
The reason was found to be the settlement of a very large number of connections, which
presented unavoidable gaps in the range of 1/10 mm. This effect combined with the
unfavourable span to height ratio of the vault led to the significantly larger deformation. The
only practical way then to consider this effect was the reduction of the Young´s modulus in
the calculation. This caused, in turn, some overstressed members. Fortunately, a simple
method, given in [15], could be applied to consider the post critical capacity of truss
members and the roof stability could be confirmed in this way. The structure is still in use
and in good condition (fig.3.20).

fig. 3.19 Design member forces of the space truss (red = compression, green = tension)

fig. 3.20 The Split Stadium roof(s) with 200 m free span at the open edge
45
3.5.3 Hypar shells

A particularity of Felix Candela´s hypar shells was the

use of the straight generators of the shape to specify
the straight wood laths forming the scaffolding for the
concrete work.
However, the space truss for the Islamic University
Stadium (see fig. 1.19) shows the other possibility to
generate a hypar surface as a translation surface,
where two orthogonal parabolas were used to create
the carrier surface for a triangular mesh (see adjacent
hand sketch).
The two following graphs present the result of a linear analysis, namely, the member forces
of a single layer space frame with edge beam (not shown in the graphs). Fig. 3.21 shows the
forces due to dead load (green is compression, red is tension) and fig. 3.22 shows the forces
for wind acting along the main axis of structure.

fig. 3.21 Top chord member forces under dead load

fig. 3.22 Top chord member forces under wind load (from the right)
46
As already discussed in section 1.3.6 the single layer grid had eventually to be stabilized by a
sparse bottom layer Hex-Tri-net grid and a triple layer truss girder at the free edge.
The following figs. 3.23 and 3.24 illustrate the distribution of member forces in the top and
bottom chord of the double layer space truss under dead load. Here, red is compression and
blue is tension.
Comparison with fig. 3.21 shows that the top chord grid is still acting as a single layer shell,
while the bottom chord is only stabilizing the top chord.

fig. 3.23 Top chord member forces

fig. 3.24 Bottom chord member forces

47
4. Structural Analysis and Dimensioning

4.1 Structural Analysis and The Mero Program

Almost all computer programs used in construction practice are based on the deformation
method. In contrast to the stiffness method, where the unknowns are member forces and
bending moments in a statically determinate system, all deformations (displacements and
rotations) are the unknowns. From these, member forces and moments are calculated. This
method is more general, it saves the search for a statically determinate system and it is the
basis of the Finite Element Method (FEM).
Within the FEM, the real structure is divided into a network of interconnected finite parts or
elements. The properties of the finite elements are described at discrete points, namely the
nodes. There are some powerful programs, such as RSTAB, Sofistik and Karamba, which are
commercially available to carry out the structural analysis of space structures. Karamba,
moreover, is a plug-in for the parametric modeler Grasshopper, which is itself an extension
of the Rhino 3D modeling software [8].
Mero´s early contribution to computer aided design (CAD) started with SAP 4, a Finite
Element Program from Berkeley University, that was extended to cope with geometrically
nonlinear theory and it created the core of a series of a design and manufacturing programs,
going from geometry generation to graphical presentation and automated manufacturing.

fig. 4.1 Flow chart of the Mero-program from 1978, working then on punched cards or
input file Tape 3.

The development of the Mero program is closely related to the name of Martin Ruh, who
was the key program developer at Mero. For more than three decades, he continuously
adapted the program according the evolving computer and building technologies. The
program started remotely running in a Control Data computer center and eventually reached
a proprietary host in Digital Vax computers.
48
4.2 Dimensioning of Mero Space Trusses

A truss member with single bolt end

connections can be calculated with the
model of fig. 4.2 according to the lower
bound criterion of the ultimate load
theory which states: “For any distribution
of bending moments in a given frame, the
loading is less than the ultimate load,
provided that the distribution is statically
allowable and nowhere the ultimate
capacities of members and connectors are
fig 4.2 Model for single bolt truss member exceeded” (Neal, 1956 [53]).

The connections are represented by springs, whose magnitude c is theoretically dependent

on the member axial force. Because this would require iterations even for linear analysis, the
spring stiffness was alternatively determined by tests leading to a generally valid value of c =
20 ∙ MR,d , where MR,d is the limit bending capacity of the single bolt connection (see
above), R stands for Resistance, d for Design.

4.2.1 Parameters for single bolt truss members

Y = Young´s modulus
A = tube section area
I = moment of inertia
𝐼
i = √𝐴 = inertia radius
W=moment of resistance

fig. 4.3 Nomenclature and parameters of a Mero tubular member

𝑙𝑎 = f + 𝑙𝑆𝑀 (fig. 4.3)

𝑙𝑚 = l – 2 𝑙𝑎

fig. 4.4 Pre-deflection curve 𝑤0 for members and connections

49
4.2.2 Verification concept

Based on figs. 4.3 and 4.4 the following table 4.1 summarizes the necessary checks for each
member.

tab. 4.1 Checks for tubular members and connections

𝜑 ≤ 1/(3 ∙ √𝑑𝑆𝑀,𝑎 ) , 𝑑𝑆𝑀,𝑎 [𝑚𝑚]

NR,d and MR,d (Z,D) are the limit loads of the gross and net section depending on the actual
tension Z or compression D respectively, Z𝑅,𝑑 and DR,d are the limit bolt and sleeve
capacities . The bending limit loads MR,dcan be taken from table 4.2, which is part of the
Mero building permit [3]. The deduction of the formulas is documented in appendix E. The
(second order/non-linear) bending moments M II of a deformed member are given in
appendix F as the result of a deduction based on the energy method.
Both deductions were performed by Uwe Ullrich, when he was an assistant of Prof. J. Scheer
at the University of Braunschweig / FRG.

50
4.2.3 Bending limit capacities of single bolt connections

tab. 4.2 Limit bending moment (M) and shear force (V) depending on Z and D respectively

Based on the formulas summarized in tab. 4.2, the limit loads are obtained for three ratios of
the actual member loads Z,D / DR,d, ZR,d respectively. The bending capacities for the three
different loads are calculated.

Three sample calculations

Fig. 4.5 shows the bending capacities for the entire range of Z and D are shown for three
random ratios of 𝐷𝑅,𝑑 /𝑍𝑅,𝑑 are shown.

51
 fig. 4.5 Plot of the ultimate bending capacities at single bolt connections with sleeves

Verification of the load-bearing behavior of the connections by means of tests

A precondition for checking the loads in a bolted connection against plastic limit loads is the
sufficient ductility at the connection. Therefore, tests had to be performed to find a limit
value for the rotation of each member at the joint.
Fig. 4.6 presents a test to determine the bending capacity without an axial force and fig. 4.7
shows the zone of plasticity at the member’s cone after reaching the ultimate bending load.
A rotational stiffness at the connection of c = 20 ∙ 𝑀𝑅,𝑑 was recalculated from the tests.
Sufficient rotational capacity is given for a maximum rotation of φ ≤ 1/(3 ∙ √𝑑𝑆𝑀,𝑎 ) .
When loads are frequently changing magnitude and sign, as it may occur under live and wind
loads, further limitations of rotation are required (see [3]).

fig. 4,6 Alternate loading test fig. 4.7 Plastic zone at the cone

52
4.2.4 Dimensioning of spherical nodes

The only components of a space truss that cannot be dimensioned by analysis, even by FEM,
are the nodes. Therefore, it is necessary to perform physical tests in order to determine if a
purely geometrical approach would be sufficient for the design of nodes. Such tests have
been performed at the Federal Institute for Material Testing in Berlin, who reached the
conclusion that nodes have sufficient load bearing capacity, provided there are no
geometrical interferences (see fig. 4.8).

Dimensions at the node:

r = radius of the sphere
h, d = names of axes
∝ℎ,𝑑 = angle between axes h and d

Connections in axes g and h:

Md /Mh = thread diameters
dSM,d and dSM,h= sleeve diameters
f = distance from sleeve contact
face in axis h to sphere center
g d and g h= depths of bolt threads

Fig. 4.8 Parameters at a spherical node

The dimensions of the nodes are primarily determined by the mutual position and the
diameters of the connecting threads and sleeves. Neither the bolt threads in the node, nor
the sleeves on the contact surfaces may touch each other, see fig. 4.8.
From this sketch, the following formulas are easily deduced: distance f (max. face size) is
derived as the bigger value of 𝑓𝑀 and 𝑓𝑆𝑀 , where M is the diameter of the biggest bolt:

Md +Mh ∙cosαhd dSM,d +dSM,h ∙cosαhd

fM = +g h ≥ 1,4 max M and fSM =
2sinαhd 2sinαhd

53
fig. 4.9 Nodes automated drill production and tubular member laser welding equipment

4.3 Weight Optimization

4.3.1 Iterative adjustment of member sections to varying force distribution

The simplest method of weight optimization of a

space truss having fixed topology and metrics is the
adjustment of the cross sections to the force
distribution at every iteration step in the structural
analysis. This procedure is shown in the flow chart of
fig. 4. 10. The smaller the cross section gradation is
set, the smaller the plastic reserves of the structure
will be. That means, a fully optimized structure has
no plastic reserves!

fig. 4.10 Iterative structural weight optimization

The sample space truss of 30 m x 30 m introduced in chapter 3 for the demonstration of the
continuum analogy will be used here to give an idea of the weight savings that can be
obtained by the iterative adaptation of the cross-sections to the varying force distribution.
The analysis is carried out with the finite element program Karamba, using an optimization
algorithm for the cross-sections, implemented as in the flow diagram of fig. 4.10.
For the edge supported space truss a maximum tube size of 139.7 x 4 mm is obtained for a
𝑘𝑁
load p = 1.5 2 . If this cross-section is set for each of the 800 bars, the result is a unit
𝑚
weight of 35 kg/m². Using seven tube sizes with cross-sections from 60.3 x 2.9 mm to 139.7 x
4 mm, an optimized weight of 15 kg/m²can be obtained. Fig. 4.11 shows the axial forces and
fig. 4.12 the cross-section distribution in the upper chord of the examined space truss.

