Journal of Constructional Steel Research 92 (2014) 175–182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Development and analysis of a long-span retractable roof structure

Jianguo Cai a,b,⁎, Jian Feng a,b, Chao Jiang b
a
Key Laboratory of C & PC Structures of Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
b
National Prestress Engineering Research Center, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A long-span retractable roof structure based on the beam string structure (BSS) and scissor mechanisms was
Received 28 May 2012 presented in this paper. The BSS are placed parallel to each other and they are connected with the linear scissor
Accepted 15 September 2013 mechanism. During the folding or unfolding, the structure just has one degree of freedom. The geometry of the
Available online 17 November 2013
retractable roof structure was firstly given. Then structural analysis of an integrated model of the unfolded
configuration was conducted. Furthermore, the structural behavior of the structure in the semi-open
Keywords:
Retractable roof structures
configuration is also investigated. Finally, using the translational and rotational springs to model the elastic
Beam string structures support of the strut, an analytical model for the lateral buckling of the BSS during the motion is developed.
Lateral buckling Based on the virtual work principle, the formulation of the critical load is obtained. Then a detailed parameter
Motion analysis of the BSS with a straight beam is undertaken.
Elastic support © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction events, which could provide complete protection from inclement

In recent years, space structures have been developed rapidly
all over the world. And string (cable) structures can be found in
many large space structures [1–3]. String structures are divided into
two types [4]: hybrid tension structures and thoroughbred tension
structures, such as membrane structures [5], cable nets [6] and cable–
strut structures [7,8]. Beam string structure (BSS) is a typical type of
hybrid tension structures, which is composed of upper beams, lower
steel cables and struts. Applying pretension force to lower steel cables
causes the structure to deform to an invert arch, which decreases the
deflection of the structure greatly.
Due to the above advantages, BSS has been widely used in stadiums,
public halls, and airplane hangers, such as Green Dome Maebashi [4],
Urayasu Municipal Sports Center [4], Shanghai Pudong International
Airport Terminal [9], Guangzhou International Convention and Ex-
hibition Center [10], Harbin Exhibition Sports Center [11], Shanghai
Yuanshen Arena [12], and National Gymnasium Roof Model [13].
There are also many researches on the BSS [9–14], like static and param-
eter analyses, form-finding analysis, dynamic analysis, and model test.
Retractable roofs are cover structures that can transform from one
configuration to another, usually referred to as the open and closed
configurations. Although small-sized retractable roofs have been
developed, the long-span retractable roof is still a problem [15].
Moreover, in a building, especially in a long-span building, there is a
large desire for the provision of very large spaces for sports or other
⁎ Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory of C & PC Structures of Ministry of Education,
Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China. Tel.: +86 25 83795006; fax: +86 25
83793150.
E-mail addresses: caijg_ren@hotmail.com, j.cai@seu.edu.cn (J. Cai).
weather to audience and players, but which could remain open if the
weather was good [16]. Based on the above advantages of beam string
structure and the mature design theory and construction level for BSS,
it is a good candidate for the long-span retractable roof structure.
In this paper, a new type long-span retractable roof based on the
beam string structure and the scissor mechanism is developed. The
independent beam string structures are connected with the scissor
mechanism. During folding or unfolding, the structure just has one
degree of freedom. The geometry of the retractable roof structure was
firstly given. Then the static behavior under different load combinations
of the unfolded and semi-open structure is also investigated. Finally,
using the translational and rotational springs to model the elastic
support of the strut, an analytical model for the lateral buckling of the
BSS during the motion is developed.
2. Geometry of the retractable roof
The structure presented in this case study is a retractable roof
structure used in stadiums, convention and exhibition center, public
halls etc. Many different designs and concepts using scissor mechanisms
have already been proposed for deployable or mobile structures. Most
of these designs were based on scissor-grid structures as described in
Reference [17]. However, scissor-grid structures always have to be
handled as a whole, which limits their size and weight. Therefore, we
suggest that the system with parallel linear beam string structures can
be used as an interesting alternative. And the separate beam string
structures are connected with the scissor mechanism. The deployed
and semi-open configurations are shown in Fig. 1. The scissor mech-
anism in the unfolded configuration is overlapped to form a line. The
structure can also be folded to a small compact bundle.

