This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]

On: 17 April 2013, At: 19:52

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Architectural Science Review

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasr20

Optimal Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures for Tall

Buildings
a
Kyoung Sun Moon
a
Yale University, School of Architecture, P.O. Box 208242, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA
Version of record first published: 09 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Kyoung Sun Moon (2008): Optimal Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures for Tall Buildings, Architectural
Science Review, 51:3, 239-251

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3763/asre.2008.5129

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,
claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Architectural Science Review
www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/asre doi:10.3763/asre.2008.5129 Volume 51.3, pp 239-251

Optimal Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures

for Tall Buildings

Kyoung Sun Moon

Yale University, School of Architecture, P.O. Box 208242, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
Corresponding Author: Tel: 1 203 432 2288; Fax: 1 203 432 7175; Email: kyoung.moon@yale.edu

Received 22 October 2007; accepted 27 May 2008

Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013

Abstract: The use of diagrid structural systems for tall building design has continued to increase. Characteristics and stiffness-based
preliminary design methodology of diagrid structures are discussed. The design methodology is applied to a set of diagrid structures,
40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 stories tall. The diagrid structure of each storey height is designed with diagonals placed at various uniform
angles as well as gradually changing angles along the building height in order to determine the optimal uniform angle for each structure
with a different height and to investigate the structural potential of diagrids with changing angles. Based on these design studies,
design guidelines are provided for the optimal configuration of the diagrid structure grid geometry within a certain height range.
Keywords: Bending, Diagrid structures, Shear, Stiffness-based design, Structural systems, Tall buildings

Introduction
Diagrid structures have been emerging as a new design
trend for tall buildings with their powerful structural rationale
and aesthetic potential. The effectiveness of diagonals
in carrying lateral loads for tall buildings was recognized
with the emergence of tall buildings in the late nineteenth
century, and was maximized with the development of braced
tube structures, introduced first in the John Hancock Center
in Chicago in 1970. The difference between conventional
exterior-braced tube structures and current diagrid structures
is that, for diagrid structures, the conventional vertical
columns on the building perimeter, or most of them, are
eliminated, creating unprecedented new building aesthetics
while providing very efficient structural systems for tall
buildings. This is possible because the diagrids can carry
gravity loads as well as lateral forces due to their triangulated
configuration.
In the early 1980s, Sir Norman Foster proposed a
diagrid structure without vertical columns for the Humana
Headquarters competition entry. However, the winning
entry at that time was the post-modern building designed
by Michael Graves (Huxtable, 1984). Only recently have
notable diagrid tall buildings been commissioned. Examples
include the 30 St. Mary Axe – also known as the Swiss Re
Building – in London (Figure 1), the Hearst Headquarters
in New York (Figure 2), both by Sir Norman Foster, the
Guangzhou Twin Towers in Guangzhou, China by Wilkinson
Eyre, and the Lotte Super Tower in Seoul, Korea (Figure 3)
by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. In this stylistically plural
era, while structural expressionism, once prevalent during
the development of various tubular structures since the late
1960s, is receding, diagrid structures remain the exception
with their strong expression of structural diagonals on the
facades as major building aesthetic components (Ali &
Moon, 2007).
This paper investigates the optimal grid geometries of
diagrid structures depending on their heights and height-
to-width aspect ratios. Contemporary diagrid structures are
generally composed of diagonals with uniform angles as is
the case with the Hearst Building, or they could be designed
with diagonals gradually changing their angles along the
building height as can be seen from the design of the Lotte
Super Tower in Seoul. A uniform angle of about 68 degrees
was used for the 188-meter Hearst Building, while the
diagrid angles gradually change from about 60 degrees at
the top to 79 degrees at the base in the design of the 555-
meter Lotte Super Tower. Moon, Connor and Fernandez
(2007) presented a stiffness-based preliminary design
methodology of diagrid structures of uniform angles, which
is briefly reviewed later as a basis of the expanded study on
the optimal grid geometry. Design studies are carried out
for diagrids of uniform angles as well as gradually changing
angles to investigate the potential of non-uniform angle
diagrids and determine the optimal grid geometry based
upon studies that are more thorough. The stiffness-based
design methodology is applied to variously configured 40,
50, 60, 70, and 80-storey diagrid structures, with height-
to-width aspect ratios ranging from 4.3 to 8.7, and optimal
geometric configurations for each height are determined.
 240 Architectural Science Review
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013
Figure 1: 30 St. Mary Axe. (Courtesy of Adam Gimpert)
Figure 1. 30 St. Mary Axe (Courtesy of Adam Gimpert)
Characteristics of Diagrid Structures
In diagrid tall buildings with no vertical columns, the
diagonals carry not only shear and moment caused by lateral
loads but also vertical gravity loads. Diagrid structures can be
configured with any angle(s) to meet architectural and structural
requirements. While the judgment of aesthetic expression
provided by any angle(s) could be a subjective matter, optimal
angles for different types of loads, however, exist in terms of
structural performance. Consequently, an optimal angle or a
combination of angles for the combined loads exists for a given
structure.
The optimal angle of diagonals for maximum shear
rigidity for a conventional braced frame composed of vertical
columns and diagonals is about 35 degrees (Moon, 2005).
Overturning moment in a typical braced frame is carried by
axial forces in the vertical columns, and the corresponding
optimal angle is 90 degrees. In terms of gravity loads, vertical
columns are also most effective. Since the optimal angle of
the columns for gravity and bending is 90 degrees and that of
the diagonals for maximum shear rigidity is about 35 degrees,
it is expected that the optimal angle of the diagonal members
in diagrid structures carrying all the combined loads will fall
between these angles.
Volume 51, Number 3, September 2008
Figure 2: Hearst Headquarters. (Courtesy of Adam Gimpert)
Figure 2. Hearst Headquarters (Courtesy of Adam Gimpert)
In a slender tall building design with typical maximum
lateral displacement parameter of about a five hundredth of the
building height, lateral stiffness rather than strength generally
governs the structural design. The design methodology and
studies presented in this paper are based on stiffness, and the
procedure begins by specifying the contributions of bending
and shear deformation to the total lateral displacement.
Shorter buildings with low height-to-width aspect ratios
behave more like shear beams, and taller buildings with high
aspect ratios tend to behave more like bending beams. Thus,
it is expected that as the building height increases, the optimal
diagrid angle also becomes steeper.
Incremental rates of shear forces and bending moments
toward the base of a tall building are different. While shear
forces increase almost linearly, bending moments increase
drastically toward the base of the building. Thus, in a
properly designed diagrid structure, the design of the upper
portion of the building is governed by shear, and the lower
portion is governed by bending. Considering this fact, it can
be presumed that diagrid structures with gradually changing
diagonal angles shall have potential for structural efficiency.
This paper investigates diagrid structures composed of
diagonals with gradually changing angles.
 Kyoung Sun Moon Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures 241

Stiffness-Based Design of Diagrid Structures

A diagrid structure is modeled as a vertical cantilever beam
on the ground, and subdivided longitudinally into modules
according to the repetitive diagrid pattern. Each module is
defined by a single level of diagrids that extend over ‘n’ stories.
Figure 4 illustrates the case of an 8-storey module. In order
to more accurately estimate the lateral rigidity provided by
diagrids, all the required lateral stiffness is allocated to the
perimeter diagrids, and consequently core structures, omitted
in Figure 4, are only gravity systems in this study. Depending
upon the direction of loading, the faces act as either web
planes (i.e., planes parallel to wind) or flange planes (i.e.,
planes perpendicular to wind). The diagonal members are
assumed to be pin-ended, and therefore resist the transverse
shear and moment through axial action only. With this
idealization, the design problem reduces to determining the
cross-sectional area of typical web and flange members for
each module. Following the design methodology developed
by Moon et al., (2007), member sizes for the modules can be
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013

computed using Equations (1) and (2) customized for each

design case.

