ENG2100 Construction Materials – Individual Case Study

December 21, 2015

Key aspects:
I will be writing about a structure at the Queens Elizabeth’s Olympic park, most notably the
main Olympic stadium. The stadium was primarily built to host the 2012 Olympic games.
Even though it had one main big function to fulfil, the way it was designed and built allowed
the stadium to be transformed with only slight dismantlement making it into a multi-use
venue stadium. Currently to not be vacant and abandoned it has hosted 2015 rugby world cup
matches after the Olympic games.
The land that the stadium was built had to be prepared and this started mid-2007. Once the
land was ready a sunken bowl base area had been dug out and cleared by May 2008. The
construction therefore started with the pilling works for the foundation. The construction
came to an end on time in March 2011.
The design life for the roof was actually only 1 to 2 years as it was designed to be dismantled
and recycled into a new roof implemented in a future design. The sunken concrete bowl on
the other hand is estimated to have a very long design life. The entire structure was labelled
the ‘greenest Games to date’ and is light and elegant.
The stadium has two main materials used through out. The stadium can be separated into two
parts, the roof and its supports and the sunken bowl. The roof and its supports are made from
completely recycled steel. The bowl is made from recycled aggregate concrete.
The stadium is located on a diamond-shaped island on a socially, economically and
environmentally deprived derelict brownfield. The land was 246 hectares and was used as a
landfill for over 200 years by industries. The soil and land was heavily contaminated with
asbestos and redundant debris such as gas tanks, brick buildings and mixed industrial waste. It
was also a low flat slanted land with water
coursing through with little drainage,
leading to flood risks.
The stadium is in-between two existing
waterways on a valley, exposing it to
water, marshy ground and wildlife
habitats, E.g. weeds, and continued
possible flood risk.
The GPS 51°32′19″N 0°00′59″W, the
Latitude and Longitude 51.5387° N,
0.01623° W.

MC
1 |Page
 ENG2100 Construction Materials – Individual Case Study
December 21, 2015

Structural Form:
The stadium rests on a piles foundation up to 20 meters deep and a mix of driven cast piles,
continuous flight auger piles and vibro concrete columns and approximately 5000 reinforced
concrete columns were installed. The stadium consists of a permanent base tier, that is a
sunken elliptical seating bowl made from reinforced pre-cast concrete, and a temporary upper
tier, which makes the roof and compression ring truss, supported by V-shaped steel bracing
and 112 steel rakers. The compression ring has similar design to an oval shaped bicycle-wheel
and holds up the roof awning. The roof columns and compression truss were only bolted
together to allow easier fast on-site assembly and disassembly. The roof is made from PVC
Membrane held by a delicate cable system and only covers two-thirds of the stadium seating
to prevent wind disturbance to the field. The entire stadium is encircled in a fabric wrap held
by tension cables. There are also lighting towers on the roof supported by tension cables.
The critical part of the stability is the compression ring on the bracings. E.g. When the
Towers were being put up they had to be done in opposing pairs to prevent buckling.
Due to lack of my drawing skills and finding the side view CAD pictures below on the
architects website, “Populous”, and the foundation plans on ICE site. I will try and indicted
how the forces are transmitted to the foundation with some arrows and comments. The Forces
starts at the very top from the lighting towers pulling at the outer edges of the roof with the
tension cables. The towers also push down on the inner edges of the roof causing tension on
the top part. The forces from this and the weight of the roof membrane are transmitted down
to the roof columns and onto the V-shaped bracings. The upper tier rests on the rakers on the
concrete base bowl transmitting some forces there and the bracing supports direct most of the
force into the foundations.