54
 fig. 4.11 Top chord member axial forces fig. 4.12 Top chord tube member seizes
Application of design by cross-section and node adjustment

The optimized design of space trusses is normally supported by the automated generation of
geometry and loads (in particular, wind loads on curved surfaces) and the design itself is also
an automated process of members and nodes dimensioning. A true design engineer,
however, will generally try to further optimize the automatically obtained results.
An example of a fully automated design of a space truss is given by the special glass dome
for the British Pavilion at the 2003 Venice Biennale (designed by artist Chris Ofili with Arup in
London). The dome consists of triangular glass sheets, where every sheet is hung from the
space truss at its gravity center by means of vertical posts. Extreme time restrictions
required the solely automated optimization (fig. 4.13).

fig. 4.13 Glass dome: model and view to the vertical posts and glass sheets

The huge space truss for the 200.000 m² roof over the Ferrari theme park in Abu Dhabi/UAE,
consisting of 170,000 members and 42,200 nodes, is another example where an almost fully
automated design was required. The central
glass funnel alone has a diameter of 100 m,
the maximal plane extension of the structure
is 640 m.

fig. 4.14 Ferrari Theme Park completed and…

…..under erection

55
4.3.2 A mathematical approach to load optimization with fixed topology and metric

The key problem for the determination

of the limit capacity of truss structures is
the post-critical reserve of h
compression members. Their post-
critical behavior can be represented
with characteristic curves, which can be
obtained accurately enough with simple
plastic hinge models (see [14]). From
these, fig. 4.15 is derived for varying
slenderness 𝜆 = 𝑙/𝑖 .
The calculations for tab. 4.3 were
performed with elastic and plastic limit
design for continuous and discrete
member cross sections. The result show
that a significant saving cannot be
fig. 4.15 Post-critical member behavior curves achieved by plastic limit design.

Space truss 20 x 20 m Elastic limit design Plastic limit design

Continuous cross sections 3,520 – 6,315 cm² 3,520-6,206 cm²

25,5 kN 25,4 kN
3,52 (51,0x2,3) - 3,52 (51,0x2,3 )-
Discrete cross sections 6,53 (82,5x2,6) 6,52 (82,5x2,6)
25,8 kN 25,7 kN
Tab.4.3 Elastic and plastic limit design with continuous and discrete cross sections

4.3.3 An iterative approach to take advantage from the plastic reserves

The results of the former section do not mean that the post-critical reserves cannot be used.
For aesthetic reasons, many truss structures have small gradations of the cross-sections and
are nevertheless able to redistribute the loads from the over-stressed members.
Thus, it is possible that a structure can survive in the event of extraordinary effects, e.g. in
the event of fire.
A simple and descriptive method for the calculation of the limit load for space frames with
members in the post-critical range (see member characteristics in fig. 4.15) is offered by the
pre-tensioning method by redistribution of differential forces that cannot be taken by the
ove-stressed members.

56
The pre-stress forces are determined from the system of equations [I − S] ∙ {V} = {Ppl } ,
with I representing the unit diagonal matrix and S the matrix of the coefficients Si⌊Vj=1⌉ ,
which are derived from the axial forces in member i as a result of pre-stress V=1 in the
member j; here {V} is the vector of the unknown pre-stressing forces and {Ppl } is the vector
of the differential forces (see [15]).

An example

As an example, the ultimate load for a type A, edge-supported, space truss with dimensions
of 20 x 20 m and an design load of 4.50 kN/m² will be calculated, considering the post-
critical reserve of the compression members. A limit load of 5.95 kN/m² was calculated
according to the plasticity theory for the elastic-plastic continuum without consideration of
the post-critical reserves of compression members (see [14b]), i.e. a load factor of 5.95 /
4.50 = 1.322 compared to 1.348 received with the iterative method discussed above (see fig.
4.17).
In fig. 4.16 the post-critical members forming the failure mechanism are drawn thick.

fig. 4.16 members forming the failure fig. 4.17 deflection 𝑤𝑍1 at center point over
mechanism load-factor 𝜅

The comparison with the results obtained with the FE-program MARC (nonlinear geometry

57
 and material) indicates that the consideration of deflections is of minor influence for multi-
layer space trusses.

4.3.4 Optimization with the evolution strategy

Each optimization process discussed before is based on a fixed topology and metric.
It should be of utmost interest to investigate the results of optimization if these restrictions
are ignored.
In the department of bionics and evolutionary technology at the TU Berlin an optimization
process was developed, based on the evolution strategy (Ingo Rechenberg, 1973).
Here, the principles of biological evolution are implemented into a mathematical
algorithm, where the environment is transformed by boundary conditions and evaluation
criteria (objective function).
In his diploma thesis of 1990 Holger Eggert has presented the weight optimization of a
truss girder with fixed topology and free metric, from which fig. 4.18 was taken (see [18]):

fig. 4.18 Evolutionary optimization process for G=400 generations .

Weight saving after 3500 (!) generations is 55%
58
5 Cladding

Cladding is the initial aspect to be considered to start with structural design. The first
question to be determined is the adequate (sub-) structure to support the cladding. Once
the supporting system has been found, the remaining open question is the design of a
statically functional structure.

5.1 Sheet metal cladding on purlins

The simplest type of cladding is made of purlins supporting a metallic trapezoidal sheet. A
typical roof construction with trapezoidal sheet on a space truss can be carried out as shown
in fig. 5.1.

3 elevation 9 roof foil

4 purlin 10 gravel
5 trapezoidal sheet 11 timber beam
6 vapor barrier 12 wall cladding
7 thermal insulation 13 cover sheet
8 separation layer

fig. 5.1 Trapezoidal sheet cladding

Typical applications of this type of roofing are exhibition halls and sports halls (see
Introduction, fig. 1.5 and fig. 1.6).
The TM (Taiyo-Mero) system of fig. 1.6 uses pre-stressed connections to meet the Japanese
standard for space frameworks JGJ 7-91, thus solving the problem of loosening of the screw-
connection in case of vibration caused by direct wind action (Karmann's vortices) or
earthquake.
A further development of the simple metal trapezoidal sheet covering on purlins is the
covering with prefabricated cassettes, such as those used at the Cinema of the Science

58
Centre in Glasgow with shingled 0.4 mm titanium sheet (fig. 5.2).

fig. 5.2 Cladding of the Glasgow Science Centre Cinema with prefabricated cassettes and titanium

An impressive -due to its dimensions- application of a trapezoidal sheet cladding is the

Mero-project "Ferrari World" in Abu Dhabi built in 2009: The structure is a free-form space
truss with 200 000 m² roof area, 380 m core diameter and 640 m maximum extension. Fig.
5.3 shows various stages of the roof construction: trapezoidal sheets, foil, thermal insulation
and red Kalzip top cover sheets.

fig. 5.3 Stages of cladding of the Ferrari World roof on a Mero space truss

59
5.2 Cladding with acrylic glass vaults

Stadium roofs are often covered with cold bent acrylic glass vaults, which are supported by
rain gutters above the purlins. Acryl (Polymethylmethacrylat, abbreviation PMMA) is a
synthetic thermoplastic material with a glass transition temperature of 105°C. The material
became world-known as the “cladding” on the cable net roof for the 1972 Olympic games in
Munich. Mero used the material in the form of barrel vaults for cladding the stadium roofs in
Berlin (fig. 5.4) and Split (fig. 5.5).

fig. 5.4 Olympic Stadium roof in Berlin 1974 fig. 5.5 Split Stadium roof 1979

5.3 Panel cladding

Panels as cladding elements are in general sandwich panels. There are two ways to support
them: firstly, directly at the nodes of the substructure and, secondly, directly on the
members of the substructure. The first way is exemplified by a sports hall in Al Ain/UAE (fig.
5.6) and the second way by the Stockholm Globe Arena (fig. 5.7).

fig. 5.6 Sandwich panel supported at the top chord fig. 5.7 Sandwich panels directly
nodes of a double-layer spherical space truss supported on the top
chord members of a
double layer space truss
60
The Stockholm Globe Arena, still the largest hemispheric dome worldwide, is a globe-net
dome with 96 subdivisions at the base ring. The bar lengths are max. 3.6 m in ring direction
and 4.7 m in meridian direction. Secondary ring beams are placed in between the main rings
to support the sandwich panels of approx. 3.6 x 2.2 m with 145 mm overall thickness and 1.5
mm thickness of the aluminium cover sheets. The core material consists of expanded
polystyrene balls (k-value 0.3). The joint configuration posed a special problem regarding k-
value, fire penetration and tightness. Rectangular hollow sections of 150x100x8 mm were
chosen for the upper chord members to support directly the sealing profiles and the panels.

5.4 A hybrid cladding system

The Cultural Centre in Baku/ Azerbaijan, designed by Zaha Hadid Architects in 2010 consists
of a library, a museum and an auditorium with global dimensions of approx. 171.4 m x 143.3
m and a roof surface area of 40 000 m².
The supporting structure is a space truss, as shown in fig. 5.8. Library and auditorium
are designed with a 3 m grid and 3 m structural depth, while the museum with 2.3 m grid
and 1 m depth.
This design represents a compromise between static necessity (construction depth) and
acceptable dimensions of the cladding elements. The joint pattern of the surface results
from the projection of horizontal parallel lines, 3 m apart, on the roof surface.

fig. 5.8 The Baku Cultural Centre: cladding and supporting Mero space truss

The roof cladding was developed by Werner Sobek Engineers in Stuttgart and it shows a
hybrid approach: Water tightness and insulation are provided by a concealed cassette
roofing construction underneath the external cladding consisting of 5 mm thick GRP panels
with open joints. These panels form the visible architectural envelope and are supported by
a grid of secondary purlins (see fig. 5.9 and fig. 5.10).

61
 fig. 5.9 Layout of the roof cladding

a) overlapping roof membrane, welded on site,

b) and f) 90 mm walkable insulation, c) self-
adhesive overlapping vapor barrier, d) metal
strips, e) factory-fitted roof membrane,
k) 100 mm trapezoidal sheet , m) PE tape 50x5,
n) 5 mm powder-coated metal sheet supported
by tubular purlins

fig. 5.10 GRP-panels with open joints

5.5 Cladding with ETFE foil cushions

The Eden Project was designed in 2001 by Nicholas Grimshaw and Partners together with
Anthony Hunt Ass. from London. It comprises eight dome-shaped greenhouses, namely, four
Warm Temperate Biomes (WTB) and four Humid Tropics Biomes (HTB). The support-free
plan area of the WTB is 15590 m2 and of the HTB 6540 m2. The surface area of all biomes
amounts to 30000 m2. The steel unit weight of the surface envelope is < 25 kg/m². The
diameter of the largest dome is 125 m, the area of the largest hexagon of the top layer grid
is 80 m² with 11m diameter (fig. 5.11).
Hexagonal meshes on spherical surfaces
are in general non-planar, unless planarity
is explicitly pursued with special
procedures. In fact, the foil cushions used
allow only minor deviations from the flat
surface to enable the assembly of the edge
connections and to avoid undesired
wrinkles in the cushions. Here, an
algorithm was developed, based on the
works of Emde, Fuller and Pavlov, which
reduces the deviation from a theoretical
fig. 5.11 The Eden Project Biomes average plane of the largest hexagon with
an edge length of 5.20 m to less than 60
mm. A further planarization would have led to a loss of the visually important homogeneity
of the grid.

