7/27/2019 Kansai Inter Airport http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kansai-inter-airport 1/5 Paper: Dilley Ordinary Meeting Papers to be presented at meeting of the Institutionof Structural Engineers on Thursday 13 October 1994 at 6pm. Kansai International Airport Terminal building - he design Philip Dilley, BSc, ACGI, CEng, MIStructE, MICE Ove Amp & Partners Philip Dilley graduated from Imperial College in 1976 with a 1st class honours degree in civil engineering. He joined Ove Arup & Partners where he is now a Director and a leader of one of heir building design groups. He is responsible fo r the control and design of a wide variety of building projects in the U K, urope and Japan, and is especially interested in the multidisciplinary design of buildings. The competition The competition brief called for the conceptual design of a major airport building, housing all of the essential facilities of a modem terminal under one roof. t required the building o copewith 25M passengers per year, and to provide 41 aircraft parking pots, each erved through boarding bridge. I Wing Fig 2. MT B and wings Synopsis An engineering approach was used to develop the concept design of the new Kansai International Airport Terminal Building. The architecture and engineering were developed together to enhance the efJiciencyand comfort of the building fo r the user. The paper describes the development of the design of the terminal building from the competition concept to detailed design. Introduction The newKansai InternationalAirportopened on 4 September 1994, marking the completion of one of the world’s largest and most ambitious construction projects. Built on a manmade island some 5km offshore in Osaka Bay, the new airport is located to avoid the limiting effects of noise pollution, and o is permitted to operate for 4 Wday. At full capacity, it will cater for 160 OOO aircraft movements per year from its single 3500km unway. Some 4Hkm long, and 2%km wide, the island supports a full modem airport facility including maintenance hangars, the cargo handling, fuel storage, car parking, a railway station, shopping centre, and even harbour (see Fig 1). But the building for which Kansai International Airport will become famous is the new passenger terminal building (PTB). Th e €TB was commissioned hroughan nternationalarchitectural competition held in988. The winning entry was submitted y Renzo Piano supported by Ove Arup & Partners. This paper describes the background to the conception and design of the terminal building. The procurement and supply of a large part of the most challenging roof steelwork is described in a companion paper by Joe Locke, published in this issue. Fig 1. Kansai Island during constructionApril 1994 Fi g 3. Sectional model of building showing canyon The functional planning ad already been established, o the basic layout of the building was defined in the brief. This described a central main terminal building (MTB), housing the arrivals and departure halls, with check-in, customs and security, baggage handling and concessions. This to be in between two projecting ‘wings’ serving the aircraft gates and housing departure ounges and separate access or arriving passengers see Fig 2). Access between the MTB and the wings was either on foot, or by use of a shuttle train (AGT), necessary ince he wings re each nearly 800m long. The overall PTB is 1.6km in length, wing tipo wing tip. Perhaps the most important architectural idea was o give a clear sense of orientation and direction to the users of the building - a sense of movement between andside and airside with a visual connection between the two. In the main departure hall, this sense of flow is generated by the design of the climate control, ighting and structure. The Structural EngineedVolume 72/No 18/20September 1994 293
Ordinary MeetingPapers to b e presented at meetingof the Institutionof Structural Engineerson Thursday 13 October 1994 at 6pm.
Kansai International Airport
Terminal building-
he designPhilip Dilley,BSc, ACGI, CEng, MIStructE, MICE
Ove A m p & Partners
Philip Dilley graduated from Imperial College in1976 with a 1st class honours degree in civilengineering. He joined OveArup & Partners wherehe is now a Director and a leader of one of heirbuilding design groups. He is responsible fo r thecontrol and design of a wide variety of buildingproje cts in the UK, urope and Japan, and isespecially interested in the multidisciplinary designof buildings.
The competition
The competition brief called for theconceptual design of a major airportbuilding, housing all of the esse ntial facilities of a m odem terminal underone roof. t required the buildingo copewith 25M passengers per year, andto provide 41 aircraft parking pots, each erved through boarding bridge.
I Wing
Fi g 2. MT B and wings
Synopsis
An engineering approach w as used to develop the concept designof the new Kan sai International Airport Terminal Building. Thearchitecture and engineering were developed together to enhancethe efJiciencyand comfort of the building fo r the u ser. The pa perdescribes the development of the design of the terminal buildingfro m the competition concept to detailed design.
Introduction
The newKansai InternationalAirportopened on 4 September 1994,
marking the com pletion of one of the world’s largest and m ost amb itiousconstruction projects.
