Modern Construction Case Studies: Emerging Innovation in Building Techniques 9783035608809

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
Foreword
Scope of this book
Comparison of projects
Current and emerging technologies
Design method and project management
Analysis method and scientific foundations
Design implementation and research method
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
1 Galaxy Soho
2 Evolution Tower
3 Hotel
4 Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre
5 Burjuman Tower
6 Burj Alshaya
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
7 Dance & Music Centre
8 K. Çamlica TV Tower
9 Meixihu IC&A Centre
10 Federation Square
11 New Port Centre
12 City Museum Istanbul
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
13 Burjuman Apartments
14 KAFD Metro
15 Grand Théatre
16 The Avenues
17 Stone Towers
18 Holland Park School
REFERENCES
Authorship
Index
Further reading

Citation preview

MODERN CONSTRUCTION CASE STUDIES Emerging Innovation in Building Techniques

ANDREW WATTS

Birkhäuser Basel

INTRODUCTION

COMPLEX GEOMETRY

Foreword

4

Scope of this book

5

Comparison of projects

6

Current and emerging technologies

10

Design method and project management

13

Analysis method and scientific foundations

16

Design implementation and research method

21

REFERENCES Authorship

220

Index

222

Further reading

223

1 Galaxy Soho Beijing, China. Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

24

2 Evolution Tower Moscow, Russia. Architect: RMJM

34

3 Hotel Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Architect: Gensler

44

4 Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre Baku, Azerbaijan. Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

56

5 Burjuman Tower Dubai, UAE. Architect: Kohn Pedersen Fox

66

6 Burj Alshaya Kuwait City, Kuwait. Architect: Gensler

76

CONTENTS INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE

7 Dance & Music Centre The Hague, Netherlands. Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

88

13 Burjuman Apartments Dubai, UAE. Architect: Kohn Pedersen Fox

8 K. Çamlica TV Tower Istanbul, Turkey. Architect: Melike Altinisik

98

14 KAFD Metro 166 Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

9 Meixihu IC&A Centre 110 Changsha, China. Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

15 Grand Théatre 178 Rabat, Morocco. Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

10 Federation Square Melbourne, Australia. Architect: LAB Architecture

122

16 The Avenues Kuwait City, Kuwait. Architect: Gensler

11 New Port Centre Doha, Qatar. Architect: LLewelyn Davies

132

17 Stone Towers 200 Cairo, Egypt. Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

12 City Museum Istanbul Istanbul, Turkey. Architect: Salon Architects

144

18 Holland Park School London, England. Architect: Aedas

156

190

210

INTRODUCTION Foreword

Building envelope engineering (also known as facade engineering) is a relatively recent discipline in its own right, but one that is growing rapidly. It involves the application of engineering principles and technology to address aesthetic, environmental and structural issues in order to achieve an effective enclosure of buildings with the minimum amount of materials, energy and cost. Building envelopes have a significant impact on the performance and cost of the buildings they enclose and on the people that inhabit them and there is a very large and growing number of building envelope materials and technologies that can be deployed in their design and construction. It is therefore not surprising that the building envelope engineer has become a valued member of the building design and construction team. There are some good texts available on building envelope engineering in general and on designing with specific building envelope materials and technologies, but the building engineering design process is rarely treated. Yet this is as important as detailed design formulae. This book provides a rare insight into the engineering design process for building envelopes and is a very welcome addition to the broader building engineering texts. The book puts forward an alternative approach for the engineering design of building envelopes which use emerging technologies, particularly ones with complex geometry, and it explains how this approach differs from the conventional building engineering design approach. The new approach adopts some of the design processes commonly used in product development and involves the use of research and development and digital tools in the early stages of design, thereby achieving a higher degree of design resolution at the critical early stages of design. The principles of this alternative design approach are described in four insightful essays in the first part of the book. This is followed by 18 building envelope case studies engineered by Newtecnic, which are used to illustrate how the principles of the alternative design approach are applied to challenging real-world projects. The overall result is a very impressive array of building envelope solutions and a clear and novel method of how these were achieved. I have no doubt this book will be of great value to budding and seasoned building envelope engineers alike, and I recommend it to you. Dr Mauro Overend Director, Glass & Facade Technology Research Group Department of Engineering University of Cambridge United Kingdom

MCCS_4

Modern Construction Case Studies focuses on the interface between the design of facades, structures and environments of 18 building projects. In all cases, Newtecnic have developed innovative aspects of the facade design alongside the architects and their design team. The primary aim of the book is to compare facade technologies, particularly in the way they interface with structure and MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing services) in complex projects, and to provide insights into the design process for building envelopes, by exploring specific themes through case studies of live or completed projects. Each envelope technology is described with a particular emphasis on three aspects: • Complex geometry • Innovative construction • Enhanced performance For each case study presented in the book, only one aspect is investigated in more detail, although all 18 case studies show strong components of all three aspects of facade technology. The comparative analysis, which follows this introduction, links the 18 case studies by comparing their structural and environmental performance through tables and graphs. These comparisons are used to illustrate trends across complex projects, for which each design is significantly different. This aim is achieved by analysing typical bays which are representative of each project and which illustrate the implications of using different building envelope technologies. The design methodology, developed by Newtecnic and used to design each of the case studies, is explained through the introductory essays. These texts explore eight core themes: Current Technologies, Emerging Technologies, Design Method, Project Management, Analysis Method, Scientific Foundations, Design Implementation, Research Method. Eight case studies have been selected to illustrate each of these themes. The structure of the book has been devised to provide useful material that allows the reader to draw parallels between the 18 projects, rather than attempting to classify them according to different categories, which is not the intent of the book. The principles described in this book are presented as a palette of design tools which are applicable to the design process for building projects with external envelopes of complex geometry. The application of this approach to each new design is project-specific and inherently dependent upon the specific function and spatial organisation of each building, and consequently cannot be generalised to a simple set of steps. Newtecnic hopes that the reader will find the content of use in their own engineering design work, as well as benefiting from the project comparisons which are also set out in this book.

MCCS_5

INTRODUCTION Comparison of projects A primary objective of the Modern Construction Case Studies is to provide a comparative analysis of different facade technologies used for complex geometry building envelopes, in relation to the climate and environment where they have been implemented on each project. Project

Facade system*

Facade bracket type

1

Galaxy Soho

Floor-to-ceiling stick glazing.

Serrated plates; post-drilled anchorages.

2.a

Evolution Tower

Atrium full-height inclined glazing.

Spider bracket with four adjustable arms.

2.b

Evolution Tower

Twisting unitised glazing.

Serrated plates; post-drilled anchorages.

3.a

Hotel Riyadh

Vertical full-height glazing with FRP cladding.

Serrated plates; post-drilled anchorages.

3.b

Hotel Riyadh

Curved glazed roof with FRP shading louvres.

Spider bracket with four adjustable arms.

4

Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre

GRP open-jointed rainscreen.

Serrated plates, castings and machined components; mechanically fixed.

5

Burjuman Tower

Unitised glazing with external aluminium shading louvres.

Cast aluminium brackets, bolted through unitised joints.

6.a

Burj Alshaya

Full height cable-glass facade.

Spider brackets with two adjustable arms.

6.b

Burj Alshaya

Unitised glazing with external aluminium shading diamonds.

Serrated plates; post-drilled anchorages.

7

Dance & Music Centre

Curved glazing set between FRP clad primary structure.

Serrated and welded plates; post-drilled anchorages.

8

K. Çamlica TV Tower

Opaque and glazed unitised panels with GRC rainscreen.

Serrated plates; post-drilled anchorages.

9

Meixihu IC&A Centre

Thin open-jointed GRC rainscreen on steel frame.

Serrated plates and threaded tubes; welded and bolted.

10

Federation Square

Open-jointed rainscreen incorporating glazing, sandstone and perforated aluminium.

Spider bracket with three adjustable arms.

11

New Port Centre

Fish-scale glazed roof on steel structure.

Spider bracket with four adjustable arms.

12.a City Museum Istanbul

Full-height glazed facade with external aluminium mesh.

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

12.b City Museum Istanbul

Aluminium rainscreen supported on steel framed wall.

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

13

Burjuman Apartments

Stick glazing with external movable aluminium shading.

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

14

KAFD Metro

Opaque composite panels with glazing insets and UHPC open-jointed rainscreen.

Spider bracket with four adjustable arms.

15.a Grand Théatre de Rabat Monolithic open-jointed GRC rainscreen on concrete.

Serrated plates, threaded tubes; welded and bolted.

15.b Grand Théatre de Rabat Monolithic open-jointed GRC rainscreen on steel.

Serrated plates, threaded tubes; welded and bolted.

16.a The Avenues

Full-height stick glazing.

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

16.b The Avenues

FRP open-jointed rainscreen.

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

17.a Stone Towers

Sprayed GRC used as permanent formwork.

-

17.b Stone Towers

Unitised glazing with GRC shading louvres.

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

18

Full-height stick glazing with external copper louvres.

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

Holland Park School

*refer to pages describing the structural design for each project for illustrations of the facade build-up Weight (kN/m2)

Weight of facade vs. facade zone

4.00

3.50

The area of each circle is proportional to the number of components in each facade fixing system, and represents the complexity of the assembly utilised.

7

3.00 8 10

2.50

18 15.b

2.00

14 17.b

3.b

17.a 1.50

15.a 6.b

1.00

11 12.b

3.a 9

12.a

4

2.a 2.b 0.50

16.a

1

13 6.a

5

16.b 0 100

MCCS_6

1000

10000 Facade zone (mm)

The 18 case studies illustrated in the book have been compared in the tables and graphs below in terms of the environmental and structural performance of their building envelope. The numerical result used for the comparison have been obtained from the analysis performed on each project. Each facade technology, designed to suit all project conditions, has been assessed on a representative typical bay in order to compare facade systems across projects. The numerical values provided in this book are for comparison only and are not directly applicable to other projects. Facade zone

Primary structure type

Secondary structure type

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m²)

Total weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m²)

270 mm

Concrete slabs.

Extruded aluminium profiles.

0.14

0.54

1

370 mm

Concrete slabs.

CHS steel sections, cables.

0.28

0.88

2.a

230 mm

Concrete slabs.

Extruded aluminium profiles.

0.08

0.63

2.b

975 mm

Concrete slabs.

CHS steel sections.

0.30

1.44

3.a

Up to 3000 mm

CHS steel sections.

RHS steel sections.

0.52

1.89

3.b

550 mm

Steel tubular space-frame. CHS steel sections.

0.20

1.15

4

1300 mm

Concrete slabs.

Extruded aluminium profiles.

0.10

0.64

5

315 mm

Concrete slabs.

Cable truss.

-

0.51

6.a

400 mm

Concrete slabs.

Extruded aluminium profiles.

0.08

1.20

6.b

1150 mm

Concrete slabs.

I and H steel sections.

2.44

3.42

7

Up to 7000 mm

Concrete core and slabs.

SHS steel sections.

1.33

2.83

8

1000 mm

Steel I sections.

CHS steel sections.

0.60

1.43

9

335 mm

Steel moment frame.

Steel framed wall, cold formed profiles.

0.20

2.61

10

500 mm

Steel arches and tubes.

Steel T profiles.

0.25

1.22

11

Up to 1500 mm

Concrete slabs.

RHS steel sections.

0.47

1.36

12.a

480 mm

Composite concrete slabs. Steel framed wall, cold formed profiles.

0.22

1.05

12.b

1150 mm

Composite concrete slabs. Aluminium plates and profiles.

0.17

0.65

13

1670 mm

Steel gridshell.

RHS steel sections.

0.44

1.99

14

425 mm

Concrete shell.

-

-

1.52

15.a

700 mm

Steel moment frame.

CHS steel sections.

0.30

2.04

15.b

230 mm

Steel space frame.

Aluminium extruded profiles.

0.06

0.54

16.a

325 mm

Steel space frame.

Steel box sections.

0.07

0.31

16.b

130 mm

Concrete wall.

-

-

1.52

17.a

950 mm

Concrete columns.

Aluminium box sections.

0.10

1.65

17.b

Up to 2000 mm

Concrete slabs.

Steel box sections and T sections.

0.19

2.21

18

Weight of facade vs. weight of secondary structure

Weight (kN/m2)

3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0 1.

Ga

2.

a

lax

yS

2. b

Ev

oh

olu

o

tio

n

3. a.

Ev olu

To

tio

we r

n

3.

Ho

b.

To

te

we

lR

r

4.

Ho

iya

te

dh

lR

He

5.

iya

yd

dh

ar

Bu

6.

a

Al

rju

iye

an

ult

b

rj

m

vC

6.

Bu

To

Al r

ur

al

Ce

rj

sh

we

7.

Bu

ay

a

Al

Da

sh a

nc e

ya

8. &

K.

9.

Ca

eix

ihu

lic

a

M

us

ic

Ce

TV

nt

nt

re

10

M

m

re

To

.F

IC

we

&A

r

12

11

ed

.N

er

ew

Ce

at

nt

ion

re

.a

Po

Sq

rt

ua

re

12

Ci

Ce

ty

nt

.b

M

re

us

eu

ty

m

.B

ur

M

eu

an

bu

m

AF

l

an

Ist

.a

.K

jum

us

Ist

15

14

13

Ci

D

Ap

an

bu

l

.b

an

M

et

ro

ar

15

Gr

tm

en

ts

d

16

.a

Gr

Th

an

ea

tre

d

16

.b

Th

e

Th

ea

de

Ra

ba

t

.a

e

Av

tre

17

Th

en

de

on

en

ue

s

Ra

Av

ba

17 .b

St

ue

s

e

18

St

To

on e

we

rs

.H

oll

To

an

we

rs

d

Pa

rk

Sc

ho

ol

t

MCCS_7

INTRODUCTION Comparison of projects

Project

U-value of system envelope (W/m2K)

Linear thermal bridging effect for system typical detail (W/mK)

Total glazed area (m2)

Annual cumulative radiation Total on glazed area (MWh)

1

Galaxy Soho

1.12

0.26

10,490

15,270

2

Evolution Tower

1.49

0.34

1,090

1,770

3

Hotel Riyadh

0.81

0.38

11,780

10,890

4

Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre

0.23

0.39

7,650

2,580

5

Burjuman Tower

1.24

0.25

13,420

5,600

6

Burj Alshaya

1.29

0.34

8,670

5,060

7

Dance & Music Centre

1.75

0.45

17,380

8,210

8

K. Çamlica TV Tower

1.44

0.91

1,420

690

9

Meixihu IC&A Centre

0.23

0.26

850

340

10

Federation Square

0.25

0.11

2,230

1,300

11

New Port Centre

0.23

0.18

3,150

3,310

12

City Museum Istanbul

0.25

0.15

3,460

8,950

13

Burjuman Apartments

0.51

0.11

6,140

2,520

14

KAFD Metro

0.23

0.09

6,060

4,400

15

Grand Théatre de Rabat

0.94

0.30

2,090

4,100

16

The Avenues

1.23

0.36

7,900

12,930

17

Stone Towers

1.49

0.44

2,310

1,740

18

Holland Park School

0.94

0.38

5,330

2,770

U-value of system envelope vs thickness of insulation layer 2.00

U-value of system envelope (W/m2K)

1.80

The area of each circle is proportional to the percentage of the envelope system U-value determined due to framing elements.

7

1.60 2 17

8

1.40

16

1.20

1 6

5

1.00

15

18

3

0.80 0.60

13 0.40 9 10

0.20

12

4

11 14

0.00 0

50

150

200

Thickness of insulation layer (mm) The relationship of inverse proportionality between U-value of each envelope system and thickness of the main insulating layer is illustrated in the graph, which also shows the potential effects of thermal bridging within more complex system assemblies. MCCS_8

250

Geometry of external shading (I/L)

Reduction in annual solar gain by shading system (%)

Annual cumulative radiation Average on glazed area (MWh/m2)

1.5

0.61

-

-

74

1

1.6

-

-

0.20

20

2

0.9

0.53

-

-

24

3

0.3

0.32

-

-

57

4

0.4

-

0.44

-

31

5

0.6

-

0.63

-

48

6

0.5

-

0.28

-

63

7

0.5

0.33

-

38

8

0.4

1.35

-

-

27

9

0.6

-

-

0.56

89

10

1.1

0.19

-

-

3

11

2.6

0.59

-

-

32

12

0.4

-

3.00

-

75

13

0.7

0.30

-

-

43

14

2.0

0.41

-

-

15

15

1.6

0.25

-

-

30

16

0.8

0.50

-

-

35

17

0.5

1.60

-

-

48

18

Effectiveness of external solar shading systems

High reduction

100 10

80

High effectiveness

1

13

Reduction in annual solar gain (%)

7 4

60

6 8

40

17 12

5

16

3

2

20

Low reduction

18

14

Expected effectiveness

9

15

11 0 0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Smaller shading elements

0.80

1.00

Geometry of external shading (I/L)

1.20

1.40

1.60

3.00

Larger shading elements

The linear relationship between the geometry of external shading and the reduction in annual solar gain illustrates the expected effectiveness of external shading systems and allows to identify areas on the graph that represent shading systems with high effectiveness. MCCS_9

INTRODUCTION Current and emerging technologies

bbuuiillddiinngg eennggiinneeeerriinngg

STRUCTURAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ENGINEERING SERVICES SERVICES // MEP MEP ENGINEERING ENGINEERING FACADE FACADE ENGINEERING ENGINEERING

SENIOR SENIOR SENIORTEAM TEAM TEAM

ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATEDIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR

HOWARD HOWARD HOWARDTEE TEE TEE

FABIO FABIO FABIOMICOLI MICOLI MICOLI

MARCH MARCH MARCHBA(HONS) BA(HONS) BA(HONS)MIOD MIOD MIOD

MENG MENG MENG(CANTAB) (CANTAB) (CANTAB)BA(HONS) BA(HONS) BA(HONS)MIOD MIOD MIOD

JOSEPH JOSEPH JOSEPHSHAW SHAW SHAW

SENIOR SENIOR SENIORASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE

ANDY ANDY ANDYWATTS WATTS WATTS

MARCH MARCH MARCHBSCARCH BSCARCH BSCARCHLEED® LEED® LEED®AP AP APBD+C BD+C BD+C ARB ARB ARBMARCH MARCH MARCHBA(HONS) BA(HONS) BA(HONS)

LOADCASE: LOADCASE: LOADCASE: SELFWEIGHT SELFWEIGHT SELFWEIGHT

SENIOR SENIOR SENIORASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE

SENIOR SENIOR SENIORASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE

CHIARA CHIARA CHIARATOSI TOSI TOSI

CARMELO CARMELO CARMELOGALANTE GALANTE GALANTE

MSCENG MSCENG MSCENGING ING INGBSC(HONS) BSC(HONS) BSC(HONS)

BSC(HONS) BSC(HONS) BSC(HONS)DMSCENG DMSCENG DMSCENGING ING INGCENG CENG CENG MCIBSE MCIBSE MCIBSE

Limitations of current methodology These primary sources of information present information which is focused on the application of current and emerging technologies to specific materials or to specific projects. From the project-specific application of each technology, it is often impossible to extract information about the first principles driving its behaviour. Technical sheets from manufacturers rarely provide sufficient data with the given technology to design from first principles and to verify their suitability for a specific application. Often technical information is presented to satisfy commercial objectives and there is no method in place for the facade engineer to ensure the correctness or completeness of the information utilised. Direct contact with specialist fabricators, manufacturers or contractors does not often result in the designer developing an understanding of the general principles and common methods used, as manufacturers tend to guard such technical information as being key to the commercial value of their specific product. Fabricators are also often not willing to provide design advice as a result of similar commercial considerations.

MCCS_10

Z1Z1 Z1

X2X2 X2

Y2Y2 Y2

Z2Z2 Z2

30.515 30.515 195.093 195.09330.515 266.362 266.362 266.362195.093 29.693 29.693 202.148 202.14829.693 265.079 265.079 265.079202.148 34.567 34.567 157.349 157.34934.567 273.367 273.367 273.367157.349 31.661 31.661 185.041 185.04131.661 268.255 268.255 268.255185.041 31.661 31.661 185.041 185.04131.661 268.255 268.255 268.255185.041 34.284 34.284 159.523 159.52334.284 273.037 273.037 273.037159.523 33.604 33.604 166.627 166.62733.604 271.704 271.704 271.704166.627 33.604 33.604 166.627 166.62733.604 271.704 271.704 271.704166.627 34.172 34.172 160.914 160.91434.172 272.868 272.868 272.868160.914 34.171 34.171 160.903 160.90334.171 272.864 272.864 272.864160.903 32.959 32.959 173.245 173.24532.959 270.591 270.591 270.591173.245 32.959 32.959 173.245 173.24532.959 270.591 270.591 270.591173.245

X3X3 X3

Y3Y3 Y3

Z3Z3 Z3

30.297 30.297 266.415 266.41530.297 266.415 266.415 266.415266.415 29.475 29.475 265.134 265.13429.475 265.134 265.134 265.134265.134 34.567 34.567 273.307 273.30734.567 273.307 273.307 273.307273.307 31.442 31.442 268.305 268.30531.442 268.305 268.305 268.305268.305 31.442 31.442 268.305 268.30531.442 268.305 268.305 268.305268.305 34.062 34.062 273.077 273.07734.062 273.077 273.077 273.077273.077 33.384 33.384 271.747 271.74733.384 271.747 271.747 271.747271.747 33.384 33.384 271.747 271.74733.384 271.747 271.747 271.747271.747 33.953 33.953 272.919 272.91933.953 272.919 272.919 272.919272.919 33.950 33.950 272.904 272.90433.950 272.904 272.904 272.904272.904 32.739 32.739 270.637 270.63732.739 270.637 270.637 270.637270.637 32.739 32.739 270.637 270.63732.739 270.637 270.637 270.637270.637

PANEL PANEL PANEL IDIDID

S21_JJ_014 S21_JJ_014 S21_JJ_014 S21_NN_039 S21_NN_039 S21_NN_039 E28_020_A E28_020_A E28_020_A S21_EE_014 S21_EE_014 S21_EE_014 S21_EE_013 S21_EE_013 S21_EE_013 S21_E_034 S21_E_034 S21_E_034 S21_X_020 S21_X_020 S21_X_020 S21_X_021 S21_X_021 S21_X_021 S21_H_032 S21_H_032 S21_H_032 S21_G_034 S21_G_034 S21_G_034 S21_Z_016 S21_Z_016 S21_Z_016 S21_Z_017 S21_Z_017 S21_Z_017

3 33

2 22 AREA AREA AREA (m(m (m ) ))

IDIDID S21_T_012 S21_T_012 S21_T_012 TYPE TYPE TYPEOPAQUE OPAQUE OPAQUE RAINSCREEN RAINSCREEN RAINSCREEN

2 22

3 33

2 22 AREA AREA AREA (m(m (m ) ))

IDIDID S21_T_012 S21_T_012 S21_T_012 TYPE TYPE TYPEOPAQUE OPAQUE OPAQUE RAINSCREEN RAINSCREEN RAINSCREEN

4.142 4.142 2 22 AREA AREA AREA (m(m (m ) ))

IDIDID S21_T_012 S21_T_012 S21_T_012 TYPE TYPE TYPEOPAQUE OPAQUE OPAQUE RAINSCREEN RAINSCREEN RAINSCREEN

4.067m 4.067m 4.067m

4 44

2 22

3.960m 3.960m 3.960m

4 44

1 11

3 33

2 22

1 11

3.926m 3.926m 3.926m

4 44

1.33 1.334m 1.334m 4m

LOADCASE: LOADCASE: LOADCASE: THERMAL THERMAL THERMAL LOAD LOAD LOAD INCREASE INCREASE INCREASE

SENIOR SENIOR SENIORASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE

Y1Y1 Y1

1.603m 1.603m 1.603m

LOADCASE: LOADCASE: LOADCASE: THERMAL THERMAL THERMAL LOAD LOAD LOAD DECREASE DECREASE DECREASE

30.612 30.612 195.100 195.10030.612 266.338 266.338 266.338195.100 29.790 29.790 202.155 202.15529.790 265.055 265.055 265.055202.155 34.568 34.568 157.445 157.44534.568 273.393 273.393 273.393157.445 31.758 31.758 185.047 185.04731.758 268.232 268.232 268.232185.047 31.758 31.758 185.047 185.04731.758 268.232 268.232 268.232185.047 34.382 34.382 159.528 159.52834.382 273.020 273.020 273.020159.528 33.702 33.702 166.633 166.63333.702 271.684 271.684 271.684166.633 33.702 33.702 166.633 166.63333.702 271.684 271.684 271.684166.633 34.269 34.269 160.909 160.90934.269 272.846 272.846 272.846160.909 34.269 34.269 160.909 160.90934.269 272.846 272.846 272.846160.909 33.056 33.056 173.251 173.25133.056 270.571 270.571 270.571173.251 33.056 33.056 173.251 173.25133.056 270.571 270.571 270.571173.251

1.335 m 1.335 1.335m m

X1X1 X1

325mm 325mm FP21_1681 FP21_1681 FP21_1681 325mm 325mm 325mm FP21_1682 FP21_1682 FP21_1682 325mm 325mm 325mm FP21_1683 FP21_1683 FP21_1683 325mm 325mm 325mm FP21_1684 FP21_1684 FP21_1684 325mm 425mm 425mm FP21_1685 FP21_1685 FP21_1685 425mm 425mm 425mm FP21_1686 FP21_1686 FP21_1686 425mm 425mm 425mm FP21_1687 FP21_1687 FP21_1687 425mm 325mm 325mm FP21_1688 FP21_1688 FP21_1688 325mm 700mm 700mm FP21_1689 FP21_1689 FP21_1689 700mm 700mm 700mm FP21_1690 FP21_1690 FP21_1690 700mm 700mm 700mm FP21_1691 FP21_1691 FP21_1691 700mm 700mm 700mm FP21_1692 FP21_1692 FP21_1692 700mm

1.15 6m 1.15 1.156m 6m

FIXING FIXING FIXING IDIDID ZONE ZONE ZONE

3.723m 3.723m 3.723m

LOADCASE: LOADCASE: LOADCASE: WIND WIND WIND PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE

1.60 1.603m 1.603m 3m

ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATEDIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR

These various sources of information cannot be used directly in the SERVICES SERVICES // MEP MEP ENGINEERING ENGINEERING design of complex building envelopes, which require an in-depth under5.695 standing of the first 5.695 principles behind each technology; principles which 5.136 form the basis of the5.136 design with its accompanying cost certainty.

FACADE FACADE ENGINEERING ENGINEERING

DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR

YASMIN YASMIN YASMINWATTS WATTS WATTS

3.423m 3.423m 3.423m

ANDREW ANDREW ANDREWWATTS WATTS WATTS

MIED MIED MIEDMIET MIET MIETRIBA RIBA RIBAARB ARB ARBFRSA FRSA FRSAMIOD MIOD MIOD RIBA RIBA RIBAARB ARB ARBMIOD MIOD MIODBARCH BARCH BARCHBSC(HONS) BSC(HONS) BSC(HONS) BA(HONS) BA(HONS) BA(HONS)DIPARCH DIPARCH DIPARCHMST(CANTAB) MST(CANTAB) MST(CANTAB)

3.524m 3.524m 3.524m

DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR

1.8 1.820m 20m 1.8 20m

Current design methodology STRUCTURAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ENGINEERING The application of current and emerging technologies for the design engineering of facades is linked to the information available in estab1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 lished technical publications. These sources focus on providing an understanding of the main components within a given-27.6 building assem-27.4 -27.4 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.4 -27.4 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 -27.6 bly and illustrate the different choices available for the construction of assemblies for the building envelope, as well methods 67.7 67.7 64.5 64.5 as construction 64.5 64.5 used for the interior of the building. Specific technologies or materials can be selected by the architect of departure in -2.42 -2.42or designer -3.08 -3.08as a point -2.86 -2.86 -0.88 -0.88 -0.88 -0.88 -0.88 -0.88 order to select a construction system based on visual, performance or cost criteria. The details contained in these publications are often used by the facade engineer as a point of departure for facade system drawings. These publications typically require an experienced facade engineer to be able to extract relevant knowledge for use on real projects. The information available from these primary sources is also used by architects as a library of visual references and precedent built projects. Beyond these primary sources, a mix of standards, codes and design handbooks are used for the specific design of components and assemblies, such as those used for connections in steel frames or concrete frames, for example. These design handbooks do not provide guidance for the reader to evaluate the appropriateness of the technology nor do these publications provide a means of validating the choice of a specific technology for a design application. Technical sheets and informal advice from fabricators are also a source of information for current technologies, which are often used as the basis for calculations during the design stage. The design is also often informed by information provided by a specialist contractor and is specific to the project.

1 11

Newtecnic’s methodology In order to develop an understanding of the first principles underpinning the design of current and particularly emerging technologies, a primary source of information is scientific papers published in journals and proceedings from specialist conferences, which are peer reviewed by the engineering community. Peer-reviewed publications are concerned with methods of analysis using a given technology, not on the relative merits of one technology against another. The objective of these publications is to fill in the current gaps in knowledge of the members of the engineering community in the application of current and emerging technologies. This technical information is combined with project-specific research, in order to assess the appropriateness of each technology and to develop an understanding of constraints related to their fabrication. For emerging technologies, this typically requires physical prototyping and testing to validate their project-specific application, which cannot be validated through desktop analysis only. For the case studies in this book, the design methodology applied is focused on ensuring the appropriateness of the technology in relation to a series of parameters that go beyond its technical application. In the approach used for the case studies, the technology deployed is linked to the values and culture determined by the geographic location of the project and the common aspirations of that culture; linked to sustainability, justification of the use of resources, local skills in fabrication, but with the global reach of these shared values taken into account. The technology utilised meets the expectations of the client and increases the value of the product delivered. A detailed understanding of local markets and associated fabrication methods builds confidence in the project and ensures its realisation. As part of project-specific research, Newtecnic ensures that for each given project there are always at least two companies that are both capable and interested in realising the project. An important aspect is to generate interest in the design through the construction of proof-of-concept mock-ups and by providing a high level of design resolution, which shows direct engagement with the fabrication process. Part of this approach is to ensure that smaller local companies are able to realise and are willing to construct the design. The technical publications which are used at the primary sources of information on building technology do not typically seek to engage with specific issues of resolution of any completed building but instead make comparisons with other specific design solutions which are based on the adaptation of available industrial processes to building construction. Emerging technologies are often based on new methods of fabrication. For the case

studies presented in this book, the applied technology aims to increase the value of both product and process. New processes for fabrication can only be developed by linking design from first principles, academic research, physical testing and prototyping. The facade assemblies shown in this book were conceived as a ‘product’; a specific design solution with a high degree of resolution. For most projects, the facade assemblies were documented to provide a ‘set of instructions’ for the construction of those facades, which include a proposed sequence for assembly and installation. As a set of instructions to be followed by a contractor, these designs required validation of the method and outputs that underpin the design for each project. This essay sets out the key issues in the use of current and emerging construction technologies as applied to building envelopes of complex geometry. Designs of this type require a high level of integration between structure, facade and MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing services), which often comprises an external envelope with an integrated self-supporting structure that is independent of the building structure that supports floors and service areas, combined with high thermal performance. The design of complex building envelopes with a high level of integration requires a careful selection of suitable technology and its adaptation to project specific facade assemblies, in order to meet a set of different performance requirements for structure, facades and environmental systems. In the context of this book, technologies are tools for generating facade assemblies. In turn, the assemblies generated for a specific facade design determine the components and the connections within each assembly, and therefore affect the assumptions for 3D modelling and associated engineering analysis tasks, such as hand calculations and computational simulations. A facade assembly is made from a set of materials, the fabrication of which will be based on either current or emerging technology, or a mix of the two, as the term ‘technology’ can apply to both an assembly and the materials used in that assembly. At Newtecnic, complex building envelopes are designed from the point of view of the technology for the assembly, with the specific material used being chosen at a later stage of design development, once the required performance and physical properties of a material have been determined. The choice of a specific material for a facade assembly, such as that used for a solar shading device, is determined later in the design process. The material that will meet the performance criteria of this specific function will often have its own material technology. Consequently, the technology used or developed for the assembly should be interdependent with the materials used in the assembly as well as the technology used for their fabrication. This approach allows ‘material selection’ to be finalised later in the design process, with the possibility of introducing significant value engineering possibilities without fundamental design changes at that later stage of the project. The alterna-

tive approach of using assemblies that are material-specific introduces higher interdependence in the design at an early stage of design development, which would limit the ability of the design to respond to later changes in the design of the external envelope. Consequently, the selection of facade materials is made at a later stage of design development. Current technologies in facade assemblies Current technologies are used in facade assemblies where the project design criteria are typically well-understood, and where alternatives can be provided to the solution proposed by the design team, while still meeting the same project-specific requirements. This approach can lead to facade designs which are more ‘generic’ in their level of resolution; an approach that allows contractors to propose alternative facade solutions at a very late stage in the design development of the project. Typically, a contractor’s alternative solution will be adopted if proven to be substantially cheaper than that proposed by the architect’s design team, while still providing the same overall performance as defined in the performance specification for the project. A potential hazard introduced by late design changes from a contractor is the unexpected effects on coordination with other trades or construction packages. Current technologies require only project-specific performance testing for final validation. Consequently, the expected performance of a well understood technology is validated through physical testing for the specific configuration proposed for the project. Typically, current technologies are optimised for one specific function or a narrow range of functions. For facades, current technologies are typically offered by specialist fabricators and manufacturers as proprietary products which suit the fabricators’ own fabrication capabilities. The use of different current technologies across a single project typically leads to a high number of interfaces between each of the facade systems. This approach often leads to a laborious construction methodology which is both difficult to achieve on site and time-consuming to design. Current technologies are typically unable to respond to widely varying conditions of geometry on a single project, making it difficult to enclose the complete external envelope with a single facade system. Current technologies offer fewer opportunities for optimisation and associated cost reductions from reducing the number of interfaces. This makes current technologies less suitable for novel building forms. Typically, current technologies for facades are suited to a ‘loose fit’ design approach, where a more generic solution is used to provide support to the architect rather than serving to help drive the design forward with innovation. The alternative approach of using emerging technologies allows a project-specific technology to be brought to the facade design, where it is adapted in a process which resembles that of ‘product development’.

MCCS_11

INTRODUCTION Current and emerging technologies (cont.)

Emerging technologies in facade assemblies Typically, an emerging technology used in facade design is formed by the relationship between a set of novel components within an innovative assembly. Despite associations with the word ‘emerging’, the engineering basis of an emerging technology must already be demonstrated successfully on previous similar built applications when applied to large-scale projects. Therefore, as part of the design development process, project-specific prototyping and physical testing is required for any facade assembly where an emerging technology is used. This is because an emerging technology requires both proof-of-concept performance testing and final compliance testing, which follows standard procedures. Consequently, emerging technologies are not experimental technologies, but cutting edge applications of proven facade technology. Experimental technologies are considered to be technologies linked to a high degree of uncertainty in their performance and which require further research and development in order to become emerging. Emerging technologies offer opportunities for significant cost reductions through project-specific design development, while maintaining the high value of the specific technology utilised. These technologies also provide opportunities to innovate for a specific building project, in order to reduce costs of the construction of that project. This approach allows an external envelope to be delivered with both high value and high performance at a cost lower than that of an older technology. However, an emerging technology for a facade system requires a higher level of design development at an earlier stage than a current technology, and consequently is developed as a ‘product’, for which the emerging technology is tailored to the specific requirements of the project. This approach is key to the design methodology developed by Newtecnic. Use of current and emerging technologies in facade design Both current and emerging technologies require a similar level of documentation when applied to facades for a specific project. For emerging technologies, documentation and supporting outputs is provided earlier in the design process as a tool for problem-solving rather than ‘recording choices’ in order to provide the same level of cost-certainty as would be expected for an equivalent current technology. The use of a current technology often leads to project-specific design requirements being set out in a performance specification. The use of an emerging technology usually leads to a specification which sets out a project-specific solution as well as determining the required performance. The use of emerging technology in facade design directs the designer to achieve a set of clear design and performance objectives at an earlier stage of a project, while allowing the choice of key materials within the facade assemblies to be determined at a later stage in design development. This approach allows assemblies that respond directly to MCCS_12

project-specific design priorities to be identified, resolved and costed at a much earlier stage of design. For current technologies used in facade assemblies, a key consideration in the process is the design of interfaces and movement joints between adjacent facade systems. For emerging technologies used in envelope designs, a key consideration is the selection and project-specific development of a single facade system that is optimised to suit all conditions of geometry in the facades. The design of interfaces in facades, which are associated with the junction of current technologies, are slower to implement during the site installation phase than a single system that uses an emerging technology. The design of interfaces between facade systems is also slower to resolve as a result of design changes during design development, as current technologies are not usually optimised for connectivity with other technologies. Consequently, the design development of facades which use a current technology is generally confined to the later stages of a design process when the final design, and associated performance criteria, are determined. The experience of Newtecnic is that the use of current technologies in facade design results in a low level of facade system development for the first 75% of the design time. The remaining 25% of the design time requires an accelerated approach in order to provide the required documentation, but only after the design has been largely determined by the architect. In addition, the documentation of the facade design will be ‘generic’, almost entirely based on stating the performance requirements of the system, in order to allow for proprietary products to be proposed by contractors to meet the stated performance criteria. The implementation of both current and emerging technologies in facade design are required to follow a disciplined process of documentation during the early stages of the design process. At the concept design stage, examples of existing assemblies (or existing technologies) are proposed with the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of each assembly independently. In this process of ‘differentiation’ of assemblies, options are identified for different technologies that may be applicable to the facade design. At the schematic design stage, precedents of current and emerging technologies applicable to the proposed facade design are brought together as a synthesis, and compared again with the precedents proposed at the concept design stage. The purpose of this process is to clearly distinguish the aspects of the facade design that involve current technology from those that use emerging technology. This method allows the design priorities for the following stage of design development to be determined for necessary prototyping and physical testing.