62
A measure of net homogeneity is the quotient of the longest by the shortest member length.
Very homogeneous geodesic dome nets have a value of 1.2. The homogeneity of the Eden
domes nets is around 1.26. In this project, perfectly flat hexagons would have produced a
quotient of 2, which among other things would have led to visually undesirable distortions of
the hexagonal grid.
Over 800 hexagons are covered with air-filled foil cushions. These foil cushions are made of
transparent ETFE (Ethylene-Tetra-Fluor-Ethylene) film, which is between 50 𝜇𝑚 and 200 𝜇𝑚
thick. Since the selected stock width is 1.5 m, the foil had to be cut and welded into the
required shape.
The standard cushions consist of three layers, where the outer and the inner layers are
bound to take the loads. The additional middle layer, in turn, increases the insulating effect
and divides the air space, thus providing sealing redundancy in case of leaks. Areas heavily
subjected to wind suction are reinforced by a second external foil.
The foil cushions are mounted on aluminium frames on the upper chord of the space truss
(see fig. 5.12 and fig. 5.13). Each cushion is connected to an air pressure system. The internal
overpressure of the cushions is approx. 300 Pa (compare air pressure 1 bar = 100.000 Pa).
The height of the air-filled cushions is approx. 10 - 15 % of the maximum span.

fig. 5.12 Space truss and aluminium frames fig. 5.13 Detail of the cushion support

fig. 5.14 Internal and external views of the Eden Biomes

63
5.6 Cladding with textile membranes

A common solution for large roofs of arenas and stadiums is given by textile membranes. For
a long time, membranes were mostly combined with cable constructions. However, using
space trusses as support components can also provide economic and attractive solutions.
The subsequent roofing of the theatre arena of the Bilkent University in Ankara is an
example. The supporting structure consists of a main arch with 118 m span and five arches
across with spans from 34 to 46m (fig. 5.15).
The PVC-coated polyester membrane, type 5, provides a limit-strength of 196 kN/m in warp
and 166 kN/m in weft directions. The façade consists of a cable net with shingle glazing that
allows relatively large deformations.

fig. 5.15 Theatre Arena of the Bilkent University

5.7 Glazed space trusses

A straightforward option for glazing space trusses is via secondary support profiles providing
full edge support for the glass panels, such as in the space truss of the Adventure Dome in
Las Vegas / USA (fig. 5.16).

fig. 5.16 Glazed Mero space truss and detail of the façade glass support system

64
5.8 Directly supported glazing

Direct support of the glazing means, that the glass panels are laid on top of the grid
members via gasket sections. Consequently, the underlying substructure is mostly made of
rectangular or square hollow sections instead of round tubes.
Here, a common geometric problem of curved grids is given when the local z-axis of aligned
members at a node and the axis of the intermediate connector are not on a plane (fig. 5.17),
which is commonly referred to as “torsion” or twist between members.
This presents two subsequent complications: firstly, the unsatisfactory "appearance" of a
connection with twist between members and node and, secondly, the also twisted path of
gasket profiles running over the node. For extremely twisted connections the only way out is
either the application of a secondary purlin system, as discussed in section 5.7, or point
supported glazing, as presented in the next section 5.9.

fig. 5.17 Members with twist form mesh to mesh in a cylindrical grid

Some nodal connectors used today for grid shells

Connecting rectangular hollow sections (RHS) or solid profiles at nodes have geared the
development of some innovative solutions, some of which are briefly listed and illustrated
below (see fig. 5.18 and [31]):
a) Disc node for single-bolt connection of member’s end plate
b) Cylindrical node for double-bolt connection with member’s end plate
c) Block node, bolt connection by means of assembly hole on the RHS
d) Cylindrical node with welded flaps
e) Disc node with machined flaps and top bolting
f) Spherical hollow node, requires a raised glass level
g) Double disc node for high bending capacity
h) Star node - twisted members by custom machining of the bar ends
i) Spider node – member integrating node solution with high machining requirement

65
fig. 5.18 Several node types used for grid shells

Sample applications

For the Great Court of the British Museum in London, designed by Foster and Partners with
Buro Happold Engineering, Waagner-Biro built the grid shell with a type h (fig. 5.8) connector
for the welded structure (fig 5.19).

fig. 5.19 Assembly of the Great Court grid

triangular grid shell

66
For the New Fair in Milan, designed by Massimiliano Fuksas, Mero built the grid shell with a
type g (fig. 5.8) connector to accommodate the relatively high bending moments of the free
form structure. The particular challenge posed by this glass roof, which covers a 1200 m long
corridor between the exhibition halls, were the so-called “funnels”. Covering these free
forms with flat panes of glass required a triangular mesh (fig. 5.20).

fig. 5.20 Funnel and glazing detail with gaskets and clamps at a node of the New Milan Fair

Another highlight in the art of free-form grid shells is the glass roof of the DZ-Bank in Berlin,
designed by Frank Gehry together with Jörg Schlaich (sbp) and built by Josef Gartner GmbH.
A major problem of the realization of the roof was given by the big twists between a large
number of grid members and the high bending loads at the stainless steel connections (see
[42]). As a consequence, type e nodes (after fig. 5.18) had to be manufactured from high-
strength stainless steel with a yield strength of 690 N/mm² (fig. 5.21).

fig. 5.21 The main roof and a node detail of the DZ Bank in Berlin

67
A further complexity in design and assembly of a free form construction is the integration in
the main structure of a glazing system and a shading construction, as realized by Mero for
the envelopes of a theatre and a concert hall at The Esplanade Arts Centre in Singapore
(designed by DP-Architects in Singapore with Michael Wilford and Partners in London and
engineered by Atelier One from London).
Both building envelopes represent the realization of free-form surfaces with no separation
between facade and roof, which is particularly problematic for a building close to the
Equator regarding solar radiation (fig. 5.22).
The solution to this problem was a shading construction consisting of rhombic laminar
elements folded at a middle diagonal to form an open tent (fig. 5.23 ). The alignment of
these shading elements posed a special challenge for the roof design (see also [30]).

fig. 5.22 Shading construction fig. 5.23 Shading elements on glazing

5.9 Point supported glazing

The introduction of point supported glass for the façade of the La Villette Park in Paris by
RFR (Rice, Francis, Ritchie) enlarged the design vocabulary in Architecture. Here, an
innovative example is the suspended glazing for the central Glass Hall of the New Leipzig
Trade Fair. Glass sheets of approx. 3 m x 1.5 m, consisting of two laminated pre-stressed
glass sheets (ESG), with 8 and 10 mm thickness, were hanged from pendulum type glass
holders that enable the free movement of each glass
sheet in its own plane (fig. 5.24). More details will be
discussed in chapter 7 (Projects).

fig. 5.24 Free movable glass sheet and holder at point 1

68
6. Construction

This chapter describes installation methods varying between free cantilevering of pre-
assembled elements and assembly on scaffolding. Installation methods depend mostly on
design assumptions and connections types. For larger structures, it is essential to take
assembly situations into account in order to dimension a structure properly.

6.1 Free cantilevering assembly

The cantilever method is the classic method for assembling space trusses. The method is
naturally chosen when the components can be connected without constraint in the existing
structure. This can be done due to the high accuracy reached in workshop fabrication.
Fig. 6.1 shows the free cantilevering method with pre-assembled "tripods”.

fig. 6.1 Free cantilevering installation with preassembled “tripods” at Baku Cultural Centre
and, right, erection with auxiliary support towers at The Ferrari World in Abu Dhabi

6.2 Construction of the Split Stadium roof

Tower cranes with a maximum overall lifting capacity of 80 kN and 17 kN for a maximum
overhang of 42 m were used for the assembly from inside the stadium, whose roofs over the
grandstands have a maximum roof depth of around 42 m. Since these lifting capacities
would not have been sufficient to hoist larger pre-assembled parts, the substructures to lift
were reduced to pre-assembled “tripods”. These could be raised to position using 10
auxiliary supports at the free edge of the roof. The space truss installation was organised in
three major phases:

Step I
A field of 12 modules (of approx. 36 m span) was assembled at the middle of the stadium
roof area. The assembly was carried out targeting the theoretical design geometry with the
help of two rows of auxiliary supports (fig. 6.2a).

70
Step II
Further assembly was carried out by symmetrical cantilevering of pre-assembled “tripods” in
the long direction of the roof (fig. 6.2b). At reaching the auxiliary supports, the structure had
to be adjusted to the design geometry by jacks positioned under balancing support beams to
fit the position of two neighbour nodes of the structure (fig. 6.2c). Once the support points
at the back edge of the space truss reached their final position, the structure’s bearings were
fixed.

Step III
After finishing the installation, the structure was settled down by first releasing the internal
auxiliary supports at the middle of the roof and then removing the auxiliary supports at the
inner edge symmetrically, starting from the centre of the structure (fig. 6.2d), see [19].

a) b)

c) d)

fig. 6.2 Installation phases of the space truss for the Split Stadium roof

6.3 Construction for the Stockholm Globe Arena

A favoured installation method is the pre-assembly of structural grid modules at ground
level, which are subsequently lifted into position to be connected together, as applied for
the Stockholm dome shown in fig. 6.3. Subsequently, all bearings were aligned to their final
position and their bearing plates were fix welded.

71
From this basis on, the rest of the structure was erected by means of small assembly trolleys
that could be moved around the dome. These trolleys were also used for the installation of
the roof covering (fig. 6.4), see [20].

fig. 6.3 Lifting and joining the pre-assembled parts of the structure

fig. 6.4 Free cantilevering installation with the aid of two assembly trolleys

6.4 Lifting of assembled structure and assembly while lifting

Two examples shall demonstrate the method: One is the Fernando Buesa Arena in Vitoria-
Gasteiz/Spain, the other the Iran Air hangar at the Teheran Airport. The arena was built in
1975 as a livestock market and converted into an event hall in 1991.The arena was extended
in 2011. The old dome roof with a span of 80m was kept for further use. For this purpose,
the old dome construction was lifted off the arena and then mounted on a new edge
construction (fig. 6.5).

