See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356716834

Detail Control Strategies for Topology Optimization in Architectural Design

and Development

Article in Frontiers of Architectural Research · December 2021

DOI: 10.1016/j.foar.2021.11.001

CITATIONS READS

34 1,685

5 authors, including:

Xin Yan Ding Wen Bao

Tsinghua University RMIT University
22 PUBLICATIONS 116 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 222 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Yi Min Xie
RMIT University
619 PUBLICATIONS 26,858 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yi Min Xie on 11 March 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Detail control strategies for topology

optimization in architectural design and
development
Xin Yan a, Dingwen Bao b,d, Yufang Zhou a,c, Yimin Xie d,
Tong Cui a,*

a
Center of Architecture Research and Design, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing
100190, China
b
School of Architecture and Urban Design, RMIT University, Melbourne 3001, Australia
c
School of Architecture, Central Academy of Fine Arts, Beijing 100105, China
d
Centre for Innovative Structures and Materials, RMIT University, Melbourne 3001, Australia

Received 8 July 2021; received in revised form 29 October 2021; accepted 3 November 2021

KEYWORDS Abstract With the ability to generate forms with high efficiency and elegant geometry, to-
Bi-directional pology optimization has been increasingly used in architectural and structural designs. Howev-
evolutionary er, the conventional topology optimization techniques aim at achieving the structurally most
structural efficient solution without any potential for architects or designers to control the design de-
optimization (BESO); tails. This paper introduces three strategies based on Bi-directional Evolutionary Structural
Topology Optimization (BESO) method to artificially pre-design the topological optimized structures.
optimization; These strategies have been successfully applied in the computational morphogenesis of various
Detail control; structures for solving practical design problems. The results demonstrate that the developed
Diverse design; methodology can provide the designer with structurally efficient and topologically different
Architectural form- solutions according to their proposed designs with multi-filter radii, multi-volume fractions,
finding and multi-weighting coefficients. This work establishes a general approach to integrating
objective topology optimization methods with subjective human design preferences, which
has great potential for practical applications in architecture and engineering industry.
ª 2021 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf
of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yanxin13@mails.ucas.ac.cn (X. Yan), zhouyufang@cafa.edu.cn (Y. Zhou), cuitong@ucas.edu.cn (T. Cui).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2021.11.001
2095-2635/ª 2021 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356

1. Introduction (2011) and Ito et al. (2007) have used Extended

In over two decades, topology optimization has gained
extensive attention and has considerably progressed in ar-
chitecture design given its potentials for generating elegant
and light-weight structure with high structural perfor-
mance. Topology optimization finds a preliminary structural
configuration that meets a predefined criterion on the basis
of finite element analysis (FEA) and occasionally gives a
design that can be completely new and innovative. Several
notable topology optimization methods have been widely
developed in the topology optimization field, e.g., the
homogenization method (Bendsøe, 1989; Bendsøe and
Kikuchi, 1988), the solid isotropic material with penaliza-
tion (SIMP) method (Bendsøe and Sigmund, 1999, 2003), the
evolutionary structural optimization (ESO) (Xie and Steven,
1993, 1994), the bi-directional evolutionary structural
optimization (BESO) (Huang et al., 2007; Huang and Xie,
2008), and the level-set method (LSM) (Wang et al., 2003;
Allaire et al., 2004).
Topology optimization reveals the evolutionary logic in
nature worlds in some ways (Xie and Steven, 1997; Zhao
et al., 2018) and can be used as an analysis instrument to
simulate architects’ works on classical structures of tradi-
tional buildings, such as the Sagrada Familia (Burry et al.,
2005) and Palazzeto Dellospori of Rome (Yan et al., 2019).
Moreover, several architects and engineers have adopted
topology optimization as conceptual form-finding methods
in architectural projects (Fig. 1). As Fig. 1 shows, Ohmori
Evolutionary Structural Optimization (Extended ESO) to
construct Akutagawa River Side, Shanghai Zendai Himala-
yan Art Center, and Qatar National Convention Center.
Stromberg et al. (2012) and Beghini et al. (2016) developed
a topology optimization technique combining continuum
and beam/column elements for braced frames in high-rise
buildings, such as Shenzhen CITIC Financial Center. Andrei
Jipa from Digital Building Technologies (DBT) in ETH Zurich
and Bhooshan in ZAHA CODE implemented SIMP methods
into the form-finding process of concrete Smart Slab (Jipa
et al., 2016) and Volu Dining Pavilion (Bhoosan, 2017;
Louth et al., 2017). Danish architects Dombernowsky and
Søndergaard (2011) used Altair HyperWorks to generate
the form of a concrete pavilion. From relevant literatures
of above topology optimization applications in architecture
projects, only structural drafts without any other consid-
erations of multidiscipline can be generated with conven-
tional topology optimization techniques. Architects must
modify these rough forms to manage complex architectural
requirements in the following phases. However, the
necessary changes are sometimes overly dramatic to
continue adopting the topological optimized models as
building structures. Resultantly, the applications of topol-
ogy optimization algorithms in architectural design have
received limitations. In such contexts, although most to-
pology optimization techniques aim at achieving the most
optimized solution from mechanical views, the only exclu-
sive structural layout with the highest performance may

Fig. 1 Cases with topology optimization. 1: Akutagawa River Side (Ohmori, 2011); 2: Shanghai Zendai Himalayan Art Center (Ito
et al., 2007); 3: Qatar National Convention Center (Ito et al., 2007); 4: Shenzhen CITIC Financial Center (Stromberg et al., 2012;
Beghini et al., 2016); 5: Smart Slab by DBT in ETH Zurich (Jipa et al., 2016); 6: Volu Dining Pavilion by ZAHA CODE (Bhoosan, 2017;
Louth et al., 2017); 7: Concrete Pavilion by Dombernowsky and Asbjørn Søndergaard (Dombernowsky and Søndergaard, 2011).

341
 X. Yan, D. Bao, Y. Zhou et al.

contradict the functional requirements or aesthetic its basic problem can be described mathematically as
designing concepts in real complex practices. below (Huang and Xie, 2010b):
Some modification methods based on conventional to-
pology optimization are widely explored to solve specific 1 1X N
min CðXÞZ UT KUZ x p uT k i ui ; ð1Þ
application problems. Based on the SIMP method, multiple 2 2 iZ1 i i
designs are achieved by introducing geometric diversity
constraints (Wang et al., 2018), and a surrogate model is X
N
proposed to solve a 3D, multiscale compliance design prob- subject to VðXÞZ xi vi  V  ; ð2Þ
lem (Gao et al., 2019). With BESO, some modifications are iZ1

presented to generate geometrically different designs with in which C, X, U, K, and V ) are the objective function
similar structural performance (Yang et al., 2019; He et al., (compliance), design variable vector, displacement vector,
2020), eliminate enclosed voids in topology optimization global stiffness matrix, and the objective volume, respec-
for additive manufacturing (Xiong et al., 2020), and obtain tively. The terms vi , xi , ki , and ui are the volume, design
self-supporting optimized models (Bi et al., 2020). However, variable, stiffness matrix, and nodal displacement vector
the above methods are developed for a certain objective on for i-th element, respectively. Particularly, the value of xi
the basis of a specific conventional topology optimization is alternatively xmin (a prescribed small positive value, e.g.,
method and are perplexing to architects or designers who are 0.001) or 1.
not familiar with the relevant algorithm. In addition, in For stiffness optimization, the sensitivity ai for the i-th
developing the above specialized algorithms, users element, which is the criterion for the design variable xi ,
encounter many difficulties and inconveniences when can be calculated as the gradient of compliance with
dealing with intricated contexts in actual projects. Gener- respect to the design variable (Huang and Xie, 2010a),
ally, code modifications must be finished by the user to
vCðXÞ 1
control the topology details, e.g., Extended ESO by Sasaki Z  pxip1 uTi ki ui ; ð3Þ
and his works (Cui et al., 2003). Resultantly, such customized vxi 2
revising methods for solving some specific problems also have 8
limited application conditions in the early stage of archi- >
> 1
> uT ki ui when xi Z1
tectural concept design in which much repetitive testing 1 vC < 2 i
ai Z  Z : ð4Þ
without clearly defined goals can be executed and many p vxi >
> p1
> xmin uT k u when x Zx
:
subjective modification intentions from aesthetics or multi- i i i min
2 i
disciplinary must be added into structural form finding re-
sults. Therefore, an open framework based on structural Moreover, the penalty coefficient p tends to infinity, the
topology optimization, which permits users to conveniently sensitivity number ai becomes the one in hard-kill BESO
add their own design intentions into topological optimized method (Huang and Xie, 2010a),
form-finding process for pre-designing or controlling struc- 8
1
ture details, is significant and meaningful for digital archi- 1 vC < uTi ki ui when xi Z1
tectural design. ai Z  Z 2 : ð5Þ
p vxi :
In this work, three simple detail strategies on the basis of 0 when xi Zxmin Z0
the BESO method are introduced to form an algorithm
framework for architects, engineers, and designers to fore- The above sensitivity is usually modified to solve the
tell or intervene in the topology optimization process timely. mesh-dependent problem (Huang and Xie, 2007), using a
Each strategy focuses on modifying one aspect in topology filtering scheme:
optimization methods, including elemental filtering radii, P
N
local volume fractions, and additional coordinating weights wij aj
jZ1
between physical loading cases and artificial interventions. ~i Z
a ; ð6Þ
P
N
This paper selects BESO algorithm as the topology optimi- wij
zation platform given its concise logic and excellent porta- jZ1

bility. However, the three strategies can be easily

transferred into any other topology optimization method.
The research posited here attempts to integrate the classical
structural topology optimization logic with artificial con-
trolling. This integrated approach provides many potentials
in creative or complex design contexts, e.g., architecture
design, furniture design, artwork design, and so on.
2. Methodology
 
wij Z max 0; Rmin  dij ; ð7Þ
in which dij is the distance between the center of the j-th
element and the i-th element. Rmin and ai are the filter
radius and the original sensitivity of the j-th element,
respectively.
To achieve a convergent solution, another historical
average of ai in different iterations is introduced (Huang
and Xie, 2007):

2.1. Original BESO theory ~ ðnÞ

a i þa ~ ðn1Þ
ai Z i
: ð8Þ
2
Conventional topology optimization methods are aimed at In the basic BESO method, the element sensitivities are
achieving the solution that maximizes the structural per- ranked in each iteration to determine a threshold with a
formance under a certain volume fraction constraint, and target volume of the next iteration, V ðnÞ , which is defined

342
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356
on the basis of the current volume V ðn1Þ and the evolu-
tionary ratio d.
V ðnÞ Z V ðn1Þ ð1  dÞ : ð9Þ
The threshold can be used to evaluate if the element
should be changed in such a way that if one solid element’s
sensitivity is lower than the threshold, its design variable
will be switched from 1 to xmin , and the design variable of a
void element will be changed from xmin to 1 as well if its
sensitivity is higher than the threshold.
The cycle of FEA and BESO evolution continues until the
following convergence criterion defined in the variation of
the objective functions is satisfied (Huang and Xie, 2007):
P  Then, an algorithm loop of “Abaqus FEA solver e
 N 
 iZ1 ðCkiþ1  CkNiþ1 Þ
PN t; ð10Þ
iZ1 Ckiþ1
where k is the current iteration number, t is an allowable
convergence error (tZ 0.001 in this paper), which means
stable compliance at least in 10 successive iterations.
2.2. Working framework description
The diagram (Fig. 2) illustrates the flowchart comparisons
of the original BESO and the detail-control methods in this
work, as explained in the following sections. To achieve the
detailed pre-design of the evolutionary directions of topo-
logical optimizations, this work integrates structural anal-
ysis platform (Abaqus), coding platform (Python), and free-
form modeling software (Rhinoceros & Grasshopper), for
the convenience and ease of use of the whole working
framework for architects.
The whole working framework starts with two input
parameter files with the names of “Abaqus Input File. inp”
and “Detail Coefficient list. txt.” All of them can be
generated by architects in Grasshopper. The files named
“Abaqus Input File. inp” (Bule parts in Fig. 2) are generated
Fig. 2 Algorithm flowcharts and working framework.
343
on the basis of the brep/mesh model in Rhinoceros and
contain the essential information of the FEA mesh model,
such as node coordinates, element connectiveness,
boundary constraints, and loading conditions, all of which
are written in appropriate formats for Abaqus to read
directly. The “Detail Coefficient list.txt” files (orange parts
in Fig. 2) are obtained from Grasshopper by users for their
design objects, such as multi-filter radius list, sub-domain
volume list, geometric pattern parameter list, and so on.
Unlike the original BESO method, these additional files
contain subjective design parameters and are important to
affect or guide the evolutionary directions in structural
topology optimization with the following strategies.
elemental Sensitivity number e modified BESO evolution e
model regeneration” is executed automatically until the
convergence criterion (10) is satisfied. A python code is the
kernel core to activate the Abaqus software for analyzing
“Abaqus Input File. inp” file, perform the evolutionary
generation (Gray parts in Fig. 2) with the “Detail Coefficient
list. txt” and elemental strain energy density (SED) values
(Green parts in Fig. 2), and rewrite the “Abaqus Input File.
inp” file on the basis of updated structure layouts.
This working framework integrates architectural
modelling techniques with structural analysis to explore
freedom applications of topology optimization in architec-
ture design. Compared with traditional topological from-
finding working flows, the significant improvements of this
framework can be concluded into two aspects as follows.
First, it provides more freedom for the initial model and a
more effective post-processing method for structure lay-
outs with parametric modeling platforms. Second, this
framework equips rational structural optimization with
sensual artificial interventions to thoroughly pre-design the
topological optimized directions. In the following sections,
three detailed control strategies are presented and
analyzed.
 X. Yan, D. Bao, Y. Zhou et al.

Fig. 3 Diagrams for logic comparison of the original BESO and MR-BESO.

Fig. 4 Design domain, loading, and boundary conditions (left) and FEA results (right).

344
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356

Fig. 5 Optimized shell structures with different elemental filter radius distributions.

3. Strategy 1: multi-radius BESO (MR-BESO)
3.1. MR-BESO methodology
The first strategy for adjusting structural topology optimi-
zation is equipping the calculation model with diverse
filtering radii, which is named Multi-radius BESO (MR-BESO)
because it is developed on the basis of the BESO method. A
linear relationship exists between elemental filtering radius
Rmin and the minimal member size of the topological
optimized structure (Lazarov et al., 2016; Lazarov and
Sigmund, 2011). Therefore, with different filtering radii,
designers can easily obtain structures with various minimal
member sizes, which is usually required in actual projects
for manufacturing and on-site construction. However, the
original BESO method only permits all elements to share the
same Rmin value, leading to the final designs with uniform
member sizes. In this scheme, each element’s filtering
radius can be individually defined for any objective or
subjective design intentions. This scheme changes Eq. (7) in
traditional BESO method to the formula as follows:

345
 X. Yan, D. Bao, Y. Zhou et al.

Fig. 6 Original BESO and MR-BESO results with different multi-radius distribution. (From boundary to center: (A) 100 mm, (B)
500 mm, (C) 100 mme500 mm, (D) 100 mme500 mm 100 mm, (E) 500 mme100 mm, (F) 500 mme100 mm e500 mm).

 
wij Z max 0; Rimin  dij ; ð11Þ
where Rimin is the relevant filtering radius of i-th element.
With the MR-BESO method, each element can have its own
filtering radius. This means that designers can control the
local minimize sizes of structural details easily only with a
list of elemental filtering radii, which can be generated on
their own terms in other parametric design platforms, such
as Grasshopper in Rhinoceros. As Fig. 3 shows, in the orig-
inal BESO method, each element shares an equal filtering
radius value Rmin . Thus, the results comprise components
with similar sizes. In the MR-BESO method, elements can be
endowed with diverse filtering radii Rimin , and several parts
with different sizes will appear in the final design.
3.2. Example: topology optimization for shell dome
As shown above, MR-BESO shares the advantage of gener-
ating structures with diverse member sizes over
conventional topology optimization, which is valuable for
controlling building details for manufacturing or on-site
construction. This part introduces a shell structure referred
to Palazzetto Dello Sport of Rome, a famous building by Pier
Luigi Nervi (Fig. 4). The problem aims to find the optimal
topology of the structure withstanding its self-weight and
the torque around the inner hole’s boundary. The outer
boundary’s radius is 32 m, whereas the radius of the inner
boundary is 4 m. Moreover, the height of the whole struc-
ture is 19 m. The thickness of shell element is 0.3 m. In
addition, 18 points along the outer boundary are fixed in
three directions to support the whole periodic shell struc-
ture. Material with a density of 2385 kg/m3, Young’s
modulus of 30 GPa, and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 is assumed
during the evolution. In the topology optimized process,
the inner opening boundary is set as a non-design domain to
maintain the coverage of the final structure of whole plan
under itself. The FEA results of gravity and torque are also
illustrated in Fig. 4.

346
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356

Fig. 7 Diagrams for logic comparison of the original BESO and MV-BESO.

Fig. 8 Design domain, loading, and boundary conditions (left) and FEA results (right).

Using the MR-BESO method, the gradually varied filter member sizes can be easily generated. In this example, four
radii are applied to elements from boundary to center, and multi-filter radius distributions are introduced to obtain
diverse topologically optimized structures with different topologically optimized shell designs. From the outer

347
 X. Yan, D. Bao, Y. Zhou et al.

Fig. 9 BESO evolution history of volume fraction (top) and structural layout (bottom).

boundary to the center, the variation trend of Rimin values
are linearly increased, increased-decreased, linearly
decreased, and decreased-increased. The optimized results
with different multi-radius schemes and their relevant
normalized compliances (NC) divided by the mean compli-
ance of BESO result with Rmin of 100 m are listed in Fig. 5.
Although the rib sizes vary greatly, most of the designs
share similar structural performances as the BESO result
with Rmin of 100 mm. Furthermore, a close congruent
relationship exists between Rimin distribution and rib sizes
around the whole structure. For example, in Fig. 6, Figure-
A and Figure-B are generated by the original BESO method
with Rmin of 100 mm and 500 mm, respectively. In addition,
many slender ribs infill the design domain in (A), while
several huge ribs form the Michell pattern in (B). However,
original BESO can only generate ribs with similar sizes, and
if diverse rib sizes are required, MR-BESO can be imple-
mented with the self-designed multi-radius lists. Figures
CeF are the structural optimized layouts with multi-radius
distributions Rimin of 100e500 mm, 100-500-100 mm, 500-

348
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356

Fig. 10 MV-BESO evolution history of volume fraction (top) and structural layout (bottom).

100 mm, and 500-100-500 mm, from boundary to center, and inner boundaries, while thin ribs (roughly 200 mm) in
respectively. The blue annuluses represent thin ribs with the middle, and so on, in a similar fashion.
sizes of 200 mm (twice as relevant filtering radius value),
whereas the red annuluses denote thick ribs of 1000 mm 4. Strategy 2: multi-volume BESO (MV-BESO)
(twice as relevant filtering radius value). Therefore, the
result with multi-filtering radii of 500e100 mm has thick
4.1. MV-BESO methodology
ribs (about 1000 mm, twice as Rimin ) around the outer
boundary, while thin ribs (roughly 200 mm) are near the
center; the result with multi-filtering radii of 500-100- The second strategy for detail control in topology optimi-
500 mm has thick ribs (roughly 1000 mm) around the outer zation is to implement different local volume fractions in
the BESO method, allowing users to define different

349
 X. Yan, D. Bao, Y. Zhou et al.

Fig. 11 Optimized high-rise structures with different sub-domain volume fraction distributions.

percentages of the remaining materials. Thus, the problem
statement of structural topology optimization with multi-
volume fractions can be described mathematically as:
1 1X N
min CðXÞZ UT KUZ x p uT k i ui ;
2 2 iZ1 i i
X
Nk
subject to SUBVk ðX k ÞZ xi vi  SUBVk) ;
iZ1
in which SUBVk , SUBVk) , X k , and Nk are the volume, target
volume, design variable vector, and the total number of
elements of k-th sub-domain, respectively. For stiffness
optimization, the sensitivity number and filter scheme are
similar to the above method in the conventional BESO
method. As for Eq. (9), the element sensitivities are
ranked among each sub-domain in each iteration to
determine a threshold with the target volume of the next
iteration:
SUBVk ðnÞ Z SUBVk ðn1Þ ð1  dÞ : ð14Þ
ð12Þ Then, each sub-domain’s elements are removed or
added independently in the same evolutionary iteration
and the working loop ends when all the sub-domain target
volume fractions are obtained and the convergence crite-
ð13Þ rion (Eq. (10)) is also satisfied. Fig. 7 shows the different
evolutionary process of the original BESO and MV-BESO
methods. The original BESO method aims to search for
the globally optimized solution over the whole design
domain and may create a design with highly uneven ma-
terial distributions. However, these designs with huge sub-
domains of solid or void structures do not apply to building
facades, because each floor needs entity walls and trans-
parent windows. With MV-BESO, architects can easily define

350
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356

Fig. 12 Diagrams for the logic comparison of the original BESO and MW-BESO.

Fig. 13 Design domain, loading, and boundary conditions (left), FEA result (middle) and BESO result (right).

the space proportion of the structure in each part of the
whole building before the structural form finding. Prein-
stalling the design intent or functional requirements into
architectural structure design, such as strictly coordinating
local material proportions, controlling the window-wall
ratio, uniformly distributing structures, and so on, will be
convenient for architects.
4.2. Example: topology optimization for high-rise
buildings
In this example, a high-rise building is introduced. For a high-
rise building, the main load case should be horizontal wind
load, so nonlinear wind loads at two sides of the building are
assumed. The initial design domain is 20 m in width and
120 m in height. Young’s modulus of 2100 MPa and Poisson’s
ratio of 0.41 are assumed. According to the building wind
load codes (MOHURD, 2002), the two building suffer equal
nonlinear horizontal loads at two sides in two analysis steps,
while the bottom is fixed in three directions (Fig. 8). The
nonlinear wind loads are set into two calculation steps to
generate the optimal structure sketch that can effectively
withstand the horizontal loads.
From Fig. 9, the original BESO method with Rmin of 4 m
can generate the structures similar to Michell truss pattern
in high-rise structures (Beghini et al., 2014; Michell, 1904).
As the evolutionary structure layouts show, the elements
near the bottom at two sides are more important for the

351
 X. Yan, D. Bao, Y. Zhou et al.

Fig. 14 Optimized cantilever beams with different artificial geometric patterns and weighting coefficients.

Fig. 15 Optimized cantilever beams with different artificial geometric patterns.

whole structural stabilization, which are more prior to be
reserved. However, the huge solid structures at the bottom
of the building will affect the functional requirements of
egress and daylighting, and the slight trusses on the top are
also fragile in complex practical contexts. Thus, MV-BESO is
introduced for architects to control the structure propor-
tion in each sub-domain accordingly in the topological
form-finding process. As Fig. 10 shows, the initial design
domain is divided into 12 sub-domains, because there exist
12 layers in the high-rise building. With MV-BESO, the

352
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356
Fig. 16 Optimized shell structures with different loading weighting coefficients.
architect can independently design the volume fraction
(70%e30% from bottom to top in this example) for each sub-
domain, and the elements in each sub-domain are removed
simultaneously. The final structural design of MV-BESO
provides more transparent spaces near the bottom, while
more structures are on the top only with the price of 11.6%
structural performance.
Furthermore, diverse models with different sub-domain
schemes are introduced into the MV-BESO to make different
high-rise building structure designs with various multi-
volume fraction distributions, while Rmin values are fixed
as 4 m, and all the topological optimized results with their
relevant NC values divided by the mean compliance of BESO
result are listed in Fig. 11. In the first two numerical ex-
amples, the whole design domains are equally divided into
6 and 12 horizontal parts, and each sub-domain volume
fraction is assumed, as Fig. 11 shows. Compared with the
disadvantages of reducing structural performance, the MV-
BESO results can meet the architectural requirements in
other fields, which is more meaningful in practice. In the
353
third and fourth examples, the whole domains are divided
into 3  6 sub-domains, and relative sub-domain volume
fractions of three horizontal parts in each level are set with
the ratio of 1:1:1 or 3:2:3, respectively. Thus, with
different multi-volume fractions, diverse structures can be
obtained easily using the MV-BESO method to satisfy spe-
cific requirements.
5. Strategy 3: multi-weight BESO (MW-BESO)
5.1. MW-BESO methodology
In actual contexts, architectural structures are usually
located in a complex environment, and they suffer from
different load cases, such as gravity, wind load, torque,
snow load, and so on. Therefore, conventional topology
optimization methods introduce the multi-load case to
handle complex loading contexts. In the original BESO
method, diverse load cases in different analysis steps are
 X. Yan, D. Bao, Y. Zhou et al.
equally taken into consideration. The elemental sensitivity
numbers are the sum of strain energy density values of
different load cases (Eq. (15)).
X
M only has two supports at the left side and an X-shape branch
ðkÞ
ai Z SEDi ; ð15Þ
kZ1
ðkÞ
where ai , SEDi , M are i-th elemental sensitivity number, i-
th elemental strain energy density value in k-th analysis
step, and the total number of steps, respectively. However,
a huge difference may exist in the strain energy density
values of different load cases, and the elemental sensitivity
value rank will be dominated by some main load cases.
Resultantly, a lack of some apparent responses to the
subordinate but expressive load cases in the final topolog-
ical optimized forms may arise. In addition, the original
BESO method only focuses on structural performance and
neglects the requirements of artificial geometric
intervention.
To address the above problems, the third strategy in-
troduces regulating weighting coefficients to artificially
adjust the proportion among load cases or artificial concept
geometrics in the BESO topological optimized process,
named Multi-weight BESO (MW-BESO). This method enables
the topological optimized structure to negotiate consid-
ering necessary load cases and human subjective concept
expressions. MW-BESO changes the formula of calculating
elemental sensitivity (Eq. (15)) as
X
M
ai Z
ðkÞ
wkload $NSEDi þ w graphic $Figraphic
kZ1
X
M
wkload þ w graphic Z1 ;
ð16Þ
kZ1
 
ðkÞ
SEDi  min SEDðkÞ
ðkÞ
NSEDi Z    
max SEDðkÞ  min SEDðkÞ
where wkload , w graphic , SEDðkÞ , and Figrahpic are the weighting
coefficient of k-th load case, weighting coefficient of arti-
ficial intervention parameters, the elemental strain energy
density list of k-th load case, and the artificial intervention
parameter of i-th element, respectively. From the above
ðkÞ
formulas, NSEDi is the normalized strain energy density of
i-th element under k-th load case. Artificial intervention
parameters are normalized values generated elementally
by designers on the basis of their subjective concepts, and
the elements with large artificial intervention parameters
are more likely to be reserved (see Fig. 12).
5.2. Topology optimization for cantilever beam
based on artificial geometric control
This example draws back to a classic numerical example in
stiffness topology optimization, named 2D cantilever beam.
As Fig. 13 shows, the design domain is 160 mm in length,
100 mm in height, and 1 mm in thickness. A 1N downward
force is applied at the center of the free end. The initial
design domain, loading, and boundary conditions, FEA
result, and the BESO optimized structure with Rmin of 6 mm
are shown in Fig. 13. The material is set as Young’s modulus
of 729 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.
354
With MW-BESO, several geometric patterns are set into
form finding with different weight coefficient schemes.
Based on Fig. 13, the global optimized structure with BESO
in the middle. Thus, to test the effectiveness of the MW-
BESO method, unreasonable geometric patterns of left-
pointing arrows are imposed on the structures, and the
NC values divided by the mean compliance of the above
BESO optimized structure are presented in Figs. 14 and 15.
Fig. 14 presents that the coefficients w load and w graphic can
be used to control how much the artificial geometric
intervention influences the optimized design. In this model,
when w graphic is set as 0.1, the geometric pattern will be
entirely reserved, and more parts of the geometric patterns
will be reduced with smaller w graphic values until the pre-
supposed patterns disappear entirely and the whole struc-
tures return to BESO results. In Fig. 15, extra geometric
patterns are implemented into the MW-BESO method with
w load of 0.9 and w graphic of 0.1.
5.3. Topology optimization for shell dome based on
load case regulation
In this part, the above shell structure is reimported due to
its multi-load case of gravity and torque. Fig. 16 illustrates
the MW-BESO topological optimized structures with
different loading weighting coefficients, in which wGload
represents the weighting coefficient of gravity and wTload is
for torque force. When wGload Z 0.0 and wTload Z 1.0, the
structure actually evolutes only under torque load, and the
final design comes to Michell truss pattern with equally
distributed curved ribs. The setting of wGload Z 1.0 and
wTload Z 0.0 leads the structure to the result only with self-
gravity load, and many inhomogeneous straight ribs exist
from the boundary to the centre. With changing the values
of two loading weighting coefficients wGload and wTload ,
diverse optimized shell structures are formed. wGload and
wTload are effective in arranging the influences of relative
load cases. For example, there exist more torque-like
curved ribs in the design with wGload of 0.2 and wTload of
0.8, whereas the result with wGload of 0.8 and wTload of 0.2 has
more straight members, which shares the characters of the
structure only with gravity.
6. Conclusions
In recent two decades, most conventional topology opti-
mization methods, such as the original BESO method, usu-
ally focused on structural performance rather than other
design requirements. However, globally optimized struc-
tural designs are often unique or appear similar, contra-
dicting various architectural requirements or concepts.
Moreover, in traditional topology optimization-based
architectural design work, only limited layouts can be
generated in a specific building context, and architects
have no other option but to take one form or none. These
rigid working flows cannot satisfy designers’ innovative
concepts and complex requirements in architecture design.
This work proposes an open working framework that
integrates a popular parametric modelling platform with
structural analysis techniques and gives the design freedom
 Frontiers of Architectural Research 11 (2022) 340e356
back to architects when they perform form finding on the
basis of topological optimization. This integrated frame-
work allows diverse design intentions and requirements to
be encoded to negotiate with structural performance. On
the basis of the above framework, three strategies based on
the BESO method are developed to help engineers and ar-
chitects perform conceptual design with topology optimi-
zation and easily preimpose the structure detail constraint.
Each of them presents one aspect in which users can add
some intentions into the topology optimization process to
indirectly control the final designs with a small sacrifice to
the structural performance.
With the Multi-radius BESO (MR-BESO) method, archi-
tects can preimpose diverse local size constraints into
structures to achieve optimized layouts with different
structural members inside. The multi-radius parameters
can be effortlessly generated with parametric tools for any
design concept. The values of filtering radii can only control
the minimal sizes, which indicates that MR-BESO only in-
fluences slender structural parts and does not affect high-
stressed areas.
Multi-volume BESO (MV-BESO) effectively designs building
forms with various local volume fractions of sub-domains.
The optimized process and results can visually and accu-
rately respond to designers’ additional local volume con-
straints. Therefore, it is suitable for designing building
façades and roofs when local void ratios are required.
However, users should pay close attention when small sub-
domain’s volume fractions are set to high-stressed areas,
because it may lead to a significant performance loss.
Multi-weight BESO (MW-BESO) shares the potentials of
negotiating objective loading expressions with subjective
artificial design concepts. With this method, architects can
change the relative importance of different loading cases
for their design concepts. Moreover, the MW-BESO method
allows designers to add their own design intentions as
graphic parameters into form-finding evolutions. Ulti-
mately, the degrees of weighting coefficient changes
should be set carefully to maintain structural performance.
