case study sydney opera house

Case Study1 - Sydney Oera House

土木工程概念設計 Conceptual Design Studio

Sydney Opera House 1、 Introduction

he Sydney Opera House sits on a 1.84 hectors of land, reaches approximately 20 stories in height; it is credited as one of the greatest architectures of the 20th century. Gracefully parks on the quiet Sydney Bay, the white wind sail shaped dorm leaks out the bold and daring creativity of the designer in its time, weaving with its surroundings into a poetic beauty. After 3 decades, the Sydney Opera House till this day remains the soul of Sydney, the world renowned art temple; it is the symbolic landmark for Sydney and the pride of Australia for centuries. In 2007, it was made the World Heritage Site by the UNESCO.

│雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

The idea of Sydney Opera House originated in the 50s when the Australian government responded to the public need for an opera house in Australia, and called to the world for the design submission in 1955. The rules for the contestants included a grand hall that could accommodate 3000 people and a smaller hall for 1200 people. Both halls must encompass different venues including opera, symphony, chorus performances, large scale conferences, seminars, ballet and others such as lecturers and speeches. In 1957, Jørn Utzon, a designer from Denmark, triumphed out of the 233 designing pieces from 28 countries and ranked number one in the contest. Utzon visited Sydney in 1957, later moved his studio to Sydney in February 1963 for supervising the construction of the opera house. He became known internationally for the Sydney Opera House, and was awarded with the highest honor in the world of architect, the “Pritzker Architecture Prize”, in 2003. It took 16 years, cost 12 million Australian dollars to build the Sydney Opera House. Due to the shortage of funding, the Australian government issued Sydney Opera House Lottery in 1959 to raise the construction fee. Finally finished in 1973, Sydney Opera House became an architectural miracle of its era for overcoming of the funding shortage as well as the construction technology. Sydney Opera House situates on the Bennelong Point where is surrounded by the sea on three sides. Accompanies by the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House displays various faces from different angles and in different times of a day. Since the day it was opened to the public, it has been attracting tourists from all over the world to pay tribute to its majestic glamour.

Photo 1 Surrounded by sea on three sides, the Sydney Opera House faces the beautiful view of vast sea port and sailing ships.

Photo 2 Sydney Opera House locates in the midst of the busy city, in front of the crowded high rise buildings. It is a leisure oasis in the concrete jungle.

Photo 3 Contrasting from the square buildings in the back, the eccentric shape of the Sydney Opera House displays the bold and daring creativity of the designer in its time. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

2、 Sydney Opera House Design Contest 2.1

Open for Submission

At the end of the 40s, people of the Australia petitioned their demand to the government for an opera house. The Australian government began the idea of building an opera house in 1950, and they actively summoned committees in proceeding with the selection of the designs for the Sydney Opera House. The term of the design selection was to include "a grand hall that could accommodate 3000 people and a smaller hall for 1200 people. Both halls must encompass different venues including opera, symphony, chorus performances, large scale conferences, seminars, ballet and others such as lecturers and speeches." The international contest began in 1955 and ended in 1957 when the selection was made. In the two years, there were 233 submissions from 28 countries. The four judges at the time were Ashworth, Parkes, Martin, and Saarinen.

Photo 4. The judges reviewed Utzon’s work, from the left: Ashworth, Saarinen, Parkes and Martin. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

The Final Selection

The four judges must vote to choose the number one selection for this contest, and they based on their own professional specialty to review all the submissions. One story told that Saarinen was the last judge to arrive when the other three had already began their reviews. When he arrived, he heard that the designing piece numbered 281 has a very unique appearance and the support of the structure could not be found, he went to the ‘discarded’ section to look for 281. This designing piece belonged to a Danish architecture designer Jørn Utzon. His work was distinctive from others with its daring design that went beyond the traditional architectural perspectives. In the eyes of the other three judges, such a design was impossible to build; hence there was no chance for it to be selected. However, Saarinen, whose background was also architecture, was greatly marveled by Utzon’s design. He thought it was a masterpiece from a genius. After seeing the finalist works listed by other three judges, he further confirmed his persistence to Utzon’s work and thought that it should be chosen as the number one work. However, Saarinen’s influence among the judges was insignificant. So he first convinced Martin, who was the most authoritative, to recognize with Utzon’s work; and finally the last two judges turned their minds to also agreed that Utzon’s work should be the winner of the contest. The second story was that the contest was judged according to fairness and equality; that the first story was merely, a story. However the process of the review, the Sydney Opera House today already made the people of the world experience the unique creativity of Jørn Utzon. Photo 5 During the selection process of the Sydney Opera House International Contest, the judges concentrated on reviewing the works of the designers. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

The Birth of A Champion

When the winner of the Sydney Opera House design was chosen, the newspapers of the following day posted the works of number one through three of this contest. Number one design was from Jørn Utzon the Danish architecture designer. Number two came from an architecture design team in the USA. Utzon was only 38 years of age when he won the contest. He has won a number of Danish architecture designing contests, but this was his first award received from a contest that was not in Demark. Comparing to other design works, Utzon’s concept went out of the general architectural framework. His design was neither conventional square or round shape but a structure that did not exist at that time. Though the overall design showed his unconventional creativity, it was also a great challenge in his life time. Photo 6 Newspapers that posted the award winning designs of the Sydney Operation House International Contest. Number one work came from Danish architecture designer Jø rn Utzon, number two was from the architecture design team in the USA. Photo 7 Jø rn Utzon at the age of 38. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

Photo 8 One of the Judges of the Sydney Opera House Design Contest, Saarinen greatly appreciated Utzon's work. He re-drew it and signed his own name at the bottom right corner.

Photo 9 Jø rn Utzon and the opera house model.

Photo 10 Sydney Opera House Overview Conceptual Drawing.

Photo 11 Sydney Opera House conceptual drawing as sketched by Jø rn Utzon in the red book in 1958.

Photo 12 Side and overview sketches of the Sydney Opera House. Prime Minister Cahill, Sidney Opera House Chief Commissioner Stan Haviland, and the design drawing of Utzon. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

3、 Master of Creative Architecture Design - Jørn Utzon 3.1

Growing Up and Education Background

Utzon was born in Denmark on April 9th, 1918. His father was in the navy, so he dreamed of becoming a naval officer when he was a child. As a child, Utzon admired his father’s ability in designs. His father was very skillful in designing yachts, under such influence, Utzon gradually established his basic concept in design including drawing and model making. In 1937, Utzon studied in the Department of Architecture at the Royal Academy of Arts in Copenhagen, Denmark. Two of his teachers were passionate about the Chinese architecture and their designing ideas influenced Utzon greatly. Utzon graduated from the architecture department in 1942, because of the WWII, he lived in Stockholm of Sweden working for Asplund in his studio to avoid the German troops. At the time, the importation of concrete and other constructional materials were restricted. A group of Swedish architects began to use local low cost materials and simple structure for construction. Simple and neat appearances with well-in-order structure were the points of construction that eradicated unnecessary luxury elements. This trend was called the “Empiricism” and it affected Utzon enormously. After working in Sweden for three years, Utzon went to Helsinki of Finland to work with Alvar Aalto. Aalto was a master of architecture and the experience of working with Aalto became the turning point of Utzon’s creativity development. However, Utzon considered travelling and field research were the most direct and effective ways of getting in touch with different architectures of the world, so he began his architecture pilgrimage in 1948. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

Travel and Explore

Utzon began his travelling in 1948, he visited Europe and Morocco where he was fully bathed in the Islamic construction methods and skills. Through the field research on architectures, Utzon was able to experience the different cultures and different performances of the buildings in different countries. He also was able to observe how architecture fit naturally into its surroundings and display a natural and coordinated beauty. In 1949, Utzon travelled to the US and Mexico. The architecture styles of the Mayans and the Aztecs inspired Utzon’s creativity and cast influence to his later designs. Utzon returned to Denmark in 1950 and set up his own studio, he then participated in various design contests in Demark. Utzon reached the distant and mysterious orient, the Asia, in 1959, where He visited China, Japan, India and Nepal. He studied traditional Chinese architecture in Asia and found that the gravity of the western structure was inside the walls when the eastern structure was in the ground. Utzon later visited Iran where he learned the urban planning and structures, market trade and ceramic decors. In viewing Utzon’s vast and rich travelling experiences, we understand that his architecture concept was not restricted within the framework of traditional Danish architecture; he gradually expanded his knowledge and modified his thinking logic through his unceasing travel and receiving stimulation from the new architectures that he encountered. His travelling experience had a profound influence to his later architecture design creativities.

Designing the Sidney Opera House

In 1957, Utzon participated in the Sydney Opera House contest and won. He came to Sydney Australia for the first time in the same year, a country that located in the southern hemisphere, a land that was half a world away from him. Because of his creative design, Sydney now owns its world renowned symbolic landmark and shines on the international stages. The Sydney Opera House began construction in 1959; the first stage was building the podium. When the construction work proceeded to the roof in 1963, Utzon and his family relocated to Sydney to supervise the construction work. Many obstacles occurred during the building of the roof that resulted in numerous reconstructions. Finally the roof was finished in 1966. The same year, Utzon and the new administration shared different concepts when the Minister for Public Works of the new administration, Hughes, seriously questioned Utzon’s ability, and suggested to remodel the interior design that Utzon had already finished. Utzon’s insistence on his design was in difference with the Australian government and the government ceased paying his fee. Utzon resigned and left Australia and since then never returned. In 2008, Utzon died from heart attack, he never had a chance to see for his own eyes this building that made him known to the world, the finished work of the Sydney Opera House. Photo 13 Mr. Utzon and the model of the Sydney Opera House.

Photo 14 Mr. Utzon discussed the roof structure of the Sydney Opera House with the engineers.

Photo 15 Putting up the first batch of the Sydney Opera House roof model. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

4、 Sydney Opera House Construction Plan From idea to completion, the Sydney Opera House went through series of setbacks. The construction plan was divided by three stages: stage 1 the podium, stage 2 the roof and stage 3 the interiors. The three stages altogether took 14 years to complete, each stage encountered unexpected obstacles, and each stage tested the wisdom and the problem solving imagination of the engineering teams. 4.1 Stage 1 : Podium The design of Sydney Opera House was chosen in 1957 and the winner was Jørn Utzon. The Australian government then began with the construction plan and the first stage was building the podium. From the design drawing of the Sydney Opera House, we understood that the design orientation was on the shape of the roof. The podium must sustain the huge proportion of the roof. Construction of the podium commenced on December 25th 1958, unfolded the historical construction of the Sydney Opera House. Civil & Civic was responsible for this construction work, and Ove Arup & Partners was in charge of the supervising work. Utzon, the designer, did not participate in the supervising work during this stage. The construction of the podium took 4 years. Within this four years time, many of the unexpected obstacles occurred including: 1) the weather condition, 2) the unexpected storm water diversion, 3) the change of the contract, and 4) the strength of the podium was insufficient to sustain the roof structure. However, the construction team managed to overcome all the problems.

Photo 16 Many obstacles occurred during the building of the podium; it was finally completed in February of 1963.

Stage 2 : Roof

After the completion of the podium, the next stage was the highlight of the design, the roof. The roof was the key construction work stage of the Sydney Opera House, as the shape of the roof was a unique design. Jørn Utzon was in charge of this stage and he and his family relocated to Sydney in 1963 to supervise the construction of the Sydney Opera House. The single sheet structure of the roof in Utzon’s roof design was called the “shell”. This shell like structure was originally defined as the parabolas formed by concretes. The engineering team was unable to find a way to build these shell like 15 │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

structures as there were no geometrical definitions. The team tried a dozen ways of constructing the shells, finally Mr. Utzon came up with an idea on how to build them when he was peeling orange skin. He thought the shell structure could be formed by ways of spheres, using mold pieces with same curves to form the body of the shell in different length, then connecting these arched sectional structures with different length to form a sphere dissection. In other words, the construction method of the shell must be derived from the calculation of a round shape (sphere). However, some also said that this method was given to Utzon by his teacher Aalto. After finding the methods to build the shell, Utzon and the engineering team began conducting the sophisticated calculation on the roof structure by using the computer algorithm which was newly invented at the time. When the data of the roof structure was generated, they then followed the data to conduct the building of the shell structure. Once the complicated roof structure was completed, the tiling of the roof began. As the Sydney Opera House was surrounded by sea on three sides, Swedish ceramic tiles were used as the roof tiles to prevent the corrosion from the sea breeze. A total of over one million pieces of tiles were used in this tremendous construction. From the structure to the tiling, the roof took four years to complete. Mr. Utzon finally finished with this unique roof after many trials and errors. Photo 17 Mr. Utzon found the way to build the shell by drawing spheres.