72
fig. 6.5 Lifting of a complete space truss dome to a new place

The Iran Air hangar roof with

dimensions of 80x80m was
assembled at ground level
and then lifted by means of
four towers into its final
position. The structure is a
triple-layer space truss, of
type 2x (½CO+½ O) with the
big diagonal squares of the
half cuboctahedron in the
middle of the truss (fig. 6.6).
fig. 6.6 Mero space truss for the Iran Air hangar roof

A variant is the step-by-step assembly on the ground while lifting with a central tower, as
done for the aluminium dome in Long Beach/USA. The dome has a span of 126.5 m and it
was built in 1983 by Don Richter to house the H-4 Hercules aircraft, better known as the
Spruce Goose (fig. 6.7).

fig. 6.7 The Spruce Goose Museum dome, assembly on the ground and simultaneous step by
step lifting

73
6.5 Assembly on full scaffolding
Full scaffolding is always required when the structure is kinematically unstable and/or an
exact alignment of the structure is required (e.g. when connections are welded).
For the domes of the Eden Project, the stability is only achieved after all members and edge
trusses are assembled and the boundary supports are fixed (fig. 6.8).

fig 6.8 Assembly of the Eden Project bio-domes on full scaffolding

The assembly of the Berlin Main Station spatial framework also required full scaffolding. The
glazed latticed shell is supported and stabilized by over- and under-spanned arches. The
length of the roof is 320 m, the width varies between 59 and 66m. The structural grid
geometry is a modified stretch-translation configuration, as presented in the geometry
chapter. The grid members are combined to build horizontal, in-shop welded, “ladders” (fig.
6.9), which are interconnected on site by welding individual rungs in between. Since the
supporting traverse arches are not parallel, the length of the ladders had to be adapted to
reach their fixing points at the arches (see [23]-[26]).

fig. 6.9 Grid-shell assembly on full scaffolding at Berlin Main Station

74
As an alternative to full scaffolding, a sliding scaffolding was used for the assembly of the
space frame of The New Leipzig Trade Fair glass hall, a 250 m long and 80 m wide barrel
vault with a glass surface of 26000 m². On the sliding scaffolding (fig. 6.10), the alignment
took place at the welded connections, see chapter 7.2 and [27].

fig. 6.10 Sliding scaffolding for the installation and adjustment of the glass hall space frame

6.6 Installation by folding technique, the Pantadome system

Foldable structures make assembly frameworks superfluous. The engineer Mamoru

Kawaguchi and the architect Arata Isozaki designed the roof for the Palau Sant Jordi for the
1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona as a space truss. The structure was assembled on the
hall’s floor and the grand-stands and then lifted to the geometric end position. For this
purpose, the structure was provided with a series of pin-joints at the bearings (fig. 6.11 by
kind permission of Prof. Kawaguchi). A full description of the lifting process is given in [28].

fig. 6.11 Pantadome construction process (from top left clockwise)

75
6.7 Erection by pre-stressing, the STRARCH system
The STRARCH (STRessed ARCH) system was developed for the construction of wide-span
halls, such as hangars. The system consists of arch-trusses, which can be assembled on the
ground, including cladding and all installations. After assembly, the trusses are lifted into
their final position by tensioning high-strength cables in the bottom chords, where structural
gaps are foreseen to allow bending the trusses (fig. 6.12).

fig. 6.12 STRARCH hangar before and after lifting

During the lifting process the structural gaps in the lower chords are closing and the force in
the bottom chord due to the total dead weight is being taken by the high-strength cables,
see [29] and fig. 6.13.

fig. 6.13 Structural elements of the STRARCH -System

76
6.8 The last step: cable trusses

In 1964 Richard Buckminster Fuller patented his construction for an "Aspension Dome"
(“ascending suspension”). Fuller invented this cable dome in search for applications of the
Tensegrity (Tensional Integrity) systems for large
spans. This system has a rhombic net configuration
for the ridge cables. In order to avoid an excessive
buckling length of the posts, tension rings were
introduced at small distances. This gives the
Aspension Dome a relatively high rigidity (fig.6.14).
However, the high elastic stiffness of the dome leads
to a high sensitivity due to length inaccuracies,
temperature variations and uneven pre-stress of the
cables.
David H. Geiger (1935 - 1989) combined the principle
of Tensegrity systems with structural membranes,
thus achieving maximum spans with a minimum of
fig. 6.14 Fuller´s Aspension Dome
weight. The radially arranged ridge cables are
stabilized by the membrane. The membrane surface segments are radially aligned, namely,
tangential to the rings in the warp direction and radially in weft direction in order to assume
the function of the missing ring cables (fig. 6.15).
The membrane segments are pre-stressed by valley cables that also stabilize against wind
suction. Geiger described his dome construction as an accumulation of radially arranged
cantilevers that do not touch at the apex of the dome. These cantilevers consist of the ridge
cables, the diagonals in tension and the compression posts (Islands of Compression in a Sea
of Tension, as Fuller put it). The load-bearing behaviour of these systems is non-linear under
un-symmetric loads, that is, they have an elastic and geometric rigidity. In other words, the
stiffness of the system grows with increasing deformation [35].
The assembly of components in a cable dome is carried out on the ground, starting with the
ridge cables, then the ring cables followed by the posts and the diagonal cables. The pre-
tensioning of the ring cables starts with the lowest ring followed by the other rings, in a
cyclic incremental mode (fig. 6.16).

fig. 6.16: Plane statics model with three

mechanisms and three states
of self-stress: m = s = 3
fig. 6.15 Geiger cable dome design sketch for the Olympic Sports hall in Seoul 1988

77
7. Some Mero Projects

7.1 The East-West Roof of the Berlin Main Station

The roof was designed by gmp (Gerkan, Marg and Partner), engineered by sbp (Schlaich,
Bergermann and Partner) and built by Mero. The east-west roof was completed in June
2004, the north-south roof followed in 2006 (see [24] and [25]).
The design comprises a glazed grid-shell that is stabilized by cable-stayed arches with an
implemented length of 320 m. The width varies with the track geometry from 59 m to 66 m.
The geometry is a modified stretch-translation grid as described in chapter 2 (fig. 7.1).

fig. 7.1 Animation and areal view of the stiffened grid shell

Fig. 7.2 shows the basket arch that corresponds

to the required clearance gauge. Without
additional cable support the arch would have
considerable bending moments in comparison to
a parabolic arch. These moments can be
avoided, at least for dead weight, with an
additional cable support substructure that
follows the bending moment curve (see [23]).
The mentioned width variation from 46 to 66 m
corresponds to the initial architectural design. As
the roof had to be shortened due to time
problems, these sizes changed from 59 to 66 m,
as can be seen in fig. 7.1 which shows the full
length of the platform.

fig. 7.2 Comparison of basket and parabolic arches

The key challenge for the execution of the designed structure was the proof of the building
components by the Federal Railway Authority, especially of the cable clamps, including the
influence of clamping on the cable strength and the very special bearings of the arches.
78
The cable stayed arches

fig. 7.3 Lower part of a cable stayed arch from the bearing to the assembly joint (sketch)

Bending and clamping of the arch cables

The clamping saddle are injection-galvanized castings GS-20Mn5V (fig. 7.4), the clamps are
made of heat-treated steel 42CrMo4V (fig. 7.5).

fig. 7.4 Cable saddle fig. 7.5 Clamped cable VVS, d= 60 mm

The ladder layout of the grid

fig. 7.6 Ladder layout and finished grid of ladders and intermediate welded rungs

79
The ladders have a regular geometry except for the side rails, whose ends lengths had to be
adjusted to meet their connection positions at the top chord of the arch girders. This was the
price for the grid mostly generated as a simple translation surface within the curved layout
of the roof on plan. Here, the generatrix of the translation mesh is not straight (see fig. 7.6).

Grid Connections – beam members and diagonal cables

The details of the interconnections between the grid members and their connection to the
arch girder can be seen in fig. 7.7.

Fig. 7.7 Grid nodal connections with cable clamps and connection to the arches top chord

The bearings of the arches

The principle of a sliding radial bearing with a Cardan shaft, made of stainless steel
X90CrMoV18 is shown in fig. 7.8.

fig. 7.8 Cardan shaft bearing of the arches

80
7.2 The Glass Hall for the New Fair in Leipzig

The Glass Hall for the New Fair in Leipzig was an extremely demanding project. It was
designed by gmp architects together with Ian Ritchie, who was a partner of RFR (Rice,
Francis, Ritchie), the design office who developed the innovative point-supported glass
holders for the La Villette project in Paris, among other projects.
The initial design consisted of a barrel vault space frame that was stabilized by cable-stayed
arch trusses and a glass hull suspended from the space frame. Since the cables of the arch
trusses could not be realized (e.g. as at the Berlin Main Station), they were replaced by
conventional arch trusses, but
keeping the configuration of the
initial design (fig. 7.9)

fig. 7.9 Hall of the New Fair in

Leipzig, structure and explosion
perspective of components with
suspended glass hull (see fig. 7.17)

Free-standing gable walls were a special wish

of the architects. This could be realized by
giving up a (anyway unwanted) wind
bracing of the barrel vault, which would
have prevented a displacement in the
longitudinal direction. Fortunately, the
free-standing gable walls move
simultaneously with the roof structure,
which means that coupling the gable walls
with the barrel vault is statically not
necessary (fig. 7.10 and 7.11). fig. 7.10 Movement of gable wall and vault

81
 Giving up wind bracing means that wind
loads must be taken down to the ground
over the full length of the barrel vault.
This was realized by elastomeric bearings,
which distribute wind by means of their
elasticity over the entire length of the hall,
thus allowing the omission of wind bracing
for the barrel vault. (fig. 7.11).

fig. 7.11 Detail of a free-standing gable wall

Elements and bolted connections of the barrel vault space frame

The prefabricated bow-elements are 9.352 m long with three welded tubular nodes for the
connection of the straight horizontal tubular members of the frame. The connections are
bolted head plates with one to four bolts (fig. 7.12). The horizontal members are connected
to the tubular nodes via head plates and central tie rods (fig. 7.13).

fig. 7.12 Bow element and bolted

fig. 7.13 Connection of horizontal members

82
Bow truss structure

The biggest change to the initial design (fig. 7.14) is the replacement of cables in the top
chord of the bow trusses with tubes. The final layout is a result of long discussions with Ian
Ritchie to achieve an architectural pleasing appearance not too far from the cable solution
(fig. 7.15 and 7.16). Fig 7.17 shows an interior and an exterior view of the finished hall.

fig. 7.14 Tender truss design fig. 7.15 Modified top chord design

fig. 7.16 Crossbar between truss and barrel vault space frame with cast “knee”

fig. 7.17 Interior and exterior views of the finished hall

83
7.3 Singapore Arts Centre – The Esplanade

The architecture team of DP-Architects, Singapore, and Michael Wilford and Partners,
London, won the tender for the Singapore Arts Centre in 1994. From 1995 on, DPA and
Atelier One, Consulting Engineers, London, were responsible for the technical development
of the roofing system, while Atelier 10, London, for environmental aspects of the project.
The roofing systems for the two envelopes were realized by MERO (fig. 7.18).

