Mohamed Khider University

Faculty of Architecture, Urbanisme, civil and hydraulic

Architecture Department

Title :

Shell Structures: Nature-Inspired

Solutions for Sustainable
Architecture

Instructor: Prepared By :
Mr. Ben Mebarek Mohamed El Amine. Ben Mebrouk Narimene.
Lamri Marwa.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

History and Development

Classification of Shell Structures in Engineering Practice

1. Classification by Curvature
1. a- Singly Curved Shells (Zero Gaussian Curvature)
1. b- Doubly Curved Synclastic Shells (Positive Gaussian Curvature)
1. c- Doubly Curved Anticlastic Shells (Negative Gaussian Curvature)
1. d- Combined Shell Systems
1. e- Discontinuous Curvature Shells

[Link] by Material:
2. a- Concrete Shells
2. b- Timber Shells
2. c- Steel/Composite Shells
2. e- Tension Shells (Fabric/Membranes)
2. f- Emerging Materials

[Link] by Construction
3. a- Folded Plate Structures
3. b- Gridshells
3. c- Pneumatic Structures

Calculation method

The Construction Process of Shell Structures

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Challenges and Considerations

Advantages of Shell Structures

Future Trends

Concrete Shells: The Preferred Choice for Structural

Efficiency.

Materials for Reinforcing Concrete Shell Structures.

Case study: Park, Pavilion .San Antonio, United States

10. a- Project data
10. b- Pavilion Geometry
10. c- Irregular Tiling
10. d- Flowing Form

Conclusion
 SHELL STRUCTURE

Introduction
Shell structures are efficient structures that can cover large spans while minimal materials are used and with a
low self-weight. For covering large areas, thin-shell concrete structures are an effective structural solution.
Furthermore, The structural behavior of the shell is the result of its form, and shell structures are extremely
sensitive to the form ; even a small change in shell shape or topology might fundamentally change the internal stress
state ; therefore, construction of shells is required to be accurate and precise. ( Mohsen Vatandoost 2024).
Gridshell can be efficiently and economically used in various fields of engineering and architecture. Large spans
have been easily covered by reinforced concrete shells. Water retaining shells have been constructed of steel,
concrete and even precast and/or prestressed concrete. Tall silos (up to 60 meters high) and other containment
structures of high efficiency have been built using shell forms. Structurally efficient doubly curved high arch dams
(up to 300 meters high) have been constructed to resist high intensity hydrodynamic as well as earthquake loadings.
The containment shells of nuclear power plants, requiring high degree of safety, have always been made of
reinforced concrete shells. Tall chimneys and also huge cooling towers (as high as 200 meters) have been built of
steel or reinforced concrete shells.

Figure 1 . Examples of shell structure

Shell design are revolutionizing modern construction through their exceptional material efficiency and structural
performance. Their curved geometry allows them to span vast distances with minimal material by distributing loads
through membrane stresses (compression and tension) rather than bending. As demonstrated in Billington's "Thin
Shell Concrete Structures" (1982), this principle enables remarkable feats like MIT's Kresge Auditorium (1955),
where a mere 3.5-inch-thick concrete shell spans an impressive 160 feet.
The sustainability benefits of shell structures are equally compelling. They require up to 60% less concrete than
conventional structures, significantly reducing embodied carbon (Fernández, 2019). This advantage is exemplified by
ETH Zurich's NEST HiLo Unit (2021), featuring an ultra-lightweight concrete shell just 5 cm thick. Beyond their
environmental benefits, shells offer unparalleled architectural freedom, enabling iconic, sculptural designs like the
Sydney Opera House and Lotus Temple (Jodidio, 2015). Their adaptability makes them suitable for diverse
applications, from permanent roofs to temporary pavilions.
Shell framework also demonstrate remarkable resilience in extreme conditions. Double-curvature designs, such as
hyperbolic paraboloids, provide excellent earthquake resistance (Isler, 1994), while reflective and insulated shells
help mitigate urban heat island effects, as seen in Singapore's Esplanade Theatres. Looking to the future, digital
fabrication techniques like 3D printing are pushing boundaries, enabling complex geometries like TU Eindhoven's
3D-printed concrete shell (Lloret-Fritschi, 2020). Emerging bio-inspired designs using mycelium and bamboo
promise
SHELL STRUCTURE

