1. Heathrow’s new air-traffic control tower in the airport context.

Terminal 5, London Heathrow: With the basic height and location requirements
selected, the project team’s task was to develop an
efficient and elegant tower design, simultaneously
The new control tower addressing the considerable construction challenges
of building on an island site surrounded by aircraft.
A key requirement was to cause no operational
disruption to the running of the airport; this had
Jeremy Edwards Richard Matthews Sean McGinn a significant effect on development of the design
solution and the construction that followed.
Functionality
The size and position of Terminal 5 necessitated a new
The location at Heathrow’s centre necessitates full
central location for Heathrow’s air-traffic control tower, 360˚ views from the cab, whilst the taxiways and
which introduced challenges for the project team in the stands at the tower base need an extremely low
tower’s design, fabrication, and delivery. viewing angle. To fulfil these requirements, the final
design provides what is thought to be the largest
cone of vision of any control tower in the world
Introduction (Fig 3). However, the requirements of floor space
for the controllers and their equipment had to be
This is the third Arup Journal article to deal with aspects of Arup’s work on Terminal 5
at Heathrow Airport, London. It follows accounts of the project’s 3-D and 4-D design
environment1, and the structural design of the main building2.
In March 2008, T5 opened, increasing further the size of the world’s busiest
two-runway airport, where in any one day the UK National Air Traffic Services (NATS)
controls the movements of over 1000 aircraft approaching and departing, as well as T1

managing the planes taxiing around (Fig 1). T5

b
a
Air-traffic controllers have to maintain constant visual contact with aircraft, and T3
T2
thus air-traffic control towers are crucial to ensuring that operations remain safe and
efficient. T5 introduced obstructions to the required sightlines between the existing
tower and aircraft using the new terminal, so a new location at a new height was
needed. The optimum tower dimensions were calculated by assessing the sightlines T4
to all taxiways and stands on the enlarged airport, whilst the best location was
determined as the airport’s geographic centre, at a height of 87m (Fig 2). 2. Plan of Heathrow Airport showing location of (a) old and
(b) new control towers.

34 The Arup Journal 2/2008

balanced against the detrimental effects of increasing the size of the cab, which
included reduced angles of vision for individual controllers, larger areas of glass, more
solar gain, and wind drag on the tower. A great deal of detailed 3-D co-ordination
between all design disciplines was needed to provide the most compact yet functional
space possible (Fig 4).
The cab contains four levels, the highest being the visual control room (VCR),
accommodating desks for 13 controllers. This floor is set back from the 10m high
glass façade. At the base of this wall is a gallery space used to service the sub-
equipment room containing communications and radar equipment. Underneath the
sub-equipment level is the rest and recreation area containing a rest room, kitchen,
toilet, and office. An external walkway here accesses a permanent cleaning cradle to
service the entire cab glass wall.
The lowest level accommodates the air-handling plant as well as docking for the
lift that travels up the outside of the mast. The mast structure itself contains stairs, an
internal lift, and various risers for M&E and IT purposes. This rises through the middle
of the cab and services every level.
Finally, a three-storey building at the base of the tower contains the NATS offices,
administration and training rooms, technical equipment areas, and main plantrooms. 3. The 10m high glass façade provides a large cone of vision.

Construction method
Importantly, the construction strategy was developed in parallel with the design.
A key aspect of the project was the use of the T5 agreement, the form of collaboration
contract used by BAA when appointing its design consultants and contractors. Visual
control
This allowed the tower design to be specifically tailored to suit the erection strategy, room

with designers and construction team working together from the outset. Gallery
The design team considered using a traditional slip-formed concrete cantilever
mast, but this would have required regular and uninterrupted concrete deliveries. Rest and
recreation
Security, operations, and radar restrictions applying in the airport would also have
necessitated an on-site batching plant, with cranes only usable in five-hour night-
time airport closures. In view of this, the team decided on a cable-stayed steel tower,
Plant
which could have half the mast diameter of an equivalent cantilevered mast structure.
A steel tower could also be prefabricated and transported to site in 12m lengths,
completely fitted out with stairs, lift cores, and mechanical-and-electrical risers,
and then bolted together. 4. Section through control tower cab.
In addition, a small-diameter cable-stayed mast satisfied concerns about the visual
impact of a traditional large-diameter concrete cantilever tower on the Heathrow
skyline, as well as making it possible to construct the cab at ground level around the
base of the mast, and later jack it up into position at the top. Building the cab at low
level had several safety advantages, though significant challenges were also involved
in making it structurally stable with the large hole through the middle for the mast.
These were met by using an idea from the petrochemical industry for erecting
process plant (Fig 5). Its great advantage is that is allows the complete cab to be
built at ground level without incorporating a temporary hole for jacking the cab up
the mast. Understanding the prefabrication, transportation, and erection requirements
was essential in defining the parameters to control the maximum diameter of the mast
and the design requirements for the cab structure.