Fig.7.18 Surface grid of the Concert Hall and the Lyric Theatre

The free-form surfaces for the Esplanade envelopes are based on the NURBS-technology
(see appendix F) and were created over a relatively long period of time of about two years,
where all possible aspects, such as functionality, aesthetics and culture were iteratively
combined. Special design aspects are the different orientations and opening magnitudes of
the shading elements on the envelopes, which are essentially the result of thermal and
natural lighting studies.

fig. 7.19 Double layer space truss based on half-cuboctahedron and half-octahedron
84
Fig. 7.19 illustrates the generation of the space truss geometry. After generating the top
chord network by “laying” a rhombic mesh with a constant length of 1.5 m on the surface,
the bottom square grid and the inter-layer diagonals were generated by a special program
using the principle of duality. This means that for a chess-board arrangement of facets the
centres of gravity or dual points were determined and then shifted along the facets normal
by a predefined distance, in this case by 90 cm. The dual network was then defined by
connecting each dual point with its adjacent neighbours and with the corners of its initial
facet in the top chord. In order to provide edge support for the triangular glazing panels on
the top chord of the structure, every top-layer non-planar rhombus was divided into two
triangles by an additional “surface” diagonal.

Connections via bowl nodes

The square hollow sections (SHS) of

both, the rhombic network with a
constant length of 1.5m and the top
chord diagonals, as well as the
circular tubular space diagonals of
the space truss are connected at the
top layer bowl nodes (fig. 7.20, see
also [30]). The space truss is
completed inwards by connecting
the lower ends of the
space diagonals and the
tubular members of the
fig. 7.20 Construction with bowl nodes bottom layer via Mero
classical spherical nodes.

Acoustic insulation with natural rubber bearings

A subway running
next to the theatre
halls required the
insulation of the
façade at the upper
edge against
structure-borne
noise with natural
rubber bearings.

fig. 7.21 Top edge bearings

85
Design and execution of the cladding

Local geometrical properties of nodes and structural members:

- Horizontal angles - u: node and member orientations on “tangential” plane defined by

vector "N_node”, which is normal to the surface of the roof envelope
- Vertical angles - v: member inclination with respect to the normal "N_node". The actual
positioning is done with respect to the corresponding tangential plane at the node
- Torsion angle - w: member rotation about longitudinal axis with respect to end nodes
normal vectors (fig. 7.22)

fig 7.22 Horizontal, vertical and torsional angles at a node

For every space truss, the normal vectors at the top chord nodes are used to make copies of
the structural grid by displacing end nodes of every member along the corresponding node
vectors by a prescribed distance. Thus, the glazing grid is placed 70 mm above the space
truss top layer grid, while the base grid for the sun protection pyramids lies 300 mm outside.
Members local coordinate systems with the Z-axis oriented normally to the hull surface were
used to position and orient top chord members. Here, the normal vector of a member is
determined as the vector addition of the adjacent facets at the member (fig. 7.23).

fig. 7.23 Normal vectors at grid nodes and local coordinate systems at member lines for
positioning and orientation of structural elements
86
The sun shading pyramids

The layout of the sun shading pyramids was a highly iterative process and was essentially the
result of thermal and natural lighting studies as described before (fig. 7.24).

fig. 7.24 Elevation of the sun shading pyramids and a test mock-up

Interior views of the Concert Hall

fig. 7.25 Effect of the shading pyramids on the interior lighting – animation (left) and reality

87
7.4 The Museum of Modern Art in Montreal

This project, designed by Moshe Safdie, offered the most welcome possibility to apply a
technology that was being used for well-known glass envelopes in Paris, in particular, the
Louvre Pyramid designed by I. M. Pei. The technology was taken from the construction of
high-performance sailing boats based on high strength stainless steel rods, fabricated by
Navtec/USA.
Two glazed roofs (fig. 7.26) had to
be designed as light as possible but
having to resist the very high snow
loads in Montreal. The solution
were two space trusses with the
predominant use of Navtec rods for
the space diagonals and the bottom
chord. To ensure the integrity of
this configuration, pre-stressed
cables were explicitly used to
stabilize the structure against wind
suction.

fig. 7.26 The project with atrium and winter garden-roofs.

fig. 7.27 Section of the atrium roof structure and

an interior view of the winter garden roof.

88
The following figures show a bottom view of the atrium truss (fig. 7.28), a bottom chord
spherical node with connecting rods (fig. 7.29), a bottom chord node with cable hangers (fig.
7.30), a top chord bowl node with rectangular hollow section members (RHS) and tubular
posts, as well as the connecting diagonal rods (fig.7.31) and a view to the top chord of the
truss (fig. 7.32).

fig. 7.28 Bottom view of the atrium truss

fig 7.30 Bottom chord with cable hanger

fig. 7.29 Bottom chord node

fig. 7.31 Top chord node fig 7.32 Top chord of the atrium truss

89
7.5 The Tensegrity Tower in Rostock / FRG

The construction of the tensegrity tower (see fig. 7.33) for

a fair in Rostock/FRG, designed by sbp (Mike Schlaich),
seems to be a logical continuation of the previous project.
The tower consists of six “twist” modules, each 8.3 m high.
Each of these six segments consists of three steel tubes (d
= 273 mm, t = 12 - 40 mm), three diagonal cables (fully
locked Galfan-coated ropes (VVS3 d = 50 and 75 mm) and
three thinner horizontal cables (VVS2 with d = 30 mm or
VVS3 with d = 50 mm), see fig.7.35.
The geometry deviates from the tensegrity principle by the
fact that the bars are not only connected with cables, but
also directly with each other. This increases the stiffness
and simplifies the construction.
The primary goal was to comply exactly with the
prescribed pre-stress. A deviation of one millimetre of the
cables means 10 % deviation of the pre-stress. This
required a high-precision manufacturing of the tower
elements within a gauge (fig.7.34).

fig. 7.34 Animation of the manufacturing gauge

Controlled pre-tensioning was made possible by the fact

that each element was pre-tensioned with the help of
tensioning frames on site, which also enabled the lifting
and installation in the end position (fig. 7.36), see also [36]
and [37]

fig. 7.33 Animation of the tower

90
fig. 7.35 One twist module – design and construction

Fig. 7.36 Pre-stressing frame in the

air and on the ground

91
Epilog

The attentive reader will have noticed that the text in some places goes beyond the scope of
the Mero Legacy. This happens where the technological environment has given rise to
developments that Mero has taken up and integrated into its own development in the sense
of the node-bar philosophy.

This applies primarily to the cable stiffening of single-layer nets introduced by sbp and which
is associated with the name Jörg Schlaich, but also to the cable stayed girders introduced
into lightweight construction by RFR with the facades for the La Villette Museum, which is
associated with the name of Peter Rice.

Some inspirations however could not be integrated in Mero´s own work, as the Pantadome
principle for foldable structures invented by Prof. Mamoru Kawaguchi.

On the other hand, Mero space trusses were an inspiration for a great number of system
developments, which creates a reasonable “quid pro quo”-situation of the industry.

92
Literature Reference

1. Mengeringhausen, M.: Raumfachwerke aus Stäben und Knoten, Bauverlag, 1975

2. Mengeringhausen, M.: Komposition im Raum, Bertelsmann-Verlag, 1983

3. Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung Z-14.4-10, DIfB,2014

4. Föppl, A.: Das Fachwerk im Raume, Teubner Leipzig, 1892

5. Emde, H.: Geometrie der Knoten-Stab-Tragwerke, Veröffentlichung des

Strukturforschungszentrums Würzburg, 1979

6. Girkmann, K.: Flächentragwerke, Springer-Verlag, 1959

7. Witte, H.: Einfache Regeln zur Vorbemessung von Raumfachwerken, Merkblatt 110 der
Beratungsstelle für Stahlverwendung, Düsseldorf, 1981

8. Preisinger, C. und Heimrath,M.: Karamba-A Toolkit for Parametric Structural Design,

Structural Engineering International, Vol.24 (2014), 217-221

9. Livesley, R. K.: Matrix Methods of Structural Analysis, Pergamon Press, 1972

10. Sanchez, Jaime: Practical Geometry Design of Free-Form Space Structures, Proc. IASS
2011, London

11. Issa, R.: Essential Mathematics for Computational Design, McNeel Associates, 2013,
http://www.rhino3d.com/download/rhino/5.0/EssentialMathematicsThirdEdition

12. Pellegrino, S. und Calladine, C.R. : Matrix Analysis of statically and kinematically
indeterminate Frameworks, Cambridge University Engineering Department, CUED/D-
struct/TR 110, 1984

13. Pellegrino, S.: On the rigidity of triangulated hyperbolic paraboloids, Proceedings of the
Royal Society, London, 1988

14. Harich, R.: Bemessung von Raumfachwerken bezüglich ihrer Grenztragfähigkeit, Diss.
TH Karlsruhe, 1989

15. Klimke, H.: Die Traglast von Raumfachwerken, Diss. TH Karlsruhe, 1976

16. Gackstetter, G.: Beitrag zur Ermittlung der Traglast und Bemessung nach der
Plastizitätstheorie von zweilagig-zweiläufigen Raumfachwerkrosten aus Stahl mit Hilfe
der Lösungen für das elastisch-plastische Kontinuum, Diss. TU Berlin, 1975

17. Knippers, J.: Zum Stabilitätsverhalten tonnenförmiger Stabschalen, Stahlbau 67 (1998)

18. Eggert, H.: Gewichts- und Durchbiegungsminimierung von Fachwerkträgern durch

Anwendung der Evolutionsstrategie, Diplomarbeit, TU Berlin, 1990

19. Klimke, H. et al. :Die Dachkonstruktion für das Stadion der Stadt Split, Bauingenieur
55(1980) 211-218

20. Klimke, H. et al.: Die Stabwerkskuppel der Stockholm Globe Arena, Stahlbau 58
(1989) 1-8
93
21. Sischka, J. et al.: Die Überdachung des Great Court im British Museum in London,
Stahlbau 70 (2001) 492-502

22. Stephan, S. et al.: The Freeform Structure of the UAE Pavillion at the Shanghai EXPO
2010, IASS Proceedings, Shanghai, 2010

23. Schlaich, J. et al.: Entwurf und Konstruktion der Bahnsteighalle des Lehrter Bahnhofs in
Berlin, Stahlbau 70 (2001) 853-868

24. Klimke, H. et al.: Die Ausführung des Ost-West-Glasdaches über dem Lehrter Bahnhof,
Stahlbau 71 (2002) 869-883

25. Gugeler, J. et al.: Lehrter Bahnhof Berlin: Das Nord-Süd-Dach, Stahlbau 75 (2006) 194-
202

26. Wolff, P.: 170.000 Kubikmeter Gerüst - Montage des Hallendachs am Lehrter Bahnhof
(Gerkan, Marg und Partner, Hamburg), Bauwelt 26/2002

27. Klimke, H. et al.: Die Glashalle der Neuen Messe Leipzig, Bauimgenieur 71 (1996) 401-
411

28. Möschler, E.: Die Hubmontage des Daches eines Hallenstadions in Barcelona, Stahlbau
58 (1989) 257-261

29. Klimke, H.: Entwurf vorgespannter Fachwerkkonstruktionen im Stahlbau, Bauingenieur

68 (1993) 109-117 und 185

30. Klimke, H.,Sanchez, J. et al.: Die Fassaden- und Dachkonstruktion des Arts Centre in
Singapore, Stahlbau 71 (2002) 473-483