0143-974X/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.09.006
176 J. Cai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 92 (2014) 175–182
(a) Unfolded configuration
(b) Semi-open configuration
Fig. 1. The retractable roof based on beam string structures and scissor mechanisms (a)
unfolded configuration (b) semi-open configuration.
The span of the BSS of the case is 72m, and the sag of the cable is 4m.
The length between the parallel beam string structures in the fully
closed configuration is 9 m. The other geometry information of one
single piece of the BSS is shown in Fig. 2.
3. Static analysis of the unfolded structure
3.1. Loads and load combinations
The completely closed roof and the semi-open roof in this case
are required to withstand full wind and live/snow loads and their
combinations. These loads and load combinations are determined in
accordance with the Chinese Codes. Both the dead and live loads are
assumed to be 0.5 kN/m2. In their closed and semi-open configuration
and for wind coming from the transverse direction, which is per-
pendicular to the plane of beam string structures, the structure can be
compared to a flat roof structure as described in the Chinese Code. So
the wind loads for the closed and semi-open roofs are −
0.284 kN/m2 and −0.25 kN/m2, respectively.
Eight load cases are considered for the Ultimate Limit State analysis
as (1)1.2Dead + 1.4Live; (2)1.35Dead + 1.4 × 0.7 Live; (3)1.2Dead +
Fig. 2. Geometry of the BSS.
Table 1
Overview of the support forces in the unfolded configuration.
Fx(kN) LC Fy(kN) LC
Min −2796 1 261 6
Max 2796 1 652 1
1.4Wind; (4)1.2Dead + 1.4Live + 1.4 × 0.6Wind; (5) 1.2Dead +
1.4 × 0.7Live + 1.4Wind; (6) 1.2Dead + 1.4Live(asym); (7)1.2Dead +
1.4Live(asym) + 1.4 × 0.6Wind; (8)1.2Dead + 1.4 × 0.7Live(asym) +
1.4Wind. And seven cases for the Serviceability Limit State Analysis are
given as: (1) Dead + Live; (2) Dead + Wind; (3) Dead + Live +
0.6Wind; (4) Dead + 0.7Live + Wind; (5) Dead + Live(asym);
(6) Dead + Live(asym) + 0.6Wind; (7) Dead + 0.7Live(asym) + Wind.
The self weight of the structure is included in all cases.
3.2. Finite element model
The Finite Element Analysis software ANSYS is employed in all
structural analyses that have taken into account the geometrical non-
linearity. The steel truss and beam are simulated by element BEAM
188, the steel strut is simulated by element BEAM 44, and the tension-
only element LINK 10 is employed to model cable in the structure. The
section for the beam of BSS is H1200mm × 600 mm × 24 mm × 35 mm,
and the section for the scissor mechanism is H250mm × 100 mm ×
4 mm × 6 mm. Steel pipes of 245 mm in diameter and 8 mm in thickness
are used as the strut of the BSS. All the above elements are made of steel
with an elastic modulus of 206GPa. The type of the cables with an elastic
modulus of 180 GPa is PES7-301.
The two scissor-bars of a unit are interconnected at the scissor-
hinge. At the scissor-hinge, four elements (BEAM 188) are connected
to one translational point, representing the location of the scissor-
hinge in global 3-D space. To simulate the effect of the scissor-hinge,
an additional rotational point is created. The two beam elements of
one scissor-bar are connected to the one rotational point, and the two
beam elements of the other scissor-bar are connected to the other
rotational point. This way the two beam links of each scissor-bar can
be rigidly connected to each other, while the rotation of the two
scissor-bars is decoupled.
3.3. Ultimate limit state analysis
The minimum and maximum values of the reactions are given in
Table 1. The maximum stresses in the elements are given in Table 2.
The σ(N) denotes the stress caused by the axial forces, and σ(M) is
the bending stress. The elements in which these values are found are
depicted in Fig. 3.
The highest support forces are found for LC1 and LC6, which are the
dead and live loads. Maximum tension force in the cables of the BSS is
2738 kN, which occurs when the structure is subjected to LC1. The
maximum stress of the struts occurs in the LC1. This is because the
directions of the wind load and the live load are opposite. The worst
load for the scissor is LC6, which is the asymmetric live load. Bending
in the scissor-bars is caused by the interaction of the bars at the
scissor-hinges. Therefore, the highest bending and the highest axial
 J. Cai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 92 (2014) 175–182 177

Table 2 The largest displacements in the Y-direction (−73.6 mm) and in the
Overview of the maximum element stresses in the unfolded configuration (MPa). Z-direction (22.3 mm) are found for the combination of Dead and
σ LC Number σ(N) LC Number σ(M) LC Number Live loads (LC1 and LC2) in the mid-span of the BSS. The displacements
in the X-direction are negligible. These values seem perfectly accept-
Beams −30 3 73 1.7 1 80 −30.5 3 73
Scissors 47.8 6 27 3.7 6 27 45.2 6 27 able and the displacements will not degrade the serviceability of the
Struts −24.4 1 174 −24.4 1 174 −10.7 1 145 structure.

