SmartGeometry 2009 Conference Day

Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the SmartGeometry Conference Day that was held in San Francisco. This is part of an annual conference that is hosted by the SmartGeometry Group, a non-profit organization that was started in 2001 to encourage collaboration between AEC practice, academia and research on computational and parametric approaches to design. It is international in its scope, with representation from some of the world's leading architectural and engineering practices such as Foster+Partners, KPF, Arup, and Buro Happold, and educational institutions such as Architectural Association, MIT, Delft Technical University, and the University of Bath in its core organization. The group’s interests range from parametric design and scripting to digital manufacturing, with the focus being on exploiting the potential of the computer for modeling architectural geometry in advanced ways.

The annual SmartGeometry conference is held in a different location each year. Last year, it was held in Munich, Germany, and the 2010 conference is expected to be held in one of the countries in the Pacific Rim. While the 2009 Conference Day that I attended in San Francisco last week was a one-day event, it marked the conclusion of a week-long conference, which also included training classes, workshops, and an Alumni Summit that showcases what participants in past SmartGeometry workshops are currently achieving in practice. The Conference Day is typically focused on what lies ahead, and the theme this year was “Vision Building,” seen as particularly important given the unforeseen economic challenges and political changes around the world. The event was divided into five different sessions, with 2 to 3 presentations in each session, along with a summary of the related work that had been produced in this year’s workshops. The highlights of some of the presentations that I found most interesting and informative are captured in this article.

It should be noted that while the SmartGeometry conference is not a Bentley event, Bentley Systems is the principal sponsor, since the core technology used by the SmartGeometry Group is Bentley’s GenerativeComponents. For a brief overview of this technology, please see AECbytes Newsletter #34 capturing the technology product highlights from the AIA 2008 National Convention. Some of the projects designed across the world using GenerativeComponents are shown in Figure 1.

Fast-track Design and Construction of Beijing’s New Terminal 3 Airport

This talk by Hugh Whitehead of Foster+Partners focused on the collaborative nature of architectural design, on architectural practice as a team game. His view was that while the field still has its superstars with their individual visions, it is increasingly the collective visions that are important to interpret and facilitate.  Whitehead demonstrated this with the example of a recent project completed by Foster+Partners, the new Beijing Terminal 3 building (see Figure 2). It was designed and constructed in under 5 years, in contrast to say, an older project such as London Heathrow’s Terminal 5 building which took close to 20 years. The total building size of the Beijing project is 3 km by 785 m, making it the world’s largest airport building to date. It was also designed to be the most advanced, not only technologically, but in terms of passenger experience, operational efficiency, and sustainability as well. It has a soaring aerodynamic roof and a complex dragon-like form to reflect the spirit of flight and traditional Chinese colors and symbols, and uses a diagrid as the basic principle guiding the form as well as the various airport functionalities such as circulation, seating, lighting, etc.

The project involved huge amounts of materials, processes, tasks, and workers. There were close to 50,000 construction workers on site, wearing color-coded hats so that their tasks could easily be identified. 30,000 space frame nodes had to be erected for the roof of the central terminal building alone. Given the strong geometric underpinnings of the project, every single space frame node and member could be precisely calculated, without having to draw anything or analyze the surface. In fact, most of the design information was generated and contained in spreadsheets rather than in drawings or models.  In addition to the roof design, Whitehead demonstrated several of the mathematical concepts and calculations that went into the design of other parts of the building as well (see Figure 3). He also highlighted the importance of parametric detailing for achieving precision in the shop drawings and construction processes, which allowed the project to be completed in such a remarkably short period of time. Overall, it was a project that was highly representative of the theme of the conference, and provided a good understanding of how Foster+Partners uses technologies like GenerativeComponents to realize the unique projects it is so famous for.

The Use of Parametric Technology for Stadium Design

This presentation by J Parrish of ArupSport provided a fascinating overview of different stadium projects around the world the firm has worked on in the last 10 years, all of which relied heavily on the use of parametric technology for design and construction. For ArupSport, parametric technology does not refer only to GenerativeComponents, but also to the use of applications such as Excel, Visual Basic, and MicroStation, as well as their own in-house parametric tools. The firm also uses Catia extensively in its work. The projects showcased in this presentation included the Allianz Arena, a large football stadium in Munich, Germany, which was used to host the opening ceremony for the 2006 World Cup. The building is especially famous for its unique facade which changes color based on which of the two local football clubs is using the arena (see Figure 4). The use of parametric routines developed in-house and sight line analysis enabled a seating layout that allows the 66,000 spectators to be as close to the pitch as possible.

