buildings

Article
Integrated Parametric Shaping of Curvilinear Steel
Bar Structures of Canopy Roofs
Jolanta Dzwierzynska
Department of Architectural Design and Engineering Graphics, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering
and Architecture, Rzeszow University of Technology, al. Powstancow Warszawy 12, 35-959 Rzeszow, Poland;
joladz@prz.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-17-865-1507




Received: 26 February 2019; Accepted: 18 March 2019; Published: 21 March 2019


Abstract: Shaping building objects is conditioned by many interrelated factors, both architectural
and structural. Modern tools for shaping structures working in the environment of Rhinoceros 3D
such as Grasshopper and Karamba 3D enable algorithmic-aided shaping structures, while allowing
the free flow of information between the geometric model and structural model. The aim of the
research is to use these tools to test the curvilinear steel bar roofs’ structures shaped based on
Catalan surfaces as well as to select the most efficient structure. Three types of roof structures were
analyzed: cylindroid shape, conoid shape, and hyperbolic paraboloid shape. In order to find the
most preferred structural form, evolutionary structural optimization was carried out, which allowed,
among others, to determine optimal discretization of the base surface, as well as optimal positions of
supporting columns. As the optimization criterion, the minimum mass of the structure was assumed.
The most effective structure turned out to be a structure based on hyperbolic paraboloid supported
by multi-branch columns. The use of a roof with the above structure is beneficial not only because of
the low weight of the structure compared to the analyzed structures, but also due to the possibility of
using flat panels on the roof.

Keywords: structural optimization; shaping structures; parametric design; data flow; Grasshopper;
Karamba 3D; integrated design; cost limitation; FEM

1. Introduction
During the last twenty years the advancement of digital technologies has influenced the whole
field of architectural and structural engineering design [1]. Although digital media were used initially
as a representative tools, they soon became a convenient means for shaping structures. That is why the
first phase of design involving shaping of the structure, based primarily on handwritten sketches, began
to change and involve more and more aspects concerning the future design [2,3]. Various Computer
Aided Design tools enabled not only the creation of two-dimensional documentation [4,5], but also
the creation of three-dimensional models based on two-dimensional drawings [6–8]. Computer-aided
design enabled the generation of digital models, the visualization of their geometry, as well as the
analysis of the structural behavior of the shaped systems. This progress in designing caused by
the development of computer technology has led to the need of cooperation in various areas of
design [9,10]. Building Information Modeling as the approach to 3D modeling gave both architecture
and civil engineering opportunities to streamline the design process by filling gaps in communication
between participants of the design process: architects and structural engineers [10–12].
Currently, shaping structures takes place with the support of modern digital tools, which
greatly facilitate both the process of creating complex geometry and performing advanced structural
calculations. However, the great impact on shaping the geometry of structures had the development
of modeling process based on Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines (NURBS). Flexible shapes of NURBS

Buildings 2019, 9, 72; doi:10.3390/buildings9030072 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2019, 9, 72 2 of 13

curves could be controlled during modeling and constituted a base for the generation of various digital
changeable forms with diverse topology. Moreover, digital environment, especially algorithmic-aided
shaping, has created new possibilities of performing various simulations, which leads to structural
optimization [13,14]. However, a digital model has become a single source of information which can be
generated, controlled, and managed by a designer [15–17]. Owing to the digital modeling integrating
systems, advanced multi-branch cooperation is possible involving the search for interdependent and
rational solutions [10,11]. Especially, the creation of structural forms such as steel bar structures, in
which consciously spatial distribution of loads is used, is accompanied by a variety of issues that often
require an unconventional and interdisciplinary approach.
Currently, there are many innovative building objects with original form in the world, which were
created as a result of parametric shaping. Parametric shaping is more and more often used to create
curvilinear, structural forms with complex geometrical shapes. The need to integrate architectural shaping
with structural shaping has been noticed by many scientists [18,19]. An efficient and comprehensive
approach to the shaping process, as well as integration of aesthetic, functional, and structural analysis is
very important [18,20,21]. One of the strategies leading to rational and integrated shaping of structures
is algorithmic-aided shaping and application of evolutionary structural optimization (ESO). Various
methods of ESO are presented in [22]. Evolutionary structural optimization of curvilinear steel bar
structures is rather a new field of research but some such research regarding the design of responsive
steel bar structures is presented in [23]. However, the algorithmic-aided approach to shaping effective
Catalan roof structures presented in this paper is innovative. It analyzes three types of roof surfaces
and aims to find the optimal form both in terms of the weight of the roof structure as well as the
possibility of using the covering in the form of flat panels. This is important due to the possibility of
using appropriate covering materials, such as glass. Nevertheless, the criterion for fail-safe optimal
design of glass plates is presented broadly in [24], where the authors also estimate the benefits of using
Laminated Glass plates. However, this paper is focused mainly on finding the optimal roof structure
by selecting the appropriate mesh topology and the appropriate location of the structural supports,
so as to minimize the mass, and thus the cost of the structure.

2. Materials and Methods

The research is conducted on the basis of Rhinoceros 3D software developed by Robert McNeel &
Associates [25]. The trend of actively using Rhinoceros 3D, with its plug-in Grasshopper in architectural
design process is spreading all around the world. Architects and designers from the well-known design
studios are famous for using Grasshopper as their main design tool. Grasshopper, supplemented by
various plug-ins like Karamba 3D, is receiving more and more attention both as an engineering tool
and the means for algorithmic-aided design [26,27].
The approach to algorithmic-aided shaping of curvilinear steel bar structures proposed in this
research is realized by application of versatile tools, that is Grasshopper and Karamba 3D working in
the same modelling software—Rhinoceros 3D. However, this research also utilizes advanced structural
analysis software—Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional 2019 [28].
The validation of the functionality of the shaping tools mentioned above, as well as benefits of
their application to improve and integrate both architectural and structural shaping, are accomplished
by implementing them for the analysis of the curvilinear steel bar structures. The overall strategy of
integrated process that will be used for shaping curvilinear steel bar structures is presented by the
scheme, Figure 1.
Buildings 2019,
Buildings 9, x72FOR PEER REVIEW
2019, 9, 3 3of
of 13
13

Figure 1. Basic scheme of the integrated shaping process.

Figure 1. Basic scheme of the integrated shaping process.

In general, shaping begins with the creation of a parametric, geometric model of a structure
In general, shaping begins with the creation of a parametric, geometric model of a structure
using Grasshopper. On the basis of the geometric model and assumed boundary conditions regarding
using Grasshopper. On the basis of the geometric model and assumed boundary conditions
supports and loads, as well as joints and material properties (intended for the shaped structure),
regarding supports and loads, as well as joints and material properties (intended for the shaped
the structural model is created. It is later subjected to a two-stage analysis. The first analysis is
structure), the structural model is created. It is later subjected to a two-stage analysis. The first
linked with evolutionary structural optimization (ESO), in which topology and cross-sections of
analysis is linked with evolutionary structural optimization (ESO), in which topology and cross-
structures’ bars are optimized taking into account structure’s self-weight as the optimization criterion.
sections of structures’ bars are optimized taking into account structure’s self-weight as the
The optimal grid pattern is selected based on the minimum mass and deflection, as well as the positions
optimization criterion. The optimal grid pattern is selected based on the minimum mass and
of established optimal supports. Next, the structural model for the selected grid pattern is completed
deflection, as well as the positions of established optimal supports. Next, the structural model for the
with any possible live loads and further the structural analysis is performed by Autodesk Robot
selected grid pattern is completed with any possible live loads and further the structural analysis is
Structural Analysis software.
performed by Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis software.
Shaping strategy presented in the paper consists in shaping of curvilinear steel bar structures by
Shaping strategy presented in the paper consists in shaping of curvilinear steel bar structures by
placing the structural nodes on the so-called base surface. This surface is selected from the groups of
placing the structural nodes on the so-called base surface. This surface is selected from the groups of
surfaces with advantageous features both in terms of shape and the possibility of their subdivision.
surfaces with advantageous features both in terms of shape and the possibility of their subdivision.
As the basic surfaces for shaping structures are proposed skew ruled surfaces, especially Catalan
As the basic surfaces for shaping structures are proposed skew ruled surfaces, especially Catalan
surfaces described in [29]. Parametric modelling of concrete roofs composed of repetitive units of
surfaces described in [29]. Parametric modelling of concrete roofs composed of repetitive units of
Catalan surfaces is shown in [30], whereas parametric approach to shaping of curvilinear steel bar
Catalan surfaces is shown in [30], whereas parametric approach to shaping of curvilinear steel bar
structures based on Enneper surface is presented in [31]. However, the subject of this research are three
structures based on Enneper surface is presented in [31]. However, the subject of this research are
various roof structures, being the curvilinear steel bar structures of cylindroid shape, conoid shape,
three various roof structures, being the curvilinear steel bar structures of cylindroid shape, conoid
and hyperbolic paraboloid shape. Each structure is composed of roof’s lattice created on the basis of a
shape, and hyperbolic paraboloid shape. Each structure is composed of roof’s lattice created on the
single-shell. The lattice is supported by six vertical columns, however, each column is joined with the
basis of a single-shell. The lattice is supported by six vertical columns, however, each column is joined
lattice’s nodes by four branches.
with the lattice’s nodes by four branches.
3. Results
3. Results
3.1. Geometric Shaping of the Base Surfaces
3.1. Geometric Shaping of the Base Surfaces
The first step to conduct the analysis is the creation of geometric model of the Catalan
The which
surface, first step
willtonext
conduct the analysis
constitute the baseissurface
the creation of geometric
for placing model
structural of the
nodes Catalan
of the roofs’surface,
lattices.
which will next constitute the base surface for placing structural nodes of the roofs’
Each Catalan surface is determined by two directrix lines and the director plane to which all surface lattices. Each
Catalan surface is determined by two directrix lines and the director plane to which all surface
rulings are parallel. In the case when both directrix lines are curved lines, a cylindroid can be obtained; rulings
are
whenparallel. In the case
one directrix is awhen both
straight directrix
line, lines
a conoid arebecurved
can lines,However,
obtained. a cylindroid canboth
when be obtained;
directriceswhen
are
one directrix is a straight line, a conoid can be obtained. However, when both
mutually oblique straight lines the Catalan surface is a hyperbolic paraboloid, Figure 2.directrices are mutually
oblique straight lines the Catalan surface is a hyperbolic paraboloid, Figure 2.
Buildings 2019, 9,
Buildings 2019, xx FOR
9, 72 FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 444 of
of 13
of 13