INTRODUCTION Design method and project management

Current design methodology For large-scale building envelopes of complex geometry, the design method is often driven by the design of the facade assembly, and with the current or emerging technologies that are associated with that facade assembly. The design method for a building envelope includes all the steps and iterations required to deliver the final design from concept to delivery of a tested and validated physical prototype. The current method for the engineering design of facades for buildings is based on a sequence of steps which attempt to integrate design and manufacturing to ensure continuity from design to construction. This approach attempts to implement an effective project management method in order to control the process in terms of people, time and resources. The project management method facilitates the application of known solutions to supporting tasks in the design process. The current project management method for the design of buildings is based on a linear approach which makes use of Gantt charts to regulate the progress of both tasks and deliverables, as well as to define specific interdependencies between tasks. The assumption of this method is that the time required for each task is well understood from experience of previous projects, and that tasks can be prioritised in terms of amount of time a ssigned to each task. The regulation of the design process through a linear project management method is applicable to projects where the design focus is the optimisation of current knowledge, where most of the design aspects are known and where design components which require optimisation can be pre-established. The standard design method for buildings is generally led by an architect, following procedures set out in the work stages of internationally oriented organisations such as the AIA (American Institute of Architects) and the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects). On many design projects the role of the building engineer or facade engineer is typically one of providing technical support to the architect rather than one of partnership in the generation of the building design. This approach is based on the building engineer providing a ‘service’ to support the architect’s outputs with knowledge of structural and MEP engineering (mechanical, electrical and plumbing), which is well-established and is provided throughout the duration of the project on a day-to-day basis. Limitations of current methodology The current approach focuses on the time taken to develop and document a design solution which uses current technology. The current method assumes that current technologies are validated, and attempts to identify, at the outset of the project, the aspects that require a greater effort to be validated. The limitation of using the current method for both design and project management is that only current technologies can be implemented for well-understood applications. This design approach does not apply to complex building projects where the relationship between the

parts is not determined. The limitation of the linear approach applied to project management can be a reduction in the ability of the building engineer or facade engineer to provide innovative designs which match the innovation suggested by the architect. This comes as a result of the limited time available to inform the architect’s concept with a project-specific facade technology. An innovation by an architect may be based on a novel spatial arrangement in relation to the required function of that space, or may be a visually-driven concept for the form of the building. The engineering design, at the interface of structure, facade and MEP, will not necessarily reach the level of accomplishment anticipated by the architect, as the time scale expected for an innovative architectural design is less than that required for innovation in the corresponding facade engineering design, which typically requires research and development through testing. Consequently, the level of technical ambition in the facade engineering design of a project is reduced to suit the critical path of technical development of the architectural design. This leads to the current trend in facade engineering design of using proprietary systems selected through competitive tender, a process supported by a performance specification and associated drawn or 3D modelled outputs, such as a BIM (building information model). Newtecnic’s methodology The method applied for the case studies in this book is driven by problem-solving, an approach which is applied at each step of the design process. No step in the design sequence is allowed to produce only ‘documentation’; the primary output must be a working design which is quantified and costed through 3D models and physical prototypes. This design approach is non-hierarchical as there are no priorities set on the design criteria or on specific aspects of the design to be innovated or optimised. This method is based on a design engineering approach as applied across other engineering disciplines which are based on the design, fabrication and manufacture of ‘products’ and is applied to tasks involving the structural, facade and environmental engineering of buildings. This design approach suits engineers who are trained across several building engineering disciplines or, alternatively, have a global understanding of building design beyond their speciality. This design method assumes that the parts of the design that require innovation emerge as the design develops, the innovation ranging from that of individual components, to creating novel relationships between components that lead to innovative assemblies and a corresponding enhanced performance. This approach to building design is strongly based on first principles and is open from the start of the project to the innovation of any of the constituent parts of the design. As the design develops, it becomes clear which aspects drive the design and which aspects require innovation to achieve the required enhanced performance. The approach also allows a clear assessment of which parts of MCCS_13

INTRODUCTION Design method and project management (cont.)

a design will most benefit from the application of either a current technology or an emerging technology. This design method focuses on generating quantified, comparable outputs within a short time-frame which will allow the design to progress through a sequence of steps, where the immediate consequences of each step are clearly understood before the next step is taken. This method is founded on three key principles, which aim at overcoming any restrictions in delivering innovative design solutions: • Research: University-based research of technologies which integrate facade, structures and MEP, conducted in-house and through academic partnerships. This process is independent of project-specific time scales and is aimed at both gathering knowledge on emerging technologies and developing new knowledge on experimetal technologies. This aspect is discussed in the essay ‘Design implementation and research method’. • Digital tools for design and analysis: The use of high performing and calibrated digital tools to perform complex analysis at the early design stages, which is aimed at understanding behaviour. The capabilities of the commercially-available tools are often developed with the software provider as the design progresses. This aspect is discussed in the essay ‘Analysis method and scientific foundations’. • ‘Agile’ management: ‘Agile’ techniques provide a method of delivering successful innovation in building design if projects are developed as a ‘product’ rather than being a process with drawn and written outputs only. This aspect is discussed in the following paragraphs. On any project, these three aspects enable a set of working facade prototypes to be developed, physically tested and approved through consecutive steps and completed before the stage of competitive tender. These three aspects also allow the design engineering process to generate new knowledge and innovation, which can be applied to subsequent projects. ‘Agile’ management applied to facade projects In the delivery of facades of complex geometry for large-scale projects, the design methodology usually drives the management method used by the facade design team. Newtecnic has found ‘agile’ management techniques to be highly effective in achieving a high level of design resolution within the time constraints typically expected of a building design that would otherwise produce more generic outputs. Agile management techniques have recently spread outwards from the software development industry and are now widely applied across several fields in engineering that require innovation for both design and manufacture. ‘Agile’ management is highly suited to facade design work on high profile-projects, as the method supports four key aspects of facade design

MCCS_14

for large-scale projects of complex geometry: • A multi-disciplinary engineering design approach. • Short, intense iterations for a team of 8 to 10 engineers with different specialisations. • Continuous innovation through all stages of design development. • The creation of new knowledge at all stages of design development. This ‘Agile’ approach allows facade design outputs to be communicated and delivered to customers as a highly evolved design ‘product’, rather than by providing a design ‘service’ with more generic outputs. This approach allows the focus of a facade engineering team to deliver, quickly, an innovative product which is cheaper, better or easier to construct than an existing product, rather than that team providing a design ‘service’. Agile management in facade design provides a method for delivering high quality, innovative ‘products’, in which the ability to adapt to evolving customer requirements during the course of the design development stages is an essential requirement. The design engineering of facades of complex geometry is output-oriented and is based on producing design proposals as quickly as possible; increasing the scope and quality of the design with succeeding iterations. The design process is typically ‘kick-started’ through linear iterations where engineers may be required to work in isolation or in small teams on explorative tasks. These tasks are typically analytical with the aim of identifying the driving design parameters for each discipline. As soon as key design objectives are identified, a large team is tasked with focusing on one specific issue at a time, which ensures that each task benefits from an effective team dynamic. A tangible longer-term outcome of the application of this method is the production of the following outputs: • Templates for reports. • Technical notes for procedures and new knowledge. • Example outputs of innovative solutions for facade engineering. Templates and procedures provide the basis for the planning of future tasks of a similar nature. Agile management for facade engineering is based on the following core values: • Collaboration and self-organisation of an engineering design team. • Empowerment and continuous improvement of an engineering design team. The principle of continuous improvement is essential for improving design outputs with each new iteration. An essential aspect of the design methodology for complex facades is ensuring that engineers are able to explain, at any given point, the design process to others within the team and to the customer. Every member of the facade engineering team should be responsible for the content of their outputs, ensure the success of the task, and improve the quality of outputs for the next iteration in a process of continuous improvement.

Generating innovation Innovation is at the heart of this design method for the facade engineering of complex forms. The method aims at generating new knowledge which adds value to the product delivered to the customer, and is usable by facade engineers on other projects. This is achieved through: • Technical notes: processes developed in-house for projects are documented through technical notes, which are peer-reviewed by external research partners. • Visible outputs: making outputs visible at every iteration and making the work visible at every stage of the process. This allows gaps in knowledge that require further research to be identified. Knowledge creation, which is specific to the project, is part of the value the customer gains from this design approach. The customer is able to take ownership of the project-specific part of the technology if they so wish, together with the knowledge and innovation embedded in the design and documented in the project-specific outputs. This means that the client can at any time use the design documentation produced up to that point and continue independently with the design development. This design methodology generates new knowledge through prototyping and physical testing; activities which have seen a greater development in other industries but are not yet conceived as part of the mainstream of design processes for building construction. The creation of key links between building engineers and contractors is an essential step towards collaborating directly with leading fabricators in the construction field and acting as a bridge between design research and project-specific applications. The approach to optimisation in innovative facade projects is driven primarily by the need to bring facade, structure and MEP together into an integrated solution. Optimisation of specific components cannot be done in isolation, as this can result in the sub-optimisation of other parts of the facade assembly. Components within facade assemblies are not optimised in isolation, but are instead evaluated as part of a matrix of optimisation. Optimisation is not specifically an ‘agile’ process; it is an iterative process of searching for the removal of unwanted complexity, with the benefit of reducing costs and improving quality for a building project. Optimisation is the ‘calibration for economy’ of any given facade design. In order to avoid sub-optimisation, an understanding of the cost of individual components is required. For example, the cost of glass in a given assembly can be lowered by reducing glass thickness as a result of decreasing the span of its supporting frame, but the increase in cost of the frame should be no greater than the cost saving achieved from the glass. Innovation in facade engineering design, as distinct from optimisation, is generated through establishing new links between components and facade assemblies.

Application of design method and project management The aim of this design method for large-scale projects of complex geometry is to bring ambitious concepts to life without basing the design on specific solutions supplied by specialist contractors. This method of project management allows the delivery of facade engineering packages with a high level of technical resolution. These packages are able to be optimised for value and installation time, and would already have received approval for their fabrication and installation. The level of design resolution permits a high level of cost certainty. As part of this approach, each facade assembly deployed on a given project can be conceived as a facade ‘system’, which can be described in two parts: • System architecture: The arrangement of functions at the small scale or large scale of a single facade assembly type. • System engineering: The analysis and performance of a single facade assembly type. Both ‘system architecture’ and ‘system engineering’ are developed through two phases: 1. ‘Differentiation’, where each system component is firstly analysed and designed in isolation. 2. ‘Integration’, where all components are finally made to converge into one design solution. At the schematic design stage, robust concepts and strategies are established and deployed across the scope of the facade design project by exploring in full their applicability to project-specific conditions. The primary objective of outputs at this stage - beyond the design itself - is to obtain preliminary costs based on providing initial quantities, preliminary structural weights and number of components, expected performance criteria and preliminary MEP loads. At the detailed design stage, or design development stage, analysis is undertaken in order to inform an understanding of each building technology proposed for the project. Outputs are derived from analysis at this stage, rather than from the general considerations of assembly investigated in the schematic design stage. During this stage the facade technology being proposed is developed to suit the visual language of the design as generated from the architect’s concept. The following specific analysis tasks are undertaken at this stage: • Understanding of secondary effects. • Dimensioning of secondary elements. • Refining of sizes of primary elements. • Design of connections. At the construction documentation stage, drawing outputs are finalised and coordinated with coordination and dimensioning of drawings.

MCCS_15

INTRODUCTION Analysis method and scientific foundations

Current design methodology Analysis is the tool used to demonstrate the validity of a given design concept and is based on the application of a given set of scientific foundations. The current approach to analysis in facade engineering design is to conceive the analysis as a numerical quantification of a proposed design, which is generally conceived by the architect. This approach is based on keeping the scope of the design within codes and standards which provide the scientific foundation for the analysis. Generally, both national and international codes and standards integrate mathematical engineering foundations with empirical data, calculation formulae and procedures. The approach taken aims to ensure an agreed level of design safety for any given facade assembly. The engineer using codes and standards does not have direct access to experimental results or raw empirical data, which are already interpreted in the calculation formulae provided. Codes and standards provide calculation templates for the numerical quantification of current technologies, and ensure that the performance expectations for a current technology are met for a specific design. Calculation procedures from codes and standards are often integrated within design tools provided by specialist manufacturers in order to size specific components for their proprietary products. These tools include tables, software packages and design guides; these are typically provided for commercial purposes and allow the façade engineer to safely integrate proprietary products within the facade design. With the current approach, analysis is based on independent studies that take separate aspects of the design into consideration. Limitations of current methodology When using codes and standards, it is difficult to interrogate the first principles behind the calculation formulae utilised. The physical behaviour synthesised through the formulae is often not apparent. The derivations of the empirical factors describing the relative importance of different aspects affecting the behaviour described by the formula are also not apparent. In the current approach, the design process is not informed by digital finite element (FE) tools, which are instead used to provide final numerical validation or as a labour-saving tool. These tools are not in general use for the exploration of design options. This approach suits buildings of rectilinear geometry, for which the analytical basis of the design is well understood. The consequence of the current approach is the generation of separate calculation packages, where the assumptions considered for the analysis are not required to be coordinated in order to ensure a ‘loosefit’ design outcome.

MCCS_16

Newtecnic’s methodology In the method used for this book, the design approach aims to understand the first principles behind the analysis, following the academic approach taught at universities with leading engineering departments. In addition, the approach followed is applied by academic research teams attached to these engineering departments, who provide technical support to design engineers. The combination of first principles and physical testing becomes the basis of the scientific foundations when standards are not directly applicable to a design concept, as in the case of emerging technologies. The results are compared with standards and codes which are used to set expectations to verify experimental outputs. The analyses for a complex facade design are of two kinds: geometric and numerical. Geometrical analysis is performed at the beginning and throughout the evolution of the design. This analysis engages with the geometry of the complete building to establish the required complexity of the models required for the numerical analysis. Geometry analysis also ensures that all aspects of the design are tested and integrated into a final design solution following the numerical analysis which splits the design into parts that are calculated following different rules (the ‘integration’ phase of the design following the ‘differentiation’ phase). For complex building designs, the use of first principles through finite element analysis tools is calibrated by physical testing. This approach requires a high level of engagement with institutions that are specialised in the application of first principles to testing of materials, components and assemblies to generate empirical data, which are shared and reviewed by peers. Physical testing is performed in order to calibrate digital models as well as to integrate safety factors into the design. As part of the approach proposed, openness and the sharing of technical knowledge for peer review and evaluation is critical to ensure best practice in the design methods applied, which are validated by the engineering community. In order to be able to effectively share information for peer review, an infrastructure is needed for facade engineering specialist advice, physical testing and peer review of outputs. In order to develop a design, a partnership between the building engineer, or facade engineer, and the architect is required, which is enabled though multidisciplinary team members who also have architectural training. The building engineer should draw a clear boundary around the engineering design, intended as the assistance provided to the technical development of the design concept. This is about realising the design rather than conceiving it: the nature and motivations behind the design concepts are not questioned, and the focus is on finding solutions to a technical problem. The design process allows changes to be absorbed quickly and is used as a tool to develop a deeper understanding of the design and its behaviour. The design of complex geometry buildings typically requires emerging technology to be deployed in order to construct high performance envelope systems. A complex geometry envelope typically involves an

interdependency between supporting structure, enclosing layer and environmental control. These building forms are often conceived as ‘wraps’ for the internal spaces through a changing relationship between the facade and the floors and voids behind the external wall. Such envelopes are typically self-supporting, as the form of the facades is often independent of the arrangement of floor slabs behind the facade and often forms the external wall of large-scale spaces within the building. The complex geometry facades shown in the case studies within this book are supported either by a self-supporting frame or by load-bearing panels. Where the facade is load-bearing, the structure takes the form of shell structures which are realised with a mix of beam, plate and shell modules, and are distinct from braced frames or load-bearing boxes, as the geometry drives their behaviour. The specific nature of these structures is set out in the Modern Construction Handbook, which forms part of this book series. The envelope regulates directly the flow of heat energy through the building skin, a factor which determines both peak heating/cooling values used to size mechanical equipment, and the total energy consumptions, which drive the running costs of the heating/cooling installation. Complex facade forms often make use of doubly-curved geometry, which can be exploited to achieve thinner envelope build-ups through shell action. Analysis method and scientific foundations The analysis method described here was used to generate early stage engineering designs for the case studies described in this book for the interface of structure, facade and MEP (mechanical, electrical and plumbing services). Through a process of integration of the constituent parts of the facade design, coordination between these components provides an opportunity for optimisation of the facade design. This process of ‘integration’ aims to achieve material savings, minimise the depth of the facade, and reduce the time required for fabrication of facade components and assemblies. A current facade engineering approach, based on providing a design ‘service’ within a strict time-frame, requires the building engineer or facade engineer to apply well-understood technology to specific project conditions and to provide numerical validation of the appropriateness of their use through analysis. An alternative method of analysis for facades of complex geometry, as used in the case studies in this book, is based around the design of the ‘assembly’, which is developed like a design ‘product’ that meets project-specific requirements. The ‘assembly’ is conceived as the fabric of the building envelope where structure, facade and MEP are integrated. Assemblies respond to specific performance requirements which vary across the building envelope. The numerical analysis involved is a function of the design of the assemblies, which must respond to both structural

and environmental performance requirements. This approach results in, for example, varying structural strength and stiffness in adjacent structural members, varying air permeability and solar transmittance, and varying acoustic mass and thermal transmittance. The facade assembly is analysed at different scales by examining local effects at the scale of a typical structural bay, together with global effects at the scale of the entire building. The design of each component in an assembly can be equally driven by local or global effects, and requires a ‘multi-scale’, ‘multi-physics’ analysis to identify a global optimum solution. The analyses are typically undertaken in parallel using specialised software packages and the results are compared on the basis of their effect on the design. Sensitivity analyses are conducted on each relevant paramter in order to identify the factors that drive the design. The scientific foundations for the engineering analysis of complex geometry envelopes are mostly grounded in the finite element, finite volume or finite difference methods, for both structural and environmental design. This approach is implemented in a range of digital tools which allows complex shapes or components to be discretised and analysed. Finite element digital analysis looks primarily at the equilibrium of forces in structural analysis and the flow of energy in environmental analysis and analysis of HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning). These are investigated through 3D models in both wireframe and surface format, as a method of capturing the geometry of the building form or components. From these models, meshes are generated in order to interface with finite element software platforms. Numerical accuracy in finite element analysis is linked to mesh density and mesh density is linked to computational time. The objective of numerical analysis at the early design stages is to understand behaviour through a simplified but thorough approach. This ensures that robust design concepts are generated which do not depend on a very high level of accuracy of analytical models, which is not achievable within limited project time-scales. For facade envelopes that integrate structure and skin, optimisation is mainly achieved by reducing the time required for installation on-site, rather than specifically reducing the weight of each assembly. This aim is achieved typically by reducing the complexity of the assembly and the number of components, which attracts a longer installation time and higher costs associated with more time on site. This approach requires a higher level of design input than would be expected for a less ambitious facade design, in order to develop components which are multi-functional rather than having a single function in a facade assembly. The optimisation for weight reduction of each assembly, undertaken in isolation, is of secondary importance in the process of optimisation. Finite element methods are well-established but, being dependent on the computational power available, have only recently been fully integrated within powerful analytical tools. This has allowed analysis to become a tool for exploring behaviour rather than simply a tool for the numerical MCCS_17

INTRODUCTION Analysis method and scientific foundations (cont.)

quantification of a given design. Numerical analysis during the early stages of the design of facades of complex geometry should be robust and ensure that the design is functional across a sufficiently wide range of input values. Finite element tools are primarily used to assess behaviour and establish which components can be analysed independently and which cannot be dissociated and must therefore be analysed together. The first iterations of analysis aim at establishing relationships between individual components as well as the magnitude of combined effects. Finite element analysis (FEA) is based on static equations that resolve the equilibrium of forces, fluxes of fluids or energy in 1D, 2D or 3D. The basic implementation of these equations makes use of the mathematical balance present in an equilibrium steady-state condition. Differential equations are required when analysis is time-dependent and quantities vary over time. The use of FE tools represents an inherent mathematical approximation, which implies a trade-off between accuracy and time in any given analysis. The objective of the analysis is to identify a set of calculation models which are representative of real world behaviour to a sufficient degree of accuracy. The different level of resolution of each design parameter, particularly during early design stages, inherently limits the accuracy of the analysis. Considerations of constructability, construction tolerances and material safety factors are equally important in establishing a design concept. Seen in isolation, the analysis results are not sufficient to ensure the robustness of a design concept. The compatibility between the degree of geometric approximation, the accuracy of input values and the specific use of the analysis outputs, sets the level of accuracy required for numerical analysis. Hand calculations are performed on simpler models in order to set order-of-magnitude values which typically include lower and upper boundaries for the analysis. A comparison of strategies of analysis is an essential basis of early stage facade design. Comparison between two results is only meaningful if the two terms show the same the level of accuracy. During the concept design stage, a broad range of studies is undertaken and the implications of the design concept for each set of results are assessed against one other. Requirements for design are prioritised on this basis and are directed towards ‘convergence’ as a single design concept. The prioritisation of requirements is an exercise of judgment by the designer, a judgment which is reviewed in the light of associated costs of fabrication and installation. A basic implementation of the finite element method is in computational fluid dynamic (CFD) software and structural analysis software packages. CFD is used primarily to explore global behaviour of external and internal flow, in order to understand key relationships between ‘parts’ and ‘quantities’ (e.g. between temperature and velocity distributions). CFD is also used to design specific ‘parts’ of an assembly in order to enhance its global behaviour (modify a diffuser design or external louvres to facilitate air flow). This use of finite element tools during conMCCS_18

cept design suits ‘agile’ thinking as applied to project management: the relationship between components may change as a result of decisions made by the customer, resulting in a high level of adaptability required in the process of design. Consequently, the tools must be in place to allow for quick analysis iterations, and the design should be sufficiently robust to have an adequate degree of interdependency between individual components. This allows changes by the customer to be absorbed in the design without impacting the whole concept. The aim of the design method used in the case studies of this book is to reach a level of 80% cost certainty for the façades and their resolution at the interface with structure and MEP design by the end of the schematic design stage; a level of certainty which would be expected for facade designs that use current technologies rather than the emerging technologies used in innovative facade designs. This approach requires robust design concepts to be in place which integrate the requirements of structural stability, energy consumption and thermal comfort. These concepts inform directly the architectural design; they do not provide only numerical validation. At the concept design stage, a matrix of design recommendations is provided for the customer. This matrix allows different configurations of structure, facade and environmental control system to be assessed against each other. The matrix is used as a decision-making tool to establish the strategies to be developed in the following schematic design stage. Method for structural analysis of complex facades The method described here is for the design of structures for facades of complex geometry, which typically follow the structural primitive of a shell. These structural forms typically create large scale enclosures around a more standardised internal structure, made from reinforced concrete or steel, whose purpose is to support floor slabs. The internal structure typically follows the structural primitive of a braced frame or a load-bearing box. The analysis of braced frames and load-bearing boxes is well understood and progresses from the structural design of a typical bay that establishes preliminary sizing, to a final global structural model that allows member sizes to be adjusted and which can account for global static or dynamic effects. The relationship between the internal structure and the external enclosure can vary, primarily as follows: • The two structures are completely independent, or • The external enclosure is partially restrained or propped at intermediate locations against the internal structure which requires a high level of coordination between the two, and usually implies a combined analytical/numerical model of the two structures, or • The external enclosure supports directly the internal structure: the two structures are effectively one and must be considered together.

PERFORMANCE BY DESIGN. - WEATHER DATA RESEARCH

FS02.06 ROOF VENTILATION STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

237 7

y coordinate [m]

SURFACE WATER COLLECTION, GUTTERS, FALLS AND RAINWATER OUTLETS

.

- SOLAR STUDIES:

QUANTITY OF ELEMENTS

SUN PATH ANALYSIS MAPPING SOLAR PENETRATION INTO THE BUILDING. GLAZING SPECIFICATION AND SIMULATION WITH GLARE ANALYSIS. INCIDENT SOLAR RADIATION ON FACADES WITH SHADING OPTIMISATION. PHOTOVOLTAIC EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS AND DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND OPTIMISATION

INNER PAIN TEMPERATURE PROFILE

HEAT FLUX

Top of inner layer 3.58 m

- WIND ANALYSIS:

Temperature [degC]

U-value = Q tot/(A*(T out - Tin)) For the double-skin facade considered it is:

AIR FLOW IN MAIN CAVITY [M/S]

50 232

PANEL QUANTITY

Air Outlet

U-VALUE CALCULATIONS THROUGH MATERIALS. DOUBLE SKIN FAÇADE SIMULATIONS AND TESTING. DYNAMIC THERMAL ANALYSIS OF WHOLE BUILDINGS.USE OF THERMAL MASS TO CONTROL INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS. DESIGN OF PASSIVE AREA (m2) SYSTEMS AND NATURAL VENTILATION

y - coord.

Tin Air Inlet Velocity = 1 [m/s]

Qtot

Tout - SYSTEM DESIGN - SPECIFICATION - MATERIAL SAMPLES - COST CONTROL AND QUANTITIES - APPROVALS

STRUCTURAL

- INTEGRATED DESIGN - COORDINATION - SHOP DRAWINGS - MANUFACTURING

.

PROCESSES

- DIGITAL FABRICATION - MOCK-UPS - TESTING - ACCESS, MAINTENANCE, CLEANING

U-value = Q tot/(A*(T out - Tin)) For the double-skin facade considered it is:

U-Value < 0.3 W/m^2*K

AIR FLOW IN MAIN CAVITY [M/S]

TEMPERATURE PROFILE [DEGC]

Outlet Area

Outlet Area

47 157

LINEAR LENGTH (m)

4.2 m

PANEL QUANTITY

0.245 m

QUANTITY OF OUTLETS

LINEAR LENGTH (m)

Double Glazing Units (90% Ar + 10% Air)

FS02.06 ROOF VENTILATION STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

237 7

Air Inlet

QUANTITY OF ELEMENTS

ES20.06 STEEL MESH

PANEL QUANTITY

strategy is subsequently deployed across different parts of the building and is the starting point for the generation of structural 88 concepts. The behaviour of each part of the facade, or building, structure 31 is controlled by a distinct structural primitive. Each structural primitive is combined with the general strategy for the envelope that responds to the architectural programme, in order for a structural concept to be generated. A structural concept for a facade of complex geometry addresses the following primary aspects: • Structural stability at global and local building scale. • Robustness of the design proposed. • Integration of primary, secondary and facade structure. The structural design of a complex geometry structure follows a process of ‘differentiation’ and ‘integration’: all components (connections, constitutive components, modules, etc.) are designed and analysed in isolation but are ultimately assessed in their global behaviour by establishing the load path through the structural elements.For complex geometry structures the ‘integration’ usually reveals the final structural behaviour, which is driven by the overall geometry. The step of differentiation is nonetheless required in order to integrate the technology required at the level of an assembly. The general strategy established at the outset of the design is driven by the technology of the proposed facade assembly. To this aim, current and emerging technologies are assessed to establish the strategy for the envelope by examining existing built precedents. These precedents are used to demonstrate the suitability of the technology proposed in relation to either a specific building type, or the project location, climate, etc. During ‘differentiation’, each assembly is examined independently through simplified calculation models, which range from hand calculations to a finite element assessment of a typical structural bay, whose size is representative of local effects. This is aimed at assessing the robustness of the assembly and its local stability. During ‘integration’, the structural concept for the load-bearing envelope is analysed through a global finite element model. This is aimed at assessing global stability and support reactions. The stiffness of the building is assessed primarily by estimating natural frequencies and global displacements. Stiffness is typically the driving parameter for the structural design of large-scale enclosures for facades of complex geometry. Global displacements are required to be linked back to local effects in order to obtain preliminary estimates of movement that will have to be accommodated within envelope assemblies, whilst still ensuring weather tightness. The interaction of the structure with the surrounding structures is investigated through support reactions, which are the basis of establishing load paths. The global model allows to assess areas of stress concentrations in order to establish strategies to redistribute internal forces and stresses. LINEAR LENGTH (m)

QUANTITY OF OUTLETS

Double Glazing Units (90% Ar + 10% Air)

Low-e coating Insulation Aluminium

N/A

Inlet Area

Inlet Area

Low-e coating Insulation

THERMAL ANALYSIS: COMSOL

Inlet Area

N/A

STEEL STRUCTURE BY OTHERS

Inlet Area

Aluminium

ELEMENTS

ES.30.05 GUTTERS

0.245 m

PANEL QUANTITY

88 31

Solar Radiation

AREA (m2)

Solar Radiation

4 188 ES.30.05 GUTTERS

ES10.05 UHPC LOUVRES

4 structure is to The first step in the design of a complex geometry 188programme. The establish a strategy that responds to the architectural

Internal Blinds

Outlet Area

Internal Blinds

ES20.06 STEEL MESH

AREA (m2)

ASSEMBLIES

The energy efficiency of the facade depends on the U-value, defined in the following way:

SOLAR ANALYSIS ECOTECT Outlet Area

TEMPERATURE PROFILE [DEGC]

MATERIAL SYSTEMS

- STRUCTURAL DESIGN - SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS - OPTIMISATION OF STRUCTURES - PHYSICAL TESTING

y coordinate [m]

ELEMENTS

U-Value < 0.3 W/m^2*K

TECHNOLOGY

DECONSTRUCTED FACADE BUILD-UP

COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS SIMULATIONS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CLADDING WIND ES10.02 UHPC RAINSCREEN PRESSURES WIND TUNNEL TESTING FOR CLADDING VERIFICATION AND CALIBRATION WITH CFD OUTPUTS.

- THERMAL SIMULATIONS:

Bottom of inner layer 0m

The energy efficiency of the facade depends on the U-value, defined in the following way:

STEEL STRUCTURE BY OTHERS

DIGITAL WIND ANALYSIS COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

‘Integration’ and ‘differentiation’ are developed through iterative loops, where strategies for the technology of the assembly are tested by examining their impact on a global finite element model. This approach captures the geometry-driven behaviour of the envelope. Typically, the behaviour of large steel enclosures is expected to be driven by its global displacements at serviceability. Large concrete shells are likely to be driven by maximum stresses at ultimate limit states. Analytical/numerical models are simplified in order to represent the essence of the object analysed. This is valid from small-scale components to large-scale structures. This ensures that analytical models are robust and do not produce misleading results, in which potential analytical errors are of the same order of magnitude of the results. Following this design approach, the envelope fabric is optimised in terms of structural stiffness and strengths to match the performance required by the geometry at different locations. The structural optimisation is done through digital analysis, where the global effect of changing the stiffness of one part of the envelope is examined in real time. In this way the assembly is conceived as a flexible set of sub-assemblies and components, so that a single facade system can be used across the project to match the performance required by the envelope geometry. This approach is driven by a thorough understanding of current and emerging technologies used for facades of complex geometry, which inform both materials and assemblies. Assembly technologies are brought into the design process when establishing the general strategy for the load-bearing envelope. The approach in designing complex geometry structures is assembly-driven. WIND TUNNEL TESTING

Method for MEP/environmental analysis of complex facades The approach used to analyse the case studies in this book is based on establishing a balanced set of environmental performance criteria. A commonly used approach sets environmental criteria based on ‘best practice’. However, this approach, where each criterion is derived independently, does not allow for an assessment of combined effects, nor for any subsequent optimisation. The objective of this design method is to produce a balanced set of studies that are coordinated and that document a robust design concept by demonstrating a global understanding of all the implications when choosing a given environmental strategy. This method aims at gaining a basic understanding of the order of magnitude of all the environmental phenomena and their relative importance in the design within a very short time-frame. It departs from a more typical approach where one specific aspect of the design is optimised on the basis of an intuitive ‘fit’ with the proposed architectural concept. Environmental design covers a wide range of variables. Embedding interdependency between variables is necessary to ensure design robustness, which is achieved by establishing an equilibrium between all the design criteria MCCS_19

INTRODUCTION Analysis method and scientific foundations (cont.) rather than allowing one criterion to dominate. The case studies shown in this book have been examined primarily by looking at eight aspects of environmental design (listed below) which affect the performance of both the external and internal environment. Each aspect of an environmental design can be divided into three essential components: • Natural phenomena. The natural phenomena linked to the specific project climate. • Analysis type. The effect of natural phenomena can be assessed by means of digital tools and hand calculations, which evaluate specific quantities. • Design solution. The objective of the analysis is the selection of an assembly or material technology. Different design solutions are able to meet the same performance requirements. These three categories can be divided further into the following primary categories of environmental study: Natural phenomena 1. Thermal transmission and condensation. 2. Solar gain. 3. Daylighting. 4. Movement of air inside and outside the building. 5. Heating and cooling loads in relation to external heat gains. 6. Acoustic transmission. 7. Rainwater evacuation. 8. Material design life/fire resistance/corrosion resistance. Analysis type 1. U-value calculation and calculation of condensation risk internally/ interstitially/externally. 2. Calculation of peak solar gain across the year. Calculation of peak radiation, annual cumulative and solar exposure across the year. 3. Calculation of daylight levels (lux) and risk of glare across the year. 4. For the main wind directions, external CFD for cladding pressures (wind speed from codes for structural design) and pedestrian comfort (wind speed from wind rose for a typical year). 5. Estimation of each thermal load (solar gain/losses, conduction gain/losses, internal gain/losses, ventilation gains/losses). Environmental performance simulation tools (e.g. IES-VE) can be utilised for final assessment of the interaction of the thermal loads for the entire building across the whole year. 6. Sound attenuation index calculation for each assembly, by using digital analysis where each material and component can be modelled to assess the overall assembly performance. 7. Water flow digital analysis tracking the direction of water under gravity on curved surfaces. Preliminary 3D drainage layout including gutters and outlets. Preliminary gutter sizing. 8. Material research and selection. Proof-of-concept fire testing if required. Design solution 1. Selection of insulation material, thickness and positon of waterproofing. Design of framing and interfaces to meet requirements on linear thermal bridges.

MCCS_20

2. Selection of glass type and external shading strategy in order to meet level of solar control required for peak solar gain. 3. Selection of glass light transmission levels and internal shading strategy to meet internal daylight levels for internal visual comfort. 4. Preliminary cladding pressures for structural and facade design. Velocities around the building at pedestrian level for main wind directions. Internal velocities and temperature profiles for thermal comfort assessment. 5. Breakdown of component values of cooling/heating loads in order to assess the relative importance of each component. Establish environmental zones. Duct and AHU layout and sizes. 6. Amount of acoustic mass required from each assembly to provide the required sound attenuation, establish how mass is distributed across the assembly and which layers provide sound attenuation. 7. Design of drainage system (selection between gravity or siphonic types). Sizing and integration of drainage within facade build-up. 8. Material selection. Material specification. Testing specification. The undertaking of environmental analysis in a facade design project is essential in order to establish a close relationship between envelope performance and requirements of mechanical ventilation (HVAC). The envelope performance regulates the main thermal gains or losses which require heating or cooling: solar, conduction and ventilation. The following design process is aimed at linking the two together: a. Thermal loads assessment for a typical bay. Before undertaking any environmental analysis, a basic understanding of HVAC requirements is obtained by means of an estimation of thermal loads for each representative typical bay of the building. This initial assessment uses benchmark values which are based on best practice. b. Preliminary duct sizes for a typical bay. The thermal loads computed for a typical bay are used to estimate the amount of air and the duct sizes required. As ventilation ducts typically occupy a significant volume of space within a building, this estimate allows zones for both facade and ceiling to be established. c. Preliminary assessment of global loads. The global loads for the whole building are assessed by scaling-up the loads obtained from the representative typical bays proportionally to surface area. d. Preliminary estimate of number of air handling units (AHUs). By using the global loads, the amount of air to be provided can be estimated, together with the required number, capacity and size of the AHUs, incorporating the required level of redundancy/back-up. e. Specialist environmental studies. These studies are aimed at understanding the implications on user comfort of varying envelope performance parameters in relation to HVAC requirements. f. Final environmental/envelope/HVAC strategy. This is based on a matrix of recommendations where different design solutions are combined to form options. The matrix is used as a decision-making tool. g. Refinement of calculations. Calculations are refined for thermal loads, energy consumption costs for the building, for determining both the sizes of AHUs and the sizes of ducts for air supply and return.

Current design methodology The outputs generated through analysis and design require a method of design implementation in order to be transformed into a set of instructions, which is how the design is delivered for construction. Following the current approach in building construction, the building envelope design is delivered through a set of drawings, which represent the design intent, and a performance specification, which contains the performance requirements for the facade systems illustrated in the drawing set. These two outputs can be disengaged from one other. The use of performance specifications originally comes from other industries where the project requirements are set out at the outset of the project, with limited change expected during the design process. In building construction, this approach assumes that contractors will complete all the detailing of systems and interfaces using the tender drawings as a visual guideline, in order to optimise for cost and ease of construction. The building engineer will check tender returns from bidding contractors based on compliance with what was issued at tender. Since aspects of the design are not described in the tender documentation, the contractor is allowed to propose design changes on the basis of their technical appropriateness. Different tender returns are compared on the basis of their ‘quality’. After tender, the engineer is involved primarily in the assessment of visual benchmark mock-ups as well as maintaining a limited involvement during fabrication and construction phases. The role of the ‘site inspection’ for a building designer is usually limited to checking the visual quality of the construction only. Project specific research allows the facade engineer to gather all the necessary information to ensure the design can be implemented. Research for most facade design projects is focused on project-specific procedures, mainly in order to unlock approvals and avoid delays in the programme. This approach is structured through a Gantt chart that sets out a series of sequential steps. The research is aimed specifically at understanding the full implications of building regulations, local standards and approval procedures. Research into design topics is limited to the understanding of all the technical requirements for the project. Regarding facade assemblies, the approach is based on obtaining, from specialist contractors, specific information about their products which is understood to be common to all competing manufacturers. This information is added to the performance specification as a way of determining a set of ‘benchmark’ criteria for assessment at the time of competitive tender. This usually leads to products or specific contractors mentioned in the specification, with the mention of ‘or equivalent’, in order to define that benchmark.

