A large span roof made of cable stayed arches

Pier Giorgio Malerba

Department of Structural Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy
Paolo Galli, Marco di Domizio and Giacomo Comaita
Studio Malerba, Milan, Italy

ABSTRACT: A large span roof made of cable-stayed arches is presented. Compared to a

traditional tied arch, the pre-tensioned cable-stayed arch presents: (a) a strong reduction of the
bending moments; (b) a general increase of the stiffness; (c) a strong increase of the limit
multiplier associated with the Eulerian critical load.

1 INTRODUCTION

In 2003, Mo.Tri.Dal. Handling Equipment and Plants S.p.A., based in Piacenza (Italy), installed
a new smelter of green coke in the Alba Bahrain Plant in Sitra (Kingdom of Bahrain), whose
maximum capacity is of 650 TPH.
The plant (Fig.1) is made up of a primary unit that, rotating around a pivot supported by a
truss tower, covers an angular sector of 128°, and of a secondary unit, hinged at the end of the
upper stringer of the primary unit, which is able to rotate of 270°. The secondary unit carries the
terminal part of the conveyor belt, from which the born material is released.
In 2004, Alba Bahrain decided to enhance the storage capacity of the plant, and placed an
order for the project of a retaining wall to be built along the longest side of the spreading area,
so as to provide an external containment for the stored material. In the same occasion, Alba
Bahrain required a feasibility study regarding the possibility of including the entire plant into a
large building, in order to avoid dispersion of green coke dust.

2 DESIGN CRITERIA AND SHAPE DEFINITION

The design issues were:

(1) Search for a shape that allowed to cover the widest surface compatible with the area
restraints;
(2) Design of a retaining wall which, at the same time, had to work also as a support for the
roof;
(3) Design of a cover of minimum weight;
(4) Set up of erection procedures, made more complicated by the scale of the building, that
would allow to carry out more jobs at the same time, so as to respect the 18 months schedule.
After a series of comparative evaluations, the plant shown in Fig.1 was drawn. Behind the
84.00 m wide N-W front, there is a rectangular area with a depth of 42.00 m. The two sides
remain parallel from alignment 1 to alignment 3, then they bend, so that side B (internal) is
(42.00 + 38.68) = 80.68 m long, while side A (external) is (42.00 + 158.00) = 200.00 m long.
The two sides follow irregular curves, each one having many curvature centres in different
positions.
This results in the fact that the distance between the two lateral alignment varies considerably,
passing in a first stage from 84.00 m to 91.00 m (alignment A5-B5), then from 91.00 m to 60.00
m (alignment A9-B9).
Although the scale, the shape of the building and the loads were such that special attention
had to be paid to every single design phase, the most delicate issues were posed by the roof.
Different configurations were examined: the first idea was that of a roof sustained by parallel
beams running from alignment A to alignment B; in a second time, a radial lay-out was
considered. In both cases, the structure was too heavy.
280 ARCH’10 – 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges

Figure 1 : Geometry and dimensions of the plant. vertical cross-section and plan of the columns.

Trying to reduce the steel weight, trussed arches were taken into consideration. In order to avoid
lateral thrust at the top of the columns, these arches had to be of the tied type. None the less, the
envelope of load conditions presented flexural components that required cross sections of
remarkable area.
Cable stayed arches were finally examined (Belenya E. 1977; Buraschi L. and Calabrò P.
2006) (Fig.2.a). As tied arches, with respect to external constraints they behave like isostatic
simple beams and do not convey lateral thrust, but they are also characterized by a set of
internal constraints that reduces axial force eccentricity, increases the critical load value and
reduces the structure deformability. These constraints are provided by adequately pre-tensioned
cables radiating from a focus.
The arches are connected to one another by trussed beams. The roof surface has been
stiffened by means of cross bracings, hosted in the mean depth of the roof (Fig.2.g).
Pier Giorgio Malerba, Paolo Galli, Marco di Domizio, etc. 281

