1

Table of Contents
Introduction
3.1 Shelter concept
3.1.1 Principle and exploration
3.1.2 Design Process
3.2 Load Cases and calculation
3.2.1 Form analysis 1
3.2.2 Form analysis 2
3.2.3 Comparison

3.3 Stress fow analysis
3.3.1 Material selection
3.4 Grand stand structure
3.4.1 Material selection
3.4.2 Conclusion
3.5 Construction components
Structure design report
Ahmed Abbas
2
Introduction
The fnal structural design is integrated mainly in two components -the shelter for the
multipurpose stadium and the grand stand integrated with the facade. The structure of the
shelter and the grand stand is dealt independently from each other for the purpose that shelter
being the by-product of new functions added to the building and surrounding context, while
grand stand being a by-product of strict ffa regulations and rules.
The shell structure is explored for the designing the shelter and further analysed and calculated
in structural analysing software, GSA by Oasys. Comparing the results and checking the
performance in this software fnalized the form. The structure of the sliding pitch beneath the
grand stand is also analysed to obtain the required material and section property.
3.1 Shelter Concept
The challenge in designing the shelter was to create a continuous homogenous shell structure.
The overall shape and the form were highly infuenced from the discipline of climate (fgure
3 &4).
Architectural requirements for the shelter:
- A close shell (fxed shelter and no retractable elements)
- As light and transparent possible
- Integration of double skin
A space frame structure was chosen for the further exploration in order to full fll the above-
mentioned architectural requirements.
Figure 1: Options of shell
Figure 2
Figure 3: Drawing by Climate expert discipline, Maysam Foolady
Figure 4:
3
3.1.1 Principle and exploration
With the help of minimum surface (soap flm) approach and catenary arches initial form fndings
were conducted considering the limitation of the site boundary and the aim of the project.
Minimum surface was explored for a reason that such a surface allows calculating equal
number of u and v direction because of its nature. The soap-flms formation is considered
as ideal lightweight tension structures and have constant surface stress, a minimum surface
area which is in stable equilibrium and zero mean curvature at every point on the surface.
Using the soap flm as a single surface (fgure 7) for this large span area of stadium creates
a fat surface in the central area. This surface may not turnout to be good during the rainfall
and snowfall. The other possibility was to create a soap-flm surface in two parts (fgure 8) but
again it creates a peak line in the middle, which means extra support requires holding this kind
of structural system. This approach was also discarded from the architectural perspective of
integrating a continuous homogeneous shelter structure.
3.1.2 Design Process
Further to eliminate the peak line created due to use of more then one soap flm surface, a
point cloud (fgure 9w) was generated in rhinoceros software from the same surface. Further
few points in this point cloud are eliminated which were creating the peaks on the middle of the
surface. Using rhino-resurf a smooth surface was developed from the left over points of point
cloud. Though the surface created by this process is not purely based on soap flm surface but
it provides the closest surface related to minimum surface.
As described before diagram ( fgure 8) shows the entire process for defning the surface
through rhino re-resurf. After calculating the u and v direction using grasshopper plug-in for
rhinoceros, members of space frame are dispatch (fgure 9 and 10) according the boundary of
the entire shelter. The members are dispatch in a way that it constitute the complete frames of
quadrangular grid on the boundary condition and further all these frames on the edge condition
were joined manually.
http://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/bldcontentnl/belastingdienst/prive/vv toeslagen/inloggen_op_mijn_toeslagen
Figure 5 Figure 6
Figure 8
Figure 8: Process
Figure 9: Dispatching Figure 10: Grasshopper script for dispatching
Figure 7
4
3.2 Load cases
The structure of the shell affected by the loads can be described in following manner
- Dead load
- Variable load
Wind load
Snow load
Dead Load
The load of envelope placed above the space frame is calculated as dead load for the structure.
The self weight of space frame is already taken in account in GSA during the analysis while
keeping the gravity load. Considering the structure as a continuous and homogenous shell, a
uniform distributed load will be applied on each nodes of the space frame. Dead load due to
envelope on each node can be calculated by following equation.

A = Total surface area of structure on which is envelope is placed = 61447 meter square
= Weight of the envelope per meter square x length of the panel

Number of nodes in the space frame structure = 5702
= 1293,16N on each nodes = 1,3kN
Changing the number of nodes in space frame, the load on nodes will change.
Wind load
The external and internal suction on the roof is created due to the wind pressure. The result-
ing wind load can be calculated by multiplying the pressure coeffcients with the extreme
wind pressure. The extreme wind pressure in zone 2 of Netherlands at mean height (h= 60)
is 1,50 kN/m
2
and the pressure coeffcient is -0,37. The negative value of pressure repre-
sents the upward suction force and the input in GSA would be in +z direction.
Wind load in each node = pressure coeffcient X extreme wind pressure x surface area

number of nodes in space frames

= 0,37 x 1,50 x 61447 = 5,9 kN on each node
5702
Snow load
According to the National annex of the Euro code the characteristic ground snow in a location
of Netherlands is 0,7kN/m
2.
. The roof snow load depends on certain factors which can be seen
by the following equation.
s =
1
. c
e
. c
t
. s
k

