Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Wind action evaluation on tension roofs of hyperbolic paraboloid shape

Fabio Rizzo a,∗ , Piero D’Asdia a , Massimiliano Lazzari b , Lorenzo Procino c
a
Dept. P.Ri.Co.S./CRIACIV, Centro di Ricerca Interuniversitario di Aerodinamica delle Costruzioni e Ingegneria del Vento, University of Chieti-Pescara, Viale Pindaro 42, 65127
Pescara, Italy
b
Department of Construction and Transportation, University of Padova, Via Marzolo 9, 35131 Padova, Italy
c
DIC/CRIACIV Centro di Ricerca Interuniversitario di Aerodinamica delle Costruzioni e Ingegneria del Vento, University of Florence, Via Santa Marta 3, 50139 Florence, Italy

article info abstract

Article history: The need to cover large areas while maintaining unobstructed interior spaces is a permanent challenge in
Received 17 April 2009 the design of medium and large span roofs. In compliance with international trends, this paper proposes
Received in revised form anew a technology already used in the past for this type of application: tensile structures made of nets of
1 September 2010
tension cables. Although such structures meet the requirements of today’s market in terms of lightness,
Accepted 2 November 2010
Available online 9 December 2010
innovation of materials, cost-effectiveness and lack of intermediate supports, tension structures are rarely
used in Italy, due to the lack of clear regulations on the structural design and the determination of
Keywords:
environmental stresses on complex shapes such as hyperbolic paraboloids. This research follows two
Aerodynamic consecutive steps: the first one aims at developing an optimized procedure of preliminary designs for the
Hyperbolic paraboloid cable structure; the second one focuses on the study of wind action on these structures. The hyperbolic
Cable paraboloid is the chosen shape for a parameterization leading to an optimized design of this kind of
structure.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0. Introduction
A dynamic approach is now required while designing such
large free spaces where a structure’s flexibility and modifiability
are the most important prerequisites; reference goes to spaces
that act like stages for activities performed all around, such as
sports complexes, swimming pools, sport arenas and shopping
malls. The commonly used structures for these areas are spaces
without mid-span pillar or headroom; as a consequence, they
very often exploit a long-established covering solution such
as the tension structure, improved by new technologies that
make it more reliable and comfortable than before. The tension
structure meets the current market’s requirements in terms of
lightness, innovation of materials, cost-effectiveness and lack of
intermediate support while traditional structures (as, for example,
steel or concrete plates or plywood timbers) often result in being
so expensive and massive that construction becomes difficult.
Among the tension structures, the most frequently chosen
shape to cover large spans is the hyperbolic paraboloid roof.
If on one hand tension structures realise a perfect compromise
between lightness and high structural performance, on the other
∗ wind–structure interaction [4].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 3200384186.
E-mail addresses: fabiorizzo79@libero.it (F. Rizzo), pidasdia@tin.it (P. D’Asdia),
massimiliano.lazzari@unipd.it (M. Lazzari), lorenzo.procino@pin.unifi.it
(L. Procino).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.11.001
hand they are extremely complex in the design phase. In fact, such
structures have a ratio between live loads and dead loads which is
the opposite of traditional heavy structures and this determines
a different approach in structural analysis. Therefore, wind and
snow action analysis has an instrumental role in the design and
optimization of such structures, which can easily buckle and so
are particularly susceptible to dynamic wind action or to snow or
water loads, especially if they are not-symmetrical (eg. [1–3]). For
this reason a non linear static and dynamic analysis – carried out by
specific software and specialised technicians – is needed (eg. [4,5]).
In addition to their design complexity, another constraint
that prevents the diffusion of tension structures is the lack in
international codes of mandatory standards for structural design
and action distribution on complex shapes (such codes exists
only for temporary constructions). In fact, in Italy, in Europe
as well as in the United States, this constructive typology has
been neglected so far and even ignored by building regulations.
This is particularly true concerning the hyperbolic paraboloid
shape or other particular shapes such as hyperboloid or ellipsoid:
they are completely ignored by national & international building
regulations and thus specialized experimental tests (such as wind
tunnel tests) are the only way to study them and to investigate
With the aim of compensating for lawlessness in the prelim-
inary design of tension structures, experimental tests have been
performed in the CRIACIV’s (Interuniversity research Centre of
