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

net/publication/236029962

Design and Construction of the Kingston Communications Stadium, Hull

Article in Structural Engineer · April 2007

CITATIONS READS

0 116

2 authors, including:

Paul Reynolds
University of Exeter
170 PUBLICATIONS 2,206 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Reynolds on 18 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 paper: carr/reynolds

Design and construction of the Kingston

Communications Stadium, Hull
Synopsis Jonathan Carr
This paper discusses the design and construction of the 25 000
BEng, MPhil, CEng,
seat Kingston Communications Stadium in Hull, which opened
MIStructE
to the public in December 2002. The paper introduces the
Associate, SKM Anthony
main architectural and structural concepts and outlines how
Hunts, Sheffield
some of the key constraints were dealt with. Particular
emphasis is given to the design and construction of the west
stand roof, as well as the dynamic modelling and analysis of in the 2004 Structural Steelwork Design Awards, as well as Paul Reynolds
the two-tier west stand. being highly commended in the Best Practice section of the MEng, PhD
BCI awards. Senior Lecturer, The
Introduction University of Sheffield,
In the late 1990s, Kingston-upon-Hull City Council floated The project team Department of Civil and
Structural Engineering
Kingston Communications, the telephone company that gave The overall architectural concept was developed by Arup
Hull its distinctive cream coloured telephone boxes, on the Associates, whilst a team led by Glasgow architect The Miller
Stock Exchange. Hull City Council used part of the proceedings Partnership was subsequently appointed to carry out the
from the flotation to invest in the future by funding an iconic detailed design and take the project through to completion.
stadium and community sports facility, which would act as a Other members of this team include Drivers Jonas (project
flagship regeneration project for the city as well as providing a manager), SKM Anthony Hunts (formerly Anthony Hunt
legacy for the people of Hull. Associates, as structural and civil engineer), Halcrow (M&E
On a freezing cold night in December 2002, Hull City played engineer) and Weddle Landscape Design.
a friendly football match against Sunderland in front of approx- Received: 04/06
Modified: 09/06
imately 25 000 spectators, and the dream had become a reality. Accepted: 12/06
The stadium complex is set entirely within West Park, a 78- Keywords: Kingston
acre formal Victorian Park, a short walk away from Hull city Communications
centre. However, the need to respect existing features within the Stadium, Hull, Stadia,
Design, Steel, Roofs,
park (including a significant number of mature trees) and the Dynamic loads
presence of several railway lines on part of the site boundary
resulted in a surprisingly tight area within which the stadium © Jonathan Carr & Paul
had to be located (fig 1). Reynolds
In addition to the stadium itself, the complex has a 12-court Your comments on this
sports hall, two all weather hockey pitches, a BMX/skateboard paper are welcome and
area and an aviary. will be published as
Significant civil engineering works were also required, Correspondence on the
Journal website.
including a major sewer diversion and an elevated walkway,
which spans over a number of railway lines and brings pedes-
trians in from the city centre.
The stadium is now home both to Hull City FC (football) and
Hull FC (rugby league) as well a community ‘Learning Zone’, a
pioneering partnership set up by Hull City Council and Hull
College. The stadium has also welcomed capacity crowds to a
wide range of ‘one off’ events, including two England U21
friendlies, concerts by Elton John, Westlife and Blue, a floodlight The main contractor was Birse Stadia Ltd, which employed
cricket match and a rugby league test match between Great Watson Steel as steelwork fabricator for the west stand, whilst
Britain and Australia. Wescol produced the steelwork for the north, south and east
The project has won a number of prestigious awards, stands as well as for the adjacent sports hall.
including the IStructE (Yorkshire Branch) award for
Excellence in Structural Design, the RICS ProYorkshire Architectural concept/design
2003 award for Outstanding Achievement, the 2004 Civic The architectural concept encompasses a number of features
Trust award for Culture and Regeneration, a commendation that are unique to UK stadia design, most notably the asym-
metric bowl form that results from having single tier stands to
the north, south and east sides and a two-tier main stand to the
west.
The bowl effect is enhanced by the roof line (which gently
rises from its lowest point at the centre line of the single tier
East stand to its apex at the centre line of the two tier West
stand opposite) as well as by infilling the four corners. The roof-
mounted wishbone floodlights at the south-east and north-east Fig 1: (left)
corners of the stadium also serve to give the stadium its iden- Site layout
tity, as well as preventing the West stand ‘A-frame’ roof struc- Fig 2: (top)
ture from dominating the roofscape (fig 2). Cross-section taken
As opposed to being parallel to the pitch edges, the terracing along half way line
is set out to a series of plan curves. This ensures that all spec- Fig 3: (above)
tators obtain a clear view of the pitch corners (where much of Layout at ground
the action occurs in a rugby match) without having to stand up, floor level, showing
as frequently happens in ‘straight sided’ stands (fig 3). terracing set out to
Other unique features include locating the main public plan curves