1
= snow load shape coeffcient = 0,8
c
e
= coeffcient depending on the exposure to the wind = 1,0
c
t
= heat coeffcient = 1,0
s
k
= characteristic ground snow load = 0,7 kN/m
2

s = 0,56 kN/m
2

Thus the load for each node = 0,56 x 61447 (surface area)

5702 (no. of nodes)

= 6,03 kN on each node
Load combination applied
LC1: Dead load (gravity load included)
LC2: Dead load + wind load
LC3: Dead load + Snow
5
3.2.1 Form analysis 1
The quadrangular space frame structure developed out of soap-flms were analysed later in GSA and
results of different quadrangular grid sizes were compared. These results were compared only with
respect to the dead load so to have a basic understanding of performance of these different quadrangular
grids. Figure shows the results of 3mx3m, 4mx4m and 5mx5m quadrangular grid with respect to Axial
force, combined force C1 and displacement occurring in each case. Comparison shows that 5m x 5m
quadrangular performs the best as compares to other others in each analysis shown. The maximum
combined stress in 5mx 5m is found to be 800 N/mm
2
and whereas the maximum displacement
is 450mm but in case of 3mx3m and 4mx4m it seem to have more stress and displacement. It
concluded that as the size of quadrangular grid of space frame is increased it performs the better.
But for the sake of production it not advisable to have more long members and also the long
members requires more thickness or diameter which makes overall structure to rigid and heavy
from the aesthetic point of view.
Figure 11: Stress fow diagram
6
To optimize the overall surface area of the structure, the top edge
boundary of the grand stand was given as an input in order to
have the structure not far from the grand stand. The major issue
in this case was that it was providing a very limited space for
the architectural requirements at the corner (fgure 12), where
structure comes down. In order to solve this issue another surface
with more relaxed on the corners were developed, to compare the
results of structural performance in GSA.
3.2.2 Form analysis 2
Diagrams in fgure13 shows the comparison between different
ranges of quadrangular grid of the space frame in form fnding
2 which is not related to soap-flm surface. Again even in this
case the form with highest range of quadrangular grid 5mx5m to
9mx9m performance the best in terms of combined stress and
displacement because of dead load. But as mentioned before the
grid of 9mx9m becomes too huge and requires much more thicker
or diameter of material. For this purpose the form with range of
quadrangular grid 4mx4m to 7mx7m was chosen to compare
its result with 5m x 5m quadrangular grid of minimum surface.
Following shows the result of both form fnding 1 and 2.
Figure 12:
7
Results from both the form fnding shows that form fnding 2 seems better in terms of combined stress
but the displacement due to dead load is 1250 mm and which is very high compared to the form fnding
1 which has a maximum displacement of only 450mm. From the architectural terms the form 2 full flls
the requirements needed for the functions but at the same time it has a high displacement on central
region of the surface. Although the form 1 has very less displacement, decision for improving the form
2 was further carried in order to have architectural advantages.
Further the form 2 was modify in order to remove the fatness causing the displacement of
1250mm in the central region of the surface. Also the input of sectional property of space frame
member on the four base corner was assigned with bigger diameter and thickness of hollow pipe
as compared to rest of other member of space frame structure. The result due to these changes
can be prominently seen in the following analysis diagrams.
Figure 13: Comparison of stress fow diagram between form analysis 1 and form analysis 2.
3.2.3 Comparison
8
LC1: Dead load (gravity load included)
LC1: Displacement
LC2: Dead load L1 + Wind Load L2 LC2: L1 + L2, Displacement
LC3: Dead Load L1 + Snow load L3
3.3 Stress fow analysis for fnal form
The modifed form was further analysed with re-
spect to different combination of load cases. Figure
13a is with dead load, fgure 13c is combination of
dead load and wind load, and fgure 13e is with com-
bination of dead load and snow load. From all the
outputs seen in the diagrams it seems that this new
form with minor changes in surface and sectional
properties of material performs far better than form
1 and form 2. During the dead load LC1 (fgure 13a)
it has a maximum combined stress of 250 N/mm
2
and a maximum displacement of 0,70m , which is
not much for such a huge large span structure. When
combining the dead load with the extreme wind
load LC2 (fgure 13c) it has a maximum combined
stress of 300 N/mm
2
and maximum displacement of