4. Static analysis of the semi-open structure

forces occur in the same part of the structure. And the highest stress in
the beams is due to the wind load. 4.1. Ultimate limit state analysis

3.4. Serviceability limit state analysis
The deformation of the structure is analyzed by checking the
displacements of the nodes under Serviceability Limit State loads. The
maximum values for the displacements of the nodes are given in
Table 3, and the nodes where they occur are depicted in Fig. 3.
The minimum and maximum values of the reactions for the semi-
open structure are given in Table 4. The maximum stresses in the
elements are given in Table 5, and the elements where they occur are
depicted in Fig. 3. The highest support forces are found under the
combination of Dead and Live loads, and the values are smaller than
that of the unfolded structure. The stress for all the elements is very
small.

(a) Unfolded configuration

(b) Semi-open configuration

Fig. 3. Location of the nodes and elements (a) unfolded configuration (b) semi-open configuration.
178 J. Cai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 92 (2014) 175–182

Table 3 Table 5
Overview of the maximum displacements in the unfolded configuration. Overview of the maximum element stresses in the semi-open configuration (MPa).

Node number LC X(mm) Y(mm) Z(mm) σ LC Number σ(N) LC Number σ(M) LC Number

1104024 5 Max X 5.3 −27.3 −0.003 Beams 16.5 8 28 0.48 6 24 16.4 8 28

1104024 6 Min X −4.8 −5.3 0.002 Scissors 10.3 8 236 0.05 7 213 10.3 8 236
1104250 2 Max Y 0 71.4 0 Struts −20.5 1 175 −20.5 1 175 −8.1 1 188
1104076 1 Min Y 0 −73.6 0
1104235 2 Max Z 0 28.8 22.3
1104265 2 Min Z 0 27.6 −22.3
Denoting u(x) and v(x) as the displacements of any point in the ox
and oy directions, the nonlinear strain–displacement relationship for
any point on the cross section can be written as
4.2. Serviceability limit state analysis

1 2
The maximum values for the node displacements of the semi-open ε ¼ ε m þ εb ; εm ¼ u′ þ ðv′Þ ; εb ¼ −yv″; ð2Þ
structure are given in Table 6, and the nodes where they occur are 2
depicted in Fig. 3. The displacements in the X-direction can also be
where εm and εb denote the axial strain and bending strain, respectively.
negligible. The largest displacements in the Y-direction (73.8 mm) and
The differential equations of equilibrium for a column with elastic
in the Z-direction (83.3 mm) are found for the combination of Dead
supports can be derived from the principle of virtual work that requires
and Live loads (LC1 and LC2) in the mid-span of the BSS.
l
5. Lateral buckling during the motion ∫0 ½EAðδu′ þ v′δv′Þε m þ EIs v″δv″dx−Pδu0 þ ks v0 δv0 þ kb vl δvl ð3Þ
þkθ v′l δv′l ¼ 0
It is known that the in-plane (the beam–cable plane) stiffness of the
BSS is large, but the BSS is easy to buckle in an out-plane mode during
for all sets of kinematically admissible virtual displacements δu and δv,
the motion. Zhong et al. [18] gave a formulation of the calculated length
where v0 is the displacement of the strut–string joint in the oy direction,
coefficient of the strut, but the rigidity of the beam–strut joint was not
vl is the displacement of the strut–beam joint in the oy direction, and EIs
considered. Tomka [19] studied the lateral stability of cable structures,
is the bending stiffness of the strut.
his research results are given in Fig. 4. As shown in this figure, if cables
Integrating Eq. (3) by parts leads to
are fixed above the bottom of the strut, it is stable. It is in a neutral
state when cables are on the same horizontal plane of the bottom of



l l
l
the strut. Moreover, if cables are fixed below the bottom of the strut, it EAεm δu
−∫0 EAε′m δudx þ EAεm v′δv

0
0

is unstable. The corresponding situations for the BSS are also shown in l
l
l ð4Þ
−∫0 EAðεm v′Þ′δvdx þ EIs v″δv′
−EI s v‴δv