MC
2 |Page
 ENG2100 Construction Materials – Individual Case Study
December 21, 2015

Review of Materials
Two different materials make up most of the structure. Both are used in high quantities and
each makes almost half of the structure. The Upper part and roof uses almost 11,000 tonnes of
recycled unwanted high-yield large diameter gas pipes for the compression ring trusses,
bracings and roof columns. The roof membrane itself is made from phthalate-free PVC fabric
membrane, which is extremely lightweight. The Lower base uses low-carbon-dioxide pre-cast
reinforced concrete to make the bowl of the stadium. This allowed for 24% reduction of
embodied carbon dioxide emissions than conventional concrete. The stadium is also covered
in an open-weave fabric wrap made from polyester and polyethylene. The wrap is 20 metres
high and 900 metres in length held with tension cables and twisted at 90o to allow entry into
the stadium at the bottom. As the roof structure has an area of 24,500 m2 and the bowl only
has 9,250 m2 the main material has to be the steel in the structure. The excavation and
demolition materials from the landscape site and buildings were available to be used, as most
of it was recycled, reuse and recovered. This was approximately 98%. The concrete used
recycled waste as aggregates around 2,700 tonnes around 40% of the concrete was made like
this. The entire construction was an economic and environmental friendly success.
The materials used are suitable for the structure as they had all the properties needed to make
this structure stand. The steel is good as it has high strength and stiffness per unit weight. It
also requires less protection and maintenance as it has more resistance to deterioration, even
though a touch of paint wouldn’t hurt to prevent any more damage especially near water.
The recycled reinforced concrete could have issues, as it could be porous with a low density.
It may also become corroded as it is close to water that could seep through the ground.
The roof PVC membrane being lightweight has lead to this structure being the lightest in
Olympic stadium history.
There are many possible issues from handling the
materials. For example, wet concrete can cause severe
burns and dermatitis. A good hygiene practice and
protective gear can prevent skin contact and those
problems. Other issues entail during the construction
process is loud noises when making concrete or
excavation leading to possible hearing problems.
Again protective gear suggested. The soil at the site
was also unfortunately contaminated with asbestos

MC
3 |Page
 ENG2100 Construction Materials – Individual Case Study
December 21, 2015

and required the training of staff and regular health checks to ensure the safety of everyone.
Other common incidents can happen from slips, trips or falls from uneven ground due to
excavation, from steel reinforced concrete slabs around the site and even alignment marker
pins such as kerb lines. To prevent trips on the reinforced slabs a wire mesh can be used
between slabs. The solution to the alignment markers is to use freestanding pins held down by
sandbags. The problem also being that the pins could have damaged live or dead buried
services such as cables if struck the same could be said for excavation. A solution for
excavation can be suction excavator machinery that can prevent possible damage to services
happening and take up less space than diggers and trucks. The transportation of equipment or
materials to high level work platforms was also considered as it could cause muscle-skeletal
injuries or the they could fall injuring the staff on the ground. Assurances were made that the
transportation of the materials would be transported mechanically when ever possible and
secured to prevent things falling. Another way to prevent muscle-skeletal injuries was a
training program that taught all the staff the best body posture and to stretch and flex before
work while also highlighting any individuals not fit for the work of certain planned duties.
E.g. staff carrying heavy equipment on shoulder and leaning to one side, lifting with their
backs and or bending when carrying the equipment/materials. Another problem resolved was
hand arm vibration injuries. To reduce this risk small vibration systems can be attached to the
equipment, this measures the vibrations that user will go through. The user can then take the
system back and put on a computer that logs his vibration data.
Possible alternative materials discussed during the design stage include aluminium and
titanium instead of steel, or a combination/mixture alloy of the three.
Aluminium has many advantages, Such as having a reasonable strength and stiffness and
being quite light weight. It can also moderate durability and resistance to deterioration from
exposure. The material also has a low density and is typically used for truss structures or
space frames fitting perfectly as alternative.
Titanium has an excellent strength and stiffness and is very durable under extreme exposure
and temperatures. It does not have as low density as aluminium. Although it can go through
the alloying process to be strengthen and have results greater or equal to most steels, while
retaining its great corrosion resistance.
Concrete doesn’t seem to have needed any alternatives as they could calculate the exact
foundation length need, which helped them calculate the exact amount of cement needed
saving them any unnecessary extra costa and carbon dioxide emissions.