446 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461
Fig. 1. Roof Structure: Load bearing cable (C1) and Stabilizing cable (C2) (a), Roof structure: 2D - structural system (b).
Aerodynamic and Wind Engineering) wind tunnel in Prato (Italy).
The tests have analysed in particular the wind pressure distribu-
tion on roofs with a hyperbolic paraboloid shape.
The hyperbolic paraboloid is a doubly ruled saddle shaped
surface; it belongs to open quadric surface family and thanks to
its generating parables it allows to obtain only traction stress for
all loading conditions. In a suitable coordinate system X , Y and Z
(X , Y horizontal plane and Z vertical axes), it can be represented
by the equation:
f1 f2
z= x2 − y2
L21 L22
where C1 and C2 are bearing and stabilizing cables, f1 , f2 , are the
cable sags and L1 , L2 are the cable spans Fig. 1.
This is a hyperbolic paraboloid that opens up along the x-axis
and down along the y-axis.
A set of surfaces is obtained exchanging some geometrical
parameters; among them it is necessary to choose the one with
the best geometrical configuration and, in order to obtain it,
a procedure of structural optimization has been arranged. This
procedure considers wind action (pressure and suction), snow
action and dead loads. Optimal geometries are those with the best
balance between used material and high performances: they have
an optimal ratio between sags and spans. These are the shapes
which have been tested in the CRIACIV wind tunnel.
1. Preliminary design
In designing cable structures and particularly roofs with a
hyperbolic paraboloid shape, the primary difficulty is represented
by the setting of the main structures’ geometries for preliminary
design.
The present work defines an automatic procedure to obtain a
sample of optimal geometries starting from many different shapes.
Such a procedure is based on the classical theory of the cable
beam and its purpose is to derive from a three-dimensional surface
described by Eq. (1) a two-dimensional static model that simplifies
and speeds up the calculus. The three-dimensional surface is
represented in Fig. 1(a) and the two-dimensional model in Fig. 1(b).
The steps of this process were the following:
– identification of a bearing zone (load bearing cables with a
down concave) and a stabilizing zone (stabilizing cable with
an up concave) with an opposite flexure. The geometrical
parameters are represented in Fig. 1(a).
– assumption of a two-dimensional model (rope beam) to
simulate the real three-dimensional structure.
The response given by the procedure is structurally approxi-
mate for many reasons: because a three-dimensional structure is
simplified to a two-dimensional model; because it’s considered an
equivalent uniform load to simulate nodal forces; finally because
only the middle cable couple is considered. The result obtained
with the two-dimensional model has been compared with the one
given by the three-dimensional model and the most interesting re-
sults are listed in Table 3(while many other relevant results will be
shown in a future paper). In Table 3 it’s possible to note that the
differences between the simplified procedure and Finite Element
(1) Method Analyses are very small. Considering model approxima-
tion, the numerical error of procedure is marginal. Also the differ-
ence between nodal forces and uniform load are negligible in this
phase because the cable wheelbase is generally much smaller than
cable span. Finally if (1) is used, the middle cables are parallel to
the other cables of net and their curvatures are equal to the one of
other cables of net.
Starting from fixed geometry parameters (spans and sags),
loads conditions (live and dead), minimum and maximum limit
stresses (σmax , σmin ) of cable for the extreme load conditions
(maximum snow action and maximum wind depression), the
procedure of preliminary design evaluates with an iterative
process the ideal value of the cable areas in order to obtain
the balance between the fixed geometrical configuration and the
aimed stress limits.
Four key-conditions of load configuration are considered, as
listed in Tables 1 and 2:
• ‘‘0 condition’’: is the starting balance state where only cable
weight acts. The cable stress is an initial value calculated in
order to maintain, for given geometry, displacements equal to
zero.
• ‘‘1 condition’’: is the permanent action state, where – in
addition to cable one – other elements’ weight operates:
systems, membranes and roof panels’ weight. The difference
of action between 0 condition and this condition brings
a geometrical variation. The ‘‘1 condition’’ geometry is the
final and the permanent roof configuration in case of no
environmental intervention.
• ‘‘2 condition’’: is the maximum snow action state. In this
condition the load bearing cables (C1) reach the maximum
extension and the highest values of stress, while the stabilizing
cables (C2) reach the minimum value of stress; if the structure is
badly designed, then the stabilizing cables reach the curvature
reversal and therefore the structure collapses.
 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461 447

