Page 54 - 건축구조 Vol. 28 / No. 04

Feature
Innovation in practice thestructuralengineer.org
해외작품소개

S performance was almost completely in

Figure 7
Building confidence – 90t load before further 20t of kentledge from nearby tower crane was added
line with the calculations. This first stage

of testing was fundamental to convincing
people that the solution would work.
Once the tender process was complete
and the prototype had demonstrated viability
to the tenderers, further load tests were
completed with the intention of testing to
destruction. However, the structure was
so strong that it couldn’t be broken using
available ballast on site, thereby achieving
(and passing) the required design resistance.
To reduce the uncertainty that contractors
might perceive in adopting the new
technique, the project team also created a
number of samples of the materials that the
contractors would be required to create,
and invited interested bidders to attend a
mid-tender information session to discuss
the project (Figure 8). This helped the
contractors to understand the implications

Figure 6
for staffing and workflow, and to tailor their

Rerem nosapel idesti ium suntur? Accusda
bids appropriately. Indeed, one of the main
reasons for building the prototype was to
show the bidding contractors that what they
were being asked to build had already been
built, using labour from the local area with
no previous experience of ferrocement. It
in persuading people that the ferrocement gave them a partial precedent to study, and
was a suitably robust material for the canopy. confidence that it could be built.

This confidence led through to the next stage Contractors were also given the
– the formal testing. opportunity during the tender process to
propose alternative solutions. If they met
Formal tests the functional specification and came in at a

The formal testing of the ferrocement lower cost, they would have been adopted.
involved the creation and testing of more However, none of the solutions proposed
sample panels. The tests were undertaken was able to meet the technical requirements
in laboratory conditions to test the set out in the functional specification.

physical performance of the canopy and N Ultimately though, more than one of the
to understand potential failure modes. Figure 8 tenderers proposed to build the canopy as it
Mid-tender information day
However, a rig which would allow for had been designed.
the required biaxial loading to test panel builders, and minimising the need for new Once a contractor, Impregilo-TERNA,

buckling/crushing didn’t exist, and this too skills; using a form of reinforced concrete, had been appointed, the firm picked up the
needed to be designed. albeit unusually thin, made the process of challenges of innovation with its structural
After this series of formal tests, tendering a little easier. engineers, Penelis Consulting Engineers,

confidence in the material increased further, A prototype 6m × 16m section of the undertaking further testing over and
and the process of detailed design was then canopy (Figure 7) was constructed by a local above what would be done for a standard
possible with more certainty. contractor who had no prior experience build, improving the confidence in, and

of ferrocement. This prototype was to performance of, the final deliverable. Their

Convincing someone to build be test loaded for stiffness and cracking commitment to delivery ensured that the

it – prototyping tolerance. The prototype also had a role building was successfully delivered, and is
With new construction approaches, there in demonstrating buildability, as discussed now attracting international recognition.
is a limited pool of builders who might below. The innovation process on the SNFCC

engage with the new techniques. One Confidence was high that the solution canopy has shown that innovation isn’t
of the challenges was to ensure that the could deliver the required performance, always easy. To succeed, it requires
development process led to more than but there remained a residual concern over collaboration, commitment, time and

one contractor being able to bid and build ‘what if…’, particularly as the prototype’s investment (personal as well as financial)
the project. The team was very careful to steel mesh did not entirely match the by the whole team, as well as a healthy

contain change, surrounding any innovative specification (as the conforming mesh had a measure of creativity, engagement and
elements with as much standard technology long lead-in). Thankfully, when the prototype courage. However, it is important to
as possible, highlighting the novelty to the was loaded to the serviceability limit, the remember that innovations don’t always
20 January 2017 | TheStructuralEngineer
52 건 축 구 조 2021 _ 07 _ 08 제28권 / 제04호
TSE61_14-21 Feature-Innovation in Structural Engineering.indd 20 15/12/2016 10:44