The Arup Journal

Issue 1 2012

I
s
s
u
e

1


2
0
1
2
The Marina Bay Sands Special Issue
T
h
e

A
r
u
p

J
o
u
r
n
a
l
T
h
e

M
a
r
i
n
a

B
a
y

S
a
n
d
s

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
Arup is a global organisation of designers,
engineers, planners, and business
consultants, founded in 1946 by Sir Ove
Arup (1895-1988). It has a constantly
evolving skills base, and works with local
and international clients around the world.
Arup is owned by Trusts established for the
beneft oI its staII and Ior charitable
purposes, with no external shareholders.
This ownership structure, together with the
core values set down by Sir Ove Arup,
are Iundamental to the way the frm is
organised and operates.
Independence enables Arup to:
· shape its own direction and take a long-
term view, unhampered by short-term
pressures from external shareholders
· distribute its profts through reinvestment
in learning, research and development, to
staII through a global proft-sharing
scheme, and by donation to charitable
organisations.
Arup’s core values drive a strong culture
of sharing and collaboration.
All this results in:
· a dynamic working environment that
inspires creativity and innovation
· a commitment to the environment and the
communities where we work that defnes
our approach to work, to clients and
collaborators, and to our own members
· robust professional and personal networks
that are reinforced by positive policies on
equality, fairness, staff mobility, and
knowledge sharing
· the ability to grow organically by attracting
and retaining the best and brightest
individuals from around the world – and
from a broad range of cultures – who share
those core values and beliefs in social
usefulness, sustainable development, and
excellence in the quality of our work.
With this combination of global reach and a
collaborative approach that is values-driven,
Arup is uniquely positioned to Iulfl its aim
to shape a better world.
About Arup
Printed by Pureprint Group using
their
®
environmental print
technology. The printing inks are
made from vegetable based oils and
no harmful industrial alcohol is used
in the printing process with 98% of
any dry waste associated with this
production diverted Irom landfll.
Pureprint Group is a CarbonNeutral
®
company and is certifcated to
Environmental Management
System ISO 14001 and registered
to EMAS, the Eco Management
and Audit Scheme.
The Arup Journal
Vol47 No1 (1/2012)
Editor: David J Brown
Designer: Nigel Whale
Editorial: Tel: +1 617 349 9291
email: arup.journal@arup.com
Published by Global Marketing
and Communications,
Arup, 13 Fitzroy Street,
London W1T 4BQ, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7636 1531
Fax: +44 (0)20 7580 3924
All articles ©Arup 2012
Special thanks to Brian Mak,
Jenny Lie, and Franklin Kwan
for their help in co-ordinating
this special edition.
We shape a better world
|
www.arup.com
58086_Arup_Cvr.indd 1 24/02/2012 23:06
1.
4 Singapore’s vision for Marina Bay
6 Introduction to Marina Bay Sands
8 Designing Marina Bay Sands
10 Collaboration with Safdie Architects
12 Geotechnics and foundation design
The Sands Hotel and Sands SkyPark
16 The hotel towers
20 Hotel atrium walls
24 The Sands SkyPark
The podium
32 The podium roofs
37 Podium underslab drainage system
38 Sands Expo and Convention Center
41 Retail areas
42 The casino
44 Theatre structures
46 The event plaza
48 The ArtScience Museum
54 The Crystal Pavilions
60 Bayfront Avenue and
Downtown Line 1
Specialist skills
64 The façade systems
68 Fire engineering
72 Acoustics
76 Blast-resilient design
Delivering success
78 Site phase supervision
79 Leveraging global skills
80 Completing the programme
81 Conclusion
82 Credits
The following past and present staff members
Irom Arup oIfces worldwide are among those
who made signifcant contributions to the design
of Marina Bay Sands.
Joy Aclao, Nur Liyana Ahmad, Ian Ainsworth,
Graham Aldwinckle, Jarrod Alston, Evan Amatya,
Joseph Amores, Richard Andrews, Christine Ang,
Ling Ling Ang, Siow Ting Ang, Christopher Anoso,
Easy Arisarwindha, Mark Arkinstall, Feng Bai,
Jaydy Baldovino, Warren Balitcha, Venugopal Barkur,
Rachel Baylson, Dan Birch, Hay Sun Blunt,
Greg Borkowski, Sarah Boulkroune, Nick Boulter,
Peter Bowtell, Ashley Bracken, Claire Bristow,
Daniel Brodkin, Jessica Cao, Neil Carstairs,
Matt Carter, Kartigayen Poutelaye Cavound,
Chee Wah Chan, Chris Chan, George Chan,
Kam-Lam Chan, Ken Chan, Marco Chan,
Michael Chan, Tat-Ngong Chan, Wayne Chan,
Yun-Ngok Chan, Renuga Chandra, Angela Chen,
Carrie Chen, Chi-Lik Chen, Melissa Chen,
Harold Cheng, Cecilia Cheong, Joy Cheong,
Patrick Cheong, Va-Chan Cheong, Kenny Cheung,
Henry Chia, Wah-Kam Chia, Reve Chin,
Clyfford Ching, Park Chiu, Derek Chong,
Sok Poi Chong, TS Choong, Henry Chow,
Hee Kung Chua, Wee Koon Chua, Rene Ciolo,
Richard Clement, Ranelle Cliff, Lyonel Cochon,
Russell Cole, Yimin Cong, George Corpuz,
Joseph Correnza, Anne Coutts, Robert Coutu,
Raymond Crane, Josh Cushner, Richard Custer,
Yang Dang, Bruce Danziger, John Davies,
Lauren Davis, Ethelbert Derige, Antonio Diaz,
Mike DiMascio, Ran Ding, Nick Docherty,
Graham Dodd, Matt Dodge, Andrew Douglas,
Pierre Dubois, Andy Ellett, David Farnsworth,
Garth Ferrier, Kai Fisher, Raymond Fok, Clarice Fong,
Raymond Fong, Vivien Foo, Kathy Franklin, Feng Gao,
Chris Gildersleeve, Gina Goh, Gladys Goh,
Ian Grierson, Ken Guertin, Liana Hamzah,
James Hargreaves, Rotana Hay, Donal Hayward,
Eric He, Zheng-Yu He, Grace Hendro, Kok Hui Heng,
Argi Hipolito, Andy Ho, Chong Leong Ho, Don Ho,
Kent Ho, Stanley Ho, Wee Keong Ho, Peter Hoad,
Dennis Hoi, Martin Holt, Anna Hon, Andrew Hulse,
Sarah Huskie, Philip Iskandar, Mellissa Ismail,
Sha Mohamed Ismail, Anthony Ivey, Frank Jeczmionka,
Steven Jenkins, William Jimenez, Hong Geng Jin,
Matt Johann, Carl Jones, Steven Jones,
Edmond San Jose, Chak-Sang Kan, Yiu-Fai Kan,
Man Kang, Subash Kathiresan, Teng Chong Khoo,
Amanda Kimball, Ben Kirkwood, Henrik Kjaer,
Sing Yen Ko, Duraibabu Damodaran Kothanda,
Jeyatharan Kumarasamy, Viann Kung, Kin-Kei Kwan,
Chris Kwok, Henry Kwok, Nelson Kwong, Andrew Lai,
David Lai, Kristin Lai, Otto Lai, Philip Lai,
Raymond Lai, Alvin Lam, Clement Lam, Ernest Lam,
Joe Lam, Derek Lau, Eric Lau, James Lau, Jeffrey Lau,
Tony Lau, Wai-Lun Lau, Henry Law, Michelle Lazaro,
Bill Lee, Budi Lee, Cheryl Lee, Chris Lee,
Chung Hei Lee, Davis Lee, Francis Lee, Gordon Lee,
Hiang Meng Lee, John Lee, Kin Shang Lee,
Nicholas Lee, Patrick Lee, Peter Lee, Sebastian Lee,
Serena Lee, Yi Jin Lee, Kevin Legenza,
John Legge-Wilkinson, Steven Lenert, Tino Leong,
Wing-Kai Leong, Erin Leung, Koon-Yu Leung,
Sam Leung, Stephen Leung, Stuart Leung,
Vivian Leung, Ben-Qing Li, Chi-Shing Li, Lei Li,
Shawn Li, Zhuo Li, Alex Lie, Jenny Lie, Keithson Liew,
Kim Hoe Liew, Christina Lim, Deyuan Lim,
Keong Liam Lim, Patricia Lim, William Lim, Angie Lin,
Jonathan Lindsay, Brett Linnane, Rudi Lioe, Amy Liu,
Charlie Liu, Chris Liu, Xi Liu, Franky Lo,
André Lovatt, Sin Ching Low, Danny Lui, Jack Lui,
Kwok-Man Lui, Marcellus Lui, Kok Mun Lum,
Malcolm Lyon, Michael Macaraeg, Juan Maier,
Alex Mak, Brian Mak, Dylan Mak, Louis Mak,
Louise Mak, Martino Mak, Dexter Manalo,
Mukunthan Manickavasakar, Anand Mariyappan,
Patrick McCafferty, Sean McGinn, Brendon McNiven,
Maciej Mikulewicz, Wing Sze Mo, Junaidah Mohd,
Martin Mok, Polly Mok, Lydia Mokhtar, Andrew Mole,
Rodel Moran, Jon Morgan, Dean Morris,
Samir Mustapha, Vaikun Nadarajah, Bob Nelson,
Andrew Neviackas, Derek Ng, James Ng, Jason Ng,
Ka-Yuen Ng, Peck Nah Ng, Andrew Nicol,
Phamornsak Noochit, Alison Norrish, Ada Oh,
Edwin Ong, Janice Ong, Natalie Ong, Khine Khine Oo,
Kamsinah Osman, Ayca Ozcanlar, Jin Pae,
Priya Palpanathan, Jack Pan, Kathy Pang,
Jack Pappin, Stuart Pearce, Alan Philp,
Maggie Puvannan, Chris Pynn, Jie Qian,
Virgilio Quinones, Jim Quiter, Nizar Abdul Rahim,
Mohan Raman, Rey Redondo, Adrian De Los Reyes,
Archie Ricablanca, Darlene Rini, Peter Romeos,
Ian Del Rosario, Alex Rosenthal, Ken Roxas,
Matthew Ryan, Emily Ryzak, Richard Salter,
Katherina Santoso, Majid Haji Sapar, Haico Schepers,
David Scott, Lin Ming See, Richie See, Janice Sendico,
Bee Lian Seo, Kartini Shabani, Henry Shiu,
Margaret Sie, Michael Sien, Chris Simm, Nick Simpson,
Kenneth Sin, Alexandra Sinickas, Jimmy Sitt,
Nathan Smith, Andrew Snalune, Penelope Somers,
Noel Sotto, Charles Spiteri, Jimmy Su, Doreen Sum,
Joyce Sum, Daojun Sun, Malar Suppiah,
Muljadi Suwita, Jamie Talbot, Hon-Wing Tam,
Jonas Tam, Winfred Tam, Kok Yong Tan, Mac Tan,
Suan Wee Tan, Vicky Tan, Rajesh Tandel, Johnson Tang,
Joyce Tang, Lim Mei Tang, Willis Tang, Brendan Taylor,
Larry Tedford, Sean Teo, Ming Jong Tey,
Nithi Thaweeskulchai, Andra Thedy, Kia Ling Tho,
Helen Tolentino, Michael Tom, Roberto Tonon,
Roland Trim, David Tse, Jeff Tubbs, Mart Umali,
Richard Vanderkley, Karthik Venkatesan, David Vesey,
Henry Vong, Doug Wallace, Delu Wang, Qian Wang,
Ekarin Wattanasanticharoen, Toby White, Garry Wilkie,
Huw Williams, Ashley Willis, Berlina Winata, Ian Wise,
Alex Wong, Ambrose Wong, Dick Wong, Joseph Wong,
Kin-Ping Wong, Ling Chye Wong, Mary Wong,
Ruth Wong, Suman Wong, Tim Wong, Wijaya Wong,
Joanne Woo, Andrew Woodward, Colin Wu, Gin Wu,
Louis Wu, Tao Wu, Wendy Wu, Xiaofeng Wu,
Takim Xiang, David Xiong, Jingfeng Xu, Dai Yamashita,
Frances Yang, Zhi-Qiang Yang, Wison Yang, Seven Yau,
Mehdi Yazdchi, Yanli Ye, Sam Yeung, Victor Yeung,
Wing-Cheong Yeung, Yiu-Wing Yeung, Reman Yick,
Kek-Kiong Yin, Colin Yip, Alan Yiu, Jack Yiu,
Heng Yong, Jennifer Yong, Lip Bing Yong, Lily You,
Yuki Yu, Zhen Yuan, Matthew Yuet, Carlos Zara,
Hai-Tao Zhang, Jing Zhang, Liang-Liang Zhao,
Zhi Qin Zhou, Jing Zhuang.
58086_Arup_Cvr.indd 2 24/02/2012 23:06
3 The Arup Journal 3/2011
Marina Bay Sands, Singapore
Conceived by architect Moshe Safdie and engineered by Arup, Singapore’s new
waterfront resort includes: three 55-storey hotel towers topped by the 1ha SkyPark;
South East Asia’s leading MICE (meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions)
hub; two theatres, a casino, shops, two Crystal Pavilions and promenades; and the
unique lotus-shaped ArtScience Museum.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 3 24/02/2012 21:29
1.
4 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Evaluation of Mar ina Bay Sands design
In the design evaluation portion of the
tender, a panel of local and international
architects commended the MBS design as
superior to other bids in terms of pedestrian
circulation and layout, as well as best ft with
the Marina Bay landscape. They liked the
hotel towers being set back from the
waterfront to open up expansive views of the
city and the entire Marina Bay, making the
skyline more attractive and distinctive, but
the MBS trump card was its promise to bring
convention visitors to Singapore with
110 000m
2
devoted to this – half of what
Singapore had earmarked for the whole
downtown business district.
This pledge, plus the inclusion of the
ArtScience Museum, two performing
theatres and no less than six celebrity chefs,
gave it top marks in tourism appeal, a
category comprising 40% of the total score.
Singapore aims to double tourist arrivals to
17M and triple tourism receipts to $30bn by
2015. The completion of Marina Bay Sands
is expected to make this happen – an extra
$2.7bn, or 0.8%, will mark its contribution
to the Singapore economy by 2015.
References
(1) www.ura.gov.sg
(2) www.marina-bay.sg
Singapore and ur ban renewal
Singapore has been engaged in urban
renewal since the mid-1950s, with the
formulation of its masterplan from 1952-55
and approval by government in 1958.
The subsequent establishment of the Urban
Redevelopment Authority (URA)
1
in 1974
was a key milestone in focusing efforts to
maximise land usage in this small, densely
packed country. The masterplan has since
undergone eight reviews, and defnes fve
Regions: the West, North, North-East, East,
and Central. Within the Central Region is
Central Area, which embraces Marina Bay.
The Marina Bay vision thus began some 40
years ago. Located at Singapore’s southern
tip, this 360ha development was designed to
seamlessly extend the downtown district and
further support the city-state’s continuing
growth as a major business and fnancial hub
in Asia
2
. It is an artifcial bay, and
groundwork for its transformation into a
waterfront business district was laid as long
ago as the late 1960s, with land reclaimed in
phases between 1969 and 1992.
With Singapore’s signature city skyline as a
backdrop, Marina Bay is envisioned as a
Garden City by the Bay, a 24/7 destination
presenting an exciting array of opportunities
for people to explore new living and lifestyle
options, exchange new ideas and information
for business, and be entertained by rich
leisure and cultural experiences in a
distinctive environment.
Creating value
In planning Marina Bay, specifc attention
was paid to creating value. The masterplan
focuses on encouraging a mix of uses
(commercial, residential, hotel and
entertainment) to ensure that the area
remains vibrant around the clock. Along the
waterfront and fronting key open spaces,
building heights are kept low, maximising
views to and from individual developments
further away from the waterfront, enhancing
their attractiveness, and creating a dynamic
“stepped-up” skyline profle as well as more
pedestrian-scaled areas. The development of
Marina Bay is supported by state-of-the-art
infrastructure worth more than $4.5bn.
Marina Bay features:
• over 400 000m
2
of Grade A offce space
• 101ha of Gardens by the Bay
• a common services tunnel housing data
and telecommunications cables, sewers
and services
• a 5.5km long promenade linking all the
major attractions around Marina Bay
• the iconic Helix Bridge and a separate
vehicular bridge linking Marina South and
Marina Centre
• extension of roads linking directly to the
city and airport
• fve new underground MRT stations
• the new Marina Barrage, making the Bay
a 182ha haven for motorised and
non-motorised recreational activities.
This was the background against which, in
May 2006 after a highly competitive bidding
process, Las Vegas Sands was declared
winner with its design by Safdie Architects
for Marina Bay Sands, a business-oriented
integrated resort on the east side of
Marina Bay.
2. Gardens by the Bay
East
1. Singapore Flyer
Singapore’s vision for Marina Bay
Author
Jenny Lie
The centrepiece of our redevelopment of the city is Marina Bay ...
It will be a city in our image, a sparkling jewel, a home for all of
us to be proud of, a home that will belong to all of us.
Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore Prime Minister, 2005
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 4 24/02/2012 21:29
5 The Arup Journal 1/2012
12.
UOB Plaza
8. Common
services tunnel
11. One Marina
Boulevard
7. Downtown Line
(DTL)
5. The Helix
Bridge 4. Bayfront Bridge
6. MARINA BAY SANDS
3. Gardens by the Bay
South
13.
OCBC
Centre
10. Marina Bay
Financial Centre
9. Marina Bay
Waterfront
promenade
Ar up involvement in Mar ina Bay
1. Singapore Flyer
Building on experience gained
from the London Eye, Arup’s
award-winning design resulted
in a revolving structure that
is resilient, comfortable
for passengers and aesthetically
unique. (C, E, F, G, M, S, T)
2. Gar dens by the Bay East
Arup looked to nature for
inspiration and designed a
water management strategy that
uses Marina Bay as a reservoir
to supply the garden’s water
features and themed areas.
(B, E, G, M, Mr, S, T, W)
3. Gar dens by the Bay South
This 54ha garden features
Singapore’s frst conservatories,
housed in two large biomes.
Arup designed a natural smoke
venting system and an
innovative glass façade system
that supports the conservatories’
microclimates. (F, Fc)









4. The Helix Br idge
5. Bayfront Br idge
These new bridges provide
pedestrian and vehicular
connections between the old
and new precincts of Singapore.
Intricate and lightweight, the
Helix is a world frst for this
type of design. (C, E, G, L, M,
Mr, S)
6. MARINA BAY SANDS
(A, AV, BI, C, F, Fc, G, I, R, S,
Se, T)
7. Downtown Line
(under ground)
This 40km project required
Arup to design a foating
retaining wall system in soft
marine clay ground conditions,
and in close proximity to an
existing line. (C, E, En, G, M,
S, T, Tn)
8. Common ser vices tunnel
(230KV/22KV electr ical
substation and tunnel)
Arup allowed for the
construction of this 3km
underground common
services tunnel that houses a
comprehensive range of
telecommunication and utilities
networks with the capacity for
expansion to meet changing
utility needs. (Fc, G, R)
9. Mar ina Bay
Water front Promenade
By creating a range of street
furniture that doubles as
environmental intervention and
as a near-zero energy city
gallery, Arup helped enhance
this waterfront promenade as a
comfortable outdoor space for
viewing the Singapore skyline.
(C, E, Es, G, L, M, Mr, S)
10. Mar ina Bay
Financial Centre
Arup’s innovative fre
engineering approach scored
several frsts in Singapore and
raised the bar for local fre
engineering standards.
This includes the use of the
cabin concept as a smoke
hazard management strategy
for a retail outft, total internal
discharge for core staircases,
and a space-effcient vertical
protection design for a high-rise
residential tower. (F)
11. One Mar ina Boulevar d
Compared to a code-compliant
solution, Arup’s fre engineering
design allowed this building to
be constructed substantially
closer to its neighbours, thereby
maximising the use of limited
land space in the heart of the
CBD. (F)
12. UOB Plaza
At 280m, UOB Plaza 1 is
one of the tallest buildings
in Singapore with three levels
of basement carpark.
Arup designed large steel
trusses to create a 50m x 50m
column-free space within the
podium, and introduced a
permanent underslab drainage
system to limit uplift water
pressures under the basement.
(C, Fc, G, S)
13. OCBC Centre
Arup’s innovative construction
method for Singapore’s frst
modern skyscraper allowed
for simultaneous construction
of the bank’s foors, leading to
a 35% reduction in
construction time. (C, G, S)
Key to Ar up disciplines
A Acoustics
AV Audiovisual
B Blast engineering
BI Building information
modelling
C Civil engineering
E Electrical engineering
En Environmental consulting
Es Environmental
sustainability design
F Fire engineering
Fc Façade engineering
G Geotechnical engineering
I Infrastructure
L Lighting
M Mechanical engineering
Mr Maritime engineering
R Risk consulting
S Structural engineering
Se Security consulting
T Transport planning
Tn Tunnel design
W Water engineering
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 5 29/02/2012 21:26
6 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Theatres
Sands Expo
and
Convention
Center
Crystal
Pavilion
North
Water Taxi
North
Water Taxi
South
ArtScience
Museum
Esplanade – Theatres on the Bay
Marina Bay Seating Gallery
Singapore Flyer
Floating platform
The Helix Bridge
The Bayfront Bridge
Benjamin Sheares Bridge
Merlion
Marina Bay Sands
Gardens by the Bay South
The Promontory
East Coast Parkway (ECP)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
T
h
e

S
h
o
p
p
e
s
T
h
e

S
h
o
p
p
e
s
B
a
y
f
r
o
n
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
Crystal
Pavilion
South
Casino
N
Event
Plaza
E
a
s
t

C
o
a
s
t

P
a
r
k
w
a
y

1
2 3
4
8
9
5 6 7
10
11
12
MARINA
BAY
Sands
SkyPark
Sands Hotel
0 100m
9
Introduction to
Marina Bay Sands
the Tourism Board announced that the
development rights had been awarded to
LVS in preference to the Malaysian casino
operator Genting and two Las Vegas rivals:
MGM Mirage, teamed with local developer
CapitaLand, and Harrah’s, which had joined
with another local company, Keppel Land.
Ar up’s contr ibution
For this mega-project Arup provided a
one-stop design service to its client,
including advance works, infrastructure,
structural, civil, and geotechnical
engineering, and traffc, acoustic, façade, fre
and risk consulting. Design team members
came from many offces including Boston,
Brisbane, Melbourne, Hong Kong,
Shenzhen, and Singapore.
For its work on the scheme design, the
Boston offce had the advantage of being
close to Safdie Architects. Arup Singapore
was involved in the advance works,
foundations, and substructure, as well as
the fre and façade engineering designs.
Arup Australia worked on the traffc
consultancy and the dynamic behaviour of
the structures, notably the SkyPark.
Over view
Early in 2005, Arup was engaged by the
resort developer Las Vegas Sands
Corporation (LVS) to work on the planned
integrated resort development at Marina Bay,
Singapore, branded as Asia’s most exciting
urban lifestyle hub-to-be and the centrepiece
of Singapore’s redevelopment. With other
elements then completed, under construction
or planned – Marina Bay Financial Centre,
various residential premises, the foating
platform, and the Singapore Flyer
1
, plus the
existing Esplanade Theatres on the Bay –
the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort
(MBS) was to complete the “necklace” of
tourism attractions in the Marina Bay area.
This crowning jewel would energise and
activate the whole waterfront through its
connections to other leisure and
entertainment destinations, such as the
Marina Barrage and the future Gardens by
the Bay. It would also be one of the area’s
signifcant visual markers, together with the
Esplanade, the signature Merlion sculpture,
the Flyer, and the city skyline itself.
The new pedestrian Helix Bridge, completed
in 2010, continues the link along the Marina
Bay promenade, putting MBS within a
seven-minute walk (500m) of the Singapore
Flyer, the Gardens by the Bay and Marina
Centre, and 12 minutes (800m) to the
Esplanade Theatres, the Merlion, and the
existing central business district (CBD).
As described in the previous article,
the whole development is envisaged as
Singapore’s new downtown, its facilities
both boosting tourism and making it South
East Asia’s leading MICE hub (meetings,
incentives, conferences and exhibitions).
The lotus-like ArtScience Museum and
unique cantilevered SkyPark observation
platform are already icons as identifable
with Singapore as Sydney Opera House is
for its home city and Australia.
Or igins
Conceived by Singapore’s Urban
Redevelopment Authority and Tourism
Board, the resort was envisaged as including
hotel space, landscaped sky terraces,
convention/exhibition areas, entertainment,
recreation, public attraction, lifestyle, retail,
and dining facilities, casino, links to the
existing infrastructure network, an
observation deck, night lighting, public art,
etc. The design competition parameters were
expressed as EXPLORE (new living and
lifestyle options), EXCHANGE (new
business ideas, and information) and
ENTERTAIN (rich cultural experiences,
fun and beautiful surroundings.)
In early 2005 the architect Paul Steelman
Design Group, in association with Arup
Hong Kong and other consultants, helped
LVS in the RFC (request for concept) stage
of the development competition, to a
shortlist by the Tourism Board for the RFP
(request for proposals) stage. From then on,
Arup worked successively on the RFP,
schematic and detailed designs. The Boston-
based Safdie Architects was engaged by LVS
for the RFP competition, and in May 2006,
Author
Va-Chan Cheong
1.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 6 25/02/2012 00:37
7 The Arup Journal 1/2012
A continuing client relationship
Author : Va-Chan Cheong
The relationship between Arup and LVS originally
began in August 2002. George Chan, a former
Director of Arup in Hong Kong, was invited by Phil
Kim, Senior Partner and Managing Director for
Asia at the Jerde Partnership architectural practice,
to join a meeting with the executives of LVS to
discuss the strategy for developing a casino project
in Macao. (Phil Kim and George Chan had
successfully collaborated recently on the
Langham Place Mall project in Hong Kong.)
Chan’s innovative ideas and appreciation of the
need for timely completion of the project impressed
LVS, and in September 2002 Arup was appointed as
engineering consultant for the Venetian Sands
Macao. Piling began in December 2002 and within
18 months, the 15 330m
2
casino was completed and
opened to public, on May 18 2004.
After completion of this project, Arup’s relationship
with the client continued on to the Cotai Macao
Parcel 1, an integrated resort development with a
gross foor area of 975 000m
2
on newly reclaimed
land between Coloane and Taipa. Parcel 1 started in
June 2004 and opened in August 2007.
Then, while construction at Cotai was in full swing,
the Singapore Tourism Board announced on 26 May
2006 that LVS had won the bid and was to be
awarded the license to build Singapore’s frst casino
at Marina Bay. The LVS proposal best met the
city-state’s economic and tourism objectives, and
would signifcantly strengthen Singapore’s position
as a leading destination for conventions and
exhibitions. The proposal also possessed unique
design elements, developed by Safdie and Arup,
that would give Marina Bay a memorable profle.
Arup’s relationship with LVS thus continued when
the frm was appointed for this project in July 2006.
The schematic design by Arup’s Boston offce and
Safdie, also based in Boston, was completed in
December 2006, and the whole design package was
transferred from Boston to Singapore in January
2007. With the joint efforts of Arup Hong Kong and
Arup Singapore, the ground-breaking (in every
sense) project at Marina Bay started in January
2007. The frst phase was completed in April 2010.
Now, following Marina Bay Sands, Arup is again
working with LVS for Parcel 5 and 6 in Cotai,
Macao, another integrated resort. This is anticipated
to be completed in early 2012.
Hong Kong was responsible for Arup’s
overall performance and for the civil works
design, while the detailed superstructure
design was a collaboration between
Singapore, Shenzhen and Hong Kong.
Arup Singapore, with representatives from
Hong Kong, was responsible for day-to-day
liaison with the client and contractors to
ensure proper implementation of the designs.
This project demonstrates how Arup’s global
resources respond to project design and
management challenges, eg in this instance
the architect being in the US and the client
and building site in Singapore.
The frm deployed expertise across four
continents, and made a virtue of the different
time zones to overcome geographical
restraints and facilitate continuous design
development through real-time co-ordination
between the parties. Alongside its
comprehensive civil and structural
engineering experience, Arup also deployed
its expertise in felds such as materials,
dynamics, risk engineering, bridge
engineering, and frequently involved the
range of skills within its Advanced
Technology Group.
Each principal element in MBS is a major
project and a signifcant building in its own
right. MBS was technically challenging right
from the enabling works, foundations and
basement construction at the outset, to the
geometrically complex ArtScience Museum
and the extraordinary 66.5m cantilevered
SkyPark 200m above ground.
Construction sequencing was another big
challenge; it included both top-down and
bottom-up methods. Since the works
involved many different disciplines and
trades, the procurement packaging and
interfacing between them required serious
consideration so as to achieve and complete
the works within the constrained time-frame.
Arup’s cross-continental collaboration
contributed signifcantly to the project’s
success, overcoming challenges related not
only to construction issues but also the
severe global fnancial crisis that happened
during construction.
Originally scheduled for 2009, the offcial
opening of Marina Bay Sands took place on
23 June 2010 at 3.18pm, after a partial
opening that included the casino on 27 April
2010. The SkyPark opened a day later, on
24 June. The theatres were completed in
time for the frst performance by
“Riverdance” on 30 November 2010,
followed by the ArtScience Museum in
February 2011 and the Crystal Pavilions in
September 2011.
Reference
(1) ALLSOP, A, et al. The Singapore Flyer.
The Arup Journal, 43(2), pp2-14, 2/2008.
2.
1. Location plan and site plan.
2. Architectural rendering of Marina
Bay Sands from the south-west.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 7 24/02/2012 21:29
8 The Arup Journal 1/2012
The vision
The 1Mm
2
mixed-use complex of Marina
Bay Sands should not be considered as a
building, but as an urban sector. From the
outset we recognised Marina Bay’s potential
to demonstrate our capacity to create a new
kind of urban centre for the 21st century:
vital, connected with nature, interactive, of a
humane scale, and climatically sustainable,
its enormous complexity and size
notwithstanding. Thus the frst strategic
move was to look into urban design
traditions in search of an appropriate
organising structure. Traditional cities,
particularly those of the Greco-Roman
period, were always designed around major
spines, the criss-crossing Cardo Maximus
(north-south) and Decamanus (east-west),
along which all the major public structures,
temples, palaces and agoras were organised.
Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority
conceived the Bay frontage as a segment of
the continuum of promenades that surround
the Bay and extend up the Singapore River.
The landfll that provided the site for Marina
Bay was itself intended to create an enclosed
bay, helping to complete the loop and,
through the construction of a dam, convert
the Bay into a freshwater reservoir.
We seized on the promenade concept as the
opportunity to create an even more powerful
spine – an indoor/outdoor Cardo Maximus
extending along the waterfront and cutting
inland in two perpendicular cross-spines
connecting to the hotel and to the
subway along Bay Boulevard (Fig 1).
Having determined the fundamental
structure of public place, we aligned by
shops providing access to the larger program
components: the convention centre, casino,
two theatres, and three hotel towers along
them. Everything fell into place.
Hotel complex and Ar tScience Museum
Having conceived what came to be known as
the “podium building”, we turned to the
other two major pieces: the hotel complex
and the ArtScience Museum. For the
promontory, the site programme called for a
major cultural building, an icon for
Singapore. We decided on a museum of
ArtScience as best representing the spirit of
Singapore and evolved a design of below-
grade galleries as well as a foating structure
reaching tall with skylights, to serve as this
icon. Now dubbed “the hand of welcome” by
some and “the lotus” by others, it is the
centrepiece of the promenade experience
surrounding the Bay.
A major planning decision was to set the
hotel back east of the Bay Boulevard, so as
not to encumber the pedestrian scale of the
podium building. As all three other
competitors placed the hotel close to the
water’s edge, this proved to be a signifcant
move. Though it might have been more
effcient to place the approximately 3000
modules in a single hotel tower (as in Las
Vegas’ Sands), we recognised that such a
building would form a wall-like barrier
between the downtown and the sea across to
the east. Seen from incoming cruise liners, a
single tower would also have blocked the
view of the city, so we decided to split the
hotel into three towers, with the emphasis on
achieving a delicate and dynamic scale for
them (Fig 2). Since each tower comprises
two paralleled stretches of rooms straddling
a corridor, we decided to give individual
identity to each of the half slabs, slipping
them in section so as to read independently
of each other, and spreading them at the
base to form a continuous series of atria.
As the site tapered, the spread at the base
varied from tower to tower.
Next came the question of providing an
appropriate network of parks, gardens and
swimming pools appropriate to an urban
resort of this scale. With land all used up and
the decision that we best not place these atop
the long-span casino and convention centre,
we invented the concept of the SkyPark, a
1.24ha network of gardens bridging the three
towers and cantilevering 66.5m towards the
north, forming a public observatory
overlooking the city on the 57th foor.
Designing
Marina Bay Sands
Author
Moshe Safdie, Safdie Architects
1.
2.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 8 24/02/2012 21:29
9 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Challenges to the design team
Each of these strategies presented a series of
structural, mechanical, and construction
logistics challenges of the highest order.
A major challenge to the structural and
architectural team working together was that
the entire concept (including its presentation)
occurred within four months. This was the
result of the client LVS deciding to turn to
Safdie Architects only four months before
the submission deadline. Since it can be seen
that the concept as presented and selected by
the Singapore government was almost
identical with what was built four years later,
the initial concept held up to the test of later
development. Indeed it was the Arup team’s
work with our team in Boston, with the
support of Aedas, the client’s design and
construction team, over four months that
became reality four years later.
Given the four-year schedule for design and
construction, formidable organisational
moves occurred. The team expanded
exponentially to embrace Aedas and Arup
offces across the globe including those in
the region, as well as engineering teams in
the other disciplines and all the specialist
consultants including landscape, lighting,
etc. Indeed, two comprehensive teams of
stateside (USA) consultants and their
counterpart Singapore consultants were
formed as work slowly shifted from Boston
to Singapore. The hallmark for the process
was the workshops that occurred every three
weeks, where architecture and engineering
teams, specialist consultants, and client
representatives from Las Vegas and Asia
gathered in Boston for two to three days at a
time to evolve the design and make the
required decisions.
As this progressed, sub-teams were formed
to deal with each component: the Spine
which included the retail, the MICE
convention centre, the casino, the theatres,
the ArtScience Museum, the Crystal
Pavilions, and the hotel. Each presented
a complex project of its own, involving
hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth
of construction.
Further considerable challenges had to be
overcome, eg excavating six levels into the
water table in what was highly unstable
landfll, and retaining the water and soil
pressure while foundation and basement
levels were constructed. Construction
sequences and, in particular, temporary
supports for the construction of the hotel
towers and their atria, the ArtScience
Museum, and the long-span spaces in the
podium, proved to be as challenging as the
fnal design was set in place.
Unifed language and co-operation
The major task, however, was to develop an
architectural-engineering language for the
project that would unify the parts, a system
of detailing, cladding, and connectivity that
would allow each individual element its
uniqueness while at the same time making it
cohesive as the whole. Working with the
Arup façade team, developing for example
the cladding systems for the podium and for
cladding the SkyPark belly, each and every
part required a unique solution while at the
same time being part of the family of details.
In my 47 years of practice, I have never seen
such a formidable team effort, fundamentally
harmonious in its character, encompassing
fve continents, interacting with contractors
and suppliers from across the world,
co-ordinating through meetings, “see-and-
share” sessions and every other device
invented in our computer era, with such a
singularity of purpose moved by an ambition
for excellence.
3.
4.
1. Development of the architectural
spine concept.
2. Sketch by Moshe Safdie of the
hotel towers and ArtScience Museum
from the Bay.
3. Architectural rendering of Marina
Bay Sands looking south-east.
4. The SkyPark from above, looking
south-west.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 9 24/02/2012 21:29
10 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Collaboration with
Safdie Architects
Competition design
Building on a long relationship of
collaborative design, Moshe Safdie invited
the Boston and New York offces of Arup to
join the team comprising Safdie Architects,
Aedas, and Las Vegas Sands Corporation
to participate in the MBS competition.
The competition, which ran from January
through March, 2006, culminated in a
design that featured bold geometric forms,
including the sweeping hotel towers and
the iconic ArtScience Museum.
The towers rise from their base in two halves
before merging some 20 storeys above and
then reaching up to over 50 storeys in total.
Spanning the top foors is the SkyPark, an
expansive structure in its own right that
bridges the towers and culminates in its
66.5m cantilever beyond the northernmost
tower. The Museum’s form, in turn,
highlights the galleries within and anchors
the north end of the resort along a
promontory on the bay.
The government of Singapore announced the
team as winners in June 2006, but the
schedule left little time to celebrate. With a
piling tender package due that September,
the design team began to mobilise quickly.
The Arup team rapidly grew internationally,
and put the latest telecommunications and
3-D documentation tools to work so as to
co-ordinate design efforts across multiple
continents simultaneously. In addition,
Arup appointed one of its Principals to a
leadership co-ordination role, travelling
extensively to calibrate the efforts of each
team in person.
Str uctur al concept for hotel tower s
Safdie’s design of the hotel towers, with
their independent “legs” at the lower levels,
creates a dynamic form while defning space
for a contiguous connecting lobby
uninterrupted by hotel structures. While this
arrangement implied “A-frame” structural
action, it also posed signifcant technical
challenges for the Arup team (Fig 1).
The team therefore developed a shear link
using steel trusses just above the lobby to
ensure positive engagement of the two
halves, with a system of post-tensioned
beams to resist tie forces at the base.
Each leg, only half the building width and
carrying substantial load, required detailed
analysis for lateral buckling. Indeed, a
system of parallel shear walls coupled with
transverse cores in each half was carefully
designed to resist this effect (Fig 2).
Finally, recognising the challenge of
constructing the inclined legs, Arup’s
engineers developed a shoring strategy and a
staged construction analysis as early as the
schematic stage to ensure that the towers
could be constructed without compromise to
the completed building.
Str uctur al concept for the Museum
Safdie’s form for the ArtScience Museum
responds to the galleries within. Two foors
occupy each of the museum’s “fngers” to
create distinct galleries arrayed around a
central atrium (Figs 3, 4). This arrangement
called for a screen around the atrium to
create a sense of enclosure to each gallery
while still encouraging views between them.
In keeping with the design goals, it was
agreed that this screen should serve a
structural function to reinforce its integrity,
and Arup’s strategy took the form of a
cylindrical diagrid (Fig 5).
The overall structure is confgured to focus
horizontal forces caused by wind,
earthquake, and unbalanced gravity loads on
a tension ring at the top of the diagrid,
demands for which this form is particularly
effcient. A spiralling compression ring and a
colonnade of “mega-columns” work together
to protect the diagrid from the gravity loads
and horizontal thrusts generated along the
bottoms of the cantilevered galleries.
Authors
Daniel Brodkin Patrick McCafferty
1. Structural design of hotel towers.
2. Buckling analysis for hotel towers.
3. Cross-section through the
ArtScience Museum.
4. Plan of the ArtScience Museum.
5. Structural diagrid for the
ArtScence Museum.
6. Safdie’s design for the ArtScience
Museum.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 10 24/02/2012 21:29
11 The Arup Journal 1/2012
6.
1.
3.
5.
2.
4.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 11 24/02/2012 21:29
12 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Museum
area
Fill
Soft marine clay
Old Alluvium (OA)
Mean sea level
+100.5m RL
Retail area
C
C
B
A
A
B
Deep OA valley
30m thick
Deep OA valley
35m thick
Deep
OA valley
15m thick
Deep
OA
valley
25m
thick
Theatre
area
Retail
area MICE area Casino area
Hotel car park
and cooling tower
Hotel
tower 3
Hotel
tower 1
Hotel
tower 2
Section A-A
Section B-B
Section C-C
Benjamin
Sheares
Bridge
East Coast
Parkway
Reclaimed
1990s
MBS
site
Reclaimed
1970s
1.
Geotechnics and
foundation design
Introduction
Marina Bay Sands is on reclaimed land,
comprising sand infll overlying deep soft
clay marine deposits, above an underlying
very stiff-to-hard Old Alluvium (OA) layer.
This soft marine clay, coupled with the
proximity of the East Coast Parkway
highway and the Benjamin Sheares Bridge,
posed signifcant challenges to the design of
the excavation works.
The 15.5ha MBS development is founded on
the underlying very stiff-to-hard OA layer
using a forest of barrettes and 1m-3m
diameter bored piles. The average basement
excavation depth was around 20m, and with
over 40% of the concrete construction
occurring 18m-35m underground, the
required timetable was only made possible
by Arup’s innovative approach to excavation
in the frst year. Overall, some 2.8Mm
3
of fll
and marine clay was taken from the site, ie
about 800 trucks a day for two years!
The development also required Arup to
engineer a 35m deep cut-and-cover tunnel
for the Downtown Line 1 (DTL1) extension
to Singapore Mass Rapid Transit rail next to
the Benjamin Sheares Bridge, which links
the island’s east and west coasts and had to
remain operational throughout construction.
Site geology
The Marina Bay area has had several phases
of reclamation, the latest completed in the
mid-1990s. Most of the MBS development
sits on this latest reclamation zone (Phase
VIII), while the eastern side is located within
the Phase VB reclamation zone, completed
in the late 1970s (Fig 1). Ground level across
the site is generally fat at about +103m to
+103.5m, with the recorded groundwater
table at approximately +100.5m.
The subsoil conditions typically comprise a
12m-15m thick layer of reclamation fll
overlying 5m-35m of Kallang Formation
soils, underlain by the stiff-to-hard OA.
The Kallang Formation is predominantly
soft marine clay, with some interbedded
frm clay and medium dense sand of
fuvial origin.
Authors
Philip Iskandar Leong Wing Kai
Jack Pappin
1. Aerial view of the MBS site
before development.
2. Geological sections.
2.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 12 24/02/2012 21:29
13 The Arup Journal 1/2012
2.8Mm
3
of soil
removed
800 trucks/day
for two years
Temporary strut
Top-down slab at ground level
Top-down slab at lower level
103m
Excavation
depths (m)
18
12
11
11
15
21
18
18
18
25
25
35
N N
18
11
15
120m
120m
130m
4.
Semi-circular Peanut
Circular DCS box
5.
Under the main podium area, covering the
Sands Expo and Convention Center (MICE),
casino, retail, theatres and ArtScience
Museum, there is a marine clay deposit, up
to 35m thick at the southern end, which thins
toward the north (Fig 2, A-A, B-B). On the
eastern side, where the hotel, district cooling
system, and DTL1 extension are located, the
soft marine deposit is some 10m thick,
except at the northern and southern end
where deep valleys in the OA are
encountered (Fig 2, C-C).
Circular diaphr agm walls for
minimum str utting
To overcome the challenges of the bulk
excavation and minimise shoring in the
diffcult soil environments, Arup’s
excavation design included fve huge
reinforced concrete cofferdams:
• two circular, 120m diameter, in the
MICE area
• one circular, 103m diameter, and one
twin-celled and peanut-shaped, 75m
diameter, in the hotel area
• one semi-circular, 65m radius, in the
ArtScience Museum area.
Each circular cofferdam was a dry enclosure,
within which excavation and subsequent
construction could be carried out without the
need for conventional temporary support.
The only constraint was that excavation
within a cofferdam must take place before
excavation outside (Figs 3-5).
The 120m diameter cofferdams were among
the largest ever deployed both by Arup and
in Singapore generally, and notable for their
excavation depth – down to 18m below
ground (Fig 6). They allowed work to
progress across the site simultaneously.
The design of the north cofferdam in
conjunction with a steel truss system to the
perimeter diaphragm walls at the MICE area
allowed independent excavation between
there and the casino and theatre areas to the
north. The single-layer steel truss/strut
system enabled the 11m deep excavation to
be completed outside the two cofferdams in
the MICE area.
3.
6.
3. Aerial view of MBS site showing
positions of cofferdams.
4. Excavation depths.
5. Minimal strutting.
6. Excavation in 120m diameter
circular cofferdam.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 13 24/02/2012 21:29
14 The Arup Journal 1/2012
After various considerations, it was decided
that the practical way forward was to design
the B2 slab to act as a continuous support
between the two retaining walls on the
west and east sides, which then allowed
excavation to B4 and construction of the
substructure and superstructure above B2 to
proceed concurrently. These two activities
proceeding simultaneously gave
considerable time savings (Figs 10a-d).
Continuously reinforced
diaphr agm wall for DCS box
For energy effciency, the Singapore
Government required MBS to incorporate
a district cooling system (DCS), its plant
housed in a deep reinforced box east of the
theatre area (Fig 11). Shear walls constructed
with the DCS box enabled unhindered bulk
excavation across the theatre area to the
west. Within the DCS box, the team used
partial “top-down” excavation within
minimum temporary strutting. The DCS box
also doubled as a retaining structure for the
deepest excavation in the DTL1 tunnel
where a deep valley of soft marine clay is
present. As the theatre structures are isolated
from the rest of the development, the DCS
box has to permanently support the lateral
loads from the ground to the east of the
DTL1 tunnel.
The large shear forces to be transferred into
the underlying OA needed continuously
reinforced diaphragm walls, and to achieve
this support, three east-west shear walls were
constructed (Fig 12). Each is 1.5m thick and
about 50m long, and comprises a series of
“male” (6.4m) and “female” panels (3.0m).
To ensure continuity, the shorter female
DTL1 Retail area
Prop
Sea
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
Casino area
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
DTL1
B2M B2M
L1
L1
L1
B2M
B2
B2
B4
Retail area
Sea
Casino area
DTL1 Retail area
Sea
Casino area DTL1 Retail area
Sea
Casino area
10.
a) Excavate to basement B2M level and cast B2M slab with temporary prop.
c) Complete excavation and cast B4 slab.
b) Partially excavate to B4 and complete B2 slab at retail.
d) Complete structure.
Due to the vicinity of the East Coast
Parkway, innovative use of the peanut-
shaped diaphragm wall, without any
crosswall above excavation level, enabled
unhindered bulk excavation of the
breakwater mole that had been buried
during previous reclamation (Fig 7).
Parts of the diaphragm walls of the two hotel
cofferdams doubled as permanent hotel
basement walls and loadbearing elements for
the hotel towers. The remaining parts of
these walls, and both the 120m diameter
cofferdam diaphragm walls, had to be
removed down to the excavation level by
“wire cutting” them into liftable blocks
before removal (Fig 8).
Top-down constr uction in the casino area
As the layer of soft marine clay is generally
thinner in the northern part of the site, to
create the four-level basement in the casino
area a top-down excavation method with
minimum temporary props was used, in
conjunction with a simultaneous top-down
excavation in the adjacent DTL1 tunnel area.
7. Model for hotel twin-cell
cofferdam (“peanut”) in the
SAP2000 program.
8. Diaphragm walls removed to
excavation level.
9. Excavation in semi-circular
cofferdam.
10. Excavation sequence in casino
and retail areas.
7.
8m wide, 15m deep
cantilever fn walls
Crosswall
9.
8.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 14 24/02/2012 21:29
15 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Shear walls
North podium
(theatre)
DCS box
DTL1 SMRT tunnel
Cooling tower
Benjamin Shears
Bridge
1
2
3
4
5
N
3
2
5
4
1

