STRUCTURAL ARCHITECTURE OF WIDE SPAN ENCLOSURES: UNCERTANTIES IN

RELIABILITY ASSESMENT

Massimo Majowiecki
IUAV
University of Venice, ITALY
[email protected]

Key words: structural architecture, wide span structures , reliability, experimental analysis,
monitoring.

1. ABSTRACT

Long span roof are today widely applied for sport, social, industrial, ecological and other activities.
The experience collected in last decades identified structural typologies as space structures, cable
structures, membrane structures and new - under tension - efficient materials which combination
deals with lightweight structural systems, as the state of art on long span structural design.
Many novel projects of long span structures attempt to extend the "state of the art". New forms of
construction and design techniques, adopted in actual conceptual design methodology, generate
phenomenological uncertainties about any aspect of the possible behavior of the structure under
construction service and extreme conditions.
Other factors as human errors, negligence, neglected loadings and/or poor workmanship are most
often involved in malfunction, failures and collapses.
In order to increase the reliability assessment of wide span structural systems a knowledge based
synthetic conceptual design approach is recommended. Theoretical and experimental in scale
analysis, combined with a monitoring control of the subsequent performance of the structural
system, can calibrate mathematical modelling and evaluate long term sufficiency of design.

2. INTRODUCTION

Long span structures are today widely applied mainly for:

Sport buildings Social buildings Industrial buildings
− Stadia − Fair pavillions − Hangars
− Sport halls − Congress halls − Warehouses
− Olympic swimming pools − Auditorium and theatres − Airport terminals
− Ice tracks and skating rinks − Open air activities − Waste material storage

2.1 The state of the art trend on widespan enclosures: the lightweight structures - from
compression to tension.
According to the state of the art, the more frequently typologies and materials used for wide span
enclosures are:
Space structures

− single layer grids

− double and multi layer grids
− single and double curvature space frames [1]

Cable structures
− cable stayed roofs
− suspended roofs
− cable trusses
− single and multilayer nets [2]

Membrane structures
− prestressed anticlastic membranes
− pneumatic membranes [3]

Hybrid structures
− tensegrity systems
− beam-cable systems [4]

Convertible roofs
− overlapping sliding system
− pivoted system
− folding system [5]
The historical trend in the design and construction process of wide span enclosures was and is the
minimization of the dead weight of the structure and , consequently, the ratio between dead and live
loads (DL/LL).
From ancient massive structures (DL/LL>>1) to modern lightweight structures (DL/LL<<1), the
DD/LL ratio was reduced more than 100 times due to the most effective exploitation of the
properties of special high-strength materials, in combination with structural systems where tensile
stresses are dominant (Tension structures). Due to the inherent stability of tension against
compression, tension structures leads naturally to optimization of the system energy against
structures which are subjected to bending moments or are stressed axially with the possibility of
reversal from tension to compression, as is the case with grids and framed structures. Therefore, the
actual trend on lightweight structural typologies is to combine, as far as possible, a dominant
tension mechanical system and hi-strength materials.
In Table 1, is possible to observe the exceptionally efficiency of conventional and HS steels and hi-
tech materials observing the strength to weight ratio (K=σ/γ) in tension (Kt). Considering also the
cost/weight ratio and the inherent reliability, steel remain the reference construction material for
long span structures.
The different mechanical behaviour of compression and tension structures can be illustrated by
Fig.1 where, starting from a thin parabolic arch under uniform distributed load , it is possible to
observe, during incremental loading, the following phases of the load displacement curve:
− Phase A: unloaded structure.
− Phase AB: compression phase; geometric softening; decrease of tangential stiffness, reduction in
the positive value of the secondary term of the total potential energy δ 2π .
− Phase BCE: unstable phase; dynamic displacement from B to E with liberation of kinetic energy
(cross hatched area). Here, the secondary term of total potential energy is negative ( δ 2π < 0 ).
− Phase DEF: tension phase; geometric hardening increase in the tangent stiffness, branch of stable
equilibrium with increasing value of secondary term of the total potential energy ( δ 2π > 0 ).
Phase DEF is characteristic of the behaviour of tension structures. The non-linear geometric
hardening results in a less than proportional increase of stresses in relation to increase external
loads. This provides an increased nominal safety factor evaluated at ultimate limit state (β safety
index).

