Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Three arches for a roof – case study of a multi-disciplinary design process

  • Case Studies
  • Published:
Architecture, Structures and Construction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, the design process for the remarkable curved roof for a sports hall in Genk (BE) is traced. The project was granted to the partnership of young architects and a renowned office for structural engineering. The new building is roofed with three oversized arches, proposed as a shell structure in concrete in the competition, but executed as a steel truss system. The research is based on files from the archives of both the architect and the structural engineer. Close observations are made on six key moments in this design process. For these pivotal points sketches, documents and communication, are discussed in detail. The goal of this article is to make observations specifically on the collaborative design process between the architect and the engineer, in the specific context of a design competition. The research exposes the messy reality of a design process. It is observed how the final structure got its form, how design decisions were made and how the collaboration defined the project. It is illustrated how relative positions of team members evolve throughout the process and how progressive insight, conflict and mutual understanding are key during the design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29

Notes

  1. The design was never executed, but has only been discarded in 2012, two years after this competition. [12]

  2. The notes in Fig. 7 (Right) state ‘concrete + isolation’ and ‘25% of glass bricks’, which seems to denote the emphasized valley in the sketch.

  3. The part on acoustics states: ‘To achieve good room acoustics, we first look at the geometry of the hall. The volume does not have a standard beam shape, but is conceived as a curved shell structure. This limits the number of flat, even walls and thus the risk of bothersome echoes.’

  4. This statement is made in the competition proposal without further explanation. The topic is addressed again further in the process, and shortly elaborated upon in footnote 9 of this article. It is shown throughout this text how several options to address this problem are scrutinized (equilibrate through thickness of the shells, add outer flanges, tension elements etcetera). In the end it can be seen however that this topic is not of primary importance for the structure, since the arches are executed with a completely different structural system.

  5. One question during the jury is on the structural aspects, which seems to indicate that the coloured scheme (Fig. 12) was indeed misunderstood: ‘The diagram showing the arch action in the "side planes" of the arches shows that the forces transmitted are minimal in the centre of these "side planes". Does this allow to save material here, so that the arch transfers its forces at four points?’.

    The written answer in the jury report [20] is vague: ‘You will always need the tension element between the arches. In other words: the beam will always be there. The hollow beam in which the partition wall hangs actually acts as a tension element. This construction works in the three directions. (note: in the competition design partition walls to subdivide the sports halls were proposed. The rails were integrated in the longitudinal beams in between the arches).

  6. Another example of this tactical approach is in the use of references: The competition proposal shows one reference: the Fronton Recoletos in Madrid by Zuazo Egaldo and Eduardo Torroja. [18] This is remarkable, since they were well aware of the design of Christian Kerez shown in Fig. 7.

    In the beforementioned interview with Bel Architects [4], the architects are complimented with the fact that they share their sources of inspiration, specifically referring to the Fronton Recoletos in this competition proposal. The architects answer that they never show all their references, because it would be contra-productive to put all your cards on the table. They add that this reference was chosen to show that in ‘those years’ not only beautiful shells were made, but as well that it is possible to get beautiful natural light inside with them, which is very convincing. This at least illustrates the architects to be well aware of what to say, and what not to say during the competition phase.

  7. The engineers will publish 6 ‘Study Reports’ throughout the course of the design process. These are often related to intermediary deadlines in the process and summarize the (current state of the) study of the engineers.

  8. From left to right and from top to bottom, results are shown for: normal forces in the direction of the curvature and in longitudinal direction, moments in longitudinal direction, moments in the direction of the curvature, torsional moments and deformations in vertical direction. In none of these diagrams the boundary conditions are identifiable, nor is it clear what loads are used.

  9. ‘The concatenation of different bows, with similar spans and supports on different heights, results in variable thrusts. This imbalance will have to be compensated in the intermediate supports, or transferred by the outer shells to the outer supports. Another idea is to increase the load on the outer bows. Because of this, their thrust increases, until they compensate the intermediate thrust.’[26] The thickness of 32 cm for the outer arches linearly follows from the ratio of thrusts of the different arches and the proposed thickness of 25 cm to meet the equilibrium shape for all load combinations in the inner arch.

  10. When the equilibrium shape is not met, bending moments will occur in addition to compression forces.

  11. Only in the case of smaller prefabricated elements, in which several connections have to be made, it is advantageous to reduce bending moments as much as possible. It can as well be noted that a section that has to cope with bending benefits from larger lever arms. Bending moments thus might as well become decisive for the thickness as well at a certain point.