DCS box
14.
13.
12. 15.
16.
17.
11. Construction in the theatre area,
showing the adjacent DCS box.
12. Locations of shear walls.
13. Construction of shear wall.
14. Elevation of south end of
Benjamin Sheares Bridge.
15. Method of allowing articulation
between pier and deck.
16. 1.8m high adjustable shear pin.
17. Section on plan of adjustable
shear pin.
11.
Pier 22
MBS site
South abutment
Benjamin
Sheares Bridge
south abutment
DCS
box
Connection at
pier 22, originally
fixed but now
made adjustable
Pier 21
N
D
T
L
1

S
M
R
T

t
u
n
n
e
l
panels are cast with steel end plates on both
ends, leaving about 1.5m of reinforcement
bars unconcreted at each end for future
lapping with the subsequent male panel
reinforcement (Fig 13). While this type
of wall is relatively common in Taiwan,
this was Arup’s frst experience with
it elsewhere.
Managing the impact of excavation on the
Benjamin Sheares Br idge
Excavation within the deeper end of the
DTL1 tunnel adjacent to the Benjamin
Sheares Bridge (Fig 14) was carried out
using a stiff temporary strutted T-shape
diaphragm wall and the DCS box.
Inevitably, lateral ground movement would
affect the bridge and calculations showed
that this would overstress the shear
connections between piers and deck.
The existing fxed shear pins between the
deck and the southernmost pier (22) were
therefore replaced by fewer, but adjustable,
pins (Figs 15-17). Periodic adjustment of
these enabled the last section of the bridge
deck to articulate in plan and rendered the
whole bridge tolerant of the ground
movement inevitably caused by the deep
excavation for MBS and the DTL1 tunnel.
Conclusion
The basement structure was completed in
2009. Arup’s innovative approach to the
excavation design in these diffcult site and
time constraints set a benchmark for future
large-scale excavations both within
Singapore and elsewhere.
Underside
of deck
Pier 21
Deck
crossbeam
Pier
crosshead
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 15 24/02/2012 21:29
16 The Arup Journal 1/2012 1.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 16 24/02/2012 21:29
17 The Arup Journal 1/2012
2.
3.
a)
b)
c)
1.
The hotel towers
Unique and complex geometr ies
Each of the three 55-storey hotel towers has
its unique geometry, with varying curvatures
on their east sides. The combination of these
curvatures and the buildings’ verticality on
the west side creates an open continuous
space within that links all three towers,
forming a grand atrium at ground level.
It was essential to create a realistic 3-D
analysis model that was capable of
representing the towers’ complex behaviour,
including deformation, wind-induced
movement, and stresses between elements,
and so the design team used building
information modelling (BIM) extensively
to resolve the many co-ordination and
documentation issues that arose from the
unique and complex geometries (Fig 2).
Loading
Unlike most high-rise towers, the primary
lateral stability demands on the MBS hotel
towers 1 and 2 are induced by gravity loads.
The dramatic curve of the eastern halves
creates overturning forces due to gravity
loads in the short direction that overshadow
those due to wind or notional loads.
The assumed material properties had to be
given particular attention, since these lateral
loads are permanent, not transient as is
usually the case with wind loads.
The primary lateral system in the towers
consists of the reinforced concrete shear
walls between the rooms and the concrete
cores around the elevators. The walls and
cores provide stiffness in the short direction,
while the cores and sway action between
walls and slabs supply longitudinal
resistance (Fig 3).
Authors
Rudi Lioe Wijaya Wong
2. CAD model of complete MBS
structural framing.
3. 3-D analysis models and
structural system:
a) ETABS models for checking the
overall stability of the hotel towers at
early stages of design;
b) GSA model for checking overall
stability of hotel tower, at transfer
of design from Arup Boston to
Arup Singapore;
c) CAD model of an early design
stage for the SkyPark (truss system).
The Sands Hotel and Sands SkyPark
Elevator core walls
provide stability in
X-direction.
Typical support wall
provides stability in
Y-direction.
Intermediate wall and
return walls with link
beams for sloping leg
stability in X-direction.
Y
Z
X
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 17 24/02/2012 21:29
18 The Arup Journal 1/2012
In each tower, the link trusses on level 23,
which accommodates the plantroom, fulfl
a vital role (Fig 4). Without them, the two
walls would act independently and
signifcant differential displacement would
occur across the corridor at the upper levels.
This would have resulted in unacceptable
cracking and out-of-level foors. The use of
embedded steel sections with shear studs
enables the forces to be effectively
transferred from the external braces to the
wall elements. The sectional geometries of
the truss elements were also sized to ft
within the wall thickness.
As self-weight was the factor driving the
lateral demands on the structures, it was
prudent to adopt a foor system that offered
the lightest overall structural weight.
The foors were therefore designed in
post-tensioned concrete with a maximum
span of 10m. This arrangement eliminated
the need for internal columns and provided
the lightest combination of horizontal and
vertical structure.
Movements
The asymmetrical geometry meant that
lateral movement is induced not only by
lateral load but also by gravity load.
As this behaviour was critical both during
construction and after completion, the
following tower movements were observed
and carefully studied:
• angular rotation at the tops
• maximum defection on elevations
(vertical and lateral)
• differential settlement between straight
and sloping walls
• differential settlement between adjacent
wall bays
• differential movement between the towers,
which would affect the behaviour of the
SkyPark.
Short-term movements due to self-weight
were offset by applying precamber during
construction. As the completed towers are
expected to continue deforming sideways
due to their geometry, concrete creep, and
shrinkage effects before converging in 30
years’ time, this was factored into the early
design of the various building services such
as the vertical transportation system,
building enclosure, MEP services, etc.
Detailed analysis provided an estimate of the
short-term and long-term movements of the
towers, and a corresponding specifcation
was prepared to assist contractors in the
selection and detailed design of the affected
fnishes and services (Figs 6-8).
Constr uction
Building the very inclined towers 1 and 2
proved to be another challenge, as this was
impossible without massive temporary
works. Rigorous studies early in the design
stage to assess the available construction
options concluded that it would be very
costly, if not practically impossible, to
construct the towers without introducing
lock-in stresses on the structures, and so
reasonable lock-in stresses were considered
in the designs of the key structural elements.
Subsequently, a performance-based
specifcation was prepared to give tenderers
the fexibility to provide their preferred
temporary works system while limiting the
lock-in stresses in the key elements.
For towers 1 and 2, the main contractor and
specialist advisor together devised a
temporary works system combining post-
tensioned and steel strutting systems.
The latter were installed to prop the sloping
walls against the straight walls so as to
limit movement, while a series of vertical
post-tensioned tendons were provided in
the walls to control the lock-in stresses
(Figs 9-11). As tower 3 had an almost
vertical geometry, it could be constructed
without any temporary works.
At the various construction stages, further
thorough analysis was performed to estimate
the stresses and movements, to ensure
compliance with the design intent.
A real-time monitoring system was
implemented during construction to
monitor the actual stress level and
movement. If this differed from what was
predicted, a back-analysis was carried out.
4. Tower 1 link trusses.
5. Tower 1 link trusses under
construction.
4.
5.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 18 24/02/2012 21:29
19 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Differential settlement
between straight
and curved wall
Angular rotation at
the top of the tower
Differential
settlement between
adjacent wall bays
(X
2
, X
3
, Y
2
, Y
3
similar)
A
B
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4 4
Y
1
X
1
X
2
X
3
Y
3
F
C
Maximum ␦ on
elevation

1

3
D

2
E
Y
2

A
B


B

A
L
1
= 30m (Tower 1)
Vertical core Sloping core
Prop 1
L25
L23
L21
L15
L1
B3
Prop 2
Prop 3
Movement joint
Directional guided
bearing
Fixed bearing
Tower 1
Tower 2
Bridge
Cantilever
Bridge
Tower 3
6. Defection stage of tower 1.
7. Angular rotation at top of tower.
8. Movement joints between towers
and SkyPark.
9. Wall post-tensioned tendons.
10. Cross-section through lower part
of tower 1 showing temporary
strutting.
11. Tower 1 under construction.
6. 8.
9.
10.
11.
7.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 19 24/02/2012 21:29
20 The Arup Journal 1/2012
1.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 20 24/02/2012 21:29
21 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Hotel atrium walls
Introduction
The unique and complex geometry by which
all three 55-storey hotel towers splay out
towards their bases creates an equally unique
set of open spaces between them, with the
walls on the inner sides of the towers linking
these open spaces to form the grand Sands
Hotel atrium (Fig 1). This begins at a height
of approximately 20 storeys at tower 1
(south end), and angles down to around six
storeys at tower 3. Its width also decreases,
from approximately 40m in tower 1 to
20m in tower 2 to 10m in tower 3.
The integrated design of the atrium was
aimed at ensuring the highest standards of
safety and comfort as well as a remarkable
aesthetic experience for guests of the Sands
Hotel. This article mainly focuses on the
structural design of the atrium walls.
Natural light is brought in through the roofed
glass atrium walls between the towers, while
inside, air-conditioning creates thermal
comfort. In elevation, the tallest atrium walls
extend out of tower 1 at the southernmost
end (Fig 2), with the top lines sloping down
to the walls between towers 2 and 3.
Following the towers’ body surfaces, the
profle of the linking atrium walls integrates
visually with them. The west side vertical
atrium walls are also externally decorated
with wind arbors designed by Ned Khan
1

(Fig 3), the constant movement of which
furnishes a special visual experience.
3.
2.
Authors
Brendon McNiven Xiaofeng Wu
1. The Sands Hotel atrium, looking north
from the main entrance.
2. Atrium walls extending from tower 1,
each side of the main entrance.
3. Wind arbors designed by Ned Kahn on
west atrium wall.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 21 24/02/2012 21:29
22 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Hotel
tower 1
Porte-cochère
south side walls
Porte-cochère
south end wall
Tower 1 west side glazing
Porte-cochère south canopy
Vertical walls
Horizontal canopy/
enclosures
Hotel
tower 2
Hotel
tower 3
Escalator enclosure
Atrium piazza pavilion
Escalator enclosure
Tower 2 west side glazing
Tower 3 west side glazing
Atrium west wall
Atrium west wall
Atrium east wall
Atrium east wall
Porte-cochère
north end wall
Porte-cochère
north end canopy
B
A
C
D
E
N
Str ucture
The atrium walls (Figs 4, 6) are framed with
aesthetic and structurally effcient steel
trusses connected by horizontal transoms,
with rectangular hollow sections used as the
main structural members. The layout of the
trusses was arranged to achieve modulation
with the glass panels, so as to enable
economical and fast construction.
Except for the atrium walls on the south side
of tower 1, which extend out from the tower
shear walls suspended from the roof above
(Figs 2, 6C), the other walls between the
three tower blocks span vertically from
ground level to the steel truss roofs above
(Figs 6A, B, D, E). The maximum span is
47m in the wall trusses between towers 1
and 2 (Figs 6B, E), with a minimum span of
27m between towers 2 and 3 (Figs 6A, D).
The trusses are pin-connected at the bottom
by cast-in base plates, and vertical slot holes
are provided at the connections between the
roof trusses to allow relative vertical
movements. The glass panels are supported
by T-shaped transoms which are tied by
double stainless steel rods to the primary
horizontal RHS transoms.
Besides carrying loading from the glazing,
the horizontal RHS transoms play an
essential role as the lateral stability system
of the wall trusses. In the west side vertical
walls (Figs 6A, B), the horizontal RHS
transoms are pin-connected on the south side
to the tower shear walls.
Horizontal slot holes are provided on the
north side connections with the tower shear
walls to allow relative lateral movement of
the towers as well as movement of the walls
due to thermal effects. The boundary
conditions are the same in the east side walls
(Figs 6D, E), but the mechanism is different
due to the inclined architectural layout.
Horizontal RHS transoms act with CHS
braces to form closed triangular load paths
as the lateral stability system.
The glass panels and the primary and
secondary steel elements were produced in
factories and transported to site for erection.
The base plates at ground level and the tower
shear walls were cast in situ. The modulation
of supply and design of the glass panels and
trusses facilitated a speedy, effcient and
economic construction of the atrium walls.
Reference
(1) http://nedkahn.com
4.
5.
4. Layout plan of atrium walls in
relation to hotel towers.
5. The vertical west atrium wall
between towers 1 and 2.
6. Atrium wall structures:
A, B west side; C south side;
D, E east side.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 22 24/02/2012 21:29
23 The Arup Journal 1/2012
A
B
C
D
E
Tower 1
shear walls
Tower 1
shear walls
Steel truss
roof
Tower 3
Tower 3
T-shaped
transoms tied
by double rods
Tower 2
Tower 2
Atrium wall extending out from tower 1 (south side).
Atrium wall between towers 2 and 3 (west side). Atrium wall between towers 2 and 3 (east side).
Steel truss
roof
Steel truss
roof
T-shaped transoms
tied by double rods
Horizontal
RHS transoms
Horizontal RHS
transoms
Horizontal CHS
braces
Tower 2
Tower 2
Tower 1
T-shaped
transoms tied
by double rods
Tower 1
Atrium wall between towers 1 and 2 (west side). Atrium wall between towers 1 and 2 (east side).
Steel truss
roof
Horizontal
RHS transoms
T-shaped transoms
tied by double rods
Horizontal
RHS transoms
Horizontal
CHS braces
6.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 23 24/02/2012 21:29
24 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Introduction
The 38m wide and 340m long Sands
SkyPark (Figs 1, 2) is the world’s longest
habitable cantilevered observation deck, and
has now become a symbolic icon for
Singapore. Covering more than 1ha and as
long as four and a half Airbus A380s, the
SkyPark sits atop the three 55-storey towers
of the Sands Hotel and includes facilities
such as landscaped gardens, signature
restaurants, an infnity pool (ie where the
water appears to have no boundary) covering
nearly 1400m
2
and containing 1.4M litres of
water (Fig 3), and a 66.5m cantilevered
viewing platform that offers visitors a 360˚
view of the city. Over 7000 tonnes of steel
was used in the SkyPark’s construction.
The Sands SkyPark
1.
2.
Authors
Brian Mak Brendon McNiven
Wijaya Wong
1. The completed Sands SkyPark.
2. CAD model of SkyPark.
3. Infnity pool.
4. Underside of the completed
SkyPark between hotel towers.
5. Structural layout of SkyPark,
showing movement joints.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 24 24/02/2012 21:29
25 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Tower 2
4.65m/6.15m
Tower 2
Steel frame with
columns at 10m c/c
Steel frame with
columns at 10m c/c
66.5m
cantilever
Tower 3
Box girder
Movement joint
Truss
4.65m/6.15m
10m
4.
Str uctur al design
The SkyPark consists of a steel frame with
composite slab for fooring above towers 1
and 2 (Fig 5). The bridge sections, spanning
over 50m between the towers, each comprise
three longitudinal steel trusses, with cross-
girder beams supporting the composite deck
at approximately 4m centres. The central lift
cores of each hotel tower penetrate through
the SkyPark to provide – in addition to
access for users – comprehensive lateral
restraint through their connection to the steel
structure combined with the diaphragm
action of the composite slab.
A major challenge was to cater for the
natural movements of the towers upon which
the SkyPark was to be supported, and this
was met through the design and construction
of fve distinct joined plates.
The movement joint strategy (Fig 5) was to
split the SkyPark into three zones that
correspond to the hotel towers, and isolate
each portion laterally. The SkyPark elements
are fully articulated to allow for differential
movement of the towers under gravity, wind
and seismic loads, and form the bridge
trusses already noted between the towers.
While simply supported, the bridge bearings
are provided with special ties to hold each
deck in place in the event of an earthquake.
Another signifcant challenge was to
formulate a design that allowed for safe and
easy erection so high above the ground, and
this was achieved through a combination of
bridge and building technology. Though the
structural form of the SkyPark has more in
common with typical bridge structures than
with buildings, it was designed to BS5950
1

as implemented in Singapore. However,
BS5950 does not include clauses to cover all
of the relevant structural checks which had
to be carried out. Specifcally, it requires that
reference be made to BS5400: Part 3
2
for the
design of longitudinally stiffened webs and
compression elements, and so the design is
referenced to BS5400-3.
Additionally, BS5950 is not expected to
cover adequately restraint of compression
fanges by U-frame action and design of
box girder support diaphragms. To achieve a
safe and effcient design, verifcation of the
steel box girder thus follows BS5400-3
as implemented in Singapore, with
modifcations of the partial safety factor on
design load (γ
fL
) to BS5950 and the safety
factor on design resistance (γ
m
) to BS5400.
3.
5.
a)
b)
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 25 24/02/2012 21:29
26 The Arup Journal 1/2012
The cantilever str ucture
The most challenging aspect to the design
team was the cantilever that extends 66.5m
and 200m above the ground from tower 3,
and much time and analytical effort was
spent by Arup’s bridge and dynamics
specialists to understand its complex
behaviour under wind and human excitation
(dancing, etc).
The team considered several options for its
design (Fig 6), and fnally chose a post-
tensioned box girder solution. As a result,
the cantilever’s structure comprises a pair of
variable depth box girders with longitudinal
stiffeners in both fanges and webs, and
intermediate transverse web stiffeners.
The maximum depth of the box girders is
10m at the end support from tower 3;
otherwise the box girders are generally
3.55m deep (Fig 7).
Main box girder
66.5m cantilever
4m wide x 3.55-10m
deep box girder
Cantilever segments
1
Column support
2 3 4 5 6
1.25m-1.75m deep transverse
place girder at 4.2m c/c
175mm-225mm thick
composite deck slab
A 3-D analysis model was created in the
OASYS GSA v8.2 program
3
to model the
main steel structures over tower 3 and the
cantilever (Fig 8), beam elements being used
to model the steel girders and the cross-
members. For the longitudinal prestressed
box girder, the element centre is offset to the
centroid of the section such that the bending
due to prestress eccentricity is incorporated.
Since a movement joint separates this
structure from the bridge section between
towers 2 and 3, the bridge section was
modelled separately and the reaction force
from it put back to this model for further
analysis. For simplicity, the upper deck
structure also was not included in this
model (loading from the upper deck
structure is applied as a grid area load on
this model for analysis).
To account for the fexibility of the shear
wall supporting the SkyPark columns, their
supports were modelled as a spring with
vertical stiffness equal to that of the shear
wall below.
A local fnite element model using 2-D
plate elements was created using Strand7
software
4
to determine the load path and
local stress at the diaphragm and adjacent
web/fange panels (Figs 9, 10).
Crossbeams and transverse stiffeners were
also included in this model, while translation
and rotation restraints were calibrated with
the global GSA model. Tendons with
prestressed forces were modelled using
beam elements and offset from the top
fange, and loading at the crossbeams and
ends of the cantilever beam were extracted
from the global GSA model and applied at
the corresponding location.
6. 8.
7.
a)
b)
Scheme 1: Space truss constructed from I-sections
Scheme 2: Raised landscape deck alternative
Scheme 3: Box girders with crossbeam
Scheme 4: Post-tensioned box girder (fnal scheme)
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 26 24/02/2012 21:29
27 The Arup Journal 1/2012
6. Design evolution of cantilever
section.
7. Cantilever elevation a) and
plan b).
8. GSA global model.
9. Ultimate limit state moment
envelope in east girder a);
shear envelope in east girder b).
10. Isometric of support diaphragm
fnite element model (near-side
web plate not shown).
11. Support diaphragm: Checking of
support diaphragm with opening a);
relationship between support
diaphragm and tendon b).
Dynamic behaviour
A fourth challenge was, as already noted,
the dynamics of the SkyPark in response to
strong winds and vibration caused by people
movement. The structure’s dynamic
properties were particularly hard to predict
as the SkyPark incorporates so many
structural elements and architectural fnishes,
all of which make their contribution.
Large tuned mass dampers, acting in a
similar manner to shock absorbers, were
incorporated within the structure’s belly,
and large-scale vibration tests were
conducted to verify the design.
Using linear dynamic analysis in the Strand7
program, the team investigated in detail the
cantilever’s behaviour when subjected to
dynamic loads from human activities and
wind loads. This fnite element model was
based on the static analysis model, but
9.
10.
11.
a)
b)
a)
b)
Diaphragm
Access
opening
Vertical stress
from tendon
deviation
Prestress
tendon
Base plate
incorporated several changes so as to
correctly model the structure’s dynamic
behaviour. To improve the response of the
cantilever under dancing crowds, the box
girder taper near the tip was reduced, thereby
stiffening the second bending mode of the
structure. This modifcation gave a
signifcant improvement in performance for
dancing crowds and some reduction in wind
load response. The team also advised the
client that management control is required
for “vandal load” (a small group of highly
co-ordinated and vigorous dancers).
The design predictions for the SkyPark’s
dynamic performance were based on various
assumptions in terms of structural properties,
the forces applied by people, and the effect
of a crowd on the structure. To confrm the
performance of the completed cantilever,
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 27 24/02/2012 21:29
28 The Arup Journal 1/2012
purposes, and then the main lift to the top of
the tower began the following day. Once it
was fully raised, the section was slid into the
designated position for fnal fxing.
At the rate of 15m per hour for each lift, it
took almost a whole day for each section to
be lifted and placed in position. After each
segment was lifted, a fve-day interval
ensued for fxings between the components,
measurements, tightening bolts, touching up
paintwork, etc, before the process began all
over again with the next.
Special arrangements were required for the
main box girders, as the lift was paused at
60m above ground so as to align the eastern
box girder to the fnal orientation. This was
due to the shape of the base of tower 3.
A movable lifting gantry was fxed at the
secondary beams between the main box
girders, a method that is normally used in
bridge construction for lifting
cantilevered elements.
Including temporary steelwork, over 7000
tonnes was hoisted 200m above ground in
13 weeks, a great achievement for both the
design and construction teams.
a programme of dynamic tests was carried
out on 24-27 May 2010. This included
measuring the modal properties of the
structure in addition to vibration response
measurements of individuals and groups
walking, jumping, and dancing (Figs 12-14).
These tests were also intended to give the
MBS Operations and other stakeholders the
opportunity to experience the vibration
levels and comment on their acceptability.
All were deemed positive and acceptable,
but it was recommended that use of the
SkyPark cantilever for dancing events be
carefully managed to ensure adequate
comfort levels.
Fabr ication
Steel plates varying in thickness from 6mm
to 150mm were used for the structure.
For the cantilever support, 1.2m diameter
columns with various wall thicknesses
– 30mm, 40mm, 50mm, and 63mm – were
purpose-designed. Normalised plates were
bent with longitudinal welds to form the
column geometry, and were subsequently
stress-relieved to meet the design
requirements. To pre-empt possible logistical
issues, typical segments of approximately
50 tonnes each were fabricated and
delivered to site for assembly, and trial
assembly of steel girders was carried out to
confrm their confguration and geometry.
Erection
Erection of the steelwork for the SkyPark
was completed at the end of December
2009. To meet the challenge of the vertical
lift, Arup bridge engineering experts
contributed ideas from the conceptual design
stage onwards. At workshops attended by
the design and construction teams, team
members comprehensively discussed the
method and lifting procedure, along with
numerous reviews of the method statement
and proposal to ensure safe construction of
the SkyPark.
The six bridge trusses (each weighing
approximately 400 tonnes), two box girders
(each approximately 700 tonnes) and the
cantilevered parts (six sections, each
approximately 200 tonnes) were all
assembled at ground level prior to the lift.
Once assembled, each of these 14 major
sections was then raised a few hundred
millimetres above ground for monitoring
a) Bridge trusses. c) Cantilever sections.
12.
13.
14. 15.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 28 24/02/2012 21:30
29 The Arup Journal 1/2012
References
(1) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS5950:
1990. Structural use of steelwork in building. Design in
composite construction. Code of practice for design of
simple and continuous composite beams. BSI, 1990.
(2) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS5400:
Part 3: 2000. Steel, concrete and composite bridges.
Code of practice for design of steel bridges. BSI, 2000.
(3) www.oasys-software.com
(4) www.strand7.com
12-14. Around 120 people at the tip
of the cantilever for dynamic testing.
15. Erection sequence of the 14
major sections.
16. Erection of bridge truss.
17. Erection of box girders.
18. Cantilever under construction.
19. Completed Sands SkyPark
(overleaf).
16.
17. 18.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 29 24/02/2012 21:30
30 The Arup Journal 1/2012
• 340m long from the northern tip
to the south end
• maximum width: 40m
• 66.5m long cantilever
(application to Guinness World
Records in process)
• public observation deck at RL
295, 191m above ground level
• highest public area at RL 299,
195m above ground level
• 7692 tonnes of permanent
steelwork
• 4413 tons of temporary steelwork
used in construction
• 146m long infnity edge to
swimming pool
• three pools containing
1.42M litres of water
• 500 trees up to 8m tall, selected
for hardiness and suitability for
the constant breeze at the
SkyPark elevation
• 2200m
3
of soil, weighing
3300 tonnes
• estimated weight of aluminium
hull cladding: 350 tonnes
• total weight of lifted sections for
cantilever: 2600 tons
• heavy lifting gantries: 1905 tons
• length of strand cable used in
strand jacking operations: 77km
• heavy lifting of 14 segments
completed in just under 13 weeks
• approximately 200 tons of bolts
used in steelwork.
Sands SkyPar k facts:
19.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 30 24/02/2012 21:30
31 The Arup Journal 1/2012
The podium
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 31 24/02/2012 21:30
32 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Canopies
Theatres
Casino
MICE facility
View corridors
0 100m
N
The podium roofs
Introduction
Technically challenging like every part of
the Marina Bay Sands development, three
separate long-span roofs enclose the podium
buildings: the casino, the theatres, and the
state-of-the-art Sands Expo and Convention
Center (MICE facility) (Figs 1, 2).
The roofs span up to 120m and have highly
individual, stepped, wave-form surfaces.
In addition, the retail arcade that extends
along the western side of the podium is
sheltered by lightweight steel canopy
structures, cable-stayed back to the concrete
podium. Erection of the roof steelwork
commenced in April 2009 and was
completed by the end of that year.
Design of the podium roofs
The podium roofs have highly complex
geometries, the fundamental elements of
their form and shape being based on
Euclidean geometry, such as how arcs are
derived from toroidal surfaces. The architect
cleverly pushed and pulled these seemingly
independent geometries together into an
overall form that appears to be vastly more
complex than the sum of its original
components (Fig 3). The concept of using
developable geometry was very important to
the design team, not only for enhancing
understanding of the structure, but also to
help its constructability.
Supporting the greatest surface area of each
of the three roof structures is a spine truss,
curved in elevation and in plan. Over long
spans, the latter can induce large overturning
moments, but this effect is effciently
combated by the rotational stiffness of the
secondary roof trusses connected either side.
These are 2-D planar in nature and, with
spans of 120m maximum, vary in depth from
4m at the springing points to 8m at their
centres. The span lengths were fnely
balanced between the architect’s desire to
1.
2.
Author
Juan Maier Brendon McNiven
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 32 29/02/2012 20:26
33 The Arup Journal 1/2012
3.
4.
5.
1. Plan showing those elements of
Marina Bay Sands that are covered
by the podium roofs and canopies.
2. Structure of the roofs and
canopies.
3. Roof geometry developed from
surfaces of a torus.
4. Stability of spine truss.
5. MICE facility roof under
construction.
maximise clear span openings and the need
to maintain an effcient structure. To match
the building form, all the roof trusses are
curved in elevation, “concave up” (CU) to
the west of the spine truss, and “concave
down” (CD) to the east (Fig 4).
Lateral stability is maintained by forming a
continuous diaphragm plane of cross-bracing
along the CU side. On the CD side, which
features the stepping wave form surface, a
continuous line of bracing could not be
established, so various patterns were
investigated for optimal lateral stability.
Since the continuous diaphragm on the
CU side provides most of the roof’s lateral
stability, an effcient bracing pattern for the
CD side could be achieved by limiting the
bracing to every second bay with only
discreet fy-bracing members stabilising the
unbraced bays back to the braced bays.
Steel section sizing was rigorously
optimised, with the aim of minimising the
roofs’ total self-weight and thus the total cost
of structural steel, while still complying with
BS5950. This was accomplished by writing
customised software, linked directly with
Arup’s in-house structural analysis platform
GSA, that frstly read the forces and
moments of every element in the analysis
model, then calculated the utilisation ratio
of the elements, and fnally evaluated the
element’s utilisation ratio based on
predefned acceptance criteria. If the element
did not fall within the acceptance range, the
program selected a new section size for it
from a predefned pool of section sizes.
This process was reiterated until all the
elements fell within the acceptance range.
Using this program had the added beneft of
helping to automate the analysis and design.
For example, the 10 000+ elements of the
MICE roof analysis model would have been
close to impossible to design using
traditional methods.
Spine truss
Smooth surface
Stepped surface
Concave up
(CU) truss
Concave down
(CD) truss
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 33 24/02/2012 21:30
34 The Arup Journal 1/2012
The canopies
The lightweight, tension-stayed canopies
(Fig 6) are also geometrically complex and
doubly curved. Fabricated steel box rafters,
up to 1m deep, form their ribs, with RHS
cross-members running transversely to
provide lateral stability through moment-
frame action. The rafters are in turn
supported by tension stays from a system
of Macalloy bars and carefully placed tall
tubular masts. The largest canopy is nearly
as large as a soccer pitch, measuring 45m
x 90m in plan.
At three locations along the retail
promenade, the canopies are linked by
pedestrian footbridges of varying lengths.
These are double tied arches, spanning up
to 70m over the concrete podium structure.
Their design was complicated by being
curved in plan; the tied arches on either side
of each bridge have different spans, thus
creating differential stiffness across the deck.
Since the canopies are extremely light and
fexible, they tend to exhibit non-linear
behaviour, so elaborate analyses were carried
out. First, a full second-order non-linear
analysis of the structure was undertaken, and
then used in combination with a custom-built
software program, written specifcally for
these canopies. It iteratively determined the
required pre-tensioning level of the
Macalloy bars so that under full dead and
superimposed dead load, there would be no
net downward defection at the points where
the tension stays connect to the rafters.
The non-linear analysis model also
considered slenderness effects, and adjusted
the elements’ stiffness in the model based on
the axial loads they attracted, thus permitting
elastic buckling behaviour to be observed.
Secondly, the team undertook a full buckling
analysis of all the critical load cases to
determine the buckling load factors and
corresponding buckling mode shapes.
These shapes could then be correlated to a
set of initial imperfections in the canopy
structure so as to determine moment
amplifcation factors and apply them to the
results of the earlier non-linear analysis,
so as to evaluate the structure’s susceptibility
to buckling. The amplifcation factors used
were inversely proportional to the buckling
load factors and directly related to the
magnitude of initial imperfection represented
by the buckled mode shapes.
3-D integr ated design and documentation
An innovative aspect of this project was the
integrated use of 3-D modelling in all facets
of design, analysis and documentation.
Early in the design, Arup began an open
dialogue with shop detailing frms and
fabricators to obtain best practice advice on
preferred detailing and fabrication processes.
The team produced full 3-D models of the
steel structures as a basis to beginning a shop
drawing model that would later be issued as
part of a construction set of documents to the
appointed fabricator/contractor. This same
model was used for the analysis, design and
documentation of 2-D drawings, and for
co-ordination and collaboration with the
architect and other consultants. All this was
critical, as it would have been nearly
impossible to develop, analyse/design or
build structures with this level of complexity
with only 2-D documentation (Fig 7).
Parametric modelling was also used to great
advantage, especially during design
development. Software such as Bentley’s
GenerativeComponents enabled the roof
structures to be modelled with predefned
variables to allow for future modifcations
where necessary. This parametric model
could then be integrated into the 3-D design
and documentation to permit rapid
modifcation of the geometry. With the
parametric relationships already set up, the
new geometry could be easily incorporated
into the existing structural analysis model.
Any resulting changes in member section
sizes, along with the new geometry, were
6.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 34 24/02/2012 21:30
35 The Arup Journal 1/2012
top and bottom points. A vertical custom jig
permitted ft-up welds to align the masts,
followed by sequence welding to complete
the sections. Additionally, the complex
geometry also required special compound
and profle cutting of sections, heavy
bending of tapered or curved members, and
implementation of cross stiffener plates
through boxed up sections.
To meet the fast-track construction
programme, 24-hour/day fabrication was
implemented, with continuous shifts of
dedicated fabrication manpower.
These included engineers, supervisors,
ftters, welders, grinders, and QA/QC, NDT
(non-destructive test) and ITA (independent
inspection and testing agency) personnel.
All of this helped to achieve the highest
possible quality in the fnal product.
Erection
The fabricators spent much time pre-
planning every work phase, so that the
segments comprising the structure were as
easy as possible to handle, store, transport,
and install. They studied all possible site
access, storage space and cranage capacity
before deciding how the segments would be
sized, and transport companies were
consulted over delivery routes that might
limit their dimensions. All were trial-ftted at
the factory, as well as any adjustments or
modifcations so as to save time during
erection and installation. The cranes’ size
and capacity were predetermined, and
checks made on crane parking locations to
ensure adequate capacity during lifting.
Lifting lugs were pre-welded to segments in
the factory after determining the lifting
points from the segment’s centre of gravity.
This greatly saved time during erection as it
avoided the need to fnd the centre of gravity
by trial and error on site. Erection clips, to
ensure the segments were aligned and ftted
precisely together, were also pre-welded on
to reduce erection time, and bolted
connections were used wherever possible.
Where welding was required, it was greatly
speeded up through the use of FCAW
(fux-cored arc welding). This needs only
limited protection in windy environments –
a major concern at locations near the sea.
3-D documentation
Rhino
Architect
Fabrication
model
Bentley GenerativeComponents
Parametric model
Bentley Structural TriForma
Documentation model
2-D documentation
GSA
Structural analysis
optimisation
6. Completed canopies.
7. 3-D design process.
8. Tubular mast being fabricated.
directly translated into 2-D and 3-D
documentation. This innovative workfow
saved much time in redrawing the model
each time a modifcation, either small or
large, was made.
Fabr ication
In addition to the head start the fabricators
gained in their shop drawing workfow
process from the 3-D models, Arup also
prepared a schedule of both open and closed
section profles for each of the members
in the podium roof structures (ie I-section
vs circular hollow section profles).
Fabricators could then choose the best
profle type to maximise cost-effectiveness,
procurement strategy, lead time, and
fabrication process. For the complex
doubly-curved spine trusses, the fabricators
preferred hollow section profles to open
I-sections. Conversely, for the planar 2-D
CU and CD trusses that only curved in one
direction, they favoured open I-section
profles as being less expensive and having
shorter lead times than hollow sections.
Given the extremely complex 3-D geometry,
innovative custom jigs were needed to
properly and accurately fabricate the
components. For the canopy structures, the
masts required precise setting out so as to
accurately defne the 3-D location of their
7.
8.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 35 24/02/2012 21:30
36 The Arup Journal 1/2012
On repetitive areas of steelwork like the
canopy structures, custom assembly jigs
were used to temporarily support the rafters
and masts (Fig 10). These enabled the
structure to be assembled, ftted up, bolted
and welded into position. On de-propping,
they were shifted to the next location.
Careful alignment of the canopy structures
was also required. As these are highly
fexible, the length of the tension stays had
to be precisely calculated so that during
erection the canopies could be installed
(unloaded) to a level higher than their fnal
level. Later, they would defect with the
added weight of roof cladding and fnishes,
and the whole structure settled into its fnal
position. Canopy levels were adjusted
through detailed survey and use of tension
stay turn-buckles.
In addition to cranes, electric winches were
also used to speed up work. These are light
and easy to handle, and can lift up to
2 tonnes. This greatly reduced erection
time, alleviating the need for constant
reliance on cranage.
Work safety and health offcers and safety
co-ordinators were deployed throughout the
site to ensure a safe working environment.
Risk assessments were carried out before
work began, as well as safe work procedures
and safety management systems.
Temporary works design was also carefully
reviewed and endorsed by qualifed
Professional Engineers. Strict and close
supervision throughout construction ensured
safe completion of the works.
9. Canopy in front of The
Shoppes arcade.
10. Temporary jig supporting
canopy rafters.
9.
10.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 36 24/02/2012 21:30
37 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Area where underslab
drainage was constructed
Excavation depths (m) 18
12
11
11
15
Hotels
21
18
18
18
25
25
35
N
18
11
15
Perforated
pipe
(a) Pressure relief point.
(b) Typical rodding eye detail.
(c) Perforated pipes to perimeter gutter drain.
(d) Typical pressure relief well.
Column/wall
100mm
cast iron
pipe
Bored pile
Lowest
basement slab
No-fines concrete
No-fines concrete
No-fines concrete
Lowest
basement slab
Puddle flange
Lowest
basement slab
Cased, minimum
200mm diameter
well borehole
Spacers
Approved
filter material 10m into Old
Alluvium layer
1500g polythene 50mm blinding layer Realtex 15NW Fine sand layer
Manhole cover
Removable
screwcap
Lowest
basement slab
150mm
perforated
pipe with
rodding eye
20mm
single size
aggregate
150mm
perforated
pipe
To
perimeter
gutter
Pipe
unperforated
through
concrete
Inner face of
diaphragm wall
500mm
perimeter
gutter
Screw-down double-greased
sealed inspection cover
for rodding
Podium underslab drainage system
The underslab drainage system was designed
to relieve the lowest basement slabs of uplift
water pressure, and thereby negate the need
for hold-down tension piles. The system was
installed in part of the south podium (the
north donut beneath some of the MICE
facilities), the north podium, the ArtScience
Museum, and the DCS (district cooling
system) area (Fig 1). The differences in
excavation depth are due to the range of
basement levels across the site. The MBS
drainage system as constructed is the largest
of its type in Singapore.
The system typically comprises a drainage
blanket formed of 20mm single-size
aggregate, perforated pipes, perimeter gutter
drains, piezometers, sump pumps, and
pressure relief wells (Fig 2). The seepage
groundwater collected by the system is
discharged into the public drainage system
outside the site.
Normal maintenance is expected to keep the
system in full working order. Should part of
the underslab drainage system malfunction,
however, the pressure relief points (Fig 2a)
local to the affected area will automatically
overfow, alerting the owner to the problem
before any structural damage occurs.
Flushing of the system by way of the
rodding eyes and the pressure relief wells
would be carried out to restore the system its
full capacity. In the worst case scenario,
localised remedial works may be required.
1.
2.
Authors
Otto Lai Wing-Kai Leong
1. Underslab drainage location plan.
2. Sub-systems forming the
underslab drainage system.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 37 24/02/2012 21:30
38 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Background
The Sands Expo and Convention Center is
the southernmost element of the whole
Marina Bay Sands development.
More commonly known to the design team
as the meetings, incentives, conference and
exhibitions (MICE) facility, it can host up to
45 000 convention delegates in total, its
space able to accommodate a maximum of
2000 exhibition booths and 250 meeting
rooms. It can thus handle events of any size,
from an intimate meeting for 10 persons to
lavish presentations for up to 11 000 people.
The largest and most fexible meeting and
exhibition venue in Singapore, it contains
south-east Asia’s biggest ballroom (Fig 1)*.
The gross area of 120 000m
2
is spread across
fve foors plus mezzanines, all of which sit
atop fve more basement levels. The gigantic
footprint, 240m x 140m, makes it the most
extensive single building of the entire MBS
development in terms of land area occupied.
Timing
Fronting the coastal area of the
development, MICE was required to be
one of the frst MBS facilities to become
operational, despite being one of its largest.
The stipulated schedule for opening Phase 1
meant a very limited construction time,
beginning in early 2008 and extending to the
end of 2009 in time for the opening.
The main foors were therefore designed
with composite slabs on long-span steel
frames, the use of this “propless” scheme
allowing construction work on several
foors to be carried out in parallel (Fig 2).
This design also minimised the manpower
needed on site. This was an important
consideration, as on-site manpower
requirement is a major factor in a country
like Singapore which imports a lot of foreign
labour to service its construction industry.
1.
2.
Authors
Don Ho Otto Lai
Sands Expo and Convention Center
* The original competition entry scheme promised the
largest ballroom in Asia. Part-way through the design, a
bigger one previously overlooked was discovered
elsewhere. The plans for the new ballroom were
promptly updated and enlarged to ensure that the
development delivered on its earlier competition-
winning promises!
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 38 24/02/2012 21:30
39 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Lock-in
Elastic
Buckling
Redistribution
Yielding
Fracture
Deflection
Load
Storage pit
Deck above
Movable
partitions
Exit
Brickwork
Corridor
Foreign labour content is managed by the
government through the enforcement of
strict quotas on construction sites.
Necessarily, design time was also limited,
extending from the outset of the project to
mid-2009, but by running the design and
construction phases in parallel, the Arup
team innovatively re-engineered the
conventional design cycle. This enabled
the principal structural elements to be put
in place when only the preliminary
architectural design was ready, as one of
the major uncertainties during the structural
design phase was the placement of the
massive moving partitions for the
convertible meeting rooms.
Instead of applying an unnecessarily
conservative design load, the Arup team
recommended the architect to orient the
opening directions of the movable partitions
to the gravity load paths of the structures,
with each partition’s storage pit located on
a main truss spanning between columns
(Fig 3). This arrangement allows for a high
degree of fexibility, yet ensures that the
designed condition with distributed wall
loading is the most critical loading
condition among the numerous
operational combinations.
Effciency
As it was such a major element in the whole
MBS project, MICE naturally contributed a
very considerable portion of the total cost.
This being the case, only a slight variant
in the effciency of the MICE structural
design could have signifcantly affected
the overall budget.
So as to make the best use of materials,
the team carried out an advanced, non-linear,
elastoplastic, large displacement analysis
with consideration of the static construction
sequence. This analysis refected the most
realistic structural response by considering
the lock-in stresses from construction and
the redistribution of forces through yielding
and buckling (Fig 5). Fig 6 shows the
formation of plastic hinges in a typical bay
under the designed ultimate loading.
4.
5.
3.
6.
1. The main ballroom.
2. Construction work for MICE
under way in late spring 2009.
3. Typical framing.
4. Pre-function area.
5. Illustration of typical load-
defection relationship.
6. Formation of plastic hinges.
Plastic
hinges
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 39 29/02/2012 19:59
40 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Comfor t
Vibration is inevitable in fexible, long-span
structures if they are to be economically
feasible. To ensure that MICE is a frst-class
conference facility, the Arup team had to
carefully study the structural factors
involved in ensuring occupant comfort
under human-induced vibrations.
Conventional footfall vibrations resulting
from individual unco-ordinated actions
contribute hardly any signifcant movement
to such a massive long-span structure, but
the size of the grand ballroom meant that
slab movement caused by the synchronised
actions of large groups of dancers could
cause concern. Factors like crowd patterns,
dance styles, music rhythms, and the effects
from transfer structures were all studied.
Fig 8 shows the typical vibration response of
the ballroom foor under an extreme event of
500 people doing synchronised dancing at
the critical frequency in a typical 33m x 18m
structural bay. The predicted dynamic
performance was verifed by direct site
measurements, together with feedback
from participants.
This analysis convinced the Arup team that
the structure would perform appropriately
for the nature of the facility, with very
limited noticeable effects on occupants from
structural vibration.
The team also gave recommendations to the
client on precautions for possible comfort
concerns if the facilities were used for any
unusual events.
Conclusion
Given the scale of the MICE facility within
the whole development, the Arup team
applied best practices to enable such a
demanding megastructure to be constructed
within the tightest time-frame and to the
most stringent budget.
Through close co-operation between
designers from different offces and
disciplines, the whole team put forward its
utmost efforts for the successful completion
on time of this world-class conference and
exhibition venue, which forms an vital
component in the grand development of
Marina Bay Sands.
7. Trade show in progress at the
Sands Expo.
8. Peak acceleration of typical bay
under extreme “social dance”
conditions.
0.56m/s
2
0.48
0.40
0.32
0.24
0.16
0.08
0
7.
8.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 40 24/02/2012 21:31
41 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Shoppes
Crystal
Pavilion
south
Crystal
Pavilion
north
Hotel atrium
and SkyPark
Canal
Retail areas
Most of the MBS buildings include retail areas.
The largest of these – “The Shoppes at Marina
Bay Sands” – includes over 300 stores plus
food and beverage outlets along the whole
north-south length of the podium. A canal runs
through the Shoppes, similar in style to the one
at the Las Vegas Venetian, with sampan rides
for guests corresponding to the gondola rides at
the Venetian. As well as the retail areas, the
development has many places to eat and drink,
including several celebrity chef restaurants,
some located in the Sands Hotel atrium and the
SkyPark. Two internationally-renowned
nightclubs and a fagship store for Louis
Vuitton are housed in the Crystal Pavilions.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 41 24/02/2012 21:31
42 The Arup Journal 1/2012
N
P
r
im
a
r
y

