Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS)

Symposium 2015, Amsterdam

Future Visions
17 - 20 August 2015, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Shell and spatial structures in timber

Andrew LAWRENCE*, Gavin MALONEYa

*Associate Director, Arup

13 Fitzroy Street, London, W1T 4BQ, United Kingdom
Andrew.lawrence@arup.com
a
Engineer, Arup

Abstract
Traditionally, shell and spatial structures have been constructed from steel and concrete, materials
which are very familiar to structural designers and architects. However, the use of timber in gridshell
and spatial structures is becoming more popular in modern architecture, made possible by advances in
timber manufacturing processes.
The characteristics of timber are very different from steel and concrete and require careful
consideration from an early design stage if an economical, elegant and efficient structure is to be
created. The design of connections play an important role in the behaviour of timber structures, where
stiff ductile connections are difficult to achieve. Arup have been involved in the design of a number of
timber gridshell and spatial structures, including the Metropol Parasol Seville and Centre Pompidou
Metz, which utilise different construction techniques to create complex geometrical structures.
This paper examines the practical challenges presented by timber in the design of modern spatial
structures and will explore techniques utilised by existing and future projects to overcome such
challenges. Advances in the timber manufacturing industry are allowing more complex forms to be
created and their prevalence is likely to increase in the future. It is therefore important that both
structural designers and architects adequately consider the unique properties of timber in their initial
design and analysis to avoid cumbersome connections and inefficient design.

Keywords: Timber design, timber connections, indeterminate timber structures.

1. Introduction
When considering timber as a structural material for shell and spatial structures in place of more
prevalent materials such as steel and concrete, the entire design basis of the structure must be
reconsidered. Simply modifying the strength and stiffness parameters in an analysis model with little
consideration of the behaviour and constructability of timber will result in uneconomic and inefficient
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

designs. Timber is an anisotropic and brittle material which greatly affects its ability to transfer forces
through connections. However, it is also lightweight, easily formed, cheap and sustainable, making it
a very popular choice for architects and clients who want an aesthetic exposed structural form.
A well designed timber structure will consider the unique characteristics of the material at the initial
design phase and produce a structural form that best utilises them. The considerations that must be
made and their implications on design and modelling are explored in this paper.

2. The characteristics of timber structures that need to be considered in design

Most engineers are aware that steel should be specified in standard rolled section sizes for economy.
Similar restrictions apply to timber, but in this case the limitations are more related to the size of the
raw material cut from the tree and the manner in which this is built up into engineered sections.
However, there are other ways in which timber is very different from steel. While in steel it is
conventional to size the members first, confident that the connections can be made to work (if
necessary by welding on stiffeners), in timber the connections are the weak points and will therefore
usually govern the size of the members; ignoring the connections until too late in the design is a trap
that engineers more accustomed to steel often fall into.
Timber is also an anisotropic material and therefore in many ways more similar to reinforced concrete
than steel. Just as engineers must think about the flow of forces in a concrete section and reinforce
accordingly to prevent brittle failure, so in timber it is important to think about the forces in relation to
the anisotropic nature of the material to avoid splitting.
This section explains the characteristics of timber to help the designer take the correct decisions early
in the design process in terms of member sizes and connection details to ensure a reliable and cost-
effective timber structure.

2.1. Member sizes and proportions

In order to create large sections from small trees, techniques have been developed to glue small pieces
of wood together into larger engineered sections. These engineered sections also have more
predictable properties because natural defects in the wood, such as knots, are distributed through the
section. The thin laminates from which the sections are built up can also be readily kilned before
gluing, taking away most of the cross grain drying shrinkage that occurs in green timber after felling.
The most common engineered section is glulam (Figure 1), typically built up from laminates of 30-
40mm thick and up to 260 mm wide (limited by the size of the tree). For wider sections, two glulam
beams will need to be ‘block glued’ together (Figure 1), an additional and complex operation (partly
because of the difficulty of applying even pressure during gluing) that adds significantly to the cost.
After gluing the side faces of the glulam beam must be planed; the largest plane available (2.4m)
places a practical limit on the depth of a glulam beam.
The thin laminates can be easily curved while the glue is still wet up to a minimum radius of about
240 times the thickness, so curved glulam sections are relatively cheap to produce (Figure 1). Thinner
laminates will imply more planing and gluing, therefore about a 5m radius (240 x 20mm) is regarded
as the economic limit. Wood is an anisotropic fibrous material, being about 5-10 times stronger
parallel to the grain than perpendicular. The great advantage of curving the laminates to make a
curved beam is that the strong fibres follow the line of the member. While the curved beams can be
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