Limitations of current methodology The limitations of the current method are that the performance specification does not capture how the various parts of the design are coordinated across the various disciplines. Consequently, there is no method to ensure that all design requirements are both compatible and coordinated. In the drawings, the specific method of assembly is not described. The drawings are organised as a hierarchy of general arrangement drawings, general assembly drawings and typical details, which describe only general design requirements at different scales. These do not engage with interfaces and illustrate only representative parts of the envelope. Similar to specifications, drawings do not validate coordination and compatibility between envelope systems or between different trades. Often, this specific information is thought to be unnecessary, as contractors are considered to possess the required experience in implementing wellknown solutions. This approach suits projects where known solutions are implemented and is based on the fact that embedding coordination in the design documentation would increase cost as it would mean being overly prescriptive for certain parts of the design. With the current approach there is no real mechanism to compare specific parts of the design with alternative proposals, made by contractors, which are not described in the tender package. For these parts, the assessment is limited to a visual comparison with the design intent. The technical aspect of the design does not need to be scrutinised, as the final engineering design is the contractor’s responsibility in most construction contracts. In this context, any project specfic research is aimed at defining the scope of the design problem and limiting the opportunities for competing contractors to provide alternatives which do not meet the agreed design criteria. The process is one of collating technical information which is readily available and which is deemed to be relevant to ‘define’ the requirements of a design solution rather than provide a specific solution to these requirements. The lack of the availability of a specific solution can lead to unexpected consequences for the design if no specific alternatives are available. Newtecnic’s methodology When the consequences of the proposed design are required to be fully understood at an early stage of project development, the emphasis turns to achieving a high level of design resolution. Early stage design documentation allows costs to be obtained from contractors as the design progresses. In the following design phases that lead to tender, value is added to the design process by undertaking detailed analysis of specific design aspects. The following additional outputs are provided at tender for design implementation: • A full 3D model of the building envelope, which provides a full

MCCS_21

INTRODUCTION Design implementation and research method (cont.)

description of the detailed design, coordination between the envelope and the other trades and a tool for a direct take-off of quantities. The 3D model is developed at an early stage for cost certainty and then developed as the design evolves. • Results for proof-of-concept physical tests and documented testing procedures to be used by the contractor to validate specific design aspects. • Procedures for contractors to respond to the design at tender. These procedures include the documentation of any non-standard analysis process which is part of the proof-of-concept calculations, and is also provided as part of the design documentation. This high level of design resolution can be achieved whilst avoiding the increased costs associated with being more prescriptive, as high cost certainty is already achieved at early stages through cost estimates obtained from contractors rather than by a cost consultant, who does not usually provide specialist knowledge for non-standard projects. Factory visits, and the construction of performance mock-ups to validate fabrication, construction sequence and assembly performance, are an integral part of the design implementation method. This method includes the background research which is required to gather a set of project-specific information in order to define the most effective way to implement the facade design concept, generated by the facade engineer in response to the architectural brief. In order for the design to be implemented, a series of steps is required to validate the design proposed in in relation to the specific fabrication constraints of the appointed contractor. Newtecnic’s method of research is focused on generating new knowledge which is used to design material systems and assembly technology. The method of research serves as the basis for project implementation. The research required for an innovative facade design is driven by specific gaps in knowledge which are required in order to implement the facade design. These gaps in knowledge are typically: • Physical properties of a primary material (material selection). • Selection of a technology for a primary facade assembly (assembly technology). The objective of the research method is to transform useful knowledge into design constraints/drivers for a given facade design project. Material selection Research associated with material selection considers how the facade engineer can design with a given material, in order to establish design constraints and analysis methods. Research is often focused on establishing the need for physical testing in order to calibrate finite element (FE) models or to provide validation for the use of a given material system. Research identifies the limits of analysis and need for testing. A second part of the research into material selection looks at conMCCS_22

straints of manufacturing or fabrication, in order to set constraints on their use in a facade design. For example, the maximum size of a sheet material, the minimum thickness of an aluminium extrusion, the minimum radius of curvature for hot bending process of steel sections, can be determined. Visits to factories to identify the fabrication processes, and associated production costs, contribute significantly in the selection of materials. This is because the limiting factor in a material is often the ability of an individual fabricator or manufacturer to achieve the desired level of quality, complexity or precision, often as a result of the production cost of those processes. Assembly technology Research associated with assembly technology is concerned primarily with the identification of design constraints which are determined by the combination of components and materials within a facade assembly. The research may lead to physical testing to assess the performance of the assembly in terms of structural stability or weatherproofing. The main topics of investigation are: • Durability. The durability of the assembly is linked to the design life of the project and the frequency of cleaning and maintenance cycles planned for the completed installation. • Fire and corrosion resistance. Fire resistance typically requires bespoke testing of a 1:1 scale mock-up in order to be able to meet the oveall performance requirements of the full facade build-up. • Maintenance and repair. The ability to repair local damage to a material is particularly appealing for heavyweight assemblies, which avoids replacing entire facade modules by mobilising equipment or causing disruption to the building occupants. One of the primary purposes of the research conducted at an early stage is to compare examples of the application of the assembly technology with other built projects, in order to demonstrate the feasibility of specific aspects of the design. Design validation The first set of steps for design implementation after tender is aimed at validating the design concept proposed. The following steps are applicable to different degrees depending on the specific project: 1. Geometry definition. The coordination between facade, structure and HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) requires a strategy for the dimensional setting-out of each facade system. This setting-out is documented through drawings and through a fully coordinated digital 3D model, from which fabrication drawings can be extracted through a partially automated process. 2. Material properties and testing. In order to validate the design of each assembly, the mechanical properties of each material are confirmed by each fabricator. For non-standard materials, such as

advanced composites which are fabricator-specific, material testing is required. Material testing for non-standard materials is undertaken during the design phase in order to set minimum performance requirements to be met by the proposed fabricator. This preliminary testing provides both a proof-of-concept design, and a validated set of mechanical properties to be used as inputs for the structural analysis. This process significantly reduces uncertainty in the properties of the materials utilised and sets clear boundaries for contractor-specific variations on the materials, by imposing lower boundary values for the mechanical properties that drive structural sizes. Each specialist fabricator re-runs the same material tests after tender award in order to confirm compliance with the minimum requirements set during the preliminary testing. 3. Structural design and safety factors. The mechanical properties of a given material are the basis of the structural design of a facade system. Structural calculations are also based on the structural loads, including the weights of facade assemblies, wind loads obtained from wind tunnel testing, thermal loads, seismic loads, maintenance loads, impact loads, etc. Material and load safety factors assumed during the design stage are based on minimum values imposed by structural standards. In order to confirm these assumptions, safety factors include - at this stage - considerations of the expected precision of workmanship during both fabrication and installation. When standards and codes do not directly apply to the design due to its innovative nature, these considerations assume even more importance in confirming the safety factors. 4. Project-specific testing. As part of the implementation of the design, critical items that require validation through physical testing are identified. Physical testing is required when designing outside standards and codes. It is conducted alongside calculations, which are based on first principles and generate the hypothesis that is tested. The purpose of physical testing is typically to establish the design capacity of a structural component, assembly or connection between components used in a facade assembly. The design capacity is typically compared against the most unfavourable design scenario in order to verify compliance with design safety factors, which must be appropriate for the application and are determined prior to testing. Similar proof-of-concept tests can include impact tests or water tightness tests, and are used to validate specific parts of the assembly rather than verify the general compliance of the system (which is covered in ‘performance testing’). These tests are not covered by standards and codes, and are required to be designed from first principles. These are usually small-scale tests which are representative of the real project conditions. Typically, digital finite element analysis is used to establish the size and shape of representative samples, by comparing the performance of the sample with the real component through numerical simulation. Numerical simulations are only used for general comparison, as physical testing is required in order

to ensure the safe behaviour of the assembly or component, which cannot be determined by numerical analysis. These bespoke tests are typically undertaken during the design stage as a proof-of-concept in order to establish the viability of both design outputs and process. Project-bespoke testing typically requires the laboratory performing the testing to validate through peer reviews the procedure devised for the specific test as part of their own research activities. In order to carry out ambitious design tasks, a network of expertise is required in which methodologies are peer-reviewed. Consequently, design activities that lead to physical testing cannot be carried out in isolation. 5. Prototyping. A final validation of the assembly design may be required through a 1:1 physical mock-up or a scaled mock-up, where all the critical components are fabricated and installed according to the final design. This typically demonstrates the feasibility of critical design aspects and their visual appearance and is constructed before the performance mock-ups. The prototype is also typically used for informal structural testing, where the structural stability of the prototype is tested under project loads. This provides an effective method of validating complex assemblies before final compliance testing, described in the following paragraph. 6. Performance mock-up and testing. The final validation of the assembly design is required through a 1:1 physical mock-up, where all the components are fabricated and installed according to the final design. This mock-up validates the following aspects: a. Fabrication time. This is used to test the fabrication process and time required to fabricate each component. b. Assembly performance. Sufficient adjustment is provided, ease of fabrication of components, ease and sequence of assembly of components. c. Installation sequence. The proposed installation is tested and timed. d. Testing of structural and environmental performance. The performance mock-up must withstand a series of tests which are performed following standard procedures set by codes, such as air and water tightness and impact resistance. The failure of any of these tests may require changes in the original design or in the fabrication techniques. After successful testing, fabrication can begin.

MCCS_23

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 1 Galaxy Soho, Beijing

MCCS_24

GALAXY SOHO, Beijing OFFICES AND RETAIL

39° 55’ 15.7” 116° 26’ 0.8”

N E

ARCHITECT ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS LOCAL DESIGN INSTITUTE BEIJING INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN LIGHTING ENGINEERING LIGHT DESIGN FACADE CONSULTANT TO ZHA NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

270

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.14

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

0.54

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

1.12

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE EXTRUDED ALUMINIUM PROFILES

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES: POST-DRILLED ANCHORAGES

MCCS_25

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 1 Typical system bays

10

4

8 7

1

6

2 10

3

9 4 2

3D external view of typical bay 8

7

6 1

4

2

5

3D internal view of typical bay

MCCS_26

Details 1. Metal sheet 2. Mullion 3. Transom 4. Double glazed unit 5. Glazing frame

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Thermal insulation External cladding Floor slab Floor finish Ceiling finish

6

1

3 1

2

4

2

4

5

5

3D view of glazing system

3D exploded view of glazing system

4

4

2 5

7

8

7

3D view of interface between facade and structure

9

6

10

3D exploded view of interface between facade and structure MCCS_27

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 1 System design

3

Top view

3 3 4

1 1 2 2

4

3 3

Front view

4 3

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:30

MCCS_28

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Mullion 3. Transom 4. Glazing frame

3

2 1

4 4

3 1

2D detail. Scale 1:10

2D detail. Scale 1:10

3

3 4

1 1 2

2

4

4 3

3

Back view

3

3

4

4

2 2 1

1

4 3

3

4

3D views of assembly MCCS_29

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 1 Structural analysis

5.94 0.45

5.39

2.54

0.20

0.40

0.0

0.0 1.1

1.1 2.2

2.2 0.0 3.4

3.4 1.1 4.5

4.5 2.2 5.6

5.6 3.4 6.7

6.7 4.5 7.9

7.9 5.6 9.0

9.0 6.7 10.1

10.1 7.9 11.2

11.2 9.0 12.4

12.4 10.1 13.5

13.5 11.2 14.6

14.6 12.4 15.7

15.7 13.5 16.9

16.9 14.6 18.0

18.0 15.7 19.1

19.1 16.9 20.2

20.2 18.0 21.4

21.4 19.1 22.5

22.5 20.2 23.6

23.6 21.4 24.7

24.7 22.5 25.9

25.9 23.6 27.0

27.0 24.7 28.1

28.1 25.9 29.2

29.2 27.0 30.4

30.4 28.1 31.5

31.5 29.2 32.6

32.6 30.4 33.7

33.7 31.5 34.9

34.9 32.6 36.0

36.0 33.7 37.1

37.1 34.9 38.2

38.2 36.0 39.4

39.4 37.1 40.5

41.6 39.4 42.7

45.0 42.7 40.5 43.9

40.5 38.2 41.6

1.701.70 1.70

5.00

5.00

2.25 2.25

5.22 1.12 1.12 5.225.22 6.936.93 6.93

0.11

1.04

4.214.21 4.21

2.602.60 2.60 4.50 4.50 4.384.38 4.38 9.589.58 9.58 5.90 5.90 2 17.317.3 17.3 5.6 5.62 5.62 5.13 5.815.81 5.815.135.13 45.045.0 45.0 42.842.8 42.8 3.973.97 3.97 28.228.2 28.2 8.978.97 8.97

1.31 1.31

0.02

0.28

43.9 41.6

42.7 45.0

45.0

0.73

1.08

0.30

3.68

5.12

5.00

5.46

4.58

0.22

0.186 0.1862 2.38 2.38 0.911 0.911 0.911 4.264.26 1.161.16 4.26 1.160.138 0.138 0.260 0.260 0.260 3.373.37 3.37

0.00

0.22

0.22

3.51

0.30

0.19

37 3. 7 3 3.

0.20 0.54

0.00

0.00

-0.00

5 .2 2.225.25

2.26 2.26

5.305.30 5.30 2.22

0.255 0.255 0.255

0.18

0.00

0.23

0.00

0.00

37 3.

0.00

0.22

0.00

0.00

1.45 1.45

1.161.16 1.16

0.00

0.00

0.00

15.015.0 15.0

0.00

10.00

0.19

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.00

0.00

0.19

15.00

0.00

43.9

0.00

0.15

0.30

0.45

0.59

0.74

0.89

1.04

1.19

1.34

1.49

1.63

1.78

1.93

2.08

2.23

2.38

2.53

2.67

2.82

2.97

3.12

3.27

3.42

3.57

3.71

3.86

4.01

4.16

4.31

4.46

4.61

4.76

4.90

5.05

5.20

5.35

5.50

5.65

5.94

5.80

Finite element model of typical bay

2.32 m

M 1 : 83 X * 0.672 Y * 0.884 Z * 0.875

10.0

12.0

10.2 -140.00

-142.00

Sector of system Group 1 11

-144.00

19.2

12.8

-146.00

19.3 12.0

8.29

Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 2 wind pressure

MCCS_30

0.0

18.00 16.00

4.46

19.5

19.6

13.5 13.1 12.8 12.4 12.0 11.6 11.3

10.5

12.4

10.1 9.8

19.2

9.4 9.0

12.1

15 .8

17 .3

10.9

13.1

17.0 17.1 13 .9

18.4

8.0

8.6 8.3 7.9

12.4

7.5 7.1 6.8 6.4 6.0 5.6

7.5

12.8

9.8

16.1

12.2

5.3

-148.00

-150.00

-152.00

-154.00

-156.00

Tensile stress distribution in glazing panels due to the wind pressure (MPa) X Y

13.9

15.4

19.1

14.6 14.3

12.8

12. 4

19.6 19 .1

15.0

9.35

19.6

15.0

15.4

9.39

10.00

11.3

12.8

15.8

19.2

12.0

10. 4 11.5 12 . 4 19.8 19.5

11.6

16.1

12.00

96

2. 97

2. 48

3.

4.46

10.4

8.94

9.01

16.5

.6 17

7.56

10.4

16.9

m

, from

1.8390e-06 to 19.8 step 0.495 MPa

m

M 1 : 74 X * 0.658 Y * 0.841 Z * 0.927

4.9 4.6

ZY

328.00

Sector of system Group 2

329.00

330.00

331.00

Principal tension stress distribution in glazing panel (MPa) X

Maximum principal tension stress in Node

, nonlinear Loadcase 101 G+WP

, from 4.61 to 19.6 step 0.375 MPa

m

X * 0.517 X * 0.517 X * 0.517 Y * 0.927 Y * 0.927 Y * 0.927 Z * 0.934 Z * 0.934 Z * 0.934

13.7

3

11.2

5.49 9.49

3.84

11.5

11.5

11.4

17.3

0 12.

4.13

3.98 2 7. 9

m

M 1 : 80 M 1 :M 80 1 : 80

13.6

. 11

2.56

5.34

2.75

17.6

.1

0.997

92 11.6 7. 11.6

10

4.41

Z

14.6

18.4 18.0

4.00

-150.00 -150.00 -150.00

Tensile stress distribution in concrete structure (MPa)

18.8

4.51

1.70

-145.00 -145.00 -145.00

Sector Sector Sector of system Group of system 3Group 11 Group 3 11 3 11 Z Zof system X X principal Maximum Maximum principal tension principal tension stress tension stress in Node, stress in Loadcase Node, in Node, Loadcase 1 Loadcase self 1weight self 1 self weight , weight from ,0.0039 from , from 0.0039 to 45.0 0.0039 tostep 45.0 to 1.12 45.0 stepMPa step 1.12 1.12 MPa MPa Y Y Maximum

Z X

19.6 19.1

20.00

2.31

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.4

5.9

6.4

6.9

7.4

7.9

8.4

8.9

9.4

9.9

10.4

10.9

11.4

11.9

12.4

12.9

13.4

13.9

14.4

14.9

15.4

15.8

16.3

16.8

17.3

17.8

18.3

18.8

19.8

19.3

Tensile stress distribution in glazing panels (MPa)

-140.00 -140.00 -140.00

Y

109.00

-155.00

, from 0 to 5.94 step 0.149 MPa

108.00

-150.00

Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight

107.00

-145.00

Sector of system Group 1 11

14.00

Z

18. 0

-140.00

X Y

332.00

m

M 1 : 21 X * 0.881 Y * 0.790 Z * 0.774

Innonative Construction 2

Innonative Construction 2

1 System design for curved structural forms 1 System design for curved structural forms 2.05 1.94

2.05 1.94

1.86

1.86

1.78

1.78

1.69

1.69

1.61

1.61

1.52

1.52

1.44

41.35

1.44

1.35

1.27

1.18

1.18

1.10

1.10

1.01

1.01

0.93

1

0.76

0.59

0.59

0.51

0.51

0.42

0.42

0.25

0.25

0.17

0.17 0.08

0.00

3

0.00

-0.08 -0.17

-0.17

4 -0.25 -0.42

-0.34 -0.42 -0.51

2

-0.51

-0.59

-0.59

-0.68

-0.68 -0.76

-1.18 -1.27

-1.27

-1.33

-1.33

8.00

-0.0104

6.00 4.00

0.9730E-3

0.0014

-0.0027

0.0102

0.9220E-3

0.0124

0.4360E-3

0. 37 1

-0.0027

0. 24 6

2.00 m

-156.00

-154.00

M 1 : 50

X * 0.502 cm 3D Y,* 10.906 Z * 0.962

= 0.200 kNm (Min=-0.376)

MCCS_2

The glazing panels follow the curved perimeter of each building, interfacing with the floor slabs in a floor-to-ceiling configuration. The glazing panels and framing, which ‘sit’ on the slab, are allowed to expand freely in the vertical direction. Due to the geometry of each building, the glazing line follows a curved perimeter line, which requires an assessment of the effects of inter-storey drift (maximum horizontal movement between two slabs) on the stresses inside each glazed unit. The inter-storey drift would typically be accommodated within each glazing frame for a straight vertical configuration, where the panels are allowed to move independently of the frame, by a limited amount, in order to avoid any damage to the glazed unit during structural movements. The curved configuration of the glazing line causes additional torsional stresses to be introduced into the glazed units as a result of the out-of-plane movement. This movement is, inevitably, imposed on some of the glazed units around the perimeter, a movement which cannot be accommodated within the plane of the framing.

0.7829E-3

-0.0027

0. 37 2

-0.0051

37 1

-0.7239E-3

-158.00

0.8477E-3

0.0022

0.

0

0.0035

0.0038

37

0.0086

0. -150.00

0.

0. 12 2

0. 24 8

0.0015

1

-0 .0 02 5 0. 02 03

0. 12 3

-0.0081

2

37

0.0029

-0.0096 0.0034

37

0.

-0 .1 27

-0 .0 02 5

3

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight Z Bending moment distribution in aluminium frame (kNm) Y X

0.0021

1

0.

0.0041

-160.00

37

-0 .2 51

-0 .1 27

-0 .0 01 1

0. 14 4

-0 .3 76

-0 .2 52

12

2 -0.005

0

2

02

0. 14 4

-0 .3 76

-0 .1 26

0.

12

-0.003

37

-152.00

0.

8

6

.0

03 0.

12

-0.003

0.

1

0.

12

-0

.0

00.2033

24

27

-0

.0

0. -0.008

72

-0.374

-0.376 , 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kN (Min=-6.11) (Max=0.0103)

37

0.0088

0.

-0.005

0.0067

-0.337

0.0103

5

-0.318

0. -154.00 -0.355 3

0.0071

-0.299

-4.59

2

.1

27

3

12

2

-0 .3 74

0.

-

-0

-0

.0 0 0.1 12

74

-0 .2 50

.1

-0

0.

12

0.0043

0.0027

0

0.0021

0.0051

0.0061

0.004

0.01

0.0023

075002 0.0 0.

0.0069

-0.008

E-3

-0.281

03

-4.57

0.

-0.003

24-0.262 8 0.003 -0.003

-0.6854

-6.11

-4.59

-0.243

0.

-0

-0 0.1 .0 26 02

.0

.3

76

0. 14 8

0.0050

00.2033

6

0.0039

-0.206 -0.224

0.0036

0.002

0.0039

MCCS_2

-156.00

-6.11

0.0057

Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight

AxialX Yforce distribution in aluminium frame (kN)

0.004

-5.94 0.004

-16

-5.03

-5.03

01

-6.09 -5.92

-5.94

0

-158.00

-4.59

0.004

0.002

-5.94

0.004

-6.11

Z

-160.00 -16

0.004

-5.03

-5.81

0.002

-5.66

-6.11

0.01

-5.51

-5.96

-6.06

-5.01

-5.35

.0

12

-0

.3

76

0.0057

-4.99

-5.90

-4.99

-0

-4.55

-0

15

0. 11 5

0. 11 5

0. 11 8

0.

0.005

-5.90

-5.20

-4.53

.0

0.

14

14

.3

74

0.002

-4.99

-5.05

-0

-6.06

-4.55

-5.90

27

-0.168 -0.187

27

-0.013

-4.89

-4.55

-6.06

.1

-0.150

26

-6.04

-0

-

-0

.1

0.004

-4.74

-0

-0.131

.1

-5.88

-4.96

-4.51

-0.112

-0.01

-4.59

-0.094

0.

-0

.3

0.

0

-5.85

-4.94

-4.44

-0

74

-0

-0.075

-4.51-6.02

-5.85 -6.02

0.004

-4.94

76

-4.48

0.01

-4.51

-6.02

.3

.3

.3 -0.056 76

12

12

12

0. 08 64

0. 08 67

0. 08 84

0.

0.

0. 0

-4.94

-4.28

-5.85

-0

-4.46

-0

-0

0.004

0.000

-0.037

-0.001

0.019

09

09

09

0. 05 78

0. 05 79

0. 05 88

0.

0.

0.

0.01

-4.13

14

14

06

06

06

0. 02 91

0. 02 91

0. 02 91

0.

0.

0.

0 0. .12 15

0.005

-3.98

0.

0

-3.82

0.

0.037

-0.019

-5.83

-4.92

0.004

-0.0185

-4.90 -5.81

-4.90

-0.0155

-5.81

12

0.056

0

-3.67

0.

12

03

03

03

0 0. .09 12

-0.154

0.

0.075

-4.46-5.97 -0 .3 74 -6.00

-5.81 -5.97

09

0.094

12

0.01

-4.90

-3.52

-5.97

09

-0.0121

0 -0.022

-3.36

-4.46

0.

0.112

-3.06 -3.21

0.

0.131

-0 .5 98 2E -3

0.

0.

0.

0 0. .06 09

-0.131

0.150

0.

-2.91

06

06

0. 09 -0.15 -0.167

-2.75

0.

0.

-0.143

0. 0. 03 06

-0.108

0.187

3 -0.022

-0.17 -0.172

5 -0.021

-0.172 -0.131

070

-0.131

-0.01

-0.107

-0.15

8 -0.010

-0.17

9 -0.003

-2.60

-0.172

03 0.206

6

-0.143 -0.148

03

03

0.

0.168

0. 0 -0.131

0.

0.

0.224

-0.120

-0.125

-0.148 -0.107

-0.01

-0.131

-2.45

-0.01

-2.29

-0.084 -0.131

0. -0.11 03

-0.12

-0.13

.0 0.-002

-0.107

-2.14

0.02

-1.99

-0.01

-0.148

-0.0600

-0.0836

-0.0845

0.002

-0.143

-1.84

-0.06 -0.11

0.243

-0.0967

-0.013

-0.084

-1.68

-0.12

-0.13

0.262

0.004

-1.53

-0.101

-0.01

-1.38

-0.085

-0.1

-0.10

0.281

-0.0733

-0.0776

-0.0364

-0.0612

0.01

-0.06

-1.22

-0.1

-0.10

-0.07

-0.078

-0.036 -0.085

-0.0380

0.318 0.299

-0.061

0.004

-1.07

-0.0541

0.004

-0.92

-0.07

-0.078

-0.036

0.05

-0.0128

-0.0499

0.004

-0.76

-

-0.013 -0.061

0.372 0.337

-0.038

-0.05

Principal stress

-0.001

-0.61

0.05

-Weight of fa

-1.10

Details 1. Aluminium mullion 2. Aluminium transom Principal stress 3. Glazing frame 4. Primary structure -1.18

-

-Bracket's nu

-1.01

-1.10

-0.013

-Bracket com

-0.93

-0.93 -1.01

-0.46

Secondary s Steel I profile Weight of se -structure (m

-0.85

-0.85

-0.038

Primary stru Concrete slab

-0.76

Facade assembly

-0.05

Façade zone 270 mm

Weight of facade, including Bracket's 0.54 number of pieces secondary structure (kN/m2) Weight of façade

-0.25

3

-0.34

0.01 0.00

Number of components in fixing system

0.08

-0.08

-0.31

Facade bracket type

0.34

0.34

Typical bay of the building

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.68

Type of bay Glass

Façade zone aluminium Extruded profiles. Primary structure 0.14 Secondary structure Serrated plates; postWeight of secondary drilled anchorages. 2 structure (m ) 4 Bracket complexity

Secondary structure type

0.76

0.68

Typical bay of the building

Primary structure type

0.85

0.85

Finite element model of typical bay

270 mm Type of bay Concrete slabs

Facade zone

1.27

0.93

Floor-to-ceiling stick glazing.

Facade system

The analysis of a typical bay addresses the most unfavourable condition in terms of structural movements, with two glazing configurations interfacing with the same slab. The stress generated in each panel varies according to its position and can in this way be estimated. The reaction forces exerted as a result on the concrete structure are also considered together with any stress concentration along the concrete slab edge. Detailed finite element modelling is required for these cases in order to establish glass thicknesses, which requires a first principles approach in the design of the glass which cannot be achieved by using most of the current standards which require the engineer to use charts to calculate the effects of lateral deflection only. The calculated design strength of the glass, which takes into account the specific glass mechanical properties, load duration, age and size is compared directly with the maximum stresses found through finite element analysis.

MCCS_31

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 1 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 937 800 580 400 225

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

10,490 m

15,268 MWh

2

% Daylight factor

kWh/m2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

4.5 MWh

17.1 MWh

74%

MCCS_32

25

300

12

260

10

180

8

150

6

100

4

62

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 5.4% 98.4% of area between 2-12% 0.1% of area > 12% 1.5% of area < 2%

2

External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

12

2

9

1.5

6

1

3

0.5

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution EXT

INT

20 °C 13 °C 0 °C

Pressure, kPa 2.5 1.5 0.5 -0.5 -1.5

Velocity, m/s Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

4

The shading strategy uses ‘light shelves’ of varying length, the size of each shelf being determined by the building geometry in order to provide an effective cut-off of solar radiation, whilst avoiding a significant reduction of daylighting levels in the internal space.

2.5

Through solar radiation analysis, the building form has been adjusted to suit directly the shading requirements around the perimeter of the building. In addition, the overshadowing effect of the skybridges has been taken into account through the solar radiation analysis of the global model.

0.7

1.9 1.3

0 Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution MCCS_33

CURRENT AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES COMPLEX GEOMETRY 2 Evolution Tower, Moscow

MCCS_34

1

EVOLUTION TOWER, Moscow OFFICES

55° 44’ 55.1” 37° 32’ 32.4”

N E

ARCHITECT RMJM, PHILIPP NIKANDROV STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RENAISSANCE CONSTRUCTION MEP ENGINEERING RENAISSANCE CONSTRUCTION FACADE ENGINEERS TO RMJM NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

370

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.28

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

0.88

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

1.42

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE CHS STEEL SECTION, CABLES

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SPIDER BRACKET WITH FOUR ADJUSTABLE ARMS

MCCS_35

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 2 Typical system bays

1

3

1 11

2 11 2 3

4 8 5 8

6 7

3D external view of typical bay

4

5

6 7

3D internal view of typical bay MCCS_36

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Mullion 3. Transom 4. Floor finish

5. 6. 7. 8.

Floor supporting bracket Primary structure Ceiling finish Glazing frame

9. Support bracket 10. Steel structure 11. Shading elements

11

1

3

3 11

2 1

2 4 5

3 4

6

5

7 6

7

3D exploded view of glazing system

3D view of glazing system

9 9

1

10

10

3D view of glazing system

3D exploded view of glazing system

8 8

9 9

1

1

3D view of supporting bracket

3D exploded view of supporting bracket

MCCS_37

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 2 System design

3

2

Top view

3

4

5

1

2 2

3

4

3

Front view 3 2

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:30

MCCS_38

3

2

1

4

5

2

2 1

2D detail. Scale 1:5

2D detail. Scale 1:10

4

3

5

2

1

2

3

Back view

5

5

2

1

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Mullion 3. Transom 4. Glazing frame 5. Shading elements

2 1

3 3

MCCS_39

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 2 Structural analysis

Facade zone Primary structure type Secondary structure type

17

64

11

57

04

11

10.00 8.00 6.00

98

-0.5

98

98

-0.5

98

-0.5

0.46 0

6.00

-0.5

98

98 -

-0.5

-0.5

60

-0.4

98

-0.5

6.00

98

-0.5

-0.5

98

60

-0.4

09 09 -0.6

09

-0.6

-0.6

-0.6

-0.4 87 -0.4 87 -0.4 87

09 09

09

-0.6

-0.6

6.00

-10.00 -14.00

-1.304 -1.311

-12.00-16.00 -10.00

-1.449

-8.00

-1.457

-16.00 -20.00-14.00

-10.00

-1.449

-8.00 -16.00-12.00 m -18.00 -22.00 -1.457

-10.00 -20.00

-1.449

-8.00 -14.00 -18.00 -1.457

-12.00 m-10.00 -16.00 -20.00

-12.00 -14.00

-18.00 m

-14.00 -16.00

-20.00

-16.00

-18.00

Elements ,:self Normal force(Max=0.152) Nx,, Loadcase weight kN (Min=-1.46) (Max=0.152) Beam Elements , Normal force Nx,Z Loadcase Beam MElements , Normal ,force 1 cm ZNx, 3D Beam =Loadcase 1.00 kN 1 cm 3D1 =self 1.00 (Max=0.152) Beam Elements , Normal Loadcase Beam kNm Elements 1(Min=-0.493) self , weight Normal (Max=0.472) force , 1 cm Nx,3D Loadcase = 1.00 kN 1 self weight (Max=0.551) , 1 cm 3D = 1.00 kN (Min=-1.31) (Max=0.551) ase 1 self weight , 1 force cm 3D Nx, M 11(Min=-1.46) 53 weight M 1kN: (Min=-1.46) 53, 1 cm 3D = 1.00 11 :self 58 weight Z(Min=-1.31) Z= 0.500 X X X X X * 0.923 X * 0.923 X * 0.940 Y Y Y Y Y * 0.558 Y * 0.558 Y * 0.542

Axial force distribution in folded facade (kN)

Axial force distribution in twisting facade (kN)

Z * 0.907

MCCS_40

Z * 0.915

4.00 2.00

81

-0.5

81

81

-0.5

-0.5

8-1

81

-0.5

-0.5

81

-0.5

0.49

4

4.00

94

-0.4

81

81

-0.5

81

94

4.00

4.00

-14.00 -12.00 -18.00

2.00

71

-0.362

-0.5

24

-0.322

-0.5

78

0 0 6 56 300 030 030 055 2 -0.05 2 .0 2 -0. -0. 0 0 -0. .30528 -0 028 028 00 35 060 060 -0. -0. 4 -0.08 4 .06 4 .008 -0. -0. 0 0 -0 01.1056 -0 056 056 1 0 0 . 1 9 9 900 0 0 -0. 46 -0.1 46-0.0 0.-1 0.0 8 8 846 -0. 0 0 0 -0.161 20 20 20 -0. -0. -0. 1 1 1 . . . -0 -0 -0 7 7 16-0.201 167 150 150 -0.160.113 0.150 113 113 -0. -0.241 -0. -0. -0. -0. - 95 -0. 195 195 1 80 80 180 -0. -0.282 -0. -0. 69 69-0.1 0.1 1 1 169 -0. . . -0 -0 -0. 10 210 210 -0.322 197 19 7 0.2 197 -0. -0. -0.488 -0.488 -0.488 -0. -0. -5 -0. 25 2 -0.362 2 2 225 . . -0 -0 -0.0270 -0. 0 0 -0.522 027 027 -0. -0. 522 522 -0. -0. -0.402 -0.121

2.00

31

0.000

-0.080

4 80 .0 -0

85

314 -0.0 -0.121 -0.161 629 -0.0 -0.201 43 0.09 -0.241 -

-0.040

-0.4

38

8 4 60 11 .0 .0 -0 -0 0.149

32 .1 -0

91

47 .1 -0

45

-0.080

9 51 .0 -0

98

99 -0.02 598 -0.0 97 -0.08 0 -0.12 9 -0.14

6 055 -0. 5 083 -0. 111 -0.

-0.4 61 -0.4 61 -0.4 61 -0.4 61 -0.4 61 -0.5 51 -0.5 51 -0.5 51 -0.5 51 -0.5 51 -0.4 61 -0.4 61 -0.4 61 -0.4 61 -0.4 61 -0.5 51 -0.5 51 -0.5 51 -0.5 51 -02.00 .551

52

0.0152 33 01 0.

7 55 .0 -0

05

0.000

5 47 .0 -0

59

0.040

0.000 -0.040

26 .405 26 -0.282 -0.1 -0 -0.1 -0.322 57 57 -0.1 -0.1 -0.362 86 86 0.353-0.093 -0.402 551 -0.402 -0.5 -0.5 0.551 0. 0.469 -0.443 -0.443 -0.443 -0.627 -0.627 -0.627 20 20 0.0260 0.285 -0.140 -0.0844 -0.0844 -0.0844 .522 -0.6 -0.6 0.522 0 -0.483 -0.483 -0.483 -0.186 0.378 3 0.472 11 11 -0.661 -0.661 -0.661 93 0.217 -0.523 0.4 -0.523 -0.523 0.49 -0.5 -0.5 -0.233 0.286 921 40 40 -0.563 145 -0.627 -0.627 -0.627 0.354 .09210.464 -0. -0.145 -0.145 0.149 -0.279 -0-0.563 -0.0-0.563 0.464 -0.5 -0.5 -0.604 1 -0.604 -0.604 0.194 -0.326 1 69 69 35236 -0.176 -0.176 -0.176 -0.12 0.435 -0.12 -0.5 -0.5 0.0814 0.40. 658 658 -0.644 -0.644 -0.644 -0. -0. -0.658 -0.372 -0.450 -0.450 -0.450 0.102 1 98 98 078 .151 0 .411 -0.15 0.407 -0-0.684 30 -0.684 -0.684 330 -0.5 -0.5 00. -0.419 .33 -0.688-0.3 -0.688 623 -0.688 -0. 623 62-30 . . . 7 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 8 -0.724 -0.724 -0.724 8 8 6 6 1 1 -0.466 - 2 3 -0. -0. -0. -0. 0.37 0.37 8 62 6 5 53 53 58 58 862 0.8 -0.35 0.-80.6 -0.765 -0.765 -0.765 0.3 0.6 0.6 -0.3 -0.512 -0. 6 6 0 0 5 5 1 1 6 6 9 9 2 2 -0. -0. -0. -0. 0.34 0.34 9 9 6983 683 683 414 4 4 -0.805 -0.805 -0.805 -0.559 .91 .91 0.41 -.09.1 3 -0. -0. -03 . .41 0 0 0 5 5 0 8 8 9 9 3 3 6 6 3 0 0 2 2 . . 1 7 -0 -0 -0.845 -0.845 -0.845 71 71 -0. -0. 0.32 0.32 -0.605 947 947 09.47 -0. -0. -0. -0. -0-. 3 3 3 69 4 4 1 1 8 8 4 4 4 -0.885 -0.885 -0.885 9 9 7 7 6 6 1 1 -0.652 . . 7 7 7 2 2 9 9 6 6 -0 -0 4 4 -0. -0. 0.2 0.2 -0. -0. -0. -0.34 8 -0. -0. 3 -0.926 -0.926 -0.926 -0.698 773 77 97 06 43 43 00 00 0 497 497 .707 98 98 2 -0.7 -0.7 -0. -0. -0.43 .0 -0.2 0.262 -0.2 -1. -1. -0. -1-.0 0.26 -0. -0.966 -0.966 -0.966 3 -0.745 303 -0 03 2 2 .03 .80 .80 7 7 0.08 1 7 7 0 0 7 7 2 2 3 3 . . -1. -1-. 3 3 3 3 0 0 -1.006 -1.006 -1.006-0. -0.791 -0. 0.2 0.2 20 -0.255 6 6 4 4 06 0 0 7 7 7 0 0 646 646 646 . . -0. -0. -0.0 0.801 -1.046 -1. -1 -0. -1 .0 -0.0 01 -1.046 -1.046 8 6 6 -0.838 . 5 5 0 0 3 3 -0. -0. -0.202 -0.885 -0.493 -0.493 -0.493 -1.087 -0.680 -0.680 -0.680 30 -1.087 30 -1.087 8 8 . . -0.284 0 0 5 85 -1.127 -1.127 -1.127 -0.18 -1.42 -1.42 -1.42 -0.931 52 -0.1 0.152 0.1 0.152 8 8 -0.246 -1.2-1.167 -1.2 -1.167 -1.167 -0.978 -0.410 -1.46 -1.46 -1.46 -1.207 -1.207 -1.207 -1.024 1 1 93 3 3 915 915 915 . . .4 0.0 0.0 -0 -1 -1 0.0 -1.248 -1.248 -1.248 3 3 -1.071 0.026 0.026 -1.288 -1.288 -1.288 0.0822 0.0822 0.08220.0610 -1.117 0.0610 0.0610 0.0609 0.0609 0.0609 -1.328 -1.328 -1.328 1 -1.164 1 0.0548 0.0548 0.0548 95 95 0.027 0.027 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305 0.05 0.05 -1.368 -1.368 -1.368 -1.211 274 274 0.0274 0.0 0.0 304 304 8 8 0.0304 0.0 0.0 9 9 -1.408 -1.408 -1.408 2 2 -1.257 0.0 0.0 0.047

5 -0.40

0.152 0.080

0.040

6 30 .0 -0

12

0.093

99 -0.02 -0.080 598 -0.121 -0.0 97-0.161 -0.08 -0.201 0 -0.12 -0.241 9 -0.14-0.282

0.152 0.080

94 -0.02 88 -0.05 3140881 -0.0-0. 629118 -0.0-0. 94.3147 -0.0-0

09 02 0.