(1)

(2)

: Area of Each Diagonal on the Web

: Area of Each Diagonal on the Flange

V: Shear Force
M: Moment
: Length of Diagonal

: Modulus of Elasticity of Steel

θ: Angle of Diagonal Member
: Transverse Shear Strain
: Curvature
: Number of Diagonals on Each Web Plane

: Number of Diagonals on Each Flange Plane

δ: Contribution of Web Diagonals for Bending Rigidity
B: Building Width in the Direction of Applied Force
Optimal stiffness-based design corresponds to a state of
uniform shear and bending deformation under the design
loading. Uniform deformation states are possible only for
statically determinate structures. Tall building structures can
be modeled as vertical cantilever beams on the ground, and
uniform deformation can be achieved for these structures.
(Connor, 2003) Then, the deflection at the top, , is given
by
(3)
. deformation and shear deformation of the structure. In order
H: Building Height
: Desired Uniform Transverse Shear Strain
Figure 3: Lotte Super Tower. (Courtesy of Skidmore, Owings,
and Merrill,
Figure 3. Lotte Super Tower Chicago)
(Courtesy of Skidmore, Owings, an
: Desired Uniform Curvature
where is the contribution from shear deformation and
is the contribution from bending.
The design begins from specifying the desired bending
to specify the relative contribution of shear versus bending
deformation, a dimensionless factor ‘s’, which is equal to the
ratio of the displacement at the top of the structure due to
bending and the displacement due to shear, is introduced. The
 242 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 3, September 2008

Edge beams are important members in completing the

triangulation of the geometry for diagrid structures. However,
edge beams typically designed for the gravity load on each
V floor can also carry lateral loads sufficiently by their axial
M actions in terms of satisfying both the stiffness and strength
FLANGE requirements.

Design Studies
The stiffness-based design methodology is applied to a set
Ld of diagrid structures that are 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80 stories
h
tall, with aspect ratios ranging from 4.3 to 8.7. The building’s
typical plan dimensions are 36 x 36 meters with an 18 x 18-
meter gravity core at the center, and typical storey heights
of 3.9 meters. The diagrid structure of each storey height is
designed with diagonals of various uniform angles in order
WEB
to determine the optimal uniform angle for each different
B height structure. Moreover, the same storey height diagrid
structures are designed with diagonals of gradually changing
Figure 4: Typical 8-storey diagrid module. angles along the building height to investigate the structural
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013

potential of varying angle diagrids. Based on these studies,

Figure 4. Typical 8 Story Diagrid Module the optimal grid geometries for diagrid structures of certain
height ranges are determined.
The document, SEI/ASCE 7-05 (Minimum Design Loads
‘s’ value can be calculated by for Buildings and Other Structures) is used to establish the
wind load. The buildings are assumed to be in Chicago
and within category III, which implies a substantial hazard
(4) to human life in the event of failure. Based on the code,
. the basic wind speed is 40.2 meters per second (90 miles per
hour). One percent damping is assumed for the calculation
The maximum allowable displacement, one of the most of the gust effect factor.
important stiffness-based design parameters for tall buildings,
is usually expressed as a fraction of the total building height. Diagrids of Uniform Angles
The study begins with the design of diagrid structures of
(5)
uniform angle. In order to find the optimal uniform angle
Determination of a value for is an engineering decision. as well as the optimal deformation mode for a certain height
Typical values for are in the neighborhood of 500. For diagrid structure, a set of structures having four different
example, values for the Aon Center, John Hancock Center, diagonal angles, 52, 63, 69 and 73 degrees, shown in Figure
and Sears Tower, all in Chicago, are 400, 500, and 550 5, were designed for 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80-storey diagrid
respectively (Kowalczyk, Sinn, & Kilmister, 1995). Noting structures with various ‘s’ values.
equations (3) and (4), equation (5) expands to Member sizes for the modules were computed using
(6) Equations (1) and (2) customized for each design case.

Then, (1-1)

(7)

(2-1)
Also, is determined using equation (4).
Both 4 web plane) and
(Number of diagonals on each
(8)
(Number of diagonals on each flange plane) equal 6 in the
It remains to establish a value for ‘s.’ Then, the design of particular design study case shown here. An estimate of the
diagonals in each module can be performed using Equations contribution of the diagonals on each web to the bending
(1) and (2) customized for each design case. This paper rigidity is made by adding one extra diagonal on each flange,
investigates the impacts of specifying different values of the resulting in . To carry the shear forces and bending
desired bending and shear deformation of the structure – moments calculated using the code loadings, diagonal
selection of different ‘s’ values – toward the optimal stiffness- member sizes are increased from the top toward the bottom.
based design, which uses the least amount of material to meet As an example design, profiles of the required areas for the
the design requirements. typical diagonals in the web and flange planes for the 60-
 Kyoung Sun Moon
52° 63°
Figure 5: Diagrids composed of various angle diagonals.
Figure5.Diagrids Composed of Various Angle Diagonals
storey diagrid structure having a 69 degree diagonal angle are
plotted with s = 4 in Figure 6c. Since the wind can blow
in either direction, the role of a plane can be either a flange
or a web. The building considered here has a square plan
and the preliminary design value for the module is taken
as the larger of the two values. When ‘s’ is taken as 1, the
maximum displacements at the top due to bending and shear
are equal, and the areas required to limit displacement due to
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013
bending govern the design for square plan buildings (Figure
6-a). When s = 8, the maximum displacement at the top
due to bending is 8 times that due to shear, and the areas
required to limit displacement due to shear govern the design
for square plan buildings (Figure 6b). These cases represent
the extreme limits for ‘s.’ Choosing ‘s’ to be 4 and selecting
the greater of the member sizes required for the bending and
shear criteria leads to the most economical design (Figure 6c).
In this case, the bending deformation requirement governs
for approximately the lower half of the building, and the
shear deformation requirement for the upper half.
Through this design process, the optimal uniform angle
for each height diagrid structure is determined. For example,
for 60-storey diagrid structures, four different models having
the four different angles were designed with various ‘s’ values.
Among all the designs within the four sets, the one that uses
the least amount of material is selected. The angle and ‘s’ value
for that particular design is recorded as the optimal angle for
a 60-storey diagrid structure with a height-to-width aspect
ratio of 6.5 and as the optimal ‘s’ which produces the most
desirable deformation mode respectively. Figures 7a, b, and c
illustrate the variation of diagrid steel mass depending on the
choice of different ‘s’ values for the 60-storey diagrids with 63,
69, and 73 degree uniform angle diagonals respectively. The
figures clearly show that 69 degrees is the optimal angle and 4
is the optimal ‘s’ value for the 60-storey diagrid structure.
Similar studies were repeated for 40, 50, 70 and 80-storey
diagrid structures, and the results are summarized in Table
1. It was found that 63 degrees is near optimal angle for
40 and 50-storey diagrid structures with aspect ratios of 4.3
and 5.4 respectively, and 69 degrees for the 60, 70, and 80-
storey diagrid structures with aspect ratios of 6.5, 7.6, and
8.7 respectively. These results agree with the assumption
that the optimal angle becomes steeper as the height of
the structure becomes taller. Studies show the influence of
about a five-degree angle changes from near optimal cases is
small. Table 2 illustrates this fact for the 60-storey diagrid
structures of various angles. As can be seen in the table, at
near optimal cases, the efficiency is not too sensitive to the
change of angles. However, when the diagrid angle deviates
Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures 243
69° 73°
substantially from the optimal, the efficiency of the system is
drastically reduced.
Regarding the relatively short diagrid structures, with an
optimal angle of about 63 degrees, the optimal ‘s’ for the 40-
storey structure is about 4 and for the 50-storey structure
about 6. Regarding the relatively tall diagrid structures, with
an optimal angle of about 69 degrees, the optimal ‘s’ for the
60-storey structure is about 4, and those for the 70 and 80-
storey structures are about 5 and 6 respectively. These results
clearly demonstrate that bending deformation governs more as
a building becomes taller. In addition, it can be noted that as
the angle of diagonals becomes shallower, the optimal ‘s’ value
becomes larger. This is because the shear rigidity provided
by the shallower angle diagonals increases, while the bending
rigidity provided by them decreases, and consequently there
will be more bending deformation.
The optimally configured diagrid structures having these
“preliminary” design members were analyzed with SAP2000.
The structures were modeled using Grade 50 steel W sections as
well as customized built-up sections when necessary. The floor
system is about 7.5cm (2.5 inch) average thickness concrete slab
with welded wire fabrics on metal decking, and the live load is
assumed to be about 2400 Pa (50 psf ). Some adjustments were
made for the diagonals near the top of the buildings to meet
strength requirements. There is reasonably close agreement with
only about a maximum 4% difference between the maximum
deformations targeted and obtained from SAP2000 analysis. It
is concluded that the methodology used for this study is valid
and very useful for member sizing at the preliminary design
stage. When finalizing the member sizes, it is recommended
that diagonal wind effects be considered especially for the
strength design of diagrid nodes.
Diagrids of Varying Angles
Based on the results of the previous study on diagrid structures
of uniform angles, optimal grid geometries are investigated
for diagrid structures of gradually changing angles. Diagrid
structures are now designed using the uniform optimal angle
for each height approximately as the median angle of changing
angles. Considering the fact that bending moments increase
drastically toward the base and govern the design of the lower
portion, while shear forces increase almost linearly and generally
govern the upper portion of diagrid structures, it is presumed that
the diagonal angles of diagrids should become steeper toward the
base, if diagrid structures are to be designed with varying angle
diagonals. The shear force and bending moment profiles for the
60-storey building studied here are shown in Figures 8a and 8b.
For completeness of the study, this case as well as the case in
 244 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 3, September 2008