γk σc R γk
σtR σcR Kt Kc σt R Kt Kc
MATERIALS N/m3 MATERIALS N/m N/m3
N/mm² N/mm² m m N/mm² m m
103 m² 103
Bricks 3 18 166 Unidir. Carbon
1400 15.5 90.000
fibres
Wood 85 37.5 5 21.250 9.375
Textile carbon
Concrete 30 25 1.200 800 15.5 52.000 ---
fibres
S 355 520 79.5 6.664 ----
Unidir.Aramid
1600 13 123.000 ---
ic fibres
S 460 640 79.5 8.050
Textile
aramidic fibres 750 13 58.000 ---
(Kevlar)
S 690 860 79.5 10.080
Unidir. Glass
1100 20 55.000 ---
fibres
S 850 1050 79.5 13.376 ----
Textile glass
450 20 22.500 ---
Titanium 900 45 20.000 ---- fibres

Table1. Mechanical properties of construction

Table 2. Composite hi-tech materials
materials
 Softening Hardening
conditionally inconditionally stable
stable π>0
π>0 δ²π
δ²π

Static instability
δ²π<0

Compression Tension Structures

Structures DL/LL ↓ σ/γ ↑
DL/LL ↑ σ/γ ↓ β↑
β↓

Fig.1: Mechanical behaviour from arch to cable

Several steel long span enclosures, designed by the author according the above mentioned structural
typologies, are shown in Appendix 1.

3. UNCERTAINTIES IN RELIABILITY ASSESMENT

3.1 OBSERVED LIMIT STATE VIOLATIONS IN LONG SPAN STRUCTURES

From the observations of the in service performance, damages and collapses of all or part of
structural systems, we have received many informations and teachings regarding the design and
verification under the action of ultimate and serviceability limit states. Limit state violation for
engineered structures have lead to spectacular collapses as the Tay (1879) and Tacoma bridges
(1940). Sometimes an apparently "unimaginable" phenomenon occurs to cause structural failure.
The Tacoma Narrows Bridge previously cited was apparently one such a case. It was also a design
which departed considerably from earlier suspension bridge design.
Long span coverings were subjected to partial and global failures as that of the Hartford Colisseum
(1978), the Pontiac Stadium (1982) and the Milan Sport Hall (1985) due to snow storms, the
Montreal Olympic Stadium due to wind excitations of the membrane roof (1988) and snow
accumulation (1995), the Minnesota Metrodome (1983) air supported structure that deflated under
water ponding, the steel and glass shell sporthall in Halstenbeck (2002), the acquapark in Moscow
(2004), the Roissy air terminal 2E in Paris (2004) and many others (Fig. 2-8).

Fig.2 Sport hall Arezzo- Partial collapse by local Ponding (1980)

 Fig.3 Milan Sport Hall – Roof collapse by snow load (1980)

Fig.4 Olympic Stadium Montreal – Roof failure under wind action (1988)

Fig.5 Olympic Stadium Montreal – Partial roof collapse by snow accumulation (1995)
 Fig.6 Sport Hall Halstenbeck – Global instability collapse (2002)

Fig.7 Acquapark and swimming hall Moscow – Roof collapse (2004)

Fig.8 Terminal Roissy Airport Paris – Shell collapse (2004)

Those cases are lessons to be learned from the structural failure mechanism in order to identify the
design and construction uncertainties in reliability assessment.
According to Pugsley (1973), the main factors which may affect "proneness to structural accidents"
are:
• new or unusual materials;
• new or unusual methods of construction;
• new or unusual types of structure;
• experience and organization of design and construction teams;
• research and development background;
• financial climate;
• industrial climate;
• political climate.
All these factors fit very well in the field of long span structures often involving something
"unusual" and clearly have an influence affecting human interaction.
In Table 3, the prime cause of failure gives 43% probability (Walker, 1981) to inadequate
appreciation of loading conditions or structural behaviour (Table3).