66

0.140

-0.047

16 05 0.

19

-0.0456

6 41 .0 -0 0.0850

0.000 -0.040

-0.4 87 -0.4 87 -0.4 87

40

0.040

8 -0.11 47 -0.1

0.186

86

72

0.152 0.080

94 -0.02 88 -0.05 881 -0.0

0.233

33

26

5

8.00

0.279

79

0.63

8.00

0.326

79

33

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

Details 1. Aluminium mullion 2. Aluminium transom 3. Glazing 4. Primary structure 5. Fixing bracket

8.00

26

86

2

Facade assembly

Alternative option using kinked framing explored as part of the design development to generate the final straightframed solution used for the construction of the facade.

0.372

40

Number of components in fixing system

Finite element model of twisting facade

72

93

Serrated plates; postdrilled anchorages.

1

0.419

47

Facade bracket type

4

0.551 0.466

00

0.08

3

19

47

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

2

51 66

93

Twisting unitised glazing. 230 mm Concrete slabs. Extruded aluminium profiles.

Facade system

Z * 0.915

-18.00 -22.00

m -20.00

M 1 : 60 X * 0.923 Y * 0.558 Z * 0.915

-20.00

-

2.20 2.15

1.65

1.54

1.38

0.43 2.13

0.54

0.41

0.42

0.57

7 0.8

2

6 0.8

0 0.8

0.55

2.19

0.61

2.19

8 0.8

3

0.8

0.66

2.19

0.72

0.17

2.19

0.8

2.20

4 0.8

0.77

0.40

0 0.9

0.88 0.83

2.20

2.15

2.15

2.20

2.14

6 0.8

2.14

0.94

0.25

4 0.9

2.20

6

0.99

0.18

0.44

1 0.

1.05

0.45

0.16

2.13

2.14

1.10

2.14

1.16

0.10

0.46

0.08

59 0. 59 0. 59 0.

1.21

0.05

0.47

0.05

0.44

1.27

0.05

0.48

0.04

0.45

1.32

0.45

0.34

0.47

1.43

0.05

0.49

0.05

0.48

1.49

0.13

0.50

0.02

0.49

1.60

0.10

0.52

0.10

0.50

0.52

1.71

0.14

0.53

0.52

0.53 0.51

1.76

0.38

1.82

0.54

0.22

1.87

48 0.

1.93

0.23

0.21 50 0. 0.39 18 0. 50 0.

1.98

0.38

2.04

0.20

2.09

5 0.8

9 0.7

0.50

4 0.8

8 0.7

0.44 0.39

3 0.8

8 0.7

0.33

2 0.8

7 0.7

0.28 0.22 0.17 0.11 0.06

Finite element model of typical bay

5

4

0.00

Z

XY

-32.00

-30.00

-26.00 -24.00 -22.00 Axial force distribution in cable elements (kN)

-28.00

Cable Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 10 sw + prestress

, 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kN (Max=2.20)

2000 mm

3

1500 mm

Facade system

4

4

5

2 1

Atrium glazing assembly Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Spider bracket 3. Structural connector

Facade zone Primary structure type Secondary structure type

3

4. 5.

-20.00

Atrium full-height inclined glazing. 370 mm Concrete slabs. CHS steel sections, cables.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.28

Facade bracket type

Spider bracket with four adjustable arms.

Number of components in fixing system

26 and 2

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.88

Cables Steel tube sections

The interface between the twisting concrete structure and the glazing framing is designed around the need for the glazing to accommodate the movements from the primary structure. A lightweight aluminium framing system running past the floor slabs ‘wraps’ the building. Two facade options have been investigated to accommodate the twisting geometry of the tower. The option with straight framing elements and individual glass panels set at an angle within the framing was chosen to avoid splitting the glass into two panels.The option using kinked aluminium framing also introduced additional torsional moments in the members when subjected to lateral loads perpendicular to the facade. The stiffness of the aluminium framing is also determined by the global effects of the movements of the primary structure, which require additional stiffening to avoid torsional resonance effects triggered by wind

vortex shedding. The additional stiffness introduced in the primary structure limits the amount of global deflections, which allows the glazing frames to be kept within expected sizes for equivalent straight spans. The lateral movement of the primary structure is accommodated within each plane of the glass panels, where free movement is allowed between glass panels and framing. The atrium glazing uses a mix of twisting trusses made out of tubes linked by cables, where the geometrical twisting in the glazing is accommodated between each panel rather through folds in the geometry. This is achieved by means of spider brackets which offer separate adjustment on each supporting leg. Spider bracket fixings allow the accommodation of larger movements than would be the case with a framed solution. The movements are also accommodated by flexibilie silicone joints that seal adjacent glass panels ensuring the water tightness of the facade. MCCS_41

-18.00

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 2 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 374 320 250 175 110 50

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

1,088m2

1,766 MWh

kWh/m2 374

% Daylight factor

320

10

250

9

175

7

110

5

50

3 1

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay. Alternative option using kinked framing explored as part of the design development to generate the final straightframed solution used for the construction of the facade.

Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

5.8 MWh

7.3 MWh

20%

MCCS_42

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay. Alternative design option using kinked framing and not used for construction. Mean daylight factor: 5.2% 100% of area between 1-10

External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

5

2

4

1.5

3

1

2 1 0

0.5 0

External and internal air velocity distribution. Alternative option using kinked framing explored as part of the design development to generate the final straight-framed solution used for the construction of the facade. External velocity, m/s 60 40 Pressure, kPa

30 20

2.5

10 2.0

0

1.5

1.0

0.5 EXT 1

1

1

1

0.0

1

2

5 15 2 17

16

1

16 5 18

15 17

16

17

18

20 °C 13 °C 0 °C Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

o

20.0 C

INT

Wind cladding pressure distribution

The required level of solar control is achieved by means of solar control glass, which limits solar gains and risk of glare due to its low g-value and light transmission. The high degree of reflectivity of solar control glass causes most of the sunlight to be reflected off the building. Reflective glass without external shading has been selected in order for the complex twisting form of the tower to be made visible. The global wind effects of the twisting geometry are assessed by avoiding resonance of the structure at the vortex shedding frequency, calculated through CFD analysis.

o

13.0 C o

0.0 C

MCCS_43

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 3 Hotel, Riyadh

MCCS_44

HOTEL, Riyadh HOTEL

24° 41’ 31.4” 46° 41’ 08.8”

N E

ARCHITECT GENSLER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING THORNTON TOMASETTI MEP ENGINEERING HURLEY PALMER FLATT FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

975

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.30

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

1.44

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.81

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE CHS STEEL SECTION

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES: POST-DRILLED ANCHORAGES

MCCS_45

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 3 Typical system bays

1

2 4 3

8 6

5

1

5 3 2

6 4

8

3D view of a typical bay MCCS_46

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Secondary link 3. External FRP cladding 4. Internal FRP cladding 5. Primary structure

6. 7. 8. 9.

Secondary structure Supporting bracket Thermal insulation Shading elements

2 3 4 3

2 6

1 5

3D view of glazed roof

1

3D assembly view of glazed roof

3

3 9 5

6 7 6 5 9

3D view of plant roof

3D exploded view of plant roof

5

1

3

1

3

3D view of hotel vertical glazed facade

3D exploded view of hotel vertical glazed facade MCCS_47

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 3 System design

4

3

Top view

2 3 2 3 4

7

5

1

1

Front view

3

2 4

5

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:200

MCCS_48

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Secondary link 3. External FRP cladding 4. Internal FRP cladding 5. Primary structure 6. Secondary structure 7. Supporting bracket 8. Thermal insulation

3 3

8

1 1 7

8 7

4

5

5

4

2D detail. Scale 1:10

3D view of detail

3 4 2

4

1

1 6

5

Back view

3

3 1

2

1 4

2

MCCS_49

0.32

5.00

0.08

0.00

0.04

0.01

0.02

0.07

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.07

0.03

0.00

0.01

0.09

0.14

0.00

0.09

0.12

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.02

0.04

0.04

0.15

9.05 0.32

0.03

0.01

0.03

0.18

0.07

0.04

0.11

0.04

0.23

0.25

0.08

0.21

0.23

0.32

0.07

70.17

9.38 0.15

0.07

0.28

79.35

0.14

1.59

0.28

0.19

0.07

63.46

52.14

16.76

32.08

17.05

11.45

116.58

112.09

0.28

121.60

127.78

131.47

135.13

138.11

139.94

140.58

139.56

137.06

133.04

127.79

120.86

114.41

106.02

97.01

88.57

60.26 9.29

51.00 1.55

42.58

34.18 0.11

26.50

20.29

0.24

0.09

0.07

0.43

7.09 3.51

0.09 2.00

0.07

16.37

57.36

63.05

122.04

14.17

9.63

7.24

7.85

8.31

0.27

0.56

0.41

6.68

6.63

7.11

8.73

10.22

5.71

20.12

13.15

6.19

5.44

3.44

0.24

0.01

0.17

0.49

0.76

1.75

1.13

1.24

2.03

9.69

6.00

16.82

53.35

63.78

73.96

45.50

30.65

23.44

40.82

36.83

33.69

23.46 35.23

18.06

14.56

122.27

120.35

116.59

111.07

105.16

97.37

91.72

81.85

90.61

76.62

85.84

95.48

76.72

85.41

80.91

82.65

0.00

0.00

91.18

94.87

97.77

104.38

107.77

8.66

100.74

98.44

50.55

54.26

122.69

121.81

61.63

76.41

68.78

99.13

9.10

23.16

112.01

125.42

123.15

131.96

125.98

129.71

99.46

80.89

28.08

98.49

81.05

60.71

50.43

86.36

114.09

119.06

108.32

99.12

103.05

85.45

42.72

33.08

24.36

3.79

79.31

64.26

69.43

44.92

33.98

26.13

9.05

2.07

3.37

2.44

4.53

3.62

46.04

53.57

49.84 86.21

37.71

32.70

31.42

30.02

21.51

16.72

11.47

8.01

5.73

0.36

0.74

1.83

4.91

1.04

11.36

17.32

14.74

4.85

28.06

24.57

79.58

83.31

78.23

74.74

65.83

46.67

36.21

69.12

60.22

52.30

46.14

19.29

20.77

9.40

6.81

16.49

10.00

11.54

8.43

77.59

113.48

89.06

94.89

84.37

152.08

139.92

62.16

68.55

81.03

124.24

67.17

79.00

176.16

163.35

199.09

186.29

210.01

225.33

216.12

230.83

233.85

234.46

118.08

112.32

68.90

82.58

105.41

206.12

215.14

229.76

233.17

110.78

67.14

78.95

80.16

81.76

49.34

81.26

98.27

109.67

106.32

114.30

78.02

190.98

177.53

146.66

160.53

101.38

89.57

41.03

20.46

66.55

126.05

91.51

12.57

27.25

40.06

56.09

72.55

108.50

78.67

60.87

54.84

48.31

31.30

17.74

1.55

222.83

109.09

5.07

85.60

68.42

71.90

73.31

90.34

99.26

101.93

87.75

99.37

110.89

121.85

133.86

144.99

188.57

182.31

175.35

166.31

156.49

19.79

35.73

31.50

29.58

20.58

18.98

15.36

8.48

1.72

2.25

10.80

19.09

26.46

7.01

2.99

7.87

6.46

13.91

29.98

32.32

34.77

42.67

42.82

25.99

59.66

193.48

197.12

111.84

111.09

198.20

114.72

96.53

104.85

74.78

61.11

45.20

29.39

0.93

2.56

103.40

110.71

197.05

190.26

194.07

156.88

99.58

88.35

176.43

185.14

70.48

80.81

78.29

60.93

91.84

79.32

64.71

83.11

73.65

70.51

143.71

117.37

131.35

88.34

103.61

78.09

60.82

59.67

50.36

167.60

63.67

60.87

55.80

51.03

45.01

26.76

35.51

57.11

58.00

61.77

60.79

52.10

55.89

42.25

61.46

74.04

0.02

0.03

33.91

26.46

16.53

5.76

60.29

5.66

0.02

46.48

23.48

32.87

14.22

0.00

0.97

4.10

7.46 31.17 34.37

39.94

48.25

27.11

33.73

31.31

30.24

10.08

13.31

17.99

19.87

51.15

44.45

48.02

50.42

39.04

45.78

53.81

48.91

52.38

50.10

42.85

35.13

33.82

23.02

17.36

28.60

41.54

43.24

43.26

46.19

48.69

30.68

37.14

31.51

33.90

35.42

42.82

45.52

39.75

35.51

30.75

20.00

23.76

36.56

35.77

42.42

39.60

37.53

36.12

33.63

29.12

28.88

25.40

21.62

26.32

20.96

8.53

12.88

17.71

-10.00

-234.5

-228.8

-222.1

-215.4

-208.7

-201.9

-195.2

-188.5

-181.7

-175.0

-168.3

-161.5

-154.8

-148.1

-141.3

-134.6

-127.9

-121.2

-114.4

-107.7

-101.0

-94.2

-87.5

-80.8

-74.0

-67.3

-60.6

-53.8

-47.1

-40.4

-33.7

84.00

0.00 1.81

3.25

-26.9

2.72 3.38

0.237

-20.2

1.90

85.00

0.496

10.00 1. 4.9 5 24

8.

12 .5

95

Finite element model of typical bay

86.00

17.9

24

.7

24 .1

15.1

14.7 2 15.1 7.6

.8

19 .0

18

7.82

27

.4

5.97

2. 83

8

1. 55

3.06

1. 28

14

9.26 6.89

7.56 4.99

3.86

5.24

5.34

6. 58 6 15 .8 9 .96 .3 1. 4 96 18 3. .6 07 11.1

5.

15 .5 23 1. .7 39 4. 27 51 .4 13 .9 28 .5 19.4

11 .

30 .5 29 .2

84.3 68.1

52.4

3.60

20.00

24 25 16.7 6.19 .3 12.4 .6 1. 27 88 .5 21 15.2 .7 12. 25 22 13.3 4 1.74 .7 .6 22 .4 14 11.2 .3 23 2.09 17 .6 22 .9 5. .0 15 3. 54 .3 88 7 17 .8 .2 2 20 .5 18 5. .9 33 1.88 11 .9 17 .0 17 .4 3. 1. 15 04 30 .1

1.33

0. 97 8

5.27

2.12

1.70

5.91

5.26

4.95

0.807

3.76

2.89

1.55

3.06

5.01

5.69

5.41

16.2

8.95

20.9

3.05

-13.5

0.987 3.89

11.2 12.5 12.0

99.6

90.4

2.14

2.02

10.5 2.00

0.677

7.95

141.8 149.7

3.82

2.99

4.90

7.60

7.25 20.6 42.2

90.8 28.1 111.8 53.5 123.5 75.9 133.1

98.6

97.2 19.5 98.8 14.3 97.6 109.6

97.3

102.1

76.6

90.3 59.7

3.64 5.09 4.17 2.70 1.51 0.476

-6.7

0.877

0.542

0.0205

4.74

9.56

4.17

11.1

157.7 163.8 168.3 170.1

169.4 166.2 161.9 145.6

154.4

107.2

120.9

133.2

75.2

91.5 30.2

4.00

5.94

9.87

16.2

24.2

36.1

47.3

61.7

1.18

1.28

2.56

7.48

12.5

27.3

25.0

43.0

67.9

83.6

95.4

101.3

22.0

66.8 8.91

4.65

5.52

6.94

7.23

6.86

27.2 44.8

95.9 97.3

95.6 99.8

96.8 98.7

76.8

89.7

51.1

63.1

38.8 19.1

2.00 3.98 3.75

3.22 3.37 3.55 3.72 4.03

0.0

85.5 108.0

146.3

98.4

125.9 77.4 5.30 137.7

154.5 161.1 165.3 167.0

161.9

165.9 155.1 134.3

145.7

95.6

109.0

28.0 19.4 8.65

13.2

2.80

3.09

3.07

2.90

2.53

3.03

5.54 3.75 3.76 3.45 3.67 3.96 4.20

1.39

4.47

6.7

0.981

36.1

2.80

7.48

21.5

11.9

9.21

2.71

60.7

6.65

3.36

84.2

1.75

24.3 5.13 3.47 7.23 38.7 2.31

31.7

31.5

50.5 121.8

62.3

65.4

83.7

92.1

3.75 6.63 8.96 9.99 9.00

4.49

5.89

7.38

2.23

3.17

3.22

3.11

3.47 0.838

2.80

4.56 4.94

4.71

13.5

18.6 26.6 33.0

35.4 36.5 37.5 38.2 38.6 38.8 39.0 38.8 38.5

5.15

4.30

19.5

18.2

11.5

13.6

38.0 9.31

9.87

31.7

33.2

35.4

37.4 36.5 34.1

30.3

17.9

7.53

87.00

05

2. 58 2. 10

3.

3.21

3.16

3.02 3.93

2.90 4.40

3.65

4.65

6.32

8.42

9.30

2.80

5.55 2.39 4.87

25.8

26.9

28.7

.4

0.223

20.2

81 3.

13 7.

5.98 6.35

20.3

23.3

92 7.

10.3 61 9.

15.9

9

5.10

2.82

3.52

1.56

Von Mises stress distribution in FRP louvre (MPa)

X * 0.659 Y * 0.769 Z * 0.986

11.8 10

4.59 4.08

Vertical displacements distribution in FRP louvre due to wind load (mm)

Vertical displacements distribution in steel structure due to self-weight (mm)

m 474.00 473.00 472.00 471.00

M 1 : 28 Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements

470.00 469.00

X * 0.982 Y * 0.769 Z * 0.667 X * 0.815 Y * 0.621 Z * 0.975

6.26 0.374

26.9

3.05 41 3.

10

30.00 2. 76

78 63 3. 3. 14 54 3. 4. 17 4. 4.

6.43

5.98

44 8.

. 11

4.86 4.40

3.18

3.90

MCCS_50

m

330.00

320.00

310.00

300.00

(Min=-234.5) (Max=34.8)

, 1 cm 3D = 696.9 mm

Sector of system Group 9 29 120...124 128 130 132 142 500

Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 sw

XY

290.00

280.00

M 1 : 259

Vertical displacements distribution in steel elements due to self-weight (mm)

Z

7.72

, from 0 to 12.5 step 0.313 mm Nodal displacement vector in Node, Loadcase 4 W3 X ZY M 1 : 271

(Min=-11.9) (Max=170.1) , 1 cm 3D = 275.0 mm Nodal displacement in local z, Loadcase 1 sw YX Z

468.00 m 370.00 360.00 350.00 340.00 330.00 320.00 310.00

20 7.

6.88

0 7.2 5 8.4

39 9.

.0

4.38

4.07 2.82

1.56

10 2.64

0.246 0.0159

0. 26 5 86 1.

0.145

8.14 1.72

0.770

0.230

6.65 7 6.5

5.95 4.38

7.04 0.0175

0.672

0.176

0.364 0.128 5.01

0.118

0.0

5.01

12.5

9.39 1.88

11.6

8.76 1.56

9.70

2.82

.3 11

.3

0.0

10

0.0600 12.2 0.323

1.25

7 7.89

0.0

0.313 0.754 6.50

2.45

10.3 4.38 6.57

6.88 2.50 6 3.7

8 1.8 6 3.7

9 0.93

0.0622 0 10. 0 11.

57 6.

4. 1.83

6 .3 10.5

9.10

0.0804

0.409

34.8

0.0

11.0

.3 11 11.4 8.76 69 9 93 0.

4.69

6 6.2 4 8.1 9 9.3 10 .0 8. 82 14.6 12.7

1.87

88.00 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.6 5.9 6.3 6.6 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.1 8.4 8.8 9.1 9.4 9.7 10.0 10.3 10.6 11.0 11.3 11.6 11.9 12.5

12.2

-11.9 -9.1 -4.6 0.0 4.6 9.1 13.7 18.2 22.8 27.3 31.9 36.4 41.0 45.5 50.1 54.6 59.2 63.7 68.3 72.8 77.4 81.9 86.5 91.0 95.6 100.1 104.7 109.2 113.8 118.3 122.9 127.4 132.0 136.6 141.1 145.7 150.2 154.8 159.3 163.9 170.1

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 3 Structural analysis

Finite element model of typical bay

0.0

Facade system Facade zone Primary structure type Secondary structure type Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

Curved glazed roof with FRP shading louvres. Up to 3 meters (due to cladding) CHS steel sections. RHS steel sections.

3 6

0.52

Facade bracket type

Spider bracket with four adjustable arms.

Number of components in fixing system

22

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.89

Details 1. Primary structure 2. Fixing bracket 3. Secondary structure 4. Glazing frame 5. Glazing 6. FRP cladding

6

1

6

5 2

Facade system Facade zone Primary structure type Secondary structure type Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

Vertical full-height glazing with FRP cladding. 975 mm Concrete slabs. CHS steel sections.

4

Retail facade assembly

0.30

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates; postdrilled anchorages.

Number of components in fixing system

3

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.44

5

1

4

6

Vertical facade assembly

0.

0. 00

10000. 0.

0.19

By identifying both local and global effects, analysis at different scales was used to estimate the structural effects that determined the sizes of steel components.

0.12

The detailed structural analysis of each typical bay was used to establish the feasibility of the structural system across a range of project conditions and to set preliminary sizes for the primary structure steel tubes. The global model was used to assess the global stability of the structure, in particular its global movements due to lateral wind forces and the distribution of support reactions on the concrete primary structure beneath. In terms of tonnage, the complete steel structure, which forms the roof enclosure, is equivalent to one additional floor of the concrete structure below it. The main effect of the large steel dome is the asymmetries created in the transfer of the dead loads along its perimeter, as well as the lateral loads imposed by wind action on the shell structure, which are transferred to the concrete structure beneath.

Y

0.17

X

0.25

Z

0.22

Finite element model of typical bay of the vertical facade -0.211

0. 01

01

-10000.

0. 01

0. 00

-0.191 -0.205

0.25

-0.178

0.27

0. 00

-0.164

0.23

-0.150

0.00

0. 00

0. 01

0. 00

0. 01

-0.137

0.28

-0.123

0.25

0. 00

-0.096 -0.109

0.29

-0.082

0.20

0.13

-0.068

0

0.17

0. 01

0.21

-0.055

0. 0

0.27

0.00

-0.041

0.26

-0.027

0.00 0.00 0. 00

0. 00

0

0.18

0.24

0.000 -0.014

0.26

0. 0

0.00

0.27

0.00

0.027 0.014

0.29

0.041

0.24

0.055

0. 00

0

0.21

0.27

0.068

0. 0

0.31

0.00

0. 00

0.29

0.082

0

0.23

0.096

0.29

0. 0

0.29

0.109

0.00

0.00

0.28

0.00

0.123

0

0.32

0.150 0.137

0.31

0.164

0.25

0.30

0.178

0. 0

0. 00

0

0.26

0.00

0.191

0. 0

0.29

0.205

0.33

0.219

0.32

0.232

0.26

0.31

0.246

0.30

0.00

0.260

0.34

0.273

0.32

0.287

0.27

0.31

0.301

20000.

0.336 0.314

310000.

Deformed Structure from LC 1 sw Enlarged by

Nodal displacement in local z, Loadcase 1 sw

320000.

1.0000e+06

Vertical nodal displacement distribution in steel elements (mm)

, 1 cm 3D = 0.377 mm

330000.

340000.

(Min=-0.211) (Max=0.336)

The rainscreen cladding elements, which form the continuous shading louvres and which are integrated with the primary structure, are made from fibre reinforced polymer panels which are analysed as a sandwich construction through the use of finite element analysis. Designing with composites requires physical testing of the material in order to validate the performance of both the individual material components and the build-up, as assembled by a specific manufacturer. Material testing to obtain the mechanical properties of each layer of the sandwich construction was performed in conjunction with testing for the flexural strength of the whole build-up. The mechanical properties obtained for each layer feed directly in the finite element model, where each layer is taken into account. The test on the overall build-up is used to calibrate the final results from the finite element model, and is then used to determine the influence of the proposed fabrication method, on the final performance of the build-up.

MCCS_51

350000.

mm

M 1 : 207 X * 0.494 Y * 0.905 Z * 0.968

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 3 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

23 September

22 December

kWh/m2 2265 2000 1250 1000 475 250

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

10,886 m2 11,779 MWh

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

230 MWh

304 MWh

24%

MCCS_52

% Daylight factor

1739

19

1550

16.2

1100

13.3

750

10.5

470

5

173

2

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor Second floor: 12% First floor: 6%

Internal velocity, m/s

External velocity, m/s

2.5

2.5

2

2

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5

0.5

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution 20 °C 13 °C 0 °C

Pressure, kPa INT

EXT

3 2.25 1.5 0.75 0 -0.75

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

Effect of FRP cladding louvres on wind pressure distribution

The large glazed surface of the roof enclosure requires external shading in order to control the solar gain across the building and to allow the use of glass of relatively high transparency in order to maximise daylighting levels. This helps to create the required conditions for the daylighting of an internal garden. The daylighting levels are reduced in the lower part of the roof which encloses circulation space that connects retail units.

An internal CFD study was used to investigate the temperature distribution in the tall garden space and test the MEP strategy of cooling the lower part of the building only. The analysis revealed the flow rates required for top level exhausts for the excess hot air. The internal CFD study has been used to test the feasibility of the integration of ducts for mechanical ventilation which are set within the steel tubes of the structure supporting the shell. This approach helped to ensure a balanced distribution of ducted air uniformly across the whole space, introduced at at low level, and extracted at high level. This approach allows ducts be concealed. An alternative approach, of separate diffusers located around the perimeter of the internal spaces, would have generated higher temperature gradients and thermal discomfort.

Early stage CFD analysis was implemented for both internal and external environments in order to estimate preliminary cladding pressures for the cantilevering shading fins. As these shading elements are realised as a FRP sandwich panel with an intermediate layer of compressed epoxy foam, they do not require any additional supporting structure. Therefore, establishing the thickness of the assembly was a critical aspect both in terms of feasibility and costs.

MCCS_53

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 3 Hotel, Riyadh

A facade system was developed specifically for the building envelope which encloses a multi-purpose interior space. The envelope system integrates its supporting structure by removing the need for a secondary structure and maximising the transparency of the enclosure. The envelope structure is composed of primary steel arches, which support most of the dead load, connected by steel rectangular hollow sections used to support the glazing. These rectangular hollow sections are oriented in the direction perpendicular to the primary arches and in this way provide lateral global stability by introducing shell action. The primary arches are wrapped directly by fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) shading louvres. These are realised in the form of an open-jointed ventilated rainscreen cladding, which provides variable solar control for the interior spaces. The envelope assembly integrates supporting structures, a glazed layer and a shading device. The glazed layer can also include fully opaque elements, openings, or become open ventilation louvres to conceal areas of mechanical plant which require direct air intake from the outside. The FRP shading louvres vary in span and angle of inclination in order to meet different requirements for daylight and solar gain across the building. Solar radiation analysis provides a means of mapping out specific shading requirements for each part of the building and quantifies the effectiveness of the implemented shading design. The reduction in solar gain provided by the shading is measured against the daylighting levels inside the building, which differ from one environmental zone to another, in response to the multipurpose nature of the internal space. The daylight analysis allows lux levels to be assessed across the year in response to varying sun paths, and penetration of direct solar radiation into the internal spaces, which affects the thermal comfort of the occupants and the corresponding use of internal space near the facades. Both FRP louvres and glazing are fixed directly to primary structure with adjustable steel brackets, avoiding the need for an additional secondary structure, which would increase both installation time and overall weight. The fixings are designed to be shared across the corner of four panels; brackets are adjustable in the three spatial directions (x,y,z) in response to the three-dimensional geometry of the structural envelope. The use of an adjustable bracket allows construction tolerances to be controlled in the same way in each direction. Each steel ‘spider’ fixing connects directly with the primary structure with shading fins without penetrating lines of thermal insulation and waterproofing. MCCS_54

The fixing system has been designed so that the open joint between adjacent FRP rainscreen panels are disengaged from the locations where the fixings penetrate the waterproofing membrane. The same strategy is used for both curved and vertical areas, where the FRP rainscreen cladding enclosing the primary structure varies in shape to suit its function as either a shading device or as a device to provide opacity in the external wall. The envelope system allows the incorporation of connectors between primary structural steel arches in addition to the secondary structure directly supporting the glazing, in order to improve local stiffness of areas of the envelope where local movements need to be contained. The behaviour of the structural envelope at global level is investigated through a global finite element model in order to assess the effects of global stability and stiffness of the structure in relation to the facade design. The need to control the global movements and deflections of the structure due to wind loading directly determines the sizes of the primary structural arches enclosed in the FRP cladding and the density of the secondary glazing mullions required to connect the primary arches and provide stability. The spacing required between secondary members also allows an economic glass size for the rectangular glazing panels to be achieved, whilst ensuring global stability of the structural envelope. The size of the secondary structure supporting the glazing is driven by the need to contain local deflections under wind loads. Finite element software for structural analysis was used to explore the behaviour of the envelope from movements under the project load cases. Finite element analysis has been used as a tool to map out the behaviour of the building at both a global and local scale to design the interaction between facade and structure and determine structural dimensions and amount of movement to be accommodated at local level between facade components. The global finite element model of the self-supporting envelope assembly has been used to assess the interaction between the envelope and the concrete structure sitting underneath, in terms of additional dead load and lateral load imposed on both concrete structure and foundations. The interaction between the large envelope enclosure and the supporting concrete structure affects the sizes of the structural cores and transfer structures required to transfer the loads of the envelope down

to the foundations. The detailed interaction in terms of connections between envelope and concrete structure is assessed at the scale of a typical bay by testing, through finite element modelling, to assess localised effects due to support reactions, the design of interfaces between structure and envelope, as well as expected slab stiffness and movements under the loads of the envelope. The thermal transmittance of the envelope changes with varying ratios between glazed and opaque areas as the envelope system ‘morphs’ across the building form. The linear thermal bridging is assessed at the interface between glazing and opaque spandrel and is compensated with sufficient insulation thickness to achieve the overall target U-value for the glazed envelope. The envelope system is designed to be flexible to accommodate different U-value requirements across the building envelope by increasing the insulation thickness and quantifying the effect that this has on the geometry for the area selected. An iterative approach of using 2D thermal analysis for extruded components is combined with 3D geometry analysis as the extrusions follow a curved form. The technology developed for the envelope assembly is an emerging technology in its integration of structure and envelope, which are typically designed as independent layers in order to achieve a higher degree of certainty over global and local structural movements. The most typical current technology for large glazed roofs accommodates movements of the primary structure in the connections between primary and secondary structure. The connection between secondary structure and assembly typically accommodates movements related to the local behaviour of facade components. The basis of the envelope technology used on the project comes from a series of stiff portal frames braced by secondary members in the plane of the roof to provide global stability. This is a rigid form of construction which for larger spans is typically evolved to deep trusses instead of portal frames, which may become an isotropic space frame for more complex forms or bi-directional spans. These structures are typically driven by the need to control deflections and provide support for a glazing system, which is set above them and can move independently of the supporting structure.

ture, a diagrid structure is typically utilised where the glazed or opaque panels, usually triangulated, are fixed directly as a site-assembled system onto an efficient structural profile which exploits the structurally efficient shape of the enclosure. For larger spans, the shell action is used in combination with large directional stiffening elements, like trusses, providing stiffness in a given direction and typically supporting the dead load of the structure, whereas the shell is used for global stability only. The envelope technology chosen for this project maintains a hierarchical structure between primary and secondary in order to achieve very large spans with a non-regular shell form. The structure achieves a doubly-curved form where the secondary structural layer supporting the glazing is integrated with the primary structure, contributing to global stability but the two can expand/contract independently in order to accommodate thermal movement. The envelope technology developed for the envelope presents the following innovative aspects. 1. Primary and secondary structure are integrated which allows a doubly-curved surface to be achieved by using flat rectangular panels and without requiring triangulation. 2. The two layers of primary and secondary structure are integrated in terms of global stability but can slide with respect to each other in order to locally accommodate thermal movements and prevent movements along the primary arches from being transmitted to the glazing structure. 3. No interfaces between envelope systems are required in order to accommodate global structural movements of the self-supporting envelope; the envelope system is designed as continuous. 4. The open joints of the FRP rainscreen panels, which form the visually-continuous shading louvres are disengaged from the penetrations through the water-tight layer. This reduces the risk at the penetration points and allows the system to be more flexible and to accommodate higher levels of movements. This suits the fact that the system is fixed directly to the primary structure, which can be reduced in size as reduced global stiffness is required.

The use of the natural shape of the building allows the structure to exploit its natural behaviour as a shell. For a regular glazed shell strucMCCS_55

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 4 Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre, Baku

MCCS_56

HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTRE, Baku CULTURAL CENTRE

40° 23’ 59.2” 49° 52’ 49.7”

N E

ARCHITECT ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AKT II MEP ENGINEERING GMD ENGINEERS FACADE ENGINEERS TO ARABIAN PROFILES NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

550

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.20

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

1.15

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.23

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL TUBULAR SPACE-FRAME

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE CHS STEEL SECTION

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES MECHANICALLY FIXED

MCCS_57

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 4 Typical system bays

Details 1. GRP panel 2. Primary structure 3. Rigid insulation 4. Double glazed unit 5. Mullion 6. Panel frame 7. Panel bracket

2

5

1

4

3D external view of typical bay

2

5

4 1

3D internal view of typical bay

MCCS_58

5 2

2

5

4

4

3D view of glazing system

3D exploded view of glazing system

1

1 6 7

3

6

3

2

2

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

MCCS_59

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 4 System design 2

3 7

6 1

Top view

1 3 2

1 6

7

7

Front view

1 6

7 3

2

Bottom view MCCS_60

Third angle projection. Scale 1:100

Details 1. GRP panel 2. Primary structure 3. Rigid insulation 4. Double glazed unit 5. Mullion 6. Panel frame 7. Panel bracket

1

1

7 7 5

3D view of the assembly

2D detail. Scale 1:10

7

7

3

2 2 6

3 1

Back view

7

1 7

3 2

3

6

2

MCCS_61

26.8

27.0

37.4

8.94

18.6

3.74

9.93 12.4 38.9 29.3

9.59 14.9 24.5 37.2 25.0

37.6

7.59

0.168

7.33 14.7 10.1

7.32

7.70

10.1 33.5 59.5 48.3

2.29

34.1 3.17

57.9

63.2

24.6 17.9

15.9 3.37

18.8

17.8

15.3

8.56

6.90 2.45

45.8 7

7.65

9.22

24.9

11.2 6.21

4100.00

4095.00

81.7

6.99

30.7

74.9

Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight

, from

4090.00

1.1972e-06 to 130.5 step 3.26 MPa

32.7 31.2 6.46 29.7

15.4

28.2 26.7

83.4

25.3

4.33 70.2

2.02

34.1

0.0257

2.97

2.31

69.6

0.312

23.8

0.236

1.49

2.21

7.00 22.3 6.26 20.8

16.3 14.9 13.4 11.9

4080.00

m

M 1 : 155

0.239

3.02

24.6

1.00

0.262

2.31 3.59

X * 0.831 Y * 0.602 Z * 0.973

48.3

1.71

1.76

0.796

0.534

0.996

17.9 1.60

7.4

0.698

5.9 4.5

1.5

3007.00

0.0

YX

Von Mises stress distribution in the bracket fixing the FRP panels to the secondary structure (MPa) MCCS_62

Z

0.451

49

3.17

8.9

3.0

0.933

1.26

1.

9.54

10.4

0.728 0.0330

0.288

19.3

4085.0017.8

0.458

1.61

59.5

97

Principal stress distribution in FRP panels (MPa)

Sector of system Beam Elements,Quadrilateral Elements

0.0

35.7

2.65

0.333

2.

XY

Z

4105.00

0.448

38.6

34.2

32.9

0.395

0.593

1.11

1.05

37.1 5.33

18.2 4110.00

3.3

40.1

7.02

0.0160

0.0219

2.76

17.7

48.5

2.42

0.636 125.6

5.81

41.6

11.2

4.01

0.907

43.1

15.3

5.02

12.1

120.6

4.67

23.0

21.1

0.264 4 5.

96.0

17.3

20.2

34.2

4.36

3.28

4.25

1.78

7.15

6.60

45.5

0.369

0.600

44.6

52.7

11.6

20.9

46.7 19.6

33.5

46.1

21.6

8.66

6.63

40.7 57.6

21.9

17.2

21.8

2.24

0.290

1.91

0.300

47.5

54.2

5.97

8.49

12.8

10.6

15.5

31.5

31.4 9.61

20.5

22.8

32.4

4.45

15.2

10.8

10.6

18.0

25.2 14.4

0.735

15.2

3.59

30.7

6.15 5.95

7.54

2.14

49.0

11.6

25.6

8.00

1.53 0.366

50.5

36.3

68.7

31.8

30.8

52.0

4.86

79.5

31.7

5.47

15.2

42.5

10.3

4115.00

6.5

9.8

13.0

16.3

19.6

22.8

26.1

29.4

32.6

35.9

39.1

42.4

45.7

48.9

52.2

55.4

58.7

62.0

65.2

68.5

24.2

53.5

94

44.5

9.89

2.18

55.0

79.0

49 1.

16.4

62.5

0.485

56.5

47.7

5.

130.5

14.3

30.4

4

100.3

31.2

59.5 58.0

125.9

101.9

43 7.

11.3

3.49

105.7 3.00

. 10

34.5 45.7

71.8

26.1

41.5

65.9

6.04

33.8

24.9 48.3

76.5

7.95

75.0

33.3

23.0

60.0

11.1

78.3

28.8

1.76

21.5

81.5

84.8

88.1

17.9

26.8

65.2

3.88 20.1

20.8

149.50

15.7

91.3

94.6

97.8

101.1

104.4

18.1

149.00

118.4

69.8

20.9

28.1

3.30

Close up view of principal stress distribution in the panels (MPa) 3006.50

Sector of system Group 9

3006.00

3005.50

Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight

3005.00

3004.50

148.50

36.5

26.7

148.00

3.68

97

37.7

22.3

2.

