London Velodrome Roof Material

The roof surface is made of 1090 timber cassettes.

London velodrome roof material.

The distinct velodrome roof shape gave it the nickname of the pringle. It also achieves elegance in its economy of means and materials its integration with the overall design its speed of erection and its low cost. However whereas the former contains 3 000 tonnes of steel the velodrome roof is held up with just 100 tonnes. 13 500m means that it governs the structural response of the whole building.

Cycling inspired the concept for the velodrome. Images by richard davies david poultney anthony charlton anthony palmer hopkins architects. Click here to read a detailed description of how the structure of the velodrome works. London firm hopkins architectshave completed the velodrome the first of the five permanent venues on the olympic park for the london 2012 olympic games.

The final solution is so efficient that the weight of the steel in the roof equates to an average of 30kg m 2 about 35 less than the next best comparable venue in the world. The velodrome has a double curvature roof which helps to minimise volume and heating costs. London 2012 velodrome the size of the roof circa. Separating the tiers of seating is a glass wall allowing views both in and out of the building.

This required some very careful thought about the detailing. The lower tier of seating uses precast concrete terracing to provide 3 500 seats trackside. A further 2 500 seats are suspended in upper tiers within the curves of the venue s roof. From the outset a cable net structure.

Completed in 2012 in london united kingdom. The environmental strategy required a deep build up of insulation and planning conditions meant that a standing seam cladding system was necessary. The net itself is made up of pairs of 36 mm diameter. The hyperbolic paraboloid shape has been designed to reflect the geometry of the cycling track.

Velodrome needed high levels of insulation of the roof. The roofs of the 2012 aquatics centre and velodrome are of a similar shape and size. This is reflected in a radical difference in budget 250m vs 95m but also in the technical solutions that were used.