Fig. 4. Wu [20] studied the lateral buckling of the struts in BSS with 0 0
l iv
arch beams using an equilibrium method. However, the BSS with þ∫0 EI s v δvdx−Pδu0 þ ks v0 δv0 þ kb vl δvl þ kθ v′l δv′l ¼ 0;
straight beams are often used in real projects, such as the Nanjing
International Convention and Exhibition Center shown in Fig. 5. where viv = d4v/dx4.
The objective studied in this section is a beam string structure with Then the differential equilibrium equation for the axial direction can
one strut as shown in Fig. 6. The compression in the strut, which is be obtained from Eq. (4) as
caused by the tension of the strings T, is denoted by P. It is known that
the BSS with a straight beam is in a neutral state when a pin beam– EAε′m ¼ 0: ð5Þ
strut joint is used in the BSS. Then only a rigid beam–strut joint or a
semi-rigid joint can be used in the BSS with a straight beam.
From Eq. (5), the axial strain εm is constant and can be written as
An analytical model for the lateral buckling of the strut is shown in
Fig. 7. In this figure, ks is the out-of-plane stiffness of the strings, kb is
P
the lateral stiffness of the beam, and kθ is the out-of-plane rotational εm ¼ − : ð6Þ
stiffness of the beam–strut joint. ks can be given by calculating the EA
lateral displacement of the beam under a central concentrated load. kθ
can be found from some design codes and research literatures [21,22], For equilibrium in the oy direction, with the integrating of Eq. (6) by
which is considering details of the beam–strut joint. When a force Fy is parts, the differential equilibrium equation can be written as
applied on the beam–string joint in the y direction, the displacement
ix
of the joint is Δ, then the stiffness ks is given by ks = Fy/Δ. Because the EI s v þ Pv″ ¼ 0: ð7Þ
compression of the strut P must be in equilibrium with the tension of
strings T, they must be in the same plane. When the strut is deformed, For simplicity, the following new parameters are introduced:
the compression P must point to the point O, as shown in Fig. 6. Then
the stiffness ks can be given as P
2
μ ¼ ; ð8Þ
EIs
P
ks ¼ : ð1Þ
l2
Table 6
Overview of the maximum displacements in the semi-open configuration.

Node number LC X(mm) Y(mm) Z(mm)

Table 4 126 7 Max X 3.9 43.2 0.0004
Overview of the support forces in the semi-open configuration. 117 7 Min X −1.3 21.6 0.0002
122 2 Max Y 0 73.8 0.0003
Fx(kN) LC Fy(kN) LC
142001 1 Min Y −0.1 −54.9 −0.2
Min −2190 2 271 6 107 1 Max Z 0.8 −2.6 83.3
Max 2305 1 531 1 137 1 Min Z 0 −19.5 −83.3
 J. Cai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 92 (2014) 175–182 179

Fig. 4. The lateral stability of cable structures.

and rearranging to yield The general solution of Eq. (9) can be written as

ix 2
v þ μ v″ ¼ 0: ð9Þ v ¼ G1 þ G2 x þ G3 sinðμxÞ þ G4 cosðμxÞ; ð19Þ

and the use of Eqs. (15)–(18) leads to four linear homogeneous

The boundary conditions for the strut can also be obtained from
algebraic equations with respect to G1–G4. The requirement of the
integrating Eq. (3) by part
existence of non-trivial solution for G1–G4 is the vanishing of
EAε m v′ þ EI s v‴ þ ks v ¼ 0; at x ¼ 0; determinant of the four linear algebraic equations' coefficient matrix as
ð10Þ




α s


2

0 αs μ

2

v″ ¼ 0; at x ¼ 0; ð11Þ
0 μ 0 0



¼ 0;

α b


2

α b sinðμlÞ α b cosðμlÞ α b l−μ
−EAεm v′−EI s v‴ þ kb v ¼ 0; at x ¼ l; ð12Þ
uα cosðμlÞ−μ 2 sinðμlÞ −uα sinðμlÞ−μ 2 cosðμlÞ
θ θ αθ 0

