FEM Simulation and Field

Monitoring of Depropping
Procedure of a Large-Span
Single-Layer Latticed Shell
Jun Chen1,*, Yixin Peng1 and Xudong Zhao2
1Department of Building Engineering, Tongji University, China
Email: cejchen@tongji.edu.cn
2Shanghai Institute of Architectural Design & Research, Shanghai, China

Email: zhaoxd@siadr.com.cn

(Submitted on April, 19, 2010 - Reception of revised paper November, 09, 2010 - Accepted on December, 13, 2010)

ABSTRACT: This paper investigates the depropping procedure of a large span

single-layer dome-shape latticed shell roof structure through numerical analysis
and field measurements. The depropping procedure consists of six steps. For each
step, the joint displacements and member internal forces of the roof structure were
first predicated using a numerical model. Based on the simulations results,
instruments as vibrating wire strain gauge, total station, accelerometer and global
positioning system (GPS) were installed on the structure to monitor the actual
displacements and variations of structural members internal forces during the
depropping procedure. The GPS data are compared with total station
measurements to learn its applicability for monitoring depropping procedure of
large roof structure. The comparison between the numerical results and field
measurements demonstrates that the suggested simulation method is reasonable in
the sense that the variation trend of deflection and internal forces of the structure
can be captured. The GPS technology gives more accuracy measurements in
horizontal displacement than vertical deformation. A combination of GPS
technology and total station can increase the displacement measurement accuracy.

Key Words: single-layer latticed shell, depropping procedure, numerical

simulation, GPS technology.

1. INTRODUCTION
More and more large-span steel spatial structures have
been built recently in mainland China such as the
Beijing Olympic Stadium, the Tianjin Olympic
Stadium and the South Railway Station of Shanghai.
The installation or assembling of the steel roof
structure is a key construction step of such structures
(Cui, 2005; Du, 2008). In current practice, it is a
common way to first assemble roof structure members
on a temporary support system/structure and then
remove the temporary support structure, through a
procedure called depropping, to finally allow the roof
structure to support itself. The depropping procedure
typically comprises staged construction processes that
*Corresponding author: cejchen@tongji.edu.cn
may last for several hours or even a few days. During
the depropping procedure, the variation of
displacements and internal forces of the roof structure
should be carefully controlled in order to ensure the
safety of the structure. Moreover, there might be several
depropping plans available for a certain roof structure.
Therefore, effective and efficient numerical simulation
of the depropping procedure in advance is required to
find out the maximum joint displacement and variation
of internal forces of the structural members. On the
other hand, field measurements in the depropping
procedure are always desirable to check the
methodology used in the numerical simulation, to
understand the actual performance of the roof