Ad for Bending 60 Diagrid Steel Mass (63 Degree Uniform Angle)

Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=1)
Ad for Shear
60 Diagrid Steel Mass (63 Degree Uniform Angle)
0.3500 Ad for Bending Ad for Bending 4150
Member SizesMember Sizes&for
for Bending Bending
Shear (s=1) & Shear (s=1) Ad for 60
Shear
Ad for Shear Diagrid Steel Mass (63 Degree 4150
Uniform Angle)
0.3000 4100
0.3500 60 Diagrid Steel Mass (63 Degree Uniform Angle)
0.3500 60 Diagrid Steel Mass (63 Degree Uniform Angle)
0.2500 4150 Ad for Bending 4100
Member Sizes for Bending Ad for Bending 4050
0.3000
0.3000 Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=1) & Shear (s=1)
sq. meters

Ad for Shear 4150

0.2000 Ad for Shear
4150
4100 4050
0.2500
0.3500 0.2500
0.3500 4000
Member0.1500
Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=1)
Ad for Bending 60 Diagrid Steel Mass (63 Degree4100
Uniform Angle)
sq. meterssq. meters

ton
sq. meters

0.2000
0.3000 Ad for Shear 4100
4050 4000
0.2000
0.3000 3950
0.1000 4050

ton
0.3500 4150
0.1500
0.2500 0.1500
0.2500 4050
4000 3950
0.0500 3900
0.3000

ton ton
4000
sq. meters

0.1000
0.2000 0.1000
0.2000 4100
4000

ton
0.0000 3950 3900
0.2500 3850
0.0500 0.0500
0.1500 3950
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th 5th - 8th5th - 8th
- 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th1st - 4th

0.1500 4050
sq. meters

3950
3900
0.2000 3850
3800
0.0000
0.1000 0.0000
0.1000
4000 3900
a) 63 Degree Unif
53rd

5 6 7 8 9 10 11
57th - 60th57th - 60th

49th - 52nd49th - 52nd

45th - 48th45th - 48th

40th

29th - 32nd29th - 32nd

- 28nd

20th
13th - 16th13th - 16th
9th - 12th 9th - 12th
56th

41st - 44th41st - 44th

33rd - 36th33rd - 36th

21st - 24th21st - 24th

3900
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th
53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

0.1500 1st - 4th

3850
a) s=1
17th - 20th17th - ton
0.0500 3800 s
0.0500 stories 3950 3850 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a) 63 Degree Unif
-
-

0.1000 3850
37th
53rd

3800
25th

0.0000 0.0000 s
5
6 a) s=1 6 a) s=1
7 8 9 10 11 7 a) 63 Degree Uniform Angle
40th

28nd

3800
56th

1st - 4th
0.0500 3900 Ad for Bending
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th
53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th

Member Sizesstories stories

for Bending & Shear (s=8) 3800
Ad for Shear
5 6 7
s
8 9
60 Story
5 Diagrid
6
10
Steel 7Mass (69 8Degree Uniform
11
9
a) 63
Angle)
10
Degree Uniform Angle
11 a) 63 Degree Unif
-
-

0.0000
-
37th

s
53rd

0.2500 3850
25th

Ad for Bending Ad for Bending s 60 Story Diagrid Steel Mass (69 Degree Uniform Angle)
57th - 60th

52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
8th
53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

36th

21st - 24th

4th

Member SizesMember
a) s=1Diagrid a) s=1
Sizes&for
for Bending Bending
Shear (s=8) & Shear (s=8) 4800
Ad for Shear Ad for Shear
stories stories
-
-

3800 60 Story Steel Mass (69 Degree Uniform Angle)

-

5th
1st
-

0.2000
a) 63 Degree Uniform Angle
-

0.2500
17th

0.2500 4600
4800 9
33rd

5 6 7 8 10 11
49th

60 Story Diagrid Steel Mass (69 Degree Uniform Angle)

Member
Member Sizes for Sizes
Bending for Bending
& Shear
stories
Ad for Bending
(s=8) & Shear (s=8) 4800
60forStory
Ad Diagrid Steel Mass (69 Degree
Bending s Uniform Angle)
a) s=1
sq. meters

0.1500 Ad for Shear 4400

4600
0.2000 0.2000 Ad for Shear
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013

4800
0.2500 4800
4600
0.2500 Ad for Bending 4200
4400
Member0.1000
Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=8)
sq. meterssq. meters
sq. meters

0.1500 0.1500 60 Story Diagrid Steel Mass (69 Degree

4600Uniform Angle)
ton
Ad for Shear 4600
4400
0.2000 0.2000 4000
4200
0.2500
0.0500
0.1000 4800 4400
ton

0.1000 4400
4200
3800
4000
0.1500
sq. meters

0.1500
ton ton

0.2000 4600
4200
4200
0.0500 0.0000
0.0500 4000
3600
ton

3800
60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

40th

29th - 32nd
28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th 5th - 8th5th - 8th
56th