Dynamic performance
Alongside the erection strategy, another factor critical to the structural requirements
for the mast was wind-induced movement of the completed tower.
Setting appropriate “comfort” criteria for tall buildings is more difficult than
most design cases faced by engineers; here the tower’s dynamic performance
was critical to the comfort of the air-traffic controllers. In the case of wind-induced
lateral movements, acceptable performance is both time-dependent and varies with 5. Tower jacking: three temporary works towers support
occupier sensitivity. The more often movement occurs, the less tolerant are occupiers strand-jacks and yoke system; the strands lift the yoke
and mast off the ground via hydraulic jaws to allow a new
of the level of lateral acceleration they experience. In the case of Heathrow, which section of mast to be inserted underneath.
often experiences fairly windy conditions, the frequent lower-strength winds formed
the critical design case.

The Arup Journal 2/2008 35

 During the early design stages, various levels of axial stiffness needed to control the head of the mast
lateral acceleration were demonstrated to the and also provide considerable reserves of strength,
air-traffic controllers on a motion simulator at allowing the tower to operate safely if cables ever
Southampton University, and levels of acceptable need to be removed for replacement. The cable
movement of the control room were agreed. natural frequencies are governed by the cable
With these performance limits established, the mass, axial stiffness, and the degree of pre-tension.
design then focused on the tower’s aerodynamic Coincidentally, the optimum pre-tension for overall
performance, stiffness, and damping. tower stiffness resulted in cable natural frequencies
very close to those of the tower system as a whole.
Wind-tunnel testing De-tuning the cable pre-tension would have resulted
6. Cab model in Extensive wind-tunnel modelling (Fig 6) was in a much less efficient structure.
wind tunnel. undertaken to optimise the tower’s aerodynamic The final engineering factor that determines the
performance by reducing the drag and crosswind tower’s dynamic performance is its damping.
response of the design. These tests were used to The natural damping of the steel mast and cables is
develop a unique aerodynamically sculpted enclosure low (0.5%), so small viscous dampers were attached
for the support rails and drive cables of the external to the main cables to damp their lateral vibration,
passenger lift, reducing both the drag on the tower to prevent unpredictable and uncontrollable transfer
and improving the high-wind operation of the lift. of energy between the cables and tower dynamic
Small aerodynamic strakes (stabilisers) were modes, and to and lift the overall tower damping
also developed in the wind tunnel. Attached to the to 1.5%.
side of the mast, these control vortex-shedding and Finally, two hybrid mass dampers (Fig 12) were
a) significantly reduce the cross-wind response (Fig 7). installed at the head of the mast immediately below
the control room floor. These have both passive and
Mast stiffness and damping active operational modes. In normal higher-wind
The tower’s lateral stiffness and mass define its situations, accelerometers in the cab detect tower
natural frequency. The amount of wind energy movement and the control system then activates the
available to cause motion, and the sensitivity of the dampers, moving the 5 tonne suspended masses in
tower occupants, are both frequency-dependent. the appropriate direction to counteract the wind-
In developing the Heathrow tower design, the driven tower movement. These raise the overall
diameter, type, geometry, and pre-tension of the damping of the tower to levels in excess of 10%
main stay cables was critical to its final performance. critical damping. Arup was instrumental in developing
b) The 150mm diameter locked coil cables, stressed the design and validation of both the passive and the
7. Airflow around 1:30 to a 10th of their normal working capacity, give the active damping systems.
mast model in a
wind-tunnel smoke
stream without
(a) and with (b) 8. Prefabricated mast section before installation of stairs and lift risers.
aerodynamic strokes.

