Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CONSTRUCTION
CASE STUDIES
Emerging Innovation in Building Techniques
ANDREW WATTS
Birkhäuser
Basel
INTRODUCTION COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 Hotel 44
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Architect: Gensler
5 Burjuman Tower 66
Dubai, UAE.
Architect: Kohn Pedersen Fox
6 Burj Alshaya 76
REFERENCES
Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Architect: Gensler
Authorship 220
Index 222
Further reading 223
CONTENTS
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
The book puts forward an alternative approach for the engineering design
of building envelopes which use emerging technologies, particularly
ones with complex geometry, and it explains how this approach differs
from the conventional building engineering design approach. The new
approach adopts some of the design processes commonly used in
product development and involves the use of research and development
and digital tools in the early stages of design, thereby achieving a higher
degree of design resolution at the critical early stages of design.
Dr Mauro Overend
Director, Glass & Facade Technology Research Group
Department of Engineering
University of Cambridge
United Kingdom
MCCS_4
Modern Construction Case Studies focuses on the interface between
the design of facades, structures and environments of 18 building
projects. In all cases, Newtecnic have developed innovative aspects of
the facade design alongside the architects and their design team.
For each case study presented in the book, only one aspect is
investigated in more detail, although all 18 case studies show strong
components of all three aspects of facade technology. The comparative
analysis, which follows this introduction, links the 18 case studies by
comparing their structural and environmental performance through
tables and graphs. These comparisons are used to illustrate trends
across complex projects, for which each design is significantly different.
This aim is achieved by analysing typical bays which are representative
of each project and which illustrate the implications of using different
building envelope technologies.
MCCS_5
INTRODUCTION
Comparison of projects
A primary objective of the Modern Construction Case Studies is to provide a comparative analysis of different facade technologies used for complex
geometry building envelopes, in relation to the climate and environment where they have been implemented on each project.
Weight
(kN/m2)
Weight of facade vs. facade zone
4.00
The area of each circle is
proportional to the number of
components in each facade fixing
3.50
7 system, and represents the
complexity of the assembly utilised.
3.00
8
10
2.50
18
2.00 15.b 14
3.b
17.b
17.a
1.50 15.a
3.a 9
12.a
6.b 11
12.b 4
1.00
2.a
2.b 13 5
0.50 1 6.a
16.a
16.b
0
100 1000 10000
Facade zone (mm)
MCCS_6
The 18 case studies illustrated in the book have been compared in the tables and graphs below in terms of the environmental and structural
performance of their building envelope. The numerical result used for the comparison have been obtained from the analysis performed on each
project. Each facade technology, designed to suit all project conditions, has been assessed on a representative typical bay in order to compare fa-
cade systems across projects. The numerical values provided in this book are for comparison only and are not directly applicable to other projects.
Facade zone Primary structure type Secondary structure type Weight of secondary Total weight of facade, including
structure (kN/m²) secondary structure (kN/m²)
270 mm Concrete slabs. Extruded aluminium profiles. 0.14 0.54 1
370 mm Concrete slabs. CHS steel sections, cables. 0.28 0.88 2.a
230 mm Concrete slabs. Extruded aluminium profiles. 0.08 0.63 2.b
975 mm Concrete slabs. CHS steel sections. 0.30 1.44 3.a
Up to 3000 mm CHS steel sections. RHS steel sections. 0.52 1.89 3.b
335 mm Steel moment frame. Steel framed wall, cold formed profiles. 0.20 2.61 10
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0
1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 5. 6. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18
Ga a b a. b. He Bu a b Da K. M .F .N .a .b .B .K .a .b .a .b .a .b .H
lax Ev Ev Ho Ho yd rju Bu Bu nc Ca eix ed Ci Ci ur AF Gr Gr Th Th St St
olu olu te te rj rj ihu ew ty ty on on oll
yS tio tio lR lR ar m Al Al e m er Po jum D an an e e an
oh Al an sh sh & lic IC at M M M d d Av Av e e d
n n iya iya iye To ay a M a &A ion rt us us an et Th Th en en To To Pa
o To To dh dh vC ya us TV Ce eu eu Ap ro ea ea ue ue we we rk
we we we a ic Ce Sq m m
r r ult r Ce To ua nt ar tre tre s s rs rs Sc
ur we nt re re Ist Ist tm de de ho
al nt r re an an en ol
Ce re bu bu ts Ra Ra
nt l l ba ba
re t t
MCCS_7
INTRODUCTION
Comparison of projects
2.00
The area of each circle is
1.80 proportional to the percentage
7
of the envelope system U-value
determined due to framing
1.60 elements.
U-value of system envelope (W/m2K)
2 17
8
1.40
16
1.20
1
5 6
1.00
15 18
0.80 3
0.60
13
0.40
9
4 11
0.20 10 12
14
0.00
Thickness of insulation
layer (mm)
MCCS_8
Geometry of external shading (I/L)
1.5 0.61 - - 74 1
1.6 - - 0.20 20 2
0.9 0.53 - - 24 3
0.3 0.32 - - 57 4
0.4 - 0.44 - 31 5
0.6 - 0.63 - 48 6
0.5 - 0.28 - 63 7
0.5 0.33 - 38 8
0.4 1.35 - - 27 9
0.6 - - 0.56 89 10
1.1 0.19 - - 3 11
2.6 0.59 - - 32 12
0.4 - 3.00 - 75 13
0.7 0.30 - - 43 14
2.0 0.41 - - 15 15
1.6 0.25 - - 30 16
0.8 0.50 - - 35 17
0.5 1.60 - - 48 18
100
reduction
10
High
High
80
1 effectiveness 13
7
4
Reduction in annual
60
solar gain (%)
6 18
14
40 8
17
16 5 12 Expected 9
3 effectiveness
2
20
15
reduction
Low
11
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 3.00
The linear relationship between the geometry of external shading and the reduction in
annual solar gain illustrates the expected effectiveness of external shading systems and
allows to identify areas on the graph that represent shading systems with high effectiveness.
MCCS_9
INTRODUCTION
Current and emerging technologies
bbuuiillddiinngg eennggiinneeeerriinngg
STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
SERVICES
SERVICES // MEP
MEP
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
FACADE
FACADE
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
SENIOR
SENIOR
SENIORTEAM
TEAM
TEAM
Current design methodology These various sources of information cannot be used directly in the
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
ANDREW
ANDREW
ANDREWWATTS
WATTS
WATTS STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
YASMIN
YASMIN
YASMINWATTS
WATTS
WATTS ENGINEERING FACADE
FACADE ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SERVICES // MEP
MEP ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
The application of current and emerging technologies for the design design of complex building envelopes, which require an in-depth under-
MIED
MIED
MIEDMIET
MIET
MIETRIBA
RIBA
RIBAARB
ARB
ARBFRSA
FRSA
FRSAMIOD
MIOD
MIOD RIBA
RIBA
RIBAARB
ARB
ARBMIOD
MIOD
MIODBARCH
BARCH
BARCHBSC(HONS)
BSC(HONS)
BSC(HONS)
BA(HONS)
BA(HONS)
BA(HONS)DIPARCH
DIPARCH
DIPARCHMST(CANTAB)
MST(CANTAB)
MST(CANTAB)
1.603m
1.603m
1.603m
1.8
1.820m
1.8
20m
20m
FP21_1682 325mm
FP21_1682
FP21_1682 325mm
325mm 202.15529.790
265.055202.155
265.055
265.055 202.155 29.790
29.790 265.079 202.14829.693
265.079202.148
265.079 202.148 29.693
29.693 265.134
265.134 265.13429.475
265.134265.134
265.134 29.475
29.475 S21_NN_039
S21_NN_039
S21_NN_039 IDIDID S21_T_012
S21_T_012
S21_T_012
TYPE
TYPE
TYPEOPAQUE
OPAQUE
OPAQUE
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN
157.34934.567
273.367157.349
273.367
273.367 157.349 34.567
34.567 273.307 273.30734.567
273.307273.307
273.307 273.307 34.567
34.567 E28_020_A
E28_020_A
E28_020_A
3.423m
3.423m
3.423m
FP21_1683 325mm
FP21_1683
FP21_1683 325mm
325mm 273.393
273.393 157.44534.568
273.393157.445
157.445 34.568
34.568 2 22 1 11
lished technical publications. These sources focus on providing an form the basis of the5.136
design with its accompanying cost certainty.
FP21_1684 325mm
FP21_1684
FP21_1684 325mm
325mm 268.232
268.232 185.04731.758
268.232185.047
185.047 31.758
31.758 268.255
268.255 185.04131.661
268.255185.041
185.041 31.661
31.661 268.305
268.305 268.30531.442
268.305268.305
268.305 31.442
31.442 S21_EE_014
S21_EE_014
S21_EE_014
5.136
FP21_1685 425mm
FP21_1685
FP21_1685 425mm
425mm 268.232
268.232 185.04731.758
268.232185.047
185.047 31.758
31.758 268.255
268.255 185.04131.661
268.255185.041
185.041 31.661
31.661 268.305
268.305 268.30531.442
268.305268.305
268.305 31.442
31.442 S21_EE_013
S21_EE_013
S21_EE_013
FP21_1686 425mm
FP21_1686
FP21_1686 425mm
425mm 159.52834.382
273.020159.528
273.020
273.020 159.528 34.382
34.382 273.037
273.037 159.52334.284
273.037159.523
159.523 34.284
34.284 273.077
273.077 273.07734.062
273.077273.077
273.077 34.062
34.062 S21_E_034
S21_E_034
S21_E_034 3 33 3.960m
3.960m
3.960m
4 44
FP21_1687 425mm
FP21_1687
FP21_1687 425mm
425mm 166.63333.702
271.684166.633
271.684
271.684 166.633 33.702
33.702 271.704 166.62733.604
271.704166.627
271.704 166.627 33.604
33.604 271.74733.384
271.747271.747
271.747
271.747 271.747 33.384
33.384 S21_X_020
S21_X_020
S21_X_020 AREA
AREA
AREA
(m(m
(m
) ))
2 22
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATEDIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATEDIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
m
1.335m
m
1.335
1.335
1.603m
1.603m
1.60
FP21_1688 325mm
FP21_1688
FP21_1688 325mm
325mm 166.63333.702
271.684166.633
271.684
271.684 166.633 33.702
33.702 166.62733.604
271.704166.627
271.704
271.704 166.627 33.604
33.604 271.747 271.74733.384
271.747271.747
271.747 271.747 33.384
33.384 S21_X_021
S21_X_021
S21_X_021 IDIDID S21_T_012
S21_T_012
S21_T_012
3m
HOWARD
HOWARD
HOWARDTEE
TEE
TEE FABIO
FABIO
FABIOMICOLI
MICOLI
MICOLI FP21_1689 700mm
FP21_1689
FP21_1689 700mm
700mm 272.846
272.846 160.90934.269
272.846160.909
160.909 34.269
34.269 272.868 160.91434.172
272.868160.914
272.868 160.914 34.172
34.172 272.91933.953
272.919272.919
272.919
272.919 272.919 33.953
33.953 S21_H_032
S21_H_032
S21_H_032
TYPE
TYPE
TYPEOPAQUE
OPAQUE
OPAQUE
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN 2 22
3.524m
3.524m
3.524m
1 11
4.142
4.142
FP21_1691 700mm
FP21_1691
FP21_1691 700mm
700mm 270.571
270.571 173.25133.056
270.571173.251
173.251 33.056
33.056 270.591
270.591 173.24532.959
270.591173.245
173.245 32.959
32.959 270.637
270.637 270.63732.739
270.637270.637
270.637 32.739
32.739 S21_Z_016
S21_Z_016
S21_Z_016
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
DECREASE
DECREASE
DECREASE FP21_1692 700mm
FP21_1692
FP21_1692 700mm
700mm 173.25133.056
270.571173.251
270.571
270.571 173.251 33.056
33.056 173.24532.959
270.591173.245
270.591
270.591 173.245 32.959
32.959 270.63732.739
270.637270.637
270.637
270.637 270.637 32.739
32.739 S21_Z_017
S21_Z_017
S21_Z_017 3 33 3.926m
3.926m
3.926m
-27.4
-27.4 -27.6
-27.6 -27.6
4 44
AREA
AREA
AREA
(m(m
(m
) ))
2 22
6m
1.156m
6m
1.334m
1.334m
1.33
1.15
1.15
4m
IDIDID S21_T_012
S21_T_012
S21_T_012
-27.4
-27.4 -27.6
-27.6 -27.6
-27.6
TYPE
TYPE
TYPEOPAQUE
OPAQUE
OPAQUE
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN 2 22 3.723m
3.723m
3.723m
1 11
bly and illustrate the different choices available for the construction of Newtecnic’s methodology
assemblies for the building envelope,
SENIOR
SENIOR
SENIORASSOCIATE
JOSEPH
JOSEPH
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
JOSEPHSHAW
SHAW
SHAW 67.7
67.7 as well
SENIOR
SENIOR
64.5 as construction
64.5
SENIORASSOCIATE
ANDY
ANDY
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
ANDYWATTS
WATTS
WATTS 64.5
64.5 methods
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
INCREASE
INCREASE
INCREASE
In order to develop an understanding of the first principles underpin-
used for the interior of the building. Specific technologies or materials ning the design of current and particularly emerging technologies, a pri-
MARCH
MARCH
MARCHBSCARCH
BSCARCH
BSCARCHLEED®
LEED®
LEED®AP
AP
APBD+C
BD+C
BD+C ARB
ARB
ARBMARCH
MARCH
MARCHBA(HONS)
BA(HONS)
BA(HONS)
by the facade engineer as a point of departure for facade system draw- methods of analysis using a given technology, not on the relative merits
ings. These publications typically require an experienced facade engi- of one technology against another. The objective of these publications is
neer to be able to extract relevant knowledge for use on real projects. to fill in the current gaps in knowledge of the members of the engineer-
The information available from these primary sources is also used by ing community in the application of current and emerging technologies.
architects as a library of visual references and precedent built projects. This technical information is combined with project-specific research,
Beyond these primary sources, a mix of standards, codes and in order to assess the appropriateness of each technology and to devel-
design handbooks are used for the specific design of components and op an understanding of constraints related to their fabrication. For
assemblies, such as those used for connections in steel frames or emerging technologies, this typically requires physical prototyping and
concrete frames, for example. These design handbooks do not provide testing to validate their project-specific application, which cannot be val-
guidance for the reader to evaluate the appropriateness of the technol- idated through desktop analysis only.
ogy nor do these publications provide a means of validating the choice For the case studies in this book, the design methodology applied is
of a specific technology for a design application. Technical sheets and focused on ensuring the appropriateness of the technology in relation
informal advice from fabricators are also a source of information for to a series of parameters that go beyond its technical application. In the
current technologies, which are often used as the basis for calculations approach used for the case studies, the technology deployed is linked to
during the design stage. The design is also often informed by informa- the values and culture determined by the geographic location of the pro-
tion provided by a specialist contractor and is specific to the project. ject and the common aspirations of that culture; linked to sustainability,
justification of the use of resources, local skills in fabrication, but with
Limitations of current methodology the global reach of these shared values taken into account. The tech-
These primary sources of information present information which nology utilised meets the expectations of the client and increases the
is focused on the application of current and emerging technologies to value of the product delivered. A detailed understanding of local markets
specific materials or to specific projects. From the project-specific appli- and associated fabrication methods builds confidence in the project and
cation of each technology, it is often impossible to extract information ensures its realisation. As part of project-specific research, Newtecnic
about the first principles driving its behaviour. Technical sheets from ensures that for each given project there are always at least two com-
manufacturers rarely provide sufficient data with the given technology panies that are both capable and interested in realising the project. An
to design from first principles and to verify their suitability for a specific important aspect is to generate interest in the design through the con-
application. Often technical information is presented to satisfy commer- struction of proof-of-concept mock-ups and by providing a high level of
cial objectives and there is no method in place for the facade engineer design resolution, which shows direct engagement with the fabrication
to ensure the correctness or completeness of the information utilised. process. Part of this approach is to ensure that smaller local companies
Direct contact with specialist fabricators, manufacturers or contrac- are able to realise and are willing to construct the design. The technical
tors does not often result in the designer developing an understanding publications which are used at the primary sources of information on
of the general principles and common methods used, as manufacturers building technology do not typically seek to engage with specific issues
tend to guard such technical information as being key to the commercial of resolution of any completed building but instead make comparisons
value of their specific product. Fabricators are also often not willing to with other specific design solutions which are based on the adaptation
provide design advice as a result of similar commercial considerations. of available industrial processes to building construction. Emerging tech-
nologies are often based on new methods of fabrication. For the case
MCCS_10
studies presented in this book, the applied technology aims to increase tive approach of using assemblies that are material-specific introduces
the value of both product and process. New processes for fabrication higher interdependence in the design at an early stage of design devel-
can only be developed by linking design from first principles, academic opment, which would limit the ability of the design to respond to later
research, physical testing and prototyping. changes in the design of the external envelope. Consequently, the selec-
The facade assemblies shown in this book were conceived as a ‘prod- tion of facade materials is made at a later stage of design development.
uct’; a specific design solution with a high degree of resolution. For most
projects, the facade assemblies were documented to provide a ‘set of Current technologies in facade assemblies
instructions’ for the construction of those facades, which include a pro- Current technologies are used in facade assemblies where the pro-
posed sequence for assembly and installation. As a set of instructions ject design criteria are typically well-understood, and where alternatives
to be followed by a contractor, these designs required validation of the can be provided to the solution proposed by the design team, while still
method and outputs that underpin the design for each project. meeting the same project-specific requirements. This approach can
This essay sets out the key issues in the use of current and emerg- lead to facade designs which are more ‘generic’ in their level of resolu-
ing construction technologies as applied to building envelopes of com- tion; an approach that allows contractors to propose alternative facade
plex geometry. Designs of this type require a high level of integration solutions at a very late stage in the design development of the project.
between structure, facade and MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing Typically, a contractor’s alternative solution will be adopted if proven to
services), which often comprises an external envelope with an inte- be substantially cheaper than that proposed by the architect’s design
grated self-supporting structure that is independent of the building team, while still providing the same overall performance as defined in
structure that supports floors and service areas, combined with high the performance specification for the project. A potential hazard intro-
thermal performance. The design of complex building envelopes with duced by late design changes from a contractor is the unexpected
a high level of integration requires a careful selection of suitable tech- effects on coordination with other trades or construction packages.
nology and its adaptation to project specific facade assemblies, in Current technologies require only project-specific performance test-
order to meet a set of different performance requirements for struc- ing for final validation. Consequently, the expected performance of a
ture, facades and environmental systems. well understood technology is validated through physical testing for the
In the context of this book, technologies are tools for generating specific configuration proposed for the project. Typically, current tech-
facade assemblies. In turn, the assemblies generated for a specific nologies are optimised for one specific function or a narrow range
facade design determine the components and the connections within of functions. For facades, current technologies are typically offered
each assembly, and therefore affect the assumptions for 3D modelling by specialist fabricators and manufacturers as proprietary prod-
and associated engineering analysis tasks, such as hand calculations ucts which suit the fabricators’ own fabrication capabilities. The use
and computational simulations. A facade assembly is made from a set of different current technologies across a single project typically leads
of materials, the fabrication of which will be based on either current to a high number of interfaces between each of the facade systems.
or emerging technology, or a mix of the two, as the term ‘technology’ This approach often leads to a laborious construction methodology
can apply to both an assembly and the materials used in that assembly. which is both difficult to achieve on site and time-consuming to design.
At Newtecnic, complex building envelopes are designed from the point Current technologies are typically unable to respond to widely varying
of view of the technology for the assembly, with the specific material conditions of geometry on a single project, making it difficult to enclose
used being chosen at a later stage of design development, once the the complete external envelope with a single facade system. Current
required performance and physical properties of a material have been technologies offer fewer opportunities for optimisation and associated
determined. The choice of a specific material for a facade assembly, cost reductions from reducing the number of interfaces. This makes
such as that used for a solar shading device, is determined later in the current technologies less suitable for novel building forms. Typically, cur-
design process. The material that will meet the performance criteria of rent technologies for facades are suited to a ‘loose fit’ design approach,
this specific function will often have its own material technology. Con- where a more generic solution is used to provide support to the archi-
sequently, the technology used or developed for the assembly should tect rather than serving to help drive the design forward with innova-
be interdependent with the materials used in the assembly as well as tion. The alternative approach of using emerging technologies allows a
the technology used for their fabrication. This approach allows ‘material project-specific technology to be brought to the facade design, where it
selection’ to be finalised later in the design process, with the possibility is adapted in a process which resembles that of ‘product development’.
of introducing significant value engineering possibilities without funda-
mental design changes at that later stage of the project. The alterna-
MCCS_11
INTRODUCTION
Current and emerging technologies (cont.)
MCCS_12
INTRODUCTION
Design method and project management
Current design methodology parts is not determined. The limitation of the linear approach applied to
For large-scale building envelopes of complex geometry, the design project management can be a reduction in the ability of the building engi-
method is often driven by the design of the facade assembly, and with neer or facade engineer to provide innovative designs which match the
the current or emerging technologies that are associated with that innovation suggested by the architect. This comes as a result of the lim-
facade assembly. The design method for a building envelope includes ited time available to inform the architect’s concept with a project-spe-
all the steps and iterations required to deliver the final design from con- cific facade technology. An innovation by an architect may be based on
cept to delivery of a tested and validated physical prototype. The current a novel spatial arrangement in relation to the required function of that
method for the engineering design of facades for buildings is based on a space, or may be a visually-driven concept for the form of the building.
sequence of steps which attempt to integrate design and manufacturing The engineering design, at the interface of structure, facade and MEP,
to ensure continuity from design to construction. This approach attempts will not necessarily reach the level of accomplishment anticipated by
to implement an effective project management method in order to control the architect, as the time scale expected for an innovative architectural
the process in terms of people, time and resources. The project manage- design is less than that required for innovation in the corresponding
ment method facilitates the application of known solutions to supporting facade engineering design, which typically requires research and devel-
tasks in the design process. The current project management method opment through testing. Consequently, the level of technical ambition in
for the design of buildings is based on a linear approach which makes the facade engineering design of a project is reduced to suit the critical
use of Gantt charts to regulate the progress of both tasks and delivera- path of technical development of the architectural design. This leads
bles, as well as to define specific interdependencies between tasks. The to the current trend in facade engineering design of using proprietary
assumption of this method is that the time required for each task is well systems selected through competitive tender, a process supported by
understood from experience of previous projects, and that tasks can be a performance specification and associated drawn or 3D modelled out-
prioritised in terms of amount of time a ssigned to each task. puts, such as a BIM (building information model).
The regulation of the design process through a linear project man-
agement method is applicable to projects where the design focus is the Newtecnic’s methodology
optimisation of current knowledge, where most of the design aspects The method applied for the case studies in this book is driven by
are known and where design components which require optimisation problem-solving, an approach which is applied at each step of the design
can be pre-established. The standard design method for buildings is process. No step in the design sequence is allowed to produce only
generally led by an architect, following procedures set out in the work ‘documentation’; the primary output must be a working design which
stages of internationally oriented organisations such as the AIA (Amer- is quantified and costed through 3D models and physical prototypes.
ican Institute of Architects) and the RIBA (Royal Institute of British This design approach is non-hierarchical as there are no priorities
Architects). On many design projects the role of the building engineer set on the design criteria or on specific aspects of the design to be
or facade engineer is typically one of providing technical support to the innovated or optimised. This method is based on a design engineering
architect rather than one of partnership in the generation of the build- approach as applied across other engineering disciplines which are
ing design. This approach is based on the building engineer providing a based on the design, fabrication and manufacture of ‘products’ and
‘service’ to support the architect’s outputs with knowledge of structural is applied to tasks involving the structural, facade and environmental
and MEP engineering (mechanical, electrical and plumbing), which is engineering of buildings. This design approach suits engineers who are
well-established and is provided throughout the duration of the project trained across several building engineering disciplines or, alternatively,
on a day-to-day basis. have a global understanding of building design beyond their speciality.
This design method assumes that the parts of the design that require
Limitations of current methodology innovation emerge as the design develops, the innovation ranging from
The current approach focuses on the time taken to develop and doc- that of individual components, to creating novel relationships between
ument a design solution which uses current technology. The current components that lead to innovative assemblies and a corresponding
method assumes that current technologies are validated, and attempts enhanced performance. This approach to building design is strongly
to identify, at the outset of the project, the aspects that require a greater based on first principles and is open from the start of the project to the
effort to be validated. The limitation of using the current method for both innovation of any of the constituent parts of the design. As the design
design and project management is that only current technologies can be develops, it becomes clear which aspects drive the design and which
implemented for well-understood applications. This design approach does aspects require innovation to achieve the required enhanced perfor-
not apply to complex building projects where the relationship between the mance. The approach also allows a clear assessment of which parts of
MCCS_13
INTRODUCTION
Design method and project management (cont.)
a design will most benefit from the application of either a current tech- for large-scale projects of complex geometry:
nology or an emerging technology. This design method focuses on gen- • A multi-disciplinary engineering design approach.
erating quantified, comparable outputs within a short time-frame which • Short, intense iterations for a team of 8 to 10 engineers with
will allow the design to progress through a sequence of steps, where the different specialisations.
immediate consequences of each step are clearly understood before • Continuous innovation through all stages of design development.
the next step is taken. • The creation of new knowledge at all stages of design development.
This method is founded on three key principles, which aim at over- This ‘Agile’ approach allows facade design outputs to be communi-
coming any restrictions in delivering innovative design solutions: cated and delivered to customers as a highly evolved design ‘product’,
• Research: University-based research of technologies which rather than by providing a design ‘service’ with more generic outputs.
integrate facade, structures and MEP, conducted in-house and This approach allows the focus of a facade engineering team to deliv-
through academic partnerships. This process is independent er, quickly, an innovative product which is cheaper, better or easier to
of project-specific time scales and is aimed at both gathering construct than an existing product, rather than that team providing a
knowledge on emerging technologies and developing new design ‘service’. Agile management in facade design provides a meth-
knowledge on experimetal technologies. This aspect is discussed od for delivering high quality, innovative ‘products’, in which the ability
in the essay ‘Design implementation and research method’. to adapt to evolving customer requirements during the course of the
• Digital tools for design and analysis: The use of high performing design development stages is an essential requirement.
and calibrated digital tools to perform complex analysis at the early The design engineering of facades of complex geometry is output-ori-
design stages, which is aimed at understanding behaviour. The ented and is based on producing design proposals as quickly as possible;
capabilities of the commercially-available tools are often developed increasing the scope and quality of the design with succeeding iterations.
with the software provider as the design progresses. This aspect is The design process is typically ‘kick-started’ through linear iterations
discussed in the essay ‘Analysis method and scientific foundations’. where engineers may be required to work in isolation or in small teams
• ‘Agile’ management: ‘Agile’ techniques provide a method of on explorative tasks. These tasks are typically analytical with the aim of
delivering successful innovation in building design if projects identifying the driving design parameters for each discipline. As soon as
are developed as a ‘product’ rather than being a process with key design objectives are identified, a large team is tasked with focusing
drawn and written outputs only. This aspect is discussed in the on one specific issue at a time, which ensures that each task benefits
following paragraphs. from an effective team dynamic.
On any project, these three aspects enable a set of working facade A tangible longer-term outcome of the application of this method is
prototypes to be developed, physically tested and approved through the production of the following outputs:
consecutive steps and completed before the stage of competitive ten- • Templates for reports.
der. These three aspects also allow the design engineering process to • Technical notes for procedures and new knowledge.
generate new knowledge and innovation, which can be applied to subse- • Example outputs of innovative solutions for facade engineering.
quent projects. Templates and procedures provide the basis for the planning of
future tasks of a similar nature. Agile management for facade engineer-
‘Agile’ management applied to facade projects ing is based on the following core values:
In the delivery of facades of complex geometry for large-scale pro- • Collaboration and self-organisation of an engineering design team.
jects, the design methodology usually drives the management method • Empowerment and continuous improvement of an engineering
used by the facade design team. Newtecnic has found ‘agile’ manage- design team.
ment techniques to be highly effective in achieving a high level of design The principle of continuous improvement is essential for improv-
resolution within the time constraints typically expected of a building ing design outputs with each new iteration. An essential aspect of the
design that would otherwise produce more generic outputs. Agile man- design methodology for complex facades is ensuring that engineers
agement techniques have recently spread outwards from the software are able to explain, at any given point, the design process to others
development industry and are now widely applied across several fields within the team and to the customer. Every member of the facade engi-
in engineering that require innovation for both design and manufacture. neering team should be responsible for the content of their outputs,
‘Agile’ management is highly suited to facade design work on high pro- ensure the success of the task, and improve the quality of outputs for
file-projects, as the method supports four key aspects of facade design the next iteration in a process of continuous improvement.
MCCS_14
Generating innovation Application of design method and project management
Innovation is at the heart of this design method for the facade engi- The aim of this design method for large-scale projects of complex
neering of complex forms. The method aims at generating new knowl- geometry is to bring ambitious concepts to life without basing the
edge which adds value to the product delivered to the customer, and is design on specific solutions supplied by specialist contractors. This
usable by facade engineers on other projects. This is achieved through: method of project management allows the delivery of facade engineer-
• Technical notes: processes developed in-house for projects are ing packages with a high level of technical resolution. These packag-
documented through technical notes, which are peer-reviewed by es are able to be optimised for value and installation time, and would
external research partners. already have received approval for their fabrication and installation. The
• Visible outputs: making outputs visible at every iteration and making level of design resolution permits a high level of cost certainty. As part
the work visible at every stage of the process. This allows gaps in of this approach, each facade assembly deployed on a given project can
knowledge that require further research to be identified. be conceived as a facade ‘system’, which can be described in two parts:
Knowledge creation, which is specific to the project, is part of the • System architecture: The arrangement of functions at the small
value the customer gains from this design approach. The customer is scale or large scale of a single facade assembly type.
able to take ownership of the project-specific part of the technology if • System engineering: The analysis and performance of a single
they so wish, together with the knowledge and innovation embedded in facade assembly type.
the design and documented in the project-specific outputs. This means Both ‘system architecture’ and ‘system engineering’ are developed
that the client can at any time use the design documentation produced through two phases:
up to that point and continue independently with the design develop- 1. ‘Differentiation’, where each system component is firstly analysed
ment. This design methodology generates new knowledge through and designed in isolation.
prototyping and physical testing; activities which have seen a greater 2. ‘Integration’, where all components are finally made to converge
development in other industries but are not yet conceived as part of the into one design solution.
mainstream of design processes for building construction. The creation
of key links between building engineers and contractors is an essential At the schematic design stage, robust concepts and strategies are
step towards collaborating directly with leading fabricators in the con- established and deployed across the scope of the facade design project
struction field and acting as a bridge between design research and by exploring in full their applicability to project-specific conditions. The
project-specific applications. primary objective of outputs at this stage - beyond the design itself - is to
The approach to optimisation in innovative facade projects is driven obtain preliminary costs based on providing initial quantities, preliminary
primarily by the need to bring facade, structure and MEP together into structural weights and number of components, expected performance
an integrated solution. Optimisation of specific components cannot be criteria and preliminary MEP loads.
done in isolation, as this can result in the sub-optimisation of other parts At the detailed design stage, or design development stage, analy-
of the facade assembly. Components within facade assemblies are not sis is undertaken in order to inform an understanding of each building
optimised in isolation, but are instead evaluated as part of a matrix of technology proposed for the project. Outputs are derived from analysis
optimisation. Optimisation is not specifically an ‘agile’ process; it is an at this stage, rather than from the general considerations of assembly
iterative process of searching for the removal of unwanted complexity, investigated in the schematic design stage. During this stage the facade
with the benefit of reducing costs and improving quality for a building technology being proposed is developed to suit the visual language of
project. Optimisation is the ‘calibration for economy’ of any given facade the design as generated from the architect’s concept. The following spe-
design. In order to avoid sub-optimisation, an understanding of the cost cific analysis tasks are undertaken at this stage:
of individual components is required. For example, the cost of glass in a • Understanding of secondary effects.
given assembly can be lowered by reducing glass thickness as a result • Dimensioning of secondary elements.
of decreasing the span of its supporting frame, but the increase in cost • Refining of sizes of primary elements.
of the frame should be no greater than the cost saving achieved from • Design of connections.
the glass. Innovation in facade engineering design, as distinct from opti- At the construction documentation stage, drawing outputs are final-
misation, is generated through establishing new links between compo- ised and coordinated with coordination and dimensioning of drawings.
nents and facade assemblies.
MCCS_15
INTRODUCTION
Analysis method and scientific foundations
MCCS_16
interdependency between supporting structure, enclosing layer and and environmental performance requirements. This approach results
environmental control. These building forms are often conceived as in, for example, varying structural strength and stiffness in adjacent
‘wraps’ for the internal spaces through a changing relationship between structural members, varying air permeability and solar transmittance,
the facade and the floors and voids behind the external wall. Such enve- and varying acoustic mass and thermal transmittance. The facade
lopes are typically self-supporting, as the form of the facades is often assembly is analysed at different scales by examining local effects at the
independent of the arrangement of floor slabs behind the facade and scale of a typical structural bay, together with global effects at the scale
often forms the external wall of large-scale spaces within the building. of the entire building. The design of each component in an assembly can
The complex geometry facades shown in the case studies within this be equally driven by local or global effects, and requires a ‘multi-scale’,
book are supported either by a self-supporting frame or by load-bearing ‘multi-physics’ analysis to identify a global optimum solution. The analy-
panels. Where the facade is load-bearing, the structure takes the form ses are typically undertaken in parallel using specialised software pack-
of shell structures which are realised with a mix of beam, plate and shell ages and the results are compared on the basis of their effect on the
modules, and are distinct from braced frames or load-bearing boxes, as design. Sensitivity analyses are conducted on each relevant paramter in
the geometry drives their behaviour. The specific nature of these struc- order to identify the factors that drive the design.
tures is set out in the Modern Construction Handbook, which forms part The scientific foundations for the engineering analysis of complex
of this book series. geometry envelopes are mostly grounded in the finite element, finite vol-
The envelope regulates directly the flow of heat energy through the ume or finite difference methods, for both structural and environmental
building skin, a factor which determines both peak heating/cooling val- design. This approach is implemented in a range of digital tools which
ues used to size mechanical equipment, and the total energy consump- allows complex shapes or components to be discretised and analysed.
tions, which drive the running costs of the heating/cooling installation. Finite element digital analysis looks primarily at the equilibrium of forces
Complex facade forms often make use of doubly-curved geometry, in structural analysis and the flow of energy in environmental analysis
which can be exploited to achieve thinner envelope build-ups through and analysis of HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning). These
shell action. are investigated through 3D models in both wireframe and surface for-
mat, as a method of capturing the geometry of the building form or
Analysis method and scientific foundations components. From these models, meshes are generated in order to
The analysis method described here was used to generate early interface with finite element software platforms. Numerical accuracy
stage engineering designs for the case studies described in this book in finite element analysis is linked to mesh density and mesh density is
for the interface of structure, facade and MEP (mechanical, electrical linked to computational time. The objective of numerical analysis at the
and plumbing services). Through a process of integration of the con- early design stages is to understand behaviour through a simplified but
stituent parts of the facade design, coordination between these com- thorough approach. This ensures that robust design concepts are gen-
ponents provides an opportunity for optimisation of the facade design. erated which do not depend on a very high level of accuracy of analytical
This process of ‘integration’ aims to achieve material savings, minimise models, which is not achievable within limited project time-scales.
the depth of the facade, and reduce the time required for fabrication of For facade envelopes that integrate structure and skin, optimisation
facade components and assemblies. is mainly achieved by reducing the time required for installation on-site,
A current facade engineering approach, based on providing a design rather than specifically reducing the weight of each assembly. This aim
‘service’ within a strict time-frame, requires the building engineer or is achieved typically by reducing the complexity of the assembly and the
facade engineer to apply well-understood technology to specific project number of components, which attracts a longer installation time and
conditions and to provide numerical validation of the appropriateness of higher costs associated with more time on site. This approach requires
their use through analysis. a higher level of design input than would be expected for a less ambitious
An alternative method of analysis for facades of complex geometry, facade design, in order to develop components which are multi-functional
as used in the case studies in this book, is based around the design of rather than having a single function in a facade assembly. The optimisa-
the ‘assembly’, which is developed like a design ‘product’ that meets pro- tion for weight reduction of each assembly, undertaken in isolation, is of
ject-specific requirements. The ‘assembly’ is conceived as the fabric of secondary importance in the process of optimisation.
the building envelope where structure, facade and MEP are integrated. Finite element methods are well-established but, being dependent on
Assemblies respond to specific performance requirements which vary the computational power available, have only recently been fully integrat-
across the building envelope. The numerical analysis involved is a function ed within powerful analytical tools. This has allowed analysis to become
of the design of the assemblies, which must respond to both structural a tool for exploring behaviour rather than simply a tool for the numerical
MCCS_17
INTRODUCTION
Analysis method and scientific foundations (cont.)
quantification of a given design. Numerical analysis during the early stag- cept design suits ‘agile’ thinking as applied to project management: the
es of the design of facades of complex geometry should be robust and relationship between components may change as a result of decisions
ensure that the design is functional across a sufficiently wide range of made by the customer, resulting in a high level of adaptability required in
input values. Finite element tools are primarily used to assess behaviour the process of design. Consequently, the tools must be in place to allow
and establish which components can be analysed independently and for quick analysis iterations, and the design should be sufficiently robust
which cannot be dissociated and must therefore be analysed together. to have an adequate degree of interdependency between individual com-
The first iterations of analysis aim at establishing relationships between ponents. This allows changes by the customer to be absorbed in the
individual components as well as the magnitude of combined effects. design without impacting the whole concept.
Finite element analysis (FEA) is based on static equations that resolve The aim of the design method used in the case studies of this book
the equilibrium of forces, fluxes of fluids or energy in 1D, 2D or 3D. The is to reach a level of 80% cost certainty for the façades and their reso-
basic implementation of these equations makes use of the mathemati- lution at the interface with structure and MEP design by the end of the
cal balance present in an equilibrium steady-state condition. Differential schematic design stage; a level of certainty which would be expected for
equations are required when analysis is time-dependent and quantities facade designs that use current technologies rather than the emerging
vary over time. The use of FE tools represents an inherent mathematical technologies used in innovative facade designs. This approach requires
approximation, which implies a trade-off between accuracy and time in robust design concepts to be in place which integrate the requirements
any given analysis. The objective of the analysis is to identify a set of of structural stability, energy consumption and thermal comfort. These
calculation models which are representative of real world behaviour to concepts inform directly the architectural design; they do not provide
a sufficient degree of accuracy. The different level of resolution of each only numerical validation. At the concept design stage, a matrix of
design parameter, particularly during early design stages, inherently lim- design recommendations is provided for the customer. This matrix
its the accuracy of the analysis. Considerations of constructability, con- allows different configurations of structure, facade and environmental
struction tolerances and material safety factors are equally important control system to be assessed against each other. The matrix is used
in establishing a design concept. Seen in isolation, the analysis results as a decision-making tool to establish the strategies to be developed in
are not sufficient to ensure the robustness of a design concept. The the following schematic design stage.
compatibility between the degree of geometric approximation, the accu-
racy of input values and the specific use of the analysis outputs, sets the Method for structural analysis of complex facades
level of accuracy required for numerical analysis. Hand calculations are The method described here is for the design of structures for facades
performed on simpler models in order to set order-of-magnitude values of complex geometry, which typically follow the structural primitive of
which typically include lower and upper boundaries for the analysis. a shell. These structural forms typically create large scale enclosures
A comparison of strategies of analysis is an essential basis of early around a more standardised internal structure, made from reinforced
stage facade design. Comparison between two results is only meaning- concrete or steel, whose purpose is to support floor slabs. The internal
ful if the two terms show the same the level of accuracy. During the structure typically follows the structural primitive of a braced frame or a
concept design stage, a broad range of studies is undertaken and the load-bearing box. The analysis of braced frames and load-bearing boxes
implications of the design concept for each set of results are assessed is well understood and progresses from the structural design of a typ-
against one other. Requirements for design are prioritised on this basis ical bay that establishes preliminary sizing, to a final global structural
and are directed towards ‘convergence’ as a single design concept. The model that allows member sizes to be adjusted and which can account
prioritisation of requirements is an exercise of judgment by the design- for global static or dynamic effects. The relationship between the inter-
er, a judgment which is reviewed in the light of associated costs of fab- nal structure and the external enclosure can vary, primarily as follows:
rication and installation. • The two structures are completely independent, or
A basic implementation of the finite element method is in compu- • The external enclosure is partially restrained or propped at
tational fluid dynamic (CFD) software and structural analysis software intermediate locations against the internal structure which
packages. CFD is used primarily to explore global behaviour of exter- requires a high level of coordination between the two, and usually
nal and internal flow, in order to understand key relationships between implies a combined analytical/numerical model of the two
‘parts’ and ‘quantities’ (e.g. between temperature and velocity distribu- structures, or
tions). CFD is also used to design specific ‘parts’ of an assembly in order • The external enclosure supports directly the internal structure:
to enhance its global behaviour (modify a diffuser design or external the two structures are effectively one and must be considered
louvres to facilitate air flow). This use of finite element tools during con- together.