v
ie
w

c
o
r
r
id
o
r
R
e
t
a
il
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y

v
ie
w

c
o
r
r
id
o
r
1
5
1
.
5
m
B
a
y
f
r
o
n
t

A
v
e
n
u
e
1
0
5
m
Atrium
5
0
m
5
5
m
The casino
Over view
The casino is housed in the middle of the
three major buildings on the podium, lying
between the MICE facility to the south and
the theatres to the north. Its four-storey
reinforced concrete structure is supported
by diaphragm walls and bored piles, and
the building also includes fve levels of
basement. The casino is immediately
bordered by retail areas to the west, by the
primary and secondary view corridors on the
south and north sides respectively, and by
Bayfront Avenue to the east (Fig 1).
Lateral stability is provided by frame
action between the columns and beams;
this enabled large open spaces and fexible
space usage without having to change the
positions of walls when programming the
use of the spaces. The large atrium in the
middle of the casino required foor openings
up through four levels, and this continuous
large vertical void in the foor diaphragm
had to be taken into account when designing
for lateral stability (Fig 2).
The foor-to-foor heights in the casino itself
were different from those in the immediately
adjacent structures, due to the need for
higher headrooms there, and so the B2M
level was introduced as the main gaming
level with most of the level B1 in the
ancillary areas being deleted. This, however,
made connections into the adjacent
structures diffcult and also created
headroom issues. Beam depths had to be
co-ordinated carefully so as to fulfl the
headroom requirements, with atypical
connection detailing being needed.
The amount of light emanating from above
alone would have been inadequate for the
large B2M gaming area below the atrium, so
individual trellises, designed by Arup, were
provided at each gaming table, containing
surveillance cameras and loudspeakers in
addition to local lighting (Fig 3).
Level 4 at the top of the building houses the
mechanical systems for the entire casino,
while levels B3 and B4 are used for vehicle
parking as well as to house the tanks for
potable water and for fre-fghting (another
part of Arup’s commission was the fre
engineering design – escape, smoke control
and fre compartmentation: see also the
article on the fre engineering, pp68-71).
Constr uction
The original proposed construction
sequence was top down from level B2M,
enabling the basement levels to be built at
the same time as the superstructure.
Foundation construction began in 2007 and
was completed in 2008, with “plunge in”
columns cast into bored piles that extend
40m into the Old Alluvium layer.
After level B2M was cast, however, the
construction sequence was changed so as
to expedite the reinforced concrete works.
The top-down construction below level B2M
was revised to allow for excavation to level
B4/B5 and level B3 constructed later.
Deviation of the “plunge in” columns had to
be initially considered on level B2M, and
consequently at level B4 once excavation
had reached that level, and again at level B3
after formwork was carried out to that level.
Pile deviation was considered at level B4,
once piles were exposed and cut to correct
cut-off levels.
Also, to increase speed of construction,
single and double T-section precast units
were employed for the fooring. The building
had to be completed in time for the planned
“soft” opening on 27 April 2010.
The casino chandelier
Composed of an intricate weave of high
strength cables suspended from an
undulating perimeter steel compression ring,
the feature chandelier high above the main
1.
Authors
Otto Lai Patrick McCafferty
gaming room of the casino supports a
network of 16 500 LED lights and over
130 000 precision-cut Swarovski crystals.
With a footprint of 520m
2
and measuring
approximately 24.4m across and over 6m
deep, this signature piece is one of the
largest installations of its kind anywhere in
the world, nestled snugly between the
fnished ceiling above and a series of
decorative ceiling ribs below (Fig 3).
Given the compressed construction schedule
of the project, the casino roof was erected
and the ceiling ribs were being fabricated
before the fnal confguration of the
chandelier had been established by the
architect. Arup was thus tasked with
form-fnding the fabrication geometry of the
chandelier cable net and of analysing the
complex buckling behaviour of the
chandelier’s compression ring to within
extremely tight tolerances.
Arup’s in-house non-linear structural
analysis solver, Oasys GSA GSRelax, was
employed for the many hundreds of millions
of non-linear analysis iterations required to
establish a fabricated geometry that, once
installed, would drape to within exacting
tolerances between the fnished ceiling
above and the decorative ribs below.
Once an acceptable geometry was thus
determined, a suite of non-linear buckling
analyses of the perimeter compression ring
were then conducted to investigate the ring’s
robustness against buckling forces induced
by the cable net, establish an appropriate
system of lateral restraint from the casino
roof to the ring, and enable fnal design and
detailing of the ring and its support system.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 42 24/02/2012 21:31
43 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Floor-to-floor heights (m)
View
corridor
View
corridor
Casino
L4
L3
L2
L1
B3 4.6
B2M
6.3
6.8
7.25
8.5
B4 4.1
B5 3.2
2.
3.
1. Plan of the casino building,
enclosing the irregularly shaped
atrium.
2. North/south cross-section through
casino showing levels.
3. Casino interior, showing the
chandelier centrally placed to
illuminate the atrium gaming area.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 43 24/02/2012 21:31
44 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Theatre structures
Introduction
The Marina Bay Sands development
includes two fully-equipped proscenium
theatres. The Grand Theater has a seating
capacity of 2139, and is designed for
show-based entertainment ranging from
popular acts and concerts to special touring
events. The slightly smaller Sands Theater
(Fig 1), seating 1679, offers a different kind
of theatrical experience, where Broadway-
type shows are performed.
The two theatres are located side-by-side
in the north-east area of MBS (Fig 2).
They have two entrances, one facing the
grand arcade node and the other Bayfront
Avenue, and they share a lobby, which
provides for easy fow of pedestrian traffc
before and after performances as people
move to the ArtScience Museum, the grand
arcade and waterfront promenade, as well as
to the casino and the hotel.
“Box-in-box” str uctures
Arup’s design for the structure of the
theatres was basically a conventional
“box-in-box” reinforced concrete frame,
so as to provide the greatest fexibility for
construction (Fig 3). The external box is
formed by the podium structures and the
basement walls, which provide overall
1.
Authors
Otto Lai Brian Mak
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 44 29/02/2012 20:15
45 The Arup Journal 1/2012
N
Outer "box"
(entire MBS
podium)
Theatres
Concrete
piers for stability
Double boxes
around stage areas
Theatre
boxes
2.
4. 5.
3.
stability for the theatres against soil load.
The internal box is a reinforced concrete
shell for each theatre defning its shape.
The internal box transfers all gravity loads
from the theatre to the ground, so that any
modifcations to the internal theatre layout
involved only checking gravity load, and did
not affect the external podium structures and
basement walls.
The acoustic benefts of box-in-box
construction are signifcant. One is that a
decoupled inner and outer structure reduces
the transmission of vibrational energy that
could reradiate inside the theatre as airborne
noise. Another is that the resilient air space
between boxes greatly improves sound
isolation from exterior noise. So as to limit
transmission of outside noise and vibration
into the theatres, and of internal noise and
vibration from them into surrounding areas,
additional double structures with a minimum
50mm cavity between them were provided at
the interface between theatre stage and
surrounding structure (Fig 3).
Theatre constr uction
Internally the Grand Theater and the Sands
Theater are very similar, each containing a
partially raked auditorium foor and one
balcony. The balconies are steel cantilevered
frames (Fig 4) with concrete decks for the
seating, while at the top of each building
beneath the curving roof (see pp32-36) is the
150mm thick composite slab that comprises
each theatre’s level 4. This accommodates
the MEP plant room, and is supported by
3.5m deep steel trusses.
1. Interior of the completed Sands
Theater.
2. Theatre shells under construction.
The structures were built between
April and December 2009.
3. The “box-in-box” structural
arrangement, showing the additional
double box surrounding each stage
area and the positions of the
concrete piers.
4. Cantilevered steel balcony.
5. Concrete piers for temporary
stability.
Construction of the theatres was undertaken
“outside-in”, the concrete shells being
completed before the steel balconies were
begun. The shells were slender cantilevered
structures with concrete piers integrated into
them to provide temporary stability (Fig 5).
The verticality of the theatre shell walls
was stringently controlled so as to minimize
any adverse impacts from construction
tolerance on the subsequent steel balcony
truss installation.
A similar procedure was adopted for the
Cirque du Soleil theatre at the Venetian
Macau (also an Arup project), and it proved
to be very effective and effcient in terms of
time and construction logistics.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 45 24/02/2012 21:31
46 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Stage
Stage
Lower
promenade
Portable
bleachers
Operable
plaza panels
Additional
seating
Operable
plaza panels
0 10m
The event plaza
Introduction
Located along the marine deck between
the North and South Crystal Pavilions,
this moving platform connects the upper
and lower promenades (Fig 1). It can be
used to host various events itself, or to
provide 2770 seats for events either at the
lower promenade waterfront or on the
stage at the upper promenade (Fig 2).
With a total area of about 2300m
2
, the
platform is divided into series of steps
supported by a mechanical system that
operates vertically to position the steps
in different confgurations for events,
depending on whether they are on the lower
or upper promenade, or at the platform itself.
The platform can be raised to a maximum
3.7m from its lowest operating level.
Removable steps, and handrails for access
and prevention against falling, are
variously provided to suit the different
platform profles.
1.
Authors
Va-Chan Cheong Franky Lo
2.
a) Plan for lower promenade event. b) Elevation for lower promenade event.
Bleachers:
2064 seats
Stage
Raised
platforms:
2770 seats
Raised
platforms:
2770 seats
Total 3419 seats
Total 4834 seats
Stage
c) Plan for upper promenade event. d) Elevation for upper promenade event.
Front seats:
649 seats
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 46 29/02/2012 19:58
47 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Geared motor
Screw cover
Nut casing
Bellows spring
Screw
Shaft
Jack
Nut
Jack casing
U-shaped reinforced
concrete “tubs”
Extendable
screw jacks
Extent
of moving
platform
Extent of fixed
reinforced
concrete deck
0 20m
N
Str ucture
The main structure of the event plaza
comprises reinforced concrete U-shaped
“tubs” under the platform spanning over the
water on marine piles. The platform itself is
formed of a composite deck with profled
steel sheeting resting on steel beams.
The design live load is 7.5kPa to cater for
public crowds as well as for its use as a
stage for hosting events, and detailed
considerations regarding vibration induced
by activities on the deck were made in the
design to avoid discomfort being caused to
users from any excessive vibration.
The tubs are mostly in parallel layout at
approximately 12m spacing, and
interconnected with tie beams (Fig 3).
Nine series of extendable screw jacks are
installed along the centres of the tubs at
about 2.2m spacing to provide vertical
support to the platform deck (Fig 4).
At the eastern edge of the platform, adjacent
to the main podium structure, a continuous
reinforced concrete wall with a buttress
houses the guide rails that provide lateral
restrain to the platform. To facilitate its rapid
erection under the tight programme, the
reinforced concrete tubs were precast, while
the main parts of the platform decks were
shop-prefabricated in advance.
Moving the platfor m
At each jack position in the tubs, a sleeve
opening is provided for the screw rod to pass
through when the platform is lowered. At the
undersides of the tubs, waterproof sockets
connecting to the sleeve openings prevent
potential corrosion of the screw rods from
contact with water (Fig 5). The platform
loading is transmitted through the screw rods
to the concrete structure by nut casing units
bolt-anchored to the tubs.
Capped on each pair of screw rods, a jack
casing formed by a grid of steel beams
houses the geared motor, the shafts, and the
jack at top of each rod. The motor provides
power for the rotary action of the screw rod,
causing it to rise or descend and thus raise
or lower the platform to the desired level.
All the motors are controlled by a central
system that synchronises the level of each
platform step to provide different platform
topographies, including fatted profles as
the stage for hosting events, or in stepped
confguration to provide seating for events
in the upper and lower promenades.
3.
4.
1. Architect’s impression of the event
plaza alongside the marine deck.
2. Confgurations of the platform for
events on the upper and lower
promenades.
3. General arrangement of event
plaza reinforced concrete structure.
4. Exploded view of screw jack and
jack casing.
5. Building the moving platform.
5.
a) Underside of platform supported by screw jacks.
c) Jack casing on top of screw jack.
b) Installation of nut casting on reinforced concrete tub.
d) General view of platform in construction.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 47 29/02/2012 20:00
48 The Arup Journal 1/2012
The ArtScience Museum
Introduction
Designed by Moshe Safdie Architects as a
symbolic gesture of welcome to guests from
across the globe, the lotus-shaped ArtScience
Museum (ASM) is situated at the north-west
extremity of the MBS site, on a promontory
overlooking Marina Bay (Fig 1).
Following its opening on 17 February 2011
by Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong, the museum has become a premier
destination for major international touring
exhibitions from the most renowned
collections in the world, with initial
attractions ranging from artefacts from the
Titanic to a comprehensive survey of
Salvador Dalí’s art (Figs 15-16, p53).
This unique structure features over 5500m
2

of galleries housing the permanent and
touring exhibitions, and embraces a
spectrum of infuences from the relationship
between art and science, to media and
technology, to design and architecture.
Visitors appreciate not only the building’s
iconic form and the world-class exhibits
within, but also the virtuosity of its
innovative roof, which channels rainwater
through the central atrium (Fig 2).
The lotus for m
Approximately the same size as Bilbao’s
Guggenheim, Singapore’s new Museum
seems to foat above its surrounding
refective pool, almost as if it were upside
down. The overall structure comprises two
levels of concrete basement below ground
level plus the sculptural steel frame of the
lotus itself, containing a further two foors
of gallery space and a plant level (Fig 3).
The lotus form is approximately 62m high
above grade and has 11m of vertical support
below grade. The roof is 80m across at its
2.
1.
Authors
Dan Birch Joe Lam Mac Tan
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 48 24/02/2012 21:31
49 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Commpression ring
Hyperbolic diagrid
Inclined mega-column
Compression
Tension
Tension ring
Galleries Galleries
Mega-trusss
4.
3.
5.
6.
1. The ArtScience Museum nearing
completion.
2. Water feature in the central atrium,
showing the diagrid structure.
3. Architectural cross-section.
4. Spheroid geometry of the petals
in Rhino.
5. The primary structure in
Microstation Triforma.
6. The structural scheme.
widest point. The highly complex geometry
required Arup to adopt innovative 3-D
parametric modelling technologies, the use
of which gave a signifcant reduction in
modelling time, better co-ordination,
visualisation of the complex steelwork, and
improved communication with the client.
The lotus form comprises 10 petals of
varying height and width on a radial axis
and spaced evenly at 36˚. The “petals” were
rationalised from the free-form geometry
developed by Safdie Architects at the
competition stage, and the top, bottom and
side surfaces of each were defned by
fattened spheres or spheroids (Fig 4). This
led to a series of doubly curved surfaces,
each with constant radius on plan and
variable radius vertically.
Str uctur al scheme (see also pp10-11)
Each petal is formed by secondary members
spanning onto primary girders, which load
side trusses that bend downwards in
cantilever action. The side trusses of
adjacent petals meet at waler beams which
resist out-of-plane forces caused by the
steps in the roof between each petal.
Loads from the side trusses are resolved at
the waler beams and transferred to the radial
mega-trusses (Fig 5).
These act as cantilevers, taking the museum
loads to the vertical supports which consist
of a central diagrid structure and a series of
10 mega-columns, inclined outwards.
Tensile loads in the top chords are resolved
into the tension ring which connects to the
top of the diagrid, while the compressive
loads are resolved into the compression ring
below. The vertical loads are carried by the
inclined mega-columns (Fig 6).
The architectural vision inspired a building
shape that resulted in an eccentric structure.
The overturning forces thereby generated,
together with wind loads, are resisted by the
diagrid acting as a vertical cantilever in
conjunction with the inclined mega-columns.
Waler
beam
Mega-truss
Side truss
Promenade
Water
oculus
Gallery
Gallery
Gallery
Open atrium
Gallery
Entry pavilion
Gallery
Lily pond
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 49 24/02/2012 21:31
50 The Arup Journal 1/2012
7.
8.
9.
3-D modelling and coor dination
The highly complex geometry of the lotus
shape led the design team to use parametric
modelling techniques for the structural steel
skeleton. Initially MSA developed a Rhino
model (Fig 7) to generate the surface
profles, and then Arup used these surfaces
to develop a parametric model of the
steelwork centrelines using Bentley’s
GenerativeComponents software.
For the steelwork of one petal, a parametric
model was developed with the use of
GenerativeComponents (Fig 8), so that
Arup could then automatically develop the
centreline model for the other petals’
varying geometry.
The centreline model was then exported to
generate a spaceframe analysis model of the
roof in Arup’s own GSA program, and
following analysis and section size
defnition, the GSA analysis model was
imported into Bentley MicroStation Triforma
to accurately model all the steel sections for
both size and location. On completion of the
3-D drafting, the model was exported to
Tekla (Fig 9) and issued to the steelwork
contractor as the basis for their fabrication
model. The MicroStation model was also
used to generate a record set of 2-D
drawings for the project.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 50 24/02/2012 21:31
51 The Arup Journal 1/2012
10.
11. 12.
It was critical to get a steelwork contractor
on board early and producing fabrication
drawings, and the direct issue of the 3-D
steelwork model in this way proved
invaluable in co-ordinating the complex
geometry, reducing requests from the
steelwork contractor for information, and
vastly speeding up production of the
fabrication information.
Using such advanced programs for
documentation enabled better
communication and reduced the time taken
to produce shop drawings, as they provided
geometrically correct design models to the
fabricator. They also enabled real-time
interchange between analysis software
and documentation modelling packages.
Since the 3-D models were co-ordinated
among the consulting team members,
this minimised the likelihood of further
co-ordination being needed after the shop
drawings were produced, and speeded up the
progress of fabrication and the reviewing
process. A draftsman from the steelwork
fabricator noted that Arup issuing the 3-D
model for the steelwork directly to them
saved them three months in drafting time.
The substr ucture
As described in the earlier article on the
MBS excavation and foundation design
(pp12-15), huge cofferdams were used on
much of the site to facilitate bulk excavation
and minimise shoring in the diffcult soil
environments. Among these was the 130m
diameter semi-circular cofferdam for the
ASM (Fig 11).
This cofferdam was supported primarily by
the permanent basement retaining walls and
temporary ground anchors to its west and
east respectively, enabling the 12m deep
bulk excavation to proceed unsupported and
unhindered. Ring action was used to take the
water pressure, the reaction forces of the
ring being restrained by ground anchors at
the north side and the contiguous bored pile
wall at the south side of the diaphragm wall.
This allowed excavation without the need
for shoring and thus saved overall
construction time.
Building such a very large reinforced
concrete structure close to the harbour
waters created some challenges, exacerbated
in this instance by time constraints (as
already indicated, a key program driver
had been the complexity of the steelwork).
Critical was the construction of the ring
beams and radial beams at the oculus area to
support the mega-columns and diagrid, after
which the central core of the steel structure
was installed concurrently with the
remainder of the substructure. Levels B1 and
L01 were constructed in parallel with the
programme to install the fngers and radial
trusses, as the L01 structure was used as a
temporary working platform.
The ring beams and radial beams at the
oculus area link with the large 1.8m-3.0m
diameter piles under the mega-columns;
these piles were designed to resist the large
lateral forces from the mega-columns.
This enabled the construction of the
substructure and installation of the steel
structure at same time.
7. Architectural Rhino model.
8. GenerativeComponents parametric
model of a petal.
9. Tekla model.
10. Structural steel skeleton under
construction.
11. Excavation within coffer dam for
the ASM.
12. The completed Museum.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 51 24/02/2012 21:31
52 The Arup Journal 1/2012
The skin
A fundamental aspect of the façade design
was the need for a smooth seamless,
egg-shell skin, and extensive studies were
made to determine how this could be
formed. A heavy site-fnished concrete shell
was quickly dismissed due to structural
concerns, and the search for a solution
focused on the concept of a cladding skin
sitting above and below an inner standing
seam roof.
A standing seam is a very robust and
practical system for this application. It
creates a continuous weather line and allows
for a rainscreen cladding of choice to be
attached to the seams without the need for
support penetrations, thus reducing the risk
of leaks and failures (Fig 13).
A greater challenge, though was to develop
an over-cladding that had the eggshell fnish.
A wide range of locally-sourced materials
was considered and reviewed against several
criteria (Table 1).
Based on the fndings, fbre-reinforced
polymer (FRP) was chosen for the skin.
Typically used in high-performance racing
yachts, this use of 12 500m
2
of FRP was a
frst in terms of its scale and highly visible
application for a Singapore project.
The doubly-curved FRP skin made jointless
construction possible, resulting in a seamless
and continuous surface (Fig 14).
The use of this new material posed several
challenges, not least among them being the
identifcation of a grade of FRP that would
provide excellent fre resistance and
performance. Testing was a critical part of
obtaining approval from Singapore’s Fire
Safety and Shelter Department for its use.
Mock-ups and other tests were also
completed by the sub-contractors to
demonstrate that they could achieve the
appearance and structural performance.
FRP is factory fabricated into moulded
panels which, though they can be large in
size, still have to be joined together on site
to achieve a monolithic skin. The sub-
contractor, DK Composites, developed a
method of bonding adjoining panels with
seamless joints so that the skin moves and
responds monolithically, with provisions
made at the perimeter and in the intermediate
supports for expansion and contraction.
Conclusion
Integrating the engineering and architectural
design of the ASM was perhaps Singapore’s
most sophisticated building undertaking yet.
As with Sydney Opera House, another
waterfront icon with which Arup is
historically linked, the ASM profle is a
bold new visual identifer for Singapore.
In addition, the fnished building refects
Moshe Safdie’s intention:
“From the inside out, every element in the
design of the ArtScience Museum reinforces
the institution’s philosophy of creating a
bridge between the arts and sciences.
The building combines the aesthetic and
functional, the visual and the technological,
and for me, really represents the forward
looking spirit of Singapore.”
13. Typical section of cladding
build-up.
14. The egg-shell skin of the
completed ArtScience Museum.
15, 16. The 2011 exhibition
“Dalí: Mind of a Genius”.
Inside
Outside
GFRP rainscreen cladding
Aluminium bracket
assembly
Aluminium circular hollow section
Aluminium standing seam roof
Insulation
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

3
5
0
m
m
Maximum 825mm (panel width of white cladding)
50mm
Material
Table 1
Prefinished compressed
fibre cement
Glassfibre reinforced
concrete
Solid aluminium panel
High-pressure laminates
Eggshell
appearance
Filled resin
Fibre-reinforce polymer
Double-
curved
Factory-
applied finish
Monolithic
joint
Light
weight
13.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 52 24/02/2012 21:31
53 The Arup Journal 1/2012
15. 16.
14.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 53 24/02/2012 21:31
54 The Arup Journal 1/2012
1. Completed South Pavilion.
2. Completed North Pavilion.
3. Dewatering at the South Pavilion
after installation of tubular piles and
cofferdam.
4. Excavation within cofferdam for
the North Pavilion.
The Crystal Pavilions
1.
Authors
Don Ho Joe Lam Brian Mak
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 54 24/02/2012 21:31
55 The Arup Journal 1/2012
2.
3. 4.
Introduction
The North and South Crystal Pavilions are
two glowing “jewels” for resort visitors to
explore, and seem to foat in Marina Bay
west of the MBS podium. In fact they are
securely founded in the Bay strata, and
linked to the podium by cast in situ
submarine tunnels, which bring visitors
from the basement retail area to enjoy the
contrasting sense of open water. The North
Pavilion houses a fagship store for Louis
Vuitton (Arup’s client for the ftout), while
the other enables visitors to dine on the
water. Two slender steel bridges provide
alternative access to the Pavilions.
Geotechnical challenges
The geology here generally comprises an
approximately 15m-25m thick band of
soft-to-frm marine/fuvial clay layer
overlaying the Old Alluvium (OA) formation
(see also pp12-15). Another consideration in
the Pavilions’ location and founding was
water level; following completion in 2008 of
the Marina Barrage across the Marina
Channel that feeds Marina Bay, the highest
level in this reservoir area was 2.5m above
mean sea level.
The Pavilions and their connecting structures
are founded primarily on the underlying OA
layer using open-ended driven tubular steel
piles. It was anticipated that the foundations
would be subject to compression loads
during construction but to permanent uplift
forces during operation, so at areas where
higher uplift forces were expected, mini-
piles were constructed at the toes of the
tubular piles to increase tension capacity.
Due to the tight construction programme,
the foundations were subjected to the full
uplift forces prior to completion of the
Pavilion superstructures.
The constructed foundations were
compression load tested using the
Statnamic method, which involves launching
a reaction mass that weighs about 5% of the
weight required for a conventional static
load test. Conventional tension load testing
was carried out on the tubular piles and
mini-piles.
The Pavilion basements and connecting
submerged tunnels were constructed in the
dry. For both Pavilions, dewatering to the
seabed plus about 2m depth of bulk
excavation was carried out within circular
and adjoining linear cofferdams (Figs 3, 4).
The latter extend from both Pavilions to the
basement retail areas in the podium, and
house the cast in situ access tunnels.
The circular cofferdams were extended
through the soft marine clay to found on the
underlying alluvial sand, with radial lateral
restraint provided by circular steel section
waler beams installed prior to the
dewatering. After dewatering, bulk
excavation towards the centre of the circular
cofferdams was carried out. Allowance was
made in their design for anticipated closing
in during initial dewatering, to bear against
the restraining ring waler beams.
The foundation and excavation works were
successfully completed in early 2010, and
the general sequence of works may be
summarised as follows:
• pile installation and testing of pile
foundations
• circular cofferdam installation
• dewatering within circular cofferdam
• linear cofferdam installation and
excavation within circular cofferdam
• dewatering and excavation within linear
cofferdam
• construction of basement structure within
circular and linear cofferdams
• forming of opening in circular cofferdam
to enable structural connection of the
access tunnels and Pavilion basements
• basement construction completion and
temporary works removal.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 55 24/02/2012 21:31
56 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Pavilion roofs
With the Pavilion façades tilting 20° from
the vertical in different directions, and the
two roofs on each Pavilion having
completely different gradients, the structures
have an inevitable tendency to lateral
movement. This imposed big design and
construction challenges, even taking into
account the effect of self-weight. To achieve
the high transparency that the name “Crystal
Pavilion” implies, the Arup team decided to
support the decorative outer frames with
lightweight steelwork (Fig 5), and provide
the lateral stability with prestressed
Macalloy ties.
Since the prestressing system could only
provide full stability for the roofs when they
were prestressed to the design load,
maintaining stability during construction was
a critical factor. The Arup team indicated
clearly in the tender drawings the structural
requirements during construction, and the
contractor’s construction sequence analysis
was carefully reviewed before approval, well
before any steelwork was delivered to site.
To avoid unbalanced forces or local
overstress of members, the ties were
prestressed in stages, one-by-one around the
roof. The prestress force in each was
increased by a small percentage until every
tie was prestressed to its full design load.
As the connections and members are
exposed, structural detailing was of major
architectural importance, so the architect
asked Arup to develop and document all the
connection detail in 3-D, for which Bentley
Structure was used (Figs 6, 7). All the
connections were sketched out and designed
early in the process, and then reviewed
through local workshops in Singapore and
See and Share sessions between the Hong
Kong and US offces until the connection
detailing was as the architect wanted. All of
the team then worked together to draw up
every typical and non-typical connection
detail in 3-D.
6. 7.
5. Detail of the North Pavilion
nearing completion.
6. 3-D model of the connections and
façade fn.
7. Connections and façade fn as
built.
8. GSA model of North Pavilion.
9. Construction progress for both
Pavilions, July and September 2010.
5.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 56 24/02/2012 21:31
57 The Arup Journal 1/2012
9.
a) South Pavilion, July 2010. c) North Pavilion, July 2010.
b) South Pavilion, September 2010.
8.
This not only showed the architect how the
fnal details would appear but also identifed
all the geometrically complex connections,
which were analysed and adjusted to make
them aesthetically acceptable to the architect
before being passed for construction.
The 3-D model (Fig 8) was issued to the
contractor as a reference and used as a base
for overlaying with the contractor’s
submitted 3-D model. This revealed any
clashes, reducing by over 50% subsequent
requests for information (RFI).
So as to provide extra fexibility for the foor
arrangement, the conventional reinforced
concrete structures are separated from the
Pavilions’ steel roofs. However, as the outer
frame can move relative to the inner core
under the designed lateral load, the potential
drift was carefully calculated and numerous
sections cut from the 3-D model, to ensure
that every edge of the concrete core is
suffciently distant from the outer frame.
d) North Pavilion, September 2010.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 57 29/02/2012 19:51
58 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Integr ated design to achieve
architectur al intent
Transparent glass roofs need to be as devoid
of services as possible. To avoid air ducts at
roof level, an underfoor supply system was
selected, but the consequent need for
openings around the edge of the foor plate
made for some structural challenges.
The Level 1 foor acts to prop the top of
the slanted basement wall (Fig 10), and
considerable forces were thereby induced in
the Level 1 foor both from keeping the
slanted basement wall in position and from
the slanted steel roof columns on the top of
the wall. The Level 1 foor structure had to
be analysed in great detail, and the foor
openings positioned in consultation with the
building services engineer so that they were
feasible in both structural and mechanical
engineering terms.
Unlike other types of buildings where façade
supports are normally concealed or clad, the
façade support structures for the Crystal
Pavilions are architectural features, and had
to be carefully engineered by the Arup
façade team. The main beam-to-façade fn
detail is designed to avoid any unwanted
stiffeners, and the fnal product has the
very clean detail required by the architect.
The footbr idges
During the design stage, the local authority
informed the team that a footbridge to each
Pavilion was required for alternative access,
as well as means of escape in case of fre.
They extend some 40m and 50m to the
North and South Pavilions respectively,
each supported by 10 slender piers.
With the design of the Pavilions already
established, these bridges had to be
complementary – elegant and transparent,
with very slender profles, and a minimum
number of piers extending as deep into the
water as possible before connecting to the
piles. This was because the Marina Barrage
effectively fences the Bay off from the sea,
so that by the time MBS opened, the Bay’s
fresh water would be clean enough to make
the seabed clearly visible.
In addition to these aesthetic requirements,
there were site constraints. Because raking
piles from the main Pavilion structures
already extended into the bridge areas, each
bridge could only be supported by a single
central line of piers, rather than also be
stabilized by raking piles.
The slender bridge columns and piles
resulted in an undesired cantilever mode
shape being dominant (Figs 11, 12).
The effective cantilever length of the column
+ pile element is very critical in affecting the
frequency of this mode (Fig 13), so in the
20mm
thick plate
10mm thick
end plate
0.8m diameter x
19mm thick pile
15mm
thick plate
15mm
thick plate
3.5m
84˚
100mm
350mm
600mm
1.0m
2.65m
human-induced vibration (footfall) analysis
model (Fig 14), the team used a lower bound
soil stiffness in estimating the fxity point of
the pile (the depth at which the soil acts as a
lateral restraint to it). This lower bound
assumption was to ensure that any secondary
effects were not underestimated.
For strength checking, another computer
model was built, the main difference from
the footfall model being that full-length piles
with closely-spaced soil springs were
included. As the team was more confdent
about the magnitude of lateral loading from
wind and wave action, this gave a clearer
indication of the soil/structure interaction.
Reactions from each soil spring were
checked to make sure they were within
acceptable limits. Where soil springs were
overstressed, they were removed and the
computer model rerun iteratively until all
were are within the allowance load. It was
later determined that the structural size was
mainly dictated by human-induced vibration,
not design strength.
Conclusion
Despite the diffcult environment and the
range of design challenges that it generated,
the design team successfully realised the
Pavilions’ unique and complex design with
high precision and quality. They were the
fnal elements of MBS to open to the public,
in September 2011.
10. 11.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 58 24/02/2012 21:31
59 The Arup Journal 1/2012
10. The South Pavilion complete.
11. Cross-section through bridge/
pier/pile structure.
12. 3-D model of bridge structure.
13. First mode behaviour of bridge.
14. Human-induced vibration
(footfall) model for the South
Pavilion footbridge.
15. Completed footbridge to the
North Pavilion.
12. 13. 14.
15.0
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0
Maximum resonant
response factor: 10.0
15.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 59 24/02/2012 21:31
60 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Bayfront Avenue and
Downtown Line 1
Bayfront Avenue runs through the heart of
MBS, separating the hotel towers and
podium structures (Figs 1, 4). The Avenue
links the new resort not only with its
immediate surroundings, but also with other
developments like Gardens by the Bay and
the Marina Bay Financial Centre, forming a
further element in the Marina South area’s
complete road network.
The new road opened to traffc on 25 April
2010, enabling bus, taxi and other vehicular
access to the resort. An underground link to
the SMRT network is also being added, with
the inclusion of Bayfront Station as part of
Singapore’s Downtown Line 1 (DTL1)
development, being constructed here beneath
Bayfront Avenue (Figs 2, 3). This station,
which opened on 14 January, 2012, now
interfaces with the Shoppes, the Sands Expo
and Convention Center, and the Sands Hotel,
so as to provide even easier public access to
and from the area (Fig 6 overleaf).
Bayfront Avenue was built by the top-down
method (Fig 5 overleaf), and the structure
played an important role in the early
construction stages as it formed the heart and
linkage for all the other areas. As well as
enabling the movement of manpower and
materials around the site, it also functioned
as a working platform/temporary support for
other areas, eg the SkyPark steelwork was
assembled on top of it. The structure below,
the future Bayfront Station, was then
constructed after the ground slab was cast.
Parts of the DTL1 extension cut-and-cover
tunnels were constructed by the bottom-up
method. Soil is excavated to the required
depth, and then casting of the concrete
progresses upwards until the roof of the
structure is completed.
Extensive co-ordination between the design
team and the local authority was needed
concerning the interface between Bayfront
Station and MBS. Detailed structural
analyses were performed to ensure that any
defections in the diaphragm walls would
have no adverse effects on those parts of the
DTL1 that were already constructed, and the
planned excavation sequence was adhered to
strictly to avoid any adverse impacts to
either the resort or the station structure.
A major constraint on the tunnel construction
was the existing Benjamin Sheares Bridge,
which carries an eight-lane cross-Singapore
arterial route that here runs adjacent to the
1.
Author
Brian Mak
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 60 24/02/2012 21:31
61 The Arup Journal 1/2012
A
A
B
B
C
C
Bayfront
Station
Vehicle ramp
Vehicle ramps overpass the
tunnels, connecting the
development on both sides
District cooling
system (DCS) plant
Alignment A1 & A2
Alignment B
C
L
Alignment A1 tracks level
Alignment A2 tracks level
Alignment B tracks level
Alignment
B
Alignment
A1 & A2
Varies
SECTION B-B
Varies
SECTION C-C
Existing ground level
SECTION A-A
TBM (tunnel boring
machine) shaft
Cooling towers at
ground level
MICE
ArtScience
Museum
Casino
Sands
Hotel
Bayfront
Station
Crystal
Pavilion
South
Crystal
Pavilion
North
N
Theatres
Benjamin
Sheares Bridge
3.
4.
2.
1. Bayfront Avenue alongside the
hotel towers.
2. Alignment of DTL1 tunnels
beneath Bayfront Avenue.
3. Plan and cross-sections of DTL1
tunnels at three locations on the route
into Bayfront Station.
4. Bayfront Avenue seen from the
ground level.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 61 24/02/2012 21:31
62 The Arup Journal 1/2012
DTL1 Hotel Casino
RL (m)
DTL1 Hotel Casino
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
100
90
80
70
60
50
DTL1 Hotel Casino
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
DTL1 Hotel Casino
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
DTL1 Hotel Casino
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
DTL1 Hotel Casino
RL (m)
100
90
80
70
60
50
d) Complete hotel basement and DTL1 excavation. e) Commence DTL1 tunnel boxes bottom-up and backfll. f) Complete DTL1 tunnel boxes.
deepest part of the excavation in an area of
deep soft clay. The Arup team calculated that
the proposed works would cause the bridge
to move laterally by 47mm. As the deck and
piers were fxed together by pins that
allowed little lateral movement, this would
result in overstressing of the columns of the
closest pier as well as damage to the pins.
Arup’s solution to modify the connections
between the deck and the pier is described
and illustrated in the article on the MBS
geotechnics and foundation design
(pp12-15).
Without this simple but effective
modifcation to the bridge, the design of the
excavation works would have been
signifcantly complicated and taken much
longer. Arup’s solution allowed the project
programme to be met while the bridge
continued to operate as normal.
5. Top-down construction sequence
for Bayfront Avenue and the
DTL1 tunnels.
6. Bayfront Station entrance.
a) Install piles, diaphragm walls and top-down slabs. b) Complete casino and retail above the DTL1 tunnel alignment. c) Continue hotel and DTL1 excavations with temporary props.
5.
6.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 62 24/02/2012 21:32
63 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Specialist
skills
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 63 24/02/2012 21:32
64 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Introduction
The building envelopes of Marina Bay Sands
are a fundamental part of the project’s
architectural defnition. Arup’s façade team
covered the entire development, ranging
over several zones with multiple types of
façade, and working with the architect, the
other design disciplines, and the client
project managers to develop and refne the
design intent for these various façade types.
Arup subsequently provided engineered
design intent drawings, and performance
specifcations for a design-and-build
tender contract. This also covered design
development and co-ordination with
façade contractors, reviewing of all
submissions, and other façade activities
that stemmed from testing through
fabrication to installation.
The façades were grouped into fve broad
packages – the hotel towers, the podium
structures, the ArtScience Museum, the
Crystal Pavilions, and “others” – but several
key common factors ran throughout.
Common issues
Architectur al intent
Safdie Architects had a clear vision for the
form and appearance of MBS, and the
façades were a critical aspect of this vision.
However, the programme, budget, and many
different performance requirements had to
be met. This being the case it was crucial,
given the scale of the project, that a pallet of
materials and façade systems be developed
that would impart a strong sense of cohesion
and a consistent appearance, as well as
simplify procurement and construction.
Tr ansparency
In certain areas transparency was critical,
and this need for unimpeded views implied
maximising the glass area and minimising
structure. These areas were:
• the east-west view corridors between the
MICE, casino, and theatre blocks of the
podium, to provide good views of the city
• the retail mall, giving views of the
promenade as well as the city beyond
• the west-facing hotel rooms, again to give
views of the city
• the atria between the hotel blocks, which
needed to have a light and airy feel.
To enable these views, high light
transmission was needed, with avoidance
of tinted glass so as to give good colour
rendition. This resulted in less areas for
insulation which, coupled with the use of
clear glass, implies the consumption of
greater amounts of energy. Also, concerns
had to be met about night-time views in
these areas, especially concerning the
rooms at the Sands Hotel.
Ener gy per for mance
Singapore has strict requirements on the
amount of solar and ambient energy fowing
into a building. The maximum amount of
energy permitted is deemed to comprise the
total of the thermal fows through the solid
areas and the glazed areas, and the solar
transmission through the vision areas.
Normally this is calculated across the whole
of a building, but in the present case MBS
was considered as two buildings – the hotels
and the podium block.
Highly transparent areas tend to let in
more energy, even if high-performance
solar coatings are used (the most advanced
of which do have an impact on light
transmission), so areas of high energy
transmission had to be balanced with lower
performance areas. These calculations were
used throughout the design process to
inform where transparency targets could
be achieved. In the end, careful tuning of
the glass selection cross-checked with
the ETTV (envelope thermal transfer
value) calculations.
Glass selection
A very detailed study of glass types was
carried out, with regard for the different
roles the glazing would have in the various
areas of MBS. Factors that had to be taken
into account in the selection process were
architectural intent, expected transparency,
energy requirements, safety regulations, and
other requirements such as acoustic
performance.
Glass sources from all around the world
were considered, but as with all projects
there were budget constraints, and eventually
the many types of glass used were all
sourced from Asian factories. During the
study period and on into procurement and
production, numerous inspections of glass
factories were necessary, and as a result
Arup is now very familiar with fabricators
throughout Asia. In many parts of the
building some of the latest high-performance
glass was used. Other areas of high
transparency required low iron glass – sand
with low iron content avoids the tendency to
a green tint of normal clear glass.
Hotel glass cur tain walls and
glass fn design
The west-facing orientation of the hotel
towers created an issue of thermal comfort
during afternoons. Safdie Architects’ design
incorporated vertical glass fns to express the
building shape and complex curvature of the
towers, with preference for frameless glass
with exposed edges. Arup was tasked to
design and achieve these aesthetic
requirements, with the following challenges:
• Typically, vertical glass fns in façades
align with the supporting mullions, but
here the fns do not; this constraint forced
the Arup design to provide support on the
transoms (see also p22)
• The fns do not align consistently with any
façade element, as the hotel towers taper
in elevation. The fns are spaced every 6m
from the top of the towers (level 55); this
gap reduces down to 5m at level 5 (Fig 1).
• The architect’s intention was for the
glass fns to be supported only at the top
and bottom, spanning the height from
foor to foor.
• The architect wanted to express the
curvature of the towers in the fns
themselves, so that they would be
1200mm wide at the top and bottom of
the buildings and gradually taper to
600mm in the middle.
• The fns had to be made more visible by
using a more refective glass than that used
for the curtain wall glazing, thus forcing
the glass for the fns to exceed Singapore
statutory requirements.
The façade systems
Authors
Russell Cole Mac Tan Alex Wong
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 64 24/02/2012 21:32
65 The Arup Journal 1/2012
2.
1.
• Maintenance had to be considered.
• The slab structural design could not
incorporate a top-fxed curtain wall
bracket that would require notching on
the existing slab.
Arup with the specialist sub-contractor
developed several options, identifying the
design and structural implications for each.
Although the architect’s intent to support the
fns only at the top and bottom could be
achieved, this would require the laminated
glass to have three layers. This in turn would
have major implications for the loads
imposed on the curtain wall system, so the
architect eventually accepted a system
having each fn supported at the rear as well
as the top and bottom, with the front edge
left exposed to achieve the visual intent.
Since the glass fns were not in line with the
curtain wall mullions, the only possible
option was for them to be fxed to the
horizontal curtain-wall transom and the stack
joint, the horizontal connection between
curtainwall panels (Fig 2). Considering the
major loading implications, Arup designed
the main support to be from the top frame of
the curtain wall. This was considered to be
the most effcient solution because it is the
only frame member in the curtain wall
system that takes no dead load from the
glazing. As the curtain wall was designed as
a hanging system to cater for additional
loads arising from the fn design, this made
the top transom the closest horizontal
member to the dead load brackets; this
approach minimised the loading implications
on other elements of the curtain wall panel.
The fns were designed on the same principle
as a unitised curtain wall. The three-sided
support elements were factory prefabricated,
where the fn brackets were also assembled
together with the unitised curtain wall, so as
to reduce the amount of on-site assembly
and ensure high quality of work. Since the
architect required the edge of the laminated
glass to be exposed, Arup chose the Sentry
Glas
®
system to reduce if not eliminate risk
of delaminating. This system also adds
structural integrity and safety.
1. Elevation of hotel tower 1,
showing non-alignment of fns and
mullions, and gradual reduction of
spacing between fns down the tower.
2. Close-up of fns, showing
connection and three-sided framing.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 65 24/02/2012 21:32
66 The Arup Journal 1/2012
SkyPark sofft cladding
The design concept for the SkyPark
included a smooth façade to its sofft.
Aluminium composite cladding panels were
chosen due to colour consistency and their
ability to supply the colour tone that the
architect preferred during the sample review.
Gaps between panels of 100mm and 40mm
were selected to help visually express how
the panels form the shape of the sofft.
Another challenge was the SkyPark’s
movement joints. It includes what are
essentially two bridge spans between the
hotel towers, and so movement joints had to
be incorporated (see also p25). The façade
cladding had to accommodate this movement
without there being any major aesthetic
impact on the panel design and pattern.
A pantograph system – a mechanical linkage
that includes an articulated assembly to
provide a motion guide for contraction or
expansion – was added in the original panel
design to regulate the centre panel between
those adjacent during any movement.
This would ensure that the gaps at the
movement joint would always be equal
whatever the structural movement.
This was later developed by the sub-
contractor, as well as an alternative spring
system solution. In this – the concept that
was the fnal choice for the actual installation
– two equal-capacity springs acting in
opposite directions keep the panel gaps
equal during movement, achieving the same
design intent and principle (Fig 3).
Thermal movement and expansion were also
carefully reviewed to ensure that the panels
will stay in place with large redundancy and
safety factors.
The nose of the SkyPark cladding has a very
small radius, forming a doubly-curved panel
(Fig 4). The aluminium composite panels
used elsewhere would not work here, so
solid aluminium panels were used, formed in
a similar way to the fabrication of aircraft
parts. They were carefully beaten to into
shape with computerised controls to ensure
the correct formation. This method
necessitated a minimum 5mm panel
thickness to ensure that no imperfections
were visible after fnishing (Figs 5, 6).
Installing the SkyPark sofft cladding was a
major challenge for the sub-contractor, with
the short programme and the needs of safety
in the process being the principal concerns.
5.
3.
6.
4.
3. Spring system installed at SkyPark
movement joints.
4. The nose of the SkyPark.
5. Underside of the SkyPark sofft
cladding nose panel, showing welds
and support framing.
6. Inspecting the nose panel.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 66 24/02/2012 21:32
67 The Arup Journal 1/2012
A large gantry system on tracks ensured ease
of installation access, at a fast rate that
would meet the programme, and ensuring
safety during the operation.
Balustrading for the SkyPark observation
deck had of course to meet rigorous safety
requirements, and to achieve this, heat-
strengthened Sentry Glas® laminated glass
was again used.
The Bayfront façade
A range of different façades and podium
building entrances face Bayfront Avenue
(Fig 4, p61). At the southern end the glazing
forms the ground level colonnade to the
exhibition spaces, which then transitions into
the southern view corridor and the casino,
and fnally the northern view corridor and
the theatres.
Here the simplest form of the horizontal
glazing system is used, comprising
horizontal steel T-sections with aluminium
glazing adapters fxed to the front face.
The double-glazed units are then clamped to
the horizontal T-sections. There are no steel
or aluminum glazing sections running
vertically, with only a simple glass-to-glass
seal. Stainless steel hanger bars stop the 9m
steel horizontals from sagging.
Most of this elevations’s many entrances
have automated sliding doors.
View cor r idor walls
The conditions of the land sale included
sightlines that needed to be maintained
through the development. To this end the
architect envisaged the creation of view
corridors dividing the elements of the
podium block, with highly transparent walls
at the ends each view corridor arcades.
These were achieved in two principal ways.
Firstly the façades team developed a
lightweight structural support system that
minimized the size and density of the
structural elements. Secondly, highly
transparent glass was specifed. This area
was given priority for the use of low iron
glass that increased visible light transmission
even though it meant a lower thermal
insulation performance. To compensate,
the double-glazing used in other areas of
the podium has less transparency and
better thermal performance.
In developing such a highly transparent
structure the frst objective was to use the
largest spacing between supports: glass
sheets 2.6m high x 3.7m wide with supports
only along the horizontal edges. Small
transoms were used to take the load to the
major steel vertical elements at the ends of
the glass panels.
The west-facing wall of the southern view
corridor running between the MICE and
casino blocks is oblique to the axis of the
corridor and so is 52m wide. The wall sits
between the promenade level and the bridge
at the end of the 20m high view corridor.
As this wall frames the view of the main
CBD of Singapore from this focal point of
the retail spaces, here again a particularly
transparent structure was needed –
a challenge, given the dimensions of the
whole wall.
The fnal scheme uses a set of vertical steel
mullions stabilised against the wind by a
cable net (Figs 7-8). The inward wind
pressures are resisted by a box cable behind
the vertical mullion, whereas the outward
suctions pull against two levels of horizontal
cables that span the width of the wall and are
anchored to the concrete structures of the
MICE and casino blocks. Similar structural
systems were used for the smaller view
corridor walls facing Bayfront Avenue.
7. West-facing view corridor wall.
8. Cable anchorage detail at the
west-facing view corridor wall.
9. Architect Moshe Safdie signing
hotel glass samples before fnal
procurement, September 2007.
7.
9. 8.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 67 24/02/2012 21:32
68 The Arup Journal 1/2012
2.
Fire engineering
Introduction and design philosophy
Marina Bay Sands, with its iconic design,
stature and location, inevitably posed a
challenge in its fre and life safety design.
The large populations in the casino and the
Sands Expo and Convention Center, the
multiple basement foors (down to a fourth
level in places), and the compacted “jigsaw”
of different components into a single
building, all made MBS in fre engineering
terms “an interesting building to work on”.
1.
Authors
André Lovatt Ruth Wong
The fre safety strategy had to involve as
stakeholders the parent company Las Vegas
Sands (LVS) and its insurance brokers, as
well as Singapore Civil Defence Force
(SCDF) as the local authority having
jurisdiction. As an international company
with signifcant overseas presence, LVS
has corporate guidelines for critical fre
safety systems for all its properties,
whether in the US, Macau, or Singapore.
Insurance brokers similarly have their own
standards relating to acceptable products
and design standards to minimise risk and
losses to insured businesses and properties.
As for statutory approvals, the SCDF
planning approvals department – the Fire
Safety and Shelter Department (FSSD) –
has jurisdiction and oversees fre and life
safety compliance approvals.
It was determined fairly early on through
close consultation with the FSSD that the
Singapore Code of Practice for Fire
Precautions in Buildings 2007
1
would form
the basis for the MBS fre safety design.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 68 24/02/2012 21:32
69 The Arup Journal 1/2012
While referenced widely in US-originated
codes such as IBC and NFPA 101
4
, the use
of horizontal exits is less common in
Singapore. At MBS, however, horizontal
exiting as a strategy has specifc advantages
in that it enables the controlled evacuation of
people from one component/part of a
building as part of an overall phased
evacuation plan, and limits disruption to
ongoing businesses and operations in the
event of a false alarm (Fig 2).
The horizontal exits at the main entrances to
the MICE and casino also used another
US-originated product – horizontal sliding
doors (Fig 3). Similar to horizontal fre
shutters, such doors are permitted under the
IBC to serve as part of the means of escape,
and are equipped to be automatically
operable for people to escape and then
to close. When not in use, the doors are
discreetly stored in pockets hidden at
the sides.
Another new concept was the use of
monumental exit staircases within the high
population areas (Fig 4). Exit staircases up
to 4m wide in a scissor-stair arrangement
were provided for both MICE and the casino
so as to give suffcient capacity for the
expected populations – in the order of
thousands of people per foor. This differs
from the stipulations in the Singapore Fire
Code 2007, which only permits up to 2m of
the exit stair width to be counted as capacity,
regardless of its total width.
This differed from other LVS properties in
the US and Macau where the International
Building Code (IBC)
2
was used. Where the
development for design or construction
reasons departed from the Singapore Fire
Code 2007, it was agreed with the FSSD that
a performance-based approach, as permitted
under the Fire Safety Act, would be utilised
for additional fexibility. Though the
Singapore Fire Code 2007 would be the
basis for design, many aspects of the IBC, eg
the use of horizontal exits, and US National
Fire Protection Association standards, eg
NFPA13
3
, were referenced in the fnal design.
Per for mance-based design and its
application to MBS
The performance-based approach to fre
safety design is not a new concept in
Singapore, having been introduced there in
2004. The Singapore Fire Code 2007 has a
subsection in front of each chapter, laying
out the root and sub-objectives of the Code
with regards to fre and life safety design.
In MBS, the performance-based approach
contributed to the overarching intent to
create an iconic design masterpiece on
Singapore’s waterfront district. The fre
and life safety design had to incorporate
seamlessly the requirements of all its
relevant stakeholders, and to the advantage
of the project.
In many instances, the risk management
strategy employed by the insurance brokers
corresponded with the fre safety measures.
Such centred on the use of maximum
foreseeable loss (MFL)* walls – with
minimal two-hour fre resistance rating –
to limit burnout or complete loss to a single
MFL compartment. The MFL compartment
also served as both the required separation
between purpose groups (or classifcations of
use) where required under the Singapore Fire
Code 2007, and as horizontal exit lines as
part of the means of escape strategy.
Phased evacuation, hor izontal exists, and
the use of monumental exit stair s
Due to MBS’s large interconnecting
footprint, horizontal exiting was used in
many parts, where people escape from a
location exposed to fre, heat and smoke, to
another relatively safe place separated by
distance and fre-rated construction. In most
cases, the horizontal exit line was designed
to coincide with the MFL separation required
for insurance purposes to limit damage in a
fre incident.
1. The Sands Theater in use.
The theatres are provided with
negative smoke pressurisation in
accordance with NFPA 92A
5
.
2. Evacuation modelling for
simultaneous evacuation of the
casino, using the STEPS program.
3. Sliding doors retracted in MICE
ancillary areas.
4. Exit staircases at MICE.
* An insurance industry term, meaning the worst loss likely to occur because of a single event.
3.
4.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 69 24/02/2012 21:32
70 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Technical challenges included providing
suffcient exit points, so that the failure of a
single exit would not impact signifcantly on
the overall means of escape from the space.
As part of this, non-lockable doors were
provided for escape at temporary partition
walls within the MICE meeting and
ballrooms (Fig 5).
Gr and Arcade and view cor r idor s
These three zones comprise the Marina Bay
Sands Shoppes. Uninterrupted by smoke
curtains, each retail smoke zone is
demarcated by the curves and bends of the
impressive fve-storey atrium design (Fig 6).
Technical challenges included determining
the most advantageous location for the
smoke vents (at the top curve of the roof),
so as to limit visual impact for visitors to
the fourth storey roof terraces and yet not
compromise the effciency of the vents
during a fre. The smoke hazard management
strategy used CFD smoke modelling of the
building, with and without wind effects, for
both small and larger fres so as to assess the
buoyancy of smoke, as well as data obtained
from wind tunnel testing of the façade.
The Cr ystal Pavilions
For these two structures, located in the
Marina Bay waters, among the fre design
options considered at the concept stage were
the use of rescue boats, foating decks, and
submerged egress tunnels back into the
podium (Fig 7). As built, these foating
geometrical glass islands are accessible via
both a deck at water level from the outdoor
promenade and, deep within basement level
2 of the Marina Bay Shoppes, via a
submerged tunnel (with an escape tunnel
running parallel to the main entrance).
The Sands Hotel
Up to 23 storeys of glass and steel form the
atrium that interconnects the three hotel
towers at ground level. The elegant steel
trusses are only partially protected with
intumescent paint, as part of a performance-
based fre safety approach which
demonstrated that there is negligible impact
of heat and smoke to the structure higher
up (Figs 8, 9).
The Sands SkyPar k
Where the SkyPark spans between each
hotel tower and cantilevers off the end of
tower 3, the huge structural steel members
have no applied fre protection. Though this
would have been a requirement under a
5. A corner of the MICE Grand
Ballroom, showing temporary
partitions in open position.
6. Retail atrium.
7. Submerged egress tunnel at the
South Crystal Pavilion.
5.
6.
7.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 70 24/02/2012 21:32
71 The Arup Journal 1/2012
prescriptive design, with a performance-
based approach it was determined that any
structure outside the immediate zone around
a possible worst-credible fre within the
towers would be able to be unprotected and
yet still maintain its stability.
A performance-based approach was also
applied to the evacuation of the SkyPark
(Fig 10). With possible populations of up to
3900 persons on the 56th and 57th storeys,
the overall strategy is to evacuate people
from the SkyPark deck to foors below and
from the shadow of one tower to another.
Awar d
In October 2011 Arup was recognised at the inaugural
National Fire and Civil Emergency Preparedness
Council (NFEC) Fire Safety Design Excellence Awards
2011, for its “outstanding work” on Marina Bay Sands.
References
(1) SINGAPORE CIVIL DEFENCE FORCE. Code of
practice for fre precautions in buildings 2007. SCDF,
2007. www.scdf.gov.sg
(2) INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL.
International building code. ICC, 2000.
www.iccsafe.org
(3) NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION.
NFPA 13. Standard for the installation of sprinkler
systems. NFPA, 2007. www.nfpa.org
(4) NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION.
NFPA 101. Life safety code. NFPA, 2006.
www.nfpa.org
(5) NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION.
NFPA 92A. Standard for smoke-control systems
utilizing barriers and pressure differences. NFPA, 2009.
www.nfpa.org
8. Fire loading analyses on hotel
atrium structure, showing ratios of
load to capacity.
9. Hotel atrium.
10. The public observation deck
on the SkyPark.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
9.
8.
10.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 71 24/02/2012 21:32
72 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Acoustics
Build like Singapore: Understanding how
Singapore has transformed itself in 40
years leads to respect for its business
environment and unique construction
culture. Successful design should always
anticipate the locale where it will be built.
Providing acoustic design guidance required
acceptance of the often counter-intuitive
building process in Singapore – different
from how a large-scale resort would be
constructed elsewhere.
Right – right now: The density of patron
activities for a full amenity resort juxtaposes
competing requirements for acoustic
experience. All design elements – be they
architectural, structural, mechanical,
transportation, or building operations –
potentially confict with acoustic comfort.
Exponential design streams meant extracting
the turbulent fow of information throughout,
and this required forensic yet immediate
design input that would streamline design
co-ordination rather than complicate it.
Design process
Testing assumptions
Acoustic design is often more challenging
for sophisticated architecture that embodies
a highly visual aesthetic. Acoustic outcomes
can’t be seen – even poor acoustic quality
photographs well. Singapore’s increasing
population, combined with accelerated
economic growth, has led to greater
tolerance of acoustic pollution, so there was
little precedent locally to counter ingrained
assumptions about acoustic quality and how
it could be achieved. Fortunately, both LVS
and Safdie Architects had a distinctly more
contemporary perspective on acoustics and
what it meant to this resort’s successful
realisation. To be world-class in every
possible way, acoustic design had to support
and even safeguard the greater aspirations of
the architecture.
Arup’s role was to embed acoustic design
considerations as a highly visible and
integral element in the process of design and
co-ordination. Often, strategic planning is
the most effective method of noise control
for a multi-dimensional project.
Success indicator s
Successful acoustic outcomes for most
projects are often diffcult to defne.
If the design solution provides the intended
experience for patrons, it is rarely noticed
because it simply feels right. Further, there is
nothing to see that proves that it works.
It just does.
MBS has multiple points of success.
Most are not obvious, but the challenges
overcome manifest themselves as successful
technical design, professional collaboration,
and the gestation of a signifcant cultural
shift. Awareness of the importance of
acoustic comfort is a signifcant change in
the quality-of-life improvements that support
Singapore’s burgeoning stature as an
international destination for business and
leisure pursuits.
The sheer size and scale of MBS has helped
position Arup’s acoustic practice as one of
the premier design consultancies in
Singapore. A fedgling group in the
Singapore offce in early 2006, the local
acoustics team was initially formed to build
upon two projects already in progress for the
Australasian acoustics practice: Genexis
Theatre and Singapore School of the Arts.
Responding to the demands of three large,
sophisticated, and technically challenging
projects was beyond the logistics of what
was initially a four-person local team, so the
support of acoustics colleagues in Australia,
the UK, and the US became a distinct
advantage. In addition to working with the
local Singapore and Hong Kong
multidisciplinary teams, the international
acoustics team worked non-stop for the
frst six months – truly 24/7 – so that
co-ordination and design guidance could
happen simultaneously in the US with
client Las Vegas Sands (LVS) and Safdie
Architects, and in Singapore with Aedas
and the local MBS client body.
Acoustic design embodied the importance of
the project to Singapore, with acoustic
quality taking a strategic “front-and-centre”
position to help shape the design rather than
merely react to it. Design progress also had
to anticipate the potential impacts of
procurement and construction practices
unique to Singapore.
Project str ategy
The primary goal was to ensure that patrons’
experience was world-class. Standardised
objective metrics of acoustic quality can
demonstrate that design targets are achieved,
but personal subjective response is the
singular determinant. Simply put, acoustic
quality manages noise disturbance and
enhances desired sounds to create an
effortless and natural sensory experience.
While most other Arup teams had been full
time on the project from July 2006, the
acoustics team commenced work that
December. To avoid an already advanced
design strategy forcing any acoustic fait
accompli, the following strategies became
the cornerstones of project progress.
Protect the architecture: The architectural
themes embodied in Safdie Architects’
design expressed a belief about what
experiencing the resort should be like.
As a signifcant environmental factor,
acoustic design needed to respect that belief,
and be integral to realising the functionality
embedded in the form. In particular, the
speed of project delivery meant a duality of
acoustic design co-ordination between
architectural developments with the Safdie
team in Boston, and procurement, detailing,
and implementation methods by the Aedas
team in Singapore.
Think like Las Vegas: LVS’s business
model is extraordinarily successful because
it combines understanding what appeals to
the patrons with surgical effciency in
getting monumental venues built quickly.
Aligning design delivery by understanding
the client’s drivers for success as the world’s
leading destination resort developer led to a
constant focus on acoustic recommendations
tested by frst-cost practicality creating
durable value.
Author
Larry Tedford
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 72 24/02/2012 21:32
73 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Change management
Change management is always diffcult on
large fast-track projects. Here, the bar was
raised even higher because multiple
buildings and associated design streams ran
in parallel. The frst issue was just to be
aware of what was changing. The second
was to be able to react and respond to what
design changes meant to acoustic quality.
To allow all project design stream leaders to
understand the acoustic impacts of rapid and
evolving change, the acoustics team
developed clear, objective, and high-level
acoustic design quality criteria, often using
language deliberately refective of the
client’s project goals. In some cases, acoustic
quality criteria were relaxed to respect the
unique nature of the operations of some of
the venues.
In MICE, for example, rapid room
reconfguration was fundamental to the
business model and to accommodate this,
slightly lower acoustic targets were agreed.
But in some cases, acoustic targets were set
higher. Hotel guestroom acoustic insulation,
for example, aimed to be better than any
existing Singapore hotels, and at parity with
Sands properties elsewhere.
1.
Technical solutions
Sands Hotel and Sands SkyPar k
The three hotel towers would be the most
visibly striking symbols of the resort’s
grandeur, so acoustic quality for guests
needed to represent the luxury of – and
sanctuary within – a memorable visit.
The interstitial nature of the hotel’s design,
however, meant balancing structural
complexity, mechanical services, sleek and
slender façades, and an extremely active
upper level – the SkyPark. Furthermore, the
spa and luxury suites were placed directly
below massive rooftop equipment plant.
As well as addressing acoustic control
between guestrooms, a co-ordinated strategy
of façade, structure, and cladding details was
developed to minimise acoustic leakage at
the slender architectural edges where
guestrooms divide the span of the exterior
envelope. Glazing confgurations were
selected to minimise traffc noise impacts
on the south façade overlooking the East
Coast Parkway, and details were
co-developed with Arup’s façades team
to account for construction sequence,
attachment to the structure, and to block
acoustically weak pathways at mullion and
foor slab interstices.
To maximise acoustic balance of transmitted
sound between rooms and from corridors,
the in-room ventilation units were reviewed
and specifed to provide neutral, but not
silent, air-conditioning for sound masking.
Because air-conditioning is rarely turned off
in Singapore, this reliable source of
“covering” sound could account for
separating wall constructions of an effcient
overall thickness to maximise room size and
meet targets for foor plan density.
In any tall building, the view from the top
necessitates premium spaces being at the
crown. However, supporting the SkyPark
amenities led to conficts in locating
premium hotel guest suites and the luxury
spa directly below major rooftop plantrooms.
This was another example of careful and
co-ordinated planning: the use of offsets,
intermediate zones for duct and sprinkler
runouts, and advantageous use of structural
elements as mass separations ensured that
patrons could enjoy both panoramic views
and solitude with no awareness of the major
services directly above them.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 73 24/02/2012 21:32
74 The Arup Journal 1/2012
All dimensions in mm
100 150 100 100 100 50 50 50
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
0 7
5 2
5
A common issue with lyric theatres is that
they tend to be too “dead” acoustically;
while this aids speech intelligibility and
doesn’t compete with the audio systems,
it can also lack a sense of spatiality and
excitement. A collaborative process that
optimised architecture, sound system design,
and the right blend of acoustic energy
redirection led to a sonic marriage for the
MBS theatres that allows amplifcation to
sound natural and transparent.
Hotel str uctur al vibr ation
The same vibration analysis that informed
the theatre structural design was also used to
assess impacts on the hotel. Structure-borne
vibration can transmit very effciently over
what may seem long and circuitous paths,
and re-radiate as low-frequency noise.
Full-scale guestroom mockups were built
midway through the project design to assess
fxtures, furnishings, façades, and
constructability. Because these were spatially
accurate representations of the eventual
acoustic environment, the team recorded
background noise in the mockup rooms with
air-conditioning operating, and used an
acoustic overlay of predicted low-frequency
rumble to demonstrate the potential impacts
of site rail transit on sleeping guests.
This led to a recommendation to deal with
rail vibration at source, rather than trying to
design the hotel structure to minimise
vibration transmission.
Sands Expo and Convention Center
From the outset, the operational importance
of MICE to the resort was well understood.
LVS was highly successful at hosting,
reconfguring, and seamlessly expanding or
contracting the range of convention and
exhibition gatherings at a mind-boggling
turnover rate. To do all this necessitates the
moving walls or operable partitions to be
deployed quickly and fexibly, while
enabling simultaneous adjacent use of
potentially competing activities.
MICE has kilometres of operable partitions.
As well as the cost of these systems, the
design had to allow for various special
confgurations, minimising the storage
footprint, speed of setup, long-term
durability – all while meeting and
maintaining an appropriate level of
acoustic separation.
To activate a cost-effective design strategy,
the Arup team worked with LVS to capture a
knowledge base of operable partition use
Theatres
As already described on pp44-45, the
theatres are embedded centrally in the north
podium and retail concourse. Both are
intended to be truly multi-purpose, and
because of this need to credibly host almost
any form of contemporary performance, the
theatrical, technical, and logistical demands
were challenging.
With the exception of the upper boundaries
below the sculpted roofine, the bottom,
lower sides, and outer perimeters of both
theatres are close to various noise and
vibration sources. Early in the design, the
relationship of structure and geotechnics
accommodation of site rail tunnels mere
metres away from the theatre envelopes
indicated that potential vibration
transmission had to be fully understood.
Iterative review of structural interconnection
and structure-borne vibration occurred
regularly for six months, and analytical
modelling of vibration transmission
indicated that modifed locations of lateral
supports would reduce the need for a
structurally foating outer theatre shell.
Detailed study alongside structural design
co-ordination led to confdence that the
design for airborne noise control of the outer
architectural theatre envelope would also
control re-radiated noise from rail tunnel
vibration. Another design strategy included
detailing a special foating lower division
below the theatres’ structural foor to account
for the car park and large exhaust fans
directly under both theatres.
The interior acoustic quality was developed
in tandem with the architectural concept for
accommodating the vast range of artistic
performances slated in both theatres.
Elemental to the design, in addition to being
quiet, was the need for the full theatrical and
sound technical systems required. The room
acoustic design strategy was to balance
moderate reverberance with strong early
refection support. This environment also
needed to be fully complementary to the
full-range audio reinforcement system
designed by SAVI Inc.
The primary room acoustic control strategy
is invisible. Hidden behind an acoustically
transparent architectural fabric facing are
wall treatment zones that transition from
sound refective into sound scattering
(acoustic diffusion) and then to sound
absorbing at the rear of the audience seating.
Walls: fabric finish with three layers 13mm
plasterboard on studs behind (c165m
2
).
Walls: fabric finish with diffusion behind; diffusion
mounted on three layers 13mm plasterboard on
studs (c215m
2
).
Walls: two layers 13mm plasterboard on studs; wall
finish fabric with c160m
2
diffusion and c160m
2