Fig. 2. Different geometric shapes evaluated with the procedure of preliminary design.

Table 1 vertical components of Ti,1 . The procedure evaluates the vertical

Singular load conditions. displacements ∆fi and the value of cable strain for each load
Load conditions Value (kN/m2 ) i (m) Uniform load condition and fixes the cable areas to obtain the cable stress limits
(kN/m) σmax = 1100.0 MPa and σmin = 20.0 MPa [6]. For bearing cables
Dead load 0.02 2.00 0.04 these conditions are:
Permanent load 0.10 2.00 0.20
with snow condition σ2,1 < σmax

Snow — N 1.00 2.00 2.00
(2)
Wind — W 0.60 (suction) 2.00 1.20 with wind condition σ3,1 > σmin .

The steps of the procedure are the following:

Table 2
Load combinations. • Once that loads and geometries are set, the evaluation of the
Load combinations cable areas (A1 and A2 ) is obtained by (3). The value of C1 area
Lable Type is obtained by the ratio between the horizontal cable reaction
‘‘0’’ Dead
and the stress value under ‘‘2’’ load condition. The exact value
‘‘1’’ Permanent + Dead of C2 area (A2 ) is determined iterating the procedure on the
‘‘2’’ Snow + Permanent + maximum C2 stress value under maximum wind action (suction
Dead act) (σ3,2 ). The iteration ensures the balance between cables
‘‘3’’ −Wind + Permanent +
stress and material optimization and it stops when this ratio
Dead
becomes optimal
H1
• ‘‘3 condition’’: is the maximum wind action (suction value) A1 =
state. In this condition cables have a reverse behaviour with ε2,1 E
respect to ‘‘2 condition’’. In this instance the load bearing cable (3)
ε2,1
 2   
∆P · L22
  
L2 f1
C2 reaches the maximum stress values, whereas the stabilizing A2 = − .
cable C1 reaches the minimum stress value.
L1 f2 ε2,2 8 · f2 · E · ε2,2
• Once the cables areas are set, vertical displacements in each
The mechanical parameters involved in the preliminary design
load configuration are obtained by the computation of the
procedure are A1 , A2 cables area, i cable wheelbase, εi,1 , εi,2 strains
cable’s geometrical length. As an example, the work lists the
for different load configurations ‘‘i’’ for bearing and stabilizing ca-
phases that lead to the evaluation of the vertical displacement
bles (in the starting balance state ‘‘0’’ ε0,1 , ε0,2 , with the maximum
under snow action of cable C1:
snow action ‘‘2’’ ε2,1 , ε2,2 and with the maximum wind action ‘‘3’’ – the geometrical length of C1 cable (L0,1,geometrical ) with the ‘‘0’’
ε3,1 , ε3,2 ), σi,1 , σi,2 stress for different load configurations ‘‘i’’. E is load condition, is evaluated by:
the Young’s modulus (that is reduced in order to consider the ca-   2  4 
ble’s steel thread composition and is fixed to 165 000 MPa). 8 f1 32 f1
L0,1,geometrical = L1 1 + − (4)
The aim of the calculation is to determine the value of cable 3 L1 5 L1
areas A1 and A2 . For each geometry it is fixed a maximum value – the cable geometrical length without stress (L1,ind ) can be
of traction forces T for the worst load conditions, where Ti,1 is obtained by:
the general cable traction force for the bearing cable and for L0,1,geometrical
load configurations ‘‘i’’ and Hi,1 & Vi,1 are the horizontal and L1,ind = (5)
1 + ε 0 ,1
448 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461

Fig. 3. Cables area variation with different values of γ (f2 /f1 ), ρ(H /Lmax ), α = 1, Lmax = 20 m (a). Variation of displacements with snow and wind action with different
values of γ (f2 /f1 ), ρ(H /Lmax ), α = 1, Lmax = 20 m (b).

Table 3
Comparison between F.E.M. analysis and the procedure of preliminary design with a 2D static model.
Cable Procedure of preliminary design stress (MPa) F.E.M. stress (MPa) Stress variance (MPa) (%)

C1 856.15 829.05 27.10 (3.26)

Snow
C2 930.00 941.45 −57.05 (6.06)
C1 1041.50 915.30 14.70 (1.61)
Dead
C2 884.40 1024.50 17.00 (1.66)
C1 1085.50 1095.00 −9.5 (1.78)
Wind (depression)
C2 1100.00 1063.10 36.90 (3.47)

Table 4
The tests programme and an outline of the geometrical parameters used.
Lable H Hb L1 (D1 ) L2 (D2 ) Lmax f1 f2 γ ρ α δ
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Square roof (lmax = 80.0 m)

P.1 8.00 13.33 80.00 80.00 80.00 2.67 5.30 2 1/10 1 1/6
P.2 8.00 26.66 80.00 80.00 80.00 2.67 5.30 2 1/10 1 1/3
P.7 13.33 13.33 80.00 80.00 80.00 4.44 8.89 2 1/6 1 1/6
P.8 13.33 26.66 80.00 80.00 80.00 4.44 8.89 2 1/6 1 1/3
Rectangular roof (L1 < L2 ) (Lmax = 80.0 m)
P.3 13.33 13.33 40.00 80.00 80.00 4.44 8.89 2 1/6 0.5 1/6
P.4 13.33 26.66 40.00 80.00 80.00 4.44 8.89 2 1/6 0.5 1/3
P.5 8.00 13.33 40.00 80.00 80.00 2.67 5.30 2 1/10 0.5 1/6
P.6 8.00 26.66 40.00 80.00 80.00 2.67 5.30 2 1/10 0.5 1/3
Circular roof (Lmax = 80.0 m)
P.9 / P.9 w.r. 13.33 13.33 80.00 80.00 80.00 4.44 8.89 2 1/6 1 1/6
P.10 / P.10 w.r. 13.33 26.66 80.00 80.00 80.00 4.44 8.89 2 1/6 1 1/3
P.11 8.00 13.33 80.00 80.00 80.00 2.67 5.30 2 1/10 1 1/6
P.12 8.00 26.66 80.00 80.00 80.00 2.67 5.30 2 1/10 1 1/3