  12. The table was added in the second (and final) version of Study Report 1.

  13. Laurent Ney.

  14. See black dots on Fig. 22

  15. See also no.11 in Fig. 2 of [7]

  16. In the same way, the roof is only a part of the design story for the whole building.

  17. This is an alternative to the idea to equilibrate with variable thicknesses, as was proposed in the first study report. See footnote 9.

  18. Hangars in Antwerp by André Paduart, for which especially a reusable formwork system would have been developed. A hall in the city of Mons (BE), by René Greisch. And the Nekkerhall in Mechelen (BE). The las two are fully prefabricated, and roof the hall with one arch, not a concatenation of arches.

  19. A sports hall is not a club in the midst of a living area, the mass of the concrete facilitates noise not to be transferred to the outside, but has few advantage for the internal acoustic quality. Fire protection of steel is more labour-intensive than for concrete, but is standard practice.

  20. In the previous paper on this case-study was indicated that the purpose of these ribs was unclear. Further research however brought clarification.

  21. See footnote 3.

  22. The staunch attitude of the engineers might as well be informed by the price estimation they received from a contractor specialized in prefabricated concrete. Of several options, only the most basic one would be feasible within the current budget. This answer arrived in the architects mailbox between Laurent Ney’s phone call and the architects list of questions. They however forward it to the engineers, just asking them to check how the estimation relates to the budget for the roof structure. [41]

  23. For the large spans the height over span ratio is 1/8,125 (4 m over 32,5 m). In rules of thumb for steel trusses for roofs a ratio of 1/10–15 is used. [46]

  24. ‘The architectural quality of your design is in the SPACE. I think it is a pity to endanger the design with such an inefficient choice of material.’ [44]

  25. In the beforementioned text on Ney & Partners:[3] (…) all the firm’s projects bear his own personal signature. Laurent Ney is an author in the original sense of the word. In another article [48] it is explained that this is especially true for bridges. Their work is often less visible when they collaborate with architects on building projects. ‘‘This is our role’, Ney says. ‘We are specialists in structure’. Although their hand is clearly visible in the final project, it can be seen in how design proposals are formulated, that their supportive position is maintained.

References

  1. Team Vlaams Bouwmeester (2009) SELECTIE bij de Open Oproep tot kandidatuurstelling 18 | 2009, projectgebonden selectie m.b.t. het project 13: Volledige studieopdracht voor de renovatie en uitbreiding van het Stedelijk Sportcentrum te Genk. Voorstelling van de 10 geselecteerde kandidaten, Brussels, City of Genk & Flemish Government

  2. Team Vlaams Bouwmeester (2010) Selectiebeslissing bij de Open Oproep tot kandidatuurstelling 18 | 2009, de projectgebonden selectie m.b.t. het project 13:Volledige studieopdracht voor de renovatie en uitbreiding van het Stedelijk Sportcentrum te Genk, Team Vlaams Bouwmeester - Vlaamse Overheid

  3. Strauven I (2006) Laurent Ney's authorship. In: Brunetta V , Patteeuw V (ed) Ney & Partners : freedom of form finding, VAi, Antwerpen

  4. De Kooning E, Van Gerrewey C, Eggermont B (2012) BEL Architecten in gesprek. WZW Editions & Productions, Gent

    Google Scholar 

  5. floating signifier. Oxford Reference. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095824238. Accessed 8 october 2021

  6. Chandler D, Munday R (2020) empty signifier In: Oxford University Press. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780198841838.001.0001/acref-9780198841838-e-862 Accessed 8 october 2021

  7. Devriese T, Van Den Driessche M,Belis J (2021). From exposed concrete vaults to concealed steel trusses: conceptual design as a creative design act rather than a phase. Conceptual Design of Structures 2021, international fib symposium. Solothurn. https://doi.org/10.35789/fib.proc.0055.2021.CDSymp.P015

  8. New Model Code fib special activity group (2012) Model Code 2010 Final Draft - volume 2, fib bulletin 66, International Federation for Structural Concrete, Lausanne, pp 1–5

  9. Stad Genk (2009) Renovatie en uitbreiding sporthal stedelijk sportcentrum. Projectdefinitie, Stad Genk

  10. Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening Genk (2010) Open oproep 1813: stedelijk sporcentrum te Genk - 1e briefing, Stad Genk

  11. Bel Architects (2010) E-mail communication 09/06/2010 to Ney & Partners, Daidalos

  12. Szczelina M (2012) Christian Kerez bids farewell to Warsaw. domus. https://www.domusweb.it/en/opinion/2012/09/13/christian-kerez-bids-farewell-to-warsaw.html Accessed 8 october 2021