This presentation will provide an overview of shell structures, covering their history, classification based on
curvature, material, and construction techniques, calculation methods, and construction process. It will explore
different curvature types, materials, and construction techniques, highlighting their advantages and challenges.
A case study on Confluence Park's Pavilion in San Antonio will illustrate key concepts, focusing on its geometry,
irregular tiling, and water collection system. Finally, the presentation will discuss future trends in shell structure
design, emphasizing their engineering significance and architectural potential

a b c d e
Figure 2 . a- Kresge Auditorium at MIT. b-NEST HiLo Unit (ETH Zurich). c-Sydney Opera
House. d-Esplanade Theatres, Singapore. e-Mycelium-based shell prototypes

History and Development :

In 1874, H. Haron expressed the geometry of surfaces using two parameters based on Gauss's method and derived an
expression for potential energy similar to Kirchhoff's for plates, though not fully correct. A. Love corrected these in
1888, proposing a theory based on Kirchhoff-Love assumptions: thin shells, small displacements, negligible shear
stresses, and normals remaining unchanged after deformation.

Love also emphasized the use of differential geometry and curvilinear coordinates for describing general surfaces
and deriving equations for thin elastic shells (1927). The mechanical properties of shells involve membrane and
bending effects, with challenges in articulating their interaction.

Rayleigh (1881-1894) noted that deformations in thin shells are predominantly inextensional and developed a simple
analysis considering only bending energy. In contrast, Love argued that the membrane effect is dominant for thin
shells. This debate was resolved by Lamb and Basset (1890), who analyzed Love's equations for cylindrical shells and
showed a transition layer between bending and membrane effects.

W. T. Koiter (1945) developed a general theory for quasi-static elastic equilibrium, focusing on boundary points
indicated by classical deformation theory. He introduced a multidimensional space of load axes and deformation
modes, demonstrating how to achieve equilibrium through energy potential derivatives.

In cylindrical shells under axial compression, Koiter found various methods leading to similar critical loads in
nonlinear analysis, as shown by Von Karman and Tsein (1941). Donnell and Wan (1950) modified energy calculations
by introducing initial geometric imperfections, showing their significant impact on axial load capacity. Later works,
including those by Balabon, Green, and Nagdhi (1967), further specialized shell theory, omitting director concepts
and focusing on kinematic variables like position vectors and their derivatives.
 SHELL STRUCTURE

Classification of Shell Structures in Engineering Practice

1. Classification by Curvature
1. a- Singly Curved Shells (Zero Gaussian Curvature):
Developable surfaces are geometric forms that can be flattened without distortion, making them valuable in
architectural and structural design. They maintain shape integrity when transitioning from three-dimensional to
two-dimensional forms, aiding in efficient fabrication. These surfaces are classified into two main subtypes: Shells
of revolution, such as circular cylinders and cones, which result from rotating a curve around an axis, and Shells of
translation or ruled surfaces, including circular and non-circular cylinders and conical structures, which are formed
by moving a straight line along a predefined path. These forms provide structural efficiency and flexibility,
particularly in lightweight and strong architectural applications.

1. b- Doubly Curved Synclastic Shells (Positive Gaussian Curvature):

Non-developable surfaces have curvature in the same directions, making them geometrically complex and
structurally efficient. They are categorized into two main subtypes: Shells of revolution, which include spherical
domes, ellipsoids, and paraboloids of revolution formed by rotating a curve around an axis, and Translation/ruled
surfaces (figure 3 - figure 4 ), such as elliptic paraboloids and rotational paraboloids, which result from translating
or rotating geometric curves. These surfaces are widely used in architecture and engineering for their strength,
stability, and aesthetic appeal.

1. c- Doubly Curved Anticlastic Shells (Negative Gaussian Curvature):

Non-developable surfaces with saddle-like curvature feature complex geometric forms that enhance structural
stability and visual appeal. They are categorized into shells of revolution, such as hyperboloids of one sheet, and
ruled surfaces, including hyperbolic paraboloids, conoids, and hyperboloids. These surfaces are formed by the
movement of straight lines or curves, creating doubly curved yet resilient structures. Widely used in architecture
and engineering, they optimize load distribution and contribute to innovative, dynamic designs.