Cause % Factor %
35
Inadequate appreciation of loading conditions or structural Ignorance, carelessness,
43
behavior negligence
Forgetfulness, errors, 9
Mistakes in drawings or calculations 7
mistakes
Reliance upon others without 6
Inadequate information in contract documents or instructions 4
sufficient control
Contravention of requirements in contract documents or Underestimation of 13
9
instructions influences
25
Inadequate execution of erection procedure 13 Insufficient knowledge
Unforeseeable misuse, abuse and/or sabotage, catastrophe, Objectively unknown 4
7
deterioration (partly "unimaginable"?) situations (unimaginable?)
Random variations in loading, structure, materials,
10 Remaining 8
workmanship, etc.
Others 7 Table 4. Observed error factors.
Table 3.Prime causes of failure. Walker (1981). Matousek and Schneider (1976))

Apart from ignorance and negligence, it is possible to observe that the underestimation of influence
and insufficient knowledge are the most probable factors in observed failure cases (Table4).

4. LONG SPAN STRUCTURES -DESIGN PROCESS UNCERTAINTIES EVALUATION

Considering the statistical results of the -in service- observed behaviour, the unusual typologies, the
new materials and, specially, the “scale effect” of long span structures, several special design
aspects arise and the following types of uncertainties, in reliability assessment, have been identified
[6] :

• phenomenological uncertainties.
• human factors;
• prediction uncertainties;
• physical uncertainties;
• modelling uncertainties.

4.1 Phenomenological uncertainties.

Phenomenological uncertainty may be considered to arise whenever the form of construction or the
design technique generates uncertainty about any aspect of the possible behaviour of the structure
under construction, service and extreme conditions.
Those uncertainties are introduced in designs which attempt to extend the « state of the art »,
including new concepts and technologies. In actual realizations, phenomenological design
uncertainties play a very important role; today we see free formal expressiveness originating
architectural objects such as leaning towers, sculptured bridges, free-form enclosures and the like,
whose shape sometimes has no connection whatsoever with structural principles. Many
contemporaries observe the laws dictated by new design trends as [7] (Fig.9):
 • the prevalence of aesthetics over static rationality;
• stringent search for structural efficiency to solve a more complex issue than reality, in order
to achieve an original solution;
• the categorical rhetoric of structural actions that translate into design languages;
• the structure as a sculpture;
• mechanistic impressionism;
• the metaphorical transposition, into architecture, of Nature and other foreign elements;
• the rhythmic and monotonous repetition of an architectural motif;
• the emphatic representation of a typical element’s details, to identify the overall scale;
• the introduction of auxiliary IT resources.

Fig. 9. New trends in architecture

According to the technical and scientific philosophy taken from Eiffel. Torroja, Nervi and others,
who designed by looking first and foremost at the construction, quite sure that observing the laws of
static engineering would be seen, per se, as a guarantee of aesthetic results achieved, they are no
more than structural forgeries.
On the contrary, many of these new architectural objects marveled us and are appreciated in the
name of the very definition of the word architecture, as an intellectual and technical exercise
directed at adapting our physical environment to the needs of social life. It cannot be denied that
some works achieve the level of architectural and sculptural art and the role played by structures is
merely to support architectural design.
Conversely, these new architectural realities essentially based on individual artistic capabilities can
be didactically deviant. A structural forgery may induce students and professionals to elaborate
design imitations, with the introduction of dangerous unbalanced structural systems and/or
morphological sculptured shapes making any prismatic configuration building look outdated.

