Geometry of Structural Form

Lorenz Lachauer
ETH Zrich
Toni Kotnik
ETH Zrich
Abstract. This paper describes a precise geometric method for the inscription of
structural constraints into architectural form. Based on techniques from graphic
statics, the force distribution in building structures is visualized using geometric
diagrams. This diagrammatic representation allows a formal description that
shows the relationship between the force flow and the structural form. The formal
character of this description enables the direct implementation of a parametric
truss geometry that maintains major structural behavioral characteristics under
deformation. An interactive model of a structural freeform roof is developed
through this link between a parametric truss definition and a design-driving
NURBS surface. This allows for an intuitive exploration of the constrained design
space in real time. Formal explorations and the comparison with built examples
demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach.

Keywords: Architectural Freeform Surface, Structural Geometry, Interactive
Design, Reciprocal Diagrams, Parametric Modeling, Graphic Statics


Figure 1: These freeform roof structures have efficient load-bearing capabilities
and were designed by the direct integration of structural constraints into form. The
methods used in the design of these structures are presented in this paper.
L. Lachauer and T. Kotnik
1 Introduction
Since the first use of digital design tools in architecture during the 1990s, the
popularity of geometric modeling techniques has constantly increased. Originally
coming from the airplane and film industries, these design tools were eventually
adapted and embedded into architectural design software. In the last decade, the
emergence of parametric modeling and scripting techniques in architectural CAD
applications has enabled a new level of sophistication in freeform design.
With growing formal complexity in design, the realization of such forms
becomes increasingly challenging. Substantial research has been done on the
problem of geometric constraints of architectural freeform surfaces [Schober
2002], [Shelden 2002], [Pottmann 2007], [Pottmann 2008], whereas research on
their structural behavior remains fragmentary. For this reason, it is necessary to
develop strategies for the integration of structural constraints in the design of
architectural freeform surfaces.
Structural limitations have to be integrated in the design process of freeform
surfaces in order to reduce the amount of building material without decreasing the
stability and usability of a structure. Methodologically, two different directions can
be identified.
On the one hand, optimization approaches, that are limited to a post-
rationalization of shape. They focus on using numerical methods to enhance a
given structure, by minor changes in geometry, in a late design phase [Bollinger et
al. 2005], [Sasaki 2007], [Tessmann 2008].
On the other hand, direct approaches, which integrate structural constraints into
the design process in an early phase. The first attempts in this approach were
based on physical models as a possibility for a direct integration of structural
constraints with architectural form [Gass 1990], [Kotnik 2010]. The recent
development of digital simulations of the physical behavior of hanging models has
successfully integrated structural constraints in the digital design process of
compression-only surfaces [Kilian 2004]. In direct approaches, the shape is the
direct result of the flow of forces through the material. The visualization and
construction of this force flow, therefore, can be seen as the starting point for the
early integration of structural constraints into the design process.
Graphic statics is a geometric method for the representation of the force flow in
structures that was developed in the mid-19
th
century [Culmann 1875], [Maurer
and Ramm 1998]. This technique can be used to either analyze the internal forces
in a structure for a given load condition, or to design a structural form for a given
force distribution. As an example, the geometry of the Eiffel tower was designed
using graphic statics [Charlton 1982]. The visual, diagrammatic character of
graphic methods allows an intuitive exploration of different design alternatives and
their structural implications [Muttoni 2004], [Schwartz 2009], [Allen and
Zalewszky 2009].
Recent approaches combine graphic methods with interactive web applications
for educational purposes [Greenwold and Allen 2001], [Block and Ochsendorf
2005]. The development of associative geometric modeling tools for architects, for
Geometry of Structural Form
instance Grasshopper and Generative Components, allows for a direct integration
of geometric relations into an interactive parametric model.
The topic of this research is the integration of structural constraints in a
parametric model using graphic statics. This paper is structured as follows: Section
2 briefly summarizes the geometric foundations of graphic statics. Section 3
shows a graphical design method for trusses. Section 4 reveals the concept of a
structural relationship derived from the invariance of force-flow. To conclude,
Section 5 describes the setup of the interactive parametric model of a freeform
roof. The generation of examples of roof forms illustrates the power of this
approach.
2 Graphic Statics and Reciprocal Diagrams
The method of graphic statics is based on the reciprocal relationship between two
diagrams, that was first described for planar cases by Clerk Maxwell and Luigi
Cremona [Maxwell 1864], [Cremona 1890]. Later, this reciprocal or dual
relationship was extended to fully three dimensional cases [Crapo 1979]. One
diagram, the form diagram, represents the geometry of the structure and the
location of the applied loads. Its reciprocal figure, the force diagram, represents
the vectorial force distribution in the structure [Muttoni 2004], [Schwartz 2009]
[Allen and Zalewszky 2009]. In general, there is not a unique reciprocal diagram
for a given form diagram. The force diagram is always scalable, it does not
represent the absolute values of the forces, but rather the ratios between the forces.
Irrespective of scaling, there is only one force diagram for a statically determinate
structure. The question of degrees of freedom in the reciprocal diagram for
indeterminate form diagrams has been studied recently [Block 2009]. Reciprocal
figures have following properties:
Each line I in the force diagram represents one dual line I
-
in the form
diagram and vice versa.
Corresponding lines in form and force diagram are parallel.
The length of the lines in the force diagram is proportional to the forces in
the structure.
If one connects the supports and the load vectors in the form diagram with
an outer point, then the dual graph of this figure has the same topology as
the force diagram. (Fig. 2)


L. Lachauer and T. Kotnik
Figure 2: A funicular polygon: the form of a hanging string under the influence of
forces, its force diagram and the visualization of their topological relationship.
The methods of graphic statics are applications of discrete differential geometry in
two dimensions. For instance, in the construction of the funicular polygon, the
form of a hanging string under the influence of forces corresponds to the repeated
integration of the load vector field due to a graphical algorithm [Maurer and
Ramm 1998]. With an increasing number of segments in a funicular polygon, the
directions of the segments become tangents to a curve and its shape eventually
attains that of the continuous curve of a string under the influence of a uniform
load. (Fig. 3)



Figure 3: The funicular polygon leads to the form of a continuous curve of a
hanging string with an increasing number of segments.
3 Geometry of an Efficient Truss
In order to demonstrate the method of graphic statics and its application to
design, a geometric method for the procedural construction of a planar truss will
be presented. The technique is based on a design method for the constant chord
force truss [Allen and Zalewsky 2009]. This method generates a truss form with
the top chord in pure compression and the bottom chord in pure tension for dead
load
1
. Additionally, the tension forces in the bottom chord are all equal. While
Edward Allen and Waclaw Zalewsky describe the application of this method for
specific top chord shapes, this paper explores the possibility of this method for
arbitrary top chord forms.
The truss form is constructed from a given discrete curve S consisting of the
segments S
1
, S
2
, , S
n
, defining the geometry of the top chord, and chord force F.
For each node of the top chord, S, a dead load component,

, is assumed. The first

step is to construct the reciprocal diagram from the chord segmentsS

, the nodal
weights
1
,
2
, ,
n-1
,, and F. The second step is to construct the bottom chord
of the truss.
The construction of the force diagram is straight forward: The nodal loads

-

in the force diagram are graphically added. The support forces A and B are derived
either by the lever rule or graphically by a trial funicular [Schwartz 2009]. The
circle C is then constructed around the tip of the force vector A
-
, with radius F.

1
In structural design, permanent loads, especially the self weight of the building components, are called
dead loads. All changing loads like wind, snow, movable objects, and people are called live loads.
Geometry of Structural Form
The absolute value of F must be large enough such that the reciprocal load
components

-
are entirely located inside the circle. Next, construct the rays S

-
in
the direction of the top chord segmentsS

. (see Fig. 3) The connecting lines

between the intersection points I

= C r S

-
between the circle and the rays are
the reciprocal representations P

-
of the truss members connecting the top and the
bottom chord P

. The representation of the force vectors w

-
in the bottom chord
are constructed by the connection of the intersection points I

on the circle with the

center of C. To construct the geometry of the bottom chord in the form diagram,
start at support A and continue from left to right to the successive intersection of
rays in the direction of P

-
and w

-
, which are the nodes of the chord.



Figure 4: Form and force diagram for a constant chord force truss with five
segments is shown in the first example. Implications of the deformation of the top
L. Lachauer and T. Kotnik
chord on the reciprocal diagram and the truss form can be seen in the two
following examples.
4 Invariants in Force-Flow and Structural Classification
The above example of constant chord force trusses shows that the relationship
between form and forces is fluid. However, there are properties that remain
unchanged for transformations of the top chord S. These invariant properties
enable a classification of truss geometries by similarities in the inner force
distribution, independent of the morphological appearance of the truss.
The force diagram (Fig. 4) clearly shows that all dual representations of forces
in the chord segments w

are radii, thereby demonstrating that are all inner forces

equal:

w

-
= F (1)

The dual representations of all truss members in the force diagram are contained
by the circle, so all inner forces in all truss members are less or equal the circle
diameter:

S

-
2 F and P

-
2 F (2)

The forces in the top chord segments S

and in P

are all compression, while in the

bottom chord the segments w

are all tension. Together with (1) and (2), this

allows a precise estimation of the dimensions of the truss elements, independent of
the exact geometry of the truss.

For each transformation : S - S
i
that maps the segmented curve S to a curve S, a
mapping g: I(S) - I
i
(S
i
) exists, which maps truss I to I. Without changing the
chord force, F, the relations (1) and (2) are invariant for g. These invariant
properties of the force distribution in truss geometries allow a classification of
structural behavior based on properties of the force-flow. Typical structural
classifications are based on morphology, e.g. the terms beam, arch, and
frame point to a specific shape, more than to a specific structural behavior. All
truss geometries that fulfill (1) and (2) may be seen as different shapes of a
common class of related truss geometries. (Fig 5.) The examples demonstrate that
the integration of structural constraints results in a coupling of design parameters.
This calls into question the traditional differentiation of structural systems by
shape. This definition of structural classes, which is based on geometric invariants
of the force diagram as opposed to similarities of the form diagram, opens up a
new understanding of building structures and the continuous relationship among
structural forms.

Geometry of Structural Form


Figure 5: Building examples on the left, and examples of constant chord force
truss geometries on the right. Their similarity in structural behavior becomes
obvious in the force diagrams. From above: Luis Brunel: Royal Albert Bridge
1859; Robert Maillart: Chiasso Shed 1924; Grimshaw Architects: Waterloo Station
1993; Gerkan Marg +Partner: Lehrter Bahnhof 2002; Zaha Hadid Architects: Ski
J ump 2001.










L. Lachauer and T. Kotnik
5 Parametric Model of an Efficient Freeform Roof Structure
This section describes an interactive parametric model of a freeform roof structure
based on the above discussion. In the model, the gradually changing sections of the
roof geometry are treated with the same structural principle without using the same
truss morphology.
The parametric definition is built up using the associative modeling plug-in,
Grasshopper, for the NURBS modeling CAD software, Rhinoceros. The definition
has two input geometries: the freeform roof surface and a guiding curve in the XY
plane. The positions of the trusses are given by the guiding curve that is divided in
segments of equal length. Straight lines normal to g define the truss axes. The top
chord geometries of the trusses are derived by the segmentation of the vertical
section curves through the roof surface. The self weight of the structure at each
node of a truss is calculated by a polygonal approximation of the neighboring area
around the node. (Fig 6.) Additionally, the model has four numerical input
parameters: number of trusses, segments per truss, chord force, and a scale factor
for the dead load.


Figure 6: The generation of top chord geometry and loading from the input surface
and guiding curve.

This parametric model enables the intuitive exploration of design alternatives for
freeform structures supported by two edges. The interactive modification of input
geometry works in real time because the direct procedural approach of geometry
generation does not depend on computationally intensive algorithms. This allows
for instant feedback to study the structural implications of formal choices. In the
example of a roof model with 50 trusses and 50 segments, changes in the surface
geometry are updated within approximately one second using an Intel Core Duo
Processor with 2.8 GHz. The use of a NURBS curve and a surface as input
geometries provides full freedom in the design process. The input surface can
either be manually sculpted by dragging the control points or generated by another
script or algorithm. (Fig. 7)
It must be noted that truss geometries generated by the method described in
Section 3 are in equilibrium only for the designing dead load. In order to resist
additional loads such as wind and snow, the trusses have to be further stiffened.
This could be achieved by the installation of diagonal braces or by a stiff top chord
girder. (Fig. 1)
Geometry of Structural Form



Figure 7: Design parameters of parametric roof are truss segmentation, truss
number, surface form, and the form of the guiding line of the truss axes.
6 Conclusion and Future Work
As shown in this paper, the methods of graphic statics are easily applied to
parametric CAD systems. These drafting-based techniques can be directly
implemented using the rich variety of geometric operations provided by
associative modeling environments. This allows for the direct integration of
structural constraints in an interactive model that is based on the definition of
geometric relationships and does not rely on additional computational techniques
or software packages. Through graphic statics, structural problems can be treated
with geometric means and may become questions of form.
This paper not only shows a new possibility for the development of interactive
design tools, but also opens up a formal way of structural classification. The
suggested classification is based on the inner force-flow and goes beyond the
classical morphologic typologies of load bearing elements. It introduces a
continuous relationship between structural forms, as it has been described a few
years ago [Reiser and Umemoto 2006].
This is a first step towards parametric structural design based on graphical
methods, shown for one specific class of truss geometries. Extensions are possible
in several directions; a rich source may be historic collections of graphical
methods [Malcolm 1914], [Wolfe 1921]. This work provides a basis for future
exploration in the application of this method for different support conditions in
two dimensions, such as a cantilevering beam a continuous beam. Another
direction may be the extension of this truss to a spatial system, based on three
dimensional extensions of the reciprocal relationship [Crapo 1979], [Micheletti
2008].
L. Lachauer and T. Kotnik
Acknowledgements
We thank Philippe Block for inspiring discussions and Mallory Taub for editing.
References
ALLEN E. AND ZALEWSKI W. 2010. Form and Forces. J ohn Wiley and Sons, 275-
300.
BLOCK P., AND OCHSENDORF, J . 2007. Thrust Network Analysis: A new
methodology for three-dimensional equilibrium. Journal of the International
Association for Shell and Spatial Structures 48 (3), 167-173.
BLOCK P. 2009. Thrust Network Analysis: Exploring Three-dimensional
Equilibrium. PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge. 72-82.
BOLLINGER K., GROHMANN M., PFANNER D., AND SCHNEIDER J . 2005.
Tragkonstruktion der BMW-Welt in Mnchen. Stahlbau, 74 (7), 483-491.
CHARLTON T. M. 1982. A History of Structures in the Nineteenth Century,
Cambridge University Press.
CRAPO H. 1979. Structural Rigidity. Structural Topology, 1, 26-45.
CREMONA L. 1890. Graphical Statics (English Translation), Oxford University
Press.
CULMANN C. 1875, Die graphische Statik. (2., neubearbeitete Auflage) Verlag
von Meyer & Zeller.
GASS S. 1990. Experimente. Institut fr leichte Flchentragwerke (IL) No. 25,
1.1-1.8.
GREENWOLD S. and ALLEN E. 2003. Active Statics. Available from:
http://acg.media.mit.edu/people/simong/statics/data/index.html.
KILIAN, A. 2004. Linking digital hanging chain models to fabrication.
AIA/ACADIA 23 Proc. 110-125.
KOTNIK T. 2010. Das Experiment als Entwurfsmethodik: Zur Mglichkeit der
Integration naturwissenschaftlichen Arbeitens in der Architektur, in
Moravansky, A. & Kirchengast, A. (eds.): Experiments in Architecture, J owis,
in press.
MALCOLM C. W. 1914. A Text book on Graphic Statics. Myron C. Clark
Publishing Co.
MAURER B., AND RAMM E. 1998, Karl Culmann und die graphische Statik. Verlag
fr Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft und der Technik.
MAXWELL J . C. 1864. On Reciprocal Figures and Diagrams of Forces.
Philosophical Magazine 4, 250-261.
MICHELETTI A. 2008. On Generalized Reciprocal Diagrams for Self-Stressed
Frameworks. International Journal of Space Structures 23 (3), 153-166.
MUTTONI, A. 2004. L'art des structures: Une introduction au fonctionnement des
structures en architecture. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
POTTMANN H., LIU Y., WALLNER J ., BOBENKO A., AND WANG W. 2007.
Geometry of multi-layer freeform structures for architecture. ACM Trans.
Graphics, 26/3, Proc. SIGGRAPH.
POTTMANN H., SCHIFTNER A., BO P., SCHMIEDHOFER H., WANG W., BALDASSINI
Geometry of Structural Form
N., AND WALLNER J . 2008. Freeform surfaces from single curved panels. ACM
Trans. Graphics, 27/3, Proc. SIGGRAPH.
REISER J . 2006. Atlas of Novel Tectonics. Princteon Architectual Press.
SASAKI M. 2007. Morphogenesis of Flux Structure. AA Publications, 101-109.
SCHOBER H. 2002. Geometrie-Prinzipien fr wirtschaftliche und effiziente
Schalentragwerke. Bautechnik (1), 1624.
SCHWARTZ J . 2009. Tragwerksentwurf I, Skript zur Vorlesung, ETH Zrich.
SHELDEN D. R. 2002. Digital surface representation and the constructability of
Gehry's architecture. PhD thesis, MIT Cambridge. 119-201.
TESSMANN O. 2008. Collaborative Design Procedures for Architects and
Engineers. PhD thesis, Universitt Kassel.
WOLFE W. S. 1921. Graphical Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

























Authors address:

Lorenz Lachauer ([email protected])
ETH Zrich, Professur fr Tragwerksentwurf, HIL E 43.2
Wolfgang-Pauli-Str.15 8093 Zrich, Switzerland

Toni Kotnik ([email protected])
ETH Zrich, Professur fr Tragwerksentwurf, HIL E 43.2
Wolfgang-Pauli-Str.15 8093 Zrich, Switzerland