1. d- Combined Shell Systems:

Hybrid shell structures combine synclastic and anticlastic sections, creating complex yet efficient forms that
balance curvature variations. These structures often integrate composite shells, merging simpler geometries to
enhance structural integrity and aesthetic appeal. By blending these design principles, hybrid forms achieve greater
flexibility, optimized load distribution, and innovative architectural applications. (figure 5)

Figure 4. some examples of ruled surfaces

Figure 3. some examples of translationale surfaces Figure 5. examples of combined shells

 SHELL STRUCTURE

1. e- Discontinuous Curvature Shells:

Folded plate structures feature abrupt curvature changes, creating strong and efficient forms through angular
assemblies of planar or slightly curved segments. These geometries enhance structural rigidity while allowing for
innovative architectural designs that balance aesthetics and functionality.

Key Technical Notes

Gaussian curvature remains the fundamental classifier (K=0, K>0, K<0)
Ruled surfaces appear in both singly/doubly curved categories due to their generatrix properties
This classification system enables engineers to:
✓ Select appropriate shell forms for specific loading conditions
✓ Predict structural behavior through curvature characteristics
✓ Combine shell types for complex architectural solutions

[Link] by Material:
2. a- Concrete Shells:
Thin-shell structures, whether monolithic or precast, typically range from 50
to 150mm thick, offering lightweight yet durable construction. Their geometry
is formwork-dependent, historically requiring labor-intensive techniques but
now benefiting from 3D-printed molds for efficiency. These structures provide
key advantages, including fire resistance (EN 13501-1 Class A1 classification),
moldability that enables complex curved forms (Billington, 2003), and
durability, with a service life exceeding 100 years when properly designed.
Figure 6. Chapelle de Bosjes par
Steyn Studio ; sud afrique ; 2016
2. b- Timber Shells:
Engineered wood products, such as glulam, CLT, and LVL, are commonly used
in grid shells or segmented constructions, offering structural flexibility and
efficiency. These materials provide key advantages, including sustainability,
with carbon sequestration storing up to 0.9 tons of CO₂ per cubic meter,
contributing to reduced environmental impact. They are also lightweight,
weighing only one-fifth of concrete (Green, 2012), making them ideal for
efficient load-bearing structures. Additionally, prefabrication techniques, such
as CNC machining, enable precise and optimized construction, enhancing
both accuracy and ease of assembly.

2. c- Steel/Composite Shells: Figure 7. Centre Pompidou-Metz, France

Space frames and stressed-skin constructions offer highly efficient structural
solutions, often integrated with ETFE, polycarbonate, or GFRP cladding for
enhanced durability and transparency. These systems provide remarkable
strength-to-weight advantages, with a yield strength of up to 690MPa, far
surpassing concrete's 30MPa capacity. Additionally, they enable large-span
structures exceeding 200 meters (Schlaich, 2007), making them ideal for
expansive architectural applications. Beyond performance, these materials
promote sustainability, boasting a 90%+ recyclability rate, ensuring minimal Figure 7. harbin opera house
environmental impact while maintaining structural integrity.
 2. d- Tension Shells (Fabric/Membranes):
Prestressed tensile surfaces, constructed using PVC, PTFE, or ETFE
membranes, offer lightweight and flexible architectural solutions (figure 8).
These structures rely on edge cables or rings for stabilization, ensuring
durability under tension. Their key advantages include portability, with
weights of less than 5kg/m², a significant reduction compared to 300kg/m² for
concrete. Additionally, they boast remarkable material efficiency, requiring
95% less embodied energy than concrete (Knippers, 2019), making them highly Figure 8. seele (UK)
sustainable. ETFE membranes also provide up to 95% light transmission,
enhancing natural illumination and reducing reliance on artificial lighting.

2. e- Emerging Materials:
Bamboo composite shells offer great architectural flexibility (figure 9),
enabling innovative and adaptable forms. They allow for the creation of large-
span surfaces while maintaining high technical performance and fast assembly.
Their low energy cost makes them a sustainable and efficient choice for eco-
friendly construction. These structures are subjected to various mechanical
stresses, including bending, torsion, compression, tension, and shear, ensuring
strength and adaptability under different structural conditions.
Would you like me to refine or expand on any aspects? Let me know how I can
assist! Figure 9. ecological children activity
and education center at six senses.
Comparative Analysis Table:
Material Typical Thickness Max Span Embodied Carbon (kgCO₂/m²) Fire Rating

Concrete 50-150mm 300m 120-200 A1

Timber 80-200mm 150m 15-40 (negative if carbon stored) B1

Steel 6-12mm 500m 80-150 A2

Fabric 0.5-3mm 250m 5-20 B2

Table 1. ICE Database (2023), Material Efficiency in Structural Design (Foster, 2020)