The Allianz Arena marked the beginning of a new style for stadium design, making them like performing works of art in their own right with interesting, exciting, and unique architecture, as showcased in subsequent ArupSport projects such as the FC Shakhtar stadium in Ukraine; the FC Valencia stadium in Spain; the Beijing Olympic Stadium; and the Singapore Sports Hub, which is its newest project designed using tropical climate principles and featuring an ultra-light dome, a huge closing roof, and comfort cooling for each individual spectator. Despite their widely varying forms and designs (shown in Figure 5), what was common to all these projects was the use of the same parametric ideas, tools, and processes that ArupSport has continued to develop and push further. Parrish put it very simply and bluntly by stating that none of these projects would have been possible without using parametrics.

Parrish provided some additional details about the Beijing National Stadium, also referred to as the “Bird’s Nest,” which was used to host the opening and closing ceremonies as well as many of the sporting events for the 2008 Olympics. ArupSport won the design competition for this project, and its proposal was optimized right from the start, as the firm didn’t want to propose a design that could not be built. This focus on being viable may have made their competition entry stand out, particularly against several of the other entries which seemingly had forms that could not physically be built. The design team used parametrics to derive the circular shape of the stadium’s bowl, using algorithms that allowed the optimum view for all the spectators. The stadium has a saddle-shaped steel roof and an interwoven façade, made up of a skeleton of primary, secondary, and tertiary structural members (see Figure 6). The upper surface of the roof is clad with translucent panels which let in natural light and its lower surface has an acoustic membrane which reflects and absorbs sound. This maintains the atmosphere in the stadium. The unique architecture and design of the stadium have now made it an iconic focal point for Beijing.

The Geometrical Underpinnings of Gaudí’s Work on the Sagrada Família Church

I found this another fascinating presentation, as it was related to the work of Antoni Gaudí, one of the most acclaimed figures in the history of architecture. It was presented by Professor Mark Burry of RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, based on his research on the life and work of Gaudí in Barcelona, and his work as Consultant Architect on the Sagrada Família Church project for the past 30 years. This is one of the most famous architectural structures in Spain, visited by millions of people every year. It was started all the way back in 1822 by another architect; Gaudi took over the project a year later and he continued to work on it until his death in 1926. The project is entirely built from donations, and is still ongoing. The interior is expected to be completed by November of this year, but the completion of the exterior is still about 10 years away.

The work by Burry and his team is focused on the continuing construction of the project, which involves, first and foremost, interpreting and “reverse engineering” Gaudi’s models to fully understand his intentions. Contrary to the expectation that the free-form style Gaudi is so famous for would not be bound by any specific geometric rules, Burry’s team found that his work was actually very much rule-based, particularly in his later projects. For the Sagrada church, he combined many geometrical forms such as hyperboloids, paraboloids, helicoids, conoids and ellipsoids, all chosen for their formal, structural, luminous, acoustic, and constructive qualities. All of these surfaces were ruled, which makes the construction easier. He also developed a system of proportions for applying to all the dimensions and elements of the church. Burry’s team is using parametric design and modeling tools to find all these underlying geometric principles and rules, which are then being used to continue developing the project as it was envisioned by Gaudi (see Figure 8). Their task has become a lot easier now with sophisticated computing tools, in contrast to when Burry first started in 1979, the pre-computing era, and had to rely completely on his manual drawing skills.

Parametric tools are also playing a key role in the construction process. For example, stone is one of the key materials for the project and the stone mason is using advanced parametric technologies, along with his own programming, for precise and optimal cutting of the stone elements from the stone blocks that are being imported from Italy (see Figure 9).

Burry also highlighted the importance of collaboration along all fronts as the key to the ongoing successful execution of the project. Both architects and engineers are an integral part of the design team, the analysis work involves collaborating with computer scientists and mathematicians, and the construction process involved working with the builders from the outset. The ready availability of 3D printing technologies is allowing many more physical prototypes to be created and explored, greatly facilitating the design process (see Figure 10). All the details are being modeled on the computer, including the reinforcements, and all potential issues are being addressed before-hand, ensuring that there are no mistakes on the site. One aspect of technology, however, that is still problematic is sharing the 3D models between the entire team. This is a critical need since the project is so complex, but it is not being addressed because of the lack of effective solutions or even proper protocols on how models should be shared.