0,80m. On the basis of analysis the performance of
the structure during the dead load combined with
the snow load LC3 ( fgure 13e) seems to be not
at all affected in terms of stress and displacement.
It concludes that this particular form can withstand
frmly in all the combined situations of loads acting
on it.
LC3: L1 + L3, Displacement
Support Reactions
Figure 13: Stress fow diagrams for fnal form
a
b
c d
e
f
9
Sectional properties for the members of space frame
To fnd out the suitable material for the space frame structure in such a context and weather condition analyses was
done in CES software in conjoint with material science assignments.
Following important properties was used as input in the CES.
-Corrosion Resistant: The stadium is located near the sea in Rotterdam and therefore it
requires very good resistance against moistures climate, the salt
water and fresh water.
- Light weight and stiff: Space frame structure itself occupies the large span with lots of members. It requires light
weight in nature and at the same time stiff and strong.
- Non fammable: For the sake of safety for the people in a stadium the material should consist of non fammable
property.
Stage 2
CES EduPack 2011 (C) Granta Design Ltd
Tensile strength (NPa)
500 1000 1500 2000
P
r
ic
e
*
D
e
n
s
ity
1000
10000
100000
Stainless steel, ferritic, A!S! +++, wrought, annealed
Stainless steel, ferritic, A!S! ++6, wrought, annealed
Stainless steel, ferritic, A!S! +30FR, wrought, annealed
Stainless steel, ferritic, A!S! +30, wrought, annealed
Stainless steel, martensitic, A!S! +31, wrought, annealed, wire
Stainless steel, martensitic, A!S! +03, wrought, hard temper
Stage 2
CES EduPack 2011 (C) Granta Design Ltd
Tensile strength (NPa)
200 500 1000 2000
P
ric
e
*
D
e
n
s
ity
5000
10000
20000
50000
100000
200000
Stainless steel, austenitic, A!S! 205, wrought, annealed
Stainless steel, ferritic, A!S! +30FR, wrought, annealed
Stainless steel, ferritic, ASTN CB-30, cast
Stainless steel, martensitic, A!S! +10S, wrought, annealed
Stainless steel, ferritic, A!S! +++, wrought, annealed
Stainless steel, austenitic, A!S! 201, wrought, 1f2 hard
Stainless steel, austenitic, A!S! 302, wrought, HT grade D
Stage 2
CES EduPack 2011 (C) Granta Design Ltd
Tensile strength (NPa)
200 500 1000 2000
P
r
ic
e
*
D
e
n
s
ity
5000
10000
20000
50000
100000
200000
Stainless steel, austenitic, A!S! 205, wrought, annealed Stainless steel, austenitic, A!S! 201, wrought, 1f2 hard
Stainless steel, austenitic, A!S! 201, wrought, 1f+ hard
Stainless steel, austenitic, ASTN CF-8, cast
Stainless steel, austenitic, A!S! 302, wrought, HT grade D
Different graphs were made during the analysis stage to limit the material form the aspect of
price, tensile - compressive strength, density and higher fracture toughness. Finally from CES
analysis, a stainless steel ferritic, austenitic, AISI 201, wrought, 1/2 hard was chosen because
of its low density, hence light weight compares to other and at the same it posses high tensile
and compressive strength. Also this material allows the excellent weldability options which very
important property required for the space frame.
Yield strength (MPa)
Compressive strength (MPa)
3.3.1 Material selection
Graph 1
Graph 3
Graph 2
Gaphs of price*density against tensile, compressive
and yield strength was plotted at different stages of
analysis in CES.
10
A truss beams made up of I section and L sections as a cross
member is used beneath the grand stand structure for the
sliding pitch mechanism that allows feld to be moved out
during the other activities organised in the stadium ( fgure 14).
This truss system including the beams and columns of grand
structure was analysed with different inputs of material and
sectional properties of the entire structure (fgure 15, 16&17).
The structure of the shelter and grand stand were analysed
separately since they works independently from each other
in terms of load transfer. The input in GSA for this analysis
was the dead load mainly by the load of people. Considering
that it the smallest part of grandstand which accommodates
around 10000 people, it comes out to be approximately
7000kN load on entire structure and on each beam 5.6kN.
But again considering the factors where people will jump and
will make lot of sound during the matches, a safety factor of
1,5 was multiplied to 5,6kN for the input in GSA. After several
experiment with different input of sectional property, a improved
option (fgure 19) having maximum combined stress of 400 N/
mm
2
and maximum displacement of 0,2m was obtain as an
output. But this stress can be still decrease by using Cobiax
concrete slab (discussed in next page).
Job No. Job No. Job No. Job No. Sheet No. Sheet No. Sheet No. Sheet No. Rev. Rev. Rev. Rev.
Drg. Ref. Drg. Ref. Drg. Ref. Drg. Ref.