[Link] by Construction:
3. a- Folded Plate Structures:
Folded plate structures consist of rigid flat plates connected along their edges to
create a folded geometric pattern, achieving shell-like behavior through angular
stiffness rather than curvature. Their structural action primarily involves bending
at folds and membrane stresses in panels, ensuring stability and load distribution.
Common materials include concrete (most widely used), steel, and timber,
offering flexibility in construction. With a span-to-depth ratio typically ranging
from 10:1 to 20:1, these structures provide efficient load-bearing capabilities. Their
advantages include simplified formwork compared to curved shells, cost-effective
use of standardized precast elements, and excellent seismic performance due to Figure [Link] International
ductile joints, making them highly resilient in earthquake-prone regions. Terminal, Japan (FOA, 2002)
3. b- Gridshells:
Double-curved networks of slender linear members form continuous surfaces
in structural systems, categorized into two subtypes: active bending, which
relies on elastic deformation during erection (e.g., timber laths), and node-
based, consisting of prefabricated rigid connections. These structures exhibit
high slenderness ratios (L/r >150) and are assembled flat before being lifted
into their final shape. Cladding typically consists of lightweight membranes
or composite panels, enhancing efficiency. Their advantages include being
ultra-lightweight (as low as 15kg/m²), maximizing material efficiency through
structural morphology, and enabling rapid on-site assembly, making them
ideal for innovative architectural applications. Figure [Link] Building, UK
(Grimshaw, 2006)
3. c- Pneumatic Structures:
Air-supported membrane systems maintain their shape through an
internal pressure differential, ensuring lightweight and adaptable
structural solutions. These systems are classified into air-inflated, where
a continuous air volume supports the structure (e.g., Tokyo Dome), and
air-supported, which utilizes a single membrane with interior
overpressure. Their working pressure typically ranges from 200 to 700
Pa (0.002-0.007 atm), using durable materials such as PTFE-coated
fiberglass or ETFE foils. They offer impressive span potential, reaching
up to 250m, with the current record being 310m (Nagoya Dome). Key
advantages include extremely rapid deployment, allowing large
structures to be erected in days, high natural daylight transmission (up Figure [Link] Dome, Japan (Takenaka
to 95% with ETFE), and flexibility for either temporary or permanent Corp, 1988)
applications.

Comparative Technical Analysis:

Type Typical Span Weight (kg/m²) Erection Time Maintenance Needs

Folded Plates 30-100m 150-400 Moderate Low

Gridshells 50-150m 15-80 Fast Medium

Pneumatic 100-250m 1-5 Very Fast High

Table 2. *Data compiled from IASS Technical Reports (2010-2020)*

SHELL STRUCTURE

Calculation method
he behavior of shell structures exhibits significant differences from that of framed structures,
primarily due to their distinct geometrical characteristics.

Key Aspects:
Internal Force Distribution: In shell structures, the internal force system is generally three-
dimensional, reflecting a spatial distribution that contrasts with the two-dimensional force
systems found in framed structures.
Load Transfer Mechanisms: Shells predominantly utilize membrane forces to accommodate
applied loads, whereas framed structures typically rely on bending mechanisms for load transfer.
These inherent characteristics of shell structures influence both their design and construction
methodologies, necessitating specialized approaches in engineering practice.

Figure 12 : components of internal force resultants in s shell element

SHELL STRUCTURE

The Construction Process of Shell Structures

Shell structures are complex yet innovative, requiring careful design and engineering. Their
intricate geometry poses challenges in structural framing and formwork replication, but
computational tools like CNC machining and robotic fabrication help create precise, intricate
elements.
The self-supporting nature of shell architecture makes construction sequencing critical. Digital
models allow engineers to analyze stability, while sensors provide real-time data on structural
performance during assembly.
Material selection is crucial, as shell structures demand strength, durability, and flexibility.
Accurate alignment and integration of elements require collaboration between architects,
engineers, and material specialists to ensure structural reliability.
Advanced structural analysis methods optimize load distribution and resistance to external
forces. Techniques like Finite Element Analysis (FEA) refine shell geometry and thickness,
improving stability while reducing material use. Parametric modeling supports iterative design
adjustments, enhancing overall performance.(Sharma, 2023)

Challenges and Considerations:

Shell structures, while offering numerous advantages, also present several challenges that must
be carefully addressed during their design and construction. One of the primary difficulties is
complex analysis, as their curved geometry requires intricate calculations to account for various
load conditions and boundary constraints. Additionally, their construction techniques demand
specialized equipment and expertise, which can lead to increased costs and complexity. Another
critical factor is material behavior, where understanding how different materials respond under
varying loads is essential, particularly when incorporating advanced materials for structural
efficiency.(Santiago, 2025)
Beyond these challenges, several key considerations must be taken into account to ensure the
successful implementation of shell structures. Load distribution plays a crucial role in
maintaining structural integrity, requiring strategic planning to optimize the way forces are
transmitted through the shell surface. Boundary conditions also need to be carefully defined, as
they significantly impact the accuracy of structural analysis and design. Furthermore,
manufacturing constraints must be factored in during the early design phase to anticipate
potential issues related to fabrication and assembly, helping streamline the construction process
while ensuring structural feasibility.(Santiago, 2025)
SHELL STRUCTURE

Advantages of Shell Structures:

Design Flexibility – Their non-linear forms allow for diverse architectural expressions, including
domes, vaults, and hyperbolic paraboloids.
1. Long Span Capabilities – Shells can cover large areas without internal supports, ideal for
arenas and exhibition halls.
2. Structural Efficiency – They distribute forces effectively, minimizing material use while
maximizing space.
3. Stability and Resilience – Curved shapes dissipate loads efficiently, making them resistant
to wind and seismic forces.
4. Efficient Space Utilization – Minimal structural obstructions enable optimal interior
layouts.
5. Natural Acoustic Performance – Their curved surfaces enhance sound diffusion, reducing
echoes in performance spaces.
6. Versatile Functionality – Shell structures can accommodate various building types,
including sports arenas, exhibition spaces, and transportation terminals.(Sharma, 2023)

Future Trends:
The future of shell structures in structural analysis is poised to be influenced by several key
emerging trends. One of the most transformative developments is 3D printing, which has the
potential to revolutionize the construction of shell structures by enabling the creation of highly
complex geometries with exceptional precision. This technology allows for efficient material
usage, faster production times, and customized designs, making it a promising avenue for
innovative architectural solutions. Additionally, the growing emphasis on sustainable design is
shaping the evolution of shell structures, with a focus on using environmentally friendly
materials and construction methods that reduce waste and enhance energy efficiency.
Sustainability-driven approaches ensure that shell structures contribute to eco-conscious urban
development, aligning with global efforts to minimize environmental impact. Another
significant factor is interdisciplinary collaboration, where architects, engineers, and material
scientists work together to develop novel applications and optimized solutions for shell
structures. By integrating expertise from multiple fields, these collaborative efforts foster
cutting-edge advancements that enhance the structural, functional, and aesthetic qualities of
shell architecture. Together, these trends signal a dynamic future for shell structures,
characterized by innovation, sustainability, and cross-disciplinary synergy.(Santiago, 2025)
SHELL STRUCTURE

Concrete Shells: The Preferred Choice for Structural Efficiency

Concrete shell structures are widely used due to their strength, durability, and efficiency. Unlike
other shell types, concrete shells provide excellent load-bearing capacity, making them ideal for
large-span structures like auditoriums, stadiums, and industrial buildings. Their curved shape
allows for efficient distribution of forces, reducing the need for excessive materials and supports.
Here’s why concrete shells are preferred over other types:
High Strength & Durability: Concrete can withstand heavy loads and environmental
conditions better than materials like steel or wood.(Facilitator, 2023b)
Cost-Effective: Due to their thin yet strong design, concrete shells require less material while
covering large areas.(Iqbal, 2022b)
Aesthetic Appeal: Architects favor concrete shells for their sleek, modern look and ability to
create unique, curved designs.(Deloney, 2024b)
Energy Efficiency: Their thermal mass helps regulate indoor temperatures, reducing heating
and cooling costs.(Facilitator, 2023b)
Earthquake Resistance: Concrete shells are highly resistant to seismic forces, making them
safer in earthquake-prone areas.(Deloney, 2024b)

Materials for Reinforcing Concrete Shell Structures:

Concrete shells require specialized reinforcement strategies to handle membrane stresses
(tension/compression) while maintaining thin profiles. Below are key materials and methods,
supported by engineering references:

[Link] Steel Reinforcement

Materials:
Rebar: High-strength deformed bars (Grade 60/420 MPa minimum)
Wire Mesh: Welded fabric (A142-A393) for crack control (Billington, 1982)
Applications:
Hypar Shells: Félix Candela’s Los Manantiales (1958) used 12mm rebars at 150mm spacing.
( figure.13)
Domes: Pantheon, Rome employed volcanic ash-reinforced concrete.