Figure 2. Typical examples of Catalan surfaces; respectively from the left: (a) a cylindroid; (b) a conoid;
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Typical
Typical examples
examples of
of Catalan
Catalan surfaces;
surfaces; respectively
respectively from
from the
the left:
left: (a)
(a) aa cylindroid;
cylindroid; (b)
(b) aa
(c) a hyperbolic paraboloid.
conoid;
conoid; (c)
(c) aa hyperbolic
hyperbolic paraboloid.
paraboloid.
In order to prepare Grasshopper’s scrips of the roof structures, two spatial lines were distinguished,
In order to prepare Grasshopper’s scrips of
of the
the roof structures, two spatial lines were
whichInwere
order thentodivided
prepareintoGrasshopper’s
the same number scrips
of elements. roof structures,
The series two
of points spatial
of both lineslines
werewere
next
distinguished,
distinguished, which
which were
were then
then divided
divided into
into the
the same
same number
number of
of elements.
elements. The
The series
series of
of points
points of
of
joined by lines to define a base surface. The surface was discretized and the nodes of the quadrate grid
both
both lines
lines were
were next
next joined
joined by
by lines
lines to
to define
define aa base
base surface.
surface. The
The surface
surface was
was discretized
discretized and
and the
the
were placed on it. Additionally, parametric models of six supporting columns and joining branches
nodes of
of the
the quadrate
nodesprepared, quadrate grid
grid were
were placed onon it.
it. Additionally, parametric models of
of six supporting
were which finally gaveplaced
a parametric Additionally,
model of a whole parametric
structure.models
It is worthsix mentioning
supporting
columns
columns and
and joining
joining branches
branches were
were prepared,
prepared, which
which finally
finally gave
gave aa parametric
parametric model
model of
of aa whole
whole
that hyperbolic paraboloid can be established by two skew lines and alternatively as a translational
structure.
structure.DueIt is worth
It isto
worth mentioning
mentioning that hyperbolic paraboloid can be established by two skew lines and
surface. the fact that the that
latterhyperbolic
is a regular paraboloid
surface morecan be established
suited by two
for a single skew
roof, linesbeen
it has and
alternatively
alternatively as
as a
a translational
translational surface.
surface. Due
Due to
to the
the fact
fact that
that the
the latter
latter is
is a
a regular
regular surface
surface more
more suited
suited
chosen for further analysis, Figure 3.
for
for aa single
single roof,
roof, it
it has
has been
been chosen
chosen for
for further
further analysis,
analysis, Figure
Figure 3.3.

Figure
Figure 3. Considered canopy roofroof
bar structures of: (a) cylindroid shape; (b) conoid shape; (c) hyperbolic
Figure 3.
3. Considered
Considered canopy
canopy roof bar
bar structures
structures of:
of: (a)
(a) cylindroid
cylindroid shape;
shape; (b)
(b) conoid
conoid shape;
shape; (c)
(c)
paraboloid shape.
hyperbolic
hyperbolic paraboloid
paraboloid shape.
shape.
The columns are located symmetrically on the rectangular plan. The plan area equals 150 m22 ,
The
Thethecolumns
columns are located symmetrically on the rectangular plan. The
The plan area equals 150
150 m m3.2,,
whereas lengthare located
of the symmetrically
rectangle equals 15 monand
thethe
rectangular
width of theplan.
rectangle plan area 10
equals equals
m, Figure
whereas
whereas the length of the rectangle equals 15m and the width of the rectangle equals 10 m, Figure 3.
It hasthe length
been of thethat
assumed rectangle equalsare
the columns 15m and within
placed the width
the of the rectangle
rectangular plan,equals 10 m,
however, Figure
they cannot3.
It
It has
has been
been assumed
assumed that
that the
the columns
columns are
are placed
placed within
within the
the rectangular
rectangular plan,
plan, however,
however, they
they
be placed farther than two meters from the place’s border. Their position is described by coordinates x,
cannot
cannot be be placed
placed farther
farther than
than two
two meters
meters from
from the
the place’s
place’s border.
border. Their
Their position
position is
is described
described by by
y, with the unit adopted on each axis equal to 1 m. The best columns positions is to be established by
coordinates
coordinates x, y, with the unit adopted on each axis equal to 1m. The best columns positions is to be
x, y, with the unit adopted on each axis equal to 1m. The best columns positions is to be
means of the optimization process.
established
established by by means
means of of the
the optimization
optimization process.
process.
Appropriate positioning of structure’s supports is always one of the most important and practical
Appropriate
Appropriate positioning
positioning of of structure’s
structure’s supports
supports is is always
always oneone ofof the
the most
most important
important andand
issues in engineering and plays a key role in improving of structure’s efficiency. Due to this fact,
practical
practical issues in engineering and plays a key role in improving of structure’s efficiency. Due
issues in engineering and plays a key role in improving of structure’s efficiency. Due to
to this
this
optimization of support location of the structure is the topic of great importance. Several methods have
fact,
fact, optimization
optimization of of support
support location
location of
of the
the structure
structure isis the
the topic
topic of
of great
great importance.
importance. Several
Several
been developed for determination of the best location of the supports. They can be broadly divided
methods
methods have have been
been developed
developed for for determination
determination of of the
the best
best location
location ofof the
the supports.
supports. They
They can
can bebe
into gradient-based methods and non-gradient methods [32]. The presented case study has applied
broadly
broadly divided
divided into
into gradient-based
gradient-based methods
methods and
and non-gradient
non-gradient methods
methods [32].
[32]. The
The presented
presented case
case
evolutionary optimization method (EO) for finding the best location of columns.
study
study hashas applied
applied evolutionary
evolutionary optimization
optimization method
method (EO)
(EO) for
for finding
finding the
the best
best location
location of
of columns.
columns.

3.2.
3.2. Results
Results of
of Evolutionary
Evolutionary Optimization
Optimization Performed
Performed by
by Galapagos
Galapagos
Buildings 2019, 9, 72 5 of 13

3.2. Results of Evolutionary Optimization Performed by Galapagos

Optimization will be performed by Grasshopper, which can perform single criteria EO [23,26].
Optimization is to find proper location of supports, position of the branches’ node, proper grid
pattern and estimate elements’ cross sections.
The first step is to optimize the structure loaded with its own weight, taking the minimal mass as
the optimization criterion.
The data needed for the optimization are listed in the below points:
Structural constrains resulting from general structural principles presented in [33–35]:

- Due to Ultimate Limit States (ULS) the it should be respectively:

- Ed /Rd ≤ 1 at each cross section, where: Ed –is a design
- value of the effects of actions, Rd represents the design value of the corresponding resistance,
however this verification is fulfilled automatically
- Due to Serviceability Limit States (SLS) deflection limit for any load case should fulfill the
condition f = L/250, where L it is a span of the structure, so for the considered structures f ≤
40 mm
- Kind of the structural material applied: steel S235.

Established variables:

- Dimensions of the rectangular plan: 15 m × 10 m

- Number of supports: 6
- Height of the whole structure: 5 m
- Height of the roof’s surface: 2 m
- Self-weight as the sum of the lattice’s weight and columns’ weight as well as cladding weight
calculated by Karamba 3D for each structure individually
- Kind of cladding: steel with weight of 0.07 kN/m2 (thickness of the steel sheet equal to 5 mm)
- Elements’ cross sections: circular hollow, walls’ thickness not less than 3.2 mm

Variables for optimization:

- Location of the supports: within the rectangular plan, however no farer than 2 meters from the
place’s border
- Minimal bars’ length: 1.0 m–1.5 m
- Maximum bars’ length: 1.5 m–2.0 m
- Location of the column branching node in the scope of 70% d–90% d, where d is the distance of
the column’s base to the roof’s surface
- Cross section diameter: 4.83 cm–6.0 cm for lattice and column branches
- 4.83 cm–7.0 cm for columns

Each of the canopy roofs is considered as a curvilinear steel bar structure with quad grid pattern.
The optimal column positions, as well as optimal members’ dimensions for each structure under
self-load are presented in Table 1.
Buildings 2019, 9, 72 6 of 13

Table 1. Results of the single objective structural optimization achieved by means of Grasshopper for
three structures.

Column Cross Section

Wall Thickness [mm]

Column’s Length [m]

Displacement [mm]

Column Position in
Bars’ (Lattice and

Sections Radius/

Thickness [mm]

Coordinates x, y
Branches) Cross

Radius/Wall

Maximum

Mass [kg]
Ratio [%]
Structure 1–hyperbolic paraboloid canopy roof with grid divisson: 6 × 10
x1 = 2.0, y1 = 1.85
x2 = 8.0, y2 = 1.85
x3 = 2.0, y3 = 7.5
4.83/0.32 7.00/0.32 L = 70%d 21 30 1016.95
x4 = 8.0, y4 = 7.5
x5 = 2.0, y5 = 13.15
x6 = 8.0, y6 = 13.15
Structure 2–cylindroid canopy roof with grid division: 7 × 10
x1 = 2.0, y1 = 2.0
x2 = 8.0, y2 = 2.0
x3 = 2.0, y3 = 7.5
4.83/0.32 7.00/0.32 l= 70%d 28 34 1058.73
x4 = 8.0, y4 = 7.5
x5 = 2.0, y5 = 13.0
x6 = 10.0, y6 = 13.0
Structure 3–conoid canopy roof with grid division: 7 × 10
x1 = 2.0, y1 = 1.94
x2 = 8.0, y2 = 1.94
x3 = 2.0, y3 = 7.5
4.83/0.32 7.00/0.32 L = 70%d 28 35 1047.61
x4 = 8.0, y4 = 7.5
x5 = 2.0, y5 = 13.06
x6 = 8.0, y6 = 13.06

Analyzing the results presented in the above table, it can be stated that the structure with
the roof of hyperbolic paraboloid shape is the lightest and thus the most economical. However,
in order to properly evaluate the structures, further analysis should be carried out using different
load combinations.

3.3. Results of the Structural Optimization Performed by Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Software
Geometric models of canopy roof structures with established optimal column positions have been
exported to Autodesk Robot Structural Analysis Professional software for further calculations. Border
conditions regarding snow and wind zones were established for the city of Rzeszow, Poland. However,
snow load has been established for each of the structures individually dependently on the roof’s shape.
Due to the assumed location, the influence of seismic forces has been omitted.
The details of the taken assumptions, as well as the structural analysis performed are given below.

3.3.1. Hyperbolic Paraboloid Canopy Roof

Due to roof’s shape and according to [36], shape coefficient µi for snow load calculation is taken
◦
similarly as for the cylindrical roofs. Due to this fact µi for β ≤ 60 is established in the following way,
Figure 4:

• µ1 = 0.8 in the case of even load, (the case of evenly spreading snow on the roof)
• µ3 = 0.2 + 10h/b, but not more than 2, in the case of uneven load (the case of uneven distribution
of snow on the roof resulting from the shape of the roof and the guidelines contained in [36]) for
the considered structure h = 2 m and b = 10 m, so µ3 = 2 [36].
 Buildings 2019, 9, 72 7 of 13

Due
Buildings
Buildings 2019,
to
2019, the
9, x9,FOR
fact,
x FOR that
PEER
PEER
considered
REVIEW
REVIEW
roof’s surface is a saddle surface some snow can accumulate
7 of
7 of
in
13 13
the central part of the roof Figure 4. Therefore, additionally snow drifts are considered.

Figure
4. 4.
Figure
Figure 4.Views
Views of of
Views ofhyperbolic
hyperbolic
hyperbolic paraboloid
paraboloid
paraboloid canopy
canopy
canopy roof—determination
of of
roof—determination
roof—determination ofthe
the theroof
roof
roof inclination
inclination
inclination angle.
angle.
angle.

InIn this
this case
case shape
shape
shape coefficient
coefficient
coefficient 22 is
μ2µμis is established
established
established like
like
like for
forfor butterfly
butterfly
butterfly roof
roof
roof with
with
with the
thetheangle
angle
angle ofofof
slope
slope
slope ofofα =
of
10 ◦ , therefore, µ = 0.2 + 0.8 × 10/30, Figure 4.
α = 10°, therefore, μ = 0.2 + 0.8 × 10/30,
α = 10°, therefore, 2μ2 = 0.2 + 0.8 × 10/30, Figure 4.
2 Figure 4.
Due Duetoto
to the
thethe maps
maps
maps on
onon bars
bars
bars ofof
of the
the presented
the presented
presented distribution
distribution
distribution ofofaxial
of force
axial
axial FxFshown
force
force xFshown inin
x shown Figure
in 5, the
Figure
Figure 5, 5,bars
thethe
of
bars the
barsofof structure
thethe has been
structure
structure hashas divided
been
been into free
divided
divided into groups:
into free
free lattice’s
groups:
groups: bars, branches,
lattice’s
lattice’s bars,
bars, and columns.
branches,
branches, and
and The structure
columns.
columns. The The
has beenhas
structure
structure optimized
has been
been assuming
optimized
optimized mass asmass
assuming
assuming anmass
optimization
asas
anan criterion.
optimization
optimization criterion.
criterion.

Figure
Figure 5. 5.
Figure 5. Maps
Maps onon bars—distribution
bars—distribution ofof
of axial
axial
axial force
FX.FFX.
force
force X.

The total
Thetotal
The mass
massofof
totalmass the
ofthe structure
thestructure due
duetoto
structuredue structural
tostructural optimization
structuraloptimization equals
optimizationequals 2482.405
equals2482.405 kg,
2482.405kg, whereas
kg,whereas
whereas
characteristics
characteristics
characteristics of
ofof the
the
the structure’s
structure’s
structure’s members
members
members is
is is presented
presented
presented in
inin Table
Table
Table 2.
2. 2.

Table
Table 2.2.2.
Table Dimensioning
Dimensioning
Dimensioning of
ofthe
theconsidered
of the hyperbolic
considered
considered paraboloid
hyperbolic
hyperbolic roof structure
paraboloid
paraboloid roof
roof due to structural
structure
structure due
due optimization.
to to structural
structural
optimization.
optimization.Kind of Member Cross Section Radius/Wall Thickness [mm] Ratio [%]
Kind
Kind ofof Member
Member
Lattice’s Cross
bars Cross Section
Section Radius/Wall
Radius/Wall Thickness
101.6/3.6 Thickness [mm] Ratio
[mm] Ratio [%]
92[%]
Branches
Lattice’s
Lattice’s bars
bars 106.6/3.2
101.6/3.6
101.6/3.6 94
9292
Columns 139.0/4.5 94
Branches
Branches 106.6/3.2
106.6/3.2 9494
Columns
Columns 139.0/4.5
139.0/4.5 9494

3.3.2.
3.3.2. Cylindroid
Cylindroid Canopy
Canopy Roof
Roof
Buildings 2019, 9, 72 8 of 13

Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

Buildings
3.3.2. 2019, 9, x FOR
Cylindroid PEER REVIEW
Canopy Roof 8 of 13

In the
In the case of of cylindroid canopy
canopy roof likelike in the
the case of
of the hyperbolic
hyperbolic paraboloid canopy
canopy roof
In thecasecase ofcylindroid
cylindroid canopy roof roof likeinin thecase
case ofthe
the hyperbolicparaboloid
paraboloid canopy roof
roof
three
three possibilities of snow loads are calculated:
threepossibilities
possibilitiesof ofsnow
snowloads
loadsare
arecalculated:
calculated:
• Even snow load, (the case of evenly spreading snow on the roof);
••• Evensnow
Even snowload,
load,(the
(thecase
caseof ofevenly
evenlyspreading
spreadingsnow
snow onthetheroof);
roof);
Uneven snow load, (the case of uneven distribution ofonsnow on the roof resulting from the shape
• Uneven snow load, (the case of uneven distribution of snow on the roof resulting from the shape
• of the roof
Uneven andload,
snow the guidelines
(the case ofcontained in [36]); of snow on the roof resulting from the shape
uneven distribution
of the roof and the guidelines contained in [36]);
• Drifted
of the roofsnowandload, (taking into
the guidelines account in
contained exceptional
[36]); situations, when snow can be particularly
• Drifted snow load, (taking into account exceptional situations, when snow can be particularly
• cumulated
Drifted snow in the
load,recessed
(takingpartintoof the roofexceptional
account according to [36].
situations, when snow can be particularly
cumulated in the recessed part of the roof according to [36].
Due cumulated
to roof’s shape in the recessed part of the roof according to [36].
the coefficient μi is established respectively [36]:
Due to roof’s shape the coefficient μi is established respectively [36]:
• Due
μ1 = 0.8to roof’s
in the shape
case oftheevencoefficient
load, µi is established respectively [36]:
• μ1 = 0.8 in the case of even load,
••• µ μ3 = 2 in the case of uneven snow load
μ13 == 0.8
2 ininthe
thecase
caseofofuneven
even load,
snow load
• μ2 = 1.33 in the case of drifted snow load
•• µμ32 == 21.33in the case
in the of uneven
case of driftedsnow
snowload
load
μ2 is calculated for a half of the roof as for butterfly roof with α = 20°, Figure 6.
• µμ22 =is1.33 in the case
calculated for aofhalf
drifted
of thesnow
roof load
as for butterfly roof with α = 20°, Figure 6.

µ2 is calculated for a half of the roof as for butterfly roof with α = 20◦ , Figure 6.

Figure 6. Views of the cylindroid canopy roof -- determination

determination of the
the roof inclination
inclination angle.
Figure 6. Views
Figure 6. Views of
of the
the cylindroid
cylindroidcanopy
canopyroof
roof - determinationof
of theroof
roof inclinationangle.
angle.
to the
Due to the maps
mapsononbars
barsof
ofthe
thedistribution
distributionofofaxial
axialforce
force
F Fpresented
x presented
inin Figure
Figure 7, 7,
thethe members
members of
Due to the maps on bars of the distribution of axial forcex Fx presented in Figure 7, the members
of the structure has been divided into free groups: lattice’s bars, branches, and
the structure has been divided into free groups: lattice’s bars, branches, and columns.columns.
of the structure has been divided into free groups: lattice’s bars, branches, and columns.

Figure 7. Maps on bars—distribution

Figure 7. bars—distribution of
of axial
axial force
force FFX.
X.
Figure 7. Maps on bars—distribution of axial force FX.
The characteristics of the structure due to structural optimization are presented in the Table 3.
The characteristics of the structure due to structural optimization are presented in the Table 3.
The total mass of the presented structure equals 2670.236 kg.
The total mass of the presented structure equals 2670.236 kg.
 Buildings 2019, 9, 72 9 of 13

The characteristics of the structure due to structural optimization are presented in the Table 3.
The total mass
Buildings 2019, of the
9, x FOR presented
PEER REVIEW structure equals 2670.236 kg. 9 of 13

Dimensioningofofthe
Table3.3.Dimensioning
Table theconsidered
consideredconoid
conoidroof
roofstructures
structuresdue
duetotostructural
structuraloptimization.
optimization.

Kind of Member
Kind of Member Cross Section
Cross Radius/Wall
Section Radius/Wall Thickness [mm]
Thickness [mm] Ratio [%]
Ratio [%]
Lattice’s bars
Lattice’s bars 114.3/3.2
114.3/3.2 93
93
Branches
Branches 101.6/3.6
101.6/3.6 85
85
Columns
Columns 159.0/4.5
159.0/4.5 95
95

3.3.3.Conoid
3.3.3. ConoidCanopy
CanopyRoof
Roof
Duetotothe
Due theshape
shapeofofthe
theconoid
conoidcanopy
canopyroof
roofonly
onlytwo
twocases
casesofofsnow
snowload
loadare
areanalyzed,
analyzed,asasshown
shown
ininFigure
Figure8:8:
• Even snow load, (the case of evenly spreading snow on the roof)
• Even snow load, (the case of evenly spreading snow on the roof)
• Uneven snow load, (the case of uneven distribution of snow on the roof resulting from the shape
• Uneven snow load, (the case of uneven distribution of snow on the roof resulting from the shape
of the roof and the guidelines contained in [36]).
of the roof and the guidelines contained in [36]).
Shape coefficient μi is established as follows [36]:
Shape coefficient µi is established as follows [36]:
• μ1 = 0.8 in the case of even load,
• • μµ 1=
3 = 0.8the
2 in in the
casecase of evensnow
of uneven load, load.
• µ3 = 2 in the case of uneven snow load.

Figure 8. Views of the conoid canopy roof—determination of the roof inclination angle.
Figure 8. Views of the conoid canopy roof—determination of the roof inclination angle.
However, due to the maps on bars of axial force Fx presented in Figure 9, as in the previous cases,
the However,
bars of thedue
structure has been
to the maps divided
on bars intoforce
of axial free groups: lattice’s
Fx presented bars, branches,
in Figure 9, as in theand columns.
previous cases,
the bars of the structure has been divided into free groups: lattice’s bars, branches, and columns.
 Buildings 2019, 9, 72 10 of 13
Buildings2019,
Buildings 2019,9,9,x xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 10 ofof1313
10

Figure9.9.
Figure
Figure 9.Maps
Mapson bars—distributionof
onbars—distribution
bars—distribution ofaxial
of axialforce
axial forceFFFX.X.
force X.

Thecharacteristics
The characteristicsofof
characteristics of
thethe
the structure
structure
structure due
due
due to structural
totostructural
structural optimization
optimization
optimization is presented
isispresented
presented inTable
ininthe
the the Table
Table4.4.The4.
The
The
totaltotal
mass mass
of of
the the structure
structure equals
equals 2643.048
2643.048
total mass of the structure equals 2643.048 kg. kg. kg.

Dimensioningofofthe
Table4.4.Dimensioning
Table theconsidered
consideredroof
roofstructures
structures due
structuresdue to
dueto structural
tostructural optimization.
structuraloptimization.
optimization.

Kind
Kind
Kind ofof
of Member
Member Cross
Member Cross
CrossSection Radius/Wall
SectionRadius/Wall
Section Thickness
Radius/Wall Thickness
Thickness [mm] Ratio
[mm]
[mm] Ratio
Ratio [%][%]
[%]
Lattice’s
Lattice’s
Lattice’sbars
bars
bars 101.6/3.6
101.6/3.6
101.6/3.6 90
90
90
Branches
Branches
Branches 114.4/4.0
114.4/4.0
114.4/4.0 79
7979
Columns
Columns 139.7/4.0
139.7/4.0 4646
Columns 139.7/4.0 46