– the cable geometrical length under maximum snow action 1.1. Samples of different geometrical shapes
(‘‘2’’) (L2,1,geometrical ) is evaluated by:
L1,ind Using the previously explained procedure, for a set of different
L2,1,geometrical = (6) geometries a sample of different roof shapes has been defined (it’s
1 + ε 2 ,1
– length variations (∆L0,1 and ∆L2,1 ) in ‘‘0’’ and ‘‘2’’ load presented schematically in Fig. 2). In order to obtain such a sample
conditions about the cable geometrical length without stress three different geometrical parameter ratios are varied:
(L1,ind ) are: • γ ratio between cable’s sags: γ = f2 /f1 ;
∆L0,1 = L0,1,geometrical −L1,ind • r ratio between the roof height (H) (H is equal to the sum of
(7) cable’s sags H = f1 + f2 ) and the maximum value of spans of
∆L2,1 = L2,1,geometrical −L1,ind
cables (C1 and C2) Lmax = max(L1 , L2 ) : ρ = H /Lmax ;
– the vertical displacement values (∆f2,1 ) of the C1 middle
node under snow action are therefore evaluated by:
• α ratio between cable spans: α = L1 /L2 .
∆L2,1 −∆L0,1 Some parametric curves – that can be used in the preliminary
∆f 2,1 = 16 f
. (8) design – can be drawn following the variation of the above-
1
3 L1 mentioned ratios. For example, considering a cable net with cable
The analysis for stabilizing cable and for all load configurations is spans equal to 20 m (L1 equal to L2 ), with the traction force value
carried out in the same way. equal to 150 kN, the maximum stress value of C1 cable (under snow
 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461
Fig. 4. Comparison between F.E.M. analysis and Procedure preliminary design.
action) σ2,1 , and maximum value of C2 cable (under wind suction)
σ3,2 equal to 1100.00 MPa, and with a snow load equal to 1 kN/m2
and wind suction equal to 0.6 kN/m2 , changing γ and ρ ratios,
the optimal cable area values variation is obtained, as reported in
Fig. 3(a). A more meaningful result is obtained by analysing the
interaction between two factors: the cable area and the vertical
displacements of the cable net. The graph in Fig. 3(a) points out
that cable area values fall off until an asymptotic limit when γ ratio
increases; therefore, data say that an optimal state is obtained only
when the C2 span is greater than the C1 span. (L2 should be major
of L1 ). The vertical displacement variations of the previous case are
reported in Fig. 3(b). The absolute value of vertical displacements
increases for a γ ratio greater than 1; in reverse, it falls off for a
γ ratio less than 1. The absolute value of vertical displacements
increases when ρ ratio falls off too.
The above-illustrated preliminary design procedure has been
checked comparing its results with the results obtained by a non
linear analysis F.E.M. In particular, the comparison has taken into
consideration cable stresses in the three main load conditions ‘‘0’’,
‘‘2’’ and ‘‘3’’ (Fig. 4(e) in Table 3). The comparison shows a minimum
difference between the two solutions.
2. Aerodynamic tests in wind tunnel
From the sample of the different geometrical shapes studied
(about one thousand), some configurations have been selected
to be tested in the wind tunnel in order to highlight their
aerodynamic behaviour and calculate the pressure coefficients.
Fig. 5. Cables stress with an optimized geometry: example α = 1, ρ = 1/10, γ = 2.33 (a), Cables stress with a no optimized geometry: example α = 1, ρ = 1/3,
γ = 0.43 (b).
449
Fig. 6. Model shapes tested in wind tunnel.
In a wind tunnel the pressure coefficients are evaluated on
rigid body models so they could be not adequate to describe
the aerodynamic behaviour of tension structures which are
flexible. Actually the flexibility of the tension structure isn’t so
relevant as to affect negatively the coefficients obtained on a rigid
body (many dynamic non linear analyses on FEM models have
proved it). The time-histories of pressure evaluated in a wind
tunnel are applied on FEM models and, if the structure has an
optimal preliminary design, the fluctuations of shape (vertical and
horizontal displacements) aren’t so significant as to change its
aerodynamic behaviour.
The optimal geometries have been chosen analysing the cable
stress variation for each load condition. The followed criterion of
choice is illustrated in Fig. 5(a) and Fig. 5(b). As an example a
geometry with α ratio equal to 1, cable’s span value equal to 140.00
m, ρ ratio equal to 1/10 and two different surfaces of roof; the
first one with γ ratio equal to 2.33, so f1 equal to 4.20 m and f2
equal to 9.80 (Fig. 5(a)) and the second one with γ ratio equal
to 0.43, so f1 equal to 9.80 m and f2 equal to 4.20 m (Fig. 5(b)) is
450 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461

Fig. 7. Pressure take-offs: square model shape height 1 (a), square model height 2 (b), circular model shape (c), rectangular model shape (d).