MCCS_18
PERFORMANCE BY DESIGN.
FS02.06 ROOF VENTILATION
- WEATHER DATA RESEARCH
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
237
y coordinate [m]
SURFACE WATER COLLECTION, GUTTERS, FALLS
AND RAINWATER OUTLETS .
- SOLAR STUDIES:
QUANTITY OF ELEMENTS
7
SUN PATH ANALYSIS MAPPING SOLAR The energy efficiency of the facade depends on the
PENETRATION INTO THE BUILDING. GLAZING U-value, defined in the following way:
SPECIFICATION AND SIMULATION WITH GLARE U-value = Q tot/(A*(T out - Tin))
ANALYSIS. INCIDENT SOLAR RADIATION ON
For the double-skin facade considered it is:
FACADES WITH SHADING OPTIMISATION. ELEMENTS
PHOTOVOLTAIC EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS AND U-Value < 0.3 W/m^2*K
DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND OPTIMISATION
4
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CLADDING WIND
PRESSURES WIND TUNNEL TESTING FOR
ES10.02 UHPC RAINSCREEN SOLAR ANALYSIS
CLADDING
ECOTECT
50
VERIFICATION AND CALIBRATION WITH CFD
Top of inner layer
OUTPUTS.
3.58 m
Outlet Outlet PANEL QUANTITY
188
- THERMAL SIMULATIONS:
PANEL QUANTITY Area Area
U-VALUE CALCULATIONS THROUGH MATERIALS. Air
Outlet
232
DOUBLE SKIN FAÇADE SIMULATIONS AND TESTING. Internal
DYNAMIC THERMAL ANALYSIS OF WHOLE Blinds
BUILDINGS.USE OF THERMAL MASS TO CONTROL AREA (m2)
INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS. DESIGN OF PASSIVE
AREA (m2)
y - coord. SYSTEMS AND NATURAL VENTILATION
Bottom of inner layer
0m
Temperature [degC]
88
Tin Tout
- SYSTEM DESIGN
ES10.05 UHPC LOUVRES
- SPECIFICATION Solar
47
- MATERIAL SAMPLES Radiation
Air Inlet Velocity = 1 [m/s] - COST CONTROL AND QUANTITIES
- APPROVALS 4.2 m LINEAR LENGTH (m)
Qtot STRUCTURAL
- STRUCTURAL DESIGN
- SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS
- OPTIMISATION OF STRUCTURES
PANEL QUANTITY
157
0.245 m
31
QUANTITY OF OUTLETS
237
y coordinate [m] - SHOP DRAWINGS
.
- MANUFACTURING Air Low-e coating
Inlet Inlet
Inlet Insulation
Area Area
PROCESSES QUANTITY OF ELEMENTS Aluminium
7
The energy efficiency of the facade depends on the - DIGITAL FABRICATION
U-value, defined in the following way:
- MOCK-UPS
U-value = Q tot/(A*(T out - Tin))
- TESTING
For the double-skin facade considered it is: - ACCESS, MAINTENANCE, CLEANING ELEMENTS
U-Value < 0.3 W/m^2*K
AIR FLOW IN MAIN CAVITY [M/S] TEMPERATURE PROFILE [DEGC] ES20.06 STEEL MESH DIGITAL WIND ANALYSIS
4 structure is to
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
Insulation
Aluminium
tectural programme, in order for a structural concept to be generated.
Inlet
Area
Inlet
Area cal models are simplified in order to represent the essence of the object
A structural concept for a facade of complex geometry addresses the analysed. This is valid from small-scale components to large-scale struc-
following primary aspects: tures. This ensures that analytical models are robust and do not pro-
• Structural stability at global and local building scale. duce misleading results, in which potential analytical errors are of the
• Robustness of the design proposed. same order of magnitude of the results.
• Integration of primary, secondary and facade structure. Following this design approach, the envelope fabric is optimised in
The structural design of a complex geometry structure follows a terms of structural stiffness and strengths to match the performance
process of ‘differentiation’ and ‘integration’: all components (connec- required by the geometry at different locations. The structural optimisa-
tions, constitutive components, modules, etc.) are designed and ana- tion is done through digital analysis, where the global effect of changing
lysed in isolation but are ultimately assessed in their global behaviour by the stiffness of one part of the envelope is examined in real time. In this
establishing the load path through the structural elements.For complex way the assembly is conceived as a flexible set of sub-assemblies and
geometry structures the ‘integration’ usually reveals the final structural components, so that a single facade system can be used across the
behaviour, which is driven by the overall geometry. The step of differ- project to match the performance required by the envelope geometry.
entiation is nonetheless required in order to integrate the technology This approach is driven by a thorough understanding of current and
required at the level of an assembly. emerging technologies used for facades of complex geometry, which
The general strategy established at the outset of the design is driven inform both materials and assemblies. Assembly technologies are
by the technology of the proposed facade assembly. To this aim, current brought into the design process when establishing the general strategy
and emerging technologies are assessed to establish the strategy for for the load-bearing envelope. The approach in designing complex geom-
the envelope by examining existing built precedents. These precedents etry structures is assembly-driven.
are used to demonstrate the suitability of the technology proposed in
relation to either a specific building type, or the project location, climate, Method for MEP/environmental analysis of complex facades
etc. During ‘differentiation’, each assembly is examined independently The approach used to analyse the case studies in this book is based
through simplified calculation models, which range from hand calcula- on establishing a balanced set of environmental performance criteria.
tions to a finite element assessment of a typical structural bay, whose A commonly used approach sets environmental criteria based on ‘best
size is representative of local effects. This is aimed at assessing the practice’. However, this approach, where each criterion is derived inde-
robustness of the assembly and its local stability. During ‘integration’, pendently, does not allow for an assessment of combined effects, nor
the structural concept for the load-bearing envelope is analysed through for any subsequent optimisation.
a global finite element model. This is aimed at assessing global stability The objective of this design method is to produce a balanced set
and support reactions. The stiffness of the building is assessed primarily of studies that are coordinated and that document a robust design
by estimating natural frequencies and global displacements. Stiffness is concept by demonstrating a global understanding of all the implica-
typically the driving parameter for the structural design of large-scale tions when choosing a given environmental strategy. This method aims
enclosures for facades of complex geometry. Global displacements are at gaining a basic understanding of the order of magnitude of all the
required to be linked back to local effects in order to obtain preliminary environmental phenomena and their relative importance in the design
estimates of movement that will have to be accommodated within enve- within a very short time-frame. It departs from a more typical approach
lope assemblies, whilst still ensuring weather tightness. The interaction where one specific aspect of the design is optimised on the basis of
of the structure with the surrounding structures is investigated through an intuitive ‘fit’ with the proposed architectural concept. Environmental
support reactions, which are the basis of establishing load paths. The design covers a wide range of variables. Embedding interdependency
global model allows to assess areas of stress concentrations in order to between variables is necessary to ensure design robustness, which is
establish strategies to redistribute internal forces and stresses. achieved by establishing an equilibrium between all the design criteria
MCCS_19
INTRODUCTION
Analysis method and scientific foundations (cont.)
rather than allowing one criterion to dominate. 2. Selection of glass type and external shading strategy in order to
The case studies shown in this book have been examined primarily meet level of solar control required for peak solar gain.
by looking at eight aspects of environmental design (listed below) which 3. Selection of glass light transmission levels and internal shading
affect the performance of both the external and internal environment. strategy to meet internal daylight levels for internal visual comfort.
Each aspect of an environmental design can be divided into three essen- 4. Preliminary cladding pressures for structural and facade design.
tial components: Velocities around the building at pedestrian level for main wind
• Natural phenomena. The natural phenomena linked to the specific directions. Internal velocities and temperature profiles for thermal
project climate. comfort assessment.
• Analysis type. The effect of natural phenomena can be assessed 5. Breakdown of component values of cooling/heating loads in order
by means of digital tools and hand calculations, which evaluate to assess the relative importance of each component. Establish
specific quantities. environmental zones. Duct and AHU layout and sizes.
• Design solution. The objective of the analysis is the selection of an 6. Amount of acoustic mass required from each assembly to provide
assembly or material technology. Different design solutions are the required sound attenuation, establish how mass is distributed
able to meet the same performance requirements. across the assembly and which layers provide sound attenuation.
These three categories can be divided further into the following primary 7. Design of drainage system (selection between gravity or siphonic
categories of environmental study: types). Sizing and integration of drainage within facade build-up.
8. Material selection. Material specification. Testing specification.
Natural phenomena
1. Thermal transmission and condensation. The undertaking of environmental analysis in a facade design pro-
2. Solar gain. ject is essential in order to establish a close relationship between enve-
3. Daylighting. lope performance and requirements of mechanical ventilation (HVAC).
4. Movement of air inside and outside the building. The envelope performance regulates the main thermal gains or losses
5. Heating and cooling loads in relation to external heat gains. which require heating or cooling: solar, conduction and ventilation. The
6. Acoustic transmission. following design process is aimed at linking the two together:
7. Rainwater evacuation. a. Thermal loads assessment for a typical bay. Before undertaking any
8. Material design life/fire resistance/corrosion resistance. environmental analysis, a basic understanding of HVAC requirements
is obtained by means of an estimation of thermal loads for each
Analysis type representative typical bay of the building. This initial assessment uses
1. U-value calculation and calculation of condensation risk internally/ benchmark values which are based on best practice.
interstitially/externally. b. Preliminary duct sizes for a typical bay. The thermal loads
2. Calculation of peak solar gain across the year. Calculation of peak computed for a typical bay are used to estimate the amount of air
radiation, annual cumulative and solar exposure across the year. and the duct sizes required. As ventilation ducts typically occupy a
3. Calculation of daylight levels (lux) and risk of glare across the year. significant volume of space within a building, this estimate allows
4. For the main wind directions, external CFD for cladding pressures zones for both facade and ceiling to be established.
(wind speed from codes for structural design) and pedestrian c. Preliminary assessment of global loads. The global loads for the
comfort (wind speed from wind rose for a typical year). whole building are assessed by scaling-up the loads obtained from
5. Estimation of each thermal load (solar gain/losses, conduction the representative typical bays proportionally to surface area.
gain/losses, internal gain/losses, ventilation gains/losses). d. Preliminary estimate of number of air handling units (AHUs). By
Environmental performance simulation tools (e.g. IES-VE) can be using the global loads, the amount of air to be provided can be
utilised for final assessment of the interaction of the thermal loads estimated, together with the required number, capacity and size of
for the entire building across the whole year. the AHUs, incorporating the required level of redundancy/back-up.
6. Sound attenuation index calculation for each assembly, by using e. Specialist environmental studies. These studies are aimed at
digital analysis where each material and component can be understanding the implications on user comfort of varying envelope
modelled to assess the overall assembly performance. performance parameters in relation to HVAC requirements.
7. Water flow digital analysis tracking the direction of water under f. Final environmental/envelope/HVAC strategy. This is based on a
gravity on curved surfaces. Preliminary 3D drainage layout matrix of recommendations where different design solutions are
including gutters and outlets. Preliminary gutter sizing. combined to form options. The matrix is used as a decision-making tool.
8. Material research and selection. Proof-of-concept fire testing if g. Refinement of calculations. Calculations are refined for thermal loads,
required. energy consumption costs for the building, for determining both the
sizes of AHUs and the sizes of ducts for air supply and return.
Design solution
1. Selection of insulation material, thickness and positon of
waterproofing. Design of framing and interfaces to meet
requirements on linear thermal bridges.
MCCS_20
Current design methodology Limitations of current methodology
The outputs generated through analysis and design require a meth- The limitations of the current method are that the performance spec-
od of design implementation in order to be transformed into a set of ification does not capture how the various parts of the design are coordi-
instructions, which is how the design is delivered for construction. Fol- nated across the various disciplines. Consequently, there is no method to
lowing the current approach in building construction, the building enve- ensure that all design requirements are both compatible and coordinat-
lope design is delivered through a set of drawings, which represent the ed. In the drawings, the specific method of assembly is not described. The
design intent, and a performance specification, which contains the per- drawings are organised as a hierarchy of general arrangement draw-
formance requirements for the facade systems illustrated in the draw- ings, general assembly drawings and typical details, which describe only
ing set. These two outputs can be disengaged from one other. general design requirements at different scales. These do not engage
The use of performance specifications originally comes from other with interfaces and illustrate only representative parts of the envelope.
industries where the project requirements are set out at the outset of Similar to specifications, drawings do not validate coordination and com-
the project, with limited change expected during the design process. patibility between envelope systems or between different trades. Often,
In building construction, this approach assumes that contractors will this specific information is thought to be unnecessary, as contractors
complete all the detailing of systems and interfaces using the tender are considered to possess the required experience in implementing well-
drawings as a visual guideline, in order to optimise for cost and ease of known solutions. This approach suits projects where known solutions are
construction. The building engineer will check tender returns from bid- implemented and is based on the fact that embedding coordination in
ding contractors based on compliance with what was issued at tender. the design documentation would increase cost as it would mean being
Since aspects of the design are not described in the tender documenta- overly prescriptive for certain parts of the design.
tion, the contractor is allowed to propose design changes on the basis With the current approach there is no real mechanism to compare
of their technical appropriateness. Different tender returns are com- specific parts of the design with alternative proposals, made by contrac-
pared on the basis of their ‘quality’. After tender, the engineer is involved tors, which are not described in the tender package. For these parts,
primarily in the assessment of visual benchmark mock-ups as well as the assessment is limited to a visual comparison with the design intent.
maintaining a limited involvement during fabrication and construction The technical aspect of the design does not need to be scrutinised, as
phases. The role of the ‘site inspection’ for a building designer is usually the final engineering design is the contractor’s responsibility in most
limited to checking the visual quality of the construction only. construction contracts.
Project specific research allows the facade engineer to gather all In this context, any project specfic research is aimed at defining the
the necessary information to ensure the design can be implemented. scope of the design problem and limiting the opportunities for compet-
Research for most facade design projects is focused on project-specific ing contractors to provide alternatives which do not meet the agreed
procedures, mainly in order to unlock approvals and avoid delays in the design criteria. The process is one of collating technical information
programme. This approach is structured through a Gantt chart that which is readily available and which is deemed to be relevant to ‘define’
sets out a series of sequential steps. The research is aimed specifically the requirements of a design solution rather than provide a specific
at understanding the full implications of building regulations, local stand- solution to these requirements. The lack of the availability of a specific
ards and approval procedures. Research into design topics is limited solution can lead to unexpected consequences for the design if no spe-
to the understanding of all the technical requirements for the project. cific alternatives are available.
Regarding facade assemblies, the approach is based on obtaining,
from specialist contractors, specific information about their products Newtecnic’s methodology
which is understood to be common to all competing manufacturers. When the consequences of the proposed design are required to be
This information is added to the performance specification as a way of fully understood at an early stage of project development, the emphasis
determining a set of ‘benchmark’ criteria for assessment at the time of turns to achieving a high level of design resolution. Early stage design
competitive tender. This usually leads to products or specific contrac- documentation allows costs to be obtained from contractors as the
tors mentioned in the specification, with the mention of ‘or equivalent’, in design progresses. In the following design phases that lead to tender,
order to define that benchmark. value is added to the design process by undertaking detailed analysis of
specific design aspects. The following additional outputs are provided at
tender for design implementation:
• A full 3D model of the building envelope, which provides a full
MCCS_21
INTRODUCTION
Design implementation and research method (cont.)
description of the detailed design, coordination between the enve- straints of manufacturing or fabrication, in order to set constraints on
lope and the other trades and a tool for a direct take-off of quanti- their use in a facade design. For example, the maximum size of a sheet
ties. The 3D model is developed at an early stage for cost certainty material, the minimum thickness of an aluminium extrusion, the mini-
and then developed as the design evolves. mum radius of curvature for hot bending process of steel sections, can
• Results for proof-of-concept physical tests and documented test- be determined. Visits to factories to identify the fabrication processes,
ing procedures to be used by the contractor to validate specific and associated production costs, contribute significantly in the selec-
design aspects. tion of materials. This is because the limiting factor in a material is
• Procedures for contractors to respond to the design at tender. often the ability of an individual fabricator or manufacturer to achieve
These procedures include the documentation of any non-standard the desired level of quality, complexity or precision, often as a result of
analysis process which is part of the proof-of-concept calculations, the production cost of those processes.
and is also provided as part of the design documentation.
This high level of design resolution can be achieved whilst avoiding Assembly technology
the increased costs associated with being more prescriptive, as high Research associated with assembly technology is concerned primar-
cost certainty is already achieved at early stages through cost esti- ily with the identification of design constraints which are determined by
mates obtained from contractors rather than by a cost consultant, who the combination of components and materials within a facade assembly.
does not usually provide specialist knowledge for non-standard projects. The research may lead to physical testing to assess the performance of
Factory visits, and the construction of performance mock-ups to val- the assembly in terms of structural stability or weatherproofing.
idate fabrication, construction sequence and assembly performance, The main topics of investigation are:
are an integral part of the design implementation method. This method • Durability. The durability of the assembly is linked to the design
includes the background research which is required to gather a set of life of the project and the frequency of cleaning and maintenance
project-specific information in order to define the most effective way to cycles planned for the completed installation.
implement the facade design concept, generated by the facade engi- • Fire and corrosion resistance. Fire resistance typically requires
neer in response to the architectural brief. In order for the design to be bespoke testing of a 1:1 scale mock-up in order to be able to meet
implemented, a series of steps is required to validate the design pro- the oveall performance requirements of the full facade build-up.
posed in in relation to the specific fabrication constraints of the appoint- • Maintenance and repair. The ability to repair local damage to a
ed contractor. material is particularly appealing for heavyweight assemblies, which
Newtecnic’s method of research is focused on generating new avoids replacing entire facade modules by mobilising equipment or
knowledge which is used to design material systems and assembly causing disruption to the building occupants.
technology. The method of research serves as the basis for project One of the primary purposes of the research conducted at an early
implementation. The research required for an innovative facade design stage is to compare examples of the application of the assembly tech-
is driven by specific gaps in knowledge which are required in order to nology with other built projects, in order to demonstrate the feasibility of
implement the facade design. These gaps in knowledge are typically: specific aspects of the design.
• Physical properties of a primary material (material selection).
• Selection of a technology for a primary facade assembly (assembly Design validation
technology). The first set of steps for design implementation after tender is aimed
The objective of the research method is to transform useful knowl- at validating the design concept proposed. The following steps are appli-
edge into design constraints/drivers for a given facade design project. cable to different degrees depending on the specific project:
1. Geometry definition. The coordination between facade, structure
Material selection and HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) requires a strategy for
Research associated with material selection considers how the the dimensional setting-out of each facade system. This setting-out is
facade engineer can design with a given material, in order to establish documented through drawings and through a fully coordinated digital
design constraints and analysis methods. Research is often focused on 3D model, from which fabrication drawings can be extracted through a
establishing the need for physical testing in order to calibrate finite ele- partially automated process.
ment (FE) models or to provide validation for the use of a given material 2. Material properties and testing. In order to validate the design
system. Research identifies the limits of analysis and need for testing. of each assembly, the mechanical properties of each material are
A second part of the research into material selection looks at con- confirmed by each fabricator. For non-standard materials, such as
MCCS_22
advanced composites which are fabricator-specific, material testing to ensure the safe behaviour of the assembly or component, which can-
is required. Material testing for non-standard materials is undertaken not be determined by numerical analysis. These bespoke tests are typi-
during the design phase in order to set minimum performance require- cally undertaken during the design stage as a proof-of-concept in order
ments to be met by the proposed fabricator. This preliminary testing to establish the viability of both design outputs and process.
provides both a proof-of-concept design, and a validated set of mechan- Project-bespoke testing typically requires the laboratory performing the
ical properties to be used as inputs for the structural analysis. This pro- testing to validate through peer reviews the procedure devised for the
cess significantly reduces uncertainty in the properties of the materials specific test as part of their own research activities. In order to carry
utilised and sets clear boundaries for contractor-specific variations on out ambitious design tasks, a network of expertise is required in which
the materials, by imposing lower boundary values for the mechanical methodologies are peer-reviewed. Consequently, design activities that
properties that drive structural sizes. Each specialist fabricator re-runs lead to physical testing cannot be carried out in isolation.
the same material tests after tender award in order to confirm compli- 5. Prototyping. A final validation of the assembly design may be
ance with the minimum requirements set during the preliminary testing. required through a 1:1 physical mock-up or a scaled mock-up, where
3. Structural design and safety factors. The mechanical properties all the critical components are fabricated and installed according to the
of a given material are the basis of the structural design of a facade final design. This typically demonstrates the feasibility of critical design
system. Structural calculations are also based on the structural loads, aspects and their visual appearance and is constructed before the per-
including the weights of facade assemblies, wind loads obtained from formance mock-ups. The prototype is also typically used for informal
wind tunnel testing, thermal loads, seismic loads, maintenance loads, structural testing, where the structural stability of the prototype is test-
impact loads, etc. ed under project loads. This provides an effective method of validating
Material and load safety factors assumed during the design stage are complex assemblies before final compliance testing, described in the
based on minimum values imposed by structural standards. In order to following paragraph.
confirm these assumptions, safety factors include - at this stage - con- 6. Performance mock-up and testing.
siderations of the expected precision of workmanship during both fabri- The final validation of the assembly design is required through a 1:1
cation and installation. When standards and codes do not directly apply physical mock-up, where all the components are fabricated and installed
to the design due to its innovative nature, these considerations assume according to the final design. This mock-up validates the following aspects:
even more importance in confirming the safety factors. a. Fabrication time. This is used to test the fabrication process and
4. Project-specific testing. As part of the implementation of the design, time required to fabricate each component.
critical items that require validation through physical testing are identi- b. Assembly performance. Sufficient adjustment is provided, ease of fabri-
fied. Physical testing is required when designing outside standards and cation of components, ease and sequence of assembly of components.
codes. It is conducted alongside calculations, which are based on first c. Installation sequence. The proposed installation is tested and timed.
principles and generate the hypothesis that is tested. The purpose of d. Testing of structural and environmental performance. The perfor-
physical testing is typically to establish the design capacity of a structur- mance mock-up must withstand a series of tests which are per-
al component, assembly or connection between components used in a formed following standard procedures set by codes, such as air
facade assembly. The design capacity is typically compared against the and water tightness and impact resistance. The failure of any of
most unfavourable design scenario in order to verify compliance with these tests may require changes in the original design or in the fab-
design safety factors, which must be appropriate for the application rication techniques. After successful testing, fabrication can begin.
and are determined prior to testing. Similar proof-of-concept tests can
include impact tests or water tightness tests, and are used to validate
specific parts of the assembly rather than verify the general compli-
ance of the system (which is covered in ‘performance testing’). These
tests are not covered by standards and codes, and are required to be
designed from first principles. These are usually small-scale tests which
are representative of the real project conditions. Typically, digital finite
element analysis is used to establish the size and shape of representa-
tive samples, by comparing the performance of the sample with the real
component through numerical simulation. Numerical simulations are
only used for general comparison, as physical testing is required in order
MCCS_23
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
1 Galaxy Soho, Beijing
MCCS_24
GALAXY SOHO, Beijing
OFFICES AND RETAIL
ARCHITECT
ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS
LOCAL DESIGN INSTITUTE
BEIJING INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN
LIGHTING ENGINEERING
LIGHT DESIGN
FACADE CONSULTANT TO ZHA
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.14
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 0.54
MCCS_25
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
1 Typical system bays
10
1
6
2
10
4
2
7
6
1
4
2
5
Details
1. Metal sheet 6. Thermal insulation
2. Mullion 7. External cladding
3. Transom 8. Floor slab
3D internal view of typical bay 4. Double glazed unit 9. Floor finish
5. Glazing frame 10. Ceiling finish
MCCS_26
6
1
3
2
4
4 2
5 5
4
4 2
5
9
7 8
7 6 10
3D view of interface between facade and structure 3D exploded view of interface between facade and structure
MCCS_27
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
1 System design
Top view
3
3
1
1
Front view
Bottom view
Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Mullion
3. Transom
4. Glazing frame
MCCS_28
3 2
1
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
Back view
3 3
4 4
2
2
1
1
4
3 3 4
3D views of assembly
MCCS_29
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
1 Structural analysis
42.7
45.0
43.9
41.6
45.0
42.7
40.5
43.9
41.6
39.4
42.7
40.5
38.2
41.6
39.4
37.1
40.5
38.2
36.0
39.4
37.1
34.9
38.2
36.0
33.7
37.1
34.9
32.6
36.0
33.7
31.5
34.9
32.6
30.4
33.7
31.5
29.2
32.6
30.4
28.1
31.5
29.2
27.0
30.4
28.1
25.9
29.2
27.0
24.7
28.1
25.9
23.6
27.0
24.7
22.5
25.9
23.6
21.4
24.7
22.5
20.2
23.6
21.4
19.1
22.5
20.2
18.0
21.4
19.1
16.9
20.2
18.0
15.7
19.1
16.9
14.6
18.0
15.7
13.5
16.9
14.6
12.4
15.7
13.5
11.2
14.6
12.4
10.1
13.5
11.2
12.4
10.1
11.2
10.1
9.0
7.9
9.0
6.7
7.9
5.6
9.0
6.7
4.5
7.9
5.6
3.4
6.7
4.5
2.2
5.6
3.4
1.1
4.5
2.2
0.0
3.4
1.1
2.2
0.0
1.1
0.0
5.94
5.80
5.65
5.50
5.35
5.20
5.05
4.90
4.76
4.61
4.46
4.31
4.16
4.01
3.86
3.71
3.57
3.42
3.27
3.12
2.97
2.82
2.67
2.53
2.38
2.23
2.08
1.93
1.78
1.63
1.49
1.34
1.19
1.04
0.89
0.74
0.59
0.45
0.30
0.15
0.00
0.00
15.00
0.00 15.015.0
15.0
0.00
0.00 1.45
1.45
0.19 0.00 1.161.16
1.16 4.214.21
0.00 0.00 4.21
5
0.00 0.00 0.18 0.255 5.305.30
2.26
2.26 .2 2.225.25
0.19 0.00 0.255
0.255 5.30
2.22 0.1862
0.186
0.00 0.23 0.00 2.38
2.38 0.9110.911
0.911
5.00
5.00
5.00
0.00 4.264.26 1.161.16
0.22 0.73 4.26
0.2600.260
0.260 1.160.138
0.138
2.602.60 3.373.373.37
0.00 2.60
3.
4.50
4.50
3.
3. 7
0.22 1.31
1.31
0.19 1.701.70
1.70 4.384.38
4.38
37
1.08
3
37
0.00 -0.00
9.589.58 2.25
2.25
1.12 5.225.22
5.22 5.90
5.90 9.58
0.22 2.54 6.936.93
6.93
1.12 2
5.6 5.62
5.62 17.317.3
17.3
0.20 0.54 0.22 5.815.135.13
5.815.81 5.13 45.045.0
45.0
10.00
0.20
3.51 0.28
0.40
0.30 1.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.68
5.12
5.46
5.00
2.32
-140.00 -145.00 -150.00 -155.00 m -140.00 -140.00
-140.00 -145.00 -145.00
-145.00 -150.00 -150.00
-150.00 m m m
19.6
19.1
13.7
14.6
19.8
19.3
18.8
18.3
17.8
17.3
16.8
16.3
15.8
15.4
14.9
14.4
13.9
13.4
12.9
12.4
11.9
11.4
10.9
10.4
9.9
9.4
8.9
8.4
7.9
7.4
6.9
6.4
5.9
5.4
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
18.8
13.6
20.00
18.4
2.31 18.0
10
4.51
17.6
.1
17.3
1.70
15.0
11
17.0
16.9
4.46
92
16.5
19.2
.
12.
18.00
16.1
4
109.00
17.1
5.34 11.5 9.39 15.0
19
97
96
2 11.4 14.6
.1
7. 9 10.4
2.
3.
48
14.3
4.13 11.5
8.94 13
13.9
12.8
2.
11.2
16.00
5.49 9.49 .9
12.
13.5
9.01
17
13.1
.6
.8
4.46
10. 12.8
0
12.0
4 19.6
18.
11.6
11.5 19.6
108.00
11.3
12 . 17 18.4
14.00
10.9
4 .3
12.0 19.5 10.5
12.0
19.8 13.1
10.1
9.8
11.3
19.5 12.4 9.4
19.2 16.1
9.0
8.6
8.29
19.2
8.3
7.9
12.4
15.4
7.5
19.1
12.0
7.1
12.2
107.00
6.8
7.5
6.4
12.8
10.00
6.0
10.2 5.6
5.3
4.9
-140.00 -142.00 -144.00 -146.00 -148.00 -150.00 -152.00 -154.00 -156.00 m 328.00 329.00 330.00 331.00 332.00 m
4.6
MCCS_30
Innonative Construction 2
Innonative Construction 2 1 System design for curved structural forms
1 System design for curved structural forms
2.05
1.94
2.05
1.94 1.86
1.86 1.78
Floor-to-ceiling stick
1.78 1.69
Facade system
1.69 1.61 glazing.
1.61 1.52
1.52
1.44
1.44
Facade zone 270 mm Type of bay
Type of bay Glass
1.35
41.35 1.27
1.27 1.18 Primary structure type Concrete slabs
1.18 1.10
Façade zone
1.10 1.01 Façade zone aluminium
Extruded 270 mm
1.01
0.93 Secondary structure type
0.93
0.85 profiles. Primary stru
0.85
0.76
1 0.76
3
0.00
4
Bracket complexity
fixing system
0.00
-0.08
-0.08
-0.17
-0.17
-Bracket's nu
4 -0.25 -0.25
Weight of facade, including
-0.34 3
-0.34 Bracket's
0.54 number of pieces
-0.42
-0.42
secondary structure (kN/m2)
-Weight of fa
-0.51
2
Weight of façade
-0.51
-0.59
-0.59
-0.68
-0.68
-0.76
-0.76
-0.85
-0.93
-0.93
-1.01
-1.01
-1.10
-1.10
Details -1.18
-1.18
-1.27
-1.27
1. Aluminium mullion
-1.33
-1.33
-0.013
0.01 0.337
-0.013
8.00
0.00
-0.038 -0.038 -0.0380
-0.0104
-0.05 -0.05 -0.0499 0.318
-0.001
-0.31
-0.001
-0.0096
0.05
-0.01
0.05
-0.01
- -0.0541
- 0.299
-0.46
-0.013 -0.013
-0.061 -0.0128 -0.061
0.0035
-0.0612 -0
.5
-0.07 0.281 98
0.002
0.0029
-0.07
0.0038
0.002
-0.61 -0.0733 2E
0.004
0.004
-3
-0.078
0.0041
0.01
-0.078
0.0057
0.004
0.01
-0.0776 0.262
0.0039
0.004
-0.76
-0.036
0.004
-0.036
0.004
-0.0364 0.
0.
0.004
-0.085 0. 02
0.004
-0.06 0. 0.206
0. 03
-0.0600 0.
-1.22
-0.06 -0.11 03 -0.108 0. 05
-0.11 06 0. 06 0.
78
-1.38
-0.12 -0.120 0.187 0. 06
05
-0.12 0. 06 0. 0.
05
79
-1.53 -0.13 -0.13 -0.125
0.
0.168 06 0 06 88
0. .06
0.
-0.084 -0.0836
0 0.
6.00
-1.68 -0.084 -0.131 -0.131 6 -0.131
09
08
64
-0.143
0.150
0. 09 0. 0.
08
-1.84 -0.143 -0.143
0.131 0. 09 0. 09 0.
08
67
-0.148
-0.148 -0.148 09 09 84
-0.0121
0. 0
-0.0155
-0.01
-0.01
-0.0185
0. .09
-1.99 0.
-0.107
-0.107
09 0.112
0. 11
-0.022
-0.107 -0.154
-0.022
-0.15 -0.167 12 12 5
-0.021
0.-002
-0.15
0.02
-2.14 0. 0. 0.
11
-0.010
0.094
12 12 5
-0.003
-0.17
-0.01
-0.17
-0.01
0.
0. 0.
.0
11
0
-0.172
12 12 8
5
-2.29
070
0.
-0.131
12 0.
0.0014
9
0.9730E-3
14
-0.131 -0.131
0.005
0.7829E-3
0.005
-2.45
15 15 4
0.8477E-3
0.056
0. 0. 0.
0.0022
0.0021
14
0.0034
14
0
14
0
-2.60 4
0. 0. 0.
0.0050
0.037 14
14
0
14
0
8
0.01
0.01
-2.75
0.019
-2.91
0.000
-3.06 -0 -0
-0
.3
-0.019
-0
-4.46
.3 .3 76
4.00
-0
-3.21 -4.46 -4.46-5.97 .3 74 -0 74 .3
76
76 .3 -0
.3
-5.97 -5.97
-5.81
-0 -0 -0.037
-0 76 74
-3.36
-5.81 .3 .3 -0 .3 -0
-5.81
-4.90
74 76
-0.056 -4.48
.3 76 .2
51
-3.52 -4.90 -4.90 -6.00
74 -0
.2
52
-0.075 -0
-3.67 .2
-5.83 50
-4.92 -0.094
-3.82 -4.51 -0
-4.51
- 0. -0. .1
27
-4.51-6.02 -0.112 -0 12 -0 12 -0
-3.98
-6.02 -0 .1 6 .1 6
.1
27
-6.02
-5.85
27 -0 27
-0
.1
-4.13 -5.85 -4.94
-5.85 -0
-0.131
.1 .1 26
27 - 27
-4.94 -4.94
.1
26 -0.150 -4.53 -0 0.1 -0
-4.28
-6.04 .0 26 .0
-0
.0
-0.168 -0 02 -0 02 -0
.0
02
5
-4.44 -5.88
-0 .0 .0
-0
.0 02
5 0.
-4.96 -0 .0 -4.55 03 -0 -0 03
01
1
-4.59 .0 -0.187
00.2033 .0 .0 0.
02
-4.55 -6.06
01 00.2033
2.00
03
-4.55 0
0.1
-4.74 -0.206
-6.06 -6.06
-5.90
0.
-5.90 -4.99
-0.224 12 12
-4.89
-5.90 -4.57
0. 3 3 0.
-4.99 12 0. 0. 12
2
-5.05 -4.99 -0.243 0. 2 0. 12 12
3
-6.09
0. 12 12 2
-5.92
24-0.262 2 0. 2
-0.6854
-5.20 -5.01
24
-0.005
-0.0027
-0.7239E-3
-0.0027
-0.005
-4.59
8 0.
-0.0051
24
-0.003
-0.0027
-5.35 -0.281
0.0088
-6.11 6
0.0071
-0.003
0.
-4.59
-0.0081
0.0103
-0.003
0.0067
24
E-3
0.0043
-4.59
-0.003
8
0.003
-0.008
-5.94
0.0027
-5.51
-6.11
0
0.0061
-0.299
-0.008
0.9220E-3
0.0102
0.0051
0.01
0.0021
-6.11
0
0.
0.004
0.0023
0.4360E-3
0.01
-5.03
0.0036
-5.94
0.0069
0.
0.004
0.002
0.0
37
0.0124
-5.66
0.0057
-5.94
0.0039
-0.318
0.
0.0015
0.
37
0.002
-5.03 1 0.
0.
0.0086
37
075002
0.004
0.002
37
-5.03 0. 37 1 1
0.004
-5.81
0 0.
0.004
-0.337
37 0. 0
37
0.004
2
-5.96 0. 1 37
-160.00 -158.00 -156.00 -154.00 -0.355
3 -152.00 0. 1 -150.00 m
-6.11 -16 72 37
-16 -0.374 2
-160.00 -158.00 -156.00 -154.00
Z Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kN (Min=-6.11) (Max=0.0103)
-0.376 M 1 : 50
AxialX Yforce distribution in aluminium frame (kN) X * 0.502
Bending
Z
Y
moment distribution in aluminium frame (kNm)
Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight Y,* 10.906
cm 3D
Z * 0.962
= 0.200 kNm (Min=-0.376)
X
MCCS_2 MCCS_2
The glazing panels follow the curved perimeter of each building, inter- The analysis of a typical bay addresses the most unfavourable condition
facing with the floor slabs in a floor-to-ceiling configuration. The glazing in terms of structural movements, with two glazing configurations inter-
panels and framing, which ‘sit’ on the slab, are allowed to expand freely facing with the same slab. The stress generated in each panel varies
in the vertical direction. Due to the geometry of each building, the glazing according to its position and can in this way be estimated. The reaction
line follows a curved perimeter line, which requires an assessment of forces exerted as a result on the concrete structure are also considered
the effects of inter-storey drift (maximum horizontal movement between together with any stress concentration along the concrete slab edge.
two slabs) on the stresses inside each glazed unit. The inter-storey
drift would typically be accommodated within each glazing frame for a Detailed finite element modelling is required for these cases in order to
straight vertical configuration, where the panels are allowed to move establish glass thicknesses, which requires a first principles approach
independently of the frame, by a limited amount, in order to avoid any in the design of the glass which cannot be achieved by using most of the
damage to the glazed unit during structural movements. The curved current standards which require the engineer to use charts to calculate
configuration of the glazing line causes additional torsional stresses to the effects of lateral deflection only. The calculated design strength of
be introduced into the glazed units as a result of the out-of-plane move- the glass, which takes into account the specific glass mechanical prop-
ment. This movement is, inevitably, imposed on some of the glazed units erties, load duration, age and size is compared directly with the maxi-
around the perimeter, a movement which cannot be accommodated mum stresses found through finite element analysis.
within the plane of the framing.
MCCS_31
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
1 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
937
800
580
400
225
300 12
260 10
180 8
150 6
100 4
62 2
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_32
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
12 2
9 1.5
6 1
3 0.5
0 0
EXT INT 20 °C
13 °C
0 °C
Pressure, kPa
2.5
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1.5
Velocity, m/s
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly
4
The shading strategy uses ‘light shelves’ of varying length, the size of each 2.5
shelf being determined by the building geometry in order to provide an
1.9
effective cut-off of solar radiation, whilst avoiding a significant reduction of
daylighting levels in the internal space. 1.3
Through solar radiation analysis, the building form has been adjusted to 0.7
suit directly the shading requirements around the perimeter of the build-
0
ing. In addition, the overshadowing effect of the skybridges has been taken
into account through the solar radiation analysis of the global model. Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution
MCCS_33
CURRENT AND
COMPLEX EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
GEOMETRY 1
2 Evolution Tower, Moscow
MCCS_34
EVOLUTION TOWER, Moscow
OFFICES
ARCHITECT
RMJM, PHILIPP NIKANDROV
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
RENAISSANCE CONSTRUCTION
MEP ENGINEERING
RENAISSANCE CONSTRUCTION
FACADE ENGINEERS TO RMJM
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.28
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 0.88
MCCS_35
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
2 Typical system bays
11
11
2
8
5
4 5
Details
1. Double glazed unit 5. Floor supporting bracket 9. Support bracket
2. Mullion 6. Primary structure 10. Steel structure
3. Transom 7. Ceiling finish 11. Shading elements
3D internal view of typical bay 4. Floor finish 8. Glazing frame
MCCS_36
11
3 3
11
1
2
5
3
4 6
5 7
6
7
10 10
8
8
9
9
MCCS_37
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
2 System design
3 2
Top view
3
4
4 3
3
Front view
Bottom view
MCCS_38
3
2 1
4
2 2
2 1
2
Back view
5 5
2 2
1
1
Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Mullion 3
3. Transom 3
4. Glazing frame MCCS_39
5. Shading elements
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
2 Structural analysis
Twisting unitised
Facade system
glazing.
Facade zone 230 mm
Primary structure type Concrete slabs.
Extruded aluminium
Secondary structure type
profiles.
Weight of secondary
0.08
structure (kN/m2)
Serrated plates; post-
Facade bracket type
drilled anchorages.
Number of components in
2
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
0.63
secondary structure (kN/m2)
1
5
10.00
51 0.551
0.152 0.152 0.152
66 0.466 0.080 0.080 0.080
8.00
7 -0
47 94.3147 16-0.201 150 113 167 7
150 -0.160.113 0.150 113
8.00
-0.201 -0.201
-0.1 0 0 43 -0. -0.241 -0.
-0.12 -0.241 -0.12
40 0.140
6 0.09
41 -0.0-0 -0.241 - -0. -0. -0. - 95 - -0.
195 195
8.00
.0 180 80 1 80
-0. -0.282 -0.
93 0.093
-0 -0.40
5 9 26 .405 9 26 -0. 69 0.1 -0. 69-0.1 169
-0.0456 -0.14-0.282
-0.1 -0 -0.14
-0.282
-0.1 -0 . 1 -
-0 . 1
-0.
210 210 10
47 0.047
0.0850 11
4
60
8
-0. 197 -0. 19 7 0.2 197
0.0152 57 57 -0. -0. -5 -0.
-0.322 -0.322 -0.322
-0.488 -0.488 -0.488
87
87
.0 .0
00 0.000
-0.1 -0.1
87
87
-0 -0 25 2 225
87
87
2 2
-0.4
-0.4
33
60
.
60
.
0
-0.
-0.362 -0.362 -0.362
-0 -0 -0.0270
47 -0.047
-0.4
-0.4
0.149 86 86 0 0 -0.522
0.46
-0.4
522 522
09
09
-0. -0.
0.551 -0.402 551
-0.4
-0.4
93 0. 0. -0.402 -0.402
09
09
-0.6
-0.6
0.469
09
09
98
98
98
-0.6
40
98
98
98
-0.6
-0.6
0
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
98
98
98
-0.5
-0.5
86 -0.186
0.217 3 0.472 93 11 11 -0.661 -0.661 -0.661
0.49 -0.523 0.4 -0.5 -0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
6.00
79
0.194 -0.604 1
69 1 69
-0.12 0.435 -0.12
-0.604 -0.604
35236 -0.5 -0.5 -0.176 -0.176 -0.176
0.
26 -0.326
0.0814 0.40. 658 658
-0. -0. -0.658
05
02
8 1 8 0 8 6 2 7 1 8 0 6 27 0 . 0 . 0 .
0.37 -0. 0.37 -0. -0. -0. - - - 2 3
-0.724 -0.724 -0.724
62 862
66 -0.466
58 53 8 53 58 6 5
-0.765
1 0 5 6 -0.765
1 0 5 6 -0.765 0.3
- -0.6 - 0.8 -0.35 -0.6 -0.3 - 0.-80.6 -0.
12 -0.512
9 2 9 6 2 6
0.34 -0. 0.34 -0. -0. -0. 683 9 683 414 6983 9
-0
4 4
59 -0.559 -0.805
5
-0.805
5
-0.805
0 .41 -0. 0.91 0.41 -0. -03 . 0 -.09.1 3 0.91
.0
3 9 6 8 3 9 6 8 - 3 - - - -
-0
-0
8 1 4 8 1 4 3 3 69 3
6
1 6 1 7 6 7 9 4 9 4 4
47
4 4
.0
52 -0.652
-0. -0.
4.00
5
8
773 3
55
4.00
.0
7
-0 .80
3
.03 .80 303
.0
3 2 7 3 . 77 2 2 7 . 7 7 2 - 0 -1 - 0 -1-. -1.
3 3 3 0 3 0
51
6 6 06
-0
-1.006 -1.006
91 -0.791
7 07 4 0 7 4 646 .0 646 646 . 0
9
01
.1
0 -1.046 35 6 35 6 0 . 8 -1.046
-0. - -0. -
38 -0.838
-
-0.202 -0.885
32
94
-0.284
-1.087
30 -1.087 30 -1.087 -0.680 -0.680 -0.680
0.49
85
. 8 . 8
61
61
0 0
-0
85 - 5 -
-0.4
-0.4
61
61
61
81
81
81
-1.127 -1.127
-0.4
-0.4
61
61
31 -0.931
-0.246 8 8
-0.4
-0.4
81
81
8-1
61
61
-0.4
-0.978 -0.410
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
80
81
81
81
51
51
-0.4
-0.4
78 -1.167
-1.46 -1.46 -1.46
51
51
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
4
51
51
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
-0.5
51
51
-0.5
.551
24 -1.024
-0.4 -1. .
-1 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.5
-0.5
-02.00
-0.5
-0.5
2.00
3 3
0.026
-0.5
0.026
71 -1.071 -1.248 -1.248 -1.248
2.00
1 -1.328 1
0.0548 0.0609 0.0548 0.06090.0548 0.0609
0.027 0.027
64 -1.164 -1.328 -1.328
95 95 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305
11 -1.211 -1.368 0.05 -1.368 0.05 -1.368
0.0 274 0.0 274 0.0274
2 9 8 29 8 0.0 304 0.0 304 0.0304
57 -1.257 -1.408
0.0 -1.408
0.0 -1.408
Beam
ase Elements
1 self , Normal
weight , 1 force
cm 3D Nx, Loadcase
Beam kNm
Z= 0.500 Elements
1(Min=-0.493)
self
, weight
Normal (Max=0.472)
force
, 1 cm
Nx,3D
Loadcase
= 1.00 kN
1 self Beam Elements
Z(Min=-1.31)
weight , Normal
(Max=0.551)
, 1 cm force
3D = 1.00 Nx,Z Loadcase
Beam MElements
kN (Min=-1.31) 11 :self
58 weight
, Normal ,force
(Max=0.551) 3D Beam
1 cm ZNx, Elements
=Loadcase
1.00 kN ,:self
Normal
M 11(Min=-1.46)force(Max=0.152)
53 weight Nx,, Loadcase
1 cm 3D1 =self weight
1.00 53, 1 cm 3D = 1.00
M 1kN: (Min=-1.46) kN (Min=-1.46) (Max=0.152)
(Max=0.152) M 1 : 60
XAxial force distribution in twisting facade (kN)
Y
X
Y
X
Y
X * 0.940
Y * 0.542
X
Y
X * 0.923
Y * 0.558
Axial force distribution in folded facade (kN)
X * 0.923
Y * 0.558
X * 0.923
Y * 0.558
Z * 0.907 Z * 0.915 Z * 0.915 Z * 0.915
MCCS_40
2.20
2.15
2.09
0.38
0.20
0.22
2.04
0.38
1.98
0.
0.42
0.57
0.41
0.54
50
0.
1.93
0.
0.54
18
0.
0.34
0.45
50
48
0.23
1.87
0.14
0.21
0.53
0.39
1.82 0.53
0.10
1.76
0.51 0.52
1.71 0.10 0.13
0.50 0.50
1.65
0.02 0.05
1.60 0.49 0.49
1.54 0.05 0.05
0.48 0.48
1.49
0.04 0.05
1.43 0.47 0.47
0.05 0.10
1.38
0.45 0.46
1.32 0.08 0.18
1.27 0.44 0.45
0.16 0.25
1.21
0.43 0.44
0.
1.16 0.40
59
0.
2.13
0.52
0.52
4
2.13
0.9
59
2.14
0.
2.14
1.10
59
0.17
2.19
1.05
0.
2.19
2.19
2.19
2.20
1
2.20
6
2.20
0.99 6
2.20
0.8
2.15
2.15
2.14
2.14
0.94
0
0.88 0.9
4
0.83
0.8 0.8
8
0.77
3
0.8 0.8
7
0.72
2
0.66 0.8 0.8
6
0.61 0
0.8 0.8
5
0.55
9
0.50 0.7 0.8
4
8
0.44
0.7 0.8
3
0.39
8
0.7 0.8
2
0.33
7
0.28 0.7
0.22
0.17
0.11
0.06
Finite element model of typical bay 0.00
-32.00 -30.00
Axial force distribution
-28.00 -26.00
in cable
-24.00
elements (kN)
-22.00 -20.00 -18.00
5
Z Cable Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 10 sw + prestress , 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kN (Max=2.20)
4 XY
Atrium full-height
Facade system
inclined glazing.
1500 mm
2000 mm
Details
1. Double glazed unit 4. Cables
2. Spider bracket 5. Steel tube sections
3. Structural connector
The interface between the twisting concrete structure and the glazing vortex shedding. The additional stiffness introduced in the primary struc-
framing is designed around the need for the glazing to accommodate ture limits the amount of global deflections, which allows the glazing
the movements from the primary structure. frames to be kept within expected sizes for equivalent straight spans.
The lateral movement of the primary structure is accommodated within
A lightweight aluminium framing system running past the floor slabs each plane of the glass panels, where free movement is allowed be-
‘wraps’ the building. Two facade options have been investigated to ac- tween glass panels and framing.
commodate the twisting geometry of the tower. The option with straight
framing elements and individual glass panels set at an angle within the The atrium glazing uses a mix of twisting trusses made out of tubes
framing was chosen to avoid splitting the glass into two panels.The op- linked by cables, where the geometrical twisting in the glazing is accom-
tion using kinked aluminium framing also introduced additional torsional modated between each panel rather through folds in the geometry. This
moments in the members when subjected to lateral loads perpendicu- is achieved by means of spider brackets which offer separate adjust-
lar to the facade. ment on each supporting leg. Spider bracket fixings allow the accom-
modation of larger movements than would be the case with a framed
The stiffness of the aluminium framing is also determined by the global solution. The movements are also accommodated by flexibilie silicone
effects of the movements of the primary structure, which require addi- joints that seal adjacent glass panels ensuring the water tightness of
tional stiffening to avoid torsional resonance effects triggered by wind the facade.
MCCS_41
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
2 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
374
320
250
175
110
50
kWh/m2
320 10
250 9
175 7
110 5
50 3
1
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay.
Alternative option using kinked framing explored as part
of the design development to generate the final straight- Daylight factor analysis on typical bay.
framed solution used for the construction of the facade. Alternative design option using kinked framing and not used for construction.
MCCS_42
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
5 2
4 1.5
3
1
2
0.5
1
0 0
External
velocity, m/s
60
40
30 Pressure, kPa
20 2.5
10
2.0
0
1.5
1.0
0.5
EXT
1 1
1 1 0.0
1
2
15
2
1
17
16 16
5
18
17 16
17
15
Wind cladding pressure distribution
18
The required level of solar control is achieved by means of solar control
glass, which limits solar gains and risk of glare due to its low g-value and
light transmission. The high degree of reflectivity of solar control glass
causes most of the sunlight to be reflected off the building. Reflective
20 °C glass without external shading has been selected in order for the com-
13 °C
plex twisting form of the tower to be made visible.
0 °C INT
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly The global wind effects of the twisting geometry are assessed by avoid-
ing resonance of the structure at the vortex shedding frequency, calcu-
o
lated through CFD analysis.
20.0 C
o
13.0 C
o
0.0 C MCCS_43
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 Hotel, Riyadh
MCCS_44
HOTEL, Riyadh
HOTEL
ARCHITECT
GENSLER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
THORNTON TOMASETTI
MEP ENGINEERING
HURLEY PALMER FLATT
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.30
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 1.44
MCCS_45
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 Typical system bays
2
4
3
8
3
2
Details
1. Double glazed unit 6. Secondary structure
2. Secondary link 7. Supporting bracket
3. External FRP cladding 8. Thermal insulation
4. Internal FRP cladding 9. Shading elements
3D view of a typical bay 5. Primary structure
MCCS_46
2
4
3
2
6
5 1
3
9
5 6
7
5
9
1
3
1
3D view of hotel vertical glazed facade 3D exploded view of hotel vertical glazed facade
MCCS_47
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 System design
Top view
2
3
5 1
1
Front view
2
5
4
Bottom view
Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Secondary link
3. External FRP cladding
Third angle projection. Scale 1:200 4. Internal FRP cladding
5. Primary structure
6. Secondary structure
7. Supporting bracket
8. Thermal insulation
MCCS_48
3
8 1
1 8
7
7
5 4
5
4
4
2
1
1
6
Back view
2 1
1
4
MCCS_49
Vertical displacements distribution in FRP louvre due to wind load (mm)
m
M 1 : 28
X * 0.982
Y * 0.769
Z * 0.667
0.0
11.8
8.14
0.3
9.39
0.6
0.9
1.3
1.6
11.0
6.65
1.9
10.3
2.2
2.5
7
6.5
11.4
2.8
0.313
3.1
0.0
472.00
.3
3.4
11
1.88
3.8
0.0622
4.1
5.01
4.4
4.69
5.95
9
4.7
9.3
4
5.0
8.1
2.82
6.26
0.0
6
5.3
8.76
6.2
471.00
5.6
0
7.2
0.0
5.9
9.70
6.3
.3
6.6
10
6.9
6
7.2
3.7
8
1.8
7.5
470.00
7.8
0.0
4.38
5
8.1
8.4
8.4
0.0
.3
8.8
11
20
1.56
9.1
7.
39
4.07
9.7
0.0600
4.38
469.00
10.0
.0
10.3
7.72
9
2.82
8.76
0.93
6.88
10.6
6.88
0
11.0
11.
0
11.6
12.5
12.2
10.
11.3
Finite element model of typical bay
11.6
4.38
2.50
11.9
12.2 1.56
468.00
12.5
6
3.7
57
0.246
6.
69
4.
9
X
93
M 1 : 259
X * 0.659
Y * 0.769
Z * 0.986
ZY
20.00 10.00 0.00 -10.00
0.
0.03 0.00
0.08
0.09 0.04 0.01
0.09 2.00
0.24 0.11 0.03
0.43 5.00 0.07
0.08 0.01
0.07 7.09 3.51 0.04
0.32
330.00
-234.5 0.21 0.00
0.27 9.63 0.07
0.49
M 1 : 271
X * 0.815
Y * 0.621
Z * 0.975
30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0.41 0.32 0.25 0.14 0.03
20.29
5
1.13 0.17 7.85
26
-222.1
26.50 0.23 0.15 0.07
0.
0.496 1.24 1.75
0.0205 0.01 7.24
0.987 -215.4 34.18 0.11 0.02
2.03 0.07 0.04
1.33 3.89 6.00 6.68
24 5 0.542 42.58
1. 4.9 -208.7 2.44 3.79 0.28
9.69 0.01
95 7.95
86
8. 0.24 6.63 51.00 1.55
3.37 16.82
1.
.5 0.877 -201.9 0.07 0.04 0.02
12 4.74 7.11 60.26 9.29
11.2 3.62 24.36 0.02 0.01
370.00
1.
30 04 15
.1 9.56 -195.2 3.44 70.17 9.05 0.32 0.00
-11.9 3. .4 12.5 4.53 33.08 8.73
17 0.36
.0 6.86 2.07 42.72 79.35 9.38 0.15
.9 17 12.0 0.677 -188.5 10.22
-9.1 1.88 11 5.73 5.44
33 .9 88.57 11.45 0.14 0.09 0.04
5. 10.5 2.00 53.35
320.00
18 .5 0.74 13.15
20 .2 8.01 9.05
-4.6
.8
2
17
-181.7 97.01 0.19 0.12 0.06
88 7 .3 7.60 2.02 63.78 5.71 16.37
3. 15 54 1.83 11.47 17.05
.0 .9 5. 26.13 106.02 0.07 0.03
0.0 22 .6 17
4.90 73.96 6.19 20.12
2.09 23 7.23 2.14 -175.0 0.28
.3 16.72 32.08 0.00 0.00
14 11.2 33.98 81.85 114.41
2.64
4.6 .4 1.90 4.91 14.56 23.44
0.981 22 .7 .6 6.94 -168.3 1.59
1.74 4 25 22 13.3 21.51 44.92 120.86 16.76
12. 1.04 91.72 18.06 30.65
9.1
2.80 .7 1.70
88 21 .5 15.2 5.52 2.99 97.37 127.79
1. 27 -161.5 11.36 30.02 69.43 52.14
12.4 .3 25
.6
16.7 6.19 2.12 23.46 35.23
13.7 24 3.82 31.42 105.16 133.04
.2 4.65 4.85 45.50 63.46
33.69
360.00
29 15.1 2.72 -154.8 64.26
0.145
17.9 5.26 32.70 137.06
18.2
.4 .7 7.25 111.07
.5 24
(Min=-234.5) (Max=34.8)
27 30 3.38 14.74 36.83 57.36
6.65 14.7 5.91 -148.1 37.71 79.31 139.56
22.8 3.60 20.6 116.59
19.4 .1 8 3.25 40.82 63.05
9.26
28
7.48
.5 36.1 24
4.17 97 5.27 17.32 49.84 86.21 120.35 140.58
27.3 42.2 0.
1.81
-141.3
.9 15.1 7.6 122.04 139.94
.4 13 51 60.7 2 4.95 28.06 53.57 90.61 122.27
18.6 27 4. 66.8 8.91
31.9 .7 39 .0 -134.6 138.11
23 1. 19 5.41 24.57 85.45 122.69
310.00
.5 85.5 46.04 50.55 76.62
26.6 15 27.2 90.8 28.1 135.13
36.4 28 8 .8
5.69 20.77 36.21 79.58 121.81
1. 11
. 18 -127.9 54.26
108.0 85.84
21.5 44.8 111.8 53.5 46.67 131.47
41.0 33.0 5.01 0.237 16.49 19.29 119.06 61.63
11.1 95.48
0.230
07 83.31 127.78
.6 3. 125.9 77.4 123.5 75.9
-121.2
11.54 46.14
18 5.30 3.06 0.807 114.09 68.78
(Min=-11.9) (Max=170.1)
45.5 35.4 96 78.23 76.72
4 1. 133.1 52.30 121.60
.3 137.7 98.4 90.4 1.55 -114.4 8.43
76.41
36.5 .8 9 .96 11.1 8.95 6.81 108.32 116.58
350.00
50.1 15 6 7.82 141.8 1.72 60.22
146.3 95.9 2.89 74.74 103.05
58 99.6 -107.7 8.48 9.40 86.36 112.09
54.6 37.5 6. 11.9 149.7 16.2 2.25 69.12
154.5 97.3 65.83 99.12
14 98.6 3.76 15.36 98.44 107.77
5. 9.21 157.7 20.9 -101.0 10.80 77.59 99.13
59.2 38.2 5.34 95.6 62.16 94.89
161.1 3.05 19.79 87.75 8.66 104.38
163.8 97.2 19.09
5.24 55 2.71 99.8 113.48
63.7 38.6 1. 165.3 22.0 19.5 -94.2 7.01 18.98 68.55 89.06
99.37 9.10 100.74
168.3 124.24
98.8 14.3 2.99 26.46 67.17 84.37 0.28 0.07
68.3 38.8 167.0 101.3 20.58 110.89 97.77
3.36 170.1
-87.5
23.16
3.86 83 92.1 97.6 29.98 67.14 81.03 139.92
39.0 2. 7.87 29.58 121.85 94.87
72.8 165.9 95.4 169.4
96.8
300.00
-80.8
0.97 32.32 79.00 152.08 28.08
38.8 4.99 5.97 84.2 6.46 31.50 133.86
161.9 166.2 91.18
, 1 cm 3D = 696.9 mm
77.4 98.7 109.6 68.42 163.35 50.43
7.56 -74.0 4.10 34.77 144.99 78.95
10 38.5 3.06 83.7 155.1 83.6 161.9 13.91 35.73 71.90
2. 176.16 85.41
102.1 7.46 31.17
81.9
58 156.49 80.16 60.71
340.00
2. 65.4 89.7 154.4 25.99 42.67
38.0 9.31 145.7 -67.3
34.37 73.31 186.29 80.91
86.5 67.9 10.08 166.31 81.76
6.89 76.8 145.6 26.76 42.82 81.05
3.05 37.4 62.3 134.3 97.3 199.09
-60.6 30.24 175.35
91.0
05
13.6 63.1 133.2 13.31 33.73 48.25 85.60 80.89
3. 36.5 50.5 121.8 98.49
43.0 90.3 182.31 90.34 210.01
41
, 1 cm 3D = 275.0 mm
95.6 2. 109.0 51.1 -53.8 17.99 27.11 35.51 45.01 59.66 49.34 82.65
31.5 25.0 76.6 216.12
18.2 107.2 188.57 99.26 110.78
3.21
0.754
0.364
95.6 38.8 19.87 39.94 51.03
2.45
1.83
1.25
31.31
78 70.48
100.1
34.1 27.3 91.5 59.7 -47.1
193.48 225.33
63 81.26
84.3
3. 3. 19.5 31.7 19.1 55.80 112.01
3.16
33.2 23.02 35.13 44.45 78.29 101.93
104.7 14 54 30.2 75.2 5.07 230.83
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
0.118
109.2
3.47 60.93 80.81 198.20
30.3 -33.7 28.60 50.10
3 Structural analysis
290.00
5.15
36.1 30.75 52.38
2.56 3.64 -26.9 43.24 109.67 233.17 125.98
194.07 114.72
330.00
81 26.9 9.99 1.75 28.0 2.00 64.71
118.3
3. 3.93 24.2
35.51
48.91 91.84 229.76
25.8 5.09 57.11 190.26 131.96
5.98 19.4 1.28 -20.2 23.76 106.32
4.40 9.00 3.98 39.75 110.71
122.9 16.2 48.02 60.79 73.65 185.14 129.71
0.128
222.83
23.3 6.35 7.38 13.2 1.18 4.17 35.77 78.02
0.0804
0.176
118.08
17.9 7. 5.94 50.42
70.51 167.60 104.85 206.12
132.0 4.49 5.54 3.75 -6.7 43.26
0.0159
2.80 1.51 58.00
92 4.00 156.88 96.53 101.38 112.32
5.98 3.47 3.03 36.12 48.69 78.09 190.98
136.6
3.65
15.9 7. 3.76 0.476 0.0 42.42
55.89
2.23 3.22 99.58 2.56 89.57 99.46
2.53 33.63 60.82 143.71 177.53
10.3 61 0.838
0.0175
3.45 46.19
141.1 6.43 39.60 52.10 88.35
4.65 9. 3.11 2.90 6.7 131.35 60.87 160.53 105.41
7.53 3.67 3.37 37.53 42.82 74.78
145.7 9.87 3.22 3.07 45.78 59.67 117.37
6.32 13.5 78.67 146.66 82.58
3.96 3.55 39.04 42.25 61.11
6
3.09 35.42 50.36 103.61
.3
150.2
44 3.17 68.90
320.00
126.05
8. 3.72 54.84
7
4.20 29.12 33.90 37.14 88.34 45.20
2.80 2.80 20.2 61.46
10.5
108.50 66.55
280.00
154.8 4.03
.0
82
4.56 28.88 31.51 30.68 74.04 29.39
10
1.39
8.
8.42 4.47 26.9 48.31 91.51 41.03
159.3 4.94 26.32 25.40 60.29 33.91
9.10
7.89
6.50
5.01
. 9 .4
11 10 0.223 4.71
34.8 31.30 72.55
20.46
163.9 5.10 20.96 21.62 46.48 26.46 0.93 0.00 0.00
56.09
MCCS_50
9.30
0.323
0.672
0.770
4.59 17.71 16.53 17.74
170.1 4.86 32.87
12.7
0.03 40.06
4.08 12.88 5.76 1.55
4.40 23.48
14.6
8.53 27.25
3.90 3.52 14.22 0.02
1.87 12.57
5.66
3.18 2.82 0.02
1.72 1.56
310.00
0.409 0.374
XY
YX
Z
Z
Curved glazed roof with
Facade system Details
FRP shading louvres.
1. Primary
Up to 3 meters (due to structure
Facade zone 3
cladding) 2. Fixing bracket
Primary structure type CHS steel sections. 3. Secondary
6
Secondary structure type RHS steel sections. structure
Weight of secondary 4. Glazing frame
0.52 5. Glazing
structure (kN/m2) 1 6
Spider bracket with four 6. FRP cladding
Facade bracket type
adjustable arms.
Number of components in 6
22
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
1.89
secondary structure (kN/m2) 5
2
4
6
Vertical facade assembly
0.336
20000.
0.314
0.301
0.31
0.27
0.32
0.287
0.34
0.30
0.26
0.29
0.273
0.260 0.00 0.
0 0
0.246
0.00
0.31
0.26
0.232
0.32
0.33
0.29
0.26
0.219
0.29
0.205 0. 0.
0.00 0 0 00
0.191
0.00
0.30
0.178
0.25
0.31
0.32
0.28
0.164
0.25
0.28
10000.
0.150
0.
0.00 0 0
0.137 0.
00
0.123 0.00
0.29
0.23
0.29
0.109
0.31
0.27
0.23
0.27
0.096
0. 0.
0.082 0.00
0 0 00
0.068
0.00
0.27
0.21
0.00
0.24
0.055 0.
0.29
00 0.25
0.041
0.00 0.
0.027 0 0
0. 0.
0 0 00
0.014
0.00
0.24
0.000
0.18
0.26
0.27
0.17
-0.014
0.22
0.
-0.027 0.00
0. 0.
-0.041 01 0. 00
01
0.21
-0.055
0.13
0.20
0.25
0.17
-0.068
0.12
0.19
-0.082
0.
-0.096 00
-0.109 0. 0.
01 01
-0.123
0. 0.
-0.137 01 01
-0.150 0. 0.
00 00
-0.164 0.
00
-10000.
-0.178
0.
-0.191 00
-0.205
The detailed structural analysis of each typical bay was used to establish The rainscreen cladding elements, which form the continuous shading
the feasibility of the structural system across a range of project condi- louvres and which are integrated with the primary structure, are made
tions and to set preliminary sizes for the primary structure steel tubes. from fibre reinforced polymer panels which are analysed as a sandwich
The global model was used to assess the global stability of the structure, construction through the use of finite element analysis. Designing with
in particular its global movements due to lateral wind forces and the dis- composites requires physical testing of the material in order to validate
tribution of support reactions on the concrete primary structure beneath. the performance of both the individual material components and the
In terms of tonnage, the complete steel structure, which forms the roof build-up, as assembled by a specific manufacturer. Material testing to
enclosure, is equivalent to one additional floor of the concrete structure obtain the mechanical properties of each layer of the sandwich con-
below it. The main effect of the large steel dome is the asymmetries cre- struction was performed in conjunction with testing for the flexural
ated in the transfer of the dead loads along its perimeter, as well as the strength of the whole build-up. The mechanical properties obtained for
lateral loads imposed by wind action on the shell structure, which are each layer feed directly in the finite element model, where each layer
transferred to the concrete structure beneath. is taken into account. The test on the overall build-up is used to cali-
brate the final results from the finite element model, and is then used to
By identifying both local and global effects, analysis at different scales determine the influence of the proposed fabrication method, on the final
was used to estimate the structural effects that determined the sizes performance of the build-up.
of steel components.
MCCS_51
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
2265
2000
1250
1000
475
250
1550 16.2
1100 13.3
750 10.5
470 5
173 2
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_52
Internal External
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
20 °C
13 °C
0 °C
Pressure, kPa
INT EXT
3
2.25
1.5
0.75
-0.75
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly Effect of FRP cladding louvres on wind pressure distribution
The large glazed surface of the roof enclosure requires external shad- An internal CFD study was used to investigate the temperature distri-
ing in order to control the solar gain across the building and to allow bution in the tall garden space and test the MEP strategy of cooling
the use of glass of relatively high transparency in order to maximise the lower part of the building only. The analysis revealed the flow rates
daylighting levels. This helps to create the required conditions for the required for top level exhausts for the excess hot air. The internal CFD
daylighting of an internal garden. The daylighting levels are reduced in study has been used to test the feasibility of the integration of ducts for
the lower part of the roof which encloses circulation space that con- mechanical ventilation which are set within the steel tubes of the struc-
nects retail units. ture supporting the shell. This approach helped to ensure a balanced
distribution of ducted air uniformly across the whole space, introduced
Early stage CFD analysis was implemented for both internal and at at low level, and extracted at high level. This approach allows ducts
external environments in order to estimate preliminary cladding pres- be concealed. An alternative approach, of separate diffusers located
sures for the cantilevering shading fins. As these shading elements around the perimeter of the internal spaces, would have generated
are realised as a FRP sandwich panel with an intermediate layer of higher temperature gradients and thermal discomfort.
compressed epoxy foam, they do not require any additional supporting
structure. Therefore, establishing the thickness of the assembly was a
critical aspect both in terms of feasibility and costs.
MCCS_53
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 Hotel, Riyadh
A facade system was developed specifically for the building envelope The fixing system has been designed so that the open joint between
which encloses a multi-purpose interior space. The envelope system adjacent FRP rainscreen panels are disengaged from the locations
integrates its supporting structure by removing the need for a second- where the fixings penetrate the waterproofing membrane.
ary structure and maximising the transparency of the enclosure.
The same strategy is used for both curved and vertical areas, where
The envelope structure is composed of primary steel arches, which the FRP rainscreen cladding enclosing the primary structure varies in
support most of the dead load, connected by steel rectangular hollow shape to suit its function as either a shading device or as a device to
sections used to support the glazing. These rectangular hollow sections provide opacity in the external wall.
are oriented in the direction perpendicular to the primary arches and
in this way provide lateral global stability by introducing shell action. The The envelope system allows the incorporation of connectors between
primary arches are wrapped directly by fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) primary structural steel arches in addition to the secondary structure
shading louvres. These are realised in the form of an open-jointed venti- directly supporting the glazing, in order to improve local stiffness of
lated rainscreen cladding, which provides variable solar control for the areas of the envelope where local movements need to be contained.
interior spaces.
The behaviour of the structural envelope at global level is investigated
The envelope assembly integrates supporting structures, a glazed layer through a global finite element model in order to assess the effects of
and a shading device. The glazed layer can also include fully opaque ele- global stability and stiffness of the structure in relation to the facade
ments, openings, or become open ventilation louvres to conceal areas of design. The need to control the global movements and deflections of the
mechanical plant which require direct air intake from the outside. structure due to wind loading directly determines the sizes of the prima-
ry structural arches enclosed in the FRP cladding and the density of the
The FRP shading louvres vary in span and angle of inclination in order secondary glazing mullions required to connect the primary arches and
to meet different requirements for daylight and solar gain across the provide stability. The spacing required between secondary members
building. Solar radiation analysis provides a means of mapping out spe- also allows an economic glass size for the rectangular glazing panels to
cific shading requirements for each part of the building and quantifies be achieved, whilst ensuring global stability of the structural envelope.
the effectiveness of the implemented shading design. The reduction in The size of the secondary structure supporting the glazing is driven by
solar gain provided by the shading is measured against the daylighting the need to contain local deflections under wind loads.
levels inside the building, which differ from one environmental zone to
another, in response to the multipurpose nature of the internal space. Finite element software for structural analysis was used to explore
The daylight analysis allows lux levels to be assessed across the year in the behaviour of the envelope from movements under the project load
response to varying sun paths, and penetration of direct solar radiation cases. Finite element analysis has been used as a tool to map out the
into the internal spaces, which affects the thermal comfort of the occu- behaviour of the building at both a global and local scale to design the
pants and the corresponding use of internal space near the facades. interaction between facade and structure and determine structural
Both FRP louvres and glazing are fixed directly to primary structure with dimensions and amount of movement to be accommodated at local
adjustable steel brackets, avoiding the need for an additional second- level between facade components.
ary structure, which would increase both installation time and overall
weight. The fixings are designed to be shared across the corner of four The global finite element model of the self-supporting envelope assembly
panels; brackets are adjustable in the three spatial directions (x,y,z) in has been used to assess the interaction between the envelope and the
response to the three-dimensional geometry of the structural envelope. concrete structure sitting underneath, in terms of additional dead load
The use of an adjustable bracket allows construction tolerances to be and lateral load imposed on both concrete structure and foundations.
controlled in the same way in each direction. Each steel ‘spider’ fixing The interaction between the large envelope enclosure and the support-
connects directly with the primary structure with shading fins without ing concrete structure affects the sizes of the structural cores and
penetrating lines of thermal insulation and waterproofing. transfer structures required to transfer the loads of the envelope down
MCCS_54
to the foundations. The detailed interaction in terms of connections ture, a diagrid structure is typically utilised where the glazed or opaque
between envelope and concrete structure is assessed at the scale of a panels, usually triangulated, are fixed directly as a site-assembled sys-
typical bay by testing, through finite element modelling, to assess local- tem onto an efficient structural profile which exploits the structurally
ised effects due to support reactions, the design of interfaces between efficient shape of the enclosure.
structure and envelope, as well as expected slab stiffness and move-
ments under the loads of the envelope. For larger spans, the shell action is used in combination with large
directional stiffening elements, like trusses, providing stiffness in a
The thermal transmittance of the envelope changes with varying ratios given direction and typically supporting the dead load of the structure,
between glazed and opaque areas as the envelope system ‘morphs’ whereas the shell is used for global stability only. The envelope technol-
across the building form. The linear thermal bridging is assessed at the ogy chosen for this project maintains a hierarchical structure between
interface between glazing and opaque spandrel and is compensated primary and secondary in order to achieve very large spans with a
with sufficient insulation thickness to achieve the overall target U-value non-regular shell form.
for the glazed envelope. The envelope system is designed to be flexible to
accommodate different U-value requirements across the building enve- The structure achieves a doubly-curved form where the secondary
lope by increasing the insulation thickness and quantifying the effect that structural layer supporting the glazing is integrated with the primary
this has on the geometry for the area selected. An iterative approach structure, contributing to global stability but the two can expand/con-
of using 2D thermal analysis for extruded components is combined with tract independently in order to accommodate thermal movement.
3D geometry analysis as the extrusions follow a curved form.
The envelope technology developed for the envelope presents the follow-
The technology developed for the envelope assembly is an emerging ing innovative aspects.
technology in its integration of structure and envelope, which are typical- 1. Primary and secondary structure are integrated which allows a
ly designed as independent layers in order to achieve a higher degree of doubly-curved surface to be achieved by using flat rectangular pan-
certainty over global and local structural movements. els and without requiring triangulation.
2. The two layers of primary and secondary structure are integrated
The most typical current technology for large glazed roofs accommo- in terms of global stability but can slide with respect to each other
dates movements of the primary structure in the connections between in order to locally accommodate thermal movements and prevent
primary and secondary structure. The connection between secondary movements along the primary arches from being transmitted to
structure and assembly typically accommodates movements related to the glazing structure.
the local behaviour of facade components. 3. No interfaces between envelope systems are required in order to
accommodate global structural movements of the self-supporting
The basis of the envelope technology used on the project comes from a envelope; the envelope system is designed as continuous.
series of stiff portal frames braced by secondary members in the plane 4. The open joints of the FRP rainscreen panels, which form the vis-
of the roof to provide global stability. This is a rigid form of construction ually-continuous shading louvres are disengaged from the penetra-
which for larger spans is typically evolved to deep trusses instead of tions through the water-tight layer. This reduces the risk at the
portal frames, which may become an isotropic space frame for more penetration points and allows the system to be more flexible and to
complex forms or bi-directional spans. These structures are typically accommodate higher levels of movements. This suits the fact that
driven by the need to control deflections and provide support for a glaz- the system is fixed directly to the primary structure, which can be
ing system, which is set above them and can move independently of the reduced in size as reduced global stiffness is required.
supporting structure.
The use of the natural shape of the building allows the structure to
exploit its natural behaviour as a shell. For a regular glazed shell struc-
MCCS_55
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre, Baku
MCCS_56
HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTRE, Baku
CULTURAL CENTRE
ARCHITECT
ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
AKT II
MEP ENGINEERING
GMD ENGINEERS
FACADE ENGINEERS TO ARABIAN PROFILES
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.20
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 1.15
MCCS_57
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 Typical system bays
Details
1. GRP panel
2
2. Primary structure
3. Rigid insulation
4. Double glazed unit
5. Mullion
6. Panel frame
7. Panel bracket 5
4
1
MCCS_58
5
2
2 5
4 4
7
3
6
MCCS_59
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 System design
7
6
1
Top view
3
1
2
6
Front view
1
6 7
Bottom view
7
7
3 2
Back view
7 3
2
6 2
3
MCCS_61
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 Structural analysis
130.5
127.2
123.9
120.7
117.4
114.2
110.9
107.6
104.4
101.1
97.8
94.6
91.3
88.1
84.8
81.5
78.3
75.0
71.8
68.5
65.2
62.0
58.7
55.4
52.2
48.9
45.7
42.4
39.1
35.9
32.6
29.4
26.1
22.8
19.6
16.3
13.0
9.8
6.5
3.3
0.0
9.89 53.5
42.5
9.93
3.49 24.2
52.0
0.300
7.59 31.7 79.5 4.86 2.14 0.600 0.395
50.5
31.2 0.168 15.2 5.47 68.7 36.3 2.24
33.5 0.593
149.50
31.8 49.0
12.4 11.6
14.3
7.33 30.8
47.5
1.11 0.333
7.32 8.00 25.6 22.8
14.7 54.2
38.9
7.70 30.7 10.6 21.9 46.1 0.448
9.59
6.15 15.5 34.1
10.1
29.3 25.2 18.0 5.97
17.2 21.6
52.7
44.6 0.458 1.00
14.9
7.54 5.95
32.4
11.6
43.1 0.907
34.5 14.4 21.8 8.66 45.5 1.05
425.00
41.6
10
24.5 0.735 31.5 6.60 48.5
4.45 8.49 23.0
.
45.7 15.2 20.9 40.1
4
15.2 2.29 6.63 34.2 15.3
37.2 31.4 57.9
4.36 5.02
38.6 0.0257
149.00
7.95 10.8 40.7 46.7
7.
12.1
97
37.1
9.61 11.2 5.33
25.0 20.5 4.01
43
2.
57.6 19.6 3.28 21.1 35.7
11.3 10.1 7.02
16.4 10.6
12.8 63.2
4.25
17.8 24.9 2.42
34.2 2.02
6.99
5.
100.3 1.78 45.8 32.7 2.97 1.61
1.
33.5 7.15 0.264 4 0.0160 30.7
94
130.5 44.5 96.0 5. 59.5
49
34.1 17.3 7 0.636 32.9 31.2
6.46
59.5 120.6
37.6 4.67 0.236
420.00
148.50
18.8 2.76 0.0219 69.6
2.45 9.22
7.65
4.33
25.3
0.312 1.49 0.0330
11.2 23.8
10.3 17.7
7.00 22.3 2.21
6.21
70.2
6.26 20.8
1.76
1.26
18.2 19.3 0.288
4115.00 4110.00 4105.00 4100.00 4095.00 4090.00 4085.0017.8 4080.00 m
0.996
2.31 0.262
2.
148.00
XY Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 1.1972e-06 to 130.5 step 3.26 MPa X * 0.831
13.4 Y * 0.602 1.71 0.534
Z * 0.973
11.9
17.9
9.54 3.17 0.451
1.
10.4
49
8.9
7.4 1.60
5.9
0.698
4.5 3.30
3.0
12.1
3007.00
1.5
0.0
Close up view of principal stress distribution in the panels (MPa)
3006.50 3006.00 3005.50 3005.00 3004.50 3004.00 3003.50 m
The structural sizes of the steel space frame which forms the primary
structure are determined by its global stability, specifically by global de-
flections due to lateral wind loads. The approach to the design of the pri-
mary structure is to generate a stiff skin as a result of a curved, arched,
geometry, assisted by the structural depth of the space frame. This
approach allows the glazed facades to be designed and analysed as in-
dependent structures which are bottom-supported and only restrained
laterally to the primary structure. This limits the amount of movements
transmitted through the glazing system, which is designed to meet
standard structural and thermal movements despite the complexity of
the form. Finite element stress analysis of each assembly component is
performed with the objective of establishing a ‘kit of parts’ for the fixing
system which suits the range of configurations across the building.
Von Mises stress distribution in the bracket fixing the FRP panels
to the secondary structure (MPa)
MCCS_62
0.096
0.084
0.01
0.000 0.084
0.04
0.000
0.02
0.070
0.04
0.01
-0.046 -0.046 0.077
0.01
-0.04 -0.04 0.063
0.04
0.02
-0.01
-0.04
-0.03
0.01
0.04
-0.04
-0.069 -0.08 0.070
-10.00
-0.069
-0.07 -0.08
-10.00
0.04
0.01
-0.07
-0.04
-0.01
0.056
-0.04
-0.04
-0.07
0.01
-0.092 -0.092 -0.07 0.063
3
-0.01
-0.03
-0.11
0.01
0.04
-0.04
-0.11
0.0
-0.04
0.049
-0.09 -0.10 -0.07 -0.07
-0.01
-0.114 -0.09 0.056
-0.04
-0.10
0.01
-0.114
0.01
4
-0.00 -0.00
03
4
-0.0
0.042
-0.0
-0.137 0.049
-0.14 -0.10 -0.10
0 0.
-0.137 -0.12 -0.14 -0.12
0.01
0.04
-0.04
0.04
-0.12 -0.12
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
-0.10 -0.10
1
-0.04
0 .0
-0.00
-0.00
0.02
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.035
0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.042
-0.00
-0.00
-0.160
-0.0
-0.00
-0.00
-0.08 -0.08
0.0
-0.160
6
0.04
0.04 -0.03
0.04 -0.04
0.04 -0.04
0
5.05
0.04 -0.04
0.04 -0.04
0
0 .0
0.02
5
3
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0
-0.183 0.028 0.035
0.01
-0.0
0.0
-0.0
0.0
-0.183
5
-0.19 -0.24 -0.22 -0.22 -0.21 -0.21 -0.19 -0.18
0.01
-0.19 -0.18
-0.0
-0.19 -0.24
-0
0.0
-0.00
0
-0.01
-0.01
0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.0
3
0.0
-0.206 0.021 0.028
-0.04
0.0
5
-0.27 -0.25 -0.23 -0.22 -0.20
5
-0.206 -0.22 -0.20
0.0
-0.27 -0.25 -0.23 -0.22
5
-0.22
-0.00
-0.0
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.03
-0.0
-0.04
-0.12
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.229 0.021
-0.04
-0.229 -0.12 0.014
-0.24 -0.29 -0.27 -0.26 -0.24 -0.23 -0.14
04
-0.252 -0.24 -0.29 -0.27 -0.26 -0.24 -0.23 -0.14 -0.15 0.014
04
-0.252 -0.15 0.007
-50.
07
5
-0.
.0
01
05
-0.
-0.275 0.007
.0
7
6
-0.27 -0.25
3
-0.27 -0.32 -0.30 -0.28 -0.16
-60
0.
-0.17
.
-0.275 0.000
.0
7 .0
01
05
.0
-0.27 -0.32 -0.30 -0.28 -0.27 -0.25 -0.16
-0
02
-0
-0.17
1
.0
3
.0 -0
0.
-0
.
.0
-0.297 0.000
-0
.0
0.
7
02
-0
-0
1
-0.297
.0
-0.007
-0
.0
-0.34 -0.32 -0.31 -0.29 -0.28
-0
-0.29 -0.19
0.
-0.20 9
02
-0
-0.320 -0.29 -0.34 -0.32 -0.31 -0.29 -0.28 -0.19 .0
-0.007
-0
-0.20 9
0.
-0
-0.320
.0 -0 -0.014 02
-0.343 -0.32 -0.37 -0.35 -0.33 -0.32 -0.30 -0.21 -0 -0.014 0.
-0.22 11
-0.343 -0.32 -0.37 -0.35 -0.33 -0.32 -0.30 -0.21 -0.22 1 0. -0.021
.1 - 02
-15.00
-0.366 -0 4
-0.021
0. 02
0.
-15.00
-0.366 -0.34 -0.39 -0.37 -0.36 -0.34 -0.33 -0.23 1
-0.24 4 0. -0.028
-0.389 -0.34 -0.39 -0.37 -0.36 -0.34 -0.33 -0.23 -0.24 .1 - -0.028 2
-0.389 -0 -0.0 -0.0
2
-0.035
0.10
-0.412 -0.37 -0.42 -0.40 -0.38 -0.37 -0.35 -0.26 -0.27 -0.035
0.10
0.07
0.07
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.412 -0.37 -0.42 -0.40 -0.38 -0.37 -0.35 -0.26 -0.27 -0.17
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.02 -0.01
-0.17 -0.042
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
-0.042
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
-0.435
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01 -0.01
0.01
-0.18 0.07
-0.435
-0.458 -0.44 -0.52 -0.50 -0.48 -0.46 -0.45 -0.33 -0.45 -0.18 -0.
-0.049 -0.049
25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10 0.10
-0.458 -0.44 -0.52 -0.50 -0.48 -0.46 -0.45 -0.33 -0.45 -0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.54 -0.52 -0.51 -0.49 -0.48 -0.36 -0.47
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.481 -0.056
-0.03
-0.03
0.09
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.056
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
0.09
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.05
-0.04
-0.47 -0.54
-0.06
-0.05
-0.52 -0.51 -0.49 -0.48 -0.36 -0.47
-0.06
-0.481 -0.2
-0.503 -0.47 9 -0.063
-0.49 -0.57 -0.55 -0.53 -0.51 -0.50 -0.38 -0.2 -0.063 0.05
-0.503 9 0.05
-0.49 -0.57 -0.55 -0.53 -0.51 -0.50 -0.38 -0.50 -0.070
-0.526 -0.3
-0.
0
-0.50 -0.070
1
01
0
-0.526 -0.3
01
01
01
-0.59 -0.57 -0.55 -0.54 -0.53 -0.52 0.03
01
01
1 -0.077
0.047
-0.549 0.0
1
-0.52 -0.59 -0.41
-0.
-0.549
-0.57 -0.55 -0.54 -0.53 -0.52 -0. -0.077 3
0
-0.572 -0.52 -0.41 34 -0.084
-0.54 -0.62 -0.59 -0.58 -0.56 -0.55 -0.43 -0.54 -0. 0.0
0
34-0. -0.084 0
-0.
-0.572 -0.54 -0.62 -0.59 -0.58 -0.56 -0.55 -0.43 -0.54 36 0.0
0
0.0
-0.595 -0.091 -0.
0.042 -0.57 -0.64 -0.62 -0.60 -0.59 -0.58 -0.46 -0.57
-0.
36 -0.091 01
1
-0.
0.00
-0.595
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00-0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0. -0.098 01
0.01
-0.618
0.01
-0.57 -0.64 -0.62 -0.60 -0.59 -0.58 -0.46 -0.57 39
.0
-0.618 -0. -0.098 -0.
02
0
-0.641 -0.67 -0.64 -0.63 -0.61 -0.60 -0.48 -0.59 39 -0.105
-0.
0.037 -0.59 02 -0.
0 .0
-0
-20.00
-0.641
-0.664 -0.67 -0.64 -0.63 -0.61 -0.60 -0.48 -0.59 -0. -0.105 -0.112 03
-0.59 41 -0.
-20.00
-0.61 -0.69 -0.67 -0.65 -0.64 -0.63 -0.51 -0.62 -0. 03
-0.664
0.04
-0.
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
-0.112
0.03
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.687 41 -0.119
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
03
0.01
0.01
-0.61 -0.69 -0.67 -0.65 -0.64 -0.63 -0.51 -0.62 -0.
0.031 44
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.04
0.04
0.04
-0.
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
-0.687 -0.68 -0.66 -0.65 -0.53 -0.64 -0.119 -0.126
-0.709 -0.
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
03
0.01
0.01
-0.69 -0.79 -0.77 44 -0.
04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.68 -0.66 -0.65 -0.53 -0.64 -0.
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.709
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.732 50 -0.126 -0.133
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.69 -0.71 -0.79 -0.82 -0.77 -0.79
-0.04
-0.78 -0.76 -0.75 -0.63 -0.71 -0.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.
-0.07
04
0.026
01
-0.732 50-0 -0.
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.140
-0.02
-0.755 -0.71 -0.82 -0.79 -0.78 -0.76 -0.75 -0.63 -0.71 .53 -0.133 14
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.73 -0.84 -0.81 -0.80 -0.78 -0.77 -0.65 -0.73
-0.07
-0.755 -0.778 -0.5 -0.148 -0. -0.1
0.
3-0.5 -0.140 14 2
-0.73 -0.84 -0.81 -0.80 -0.78 -0.77 -0.65 -0.73 6
30.00
0.021
02
-0.778 -0.801 -0.76 -0.86 -0.84 -0.82 -0.81 -0.79 -0.68 -0.76 -0.155 -0.07
-0.56 -0.59 -0.148 -0.1 0.03
-0.801 -0.76 -0.86 -0.84 -0.82 -0.81 -0.79 -0.68 -0.76 -0.162
2
-0.824 -0.59
0.
-0.78 -0.89 -0.86 -0.84 -0.83 -0.82 -0.70 -0.78 -0.61 -0.155 -0.07
02
0.03
-0.824
0.016
-0.847
-0.78
-0.80
-0.89
-0.91
-0.86
-0.88
-0.84
-0.87
-0.83
-0.85
-0.82
-0.84
-0.70
-0.72
-0.78
-0.80
-0.61 -0.162
-0.169
-0.1
8
01
0.
-0.847 -0.870 -0.176 8
-0.169 -0.1
-0.80 -0.91 -0.88 -0.87 -0.85 -0.84 -0.72 -0.80
0. 845.00
8
-0.183
-0.1
0
-0.870 -0.892
0.010855.00 850.00 845.00 840.00 -0.176835.00 m 855.00 850.00 840.00
.0 0 -0.18
.0 (Max=0.0965)
-0.892 -0.910 -0.185
-0.07
855.00 850.00 845.00 840.00 835.00 m
0.200 0kN (Min=-0.185)
0
-0.183
Axial force distribution in framing members (kN) Shear force distribution in framing members (kN) -
-0.910
Z 0.005
Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 1.45 kN (Min=-0.910) (Max=0.0055) 855.00
M 1 : 97 Z Beam Elements , Shear force Vz, Loadcase 1 self weight845.00
850.00 , 1 cm 3D = 840.00 835.00
-0.185
Z Beam
Y X Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 1.45 kN (Min=-0.910) (Max=0.0055) M 1 :YZ 97
* 1.000
Y X
* 1.000
Z Beam Elements
Y * 1.000 , Shear force Vz, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.200 kN (Min=-0.185) (Max=0.0965) M 1
Y X 0.000
0.00
0.098 Z * 1.000
-0.02
Y *
0.089 Y X
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0.098 Z *
-0.01
-0.01
35.00
0.084
-0.005
0.089
-0.01
35.00
-0.01
-0.02
0.079 0.084
-0.01
1.01
.01
0.073 -0.010
0.079
-0.06
0.00
1
-0
0.00-0
0.073
-0.0
0.01
-0.0
0.068
0.01
1
0.00
01
0.01
-0.016
-0.0
0.068
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00-0.01
0.00
0.00
0.063
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
-0.
1
0.01
0.01
0.0
0.01
0.063
0.058
0.01
-0.021
0.01
01-
-0.01
0.058
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0.03
0.052
0.03
0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
05
-0.01
0.04
01
0.052
-0.
5
01
0.047
-0.
-0.
-0.026
0
01
0.047
-0.
-0.
0.0
-00.00
0.042
-0.
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.042
.0
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
.0
0.037
0.0
0.0
-0.031
0.037
0.0
-0
0.031
0.031 2
01
0.026
-0.037
01
0.026
0.
30.00
0.
02
0.021
0.0
30.00
02
0.021
0.
4
02
0.
25.00
0.016
02
-0.042
0.016
01
0.
01
0.
0.010 0.010 0. 00 0 0. 00 0
0. .0 0. .0
-0.07
-0.07
-0
0.005
-0.047
0.005 -0
0.0
-0.07
0.000 0.000
0.00 0.00
4
-0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.052
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01 0.00
-0.01
-0.005 -0.005
-0.02 -0.02 0.0
4
-0.03
-0.010 -0.010
-0.06 -0.06
-0.058
-0.016
0.00 0.04
0.00
-0.016
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.010.03
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.01
-0.01
0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.021
-0.01
2
-0.021
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
-0.026 -0.063
-0.026
-0.031
0.0
0.0
2 0.0
1
-0.031
2
-0.037
-0.068
-0.037
0.0
0.0 4
25.00
-0.042
4
25.00
-0.042
0.00
0.00
0.00 -0.01
0.00
0.00
-0.073
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01-0.01
-0.047 0.0
-0.0 -0.01
-0.07
-0.047 0.0 4
0.0
-0.07-0.01
4
8 6
-0.052
-0.052 0.0
4
-0.079
-0.03
-0.058 0.0
4
-0.03
0.0
-0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.058
-0.01
-0.01
0.0 2
-0.02
-0.063
-0.11
-0.01
-0.01 0.00
-0.01 0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.010.00
-0.010.00
-0.01
2 0.0
-0.063
-0.084
-0.068
0.0
1
-0.068 1
-0.073
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.079 -0.0
-0.0 0.0
-0.079 -0.084
8 1
-0.11
6 -0.11
-0.084 -0.094
-0.089 -0.11
-0.11
-0.089 -0.094
-0.11
-0.094 -0.100
-0.100
0.10
0.10
-0.100 -0.105
20.00
20.00
-0.105 -0.105
-0.110 0.10
20.00
Details
5
1. Secondary structure
2. Casting
3. Serrated plates
4. Extruded profiles
5. GRP panels
Facade assembly
MCCS_63
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 Environmental analysis
Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates
kWh/m2
1100
900
675
450
250
100
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis Period Total area Total radiation
818 7
750 5.4
550 4.7
150 3.5
275 1.5
125 0
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_64
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
4 2.5
3.25 2
2.25 1.5
1.75 1
1 0.5
0 0
EXT
INT
20 °C
13 °C
0 °C
Pressure, kPa
2.5
1.5
0.5
The front facades of the building provide daylight to the internal spaces
especially adjacent to the entrances. The internal projection of mullions
and transoms provide sufficient shading for these transition spaces.
MCCS_65
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
5 Burjuman Tower, Dubai
MCCS_66
BURJUMAN TOWER, Dubai
OFFICES
ARCHITECT
KOHN PEDERSEN FOX
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING
MEP ENGINEERING
BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING
FACADE ENGINEERING
ANDREW WATTS OF NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.10
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 0.64
MCCS_67
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
5 Typical system bays
2
8
8 7
Details
1. Louvre 5. Metal sheet
2. Louvre frame 6. Insulation
3. Double glazed unit 7. Floor finish
3D external view of typical bay 4. Glazing frame 8. Floor slab
MCCS_68
2
7 7
2 5 8
1 8
5 1
3
3
4
4
6
5
3
3 4
MCCS_69
3
1
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
5 System design
1 4 3
Top view
5
4
4
7
1
Front view
3
2 1
MCCS_70
Bottom view
3
4
1
4
3
2 1
1
4 7
3
2D detail. Scale 1:5
8 8
7 7
4
8 8
4
5
Back view
Details
1. Transom
2. Mullion
3. Double glazed unit
4. Glazing frame
5. Ceiling finish
6. Insulation
7. Floor finish
8. Floor slab MCCS_71
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
5 Structural analysis
3 -0.14
0.48 -0.21
-0.05
0.041
0.02 0.783
-0.21
-0.03
0.742
-0.0 0.18
-0.05
0.02 0.659
0.00 0.00 0.29 0.21
0.026 0.02 0.00
0.659 0.00
-0.03
0.618
-0.07 -0.06 -0.05
0.93
-0.03
0.020 0.618
-0.07 -0.06 -0.05
0.01 0.23
0.01
0.577
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.13
0.01
0.015 0.577
-0.22 -0.13
0.16
0.01
0.536
-0.0
7
-0.
-0.0
0.010
2 -0.01 0.536 -0.14
7
02
-0.0
1
-0.0
0.10
-0.0
3
0.01 0.01
-0.03
0.01 0.01
-0.05
-0.05
-0.015 0.330
-0.0 0.330 -0.25 -0.25
-0.0 0.02 1 0.32 -0.46 0.32 -0.46
0.02 1
-230.00
-0.020 0.288
-00.288 3 1.01
-0.06
0.13
4
1.10
4
0.01
0.01
-0.00
-0.0
0.01
-0.0
-0.036
0.01 -0.0 0.165 0.41 0.04
0.01
-0.00
0.01
-0.0 -0.124
0.03 0.06
-0.041
0 0.29
7
0.01
0.124
7
-0.0 -0
7
-0.10
-0.0
0.13 0.00
7
7
-0.0
3 .02 -0.10
-0.0
-0.0 0.00
7
-0.0
-0.046 0.082
-0.0
0
-0.0
0.082
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 - 0.01 0.06-0.06 -0.01
0.12 0
2
2
-0.051 0.041
0 0 -0.06 -0.01 -0.17
-0.0
-0.0
0.041 -0.0 -0.03 -0.17
-0.056
0 1 0.000 -0.08
0.05 0
-0.11
-0.072
0.04 0.0-10.07 5 -0.124
0.10 0.95
-0.0 -0.08 0.34
-0.077 9 -0.124
-0.0 0.00 -0.165 0.03 0.95
-0.0 5 0.01 0.34
0.00
-0.165 0.19
4
-0.082 7 -0.206
0.40
4
0.03
-0.1
0.02
0.06
0.0-0.206
0.1
0.19
4
0
4
0.01
0.00
4
-0.1
-0.087 -0.247
-0.1
0.83
4
0.08
-0.1
-235.00
-
4
-0.2
0.02 0.34
0.06
-0.247
-0.1
-0.092 -0.288
4
4
-0.2
0.09
5
-0.2
-0.2
5
-0.2
0.09
4
0.08
5
-0.2
-0.288
4
-0.097 -0.330
-0.2
5
-235.00
-0.2
5
-0.2
-0.2
5
-0.2
-0.
0.09
5
0.06
-0.2
3
-0.1
-0.2
3
-0.1
-0.108 -0.412
-0.1
-0.371
-0.1
0.06
Extruded aluminium
Secondary structure type
profiles. 4
Weight of secondary
0.10
structure (kN/m2)
Cast aluminium 2
brackets, bolted
Facade bracket type 3
through unitised Details
joints. 1. Louvres
Number of components in 2. Cast aluminium
7 bracket
fixing system 1
3. Glazing
Weight of facade, including 4. Glazing frame
0.64
secondary structure (kN/m2) 5. Floor slab
0.709
0.702 2.42
2.
0.696 2.30
28
-292.00
0.
0.691 2.17
70
-292.00
9
0.685 2.04
0.680 1.91
2.
28
0.674 1.79
-0.157
0.
0.669 1.66
48
0.663 1.53
2.
0.657 1.40
28
0.652 4 86
0.
1.28
0.646 1.15
60
0.4
0.641 1.02
0.635 0.89
2.77
6
0.630
48 0.77
0.
-0.507
0.
0.624 0.64
0.581
72
0.618 0.51
5
0.613 0.38
-292.50
0.607 0.26
0.136
0.486
0.602
-292.50
0.13
0.596 0.00
0.591 4 86
-2
-0.13
0.
.3
2
003 0.585 -0.26
3
-0.113
0.574 -0.51
0.568 -0.64
2
0.563 -0.77
0.557 -0.89
6
48
0.
-2
0.552 -1.02
0.486
-0.188
.3
0.546
3
-1.15
0.540 -1.28
0.535 -1.40
467
-0.
0.529 -1.53 2.75
0.279
-293.00
6
0.524 48
0.
-1.66
0.518 -1.79
-2
-293.00
.3
0.513 -1.91
3
0.507 -2.04
-0
0.456
.20
0.501 -2.17
2
0.496 -2.30
50 -415.00 -414.50 -414.00 m -415.50 -415.00 -414.50 -414.00
0.486
-415.50
Utilisation factor distribution in cast bracket
-415.00
-2.33
-414.50
Sector of system Group 31
Axial force distribution in cast bracket (kN)
-414.00 m
Group 31 M 1 : 8.54 Z Y
Sector of system Group 31 Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight M 1= :2.00
, 1 cm 3D 7.89
kN (Min=-2.33) (Max=2.77)
-135.00
0.848
0.825
0.0173 with the application of large scale external fixed shading devices. The
0.0173
0.803 0.0293 structural solution combines cast aluminium brackets, which use the full
0.
0.781
0.0173
78
0.0293
height of the spandrel panel, with shading devices, which are perforated
1
0.758 0.0373
0.
0.0293
0.
0.0233
48
0.736 0.0173
aluminium set forward of the facade. This strategy minimises the weight
8
6
0.0443
92
4.03
61
0.
48
0.1
0.0373
loads onto the glazing framing.
0.0
0.01 6
9
0.647
0.486 0.522
5.17
53
-265.00
0.486 0.
0.602 0.01 0.243 0.252 4 86
5.04
-140.00
0.486 0.484
0.580 0.14 0.131 0.205
The structural analysis of the lightweight cladding system is driven by
57
0.
0.558
81
0.248
18
0.117
0.13
1
0.486
0.
0.535 0.166
both lateral
0.172 0.203 deflections of the panel and localised stress concentrations
0.
4
0.513 0.240
0.
0.02
86
0.265
around0.115
the connection points. The distance between brackets has been
81
0.491
4
0.167 0.193
0.468 7.21 0.519
0.03
0.486
0.250 maximised in order to meet both of these criteria.
0.
183
70
0.446 0. 0.252
75
0.486
0.1
48 0.163
6.63
0.0
7.17 0.355
9
0.424 6
0.
0.297
4
0.01 0.486
48
0.402
4
0.261
0.2
0.01
6
61
0.15 5.44
87
0.335
73
0.1
0.01
0.02 0.200
0.290 0.16 0.285
48
-270.00
0.
0.04
6
0.272 0.108
7
0.268 0.196
0.02
-145.00
76
0.162
0.245 0.486 0.672 0.0503 0.130
4.03
183
0.223
0.486
363
0. 0.410 0.248
0.228 48 0.178 0.163
0.03
0.0
0.201
6
0.0
0.570
5.45 6.64 0.486
29
0.178
0.200 0.266
0.2
0. 0.405
0.156
0.01 0.486 0.281 48
6
0.134 0.01 4.66 6.69 0.486 0.199
0.635
64
0.486
0.089
0.19 5.44
0.11
0.02
0.
0.067
48
0.
0.19
6
80
0.045
4
0.022
-285.00 -280.00
0.09 -275.00 -270.00 m
0.000
-385.00 -380.00 -375.00 -370.00 m
Principal
Z stress
Sector distribution
of system in aluminium louvres (MPa)
Group 1...3 M 1 : 84
Y X * 0.896
X Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case 1 , 1 cm 3D = 0.500 (Max=0.892)
2...4 M 1 : 91 Y * 0.679
Z * 0.858
on stress in Node , Loadcase 1 self weight , from 0.0029 to 7.21 step 0.180 MPa X * 0.760
Y * 0.725
Z * 0.948
MCCS_73
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
5 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
1063
875
700
500
300
150
1063 20
875 16.5
700 12
500 9
300 4.5
150 1
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_74
Internal External
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
2 2.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0 0
External and internal air velocity distribution
Pressure, kPa
1.5
20 °C
13 °C 1
0 °C
0.5
INT EXT
0
-0.5
-1
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution
The design of the shading devices serves primarily to reduce solar gains The external shading panels comprise two layers set apart, each with
through the glazed envelope while allowing daylight to penetrate the full a 50% perforation. Their combined effect provides 95% shading, while
depth of the interior office space. allowing daylight to reflect off the two layers, and reflected daylight to
pass through.
This aim is achieved by setting the shading panels forward of the glazed
facade formed by a unitised curtain wall. The shading devices are sup- Physical performance testing for dynamic air and water was used to
ported by lightweight aluminium brackets. The gap between the solar assess the effects of wind turbulence in order to ensure that audible
shading and the glazed wall allows for the vertical passage of a cleaning vibration did not occur as a result of wind moving across, or through,
and maintenance access cradle. the perforated shading assemblies.
MCCS_75
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
6 Burj Alshaya, Kuwait City
MCCS_76
BURJ ALSHAYA, Kuwait City
HOTEL AND OFFICES
ARCHITECT
GENSLER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
KEO INTERNATIONAL
MEP ENGINEERING
KEO INTERNATIONAL
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.08
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 1.20
MCCS_77
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
6 Typical system bays
3 8
10
10
Details
1. Aluminium cladding panel
2. Double glazed unit
3. Spandrel panel
4. Extruded aluminium transom
5. Extruded aluminium mullion
6. Thermal insulation
7. Extruded aluminium bracket
3D external view of typical bay 8. Floor slab
9. Floor finish
10. Ceiling finish
MCCS_78
1
6
1 6
4
4
2 2
5
5
5
7
4
8
2 3
2
5
1
1 9
10
8
3
10
2
2
9 9
8 8
MCCS_79
COMPLEX GEOMETRY 2
6 System design 9
4
Details
1. Aluminium cladding panel 6. Thermal insulation
2. Double glazed unit 7. Extruded aluminium section
3. Spandrel panel 8. Floor slab
4. Extruded aluminium transom 9. Floor finish
5. Extruded aluminium mullion 10. Ceiling finish
8
7
2
Top view
3
5
6
10
2
8
7
6
Front view
2
7
10
MCCS_80
Bottom view
4
2
3 2
9 8
4
2 5
8 1
1
6
9
9
2D detail. Scale 1:5
8 8
10
10
6 8
8
3
7
9
9
1
8
10
10
Back view
MCCS_81
78.90
COMPLEX GEOMETRY 77.66
77.00
77.00
75.68
76.34
75.02
75.68 78.8 64.6
74.37
75.02 64.6
73.71 78.9 78.8 64.6
74.37 76.3 63.8 64.6
73.05
73.71
63.8 78.9
76.4 76.3
72.39
76.3 63.8
63.8
73.05 63.8
63.8
76.3 76.4
71.73 72.39 76.4 63.8
73.6 62.4 63.8
71.08 71.73 62.4 73.6 76.4
62.4
70.42 71.08 73.6 73.6 62.4
62.4
70.42 62.4 73.6 73.6
69.76 62.4
73.1 73.6 62.4
69.76
69.10 62.1 73.1 73.6
69.10 62.1 62.1
68.44 73.1 73.1 62.1
68.44 62.1 73.1 73.1
67.78 62.1 62.1
67.78 73.1 73.1 62.1
67.13 61.6 73.1 73.1
67.13 61.6 61.6
63.5 61.6
66.47 72.2 73.0 63.5 73.0
66.47 63.5 72.2 63.5
65.81 65.81
63.4 72.2 63.4
65.15
72.2 63.5 72.2 63.5
72.2
65.15
52.58
15000.
Tension
Z 20000.
Y
distribution
Sector in Elements,Cable
of system Beam pre-stressed cables (kN) Elements,Supporting Lines30000.
25000.
Elements,Quadrilateral
X Cable Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 10 sw + prestress , 1 cm 3D = 140.0 kN (Max
0.03 0.19
0.12
0.13 0.54
0.
01
0.54 0.54 0.70 0.70
4.07
0.26
0.340.53 0.53
0.12
0.43 0.56
0.06
0.02
0.00
3
0.56 0.70
4.5
0.69
0. 3.75
01 04. 06
00 .
5.41 0. 2
0. 0. 0 0 3.2
01 01
3.97 0.
01
0. 9
0.70
5000.
0. 0
0.71
.4
0.
00 00 3 1 4.97
2. 82
0.71 0.71 0.71
0.
0. 0 .0 01 3.86
00 0.960 2.1 8
0.70
0. 0 3.04
00 1..19
0.70 0.70
00
0 . 0 . 1.91 2
0.65 00 0
0.209
0.70
0.
0 0
1.86 0.
10.005
3.00 0
2.25 .
10.9 0
0
4.06 0.0
0.70 0.70
0.70 0.70
0 13 0.0
3. 0
0.2.38
0.71
5.11 0.
0.70 0.70
1 13 00
04.
0.71
6. 32
0.5.24 0..25 0.00
7.49 01 7 4 01
0.
0. 6.3 0.0 1
0.71
8.89 01 0 6.12
1
0 7.94 .01
0.70 0.70
10.32 .01 8 7. 27 0
0.70 0.70
.2
0.71
9 0. .0
11.70 0.0.32 01 1
0.71
10 1 0 0.
13.31 0.02.87 .01 01
11
0.69
0.
15.20 0.0213.12 01
0.
01 780.0
Facade assembly
16.30
0.71
12. 1
16.62 0.0
0.71
2 Details
0 16.44 0.
01 1. Structural cables
2. Spider bracket
0. 5000. 10000. 15000. 20000. m
Von Mises stress distribution (MPa) Displacements distribution in double glazing units (mm) 3. Double glazed unit
Z Sector of system Beam Elements,Cable Elements,Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines M 1 : 9
Y Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement components in local directions in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 10.0 mm (Min=-5.63) X * 0.54
X Y * 0.89
(Max=16.6) Z * 0.94
MCCS_82
.8
32
-0 6E
.0 -3
0.0360 01
9
0.0309 0.
00
13
0.0257 Unitised glazing with
-0.0052
-0.0469
-0.0208
0.0206 0.
Type of bay external aluminium
00
shading diamonds.
-0.0073
19
0.0154
-0.0467
01
06
-0.0073
0.0051 Primary structure type Concrete slabs.
0.0083
-0.0208
0.0135
0.0000 -0
Extruded aluminium
-0.0052
.0
10
5 Secondary structure type
-0.0051 profiles.
0.103
-0.0103 Weight of secondary
0.08
0.159
-0.0154 structure (kN/m2)
-0.0206 Serrated plates; post-
0.103
Facade bracket
-0.0257 drilled anchorages.
0.159
-0.0309 Number of components
3 and 4
-0.0360
type of fixing system
-0.0412 Bending moment distribution in the Weight of facade, primary
1.20
-0.0463 aluminium frame (kNm) structure excluded (kN/m2)
-28.00 -26.00 -24.00 -22.00 -20.00 -18.00
-0.0469
Details
Z Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.100 kNm (Min=-0.0469) (Max=0.159) M 1
1. Aluminium cladding
Y 2. Aluminium extruded profile X *
X Y *
2
3. Fixing bracket Z *
4. Double glazing unit
5. Aluminium transom
2 6. Spandrel panel
7. Primary structure
3
3 7
1 6
The facade systems integrate assemblies which have very different re- The deflection limit determines the pre-stress required in the cables.
quirements for structural performance and stiffness. A primary objective The finite element analysis model was built up by introducing increasing
of the design has been to embed as much interdependence as possible numbers of components. The non-linear behaviour of the cables due to
by using interface connections that allow parts to move freely and provide large displacements is tested first with simplified analytical models to
restraint only where needed for minimum structural support. Given the pre-size cables and establish preliminary pre-stress levels, which can
high level of integration and in order to ensure global stability, interdepen- be checked through hand calculations. A representative portion of the
dencies are inevitably generated which are analysed through combined supporting primary structure is modelled to simulate the stiffness of
numerical models, where the mutual effects are quantified. The size and the supports, which alters the response of the structure during lateral
weight of the diamond-shaped shading panels is significant for an external loading. The effect of the primary structure is similar to adding a set of
shading element and its effects on the overall mullion deflections are un- springs with varying stiffness at each support, which determines a dif-
derstood through a combined numerical model, which includes both shad- ferent response of the facade when subjected to wind loading or dynam-
ing and glazing. Relative movements in service are kept sufficiently low ic excitation, as it changes its resonant frequency. The glass panels are
to ensure the water tightness and air tightness of the facade assembly. modelled as being point-supported with released rotation, which simu-
lates the connection between glass panels and cables through ‘spider’
connectors. These allow free rotation that avoids stress concentrations
The cable support of the glass facades used at ground floor level provides
at corner points. The final numerical model is used to assess the overall
structural visual lightness by introducing higher loads on the primary
stiffness of the combined system; this numerical model also includes
structure. Pre-stressing forces are introduced in each cable during instal-
the glazing panes, which introduce additional stiffness in the system and
lation. During the service life of the building, these forces are absorbed by
may attract loads. The model allows to establish a link between localised
the primary structure, at top and bottom interfaces. The design of the ca-
stresses at glazing panel level, global movements of the facade and stiff-
ble glass facade is driven by its global deflections at serviceability, whose
ness of the cable structure.
limit is set to span/60 due to visual comfort of the building occupants, as
the system itself could allow for larger deflection without failing.
MCCS_83
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
6 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
1100
900
675
475
250
100
kWh/m2
925
% Daylight factor
750
2
600
1.7
450
1.3
250
0.7
100
0.3
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_84
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
6.5 2.5
5 2
4 1.5
2.5 1
1.5 0.5
0 0
External and internal air velocity distribution
20 °C Pressure, kPa
13 °C
0 °C 2
1.5
The shading devices provide a high level of protection to reduce peak The combination of external shading and curtain wall system requires
solar gains. This strategy has the benefit of reducing cooling loads while careful attention to avoid condensation risks, which can be internal,
admitting relatively high levels of natural daylight within the interior spac- external or interstitial. The connections between systems often require
es, by using glass with a high level of transparency. the thermal line of one system to be penetrated by the connection,
as the structural part to connect to is typically behind the thermal/
Internally, CFD analysis was undertaken in order to determine the waterproofing line. This introduces thermal bridges in the system,
expected air flows within interior spaces as a result of air being injected which must be assessed with appropriate analysis in order to verify
through openings in the the office facade. This air is extracted in the that no risk of condensation is present in the assembly. This analysis
middle of the internal spaces at ceiling level . An internal CFD study is can usually be performed in 2D, but may also require a 3D analysis.
used in order to extract velocity fields and ensure that the speed of the The thermal bridges also affect the U-value of the facade system and
internal air stays within the limits of thermal comfort expected within require the insulation thickness to compensate for these losses or,
office spaces. alternatively, additional thermal breaks to be added.
MCCS_85
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
6 Burj Alshaya, Kuwait City
The Burj Alshya project is composed of two high-rise towers in which The unitised assembly technology used for the project is a well-estab-
the envelope is conceived as a ‘close wrap’ of the regular reinforced lished current technology but it incorporates component materials
concrete structure, where variations of the main facade system are which are emerging, such as the combination of extruded silicone
generated in order to meet the performance parameters for different and structural sealant. These materials are compatible for use in the
parts of the building. The facade design is based on current curtain same assembly, as they are made of the same base material. The use
wall technology, where the design emphasis is to ensure high levels of of extruded silicones combined with wet silicones is characteristic of
performance in terms of daylighting levels, thermal insulation and solar emerging technology, as the economic use of silicone extrusions was
control through a construction technology which is economic and quick only introduced in the construction industry through recent develop-
to install. ments. Previous building technologies tended to use mechanical fasten-
ers as an economic and reliable method for fixing components within
Unitised curtain wall technology addresses these issues and suits high- assemblies. Extruded silicone, as an emerging technology, has the effect
rise buildings, as the large global movements of the structure can be of reducing the number of components in the assembly, as each compo-
absorbed at local level by fixing each panel independently to floor slabs nent is engineered with closer attention to issues of thermal movement
and allowing independent movement between panels. With unitised and jointing. Sealants are used in more recently conceived systems to
technology, the joint width between adjacent panels can be engineered improve performance whilst reducing the labour time required to install
as the global movements of the structure is directly related to the rela- components in curtain wall panel assemblies. This mix of materials was
tive movement between any two floor slabs (inter-storey drift), allowing not possible with previous curtain wall technology, as it relied on the sep-
the calculation of the relative movements between each panel. aration between sealants and weathertight gaskets, which are made
from different materials that were incompatible, reducing the design life
Each unitised panel is fixed independently to the slabs and installed with of the assembly.
a pre-assembled half-frame along its perimeter. In this way, panels can
be quickly installed by fixing them to the floor slab through adjustable The curtain wall system used for this project makes use of more compo-
brackets from inside the building. Panels join at the perimeter interface nents than other available emerging technologies, but its inherent limi-
where the water-tightness of the system has three layers of protection tations are overcome by using emerging technologies in the structural
against air and water infiltration provided by extruded polymer gaskets; sealants and high performing double-glazed units.
the aluminium extruded frames being internally drained and ventilated.
The fast installation of the system suits high-rise construction and mini- Due to the extreme climatic conditions of the project location (Kuwait),
mises the amount of scaffolding required. the curtain wall system is designed to accommodate high thermal
movements. These are caused by the very high surface temperatures
that external components can achieve when exposed to direct solar
MCCS_86
radiation, which leads to large differential temperatures within the Performance testing was required in order to verify the combined
same assembly. The design therefore needs to embed more robust- effects of the large external shading elements fixed to the aluminium
ness, achieved through a loose fit assembly which attempts to minimise framing. The combined effects could not be verified through numerical
the number and interdependency of the components involved. The use analysis as it concerned wind-induced noise and vibration of the exter-
of structural sealants is also driven by this requirement. nal shading system, together with the weather tightness and structural
resistance of the assembly to wind and earthquake loads at serviceabili-
As the project is located in a hot climate where high levels of humidity are ty. The dynamic air and water test was a critical part of the performance
present for large parts of the year, an essential parameter in the design testing to validate these design aspects.
is that humidity is assumed to penetrate the full depth of the framing,
past the second barrier of protection. Consequently, the design of the As the system is designed as a combination of current technologies (uni-
unitised framing system requires also the second air chamber to be ven- tised curtain wall and external shading devices) and includes some mate-
tilated and drained to avoid condensation. This is not typically required rial systems exploiting more recent emerging technology, performance
for milder climates, where only the outer chamber is usually ventilated. testing is required to validate the overall performance of the assembly
under project-specific conditions. Physical testing also validates the level
The same unitised technology assembly is used in a range of different of workmanship that the fabricator can achieve to ensure the expected
configurations across the two towers of the project, both in terms of water tightness. This is verified by inspecting the disassembled mock-up
size and number of components, in order to meet different environmen- after all tests are performed.
tal and structural performance requirements.
Structural and environmental calculations on both components and
External shading elements are introduced in certain areas of the project assemblies were undertaken prior to the testing to determine the sizes
in order to provide additional solar control where glass with higher light of components and the overall design feasibility, based on the results of
transmission is used to increase daylighting levels. Unitised panels are the wind tunnel test which established peak cladding pressures. Phys-
conceived as fully prefabricated modules and the aluminium fins that ical testing was then required to verify the magnitude of the combined
provide support for the external shading introduce deep penetrations effect of external shading fixed onto curtain wall, particularly the magni-
through the panel joints. The aluminium fins are fixed to the framing of tude of the dynamic effects on the water tightness of the system.
the unitised panels through moment connections, which do not use tri- Physical testing offers a set of standardised procedures to validate the
angulation to achieve stiffness in the assembly. These types of connec- expected performance of current technologies for project-specific appli-
tion introduce complexity in controlling the movements of the assembly cations. Complex assemblies using current technologies can include
to avoid water penetration. components that use emerging material technology, whose enhanced
functionality can only be assessed through testing.
MCCS_87
87
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
7 Dance & Music Centre, The Hague
MCCS_88
DANCE & MUSIC CENTRE, The Hague
PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE
ARCHITECT
ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
AKT II
MEP ENGINEERING
MAX FORDHAM
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 2.44
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 3.42
MCCS_89
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
7 Typical system bays
1 6
6
4
4 Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. GRP cladding
3. Insulation
4. Internal floor finish
5. Mullion
8
6. I-beam girder
7. Floor slab
8. Louvre blade
3D external view of typical bay
MCCS_90
3D internal view 3D internal view
5 1
1 5
6
3
6
6
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
5
5
7
4
MCCS_91
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
7 System design
5
1
Top view
2
4
1
1
3
2
Front view
2
1
5
Bottom view
MCCS_92
4
3
3
4
2
1
3
4
1
5
Back view
1 1
2
4 2 4
Details
1. Double glazed unit 3
2. External cladding 3
3. Thermal insulation
4. I beam structure
5. Mullion
3D views of system
MCCS_93
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
7 Structural analysis
2000.
1800.
1600.
Finite element model of a typical bay
1400.
8.7893E6
8.3217E6
2000.
8.0443E6
7.7669E6
7.4895E6
7.2122E6
6.9348E6
6.6574E6
6.3800E6
1800.
6.1026E6
5.8252E6
5.5478E6
5.2704E6
4.9930E6
4.7156E6
4.4382E6
1200.
1600.
4.1609E6
3.8835E6
3.6061E6
3.3287E6
3.0513E6
2.7739E6
2.4965E6
1400.
2.2191E6
1.9417E6
1.6643E6
1.3870E6
1.1096E6
8.3217E5
5.5478E5
1200.
2.7739E5
0.0000E0
-2.7739E5
1000.
-5.5478E5
-8.3217E5
-1.1096E6
-1.3870E6
Finite element model of connection bracket
1000.
-1.6643E6
-1.9417E6
-2.2191E6
-14400. -14200. -14000. -13800. -13600. -13400. -13200. -13000. -12800. mm
M 1 : 7
, from -2.3063e+06 to 8.7893e+06 step 2.7739e+05 N/mm2 X * 0.502
Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962
MCCS_94
2.09
0.436
4.73
65.0 65.0
0.423 29.3
9.20
0.175
13.3
0.495
0.465
21.4
62.3 62.3
0.317 26.9
17.6
0.0245
24.6
27.2
59.5 59.5
0.513
0.400
4.09
0.0406
30.6
5.32
0.450
28.7
31.1
56.8 56.8
6.47
30.8
7.60
0.311
8.39
0.0110
1.84
0.0998
8.97
24.6
54.1 54.1
21.3
9.42
4.49
17.4
0.260
0.379
7.38
8.70
0.0531
9.70 21.2
0.586
10.3
13.1
9.80
51.4 51.4
0.147
12.9
9.72
3.80
6.71
0.242
-5000.
15.3
5.93
48.7 48.7
0.365
17.5
0.475
0.867
19.3
20.5
4.41
0.612
7.44
0.683
46.0 46.0
6.31
7.21
0.766
10.0
4.67
19.0
21.4
3.46
2.15
12.9
17.8
21.1
43.3 43.3
15.2
20.2
17.5
1.85
16.1
19.4
13.9
20.5
11.3
40.6 40.6
21.1
7.28
8.65
4.39
10.2
19.0
5.91
21.3
37.9 37.9
12.8
17.8
21.0
2.57
15.2
20.1
17.4
16.2
35.2 35.2
14.0
19.2
11.4
20.5
21.1
4.49
8.67
0.0411
19.0
32.5 32.5
5.57
5.93
21.3 9.71
6.64
17.8
21.0
7.49
2.60
8.29
0.0453
20.1 9.36
29.8 29.8
8.87
0.504
16.2
0.168
14.0
9.32
11.4
5.74
0.355
0.0085
27.1 8.48 27.1
0.549
0.0818
9.61
9.01
5.47
11.7
5.24
0.191
9.63
14.6
2.61
24.4 24.4
0.306
16.8
0.813
6.28 17.8
18.9
0.435
0.539
4.41
7.33
21.7 21.7
21.1
0.661
7.29
20.2 20.5
6.19
0.759
10.2
4.92 11.4
19.0
1.87
3.59 8.67
21.3
2.29
18.9 18.9
12.9
20.1
20.9
15.2
17.5
16.2
-10000.
14.0
19.2
16.2 16.2
4.48
21.1
7.28
10.1
19.0
13.5 13.5
5.94
21.3
12.9
17.8
21.0
2.60
15.3
20.1
17.5
10.8 10.8
16.1
19.4
14.0
20.6
11.3
21.2
4.78
8.65
0.0352
3.77
5.78
8.1 8.1
19.0
5.91
21.4 9.56
0.0630
0.183
7.53
17.7
0.8993E-3
0.0086
21.1
2.58
6.68
5.4 5.4
20.2 9.23
8.23
0.0030
16.1
9.21
13.9
8.78
11.3
2.7 2.7
9.47
0.0045
8.60
0.341
0.144
5.85
0.452
0.243
0.0697
9.49
0.0 0.0
2.52
0.0906
8.80
7.32
8.13
-2.7 -2.7
5.44
6.36
4.43
-5.4 -5.4
1.93
1.05
3.31
-8.1 -8.1
-10.8 -10.8
-30000. -25000. -20000. mm
Vertical displacements distribution-13.5
in the steel frame (mm) -13.5
-32.5 -32.5
Primary structure type Concrete slabs.
-35.2 -35.2
Secondary structure type-37.9 I and H steel sections. -37.9
-15000. -14500. -14000. -15000. -13500. -14500. -13000. -14000. -1
-38.6 -38.6
Weight of secondary
2.44
structure (kN/m2) Z Sector of system Group 2...4 Principal
Z stress
Sector distribution in the steel
of system Group 2...4beams (MPa)
Y Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weightY Top
, from
Principal
-38.6 stress
to 69.6 I step
in Node,
2.71 Loadcase
N/mm2 1 self weight , from
X Serrated and welded X
Facade bracket type plates; post-drilled
anchorages.
Number of components in Details
3
fixing system 1. Double glazed unit 5. Mullion
Weight of facade, including 2. FRP cladding 6. Floor slab
3.42 3. Thermal insulation 7. Fixing bracket
secondary structure (kN/m2)
4. I beam girder
blies to be fixed with greater ease as a result of them being fixed directly 7
The secondary members are clad with fibre reinforced polymer (FRP)
cladding which generates a large volume around the supporting steel
structure. This is made structurally possible by the lightweight nature
of FRP cladding which can also be moulded to achieve complex dou-
Facade assembly
bly-curved shapes. The secondary horizontal members also support a
large spandrel panel which interfaces with the framing of the glazing
strips above and below.
MCCS_95
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
7 Environmental analysis
Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates
kWh/m2
1750
1400
1100
700
350
150
1750
12
1400
10
1100
8
700
6
350
4
150
2
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_96
Internal External
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
2.5 6
2 4.5
1.5 3.0
1 2.6
0.5 0.75
0 0
External and internal air velocity distribution
20 °C Pressure, kPa
13 °C 2
0 °C
1.5
0.5
-0.5
EXT INT
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution
The building is designed around the need to maximise transparency The depth of the shading louvres, together with their high reflectivity act
through dense shading which allows high levels of daylight to be main- as light shelves to maximise the amount of daylighting which reaches
tained inside, as a result of using highly transparent glass. Most of the the interior spaces.
direct solar radiation is excluded by the opaque facade elments which
enclose the supporting steel structure. The design concept allows the The integration of a large concealed spandrel also allows the thermal
use of a shading ratio which is close to optimal. insulation thickness to meet varying U-value requirements. The enve-
lope system ‘morphs’ from perforated to being fully opaque as the strips
widen and narrow along the length of each facade.
MCCS_97
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
8 K. Çamlica TV Tower, Istanbul
MCCS_98
K. ÇAMLICA TV TOWER, Istanbul
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER
41°01’56” N
29°04’09” E
ARCHITECT
MELIKE ALTINISIK ARCHITECTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
BALKAR MÜHENDISLIK
LIGHTING ENGINEERING
DARK LIGHTING
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 1.33
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 2.83
MCCS_99
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
8 Typical system bays
7
1
7
8
3
Details
1. External GRC cladding
2. Double glazed unit
3. Thermal insulation
4. Internal floor finish
5. Mullion
6. I-beam structure
7. Concrete wall
8. Secondary steel structure
3D external view of a typical bay
9. Louvre plates
MCCS_100
1 1
8
9 6
2
1 2
4 6
5
3
1
8
3
3
8
1
MCCS_101
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
8 System design
1
2
Top view
1
1
2
4
2
3
Front view
MCCS_102
2
4 4
1 1
4
2
Back view
2 4
3
Details
1. External cladding 2
2. Louvre plates
3. I beam structure 3
4
4. Secondary steel
structure
MCCS_103
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
8 Structural analysis
Z
Vertical displacements distribution in the
Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight
, 1 cm 3D = 2.00 mm
steel structure (mm)
(Min=-2.40) (Max=0.0098)
Y X
4
Secondary structure type SHS steel sections.
Weight of secondary
3 1.33
structure (kN/m2)
2
Serrated plates; post-drilled
Facade bracket type
anchorages.
3 Details Number of components in
1. Primary structure 12
3 fixing system
2. Steel secondary structure
3. Fixing bracket Weight of facade, including
2.83
4. Panel frame secondary structure (kN/m2)
Facade assembly
The insulated external wall panels, which enclose the top floors of the The backing frames of the GRC rainscreens are fixed directly to the
tower, are clad with GRC (glass fibre reinforced concrete) rainscreen. steel frame of the unitised panels as a result of the use of adjustable
Each insulated panel is fully unitised and is provided with a half-unitised brackets. The GRC rainscreens are fixed to the unitised panels before
aluminium frame in order to interface with adjacent panels. Each panel installation in order to minimise installation time. The same GRC panels
is supported by the floor slab and is restrained at two other points: at are fixed to a secondary steel structure for the lower part of the tower.
the top, where the panel resists lateral wind forces, and at the bottom, The steel structure is fixed to the primary concrete structure, following
where it is linked to the panel below. Lateral restraints are provided the architectural shape of the building and providing continuous support
in order to limit the overall panel deflections by reducing the rotation to the facades.
of the module, which otherwise would be simply-supported. The facade
panels make use of vertical unitised joints in order to accommodate The secondary steel structure cantilevers from the concrete core with
structural movement, including where the structure steps in and out, as varying spans. The overall steel structure that supports the facade
horizontal unitised joints would not ensure the required waterproofing panels is required to have a uniform behaviour in terms of both vertical
of the system. deflections and horizontal movements. This requires each truss to be
designed individually and to be assigned its own size in order to ensure
The GRC rainscreen panels are stiffened by a galvanized steel frame that trusses that support adjacent panels behave similarly. The cantile-
cast into the back of the GRC panel. The outer surface of the GRC is typ- vering trusses are also connected for lateral stability, which requires the
ically composed of a finer surface mix (approximately 5mm thick) which whole structure to be analysed as a unique element fixed to the main
is not taken into account in the structural design of the panel since it concrete structure of the tower. Stresses induced in the concrete are
provides only a decorative outer finish. also analysed together with the effects on the dynamic behaviour of the
tower determined by the steel trusses that support the facade panels
at their end.
MCCS_104
33.6 13.6
32.2 12.2
31.1 11.4
30.0 10.5
29.0 9.6
27.9 8.7
33.6 13.6
26.8 32.2 7.9 12.2
31.1
25.8 11.4
160.00
7.0
30.0 10.5
24.7 6.1
29.0 9.6
26.8 7.9
22.5 4.4
25.8
160.00
7.0
21.5 24.7 3.5 6.1
20.4 23.6
2.6 5.2
22.5 4.4
19.3 1.7
21.5 3.5
18.2 20.4 0.9 2.6
19.3 1.7
17.2 0.0
18.2 0.9
16.1 -0.9
17.2 0.0
15.0 -1.7
14.0 -2.6
140.00
14.0 -2.6
140.00
12.9 12.9 -3.5 -3.5
7.5 -7.9
8.6 -7.0
6.4 -8.7
7.5 -7.9
5.4 -9.6
3.2 -11.4
5.4 -9.6
2.1 -12.2
4.3 -10.5
120.00
1.1 -13.1
120.00
1.1 -3.2 -13.1 -16.6
-4.3 -17.5
0.0 -14.0
-5.4 -18.4
-1.1 -14.9
-6.4 -19.2
-8.6 -21.0
-3.2 -16.6
-20.00 0.00 20.00 -20.00 40.00 0.00 60.00 20.00 80.00 m 40.00
-9.3 -21.4
-4.3 -17.5
Z Sector of system Group 1 Z Sector of system Group 4 M 1 : 435
-5.4 Y -18.4
Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight Top Principal
, from -9.34 Yto 33.6 step 1.07stress
MPa I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight X * 0.332
, from -21.4 to 13.6 step 0.874 MPa
X X Y * 1.000
-6.4 -19.2 Z * 0.944
-7.5 -20.1
-8.6 -21.0
-20.00 0.00 20.00-20.00 40.00 0.00 60.00 20.00 80.00 m 40.00 6
-9.3
Principal stress distribution in the core (MPa)
-21.4
Principal stress distribution in the slabs (MPa)
Z Sector of system Group 1 Z Sector of system Group 4 M 1 : 435
Y Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight Y toTop
, from -9.34 Principal
33.6 stress
step 1.07 MPa I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight X *MPa
, from -21.4 to 13.6 step 0.874 0.332
X X Y * 1.000
Z * 0.944
Facade Systems
Unitised System
GRC panel and carrier frame
0. 4.77 4.77
0. 71 4.60 4.60
0.424
44 5 1.
3 4.48 4.48
4.00
98
0
0. .48 1. 1.8 1.89
4.36 4.36
1.
4.00
89 9 51 4.24
1. 8 9 4.24 0.0854
4
0. 0 2. 14.12 82 1.03
.8 0. 4.12
0.803 1.97 0.8
0. 48 30 0 62
11 8 3. 1. 4.01
2 4.01
0 1. 3. 06 1. 81 13.89 .1 1.39
0. 48 11 84 9 1. 3.89
1.99 3.31 1.9
71 0 0 0. 0.
3. 3.4 1. 1.9
3.77 3.77
6 3. 58 58
1. 29 5 72 98 2 03.65
.9 1. 3.65 9
3.80
0.972 9
28 0. 3.54 80 85 1.90 1.90
3. 4. 12 3.54
3 45 37 1.
3.00
53.42
2. .05 4
4.
5 23 2. 3.42
3.81 1.12 3.8
67 .5 9 0. 2. 56 1.03 1.03
3.00
5 50 3.30
63 3.30
3. 4. 4.6 3. 6
72 2. 2.8 3. 3.20 1.00
3.18
32 49 8 4.7
3.18
14 3.41 3.41
1. 663.06 1
6 4.0 04 3.06
1.95
4. 7
37 4. 4 2. 2.6 .81
2 2.95
3. 3.4 2.95
0.474 3.20 0.746 0.474 3.2
76 .3 2.833 8 0 6 1.97
0 2. 26 3 .7 2.83
4.77 1.9
3. 2 1.96
93 4. 27 2.71 2.71
1.12 3.04 1.12
22 3. 2. 2. 3. 3.
4. 32 31 72 78 3.2.59 45 2.59
29 2.08
2.47 96 3.
2.00
2.00
0. .7
2. 2.7 2 1 3.9
2.36 2.36
3. 42 2.05 2.0
17 93 5 5 6 3.2.24 2.24 2.84
2. 0 3. 76 2.
2.
1. .637
37 52 47 2.12
55 2.12
1.58 1.89 1.58
06 3.
1. 0. 75 2. 2.6
2.00 2.00 4.77 2.97 1.38 4.77 2.9
19 3. 7 0 1.86
0.
80 1. 1.0 6 50 1.89 9 1.89
1.90 1.02 1.9
06 6
96
6 0. 0.
0. 3. 2. 2.6 1.77 0. 1.77 3.08
73 0. 20 13 79 51.65 0 32 1.82 1.82
0. 7 44 4 23 2. .6 5 1.65
25 0. 4 0. 8 58 2. 0 10 3.40
1.53 . 2.94 2.9
1.00
57 60 0. 71 1.53
2 12 5 0.
6 60
1.00
0. 0. 3 2. 1.41 50 1.41
57 0. 1 97 08 0. 0.8 1.30 0 5 1.37 3.73
1.04
1.37
0. 5 0. 1. 98 17 1.30
44 84 52 30 3 1.
5 9 3 0. 1.18 2 1.18
0.
71 1. 3 3.71 1.91 3.7
0. 0. 5 1.06 98 1.06
1.02 1.02
22 0. 74 61
9 0. 89 8 5 0.94
1. 1.8 0.94
81 3 84 9 1.99
0.821. 3.39 3.39
0. 9 0. 81
0.82
0. 76
0. 66 20 1. 0.71 0.71
0.185
52 7 0 6 800.59 0.59 1.97 1.9
1.04 1.04
0.00
0. 7 1.
11 1. 1.8
0.00
30 84 1 0.47 0.47
0.118 0.118
2 1. 1.90 1.90
1. 89 0.35 0.35
98
-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
0.24
m
0.24
0.0608 0.0608
0.12 0.12
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 -3.00 0.00 -2.00 1.00 -1.00 2.00 0.00 3.00
kWh/m2
850
675
500
350
175
50
850 10
675 8
500 6
350 4
175 2
50 0
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
Without Solar
Period With shading Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 1.47%
shading reduction
Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.89%
1 year 14.5 MWh 23.6 MWh 38% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.55%
MCCS_106
Pressure, kPa Velocity, m/s Pressure, kPa
1.6 100 1.6
0.6 0.6
75
-0.4 -0.4
50
-1.4 -1.4
25
-2.4 -2.4
-3.4 0 -3.4
20 °C
13 °C
0 °C
The ‘steps’ in the geometry of the facades, which form part of the exte- Wind cladding pressure distribution
rior shape of the tower, generate local effects of wind turbulence. These
effects result in varying cladding pressures as well as different wind
pressures being applied to the horizontal areas connecting the vertical
steps of panels. Due to the high level of transparency required of the
glazing, the glass chosen was a type with lower light transmission in
order to avoid glare in the internal spaces. A glare analysis has been
undertaken for the interior space, taking into account the expected level
and frequency of occupancy. The use of internal blinds provides greater
flexibility in the control of daylight levels.
CFD studies for the tower were conducted in order to provide early
stage cladding pressures. These studies informed the early stage
structural design of facade assemblies by revealing the dynamic effects
of the wind on the tower, which are determined by the vortex shedding
frequency being too close to the natural frequency of the tower. The
studies were conducted through transient analysis in order to meas-
ure the vortex shedding frequency which is mainly determined by its
irregular outer shape. A wind tunnel test was also performed at very
early stages to confirm cladding pressures to be used for structur-
al calculations and to calibrate the CFD analysis used also to assess
dynamic effects. This allowed the required stiffness of the tower to be
Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution on east and
confirmed, which informs the overall movements that are to be accom- north facade
modated by the external envelope.
MCCS_107
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
8 K. Çamlica TV Tower, Istanbul
The high-rise nature of the KCTV building (approximately 300m) is at The use of adapted unitised glazing joints allows global lateral move-
the core of the design and analysis for the envelope system enclosing ments of the building to be accommodated. These movements are
the primary concrete structure, whose primary purpose is to support driven by the stiffness of the primary structure which determines the
the antenna TV mast. In addition, the tower has ten accessible floors, amount of inter-storey drift. Unitised technology for facade panels is
including a restaurant space on its upper part. The use of these floors used only in a vertical configuration, thereby removing the risk of water
requires deflection limits to be controlled in order to ensure comfort at penetration. The unitised facade panels incorporate the exterior rain-
serviceability for the building occupants. The highly modelled form of the screen GRC cladding so that the facade for the lower floors can also
building together with its significant height determines an essential part serve as open-jointed rainscreen GRC panels, fixed via adjustable brack-
of the behaviour of both structure and envelope, the design of which is ets to the secondary steel structure.
driven by the effects of wind.
The key parameters informing the design of the envelope system are
The project’s location at the top of a hill makes it subject to high wind speed of installation, which determined the use of fully unitised panels
speeds. The complex geometry of the tower requires detailed under- with integrated exterior cladding, and accommodation of movement,
standing of wind effects which may include the dynamic excitation of which is provided by the use of unitised joints which are designed to
the tower. sustain the required amount of movement. Due to the size of the facade
panels, spanning directly from floor to ceiling, the effects of wind are the
The primary structure is composed of a main concrete structural core key drivers of structural thicknesses which determine the load of the
which supports outrigger slabs at the accessible floors. The facade is facades on the structure.
directly fixed to the slab edges. In order to provide geometric continuity
to the facades below the accessible floors, a steel secondary structure The assembly technology was tested through a series of iterations in-
provides structural support to the facade panels, a structure which can- volving the 3D printing of components, such as the unitised aluminium
tilevers from the main concrete core. extrusions, and the construction of a one-to-one scale prototype of the
two full-height unitised panels, including the interface between them. The
The envelope system was designed to minimise installation time and mock-up was used to devise the fabrication process for each component,
uses an innovative unitised system that integrates thin glass fibre re- test the assembly sequence and the feasibility of the proposed interface.
inforced concrete (GRC) rainscreen panels, stiffened by a steel frame
which is fixed directly to a steel framed insulated backing wall. This back- The assessment of the wind effects on this high-rise building required
ing wall has integrated glazed openings. The use of glazing unitised fram- several iterations and made use of both digital tools and physical wind
ing technology informs the design of the sealed connections between tunnel testing. Wind tunnel testing is used primarily as a final validation
panels that enclose the accessible levels. tool of the design cladding pressures, as the nature of the test does
MCCS_108
not allow for quick iterations. Wind tunnel testing requires a 3D print to be performed and would therefore not allow design options to be
of the building geometry and has a long set-up and testing timeframe. It tested at the start of the project. This basic test ensures preliminary
is performed only by specialist laboratories that are required to follow calibration which adds considerable value to CFD modelling, despite not
standard procedures and certify their results. guaranteeing their high accuracy.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis is suited to rapid design Due to the height of the building, a wind tunnel test was undertaken dur-
iterations and is a useful tool for validating the robustness of design ing the early stages to establish peak cladding pressures. This allowed
concepts at early design stages, as it allows analyses to be quickly re-run the design to develop accurate sizes of facade components from the
that can directly inform design decisions. first stage studies, providing the data to optimise the envelope build-up
and obtain an accurate understanding of the impact of the facade loads
CFD analysis was used on the KCTV tower to assess the variation in on the structural behaviour of the concrete structure. The early stage
magnitude of the structural loads across the tower. The vortex shed- wind tunnel test provided a tool for calibrating the CFD studies undertak-
ding frequency which is affected by the main protruding parts of the en, which were aimed at exploring the dynamic response of the tower
tower was estimated and was used to ensure that the structure does under wind effects due to its irregular geometry, in order to calibrate
not resonate at the vortex shedding frequency. From the CFD study, the stiffness of the primary structure.
preliminary structural loads were established by averaging cladding
pressures across representative areas of the building and applying the
corresponding pressure distributions as load cases in the structural
finite element model.
MCCS_109
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
9 Meixihu IC&A Centre, Changsha
MCCS_110
MEIXIHU IC&A CENTRE, Changsha
INTERNATIONAL CULTURE AND ARTS CENTRE
ARCHITECT
ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS
LOCAL DESIGN INSTITUTE
PEARL RIVER DESIGN INSTITUTE
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
((kN/m2)
STRUCTURE (kN/N/m2)
2) 0.60
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (k
kN/m
m2)
(kN/m2) 1.43
MCCS_111
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
9 Typical system bays
7 5
2
3
1
6
7
3D internal view of typical bay
1
Details
1. GRC rainscreen panel
2. Steel primary structure
3. Steel secondary structure
4. Thermal insulation
5. Double glazed unit
6. Floor finish
7. Mullion
3D external view of typical bay 8. Transom
MCCS_112
2
1 2
3 1
3
8
5
4
6 6 5
4
8
7
7
5 9
10
8
5
10
11 6
5 11
4
4
15
15
14
12
12
13
13
14
Details
1. GRC rainscreen panel 6. Thermal insulation 11. Waterproofing membrane
2. Glazed rooflight 7. Facade primary structure 12. Double glazed unit
3. Glazing frame 8. Supporting bracket 13. Mullion
4. I-beam primary structure 9. Metal frame 14. Glazing frame
5. Facade secondary structure 10. External cladding 15. Transom
MCCS_113
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
9 System design
3
2 6
5
1
Top view
2
2
Front view
3 1
6 5
2 6
Bottom view
3 1
6
1
2
Back view
4
Details
1. External cladding 4
3D views of system
2. Steel structure
3. Supporting bracket
4. I-beam primary structure
5. Cladding supporting bracket
MCCS_115
6. Thermal insulation
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
9 Structural analysis
View of typical bay Z Sector of system Beam Elements Nodal displacements distribution
X Y Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 200.0 mm (Min=-213.9) (Max=7.72)
153
0
-101
-202
-303
-403
-504
-605
-80.00
-706
-80.00
-77
-807 5.2 -77
5.2
-908 -723.5 -77
6.4 -723.5 -77
-1008 6.4
-1109
-724.6
-724.6
-1210 -77
-7 7.5 -77
-1311 -725.7 13 -7 7.5
.0 -725.7 13
-1412
.0
-11
-7 33 -11
-1513 -769 14 -7 33
.1 -1077 .3 -769 14
-1613 115.2 .1 -1077 .3
153.1 115.2
-770 153.1
-90.00
-1714
.4 -770
-90.00
-1 .4
-1815 19 -1
4 19
113.9 4
-1916 113.9
-108 -15
-2017 8 46 -108 -15
46
-1529 112.6 8 -1529
-2118 112.6
150.5
150.5
-2219 -108 -15
9 4 -108 -15
-1531 7 9 4
-2319 -1531 7
-109 -109
-2420 1 -15 1
-1532 49 -15
-2521 -1532 49
-3494 -36 -3494 -36
-2622 34 34
-100.00
-2723
-100.00
-2924
-3832
300.00 310.00 290.00 300.00 280.00 290.00 270.00 280.00 260.00 270.00 m 260.00 m
-3881
MCCS_116
1
Thin open-jointed GRC
Facade system
rainscreen on steel frame.
Facade zone 1000 mm
2
Details Primary structure type Steel I sections.
4 1. GRC panels
3
Secondary structure type CHS steel sections.
2. Panel frame
3. Secondary bracket Weight of secondary
0.60
4. Steel tubes structure (kN/m2)
5. Primary bracket Serrated plates and
4 Facade bracket type threaded tubes; welded
6. Steel C-sections
5 7. Primary structure and bolted.
Number of components in
10 and 9
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
1.43
secondary structure (kN/m2)
6
5
-10.7
60
62
7 -
-0.8 -0.0.41
.0
.2
Facade assembly
61 650 3
-1. -0
-0
-0.97
-20
10
-8.68 -36.5
5
-4.
.5
50
-11.2
-6.49
-19.
-9.25
9
-20.7
8
6.
9
5
8.
-3
1.
.8
-1 71
-0.8
-2
0
3.
-3
55.2 51.2
.7
30
34
-60.2 -2
-31.0
-39.0
.8
-26
-35.6
-9
.6
-26.2
4
-1
.8
7
-95.3 -96.9
-86.1
-51.6
-22.4
-2
.
79
-28.4
-28.9
-27
-28.6
-29.2
-26
-28
-30.2
-17.7
-9 .
Finite element model of primary bracket Von Mises stress distribution in primary Principal stress flow distribution in
.1.8
Sector of system
.1
Z
04
bracket (MPa)
Y X Top primary bracket
, 1 cm(MPa)
Principal stress II in Node, nonlinear Loadcase 2001 2001 3D = 179.7 N/mm2 += -= (Min=-234.7) (Max=55
The analysis of the global structural model was performed to establish nent of the facade assembly, which could be undertaken with the use
global deflections of the primary structure, which is realised as a mix of finite element analysis in order to safely reduce structural sizes. The
of steel and concrete moment frames, with secondary structure set target weight was met across the whole building envelope, even at loca-
across the three buildings. The interface between primary structure tions where the facade zone was up to 1.0 metre deep.
and facade is provided by the secondary structure, which has been op-
timised to achieve the architectural shape and provide support to the The build-up was optimised by using shared brackets with straps fixing
facade brackets through continuous rails. The use of curved, lightweight on to circular hollow section profiles. Thin glass fibre reinforced con-
secondary structure allowed to reduce both complexity and weight of crete (GRC) panels were used instead of monolithic GRC, which is twice
the primary structure, which could be realised through simplified and as heavy. For these large panels (up to 2m x 6m in size) a steel backing
more effecient structural primitives. frame was cast in the back of the GRC panel through L-shaped flexible
studs which are welded to the main flat steel frame. These provide con-
All secondary structure is rationalised to be singly-curved. A maximum tinuous support to the doubly-curved thin GRC skin approximately every
envelope load of 150kg/m2 was required in order to ensure that the 600mm in both directions, and allow for differential thermal expansion
primary structure could be constructed economically. This design con- between GRC and steel minimising thermal stresses.
straint required the optimisation of the weight of each individual compo-
MCCS_117
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
9 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
1200
950
750
600
250
150
8
850
6
650
4
425
2
242
0
59
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
Without Solar Mean daylight factor (floor-4): 2.11%
Period With shading Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 2.43%
shading reduction
Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.61%
1 year 36.3 MWh 49.4 MWh 24% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.32%
Mean daylight factor (floor-0): 0.92%
MCCS_118
Velocity, m/s
80
65
55
40
30
15
0
Wind velocity contours External wind velocity streamlines
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
6 2
4.5 1.5
3 1
1.5 0.5
0 0
Wind cladding
pressure distribution
The basis of the structural design was informed by early stage wind tun-
nel testing that established maximum cladding pressures, allowing sizes
of components to be determined from early design iterations onwards. Pressure, kPa
2
The daylighting analysis helped to establish the depth of penetration of 1.5
natural light within the building, allowing coordination of the design of 1
the interior lighting to be undertaken in order to avoid visual discomfort.
0.5
This is caused by abrupt changes in lux levels when moving from areas
0
adjacent to the external glazed facades to the spaces located more
internally, which rely on artificial lighting. -0.5
-1
Thermal bridging through the envelope was significantly reduced by
the use of long-span secondary structure members, which are sized to
span up to 8.0 metres between fixing brackets; the maximum distance
between consecutive primary structural members.
MCCS_119
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
9 Meixihu IC&A Centre, Changsha
The numerical analysis for this project is driven by the highly modelled iour of the assemblies. These results need to be validated both at global
geometry which drives both structural and environmental requirements scale, by considering the implications the choice of assembly has on
across the three buildings. In order to benefit from economies of scale the whole building, and at local scale by looking at the behaviour of each
across the three buildings, the external envelope was realised using a component within the assembly.
primary opaque cladding system that uses thin glass fibre reinforced
concrete (GRC) on steel framing in a rainscreen configuration. The sec- By studying typical bays, the efficiency of the system was assessed by
ondary system which forms transparent strips within the opaque con- comparing its performance for the most common configurations and
struction is a stick glazing system. for the most extreme cases. The design of the assembly was subse-
quently developing to work structurally with the same size components
The design of the envelope system is conceived to be effective across across the whole building.
the full range of conditions across the three buildings. The design and
optimisation of the assembly required the numerical analysis to focus in The use of geometry analysis through project-bespoke scripting tools,
parallel at three scales of facade assembly: able to scan and inspect all the components of the building geome-
• Component within the assembly try, is used as a tool to map out configurations and test support and
• Typical bay panelisation strategies, by quantifying the impact of competing design
• Global behaviour strategies such as savings in the number of fixings, and linear length
of supporting structure required. Geometry analysis was a driving tool
Geometry analysis using 3D modelling tools was used to map out all the in the design of a unique system for the opaque areas across the
configurations across the project in terms of: three buildings.
• Supporting structure
• Component size and geometry The general assembly strategy comprises lightweight glass fibre rein-
• Envelope inclination and orientation forced concrete (GRC) panels supported on adjustable fixing brackets,
• Thermal performance criteria determined by the interior enclosed which are fixed to the backing steel frame attached to each panel. The
space brackets supporting the panels are connected to tubular rails. The rails
closely match the architectural shape and provide a continuous line of
The analysis of each configuration identified at the scale of a typical bay support for panel fixings - set outside the weather line - and the primary
served as a starting point to establish performance constraints which structure beneath. The primary structure is composed primarily of a
would inform the design concept. A typical bay is a representative area stiff steel shell structure which approximates the overall building shape
of the building envelope, which typically includes the supporting struc- and has the primary purpose of supporting the concrete floor slabs.
ture and is also representative of project-specific local structural and The tubular rails were rationalised to be singly-curved tubes, which is
environmental effects. The design and analysis of the assembly follows an economic manufacturing process. Adjustable brackets connecting
from the analysis of typical bays, which describe the required behav- the tubular rails to the primary structure were designed to provide ad-
MCCS_120
justment for primary structure tolerances and accommodate rails with validated through wind tunnel testing to confirm cladding pres-
different curvatures joining at each fixing location. sures and overall structural loads.
The strategies for supporting structure, fixings and panelisation were test- • Assessment of the global stability of the proposed structural con-
ed through an iterative 3D modelling process across the three buildings. cept through a finite element (FE) model of the whole building. This
allowed areas that required further stiffening and the magnitude
The framing of the thin GRC panels is constructed through flat steel of both global movements and movements at typical bay scale
frames which are linked to the GRC thin panel through flexible cast- to be identified, which in certain areas is driven by global rather
in steel studs which ensure that lateral loads are transferred to the than local effects. Local movements are an essential parameter
framing and that the backing frame can expand thermally without im- in ensuring the robustness strategy for weather tightness of the
posing stresses on the thin GRC panel. The overall assembly, including building envelope. Finite element modelling of the whole building
the secondary framing, was designed to meet a maximum weight per is also used to assess the impact of the facade weight on global
square metre of 1.5 kN/m² imposed on the primary structure, which movements, particularly when considering heavy GRC cladding in
drove the optimisation of each component to reduce its own weight. A relation to a light-weight steel supporting structure.
single adjustable fixing system was designed to allow two adjacent pan-
els to share the same bracket. The design of the bracket allows two • Assessment of the overall thermal performance of the building en-
panels to be connected through their backing frame to the secondary velope in terms of U-value. Each bracket supporting GRC panels
tubular rails. The bracket is designed so that each panel can undergo forms a penetration through the thermal envelope. The thermal
free thermal expansion. bridge effect is studied at a local level through 3D finite element
thermal modelling. The effect on the overall envelope performance
Once the overall feasibility of the assembly was established, the three is then assessed at global level by considering the overall area of
buildings were analysed at global scale through finite element modelling. envelope affected by the presence of fixing brackets. This calcula-
The objectives of these preliminary global models developed during the tion allows the amount of local insulation provided through thermal
early design stages were: break plates at each bracket location to be established.
• Assessment of preliminary cladding pressures through compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD), which validates the expected thick- The early stage analysis required a large number of iterations in order
nesses required from the assembly, and therefore the total facade to establish robust envelope concepts that could then be developed by
zone and weight per square metre imposed by the envelope on the introducing considerations of fabrication and construction. Finite ele-
primary structure. CFD is used to explore the unintended effects ment tools were essential in performing quick iterations to understand
of geometry at specific locations, such as localised high pressures behaviour for both structural and environmental parameters.
and high wind speeds at pedestrian level which affect comfort in
the large open space between the three buildings. CFD was later
MCCS_121
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
10 Federation Square, Melbourne
MCCS_122
FEDERATION SQUARE, Melbourne
ARTS AND CULTURAL CENTRE
37°48’50.79” S
144°57’47.81 E
ARCHITECT
LAB ARCHITECTURE STUDIO
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
ATELIER ONE
MEP ENGINEERING
ATELIER TEN
FACADE CONSULTANT TO ATELIER ONE
ANDREW WATTS OF NEWTECNINC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.20
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 2.61
MCCS_123
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
10 Typical system bays
4
3D internal view of typical bay
Details
1. Double glazed panel 7. Girder
2. Metal sheet 8. Steel mesh
3. Backing wall 9. Thermal insulation
4. Cladding 10. Floor slab
5. Mullion 11. External metal sheet
3D external view of the typical bay 6. Cladding bracket
MCCS_124
8 4
1 5
8
6
3
1 1
5
4
10
10 2 9 11
5 5
1 1
MCCS_125
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
10 System design
3
4
2
1
Top view
1
3
Front view
Bottom view
MCCS_126
3D view from below of cladding system
1
Back view
2
3
Details
1. Cladding
2. Cladding frame
3. Primary structure
4. Cladding bracket
5. Double glazed unit
3D view of cladding system MCCS_127
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
10 Structural analysis
2
2
2
1
Open-jointed rainscreen
Facade system incorporating glazing, sandstone
and perforated aluminium.
Facade zone 335 mm
Primary structure type Steel moment frame.
Steel framed wall, cold formed
Secondary structure type
profiles.
Weight of secondary
0.20
structure (kN/m2)
2 Spider bracket with three
Facade bracket type
adjustable arms.
Number of components in
5
fixing system
4
Weight of facade, including
2.61
secondary structure (kN/m2)
3
5
2 Details
1. Steel primary structure
2. Pressed steel framed wall
assembly
3. Metal sheet
4. Spider fixing
5. Rainscreen panels
Facade assembly
MCCS_128
2.29
2.17 0.266
0.260
2.06
0.253 0.0123
1.94
0.0193
09
0.246
0.
1.83
41
.2
0.0263
-0.171
71
.5
73
0.240
-0
0.222
79
15.00
1.71 0.2111E-
-0
.7
85
3 0.0263
E-
-0.9926E 0.186
-0.0680
0.233
-0
.8
-3
3
1.60
91
0.6332E- -0.9307E 0.157
-0
0.0263
3
.8
15.00
1.48
0.226 -3 0.121
0.6332E-
-0.214
23
-0
-0.7417E
68
-0.711 3 07
0.0213
-3
0.0183
-0.
-21.9
0.0153
0.220 0.
.7
0.138
1.37 084 0.6332E- -0.5717E
3
-0
5 -3 73
38
0.100 01
-0.375
0.213 0.6332E-
-0.0841
-1.37 -0. 0.
.5
0.183
1.26
172 3 -0.9076E
0.0423
00
93
16
-0
0.206 0.6353E- -3 0.116 02 0. 13
6
3 06 01
0.
-0.285
0.242 0.
.2
44
1.14 0.
-1.44 -0. 82
-4.99
0.6332E- 33
57
03
70
0.4
-0.177
-0
01
0.
0.161
323 3 0.
0.0213
0.4 0.200 12 0.
06
05
03
1.03 0.237 0. 23
-1.66
-1.48 57 01
37
0.
E-
0.193 07 0.
-0. 0.5880E- 0.133
0.
37
0.0163
93
1.24
3
0.208 0.91
346 3 00
-0
-0.666 0.203 0.191 0.
0.0033
0.0683
94
-2.37 -0.2 73
-2
0.186
.7
49
-1.35
01
-0
0.0143
0.0213
0.0183
0.80 0.
05
.2
0.9451E- 0.0603
22
-0.
.7
0.237 -0.733 3 0.255 0.178
-2
0.
0.180
8
-0. 312
-21.9
-2.44
2.
2
0.
-21.5
0.69 0 0.0010
.
05
787
2
219
28
0.103
29
62
2.65 -5.67
0.0443
0.
0.173 0.249
.8
0.0373
8.17
0.209
0.1
2.
-0.
0.0293
-3.36 -1.42
9
90
0.57 0.138
1.19
0.0
62
-0.230
-0
0 0.6590E-
29
717
.5
-0
9
-1.50
0.166 3
23
-9.88
-3.42
0.206 16
11.4
0.46 0
-0
.7
-1.49 -0. 0.8979E- 0.0853 0.
9.51
10.00
115 0.160 3 0.2206E-3 83
03
-0.483 0.132 00
0.34 0.8452E- 0.110 0. 03
0.132
0E
3 01
0.135
-1.53 5 0.
-1.61
0.153
-3
-0.3567E-3 23
42
-0.
0.23 0.240 01
-1.41
0.0445
0.
-0.
0.
0.0683
0.780
0.136
83
2
-0.
-2.45 0.146
226 0.
32
10.00
0.11
-0.
768
0.266
06
0.0453
-1.33
226
0.
-0
0.0373
0.322 -1.47
0.0143
-2
0.0163
97
0.0293
226
0.144
0.
- 0.140
0.0203
.7
.2
08
-0
-2.51
-2
226
0.00
0.0
43
-21.5
0.233
13
0.
0.
-21.4
01
1
0.136
.7
2.
.2
0.257 -1.54
0.
-2
0.133
61
2.60 -5.53
0.
13
0.1
-0.11
136
2
-1.84
0.199
1
61
8.01
-3.46
.2
2.
3
-4.00
3
01
-6.44
7
5
61
0.
0.
1 0.126
1
0.117
23
-2.46
0.
-0
36
7
-0.23
0.0433
61
-9.81
0.0363
-3.52
063
11.1
0.0283
.
0.166
0.0193
7
41
0.338 2 0.120
9.35
7
1
-2.53 -0.34-0.502
01
04
074
3
0.0
1
4
0.367 01
0.
0.115
074
0.113 0.
E-
1
0.0773
0.207 73
-1.61
-0.46
074
-0.
00
3
-1.46 9 0.
99
-0.
0.132
-0.318
0.107
.2 0 0.0893
-0.604
0.497
55
-0.
3
07
-0.57 10
-0 .0
0.238 0.
0
-1.33
-1.52
0.
0.0083
0.100 0.0953
057
0.332 -0
-0
-0.69
-0.136
-2
-0.669 0.126 0.0503
.7
0.253
-21.4
.2
-0
0.0443
0.0
0.093
-2
-21.2
0.0373
-1.59
0.0133
2.
0.0293
11
-0.80
0.
.7
0.0193
.
2.54 -5.50
0.
-2
0.108
0.220 -1.61
23
5
-1.66
21
7.96
-0.0569
2.
1
23
-3.77
10
11
0.087 0.232
-6.17
27
01
61
.2
-5.86
-0.91 -2.54 0.
0.
23
5.00
2.
0.
1E
5
1
0.207 0.0783
-0.0785
0.342 -1.68
0.080
23
11.0
61
-3
187
-1.03
-2.60
9.29
6
0.0433
06
0.0363
187
0.377-1.14 0.073
5.00 0066
0.144
0.0283
0.277 -1.74 .0
-0.
7
187
10
6
0.
-0.324
-1.61
-0
006
0.
187
-0.
0.067 63
0.163 01
00
0.
0.374
-0.
-1.26
0.231
70
-0.
-0.
1
-
.1
0.060
5
0.168 83
-1.32
1
0.363 -1.37 00
-0
-0.
0.0653 0.
-0.
-0
1 0.118
-0.690 10 13
-0.
0.053 0. 01
-2
.7
9
0.
-21.2
-0
0.0093
-1.48
211
70
0.298
.2
7
-0.751
10
-2
10
.7
204
2.
0.119
-1.66 0.
0.
0.047
2.40 -5.51
4
1
-2.63
7.95
.2
0.
10
-1.60
-2
0.0433
91
-4.80
22
78
0.0103
0.0363
-7.26
0.0933
0.0283
E-3
1
0.232
61
0.0193
2.
.2
0.
0.
0.040
10
0.1
-1.71 -1.73
4
33
22
1
11.0
61
0.168 01
1.
-0.0429
335
94
11
0.
9.26
0.033 51
4
3 07
1.
-1.83
94
0.1
-1.79 0.
E-
4
0.6
91
-0.
48 0.027 5
0.1
10
1
-0.
6
0.
0.
72
31
-1.94
16
0.
0.
0.020
0.
658
059
-2.06 0.1558E-3
0.013
5
-2.17
0.0327 -10.00 0.007 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00
0.00Axial
-10.00 force distribution in steel
-2.28 -5.00
5.00 Bending moment10.00 distribution
0.00
0.000
in-10.00
steel Torsional
15.00 m moment distribution in steel
5.00 -5.00 10.00
Utilisation
m0.00
level distribution in steel
5.00
Elements
frame (kN) Z Beam Elements frame
, Torsional moment Mt, Loadcase 1 self weight
(kNm) , 1 cm 3D = 2.00 kNm (Min=-2.28) (Max=2.29)
frame (kNm) ,frame
M 1 :
f weight , , 1 cm 3D = 2.00 kN (Min=-3.52) (Max=1.11)
Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight
Y
, 1 cm 3D = 20.0 kNm (Min=-21.9) Z(Max=11.4)
Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case
M 1 : 101 M 11 : 108 1 cm 3D = 0.200 (Max=0.266) X * 0
X Y X * 0.715 Y * 0
X X * 0.710 Z * 0
Y * 0.886
Y * 0.874
Z * 0.839
Z * 0.855
Spider bracket
The framed wall construction suits the irregular panelisation of the The external rainscreen panels are supported with adjustable three-leg-
external rainscreen panels by providing a lightweight solution to the ged spider fixings screwed directly to the metal sheet. The rainscreen
continuity of thermal insulation and structural support over a range cladding panels incorporate glass, sandstone and aluminium. The struc-
of geometric configurations. The framed wall construction utilised tural robustness of the fixing is achieved through multiple perforations
adopts a metal sheet on each side to provide lateral stability to the in the metal sheet which spread the load transferred from the panel in
pressed steel channels through diaphragm action. The pressed steel order to avoid local failure at the perforation location. The spider fixing
channels achieve the required stiffness through a balance between is designed to transfer the maximum amount of load to the framed wall
the cross sectional depth and the spacing between them, where ther- by supporting the vertices of three panels. The rainscreen panels are
mal insulation is set. In this way, a lightweight insulated steel frame allowed to move freely when subjected to thermal loads.
is capable of providing continuity of structural support, together with
thermal and waterproofing insulation.
MCCS_129
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
10 Environmental analysis
Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates
kWh/m2
1500
1300
975
675
220
3.3
175
2.7
125
1.5
75
0.8
25
0
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_130
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
7 2.5
5.5 2
3.5 1.5
3 1
2 0.5
0 0
EXT
Pressure, kPa
2
1.5
0.5
INT
-0.5
20 °C
13 °C
0 °C
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution
The disengagement between the internal ‘structural skin’, provided by the The large rainscreen panels provide a durable finish for the external
framed wall, and the external ‘architectural skin’, provided by the large facades, as well as conceal the utilitarian nature of the interior wall. A driv-
rainscreen panels of aluminium, glass and sandstone, is the fundamental ing design criterion for the external panels is the durability of the assembly
aspect of the design concept developed for the envelope. which determines the choice of materials. The function of the ventilated
rainscreen assembly is to provide protection from wind-blown rain and UV
The internal skin provides the thermal and waterproofing envelope by radiation to the waterproofing membrane.
means of a lightweight structure, which also provides a flexible support for
the interior finishes. The nature of the interior exhibition spaces requires a The disengagement between the two skins allows independent mainte-
high level of flexibility in the layout of interior finishes and partitions. These nance cycles to be peroformed on both external and internal skins. This
interface with, or are directly fixed to, the framed wall. The need for internal solution suits the public nature of the building which requires a long design
layout changes in the interiors is provided by the utilitarian nature of the life for the external envelope, and at the same time requires a high level of
framed wall. In addition, this wall can also easily incorporate new window flexibility for a continuously changing use of interior space.
openings, if required.
MCCS_131
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
11 New Port Centre, Doha
MCCS_132
NEW PORT CENTRE, Doha
VISITORS CENTRE
ARCHITECT
LLEWELYN DAVIES
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
MEP ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.25
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 1.22
MCCS_133
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
11 Typical system bays
Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Steel box
3. Primary structure
4. Secondary structure
5. Extruded aluminium mullion
6. Extruded aluminium transom
7. Thermal insulation
3D external view of typical bay 8. GRC panels
MCCS_134
1
1 4
3
3
5 1
5 1
6 6
8 8
MCCS_135
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
11 System design
4
Top view
Front view
1
2
4
3
Bottom view
MCCS_136
Third angle projection. Scale 1:50
1
1
2
4
3
3 4
3D views of details
3
4
1 2
Back view
4
1
3
Details
1. Double glazed unit 3D view of assembly
2. Steel box MCCS_137
3. Primary structure
4. Secondary structure
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
11 Structural analysis
0.960 8.72
24.8
25.7
57.6 57.6
23.9
24.8
56.1 56.1
0.960 -3.83
23.1
23.9
54.6
40.00
54.6
-3.83
22.2
23.1
53.1 53.1
40.00
10.1
51.5 21.4
22.2
51.5
10.1 14.4
50.0 20.5
21.4
50.0
40.00
40.00
14.4
48.5 19.7
20.5
48.5
12.4
47.0 47.0 18.8
19.7
12.4
45.5 45.5 18.0
18.8
6.29
42.4 42.4 16.3
17.1
6.29
40.9
-1.40
40.9 15.4
16.3
39.4 39.4
-1.40
14.5
15.4
37.9 37.9
35.00
13.7
14.5
36.4 36.4
35.00
12.8
13.7
34.9 34.9
12.0
6.37
12.8
35.00
33.3
35.00
2.81
33.3
11.1
12.0
6.37
31.8 31.8
2.81
10.3
11.1
30.3 30.3
28.8
9.4
10.3
28.8
27.3 8.6
9.4
27.3
9.47 12.4
25.8 7.7
8.6
25.8
9.47 12.4
24.3 24.3 6.8
7.7
30.00
5.64 3.15
19.7 19.7 4.3
5.1
30.00
18.2 18.2
3.4
4.3
30.00
30.00
16.7 16.7
2.6
16.9
3.4
15.2 15.2
1.7
2.6
13.6 13.6
12.1
0.9
1.7
13.6 16.9
13.6
12.1
0.0
0.9
10.6
29.8
10.6
-0.9
0.0
9.1
29.8
9.1
-4.41
-1.7
-0.9
7.6 7.6
-4.41
-2.6
-1.7
6.1 6.1
4.5 -3.4
-2.6
4.5
3.0 -4.3
-3.4
3.0 -60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 m
1.5 -4.4
-4.3
1.5
-60.00 -60.00 -55.00 -55.00 -50.00 -50.00 -45.00 -45.00 -40.00 -40.00 -35.00 -35.00 m m -60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 m
0.0 -4.4
0.0 Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from -4.41 to 29.8 step 0.855 MPa M 1 : 119
Von Mises stress distribution in typical bay
Y
Z
X
Maximum
Y
Maximum
Z v.Mises
X
v.Mises
stress in stress in Node, 1Loadcase
Node, Loadcase 1 self ,weight
self weight , from
from 0.0051 to 0.0051 to 60.6
60.6 step 1.52 step
MPa 1.52 MPa M 1 : 119 M 1 : 119
X * 0.750 X * 0.750
Y
Y
Z
0.84354
-0
45.00
.
- 66
0.548
3.01
0.84354
-0.00000
0. 6
45.00
0.122
3.97
-0.06174
-0.00000
66
6
4.30
40.00
-0.06174
3.99
3.15
40.00
-0.11281
0.
3.52
0. 844
40.00
-0.11281
2.86
-0.21501
-1 84
-1 .1
2.00
4
2.09
-0.21501
-0.21503
. 4
14
1.17
35.00
-0.21503
1.06
35.00
-0 0.21 5
-0.24519
0.751
35.00
-0-0.2
- 21 5
-0.24519
.2 5
-0.06
. 1
-0.06617
-0.38978
15
-0.06
1.08
-0.0
-0.38978
0.779
1.07
-0.66573
1.35
17
30.00
30.00
-0.66573
1.43
17
17
30.00
-0.69832
-0.69832
-1.14337
-1.14337
-1.14339
-1.14339
-60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 m
-60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 m
-60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 m
MCCS_138
Fish-scale glazed roof
Facade system
on steel structure.
Facade zone 500 mm
Primary structure type Steel arches and tubes.
Steel T profiles,
Secondary structure type
aluminium frame.
Weight of secondary
0.25
structure (kN/m2)
Spider bracket with
Facade bracket type
four adjustable arms.
Number of components in
18
fixing system
3 Details:
4
1. Primary steel arches
2. Secondary steel T-section
3. Double glazed unit
2 4. Glazing frame
Facade assembly
The finite element analysis of a simplified 2D model of the steel arches has the global stability of the roof is provided by the framing supporting the fish-
informed preliminary sizes for the roof structure, by exploring the variation scale glazing which introduces additional moderate shell action in the roof
of arch structural depth with span. These sizes were used as the basis for enclosure, where the three transversal tubes provide the main stiffness
building a global model to verify global stability, with the aim of minimising the paths for global stability.
number of tubes to brace the roof in its plane.
For the concrete structure set adjacent to the steel enclosure, pre-stressed
The design of the steel arches makes use of bespoke cross sections, made double-tee reinforced concrete beams are used to span 18m without any
of welded steel plates. The structural design is focused on avoiding local intermediate support, which allows internal columns to be omitted and pro-
buckling effects when designing with cross sections that are not standard vide a highly flexible use of internal space. Given the single span of the concrete
and which are likely to develop local buckling effects before developing their building, the design is focused on the realisation of the structural connection
full plastic moment capacity. This analysis requires detailed finite element between slab and wall, to ensure the structural continuity of the wall, so that
modelling in order to model both local and global buckling modes, which the building meets global stability requirements. This connection is realised
are related to the global stability of the structure. The verification of the through a bolted connection between cast-in elements in both the pre-fabricat-
aspect ratios between web and flanges for the deep T-sections used for the ed beam and the structural wall. The connection works in bearing and axially
arches was critical to ensure the feasibility of the architectural concept of as it is required to transmit both shear and in-plane forces when the structure
the exposed steel roof, which is visually driven. A substantial contribution to is subjected to lateral movements, in order to provide global stability.
MCCS_139
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
11 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
2300
2000
1500
950
475
250
2000 10
1500 8
6
950
4
475
2
250
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
Without Solar
Period With shading Mean daylight factor: 5.4%
shading reduction
98.4% of area between 2-12%
0.1% of area > 12%
1 year 348 MWh 359 MWh 3% 1.5% of area < 2%
MCCS_140
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
5 2.5
3.5 2
2.5 1.5
2 1
1 0.5
0 0
External and internal air velocity distribution
20 °C
13 °C
0 °C
Pressure, kPa
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
INT EXT
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution
The control of solar gain in the glazed exhibition space is achieved by From an initial estimate of the cooling load, cooling the whole volume of the
means of the fish-scale construction utilised for the roof glazing, which exhibition space would cover 50% of the total peak cooling load. The MEP
allows shading to be provided on the roof by introducing insulated opaque strategy of ventilating only the bottom part in order to provide thermal com-
components in both edge returns and perimeter of each glazed panel. This fort is explored through a CFD study in order to determine the ventilation
is used in conjunction with the choice of glass which achieves a 50% shad- rate required to achieve thermal comfort in the bottom part of the space
ing coefficient without using tinted glass. The inclination of the vertical glass without cooling the whole internal environment. The strategy supported by
facade limits the solar gain further by benefiting from the overshadowing this analysis shows how the cooling load is reduced to approximately 30%
from the roof canopy, and maximises the use of all the available space of the whole cooling load, allowing savings in both upfront cost of plant and
inside for the exhibitions. energy cost of the building.
MCCS_141
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
11 New Port Centre, Doha
This project required a high level of design resolution across all engineering Alongside the savings in air handling unit size and running air conditioning
disciplines over a short time period in order to achieve cost certainty and costs, this allowed all the ducts to be accommodated within the available
cost savings for the contractor client. external facade zone.
The building is formed by two juxtaposed structural forms: a loadbearing The fish-scale construction technology used for the glazed roof allows
concrete ‘box’, wrapped by a ventilated rainscreen cladding system, and the provision of shading by integrating opaque elements within the glazed
an arched steel vault, which encloses a large exhibition space and is assembly as a seamless extension of the frame. In order to achieve a shad-
entirely glazed. ing coefficient to meet the mechanical ventilation requirements in terms of
plant size, different configurations of fish-scale construction were tested by
The integration of zones in the building, within combined assemblies, was a quantifying the amount of incident solar radiation and the benefits gained by
primary concern to reduce construction time and cost. All interior finishes increasing the depth of the opaque edge of each glazed panel.
whose function was only to conceal MEP installation and minimise duct
length were eliminated by integrating all the ventilation ducts within the The uniform shading pattern generated by the opaque panel edges deter-
facade zone, with supply ducts on one side of the main concrete building and mines uniform levels of daylight in the exhibition spaces, avoiding the casting
extract ducts on the opposite side. Ventilation ducts are accommodated of sharp, dramatic shadows, which is typical of external shading louvres and
within the weather line in order to avoid ducts passing externally where not suitable for an exhibition space where the layout of the space is changed
thermal insulation would be uneconomic. The choice of external rainscreen regularly to host different exhibitions. The high levels of daylight in the inter-
cladding allows a suitable zone for accommodating the ducts to be achieved. nal space and the subsequent risk of glare due to direct solar radiation
were controlled by means of solar control glass. The canopy extension of the
Pre-stressed double-tee beams are used to span the main internal spaces building on its long side, together with the inward inclination of the vertical
for the main concrete building. This technology allows 18 metre spans with- facade, ensure an appropriate level of shading is achieved for the vertical
out intermediate columns to be achieved. Ventilation ducts, electric cabling facade. This reduces the amount of penetration of direct sunlight from the
and light fittings can also be accommodated between adjacent webs within sides, which would generate an uncomfortable, unusable zone immediately
the structural depth of the beams, without the need for creating an addition- next to the long facade.
al ceiling zone underneath.
The thermal performance of the facade is improved by introducing opaque
The main exhibition space incorporates a highly transparent inclined roof, insulated elements along the opaque panel edges and in the overlapping
which also achieves a high level of solar control through its ‘fish-scale’ con- part. This improves the thermal transmittance of the roof envelope, avoiding
struction. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was used to assess the heat transfer from solar radiation to the internal space by conduction
the thermal comfort in the interior exhibition space, given its height and through the opaque elements of the roof.
highly transparent envelope. CFD analysis made it possible to establish that
low level cooling was sufficient to ensure appropriate levels of thermal com- The assembly of the glazing panes to generate a ‘fish-scale’ construction
fort throughout the occupied exhibition spaces. This allowed a substantial allows the accommodation of higher structural and thermal movements
reduction of the ventilation capacity required for this environmental zone. within the glazing assembly. The use of fish-scale construction allows the
MCCS_142
same panel type to be used across the curved roof, by allowing slight vari- ducts in the facade zone and the coordination of these with the facade open-
ations in the amount of overlap between adjacent panels, which generates ings was another critical design aspect. The iterative architectural design of
cost savings and the possibility of optimisation. the interior spaces and facade openings had to be integrated in real time in
the sizes of the ventilation ducts, which were required to fit within a facade
The introduction of curvature in the roof structure reduces the expected zone of 600mm.
structural depth from an equivalent flat truss to approximately one third of
this depth, allowing the zones for facade and roof structure to be combined. At the end of every day the project team of building engineers produced a
The curved half-portal frames are moment-connected to the ground for digital working prototype of all the building engineering assemblies, integrat-
stability. Their geometry is conceived in order to minimise both the bending ing the current progress of the structural design, and the 3D layout of the
moment at the base under simple gravity loads and the amount of forces ventilation ducts running in the facade zone, informed by analysis.
transferred to the adjacent concrete structure. A simplified 2D parametric
structural model was generated to establish the structural depth required Each sub-team would work separately during most of the day to perform
for each arch span. The global finite element model of the structure allowed specific analysis of parts of the building, with 3D models produced for each
the additional structural requirement to be established to achieve global discipline by the end of each day, reflecting the design progress that was
stability for the steel roof, which required a minimum number of tubular to be integrated into one unique model which would then be sent to the
elements to brace the structure in the direction perpendicular to the arches architect for feedback.
at roof level. The vertical facade was integrated into the structural design
of the roof in order to provide stability and limit the amount of lateral forces The required level of integration between structure, facade and MEP result-
transmitted into the adjacent concrete structure. ed in each aspect of the project incorporating a level of innovation, driven
by the technology used. The basis of the application of agile management
The short time available for achieving a highly integrated solution required techniques is the delivery, in a very short time-frame, of an innovative
each iteration to be focused on reaching specific design targets, together ‘product’ that responds to specific design requirements and performance
with a flexible process to integrate both continuous changes in the archi- requirements, which are defined as the project develops and cannot be fixed
tectural design - which was being developed in parallel to the engineering at the outset.
design - and new findings from analytical studies. Agile management tech-
niques were used to allow a large team to generate daily working prototypes, The Doha New Port Visitors Centre was conceived from the start as a
which covered various aspects of the building design and were resolved as design product and developed following this approach through a large multi-
3D models. disciplinary team of building engineers.
The key design items were the 3D model of the steel roof, for which the
engineering of the assembly and the structural concept had to be developed
in parallel to the architectural shape. A structural analysis parametric model
in a finite element software was generated to be able to extract revised
structural sizes as the geometry evolved. The integration of the ventilation
MCCS_143
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 City Museum Istanbul, Istanbul
MCCS_144
CITY MUSEUM Istanbul, Istanbul
MUSEUM
41°01’04.9” N
28°55’15.2” E
ARCHITECT
SALON ARCHITECTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
BALKAR MÜHENDISLIK
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.47
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 1.36
MCCS_145
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 Typical system bays
2
3
11
5
9
6
Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Steel structure
3. Rigid insulation
11
4. Profiled metal sheet
9 5. Rainscreen panels
6. I-beam girder
7. Mesh plates
8. Mullions
9. Floor slab
10. Cladding frame
3D external view of typical bay 11. Floor finish
MCCS_146
3
2 2
3
9
5
6 5
4
10
6
10
7
8
10
1
2
8
2 3
3
5
5 11
2 11
9
9 4
4 6
MCCS_147
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 System design
11
3
2
5
Top view
3
5
11
9
4
6
Front view
5
3
2
11
Bottom view
MCCS_148
3
11
11
9 2
9
4 3
4
5
6
6
2
3
2
11 11
9 9
4
6 4
6
Back view
5
11
Details
1. Double glazed unit
4
2. Steel structure
3. Rigid insulation 6
4. Profiled metal sheet
5. Rainscreen panels
6. I-beam girder
7. Mesh plates
8. Mullions
9. Floor slab
10. Cladding frame
11. Floor finish 3D view of assembly MCCS_149
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 Structural analysis
-45.00
8.78
9 9.61 4.46
6.6 3
7.8 5 9.02 9.20
8.6 8
0.0
6 0.0 9.2 9 8.47
2.08
7 9.7 0 1 13.80
10. 0 6.34 1.60 1
3 9 0.06 0.0 9.4 7
5.30
7.
63 7 7.3 61
3.14 4 .9
6
8. 4. 16.4
-50.00
2 26 0.07 6
.3 9. 79 79 .73
12 9. 1. 0 0.07 16.
86
.7
2
.5
7 . 86 9 0.2
3 1 6.
13 15 5 2 11 .1 4 0.07 0. 62
.9 7.0 10 9.9 76 15.
15 1 37
6.3 5 53 1
8. 98
3.49
6 .9 0.67 1
6 6. .2
6.95 16 7.2 39 4 0.92 4.3
3.29
1 . 0 1
17 7.1 05 5 1
3.46
9 1.2
4.66
1.4
2.66
4.02
1 .
4.86 16 .9 48 8.0
3
13 0.
4.61
-55.00
0.74
4.66 1
1
4.33
4
3.82
3 4 7 3.7
3.14
4 6. 5 8
5. 2. 1.
05
0.52
1.06
6 6
0. 0.
46
28 2 0.
0. .4 47
-20.00 -25.00 -30.00 0 -35.00 -40.00 m
MCCS_150
Finite element model of typical bay
10.00
1
.8
9
9
9
74
7
4
11
3.8
52
8
3
.2
5.5
3
8
.5
7.2
0
.5
9.1
5
.4
1.
.3
10.
0
6
.3
90
11.
2
4
77
3
.1
07
75
.7
.1
.9
73
.0
.0
.9
99
.6
10
54
70
6.
66
61
3.
2
48
55
11
19
.0
42
5.
26
95 04
34
2.21
0
2.4 14 35. . 3
51 59.5 .14 00
14.52
5
16.29
9
4.3
17.95
59
19.26
.1
9 64 66. 5
20.23
3. 1 .2
20.73
.
20.87
3.
46
28 5 5
20.65
4 64
20.18
1
19.44
.5
36 3
18.52
0.00
.7
40 9
9
17.14
.1
38 5
16.62 .8 3 35
.9
23 3 7.
53
.7
7
21
.3
4
22 36.
30
.1
.2
8
5.
3 .
4.7 40 .1
1
13
98 60
1.08
2.45
8
40 38 31. 3. 3.2 .03
4. 96 2 5
03
. 1
3.71
7
3.33
2.71
1.94
4.
1.
5.91
4.30
9
2.80
1.96
3
2.14
Lateral displacements distribution in cold pressed steel elements (mm)
44
0.
-10.00
Aluminium rainscreen Details
Facade system supported on steel 1. Aluminium rainscreen
framed wall. panels
Facade zone 480 mm 2. Aluminium supporting rails
30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 m
3. Steel-framed wall
Composite concrete
Primary structure type
Z Sector of system 4. Edge beam M 1 : 252
Y
X
slabs
Nodal displacement vector, Loadcase 103 SLS: G1+G2+Ws , 1 cm 3D = 44.9 mm (Max=77.3) X * 0.847
Y * 0.719
Z * 0.875
Steel framed wall, cold
Secondary structure type
formed profiles.
Weight of secondary
0.22
structure (kN/m2)
Facade bracket type Bolted steel plates 4
Number of components in
5
fixing system
Weight of facade, including 1
1.05
secondary structure (kN/m2)
2 3
Facade assembly
The structural envelope is composed of a continuous framed wall which The continuous framed wall envelope is top-hung from the slab edge of
is designed to accommodate the sharp folds that define both the inter- the highest floor and is restrained by slab edges on floors beneath, as
nal and external architectural surface, which closely follows the same well as at the interface with the ground floor glazing. At these points the
geometry. The structural concept for the framed wall follows the direc- restraint is only for out-of-plane movement and allows the hanging folded
tion of the frame elements in each facet to form the folded surface, as facade to move freely.
well as the structural depth of the wall required to achieve sufficient
stiffness. The structural depth of the cold pressed steel members is The framed wall incorporates movement joints only at corner loca-
balanced with the spacing between them as well as the ability of the wall tions, in order to allow unrestrained thermal movements to be ac-
framing to incorporate connections with the exterior aluminium rain- commodated for each side of the building. Framing members run in
screen cladding. the two perpendicular directions within the plane of each facet, which
introduces diaphragm action and provides global stability to the enve-
Two layers of outer wall are used: a framed backing wall and an outer lope. The setting out and installation of the framed wall is performed
rainscreen cladding which is supported on rails. The external open-joint- through semi-prefabricated modules, where thermal insulation, mem-
ed cladding is set out along diagonal lines and supported on alumini- brane and interior finishes are site-assembled. The rails are fixed di-
um rails, which are fixed to the framed wall in order to minimise the rectly to the framed wall through adjustable thermally broken brackets
number of penetrations of both thermal and waterproofing envelope. in order to support aluminium panels along the long edge.
The framed wall construction provides the required global stiffness to
support the cladding. Localised forces, which result from the use of thin
pressed sections, are accommodated at folds in the facade.
MCCS_151
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
850
675
500
1 year 10,490 m 2
15,268 MWh
175
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis
75
kWh/m2
360
300 % Daylight
factor
250 1
150 0.8
100 0.6
50 0.4
0.2
0
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_152
Internal External
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
3 5
2 4
1.5 3
1 2
0.5 1
0 0
INT EXT
Pressure, kPa
1.5
20 °C 0.5
13 °C
0 °C
0
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution
The high thermal performance of the framed backing wall is achieved by The risk of glare and thermal discomfort is mitigated through the choice
thermally breaking the connections between the external rails and the of glass at ground floor level, where the depth of penetration of direct
framed wall, which are the main source of thermal bridging. The framed light into the interior space is determined by the cantilevering span
wall members are insulated by means of a rigid insulating board which of the opaque external envelope, which provides solar shading whilst
is set in front of the framing. allowing daylight in the building. This decision has informed the calibra-
tion of the depth of the shading canopy provided by the facades. The
The build-up of the framed wall combines the structural depth required opaque envelope along the perimeter brings in direct light at first floor
for the framing with the insulation depth required to achieve the ther- level through small apertures which produce directional beams of indi-
mal transmittance of the envelope. The analysis of the thermal bridg- rect light, avoiding risk of glare.
ing effects through the thermally broken connections informs directly
the additional insulation to be provided through the rigid board to For the internal courtyard, the shading system has been integrated as
achieve the required thermal transmittance. a second layer offset from the glazed facade. Shadowing effects are
significant in the courtyard, as a result of the geometry of the building,
The framed wall build-up also integrates GRG boards (glass-fibre rein- and allow the implentation of full height glazed facades on all four sides
forced gypsum) which provide sufficient mass in order to acoustically of this internal area.
insulate the interior space of the museum.
MCCS_153
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 City Museum, Istanbul
This project required a full integration of the supporting structure in the Framed wall technology was used to align the internal wall frame with
external wall zone to create a smooth inner and outer facade. The exter- the external fixing brackets, which provide support to the cladding. The
nal wall zone wraps the building around the outer perimeter and morphs framed wall forms a continuous folded skin which wraps the four sides
into a full height glazed façade with external shading screens in the inter- of the building, is top-hung from the main concrete structure and is lat-
nal courtyard. This was realised through a lightweight construction in erally restrained at slab level. The framed wall is made up of individual
the form of a folded skin, which is self-supporting and set above a glazed panels/modules which are structurally connected in order to act as
ground floor, with high thermal and acoustic insulation performance to a large diaphragm. Modules are semi-prefabricated: the framing ele-
suit the multipurpose internal space. ments are pre-assembled in the factory and bolted together on the
ground to form larger modules to reduce installation time.
The design concept for the building required a loose fit between the
main concrete structure and the external self-supporting enclosure, An iterative approach was adopted to minimise the depth of the struc-
whose primary aim is to closely control solar and conduction gains and tural wall. This was achieved as a balance between the depths of fram-
provide acoustic performance. ing members in relation to the spacing between them, driven mainly
by the available size of thin steel sheet fixed to the cold-pressed steel
The main criteria for the structural design of the skin are its lightness framing to support the insulation, which acts as a diaphragm skin. The
combined with the stiffness required to achieve the folds. The expres- optimisation was undertaken in order to suit all the geometric condi-
sion of the geometry of the outer panels aims to generate smooth folds tions present in the folded skin. This was achieved through iterations
in the outer skin in order to create a variety of lighting conditions inside using finite element modelling in order to assess the global movements
the building. This external expression of the envelope does not provide of the structure and the presence of localised stress concentrations in
the basis for the structural support of the skin itself. The standard solu- proximity of the folds.
tion for providing a continuous substrate to support the outer cladding
panels through a reinforced concrete wall is not economical for walls Following this process, the framed wall is designed to achieve minimum
which are not structural and not continuous from ground level up. The weight and maximum stiffness within the set facade depth.
envelope and the structure also required a separation in order to pro-
vide an internal arrangement set at 45 degrees to the structural layout. The facade assembly is driven by the waterproofing strategy which
This is driven mainly by circulation and is independent of the main func- makes use of two lines of protection in order to avoid both risk of con-
tion of the external facade, which is to direct light to different spaces at densation and water penetration. Condensation control drives the
different levels. design of the assembly and requires thermal breaks to be integrated
in the structural connections between the framed wall and the exter-
The solar radiation analysis provided mapping of the effects of overshad- nal cladding brackets. Thermal breaks typically have lower compressive
owing in the internal courtyard. The assessment of daylighting levels strength than the structural materials that they connect. The connec-
was used to evaluate the amount of light penetration at ground floor tions are designed in order to ensure a robust re-distribution of the
level and through the courtyard glazed facade, where a folded shading loads transferred through the assembly, by assessing localised stress
mesh is used to limit risk of glare and overheating whilst allowing suffi- concentrations and avoid too high stresses in the thermal breaks.
cient daylight in the transition spaces of the museum.
MCCS_154
This initial design phase is based on ‘differentiation’ and aims at inde- The following design phase is based on ‘integration’. The key design cri-
pendently identifying all the requirements and constraints of each design teria identified during the differentiation phase are brought together
aspect through feasibility studies, and through identification of built prec- through the development of a consistent design solution.
edents, conducted in parallel. The primary purpose is to generate a pre-
liminary set of studies in the least amount of time possible in order to This was achieved through one-day exercises, with a large team of build-
identify all the project-specific requirements for realising the design con- ing engineers working on one discipline at a time in order to produce
cept. This broad range of studies describes the behaviour of the building short studies with clear daily outputs. These outputs highlight the key
in order to identify primary design objectives that require ta higher level requirements to be taken into account in the studies conducted con-
of resolution to be developed. At this stage, the decisions made cannot ducted on the following day. In this way the work is always exposed and
be dependent on on the high-level accuracy of the studies, which would critiqued by the whole team.
inevitably lead to a lack of robustness in the design concepts.
In this way, all the aspects involved in the design of the envelope (struc-
The design method involved an initial set of feasibility studies for struc- tural, environmental and system design) can evolve in parallel over the
tural and thermal design conducted in parallel. This allowed the feasibil- duration of the schematic design stage, based on short studies that are
ity of the self-supporting skin to be assessed when top-hung from the conducted in series over the timeframe of a week.
primary structure, and subjected to gravity, wind and thermal loads.
Thermal movements are accommodated within each facet of the folded This approach ensures that the development of the design concept is
skin by releasing the axial movement of the cold-pressed steel framing coordinated on a weekly basis across all disciplines. Outputs were issued
members. The global stiffness of the structure was assessed though weekly to the architect for feedback, which allowed the incorporation of
quick iterations using finite element models of large bays of the enve- changes of design parameters, given the high level of engagement with
lope. This allowed iterations to be carried for different configurations of the architectural design.
fixing conditions between the envelope and the structural slabs.
Analysis outputs were integrated into 2D third-angle projection drawings
Similar feasibility studies were undertaken for the environmental and and 3D digital models to produce design outputs issued to the architect
acoustic performance of the build-up, integrating U-value requirements in order to obtain rapid feedback; by directly illustrating the visual conse-
and minimum acoustic mass. A significant factor which affects the ther- quences of the structural and environmental strategies implemented.
mal transmittance of the envelope is the thermal bridging through the
thermally broken connections between framed wall and external cladding,
which requires the number of connections to be reduced to a minimum.
MCCS_155
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
13 Burjuman Apartments, Dubai
MCCS_156
BURJUMAN APARTMENTS, Dubai
RESIDENTIAL TOWER
ARCHITECT
KOHN PEDERSEN FOX
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING
MEP ENGINEERING
BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING
FACADE ENGINEERING
ANDREW WATTS OF NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.17
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 0.65
MCCS_157
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
13 Typical system bays 8
5
7
1
6
2
3D internal view of typical bay
9
Details
1. Aluminium sliding shading screen
2. Double glazed unit
3. Extruded aluminium transom
4. Extruded aluminium mullion
5. Steel profile
6. Floor slab
7. Thermal insulation
8. Floor finish
3D external view of typical bay 9. Ceiling finish
MCCS_158
4
2 3
3
8
5
6
5 7
7 6
9
1 2
9 1
3
MCCS_159
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
13 System design
Third angle projection. Scale 1:40
4 3
2
Top view
4 4
2
Front view
MCCS_160
Bottom view
2
3
3
Details
1. Aluminium sliding shading screen 4. Extruded aluminium mullion
2. Double glazed unit 5. Reinforced concrete slab
3. Extruded aluminium transom 6. Secondary steel structure
7. Thermal insulation
1 2
4 4
3
6
Back view
2 4
3
2 5
5
6
-0.00
-0.12
-0.00
-0.24 -0.12
-0.36 -0.24
-0.36
-0.48
-0.48
-0.60
-0.60
-0.72
-0.72
-0.84
-0.84
-0.96
-0.96
-1.07
-1.07
-1.19
-1.19
-1.31
-1.31
-1.43
-1.43
-1.55
-1.55
-1.67 -1.67
-1.79 -1.79
-1.91 -1.91
-2.03 -2.03
-2.15 -2.15
-2.27 -2.27
-2.39 -2.39
-2.51 -2.51
-2.63
-2.63
-2.75
-2.75
-2.87
-2.87
-2.99
-2.99
-3.11
-3.11
-3.22
-3.22
-3.34
-3.34
-3.46
-3.46
-3.58
-3.58
-3.70
-3.70
-3.82
-3.82 -3.94
-3.94 -4.06
-4.06 -4.18
-4.18 -4.30
-4.30 -4.42
-4.42 -4.54
-4.54 -4.66
18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00
-4.66 -4.78
18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.0
-4.78
Z Sector of system Group 0...2
Finite element model of typical bay Z Sector of system Group 0...2Y Principal
X
stress
Maximum distribution
principal in slabs
compression stress and
in Node, louvres
Loadcase (MPa)
1 self weight , from -4.78 to -9.5507e-08 step 0.119 MPa
X Maximum principal compression stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from -4.78 to -9.5507e-08 step 0.119 MPa
Y
0.252
0.233
0.218
-0.371
0.202
0.187
-0.214
-0.323
0.171
0.156
-0.368
0.140
4
005
0.124 -0.0069 -0 .
-0.0729
7
01 1
0.109 -0.
-0.0018
-0.110
033
-0.0099
0.585 0
0.093 -0.
0.02
-0.0604
3.47
975
0.02
0.078 3
0.0973
2E-
0.0011
39
0.062 -0.
39
3.46
2.00
57
102
-0.111 0.047
0.0015
0.252
0.0
0.1
0.572 3.46
0.031 0.246 0 068
-0.
0.174
3.24
0.0923
0.016 1.41
0.000 1.40 1 - 3
3.24 0.492 001 09E
-0. 0.6
6
0.244
-0.016
3.23
0.235 1.40 7
-0.031
004
-0.0929
1 -0 .
004
1.20 - 0.
-0.047
-0.666 039
-0.062 0.0
1.20 -0.671
-0.078
0.477
-0.362
1.19 -0.093
-0.106 -0.677 038 002
1
0.0 004
5
-0.
-0.109
-0.429 - 0.
-0.903 0
001
-0.212
-2.73
-0.124
- 0.
-0.316
0.00
-0.908 -0.140
-0.364
-0.0639
-2.74
0.461 -0.156
165
-0.914
165
-2.74
165
-0.0025
-0.
165
-0.171
-0.0804
-0.
-0.450 1
-0.213
003
-0.
-0.763
-0.
-0.
-2.95 -0.187
-0.0012
-0.766
-0.0139
868
-2.96 -0.202 1
001
-0.0633
-0.114 - 0. 3
5E-
0
167
73 2
-0.
-0.218
0.0836
-0.
167
0.0
0.0016
167
-0.
-2.96 -0.0300 3
167
-0.233 6 2E-
-0.
0 01
717
0.07
-0.788 364
0.0361
-0.
-0. - 0.
-0.
-0.793 87
17
0
0.113
-0.264 0.0059 0.0
0.152
0.0082
-0.125
0.0859
-0.280
0.108
-0.0310 -0.295
0.0020
0.234
-0.0364 -0.311
-2.00
0.0015
-0.327
0.9638E-3
-0.342
MCCS_162
Facade assembly
2
5
6
5
Details
1. Aluminium sliding shading screen
2. Double glazed unit
3. Extruded aluminium transom
1
4. Extruded aluminium mullion
5. Aluminium profile
6. Floor slab
aluminium shading.
72
0.6
0.6
2
0.672
7
2
0.67
0.6
72
2
0.67
2 7
Composite concrete
0.6
72
0.672
0.672
Primary structure type
2
0.6
0.672 slabs.
0.6
0.0288
0.672
2.00
0.67
2 Aluminium plates
0.672
0.672
0.672 Secondary structure type
0.67
2 and profiles.
0.672
Weight of secondary
0.0270 0.672
0.0117 0.17
structure (kN/m2)
0.672 0.672
Serrated plates;
0.672 0.672 Facade bracket type
0.672
welded and bolted.
0.0100 Number of components in
0.0040
0.672 6
0.672
fixing system
0.672
0.672
0.672
Weight of facade, including
0.672 0.65
0.00
0.672 0.672
0.6
72
0.672
0.6
72
0.6
0.6
72
0.672 0.672
72
2
0.67
0.6
72
0.6
0.6
0.672 2
0.67 0.672
72
72
0.6
72
0.6
72
0.672 0.672
0.6
0.6
0.672
0.672
0.672
2
0.67 0.672 0.672
2
0.67 0.672
0.672
0.672
-2.00
0.672
0 Utilisation factor
16.00 distribution in steel frame
14.00 12.00 10.00 m
The lightweight aluminium curtain wall structure supports both the glaz- The structural analysis focused on behaviour at serviceability of this
ing system and the external shading panels. The use of aluminium for lightweight structural system, which cantilevers off the main concrete
the external structure and shading screens was driven by durability and structure, in order to perform two distinct functions: support for op-
high resistance to corrosion, together with its immediate compatibility erable shading and support for maintenance personnel accessing the
with the underlying stick curtain wall system. framing from cradles. The deflection under serviceability loads of each
system component is critical to the functioning of the system. The nu-
The weight of the shading panels is transferred along the external verti- merical analysis aimed to assess both the maximum deflection of the
cal framing elements and taken back directly to the floor slab by means shading panels and the movements of the supporting rails during strong
of a stiff cantilevering bracket that passes between the panel joints. The winds. An important validation of the structural calculations for the sys-
connecting brackets are sized to allow the vertical passage of cradles tem was to assess its combined performance. This was undertaken
for the cleaning and maintenance of both glazed facade and external through performance testing on a full-scale mock-up, which allowed the
screens. The vertical framing elements act primarily as rails as the design to be verified for dynamic wind and water, which is typically the
screens can be raised and lowered electrically to provide solar shading most critical test for cantilevering lightweight facade elements.
in the morning, and clear views out in the afternoon.
MCCS_163
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
13 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
1100
875
675
450
225
100
300 3
260 2.7
180 2.4
150 2
100 1.3
62 1
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_164
External velocity, m/s Internal velocity, m/s
12.5 2.5
10 2
7.5 1.5
5 1
2.5 0.5
0 0
Pressure, kPa
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1
1 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
The sliding external shading screens offer a high level of control to the
building occupants, which suits the residential requirement for both
high levels of shading and transparency at different times of day. This 20 °C
approach avoids the need to have internal shading which has to be 13 °C
0 °C
deployed for the whole day and does not perform as well as external
19
shading in reducing solar gain. 1 18
16
1
This allows the use of the interior space immediately adjacent to the
glazed facade whilst benefiting from the indirect light which passes
deep into the internal environment.
EXT INT
1 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MCCS_165
o
20.0 C
METRO PERFORMANCE
ENHANCED
14 KAFD Metro, Riyadh
MCCS_166
KAFD METRO, Riyadh
ICONIC METRO TRANSPORT STATION
ARCHITECT
ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING
MEP ENGINEERING
BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.44
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 1.99
MCCS_167
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
14 Typical system bays
6 7
2
6
3 1 4
5
4
Details
5
1. Double glazed unit
2. Primary structure
3. Thermal insulation
4. Mullions
5. Floor slab
6. Rainscreen panels
7. GRG cladding
8. Diagrid bracket
3D external view of typical bay 9. Structural bracket
MCCS_168
2
8 3 1
2
3 1
9 9
9 9
3
3
1
1
4
4
MCCS_169
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
14 System design
3
4
Top view
5
3 5
Front view
5
3
MCCS_170
Bottom view
5
3
5
1
2
3D view of detail
4
1
5
3
4
2 2
5 1
Back view
Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Primary structure
3. Composite panel
with thermal insulation
4. GRG cladding
5. Diagrid bracket
MCCS_171
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
14 Structural analysis
-10.8
-11.5
-12.3
-13.1
-13.8
-14.6
-15.4
-16.1
-16.9
-17.5
13.3
12.3
11.5
10.8
-0.8
-1.5
-2.3
-3.1
-3.8
-4.6
-5.4
-6.1
-6.9
-7.7
-8.4
-9.2
-9.9
9.9
9.2
8.4
7.7
6.9
6.1
5.4
4.6
3.8
3.1
2.3
1.5
0.8
0.0
-0.825
-6.65
-0.539
-0.539
-1.61 2.92
23
.9
-0.
-0.7
-1
-12
-0.533
2.
715
-2
-1.29
9
2.97
4.96
.7
-0
4.95
4
13
1.8
-1.40
-1.28
7.
0.657
3
.2
1
1.22
-1
-0.
40 9 .
-1
6
7. 9.18
39
13
0.0474
9.
18 1.
-5.8
.3
-9.
6
1.
-4.
45
-0.
0.19
-
1
13
1.84
1.93
1.59
13
2.04
1.64
4.
-5.0
4
1.59
50
5.42
2.8
2.06
.3
348 79
6.70
2.8
-9
0
3.6
0.17
2.79
.3
1
0.
2.
1.91
65
5.46
1
-0
-9
6.76
6
.5
6.12
9
.4
41
11
-2.
-1.91
0.
.2
2
10
28
.4
-9
7
3
-0 28 06
7
8
2.22
-1.08
70 .3
-0.6
-3
-9
0. -0 739
12
0.216
3
-0.
.6
-3.60
-1
.6
-2.
.0
2
-1.06
-4.07
-1.91
75
1
-1.51
43
.1
.0
.1
-1.54
-1.51
-3
-3.61
0.314
-0.7
-4.25
0.315
-2.
-4.08
1
75
12
-1
0.318
47
-4.20
-4.26
0.32
0.3
-4.20
-4.02
0.315
0.314
0.318
0.
-4.02
2
-3.89
27
-3.89
0.32
-3.74
2
27
-3.74
-3.74
0.
4
33
33
0.3
41
0.
4
5
41
0.
0.
3
34
41
0.
45
0 .3
31
34
0.
0.32
3
0.315
0.315
0.
0.32
1
0.3
31
1
-160000.
Bending moment distribution in steel gridshell (kNm)
80000. 70000. 60000. 50000. 40000. mm
0.0397
0.0534 0.999
0.0394
0.0531 0.999
0.217
0.158
-140000.
0.947
1.06
1.09
0.891
1.06
0.948
0.817
0.892
0.816
0.494 0.236
0.740
0.225
0.142
0.0367
0.524
0.517
0.161
0.135
0.728
0.786
0.796
0.797
0.787
0.231
0.524
0.147
0.709
0.728
0.579
0.164
0.729
0.710
0.0368
0.688
0.138
0.612
0.337
0.501 0.138
0.105
0.251
0.0333
0.0417
0.0452
0.706
0.469
0.718
0.707
0.718
0.0472
0.106
0.178
0.577
0.242
0.520
0.619
0.577
0.0401
0.0433
0.384
0.619
0.0480
0.0414
-150000.
0.0180
0.0704
0.0022
0.0691
0.148
0.292
0.292
0.289
0.0783
0.136
0.106
0.0783
0.0979
Vertical displacement distribution in steel gridshell (mm)
-160000.
results
Finite element model of typical bay
80000. 5.11.6 Maximum surface analysis
70000. 60000. 50000. 40000. mm
Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 1.23 mm (Min=-1.09) (Max=0) M 1 : 195
-10.1
-12.1
-14.2
-16.2
-18.2
-20.2
-22.2
-24.3
-26.3
-28.3
-30.3
-32.4
-34.4
-36.4
-38.4
-40.4
-42.5
-44.5
-46.5
-48.5
-50.6
-52.6
-54.6
-56.0
ZX
24.9
22.2
20.2
18.2
16.2
14.2
12.1
10.1
-2.0
-4.0
-6.1
-8.1
8.1
6.1
4.0
2.0
0.0
Y X * 0.672
Y * 0.959
Z * 0.793
-11.1
-11.1
-11.1
Facade system with glazing
limit insets and UHPC
-11.1
1
Maximum deflection Load case Deflection Status
19.
19
.1
open-jointed rainscreen.
-47.4
-47.1
-46.5
-47.4
-45.9
-47.1
-45.3
-46.5
-44.6
1.4 mm Wind suction 9.1 mm OK
-45.8
-43.5
-56.0
-45.3
-52.6
-44.
-45.0
-42.9
-43.
-55.
-33.3
-36.0
-36.3
-31.2
-52.
0.150
-43.1
4
-41.4
1.
99
2.21
-44.8
-3.43
-34.0
41
-33.3
-5.57
-3.
-6.26
-6.25
-1.50
-5.56
-4.24
-9.41
5
.2
Primary structure type 7.8 Steel gridshell.
-6.
8
6.2
-10
.8
-10.4 -27.1 14
-4
-3
-4
18
5.99
.8
-31.0 .2
.0
19
-27.2
-11
.8
2
-10.5
9
1 9.
9
.9
-31.1
19.
.2
4
17.
SecondaryWind
structure
suctiontype 7.0 RHS steelmm
sections. OK -9. -1 3
-13
19.
14
17.6
15.5
-31.9 9.
3.2 mm
3
5
79
15.6
7.
13.7
-1
13.8
20
12.8
18.
12.8
7
8
.6
6
-11 -1 -32.0
14.
0.0540
.3
0.160
22
9.
STRUCTUR
0.276
.8
5.11.6 Maximum surface analysis 5 -33.8
.0
23.
6
-6.28
Weight of secondary
19.
-33.9
0.6
23.
0.160
0.0540
0.276
23.
0.411
23.6
8
24.9
0.7
0.549
0.44
24.8
23.9
23.2
23.8
0.681
81
8
0.8
95
95
structure (kN/m2) 5.11.3 Load combinations 5.11.4 Structural system and support conditions STRUCTURAL REPORT
0.7
55
0.7
55
89
0.6
0.8
UHPC sizes:
0.387
89
0.7
0.387
0.129
0.61
0.129
Load combinations are evaluated according to International Building Code 2015. A detailed 3D finite element model of the panel including UHPC panel and steel frame is implemented in Sofistik 2014.
16
SpiderNumber
bracket with fourNotes An explanation of the finite element model is provided in the following diagrams.
Serviceability results
Maximum stressFacade bracket type
Load combination Stress limit Type Description
Status A static analysis is undertaken for each panel selected.
Axial force distribution in steel gridshell (kN)
adjustable
2001 arms.
1.4D IBC Eq. 16-1. Main load case: self-weight
0.21
Plate thickness: 25 mm
80000. 70000. 60000. 50000. 40000. mm
of components
ZX
2003 1.2D+0.5Ws IBC Eq. 16-3. Main load case: wind suction Y
0.74 1.04
X * 0.672
-5.00
Wind suction ing system
9.1 mm OKStrength design 2005 IBC Eq. 16-4. Main load case: wind suction
-5.50
3005-3008 1.2D±0.3Ex±1.0Ey+Ez IBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in Y
1.36 1.00
Wind suction 7.0 mm OK 1.32 Outer frame: 0.70 RHS 30x100x6 -6.00
Z
X
Y
Sector of system Beam Elements
Nodal displacement in global Y, Loadcase 3 Ws = Wind suction
UHPC panel-steel frame.
, 1 cm 3D = 1.00 mm
The constrains allow for thermal expansion of
Maximum deflection for wind load (Min=-1.37) (Max= 5.1421e-06)
M 1 : 13
X * 0.502
0.21
Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962
2001
0.30 - 8.0 2001 MPa OK 1.00 - OK 0.86
Strength results
the UHPC panel.
0.74 1.04
1.26
2001 8.0 MPa OK 0.83 1.00
5.09
4.96
dmaxMovement
= 1.4allowed
mmUHPC< L/240 = 2190/240 = 9.1 mm M
-5.00
4.83
4.70
1.12 1.68
0.53
4.58
L/5
1 2
4.45
3.80
2001 8.0 MPa OK 0.72
0.763
4.32
s
-5.00
Movement
1.91 allowed composite panel
1.26
4.20
4.92
0.89
4.07
2Steel
3
3.94
UHPC panel .9 frame
3.81
2
1.04
2005 8.0 MPa OK 4 1.31
3.69
3.56
0.750
3.88
-5.50
3.43
5 3.31
3.05
2.92
0.0252
2.80
1.00
1.
1.36 2.67
02
2.54
0.0207
2.42
0.70
2.29
0.
1.32 2.16
76
3.18
2.03
-6.00
Details
3
1.91
-6.00
Load combination
1. Internal LimitFRP
factor
cladding Status 1.65
1.53
1.05
2.94
1.11 1.40
2.05 5.09
1.37
1.27
1.02
Modelled as BEAM1.86
elements
3.21
0.0617
0.91 1.
0.89
account membrane and plate behaviour
3. Spider fixing bracket 0.23
0.76
53
-6.50
0.64
-6.50
2005 1.00 - OK
0.51
0.00
4. Composite panels with page 175
0.38
0.25
0.13
0.0254
Basis of Facade Design - Rev 00B
KAFD Metro Station - 10.06.2016
Lateral displacements distribution in Principal tension stress distribution
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 m
glazing insets building engineering -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.50 2.00 m
M
-4.50
MCCS_172
0.071
0.167
1
4.96
0.0
07 .18
0 .1
0.163
4.83
0.158
4.70
0
12
71
0.154
1.68
6
1
u
4.58
0.
0.150
0.05
4.45 0.146
3.80 2
0.
62
0.07
4.32
0.763 0.141
11
smax = 5.1 MPa <
0. s071 /1.5 = 12/1.5 = 8 MPa
-5.00
6 0
-5.00
1.91 0. 14
0.137
4.20
9
4
0.05
0.
0.133
01
4.92 . LOP
2
4.07
0.128
The articulated bolts (M20) are inserted into the holes provided in the spider bracket arm. Each bolt can be adjusted
vertically by±5
mm. A slotted washer allows an additional in-plane adjustment±5 ofmm.
Once the panel is placed into the right position, the four bolts are tightened and fixed to the spider bracket by two nuts.
x
2
±5
y
3
±5
Node 4 Node 1
Node 3 Node 2
4
±20
±20
±20
Movement Rotation
±20 restrained Rotation
Support Movement restrained
Bracket assembly Support
restrained restrained
±20 Details
Node 1 x, y, z -
1. Cast steel casing Node 1 x, y, z -
x
2. Articulated bolt Node 2 y, z -
Node 2 z -
3. Bracket arms Node 3 x, z -
4. Threaded tube Node 3 z -
y Node 4 z -
5. Serrated steel plate Node 4 y, z -
2.5 Spider bracket analysis
z
5.13.5 Analysis of Spider Bracket supporting opaque panels
Appendix A- Analysis of the model of the panel
Bracket supporting
Basisopaque panels
of Facade allowing- Rev 00B
Design
age 118 unrestrained KAFD
thermal
A.1 Preliminary Metro Station - 10.6.2016
movement
Hand Calculations
Von Mises equivalent stress distribution Von Mises equivalent stress distribution
In order to check the validity of the results that were obtained a hand calculation mod
18.3
644.9
628.7 we have developed in SOFISTIK, however it is required in order to estimate the dimens
348.1
339.4
330.7
322.0
313.3
304.6
295.9
287.2
278.5
269.7
261.0
252.3
243.6
234.9
226.2
217.5
208.8
200.1
191.4
182.7
174.0
165.3
156.6
147.9
139.2
130.5
121.8
113.1
104.4
95.7
87.0
78.3
69.6
60.9
52.2
43.5
34.8
26.1
17.4
The latter serves as a comparison with the values obtained in the FE model. In the ha
8.7
0.0
612.6
596.5 18.1
580.3
564.2
18.2 176.3 the maximum sizes present in the building was modelled, so 4.71m long and 1.73m wid
548.1
17.9
532.0
18.3 30 mm thick, without considering the edge return. It is used only to calculate the amo
-0.05
44.5
515.9
the steel beams were modelled as simply supported beams with 2 applied force at L/
2
73.8 18.0
.5
499.7
1.
-0.10
87
43
483.6
16
467.5
32.2 the location of the stainless steel bracket. The amount of this
.0 force depends on the fo
48
451.4
4
75.8 93.2
2.
435.3
state considered.
.4
199.4
32
419.1
28.2
386.9
95.7
112.0
370.8
548.1
0.00
354.7
643.4
state.0.Since 0.428
338.5
322.4
173.8 1.67 the purpose244.7 64.4
of these calculations is only to estimate the sizes of the stee
0.00
306.3
335.4 88.8 154.8 153.8 105.0
290.2
332.1 78.6 26 the wind pressure, the imposed dead load and50.5 the sand load were considered.
274.1
13
241.8
86.4
48.4 43.1 164.9 256.2 244.0
0.
308.5
3
225.7
1.65
7.
209.6
23.3 66.2
5
66.4 40.9 2.41 228.9
0.05
199.8
193.4
17
177.3
161.2
83.4 348.1
162.2 0.0079 192.4 181.3
145.1
0.10
129.0
0.635 1
148.5 0.614 26.
112.8
96.7
364.5 276.2 0.805
80.6
64.5
48.4
294.4 194.9
0.10
32.2
16.1
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 0.10 m 0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 m
0.0
Maximum
Von Mises equivalent
stress stress:
distribution smax =spider
in short 644.9 MPa < fuk (MPa)
bracket = 800 MPa Von Mises stressequivalent
Maximum distribution
stress:ins long spider
= 348.1 MPabracket
< f = 800(MPa)
MPa max uk
The structural design of the envelope system is based on cycles of bays allowed the preliminary sizing of structural members.
Von Mises equivalent stress distribution (bolt excluded)
iterative analysis which are conducted at different scales, ranging Structural bays
Von have been designed
Mises equivalent and stiffened
stress distribution individually. Only in a
(bolt excluded)
from global building scale to the scale of the structural module, to second step were they combined into a global model to consider global
451.7
438.6
427.4
416.1
404.9
393.6
382.4
371.1
359.9
348.6
337.4
326.1
314.9
303.6
292.4
281.2
269.9
258.7
247.4
236.2
224.9
213.7
202.4
191.2
179.9
168.7
157.4
146.2
135.0
123.7
112.5
101.2
90.0
78.7
67.5
56.2
45.0
33.7
22.5
11.2
1.8
-0.05
276.7
269.7
262.8
255.8
248.9
242.0
235.1
228.2
221.3
214.4
207.4
200.5
193.6
186.7
179.8
172.9
166.0
159.0
152.1
145.2
138.3
131.4
124.5
117.6
110.6
103.7
96.8
89.9
83.0
76.1
69.1
62.2
55.3
48.4
41.5
34.6
27.7
20.7
13.8
the scale of the assembly as well as its individual components. effects, which may take precedence in determining structural sizes
6.9
0.0
12.4 22.2
17.2 that achieve a required global
Strength stiffness.
design
-0.10
16.8
The global analysis9.78 of the188.5
building184.4geometry provides an understand-
32.1 71.0 According with the load combinations provided by IBC (Table 1605.2), the applied
199.4
4
ing of the distribution of 173.8
stiffness
126.0 in the primary structure. This infor- The global48.4 behaviour of the the supporting
design bending gridshell 1steel structure
31. kNm. It should be is
0.00
316.8 348.
6 451.7 152.3 96.8 therefore moment is 7.48 equal to the plas
112.0
90.8 Considering RHS85.3standard profile section and ASTM A36 steel grade, the min
135.
mation allows 123 the overall deflection
332.1 183.4 design criteria
0 for the building
295.8
368.3 80.9
directly related to the13dead 1.4 loads of 244.7
the envelope. 64.4 These are optimised
82.7
0.00
168.2 2.57
Actually in steel members the most severe
1
is not the strength, but the d
228.9 199.8 86
calculations under SLS were performed .and the section previously designed was check
accommodated within the joints between the insulation cassettes 7
.2
276.7
192.4 was imposed equal to the deflection acting on a simply supported b
by IBC (Table 1604.3)
236
0.10
209.2 185.2
composing the thermal envelope, 364.5 without
276.2
affecting the performance For assemblies which are
placed alongdesigned
its length. Inas
thiscombined systems,
way it is possible such
tu calculate as inertia that
the minimum
section previously proposed had an inertia of 214 cm4,, so the design should be revised
of the waterproofing layer. 294.4
194.9 composite cassette panels and UHPC (ultra high performance rein-
0.10
Since the seismic load had not been taken into account yet, as well as the load due to
-0.10 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 0.10 m forced concrete) exterior cladding panels, combined numerical models
panel, it was decided to increase the thickness of the steel members, considering a fin
0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 m
The global geometry presents repetition and symmetry patterns which are used to assess localised stresses at their points of connection.
Sector of system Volume Elements Group 10...12 M 1 : 1.12
X
Y v.Mises stress from middle of element , nonlinear Loadcase 3 PODIUM PANEL LC 2022 , from 1.81 to 451.7 step 11.2 MPa X * 0.502
Y * 0.906 Sector of system Volume Elements Group 10...12 M 1 : 2.32
Z X Y
Z * 0.962 v.Mises stress from middle of element , Loadcase 2 DIAGRID MAX SURF LC 2001 , from 0.156 to 276.7 step 6.91 MPa X * 0.984
Z Y * 0.332
Z * 0.960
page 120
MCCS_173
ilding engineering
building engineering
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
14 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
780
650
500
325
175
50
kWh/m2
780
650
500
325
175
50
Without Solar
Period With shading
shading reduction
1 year 28.7 MWh 50.6 MWh 43%
Glare analysis of interior spaces
MCCS_174
External
velocity, m/s
6.6
5.3
4.1
2.8
1.6
Internal
velocity, m/s External wind distrubution for pedestrian comfort assessment
2 Velocity,
m/s
1.5 80
60
1
45
0.5
35
0
25
MCCS_175
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
14 KAFD Metro, Riyadh
The design of the envelope of the KAFD Metro Station was driven by the ing, with its higher costs, by using two independent elements fixed to
need to provide a weather-tight and thermally insulated envelope around a single threaded bar. This technology is derived directly from fixings
a supporting structure. The geometry of the envelope is not driven by a for glazing panels which are supported on cables or lightweight steel
structural primitive that seeks to provide structural efficiency, but driven structures. These ‘spider’ fixings are used to accommodate high levels
by the requirements to enclose the interior space with the minimum of movement of the supporting structures at serviceability without gen-
amount of internally air-conditioned volume. Consequently, the zones for erating stress concentrations at the points of support. The movement
the depth of the facade and its supporting structure are required to be and adjustability is achieved by means of a ball joint located at the end of
minimised to contribute to this concept. each spider leg which allows a limited degree of rotation.
The envelope system is driven by the need to minimise installation time The main driver for using spider fixings to fix the cassette system to its
through prefabrication whilst achieving a highly durable facade assembly. supporting structure, is that each spider can support four flat panels
where they intersect at the corner, with each flat panel set at a different
The focus of the project research for the KAFD Metro was primarily angle. Spider fixings allow the flat panels to be fixed across a doubly
focused on the assembly technology and several built precedents were curved geometry, where panels meet at a given point with different incli-
identified to address two primary design priorities: nations. Each spider leg can be adjusted independently in length and can
• Speed of installation of the facade systems, given short time accommodate a different angle of rotation. The spider connection also
requirements for the construction of the transportation system of reduces the number of brackets and penetrations through the thermal
which the KAFD station is a part. envelope and accommodates a higher amount of movement from the
• Durability of the facade materials given the extreme environmental primary shell structure due to the free rotation allowed at each support.
conditions in Riyadh to which the building will be exposed.
The KAFD Metro represents an evolution from a precedent project: The
The Heydar Aliyev Centre in Baku was taken as the point of departure Heydar Aliyev Centre, where the cassette system is based on rectangu-
for the use of a prefabricated cassette system, composed of an insu- lar modules in which the spatial disposition of the structural members
lated steel-framed module, to realise an insulated backing wall which is of the supporting steel structure is set to match the envelope panelisa-
wrapped by a continuous weather-tight membrane. The cassette sys- tion. This approach allows structure and facade to be closely integrated,
tem also integrates glazed openings within large areas of perforated removing the need for a secondary structure. The envelope is integrat-
panels, set in vertical bays of the facades. The cassette system is pro- ed with the primary structure by closely following the same shape and
tected from the effects of the sun, and from accidental damage, by large having the cassette modules fixing directly to the structure, despite the
rainscreen panels which are moulded in order to achieve the geomet- internal finishes following a different geometry inside the building. The
rical complexity of the outer architectural surface. This solution, with a project is mainly an opaque building enclosure which allows two main
higher level of prefabrication, was chosen over the more time-consum- facade systems (rainscreen and stick glazing mainly at ground floor
ing, site-based approach of using profile metal deck supporting thermal level) to be used together without the need for complex interfaces.
and waterproofing layers.
The supporting steel primary structure is conceived as a self-supporting
In order to fix each cassette module to the supporting steel structure, shell whose global stiffness needs to be suited to the envelope system to
the principles of ‘spider’ fixing technology have been utilised to ensure which it is directly fixed. The local movements of the steel structure have
high levels of adjustment and flexibility, but avoiding the use of a cast- been investigated through finite element modelling to interface with the
MCCS_176
facade system allowing joint widths between the cassette panels to be waterproofing membrane by providing protection against accidental
determined. These joints are made water-tight and are designed to damage and UV radiation from the sun. Pressure equalisation reduces
withstand a range of movements during the service life of the building, peak loads on the membrane and protects it from wind-driven rain. Alu-
including thermal movements and lateral displacements of the struc- minium strips are used to ensure UV protection along the open joints
ture due to wind. The joints are realised by means of compressible insu- between adjacent panels, whilst allowing the system to be ventilated.
lation, a lapped waterproofing membrane and the use of a double layer
of protection against both condensation and water ingress by including The research on material selection focused on establishing clear terms of
a vapour barrier underneath. The structural analysis at global scale comparison between different composite materials, which were required
allows areas of lower stiffness to be identified and analysed at the scale to meet the basic requirement of achieving a doubly-curved shape togeth-
of a typical bay, in order for the interface with the facade system to be er with the large panel spans within the facade zone available.
designed for the larger movements to be accommodated.
The design of the assembly has been developed as being independent
The geometry was rationalised through a set of early stage iterative from the specific material system and technology. The facade assembly
studies that introduced a slight double curvature in the perforated parts is designed to accommodate heavier fibre-reinforced concrete materi-
of the envelope which were subjected to larger deflections. This allowed als to lighter fibre-reinforced polymers by varying uniformly the struc-
a significant reduction in the size of the steel of the primary shell struc- tural sizes within the assembly, without changing the components or
ture for these areas, without visibly changing the architectural intent. the connections between components. The cladding panels are sup-
These studies were made possible as a result of applying the results of ported directly from the metal frame of the cassette system, which
a preliminary computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis of the building causes the penetrations through the thermal envelope to disengage
to the structural model of a typical bay. The CFD analysis allowed the from the waterproofed joints between the cassette modules. This
effects of the wind driven by the geometry to be determined in relation approach allowed the assembly design of the cassette system to be
to the structural loads applied to the envelope structure. developed independently of the specific material technology and con-
nection type chosen.
The single system designed across the envelope integrates glazed panels
in the cassette system with the perforated areas of the envelope, where As fibre reinforced composites are engineered materials, their per-
the diamond-shaped panels are arranged in a diagrid configuration. formance is dependent on the specific mix and fabrication techniques
used by each fabricator. The research on material selection involved
The project required the use of a set of current technologies to achieve factory visits to specialist manufacturers, comparison of results from
the weather tightness of the building and coordinate economically with physical testing for different mixes, documentation of fabrication pro-
the supporting steel structure, avoiding the need to generate a pro- cesses and surface finishes achievable by each fabricator. An essential
ject-specific technology. The use of well-understood components ena- aspect of the material research was to establish a set of benchmark
bled a higher level of optimisation of the assembly in order to meet the values for the use of each material considered on the project, which
durability requirements for the facades. serve both as a proof-of-concept and establish key constraints in the
use of each material.
The research conducted for the material selection led to the use of a
fibre composite material as the primary material for the rainscreen
cladding. Rainscreen cladding technology ensures the durability of the
MCCS_177
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 Grand Théatre, Rabat
MCCS_178
GRAND THEATRE, Rabat
THEATRE
34°00’ 47” N
6° 49’ 57” W
ARCHITECT
ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
AKT II
MEP ENGINEERING
MAX FORDHAM
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.30
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 2.04
MCCS_179
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 System design
6
1
2
1
Details
1. GRC cladding panel
3 2. Double glazed unit
4 3. Mullions
4. Floor finish
5. Floor slab
5 6. Primary structure
7. Steel bracket
8. Profiled metal sheet
9. Concrete
10. I-beam girder
3D external view of typical bay 11. Glass reinforcement
MCCS_180
1
7
7
11
11
11
11
7
8
7
8
10
10
3
2
MCCS_181
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 System design
Top view
1
2 1
2
2
Front view
Bottom view
MCCS_182
1
1
2
2
3
3
1 1
2
2
Back view
Details
1. GRC panel
2. Steel bracket 1 3
3. GRC rib
4. Thermal insulation
MCCS_183
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 Structural analysis
1
Monolithic open-jointed
Facade system GRC rainscreen on Facade assembly
concrete.
Facade zone 425 mm
Primary structure type Concrete shell.
2
2340 mm
4120 mm
MCCS_184
1
2.00
4.95
4.82
4.70
4.58
4.45
4.33
4.20
4.08
3.96
3.83
3.71
3.59
3.46
3.34
3.22
3.09
2.97
2.84
2.72
2.60
2.47
2.35
2.23
2.10
1.98
1.85
1.73
1.61
1.48
1.36
1.24
1.11
0.99
0.87
0.74
0.62
0.49
0.37
0.25
0.12
0.00
-0.14
-0.28
-0.41
-0.55
-0.69
-0.83
-0.96
-1.10
-1.24
-1.38
-1.52
-1.65
-1.79
-1.93
-2.07
-2.21
-2.34
-2.48
-2.62
-2.76
-2.89
-3.03
-3.17
-3.31
-3.45
-3.58
-3.72
-3.86
-4.00
-4.14
-4.27
-4.41
-4.55
-4.56
0.95
0.69
0.55
0.41
0.28
0.14
0.00
4.51 0.56
2.52
9
3.
4.3
1.98 3.19
3.0
3.46
4.73
83
1.00
1.00
-0.96
73 0.926
8 1. 1.48
2.24 -2.21 -1.93
61
5
0.
4.45
0.0610 1.56
.6
-2.89
2.56
-1
2.40
-0.8
0.
-1.24
0.95
5
-0
41
8
4.90 1.67
1.
.2
2.38
3
4.76
-2.4
8
3.16
-1.
-1
4.29 4.29
1
4.55 -4.56
37
4.70
.9
-4.27
7
-2.07
0.00
-3.
0.00
0.
4.03 72 -3.8
6 5
33
3.96
0. -3.0 .4
49 4. -3
5 0.444 3
0.28
0.90
5
-2.76
.5
.1
1.72 61
-0
-0
1.73 -1.79
1.20 1. 2.84
-1.10
8 1.10
1.4 -0.28
1.3
0.833 4.95
4.
3.03
4
4.18
4.
3.3
58
-1.00
6
3.63 0.80
-1.00
08
-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 m -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 m
Maximum principal tensile stress distribution in GRC panel (MPa) Vertical nodal displacements distribution in GRC panel (mm)
The assembly and installation of the envelope system is one of the main been considered as the safest and most effective engineering approach
drivers in the design of the individual components and of the connec- which allowed to validate with certainty a set of assumptions developed
tions between them. The design of the envelope system is highly adjust- through engineering analysis, which is implemented by means of a se-
able and uses bespoke connections between material systems, such as ries of linked numerical models.
the bolted connection between steel and glass fibre reinforced concrete
(GRC) panels, in order to minimise the number of components in the The complexity required in the design of the assembly affects directly
assembly. The engineering structural analysis often finds its practical the decision by the designer of testing rather than analysing an assem-
limitations when deployed within the design process as the timeframe to bly in order to verify its structural performance. The complexity of the
develop reliable calculation models is not available. Each finite element assembly is primarily related to adjustability, which concerns the inter-
analysis model attempts to describe a specific aspect of the behaviour face between facade and primary structure. As part of the assessment
of a component. The GRC panels are modelled on point or pad supports, of the amount of adjustability required, the finite element analysis of
which is useful to verify the stresses across the panels except at the con- the amount of creep in the concrete structure through a representa-
nection points, where a more detailed three dimensional finite element tive global model, has been performed as the envelope system is fixed
model is utilised to assess the connection between GRC and steel brack- mainly to a continuous concrete structure. Additional aspects taken into
et. Even the more detailed analytical model developed is not sufficient to account are both the construction tolerances and the geometric devia-
provide enough confidence in the design as this requires too many as- tions from the ideal surface of the primary structure. These are typically
sumptions regarding workmanship, interaction between materials, etc. obtained after the construction through a 3D scan of the building which
Physical testing on a statistically meaningful number of specimens has is directly overlaid with the original 3D model of the structure.
MCCS_185
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
558
503
447
391
335
279
kWh/m2
558
503
447
391
% Daylight factor
335 2.5
279 2.0
1.5
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay 1.0
MCCS_186
Wind cladding pressure distribution. North view, wind from north
Pressure, kPa
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
11.2
8.4
5.6
3D isotherms showing temperature distribution 2.8
across concrete layer and fixing bracket
0
Internal
velocity, m/s
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Isotherms showing temperature distribution across insulation layer External and internal air velocity distribution
The continuous structural support provided by the concrete structure thickness of thermal break plate to be applied to each individual bracket
to the rainscreen GRC (glass fibre reinforced concrete) panels allows at the interface between base plate and concrete structure.
secondary structure to be omitted, but this approach requires every
panel fixing bracket to penetrate the thermal envelope, generating a CFD analysis was used to obtain a preliminary estimate of cladding pres-
thermal bridge. Given the high number of brackets, the thermal bridge sures, which were subsequently calibrated against a full wind tunnel test.
effect has been accurately quantified by means of a 3D digital model Risk of glare and visual user comfort was assessed for each internal space
of the assembly in order to assess the overall U-value of the envelope. through numerical analysis which provided confirmation of the required
A representative area of the envelope was considered for the analysis light transmission of the glass type used for the facades, as well as identify
with a specific ratio of brackets to surface area of envelope. In this way, areas of glazed facade that required additional internal shading.
the performance of the bracket could be calibrated by adjusting the
MCCS_187
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 Grand Théatre, Rabat
The main envelope system for the project is based on an opaque glass As part of the testing programme, the following tests were undertaken:
fibre reinforced concrete (GRC) rainscreen cladding fixed to the primary • Testing of GRC mechanical properties: the GRC mix and particu-
structure, which is a mix of reinforced concrete and steel. The main driv- larly the percentage volume of glass fibres in the mix affects the
ing parameter for the design of the GRC system was the required 60 mechanical properties of the material and particularly its flexural
year life span of the envelope system. This required the use of monolithic strength, which is the critical parameter in the design of large clad-
GRC panels, up to 4mx2m in size, which did not require the conventional ding elements. The mix is specific to each fabricator, who develops
steel backing frame cast-in on the back of the panel. the proprietary mix which suits their fabrication techniques and
expertise. The samples were made and tested in an independent
Given the large number of GRC panels used for the project in different test laboratory in order to establish the minimum flexural strength
sizes and configuration, an important aspect was to ensure that a single required from the material, which provided a benchmark that the
system was implemented with a single fixing detail, serving as a ‘univer- appointed GRC fabricator had to meet, using their own material.
sal’ connection detail. In addition, the sizes of main components were The flexural strength was established through a three-point bend-
required to be understood at an early stage of the project, in order to ing test and this result fed directly into all the structural calcula-
minimise time for both fabrication and installation. tions to size the GRC panels, including skin and monolithic ribs
which provide stiffening to the panel.
A clear set of rules for component sizing was established during the
design phase in order to provide highly resolved tender package for • Connection testing between GRC and steel bracket: the connection
accurate quantity take-offs. GRC panel thickness, size of panel ribs and between the GRC panel and fixing bracket is realised through a
size steel fixing brackets were required to be determined. The high stainless steel socket cast into the GRC which receives an M16
level of resolution in the engineering design was achieved through the stainless steel bolt to fix to the steel plate. There are no standards
following steps: available to quantify, analytically, the capacity of such a connection.
• Material testing of GRC was undertaken in order to obtain mechan- The closest reference standard refers to steel element cast in
ical properties, which were used as input for all the structural cal- concrete, but due to the presence of glass fibres, GRC has much
culations. The characteristic flexural strength obtained through higher tensile and shear strength, which affect the properties of
testing was set as a minimum target characteristic strength to be the connection, improving its capacity.
achieved by the GRC fabricators.
• CFD analysis for preliminary cladding pressures was undertaken Whilst the material testing was covered by standard procedures, the
and subsequently validated by an early stage wind tunnel test. This test for the connections was devised for the project-specific application.
analysis allowed the use of precise values for wind loads, which The first set of tests were devised to establish the capacity of the pro-
drive the stress analysis of the panels while taking into full account posed connection under static loading, both in pull-out and shear. The
the effects of the geometry of the building. second set of tests were devised to establish the resistance of the con-
• Structural calculations for each component were undertaken for nection assembly to wind-induced fatigue, which is related to the cyclic
each project-specific configuration by using finite element model- nature of wind. The alternating pressure and suction forces on the pan-
ling and scripting in order to automate the structural analysis pro- els apply cyclic loads during the whole design life of the connection.
cess for all panels.
• The design of the adjustable steel fixing bracket was conceived in Fatigue failure is driven by the formation and propagation of micro-
order to be able to use one fixing type only across the whole pro- cracks within both steel and GRC. Micro-cracks tend to form in the
ject, so that repetition and reduce costs could be maximised. proximity of stress concentrations but are also due to several other
• A set of physical tests were designed in order to validate a single factors such as fabrication, particularly GRC. In brittle materials, the
design for the connection between GRC panels and steel fixings, fatigue failure of nominally identical specimens can vary considerably, as
which could be used safely across the entire project. every specimen would have a random distribution of cracks from which
fatigue can initiate. This requires empirical testing of a statistically sig-
The design of both GRC panels and steel fixings is based on well-under- nificant number of specimens in order to establish robust safety factors
stood principles documented in standards. The design of the connection for the design.
between GRC panels and steel fixings could not be assessed through
standards. Instead, project-specific testing was required in order to Testing should be sequential, with an increase in accuracy and time/
ensure the reliability of the system and obtain the building approvals. resources commitment at each stage. This ensures an effective use of
MCCS_188
time as with any construction-related task, which is typically driven by direct calculations through standards. The following steps are
the programme and aims for any building to be designed and executed required to validate this aspect of the design:
in the shortest possible time. The specific items tested are signed off a. Establish connection capacity in shear and pull out through testing.
sequentially so that if any step fails or design changes are required, an b. Compare the capacity with the most onerous design support reac-
economy of resources is ensured. tions and establish the safety factor that the current connection
design is providing.
This reflects the scientific approach applied to design, where the under- c. Verify that the safety factor is acceptable for the design (expected
standing of the object analysed is built up through a series of analyses safety factor of around 2.0 - 2.5).
and tests of increasing complexity. d. Establish resistance to fatigue of the connection through a sepa-
rate dynamic test.
The basic material testing and static testing of connections was under- 4. Construction of mock-up for final validation of assembly design.
taken before tender in order to provide an essential proof-of-concept A final validation of the assembly design is required through a 1:1
validation for the proposed design and test the feasibly of both outputs physical mock-up, where all the components are fabricated follow-
and process, which would then have to be repeated by the appointed ing the final design. This mock-up validates the following aspects:
fabricator. The fatigue test was not performed ahead of tender as the a. Fabrication time. This is used to define and test the specific fabri-
large amount of samples and testing time required was beyond the cation process and allows the estimation of the time required to
time-frame available for the design development. fabricate each component.
b. Assembly performance. Sufficient adjustment is provided, ease
Wind-induced fatigue testing requires a larger number of samples to of fabrication of components, ease and sequence of assembly of
be tested. This represents a much higher level of commitment for the components.
fabricator, and typically can only be expected as part of the delivery of c. Installation sequence. The installation of both panels and brackets
the project and not as a proof of concept. is tested and timed.
d. Performance under static loading. The mock-up is subjected to a
In light of the experience gained by Newtecnic on this project, testing the set of basic static loads at ultimate limit state in order to verify
viability of processes and outputs was confirmed, since the time-frames its overall performance in terms of micro-cracking and around the
following tender award were short. For future projects, a test-run of the connections upon removal of the load, as the system should be
process of each physical test will be considered before tender, and used able to sustain without permanent damage or deformation the
as a way of calibrating finite element analysis, rather than as a final val- project static loads at ultimate limit states.
idation of a design. This would allow more precise analytical predictions 5. Considerations of time required for fabrication of mock-up.
to be obtained, together with a more defined test process and outputs. The following considerations affect the speed of procurement of
GRC components for testing:
The implementation of the design concept for the GRC system com- a. Time for testing. Both static and fatigue tests are to be done on
prised the following tasks: samples which have cured for 28 days. Static tests can be under-
1. Geometry and material testing. The inputs for the contractor taken within a week. Fatigue testing may require several months,
are a well-defined geometry where facade, structure and MEP depending on the level of accuracy desired for the results and the
are closely coordinated. Mechanical properties of the mix must be appropriate number of fatigue levels to be tested.
confirmed through testing by the contractor. For GRC, the flexural b. Time to manufacture the first batch of panels. The size of the first
strength after 28 days of curing is the only mechanical proper- panel batch is related to availability of site storage.
ty that requires direct testing as it is the basis of the structural c. Time to construct mock-up. The construction of the mock-up allows
design of the panels. the establishment of a clear estimate of the time required to man-
2. Structural design through standards. GRCA (International Glass- ufacture the first batch of panels.
fibre Reinforced Concrete Association) is the main European
standard for GRC calculations, and this standard was used where
the principles could be applied.
