Structural Assessment of Guastavino Domes
Rafael Guastavino refined the technique of erecting thin terra-cotta tile, a thousand year old building system of ‘Catalan Vaulting.’ His company was involved with more than 1000 buildings in North America between the 1880s and the 1960s. Although Guastavino tile vaulting contributed to many prestigious buildings of that time, the structural behavior of this construction system has received little or almost no attention in the literature. It is the intention of this thesis to study this empirically designed system by using tools of modern engineering: experimental modal analysis, thin elastic shell theory and finite element analysis.
List of Figures
Chapter 1
-
Figure 1-1: The view of three identical domes and massive arches, CCB, PA
- Figure 1-2: The view of rib and dome construction, SEB, NY
- Figure 1-3: The progress chart followed through the thesis
Chapter 3
- Figure 3-1: Theoretical accelerance FRF (log-log) for an underdamped single degree of freedom system
- Figure 3-2: Experimental setup for impact excitation on domes
- Figure 3-3: Relieving the strain from the cable (Technical Literature, Courtesy of Kistler Instrument Corp.)
- Figure 3-4: View of the back of the domes, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-5: Mode shape estimates of the preliminary FE model, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-6: The preliminary test set-up, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-7: The accelerometer mounting, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-8: The driving point magnitude FRF and coherence plot for point #7, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-9: The magnitude FRF of point #7 and #3 plots for symmetry check, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-10: a) The magnitude FRF of point #7 and #9 plots for reciprocity check b) The ΔFRF between FRF (7,9) & FRF (9,7), SEB, NY
- Figure 3-11: The linearity checks for driving point data at point #7, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-12: The repeatability checks for driving point data at point #7, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-13: The final test set-up, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-14: The hammer operator stepping on the dome shell, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-15: The dynamic parameters obtained at point #15, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-16: The first mode shape identified by utilizing STARModal, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-17: The modal identification by Quadrature Response Analysis, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-18: The complicated nature of the structural system involving steel truss, side-by-side tile domes and connecting tile buttresses, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-19: The FRF obtained from steel girders, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-20: The test set-up to identify the dynamic interaction between structural members, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-21: The dynamic response obtained with a steel sphere impact, SEB, NY
- Figure 3-22: Mode shape estimates of the preliminary FE model, CCB, PA
- Figure 3-23: Placement of data points shown on the square plan of dome, CCB, PA
- Figure 3-24: a) FRF magnitude and coherence graphs for point #2 b) FRF real and imaginary graphs for point #2, CCB, PA
- Figure 3-25: a) The driving point FRF for all data points b) The imaginary FRF for all data points graph of summation of all measured driving point data, CCB, PA
- Figure 3-26: The reciprocity checks between points #2 and #5, CCB, PA
- Figure 3-27: The repeatability checks at point #2, CCB, PA
- Figure 3-28: Type Nyquist graph, CCB, PA
- Figure 3-29: The identification of the interaction of the domes is done by modal analysis, CCB, PA
Chapter 4
- Figure 4-1: Geometry of spherical shell (Kraus 1967, “Thin Elastic Shells” pg. 19., Courtesy of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
- Figure 4-2: Stress couples on the differential element, (Kraus 1967, “Thin Elastic Shells” pg. 40., Courtesy of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
- Figure 4-3: Differential element of a shell (Kraus 1967, “Thin Elastic Shells” pg. 39., Courtesy of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.)
- Figure 4-4: The geometry of masonry domes, SEB, NY
- Figure 4-5: a) The natural frequencies obtained by this shell theory b) The upper and lower branch Ω2 values
- Figure 4-6: The vertical section of the first five mode shapes estimated by thinshell theory for SEB, the deformation pattern is symmetric with respect to symmetry line
- Figure 4-7: The geometry masonry domes, CCB, PA
Chapter 5
- Figure 5-1: Pendentive dome
- Figure 5-2: The decoration on the walls of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, NY
- Figure 5-3: SHELL63 element, (ANSYS 9.0 tutorial, Courtesy of ANSYS, Inc)
- Figure 5-4: SHELL93 element, (ANSYS 9.0 tutorial, Courtesy of ANSYS, Inc)
- Figure 5-5: The tile and mortar sample obtained from site, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-6: The hydraulic displacement controlled testing of tile and mortar unit
- Figure 5-7: The experimentally determined stress vs. strain curves for tile
- Figure 5-8: The experimentally determined stress vs. strain curves for mortar
- Figure 5-9: View of the back of the domes, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-10: FEM model of the single dome, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-11: The repetitive rib-dome system, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-12: The configuration of tiles oriented in two directions, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-13: The composite nature of tile and mortar assembly
- Figure 5-14: Steel I girders contacting the tile domes along pendentives, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-15: The final boundary conditions, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-16: The FEA mode shapes matched with experimental data, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-17: Meshing with triangular and quadrilateral elements, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-18: The automatic mesh refinement in three steps, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-19: The first principal stress distributions, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-20: The second and third principal stress distributions, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-21: The normal stresses along z-axis, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-22: The reaction forces at the validated support conditions, SEB, NY
- Figure 5-23: The decorative Guastavino domes, CCB, PA
- Figure 5-24: FEM model of the dome shell, CCB, PA
- Figure 5-25: View of top of the dome, buttress and arch, CCB, PA
- Figure 5-26: The final boundary conditions, CCB, PA
- Figure 5-27: The FEA mode shapes matched with experimental data, CCB, PA
- Figure 5-28: The diagonal crack formation on CCB tile domes
- Figure 5-29: The first principal stress distribution, CCB, PA
- Figure 5-30: The second and third principal stress distributions, CCB, PA
- Figure 5-31: The reaction forces at the validated support conditions, CCB, PA
Chapter 6
- Figure 6-2: A typical voussoir arch vs. a timbrel arch vs. a reinforced concrete arch
- Figure 6-3: The construction of The National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, DC, 1959 (Courtesy of Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University in the City of New York)
- Figure 6-4: Four tile thick Guastavino vault testes under 563 tons pig iron, 1901. (Courtesy of Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University in the City of New York)
- Figure 6-5: Demolition of vaults of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY 1963 (Courtesy of Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University in the City of New York)
- Figure 6-6: The punched vault of the Boston Public Library, NY, 1892 (Courtesy of Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University in the City of New York)
- Figure 6-7: The trademark of the company, showing some of the domes constructed in Guastavino brand of vaulting, 1915 (Courtesy of Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library, Columbia University in the City of New York)
- Figure 6-8: The force equilibrium for a voussoir arch
- Figure 6-9: The initial architectural design accepted by the art commission (Courtesy of Carnegie Mellon Archives)
- Figure 6-10: The section through the Grant Street Logia by James L. Stuart, (Courtesy of City County Building Archives)
- Figure 6-11: The back of the domes of City County Building
