DRX 2013 - Catalogue

DRX 2013 Design Research Exchange Vertical Net Structures

DRX 2013 Vertical Net Structures

3Table of Contents

4

7

8

10

14

24

38

50

60

72

74

76

79

81

Foreword

About

Topic

Schedule

Events

Keynote and Lectures

Workshops

Results

Prototower I

Prototower II

Prototower III

Events

Reviews

Presentations

Exhibition

Team

Host, Partners and Sponsors

.................................................................................

........................................................................................

.........................................................................................

...................................................................................

....................................................

....................................................................

..................................................................

.................................................................

................................................................

........................................................................

................................................................

......................................................................

.........................................................................................

....................................................

Table of Contents


Martin Henn studied architecture at the University of Stuttgart and at the ETH Zrich. He received his Masters Degree in Architecture from the ETH, Zrich in 2006, and his Post-Professional Master of Ad-vanced Architectural Design from Columbia University, New York in 2008. Prior to HENN, he was working for Zaha Hadid Architects (Lon-don) and Asymptote Architecture (New York). He has been a regular studio and seminar instructor at the ETH in Zrich, at Columbia Uni-versity as well as at the TU Dresden.

www.henn.com

Martin Henn,Dipl.-Arch., M.S. AAD

DRX Host / HENN Design Director

Moritz Fleischmann is a Ph.D. researcher at the Institute for Compu-tational 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 Zrich (Switzerland). He received his M.Arch. Degree from the Emer-gent Technologies & Design program at the Architectural Associa-tion in London. In 2012 he was appointed HENNs Head of Research.

www.henn.com

Moritz Fleischmann,Dipl.-Ing., M. Arch.

DRX Director / HENN Head of Research

5Foreword

In 2013 we successfully launched the sec-ond annual Design Research Exchange in Berlin. This year we continued our inves-tigation 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 pro-vided the framework for research of com-putational design methods for high-rise buildings above 450m total height. By dis-solving 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.

By bringing together a transdisciplinary team of experts and researchers, we aim to contribute actively to the way we con-sciously design and develop our built en-vironments.

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 sup-port and attention from both, the industry as well as the research community. It is this lively exchange of ideas and open commu-nication that we are commited to actively foster in the years to come.

We hope you enjoy the cross section through some of the events, programs and projects that were created as part of this DRX.

Foreword

7Initiated by Moritz Fleischmann (HENN Head of Research) and Martin Henn (HENN Design Director), the Design Research Ex-change (DRX) is an annual residency pro-gram for researchers. The topic of investi-gation for each DRX is selected by the DRX organizers for its contemporary relevance and novelty within the discipline. Through-out the DRX, the invited experts present key public lectures and provide critical feed-back and guidance during the event.

The Design Research Exchange provides an open platform to unite experts from vari-ous fields. By exploring architectural topics of shared interest, the DRX promotes multi-disciplinary discussion between academics and professionals.

We envision the DRX as an ideal environ-ment 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.

AboutDRX

About DRX

Problem Statement

Dead LoadsSelf-Weight Floor Loads : 8kN/m

Wind LoadsUniformly Distributed : 1.5 kN/m

Load Combination : 1.2DL + 1.2WDisplacement Tolerance : H/500


Problem statement

Dead loadsSelf-weightFloor loads: 8 kN/m

Wind loadsUniformly distributed: 1,5 kN/m

Load combination: 1,2 DL + 1,2 WDisplacement tolerance: H/500

9Introduction

The research focus for the DRX 2013 was a continuation of last years investigation into innovative structures for the design of high-rise buildings. Driven by the in-creasing demand for supertall buildings, we develop integral structures that de-fine 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.

Approach

This year, the aim was to understand forces as vectors in order to develop 3-dimen-sional spatial nets. These systems were de-veloped and based on profound research in various areas such as high-rise structural systems, natural systems as well as form-finding techniques. Throughout the DRX, these systems were further informed and transformed into highly constrained, feasi-ble 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 vector-based structures. In a last step, structural feedback from FEA was used to under-stand 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.

Potential

Recent translations of vector-based ap-proaches 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 sys-tems. 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 cit-ies without neglecting the ever-increasing demand for tall buildings.

Design Application

By exploring equilibrium systems rather than geometric shapes, we aim to bridge the gap between architectural design thinking and structural engineering feed-back.

Working with nets as the foundation for conceptual high-rise design tool promises to fortify the design of integral space struc-tures. 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 de-sign tools towards application oriented.

Key questions

Can a high-rise structure be developed as a vertical net?