28|The Structural Engineer – 17 April 2007


concourse (which has been described as ‘Cathedral like’) at first
floor level, thereby freeing up commercially valuable space at
ground floor level. Further space has been freed up by locating
the four stair towers that serve the upper floors of the West
stand outside the footprint of the stadium. This maximises the
space available for public amenities and catering facilities, as
well as enabling fans to walk fully around the stadium at events
where segregation is not necessary (such as pop concerts).
Structural concept/design
Ground conditions
The ground conditions are heavily influenced by the site’s prox-
imity to the Humber estuary; it is underlain by estuarine allu-
vial drift deposits (comprising inter-bedded granular and
cohesive strata) which in turn are underlain by the chalk
bedrock at depths of between 13 and 16.5m.
The uniformity and stiffness of the alluvial drift deposits
varies considerably. A relatively thin ‘stiff crust’ of clay close to
ground level is typically underlain by soft to very soft clays.
Having been a public park since 1883, the site is essentially
a true green-field site. Consequently, made ground and contam-
ination were not significant issues here.
Foundations
The combination of the significant foundation loads and the
aforementioned soft alluvial drift deposits immediately
suggested a piled foundation solution, with suspended precast
units spanning up to 7.5m onto in situ reinforced concrete
groundbeams. These in turn span onto pile caps. 850 CFA piles
with a diameter of 450mm and an average length of 16.3m
were installed to the stadium, giving a total length of piles
equal to almost 14km.
paper: carr/reynolds
At corner areas, where there are significant imposed loads
(due to plant rooms etc.) and frequent changes in the slab level,
a 175mm thick doubly reinforced ‘semi-suspended’ groundslab
was adopted, sat onto the relatively shallow ‘stiff crust’ of clay
described previously.
Superstructure
‘A stadium of two halves’
The asymmetric bowl form of the stadium effectively results in
‘a stadium of two halves’, with single tier terracing to the
narrow plan north, south and east stands, and two tier terrac-
ing to the deep plan west stand. Unlike other stadia, the junc-
tion between the single tier (north and south) stands and the
two tier (west) stand is created by a steady increase in roof level,
as opposed to a sudden vertical step. Each half of the stadium
is made up from 36 steel frames, each one of which is struc-
turally different.
The difference between the single tier and two tier stands
was further emphasised by Birse’s decision (essentially due to
the programme) to employ Watson Steel to fabricate the two-
Fig 4: Isometric view tier west stand frame, whilst Wescol fabricated the three,
of typical A-frame single ties stands. To simplify the situation both practically
support to roof of and contractually, the junctions of the north and south stands
West stand with the west stand were made as structurally independent
as possible.
In total, approximately 3500t of structural steelwork were
used in the construction of the stadium.
Orientation of the stadium
The orientation of the stadium shown on the original concept
drawings was rotated through 180° at scheme design stage so
that the prevailing winds from the southwest acted on the rear
elevation of the main west stand. This minimised the wind
uplift forces on the west stand roof, where the roof overhang is
the most onerous.
Setting out and geometry
For reasons described above, the principal structural elements,
including the terracing, the steel frame, the roofs and the
cladding are all set out to a complex arrangement of plan
curves, with different radii and setting out points defining each
element.
To assist construction therefore, easting and northing coor-
dinates were calculated for critical elements, some of which
were expressed as ‘global positioning system’ (GPS) coordi-
nates.
Fig 5: Layout for Superstructure to the north, south and east stands
putting A-frames The superstructure to the north, south and east stands is rela-
together at ground tively straightforward, comprising steel frames at 7.5m centres,
level (to rear of West supporting single tier terracing that is accessed from the
stand) suspended floor at lower concourse level.
Indeed, the superstructure to the lower concourse areas
consists of 130mm thick composite slabs (incorporating trape-
zoidal profile metal decking) spanning up to 3.0m onto compos-
ite mild steel secondary beams. In turn, these span onto
primary composite steel beams at 7.5m centres, which are typi-
cally supported by UC section columns. The shallow depth of the
composite slab and beam construction ensured that integration
of services was not a significant issue.
Meanwhile, the superstructure to the terracing areas
consists of L-shaped precast concrete terracing units, spanning
up to 7.9m onto mild steel raker beams, which in turn span onto
UC section columns. The structure to vomitories and disabled
access decks also utilises precast concrete elements.
The roof is made up of 1350mm deep cellular steel beams
which are supported on two columns, one at the rear of the
terracing and one along the external perimeter. The cantilever
portion of the roof beams exceeds 25m at its maximum, with a
strip of polycarbonate sheeting to the leading edges of both the
north and south stands.
At the north-east and south-east corners, aesthetically pleas-
ing ‘wishbone’ floodlights in tubular steelwork sit onto the cellu-
lar roof beams, with cable stays providing lateral stability.
17 April 2007 – The Structural Engineer|29
 paper: carr/reynolds