acoustically absorptive infill behind.
Rear walls, central ceiling section (c240m
2
), rear ceiling
section behind followspot booth, followspot wall, and
upper 94m
2
of proscenium wall: two layers 13mm
plasterboard on studs; finish acoustically absorptive
fibreglass behind acoustically transparent material.
Front ceiling section (c550m
2
), upper side walls, and
lower section of audience side proscenium wall: two
layers 13mm plasterboard on studs.
Plywood construction finished with acoustically
absorptive fibreglass behind acoustically
transparent material.
Glass as per glazing specification.
2.
3.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 74 24/02/2012 21:32
75 The Arup Journal 1/2012
from its existing properties. On-site acoustic
tests, plus discussions and review from
senior operations staff, allowed the team to
accurately inform optimal design strategies.
Design considerations included product
performance, procurement, and most
importantly, installation and operations
impacts. This review enabled a less stringent
specifcation standard for operable partition
acoustic ratings, and yet maintain the
usability and acoustic performance needed to
suit the business and operations model.
Ar tScience Museum:
visualisation modelling
ASM is an architectural and structural
marvel, even in the context of the resort’s
other aesthetic megaliths. There is nothing
conventional about the building’s expressive
architectural form, and it would be diffcult
to predict sound propagation within the
complex curvature of the interiors in a
traditional way.
To understand the intricacies of how sound
would refect and move through the gallery
“fngers”, the team used 3-D sound ray
propagation models to show the time and
distribution sequence of acoustic energy.
This provided a means to visualise the
complexities of acoustic anomalies, and to
explore architectural fnish options.
Implementation and constr uctability
To realise practical acoustic design
outcomes, the devil is truly in the details.
Much of what is needed for acoustic quality
is embedded in seemingly benign details
that can undermine acoustic performance.
MBS, and the sheer size and speed of the
design development to enable it,
demonstrated that getting the right
information at the right level of detail was
a case of carefully “picking your battles”.
Knowing that thousands of details generated
on the project would or could not be seen,
the team’s strategy was simply to focus on
the key details that would be breakpoints
for performance.
Fortunately, the way to attract attention to
critical details was potential cost impact.
Detailing for acoustic performance could
either cost or save large sums since the
typical multiplier – especially considering
the number of hotel guestrooms and MICE
operable partitions – would be in the
thousands. This was an example of cost
scrutiny giving acoustic design a position
of signifcant leverage. And once the
attention was given, it was a useful magnet
for convincing the project team where
detailing was critical.
Outcome
On any large project, quality outcomes for
acoustics have a relatively low level of sheer
luck as the determining factor. The MBS
client and project team recognised early on
that embedding acoustic design at every
stage would favour a successful result.
Singapore now has a signature destination
resort that is a reference for quality,
including sonic experience, while once again
redefning its stature as a country small in
geographical area, but with grand ambition.
4.
6.
5.
1. (Previous page) The completed
Grand Theater.
2. Zones in the theatres for acoustic
refection/diffusion/absorption.
3. Custom acoustic diffusor.
4. Combination of acoustic diffusion
+ absorption into panels.
5. Acoustic diffusor + absorber
panels being installed prior to
covering with fabric-faced
architectural fnish.
6. Interior of Sands Theater showing
all acoustic wall fnish confgurations
in place prior to installation of fnal
fabric facing.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 75 24/02/2012 21:32
76 The Arup Journal 1/2012
-23.85
-22.83
-21.81
-20.79
-19.77
-18.57
-17.73
-16.71
-15.69
-14.67
-13.65
-12.63
-11.61
-10.59
42.60
45.85
49.10
52.35
55.60
58.85
62.10
65.35
68.61
71.86
75.11
78.36
81.61
84.86
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
MPa MPa
percentage
strain
Blast-resilient design
Marina Bay Sands has effectively changed
the shape of Singapore. Its iconic form and
the amenities provided, adjacent to the
central business district, are attracting a
signifcant range of visitors, including many
local residents, visitors, and dignitaries from
within and outside the country. It is not just
a casino, or hotel, or entertainment centre.
It is all these and far more. With its diverse
entertaining, learning and accommodation
facilities in a very open and public site,
the integrated resort is drawing people from
all walks of life for a multitude of reasons.
Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs
(MHA) takes an active interest in the safety
and security of the country’s people, and of
particular interest are facilities that are likely
to attract mass gatherings, as these could be
considered a target to some terrorist groups.
So when the MBS integrated resort project
was frst mooted, MHA advised of its
requirement that the facility be designed
with special consideration for the protection
of its inhabitants in the case of a terrorist
event in or nearby.
Arup was engaged by the Marina Bay Sands
owning/operating company, through the
local project architect, Aedas, to provide a
threat and vulnerability risk assessment.
This considered several terrorist threats
that had been defned by the MHA.
On completion of the assessment, Arup
undertook a detailed study of the designed
form of the resort to ascertain its resilience
blast loading, based on potential scenarios
included in its threat and vulnerability risk
assessment and agreed with the MHA.
As a result of this study, particular
vulnerabilities were identifed in the
proposed building structure and façade,
Author
Peter Hoad
and Arup recommended measures which
were then introduced into the base design
to “harden” the structure and façade to
overcome the vulnerabilities identifed and
thus afford better protection to the occupants
of the building.
Blast analysis to assess (and upgrade) blast
resilience of the façade and structure
included use of:
• limited issue military-derived software
• Arup-developed single degree of freedom
analysis software
• sophisticated 3-D, non-linear analysis
software.
Output from the Arup resilience, security
and risk team was combined with input
from the numerous other Arup designers
from the structural engineering and façade
engineering teams to deliver a fully
integrated blast-resilient design facility,
in accordance with the requirements of
the MHA.
2. 1.
a) b)
3.
1. Stresses calculated in fabricated
steel (a) and steel-encased concrete
columns (b) subjected to close
proximity blast loading.
2. Time lapse strains experienced
by concrete-encased steel columns,
at intervals of 5 milliseconds,
subjected to close proximity
blast loading.
3. Blast pressure on the long-span
roof generated from an externally
detonated improvised explosive
device.
14.9
14.3
13.0
10.5
9.2
7.9
6.7
5.4
4.8
kPa
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 76 24/02/2012 21:32
77 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Delivering
success
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 77 24/02/2012 21:32
78 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Site phase supervision
The scale of the integrated resort meant that,
at the peak of construction site activities,
Arup had more than 80 full-time resident
site staff. These had to be split into three
eight-hour daily shifts as the construction
work was based on a 24/7 schedule.
As the “Qualifed Professionals” who were
responsible for the design and construction
supervision to Singapore’s Building and
Construction Authority (BCA), Arup
therefore had to deploy not one QP for the
supervision in accordance with the BCA’s
minimum requirement, but three.
Risk and safety
Inevitably such an enormous project was not
completed entirely without site accidents.
Though regrettably there were two fatalities
and some serious injuries, these were mainly
due to individual negligence and not to any
design inadequacies. Arup was fortunate in
that none of the frm’s staff was involved in
any mishaps, and greatly appreciated the
involvement of a senior safety specialist
from the Melbourne offce, who monitored
throughout construction with constant
reminders that safety in every aspect was of
the utmost importance.
The local team was also guided by the risk
and security leader of the Australasian
practice through the process of risk analysis
during construction, covering every aspect of
risk. This helped the team to keep abreast of
any potential risks as well as reminding each
member during day-to-day supervision.
Introduction
In the decades before Singapore gained full
independence in 1965, the Marina Bay
Sands site was a landing area for shipping,
both large and small. It was subsequently
reclaimed using sand fll, and the soil
investigation report showed this to lie above
a very thick layer of soft peaty clay.
The close surroundings offered other
challenges – to the east across Marina
Channel was the busy East Coast Park,
immediately adjacent to the site’s northern
extremity was Benjamin Sheares Bridge,
and to the west lay the waters of Marina
Bay – and in addition the project had to be
completed within 3.5 years from the date
the site was awarded to the client.
Monitor ing excavations and substr ucture
Arup’s innovative use of circular and peanut-
shaped diaphragm walls both to minimise
lateral movement during excavation and
provide obstruction-free excavation spaces
has already been described (pp12-15).
Constant monitoring of all the wall
defections was a statutory requirement;
if they were not within agreed limits,
the site supervision team had to order the
work within that area to be stopped.
In practice, the monitoring confrmed that
the system was working well within the
predicted values generally approved by the
local authorities. Throughout the deep
excavation, Arup’s proposed construction
method proved to be successful.
Project and constr uction management
and super vision
This was an exceptionally large project, even
for Singapore. The client, Marina Bay Sands
Pte Ltd, itself took the role both of project
management and construction management
(PMCM), engaging about 400 multinational
full-time site project management and
construction engineering staff to manage
the numerous contractors.
The presence of so many project and
construction managers, as well as the
contractors’ own staff, gave the Arup team a
challenging re-alignment of the role of its
resident site staff – Arup’s Singapore
practice had been used to the “normal” way
of managing projects. The fact that the client
had appointed its own managers meant that
Arup site staff had to deal with them rather
than liaise directly with the contractors, and
it therefore took a while before the Arup
team became accustomed to the system.
Author
Wah-Kam Chia
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 78 24/02/2012 21:32
79 The Arup Journal 1/2012 79 The Arup Journal 3/2011
Leveraging global skills
Rarely does a project need the global reach
of an organisation to be fully engaged.
However, delivering Marina Bay Sands
required Arup to draw deeply upon its global
skills and bring expertise to bear from all
over the globe. In terms of sheer scale the
conceptual undertaking was enormous, with
billions of dollars of construction to be
delivered in less than two years. Manpower
was a key strategic resource and each region
did its part in shouldering the load.
While Arup’s Singapore practice had
delivered signifcant infrastructure projects,
Singapore as a country to work in was new
to nearly all the Arup staff involved from
other regions, and the design conceived by
Safdie Architects was complex. However,
pre-existing knowledge of the client Las
Vegas Sands’ requirements from the East
Asia region’s experience on the Macau
casinos on the Cotai strip provided an
invaluable jump start.
Knowledge of client preference for structural
systems enabled scheming to commence
from day one, even before the architectural
concepts were laid out on butter papers.
Arup’s Hong Kong team mobilised with
lighting speed, marshalling resources,
reinforcing the local Singapore practice,
and co-ordinating with the concept team in
Boston. Senior leaders relocated at a
moment’s notice and in just a few weeks a
fully capable design team was operating with
the best resources from Singapore, East Asia,
Australia, and the USA.
Design activities split across the globe.
In Boston, the local offce combined with the
New York team to scheme the above-ground
elements, working side-by-side with the
Safdie offce. In Singapore,
conceptualisation of the in-ground works
moved ahead with breakneck speed, to
enable early commencement of the
excavations. Technology enabled rapid
communication between global sites, with
See and Share virtual collaboration meetings
happening frequently throughout the days
and weeks. Client briefngs led by Safdie
Architects were held monthly, with key team
members meeting in Boston to present to the
client team. Decision-making was rapid and
concepts were fnalised using virtual
prototypes and physical models. Key to the
process was concurrency and the ability to
feed back development between teams on a
daily basis. Globally-connected fle servers
meant that real-time information was
available to all as and when required.
Six months saw the conclusion of all
schematic design and the team relocated
to Singapore where the site clearing had
already commenced. Advanced BIM
modelling was leveraged for the design,
with massive models defning the built
works in an ever-changing environment.
In Singapore the team swelled to over
80 design professionals, supported by about
the same number of on-site inspection staff.
As designs approached completion,
specialist expertise was mobilised from
London, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane,
Shenzhen, Manila, South Africa, the USA
and beyond. Advanced dynamics, façade,
acoustics, fre engineering, traffc,
structural, civil, geotechnics, security risk
and resilience advice – all were much in
demand across the project.
Arup had been involved in major Singapore
projects for 40 years, but Marina Bay Sands
was unprecedented, testing and challenging
the frm’s ability to deliver world-class
engineering on a massive scale.
To judge from the success so far
of the end-product, it proved
equal to the challenge.
Bring on the next one.
Author
Peter Bowtell
Innovative design for
Singapore’s frst modern
skyscraper reduced
construction time by 35%.
1976
OCBC Centre
This was voted as
one of Asia’s best
purpose-built event
venues for its
economically
effcient design.
2001
Expo MRT
station
2008
Singapore
Flyer
2011
MARINA
BAY SANDS
2014
Singapore Spor ts
Hub Capitol site
The station’s
spaceship-like
titanium roof
creates a
column-free
platform to
accommodate
large numbers of
passengers.
This elegant and
lightweight structure
pioneered major
innovations in the
design of giant
observation
wheels.
1999
Singapore
Expo
This 55 000-seat national
stadium is intended to be a
model for future sustainable
stadium design.
1992
UOB Plaza
One of Singapore’s
tallest buildings (280m),
this was constructed
through soft marine
clay, and also
represented an
evolution in
building façades.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 79 24/02/2012 21:32
80 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Completing the
programme
important to allow smooth transition from
one contractor to another, and Arup worked
closely with the client’s project management
team to execute this package arrangement
effectively. Although there were more issues
to be handled, they were not on the critical
path and the result was completion of the
programme in an amazing 48 months.
Credit for completing the programme so
quickly initially seems due to the Arup offce
running the project, but it would have been
impossible without matching enthusiasm
and expertise from colleagues elsewhere.
The success of this project lay not only in
Arup’s technical capabilities per se, but in
how its offces could work together as a team
to deliver the project to the highest quality
possible. Marina Bay Sands, together with
other high-profle projects in Singapore, has
set new standards for the building industry
in East Asia.
“Impossible is nothing”
To complete a project with total ground foor
area of 540 000m
2
– equivalent to seven of
London’s 46-storey Heron Tower, or three
of Hong Kong’s 88-storey International
Finance Centre (2IFC) – in 48 months
seemed unachievable to everyone in
Singapore. This is understandable given that
in the history of Singapore no project on this
scale had ever been built, not to mention the
very tight programme.
Arup has often taken on major engineering
and design challenges but, combining the
diffculties of a fve-level deep basement
next to seawater; three long-span steel roofs
over the casino, theatres, and Sands Expo
and Convention Center; the longest building
cantilever in the world supporting the
northern end of the Sands SkyPark; and the
geometrically challenging lotus-like
ArtScience Museum, “unachievable” seemed
not to be an overstatement and “impossible”
maybe a more appropriate word.
Instead, the whole Arup project team seemed
to take the Adidas slogan on board from day
one: “Impossible is nothing”.
But from behind the scenes one could see
what others could not. This was why Arup
pursued this challenge. Combining the good
relationship that the US offces had with
Moshe Safdie himself, the expertise of the
Advanced Technology Group and its global
project track record, the frm’s BIM
capabilities, the list of projects with deep
basement and geotechnical challenges, the
fast-track, large-scale project experience for
several Venetian developments in Macau,
and the client’s previous trust in Arup, and
you start to omit the “im” in “impossible”.
Expediting constr uction
To meet the tight programme, the team had
to consider how to accelerate construction
during the schematic and design stages.
Precast concrete construction and
prefabricated steelwork were used wherever
appropriate to increase off-site and minimise
on-site construction work. For the
geotechnical design, the innovative
introduction of circular cofferdams allowed
no use of shoring while excavation
advanced. For the ArtScience Museum, the
perfectionist Moshe Safdie required much
tweaking of the geometry before the design
met his standards.
This would have been excessively time-
consuming with 2-D drawings co-ordination,
but Arup’s strong BIM capabilities enabled
the architect’s Rhino model to link with the
team’s own 3-D structural model, thus
automating the process. This allowed many
options to be studied quickly and at least
three times the effort saved during detail
design compared with transferring the
architect’s geometry in 2-D only to the
structural model or drawings. In addition, the
use of BIM helped speed the steelwork shop
drawings review and cut down requests for
information by over 80%.
Maximizing the battlefeld
On site, the project was divided into 140+
packages, excluding ft-out works. Interface
co-ordination between packages was very
Authors
Va-Chan Cheong Joe Lam
Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort is already an icon for
Singapore – an industry-revolutionising project that will
change the face of construction for the next decade.
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 80 24/02/2012 21:32
81 The Arup Journal 1/2012
Conclusion
Challenges
Using its knowledge and determination
to strive for excellence, Arup strove to
provide the best solutions for the client’s
requirements. This Arup Journal describes
how the frm drew on its global expertise
for the many aims and aspects of the project,
in particular the diffcult tasks such as the
120m diameter cofferdams for substructure
works, the 66.5m long cantilever steel
structure, the unique geometry of the
ArtScience Museum, the glazing for the
Crystal Pavilions, and the long-span roof
trusses for the podium structures.
There were doubts that this project could be
completed, due to site constraints and
technical and economic diffculties.
However, the design team approached all
this in ways that opened up new resources
and enhanced experience and knowledge
across Singapore’s building industries.
It exemplifed what can be achieved in
situations that need engineering judgement
beyond what is distinctly covered by code.
The MBS project also benefted the
Singapore BCA (Building and Construction
Authority) engineer and accredited checker
of the project, broadening the mindset on
how to overcome such challenges, and
raising the bar of what can be accomplished
with international resources.
Almost every aspect of MBS was technically
challenging, and stretched the limits of
engineering. In responding, the team adopted
new and innovative technologies that pushed
the boundaries of current software and
systems, pulling together as a design team
of global skills from four continents to
communicate effectively and deliver
outcomes to meet the client’s needs and
turn the design concept into reality.
Benefts
The integrated resort elevates Singapore’s
tourism and business opportunities, its
facilities enabling it to be a leading Asian
MICE hub. In addition MBS provides
employment opportunities for many.
The local community benefts from the
district cooling plant by avoiding the need
for chiller plants and cooling towers on
buildings. This in turn optimises the use of
water and other natural resources for
generating energy.
Authors
Va-Chan Cheong Otto Lai
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 81 24/02/2012 21:32
82 The Arup Journal 1/2012
André Lovatt is a Principal and leads the Singapore
offce. He jointly led the fre safety design team for
Marina Bay Sands.
Juan Maier is an Associate in the Singapore offce.
He led the design team for the structural steel roof of
MICE, the casino and the theatres.
Brian Mak is an assistant engineer in the Hong Kong
offce. He was a member of the design team for the
SkyPark, ArtScience Museum and Crystal Pavilions.
Patrick McCafferty is an Associate in the Boston offce.
He was the Americas Region Project Manager for
Marina Bay Sands and helped lead the structural
design team.
Brendon McNiven is a Principal in the Melbourne
offce. He was the Professional Engineer responsible for
statutory design submission for the MICE/casino/
theatre roof steel structures, hotel atrium steel structures
and SkyPark structures.
Jack Pappin is an Arup Fellow in the Hong Kong
offce. He oversaw and led most of the geotechnical
design for Marina Bay Sands.
Moshe Safdie is an architect, urban designer, educator,
theorist, author, and founder of Safdie Architects,
designer of the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort.
Mac Tan is a senior façade consultant in the Singapore
offce. He was the façade package leader in charge of
all façade systems covering the hotel towers and atrium,
SkyPark, ArtScience Museum, and Crystal Pavilions.
Larry Tedford is an Associate Principal in the San
Francisco offce. He led the acoustics design team for
Marina Bay Sands.
Alex Wong is a façade designer in the Singapore
offce. He was the façade package leader in charge
of all façade systems covering the MICE, casino,
and theatres.
Ruth Wong is an Associate in the Singapore offce.
She jointly led the fre safety design team for Marina
Bay Sands.
Wijaya Wong is a Senior Associate in the Singapore
offce. He led the design team for the hotel and
SkyPark. He was the Professional Engineer responsible
for statutory design submission for the hotel.
Xiaofeng Wu is an engineer in the Singapore offce.
He was a member of the design team for the hotel
atrium, MICE, events plaza, promenade, ArtScience
Museum and Crystal Pavilions.
Image credits
Arup with the following exceptions:
Front cover, pp2-3(1) 16(1) 21(2-3) 24(1) 25(3-4)
30(19) 31 34(6) 36(9) 41 43(3) 48(1-2) 53(14) 54(1)
55(2) 60(1) 68(1) 70(6) 71(10) 83 Timothy Hursley;
4-5(1) 59(15) 77 78 Darren Soh; 6(1) 12(2) 13(4-5)
14(10) 15(12, 15) 19(6-8, 10) 22(4) 25(5) 26(6-7) 32(1)
37(1-2) 39(3, 5) 41(map) 42(1) 43(2) 45(3) 46(2) 47(3)
58(11) 61(2-3) 62(5) Nigel Whale; 7(2) 8-9(1-4) 11(6)
12(1) 46(1) 49(3) 53(14) Safdie Architects;
11(1, 3-5) 49(6) Patrick McCafferty; 13(6) Lian Beng
Construction Pte Ltd; 20(1) 22(5) 44(1) 58(10) 63
65(1-2) 70(5) 71(9) 75(6) Paul McMullin; 28(15)
28-29(15-17) JFE-Yongman JV; 29(18) Jenny Lie;
38(1) 39(4) 40(7) 53(15-16) 73(1) 80-81 Visual Media,
Marina Bay Sands; 51(12) 66(3-6) 67(9) Mac Tan;
61(4) 62(6) 67(7-8) 69(3-4) 70(7) Franklin Kwan;
79 Clarice Fong.
Author s
Dan Birch is a senior engineer in the Bristol, UK,
offce. He led the design team for the structural
steelwork of the ArtScience Museum.
Peter Bowtell is a Principal in the Melbourne offce,
and the Buildings Practice leader in Australasia.
He was the Director responsible for coordinating
Arup’s international effort on Marina Bay Sands.
Daniel Brodkin is a Principal in the New York offce
and the Buildings Practice leader in New York.
He led the concept design phase as the Americas
Region Project Director.
Va-Chan Cheong is a Director in the Hong Kong offce.
He was Project Director for Marina Bay Sands.
Wah-Kam Chia is a Principal in the Singapore offce.
He was Project Director and QP Supervision for the site
supervision contract for Marina Bay Sands.
Russell Cole is a Principal in the Singapore offce, and
the current Building Group leader. He led the façade
consultancy team for Marina Bay Sands.
Don Ho is an assistant engineer in the Hong Kong
offce. He was a member of the design team for MICE
and the Crystal Pavilions.
Peter Hoad is a Principal in the Sydney offce and leads
the Resilience, Security and Risk Consulting Group in
Australasia. He led the resilience, security and risk team
for Marina Bay Sands.
Philip Iskandar is a geotechnical engineer in the
Singapore offce. He was a member of the geotechnical
team for Marina Bay Sands.
Wing-Kai Leong is a senior engineer in the Hong Kong
offce. He was a member of the geotechnical team for
Marina Bay Sands, and led the team in the later stages
of the project.
Otto Lai was an Associate in the Hong Kong offce.
He led the design team for the podium structures.
Joe Lam is an Associate in the Hong Kong offce.
He was a leader of the design team for the ArtScience
Museum, Crystal Pavilions and theatre structures.
Jenny Lie is the senior marketing consultant in the
Singapore offce.
Franky Lo is a senior engineer in the Hong Kong offce.
He was a leader of the design team for the ArtScience
Museum, Crystal Pavilions and theatres.
Rudi Lioe is a senior engineer in the Singapore offce.
He was a member of the design team for the hotel
towers.
Project credits
Clients: Las Vegas Sands Inc/Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd
Architect: Safdie Architects Singapore architect:
Aedas Pte Ltd Geotechnical, civil, structural, façade,
fre, BIM, acoustics, audiovisual, blast and security
consultant: Arup Building services engineers:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Pte Ltd/Vanderweil Engineers
Quantity surveyor: EC Harris/Rider Levett Bucknall
Landscape architect: Peter Walker & Partners/Peridian
Asia Pte Ltd Hotel contractor: Lian Beng Construction
Pte Ltd/SsangYong Engineering & Construction Ltd
SkyPark contractor: Yongnam & JFE Engineering
Corporation JV ArtScience Museum contractor:
Penta Ocean MICE/retail steelwork contractor:
Alfasi Constructions Singapore Pte Ltd Casino and
theatre steelworks contractor: Singapore Jinggong Steel
Structures Pte Ltd Foundations contractors: Soletanche
Bachy Singapore Pte Ltd/Sambo Geo-Tosfoc Co Ltd/
L&M Foundation Pte Ltd South/North Podium
excavation and reinforced concrete contractors:
KTC Civil Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd/Yau Lee
Construction Pte Ltd/Sembawang Engineers and
Constructors Pte Ltd ArtScience Museum cladding
contractor: DK Composites Sdn Bhd Retail canopies
contractor: YKK Architectural Products Inc
Tenant ftout in South Crystal Pavilion: Pure Projects
Singapore Pte Ltd Theatre planning and engineering
design consultant (for both theatres): Robert Campbell,
Associate Principal, Fisher Dachs Associates
Performance sound, video, and production
communications design consultant (for both theatres):
Michael Cusick, President, Specialized Audio-Visual Inc
Signage subcontractor: Crimsign Graphics Pte Ltd.
Project awar ds
Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore
ACES Engineering Excellence Award 2011:
Civil & Structural Engineering Consultant
Hotel and SkyPark
Bentley 2010 Be Inspired Award Winner
Institution of Structural Engineers
Singapore Structural Awards 2010 Award for Structures
Hotel and SkyPark
Singapore Structural Steel Society
Structural Steel Design Award 2010 Award for
Commercial Structures
Podium roof and canopy structures
National Fire and Civil Emergency Preparedness
Council Fire Safety Design Excellence Awards 2011
Hotel and SkyPark
58086_Arup_Txt.indd 82 24/02/2012 21:32
1.
4 Singapore’s vision for Marina Bay
6 Introduction to Marina Bay Sands
8 Designing Marina Bay Sands
10 Collaboration with Safdie Architects
12 Geotechnics and foundation design
The Sands Hotel and Sands SkyPark
16 The hotel towers
20 Hotel atrium walls
24 The Sands SkyPark
The podium
32 The podium roofs
37 Podium underslab drainage system
38 Sands Expo and Convention Center
41 Retail areas
42 The casino
44 Theatre structures
46 The event plaza
48 The ArtScience Museum
54 The Crystal Pavilions
60 Bayfront Avenue and
Downtown Line 1
Specialist skills
64 The façade systems
68 Fire engineering
72 Acoustics
76 Blast-resilient design
Delivering success
78 Site phase supervision
79 Leveraging global skills
80 Completing the programme
81 Conclusion
82 Credits
The following past and present staff members
Irom Arup oIfces worldwide are among those
who made signifcant contributions to the design
of Marina Bay Sands.
Joy Aclao, Nur Liyana Ahmad, Ian Ainsworth,
Graham Aldwinckle, Jarrod Alston, Evan Amatya,
Joseph Amores, Richard Andrews, Christine Ang,
Ling Ling Ang, Siow Ting Ang, Christopher Anoso,
Easy Arisarwindha, Mark Arkinstall, Feng Bai,
Jaydy Baldovino, Warren Balitcha, Venugopal Barkur,
Rachel Baylson, Dan Birch, Hay Sun Blunt,
Greg Borkowski, Sarah Boulkroune, Nick Boulter,
Peter Bowtell, Ashley Bracken, Claire Bristow,
Daniel Brodkin, Jessica Cao, Neil Carstairs,
Matt Carter, Kartigayen Poutelaye Cavound,
Chee Wah Chan, Chris Chan, George Chan,
Kam-Lam Chan, Ken Chan, Marco Chan,
Michael Chan, Tat-Ngong Chan, Wayne Chan,
Yun-Ngok Chan, Renuga Chandra, Angela Chen,
Carrie Chen, Chi-Lik Chen, Melissa Chen,
Harold Cheng, Cecilia Cheong, Joy Cheong,
Patrick Cheong, Va-Chan Cheong, Kenny Cheung,
Henry Chia, Wah-Kam Chia, Reve Chin,
Clyfford Ching, Park Chiu, Derek Chong,
Sok Poi Chong, TS Choong, Henry Chow,
Hee Kung Chua, Wee Koon Chua, Rene Ciolo,
Richard Clement, Ranelle Cliff, Lyonel Cochon,
Russell Cole, Yimin Cong, George Corpuz,
Joseph Correnza, Anne Coutts, Robert Coutu,
Raymond Crane, Josh Cushner, Richard Custer,
Yang Dang, Bruce Danziger, John Davies,
Lauren Davis, Ethelbert Derige, Antonio Diaz,
Mike DiMascio, Ran Ding, Nick Docherty,
Graham Dodd, Matt Dodge, Andrew Douglas,
Pierre Dubois, Andy Ellett, David Farnsworth,
Garth Ferrier, Kai Fisher, Raymond Fok, Clarice Fong,
Raymond Fong, Vivien Foo, Kathy Franklin, Feng Gao,
Chris Gildersleeve, Gina Goh, Gladys Goh,
Ian Grierson, Ken Guertin, Liana Hamzah,
James Hargreaves, Rotana Hay, Donal Hayward,
Eric He, Zheng-Yu He, Grace Hendro, Kok Hui Heng,
Argi Hipolito, Andy Ho, Chong Leong Ho, Don Ho,
Kent Ho, Stanley Ho, Wee Keong Ho, Peter Hoad,
Dennis Hoi, Martin Holt, Anna Hon, Andrew Hulse,
Sarah Huskie, Philip Iskandar, Mellissa Ismail,
Sha Mohamed Ismail, Anthony Ivey, Frank Jeczmionka,
Steven Jenkins, William Jimenez, Hong Geng Jin,
Matt Johann, Carl Jones, Steven Jones,
Edmond San Jose, Chak-Sang Kan, Yiu-Fai Kan,
Man Kang, Subash Kathiresan, Teng Chong Khoo,
Amanda Kimball, Ben Kirkwood, Henrik Kjaer,
Sing Yen Ko, Duraibabu Damodaran Kothanda,
Jeyatharan Kumarasamy, Viann Kung, Kin-Kei Kwan,
Chris Kwok, Henry Kwok, Nelson Kwong, Andrew Lai,
David Lai, Kristin Lai, Otto Lai, Philip Lai,
Raymond Lai, Alvin Lam, Clement Lam, Ernest Lam,
Joe Lam, Derek Lau, Eric Lau, James Lau, Jeffrey Lau,
Tony Lau, Wai-Lun Lau, Henry Law, Michelle Lazaro,
Bill Lee, Budi Lee, Cheryl Lee, Chris Lee,
Chung Hei Lee, Davis Lee, Francis Lee, Gordon Lee,
Hiang Meng Lee, John Lee, Kin Shang Lee,
Nicholas Lee, Patrick Lee, Peter Lee, Sebastian Lee,
Serena Lee, Yi Jin Lee, Kevin Legenza,
John Legge-Wilkinson, Steven Lenert, Tino Leong,
Wing-Kai Leong, Erin Leung, Koon-Yu Leung,
Sam Leung, Stephen Leung, Stuart Leung,
Vivian Leung, Ben-Qing Li, Chi-Shing Li, Lei Li,
Shawn Li, Zhuo Li, Alex Lie, Jenny Lie, Keithson Liew,
Kim Hoe Liew, Christina Lim, Deyuan Lim,
Keong Liam Lim, Patricia Lim, William Lim, Angie Lin,
Jonathan Lindsay, Brett Linnane, Rudi Lioe, Amy Liu,
Charlie Liu, Chris Liu, Xi Liu, Franky Lo,
André Lovatt, Sin Ching Low, Danny Lui, Jack Lui,
Kwok-Man Lui, Marcellus Lui, Kok Mun Lum,
Malcolm Lyon, Michael Macaraeg, Juan Maier,
Alex Mak, Brian Mak, Dylan Mak, Louis Mak,
Louise Mak, Martino Mak, Dexter Manalo,
Mukunthan Manickavasakar, Anand Mariyappan,
Patrick McCafferty, Sean McGinn, Brendon McNiven,
Maciej Mikulewicz, Wing Sze Mo, Junaidah Mohd,
Martin Mok, Polly Mok, Lydia Mokhtar, Andrew Mole,
Rodel Moran, Jon Morgan, Dean Morris,
Samir Mustapha, Vaikun Nadarajah, Bob Nelson,
Andrew Neviackas, Derek Ng, James Ng, Jason Ng,
Ka-Yuen Ng, Peck Nah Ng, Andrew Nicol,
Phamornsak Noochit, Alison Norrish, Ada Oh,
Edwin Ong, Janice Ong, Natalie Ong, Khine Khine Oo,
Kamsinah Osman, Ayca Ozcanlar, Jin Pae,
Priya Palpanathan, Jack Pan, Kathy Pang,
Jack Pappin, Stuart Pearce, Alan Philp,
Maggie Puvannan, Chris Pynn, Jie Qian,
Virgilio Quinones, Jim Quiter, Nizar Abdul Rahim,
Mohan Raman, Rey Redondo, Adrian De Los Reyes,
Archie Ricablanca, Darlene Rini, Peter Romeos,
Ian Del Rosario, Alex Rosenthal, Ken Roxas,
Matthew Ryan, Emily Ryzak, Richard Salter,
Katherina Santoso, Majid Haji Sapar, Haico Schepers,
David Scott, Lin Ming See, Richie See, Janice Sendico,
Bee Lian Seo, Kartini Shabani, Henry Shiu,
Margaret Sie, Michael Sien, Chris Simm, Nick Simpson,
Kenneth Sin, Alexandra Sinickas, Jimmy Sitt,
Nathan Smith, Andrew Snalune, Penelope Somers,
Noel Sotto, Charles Spiteri, Jimmy Su, Doreen Sum,
Joyce Sum, Daojun Sun, Malar Suppiah,
Muljadi Suwita, Jamie Talbot, Hon-Wing Tam,
Jonas Tam, Winfred Tam, Kok Yong Tan, Mac Tan,
Suan Wee Tan, Vicky Tan, Rajesh Tandel, Johnson Tang,
Joyce Tang, Lim Mei Tang, Willis Tang, Brendan Taylor,
Larry Tedford, Sean Teo, Ming Jong Tey,
Nithi Thaweeskulchai, Andra Thedy, Kia Ling Tho,
Helen Tolentino, Michael Tom, Roberto Tonon,
Roland Trim, David Tse, Jeff Tubbs, Mart Umali,
Richard Vanderkley, Karthik Venkatesan, David Vesey,
Henry Vong, Doug Wallace, Delu Wang, Qian Wang,
Ekarin Wattanasanticharoen, Toby White, Garry Wilkie,
Huw Williams, Ashley Willis, Berlina Winata, Ian Wise,
Alex Wong, Ambrose Wong, Dick Wong, Joseph Wong,
Kin-Ping Wong, Ling Chye Wong, Mary Wong,
Ruth Wong, Suman Wong, Tim Wong, Wijaya Wong,
Joanne Woo, Andrew Woodward, Colin Wu, Gin Wu,
Louis Wu, Tao Wu, Wendy Wu, Xiaofeng Wu,
Takim Xiang, David Xiong, Jingfeng Xu, Dai Yamashita,
Frances Yang, Zhi-Qiang Yang, Wison Yang, Seven Yau,
Mehdi Yazdchi, Yanli Ye, Sam Yeung, Victor Yeung,
Wing-Cheong Yeung, Yiu-Wing Yeung, Reman Yick,
Kek-Kiong Yin, Colin Yip, Alan Yiu, Jack Yiu,
Heng Yong, Jennifer Yong, Lip Bing Yong, Lily You,
Yuki Yu, Zhen Yuan, Matthew Yuet, Carlos Zara,
Hai-Tao Zhang, Jing Zhang, Liang-Liang Zhao,
Zhi Qin Zhou, Jing Zhuang.
58086_Arup_Cvr.indd 2 24/02/2012 23:06
The Arup Journal
Issue 1 2012