25.3

10.4

Finite element model of typical bay 435.00

33.0

22.7

430.00

.3 16

16.9

425.00

49.1

107.6

110.9

114.2

117.4

120.7

123.9

18.4

23.6

420.00

19.2

127.2

130.5

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 4 Structural analysis

3004.00

12.1 3003.50

, from 0.0257 to 59.5 step 1.49 MPa

The structural sizes of the steel space frame which forms the primary structure are determined by its global stability, specifically by global deflections due to lateral wind loads. The approach to the design of the primary structure is to generate a stiff skin as a result of a curved, arched, geometry, assisted by the structural depth of the space frame. This approach allows the glazed facades to be designed and analysed as independent structures which are bottom-supported and only restrained laterally to the primary structure. This limits the amount of movements transmitted through the glazing system, which is designed to meet standard structural and thermal movements despite the complexity of the form. Finite element stress analysis of each assembly component is performed with the objective of establishing a ‘kit of parts’ for the fixing system which suits the range of configurations across the building.

m

M 1 : 16 X * 0.518 Y * 0.857 Z * 0.999

0. 01

02

30.00

Y * Z *

30.00 25.00

835.00

4

25.00

35.00

35.00 30.00

0.

.0 7

-0

-0 .

-0 .0 3 -0 .0 1

05

0.0

5

6

0.0 0

0.0 3

0. 01

02

0.

5

0 .0

0.0 0

-0 .0 3 -0 .0 1

0.0 3

0.0

-0. 07

-0 .

05

0.01 0.0 0 0. 03

0

-0 .0 1

-0. 0

-0.

1

-0.

0

0. 01 0. 02 0. 02

8 -0.1 8 -0.1

840.00

0.0 2

0.0 4

-0.07

-0.02

-0.03

25.00

0. 02 0. 02

0. 01 0. 02 0. 02

0. 01

0.0

0

-0 .0 1

-0. 01

-0. 0

5

-0. 01

0.0

0.0 1

-0.0 -0.01 8

0.0

4

2

0.0

6

-0.11

0.0 1

0.0 6

-0.11

-0.11

1215.00

1215.00

1225.00

20.00

0.10 1220.00

m

m

0.10

M 1 : 102

1220.00 1215.00 Close view of bending moment distribution in framing members (kNm) M 1up : 102 X * 0.083 Y * 0.997 Z * 1.000

X * 0.083 Y * 0.997 Z * 1.000

, 1 cm 3D = 0.0648 kNm (Min=-0.112) (Max=0.0976)

Facade system

GRP open-jointed rainscreen.

Facade zone

550 mm

Primary structure type

Steel tubular space-frame.

Secondary structure type Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

CHS steel sections.

Number of components in fixing system Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.20 Serrated plates, castings and machined components; mechanically fixed. 10 1.15

Details 1. Secondary structure 2. Casting 3. Serrated plates 4. Extruded profiles 5. GRP panels

MCCS_63

20.00

-0.11

20.00

-0. 05 -00.00 .0 1

-0. 01

0

0 .0 6 -0.0 1 0.0 0 0.01

-0.0 1

0.04

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.04 0.0 3

-0.01

0.02 0.01

0.04 0.04

-0.04

0.01 0.04 -0.03

-0.01

0.01

0.02

-0.04

-0.01

0.01 -0.01

-0.03

0

0 .0

-20.00

0.0

-0. 04 -0 .0 -50. 04 -0 .0 -60 .0 5 -0 .0 -0 7 .0 6 -0 .0 7

-10.00

-10.00

-15.00

-15.00

0

-0.0 5

-0.0 5

0.0

0.01

-0. 010.0 1

1 -0.0

0.0 0

-0.0 -0 1.01

-0. 01 -0.0 1

0.01

0.04

0.03

0.00 0.01 0.01

-0. 14

-0.1 2

-0.07

0.03

0.00-0 .01 -0.0 1 0.01 0.01 0.01

-20.00

-0.0 5

-0.0 -0 5.05

-0.0 5

-0.04

-0.04

4

4

-0.0

-0.0

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

-0.01

0.03

-0.07

-0.04

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.01

-0.07

-0.04 -0.04

-0.01

0.01

-0.05 -0.06

0.01

-0.01 -0.02

-0. 14

-0.1 2

-0.07

-0.05

-0.03

0.04

-0.01

0.02

0.05

0.07

0.10

0.02 -0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.05 -0.01

0.07

-0.01

0.01 0.01 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01

0.00

-0.03

-0.00

-0.04

0.02 0.10 -0.06 0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 0.02 -0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.01

-0.04 -0.04

-0.01 -0.01

0.01 0.01

0.02

0.04

-0.01

-0.00 -0.01

0.02 0.01 0.04 0.04

0.01

-0.01

0.0 2

0.00

0.0 4

0.0 4

0.00

4

Facade bracket type 3

-0. 03

-0. 04

M 1

0.0

-0.01

-0.01

0.0

0.01

1

0.0 2

0.00

-0.03 0.01

-0.0

0.00 -0.07

-0.0 8

0.03 -0.01

0.04

-0.01

-0.02

0.0 6

-0. 03

-0. 01

-0. 02 -0. 03

-0.02 -0.06

0 .0 -0

-0.02 -0.06 0.03

0.01

-0.01

0.0 1

0.04 -0.03 -0.04

-0.01 -0.01

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

-0.01

0.01

0.00

2

4

0.0 4

0.0 2

0.03

8 01 -0.1 0 0. 845.00 0 -0.18 .0 .0 (Max=0.0965) 840.00 0.200 0kN (Min=-0.185) 0 -

-0. 01

0.00

0.00

-0.02

0.03

0.00 0.04

1

01 0. 00 0.

0.0 2

0.0 4

0.03 0.0 0

-0. 02 -0. 03

-0. 04

02

0.07

0.05

0.05

0.

0.10

0.09

, 1 cm 3D = 0.200 kN (Min=-0.185) (Max=0.0965)

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

Z * 1.000

0.0

0.02 0.01 0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.04

850.00 Beam Elements , Shear force Vz, Loadcase 1 self weight845.00 , 1 cm 3D =

Y * 1.000 , Shear force Vz, Loadcase 1 self weight Beam Elements

2 -0.0

0.10

Shear force distribution in framing members (kN)

855.00 M 1 : 97 Z * 1.000 Y X M 1 :YZ 97 * 1.000

-0.07

0.00

0.07

02 0.

02

0.09

0.0 0

0.01 0.01

m

850.00

0.01 0.01

-0.185

-0.07

855.00

m

0.

0.0 3

0.04 -0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01

-0.176 -0.183

0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01

-0.169

-0.01 0.01

1

Facade assembly

0.01

-0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.02

0.01 0.04 0.04

0.01 0.01

-0.01

-0.04

-0.02

0.04 0.03 -0.04 -0.01

0.01

0.04

-0.01

-0.162

0.00

, 1 cm 3D = 0.0648 kNm (Min=-0.112) (Max=0.0976)

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight

5

0.01

0.01 0.01

0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

-0.155

0.01 0.01

-0.04 -0.01 -0.01

01 0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

-0.119

-0.148

0.04 0.03

0.01

-0.04

-0.01

-0.01

01

01

0.01

0.00

-0.112

-0.140

0 .0 -0

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.0648 kNm (Min=-0.112) (Max=0.0976) Z Bending moment distribution in framing members (kNm) 1235.00 1230.00

4

0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01

0.01 0.01

-0.01

0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.01

0.01 0.01

0.04 0.04 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01

0.04

0.01

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

1220.00

-0.07-0.01

-0.0

0.10

1225.00

1225.00

Y X Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight -0.112

-0.105

-0.126

-0.155

01 0. 00 0.

-0.01

1230.00

1230.00

-0.098

0.00

-0.110

0.00 0.00

1235.00

-0.02

-0.112

-0.03

-0.110

-0.105

-0.01 0.01 0.01

-0.105

-0.110

-0.091

-0.133

-0.02 -0.06

0.010.03

-0.105

-0.077

-0.162

0.01

-0.100

-0.100

-0.61

-0.01 0.01

-0.010.00

-0.11

-0.094

0.00 -0.01

-0.100

-0.094

-0.070

-0.084

Y X

-0.02 -0.01

-0.094

-0.089

-0.089

-0.063

-0.07

-0.01

-0.0 8

-0.11

-0.084

1235.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

-0.084

0.00

-0.089

-0.079

-0.079

-0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

-0.073

-0.073

0.00 0.01 0.01

-0.068

-0.01 -0.01

-0.068

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

-0.084

-0.063

-0.01 -0.01

-0.01

-0.063

-0.01

-0.058

-0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

-0.079

-0.058

0.01

-0.052

-0.052

0.00

-0.073

-0.047

-0.047

0.01-0.01 -0.010.00

-0.042

0.00

-0.042

-0.01

-0.068

-0.037

-0.037

0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

-0.031

-0.031

0.00 0.00 0.01 -0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

-0.026

-0.026

-0.01 -0.01

-0.01 -0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.01

-0.063

-0.01 -0.01

-0.01

-0.058

-0.01

-0.021

-0.021

0.01

-0.016

0.00

-0.016

-0.052

-0.01

-0.010

0.00

0.000

-0.005

-0.01

0.000

-0.2 -0.063 9 -0.3 -0.070 1 -0.3 1 -0. -0.077 34 -0. 34-0. -0.084 36 -0. 36 -0.091 -0. 39 -0.098 -0. 39 -0.105 -0. 41 -0. -0.112 41 -0. 44 -0.119 -0. 44 -0. 50 -0.126 -0. 50-0 -0.133 .53 -0.5 3-0.5 -0.140 6 -0.56 -0.59 -0.148

Z

-0.047

-0.010

-0.056

-0.2 9

835.00

-0.042

-0.005

-0.035

-0.049

-0.25

2 -0.0

-0.028

-0.042

-0.18

-0.185

0.01

0.005

-0.035

-0.183

0.00

0.010

-0.028

-0.17

02 0.

-0.021

-0.056

0.00-0.01

-0.01

0.00

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.016

0.000

-0.014

-0.176835.00

0.021

0.005

4

840.00

-0.037

0.010

1 4 0. .1 -0

840.00

0.026

0.016

0.007

-0.007

-0.021

-0.61

0.031

0.021

0.014

-0.169

0.01

-0.01

0.00

-0.01 -0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.01

-0.031

0.037

0.00

0.01

0.042

0.00

-0.026

0.047

-0.01 -0.01

0.052

-0.01 -0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.021

0.058

-0.01 0.01

-0.016

0.063

0.021

-0.042

0.00 0.00

845.00

1 .1 -

11 0.

-0.18

-0.59

-0.78 -0.80

-0.80

-0.72

0.00 0.00

-0.78

-0.73 -0.76

0.028

-0.014

01

-0.76

-0.70 -0.72

-0.71

0.035

0.014

-0. -0.049 25

0.00 0.00

-0.73

0.00 0.00

-0.71

-0.65 -0.68

0.00 0.00

-0.64

-0.63

-0.64

0.00 0.00

-0.84 845.00

-0.53

0.00

-0.70

0.00

850.00

-0.68

-0.82 -0.84

0.00

-0.010

0.068

0.026

-0.112

-0.85

-0.87

-0.79 -0.82

-0.65

-0.62

-0.00

0.073

0.031

-0.83 -0.85

-0.63

-0.77 -0.79

-0.62

-0.00

0.079

0.068

0.037

-0.81 -0.83

-0.75 -0.77

-0.53

-0.75

-0.59

-0.59

-0.51

-0.51

-0.57

-0.57

-0.48

-0.48

-0.63

-0.65

-0.52 -0.54

-0.54

-0.46

-0.46

-0.50

-0.50 -0.52

0.01

0.073

0.042

-0.84 -0.87

-0.78 -0.81

-0.60 -0.63

-0.38

-0.43

-0.43

-0.58

-0.60

-0.47

0.042

0.021

0.000

-0.17

-0.45

-0.45 -0.47

-0.01

0.084

0.047

-0.82 -0.84

-0.76 -0.78

-0.55

-0.27

-0.27

-0.33 -0.36

-0.41

-0.41

-0.55

-0.58

-0.65

-0.38

-0.01

0.079

0.052

-0.80 -0.82

-0.76

-0.50

0.000

-0.005

0.058

-0.88

-0.78 -0.80

-0.66

-0.64 -0.66

-0.33 -0.36

Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 1.45 kN (Min=-0.910) (Max=0.0055) Z 0.005 Axial force distribution in framing members (kN) Beam , 1 cm 3D = 1.45 kN (Min=-0.910) (Max=0.0055) Y X Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight

0.098 0.089

0.063

-0.86

-0.86

-0.88 850.00

-0.91

855.00

-0.84

-0.89 -0.91

-0.81 -0.84

-0.61 -0.64

-0.59 -0.61

-0.26

-0.45 -0.48

-0.24

-0.24

-0.26 -0.00

0.010855.00

-0.81

-0.78

-0.56

-0.23

-0.35

-0.53

-0.53

-0.23

-0

0.049

0.028

-0.007

9 .0 -0

9 .0 -0

-0.22

-0.22

-0.00

-0.910

-0.80

-0.86 -0.89

-0.79

-0.84 -0.86

-0.68

-0.65 -0.68

-0.56

-0.21

-0.33

-0.20

-0.21

01

-0.892

-0.78 -0.80

-0.82 -0.77 -0.79

-0.63 -0.65

-0.50

-0.54

-0.30

-0.20

0.056

0.035

0.007

-0.17

-0.17

-0.19

-0.19

-0.15

-0.15

-0.16

-0.16

-0.28

0.00-0.00

-0.892

-0.78

-0.77

-0.48

-0.51

-0.51 -0.54

-0.59

-0.45

-0.49

-0.25

-0.12

-0.12

-0.14

-0.14

-0.00

-0.870

-0.76

0.016

-0.67

-0.67

-0.60 -0.63

-0.46

-0.46 -0.49

-0.23

-0.00

-0.870

-0.82

-0.84

-0.64

-0.69 -0.79

-0.58 -0.60

-0.35

-0.20

-0.00

-0.847

-0.847

-0.73 -0.76

-0.64

-0.33

-0.37

-0.00

-0.824

-0.824

-0.71 -0.73

0.021

-0.62

-0.62

-0.58

-0.30

-0.00

-0.801

0.026

-0.59

-0.64 -0.67

-0.55

-0.00

-0.801

-0.59

-0.34

-0.00

-0.778

-0.778

-0.71 -0.79

-0.62

-0.53

-0.53 -0.55

-0.00

-0.755

-0.755

-0.67 -0.69

-0.57

-0.00

-0.732

-0.69

-0.59 -0.61 -0.69

-0.55

-0.55 -0.57

-0.00

-0.732

-0.64

-0.57 -0.59

-0.00

-0.709

-0.59 -0.61

0.031

-0.62

-0.57

-0.00

-0.709

-0.54

-0.00

0.037

-0.664

0.084

Z X

-0.57

-0.641

-0.57

-0.28

-0.18

0.01

0.042

-0.618

-0.687

Y X

-0.54

-0.595

-0.687

-0.910

0.098 0.089

-0.52

-0.572

-0.664

Z

-0.49

-0.52 -0.59

-0.51

-0.25

-0.29

-0.34

-0.37

-0.48

-0.48 -0.51

-0.27

-0.00

-0.641

-0.49

0.047

-0.549

-0.52

-0.52

-0.23

01

-0.618

-0.47

-0.526

-0.50

-0.50

-0.54

-0.24

-0.32

-0.32

-0.38

-0.38

-0.20

-0.00

-0.595

-0.503

-0.52

-0.52

-0.47 -0.54

-0.29

-0.00

-0.572

-0.44

-0.44

-0.481

-0.27

-0.36

-0.36

-0.40

-0.40

-0.28

-0.18

-0.22

-0.24

-0.33

-0.33

-0.37

-0.26

-0.31

-0.31

-0.35

-0.19 -0.22

-0.00

-0.549

-0.458

-0.37

-0.42

-0.28

-0.32

-0.00

-0.526

-0.435

-0.39 -0.42

-0.30

-0.00

-0.503

-0.37

-0.37

-0.39

-0.00

-0.481

-0.412

-0.35

-0.00

-0.458

-0.34

-0.389

-0.32

-0.37

-0.37

-0.34

-0.00

-0.435

-0.32

-0.32

-0.366

-0.34

-0.00

-0.412

-0.343

-0.30

-0.34

-0.26

-0.19

-0.08 -0.08

0.063

0.042

-0.04

-0.389

-0.29

-0.320

-0.32

-0.32

-0.29

-0.27

-0.27

-0.00 -0.00

-0.10 -0.10

-0.01

-0.366

-0.27

-0.297

-0.29

-0.29

-0.27

-0.10 -0.10

0.070

-0.01

-0.343

-0.275

-0.12

0.01

-0.320

-0.24

-0.12

0.049

0.01

-0.297

-0.252

-0.27

-0.24

-0.07 -0.07

-0.24 -0.22 -0.22 -0.21 -0.21 -0.23 -0.25 -0.27 -0.23 -0.25

-0.24

-0.22

-0.22

-0.229

-0.10 -0.00

-0.275

-0.19

-0.206

-0.19

-0.10

-0.00

-0.252

-0.183

-0.00

-0.229

-0.160

-0.00

-0.206

-0.14

-0.00

-0.183

-0.12 -0.14

-0.00

-0.160

-0.12

0.077

0.056

0.01

-0.137

-0.09

-0.07

-0.07

0.04

-0.137

-0.09

-0.11

0.01

-0.114

-0.11

0.04

-0.114

-0.07 -0.08

-0.07

0.063

-0.00

-0.092

0.096 0.084

0.070

-0.08

-0.00

-0.092

0.077

-0.04

-0.04

-0.00

-0.069

-0.069

-0.00

-0.046

-0.00

-0.046

-0.00

0.006 0.000

0.04

0.096 0.084 0.006 0.000

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 4 Environmental analysis

21 June

21 March

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 1100 900 675 450 250 100 Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

7,652 m2

2,578 MWh

kWh/m2

% Daylight factor

818

7

750

5.4

550

4.7

150

3.5

275

1.5

125 Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay

Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

65.3 MWh

153.3 MWh

57%

MCCS_64

0 Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 1.21% 100% of area between 0-7%

External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

4

2.5

3.25

2

2.25

1.5

1.75

1

1

0.5

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution

EXT

INT 20 °C 13 °C 0 °C Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

Pressure, kPa 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Wind cladding pressure distribution

0 Effect of folds in the facade geometry on the wind cladding pressure

The front facades of the building provide daylight to the internal spaces especially adjacent to the entrances. The internal projection of mullions and transoms provide sufficient shading for these transition spaces. The geometry effects of the smooth building shape were assessed through early stage CFD analysis. This analysis allowed the estimation of both preliminary wind cladding pressures, and revealed the effects of the shape on pedestrian comfort around the building enclosure. MCCS_65

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 5 Burjuman Tower, Dubai

MCCS_66

BURJUMAN TOWER, Dubai OFFICES

25° 15’ 10.9” 55° 18’ 6.0”

N E

ARCHITECT KOHN PEDERSEN FOX STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING MEP ENGINEERING BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING FACADE ENGINEERING ANDREW WATTS OF NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

1300

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.10

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

0.64

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

1.24

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE EXTRUDED ALUMINIUM PROFILES

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SHAPED ALUMINIUM FINS, BOLTED THROUGHT UNITISED JOINTS

MCCS_67

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 5 Typical system bays

4

2

8

6

4

1 1

3 3

7 8

7

2 5

5

3D internal view of typical bay

3D external view of typical bay

MCCS_68

Details 1. Louvre 2. Louvre frame 3. Double glazed unit 4. Glazing frame

5. 6. 7. 8.

Metal sheet Insulation Floor finish Floor slab

2 7

7

2

8

1

8

5 5

5

1 3

3

4 4

3D view of louvre system

3D exploded view of louvres system

5

3

3

6

4

4

3D view of glazing system

3D exploded view of glazing system MCCS_69

3 1

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 5 System design

4

Third angle projection. Scale 1:30

2

2 1

3

4

Top view

5 4 4 3

3 2 2

1 7 1

8

5

Front view

4 3 2

1

8

MCCS_70

Bottom view

3

4

1

4

3

2 2 4

1

1

7

3

2D detail. Scale 1:5

8

8

5 5

4

1

2

3

4

7

7 1 8

8

5 5

4

Back view Details 1. Transom 2. Mullion 3. Double glazed unit 4. Glazing frame 5. Ceiling finish 6. Insulation 7. Floor finish 8. Floor slab

MCCS_71

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 5 Structural analysis

Finite element model of typical bay

Internal actions in primary aluminium elements.

-0.453

Bending moment distribution -0.460 frame (kNm) Sector of system Group 1 2 in aluminium Z -265.00 -260.00 Y X

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight

My, Loadcase 1 self weight

MCCS_72

ZY

0.02

-0.453 -0.460

0.40

-0.00 -0.07

-230.00

0.00

-0.0 2

0.06-0.06 -0.13 0.03

0.29

0.06

-0.01 0.12

-0.08 0.05

0.36

-0.10 -0.17

-0.00

-0.24

0.83

0.09

0

0

-0.07

0.40

0.95

0.34

0.19

m -220.00

-215.00

Axial force distribution in aluminium frame (kN)

-0.0 7 -0.0 7

1.10

-0.08

-220.00

0.13

0.13

0.02 0.10 -0.02

0.34

1.01

0.37 -0.0 4

0.04

-0.25

-0.46

0.26

-0.0 7 -0.0 7

1.19 0.32

-0.12

-0.18

7

-0.36

0.11

0.13

0.40

0.19

-225.00 -255.00

-0.27

-0.0

-225.00

-0.0 3

-0.21 0.47

0.13

0.95

0.34

0.09

1.01

-0.24

0.36

-0.08

-0.2 5 -0.2 5 -0.2 5 -0.2 5 -0.

-0.247

-0.17

-0.08

-0.1 4 -0.1 4

-0.206

-260.00

-225.00

-0.01

-0.29

-0.14

-0.25

-0.22

-0.20

-0.20

0.34

-0.05

-0.13 0.16

0.10

-0.27

0.41 -0.10

0.10

0.03

-0.165

-0.412

0.13 0.06

0.93

-0.2 4 -0.2 4

-0.124

0.01

-0.371

0.37

-0.18

-0.27

-0.06

-0.14

-0.12

-0.21

0.21

0.00

-0.07 0.23

-0.14

-0.21

0.48

-0.1 4 -0.2 4

0.01

-0.082

0.29

-0.07

-0.14

-0.21

-0.1 4 0.1 4

-0.13

-0.041

-0.46

-0.27 -0.14

-0.07

-0.14

-0.21 -0.07

-235.00 -

0.00

-0.330

-265.00

0.04

-0.06

0.08

0.09

0.11

-0.00

-0.412

0.000

0.00 -0.0 5

-0.36

0.00

-

0.00

-0.27

0.26

0.082

0.06

-270.00

-0.117

-0.03

-0.371

-0.113

-0.03

-0.330

-0.108

0.165

-0.124 0.03

-0.288

0.06

-0.102

0.206

-0.29

0.32

0.02

0.288 0.247

-0.22

1.19

0.01

0.01 0.041

-0.0 0

0.04

0.02

0.08

-0.0 3

-0.13 -0.20

-0.14

-0.07

-0.21 0.18

0.34

-0.05

-0.06

-0.20

-0.21

0.21

-0.07

-0.27

-0.12

-0.288

0.03

0.01

0.494

-0.06

-0.247

0.0-10.07

-0.06

-0.124

0

02

0.01

-0.082

-0.0 5 -0.165 0.0-0.206 0

-0.0 0.10

-0.0 9

0.01

-0.097

0.04

0.00

0.01

-0.092

0.00

0.06

-0.087

-0.041

-0.0 -0.03 1

0.06

-0.082

-0.0 7

-0.0 0

0.000

0.536 -0.

0.330

-0.0 0

0.00

-0.0 9

-0.0 0

0.041

-0.0 0 -0.11

-0.0 1

-0.067

-0.0 -0 3 .02

0.082

0.577

0.01 0.01

0.01

0.618

-0.14

-0.27

0.00

0.659

0.371

-0.0 1

.03

-0.0 0

0.124

0.02

0.02 0

0.165

-0.12

-0.11

-0.0 3

-0.061

0.01

0.01

0.700

-0.0 0.453 1 0.0.412 00

-0.0 0

-0.0 0

-0.00

-0.056

-0.0 0

.04

-0.03

-0.0 2

-0.051

-0.077

0.01

-0.0 -0.0 1 2 0.00 -0

0.01

-0.046

-00.288 .03 0.247

0.01

-0.0 0

-0.041

0.330

0.01 0.206

0.01

-0.036

-0.072

0.371

-0.0 1

0.03

-0.031

0.412

-0.0 0

-0.05

-0.026

0.02

0.453

-0.06

-0.020

-0.0 0

-0.03

-0.015

-0.0 0

-0.05

-0.010

-0.03

-0.0 4

0.494

0.01

-0.0 3 0.00 0.01

-0.0 2

0.000 -0.005

-0.0 2 -0.01

0.536

-0.0 1

0.02

0.18

0.742

-0.14

-0.21

0.48

0.783

0.01

-0.0 0

0.577

0.02

0.01

0.005

-0.700 0.03 0.659 0.00 0.618

0.01

0.01

-0.0 1

0.010

0.01

0.015

0.01

0.020

0.742

-0.03

0.02

0.026

-0.0 3

0.783

-0.0 1

-0.05

0.031

0.02

-0.06

0.036

-0.27

0.824

-0.03

-0.03

0.041

-0.05

-0.0 3

0.046

-0.21

-0.07

-0.14

-0.1 3 -0.1 3 -0.1 3 -0.1 3

0.824

0.865

0.051

-0.14

-0.21

-0.0 7 -0.0 7

0.865

0.906

-0.0 7 -0.0 7

0.948

0.056

-0.07

7

0.906

0.061

-0.07

-0.07

-0.14

-0.0

0.989

-0.2 4 -0.2 5 -0.2 5 -0.2 5 -0.2 5

0.948

-225.00

0.067

-0.07

-230.00

1.030

4

0.989

-0.2

1.071

0.072

-235.00

1.188 1.113

1.030

-0.0 4

1.071

0.077

-0.1 4 -0.2 4

1.188 1.113

0.088 0.082

Sector of system Group 1 2 M 1 : 90 ZY -255.00 m X *,0.895 , 1 cm 3D = 0.100 kNm (Min=-0.117) (Max=0.0882) 1 cm 3D = 1.00 kN (Min=-0.460) (Ma X Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight

Sector of system Group 1 2

X Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.100 kNm (Min=-0.117) (Max=0.0882)

Y * 0.624 Z * 0.900

: 90kN (Min=-0.460) (Max=1.19) , 1 cm 3D M= 11.00 X * 0.895 Y * 0.624 Z * 0.900

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.10

Facade bracket type

Cast aluminium brackets, bolted through unitised joints.

Number of components in fixing system

7

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.64

4

2 3

-0.896

Facade assembly

2.30 2.17 2.04 1.91

0.674

1.79

6 48 0.

0.669

1.66

0.663

1.53

4 0.

0.652 0.646

86

0.51

0.613

0.38

0.596

-0.38

0.574

-0.51

0.568

-0.64

-2.30

m

-2.33

0.201

5.45

0.178 0.156

0.01

0.089

6.64 4.66

0.19

0.19

Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case 1

, Loadcase 1 self weight

-135.00

53

-293.00

-265.00

0.2

0.0503

0.130

0.178

0.163

0.570 0.281

0.

0.266

0.405

48 6 0.486 0.199 0.486

-270.00

4 0.2 4

0.1 61

70 0.1

0.09

-280.00

-275.00

-380.00

Sector of system Group 1...3 Principal stress distribution in aluminium louvres (MPa) Z

on stress in Node

0.248

5.44

0.11

0.285

0.196

0.258

0.635

4

-385.00

0.486

6.69

0.200 0.108

0.162

0.502 0.396

6

-285.00

0.02

0.01

0.200

0.261

0.243

0.168

0. 0.410 48 6

0.486

X * 0.846 Y * 0.878 Z * 0.717

0.163

0.139

0.486

0.672 0.228

M 1= :2.00 7.89 , 1 cm 3D kN (Min=-2.33) (Max=2.77)

80 0.

0.045

0.0 183

0.486 0.486

0.484

48 0.

0.067

0.05

0.03

0.203

0.272

0.02

0.427 0.486

0.111

0.166

0.02

0.247

0.486

0.297

29

4.03

0.223

Y X

0.0 183

0. 18

0.245

86

76

0.04

0.486

7 0.

0.16

0.250 0. 48 6

0.2

0.04

0.268

6 48

0.290

5.44

0. 4

0.

0.312

0.15

6.84

0.519 0.355

7

0.335

5.19

87 0.

0.03

0.01

0.0 183 0.0 363

0.01

0.357

7.17

0.486

0.0443

86

6 9 48 75 0. 0.

0.03

4 81

6.63

0.424

0.265

0. 4

0.486 0.486

0.216

0.

0.446

0.486

-414.50

The structural analysis of the lightweight cladding system is driven by 0.486 0.248 0.486 0.172 both lateral 0.203 deflections of the panel and localised stress concentrations 0.240 around0.115 the connection points. The distance between brackets has been 0.167 0.193 maximised in order to meet both of these criteria. 0.252

0.205 0.117

0.166

86

7.21

0.468

0.000

0.131

0.02

0.491

0.252

m

9 70 0.

0.13

0.513

0. 48 6

0.243

4 0.

0.535

0.04

5.04

1 81

0.558

0.14

0.526 0.486

0.486

6.39 0.

0.580

0.01

0.0443

92

0.01

0.602

5.17

86

8 0.

0.625

0. 4

0.0293

0.0373

6 48 0.

0.758

-414.00

The lightweight aluminium structure integrates curtain wall technology with the application of large scale external fixed shading devices. The structural solution combines cast aluminium brackets, which use the full 0.0173 height of the spandrel panel, with shading devices, which are perforated 0.0293 0.0233 0.0173 aluminium set forward of the facade. This strategy minimises the weight 0.0373 0.0333 0.0293 of the assembly fixed to the curtain wall and does not impose additional 0.0443 0.0373 loads onto the glazing framing. 0.522

0.0173

0.0293

1 78

0.781

-415.00

Axial force distribution in cast bracket (kN)

-414.50

Sector of system Group 31 Z Y Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight X , 1 cm 3D = 0.500 (Max=0.709)

-140.00

8.54

-145.00

M 1 :

0.1 57

-415.00

0.

0.803

-415.50

Utilisation factor distribution in cast bracket

0.1 61 0.01 73

-414.00

2

-415.50

0.0173

0.647

20

-2.17

0.496

4.03

3

-2.04

. -0

0.507

0.825

0.022

0.486

-293.00

-1.79 -1.91

0.848

5.05

3

-1.66

0.513

0.501

0.669

2.75

-1.53

Z * 0.717

0.112

-1.28

.3 -2

0.518

0.02

.3

0.279

0.524

Sector of system Group 31 Z Y X * 0.846 , 1 cm 3D = 0.500 kNm (Min=-0.896) (Max=0.581) Y *Case 0.8781 Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design X

0.134

-1.15

6 48 0.

0.892 0.870

0.379

-1.02

-1.40

0.529

Bending moment distribution in cast bracket (kNm)

0.402

-0.89

6

0.540

3.63

2.76

-2

0.546

0.486

86

-0.77

48 0.

0.552

0.490

4 0.

3 .3

-0.26

0.579

-2

-0.113 2 -0.032

0.585

0.535

0.692

0.00 -0.13

0.557

0.714

0.13

0.591

0.563

0.736

0.26

0.486

-292.50

0.581

0.64

0.618

0.602

2.77

0.77

-292.50

-0.507

0.136

0.89

6

5 72 0.

48 0.

0.607

-414.50

1.28

1.02

0.635

0.624

-415.00

1.40

1.15

0.641

0.630

467 -0.

28 2.

0.657

2 003 -0.

28 2.

0.680

-292.00

-292.00

0.685

28 2.

2.42

0.691

-0.157

2.77 2.55

9 70 0.

0.696

60 0.4

Details 1. Louvres 2. Cast aluminium bracket 3. Glazing 4. Glazing frame 5. Floor slab

1

0.709 0.702

ending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight

2...4

5

0.1 64

Secondary structure type

0.456

Group 31

Facade zone Primary structure type

-0.188

50

Unitised glazing with external aluminium shading louvres. 1300 mm Concrete slabs. Extruded aluminium profiles.

Facade system

-375.00

, 1 cm 3D = 0.500 (Max=0.892)

, from 0.0029 to 7.21 step 0.180 MPa

-270.00

-370.00

m

M 1 : 91 X * 0.760 Y * 0.725 Z * 0.948

m

M 1 : 84 X * 0.896 Y * 0.679 Z * 0.858

MCCS_73

-414.00

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 5 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

23 September

22 December

kWh/m2 1063 875 700 500 300 150

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

13,415 m2

5,600 MWh

% Daylight factor

kWh/m2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

60.7 MWh

88.1MWh

31%

MCCS_74

1063

20

875

16.5

700

12

500

9

300

4.5

150

1

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 6.44% 99.9% of area between 1-20% 0.1% of area > 20%

Internal External velocity, m/s velocity, m/s 2

2.5 2 1.5

1 1 0.5 0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution Pressure, kPa 1.5

20 °C 13 °C

1

0 °C 0.5 INT

EXT 0 -0.5 -1

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

The design of the shading devices serves primarily to reduce solar gains through the glazed envelope while allowing daylight to penetrate the full depth of the interior office space. This aim is achieved by setting the shading panels forward of the glazed facade formed by a unitised curtain wall. The shading devices are supported by lightweight aluminium brackets. The gap between the solar shading and the glazed wall allows for the vertical passage of a cleaning and maintenance access cradle.

Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

The external shading panels comprise two layers set apart, each with a 50% perforation. Their combined effect provides 95% shading, while allowing daylight to reflect off the two layers, and reflected daylight to pass through. Physical performance testing for dynamic air and water was used to assess the effects of wind turbulence in order to ensure that audible vibration did not occur as a result of wind moving across, or through, the perforated shading assemblies. MCCS_75

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 6 Burj Alshaya, Kuwait City

MCCS_76

BURJ ALSHAYA, Kuwait City HOTEL AND OFFICES

29° 21’ 43.7’’ N 47° 58’ 51.0’’ E

ARCHITECT GENSLER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING KEO INTERNATIONAL MEP ENGINEERING KEO INTERNATIONAL FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

400

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.08

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

1.20

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

1.29

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE EXTRUDED ALUMINIUM PROFILES

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES; POST-DRILLED ANCHORAGES

MCCS_77

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 6 Typical system bays

3

1

2

1

2 5

9

3

8

10

3D internal view of typical bay 9 4 8 10

3D external view of typical bay

MCCS_78

Details 1. Aluminium cladding panel 2. Double glazed unit 3. Spandrel panel 4. Extruded aluminium transom 5. Extruded aluminium mullion 6. Thermal insulation 7. Extruded aluminium bracket 8. Floor slab 9. Floor finish 10. Ceiling finish

1 6 1

6

4

4

2

2

5

5

3D view of typical bay

3D exploded view of typical bay

4 5 7 4 2

8

3

2 1

5

9 1

9 10 8

3

10

3D exploded view of typical bay

3D view of typical bay

2 2

9

9 8

3D view of glazing system

8

3D exploded view of the glazing system MCCS_79

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 6 System design

2 9

Details 6. 1. Aluminium cladding panel 7. 2. Double glazed unit 8. 3. Spandrel panel 9. 4. Extruded aluminium transom 10. 5. Extruded aluminium mullion

4

Thermal insulation Extruded aluminium section Floor slab Floor finish Ceiling finish

8

1

3D view of typical detail

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50

9 7 2

1

Top view

9 4 3 3

5

6

10

2

2

1

1 8 7 6

Front view

1 2

7

10

MCCS_80 Bottom view

4

2 3

9

2

8

4

2

5

1

8 1 6

9

9

2D detail. Scale 1:5

8

8 10 10

3D views of typical bay

6

8 8

3

7

5

2 2

9

9

1

8 6 10

10

Back view

MCCS_81

78.90 77.66 77.00

78.90 77.66

76.34

77.00

75.68

76.34

75.02

75.68

74.37

75.02

73.71

74.37

73.05

73.71

72.39

73.05

71.73

72.39

71.08

71.73

70.42

71.08

69.76

70.42

65.81

65.15

65.15

64.49

64.49

63.84

63.84

63.18

63.18

59.89

59.89

58.57

57.91

57.91

57.25

57.25

56.60

56.60

55.94

73.6

55.28

55.94

73.6

54.62

55.28

53.96

54.62

73.6

53.31

53.96

52.65

53.31

X

X

63.8

73.6

62.4

73.6

62.4

61.6 63.5

61.6

61.2

63.5

72.1

70.8 72.2

61.9 59.6 62.9 62.9 62.9

61.9 61.9 59.5 62.9

68.9

71.6

72.1

62.4

69.0

62.9

20000.

63.5 63.5 63.4 62.4 62.4 61.9

61.9

61.9

59.6

59.5

62.9

62.9

62.9

73.6

62.9

62.9

73.6

62.9

61.2

61.9

72.7

73.6

63.5

62.4

72.7 66.5

73.7

61.6 63.5

63.5 63.4

66.4

62.1

63.5

72.1

72.7

62.1

63.4

72.2

73.6

62.4

63.5

72.1 72.7

62.4

62.4

61.6

72.2

71.6

63.8

62.1

73.1

63.5

63.8

62.1

73.1

71.7 71.6

62.4

61.9

73.0

73.1

63.5

63.4

62.4

73.1

72.2

63.5

63.5

73.6 73.1

62.1 63.5

63.4

73.6

64.6

62.9

73.6

78.9 76.4 76.4 73.6 73.6 73.1 73.1 73.0 72.2 72.1 71.7 71.6 70.8 72.2 72.1 68.9 72.7 72.7 66.4 73.7 73.6 73.6

25000.

