See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316857219

Eladio Dieste; ‘resistance through form’

Chapter · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 254

2 authors, including:

Remo F Pedreschi
The University of Edinburgh
57 PUBLICATIONS   386 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flood resilience in Nepal View project

Digitally fabricated timber roof for the London Design Fair View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Remo F Pedreschi on 11 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structures and Architecture – Cruz (Ed.)
© 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-49249-2

Eladio Dieste; ‘resistance through form’

R. Pedreschi & D. Theodossopoulos

University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

ABSTRACT: The Uruguayan Engineer, Eladio Dieste (1917-2000), was a pioneer in three
fields, structures, materials and architecture. In his work he encapsulated the essence of rela-
tionship between structure and architecture. He believed in ‘resistance through form’, the ma-
nipulation of geometry to shape structure and provide efficient and expressive architecture. The
paper examines his approach to structure by studying the design and behaviour of two structural
typologies that he developed, the free standing barrel vault and the Gaussian vault. The geome-
try of each system is developed using the catenary. A finite element analysis indicates the sign-
ficance of both span to rise ratio and absolute span in controlling the structural behaviour.
Whilst the stresses in both systems are comparatively low, the behaviour of the free-standing
vaults is conditioned by deformation and the Gaussian vault by buckling.

1 INTRODUCTION

The 20th century was a period of considerable innovation and creativity in both structure and
architecture. Engineers such as Robert Maillart(1872-1940), Eduardo Torroja (1899-1961), Pier
Luigi Nervi(1891-1979) and others working with the comparatively new material of reinforced
concrete were developing new forms of structure that exploited the plastic capabilities of the
material and were at the same time efficient, elegant and economic, Pedreschi (2008). At one
with their concerns for engineering pragmatism was the attention they gave to the architectural
expression of their structures: efficiency, form and process led to what has been described as
‘structural art’ by Billington (1985). They have rightly become much praised and admired by
both the architectural and engineering professions. The work of the Uruguayan Engineer, Ela-
dio Dieste (1917-2000) clearly fits the description of ‘structural art’, Anderson (2004). Until
the middle of the last decade of Dieste’s work was largely unknown outside of South America.
Since then a number of publications, Jimenz-Torrecillas 1996, Pedreschi 2000, Anderson 2004,
have appeared. The comparative anonymity of his work can be attributed partly to geographical
restrictions but perhaps more significantly to his own approach to innovation. He deliberately
avoided importing technology from the developed world and sought ‘to contemplate each prob-
lem independently keeping in mind the conditions of our own circumstances and environment’
Dieste (1996). Dieste adopted both a practical and intellectual position to resolve the issues of
structure, form and architecture in a totally South American context. Unlike his European coun-
terparts he avoided the use of concrete using instead brick, a traditional and indigenous material
in Uruguay, with its origins in the artisan and craftsman rather than the technologist and engi-
neer. He brought engineering and mathematical skills, an awareness of form and an acute sensi-
tivity of the South American cultural context to his work. His structures emphasise the lightness
and efficiency of materials, obtained by a combination of engineering analysis, experience of
building and a strong concern for the expressive potential of structural form. This paper reviews
and compares two generic forms of structure developed by Dieste, the freestanding barrel vault

779
and the Gaussian vault. They each have quite distinct characteristics but have evolved very
clearly from a structural language of ‘resistance through form’ and a geometry based on the ca-
tenary. In virtually all of the many structures he built using these forms they use the minimum
material possible, the thickness of a single brick. Dieste also developed construction methods
and details that sought to maximise the efficiency of production and emphasise the expressive
qualities of his structures. The structural behaviour and construction of both types of vaults has
been studied using actual examples from the Dieste Archive, physical models and finite ele-
ment analysis. The results provide new insights into the work of this remarkable engineer. Al-
though both forms originate from the same principles different phenomena dominate the struc-
tural behaviour and final resolution of the geometry.