I
s
s
u
e

1


2
0
1
2
The Marina Bay Sands Special Issue
T
h
e

A
r
u
p

J
o
u
r
n
a
l
T
h
e

M
a
r
i
n
a

B
a
y

S
a
n
d
s

S
p
e
c
i
a
l

I
s
s
u
e
Arup is a global organisation of designers,
engineers, planners, and business
consultants, founded in 1946 by Sir Ove
Arup (1895-1988). It has a constantly
evolving skills base, and works with local
and international clients around the world.
Arup is owned by Trusts established for the
beneft oI its staII and Ior charitable
purposes, with no external shareholders.
This ownership structure, together with the
core values set down by Sir Ove Arup,
are Iundamental to the way the frm is
organised and operates.
Independence enables Arup to:
· shape its own direction and take a long-
term view, unhampered by short-term
pressures from external shareholders
· distribute its profts through reinvestment
in learning, research and development, to
staII through a global proft-sharing
scheme, and by donation to charitable
organisations.
Arup’s core values drive a strong culture
of sharing and collaboration.
All this results in:
· a dynamic working environment that
inspires creativity and innovation
· a commitment to the environment and the
communities where we work that defnes
our approach to work, to clients and
collaborators, and to our own members
· robust professional and personal networks
that are reinforced by positive policies on
equality, fairness, staff mobility, and
knowledge sharing
· the ability to grow organically by attracting
and retaining the best and brightest
individuals from around the world – and
from a broad range of cultures – who share
those core values and beliefs in social
usefulness, sustainable development, and
excellence in the quality of our work.
With this combination of global reach and a
collaborative approach that is values-driven,
Arup is uniquely positioned to Iulfl its aim
to shape a better world.
About Arup
Printed by Pureprint Group using
their
®
environmental print
technology. The printing inks are
made from vegetable based oils and
no harmful industrial alcohol is used
in the printing process with 98% of
any dry waste associated with this
production diverted Irom landfll.
Pureprint Group is a CarbonNeutral
®
company and is certifcated to
Environmental Management
System ISO 14001 and registered
to EMAS, the Eco Management
and Audit Scheme.
The Arup Journal
Vol47 No1 (1/2012)
Editor: David J Brown
Designer: Nigel Whale
Editorial: Tel: +1 617 349 9291
email: arup.journal@arup.com
Published by Global Marketing
and Communications,
Arup, 13 Fitzroy Street,
London W1T 4BQ, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7636 1531
Fax: +44 (0)20 7580 3924
All articles ©Arup 2012
Special thanks to Brian Mak,
Jenny Lie, and Franklin Kwan
for their help in co-ordinating
this special edition.
We shape a better world
|
www.arup.com
58086_Arup_Cvr.indd 1 24/02/2012 23:06

4 6 8

Singapore’s vision for Marina Bay Introduction to Marina Bay Sands Designing Marina Bay Sands

10 Collaboration with Safdie Architects 12 Geotechnics and foundation design
The Sands Hotel and Sands SkyPark

16 The hotel towers 20 Hotel atrium walls 24 The Sands SkyPark
The podium

32 The podium roofs 37 Podium underslab drainage system 38 Sands Expo and Convention Center 41 Retail areas 42 The casino 44 Theatre structures 46 The event plaza 48 The ArtScience Museum 54 The Crystal Pavilions 60 Bayfront Avenue and Downtown Line 1
Specialist skills

64 The façade systems 68 Fire engineering 72 Acoustics 76 Blast-resilient design
Delivering success

78 Site phase supervision 79 Leveraging global skills 80 Completing the programme 81 Conclusion 82 Credits
1.

Marina Bay Sands, Singapore
Conceived by architect Moshe Safdie and engineered by Arup, Singapore’s new waterfront resort includes: three 55-storey hotel towers topped by the 1ha SkyPark; South East Asia’s leading MICE (meetings, incentives, conferences and exhibitions) hub; two theatres, a casino, shops, two Crystal Pavilions and promenades; and the unique lotus-shaped ArtScience Museum.

The Arup Journal 3/2011

3

Singapore’s vision for Marina Bay
Author Jenny Lie

1. Singapore Flyer 2. Gardens by the Bay East

The centrepiece of our redevelopment of the city is Marina Bay ... It will be a city in our image, a sparkling jewel, a home for all of us to be proud of, a home that will belong to all of us.
Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore Prime Minister, 2005

Singapore and urban renewal Singapore has been engaged in urban renewal since the mid-1950s, with the formulation of its masterplan from 1952-55 and approval by government in 1958. The subsequent establishment of the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)1 in 1974 was a key milestone in focusing efforts to maximise land usage in this small, densely packed country. The masterplan has since undergone eight reviews, and defines five Regions: the West, North, North-East, East, and Central. Within the Central Region is Central Area, which embraces Marina Bay. The Marina Bay vision thus began some 40 years ago. Located at Singapore’s southern tip, this 360ha development was designed to seamlessly extend the downtown district and further support the city-state’s continuing growth as a major business and financial hub in Asia2. It is an artificial bay, and groundwork for its transformation into a waterfront business district was laid as long ago as the late 1960s, with land reclaimed in phases between 1969 and 1992. With Singapore’s signature city skyline as a backdrop, Marina Bay is envisioned as a Garden City by the Bay, a 24/7 destination presenting an exciting array of opportunities for people to explore new living and lifestyle options, exchange new ideas and information for business, and be entertained by rich leisure and cultural experiences in a distinctive environment.

Creating value In planning Marina Bay, specific attention was paid to creating value. The masterplan focuses on encouraging a mix of uses (commercial, residential, hotel and entertainment) to ensure that the area remains vibrant around the clock. Along the waterfront and fronting key open spaces, building heights are kept low, maximising views to and from individual developments further away from the waterfront, enhancing their attractiveness, and creating a dynamic “stepped-up” skyline profile as well as more pedestrian-scaled areas. The development of Marina Bay is supported by state-of-the-art infrastructure worth more than $4.5bn. Marina Bay features: • over 400 000m2 of Grade A office space • 101ha of Gardens by the Bay • a common services tunnel housing data and telecommunications cables, sewers and services • a 5.5km long promenade linking all the major attractions around Marina Bay • the iconic Helix Bridge and a separate vehicular bridge linking Marina South and Marina Centre • extension of roads linking directly to the city and airport • five new underground MRT stations • the new Marina Barrage, making the Bay a 182ha haven for motorised and non-motorised recreational activities. This was the background against which, in May 2006 after a highly competitive bidding process, Las Vegas Sands was declared winner with its design by Safdie Architects for Marina Bay Sands, a business-oriented integrated resort on the east side of Marina Bay.

1.

Evaluation of Marina Bay Sands design In the design evaluation portion of the tender, a panel of local and international architects commended the MBS design as superior to other bids in terms of pedestrian circulation and layout, as well as best fit with the Marina Bay landscape. They liked the hotel towers being set back from the waterfront to open up expansive views of the city and the entire Marina Bay, making the skyline more attractive and distinctive, but the MBS trump card was its promise to bring convention visitors to Singapore with 110 000m2 devoted to this – half of what Singapore had earmarked for the whole downtown business district. This pledge, plus the inclusion of the ArtScience Museum, two performing theatres and no less than six celebrity chefs, gave it top marks in tourism appeal, a category comprising 40% of the total score. Singapore aims to double tourist arrivals to 17M and triple tourism receipts to $30bn by 2015. The completion of Marina Bay Sands is expected to make this happen – an extra $2.7bn, or 0.8%, will mark its contribution to the Singapore economy by 2015.
References (1) www.ura.gov.sg (2) www.marina-bay.sg

4

The Arup Journal 1/2012

S) Key to Arup disciplines A Acoustics AV Audiovisual B Blast engineering BI Building information modelling C Civil engineering E Electrical engineering En Environmental consulting Es Environmental sustainability design F Fire engineering Fc Façade engineering G Geotechnical engineering I Infrastructure L Lighting M Mechanical engineering Mr Maritime engineering R Risk consulting S Structural engineering Se Security consulting T Transport planning Tn Tunnel design W Water engineering The Arup Journal 1/2012 5 . UOB Plaza At 280m. UOB Plaza 13. F. C. G. (C. OCBC Centre 4. W) 3. E. thereby maximising the use of limited land space in the heart of the CBD. L. leading to a 35% reduction in construction time. S. L. Singapore Flyer Building on experience gained from the London Eye. G. S) 6. Gardens by the Bay East Arup looked to nature for inspiration and designed a water management strategy that uses Marina Bay as a reservoir to supply the garden’s water features and themed areas. This includes the use of the cabin concept as a smoke hazard management strategy for a retail outfit. MARINA BAY SANDS (A. I. S) 13. S) 10. G. AV. BI. (C. E. R. Tn) 8. Marina Bay Financial Centre 11. S. Downtown Line (DTL) 10. (F) 12. S. Common services tunnel (230KV/22KV electrical substation and tunnel) Arup allowed for the construction of this 3km underground common services tunnel that houses a comprehensive range of telecommunication and utilities networks with the capacity for expansion to meet changing utility needs. OCBC Centre Arup’s innovative construction method for Singapore’s first modern skyscraper allowed for simultaneous construction of the bank’s floors. The Helix Bridge 5. Fc) 4. housed in two large biomes. Gardens by the Bay South 5. Marina Bay Waterfront promenade Arup involvement in Marina Bay 1. En. Intricate and lightweight. Marina Bay Financial Centre Arup’s innovative fire engineering approach scored several firsts in Singapore and raised the bar for local fire engineering standards. total internal discharge for core staircases. MARINA BAY SANDS 3. M. Es. Common services tunnel 7. Downtown Line (underground) This 40km project required Arup to design a floating retaining wall system in soft marine clay ground conditions. (F) 11. Marina Bay Waterfront Promenade By creating a range of street furniture that doubles as environmental intervention and as a near-zero energy city gallery. comfortable for passengers and aesthetically unique. G. T) 7. Arup’s award-winning design resulted in a revolving structure that is resilient. Fc. M. the Helix is a world first for this type of design. Mr. R) 9. T. M.6. (F. S. Gardens by the Bay South This 54ha garden features Singapore’s first conservatories. Arup’s fire engineering design allowed this building to be constructed substantially closer to its neighbours. UOB Plaza 1 is one of the tallest buildings in Singapore with three levels of basement carpark. T) 2. (B. G. M. and a space-efficient vertical protection design for a high-rise residential tower. Fc. T. E. One Marina Boulevard 12. (C. The Helix Bridge 8. Mr. Bayfront Bridge These new bridges provide pedestrian and vehicular connections between the old and new precincts of Singapore. E. and introduced a permanent underslab drainage system to limit uplift water pressures under the basement. One Marina Boulevard Compared to a code-compliant solution. (C. Arup designed a natural smoke venting system and an innovative glass façade system that supports the conservatories’ microclimates. (Fc. (C. G. G. F. Arup helped enhance this waterfront promenade as a comfortable outdoor space for viewing the Singapore skyline. Arup designed large steel trusses to create a 50m x 50m column-free space within the podium. Bayfront Bridge 9. M. and in close proximity to an existing line. G. G. E. Mr. Se. (C.

Arup Australia worked on the traffic consultancy and the dynamic behaviour of the structures. Floating platform 5. an observation deck. and information) and ENTERTAIN (rich cultural experiences. the signature Merlion sculpture. and the city skyline itself. Keppel Land. together with the Esplanade. to a shortlist by the Tourism Board for the RFP (request for proposals) stage. Arup Singapore was involved in the advance works. conferences and exhibitions). etc. such as the Marina Barrage and the future Gardens by the Bay. and traffic.) In early 2005 the architect Paul Steelman Design Group. various residential premises. The new pedestrian Helix Bridge. This crowning jewel would energise and activate the whole waterfront through its connections to other leisure and entertainment destinations. façade. Benjamin Sheares Bridge 8. public art. links to the existing infrastructure network. including advance works. landscaped sky terraces. night lighting. schematic and detailed designs. The Promontory 12. foundations. the Boston office had the advantage of being close to Safdie Architects. For its work on the scheme design. The lotus-like ArtScience Museum and unique cantilevered SkyPark observation platform are already icons as identifiable with Singapore as Sydney Opera House is for its home city and Australia. 11 12 1. East Coast Parkway (ECP) Water Taxi South Crystal Pavilion South Event Plaza The Sho Casino Sands SkyPark ppe 9 9 10 Crystal Pavilion North s Theatres es pp eS Ba yfr on Th tA ve ho nu e Sands Hotel 0 100m 1. The Bostonbased Safdie Architects was engaged by LVS for the RFP competition. convention/exhibition areas. recreation. Marina Bay Sands 10. Arup was engaged by the resort developer Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) to work on the planned integrated resort development at Marina Bay. It would also be one of the area’s significant visual markers. acoustic. incentives. the floating platform. and in May 2006. From then on. its facilities both boosting tourism and making it South East Asia’s leading MICE hub (meetings. helped LVS in the RFC (request for concept) stage of the development competition. The design competition parameters were expressed as EXPLORE (new living and lifestyle options). 6 The Arup Journal 1/2012 Eas t Co Sands Expo and Convention Center ast Par kwa y . Arup’s contribution For this mega-project Arup provided a one-stop design service to its client. and 12 minutes (800m) to the Esplanade Theatres. retail. which had joined with another local company. entertainment. fun and beautiful surroundings. putting MBS within a seven-minute walk (500m) of the Singapore Flyer. fire and risk consulting. the Tourism Board announced that the development rights had been awarded to LVS in preference to the Malaysian casino operator Genting and two Las Vegas rivals: MGM Mirage. Arup worked successively on the RFP. With other elements then completed. teamed with local developer CapitaLand. the Merlion. the Flyer. branded as Asia’s most exciting urban lifestyle hub-to-be and the centrepiece of Singapore’s redevelopment. casino. and the existing central business district (CBD). Merlion 9. completed in 2010. the whole development is envisaged as Singapore’s new downtown. the Gardens by the Bay and Marina Centre. Origins Conceived by Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority and Tourism Board. Shenzhen. continues the link along the Marina Bay promenade. as well as the fire and façade engineering designs. Melbourne. lifestyle. and dining facilities. infrastructure. Design team members came from many offices including Boston. plus the existing Esplanade Theatres on the Bay – the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort (MBS) was to complete the “necklace” of tourism attractions in the Marina Bay area. Hong Kong. and the Singapore Flyer1. structural. notably the SkyPark. The Helix Bridge 6. Singapore Flyer 4. EXCHANGE (new business ideas.Introduction to Marina Bay Sands Author Va-Chan Cheong 8 1 2 4 5 6 7 3 ArtScience Museum N Water Taxi North MARINA BAY Overview Early in 2005. Esplanade – Theatres on the Bay 2. civil. public attraction. and Singapore. As described in the previous article. the resort was envisaged as including hotel space. Gardens by the Bay South 11. and Harrah’s. Marina Bay Seating Gallery 3. and substructure. under construction or planned – Marina Bay Financial Centre. Brisbane. in association with Arup Hong Kong and other consultants. The Bayfront Bridge 7. and geotechnical engineering. Singapore.

The SkyPark opened a day later. Arup also deployed its expertise in fields such as materials. was completed in December 2006. Parcel 1 started in June 2004 and opened in August 2007. after a partial opening that included the casino on 27 April 2010. The Arup Journal. on 24 June. also based in Boston. et al. Then. the ground-breaking (in every sense) project at Marina Bay started in January 2007. The schematic design by Arup’s Boston office and Safdie. The theatres were completed in time for the first performance by “Riverdance” on 30 November 2010.Hong Kong was responsible for Arup’s overall performance and for the civil works design. 2/2008. George Chan. the official opening of Marina Bay Sands took place on 23 June 2010 at 3. A continuing client relationship Author: Va-Chan Cheong The relationship between Arup and LVS originally began in August 2002. Each principal element in MBS is a major project and a significant building in its own right. bridge engineering. that would give Marina Bay a memorable profile. Shenzhen and Hong Kong. The LVS proposal best met the city-state’s economic and tourism objectives.18pm. with representatives from Hong Kong. eg in this instance the architect being in the US and the client and building site in Singapore. Alongside its comprehensive civil and structural engineering experience. dynamics. 43(2). a former Director of Arup in Hong Kong. the Singapore Tourism Board announced on 26 May 2006 that LVS had won the bid and was to be awarded the license to build Singapore’s first casino at Marina Bay. Arup’s relationship with the client continued on to the Cotai Macao Parcel 1. The Singapore Flyer. it included both top-down and bottom-up methods. the procurement packaging and interfacing between them required serious consideration so as to achieve and complete the works within the constrained time-frame. risk engineering. This is anticipated to be completed in early 2012. The Arup Journal 1/2012 7 . was invited by Phil Kim. After completion of this project. Arup’s relationship with LVS thus continued when the firm was appointed for this project in July 2006. and would significantly strengthen Singapore’s position as a leading destination for conventions and exhibitions. Reference (1) ALLSOP. and made a virtue of the different time zones to overcome geographical restraints and facilitate continuous design development through real-time co-ordination between the parties. to the geometrically complex ArtScience Museum and the extraordinary 66. while construction at Cotai was in full swing. Location plan and site plan. Since the works involved many different disciplines and trades. Arup Singapore. With the joint efforts of Arup Hong Kong and Arup Singapore. developed by Safdie and Arup. 1. Piling began in December 2002 and within 18 months. Construction sequencing was another big challenge. Originally scheduled for 2009. another integrated resort. and frequently involved the range of skills within its Advanced Technology Group. The first phase was completed in April 2010. Arup’s cross-continental collaboration contributed significantly to the project’s success. 2. A. pp2-14. The proposal also possessed unique design elements. This project demonstrates how Arup’s global resources respond to project design and management challenges. while the detailed superstructure design was a collaboration between Singapore. Macao.5m cantilevered SkyPark 200m above ground. MBS was technically challenging right from the enabling works. foundations and basement construction at the outset. 2. an integrated resort development with a gross floor area of 975 000m2 on newly reclaimed land between Coloane and Taipa. and the whole design package was transferred from Boston to Singapore in January 2007. to join a meeting with the executives of LVS to discuss the strategy for developing a casino project in Macao. The firm deployed expertise across four continents. following Marina Bay Sands. (Phil Kim and George Chan had successfully collaborated recently on the Langham Place Mall project in Hong Kong. followed by the ArtScience Museum in February 2011 and the Crystal Pavilions in September 2011. Senior Partner and Managing Director for Asia at the Jerde Partnership architectural practice. the 15 330m2 casino was completed and opened to public. and in September 2002 Arup was appointed as engineering consultant for the Venetian Sands Macao. Architectural rendering of Marina Bay Sands from the south-west. Arup is again working with LVS for Parcel 5 and 6 in Cotai. on May 18 2004. Now. was responsible for day-to-day liaison with the client and contractors to ensure proper implementation of the designs. overcoming challenges related not only to construction issues but also the severe global financial crisis that happened during construction.) Chan’s innovative ideas and appreciation of the need for timely completion of the project impressed LVS.

Hotel complex and ArtScience Museum Having conceived what came to be known as the “podium building”. we invented the concept of the SkyPark. Now dubbed “the hand of welcome” by some and “the lotus” by others. so we decided to split the hotel into three towers. this proved to be a significant move. Since each tower comprises two paralleled stretches of rooms straddling a corridor. Next came the question of providing an appropriate network of parks. but as an urban sector. temples. the site programme called for a major cultural building. connected with nature. the spread at the base varied from tower to tower. so as not to encumber the pedestrian scale of the podium building. We decided on a museum of ArtScience as best representing the spirit of Singapore and evolved a design of belowgrade galleries as well as a floating structure reaching tall with skylights. 2. a 1. As the site tapered. gardens and swimming pools appropriate to an urban resort of this scale. Traditional cities. From the outset we recognised Marina Bay’s potential to demonstrate our capacity to create a new kind of urban centre for the 21st century: vital. Having determined the fundamental structure of public place. Safdie Architects The vision The 1Mm2 mixed-use complex of Marina Bay Sands should not be considered as a building. of a humane scale.24ha network of gardens bridging the three towers and cantilevering 66. we decided to give individual identity to each of the half slabs. a single tower would also have blocked the view of the city. interactive. convert the Bay into a freshwater reservoir. forming a public observatory overlooking the city on the 57th floor. 8 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . to serve as this icon. the criss-crossing Cardo Maximus (north-south) and Decamanus (east-west). along which all the major public structures. Though it might have been more efficient to place the approximately 3000 modules in a single hotel tower (as in Las Vegas’ Sands). With land all used up and the decision that we best not place these atop the long-span casino and convention centre. Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority conceived the Bay frontage as a segment of the continuum of promenades that surround the Bay and extend up the Singapore River. 1. and climatically sustainable. Thus the first strategic move was to look into urban design traditions in search of an appropriate organising structure. A major planning decision was to set the hotel back east of the Bay Boulevard. Everything fell into place. particularly those of the Greco-Roman period. We seized on the promenade concept as the opportunity to create an even more powerful spine – an indoor/outdoor Cardo Maximus extending along the waterfront and cutting inland in two perpendicular cross-spines connecting to the hotel and to the subway along Bay Boulevard (Fig 1). were always designed around major spines.5m towards the north. through the construction of a dam. with the emphasis on achieving a delicate and dynamic scale for them (Fig 2). casino. The landfill that provided the site for Marina Bay was itself intended to create an enclosed bay. we recognised that such a building would form a wall-like barrier between the downtown and the sea across to the east. we turned to the other two major pieces: the hotel complex and the ArtScience Museum. two theatres. helping to complete the loop and.Designing Marina Bay Sands Author Moshe Safdie. and spreading them at the base to form a continuous series of atria. its enormous complexity and size notwithstanding. an icon for Singapore. and three hotel towers along them. For the promontory. Seen from incoming cruise liners. it is the centrepiece of the promenade experience surrounding the Bay. palaces and agoras were organised. we aligned by shops providing access to the larger program components: the convention centre. slipping them in section so as to read independently of each other. As all three other competitors placed the hotel close to the water’s edge.

with the support of Aedas. Given the four-year schedule for design and construction. with such a singularity of purpose moved by an ambition for excellence. eg excavating six levels into the water table in what was highly unstable landfill. where architecture and engineering teams. Since it can be seen that the concept as presented and selected by the Singapore government was almost identical with what was built four years later. in particular. Indeed it was the Arup team’s work with our team in Boston. The hallmark for the process was the workshops that occurred every three weeks. fundamentally harmonious in its character. A major challenge to the structural and architectural team working together was that the entire concept (including its presentation) occurred within four months. Working with the Arup façade team. Each presented a complex project of its own. the ArtScience Museum. was to develop an architectural-engineering language for the project that would unify the parts. temporary supports for the construction of the hotel towers and their atria. Challenges to the design team Each of these strategies presented a series of structural. the Crystal Pavilions. and the long-span spaces in the podium. This was the result of the client LVS deciding to turn to Safdie Architects only four months before the submission deadline. the casino. “see-andshare” sessions and every other device invented in our computer era. developing for example the cladding systems for the podium and for cladding the SkyPark belly. a system of detailing. specialist consultants. Indeed. and the hotel. etc. 4. proved to be as challenging as the final design was set in place. Development of the architectural spine concept.1. 3. and connectivity that would allow each individual element its uniqueness while at the same time making it cohesive as the whole. Further considerable challenges had to be overcome. 4. 2. the client’s design and construction team. In my 47 years of practice. The team expanded exponentially to embrace Aedas and Arup offices across the globe including those in the region. the initial concept held up to the test of later development. looking south-west. mechanical. Architectural rendering of Marina Bay Sands looking south-east. over four months that became reality four years later. and client representatives from Las Vegas and Asia gathered in Boston for two to three days at a time to evolve the design and make the required decisions. and construction logistics challenges of the highest order. The SkyPark from above. the ArtScience Museum. Sketch by Moshe Safdie of the hotel towers and ArtScience Museum from the Bay. Unified language and co-operation The major task. two comprehensive teams of stateside (USA) consultants and their counterpart Singapore consultants were formed as work slowly shifted from Boston to Singapore. lighting. co-ordinating through meetings. Construction sequences and. formidable organisational moves occurred. the theatres. I have never seen such a formidable team effort. sub-teams were formed to deal with each component: the Spine which included the retail. and retaining the water and soil pressure while foundation and basement levels were constructed. cladding. As this progressed. The Arup Journal 1/2012 9 . encompassing five continents. the MICE convention centre. each and every part required a unique solution while at the same time being part of the family of details. however. as well as engineering teams in the other disciplines and all the specialist consultants including landscape. 3. interacting with contractors and suppliers from across the world. involving hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of construction.

The team therefore developed a shear link using steel trusses just above the lobby to ensure positive engagement of the two halves. The towers rise from their base in two halves before merging some 20 storeys above and then reaching up to over 50 storeys in total. highlights the galleries within and anchors the north end of the resort along a promontory on the bay. recognising the challenge of constructing the inclined legs. The Arup team rapidly grew internationally. This arrangement called for a screen around the atrium to create a sense of enclosure to each gallery while still encouraging views between them. Structural concept for hotel towers Safdie’s design of the hotel towers. and unbalanced gravity loads on a tension ring at the top of the diagrid. Cross-section through the ArtScience Museum. Two floors occupy each of the museum’s “fingers” to create distinct galleries arrayed around a central atrium (Figs 3. a system of parallel shear walls coupled with transverse cores in each half was carefully designed to resist this effect (Fig 2). Buckling analysis for hotel towers. in turn. The competition. only half the building width and carrying substantial load. an expansive structure in its own right that bridges the towers and culminates in its 66. Safdie’s design for the ArtScience Museum. In addition. Arup appointed one of its Principals to a leadership co-ordination role. 5. Arup’s engineers developed a shoring strategy and a staged construction analysis as early as the schematic stage to ensure that the towers could be constructed without compromise to the completed building. 4). 6. Structural design of hotel towers. Plan of the ArtScience Museum. Structural concept for the Museum Safdie’s form for the ArtScience Museum responds to the galleries within. Each leg. The overall structure is configured to focus horizontal forces caused by wind. Indeed. with their independent “legs” at the lower levels. Finally. which ran from January through March.5m cantilever beyond the northernmost tower. it also posed significant technical challenges for the Arup team (Fig 1). and Arup’s strategy took the form of a cylindrical diagrid (Fig 5). demands for which this form is particularly efficient. 1. A spiralling compression ring and a colonnade of “mega-columns” work together to protect the diagrid from the gravity loads and horizontal thrusts generated along the bottoms of the cantilevered galleries. required detailed analysis for lateral buckling. and Las Vegas Sands Corporation to participate in the MBS competition. travelling extensively to calibrate the efforts of each team in person. The Museum’s form. With a piling tender package due that September. 4. the design team began to mobilise quickly. The government of Singapore announced the team as winners in June 2006. Spanning the top floors is the SkyPark. earthquake. Moshe Safdie invited the Boston and New York offices of Arup to join the team comprising Safdie Architects. it was agreed that this screen should serve a structural function to reinforce its integrity. culminated in a design that featured bold geometric forms.Collaboration with Safdie Architects Authors Daniel Brodkin Patrick McCafferty Competition design Building on a long relationship of collaborative design. 2. 2006. 3. creates a dynamic form while defining space for a contiguous connecting lobby uninterrupted by hotel structures. Aedas. While this arrangement implied “A-frame” structural action. In keeping with the design goals. 10 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . with a system of post-tensioned beams to resist tie forces at the base. including the sweeping hotel towers and the iconic ArtScience Museum. Structural diagrid for the ArtScence Museum. and put the latest telecommunications and 3-D documentation tools to work so as to co-ordinate design efforts across multiple continents simultaneously. but the schedule left little time to celebrate.

2. 3. 4. 5. The Arup Journal 1/2012 11 .1. 6.

some 2. underlain by the stiff-to-hard OA. 1. the latest completed in the mid-1990s. completed in the late 1970s (Fig 1). while the eastern side is located within the Phase VB reclamation zone. Section A-A Retail area Museum area Introduction Marina Bay Sands is on reclaimed land. which links the island’s east and west coasts and had to remain operational throughout construction. and with over 40% of the concrete construction occurring 18m-35m underground. 12 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . Geological sections. The 15. comprising sand infill overlying deep soft clay marine deposits. Aerial view of the MBS site before development. Ground level across the site is generally flat at about +103m to +103.5m. This soft marine clay.5m. The subsoil conditions typically comprise a 12m-15m thick layer of reclamation fill overlying 5m-35m of Kallang Formation soils. the required timetable was only made possible by Arup’s innovative approach to excavation in the first year.8Mm3 of fill and marine clay was taken from the site. 2. Deep OA valley 30m thick Section B-B MICE area Casino area Theatre area Retail area Deep OA valley 35m thick Section C-C Hotel tower 1 Hotel tower 2 Hotel tower 3 Hotel car park and cooling tower Deep OA valley 15m thick Deep OA valley 25m thick 2. ie about 800 trucks a day for two years! The development also required Arup to engineer a 35m deep cut-and-cover tunnel for the Downtown Line 1 (DTL1) extension to Singapore Mass Rapid Transit rail next to the Benjamin Sheares Bridge.5m RL 1. coupled with the proximity of the East Coast Parkway highway and the Benjamin Sheares Bridge. with some interbedded firm clay and medium dense sand of fluvial origin. Most of the MBS development sits on this latest reclamation zone (Phase VIII). Overall.Geotechnics and foundation design Benjamin Sheares Bridge A BC Reclaimed 1990s Authors Philip Iskandar Leong Wing Kai Jack Pappin MBS site Reclaimed 1970s East Coast Parkway A B C Fill Soft marine clay Old Alluvium (OA) Mean sea level +100. with the recorded groundwater table at approximately +100.5ha MBS development is founded on the underlying very stiff-to-hard OA layer using a forest of barrettes and 1m-3m diameter bored piles. posed significant challenges to the design of the excavation works. The average basement excavation depth was around 20m. The Kallang Formation is predominantly soft marine clay. above an underlying very stiff-to-hard Old Alluvium (OA) layer. Site geology The Marina Bay area has had several phases of reclamation.

retail. 103m diameter. district cooling system. 6. and notable for their excavation depth – down to 18m below ground (Fig 6). The Arup Journal 1/2012 13 . 25 21 18 11 35 25 18 18 11 11 15 18 15 120m 103m 120m 2. The single-layer steel truss/strut system enabled the 11m deep excavation to be completed outside the two cofferdams in the MICE area. The only constraint was that excavation within a cofferdam must take place before excavation outside (Figs 3-5). 65m radius. C-C).Under the main podium area. The 120m diameter cofferdams were among the largest ever deployed both by Arup and in Singapore generally. there is a marine clay deposit. Aerial view of MBS site showing positions of cofferdams. Arup’s excavation design included five huge reinforced concrete cofferdams: • two circular. where the hotel. covering the Sands Expo and Convention Center (MICE). The design of the north cofferdam in conjunction with a steel truss system to the perimeter diaphragm walls at the MICE area allowed independent excavation between there and the casino and theatre areas to the north. They allowed work to progress across the site simultaneously. 6. 5. the soft marine deposit is some 10m thick. 4. casino. except at the northern and southern end where deep valleys in the OA are encountered (Fig 2. N 12 130m N Circular diaphragm walls for minimum strutting To overcome the challenges of the bulk excavation and minimise shoring in the difficult soil environments. Semi-circular Circular Peanut DCS box 3. in the hotel area • one semi-circular.8Mm3 of soil removed 800 trucks/day for two years Temporary strut Top-down slab at ground level Top-down slab at lower level 18 Excavation depths (m) 4. in the MICE area • one circular. which thins toward the north (Fig 2. On the eastern side. 75m diameter. in the ArtScience Museum area. 3. 120m diameter. Each circular cofferdam was a dry enclosure. 5. Minimal strutting. within which excavation and subsequent construction could be carried out without the need for conventional temporary support. and one twin-celled and peanut-shaped. Excavation depths. Excavation in 120m diameter circular cofferdam. A-A. B-B). up to 35m thick at the southern end. and DTL1 extension are located. theatres and ArtScience Museum.

9. 9. Shear walls constructed with the DCS box enabled unhindered bulk excavation across the theatre area to the west. The DCS box also doubled as a retaining structure for the deepest excavation in the DTL1 tunnel where a deep valley of soft marine clay is present. innovative use of the peanutshaped diaphragm wall. and to achieve this support. and comprises a series of “male” (6. Retail area RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 Sea B2 B2M B4 Casino area L1 DTL1 RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 Sea Sea Prop B2M Casino area L1 DTL1 8. The large shear forces to be transferred into the underlying OA needed continuously reinforced diaphragm walls. Model for hotel twin-cell cofferdam (“peanut”) in the SAP2000 program. 14 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . in conjunction with a simultaneous top-down excavation in the adjacent DTL1 tunnel area. Excavation in semi-circular cofferdam. Retail area Casino area DTL1 10.4m) and “female” panels (3. Retail area RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 a) Excavate to basement B2M level and cast B2M slab with temporary prop. it was decided that the practical way forward was to design the B2 slab to act as a continuous support between the two retaining walls on the west and east sides. and both the 120m diameter cofferdam diaphragm walls.0m). After various considerations. 15m deep cantilever fin walls Crosswall 7. three east-west shear walls were constructed (Fig 12). the shorter female Retail area RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 b) Partially excavate to B4 and complete B2 slab at retail. Due to the vicinity of the East Coast Parkway.8m wide. to create the four-level basement in the casino area a top-down excavation method with minimum temporary props was used. Diaphragm walls removed to excavation level. These two activities proceeding simultaneously gave considerable time savings (Figs 10a-d). the DCS box has to permanently support the lateral loads from the ground to the east of the DTL1 tunnel. As the theatre structures are isolated from the rest of the development. c) Complete excavation and cast B4 slab. which then allowed excavation to B4 and construction of the substructure and superstructure above B2 to proceed concurrently. d) Complete structure. Top-down construction in the casino area As the layer of soft marine clay is generally thinner in the northern part of the site. Excavation sequence in casino and retail areas. Parts of the diaphragm walls of the two hotel cofferdams doubled as permanent hotel basement walls and loadbearing elements for the hotel towers. Each is 1. The remaining parts of these walls. its plant housed in a deep reinforced box east of the theatre area (Fig 11). 8. 10. enabled unhindered bulk excavation of the breakwater mole that had been buried during previous reclamation (Fig 7). To ensure continuity. Within the DCS box. Continuously reinforced diaphragm wall for DCS box For energy efficiency. the team used partial “top-down” excavation within minimum temporary strutting. had to be removed down to the excavation level by “wire cutting” them into liftable blocks before removal (Fig 8). without any crosswall above excavation level. the Singapore Government required MBS to incorporate a district cooling system (DCS). Sea B2 B2M Casino area L1 DTL1 7.5m thick and about 50m long.