ð20Þ
EI s v″ þ kθ v′ ¼ 0; at x ¼ l: ð13Þ
which leads to
If we introduce new parameters, the stiffness coefficient of strings
h i
αs, the lateral stiffness coefficient of beams αb, and the rotational α s α b μl−ðα s þ α b Þμ 3 α θ
stiffness coefficient of the beam–strut joint αθ can be written as tanðμlÞ ¼ : ð21Þ
α s α b μ 2 l þ α s α b α θ −ðα s þ α b Þμ 4
ks k k
αs ¼ ;α ¼ b ;α ¼ θ : ð14Þ
EIs b EIs θ EIs If we denote the quantity μ l by ø and substitute Eqs. (1) to (21), the
characteristic equation is written as
The boundary conditions become
ϕ3 α θ l
2 tanðϕÞ ¼ − : ð22Þ
μ v′ þ v‴ þ α s v ¼ 0; at x ¼ 0; ð15Þ α b α θ l4 −ϕ4

v″ ¼ 0; at x ¼ 0; ð16Þ Solution of this transcendental equation (the smallest positive root)

yields ϕcr, from which we can obtain the critical load of the strut Pcr as
2
μ v′ þ v‴−α b v ¼ 0; at x ¼ l; ð17Þ
ϕ2cr EIs
P cr ¼ : ð23Þ
v″ þ α θ v′ ¼ 0; at x ¼ l: ð18Þ l2

Fig. 5. The beam string structure with straight beams.

180 J. Cai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 92 (2014) 175–182

Fig. 6. The beam string structure with one strut.

It can be concluded from Eq. (22) that the critical load of the strut is
decided by the lateral stiffness of the beam and the rotational stiffness of
the beam–strut joint.
When a rigid beam–strut joint is used, the characteristic equation
Eq. (22) can be simplified as

ϕ3
tanðϕÞ ¼ − : ð24Þ
α b l3

It is obvious that the critical load of the strut increases when the
lateral stiffness of the beam increases.
For a semi-rigid joint, with the help of MATLAB, a program is
developed to carry out parameter studies of the critical load of the
strut. Fig. 8 is the relation between dimensionless critical load and
lateral stiffness parameter of the beam αbl3 with different rotational
stiffness parameter of the beam–strut joint αθl. The dimensionless
critical load P cr is given by

P cr P
P cr ¼ ¼ 2 cr 2 ; ð25Þ
Q π EIs =l

where Q is the buckling load of a pin-ended column under uniform

Fig. 7. Analytical model for the strut.
compression.
It can be seen from Fig. 8 that the critical load increases with an
increase of the lateral stiffness parameter of the beam αbl3 for all
cases. The critical load increases quickly when the BSS with a low
beam lateral stiffness. As expected, the critical load for the strut of BSS
with a straight beam is always smaller than the buckling load of a pin-
ended column. For the lateral stiffness parameter αbl3 = 20, the
dimensionless critical load is just 0.146, 0.408, 0.597, and 0.626 when
the rotational stiffness parameter αθl is 0.1, 1, 10, and 100, respectively.
Dimensionless critical loads P cr are plotted as a function of rotational
stiffness parameter of the beam–strut joint αθl in Fig. 9 for αbl3 =0.1, 1.0,