The disciplinary correlation between architecture and structures, conceived as an integrated design
language, may be stated as non-existent or false in many modern constructional realities affected by
new painting and sculpture, scenic and cartoonist design variables. Modern examples of structural
architecture are no longer correlated in disciplinary terms as in the past. Even though Spinoza states
that ethics change in time because substances the intellect perceives obviously change, the
introduction of architectural and structural ethical issues, according to the principle of technological
ethical responsibility introduced by Hans Jonas[8], could prevent some technological and structural
stereotypes, such as London’s Millennium Bridge where structural stability was sacrificed to
generating technological astonishment for instance, as well as false conceptual design statements,
didactically deviating, such the Seville Alamillo Bridge, where successful design as a landmark was
associated with the hypothesis that the bridge inclined tower weight was enough to counterbalance
the bridge deck with stays, while most of the material used for the bridge function was, in actual
fact, structurally useless but addressed to obtain a sculpture. Ethics may help to obtain a more
reliable information from design actors and realizations process and, consequently, prevent, at least,
design imitations based on false statements.

Ethics must also not be considered as a limit to creativity in searching for a design idea .In
particular, according to Bignoli[9], the power of human mind as knowledge, understanding,
wisdom, fantasy, imagination and intuition allow a phenomenological uncertainty level, where to
extend creativity matches up with creating a new state of the art (fig.10).

Figure 10. Creativity – extending the Knowledge

Some design errors originating from the lack of interaction between architecture and structural
engineering under the new design trends and circumstances, or non-compliance with ethical
standards according to the principle of responsibility, have been in the past and still are today the
cause of serious unsuccessful design ensuing legal proceedings as well as structural malfunctioning
and even collapse. Considering that modern designing is a complex, holistic, trans-multi and inter-
disciplinary process, that must achieve a required reliability level observing general hypotheses and
feasibility constraints, Structural Architecture (SA) presents as a methodology, a reflective
knowledge, productive of proper design approaches, within the framework of technological
civilization responsibility ethics, in order to reduce phenomenological structural uncertainties.

4.2 Human factors

The uncertainties resulting from human involvement in the design and construction building
process, can be considered in two categories: human errors and human intervention.
To assure a required reliability level, in the field of special structures, the design process must be
checked in the following three principal phases: the conceptual design synthesis [10], the numerical
model, and the working design phases.
The conceptual design is knowledge based and, basically, property of individual experts. Their
involvement in early stages of design is equivalent, from the reliability point of view, to a human
intervention strategy of checking and inspection and, from a statistical point of view, to a "filtering"
action which can remove a significant part of “human errors” (Table5).

Human Human
Error type variability error Gross human error
V E G

In a mode of behaviour against

In a mode of behaviour against which
Failure process which the structure was not
the structure was designed
designed

Engineer’s ignorance or
oversight of fundamental
One or more errors during design,
behaviour. Profession’s
Mechanism of error documentation costruction and/or use
ignorance of fundamental
of the structure
behaviour

Possibility of analytic
High Medium Low to negligible
representation
Table 5. Classification of human errors: Adapted from Baker and Wyatt (1979)

A very powerful short-circuit of “gross human errors” may happen, also informally, by human
intervention factors as may result from the observation that “something is wrong”, action that
directly depends on the skills and abilities of the design team members.
Knowledge-based contribution may remove, from the very beginning, gross errors and reduce,
drastically, statistic human errors. Therefore, it is recommendable that checking or validation
procedures be activated in early holistic stages of design: the conceptual design phase, where the
process is dominated by intuition and expertise (intuition time).fig.11-12
According to the design methodology (plan of work), the conceptual design may be defined as a
knowledge expert approach , based on synthetic reliability intuition, allowing: a decision making
identification of the structural typology, the elaboration of a preliminary numerical model and a
subsequent structural analysis and reliability verifications.

TECHNOLOGY

ART

EXPERIENCE
INFORMATICS
ESTHETICS

INTUITION

KNOWLEDGE
CODES

ETHICS

NATURE DESIGN
SYNTHESIS
IDEA

OBSERV.