post-machined, for example to create a facetted surface, care should be taken to ensure that this does
not significantly cut into the grain and weaken the member. Compared to a singly curved beam,
producing double curvature in which all the fibres follow the line of the member is very expensive,
perhaps increasing the cost of the member four-fold (Figure 1) and should generally be avoided.
In addition to glulam, the other main engineered wood material suitable for framing members is
laminated veneer lumber (Figure 2). This is made from glued peeled veneers in a similar manner to
plywood. LVL is generally available as both a beam material (with all the fibres parallel) and as a
sheet material (with a few cross layers for cross-grain strength and stability). The main advantage of
LVL is that the thin peeled veneers (typically 3mm thick) mean that a natural defect such as a knot in
any one layer has little effect on the overall strength. LVL is therefore about 50% stronger than
glulam. The sheet material is also easily cut into curved members, but this must be done with caution
because the curved cut would introduce a slope of grain; a slope of just 1 in 10 can lead to a 50% loss
of strength.

Figure 1: (top left) Glulam beam prior to planing. (top right) Block gluing several glulam beams
together. (bottom left) Curved glulam beams in press. (bottom right) Doubly curved glulam beams.
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

Though common 50 years ago, built up sections, such as box beams, though efficient in terms of
material, are labour intensive to manufacture and rarely seen today compared to rectangular solid
cross section glulam sections, produced on automated production lines and easily to fix into with bolts
or screws.

2.2 Member strengths

Timber structures generally use softwood sourced from sustainably managed temperate forests, such
as spruce, pine and fir for economy. The softwoods grow naturally straight and the wood is low
enough density to be readily and cheaply kiln dried. Typical design strengths and stiffnesses are about
1/20th of mild steel.
However, about one third of our temperate forests are hardwoods and these are likely to become
increasingly common for higher end structural uses where superior strength (about twice softwood)
and appearance are needed.

2.3 Connection costs

Whereas glulam and LVL manufacture lend themselves to automated manufacture and machining,
making connections into timber members is still relatively labour intensive. Even if the bolt holes and
slots for the steel connections are CNC machined, the steelwork still needs to be fabricated (often by a
separate fabricator) and hand installed. Therefore connections tend to dominate the cost of timber
structures. Recent developments such as long self-tapping screws (Figure 2) are helping to reduce
connection costs, but the weak strength of the wood still means that a relatively large number of
fixings will be required. The strength of a bolt in a timber connection might only be one quarter of the
strength in a steel to steel connection.
An implication of this is that minimum material, does not equate to minimum cost, and also that costs
can be hard to estimate. Both of these are different from steel construction.

2.4 Connection strength

Connections are also the weak points of a timber structure, since the holes and slots weaken the
member (Figure 2), and the wood being brittle is unable to accommodate stress concentrations round
the holes in the way that steel does. Also unlike steel, it is not possible to weld on steel plates to
locally increase the member strength. Finally, spacing between fixings need to be limited to avoid
splitting, because the wood fibres are only weakly held together by lignin.
This means that a steel moment connection into timber will only have about 30-50% of the strength of
the member being connected, for the reasons just discussed combined with the inevitable loss of lever
arm between the steel components providing the push/pull forces at the connection. There is also
limited space to fix in the steelwork, without unduly affecting the residual tension capacity of the
timber.
Moment connections in crossing members are particularly difficult to achieve, which is of course very
different from steel or concrete; the strongest way by building up the members from crossing layers on
site, giving fibres in both directions, has high labour and temporary scaffold costs; again there are
special cases where it makes sense for architectural reasons.
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