Fig. 8. Effects of beam lateral stiffness parameter αbl3on critical loads of struts.
 J. Cai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 92 (2014) 175–182
Fig. 9. Effects of rotational stiffness parameter of the beam-strut joint αθl on critical loads of struts.
and 10.0. It can be seen that the critical load increases when the joint
rotational stiffness increases as shown in Fig. 9. It can also be found
that the increase of the critical load becomes very slow when the
rotational stiffness parameter of the beam–strut joint αθl N 10. The
dimensionless critical load P cr for the rigid beam–strut joint is 0.258,
0.312 and 0.524 with Eq. (24) when αbl3is 0.1, 1.0, and 10.0,
respectively. It can be concluded that the beam–strut joint of the BSS
with a straight beam can be deemed to a rigid joint when αθl N 10.
6. Conclusions
The concept of the new retractable roof structure was put forward.
The scissor mechanism is applied to the beam string structure. The
geometry of the retractable roof structure was introduced, which is
the foundation of the analysis, experimental research and practical
application in the future. Then the structural analysis of the unfolded
roof and semi-open roof was carried out; the results show that the
new structure is scientific and reasonable. It should be noted that
although the upper element of the BSS in this study is a straight beam,
other geometry of the element, such as an arch, can also be used in
this roof structure.
The out-plane stability of the BSS during the motion was also studied
in this paper. This problem was simplified into a column model with
elastic supports. The lateral stiffness of the beam, the rotational stiffness
of the beam–strut joint and the constraint of the string were considered.
The virtual work principle was used to establish the differential equi-
librium equation and the corresponding boundary conditions. Then
the formulations for the lateral critical load of the model were obtained.
It was found that the influence of the lateral stiffness of the beam and
the rotational stiffness of beam–strut joints on critical loads is sig-
nificant. The critical load increases as either αbl3 or αθl. For a pin joint
between the beam and the strut, the strut is in a neutral state when
the beam is straight. The influence of the rotational stiffness of the
beam–strut joint on the critical load becomes very small when the
rotational stiffness parameter of the beam–strut joint αθl N 10. It could
be concluded that the beam–strut joint of the BSS can be deemed to a
rigid joint when αθl N 10. When the lateral stiffness of the beam is
small, the critical load is very low. The small lateral stiffness of the
beam will easily lead to the lateral buckling of the BSS. The influence
of the in-plane deformation of the upper beam on the lateral critical
load and applications of the theory presented here to the BSS with
multi-strut will be pursued in our future work.
181
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this article was supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51278116 and
51308106), Jiangsu Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
BK20130614) and a Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program
Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions. The authors
also thank Dr. Xu Yixiang at Strathclyde University and the anonymous
reviewers for their valuable comments and thoughtful suggestions
which improved the quality of the presented work.
References
[1] Hosozawa O, Shimamura K, Mizutani T. The role of cables in large span spatial
structures: introduction of recent space structures with cables in Japan. Eng Struct
1999;21:795–804.
[2] Wakefield DS. Engineering analysis of tension structures: theory and practice. Eng
Struct 1999;21:680–90.
[3] Hangai Y, Wu M. Analytical method of structural behaviours of a hybrid structure
consisting of cables and rigid structures. Eng Struct 1999;21:726–36.
[4] Saitoh M, Okada A. The role of string in hybrid string structures. Eng Struct
1999;21:756–69.
[5] Berger H. Form and function of tensile structures for permanent buildings. Eng
Struct 1999;21:669–79.
[6] Tabarrok B, Qin Z. Nonlinear analysis of tension structures. Comput Struct
1992;45(5/6):973–84.
[7] Wang B. Cable–strut systems: part I—tensegrity. J Constr Steel Res 1998;45(3):
281–9.
[8] Wang B. Cable–strut systems: part II—cable–strut. J Constr Steel Res 1998;45(3):
291–9.
[9] Chen Y, Shen Z, Zhao X, Chen Y. Experimental study on a full-scale roof truss
of Shanghai Pudong international airport terminal. J Build Struct 1999;20(2):9–17
[in Chinese].
[10] Sun W, Yang S, Chen R. Stiffness performance of truss–string structure of Guangzhou
International Convention and Exhibition Center. J South China Univ Technol (Nat Sci
Ed) 2003;31(11):33–6 [in Chinese].
[11] Li W, Shi J, Guo Z. Research on prestress stretching control of a large span truss string
structure. J Southeast Univ (Nat Sci Ed) 2003;33(5):593–6 [in Chinese].
[12] Xue W, Liu S. Studies on a large-span beam string pipeline crossing. J Struct Eng
2008;134(10):1657–67.
[13] Fan K, Li Z, Xiao B, Yan W, Zhou X. Shaking table study on the national gymnasium
roof model. J Beijing Univ Technol 2008;34(2):159–66 [in Chinese].
[14] Xue W, Liu S. Design optimization and experimental study on beam string
structures. J Constr Steel Res 2009;65:70–80.
[15] Van Mele T. Scissor-hinged retractable membrane roofs. Vrije Universiteit Brussel;
2008.
[16] Ishii K. Structural design of retractable roof structures. Southampton, UK: WIT Press;
2000.
[17] Gantes CJ. Deployable structures: analysis and design. Southampton, UK: WIT Press;
2001.
182 J. Cai et al. / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 92 (2014) 175–182

[18] Zhong Z, Sun W, Wei G. An approximate analysis of calculating length coefficient of
strut in on-way beam–string-structure. J Huaihai Inst Technol 2003;12(4):67–9.
[19] Tomka P. Lateral stability of cable structures. Int J Space Struct 1997;12(1):19–30.
[20] Wu M. Analytical method for the lateral buckling of the struts in beam string
structures. Eng Struct 2008;30(9):2301–10.
[21] Moazed R, Fotouhi R, Szyszkowski W. Out-of-plane behaviour and FE modelling of
a T-joint connection of thin-walled square tubes. Thin-Walled Struct 2012;51:
87–98.
[22] Ariberta J, Brahamb M, Lachala A. Testing of “simple” joints and their char-
acterisation for structural analysis. J Constr Steel Res 2004;60(3–5):659–81.