DRX 2013 Design Research Exchange
Vertical Net Structures
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Table of Contents
Foreword ................................................................................. 4 About ........................................................................................ 7 Topic ......................................................................................... 8 Schedule ................................................................................... 10 Events
Keynote and Lectures .................................................... 14
Workshops .................................................................... 24
Results
Prototower I .................................................................. 38
Prototower II ................................................................. 50
Prototower III ................................................................ 60
Events Reviews ........................................................................ 72 Presentations ................................................................ 74 Exhibition ...................................................................... 76 Team ......................................................................................... 79 Host, Partners and Sponsors .................................................... 81
Table of Contents
3
Martin Henn, Dipl.-Arch., M.S. AAD
Moritz Fleischmann, Dipl.-Ing., M. Arch.
DRX Host / HENN Design Director
DRX Director / HENN Head of Research
Martin Henn studied architecture at the University of Stuttgart and at the ETH Zürich. He received his Master’s Degree in Architecture from the ETH, Zürich in 2006, and his Post-Professional Master of Advanced Architectural Design from Columbia University, New York in 2008. Prior to HENN, he was working for Zaha Hadid Architects (London) and Asymptote Architecture (New York). He has been a regular studio and seminar instructor at the ETH in Zürich, at Columbia University as well as at the TU Dresden.
Moritz Fleischmann is a Ph.D. researcher at the Institute for Computational Design (ICD), Stuttgart University. His research focusses on the influence of novel computer-based modeling techniques such as physics-based modeling on design methodology in architecture. He studied architecture at the RWTH Aachen (Germany) and the ETH Zürich (Switzerland). He received his M.Arch. Degree from the “Emergent Technologies & Design” program at the Architectural Association in London. In 2012 he was appointed HENN’s Head of Research.
www.henn.com
www.henn.com
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Foreword
In 2013 we successfully launched the second annual Design Research Exchange in Berlin. This year we continued our investigation into innovative high-rise design strategies. In 2012 we started the quest through researching “Minimal Surface High-rise Structures” and plan to continue in the future. The theme of “Vertical Net structures” provided the framework for research of computational design methods for high-rise buildings above 450m total height. By dissolving the high-rise structure into spatial networks of forces such as spaceframes, bundeled tubes and discretized cones we gained control over the repercussions of force, structure and material distribution in these systems.
Foreword
By bringing together a transdisciplinary team of experts and researchers, we aim to contribute actively to the way we consciously design and develop our built environments.
We hope you enjoy the cross section through some of the events, programs and projects that were created as part of this DRX.
During the DRX 2013 the research teams developed tools that help to understand the effects of structure, space and program – not only in high-rise buildings, but in any computational design framework. We are proud to have gained so much support and attention from both, the industry as well as the research community. It is this lively exchange of ideas and open communication that we are commited to actively foster in the years to come.
5
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
About DRX
Initiated by Moritz Fleischmann (HENN Head of Research) and Martin Henn (HENN Design Director), the Design Research Exchange (DRX) is an annual residency program for researchers. The topic of investigation for each DRX is selected by the DRX organizers for its contemporary relevance and novelty within the discipline. Throughout the DRX, the invited experts present key public lectures and provide critical feedback and guidance during the event.
About — DRX
The Design Research Exchange provides an open platform to unite experts from various fields. By exploring architectural topics of shared interest, the DRX promotes multidisciplinary discussion between academics and professionals.
We envision the DRX as an ideal environment for the advancement of fresh ideas and fertile ground for experimentation. The DRX is a powerful tool for examining and advancing architectural techniques and methods, testing new technologies and materials, and informing our future built environment.
7
Problem statement Dead loads Self-weight Floor loads: 8 kN/m² Wind loads Uniformly distributed: 1,5 kN/m² Load combination: 1,2 DL + 1,2 W Displacement tolerance: H/500
Problem Statement Dead Loads Self-Weight Floor Loads : 8kN/m² Wind Loads Uniformly Distributed : 1.5 kN/m² Load Combination : 1.2DL + 1.2W Displacement Tolerance : H/500
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Topic Vertical Net Structures
Introduction
Potential
Key questions
The research focus for the DRX 2013 was a continuation of last year’s investigation into innovative structures for the design of high-rise buildings. Driven by the increasing demand for supertall buildings, we develop integral structures that define interesting interior spaces through controlled structural articulation without compromising the overall integrity of a high-rise building. Questions of structure, circulation and program distribution had to be addressed in a prototypical building of approximately 450m height.
Recent translations of vector-based approaches in software as a visualization of forces have been successfully undertaken, but none have yet been applied to the design of high-rise buildings and vertical structures. The current design of supertall buildings remains somewhat superficial, as design teams often lack knowledge and tools to develop integral structural systems. By synthesizing the knowledge of critical disciplines in the design process, we aim to contribute to the lively discussion of how we can build better buildings and cities without neglecting the ever-increasing demand for tall buildings.
• Can a high-rise structure be developed as a vertical net?
Approach This year, the aim was to understand forces as vectors in order to develop 3-dimensional spatial nets. These systems were developed and based on profound research in various areas such as high-rise structural systems, natural systems as well as formfinding techniques. Throughout the DRX, these systems were further informed and transformed into highly constrained, feasible proposals for tall buildings. Method Various techniques to “visualize” forces as nets were investigated: From graphical methods of calculating forces, to methods derived from natural systems such as the SKO method and force triangles. Secondly, generative computer-based design tools were developed to design vertical vectorbased structures. In a last step, struc tural feedback from FEA was used to understand and optimize the developed systems under realistic external forces (wind and self-weight). Optimization was aimed at a minimal total horizontal deflection at the tip of 4.50 m.
Topic — Vertical Net Structures
Design Application
• Can the system be controlled to develop spatial qualities within these structures? • Are these structural systems feasible compared to „conventional” height-active systems such as tube-in-tube, outrigger etc.? • Does the overall deflection of the tip under realistic wind loads comply with industry standard norms? • Is the use of material feasible (total structural weight / sqm usable area) and to which extend can it be optimized?
By exploring equilibrium systems rather than geometric shapes, we aim to bridge the gap between architectural design thinking and structural engineering feedback. Working with nets as the foundation for conceptual high-rise design tool promises to fortify the design of integral space structures. The tools developed as part of the DRX have been applied to other running projects in “real-time”. The feedback from project teams has been crucial in order to steer the direction of research-heavy design tools towards application oriented.
9
Kick-off Event ....................................................................................... July 22, 2013
Lecture series from the DRX-experts:
Recent High-rise Structures Prof. Dipl.-Ing Manfred Grohmann (University of Kassel, Bollinger+Grohmann, Frankfurt) Variational Optimization of Net Structures Prof. Dr. Alexander Bobenko (Institut für Mathematik, TU Berlin) Prototyping Performative Models for Design Mirco Becker, Architekt ARB (Guest Professor – Performative Design, Städelschule Frankfurt)
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Schedule DRX 2013
Phase I — Research ............................................................................. Week 1-3
Phase I comprises of an introduction to high-rise structures accompanied by a series of workshops.
Workshop I
High rise Design Principles Agata Kycia (HENN)
Workshop II
Graphic Statics as Conceptual Design and Analysis Method Lorenz Lachauer (Chair of Structural Design Prof. Schwartz; BLOCK Research Group)
Workshop III
Real-time Physics-based Modelling with Kangaroo Daniel Piker (Forster+Partners / Kangaroo)
Workshop IV
Interactive, Parametric Structural Modelling with Karamba Clemens Preisinger and Moritz Heimrath (Bollinger+Grohmann Ingenieure, Frankfurt / Vienna)
Mid Review August 13, 2013
Three different approaches and first models are presented to a public audience, DRX-experts and -tutors followed by a discussion.