2 BACKGROUND TO DIESTE AND THE FIRM DIESTE Y MONTAÑEZ

Dieste was born in the city of Artigas in the North of Uruguay. He studied engineering at the
University of Montevideo, graduating in 1943 and subsequently formed the company Dieste y
Montañez with his friend from university Eugenio Montañez. The company both design and
construct and through these activities Dieste was able to create new structural forms and con-
struction techniques. Each new project allowed an evaluation of an idea or a refinement in
technique to the point where he was able to build quite extraordinary structures in brick with
confidence and certainty. The output of the company was considerable. They are responsible
for over 1.5 million square metres of buildings and structures of considerable variety, including
factories, commercial, sports facilities, warehouses, churches and towers, all using engineered
reinforced brickwork. Some of the individual buildings, such as the Church of Jesus Christ the
worker are considered architectural masterpieces. The company is still operating.

3 USE OF BRICK

In an early project for a house in collaboration with the architect Antonio Bonet Dieste sug-
gested replacing the proposed concrete shell roof with a thin brick vault. From this point on-
wards he explored the use of the material, using it virtually exclusively in his projects. Bricks
are indigenous to Uruguay and Dieste exploited their properties, not simply as a substitute to
concrete but at a material that if used correctly had particular advantages over concrete.
x Bricks are lighter, therefore need less reinforcement and lighter formwork structures
x In a brick vault the majority of the material is already hardened and formwork can be
struck sooner than concrete structures. As soon as 24 hours later in some situations
x Brickwork uses less cement than concrete.
x The hygrothermal characteristics of brick can help to moderate internal building humidi-
ty
x Brickwork tends to weather more comfortably than concrete
Dieste used a variety of different bricks in his projects, including hand-made, solid and perfo-
rated types

4 RESISTANCE THROUGH FORM AND THE CATENARY

Dieste’s attitude to structure can be encapsulated in the following quotation:

‘The resistant virtues of the structures that we make depend on their form, it is through their
form that they are stable and not because of an awkward accumulation of materials. The is
nothing more noble and elegant from an intellectual point of view than this, resistance through
form.’ Dieste (1996)
In his work, form relates to the manipulation of brick surfaces, either vertically or horizontal-
ly, avoiding wherever possible the use of linear framing elements, such as beams or columns

780
that lead to ‘an awkward accumulation of materials’. The idea is applied rigourously through-
out, informing the construction process, detailing and expression of his projects. In his vaulted
structures there are no layers, such as cladding, primary and secondary structure, simply the
surface. The predominant load is its own self-weight and most critically at the point of form-
work removal. The most efficient way of defining the geometry is to use the geometric proper-
ties of the catenary, providing the relationship between structural form and force. The catenary
defines the form that ensures axial tension or compression in the structure due to its own
weight. The relevant catenary geometry for a particular set of conditions can be found graphi-
cally, by physical models or mathematically using Equation 1, illustrated in Figure 1.
To § wo.x · (1)
y ¨ cosh . - 1.0 ¸
wo © To ¹
§wo ˜ x ·
T max To ˜ cosh¨ ¸ (2)
© To ¹
Where w 0 = the self-weight and T 0 = force in cable or arch at mid point.
30

25

20

15
Tmax To: horizontal force
10 in vault
To To § wo.x ·
y y ¨cosh. - 1.0¸ 5
Tmax: maximum
force in vault
wo © To ¹
0
x 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ratio of Span to rise

Figure 1. Geometry of a catenary arch. Figure 2. Influence of span to rise ratio on forces in vault.

The force at the crown of a vault T o , where the tangent to the surface is horizontal is the
same as the horizontal component of the reaction. The maximum force in the vault, T max, Equa-
tion 2 occurs at the reaction point. These forces are influenced greatly by the geometry the ca-
tenary itself. The shallower the vault in relation to the span the greater the internal forces. This
is illustrated in Figure 2, which uses equations 1 and 2 to calculate T o and T max for a the range
of span to rise typically used in Dieste’s work.

