Upload
live732
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/4/2019 Georgia Dome - Analysis
1/4
Analysis of the Georgia Dome Cable Roof
Gerardo Castro, M.ASCE and Matthys P. Levy, F.ASCE
Proceedings of the Eighth Conference of Computing in Civil Engineering and Georgraphic Information
Systems Symposium, ASCE,
ed. by Barry J. Goodno and Jeff R. Wright. Dallas, TX, June 7-9 1992.
AbstractThe world's largest cable dome, to be completed for the 1992 football season in Atlanta, will be the
centerpiece of the 1996 Olympic Games. Spanning 766 ft x 610 ft (233.5 m x 186 m), it will be the first
Hypar-Tensegrity Dome. This new cable supported teflon-coated fabric roof is based on the tensegrity
principles first enunciated by Buckminster Fuller and Kenneth Snelson. Because of the large deformation
characteristics of this type of structures, special geometric nonlinear analysis is required. This paper
describes the modelling and the behavior of the roof for the Georgia Dome under different loadings.
Structural SystemThe Georgia Dome is the first Hypar-Tensegrity Dome to be built. In a Hypar-Tensegrity Dome, shown in
Fig. 1, hyperbolic paraboloid fabric panels are attached to a cable net that is rigidized by the use of
tensegrity principles.
Fig 1. Hypar-Tensegrity Dome
The plan configuration of the Georgia Dome is an oval defined by two radii. A ring beam along the outer
edge of the roof is supported, on radially sliding bearing pots, by 52 columns projecting up from the
seating structure below. Twenty six attachment points spaced about 82 ft (25m) on center around this
compression ring serve as the springing points for the cable dome. The top surface of the dome consists of
a triangulated network of cables attached together at nodes equally spaced along smaller and smaller
meridians located 68, 154 and 250 ft (20, 46 and 75m) from the attachment points on the ring beam.
Figure 3 shows that in section the structure appears like a truss in which the bottom chord is discontinuous
and is replaced by a series of hoops in plan that link bottom chord nodes.
Fig. 2 Sections
These tension hoops are connected to the upper cable net by compression posts and diagonal back-staycables. A center cable truss ties the two circular ends of the cable net together. The upper cable net is
deformed by raising the nodes of alternate meridians to achieve a hyperbolic paraboloid geometry for
each of the fabric panels.
rgia Dome - Analysis http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/DOMES/GEORGIA/g-anal.html
4 2011.10.01. 11:50
8/4/2019 Georgia Dome - Analysis
2/4
LoadsApart from a low selfweight of about 6 psf (0.3kN/sq.m), the roof is subject to live load, snow load, wind
load, seismic load, temperature load, and loads imposed on the continuous hoops by catwalks. In addition,
the structure must be analyzed for construction loads taking into account the erection sequence. Each
node is also capable of supporting a suspended load of 1000 lbs (455kg). The minimum roof live load is 20
psf (1 kN/sq.m) which can be reduced to 16 psf (0.8 kN/sq.m) for the design of the fabric and 12 psf (0.6
kN/sq.m) for the design of the cable net. Wind tunnel tests were conducted by RWDI of Guelph, Ontario,
on a rigid model under conditions simulating the full scale atmospheric conditions pertinent to the Georgia
Dome site. The tests revealed that no resonance would occur for the range of natural frequencies of the
structure. Fig. 3 shows the first four vibration modes, which correspond to frequencies of 0.441, 0.682,
0.716, and 0.725 Hz for the prestress and dead load condition. The mean wind loads for a 50-year wind
speed, shown in Fig. 4, indicate suction over the entire surface of the roof because of its flat profile.
Fig 3. Vibration modes.
Fig 4. Mean wind loads.
Prestress
If built based on the initially defined geometry, the cable dome would seem like a limp noodle even under
its own weight. Therefore, a cable dome needs to be prestressed to compensate for the tendency of some
cables to go slack. In order to simulate the prestress condition computationally, the simple device of
introducing a temperature change in members was employed. A nonlinear analysis using LARSA was
performed on the complete cable dome. If the results indicated that some cables were in compression, a
local temperature change was applied to those members and the problem was rerun. The runs were
repeated to iterate to a condition where no compression cables existed. It was determined that an initial
prestress averaging 30% of cable capacity was needed to rigidize the structure. Since the deformation of
the structure was well within normally accepted criteria, it was not necessary to use additional prestress.