16. The Arup Journal 1/2012 15 . The existing fixed shear pins between the deck and the southernmost pier (22) were therefore replaced by fewer. lateral ground movement would affect the bridge and calculations showed that this would overstress the shear connections between piers and deck. Locations of shear walls. Conclusion The basement structure was completed in 2009. pins (Figs 15-17). originally fixed but now made adjustable DCS box Benjamin Sheares Bridge south abutment el Underside of deck Deck crossbeam Pier crosshead 16. Pier 21 Pier 22 South abutment MBS site 14. While this type of wall is relatively common in Taiwan. showing the adjacent DCS box. N 1 2 5 3 4 Shear walls 1 North podium (theatre) 2 DCS box 3 DTL1 SMRT tunnel 4 Cooling tower 5 Benjamin Shears Bridge 12. 17. 12.DCS box 11. N Pier 21 Connection at pier 22. 15. 1. 11. Managing the impact of excavation on the Benjamin Sheares Bridge Excavation within the deeper end of the DTL1 tunnel adjacent to the Benjamin Sheares Bridge (Fig 14) was carried out using a stiff temporary strutted T-shape diaphragm wall and the DCS box. 15.5m of reinforcement bars unconcreted at each end for future lapping with the subsequent male panel reinforcement (Fig 13). but adjustable. 13. 13. Method of allowing articulation between pier and deck. Section on plan of adjustable shear pin. Inevitably. Arup’s innovative approach to the excavation design in these difficult site and time constraints set a benchmark for future large-scale excavations both within Singapore and elsewhere. 17. Construction of shear wall. this was Arup’s first experience with it elsewhere. Elevation of south end of Benjamin Sheares Bridge. DT L1 SM RT t u nn panels are cast with steel end plates on both ends. leaving about 1. Construction in the theatre area.8m high adjustable shear pin. Periodic adjustment of these enabled the last section of the bridge deck to articulate in plan and rendered the whole bridge tolerant of the ground movement inevitably caused by the deep excavation for MBS and the DTL1 tunnel. 14.

16 The Arup Journal 1/2012 .

Z Y X Intermediate wall and return walls with link beams for sloping leg stability in X-direction. wind-induced movement. and so the design team used building information modelling (BIM) extensively to resolve the many co-ordination and documentation issues that arose from the unique and complex geometries (Fig 2). and stresses between elements. b) GSA model for checking overall stability of hotel tower. The assumed material properties had to be given particular attention. Loading Unlike most high-rise towers. The combination of these curvatures and the buildings’ verticality on the west side creates an open continuous space within that links all three towers. The walls and cores provide stiffness in the short direction. with varying curvatures on their east sides. at transfer of design from Arup Boston to Arup Singapore. forming a grand atrium at ground level. while the cores and sway action between walls and slabs supply longitudinal resistance (Fig 3). 2. Typical support wall provides stability in Y-direction. a) c) Elevator core walls provide stability in X-direction. including deformation. 3-D analysis models and structural system: a) ETABS models for checking the overall stability of the hotel towers at early stages of design. The primary lateral system in the towers consists of the reinforced concrete shear walls between the rooms and the concrete cores around the elevators. 3. the primary lateral stability demands on the MBS hotel towers 1 and 2 are induced by gravity loads. 2. CAD model of complete MBS structural framing.The Sands Hotel and Sands SkyPark The hotel towers Authors Rudi Lioe Wijaya Wong Unique and complex geometries Each of the three 55-storey hotel towers has its unique geometry. since these lateral loads are permanent. The dramatic curve of the eastern halves creates overturning forces due to gravity loads in the short direction that overshadow those due to wind or notional loads. not transient as is usually the case with wind loads. c) CAD model of an early design stage for the SkyPark (truss system). It was essential to create a realistic 3-D analysis model that was capable of representing the towers’ complex behaviour. b) 3. 1. The Arup Journal 1/2012 17 .

Rigorous studies early in the design stage to assess the available construction options concluded that it would be very costly. this was factored into the early design of the various building services such as the vertical transportation system. A real-time monitoring system was implemented during construction to monitor the actual stress level and movement. it could be constructed without any temporary works. This arrangement eliminated the need for internal columns and provided the lightest combination of horizontal and vertical structure. concrete creep. Subsequently. This would have resulted in unacceptable cracking and out-of-level floors. the following tower movements were observed and carefully studied: • angular rotation at the tops • maximum deflection on elevations (vertical and lateral) • differential settlement between straight and sloping walls • differential settlement between adjacent wall bays • differential movement between the towers. to ensure compliance with the design intent. to construct the towers without introducing lock-in stresses on the structures. etc. further thorough analysis was performed to estimate the stresses and movements. as this was impossible without massive temporary works. The use of embedded steel sections with shear studs enables the forces to be effectively transferred from the external braces to the wall elements. and a corresponding specification was prepared to assist contractors in the selection and detailed design of the affected finishes and services (Figs 6-8). the two walls would act independently and significant differential displacement would occur across the corridor at the upper levels. fulfil a vital role (Fig 4). and so reasonable lock-in stresses were considered in the designs of the key structural elements. a performance-based specification was prepared to give tenderers the flexibility to provide their preferred temporary works system while limiting the lock-in stresses in the key elements. Tower 1 link trusses under construction. a back-analysis was carried out. MEP services. and shrinkage effects before converging in 30 years’ time. Movements The asymmetrical geometry meant that lateral movement is induced not only by lateral load but also by gravity load. Construction Building the very inclined towers 1 and 2 proved to be another challenge. if not practically impossible. 18 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . Detailed analysis provided an estimate of the short-term and long-term movements of the towers. which accommodates the plantroom. Without them. it was prudent to adopt a floor system that offered the lightest overall structural weight. which would affect the behaviour of the SkyPark. As the completed towers are expected to continue deforming sideways due to their geometry. As self-weight was the factor driving the lateral demands on the structures. As this behaviour was critical both during construction and after completion. 4. the main contractor and specialist advisor together devised a temporary works system combining posttensioned and steel strutting systems. The floors were therefore designed in post-tensioned concrete with a maximum span of 10m. If this differed from what was predicted. The latter were installed to prop the sloping walls against the straight walls so as to limit movement. Short-term movements due to self-weight were offset by applying precamber during construction. The sectional geometries of the truss elements were also sized to fit within the wall thickness. 4. 5. 5. Tower 1 link trusses. For towers 1 and 2.In each tower. building enclosure. At the various construction stages. while a series of vertical post-tensioned tendons were provided in the walls to control the lock-in stresses (Figs 9-11). As tower 3 had an almost vertical geometry. the link trusses on level 23.

8. Tower 1 under construction. 6. A A B B 11. Angular rotation at top of tower. Deflection stage of tower 1.1 A B Cantilever 4 X1 4 Y1 1 Angular rotation at the top of the tower 2 Maximum elevation on Tower 3 9. L 1 = 30m (Tower 1) 7. 11. X2 Y2 3 Differential settlement between straight and curved wall 4 Differential settlement between adjacent wall bays (X2. X3. 9. Movement joints between towers and SkyPark. Wall post-tensioned tendons. Y2. 10. Cross-section through lower part of tower 1 showing temporary strutting. The Arup Journal 1/2012 19 . 7. 8. 10. Y3 similar) Bridge L25 L23 L21 C D 3 3 2 1 E 2 2 Tower 2 L15 Prop 1 F Prop 2 X3 Y3 Bridge Prop 3 Movement joint Tower 1 Directional guided bearing Fixed bearing L1 B3 Vertical core Sloping core 6.

1. 20 The Arup Journal 1/2012 .

Following the towers’ body surfaces. Wind arbors designed by Ned Kahn on west atrium wall. This article mainly focuses on the structural design of the atrium walls. Atrium walls extending from tower 1. The west side vertical atrium walls are also externally decorated with wind arbors designed by Ned Khan1 (Fig 3). 2. The Sands Hotel atrium. each side of the main entrance. The Arup Journal 1/2012 21 . from approximately 40m in tower 1 to 20m in tower 2 to 10m in tower 3. air-conditioning creates thermal comfort. This begins at a height of approximately 20 storeys at tower 1 (south end). while inside. The integrated design of the atrium was aimed at ensuring the highest standards of safety and comfort as well as a remarkable aesthetic experience for guests of the Sands Hotel. and angles down to around six storeys at tower 3. with the top lines sloping down to the walls between towers 2 and 3. looking north from the main entrance. In elevation. the constant movement of which furnishes a special visual experience. 3. Hotel atrium walls Authors Brendon McNiven Xiaofeng Wu 2.1. Its width also decreases. 3. Introduction The unique and complex geometry by which all three 55-storey hotel towers splay out towards their bases creates an equally unique set of open spaces between them. the tallest atrium walls extend out of tower 1 at the southernmost end (Fig 2). with the walls on the inner sides of the towers linking these open spaces to form the grand Sands Hotel atrium (Fig 1). Natural light is brought in through the roofed glass atrium walls between the towers. the profile of the linking atrium walls integrates visually with them.

with a minimum span of 27m between towers 2 and 3 (Figs 6A. The vertical west atrium wall between towers 1 and 2. Horizontal slot holes are provided on the north side connections with the tower shear walls to allow relative lateral movement of the towers as well as movement of the walls due to thermal effects. The boundary conditions are the same in the east side walls (Figs 6D. The layout of the trusses was arranged to achieve modulation with the glass panels. Vertical walls Horizontal canopy/ enclosures C Porte-cochère south end wall Porte-cochère south canopy 5. the horizontal RHS transoms are pin-connected on the south side to the tower shear walls. Horizontal RHS transoms act with CHS braces to form closed triangular load paths as the lateral stability system. The maximum span is 47m in the wall trusses between towers 1 and 2 (Figs 6B. The modulation of supply and design of the glass panels and trusses facilitated a speedy. 5. Atrium wall structures: A. B). Porte-cochère north end canopy Porte-cochère north end wall Tower 3 west side glazing Hotel tower 3 Escalator enclosure N D Atrium east wall Atrium west wall A Tower 2 west side glazing Hotel tower 2 Atrium west wall B Escalator enclosure Atrium piazza pavilion E Atrium east wall Tower 1 west side glazing Hotel tower 1 Porte-cochère south side walls 4. 6C). B. Layout plan of atrium walls in relation to hotel towers. with rectangular hollow sections used as the main structural members. which extend out from the tower shear walls suspended from the roof above (Figs 2. Reference (1) http://nedkahn. D. B west side. The trusses are pin-connected at the bottom by cast-in base plates. E east side. E). 22 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . 6. The glass panels are supported by T-shaped transoms which are tied by double stainless steel rods to the primary horizontal RHS transoms. The base plates at ground level and the tower shear walls were cast in situ. 6) are framed with aesthetic and structurally efficient steel trusses connected by horizontal transoms. the horizontal RHS transoms play an essential role as the lateral stability system of the wall trusses. E). Except for the atrium walls on the south side of tower 1.Structure The atrium walls (Figs 4. and vertical slot holes are provided at the connections between the roof trusses to allow relative vertical movements. D). C south side. the other walls between the three tower blocks span vertically from ground level to the steel truss roofs above (Figs 6A. but the mechanism is different due to the inclined architectural layout. Besides carrying loading from the glazing. efficient and economic construction of the atrium walls. so as to enable economical and fast construction. D. E).com 4. The glass panels and the primary and secondary steel elements were produced in factories and transported to site for erection. In the west side vertical walls (Figs 6A.

T-shaped transoms tied by double rods D Atrium wall between towers 2 and 3 (east side). 6. E Atrium wall between towers 1 and 2 (east side). Tower 1 Tower 1 Tower 2 Horizontal RHS transoms T-shaped transoms tied by double rods Horizontal CHS braces Horizontal RHS transoms Tower 2 T-shaped transoms tied by double rods B Atrium wall between towers 1 and 2 (west side).Steel truss roof Tower 2 Steel truss roof Tower 2 Tower 3 Horizontal RHS transoms T-shaped transoms tied by double rods Tower 3 Horizontal CHS braces Horizontal RHS transoms Steel truss roof A Atrium wall between towers 2 and 3 (west side). Tower 1 shear walls Tower 1 shear walls Steel truss roof C Atrium wall extending out from tower 1 (south side). The Arup Journal 1/2012 23 .

The Sands SkyPark Authors Brian Mak Brendon McNiven Wijaya Wong 1. the SkyPark sits atop the three 55-storey towers of the Sands Hotel and includes facilities such as landscaped gardens.5m cantilevered viewing platform that offers visitors a 360˚ view of the city. signature restaurants.1. and a 66.4M litres of water (Fig 3). showing movement joints. 5. The completed Sands SkyPark. 24 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . Covering more than 1ha and as long as four and a half Airbus A380s. 4. Structural layout of SkyPark. 2. Introduction The 38m wide and 340m long Sands SkyPark (Figs 1. CAD model of SkyPark. Infinity pool. Over 7000 tonnes of steel was used in the SkyPark’s construction. an infinity pool (ie where the water appears to have no boundary) covering nearly 1400m2 and containing 1. and has now become a symbolic icon for Singapore. Underside of the completed SkyPark between hotel towers. 2) is the world’s longest habitable cantilevered observation deck. 2. 3.

Another significant challenge was to formulate a design that allowed for safe and easy erection so high above the ground. BS5950 is not expected to cover adequately restraint of compression flanges by U-frame action and design of box girder support diaphragms. Structural design The SkyPark consists of a steel frame with composite slab for flooring above towers 1 and 2 (Fig 5). While simply supported.3. and isolate each portion laterally. it requires that reference be made to BS5400: Part 32 for the design of longitudinally stiffened webs and compression elements. and form the bridge trusses already noted between the towers. The central lift cores of each hotel tower penetrate through the SkyPark to provide – in addition to access for users – comprehensive lateral restraint through their connection to the steel structure combined with the diaphragm action of the composite slab. The bridge sections.15m 10m Steel frame with columns at 10m c/c Tower 2 Tower 2 Tower 3 4. The SkyPark elements are fully articulated to allow for differential movement of the towers under gravity. BS5950 does not include clauses to cover all of the relevant structural checks which had to be carried out. and so the design is referenced to BS5400-3. 5. The Arup Journal 1/2012 25 .65m/6.65m/6. Specifically. wind and seismic loads. each comprise three longitudinal steel trusses. Though the structural form of the SkyPark has more in common with typical bridge structures than with buildings. Additionally. and this was met through the design and construction of five distinct joined plates. The movement joint strategy (Fig 5) was to split the SkyPark into three zones that correspond to the hotel towers.15m 4. it was designed to BS59501 as implemented in Singapore. A major challenge was to cater for the natural movements of the towers upon which the SkyPark was to be supported. verification of the steel box girder thus follows BS5400-3 as implemented in Singapore. To achieve a safe and efficient design. with crossgirder beams supporting the composite deck at approximately 4m centres. a) Movement joint Truss Box girder 66. with modifications of the partial safety factor on design load (γfL) to BS5950 and the safety factor on design resistance (γm) to BS5400. However. spanning over 50m between the towers. and this was achieved through a combination of bridge and building technology.5m cantilever Steel frame with columns at 10m c/c b) 4. the bridge bearings are provided with special ties to hold each deck in place in the event of an earthquake.

25m-1. the upper deck structure also was not included in this model (loading from the upper deck structure is applied as a grid area load on this model for analysis). etc). Tendons with prestressed forces were modelled using beam elements and offset from the top flange. while translation and rotation restraints were calibrated with the global GSA model. To account for the flexibility of the shear wall supporting the SkyPark columns. As a result.5m and 200m above the ground from tower 3. and loading at the crossbeams and ends of the cantilever beam were extracted from the global GSA model and applied at the corresponding location.2m c/c Scheme 2: Raised landscape deck alternative 66. For simplicity. Crossbeams and transverse stiffeners were also included in this model. and finally chose a posttensioned box girder solution. The maximum depth of the box girders is 10m at the end support from tower 3. their supports were modelled as a spring with vertical stiffness equal to that of the shear wall below. the bridge section was modelled separately and the reaction force from it put back to this model for further analysis. the element centre is offset to the centroid of the section such that the bending due to prestress eccentricity is incorporated. The team considered several options for its design (Fig 6). A local finite element model using 2-D plate elements was created using Strand7 software4 to determine the load path and local stress at the diaphragm and adjacent web/flange panels (Figs 9. Since a movement joint separates this structure from the bridge section between towers 2 and 3.55 -10m deep box girder 1. For the longitudinal prestressed box girder.a) Main box girder 1 2 Cantilever segments 3 4 5 6 Column support Scheme 1: Space truss constructed from I-sections b) 175mm-225mm thick composite deck slab 4m wide x 3. The cantilever structure The most challenging aspect to the design team was the cantilever that extends 66. Scheme 4: Post-tensioned box girder (final scheme) 6.5m cantilever Scheme 3: Box girders with crossbeam 7. otherwise the box girders are generally 3. and much time and analytical effort was spent by Arup’s bridge and dynamics specialists to understand its complex behaviour under wind and human excitation (dancing. beam elements being used to model the steel girders and the crossmembers. and intermediate transverse web stiffeners. 8.55m deep (Fig 7). A 3-D analysis model was created in the OASYS GSA v8.2 program3 to model the main steel structures over tower 3 and the cantilever (Fig 8). 26 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . 10). the cantilever’s structure comprises a pair of variable depth box girders with longitudinal stiffeners in both flanges and webs.75m deep transverse place girder at 4.

Isometric of support diaphragm finite element model (near-side web plate not shown). as already noted. 11. all of which make their contribution. and the effect of a crowd on the structure. The team also advised the client that management control is required for “vandal load” (a small group of highly co-ordinated and vigorous dancers). acting in a similar manner to shock absorbers. but incorporated several changes so as to correctly model the structure’s dynamic behaviour. Large tuned mass dampers. GSA global model. To confirm the performance of the completed cantilever. Design evolution of cantilever section. This modification gave a significant improvement in performance for dancing crowds and some reduction in wind load response. Using linear dynamic analysis in the Strand7 program. To improve the response of the cantilever under dancing crowds. 11. This finite element model was based on the static analysis model. Support diaphragm: Checking of support diaphragm with opening a). Ultimate limit state moment envelope in east girder a). the forces applied by people. relationship between support diaphragm and tendon b). shear envelope in east girder b). the box girder taper near the tip was reduced. The structure’s dynamic properties were particularly hard to predict as the SkyPark incorporates so many structural elements and architectural finishes. were incorporated within the structure’s belly. and large-scale vibration tests were conducted to verify the design. 10. The Arup Journal 1/2012 27 . 8. b) Vertical stress from tendon deviation Prestress tendon 10. the team investigated in detail the cantilever’s behaviour when subjected to dynamic loads from human activities and wind loads. The design predictions for the SkyPark’s dynamic performance were based on various assumptions in terms of structural properties. Dynamic behaviour A fourth challenge was. the dynamics of the SkyPark in response to strong winds and vibration caused by people movement. 9. 6.a) a) Base plate Diaphragm b) Access opening 9. 7. Cantilever elevation a) and plan b). thereby stiffening the second bending mode of the structure.

15. a programme of dynamic tests was carried out on 24-27 May 2010. 1. over 7000 tonnes was hoisted 200m above ground in 13 weeks. After each segment was lifted. 50mm. team members comprehensively discussed the method and lifting procedure. At the rate of 15m per hour for each lift. Normalised plates were bent with longitudinal welds to form the column geometry. before the process began all over again with the next. 14. touching up paintwork.12. To pre-empt possible logistical issues. The six bridge trusses (each weighing approximately 400 tonnes). Including temporary steelwork. This included measuring the modal properties of the structure in addition to vibration response measurements of individuals and groups walking. Special arrangements were required for the main box girders. Arup bridge engineering experts contributed ideas from the conceptual design stage onwards. Erection Erection of the steelwork for the SkyPark was completed at the end of December 2009. each approximately 200 tonnes) were all assembled at ground level prior to the lift. a five-day interval ensued for fixings between the components. At workshops attended by the design and construction teams. All were deemed positive and acceptable. as the lift was paused at 60m above ground so as to align the eastern box girder to the final orientation. jumping. typical segments of approximately 50 tonnes each were fabricated and delivered to site for assembly. and were subsequently stress-relieved to meet the design requirements. along with numerous reviews of the method statement and proposal to ensure safe construction of the SkyPark. 13. a great achievement for both the design and construction teams. and 63mm – were purpose-designed. Once it was fully raised. These tests were also intended to give the MBS Operations and other stakeholders the opportunity to experience the vibration levels and comment on their acceptability. but it was recommended that use of the SkyPark cantilever for dancing events be carefully managed to ensure adequate comfort levels. Fabrication Steel plates varying in thickness from 6mm to 150mm were used for the structure. the section was slid into the designated position for final fixing. 40mm. and then the main lift to the top of the tower began the following day. For the cantilever support. To meet the challenge of the vertical lift. A movable lifting gantry was fixed at the secondary beams between the main box girders. and trial assembly of steel girders was carried out to confirm their configuration and geometry. it took almost a whole day for each section to be lifted and placed in position. measurements. Once assembled. a) Bridge trusses. each of these 14 major sections was then raised a few hundred millimetres above ground for monitoring purposes.2m diameter columns with various wall thicknesses – 30mm. 28 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . etc. This was due to the shape of the base of tower 3. and dancing (Figs 12-14). two box girders (each approximately 700 tonnes) and the cantilevered parts (six sections. a method that is normally used in bridge construction for lifting cantilevered elements. tightening bolts. c) Cantilever sections.

Structural use of steelwork in building. Design in composite construction. Erection of bridge truss. Around 120 people at the tip of the cantilever for dynamic testing. BSI. The Arup Journal 1/2012 29 . BSI. (3) www.strand7. 17. Erection sequence of the 14 major sections. BS5950: 1990.com (4) www. 2000.com 12-14. BS5400: Part 3: 2000. Cantilever under construction. 17. Erection of box girders. 18. 1990. Completed Sands SkyPark (overleaf).oasys-software. (2) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION.16. Code of practice for design of simple and continuous composite beams. 16. 19. Code of practice for design of steel bridges. 15. concrete and composite bridges. References (1) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Steel. 18.

weighing 3300 tonnes • estimated weight of aluminium hull cladding: 350 tonnes • total weight of lifted sections for cantilever: 2600 tons • heavy lifting gantries: 1905 tons • length of strand cable used in strand jacking operations: 77km • heavy lifting of 14 segments completed in just under 13 weeks • approximately 200 tons of bolts used in steelwork. selected for hardiness and suitability for the constant breeze at the SkyPark elevation • 2200m3 of soil.42M litres of water • 500 trees up to 8m tall. 30 The Arup Journal 1/2012 .Sands SkyPark facts: • 340m long from the northern tip to the south end • maximum width: 40m • 66. 191m above ground level • highest public area at RL 299.5m long cantilever (application to Guinness World Records in process) • public observation deck at RL 295. 19. 195m above ground level • 7692 tonnes of permanent steelwork • 4413 tons of temporary steelwork used in construction • 146m long infinity edge to swimming pool • three pools containing 1.

The podium The Arup Journal 1/2012 31 .

but also to help its constructability. 2). the latter can induce large overturning moments. the theatres. Supporting the greatest surface area of each of the three roof structures is a spine truss. Erection of the roof steelwork commenced in April 2009 and was completed by the end of that year. The concept of using developable geometry was very important to the design team. such as how arcs are derived from toroidal surfaces. Over long spans. . with spans of 120m maximum. the fundamental elements of their form and shape being based on Euclidean geometry. not only for enhancing understanding of the structure. Design of the podium roofs The podium roofs have highly complex geometries. The architect cleverly pushed and pulled these seemingly independent geometries together into an overall form that appears to be vastly more complex than the sum of its original components (Fig 3). 2. cable-stayed back to the concrete podium. In addition. These are 2-D planar in nature and. wave-form surfaces. stepped. vary in depth from 4m at the springing points to 8m at their centres. The roofs span up to 120m and have highly individual. The span lengths were finely balanced between the architect’s desire to 32 The Arup Journal 1/2012 1. and the state-of-the-art Sands Expo and Convention Center (MICE facility) (Figs 1. curved in elevation and in plan. the retail arcade that extends along the western side of the podium is sheltered by lightweight steel canopy structures. three separate long-span roofs enclose the podium buildings: the casino. but this effect is efficiently combated by the rotational stiffness of the secondary roof trusses connected either side.N The podium roofs Author Juan Maier Brendon McNiven 0 100m Canopies Theatres Casino MICE facility View corridors Introduction Technically challenging like every part of the Marina Bay Sands development.

For example. To match the building form. Steel section sizing was rigorously optimised. If the element did not fall within the acceptance range.1. 3. and “concave down” (CD) to the east (Fig 4). a continuous line of bracing could not be established. linked directly with Arup’s in-house structural analysis platform GSA. 5. Roof geometry developed from surfaces of a torus. while still complying with BS5950. maximise clear span openings and the need to maintain an efficient structure. 2. This process was reiterated until all the elements fell within the acceptance range. 3. which features the stepping wave form surface. Since the continuous diaphragm on the CU side provides most of the roof’s lateral stability. Using this program had the added benefit of helping to automate the analysis and design. Stability of spine truss. Lateral stability is maintained by forming a continuous diaphragm plane of cross-bracing along the CU side. so various patterns were investigated for optimal lateral stability. On the CD side. the 10 000+ elements of the MICE roof analysis model would have been close to impossible to design using traditional methods. Stepped surface Spine truss Smooth surface Concave down (CD) truss Concave up (CU) truss 4. all the roof trusses are curved in elevation. 5. MICE facility roof under construction. “concave up” (CU) to the west of the spine truss. Structure of the roofs and canopies. This was accomplished by writing customised software. the program selected a new section size for it from a predefined pool of section sizes. 4. Plan showing those elements of Marina Bay Sands that are covered by the podium roofs and canopies. then calculated the utilisation ratio of the elements. an efficient bracing pattern for the CD side could be achieved by limiting the bracing to every second bay with only discreet fly-bracing members stabilising the unbraced bays back to the braced bays. with the aim of minimising the roofs’ total self-weight and thus the total cost of structural steel. that firstly read the forces and moments of every element in the analysis model. The Arup Journal 1/2012 33 . and finally evaluated the element’s utilisation ratio based on predefined acceptance criteria.

tension-stayed canopies (Fig 6) are also geometrically complex and doubly curved. Arup began an open dialogue with shop detailing firms and fabricators to obtain best practice advice on preferred detailing and fabrication processes. thus permitting elastic buckling behaviour to be observed. Early in the design. form their ribs. These shapes could then be correlated to a set of initial imperfections in the canopy structure so as to determine moment amplification factors and apply them to the results of the earlier non-linear analysis. along with the new geometry. The team produced full 3-D models of the steel structures as a basis to beginning a shop drawing model that would later be issued as part of a construction set of documents to the appointed fabricator/contractor. First.6. spanning up to 70m over the concrete podium structure. were 34 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . and for co-ordination and collaboration with the architect and other consultants. and adjusted the elements’ stiffness in the model based on the axial loads they attracted. with RHS cross-members running transversely to provide lateral stability through momentframe action. The largest canopy is nearly as large as a soccer pitch. It iteratively determined the required pre-tensioning level of the Macalloy bars so that under full dead and superimposed dead load. These are double tied arches. a full second-order non-linear analysis of the structure was undertaken. 3-D integrated design and documentation An innovative aspect of this project was the integrated use of 3-D modelling in all facets of design. Fabricated steel box rafters. the tied arches on either side of each bridge have different spans. Parametric modelling was also used to great advantage. design and documentation of 2-D drawings. Since the canopies are extremely light and flexible. analysis and documentation. so elaborate analyses were carried out. Secondly. The amplification factors used were inversely proportional to the buckling load factors and directly related to the magnitude of initial imperfection represented by the buckled mode shapes. thus creating differential stiffness across the deck. there would be no net downward deflection at the points where the tension stays connect to the rafters. up to 1m deep. This parametric model could then be integrated into the 3-D design and documentation to permit rapid modification of the geometry. especially during design development. The non-linear analysis model also considered slenderness effects. All this was critical. At three locations along the retail promenade. measuring 45m x 90m in plan. as it would have been nearly impossible to develop. The canopies The lightweight. Their design was complicated by being curved in plan. Software such as Bentley’s GenerativeComponents enabled the roof structures to be modelled with predefined variables to allow for future modifications where necessary. This same model was used for the analysis. written specifically for these canopies. they tend to exhibit non-linear behaviour. With the parametric relationships already set up. and then used in combination with a custom-built software program. the team undertook a full buckling analysis of all the critical load cases to determine the buckling load factors and corresponding buckling mode shapes. so as to evaluate the structure’s susceptibility to buckling. the new geometry could be easily incorporated into the existing structural analysis model. analyse/design or build structures with this level of complexity with only 2-D documentation (Fig 7). Any resulting changes in member section sizes. The rafters are in turn supported by tension stays from a system of Macalloy bars and carefully placed tall tubular masts. the canopies are linked by pedestrian footbridges of varying lengths.

To meet the fast-track construction programme. For the canopy structures. directly translated into 2-D and 3-D documentation. Tubular mast being fabricated. NDT (non-destructive test) and ITA (independent inspection and testing agency) personnel. This needs only limited protection in windy environments – a major concern at locations near the sea. supervisors. procurement strategy. 8. and implementation of cross stiffener plates through boxed up sections. This greatly saved time during erection as it avoided the need to find the centre of gravity by trial and error on site. Bentley GenerativeComponents Parametric model Bentley Structural TriForma Documentation model 2-D documentation 3-D documentation Fabrication model 7. it was greatly speeded up through the use of FCAW (flux-cored arc welding). followed by sequence welding to complete the sections. lead time. The cranes’ size and capacity were predetermined. 8. Additionally.Rhino Architect GSA Structural analysis optimisation the factory. and checks made on crane parking locations to ensure adequate capacity during lifting. Erection clips. Erection The fabricators spent much time preplanning every work phase. These included engineers. Given the extremely complex 3-D geometry. and bolted connections were used wherever possible. Conversely. For the complex doubly-curved spine trusses. heavy bending of tapered or curved members. with continuous shifts of dedicated fabrication manpower. the masts required precise setting out so as to accurately define the 3-D location of their top and bottom points. All of this helped to achieve the highest possible quality in the final product. was made. Completed canopies. Arup also prepared a schedule of both open and closed section profiles for each of the members in the podium roof structures (ie I-section vs circular hollow section profiles). the complex geometry also required special compound and profile cutting of sections. were also pre-welded on to reduce erection time. A vertical custom jig permitted fit-up welds to align the masts. 7. fitters. and install. and transport companies were consulted over delivery routes that might limit their dimensions. and QA/QC. the fabricators preferred hollow section profiles to open I-sections. Where welding was required. transport. either small or large. 24-hour/day fabrication was implemented. They studied all possible site access. as well as any adjustments or modifications so as to save time during erection and installation. Fabrication In addition to the head start the fabricators gained in their shop drawing workflow process from the 3-D models. they favoured open I-section profiles as being less expensive and having shorter lead times than hollow sections. welders. All were trial-fitted at 6. and fabrication process. store. to ensure the segments were aligned and fitted precisely together. Fabricators could then choose the best profile type to maximise cost-effectiveness. so that the segments comprising the structure were as easy as possible to handle. The Arup Journal 1/2012 35 . innovative custom jigs were needed to properly and accurately fabricate the components. This innovative workflow saved much time in redrawing the model each time a modification. storage space and cranage capacity before deciding how the segments would be sized. for the planar 2-D CU and CD trusses that only curved in one direction. grinders. 3-D design process. Lifting lugs were pre-welded to segments in the factory after determining the lifting points from the segment’s centre of gravity.

As these are highly flexible. This greatly reduced erection time. On de-propping. custom assembly jigs were used to temporarily support the rafters and masts (Fig 10). 36 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . 10. Work safety and health officers and safety co-ordinators were deployed throughout the site to ensure a safe working environment. Strict and close supervision throughout construction ensured safe completion of the works. Canopy levels were adjusted through detailed survey and use of tension stay turn-buckles. Temporary works design was also carefully reviewed and endorsed by qualified Professional Engineers. and can lift up to 2 tonnes. bolted and welded into position. 9. 9. Canopy in front of The Shoppes arcade. Temporary jig supporting canopy rafters. they would deflect with the added weight of roof cladding and finishes. they were shifted to the next location. alleviating the need for constant reliance on cranage. Later. In addition to cranes. Careful alignment of the canopy structures was also required. 10. These are light and easy to handle.On repetitive areas of steelwork like the canopy structures. as well as safe work procedures and safety management systems. fitted up. the length of the tension stays had to be precisely calculated so that during erection the canopies could be installed (unloaded) to a level higher than their final level. Risk assessments were carried out before work began. electric winches were also used to speed up work. These enabled the structure to be assembled. and the whole structure settled into its final position.

Podium underslab drainage system Authors Otto Lai Wing-Kai Leong Column/wall 100mm cast iron pipe Inner face of diaphragm wall Lowest basement slab Lowest basement slab N 12 Bored pile 25 21 18 11 (a) Pressure relief point. 1500g polythene Fine sand layer Realtex 15NW 1. Underslab drainage location plan. sump pumps. the ArtScience Museum. localised remedial works may be required. The seepage groundwater collected by the system is discharged into the public drainage system outside the site. 50mm blinding layer 2. Flushing of the system by way of the rodding eyes and the pressure relief wells would be carried out to restore the system its full capacity. piezometers. 2. and thereby negate the need for hold-down tension piles. Sub-systems forming the underslab drainage system. In the worst case scenario. and the DCS (district cooling system) area (Fig 1). 150mm perforated pipe Spacers 10m into Old Alluvium layer (b) Typical rodding eye detail. The system typically comprises a drainage blanket formed of 20mm single-size aggregate. alerting the owner to the problem before any structural damage occurs. perimeter gutter drains. however. Normal maintenance is expected to keep the system in full working order. 150mm perforated pipe with rodding eye No-fines concrete 500mm perimeter gutter 20mm single size aggregate 25 18 18 11 11 15 18 15 Screw-down double-greased sealed inspection cover for rodding Manhole cover Puddle flange Removable screwcap Lowest basement slab No-fines concrete Lowest basement slab No-fines concrete To perimeter gutter Cased. The system was installed in part of the south podium (the north donut beneath some of the MICE facilities). perforated pipes. The Arup Journal 1/2012 37 . the pressure relief points (Fig 2a) local to the affected area will automatically overflow. The differences in excavation depth are due to the range of basement levels across the site. the north podium. Hotels 35 Perforated pipe Pipe unperforated through concrete (c) Perforated pipes to perimeter gutter drain. The MBS drainage system as constructed is the largest of its type in Singapore. minimum 200mm diameter well borehole Approved filter material 18 Excavation depths (m) Area where underslab drainage was constructed 1. The underslab drainage system was designed to relieve the lowest basement slabs of uplift water pressure. and pressure relief wells (Fig 2). Should part of the underslab drainage system malfunction. (d) Typical pressure relief well.

The plans for the new ballroom were promptly updated and enlarged to ensure that the development delivered on its earlier competitionwinning promises! 2. The stipulated schedule for opening Phase 1 meant a very limited construction time.Sands Expo and Convention Center Authors Don Ho Otto Lai Background The Sands Expo and Convention Center is the southernmost element of the whole Marina Bay Sands development. beginning in early 2008 and extending to the end of 2009 in time for the opening. makes it the most extensive single building of the entire MBS development in terms of land area occupied. conference and exhibitions (MICE) facility. The gigantic footprint. it contains south-east Asia’s biggest ballroom (Fig 1)*. as on-site manpower requirement is a major factor in a country like Singapore which imports a lot of foreign labour to service its construction industry. This was an important consideration. it can host up to 45 000 convention delegates in total. The largest and most flexible meeting and exhibition venue in Singapore. 38 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . Timing Fronting the coastal area of the development. The main floors were therefore designed with composite slabs on long-span steel frames. More commonly known to the design team as the meetings. 1. from an intimate meeting for 10 persons to lavish presentations for up to 11 000 people. MICE was required to be one of the first MBS facilities to become operational. This design also minimised the manpower needed on site. a bigger one previously overlooked was discovered elsewhere. Part-way through the design. 240m x 140m. its space able to accommodate a maximum of 2000 exhibition booths and 250 meeting rooms. the use of this “propless” scheme allowing construction work on several floors to be carried out in parallel (Fig 2). It can thus handle events of any size. The gross area of 120 000m2 is spread across five floors plus mezzanines. incentives. * The original competition entry scheme promised the largest ballroom in Asia. despite being one of its largest. all of which sit atop five more basement levels.

Construction work for MICE under way in late spring 2009. Yielding Redistribution Buckling Fracture Elastic Lock-in Deflection 5. This analysis reflected the most realistic structural response by considering the lock-in stresses from construction and the redistribution of forces through yielding and buckling (Fig 5). the Arup team innovatively re-engineered the conventional design cycle. the team carried out an advanced.Foreign labour content is managed by the government through the enforcement of strict quotas on construction sites. Efficiency As it was such a major element in the whole MBS project. Typical framing. yet ensures that the designed condition with distributed wall loading is the most critical loading condition among the numerous operational combinations. large displacement analysis with consideration of the static construction sequence. design time was also limited. but by running the design and construction phases in parallel. Load Deck above Brickwork Exit Corridor Movable partitions Storage pit 3. 1. 5. extending from the outset of the project to mid-2009. Illustration of typical loaddeflection relationship. The main ballroom. Pre-function area. 6. This arrangement allows for a high degree of flexibility. as one of the major uncertainties during the structural design phase was the placement of the massive moving partitions for the convertible meeting rooms. 2. elastoplastic. Formation of plastic hinges. non-linear. MICE naturally contributed a very considerable portion of the total cost. the Arup team recommended the architect to orient the opening directions of the movable partitions to the gravity load paths of the structures. The Arup Journal 1/2012 39 . Plastic hinges 6. Necessarily. only a slight variant in the efficiency of the MICE structural design could have significantly affected the overall budget. 4. with each partition’s storage pit located on a main truss spanning between columns (Fig 3). Instead of applying an unnecessarily conservative design load. 3. This enabled the principal structural elements to be put in place when only the preliminary architectural design was ready. This being the case. Fig 6 shows the formation of plastic hinges in a typical bay under the designed ultimate loading. 4. So as to make the best use of materials.

Conclusion Given the scale of the MICE facility within the whole development. Factors like crowd patterns. the whole team put forward its utmost efforts for the successful completion on time of this world-class conference and exhibition venue. but the size of the grand ballroom meant that slab movement caused by the synchronised actions of large groups of dancers could cause concern. Through close co-operation between designers from different offices and disciplines. To ensure that MICE is a first-class conference facility. long-span structures if they are to be economically feasible.7. 7. music rhythms. 0. 40 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . together with feedback from participants. Trade show in progress at the Sands Expo.24 0. the Arup team applied best practices to enable such a demanding megastructure to be constructed within the tightest time-frame and to the most stringent budget. The predicted dynamic performance was verified by direct site measurements. which forms an vital component in the grand development of Marina Bay Sands. the Arup team had to carefully study the structural factors involved in ensuring occupant comfort under human-induced vibrations. 8. dance styles.48 0.40 0. Fig 8 shows the typical vibration response of the ballroom floor under an extreme event of 500 people doing synchronised dancing at the critical frequency in a typical 33m x 18m structural bay. Comfort Vibration is inevitable in flexible.08 0 This analysis convinced the Arup team that the structure would perform appropriately for the nature of the facility. The team also gave recommendations to the client on precautions for possible comfort concerns if the facilities were used for any unusual events. 8.16 0. with very limited noticeable effects on occupants from structural vibration.32 0. and the effects from transfer structures were all studied. Peak acceleration of typical bay under extreme “social dance” conditions. Conventional footfall vibrations resulting from individual unco-ordinated actions contribute hardly any significant movement to such a massive long-span structure.56m/s2 0.

Crystal Pavilion north Shoppes Crystal Pavilion south Canal Hotel atrium and SkyPark The Arup Journal 1/2012 41 . the development has many places to eat and drink. with sampan rides for guests corresponding to the gondola rides at the Venetian.Retail areas Most of the MBS buildings include retail areas. A canal runs through the Shoppes. As well as the retail areas. some located in the Sands Hotel atrium and the SkyPark. The largest of these – “The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands” – includes over 300 stores plus food and beverage outlets along the whole north-south length of the podium. including several celebrity chef restaurants. similar in style to the one at the Las Vegas Venetian. Two internationally-renowned nightclubs and a flagship store for Louis Vuitton are housed in the Crystal Pavilions.

and the building also includes five levels of basement. and consequently at level B4 once excavation had reached that level. this enabled large open spaces and flexible space usage without having to change the positions of walls when programming the use of the spaces. with atypical connection detailing being needed. smoke control and fire compartmentation: see also the article on the fire engineering. once installed. Level 4 at the top of the building houses the mechanical systems for the entire casino. made connections into the adjacent structures difficult and also created headroom issues. the casino roof was erected and the ceiling ribs were being fabricated before the final configuration of the chandelier had been established by the architect. due to the need for higher headrooms there. pp68-71). The casino chandelier Composed of an intricate weave of high strength cables suspended from an undulating perimeter steel compression ring. Also. The top-down construction below level B2M was revised to allow for excavation to level B4/B5 and level B3 constructed later. Pile deviation was considered at level B4. The casino is immediately bordered by retail areas to the west. once piles were exposed and cut to correct cut-off levels. Beam depths had to be co-ordinated carefully so as to fulfil the headroom requirements. Oasys GSA GSRelax. Arup’s in-house non-linear structural analysis solver. and again at level B3 after formwork was carried out to that level. containing surveillance cameras and loudspeakers in addition to local lighting (Fig 3). and so the B2M level was introduced as the main gaming level with most of the level B1 in the ancillary areas being deleted. enabling the basement levels to be built at the same time as the superstructure. This. gaming room of the casino supports a network of 16 500 LED lights and over 130 000 precision-cut Swarovski crystals.5 m yfr on tA ve nu e Ba 1. establish an appropriate system of lateral restraint from the casino roof to the ring. The floor-to-floor heights in the casino itself were different from those in the immediately adjacent structures. With a footprint of 520m2 and measuring approximately 24. while levels B3 and B4 are used for vehicle parking as well as to house the tanks for potable water and for fire-fighting (another part of Arup’s commission was the fire engineering design – escape. and by Bayfront Avenue to the east (Fig 1). Construction The original proposed construction sequence was top down from level B2M. lying between the MICE facility to the south and the theatres to the north. however. nestled snugly between the finished ceiling above and a series of decorative ceiling ribs below (Fig 3). this signature piece is one of the largest installations of its kind anywhere in the world. The large atrium in the middle of the casino required floor openings up through four levels. and this continuous large vertical void in the floor diaphragm had to be taken into account when designing for lateral stability (Fig 2). was employed for the many hundreds of millions of non-linear analysis iterations required to establish a fabricated geometry that. so individual trellises. The building had to be completed in time for the planned “soft” opening on 27 April 2010. 42 The Arup Journal 1/2012 m Pr im ary vie w co rrid or .4m across and over 6m deep. and enable final design and detailing of the ring and its support system. a suite of non-linear buckling analyses of the perimeter compression ring were then conducted to investigate the ring’s robustness against buckling forces induced by the cable net. by the primary and secondary view corridors on the south and north sides respectively. to increase speed of construction. the construction sequence was changed so as to expedite the reinforced concrete works. Arup was thus tasked with form-finding the fabrication geometry of the chandelier cable net and of analysing the complex buckling behaviour of the chandelier’s compression ring to within extremely tight tolerances. were provided at each gaming table. The amount of light emanating from above alone would have been inadequate for the large B2M gaming area below the atrium.The casino Authors Otto Lai Patrick McCafferty Se N co nd ar 10 tail yv iew 5m co rri do r Re Atrium 55 Overview The casino is housed in the middle of the three major buildings on the podium. Lateral stability is provided by frame action between the columns and beams. After level B2M was cast. Given the compressed construction schedule of the project. however. Once an acceptable geometry was thus determined. designed by Arup. the feature chandelier high above the main 50 m 15 1. Foundation construction began in 2007 and was completed in 2008. would drape to within exacting tolerances between the finished ceiling above and the decorative ribs below. single and double T-section precast units were employed for the flooring. Deviation of the “plunge in” columns had to be initially considered on level B2M. with “plunge in” columns cast into bored piles that extend 40m into the Old Alluvium layer. Its four-storey reinforced concrete structure is supported by diaphragm walls and bored piles.