, 1 cm 3D = 140.0 kN (Max

, 1 cm 3D = 140.0 kN (Max=78.9)

Facade system

Full height cable-glass facade.

Facade zone

315 mm

Primary structure type

Concrete slabs.

Secondary structure type

Cable truss.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

-

Facade bracket type

Spider brackets with two adjustable arms.

Number of components in fixing system

10

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.51

0.00

0.02

3

3.75 06 04. .

00 2 0 3.2 0. 01

5.41 0. 0

0. 01 3.97

10000.

5000.

0. 9 0 0. .4 0. 4.97 00 3 1 00 82 2. 0. 0 01 3.86 .0 0. 8 00 0.960 2.1 3.04 0 0. 00 00 1..19 0 0 1.91 . . 0 0.65 00 0.209 0. 0 0 1.86 0. .005 10 3.00 0 . 0 .9 10 0 4.06 0.0 0 13 0.0 3. 0 5.11 0. 0.2.38 04. 1 13 00 2 3 6. 0.5.24 0..25 0.00 7.49 01 7 4 01 0. 6.3 0.0 1 8.89 01 0 6.12 0 7.94 .01 10.32 .01 8 7. 27 0 .2 9 0. .0 1 11.70 0.0.32 01 10 1 0. 0 01 13.31 0.02.87 .01 11 0. 15.20 0.0213.12 01 0. 01 780.0 16.30 12. 1 16.62 0.0 2 16.44 0. 01

2

1

Facade assembly

15000.

Displacements distribution in double glazing units (mm)

Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement components in local directions in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight

MCCS_82

76.3

76.4

Cable Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 10 sw + prestress

0.06

01

0.12

0.03 0.19

0.26 0.04 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.340.53 0.53 0.05 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.43 0.56 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.56 0.70 0.12 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.54 0.54 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.69 0.13 0.54 4.07

Sector of system Beam Elements,Cable Elements,Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines (Max=16.6)

63.8

62.1

62.1

Cable Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 10 sw + prestress

0.

5000.

64.6

76.3

Sector of system Beam Elements,Cable Elements,Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines

0. 01

Von Mises stress distribution (MPa)

78.8

76.4

62.4

15000.

52.58

0. 01

0

62.4

78.9

25000. Sector of system Beam Elements,Quadrilateral Z 20000. Tension distribution in Elements,Cable pre-stressed cables (kN) Elements,Supporting Lines30000. Y

15000.

Finite element model of typical bay

2.25

62.1

62.4

72.7

63.8

62.4

72.1

66.5

63.8

62.4

63.4

72.7

58.57

64.6

63.8

72.1

69.0

59.23

59.23

Y

71.6

60.55

60.55

X

71.6

61.20

61.20

Z

72.2

61.86

61.86

0.

72.2

62.52

62.52

4.5

73.1

66.47

65.81

Z Y

73.1

67.13

66.47

52.58

73.1

67.78

67.13

52.65

73.6

68.44

67.78

63.8

73.6

69.10

68.44

64.6

76.3 76.3

69.76

69.10

78.8

0.

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 6 Structural analysis

Details 1. Structural cables 2. Spider bracket 20000. 3. Double glazed unit

, 1 cm 3D = 10.0 mm

m

(Min=-5.63)

M 1 : 9

X * 0.54 Y * 0.89 Z * 0.94

.8 32 6E -3

-0 .0 01 9

0.0360 0.0309

0.0154

0. 00 13 0. 00 19

0.159

-0.0103

-0.0052

0.103

-0.0051

-0 .0 10 5

-0.0208

0.0000

0.0135

0.0083

0.0051

-0.0073

0. 01 06

0.0103

-0.0467

-0.0073

-0.0208

0.0206

-0.0469

-0.0052

0.0257

-0.0154

0.103

-0.0206 0.159

-0.0257 -0.0309 -0.0360 -0.0412 -0.0463

-28.00

-0.0469

Z X

Y

-26.00

Bending moment distribution in the aluminium frame (kNm) -24.00

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight

-22.00

Type of bay

Unitised glazing with external aluminium shading diamonds.

Facade zone

440 mm

Primary structure type

Concrete slabs.

Secondary structure type

Extruded aluminium profiles.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.08

Facade bracket

Serrated plates; postdrilled anchorages.

Number of components type of fixing system

3 and 4

Weight of facade, primary structure excluded (kN/m2)

1.20

-20.00

, 1 cm 3D = 0.100 kNm (Min=-0.0469) (Max=0.159) 2

2

-18.00

Details 1. Aluminium cladding 2. Aluminium extruded profile 3. Fixing bracket 4. Double glazing unit 5. Aluminium transom 6. Spandrel panel 7. Primary structure

3 4

5

3

1

Model of the external shading

Axial force distribution in the aluminium frame (kN)

Von Mises stress distribution in the aluminium frame (kN)

The facade systems integrate assemblies which have very different requirements for structural performance and stiffness. A primary objective of the design has been to embed as much interdependence as possible by using interface connections that allow parts to move freely and provide restraint only where needed for minimum structural support. Given the high level of integration and in order to ensure global stability, interdependencies are inevitably generated which are analysed through combined numerical models, where the mutual effects are quantified. The size and weight of the diamond-shaped shading panels is significant for an external shading element and its effects on the overall mullion deflections are understood through a combined numerical model, which includes both shading and glazing. Relative movements in service are kept sufficiently low to ensure the water tightness and air tightness of the facade assembly. The cable support of the glass facades used at ground floor level provides structural visual lightness by introducing higher loads on the primary structure. Pre-stressing forces are introduced in each cable during installation. During the service life of the building, these forces are absorbed by the primary structure, at top and bottom interfaces. The design of the cable glass facade is driven by its global deflections at serviceability, whose limit is set to span/60 due to visual comfort of the building occupants, as the system itself could allow for larger deflection without failing.

7

6

Facade assembly

The deflection limit determines the pre-stress required in the cables. The finite element analysis model was built up by introducing increasing numbers of components. The non-linear behaviour of the cables due to large displacements is tested first with simplified analytical models to pre-size cables and establish preliminary pre-stress levels, which can be checked through hand calculations. A representative portion of the supporting primary structure is modelled to simulate the stiffness of the supports, which alters the response of the structure during lateral loading. The effect of the primary structure is similar to adding a set of springs with varying stiffness at each support, which determines a different response of the facade when subjected to wind loading or dynamic excitation, as it changes its resonant frequency. The glass panels are modelled as being point-supported with released rotation, which simulates the connection between glass panels and cables through ‘spider’ connectors. These allow free rotation that avoids stress concentrations at corner points. The final numerical model is used to assess the overall stiffness of the combined system; this numerical model also includes the glazing panes, which introduce additional stiffness in the system and may attract loads. The model allows to establish a link between localised stresses at glazing panel level, global movements of the facade and stiffness of the cable structure.

MCCS_83

M 1 X * Y * Z *

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 6 Environmental analysis

21 June 21 March Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

23 September

22 December

kWh/m2 1100 900 675 475 250 100

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

8,666 m2

5,058 MWh

kWh/m2 925

% Daylight factor

750

2

600

1.7

450

1.3

250

0.7

100

0.3 0

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

37.7 MWh

72.9 MWh

48%

MCCS_84

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 0.39% 100% of area between 0-2%

External velocity, m/s

External and internal air velocity distribution 20 °C 13 °C

Internal velocity, m/s

6.5

2.5

5

2

4

1.5

2.5

1

1.5

0.5

0

0

Pressure, kPa 2

0 °C

1.5 1 EXT

INT

0.5 0

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

The shading devices provide a high level of protection to reduce peak solar gains. This strategy has the benefit of reducing cooling loads while admitting relatively high levels of natural daylight within the interior spaces, by using glass with a high level of transparency. Internally, CFD analysis was undertaken in order to determine the expected air flows within interior spaces as a result of air being injected through openings in the the office facade. This air is extracted in the middle of the internal spaces at ceiling level . An internal CFD study is used in order to extract velocity fields and ensure that the speed of the internal air stays within the limits of thermal comfort expected within office spaces.

Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

The combination of external shading and curtain wall system requires careful attention to avoid condensation risks, which can be internal, external or interstitial. The connections between systems often require the thermal line of one system to be penetrated by the connection, as the structural part to connect to is typically behind the thermal/ waterproofing line. This introduces thermal bridges in the system, which must be assessed with appropriate analysis in order to verify that no risk of condensation is present in the assembly. This analysis can usually be performed in 2D, but may also require a 3D analysis. The thermal bridges also affect the U-value of the facade system and require the insulation thickness to compensate for these losses or, alternatively, additional thermal breaks to be added. MCCS_85

COMPLEX GEOMETRY 6 Burj Alshaya, Kuwait City

The Burj Alshya project is composed of two high-rise towers in which the envelope is conceived as a ‘close wrap’ of the regular reinforced concrete structure, where variations of the main facade system are generated in order to meet the performance parameters for different parts of the building. The facade design is based on current curtain wall technology, where the design emphasis is to ensure high levels of performance in terms of daylighting levels, thermal insulation and solar control through a construction technology which is economic and quick to install. Unitised curtain wall technology addresses these issues and suits highrise buildings, as the large global movements of the structure can be absorbed at local level by fixing each panel independently to floor slabs and allowing independent movement between panels. With unitised technology, the joint width between adjacent panels can be engineered as the global movements of the structure is directly related to the relative movement between any two floor slabs (inter-storey drift), allowing the calculation of the relative movements between each panel. Each unitised panel is fixed independently to the slabs and installed with a pre-assembled half-frame along its perimeter. In this way, panels can be quickly installed by fixing them to the floor slab through adjustable brackets from inside the building. Panels join at the perimeter interface where the water-tightness of the system has three layers of protection against air and water infiltration provided by extruded polymer gaskets; the aluminium extruded frames being internally drained and ventilated. The fast installation of the system suits high-rise construction and minimises the amount of scaffolding required.

MCCS_86

The unitised assembly technology used for the project is a well-established current technology but it incorporates component materials which are emerging, such as the combination of extruded silicone and structural sealant. These materials are compatible for use in the same assembly, as they are made of the same base material. The use of extruded silicones combined with wet silicones is characteristic of emerging technology, as the economic use of silicone extrusions was only introduced in the construction industry through recent developments. Previous building technologies tended to use mechanical fasteners as an economic and reliable method for fixing components within assemblies. Extruded silicone, as an emerging technology, has the effect of reducing the number of components in the assembly, as each component is engineered with closer attention to issues of thermal movement and jointing. Sealants are used in more recently conceived systems to improve performance whilst reducing the labour time required to install components in curtain wall panel assemblies. This mix of materials was not possible with previous curtain wall technology, as it relied on the separation between sealants and weathertight gaskets, which are made from different materials that were incompatible, reducing the design life of the assembly. The curtain wall system used for this project makes use of more components than other available emerging technologies, but its inherent limitations are overcome by using emerging technologies in the structural sealants and high performing double-glazed units. Due to the extreme climatic conditions of the project location (Kuwait), the curtain wall system is designed to accommodate high thermal movements. These are caused by the very high surface temperatures that external components can achieve when exposed to direct solar

radiation, which leads to large differential temperatures within the same assembly. The design therefore needs to embed more robustness, achieved through a loose fit assembly which attempts to minimise the number and interdependency of the components involved. The use of structural sealants is also driven by this requirement. As the project is located in a hot climate where high levels of humidity are present for large parts of the year, an essential parameter in the design is that humidity is assumed to penetrate the full depth of the framing, past the second barrier of protection. Consequently, the design of the unitised framing system requires also the second air chamber to be ventilated and drained to avoid condensation. This is not typically required for milder climates, where only the outer chamber is usually ventilated. The same unitised technology assembly is used in a range of different configurations across the two towers of the project, both in terms of size and number of components, in order to meet different environmental and structural performance requirements. External shading elements are introduced in certain areas of the project in order to provide additional solar control where glass with higher light transmission is used to increase daylighting levels. Unitised panels are conceived as fully prefabricated modules and the aluminium fins that provide support for the external shading introduce deep penetrations through the panel joints. The aluminium fins are fixed to the framing of the unitised panels through moment connections, which do not use triangulation to achieve stiffness in the assembly. These types of connection introduce complexity in controlling the movements of the assembly to avoid water penetration.

Performance testing was required in order to verify the combined effects of the large external shading elements fixed to the aluminium framing. The combined effects could not be verified through numerical analysis as it concerned wind-induced noise and vibration of the external shading system, together with the weather tightness and structural resistance of the assembly to wind and earthquake loads at serviceability. The dynamic air and water test was a critical part of the performance testing to validate these design aspects. As the system is designed as a combination of current technologies (unitised curtain wall and external shading devices) and includes some material systems exploiting more recent emerging technology, performance testing is required to validate the overall performance of the assembly under project-specific conditions. Physical testing also validates the level of workmanship that the fabricator can achieve to ensure the expected water tightness. This is verified by inspecting the disassembled mock-up after all tests are performed. Structural and environmental calculations on both components and assemblies were undertaken prior to the testing to determine the sizes of components and the overall design feasibility, based on the results of the wind tunnel test which established peak cladding pressures. Physical testing was then required to verify the magnitude of the combined effect of external shading fixed onto curtain wall, particularly the magnitude of the dynamic effects on the water tightness of the system. Physical testing offers a set of standardised procedures to validate the expected performance of current technologies for project-specific applications. Complex assemblies using current technologies can include components that use emerging material technology, whose enhanced functionality can only be assessed through testing. MCCS_87 87

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 7 Dance & Music Centre, The Hague

MCCS_88

DANCE & MUSIC CENTRE, The Hague PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE

52° 04’ 36” 4° 17’ 54”

N E

ARCHITECT ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AKT II MEP ENGINEERING MAX FORDHAM FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

1150

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

2.44

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

3.42

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

1.75

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE I AND H STEEL SECTION

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED AND WELDED PLATES, POST-DRILLED ANCHORAGES

MCCS_89

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 7 Typical system bays

1

8 2

3 5

6

1

8

5

6 4

3

2

8

3D internal view of typical bay

8

4

8

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_90

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. GRP cladding 3. Insulation 4. Internal floor finish 5. Mullion 6. I-beam girder 7. Floor slab 8. Louvre blade

3D internal view

3D internal view

1

5

5

1

6

3 6 6 2 2

3

3D view of system components

3D exploded view of system components

1 3 2

2 1 5 5

6 7 4

3D view of typical bay

3D exploded view of system components MCCS_91

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 7 System design

5 1 2

Top view

1

2

4

1 1

2 3 2

Front view

2 1 5

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50

MCCS_92

4

3 3 4 2 1 2

1

3D view of detail

2D detail. Scale 1:5

1

2 3 4

1

5

Back view

1

1 2

4

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. External cladding 3. Thermal insulation 4. I beam structure 5. Mullion

2

4

3 3

3D views of system MCCS_93

1600.

1800.

2000.

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 7 Structural analysis

2000.

8.7893E6 8.3217E6

1400.

Finite element model of a typical bay

8.0443E6 7.7669E6 7.4895E6 7.2122E6 6.9348E6 6.6574E6

1800.

6.3800E6 6.1026E6 5.8252E6 5.5478E6 5.2704E6 4.9930E6

1600.

4.4382E6

1200.

4.7156E6

4.1609E6 3.8835E6 3.6061E6 3.3287E6 3.0513E6 2.7739E6

1400.

2.4965E6 2.2191E6 1.9417E6 1.6643E6 1.3870E6 1.1096E6 8.3217E5

2.7739E5 0.0000E0 -2.7739E5 -5.5478E5 -8.3217E5 -1.1096E6 -1.3870E6

1000.

Finite element model of connection bracket

-1.6643E6 -1.9417E6 -2.2191E6

0.

-14400.

-2.3063E6

Z

-14200.

-13600.

Sector of system Group 4 44

-14000.

-13800.

-13400.

-13600.

-13400.

VonX Y Mises stress connection bracket (MPa) 2nd stress invariantdistribution in Node, Loadcasein 1 self weight , from -2.3063e+06 to 8.7893e+06 step

, from -2.3063e+06 to

MCCS_94

1000.

1200.

5.5478E5

8.7893e+06 step

-13200.

-13200. 2.7739e+05 N/mm2

2.7739e+05 N/mm2

-13000.

-12800.

-13000.

mm

M 1 : 7

-12800.

mm

X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

M 1 : 7

X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

62.3

62.3 59.5 56.8

0.0110

54.1

0.0531

51.4 48.7 46.0 43.3 40.6

2.57

37.9

32.5 29.8

0.0085

0.191

0.306

27.1 24.4 21.7 18.9 16.2 13.5

2.60

5.94

10.8 8.1

2.7

0.0045

0.0030

5.4

0.0 -2.7 -5.4

1.05

3.31

1.93

4.43

0.0906

0.0697

0.144

0.8993E-3

0.0086

0.243

0.452

0.341

2.52

5.85

8.60

0.0630

0.0352

0.183

2.58

5.91

8.65

-30000.

-8.1 -10.8

-25000.

-20000.

Vertical displacements distribution-13.5 in the steel frame (mm) -16.2 mm , 1 cm 3D = 142.3 -18.9

Facade system

-24.4

Primary structure type

-29.8 -32.5

Secondary structure type-37.9 Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2) Facade bracket type

-38.6

Z X

-16.2

Y

X * 0.765 Y * 0.727 Z * 0.941

-21.7 -24.4 -27.1 -29.8 -32.5

I and H steel sections.

-15000.

M 1 : 78

-18.9

Concrete slabs.

-35.2

mm

-13.5

(Min=-31.1) (Max=0)

Curved glazing set between FRP clad primary structure. 1035 mm

-21.7

-27.1

Facade zone

-10000.

0.539

0.759

0.661

0.435

0.0818

0.168

0.0453

0.549

2.29

0.813 1.87

2.61

0.355

0.504

2.60

0.0411

35.2

-10.8

ment in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight

-5000.

0.242

0.147

0.475

0.683

0.612

0.365

0.260

0.379

1.85

0.766

2.15

0.867

0.586

0.0998

0.0406

0.311

3.80

5.47

-8.1

6.36

-5.4

8.48

-2.7

5.44

8.13

7.32

8.80

0.0

11.3

13.9

16.1

2.7

11.3

17.7

5.4

14.0

16.1

10.8

5.93

8.67

14.0

19.0

8.78

8.23

6.68

7.53

8.1

17.8

19.4

17.5

15.3

5.78

3.77

4.78

13.5

5.91

8.65

6.19

16.2

16.2

3.59 8.67 4.92 11.4

7.33

18.9

19.0

19.2

17.5

15.2

19.0

21.7

3.46

11.4

24.4

6.28 17.8

18.9

16.8

5.24

27.1

14.0

16.2

29.8

11.4

17.8

19.0

8.87

8.29

32.5

14.0

16.2

35.2

13.1

37.9

11.3

13.9

40.6

4.67

6.31

16.1

43.3

17.8

19.2

17.4

19.0

7.44

17.8

19.4

17.5

14.6

12.9

10.1

7.28

4.48

12.9

10.2

7.29

4.41

11.7

9.01

5.74

7.49

6.64

5.57

4.49

15.2

12.8

10.2

4.39

7.28

15.2

19.0

46.0

8.70

48.7

1.84

0.450

17.4

5.93

19.3

17.5

15.3

6.71

51.4

21.3

54.1

0.400

24.6

28.7

8.97

8.39

7.60

56.8

0.513

59.5

0.0245

69.6 65.0

0.317 26.9

0.175

27.2

24.6

0.436

21.4

12.9

10.0

7.21

4.41

12.9

10.3

7.38

4.49

6.47

5.32

4.09

17.6

13.3

9.20

4.73

20.2 20.1 20.1 9.36 20.1 20.2 9.23 20.1 0.0546 0.678 29.8 9.46 20.9 21.1 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.1 9.72 9.63 30.8 9.49 0.465 21.3 21.4 21.3 21.3 9.71 21.3 21.4 9.56 31.1 9.80 0.495 21.1 21.1 21.2 21.1 21.1 30.6 9.47 9.70 21.2 9.61 20.5 20.6 20.5 20.5 0.423 29.3 20.2 20.5 9.21 9.42 9.32

2.09

69.6 65.0

-14500.

-35.2 -37.9

-14000.

-38.6

2.44

-15000.

-13500.

-14500.

-13000.

-14000.

Principal stress in the steel Sector distribution of system Group 2...4beams (MPa) Z Y Top Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from Principal -38.6 stress to 69.6 I step in Node, 2.71 Loadcase N/mm2 1 self weight X Serrated and welded Sector of system Group 2...4

plates; post-drilled anchorages.

Number of components in fixing system

3

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

3.42

The design of the envelope differentiates the structural hierarchy and the visual hierarchy. The external visual expression of the main louvres which follows the transparent glazed strips is provided by the secondary horizontal members spanning between vertical mullions which are concealed internally behind the glazing. The primary mullions span between floor slabs and support the long secondary louvres which are revealed externally as lines of primary structure which are ‘wrapped’ by the facade assemblies. The horizontal secondary steel members accommodate the curved geometry along their length, allowing the facade assemblies to be fixed with greater ease as a result of them being fixed directly to the structural steelwork without the need for additional framing. The secondary members are clad with fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) cladding which generates a large volume around the supporting steel structure. This is made structurally possible by the lightweight nature of FRP cladding which can also be moulded to achieve complex doubly-curved shapes. The secondary horizontal members also support a large spandrel panel which interfaces with the framing of the glazing strips above and below.

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. FRP cladding 3. Thermal insulation 4. I beam girder

5. 6. 7.

Mullion Floor slab Fixing bracket

3 2

5

1 6

4 7

Facade assembly

MCCS_95

-1

, from

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 7 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 1750 1400 1100 700 350 150

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

17,384 m2

15,268 MWh

% Daylight factor

kWh/m2 1750

12

1400

10

1100

8

700

6

350

4

150

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay

Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

8.1 MWh

21.9 MWh

63%

MCCS_96

2

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Mean daylight factor: 5.4% 98.4% of area between 2-12% 0.1% of area > 12% 1.5% of area < 2%

Internal velocity, m/s

External velocity, m/s

2.5

6

2

4.5

1.5

3.0

1

2.6

0.5

0.75

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution Pressure, kPa

20 °C 13 °C 0 °C

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

EXT

INT

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

The building is designed around the need to maximise transparency through dense shading which allows high levels of daylight to be maintained inside, as a result of using highly transparent glass. Most of the direct solar radiation is excluded by the opaque facade elments which enclose the supporting steel structure. The design concept allows the use of a shading ratio which is close to optimal.

The depth of the shading louvres, together with their high reflectivity act as light shelves to maximise the amount of daylighting which reaches the interior spaces. The integration of a large concealed spandrel also allows the thermal insulation thickness to meet varying U-value requirements. The envelope system ‘morphs’ from perforated to being fully opaque as the strips widen and narrow along the length of each facade. MCCS_97

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 8 K. Çamlica TV Tower, Istanbul

MCCS_98

K. ÇAMLICA TV TOWER, Istanbul TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER

41°01’56” 29°04’09”

N E

ARCHITECT MELIKE ALTINISIK ARCHITECTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BALKAR MÜHENDISLIK LIGHTING ENGINEERING DARK LIGHTING FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

FACADE ZONE (mm)

ENVIRONMENTAL

TESTING

up to 7000

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

1.33

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

2.83

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

1.44

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE CORE AND SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE SHS STEEL SECTION

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES, POST-DRILLED ANCHORAGES

MCCS_99

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 8 Typical system bays

3

7

1

8

7

8

3

3D internal view of typical bay

1

3D external view of a typical bay

MCCS_100

Details 1. External GRC cladding 2. Double glazed unit 3. Thermal insulation 4. Internal floor finish 5. Mullion 6. I-beam structure 7. Concrete wall 8. Secondary steel structure 9. Louvre plates

1

1

9 8 9

6

6

3D view of louvre system

3D exploded view of louvre system 3

2 1

2 1

4 4

6

5

5

6

3D view of glazed bay

3D exploded view of glazed bay

8 3 1 8 3 3 1

3D view of cladding system

8

3D exploded view of cladding system

MCCS_101

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 8 System design 3

4

1

2

Top view

1 1

2

4 2 3

4

Front view

2 1

4

3

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50 MCCS_102

Bottom view

2

1

1 4

4

2D detail. Scale 1:5

3D view of detail

1

1

4 2 3

4

2

Back view

1

1

2

Details 1. External cladding 2. Louvre plates 3. I beam structure 4. Secondary steel structure

4

3 2 3

4

MCCS_103

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 8 Structural analysis

40000.

Y

Z

45000.

50000.

55000.

Vertical displacements distribution in the steel structure (mm) , 1 cm 3D = 2.00 mm (Min=-2.40) (Max=0.0098)

Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight X

Finite element model of typical bay

2

1 3

1 3

2

Facade system

Opaque and glazed unitised panels with GRC rainscreen.

Facade zone

Up to 7 meters

Primary structure type

Concrete core and slabs. Steel I profiles.

Secondary structure type

SHS steel sections.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.33

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates; post-drilled anchorages.

Number of components in fixing system

12

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

2.83

4 4 3 2

3 3

Details 1. Primary structure 2. Steel secondary structure 3. Fixing bracket 4. Panel frame

Facade assembly

The insulated external wall panels, which enclose the top floors of the tower, are clad with GRC (glass fibre reinforced concrete) rainscreen. Each insulated panel is fully unitised and is provided with a half-unitised aluminium frame in order to interface with adjacent panels. Each panel is supported by the floor slab and is restrained at two other points: at the top, where the panel resists lateral wind forces, and at the bottom, where it is linked to the panel below. Lateral restraints are provided in order to limit the overall panel deflections by reducing the rotation of the module, which otherwise would be simply-supported. The facade panels make use of vertical unitised joints in order to accommodate structural movement, including where the structure steps in and out, as horizontal unitised joints would not ensure the required waterproofing of the system. The GRC rainscreen panels are stiffened by a galvanized steel frame cast into the back of the GRC panel. The outer surface of the GRC is typically composed of a finer surface mix (approximately 5mm thick) which is not taken into account in the structural design of the panel since it provides only a decorative outer finish.

MCCS_104

The backing frames of the GRC rainscreens are fixed directly to the steel frame of the unitised panels as a result of the use of adjustable brackets. The GRC rainscreens are fixed to the unitised panels before installation in order to minimise installation time. The same GRC panels are fixed to a secondary steel structure for the lower part of the tower. The steel structure is fixed to the primary concrete structure, following the architectural shape of the building and providing continuous support to the facades. The secondary steel structure cantilevers from the concrete core with varying spans. The overall steel structure that supports the facade panels is required to have a uniform behaviour in terms of both vertical deflections and horizontal movements. This requires each truss to be designed individually and to be assigned its own size in order to ensure that trusses that support adjacent panels behave similarly. The cantilevering trusses are also connected for lateral stability, which requires the whole structure to be analysed as a unique element fixed to the main concrete structure of the tower. Stresses induced in the concrete are also analysed together with the effects on the dynamic behaviour of the tower determined by the steel trusses that support the facade panels at their end.

60000.

33.6 32.2

13.6 12.2

31.1

11.4

30.0

10.5

29.0

9.6

24.7 23.6

20.4

22.5

19.3 18.2

16.1

0.9

16.1 15.0

14.0

14.0

12.9

12.9 11.8

11.8

10.7

10.7

9.7

9.7 8.6

0.0

-2.1

Z

-5.4

X

-6.4 -7.5

0.0

-1.7 -2.6

-3.5

-3.5 -4.4

-4.4

-5.2

-5.2

-6.1

-8.7

-7.9

-9.6

-8.7

-10.5 -11.4

-9.6

-11.4

-12.2 -13.1 -14.0 -14.9

-12.2

-15.7

-3.2

-13.1

-16.6

-4.3

-14.0

-17.5

-6.4

-14.9

-7.5

-15.7

-9.3

-4.3

0.9

-0.9

-2.6

-10.5

-8.6

-3.2

1.7

-1.7

0.0

-5.4

-1.1

2.6

-0.9

1.1

-2.1

1.1

3.5

0.0

-7.9

-1.1

2.1

4.4

-7.0

2.1

3.2

5.2

-7.0

3.2

4.3

6.1

-6.1

4.3

5.4

7.0

7.5

5.4

6.4

7.9

8.6

6.4

7.5

8.7

2.6 1.7

17.2

15.0

9.6

3.5

20.4

18.2

10.5

4.4

21.5

19.3

17.2

Y

-18.4 -19.2 -20.1

-16.6 -20.00

-21.0

20.00 -20.00

0.00

-17.5 Sector of system Group 1 -18.4 Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight -19.2

40.00

-21.4

0.00

60.00

Sector of system Group 4 Z Top Principal I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight , from -9.34 Yto 33.6 step 1.07stress MPa X

20.00

80.00

m

40.00

M 1 : 435 X * 0.332 , from -21.4 to 13.6 step 0.874 MPa Y * 1.000 Z * 0.944

-20.1

-8.6

-20.00

-9.3

Y

5.2

25.8

21.5

X

6.1

27.9 26.8

22.5

Z

29.0

160.00

23.6

11.4

7.0

140.00

24.7

13.6 12.2

7.9

120.00

30.0

8.7

160.00

31.1

25.8

140.00

33.6 32.2

26.8

120.00

27.9

0.00

-21.0

20.00-20.00

40.00

0.00

Principal stress distribution in the core (MPa) -21.4

Sector of system Group 1

Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight

60.00

20.00

80.00

m 40.00

6

Principal stress distribution in the slabs (MPa)

Sector of system Group 4 Z Principal stress , from -9.34 33.6 step 1.07 MPa I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight Y toTop X

M 1 : 435 X *MPa 0.332 , from -21.4 to 13.6 step 0.874 Y * 1.000 Z * 0.944

Facade Systems

Unitised System GRC panel and carrier frame

um steel displacements (LC 1002)

Displacements distribution in

LC 1002 G1+Ws Enlarged by 20.0

3.89

3.65

3.42

-3.00

3.18

2.95

2.59 2.47

2.24 2.12

Nodal displacement in global X, Loadcase 1002 G1+Ws

4.85 mm < Span/240=8.3 mm

4.77

1.77 1.65

1.06 0.94 0.82 0.71 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.24

-1.00 3.00

0.12

-3.00

0.06

3.00

3.04 2.08

2.05 1.58

1.89

2.97

1.86 3.08

1.82

1.02

3.73

1.90

0. 58 9

0.972

3.41

0.746

0.474

4.77

1.82

1.38

4.77

(Min=-1.98) (Max=3.96)

1.9

2.9

2.0 1.58

2.9

1.9

1.02

1.82

2.9

1.04

1.37

3.7

1.02 3.39

0.185

1.04

0.118

1.90

1.9 0.118

0.0608 -2.00

1.00

-1.00

Von Mises stress distribution in m

the GRC panel (MPa) X * 0.808 Y * 0.847 Z * 0.793

0.00

2.00

Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Z Z X * 0.808 Y YY * 0.847 Top v.Mises stress in Node, Loadcase 2002 1.35G1+1.50Ws M 14.77 : 32 Top v.Mises stress in Node, Loadcase 2002 1.35G1+1.50Ws X , from 0.0561 to step 0.118 MPa XZ * 0.793

, 1 cm 3D = 4.00 mm

3.2

1.12

0.0608 0.00 4.00

3.8

1.03

1.00

1.99 1.97

1.9

1.90

1.91

3.71

3.39 1.04

0.8

3.31

3.40

2.94 1.37

1.03

2.84

1.90

1.41

1.18

1.97

2.92

1.53

1.30

1.95

1.96

2.00

2.36

1.89

1.12

3.20

1.12

2.71

-2.00 2.00

3.80

3.20

0.474

2.83

m

M 11.00 : 32

1.99

3.41

3.06

Displacements distribution in Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements 0.06

1.39

3.81

1.03

3.30

1.89

1.97

1.90

3.54

3.00

0.12

0. 58 9

3.77

2.00

4.00

0.00

4.00

4.01

2.00

0.0854

0.803

4.12

1.00

Sector of system Group 1

3.00 -1.00

Z , 1 cm 3D = 10.0 mm (Min=-0.716) (Max=4.76) Y (mm) composite panel frame frame (mm) Deformed Structure from LC 1002 G1+Ws Enlarged byrainscreen 20.0 X

obal X, Loadcase 1002 G1+Ws

4.24

0.00

2.00 -2.00

0.424

4.36

4.12

1.00 -3.00

4.48

4.12

0.00

4.77 4.60

4.48

1. 98 4.36 1. 1.8 4.24 9 8 1. 4 82 14.12 .8 0. 0 62 4.01 1. 2 81 13.89 1. .1 1. 84 9 0 3.77 0 1. 1.9 03.65 98 2 .9 1. 0. 3.54 80 85 12 1. 53.42 23 2. 56 0. 2. 3.30 50 63 6 3.18 3. 2. 2.8 14 1. 663.06 1 04 2.95 2 3. 3.4 2. 2.6 .81 6 8 2.833 0 26 3 .7 2 2.71 3. 2. 3. 2.59 45 72 78 3. 3. 2. 2.47 96 66 92 3 .7 2.36 1 3.9 3 6 .2.24 2. 76 3. 47 2.12 52 3. 2.00 2. 2.6 75 0 3. 7 1.89 9 50 0. 2. 2.6 1.77 3. 51.65 0 32 79 13 5 .6 2. 2. 0 10 58 1.53 . 60 71 0. 0. 5 60 1.41 50 2. 5 08 0. 0.8 1.30 0 17 98 1. 1. 3 30 1.18 0. 2 71 1. 3 1.06 0. 5 98 61 0.94 5 1. 1.8 84 9 0.821. 81 0. 0.71 20 1. 6 800.59 1. 1. 1.8 11 84 1 0.47 1. 0.35 1. 89 98 0.24

1. 51 0. 2. 0. 48 30 11 8 3. 0 1. 3. 06 48 11 0. 71 3. 3.4 6 3. 5 29 1. 72 28 4. 3. 3 37 45 4. 2. .05 5 4 9 .5 67 5 3. 3. 4. 4.6 72 32 49 8 4.7 6 4.0 7 4. 37 4. 4 .3 76 0 2. 3. 27 93 4. 2. 22 3. 4. 31 32 29 3. 2 84 .6 0. 2 2. 2.7 42 3. 5 93 5 17 0 2. 2. 37 1. .637 55 06 0. 1. 19 80 6 1. 1.0 0. 6 06 96 0. 0. 6 0. 20 0. 73 23 4 44 0. 7 8 0. 4 25 0. 57 2 12 6 3 0. 0. 57 1 97 0. 0. 0. 5 52 84 44 3 9 5 0. 0. 0. 74 22 89 8 9 0. 3 81 9 0. 0. 76 66 0. 0 7 52 7 0. 30 2 -1.00

4.77 4.60

1.00

0. 0. 71 44 5 3

Finite element model of unitised panel

0.00

0 0. .48 9 89 0

Finite element model of rainscreen panel 4.00

Finite element model of concrete structure

3.00

, from 0.0561 to 4.77

MCCS_105

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 8 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 850 675 500 350 175 50

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

1,420 m2

694 MWh

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay

Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

14.5 MWh

23.6 MWh

38%

MCCS_106

% Daylight factor

850

10

675

8

500

6

350

4

175

2

50

0

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 1.47% Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.89% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.55%

Pressure, kPa

Velocity, m/s

1.6

100

0.6

75

Pressure, kPa 1.6 0.6 -0.4

-0.4 50

-1.4

-1.4 -2.4 -3.4

25

0

-2.4 -3.4

External and internal air velocity distribution 20 °C 13 °C 0 °C

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

The ‘steps’ in the geometry of the facades, which form part of the exterior shape of the tower, generate local effects of wind turbulence. These effects result in varying cladding pressures as well as different wind pressures being applied to the horizontal areas connecting the vertical steps of panels. Due to the high level of transparency required of the glazing, the glass chosen was a type with lower light transmission in order to avoid glare in the internal spaces. A glare analysis has been undertaken for the interior space, taking into account the expected level and frequency of occupancy. The use of internal blinds provides greater flexibility in the control of daylight levels. CFD studies for the tower were conducted in order to provide early stage cladding pressures. These studies informed the early stage structural design of facade assemblies by revealing the dynamic effects of the wind on the tower, which are determined by the vortex shedding frequency being too close to the natural frequency of the tower. The studies were conducted through transient analysis in order to measure the vortex shedding frequency which is mainly determined by its irregular outer shape. A wind tunnel test was also performed at very early stages to confirm cladding pressures to be used for structural calculations and to calibrate the CFD analysis used also to assess dynamic effects. This allowed the required stiffness of the tower to be confirmed, which informs the overall movements that are to be accommodated by the external envelope.

Wind cladding pressure distribution

Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution on east and north facade

MCCS_107

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 8 K. Çamlica TV Tower, Istanbul

The high-rise nature of the KCTV building (approximately 300m) is at the core of the design and analysis for the envelope system enclosing the primary concrete structure, whose primary purpose is to support the antenna TV mast. In addition, the tower has ten accessible floors, including a restaurant space on its upper part. The use of these floors requires deflection limits to be controlled in order to ensure comfort at serviceability for the building occupants. The highly modelled form of the building together with its significant height determines an essential part of the behaviour of both structure and envelope, the design of which is driven by the effects of wind. The project’s location at the top of a hill makes it subject to high wind speeds. The complex geometry of the tower requires detailed understanding of wind effects which may include the dynamic excitation of the tower. The primary structure is composed of a main concrete structural core which supports outrigger slabs at the accessible floors. The facade is directly fixed to the slab edges. In order to provide geometric continuity to the facades below the accessible floors, a steel secondary structure provides structural support to the facade panels, a structure which cantilevers from the main concrete core. The envelope system was designed to minimise installation time and uses an innovative unitised system that integrates thin glass fibre reinforced concrete (GRC) rainscreen panels, stiffened by a steel frame which is fixed directly to a steel framed insulated backing wall. This backing wall has integrated glazed openings. The use of glazing unitised framing technology informs the design of the sealed connections between panels that enclose the accessible levels. MCCS_108

The use of adapted unitised glazing joints allows global lateral movements of the building to be accommodated. These movements are driven by the stiffness of the primary structure which determines the amount of inter-storey drift. Unitised technology for facade panels is used only in a vertical configuration, thereby removing the risk of water penetration. The unitised facade panels incorporate the exterior rainscreen GRC cladding so that the facade for the lower floors can also serve as open-jointed rainscreen GRC panels, fixed via adjustable brackets to the secondary steel structure. The key parameters informing the design of the envelope system are speed of installation, which determined the use of fully unitised panels with integrated exterior cladding, and accommodation of movement, which is provided by the use of unitised joints which are designed to sustain the required amount of movement. Due to the size of the facade panels, spanning directly from floor to ceiling, the effects of wind are the key drivers of structural thicknesses which determine the load of the facades on the structure. The assembly technology was tested through a series of iterations involving the 3D printing of components, such as the unitised aluminium extrusions, and the construction of a one-to-one scale prototype of the two full-height unitised panels, including the interface between them. The mock-up was used to devise the fabrication process for each component, test the assembly sequence and the feasibility of the proposed interface. The assessment of the wind effects on this high-rise building required several iterations and made use of both digital tools and physical wind tunnel testing. Wind tunnel testing is used primarily as a final validation tool of the design cladding pressures, as the nature of the test does

not allow for quick iterations. Wind tunnel testing requires a 3D print of the building geometry and has a long set-up and testing timeframe. It is performed only by specialist laboratories that are required to follow standard procedures and certify their results.

to be performed and would therefore not allow design options to be tested at the start of the project. This basic test ensures preliminary calibration which adds considerable value to CFD modelling, despite not guaranteeing their high accuracy.