Tension connections also have limited strength because the brittle nature of the wood means that the
load is unlikely to be shared equally between all the fixings, with some being liable to fail in a brittle
manner, before the others take up load.
Compression and shear connections are less limited in strength particularly if the load is taken in
bearing, although the weak compressive strength perpendicular to grain does mean that relatively
large bearing areas will often be required.
It is not the purpose of this paper to give full guidance on the detailing of timber connections, but the
most important risk to be avoided is splitting due to the weak perpendicular to grain strength of the
wood. Such splitting could occur perhaps because the member is notched at the end or because a large
steel plate is rigidly fixed to the member restraining the residual cross-grain shrinkage as the wood
comes into equilibrium with the internal conditions. This places further restrictions on the detailing
and therefore strength of connections.

Figure 2: (top left) CNC machining of LVL panel. (top right) Reduced cross-sectional area at
connection. (bottom left) Self-tapping screwed connection, Canary Wharf Crossrail station (image
courtesy of WIEHAG) (bottom right) Transportation of 40m long glulam beam.
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

The combined cost and limited strength of timber connections, means that fabricators will generally
try to limit the number and complexity of connections, maximising member length to avoid more
connections which would otherwise drive up the size of the member. Subject of course to transport
limitations, 40m member lengths are not uncommon (Figure 2).

2.5 Connection stiffness

Connections will also tend to be more flexible than in other materials and this should be taken account
in the modelling. It is partly a function of load having to be transferred from the wood to the typically
steel connection part and partly a function of local compression of the wood around the steel
connection generating additional movements. Dowels for example will “bed in” to the surrounding
wood. Movements of 1mm are not uncommon, which can lead to relatively large rotations at moment
connections. Stiff friction grip type connections cannot be achieved because small amounts of cross
grain shrinkage of wood would quickly lead to a loss of prestress. Glued connections, such as glued in
rods are one of the stiffest connection types but they are relatively rarely used because of the high
workmanship costs.

2.6 Timber is a brittle material

Pure wood failures are brittle. Some of the effects of this have already been discussed above. It also
affects global behaviour as a brittle material will not necessarily have the ability to redistribute loads
in the way we often assume for more ductile materials. Introducing ductility by under-sizing the steel
connection components can help, but there is little data on the amount of ductility which can be
assumed. In heavily indeterminate structures where sensitivity analysis shows that connection stiffness
has a major effect on the load distribution, testing may be required to gain more confidence about
connection behaviour. While some design codes do quote connection stiffnesses, these are generally
based on very limited testing of small connection groups and cannot always being relied upon where
stiffness affects structural safety.

2.7 Fire
In many cases, roofs are not required to be fire resistant. However, in cases where fire resistance is
required this can affect detailing since, for example, steel components will need to be fully embedded
in the wood to protect them from the heat of the fire. Protection of partially embedded steel with
intumescent cannot be relied on unless proven by testing as the behaviour at the point where the
intumescent touches the charred wood layer is uncertain.

2.8 Durability
Again durability will not be discussed in this note on the basis that roof timbers will generally be
under cover, dry and therefore protected from rot, and can also be readily treated for additional
protection from insects in hotter climates. Perhaps the only warning is to avoid condensation risks,
best achieved by keeping the wood in the warm, inside the insulation.
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

3. Implications on design and modelling

As a global engineering consultancy, Arup have been involved in the design of a number of timber
shell and gridshell structures. Notable examples include the Metropol Parasol Seville and Centre
Pompidou Metz. A wide spectrum of experience has been gained on projects ranging from
commercial developments to iconic architectural structures.
Although each project will need to overcome all of the challenges discussed above, the method and
design philosophy used to do so will vary depending on the project’s driving factors. Commercial
projects will favour the simplicity and economics of a one-way spanning structure while high profile
and iconic projects are more likely to value the form of the structure over the cost and will often be
two-way spanning, with more moment connections, have doubly curved members and rely on more
careful analysis and often some physical testing.