SCIENCE

RESEARCH

Fig. 11. Knowledge reducing

Fig.12 Holistic design approach
uncertainties in design process
The above mentioned concepts are now included in some national building codes, which are
normally addressed only to conventional structural systems. As far as innovative designs are
concerned, as in the case of most of the realized long span structures, only few comments are
dedicated as, for instance, in the National Building Code of Canada (1990), point A-4.2.4.1: "It is
important that innovative designs be carried out by a person especially qualified in the specific
method applied...".
Eurocode no. 1 intends to guarantee the level of safety and performance by a quality assurance
(QA) strategy (point 2) and control procedures of the design process (point 8) in order to minimize
human errors.
Other human intervention factors, addressed to reduce human errors, are the formalized methods of
Quality Assurance. QA consider the need to achieve, by the institution of a "safety plan", the
requirements of structural safety, serviceability and durability.
QA procedures include:
a) proper definition of functions;
b) definition of tasks, responsibilities, duties;
c) adequate information flow;
d) control plans and check lists;
e) documentation of accepted risks and supervision plan;
f) inspection and maintenance plan;
g) user instructions.

A real danger is that excessive formalization of QA , born for tangible manufactured articles and
not suitable for intangible conceptual control procedures, could lead to unacceptable and self-
defeating degeneration of the design process, in a certain kind of Kafkian bureaucratic engineering
and management.. Notice about this phenomena is given by Carper (1996) in (Construction
Pathology in the United States) [11]: “many repetitive problems and accidents occur, not from a
lack of technical information, but due to procedural errors and failure to communicate and use
available information”. An important contribution concerning the matter was given by the
International Symposium on “Conceptual design of Structures” organized by IASS [12].

4.3 Prediction uncertainties

An estimate of structural reliability depends on the state of knowledge available to the designers. As
new knowledge related to the structure becomes available, the estimate will become more refined,
with, usually but not necessarily, a concomitant reduction of the uncertainty. This applies
particularly during the conceptual design phase , when information about actual strengths of
materials, new typologies etc., becomes available to replace estimates based on past performances
of, and experience with, similar structures.
From the direct experience of the writer, reduction of uncertainties in designing special structures
may be obtained considering [13]. :
• the necessity to avoid and short-circuit progressive collapse of the structural system due to
local secondary structural element and detail accidental failure;
• the compatibility of internal and external restrains and detail design, with the modeling
hypothesis and real structural system response;
• the parametric sensibility of the structural system depending on the type and degree of static
indeterminacy and hybrid collaboration between hardening and softening behaviour of
substructures.

Furthermore, it would be necessary to have adequate and systematic feedback on the response of the
design by monitoring the subsequent performance of such structures so that the long term
sufficiency of the design can be evaluated.
In the case of movable structures, the knowledge base concerns mainly the moving cranes and the
related conceptual design process have to consider existing observations, tests and specifications
regarding the behaviour of similar structural systems. In order to fill the gap, the IASS working
group n°16 prepared a state of the art report on retractable roof structures [5] including
recommendations for structural design based on observations of malfunction and failures.

4.4 Physical uncertainties

Physical uncertainties are related to loading and material.
Concerning wide covering surfaces loading uncertainties may be reduced considering[14-18].:
• the snow distribution and accumulations on large covering areas in function of statistically
correlated wind direction and intensity;

Figure 13. Montreal Olympic Stadium. Figure 14. Comparative analysis of snow loading
A cable stayed roof solution distribution in function of roof shape (10-13m) [7]

• the wind pressure distribution on large areas considering theoretical and experimental
correlated power spectral densities or time histories (Fig. 15-16) [19];
• the time dependent effect of coactive indirect actions as pre-stressing, short and long term
creeping and temperature effects.

C MIN (Top - Bottom) [file: dati-0000]

p
40

2.50
30 2.19
1.88
1.56
20 1.25
0.94
0.63
10 0.31
0.00
-0.31
-0.63
0
-0.94
-1.25
-1.56
-10
-1.88
-2.19
-2.50
-20

N
-30

-40
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 16. Maximum and minimum

Figure 15.3D rendering of the Olympiakos
values of net pressure coefficients
Stadium in Athens
(wind direction: 0°) [19].