Fig. 8. Wind tunnel velocity profile (a), wind directions and direction of sections plotted (b).

considered. This example shows that cables nets with a γ ratio less
than 1 have little variations of cables stress values for each load
condition; on the contrary, cables nets with a γ ratio greater than
1 have greater variations of cables stress values, greater value of
vertical displacements, Fig. 3(b), but lower values of cable areas
and consequently lower value of structural weight than the other
configuration of Fig. 3(a).
The selected sample has three different α ratios (and so three
different plan shapes): the first equal to 1 (square plan), the second
equal to 0.5 (rectangular plan with C1 span value less than C2
span value) and the last one equal to variable value (circular plan),
Fig. 6; it has also one value of γ ratio (equal to 2) and two different
values of ρ ratio equal to 1/6 Lmax and 1/10 Lmax . Having in
mind the design of sport arenas, swimming-pools, congress centres
with shopping malls and common inner spaces, it has been taken
into account another geometrical parameter (in the following Hb )
measuring the distance between the roof and the ground floor.
Two values of Hb have been added: 1/3 of Lmax and 1/6 of Lmax and
another geometrical parameter ratio is introduced: δ ratio between
Hb and Lmax : δ = Hb /Lmax .
Table 4 shows the tests program and the outline of the used
geometrical parameters.
The aerodynamic global forces (drag force in particular) are
a function of Reynolds number in relevant measure only for
structures with a circular plan, while structures with a square plan
don’t show a big variation. In the case of structures with a circular
plan, drag force is influenced by side surfaces roughness; this
influence is particularly evident with Reynolds numbers included
between 105 and 106 [7]. Since the structures analysed in the
present paper show a Reynolds number included in the above-
mentioned range, two tests on circular-plan models with two
different degrees of side roughness have been carried out. One test
has the k/D ratio equal to 0 (with k = dimension of roughness and
D = diameter of structure circumference) and the second one has
 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461 451

a b
120

100

80

60

40

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

c d
120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

e f g

h i j

Fig. 9. P1 — test (H = 1/10L, Hb = 1/6L) (a), Cp,m 0° (b), Cp,m 90° (c), Cp,m 45° (d), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (e), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (f), direction
1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (g), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (h), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (i), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (j).

the k/D ratio equal to 0.0025. The results show that the maximum, (reported in [7]). The above-mentioned slight differences come
minimum and average values of CP don’t differ considerably in from the different geometric configuration of the separation fluid
local terms. In overall terms the global forces reflect the literature due to the different degrees of roughness.
452 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461

a b 120
100

80

60

40

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

c d
120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

e f g

h i j

Fig. 10. P.7 — test (H = 1/6L, Hb = 1/6L) (a), Cp,m 0° (b), Cp,m 90° (c), Cp,m 45° (d), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (e), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (f), direction
1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (g), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (h), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (i), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (j).

2.1. Wind tunnel tests their height is between 18.00 and 40.00 cm. All models have about
155–233 pressure take-offs with a pipe size equal to 1.3 mm, that
The tested models are made of wood with 1:100 scale. The plan are distributed on the roofs and on the four lateral surfaces as it’s
size is between 40.00 and 80.00 cm (real size 40.00–80.00 m), while presented in Fig. 7(a)–(d).
 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461
a b
c d
Fig. 11. Square shape tests results comparison: direction 1—0° (a), direction 2—0° (b), direction 1—90° (c) direction 2—90° (d).
Experimental tests have been performed in the CRIACIV’s
boundary layer wind tunnel (e.g. [8–10]) in Prato (Italy). The
boundary layer in the wind tunnel is developed with a ‘‘city’’
configuration. Speed profile (mean value of speed) is presented
in Fig. 8; the maximum speed value is equal to 16.00 m/s
and ground elevation corresponds to 80.00 cm. The sampling
frequency is equal to 252 Hz and the acquisition time is equal
to 30 s. The anemometric measures have been carried out with
four different ground elevation values, 10, 20, 30 and 40 cm. The
pressure coefficients (Cp (t )) are non-dimensionalized with respect
to ground elevation of 20.00 cm and data for sixteen different wind
angles have been obtained. The pressure coefficient values (Cp ) are
equal to the ratio between the orthogonal pressure to surface p(t )
and the static pressure of undisturbed flow p0 , divided by the mean
value of undisturbed flow kinetic pressure qm where ρ is air density
(assumed as 1.25 kg/m3 ) and Vm is mean value of undisturbed flow
speed:
P (t ) − P 0 P (t ) − P 0
CP (t ) = = .
qm 1
2
ρv 2m
The pressure coefficients have been normalized with respect
to the mean value of speed evaluated at a referential ground
elevation (ze ) equal to 0.05 m. The data obtained by experimental
tests are pressure coefficient time-histories from which mean
values (Cp,m ) have been evaluated as well as maximum values
(Cp,max ) and minimum values (Cp,min ), using a probabilistic theory
according to the Gumbel method [11,12], with a comeback period
equal to 50 years. Considering the aim of the present study, it’s
very important to define a time-independent referential value CD
where PD is wind pressure, qD is dynamic wind pressure and VD is
maximum value of wind speed [13]:
PD PD
CPD (t ) = = .
qD 1
2
ρv 2D
453
2.2. Wind tunnel data
Pressure coefficients variation of experimental tests is reported
in Figs. 9–19 For each test the maps of pressure coefficients of
three of the sixteen wind angles (0°, 90° & 45°) are presented
below. Fig. 8 describes the velocity profile simulated in wind tunnel
tests. It’s important to clarify that errors of the registered data
have been replaced by symmetric configuration data and by mean
values of surrounding pressure take-offs data. For each wind angle,
mean (Cp,m ), maximum (Cp,max ), and minimum (Cp,min ) pressure
coefficients values are plotted. The plotted values refer to two cross
sections in the middle of the roof: the first (direction 1) is parallel to
C1 cable direction, the second (direction 2) is perpendicular to C2
cable direction. Negative values of pressure coefficients represent
wind suction values.
2.3. Square shape tests comparisons
(9) Fig. 9 (P.1 tests) and Fig. 10 (P.7 tests) illustrate the experimental
tests results of structures with square plan with two different
values of sag measurements. P.2 and P.8 tests results are not
described fully for the sake of brevity. Fig. 11 shows the comparison
of the behaviour of four different geometric configurations of
square plan models (P.1, P.2, P.7 and P.8 as described by Table 4 for
square roof), reproducing also two different directions of sections
(direction 1 and direction 2) and two different wind angles.
Some meaningful results are obtained by analysing the interaction
between aerodynamic behaviour and geometry of structures. With
a wind angle of 0°, higher values of suction are shown more in the
separation zone (surrounding leading edge) than elsewhere. On the
contrary, an even pace of pressure coefficients is obtained along
the direction 2, where the vortex shedding influence around border
zones is lower. With a wind angle of 90° along direction 2, pressure
(10)
coefficient variation is slow, the separation zone is a wide area and
454 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461