Figure 3: (top left) Serpentine Gallery Pavilion, London. (top right) Laminar construction, Serpentine
Gallery Pavilion. (bottom left) National Automotive Innovation Campus, Warwick. (bottom right)
One-way spanning construction method, National Automotive Innovation Campus.
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

3.1 Statical determinacy

An important consideration for any structure is its static determinacy. Statically determinate structures
allow member stresses to be calculated from force and moment equilibrium conditions alone, whereas
indeterminate structures require knowledge of the memeber, joint and support stiffness. These
stiffness values used in modelling analysis, espicially those of joints, are an approximation of the true
value and the design basis relies on the ability of the material to redistribute internal forces. This
method of design is reliable when using a material such as mild steel which has sufficient ductility to
yield and redistribute load without loss of strength. Unlike steel, timber is a brittle material with little
capacity to redistribute loads making this design method potentially unconservative.

3.1.1 Examples of determinate structures

The simplest method of overcoming this challenge is to design a structure which is statically
determinate, removing the reliance on accurate modelling of connection stiffnesses and resulting in a
structure that is simple to analyse. The Serpentine Gallery Pavilion (Figure 3) was an example of how
a two-way spanning structure can be made statically determinate. This was achieved using a lamella
construction where each member is relatively short and spans simply supported between two adjacent
members. The advantage of this is that connection forces can be easily calculated and no hierarchy of
elements exists resulting in a grillage of equal depth members; often desired by architects. The
disadvantage of a statically determinate structure such as the Serpentine Pavilion’s lamella is the lack
of redundancy. Removal of a single element will result in a loss of structural stability, potentially
resulting in collapse. To combat this vulnerability additional fixings were included to provide a tie
between each member and allow the roof to form a catenary, a vital second load path, in the event of
the sudden removal of a supporting element.
Another example of a statically determinate structure is the roof of the National Automotive
Innovation Campus at the University of Warwick (Figure 3) which is formed from one way spanning
members. The original design was a flat lamella structure, similar to the Serpentine Pavilion, but a
one-way spanning design was chosen for its simpler construction method (less propping) and reduced
number of connections. Reducing the number of connections has the benefit of reducing the cost as
they are the largest contributors to the cost of any timber structure and also reducing the deflections
due to the cumulative slip at each connection.
By designing these structures as determinate structures with pinned connections also made them more
economic that designing them with moment connections.

3.1.2 Examples of indeterminate structures

When a structure cannot be made statically determinate, careful consideration must be given to the
relative stiffness of members and connections in the analysis model. The roof of the new Macallan
distillery (Figure 4) in Scotland is a 10,000m2 doubly curved multi-dome structure which contains
both pinned and moment resisting connections. Modelling of the roof included upper and lower bound
estimates of the connection stiffness to ensure conservative values of member forces. Even where
connections are nominally pinned they might attract moment at large rotations and this needs
accounted for. For example, an end bearing plate designed to resist axial compression can provide a
not insignificant amount of rotational stiffness and must be designed to resist any moments attracted.
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

Axial stiffness must also be considered as connections will slip due to dowel embedment when loaded
which may alter the load path of the structure, in a similar manner to the tensile test in Figure 4.
The Metropol Parasol in Seville (Figure 4) is formed from a network of LVL beams creating one of
the largest timber structures ever built. It contains over 3000 connection nodes, each of which forms a
moment resisting joint (Figure 4). Glued in rods were used to provide the large moment capacity and
high joint stiffness required, however, combining a brittle material with a potentially brittle
connection design meant the ability to accommodate higher loads than those calculated in the analysis
model was essential. Any variability in the actual connection stiffness from that used in the analysis
model could result in a change to the flow of forces through the structure and a potential overstress of
members or joints. The most economical solution was to increase the member and connection
capacities by 25% and to ensure that the ductile steel components of the connections governed, rather
than attempt to model the vast number of connection stiffness permutations.