3. enclosing the irregularly shaped atrium.8 L1 7. The Arup Journal 1/2012 43 .25 B2M 8.5 B3 4.2 View corridor 1. Casino interior.Floor-to-floor heights (m) L4 View corridor Casino L3 6. Plan of the casino building.6 B4 4. 3.3 L2 6.1 B5 3. North/south cross-section through casino showing levels. showing the chandelier centrally placed to illuminate the atrium gaming area. 2. 2.

Theatre structures Authors Otto Lai Brian Mak Introduction The Marina Bay Sands development includes two fully-equipped proscenium theatres. “Box-in-box” structures Arup’s design for the structure of the theatres was basically a conventional “box-in-box” reinforced concrete frame. The slightly smaller Sands Theater (Fig 1). The two theatres are located side-by-side in the north-east area of MBS (Fig 2). as well as to the casino and the hotel. seating 1679. one facing the grand arcade node and the other Bayfront Avenue. The external box is formed by the podium structures and the basement walls. and they share a lobby. The Grand Theater has a seating capacity of 2139. which provides for easy flow of pedestrian traffic before and after performances as people move to the ArtScience Museum. which provide overall 44 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . and is designed for show-based entertainment ranging from popular acts and concerts to special touring events. so as to provide the greatest flexibility for construction (Fig 3). where Broadwaytype shows are performed.1. offers a different kind of theatrical experience. They have two entrances. the grand arcade and waterfront promenade.

Another is that the resilient air space between boxes greatly improves sound isolation from exterior noise. One is that a decoupled inner and outer structure reduces the transmission of vibrational energy that could reradiate inside the theatre as airborne noise. while at the top of each building beneath the curving roof (see pp32-36) is the 150mm thick composite slab that comprises each theatre’s level 4. 1. 3. The internal box is a reinforced concrete shell for each theatre defining its shape. The shells were slender cantilevered structures with concrete piers integrated into them to provide temporary stability (Fig 5). the concrete shells being completed before the steel balconies were begun. and it proved to be very effective and efficient in terms of time and construction logistics. The acoustic benefits of box-in-box construction are significant. Construction of the theatres was undertaken “outside-in”. Interior of the completed Sands Theater. 2. So as to limit transmission of outside noise and vibration into the theatres. A similar procedure was adopted for the Cirque du Soleil theatre at the Venetian Macau (also an Arup project). Cantilevered steel balcony. so that any modifications to the internal theatre layout involved only checking gravity load.5m deep steel trusses. This accommodates the MEP plant room. The Arup Journal 1/2012 45 . The verticality of the theatre shell walls was stringently controlled so as to minimize any adverse impacts from construction tolerance on the subsequent steel balcony truss installation. Concrete piers for temporary stability. 3. and of internal noise and vibration from them into surrounding areas. 5. The structures were built between April and December 2009. each containing a partially raked auditorium floor and one balcony. and did not affect the external podium structures and basement walls. Theatre shells under construction. stability for the theatres against soil load. and is supported by 3. The “box-in-box” structural arrangement. 4. additional double structures with a minimum 50mm cavity between them were provided at the interface between theatre stage and surrounding structure (Fig 3).N Theatres Outer "box" (entire MBS podium) Theatre boxes Concrete piers for stability Double boxes around stage areas 2. Theatre construction Internally the Grand Theater and the Sands Theater are very similar. showing the additional double box surrounding each stage area and the positions of the concrete piers. The balconies are steel cantilevered frames (Fig 4) with concrete decks for the seating. The internal box transfers all gravity loads from the theatre to the ground. 4. 5.

or to provide 2770 seats for events either at the lower promenade waterfront or on the stage at the upper promenade (Fig 2). It can be used to host various events itself. depending on whether they are on the lower or upper promenade. and handrails for access and prevention against falling. Removable steps. With a total area of about 2300m2. 2. 1. this moving platform connects the upper and lower promenades (Fig 1). the platform is divided into series of steps supported by a mechanical system that operates vertically to position the steps in different configurations for events. or at the platform itself. are variously provided to suit the different platform profiles. Total 4834 seats Raised platforms: 2770 seats Stage 0 10m Portable bleachers Operable plaza panels Stage Bleachers: 2064 seats a) Plan for lower promenade event. The platform can be raised to a maximum 3. d) Elevation for upper promenade event. Total 3419 seats Raised platforms: 2770 seats Operable plaza panels Lower promenade Additional seating Stage Stage Front seats: 649 seats c) Plan for upper promenade event. 46 The Arup Journal 1/2012 .7m from its lowest operating level. b) Elevation for lower promenade event.The event plaza Authors Va-Chan Cheong Franky Lo Introduction Located along the marine deck between the North and South Crystal Pavilions.

N

Structure The main structure of the event plaza comprises reinforced concrete U-shaped “tubs” under the platform spanning over the water on marine piles. The platform itself is formed of a composite deck with profiled steel sheeting resting on steel beams. The design live load is 7.5kPa to cater for public crowds as well as for its use as a stage for hosting events, and detailed considerations regarding vibration induced by activities on the deck were made in the design to avoid discomfort being caused to users from any excessive vibration. The tubs are mostly in parallel layout at approximately 12m spacing, and interconnected with tie beams (Fig 3). Nine series of extendable screw jacks are installed along the centres of the tubs at about 2.2m spacing to provide vertical support to the platform deck (Fig 4). At the eastern edge of the platform, adjacent to the main podium structure, a continuous reinforced concrete wall with a buttress houses the guide rails that provide lateral restrain to the platform. To facilitate its rapid erection under the tight programme, the reinforced concrete tubs were precast, while the main parts of the platform decks were shop-prefabricated in advance. Moving the platform At each jack position in the tubs, a sleeve opening is provided for the screw rod to pass through when the platform is lowered. At the undersides of the tubs, waterproof sockets connecting to the sleeve openings prevent potential corrosion of the screw rods from contact with water (Fig 5). The platform loading is transmitted through the screw rods to the concrete structure by nut casing units bolt-anchored to the tubs. Capped on each pair of screw rods, a jack casing formed by a grid of steel beams houses the geared motor, the shafts, and the jack at top of each rod. The motor provides power for the rotary action of the screw rod, causing it to rise or descend and thus raise or lower the platform to the desired level. All the motors are controlled by a central system that synchronises the level of each platform step to provide different platform topographies, including flatted profiles as the stage for hosting events, or in stepped configuration to provide seating for events in the upper and lower promenades.

Extent of fixed reinforced concrete deck Geared motor Extent of moving platform Shaft Jack casing Screw Bellows spring Nut Extendable screw jacks Nut casing Screw cover Jack

U-shaped reinforced concrete “tubs”

0

20m

3.

4.

a) Underside of platform supported by screw jacks.

b) Installation of nut casting on reinforced concrete tub.

c) Jack casing on top of screw jack.

d) General view of platform in construction.

5. 1. Architect’s impression of the event plaza alongside the marine deck. 2. Configurations of the platform for events on the upper and lower promenades. 3. General arrangement of event plaza reinforced concrete structure. 4. Exploded view of screw jack and jack casing. 5. Building the moving platform.

The Arup Journal 1/2012

47

1.

The ArtScience Museum
Authors Dan Birch Joe Lam Mac Tan

Introduction Designed by Moshe Safdie Architects as a symbolic gesture of welcome to guests from across the globe, the lotus-shaped ArtScience Museum (ASM) is situated at the north-west extremity of the MBS site, on a promontory overlooking Marina Bay (Fig 1). Following its opening on 17 February 2011 by Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the museum has become a premier destination for major international touring exhibitions from the most renowned collections in the world, with initial attractions ranging from artefacts from the Titanic to a comprehensive survey of Salvador Dalí’s art (Figs 15-16, p53).

This unique structure features over 5500m2 of galleries housing the permanent and touring exhibitions, and embraces a spectrum of influences from the relationship between art and science, to media and technology, to design and architecture. Visitors appreciate not only the building’s iconic form and the world-class exhibits within, but also the virtuosity of its innovative roof, which channels rainwater through the central atrium (Fig 2). The lotus form Approximately the same size as Bilbao’s Guggenheim, Singapore’s new Museum seems to float above its surrounding reflective pool, almost as if it were upside down. The overall structure comprises two levels of concrete basement below ground level plus the sculptural steel frame of the lotus itself, containing a further two floors of gallery space and a plant level (Fig 3). The lotus form is approximately 62m high above grade and has 11m of vertical support below grade. The roof is 80m across at its

2.

48

The Arup Journal 1/2012

widest point. The highly complex geometry required Arup to adopt innovative 3-D parametric modelling technologies, the use of which gave a significant reduction in modelling time, better co-ordination, visualisation of the complex steelwork, and improved communication with the client. The lotus form comprises 10 petals of varying height and width on a radial axis and spaced evenly at 36˚. The “petals” were rationalised from the free-form geometry developed by Safdie Architects at the competition stage, and the top, bottom and side surfaces of each were defined by flattened spheres or spheroids (Fig 4). This led to a series of doubly curved surfaces, each with constant radius on plan and variable radius vertically. Structural scheme (see also pp10-11) Each petal is formed by secondary members spanning onto primary girders, which load side trusses that bend downwards in cantilever action. The side trusses of adjacent petals meet at waler beams which resist out-of-plane forces caused by the steps in the roof between each petal. Loads from the side trusses are resolved at the waler beams and transferred to the radial mega-trusses (Fig 5). These act as cantilevers, taking the museum loads to the vertical supports which consist of a central diagrid structure and a series of 10 mega-columns, inclined outwards. Tensile loads in the top chords are resolved into the tension ring which connects to the top of the diagrid, while the compressive loads are resolved into the compression ring below. The vertical loads are carried by the inclined mega-columns (Fig 6). The architectural vision inspired a building shape that resulted in an eccentric structure. The overturning forces thereby generated, together with wind loads, are resisted by the diagrid acting as a vertical cantilever in conjunction with the inclined mega-columns.

Water oculus

Gallery Gallery Gallery Entry pavilion Promenade

Lily pond

Gallery

Gallery

Open atrium

3.
Side truss

Waler beam

Mega-truss

4.

5.

Compression Tension Tension ring

Mega-truss s Galleries Compression ring m Galleries

1. The ArtScience Museum nearing completion. 2. Water feature in the central atrium, showing the diagrid structure. 3. Architectural cross-section. 4. Spheroid geometry of the petals in Rhino. 5. The primary structure in Microstation Triforma. 6. The structural scheme.

Inclined mega-column Hyperbolic diagrid

6.

The Arup Journal 1/2012

49

7. 8.

3-D modelling and coordination The highly complex geometry of the lotus shape led the design team to use parametric modelling techniques for the structural steel skeleton. Initially MSA developed a Rhino model (Fig 7) to generate the surface profiles, and then Arup used these surfaces to develop a parametric model of the steelwork centrelines using Bentley’s GenerativeComponents software. For the steelwork of one petal, a parametric model was developed with the use of GenerativeComponents (Fig 8), so that Arup could then automatically develop the centreline model for the other petals’ varying geometry. The centreline model was then exported to generate a spaceframe analysis model of the roof in Arup’s own GSA program, and following analysis and section size definition, the GSA analysis model was imported into Bentley MicroStation Triforma to accurately model all the steel sections for both size and location. On completion of the 3-D drafting, the model was exported to Tekla (Fig 9) and issued to the steelwork contractor as the basis for their fabrication model. The MicroStation model was also used to generate a record set of 2-D drawings for the project.

9.

50

The Arup Journal 1/2012

Architectural Rhino model. Ring action was used to take the water pressure. 12. Building such a very large reinforced concrete structure close to the harbour waters created some challenges. The substructure As described in the earlier article on the MBS excavation and foundation design (pp12-15). Levels B1 and L01 were constructed in parallel with the programme to install the fingers and radial trusses. Since the 3-D models were co-ordinated among the consulting team members. The completed Museum. these piles were designed to resist the large lateral forces from the mega-columns. Using such advanced programs for documentation enabled better communication and reduced the time taken to produce shop drawings. 11. This allowed excavation without the need for shoring and thus saved overall construction time. as they provided geometrically correct design models to the fabricator. and vastly speeding up production of the fabrication information. Excavation within coffer dam for the ASM. 7. 12. the reaction forces of the ring being restrained by ground anchors at the north side and the contiguous bored pile wall at the south side of the diaphragm wall. this minimised the likelihood of further co-ordination being needed after the shop drawings were produced.8m-3. A draftsman from the steelwork fabricator noted that Arup issuing the 3-D model for the steelwork directly to them saved them three months in drafting time. exacerbated in this instance by time constraints (as already indicated. 10. as the L01 structure was used as a temporary working platform. Among these was the 130m diameter semi-circular cofferdam for the ASM (Fig 11). and speeded up the progress of fabrication and the reviewing process. They also enabled real-time interchange between analysis software and documentation modelling packages. enabling the 12m deep bulk excavation to proceed unsupported and unhindered. Critical was the construction of the ring beams and radial beams at the oculus area to 11. GenerativeComponents parametric model of a petal. This enabled the construction of the substructure and installation of the steel structure at same time. and the direct issue of the 3-D steelwork model in this way proved invaluable in co-ordinating the complex geometry. support the mega-columns and diagrid. The ring beams and radial beams at the oculus area link with the large 1. a key program driver had been the complexity of the steelwork).0m diameter piles under the mega-columns. after which the central core of the steel structure was installed concurrently with the remainder of the substructure. This cofferdam was supported primarily by the permanent basement retaining walls and temporary ground anchors to its west and east respectively.It was critical to get a steelwork contractor on board early and producing fabrication drawings. 8. 9. Structural steel skeleton under construction. 10. Tekla model. huge cofferdams were used on much of the site to facilitate bulk excavation and minimise shoring in the difficult soil environments. reducing requests from the steelwork contractor for information. The Arup Journal 1/2012 51 .

Conclusion Integrating the engineering and architectural design of the ASM was perhaps Singapore’s most sophisticated building undertaking yet. the ASM profile is a bold new visual identifier for Singapore. developed a method of bonding adjoining panels with seamless joints so that the skin moves and responds monolithically. egg-shell skin. this use of 12 500m2 of FRP was a first in terms of its scale and highly visible application for a Singapore project. The doubly-curved FRP skin made jointless construction possible. not least among them being the identification of a grade of FRP that would provide excellent fire resistance and performance. The subcontractor. A greater challenge. The skin A fundamental aspect of the façade design was the need for a smooth seamless. and extensive studies were made to determine how this could be formed. the finished building reflects Moshe Safdie’s intention: “From the inside out. and for me. still have to be joined together on site to achieve a monolithic skin. with provisions made at the perimeter and in the intermediate supports for expansion and contraction. As with Sydney Opera House. The egg-shell skin of the completed ArtScience Museum.” 52 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . 15. every element in the design of the ArtScience Museum reinforces the institution’s philosophy of creating a bridge between the arts and sciences. Testing was a critical part of obtaining approval from Singapore’s Fire Safety and Shelter Department for its use. though they can be large in size. another waterfront icon with which Arup is historically linked. fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) was chosen for the skin. DK Composites. A heavy site-finished concrete shell was quickly dismissed due to structural concerns. In addition. Typically used in high-performance racing yachts. though was to develop an over-cladding that had the eggshell finish. Typical section of cladding build-up. Table 1 Material Prefinished compressed fibre cement Glassfibre reinforced concrete Solid aluminium panel Filled resin High-pressure laminates Fibre-reinforce polymer Eggshell appearance Doublecurved Factoryapplied finish Monolithic joint Light weight The use of this new material posed several challenges. Mock-ups and other tests were also completed by the sub-contractors to demonstrate that they could achieve the appearance and structural performance. 16. the visual and the technological. It creates a continuous weather line and allows for a rainscreen cladding of choice to be attached to the seams without the need for support penetrations. Based on the findings. Aluminium standing seam roof 50mm Aluminium bracket assembly Insulation Inside 13. really represents the forward looking spirit of Singapore. The building combines the aesthetic and functional.Outside Maximum 825mm (panel width of white cladding) GFRP rainscreen cladding Aluminium circular hollow section Maximum 350mm 13. and the search for a solution focused on the concept of a cladding skin sitting above and below an inner standing seam roof. A wide range of locally-sourced materials was considered and reviewed against several criteria (Table 1). thus reducing the risk of leaks and failures (Fig 13). 14. A standing seam is a very robust and practical system for this application. resulting in a seamless and continuous surface (Fig 14). The 2011 exhibition “Dalí: Mind of a Genius”. FRP is factory fabricated into moulded panels which.

The Arup Journal 1/2012 53 .14. 15. 16.

4. Dewatering at the South Pavilion after installation of tubular piles and cofferdam. Completed North Pavilion. 1. Completed South Pavilion.The Crystal Pavilions Authors Don Ho Joe Lam Brian Mak 1. 3. 54 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . Excavation within cofferdam for the North Pavilion. 2.

while the other enables visitors to dine on the water.2.5m above mean sea level. 4. minipiles were constructed at the toes of the tubular piles to increase tension capacity. The foundation and excavation works were successfully completed in early 2010. It was anticipated that the foundations would be subject to compression loads during construction but to permanent uplift forces during operation. The Pavilions and their connecting structures are founded primarily on the underlying OA layer using open-ended driven tubular steel piles. dewatering to the seabed plus about 2m depth of bulk excavation was carried out within circular and adjoining linear cofferdams (Figs 3. 4). The latter extend from both Pavilions to the basement retail areas in the podium. bulk excavation towards the centre of the circular cofferdams was carried out. The Pavilion basements and connecting submerged tunnels were constructed in the dry. and the general sequence of works may be summarised as follows: • pile installation and testing of pile foundations • circular cofferdam installation • dewatering within circular cofferdam • linear cofferdam installation and excavation within circular cofferdam • dewatering and excavation within linear cofferdam • construction of basement structure within circular and linear cofferdams • forming of opening in circular cofferdam to enable structural connection of the access tunnels and Pavilion basements • basement construction completion and temporary works removal. the highest level in this reservoir area was 2. the foundations were subjected to the full uplift forces prior to completion of the Pavilion superstructures. to bear against the restraining ring waler beams. with radial lateral restraint provided by circular steel section waler beams installed prior to the dewatering. After dewatering. The Arup Journal 1/2012 55 . so at areas where higher uplift forces were expected. and linked to the podium by cast in situ submarine tunnels. Due to the tight construction programme. which bring visitors from the basement retail area to enjoy the contrasting sense of open water. The North Pavilion houses a flagship store for Louis Vuitton (Arup’s client for the fitout). Another consideration in the Pavilions’ location and founding was water level. following completion in 2008 of the Marina Barrage across the Marina Channel that feeds Marina Bay. Introduction The North and South Crystal Pavilions are two glowing “jewels” for resort visitors to explore. 3. Geotechnical challenges The geology here generally comprises an approximately 15m-25m thick band of soft-to-firm marine/fluvial clay layer overlaying the Old Alluvium (OA) formation (see also pp12-15). For both Pavilions. Conventional tension load testing was carried out on the tubular piles and mini-piles. The constructed foundations were compression load tested using the Statnamic method. In fact they are securely founded in the Bay strata. and seem to float in Marina Bay west of the MBS podium. and house the cast in situ access tunnels. Two slender steel bridges provide alternative access to the Pavilions. which involves launching a reaction mass that weighs about 5% of the weight required for a conventional static load test. Allowance was made in their design for anticipated closing in during initial dewatering. The circular cofferdams were extended through the soft marine clay to found on the underlying alluvial sand.

9. 5. Since the prestressing system could only provide full stability for the roofs when they were prestressed to the design load. 7. maintaining stability during construction was a critical factor. 7. and provide the lateral stability with prestressed Macalloy ties. 6. Detail of the North Pavilion nearing completion. and the two roofs on each Pavilion having completely different gradients. This imposed big design and construction challenges. 56 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . the ties were prestressed in stages. The prestress force in each was increased by a small percentage until every tie was prestressed to its full design load. for which Bentley Structure was used (Figs 6. the structures have an inevitable tendency to lateral movement. To avoid unbalanced forces or local overstress of members. well before any steelwork was delivered to site. GSA model of North Pavilion. As the connections and members are exposed. one-by-one around the roof. All the connections were sketched out and designed early in the process. even taking into account the effect of self-weight. Construction progress for both Pavilions. and then reviewed through local workshops in Singapore and See and Share sessions between the Hong Kong and US offices until the connection detailing was as the architect wanted. Connections and façade fin as built. To achieve the high transparency that the name “Crystal Pavilion” implies. 6. so the architect asked Arup to develop and document all the connection detail in 3-D. structural detailing was of major architectural importance. and the contractor’s construction sequence analysis was carefully reviewed before approval.5. 7). All of the team then worked together to draw up every typical and non-typical connection detail in 3-D. Pavilion roofs With the Pavilion façades tilting 20° from the vertical in different directions. The Arup team indicated clearly in the tender drawings the structural requirements during construction. 3-D model of the connections and façade fin. July and September 2010. the Arup team decided to support the decorative outer frames with lightweight steelwork (Fig 5). 8.

to ensure that every edge of the concrete core is sufficiently distant from the outer frame.This not only showed the architect how the final details would appear but also identified all the geometrically complex connections. d) North Pavilion. the conventional reinforced concrete structures are separated from the Pavilions’ steel roofs. September 2010. July 2010. as the outer frame can move relative to the inner core under the designed lateral load. September 2010. July 2010. 9. 8. The 3-D model (Fig 8) was issued to the contractor as a reference and used as a base for overlaying with the contractor’s submitted 3-D model. which were analysed and adjusted to make them aesthetically acceptable to the architect before being passed for construction. b) South Pavilion. So as to provide extra flexibility for the floor arrangement. However. The Arup Journal 1/2012 57 . reducing by over 50% subsequent requests for information (RFI). the potential drift was carefully calculated and numerous sections cut from the 3-D model. c) North Pavilion. a) South Pavilion. This revealed any clashes.

so in the human-induced vibration (footfall) analysis model (Fig 14). in September 2011. and a minimum number of piers extending as deep into the water as possible before connecting to the piles. as well as means of escape in case of fire. rather than also be stabilized by raking piles. The effective cantilever length of the column + pile element is very critical in affecting the frequency of this mode (Fig 13). there were site constraints. each bridge could only be supported by a single central line of piers. The footbridges During the design stage. For strength checking. The main beam-to-façade fin detail is designed to avoid any unwanted stiffeners. 58 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . Integrated design to achieve architectural intent Transparent glass roofs need to be as devoid of services as possible. the Bay’s fresh water would be clean enough to make the seabed clearly visible. It was later determined that the structural size was mainly dictated by human-induced vibration. They were the final elements of MBS to open to the public. each supported by 10 slender piers. they were removed and the computer model rerun iteratively until all were are within the allowance load. Conclusion Despite the difficult environment and the range of design challenges that it generated. these bridges had to be complementary – elegant and transparent. with very slender profiles. The slender bridge columns and piles resulted in an undesired cantilever mode shape being dominant (Figs 11. This lower bound assumption was to ensure that any secondary effects were not underestimated. and the floor openings positioned in consultation with the building services engineer so that they were feasible in both structural and mechanical engineering terms. To avoid air ducts at roof level. The Level 1 floor structure had to be analysed in great detail. In addition to these aesthetic requirements. so that by the time MBS opened. With the design of the Pavilions already established. the local authority informed the team that a footbridge to each Pavilion was required for alternative access. the design team successfully realised the Pavilions’ unique and complex design with high precision and quality.0m 0. As the team was more confident about the magnitude of lateral loading from wind and wave action. and had to be carefully engineered by the Arup façade team. the team used a lower bound soil stiffness in estimating the fixity point of the pile (the depth at which the soil acts as a lateral restraint to it). an underfloor supply system was selected. Reactions from each soil spring were checked to make sure they were within acceptable limits. Because raking piles from the main Pavilion structures already extended into the bridge areas. This was because the Marina Barrage effectively fences the Bay off from the sea. this gave a clearer indication of the soil/structure interaction. the façade support structures for the Crystal Pavilions are architectural features. Where soil springs were overstressed.3. and the final product has the very clean detail required by the architect. 12). and considerable forces were thereby induced in the Level 1 floor both from keeping the slanted basement wall in position and from the slanted steel roof columns on the top of the wall. the main difference from the footfall model being that full-length piles with closely-spaced soil springs were included. not design strength. Unlike other types of buildings where façade supports are normally concealed or clad.65m 10mm thick end plate 15mm thick plate 1. but the consequent need for openings around the edge of the floor plate made for some structural challenges. The Level 1 floor acts to prop the top of the slanted basement wall (Fig 10).8m diameter x 19mm thick pile 15mm thick plate 10. They extend some 40m and 50m to the North and South Pavilions respectively. 11.5m 100mm 350mm 600mm 84˚ 20mm thick plate 2. another computer model was built.

0 2. Cross-section through bridge/ pier/pile structure. The South Pavilion complete. 3-D model of bridge structure. 13. 14. 14. The Arup Journal 1/2012 59 . 15. Completed footbridge to the North Pavilion. 12. 11.0 7. 15.5 5. Maximum resonant response factor: 10. First mode behaviour of bridge.0 15.0 12. 13.5 0 12. Human-induced vibration (footfall) model for the South Pavilion footbridge.5 10.10.

being constructed here beneath Bayfront Avenue (Figs 2. forming a further element in the Marina South area’s complete road network. and then casting of the concrete progresses upwards until the roof of the structure is completed. and the structure played an important role in the early construction stages as it formed the heart and linkage for all the other areas. with the inclusion of Bayfront Station as part of Singapore’s Downtown Line 1 (DTL1) development. 2012. Bayfront Avenue and Downtown Line 1 Author Brian Mak Bayfront Avenue runs through the heart of MBS. which carries an eight-lane cross-Singapore arterial route that here runs adjacent to the 60 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . now interfaces with the Shoppes. Detailed structural analyses were performed to ensure that any deflections in the diaphragm walls would have no adverse effects on those parts of the DTL1 that were already constructed. was then constructed after the ground slab was cast. enabling bus. Bayfront Avenue was built by the top-down method (Fig 5 overleaf). The new road opened to traffic on 25 April 2010. and the planned excavation sequence was adhered to strictly to avoid any adverse impacts to either the resort or the station structure. it also functioned as a working platform/temporary support for other areas. 3). Extensive co-ordination between the design team and the local authority was needed concerning the interface between Bayfront Station and MBS. Parts of the DTL1 extension cut-and-cover tunnels were constructed by the bottom-up method. This station. eg the SkyPark steelwork was assembled on top of it. The Avenue links the new resort not only with its immediate surroundings. An underground link to the SMRT network is also being added.1. A major constraint on the tunnel construction was the existing Benjamin Sheares Bridge. As well as enabling the movement of manpower and materials around the site. and the Sands Hotel. The structure below. which opened on 14 January. the Sands Expo and Convention Center. so as to provide even easier public access to and from the area (Fig 6 overleaf). Soil is excavated to the required depth. taxi and other vehicular access to the resort. but also with other developments like Gardens by the Bay and the Marina Bay Financial Centre. 4). the future Bayfront Station. separating the hotel towers and podium structures (Figs 1.

connecting the development on both sides B Varies B Alignment B SECTION B-B Alignment A1 & A2 C Existing ground level C C L Alignment A1 tracks level Alignment A2 tracks level Bayfront Station Alignment B tracks level Alignment A1 & A2 Alignment B 3. Plan and cross-sections of DTL1 tunnels at three locations on the route into Bayfront Station. Vehicle ramps overpass the tunnels. Alignment of DTL1 tunnels beneath Bayfront Avenue. 3. Bayfront Avenue seen from the ground level. SECTION C-C 1. 4. 2. 4.N ArtScience Museum District cooling system (DCS) plant Theatres Benjamin Sheares Bridge Casino Crystal Pavilion South Sands Hotel MICE Bayfront Station TBM (tunnel boring machine) shaft Cooling towers at ground level Crystal Pavilion North Varies A A Vehicle ramp SECTION A-A 2. Bayfront Avenue alongside the hotel towers. The Arup Journal 1/2012 61 .

f) Complete DTL1 tunnel boxes. deepest part of the excavation in an area of deep soft clay. Without this simple but effective modification to the bridge.Casino RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 DTL1 Hotel RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 Casino DTL1 Hotel RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 Casino DTL1 Hotel a) Install piles. 5. Arup’s solution allowed the project programme to be met while the bridge continued to operate as normal. 5. As the deck and piers were fixed together by pins that allowed little lateral movement. diaphragm walls and top-down slabs. this would result in overstressing of the columns of the closest pier as well as damage to the pins. e) Commence DTL1 tunnel boxes bottom-up and backfill. The Arup team calculated that the proposed works would cause the bridge to move laterally by 47mm. the design of the excavation works would have been significantly complicated and taken much longer. Arup’s solution to modify the connections between the deck and the pier is described and illustrated in the article on the MBS geotechnics and foundation design (pp12-15). 62 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . 6. Casino RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 DTL1 Hotel d) Complete hotel basement and DTL1 excavation. 6. Casino RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 DTL1 Hotel b) Complete casino and retail above the DTL1 tunnel alignment. Bayfront Station entrance. Casino RL (m) 100 90 80 70 60 50 DTL1 Hotel c) Continue hotel and DTL1 excavations with temporary props. Top-down construction sequence for Bayfront Avenue and the DTL1 tunnels.

Specialist skills The Arup Journal 1/2012 63 .

During the study period and on into procurement and production. The façade systems Authors Russell Cole Mac Tan Alex Wong • the west-facing hotel rooms. Energy performance Singapore has strict requirements on the amount of solar and ambient energy flowing into a building. This resulted in less areas for insulation which. Safdie Architects’ design incorporated vertical glass fins to express the building shape and complex curvature of the towers. as the hotel towers taper in elevation. and working with the architect. Normally this is calculated across the whole of a building. as well as simplify procurement and construction. the ArtScience Museum. and the façades were a critical aspect of this vision. and this need for unimpeded views implied maximising the glass area and minimising structure. even if high-performance solar coatings are used (the most advanced of which do have an impact on light transmission). These calculations were used throughout the design process to inform where transparency targets could be achieved. with avoidance of tinted glass so as to give good colour rendition. that a pallet of materials and façade systems be developed that would impart a strong sense of cohesion and a consistent appearance. Arup was tasked to design and achieve these aesthetic requirements. and performance specifications for a design-and-build tender contract. casino. this constraint forced the Arup design to provide support on the transoms (see also p22) • The fins do not align consistently with any façade element. Also. and other façade activities that stemmed from testing through fabrication to installation. and theatre blocks of the podium. These areas were: • the east-west view corridors between the MICE. but in the present case MBS was considered as two buildings – the hotels and the podium block. Glass sources from all around the world were considered. Hotel glass curtain walls and glass fin design The west-facing orientation of the hotel towers created an issue of thermal comfort during afternoons. expected transparency. The façades were grouped into five broad packages – the hotel towers. concerns had to be met about night-time views in these areas. the podium structures.Transparency In certain areas transparency was critical. with the following challenges: • Typically. budget. careful tuning of the glass selection cross-checked with the ETTV (envelope thermal transfer value) calculations. • The architect’s intention was for the glass fins to be supported only at the top and bottom. This being the case it was crucial. again to give views of the city • the atria between the hotel blocks. energy requirements. reviewing of all submissions. Highly transparent areas tend to let in more energy. and other requirements such as acoustic performance. numerous inspections of glass factories were necessary. and as a result Arup is now very familiar with fabricators throughout Asia. 64 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . • The architect wanted to express the curvature of the towers in the fins themselves. Arup’s façade team covered the entire development. The fins are spaced every 6m from the top of the towers (level 55). thus forcing the glass for the fins to exceed Singapore statutory requirements. so areas of high energy transmission had to be balanced with lower performance areas. but here the fins do not. and many different performance requirements had to be met. coupled with the use of clear glass. vertical glass fins in façades align with the supporting mullions. In many parts of the building some of the latest high-performance glass was used. and the solar transmission through the vision areas. this gap reduces down to 5m at level 5 (Fig 1). • The fins had to be made more visible by using a more reflective glass than that used for the curtain wall glazing. with preference for frameless glass with exposed edges. implies the consumption of greater amounts of energy. especially concerning the rooms at the Sands Hotel. with regard for the different roles the glazing would have in the various areas of MBS. given the scale of the project. high light transmission was needed. However. Factors that had to be taken Introduction The building envelopes of Marina Bay Sands are a fundamental part of the project’s architectural definition. and the client project managers to develop and refine the design intent for these various façade types. In the end. giving views of the promenade as well as the city beyond into account in the selection process were architectural intent. Arup subsequently provided engineered design intent drawings. To enable these views. Common issues Architectural intent Safdie Architects had a clear vision for the form and appearance of MBS. the Crystal Pavilions. to provide good views of the city • the retail mall. the programme. ranging over several zones with multiple types of façade. and “others” – but several key common factors ran throughout. Other areas of high transparency required low iron glass – sand with low iron content avoids the tendency to a green tint of normal clear glass. This also covered design development and co-ordination with façade contractors. and eventually the many types of glass used were all sourced from Asian factories. the other design disciplines. safety regulations. spanning the height from floor to floor. but as with all projects there were budget constraints. so that they would be 1200mm wide at the top and bottom of the buildings and gradually taper to 600mm in the middle. The maximum amount of energy permitted is deemed to comprise the total of the thermal flows through the solid areas and the glazed areas. which needed to have a light and airy feel. Glass selection A very detailed study of glass types was carried out.

Arup chose the Sentry Glas® system to reduce if not eliminate risk of delaminating. 2. Close-up of fins. this approach minimised the loading implications on other elements of the curtain wall panel. The three-sided support elements were factory prefabricated. This system also adds structural integrity and safety. As the curtain wall was designed as a hanging system to cater for additional loads arising from the fin design. and gradual reduction of spacing between fins down the tower. • The slab structural design could not incorporate a top-fixed curtain wall bracket that would require notching on the existing slab. with the front edge left exposed to achieve the visual intent. the only possible option was for them to be fixed to the horizontal curtain-wall transom and the stack joint. the horizontal connection between curtainwall panels (Fig 2). Arup designed the main support to be from the top frame of the curtain wall. Although the architect’s intent to support the fins only at the top and bottom could be achieved. Arup with the specialist sub-contractor developed several options. this made the top transom the closest horizontal member to the dead load brackets. Since the architect required the edge of the laminated glass to be exposed. identifying the design and structural implications for each.• Maintenance had to be considered. so as to reduce the amount of on-site assembly and ensure high quality of work. Considering the major loading implications. The Arup Journal 1/2012 65 . This in turn would have major implications for the loads imposed on the curtain wall system. 2. This was considered to be the most efficient solution because it is the only frame member in the curtain wall system that takes no dead load from the glazing. this would require the laminated glass to have three layers. 1. showing connection and three-sided framing. Elevation of hotel tower 1. 1. so the architect eventually accepted a system having each fin supported at the rear as well as the top and bottom. where the fin brackets were also assembled together with the unitised curtain wall. The fins were designed on the same principle as a unitised curtain wall. showing non-alignment of fins and mullions. Since the glass fins were not in line with the curtain wall mullions.

as well as an alternative spring system solution. 4. 5. Inspecting the nose panel. Thermal movement and expansion were also carefully reviewed to ensure that the panels will stay in place with large redundancy and safety factors. Installing the SkyPark soffit cladding was a major challenge for the sub-contractor. 6. Another challenge was the SkyPark’s movement joints. They were carefully beaten to into shape with computerised controls to ensure the correct formation. Aluminium composite cladding panels were chosen due to colour consistency and their ability to supply the colour tone that the architect preferred during the sample review. Underside of the SkyPark soffit cladding nose panel. SkyPark soffit cladding The design concept for the SkyPark included a smooth façade to its soffit. so solid aluminium panels were used. 3. 6. This method necessitated a minimum 5mm panel thickness to ensure that no imperfections were visible after finishing (Figs 5. Gaps between panels of 100mm and 40mm were selected to help visually express how the panels form the shape of the soffit. 5. The nose of the SkyPark.3. 6). This would ensure that the gaps at the movement joint would always be equal whatever the structural movement. with the short programme and the needs of safety in the process being the principal concerns. 4. In this – the concept that was the final choice for the actual installation – two equal-capacity springs acting in opposite directions keep the panel gaps equal during movement. formed in a similar way to the fabrication of aircraft parts. It includes what are essentially two bridge spans between the hotel towers. The façade cladding had to accommodate this movement without there being any major aesthetic impact on the panel design and pattern. The nose of the SkyPark cladding has a very small radius. achieving the same design intent and principle (Fig 3). showing welds and support framing. Spring system installed at SkyPark movement joints. 66 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . This was later developed by the subcontractor. The aluminium composite panels used elsewhere would not work here. A pantograph system – a mechanical linkage that includes an articulated assembly to provide a motion guide for contraction or expansion – was added in the original panel design to regulate the centre panel between those adjacent during any movement. and so movement joints had to be incorporated (see also p25). forming a doubly-curved panel (Fig 4).

Secondly. The double-glazed units are then clamped to the horizontal T-sections. comprising horizontal steel T-sections with aluminium glazing adapters fixed to the front face. As this wall frames the view of the main CBD of Singapore from this focal point of the retail spaces.7m wide with supports only along the horizontal edges. View corridor walls The conditions of the land sale included sightlines that needed to be maintained through the development. 7. The final scheme uses a set of vertical steel mullions stabilised against the wind by a cable net (Figs 7-8). To this end the architect envisaged the creation of view corridors dividing the elements of the podium block. 8. This area was given priority for the use of low iron glass that increased visible light transmission even though it meant a lower thermal insulation performance. the double-glazing used in other areas of the podium has less transparency and better thermal performance.7. with highly transparent walls at the ends each view corridor arcades. whereas the outward suctions pull against two levels of horizontal cables that span the width of the wall and are anchored to the concrete structures of the MICE and casino blocks. and to achieve this. Firstly the façades team developed a lightweight structural support system that minimized the size and density of the structural elements. Cable anchorage detail at the west-facing view corridor wall. p61). Balustrading for the SkyPark observation deck had of course to meet rigorous safety requirements. West-facing view corridor wall. Similar structural systems were used for the smaller view corridor walls facing Bayfront Avenue. Most of this elevations’s many entrances have automated sliding doors.6m high x 3. and ensuring safety during the operation. September 2007. The wall sits between the promenade level and the bridge at the end of the 20m high view corridor. The west-facing wall of the southern view corridor running between the MICE and casino blocks is oblique to the axis of the corridor and so is 52m wide. At the southern end the glazing forms the ground level colonnade to the exhibition spaces. with only a simple glass-to-glass seal. which then transitions into the southern view corridor and the casino. In developing such a highly transparent structure the first objective was to use the largest spacing between supports: glass sheets 2. given the dimensions of the whole wall. The Bayfront façade A range of different façades and podium building entrances face Bayfront Avenue (Fig 4. Architect Moshe Safdie signing hotel glass samples before final procurement. Stainless steel hanger bars stop the 9m steel horizontals from sagging. There are no steel or aluminum glazing sections running vertically. 9. The inward wind pressures are resisted by a box cable behind the vertical mullion. Here the simplest form of the horizontal glazing system is used. A large gantry system on tracks ensured ease of installation access. highly transparent glass was specified. here again a particularly transparent structure was needed – a challenge. and finally the northern view corridor and the theatres. 8. The Arup Journal 1/2012 67 . heatstrengthened Sentry Glas® laminated glass was again used. These were achieved in two principal ways. at a fast rate that would meet the programme. 9. To compensate. Small transoms were used to take the load to the major steel vertical elements at the ends of the glass panels.

all made MBS in fire engineering terms “an interesting building to work on”. whether in the US. or Singapore. As for statutory approvals. As an international company with significant overseas presence. It was determined fairly early on through close consultation with the FSSD that the Singapore Code of Practice for Fire Precautions in Buildings 20071 would form the basis for the MBS fire safety design. and the compacted “jigsaw” of different components into a single building. as well as Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) as the local authority having jurisdiction. Insurance brokers similarly have their own standards relating to acceptable products and design standards to minimise risk and losses to insured businesses and properties. The large populations in the casino and the Sands Expo and Convention Center. 68 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . 2.1. stature and location. the multiple basement floors (down to a fourth level in places). Fire engineering Authors André Lovatt Ruth Wong Introduction and design philosophy Marina Bay Sands. with its iconic design. inevitably posed a challenge in its fire and life safety design. LVS has corporate guidelines for critical fire safety systems for all its properties. The fire safety strategy had to involve as stakeholders the parent company Las Vegas Sands (LVS) and its insurance brokers. the SCDF planning approvals department – the Fire Safety and Shelter Department (FSSD) – has jurisdiction and oversees fire and life safety compliance approvals. Macau.

Such centred on the use of maximum foreseeable loss (MFL)* walls – with minimal two-hour fire resistance rating – to limit burnout or complete loss to a single MFL compartment. In many instances. Similar to horizontal fire shutters. were referenced in the final design. and are equipped to be automatically operable for people to escape and then to close. using the STEPS program. Sliding doors retracted in MICE ancillary areas. 4. where people escape from a location exposed to fire. would be utilised for additional flexibility. however. At MBS. which only permits up to 2m of the exit stair width to be counted as capacity. The fire and life safety design had to incorporate seamlessly the requirements of all its relevant stakeholders. 3. While referenced widely in US-originated codes such as IBC and NFPA 1014. In most cases. it was agreed with the FSSD that a performance-based approach. horizontal exiting as a strategy has specific advantages in that it enables the controlled evacuation of people from one component/part of a building as part of an overall phased evacuation plan. horizontal exists. The theatres are provided with negative smoke pressurisation in accordance with NFPA 92A5. the use of horizontal exits is less common in Singapore. and the use of monumental exit stairs Due to MBS’s large interconnecting footprint. Evacuation modelling for simultaneous evacuation of the casino. * An insurance industry term. many aspects of the IBC. 1. 2. the doors are discreetly stored in pockets hidden at the sides. the risk management strategy employed by the insurance brokers corresponded with the fire safety measures. The Arup Journal 1/2012 69 . heat and smoke. eg NFPA133. 4. Exit staircases up to 4m wide in a scissor-stair arrangement were provided for both MICE and the casino so as to give sufficient capacity for the expected populations – in the order of thousands of people per floor. and as horizontal exit lines as part of the means of escape strategy. and US National Fire Protection Association standards. This differs from the stipulations in the Singapore Fire Code 2007. Exit staircases at MICE. as permitted under the Fire Safety Act. The Singapore Fire Code 2007 has a subsection in front of each chapter. When not in use.This differed from other LVS properties in the US and Macau where the International Building Code (IBC)2 was used. regardless of its total width. meaning the worst loss likely to occur because of a single event. Performance-based design and its application to MBS The performance-based approach to fire safety design is not a new concept in Singapore. 3. having been introduced there in 2004. Phased evacuation. Though the Singapore Fire Code 2007 would be the basis for design. The MFL compartment also served as both the required separation between purpose groups (or classifications of use) where required under the Singapore Fire Code 2007. horizontal exiting was used in many parts. Another new concept was the use of monumental exit staircases within the high population areas (Fig 4). Where the development for design or construction reasons departed from the Singapore Fire Code 2007. The Sands Theater in use. In MBS. and limits disruption to ongoing businesses and operations in the event of a false alarm (Fig 2). to another relatively safe place separated by distance and fire-rated construction. the performance-based approach contributed to the overarching intent to create an iconic design masterpiece on Singapore’s waterfront district. The horizontal exits at the main entrances to the MICE and casino also used another US-originated product – horizontal sliding doors (Fig 3). such doors are permitted under the IBC to serve as part of the means of escape. laying out the root and sub-objectives of the Code with regards to fire and life safety design. the horizontal exit line was designed to coincide with the MFL separation required for insurance purposes to limit damage in a fire incident. and to the advantage of the project. eg the use of horizontal exits.

Technical challenges included determining the most advantageous location for the smoke vents (at the top curve of the roof). 7. 7. Grand Arcade and view corridors These three zones comprise the Marina Bay Sands Shoppes. 6. among the fire design options considered at the concept stage were the use of rescue boats. so that the failure of a single exit would not impact significantly on the overall means of escape from the space. via a submerged tunnel (with an escape tunnel running parallel to the main entrance). for both small and larger fires so as to assess the buoyancy of smoke. Technical challenges included providing sufficient exit points. Retail atrium. The Crystal Pavilions For these two structures. as part of a performancebased fire safety approach which demonstrated that there is negligible impact of heat and smoke to the structure higher up (Figs 8. 9). 70 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . non-lockable doors were provided for escape at temporary partition walls within the MICE meeting and ballrooms (Fig 5). Submerged egress tunnel at the South Crystal Pavilion. located in the Marina Bay waters. these floating geometrical glass islands are accessible via both a deck at water level from the outdoor promenade and. each retail smoke zone is demarcated by the curves and bends of the impressive five-storey atrium design (Fig 6). showing temporary partitions in open position. The Sands SkyPark Where the SkyPark spans between each hotel tower and cantilevers off the end of tower 3. Though this would have been a requirement under a 5.5. the huge structural steel members have no applied fire protection. The smoke hazard management strategy used CFD smoke modelling of the building. floating decks. A corner of the MICE Grand Ballroom. As part of this. so as to limit visual impact for visitors to the fourth storey roof terraces and yet not compromise the efficiency of the vents during a fire. 6. as well as data obtained from wind tunnel testing of the façade. As built. The Sands Hotel Up to 23 storeys of glass and steel form the atrium that interconnects the three hotel towers at ground level. The elegant steel trusses are only partially protected with intumescent paint. and submerged egress tunnels back into the podium (Fig 7). Uninterrupted by smoke curtains. deep within basement level 2 of the Marina Bay Shoppes. with and without wind effects.

