Parametric Structural

Design and beyond

Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen
Coenders

international journal of architectural computing issue 03, volume 08 319

 Parametric Structural Design and beyond
Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders

Abstract
In order to directly make insightful which implications follow from
structural design changes and to be able to adapt a structural design
quickly to geometrical design changes made by the architect, the
structural engineer may embed a parametric and associative design
approach in the structural design process.This approach focuses on
parametric modelling and the development of parametric tools which
serve specific needs in the structural design process, allowing designers
for instance to quickly communicate and discuss alternatives or to
inform design team members of structural results of changing design
parameters.
The paper presents multiple projects within these categories of
parametric approaches.They are concentrated on design and analysis
with the goal of presenting practical examples of these approaches in
structural design which were integrated in the full design process in
order to benefit from the qualities of a multi-disciplinary parametric
and associative design process.

320
1. Introduction
Design of the built environment requires the collaboration of a team of
different roles and disciplines:The client, the architect, the structural
engineer, the MEP consultant, etc. However, most parametric and associative
design systems and research do not focus on a multi-disciplinary approach,
but mainly part of the architectural domain: the geometry. However a
parametric approach from the architectural perspective alone does not
serve the collaborative possibilities of a parametric and associative design
process.Working within a multi-disciplinary design team, the project can
benefit if the structural engineer adopts a structural parametric and
associative design approach that follows the general design intentions of the
project and that provides insight, shows possibilities and presents boundary
conditions which have to be taken into account by other members of the
design team.
This paper presents a number of research and development projects as
well as case studies of real buildings and structures, within Arup around the
globe which all exemplify the influence of structural parameters in the
design process.The experiences by the engineers and computational
designers will be discussed alongside some of the technical details of the
approaches.
The paper will be subdivided in two main components: design projects
which are based on parametric modelling and research and development
projects that employ and enhance the possibilities of parametric technology.
All projects made use of Bentley’s GenerativeComponents [1] and/or
McNeel’s Grasshopper plug-in for Rhinoceros [2] as parametric and
associative modelling system or as a base for custom tool development.

2. Structural Parametric Modelling

Over the past years, Arup has more and more experienced the need to
have full control over the complete design to improve the behaviour and
performance of the design by design variations and optimisation. Especially
in the case of adaptation of the structural design to the geometric
architectural design (usually with a complex geometry) the project and
designers can greatly benefit from parametric control. If construction
models and analysis model have to be remodelled manually, especially in
early stages of the design where the architectural design is usually liable to
many influential design changes, the parametric approach delivers further
benefits of easier change and exploration.The projects below show how
parametric modelling approaches are embedded in the structural design
process to quickly set up structural alternatives, generate construction
models and to reanalyse the structure.

Parametric Structural Design and beyond 321

 2.1. Competition entry for the Austrian Pavilion of the
EXPO2010
Viennese architects, SPAN and Zeytinoglu Architects designed a
geometrically complex surface model for the competition entry of the
Austrian Pavilion for the EXPO2010 in Shanghai, China. For the structural
engineers of Arup the main challenge was, next to proving a sound
structural concept, to convince the jury of the buildability of the project
within a limited timeframe and within a tight budget. Based on initial hand
sketches, the structural design was set up parametrically in
GenerativeComponents in a way that a number of key structural elements
could be analysed individually, but also were associated into an overall
parametric model that could be communicated with the architects, Figure 1.

The parametric model proofed its value in allowing for quick design ! Figure 1. Left:The parametric model
of the structural elements. Middle:The
updates when the geometric surface model was edited by the architects or
rendered structural model including
when structural alternatives had to be examined. For example for the
the profile sections. Right:The
design of a cantilevering truss, a parametric setup was essential in generating
architectural image render of the
quick construction and analysis models.The truss, with a height of 10m competition entry. Image (c) SPAN and
arranged for the 18m long cantilever at the south-west side of the building. Zeytinoglu Architects.
The complexity in the design of the truss was related to the bad soil
conditions, urging the designers to avoid tensile forces in the foundation. As
a result, the tuning of the downward counter loads from the first floor and
roof structure with the upward loading from the rotational moment of the
cantilever was matter of constantly changing the number and location of the
floor beams as well as their support locations which determined the floor
loads that were transferred to the backside of the truss.
Employing this parametric approach to model and analyse structural
elements based on structural parameters allowed for a quick setup of the
structural design and a proposed building sequence, Figure 2.The main
benefit however was that the parametric model could easily demonstrate
that a complex architectural model could be simplified to a fairly
straightforward structure, consisting of mainly standard elements which
could be easily assembled, convincing the jury of the buildability of the
project within the given boundary conditions.