31. Stephan, S. et al.: Stabwerke auf Freiformflächen, Stahlbau 73 (2004), Heft 8, 562-572

32. Sanchez, J.: Practical aspects determining the modelling of the space structure for
the free-form envelope enclosing Baku Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre, Proc. IASS
Symposium 2009, Valencia

33. Knebel, K., Sanchez, J. et al.: Das Eden Projekt, Stahlbau 70 (2001), 513-528

34. Motro, R.: Tenségrité, Hermes Science Publication, 2005

35. Gengnagel, Ch.: Arbeitsblätter „Tensegrity“, TUM, Fakultät für Architektur, Lehrstuhl für
Hochbaustatik und Tragwerksplanung (2002)

36. Schlaich, Mike.: Der Messeturm in Rostock-ein Tensegrityrekord, Stahlbau 72 (2003)

697-701

37. Klimke, H. et al.: Fertigung und Montage des Messeturms in Rostock, Stahlbau 73
[2004] 74-79

38. Herzog, T., Editor: Symbolbauwerk zur Weltausstellung Hannover 2000, Prestel
(2000)

39. Schlaich, J. und Schober, H.: Verglaste Netzkuppeln, Bautechnik 69 (1992) 3-9

94
40. Schlaich, Bergermann und Partner (sbp): Transparente Netzwerke, Veröffentlichung des
Instituts für Architektur-Dokumentation GmbH, München, 1992

41. Schlaich, J., Schober, H.: Filigrane Kuppeln, Tec21,12/2002,S.25

42. Gartner, J.: Pariser Platz 3 in Berlin, Sonderdruck GLAS 6/99, 19-30

43. Schlaich, J. et al.: Eine verglaste Netzschale: Dach und Skulptur - DG-Bank am Pariser
Platz in Berlin, Bautechnik 78(2001), Nr.7, 457-463

44. Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassung für Edelstahl Nr.Z-30.3-6 vom 22.April 2014

45. Heinle, E. und Schlaich, J.: Kuppeln aller Zeiten - aller Kulturen, DVA Stuttgart, 1996

46. Schober, H.: Transparente Schalen, Ernst und Sohn Berlin, 2015

47. Andriaessens, S. et al. (Ed.): Shell Structures for Architecture – Formfinding and
Optimization, Routledge, London a. N.Y. 2014

48. Polóny,S. und Walochnik, W.: Architektur und Tragwerk, Ernst und Sohn, 2003

49. Büttner, O.und Hampe, H.: Bauwerk, Tragwerk, Tragstruktur Band 1, VEB Verlag für
Bauwesen, 1977

50. Heino Engel: Tragsysteme, Hatje Cantz Verlag, 2006

51. Graefe, R. et al.: Vladimir G. Schukow, Die Kunst der sparsamen Konstruktion, DVA,
Stuttgart 1990

52. Krausse, J.: Das Zeiss-Planetarium, Wissen in Bewegung:80 Jahre Zeiss-Planetarium,

Ernst-Abbe-Stiftung, Jena 2016

53. Neal, B.G.: The Plastic Methods of Structural Analysis, Chapman & Hall, London (1956)

95
Picture Credits

1. Introduction
Mero: fig.: 2, 3, 5, 7, 10-13, 17, 19
sbp (Schlaich, Bergermann and Partner/Stuttgart): fig.: 4, 16
Space Deck 2nd seminar on space structures, Hong Kong 1982: fig. 6
Schleicher,F.: Taschenbuch für Bauingenieure, 1955, Abb.151: fig. 14
Wikimedia: fig. 8 (I.Donsky), fig. 15
unknown: fig. 18
Mitteilungen des Instituts für Leichtbau der Universität Stuttgart, IL 34, ps. 94 and 208: fig.
20
Hubert Berberich / CC BY-SA 3.0 : fig. 21 links,
Heinle ; Schlaich [45] p.169: fig. 21 rechts
Collage fig. 1.1: a) copyright sbp (Schlaich, Bergermann and Partner, b) Wikimedia (Philip
Maiwald) CC BY-SA 3.0 , c) copyright J.Mayer H. , d) copyright Archweb.it ,
e) Wikimedia (CEphoto, Uwe Aranas) CC BY-SA 3.0 , f) copyright DP Arch./Singapore

2. Geometry
Mero: 1-24, 26-27, 29-48, 51, 53-59
Kawaguchi Eng. /Tokyo: fig. 25, 28
Schweger Arch./Hamburg: fig, 49
sbp: fig. 50, 52

3. Load Carrying Behaviour

Mero: fig. 4-5, 9-10, 14-15, 17-24
Eisenbau 1927: fig. 1
Calladine: fig. 2-3
Livesley: fig. 6
McConnel, Cambridge University: fig.7
Witte: fig, 8 and tab.2-4
Donges: fig. 11
Heino Engel [50]: fig. 12
Büttner [49],Tafel 3.28: fig.13
Wikimedia: fig. 16

4. Analysis and Dimensioning

Mero: fig. 1-14
Harich [14]: fig.15

96
Klimke [15]: fig.16-17
Eggert [18]: fig. 18

5. Cladding

Mero: fig.1-8, 11-18, 20, 22-24

Sobek Eng./ Stuttgart: fig. 9-10
Waagner-Biro: fig. 19
Gartner: fig.21

6. Construction
Mero: fig. 1-4, 6, 8-10
vitoriaenconstruccion: fig. 5
Temcor/USA: fig. 7
Kawaguchi Eng./ Tokyo: fig. 11
Strarch/Australia: fig.: 12-13
columbia.edu: fig. 14-15
TUB Statik: fig.16

7. Projects
Mero: fig.1, 3-24, 27-36
DB/sbp: fig.2
DP Arch./Singapore: fig.25
glasforum 1/93: fig.26

97
Appendix A

Transformation of Platonic solids

The following derivation was performed by Helmut Emde [5], former professor for mathematics at the
Technical University of Darmstadt/Germany and closely related to Mero-Raumstruktur via the Center
for Structural Research in Würzburg/Germany.

Truncation and Stellation

Through the transformation processes of “truncate“ and “stellate“ it is possible to obtain 13 semi-
regular polyhedral each from the Platonic Solids. Namely, the “Archimedean” solids (after
Archimedes of Syracuse) and the “Catalan” solids (after Eugène Charles Catalan). They provide an
extended inventory for the design of space structures.

fig. A1 Transformation processes Truncation and stellation of a cube

The Archimedean and the Catalan Solids

fig. A2 Truncation (T3 ) and stellation ( T3I ) of the tethrahedron

98
 Archimedian Solids

The Archimedian solids can be obtained by the process of truncating the Platonic solids.

fig. A3 Truncation of hexahedron / hexahedron

fig. A4 Truncation of icosahedron / dodecahedron

99
The Catalan Solids

The Catalan Solids can be obtained by the process of stellating the Platonic Solids

fig. A5 Stellation of hexahedron / octahedron

fig. A6 Stellation of icosahedron / dodecahedron

100
Appendix B

Nurbs

The term NURBS (Non-uniform rational B-Splines) designates a kind of mathematically

defined curves and surfaces which are used in the fields of computer graphics and applied
3D geometry for the modelling of free forms. A non-uniform rational B-spline can describe
any non-bifurcating continuous curve or series of curves. In the field of computer graphics, a
complex curve (spline) is specified segment-wise rather than through a single NURBS for
practical reasons.

Development
The need of a precise mathematical specification of error-free, repeatable, freeform
construction components appeared in the 1950s mainly in the automobile and ship
fabrication industries. In earlier times such free forms were described by means of physical
models, in a very similar way as in the design of structural shells.
Thus, at the beginning of the 1960s the engineer Pierre Étienne Bézier, at Renault in France,
started developing the free-form curves which are named after him, the Bézier curves, as
exemplified in fig. B3.
At the same time, Paul de Casteljau, at Citroen, was working independently on the same
mathematical problem. As Bézier published first the results of his work, free form curves
which control points do not lie on the curve itself were named after him, namely, “Bézier-
splines”. In turn, the name of Casteljau was associated with a mathematical algorithm for
the numerical specification of points on a free-form curve. Finally, non-uniform rational B-
splines or NURBS are a generalization of the uniform Bézier-splines.

NURBS-curves
NURBS is a mathematical representation of curves which implementation allows the
designer a straightforward intuitive manipulation. Therefore, it is relatively simple to draw
free form curves with the aid of NURBS.
A detailed introduction into the topic can be found in [11], from which the pictures for this
section have been taken.

fig. B1 NURBS: Non-uniform rational B-splines and their control structure.

There are four basic parameters that define a NURBS-curve: Degree, control points, nodes
and evaluation rules.

101
Degree and control points

Degree and control points are directly related to the number

of segments in a curve, where a NURBS-curve has at least
Degree+1 control points. The most intuitive was to modify a
NURBS-curve is by shifting its control points. For instance, a
curve of degree 2 is defined by three (degree+1) control points
for each of its segments. Five control points mean that the
curve consists of three segments.

Weights and control points

Every control point has a corresponding known as weight. Except for a few exceptions,
weights are positive numbers. If all control points have the same weight, usually 1, the curve
is named non-rational. Intuitively, a weight can be seen as the “gravitation” that every
control point has. The higher the weight of a control point, the stronger the curve will be
attracted to this point.

fig. B2 The effect of variable weights in a curve. The curve on the left is non-rational with the
same weights of the control points. The circle on the right is a rational curve with the
corner control points having weights smaller than 1.

Evaluation of NURBS-curves

The evaluation of NURBS-curves in application programs is based on the “de Boor” algorithm (after
its creator Carl de Boor), which is a generalisation of the de Casteljau algorithm for Bézier curves. The
de Boor algorithm is illustrated here with a simple example for a typical point P (t=0.4) on a curve of

102
degree 3, as shown in fig. B3. The procedure is obvious: a point is specified at a distance of 0.4 from
the starting point of every line segment in the polygon that connects the control points of the curve.
As a first iteration step, the resulting points are interconnected with a polygon, from which every
segment yields the next point at 0.4 distance from every segment starting point. The sought point on
the curve then lies at a distance of 0.4 from the remaining line start point.

fig. B3 Interpolation with the de Casteljau algorithm

Properties of NURBS-curves

In most NURBS computer programs, the degree and a few distinctive points that are to lie on the
NURBS-curve, given in an ordered sequence, constitute the usual input to generate the curve. The
rest is taken care of by the in-built NURBS-generator, which also creates the corresponding control
points. The following table shows examples of open and closed curves. When the starting and the
end points coincide, then the curve is a continuous periodic curve:

Degree 1 open curve.

The curve runs through all control points

Degree 3 open curve.

