F.

ESCRIG 1

THE ROMAN OVAL.

F.ESCRIG, Prof. of the School of Architecture of Sevilla. Spain.

J.SÁNCHEZ, Prof. of the School of Architecture of Sevilla. Spain.
J.P.VALCARCEL, Prof. of the School of Architecture of La Coruña. Spain.
V. COMPAN, Prof. of the School of Architecture of Sevilla. Spain.

SUMMARY:
In 1999 we received the commitment of covering a velodrome pavilion till this moment
uncovered and needed not only to bicycle races but any other kind of performances. The size
was of 145x114 m and 3000 seats around a reglamented path. Our first proposal by which our
team was selected was a complex cap sustained by only four piers. This proposal was
completed with a retractable solution that at last was rejected. The similitude with the Roman
Coliseum was clear and the proportion very similar although we used a rigid greed instead of
a hanged fabric as it was usual in the ancient times. The construction is now in a very
advanced period and after it a lateral wall will be installed that at first not was considered in
the proposal.

This paper includes only the design process as well as the analytical considerations. Some
pictures of the site in its actual situation are also included.

PRELIMINARY DESIGN.
The Fig. 1 shows the preliminary design approved by the Town Council. The problem of
covering an oval was complex. While the sphere segments develop stresses in a uniform way,
the ellipsoid segments stresses are variable and very different between them. We ruled out an
inflate or tensile textile fabric because the client preferred a rigid one. Then we decided to use
a grid of steel pipes in the way of some Japanese designs. We always have avoided the use of
triangulated girders because are more expensive than Vierendeel beams. The only problems is
that is more difficult of mounting for great roofs. In the Fig. 2 we show a retractable
alternative that moved on an horizontal rail.

Fig. 1 Preliminary design.

 F. ESCRIG 2

Fig. 2 Retractable roof

Other consideration done in the preliminary design was how to connect the new roof to the
actual building. Our option was not mix old and new works an this obliged to us to put
outside the supports, that we decided to be only four piers, separated 91 m. (Fig. 3).

91m.
91m.

Fig. 3 Oval on a 91 m square edge. Fig. 4 Generation of the roof.

Our choice for the roof was to intersect two cylinder as it is presented in the Fig. 4 and to cut
the border as a projection of the oval. The borders then could be relatively discharged because
the lines of stress could be oriented like it is shown in the Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Main stresses on the roof oriented. Fig.6. The arches which transmit the roof weight
 F. ESCRIG 3

As the curvature of the roof is small, the horizontal forces are high. The supports then are
subjected to important bending moments. We decided to use piers with great dimensions in a
scheme like shown in the Fig. 7. that took the form shown in Fig. 8 when completely
designed.

Fig. 7. Scheme of the piers. Fig.8. Design of the piers.

FINAL DESIGN.
These piers where oriented in the direction of the line of intersection of the two cylindrical
shells and connected to the box girder that solve the spatial curve of this intersection. (Fig. 9).
The box girder, whit a section of 3 m height and 2m. wide is designed to pass in trough and is
shown in the Fig. 10. together with the border girder, that is similar although it is not
necessary as we said before.

Fig. 9. The grid of the roof.

 F. ESCRIG 4

Fig. 10 The box girders

Fig. 11. Encounter between the grid and the box girders.

The Fig. 11. shows the encounter between the grid and the box girders. It is sure that we could
maintain the image of the preliminary design in which the box of the border are not necessary
but for us the aspect of the whole and the necessity of galleries to the maintenance of lights,
loudspeakers an other devices was preferable.

Other consideration was to decide what kind of greed to use. As we have said , the rigid joints
where preferable for us than pined ones and not triangulated beams better than usual girders.
If we compare in the Fig. 12 a plane beam with a span similar to the central beam of our
design, the difference is obvious. The triangulated one is better and the Vierendeel beam has
poor results. Nevertheless if we plan the same with an arch, the results are different. The
triangulated beam is worst if we attend to the weight. In all cases we have considered the
 F. ESCRIG 5

joints rigid and the pipes the maximum needed for each case dimensioned to the elastic limit.
(Fig. 13.)

ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIMIT DEFLECTION

355.6x20

Uds:T

PESO PROPIO:165 Kp/ml TOTAL: 28,400 T LONG. TOTAL: 172.1m

ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIMIT DEFLECTION

200x8

Uds:T

PESO PROPIO:37.8 Kp/ml TOTAL: 9,327 T LONG. TOTAL: 252.1m

Fig. 12. Comparison between results of Vierendeel and triangulated girder.

ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIMIT DEFLECTION

200x5

Uds:T
PESO PROPIO: 24.0 Kp/ml TOTAL:4,212 T LONG. TOTAL:175.5m

ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIMIT DEFLECTION

200x8

Uds:T
PESO PROPIO: 37.8 Kp/ml TOTAL: 9,652 T LONG. TOTAL: 255.5m

Fig. 13. Comparison between a Vierendeel and a triangulated arch.

