Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023

Integration of Design and Fabrication

10–14 July 2023, Melbourne, Australia
Y.M. Xie, J. Burry, T.U. Lee and J. Ma (eds.)

Sydney football stadium redevelopment – An efficient design,

manufacturing and on-site assembly approach to a complex form-
found roof shell structure
Michael CHERNYAVSKY*, Hudson KESTELa
a,*
Aurecon Australasia
michael.chernyavsky@aurecongroup.com

Abstract
The Sydney Football Stadium (SFS) is an $828m AUD state-of-the-art stadium near Sydney’s CBD.
This paper focuses on the collaborative approach to design, fabrication and erection that enabled the
complex 2,000 tonne synclastic diagrid shell roof to be successfully brought to life in a fast-tracked
design and construction programme whilst overcoming supply chain and lockdown challenges
associated with COVID-19. The unique 25,000m2 roof is constructed with inner arched trusses that span
approximately 140m and 90m in length, a 680m long perimeter tension ring and a diagrid shell structure
that includes arched sections spanning between the inner truss chord and tension ring. This structural
behaviour and form-found geometry allow for an efficient and lightweight design for the roof.
Prefabrication and modular construction techniques were adopted to limit working at heights and
improve the erection efficiency on site, it enabled over 85% of steelwork installation to be undertaken
at ground level. The roof consists of 5,000 individual pieces of steel, each with an associated pre-set
length and geometry which required precise coordination, fabrication and planning through each stage
of design and construction, a novel digital workflow was developed to enable the seamless translation
of data between each sub-consultant. The connections of the roof are also some of the most intricate in
Australia, the adoption of bi-directional digital workflows between structural engineers and steel
detailers were essential to save time and improve quality assurance.
Keywords: case study, modular, preassembled, DfMA, sustainability, stadia, steel shells, steel diagrid, digital
engineering, computational design

1. Project background and vision

Sydney Football Stadium (SFS), also known as Allianz Stadium is a state-of-the-art stadium, near
Sydney’s CBD. Designed to create a vibrant atmosphere with steep seating to bring 42,500 fans closer
to the action, the world-class, multi-use rectangular stadium opened in August 2022 and has hosted
football, rugby league, rugby union matches and concerts, as well as community and cultural events.
The new stadium is a key component of the NSW Government’s stadia strategy to promote a strong
cultural and sporting sector by delivering a world-class venue within a parkland precinct for the state
and Australia as a whole.

The previous Allianz Stadium on the same site was nearing the end of its economic and functional life
and would not meet future safety and access requirements. Bringing the new $828 AUD million stadia
to life were project partners Aurecon, as structural and civil engineers, John Holland Group, Cox
Architecture and Schlaich Bergermann Partner (SBP), for the New South Wales (NSW) Government.
The vision was to blend engineering and art through a ‘sculpture’, featuring a sweeping roof that covers
100 per cent of seats and a colosseum-like seating bowl that creates an electrifying atmosphere.
The stadium has been designed to achieve a US Green Building Council LEED gold rating. It features
design for disassembly principles, a strong connection to the indigenous people of the land and involved

Copyright © 2023 by Michael CHERNYAVSKY and Hudson KESTEL. Published in the Proceedings of the IASS
Annual Symposium 2023 with permission.
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

the recycling of over 85% of construction and demolition materials from the former Sydney Football
Stadium to construct the new stadium.

The new stadium for Sydney allows Australia to continue offering fans some of the most memorable
moments in Australian sports history. It is a stadium that strengthens Sydney as a destination for major
sporting and entertainment events while enhancing the surrounding precinct with public places and
spaces year-round. It has been delivered on time and on budget by the more than 7,000 personnel who
contributed to the project despite disruptions to procurement and construction due to COVID-19, a proud
achievement for the entire design and construction team.

Figure 1. Left: Aerial photo of SFS including Sydney context. Right: Photo from the North-Eastern corner.

2. Structural philosophy
Various stadia across Australia and the world have inspired the chosen design features in the
redevelopment of SFS. The structural philosophy of this roof is based on the roof-ring principle. One of
the first applications of this principle in large sporting arenas was in the redevelopment of the Stuttgart
– Mercedes Benz Arena which paved the way for a new generation of stadia roof [2]. Relatedly, the
roof of SFS utilises a tension ring and compression arch as an efficient global load path for the structure.
The SFS roof is supported by four corner structures termed ‘derricks’ which are braced Circular Hollow
Sections (CHS) that cantilever to support the arched trusses, this element was inspired from Suncorp
Stadium in Brisbane [3]. The adoption of a diagrid shell structure contributes to the visual identify of
the SFS roof, provides lateral stability and a secondary load path for the roof. Diagrid shell structures
are prevalent in sports arenas globally and locally such as Adelaide Oval Western Grandstand
redevelopment [4].