Photo 18 Mr. Utzon introduced the way he found in building the shell.

Photo 19 Building process of the roof.

Photo 20 The solution of the shell is like the model of the ball, the same shells come from the same group of arched sphere.

Photo 21 The construction of the shell was calculated by the computer to generate structural pieces in different data. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

Photo 22 The structure and the process of the roof construction were calculated carefully.

Photo 23 Mr. Utzon used drawing in his yellow book to assist his contemplation on problem solving.

Photo 24 There are 12 different construction methods of roof during building process. │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

Photo 25 Left: The tiling process of the roof.

Right: roof after tiling.

Photo 26 Finished roof of the Sydney Opera House, the detailing work of the construction can be observed from different angles.

Photo 27 1950s : the first computer used in calculating the structure of Syidney Opera House.

Photo 28 Construction process of the Sydney Opera House.

Photo 29 The simulation drawings of the erected Sydney Opera House roof made in 1963.

Photo 30 The cross section diagram of the major shell of the Sydney Opera House, indicating the supporting beam structure. Photo 31 Pressure distribution diagram after the wind tunnel testing shows the test result of the major shell of the opera house.

4.3 Stage 3 : Interior When the podium and the roof were completed, Mr. Utzon had already finished with the interior designs. However, due to the delay of the roof and the seriously over budget in the construction fees, Minister Hughes for the Public Works of the new administration was not very pleased with Utzon’s design and questioned his professionalism. The Australian government ceased paying Utzon’s fee and planed to re-construct Utzon’s interior designs. Utzon insisted on his idea and was in great difference with the Australian government. He then left Australia and never returned in his life time. The construction was taken over by Australian engineer Peter Hall. However, due to the interior reconstruction, the overall construction fee seriously went over budget. In order to solve this problem, the government issued Sydney Opera House Lottery to raise funds and overcame the insufficient funding crisis. Photo 32 The interior of the Sydney Opera House. The interior design was not the original design of Mr. Utzon but the designing concept of Australian designers.

Photo 33 Interior structure 3D diagram of the Sydney Opera House and 1:120 side view model. Photo 34 Construction process of interior of the Sydney Opera House. Designed by Hall, Todd and Littlemore in 1971, the interior was very different from the concept of Mr. Utzon.

Completion : Sydney Opera House

Sydney Opera House was officially opened on October 20th, 1973. Queen Elizabeth II was invited to observe the ceremony. The budget for building the Sidney Opera House was 7.2 billion Australian dollars; by completion, the total cost was 102 billion Australian dollars, which was 14 times of the original budget. It took 16 years for the Sydney Opera House to rise from concept to reality; each and every step of the way was a trial. Such a grand construction was built upon the wisdom and hard labor of many people. Even though the process was such a harsh trial, it added a memorable touch to this historical masterpiece. While admiring the majestic glory of the Sydney Opera House, do bear in mind that each brick of this cross-century legacy represents the faith and insistence of Mr. Utzon and the hard work of many people. Photo 35 Ove Arup contemplating at the side of the 1:60 scale opera house model. Photo 36 Arup and his team had taken over the Sydney Opera House project since 1969.

Photo 37 Overview of the Sydney Opera House; this angle shows the unique design of Mr. Utzon.

5、 Case Review - The Success of the Sydney Opera House

5.1 Origin of Concept – The Public Demand A construction normally begins with responding to the public demand, and Sydney Opera House was no exception. Without the public demand, the construction is almost impossible to commence. However, the public demand changes through time and the changes of the society. Take the Sydney Opera House for example, people demanded an opera house in the 50s and the government answered to this demand hence a dream of an opera house was made possible. However, during the 14 years of construction, the society changed and people have been constantly receiving the stimulation of new technology; their demand to an opera house also continued to adjust and change. If when the Sydney Opera House was completed in 1973 and it was already unable to meet the need of the people of the 70s, would such a world renowned art temple that went through turmoil and great struggle be recognized as “architectural masterpiece of the century?” Here we see that a work of creativity and imagination is closely associated to the recognition and the need of the people. If an original, unprecedented work is unable to meet the need of the human being, there then is no value to such a creation. After all, the purpose of a construction is to bring about the convenience to people’s living; therefore the value of a construction resides in meeting the need of human being. Part of the success of the Sydney Opera House dwells in the constant demand of the public to an opera house since the beginning of the construction, therefore when the opera house was completed in 1973, people still recognized and approved of it. If considering the future, assume after 50 years when the technology and invention │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

make people no longer need to go to an opera house for performances, this architectural master piece, the Sydney Opera House, may need to apply to a new social context and redefine its value. On that day, the Sydney Opera House may no longer be a place for live performances, but a museum, a theme dinning restaurant; or to be converted into a building for other functions. When we look at the value of an architecture, we must also include the public demand and even wider perspective to explore the future need of human being. “The satisfaction of the need determines the value of an architecture”. People’s needs change, the value of an architecture changes accordingly. Should we be keen enough to foresee the technology and architecture that would be needed for the future human being, the creation of the architecture would then be proactive. To constantly surpass the past in creating more cutting edge architectures or architectures that even cross the boundary of its time, the human demand is definitely an important factor that must not be overlooked. 5.2 Unique Style of the Sydney Opera House – Diversified Thinking The unique style of the Sydney Opera House was a great challenge to the architectural skills of its time. How did it so successfully win the international recognition and remains till this day the landmark building of Sidney? What is so special about this opera house that it stood the test of time? This masterpiece came from the design concept of Danish architect, Mr. Utzon. Who is he and what were the elements that affected his success? Thinking back in time when he submitted his design to the Sidney Opera House design contest, he was not a famous master of architecture design and was put on the international │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

architecture stage with one draft of design. His success came from “dare to imagine”, “dare to challenge”, and “dare to move forward”. The traditional architecture of that time was unable to shake away the square structure for it was the general style, and was recognized by most of the professionals as the basic architecture formation that could be constructed. How much courage would it take to draw an architecture design that exceeded the architectural limitation? Utzon’s success was his courage to imagine, to challenge and to move forward that made his place in the history. As we ponder on his growth, Utzon’s father was a naval officer and he was in touch with many model ships since childhood, giving him the opportunities to be exposed to the structural design concept. During his education, his architectural concept gradually formed and refined as he followed different masters; however, the most profound influence came from his travelling experiences. Each country has its own architectural style and specialty that was passed on through the change of time. From the style and the structural design, the human civilization development could be observed. Through constant visiting different countries and different buildings, Utzon kept modifying his existing architectural perspectives, concepts and thinking patterns. He also had the chances to experience the cultural differences and different architectural needs in various countries. His contact with the architecture was diversified, hence his concept on the buildings would be not restricted within the traditional styles. It was such an unthinkable thing for the audience at the time when he came up with such an extraordinary appearance of a build. The shape of the building was so unique, so challenging yet so impossible to come true. However, without the courage to continue with it and the faith that conformed to the idea, how would such a dream come true that was seen as impossible at its time? │雪梨歌劇院│Sydney Opera House│

In addition to the spectacular appearance, the building of the Sydney Opera House went through so many obstacles especially on the construction of the roof. Mr. Utzon came up with a roof design structure that was without geometrical definition, how did he find the way to build it through the association of an orange? How did his imagination help him solve the task at hand? Many things in life, be it a small object or a random movement, may become the key in solving problems. We should train ourselves to possess the keen observation and imagination. These we can do in our daily lives. Do not look down on any tiny event of daily lives; it may well be the guidance that would lead you to a whole new direction for thinking, and the key to find the solution to a difficult task.

Practice Part I : Use your brain

The building of the great Sydney Opera House was a result of combing many different talents. Try to utilize your imagination to find problems and to solve them. This practice expects you to “break through your usual thinking logic”, to break through your knowledge framework and the restriction to your professional capacity; that you could be bold and daring to imagine all kinds of possibilities and ways to solve problems. 1. When designing a building, what are the ‘questions’ that you should consider?

2. If you were Utzon, when you encountered problems in building the roof during the construction of the opera house, what methods would you have adopted in solving the problems?

3. If you were the Australian government, when you faced the funding shortage that prevented would you have done in solving the funding shortage problem?

4. In your opinion, what are the problems to the modern architecture? Please elaborate your imagination to solve the problems.

5. What abilities and qualities do you think an extraordinary architect should possess?

6. What are the trainings do you think an extraordinary architect should receive? Why?

Part II：Use your hand 1. Use your imagination to try and reform the Sydney Opera House roof, draw 5 to 10 sketches of the roof with your pen.

2. Use your imagination and re-construct or reform the campus library, including the appearance and the interiors, draw your concept below.

3. Imagine what the buildings would look like in the future world, draw sketches and give brief descriptions.

4. Imagine the architectural appearance of the future world, draw sketches and give brief descriptions.

Brought to you by:

Sydney Opera House: Creating a Masterpiece

By: Ning Su, Lisa Chen, Kathy Wu, Maria Migueis-Teixeira

The Sydney Opera House, an iconic architectural landmark and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization World Heritage Site, was officially opened in 1973. The project cost…

• Length: 11 page(s)
• Publication Date: Feb 16, 2021
• Discipline: Strategy
• Product #: W21042-PDF-ENG

What's included:

• Teaching Note
• Educator Copy

$4.95 per student

degree granting course

$8.95 per student

non-degree granting course

Get access to this material, plus much more with a free Educator Account:

• Access to world-famous HBS cases
• Up to 60% off materials for your students
• Resources for teaching online
• Tips and reviews from other Educators

Already registered? Sign in

• Student Registration
• Non-Academic Registration
• Included Materials

The Sydney Opera House, an iconic architectural landmark and United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization World Heritage Site, was officially opened in 1973. The project cost AU$102 million and took 14 years to complete-AU$95 million and 10 years more than originally estimated. The challenges with the construction of the opera house included a brilliant and visionary architect who lacked project management experience, team collapse due to misalignment, bureaucratic and political issues that hindered work, and a rush to begin construction without proper planning. What could have been done at crucial crossroads to facilitate the project? What could today's project managers learn for future construction?

Learning Objectives

The case is suitable for undergraduate- and graduate-level courses on project management or strategy. After working through the case and assignment questions, students will be able to do the following: Explore the impact of key project management decisions. Discuss how to evaluate the success and failure of projects. Identify and apply best practices to manage future projects.

Feb 16, 2021

Discipline:

Geographies:

Industries:

Performing arts and museums, Public administration

Ivey Publishing

W21042-PDF-ENG

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Sidney Opera House construction: A case of project management failure

Related Papers

Informes de la Construcción

Juan Rey Rey

PPA. Proyecto. Progreso. Arquitectura.