Can the system be controlled to develop spatial qualities within these structures?

Are these structural systems feasible com-pared to conventional height-active sys-tems such as tube-in-tube, outrigger etc.?

Does the overall deflection of the tip un-der realistic wind loads comply with indus-try standard norms?

Is the use of material feasible (total struc-tural weight / sqm usable area) and to which extend can it be optimized?

Topic Vertical Net Structures

TopicVertical Net Structures


Lecture series from the DRX-experts:

Recent High-rise StructuresProf. Dipl.-Ing Manfred Grohmann(University of Kassel, Bollinger+Grohmann, Frankfurt)

Variational Optimization of Net StructuresProf. Dr. Alexander Bobenko(Institut fr Mathematik, TU Berlin)

Prototyping Performative Models for DesignMirco Becker, Architekt ARB(Guest Professor Performative Design,Stdelschule Frankfurt)

Kick-off Event July 22, 2013

.......................................................................................

11

ScheduleDRX 2013

Phase I ResearchWeek 1-3

Workshop I

Workshop II

Workshop III

Workshop IV

Mid Review August 13, 2013

Phase II Prototype Week 5-8

Workshop V

Final presentation September 13, 2013

Final exhibition September 30, 2013

Phase I comprises of an introduction to high-rise structures accompanied by a series of workshops.

High rise Design PrinciplesAgata Kycia (HENN)

Graphic Statics as Conceptual Design and Analysis MethodLorenz Lachauer (Chair of Structural Design Prof. Schwartz; BLOCK Research Group)

Real-time Physics-based Modelling with KangarooDaniel Piker (Forster+Partners / Kangaroo)

Interactive, Parametric Structural Modelling with KarambaClemens Preisinger and Moritz Heimrath (Bollinger+Grohmann Ingenieure, Frankfurt / Vienna)

Three different approaches and first models are presented to a public audience, DRX-experts and -tutors followed by a discussion.

In Phase II, the context of high-rise building and their specific demands are introduced. Prototowers are developed.

High rise Structural DesignAlex Reddihough (ARUP London)

Final prototowers are presented to a public audience and an invited jury.

Comprehensive exhibition of the prototowers as part of the Design Modelling Symposium.

Schedule DRX 2013

.............................................................................

..........................................................................

13

EventsKeynote and Lectures

Events Keynote and Lectures

15

EventsKeynote and Lectures

Lectures

Public lectures occur throughout the eight-week 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, Alexan-der Bobenko & invited guest speaker Man-fred 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:

Professor Grohmann started with a de-tailed talk about the development of highrise structures as a novel typology in the early 19th century in Chicago and fin-ished with a report about the challenges in construction of todays supertall buildings from an engineering point of view.

Mirco Becker, visting professor at the Staedelschule in Frankfurt, presented com-putational design concepts for performa-tive prototypes. How real-world, physical behaviour can be embedded in virtual models and used in 1:1 prototypes.

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.



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 be-came a guest professor at the Stdelschule in Frankfurt and in 2007 at the ESA cole dArchitecture 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 employ-ees. Both combine teaching at architecture schools with their prac-tice.

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 faade design, geom-etry development, building physics and sustainability. The field of work spans between the structural design of housing, office, com-mercial, exhibition and event facilities as well as classic civil engi-neering structures such as bridges, roofs and towers.

www.bollinger-grohmann.com

Prof. Dipl.-Ing. Manfred Grohmann

Bollinger+GrohmannMitinhaber

17

KeynoteRecent 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 struc-tures. 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 Himmel-blau) in Frankfurt using a lateral steel sys-tem and the Vienna Donau City Tower DCT (Dominique Perrault Architects), using an outrigger system made of reinforced con-crete.



Mirco Becker founded informance in 2012 in Berlin, Germany. As a Senior Associate Partner at Kohn Pedersen Fox, Becker has previ-ously 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 Ar-chitects. Mirco Becker is a Guest Professor at the Stdelschule Archi-tecture Class leading the post graduate specialization in Architecture and Performative Design.

www.informance-design.comwww.staedelschule.de/architecture

Mirco Becker Guest Professor,Stdelschule Frankfurt

19

Expert LecturePrototyping Performative Models for Design

Models are in integral part of the design process if we dont regard them as min-iature 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 meth-ods 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 Cul-manns Graphic Static method.

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 struc-tures 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 di-mension 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 de-signers are literate in formulation a prob-lem to match computational methods as well as developing their own algorithms.

Second generation performativemodels

Recent developments in 3d-printing ma-terials allow for robust and cost efficient prototyping. This gives the opportunity to physically prototype the discretized models used for computation and embedding spe-cific joint conditions, elasticity, roughness into them without the need for manual as-sembly. 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 mod-els of the first generation.



Prof. Dr. Alexander Bobenko is professor of Mathematics at the Tech-nische Universitt Berlin. He graduated at the Leningrad State Uni-versity 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 ge-ometry, 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 Re-search 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

Prof. Dr. Alexander Bobenko

Technische Universitt Berlin,Institut fr Mathematik

21

Expert LectureVariational Optimization of Net Structures

Variational optimization is a method to cre-ate 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 beauti-ful 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 struc-tures investigated in mathematics, in par-ticular in frames of the DFG Transregional Collaborative Research Center Discretiza-tion in Geometry and Dynamics. They have a potential of application in architecture. In particular, we compare minimal path nets and rubber band nets.

They minimize the total net length and the sum of the squares of the edges respec-tively. 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. Ap-proximation of a given surface by such nets is achieved by variational optimiza-tion methods. We present also conformal nets and demonstrate their application to real architectural forms. The computations were made with the VaryLab software.


23Events Workshops

EventsWorkshops

25

EventsWorkshops

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 skill-sets of all participants by demonstrating tools for successful experimentation.

During the DRX 2013 we hosted a series of 5 Workshops exclusively for the DRX partici-pants. The aim was to inform the research-ers, who joined the team from various backgrounds, about the challenges and opportunities of designing high rise struc-tures.

The workshop series started with an over-view 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-

cise analytical method for the design and evalutation of tall structures. As part of the workshop led by Lorenz Lachauer from the ETH Zrich, some of the built towers of HENNs portfolio were analyzed and com-pared against each other in terms of struc-tural performance.

Daniel Piker, developer of the physics-based modelling Plugin Kangaroo took over to introduce a more playful approach of designing with forces through spring-based 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.

Clemens Preisinger and Moritz Heimrath, developers of the Karamba3D plugin and employees at Bollinger + Grohmann engi-neers in Vienna joined for a week to lever-age the design approaches by showing the

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 Red-dihough of ARUP London joined the DRX to host a workshop on the specific chal-lenges 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 ma-terial usage and overall weight to usable area ratios.

Events Workshops


Agata Kycia is an architectural designer at HENN. She studied archi-tecture at the Warsaw University of Technology and received her Masters 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 Dsseldorf ).

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.comwww.agatakycia.com

Agata Kycia,MSc. Arch.

HENN , IAAC, TU Delft

27

Workshop IHigh rise Design Principles

The second edition of the Design Research Exchange started with the workshop High-rise Design Principles led by Agata Kycia, HENN architect and researcher.

The workshop introduces recent develop-ments 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, fo-cusing 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, perim-eter and hybrid structures.

The second part focuses on the characteris-tics 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 com-plex stress condition, as well as their abil-ity 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 de-fining element in the design of tall build-ings.

Heino Engel, author of Structural Systems, states in his research that high-rises cannot be defined as a sequence of stacked, sin-gle story systems nor can they be fully ex-plained as a turned up super cantilever. He states they are homogenous systems with unique problems and unique solutions.

The workshop concludes with an explana-tion 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 Tensi-net Symposium at the Mimar Sinan Fine-Art University in Istanbul.

Events Workshops


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 struc-tural 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 de-velopment of digital design tools.

www.block.arch.ethz.chwww.schwartz.arch.ethz.ch

29

Workshop IIGraphic 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. In-ner force-flow is related to the buildings shape. Simple, force-based methods de-rived from graphic statics are used to iden-tify the relation between structure and geometry. These approaches allow for a deeper understanding of existing building shapes and their morphologic interrela-tion. Furthermore, fundamental concepts have been presented, that enable the in-tegration of structural constraints in the design process at early stages.

Events Workshops


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 present-ed 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 independent-ly, as well as consulting and collaborating with a wide range of prac-tices and researchers.

www.grasshopper3d.com/group/kangaroo

31

Workshop IIIReal-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 form-finding 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


Dr. Dipl.-Ing.Clemens Preisinger

Karamba 3D, Bollinger+Grohmann,

Clemens was born in Linz, Austria and is a structural engineer. Since 2008 he is working for BollingerGrohmannSchneider. He contrib-uted 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 Struc-tural Engineering from the Technical University Vienna.

www.karamba3d.comwww.bollinger-grohmann.com

Moritz Heimrath,Dipl.Arch, M.Arch

Karamba 3D, Bollinger+Grohmann

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 de-sign. He is currently teaching digital design at the architectural in-stitute of the Georg-Simon-Ohm University, Nurnberg. Moritz Heim-rath 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.comwww.bollinger-grohmann.com

33

Workshop IVInteractive, Parametric Structural Modelling with Karamba

The goal of the workshop is to introduce the participants to the interactive, para-metric finite element tool-kit Karamba. The starting point presents the theoreti-cal foundations of Karamba and how it is embedded in the parametric design envi-ronment Grasshopper for Rhino. Projects done at the office of Bollinger+Grohmann Engineers served as show-cases for the ap-plication 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 defini-tion the participants were guided by the tu-tors through the steps necessary to set up a static model with Karamba. The second day was characterized by discussions between

the workshop participants and tutors. These focused on how to implement and validate structural ideas of the DRX-projects using Karamba.

Events Workshops


Alex Reddihough

ARUP London

Alex Reddihough received a Masters degree in architectural engi-neering from Cardiff University in 2007. He has been working for Arup in London since then as part of a multidisciplinary building de-sign 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, Bei-rut terraces tower and Complexo Cultural Luz, Sao Paulo with Her-zog and de Meuron, Torre Reforma 509 in Mexico City and the Haikou Tower with Henn.

www.arup.com

35

Workshop VHigh-rise Structural Design

The workshop occurred at the mid-point of the DRX programme and set out some parameters to move structural concepts to-wards feasible high-rise building designs. Basic rules of thumb for structural perfor-mance and key figures on load allowances, building code requirements, target struc-tural 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 of-ten iterative process of high-rise building geometry development.

In addition, non-structural considerations for tall buildings were set out, such as fire safety requirements, elevator strategies, lighting and client requirements. The com-mercial nature of building high-rise build-ings was highlighted, with the efficiency of the structure being critical in realising a conceptual design. The rest of the work-shop involved individual consulting with each team of researchers on the structural development of their concepts, and pos-sible methods of analysis using both Kar-amba and Oasys GSA.

Events Workshops

37

ResultsPrototowers I - III

Results Prototower IV - VI

DRX 2013 Vertical Net Structures Prototower IV Overview: from diagrid at the bottom to space frame at the top

39

Prototower IBranching Strategies

Introduction

The design tool developed for Prototower IV creates vertical net structures based on branching. The tool simulates tree branch-ing through a set of rules that describe the varying direction of growth, and the merg-ing of branches. The design tool incorpo-rates 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 archi-tectural and structural and aerodynamic advantages to using tree branching includ-ing frame continuity, alleviating vortex shedding with irregular facades, all while creating unique spaces.

Branching analysis: branching angle varies topology Upper tower rendering

Concept

The objective was to grow a 450m high-rise 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 mul-tiple attraction points like a tree. Param-eters 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 un-til it reaches a Diagrid like pattern. This topology doesnt appear in nature but is one theoretical growth pattern which cre-ates a wide and stable structure because the topology is less hierarchical and less loose members are remaining. This pat-tern change from tree to Diagrid inspired the idea of growing a high-rise and led to a branching algorithm which creates various topologies.

Branching Algorithm

Branching describes the splitting of one element into two, while both so called - children change the direction of growth symmetrically. The parameters that influ-ence the growth of the topology includes branch iterations, angle between each branching pair, length of the members, number and location of seeds and attrac-tion 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 toler-ance radius which can force the tips to join if their tolerance circles are intersecting. The margining function results in a triangu-lar grid structure that differs from the tree branching where members are not con-nected.

Results Prototower I

21.4

23.0

25.3

26.4

28.6

28.9

19.4

68

22

21

20

20

23

21

22

69

70

70

67

69

68

D 110 t 25

D 125 t 30

D 140 t 35

D 155 t 40

D 50 t 5

D 65 t 10

D 80 t 15

D 95 t 20

Diameter: D [cm] Thickness: t [cm]

Displacement [m] 0,82

Steel Mass/Total Floor Area [kg/m] 354

Number of Members 736

D 110 t 25

D 125 t 30

D 140 t 35

D 155 t 40

D 50 t 5

D 65 t 10

D 80 t 15

D 95 t 20





Design Exploration

The design tool can create various structures through the manipula-tion of the location and number of seed, attraction, and check points. From this exploration we found that we could create a range of struc-tures from a pure diagrid to a pure space frame structure. We chose a final design that was a hybrid of the diagrid and the space frame.

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.

Conclusions

The branching design tool can create a three kinds of structures: a dia-grid, a space frame and a hybrid of the diagrid and space frame. The al-gorithm has many advantages structurally, aerodynamically and pro-grammatically. Further design and structural analysis would include the thermal and daylighting performance of the structure, and the ad-ditional structure (core and floor slabs), loads and load combinations, and a dynamic analysis.

Structural Analysis

The structure was designed for displacement and strength. After in-vestigation between the structural performance of the diagrid and the space frame, the diagrid was placed at the bottom. Placing the peri-meter 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 dia-grid 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 de-sign was analysed and optimized in Karamba. Based on these results, we then resized our members to clearly ensure smaller cross-sectional diameters rested on larger cross-sections.

The design tool has many structural advantages. It can produce irre-gular facades that helps diminish vortex shedding; it avoids structu-ral frame discontinuity because all members grow from each other; it creates a tapered structure because all branches grow towards an at-traction point; and it grows a triangular grid, the most stable topology.

Cross Section OptimisationProblem Statement

UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1944 mOffice

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

225 mRoom 225 m

Room

228 mRoom225 m

Room

UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1382 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

109 mLiving

20 mRoom

175 mResidential

126 mRoom

9 mRoom

9 mRoom

27 mRoom 22 m

Room

22 mRoom

12 mRoom

18 mRoom

95 mLiving

20 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

27 mRoom

10 mRoom

9 mRoom

146 mRoom

35 mRoom

12 mRoom

9 mRoom

255 mRoom

28 mRoom

7 mRoom

8 mRoom

45 mRoom

38 mRoom

8 mRoom

3 mRoom

110 mRoom

235 mRoom

13 mRoom

= +

Vertical Structure Horizontal Structure

Open Plan Space

2 Branches

Diagrid

= +


Floor Space Double Space

2 Branches

Hybrid Structure

= +


Private Space Public Space

4 Branches 2 Branches

Open Space

Space Frame

O

ce Ty

pe A

O

ce Ty

pe B

RESI

DEN

TIAL

Problem Statement




Problem Statement




50 m.50 m.

450

m

Diagrid Space frame

Member Length [m] 20 20Displacement [m] 0,9 0,7Mass [t] 5,2E+04 3,6E+05Floor Area [m] 1,8E+05 1,5E+05Steel Mass/Total Floor Area [kg/m] 287 2356Bottom Member Diameter [cm] 130 500

Case Study

50 m. 50 m. 50 m.

150

m

150

m

300

m

300

m

225

m22

5 m

33% 50% 66%Percentage of Diagrid

Member Length [m] 20 20 20Displacement [m] 0,94 0,9 0,9Mass [t] 1,1E+05 8,7E+04 5,9E+04Steel Mass/Total Floor Area [kg/m] 573 454 307Bottom Member Diameter [cm] 170 155 140

Taper8 Checkpoints on Circle Dierent Checkpoints Level Changing Geometry New Checkpoints Horizontal Element Vertical ElementsTaper8 Checkpoints on Circle Dierent Checkpoints Level Changing Geometry New Checkpoints Horizontal Element Vertical Elements

Seeds 8Attraction points 8Generations 3Length 20Angle 60Tolerance 7

Perimeter Perimeter 3D Branching



Resized Vertical Members Vertical Members Horizontal Members

450

m

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70

Office Area Type A

Floor 1 - 35

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70

8 Checkpoint on circle Taper Different checkpoint level Changing Geometry New Checkpoints horizontal Elements Density Member Length AngleVertical Elements Perimeter

3D branching

DRX 2013 VERTICAL NET STRUCTURESM. Becker (STDELSChULE)Prof. Dr. A. Bobenko (TU BERLIN)Prof. Dr. C. Gengnagel(UDK BERLIN)Dipl.-Ing. Moritz Fleischmann, M.Arch. (hENN / STUTTGART UNIVERSITY)Martin henn, Dipl.-Arch. ETh, M.S. AAD (hENN)

DRX 2013 PROTOTOWER 01 - BRANChING STRATEGIESSamar Malek (Engineer)Kavin horayangkura (Architect)Maximilian Thumfart (Computer Scientist)

B

1. Rotate BA & BC by 90 around Z2. Rotate branches around BA & BC by

1. Rotate AC by 90 around Z3. Rotate branches around AC & AC by

B B B B B B

Two branches Four branches

A C

AC

AC

A

B

CA C

B

BCAB

x

y

z BA C

BB

B

BB

B

B

B

xy

z

B

1. Rotate BA & BC by 90 around Z2. Rotate branches around BA & BC by

1. Rotate AC by 90 around Z3. Rotate branches around AC & AC by

B B B B B B

Two branches Four branches

A C

AC

AC

A

B

CA C

B

BCAB

x

y

z BA C

BB

B

BB

B

B

B

xy

z

merging tolerance [m]

in

i2

i1

i0

3 pairs

2 pairs

1 pair

4 pairs

2 pairs

1 pair

2 n n+1

branches merged branches form diagrid

i1

i0

angle []

length [m]

seed

attraction point

iterations


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 to influence the structure according to pro-gram or else.

Design Exploration

The design tool can create various struc-tures through the manipulation of the lo-cation 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 pro-totower 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 chang-ing from radial position at the bottom to square position at the tip.

Branching rules and merging tolerances Branching typers Checkpoints during growth

Checkpoints Vertical growth

Branching rules Merging tolreance Branching types

41

the conclusion. It was found that it was structurally more efficient to keep the dia-grid at least 50% of the height of the struc-ture. 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 mem-bers were resized to clearly ensure smaller cross-sectional diameters rested on larger cross-sections.

Structural Analysis

The structure was designed for displace-ment and strength. After investigation be-tween the structural performance of the diagrid and the space frame, the diagrid was placed at the bottom. Placing the pe-rimeter structure increases the lateral sta-bility of the structure. Additionally, the ef-fect of the location of the transition from diagrid to space frame was studied with

Design exploration of different topologies


21.4

23.0

25.3

26.4

28.6

28.9

19.4

68

22

21

20

20

23

21

22

69

70

70

67

69

68

D 110 t 25

D 125 t 30

D 140 t 35

D 155 t 40

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

D 50 t 5

D 65 t 10

D 80 t 15

D 95 t 20





Design Exploration


Program


Conclusions


Structural Analysis




UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1944 mOffice

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

225 mRoom 225 m

Room

228 mRoom225 m

Room

UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1382 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

109 mLiving

20 mRoom

175 mResidential

126 mRoom

9 mRoom

9 mRoom

27 mRoom 22 m

Room

22 mRoom

12 mRoom

18 mRoom

95 mLiving

20 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

27 mRoom

10 mRoom

9 mRoom

146 mRoom

35 mRoom

12 mRoom

9 mRoom

255 mRoom

28 mRoom

7 mRoom

8 mRoom

45 mRoom

38 mRoom

8 mRoom

3 mRoom

110 mRoom

235 mRoom

13 mRoom

= +


Open Plan Space

2 Branches

Diagrid

= +



2 Branches

Hybrid Structure

= +




Open Space

Space Frame

O

ce Ty

pe A

O

ce Ty

pe B

RESI

DEN

TIAL

Problem Statement




Problem Statement




50 m.50 m.

450

m

Diagrid Space frame


Case Study

50 m. 50 m. 50 m.

150

m

150

m

300

m

300

m

225

m22

5 m









450

m

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70

Office Area Type A

Floor 1 - 35

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70


3D branching




Key parameters

Program

The program of the building depends on the structure. At the bottom of the tower, the placement of the structure at the pe-rimeter 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.

Perimeter Density Member length Angle

The design tool has many structural advan-tages. 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.

43

D 110 t 25

D 125 t 30

D 140 t 35

D 155 t 40

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

D 50 t 5

D 65 t 10

D 80 t 15

D 95 t 20






450

m

Structural analysis of one topology

Resized vertival members Vertical members Horizontal members



Concept of dissolving density

Conclusions

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 program-matically. 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.

Open Plan Space


Private Space Public Space Open Space

O

ce Ty

pe A

O

ce Ty

pe B

RESI

DEN

TIAL

21.4

23.0

25.3

26.4

28.6

28.9

19.4

68

22

21

20

20

23

21

22

69

70

70

67

69

68

D 110 t 25

D 125 t 30

D 140 t 35

D 155 t 40

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

D 50 t 5

D 65 t 10

D 80 t 15

D 95 t 20





Design Exploration


Program


Conclusions


Structural Analysis




UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1944 mOffice

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

225 mRoom 225 m

Room

228 mRoom225 m

Room

UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1382 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

109 mLiving

20 mRoom

175 mResidential

126 mRoom

9 mRoom

9 mRoom

27 mRoom 22 m

Room

22 mRoom

12 mRoom

18 mRoom

95 mLiving

20 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

27 mRoom

10 mRoom

9 mRoom

146 mRoom

35 mRoom

12 mRoom

9 mRoom

255 mRoom

28 mRoom

7 mRoom

8 mRoom

45 mRoom

38 mRoom

8 mRoom

3 mRoom

110 mRoom

235 mRoom

13 mRoom

= +


Open Plan Space

2 Branches

Diagrid

= +



2 Branches

Hybrid Structure

= +




Open Space

Space Frame

O

ce Ty

pe A

O

ce Ty

pe B

RESI

DEN

TIAL

Problem Statement




Problem Statement




50 m.50 m.

450

m

Diagrid Space frame


Case Study

50 m. 50 m. 50 m.

150

m

150

m

300

m

300

m

225

m22

5 m









450

m

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70

Office Area Type A

Floor 1 - 35

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70


3D branching



21.4

23.0

25.3

26.4

28.6

28.9

19.4

68

22

21

20

20

23

21

22

69

70

70

67

69

68

D 110 t 25

D 125 t 30

D 140 t 35

D 155 t 40

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

D 50 t 5

D 65 t 10

D 80 t 15

D 95 t 20





Design Exploration


Program


Conclusions


Structural Analysis




UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1944 mOffice

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

225 mRoom 225 m

Room

228 mRoom225 m

Room

UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1382 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

109 mLiving

20 mRoom

175 mResidential

126 mRoom

9 mRoom

9 mRoom

27 mRoom 22 m

Room

22 mRoom

12 mRoom

18 mRoom

95 mLiving

20 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

27 mRoom

10 mRoom

9 mRoom

146 mRoom

35 mRoom

12 mRoom

9 mRoom

255 mRoom

28 mRoom

7 mRoom

8 mRoom

45 mRoom

38 mRoom

8 mRoom

3 mRoom

110 mRoom

235 mRoom

13 mRoom

= +


Open Plan Space

2 Branches

Diagrid

= +



2 Branches

Hybrid Structure

= +




Open Space

Space Frame

O

ce Ty

pe A

O

ce Ty

pe B

RESI

DEN

TIAL

Problem Statement




Problem Statement




50 m.50 m.

450

m

Diagrid Space frame


Case Study

50 m. 50 m. 50 m.

150

m

150

m

300

m

300

m

225

m22

5 m









450

m

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70

Office Area Type A

Floor 1 - 35

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70


3D branching



21.4

23.0

25.3

26.4

28.6

28.9

19.4

68

22

21

20

20

23

21

22

69

70

70

67

69

68

D 110 t 25

D 125 t 30

D 140 t 35

D 155 t 40

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

D 50 t 5

D 65 t 10

D 80 t 15

D 95 t 20





Design Exploration


Program


Conclusions


Structural Analysis




UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1944 mOffice

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

225 mRoom 225 m

Room

228 mRoom225 m

Room

UP

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1382 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

109 mLiving

20 mRoom

175 mResidential

126 mRoom

9 mRoom

9 mRoom

27 mRoom 22 m

Room

22 mRoom

12 mRoom

18 mRoom

95 mLiving

20 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

3 mRoom

7 mRoom

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

27 mRoom

10 mRoom

9 mRoom

146 mRoom

35 mRoom

12 mRoom

9 mRoom

255 mRoom

28 mRoom

7 mRoom

8 mRoom

45 mRoom

38 mRoom

8 mRoom

3 mRoom

110 mRoom

235 mRoom

13 mRoom

= +


Open Plan Space

2 Branches

Diagrid

= +



2 Branches

Hybrid Structure

= +




Open Space

Space Frame

O

ce Ty

pe A

O

ce Ty

pe B

RESI

DEN

TIAL

Problem Statement




Problem Statement




50 m.50 m.

450

m

Diagrid Space frame


Case Study

50 m. 50 m. 50 m.

150

m

150

m

300

m

300

m

225

m22

5 m









450

m

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Residential Area

floor 71 -100

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70

Office Area Type A

Floor 1 - 35

Office Area Type B

Floor 36 - 70


3D branching



45

Spatial configuration and example floor plans


4706 Results

49

Maximilian Thumfart is an architect and software developer at HENN. His work is focused on software engineering for ar-chitectural purposes and workflow optimi-zation in AutoCAD, Revit and Rhino. Maxi-milian 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 rela-tional databases.

www.henn.com

Maximilian Thumfart,Dipl.-Ing.

HENN Architect

Kavin Horayangkura is studying for his Mas-ters of Arts in Architecture and Performative Design at the Stdelschule 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. www.integratedfield.comwww.stadelschule.com

Kavin Horayangkura,B.Arch

Stdelschule Frankfurt

Samar Malek is a structural engineer with an expertise in structural and computation-al mechanics, and gridshells. She complet-ed her Ph.D. and S.M. in Structures and Ma-terials at MIT where she was also a visiting lecturer in the Department of Architecture. She is currently completing her post-doc-torate at the University of Bath Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering after having been awarded the prestigious Mar-shall-Sherfield Fellowship by the UK gov-ernment. Having practiced as a structural engineer at Thornton Tomasetti, NYC and consulted on gridshell projects for Atelier One, London, Samar understands the rela-tionship 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.

www.bath.ac.uk/ace

Samar MalekPhD, LEED, AP

MIT, Universtiy of Bath

Prototower I Researchers


51

Prototower IICone 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 ad-aptation 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 biomechan-ics 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 ap-plication point pushes a cone-shaped pressure zone in the direction of the ap-plied load, and pulls a tension cone in the opposite direction. Consequently, every support point reacts by pushing a com-pression cone in the opposite direction of the force, and pulling a tension cone be-hind 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 sup-posedly in equilibrium, and should repre-sent the most optimal solution to the initial given situation composed by load applica-tion points and reacting support points.

This assumption is later tested via the so-called 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 bal-ance 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 Matthecks method one step further and try to generate 3-dimen-sional lightweight structures in equilib-rium.

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


2D Force Cone Method studies 3D Force Cone Method explorations

53

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 relation-ship of its structures with the angles be-tween forces, the distances between nodes or the intersections between elements as new structural members. These were rela-tively 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 us-ing 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 struc-tural composition. The basic principle of re-

directing force flow throughout the build-ing, and controlling resulting load paths, led to the idea of piling cone surfaces al-ternating apices and bases. This created the basic cone-column, whose weak points, where apices came together, would be ad-dressed by a secondary column where at the same height, a base to base connection would be present.

When these two basic cone-columns were placed on a sharing axis, additional in-tersections 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 inter-sections provided additional stability and, most importantly, vertical space for circula-tion within the building.

A common triangular base discretization for the cones resulted in tetrahedral ele-

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 ad-ditional stiffness, but generated structural hierarchies and guides the design process for the faade.

Load Paths

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 al-lows 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



allows for the creation complex structural solutions that keep their clarity independ-ent of the amount of composing members. It creates a wide space for exploring differ-ent solutions for varied load cases and pro-grammatic requirements.

Simplicity

The simple definition of the tower in terms of discretized cones can be easily manipu-

lated by a parametric description of cone opening angles, height of cones, the de-gree of discretization and the number of main load paths as cone columns. The re-sulting structures can be then fed into an optimization loop to allow for direct feed-back on its structural efficiency.

Potential Applications of Force Cones in Architecture

Understanding structural design as the principle of force redirection is an essen-tial 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

55

Structural analysis and studies on secondary structure The resulting tower: composed by two cone columns with three bases each

with more complex load situations, one is still able to use cones as tool to define dis-tinct 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.


57

Prototower V Structural Analysis: studies on secondary structures and the resulting mega-frame.

59

Daniel da Rocha joined HENN in 2010 and remains an instrumental member of the design team in both Berlin and Beijing. He has con-tributed to the design process of several key HENN projects including the Haikou Tower, Nanopolis Showroom and the Zhuhai Port.

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.

www.henn.com

Daniel da Rocha,M.Arch.

HENN Architect

Isabella Thiesen is a PhD candidate in Geometry at the TU Berlin un-der the supervision of Prof. Dr. Bobenko. Isabellas 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.

In 2011, Isbabella received her Diploma in Mathematics from Freie Universitt, Berlin. With a concentration on discrete mathematics (geometry, visualization), her diploma thesis focused on Circle Pack-ings.

www.math.tu-berlin.de

Isabella Thiesen,Dipl.-Math

TU Berlin, Institut fr Mathematik

Prototower II Researchers


61

Bundled Tube Tower

The aim was to develop a vertical net struc-ture based on the concept of bundling, inspired both by natural systems such as plant cells, as well as architectural prec-edents such as the Willis Tower in Chicago. Bundling can be interpreted as a multidi-mensional framework that would allow the design of a vertical net as a function of programmatic, structural and infrastruc-tural parameters.

The generative process that was developed to explore this avenue involved digital modelling using spring-based physics, ge-ometric manipulations in 2D and 3D as well as performance analysis and feedback. The Prototower that evolved from this frame-work features an overall integration of pro-grammatic and structural qualities by using a perimeter frame system in combination with a decentralised core. Furthermore, its

spatial qualities are augmented by a vary-ing overall silhouette and by the introduc-tion 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 lev-els 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 po-tential 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 r

Documents

DRX 2013 - Catalogue