Design assisted by testing (see Eurocode 3-point 8), as experimental investigation in boundary layer
wind tunnel scale models and monitoring in actual structures, have an important role in structural
design of wide enclosures.
Regarding the material uncertainties, special care must be addressed to the reliability and safety
factors of new hi-tech composite materials.
The uncertainties of the material, associated to the very high ratios between live loads / dead
weight, which are an evident characteristic of light-weight constructions, increase considerably the
statistical uncertainties. For instance, the fragility of membrane fabric materials to initial tear
propagation is incompatible with possibilities of ice sack formation (ponding effects) that could
slide on and cut the membrane.
Expertise in structural detail design, which is normally considered as a micro task in conventional
design, have an important role in special long span structures: reducing the model and physical
uncertainties and preventing chain failures of the structural system.

4.5 Model uncertainties

Modelling uncertainties concern the structural and numerical modelling.
The advantages offered by the informatic and automation has been very important in the field of
structural design in general and particularly essential in the case of long span lightweight structural
systems. It was possible to examine more rigorous theoretical models avoiding, on the one hand,
excessive simplifications that deprive the theoretical model, as a schematic reduction of the reality,
of all significance and, on the other, that exhausting calculations lead to the loss of facts with a true
influence, with the consequent discouragement of the designer from making efforts towards trying
out different structural solutions.
Under those apparently favorable circumstances, many documented structural failures has been
detected where mistakes in the inadequate appreciation of structural behaviour was caused by
unreliable man-machine interaction and the illusion that the computers, as powerful instrument of
analysis, could replace conceptual design. For this purpose, IABSE have set up a special
commission for the control of automation in structural design [20] . Documented. FEM modeling
errors are illustrated in the First International Conference on computational Structures Technology
[21].
The interactive software for analysis and design of special structural systems[22]., as normally
involved in wide span enclosures requires in order to reduce modeling uncertainties, more than
general purpose programs, addressed software to assist on many aspects of theoretical analysis as:
− state '0' form-finding analysis, for the shape-finding of cable, membrane and pneumatic
structures (Fig.17);

1973 – IBM 2250 2000 – PC WINDOWS NT

Fig. 17 Hardware and software evolution [22]

− non linear material analysis for elastic, anelastic and plasticity including short and long term
creeping;
 Fig. 18. La Plata Stadium validation analysis. Wind in X direction: (a) load
configuration; (b) null cable stresses; (c) stress diagrams and (d) displacements along
X- direction, Y-direction and Z-direction [23].

− non linear geometrical analysis; for the static and dynamic analysis under large displacements;
− incremental non linear analysis to detect local and global structural instability;
− stocastic dynamic analysis in frequency domain for the buffeting response under the random
wind action considering static, quasi-static and resonant contributions, assisted by the
experimental identification, on scale rigid models, of cross-correlated power spectral densities
(PSD) of the internal and external pressures on large enclosures (Fig. 19-20);

Figure 19. Views of pressure model of Figure 20. Orthogonal

Thermis Sport Hall decomposition: pressure mode shapes

− stocastic dynamic analysis in time domain for the control of the aerodynamic stability of wide
and flexible structural systems under wind excitation, assisted by the experimental identification,
on aeroelastic scale models, of the cross-correlated time histories, considering fluid interactions
(Fig.21-22) [23] ;
 Fig. 21. Dynamic analysis Fig 22. Wind Velocity Simulation [18]

− application of the optimization techniques to the structural design [24];

− parametric stocastic sensibility & reliability analysis[25] (Fig. 23-24).

(x, y , Beta〈0〉 )

Figure 24. β-Safety Index

Figure 23.The new suspended cable roof of
distribution, evidencing SLU
Braga Stadium
sensibility on black region
(Portugal)
(β=3.798) [25]

5. REFERENCES

[1] H. Engel, Tragsysteme, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1967.