Laura Lizondo-Sevilla , José Santatecla Fayos

The article showcases the Crown Hall building in the educational and architectural context of Mies van der Rohe. It reviews his beginnings in the Bauhaus with his first intervention in an educational space for the Bauhaus of Berlin in 1932, as well as his sojourn to the United States, and the architectural approaches to the IIT campus and the Crown Hall project. The text touches on the study of the planning process for the Crown Hall, analysing the evolution of its architectural conception, through the different versions of the project. The article covers the transition from the first architectural approaches for the IIT campus buildings, planned by Mies, to the approach of the large unitary space of the Crown Hall. This project can be appreciated from the increasing importance of the structure, the clarity of construction and the use of steel and glass as the only materials that form the image of the building, and the flexible and unitary character of the space. Finally, reference is made to the concept of the “universal space” in the architecture of Mies, as an abstract concept that surpasses those of flexibility of use

Alejandro Sanchez

Nicolás Ramirez Hernández

Gabriela Glez

Harold Kerzner

Luis Lombardo Bertolini

Santiago Gala-Aguilera

Created in 1943 by one of Roosevelt's brain trust, Rexford Guy Tugwell, as an emergency agency in during World War II, the Committee on Design of Public Works was not only in charge of preparing the plans and specifications for the vast construction projects to be carried out in Puerto Rico once the conflict ended. It would also become a paradigmatic and influential design laboratory on tropical modernism.

Cristhian Garcia Villacorta

DIRECCIÓN DE PROYECTOS

Antoni González Moreno-Navarro

RELATED PAPERS

International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology (IJERT)

IJERT Journal

Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet

Li-anne Lim

Ana Carolina Arruda de Toledo Murgel

JualObatkuatEjakulasidinitahanlamaHajarjahanamdiBima

Jual obat kuat ejakulasi dini tahan lama hajar jahannam asli

Aspectos actuales del hispanismo mundial

Benjamin Loy

2003 International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. ICME '03. Proceedings (Cat. No.03TH8698)

Trausti Kristjansson

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

Noel Clarke

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

ismail tuncer

Journal of Materials Science

Sampad Mukherjee

Research, Society and Development

Ticiano Nascimento

Uttar Prosanga

ANIL K U M A R SARKAR

European Journal of Ophthalmology

Stefano Ranno

Journal of Biomedical Optics

Alexander B Konovalov

Michel Barbeau

Revista Trace

Marie Devillard

Journal of K-Theory

Moulay Benameur

Neuroscience letters

PLOS Pathogens

Daniel Houle

International Journal of Applied Linguistics

MARIA VIRGINIA MERCAU

VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks

Uwe Bittlingmayer

Vijay Dhawan

Consideraciones sobre el perfil de los aspirantes e ingresantes a la Universidad Nacional de Lanús

Valeria Suarez

Jarra Jagne

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Recomendaciones

Cristina Garcia-Ochoa Martin

The sidney opera house construction: a case of project management failure.

The Sydney Opera House is one of the best-known iconic buildings, recognized around the world as a global symbol of Australia. The Danish architect Jørn Utzon won the architecture competition set out by the New South Wales government for the new building in 1957, and the construction started in 1959. The project was originally scheduled for four years, with a budget of AUS $7 million. It ended up taking 14 years to be completed and cost AUS $102 million.

The Sydney Opera House could probably be seen as one of the most disastrous construction projects in history not only from the financial point of view but also for the whole management plan. Lets analyze the main reasons that led to it.

First of all, at the beginning of any project goals and objectives have to be clearly defined by the client to provide a guideline for what the project must complete. There are three main factors: time, cost, and quality. In the case of the Sydney Opera House the last one was the most important, as it was an almost unrestricted goal of the project and the reason why it was launched. No indications regarding time or cost limits were either provided for the competition. Thus, the architects were allowed total freedom in their designs.

After Utzon was selected, he presented his “Red Book” in March 1958, which consisted of the Sydney National Opera House report. It comprised some indications such as plans, sections, reports by consultants, etc. The funds came almost entirely from a dedicated lottery, so the project was not a financial burden for the government. Regarding time planning the goal was to complete the construction at the end of 1962 and have the grand opening at the start of 1963. The project should have lasted four years.

The main stakeholder was the architect, but Utzon was much more concerned with the design aspect rather than time and costs objectives, which proved problematic. During the project, Utzon collaborated with Ove Arup, who was in charge of the structure and the engineering. With some other subcontractors, the team was in charge of mechanics, electrics, heating and ventilating, lighting and acoustics. There was no real project manager, but rather collaboration between Utzon and Arup.

The other main stakeholder was the client, the state of New South Wales. This encompassed the Australian government, which launched the competition for the project, and especially the Labor Premier, Joe Cahill. A part-time executive committee was created to provide project supervision but the members had no real technical skills. The government eventually became an obstacle to the project team by inhibiting changes during the progress of the operations and thus contributed to cost overrun and delays. Finally, the public was an indirect stakeholder because they were concerned with the projects success.

There appeared to be problems from the start of the project that was divided into three stages: Stage 1 was the podium, stage 2 was the outer shells, and stage 3 was the interiors and windows. Apparently Utzon protested that he had not completed the designs for the structure, but the government insisted the construction had to get underway. In addition, the client changed the requirements of the design after the construction was started, moving from two theatres to four, so plans and designs had to be modified during construction.

Regarding the project’s budget the initial estimation was drawn on incomplete design drawings and site surveys which later lead to disagreements. The contractors for the first stage successfully claimed additional costs of AUS $1,2 million in 1962 due to design changes. When it was completed in 1963, it had cost an estimated AUS $5.2 million and it was already 47 weeks over schedule for the whole project.

Stage two became the most controversial stage of the entire construction. As costs were rising a new government stepped in and monitored all payments being requested by the Opera House. By the end of stage one, Utzon submitted an updated estimate of the projects total cost as AUS$12.5 million. As more payments were being delivered and no visible progress was seen, the government began withholding payments to Utzon. Stage two slowed down and in 1966 Utzon felt he was forced to resign from the project as his creative freedom was restricted, and therefore could not bring his perfect idea to fruition.

This came as a shock and nearly an insult to Utzon who had been fending off the Government from rising costs for years. The news that they had agreed to that budget, which was more than four times Utzon’s original estimate, was evidence that he had been unjustly treated.

Queen Elizabeth II inaugurated the Sydney Opera House in 1973, after 17 years of redesigns, underestimates and cost overruns. By 1975, the building had paid for itself, thanks mainly to the lottery system that was created to help its funding. Utzon was never to return to Australia, never to see the final result of his work that was recognized as an incredible feat of architecture. In 2003 the architect was honored with the Pritzker Prize for architecture, the most renowned architectural prize in the world.

Comentarios ( 4 )

[…] シドニー・オペラハウスの建設も、当初は4年しかかからない予定でしたが、結局14年もかかりました。 […]

[…] for Windows 10, before quietly axing it altogether. Even construction of the Sydney Opera House was only supposed to take four years. It ended up taking […]

[…] تالار اپرای سیدنی قرار بود ۴ سال طول بکشد، اما در نهایت پس از ۱۴ سال به پایان رسید. چرا این اتفاق‌ها می‌افتد؟ چرا تیم‌ها از ریل خارج […]

[…] the world of design and construction maybe one of the most famous cases in the 20th century is a Sydney Opera House. 76 million US dollars of budget overrun and decades of delays should be a strong lesson to our […]

• A Hombros de Gigantes
• Digitalizando
• Energía y clima
• EOI en abierto
• Gestión Pública
• Herederos de Pacioli
• Internacionalización
• Reputación
• Servicios digitales a PYMEs
• Show me the MKT
• Sostenibilidad e Innovación Responsable
• Un café con...

Blogosfera EOI

• Blogs EOI desde dentro
• Blogs EOI Claustro
• Blogs EOI Alumnos

Administrar

Este sitio web utiliza cookies para que usted tenga la mejor experiencia de usuario. Si continúa navegando está dando su consentimiento para la aceptación de las mencionadas cookies y la aceptación de nuestra política de cookies , pinche el enlace para mayor información. plugin cookies

Project in-depth: The Sydney Opera House

Any iconic built form, be it the Taj Mahal , the great pyramids of Giza or the Taj Mahal has a fantastic story to convey. A story enriched with histories of the kings and queens, the commoners, and the stories of people who took decades to build them. A story that is not so very enigmatic as the final built form. But that’s why the structure has become iconic. The Sydney Opera House in Australia which now seems to float on the shore of the Sydney harbor has a fantastic story behind it. A story that started with an extraordinary conceptual idea and a decade of thought processes leading to its realization. It is a reality that changed the life of the architect as well as the continent. An engineering marvel listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage site. The building underwent many controversies and political agendas. Yet destined to be iconic and continue to mesmerize the thousands who visit it.

The Inception 

In 1955, Premier Joseph Cahill called for an international design competition for a dedicated opera house. The existing New South Wales Conservatorium of Music needed a much more dedicated space. The Sydney Town Hall did not seem fit for this purpose anymore. The design competition received 233 entries from all over the world. In 1957, the judging panel which included famous architect Earo Saarinen declared Jorn Utzon as the winner. Utzon’s entry was conceptual and included only simple diagrams and sketches. But the judges chose those sketches that changed the history of the Australian continent forever.

Jorn Utzon started to refine his plans for the starting of the construction. Lack of funding and public support led the New South Wales government to hasten the construction. Jorn Utson still had to finish his schematic plans. The crucial design challenges were yet unsolved. The work commenced with a budget of 7 million Australian dollars and a time schedule of 6 years. But, due to the hastened construction and unresolved issues, the budget went overboard 14 times and 10 years ahead of the scheduled date. The early start of the project led to bigger problems in the later stage of the project.

Construction Phase I 

Conceptualization of the iconic structure took place in three stages. The first stage from 1959 to 1963 saw the construction of the upper podium. The second stage from 1963 to 1967 saw the construction of the outer shell or the roof of the structure. The third and final stage was from 1967 to 1973. Here, the focus was on the design and construction of the interiors of the concert halls and other adjoining spaces. When the construction began in 1959, 588 concrete piers supported the upper podium of the 1.8-hectare building. In 1961, the structure was already 47 weeks behind schedule. The blame was sometimes on the weather or due to lack of completed proposals. Besides the existing issues, the concrete piers of the building did not support the upper podium. So they needed replacement.

Construction Phase II 

The construction of the outer shell constituted the second stage. As per the architect’s initial idea, the outer shell was a series of random large forms. They were a series of parabolas supported by precast concrete ribs. However, the engineers were unable to devise any cost-effective solution for its construction. After twelve mathematical iterations, the design team came up with a solution. They derived the forms from the portions of a sphere. The team utilized computers for the analysis of the structures. Studies on the forces acting on the structure led to the solution. This event marked the earliest use of computers. It is still unclear about who came up with the solution. But, Utzon himself might have come up with the solution while peeling an orange. By looking at each shell as a part of the sphere, arches of varying lengths were cast from the same mold.

Construction Phase III  

Utzon shifted his office to Sydney in 1963. During the last phase of the construction, the new government started to criticize the project. The project came under the control of the Ministry of Public Works. The political tensions around the project grew. The public showed their displeasure with the government’s decision through protests and public outrages. Finally, in the year 1966, Utzon left the project and the city forever never to see his iconic built form completed.

The new construction team revised Utzon’s designs for the interiors. The multipurpose major hall which hosts concerts and opera changed into a concert hall. The minor hall designed to suit the opera and ballet productions became the opera theater. Despite the design iterations for the betterment of the major hall, there were many acoustical pitfalls. Also lack of backstage facilities added to the share of pitfalls.

Queen Elizabeth II on 20th October 1973 inaugurated the building after 14 years of its construction. Beethoven’s Symphony Number 9 overflowed the concert hall marking its official opening. It was then that an icon was born. The Pritzker prize laureate who spent countless years on the building was neither present nor mentioned during the inaugural ceremony. 

After several years, in the 1990s, the Sydney Opera House needed major renovations. The Trust went and met Utzon. They decided that the architect who envisioned the building should be the design consultant for future works as well. Utzon agreed to this proposal. The architect shared in an interview that he has no regrets looking back now and readily agreed to the proposal. The building which started off as a concept still continues to mesmerize thousands of visitors by instilling a spirit in them that makes it immortal.