Fig 6: Site welding the stadium from a structural (and possibly even architectural)
406mm diameter point of view. Due to the significant overhang of the west stand
CHS stays to typical roof (approximately 45m in the centre of the stand) and the
A-frame presence of the upper tier of terracing, the cantilever solution
adopted for the other stands was not appropriate here.
Consequently, a stayed solution was adopted, using relatively
slender 406mm diameter CHS stays to support tapered box
section beams that extend from the external perimeter to the
tip of the roof. These box section beams are fabricated out of
steel plate, and range from 1350mm deep at their supports,
down to 600mm at the roof edge.
The CHS stays are up to 40m long, and resist axial tensions
of up to 10 000kN (ultimate). In order to minimise the second-
ary bending moments caused by P-delta effects (i.e. due to the
product of the axial tension in the CHS stays and their self-
weight deflection), the stays were cranked upwards at third
points such that their deflected shape approximates to a
straight line.
Fig 7: Starting to lift The stays rise gently in pairs up to the back edge of the roof,
a typical A-frame – where they meet one of the six. ‘A-frames’ that essentially hold
watch that tree! up the west stand roof. These ‘A-frames’ are also made up of
CHS struts and ties (ranging from 323mm to 457mm in diam-
eter) that effectively transfer the vertical loads from the roof
into 1200mm diameter concrete encased perimeter columns.
See fig 4.
Meanwhile, the significant overturning moments at the back
edge of the roof are resisted by the coupling action of horizon-
tal forces at upper tier terracing and hospitality (second floor)
levels. However, in order for these horizontal forces to get from
roof level down to upper tier terracing raker beams, the perime-
ter columns must be capable of resisting significant bending
moments. Hence, for both structural and aesthetic reasons,
relatively small UC section steel columns (which were only
designed to resist the construction loads from the accommoda-
tion and terracing) are encased by 1200mm diameter rein-
forced concrete section to give a very stiff composite column. The
Fig 8: First two A- horizontal forces ultimately find their way down to the piled
frames in position foundations via the terracing raker beams to both the upper and
lower tiers of the west stand, with the assistance of diagonal
bracing between hospitality and upper concourse levels (typi-
cally hidden within the partition walls between hospitality
boxes).
For ease of transportation and temporary stability, it was
decided to fabricate each of the six A-frames at the rear of the
west stand and lift them into place as complete frames. This
resulted in six lifts of approximately 100t/lift, each one lasting
up to 8h. In order to minimise out of balance forces in the roof,
it was necessary to build the west stand roof in a symmetric
manner from the centre outwards. Hence, the two central ‘A-

Fig 9: Analysis model

for West stand
(symmetric about
centre line of stand)
Overall lateral stability of the north, south and east stands
is provided by a combination of frame action and bracing action
of the terracing raker beams. Unlike the west stand, the
concrete encasement to the perimeter columns of these stands
is not structural (except for providing fire resistance to the
columns).