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011 45

 FEM Simulation and Field Monitoring of Depropping Procedure of a Large-Span Single-Layer Latticed Shell
structure, and to develop better design theory and
construction plan. The simulation and field monitoring
measures for deproppig procedure are of particular
importance for single-layer latticed dome, whose
safety and global stability are sensitive to defects and
change of geometric parameters (Lopez et al., 2007,
Gioncu,1995).
This paper presents numerical simulations and field
measurements of the depropping procedure of a
special single-layer dome-shape roof structure. First,
numerical model of the roof structure has been built
where gap element is adopted to simulate the
temporary supports. The stresses of structural
members and joint displacements are calculated by the
numerical model for each depropping step. Then,
instruments as strain gauge, total station,
accelerometer and global positioning system (GPS)
are installed on the structure to monitor the actual
deformation and change of internal forces. The GPS
technology is not very common in monitoring of roof
structures. Thus, the GPS data are compared with total
station measurement to learn its applicability for
monitoring depropping procedure of large roof
structure. Comparisons between numerical results and
field measurements are performed leading to the main
observations of this study.
2. THE ROOF STRUCTURE AND
DEPROPPING PLAN
2.1. Overview of the roof structure
The main building is a water-drop-shape stadium
covering an area of 3822.4 m2 (Figure 1a). The
building is located in Tieling City, China. Its steel roof
structure is a special single-layer reticulated shell, of
which the longitudinal span is 82.7 m, the lateral span
is about 55 m and the elevation is 17.5 m at the highest
point. Seven dendritic supports are arranged along the
lateral direction in order to reduce the longitudinal span
(a) Picture of the roof structure under construction
Figure 1. Roof structure system
46
of the roof structure and to increase its out-of-plan
stiffness, (see Figure 1b). Besides, there is a 14-meter-
long opening as an entrance at the bottom of the
reticulated shell. In order to reduce the horizontal force
applied to the entrance girder by the upper roof
structure, two dendritic supports are also set in lateral
direction to partially share the lateral force in
conjunction with the lower supporting structure at one
side of the reticulated shell along the longitudinal
direction (see Figure 1b).
The single-layer reticulated shell is in the form of
three dimensional lattices whose size is approximately
2.5 meters. The joint of the shell, very rare in China, is
a welded drum-shape node. A typical joint consists of
six rectangular steel pipes (220 140 66 mm) that
are intersected in a drum-shape member of the size
320 14 mm (for joint with dendritic support the
drum member size is 320 20 mm). Details of a
typical joint are shown in Figure 2. The surrounding
supports of the latticed roof structure are hemisphere
fixed supports connecting to the concrete platform.
The connections between the connecting plates and the
hemispheres use groove complete penetrate weld and
so do connections between the hemispheres and the
members.
2.2. Construction procedure of the roof
Using full-hall scaffold as temporary support system,
the roof structures is constructed segment by segment
along the longitudinal direction. Each segment has the
same span as the roof structure in the lateral direction
and is further divided into 4 to 5 parts. Each part is
welded on the ground first and then lifted to the design
elevation. The segment is completed by welding all the
parts together. After that the segment is laid on the
temporary support system by fastening segment pipes
on the scaffold. Once available, connection members
between two adjacent segments are welded. Compared
Dendritic supports
Longitudinal
Lateral Dendritic
supports
Y
x
z
(b) The roof structure system and locations of dendritic supports
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011
Jun Chen, Yixin Peng and Xudong Zhao

220 140 6 6
10 mm thick 30 20 steel pipe 220 140 6 6
220 140 6 6 ribbed stiffener Sleeve
10 thick cover plate /2
220 140 6 6
Sleeve
220 140 6 6

120
260 0

14
60
220 140 6 6

R50
220 140 6 6 160
160

60
320
10 thick cover plate
140 140 6 6 R7
5
Pin shaft 30

320 20 steel pipe

220 140 6 6

Figure 2. Details of a typical joint (all dimension in mm)

to the traditional over-head assembling method of
reticulated shells, the above construction method
could reduce significantly the amount of overhead
welding work, the accumulated assembling errors, the
stresses and deformations due to welding. Within the
construction period, the temporary system bears all the
loads, including the self-weight of the reticulated shell
structure and the construction live load. After the roof
structure being completed, the temporary supporting
system will be removed through the depropping
procedure.
2.3. Depropping plan
As mentioned above, members of the roof structure is
actually fastened on the scaffold. There are in total 329
connections, termed as temporary support, between
the roof structure and the temporary supporting
system. After having assembled the roof structure, the
temporary supports must be removed. The whole
structure becomes self-load-bearing and the internal
forces of the reticulated shell will redistribute among
the members. Because the single-layer reticulated
shell is sensitive to defects, once local unstable event
or damage occurs during the depropping procedure, it
is very likely to cause chain effects thus leading to
instability of the whole roof structure. Therefore, the
depropping procedure must be symmetrical,
synchronized and steady in order to prevent any
excessive local internal forces or joint displacements
that may occur.
As shown in Figure 3, the seven dendritic supports
in the middle of the structural plan divide the plan into
southern part and northern part. The lateral span in
southern part is short than that of the northern part.