Phase II — Prototype .......................................................................... Week 5-8
In Phase II, the context of high-rise building and their specific demands are introduced. Prototowers are developed.
Workshop V
High rise Structural Design Alex Reddihough (ARUP London)
Final presentation September 13, 2013
Final prototowers are presented to a public audience and an invited jury.
Final exhibition September 30, 2013
Comprehensive exhibition of the prototowers as part of the Design Modelling Symposium.
Schedule — DRX 2013
11
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Events Keynote and Lectures
Events — Keynote and Lectures
13
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Events Keynote and Lectures
Lectures Public lectures occur throughout the eightweek period of the DRX, presented by DRX directors and experts of diverse academic backgrounds. Lecturers may demonstrate their specific experience and interest on the appointed topic, fostering discussion and an exchange of ideas. This year DRX experts Mirco Becker, Alexander Bobenko & invited guest speaker Manfred Grohmann presented talks on the topic of “Vertical Net Structures”. Each one of the lectures was defined by the individual knowledge and expertize of the presenter:
Events — Keynote and Lectures
Professor Grohmann started with a detailed talk about the development of highrise structures as a novel typology in the early 19th century in Chicago and finished with a report about the challenges in construction of today’s supertall buildings from an engineering point of view.
Professor Alexander Bobenko, presented his view on challenges of discretization and explained how the consideration of energy minimization can help to understand and model various forms of net structures.
Mirco Becker, visting professor at the Staedelschule in Frankfurt, presented computational design concepts for performative prototypes. How real-world, physical behaviour can be embedded in virtual models and used in 1:1 prototypes.
15
Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Manfred Grohmann Bollinger+Grohmann Mitinhaber
Prof. Grohmann has studied and taught Civil Engineering at the Darmstadt Technical University. Since 1996 he has been assigned Professor for Structural Design at Kassel University. In 2000 he became a guest professor at the Städelschule in Frankfurt and in 2007 at the ESA – École d’Architecture in Paris. In 1983 Klaus Bollinger and Manfred Grohmann established the practice Bollinger+Grohmann, with locations in Frankfurt am Main, Vienna, Paris, Oslo and Melbourne and approximatley100 employees. Both combine teaching at architecture schools with their practice. Bollinger+Grohmann combine a high level of interdisciplinary knowledge like architectural geometry, software development, material and fabrication technologies with engineering expertise. Their range of services includes structural and façade design, geometry development, building physics and sustainability. The field of work spans between the structural design of housing, office, commercial, exhibition and event facilities as well as classic civil engineering structures such as bridges, roofs and towers. www.bollinger-grohmann.com
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Keynote Recent Developments in High-rise Structures
High-rise buildings started in Chicago and New York using steel structures. With the development of reinforced concrete this material found its way into high-rise structures. Since then both materials are used in different combinations and structural systems depending on the height. Out of the recent work of Bollinger+Grohmann 2 projects under construction and 2 projects in Korea in planning will be presented in detail. The two under construction are the European Central Bank ECB (COOP Himmelblau) in Frankfurt using a lateral steel system and the Vienna Donau City Tower DCT (Dominique Perrault Architects), using an outrigger system made of reinforced concrete.
Events — Keynote and Lectures
17
Mirco Becker Guest Professor, Städelschule Frankfurt
Mirco Becker founded informance in 2012 in Berlin, Germany. As a Senior Associate Partner at Kohn Pedersen Fox, Becker has previously led their Computational Geometry Group. Other experiences include working with the Specialist Modelling Group at Foster & Partners, and delivering as a Project Architect with Zaha Hadid Architects. Mirco Becker is a Guest Professor at the Städelschule Architecture Class leading the post graduate specialization in Architecture and Performative Design. www.informance-design.com www.staedelschule.de/architecture
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Expert Lecture Prototyping Performative Models for Design
Models are in integral part of the design process if we don’t regard them as miniature representation of the design but as abstract systems. Such a system captures dependencies, gives a compact description and allows one to evaluate performance before realization. Historically, built structures evolved slowly over time by trail and as evaluation methods were lacking to make any analytical forecast on the behavior of the design. For centuries advances were mainly in the crafts. Only in the 19th Century new analysis methods allowed to fully liberate the design process. A journey that started in Renaissance with Filippo Brunelleschi and found its break-through with Karl Culmann’s Graphic Static method.
Events — Keynote and Lectures
First generation performative models In the 1960s Frei Otto and Heinz Isler built elaborate models which measured the forces in grid-shells and cable-net structures experimentally continuing the work initiated by Antonio Gaudi. These models included spring gauges, tension scales and pressure sensors. Measurements from these sensors where extrapolated to dimension elements for construction. At this point neither the computation power nor the algorithms where available to do this digitally. Computational models Since physical simulation is available in popular design software (Daniel Piker, Kangaroo Plug-In, 2008) the work done in the 60s can now run in realtime on laptops. Any computation requires a discretization of form. In a mass-spring simulation a dis-
cretization for cloth is very different than the one for a metal sheet. Nowadays designers are literate in formulation a problem to match computational methods as well as developing their own algorithms. Second generation performative models Recent developments in 3d-printing materials allow for robust and cost efficient prototyping. This gives the opportunity to physically prototype the discretized models used for computation and embedding specific joint conditions, elasticity, roughness into them without the need for manual assembly. These models might help expend the repertoire of rigorous physical models and in that sense provide a novel way of continuing the work on performative models of the first generation.
19
Prof. Dr. Alexander Bobenko Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Mathematik
Prof. Dr. Alexander Bobenko is professor of Mathematics at the Technische Universität Berlin. He graduated at the Leningrad State University in 1983 and received his PhD from the Steklov Mathematical Institute, Leningrad in 1985. After spending two years in Bonn and Berlin as an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow, Bobenko became a professor of TU Berlin in 1993. His fields of interest include geometry, mathematical physics and applications, in particular, differential geometry, discrete differential geometry, integrable systems, Riemann surfaces and geometry processing. He is the author of several books and scientific publications and organizer of numerous conferences and workshops in these areas. Bobenko is coordinator of the DFG Transregional Collaborative Research Center (SFB/Transregio 109) “Discretization in Geometry and Dynamics” and of the DFG Research Unit “Polyhedral Surfaces”. He is a member of the executive board of the Berlin Mathematical School and a member of the DFG Research Centre “Matheon”. In frames of SFB 109 jointly with Hemut Pottmann he runs a project “Discrete Geometric Structures Motivated by Applications in Architecture”. www.varylab.de
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Expert Lecture Variational Optimization of Net Structures
Variational optimization is a method to create net structures with a variety of desired properties. The basic idea is to define an energy on a net and minimize it to obtain “optimal” geometries. We show how this method can be used to calculate Minimal Path Structure, Gridshells and other beautiful geometries. The idea of variational optimization is to obtain desired properties of the nets by minimization of a properly defined energy. In this talk we present numerous examples of nets with remarkable geometric structures investigated in mathematics, in particular in frames of the DFG Transregional Collaborative Research Center “Discretization in Geometry and Dynamics”. They have a potential of application in architecture. In particular, we compare minimal path nets and rubber band nets.
Events — Keynote and Lectures
They minimize the total net length and the sum of the squares of the edges respectively. Closely related to the latter are so called Koebe polyhedra, all edges of which touch a sphere. Further examples include nets with constant edge length (Chebyshev nets) and asymptotic nets. The latter have the property that all edges adjacent to a vertex are coplanar. Approximation of a given surface by such nets is achieved by variational optimization methods. We present also conformal nets and demonstrate their application to real architectural forms. The computations were made with the VaryLab software.