Superstructure to the west stand

With the exception of the roof, the superstructure to the west
stand is similar in principle to that of the north, south and east
stands. The west stand does however have two tiers of terrac-
ing plus four suspended floor levels, at lower concourse, hospi-
tality, upper concourse and plant room levels.
Overall lateral stability of the west stand is provided by a
combination of frame along the external perimeter, and bracing
action of the terracing raker beams (assisted by additional
vertical and plan bracing as required).

West stand roof

The west stand roof is arguably the most interesting aspect of

30|The Structural Engineer – 17 April 2007

 paper: carr/reynolds

although this model still contained almost 2000 members, as

frames’ were erected first, and were then joined together by
erecting RHS infill purlins between them. This process was
subsequently repeated for the two central and two outer ‘A-
frames’, after which the trapezoidal profile roof decking could
be laid (figs 5 to 8).
The pitch lighting from the west side of the stadium is located
on a dedicated lighting gantry which is slung off the underside
of the roof, some 15m back from the tip of the roof. This location
coincides with the change from a profiled metal deck to the rear
of the roof to a polycarbonate strip at the front, which ensures
sunlight to the pitch edge and corners.
can be seen in fig 9. The first stage of the analysis was to
examine the modal properties of the structure (natural frequen-
cies and mode shapes) and to identify the most lively points on
the structure (i.e. the points at which the modal displacement
was largest in the modes of vibration of interest). These nodes
were then subject to a nominal point harmonic load so that the
frequency response function could be determined at that node,
using an ‘add on’ module to the ROBOT software that was
purpose written by Phil Cooper of KW Consultants Ltd (fig
10). Key assumptions made during the dynamic FE modelling
were:
• It was necessary to construct a 3D model, to ensure that the
distribution of mass and stiffness was accurately repre-
sented.
• Frames had rigid joints only.
• Modal damping ratios for this structure were assumed to be
4%.
• Beam elements (known as ‘bars’ in ROBOT) were used to
model the steel columns, beams and diagonal bracing
members, whilst plates (known as ‘panels’ in ROBOT) were
used to model the composite floor slab and precast concrete
elements such as vomitory walls etc.
• Whilst the beneficial effect of non-structural elements such
Fig 10: Typical as partitions and cladding was recognised (in terms of their
frequency response mass and stiffness) these were not incorporated into the
function (FRF) model due to time constraints.
output in vertical • The foundations were typically represented as spring
direction supports in terms of lateral restraint and as fixed supports
in terms of rotational restraint.

Dynamic behaviour
In addition to football and rugby, the stadium is intended to be
used as a venue for pop concerts, which has a significant impact
in terms of dynamics. Dynamically, the structure was designed
in accordance with a report produced by the
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS working group in November 2001,
Dynamic performance requirements for permanent grandstands
subject to crowd action: Interim guidance on assessment and
design1.
The report essentially recommends that, if the vertical
frequency of the empty stands is equal to or exceeds 6Hz, then
no further assessment is required. This threshold ensures that
significant resonant excitation from the first and second
harmonics is avoided. Significant vibration in either of the two
horizontal directions must also be avoided and this is achieved Fig 11: View to rear of West stand from the park
by compliance with rules which give horizontal loads equal to
7.5% of the imposed vertical load applied in the two horizontal
directions (i.e. along the length of the stand, and also from front
to back).
Initially, a series of 2D computer models was created in order
to determine approximate sizes for the precast terracing units,
steel terrace raker beams and vertical bracing in the ‘front to
back’ direction.
Subsequent to this, detailed advice regarding dynamic
modelling was taken from two members of the aforementioned
IStructE/DTLR/DCMS working group (namely, Phil Cooper of
K W Consultants Ltd and Prof. Aleksandar Pavic at the
University of Sheffield). A key piece of advice was that it is
essential to model the mass and stiffness of the whole structure
(including their distribution) as accurately as possible. This
resulted in several 3D computer models being created, which
enabled both the local and the global dynamic response of the
structure to be determined in the three principal axes (i.e. in the
vertical, side to side and front to back directions) as well as
confirming the member sizes obtained from the 2D analysis.
The analysis was carried out using the ROBOT finite
element analysis software. In the case of the two-tier west Fig 12: 'Wishbone' floodlights to North-East corner
stand, symmetry allowed just half of the stand to be modelled,