Theresults
The resultsofofthe
theoptimization givenininTables
optimizationgiven Tables2–4
2–4show
showthat
thatthe
thecanopy
canopyroofroofwith
withhyperbolic
hyperbolic
parabolicshape
parabolic shapehas
hasthethesmallest
smallestmass. Duetotothis
mass.Due thisfact,
fact,the
thestructure
structurewith
withthe
theroof
roofof
ofthe hyperbolic
thehyperbolic
hyperbolic
paraboloid shape is
paraboloid shape is the the most
themost economical.
mosteconomical.
economical.
Asthe
As alternativestructure
thealternative structurefor
forthe
thehyperbolic
hyperbolicparaboloid,
paraboloid,aacanopy
canopyroof
roofwith
withsix singlecolumns
sixsingle columns
can be a similar roof, but supported
supported by
by six
six groups
groups of
of branches,
branches, as
as presented
presented in
in
can be a similar roof, but supported by six groups of branches, as presented in Figure 10. Figure
Figure 10.
10.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 10. The roof supported by six groups of branches (a) Perspective view (b) Maps on bars –
distribution
Figure10.
Figure of roof
10.The
The axial force FX. by
roofsupported
supported bysix
sixgroups
groupsofofbranches
branches(a)
(a)Perspective
Perspectiveview
view(b)
(b)Maps
Mapson
onbars
bars––
distributionofofaxial
distribution axialforce
forceFFX.X.
Each group is composed of four branches which are joined at the foundation node, whereas
branches
Each of
Eachgroupeachisis
group group join the
composed
composed foundation
ofoffour
fourbranches
branchesnode withare
which
which four
are closest
joined
joined atatgrid nodes.
thefoundation
the foundationThenode,
location
node, of the
whereas
whereas
supports, as well
branchesofofeach
branches as
eachgroup the pattern
groupjoinjointhe of the
thefoundation roof
foundationnode structure
nodewith is assumed
withfour to
fourclosest be
closestgrid the same
gridnodes.
nodes.Theas in the
Thelocationcase ofthe
locationofof the
the
hyperbolic
supports, asparaboloid
well as canopy
the pattern roof
of with
the six
roof single columns
structure is presented
assumed to be in Figure
the same
supports, as well as the pattern of the roof structure is assumed to be the same as in the case of the5.
asThe
in maps
the caseon
ofbars
the
presented
hyperbolic distribution
paraboloid of axial
canopy force
roof F
with
x in the
six considered
single columnsstructure are
presented shown
in in
Figure
hyperbolic paraboloid canopy roof with six single columns presented in Figure 5. The maps on bars Figure
5. The 10.
maps on bars
The results
presented
presented of theof
distribution
distribution structural
ofaxial
axialforceanalysis
force andconsidered
FFx xininthe
the optimization
considered performed
structure
structure by Autodesk
areshown
are shown ininFigureRobot
Figure 10. Structural
10.
Analysis
The software
resultsofofgive
Theresults the optimalanalysis
thestructural
the structural members’
analysis sizes,
and
and Table 5. Total
optimization
optimization mass of by
performed
performed the structure
Autodeskequals
byAutodesk Robot2354.531
Robot kg.
Structural
Structural
Analysissoftware
Analysis softwaregive
givethe
theoptimal
optimalmembers’
members’sizes,
sizes,Table
Table5.5.Total
Totalmass
massofofthe
thestructure
structureequals
equals
2354.531 kg.
2354.531 kg.
Buildings 2019, 9, 72 11 of 13

Table 5. Dimensioning of the considered roof structure due to structural optimization.

Kind of Member Cross Section Radius/Wall Thickness [mm] Ratio [%]

Lattice’s bars 101/3.2 88
Branches 76.1/3.6 85

Analyzing the mass of hyperbolic paraboloid canopy roofs supported by six single columns and
by six groups of branches, it can be stated that the structure supported by six groups of branches is
lighter. Moreover, this structure is compound only of two groups of members. Due to this fact, it is the
most efficient.

4. Discussion
Optimal design of structures is an important direction for the development of research on
structures of various types. Optimization can deal with shape, topology [37] as well as the strength
properties of structures. Sometimes it is a result of experimental research on novel methods, or the
selection of the best technique [38]. The presented research is a contribution to the research conducted in
the field of design optimization using modern digital tools. It showed the possibility of simultaneous
optimization of the geometry and topology of the structure in order to obtain the best possible
strength properties.
The research revealed differences in the weight of the various roof structures depending on the
kind of the surface applied. The presented method of shaping curvilinear steel bar structures consisting
in placing structural nodes on a given base surface is convenient due to the possibilities of using the
potential of Rhinoceros 3D and Grasshopper to create such structures. The Catalan surfaces being
ruled surfaces and constituting a set of straight lines, create the possibility of the surfaces’ regular
divisions in order to apply grids of bars, especially quad grids. However, the most effective surface for
shaping steel bar structures, from among considered surfaces, turned out to be a hyperbolic paraboloid,
which has properties similar to the properties of minimal surfaces. The roof of hyperbolic paraboloid
shape turn out to be the lightest and the most efficient. However, the research also proved that this
structure supported by multi-branch columns is lighter than the identical structure supported by
single columns.
The use of quadrilateral grids always makes the structure lighter. However, the hyperbolic
paraboloid is the only surface of the Catalan surfaces on which a grid of flat quadrilaterals can be used.
This is due to the fact that in the case of a hyperbolic paraboloid, which is a translational surface and
always has a rectangular grid placed on it, the two sides of each panel are parallel. This guarantees
that panels’ surfaces are flat, which is important due to the production cost. The other surfaces that is
cylindroid and conoid do not have such a property, so they cannot be filled with flat panels.

5. Conclusions
Modern tools for shaping structures working in the environment of Rhinoceros 3D such as
Grasshopper and Karamba 3D enable algorithmic-aided shaping structures, while allowing the free flow
of information between the geometric model and structural model, which enables shaping of efficient
structures. The examples of curvilinear steel bar structures obtained as a result of optimization presented
in the paper may constitute some proposals of roof structures solutions. However, the structures should
be subjected to further optimization due to the adopted solutions for joining bars, which are important
in the case of steel bar structures. Also, studies related to unification of the lengths of bars used in the
considered structures will be the subject of further consideration.

Funding: This research was funded by Rzeszow University of Technology.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Buildings 2019, 9, 72 12 of 13