36 The Arup Journal 2/2008

 a) Temporary erection stresses Construction co-ordination
-200MPa One construction issue remained: prefabrication of the cab structure at ground level
-100 would require cranage. This would limit construction to night time only as cranage
-50 limitations were in force during airport operations. However, it was realised that as
0
the cab structure was designed to be lifted by strand jacks attached to three points
50
b) Permanent on the temporary works jacking frame, the same points could be used to lift and
mast stresses
transport the cab from a remote site using multi-wheeled transporter units able to lift
and transport large loads, as is the case in the petrochemical industry.
The client, BAA, identified a suitable open site near Terminal 4 that would enable cab
construction and fit-out to start early and progress in parallel with installation of the
main foundations on the control tower site. These foundations comprise 1050mm
0.01MPa and 750mm diameter piles, and pile caps up to 4.1m deep that support the tower,
26.12 the base building, and permanent guy cables. The site had to be cleared in order to
52.23
construct the main foundations.
78.34
104.44
Mast fabrication
130.55
156.66 As site work progressed, the first 12m long mast sections were fabricated. To achieve
satisfactory alignment and force transfer between adjacent mast sections, careful
9. Mast stress diagrams. control of tolerances in each was required.
The initial fabrication method used on the two top mast sections did not give
adequate steel tolerances, but fortunately they could still be used because the
Structural design compressive forces at the top of the tower are low, and the lower tolerances
The steel mast was built in eight sections, normally
12m in length, with a 30mm thick outer steel skin,
11. Cross-section through top of tower.
vertical longitudinal stiffeners, and horizontal stiffener
hoops. The stresses induced in the steel mast during
the temporary jacking cycles (Fig 9a) were very
different from those it experiences in its permanent
erected state (Fig 9b), and so it was designed to
Visual
resist these considerable stresses during erection. Tuned mass control
dampers room
Apart from the obvious compression loads carried
by the mast, the critical additional design loads were High level
service void
generated by concentrated load from the lifting jaws
during erection and by locked-in thermal stresses in
the permanent state. Sub-engineer’s
room
The high axial stiffness of the cable stays generate Gallery
Rest and
unusually high thermal stresses, as they restrict the recreation
tower’s natural tendency to sway sideways under area

differential solar-induced thermal expansion on one Office

side of the mast. A grey glass-flake epoxy paint, with External

maintenance
low solar absorption, was used to limit the locked-in gallery
thermal stresses in the mast.
Thermal-stress modelling by Arup also showed
Services M&E plantroom
that even a small air velocity makes a big difference
void
to the steel temperature gradient around the mast.
Back-analysis of UK Meteorological Office data
showed that, even on the hottest days, there is Lift lobby

always a small amount of background wind, and this

was duly added to the thermal model.
To maximise usable floor space, the cab has
no internal columns. Radial trusses in the roof act
with each of the 24 façade mullions to form a 3-D
portal frame. Floors within the cab span between
the perimeter mullions and the steel mast. At the
12. A 5 tonne active
lowest cab level, structural loads in the mullions are mass damper
transferred to the red-coloured structural steel skin located at cab level.
spanning between the three support points offered
by the main cable anchorages (Fig 11).

The Arup Journal 2/2008 37

 were acceptable. In the revised procedure, precision successively added to the underside of the tower
jigs were used to fabricate 3m long sections of mast (Fig 15). Software developed by the jacking
tube, which were heavily braced during fabrication to contractor was used to ensure that the lift was
control weld shrinkage effects. Before removal of the always level by controlling the strand jacks and guy
bracing, the sections were heat-treated to stress- cables. Prior to its use on site, the control logic of this
relieve them and ensure that fabrication accuracy custom-written jacking software had been tested and
was maintained. The 3m sections were then stacked refined using a small-scale test rig.
and welded into the final 12m lengths. Prior to To ensure verticality of the tower during the lift,
painting, the bolted interface flanges at the ends of both optical and GPS surveying were used to monitor
the mast sections were milled and CNC (computer the plumb of the mast. In general the top of the tower
12. Erecting the two top numerically controlled) drilled to ensure precise fit and was maintained within 25mm of plumb throughout
mast sections for alignment on site. Before transport to site, the mast erection (Fig 16).
cab construction.
sections were fitted out with the steel stairs, service During the jacking cycles a procedure linking
risers, and the lift enclosure. regional weather forecasting and local wind
measurement was put into place to predict and
Cab construction monitor the weather conditions during each lift.
Cab construction on the remote site began with The erection procedure had various wind limits
a temporary piled foundation, off which the 32m placed on it but in the case of the most severe
high cab was built. The top two sections of mast predicted weather, the tower was to be lowered
were used as a core from which all the floors were onto its foundation and supported on multiple
suspended (Fig 12). The main cable anchorages, interconnected jacks forming a hydraulic pin at the
stressed steel skin, and structural mullion systems base. In this situation, a second set of guy cables
were added to create a coronet of 24 mullions to (Fig 5) were to be tensioned to give the mast
which the roof would connect. additional strength and stiffness. Fortunately no
13. Locating cab roof The roof structure, complete with internal acoustic weather severe enough to need these precautions
onto 24 mullions. lining, access walkway, decking, and waterproofing was experienced. As well as eliminating non-uniform
was constructed at ground level. The entire 50 tonne compression stresses in the mast, the hydraulic
roof was craned into place (Fig 13) and connected pin also served as a damper to absorb energy from
to the ring of mullions. Before being moved from the wind-induced oscillations and remove the risk of
temporary site, the cab was fully fitted out with M&E aerodynamic instability during all stages of erection.
plant, walls, and ceilings. As the lifts progressed, a cycle of mast jacking
during the day was followed by preparation of the
Moving the cab next mast section during a night shift. Although
Preplanning the cab’s 1.5km journey across the the rig could raise the mast to the required height
airport took considerable effort. The route crossed for each lift in a day, the process demanded so
over the southern runway and involved using the much preparation that it took about three weeks
main taxiways to get to the final site. The entire route in all. However, all five mast lifts were completed
had to be meticulously assessed for its load-carrying without incident while airport operations continued
capacity because at close to 900 tonnes, the uninterrupted around the site (Fig 17).
14. Moving 900 tonnes transported load greatly exceeded the 400 tonnes
1.5km across Completion
the airport. of a fully-loaded Boeing 747 for which the pavement
was designed. Damage to the runway or breakdown With mast erection complete, the project immediately
of the transporter en route could cause effective progressed to the erection and fit-out of the base
closure of the airport - with resultant damages likely building and the connection of services between it
to exceed half the value of the entire control tower and the cab. Once this was complete, the temporary
project. Detailed contingency plans were put in place guy cables were removed and the permanent
to cover all eventualities. 150mm diameter locked coil cables installed from
After a 24-hour delay due to thunderstorms, a crane and tensioned during a further series of
the overnight move (Fig 14) was achieved without night-time operations.
incident in less than two hours amidst a sea of press The final installations and commissioning in the
and TV cameras. At the control tower site, the 32m tower included tuning the hybrid mass dampers to
high, 750 tonne cab was manoeuvred and placed suit the tower’s final as-built natural frequency.
onto its foundation to within 10mm of dead centre. Also installed was a 100m pedestrian bridge link
from the control tower base building to the end of
Mast erection Terminal 3’s Pier 7. Each section of the glazed bridge,
15. Jacking the cab to Once the cab was successfully moved, the mast designed by Thyssen, was prefabricated in 30m
87m height.
jacking towers were installed and the first of five lengths, brought directly to the tower site, and rapidly
mast lifts commenced, each mast section being craned into place during night time operations.