3 THE CABLE STAYED ARCH ROOF

3.1 General characteristics of the cable stayed arch roof
The roof lays on a set of 17 cable stayed arches (Fig.2.g). The arches ends are restrained by
hinges, connected to the upper perimetral beams along Alignment A and B.
Along alignment A, these hinges are placed, alternatively, in correspondence with the
columns axes and with the beams centre. Along Alignment B, the arches have the same layout
as in Alignment A until Column B3. After Column B3 the building bends, so that the five
following hinges rest on the upper perimetral beams B3-BK and BK-B9. The remaining hinges
are in-line with the columns.
In the area included between alignment A1-B1 and alignment A3-B3, the arches are parallel
to each other. From A3-B3 to A9-B9, they are arranged in a radial patterns and their span,
geometry and axis line vary.
In the roof surface, the arches are connected to one another along the longitudinal direction,
and they can be grouped in four subsets, corresponding to the four sectors identified by the
expansion joints (Sector A1-A3; Sector A3-A5; Sector A5-A7; Sector A7-A9).
In the first Sector A1-A3, five arches are connected by nine longitudinal crossbeams, whose
entire length is 4 x 10.50 = 42.00 m. In the same sector, the first three arches are connected to
each another by 2 x 8 cross-girders, that make the system stiff with respect to relative
movements of the arches in the longitudinal direction. A gap that will be covered only by
purlins separates Sector A1-A3 from Sector A3-A5.
This second Sector comprises of four arches (alignments A3’-A4-A4’-A5) arranged in a fan
pattern. They are connected to each other by longitudinal crossbeams, that gradually bend
following the building’s shape. Alignment A3’ and A4’ are connected by bracings, so that the
cross centres lie on alignment A4: this means that the bracings elements in Sector 2 have a span
which is double the span in Sector 1.

3.2 The cable stayed arch

The characteristics of the typical arch are shown in Fig.2.a (the rise is measured as the normal
distance from the circular theoretical axis of the arch to the chord).
The theoretical arch axis is circular. Actually, the theoretical arch axis has been subdivided
into eight straight-line segments. As the arches ends are at different heights on alignments A
and B, and considering the need for the aerator strip to be placed on the highest part of the roof,
the arches structures are not symmetrical and are different one from the other.
For each arch, in order to have a certain modularity, the first three segments starting from the
two ends (segments 1, 2, 3 R and L) were kept simmetrical; central segments 4 and 5 act as
compensating elements. The lengths of the segments vary along a single arch and among
different arches, from 10.00 m to 12.00 m.
The typical arch section (Fig.2.b) has the shape of a 2.00 m deep isosceles triangle, having a
2.00 m wide upper side. The section comprises of two HEA200 profiles at the two top vertexes,
and by a HEA300 at the bottom vertex. The three vertexes are connected by trussed walls, made
of transverses and bracings separated by a constant 2.00 m pitch.
In the top truss (Fig.2.c), the transverses are made of two L70 x 7 profiles, arranged so as to
form a cross-shaped section, while the diagonal elements are L80 x 8 profiles.
In the lateral trusses (Fig.2.d), the transverses are perpendicular to the segment axis, and are
made of two L80 x 8 profiles, arranged so as to form a cross-shaped section; the diagonal
elements are made of L90 x 9 profiles.
The typical section of arches n. 7’, 8, 8’ and 9, having a shorter span, comprises of two HEA180
at the two top vertexes and by a HEA260 at the bottom vertex. The wall trusses on the three
sides are similar to those of the previously described arch.
The arches, which are restrained at the two ends by hinges (Fig.2.f) that rest on the
perimetrical top beams, are designed in such a way that, with respect to the reference load
combinations (self weight, dead loads, temperature T = 20° C), the lateral thrusts are completely
carried by the system of nine cables that tensions the arch, so that only vertical loads are
conveyed to the columns. Partial lateral thrusts transmitted to the columns can arise under
282 ARCH’10 – 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges

different load combinations than the reference one, or under the action of wind on the entire
roof surface.
Fig.3 shows a view of the first five arches during the erection stages; Fig.4 shows an internal
view of the completed roof.