Figure 3. Six steps of the depropping procedure

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011 47

 FEM Simulation and Field Monitoring of Depropping Procedure of a Large-Span Single-Layer Latticed Shell
Therefore, the depropping process starts from the
southern part and consists of the following six steps. In
Step 1, all the temporary supports along the three solid
lines in Figure 3 are released. It is accomplished by
loosening the connections between the roof and the
scaffold, and removing the supporting pipe in
the scaffold. In Step 2, all the remaining temporary
supports in the southern part are removed. After that,
Steps 3 to 5 are conducted in the northern part by
removing temporary supports at certain locations.
Finally, in step 6, all the temporary supports along the
perimeter of the structure are removed. The number of
temporary supports removed in Step 1 to 6 is,
respectively, 33, 55, 55, 55, 40 and 91.
3. NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF
DEPROPPING PROCEDURE
3.1. Numerical model and parameters
Numerical simulation of the planned depropping
procedure has been conducted using the software SAP
2000 to learn the status of the roof structure in each
step. For double-layer or multi-layer latticed shell
structures, three-dimensional bar element is typically
adopted to model the structural member under the
assumption that it bears mainly axial forces. For the
single-layer latticed shell structure, however, all
the members are rigidly welded to the joint. Bending
moment cant be neglected and it is more likely to
control the members performance. Therefore, three-
dimensional beam elements are adopted to simulate all
the steel members of the roof structure. The joint is
assumed as a rigid joint, each joint has three linear
displacements and three angular displacements. The
hemispherical fixed supports of the structure are
modeled as rigid supports as well.
As for modeling of the temporary support system, it
could be integrated into the main building model.
However, as the number of elements increases, the
computational costs and possibilities of modeling error
will significantly increase. In this connection,
simplified model for temporary support system is
desirable especially for comparison purpose when
there are several different depropping plans available.
Considering the fact that temporary supports mainly
bear vertical loads, they could be simplified as a group
of vertical springs and the coupling effects between
different springs can be neglected. Moreover, the
temporary supports are working under different status;
some of them are right below structural joints while
others are below the structural members. It is hard to
precisely simulate each of them; especially in the
design stage when there has limited detail information
48
about the temporary supports. Hence, all of the
temporary supports are simulated by spring element
(Gap element). The spring is in compress when the
joint moves downward and the spring bears no stress
when the joint moves upward, which means the
temporary support disengages from the structure.
Stiffness of the spring element k is critical for
successful simulation of the temporary support. All
the steel pipes of the scaffold are standard pipe of
48 3.5 mm. Assuming only axial deformation of
the supporting pipes, the stiffness k of the temporary
support can be estimated by k = EA/L, where
E = 201 105 N/mm2 and A = 489.3 mm2. The height
of all the 329 temporary supports varies in the range of
7.2 to 17.5 m, the computational length is determined
by the following way. All the temporary supports are
divided into 5 groups according to their heights, which
are, respectively, within the height of 7.2 m (the height
of temporary supports on the outward circle); from 7.2 m
to 9.5 m; from 9.5 m to 12.5 m; from 12.5 m to 15.5 m;
and from 15.5 m to 17.5 m. An average height L = 7.2,
8.35, 11, 14 and 16.5 m are assigned for each group.
The corresponding stiffness k for each group are
therefore 14271, 12305, 9341, 7339 and 6227 KN/m.
Besides, a concentrated load of 0.8 kN is applied on
each joint of the numerical model to account for the
construction loads and the weight of the drum joint.
3.2. Simulation of depropping procedure
With all the above modeling rules and assumptions,
numerical simulation is performed to calculate the
joint displacement and internal force of key members
for each step of depropping procedure. Figure 4a
through 4g shows, respectively, the deformation of
the roof structure before depropping, after Step 1 to
after Step 6. The deformations are amplified for
demonstration purpose. The calculated member
internal force will be presented in later section
together with measured value.
4. FIELD MEASUREMENT OF THE
DEPROPPING PROCEDURE
Based on the numerical simulation results, various
kinds of sensors were arranged to monitor the
depropping procedure. Numerical simulation shows
the vertical displacements of four points, denoted as C,
D, E, F in Figure 5, are relatively large during the
depropping procedure. In particular, Points C, D
are the highest points of the roof structure (with the
same altitude); Point C is where the largest vertical
displacement happened under self-weight; Point E is
the 1/4 point of the lateral span, and Point F is the
highest point in the southern part.
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011
Jun Chen, Yixin Peng and Xudong Zhao