322 Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders

! Figure 2.The proposed building
sequence of the main structural
elements of the Austrian Pavilion
" Figure 3. Geometry logic based on
four tori
2.2. Scheme Design for Coastal Canopies
The second project aimed to design a series of coastal canopies with a
complex geometry. Having considered typical structural systems for a series
of freeform canopies, the limitations (long spans, material constraints, tight
budget, ease of construction and specific architectural details) gave rise to a
single acceptable solution: a steel structure following a rationalised
approximation of the original geometry.Together with the architect a
system was set out in Grasshopper to interpret the architectural geometry
using simple geometrical surfaces, such as spheres and cones and settled
upon a system of interconnected tori, Figure 3.
Four patches of four tori would be connected tangentially together, all
meeting at a single point, forming the basis of the geometry of each canopy.
These tori were generated parametrically so that their base radii, their
Parametric Structural Design and beyond 323
 inclinations and translations relative to global coordinates could all be
controlled based on parameters.The idea being that the engineer would
define the rule-set and the architect would determine which geometry they
preferred based on the rules was agreed upon.
The base geometry permitted the development of a parametrically
defined structural grid upon the surfaces of the tori, so that the maximum
length of any element could be fixed.This created structural elements based
on arc geometry, with much repetition in the structural nodes and
elements, with only a handful of different node types per canopy, creating a
cost-effective solution, Figure 4. Considering that there were upwards of
2000 elements per canopy, this would facilitate prefabrication of the steel
arc members.
Additionally, the base geometry has been used to generate the cladding
panelisation system, which inherits the repetitious quality of the toroidal
geometry.This creates a set of panel types that only vary where drainage is

# Figure 4. Arc based structural grid

system for one of the canopies

required.These panels also vary at the perimeter of the surfaces where the
thickness between the top of bottom cladding surfaces taper to give the
illusion of a very slender volume.
The final geometry is that of the tori with the original architectural
perimeter (in plan) slicing through the base geometry giving the edges a
fluid “random” flow, thus presenting to the naked eye what appears to be a
freeform surface, but is in fact a highly rationalised surface.

324 Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders

 2.3. NSP Arnhem transfer hall
The NSP Arnhem transfer hall project, designed by UNStudio includes a
large freeform concrete shell with a complex geometry, Figure 5.The
geometry of the shell has been defined by the architect in Rhinoceros as
two free form surfaces, consisting of NURBS surfaces. However, the
architectural geometry was not directly usable for structural analysis , since
it only comprised geometrical surfaces and for engineering purposes an
analysis model was required.

" Figure 5.The NSP

Arnhem transfer hall.
Image (c) UNStudio

Since Rhinoceros’ meshing tools did not provide the opportunity to

generate a centre or offset mesh following the demands of the structural
engineering team and to directly transfer the mesh data to a FEM software
application, a toolbox for the modelling of complex concrete shells from
free form surfaces has been developed by the Arup team.The custom
developed Grasshopper plug-in supported the engineers in generating FEM
models which allowed for the analysis of the design.
The workflow of the toolbox asks for single surfaces on which mesh
points and face edges are tensioned based on user input, such as the
number of elements in U- and V-direction of the surface. Subsequently, the
user can for instance pull the vertices to a surfaces edge or any other
location on the surface or add or delete vertices and point connections,
Figure 6.

Parametric Structural Design and beyond 325

 Finally, the generated mesh geometry can be exported to the FE analysis ! Figure 6. Left:The original two
software application Infograph [3] via the toolbox’ interoperability interface, surfaces from the architect. Middle:
Figure 7. As such, the toolbox provides for the connection between the The meshes modelled on the surfaces.
analytical power of the FE analysis software application and the modelling Right: Generation of a centre mesh
from the two meshes constrained to
capabilities of Rhinoceros.
the original surfaces.