(b)

(a)

(c) (d)

(e) (g)

(f)

Figure 2 : (a) The typical cable stayed arch; (b) transverse section; (c) the arch seen from the above; (d)
lateral view; (e) the focus; (f) the connection to the column; (g) plan of the bracing system
Pier Giorgio Malerba, Paolo Galli, Marco di Domizio, etc. 283

Figure 3 : The assembly of the arches Figure 4 : Internal view of the completed roof

3.3 Cable stayed arch optimization: focus position and pre-tension in the stays
The criteria for the choice of the best shapes in a cable stayed arch are nor simple neither
immediate. For instance, the simple addition of a bundle of stays starting from the centre of the
tie of a normal tied arch, gives little improvement to structural performances: the tie attracts the
highest force contribution in containing the arch thrust, while the others stays remain little
engaged.
A significant evolution of the static behaviour and of the buckling performances under
different load distributions, is obtained when the focus position is moved vertically along the
segment normal to the middle of the chord. Other potentially positive effects can be achieved by
properly choosing the stiffness of the stays, in function of their position, and by giving suitable
pre-tensions to the stays.
For the sake of simplicity, two separate optimisation procedures have been carried out. The
first one was exploratory and referred to a simpler arch, symmetrical and having an horizontal
chord. Such procedure was focussed to find, under several loading distributions, the optimal
position of the central pin, the optimal distribution of the stays stiffness and of pre-tensioning in
the stays (Buraschi L. and Calabrò P. 2006, Malerba P.G. et al. 2007).
The second one, applied to the actual stayed arch layout, was focussed to optimize the
pre-tensioning of the stays. In particular, the design pre-tension in the cables was calculated into
three main steps.
Step 1. With reference to each single arch, having a fixed pin at the support A and a roller at
the support B, (Fig.5.a) the individual effects singularly produced by (a) self weight, (b)
permanent loads and (c) unitary pre-tension forces, applied to each of the cables, were computed
and summarized in the following matrices and vectors: x, y (horizontal and vertical
displacements of the nodes); NCT axial forces in cables, due to unit pre-tension forces; NCS.W.
axial forces in cables due to self weight; NCPERM axial forces in cables due to permanent loads.
Step 2. With reference to the whole structure, the minimum and the maximum axial force
variations in the cables due to imposed loads and wind loads (Fig.5.b, c, d, f) are computed
through a three-dimensional frame model.
Step 3. The pre-tensioning of the cable is optimized. A set of design factors (α) and an
objective function f(α), which equals the horizontal displacement x1 of the roller at the node 1,
are introduced.
Optimisation consists in setting the function x1 = f(α) to zero, under self weight and permanent
loads.
In order to assure a symmetric configuration of the arch, in compliance with the original
design of the roof shape, and to make it easier the assemblage of the transverse beams, of the
main bracings and of the purlins, two symmetry constraints for vertical displacement of the
nodes 2-8 and 3-7 have been introduced.
Two further constraint conditions were defined to avoid that, for the worst loading condition,
some cables remain slack or exceed the maximum allowable tension value.
284 ARCH’10 – 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges

Figure 5 : Single arch model under different loading conditions

The complete optimization procedure is defined by the objective function (Eq. (1)), by
symmetry constraints (Eq.(2) and Eq. (3)), by a slackness constraint (Eq. (4)) and by an
equation that defines the maximum allowable tension (Eq. (5)):
f (α ) = x1 = α ⋅ x 1T + x1S .W . + x1PERM . = 0
T (1)

y 2T ⋅ α + y 2 S .W . + y 2 PERM . = y 8T ⋅ α + y 8 S .W . + y 8 PERM . (2)

y 3T ⋅ α + y 3 S .W . + y 3 PERM . = y 7T ⋅ α + y 7 S .W . + y 7 PERM . (3)

N T ⋅ α + N S .W . + N PERM . + min( ΔN tot.imp. ; ΔN ext.imp. ; ΔN int .imp. ; ΔN env.wind ) ≥ N min.

C C C C ,i C ,i C ,i C ,i C (4)

N T ⋅ α + N S.W . + N PERM . + max( ΔN tot.imp. ; ΔN ext.imp. ; ΔN int .imp. ; ΔN env.wind ) ≤ N max.