21
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Events Workshops
Events — Workshops
23
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Events Workshops
DRX Workshops are held by selected tutors of adjacent professions in order to educate DRX researchers and interested experts in useful methods, techniques, and software applications. The aim is to enrich the skillsets of all participants by demonstrating tools for successful experimentation.
cise analytical method for the design and evalutation of tall structures. As part of the workshop led by Lorenz Lachauer from the ETH Zürich, some of the built towers of HENN’s portfolio were analyzed and compared against each other in terms of structural performance.
During the DRX 2013 we hosted a series of 5 Workshops exclusively for the DRX participants. The aim was to inform the researchers, who joined the team from various backgrounds, about the challenges and opportunities of designing high rise structures.
Daniel Piker, developer of the physicsbased modelling Plugin “Kangaroo” took over to introduce a more playful approach of designing with forces through springbased particle systems. The application of the methods and algorithms embedded in Kangaroo were explored from sructural simulation to program distribution as well as geometric optimization.
The workshop series started with an overview of the various structural concepts and classification of structural systems by HENN designer Agata Kycia which took part in the DRX 2012. This introductory workshop was follwed by a hands on explenation of “graphic statics” and the use of this pre-
Events — Workshops
teams how to utilize genetic algorithms for structural formfinding as well as structural simulation with Finite Element Analysis (FEA). After a system development phase and a presentation at the mid-review, Alex Reddihough of ARUP London joined the DRX to host a workshop on the specific challenges of high rise design. He presented rules of thumb as well as precise targets for the feasibilty of structural systems of 450 metres or higher, ranging from maximum tolerances and deflections to optimal material usage and overall weight to usable area ratios.
Clemens Preisinger and Moritz Heimrath, developers of the Karamba3D plugin and employees at Bollinger + Grohmann engineers in Vienna joined for a week to leverage the design approaches by showing the
25
Agata Kycia, MSc. Arch. HENN , IAAC, TU Delft
Agata Kycia is an architectural designer at HENN. She studied architecture at the Warsaw University of Technology and received her Master’s Degree from both IAAC Barcelona (Digital Tectonics) and TU Delft (Hyperbody). Following her studies, she collaborated with ONL (Oosterhuis_Lenard) and NIO (Rotterdam) in parallel to teaching in the field of computational design (Warsaw University of Technology, TU Delft, Fachhochschule Düsseldorf ). As a participating researcher of the DRX 2012, Agata and her team designed a Prototower based on an Ultra-lightweight Spaceframe Structure. The results have since been published and presented by Agata, most notably at Tensinet 2013 in Istanbul. www.henn.com www.agatakycia.com
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Workshop I High rise Design Principles
The second edition of the Design Research Exchange started with the workshop Highrise Design Principles led by Agata Kycia, HENN architect and researcher. The workshop introduces recent developments and tendencies in the design of tall buildings to researchers. Through a series of lectures, Agata highlights the critical aspects in the design of tall buildings, focusing on their structural performance. The workshop is divided into two parts: The first familiarizes the participants with the existing structural systems commonly used in the design of tall buildings throughout history, for example, rigid frame structures, rigid frame + core, core + outrigger, perimeter and hybrid structures.
Events — Workshops
The second part focuses on the characteristics of height-active structures due to their extension in height and susceptibility to horizontal loading. An emphasis is placed on understanding these height-active structures as integrated systems in a complex stress condition, as well as their ability to collect the loads, redirect them to the ground and provide lateral stabilization. Redirecting horizontal loads to the ground, as one of the crucial features of high-rise structures, may even become the form defining element in the design of tall buildings.
Heino Engel, author of “Structural Systems�, states in his research that high-rises cannot be defined as a sequence of stacked, single story systems nor can they be fully explained as a turned up super cantilever. He states they are homogenous systems with unique problems and unique solutions. The workshop concludes with an explanation of the Prototower designed during the DRX 2012. The tower is an ultra-lightweight high-rise structure based on minimal path computation. The Prototower design was published and presented during the Tensinet Symposium at the Mimar Sinan Fine-Art University in Istanbul.
27
Lorenz Lachauer, Dipl.-Ing ETHZ, BLOCK Research Group
Lorenz Lachauer graduated from the ETH Zurich in 2007. From 2007 to 2009 he gained professional experience at Herzog & de Meuron. Since then he is working as research assistant at the chair for structural design. His research focuses on the role of physical experiment in computational structural design. As a member of the BLOCK Research Group he is working on the development of digital design tools. www.block.arch.ethz.ch www.schwartz.arch.ethz.ch
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Workshop II Graphic Statics as a Conceptual Design and Analysis Method
Safety and sustainability of buildings is, among other factors, depending on the flow of forces through its structure. Inner force-flow is related to the building’s shape. Simple, force-based methods derived from graphic statics are used to identify the relation between structure and geometry. These approaches allow for a deeper understanding of existing building shapes and their morphologic interrelation. Furthermore, fundamental concepts have been presented, that enable the integration of structural constraints in the design process at early stages.
Events — Workshops
29
Daniel Piker Kangaroo, Foster+Partners
Daniel Piker is a researcher on the frontier of the use of computation in the design and realization of complex forms and structures. After studying architecture at the AA, he worked as part of the Advanced Geometry Unit at Arup, and later the Specialist Modelling Group at Foster+Partners. He has taught numerous studios and workshops (including the AADRL, and a cluster at SmartGeometry) and presented his work at conferences around the world. He is the creator of the widely used form-finding physics engine “Kangaroo”, software which he continues to develop independently, as well as consulting and collaborating with a wide range of practices and researchers. www.grasshopper3d.com/group/kangaroo
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Workshop III Real-time Physics-based Modelling with Kangaroo
Physics-based modelling in architecture is a playful approach to design with forces that has recently gained a lot of attention in the community. Concepts such as formfinding have a long history in the field of lightweight structures. But how can these concepts be translated and utilized for the design of vertical net structures? During the workshop various applications of using physics-based modelling were presented and introduced. In a second step, these concepts were implemented as potential design drivers for the DRX projects.
Events — Workshops
31
Dr. Dipl.-Ing. Clemens Preisinger
Moritz Heimrath, Dipl.Arch, M.Arch
Karamba 3D, Bollinger+Grohmann,
Karamba 3D, Bollinger+Grohmann
Clemens was born in Linz, Austria and is a structural engineer. Since 2008 he is working for Bollinger–Grohmann–Schneider. He contributed to the research project ‘Algorithmic Generation of Complex Space-frames’ at the University of Applied Arts Vienna. Since 2010 Clemens Preisinger is developing the parametric, interactive finite element program ‘Karamba’ as a freelancer. He holds a PhD in Structural Engineering from the Technical University Vienna.
Moritz Heimrath was born in Munich, Germany and he lives and works in Vienna as an Architect. Since 2010 he is working for Bollinger+Grohmann Engineers. The focus of his work and studies lies on the integrative development of geometry, structure and design. He is currently teaching digital design at the architectural institute of the Georg-Simon-Ohm University, Nurnberg. Moritz Heimrath holds a magister degree in architecture from the University of Applied Arts, Vienna and also studied at the Academy of Fine Arts, Stuttgart.
www.karamba3d.com www.bollinger-grohmann.com
www.karamba3d.com www.bollinger-grohmann.com
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Workshop IV Interactive, Parametric Structural Modelling with Karamba
The goal of the workshop is to introduce the participants to the interactive, parametric finite element tool-kit Karamba. The starting point presents the theoretical foundations of Karamba and how it is embedded in the parametric design environment Grasshopper for Rhino. Projects done at the office of Bollinger+Grohmann Engineers served as show-cases for the application of Karamba in real world building projects. The rest of the day consisted in a hands-on approach to getting acquainted with the tool: Starting with a simple definition the participants were guided by the tutors through the steps necessary to set up a static model with Karamba. The second day was characterized by discussions between
Events — Workshops
the workshop participants and tutors. These focused on how to implement and validate structural ideas of the DRX-projects using Karamba.
33
Alex Reddihough ARUP London
Alex Reddihough received a Masters degree in architectural engineering from Cardiff University in 2007. He has been working for Arup in London since then as part of a multidisciplinary building design team, concentrating on projects with complex geometry, high rise buildings and seismic engineering. Key projects include the new diagrid roof at Kings Cross station in London, Serpentine Gallery summer pavilion 2008 with Gehry, Beirut terraces tower and Complexo Cultural Luz, Sao Paulo with Herzog and de Meuron, Torre Reforma 509 in Mexico City and the Haikou Tower with Henn. www.arup.com
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Workshop V High-rise Structural Design
The workshop occurred at the mid-point of the DRX programme and set out some parameters to move structural concepts towards feasible high-rise building designs. Basic rules of thumb for structural performance and key figures on load allowances, building code requirements, target structural weights and floor areas were given. The procedures used for designing tall buildings based on previous Arup project experience were described, showing the advantage of using parametric software such as Grasshopper to streamline the often iterative process of high-rise building geometry development.
Events — Workshops
In addition, non-structural considerations for tall buildings were set out, such as fire safety requirements, elevator strategies, lighting and client requirements. The commercial nature of building high-rise buildings was highlighted, with the efficiency of the structure being critical in realising a conceptual design. The rest of the workshop involved individual consulting with each team of researchers on the structural development of their concepts, and possible methods of analysis using both Karamba and Oasys GSA.
35
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Results Prototowers I - III
Results — Prototower IV - VI
37
↑ Prototower DRX 2013 IV —— Vertical Overview: Net Structures from diagrid at the bottom to space frame at the top
Prototower I Branching Strategies
Introduction
Concept
Branching Algorithm
The design tool developed for Prototower IV creates vertical net structures based on branching. The tool simulates tree branching through a set of rules that describe the varying direction of growth, and the merging of branches. The design tool incorporates architecture and structure and can generate various topologies. The overall structure created is a hybrid of a diagrid and a space frame. There are many architectural and structural and aerodynamic advantages to using tree branching including frame continuity, alleviating vortex shedding with irregular facades, all while creating unique spaces.
The objective was to grow a 450m highrise by a branching algorithm to create the structure and the spatial configuration. Therefore the structure should grow from one or multiple seed points to one or multiple attraction points like a tree. Parameters and rules of growth were identified by examining abstract natural tree growth. In a natural growth pattern the branches spread out at each node. According to the branching angle its topology changes until it reaches a Diagrid like pattern. This topology doesn’t appear in nature but is one theoretical growth pattern which creates a wide and stable structure because the topology is less hierarchical and less loose members are remaining. This pattern change from tree to Diagrid inspired the idea of growing a high-rise and led to a branching algorithm which creates various topologies.
Branching describes the splitting of one element into two, while both – so called - children change the direction of growth symmetrically. The parameters that influence the growth of the topology includes branch iterations, angle between each branching pair, length of the members, number and location of seeds and attraction points. The set of rules that guide the growth of the high-rise are: Each pair tries to focus its symmetry axis to the attraction point, this is the focus line; around each tip there is a merging tolerance radius which can force the tips to join if their tolerance circles are intersecting. The margining function results in a triangular grid structure that differs from the tree branching where members are not connected.
↑ Branching analysis: branching angle varies topology ← Upper tower rendering
Results — Prototower I
39
↓ Branching rules ↓ Merging tolreance
↓ Branching types Two branches attraction point
Four branches
Two branches A
Four branches A
C B
A
C
AC
A
C
AC
B y
i0
AB‘ BC‘ 1. Rotate BA & BC by 90° around Z 2. x Rotate branches around BA‘ & BC‘ by ß 1. Rotate BA & BC by 90° around Z B‘ branches around BA‘B‘‘ 2. Rotate & BC‘ by ß
length [m]
B‘
seed
A
z
in
2n
i2
n+1
B‘ A
z
B
C
B
C
2 pairs
2 pairs
y
x
1 pair
branches
1 pair
y
x
merged branches form diagrid
In 3D there are two branching modes: one creates two branches of which each tries to grow into the direction of the nearest neighbour. The second mode creates four branches of which two are growing in one plane between the closest neighbours to both sides of the starting point. The other two branches are branching perpendicular to this plane. Another important tool to control the 3D growth is the checkpoints and Tree zones. The checkpoints force the structure to pass a certain predefined point if the branches are within the attraction radius of the checkpoint. The Tree zones can overwrite the growth parameters for certain areas Checkpoints Level TaperTaper Different Checkpoints to influence Different the structure according toLevel proTaper Different checkpoint level gram or else.
ß B‘‘ B‘‘‘
B‘‘‘‘
ß B
A
C
B
A
B‘‘‘
C
B‘
B‘‘
B‘‘‘ B‘ B‘‘
B‘‘
z
1. Rotate AC by 90° around Z B‘‘around B‘ branches B‘‘‘ 3. Rotate AC B‘‘‘‘ & AC‘ by ß B‘
3 pairs
z
i0
rcle
ß
1. Rotate AC by 90° around Z 3. Rotate branches around AC & AC‘ by ß
B‘‘
ß
B‘ 4 pairs
i1
3D Branching
BC‘
x
angle [°]
iterations
C
B AC‘ AC‘
y
merging tolerance [m]
i1
AB‘
B
B‘‘‘‘
B‘‘‘‘
B
B‘‘
B
B B
Design Exploration The design tool can create various structures through the manipulation of the location and number of seed, attraction, and check points. From this exploration a range of structures from a pure diagrid to a pure space frame structure could be created. The final design is a hybrid of both. Key Parameters The key parameters for the growth of prototower IV are slightly decreasing member lengths to increase the density at the tip of the tower, static angles for the members (70°) and checkpoints that are changNew Checkpoints Changing New Checkpoints Changing Geometry ing fromGeometry radial position at the bottom to Changing Geometry New Checkpoints square position at the tip.
Elements Horizontal Element Vertical Elements Horizontal Element Vertical horizontal Elements Vertical Elements Checkpoints
Vertical growth
=
↑ Branching rules and merging tolerances ↗ Branching typers ↗ Checkpoints during growth
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Space Frame
Vertical Structure
Structural Analysis The structure was designed for displacement and strength. After investigation between the structural performance of the diagrid and the space frame, the diagrid was placed at the bottom. Placing the perimeter structure increases the lateral stability of the structure. Additionally, the effect of the location of the transition from diagrid to space frame was studied with
the conclusion. It was found that it was structurally more efficient to keep the diagrid at least 50% of the height of the structure. Thus the final design transitions to the space frame at half the height. The initial final design was analysed and optimized in Karamba. Based on these results, the members were resized to clearly ensure smaller cross-sectional diameters rested on larger cross-sections.
↑ Design exploration of different topologies
Results — Prototower I
41
Perimeter
3D branching
Density
Member length
Angle
22°
19.4
68° 21°
23.0
21.4
69° 20°
20°
70°
25.3
70°
23°
26.4
67°
21°
28.6
69°
22°
28. 9
68°
Perimeter The design tool has many structural advantages. It can produce irregular facades that helps diminish vortex shedding; it avoids structural frame discontinuity because all members grow from each other; it creates a tapered structure because all branches grow towards an attraction point; and it grows a triangular grid, the most stable topology.
↑ Key parameters
+
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Density
Member Length
Angle
Program The program of the building depends on the structure. At the bottom of the tower, the placement of the structure at the perimeter facilitates an open floor space which lends itself naturally to office use. At the top of the structure, the 3D branching creates unique, individual clusters which are used for residential spaces.
450 m
0,82 354 736
Resized Vertical Members
Resized vertival members
Diameter: D [cm] Thickness: t [cm]
Vertical Members
Vertical members
Horizontal Members
Horizontal members
D 50 t 5 D 65 t 10 D 80 t 15 D 95 t 20 D 110 t 25 D 125 t 30 D 140 t 35 D 155 t 40
Displacement [m]
0,82
Steel Mass/Total Floor Area [kg/m²]
354
Number of Members
736 ↑ Structural analysis of one topology
Results — Prototower I
43
Conclusions
↑ Concept of dissolving density
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
The branching design tool can create three kinds of structures: a diagrid, a space frame and a hybrid of the diagrid and space frame. The algorithm has many advantages structurally, aerodynamically and programmatically. Further design and structural analysis would include the thermal and daylighting performance of the structure, and the additional structure (core and floor slabs), loads and load combinations, and a dynamic analysis.
The program of the building depends on the structure. At the bottom of the tower, the placement of the structure at the perimeter facilitates an open floor space which lends itself naturally to office use. At the top of the structure, the 3D branching creates unique, individual clusters which are used for residential spaces. Design Exploration C
Perimeter
E
Room 22 m²
Room 27 m²
3D Branching
Living 95 m²
Room 9 m²
Room 126 m²
Seeds 8
Perimeter
Room 22 m²
Room 9 m²
Attraction The design toolpoints can8 create various structures through the manipulaGenerations 3 Conclusions tion of theLength location and number of seed, attraction, and check points. 20 60 From this Angle exploration that we couldkinds create astructures: range of struc8 The branching designwe toolfound can create a three ofSeeds a diaTolerance 7 AttractionWe pointschose 8 tures a pure diagrid to a pure space frame structure. a grid, from a space frame and a hybrid of the diagrid and space frame. The alGenerations 3 final design was a hybrid ofstructurally, the diagrid and the space Length 20frame. gorithm hasthat many advantages aerodynamically and proAngle 60 grammatically. Further design and structural analysis would include Tolerance 7 the thermal and daylighting performance of the structure, and the adPerimeter Perimeter Program ditional structure (core and floor slabs), loads and load combinations, andprogram a dynamic The of analysis. the building depends on the structure. At the bottom of the tower, the placement of the structure at the perimeter facilitates an open floor space which lends itself naturally to office use. At the top of the structure, the 3D branching creates unique, individual clusters which are used for residential spaces. Residential Area
=
Room 12 m²
Room 18 m²
B
F
Room 20 m²
Room 3 m²
Room 7 m²
Room 3 m²
Residential 175 m²
Room 7 m²
Room 20 m²
8 Checkpoints on on Circle 8 8Checkpoints on Circle Checkpoint circle
3D Branching
Living 109 m²
A
Different Checkpoints Level Different Checkpoints Level Different checkpoint level
TaperTaper Taper
New Checkpoints New Checkpoints New Checkpoints
Changing Geometry Changing Geometry Changing Geometry
Elem Horizontal Element Vertical Horizontal Element Vertical horizontal Elements Vertical Ele
Space Frame Perimeter
D
Perimeter
Vertical Str
3D Branching
G
C
E
H
Room 22 m²
Room 27 m²
floor 71 -100 Conclusions
Living 95 m²
Room 9 m² Room 126 m²
Room 22 m²
Room 9 m²
Room 12 m²
The branching design tool can create a three kinds of structures: a diagrid, a space frame and a hybrid of the diagrid and space frame. The algorithm has many advantages structurally, aerodynamically and programmatically. Further design and structural analysis would include the thermal and daylighting performance of the structure, and the adPerimeter Perimeter ditional structure (core and floor slabs), loads and load combinations, and a dynamic analysis. Room 18 m²
B
F
D
Room 20 m²
Room 3 m²
C
E
Room 7 m²
Room 3 m²
Room 235 m²
Room 13 m²
D
E
Room 35 m²
G
Room 12 m²
Room 9 m²
H
B
Residential Area
Room 28 m²
floor 71 -100
F
Room 22 m²
Room 27 m²
Room 7 m²
Room 45 m²
Room Room 255 m² 18 m²
F
Room 3 m² Room 7 m²
A
D Room 3 m²
C
G E
Residential 175 m²
H
Room 7 m² Room 20 m²
Residential Area
4Space Branches PrivateFrame Space Open Space
Room 27 m²
floor 71 -100
Public Sp Vertical S
=
Living 109 m²
Room 146 m²
Eleme Horizontal Element Vertical Horizontal Element Vertical horizontal Elements Vertical Elem
Private Space Space Frame
Room 12 m²
Room 8 m²
Room 38 m²
Room 20 m²
New Checkpoints New Checkpoints New Checkpoints
Changing Geometry Changing Geometry Changing Geometry
Room 22 m²
Room 9 m²
Room 110 m²
B
Living 95 m²
Room 9 m²
Room Room 3 m² 126 m² Room 8 m²
Different Checkpoints Level Different Checkpoints Level Different checkpoint level
TaperTaper Taper
RESIDENTIAL
A
8 Checkpoints on on Circle 8 8Checkpoints on Circle Checkpoint circle
RESIDENTIAL
Room 10 m²
Room 9 m²
C
=
Room 20 m²
Room 27 m²
Living 109 m²
3D Branching
Residential 175 m²
Room 7 m²
Room 146 m²
RESIDENTIAL
Seeds 8 Attraction points 8 Generations 3 Length 20 Angle 60 Tolerance 7
Room 10 m²
Room 235 m²
Room 13 m²
Private Space
Room 9 m²
A
Public Space
2 Branch Vertical PublicStS
G Room 35 m²
H
Room 12 m²
Room 9 m²
Residential Area B
F
Room 28 m²
floor 71 -100
D
Room 7 m² Room 3 m²
=
Room 45 m²
C
RESIDENTIAL
Room 8 m²
E Room 8 m²
Room 255 m²
Room 38 m²
Room 110 m²
D
Room 225 m²
Room 225 m²
C
E A
G H
Residential Area
Room 146 m²
Room 10 m²
Room 13 m²
Office Type B
Room 27 m²
Room 235 m²
Room 9 m²
floor 71 -100
F
B
Room 35 m²
Room 12 m²
Room 9 m²
B
F Room 225 m²
Room 228 m²
Room 28 m²
Private Space Hybrid Structure 4 Branches
PublicStr S Vertical 2 Branc
Room 7 m² Room 3 m² Room 8 m²
D
Room 8 m²
C
G E
Office Area Type B Floor 36 - 70
Room 255 m²
Room 38 m²
Room 110 m²
Office Type B
Room 45 m²
A
H
A
Room 225 m²
Room 225 m²
G
H
=
Residential Area F
B
D
Room 225 m²
C
Room 228 m²
Floor Space 4 Branches Hybrid Structure
Office Type B
floor 71 -100
E
Double Sp 2 Branc Vertical S
D
C
Floor Space
E
UP
A
=
Double Space
G
Office Area Type B
H
Room 225 m²
Floor 36 - 70
Room 225 m²
Room 1382 m²
F
Office Type B
B
F
B
D
Room 225 m²
Room 228 m²
A
2 Branches Hybrid Structure Floor Space
Vertical DoubleSt
G C
E
=
H A
G
Office Area Type B
UP
Floor - 70Type B Office36Area
H
Floor 36 - 70
Office Type A
Room 1382 m²
B
F
D
D C
Floor Space Diagrid 2 Branches
Double Vertical StructS
E
C
E G
H
UP
Office Area Type B Office 1944 m²
Floor 36 - 70
UP
B
F
Room 1382 m²
F
Office Type A
B
D
A
=
Office Type A
A
G C
Open Plan Space 2 Branches Diagrid
Vertical Stru
Open Plan Space
E
A
G
=
H H
Office Area Type B FloorArea 36 - 70 Office Type A
Office 1944 m² UP
Floor 1 - 35
F
D
Structural Analysis
Problem Statement
The structure was designed for displacement and strength. After investigation between the structural performance of the diagrid and the space frame, the diagrid was placed at the bottom. Placing the perimeter structure increases the lateral stability of the structure. We also studied the effect of the location of the transition from diagrid to space frame. We found that it was structurally more efficient to have the diagrid at least 50% of the height of the structure. Thus our final design transitions to the space frame at half the height. The initial final design was analysed and optimized in Karamba. Based on these results, we thenArea resized Office Typeour A members to clearly ensure smaller cross-sectional diameters rested on larger cross-sections. Floor 1 - 35 The design tool has many structural advantages. It can produce irregular facades that helps diminish vortex shedding; it avoids structural frame discontinuity because all members grow from each other; it creates a tapered structure because all branches grow towards an at- Problem Statement Statement Structural Analysis traction point; and it grows a triangular grid, the most stable topology. Problem Problem Statement C
Office Type A
B
2 Branches Diagrid Open Plan Space Case Study
Diagrid
Space frame
Percentage of Diagrid
33%
Vertical Struc
50%
66%
Cross Section Optimisation Diameter: D [cm] Thickne D 50 t 5
E
D 65 t 10
G
150 m 225 m
D 95 t 20 D 110 t 25 D 125 t 30
↑ Spatial configuration and example floor plans 450 m
H
Office 1944 m²
UP
Dead Loads Loads The structure was designed for displacement and strength. After in-Dead Self-Weight Floor Loads : 8kN/m² vestigation between the structural performance of the diagrid and theSelf-Weight Floor Loads : 8kN/m² space frame, the diagrid was placed at the bottom. Placing the peri- Wind Loads LoadsDistributed : 1.5 kN/m² meter structure increases the lateral stability of the structure. We alsoWind Uniformly studied the effect of the location of the transition from diagrid to spaceUniformly Distributed : 1.5 kN/m² Load Combination : 1.2DL + 1.2W frame. We found that it was structurally more efficient to have the dia-Load : 1.2DL :+H/500 1.2W Combination Displacement Tolerance grid at least 50% of the height of the structure. Thus our final designDisplacement Tolerance : H/500
Results — Prototower I
Number of Members Diameter: D [cm] Thickn
300 m
2 Branches Open Plan Space
D 50 t 5 D 65 t 10
225 m
Case Study
Diagrid
Space frame
D 80 t 15
Percentage of Diagrid
33%
50%
66%
45
G
The design tool has many structural advantages. It can produce irregular facades that helps diminish vortex shedding; it avoids structu-
20 0,7 3,6E+05 1,5E+05 2356 500
50 m.
Member Length [m] Displacement [m] Mass [t] Steel Mass/Total Floor Area [kg/m²] Bottom Member Diameter [cm]
20 0,94 1,1E+05 573 170
50 m.
20 0,9 8,7E+04 454 155
50 m.
150 m
20 0,9 5,2E+04 1,8E+05 287 130
225 m
Member Length [m] Displacement [m] Mass [t] Floor Area [m²] Steel Mass/Total Floor Area [kg/m²] Bottom Member Diameter [cm]
50 m.
20 0,9 5,9E+04 307 140
D 95 t 20
Cross Section Optimisati D 110 t 25D [cm] Thick Diameter: 50t t30 5 DD 125 65t t35 10 DD 140 80t t40 15 DD 155 D 95 t 20
Displacement [m] D 110 t 25
Steel Mass/Total Floor A D 125 t 30 Number of Members D 140 t 35 D 155 t 40
Displacement [m]
Steel Mass/Total Floor
2 Branches 300 m
transitions to the space frame at half the height. The initial final design was Office Areaanalysed Type A and optimized in Karamba. Based on these results, we then resized our members to clearly ensure smaller cross-sectional Floor 1 - 35rested on larger cross-sections. diameters
50 m.
300 m
H
D 155 t 40
Steel Mass/Total Floor Are
450 m
A
D 140 t 35
Displacement [m]
F
150 m
B
D 80 t 15
300 m
A
Number of Members Diameter: D [cm] Thic D 50 t 5
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
06 — Results
47
Prototower I Researchers
Kavin Horayangkura, B.Arch
Samar Malek PhD, LEED, AP
Maximilian Thumfart, Dipl.-Ing.
Städelschule Frankfurt
MIT, Universtiy of Bath
HENN Architect
Kavin Horayangkura is studying for his Masters of Arts in Architecture and Performative Design at the Städelschule in Frankfurt am Main. Prior to studying in Germany, Kavin worked at Plan Architect and Integrated Field in Bangkok where he also received his B.Arch from Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok in 2008.
Samar Malek is a structural engineer with an expertise in structural and computational mechanics, and gridshells. She completed her Ph.D. and S.M. in Structures and Materials at MIT where she was also a visiting lecturer in the Department of Architecture. She is currently completing her post-doctorate at the University of Bath Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering after having been awarded the prestigious Marshall-Sherfield Fellowship by the UK government. Having practiced as a structural engineer at Thornton Tomasetti, NYC and consulted on gridshell projects for Atelier One, London, Samar understands the relationship between architects and engineers and the need for integrated design tools in the early phases of design. Her research interests include computational methods in conceptual structural design, gridshells, biomimcry and the pedagogical synergy between architecture and engineering.
Maximilian Thumfart is an architect and software developer at HENN. His work is focused on software engineering for architectural purposes and workflow optimization in AutoCAD, Revit and Rhino. Maximilian studied architecture and computer science at the TU Berlin. As a researcher at the TU Munich and TU Berlin he published research papers on system simulations for long-term sustainable urban development and automation of sustainable buildings based on open-source software with relational databases.
www.integratedfield.com www.stadelschule.com
www.henn.com
www.bath.ac.uk/ace
Results — Prototower I
49
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Prototower II Cone Derived Structures
The Cone Tower: Rigidity in Structure – Flexibility in Design The Cone Tower is the result of a design process started from the study of simple methods aimed at devising lightweight structures, later carried over to the realm of high-rise design. Its principles are an adaptation of the basic idea behind any type of structural design: the flow of forces, or the redirection of flows of forces within a building structure. The Force Cone Method The initial inspiration came from the study of the Force Cone Method, created by Prof. Klaus Mattheck, professor of biomechanics at the Karlsruhe Research Centre. His explorations in shape optimization based on the study of tree structures led to a set of graphical rules that help to compose 2D lightweight structures in equilibrium.
The idea behind it is simple: in a situation with a given set of points, every load application point “pushes” a cone-shaped pressure zone in the direction of the applied load, and “pulls” a tension cone in the opposite direction. Consequently, every support point reacts by “pushing” a compression cone in the opposite direction of the force, and pulling a tension cone behind it. As one drafts these cones, a series or intersections will occur, which will then be used as new nodes within the structure. By connecting these nodes with each other and the original given points, a lightweight structure is created. This structure is supposedly in equilibrium, and should represent the most optimal solution to the initial given situation composed by load application points and reacting support points. This assumption is later tested via the socalled Soft Kill Option (SKO) method. This method acts by analysing a similar load-
support situation on a given search space, and removing “material” from this space which it deems unnecessary for the balance of forces within the systems. In all comparison tests, the SKO method showed results that attested the capacity of the Force Cone Method to generate structures in equilibrium. From 2D to 3D A simple 2D tool was developed to test the Force Cone Method in varied situations. The next step was the creation of a 3D tool which would take Mattheck’s method one step further and try to generate 3-dimensional lightweight structures in equilibrium. The success of this second attempt led us to explore different ways in which the FCM could be applied in the design of high-rises. This exposed that the inherent limitations
↑ Detail of final model ← Prototower rendering
Results — Prototower II
51
↑ 2D Force Cone Method studies ↑ 3D Force Cone Method explorations
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
of the Force Cone Method, which basically limited it to a tool for initial design ideas for low-rise lightweight structures. However, a few principles which make the Force Cone Method so successful could be extracted and pushed further, such as the relationship of its structures with the angles between forces, the distances between nodes or the intersections between elements as new structural members. These were relatively basic principles which proved very valuable for the design of the following set of structures in the research. Reinterpreting the cones The cones as a surface object was kept as the basis for further explorations. By using it as a search space for the creation of structural members, i.e. by discretizing its surface, it allowed the precise control of angles and member lengths within a structural composition. The basic principle of re-
directing force flow throughout the building, and controlling resulting load paths, led to the idea of piling cone surfaces alternating apices and bases. This created the basic “cone-column”, whose weak points, where apices came together, would be addressed by a secondary column where at the same height, a base to base connection would be present.
ments that composed the main frame of the mega-structure for the tower. As a secondary structure, diagonal members connecting node points on different levels were introduced. This creates not only additional stiffness, but generated structural hierarchies and guides the design process for the façade. Load Paths
When these two basic cone-columns were placed on a sharing axis, additional intersections would be generated. These new intersections proved essential to the overall stability of the structure. By further pulling the apices of the composing cones along the axis, a round of secondary intersections provided additional stability and, most importantly, vertical space for circulation within the building. A common triangular base discretization for the cones resulted in tetrahedral ele-
The flow of vertical forces can be followed throughout the building along clearly defined load paths. Tying the structure together and back to the core allows for a greater structural efficiency, and also allows the creation of unexpected interior spaces throughout the building. Clear Structure The simple shape of cones and the virtually infinite possibilities for their discretization
↑ Experiments with cone-derived structures
Results — Prototower II
53
allows for the creation complex structural solutions that keep their clarity independent of the amount of composing members. It creates a wide space for exploring different solutions for varied load cases and programmatic requirements. Simplicity The simple definition of the tower in terms of discretized cones can be easily manipu-
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
lated by a parametric description of cone opening angles, height of cones, the degree of discretization and the number of main load paths as cone columns. The resulting structures can be then fed into an optimization loop to allow for direct feedback on its structural efficiency.
Potential Applications of Force Cones in Architecture Understanding structural design as the principle of force redirection is an essential thinking tool in the design of complex structures. The 3D Force Cone Method in its original state is a hands-on-approach to designing small lightweight structures, with possible applications for buildings of smaller scale. For high-rise structures
with more complex load situations, one is still able to use cones as tool to define distinct load paths and control the force flow within larger contexts. Furthermore, cones appear as a simple and efficient designing tool for creating a wide range of building form with interesting interior spaces and exterior appearance, always combined with structural intelligence.
↑ Structural analysis and studies on secondary structure ↖ The resulting tower: composed by two cone columns with three bases each
Results — Prototower II
55
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
↗ Prototower V —Structural Analysis: studies on secondary structures and the resulting mega-frame.
57
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Prototower II Researchers
Daniel da Rocha, M.Arch.
Isabella Thiesen, Dipl.-Math
HENN Architect
TU Berlin, Institut für Mathematik
Daniel da Rocha joined HENN in 2010 and remains an instrumental member of the design team in both Berlin and Beijing. He has contributed to the design process of several key HENN projects including the Haikou Tower, Nanopolis Showroom and the Zhuhai Port.
Isabella Thiesen is a PhD candidate in Geometry at the TU Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Bobenko. Isabella’s main focus lies on the field of discrete differential geometry with applications in computer graphics. Currently, her research topic is Symmetries of Discrete Riemann Surfaces.
Daniel completed his bachelor studies in Brazil in 2005. Soon after, he received his M.Arch degree at the Dessau Institute of Architecture (DIA) in 2008 where he also instructed lectures and workshops on generative design processes for DIA graduate students. Prior to HENN, Daniel practiced internationally, working for small studio and corporate firms throughout Germany and South Korea.
In 2011, Isbabella received her Diploma in Mathematics from Freie Universität, Berlin. With a concentration on discrete mathematics (geometry, visualization), her diploma thesis focused on Circle Packings. www.math.tu-berlin.de
www.henn.com
Results — Prototower II
59
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Prototower VI Bundled Tube Systems
Bundled Tube Tower The aim was to develop a vertical net structure based on the concept of bundling, inspired both by natural systems such as plant cells, as well as architectural precedents such as the Willis Tower in Chicago. Bundling can be interpreted as a multidimensional framework that would allow the design of a vertical net as a function of programmatic, structural and infrastructural parameters. The generative process that was developed to explore this avenue involved digital modelling using spring-based physics, geometric manipulations in 2D and 3D as well as performance analysis and feedback. The Prototower that evolved from this framework features an overall integration of programmatic and structural qualities by using a perimeter frame system in combination with a decentralised core. Furthermore, its
spatial qualities are augmented by a varying overall silhouette and by the introduction of large atria within the tower. Generative Process The starting point of the exploration was the definition of a spring-based model featuring five vertical fibres that define the base and tip as well as a number of intermediary cut-off levels. These fibres, representing individual tubes, are made up of 100 springs each and are interlinked by another set of (invisible) springs at levels corresponding to the floor slab layout of the tower. For a 450m tower with 100 floors this would happen every 4.5 m thus providing a relative amount of control over individual levels. This setup had a number of parameters that allowed the creation of a phenotype of potential towers:
• Fibre stiffness • Fibre rest length • Interlink springs stiffness • Interlink springs rest length • Interlink springs proximity control The exploration of the range of possibilities offered by these parameter sets led to a design that is most responsive to the types of criteria that would normally be imposed on a tower (e.g. overall aesthetic, structural concept, program distribution, etc.). The tower form is achieved by using Voronoi cell packing at each individual level across the height using as starting points the fibres that have now been deformed. This creates a smooth perimeter zone made up of 5 circular arcs and an interior structure based on the Voronoi lines. The tower features 5 tubes, with 3 of them cutting off at a various levels below 450m. These zones are where three spacious atria are created.
↑ Bundling as a multidimensional conceptual framework
Results — Prototower III
61
Tower Hierarchy
Structural Analysis
The next step in the generative process involved the development of a structural hierarchy based on the geometry output from the fibre bundling algorithm. Using the information embedded in the Voronoi packing, as well as other criteria, the structural system, or vertical net of the tower, was extracted. The main components of this are:
The structure was designed and optimised for displacement at the top and minimum steel tonnage. It was shown that lateral stability, one of the main design drivers for high-rises, could be achieved by the perimeter frame while maintaining a competitive value of steel tonnage per floor area.
• 5 Megacolumns (at the perimeter cell intersections) • Perimeter columns and beams • 5 Cores (based on the interior cell intersections) • Core-to-core bracing • Core-to-megacolumn link One of the real advantages of the bundling framework is that the geometric information that results can be extended to a number of detail levels. For example, in addition to perimeter columns and beams, façade mullions can also be generated.
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
In addition, by introducing the internal structure and linking it to the perimeter, the lateral loads can also be shared by the 5 cores, potentially leading to smaller structural elements throughout. Furthermore, this introduces vertical elements within the tower that allow the possibility of spanning floor slabs over feasible distances with minimal intrusion into the usable space. The structural analysis was performed using Karamba 3D static analysis and its built-in cross-section optimisation tool that allows the definition of larger sized members where needed, while maintaining within the displacement and tonnage tolerances.
The nature of the generative framework, which features a hierarchical output, provides the added opportunity to design for specific requirements by optimising member sizes for each level of hierarchy. For example, maximising floor-to-ceiling heights is often desirable. This can be achieved by specifying a maximum height for the perimeter beams and optimising the other structural elements in order to maintain overall performance levels. Program The program of the Bundled Tube Tower is derived together with the structural system and offers a substantial total floor area. As is typical for a tower of this size, there are five main zones of program, going from base to tip: Retail, Office, Hotel (including luxury suites), Residential and Entertainment. In addition, Lobby zones are defined according to the three atria and become transitions from one zone to another. While offering generous space and outward views, they clearly express the space-making potential of the proposed generative framework.
One of the ways in which the structural and programmatic requirements meet is through the fact that it is possible to provide uninterrupted floor plates between main structural components. This openness is augmented by another direct output of the generative process, which is a natural variation between floors that offers the freedom to interpret the potential of the spaces in an immensely creative way.
↑ Structural concept
Results — Prototower III
63
Conclusions The Bundled Tube Tower is a showcase for what the wider concept of bundling can achieve. By integrating the vertical and horizontal development of the system, a holistic framework was created which delivers both architectural and structural qualities. In addition, one of its main advantages is the adaptability of the generative process to site conditions and a large number of criteria. Finally, all these benefits arise from a framework that also creates the possibility to develop a wide palette of forms and spaces.
↑ Bundling as a generative framework
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
↑ Program and floor plan
Results — Prototower III
65
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
67
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Prototower III Researchers
Sean Buttigieg, B.Arch
Dragos Naicu, M.Phil
Städelschule Frankfurt
University of Bath
Sean Buttigieg is studying for his Masters of Arts in Architecture at the Architecture Class of the Städelschule (SAC) in Frankfurt. In 2010, Sean received his Bachelor’s in Civil Engineering and Architecture from the University of Malta. Since graduating, he has interned with the design team of UNStudio, Amsterdam and worked as junior architect with Godwin Agius Creative Architectural Studio in Valletta, Malta.
Dragos Naicu is a PhD candidate in Civil Engineering at the University of Bath, UK. Dragos has a strong research focus investigating performance, fabrication techniques and form-finding methods for structural grid shells. Most recently, Dragos has been a contributing leader for the Timber Grid shell Parametric Design Workshop in ClujNapoca, Romania together with Kangaroo developer, Daniel Piker. The workshop resulted in the design and realisation of the Pavilion ZA which hosted a series of festivals in 2013. Dragos Naicu studied Innovative Structural Engineering at University of Bath where he received his Master of Philosophy in 2012. In 2011, he completed his Bachelors in Civil and Structural Engineering from Coventry University.
www.architizer.com/users/sean-buttigieg www.stadelschule.com
www.bath.ac.uk/ace/research
Results — Prototower III
69
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Events Reviews, Presentations and Exhibition
Events — Reviews, Presentations and Exhibition
71
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Events Reviews
Reviews Reviews occur throughout the DRX. Once a week, the DRX experts visit the Studio to discuss the progress during a desc crit. The mid-review and final review are critical events to present the research progress to a diverse crowd of invited jury members. This year, amongst others, Prof. Chris Williams of Bath University joined us for the final event.
Events — Reviews
73
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Events Presentations
Presentations At the mid-point and closure of the eightweek period, DRX researchers present their work in the form of 3D printed models, drawings and explanatory diagrams. These presentations include a collection of conclusive results discovered in collaboration between the researchers, experts, and workshop tutors.
Events — Presentations
75
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Events Exhibition
Exhibition After the final presentation, an exhibition was curated in Berlin at HENN to document the entire process and final results. This year, the exhibition was part of the Design Modelling Symposium Berlin, hosted by Prof. Christoph Gengnagel at the UdK. At the opening more than 200 people joined us for the presentation of the research results.
Events — Exhibition
77
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Team
Researchers ..........................................................................................
Sean Buttigieg, B.Arch. (Städelschule Frankfurt) Daniel da Rocha, M.Arch. (HENN, Architect) Kavin Horayangkura, B.Arch. (Städelschule Frankfurt) Samar Malek, Ph.D., LEED, AP (MIT, University of Bath) Dragos Naicu, M.Phil. (University of Bath) Isabella Thiesen, Dipl.-Math. (TU Berlin, Institut für Mathematik) Maximilian Thumfart, Dipl.-Ing. (HENN, Architect)
Experts .................................................................................................
Mirco Becker (Guest Professor Städelschule Frankfurt) Prof. Dr. Alexander Bobenko (Technische Universität Berlin, Institut für Mathematik) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Christoph Gengnagel (UdK Berlin)
Directors ...............................................................................................
Martin Henn, Dipl.-Arch., M.S., AAD (HENN, Design Director) Moritz Fleischmann, Dipl.-Ing., M.Arch. (HENN, Head of Research)
Workshop tutors ..................................................................................
Moritz Heimrath, Dipl.-Arch., M.Arch. (Karamba 3D, Bollinger+Grohmann) Agata Kycia, MSc.Arch. (HENN, Architect; IAAC, TU Delft) Lorenz Lachauer, Dipl.-Ing. (ETHZ, BLOCK Research Group) Daniel Piker (Kangaroo, Foster+Partners) Dr. Clemens Preisinger, Dipl.-Ing. (Karamba 3D, Bollinger+Grohmann) Alex Reddihough (ARUP London)
Guests ...................................................................................................
Dr. Chris Williams, M.A., Ph.D. (University of Bath) Prof. Dr. Toni Kotnik, M.Arch., Dipl.-Math., MAS ETH Arch/CAAD (University of Innsbruck, ETH Zürich) Prof. Manfred Grohmann, Dipl.-Ing. (University of Kassel, Bollinger+Grohmann) Prof. Dr.-Ing. Patrick Teuffel (Patrick Teuffel Engineers, TU Delft) Stefan Sechelmann, Dipl.-Math. (TU Berlin, Institut für Mathematik) Dr. Thilo Rörig (TU Berlin, Institut für Mathematik) Christoph Seidel (TU Berlin, Institut für Mathematik)
Team
79
DRX 2013 — Vertical Net Structures
Host, Partners and Sponsors
The DRX 2013 took place at HENN on the 8th floor of Alexanderstr. 7, known as the “Haus des Reisens� high-rise. The building overlooks Alexanderplatz in central Berlin. HENN is an international architectural practice based in Germany with more than 30 years of experience in designing culture, education, production, and research and development buildings. The office is managed by Prof. Dr. Gunter Henn and nine partners. Approximately 330 architects, planners and engineers work in the HENN offices in Munich, Berlin, Beijing and Shanghai.
Alexanderstr. 7, 8th Floor 10178 Berlin Germany T. +49 (0)30 28 30 99 -0 www.henn.com www.designresearchexchange.com www.facebook.com/designresearchexchange www.vimeo.com/henn
PARTNERS
Host, Partners and Sponsors
DRX@henn.com
MEDIA AND FILM PARTNER
SPONSORS
81
© HENN 2013