5 FREE STANDING BARREL VAULTS

5.1 Background and construction
The free-standing barrel vault is a single curvature vault that requires relatively simple form-
work to construct. The vertical support structure is kept to a minimum. In general applications it
usually appears to float above and over the wall. In the early development of concrete barrel
vaults it was accepted practice to build the vaults on solid end walls:
Barrels (vaults) should be supported on end walls or stiff arches to avoid unnecessary and
costly buttresses or interfering tie rods (Salvadori and Norton 1990).
In Dieste’s applications the use of such walls would restrict the expression of the vault as a
light, floating element. The typology been used in many projects including large-scale work-
shops, factories and warehouses. Other forms of vault generally rely on stiff edge beams and
buttresses to control structural behaviour. Dieste controlled behaviour through form by folding
edges along the sides of the vault. The edge beams are continuous and seamless with the vault
itself, further emphasizing the form of the vault itself and enhancing the sense that it is an ele-
ment independent of the support structure.
The cross section of the vault is a catenary. Typically the span to rise ratio does not exceed 4
and is therefore comparatively deep, Figure 3 This depth provides considerable stiffness in the
longitudinal direction and allows long span and cantilevers. In some applications such as bus

781
depots and entrance buildings the vaults are supported on a single, central row of columns as a
balanced cantilever, Figure 4 shows a typical double cantilever vault.

Figure 3. Section through a typical barrel vault. Figure 4. Double cantilever vault.

The vaults are constructed using a single layer of bricks laid directly onto the formwork.
Small diameter steel reinforcement is placed in the joints between the bricks which are then
filled with a coarse sand/cement grout. A 30 millimetre thick layer of grout with a light steel
mesh is then applied to the top of the vault. The vaults are prestressed in the longitudinal direc-
tion using highly innovative yet simple techniques developed by Dieste, see Pedreschi (2000)
for more information. The sequence of construction is critical. As the cross section is prismatic
the vault is constructed on moveable formwork in sections that progress along its axis. The pre-
stress can only be applied once the vault is complete. Depending on the prevailing conditions
the formwork may be stripped as soon 24 hrs. (this has been confirmed by half scale construc-
tion studies at the University of Edinburgh). The bricks draw moisture from the mortar and it
starts to stiffen rapidly. Striking the formwork marks the first stage of load transfer. The form-
work for the edge beam remains propped both vertically and horizontally with the self-weight
of the vault carried by arching directly to the edge beams. The vaults use looped pre-stressing
wires anchored directly into the brickwork, covered with the sand/cement screed after stressing.
The appearance of the vaults challenges conventional perceptions of masonry as a heavy,
massive material. The expression and details of windows and support structure all contribute to
a sense of lightness.

5.2 Structural behaviour of the vaults

The thinness of the vaults and the long cantilevers demonstrate the use of form to resist force.
The proportions of the cross section and the use of the edge beams are very important in condi-
tioning structural behaviour. The deep catenary cross sections results in low axial compressive
stresses, approximately 0.3 MPa for a span to rise ratio of 4. The edge beams condition the
overall structural behaviour. A parametric study was undertaken using finite elements to study
the influence of span to rise ratio and other characteristics on the structural behaviour of the
vaults, see Pedreschi (2006) for more details, some of which are reported here.
The model used in the study was developed from an actual project and simplified for the
purpose of the investigation. The building for Fagar Cola 1992, Figure 5, consists of a vault
spanning over 5 spans with the longest internal span of 24 metres and cantilevers of 12.8 me-
tres. The transverse span of the vault between edge beams is 12.65 metres with a rise of 4.175
metres. The overall thickness of the vault is 100 mm comprising a 70 mm extruded brick with a
30 mm sand/cement topping. A prestress force of 840 kN is applied along the crown of the can-
tilever and a force 480kN is applied along the valley sections of the internal spans.

5.3 Parametric study of vaults

The model adopted for the study consisted of a single central span with cantilever at each end.
The Finite Element analysis suite Abaqus was used with 4 node doubly curved shell elements.
The elastic modulus of the brickwork was 7000 MPa, the same value used by Dieste.

782
Figure 5. Free standing barrel vaults at FAGAR COLA.

The self-weight of brickwork taken as 20kN/m3 and the overall thickness of the vaults as
130 mm. The influence of the ratio of span to rise on the overall deformations of the vault was
studied. The model has an internal span of 20 metres and 12.5 metre span for both cantilevers.
The transverse span between edge beams is 10 metres. The ratio of span to rise varied from
1.85 metres to 6 metres. The vertical displacements at 4 key positions are presented in Figure 6.
These are: the crown and the springing points of the vault (where it connects to the edge beam)
at both the middle of the internal span and at the end of the cantilever. A positive displacement
is upwards. The effect the cantilevers have on the internal span causes the crown tends to de-
form upwards slightly. The displacements at the end of the cantilever are much greater and in-
crease rapidly as the span to rise ratio increases. The displacements at the edge of the vaults are
greater than along the crown, indicating the vault is changing shape. These displacements be-
come very large once the span to rise ratio exceeds 4. The horizontal displacements springing
points at end of the cantilever and the mid-span are presented in Figure 7. Positive displace-
ments indicate that the springing points are moving inwards At the end of the cantilever the
vault moves inwards the movement decreasing as the span to rise ratio increases. This is some-
what counter intuitive in two points: firstly given the catenary arch cross section one might ex-
pect outward movement and secondly that the deformations in the shallower vaults would be
greater. Longitudonal bending will tend to dominate the behaviour at the end of the cantilever,
the axial forces in the transverse direction are low in comparison. Furthermore the vaults with
the low span to rise ratios the outward thrusts Tmax, figure 3 are less and the inclination to the
horizontal actually greater, reducing further the horizontal component of the thrust. Clearly the
arching action is competing the with bending action, which tends to pull the springing points
inwards. As the span to rise ratio increases the horizontal thrusts increase and reduce the ten-
dency to pull inwards. The edge beams condition and control the displacements. Increasing the
width of the edge beam reduces the magnitude of displacement, Pedreschi (2006).

0.02
0.08
0
0 2 4 6 8 0.06
-0.02 span to rise ratio

-0.04 0.04

-0.06 end of cantilever

0.02 midspan of vault
-0.08 mid-span crown
cantilever crown 0 span to rise ratio
-0.1 mid-span edge 0 2 4 6 8
cantilever edge -0.02

Figure 6. Influence of span to rise ration on vertical Figure 7. Influence of span to rise on horizontal
deflection. deformation.

783
6 GAUSSIAN VAULTS
6.1 Form and construction of vaults
The barrel vaults have low span to rise ratios. The transverse spans between the springing
points are quite modest typically 10 to 12 metres and the compressive stresses in the brickwork
are very low. Figure 3 shows that as the axial compressive stress due to self weight increases as
the span to rise ratio increases. Thus for a given span the stress increases as the rise decreases.
Furthermore as the span increases for a given span to rise ratio then the compressive stress in-
creases further. However even at long spans with relatively shallow rises the stresses due to
self-weight are low in relation to the compressive strength of the brickwork, 1-1.5 MPa. There-
fore the brick vaults have the potential for thin, long span applications. As the spans increase
the slenderness of the vault also increases and the predominant structural action becomes buck-
ling. The resistance to buckling can be increased in a number of ways:
x Increasing the thickness: reduces the slenderness without increasing the axial compres-
sive stresses but increases the thrust and vertical loads on the support structures and
formwork
x Incorporate stiffening ribs: decreases slenderness, but changes construction processes
and structural behaviour, losing the benefit of the surface structure and changes the ex-
pression of the structure dramatically.
x Use form to resist buckling: create a doubly curved surface. Increases stiffness without
significantly increasing the overall quantity of material and thickness of the vault

Figure 8. Development of Gaussian vault. Figure 9. Vaults at Montevideo Docks.

From Dieste’s perspective the last approach was the most elegant and intellectually rigorous.
He developed the Gaussian vault. A doubly curved surface is ghenerated using a series of cate-
nary curves of varying rises but constant span. Imagine a vertical plane moving horizontally
along the springing lines of the vault. A catenary is drawn within the plane. As it moves along
the rise varies. The surface traced in this way doubly curved with maximum undulation at the
centre of the span, Figure 8. The undulated form increases the resistance to buckling. Many
buildings were constructed using these forms. A particular advantage is reconciliation of the
curved geometry of the vault with the supporting structure at the sides. The Gaussian vault used
in the warehouse at Montevideo docks is shown in Figure 9. The formwork for the vault is quite
complex and represents a significant proportion of the cost. However it is used repeatedly. In
figure 10 the formwork is used 14 times. The space between successive vaults incorporates
glazing, which reflects light very effectively into the space below. These systems have also
been used extensively, often in very large projects, such as the Fruit Market in Porto Alegre,
Brazil, over 50000 m2, the largest single building is the Growers Pavilion, 290 metres long and
a span of 47 metres. The warehouse at the dock is an interesting example. The original roof of
the building was destroyed in a fire. Dieste proposed a Gaussian vault, the overall dimensions
are 79 by 46 metres. Each vault has a clear span of 44.74 metres and is 5.68 metres wide. It
consists of a single layer of hollow brick unit with a topping similar to the barrel vaults. The
joints between the units are reinforced with small diameter wires. The overall thickness of the
vault is 130 mm.

784
6.2 Structural behaviour and analysis of Gaussian vaults.
The compressive stresses in the vault can be estimated using the catenary equations 1 and 2.
However the analysis for buckling is considerably more complex. Dieste found that the existing
methods of analysis did not fit the particular conditions of his vaults and he developed analyti-
cal procedures, ultimately presenting these methods in a book, Dieste (1985). He derived an ex-
pression for the thrust line of the vault and evaluating the critical buckling using a graphic itera-
tive technique. A summary his method is presented in Pedreschi and Theodossopolis (2007).
A finite element model was constructed to study the structural behaviour of Gaussian vault
and compared with Dieste’s technique. The warehouse in Montevideo docks was studied.
Again ABAQUS was used. The geometry was taken directly from drawings by Dieste y Mon-
tañez. The analysis was initially used to compare the stresses predicted by the catenary equation
1 and 2. The maximum stress in vault occurs at the spring points, 1.48MPa. Table 1 summarises
the results of the analysis at three critical sections at the crown and springing points of the vault
, the lower free edge A, the lowest catenary curve B and the uppermost curve C. The sections
are identified in Figure 10.
Table 1. Comparison of forces in vault between Catenary equation and Finite Element analysis.
Section Rise of catenary Forces at crown Forces at springing
metre kN kN
Catenary eqn. F.E. model Catenary eqn. F.E. model
A 4.707 113 152 123 137
B 4.201 124 108 132 132
C 6.507 83 85 97 100

The catenary analysis assumes a series of individual, unconnected sections. The F.E. model
predicts higher forces at A and lower forces at B, this clearly indicates load transfer between
the sections, redistributing the forces between sections. F.E. model and the catenary analysis
are very close for section C, the section with the greatest rise. The model also provided useful
information on the deflections. The deflections vary along the crown, with a maximum deflec-
tion of 14 mm at A and 8 mm at C. Given the overall span these are very low and indicate a
very small twist in the crown of approximately 6 mm.
A buckling analysis was also undertaken using the elastic instability process in ABAQUS,
the procedure resolves the eigenvalue buckling problem by performing a liner perturbation
analysis and estimates the critical buckling load.

Figure 10. Geometry at crown. Figure 11. 1st buckling mode of vault.

The eigenvalues for the first three modes are 4.37, 4.54 and 8.76. The first mode of buckling
is shown in Figure 11. It indicates a typical push through buckling mode. The load at which this
occurs represents factor of safety against collapse under self-weight. Using Dieste’s method,
Pedreschi and Theodossopolis 2007, the factor of safety is 3.85, slightly less and hence benefi-
cially conservative. The analysis was also extended to consider asymmetrical loading due to
wind effects. The design wind speeds in Uruguay are quite similar to Scottish conditions. Based
on recommendations for shallow vaults an asymmetric pressure of 500Pa acting downwards
was applied to windward half of the vault and an upward pressure of 600Pa to the leeward side.

785
These loads were combined with the self-weight. The factor of safety against collapse was de-
termined as 3.69. The analysis ignores any additional strengthening from the reinforcement.
In vaults such as this a factor of safety of less than three under self-weight would be inappro-
priate.

7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The two vaulting systems developed by Dieste represent a major aspect of his work, and he
used both extensively. The studies reported in this paper demonstrate how he manipulated the
catenary geometry very effectively and by adhering to the principle of resistance through form
he was able to extract the maximum performance and efficiency from each type. The single
curvature of the free-standing barrel vaults, based on the low span to rise ratio and short overall
span results in very low axial compressive stress. The height of the vault creates particular ad-
vantages when used to span in the longitudinal direction. In more conventional vaulted struc-
tures the inclusion gable walls or vertical edge beams are considered necessary. Dieste avoids
both solutions and prefers to manipulate the surface to form edge stiffeners, and in doing so
creates a challenging and visually exciting roof. As the study shows once the ratio of span to
rise exceeds 4 then the deformations at the end of the cantilever increase rapidly, defining the
practical limits of the typology.
The analysis of the catenary geometry suggests that longer and shallower vaults are possible.
Vaults with single curvature become sensitive to buckling. Again Dieste finds a solution to the
problem through a manipulation of the form to create the Gaussian vault. The FE analysis veri-
fies the catenary action of the vaults, demonstrates the stress redistribution that occurs across
the vault and verifies Dieste’s own procedures for calculating the buckling resistance.
For both systems the analysis suggests that Dieste had determined their practical limits in
terms of span to rise ratio and overall span.
Considering the Gaussian vault, the predominant action is still axial compression rather than
bending and does not require the pre-stressing or more complex reinforcement of the barrel
vault. The undulated surface is a very efficient way to increase stiffness. The depth of the undu-
lation increases from zero to a maximum exactly where it is needed at the mid-section. The
length of the curve at section of the crown is 6.5 metres and 5.6 metres at the springing point,
taking an average of these two values gives a measure of the additional material needed to sta-
bilise the vault assuming a single curvature, approximately only 10% extra material. Although
the actual formwork is more complex the Gaussian vault represents most refined application of
the catenary and therefore of ‘resistance through form’.

8 REFERENCES

Anderson S. (ed.) 2004, Eladio Dieste,: Innovation in Structural Art, NewYork, Princeton Architectual
Press.
Dieste E; 1985, Pandeo de laminas de doble curvatura, Ediciones de la Banda Oriental, Monetvideo.
Dieste E. 1996, Technology and underdevelopment, in Eladio Dieste, 1943-1996, Jiménez Torrecillas A
(ed|) Seville, Consejería de Obras Públicas y Transportes.
Dieste E. 1996b Architecture and Construction, in Eladio Dieste, 1943-1996, Jiménez Torrecillas A (ed|)
Seville, Consejería de Obras Públicas y Transportes.
Billington D. 1985, The Tower and the Bridge; The New Art of Structural Enginering, Princeton NJ,
Princeton University Press.
Jiménez Torrecillas A. (ed) 1996 Eladio Dieste, 1943-1996, Seville, Consejería de Obras Públicas y
Transportes.
Pedreschi, R. 2006 The Structural Behaviour and Design of Free-standing Barrel Vaults of Eladio Dieste
in Dunkeld, M., ed. The Second International Congress on Construction History pp 2451- 2468.
Pedreschi R. and Theodossopoulos D. 2007, The double curvature masonry vaults of Eladio Dieste,, Structures
and Buildings vol. 160, issue SB1, pp 3-11.

786
 Pedreschi R. 2008. Form, Force and Structure: A Brief History, Architectural Design, special issue Versa-
tility and Vicissitude, 78(2): 12-19.
Salvadori, M. and Norton, W.W., 1990, Why Buildings Stand Up, New York, Prentice-Hall.

787

View publication stats