The Concept of Optioneering: Linking Parametric Geometry to Building Performance Analysis

This talk was jointly presented by Steve Downing of Arup and Dominik Holzer of AEC Connect, and it introduced the concept of “optioneering” to address the problem of how to integrate and reconcile the different priorities of the different disciplines that come together to collaborate on a building project. The increasing specialization in the AEC industry is an inevitable response to the growing complexity of our projects, so it would be helpful to find ways to make it work better. Also, with the introduction of computers and increasingly sophisticated design and analysis tools, the process has been greatly speeded up, which brings about new challenges in the way in which the different disciplinary members communicate and collaborate on a project.

Optioneering—which is still a relatively new term, not just in AEC but in the business world in general—is a systematic approach to problems involving multiple options and criteria, allowing the trade-offs between the different options to be explored, the performance of alternative designs to be considered and quantified, and enabling a clear and structured decision to be reached. This is particularly critical in light of the increasing importance of designing with building performance in mind. A schematic diagram showing how the optioneering concept could work in building design is shown in Figure 11. This would create many more lateral connections across disciplines as opposed to the traditional hierarchical ones, allowing complex design problems to be addressed more collaboratively and effectively. Needless to say, the best value of optioneering would be in the early design stage.

Arup collaborated with Australia's RMIT University to apply this concept to the problem of design collaboration by developing a design evaluation framework called DesignLink. Its objective is to bridge the gap between the individual modeling applications such as GenerativeComponents, Catia, and so on, and the various disciplinary analysis tools such as structure, energy, acoustics, and so on. The big problem here is that the analysis tools need not just the building geometry, but a host of additional data that is typically not contained in the geometric model but is supplied by the engineer, so any change in the design means that the additional information has to supplied again to analyze the new design. The objective of DesignLink is not just to address this issue, but also to bring in data from multiple disciplines for trade-off analysis. It is therefore being developed as a collaborative framework shown in Figure 12, into which diverse modeling and analysis tools can be plugged. It is also tying into some technologies being used in the aerospace industry for multi-disciplinary optimization.

While DesignLink is still in development, a prototype scenario was demonstrated where a GenerativeComponents model was linked to both an energy and structural analysis application to come up with the best option for a specific design parameter that was selected for optimization. It is demonstrated in Figure 13. The system runs through all the possible options and generates those that satisfy the specified criteria. The application also includes an interface where all the generated options can be brought in for comparing and contrasting, and the analysis can be drilled into more detail by the entire design team to make the final selection. Thus, the objective of DesignLink is to become a collaborative design decision support system. It was not clear whether it is being developed for Arup’s internal use only or as a commercial application.

Conclusions

The Conference Day also included many other presentations on a variety of topics from a diverse array of speakers representing many different organizations: there was a talk on the future of architectural education from the Architectural Association, one of the most prestigious architecture schools in the United Kingdom; an insight on energy consumption details at various levels, from individuals to entire countries, by Makani Power, a company focused on producing wind energy; a joint presentation by Arup and Aedas that explored various sustainability aspects related to tall buildings; an overview of the technology developed by Boeing that can allow very large models to be explored at interactive rates; a look at some of the challenges in creating the link between digital design and fabrication experienced by Morphosis; the use of GenerativeComponents to design a noise reduction structure at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport; and the connection between parametric design and structural optimization being researched at the engineering school at Bath University. Video links to all the presentations should soon be posted at http://www.smartgeometry.org/Workshop-Conferences.  

While I found some of the sessions somewhat abstract and lacking in focus, the event was overall very useful and informative. It provided an excellent opportunity to learn about the underlying technologies and processes used in some of the most illustrious design projects around the world by leading firms such as Foster+Partners and Arup. It was also fascinating to learn about the rule-based systems underlying Gaudi’s work on the Sagrada Família Church project and how they are being used to continue with its ongoing construction so that it remains true to Gaudi’s vision. It’s not often that history and technology intersect, and the success of this project can pave the way for a whole slew of historical reconstruction projects, where parametric design tools can be used to bring our most cherished architecture back to life.

About the Author

Lachmi Khemlani is founder and editor of AECbytes. She has a Ph.D. in Architecture from UC Berkeley, specializing in intelligent building modeling, and consults and writes on AEC technology. She can be reached at lachmi@aecbytes.com.

Features > SmartGeometry 2009 Conference Day > Printer-friendly format