(a) Before depropping (b) After step 1

(c) After step 2 (d) After step 3

(e) After step 4 (f) After step 5

(g) After step 6

Figure 4. Deformation of the roof structure at each step of depropping procedure

Displacement transducer is not applicable since it is and GPS are adopted. Observe prisms were installed
difficult, if not impossible, to find an available fixed on Point C to F and total station (type: TCA2003) were
reference point on the temporary structure. Therefore, set on the roof of a nearby office building. The
non-contact measurement techniques as total station measurement accuracy is 0.5 second for angle and

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011 49

 FEM Simulation and Field Monitoring of Depropping Procedure of a Large-Span Single-Layer Latticed Shell

Total
E station

C Y

y F
E

z D
x

C F

X
A B
A B

Figure 5. Measurement points and arrangement of total station

1 mm + 1 ppm for distance. During the depropping

procedure, the total station scans all the measurement
points every 2~3 minutes to record the variation of
their three dimensional coordinates.
Though the measurement accuracy is very high,
total station has its shortcomings that the target points
must be visible and it is not an all-weather technology.
Moreover, displacements at different points cant be
simultaneously recorded by total station. For dome-
shape roof structure, it is very likely that some parts
(a) Reference station
are not visible from a fixed observation station. To
tackle this problem, the global positioning system
(GPS) technology is adopted to measure the joint
displacement of the structure. One more reason for
using GPS is that it is an important part of structural
health monitoring system (SHM). Installation of SHM
on large space structures has become a worldwide
trend in order to assess structural safety during
structures service life. Therefore, whether the GPS
technology (or SHM system) can be utilized in the
construction stage is worth investigating. To this end,
two reference GPS stations were set at Point A and B (b) Rover station
as shown in Figure 5, and four rover stations were set Figure 6. Setup of GPS measurement system
at Point C to F on the structure. For comparison
purpose, GPS receivers (type: Leica GX1230) were
placed near the total station observe prisms at each from which the final deflection of the roof structure
measurement point. Setup of GPS stations on-site are could be calculated. During the depropping operation,
shown in Figure 6. Before and after the depropping real-time kinematic (RTK) continuous dynamic
operation, the stationary global coordinates of Point C observation was carried out by GPS to continuously
to F were recorded by GPS through static observation, measure displacement of each point with a sampling

50 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011

Jun Chen, Yixin Peng and Xudong Zhao
Figure 7. Arrangement of strain measurement locations
frequency of 20 HZ. All the GPS sensors are calibrated
before the field measurement. Details of the GPS
technology and the calibration procedure can be found
in Chen (2010).
Based on numerical simulation results, vibrating
wire strain meters were mounted on the surface of steel
members at five locations as shown in Figure 7.
Location 1# to 3# are members connecting to Point C
where the vibrating wire strain meters were installed
close to the joint and on the upper surface of
rectangular steel pipe. Location 4# is lower chord
member of the dendritic support and the sensor was
installed close to the support (i.e the end away from the
joint). Location 5# is the upper diagonal member of the
dendritic support and the sensor was installed close to
the joint of shell. Moreover, an accelerometer is placed
on Point C to measure the vertical acceleration
responses during the depropping procedure.
5. MEASUREMENT RESULTS AND
COMPARISON
5.1. General
The whole depropping procedure took two and half
hour to complete. Time frame of each step is shown in
Table 1. Figure 8 shows the final inside-view of the
roof structure.
5.2. Joint displacement
Figure 9 compares the simulated vertical displacement
at Point C to F with the field measured values by total
station. In each step of depropping procedure, the
measured displacement varies in a range of 1~2 mm
because the temporary supports cant be
simultaneously removed, as did in the numerical
simulation. It is seen from Figure 9 that final
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011
Table 1. Time frame of each depropping step
Depropping Number of temporary
Step Time supports removed
Step 1 09:4010:03 33
Step 2 10:0310:27 55
Step 3 10:2710:42 55
Step 4 10:4210:57 55
Step 5 10:5711:13 40
Step 6 11:1311:43 91
Figure 8. Inside-view of the roof structure after the
depropping procedure
deflection of the roof structure is around 45 mm. It is
compatible with the design results reported in Jin
(2008) that for all the concerned cases of design load
combinations, the maximum deflection varies in a
range of 4 to 34 mm. In particular, under load case of
Dead Load + Live Load + Raising temperature (30
degrees) the maximum defection is only 4 mm. The
relative low defection is mainly due to the arrangement
of dendritic supports in both longitudinal and lateral
direction that divide the structure into four parts of
which the actual span is significantly reduced.
Figure 9 shows that the numerical results in general
agree with the variation trend of the field
measurements. Point C and D, the highest point of the
roof structure, has a theoretical/measured
displacement of 4.8/2.4 mm and 3.5/4.0 mm
respectively. The 1/4 span point E and the highest
point of lateral span direction F has measured
deflection of 5.2 mm and 2.0 mm, which are
comparatively apart to the theoretical calculated
values of 2.1 mm and 3.3 mm. Besides, the
displacement of Point F increases rather than
decreases after Step 4 because of the existence of the
central dendritic supports and the depropping process
is in northern part. Nevertheless, the variation of the
51
 FEM Simulation and Field Monitoring of Depropping Procedure of a Large-Span Single-Layer Latticed Shell

3 3
Measured (C) 2 Measured (D)
2
Numerical Numerical
1
1
0
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
0 1
1 2
2 3
4
3
5
4
6
5 7
Step 1 Step 2 S3 S4 S5 Step 6 Step 1 Step 2 S3 S4 S5 Step 6
6 8
09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00
Time (hh:mm) Time (hh:mm)

5 2
4 Measured (E)
3 Numerical 1
2
Displacement (mm)

1 0

Displacement (mm)
0
1 1
2
3 2
4
5 3
6
7 4 Measured (F)
8 Numerical
Step 1 Step 2 S3 S4 S5 Step 6
9 5
09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00
Time (hh:mm) Time (hh:mm)

Figure 9. Vertical displacement of points C to F during the depropping procedure

reticulated shell structures deflection is within 6 30

Total station
reasonable controlled range, and is far lower than Gps
4 20
1/400 of the lateral span, regulated by Chinese design
Total station (mm)

code for such a structure. 2 10

Gps (mm)
5.3. GPS measurements 0 0

Figure 10 compares the vertical displacement of point 2 10

C measured by GPS and total station. Note that the
GPS and total station measurement has similar trend, 4 20

but the amplitude of GPS data is about five times 6 30

larger than total station.
Figure 11a and b shows the horizontal displacement
of Point C in X and Y direction at each depropping
step by GPS. The figure shows the horizontal
displacement amplitude of Point C is about 2 cm and
there has no significant change during the depropping
procedure. Figure 11c compares the total station
measurements with GPS data. Note that variation range
of GPS and total station measurements are similar.
Compared with results in Figure 10, the accuracy of
GPS data in horizontal direction is much higher. The
conclusion for Point D to F is the same. Compared with
09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30
Time (hh:mm)
Figure 10. Comparition of GPS and total station displamcne
measurement (point C)
total station, GPS has two distinct features in
displacement measurement. First, it can simultaneously
measure displacements of all the target points with a
relative high frequency, which is very important for
real-time monitoring. Second, GPS needs the target
point be visible from the top that is much easier to
achieve than from a fixed horizontal viewpoint.

52 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011

Jun Chen, Yixin Peng and Xudong Zhao

(a) (b)
34.245 79.750

34.240 79.745
Coordinate in X direction (m)

Coordinate in Y direction (m)

34.235 79.740

34.230 79.735

34.225 79.730

34.220 79.725

34.215 79.720

34.210 79.715
09:40 10:00 10:20 10:40 11:00 11:20 11:40 09:40 10:00 10:20 10:40 11:00 11:20 11:40
Time (hh:mm) Time (hh:mm)
(c)
0.020
Total sation
GPS
0.016
Displacement (m)

0.012

0.008

0.004

0.000

09:40 10:00 10:20 10:40 11:00 11:20 11:40

Time (hh:mm)

Figure 11. Horizontal displacement of point C at different depropping step (by GPS)

Table 2 shows the coordinates, obtained through in displace (plan) and vertical (height) dynamic
GPS static measurements, of each measurement points measurement with reporting sampling frequency of
of the reticulated shell before and after depropping. 10~20 Hz, whilst the measurement accuracy for static
The changes of horizontal displacement of each displacement is around 3 mm. In the case, the final
measurement points before and after depropping is vertical displacement of the roof is lower than 1 cm.
5 mm on average and 8 mm in maximum, which are Thus, the accuracy of GPS is comparatively low in the
slightly larger than total station results. vertical direction and is acceptable in the horizontal
Nowadays, the nominal accuracy of GPS technology direction. A combined scheme of total station and GPS
has been updated to 10 mm and 20 mm resolution is preferable for roof structure monitoring.

Table 2. Coordinates of the point C to F before and after the depropping

X-coordinate (m) Y-coordinate (m) = X 2 + Y 2 (m)

C before 34.2272 79.7328 0.0045
after 34.2283 79.7284
D before 25.0951 87.3634 0.0079
after 25.0968 87.3557
E before 33.8748 92.6733 0.0055
after 33.8876 92.6686
F before 55.6812 74.7755 0.004
after 55.6784 74.7727

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011 53

 FEM Simulation and Field Monitoring of Depropping Procedure of a Large-Span Single-Layer Latticed Shell

5.4. Stresses of structural members
Figure 12 shows the measured stresses at each location
during the depropping procedure. Theoretical stress
values are calculated through the axial force and
moment at the location where the vibrating wire strain
meter installed. Measured values are calculated through
stress-strain relationship. Positive value means tensile
stress and negative value means compressive stress.
For comparison purpose, all the theoretical stress
values and measured values are converted into relative
values, to which the initial stress value is zero.
Through comparison, it can be found that the stress
change is not significant before and after the depropping
procedure. The computational results are close to the
measured values for Point #1, 2, 3, 5, but not for Point
4#, which was installed far from the joint. The variation
range is about 10 Mpa for Point 1#, 2# and 3#.
Measuring point 3#, on the upper side of the diagonal
member, is mainly under compress and has a smooth

6 4
4 Measured (1#) 3 Measured (2#)
Numerical Numerical
2 2

0 1
Stress (MPa)

Stress (MPa)
0
2
1
4
2
6
3
8 4
10 5
12 6
09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00
Time (hh:mm) Time (hh:mm)

2 8
Measured (3#)
1 Numerical 4
0
0
1
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)

4
2
3 8

4 12
5 16 Measured (4#)
6 Numerical
20
7
09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00
Time (hh:mm) Time (hh:mm)

8
6
4
2
Stress (MPa)

0
2
4
6
8 Measured (5#)
Numerical
10
09:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00
Time (hh:mm)

Figure 12. Stresses of points 1#~5# during depropping procedure

54 International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011

Jun Chen, Yixin Peng and Xudong Zhao

change of stress. The theoretical value agrees well with shells supports during depropping procedure. Its
the measured value. Measuring points 1# and 2#, compressive stress decreases at the first step, increases
located on the main rib and the main load-bearing at the following three steps, and decreases again
member of the structure, is under compression and the during the fifth step to the end. This is because the
stress increases at first and decreases later on. The stress process of depropping procedure is from the south part
changing trend is close to the theoretical value in each to the north part and 4# is located on the north of the
step and can reflect the regularity of the elements stress dendritic supports. At the beginning of depropping
during depropping procedure. Moreover, measuring procedure in the southern, part of the load is borne by
point 1# and 2#, setting on symmetric members, have the peripheral supports on the south, and the stress of
similar stress change trends to each other. the dendritic support 4# located on may decrease.
Measuring point 4#, which is on the lower side of As the depropping procedure gradually moving to the
the second central dendrictic supports and mainly north, the stress increases; and after the last stepthe
under compression, reflects the stress of the reticulated last outward circle of braces are removed, the peripheral

16.4 38 2.5 37
16.6
37 2.0 36
16.8

Temperature (degree)
Temperature (degree)

17.0 36 1.5 35

Stress (Mpa)
Stress (Mpa)

17.2 35 1.0 34
17.4
Point #2
34 0.5 33
17.6 Stress
Temperature
17.8 33 0.0 32
18.0 Point #1
Stress 32 0.5 31
18.2 Temperature
18.4 31 1.0 30
15:00 15:20 15:40 16:00 16:20 15:00 15:20 15:40 16:00 16:20
Time (hh:mm) Time (hh:mm)

4.2 40 0 30.8
Point #3 39 Point #4
4.4 Stress 5 Stress 30.6
Temperature (degree)

Temperature (degree)
Temperature 38 Temperature
4.6 10
Stress (Mpa)

30.4
Stress (Mpa)

37
4.8 36 15 30.2
35
5.0 20 30.0
34
5.2 25 29.8
33

5.4 32 30 29.6
15:00 15:20 15:40 16:00 16:20 15:00 15:20 15:40 16:00 16:20
Time (hh:mm) Time (hh:mm)

10.0 41
40
7.5
Temperature (degree)

39
5.0 38
Stress (Mpa)

Point #5
Stress 37
2.5
Temperature 36
0.0 35
34
2.5
33
5.0 32
15:00 15:20 15:40 16:00 16:20
Time (hh:mm)