NFPA 101. NFPA 92A. A performance-based approach was also applied to the evacuation of the SkyPark (Fig 10). 2009. Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems. Standard for smoke-control systems utilizing barriers and pressure differences. The Arup Journal 1/2012 71 . ICC. 9. Code of practice for fire precautions in buildings 2007. NFPA.4 0. showing ratios of load to capacity. NFPA. www. Hotel atrium.scdf. 2000. 1. 8. The public observation deck on the SkyPark. NFPA. Fire loading analyses on hotel atrium structure.org (4) NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. www. with a performancebased approach it was determined that any structure outside the immediate zone around a possible worst-credible fire within the towers would be able to be unprotected and yet still maintain its stability. www. Award In October 2011 Arup was recognised at the inaugural National Fire and Civil Emergency Preparedness Council (NFEC) Fire Safety Design Excellence Awards 2011. References (1) SINGAPORE CIVIL DEFENCE FORCE. 2007.6 0.nfpa.sg (2) INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL. for its “outstanding work” on Marina Bay Sands.nfpa.org (3) NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. Life safety code. 2006. the overall strategy is to evacuate people from the SkyPark deck to floors below and from the shadow of one tower to another.org (5) NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. www.nfpa. 9.org 10.0 0. International building code.gov. 2007.prescriptive design.iccsafe. With possible populations of up to 3900 persons on the 56th and 57th storeys. SCDF.8 0. 10. www. NFPA 13.2 0 8.

72 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . Design progress also had to anticipate the potential impacts of procurement and construction practices unique to Singapore. and be integral to realising the functionality embedded in the form. but personal subjective response is the singular determinant. Fortunately. While most other Arup teams had been full time on the project from July 2006. both LVS and Safdie Architects had a distinctly more contemporary perspective on acoustics and what it meant to this resort’s successful realisation. Often. The sheer size and scale of MBS has helped position Arup’s acoustic practice as one of the premier design consultancies in Singapore. so there was little precedent locally to counter ingrained assumptions about acoustic quality and how it could be achieved. All design elements – be they architectural. transportation. and this required forensic yet immediate design input that would streamline design co-ordination rather than complicate it. Project strategy The primary goal was to ensure that patrons’ experience was world-class. acoustic quality manages noise disturbance and enhances desired sounds to create an effortless and natural sensory experience. To be world-class in every possible way. Providing acoustic design guidance required acceptance of the often counter-intuitive building process in Singapore – different from how a large-scale resort would be constructed elsewhere. To avoid an already advanced design strategy forcing any acoustic fait accompli. Responding to the demands of three large. Arup’s role was to embed acoustic design considerations as a highly visible and integral element in the process of design and co-ordination. acoustic design had to support and even safeguard the greater aspirations of the architecture. the acoustics team commenced work that December. Acoustic outcomes can’t be seen – even poor acoustic quality photographs well. Awareness of the importance of acoustic comfort is a significant change in the quality-of-life improvements that support Singapore’s burgeoning stature as an international destination for business and leisure pursuits. has led to greater tolerance of acoustic pollution. structural. and in Singapore with Aedas and the local MBS client body. so the support of acoustics colleagues in Australia. Further. but the challenges overcome manifest themselves as successful technical design. In addition to working with the local Singapore and Hong Kong multidisciplinary teams. the following strategies became the cornerstones of project progress. A fledgling group in the Singapore office in early 2006. acoustic design needed to respect that belief. In particular. MBS has multiple points of success. sophisticated. combined with accelerated economic growth. Exponential design streams meant extracting the turbulent flow of information throughout. Right – right now: The density of patron activities for a full amenity resort juxtaposes competing requirements for acoustic experience. with acoustic quality taking a strategic “front-and-centre” position to help shape the design rather than merely react to it. If the design solution provides the intended experience for patrons. and implementation methods by the Aedas team in Singapore. and technically challenging projects was beyond the logistics of what was initially a four-person local team. Design process Testing assumptions Acoustic design is often more challenging for sophisticated architecture that embodies a highly visual aesthetic. Most are not obvious. mechanical. there is nothing to see that proves that it works. and procurement. Aligning design delivery by understanding the client’s drivers for success as the world’s leading destination resort developer led to a constant focus on acoustic recommendations tested by first-cost practicality creating durable value. the speed of project delivery meant a duality of acoustic design co-ordination between architectural developments with the Safdie team in Boston. Think like Las Vegas: LVS’s business model is extraordinarily successful because it combines understanding what appeals to the patrons with surgical efficiency in getting monumental venues built quickly. Acoustic design embodied the importance of the project to Singapore. detailing. Build like Singapore: Understanding how Singapore has transformed itself in 40 years leads to respect for its business environment and unique construction culture. it is rarely noticed because it simply feels right. Simply put. the local acoustics team was initially formed to build upon two projects already in progress for the Australasian acoustics practice: Genexis Theatre and Singapore School of the Arts. professional collaboration. As a significant environmental factor. or building operations – potentially conflict with acoustic comfort. Successful design should always anticipate the locale where it will be built. the UK. Singapore’s increasing population. and the US became a distinct advantage. strategic planning is the most effective method of noise control for a multi-dimensional project. Protect the architecture: The architectural themes embodied in Safdie Architects’ design expressed a belief about what experiencing the resort should be like.Acoustics Author Larry Tedford Success indicators Successful acoustic outcomes for most projects are often difficult to define. Standardised objective metrics of acoustic quality can demonstrate that design targets are achieved. It just does. the international acoustics team worked non-stop for the first six months – truly 24/7 – so that co-ordination and design guidance could happen simultaneously in the US with client Las Vegas Sands (LVS) and Safdie Architects. and the gestation of a significant cultural shift.

The interstitial nature of the hotel’s design. Change management Change management is always difficult on large fast-track projects. In any tall building. and high-level acoustic design quality criteria. and at parity with Sands properties elsewhere. The Arup Journal 1/2012 73 . To allow all project design stream leaders to understand the acoustic impacts of rapid and evolving change. the bar was raised even higher because multiple buildings and associated design streams ran in parallel. structure. But in some cases. and cladding details was developed to minimise acoustic leakage at the slender architectural edges where guestrooms divide the span of the exterior envelope. The second was to be able to react and respond to what design changes meant to acoustic quality. Technical solutions Sands Hotel and Sands SkyPark The three hotel towers would be the most visibly striking symbols of the resort’s grandeur. The first issue was just to be aware of what was changing. meant balancing structural complexity. and advantageous use of structural elements as mass separations ensured that patrons could enjoy both panoramic views and solitude with no awareness of the major services directly above them. Glazing configurations were selected to minimise traffic noise impacts on the south façade overlooking the East Coast Parkway. and details were co-developed with Arup’s façades team to account for construction sequence.1. mechanical services. objective. air-conditioning for sound masking. acoustic quality criteria were relaxed to respect the unique nature of the operations of some of the venues. To maximise acoustic balance of transmitted sound between rooms and from corridors. This was another example of careful and co-ordinated planning: the use of offsets. In MICE. this reliable source of “covering” sound could account for separating wall constructions of an efficient overall thickness to maximise room size and meet targets for floor plan density. the in-room ventilation units were reviewed and specified to provide neutral. however. a co-ordinated strategy of façade. for example. for example. the view from the top necessitates premium spaces being at the crown. often using language deliberately reflective of the client’s project goals. slightly lower acoustic targets were agreed. the spa and luxury suites were placed directly below massive rooftop equipment plant. rapid room reconfiguration was fundamental to the business model and to accommodate this. However. the acoustics team developed clear. intermediate zones for duct and sprinkler runouts. Here. attachment to the structure. but not silent. and an extremely active upper level – the SkyPark. supporting the SkyPark amenities led to conflicts in locating premium hotel guest suites and the luxury spa directly below major rooftop plantrooms. Because air-conditioning is rarely turned off in Singapore. In some cases. Hotel guestroom acoustic insulation. sleek and slender façades. so acoustic quality for guests needed to represent the luxury of – and sanctuary within – a memorable visit. and to block acoustically weak pathways at mullion and floor slab interstices. aimed to be better than any existing Singapore hotels. Furthermore. acoustic targets were set higher. As well as addressing acoustic control between guestrooms.

it can also lack a sense of spatiality and excitement. Another design strategy included detailing a special floating lower division below the theatres’ structural floor to account for the car park and large exhaust fans directly under both theatres. A common issue with lyric theatres is that they tend to be too “dead” acoustically. lower sides. and because of this need to credibly host almost any form of contemporary performance. the relationship of structure and geotechnics accommodation of site rail tunnels mere metres away from the theatre envelopes indicated that potential vibration transmission had to be fully understood. The room acoustic design strategy was to balance moderate reverberance with strong early reflection support. Front ceiling section (c550m2). and logistical demands were challenging. and re-radiate as low-frequency noise. upper side walls. Early in the design. the design had to allow for various special configurations. in addition to being quiet. façades. A collaborative process that optimised architecture. To do all this necessitates the moving walls or operable partitions to be deployed quickly and flexibly. was the need for the full theatrical and sound technical systems required. To activate a cost-effective design strategy. minimising the storage footprint. 3. the Arup team worked with LVS to capture a knowledge base of operable partition use 2. central ceiling section (c240m2). while this aids speech intelligibility and doesn’t compete with the audio systems. Full-scale guestroom mockups were built midway through the project design to assess fixtures. rear ceiling section behind followspot booth. and analytical modelling of vibration transmission indicated that modified locations of lateral supports would reduce the need for a structurally floating outer theatre shell. while enabling simultaneous adjacent use of potentially competing activities. The primary room acoustic control strategy is invisible. MICE has kilometres of operable partitions. Detailed study alongside structural design co-ordination led to confidence that the design for airborne noise control of the outer architectural theatre envelope would also control re-radiated noise from rail tunnel vibration. Structure-borne vibration can transmit very efficiently over what may seem long and circuitous paths. Sands Expo and Convention Center From the outset. Both are intended to be truly multi-purpose. Because these were spatially accurate representations of the eventual acoustic environment. With the exception of the upper boundaries below the sculpted roofline. and constructability. Walls: fabric finish with diffusion behind. the theatres are embedded centrally in the north podium and retail concourse. and outer perimeters of both theatres are close to various noise and vibration sources. Glass as per glazing specification. furnishings. This led to a recommendation to deal with rail vibration at source. technical. This environment also needed to be fully complementary to the full-range audio reinforcement system designed by SAVI Inc. As well as the cost of these systems. Hidden behind an acoustically transparent architectural fabric facing are wall treatment zones that transition from sound reflective into sound scattering (acoustic diffusion) and then to sound absorbing at the rear of the audience seating. 100 75 100 25 100 100 150 100 50 50 100 50 All dimensions in mm 74 The Arup Journal 1/2012 50 . speed of setup. wall finish fabric with c160m2 diffusion and c160m2 acoustically absorptive infill behind. Hotel structural vibration The same vibration analysis that informed the theatre structural design was also used to assess impacts on the hotel. and upper 94m2 of proscenium wall: two layers 13mm plasterboard on studs. long-term durability – all while meeting and maintaining an appropriate level of acoustic separation. diffusion mounted on three layers 13mm plasterboard on studs (c215m2). sound system design. Iterative review of structural interconnection and structure-borne vibration occurred regularly for six months. reconfiguring. the operational importance of MICE to the resort was well understood. Rear walls. Elemental to the design. followspot wall. and seamlessly expanding or contracting the range of convention and exhibition gatherings at a mind-boggling turnover rate. Walls: fabric finish with three layers 13mm plasterboard on studs behind (c165m2). The interior acoustic quality was developed in tandem with the architectural concept for accommodating the vast range of artistic performances slated in both theatres. Plywood construction finished with acoustically absorptive fibreglass behind acoustically transparent material. LVS was highly successful at hosting. finish acoustically absorptive fibreglass behind acoustically transparent material.Theatres As already described on pp44-45. and the right blend of acoustic energy redirection led to a sonic marriage for the MBS theatres that allows amplification to sound natural and transparent. and lower section of audience side proscenium wall: two layers 13mm plasterboard on studs. Walls: two layers 13mm plasterboard on studs. the team recorded background noise in the mockup rooms with air-conditioning operating. and used an acoustic overlay of predicted low-frequency rumble to demonstrate the potential impacts of site rail transit on sleeping guests. rather than trying to design the hotel structure to minimise vibration transmission. the theatrical. the bottom.

Combination of acoustic diffusion + absorption into panels. 4. And once the attention was given. and to explore architectural finish options. Interior of Sands Theater showing all acoustic wall finish configurations in place prior to installation of final fabric facing. 6. Singapore now has a signature destination resort that is a reference for quality. plus discussions and review from senior operations staff. and yet maintain the usability and acoustic performance needed to suit the business and operations model. from its existing properties. even in the context of the resort’s other aesthetic megaliths. Much of what is needed for acoustic quality is embedded in seemingly benign details that can undermine acoustic performance. the way to attract attention to critical details was potential cost impact. procurement. Implementation and constructability To realise practical acoustic design outcomes. On-site acoustic tests. 6. but with grand ambition. the team’s strategy was simply to focus on the key details that would be breakpoints for performance. and most importantly. 5. The MBS client and project team recognised early on that embedding acoustic design at every stage would favour a successful result. (Previous page) The completed Grand Theater. This was an example of cost scrutiny giving acoustic design a position of significant leverage. This review enabled a less stringent specification standard for operable partition acoustic ratings. including sonic experience. it was a useful magnet for convincing the project team where detailing was critical. allowed the team to accurately inform optimal design strategies. quality outcomes for acoustics have a relatively low level of sheer luck as the determining factor. There is nothing conventional about the building’s expressive architectural form. Custom acoustic diffusor. the devil is truly in the details. the team used 3-D sound ray propagation models to show the time and distribution sequence of acoustic energy. demonstrated that getting the right information at the right level of detail was a case of carefully “picking your battles”. Design considerations included product performance. Detailing for acoustic performance could either cost or save large sums since the typical multiplier – especially considering the number of hotel guestrooms and MICE operable partitions – would be in the thousands.To understand the intricacies of how sound would reflect and move through the gallery “fingers”. and the sheer size and speed of the design development to enable it. MBS. while once again redefining its stature as a country small in geographical area. and it would be difficult to predict sound propagation within the complex curvature of the interiors in a traditional way. Knowing that thousands of details generated on the project would or could not be seen. ArtScience Museum: visualisation modelling ASM is an architectural and structural marvel. Fortunately. This provided a means to visualise the complexities of acoustic anomalies. 5. Outcome On any large project. installation and operations impacts. The Arup Journal 1/2012 75 . Acoustic diffusor + absorber panels being installed prior to covering with fabric-faced architectural finish. 4. Zones in the theatres for acoustic reflection/diffusion/absorption. 3. 2. 1.

86 b) MPa -23. as these could be considered a target to some terrorist groups.61 71.85 -22. Arup undertook a detailed study of the designed form of the resort to ascertain its resilience blast loading. are attracting a significant range of visitors. and Arup recommended measures which were then introduced into the base design to “harden” the structure and façade to overcome the vulnerabilities identified and thus afford better protection to the occupants of the building.4 1.9 6.4 0.8 2.60 45. Its iconic form and the amenities provided.85 49.85 62. subjected to close proximity blast loading.2 7. MHA advised of its requirement that the facility be designed with special consideration for the protection of its inhabitants in the case of a terrorist event in or nearby.63 -11.61 84.35 68.0 1.67 -13. Arup was engaged by the Marina Bay Sands owning/operating company. or entertainment centre. 1. This considered several terrorist threats that had been defined by the MHA. 76 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . adjacent to the central business district. and dignitaries from within and outside the country. including many local residents.11 78. As a result of this study.0 1.79 -19.5 9. at intervals of 5 milliseconds.10 65.83 -21. or hotel.10 52.8 3.69 -14.9 14.36 81.0 10. Stresses calculated in fabricated steel (a) and steel-encased concrete columns (b) subjected to close proximity blast loading. So when the MBS integrated resort project was first mooted.35 55. 3.2 0. 2. particular vulnerabilities were identified in the proposed building structure and façade. visitors. Output from the Arup resilience.7 5. through the local project architect. learning and accommodation facilities in a very open and public site.86 75. security and risk team was combined with input from the numerous other Arup designers from the structural engineering and façade engineering teams to deliver a fully integrated blast-resilient design facility. Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) takes an active interest in the safety and security of the country’s people.60 58. Aedas. Blast analysis to assess (and upgrade) blast resilience of the façade and structure included use of: • limited issue military-derived software • Arup-developed single degree of freedom analysis software • sophisticated 3-D.65 -12. It is all these and far more.81 -20. 2.a) MPa 42.6 1. Blast pressure on the long-span roof generated from an externally detonated improvised explosive device. in accordance with the requirements of the MHA.6 0.71 -15. kPa 14.77 -18. On completion of the assessment. the integrated resort is drawing people from all walks of life for a multitude of reasons. Blast-resilient design Author Peter Hoad Marina Bay Sands has effectively changed the shape of Singapore. based on potential scenarios included in its threat and vulnerability risk assessment and agreed with the MHA. It is not just a casino.61 -10. and of particular interest are facilities that are likely to attract mass gatherings.73 -16. non-linear analysis software.57 -17. With its diverse entertaining.8 1. to provide a threat and vulnerability risk assessment.59 percentage strain 0 0.3 13.2 1. Time lapse strains experienced by concrete-encased steel columns.4 4.

Delivering success The Arup Journal 1/2012 77 .

Arup was fortunate in that none of the firm’s staff was involved in any mishaps. Arup therefore had to deploy not one QP for the supervision in accordance with the BCA’s minimum requirement. the monitoring confirmed that the system was working well within the predicted values generally approved by the local authorities. In practice. Arup had more than 80 full-time resident site staff. These had to be split into three eight-hour daily shifts as the construction work was based on a 24/7 schedule. Project and construction management and supervision This was an exceptionally large project. even for Singapore. itself took the role both of project management and construction management (PMCM).5 years from the date the site was awarded to the client. and it therefore took a while before the Arup team became accustomed to the system. if they were not within agreed limits. As the “Qualified Professionals” who were responsible for the design and construction supervision to Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority (BCA). Arup’s proposed construction method proved to be successful. The local team was also guided by the risk and security leader of the Australasian practice through the process of risk analysis during construction. the site supervision team had to order the work within that area to be stopped. Risk and safety Inevitably such an enormous project was not completed entirely without site accidents. gave the Arup team a challenging re-alignment of the role of its resident site staff – Arup’s Singapore practice had been used to the “normal” way of managing projects. these were mainly due to individual negligence and not to any design inadequacies. as well as the contractors’ own staff. It was subsequently reclaimed using sand fill.Site phase supervision Author Wah-Kam Chia Constant monitoring of all the wall deflections was a statutory requirement. and to the west lay the waters of Marina Bay – and in addition the project had to be completed within 3. The presence of so many project and construction managers. at the peak of construction site activities. . This helped the team to keep abreast of any potential risks as well as reminding each member during day-to-day supervision. but three. Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd. Though regrettably there were two fatalities and some serious injuries. covering every aspect of risk. Introduction In the decades before Singapore gained full independence in 1965. who monitored throughout construction with constant reminders that safety in every aspect was of the utmost importance. The client. and the soil investigation report showed this to lie above a very thick layer of soft peaty clay. engaging about 400 multinational full-time site project management and construction engineering staff to manage the numerous contractors. immediately adjacent to the site’s northern extremity was Benjamin Sheares Bridge. The fact that the client had appointed its own managers meant that Arup site staff had to deal with them rather than liaise directly with the contractors. and greatly appreciated the involvement of a senior safety specialist from the Melbourne office. both large and small. Monitoring excavations and substructure Arup’s innovative use of circular and peanutshaped diaphragm walls both to minimise lateral movement during excavation and provide obstruction-free excavation spaces has already been described (pp12-15). 78 The Arup Journal 1/2012 The scale of the integrated resort meant that. the Marina Bay Sands site was a landing area for shipping. The close surroundings offered other challenges – to the east across Marina Channel was the busy East Coast Park. Throughout the deep excavation.

with See and Share virtual collaboration meetings happening frequently throughout the days and weeks. it proved equal to the challenge. South Africa. In Singapore. façade. to enable early commencement of the excavations. delivering Marina Bay Sands required Arup to draw deeply upon its global skills and bring expertise to bear from all over the globe. and the USA. Senior leaders relocated at a moment’s notice and in just a few weeks a fully capable design team was operating with the best resources from Singapore. As designs approached completion. testing and challenging the firm’s ability to deliver world-class engineering on a massive scale. Six months saw the conclusion of all schematic design and the team relocated to Singapore where the site clearing had already commenced. the local office combined with the New York team to scheme the above-ground elements. In Boston. Client briefings led by Safdie Architects were held monthly. In Singapore the team swelled to over 80 design professionals. However. 2011 MARINA BAY SANDS 2008 Singapore Flyer This elegant and lightweight structure pioneered major innovations in the design of giant observation wheels. and the design conceived by Safdie Architects was complex. geotechnics. working side-by-side with the Safdie office. with key team members meeting in Boston to present to the client team. supported by about the same number of on-site inspection staff. Globally-connected file servers meant that real-time information was available to all as and when required. One of Singapore’s tallest buildings (280m). Technology enabled rapid communication between global sites. Australia. Melbourne. Bring on the next one. with billions of dollars of construction to be delivered in less than two years. and co-ordinating with the concept team in Boston. Manila. civil. even before the architectural concepts were laid out on butter papers. Advanced BIM modelling was leveraged for the design. reinforcing the local Singapore practice. While Arup’s Singapore practice had delivered significant infrastructure projects. Arup had been involved in major Singapore projects for 40 years. 1999 Singapore Expo 1992 UOB Plaza 1976 OCBC Centre Innovative design for Singapore’s first modern skyscraper reduced construction time by 35%. Decision-making was rapid and concepts were finalised using virtual prototypes and physical models. 3/2011 The Arup Journal 1/2012 79 . with massive models defining the built works in an ever-changing environment. structural. but Marina Bay Sands was unprecedented. However. security risk and resilience advice – all were much in demand across the project. and also represented an evolution in building façades. To judge from the success so far of the end-product. Brisbane. Shenzhen. the USA and beyond. Arup’s Hong Kong team mobilised with lighting speed. This was voted as one of Asia’s best purpose-built event venues for its economically efficient design. Key to the process was concurrency and the ability to feed back development between teams on a daily basis. East Asia. Sydney. Rarely does a project need the global reach of an organisation to be fully engaged. Knowledge of client preference for structural systems enabled scheming to commence from day one. Singapore as a country to work in was new to nearly all the Arup staff involved from other regions. Advanced dynamics. fire engineering. specialist expertise was mobilised from London. this was constructed through soft marine clay. In terms of sheer scale the conceptual undertaking was enormous.Leveraging global skills Author Peter Bowtell 2014 Singapore Sports Hub Capitol site This 55 000-seat national stadium is intended to be a model for future sustainable stadium design. marshalling resources. pre-existing knowledge of the client Las Vegas Sands’ requirements from the East Asia region’s experience on the Macau casinos on the Cotai strip provided an invaluable jump start. 2001 Expo MRT station The station’s spaceship-like titanium roof creates a column-free platform to accommodate large numbers of passengers. Manpower was a key strategic resource and each region did its part in shouldering the load. traffic. acoustics. Design activities split across the globe. conceptualisation of the in-ground works moved ahead with breakneck speed.

and the geometrically challenging lotus-like ArtScience Museum. together with other high-profile projects in Singapore. theatres. For the ArtScience Museum. and you start to omit the “im” in “impossible”. the longest building cantilever in the world supporting the northern end of the Sands SkyPark. Precast concrete construction and prefabricated steelwork were used wherever appropriate to increase off-site and minimise on-site construction work. they were not on the critical path and the result was completion of the programme in an amazing 48 months. Interface co-ordination between packages was very important to allow smooth transition from one contractor to another. Instead. Expediting construction To meet the tight programme. combining the difficulties of a five-level deep basement next to seawater. the whole Arup project team seemed to take the Adidas slogan on board from day one: “Impossible is nothing”. the project was divided into 140+ packages. the list of projects with deep basement and geotechnical challenges. the use of BIM helped speed the steelwork shop drawings review and cut down requests for information by over 80%. and the client’s previous trust in Arup. but Arup’s strong BIM capabilities enabled the architect’s Rhino model to link with the team’s own 3-D structural model. This is understandable given that in the history of Singapore no project on this scale had ever been built. the expertise of the Advanced Technology Group and its global project track record. Completing the programme Authors Va-Chan Cheong Joe Lam “Impossible is nothing” To complete a project with total ground floor area of 540 000m2 – equivalent to seven of London’s 46-storey Heron Tower. Although there were more issues to be handled. This was why Arup pursued this challenge.Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort is already an icon for Singapore – an industry-revolutionising project that will change the face of construction for the next decade. and Sands Expo and Convention Center. has set new standards for the building industry in East Asia. Credit for completing the programme so quickly initially seems due to the Arup office running the project. but in how its offices could work together as a team to deliver the project to the highest quality possible. the innovative introduction of circular cofferdams allowed no use of shoring while excavation advanced. three long-span steel roofs over the casino. the firm’s BIM capabilities. thus automating the process. 80 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . the perfectionist Moshe Safdie required much tweaking of the geometry before the design met his standards. The success of this project lay not only in Arup’s technical capabilities per se. “unachievable” seemed not to be an overstatement and “impossible” maybe a more appropriate word. not to mention the very tight programme. In addition. Arup has often taken on major engineering and design challenges but. Maximizing the battlefield On site. but it would have been impossible without matching enthusiasm and expertise from colleagues elsewhere. excluding fit-out works. This would have been excessively timeconsuming with 2-D drawings co-ordination. the fast-track. and Arup worked closely with the client’s project management team to execute this package arrangement effectively. or three of Hong Kong’s 88-storey International Finance Centre (2IFC) – in 48 months seemed unachievable to everyone in Singapore. Combining the good relationship that the US offices had with Moshe Safdie himself. large-scale project experience for several Venetian developments in Macau. For the geotechnical design. the team had to consider how to accelerate construction during the schematic and design stages. This allowed many options to be studied quickly and at least three times the effort saved during detail design compared with transferring the architect’s geometry in 2-D only to the structural model or drawings. Marina Bay Sands. But from behind the scenes one could see what others could not.

Benefits The integrated resort elevates Singapore’s tourism and business opportunities. pulling together as a design team of global skills from four continents to communicate effectively and deliver outcomes to meet the client’s needs and turn the design concept into reality. The MBS project also benefited the Singapore BCA (Building and Construction Authority) engineer and accredited checker of the project. Arup strove to provide the best solutions for the client’s requirements. the 66. This Arup Journal describes how the firm drew on its global expertise for the many aims and aspects of the project. and stretched the limits of engineering.Conclusion Authors Va-Chan Cheong Otto Lai Challenges Using its knowledge and determination to strive for excellence. the design team approached all this in ways that opened up new resources and enhanced experience and knowledge across Singapore’s building industries. the team adopted new and innovative technologies that pushed the boundaries of current software and systems. due to site constraints and technical and economic difficulties. There were doubts that this project could be completed. In addition MBS provides employment opportunities for many. Almost every aspect of MBS was technically challenging. in particular the difficult tasks such as the 120m diameter cofferdams for substructure works. The local community benefits from the district cooling plant by avoiding the need for chiller plants and cooling towers on buildings. broadening the mindset on how to overcome such challenges.5m long cantilever steel structure. its facilities enabling it to be a leading Asian MICE hub. the glazing for the Crystal Pavilions. This in turn optimises the use of water and other natural resources for generating energy. In responding. the unique geometry of the ArtScience Museum. However. and raising the bar of what can be accomplished with international resources. The Arup Journal 1/2012 81 . and the long-span roof trusses for the podium structures. It exemplified what can be achieved in situations that need engineering judgement beyond what is distinctly covered by code.

designer of the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort. He was the Professional Engineer responsible for statutory design submission for the hotel. 6(1) 12(2) 13(4-5) 14(10) 15(12. Jenny Lie is the senior marketing consultant in the Singapore office. façade. He was a leader of the design team for the ArtScience Museum. She jointly led the fire safety design team for Marina Bay Sands. security and risk team for Marina Bay Sands. casino. Project credits Clients: Las Vegas Sands Inc/Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd Architect: Safdie Architects Singapore architect: Aedas Pte Ltd Geotechnical. He was a member of the design team for the SkyPark. Crystal Pavilions and theatre structures. 51(12) 66(3-6) 67(9) Mac Tan. Wah-Kam Chia is a Principal in the Singapore office. UK. He led the design team for the structural steelwork of the ArtScience Museum. Rudi Lioe is a senior engineer in the Singapore office. André Lovatt is a Principal and leads the Singapore office. pp2-3(1) 16(1) 21(2-3) 24(1) 25(3-4) 30(19) 31 34(6) 36(9) 41 43(3) 48(1-2) 53(14) 54(1) 55(2) 60(1) 68(1) 70(6) 71(10) 83 Timothy Hursley. Alex Wong is a façade designer in the Singapore office. Franky Lo is a senior engineer in the Hong Kong office. 7(2) 8-9(1-4) 11(6) 12(1) 46(1) 49(3) 53(14) Safdie Architects. He was the Director responsible for coordinating Arup’s international effort on Marina Bay Sands. He was a member of the geotechnical team for Marina Bay Sands. and the current Building Group leader. 28(15) 28-29(15-17) JFE-Yongman JV. He led the concept design phase as the Americas Region Project Director. He led the façade consultancy team for Marina Bay Sands. theorist. the casino and the theatres. ArtScience Museum and Crystal Pavilions. He jointly led the fire safety design team for Marina Bay Sands. He was the façade package leader in charge of all façade systems covering the MICE. 10) 22(4) 25(5) 26(6-7) 32(1) 37(1-2) 39(3. Project awards Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore ACES Engineering Excellence Award 2011: Civil & Structural Engineering Consultant Hotel and SkyPark Bentley 2010 Be Inspired Award Winner Institution of Structural Engineers Singapore Structural Awards 2010 Award for Structures Hotel and SkyPark Singapore Structural Steel Society Structural Steel Design Award 2010 Award for Commercial Structures Podium roof and canopy structures National Fire and Civil Emergency Preparedness Council Fire Safety Design Excellence Awards 2011 Hotel and SkyPark 82 The Arup Journal 1/2012 . Daniel Brodkin is a Principal in the New York office and the Buildings Practice leader in New York. He was the Professional Engineer responsible for statutory design submission for the MICE/casino/ theatre roof steel structures. Crystal Pavilions and theatres. 29(18) Jenny Lie. Associate Principal. He led the design team for the hotel and SkyPark. Jack Pappin is an Arup Fellow in the Hong Kong office. He led the acoustics design team for Marina Bay Sands. Otto Lai was an Associate in the Hong Kong office. author. He was a member of the design team for MICE and the Crystal Pavilions. Image credits Arup with the following exceptions: Front cover. Brian Mak is an assistant engineer in the Hong Kong office. He oversaw and led most of the geotechnical design for Marina Bay Sands. He was Project Director and QP Supervision for the site supervision contract for Marina Bay Sands. 20(1) 22(5) 44(1) 58(10) 63 65(1-2) 70(5) 71(9) 75(6) Paul McMullin. Ruth Wong is an Associate in the Singapore office. He was a member of the geotechnical team for Marina Bay Sands. He was a leader of the design team for the ArtScience Museum. fire. urban designer. and led the team in the later stages of the project. and Crystal Pavilions. Joe Lam is an Associate in the Hong Kong office. civil. 4-5(1) 59(15) 77 78 Darren Soh. He was the Americas Region Project Manager for Marina Bay Sands and helped lead the structural design team. 11(1. events plaza. Va-Chan Cheong is a Director in the Hong Kong office. 3-5) 49(6) Patrick McCafferty. 13(6) Lian Beng Construction Pte Ltd. Moshe Safdie is an architect. SkyPark. Peter Bowtell is a Principal in the Melbourne office. ArtScience Museum. 5) 41(map) 42(1) 43(2) 45(3) 46(2) 47(3) 58(11) 61(2-3) 62(5) Nigel Whale. Don Ho is an assistant engineer in the Hong Kong office. Peter Hoad is a Principal in the Sydney office and leads the Resilience. audiovisual. promenade. structural. Juan Maier is an Associate in the Singapore office. He led the design team for the podium structures. educator. Wijaya Wong is a Senior Associate in the Singapore office. Security and Risk Consulting Group in Australasia. acoustics. office. Xiaofeng Wu is an engineer in the Singapore office. 79 Clarice Fong. BIM. He led the resilience. Russell Cole is a Principal in the Singapore office. He was the façade package leader in charge of all façade systems covering the hotel towers and atrium. blast and security consultant: Arup Building services engineers: Parsons Brinckerhoff Pte Ltd/Vanderweil Engineers Quantity surveyor: EC Harris/Rider Levett Bucknall Landscape architect: Peter Walker & Partners/Peridian Asia Pte Ltd Hotel contractor: Lian Beng Construction Pte Ltd/SsangYong Engineering & Construction Ltd SkyPark contractor: Yongnam & JFE Engineering Corporation JV ArtScience Museum contractor: Penta Ocean MICE/retail steelwork contractor: Alfasi Constructions Singapore Pte Ltd Casino and theatre steelworks contractor: Singapore Jinggong Steel Structures Pte Ltd Foundations contractors: Soletanche Bachy Singapore Pte Ltd/Sambo Geo-Tosfoc Co Ltd/ L&M Foundation Pte Ltd South/North Podium excavation and reinforced concrete contractors: KTC Civil Engineering & Construction Pte Ltd/Yau Lee Construction Pte Ltd/Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd ArtScience Museum cladding contractor: DK Composites Sdn Bhd Retail canopies contractor: YKK Architectural Products Inc Tenant fitout in South Crystal Pavilion: Pure Projects Singapore Pte Ltd Theatre planning and engineering design consultant (for both theatres): Robert Campbell. ArtScience Museum and Crystal Pavilions. President. hotel atrium steel structures and SkyPark structures. and the Buildings Practice leader in Australasia. and founder of Safdie Architects. 61(4) 62(6) 67(7-8) 69(3-4) 70(7) Franklin Kwan. Specialized Audio-Visual Inc Signage subcontractor: Crimsign Graphics Pte Ltd. Patrick McCafferty is an Associate in the Boston office. MICE. Larry Tedford is an Associate Principal in the San Francisco office. and production communications design consultant (for both theatres): Michael Cusick. Marina Bay Sands. He led the design team for the structural steel roof of MICE.Authors Dan Birch is a senior engineer in the Bristol. and theatres. He was Project Director for Marina Bay Sands. He was a member of the design team for the hotel towers. He was a member of the design team for the hotel atrium. Fisher Dachs Associates Performance sound. Philip Iskandar is a geotechnical engineer in the Singapore office. 38(1) 39(4) 40(7) 53(15-16) 73(1) 80-81 Visual Media. video. Brendon McNiven is a Principal in the Melbourne office. 15) 19(6-8. Wing-Kai Leong is a senior engineer in the Hong Kong office. Mac Tan is a senior façade consultant in the Singapore office.

Robert Coutu. Sebastian Lee. Michael Macaraeg. Rachel Baylson. Nithi Thaweeskulchai. Carl Jones. Suman Wong. Lin Ming See. Kartigayen Poutelaye Cavound. Marco Chan. Eric Lau. Colin Yip. Kok Yong Tan. Martino Mak. Nick Docherty. Andy Ho. Mellissa Ismail. Rajesh Tandel. Daniel Brodkin. Chris Kwok. Yang Dang. Yanli Ye. Kristin Lai. William Lim. Angela Chen. Grace Hendro. Jing Zhuang. Hong Geng Jin. James Lau. Liana Hamzah. Noel Sotto. Wing-Kai Leong. Brendan Taylor. Natalie Ong. Melissa Chen. Kok Hui Heng. Kin-Kei Kwan. Charles Spiteri. Bill Lee. Qian Wang. Bee Lian Seo. Dai Yamashita. Charlie Liu. Argi Hipolito. Andrew Nicol. Joanne Woo. David Tse. Takim Xiang. Warren Balitcha. Chak-Sang Kan. William Jimenez. Jim Quiter. Tao Wu. Joy Aclao. Polly Mok. Mark Arkinstall. Bob Nelson. Zhi Qin Zhou. Dennis Hoi. Ekarin Wattanasanticharoen. Ken Chan. Jason Ng. Ian Del Rosario. Wison Yang. Anne Coutts. Kok Mun Lum. Josh Cushner. . Andrew Douglas. Matt Carter. Antonio Diaz. Nizar Abdul Rahim. Erin Leung. Richard Salter. Garry Wilkie. Daojun Sun. Clyfford Ching. Dexter Manalo. Doug Wallace. Andrew Lai. TS Choong. Kwok-Man Lui. Dick Wong. Cecilia Cheong. Amanda Kimball. Darlene Rini. Jennifer Yong. Ian Grierson. George Chan. Kamsinah Osman. Amy Liu. Jeffrey Lau. Katherina Santoso. David Xiong. Garth Ferrier. Kartini Shabani. Hiang Meng Lee. Lily You. Kia Ling Tho. Patrick Cheong. Brett Linnane. Jonathan Lindsay. Rene Ciolo. Stephen Leung. Kenneth Sin. Maciej Mikulewicz. Margaret Sie. Deyuan Lim. Chi-Lik Chen. Dean Morris. Zhen Yuan. Yuki Yu. Mehdi Yazdchi. Nick Simpson. Kin Shang Lee. Joyce Sum. Colin Wu. Stanley Ho. Peter Romeos. Clarice Fong. Wah-Kam Chia. Louis Wu. Michelle Lazaro. Kai Fisher. Tat-Ngong Chan. Larry Tedford. Kathy Pang. Easy Arisarwindha. Don Ho. Xi Liu. Gladys Goh. Keong Liam Lim. Derek Lau. Haico Schepers. Graham Dodd. Steven Lenert. Franky Lo. Mohan Raman. Seven Yau. Chi-Shing Li. Sean McGinn. Kathy Franklin. Keithson Liew. Lyonel Cochon. Kin-Ping Wong. Wing Sze Mo. Henry Shiu. Dylan Mak. Dan Birch. Park Chiu. Ran Ding. Viann Kung. Henry Chia. Vicky Tan. Nicholas Lee. Kim Hoe Liew. Feng Bai. Edwin Ong. Jenny Lie. Alex Wong. Brendon McNiven. Teng Chong Khoo. Alexandra Sinickas. Matt Dodge. Ayca Ozcanlar. Brian Mak. Penelope Somers. Sarah Huskie. David Lai. Patricia Lim. Carlos Zara. Jamie Talbot. Adrian De Los Reyes. Sam Leung. Andrew Woodward. Sam Yeung. Chee Wah Chan. Wayne Chan. Mart Umali. David Vesey. Lydia Mokhtar. Anna Hon. Richard Custer. John Legge-Wilkinson. Tino Leong. Hon-Wing Tam. Henrik Kjaer. Malcolm Lyon. Frances Yang. Helen Tolentino. Majid Haji Sapar. Richard Clement. Yiu-Wing Yeung. Vivien Foo. Kek-Kiong Yin. Maggie Puvannan. Peter Lee. Sarah Boulkroune. Steven Jenkins. Ranelle Cliff. Raymond Fok. Shawn Li. Khine Khine Oo. Henry Kwok. Ben-Qing Li. Yun-Ngok Chan. Doreen Sum. Jack Yiu. Siow Ting Ang. Nur Liyana Ahmad. Ambrose Wong. Richie See. Janice Sendico. Chris Lee. Jingfeng Xu. Renuga Chandra. Priya Palpanathan. Karthik Venkatesan. Chris Pynn. Jessica Cao. Mary Wong. Alvin Lam. Joe Lam. Ben Kirkwood. Reman Yick. Martin Holt. James Ng. Raymond Crane. Ian Wise. Kent Ho. Andra Thedy. Ashley Bracken. Andy Ellett. Ming Jong Tey. Sean Teo. Jon Morgan. Alan Philp. Johnson Tang. Joseph Correnza. Jonas Tam. John Davies. Chong Leong Ho. Rey Redondo. Mac Tan. Derek Ng. Wai-Lun Lau. Evan Amatya. Jeyatharan Kumarasamy. Emily Ryzak. Otto Lai. Jack Pappin. Ernest Lam. Frank Jeczmionka. Cheryl Lee. Andrew Snalune. Winfred Tam. Gordon Lee. Sok Poi Chong. Jack Lui. Henry Law. Ka-Yuen Ng. Davis Lee. Muljadi Suwita. Henry Chow. David Scott. Steven Jones. Zhi-Qiang Yang. Koon-Yu Leung. Alison Norrish. Wee Keong Ho. Carrie Chen. Jing Zhang. Michael Tom. Mukunthan Manickavasakar.The following past and present staff members of Marina Bay Sands. Jimmy Su. John Lee. Graham Aldwinckle. Yi Jin Lee. Hai-Tao Zhang. Henry Vong. Jin Pae. Martin Mok. Jeff Tubbs. Huw Williams. Alex Mak. Lauren Davis. Delu Wang. Greg Borkowski. Tony Lau. Claire Bristow. Patrick Lee. Venugopal Barkur. Harold Cheng. Bruce Danziger. Russell Cole. Ada Oh. Gin Wu. Peck Nah Ng. Junaidah Mohd. Zhuo Li. Andrew Neviackas. Phamornsak Noochit. Feng Gao. Neil Carstairs. Christina Lim. Berlina Winata. Alex Rosenthal. Richard Vanderkley. Matthew Yuet. Zheng-Yu He. Michael Chan. Sin Ching Low. Eric He. Archie Ricablanca. Rotana Hay. Mike DiMascio. Man Kang. Victor Yeung. Christine Ang. Hee Kung Chua. Malar Suppiah. Francis Lee. Willis Tang. Chris Gildersleeve. Suan Wee Tan. Andrew Hulse. Ling Ling Ang. Kenny Cheung. Danny Lui. Kevin Legenza. Samir Mustapha. Nelson Kwong. Hay Sun Blunt. James Hargreaves. Nathan Smith. Wijaya Wong. Ling Chye Wong. Liang-Liang Zhao. Pierre Dubois. Marcellus Lui. Subash Kathiresan. Janice Ong. Louis Mak. Budi Lee. Ken Guertin. Sha Mohamed Ismail. Michael Sien. Clement Lam. Stuart Leung. Ethelbert Derige. Matt Johann. Xiaofeng Wu. Stuart Pearce. Philip Iskandar. Chung Hei Lee. Anand Mariyappan. Edmond San Jose. Jimmy Sitt. Andrew Mole. Yiu-Fai Kan. Joseph Amores. Philip Lai. Gina Goh. Va-Chan Cheong. Louise Mak. Sing Yen Ko. Chris Simm. Raymond Fong. Peter Hoad. Jack Pan. Lei Li. Jarrod Alston. Matthew Ryan. Angie Lin. Toby White. Ruth Wong. Heng Yong. Christopher Anoso. Tim Wong. Chris Chan. David Farnsworth. Lip Bing Yong. Raymond Lai. Donal Hayward. Jaydy Baldovino. Richard Andrews. George Corpuz. Derek Chong. Wing-Cheong Yeung. Joy Cheong. Vivian Leung. Juan Maier. Chris Liu. Yimin Cong. Nick Boulter. Roberto Tonon. Ken Roxas. Patrick McCafferty. Ashley Willis. Jie Qian. André Lovatt. Joseph Wong. Reve Chin. Wendy Wu. Wee Koon Chua. Anthony Ivey. Joyce Tang. Lim Mei Tang. Serena Lee. Peter Bowtell. Kam-Lam Chan. Roland Trim. Duraibabu Damodaran Kothanda. Vaikun Nadarajah. Alex Lie. Virgilio Quinones. Alan Yiu. Rudi Lioe. Ian Ainsworth. Rodel Moran.

All this results in: a dynamic working environment that inspires creativity and innovation a commitment to the environment and the our approach to work. to shape a better world. research and development.arup. The Arup Journal Vol47 No1 (1/2012) Editor: David J Brown Designer: Nigel Whale Editorial: Tel: +1 617 349 9291 email: arup. Independence enables Arup to: shape its own direction and take a longterm view. planners. Printed by Pureprint Group using ® their environmental print technology. and works with local and international clients around the world. and by donation to charitable organisations. and knowledge sharing the ability to grow organically by attracting and retaining the best and brightest individuals from around the world – and from a broad range of cultures – who share those core values and beliefs in social usefulness. We shape a better world | www. The printing inks are made from vegetable based oils and no harmful industrial alcohol is used in the printing process with 98% of any dry waste associated with this Pureprint Group is a CarbonNeutral® Environmental Management System ISO 14001 and registered to EMAS. sustainable development. staff mobility. together with the core values set down by Sir Ove Arup. and Franklin Kwan for their help in co-ordinating this special edition. to clients and collaborators. and to our own members robust professional and personal networks that are reinforced by positive policies on equality. and business consultants. organised and operates.journal@arup.com Published by Global Marketing and Communications. fairness. It has a constantly evolving skills base. Arup’s core values drive a strong culture of sharing and collaboration. and excellence in the quality of our work. With this combination of global reach and a collaborative approach that is values-driven.About Arup Arup is a global organisation of designers. Arup is owned by Trusts established for the purposes. founded in 1946 by Sir Ove Arup (1895-1988). with no external shareholders. 13 Fitzroy Street. Arup. engineers. to scheme. the Eco Management and Audit Scheme. Tel: +44 (0)20 7636 1531 Fax: +44 (0)20 7580 3924 All articles ©Arup 2012 Special thanks to Brian Mak. Jenny Lie. This ownership structure. UK. London W1T 4BQ.com . unhampered by short-term pressures from external shareholders in learning.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful