nomination by the Government of Australia - Sydney Opera House

More documents

Recommendations

Info

38 Part 3. Justifi cation for inscription 3.22 Intensive efforts were made to retain the integrity of the initial design comprising shell roofs that remained selfsupporting without reinforcements. Ove Arup & Partners undertook extensive engineering research and calculations over four years, including ‘tens of thousands of man-and-computer-hours’ at their London offi ce (Weston 2002: 130). They proposed over a dozen different geometries for the shells and different ways of studying them, starting with parabolic surfaces, moving to ellipsoid schemes and then on to circular arc rib proposals. In late 1961, Utzon was struck by the idea that all the roof shapes could be derived from a single sphere. Sharing a common radius, the segments could be broken into individual components, prefabricated and then assembled on site (Murphy 2004: 6). Utzon acknowledged that all the work of the previous years had contributed to reaching the new ‘magnifi cent solution’ (Nobis 2004: 47). Building the shell structure was a signifi cant engineering and construction achievement that overcame challenges and fostered innovations. The unprecedented structure required complex, repetitive research and exacting structural analysis. The interplay of the shape with the amount and method of stiffening required a complex and delicate balance that the structural engineers had to fi nd (Addis 2005). It was not possible to calculate the correct geometry for shell architecture until the forces and bending moments were known; but these could not be calculated until the precise geometric form was established. Engineers using specialised computer equipment carried out tests lasting almost a year on a physical model located at Southampton University (England). The analysis demanded a precise, computer-generated mathematical description of the geometrical form of the shells in order to undertake more precise calculations of stresses, forces, bending moments and defl ections. The Sydney Opera House was one of the fi rst buildings in the world to make use of computers in its construction process. It can be seen as a precursor to the complexity of architectural constructions that have now become possible by means of computer-aided design (Carter 2005). Another signifi cant innovation was Ove Arup & Partners’ use of wind tunnel testing during the construction of the shells. To investigate the magnitude and direction of the wind forces on the shells, a model of the building was tested in a wind tunnel. This was a pioneering use of wind tunnels in building design and has since become normal practice for large buildings (Addis 2005). Figure 3.22 Jørn Utzon’s spherical model for the shells Figure 3.23 The cover of the Yellow Book 1962, showing the spherical solution to shell geometry, drawn by the young Rafael Moneo who worked in Utzon’s Hellebaek offi ce. 3.23
3.24 Figure 3.24 Arups’ summary of the different schemas developed for the roof structure between 1957 and 1963 39
Page 1 and 2: SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE NOMINATION BY TH
Page 3: SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE NOMINATION BY TH
Page 6 and 7: 4 PREFACE Australia is pleased to p
Page 9 and 10: 1.A COUNTRY Country - Australia 1.B
Page 11 and 12: The topographic map shows the locat
Page 13: PART 2. DESCRIPTION 11
Page 16 and 17: 14 Part 2. Description 2.2 The comp
Page 18 and 19: 16 Part 2. Description 2.6 2.7 2.8
Page 20 and 21: 18 Part 2. Description The glass wa
Page 22 and 23: 20 Part 2. Description 2.19 Further
Page 24 and 25: 22 Part 2. Description 2.23 Interna
Page 26 and 27: 24 Part 2. Description The Sydney O
Page 29 and 30: … we’re here to nudge forward t
Page 31 and 32: Utzon’s design modifi ed the esta
Page 33 and 34: In the Sydney Opera House Jørn Utz
Page 35 and 36: Utzon’s reading and use of histor
Page 37 and 38: 3.17 3.18 Utzon’s genius is manif
Page 39: The podium The construction of the
Page 43 and 44: 3.28 engineers Jorg Schlaich and We
Page 45 and 46: 3.32 The Sydney Opera House holds a
Page 47 and 48: 3.34 3.35 The setting of Bennelong
Page 49 and 50: 3.36 qualities and precise, geometr
Page 51 and 52: 3.39 3.40 3.41 Masterpieces of the
Page 53 and 54: 3.43 also inspired by the laws of n
Page 55 and 56: 3.45 3.D INTEGRITY AND AUTHENTICITY
Page 57 and 58: Materials and substance The use and
Page 59: PART 4. STATE OF CONSERVATION AND F
Page 62 and 63: 60 Part 4. State of conservation an
Page 64 and 65: 62 Part 4. State of conservation an
Page 67 and 68: 5.A OWNERSHIP The Sydney Opera Hous
Page 69 and 70: 5.C MEANS OF IMPLEMENTING PROTECTIV
Page 71 and 72: 5.2 Sydney Regional Environmental P
Page 73 and 74: 5.3 Sydney Opera House: a plan for
Page 75 and 76: 5.5 5.6 • • • • • An on-s
Page 77: 6PART 6. MONITORING 75
Page 80 and 81: 78 Part 6. Monitoring 6.2 Figure 6.
Page 82 and 83: 80 Part 6. Monitoring 6.C RESULTS O
Page 85 and 86: 7.A PHOTOGRAPHS, SLIDES, IMAGE INVE
Page 87 and 88: 7.B TEXTS RELATING TO PROTECTIVE DE
Page 89 and 90: Baume, M 1967, The Sydney Opera Hou
Page 91 and 92:
Hall, P 1981, Great planning disast
Page 93 and 94:
Sommer, D, Stöcher, H & Weisser, L
Page 95:
893 PART 8. CONTACT INFORMATION
Page 98 and 99:
96 Part 8: Contact information 8.C
Page 100 and 101:
98 PART 9. SIGNATURE ON BEHALF OF T
Page 103 and 104:
10.A BIOGRAPHIES OF JØRN UTZON AND
Page 105 and 106:
Awards In addition to the awards de
Page 107 and 108:
10.3 Ove Arup (1895-1988) Ove Nyqui
Page 109 and 110:
10.B LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Front co
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 3.30 Photograph by Max Dupai
Page 113 and 114:
Other contributors Sydney Opera Hou
Page 115 and 116:
Figure 10.6 1902 Fort Macquarie is
Page 117 and 118:
B 10.E PLANS, SECTIONS AND ELEVATIO
Page 119 and 120:
EASTERN ELEVATION WESTERN ELEVATION
show all

nomination by the Government of Australia - Sydney Opera House

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?