3. Validation of a critical aspect of the design through structural
testing. A critical aspect for the GRC system design is the resist-
ance of the connections which cannot be assessed by means of
MCCS_189
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
16 The Avenues, Kuwait City
MCCS_190
THE AVENUES, Kuwait City
RETAIL MALL
ARCHITECT
GENSLER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
PACE
MEP ENGINEERING
PACE
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.07
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 0.31
MCCS_191
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
16 Typical system bays
1 5
2 4
2
4
4
1
10
3
2
9
4
3D internal view of typical bay
Details
10 1. Composite cladding panel
2. Double glazed unit
3. Extruded aluminium transom
9 4. Extruded aluminium mullion
5. Thermal insulation
6. Backing wall, typically concrete
7. Outer brick skin
8. Extruded aluminium section
9. Floor slab
10. Floor finish
3D external view of typical bay 11. Ceiling finish
MCCS_192
1
5 8
5
2
4
4
10
10
9
7 5 6
7 5 6
8
5 6
5
2
MCCS_193
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
16 System design
6
2
Top view
6
2
1
1
5 5
4 4
4
Front view
Bottom view
MCCS_194
6
2
1
1 3
Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Extruded aluminium transom
3. Extruded aluminium mullion
4. Floor slab
5. Floor finish
6. Steel profile
9. Floor slab
10. Floor finishing
4
11. Ceiling finishing
Z
7.6
Y
X
-0.1
0.00
20 -43
5.5
-0.1
20
-43
3.4
-37
MCCS_196
-52. 2.8
4 -37
0.7
-52.
4
14.7
-36 -72
104.5
8.7 3.5
53.2
-72
-286.3 1.4
10.00
-5
26.6
9.
2
-71
9.4
-61.7
0.0
- 24
-63
-364.3
6 .2 1.7
-26.6
.6
55
.
-62
16 Structural analysis
55 4
-3 9.6
-400.6 -53.2
0. -62
9
3
7.6
-79.8
-44
36. -406.3 3.1
8 -64.5
-106.4
-44
-408.1 1.0
20.00
10
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
2
-133.1
-4
4
-357.
1 -269.0 -666.3
-212.9
-37
5.4
-306.
5 -665.4
-239.5
-200.6
-243.
5
30.00
-228
.9 -2
-292.7
1
35 -645.3
-539 .4 -365.2
24 .5 -605.4 -319.3
.4
-346.0
-539
. 5 -540.
0 -404.8
18
-23
-372.6
1.2
.2
-441.
7 -410.4
-24
8.07
-399.2
6.1 -326
.4
11.0
-412.0
-425.8
-30 -86.1
40.00
-300
9.8 .1 -408.0
-2
-452.4
-36
3.
0.8 23 1.
5
4. .3
4
-960 3 -391.2
.0 -479.0
92 -39 24
1.3 .3 -360.
5
20
-505.6
- 40 -960
.0
.3
-4 -30
8.0 0.3
-532.2
3.
7 - 41 -309.
1. 9 2. -32 4
6.5
12.2
-558.9
59
-4 31
Z
.2 -2 -244.
Y
10 8
X
59 .2 5. -44
30
8
-585.5
50.00
1.9
321.4
.5
-4
.3
04 - -
-612.1
.5 540
60.00
12 -540
121.7
. 2 .8
-9.
-2 -3 7.
92 1
.0
321.4
-540
12
.9 -9 5.7 .8
Details
-3 8
301.7
-44.1 -2 25 .6
.1
-665.3
-23
285.8
-6
40 .3 -64 1.0
-1 5.6
269.9
.4
-2
.7
9.81
52
6
-691.9
-17
-24
2 254.0
.5 -66
.7
25
5.8
62.00
.2
-2 4 .3
238.1
0
-718.5
.2
-26 -3 1. -6 -30
1.6
84
222.3
1
.1
Facade zone
2. Steel tube
-2
65 9.4
fixing system
75
61
.7
.6
206.4
60.00
-0.1
.6 20 -745.1
.1 -2
-36
-3
Facade assembly
6.
Facade system
-6
190.5
-32 4
4. Glazing panel
08 -4 66 0.5
.9
-3
2.9
174.6 -771.8
-194 28.4
08
-0.1
20 79 42 .5 -39
.9 .5 .
158.8
-3
0
structure (kN/m2)
-4 -6 1.1
13
-3
-798.4
64.00
-4
142.9
.7
-0.1 37 -3 08
13
2
283.8
-2
2
Weight of secondary
127.0
.7
-4 .9 18. 79
75
42 7.9
87.0
-2
1 . 4 -825.0
111.1
.6
39 .5
- 41
.6
95.3
-19
-4 .9 -4 1 .9
-851.6
73
136.0
5.
79.4
5
5.1
-73.5
-33
.
-4
Number of components in
9
-6 10
14
11
59
1
5.4
47.6
2.
66.00
74
.7
0
.9 -4
.5
70.00
-6
35
04
-904.8
.8
.7
.1
15.9
-72.6
-34.4
.0
42.0
42.4
-0.2 -6
44 -
0.0
0.
66 0.297 32 3 -931.4
76.5 8 - 65
.
-5
-15.9
1.
.0 23 - 1
8
-0.2
-958.0
0. 44 -7
-31.8
49
8 0.217 7. 325.
54.3 -3
19 9 4
-47.6
2
5.
4
.7
68.00
-2
-960.0
0. -7
-63.5
23
9 -0 -2
21
25
30.9 .1
-79.4
0.
-3
0
08
0.54
0.06
-7 .8 74
.9
-5 -95.3
23 .6
.5
-3
-111.1
6.44 7. 6
profiles.
.8
83
76
230 mm
80.00
28 20 -3 7
-142.9
-19.2 .2
and bolted.
28.2
28.5
-0.1 78
-158.8
70.00
20 .7
0.50
3
-174.6
-4
-11.8 19
.8 -0.1 38
-190.5
20 .8
Concrete slabs.
19
-4
-6.51 .6 -206.4 40
Z * 0.903
Y * 0.636
X * 0.883
-222.3
M 1 : 342
m
.9
18
-238.1
.4
Aluminium extruded
-254.0
72.00
16
-269.9
.3
0.591
-285.8
8. -313.7
87
3.
74.00
67
2.54
-2
.5
4
-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00
Z * 0.903
Y * 0.636
X * 0.883
M 1 : 63
m
Finite element model of roof steel space frame Deformed shape of steel frame
-0.17
-0.33
-0.50
-0.66
-0.83
-0.99
-1.16
-1.32
-1.49
-1.65
-1.82
-1.98
-2.15
-2.32
-2.48
-2.65
-2.81
-2.98
-3.14
-3.31
-3.47
-3.64
-3.80
-3.97
-4.13
-4.30
-4.44
0.0247
0.0240
0.0234
0.0228
0.0222
0.0216
0.0211
0.0205
0.0199
0.0193
0.0187
0.0181
0.0175
0.0170
0.0164
0.0158
0.0152
0.0146
0.0140
0.0135
0.0129
0.0123
0.0117
0.0111
0.0105
0.0099
0.0094
0.0088
0.0082
0.0076
0.0070
0.0064
0.0058
0.0053
0.0047
0.0041
0.0035
0.0029
0.0023
0.0018
0.0013
-60.00
2.17
1.98
1.82
1.65
1.49
1.32
1.16
0.99
0.83
0.66
0.50
0.33
0.17
0.00
-2.55
-0.904
-0.904
0.0121
-0.674
0.0055
-0.674
0.0062
0.0054
0.0038
0.0069
0.0037
0.0047
-2.55
-0.904
0.0069
21
0.0047
-0.904
0.0062
-2.55
-0.904
0.0038
0.0053
0.0054
3
0.0
0.01
-0.904
-4.27
0.00
-0.375
55
07
-4.27
-1.75
0.256
86
0.881
37
-1.75
053
0
0.00
0.0
121
1.01
-1.05
00
71
0.
-65.00
-0.
0.00
0.0
06 2
54
0.0053
-4.27
-1.89
38
0.
-1.14
01
-0.514
0.0
-4.27
0.881
070
00
1.84
0.0024
69
674
59
-65.00
1.02
0.
0. 0
674
0.
1.84
076
0.
0.975
0.0086
0.0073
2.17
-1.91
00 0.
0.
0.0078
00
00
00
-2.55
0.975
26
0 63
1.95
89
0.0076
0.
-0.
58
1.01
0.0054
60
2
0.
0.
54
-0.504
62
-4.27
00
-1.
00
-2.55
-0.689
00
0.
0.0096 0.0066
1.01
0 .0
-1.75
-4.44
0.
0.559
-4.44
-0.375
0.
3
0.0171
0.
2.17
69
01
00
-1.68
-1.91
5
00 1.
1.84
0.
121
-0.237
00
0.0064
60 7 11
01
01
1.95
0.0
01
-4.27
06
1.71
01
-1.68
0.
-4.27
-4.
1.20
17
0.
0.
0.
1.95
.0
01
0.
44
470
02
02
0.0086
00
.0
0.0086
-1
2
0.0078
0.0121
23
0.0063
178
0
0.
00
1.02
0.0073
.1
0.
1.6
01
0
01
44
-4.
66
2.1
-1.75
0
-2.
0
90
0.
00
-0.
63
0.
0.
71
-1.14
63
0.
0.0096
0. 0
2.1
0.0121
1.02
0.0046 0.0 44
7
.6
1.7
01
-2.55
0.
65
00
053
2.1
0
7
0.0171
0. 8
1.
-0
05
0.
0.00
0.669
-0
0.995
4
121
7
0.669
-2.55
01
56
-0.904
0.457
-2.
0.0100 67
1
84
.6
0.0
1
01
0.0036
0.0097 0.0049 0. 0. 0
3
-1
1.95
-4.
0.0235
04
1.20
78
-1.59
0.962
01
90
00
2
0.0054
0.559
0.
-1.8
-4.44
23
.0
0. 78
-2.
-4.44
62
0.0078
0.0235
60
0.0086
67
1.6
01 -0
-2.55
0.0235
99
-1.68
2
0.
0.
0.
.3
0.00
01
-1.68
00
2.1
0.0237
-70.00
00
0.00
35
2
0.6
69
076
00
2.1
9
00
-1
0.0068 0.00
1.20
00
0.
2
0.
1.6
-70.00
0.532
1.7
1.20
0
0.0237 .0
0.
-1
00
73
69
0 62
0
0.0237
7
2.1
1
4
89
1.95 2.17
00
0.
1.02
.
63
0.0235
2.1
1.95
0.0
7
0.667
1.7
0.0239 05
0.881
0.
65
1
0.0015
0.0099
1.01
0.668
53
39
1.84
01
0.595
0 .0
0.881
0.0
0.0239
0.163
1.01
0.00
0.0239
0.00
78
0.256
0.881
1.02
0.0237
21
1.01
0.881
0.0241
0.00
0.0101
1.62
0.669
0.0062
121
0.457
0.0069
2.17
0.01
0.01
0.365
0.0241
53
0.0241 0.0239 -0 -0
76
0.0243 .0 .0
67
65
0. 15 08
78
0.0243 01 3 1
00
0.0243 23 0. -0
0.0245 0.0241 .0 -0
0.
00 26 .0
0.0245 0. -0 77 8 05
0.0245 00 .0 -0 4
0.0247 0.0243 92 0. 29 .0 -0
0 07 2 23 .0
0.0247 0. 5 -0 7 02
0.0247 00 .0 -0 7
0.0241 0.0245 62 21 .0
0.0245 9
-75.00
15
-75.00
0.0243 0. -0 8
0.0247 0 03 .0 -0
0.0243 1 14 .0
0.0247 0.0245 6 0 79
0.0245 -0
.0
0.0245 07
0.0247 3
0.0247
0.0247
Utilisation factor distribution of steel space frame Bending moment distribution in steel space frame (kNm)
465.00 470.00 475.00 480.00 485.00 m
465.00 470.00 475.00 480.00 485.00 490.00 m
Z Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kNm (Min=-4.44) (Max=2.17) M 1 : 115
Z Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case 1 , 1 cm 3D = 0.0200 (Max=0.0247) M 1 : 122
Y X * 0.502
Y X * 0.502 X Y * 0.906
X Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962
Z * 0.962
FRP open-jointed
Facade system
0.701
0.800
0.649
0.893
0.701
0.947
0.800
0.961
0.893
0.947
0.961
0.961
rainscreen.
0.947
0.956
0.893
0.961
1.13
0.800
0.947
1.13
0.701
0.893
0.649
0.800
1.27
0.701
0.701
1.27
0.590
0.800
1.25
-65.00
0.566
0.649
0.993
1.18
1.25
0.893
0.478
0.701
0.993
0.408
0.800
1.31
0.738
0.478
0.378
0.642
0.962
0.490
0.893
1.31
0.408
0.309
0.490
0.347
0.309
0.590
0.334
0.956
0.334
0.947
0.343
1.27
0.346
1.13
0.962
0.290
0.961
0.409
0.590
1.27
0.311
0.305
0.381
1.27
0.947
0.341
1.18
0.993
1.14
0.738
0.309
0.334
1.13
0.341
0.961
1.14
0.354
0.490
1.25
1.27
0.341
0.993
0.341
0.800
1.18
0.359
0.738
0.490
0.330
0.925
0.343
0.408
1.31
0.341
0.893
1.25
0.408
Primary structure type Steel space frame.
0.408
0.353
0.376
0.330
0.566
0.675
0.478
0.405
1.27
0.675
0.309
1.31
0.408
0.405
0.408
0.391
0.309
0.326
0.642
0.311
0.340
0.347
0.408
0.478
0.566
0.338
0.451
1.14
0.629
1.27
0.451
0.893
0.407
0.408
0.364
0.353
0.925
0.590
0.341
0.343
0.359
1.14
0.353
0.381
0.330
0.290 0.341
0.359
0.407
0.800
0.354
0.343
0.675
0.496
0.490
0.423
0.277
0.423
0.962
0.374
1.18
0.334
0.590
0.738
1.27
0.374
0.993
0.353
0.424
0.309
1.13
0.451
0.947
0.317
0.275
0.301
0.309
0.338
Secondary structure type Steel box sections.
0.424
1.18
0.424
0.962
0.374
0.369
0.265
1.27
0.962
0.409
1.13
1.25
0.956
0.424
0.328
0.490
0.347
0.318
0.409
0.893
1.31
0.490
0.962
0.378
0.328
0.369
0.738
0.277
0.278
0.278
0.320
1.27
0.390
0.390
1.25
0.409
0.334
0.424
0.424
0.381
0.370
0.993
0.252
1.14
1.31
0.424
0.925
0.993
0.350
0.649
1.27
1.18
0.406
1.14
0.390
0.925
0.642
0.370
0.328
1.27
0.675
0.649
0.405
0.380
Weight of secondary
0.590
0.301
-70.00
1.27
0.422
0.406
0.451
0.701
0.478
0.423
0.496
0.947
0.800
0.962
1.13
0.893
0.328
0.956
0.947
1.13
0.07
0.962
1.25
1.31
0.800
0.947
0.701
0.340
0.893
1.27
0.390
0.925
0.649
0.800
0.701
1.14
0.252
0.676
1.31
0.451
0.350
0.369
1.14
0.451
structure (kN/m2)
0.183
0.409
0.183
0.218
0.111
0.218
0.111
0.0745
0.147
0.218
0.147
0.183
0.183
0.0745
0.0375
0.111
Facade bracket type
0.183
0.111
0.147
0.0374
0.0744
0.147
0.0745
0.111
0.111
0.0374
Number of components in
0.111
0.0374
0.0744
0.0744
-75.00
5
0.0744
fixing system
0.0374
0.0374
0.0374
, 1 cm 3D = 1.00 mm
475.00
(Max=1.31)
480.00 485.00
M 1 : 105
m
Y X * 0.502
X Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962
Details:
1. FRP cladding panel 4. Secondary steel structure
2. Thermal insulation 5. Steel space frame
3. Adjustable bracket
The structural design of each steel roof construction involved a significant
use of 3D modelling and finite element software in order to develop
1
structural concepts, by using analysis as a tool to explore structural
behaviour. For each structural roof a different strategy was developed
2
to rapidly evolve a concept, depending on the level of symmetry and
modularity. Typically, symmetrical roofs allow the main load-path diagram
3
to be identified ahead of modelling, which allows the main stiffness paths
to be reinforced already at the stage of preliminary sizing through hand
calculations. The design for modular roofs can be developed entirely on
4 5
the basis of a typical bay, which is then implemented in the full model
4
of the roof to check additional requirements for global stability. For
5
cases where structural hierarchies or expected behaviour are not
Facade assembly
clear, all structural members can be set to the same size for an initial
assessment of the geometry. This approach highlights the main stiffness
paths determined by the shape only. The stiffness path is then either
shifted by creating a different hierarchy of structural sizes or reinforced
by introducing larger members at the most stressed locations.
MCCS_197
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
16 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
2000
1750
1500
1300
Period Total area Total radiation
1000
% Daylight factor
kWh/m2
900 12
675 10
575 8
400 6
250 4
100 2
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_198
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
6 2.5
4.5 2
1.5
3
1
1.5
0.5
0 0
20 °C
13 °C
0 °C
EXT INT
A solar radiation analysis was undertaken for all the roofs in order to
assess the peak solar gain through the envelope for each. Given the
Pressure, kPa
height of the shopping arcades, internal CFD studies were used to
assess the temperature stratification across the internal spaces and 2
the potential use of top level vents to exhaust hot air.
1.5
The introduction of fully opaque insulated elements is aimed at reducing
solar gains. Another aspect of the environmental design of these highly
1
transparent roofs consists in assessing the penetration of direct radia-
tion hitting the floor surface. High levels of direct solar radiation are an
indicator of both visual and thermal comfort, respectively due to glare 0.5
and perceived air temperature by the building user. This analysis is criti-
cal to establish the usability of the interior spaces. 0
MCCS_199
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
17 Stone Towers, Cairo
MCCS_200
STONE TOWERS, Cairo
OFFICES AND HOTEL BUSINESS PARK
ARCHITECT
ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
AKT II
MEP ENGINEERING
HOARE LEA
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.10
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 1.65
MCCS_201
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
17 Typical system bays
9
6
11
6 4
Details
1. GRC shading louvre
2. Double glazed unit
3. Extruded aluminium transom
4. Extruded aluminium mullion
5. Thermal insulation
6. GRC permanent formwork
7. Extruded aluminium section
8. Backing concrete wall
9. Floor slab
10. Floor finish
3D external view of typical bay 11. Ceiling finish
MCCS_202
1
4
9
7
5 6
8 6 8
4
4
11
2 2
10
9
10
3
MCCS_203
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
17 System design
Top view
4
3
4 2
Front view
Bottom view
MCCS_204
3
3
1
3 3
2
1
2
3 3
Back view
2
2
1 1
4
Details
1. GRC shading louvre 3
2. Double glazed unit 3
3. Extruded aluminium transom
4. Extruded aluminium mullion
3D views of assembly
MCCS_205
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
17 Structural analysis
Details
1. GRC louvers
2. Double glazed unit
3. Concrete slab
4. Extruded aluminium transom
4 3
Facade assembly
MCCS_206
77.5 0.0060 77.5
75.6 71.9
0.0060 0.2306E-3
77.5
73.7 69.0
71.9
71.7
0.2306E-3 66.1
69.0
0.0087
69.8 63.3
66.1
0.0087 60.4
67.9
15.00
63.3
0.0043
65.9 57.5
0.441 0.311 1.28
15.00
60.4
0.0043
64.0 57.5 0.996 54.6
0.441 0.311 1.28
62.0 0.996 54.6 6.97 2.04 8.19 51.8
60.1
6.97 4.26
8.1951.8
48.9
2.04
58.2 4.26 32.5
48.9 37.7 46.0
56.2
32.5 37.7 46.0
7.75 4.25 43.1
10.00
50.4 37.4 0.287 34.5
0.243
10.00
48.5 0.287 29.8 .1 31.6
27
34.5
0.243 .3
.1
28.8
46.5
29.8
31.6 0.265 23 7.4
27 3 1.06 1 3.63
3.
44.6 25.9
0.265 28.8
42.6
1.06 25.9 2 17.4 3.63
3.15 9.69 23.0
1.58 5.41
40.7 3.15 23.0 9.69 20.1
5.00
34.9
0.02147.43
3.
33.0 8.6
11.5
4.55
5.00
7.43 9.26
88
6.77 5.8
3.
31.0 8.6
9.26
88
2.9
29.1 5.8 6.77 5.38 0.103 11.9
27.1 0.0
2.9
5.38 0.103 11.9 -2.9
25.2 0.0
0.421 12.6
23.3 -2.9
2.22 -5.8
0.421 12.6
21.3 -5.8 2.22 -8.6
0.00
46.9 -14.4
17.4 -11.5
2.35 0.112
8.98
0.00
-17.3
15.5 -14.4
8.98 0.112 6.72 -20.1
13.6 -17.3 0.345 0.719
-23.0
11.6 -20.1 6.72 0.345 0.719
0.120 25.0 -25.9
9.7 -23.0
0.120 25.0 -28.8
7.8 -25.9 0.110
77.5 -31.6
5.8 -28.8
0.110
3.9 -31.6
77.5 3.75 -34.5
-37.4
1.9
-75.00 -70.00
-34.5 3.75
-65.00 -60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 m
-70.00
-37.5
0.0 -37.4
.00 -70.00 -65.00 -60.00 -70.00 -55.00 -65.00 -50.00 -60.00 -45.00 m -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00
-37.5
Z Sector of system
Y
Principal tension stress distribution in concrete structure (MPa)
Z Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines Principal compression stress distribution in concrete structure (MPa)Y M 1 : 148
Top Principal st
Maximum principal
tem Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines tension stress in Node, Loadcase
Z 1 self weight
Sector of system,Quadrilateral
from 1.8367e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94
Elements,Supporting MPa
Lines M 1 : 148
X * 0.735 X M 1 :
X Y * 0.792
0.0060
, from 1.8367e-05 Y Top Principal
step 1.94 stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from -37.5X to 77.5 step 2.88 MPa X * 0
77.5
ipal tension stress in
75.6 Node, Loadcase 1 self weight to
X 77.5 MPa * 0.735 Z * 0.912
77.5 0.0060 0.0087 Y * 0.792 Y * 0
75.6
73.7
0.2306E-3 Z * 0.912 Z * 0
71.7 0.0087
73.7
0.2306E-3
Sprayed GRC used as per-
10.00
69.8
71.7
67.9
1.28 Facade system
10.00
69.8
67.9
65.9
64.0
1.28 8.19 30.3
manent formwork.
65.9
60.1
2.05 37.7 7.25 4.25
3.8
62.0
6.97 9.85
58.2 0.441 27
8
60.1 0.385 .
21
13.6
9.85 37.7
25
6.97 1
75 7.7
27
Primary structure type Concrete wall.
.3
56.2
32.5 5
4
.2
7.
58.2
0.385
3
.5
.6
. 29.8
21
13.6
.
4.26
17.4
23.
25
1
75 7.7
54.3
19
11
15
.3
56.2
32.5 5.41 5
4
.2
7.
3
.5
.6
29.8
.
52.3
23.
54.3
0.0054
19
11
15
52.3
50.4 5.41 2.26
0.0054 2.52
3.24
Secondary structure type -
5.00
50.4
48.5
2.26 3.24 1.06 0.143
46.5 2.52 0.265 5.41 0.0214
5.00
Weight of secondary
48.5
1.06 0.143 0.0214 0.129
44.6 0.265 5.41 3.15 1.58
-
46.5
33.7
42.6
3.15 0.129
structure (kN/m2)
44.6
1.58 33.7 1.28 1.58
42.6
40.7 0.0020
40.7
38.8
0.0020 1.28 1.58
7.56 6.16
38.8
36.8
36.8
34.9
7.56 6.16 9.26 Facade bracket type -
33.0
9.26
34.9 11.9
33.0
31.0
11.9
2.22 Number of components in
31.0
29.1
2.22 -
fixing system
0.00
29.1
27.1 12.6
0.00
27.1
25.2 12.6
23.3 46.9 3.69
25.2
23.3
21.3
46.9 3.69 8.56
3.22 Weight of facade, including
21.3
19.4
8.56 1.52
19.4
17.4 3.22 8.98
0.719 secondary structure (kN/m2)
17.4
15.5
8.98 6.72
13.6 0.719
15.5
11.6 6.72 25.0 2.40
13.6
9.7
11.6 25.0 2.40
7.8 77.5
-5.00
9.7
5.8
7.8 77.5 4.23
-5.00
3.9
5.8
1.9
4.23
3.9 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 m
0.0
1.9
-25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 m
0.0
Z Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 1.8366e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94 MPa M 1 : 115
Z
Principal tension stress distributionon in concrete structure (MPa)
Y X
Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 1.8366e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94 MPa M 1 : 115
X * 1.000
Y * 0.281
Y X X * 1.000 Z * 0.960
Y * 0.281
Z * 0.960
This construction process was used for the complex concrete shapes Facade assembly
of this project, such as the curved shear walls. The production of the Details
moulds requires specialised fabrication skills, with the GRC panel 1. GRC panels used as
being produced by a facade contractor. The use of numerical models permanent formwork
2. Reinforced concrete wall
provided an understanding of the behaviour of the structural forms of 3. Internal GRC cladding
the buildings; specifically the relationship between floor slabs and curved 4. Concrete slabs
shear walls.
MCCS_207
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
17 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
2310
1850
1400
1000
500
Period Total area Total radiation
% Daylight factor
kWh/m2
10
1000
8
850
6
675
4
500
2
350
0
250
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
Without Solar
Period With shading Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 2.62%
shading reduction
Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.71%
1 year 67.8 mWh 104.0 mWh 35% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.83%
MCCS_208
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
6 2.5
4.5 2
1.5
3
1
1.5
0.5
0 0
20 °C 5
13 °C
0 °C
17
16
15 15 19
15 15
16
17
EXT INT
5
The solar shading for the glazed facades on the long side of the building
20.0 C
o
tion
0.0 on
C each surface. The primary objective of this design optimisation is
o
Pressure, kPa
to minimise the energy costs of the building in use, rather than reduce
2
the capacity of the mechanical ventilation installation itself, as the louvre
density matches the annual cumulative radiation map.
A detailed solar radiation analysis on a typical bay identified that more 1.5
frequent usage of smaller shading elements provides higher solar gain
reduction without obstructing the view from inside, when compared to 1
08/09/2016
larger shading elements more spaced apart.
P:\0291_MCCS\03_Design\17_Stone Towers\Environmental Analysis\17_Detail_Hygrothermal analysis_02.flx
A daylight factor analysis on two floors of a typical bay was used as a -0.5
method to explore how varying floor-to-ceiling heights altered the pene-
tration of natural light into the interior space. Wind cladding pressure distribution
MCCS_209
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
18 Holland Park School, London
MCCS_210
HOLLAND PARK SCHOOL, London
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE
51°30’15.6” N
00°12’01.5” W
ARCHITECT
AEDAS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING
MEP ENGINEERING
BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC
WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
STRUCTURE (kN/m2) 0.19
TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (kN/m2) 2.21
MCCS_211
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
18 Typical system bays
7
5
10
9
6
10
1 3
9
Details
1. External copper shading louvre
2. Double glazed unit
7
3. Extruded aluminium transom
4. Extruded aluminium mullion
5. Steel profile
6. Precast concrete panel
7. Floor slab
8. Thermal insulation
9. Floor finish
3D external view of typical bay 10. Ceiling finish
MCCS_212
6
5 8
6
2
2
1
3
3
6
7
7
10
MCCS_213
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
18 System design
Top view
3 1
1 2
Front view
8
Third angle projection. Scale 1:60
7 7
3 3
Details
1 1. External copper louvres
2. Double glazed unit
3. Extruded aluminium transom
2 4 4. Extruded aluminium mullion
5. Steel profile
6. Floor slab
7. Floor finish
8. Ceiling finish
6 6
8
5
8
Back view
1
1
4
3
3
6
6
3D views of assembly
MCCS_215
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
18 Structural analysis
Details
1. Edge beam
2. Glazing
3. Extruded aluminium frame
4. Copper shading louvre
Global model
The design and analysis of the slender copper clad fins required a
detailed analysis of lateral torsional buckling phenomena, which are
due to the inherent slenderness of the fins. This was achieved through
finite element modelling which allows detailed buckling analysis to be
performed also for members with varying cross section. For this reason,
a cable system was introduced to stabilise the fins laterally. The cables
are moderately pre-stressed as they require a minimum initial stiffness
to resist the lateral torsional buckling of the fins. The cables are fixed
directly to the framing elements within each shading louvre.
MCCS_216
4.68 -0.0
4.57 -0.3
4.45 -0.6
20.00
3.63 -2.8
-2.2
3.51 -3.1
-2.5
20.00
3.40 -2.8 -3.5
10.00
2.34 -5.7 -6.3
2.22 -6.0
-6.6
10.00
-6.3
2.11 -6.9
-6.6
1.99 -7.2
-6.9
1.87 -7.6
-7.2
1.76 -7.9
-7.6
1.64 -8.2
-7.9
1.52 -8.5
-8.2
1.41 -8.8
-8.5
1.29 -9.1
-8.8
0.00
1.17 -9.4
-9.1
1.05 -9.8
-9.4
0.00
0.94 -10.1
-9.8
0.82 -10.4
-10.1
0.70 -10.7
-10.4
0.59 -11.0
-10.7
0.47 -11.0 -11.3
67.4
63.3
-19.7
59.8
-1 9.
2
-0.827
56.3
-45.0
52.8 - 7. 6
-6.2 2
15.4
49.3 3 19.714
17.1
17
-19.1
-1 .4 2. 60 .59
45.7
-2.1 9 1. 2.
-19.7-10.2
-1 9. 0 . 57 1 2
-19.0
-47.8
42.2 2 6 8 73
-0.827
-16. 0 5 . 2.
10.1
5 1 8
-45.0
38.7 - 7. 6 1. 1.5 1 7 4
-0.219
0
-6.2 2 . 5 2.
78 5 4.5
-0.317 0.225
38
15.4
3 4.78
-19.8
35.2
19.7 55 1. 0.3526 4. .83
17.1
48
-19.1
-7.27
-4.23
-1 .4 2. .5
9 1. 0 8 4 4
-10.2
-53.6
31.7 -2.1 6 4 . 7
-10.9
21.1
0 5 1
-19.0
-47.8
-16. -16. 1. 9 4. 63
28.1
29 .5 4.
10.1
5 9 3 28
1. 4
00 4. 9
-0.219
-0.2 .1 98
-10.2
24.6 -5.6 .
-8.77
91 2 3 .
-0.317 0.225
7 2 6. 3 5 4 1
20.00
0 3
0.275
4.78
-19.8
-17.5
0 .35 4. 4. .41
-7.82
.9
-7.27
-4.23
-63.6
21.1
-5.0 5 9 73 22 90
6 9. 77
10.4
-5.18 8 4
-2.77
-23.9
.7
-10.2
-53.6
-6-.7 1. .7 4. 3. 37
-10.9
21.1
17.6 2 1- 1 5
16.19 57 18.7 .2 4
3.
9
.4
0 4.
-5.6 0.10 1. 4 8 1 4 4 0 3
14.1
-5.6 -0.2 8.46 2 1. 1 4.
6 56 40 18 .
18
-8.77
1.
-17.5
3. 34 4.
-7.82
-13.2
10.6
-73.3
-8.51.
-63.6
-5.0 9. 77 61 -8.5 8 3 4. 97
10.4
8
-2.77
-23.9
-30.5
. . -
3 2 18 0
0.10 1 0 3 4
08 . 4 7 .29 4.
-5.6 8.46 1 1. .3 7 3. .68
3.5
6 2 -2 .0
6 .0 6 3 -15 -7.88 1. 6 131 1. 1 3.
71
-4.6 .8 .0 .1 .52 0 3
-13.2
-73.3
.2 -17.1
0.0
965.8 1 91
-20.5
-8.5 - 8. 5
4.89 .78 1 - 6 3
-30.5
2 2.04 3 3 0 69 9 3 7
0 .78.58 .3 .2
-3.5
.8
0.126
-7 . 9
-2.89
5 .47 -20.
5 5.66 0 0 0 3 5 3 .3
7 01 3 3
67.4
-7. 8 1. 13 9 5 3 7 6
-7.0 -2 .0
3 8 -4.3 0. .6 -.1528. 0. 2. 3 .5 2.7
-4.6 - 5 .36 0 4 9 0
-6.157.1 6.5 5.4043 0
-20.5
-57..89 0. 4 .
10.00
-8.5 96 5 2 0 . 1 47.0
5.51
. 2. -20.2 5
22 0 6 0 19
0.126
-7 .9 5.66 8 3.01 0 .4
5 .2 7 0. 3 2.
-14.1
0
67.4
-4.3 -12.
4 - 6. 95 7 .53 -0.2 0 .09.86 9.0 13 3 23.141 2
.3 65
-17.6 5 03 0 .4 3 1.
64.5
-21.1 -2 0. 4 3 . 0.
7.86 2 - 7 .6 4 9 9 1 . 0 6
40.5
-0.2 -7
9..0 7. 79 3 .9 9 1 8 .3 49 2 .6
-24.6 - 6. 9 7 .53 130 2.41 5 2 4 4 5 2 0 0 . 5 0
03 0. 5.72 1.
64.5
5 16.7 3 0. 0.
0.6.90 0.606 57
-28.1
-7 .6
0 .12
4 6.39
-6.0 -6.7 2.74 .40 5 6 0. 22
4. 43 7 43 .48 0. 66 0.
40.5
-7.0 7. 79 3 .9 9 1 9 4 5 0 2
0 . . 6 .
7
4 81 9 0.
7.39 00.210 8 55.0 15 44 2.2.33 1
-31.7
5.72
6 .9 0 0 .66
43 0 0 . 0 . 02
-35.2 -6.0 -6.7 -27.74.2 1 7.086 5 . 22 .4 0. 0. 29 0.
9 4. 43 7 2.8 1 49 0 8 0 8 . 02 0.
2.23 .
0 5. 4 2 0
-38.7 7 .39 0.2 1 5 .1 5 .40.2604 41 0. 0.
-7.2 7. 08 5 .22 8
- 3.1 3.71
-7.4
0 4671 0 4 0. 0.
03
-42.2 1 5 0. 0. 4 3 2 9 1 4
5 .71 0.20 2 . 0. 0.
0.00
-45.7
- 3.1 -7.4 4 7.90 0.01.544 9 2.810 .42
5 3.71 0 - 4.6 7.40 1. 2 2 0.
3 0
-49.3
0. 15 8 40 06
7.9 0 4
2.81
3 . 01..0 6 42 0.
- 4.6 7.40 1.2 2 -8 .2 0 3 6 . 3 0.
-52.8
8 -1.7 1 .4 4 3 0 06
3 .0 3 1.0 6 5 1 0 32 0.
-8 .2 4.800.1 1.106 0.
-56.3
-1.7
5 1 .4 4 3 8 0 .1
0.03 0. 06 01
0.
-59.8
4.80 1.16 2.15 06 0.
0.03 1 .83 . 05 5
-63.3 2.15 06 0 0
1 .83 -2.1 0.
-66.8
2 01 03
-70.4
-2.1
2 0. 0.
50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
-73.3
60.00 70.00 80.00 50.00 90.00 60.00 100.00 70.00 m 80.00 90.00 100.
Bending
Z
moment
Sector of distribution
system Groupin2steel elements (kNm)
4 6 45 Lateral displacements distribution in steel elements (mm) M 1 :
ystem Group 2 4 6 45 Y Z Sector of system Group 2 4 6 45 M 1 : 236
Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1Y self weight , 1 cm 3D = 50.0 kNm (Min=-73.3) X(Max=67.4) X * 0.
ts , Bending moment My, XLoadcase 1 self weight * 0.861
X Nodal displacement in global Y, Loadcase 1 self weight ,Y 1* cm
, 1 cm 3D = 50.0 kNm (Min=-73.3) (Max=67.4) 3D = 5.00 mm
0.643
(Min=-0.897) (Max=6.57) Y * 0.
Z * 0.919 Z * 0.
MCCS_217
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
18 Environmental analysis
kWh/m2
990
800
625
450
225
100
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis
Period Total area Total radiation
500 2
450 1.6
375 1.2
300 0.7
250 0.3
175 0
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
MCCS_218
External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
12 2.5
9 2
1.5
6
1
3
0.5
0 0
20 °C
13 °C
0 °C
EXT
1 2 2 1
5
15
15 16 17 18
2
15
1 16
17
18
INT
5 15
Pressure, kPa
o
20.0 C
Isotherms
o
0
Cladding pressures and distribution of wind pressures across the long
spanning fins is critical in order to assess the effects of varying wind
loads along the length the fins, which span across vertical wall and roof,
and some of them across the building. Wind cladding pressure distribution
MCCS_219
REFERENCES
Authorship
MCCS_220
MCCS_221
REFERENCES
Index
A
Analysis method and scientific foundations 16 Design method and project management 13
Current design methodology 16 Current design methodology 13
Limitations of current methodology 16 Limitations of current methodology 13
Newtecnic’s methodology 16 Newtecnic’s methodology 13
Analysis method and scientific foundations 17 ‘Agile’ management applied to facade projects 14
Method for structural analysis of complex facades 18 Generating innovation 15
Method for MEP/environmental Application of design method
analysis of complex facades 19 and project management 15
The Avenues 190
Authorship 220
E
Evolution Tower, Moscow 34
B
Burj Alshaya 76
Burjuman Apartments 156 F
Burjuman Tower 66 Federation Square 122
Foreword 4
Further reading 223
C
City Museum of Istanbul 14 G
Comparison of projects 6 Galaxy Soho Offices 24
Current and emerging technologies 10 Grand Théatre de Rabat 178
Current design methodology 10
Limitations of current methodology 10
Newtecnic’s methodology 10 H
Current technologies in facade assemblies 11 Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre 56
Emerging technologies in facade assemblies 12 Holland Park School 210
Use of current and emerging technologies Hotel 44
in facade design 12
K
D KAFD Metro 166
Dance & Music Centre 88 K. Çamlica TV Tower 98
Design implementation and research method 21
Current design methodology 21
Limitations of current methodology 21 M
Newtecnic’s methodology 21 Meixihu IC&A Centre 110
Material selection 22
Assembly technology 22
Design validation 22 N
New Port Centre 132
S
Scope of this book 5
Stone Towers 200
MCCS_222
REFERENCES
Further reading
Constructing Architecture: Materials, Processes, Structures; a Finite Element Analysis and Design of Metal Structures
Handbook by Andrea Deplazes Ehab Ellobody, Ran Feng, Ben Young
Birkhäuser, 2013 Elsevier, 2013
Facade Construction Manual Introduction to Finite and Spectral Element Methods Using
Thomas Herzog / Roland Krippner / Werner Lang MATLAB, Second Edition: Edition 2
Birkhäuser, Edition Detail, 2012 Constantine Pozrikidis
CRC Press, 2014
Modern Construction Series by Andrew Watts: Modern Con-
struction Handbook, Modern Construction: Envelopes, Modern Introduction to Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics:
Construction: Facades, Modern Construction: Roofs, Edition 2
Springer / Ambra / Birkhäuser, 2001 - 2016 Constantine Pozrikidis
Oxford University Press, 2011
Design method
MATLAB Codes for Finite Element Analysis: Solids and Structures
Design Engineering: A Manual for Enhanced Creativity A. J. M. Ferreira
W. Ernst Eder, Stanislav Hosnedl Springer Science & Business Media, 2008
CRC Press, 2008
Multiphysics Modeling with Finite Element Methods
Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Edition 3 William B J Zimmerman
Gerhard Pahl, W. Beitz, Jörg Feldhusen, Karl-Heinrich Grote World Scientific, 2006
Springer, 2007
Design implementation and research method
Handbook of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety in
Engineering Design Building Engineering and Systems Design
Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg Frederick S Merritt, James Ambrose
Springer, 2009 Springer, 2012
Project Management for Environmental, Construction and Standards of Practice in Construction Specifying
Manufacturing Engineers Dennis J Hall, Nina M Giglio
Nolberto Munier Wiley, 2013
Springer, 2013
Sustainability in Engineering Design and Construction
Systems Engineering Agile Design Methodologies J K Yates, Daniel Castro-Lacouture
James A. Crowder, Shelli A. Friess Taylor and Francis, 2016
Springer, 2013
MCCS_223
Author
Andrew Watts
London, England
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use,
permission of the copyright owner must be obtained.
This publication is also available as an e-book (ISBN PDF 978-3-0356-0880-9; ISBN EPUB 978-3-0356-0872-4).
Printed in Austria
987654321 www.birkhauser.com