C C C C ,i C ,i C ,i C ,i C (5)

The design pre-tensions in the cables are finally computed through the following Eq. (6):
c = N T ⋅ α + N S .W . + N PERM .
C C C (6)

The optimization procedure was repeated for each arch of the structure.

4 THE FRONT WALLS

Both front walls are flat, with the lower part as wide as the building, and with the upper part
which follows the curvature of the corresponding alignment.
The N-W front wall is 84.00 m wide. The structure comprises of a series of 15 trussed
columns, whose height varies according to the shape of the edge beam. In the transverse
direction, the columns are connected by trussed crosspieces, placed along the height at a
distance of 6.00 m between one another.
The edge beam is made of a HEB600 profile, and follows stepwise the roof curvature. This
beam links the trussed columns 1 ÷ 15, connects the upper part of the front wall to the roof and
acts as a support for the cladding.
Pier Giorgio Malerba, Paolo Galli, Marco di Domizio, etc. 285

The remarkable deformability of the roof structure, prone to thermal effects and to wind
action, has suggested to keep the front wall structure separated from the edge beam, which in
turn is connected to the first arch of the roof and therefore follows its movements. Front wall
and roof are hence connected only by means of vertical elements which, emerging from the
trussed columns, are inserted in the HEB600 web with a coulisse mechanism, in such a way that
vertical and lateral movements are allowed, while horizontal movements in a plane
perpendicular to the front wall are impeded.
The N-E front wall (Fig.6) is 60.00 m wide, and its structural characteristics are very similar
to the ones of the N-W front wall, although with a different geometry.

5 LATERAL WALLS AND CLADDING

From ground level (+99.600) up to (+114.600), the role of S-W and S-E lateral walls is played
by those which are actually retaining walls. Above +114.600 and up to the soffit of the
perimetrical upper beams, the gaps between the columns are panelled by two longitudinal strips
of aluminium corrugated sheets, between which a strip of translucent panels is situated.
The translucent panels and the aluminium sheets have the same corrugations.
The N-E lateral wall faces the existing shelter: up to the soffit of the perimetrical beams, this
wall is left open, while it is panelled by the same aluminium sheets above. The B2-B3 field is
partially open and the B3-BK field is completely open.
The lower strip of the N-W front wall, up to +114.600, is closed partially by the retaining
wall and partially by the aluminium panelling. Above this height, the aluminium panelling is
interrupted by two intermediate strips of translucent panels. The N-E front wall panelling is
similar, with the difference that the lower strip is left completely open.
In plan, the roof has the irregular L shape described before. The curved surface which covers
the arches is irregular as well. The geometry of the surface has been specifically studied, in
order to make it as smooth as possible and to grade lights and shadows under different lighting
conditions and from different perspective views (Fig.7).

Figure 6 : The North-Eastern front wall Figure 7 : The building after completion.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a large span roof made of cable stayed arches, which cover a new large
smelter of green coke in Bahrain. The criteria followed in defining the shape of the building and
the characteristics of the roof are described.
As known, the arches are curved structures that carry loads primarily by developing axial
compression. This typical behaviour can be improved by activating a system of pre-tensioned
stays converging to a focus having a suitable position. In comparison with a traditional tied arch,
the pre-tensioned cable stayed arch presents: (a) a strong reduction of the bending moments; (b)
a general increase of the stiffness; (c) a strong increase of the limit multiplier associated with the
Eulerian critical load.
286 ARCH’10 – 6th International Conference on Arch Bridges

Thanks to the efficiency of this structural system, the 60 m to 91 m spans were covered with
a competitive, although unusual, solution.

REFERENCES

Belenya E., 1977. Prestressed Load-Bearing Metal Structures. Moscow, Mir Publisher.
Buraschi L. and Calabrò P., 2006. Performance Analysis of the Cable Stayed Arch, Dissertation at the
Politecnico di Milano.
Kirsch U. 1981., Optimum structural design. Concepts, methods and applications, New York,
McGraw-Hill.
Malerba P.G., Galli P., Di Domizio M. and Comaita G., 2007. Structural Optimization of the Cable
Stayed Arch, 7th W. C. on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Seoul.