17 April 2007 – The Structural Engineer|31

 paper: carr/reynolds
• The material properties adopted for the steel and concrete
elements were the default properties given in the ROBOT
software.
The practical implications of designing for pop concerts are
essentially stiffer precast terracing units, stiffer steel terrace
raker beams, and additional bracing (in both horizontal and
vertical planes). Whilst vertical bracing is not desirable archi-
tecturally, it was often hidden within partition walls (for
example, between hospitality boxes).
The Interim Guidance1 recognises that due to the complex-
ity of fully finished stadium structures, it is very unlikely that
a numerical model used in design will capture their true
dynamic properties. It is for this reason that it recommends
that both analysis and full-scale dynamic testing of the struc-
ture should be carried out and that the results from both
should be reconciled. For this structure, the University of
Sheffield was commissioned to carry out the dynamic testing,
towards the end of the construction programme. The method-
ology and results from this testing, together with a reconcil-
iation with the FE modelling carried out, are described in a
companion paper2.
Thermal effects
The bowl arrangement of the stadium is such that the north,
south, east and west stands are prevented from expanding
towards (and contracting away from) the corner areas, as would
normally be the case. Consequently, the superstructure is
jointed using pairs of expansion joints at all four corners of the
stadium.
Whilst the original intention was also to provide expansion
joints to the middle of the east and west stands (these being
significantly longer than the north and south stands), the
significant horizontal forces generated by each half of the
west stand roof made this impractical (i.e. it was desirable to
allow these forces to cancel each other out). Consequently, the
expansion joints at either end of the west stand were designed
to accommodate the increased thermal movement.
Coating systems to steelwork
Given the access problems to many areas of exposed steel-
work, a high quality paint system (incorporating a zinc-rich
primer with micaceous iron oxide intermediate and top coats)
was adopted in order to minimise maintenance requirements.
Further, the paint system was designed to withstand the
corrosive airborne salts associated with coastal areas.
Whilst intumescent paint and proprietary boards were used
to provide 60min fire resistance to the steelwork where neces-
sary, a fire engineering approach was adopted to ensure that
protection could be omitted in sterile areas (i.e. where the fire
load is negligible).
32|The Structural Engineer – 17 April 2007
View publication stats
Fig 14. Opening Other elements of the scheme
night Whilst the stadium itself undoubtedly forms the main element
of the scheme (figs 11–14 for images of the completed stadium),
other facilities constructed include a 12-court sports hall (with
a build cost of £3.5M), hockey pitches, an aviary, a skate-park
and significant infrastructure works (including highways,
drainage and railway over-bridges giving pedestrian access to
the city centre).
Programme and teamwork
It is worth noting that the production of construction
information commenced in early September 2000, less than
two months before the construction works began on site in late
October 2000. Further, the entire project was built in only 14
months, and was hander over to Kingston-upon-Hull City
Council 21/2 months early. Last but not least, the project came
in below the Council’s original budget.This can largely be attrib-
uted to sheer hard work and the proactive ‘can do’ approach
adopted by the contractor, the various members of the design
team and many of the sub-contractors.
Since the stadium opened at the end of 2002, Hull City FC
and Hull FC have both seen significant increases in their atten-
dance figures. Further, the stadium has been ‘sold out’ for a
number of events including England U21 friendlies, pop
concerts and rugby league test matches between England and
Australia. The stadium has captured the imagination of the
people of Hull as well as visitors to the city, many who believe
the ‘spectator experience’ at the Kingston Communication
Fig 13: Aerial shot of Stadium is second to none.
completed stadium
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Phil Cooper of KW
Consultants Ltd for providing invaluable guidance during the
finite element modelling of the structure and to Prof.
Aleksandar Pavic for more general advice regarding the
dynamic behaviour of stadia under crowd excitation. The
authors would also like to thank Kingston-upon-Hull
Council, the Stadium Management Company (SMC), The
Miller Partnership, Watson Steel Structures Ltd, and Birse
Group PLC.
REFERENCES
I. IStructE/DTLR/DCMS, Dynamic Performance Requirements for
Permanent Grandstands Subject to Crowd Action: Interim
Guidance on Assessment and Design. 11 Upper Belgrave Street,
London, SW1X 8BH: The Institution of Structural Engineers
(IStructE), November 2001
2. Reynolds, P., Pavic, A. and Carr, J.: Experimental Dynamic
Analysis of the Kingston Communications Stadium, The
Structural Engineer, 85/8, p33–39, 2006