Both end points coincide with the terminal control points.

Degree 3 closed periodic curve.

The curve does not run through the control points.

Moving the control points of a periodic curve does not have any
effect on the curve continuity.

Moving the control points of a non-periodic curve does not

guarantee the continuity or smooth flow of the curve, however it
allows more control over the result.

103
Appendix C
Membrane analogy of grid structures

The grid stiffness is defined as a function of the ideal thickness t = A/a. A is the member
section area and a the member spacing, both assumed to be constant.
For the calculation of membrane forces the following stiffness
values are required: 𝐷𝑖 = 𝐸 ∙ 𝑡 (strain stiffness) and
𝑆𝑖 = 𝐺 ∙ 𝑡 (shear stiffness) with G = 𝐸 / 2(1+𝜇) and 𝜇𝑖
Poisson's ratio. The index i stands for Type A, B, C.
After the beside figure the membrane forces are:
𝑁𝑥 = 𝑛𝑥 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 , 𝑁𝑦 = 𝑛𝑦 ∙ 𝑎𝑥 and 𝑁𝑥𝑦 = 𝑛𝑥𝑦 ∙ 𝑎𝑦 with
the relation 𝑁𝑥𝑦 ∙ 𝑎𝑥 = 𝑁𝑦𝑥 ∙ 𝑎𝑦

Member forces for Type A

𝐸𝐴
𝐷𝐴 = , 𝑁𝑥 =𝑃𝑥 =𝑛𝑥 ∙ 𝑎
𝑎
𝑆𝐴 = 0 , 𝑁𝑦 =𝑃𝑦 =𝑛𝑦 ∙ 𝑎
𝜇𝐴 = 0 , 𝑁𝑥𝑦 =0

Member forces for Type B

𝐸𝐴 𝐸𝐴
𝐷𝐵 = 2𝑎
, 𝑆𝐵 = 2𝑎
, 𝜇𝐵 = 0
𝑁𝑥 = 𝑛𝑥 ∙ √2𝑎 →
𝑛𝑥 +𝑛𝑦
𝑃𝑟 =2∙ ( 2 − 𝑛𝑥𝑦 ) ∙ 𝑎
𝑁𝑦 = 𝑛𝑦 ∙ √2𝑎 →
𝑛𝑥 +𝑛𝑦
𝑃𝑠 =2∙ ( + 𝑛𝑥𝑦 ) ∙ 𝑎
2
𝑁𝑥𝑦 =𝑛𝑥𝑦 ∙ √2𝑎

Member forces for Type C

1 2 𝐸𝐴 1
𝐷𝐶 = (1−𝜇2 ) ∙ 3
∙ , 𝜇𝐶 = 3
√ 𝑎
√3
𝑁𝑥 = ∙ 𝑛𝑥 ∙ 𝑎, 𝑁𝑦 = 𝑛𝑦 ∙ 𝑎
2
𝑛𝑦 𝑛𝑦𝑥
𝑃𝑠,𝑟 = √3 ∙ ( ± )∙𝑎
3 √3
𝑛 𝑛𝑦
𝑃𝑥 = √3 ∙ ( 𝑥 − ) ∙ 𝑎
2 6
All sketches are taken from from [7]
104
Appendix D

Membrane theory of spherical shells

Membrane element
with rotational
symmetry

The following equations result from the equilibrium of forces:

Under a rotationally symmetric load, 𝑝𝜗 = 0 and 𝑛𝜑𝜗 = 0.

The corresponding parts are omitted from the above equations. By means of this
simplification, the internal forces 𝑛𝜑 and 𝑛𝜗 can be determined with 𝑟0 = 𝑟 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 and a
dead load 𝑝𝐸 : 𝑝𝜑 = 𝑝𝐸 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 and 𝑝𝑧 = −𝑝𝐸∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑 as follows:

105
With the boundary conditions 𝑛𝜗 = 𝑛𝜑 at 𝜑 = 0, C can be determined:

Substitution of:

leads to

The same procedure for snow load 𝑝𝑆 with 𝑝𝜑 = 𝑝𝑆 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑 and 𝑝𝑧 = −𝑝𝑆 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠²𝜑 leads
𝟏 𝟏
to: 𝒏𝝋 = − 𝟐 𝒑𝑺 ∙ 𝒓 and 𝒏𝝑 = − 𝟐 𝒑𝑺 ∙ 𝒓 ∙ 𝒄𝒐𝒔 𝟐𝝋

Sample problem 1

A hemispherical dome of 40 m diameter with a constant triangular grid of 3 m mesh is

loaded with its dead weight of 0.2 kN/m² and snow load of 0.75 kN/m² ground plane. The
membrane forces for 𝜑 =90° can be calculated with the formulas derived above:

0,2∙20 0,75∙20
𝑛𝜑 = − 1+cos 90 − = −11,5 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
2
0,75∙20
𝑛𝜗 = 0,2 ∙ 20 + = 11,5 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
2

The member forces can be calculated with the formulas of appendix A for the type C grid:
𝑛𝜑 𝑛 𝑛𝜑
𝑃𝑟 = 𝑃𝑠 = √3 ∙ ∙ 𝑎 and 𝑃𝑥 ∙ ( 2𝜗 − )∙𝑎
3 6
11,5
𝑃𝑟 = 𝑃𝑠 = −√3 ∙ ∙ 3 = −19,9 𝑘𝑁
3
11,5 11,5
𝑃𝑥 =√3 ∙ ( + ) ∙ 3 = 39,8 𝑘𝑁
2 6

Cross check for 𝑃𝑟 = 𝑃𝑠

With a dome surface of 2𝜋𝑟² and a ground plane of 𝜋𝑟² the load from dead and snow is:
P = 0,2 ∙ 2𝜋 ∙ 202 + 0,75 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 202 = 1,15 ∙ 𝜋 ∙ 202 = 1.445,13 𝑘𝑁 and the reaction at one
𝐴
point at the basis: A = (P/2𝜋𝑟) ∙ 3,0 = 34,5 kN and 𝑃𝑟 = 𝑃𝑠 =− 2 cos 30 = −19,9 𝑘𝑁

106
Wind on spherical domes

Non-symmetrical loads, such as wind loads, require their rearrangement partly as rotation-
symmetrical (RS) and partly as non-symmetrical (NS) for the solution of the set of differential
equations (see 3.4).
A wind loading distribution can be derived from wind tests of radar domes [B1], e.g. with the
equation: 𝑐𝑤 = 𝑎 + 𝑏 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜑 + 𝑐 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛3𝜑 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜗 + 𝑑 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜑 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜗
with 𝑎 = −0,7125, 𝑏 = −0,7275, 𝑐 = −0,9850, 𝑑 = +0,4634
The terms with a and b are the RS part, the terms with c and d the NS part.
For the solution, the above presented procedure with 𝑝𝜑 = 0 can be followed [B2], leading
𝑟 𝑎 𝑏 𝑎
for the RS part to: 𝑛𝜑,0 = 𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝜑 {2 𝑐𝑜𝑠 2𝜑 + 16 (𝑐𝑜𝑠4𝜑 − 1) − 2 }
1−𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜑 1−𝑐𝑜𝑠4𝜑
𝑛𝜗,0 = 𝑟 {( − 1) 𝑎 + ( 16𝑠𝑖𝑛2 𝜑 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠2𝜑) 𝑏}
2𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜑
𝑟∙𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑∙𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜗 𝑟∙𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜗
and for the non RS part to: 𝑛𝜑,1 = ∙ 𝑒 and 𝑛𝜑𝜗,1 = ∙𝑒
𝑠𝑖𝑛3𝜑 𝑠𝑖𝑛3 𝜑
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑
𝑛𝜗,1 = −𝑟 ∙ {𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜗(𝑐 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛3𝜑 + 𝑑 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜑) + 3 ∙ 𝑒}
𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜑
4 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑 𝑐𝑜𝑠3𝜑 𝑐𝑜𝑠5𝜑 𝑑∙𝑠𝑖𝑛4 𝜑
with 𝑒 = 𝑐 (30 − + − )−
4 6 20 2
Sample problem 2

As for sample problem 1 a 40m diameter hemispherical dome will be calculated for a wind
load of 𝑞𝑤 =0,75 kN/m². For comparison with a FE calculation from [B2] the member length is
3.11 m. The minimum member force is suggested to be close to the basis at 𝜑 = 90° for

𝑎∙𝑟 0,7125
𝜗 = 0 : 𝑛𝜑,0 = − ∙ 𝑞𝑤 = ∙ 20 ∙ 0,75 = 5,344 𝑘𝑁/𝑚 ,
2 2
𝑎 0,7125
𝑛𝜗,0 = 𝑟 ∙ (− 2 + 𝑏) ∙ 𝑞𝑤 = 20 ∙ ( − 0,7275) ∙ 0,75 = −5,57 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
2
𝑛𝜗,1 = −𝑟(−𝑐 ) ∙ 𝑞𝑤 = 0,985 ∙ 20 ∙ 0,75 = −14.775 𝑘𝑁/𝑚
𝑛𝜑,1 = 0 , 𝑛𝜑𝜗,1 = 0
→ 𝑛𝜑 = 5,344 kN/m, 𝑛𝜗 =−5,57−14,775= −20,345 kN/m and with

nφ 5,344
appendix A → P𝑟 = P𝑠 √3 ∙ 3
∙a= ∙ 3,11 = 9,6 kN and
√3
nϑ nφ 20,345 5,344
Px = √3 ∙ ( 2 − 6
) ∙ a = √3 (− − ) ∙ 3,11 = −59,6 kN
2 6

Comparison with FE-calculation of a space truss dome: Px = −60,1 kN at 𝜑 = 85°

[B1] Schönbach, W.: Netzkuppeln als Radome, Stahlbau 38 (1969), 32-42

[B2] Klein, F.: Tragverhalten von sphärischen Stabwerkskuppeln…, Master Thesis, ISM+D, TU
Darmstadt, 2016

107
Appendix E

Limit capacities of single bolt connections

Since the appropriate elastic modelling of single bolt connections would be dependent on the
respective internal forces, it is advisable to determine the ultimate limit values. These are
relatively easy to determine and the question of the accuracy of the internal forces doesn´t
arise in the sense
of the lower bound criterion of the ultimate load Theory (see chapter 3). This procedure is
based on the elastic-plastic design method of the EC3: the member forces are determined
elastically and the verification is carried out plastically.
Even if the calculation model is carried out for connections with round sleeves and bolts of the
Mero construction system, the procedure can easily be applied to other single- and multi-bolt
connections, as will be shown at the end of this appendix.
The basic idea of the derivation of the limit loads is to initially determine the load capacities
without taking into account the axial forces and then to consider the influence of the axial
forces in the sense that tension forces reduce the load capacity of the bolts and compression
forces increase the capacity. For the sleeves it is the other way around.