  13. Marquez Cecilia F, Levene R (2009) Museum of modern art, Warsaw. In: Christian Kerez 2000-2009: basics on architecture. El Croquis 145, El Croquis, Madrid

  14. Ney & Partners (2010) E-mail communication (internal) 11/06/2010 to project leader Ney & Partners

  15. Ney & Partners (2010) E-mail communication 11/06/2010 to Bel Architects

  16. Bel Architects (2010) E-mail communication 12/06/2010 to project leader Ney & Partners

  17. Bel Architects (2010) E-mail communication 13/06/2010 to project leader Ney & Partners, Daidalos

  18. Beerten J, Louwette T, Ney L (2010) OO1813 B Ontwerp voor de volledige studieopdracht voor de uitbreiding van het stedelijk sportcentrum te Genk (competition bundle), Bel Architects and Ney & Partners

  19. Ney & Partners (2010) Conceptnota.doc (19/06/2010), Ney & Partners

  20. Team Vlaams Bouwmeester, Stad Genk (2010) Gunningsverslag bij de Open Oproep tot kandidatuurstelling 18 | 2009, de projectgebonden selectie m.b.t. het project 13: Volledige studieopdracht voor de renovatie en uitbreiding van het Stedelijk Sportcentrum te Genk, Stad Genk

  21. tv_BEL! – Ney & Partners n.v. (2010) Nota bijkomende vragen: Ontwerp voor de volledige studieopdracht voor de uitbreiding van het stedelijk sportcentrum te Genk, Bel Architects and Ney & Partners

  22. Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening Genk (2010) Open oproep 1813: stedelijk sporcentrum te Genk - 2e briefing, Stad Genk

  23. Ney & Partners (2010) E-mail communication 14/07/2010 to Bel Architects

  24. Bel Architects (2010) E-mail communication 14/07/2010 to Ney & Partners

  25. Ney & Partners (2010) E-mail communication 19/08/2010 to Bel Architects

  26. Ney & Partners (2011) Studierapport 01, Ney & Partners

  27. Ney & Partners (2011) Studierapport 01A, Ney & Partners

  28. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 13/06/2011 to Bel Architects

  29. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 20/06/2011 to Bel Architects

  30. Bel Architects (2011) E-mail communication 22/06/2011 to Ney & Partners

  31. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 22/06/2011 to Bel Architects

  32. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 14/03/2011 to Bel Architects

  33. Contractor (2011) E-mail communication 10/06/2011 to Ney & Partners

  34. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 14/06/2011 to Contractor

  35. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 30/06/2011 to Bel Architects

  36. Bel Architects (2011) E-mail communication 30/06/2011 to Ney & Partners

  37. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 30/06/2011 (2) to Bel Architects

  38. Stad Genk (2011) E-mail communication 01/08/2011 to Bel Architects

  39. Daidalos (2010) E-mail communication 14/06/2010 to Bel Architects

  40. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 22/08/2011 to Bel Architects

  41. Bel Architects (2011) E-mail communication 20/09/2011 to Ney & Partners

  42. Ney & Partners (2011) E-mail communication 22/09/2011 to Bel Architects

  43. Bel Architects (2011) E-mail communication 22/09/2011 to Ney & Partners

  44. Ney L (2011) E-mail communication (internal) 22/09/2011 to Ney & Partners

  45. Sandaker BN, a, Eggen A P a, Cruvellier M a, (2019) The structural basis of architecture. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. te Bovelt A (2004) Bouwmethodiek. In: Hofkens K (ed) Jellema Hogere Bouwkunde 7. ThiemeMeulenhoff, Utrecht/Zutphen, pp 196

  47. Vander Beken J, Cornelis R (2016) Stalen dak in dialoog met bestaande schaaldak. InfoSteel 46:62–64

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sels G (2019) Tegen een brug zegt hij nooit 'Ney'. DS2, De Standaard, pp 2-3

  49. Vandewalle J (2015) Ney & Partners Maatwerk. A+ 252: 58-61

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express gratitude to Bel Architects and Ney & Partners to grant full access to their archives of the project, to make this case-study possible.

Both as well approved the manuscript of this article for publication.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Tilke Devriese, Maarten Van Den Driessche & Jan Belis

Authors
  1. Tilke Devriese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maarten Van Den Driessche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan Belis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tilke Devriese.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Devriese, T., Van Den Driessche, M. & Belis, J. Three arches for a roof – case study of a multi-disciplinary design process. Archit. Struct. Constr. 2, 83–109 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-022-00024-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-022-00024-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation