Architectural Form Finding and Computational Design

of Tall Building Applying Topology Optimization against

Lateral Loads
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Alireza Mohammadi Baghbanan1; Matin Alaghmandan2; Mahmoud Golabchi3; and Farzad Barazandeh4

Abstract: The hierarchy of a building is created from the hermeneutics aspects changing from a typology to a topology paradigm. As tall
buildings are growing rapidly, engineering science is experiencing developments such as the finite-element method. The present research
creates a platform for architects using the topology optimization method as an assistant designer. This platform serves as a starter for a com-
mon language of these two professions in the early stages of design. Architects can use this platform to produce the final topological opti-
mized form by defining their shape plans, lateral loads, height, and the target ratio of models as platform inputs. This paper highlights the
importance of the bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization method simultaneously in architectural and structural contexts to reduce
the total weight of the structure while keeping the displacement of the structure in an acceptable range. The reduction will be made by elim-
inating the structural material zones with lower stress with an effective method for achieving the structural efficiency of a tall building, con-
sidering architectural aspects. DOI: 10.1061/JAEIED.AEENG-1380. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Tall building; Finite-element method; Topology optimization; Karamba; Bidirectional evolutionary structural optimi-
zation method; Grasshopper.

Introduction
Structural engineering science radically transformed its ontology
and methodology from a typological to a topological paradigm.
The underlying division of labor is posited as follows: architecture
is responsible for the built environment’s social performance; engi-
neering is responsible for the built environment’s technical perfor-
mance. Thus, the relation cannot be brought into a hierarchy, and it
is in fact a relation of mutual dependency and dialectical advance-
ment. The two disciplines co-evolve in mutual adaptation. Evi-
dence is found in the congeniality between the architectural
avant-garde style of parametricism and structural engineering’s
contemporary capacity to model and evolve optimizing, smoothly
differentiated structures (Schumacher and Lei 2017).
Structural optimization has converted into an interesting subject
in determining optimum geometric layouts in the construction in-
dustry. Besides their efficiency, lightweight, and minimization of
the embedded carbon, designs developed with the optimum distri-
bution of materials in the structural system are often architecturally
1
Graduate Master Student, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts,
Univ. of Tehran, P.O. Box 14155-6619, Tehran, Iran (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3630-3543. Email: mohammadibaghban@
ut.ac.ir
2
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Shahid
Beheshti Univ., P.O. Box 19839-69411, Velenjak, Tehran, Iran. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6630-4769. Email: m.alaghmandan@gmail.com
3
UNESCO Professor, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, Univ.
of Tehran, P.O. Box 14155-6619, Tehran, Iran. Email: golabchi@ut.ac.ir
4
Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Pars
Univ., P.O. Box 14139-15361, Entesarieh St., North Ave North, Kãrgar,
Tehran, Iran. Email: farzad.barazandeh@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 6, 2021; approved on
September 20, 2022; published online on November 15, 2022. Discussion
period open until April 15, 2023; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural En-
gineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431.
gratifying (Sarkisian et al. 2018). Recent societal needs have led to
the expanding growth of tall buildings with added emphasis on
safety, human comfort, and serviceability under wind loading, as
well as environmental and economic impact. These considerations
have led to developing various structural systems such as tubular
trusses, tubes-in-tube, bundled tubes, megaframes, and core and
truss systems. The main challenge in applying topology optimiza-
tion in structure is the great number of considerations that have lit-
tle relevance to pure performance and the dimensionality of the
design space. Research in the topology optimization of tall building
structural systems that adequately respond to the problems is still in
the early stages (Lee and Tovar 2014). In the last few decades, to-
pology optimization has undergone a remarkable development in
both academic research (Bendsoe and Sigmund 2013; Huang and
Xie 2010a) and industrial applications (Zhu et al. 2016). Topology
optimization aims to find an optimal material layout within a pre-
scribed design domain to maximize or minimize certain objectives
meanwhile satisfying one or multiple design constraints (Xia et al.
2018). Topology optimization is a design tool for identifying opti-
mal distributions of materials within a domain. Materials or phases
can be placed at any location within the design domain; that is, ma-
terial layout and structural connectivity are optimized. Topology
optimization problems are typically solved numerically using finite
elements. The goal is to identify which candidate phases should be
located inside each elemental domain, with composition typically
assumed to be uniform inside the element (Guest 2009). Due to
the advent of the finite-element method (FEM), algorithm-based
optimization was no longer limited to experts and became more
widely used. The earlier concepts for finding an optimal form
and shape of structural elements were put to the test plan in the
16th and 17th centuries by Galileo Galilei by investigating the frac-
ture process of brittle bodies. The present research has attempted to
create a platform to start a standard chapter of the dialectical dia-
logue of architects and structural engineers by using one of the to-
pological optimization tools, the BESO method, a more efficient

© ASCE 04022038-1 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

 tool than others. Using this platform, architects can obtain the final
forms of structures by considering the analytical gravitational and
lateral loads to see the thought-provoking form results.
Most studies on topology optimization of continuum lateral
bracing structures of high-rise buildings have been carried out
based on a two-dimensional (2D) problem considering the SIMP
method and a caseload for one side of a high-rise building, and
the obtained results have been generalized to other sides of the
building. However, in the structural design process, high-rise build-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ings have an integrated behavior containing numerous loading sce-
narios (Goli et al. 2021). Therefore, we have proposed a new
parametric environment platform to optimize the structural shell el-
ements in tall buildings in the present research. Moreover, there is
the ability to choose which part of the structure should be optimized
in a 2D design (one side) or a 3D (complete shell) continuum of shell
structures environment, considering wind and gravity loads to max-
imize stiffness (minimum displacement) and minimize the material
usage (reducing the weight). We have used the BESO method of a
topology optimization method in a 3D environment in tall buildings
with concrete materials. Hence, most of the research scopes have an-
alyzed metal structure systems. With the correct definition of the to-
pology optimization problem of high-rise buildings and clear
numerical and illustrative examples, this research makes the ultimate
design process parametric with a set of valid solutions for engineers
and architects by the initial assumptions (optimization and design pa-
rameters besides the loading scenario).
Topology Optimization
During the 20th century, several innovative methods were applied
to develop optimum forms of structures and sculptures, notably in
the works of Antonio Gaudi, Félix Candela, Frei Otto, Pier Luigi
Nervi Heinz Isler, Richard Buckminster Fuller, and Robert le
Ricolais (Frei and Rasch 1995; Abruzzese and Tursi 2003; Isler
1961). Recent century engineers, however, focus on the structural
weight and ways to minimize it as the structural material is consid-
ered a criterion for structural design cost efficiency. The structural
topology optimization technique serves as an efficient solution to
obtain the highest structural functionality using a limited volume
of materials (Guo et al. 2014; Huang and Xie 2010a; Yulin and
Xiaoming 2004). Numerous other methods have also been sug-
gested to achieve structural topology optimization. The field has
grown so expansive to include other physical subjects and lead to
energy saving, efficient material consumption, and quicker and sus-
tainable manufacturing (Yoely et al. 2018). All such attempts are
meant to create structurally efficient and functional forms which
are architecturally appealing as well (Kingman et al. 2015). Since
the landmark work of Bendsøe and Kikuchi (1988) in 1988, several
topology optimization methods have been developed with varying
levels of validity and applicability as a solution to the stiffness op-
timization problem in deterministic conditions. These include the
homogenization, solid isotropic material with penalization
(SIMP), and the bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization
(BESO) methods and the level-set method (LSM) (Liu et al.
2020). Topology optimization is a mathematical, usually (but not
always) gradient-based design, tool that determines the location
in a design domain where materials should be placed based on
the loads and the boundary conditions for a specific objective
(i.e., a target deflection, compliance, etc.). The feasible solutions
can have any shape, size, or connectivity. The FEM is applied in
this technique by splitting a design domain into several small
pieces, known as finite elements. Each element in a topology opti-
mization solution represents the conceptual design, as does a pixel
of an image containing a density that is either solid (black) or void
© ASCE 04022038-2
J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038
(white) (Beghini et al. 2014). In the former method, relative densi-
ties define the design variables, varying continuously from 1 (re-
sembling solid materials) to small positive values near 0
(resembling void materials). However, in the latter method, solid
and void materials are defined by setting the design variables to bi-
nary values of 1 or 0, respectively (Kefal et al. 2019). Extensive re-
search studied topology optimization for continuum structures
during the last few decades, resulting in the advent of approaches
such as SIMP and evolutionary structural optimization (ESO)/
BESO among many others (Nabaki et al. 2019).
Two popular approaches containing material distribution models
are the homogenization method (and its variant, such as the SIMP
method) and the ESO (BESO) method (Xie and Steven 1993;
Huang and Xie 2010b). The homogenization method involves trans-
forming the optimal topology of a structure into a size optimization
problem with the geometry parameters describing the microstructure
of materials as design variables. The so-called SIMP method was
proposed as an alternative to the homogenization method to solve
the topology optimization problems and enhance its efficiency. An
isotropic material model is employed in the SIMP method with
power-law penalization of the elastic constants, with the element
densities optimized during the optimization period. The ESO method
is based on the empirical concept that a structure evolves toward an
optimum by slowly removing inefficient materials. The ESO meth-
ods introduce finite changes in a design based on specific heuristic
criteria, possibly not based on sensitivities. Despite the remarkable
enhancement of BESO over ESO, Zhou and Rozvany stated that nei-
ther one could guarantee an optimum design, the rejection criterion
in ESO could cause a considerable rejection of elements, and as the
estimation of the sensitivity number for a void element is highly im-
precise, the primary versions of ESO/BESO failed to obtain the ulti-
mate optimal design (Rozvany 2001; Zhou and Rozvany 2001). The
stress criterion was adopted in the ESO method with the elemental
strain energy criterion to achieve maximized structure stiffness.
The BESO method, as an extension of the ESO method, allows
for efficient material addition to the structure simultaneously as the
inefficient part is removed, allowing the new elements to be added
in the locations next to spots bearing the highest stresses in the
BESO method. The ESO/BESO method has generally achieved
dominance due to its conceptual simplicity and efficient implemen-
tation. Such methods have been applied in several engineering do-
mains and multimaterial fields (Zhao 2014).
Querin et al. (1998, 2000a, b) developed the early versions of
the BESO method allowing the recovery of deleted elements neigh-
boring to highly stressed elements. One of the last major develop-
ments of the ESO method is the proposition of the convergent and
mesh-independent BESO method by Huang and Xie (2007b), who
has incorporated a sensitivity filter scheme and a stabilization
scheme using history information. Huang and Xie (2007a) pre-
sented a new version of BESO, which provided a highly stable op-
timum topology independent from any primary design region by
adding or deleting elements concerning sensitivity numbers. Such
version of the BESO method includes (1) utilizing an FE mesh, dis-
cretizing the design domain; (2) conducting FE analysis and com-
puting the smoothed elemental sensitivity number; (3) calculating
the mean of the sensitivity number and its historical information;
(4) obtaining the objective value for the next iteration; (5) adding
and removing elements based on the sensitivity number; and (6)
conducting Steps 2–5 to obtain the constraint volume. The latest
version of the BESO method presents promising performance
when applied to a wide range of structural design problems includ-
ing stiffness and frequency optimization (Huang et al. 2010), non-
linear material, large deformation (Huang and Xie 2007a, 2008b),
energy absorption (Huang et al. 2007), multiple materials (Huang
J. Archit. Eng.
 and Xie 2009), multiple constraints (Huang and Xie 2010a), peri-
odic structures (Huang and Xie 2008a), etc. (Huang and Xie
2010b; Xia 2016; Guest 2009).
Major parameters of BESO include VF, evolution ratio (ER),
and filter radius (FR), which denote the volume of the ultimate
model, the number of variable elements, and the sample range of
averaging sensitivity number, respectively. These parameters
highly affect the ultimate result of optimization (Alvarez et al.
2019). The BESO problem is explained mathematically as follows
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The threshold allows for altering the element: for solid elements
with sensitivities lower than the threshold, the design variable shifts
from 1 to xmin, whereas for void elements with sensitivities higher
than it, the design variable changes from xmin to 1.
Different applications can readily develop ESO and BESO
methods in engineering programs. Interfacing the commercial FE
codes, such programs solve problems in an extensive range of sub-
jects (Hofmeyer and Davila Delgado 2013; Simonetti et al. 2014;
Tang et al. 2015). Recent applications of BESO have solved a va-

(Yan et al. 2019): riety of structural optimization problems such as frequency maxi-
mization, compliance minimization, and displacement constraints
1 T 1
N
(Zuo and Xie 2015). Such topology optimization techniques are a
min C(X ) = U KU = xP uT K i ui (1)
2 2 i=1 i i modern digital tool for architects to develop and examine effective
structural forms through the conceptual design stage (Goli et al.
2021). In this research, all variables are fixed approximately with


N
subject to: V (X ) = xi vi ≤ V * (2) numbers about ER = 3% and FR = 6 m (considering the mesh ele-
i=1 ments divided every 4 m) except the VF during the regular poly-
gons. This parameter is described as the inverse amount of the
where C, U, K, V*, and X = objective function (compliance), dis- aspect ratio from the total amount of 100% of the total mass with-
placement vector, global stiffness matrix, volume fraction, and out any evacuation. The aspect ratio is the variable of the BESO
global design variable vector, respectively. The volume, design shell tool, which describes the amount of volume it should remain.
variable, stiffness matrix, and nodal displacement vector for the
ith element are denoted by terms vi, xi, Ki, and ui, respectively.
As mentioned previously, xi can take two values in BESO: it equals Tall Buildings and Topology Optimization
1 in a solid element, whereas a void element has a prescribed value
of xmin. In stiffness optimization, the sensitivity αi for the ith ele- Soon after their emergence in the late nineteenth century in the
ment, which is a criterion for the design variable xi, can be com- United States, tall buildings rapidly became a worldwide architec-
puted as the gradient of compliance relative to the design variable: tural phenomenon. Afterward, the growth rate of tall buildings
slowed down in the United States and increased in the Asia-Pacific
∂C(X ) pxip−1 T region. Since the nineteenth century, various structural building
= ui K i ui (3) systems have been invented by engineers.
∂xi 2
The primary structural skeleton of a tall building can be visual-
⎧ ized as a vertical cantilever beam with its base fixed in the ground.
⎪
⎪ 1 uT K u when xi = 1
1 ∂C ⎨ 2 i i i
The structure must carry the vertical gravity loads and the lateral
αi = − (4) wind and earthquake loads (Ali and Moon 2007).
p ∂xi ⎪
⎪ X p−1
⎩ min uTi K i ui when xi = xmin Gravity loads are caused by dead and live loads, while lateral
2 loads tend to snap the building or topple it. The building must,
With the penalty coefficient p tending to infinity, the sensitivity therefore, have adequate shear and bending resistance and must
number αi turns 1 in the hard-kill BESO method: not lose its vertical load-carrying capability. First, Fazlur Khan
⎧ realized that as the height increases, there is a premium for height
1 ∂C ⎨ uTi K i ui when xi = 1
1 due to lateral loads, and the demand for the structural system
αi = − 2 (5) dramatically increases; consequently, the total structural material
p ∂xi ⎩ 0 when x = x consumption increases drastically. Some of the new design ap-
i min
proaches apply reinforced concrete creating new architectural aes-
To resolve the mesh-dependent problem, the sensitivity previously thetic expressions different from ones generated by steel structures.
mentioned is generally revised by a filtering scheme: The COR Building in Miami by Chad Oppenheim Architecture,
N Ysrael Seinuk of YAS Consulting Engineers, and the O-14 Build-
j=1 wij αi ing in Dubai by RUR Architecture all employ reinforced concrete
α̃i = N (6)
j=1 wij diagrids as their primary lateral load-resisting systems. Due to the
properties of concrete, the structural diagrid patterns, which are
wij = max(0, rf − dij ) (7) directly expressed as building façade aesthetics, are more fluid
and irregular in these buildings and different from the explicit
where dij = distance from the jth element’s center to the ith element; and pristine features of steel diagrids (Ali 2001).
and rf = FR and the original sensitivity of the jth element. Another A soft-kill BESO method will be applied to the topology optimi-
historical mean of ai in various iterations is defined to obtain a zation of buildings exposed to the wind. Inefficient solid elements
convergent answer: will be replaced by softer material rather than removed completely.
The soft material can represent glass curtain walls and should be
ã(n) (n−1)
i + ãi stiff enough to take the wind pressure (Tang et al. 2012).
ai =
2 The following research, with a variety of loads affecting the
structural elements as samples of the platform, examines the
The BESO method ranks the element sensitivities in every iteration most suitable base plan for tall buildings among the six regular op-
to find an objective volume of the next iteration, V (n), determined timized polygons as a final form for structural and architectural as-
according to the evolutionary ratio and current volume V (n−1): pects. The six polygons are, moreover, investigated in terms of
their whole effect on the form of a building. Finally, an investiga-
V (n) = V (n−1) (1 − δ) (8) tion will be dedicated to the applicability of this optimization

© ASCE 04022038-3 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

 method as a platform to get the final form of structural elements
while maintaining the variables that affect the final form.

Methodology

In the early history of structures, architects and engineers strug-

gled to observe and improve one of the three principles of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vitreous theory called stability. Since the advent of topology op-

timization, many structural engineers have employed topology
optimization methods to analyze and optimize building struc-
tures. As mentioned previously in a brief history of topology op-
timization, architects and engineers attempted to employ better
behavior of structures by considering a variety of structural con-
straints as limitations in topology optimizations. Examples in-
clude lowering the weight of structures, fatigue, structural
flexibility, and so on.
With the emergence of high-rise buildings, the behavior of
structure gained more significance because of the exponential in-
crease of lateral loads. The form of the building is another essential Fig. 1. Research flowchart: parametric modeling of the structural
criterion of tall buildings to resist lateral loads. Due to their forms, model in each step to have a real-time result.
all buildings exhibit various behaviors against the lateral loads
while considering gravity.
The present research tries to peruse the exact behavior of six
regular base geometric shapes as base plans of tall buildings to ob-
serve their reaction against the lateral loads by optimizing their
structures as shell structures. Six basic regular polygons are se-
lected for matters of simplicity and straightforward correlation
analysis. The second reason is after getting the BESO method of
topology optimization to optimize the structures to remove and
Fig. 2. Different plug-ins used in topology optimization tools to opti-
add materials in zones, respectively, with less and more stress in
mize the structure.
these simple forms extruded from regular polygon plans; it is pos-
sible to observe the impact of optimization on these structures more
clearly from the point of view of aesthetics and logical forms as a
final result. By having different target ratios as a limitation in the Regular Polygons
BESO method, the behavior of structures in displacement and the
This research examined the behavior of six basic polygons and their
results of forms would be different. By having four different target
final results after BESO optimization and evacuating material from
ratios in every regular polygon, there would be four different dis-
them in four terms and ratios. As the first parameter, the area of
placement and weight ratio results. Comparing removed materials
each floor is equal and fixed in accordance with others; that is,
after optimization to the previous model as the initial model and
the floors are arrayed similar to the floor plan throughout the height.
their changes in displacement and weight, we have tried to under-
stand the behavior and best modes in these polygons. The side size of each regular polygon was calculated by reversing
As shown in Fig. 1 in the first step, Rhino software and Grass- the polygon area formula scripted in Python. For example, the
hopper plug-in have been applied in the modeling process to have a square root of a square yields its sides. By giving x as the square
parametric modeling base to change the variations in time, see the area, known to the plug-in as an input, the side size of the square
results, and make structural elements controllable. After modeling would be obtained as the tool output in which the formula is writ-
the structures by Python scripting to get the dimensions of the poly- ten. The output is introduced here as unknown a. The square area
gons and structural shell elements by Grasshopper, they were ana- should be increased to the power of 0.5, written in the programming
lyzed by the Karamba plug-in. The BESO optimization tool has language as **, and multiplied in Python written by sign *. Ratios
been employed to optimize the structures by the BESO method of geometric plans with area input functions are shown in Fig. 3.
throughout the research. An unofficial plug-in for wind and lateral
loads scripted in Python based on the Iranian National Building Development of the Architectural and Structural Models
Code (Part 6): Loading (MHUD 2012) was employed to model
the lateral loads close to reality due to their increase at heights. Architectural and structural models will be introduced for structural
Some tools are published in the Grasshopper plug-in to optimize analysis after defining logical base plans flexible for open offices.
the structures by different topology optimization methods including Models are assumed to be office buildings meeting the minimum
the BESO method. Some of the plug-ins and optimization tools are architectural standards placed in a 1,600 m2 area per floor. After de-
listed as Karamba (Preisinger and Tam 2020), Millipede (Agrawal termining the number of stories, the height and area of each floor in
2014), Ameba (Xie 2019), and Topos (McNeel 2018), as shown in the architectural model should be defined for the structural model.
Fig. 2. The Karamba plug-in was used among these tools due to its It should be noted that the structural weight indicates the weight
accuracy in analysis by declining the numerical results of analyses of the core, slabs, and outer shell. Figures illustrated in the
and its user-friendly qualities by the components and inputs defined “Results” section show all 24 architectural model alternatives in
as inputs. the Rhino interface, which have also been modeled in Rhino 6

© ASCE 04022038-4 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 3. Ratios and side sizes of polygons with the input of area (a) and the side sizes of the outer shell and core sides as the output of formula (x) for
different regulars, respectively: (a) triangle; (b) square; (c) pentagon; (d) hexagon; (e) octagon; and (f) circle.

Table 1. Information about the details of the buildings with reinforced modality depending on the characteristics of the point where the
materials wind was applied. The forces in front of the crust of the structural
No Parameter Building details
shell were in pressure mode, and the crusts across or behind the
blowing wind direction were in suction mode with different ratios:
1 Area of the base plan 1,600 m2 1. Positive pressure zone on the upstream face (Region a).
2 Building height 200 m 2. Negative pressure zones at the upstream corners (Regions b–d).
3 Height of each floor 4m
3. Negative pressure zone on the downstream face (Region c).
4 Aspect ratio (height of the building/width Around 5
of the building) After specifying the value, the direction and the number of wind
5 No. of bays 50 forces are parametrically specified for application to the façade and
6 Material of each structural element Reinforced concrete crust at every height, and the load points should be determined at
7 Thickness of the bay section 40 cm every height. Such points are the center of gravity of every mesh
8 Thickness of the core section 80 cm part, which is specified by setting the mesh resolutions.
9 Thickness of the outer shell section 50 cm Nonetheless, due to research limitations and lack of hardware
10 Side number of base plans 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and circle facilities, the mesh resolution of every structural element of the
11 Mesh resolution of structural elements 4m outer shell is specified every 4 m (Fig. 5). Hence, the mesh size
of the outer shell, which is optimized by the BESO method of to-
pology optimization, is squares of 4 m in 4 m dimensions. Reduc-
software. Table 1 presents details of the buildings with reinforced ing the mesh sizes increases the number of mesh structural
material. elements and accelerates the computation time of the deflections
and structural element analysis, which consequently increases the
number of wind force vectors that apply to structural elements.
Lateral Loads
Logically, the deflections and utility of each element surge. Struc-
After modeling the central core, slabs, and the outer shell as the tural elements transmit the forces applied to the concrete structure
whole shell structural members, lateral loads were applied to the in cooperation with each other to the supports.
building for precise analysis in addition to gravity loads. For a pre- Structural members are analyzed by the FEM. Topology optimi-
cise and scientific simulation of building loads located in Iran, the zation problems are typically solved numerically using finite ele-
value and direction of gravity and lateral loads on the building were ments (Guest 2009). To determine the standard and approval of
computed based on the Iranian National Building Code (Part 6): the structural analysis, the allowable DCR set for the structural
loading (MHUD 2012). Initially, Taranath was used; afterward, analysis for each alternative before and after optimization was set
local official sources were used for more accurate results (Taranath to the amount of height/500. The gravitational load with a global
2004). standard value enters the gravity center of each structure member
The parameters of wind forces are the width of the building, present in the structure. The calculation method of the lateral
height, wind speed probability based on geographical coordinates, load amount is explained in detail previously. The characteristics
importance factor for wind load based on the degree of importance of concrete structural material are based on selecting an everyday
of the building, and structure material, as shown in Fig. 4. The sizes type of concrete—C25/30 according to Eurocode. The stiffness re-
of loads were specified at every height of the structure according to sistance of a material against deformation is characterized by its
these parameters. Forces on each point had pressure or suction Young’s modulus or modulus of elasticity E. The E value for

© ASCE 04022038-5 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Distribution of pressures and suctions. Vertical variation of external wind pressure coefficient Cp with respect to planning aspect ratio L/B.
0 ≤ L/B ≤ 1.

Fig. 5. Mesh resolution of structural elements and a sample of the regular quadrilateral-based polygon plan model with mesh resolution every
4 m by 4 m.

reinforced concrete as a popular building material is 3,000 kN/cm2
(Preisinger and Tam 2020). As an influential variable determining
the structure strength, a similar value of structural thickness was
considered for all alternatives to warrant accurate comparison.
The thickness value was selected in proportion to the current exam-
ples and a reasonable size in proportion to the architecture. If the
displacement value exceeded the allowable coefficient considering
the complete connection of all three structural members and enough
iterations, it should be considered a rejected structure in the analy-
sis. Therefore, for a logical analogy of stable structures, at least in
the preoptimization stage, all structures should be thickened to
where all structures are stable to be able to compare them by
their stiffness. The amount of displacement compared to the
amount of material removed (weight) from the main structure can
make the amount of stiffness comparable to different alternatives.
Target Ratio
To understand the behavior of structural elements, optimized by the
BESO method and topology optimization tool, four different target
ratios were considered for each structural model optimization to in-
vestigate the structure reaction after evacuation in zones with lower
stress in each step. Hence, four different ratios of materials were
eliminated after applying the topology optimization method. A
wide range of target ratios from minimum to maximum material
elimination was covered to investigate the structural behavior in
the face of incoming loads. It is noteworthy that only the outer
shell was optimized, and material zones with lower stress were
eliminated from it. Hence, after optimization, the remaining
zones of the outer shell with more stress would collaborate with
the two other unchanged structural elements to bear the loads.
The two other structural elements would affect the outer shell in
the first step to optimize and define zones with lower stress and
transfer the loads to the supports after material evacuation from
the outer shell. With the result of each structural model optimized
by the BESO method in every target ratio, the final analysis for
every three structural elements (optimized outer shell structural el-
ement with central core and slabs) was done as a single structural
system. Initially, four target ratios for each regular polygon were
considered: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8.
In 0.8 or 80% of the target ratio, just 20% of material zones with
the least amount of tension was eliminated from the structure. Less
material removal would result in a stronger design. After structure
analysis, none of the optimizations grew convergent in topology
optimizations with 0.2 target ratios regardless of different vast iter-
ations. Therefore, none of the structures with a 0.2 target ratio got
stable, so the minimum target ratio was changed from 0.2 to 0.3.
Nonetheless, with the target ratio of 0.3, the triangle failed in anal-
ysis after optimizing the outer shell and rejoining the structural el-
ements for final analysis, and the structure did not stabilize. The

© ASCE 04022038-6 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Analyzing the failure structure with a regular triangle-based polygon with an optimized outer shell by the BESO topology optimization
method in a target ratio of 0.3.

Fig. 7. Failed mesh elements after optimizing without removing elements with a thickness near zero.

circular base plan structural optimization did not converge in the
target ratio of 0.3 due to a huge material evacuation with high-stress
mounts (Fig. 6).
Step 3: Removing Optimized Mesh Structural Elements
in Near-Zero Thickness
With the outer shell structural elements optimized by the BESO
tool, the mesh thickness of the optimized shell structural elements
with less stress reduces close to zero; however, it still exists. Hence,
applying load on the outer structural shell elements and analyzing
the structure would destabilize the structure due to the thin mesh
elements’ thickness, as shown in the failed elements in Fig. 7.
Therefore, the optimized structural elements with a thickness
near zero had to be detached after optimizing the outer shell. The
mesh elements, detached based on their gradient RGB color,
were translated to a gray gradient. Optimized mesh elements
were detached from the whole outer shell for final analysis based
on their gradient and the target ratio, which was specified before
optimization. The target ratio was applied to the RGB of gray gra-
dients, translated from the gradient range of colors based on their
stresses. The shell elements in the range of stresses defined by
their colors remained based on the defined target ratio. After de-
taching the thinner shell elements, all optimized remained mesh el-
ements of the outer shell and other structural elements (core and
slabs) had to join, attach, and seam to each other to be recognized
as an integrated structure for final analysis.
Applying Score to Each Basement Polygon in Each Ratio
By considering all data analysis results (displacements, weight
amounts, and architecture scores applied to each optimized
model) for different polygons in each ratio, the optimized item
was found. To score the architectural aspects of each optimized

© ASCE 04022038-7 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

 Table 2. Analysis results of each polygon with their final points to find the optimum alternative
Basement Target Displacement Initial weight Initial Displacement Weight Architecture
polygons ratio (cm) Mass (kg) (kg) displacement (cm) point point point Total score
Triangle 0.3 8.11 × 1012 3.53 × 107 7.55 × 107 4.89,222 Failed
0.4 1.433475 4.57 × 107 0.538144298 4.04 × 10−1 4.75 0.03793803
0.6 2.633913 5.84 × 107 0.292878466 3.16 × 10−1 4 0.013623705
0.8 4.565209 6.60 × 107 0.168977236 2.80 × 10−1 1.75 0.003039663
Square 0.3 1.5786 1.26 × 109 2.49 × 109 4.012732 0.246652168 2.52 × 10−1 5.5 0.012548574
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.4 1.520199 1.26 × 109 0.256127726 2.51 × 10−1 6 0.014184905

0.6 1.590207 1.27 × 109 0.244851842 2.49 × 10−1 5 0.011222265
0.8 1.542845 1.28 × 109 0.252368263 2.48 × 10−1 4 0.009189192
Pentagon 0.3 3.525635 3.38 × 107 6.32 × 107 2.989105 0.239085886 3.09 × 10−1 3.5 0.009512475
0.4 1.746645 3.80 × 107 0.482599249 2.75 × 10−1 5 0.024382116
0.6 8.762971 4.65 × 107 0.096192212 2.25 × 10−1 4.25 0.003382098
0.8 4.628362 5.49 × 107 0.182122653 1.91 × 10−1 2.25 0.002870455
Hexagon 0.3 9.644201 3.29 × 107 6.17 × 107 2.53341 0.070067322 3.10 × 10−1 4.5 0.003595281
0.4 1.387029 3.72 × 107 0.487187602 2.74 × 10−1 4.5 0.022103769
0.6 2.397022 4.54 × 107 0.281909525 2.25 × 10−1 5 0.011639507
0.8 4.201455 5.35 × 107 0.160835552 1.91 × 10−1 3.5 0.003944695
Octagon 0.3 1.698331 3.24 × 107 6.01 × 107 4.466333 0.369789567 3.00 × 10−1 7 0.028518027
0.4 2.349611 3.26 × 107 0.267288962 2.98 × 10−1 7 0.020458329
0.6 3.454928 4.45 × 107 0.181776606 2.18 × 10−1 7.5 0.010930908
0.8 3.466977 5.26 × 107 0.181144866 1.85 × 10−1 3.75 0.004606136
Circle 0.3 Not convergent 5.83 × 107 4.398317 Not convergent
0.4 13.071494 8.21 × 107 0.112238623 4.09 × 10−1 7 0.011804569
0.6 5.23081 1.13 × 108 0.280477878 2.97 × 10−1 7 0.021433045
0.8 2.415884 1.14 × 108 0.607283499 2.94 × 10−1 2.5 0.016409661

model, some architectural variables, which could be quantified to
compare the architectural qualities, were considered:
1. natural light to save costs and energy consumption by avoiding
the use of artificial lighting and to have a panoramic view of the
city to establish a visual connection between users within the
floors with the city and vice versa;
2. the extent of each floor from the main façade to the core of the
building in the tower to receive natural light with a standard dis-
tance of 7–8 m; and
3. quality of regular polygons for floor plan and arrangement.
The values of architectural points of each alternative were given by
comparing them with other target ratios in the same regular poly-
gon and with other regular polygons. The total gross area (TGA)
of all models was the same, so the architectural effects remained
changeless. The area was specified for a minimum core area to ac-
commodate Essential common spaces on each floor as a 50-story
tower. The core area was considered about 10% of the total area
of the floor. After reviewing the quality of all criteria, they were ap-
plied with a coefficient of the total index divided between them.
Thus, architectural features were practical in the final analogy be-
tween the values of the structures.
The optimal model was found in terms of architectural quality
by considering and applying a specific coefficient for each variable
to determine the score of each optimized model.
The three variables of displacement point, optimized weight
point, and architectural points were combined to determine the
total score of each optimized model. In the next step, fuzzy logic
was used to determine the final score of each variable in the opti-
mized model relative to all models.
A coefficient was considered for each of the three variables in
the final composition to maintain a balance between each of the
variables and the coefficient of logical actions: 0.35 for the dis-
placement point, 0.35 for the weight point, and 0.3 for the architec-
tural point. By applying the coefficients to all models and
comparing the total scores, the optimized model was found, as
shown in Table 2.
Fuzzy logic is an approach to computation based on degrees of
truth rather than the usual true or false (1 or 0) Boolean logic on
which the modern computer is based. The idea of fuzzy logic
was first advanced by Lotfi Zadeh of the University of California
at Berkeley in the 1960s (Stedman 2016; Zadeh 1988).
The detailed algorithm with all variations and related parts are
shown in Fig. 8.
Finally, an overview of the analysis characteristics of all regular
polygons in their different target ratios, the amount of initial weight
and displacement, the amount of optimized displacement and weight,
and the architectural score is graphically expressed in the Appendix.
Results and Discussion
One of the essential architectural factors representing the geometry
and form of a tall building is its base plan shape (Alaghmandan
et al. 2014); therefore, the research procedure initiated by generat-
ing regular shape plans in six different shapes: triangle, square,
pentagon, hexagon, octagon, and circle with a height of 200 m
and an area of about 1,600 m2. By considering the constant amount
of floor area, the length of each side of polygons and their perimeter
varied due to changing the number of sides. The core of each poly-
gon occupied 10% of the total area of the polygon, which accom-
modated vertical circulations, stairs, elevators, toilets, and electrical
and mechanical ducts, considering the spaces required for office
uses. Table 1 presents detailed information about the building
and the structural elements. After defining six different models
with structural elements similar in thickness, the behavior of struc-
tures was observed by evacuating zones with lower stress stepwise
to examine the resistance and displacement of polygons and their
reaction against lateral loads and gravity with less structural

© ASCE 04022038-8 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
04022038-9

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

Fig. 8. Detailed algorithm of the optimization process with their input and variations.

J. Archit. Eng.
 A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Optimum alternative after the optimization process and the graphical view of the optimized form.

material. Structures consisted of three parts: core, slabs, and outer

Fig. 10. Smoothed form of the optimum alternative and the structural
analysis of the optimized form.
shell with the material of reinforced concrete with thickness men-
tioned in Table 1. As the research results are comparative, assum-
ing that all models under analysis had the same conditions, the
original results of their comparison were accurate and authentic.
Structural analysis was performed by the Karamba plug-in in the
Grasshopper software. Lateral loads and gravity were applied to
the structures as loads for analysis. Wind load was applied to the
models as the horizontal load. The direction of prevailing winds
in Tehran was west, and the wind speed was considered 100 km/h
according to the Iranian National Building Code (Part 6): Loading
(MHUD 2012). Based on Part 6 of the Iranian National Building
Code and “Tall Building Design: Steel, Concrete, and Composite
Systems” by Bungale S. Taranath (Taranath 2004), wind load
was applied to all facades with a coefficient applied to each face di-
vided into three faces: along the face, back face, and front face with
pressure and suction forces. Wind loads were employed to the gravity
center of each part of the outer shell. The mesh resolution of structural
elements was divided every 4 m; therefore, materials were evacuated
from the structure in zones with lower stress with dimensions of 4 m in
the next step to evaluate and eliminate the structural elements.

Fig. 11. Effect of changing sides’ numbers of polygons and the target ratio on structural displacement before and after topology optimization.

© ASCE 04022038-10 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 12. Overview of all polygon points in (a) displacement; (b) architecture; (c) weight with different sides; and (d) target ratios and total point.

© ASCE 04022038-11 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038

 Four ratios of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 were considered to evacuate
materials for topology optimization by the BESO method and
structural analysis, whereas all optimized structures with a 0.2
ratio failed in structural analysis. Hence, the minimum ratio was in-
creased to 0.3 and the maximum amount of structural materials
eliminated from the structure was 0.7 of the outer shell from the
total model of each polygon. The number of iterations for each op-
timized structure was about 15–20; if any structure could not reach
the optimal level with this number of iterations, it would not reach it
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
at all. Consequently, if any of the optimization processes did not
achieve the optimum mode due to more iterations, it would deviate
more from the optimal model.
To find the optimum alternative in the next step, each optimized
model had a final structural analysis. All models were optimized
successfully (the circle base plan in 0.3 ratios did not converge in
the optimization process). After optimizing each model, the
BESO tool of Grasshopper did not eliminate the zones or mesh el-
ements with lower stress analyzed in the previous step; it reduced
their thickness close to zero. Due to existing optimized mesh ele-
ments with a thickness near zero, the final structural analysis did
not prove logical, and all optimized structures failed. So, before
the final analysis of all optimized mesh elements as structural ele-
ments, the elements with a thickness of zero from all optimized
structural elements were dispatched and eliminated based on their
RGB color. The remaining mesh elements were disjoined in the
next step. Therefore, all three structural members were rejoined
to each other for the final structural analysis. As the core and
slabs remained unchanged from the last step, they joined each
other normally, as in the previous step, from common tangential
and geometric points. Moreover, the outer shell, which was opti-
mized, joined the slabs as structural elements from the tangential
parts, which were not evacuated. Zones of the outer shell that re-
sisted elimination after topology optimization contributed with
other structural members against gravity and lateral loads. The
new lateral loads’ size and direction for the outer shell’s optimized
structure combined with slabs and floors as three main structural el-
ements were recalculated in proportion to the heights. Thus, consid-
ering the gravity and the lateral loads of the structural members and
the exact size of the initial analysis of meshes every 4 m, the mesh
and the final analysis were performed.
As shown in Fig. 9, the triangle basement polygon with a target
ratio of 0.4 was substantially more efficient. The optimum alterna-
tive and the formal results after the optimization process and re-
moval of the areas with lower stress are shown in Fig. 10.
To develop the final optimization process result, all remaining
mesh elements by their target ratio and the removed parts based
on their RGB color codes in color gradients were smoothened by
extracting the edge lines to soften the sharp edges. Fig. 10 shows
the smoothened form and the structural analysis of the optimum al-
ternative. By analyzing the optimized forms of polygon base plans
in different target ratios, for example, the regular triangle polygon,
it was observed that the structural outer shell, which is optimized by
the BESO tool of the topology optimization method, was removed
in the upper levels. On the other hand, the crust became thicker by
accumulating loads at lower levels of the structure due to transfer-
ring gravity and lateral loads to the supports. Hence, the optimiza-
tion put more material in those zones to the crust, particularly on the
corners. By intuitively examining the optimized forms, due to the
use of combinational optimization algorithms such as mathemati-
cal–computational and genetic optimization methods to minimize
the material and at the same time maximize the structural strength,
it was concluded that the forms were architecturally close to bionic
forms, such as the human chest and plants. Obviously, the upper
evacuated parts of the outer shell did not have a structural element
© ASCE 04022038-12
J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038
to transfer loads and withstand lateral loads. Thus, there had to be
substructural and extra structural elements such as the diagrid struc-
ture system with maximum transparency in front of the removed
parts, which would add the minimum weight to the overall weight
of the structure and building complex. This additional structure
acted as a substructure only responsible for transferring lateral
loads from the substructure to the main structure (core, slabs, and
the optimized outer shell as main structural elements) to withstand
and transfer lateral loads to the foundation.
Fig. 11 depicts the optimum models versus displacement to ren-
der the best average solution. All results in Fig. 11 have the average
least values for lateral displacement. The right column in the target
ratio of each of the polygons show the amount of displacement of
the optimized structures after weight loss. As shown, displacement
has increased slightly with the departure of the amount of material.
As shown in Fig. 11, it is observed that two objectives have a
contradictory effect on building’s performance. The structural
weight is relatively low, whereas the lateral displacement is high.
Through graph analysis, except for the circle base plan with a 0.3
target ratio, which did not converge in the optimization process,
and the triangle base plan with a 0.3 target ratio, which failed in
the final structural analysis, the circle base plan with a target
ratio of 0.8 and then the triangle with a 0.4 target ratio have the op-
timum modes rather than other alternatives, as shown in Fig. 12.
The circle base plan displacement with 0.4 and the triangle with
0.4 target ratio have the optimum mode from the weight aspect
after optimization. Logical alternatives with more significant target
ratios, which were not evacuated in many zones, did not have many
opening surfaces in their outer shell. Therefore, no significant nat-
ural light entered, and they were not ideal from the architectural
point of view.
A graphical overview of all six polygons and their analysis
modes in various target ratios is presented in Fig. 12. It is concluded
that by analyzing the graphs by approaching the circle base plan
and reducing the corners with sharp angles, the structural resistance
will be more effective. As the number of sides and the amount and
number of angles increase, these regular polygons perform better in
resisting and spreading the load against the loads. By examining the
weight chart of different regular polygons, a significant difference
between the polygons is not observable.
Conclusion
The present research investigates the basic extruded regular poly-
gons with the same base area to determine the most stable alterna-
tive against lateral loads by analyzing and optimizing structural
members of tall structures using the topology optimization method.
By defining structural elements in models, core, slabs, and outer
shell, the Beso tool of the Karamba plug-in of Grasshopper in
Rhino finds the optimal optimized model in middle target ratios
of polygons.
By optimizing regular polygon base plans with different target
ratios of eliminating structural materials, the results provide
forms with novel concepts for architects in collaboration with struc-
tural engineers to initiate a common language between engineers to
achieve more innovative results and structural efficiency.
The optimization process with the BESO method of topology
optimization is applied to various configurations of polygons as
base plans with different ratios of structural materials, which are
evacuated from the structure respectively from areas with less
stress. According to the analysis results, a triangle base plan with
a target ratio of 0.4 provides the best alternative to other polygons
with various target ratios. This alternative provides less structural
J. Archit. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Specifications of all options under consideration and the main results of their analysis graphically.
weight by approaching the maximum allowable limit of lateral dis-
placement (height/500) and more architectural qualities that can be
quantified, assuming reinforced concrete as the main material of the
structure.
It is suggested that the research results can create a platform for
the simultaneous use of architectural and structural specialists to cre-
ate a common language between these two specialties. Having a
common platform for both users in each profession can considerably
reduce the time and cost waste by reaching the optimum goal in di-
rection without performing it again separately in each domain, solv-
ing the problem back and forth. Moreover, designers and
professionals can achieve the optimal state of a structural model
using this platform. To date, however, not much topological optimi-
zation has been performed on 3D high-rise buildings. Also, because
of using this optimization tool, new innovative forms are created. In
addition to innovative visual attractions for designers, the results and
benefits of optimization and reducing the amount of material while
maintaining strength can encourage users to employ this platform.
Second, the interaction between architecture and civil engineer-
ing in other dimensions can minimize the cost of construction,
avoid structural materials waste, and reduce costs in any part of
the design and implementation.
Finally, the distinctive function of this platform for design and
optimization is to achieve the optimal state of shell structures
while reducing cost and time. Besides that, a step forward is
taken by installing softening and polishing the meshes after optimi-
zation for aesthetics and buildability.
© ASCE 04022038-13
J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038
Appendix. Chart of Comprehensive Analysis Results
As mentioned in the text, the specifications and results obtained
from the analyses are briefly stated in Fig. 13.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or codes that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
References
Abruzzese, D., and A. Tursi. 2003. “Form finding research: Development
between empirical and numerical methods.” In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf.
on Structural and Construction Engineering. https://art.torvergata.it
/handle/2108/33219.
Agrawal, A. 2014. “Creative mutation.” Accessed April 6, 2021. https://
www.creativemutation.com/millipede.
Alaghmandan, M., P. Bahrami, and M. Elnimeiri. 2014. “The future trend
of architectural form and structural system in high-rise buildings.”
Archit. Res. 4 (3): 55–62.
Ali, M. M. 2001. Art of the skyscraper: The genius of Fazlur Khan.
New York: Rizzoli International Publications.
Ali, M. M., and K. S. Moon. 2007. “Structural developments in tall build-
ings: Current trends and future prospects.” Archit. Sci. Rev. 50 (3): 205–
223. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5027.
J. Archit. Eng.
 Alvarez, H. A., H. R. Zambrano, and O. M. Silva. 2019. “Influence of
density-based topology optimization parameters on the design of peri-
odic cellular materials.” Materials 12 (22): 3736. https://doi.org/10
.3390/ma12223736.
Beghini, L. L., A. Beghini, N. Katz, W. F. Baker, and G. H. Paulino. 2014.
“Connecting architecture and engineering through structural topology
optimization.” Eng. Struct. 59: 716–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2013.10.032.
Bendsøe, M. P., and N. Kikuchi. 1988. “Generating optimal topologies in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
structural design using a homogenization method.” Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng. 71 (2): 197–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045
-7825(88)90086-2.
Bendsoe, M. P., and O. Sigmund. 2013. Topology optimization: Theory,
methods, and applications. New York: Springer.
Frei, O., and B. Rasch. 1995. Finding form: Towards an architecture of the
minimal. Stuttgart, Germany: Axel Menges.
Goli, A., M. Alaghmandan, and F. Barazandeh. 2021. “Parametric struc-
tural topology optimization of high-rise buildings considering wind
and gravity loads.” J. Archit. Eng. 27 (4): 04021038. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000511.
Guest, J. K. 2009. “Topology optimization with multiple phase projection.”
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 199 (1–4): 123–135. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.cma.2009.09.023.
Guo, X., W. Zhang, and W. Zhong. 2014. “Doing topology optimization
explicitly and geometrically—A new moving morphable components
based framework.” J. Appl. Mech. 81 (8): 081009. https://doi.org/10
.1115/1.4027609.
Hofmeyer, H., and J. M. Davila Delgado. 2013. “Automated design studies:
Topology versus one-step evolutionary structural optimisation.” Adv.
Eng. Inf. 27 (4): 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2013.03.003.
Huang, X., and Y. M. Xie. 2007a. “Bidirectional evolutionary topology op-
timization for structures with geometrical and material nonlinearities.”
AIAA J. 45 (1): 308–313. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.25046.
Huang, X., and Y. M. Xie. 2007b. “Convergent and mesh-independent so-
lutions for the bi-directional evolutionary structural optimization
method.” Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 43 (14): 1039–1049. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.finel.2007.06.006.
Huang, X., and Y. M. Xie. 2008a. “Optimal design of periodic structures
using evolutionary topology optimization.” Struct. Multidiscip.
Optim. 36 (6): 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-007-0196-1.
Huang, X., and Y. M. Xie. 2008b. “Topology optimization of nonlinear
structures under displacement loading.” Eng. Struct. 30 (7): 2057–
2068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.01.009.
Huang, X., and Y. M. Xie. 2009. “Bi-directional evolutionary topology op-
timization of continuum structures with one or multiple materials.”
Comput. Mech. 43 (3): 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-008
-0312-0.
Huang, X., and Y. M. Xie. 2010a. Evolutionary topology optimization of
continuum structures: Methods and applications. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Huang, X., and Y. M. Xie. 2010b. “A further review of ESO type methods
for topology optimization.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 41 (5): 671–683.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-010-0487-9.
Huang, X., and Y. M. Xie. 2010c. “Evolutionary topology optimization of
continuum structures with an additional displacement constraint.”
Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 40 (1–6): 409. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s00158-009-0382-4.
Huang, X., Y. M. Xie, and G. Lu. 2007. “Topology optimization of
energy-absorbing structures.” Int. J. Crashworthiness 12 (6): 663–
675. https://doi.org/10.1080/13588260701497862.
Huang, X., Z. H. Zuo, and Y. M. Xie. 2010. “Evolutionary topological op-
timization of vibrating continuum structures for natural frequencies.”
Comput. Struct. 88 (5–6): 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compstruc.2009.11.011.
Isler, H. 1961. “New shapes for shells.” Bull. Int. Assoc. Shell Struct. 8:
123–130.
Kefal, A., A. Sohouli, E. Oterkus, M. Yildiz, and A. Suleman. 2019.
“Topology optimization of cracked structures using peridynamics.”
Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. 31 (6): 1645–1672. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s00161-019-00830-x.
© ASCE 04022038-14
J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038
Kingman, J. J., K. Tsavdaridis, and V. Toropov. 2015. “Applications of to-
pology optimization in structural engineering: High-rise buildings and
steel components.” Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 9 (3): 335–357. https://doi.org
/10.14525/jjce.9.3.3076.
Lee, S., and A. Tovar. 2014. “Outrigger placement in tall buildings using
topology optimization.” Eng. Struct. 74: 122–129. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2014.05.019.
Liu, B., C. Jiang, G. Li, and X. Huang. 2020. “Topology optimization of
structures considering local material uncertainties in additive manufac-
turing.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 360: 112786. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.cma.2019.112786.
McNeel, R. 2018. “TOPOS (by archiseb).” Accessed April 6, 2021. https://
www.food4rhino.com/app/topos.
MHUD (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development). 2012. Iranian na-
tional building code (part 6): loading. Tehran, Iran: MHUD.
Nabaki, K., J. Shen, and X. Huang. 2019. “Evolutionary topology optimi-
zation of continuum structures considering fatigue failure.” Mater. Des.
166: 107586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107586.
Preisinger, C., and M. Tam. 2020. “Welcome to Karamba3D.” Accessed
April 6, 2021. https://manual.karamba3d.com/.
Querin, O. M., G. P. Steven, and Y. M. Xie. 1998. “Evolutionary structural
optimisation (ESO) using a bidirectional algorithm.” Eng. Comput. 15
(8): 1031–1048.
Querin, O. M., G. P. Steven, and Y. M. Xie. 2000a. “Evolutionary struc-
tural optimisation using an additive algorithm.” Finite Elem. Anal.
Des. 34 (3-4): 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-874X(99)
00044-X.
Querin, O. M., V. Young, G. P. Steven, and Y. M. Xie. 2000b.
“Computational efficiency and validation of bi-directional evolutionary
structural optimisation.” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 189 (2):
559–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7825(99)00309-6.
Rozvany, G. I. N. 2001. “Stress ratio and compliance based methods in to-
pology optimization—A critical review.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim.
21 (2): 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001580050175.
Sarkisian, M., E. Long, N. Mathias, A. Beghini, and R. Garai. 2018.
“Long-span pedestrian bridges in the USA: A futuristic approach.”
Struct. Eng. Int. 28 (4): 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168664
.2018.1488554.
Schumacher, P., and Z. Lei. 2017. “From typology to topology: Social, spa-
tial, and structural.” Archit. J. 11 (590): 1–18.
Simonetti, H. L., V. S. Almeida, and L. de Oliveira Neto. 2014. “A smooth
evolutionary structural optimization procedure applied to plane stress
problem.” Eng. Struct. 75: 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.engstruct.2014.05.041.
Stedman, C. 2016. “Fuzzy logic.” Accessed April 6, 2021. https://
searchenterpriseai.techtarget.com/.
Tang, J. W., M. Xie, and P. Felicetti. 2012. “Topology optimization of
building structures considering wind loading.” In Vol. 166 of Applied
mechanics and materials, 405–408. Zurich, Switzerland: Trans Tech
Publications.
Tang, Y., A. Kurtz, and Y. F. Zhao. 2015. “Bidirectional evolutionary
structural optimization (BESO) based design method for lattice struc-
ture to be fabricated by additive manufacturing.” Comput.-Aided Des.
69: 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2015.06.001.
Taranath, B. S. 2004. Wind and earthquake resistant buildings: Structural
analysis and design. London: Routledge.
Xia, L. 2016. Multiscale structural topology optimization. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Xia, L., Q. Xia, X. Huang, and Y. M. Xie. 2018. “Bi-directional evolution-
ary structural optimization on advanced structures and materials: A
comprehensive review.” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 25 (2): 437–
478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-016-9203-2.
Xie, Y. M. 2019. Accessed April 6, 2021. https://ameba.xieym.com/Download.
Xie, Y. M., and G. P. Steven. 1993. “A simple evolutionary procedure for
structural optimization.” Comput. Struct. 49 (5): 885–896. https://doi
.org/10.1016/0045-7949(93)90035-C.
Yan, X., D. W. Bao, K. Cai, Y. F. Zhou, and Y. M. Xie. 2019. “A new
form-finding method for shell structures based on BESO algorithm.”
In Proc., IASS Symp. 2019—60th Anniversary Symp. of the Int.
Association for Shell and Spatial Structures; Structural Membranes
J. Archit. Eng.
 2019—9th Int. Conf. on Textile Composites and Inflatable Structures,
FORM and FORCE, 2000–2007. Madrid, Spain: International
Association for Shell and Spatial Structures.
Yoely, Y. M., O. Amir, and I. Hanniel. 2018. “Topology and shape optimi-
zation with explicit geometric constraints using a spline-based represen-
tation and a fixed grid.” Procedia Manuf. 21: 189–196. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.110.
Yulin, M., and W. Xiaoming. 2004. “A level set method for structural to-
pology optimization and its applications.” Adv. Eng. Software 35 (7):
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by "Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur" on 02/19/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zhao, F. 2014. “Topology optimization with meshless density variable ap-
proximations and BESO method.” Comput.-Aided Des. 56 (5): 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2014.06.003.
Zhou, M., and G. I. N. Rozvany. 2001. “On the validity of ESO type meth-
ods in topology optimization.” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 21 (1): 80–
83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001580050170.
Zhu, J. H., W. H. Zhang, and L. Xia. 2016. “Topology optimization in air-
craft and aerospace structures design.” Arch. Comput. Methods Eng.
23 (4): 595–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-015-9151-2.
Zuo, Z. H., and Y. M. Xie. 2015. “A simple and compact python code for

415–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2004.06.004.
Zadeh, L. A. 1988. “Fuzzy logic.” Computer 21 (4): 83–93. https://doi.org complex 3D topology optimization.” Adv. Eng. Software 85: 1–11.
/10.1109/2.53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2015.02.006.

© ASCE 04022038-15 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 2023, 29(1): 04022038