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis is suited to rapid design iterations and is a useful tool for validating the robustness of design concepts at early design stages, as it allows analyses to be quickly re-run that can directly inform design decisions.

Due to the height of the building, a wind tunnel test was undertaken during the early stages to establish peak cladding pressures. This allowed the design to develop accurate sizes of facade components from the first stage studies, providing the data to optimise the envelope build-up and obtain an accurate understanding of the impact of the facade loads on the structural behaviour of the concrete structure. The early stage wind tunnel test provided a tool for calibrating the CFD studies undertaken, which were aimed at exploring the dynamic response of the tower under wind effects due to its irregular geometry, in order to calibrate the stiffness of the primary structure.

CFD analysis was used on the KCTV tower to assess the variation in magnitude of the structural loads across the tower. The vortex shedding frequency which is affected by the main protruding parts of the tower was estimated and was used to ensure that the structure does not resonate at the vortex shedding frequency. From the CFD study, preliminary structural loads were established by averaging cladding pressures across representative areas of the building and applying the corresponding pressure distributions as load cases in the structural finite element model. CFD analysis was also critical in estimating preliminary cladding pressures, given the high expected values at the top of the tower, in order to inform early stage material selection. The framing supporting the unitised panel is primarily driven by the performance at serviceability, and the GRC cladding by stress concentrations at ultimate limit states. In order to calibrate early stage CFD studies, Newtecnic performs independent wind tunnel tests, where fewer pressure gauges can be used to check CFD results at sample locations. This removes the need for a full wind tunnel test, which typically requires time frames of months

MCCS_109

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 9 Meixihu IC&A Centre, Changsha

MCCS_110

MEIXIHU IC&A CENTRE, Changsha INTERNATIONAL CULTURE AND ARTS CENTRE

28° 10’ 45” 113° 6’ 49”

N E

ARCHITECT ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS LOCAL DESIGN INSTITUTE PEARL RIVER DESIGN INSTITUTE FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

1000

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/ ((kN/m2) N/m2) 2)

0.60

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (k kN/m m2) (kN/m2)

1.43

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.23

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL I SECTION

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE CHS STEEL SECTION

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES AND THREADED TUBES, WELDED AND BOLDED

MCCS_111

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 9 Typical system bays

2

3

4

7

5

8 2

3 1

6

4 2 8 5

7

3D internal view of typical bay

6

1

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_112

Details 1. GRC rainscreen panel 2. Steel primary structure 3. Steel secondary structure 4. Thermal insulation 5. Double glazed unit 6. Floor finish 7. Mullion 8. Transom

2 2

1 3

1

3 8 5 4 6

6

4

5

8

7

7

5

9

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

10

8 5 10

11 5

6

11

4 4

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

15 15

14

7 12 12

13

13

14

3D view of glazing system Details 1. GRC rainscreen panel 2. Glazed rooflight 3. Glazing frame 4. I-beam primary structure 5. Facade secondary structure

3D exploded view of glazing system

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Thermal insulation Facade primary structure Supporting bracket Metal frame External cladding

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Waterproofing membrane Double glazed unit Mullion Glazing frame Transom MCCS_113

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 9 System design

4

3 2

6

5 1

Top view

4

3 1

2 2

1

3

Front view

3 6

2

1

5

6

4

Bottom view

MCCS_114

Third angle projection. Scale 1:100

1

1

3

6 5

2 2

2D detail. Scale 1:5

3D view of detail

1

1 2 2

5

4

Back view

1

1

6

Details 1. External cladding 2. Steel structure 3. Supporting bracket 4. I-beam primary structure 5. Cladding supporting bracket 6. Thermal insulation

4

3D views of system

4

MCCS_115

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 9 Structural analysis

310.00

View of typical bay X

300.00

Sector of system Beam Elements

Z

Y

290.00

280.00

270.00

Nodal displacements distribution

Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight

, 1 cm 3D = 200.0 mm

(Min=-213.9) (Max=7.72)

in secondary structure (mm)

Finite element model of typical bay Finite element model of secondary bracket

153 0 -101 -202 -303 -403 -504

-1008 -1109

-724.6

-1210

-1412 -1513

-769

-1613

.1

-770 .4

-1714 -1815 -1916

-108 8

-2017 -2118

-108 9

-2219 -2319

-109 1

-2420 -2521

-7 14 .3

-1077

113.9

-15 4

-15

-36 34

-3494

-2723

-3495

-2824

.1

-7 14 .3

-11 33

115.2

153.1

-1 19 4

113.9 -15 46

-1529

150.5 -15 4

-1531 -1532

-36 35

5.2

6.4

-77 7.5 -7 13 .0

-1077

-770 .4

-108 9

7

-109 1

49

-769

-108 112.6 8

150.5

-1531

-2622

-724.6

115.2

-15 46

-1529

-77

-725.7

-11 33

153.1

-1 19 4

-1532

-77

-723.5

-77 7.5 -7 13 .0

-725.7

-1311

5.2

6.4

-15

49

7

-36 34

-3494 -3495

112.6

-36 35

-2924

-3877

-3025

-3877

-3126 -3227 -3328 -3429 -3529 -3630

-3832

300.00 -3881

tem Group 0 1 4

-3878

-3878

-3879 -37 39

-3879 -37 39

-3881

-3731

310.00

290.00

300.00

Axial force distribution in steel columns (kN) Sector of system Group 0 1 4

-3881 280.00

290.00

270.00

260.00

280.00

270.00

m

260.00

m

Von Mises stress distribution in secondary bracket (MPa)

Z , Normal force Nx, self weight (Max=153.1) , 1 cm 3D = 2000. kN (Min=-3881.) (Max=153.1) , Normal force Nx, self weight , 1 cm 3D = Loadcase 2000. kN 1(Min=-3881.) X Loadcase Y Beam 1Elements

MCCS_116

-80.00

-77

-90.00

-723.5

-100.00

-908

-90.00

-77

-807

-100.00

-706

-80.00

-605

M 1 : 251

X * 0.908 Y * 0.475 Z * 0.975

M 1 : 251

X * 0.908 Y * 0.475 Z * 0.975

260.00

1

2

Details 1. GRC panels 2. Panel frame 3. Secondary bracket 4. Steel tubes 5. Primary bracket 6. Steel C-sections 7. Primary structure

4 3

4 5

Facade system

Thin open-jointed GRC rainscreen on steel frame.

Facade zone

1000 mm

Primary structure type

Steel I sections.

Secondary structure type

CHS steel sections.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.60

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates and threaded tubes; welded and bolted.

Number of components in fixing system

10 and 9

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.43

-10.7 -0 .2 62

-0.8 -0.0.41 61 650 3

7

-9.25 10 -1. 50 -4. -6.49 .5 -20 -11.2 9 -19. 5 -0.97 -8.68 -36.5

Facade assembly

All secondary structure is rationalised to be singly-curved. A maximum envelope load of 150kg/m2 was required in order to ensure that the primary structure could be constructed economically. This design constraint required the optimisation of the weight of each individual compo-

200.

-30.6

100.

Principal stress flow distribution in , 1 cm(MPa) 3D = 179.7 primary bracket

Principal stress II in Node, nonlinear Loadcase 2001 2001

The analysis of the global structural model was performed to establish global deflections of the primary structure, which is realised as a mix of steel and concrete moment frames, with secondary structure set across the three buildings. The interface between primary structure and facade is provided by the secondary structure, which has been optimised to achieve the architectural shape and provide support to the facade brackets through continuous rails. The use of curved, lightweight secondary structure allowed to reduce both complexity and weight of the primary structure, which could be realised through simplified and more effecient structural primitives.

-3

55.2 51.2 -3 0

-28.9 -30.2 -29.2 -28.4 -28.6 .1 .1 -28 -27 .8 -26 -17.7 04 -9 .

bracket (MPa) Y X Top

0.

-51.6

79

-100.

-22.4

. -2

-200.

-96.9

-86.1

4 7 .8 -1

-26.2

.6

-95.3

Sector of system

9 8. -1 71 -0.8

-35.6

-9

-26 .8

-39.0

Z

.8

-2 1. 5

30 3.

.7 34 -2 -31.0

-60.2

Von Mises stress distribution in primary

6.

8

-20.7

Finite element model of primary bracket

-0 .0 60 5

6

N/mm2

300.

+=

400.

-=

500.

(Min=-234.7) (Max=55

nent of the facade assembly, which could be undertaken with the use of finite element analysis in order to safely reduce structural sizes. The target weight was met across the whole building envelope, even at locations where the facade zone was up to 1.0 metre deep. The build-up was optimised by using shared brackets with straps fixing on to circular hollow section profiles. Thin glass fibre reinforced concrete (GRC) panels were used instead of monolithic GRC, which is twice as heavy. For these large panels (up to 2m x 6m in size) a steel backing frame was cast in the back of the GRC panel through L-shaped flexible studs which are welded to the main flat steel frame. These provide continuous support to the doubly-curved thin GRC skin approximately every 600mm in both directions, and allow for differential thermal expansion between GRC and steel minimising thermal stresses.

MCCS_117

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 9 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

23 September

22 December

kWh/m2 1200 950 750 600 250 150 Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

847 m2

338 MWh

kWh/m2

% Daylight factor 10

975

8

850

6

650

4

425

2 242 0 59

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

36.3 MWh

49.4 MWh

24%

MCCS_118

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor (floor-4): 2.11% Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 2.43% Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.61% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.32% Mean daylight factor (floor-0): 0.92%

Velocity, m/s 80 65 55 40 30 15 0 Wind velocity contours

External wind velocity streamlines External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

6

2

4.5

1.5

3

1

1.5

0.5

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution

Wind cladding pressure distribution

The basis of the structural design was informed by early stage wind tunnel testing that established maximum cladding pressures, allowing sizes of components to be determined from early design iterations onwards.

Pressure, kPa 2

The daylighting analysis helped to establish the depth of penetration of natural light within the building, allowing coordination of the design of the interior lighting to be undertaken in order to avoid visual discomfort. This is caused by abrupt changes in lux levels when moving from areas adjacent to the external glazed facades to the spaces located more internally, which rely on artificial lighting.

1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1

Thermal bridging through the envelope was significantly reduced by the use of long-span secondary structure members, which are sized to span up to 8.0 metres between fixing brackets; the maximum distance between consecutive primary structural members. The thermal envelope is perforated at each bracket that connects the secondary structure to the primary structure. This strategy helps to minimise the number of penetrations. This strategy also significantly simplifies the installation of thermal insulation and minimises wastage of material which otherwise would have been cut into much smaller parts to fit the space between a larger number of brackets.

Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

MCCS_119

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 9 Meixihu IC&A Centre, Changsha

The numerical analysis for this project is driven by the highly modelled geometry which drives both structural and environmental requirements across the three buildings. In order to benefit from economies of scale across the three buildings, the external envelope was realised using a primary opaque cladding system that uses thin glass fibre reinforced concrete (GRC) on steel framing in a rainscreen configuration. The secondary system which forms transparent strips within the opaque construction is a stick glazing system. The design of the envelope system is conceived to be effective across the full range of conditions across the three buildings. The design and optimisation of the assembly required the numerical analysis to focus in parallel at three scales of facade assembly: • Component within the assembly • Typical bay • Global behaviour Geometry analysis using 3D modelling tools was used to map out all the configurations across the project in terms of: • Supporting structure • Component size and geometry • Envelope inclination and orientation • Thermal performance criteria determined by the interior enclosed space The analysis of each configuration identified at the scale of a typical bay served as a starting point to establish performance constraints which would inform the design concept. A typical bay is a representative area of the building envelope, which typically includes the supporting structure and is also representative of project-specific local structural and environmental effects. The design and analysis of the assembly follows from the analysis of typical bays, which describe the required behavMCCS_120

iour of the assemblies. These results need to be validated both at global scale, by considering the implications the choice of assembly has on the whole building, and at local scale by looking at the behaviour of each component within the assembly. By studying typical bays, the efficiency of the system was assessed by comparing its performance for the most common configurations and for the most extreme cases. The design of the assembly was subsequently developing to work structurally with the same size components across the whole building. The use of geometry analysis through project-bespoke scripting tools, able to scan and inspect all the components of the building geometry, is used as a tool to map out configurations and test support and panelisation strategies, by quantifying the impact of competing design strategies such as savings in the number of fixings, and linear length of supporting structure required. Geometry analysis was a driving tool in the design of a unique system for the opaque areas across the three buildings. The general assembly strategy comprises lightweight glass fibre reinforced concrete (GRC) panels supported on adjustable fixing brackets, which are fixed to the backing steel frame attached to each panel. The brackets supporting the panels are connected to tubular rails. The rails closely match the architectural shape and provide a continuous line of support for panel fixings - set outside the weather line - and the primary structure beneath. The primary structure is composed primarily of a stiff steel shell structure which approximates the overall building shape and has the primary purpose of supporting the concrete floor slabs. The tubular rails were rationalised to be singly-curved tubes, which is an economic manufacturing process. Adjustable brackets connecting the tubular rails to the primary structure were designed to provide ad-

validated through wind tunnel testing to confirm cladding pressures and overall structural loads.

justment for primary structure tolerances and accommodate rails with different curvatures joining at each fixing location. The strategies for supporting structure, fixings and panelisation were tested through an iterative 3D modelling process across the three buildings. The framing of the thin GRC panels is constructed through flat steel frames which are linked to the GRC thin panel through flexible castin steel studs which ensure that lateral loads are transferred to the framing and that the backing frame can expand thermally without imposing stresses on the thin GRC panel. The overall assembly, including the secondary framing, was designed to meet a maximum weight per square metre of 1.5 kN/m² imposed on the primary structure, which drove the optimisation of each component to reduce its own weight. A single adjustable fixing system was designed to allow two adjacent panels to share the same bracket. The design of the bracket allows two panels to be connected through their backing frame to the secondary tubular rails. The bracket is designed so that each panel can undergo free thermal expansion. Once the overall feasibility of the assembly was established, the three buildings were analysed at global scale through finite element modelling. The objectives of these preliminary global models developed during the early design stages were: • Assessment of preliminary cladding pressures through computational fluid dynamics (CFD), which validates the expected thicknesses required from the assembly, and therefore the total facade zone and weight per square metre imposed by the envelope on the primary structure. CFD is used to explore the unintended effects of geometry at specific locations, such as localised high pressures and high wind speeds at pedestrian level which affect comfort in the large open space between the three buildings. CFD was later

•

Assessment of the global stability of the proposed structural concept through a finite element (FE) model of the whole building. This allowed areas that required further stiffening and the magnitude of both global movements and movements at typical bay scale to be identified, which in certain areas is driven by global rather than local effects. Local movements are an essential parameter in ensuring the robustness strategy for weather tightness of the building envelope. Finite element modelling of the whole building is also used to assess the impact of the facade weight on global movements, particularly when considering heavy GRC cladding in relation to a light-weight steel supporting structure.

•

Assessment of the overall thermal performance of the building envelope in terms of U-value. Each bracket supporting GRC panels forms a penetration through the thermal envelope. The thermal bridge effect is studied at a local level through 3D finite element thermal modelling. The effect on the overall envelope performance is then assessed at global level by considering the overall area of envelope affected by the presence of fixing brackets. This calculation allows the amount of local insulation provided through thermal break plates at each bracket location to be established.

The early stage analysis required a large number of iterations in order to establish robust envelope concepts that could then be developed by introducing considerations of fabrication and construction. Finite element tools were essential in performing quick iterations to understand behaviour for both structural and environmental parameters.

MCCS_121

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 10 Federation Square, Melbourne

MCCS_122

FEDERATION SQUARE, Melbourne ARTS AND CULTURAL CENTRE

37°48’50.79” 144°57’47.81

S E

ARCHITECT LAB ARCHITECTURE STUDIO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ATELIER ONE MEP ENGINEERING ATELIER TEN FACADE CONSULTANT TO ATELIER ONE ANDREW WATTS OF NEWTECNINC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

335

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.20

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

2.61

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.25

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL MOMENT FRAME

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL FRAMED WALL, COLD FORMED PROFILES

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SPIDER BRACKET WITH THREE ADJUSTABLE BRACKET

MCCS_123

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 10 Typical system bays

5

7

4

4

3

3

4

3D external view of the typical bay MCCS_124

3D internal view of typical bay

Details 1. Double glazed panel 2. Metal sheet 3. Backing wall 4. Cladding 5. Mullion 6. Cladding bracket

7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Girder Steel mesh Thermal insulation Floor slab External metal sheet

8

4

4 1

8

5 6 3

5

3D viiew of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

5 1

1 5

4 10 10

2

9

11

9

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

5

1

3D view of glazing system

5

1

3D exploded view of glazing system

MCCS_125

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 10 System design

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50

3 4 2

1

Top view

2 1

1 3

4

2

Front view

1 2 3

Bottom view

1 2

3

MCCS_126

3D view from below of cladding system

1

1

4 4

2D detail. Scale 1:5

1 2 3

3 4

2

Back view

1

3

2

Details 1. Cladding 2. Cladding frame 3. Primary structure 4. Cladding bracket 5. Double glazed unit 3D view of cladding system

MCCS_127

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 10 Structural analysis

2

2

2

1

1

2

Finite element model of typical bay Finite element model of typical bay

2

4 3

5

Facade assembly

MCCS_128

2

Facade system

Open-jointed rainscreen incorporating glazing, sandstone and perforated aluminium.

Facade zone

335 mm

Primary structure type

Steel moment frame.

Secondary structure type

Steel framed wall, cold formed profiles.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.20

Facade bracket type

Spider bracket with three adjustable arms.

Number of components in fixing system

5

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

2.61

Details 1. Steel primary structure 2. Pressed steel framed wall assembly 3. Metal sheet 4. Spider fixing 5. Rainscreen panels

2.29 2.17

0.266 0.260

2.06

-0.171

94

0.1 94

0.1

0.0 787

0.0 768

E-3

10.00 5.00

70

-0. 1

-0. 187

187 -0. 187

-0. 187

-0.

6

-0.

006

0.0 063

-0. 074 1 -0. 074 1 -0. 074 1 0. 5.00 0066

-

0.0 057

10.00

-21.4 -9.81

0.1 78

0.6 335

-9.88

11.4

11.1

11.0

-5.86

7.95

2.40 -5.51

15.00

15.00

-21.9 -4.99 -21.5

8.17

8.01

7.96

-1.61

-1.32

-21.2

-0.0680

-0.214 -0.285

9.51 9.35 9.29

-21.9

2.65 -5.67

0.135

2.60 -5.53 2.54 -5.50

0.0445

-21.5 -21.4

-21.2

-7.26

0. 05 94

-0 .8 -0 05 .5 90

0.209

0. 44 6

-0.177

-4.80

-0.318

3

0.

01

23

63 01 83 00 0. 13 01 0.

0.0363

9.26

-0 .7 73 -0 .8 85 -0 .8 91

-0 .5 -0 38 .2 16 0. 06 57

-0.324

10

0.0433

11.0

-0 .2 09 -0 .5 41

-0 .7 68

0.231

0.0373

-0.751

43

3

0.0443

-2.63

0.0373

0.0193

51

10 0.

0.

0.0283

07

0.0433

22

0.

0.0103

22

2.

0.0933 0.168

0.0293

2.

4 61 4 61 0.

10

0.

.7

7 10 0.

0.119

0.0453

0.0433

0.118

0.0093

0.

0.0283

7

0.0363

10 0.

0.115

0.0193

23

5 61

0.144

1 10

0.0133

23

2.

23

5

0.

61

2.

0.

2.

0.0503

01 0.

73 00 0 0.

0.0083

0.0953

0.0783

0.207

4 01

0.

0.108

0.232

0.168

0.

0.0893 0.126

0.253

0.0193

3

0.115

0.0283

7

0.166 0.0773

3

61 0.0363

23

7

61

01 0.

0.0293

0.136

0.0203

0.0163

3

7

2.

61

61

0.

0.199

0.117

0.0143

0.144

16

83 00 0. 03 01 0. 23 01 0.

0.0683

0.136

0.233

2 2.

0. 0.

0. 07 99

0 0.

0.110

0.238

10

-0

.7

0. 72 1 0. 16 6

0.0183

0.0143

0.0853

0.0443

29

0.138

0.206 0.132

0.0213

0.0603

0.0373

0.249

0.0293

29

2.

-3 E-

-0

X

0.0683

0.103

73 01 93 00 0. 13 01 0. 33 01 0. 23 01 0. 93 00 0. 73 01 0.

0.

0.0213

0.178

0.0033

2.

9 62 9 0. 62 0.

0E 04 41

11 .7 11 -0 .7 -0

0.007

0.0183

3 0.255

82

03 0. 12 05 0. 57 07 0.

0.133

0.0163

E-

0.191

0.266

23

0.161

0.237

0.203

0.240

07

0.0213

0.183

0.020 0.013

0.

0.100 0.0423 02 0.116 06 0.

0.242

03

. 13 -0 .7 13 .7 -0

1

0.027

0.0263

0.0153

0.138

22

.7 -0

-0

1

0. 91 4

3

0.157

03 70

2 5

.2

1

0.033

.2

1. 10 1. 11

E-

2 .7

1 00

-2

0.040

.2

0.047

0.0263

0.186

0.121

.7

-0

0. 06 83

0.222

0.

-0

8 1 .2

-2

0. 70 9 0. 91 4

79 71

.2

-2

Elements f weight , , 1 cm 3D = 2.00 kN (Min=-3.52) (Max=1.11) Y X

0.

0.053

01 0.

33

5

0.1558E-3

-5.00

-2.28 -10.00 force distribution -5.00 0.00 Axial in steel Bending moment10.00 distribution in-10.00 steel 5.00 0.000 Beam Elements frame , Torsional moment Mt, Loadcase 1 self weight Z frame (kN) (kNm) Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 20.0 kNm (Min=-21.9) Z(Max=11.4) Beam Elements

0.00

1

0.060

.2

0.067

21

-10.00

0.080

. -2

5

-2.17 0.0327

0.087

0.0263

0.132

-2

0.

3

0.093

0.073

28

-2.06

658

059 -0.

0 -0.

-1.94

E48 31

0.100

. -2

-1.79

0.107

-2

-1.83

0.113

-3

-1.73

77

0.120

-2

-1.66

-1.71

.1 -0

0.126

1 .2 1 -2 .2 1 -2 .2 -2

-1.60

-0.0429

6 06 .0

0.133

1E

-0.690

-0

0.140

3

0.6590E3 0.8979E3 0.2206E-3 0.8452E3 -0.3567E-3

27

0.232

-1.48

-0.625

0.160

1 0.

0.298

-1.37

211 -0. 204 -0.

0.363

-1.26

0.166

0.146

0.9451E3 0.0010

-1.61

0.377-1.14 0.163

0.173

0.153

0.5880E-

-1.61

0.277 -1.74

5 10 0.

-1.66

-2.60

0 55 .0 -0

-6.17

-2.54

-1.03

-3.77

-0.91

-0.0785

-1.66

-1.59

-0.80

-0.0569

0.342 -1.68

0.180

-1.33

-1.52

-0.69 -0.136

9

0.186

0.497

0.332

8 .2 -0

-6.44

-1.46

-4.00

-0.46 -0.57

0.220 -1.61

-3.52

-0.34-0.502

0.207

-0.669

-3.46

-0.23

-

-0.375

-2.51

97 08 0. 3 5 1 0. 2 7 01 0.

2 32 0.

0.193

-1.33

0.00

5 42 0.

0.200

0.780

-2.45

115

0.220

0.206

323

346

0.226

-1.35

0.11

-0.11

-2.53

-0.604

-1.53

0.23

717

-0.

172

0.0193

0.2111E3 -0.9926E -3 0.6332E-0.9307E 3 -3 0.6332E-0.7417E 3 -3 0.6332E-0.5717E 3 -3 0.6332E3 -0.9076E 0.6353E-3 3 0.6332E3

0.233

0.213

1.24

0.34

219

-0.

312

-1.84

-2.46

-0.

-1.49

-0.

-0.

084 5

-1.50

0.46

-0. 0

-0. 0

-1.42

0.57

136 226 0. -0. 226 36 -0. 0.1 226 -0. 226 -0.

0.257 -1.54

-0.666 -0.733

-0.

-0.0841

0.91

0.132

0.322 -1.47

0.0653

1.03

1.19

23 0.1

-3.42

-1.41

0.374

1.14

0.69

-3.36

-0.230

0.163

1.26

-0.2 49 0.80

-2.44

0.338

1.48

37 0.4

-2.37

-0.483

0.367

1.60

37 0.4

-1.44 -1.48

0.237

0.240

1.71

1.37

-1.37

0.0123

0.246

1.83

0.

-0.711

0.208

0.253

1.94

Y

0.00

5.00

10.00

5.00 -5.00 10.00 m0.00 5.00 Torsional 15.00 m moment distribution in steel Utilisation level distribution in steel , 1 cm 3D = 2.00 kNm (Min=-2.28) (Max=2.29) frame (kNm) , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case ,frame 1 cm 3D = 0.200 (Max=0.266) M 11 : 108

M 1 : 101 X * 0.710 Y * 0.874 Z * 0.855

X * 0.715 Y * 0.886 Z * 0.839

Spider bracket

Von Mises stress distribution in spider bracket (MPa)

The framed wall construction suits the irregular panelisation of the external rainscreen panels by providing a lightweight solution to the continuity of thermal insulation and structural support over a range of geometric configurations. The framed wall construction utilised adopts a metal sheet on each side to provide lateral stability to the pressed steel channels through diaphragm action. The pressed steel channels achieve the required stiffness through a balance between the cross sectional depth and the spacing between them, where thermal insulation is set. In this way, a lightweight insulated steel frame is capable of providing continuity of structural support, together with thermal and waterproofing insulation.

The external rainscreen panels are supported with adjustable three-legged spider fixings screwed directly to the metal sheet. The rainscreen cladding panels incorporate glass, sandstone and aluminium. The structural robustness of the fixing is achieved through multiple perforations in the metal sheet which spread the load transferred from the panel in order to avoid local failure at the perforation location. The spider fixing is designed to transfer the maximum amount of load to the framed wall by supporting the vertices of three panels. The rainscreen panels are allowed to move freely when subjected to thermal loads.

MCCS_129

M 1 :

X * 0 Y * 0 Z * 0

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 10 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 1500 1300 975 675 Period

Total area

Total radiation

350

1 year

1,295 m

2,234 MWh

175

2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2

% Daylight factor

275

4

220

3.3

175

2.7

125

1.5

75

0.8

25

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

6.3 MWh

55.1 MWh

89%

MCCS_130

0

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 0.41%

External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

7

2.5

5.5

2

3.5

1.5

3

1

2

0.5

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution

EXT

Pressure, kPa 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 INT

-0.5

20 °C 13 °C 0 °C Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

The disengagement between the internal ‘structural skin’, provided by the framed wall, and the external ‘architectural skin’, provided by the large rainscreen panels of aluminium, glass and sandstone, is the fundamental aspect of the design concept developed for the envelope.

The large rainscreen panels provide a durable finish for the external facades, as well as conceal the utilitarian nature of the interior wall. A driving design criterion for the external panels is the durability of the assembly which determines the choice of materials. The function of the ventilated rainscreen assembly is to provide protection from wind-blown rain and UV radiation to the waterproofing membrane.

The internal skin provides the thermal and waterproofing envelope by means of a lightweight structure, which also provides a flexible support for the interior finishes. The nature of the interior exhibition spaces requires a high level of flexibility in the layout of interior finishes and partitions. These interface with, or are directly fixed to, the framed wall. The need for internal layout changes in the interiors is provided by the utilitarian nature of the framed wall. In addition, this wall can also easily incorporate new window openings, if required.

The disengagement between the two skins allows independent maintenance cycles to be peroformed on both external and internal skins. This solution suits the public nature of the building which requires a long design life for the external envelope, and at the same time requires a high level of flexibility for a continuously changing use of interior space.

MCCS_131

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 11 New Port Centre, Doha

MCCS_132

NEW PORT CENTRE, Doha VISITORS CENTRE

25° 17’ 40’ 51° 32’ 21’

N E

ARCHITECT LLEWELYN DAVIES STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC MEP ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

500

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.25

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

1.22

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.23

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL ARCHES AND TUBES

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL T PROFILES

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SPIDER BRACKET WITH FOUR ADJUSTABLE BRACKET

MCCS_133

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 11 Typical system bays

4

3

3D internal view of typical bay

4

1

3

2

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_134

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Steel box 3. Primary structure 4. Secondary structure 5. Extruded aluminium mullion 6. Extruded aluminium transom 7. Thermal insulation 8. GRC panels

1

2

4

1

2 3 3

3D view of roof system

3D exploded view of roof system

5 5

1

1

6

6

3D view of vertical facade system

3D exploded view of vertical facade system

7 8

3D view of opaque wall system

8

3D exploded view of opaque wall system MCCS_135

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 11 System design 4

3

1

Top view

2

3 1

1

4

Front view

1 2 3

4

Bottom view MCCS_136

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50

4

1 1

2 4 3

3

4

3D views of details

1

3

3 4

3

4

1

2

Back view

1 2 4 1

3 3

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Steel box 3. Primary structure 4. Secondary structure

3D view of assembly MCCS_137

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 11 Structural analysis

25.7 26.5

23.9 24.8 23.1 23.9

53.1

22.2 23.1

51.5

21.4 22.2

50.0

50.0

20.5 21.4

48.5

48.5

47.0

47.0

45.5

45.5

18.0 18.8

44.0

44.0

17.1 18.0

42.4

42.4 40.9

16.3 17.1

40.9 39.4

39.4

37.9

37.9

36.4

36.4

40.00

13.7 14.5 12.8 13.7

30.3 28.8

9.4 10.3

27.3

27.3

8.6 9.4

25.8

25.8

7.7 8.6

24.3

24.3

6.8 7.7

22.7

22.7

6.0 6.8

21.2

21.2

5.1 6.0

19.7

19.7

4.3 5.1

18.2

18.2 16.7

3.4 4.3

16.7 15.2

15.2

13.6

13.6

7.6

7.6

6.1

6.1

4.5

4.5

3.0

3.0

1.5

1.5

0.0

0.0

-60.00

0.9 1.7 0.0 0.9

-1.7 -0.9 -2.6 -1.7 -3.4 -2.6 -4.3 -3.4

-60.00

-55.00

-55.00

-50.00

-50.00

-45.00

-45.00

-40.00

Von Mises stress distribution in typical bay X

-40.00

-35.00

Maximum v.Mises in Node, 1Loadcase 1 self ,weight , from to 60.6 Maximum stress in stress Node, Loadcase self weight from 0.0051 to 0.0051 60.6 step 1.52 step MPa 1.52 MPa Z v.Mises Y X

-35.00

-60.00

Z

-4.4

-50.00

-55.00

-45.00

-50.00

Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight

-40.00

-45.00

-35.00

-40.00

, from -4.41 to 29.8 step 0.855 MPa

m

-35.00

M 1 : 119

Von Mises stress distribution in typical bay (MPa) Y

M 1 : 119 M 1 : 119 X * 0.750 Y * 0.723 Z * 0.957

-55.00

-4.4 -4.3

m

m

45.00

Z

30.00

30.00

1.7 2.6

-0.9 0.0

X * 0.750 Y * 0.723 Z * 0.957

Y

Z

X

X

Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight

0.84354

40.00

-0.06174

-0.11281

0. 0. 844 -1 84 -1 .1 4 . 4

-0.11281

-0.21501

2.00

-0.21501

17

1.35

-0.66573

17

-0.0

-0.38978

-0.66573

-0.06

17 -0.06617

-0.38978

-0.06

15 .2 5 -0 0.21 5 - 21 5 . 1 -0-0.2

14

-0.21503

-0.24519 -0.24519

1.08

1.43

1.07

0.779

0.751

35.00

-0.21503

1.06

1.17

2.09

3.52

3.99

2.86

3.15

4.30

3.97

3.01

0.122

0.548

0. 6 66 6

-0.00000

-0.06174

30.00

Y * 0.723 0.750 ZX ** 0.957 Y * 0.723 Z * 0.957

-0 . - 66

0.84354

-0.00000

-0.69832 -0.69832

-1.14337

-1.14337

-1.14339

-1.14339

-60.00

Y

Z

X

-55.00

-50.00

-45.00

-40.00

-35.00

Vertical displacements distribution in typical bay (mm)

Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight

, 1 cm 3D = 5.00 mm

Elevation of typical steel arch

MCCS_138

(Min=-4.30) (Max=0.122)

-30.00

X * 0.750 Y * 0.723 Z * 0.957

-60.00

-60.00

m

M 1 : 150

Y

Z

-55.00

-55.00

-50.00

-50.00

-45.00

-45.00

-40.00

-40.00

Torsional moment distribution in typical bay (kNm) X Y

Z

Beam Elements , Torsional 1 self self weight weight Beam Elements , Torsionalmoment moment Mt, Mt, Loadcase Loadcase 1 X

= 1.00 (Min=-1.14) (Max=0.844) , ,1 1cmcm3D3D = 1.00 kNmkNm (Min=-1.14) (Max=0.844)

m

0.750 MX 1* : 119

, from -4.41 to 29.8 step 0.855 MPa

45.00

9.1

9.1

2.6 3.4

12.4 12.4 3.15 3.15 16.9 16.9 13.6 13.6 29.8 29.8 -4.41 -4.41

45.00

10.6

9.47 9.47 5.64 5.64

40.00

12.1 10.6

10.3 11.1

40.00

12.1

6.37 6.37

2.81 2.81

11.1 12.0

31.8

28.8

-60.00

Y

12.0 12.8

31.8 30.3

6.29 6.29

-1.40 -1.40

14.5 15.4

35.00

33.3

18.8 19.7

35.00

34.9

33.3

19.7 20.5

15.4 16.3

35.00

34.9

40.00

54.6

51.5

35.00

56.1

54.6 53.1

30.00

57.6

56.1

30.00

57.6

24.8 25.7

40.00 40.00

0.932 0.932 8.72 0.960 8.72 0.960 -3.83 -3.83 10.1 10.1 14.4 14.4 12.4 12.4

26.5 27.4

35.00 35.00

29.8 28.2 29.8 27.4 28.2

60.6 59.1

60.6 59.1

30.00 30.00

Finite element model of the structure

-35.00

-35.00

-30.00

-30.00 m

m

M 1 : 140M 1 : 140 X * 0.750 X * 0.750 Y * 0.723 Y * 0.723 Z * 0.957 Z * 0.957

Finite element model of steel facade

3

Facade system

Fish-scale glazed roof on steel structure.

Facade zone

500 mm

Primary structure type

Steel arches and tubes.

Secondary structure type

Steel T profiles, aluminium frame.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.25

Facade bracket type

Spider bracket with four adjustable arms.

Number of components in fixing system

18

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.22

Details: 1. Primary steel arches 2. Secondary steel T-section 3. Double glazed unit 4. Glazing frame

4

2

1

Facade assembly

First natural frequency of vertical facade (f = 2.15 Hz)

Second natural frequency of vertical facade (f = 2.77 Hz)

The finite element analysis of a simplified 2D model of the steel arches has informed preliminary sizes for the roof structure, by exploring the variation of arch structural depth with span. These sizes were used as the basis for building a global model to verify global stability, with the aim of minimising the number of tubes to brace the roof in its plane. The design of the steel arches makes use of bespoke cross sections, made of welded steel plates. The structural design is focused on avoiding local buckling effects when designing with cross sections that are not standard and which are likely to develop local buckling effects before developing their full plastic moment capacity. This analysis requires detailed finite element modelling in order to model both local and global buckling modes, which are related to the global stability of the structure. The verification of the aspect ratios between web and flanges for the deep T-sections used for the arches was critical to ensure the feasibility of the architectural concept of the exposed steel roof, which is visually driven. A substantial contribution to

Third natural frequency of vertical facade (f = 2.91 Hz)

the global stability of the roof is provided by the framing supporting the fishscale glazing which introduces additional moderate shell action in the roof enclosure, where the three transversal tubes provide the main stiffness paths for global stability. For the concrete structure set adjacent to the steel enclosure, pre-stressed double-tee reinforced concrete beams are used to span 18m without any intermediate support, which allows internal columns to be omitted and provide a highly flexible use of internal space. Given the single span of the concrete building, the design is focused on the realisation of the structural connection between slab and wall, to ensure the structural continuity of the wall, so that the building meets global stability requirements. This connection is realised through a bolted connection between cast-in elements in both the pre-fabricated beam and the structural wall. The connection works in bearing and axially as it is required to transmit both shear and in-plane forces when the structure is subjected to lateral movements, in order to provide global stability. MCCS_139

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 11 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 2300 2000 1500 950 475 250

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

3,147 m2

3,310 MWh

% Daylight factor

kWh/m2 2300

12

2000

10

1500

8 6

950

4 475

2

250

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

348 MWh

359 MWh

3%

MCCS_140

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 5.4% 98.4% of area between 2-12% 0.1% of area > 12% 1.5% of area < 2%

External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

5

2.5

3.5

2

2.5

1.5

2

1

1

0.5

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution 20 °C 13 °C 0 °C

Pressure, kPa 1.5 1

0.5

0

-0.5 -1 INT

EXT

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

The control of solar gain in the glazed exhibition space is achieved by means of the fish-scale construction utilised for the roof glazing, which allows shading to be provided on the roof by introducing insulated opaque components in both edge returns and perimeter of each glazed panel. This is used in conjunction with the choice of glass which achieves a 50% shading coefficient without using tinted glass. The inclination of the vertical glass facade limits the solar gain further by benefiting from the overshadowing from the roof canopy, and maximises the use of all the available space inside for the exhibitions.