fig.13 Hypar Shells: Félix Candela’s Los Manantiales (1958)

SHELL STRUCTURE

2. High-Performance Composites
Materials:
FRP (Fiber-Reinforced Polymer): Carbon/glass fibers
in epoxy matrix
Textile Concrete: Alkali-resistant (AR) glass grids
embedded in 20-30mm concrete
Advantages:
Corrosion resistance (critical for coastal shells)
Thinner sections (e.g., ETH Zurich’s 5mm-thick GFRP
fig.13 Hypar Shells: Félix Candela’s
shells) (Schlaich, M. et al. 2017).
Los Manantiales (1958)
Example:
Salerno Maritime Terminal (2016): Glass-FRP
gridshell spans 40m with 50mm thickness.

3. Prestressing Systems
Methods:
Post-Tensioning: Strands (15-20mm
diameter) in ducts
Pretensioned Cables: Used in edge beams of
hyperbolic paraboloids (Nervi, 1956)
Example:
CNIT Exhibition Hall, Paris (1959): 218m-
span shell with radial prestressing.
fig.14 CNIT Exhibition Hall, Paris (1959)
4. Innovative Materials
A. UHPC (Ultra-High-Performance Concrete)
Mix: Steel fibers (2% vol.), silica fume, low w/c ratio
Application: Jeddah Airport Roof (2019) – 120mm
thickness, 45m spans (figure.15). (ACI, 2016)
B. 3D-Printed Reinforcement

fig.15 Jeddah Airport Roof

Material Tensile Strength Corrosion Risk Best For

Mild Steel Rebar 420 MPa High Low-cost domes

Carbon FRP 1,500 MPa None Coastal shells

Prestressed Cables 1,860 MPa Moderate Long-span hypars

UHPC + Fibers 8-15 MPa (flexural) Low Complex geometries

Table 3. Data: fib Model Code 2010, ACI 318-19
PARK, [Link] ANTONIO,
UNITED STATES
Project data:
Location: San AntonioCity(Texas) , United States
CASE STUDY

Project Year: 2018

Category: Urban Green SpacesPavilions
Area: 900 ft²
Architects: Lake|Flato Architects
Structural engineering: Architectural Engineers
Collaborative
The BHP Pavilion in San Antonio, Texas serves as the
central outdoor classroom and community hub of
Confluence Park. Designed for a local non-profit foundation,
the project had three key objectives: first, to create an
educational venue that integrates architecture into the park's
mission of teaching the community about water's role in
regional ecosystems; second, to establish an iconic pavilion
that revitalizes a historically overlooked area of the city; and
third, to use innovative fabrication technologies to reduce
costs while maintaining the foundation’s ambitious
educational and aesthetic goals.(Burry et al., 2020)

Pavilion Geometry:
The central pavilion was designed as a visionary space that
reinforces the client’s mission of environmental education,
particularly focusing on water conservation. Drawing from
nature through biomimetic principles, its structure mirrors
the way certain plants use curved fronds to extend outward,
gather rainwater and dew, and channel it toward their roots.
The pavilion employs a modular system of concrete "petals"
that efficiently capture rainwater, directing it through their
columnar bases and into a central underground cistern
(figure 16). (Confluence Park - Matsys, n.d.) Figure 16 : Confluence Park water
catchment diagram
SHELL STRUCTURE

The project faced several challenges during its development. One key issue was the traditional architectural
approach to water, which typically repels it, conflicting with the park’s mission of water conservation. This led to a
shift from a timber shell to an organic structure designed to harness rainwater. Another challenge was balancing the
desire for an iconic pavilion with budgetary constraints, requiring a transition from complex funnel-like designs to
modular concrete arches. Additionally, the team had to address the difficulty of constructing doubly curved forms
while ensuring structural integrity, ultimately adopting a tilt-up concrete technique that allowed for cost-effective
fabrication.(Burry et al., 2020)
The design team aimed to balance modularity with visual uniqueness, avoiding a rigid or monotonous system. After
exploring various grid patterns, they selected an irregular pentagonal tiling grid specifically, the Cairo Tile (figure
17) which allowed modularity while maintaining an organic feel. The pentagons were subdivided into three unique
triangular sections that formed structural arches when paired with neighboring units. The center of each pentagon
served as a funnel drain, channeling water efficiently. Different arch configurations were tested to enhance shading
and create an informal appearance, ensuring that despite the repetition, the final pavilion layout appeared dynamic
and non-uniform.(Burry et al., 2020)

Figure 17 : Plan diagrams showing the geometric logic of the organisational grid made of irregular
pentagons subdivided into 3 unique triangles. Credit: Andrew Kudless/Matsys.