Made by Made by Made by Made by Date Date Date Date Checked Checked Checked Checked
17-abr-2012 17-abr-2012 17-abr-2012 17-abr-2012
Page Page Page Page 1 11 1
Printed 29-Apr-2012 Printed 29-Apr-2012 Printed 29-Apr-2012 Printed 29-Apr-2012 Time 19:43 Time 19:43 Time 19:43 Time 19:43
Program GSA Version 8.5.0.14 Copyright Oasys 1985-2010 Program GSA Version 8.5.0.14 Copyright Oasys 1985-2010 Program GSA Version 8.5.0.14 Copyright Oasys 1985-2010 Program GSA Version 8.5.0.14 Copyright Oasys 1985-2010
F:\Users\ahmedabbas\Desktop\xxl finals\all the things from javiers lapt...\Gsa7.gwb F:\Users\ahmedabbas\Desktop\xxl finals\all the things from javiers lapt...\Gsa7.gwb F:\Users\ahmedabbas\Desktop\xxl finals\all the things from javiers lapt...\Gsa7.gwb F:\Users\ahmedabbas\Desktop\xxl finals\all the things from javiers lapt...\Gsa7.gwb
A B C D E
Property
Name MateriaI Description
Axes for
Stiffness
CaIcuIation
Area
[m]
Defaults Section # Steel Explicit yz axes 0
1 i beams for truss Steel CAT UB UB914x419x388 yz axes 0.0494
2 beam grand stand Concrete long term STD R(m) 0.8 0.6 yz axes 0.48
3 column Concrete long term STD R(m) 1.3 0.6 yz axes 0.78
4 truss cross member Steel STD D(m) 0.55 0.55 2.E-2 2.E-2 yz axes 0.0432
5 thick high column Steel STD RHS(m) 2, 0,6 4,E-2 4,E-2 yz axes 0.2016
Figure 18: Sectional properties of following improved output of GSA
3.4 Grand Stand structure for sliding pitch
Figure 14:
Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17:
Figure 19: Stress fow diagrams for the grand stand Figure 20: Displacement diagram
Figure 21: Support Reaction
11
3.4.1 Material selection for grand stand structure
As described before the maximum combined stress on the overall structure was 400
N/mm
2
, which is little more than it should be. But it can be resolved by reducing the
overall weight of concrete grand stand structure so that the truss system beneath it
will undergo with less overall stress. This weight can be resolved by using cobiax,
semi- precast slabs (fgure 22).
Combination with semi-precast elements
The Cobiax cage modules are either directly built into the semi-precast slab elements
in the precast factory and delivered to site as a whole (fgure 22) or only placed on
the semi-precast slab elements on the construction site (fgure 23). In both cases
the top reinforcement can be directly laid on the Cobiax cage modules which act as
wire chairs.
Cobiax has been designed to remove the non-working, dead load in concrete slabs
whilst maintaining biaxial strength. This is achieved by placing hollow plastic spheres
between the upper and lower static reinforcement of the concrete slab, displacing
concrete where it has no structural beneft. The effect is to decrease the overall
weight by up to 35% when compared to a solid slab of the same bearing capacity.
The reduced weight allows the quantity and dimensions of vertical bearing elements,
such as columns, to be reduced. Reduced dead weight means a smaller defection
of the slab, and also provides scope for savings in foundation design, including
fewer piles and/or reduced length of piles. While the design reduces overall weight,
the Cobiax slabs offer very high load carrying capacity and fexibility. However, in
contrast to more conventional hollowcore slabs which have load transfer in only one
direction, the Cobiax slabs allow load transfer in any direction. Because the Cobiax
fat slab does not require beams, fat unobstructed soffts are produced and the
costs of installing services in a building are also substantially reduced.
3.4.2 Conclusion (shelter)
It seems that the space frame structure of quadrangular grid ranging from 4mx4m
to 7mx7m performs better than other smaller and larger size. A smaller sizes of
quadrangular grid accumulates more stress due to the large number of member
and nodes in the large span structure. Also while exceeding the member length
of quadrangular grid more than 7m was undergoing high defection because of
its long length with small diameter of stainless steel pipe. Presently in the space
frame structure of the shelter, two varied diameters of stainless steel pipes is used
and due to which there was a major change in positive direction. It can even be
improved much using varied diameters of hollow stainless steel pipes at different
region of the shelter knowing the appropriate stress fow.
Figure 21: Figure 22:
Figure 23:
Figure 24:
12
160mm
3.5 Construction components
Figure 26: Truss structure for supporting the facade Figure 27: North facade
Figure 29: Detail A at the junction where space frame sits on concrete base
Figure 28: Concrete base
Figure 27: Layers of component
Columns, slabs and beam
Grand stand seats
Space frame structure
Enclosed boundary and
concrete base
A
Stainless steel
hollow pipe