38 The Arup Journal 2/2008

16. Jacks controlling guy cables during the lift.

Conclusion Jeremy Edwards is an Associate of Arup with the Building London 4 group. He is a structural
engineer and has had several roles on T5, including assistant structural engineer for the air-traffic
The new tower went ”live” in February 2007 when full control tower.
airport operations transferred and the old tower was Richard Matthews is a Director of Arup with the Building London 9 group. He leads the
closed after 52 years of service. structural engineering team for T5, and acted as Project Leader for BAA on the air-traffic
control tower.
Building a new air-traffic control tower in the
Sean McGinn is a Senior Associate of Arup with the Buildings Melbourne, Australia, group.
centre of Heathrow’s airside operations involved
He was lead structural engineer of the air-traffic control tower.
unique construction and operational requirements
that largely dictated its architectural and engineering
form (a more detailed description of the project has
been published elsewhere3). This tower satisfies
the air-traffic controllers’ requirements, yet was Credits
constructed with no disruption to the airport’s Client: BAA (building owner, airport operator, overall project manager) Building operator: NATS
daily operations and no accidents. Its successful Architect: Richard Rogers Partnership Project manager, structural engineer (superstructures),
acoustics, façade, wind and dynamics engineer: Arup - Andrew Allsop, Mike Banfi, Francesco
completion demonstrates the value of T5’s integrated Biancelli, Nick Boulter, Anita Bramfitt, Simon Cardwell, Jeremy Edwards, Rob Embury, Matteo
design and construction philosophy. Farina, Graham Gedge, James Hargreaves, Richard Henderson, Roger Howkins, Angus Low,
Richard Matthews, Chris Murgatoyd, Daniel Powell, Sean McGinn, Nils Svensson, Ian Wilson,
Peter Young, Andrea Zelco Engineer (substructure): Mott Macdonald Temporary works
designer: Dorman Long Technology Infrastructure engineer: TPS M&E engineer: DSSR Cost
manager: Turner & Townsend/EC Harris Construction integrator: Mace Steelwork supplier:
Watson Steel Substructure contractor: Laing O’Rourke Jacking and cab transportation:
Faggiolli M&E and infrastructure contractor: AMEC Façade supplier: Schmidlin Lift supplier:
Schindler Fit-out supplier: Warings Logistics: Amalga Illustrations: 1-10, 12-17 BAA/HATCT
project team; 11 Nigel Whale.

References
(1) BEARDWELL, G et al. Terminal 5, London Heathrow: 3-D and 4-D design in a single model
environment. The Arup Journal, 41(1), pp3-8, 1/2006.
(2) McKECHNIE, S. Terminal 5, London Heathrow: The main terminal building envelope.
The Arup Journal, 41(2), pp36-43, 2/2006.
(3) MATTHEWS, R. Creating Heathrow’s new eye in the sky. Civil Engineering, 161(2),
pp66-76, May 2008.

17. Tower and base building under construction.

The Arup Journal 2/2008 39