44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th1st - 4th

0.1000 0.1000
sq. meters

4400 4000
0.1500 4000
3800
0.0000 3400
0.0000
-

-
-

3600
-
57th

37th

b) s=8
41st
53rd

2 3 4 5 6 7
25th

4200
b) 69 Degree Unif
60th

49th - 52nd49th - 52nd

45th - 48th45th - 48th

40th

29th - 32nd29th - 32nd

28nd

20th
13th - 16th13th - 16th
9th - 12th 9th - 12th

3800
56th

44th

33rd - 36th33rd - 36th

21st - 24th21st - 24th

0.0500
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th
53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th

0.0500 3800
3600
0.1000
17th - 20th17th -ton

3400 s
stories
-

-
-

4000 3600 2 3 4 5 6 7
57th

37th

b) s=8 4
41st
53rd

3600
b) s=8 b) 69 Degree Unif
25th

0.0000 3400
0.0000
0.0500 2 3 5 6 7 s
b) 69 Degree Uniform Angle
57th - 60th

40th

28nd
56th

41st - 44th

1st - 4th
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th

3800 Ad for Bending

53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th

Member Sizesstories stories

for Bending & Shear (s=4) 3400 3400
Ad for Shear s
60 Story
2 6 Diagrid
3 7Steel Mass
4 (73 Degree
5 Uniform 6Angle) 7
2 3 4 5
7 b) 69 Degree Uniform Angle b) 69 Degree Unif
-
-

0.0000
-
37th

b) s=8
53rd

3600
6 b) s=8
25th

0.2500 Ad for Bending s s

57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th
53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th

Ad for Bending
Member SizesMember Sizes&for
for Bending Bending
Shear (s=4) & Shear (s=4) 7000
stories Ad for Shear Ad for Shear 60 Story Diagrid Steel Mass (73 Degree Uniform Angle)
stories 3400
0.2000
0.2500 60 Story Diagrid3 Steel Mass (73 Degree Uniform 6Angle)
0.2500 b) s=8
Ad for Bending
2 4
s
5 7
6000
7000 b) 69 Degree Uniform Angle
Member Sizes for Bending Ad for Bending 60 Story Diagrid Steel Mass (73 Degree 60 Story
Uniform Diagrid Steel Mass (73 Degree Uniform Angle)
Angle)
Member Sizes for Bending stories
& Shear (s=4) & Shear (s=4)
sq. meters

7000
0.2000 0.1500
0.2000 Ad for Shear Ad for Shear
5000
6000
0.2500 0.2500 7000 7000
Ad for Bending6000
Member0.1000
Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=4)
sq. meterssq. meters

4000
sq. meters

0.1500 0.1500 Ad for Shear 60 Story Diagrid Steel Mass (73 Degree
5000 Uniform Angle)
ton

0.2000 6000
5000 6000
0.2000
0.2500 3000
0.1000 0.0500
0.1000 7000 4000
5000
4000 5000
ton

0.1500
sq. meters

0.1500
0.2000 2000
ton ton

0.0000 6000 3000

0.0500 0.0500 4000
3000 4000
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th 5th - 8th5th - 8th
- 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th1st - 4th

0.1000 1000
ton

0.1000
sq. meters

0.1500 5000 2000

0.0000 3000
2000 3000
0.0000
13th -
53rd

0
c) 73 Degree Unifo
57th - 60th57th - 60th

49th - 52nd49th - 52nd

45th - 48th45th - 48th

40th

29th - 32nd29th - 32nd

- 28nd

- 20th
16th
9th - 12th 9th - 12th

c) s=4
56th

41st - 44th41st - 44th

33rd - 36th33rd - 36th

21st - 24th21st - 24th

0.0500
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th
53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th

0.0500
0.1000 4000
2000
1000 1 2 3 4 5
1000 2000
stories
17th - 20th17thton
-

s
-

37th

13th
53rd

25th

0.0000 3000 0
0.0000
0.0500 1 2
c) 373 Degree4 Uniform5Angle c) 73 Degree Unifo
10000
c)1 s=4 c) s=4 1000
40th

28nd

13th - 16th
56th

1st - 4th
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th
53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th

stories
stories
Figure 6. Preliminary Member Sizing with 2000 ‘s’0 Values of 1, 4, and 8, for Figure 7. 4Steel
the0 60 Story Mass
5
DiagridCalculated
Structures with Various ‘s’ Values for the 60 Story D 2 3
s
c)6973 Degree 4 Uniform 5Angle
-
-

0.0000 Various Uniform Angles

5 2 of 63, 3 and 73 Degrees c) 73 Degree Unif
-
37th

with 69 Degree Diagonal Angle

53rd

1 2 3 4 1
25th

c) s=4 c) s=4 s
57th - 60th

49th - 52nd
45th - 48th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

17th - 20th
13th - 16th
9th - 12th
5th - 8th
53rd - 56th

41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 4th

1000
Figure 6. Figure 6. Preliminary
Preliminary Member Member
Sizing
stories withSizing with
‘s’ Values
stories ‘s’
of Values
1, 4, of
and 1,
8, 4,
for and
the 8,
60 Figure
for the
Story 7.
60 Steel
Story
Diagrid Mass
Diagrid
StructureCalculated
Structure s
with
Figure0 7. Steel Mass Calculated with Various ‘s’ Values for the 60 Story Diagrid StructuresVarious ‘s’ Values for theHaving
60 Story D
with 69
with 69 Degree Degree Angle
Diagonal Diagonal Angle Various Uniform Angles2 of 63, 69
Various Uniform
3 and 73 Degrees
Angles of 63,
7 c)69736and 73 Degrees
Degree Uniform Angle
Figure 67.c)Steel
s=4 Mass Calculated
1
with 7.Various
Figure
4
‘s’ Values
Steel Mass
5
for thewith
Calculated 60 Various
Story Diagrid Structures
‘s’ Values for theHaving
60 Story D
stories
Figure 6. Preliminary
Figure 6. Preliminary Member Sizing Member
with Sizing with
‘s’ Values ‘s’1,Values
Various
of 4, andof8,
Uniform 1,for
4, the
Angles and 8, Story
of 63,
60 for
69s
theDiagrid
and
Various 60
73 Story
Degrees
Uniform Diagrid
Angles6 ofStructure
Structure 63, 696and 73 Degrees
with Diagonal
with 69 Degree 69 DegreeAngle
Diagonal Angle 7
Figure 6. Preliminary Member Sizing with ‘s’ Figure
Values of 7.4,Steel
1, and Mass
8, for Calculated
the 60 Story with Various
Diagrid ‘s’ Values for the 60 Story Diagrid Structures Having
Structure
Figure 6: Preliminary member sizing Various with ‘s’ values
Uniform of Angles
1, 69 and7:73Steel
of 63,Figure mass calculated with various ‘s’ values for the
Degrees 7
with 69 Degree 6 having various6
4, andDiagonal Angle
8, for the 60-storey diagrid structure with 69 degree 60-storey diagrid structures uniform angles of 63,
diagonal angle. 696 and 73 degrees. 7

which the gradually changing angles of diagrids become steeper the case of the optimal uniform angle is shown in Figure 9
toward the top is studied as well. The first case is called Case 1, through 11 respectively.
and the second one is called Case 2.
Each case has two design alternatives. In Alt 1, the change Varying Angle Diagrids for 40, 50, and 60-Storey
of the varying angles is more radical. In Alt 2, the change of Structures
the varying angles is more moderate. Each design case and The design study results of the 60-storey diagrid structures
alternative for 40, 60, and 80-storey diagrid structures including of varying angles are shown in Figure 12. In Case 1: Alt 1, with
 Kyoung Sun Moon Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures 245