3. Adopted roof
The 25,000m2 SFS roof transfers loads via axial forces with the use of arches and tensile mechanisms.
The diagrid is supported on the inner chord via arched trusses that span 140m and 90m in length between
the four corner ‘derricks’. The trusses are arched in plan and elevation to efficiently transfer vertical and
lateral loading. A 680m long perimeter tension ring is used to provide restraint to the diagrid, utilising
the axial stiffness of the ring to prevent the diagrid from moving outwards. The diagrid shell adopts
radial arched sections spanning between the inner compression arched truss and tension ring, with
diagonal CHS members providing stability and support. The derrick’s are braced CHS members which
transfer approximately 50% of the roof vertical loads and 100% of the lateral loads to the superstructure.

Structural shells require stiff and, in this case, continuous edge elements in tension and compression.
For SFS the outer boundary element is continuous and curved against the thrust forces from gravitational
loads of the diagrid shell constituting a Tension Ring. The inner boundary element is curved in the same
direction as the thrust constituting a Compression Arched Truss, see Figure 2. The primary structure of

2
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

the roof utilised mild steel CHS and Rectangular Hollow Sections (RHS). These hollow steel sections
offer high strength-to-weight ratios and versatility, enabling Aurecon, SBP and Cox Architecture to
devise an innovative and visually striking roof configuration that not only met the demands of a modern
stadium design but also ensured long-lasting performance in an adverse coastal environment.

Figure 2. Structural load path of the Sydney Football Stadium Roof.

The extensive use of faceted steel sections for the ‘arched’ trusses and ‘elliptical’ tension ring created
an efficient structural form compared to the traditional stadia roof philosophy such as deep flexural
trusses. This structural behaviour allowed for an efficient and lightweight design for the adopted roof
and the facetted geometry simplified fabrication without compromising the visual perception of curved
elegant elements.

Figure 3. Roof Structure: (a) structure overview, (b) derricks, (c) typical diagrid segment.

4. Form finding
In the world of architecture and structural engineering, form-finding is an important methodology to
improve efficiency, dematerialisation and unlock complex and organic shapes. Historical figures like
Catalan architect Antoni Gaudí paved the way for modern form-finding. Gaudí's designs, which employ
organic and biomimetic principles, demonstrate both visual appeal and structural efficiency. To study
these forms, Gaudí often employed the use of hanging chain models, by suspending chains from points
that represented the supports and applying weights to mimic loads, Gaudí could visualise the natural
equilibrium shape for particular structures. He would then photograph the models, invert the images,
and use them as a basis for his design [1]. Gaudi’s form-finding techniques date back to the 1880s, but
the principles he developed and demonstrated on projects such as Casa Vicens and Sagrada Familia
form the basis of the form-finding implemented for the roof of Sydney Football Stadium.

3
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

The roof of Sydney Football Stadium adopted multiple methods of form-finding in the early geometry
definition of elements and the overall structure. The Stiffness Matrix form-finding technique was one of
the primary methods used and involved the following steps:
1. Define the initial geometry, including the position of nodes, the connectivity between nodes
(any translational, rotation releases or offsets), and the structural elements such as beams or
cables, for Sydney Football Stadium this was defined using Rhino and Grasshopper (a
parametric modelling software) which enabled rapid geometry and design iterations.
2. Assign material properties, Elastic modulus and the cross-sectional areas of each element.
3. Define loads and boundary conditions which describe the constraints on the structure, for
Sydney Football Stadium there was a maximum height limitation to respect the heritage Sydney
Cricket Ground which is adjacent to the stadium as one example.
4. Develop the form-finding criteria, for Sydney Football Stadium, the six criteria were:
I. Minimise bending actions to improve the efficiency of members
II. Balance the forces of the trusses to align with the orientation of the derricks,
III. Minimise the mass of the structure
IV. Ensure the structure is stable and the global buckling behaviour is sufficient
V. Create a structure with 2 axes of Symmetry
VI. Minimise dead load displacements to span/500

5. Assemble the global stiffness matrix, in the case of Sydney Football Stadium this was
undertaken using Strand7 Finite Element Analysis (Aurecon) and Oasys GSA (SBP).
6. Solve for nodal displacements, i.e. changes in the nodal coordinates after the loads are applied
and the analysis is undertaken. This step results in the new positions of the nodes, which define
the equilibrium shape of the structure.
7. Once the equilibrium shape was found, analyse the structural performance (stresses, deflections,
and stability) and optimise the design, if necessary, by adjusting the geometry, member sizes,
or material properties.
8. Iterate, if the optimised structure did not meet the desired objectives, then the initial geometry,
or boundary conditions were adjusted, and steps 5 to 7 were repeated until the desired accuracy
was achieved.
The form finding undertaken allowed for the efficient and accurate determination of equilibrium shapes
under various load conditions, it resulted in a roof that is approximately 40% lighter than traditional
long-span flexural systems, reducing cost and improving sustainability through dematerialisation.

5. Structural analysis and design

Due to the geometrical and loading complexity of the roof, the analysis and design required advanced
engineering assessments and various sensitivity studies to ensure the roof was not only structural
adequate but that sufficient fabrication and erection tolerances were allowed for. Due to the extensive
number of load cases associated with wind tunnel testing and the fast-tracked procurement and erection
program, a novel digital workflow was adopted. The analysis and design approach adopted for the design
of the SFS roof is detailed below.

5.1 Global analysis

The structural analysis was partially completed in Strand 7 with a standalone roof model that had spring
stiffness boundary constraints to represent the abutment cores and bored pile system supporting the roof.
This more time-efficient model was used to inform the initial member selections and was validated with

4
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

a more detailed global analysis model in the detailed design which captured both the super and sub-
structure behaviour of the stadium. Due to the ‘arching’ structural behaviour, the structure was sensitive
to non-linear geometric analyses and softer boundary conditions which results in the compression arch
flattening which induced higher axial loads. The design considered both upper-bound and lower-bound
pile spring and concrete superstructure stiffnesses based on the available geological information. To
optimise the applied loading, wind tunnel testing was conducted to provide more precise wind pressures
and distributions. The wind tunnel test results were translated to the global and roof standalone models.

Figure 4. Analysis Models: (a) roof standalone model, (b) global model.

5.2 Digital workflow

The Stadium was designed and constructed within a two-and-a-half (2.5) year period. To meet this fast-
tracked programme Aurecon developed a novel digital workflow that enabled exceptional collaboration,
coordination and traceability on a level far beyond Federated Building Information Models. This digital
workflow involved a ‘single source of truth’ database and computational design to produce models with
‘smart’ attributes and all relevant metadata in each of the preferred modelling software used by
engineers, consultants, architects, builders, fabricators and shop detailers, this ensured rapid
coordination and high quality assurance due to the common database, refer Figure 5 below.
To ensure the full benefits of the workflow were realised, a unique, consistent and meaningful node and
member numbering system was implemented for the traceability between all software (Rhino, Strand7,
GSA, Revit, Tekla etc). Key building information attributes were also ‘baked’ into elements of every
model ranging from the structural analysis, architectural and steel shop detailers model. Examples
include the radii for the roof rafters or the translation from the fabrication geometry to the final installed
geometry (which varied up to 300mm). This is estimated to have saved the project up to eight weeks as
models could be updated and coordinated in a matter of hours, not days/weeks and helped automate the
design, shop drawing review and verification process.

Figure 5. Digital workflow showing model interoperability.

5
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

5.3 Member design

The roof model consisted of approx. 5,000 beam elements and over 600 load cases. 10 data points per
load case for each beam which were required to undertake the member design checks. Therefore
approximately 30 million data points were required for each design iteration. In addition, the global
analysis model required over 24 hours for analysis to be completed. The member design had two
workflows adopted in the design process, the first of which was completed through excel via extracting
the design actions and member properties from Strand 7. Data cleaning was conducted through queries
in Excel to process the Strand 7 data into a suitable format for input into the VBA design scripts which
were used to check each member for all load cases. The output summarised member utilisations,
governing load case and output file which could be imported into Strand 7 to show design utilisations
visually.

The second workflow used Python scripts, which were created with a variety of additional toolsets
(pandas, jupyter, etc). The scripts were created to complete each task in the design process (data
cleaning, member design, output files etc) independently during the debugging stage. This workflow
had a significantly faster processing speed and was used in conjunction with the first workflow.
Processing the two independent workflows allowed for internal validation of the design results.

Figure 6. Member design workflow.

5.4 Connections
Due to the geometrical complexities of the roof, the steel connections are some of the most complex in
Australian stadia. Large tubular, multi-noded connections exist throughout the roof package that
required complex design and detailing. Aurecon and the DBM Vircon developed a bi-directional model
workflow, enabling the design and shop detailing to work in parallel. The shop detailer worked with the
structural engineers to help form connections suitable for the fabricator while incorporating the
structural intent at an early stage. The shop detailer’s model was then translated into analysis and design
software to ensure design integrity.

Figure 7. Typical connection design workflow.

The connections adopted were architecturally compact, avoiding bolts outside the cross-section of each
member. This resulted in cruciform and bolted flange connections kept within the cross-section being
6
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

extensively used. Site welding was minimised as far as practically possible, for constructability and
disassembly reasons, with 99% of all connections bolted. This enabled the erection of truss modules and
diagrid segments to be installed with ease (refer to Section 7. Erection and buildability for more details
on the erection staging of the roof).

Following the philosophy of the member design process, design actions and member properties were
extracted from the global analysis and queried in Excel to have a suitable format for input into the
connection analysis and design software. IDEA Statica was typically used for the majority of the roof
connections, the associated design was accurate, and documentation was streamlined. The most critical
and multi-elemental connections at the derricks were analysed through sub-modelling in Strand7 or local
high-detail modelling within the global analysis model itself. Submodelling is a process which extracts
a section of the global analysis model of interest to analyse in more detail. As global models typically
make simplifications with the stiffness of connections, sub-modelling is an effective tool to validate the
integrity of critical connections. Additionally, it removes any potential errors in translation between
design software and provides greater confidence in the design. The design workflow for these
connections is shown in the figure below.

Figure 8. Connection design workflow for complex and stiffness sensitive connections.

Figure 9. Derrick Rear Connections: (a) Tekla Model, (b) Finite Element Analysis Model, (c) Fabrication.

7
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

The digital workflow and bi-directional workflow between the structural engineer and the steel detailer
(DBM Vircon) reduced iterations and ensured a very high standard of quality assurance, with over 95%
of the shop drawings produced having no comments and proceeding straight to fabrication.

5.5 Buckling study

Long-span stadium roof structures can have trusses that exceed 100m in length, often fabricated in
several segments which are erected and installed at elevated heights on site, creating a challenge for
contractors to meet precise tolerances. The longest trusses in SFS span 140m and were erected in 3
segments with a nominated positional tolerance of 100mm. Typically when designing more standard
structures, geometrical imperfections are captured in the design code buckling curves, (Some codes
exclude the resistance, and are captured analytically through applied imperfections or notional loads).
For key design elements, understanding sensitivity to tolerable geometrical imperfections may be
necessary to provide confidence in the design for fabrication erection tolerances.
A study was undertaken at various design stages to assess the sensitivity of the SFS roof to geometrical
imperfections. The workflow adopted is summarised below:

1. Using the base design geometry model, the Strand7 Application Programming Interface (API)
was used to conduct a linear buckling analysis on all ULS load cases.
2. A Python script was run that extracted the buckling load factors for each load case.
3. The critical modes of interest were identified which related to the global buckling modes.
4. Geometrical imperfect models were created by adjusting the base design geometry to the shape
of the global buckling modes. These models were created at 50mm, 100mm and 150mm
imperfection magnitudes. Non-linear buckling analysis was run for each of these models.
5. A detailed assessment was undertaken to analyse the impact and sensitivity of geometric
imperfections on the performance of the structure. This evaluation determined whether the roof
was prone to buckling before yielding. This evaluation involved non-linear material and
geometrical analyses to calculate the buckling load factors of the structure. Refer to Figure 10.

Figure 10. Roof buckling modes (a) Global buckling mode, (b) North-South diagrid buckling mode.

The buckling study indicated that the roof yielded before the first buckling mode occurred, exhibiting
the desired structural behaviour, additionally the buckling load factors were within an acceptable range.
The North-south bays, due to their pronounced curvature had a particular sensitivity to non-linear
geometrical analysis and buckled via ‘snap-through buckling’. This form of buckling occurs when an
arch is initially stable in compression, but as the vertical load progressively increases the arch flattens,
which in turn increases the axial load in the arch due to the less optimal angle of the arch. The arch
withstands the vertical load until buckling capacity is reached and ‘snaps-through’ as it reaches an
inversed state that acts as a catenary.
8
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