References
1. Oxman, R. Theory and design in the first digital age. Des. Stud. 2006, 27, 229–265. [CrossRef]
2. Hewitt, M. Representational Forms and Modes of Conception; an Approach to the History of Architectural
Drawing. J. Arch. Educ. 2014, 39, 2–9.
3. Unwin, S. Analyzing architecture through drawing. Build. Res. Inf. 2007, 35, 101–110. [CrossRef]
4. Dzwierzynska, J. Direct construction of Inverse Panorama from a Moving View Point. Procedia Eng. 2016,
161, 1608–1614. [CrossRef]
5. Dzwierzynska, J. Computer-Aided Panoramic Images Enriched by Shadow Construction on a Prism and
Pyramid Polyhedral Surface. Symmetry 2017, 9, 214. [CrossRef]
6. Dzwierzynska, J. Single-image-based Modelling Architecture from a Historical Photograph. IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 062015. [CrossRef]
7. Dzwierzynska, J. Reconstructing Architectural Environment from a Panoramic Image. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth
Environ. Sci. 2016, 44, 042028. [CrossRef]
8. Biagini, C.; Donato, V. Behind the complexity of a folded paper. In Proceedings of the Conference on
Modelling from Digital to Physical, Milano, Italy, 11–12 November 2013; pp. 160–169.
9. Luo, Y.; Dias, J.M. Development of a Cooperative Integration System for AEC Design. In Cooperative Design,
Visualization, and Engineering (CDVE 2004); Luo, Y., Ed.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; Volume 3190. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, J.; Chong, H.-Y.; Shou, W.; Wang, X.; Guo, J. BIM-Enabled design Collaboration for Complex in
Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering Building. In Proceedings of the 9-th International Conference
(CDVE 2013), Alcudia, Mallorca, Spain, 22–25 September 2013; Luo, Y., Ed.; Springer: Heindelberg, Germany;
New York, NY, USA; Dordrecht, The Netherlands; London, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-3-642-40840-3.
11. Kolarevic, B. Architecture in the Digital Age: Design and Manufacturing, 1st ed.; Spon Press: London, UK, 2003;
pp. 20–98, ISBN 0-415-27820-1.
12. Barlish, K.; Sullivan, K. How to measure the benefits of BIM—A case study approach. Autom. Constr. 2012,
24, 149–159. [CrossRef]
13. Elango, M.; Devadas, M.D. Multi-Criteria Analysis of the Design Decisions in architectural Design Process
during the Pre-Design Stage. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2014, 6, 1033–1046.
14. Turrin, M.; von Buelow, P.; Stouffs, R. Design explorations of performance driven geometry in architectural
design using parametric modeling and genetic algorithms. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2011, 25, 656–675. [CrossRef]
15. Wortmann, T.; Tuncer, B. Differentiating parametric design: Digital Workflows in Contemporary Architecture
and Construction. Des. Stud. 2017, 52, 173–197. [CrossRef]
16. Hardling, J.E. Meta-parametric Design. Des. Stud. 2017, 52, 73–95. [CrossRef]
17. Oxman, R. Thinking difference: Theories and models of parametric design thinking. Des. Stud. 2017, 52,
4–39. [CrossRef]
18. Bhooshan, S. Parametric design thinking: A case study of practice-embedded architectural research. Des. Stud.
2017, 52, 115–143. [CrossRef]
19. Kuś, S. General principles of shaping the structure. In General Building Construction, Building Elements and
Design Basics; Arkady: Warsaw, Poland, 2011; Volume 3, pp. 12–71. (In Polish)
20. Foraboschi, P. The central role played by structural design in enabling the construction of buildings that
advanced and revolutionized architecture. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 114, 956–997. [CrossRef]
21. Woliński, S. On the criteria of shaping structures. Sci. Pap. Rzesz. Univ. Technol. 2011, 276, 399–408.
22. Januszkiewicz, K.; Banachowicz, M. Nonlinear Shaping Architecture Designed with Using Evolutionary
Structural Optimization Tools. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245. [CrossRef]
23. Dzwierzynska, J. Rationalized Algorithmic-Aided Shaping a Responsive Curvilinear Steel Bar Structure.
Buildings 2019, 9, 61. [CrossRef]
24. Foraboschi, P. Optimal design of glass plates loaded transversally. Mater. Des. 2014, 62, 443–458. [CrossRef]
25. Minseok, K. A Study on Efficient Approaches for Grasshopper Programming in Architectural Design Process.
Korean J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2016, 21, 453–461.
26. Available online: https://www.rhino3d.com/ (accessed on 19 March 2019).
27. Preisinger, C. Linking Structure and Parametric Geometry. Arch. Des. 2013, 83, 110–113. [CrossRef]
28. Autodesk. Available online: https://www.autodesk.com/ (accessed on 25 February 2019).
Buildings 2019, 9, 72 13 of 13

29. Pottman, H.; Asperl, A.; Hofer, M.; Kilian, A. Architectural Geometry, 1st ed.; Bentley Institute Press: Exton,
PA, USA, 2007; pp. 35–194, ISBN 978-1-934493-04-5.
30. Dzwierzynska, J.; Prokopska, A. Pre-Rationalized Parametric Designing of Roof Shells Formed by Repetitive
Modules of Catalan Surfaces. Symmetry 2018, 10, 105. [CrossRef]
31. Dzwierzynska, J. Shaping curved steel rod structures. Tech. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2018, 8, 87–98. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, D. Optimization of support positions to minimize the maximal deflection of structure. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 2004, 41, 7445–7458. [CrossRef]
33. PN-EN 1990: 2004. Eurocode. Basis of Structural Design; PKN: Warsaw, Poland, 2004. (In Polish)
34. PN-EN 1993-1-1:2006. Eurocode 3. Design of Steel Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings;
PKN: Warsaw, Poland, 2006. (In Polish)
35. PN-EN 1991-1-1:2004. Eurocode 1. Actions on Structures. Part 1-1: General Actions-Densities, Self-Weight, Imposed
Loads for Buildings; PKN: Warsaw, Poland, 2004. (In Polish)
36. PN-EN 1991-1-1:2004. Eurocode 1. Actions on Structures. Part 1-3: General Actions-Snow Loads; PKN: Warsaw,
Poland, 2004. (In Polish)
37. Tajs-Zielińska, K.; Bochenek, B. Topology Optimization-Engineering Contribution to Architectural Design.
IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245. [CrossRef]
38. Foraboschi, P. Effectiveness of novel methods to increase the FRP-masonry bond capacity. Compos. Part B
Eng. 2016, 107, 214–232. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).