Table1:1:Optimal
Table angles and
Optimal Angles and ‘s’
‘s’values
Valuesforforuniform
Uniformangle diagrid
Angle structures.
Diagrid Structures
Story Heights Height/Width Optimal Angle Optimal ‘s’
(Stories) (Degrees)
40 4.3 63 4
50 5.4 63 6
60 6.5 69 4
70 7.6 69 5
80 8.7 69 6

angles varying from 63 degrees at the top to 73 degrees at the of angles greater than 45 degrees, member sizes for shear are
base of the building, the structure is configured to better resist more sensitive to angle changes than those for bending. This is
bending at the bottom and shear at the top. In order to find because the member size equation for shear contains , while
the deformed shape to produce the optimal design, which uses that for moment contains , and with gradually changing
least amount of diagrid material, the structure was designed values between 63 degrees and 73 degrees, the change of is
with various ‘s’ values, and it was found that the optimal design more drastic than that of . In Case 1: Alt 1, since the angle
is obtained with s = 2.2. (Note that decimal fractions are used becomes stiffer towards the base of the building, which adversely
now instead of integers as ‘s’ values because the design with affects the shear rigidity, member sizes for shear become very
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013

changing angles is more sensitive to the change of ‘s’ values than
with uniform angles.) This means that the bending deformation
of the structure is 2.2 times the shear deformation. This ‘s’
value of 2.2 is about half of the optimal ‘s’ value of about 4 for
the 60-storey diagrid structure with the same aspect ratio and
uniform angle of 69 degrees. This difference was caused by the
varying angles. In diagrid structures of varying angles composed
large and quickly reach those for bending with a much smaller ‘s’
value than that used for the case with uniform angle. As a result,
the most economical design of the diagrid structure in this case
produces much less bending deformation than the diagrids of
uniform optimal angle.
When the optimal designs for the 60-storey diagrid structures
of uniform angle and the varying angle design Case 1: Alt 1

Shear
Shear Forces
Forces at
at Each
Each Floor
Floor

20000
20000
18000
18000
16000
16000
14000
14000
12000
12000
kN

10000
kN

10000
8000
8000
6000
6000
4000
4000
2000
2000
0
0
60

57

54

51

48

45

42
39

36

33

30

27

24

21

18

15
12
99

66

33
60

57

54

51

48

45

42
39

36

33

30

27

24

21

18

15
12

floor
floor

Figure 8a: Shear force profile for the 60-storey building in Chicago.
F
Figure
ure
ure 8-a.
igure 8-a. Shear
Shear Force
Force Profile
Profile for
for the
the 60
60 Story
Story Building
Building in
in Chicago
Chicago

Bending
Bending Moments
Moments at
at Each
Each Floor
Floor

2500000
2500000
8

2000000
2000000

1500000
1500000
kN-m
kN-m

1000000
1000000

500000
500000

0
0
60

57
54
51
48
45
42
39
36

33
30

27
24
21
18
15
12
99
66

33
60

57
54
51
48
45
42
39
36

33
30

27
24
21
18
15
12

Floor
Floor

F Figure
Figure
igure 8-b. 8b: Bending
8-b. Bending
Bending Moment moment
Moment Profile for profile
Profile for the
the 60 for the
60 Story
Story 60-storey
Building
Building in building
in Chicago
Chicago in Chicago.
 246 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 3, September 2008

52° 52° 63°

69°
63° 76°

69°

63° 73°
63°
63°
73°
69°

63°
76°
69°
63° 52° 52°

Case 1: Alt. 2 Case 1: Alt. 1 Uniform Angle Case 2: Alt. 1 Case 2: Alt. 2

Figure 9: Variously configured 40-storey diagrids (H/B = 4.3).

Figure 9. Variously Configured 40 Story Diagrids (H/B = 4.3)
are compared, the diagrid structure of uniform angle uses less
structural material to meet the same stiffness design parameter.
As far as bending rigidity is concerned, the varying angle design
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013
when gradually increasing ‘s’ values are used to determine the
optimal value due to the diagonal angle of 79 degrees at the
base, which even more adversely affects the shear rigidity than

Case 1: Alt 1 is a more economical angle composition than
the diagrid of uniform angle because the angles of diagonals
become stiffer towards the base, which favorably affects the
bending rigidity of the structure. However, with the relatively
low optimal ‘s’ value of 2.2 due to the sensitivity of the member
sizes for shear at lower levels with steeper diagonal angles,
member sizes for bending are still larger than those with a
higher ‘s’ value, such as 4 for the diagrid of uniform angle.
For example, the required area of the diagonal member on the
ground floor is about 0.22m2 for the varying angle design Case
1: Alt 1, compared to about 0.20m2 for the uniform angle case.
Thus, in terms of structural material usage to meet the same
stiffness criteria, design Case 1: Alt 1 with diagrids of varying
angle is less economical than that of uniform angle.
In Case 1: Alt 2, with the changing angles from 63 degrees
at the top to 79 degrees at the base of the building (more
radical angle change than Case 1: Alt 1), member sizes for
shear at lower levels reach those for bending even more rapidly
Alt 1. It was found that the optimal design is obtained with
s = 0.9. Even though the bending rigidity in Alt 2 is greater
than in Alt 1, with this low optimal ‘s’ value of 0.9, member
sizes for bending are much larger than those with higher ‘s’
values, such as 2.2 in Case 1: Alt 1, or 4 in the case of uniform
angle. The required area of the diagonal member on the
ground floor for Alt 2 is about 0.29 square meters, which is
greater than 0.22 and 0.2 square meters for the previous two
design cases. Thus, Alt 2 is less economical than Alt 1 as well
as the uniform angle case.
In Case 2: Alt 1, with the changing angle from 73 degrees at
the top to 63 degrees at the base of the building, the structure
is configured to better resist shear at the bottom and bending
at the top. Considering the fact that the increasing rate of the
shear forces from the top to the base is smaller than that of the
bending moment, the varying angle design scenario of Case 2:
Alt 1 is expected to produce a less economical design. With
the similar process carried out for Case 1, it was found that the

63° 69°
63°
79°
73°
69°

73°

69°
76°
69°
69°
76° 11

73°

69°
79°
73° 69° 63° 63°

Case 1: Alt. 2 Case 1: Alt. 1 Uniform Angle Case 2: Alt. 1 Case 2: Alt. 2

Figure 10: Variously configured 60-storey diagrids (H/B = 6.5).

Figure 10. Variously Configured 60 Story Diagrids (H/B = 6.5)

 Kyoung Sun Moon Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures 247

63° 63°
69°
73°

80°

69°

73°
69° 76°
69°
69°

73°

76°

69°
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013

80°
73° 69° 63° 63°
Ad for Bending
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=2.2)
Case 1: Alt. 2 Case 1: Alt. 1 Uniform Angle Case 2: Alt. 1 Case 2: Alt. 2 Ad for Shear

0.2500
Figure 11: Variously configured 80-storey diagrids (H/B = 8.7).
0.2000

Figure 11. Variously Configured 80 Story Diagrids (H/B = 8.7)

optimal design is obtained with s = 3.7, which is close to the 1 produces
0.1500 a less economical design than the uniform angle
sq. meters

optimal ‘s’ value of 4 in the uniform angle case. In Case 2: Alt case.
1, however, since the angle becomes smaller towards the base of In0.1000
Case 2 Alt 2, with the changing angles from 79 degrees at
the building, which adversely affects the bending rigidity, the the top to 63 degrees at the base of the building, the optimal ‘s’
0.0500
member sizes for bending are larger than those in the uniform value is 1.4, which is much smaller than s = 3.7 for Alt 1. Thus,
angle case. Regarding the shear requirements, as was the case member
0.0000
sizes for bending in Alt 2 are larger than in Alt 1 as
for the uniform angle structure, the design of the diagonals is well as in the case of the uniform angle. Regarding the shear
57th - 60th
54th - 56th

48th - 50th
45th - 47th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

16th - 20th
11th - 15th
6th - 10th
41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 5th
51st - 53rd

governed by the shear requirements at the upper portion of the requirements, due to the even more adversely affecting steeper
structure. However, because the steeper diagrid angles at the angles at the upper portion of the building, the member sizes in
upper portion of the building adversely affect the shear rigidity Alt 2 become bigger than in Alt 1stories
as well as in the case of the
there, the member sizes for shear in this case is greater than uniform angle. Thus, Case 2: Alt 2 produces a less economical
those in the uniform angle case. Consequently, Case 2: Alt Figure 12-a. 60 Story Diagrid Design Case
design than Alt 1 as well as the uniform angle1:case.
Alt. 1

Ad for Bending Ad
Ad ffor
or Bending
Bending
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=2.2) (s=0.9)
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=2.2)
Ad for Shear Ad
Ad for
for Shear
Shear

0.2500 0.3500
0.2500

0.3000
0.2000 0.2000
0.2500
sq. meters

meters

0.1500
sq. meters

0.1500
0.2000
13
0.1000 0.1500
0.1000
sq.

0.1000
0.0500 0.0500
0.0500
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
57th - 60th
54th - 56th

48th - 50th
45th - 47th

37th - 40th

29th - 32nd
25th - 28nd

16th - 20th
11th - 15th
6th - 10th
41st - 44th

33rd - 36th

21st - 24th

1st - 5th

th - 60th
51 -756th

48th- 5- 50th
nd - 47th

31 -140th

th - 32nd
17 - 28nd

h - 20th

1s - 15th
6th -810th
51st - 53rd

37 - 644th

- 3- 36th

21st- 2- 24th

1st - 5th
47 - 453rd

h
th

th
h

th

th

h
st

6t
0t

0t

0t

4t
6t

-1
-4
-6

-5

-4

-3
-5

t-
57th
54th

45th

37th

16th
11th
41st

33rd
51st

29th
25th
th

th

th

th
st

st

9t
58

55

25
42

stories stories

Figure 12a: 60-storey diagrid design Case 1: Alt 1. Figure Figure 12b:
12-b. 60
60 60-storey
Story Diagriddiagrid
Designdesign
CaseCase 1: Alt
1: Alt.
Alt. 2.
Figure 12-a. 60 Story Diagrid Design Case 1: Alt. 1 Figure 12-a. Story Diagrid Design Case 1: 12

Ad for Bending Ad for Bending

Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=0.9) Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=0.9)
 248 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 3, September 2008

Table2:2:Influence
Table Influenceof
ofchanging
Changingangles
Anglesfor
for60-storey
60 Story diagrids.
Diagrids
Story Module Diagrid Angle Diagrid Steel Mass (Ton) Percentile Difference
2 stories 52 degrees 5700 +50.0%
3 stories 63 degrees 3930 +3.4%
4 stories 69 degrees 3820 Near Optimal
5 stories 73 degrees 4200 +5.3%
6 stories 76 degrees 4960 +30.5%

The conceptual part of the comparison between the different
design scenarios discussed above is also true for the diagrid
structures lower than 60 stories studied here. Thus, the optimal
uniform diagrid angle produces the more economical design in
terms of material usage than the variously configured gradually
changing diagrid angles for diagrid structures, 40, 50, and 60
stories tall, with height-to-width aspect ratios ranging from 4.3
to 6.5, as is the case with the 48 storey Hearst Building in New
York. However, this is no longer true for diagrid structures taller
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013
value of about 6 for the design case with uniform angle. This
is because of the fact that a building tends to behave more like
a bending beam as it becomes taller. (Thus, optimal ‘s’ value
of 4.9 for the varying angle design Case 1: Alt 1 for the 80-
storey building is much higher than that of 2.2 for the 60-storey
building.) Even though the ‘s’ value of 4.9 in Case 1: Alt 1 is still
smaller than 6 in the uniform angle case, when combined with
the effect of gradually changing angles favorably affecting the
bending rigidity, member sizes for bending in Case 1: Alt 1 are

than 60 stories, such as the 70 and 80-storey diagrids in this
study. A summary of these study results is shown in Table 3 and
4 for the 40 and 60-storey diagrid structures respectively.
Varying Angle Diagrids for 70-Storey, 80-Storey, and
Taller Structures
The design study results of the 80-storey diagrid structures
with uniform angle and varying angles are shown in Figure 13
and 14 respectively. Regarding the uniform angle design, it was
found that the optimal design is achieved with an ‘s’ value of 6
when the diagonal angle is 69 degrees as was discussed earlier.
In the varying angle design Case 1: Alt 1, with the changing
angles from 63 degrees at the top to 73 degrees at the base of the
building, the structure is configured to better resist bending at
the bottom and shear at the top. In order to find the deformed
shape to produce the optimal design, which uses least amount
of diagrid material, the structure was designed with various ‘s’
values, and it was found that the optimal design is obtained
with s=4.9. Different from the 60-storey varying angle design
Case 1: Alt 1, in which the optimal ‘s’ value was only about half
of that for the uniform angle design case, this ‘s’ value of 4.9
for the 80-storey design Case 1: Alt 1 is close to the optimal ‘s’
smaller than in the optimal uniform angle case. For example,
the required area of the diagonal member on the ground floor is
about 0.46 square meters for the varying angle design Case 1: Alt
1, compared to about 0.48 square meters for the uniform angle
case. Regarding the shear requirements, member sizes at some
lower portion of the building are governed by shear due to the
steeper angle there, but the impact is minimal. Consequently,
the varying angle Case 1: Alt 1 for the 80-storey diagrids uses
less diagrid material than the uniform angle case.
In Case 1: Alt 2, with the changing angles from 63 degrees at
the top to 80 degrees at the base of the building, member sizes
for shear at lower levels reach those for bending more rapidly
when gradually increasing ‘s’ values are used to determine the
optimal value due to the diagonal angle of 80 degrees at the
base, which more adversely affects the shear rigidity than Alt 1.
It was found that the optimal design is obtained with s = 1.3.
Even though the bending rigidity in Alt 2 is even greater than
in Alt 1, with this very low optimal ‘s’ value of 1.3, member
sizes for bending are larger than those with higher ‘s’ values,
such as 4.9 in Alt 1, or 6 in the case of uniform angle. Thus,
Alt 2 is less economical than Alt 1 as well as the uniform angle
case.