Built on a manmade island some 5km offshore in Osaka Bay, the newairport is located to avoid the limitingeffects of noise pollution, and o ispermitted to operate for4 Wday. At full capac ity, it willcater for160 OOO
aircraft movements peryear from its single 3500km unway.Some 4Hkm long, and 2%kmwide, the island suppo rts a full modem
airport facility including maintenance hangars, the cargo handling, fuelstorage, car parking, a railway station, shopping centre, and evenharbour(see Fig 1 ) . But the building for which Kan sai International Airport willbecome famous is the new passenger terminal building (PTB).
Th e €TB was commissioned hroughan nternationalarchitecturalcompetition held in988. The winning entry was submittedy Renzo Pianosupported by Ove Arup& Partners. This paper describes the background to
the conception and designof the terminal bu ilding. The procurem ent andsupply of a large part of the most cha llen ging roof steelwork is describedin a companion paperby J o e Locke, published in this issue.
Fig 1. Kansai Island during constructionApril 1994
Fi g 3. Sectional modelof building showing canyon
The functional planning ad already been established,o the basic layoutof the building was defined in the brief. This described a central mainterminal building (MT B), housing the arrivals and departu re halls, withcheck-in, customs and security, baggage handling and concessions. Thisto be in between two projectin g ‘wings’ serving the aircraft gates andhousing departure ounges and separate accessor arriving passengers see
Fig 2). Access between the MTB and the wings was either onfoot, or byuse ofa shuttle train (AGT), necessaryince he wings re each nearly800mlong. The overall PTB is 1.6km in length, wing tipo wing tip.
Perhaps the most important architectural idea was o give a clear senseof orientation and direction to the users of the building - a sense of
movement between andsid e and airside with a visual connection betweenthe two. In the main departu re hall, this sense of flow is generated by thedesign of the climate control, ighting and structure.
The Structural EngineedVolume 72/No 18/20September 1994 293
Fig 5. Results of airflo w prediction - ummer conditions
Passengers arriving t the building will enter at landside into an en ormou satrium space. This is the interface between utside and the working core ofthe building. It is a ‘canyon’ extending throughout the 300m length of themain halls, and is 25m wide, and 30m high (see Figs 3 and 4). It is alandscaped sp ace in which passengers move laterally or vertically usingescalators, lifts and stairs. It is a generou s volum e, there to perform thecrucial role of orientation.
Beyond the canyon, he building is multilevel, and each of the floors has
a single mainpurpose. International arrivals, dom estic arrivals anddepartures, concessions and international dep artur es each have their ownfloor. Once the departing passenger has identified and arrivedt his check-in zone, he is imm ediately orientated, he can see the aircraft, and hisprogress is linear - andside to airside.
The competition concept for the air-conditioning was to provide abackground levelof climate control to the whole space.This macro-controlwas to be achieved through large air-supply no zzles located landside of thepassenger concourse, and by blowing the air over 80 m in the direction ofpassenger movement, towards airside. The macro-system was supplementedby micro-climate control system s around check-in desks, waiting reas andoffices.
To achieve effec tive air distribution the air stream from the jet nozzlesmust attach to and follow the roof. Th is is to ensure that the supply air isadequately mixed with warm air, and does not form draughts in the zones
occupied by passeng ers and staff. Th e shap e of the roof is important incontrolling this, and o was chosen o suit the path of he air trajectory froma nozzle in free spa ce (see Fig 5 ) . These curves became the basis for theshape of the roof.
Another strong competition concept was the daylighting of the space.Long strips of roof glazing running from landside to airside were to bevisually dom inant, reinforcing the direction of mov ement. Th e strips ofglazing connect the canyon, with its high daylighting levels from top glazingand the departure and arrivals wings with their huge curved glass facadesfacing the aircraft stands.
The level of daylighting in the large spaces significantly reduces thelength of time that artificial lighting is required andhence energyconsumption. Capital cost prevented this concept from being entirely carriedthrough to the completed building.
The landside to airside connection was further reinforced by the longarched structure, spanning the 80m width of the d eparture concourse andsupporting the curved roof. For the competition, arched triangular tubulartrusses were supported on splayed column legs forming a distributed meansof coping with the lateral loads thatwould arise in the event of anearthquak e. The secondary structure was indicated s a series of cantileverbrackets from each ize of the main truss m eeting at a p in midspana formsubsequently changed for a sim pler and more ductile system.