Figure 18: Diagram showing all concrete petal configurations to form

structurally independent three-hinged arches. Petals MC were cast
using the C forms with an insert to shorten the column by 3m for the
smaller satellite pavilions. Credit: Andrew Kudless/Matsys. Figure 19 : master plan
SHELL STRUCTURE

Irregular Tiling :
After exploring uniform triangular, rectangular, and hexagonal grids, an irregular pentagonal tiling grid was
developed. While regular pentagons do not tile the plane (and these gaps would create large unshaded areas for the
pavilion), there are fifteen types of irregular pentagons that tile the plane (Pottmann, 2007). One of those, ‘type 4’
(also known as the Cairo Tile after several streets in Cairo, Egypt paved with this shape), has four long edges of the
same length and one short side and vertex angles of 120°, 90°, 120°, 90°, and 120°. When this pentagon is subdivided
into five triangles by connecting the pentagon’s centre with each vertex, it results in only 3 unique triangles: A(2),
B(2), and C(1). Triangles A and B are mirrors of each other and each have internal angles of 75°, 60°, 45° while
triangle C is equilateral (all angles are 60°) (Fig. 20).(Burry et al., 2020)

Figure 20 : In order to validate the flow of rainwater on the roof surface, a

particle simulation was used where particles sought the steepest downhill
direction on the surface. Credit: Andrew Kudless/Matsys.

Flowing Form :
The design of the petal sections prioritized three key aspects. First, they needed to maintain double curvature for
both structural stability and efficient rainwater collection. Second, their thickness had to vary from bottom to top
based on structural requirements, building codes, and rebar placement. Third, the curvature had to remain
continuous across all petals to ensure seamless integration.
To optimize water flow, a rainwater simulation script was developed, mapping surface points and tracing the
steepest downhill paths. If water flowed into gaps rather than the intended valleys, adjustments were made to the
petal geometry until all water was effectively directed toward the central drainage system.(Burry et al., 2020)

Figure 21 : In order to validate the flow of rainwater on the roof surface, a particle simulation was used where particles sought the steepest downhill
direction on the surface. Credit: Andrew Kudless/Matsys.
SHELL STRUCTURE

Figure 22-23: Views of the formwork before rebar placement, after rebar placement, and after
casting. Credit: Andrew Kudless/Matsys.

The thickness of the panels was primarily determined by building code requirements for concrete reinforcement
coverage. The reinforcement was designed in a fan-like arrangement, extending outward from the column base with
reinforcement placed on both interior and exterior surfaces. This strategic placement helped counteract tension
throughout the shell structure. Within the column section, the highest structural demands—such as gravity, wind,
and live loads—were concentrated and reinforced accordingly. In contrast, the outer field regions experienced lower
stress levels, allowing the panels to gradually thin as structural demand decreased. The top edges were ultimately
refined to a 100mm thickness, meeting the minimum code requirements for proper reinforcement coverage.
(Fig. 21-22).(Burry et al., 2020)