Table 3:
Table 3: 40 Story Diagrid
40-storey diagridDesign
designOptimal
optimal ‘s’ Valuesand
‘s’ values andsteel
Steelmasses
Massesused.
Used
Case Alt. Angle Description Optimal 's' Steel Mass (tons)
2 79, 76, 73, 69, 63 0.9 1068
1 9
1 73, 69, 63 2.7 1009
Uniform Angle 69 4.1 883
1 63, 69, 73 5.1 1906
2
2 63, 69, 73, 76, 79 2.1 1597

Table 4:
Table 4: 60 Story Ddiagrid
60-storey iagrid Ddesign
esign Optimal
optimal‘s’ Valuesand
‘s’ values and steel
Steelmasses
Massesused.
Used
Case Alt. Angle Description Optimal 's' Steel Mass (tons)
2 79, 76, 73, 69, 63 0.9 5791
1
1 73, 69, 63 2.2 4104
Uniform Angle 69 3.9 3820
1 63, 69, 73 3.7 4482
2
2 63, 69, 73, 76, 79 1.4 6549
 Kyoung Sun Moon Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures 249

Ad for Bending
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=3.7)
Ad for Shear

0.2500 Ad for Bending Ad for Bending

Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=3.7) Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=6)
Ad for Shear Ad for Shear
0.2500
0.2000 0.6000

0.2000 0.5000
0.1500
sq. meters

0.4000

sq. meters
0.1500
sq. meters

0.1000
0.3000

0.1000
0.0500 0.2000

0.0500 0.1000
0.0000

0.0000
h

t h t h 3t h t h

4t th 4t th

1s th 1s th
h
d

d
h

h
53 60t 53 60t

31 38t 31 38t

2 7 34 t 2 7 34 t

23 30t 23 30t

10 15t 10 15t

2t
7t

7t 39 47t

6t

3r
43 2n 43 2n

35 2n 35 2n

16 2n 16 2n

-9

-6
8
-1

-1
-5

-2

0.0000
-5

-4

-2

t-
-

h
t-
-

h d h h h h d h h th

7t
0t 8t 0t 6t
th

d th

h th

d th

h th 4t 6t 4t
h rd

d rd

h rd

2n 2n
h th

h th

h th
h s

-8
58

7t 48

6t 19

8 1

-8 -7 t-
6 -5 -4 -4 -3 t-
2 -1
h

d
stories h
2t 5t

3r
-9

-6
th th s rd th th th s th
-1

-1
-5

-4

-2
-5

-4

-2

t-
77 61 45 37 21 13
-

h
53
-

69 29
7t
th

th

th

th

th
st
rd

rd

rd
th

th

th
58

13
48

39

19

stories stories
Figure 12-c. 60 Story Diagrid Design Case 2: Alt. 1
Figure 12c: 60-storey diagrid design Case 2: Alt 1. Figure 13: 80-storey uniform angle diagrid design.
Figure 12-c. 60 Story Diagrid Design Case 2: Alt. 1 Figure 13. 80 Story Uniform Angle Diagrid Design
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013

Ad for Bending Ad for Bending

Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=1.4) Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (4.9)
Ad for Shear Ad for
for Bending
Shear
Ad
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (4.9)
0.3500 Ad for Bending Ad for Shear
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=1.4) 0.5000
Ad for Shear
0.5000
0.4500
0.3000
0.3500
0.4500
0.4000
0.4000
0.2500
0.3000 0.3500
0.3500
meters

0.3000
sq.meters

0.3000
0.2000
sq. meters

0.2500 0.2500
0.2500
0.2000
0.2000
sq.

0.1500
0.2000
sq. meters

0.1500
0.1500
0.1000
0.1000
0.1000
0.1500
0.0500
0.0500
0.0500
0.1000 0.0000
0.0000
h h h h h h h h h h
0t 4t 8t 2t 4t 6t 8t 0t 0t 0t

h
h
h

h
h

-7 -1

0t
-8 -6 -6 -4 -3 -3 -2
0t

8t

2t

8t

0t

0t
4t

6t

-5
4t

0.0000
0.0500

-1
-7
-8

-6

-6

-3

-3

-2
-4
-5

th d th th t rd th th th h
n s 5t

h
53th - 45th - 37th - 31st - 25th - 20th - 15th - 11th - 7th - 4th - 1st -
nd
th

th

th

th

th

th
st

rd

78 72 66 59 51 43 35 26 16

5t
78

66

59

51

35

26

16
43
72

60th 52th 44th 36th 30th 24th 19th 14th 10th 6th 3rd
0.0000 stories
stories
stories
53th - 45th - 37th - 31st - 25th - 20th - 15th - 11th - 7th - 4th - 1st -
60th 52th 44th 36th 30th 24th 19th 14th 10th 6th 3rd
Figure 12d: 60-storey diagrid design Case 2: Alt 2. stories Figure 14-a.
14-a. 80
FigureFigure Story
14a:
80 Story Diagrid
80-storey Design
Diagriddiagrid Case
Case 1:
Designdesign 1: Alt.1
Case 1: Alt 1.
Alt.1
Figure 12-d. 60 Story Diagrid Design Case 2: Alt. 2
Figure 12-d. 60 Story Diagrid Design Case 2: Alt. 2
In Case 2: Alt 1 and Alt 2, with the changing angles from Ad for Bending
Series1
Member
Member Sizes
Sizesfor
forBending
Bending&&Shear
Shear(1.3)
(s=2.2)
steeper angles at the top to shallower angles at the base of Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (1.3)
Series1
Series2
Ad for Shear
Series2
the building, the structure is configured to better resist shear 0.7000
0.2500
0.7000
at the bottom and bending at the top. Considering the fact 0.6000
that the increasing rate of the shear forces from the top to the 0.2000
0.6000
0.5000
base is smaller than that of the bending moment, the varying 0.5000
sq. meters
sq. meters

0.4000
0.1500
angle design Case 2: Alt 1 and Alt 2 are expected to produce
sq. meters

0.4000
0.3000
less economical design. In addition, it was actually found 0.1000 15
that Case 2 design alternatives use more diagrid material than 0.3000
0.2000

Case 1 as well as the uniform angle case. 0.2000

0.0500
0.1000 15
The conceptual part of the comparison between the 0.0000
0.1000
different design scenarios discussed above is true for the 70- 0.0000
th 4th th 4th

d nd

h
th th th th
nd 7thnd 7th

t - th
h th- th47thth
d th

st th

h th
th th th th
th th th th
1s 8th 1s 8th
th 1st

th37th6th-th40thth

th th
- 7 72- 60th

7 -9 56th

st th s50th

th -th32nd
st -th28nd

16th - 20th
- 1 - 15th
t - - 10th

0.0000
d 0th- r44th

rd n-dr36th

h th- t24th

1st - 5th
9t
th 1s-t 53rd
75 - 8075 80

53 - 6 53 - 60

31 42 1 42

19 - 3019 - 30
10 - 2410 24
48 - 5 48 - 56

37 47 7 47
57 - 6457 64

25 36 5 6

storey diagrid structures studied here as well. Further, it is

43 - 52 43 52
-7
-7

- 7 65 - 7
- 6 61 - 6

-1
-3

t-
-

-
-
-
th

expected to be continuously true for taller diagrid structures

78

h
-
6

3
3
2

9t
8
72 57th
6954th

6148th

t45th

11th
6th
r41st

t21st
33rd
6551st

29th
25th

stories
-
-

-
-

than the 80-storey diagrids studied here. Thus, it can be

th
78

stories
concluded that, for the diagrid structures, with height-to- Figure Figure Story80-storey
14-b. 8014b: Diagriddiagrid design
stories
Design Case 1:Case 1: Alt 2.
Alt.2
width aspect ratios bigger than about 7, gradually changing
Figure 12-a. 60 Story Diagrid Design Case 1: Alt. 1
diagrid angles with the uniform optimal angle as a median Figure 14-b. 80 Story Diagrid Design Case 1: Alt.2
angle value produces the more economical design in terms of
material usage than the other design cases, as is the case with