6. Fabrication
The roof fabrication process for Sydney Football Stadium showcased cutting-edge techniques and
exceptional collaboration among industry experts, resulting in a state-of-the-art stadium. A key focus
during fabrication and procurement was to ensure precision and quality while adhering to the strict
geometric tolerances of a form-found structural system. For the complex roof structure, steel fabricator
S&L employed advanced processing methods for CHS members up to 762mm in diameter and the
400x200mm RHS members. Approximately 18 kilometres of steel members were sourced for the 2,000
tonne steel roof structure. The process of procurement took over 12 months and was staged to align with
the lead times and critical path for erection, for example the structural design had to align with the
procurement programme, particularly for the large diameter CHS members which were procured from
South-East Asia, this fast-tracked programme enabled the first bulk order of steel to be made within
three months of the commencement of design. The design and steel detailing of the members and
connections aimed to standardise and simplify the complex geometry of the structure into an
understandable and repeatable form, reducing material wastage while streamlining the shop detailing
and fabrication process and improving the speed of erection within the confined site. The use of bolted
connections allowed for simpler modifications or demountability in the future should the need arise,
with over 99% of all steel site connections being bolted.

As with most form-found structures, the behaviour of the structure is sensitive to the geometry of the
structure. The implementation of full-scale pre-assemblies of critical elements in the workshop validated
the sensitive geometry and enabled any adjustments to be made before arriving on-site, improving the
speed of assembly and installation on-site. This was critical to ensure all delivered steel was installed
without the need for site modifications and enabled efficient use of the laydown and working areas on-
site. The elements that were pre-assembled in the fabricator's workshop include; the Derricks, the Inner
Arched Trusses, the Tension Ring and the Radial Arched Rafters.

Figure 11. Fabrication workshop (a) Roof truss pre-assembled, (b) Roof derrick pre-assembled.

Fabrication geometry requiring particularly high precision was the total length of each truss chord which
was required to be within +/-10mm from derrick to derrick (up to 140m length), and similarly, the total
length of the tension ring from derrick to derrick (up to 195m length) which was to be +/-10mm. This
precision was defined based on sensitivity studies undertaken for the structure. This was a challenge to
achieve as each element had multiple full strength butt welds with the potential for considerable weld
contraction associated with heat and cooling cycles during the welding process. The cumulative effect
of weld contraction could result in a significant change in the overall length or alignment. Therefore,
multiple splice end plates were left unwelded until the final survey of the pre-assembled element was
undertaken to enable adjustments in the root gaps of the welds, providing a method to compensate for
any fabrication tolerances or weld contraction that may have occurred.

9
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

7. Erection and buildability

Prefabrication and modular construction techniques were adopted to limit the working at heights
required and improve the erection efficiency on site, it also enabled multiple work fronts to progress on
the pitch (working area) simultaneously without the use of a substantial tower or crawler cranes. The
heaviest preassembled module was 130 tonnes which was assembled on the pitch and lifted onto
temporary towers supporting the roof structure. The preassembled roof installation strategy enabled over
85 per cent of the roof steelwork installation to be undertaken at ground level, leading to substantial
programme and safety benefits. The workshop modularisation or constructability extremities were
governed by the overall transportation width and lengths. Each fabrication assembly was studied to
ensure all structural members, assemblies and secondary items such as gutters, bull noses, gantries etc.
could be installed in the fabricator's yard before transportation and to avoid overuse of the laydown areas
on site.

Figure 12. Roof truss erection (a) North truss preassembled on the pitch, (b) North truss installation of segment 2.
Early and collaborative involvement with the engineer, architect, contractor, fabricator and steel detailer
was instrumental in achieving the tight design and construction timeframe of only two and a half years
with the first steel ordered in less than three months from the commencement of the project. In contrast
to many projects, direct relationships were formed through weekly design workshops with all
stakeholders from the onset of the project. This is atypical as normally this type of feedback is only
received once Issued Tender documentation is complete (i.e. 70% of the design). This early and crucial
feedback ensured buildability and speed in fabrication and on-site assembly were at the centre of the
design and modelling process.

7.1 Fabrication and design geometry

The design geometry is the agreed final architectural form. This geometry is achieved once all members
are unpropped and all gravity loads from the permanent structure including superimposed loads from
services, fabric and secondary steel are applied, this is the form-found structural geometry.
The fabrication geometry is the geometry for which the steel is fabricated and assembled in a stress-free
state. It is established in such a manner, that the design geometry is achieved under permanent loads
with as little deviation as possible.
To determine the fabrication geometry the following is undertaken for each element:
1. Lengthening of members to compensate for shortening through compression forces,
2. Shortening of members to compensate for lengthening through tension forces.
The force distribution in the roof structure follows this approach: The derricks, trusses and tension ring
form the frame for the diagrid structure. The thrust from the curvature and intentional lengthening of
the diagrid fabrication geometry ensures the tension ring and compression arched trusses are engaged
and creates the desired load path. This pre-set geometry is not force-free contrary to an inversed gravity

10
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

approach that would be force free during installation but would not engage the derricks, trusses and
tension ring as efficiently. The design geometry varies from the fabrication geometry by up to 300mm.

Figure 13. Design geometry and fabrication geometry for tension ring and inner truss chord.

7.2 Erection sequence

The main phases of roof construction were as follows:
1. Abutment cores and superstructure were constructed with associated cast-in anchors for the roof
2. The derrick structures were lifted into their pre-defined positions on the temporary tower at the
tip and connected to the abutment cores at three points. The base points were grouted after a
survey confirms the correct positions, refer to (a) of Figure 14.
3. Columns were installed and stabilised, the tension ring segments are installed and connected.
4. The Truss segments were lifted and connected to the derricks before being placed on temporary
towers. As the lower truss chord is a highly compressed element (inner edge of the diagrid shell),
the fabricated geometry is longer than the final geometry under force (refer to Figure 13).
Therefore, to make the trusses fit and able to close the splice connections, vertical jacking
operations were undertaken at the top of the towers to open and close the gaps of the end plates.
5. The diagrids were lifted into their positions in pre-assembled double bays. The curved radial
arches were stabilised by temporary ties spanning between their ends. The lifted modules were
connected by infill diagonals forming the shell structure.
6. Once the diagrid is completed, the radial cables were removed to activate the Tension Ring.
Then the de-propping from the towers started by lowering the support to engage the Derricks
and the trusses until the roof structure was self-standing and the towers could be dismantled.
The key erection stages are explained and illustrated below in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Key stages of erection.

11
 Proceedings of the IASS Annual Symposium 2023
Integration of Design and Fabrication

Installing this complex roof with large spanning structures was a challenging task. Difficult access at
height and a desire to preassemble as much as possible on the ground added a layer of complexity.
Aurecon and Schlaich Bergermann Partner led the erection engineering, testing hundreds of possible
deviations in sequence, temperature, geometry, jacking, de-jacking, site and fabrication tolerances, all
of which were distilled into a series of simple ‘rule books’, which clearly outlined the procedures and
bounds of what deviations are possible for each key erection stage. This provided substantial flexibility
and ensured the roof was able to be fabricated and erected on programme. A key achievement,
particularly considering the procurement and work constraints due to COVID-19.

8. Conclusion
Sydney Football Stadium stands as a testament to the power of collaboration, innovative design, and
efficient construction techniques in the face of logistical and pandemic-related challenges. The state-of-
the-art 2,000 tonne synclastic diagrid shell roof, with its unique geometry and intricate connections, was
made possible through a combination of prefabrication, modular construction, and advanced erection
engineering. The extensive use of bolted connections and ground-level assembly not only facilitated
construction but also enabled future disassembly, adding to the structure's sustainability. The
development of a novel digital workflow allowed seamless communication and coordination between
various stakeholders, ensuring the successful integration of the roof's 5,000 individual steel pieces. The
completion of the Sydney Football Stadium demonstrates the potential of modern engineering and
construction techniques when they are employed within a cooperative and adaptive framework.

Figure 15. Photos of the completed Sydney Football Stadium.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to make acknowledgement of the New South Wales (NSW) Government for
commissioning this world class stadium. Together with principal contractor, John Holland Group,
Aurecon delivered the structural and civil engineering design for the new stadium in collaboration with
Schlaich Bergermann Partner and COX Architecture.

References
[1] M. S. a. R. S. Huerta, "Antoni Gaudí's Hanging Chain Models: A Case Study of the Church of
Colònia Güell," Engineering Structures, vol. 194, no. 109766, pp. 1-16, 2021.
[2] K. Göppert, "Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion, Stuttgart," Berlin Steel Construction Special, pp. 192-197,
2005.
[3] I. Ainsworth, "Suncorp Stadium Redevelopment," in Australian Structural Engineering
Conference, Sydney, 2005.
[4] J. Bensen and G. Rowland, "Adelaide Oval - Western Grandstand Redevelopment," in Asian
Region and Australasian Structural Engineering Conference, Sydney, 2010.

12