In conclusion, these three strategies have established new
interactive relationships between designers and topology
optimization algorithms. They change the optimization goals
from searching for the unique optimal solution to generating
diverse human-interfered suboptimal structures, which have
substantial practical significance for architecture design.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
Allaire, G., Jouve, F., Toader, A.M., 2004. Structural optimization
using sensitivity analysis and a level-set method. J. Comput.
Phys. 194 (1), 363e393.
Beghini, A., Mathias, N., Sarkisian, M., Pan, B., Cheng, H., 2016.
Structural optimization for an innovative structural system:
Shenzhen CITIC Financial Center project. Jianzhu Jiegou Xue-
bao/J. Build. Struct. 37 (2016), 158e164.
355
Beghini, L.L., Beghini, A., Katz, N., Baker, W.F., Paulino, G.H.,
2014. Connecting architecture and engineering through struc-
tural topology optimization. Eng. Struct. 59, 716e726.
Bendsøe, M.P., Kikuchi, N., 1988. Generating optimal topologies in
structural design using a homogenization method. Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 71 (2), 197e224.
Bendsøe, M.P., 1989. Optimal shape design as a material distribu-
tion problem. Struct. Optim. 1 (4), 193e202.
Bendsøe, M.P., Sigmund, O., 1999. Material interpolation schemes
in topology optimization. Arch. Appl. Mech. 69 (9), 635e654.
Bendsøe, M.P., Sigmund, O., 2003. Topology Optimization: Theory,
Methods, and Applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bhoosan, S., 2017. Collaborative design: combining computer-
aided geometry design and building information modelling. Ar-
chitect. Des 87 (3), 82e89.
Bi, M., Tran, P., Xie, Y.M., 2020. Topology optimization of 3D
continuum structures under geometric self-supporting
constraint. Addit. Manuf. 36, 101422.
Burry, J., Felicetti, P., Tang, J., Burry, M., Xie, Y.M., 2005.
Dynamical structural modeling: a collaborative design explora-
tion. Int. J. Architect. Comput. 3 (1), 27e42.
Cui, C., Ohmori, H., Sasaki, M., 2003. Computational morphogen-
esis of 3D structures by extended ESO method. J. Int. Assoc.
Shell Spatial Struct. 44 (1), 51e61.
Dombernowsky, P., Søndergaard, A., 2011. Unikabeton prototype.
In: Fabricate: Making Digital Architecture. Riverside Architec-
tural Press, pp. 56e61.
Gao, J., Luo, Z., Xia, L., Gao, L., 2019. Concurrent topology opti-
mization of multiscale composite structures in Matlab. Struct.
Multidiscip. Optim. 60 (6), 2621e2651.
He, Y., Cai, K., Zhao, Z.L., Xie, Y.M., 2020. Stochastic approaches to
generating diverse and competitive structural designs in topology
optimization. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 173, 103399.
Huang, X., Xie, Y.M., 2007. Convergent and mesh-independent
solutions for the bi-directional evolutionary structural optimi-
zation method. Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 43 (14), 1039e1049.
Huang, X., Xie, Y.M., Burry, M.C., 2007. Advantages of bi-
directional evolutionary structural optimization (BESO) over
evolutionary structural optimization (ESO). Adv. Struct. Eng. 10
(6), 727e737.
Huang, X., Xie, Y.M., 2008. A new look at ESO and BESO optimi-
zation methods. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 35 (1), 89e92.
Huang, X., Xie, Y.M., 2010a. A further review of ESO type methods
for topology optimization. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 41 (5),
671e683.
Huang, X., Xie, Y.M., 2010b. Evolutionary Topology Optimization of
Continuum Structures: Methods and Applications. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, UK.
Ito, T., Isozaki, A., Sasaki, M., 2007. Morphogenesis of Flux Struc-
ture. Architectural Association Publications.
Jipa, A., Bernhard, M., Meibodi, M., Dillenburger, B., 2016. 3D-
printed stay-in-place formwork for topologically optimized
concrete slabs. In: Proceedings of the 2016 TxA Emerging
Designþ Technology Conference. Texas Society of Architects,
pp. 97e107.
Lazarov, B.S., Sigmund, O., 2011. Filters in topology optimization
based on Helmholtz-type differential equations. Int. J. Numer.
Methods Eng. 86 (6), 765e781.
Lazarov, B.S., Wang, F., Sigmund, O., 2016. Length scale and
manufacturability in density-based topology optimization.
Arch. Appl. Mech. 86 (1e2), 189e218.
Louth, H., Reeves, D., Koren, B., Bhooshan, S., Schumacher, P.,
2017. A prefabricated dining pavilion: using structural skele-
tons, developable offset meshes, kerf-cut and bent sheet ma-
terials. Fabricate 58e67.
Michell, A.G.M., 1904. The limits of economy of material in frame-
structures. London Edinburgh Dublin Phil. Mag. J. Sci. 8 (47),
589e597.
 X. Yan, D. Bao, Y. Zhou et al.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s
Republic of China (MOHURD), 2002. Load Code for the Design of
Building Structures (GB 50009-2012).
Ohmori, H., 2011. Computational morphogenesis: its current state
and possibility for the future. Int. J. Space Struct. 26 (3),
269e276.
Stromberg, L.L., Beghini, A., Baker, W.F., Paulino, G.H., 2012.
Topology optimization for braced frames: combining continuum
and beam/column elements. Eng. Struct. 37, 106e124.
Wang, B., Zhou, Y., Zhou, Y., Xu, S., Niu, B., 2018. Diverse
competitive design for topology optimization. Struct. Multi-
discip. Optim. 57 (2), 891e902.
Wang, M.Y., Wang, X., Guo, D., 2003. A level set method for
structural topology optimization. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech.
Eng. 192 (1e2), 227e246.
Xie, Y.M., Steven, G.P., 1993. A simple evolutionary procedure for
structural optimization. Comput. Struct. 49 (5), 885e896.
356
View publication stats
Xie, Y.M., Steven, G.P., 1994. Optimal design of multiple load case
structures using an evolutionary procedure. Eng. Comput. 11
(4), 295e302.
Xie, Y.M., Steven, G.P., 1997. Evolutionary Structural Optimization.
Springer, London.
Xiong, Y., Yao, S., Zhao, Z.L., Xie, Y.M., 2020. A new approach to
eliminating enclosed voids in topology optimization for additive
manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 32, 101006.
Yan, X., Bao, D.W., Cai, K., Zhou, Y.F., Xie, Y.M., 2019. A new form-
finding method for shell structures based on BESO algorithm. In:
Proceedings of IASS Annual Symposia, vol. 2019, pp. 1e8, 17.
Yang, K., Zhao, Z.L., He, Y., Zhou, S., Zhou, Q., Huang, W.,
Xie, Y.M., 2019. Simple and effective strategies for achieving
diverse and competitive structural designs. Extrem. Mech. Lett.
30, 100481.
Zhao, Z.L., Zhou, S., Feng, X.Q., Xie, Y.M., 2018. On the internal
architecture of emergent plants. J. Mech. Phys. Solid. 119,
224e239.