BehaviorThe results of the analysis for the first loading condition, prestress plus dead load, are shown on Fig. 5.
From these results, it is apparent that much of the load on the roof gravitates toward the four corners as
can be seen by the ridge and diagonal cable forces. Forces in the hoop cables remain relatively constant
which allows the clamping detail to be relatively small. On the other hand, forces in the ridge cables
decrease markedly toward the center. This implies large changes in the force at a top node and therefore
the need for large clamping forces to absorb the change in tension in the continuous cables. The shape of
the moment diagram for the compression ring confirms the fact that the four corners of the roof structure
attract much of the roof load. Obviously, in alternate configurations, as the oval shape tends toward a
circle, moments would disappear as the circle becomes the funicular for the loads.
Fig. 5 Prestress & dead load forces.
rgia Dome - Analysis http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/DOMES/GEORGIA/g-anal.html
4 2011.10.01. 11:50
8/4/2019 Georgia Dome - Analysis
3/4
The design of the top cable net, ridge cables, was controlled by the wind
load, while the design of the diagonal and hoop cables was controlled by
the live load. Since the dead load of the roof is very low, seismic loads do
not affect the cable design and must be considered only for the supporting
column design. The bearing posts that support the compression ring allow
for free radial displacements so that the effect of the temperature variations is minimized. Maximum
displacements in the cable net were found to be 2.5 ft (0.75 m) down and 2.4 ft. (0.72 m) u pfor live load
and wind load, respectively.
Construction SequenceThe design of the cables and the connections must consider the construction sequence, that in the case of
the Hypar-Tensegrity Dome results in large changes in forces and in geometry requiring a complex 3-D
nonlinear analysis. The first step is to hang the ridge net from the compression ring and then install a
diagonal cable at a time with its corresponding post and hoop cable. Results from a simplified 2-D model
using LARSA are shown in Figs 6 and 7 for the variation in roof geometry and in tension force in the
diagonal cables. These results assume that the first diagonal to be installed is the outermost, D4, and the
last one is the innermost, D1. The sequence can be altered in order to minimize the maximum required
jacking force.
Fig. 6. Erection sequence.
Fig. 7. forces in diagonal cables.
OptimizationIn order to verify the choices made in the initial stages of the project, when time constraints did not allow
for geometry optimization, and to provide guidelines for future development of the Hypar-Tensegrity
Dome concept, an optimization study was prepared with the objective of defining the most economicalgeometric configuration. Three factors were considered: sector width, the post height, and the number of
rings. These are obviously interdependent as exemplified by considering increasing sector width, which
requires the membrane curvature to be increased, as shown in Fig. 8, to remain within permissible stresses.
An optimal configuration was sought using cost as the ultimate criterion. A parametric nonlinear analysis
using LARSA was performed using varying post heights and ring spacing. The results shown in Figs. 9 and
10 suggest that an increase in post height over that used for the Georgia Dome may result in a lower cost
configuration. It is also apparent that a two ring solution may be more economical than the three ring
configuration used.
Fig. 8. Fabric panel.
rgia Dome - Analysis http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/DOMES/GEORGIA/g-anal.html
4 2011.10.01. 11:50
8/4/2019 Georgia Dome - Analysis
4/4
Fig. 9. Cost optimization results.
Fig. 10. Optimal configurations.
ConclusionsStructures such as the Hypar-Tensegrity Dome require special analysis and could not have been realized
without the availability of computers and nonlinear programs. Without computers, only rough
approximations of the forces in such a highly indeterminate structure could be obtained and furthermore
only solutions for symmetrical or other simple loading conditions could be studied. A software package
like LARSA provides not only the answer to the every day analysis and design problem but also the
nonlinear solutions that large deformation structures require. This leads to the ability to economically
construct complex structures which would not otherwise be feasible, opening the door to an exciting range
of possibilities limited only by the creativity of the engineer.
Back to Published Commentary
rgia Dome - Analysis http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gsapp/BT/DOMES/GEORGIA/g-anal.html
4 2011 10 01 11 50