• The B1M. (2018). Sydney Opera House: Building an Icon. [YouTube video]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51m-YvjmijI. [Accessed: 26 November 2023].
• 60 Minutes Australia. (2023). The urgent repairs needed for Australia’s national icon | 60 Minutes Australia. [YouTube video]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWVQ7HxlAow. [Accessed: 26 November 2023].
• Mark 1333. (2018). The Sydney Opera House (construction story) 1958 – 1973 (Australia) – BBC News – 14th July 2018. [YouTube video]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81-EDxHdmlI. [Accessed: 26 November 2023].
• Dan Cortese (2018). Sydney Opera House: Building an Icon. [online]. Available at: https://www.theb1m.com/video/sydney-opera-house-building-an-icon [Accessed date: 26 November 2023].

Ar. Sandhya Parameswaran is a creative individual seeking opportunities to evolve continuously through learning and unlearning, traveling, reading, and writing. Currently working as Associate Professor with the Saveetha College of Architecture and Design (SCAD), Chennai; she is looking forward to sharing her unique and untold stories far and wide.

3 Reasons You Should Compare Life Insurance

Ar(t)chitecture: Association of Art and Architecture

Related posts.

The Barbican Estate by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon Architects

Seth Ram Lal Khemka Haveli, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

Taj-Ul Masajid, Bhopal

La Mamounia Marrakech, Morocco

Nokha Community Center by Sanjay Puri

Project in-depth: Kurilpa Bridge

• Architectural Community
• Architectural Facts
• RTF Architectural Reviews
• Architectural styles
• City and Architecture
• Fun & Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Design Studio Portfolios
• Designing for typologies
• RTF Design Inspiration
• Architecture News
• Career Advice
• Case Studies
• Construction & Materials
• Covid and Architecture
• Interior Design
• Know Your Architects
• Landscape Architecture
• Materials & Construction
• Product Design
• RTF Fresh Perspectives
• Sustainable Architecture
• Top Architects
• Travel and Architecture
• Rethinking The Future Awards 2022
• RTF Awards 2021 | Results
• GADA 2021 | Results
• RTF Awards 2020 | Results
• ACD Awards 2020 | Results
• GADA 2019 | Results
• ACD Awards 2018 | Results
• GADA 2018 | Results
• RTF Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2017 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2016 | Results
• RTF Sustainability Awards 2015 | Results
• RTF Awards 2014 | Results
• RTF Architectural Visualization Competition 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2020 – Results
• Designer’s Days of Quarantine Contest – Results
• Urban Sketching Competition May 2020 – Results
• RTF Essay Writing Competition April 2020 – Results
• Architectural Photography Competition 2019 – Finalists
• The Ultimate Thesis Guide
• Introduction to Landscape Architecture
• Perfect Guide to Architecting Your Career
• How to Design Architecture Portfolio
• How to Design Streets
• Introduction to Urban Design
• Introduction to Product Design
• Complete Guide to Dissertation Writing
• Introduction to Skyscraper Design
• Educational
• Hospitality
• Institutional
• Office Buildings
• Public Building
• Residential
• Sports & Recreation
• Temporary Structure
• Commercial Interior Design
• Corporate Interior Design
• Healthcare Interior Design
• Hospitality Interior Design
• Residential Interior Design
• Sustainability
• Transportation
• Urban Design
• Host your Course with RTF
• Architectural Writing Training Programme | WFH
• Editorial Internship | In-office
• Graphic Design Internship
• Research Internship | WFH
• Research Internship | New Delhi
• RTF | About RTF
• Submit Your Story

Looking for Job/ Internship?

Rtf will connect you with right design studios.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Biomimetics (Basel)

Nature as a Source of Inspiration for the Structure of the Sydney Opera House

Associated data.

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Architects throughout the ages have looked to nature for answers to complex questions about the most appropriate structural forms for their buildings. This is the case of Jørn Utzon and the design of roof shells of the Sydney Opera House, in which the search for natural references was constant, from the nautical references in the initial design phases to the final spherical solution based on the analogy with an orange. This paper analyzes the influence of nature as a source of inspiration in this World Heritage building, assessing through FEM calculation models the suitability of the different solutions proposed and weighing up the influence of certain factors such as scale in this type of process. Through the calculation models developed, it has been possible to verify the poor performance of the initial designs compared to the power of the final solution, which, after more than 5 years of research by the design team headed by Utzon, was able to solve the enormous problem with a “simple” typological and geometric change.

1. Introduction

Nature has always been a great source of inspiration for architectural and structural design, providing effective models through constant evolution and optimization for over 3.8 billion years. This mimicry of effective natural models has been particularly relevant in the case of structural systems. There are several examples of natural structures that have served as a source of inspiration for many constructions over time ( Figure 1 ): eggshells, spider webs, various animal shells, bones, tree structures, natural antifunicular geological formations, etc.

Left : spider web (photo by www.patternpictures.com ; last accessed 2 December 2021); center : mollusk shell (photo by www.pixabay.com ; last accessed 2 December 2021); right : Double O Arch in Utah’s Arches National Park: 22 m long sandstone arches (photo by Ken Lund).

As mentioned, it is a common strategy among architects and engineers to take inspiration from nature for the design of buildings and other constructions. Countless analogies can be found in the architecture of all ages. However, the formal creation of the field of knowledge in biomimetics is very recent. Specifically, the term “biomimetics” was proposed in the 1950s by the biophysicist and engineer Otto H. Schmitt to designate a new field of knowledge within biomedical engineering. In 1960, the term “bionics” (as a combination of the terms “biology” and “technics”) was also invented in the USA by Jack E. Steel, at a conference entitled “Bionics Symposium: Living Prototypes, the Key to New Technology” [ 1 ]. The term referred to the study of the functions and structures of biological systems as reference models for design in the field of engineering. The term “biomimicry” was proposed in the 1980s by the biologist Janine Benyus, author of the book Innovation Inspired by Nature [ 2 ]. Biomimicry is defined in her book as a new science that studies nature in order to imitate it or to draw inspiration from it to solve human problems [ 3 ].

Some well-known examples of biomimicry in architecture are Norman Foster’s Gherkin Tower (2004, London, UK) or The Eastgate Centre, designed by architect Mick Pearce (1966, Harare, Zimbabwe).

The working method chosen for the development of this research is the case study, taking the Sydney Opera House as an example on which to reflect on the potential of inspiration from natural forms in the field of architectural and structural design: its advantages as well as its risks.

The reasons for choosing the Sydney Opera House as a case study are various: it is an extraordinary example, a building ahead of its time in which scientific and technological advances such as computers were used in a pioneering way, but at the same time, it is a project with strong links to the past, to ancient civilizations, and, above all, to nature.

Through the vast bibliography available, the role of nature as the main source of inspiration for the structure of the roofs, iconic elements of the building, has been analyzed. Specific 3D calculation models have also been developed to evaluate the structural performance of the various proposals for the roof structures.

3. Biomimetics in Building Structures

3.1. introduction.

Architects and engineers throughout the ages have looked to nature for answers to complex questions about the most appropriate structural forms for their buildings. This translation of ideas from the natural source of inspiration to the concrete structural problem is not simple and has not always been successful.

It is possible to list several strategies for the application of biomimicry in the design of buildings and in their load-bearing structure in particular: the examination and application of nature’s materials, the symbolic or structural transfer of natural form, or the interrelation of the building structure with the environment, among others [ 1 ].

In the Sydney Opera House, we can find a number of examples of application of mainly the second strategy: symbolic or structural transfer of natural form, as explained in detail in Section 4 .

3.2. Engineering and Nature

There is a clear analogy between nature and structural engineering, based on the search in both fields for minimum energy consumption to evolve towards the most efficient systems possible. The reflections of Beukers et al. are very interesting in this respect:

“There is a duality between engineering and nature, which is based on minimum use of energy. This is because animals and plants, in order to survive in competition with each other, have evolved ways of living and reproducing using the least amount of resource. This involves efficiency both in metabolism and optimal apportionment of energy between the various functions of life. A similar situation obtains with engineering, where cost is usually the most significant parameter. It seems likely, then, that ideas from nature, suitably interpreted and implemented, could improve the energy efficiency of our engineering at many levels. This transfer of technology, variously called bionics, biomimetics or biognosis, should not be seen so much as a panacea for engineering problems as a portfolio of paradigms” [ 4 ].

Ultimately, design in the field of structural engineering is based on the same laws of physics as in nature, and because of this, similar problems, analogies, and models exist [ 1 ]. As pointed out by R. Aroca:

“The basic structural constraints (gravity, wind and snow loads) are the same for natural structures as for buildings” [ 5 ].

3.3. Transfer of Strategies from Nature to Structural Engineering

In natural models, there is an effective integration of form, function, and structure, as well as of these factors with their environment. This also represents one of the main objectives of structural design [ 6 ].

The transfer of models from nature to the field of engineering makes sense since they are the result of an extremely complex evolutionary process. This great complexity is on the other hand what makes their direct application, i.e., mere formal copying, to engineering problems very difficult.

In any case, this transfer of natural models to the field of structural engineering is an extraordinarily complex process in which the boundaries between the areas of knowledge of biology and engineering must be rigorously explored [ 7 ]. Interdisciplinary work is essential.

Despite the undeniable similarities mentioned above, there are also important differences: organisms in nature must be efficient in terms of energy to survive; they do not waste energy, and they need to operate with high effectiveness. Structural engineering does not necessarily have to be energy-efficient [ 1 ], although it is clearly a quality that is becoming increasingly important in the current context of climate change.

Design in nature is based on the unstoppable and endless gradual process of refinement and optimization. It takes an enormous amount of time, in the order of hundreds of thousands of years, often millions, to produce significant design changes [ 8 ]. The steps in this evolution are very small but constant and highly complex, incorporating an enormous amount of information, based after all on natural selection. There are no major milestones in the process but a huge accumulation of tiny advances [ 9 ].

Innovation in structural engineering is radically different. Breakthroughs are much more infrequent and come from ideas that involve major changes. In many cases, they do not arise from a clear precedent and have a much greater component of creativity and invention. Indeed, invention from scratch is possible [ 1 ].

Some authors argue for the superiority of natural design. Thus, in Luigi Colani’s words:

“Whenever we talk about biodesign we should simply bear in mind just how amazingly superior a spider’s web is to any load-bearing structure man has made—and then derive from this insight that we should look to the superiority of nature for the solutions. If we want to tackle a new task in the studio, then it’s best to go outside first and look at what millennia-old answers there may already be to the problem” [ 10 ].

Ricardo Aroca also highlights this idea of the supremacy of natural design:

“The materials and structural forms of living things are difficult to match even by today’s technology; both in physical properties and design efficiency, their study can teach us many things we do not yet know” [ 5 ].

Is it always beneficial to try to emulate nature in the search for optimal and efficient structures? We should not lose sight of the great risks involved in this process of mimesis, given its enormous complexity and the existence of important distorting factors such as scale, different materials, and different requirements for different structures.

In brief, the real challenge of biomimetics in the field of structural design is to try to apply the accumulated knowledge, tremendously optimized because of a long evolution, without falling into mere copying or direct translation of shapes [ 1 ]

3.4. Analogy as Biomimetic Model

Analogy can be considered the simplest strategy for the translation of ideas or forms from nature into architectural or structural design. It can be considered as a prescientific phase of research and should therefore be taken as a starting point and not as a point of arrival. Analogy is fundamentally based on looking for similarities, correlations, and equivalences in formal or functional terms. Since similar functions usually require similar formal approaches, analogy can be used as a germ for further in-depth research into many other aspects, as discussed above. Analogy between different fields of knowledge is conducive to innovation [ 1 ].

Frei Otto said about analogy:

“Objects can be similar are equal in form, shape, construction, structure and material. They may have acquired this analogy through identical, similar or completely different development processes. The development processes play a key role in research of analogies. Typical technical and artificial products differ from creations in animate nature by a basically different development process. However, the process of selection often is very similar... crude, and artificially drawn analogies are called ‘trivial analogies’” [ 11 ].

As will be discussed in the next section, analogy has been the main biomimetic strategy employed for the architectural and structural design of the Sydney Opera House.

3.5. Natural Shells vs. Concrete Shells

As mentioned, structures in nature are highly efficient systems due to their evolutionary character. In the case of shells, they are among the most efficient structural elements in nature because of their high resistance, minimum material, large spans, and sheltering characteristics. They are systems that can bridge a certain distance in a tremendously efficient manner, based on the adoption of the antifunicular shapes of the loads, which ensures the overall behavior of the structure under in-plane tensions only. In this way, it is possible to obtain extremely slender structures, which also means a minimum consumption of materials.

There are many examples of shells in nature ( Figure 2 ): eggshells, seashells, turtles, skulls, nuts, etc. [ 8 ]. Shells and exoskeletons protect the inner organs of sea urchins, snails, mussels, insects, and many other animals against predators and other potential dangers [ 12 ]. These natural forms have served as a source of inspiration for many architects and engineers throughout history. In particular, the unique characteristics of these constructions created by chickens, clams, scallops, and other mollusks can be considered as the origin of the construction of reinforced concrete shells.

Left : eggshell (picture by www.pxhere.com ; last accessed 24 November 2021). Center : seashell (picture by www.pixnio.com ; last accessed 24 November 2021). Right : clam shell (photo by Bill Gracey; www.flickr.com ; last accessed 24 November 2021).

Avian eggshells are amazingly strong structures despite their apparent fragility and low resistance to point loads. However, their resistance to distributed compressive loads is remarkably high. Ostrich eggs have been tested in the laboratory with failure loads of over 5 kN [ 13 ]. As will be discussed in the following section, it has also been shown that the strength decreases with scale [ 13 ]. In any case, eggshells are proportionally much thinner than any man-made concrete shell and withstand comparatively much bigger loads [ 5 ].

Concrete roof shells, which originated in the 1920s, take these natural structures as a reference point, creating large architectural spaces of the highest structural efficiency through precise shapes that ensure the in-plane behavior of the concrete used. It was the invention of reinforced concrete, a formable, robust, economical material with high compressive performance, which led to the emergence of an architectural trend that used the shell construction system as a symbol of identity.

The first realizations of reinforced concrete shells were made by Franz Dischinguer and Walter Bauersfeld, based on the natural analogy with eggshells ( Figure 3 ). Later, especially in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, they became very popular with prestigious exponents such as Eduardo Torroja, Pier Luigi Nervi, and Felix Candela. Many of those designs were inspired by the structures in nature [ 14 ].

Left : Zeiss Planetarium in Jena, Germany, by Franz Dischinguer, 1926, (picture by Karl Müller, 1926). Right : intact egg cap resulting from distributed load experiment [ 12 ].

3.6. Influence of the Size

Size is an extremely influential factor, both in nature and in structural design. Therefore, the scale of things must be taken into consideration when trying to imitate natural designs [ 15 ].

The relationship between length, surface, and volume is not linear, and all physical processes are affected by this [ 8 ]. The relation between surface, volume, and specific weight implies that a system doubled in length is around eight times as heavy [ 8 ]. Large systems are much more strongly affected by the force of gravity, and therefore in these cases, the influence of the structure’s own weight is much more relevant. Thus, the smaller the size of the structure, the less relevant is the role of the force of gravity, and other forces such as surface tension take over the main role [ 8 ]. In many cases, phenomena from nature where molecular forces are most important cannot be scaled up [ 1 ].

Thompson explains this consideration very clearly in the following words:

“Again, since the weight of a fruit increases as the cube of its linear dimensions, while the strength of the stalk increases as the square, it follows that the stalk must needs grow out of apparent due proportion to the fruit: or, alternatively, that tall trees should not bear large fruit on slender branches, and that melons and pumpkins must lie upon the ground” [ 16 ].

In particular, curved structures such as shells have stresses proportional to the radius of curvature, and maintaining a constant thickness/radius of curvature ratio results in a proportional increase in weight, so a design is highly size-conditioned. Therefore, the transposition of shapes from nature to structural engineering in this field is complicated to say the least [ 5 ].

We could say that we cannot look for specific formal answers to imitate in nature; rather, it can be deduced in general terms that a multitude of solutions to the same problem are possible, and the intervals of validity in the structural field are closely linked to the sizes [ 5 ].

Thus, when in an attempt to mimic a natural design it is necessary to resize any phenomenon, it is essential to take into consideration the important effect of these differences. As will be explained below, this is a critical factor in the case of the Sydney Opera House’s structure.

4. Sydney Opera House: Inspiration by Nature

4.1. introduction.

The Sydney Opera House is one of the most iconic buildings of the 20th century, nominated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2007. Its design process is also a very interesting case study in the use of references to nature, as will be shown below.

When in 1956 Jørn Utzon developed his proposal for the International Architecture Competition for a new opera house in Sydney, he was very clear about both his working method and his references. As for the latter, he himself has stated in numerous interviews his predilection for natural references, with a strong preference for organic forms, thus distancing himself from the Modern Movement, the architectural style that clearly prevailed at the time.

The duality between the organicist (Art Nouveau, Organicism) and functionalist (Modern Movement) currents was evident in those days. The organicists tried to transfer elements directly from nature to be applied to buildings, opting for fluid geometries. On the other hand, the functionalists rejected the use of organic forms in favor of more Cartesian geometries and for giving total primacy to programmatic and functional aspects, perhaps to the detriment of other more “sensorial” ones.

In any case, in the 1950s there was a certain revival of organic architecture, encouraged by the strong development of reinforced concrete technology during the Second World War, with references such as Pier Luigi Nervi, Eduardo Torroja, and Félix Candela exploring new formal possibilities for the use of concrete.

Thus, the design proposed by Utzon for the Sydney Opera House competition can be clearly framed in this context. It is important to underline that this set of experimentations in the field of the formal possibilities of concrete are not produced as a mere “formalism” but are developed in the context of rigorous geometric studies (minimum energy surfaces) and form-finding (3D antifunicularity studies) to progressively refine the tools that ensure geometries that favor an optimal use of materials. In this context, mimesis with natural forms was also an important design tool.

4.2. Inspiration by Nature in the Competition Proposal

In 1956, after the recent Olympic Games for Melbourne, Australia was trying to maintain its momentum on the international scene by launching an international ideas competition for the construction of a large opera house in Sydney. Thus, on 29 January 1957, the competition panel ruled in favor of the entry presented by a very young and inexperienced Danish architect, who decades later would establish himself as one of the most relevant figures in his field, upon receiving the Pritzker Prize in 2003: Jørn Utzon.

Utzon developed his proposal mainly through physical models, trying to emphasize the three-dimensionality of his building, something that at that time could not be done in any other way, due to the lack of current digital design tools. He himself declared after winning the competition that he had worked as a sculptor, physically “shaping” his building. This idea of an object, a sculpture, a building in which the facades and roofs are diluted and intermingled, is also evident in his famous quote:

“God sees from everywhere” [ 17 ].

Utzon’s search for natural references for the development of his project was a constant: the shape of the roofs, the geometry of the facade, the chromatic range selected for the cladding, etc. Nature was his main source of inspiration, but he was neither focused on the forms produced by nature nor tied to organicist aesthetics but rather interested in the generating principles of nature [ 18 ]. As he later stated in several interviews:

“I looked at flowers and insects, at organic forms. I wanted something that was growing out” [ 19 ].

He himself acknowledged that it was the study of Sydney’s navigational maps that was his starting point and initial inspiration. In any case, regarding the possible source of inspiration for his formal proposal, in an interview published on 31 October 1992 in Good Weekend magazine [ 20 ], Utzon refutes the hackneyed explanation of the sails of the ships sailing in the bay ( Figure 4 ):

Left : boat with its sails unfurled ( https://www.breizhskiff.com/tag/bethwaite/ ; last accessed 29 October 2021). Right : a hypothetical inspiration for Sydney Opera House (Photo by Douglas Banard; www.fineartamerica.com ; last accessed 29 October 2021).

“Many people say my design was inspired by the sailing yachts in the harbour or by seashells. This is not the case. It is like an orange, you peel an orange, and you get these segments, these similar shapes. It was like this in my models. It was not that I thought it should be like sails in the harbour. It just so happened that the white sails were similar. I was influenced by the sails only to the extent that my father was a naval architect, and I was familiar with big shapes” [ 19 ].

It should be noted that these explanations seem unlikely in any case, given that it seems to be proven that the orange as a source of inspiration for the resolution of the concrete shell roofs did not occur until 1962, 5 years after the competition proposal. In any case, Utzon also pointed out:

“It is fine that people find what things are from what they see. Of course, they are like sails but this is not what we meant here, but I am very happy people think this” [ 19 ].

As mentioned, Utzon began working on his proposal for the Sydney Opera House competition strongly influenced by the recent popularization of reinforced concrete shell roofs. It is therefore a design framed within what could be considered the “organicist alternative” to the prevailing mechanistic and rationalist current represented by the almost hegemonic Modern Movement within the architectural panorama of the time [ 1 ].

It is important to note that he worked during the competition phase without advice from structural engineering consultants. The competition proposal consists of 3-inch-thick reinforced concrete shells for the main roofs. As explained, is a very efficient typology in terms of material consumption and consequently allowed roofs to be built for large spaces at very low costs. The competition panel itself adduced as one of the main reasons for choosing Utzon’s proposal that it had been considered the most economical option among those analyzed.

Utzon therefore designed the curved surfaces that would form the roofs of the different parts of his building, imagining that they would be made of concrete, using shell structures a few centimeters thick, as eggshells. This is reflected in the competition drawings ( Figure 5 ). However, as opposed to the aforementioned examples of Torroja, Candela, Nervi, etc., Utzon did not take geometry as the starting point for his creative process, but rather drew a series of organic forms, inspired by nature, that did not obey any geometrically known or mathematically defined figure. He himself referred to this fact in his competition report, stating that he had refused to use orthogonal forms in order to create what he called sculptures, large sculptures. These first natural references seem to be applied as formal analogies from a purely artistic point of view, without any great technical rigor to support them.

Original competition drawings for which the assessors of the Committee awarded Jørn Utzon first prize of GBP 5000 on 29 January 1957 ( www.records.nsw.gov.au ; last accessed 27 September 2021) [ 21 ].

The general profile of the roof pieces in the competition proposal is markedly horizontal, except for the larger pieces covering the auditorium areas, which are more markedly vertical. The surfaces of the roofs have smooth, rounded shapes, trying to provide an image of lightness despite the material with which they were conceived (reinforced concrete). For Utzon, again drawing on natural references, the roofs were like clouds of concrete ( Figure 6 ), which should float above the landscape, contrasting with the heaviness of the base on which they rested. In Utzon’s words, the base was anchored to the earth and the roofs connected with the sky. Between these two zones, an area was established which in the drawings of the competition proposal appears apparently empty and diaphanous, in order to emphasize the tension between the two antagonistic concepts mentioned above. To this end, Utzon initially conceived all the building’s enclosures in glass, a large proportion of which were also mobile, thus maximizing the lightness of the hypothetical concrete shell.

Left : Jørn Utzon sketch: platforms and plateaus (Jørn Utzon). Right : section from the competition drawings (Jørn Utzon; www.records.nsw.gov.au ; last accessed 27 September 2021) [ 21 ].

The only condition imposed by the design of a roof of this type is to be absolutely devoted to the antifunicular geometries that would ensure membrane behavior without the presence of significant bending moments. However, Utzon did not take geometry as the basis of his creative process, but “sculpted” through his physical models certain organic forms for the roofs. These shapes did not obey any geometrically known or mathematically defined form, and this aspect greatly conditioned the course that the development of the design was to take [ 19 ].

Ultimately, the great power of Utzon’s idea won the architectural competition, not without controversy: the press announced its surprise, and great figures of the international architectural scene such as Frank Lloyd Wright publicly expressed their rejection.

4.3. Inspiration by Nature during the Project Development

Aware of the construction challenge that lay ahead and of Utzon’s total inexperience, the committee appointed the engineer Ove Arup to take over the structural design. Arup was, at 64, a celebrity in the field of structural engineering. His Danish origin and his extensive experience in singular architecture projects led the Committee to hire his engineering firm.

The initial challenge for Arup and his team was not even trying to check through structural calculations whether Utzon’s proposal was feasible; the first challenge was “simply” to be able to translate these shapes into drawings. As indicated, the sketches that Utzon presented in the competition panels were based on the direct translation of the forms that he had arrived at through physical models. These drawings of plants, elevations, and sections were made freehand without any geometric rigor, so they actually wanted to express approximately certain shapes, but they were neither coincident with each other (plants, elevations, sections) nor reproducible through known mathematical expressions (circles, ellipses, parabolas, etc.) nor, therefore, ultimately, constructible [ 22 ].

This problem, difficult to understand nowadays due to the proliferation of all kinds of digital tools, was brilliantly expressed in 1983 by the architect Enric Miralles in his essay “How to Lay Out a Croissant” [ 23 ], in which he reflected on the enormous complexity of such a curious task with the tools available at the time.

A few decades later, Frank Gehry solved an analogous situation in the case of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao with the help of 3D laser scanners and three-dimensional digital design software. With these new tools, he could directly transfer the geometry of his physical models to representable and buildable digital models, also using the so-called NURBS (non-uniform rational B-splines), curves that allowed the representation of free forms and that had been discovered a few years before, in the context of the automotive industry. However, in 1957 none of these digital tools existed, so the first thing that seemed clear was that the geometry of the roofs had to be transformed into some of the mathematically known forms at the time.

The great task in which everyone was involved at that time was to find a mathematical definition that reasonably resembled the natural shapes conceived by Utzon. The objective was clear: it was essential to find an analytically definable form that would also behave as closely as possible to that of a membrane, thus eliminating undesirable bending moments and making it possible to build a concrete shell with a reduced thickness. Utzon was obviously not aware of these constraints when he drew his proposal for the competition. He envisaged a beautiful sculpture, not a structurally efficient form.

Throughout this process of searching for a feasible solution, natural references were also recurrent on Utzon’s side. Thus, Utzon, fascinated by images of the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik on 4 October 1957, immediately contacted Arup to express his interest in the silhouettes of the decks having the same geometry as the space rocket had described in its trajectory into space: sections of parabolas and ellipses, with a noticeably vertical outline at the start from the podium and gradually more horizontal as it ascended to its crown ( Figure 7 ).

Left : image of the orbit traced by Sputnik space satellite, launched by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957 ( www.wikipedia.org ; last accessed 4 December 2021). Right : Sydney Opera House’s roof profiles as defined on the Red Book, 1958 ( www.records.nsw.gov.au ; last accessed 4 December 2021) [ 21 ].

Although Utzon was unfamiliar with the geometrical fundamentals of correctly representing a parabola, he drew it freehand as best he could and sent it to Arup with a message indicating that this was the shape he wanted for the roofs. Based on the drawings in the 1958 “Red Book”, a new set of plans was drawn up, finalized in December 1960, in which both the ridge tiles and the cross-sections (hypothetical ribs) of the roofs were parabolic in shape. The drawings already showed a structural scheme consisting of two concrete sheets joined together by two families of beams in perpendicular directions. The two halves of each roof were tied together by concrete walls at the end facades. In this way, all the roof parts were interlocked with each other. As can be seen from the drawings presented, the total thickness of the concrete sheets was kept at approximately 15 cm (7.5 + 7.5 cm, including the ceramic pieces that would make up the exterior finish), the total thickness of the roof being 1.5 meters [ 24 ].

This typological solution was soon discarded due to its impossibility of being structurally analyzed, even with the help of the first computers available at the time. Circular and elliptical shapes were also tested, considering both metal and concrete structures, to form a graphic catalog of up to 12 solutions studied. In general, these are attempts to force the structure into a known shape.

Thus, over 5 long years, from 1957 to 1962, Arup and his team tried unsuccessfully to establish a valid geometry for the different volumes of the building [ 25 ]. Parabolic, elliptical, and similar geometries were studied ( Figure 8 ). Systematically, the proposals were rejected by Utzon, who viewed with great suspicion that the sculptural forms inspired by nature to which he had arrived with his initial models would be modified. In the face of the despair of the Arup team, Utzon vehemently persevered with his idea, with lapidary phrases such as:

Temporal evolution of the different alternatives studied for the roof structure ( The Arup Journal , 1973) [ 25 ].

“We can go to the Moon... of course we can build this building” [ 19 ].

The situation was very tense. Ronald Jenkins, the project manager within the Arup team, a few months before he resigned from further involvement in the project in 1961, stated:

“We went to all this trouble because of the shells being the wrong shape as we pointed out to you right at the beginning” [ 19 ].

His major objection to Utzon’s original design was that the shapes of all the shell parts were different from each other. In addition to this, the fact that they had no defined geometry made it impossible to reuse the formwork, which in turn drove up construction costs.

A few months later Arup presented two alternatives to Utzon; the first consisted of “V”-shaped concrete ribs, taking up the idea used on the ground floor beams, consisting of folds in a continuous concrete surface, but with the added complexity of having a two-way curvature in the case of the roof beams. The use of steel was thus dispensed with, returning to a solution of reinforced concrete only.

Utzon received Arup’s proposal loud and clear:

“I don’t care what its costs. I don’t care what scandal it causes; I don’t care how long it takes, that is what I want” [ 19 ].

Utzon was not very much in favor of the use of a “hidden” steel structure inside the concrete structure as he considered it to be a “dishonest” gesture. On the contrary, the triangular concrete beams seen from the inside clearly showed the load path, which he considered essential for an acceptable solution for the roof structure. Thus, the family of concrete beams arranged in a fan-shaped pattern, concentrating at their confluence at the supports, was completely to his liking and immediately met with his approval.

4.4. Inspiration by Nature in the Final Solution: The Orange Analogy

Having established, at the typological level, the fan-shaped concrete rib scheme as the solution agreed as valid by all parties, the geometrical part of the problem remained to be solved: what shape should be given to the surfaces so that they would be geometrically representable, provide a correct structural performance, and also provide a simple construction?

Utzon did not have the technical background to solve a problem of this magnitude, yet it seems that he was the one who quite by accident came up with the solution to a problem that some of the leading engineers of the day had been grappling with for several years. It certainly seems clear that Utzon would have been unable to find the solution, even if this discovery had been largely fortuitous, without the “training” that the Arup engineers had unwittingly given him through the countless meetings they had held on the subject to try to make Utzon clearly understand the problem they were facing. It is well known that the correct formulation of a question is the best basis for finding an answer to it, and this part had certainly been to the credit of the Arup team.

At this time of maximum pressure, when the urgency to finally find a viable solution for the roof construction was pressing, the search for inspiration in nature remained the main driving force for Utzon.

Several years ago, Eero Saarinen, during a breakfast with Utzon, had explained the behavior of his concrete shell roofs for the TWA building by cutting a grapefruit and showing the shapes of its envelope.

There is no unanimous version of these facts, but apparently, Utzon, very angry with the way things were going and frustrated that his life’s project was doomed to failure, went into the factory in Hellebaek where all the models of the project were displayed. He began to stack the shells of the large model to make space when he noticed how similar the shapes appeared to be. He noticed that they fit together perfectly, like a Russian doll. As a result of this fortuitous discovery and asking himself about the geometric shape that generates different curvatures from the same radius, he realized that this geometric figure was the sphere. So, each roof could perhaps be derived from a single, constant form, such as the plane of a sphere ( Figure 9 ).

Wooden model with the deck pieces taken as surfaces of the same sphere (picture by MoMa, 1961; www.moma.org ; last accessed 2 December 2021).

Moved by the great excitement that this discovery had generated in him, he immediately began to experiment with spheres. Given his limited knowledge of geometry, he began by working with his children’s plastic beach ball. He used water to draw different shapes on the surface of the ball, which, when dry, became visible through a noticeable change in color. In this way, he was able to experiment with the possible surfaces that could be generated from the same sphere. Once he was satisfied with his experiments with the beach ball, Utzon went to the shipyard in Helsingor, where he usually made his models, to build one with his new spherical shapes, and at the same time, he called an urgent meeting with Arup.

Ove Arup summarizes in the following words, taken from a conference for the Prestressed Concrete Development Group read in London in 1965, the changes on the shell roofs proposed by Utzon:

“Then Utzon called from Copenhagen saying that he had solved the whole previous problem. The point was to change the whole shape of the shells by the cut generated by the sphere itself. So now all the shells were spherical, and their ribs followed the meridian curves, on the sphere, of the same radius, 246 feet” [ 26 ].

Arup immediately accepted the proposal and agreed to give the sphere a radius of approximately 74 meters (246 feet), which was the distance between the outer faces of the extreme ribs [ 27 ]. The adoption of a spherical shape allowed the use of a common formwork family for all parts, which would simplify and therefore greatly reduce the cost of roof construction. In addition, the calculation was also greatly simplified.

The explanation of how Utzon was able to come up with the idea of spherical geometry is, in his own words, as follows:

“I’ve grown up in big shipyards and I had at Elsinore, close to my office, all the possibilities I wanted for studying the production of big, curved shapes.... Also, I had developed various systems for prefabrication in the building industry before the Opera House” [ 28 ].

Given Utzon’s familiarity with prefabricated systems, he immediately proposed that the family of circular ribs be prefabricated in reinforced concrete, to which Arup, very sensitive to finding a simple and economical construction process, immediately agreed.

In January 1962, Utzon submitted his Yellow Book defining the new geometry of the roofs, details of the precast ribs, and the tiling. The proposal was very radical since, after long years of stubbornness, it represented a very strong geometric modification with respect to the competition proposal ( Figure 10 ). On the other hand, it also included some positive aspects such as the relative ease of graphically representing the surfaces of the different volumes, as well as the possibility of prefabricating both the structure and the roof coverings, as there was already a single curvature.

Design evolution. From left to right elevations drawing from 1956 (Brown Book, competition proposal), 1958 (Red Book, elliptical geometry), and 1962 (Yellow Book, spherical geometry) ( www.records.nsw.gov.au ; last accessed 2 December 2021) [ 21 ].

The final solution based on triangular-shaped folded concrete ribs was most likely influenced by the work of the Italian engineer Pier Luigi Nervi, and in particular by the building he constructed in 1960 for the Olympic Games in Rome: The Palazzetto dello Sport. This building covered a span of approximately 100 meters with folded, V-shaped reinforced concrete ribs only 9 cm thick.

Utzon himself reflected on this as follows:

“Through my work with curved shapes in the opera house I have been inspired to go further into free architectural forms, but at the same time to control the geometry which makes it possible to erect the building out of mass-produced components. I am fully aware of the danger of using curved forms in contrast with the relative security of basing architecture on rectangular forms, but the curved form world offers something which one will never find in rectangular architecture. The ships’ hulls, the caves and the sculptures prove it” [ 19 ].

This finding also allowed Utzon to move away from the expression of a style, in this case the concrete shell architecture, so fashionable at the time, and towards something more timelessly universal, based on purely geometric concepts inspired by natural forms.

Thus, the final roof structure was based on large precast concrete ribs, up to 3 m deep, joined together by post-tensioning and epoxy resins [ 29 ]. Obviously, the image of the roof structure had nothing to do with Utzon’s initial images, neither from a geometric point of view nor from a typological point of view. Both public opinion and the Australian press began to form a very critical current with the project, mainly due to the change in its forms. In this context, on February 28 of 1965, Utzon sent a letter of resignation to the Committee, and a few days later he left Australia, a country to which he would never return, not even to see his building finished. Finally, on October 20, 1973, more than 11 years behind schedule and with a budget deviation of more than 1,000%, Queen Elizabeth II of England inaugurated the building.