a b 120

100

80

60

40

20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

c d
120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

e f g

h i j

Fig. 12. P.3 — test (H = 1/6L, Hb = 1/6L) (a), Cp,m 0° (b), Cp,m 90° (c), Cp,m 45° (d), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (e), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (f), direction
1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (g), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (h), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (i), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (j).

accordingly to this, along direction 1 pressure coefficients have a
constant trend.
Analysing Cp variation with a wind angle of 0° (Fig. 9(e),
Fig. 10(e)) along direction 1, it results that around separation
zone mean values of Cp (Cp,m ) tail off according to H increment.
This behaviour is due to the fact that maximum values of
Cp (Cp,max ) become negative values. In the exit zone these
differences disappear and Cp values are similar for each geometry.
Along direction 2, the width of the separation zone increases
according to the H increment and minimum values of Cp (Cp,min )
 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461 455

a b 140

120

100

80

60

40

20

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

c d
140 140

120 120

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

e f g

h i j

Fig. 13. P.5 — test (H = 1/10L, Hb = 1/6L) (a), Cp,m 0° (b), Cp,m 90° (c), Cp,m 45° (d), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (e), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (f), direction
1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (g), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (h), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (i), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (j).

increase too. Instead, maximum values of Cp (Cp,max ) tail off and The comparison of mean values of pressure coefficients (Cp,m )
therefore mean values (Cp ,m) as well. This behaviour is more for each geometry (Fig. 11) shows that when Hb increases, Cp,m
evident for wind angles of 90° along direction 1 & 2. increases too; this behaviour is more evident when H increases.
456 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461

a b

c d

Fig. 14. Rectangular shape tests results comparison: direction 1—0° (a), direction 2—0° (b), direction 1—90° (c) direction 2—90° (d).

It’s interesting to note that there is a similarity of pressure
coefficients variation between P.7 test (H = 1/6Lmax and Hb =
1/6Lmax ) and P.2 test (H = 1/10Lmax and Hb = 1/3Lmax ), in
particular around the flow attachment zone for direction 1 and 2
and wind angles of 0° and 90°. So, the flow separation trend when H
increases (and so curvature of roof surface increases) is comparable
to the flow separation trend when Hb increases.
2.4. Rectangular shape tests comparisons
Fig. 12 (P.3 tests) and Fig. 13 (P.5 tests) present the results
of experimental tests performed on a structure with rectangular
plan with variable high and sags measure. Fig. 14 shows the
comparison of behaviour of the different geometric configurations
of rectangular plan models P.3, P.4, P.5 and P.6 as described by
Table 4 for rectangular roof, considering two different directions
of sections (direction 1 and direction 2) and two different wind
angles.
The analysis of Cp variation for a wind angle of 0° shows, as
seen before, that, in direction 1 and around the separation zone,
suction pressure coefficients tail off when H increases. In direction
2, the Cp,min value increases in the middle of roof (Fig. 12(f),
Fig. 13(f)), a fact that reveals a new flow separation caused by the
attachment after the first flow separation around the impact area.
This flow trend disappears when H reduces and so there is no flow
attachment. Along directions where flow is parallel to the shorter
side (direction 2) there aren’t attachments after the first separation,
while along directions where flow is parallel to the longer side
(direction 1) there are attachments near structure borders.
The comparison of structures with rectangular plans with a
wind angle of 0° shows that in the middle of roofs suction values
increase when H and Hb increase in direction 1, (Fig. 14). As a
consequence, flow suction increases because of the large curvature
of the roof surface and of high values of roof height (H).
Wind angles of 90° determine even greater differences. In fact,
in direction 2 there isn’t any attachment of flow in the roof surface.
This is the consequence of the small dimensions of the side parallel
to wind direction; around the middle of the roof, suction values
have a more or less even pace. This effect decreases moving away
from the middle zone of roofs. However, also in this case there
are many differences among different geometries and in particular
among different curvatures of the roof surface. So, roof surfaces
that have smaller curvatures have greater values of pressure on the
opposite side of the impact area. In fact, after the first separation,
wind flow comes down and hits the highest structure borders near
this zone.
2.5. Circular shape tests comparisons
Experimental tests data of structure with circular plan present a
different behaviour of these shapes in comparison with the one of
the square and rectangular plan structures. First of all, relevant data
have been obtained by the roughness variation of lateral surface
which has been determined by the use of two different particle-
sizes. In figures Fig. 15 (P.9 tests) and Fig. 16 (P.11 tests) are shown
the results of experimental tests performed with variable high and
sags measure. P.9 w.r., P.10, P.10 w.r., and P.12 tests results are
not described fully for the sake of brevity. The pressure coefficients
(Cp,m , Cp,max and Cp,min ) decrease with a greater lateral roughness.
As happens for square and rectangular plan structures, also for
structures with a circular plan, Cp values of suction increase with
greater values of H, even if in this case the difference is smaller.
Moreover, in direction 1 and with a wind angle of 0°, it shows that
Cp,max values in the separation zone act as pressure but assume
 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461 457