Ad for Bending
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=0.9)
Ad for Shear

0.3500

0.3000
 250 Architectural Science Review Volume 51, Number 3, September 2008

Table5:
Table 5: 80 Story Diagrid
80-storey diagridDesign
design Optimal
optimal ‘s’ Valuesand
‘s’ values andsteel
Steelmasses
Massesused.
Used
Case Alt. Angle Description Optimal 's' Steel Mass (tons)
2 80, 76, 73, 69, 63 1.3 15611
1
1 73, 69, 63 4.9 11172
Uniform Angle 69 6.0 11574
1 63, 69, 73 6.5 16627
2
2 63, 69, 73, 76, 80 2.4 17138

Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=6.5) Ad for Bending

Ad
for the optimal uniform angle design is 883 ton, while that
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=6.5) Ad for
for Bending
Shear
Ad for Shear for the varying angle design Case 1: Alt 1 is 1009 ton. With
0.6000 the preliminary member sizes using these total amounts of
0.6000
0.5000
diagrid steel, SAP2000 models were made and analyzed. The
0.5000 maximum deformations produced by these two different
0.4000
meters

0.4000 design cases were identically 26.5cm, verifying that the

meters

0.3000
0.3000 uniform design case is more economical. Similar results were
sq.sq.

0.2000
0.2000
obtained for the 50 and 60-storey diagrid structures. For the
0.1000 80-storey diagrid structures, diagrid steel mass calculated for
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013

0.1000
0.0000 the optimal uniform angle design is 11,574 ton, while that for
0.0000
the varying angle design Case 1: Alt 1 is 11,172 ton. Again,
th6th
31 3 nd nd
66 6 th th

56 5 th 0th

47 4 th 0th

h th

23 2 th4th

10 1 th th

h th
15 1 th th
0 80

0t50

8 18

2t12
6 26
2 42

with the preliminary member sizes using these total amounts

07

06

43

-6 -
-8 -

-7 -

-6 -

-5 -

-1 -

-1 -

h th
- 3t -

-2-
-4 -
th 6th

th 6th

th 6th

th 7th

th th

th th
rd rd

4t 4
th th

st 1s

0
3

of diagrid steel, SAP2000 models were made and analyzed.

9
76 7

39 3

stories
stories The maximum deformation produced by the uniform angle
design case was 65.5cm, while that produced by the varying
FigureFigure
14-c. 80 Story
14c: Diagriddiagrid
80-storey Designdesign
CaseCase
2: Alt.
2: 1Alt 1. angle design Case 1: Alt 1 was 64.8cm. Less deformation was
Figure 14-c. 80 Story Diagrid Design Case 2: Alt. 1
obtained with less amount of material in this case, verifying
that the varying angle design Case 1: Alt 1 is more economical
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=2.4)
Ad for Bending for the 80-storey diagrid structure. Similar result was obtained
Ad
Ad for
for Bending
Shear
Member Sizes for Bending & Shear (s=2.4)
Ad for Shear for the 70-storey diagrid structure.
0.8000
0.8000
0.7000
0.7000 Conclusions
0.6000
0.6000 This study examined the influence of the different
0.5000 configurations of the diagonals on the behavior of diagrid
ersers

0.5000
met

0.4000 structures. For uniform angle diagrid structures, it was

met

0.4000
sq.sq.

0.3000
0.3000
found that, as a building becomes taller, the optimal angle
0.2000 also increases because the design of a taller structure with a
0.2000
0.1000 large height-to-width aspect ratio tends to behave more like
0.1000
0.0000 a bending beam, and steeper angle diagonals resist bending
0.0000
moments more efficiently by their axial actions. For the tall
4t 4 th9th

t -st h
h
th 7th th 1th
st 1s 2th 2th
th 5th th6th
th 9th th 0th
th 4th4th 4th

st 1s 8th 8th
th 7th th4th
th 3th th 0th
th 0th6th 6th
7t 7 2th 2th

d rd
th 5th rd3rd

1s 1 6t-h6t
th 9th 8th 8t
th 3th 0th 0t

3r- 3
63 6 - 8 - 8
57 5 71- 7
51 5 6 - 6

39 3 50- 5
34 3 - 4 - 4
29 2 - 3 - 3

21 2 - 2 - 2

13 1 - 20- 2
10 1 - 1 - 1

1
45 4 - 56- 5

17 1 - 24- 2
25 2 - 33- 3

-9 -

diagrid structures, with aspect ratios ranging from about 4 to

-1 -
h th
h th
d

-
nd2n

-
-

9, the range of the optimal angle is from approximately 60 to

72 7

stories
stories
Figure 14d: 80-storey diagrid design Case 2: Alt 2.
Figure 14-d. 80 Story Diagrid Design Case 2: Alt. 2
Figure 14-d. 80 Story Diagrid Design Case 2: Alt. 2
the design of the 112-storey Lotte Super Tower in Seoul. A towards the base of the building generates a more economical
summary of these study results is shown in Table 5 for the 80-
storey diagrid structure.
The diagrid structures having these “preliminary” design
members were analyzed with SAP2000. Modeling conditions
are the same as those presented for the uniform angle cases.
It was found that the results of SAP2000 analysis agree with
what was discussed so far. For 40, 50, and 60-storey diagrid
structures, the optimal uniform angle design cases use the
least amount of structural material, while for 70 and 80-storey
diagrid structures, the varying angle design Case 1: Alt 1 uses
the least amounts of structural material. For example, for
the 40-storey diagrid structures, diagrid steel mass calculated
70 degrees.
This paper also investigated the potential of diagrid
structures with varying angle diagonals. It was found that the
diagrid angle configuration that becomes gradually steeper
20
design in terms of material usage than the uniform angle
configuration for diagrid structures with an aspect ratio larger
than about 7. However, for diagrid structures with an aspect
ratio smaller than about 7, it was found that the uniform
angle diagonals produce the most economical design.
The author expects that the optimal geometry study
results, the simple member sizing methodology, and other
topics discussed will be very useful to both engineers and
architects for preliminary design of tall buildings employing
diagrid structural systems. Based on19these studies, structural
19 stage of design can
and architectural decisions at the early
be made in a more integrative and efficient way. Further,
 Kyoung Sun Moon Grid Geometry of Diagrid Structures 251

this research will eventually contribute to constructing more
sustainable built environments that use minimum amounts
of resources.
References
Ali, M.M., & Moon, K. (2007). Structural developments in tall
buildings: Currents trends and future prospects. Architectural
Science Review, 50(3), 205-223.
Connor, J.J. (2003). Introduction to Structural Motion Control. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Huxtable, A.L. (1984). The Tall Buildings Artistically Reconsidered: The
Search for a Skyscraper Style. New York: Pantheon Books.
Downloaded by [Laurentian University] at 19:52 17 April 2013
Kowalczyk, R., Sinn, R., & Kilmister, M.B. (1995). Structural Systems
for Tall Buildings. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
Monograph. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moon, K. (2005). Dynamic Interrelationship between Technology
and Architecture in Tall Buildings. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, USA.
Moon, K., Connor, J.J., & Fernandez, J.E. (2007). Diagrid structural
systems for tall buildings: Characteristics and methodology for
preliminary design. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings, 16(2), 205-230.