! Figure 7. Screenshot from the FEM

2.4.The Kurilpa tensegrity bridge analysis software with the centre mesh
of the NSP Arnhem transfer hall
Another project which has been based on a parametric and associative
modelling approach is the Kurilpa tensegrity bridge in Brisbane, Australia.
The competition design brief called for an architecturally striking river
crossing to link Brisbane’s central business district with the newly developed
arts and cultural precinct on the city’s South Bank and a regenerated and
rapidly growing West End.The concept of the design, a multi-mast, cable-stay
structure, based on the principles of tensegrity has resulted in a bridge that

326 Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders


! Figure 8. A picture of the Kurilpa
tensegrity bridge, taken from the
Bicentennial bikeway
is both lightweight and incredibly strong. In dimensions the bridge is 470m
long with a main span of 120m and features two large viewing and
relaxation platforms, two rest areas, and a continuous all-weather canopy
for the entire length of the bridge, Figure 8.
During the design process various tasks have been performed
simultaneously.The use of GenerativeComponents provided the ability to
start modelling the complex tensegrity superstructure, even whilst the
important bridge centreline geometry was still being finalised.This allowed a
compression of the critical path, by enabling simultaneously working on
linked design tasks, Figure 9.
Different challenges appeared during the design process, such as the site
geometry, existing structure and the complex sculptural tensegrity
superstructure. Bentley’s MX [4] design package has been used to model
site geometry, including the horizontal and vertical alignments, while
balancing with functional requirements and property boundaries. After the
site geometry was finalised it was imported into GenerativeComponents.
Using the software’s flexible, associative modelling technology, key set-out
points from the final MX centreline drove the model of the superstructure
geometry that had been prepared with project specific components along
the centreline driven by those key points.These components had built in
‘solvers’ to meet the design criteria.The final geometry was the resultant of
the relationships between the components and the allowed clearances.The
geometrical model was subsequently imported from
GenerativeComponents into analysis software for structural analysis and
optimisation. Bentley’s extraction technology has been used to complete the
pre-assembled Bentley Triforma model with documentation and steelwork
drawings.The final 3D model has also been used to create a 4D model in
Navisworks [5].
Parametric Structural Design and beyond 327
 ! Figure 9.The workflow of
information from concept model to
construction model

# Figure 10.The parametric setup of

the bridge’s superstructure in
GenerativeComponents

328 Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders

 The parametric setup of the project has been proven successful when at
the end of the project the steel detailer came up with some issues
concerning the connection geometry that resulted as an artefact of the
superstructure geometry.The GenerativeComponents model could then be
utilised again to quickly resolve the geometry in an aesthetic solution. It
involved reversing the orientation of four masts to rectify the detail at the
base of the mast to achieve a more aesthetic solution.This actually meant
changing the orientation of 17 of the 20 masts due to the arrangement of
cables and clearances, but was completed in a matter of hours due to the
parametric setup of the project.

2.5. Cable stay bridge option study

A parametric approach was adopted for the design option study of a curved
highway bridge in the UK.The general form of the bridge was a single pylon
and cable plane on the inside of the highway curve.The
GenerativeComponents model that was used to parametrically asses the
multiple cable arrangements and tower location proposals was set up based
on:

• The 3D inroads alignment curve generated by the highway

alignment design team.
• The existing topography model

These were referenced into GenerativeComponents as spline curves

and formed the basis of the parametric model.
Pylon and abutment locations were defined by free points along the
alignment which allowed the locations to be “dragged” along the alignment
and provided a high degree of real-time interaction with the structure.
Background mapping was also referenced into the model to assist in
locating the structure. Additional free points defined the top of the pylon
and upper and lower cable points which allowed the locations to be moved
on screen. Graph variables were used to define cable spacing and structural
widths.
As part of the model, a simplified set of solids were added to indicate
the approximate size of the deck, pylon, cables and parapet. At a design
workshop the model was then displayed on a large screen and used by the
architect and structural engineers to investigate various arrangements in
real-time. Multiple views were set up in Bentley’s Microstation to quickly
show the anticipated form of the structure from several viewpoints. Key
aspects like headroom at abutments and vertical clearances to the river
were easily reviewed.Text labels were added to display key dimensions such
as span and pylon height in real-time without needing to refer to the
dimension tool.

Parametric Structural Design and beyond 329

 ! Figure 11.The final result of the
This approach enabled the general arrangement to be agreed in a single cable stay bridge option study
workshop rather than through prolonged discussions involving the issuing of
sketches and responding to review comments. At the end of the workshop
a .DGN file of the agreed model was exported from
GenerativeComponents and issued to the architect for preparation of the
detailed visualisations and rendered images, Figure 11.Additional (hidden)
lines were added to the model which were subsequently exported to
structural analysis software Oasys GSA [6] to enable the initial loading and
design checks.