110
a b
100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

c 110 d 110

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

e f g

h i j

Fig. 15. P.9 — test (H = 1/6L, Hb = 1/6) (a), Cp,m 0° (b), Cp,m 90° (c), Cp,m 45° (d), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (e), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (f), direction
1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (g), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (h), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (i), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (j).
458 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461

a b 110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

c 110 d 110
100
100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40
40

30
30

20
20

0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100

e f g

h i j

Fig. 16. P.11 — test (H = 1/10, Hb = 1/6) (a), Cp,m 0° (b), Cp,m 90° (c), Cp,m 45° (d), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (e), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 0° (f), direction
1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (g), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 90° (h), direction 1 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (i), direction 2 – Cp,m , Cp,max , Cp,min – 45° (j).
 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461
Fig. 17. Circular shapes tests results comparison: direction 1—0° (a), direction 2—0° (b), direction 1—90° (c), direction 2—90°, (d) direction 2—0 (tests with a different
roughness) (e).
a suction behaviour (Fig. 15(e), Fig. 16(e)), on the contrary, in
direction 2, Cp variation has an even pace (Fig. 15(f), Fig. 16 (f)).
It’s very interesting to note that in direction 1, with a wind angle of
90°, Cp variation has a parabolic behaviour (Fig. 15(g), Fig. 16(g)).
Analysing the data, it appears that the size of separation zone
is smaller in these structures than in structures with square and
rectangular shapes, in particular with a wind angle of 0°. As a
result, pressure coefficient distribution on the roof is more regular.
This good aerodynamic behaviour is caused by the absence of
corners and makes this kind of roof very different from square or
rectangular plans. With a wind angle of 90°, the separation zone is
greater and it involves the majority of the roof’s surface. Because of
the absence of a side orthogonal to flow direction, lateral surfaces
are more subject to flow impact than lateral surfaces of square or
rectangular plan structures.
The minor effect of vortex shedding induces smaller difference
of behaviour among different geometries, as for example minor
or major curvatures or different height. Comparing different
geometry data, it appears that ground elevation is more important
than roof curvature.
459
It’s interesting to compare Cp values for a wind angle of 0°
and 90° in direction 1 (Fig. 17): the variation trend is reversed in
the middle of roofs. In fact, with a wind angle of 0° the flow is
parallel to direction 1, it’s detached around the separation zone
and attached just near it; then, with suction, the flow follows roof
curvature; with a wind angle of 90°, it’s orthogonal to direction 1
(parallel to direction 2), it’s detached around the separation zone
and it’s attached in the middle of the roof. It causes also a constant
variation of pressure on the left and on the right side of structure
borders.
2.6. Comparisons
A more meaningful result is obtained by comparing Cp variation
of different shapes of structures. The analysis of data of structures
with the same roof curvature but different plan shape shows
that the square plan structures have a minor value of Cp,m in
the detached regions in direction 1 and with a wind angle of
0° (Fig. 18(a), (b)); in direction 2, structures behaviour is similar
for each shape and Cp,m variation is constant. However, this
comparison shows that square or rectangular plan models have a
460 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461

Fig. 18. Test results comparison square, rectangular and circular shape models: test (H = 1/10, Hb = 1/6) – direction 1 – 0° (a), test (H = 1/6, Hb = 1/6) – direction 1 – 0°
(b), test (H = 1/10, Hb = 1/6) – direction 2 – 0° (b), test (H = 1/6, Hb = 1/6) – direction 2 – 0° (d).