[2] M. Majowiecki, Tensostrutture: progetto e verifica, CREA edition, 1985.
[3] C. Roland, F. Otto: Structures, Longman Group Limited, London, 1970
[4] M. Saitoh, Conceptual Design of Hybrid Structures, IASS working group n°6, 1993.
[5] K. Ishii, Structural Design of Retractable Roof Structures, IASS working group n°16, WIT
Press, 2000.
[6] R.E. Melchers: Structural reliability, Elley Horwood ltd. 1987.
[7] N.G. de Moisset, D. Moisset de Espanes: Diseňar con la estructura, INGRESO, Cordoba (R.A.),
2002.
[8] H. Jonas: El principio de Responsabilidad, Herder, Barcellona, 1995.
[9].A.J. Bignoli, The role of subjectivity, Academia Nacional de Ingenieria, Buenos Aires, R.A.,
2000.
[10] M. Majowiecki: Conceptual design of some long span sport structures", Innovative large span
structures, IASS Congress, Toronto, 1992.
[11] K. L. Carper: “ Construction Pathology in the United States”, Lessons from structural failures,
Structural Engineering International. 1/96 and “ Lessons architects can learn from failures”,
Structural Failures and Reliability of Civil Structures, Venezia, 6-7 December 2001
[12] Conceptual design of structures, International Symposium, Stuttgart, Germany, October 1996.
[13] M. Majowiecki: Observations on theoretical and experimental investigations on lightweight
wide span coverings, International Association for Wind Engineering, ANIV, 1990.
[14] Roof snow loading study-roof re-design Olympic Stadium Montreal, Quebec. Report 93-187F-
15, 1993.
[15] B.J. Vickery, M. Majowiecki: Wind induced response of a cable supported stadium roof,
Journal
of Wind Enginerring and Industrial Aerodynamics, 1992, pp. 1447-1458,
[16] B.J. Vickery: Wind loads on the Olympic Stadium - Orthogonal decomposition and dynamic
(resonant) effects, BLWT-SS28A, 1993.
[17] M. Majowiecki: Snow and wind experimental analysis in the design of long span sub-
horizontal
structures, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodynamics, 1998.
[18] M. Lazzari, M. Majowiecki, A. Saetta, R. Vitaliani: “F.E. Analysis of Montreal Stadium Roof
Under Variable Loading Conditions”, IABSE Symposium “Towards a better built environment –
innovation, sustainability, information technology”, Melbourne, Australia,2002.
[19] G. Bartoli, G. Bartoli, P. Biagini, C. Borri, M. Majowiecki, M. Orlando, L. Procino, “Wind-
tunnel tests and design loads of the roof of the new Karaiskaki Olympic stadium in Piraeus”, Official
records of the I.A.S.S. Symposium, Montpellier, France, September 20 – 24, 2004.
[20].Working Commission V: “Using computers in the design of structures” – IABSE proceedings.
[21].First International Conference on Computational Structures Technology, Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, U.K., August, 1991.
[22].M. Majowiecki, R. Trevisan: “A graphic interactive software for structural modelling analysis
and design", Space Structures 4, Thomas Telford, London, 1993.
[23 Lazzari M., Majowiecki M., Saetta A., Vitaliani R., “Dynamic Behavior of a Tensigrity System
Subjected to Follower Wind Loading”, Journal of Computers and Structures, 2003, 81 (22-23),
2199-2217.
[24].A. Samartin: “Application of optimization techniques to structural design, Lightweight
structures in civil engineering, Warsaw, Poland, september, 1995.
[25] N. Cosentino, M. Majowiecki: “Analysis and Mitigation of the Wind Induced Response of
Large Span Suspended Roofs – the case of the New Braga Stadium. Atti dell’8° Convegno
Nazionale di Ingegneria del Vento - IN-VENTO-2004, Reggio Calabria, Giugno 2004.
[26] N. Cosentino, M. Majowiecki, M. Marini, "Dynamic characterization of the New Braga
Stadium large span suspension roof" To be presented at Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil
Engineering Structures - EVACES 2005, Bordeaux, October 2005.
APPENDIX 1

ROMA – OLYMPIC STADIUM

TORINO – STADIUM OF THE ALPES

MODENA – STADIUM

ATHENS – KARAISKAKI STADIUM

BRAGA – SUSPENDED ROOF

PESARO – SPORT HALL

RAVENNA – SPORT HALL

ATHENS – SPORT HALL