1. Limit states for bending moments without axial forces

1.1 Limit state 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 /0,5 𝐷𝑅,𝑑 → 0 (small bolt and big sleeve)

𝑑𝑆𝑀
→ 𝑀𝑅,𝑑 = 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 ∙
2

1.2 Limit state 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 /0,5 𝐷𝑅,𝑑 = 1 (maximum bending capacity)

2(𝑑 3 −𝑑 3 )
→ 𝑀𝑅,𝑑 = 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 ∙ 𝑒 with e=3𝜋(𝑑𝑆𝑀,𝑎
2
𝑆𝑀,𝑖
−𝑑 2 )
𝑆𝑀,𝑎 𝑆𝑀,𝑖

1.3 Limit state 0,5 𝐷𝑅,𝑑 /𝑍𝑅,𝑑 → 0,1 (because of an even small sleeve existing,
in a theoretical limit state 𝐷𝑅,𝑑 → 0 : e=0)
3
4 𝐴𝑠𝑝 2
→ 𝑀𝑅,𝑑 =𝑀𝑅,𝑑,𝐵 where 𝑀𝑅,𝑑,𝐵 =3 ( ) ∙ 𝑓𝑢
𝜋
with 𝑓𝑢 =min (𝑓𝑦,𝐵 /1,1 ; 𝑓𝑢,𝐵 /1,35)
and 𝑓𝑦,𝐵 being the yield strength
and 𝑓𝑦,𝐵 the ultimate tension strength

108
Linear interpolation between the limit states:
𝑍
𝑅,𝑑
1.4 0 ≤ 0,5𝐷 ≤ 1 (bolt determinant)
𝑅,𝑑

𝑑𝑆𝑀 𝑑𝑆𝑀 𝑍𝑅,𝑑

𝑀𝑅,𝑑,1 =𝑍𝑅,𝑑 [ + (𝑒 − )∙ ]
2 2 0,5𝐷𝑅,𝑑
𝑑𝑆𝑀 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 𝑍𝑅,𝑑
= 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 [ (1 − )+𝑒∙ ]
2 0,5𝐷𝑅,𝑑 0,5𝐷𝑅,𝑑
0,5𝐷𝑅,𝑑
1.5 0,1≤ < 1 (sleeve determinant)
𝑍𝑅,𝑑

0,5𝐷𝑅,𝑑 0,5𝐷𝑅,𝑑
𝑀𝑅,𝑑,2 =𝑀𝑅,𝑑,𝐵 +(𝑍𝑅,𝑑 ∙ 𝑒 − 𝑀𝑅,𝑑,𝐵 ) 𝑍𝑅,𝑑
= 0,5𝐷𝑅,𝑑 ∙ 𝑒 + 𝑀𝑅,𝑑,𝐵 (1 −
𝑍𝑅,𝑑
)

2. Limit states for shear forces

If the bolt is fully stressed in tension by the connection bending moment, the compression
force at the sleeve is F = 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 and the shear force can only be transmitted by friction:
𝑉𝑅,𝑑 = 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 .
If the connection bending moment = 0 , then the compression force at the sleeve F = 0 and
the shear force can only be transmitted by bending of the bolt: 𝑉𝑅,𝑑 = 𝑉𝑅,𝑑,𝐵 .

2.1 M-Z and V-Z- Interaction of the bolts

The bolts are generally stressed by bending M, tension force Z and transverse force V. Their
load-bearing capacity then results from an M-Z-V interaction with full plastification of the
cross section (fig. C1), which is linearized as shown in fig.C2 .

fig. C1 Exact M-Z / V-Z interaction fig. C2 Linearized M-Z / V-Z interaction

109
 𝑉
𝑀𝑅.𝑑,𝐵 𝑉𝑀 1 𝑍
With fig.C2 the interaction can be written: 0,9𝑀𝑅,𝑑,𝐵
𝑅,𝑑,𝐵
= 0,9𝑉 =
1−0,1
∙ (1 − 𝑍 ) .
𝑅,𝑑,𝐵 𝑅,𝑑
Accompanying test results show that the limit bending moment can reach at least 0.9 times
the calculated moment capacity with the simultaneous effects of shear force and tensile
force. Consequently an M - V - interaction can be omitted.

2.2 Shear capacity of the connections without axial forces

In analogy to bolted connection with unknown pre-stress, the following values are
applied for the connections A in the sense of the above limit lmit considerations:

𝑉 𝑅,𝑑,𝐴 = min (0,9 ∙ 𝑉𝑅,𝑑;𝐵 ; 0,1∙ 𝑍𝑅,𝑑 ) with

𝑀𝑅,𝑑;𝐵 𝑡𝐾
𝑉𝑅,𝑑;𝐵 = → ℎ𝐵 = 𝑙𝑆𝑀 + (fig.C3)
ℎ𝐵 2
for 𝑀𝑅,𝑑,𝐵 𝑠𝑒𝑒 1.3 , 𝑙𝑆𝑀 see fig. 4.3

fig. C3 Dimensions at the connection

3. Limit states for bending moments and shear with axial forces

3.1

3.2

110
 3.3

3.4 Shear limit loads

𝑍
For a tension load Z: 𝑉𝑅,𝑑 =𝑉𝑅,𝑑,𝐴 ∙ (1 − 𝑍 )
𝑅,𝑑

For a compression load D: 𝑉𝑅,𝑑 =𝑉𝑅,𝑑,𝐴 + 0,1 ∙ 𝐷 with → 𝑉𝑅,𝑑,𝐴 from 2.2

These results are summarized in tab. 4.2.

The presented derivation can easily be applied to other single bolt connections,
e.g. for square hollow sections with one bolt in the center of the section and full
contact of the cross-section to the node. The following table summarizes the
formulas for the bending and shear capacities analog to tab. 4.2. 𝐷𝑅,𝑑,1 and 𝐷𝑅,𝑑,2
are the pressure capacities of flange and web respectively.

111
112
Appendix F

Derivation of nonlinear bending moments of compression members

Determination of the total potential

The total potential consists of the inner

fig. F1 Model and denominations
and outer work. The inner work results
from the elastic work of bending moments
at the member rotations (1. term), the
work of the compression force D at the
geometric member shortening (2. term)
and the work of the moments at the spring
rotations (3. term). The external work of
the shear loads is given by the internal
work of the resulting bending moments at
the member rotations (4. term) and the
corresponding rotation at the spring
rotations (5.Term).

As a result, the transverse load is not explicitly part of the total potential, which facilitates
the evaluation considerably!

(1)

Displacement assumptions

For the middle range: 0 ≤ 𝑥𝑚 ≤ 𝑙𝑚 :

𝑥𝑎 𝑥𝑎
For the edge range: 0 ≤ 𝑥𝑎 ≤ 𝑙𝑎 : w = 𝑤𝑎 ∙ ; 𝑤0 = 𝑤𝑎0 ∙
𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑎
With this assumptions ∆𝜑 can be determined as follows:
𝜋 𝑤
∆𝜑= ∆𝑤 ′̇ (𝑥𝑚 = 0) − 𝑤 ′̇ (𝑥𝑎 = 𝑙𝑎 ) = 𝑙 ∆𝑤𝑚 − 𝑙 𝑎
𝑚 𝑎

113
The distribution of the linear bending moments 𝑀0 can be described for →
𝑥
the middle range 0 ≤ 𝑥𝑚 ≤ 𝑙𝑚 : 𝑀0 = 𝑀𝑎0 + ∆𝑀𝑚0 ∙ sin 𝜋 𝑙 𝑚 with +∆𝑀𝑚0 = 𝑀𝑚0 − 𝑀𝑎0
𝑚
𝑥𝑎
and for the edge range 0 ≤ 𝑥𝑎 ≤ 𝑙𝑎 : 𝑀0 = 𝑀𝑎0 ∙ 𝑙𝑎
. Substituting these results in equation
(1), the total potential can be written:
with

Application of the principle of the minimum of the total potential

𝜕Π 𝜕Π
With
𝜕∆𝑤𝑚
= 0 and 𝜕𝑤 = 0 the unknown values of ∆𝑤𝑚 and 𝑤𝑎 can be determined:
𝑎

𝑐
𝑀𝑎𝐼 +𝜋∙ ∙∆𝑤𝑚
𝑙𝑚
From equation (3) with D𝑤𝑎0 + 𝑀𝑎0 = 𝑀𝑎𝐼 (see fig. F1) 𝑤𝑎 = 𝑐 (4)
𝑙𝑎
−𝐷

114
 𝐼 𝜋2 𝐸𝐼
Substitution in equation (2) and with D∙ ∆𝑤𝑚0 + ∆𝑀𝑚0 = ∆𝑀𝑚 and 𝑁𝐾𝑖,𝑚 = 2 →
𝑙𝑚

4𝑐 𝑐
𝒄 𝟒 𝒄
∆𝑴𝑰𝒎 ( −𝑫)+ ∙ ∙𝑴𝑰𝒂 𝑀𝑎𝐼 [(𝑵𝑲𝒊,𝒎 −𝑫)+ ]+∆𝑀𝐼𝑚 ∙𝜋∙
𝒍𝒂 𝝅 𝒍𝒂 𝑙𝑚 𝑙𝑚
∆𝑤𝑚 = 𝒄 𝒄 , substituted in (4): 𝑤𝑎 = 𝑐 𝑐
(𝑵𝑲𝒊,𝒎 −𝑫)( −𝑫)−𝟒
𝒍𝒂 𝒍𝒎
∙𝑫 (𝑵𝑲𝒊,𝒎 −𝐷)( −𝐷)−4 𝐷
𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑚

𝑐 𝑐
𝑀𝑎𝐼 [(𝑵𝒌𝒊,𝒎 −𝑫) ]+∆𝑀𝐼𝑚 ∙𝜋∙
𝐷
𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑚
→ 𝑀𝑎𝐼𝐼 = 𝐷 ∙ 𝑤𝑎 + 𝑀𝑎𝐼 = 𝑐 𝑐
𝐼
with ∆𝑀𝑚 𝐼
= 𝑀𝑚 − 𝑀𝑎𝐼 and
(𝑵𝒌𝒊,𝒎 −𝐷)( −𝐷)−4 𝐷
𝑙𝑎 𝑙𝑚

𝑙𝑎
multiplication of counter and denominator with →
𝑐∙𝑁𝐾𝑖,𝑚

II. order bending moment at point a

(connection)

II. order bending moment at point

m (center of the member)
𝐼𝐼 −𝑀𝐼𝐼
𝑀𝑚
𝑀𝑛𝐼𝐼 = 𝑀𝑎𝐼𝐼 + 𝐼 −𝑀𝐼
𝑀𝑚
𝑎
∙ (𝑀𝑛𝐼 − 𝑀𝑎𝐼 ) II. Order bending moment at point n
𝑎

115