We had an other question to study. Could the depth influence the results of the arch design?
The Fig. 14 shows how the single layer is the optimum if we not consider the overall
buckling. But to check this behaviour is complicated and not included in the usual analysis
programs. Then we used to test the general buckling the assimilation to the shell behaviour
with the References 2 and 3.
 F. ESCRIG 6

6 9
−
hm hb4 − 12 8

σ cr = E R
L
being hm the equivalent depth.
A ( pipe _ sec tion ) 69,13 × 2
hm = = = 0,552 cm
d ( depth _ of _ the _ mesh ) 250
hb = Equivalent _ Inertia _ Modulus.
1 1
 12 I  3  12 × 2 × 69,13 × 125 
2 3
hb =   =   = 29.59
 d   250 
L = Lenght _ of _ the _ cylinder = 10000
R = CylinderRadius = 10200 ____ E = 2,1 × 106 Kg / cm 2
σ cr = 6763 .15 kg / cm 2
If we had used a real depth of 200 cm σcr =3594.29 Kg/cm2 , lesser than the Elastic Limit of
the steel.

ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIMIT DEFLECTION

200x8

Uds:T
PESO PROPIO: 37.8 Kp/ml TOTAL:5,912 T LONG. TOTAL:156.5m

ULTIMATE ELASTIC LIMIT DEFLECTION

200x8

Uds:T
PESO PROPIO: 37.8 Kp/ml TOTAL: 9,429 T LONG. TOTAL: 223m

Uds:T
PESO PROPIO: 57,8 T/ml TOTAL: 3,757 T LONG. TOTAL: 65m

Fig. 14. Comparison between different depths of arches.

 F. ESCRIG 7

LOADS TO BE CONSIDERED.
Load Case 1. Self weight. Done automatically by the analysis Programme (SAP2000).
Load Case 2. The weight of the steel sheet and insulation. 20 Kp/sqm.
Load Case 3. Snow load and use. 60 Kp/sqm.
Load Case 4. Machinery. 40 Kp/sqm.
Load Case 5. Wind loads. Tested in wind tunnel (Reference 8) according with the expression
q=150 (cpi - cpe). The figure 15 shows the coefficients cpe.
Load Case 6. Dynamic Analysis. We consider only the first five modes.
Load Case 7. Thermal changes of +/- 30ºC.
We will combine these cases according the codes of practice. The SAP-2000 Programme
checks local buckling.

Fig. 15. Wind loads coefficients.

PROCES OF CONSTRUCTION.
As we have said the construction was planed to be don without demolish anything of the
actual architecture and without connecting with it. Really the old building was of a poor
quality and not was capable of support new loads. Once we had finished the piles (Fig.16) we
begun to connect the box girders (Fig. 17) previously assembled on the ground (Fig. 18) of
parts of them (Fig. 19).

Fig 16 . Piles to connect the roof.

 F. ESCRIG 8

Fig. 17. Confection of box girders to the pile. Fig. 18. Assembling the main box girder.

Fig. 19 Assembling parts of the box girders in site. Fig. 20. View from the box girder.

Fig. 20. General views of the assembling.

Figure 20 shows to states of the assembling. After mounting the central and cantilever box
girders we begun to install the mesh of the corners to make possible to work always from the
play ground for lift all the structure (Fig. 21).
 F. ESCRIG 9

Fig. 21. Lifting the corner mesh to its final position.

Fig.22. Lifting the longest Vierendeel arch beam.

Fig. 23. The longest Vierendeel arch beam put in place.

Fig. 24. The perimeter completely encircled.

 F. ESCRIG 10

THE PERIMETRAL ENCLOSURE.

At this moment, in may 2002 this is the progress of works. But out of the first commitment
we have received the suggestion of propose a solution to close the inner space totally in such
a way to make possible to control temperature and acoustics. The proposal is to hang some
elements containing insulated panels and glasses from the perimeter box girders (Fig. 25).

Fig.25. Proposal of the perimeter wall.

Fig. 4. Lateral view.

7. REFERENCES.
1.- Chilton, John “Space Grid Structures” Architectural Press. 2000.
2.- Buchert, Kenneth P. “Buckling of Shell & Shell like Structures” K. P. Buchert &
Associates. 1973.
3.- Escrig, Felix «Pandeo de Estructuras» Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. 1986.
4.-Escrig,F. Sánchez,J. “Great Space Curved Structures with rigid joints”. Theory, Design and
Realization of Shell and Spatial Structures. IASS. Nagoya 2000.
5.- EUROCODE 1. «Basis of Design and Actions on Structures. Part 2-4:Action on
Structures: Wind Actions» 1995.
6.- Ishii, Kazuo. “Structural Design of Retractable Roof Structures” WIT Press. 2000.
7.- Ishii, Kazuo. “Membrane Structures in Japan” SPS Publishing Company. 1995.
8.- Meseguer, J. «Aerodinámica de Instalaciones Aeroportuarias». Fundación Aena. 2000.