Once the GenerativeComponents model had been set up, the ! Figure 12.The parametric model of
parametric approach led to considerable time savings being achieved in the the cable stay bridge

investigation of bridge options, Figure 12.The ability to sit around the table

330 Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders

and review options in real-time enabled a holistic approach to be utilised
that accommodated the requirements of varying parties at the same time
and maximised value for the client. Any ongoing revisions to the highway
alignment were simply re-imported into the GenerativeComponents model
and a revised .DGN and analysis model generated with a few clicks of the
mouse.The fully parametric nature of the model and use of alignment
curves as direct references allow the .GCT file to be re-used on similar
future projects with only minimal changes required.

3. Structural Parametric Tool Development

The previous chapter showed examples of design projects where structural
principles were embedded in the design process by creating parametric
models.The following three research projects focus on an approach where
specific design systems or tools have been build for the design development
during early stage structural design and structural analysis.These tools serve
specific needs for both engineers as architects, but are generically applicable,
mainly in early stages of the multi-disciplinary design process.

3.1. Salamander for Rhinoceros

Salamander is a plug-in for Rhinoceros and Grasshopper, designed to add
new features to the program in order to help engineers with creating and
modifying structural analysis models within Rhino.The plug-in extends the
functionality of Rhino with the ability to store structural data
(section/material properties, loads etc.) linked to the geometry and
manipulate it via a customised interface for viewing and editing this data.
The model can then be exported to a finite element package such as GSA
for analysis. In other words, Salamander links geometry in the 3D Rhino
model to structural data and keeps them in-sync.
As an example, points in Rhino represent nodes, lines represent 1D
elements and so on. Structural modelling logic is imposed, such that if a
node is moved any elements attached to that node will also have their
geometry updated.This allows the engineer to edit the model in Rhino as
they would in an analysis package, with the added advantage of the
availability of Rhino’s geometric toolkit and user-friendly modelling
environment. Data can be displayed in a graphical form in real-time in the
Rhino viewport where extruded section profiles can be rendered in 3D,
points of support and releases can be labelled etc.The structural data can
also be browsed through a GSA-like ‘data tree’ and edited via pop-up
windows. Salamander also includes a set of tools to eliminate time-
consuming and repetitive manual work such as algorithms to align elements
to surface normals, set releases between differing sections and tools to
check the viability of the data before it is exported for analysis.

Parametric Structural Design and beyond 331

 ! Figure 13.Two different 3D
Salamander has its own built in manual interface, but it also has the engineering models modelled in
capability to be controlled through Grasshopper allowing the structural Salamander.The right model is
model to be created parametrically, see Figure 13. Once the model’s nodes parametrically controlled entirely
and elements have been created via a Grasshopper component, they remain through Grasshopper
bound to the Grasshopper model and will automatically update themselves
to match any change, with structural data remaining intact.This makes it
possible to change the geometry of the structural model very rapidly
merely by adjusting a slider or moving some control geometry, allowing
engineers to investigate a range of options very rapidly. Furthermore, the
generation of the structural model can be integrated with the generation of
the architectural model, meaning that the structural engineer does not have
to spend time recreating a structural model from scratch every time the
architect makes a small change to the design and the structural implications
of these changes can be more quickly and easily understood.

3.2.Tall Building Simulation Tool

The Tall Building Simulation Tool is an example of a multi-disciplinary virtual
design environment.This project was a collaborative effort between
architects, structural engineers, mechanical engineers and cost consultants.
The tool provides a dashboard interface for parametric design of
standardised cases of high- rise buildings and measures various key design
drivers, such as cost, environmental performance, energy, etc, Figure 14.The
user can design a building by adjusting a large number of parameters on the
system.
The tool provides the ability for the multi-disciplinary optioneering of a
high-rise building from 15 to 60 storeys.The structural plug-in for this
project is based on assumptions and simplified calculations and is essentially
capable of modelling standard stability cores with concrete floors and
concrete columns or standard stability cores with composite floors, steel
beams and steel columns.The tool serves as a tool for early discussions on
key design drivers and allows for improved communication between
different project participants working cooperatively in an integrated high-
rise project.

332 Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders

! Figure 14.The interface of the Tall
To improve performances, the design team needs to understand
Building Simulation Tool showing the
influence of parameter changes to the design constraints and performances.
building outline, core structural
Furthermore, when more disciplines are involved, knowledge of how design
elements and the performance
variables and performances interact becomes increasingly important.
Parametric studies can be carried out to explore the influence of structural
limits, allowing the design team to make better informed decisions about
which design performance is governing.

3.3. StructuralComponents
Another development towards (parametric) design technology which
supports the designing structural engineer is StructuralComponents.This
toolbox focuses on employing the parametric and associative approach in
the conceptual design stages of a building; when the design concept of a
building is conceived and studied.The current design process incorporated
in the toolbox allows the engineer to quickly compose various concepts on
a dashboard, resulting in structural design models, which can be judged
based on various structural performances.The toolbox allows for concepts
to be adjusted and analysed relatively quickly to be able to study the
influence of parameter changes and alternative concepts.

Parametric Structural Design and beyond 333

 One of the challenges of StructuralComponents is to support and
augment the creativity of the engineer.This is especially important during
the early design stages since the impact of choices made during these stages
is often high and of high influence during the rest of the design process.
Little information is known at these stages to base decisions on, making it
desirable to access a wide range of options. Another challenge is the unique
nature of design projects, since each project brings its own hurdles to
overcome.The aim of StructuralComponents is therefore not to present a
single solution for design problems or workflow, but to provide the
engineer a toolbox that provides parts of solutions that can be easily be
composed to a total solution and adapted to the design challenges of each
unique situation in design.
A prototype of the toolbox has been developed which is based on the
structural design of tall buildings.The structural engineer can use the
prototype to compose different concepts by interrelating predefined and
custom components.These components can be loaded into a parametric
software application. Figure 15 shows the interface of
StructuralComponents for Grasshopper. A structural model comprises
structural components, which are predefined elements, such as cores,
outriggers, columns and frames.These elements are pre-programmed blocks
# Figure 15. A model in the current
of differential equations and have the ability to perform real-time structural version of StructuralComponents,
analysis. modelled in Grasshopper

334 Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders

! Figure 16. A structural model
visualised in Rhinoceros The information on the building models performance is presented on a
dashboard and visible to the engineer in a single view, Figure 16.These
results are given in the form of dials and graphs.When a model is adapted,
the output changes accordingly.The graphic output of the structural
behaviour of the building structure give a clear impression not only to the
structural engineers, but it also allows the architect to get a feeling of the
working methodology of the engineers.

4. Discussion
The various projects described in this paper showed some of the
possibilities for a parametric and associative design approach in the
structural engineering practice of Arup. However, it is important to note
that adopting a full parametric and associative design approach requires a
change in design culture for all the parties involved in the design process.
Quick design changes imposed solely on for instance the architectural
surface geometry may not be beneficial to the parametric and associative
design process when structural, environmental or financial implications
cannot be interrelated directly to these design changes.The paper
showcases a number of possibilities of which the authors think that they
serve the full parametric and associative design process as these parametric
approaches are able to follow the iterative process in the early stages of the
design and take into account relationships with other disciplines.

5. Conclusion
With the growing number of developments in parametric and associative
design for structural modelling and analysis, new possibilities arise allowing a

Parametric Structural Design and beyond 335

 more integrated design process, where amongst others the architect and
engineer can communicate via parametric models. Assessing an extensive
variety of design options in a short time supports the creative process that
is often bounded by time limitations and greatly increases the design
flexibility throughout the entire process.
The presented projects showed that integrating structural design
intelligence based on the parametric and associative design approach
enables the engineer to make better-informed decisions and to better
communicate them. Additionally, it allows the structural designer to get in-
sync with the constant changing geometric definitions and variable design
requirements.

Acknowledgements
The authors of the paper would like to thank the many contributors to this
paper, who provided information on the various projects; Jan-Peter Koppitz
and Kayin Dawoodi (Scheme design for coastal canopies), Christopher Pynn
and Ken Enright (Kurilpa tensegrity bridge), Antony Schofield (Cable stay
bridge option study), and Paul Jeffries (Salamander).

References
1. Aish, R., Introduction to GenerativeComponents, a parametric and associative design
system for architecture, building engineering and digital fabrication, white paper,
http://www.bentley.com [15-05-2010].
2. McNeel, Grasshopper - generative modelling for Rhino,
http://www.grasshopper3d.com [15-05-2010].
3. Infograph, InfoGraph GmbH - Software for structural design, http://www.infograph.eu/
[15-05-2010].
4. Bentley Systems, Bentley Microstation, http://www.bentley.com [15-05-2010].
5. Autodesk, Autodesk Navisworks Products, http://www.autodesk.com [15-05-2010].
6. Oasys, Structural software, http://www.oasys-software.com [15-05-2010].

Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders

Arup
Netherlands
Email: anke.rolvink@arup.com; roel.van-de-straat@arup.com;
jeroen.coenders@arup.com

336 Anke Rolvink, Roel van de Straat and Jeroen Coenders