Figure 24: pre-fabricated elements

Conclusion :
Shell structures represent a remarkable fusion of engineering, architecture, and biomimicry, providing both
functional and aesthetic advantages. Their efficient load distribution, long-span capabilities, and sustainable design
make them an innovative choice for a wide range of applications. While challenges such as complex geometry,
material selection, and construction sequencing require careful planning and advanced techniques, modern
computational tools have significantly improved their feasibility.
The case study of the BHP Pavilion at Confluence Park highlights how shell structures can serve educational,
environmental, and architectural purposes, reinforcing the importance of form, function, and fabrication in
contemporary design. Looking ahead, continued advancements in digital modeling, material science, and fabrication
methods will further push the boundaries of what shell structures can achieve, paving the way for more resilient,
efficient, and visually stunning architectural solutions.
 DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF SHELL STRUCTURES. (N.D.). GOOGLE BOOKS.
HTTPS://[Link]/BOOKS?
HL=AR&LR=&ID=_YHTCAAAQBAJ&OI=FND&PG=PR10&DQ=SHELL+STRUCTURE&OTS=PLJTQABAJ3&SI
G=DGDNBFYVLUZBCRZMM9TV0ZZW2VY&REDIR_ESC=Y#V=ONEPAGE&Q=SHELL%20STRUCTURE&F=F
ALSE
BILLINGTON, D. P. (1982). THIN SHELL CONCRETE STRUCTURES (2ND ED.). MCGRAW-HILL.
FERNÁNDEZ, J. E. (2019). "SUSTAINABLE DESIGN OF THIN SHELL STRUCTURES" (JOURNAL OF
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 25).
ODIDIO, P. (2015). SANTIAGO CALATRAVA: COMPLETE WORKS. TASCHEN.
ISLER, H. (1994). "CONCRETE SHELLS DERIVED FROM EXPERIMENTAL SHAPES" (STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL).
LLORET-FRITSCHI, E. (2020). "DIGITAL FABRICATION OF THIN SHELLS" (SPRINGER).
BILLINGTON, D.P. (2003). THIN SHELL CONCRETE STRUCTURES. ASCE PRESS.
GREEN, M. (2012). TALL WOOD BUILDINGS. FPINNOVATIONS.
SCHLAICH, J. (2007). LIGHTWEIGHT STRUCTURES. PRESTEL.
KNIPPERS, J. (2019). BIOMIMETIC RESEARCH FOR ARCHITECTURE. SPRINGER.
R E F E R E N C E S

CHILTON, J. (2000). SPACE GRID STRUCTURES. ARCHITECTURAL PRESS.

HAPPOLD, E. & LIDDELL, W. (1975). "TIMBER LATTICE ROOF FOR THE MANNHEIM
BUNDESGARTENSCHAU". IASS SYMPOSIUM.
BERGER, H. (1996). LIGHT STRUCTURES, STRUCTURES OF LIGHT. BIRKHÄUSER.
SANTIAGO, R. (2025, FEBRUARY 27). SHELL STRUCTURES IN STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS. DISCOVER
[Link]://[Link]/SHELL-STRUCTURES-IN -STRUCTURAL-
ANALYSIS/#:~:TEXT=FUTURE%20TRENDS,COMPLEX%20GEOMETRIES%20WITH%20HIGH%20PRECISION
BURRY, J., SABIN, J., SHEIL, B., & SKAVARA, M. (2020). FABRICATE 2020: MAKING RESILIENT
ARCHITECTURE. HTTPS://[Link]/BITSTREAM/20.500.12657/37585/1/[Link]
CONFLUENCE PARK - MATSYS. (N.D.). MATSYS. HTTPS://[Link]/CONFLUENCE-PARK
SHARMA, P. (2023, AUGUST 10). A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO SIMPLIFY THE DESIGN AND BUILT OF
SHELL STRUCTURES. PRAGYA SHARMA. RETRIEVED MAY 5, 2025, FROM
HTTPS://[Link]/BLOG/SHELL-STRUCTURES#5
FACILITATOR, C. (2023B, FEBRUARY 13). SHELL STRUCTURE; ADVANTAGES, TYPES AND
APPLICATIONS. CONSTROFACILITATOR. HTTPS://[Link]/SHELL-
STRUCTURE-ADVANTAGES-TYPES-AND-APPLICATIONS/
IQBAL, S. (2022B, JULY 12). SHELL STRUCTURE: TYPES – ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES.
HTTPS://[Link]/SHELL-STRUCTURE/
DELONEY, M. L. (2024B, NOVEMBER 20). WHAT IS SHELL STRUCTURE | 11 TYPES OF SHELL STRUCTURE |
APPLICATIONS, ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF SHELL STRUCTURE. CIVIL-JUNGLES.
HTTPS://[Link]/SHELL-STRUCTURE/
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI). (2016). *REPORT ON FIBER-REINFORCED CONCRETE (ACI
544.7R-16)*.
NERVI, P. L. (1956). STRUCTURES. F.W. DODGE CORPORATION.
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS (ASTM). (2023). *STANDARD SPECIFICATION
FOR EPOXY-COATED REINFORCING STEEL BARS (ASTM A775/A775M-23)*.
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (FIB). (2013). FIB MODEL CODE FOR
CONCRETE STRUCTURES 2010. ERNST & SOHN.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION (CEN). (2004). *EUROCODE 2: DESIGN OF
CONCRETE STRUCTURES (EN 1992-1-1)*.
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI). (2019). *BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (ACI 318-19)*.
AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI). (2015). *GUIDE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE REINFORCED WITH FRP BARS (ACI 440.1R-15)*.