Fig 6. The competition model
In the wings, the structure c hanges into a shell form, carryin g the forcesin its surface, and held in shape by a seriesf tie bars (acting s diaphragm s)at regular centres. Th is effectively sp ans longitudinally, in the direction ofpassenger movement. It was realised that height constraints (governed by
the requirements that he air-traffic controllers must have a direct ightlineto the aircraft from the control tower) would not permit an ‘extruded’geometry. The roof of the wings would need to slope away from the m ainterminal building. T o maxim ise the repetition in the cladding panels, atoroidal geometry was proposed and subsequently adopted.
Renzo Piano won the competition (see Fig 6) and was appointed asdesign leader of a oint venture design team with Ove Arup& Partners ashis consulting structural, building services and fire engineers. Thetherjointventure members were Japanese architects and engineers Nikken Sekkei,airport planners ACroportde Paris, and specialist advisors on customs andsecurity, Japan Airport C onsultants. his team completed the K ihon (b asic)design, and the Jishi (detailed) design. Nikken Sekkei handled theconstruction supervision.
Designcriteria
Superficially, the competition model bears a close resemblance to thefinished building (see Fig 7). In fact, there are som e strategic differences
294 The Structural Engineer/Volume72/No 18/20 eptember 1994
Fig 11.Response to lateral loads at right angles to truss span
and so provide energy absorption (see Fig 11). This form was adopted inpreference to the cast-steel brackets envisagedt the ompetition stage, w ithcorresponding fabrication benefits.n this case the raced roofsurface cancan y the distributed ateral loads to the splayed support legsnd so to theframed structure elow.
At the landside, each roof truss extends eyond the played support legs
to form theoof to the canyon. single propupports the trussrom a rameat the landside ofhe canyon, after which the roof cantilevers a further 15mto create a canopyove r the ccess and drop-off reas.
Since the landside frame is a separate structure from the main floor
frames, theres the possibility of he two structu res oving laterallyout ofphase with each other in an earthquake. The single prop support hasspherical bearings at each en d to permit relativeateral movement in alldirections.
At the irside of the MTB, the main trusses merge into the ing structureat a low point co rresponding withne of twomajor gutter linessee Fig 12).
Th e wingsThe wing structure covers a 20mwide space from the airside edge supportto a series of columnsat the basef the wings. An obvious solution ould
be a half-portal spanning cross the 0m gap. Suc h a solution would needa struc tural depth of around 1.5m (in Japan ), and with a series of suchstructures viewed along the length of the wings they would present asubstantially ‘solid’ appearance to the observer. Instead a lattice-shellstructure was developed, spanning longitudinally, and results in a muchmore slender ppearance.
Circular hollow section (CHS) ribs occur at 7.2m centres with high-strength tie bars in a ‘spoke’ arrangement o restrain the shap e of alterna teribs and so act as a diaphragm. Longitudinal rectangular ollow sections(RHS) mem bers are fixed to the outside face of the ribs to which thecladding and glazing is fixed. Diagonal RHS members comp lete the shellsurfac e (see Fig 13).
The shell was analysed using a non-linear dynamic relaxation program(FABLON), which can take accou nt of the displaced shape of structu reunder oad and non-isotropic behaviour. Consequently FABLON cansimulate buckling.Various parametric studies were carried ut to define the
shape of the wing and o chec k for nap-through buck ling.The central part of the shell structure (correspondingwith the MTB)
derives its lateral support from the MTB roof adding complexity to th eanalysis,but simplification o t$e building through he absence of any jointat this position.
Movement joints are provided, one on the centrelineof the MTB andothers at varying centres of up to 2OOm in thewings. This spacing, greate rthan considered normal in the UK, is comm onplace in large build ings inJapan. The difficulty ofealing with joints in eismic conditions outweighs
the thermal-induced disadvantages. Of co urse, thermal range becomesanother base load to be applied o each of the various loadcases.
Connections
In such a structure, much effort goes into the design of con nections toensure secureransfer of force s and mom ents, o giveherequired aestheticresult, and to aid fabrication.
In th e MTB, the trusses are fully elded, with ach truss elivered to sitein five sections,ater site-welded to form the omplete unit.Site welding iscomm on practice n Japan, and this design requirement was consideredobe entirely routineby the Japan ese rectors.
The truss sections came toite with the corresponding end sectionsofsecondary beam s welded in place (see Fig 14). All o ther connections(column to truss, secondary beams, etc.) were bolted with HSFG bolts -
again the normal practice n Japan since the earthquake conditionsequirejoints towithstand repeated reversal of loads.The connections in the wing structure were made with a fabricated
compon ent welded o the ribs t each intersec tionoint. The secondary anddiagonalmemberswerebolted ntoposition, and theT-connectorssubsequently hiddenby co ver plates.