Once the roof structure had been structurally resolved and was self-supporting, the facades were freed from bearing any kind of stress other than that due to wind loads. With the concrete rib solution, it was no longer necessary to use the facades as tie rods to avoid the deformation that would occur when considering the roofs as concrete slabs, and the feeling of transparency that Utzon had longed for could be achieved [ 28 ].

Once again Utzon turns to analogies with natural forms for his facade design. At first, Utzon proposed glass enclosures in vertical planes, but he soon realized that this type of enclosure would not produce the effect of transparency he was looking for, so he began to break up these vertical lines in search of more organic solutions, apparently inspired by the image of a bird in flight ( Figure 11 ).

Left : image of a bird in flight, which Utzon used as a reference for the development of the facades ( https://pxhere.com/es/photo/1224384 ; last accessed 2 December 2021). Right : glass wall design principle (Yellow Book, 1962); ( www.records.nsw.gov.au ; last accessed 2 December 2021) [ 21 ].

5. Results: Evaluation of Nature-Inspired Strategies in the Sydney Opera House Project

5.1. feasibility analysis of the structure of the competition proposal.

Despite nearly two decades of concerted efforts by some of the brightest architects and engineers, Utzon was finally unable to see the opera house he envisioned built: he conceived a building ahead of its time. The competition proposal had to be substantially altered. These alterations were mainly the consequence of a lack of sufficient scientific and technological means, as well as a poorly conditioned starting point from a structural perspective. The design, inspired by natural forms but based on pure translation by formal analogy, without taking into consideration both strong geometrical constraints and issues of scale, failed in its attempt to be built.

However, the question of whether Utzon’s original design for the roofs was feasible has so far remained unanswered, as it could not be tested at the time [ 30 ]. Based on the available competition documentation, represented by Utzon through two-dimensional projections of the building (floor and elevation drawings), a three-dimensional roof digital geometry has been reconstructed (using Rhinoceros), in particular of the main auditorium area.

The geometry generation procedure consisted of the following: First, competition plan and elevation drawings were digitized using Rhinoceros v5.0 software through a consecutive point capture ( Figure 12 , top). Curves were interpolated based on previously captured points (plan and elevation). Third-degree polynomials were considered for interpolation ( Figure 12 , mid-left). Surfaces were generated based on the obtained curves, projecting them in the main directions of the space (x, y, z) ( Figure 12 , mid-center). Edge curves were obtained from the intersection of the generated surfaces, constituting the master curves for the roof geometry ( Figure 12 , mid-right). From this set of space curves ( Figure 12 , bottom-left), surface fragments framed by said curves were generated ( Figure 12 , bottom-center). Once the surfaces were generated, a triangular mesh of three nodes triangular elements was applied for subsequent structural analysis ( Figure 12 , bottom-right).

Geometry digitization process: point capture ( top ), edge identification ( center ), and surface and mesh generation ( bottom ).

Geometry was imported into finite element analysis software Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis v12. Such software has been used to conduct the relevant structural analysis for defining the essential characteristics of the materials used, boundary conditions, applied loads [ 31 ], etc.

The following load cases were considered: SW (self-weight; 12 cm thick concrete shell: 3.5 kN/m 2 ), DL (dead load; tiles and mortar: 0.6 kN/m 2 ), LL (live load; maintenance load: 0.4 kN/m 2 ), Wx and Wy (wind along X- and Y-axes; Australian Standard CA34, Part II. SAA Loading Code, Part II: wind forces, dated 1971; C p = 1.0 kN/m 2 , C s = 0.5 kN/m 2 ), T+20 (structure global temperature rise; +20 °C), and T-20 (structure global temperature decrease; −20 °C).

The bending moment capacity of the 12 cm thick concrete shell has been calculated approximately in order to compare it with the bending moments obtained from the calculation model developed. The estimated ultimate bending moment is M u = 22.4 kNm ( Figure 13 , top). If we consider the concomitant action of this bending moment with an axial force, either tensile or compressive, we will be in a scenario much closer to the real one in the structure to be analyzed ( Figure 13 , bottom).

General bending diagram of a 12 cm thick reinforced concrete sheet. Prontuario Informático IECA ( top ). Interaction diagram axial-bending moment of a 12 cm thick reinforced concrete shell. Prontuario Informático IECA ( bottom ).

An elastic linear analysis was conducted. The elastic properties of the concrete considered were as follows: E = 30 GPa, ν = 0.2, and density δ = 2500 kg/m 3 . Two-dimensional three-node triangular shell finite elements were used. Since self-weight is clearly governing and in order to have as clear results as possible, results are presented only for this load case ( Figure 14 ).

Node displacements under self-weight load along the global main axes X, Y, and Z.

Considering the obtained displacements (maximum instantaneous elastic displacements under self-weight along the global axes: dx = 86 cm; dy = 145 cm; dz = −120 cm), it can be concluded that Utzon’s competition geometrical proposal was not buildable due to inadequate structural performance. The roof’s structural behavior is clearly unacceptable, showing that the structure does not have sufficient stiffness and tends to “open” under the effect of its own weight.

However, in order to enhance the understanding of the behavior of the structure under analysis, an image is provided showing the obtained bending moments according to the principal directions, M1 ( Figure 15 ).

Bending moments according to the principal directions (M1) under self-weight load.

5.2. Study of the Effect of Scale on the Structure of the Competition Proposal

In view of the above, it seems clear that the proposal Utzon submitted to the Sydney Opera House competition was not feasible as he envisaged it. The main problem, apart from the incorrect choice of building form, was the enormous size of the concrete shells, with parts up to approximately 45 meters high ( Figure 16 ).

Sydney Opera House building size (67 m height above sea level, 186 m in length) compared to Pantheon (Rome, 27 B.C.; left ), Notre Dame (Paris, 1345; center ), and Palazzetto dello Sport (Rome, 1960; right ).

In order to analyze the effect of the size of the building on the structural behavior of the decks, two additional models have been developed, consisting of 75% and 50% scaling, respectively, of the original calculation model presented above ( Figure 17 ). The thicknesses of the concrete shell have been scaled accordingly, obtaining thicknesses of 9 and 6 cm, respectively.

Left : full-scale calculation model (blue), scaled 75% (green) and scaled 50% (red). Right : displacements of the nodes of the structure in the global Z -axis for the self-weight load case.

The impact that the change in the size of the structure has on both the maximum displacements obtained ( Figure 17 , right) and the bending stresses is evident ( Figure 18 ).

Principal bending moments M1 ( top ) and M2 ( bottom ). Load case: self-weight.

In the above images, the color gradation has been scaled so that the values obtained are not drawn if they exceed the permissible simple bending value of approximately +/− 25 kNm. These blank areas are therefore areas of the roof structure that are not capable of resisting the acting internal bending moments. It can be seen that the overall performance of the structure is quite far away from a membrane behavior.

The case of the Sydney Opera House shows us how the structural design is not initially contemplated but appears later, in a rather forced way, providing the necessary structural and constructive feasibility. In view of the eventful design and construction process of the building, this model can be considered inadequate, especially when it comes to the design and construction of a complex building.

Felix Candela harshly summarized this question in 1968:

“The example of the Sydney Opera House and, above all, the observation of the enormous difference between the slenderness and lightness of the original conception of the shells and the heaviness and complication of the final structure, should make us think about the convenience of counterbalancing the arrogant attitude towards architectural problems with a certain dose of humility and awareness of structural and human limitations” [ 32 ].

6. Conclusions

Nature has always been an important attraction and source of inspiration in the field of architectural and structural design. Having at our disposal designs resulting from millions of years of evolution is an enormous opportunity. Unfortunately, this translation of form is by no means simple, and many factors, especially the scale, must be taken into consideration.

In particular, in the case of the structural design of the Sydney Opera House, inspiration from natural forms played a major role, both in the competition stage and during the almost 17 years of design and construction. However, this biomimicry was limited in most cases to simple formal analogies, which at first greatly conditioned the development of the project (even jeopardizing its viability) but which in the end paradoxically ended up also resolving the challenge. The orange analogy solved in a simple and effective way all the problems that Utzon and his team had been facing for 5 years.

Utzon’s stubbornness led to a long paralysis in the development of the project due to his initial erroneous choice of form for the roofs, based on a natural analogy. However, his genius resolved the complicated situation in time, paradoxically relying again on analogies with nature.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Ask a question from expert

Risk Management in Engineering: A Case Study of Sydney Opera House

Prepare a risk management plan for a risk problem in an engineering environment, applying the Australian Standards Risk management AS/NZS ISO 31000 and SA/SNZ HB 436, and using a variety of risk assessment techniques.

Added on   2023-06-13

About This Document

   Added on  2023-06-13

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

FAILED PROJECT ANALYSIS OF SYDNEY OPERA HOUSE. lg ...

International journal of manging projects in business lg ..., cost and risk management lg ..., risk and due diligence in construction projects: a case study of perth stadium lg ..., mgmt6019– engineering risk management lg ..., (pdf) risk culture and crisis communication lg ....

Case Study - The Sydney Opera House

The Sydney Opera House stands as one of finest examples of architecture of last century, but few people know it is also one of the best examples of how not to project manage a project. At concept stage, the project was estimated to cost just $7m and be complete by Australia Day 1963. Upon completion in 1973, the final cost had blown out to $102m – a decade late & 14 times over budget.

So, what happened?

Firstly, in a rush to get things started, the concept design wasn’t properly validated or tested prior to starting, much to the shock & horror of Danish Architect Jorn Utzon who openly proclaimed the design was purely high-level concept drawings and that there were concerns about how to build over the harbour as well as having no actual method to build the complex roof structure. No regard was given to proper planning and the design discovery process – the fundamentals of development.

Secondly, following a government change in 1966, payment was halted to Utzon forcing him to resign. New architects were appointed and critical internal changes were made – all while construction was underway.

Finally, there was no project manager appointed to oversee the design, approvals, procurement or construction – rather this space was held by political figures with little to no technical experience.

So, what are the lessons?

Do not underestimate the value of proper expert project management. The cost of engaging a team leader to properly plan and manage all parties pays for itself, reduces variance and often actually saves money. In fact, this is not a cost, rather an investment.

The design validation and discovery process must not be ignored or rushed. Real answers can only be found if this process is rigorous and broad. Expert consultants need to be part of this process. The process must be collaborative.

Do not change key companies mid-project. Architects, engineers, project managers, builders are all critical team members. Changing personnel affects the vision of the project and there is a major loss of intellectual property.

Do not rush to commence the project. Making changes once things have started costs money, time, stress and often ends in compromised results and costly misalignment.

Most importantly, not all amazing buildings were amazing projects. Many cost stakeholders money, time health and reputation.

espace - Curtin’s institutional repository

• espace Home
• Curtin Research Publications

Sydney Opera House: Case Study Report

Access status.

How builder Manuel Hornibrook turned Sydney Opera House dream into bricks-and-mortar reality

The story of how the Sydney Opera House was constructed goes back to the "exacting" work ethic of an ambitious young builder in Brisbane in the early 1900s.

Manuel Hornibrook was just 19 when he started his own building company as a way of supporting his single mother and six siblings, four of whom became his apprentices.

"There was no leeway," said his granddaughter Julie Hornibrook, who now lives near Lismore in northern New South Wales.

"If things weren't right, they just had to be done again and that was really how they built up their ethos of the company."

Ms Hornibrook said her grandfather soon moved beyond building houses to building bridges, and the company constructed more than 100 bridges including the Story Bridge in Brisbane and Sydney's Iron Cove Bridge.

But it was the iconic Opera House "sails" that would prove to be Manuel Hornibrook's greatest legacy.

As the family story goes, Manuel Hornibrook said, "it would be egotistical of me to say that no-one else could build those sails, but offhand I can't think of anyone else who could".

Ms Hornibrook said while structural engineer Ove Arup had been credited with bringing the vision of architect Jorn Utzon to fruition, the practical realities of the radical design's construction fell to Hornibrook.

In 1962, when the company was awarded the construction contract, Manuel Hornibrook was 69 years old.

