A Comparative Analysis on Wide Span Structures
Abstract
In the historical process of passing openness, mankind has taken giant steps. While the stone pillar ranges in the first temple structures of human history were at most 1–2 meters, today technology and materials have been developed to pass distances of more than 100 meters. Although there are different ways to cross a span, the optimum solution varies depending on economic possibilities, the capacity of transporting large-sized elements, zoning regulations, and the conditions of the land where the project is located. The aim of this study is to reveal the optimal solutions with different materials used to pass wide openings and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of large openings to space and building through the created models. The computer generated models were compared with each other according to six criteria and it was concluded that the lightest structure is formed by timber systems, arch and dome systems are more advantageous in terms of roof ceiling height, the most costly system is the timber grid beam system, and the reinforced concrete cassette and ribbed slab systems have the largest floor area in terms of column area.
Keywords
Wide Spans, comparative analysis, structural systems, Dlubal RX-TIMBER 2.20, IDEA StatiCa 9
Supporting Institution
Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Scientific Research Project Coordinator
Project Number
2018/42
Ethical Statement
Ethics committee approval was not required for the study.
Thanks
This study is derived from a scientific research project supported by the Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Rectorate. For this reason, we would like to thank the Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Scientific Research Project Coordinator.
References
- Aka, İ., Keskinel F. & Arda, T. S. (1992). Betonarme Yapı Elemanları. İstanbul: Birsen Yayınevi.
- Ayaydın, Y. (1981). Büyük Açıklıklı Prefabrike Betonarme Yapılar. İstanbul: Birsen Kitabevi.
- Betonçelik. (n.d.). TS EN 1991-1-3, 2007; “Yapılar Üzerindeki Etkiler - Bölüm 1-3 : Genel Etkiler - Kar Etkileri (EUROCODE 1)”. Access Adress (10.09.2025): http://www.betoncelik.com/images/TSEN1991_1_3.pdf
- Bayülgen, C. (1993). Çağdaş Strüktür Sistemleri. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Mimarlık Fakültesi Baskı Atölyesi. İstanbul.
- Ching, F. D. K., Onovye, B. S. & Zuberbuhler, D. (2013). Çizimlerle Taşıyıcı Sistemler. MAS Matbaacılık AŞ., İstanbul.
- Ching, F. D. (2014). Building Structures İllustrated: Patterns, Systems and Design (2. b.). Wıley.
- Çelebi, N. G. & Arpacıoğlu, Ü. (2025). Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) and Life Cycle Costing (LCC) of Structural Systems. 11th Asia Pacific International Congress on Contemporary Scientific Research, March 12-15, 2025, Ho Chi Minh-Vietnam.
- Çelebi, N. G. & Arpacıoğlu, Ü. (2024). Structural Frames in the Context of Earthquake and Environmental Impact. Karadağ, A.A. & Ertaş Beşir, Ş. (Eds.). Earthquake Resistant Cities and Disaster Management. 2024, Chapter: 4, 84-107. ISBN: 978-625-367-633-9. Iksad Publications.
- Dietsch, P. (2011). Robustness of large-span timber roof structures — Structural aspects, Engineering Structures, Volume 33, Issue 11. DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct. 2011.01.020.
- Ertaştan, E. (2005). Orta Ve Geniş Açıklıklı Ahşap Çatıların Performansı: Ahşap Ve Çeliğin Karşılaştırmalı Çalışması. (Master’s Thesis), Middle East Technical Unıversity, Architecture Department.