Figure 4: (top left) The Macallan distillery, Scotland. (top right) Dowel embedment and yielding
during tensile test of connection. (bottom left) Metropol Parasol, Seville. (bottom right) Glued-in
bolted connection, Metropol Parasol.
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

3.2 Constructability
The unique properties of timber discussed above have significant implications on the constructability
and hence design of timber structures. These properties can be advantageous, for example advances in
CNC timber manufacturing have enabled complex geometries to be economically produced for
structures such as the Metropol Parasol and Serpentine Pavilion. They can also be restrictive; the
anisotropic nature of timber provides very little strength perpendicular to the grain resulting in a
quickly reducing strength as the slope of grain increases.
At Canary Wharf Crossrail station (Figure 5) all of the timber members of the diagrid structure are
simple rectangular beams with square cut ends and glued in threaded rods. The complexity of the
geometry is restricted to the steel nodes that join the timber elements. This produced a very
economical timber solution and simplified the construction process.
High profile iconic structures are often complemented by more challenging structural forms and
require unconventional construction techniques. The Manheim Multihalle (Figure 5) and Centre
Pompidou Metz (Figure 5) are two examples of such structures. The roof of the Centre Pompidou
Metz, designed by architect Shigeru Ban, is a doubly curved freeform surface. The structure of which
is a hybrid of some shell action of the timber gridshell, catenary action and significant bending. The
grillage is constructed from a two layer lattice of doubly curved timber glulam planks, connected at
the nodes by large timber dowels. Manufacture of doubly curved members is highly cost prohibitive
and often avoided where possible, however in this case the double curvature was an important feature
of the architecture.
From a designer’s perspective, the ideal manufacturing process for a doubly curved and twisted
member is one that produces true double curvature by bending thin singly curved glulam beams about
their minor axis prior to gluing to form the final beam (Figure 1). This process maintains the grain
direction in the correct orientation for optimum strength but requires complicated clamping assemblies
during gluing. For Metz, the cheaper fabrication method for relatively straight members was to
produce oversized singly curved members and CNC machine the member to the desired twisted
double curvature. This had the disadvantage of producing high wastage and a member with its axis at
an angle to the grain resulting in a reduced strength, but was quicker and more economical to produce.
The Manheim Multihalle is one of the best examples of a true timber gridshell. It was constructed
from a two layer lattice of 50mm square timber laths and spans 40m. The double layer provides the
necessary out-of-plane bending stiffness while steel cables provide the diagonal bracing. The shell
was constructed on the ground from flat laths and raised into position, this introduces strains in the
members but greatly reduces the fabrication and erection costs associated with curved members. The
erection process required joints which allowed the laths to rotate and slide past one another; a
combination of pinned and slotted holes were needed to allow for this movement with the final
position locked by tightening of the bolt (Figure 5).
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

4.0 Summary
Design of shell and spatial structures in timber should consider the unique properties and requirements
of the material from the initial stage of design. Connections will play a crucial role in the success of a
timber structure and for economy particular focus should be placed on minimizing the number and
complexity of joints; aiming for pinned connections where possible. Unlike steel, timber is a brittle
material and special consideration should be given to understanding the sensitivity of the load path to
changes in the structure and the capacity of members and connections to form alternative load paths.
Advances in the manufacturing process and the relative low cost of the material have led to a ‘design
for fabrication’ approach which is an essential strategy for the creation of an economical, elegant and
efficient structure.
Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium 2015, Amsterdam
Future Visions

Figure 5: (top left) Canary Wharf Crossrail station, London. (top right) Node connection, Canary
Wharf Crossrail station. (centre left) Centre Pompidou, Metz. (centre right) Doubly curved and
twisted members, Centre Pompidou. (bottom left) Manheim Multihalle, Germany (bottom right)
Manheim lattice connection detail.