a b

c d

Fig. 19. Test results comparison square, rectangular and circular shape models: test (H = 1/10, Hb = 1/6) – direction 1 – 90° (a), test (H = 1/6, Hb = 1/6) – direction
1 – 90° (b), test (H = 1/10, Hb = 1/6) – direction 2 – 90° (b), test (H = 1/6, Hb = 1/6) – direction 2 – 90° (d).

similar behaviour, which is quite different from the one of circular
plan structures (Fig. 18(c), (d)). The differences among the three
shapes are more in evidence with a wind angle of 90°: square plan
structures have the greatest Cp,m values (Fig. 19), a reverse of the
behaviour with a wind angle of 0°. The circular plan structures
have a different variation than the other shapes and the rectangular
plan structures have a more or less regular variation. Analysing Cp
variation in direction 2 with a wind angle of 90° (Fig. 19(c),(d)),
it can be noted that the Cp,m values in the detached regions of
rectangular plan structures are lower than in the other geometries.
 F. Rizzo et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 445–461
In conclusion, in the separation zone, with wind angle of 0° and
90°, rectangular plan structures have Cp,m values lower than the
other geometries, while, in the orthogonal regions, this behaviour
is opposite.
Wind vortex shedding effects determine local actions of
positive and negative pressure which result particularity high,
close to roof edge in the direction of incident wind. The results
described in the paper allow to define some almost constant areas
of pressure (positive/negative) which are similar to those reported
in the regulations (for other type of roofs) to be used in the check of
secondary elements. Local pressure effects have a great relevance
in the applied-engineering field for the sub-horizontal roof
design.
3. Conclusions
The purpose of this research project was the study of
aerodynamic behaviour of hyperbolic paraboloid shaped roofs and
their structural response. This geometrical shape is specific to
design tension structures of cables nets which are particularly
adapt to cover large spans because they are light and characterized
by innovative technical systems and have high performances.
For about twenty years, this structural typology hasn’t been
widespread and has been even ignored by building regulations.
Even now in Italian or European codes as well as in the most
important international codes (as, for example, the USA codes)
there isn’t information about preliminary design or about wind
loads.
In order to reach the above-mentioned goal, wind tunnel test
have been done on structure with an optimal geometry obtained
from a sample of the different analysed geometries. Three different
shapes of plans (rectangular, square and circular) have been chosen
in order to take into account the most important market demands.
Experimental tests have been performed in the CRIACIV’s wind
tunnel in Prato (Italy) on twelve different geometries and the
pressure coefficients were obtained for sixteen different wind
461
angles. These coefficients will represent a help guide to design
roofs with hyperbolic paraboloid shape.
The results show that the double curvature structure of roofs
causes a complex aerodynamic behaviour and it’s impossible to
ignore the three-dimensional effects of vortex shedding for wind
angle as 45°. This aspect has been proved also by three dimensional
Computational Fluid Dynamic analyses carried out for all the
geometries tested in wind tunnel; these results will be shown in
a future paper.
References
[1] Melchers RE. Structural reliability. Elley Horwood Ltd; 1987.
[2] Majowiecki M. Snow and Wind experimental analysis in the design of long-
span sub-horizontal structures. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1998;74–76:795–807.
[3] Lazzari M, Majowiecki M, Vitaliani V, Saetta A. Nonlinear F.E. analysis of
Montreal Olympic Stadium roof under natural loading conditions. Eng Struct
2008.
[4] Lazzari M, Saetta A, Vitaliani R. Non-linear dynamic analysis of cable-
suspended structures subjected to wind actions. J Comput Struct 2001;79(9):
953–69.
[5] Lazzari M, Vitaliani RV, Majowiecki M, Saetta AV. Dynamic behaviour of a
tensegrity system subjected to follower wind loading. Comput & Structures
2003;81(22–23):2199–217.
[6] Majiowiecki M. Tensostructure: Design and control 1994 [in Italian].
[7] Simiu E, Scanlan RH. Wind Effects on Structures 1996.
[8] D’Asdia P, Rizzo F, Sepe V. Wind action and optimized shape of a tension roof:
Pescara’s roof stadium. In: Proceeding of INVENTO 2006, 2006 [in Italian].
[9] Biagini P, Borri C, Majowiecki M, Orlando M, Procino L. BLWT tests and design
loads on the roof of the New Olympic Stadium in Piraeus. J Wind Eng Ind
Aerodyn 2006;94:293–307.
[10] Bartoli G, Costanzo C, Ricciardelli F. Characterisation of pressure on build’s
surface with a separate flow. In: Proceeding of INVENTO 2006, 2006 [in Italian].
[11] Gumbel EJ. Statistic of extremes. N.Y.: Columbia University Press; 1958.
Cook & Mayne, On design procedures for wind loading, Building Research
Establishment, Garston 1978.
[12] Gumbel EJ. Statistic of extremes. Columbia University Press; 1974. Lieblein
J, Efficient methods of extreme value methodology, Report 74-602, National
Bureau of Standards: Washington.
[13] Rizzo F. Tenso-structure for Pescara’s roof stadium. 2005, Pescara, Italy, April;
2005 [in Italian].