0% found this document useful (0 votes)
3 views21 pages

Ijac20075403 Content

The paper explores the integration of parametric design and structural optimization to enhance collaboration between architects and structural engineers during early design stages. It emphasizes the need for software tools that facilitate real-time feedback and decision support, allowing for informed design alterations. The research highlights the benefits of concurrent design processes and the importance of shared goals and communication between disciplines to improve design outcomes.

Uploaded by

arditresulaj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
3 views21 pages

Ijac20075403 Content

The paper explores the integration of parametric design and structural optimization to enhance collaboration between architects and structural engineers during early design stages. It emphasizes the need for software tools that facilitate real-time feedback and decision support, allowing for informed design alterations. The research highlights the benefits of concurrent design processes and the importance of shared goals and communication between disciplines to improve design outcomes.

Uploaded by

arditresulaj
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 21

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/30870868

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration

Article in International Journal of Architectural Computing · December 2007


DOI: 10.1260/147807707783600780 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
118 5,191

6 authors, including:

Dominik Holzer Mark Burry


University of Melbourne University of Melbourne
26 PUBLICATIONS 534 CITATIONS 120 PUBLICATIONS 1,099 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dominik Holzer on 05 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 625

Parametric Design
and Structural
Optimisation
for Early Design
Exploration
Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and
Mark Burry

international journal of architectural computing issue 04, volume 05 625


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 626

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation


for Early Design Exploration
Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry

The investigation presented in this paper focuses on


the following questions: How can engineering and
architectural expertise, assisted by a process of digital
optimisation, promote structural awareness regarding
design alterations in the conceptual design stages? Can
building geometry be set up computationally to render
it sensitive to structural input? Which software tools
are required to foster this interaction and what kind
of decision support is needed to allow both architects
and structural engineers to interact concurrently in
this optimisation process? The authors of this paper
form a team of researchers and practitioners from
architectural and structural engineering background
who combine their efforts to address the issue of
interconnecting design intelligence across disciplines
and advancing revised work methodologies in practice
assisted by academic research.The research has shown
that an integrated transfer of design information
between architectural and structural designers in the
early stages is beneficial to the collaboration if experts
from both professions agree on common goals and
define suitability rules that guide optimisation
processes from the very beginning.To enable this,
software tools are required that provide ad hoc
decision support to create a wider array of informed
design alternatives from which to choose.

626
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 627

1. INTRODUCTION: SOFTWARE TOOLS FOR


ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
“Removing engineering and engineers from the design process has gradually
separated architecture from the general technological knowledge of
culture.” [1]
In recent years architects have adopted digital software tools for
generating design in an unprecedented manner, but they seem to have
stopped short of exploring the effects of the novel design possibilities
offered by the digital beyond the boundaries of their own profession.The
bigger picture, which is seldom addressed, is the interconnection of
architectural design with building-performance related issues and the
associated sharing of design intelligence across the AEC industry
(architecture, engineering and construction).
Similar to architecture, digital software tools have revolutionised the
work methodology structural engineers are applying in everyday practice. In
this context, Coenders and Wagemans [2] argue that software tools for
structural design and structural analysis/optimisation should be seen as
separate entities.The way they are being applied in practice, in particular for
complex design processes, displays different characteristics.Whilst software
tools for structural analysis and optimisation are aiming at deriving precise
data in a convergent process, computational structural design tools are used
in a more divergent process where precise answers are not required as
much as indicators about the effect of changes. Maintaining sufficient space
to manoeuvre and to accommodate changes in an informed manner is
highly relevant to allow creative processes to unfold in the early design
stages.Traditional engineering methods would see the structural optimisation
occur after the structural design is finalised; in this sense the divergent and
convergent processes occur as consecutive steps. Due to increased
automation capabilities assisted by computational means and the speed with
which results can be generated, structural engineers can now inform their
design process through optimisation results that can be generated in parallel
with structural design.The software tools that enable the engineers to do
this take over parts of activities such as calculus and code-checking (which
are by nature of convergent character) whilst providing the kind of feedback
needed for divergent design exploration in the conceptual design phase.
How can architects profit from the newly-found possibilities offered to
their design partners? Software tools used by architects for design and
drafting are often limited to geometry generation whilst the structural
engineers’ analysis and optimisation software is dedicated to specific
structural tasks. In both cases, these tools have little to no intrinsic capability
for interfacing design intelligence across disciplines. [3, 4]. In a recent report
on integrated practice, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) identifies
that the feedback from specialists to the designers in the AEC industry
occurs only at “discrete points with varying frequency” [5] which causes

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 627
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 628

delays and discontinuities in the workflow and consequently is responsible


for coordination errors and the necessity for rework. Seen in a historical
context, the progressive specialisation within their individual domains has led
to a growing gap in the understanding between architects and structural
engineers [6].Although working on common projects, architects and
structural engineers are inherently concerned with different theories and
objectives, using different measures and tools to reach their goal [6].
This paper tests novel ways of linking architectural design more closely
to structural optimisation by streamlining the connection between
geometry generation, structural analysis and optimization through the use of
parametric design and custom-developed scripts.The interface is established
through an informed manipulation of building geometry at a stage where
the level of design progress allows for versioning and the inclusion of
alterations without requiring a complete redraw.The tests are undertaken
in order to better understand the mechanisms in data transfer as well as
design communication between architectural and engineering design to
inform new design strategies for future projects.

2. ADDRESSING COLLABORATION CHALLENGES


The research presented here has been carried out in a collaborative effort
as part of an Australian Federal Government funded research project
(Delivering Digital Architecture in Australia – DDAA) which is led by
researchers from the Spatial Information Architecture Laboratory (SIAL) at
RMIT University in Melbourne, as well as members from Arup in Sydney and
Melbourne. SIAL has embedded researchers from an architectural and
computer science background at Arup who collaborate with their structural
engineers, drafters and IT experts, who themselves often have a proven
track record of working on innovative projects in the building sector at a
global level.The reason the project is called ‘Embedded Practice’ is that
there is a switch from the conventional focus on the research being
undertaken within the university at a distance from the end user. Rather,
both the research site and the postgraduate researcher is embedded within
the practice itself.The project differs from a ‘professional doctorate’ in that
the postgraduate (in this case the lead author of this paper) is not an
employee of the company in which he or she is embedded.
This collaboration has been conceived as a means of consolidating and
extending both the company’s (Arup’s) knowledge base and the expertise of
members from the university community (SIAL) on early digitally mediated
design projects, where structural and façade engineering input requires
significant ad hoc feedback from design optimisation. Prior to the specific
collaboration mentioned in this paper, the partners have engaged in
common research and they have worked on live projects where synergies
could be found in the collaboration between practitioners and academic
researchers, supported by computational means.The most challenging

628 Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 629

recent example of this was the ‘Watercube’ project (National Aquatics


Centre, Beijing), where the structural complexity and the short time
available for design and documentation both required automation of some
design and documentation processes. A substantial effort had also been
applied at Arup in the development of an analysis and optimisation software
for a complex stadium roof in the Ukraine linking parametric design to
structural optimisation.The experiences referred to above have served to
underline the need for a more generalised software tool to serve as
interface between geometry and structural performance in an iterative
design process, with a robust but flexible schema for bi-directional transport
of data between proprietary packages.
There were several other aspects of the drive toward more automation
that were of interest to Arup as industry partner in developing the DDAA
brief with SIAL. One aspect arose from experiences on gridshell and space-
frame structures where the complexity of information on the computer
monitor, either as CAD or analysis output, impeded rather than assisted the
structural design dialogue between various members of the design team.
DDAA therefore includes a module for studying cross-discipline
communication methods, including the prospect of increased use of physical
models to highlight structural actions.
Two goals were defined by the collaborative team:The first was to
provide designers with close-to-real-time structural feedback in the design
process for decision support.The second was to integrate engineering
intelligence in the morphological generation of geometry in a concurrent,
transdisciplinary fashion rather than using it to facilitate the construction of
a pre-given idea.This was done by investigating heuristic strategies for both
professions to examine the interconnectiveness of their design methods and
the exchange of data in a concurrent design process.The authors combine
the use of ready-made applications for parametric design and engineering
analysis with a custom-developed optimisation and code-checking software
to foster the collaborative process. By doing so, challenges and potentialities
to the modus operandi of architects and engineers arise and current models
of interaction between the two professions are scrutinised. Prior to
engaging in project work, the authors have undertaken an in-depth literature
review of the effect of computational sponsorship of the architectural and
structural design process with a particular focus on parametrically defined
geometry models. In addition to this, the authors are well advanced in the
use of parametric software tools, which they have successfully applied on
several projects in research and practice.

3. BACKGROUND RESEARCH
By investigating components of design problems, Lawson asserts: “since
design problems defy comprehensive description and offer an inexhaustible
number of solutions the design process cannot have a finite identifiable

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 629
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 630

end” [7]. Designing cannot be understood as a linear activity for problem


solving, but as a solution-orientated process where expert input is required
for identifying and evaluating complex design issues. Lawson argues that in
the conceptual design process, designers must be capable of keeping many
things in mind at the same time for rapid decision making [8].When
bringing this notion of a rather non-deterministic design methodology into
perspective with common design software for geometry generation and
structural optimisation the question arises if the tools available to us are
appropriate for this endeavor.
Over the past 20 years advances have been made in both academic
research and practice, to develop and advance design software for
connecting implicit geometrical relations through declared parameters [9].
Design through declared parameters lends itself as a method which allows
designers to structure their models to include variables for geometrical
definition and behaviour. In a parametrically defined model, relations
between individual design components can be defined and their variables
can be altered through a set of rules and constraints which permit intuitive
manipulation without losing control over design principles.The designer’s
grip on the production process can be fostered through this as well as
through data-output from parametric software tools which directly link to
manufacturing facilities.The definition of 3D computer geometry as flexible
design templates for the creation of alternative design solutions through
parametric design is an effective method for opening up a dynamic
information flow between various members of an architectural project from
the conceptual phase to production [10, 11].
Simple parametric capabilities have been built in design and drafting
software such as Archicad™, Revit™ and Vectorworks™, while more
advanced parametric applications such as CATIA™/Digital Project™ and
Generative Components™ have found their way into leading architectural
schools and practices for solving design problems of high complexity.They
are used to assist form-finding as well as drafting, manufacturing and even
project management processes. Glymph et al., who are counted among
some of the pioneers in the use of parametric software on building projects
with Gehry Technologies, describe an approach to organising design where
designers structure their drawings through behaviour-implicit information,
therefore incorporating a design intention rather than a fixed shape [12].
When using design through declared parameters, rules, goals and constraints
get defined, assisting a process which enables the designer to generate a
variety of design solutions [12]. Designing with the use of parametric values
defines a way of structuring geometrical entities through associative
variables, relations and dependencies. A design for something, however, is
not the outcome but the means to its end. “An object that has been
designed reflects deliberate decision-making, not a serendipitous
occurrence” [10]. Burry, who is applying parametric design strategies at
Gaudí’s Sagrada Família Church in Barcelona, writes that through the use of

630 Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 631

parametric methods architectural design can be kept in a fluid state,


allowing for intuitive alterations. It can be kept in balance through a set of
rules and constraints which allow for incorporating references from any
internal or external source of data. Multiple solutions can be analysed and
selected according to the preference of those involved in the design
process.
In recent years, a number of designers and design researchers have
investigated the possibility of linking parametric design with engineering
analysis and optimisation processes to allow for a concurrent work
methodology across disciplines.The work on the ‘parametric bridge’ [13]
illustrates how a predefined set of geometrical constraints can be the driver
for parametric alterations for iterative shape optimisation. In the bridge
project, results from the built-in structural analysis package of the
parametric software were compared with the analysis software used by the
engineers working on the project.Target values were used to drive the
shape-optimisation of the bridge through a dedicated interface (Product
Engineering Optimiser™).
Optimisation software can address a variety of tasks depending on
specific project requirements and the design’s overall progress. As described
in Structural Systems Optimisation Techniques for the Building Industry
[14], a distinction is required for several structural optimisation tasks
between size (member sizes & cross sections), shape (geometry & size of a
fixed topology), topology (for a structural system layout) and functional
layout optimisation. In this context, the application of the stochastic shape
optimisation software EifForm™ with the parametric software Custom
Objects™ has shown that, by combining the two, a rich array of solutions
can be found for complex design problems and unexpected structural
solutions can be generated. [15] The upgrade of the role of the computer
from being a design assistant to being a design collaborator is possible
through a tight link between associative geometry, structural performance
evaluation and structural optimisation.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A live project has been selected to allow the authors with direct exposure
to an actual design problem with a high level of complexity.The project
(a stadium roof structure; Cox Group as architects, Arup as structural
engineers) was in an advanced stage of schematic design at the
commencement of the authors’ involvement, principally the lead author
who, as a qualified architect, was embedded within an engineering practice
(Arup, Sydney Australia).Working in this conceptual design stage facilitated
design input during design development of the project to test structural
performance for a variety of alterations to the geometry.The authors were
confronted with several unresolved design aspects which required
optimisation whilst bearing in mind structural stability, geometrical

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 631
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 632

 Figures 1, 2. Physical model of one


stadium roof-shell and three shells
attached to each other.

constraints of site limits, sight-lines to the stadium-pitch and aesthetic


considerations of the architects.The last included inter alia a lightweight
appearance for the stadium roof – in particular at the cantilever, a dynamic
integration of gridshell elements into the overall curvature of the stadium
roof, and the spacing of the underlying triangulation for the gridshells. In
order to give the shells a smoother appearance, the maximum size of any
edge of a triangle was limited to 6 meters.
The immediate aim of the authors was to optimise the shape of the roof
structure to make it aesthetically pleasing, structurally optimised and as
visually lightweight as possible. In this phase of design-development, a range
of major design changes occurred which had to be accommodated in the
parametric geometry model schema.The long term aim was to gain insight
into the process of negotiating geometrical alterations with structural
behavior and to then propose a framework for both architects and
structural engineers to communicate their design in a more streamlined
fashion.The authors analysed the individual steps that were required for
communicating design intent, establishing rules for geometry alterations,
setting up a parametric model, exporting geometrical information from that
model to the structural analysis program, setting up load cases and carrying
out structural member-optimisation.Ways to most clearly present the
information resulting from the structural optimisation to the whole design
team for decision support were also investigated. In addition, simple physical
working models of parts of the structure were produced to provide a
haptic interface beyond the digital representation on the computer monitor.
Figure 1 and 2 show shell elements of the roof with the subdivision in
triangular facets which were cut from flat cardboard sheets.
The project team at Arup, consisting of structural engineers and design
documenters expressed their interest in being able to create variations in
the geometry of the project and to run structural analysis and code-
checking to determine the feasibility of the project given various load
distributions, the overall tonnage and the member sizes required. In order
to address these issues, a precise definition of the type of analysis required
was communicated amongst the team of architects and engineers in the
beginning. Suitability rules were defined by all involved, which related
architectural and aesthetic considerations to structural performance by
setting up design variables in direct relation to parts of the geometry which

632 Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 633

had a strong influence on structural behavior. In order to narrow down the


extent of geometry alterations to an acceptable margin for structural
analysis, boundaries were defined within those rules to determine the range
of changes in the length to height ratio for the main curvature of the roof
as well as the individual curvature of the shells at their supports at the
outer stadium boundary, the highpoint of the tribunes (the groynes) and the
cantilever.This basic configuration required simultaneous input from both
architects as well as structural engineers.

5. STADIUM ROOF PROJECT


Once the principles for the relation between the flexible design parameters
and the structural optimisation requirements had been defined, the authors
created a flexible 3D model in the parametric design software CATIA which
allowed for varying the main stadium roof sweep and the sweep of the
individual shells of the stadium roof through simple numeric input of a
curvature ratio.The range of change for the overall sweep was defined by
the ‘high-ball line’ – a minimum height for the roof in accordance to the
field of vision of the spectators towards the pitch – and by structural
considerations where a sweep of approximately 1:15 (height to length) was
desired. In addition to these criteria, the architects (COX Architects)
wanted a strong articulation of the individual shells comprising the stadium
geometry. Figure 3 shows the guiding curves of both the long and short
edge of the stadium roof with the boundary curves of the shells attached.
All curvatures are governed by parametric variables.The figure displays
three variations for the overall curvature with a height to length ratio of
1:12, 1: 18, and 1:24.
We applied a custom developed script running from within CATIA to
create a lattice representing the centre-line of steel members for subdividing
the individual shells of the stadium roof. Several options for the density and
rotation of the grid could be generated and they updated the structural
layout automatically once the boundary curves of the shells were altered.
Results from the flexible model were exported from CATIA™ (via
Rhino3D™) to the structural analysis packages GSA™ and Strand™ in dxf
format. Geometry updates were generated and read into GSA/Strand™
within a timeframe of 5-10 minutes. Figure 4 displays the elevation of 8
variations for parts of the stadium as taken from CATIA™ into Rhino3D™.
The different variations for the overall curvature and the individual shells
can be recognized.The large elevation on top shows an overlay between the
architect’s original model and one approximation from the parametric file.

 Figure 3. Parametric variations in


roof curvature definitions.

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 633
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 634

 Figure 4. Elevation of variations of


the stadium grid.

Load-cases and restraints were transferred from the basic GSA/Strand™


setup without requiring manual input as long as the number and logical
definition of nodes and elements did not change.The structural engineers
were then able to run a code-checking application (the ‘optimiser’) over the
model. Once the optimisation was completed, the software displayed
member performance, associated with varying colours which directly
corresponded to stresses in those members. Figure 5 shows an isometric
view of the stadium roof with a (grayscale) overlay of varying stress
distributions.This diagram confirms the assumption by the structural
engineers that the structure is too complex to be analysed ‘by hand’ as the
distribution of stresses over the whole roof is highly irregular.

Element list: all not P1  Figure 5. Stadium roof stress


Scale: 1:552.7
Env_iter= 18 % Total distribution diagram.
Utilisation to BS5950-20
0.8971
0.7689
0.6408
0.5126
0.3845
0.2563
0.1282
0.0

The optimiser is a custom-developed application that has been


developed within Arup. In contrast to the traditional engineering method of
deriving member sizes for stressed elements from tables and charts, it
allows iterative evaluation of the most appropriate member size of each
structural element individually.The process is not one of optimisation in the
true sense – its intelligence is limited to finding better solutions only for
one element of a group at a time without understanding the consequences
of change to the neighbouring elements. Instead the optimiser works on the
very simple principle of constraint satisfaction which carries out design

634 Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 635

strength checks for each member in a group. One constraint is active each
time while a series of checks is being carried out. Other methods would be
more rigorous but they cannot be applied for strength analysis as
constraints cannot be defined properly (they would work for displacement,
buckling or frequency analysis).The setup of any routine for the optimiser is
highly input-sensitive depending on a suitable initial choice of a set of
section sizes.The significance of this is explained below. It requires expert
input as one can otherwise easily get stuck in local minima.The main
challenge consists of optimising the section-sizes of a large array of
members individually under different loading combinations while aiming at a
global optimum for reducing the tonnage and maintaining structural stability.
Prior to commencement of the optimisation process, a limited set of
section sizes for specific sub-groups of the structure was chosen by the
engineers according to production constraints.The grouping occurred
according to design variables which dealt with effective length of the steel
members, their purpose in the structure, the architect’s requirements and
the aim to derive a nicely graded set of member-sizes.This resulted in the
definition of five groups of members:The groynes, the groyne-ties, the shells,
the front edge and the back edge. After initially selecting the smallest
section for each group of members to be optimised, the results were
compared to the requirements of the design codes applicable to the
project. If all the constraints were satisfied the optimisation was complete, if
not, the iterative process resizes those members which did not satisfy the
set criteria either up or down. Member size increments were limited to one
size increment per iteration. All results were communicated to an ‘MS
Access™’ database via an application programming interface that allowed
the engineers to read information in and out of the structural optimisation
software directly from their custom software. Results from the optimisation
process were obtained within a timeframe of approximately 30 minutes.This
assisted the research team in their effort to narrow the gap between
evaluating results and proposing changes for updating the parametric
geometry. Figure 6 displays a close-up of the corner-shell of the roof
structure after optimisation. Output from the ‘optimiser’ shows the varying
thickness of the grid-members for the roof as part of their cross-section
group.The steel members within the shell have the same outer diameter for
construction purposes, but the different strength-requirements need to be
picked up in varying wall-thicknesses of the hollow steel sections.
The structural engineers decided to first run tests to find the optimal
shape for the arches and then to subsequently focus on the curvature in the
individual shells. Once this was done, the structural engineers focused their
investigation on varying the curvature of the shells for the arch which
displayed the best results.
Observations of the results of the geometry variations led to the
proposal of a new (smallest) member size for one of the groups (shells)

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 635
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 636

 Figure 6. Detail of roof with


optimized member sizes.

which initially did not seem achievable.The structural engineers could see
that almost 90% of the members in the group were under-utilised. Detailed
information about the required diameter and length of steel members was
generated by the optimiser and could then be put out as an MS Excel™
spreadsheet and visualised in graphic tables as a by-product of the
optimisation process as seen in Figures 7 and 8.The information at hand
provided essential decision support for determining the direction in which
to alter the curvature sweeps of the stadium. Informed by the graphs,
coarse resolutions for the stadium roof geometry were derived initially and
then refined over time.

 Figures 7, 8. Graphs displaying


member-size groups and required
steel-member length.

636 Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 637

6. CRITICAL ANALYSIS
During the first three months of the development and testing of the
parametric model, the design team was logging all ongoing changes in the
stadium geometry. In this stage, a series of design parameters which were
assumed fixed, had to be altered and consequently the flexible model had
to be updated constantly.These changes were required due to aesthetic,
convergent, planning, or financial considerations and included inter alia a
revision of the main structural grid of the stadium, an alteration in the
position of the main roof supports and the variation of the extent of the
roof cantilever towards the pitch. Planning considerations were addressed
by investigating the ‘best fit’ of the parametric stadium model to the given
site-boundaries and the ‘high-ball-line’ being the minimum required field of
vision to a ball in play. In most cases, the changes could be accommodated
in the CATIA™ model, which led to a setup that was increasingly built on
dependencies. At the same time the complexity of these associative
dependencies increased, which had its effect on the hierarchical organisation
of design parameters within the CATIA™ file. As the main geometry of the
stadium was based on a rectangular grid and the arrangement of the roof-
support at the outside boundary of the stadium was based on a circular
array, some variations of the curvature led to complex intersections.
This required the introduction of transfer elements which had to be
accommodated in the parametric model retrospectively. For some variations
of the grid and shell curvature, the numerical definitions of the parameters
would not allow a possible solution to be rendered.This occurred when
design elements were over constrained by two or more design criteria.
The design team assessed that the intelligence derived from analysing
the decision making process which led to the alterations of the conceptual
geometry template, was more important than the geometrical ‘status’ of the
parametric model. As illustrated in Figure 9, one particular observation
made by the authors was that instead of an expected decrease of
indeterminate factors in the design, the number of variable design factors
increased during the three month design development. Because of this fact,
the necessity to scrutinise the design intent had become particularly evident,
which consequently assisted in developing the structural system in more
detail.This exemplifies that in the given case, ‘detailing’ in a parametric
context is neither a question of scale nor dependent on fixed parameters,
but rather depends on design logic and the correct parametric relations.
The fact that many numerical definitions of the stadium geometry were
unknown did not raise concerns as long as the parametric template could
accommodate them and meet the requirements of the design intent.
In addition to this, the structural engineers pointed out that the analysis
they required as decision support for understanding the structural behavior
did not have to be taken from the final ‘correct’ model, but it could be
generated from approximated parametric templates. As much as the

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 637
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 638

 Figure 9. Diagram comparing the


amount of known design factors with
possibility to work with geometrical information which was not 100%
the understanding of design intent.
accurate did not cause major concern to the structural engineers, it did
pose problems to the design documenters in the industry partner’s practice.
The authors have therefore developed a custom script that provides the
draftspeople at Arup with a software tool for mapping the analysis-
geometry onto the models they were producing for design documentation
which were in turn to be passed on to the steel manufacturer via a database.
By doing so, the script allows the documenters to define a tolerance within
the range of which the script will compare the precise positioning of nodes
in the documentation file with geometry coming from the analysis-geometry,
and so to subsequently map between them. In order to avoid errors which
might occur during the comparison, the process includes support for visual
checking by colour-coding of results in the 3D documentation environment.
As much as the increased shift from fixed numerical coordinates to a more
associative geometry allowed the design team to gain a better understanding
of the ‘design intent’, it proved a difficult task to accommodate changes in
the parameter schema setup ‘on the fly’, in particular when tight deadlines
for submission were involved.
At one point in the setup of the parametric model schema, changes
required by the design team were of such a disruptive nature that the
parametric model schema could not cope with them.The attempt to

638 Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 639

 Figure 10. Display of the broken


model.

introduce variations of the values of parameters sitting on a high level in the


design hierarchy caused dependent ‘child’ parameters to lose their logical
associations. As shown in Figure 10, the 3d model consequently fell apart
and parametric integrity could not be re-established in the original model.
Lessons learned from this experience led to the insight that the setup of
one all-encompassing parametric model schema, capable of accommodating
any kind of changes to the geometrical setup of a project is not advisable in
the conceptual design stage. As the definition of alterable parameters
responds to a clearly defined optimisation process, major changes are likely
to interfere with the logical structure of the parametric model.The
alternative approach is the setup of not one, but several ‘lighter’ parametric
models that each can each address a particular aspect of the performance
optimisation being sought in any given project.The generation of these
models is dependent on the standard of knowledge about fixed or
changeable design constraints according to the progress within the design
stages and the corresponding performance requirements. In the case of the
stadium roof project, a parametric model schema was built up from scratch
to provide more robust test-beds for targeted optimisation of the roof
curvatures without any changes to the stadium-grid or the spacing between
the main structural elements.
In regard to increasing the transdisciplinary workflow and the aim for
real-time feedback, the link between parametric software (CATIA™) and
the structural analysis package GSA™ via dxf was inappropriate for
facilitating automation in data transfer and hence real time interaction
between architects and engineers. Direct output of geometrical information
from the parametric model via a custom script offered a better alternative
and has been facilitated by the authors through direct binary data transfer
from CATIA™ to GSA™.The current duration of the optimisation process
of approximately 30 minutes is dependent on the complexity of the project
and on computational processing speed.With decreasing processing times
this obstacle can be overcome in the near future.

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 639
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 640

7. CONCLUSIONS
By linking parametric design to structural analysis and optimisation,
architects and structural engineers can explore design in the conceptual
design phase through informed geometry alterations.The setup of any such
flexible work environment requires a priori input from experts of both
professions to define suitability rules that guide the process towards a
specific performance goal.The rate of success depends on the precise
definition of quantifiable design variables across disciplines and the
awareness of the extent of variations being sought.The implementation of
this method and the type of parameters chosen are dependent on the
progress of the project according to the design stages. In the case
presented, it is neither aimed at finding an initial shape for the project, nor
for optimising the design for manufacturing and construction.The link
between parametric design and structural optimisation on the stadium
project has been applied in an advanced stage of conceptual design where
variations of a proposed design solution were sought by the team.
From an architect’s perspective, the immediate visualisation of structural
feedback provided by the structural engineers proved valuable to
understanding the effects of changes which might otherwise only be driven
by aesthetic considerations. In this context, immediacy and clarity of
information-display proved to be a decisive factor in facilitating shared
authorship.The opportunity of visualising and distributing results from
structural optimisation in close-to-real-time enabled the transdisciplinary
team to evaluate options and propose changes in a highly informed manner.
The more quickly results were communicated across a team, the better the
information flow and the collaborative capabilities.The graphic output of the
optimisation results gave a clear impression not only of the intelligence the
structural engineers are deriving from it, but also allowed the architects to
get insight into the working methodology of the engineers.
Tests on the stadium project have shown that if a project team relies
on automation routines within a project, members of the team require
access to information at any point in the design process for decision support
to guide the optimisation process and to propose alternative design
solutions.The automation routines run in the background as silent
partners whilst open access to the information helps avoid black-box
scenarios.The application of parametric variation was not only done to
benefit the structure, but it was actually necessary due to the complexity
of the structure at hand. Without the iterative experimentation, it would
have been impossible even for the experienced structural engineers to
understand the nature of the stress-distribution in the structure and to
consequently get a feeling for its behaviour.
The experience gained in the stadium project has served to underline
the need and definition for a more generalised software tool to act as a
data manager in an iterative design process, with a robust but flexible

640 Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 641

schema for transport of data between proprietary packages.The data


manager would require package-specific plug-ins, which could interface with
the target package through API’s (Application Programming Interfaces).The
data manager would also have a degree of ‘intelligence’, to allow some
minor manipulations to the data in transit between packages – particularly
user-specified spreadsheet-type optimisation rules.These, and the data itself,
would equally well apply to other aspects of design optimisation beyond
structural or aesthetic concerns.The authors propose to make the schema
for data transport compatible with the common standard of Industry
Foundation Classes (IFC), given the recent uptake internationally in IFC as a
CAD-CAD (and to a limited degree CAD-analysis) vehicle.

8. FUTURE RESEARCH
The authors are currently extending their investigations based on the
findings described in this paper. Particular attention is being given to the
development of a framework for hosting the data manager as described
above and a corresponding data-storing mechanism to improve integration
and partly automate the processes for linking flexible geometry to building
performance.
Part of our ongoing research is the creation of a data manager for
closing the information loop between the geometry update and building-
performance optimisation.The idea of an intelligent feedback loop guided
through suitability rules assisted by the storage of geometrical and non-
geometrical information in a database will be central to the manager.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Yamin Tengono
from SIAL as well as Steve Downing, and Mark Arkinstall from Arup in the
conception of this paper and their contributions to the design team.

References
1. Robbin,T. Engineering a new Architecture, Yale University Press, New Haven and
London, 1996.
2. Coenders, J.L. and Wagemans, L.A.G. The Next Step in Modelling for Structural
Design: Structural Design Tools [Proceedings of the international symposium on
shell and spatial structures; theory, technique, valuation, maintenance] Madrid,
2005, 85-92.
3. Chaszar, A. Bridging the Gap with Collaborative Design Programs, Architectural
Design, vol 73, no 5,Wiley-Academy, 2003, 112-18.
4. Malkawi, A.M. Performance Simulation: Research and Tools, Performative
Architecture, Spon press New York, 2004.
5. Bedrick, J.I. and Rinella,T.O. Technology, process, improvement, and culture change,
AIA Report on integrated practice; 2006, Retrieved 11.01.2007 from URL:
www.aia.org/SiteObjects/files/8_Bedrick%20Rinella.pdf
6. Peters,T. F. Architectural and engineering design: two forms of technological thought on
the borderline between empiricism and science, Bridging the Gap: Rethinking the

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 641
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 642

Relationship of Architect and Engineer,Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991,


23-35.
7. Lawson, B. How Designers Think,The design process demystified. Oxford,
Architectural Press, Elsevier, 2006, 123.
8. Lawson, B. Oracles, Draughtsmen, and Agents: the nature of knowledge and creativity
in design and the role of IT, Automation in Construction 14, 2005, 389.
9. Shah, J.J. and Mantyla, M. Parametric and Feature-based CAD/CAM: concepts,
techniques, and application, New York: John Wiley, 1995.
10. Burry, M.C. Paramorph: Anti-Accident Methodologies, Architectural Design issue on
‘Hypersurfaces 2’, Academy Editions, London, 1999.
11. Hensel, M. Towards Self-Organisational and Multiple-Performance Capacity in
Architecture,Techniques and Technologies in Morphogenetic Design, Architectural
Design vol 76, no 2,Wiley-Academy, London, 2006, 5-11.
12. Glymph, J., Shelden, D., Ceccato, C., Mussel, J., and Schober, H. A Parametric
Strategy for Freeform Glass Structures Using Quadrilateral Planar Facets,Thresholds
between Physical and Virtual [Proceedings of the 2002 Annual Conference of the
Association for Computer Aided Design In Architecture], Pomona (California),
2002, 303-321.
13. Maher, A. and Burry, M.C. The Parametric Bridge: Connecting Digital Design
Techniques in Architecture and Engineering Connecting, Crossroads of Digital
Discourse [Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference of the Association for
Computer Aided Design In Architecture] Indianapolis, 2003, 39-47.
14. Baldock R. Structural System Optimization Techniques for the Building Industry, Next
Generation - Intelligent Systems in Engineering, the 11th International Workshop
of the European Group for Intelligent Computing in Engineering (EG-ICE),
Weimar, 2004, 11-15.
15. Shea, K.,Aish, R., Gourtovaial, M. Towards Performance-Based Generative Design Tools,
Digital Design [21st eCAADe Conference Proceedings] Graz, 2003, 103-110.

642 Dominik Holzer, Richard Hough and Mark Burry


03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 643

Dominik Holzer and Mark Burry


Spatial Information Architecture
Laboratory (SIAL),
RMIT University
124 La Trobe Street, Building 9, Level 2,
Melbourne Vic 3000 Australia
[email protected], [email protected]

Richard Hough
Arup
201 Kent St., Level 10, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia
[email protected]

Parametric Design and Structural Optimisation for Early Design Exploration 643
03_Dominik 30/01/08 10:17 am Page 644

View publication stats

You might also like