He leaned on his right-hand man Corbet Gore to run the project as chief engineer, with up to 10,000 workers employed throughout the construction.

"There was a lot of problem solving to be done and a lot of time pressure," Ms Hornibrook said.

It was Corbet Gore who travelled to America to source the tiles and epoxy resin that would be used to cover the sails.

He also travelled to France to inspect and acquire the use of what were at the time the world's strongest cranes, three of which were used during construction.

Ms Hornibrook said it was Gore who came up with the idea for the erection arch, which held in place the ribs of the structure as they were being built.

"Hornibrook had that experience of working with bridges and pre-stressed concrete, so they worked out how the actually do that."

A feat of engineering

Ms Hornibrook said 5,000 drawings by Manuel Hornibrook were unearthed in the State Library of New South Wales, and 30,000 mathematical equations were done to ensure the accuracy of the erection arch.

She said her research revealed the project's model maker remained on site during the construction process to respond to the ever-evolving design, and workers were encouraged to offer feedback on how things were unfolding.

Ms Hornibrook said her grandfather's legacy was largely packed away with the site office and construction waste at the end of the job.

"What we see is the exquisite building that remains."

When the Opera House opened in 1973, Manuel Hornibrook had died and the name of his company had changed.

"So I think some of those Australian stories have got lost along the way," Ms Hornibrook said.

"My grandfather told his staff to look back with pride at the work they had done, and I think we as Australians should do the same."

ABC North Coast — local news in your inbox

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

The sydney opera house is 50. look back at five memorable moments.

He created one of the greatest buildings of the 20th century. Why did Jørn Utzon walk away?

• Architecture
• Construction Materials
• Engineering
• Human Interest
• Non Residential Construction Industry
• Tourism and Leisure Industry

Shorthand Case Study: Sydney Opera House

How the sydney opera house uses shorthand.

How does the Sydney Opera House content team produce world-leading interactive stories, from gorgeously designed photo essays to hugely imaginative virtual escape rooms?

That was the question we put to Dominic Ellis, Online Content Editor at the Sydney Opera House.

They’ve been using Shorthand since 2018, originally to create immersive visual stories not possible with a standard website content management system.

“We started using Shorthand for more visually-oriented stories, which a regular CMS probably couldn't bring to life. We wanted those full bleed images, nice transitions and interactive elements that are only possible with Shorthand.”

The team at the Sydney Opera House, as Dominic explains, decided to “turn to a service that is exclusively built for visual, interactive storytelling. That's what we wanted to accomplish, so we could push the boundaries in terms of what our content looked like and how people engaged with it.”

‘The perfect experience for online content’

Since starting with Shorthand, the Sydney Opera House has published a range of gorgeous visual stories. Some striking stories from recent years include The Sydney Opera House at rest , an arresting showcase of photography taken during lockdown in mid-2020, and Stage Direction: The Phantom of the Opera .

‘Stage Direction’ is an editorial series from the Opera House about stage productions that were originally adapted from books. The piece on The Phantom of the Opera focuses on how that story has been adapted over the years, from its origins as a novella, to various forms of film, TV, and theatre.

As Dominic explains, “I think our piece tells the story of The Phantom of the Opera in such a visually interesting and chronological way that would only be possible on Shorthand. We displayed all the incredible visual assets that have come over a hundred or so years of adaptations.”

Importantly, the piece served three different purposes for the team. “First, there is obviously the marketing element — showcasing what the show is and how it came to be. Second, it's supplementing that theatrical experience for those who already have tickets.

“And then it's also an educational piece. It's telling a story that a lot of people probably didn't know. And that's the perfect experience for online content. So that's a piece I'm particularly proud of.”

An imaginative sandbox

After using Shorthand to create immersive visual stories, the team at the Sydney Opera House started using Shorthand as what Dominic calls an “imaginative sandbox.”

Using Shorthand’s templates and section types as a starting off point, Dominic and the team used Shorthand to “try and push our storytelling ideas and do things a little bit more imaginatively.”

With the pandemic interrupting live performances for much of 2020, the team pushed themselves even further.

“We aimed to create content that was even more imaginative and even more interactive. And that's where we came up with the idea for our most boundary pushing type of story we've published so far: an online escape room.”

For the uninitiated, an ‘escape room’ is a popular adventure game. It usually involves a group of people attempting to escape a room by finding clues, solving puzzles, and cracking codes.

The Sydney Opera House’s first online escape room, Trial of wisdom went live in July 2020 and was a collaboration with the podcasters from Escape This Podcast . Virtual participants had to escape from the underbelly of the Sydney Opera House.

‘It’s very exciting’

“The engagement for our escape rooms has been out of this world.”

As Dominic explains, the escape room concept proved to be a hit during lockdown.

“Initially it was pretty successful. We had some success locally and overseas, as we weren't the only ones in lockdown back then, including pickup from international media outlets like Nerdist . But as lockdowns across the world started fading, international interest dropped off somewhat.

“And then when New South Wales and Victoria went back down into lockdown in 2021, it went nuts again. We had a lot of interest — Facebook messages, tweets and everything asking us for tips on how to finish it.”

With this interest, the team published a second escape room, The disappearing act , in September 2021. Within the first two weeks, there were over 10,000 ‘attempts’ to escape. “It’s very exciting. And we've been inundated with requests for help on how to finish the challenges. The engagement for our escape rooms has been out of this world.

“And it wasn't just popular for two or three weeks. And it wasn't just one of those many lockdown fads where interest fades over time. Across the two escape rooms, the engagement's sustained over almost a year and a half.”

The numbers bear this out. The average time-on-page for the first virtual escape room is an astonishing 13 and a half minutes .

World-leading content

“We could really bring our stories to life... thanks to Shorthand.”

With such success, you might assume that the Sydney Opera House has an enormous team of content producers.

But in fact, Dominic is the only member of the online content team at the Sydney Opera House, though he is part of a wider digital content team. Using Shorthand, he is able to decide how much additional resource — such as design or custom development — he uses for each piece of content they produce.

Dominic explains that he can use Shorthand to create compelling content without leaning on their designers or writing code. “Shorthand’s great. On the one hand, you can use the templates and layouts that Shorthand has produced, and you can create visually interesting stories very easily, so long as you've got the assets.”

But Dominic points out that Shorthand also allows content teams with more resources or expertise to create stunningly original content (such as online escape rooms).

“On the other hand, it's a sandbox. “It gives you free rein to do a little bit of HTML, CSS and JavaScript or to push it in whatever direction you want. And that's great. You can push yourself a little bit more and use the platform in interesting ways, if you've got a little bit of development resource.

“I think that's why it has suited our situation perfectly as well. There are only a few internal content producers, but we do have access to a talented creative studio and a few in-house developers. And so with just a little bit of resource, we could really bring our stories to life in terms of illustrations and development while having that foundation, thanks to Shorthand.”

A growing platform

“One thing that's really impressed me is that we've been using Shorthand for three and a half years now, but it keeps iterating.”

The Sydney Opera House team considered several other options before choosing Shorthand. One factor that tipped the scales for Shorthand was how Shorthand stories performed on smaller screens.

“What we particularly liked about Shorthand is how well it looked on mobile. Our engagement on mobile for our written content is really high. Around 65% of our readers are reading on mobile, and that's usually coming from clicks on social media platforms. We liked that it was a responsive platform and you could also curate it with both mobile and desktop in mind.”

Over the last three years using Shorthand, Dominic and his colleagues at the Opera House have noticed the platform continues to grow and evolve.

“One thing that's really impressed me is that we've been using it for three and a half years now, but it keeps iterating. I feel like every time I log in, or every month I log in, there's a new tool, or you guys are experimenting with a new section style that has really interesting visual storytelling methods behind them.”

The upshot for Dominic is that these new features allow the Opera House to produce new and innovative types of stories.

“I like that there's been a lot of progression in the time that we've been using the platform. This allows us to develop our way of telling our stories as well.”

“Our content has just been a lot better”

Since using Shorthand, the Opera House has seen noticeable changes in audience engagement.

This is because, as Dominic puts it, “our content has just been a lot better. There are stories that we've published that we could never be able to publish previously. We've been able to use our visual assets, our illustrators and our photographers, the content they create in a way that we couldn't previously and bring it to life.”

The success of their Shorthand stories has led to other use cases for their online stories.

“We’ve started to use our Shorthand stories as an exhibition space of sorts. The Opera House is traditionally a performing arts space, but we also have a contemporary art program. And we have access to some incredible artists, and Shorthand has created an appetite to exhibit their works in a way that we couldn't previously.”

Dominic has also seen other teams at the Sydney Opera House start to experiment with Shorthand, including their educational programmes.

We ended our discussion with Dominic by asking if he had any advice for content teams looking to replicate his success.

“There are thousands of great examples of Shorthand stories, but don’t be limited to copying what already exists. The beauty of Shorthand is it's a sandbox, and you can do with it what you want.”

More case studies

Advanced search

• QUT website
• Library website
• Collections

Open Specification for BIM : Sydney Opera House Case Study

Anon. (2005) Open Specification for BIM : Sydney Opera House Case Study. [Report]

Executive Summary The objective of this report was to use the Sydney Opera House as a case study of the application of Building Information Modelling (BIM). The Sydney opera House is a complex, large building with very irregular building configuration, that makes it a challenging test. A number of key concerns are evident at SOH: • the building structure is complex, and building service systems - already the major cost of ongoing maintenance - are undergoing technology change, with new computer based services becoming increasingly important. • the current “documentation” of the facility is comprised of several independent systems, some overlapping and is inadequate to service current and future services required • the building has reached a milestone age in terms of the condition and maintainability of key public areas and service systems, functionality of spaces and longer term strategic management. • many business functions such as space or event management require up-to-date information of the facility that are currently inadequately delivered, expensive and time consuming to update and deliver to customers. • major building upgrades are being planned that will put considerable strain on existing Facilities Portfolio services, and their capacity to manage them effectively While some of these concerns are unique to the House, many will be common to larger commercial and institutional portfolios. The work described here supported a complementary task which sought to identify if a building information model – an integrated building database – could be created, that would support asset & facility management functions (see Sydney Opera House – FM Exemplar Project, Report Number: 2005-001-C-4 Building Information Modelling for FM at Sydney Opera House), a business strategy that has been well demonstrated. The development of the BIMSS - Open Specification for BIM has been surprisingly straightforward. The lack of technical difficulties in converting the House’s existing conventions and standards to the new model based environment can be related to three key factors: • SOH Facilities Portfolio – the internal group responsible for asset and facility management - have already well established building and documentation policies in place. The setting and adherence to well thought out operational standards has been based on the need to create an environment that is understood by all users and that addresses the major business needs of the House. • The second factor is the nature of the IFC Model Specification used to define the BIM protocol. The IFC standard is based on building practice and nomenclature, widely used in the construction industries across the globe. For example the nomenclature of building parts – eg ifcWall, corresponds to our normal terminology, but extends the traditional drawing environment currently used for design and documentation. This demonstrates that the international IFC model accurately represents local practice for building data representation and management. • a BIM environment sets up opportunities for innovative processes that can exploit the rich data in the model and improve services and functions for the House: for example several high-level processes have been identified that could benefit from standardized Building Information Models such as maintenance processes using engineering data, business processes using scheduling, venue access, security data and benchmarking processes using building performance data. The new technology matches business needs for current and new services. The adoption of IFC compliant applications opens the way forward for shared building model collaboration and new processes, a significant new focus of the BIM standards. In summary, SOH current building standards have been successfully drafted for a BIM environment and are confidently expected to be fully developed when BIM is adopted operationally by SOH. These BIM standards and their application to the Opera House are intended as a template for other organisations to adopt for the own procurement and facility management activities. Appendices provide an overview of the IFC Integrated Object Model and an understanding IFC Model Data.

Additional Information

Actions (login required).

TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12079 (Australian University) CRICOS No. 00213J ABN 83 791 724 622

• Accessibility
• Right to Information