The various fork connectionsor the tie bars were machined from steklplate since castingsould have needed a time-consuming special-approvalprocedure in Japan.
GeometryThe entire oof geometry s set out from theladding surface, ands basedon a toroidal (rotated) geometryn order toaximise repetitions of claddingand structure.
The 2-dimensions sections defined as a continuous series f tangentialcircular arcs. The basic shape is derived from he air-flow trajectory n theMTB, and the space requirements, and parametrictudies in the ings.
The 3-dimensional geometrys created by rotating the 2-dimension shapearound an inclined circle 34m indiameter,chosen on a trial-and-error basis
to give the required bounding dimensions. In fact the MTB geometry is‘cylindrical‘, formed from an xtrusion of he 2D shape, so all of the MTB
trussesare identical andend w alls are vertical.In the wings the grids are radial grid-planes and the columns a re not
vertical, but radial (see Fig.5). In thisway, each ribs identified in profile,varying o nly n length. this repetition w as usedo substantial advantage inthe fabrication.
FireThe volume of this building substantially excee ds the normal regulationlimits, and t is recognised that this volume is not practicallydivisible intofire compartments. It waslear fromhe early tage of design that apecialapproval under BSLJ would be needed. BSLJ offers a special-approval(waiver) procedure throu gh he appointment of a com mittee of professors
expert in the relevant ield, and who make a recommendationo the Ministerof Construction.The BSW also requires steelwork supporting theoof of asteel-framed building to be fire clad to a height of 4m above the highestfloor.
The columns in theTB were straightforwardo fire protect, and re cladin GRC for this purpose. However, he steel in the hell of he wings couldnot be protected effective ly in an aesthetically pleasing way, and so thespecial approval was extended to cove r the omission of this part of theprotection.
Detailed fire calculatio nswere carried outo show that or a design ire,the structure (in its weakened state through elevated temperature) wouldremain in place for sufficient time tollow escape. In a more severe fireevent, sufficient to cause tructural failure, the collapse as not progressivenor disproportionate.
Approvalwas btained to dispense with the ormal rotectionrequirements on the asis thatsuitable ‘countermeasures’ were adopted. Inthe cas e of the wing structure, intumescent paint (suppliedy Nullfire of heUK) was used as thecountermeasure- efined as such sinc e intumescentpaint was not acceptable s a fire-protectionmaterial in Japan at he timeof the approval process.
ProcurementAs a result of American political pressure, the Japanese govemmenthadidentified several construction projectshat were to be open o internationalcompetition. Cost advice iven by the design team had been based o n h eexpectation that procurement would be t internationalprices.
In the event, contracting organisations interested in bidding for thisproject as he main contractors were invitedo register, and ashortlist wasselected of severaloint ventures, each ledy a Japanese contractor and most
involving foreign companies. There was no intention torocure individualsubcontractors overseas.
Obayashi and Takinaka leading eparate jointventures were appointedto construct half f the building each iterally-with the boundary betweenthe contracts on the centralovement joint.
In Japan, apanese ontractorsnormallyprocure rompreferredsubcontractors with whom they have developed long-term relationships, andin this case Obayashi and Takenaka procure steelworkrom Nippon Steel
and Kawazaki Heavy Industries. Unfortunately, thesewo fabricators ereunable toprovide a roof steelworkthnthe allocated budget, and there wasconsiderablepressure to abandon some of the competition concepts foramore traditional ap anese solution.
The design team identifiedeveral suitablenternational fabricato rsandsought quotations or the roof teelwo rk fromtaly, France andhe UK. UKfabricator Watson pursued this opportunity with eventual success. In asimilar way, Eiffel from France was contractedo provide the architecturallycrafted steel trusses and glazing o the two endalls to theMTB.
The project is now completed and has already attracted internationalacclaim. The buildingchieves thenitial design aim of orientating ts users- t is difficult to becom e lost within.
There is clear evidence thathe openin g of the design marketn Japanoforeign competition is continuing. W hether the construc tion market willfollow remains o be seen.
AcknowledgementsClient: Kansai International Airport CorporationDesign team: Renzo Piano Building Workshop Japan, Nikken Sekkei,Aeroport de Paris, and Japan Airport Consu ltantsMain contractors: Takenaka (joint venture leader) and Obayashi (jointqrenture leader)Steelwork fabricators: Nippon Steel, Kawasaki Heavy Industries, and
Watson SteelLtd.
The Structural Engineer/Volume 72/No 18/20 eptember 1994 297