MC
4 |Page
 ENG2100 Construction Materials – Individual Case Study
December 21, 2015

Life cycle issues

The life-cycle of the upper tier frame and roof for this structure is 1 to 2 years. No
maintenance for this part was most likely ever consider due to the fact that the upper structure
was thought of as temporary and because of the way it was designed with the possibility of
being transformed into a multi-purpose venue/stadium. The plan has already been drawn up
for the steel material of the upper tier to be recycled into the new roof, which will be the
longest cantilever roof in the world. The construction on this part has already commenced
and won’t be complete until 2016.
The life-cycle of the sunken bowl base on the other hand is completely different and was
planned with a very long life expectancy. I gleamed this from finding out that the Current
owners of the stadium, “west ham united” football club, had signed a contract to ensure that
all their future games and events to be held there for the next 99 years. This seems to me as
good indicator of its life-cycle. As it is reinforced concrete it may be possible to maintain it
for a longer time period.
Fortunately when it comes to its end-of –life, the options available for the structure and its
materials are almost limitless. As such a huge quantity of the materials was recycled to build
the stadium, it shouldn’t be too hard to repeat the process again. The concrete can be broken
up and used as aggregate for another mix while the reinforcement will most likely be
scrapped. The steel can be used again and again and will be as it has so many uses and can
always be recycled. The roof membrane can be recycled also but as it has a custom size and
weight it may take a while for it to be selected for re-use so during that time it can be stored.
The same goes for the fabric as well but as it is more of a niche design not forgetting the
shape and size it may be different for someone to find a new use for it and could be stored but
may take a very long time until it is necessary.
I don’t think it is necessary for the consideration of a different design approach as this design
not only to fulfil its primary function it can also be transformed and complete a whole list of
different functions. The only other design would be for a completely permanent structure with
80,000 seats, which may be difficult to fill and or find any bidders to own the structure.

MC
5 |Page
 References:

Arup.com, (2015) Landscape engineering the Olympic Park | Arup | A global firm of
consulting engineers, designers, planners and project managers. Available at:
http://www.arup.com/Projects/London_2012_Landscape_engineering_the_Olympic_Park.asp
x (Accessed: 21 December 2015).

Arup.com, (2015) Integrated infrastructure engineering for the Olympic Park | Arup | A
global firm of consulting engineers, designers, planners and project managers. Available at:
http://www.arup.com/Projects/London_2012_Integrated_infrastructure_engineering_for_the_
Olympic_Park.aspx (Accessed: 21 December 2015).

Learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk, (2015) Browse by theme | London 2012. Available at:

http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk/themes/index.php (Accessed: 21 December 2015).

POPULOUS, (2015) London 2012 Olympic Stadium - POPULOUS. Available at:

http://populous.com/project/london-2012-olympic-stadium/ (Accessed: 21 December 2015).

Wikipedia, (2015) Olympic Stadium (London). Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Stadium_(London) (Accessed: 21 December 2015).

designboom | architecture & design magazine, (2012) olympic stadium for london 2012 by
populous. Available at: http://www.designboom.com/architecture/olympic-stadium-for-
london-2012-by-populous/ (Accessed: 21 December 2015).

Atkinsglobal.co.uk, (2015) Enabling the Olympic Park. Available at:

http://www.atkinsglobal.co.uk/en-GB/media-centre/features/enabling-olympic-park
(Accessed: 21 December 2015).

(2015). Available at: http://www.wsatkins.com/~/media/Files/A/Atkins-

Global/Attachments/corporate/twenty-twelve/remediation%20%20earthworks.pdf (Accessed:
21 December 2015).

Jana, R. (2012) London's Olympic Stadium: larger than life but built to shrink | ZDNet,
ZDNet. Available at: http://www.zdnet.com/article/londons-olympic-stadium-larger-than-life-
but-built-to-shrink/ (Accessed: 21 December 2015).

Designingbuildings.co.uk, (2015) London 2012 Olympic Stadium - Designing Buildings Wiki.

Available at: http://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/London_2012_Olympic_Stadium
(Accessed: 21 December 2015).