Figure 13. Variation of stress after depropping procedure

International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011 55

 FEM Simulation and Field Monitoring of Depropping Procedure of a Large-Span Single-Layer Latticed Shell
Table 3. Comparison of theoretical and test fundamental frequency in each step
Before Step 1 After Step 1
Theoretical result 10.4 Hz 8.34 Hz
Test result 13.67 Hz 11.33 Hz
Error 31% 36%
supports bears the main vertical load, the dendritic
support may have a lower level of stress. The whole
process discussed above clearly shows the regularity of
the redistribution of the internal force during
depropping procedure.
Measuring point 5# is on the upper side of the
dendritic supports diagonal member, whose stress is
similar to 4#s. The measured stress increased at the
beginning and decreased later and then increased on
the final stage, which is tally with the theoretical
analysis. In addition, 5# is near the support, and hence
its stress is not as stable as 3#, which is also on a
diagonal member but far away from the support. It is
clear that the stress is comparatively stable and has not
abrupt change in the depropping procedure. The
measured values accurately reflect the regularity of the
stress redistribution in the process of the unloading.
It is found that the redistribution of internal forces
in the shell structure dont cease after the temporary
supports have been completely removed. Actually, it
might take quite a long time for the redistribution
procedure. As a result, the internal forces in the
structures still gradually increase or decrease after the
depropping procedure. Figure 11 shows the measured
stress values at Point 1# to 5# three hours after the
depropping procedure together with the measured
member surface temperature. Note that the
temperature decreased in the recording period about
6 7 degrees, which is not very large. The compress
stress at Point 1# increases from 8 Mpa to 18 Mpa
within the three hours. The variation of stresses at
Points 2# and 3# are not significant, but that of Points
4# and 5# are significant. The stress at Point 4 and 5,
on the dendritic support, continuously and steadily
increased but the temperature randomly varied,
implying that the increase of stress is mainly due to
redistribution of internal forces.
5.5. Variation of fundamental frequency of
the shell
It is well known that the modes of vibration of latticed
shell structure are generally very close-spaced. It is thus
interesting to learn the vibration properties of the shell
56
After Step 3 After Step 4 After depropping
6.94 Hz 6.91 Hz 6.88 Hz
8.20 Hz 7.71 Hz 7.52 Hz
18% 12% 9%
structure during and after the depropping procedure.
After completion of each step, all the construction
activities were temporarily suspended and the vertical
acceleration responses of Point C were measured
under environment excitation. The fundamental
frequencies of the roof structure in each step are then
identified by a method suitable for closely-spaced
modes (Chen, 2002). Table 3 shows the measured and
computed fundamental frequency for every step.
Note that with gradually removing of temporary
supports, the fundamental frequency decreases
accordingly. The difference between the measured
values and the theoretical values reduced from 31% to
9% as the depropping procedure goes on. The boundary
conditions and modeling of the temporary supports has
significant influence on the theoretical value.
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Numerical simulations and field measurement of the
depropping procedure of a single-layer reticulated shell
structure are reported in this paper. The following
observations are made from this study. The maximum
horizontal displacement and deflection of the roof
structure are measured as 7.9 mm and 6 mm after
depropping. Stress measurement results demonstrate
that the variation of the stress is smooth during the
depropping and the measured values can reflect the
shells redistribution of the internal forces during and
after depropping. The variation trend of deflection,
internal forces and fundamental frequency can be well
captured by the numerical model, and for certain points
and structural member the numerical results agree quite
well with the field measurements. The numerical
model and simplification method suggested in this
paper is proper and applicable for analyzing such kind
of structure. GPS and total station are used to monitor
the displacement of structural system transformation
process. It is found that at current technology level the
dynamic GPS measurement accuracy is not acceptable
in vertical direction. However, the combined utilization
of GPS and total station can exert each others
advantages, not only overcomes the disadvantage of
GPS in low precision of measuring vertical
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011
Jun Chen, Yixin Peng and Xudong Zhao
displacement, but also handles the non-synchronization
problem of each point when using total station.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The finical support to this research project from Fok
Ying Tung Education Foundation trough 11th Young
Teacher Research Fund (No. 111077) to the first
author is highly appreciated.
REFERENCES
Chen Jun and Xu Youlin, (2002), Identification of modal
damping ratios of structures with closely spaced modal
frequencies, Structural Engineering and Mechnics, 14(4):
417 434.
Chen Jun, Shang Xiaodong and Zhao Xudong, (2010), GPS
multipath effect mitigation algorithm based on empirical
International Journal of Space Structures Vol. 26 No. 1 2011
mode decomposition, Proceedings Earth and Space 2010:
Engineering, Science, Construction and Operations in
Challenging Environments, ASCE, March 1417, 2010,
Honolulu, HI, pp. 24122421.
Cui, X.Q., Gao, Z.F., Li, Z.X. and Wu, X.P, Simplified Analysis
Method of Large Complex Temporary Supports, Spatial
Structures, 2005, 11(1): 4549. (in Chinese)
Du, W.F. and Zhang, H., Space Structure, China Electric Power
Press, China. (in Chinese)
Gioncu V. Buckling of reticulated shells: state-of-the-art. Int J
Space Struct 1995; 10(1): 1 46.
Jin G. et al., (2008), Structure design of steel roof and a large
overhang platform in Tieling gymnasium, Building
Structure, 38(9): 3739. (in Chinese)
Lopez, A., I. Puente, and M.A. Serna, Numerical model and
experimental tests on single-layer latticed domes with
semi-rigid joints. Computers & Structures, 2007.
85(78): p. 360374.
57