From an initial estimate of the cooling load, cooling the whole volume of the exhibition space would cover 50% of the total peak cooling load. The MEP strategy of ventilating only the bottom part in order to provide thermal comfort is explored through a CFD study in order to determine the ventilation rate required to achieve thermal comfort in the bottom part of the space without cooling the whole internal environment. The strategy supported by this analysis shows how the cooling load is reduced to approximately 30% of the whole cooling load, allowing savings in both upfront cost of plant and energy cost of the building.

An internal computation fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation is required for the interior space in order to establish the amount of mechanical ventilation required to both provide fresh air and cool the large museum space. MCCS_141

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 11 New Port Centre, Doha

This project required a high level of design resolution across all engineering disciplines over a short time period in order to achieve cost certainty and cost savings for the contractor client.

Alongside the savings in air handling unit size and running air conditioning costs, this allowed all the ducts to be accommodated within the available external facade zone.

The building is formed by two juxtaposed structural forms: a loadbearing concrete ‘box’, wrapped by a ventilated rainscreen cladding system, and an arched steel vault, which encloses a large exhibition space and is entirely glazed.

The fish-scale construction technology used for the glazed roof allows the provision of shading by integrating opaque elements within the glazed assembly as a seamless extension of the frame. In order to achieve a shading coefficient to meet the mechanical ventilation requirements in terms of plant size, different configurations of fish-scale construction were tested by quantifying the amount of incident solar radiation and the benefits gained by increasing the depth of the opaque edge of each glazed panel.

The integration of zones in the building, within combined assemblies, was a primary concern to reduce construction time and cost. All interior finishes whose function was only to conceal MEP installation and minimise duct length were eliminated by integrating all the ventilation ducts within the facade zone, with supply ducts on one side of the main concrete building and extract ducts on the opposite side. Ventilation ducts are accommodated within the weather line in order to avoid ducts passing externally where thermal insulation would be uneconomic. The choice of external rainscreen cladding allows a suitable zone for accommodating the ducts to be achieved. Pre-stressed double-tee beams are used to span the main internal spaces for the main concrete building. This technology allows 18 metre spans without intermediate columns to be achieved. Ventilation ducts, electric cabling and light fittings can also be accommodated between adjacent webs within the structural depth of the beams, without the need for creating an additional ceiling zone underneath. The main exhibition space incorporates a highly transparent inclined roof, which also achieves a high level of solar control through its ‘fish-scale’ construction. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis was used to assess the thermal comfort in the interior exhibition space, given its height and highly transparent envelope. CFD analysis made it possible to establish that low level cooling was sufficient to ensure appropriate levels of thermal comfort throughout the occupied exhibition spaces. This allowed a substantial reduction of the ventilation capacity required for this environmental zone. MCCS_142

The uniform shading pattern generated by the opaque panel edges determines uniform levels of daylight in the exhibition spaces, avoiding the casting of sharp, dramatic shadows, which is typical of external shading louvres and not suitable for an exhibition space where the layout of the space is changed regularly to host different exhibitions. The high levels of daylight in the internal space and the subsequent risk of glare due to direct solar radiation were controlled by means of solar control glass. The canopy extension of the building on its long side, together with the inward inclination of the vertical facade, ensure an appropriate level of shading is achieved for the vertical facade. This reduces the amount of penetration of direct sunlight from the sides, which would generate an uncomfortable, unusable zone immediately next to the long facade. The thermal performance of the facade is improved by introducing opaque insulated elements along the opaque panel edges and in the overlapping part. This improves the thermal transmittance of the roof envelope, avoiding the heat transfer from solar radiation to the internal space by conduction through the opaque elements of the roof. The assembly of the glazing panes to generate a ‘fish-scale’ construction allows the accommodation of higher structural and thermal movements within the glazing assembly. The use of fish-scale construction allows the

same panel type to be used across the curved roof, by allowing slight variations in the amount of overlap between adjacent panels, which generates cost savings and the possibility of optimisation. The introduction of curvature in the roof structure reduces the expected structural depth from an equivalent flat truss to approximately one third of this depth, allowing the zones for facade and roof structure to be combined. The curved half-portal frames are moment-connected to the ground for stability. Their geometry is conceived in order to minimise both the bending moment at the base under simple gravity loads and the amount of forces transferred to the adjacent concrete structure. A simplified 2D parametric structural model was generated to establish the structural depth required for each arch span. The global finite element model of the structure allowed the additional structural requirement to be established to achieve global stability for the steel roof, which required a minimum number of tubular elements to brace the structure in the direction perpendicular to the arches at roof level. The vertical facade was integrated into the structural design of the roof in order to provide stability and limit the amount of lateral forces transmitted into the adjacent concrete structure. The short time available for achieving a highly integrated solution required each iteration to be focused on reaching specific design targets, together with a flexible process to integrate both continuous changes in the architectural design - which was being developed in parallel to the engineering design - and new findings from analytical studies. Agile management techniques were used to allow a large team to generate daily working prototypes, which covered various aspects of the building design and were resolved as 3D models.

ducts in the facade zone and the coordination of these with the facade openings was another critical design aspect. The iterative architectural design of the interior spaces and facade openings had to be integrated in real time in the sizes of the ventilation ducts, which were required to fit within a facade zone of 600mm. At the end of every day the project team of building engineers produced a digital working prototype of all the building engineering assemblies, integrating the current progress of the structural design, and the 3D layout of the ventilation ducts running in the facade zone, informed by analysis. Each sub-team would work separately during most of the day to perform specific analysis of parts of the building, with 3D models produced for each discipline by the end of each day, reflecting the design progress that was to be integrated into one unique model which would then be sent to the architect for feedback. The required level of integration between structure, facade and MEP resulted in each aspect of the project incorporating a level of innovation, driven by the technology used. The basis of the application of agile management techniques is the delivery, in a very short time-frame, of an innovative ‘product’ that responds to specific design requirements and performance requirements, which are defined as the project develops and cannot be fixed at the outset. The Doha New Port Visitors Centre was conceived from the start as a design product and developed following this approach through a large multidisciplinary team of building engineers.

The key design items were the 3D model of the steel roof, for which the engineering of the assembly and the structural concept had to be developed in parallel to the architectural shape. A structural analysis parametric model in a finite element software was generated to be able to extract revised structural sizes as the geometry evolved. The integration of the ventilation MCCS_143

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 12 City Museum Istanbul, Istanbul

MCCS_144

CITY MUSEUM Istanbul, Istanbul MUSEUM

41°01’04.9” 28°55’15.2”

N E

ARCHITECT SALON ARCHITECTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BALKAR MÜHENDISLIK FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

FACADE ZONE (mm)

ENVIRONMENTAL

TESTING

up to 1500

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.47

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

1.36

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.25

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE RHS STEEL SECTIONS

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES; WELDED AND BOLTED

MCCS_145

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 12 Typical system bays

5

6

2 3

1

11

5

9 6

2

3D internal view of typical bay

3

1

11 9

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_146

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Steel structure 3. Rigid insulation 4. Profiled metal sheet 5. Rainscreen panels 6. I-beam girder 7. Mesh plates 8. Mullions 9. Floor slab 10. Cladding frame 11. Floor finish

3

2

2

3

9

5

6

5

4 10 6 10

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

9

2

7

7 8 1

10

1 2

8

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

2

3

5

5 2

3

11

11 9 4

9 6

4 6

3D view of of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system MCCS_147

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 12 System design

11

3 2 5

Top view

5 2

3

5

11 4

9 6

Front view

5 3

11

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50

MCCS_148

2

3

11

11 2

9

9

4

3

4 5

6

5 6

2D detail. Scale 1:5

2

3D view of detail

5

3

2 3 11

11

9

9

4 6

4 6

Back view

3

5 11

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Steel structure 3. Rigid insulation 4. Profiled metal sheet 5. Rainscreen panels 6. I-beam girder 7. Mesh plates 8. Mullions 9. Floor slab 10. Cladding frame 11. Floor finish

4 6

3D view of assembly

MCCS_149

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 12 Structural analysis

-45.00

Finite element model of steel framed wall

8.78

86

. 11

1

0 9.4

0.07 9 .1 4 10 9.9

61 4. 79 .73 1. 0

0.07

76 8.

0.

6.34 3.14 0.2 3

0.07

3.14

2.66

37

1.06

Lateral displacements distribution in cold pressed steel elements (mm)

Nodal displacement vector, Loadcase 102 SLS: G1+G2+Wp

Full-height glazed facade with external aluminium mesh.

Facade zone

up to 1500 mm

Primary structure type

Composite concrete slabs.

Secondary structure type

RHS steel sections.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.47

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

X * 0.840 Y * 0.721 Z * 0.880

Number of components in fixing system Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

MCCS_150

Details 1. External aluminium shading 2. Aluminium frame 3. Glazing 4. Steel mullion 5. Steel fixing bracket 6. Edge beam

4

5

6

5 3

5 1.36 Facade assembly

2

m

M 1 : 103

(Max=17.4)

, 1 cm 3D = 24.8 mm

Finite element model of typical bay

Facade system

13.80 1.60 1 5.30 4 .9 6 16.4 6 16. 86 1 6. 62

15. 98 5 53 1 0.67 1 .9 6 6. .2 4.3 16 7.2 39 4 0.92 1 0 . 1 1 17 7.1 05 5 9 1.2 . 1 1.4 3 .9 48 16 8.0 13 0. 0.74 1 1 4 3.7 4 7 3 . 8 5 4 6 1. 2. 5. 05 6 6 0. 0. 46 28 2 0. 47 4 0. . 0 -35.00 -25.00 -30.00 -40.00

6.95

Sector of system Y

8.47

7 7.3

-50.00

0 10.

9.20

0.52

-20.00

Z X

4.46 2.08

-55.00

79

9.

2 5 .9 7.0 15 1

4.66

6

4.02

6.3

3.46

7

.5

15

26

9.

9 9.7

0.0 7

4.33

2

.7

13

0.06

9.02

3.82

63

8.

2

.3

12

8 9.2

3.49

0.0 7

4.86

6

9

3 7.

5 8.6

3.29

3 7.8

4.61

0.0

9.61

4.66

9 6.6

1

3.8 9 5.5 9 7.2 7 9.1 3 10. 74 11. 52 10 .4 3 6. 90 3. 07

Facade system Facade zone

480 mm

40.00

Composite concrete Sector of system Z Primary structure type Y slabs Nodal displacement vector, Loadcase 103 SLS: G1+G2+Ws X Steel framed wall, cold Secondary structure type formed profiles. Weight of secondary 0.22 structure (kN/m2) Facade bracket type

Bolted steel plates

Number of components in fixing system

5

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.05

50.00

60.00

70.00

0.00

2.45

Details 1. Aluminium rainscreen panels 2. Aluminium supporting rails 80.00 m 3. Steel-framed wall 4. Edge beam M 1 : 252 X * 0.847 Y * 0.719 Z * 0.875

(Max=77.3)

, 1 cm 3D = 44.9 mm

2.14

3.33

2.71

3.71

5.91

44 0.

Aluminium rainscreen supported on steel framed wall. 30.00

1.96

4.30

3

Lateral displacements distribution in cold pressed steel elements (mm)

2.80

9 1.

4. 03

3 4.7

-10.00

21 .7 1 30 .1 36 3 .9 40 9 .7 38 5 .3 28 5 5 .1 .1 7 9 13 3. .2 59 4 5. 53

17.14

16.62

3. 46

1.94

40 4.

2 .0 95 04 14 35. 3 . 51 59.5 .14 00 9 5 1 64 66. . .2 4 0 64 3 .5 9 3 35 .8 23 3 7. 22 36. 8 . 1 40 .1 98 60 8 38 31. 3. 3.2 .03 96 2 5 1 . 7 1.08

77 .2 9 75 .5 4 73 .5 8 70 .3 8 66 .3 0 61 .1 5 55 .1 6 48 .7 0 42 .0 8 34 .6 7 26 .9 3 19 .0 4 11 .9 2 5. 99

0

2.21

18.52

19.44

20.18

20.65

20.87

20.73

20.23

19.26

17.95

16.29

14.52

2.4

5 4.3

54 1.

11 .8 1

10.00

Finite element model of typical bay

4

1 2

3

Facade assembly

The structural envelope is composed of a continuous framed wall which is designed to accommodate the sharp folds that define both the internal and external architectural surface, which closely follows the same geometry. The structural concept for the framed wall follows the direction of the frame elements in each facet to form the folded surface, as well as the structural depth of the wall required to achieve sufficient stiffness. The structural depth of the cold pressed steel members is balanced with the spacing between them as well as the ability of the wall framing to incorporate connections with the exterior aluminium rainscreen cladding. Two layers of outer wall are used: a framed backing wall and an outer rainscreen cladding which is supported on rails. The external open-jointed cladding is set out along diagonal lines and supported on aluminium rails, which are fixed to the framed wall in order to minimise the number of penetrations of both thermal and waterproofing envelope. The framed wall construction provides the required global stiffness to support the cladding. Localised forces, which result from the use of thin pressed sections, are accommodated at folds in the facade.

The continuous framed wall envelope is top-hung from the slab edge of the highest floor and is restrained by slab edges on floors beneath, as well as at the interface with the ground floor glazing. At these points the restraint is only for out-of-plane movement and allows the hanging folded facade to move freely. The framed wall incorporates movement joints only at corner locations, in order to allow unrestrained thermal movements to be accommodated for each side of the building. Framing members run in the two perpendicular directions within the plane of each facet, which introduces diaphragm action and provides global stability to the envelope. The setting out and installation of the framed wall is performed through semi-prefabricated modules, where thermal insulation, membrane and interior finishes are site-assembled. The rails are fixed directly to the framed wall through adjustable thermally broken brackets in order to support aluminium panels along the long edge.

MCCS_151

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 12 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

23 September

22 December

kWh/m2 850 675 500 Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

10,490 m

15,268 MWh

2

350 175

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis 75

kWh/m2 360 300

% Daylight factor

250

1

150

0.8

100

0.6

50

0.4 0.2 0

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

2.2 MWh

3.3 MWh

32%

MCCS_152

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 0.34% 96.5% of area between 0-1 3.5% of area > 1%

Internal velocity, m/s

External velocity, m/s

3

5

2

4

1.5

3

1

2

0.5

1

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution

INT

EXT

Pressure, kPa 2

1.5

1

20 °C 13 °C 0 °C Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

The high thermal performance of the framed backing wall is achieved by thermally breaking the connections between the external rails and the framed wall, which are the main source of thermal bridging. The framed wall members are insulated by means of a rigid insulating board which is set in front of the framing. The build-up of the framed wall combines the structural depth required for the framing with the insulation depth required to achieve the thermal transmittance of the envelope. The analysis of the thermal bridging effects through the thermally broken connections informs directly the additional insulation to be provided through the rigid board to achieve the required thermal transmittance. The framed wall build-up also integrates GRG boards (glass-fibre reinforced gypsum) which provide sufficient mass in order to acoustically insulate the interior space of the museum.

0.5

0 Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

The risk of glare and thermal discomfort is mitigated through the choice of glass at ground floor level, where the depth of penetration of direct light into the interior space is determined by the cantilevering span of the opaque external envelope, which provides solar shading whilst allowing daylight in the building. This decision has informed the calibration of the depth of the shading canopy provided by the facades. The opaque envelope along the perimeter brings in direct light at first floor level through small apertures which produce directional beams of indirect light, avoiding risk of glare. For the internal courtyard, the shading system has been integrated as a second layer offset from the glazed facade. Shadowing effects are significant in the courtyard, as a result of the geometry of the building, and allow the implentation of full height glazed facades on all four sides of this internal area.

MCCS_153

INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION 12 City Museum, Istanbul

This project required a full integration of the supporting structure in the external wall zone to create a smooth inner and outer facade. The external wall zone wraps the building around the outer perimeter and morphs into a full height glazed façade with external shading screens in the internal courtyard. This was realised through a lightweight construction in the form of a folded skin, which is self-supporting and set above a glazed ground floor, with high thermal and acoustic insulation performance to suit the multipurpose internal space. The design concept for the building required a loose fit between the main concrete structure and the external self-supporting enclosure, whose primary aim is to closely control solar and conduction gains and provide acoustic performance. The main criteria for the structural design of the skin are its lightness combined with the stiffness required to achieve the folds. The expression of the geometry of the outer panels aims to generate smooth folds in the outer skin in order to create a variety of lighting conditions inside the building. This external expression of the envelope does not provide the basis for the structural support of the skin itself. The standard solution for providing a continuous substrate to support the outer cladding panels through a reinforced concrete wall is not economical for walls which are not structural and not continuous from ground level up. The envelope and the structure also required a separation in order to provide an internal arrangement set at 45 degrees to the structural layout. This is driven mainly by circulation and is independent of the main function of the external facade, which is to direct light to different spaces at different levels. The solar radiation analysis provided mapping of the effects of overshadowing in the internal courtyard. The assessment of daylighting levels was used to evaluate the amount of light penetration at ground floor level and through the courtyard glazed facade, where a folded shading mesh is used to limit risk of glare and overheating whilst allowing sufficient daylight in the transition spaces of the museum. MCCS_154

Framed wall technology was used to align the internal wall frame with the external fixing brackets, which provide support to the cladding. The framed wall forms a continuous folded skin which wraps the four sides of the building, is top-hung from the main concrete structure and is laterally restrained at slab level. The framed wall is made up of individual panels/modules which are structurally connected in order to act as a large diaphragm. Modules are semi-prefabricated: the framing elements are pre-assembled in the factory and bolted together on the ground to form larger modules to reduce installation time. An iterative approach was adopted to minimise the depth of the structural wall. This was achieved as a balance between the depths of framing members in relation to the spacing between them, driven mainly by the available size of thin steel sheet fixed to the cold-pressed steel framing to support the insulation, which acts as a diaphragm skin. The optimisation was undertaken in order to suit all the geometric conditions present in the folded skin. This was achieved through iterations using finite element modelling in order to assess the global movements of the structure and the presence of localised stress concentrations in proximity of the folds. Following this process, the framed wall is designed to achieve minimum weight and maximum stiffness within the set facade depth. The facade assembly is driven by the waterproofing strategy which makes use of two lines of protection in order to avoid both risk of condensation and water penetration. Condensation control drives the design of the assembly and requires thermal breaks to be integrated in the structural connections between the framed wall and the external cladding brackets. Thermal breaks typically have lower compressive strength than the structural materials that they connect. The connections are designed in order to ensure a robust re-distribution of the loads transferred through the assembly, by assessing localised stress concentrations and avoid too high stresses in the thermal breaks.

This initial design phase is based on ‘differentiation’ and aims at independently identifying all the requirements and constraints of each design aspect through feasibility studies, and through identification of built precedents, conducted in parallel. The primary purpose is to generate a preliminary set of studies in the least amount of time possible in order to identify all the project-specific requirements for realising the design concept. This broad range of studies describes the behaviour of the building in order to identify primary design objectives that require ta higher level of resolution to be developed. At this stage, the decisions made cannot be dependent on on the high-level accuracy of the studies, which would inevitably lead to a lack of robustness in the design concepts. The design method involved an initial set of feasibility studies for structural and thermal design conducted in parallel. This allowed the feasibility of the self-supporting skin to be assessed when top-hung from the primary structure, and subjected to gravity, wind and thermal loads. Thermal movements are accommodated within each facet of the folded skin by releasing the axial movement of the cold-pressed steel framing members. The global stiffness of the structure was assessed though quick iterations using finite element models of large bays of the envelope. This allowed iterations to be carried for different configurations of fixing conditions between the envelope and the structural slabs. Similar feasibility studies were undertaken for the environmental and acoustic performance of the build-up, integrating U-value requirements and minimum acoustic mass. A significant factor which affects the thermal transmittance of the envelope is the thermal bridging through the thermally broken connections between framed wall and external cladding, which requires the number of connections to be reduced to a minimum.

The following design phase is based on ‘integration’. The key design criteria identified during the differentiation phase are brought together through the development of a consistent design solution. This was achieved through one-day exercises, with a large team of building engineers working on one discipline at a time in order to produce short studies with clear daily outputs. These outputs highlight the key requirements to be taken into account in the studies conducted conducted on the following day. In this way the work is always exposed and critiqued by the whole team. In this way, all the aspects involved in the design of the envelope (structural, environmental and system design) can evolve in parallel over the duration of the schematic design stage, based on short studies that are conducted in series over the timeframe of a week. This approach ensures that the development of the design concept is coordinated on a weekly basis across all disciplines. Outputs were issued weekly to the architect for feedback, which allowed the incorporation of changes of design parameters, given the high level of engagement with the architectural design. Analysis outputs were integrated into 2D third-angle projection drawings and 3D digital models to produce design outputs issued to the architect in order to obtain rapid feedback; by directly illustrating the visual consequences of the structural and environmental strategies implemented.

Federation Square in Melbourne was taken as a point of departure as one of the completed projects by Newtecnic, where a similar framed wall technology was developed. In this project this technology is further developed by means of enhancing the acoustic, thermal and structural performance of the assembly. MCCS_155

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 13 Burjuman Apartments, Dubai

MCCS_156

BURJUMAN APARTMENTS, Dubai RESIDENTIAL TOWER

25° 15’ 10.9” 55° 18’ 6.0”

N E

ARCHITECT KOHN PEDERSEN FOX STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING MEP ENGINEERING BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING FACADE ENGINEERING ANDREW WATTS OF NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

FACADE ZONE (mm)

ENVIRONMENTAL

TESTING

1150

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.17

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

0.65

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.51

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE COMPOSITE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE ALUMINIUM PLATES AND PROFILES

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES; WELDED AND BOLTED

MCCS_157

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 13 Typical system bays

8

7

9

2

5 5 7 1 6

6

2

3D internal view of typical bay

8

9

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_158

Details 1. Aluminium sliding shading screen 2. Double glazed unit 3. Extruded aluminium transom 4. Extruded aluminium mullion 5. Steel profile 6. Floor slab 7. Thermal insulation 8. Floor finish 9. Ceiling finish

4

3

3

2

2

4

3D exploded view of typical glazed bay

3D view of typical glazed bay

2

2 3 8

5

5 7

7

6

6 9

1

2 9

1

3

3D view of assembly

3D exploded view of assembly

MCCS_159

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 13 System design Third angle projection. Scale 1:40

4

3

2

6

1

Top view

5 6

2 1

1

4

4

6 7

Front view 1

2

MCCS_160 Bottom view

2

2 4

3 3

7

2

Detail

3D view of connection

Details 1. Aluminium sliding shading screen 2. Double glazed unit 3. Extruded aluminium transom

4. 5. 6. 7.

Extruded aluminium mullion Reinforced concrete slab Secondary steel structure Thermal insulation

7

1

2

2

4

4

3

6 5

5 3

4

Back view

1

1 2

2

4

3

5

5 6

3D views of cladding system

MCCS_161

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 13 Structural analysis

-0.00 -0.12 -0.24

-0.00 -0.12

-0.36

-0.24

-0.48

-0.36 -0.48

-0.60

-0.60

-0.72

-0.72

-0.84

-0.84

-0.96

-0.96

-1.07

-1.07

-1.19

-1.19

-1.31

-1.31

-1.43

-1.43

-1.55

-1.55

-1.67

-1.67

-1.79

-1.79

-1.91

-1.91

-2.03

-2.03

-2.15

-2.15

-2.27

-2.27

-2.39

-2.39

-2.51

-2.51

-2.63

-2.63 -2.75

-2.75

-2.87

-2.87

-2.99

-2.99

-3.11

-3.11

-3.22

-3.22

-3.34

-3.34

-3.46

-3.46

-3.58

-3.58

-3.70

-3.70

-3.82

-3.82

-3.94

-3.94

-4.06

-4.06

-4.18

-4.18

-4.30

-4.30

-4.42

-4.42

-4.54 -4.66

-4.54 -4.66 -4.78

Finite element model of typical bay

Z

18.00

16.00

16.00

14.00

14.00

Sector of system Group 0...2

Maximum principal compression stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight

12.00

12.00

X Maximum principal compression stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight Principal stress distribution in slabs and louvres (MPa)

Sector of system Group 0...2Y

Z

X Y

-4.78

18.00

10.0

, from -4.78 to -9.5507e-08 step 0.119 MPa

, from -4.78 to -9.5507e-08 step 0.119 MPa

0.252 0.233

-0.371

0.218 0.202

-0.323

0.171

0.140

-0.0069

0.124

868

2.00 0.00

-0 .

7 004

-0.

002

1

3 5E73 2 -0. 3 2E364 . 0 -

0.230

0.0836

-0. 0

-0. 165 -0. 165 -0. 165 -0. 165

-2.00

57 0.1

975 0.0

3

-0.0025

0.0016

-0. 167 -0. 167 -0. 167 -0. 167

039

-0.0639

6

2E-

0.234

-0.327

87

0 01

666

3

-0.212

0.0859

-0.311

-0.342

14.00

-0.358

Axial force distribution in alumnium framing (kN)

, 1 cm 3D = 2.00 kN (Min=-2.96) (Max=3.47)

X Y

MCCS_162

0 0.0

-0.295 0.0020

-0.0364

0.9638E-3

ts , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight

-0.0353 0.0059

-0.280 0.108

-0.

1 001

0.152

0.113 -0.264

- 0.

0.0082

-0.0310

-0.249

-0.114 -0.0300

1 003

0.0022

0.924

-0.125

-0.

0.0361

-0.233

-0.766

-0.0012

-0.218

-2.96

-2.74 -0.763

-0.0139

-0.202

5 004 - 0. 0 001 - 0.

09E

0.0

-0.0804

-2.96

-2.74

038

-0.0633

-0.187

0.0 -2.73

-0.213

-2.95

717 0.0

-0.793

-0.171

1

-0.316

-0.140

0.461 -0.156

17 0.07

-0.788

-0.677 -0.429

-0.364

-0.450

-0.093

-0.124

-0.914

6 0.6

-0.671

-0.078

-0.109

-0.908

004

033

0.252

-0.106

- 0.

1 001

-0.

-0.362

0.477

-0.

-0.666

-0.062

-0.903

16.00

-0.0929

-0.047

1.20

0.0015

1.40

068

0.0011

-0.031

1.20

1.19

1.40

-0.016

0.235

0 -0.

0 -0.

0.0973

0.492

0.000

0.244

3.23

0.0

0.246 1.41

0.0923

3.24

3.46

0.016

102

4 005 -0 . 7 01 1 -0.

0.174

0.031

3.24

3.46

0.0015

0.047

-0.110

-0.0018

0.062

0.585

-0.0604

0.572

0.507

-0.111

3.47

39 0.02

-0.0060

0.078

39 0.02

0.093

-0.0099

0.109

-0.0729

-0.368

0.156

-0.214

0.187

-0.371

Z

12.00

18.00

10.00

m

16.00 14.00 Bending moment distribution in aluminium framing (kNm)

M 1 : 39

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 selfX weight * 0.688 Y * 0.800 Z * 0.942

, 1 cm 3D = 0.200 kNm (Min=-0.371) (Max=0.252)

12.00

10.00

3

5 6

5

Details 1. Aluminium sliding shading screen 2. Double glazed unit 3. Extruded aluminium transom 4. Extruded aluminium mullion 5. Aluminium profile 6. Floor slab

0.6

2

0.672

0.0270

0.672 0.672 0.0117

0.672

0.672

0.672

0.672

0.672 0.672

0.0100

0.0040

0.672

0.672

0.672

0.672

0.672 0.6 72 0.6 72 0.6 72

0.672

0.6 72 0.6 72 0.6 72 0.6 72

0.672

0.672

Facade zone

1150 mm

Primary structure type

2 0.67

2 0.67

0.672

0.672

2 0.67

2.00

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.17

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

Number of components in fixing system

6

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.65

0.672 0.672

0.672

0.672 0.672 0.672

0.672 0.672 -2.00

2 0.67

0.672

Utilisation factor 16.00 distribution in steel frame 14.00 , Utilisation level Total Interaction, Design Case 1

Composite concrete slabs. Aluminium plates and profiles.

0.672

0.672 0.672

0.672

Secondary structure type

0.00

2 0.67

0.672 2 0.67

0.672

Stick glazing with external movable aluminium shading.

0.0288

0.672

0.6 72 0.6 72 0.6 72 0.6 72

0.672 0.672

0.672

0.672

Facade system 72

0.6

72

2 0.67

2 0.67

0.6 7

72 0.6

0.6 7

2

0.6 7

2

0.6 72 0.6 72

1

0.672

0

Facade assembly

2

12.00

, 1 cm 3D = 1.18 (Max=0.672)

The lightweight aluminium curtain wall structure supports both the glazing system and the external shading panels. The use of aluminium for the external structure and shading screens was driven by durability and high resistance to corrosion, together with its immediate compatibility with the underlying stick curtain wall system. The weight of the shading panels is transferred along the external vertical framing elements and taken back directly to the floor slab by means of a stiff cantilevering bracket that passes between the panel joints. The connecting brackets are sized to allow the vertical passage of cradles for the cleaning and maintenance of both glazed facade and external screens. The vertical framing elements act primarily as rails as the screens can be raised and lowered electrically to provide solar shading in the morning, and clear views out in the afternoon.

10.00

m

M 1 : 39

X * 0.688 Y * 0.800 Z * 0.942

The structural analysis focused on behaviour at serviceability of this lightweight structural system, which cantilevers off the main concrete structure, in order to perform two distinct functions: support for operable shading and support for maintenance personnel accessing the framing from cradles. The deflection under serviceability loads of each system component is critical to the functioning of the system. The numerical analysis aimed to assess both the maximum deflection of the shading panels and the movements of the supporting rails during strong winds. An important validation of the structural calculations for the system was to assess its combined performance. This was undertaken through performance testing on a full-scale mock-up, which allowed the design to be verified for dynamic wind and water, which is typically the most critical test for cantilevering lightweight facade elements.

MCCS_163

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 13 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 1100 875 675 450 225 100

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay

Period

With shading Without shading Solar reduction

1 year

MCCS_164

1.1 mWh

4.3 mWh

75%

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

6,136 m2

2,524 mWh

% Daylight factor

300

3

260

2.7

180

2.4

150

2

100

1.3

62

1

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Mean daylight factor: 1.85% 98.6% of area between 1-3% 1.4% of area < 1%

Internal velocity, m/s

External velocity, m/s 12.5

2.5

10

2

7.5

1.5

5

1

2.5

0.5

0

0

External and internal air velocity distribution Pressure, kPa 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1

External air velocity distribution

Wind cladding pressure distribution

1 3 5

The sliding external shading screens offer a high level of control to the building occupants, which suits the residential requirement for both high levels of shading and transparency at different times of day. This approach avoids the need to have internal shading which has to be deployed for the whole day and does not perform as well as external shading in reducing solar gain.

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 °C 13 °C 0 °C 19 1

18 16

The level of shading effectiveness is determined by the user, who can also completely remove visual discomfort due to both high and low level sun which would cause glare at different times of the day. This allows the use of the interior space immediately adjacent to the glazed facade whilst benefiting from the indirect light which passes deep into the internal environment.

15 17 18

19

1

EXT

INT 1 3 5 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly MCCS_165 o

20.0 C

METRO PERFORMANCE ENHANCED 14 KAFD Metro, Riyadh

MCCS_166

KAFD METRO, Riyadh ICONIC METRO TRANSPORT STATION

24° 46’ 27.35’’ 46° 44’ 18.90’

N E

ARCHITECT ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING MEP ENGINEERING BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

FACADE ZONE (mm)

ENVIRONMENTAL

TESTING

1670 mm

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.44

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

1.99

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.23

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL GRIDSHELL

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE RHS STEEL SECTIONS

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SPIDER BRACKET WITH FOUR ADJUSTABLE ARMS

MCCS_167

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 14 Typical system bays

7

6

3

2

6

2

6 3

1

4

1 5 4

3D internal view of typical bay

5

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_168

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Primary structure 3. Thermal insulation 4. Mullions 5. Floor slab 6. Rainscreen panels 7. GRG cladding 8. Diagrid bracket 9. Structural bracket

2 8

2

1

3

1

3 8

3D view of typical bay

3D exploded view of typical bay

6

6

2

3 2 9

9

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

9

9

3 3

1 1

4 4

3

3D view of glazing system

3D exploded view of glazing system MCCS_169

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 14 System design

3

5

2

Third angle projection. Scale 1:60

2D detail. Scale 1:10

3

2

4

Top view

5 5

3 4

1

2

Front view

4

2 5

3

MCCS_170

Bottom view

5

3

2 3 5 1

2

3D view of detail

2

4 1

3D views of typical bay

5 3

4

2

2

5

1 4

Back view

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Primary structure 3. Composite panel with thermal insulation 4. GRG cladding 5. Diagrid bracket

MCCS_171

-16.9

-17.5

6.70

-16.1

-15.4

-14.6

4. 1

6

13 .3

-13.8

-13.1

6

9. 4

2.8 4

-1 7. -9. 4 39 -5.8 6 5.42

-12.3

-11.5

-10.8

-9.9

-9.2

-8.4

-7.7

-6.9

-12 .9

-0. 1

13

-5.4

-4.6

-3.8

-3.1

-6.1

-0.7 23 2.04

1.59

60000.

-160000.

50000.

40000.

mm

, 1 cm 3D = 19.6 kNm (Min=-17.5) (Max=13.3)

M 1 : 195

0.0367

0.135

0.161

0.142

0.225

0.0333

0.0452

0.0417

0.0472

0.105

0.0783

0.136

0.292

0.384

0.577

0.619

0.289

0.292

0.0979

0.0783

0.106

0.494 0.236 0.0414 0.524 0.337 0.0704 0.579 0.242 0.740 0.612

0.709

0.706

0.728

0.786

0.718

0.718

0.707

0.619

0.577

0.520

0.797

0.787

0.688

0.710

0.729

0.796

0.817

0.158

0.891

0.947

1.06

1.09

1.06

0.0534 0.999

0.217

0.0397

0.0394

0.0531 0.999

0.892

0.148

0.178

0.469

0.501 0.138

0.524

0.728

0.816

0.0691

0.106

0.0480

0.0433

0.0022

0.0180

0.0401

0.251

0.231

0.164

0.147

0.138

0.0368

0.517

0.948

-140000.

X * 0.672 Y * 0.959 Z * 0.793

-150000.

-1.5

-0.8

-2.3

1.84

4.96

2.97

-6.65 1.22

0.315

0.32 1

0.3 31

0. 3

41

34 5

0.

-2. 75

-1 .1 2

.6 3

-3

-9 .

0. 3

41

0. 33 4

2.79

28

-2. 65 -9 .5 1

12 .0 0.3 27

2

0.318

0.32

1.91

2.22

0

45

41

0.315

0.19

4 33 0.

3 0.

70000.

Beam Elements , Bending moment My (Maximum values cubic interpolated), Loadcase 1 self weight

ZX

Y

0.314

-4.07

-4.25

1

Bending moment distribution in steel gridshell (kNm)

80000.

Finite element model of the structure

739 -0.

1

31

0.32

0 .3

0.315

34 0.

3 0.

0.315 -1.08 0.318 -1.91 43 2 -0.6 0.32 .0 27 12 0.3 -3.60

3 41

7

-4.02

-3.74

-3.89

-3.74

-4.20

75

1

-2.

-1.51

1 .6

06

0.0474

6 .3 -9

0.

.2 -9

0. 7

-3

10

.1 -1

-1.51

-1.54

-3.74

-3.89

-4.02

-4.20

0.314

-1.40

-1.29

-0.533

-0 .4

28 .3 -0

0.657

11 .4 -0

-0.539

1.64

2.06

1.59

-4.08

-3.61

-4.26

-1.91

-1.06

0.216

8 70 0.

1.93

13 1.

-0.825

0 1.8

4.95

-1.61 2.92

-0.539

715 -0.

5 7. 9.18 1 -5.0 5.46

8 2.8 9 2. 9 -1 3 3.6 45 .7 -2 40 9 . .2 .3 -0 13 -1.28 348 79 -0. 2. 50 -4.

-1

6.76

2

6.12

0.17

-0.7 47

18 1.

0.0

0.8

1.5

2.3

3.1

3.8

4.6

5.4

6.1

6.9

7.7

8.4

9.2

9.9

10.8

11.5

13.3

12.3

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 14 Structural analysis

5.11.6 Maximum surface analysis

12.8

23.8

0.129

-56.0

-54.6

-52.6

-50.6

-48.5

-46.5

-44.5

-42.5

-40.4

-38.4

-36.4

-34.4

99 -3.

-36.3

-36.0

-33.3

-45.0

-52.6

-56.0

-43.5

-44.6

-3 .8 8

-42.9

19. 1

-45.3

-45.9

-46.5

-47.1

-32.4

-30.3

-28.3

-26.3

-11.1

-24.3

-22.2

-20.2

-18.2

-16.2

-14.2

-12.1

13.8

24.8 0.387

0.61 6

89

0.7

0.8 55

0.387

0.7

-10.1

15.6

17.6

23.6

19. 6

23. 7

95

4

19.

19. 9

5 6.2 14. 8

0.681

-8.1

-6.1

-4.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.1

8.1

10.1

12.1

14.2

16.2

20.2

24.9

22.2

18.2

18. 5

0.0540

0.276

-1

-33.8

.2 -10 .2 -11 .2 -13 0.160

0.549

-31.9

3 9.

STRUCTUR

81

55 0.8

0.6

89 0.7

95 0.7

8

0.6

.0 22

8 23.

23.

24.9

0.276

6

.6 14 .3 20

.8 18 .9 19 3 1 9.

13.7

15.5

0.411

-6. 14

-31.0

-31.2

-9.41 -27.1

17.

16

STRUCTURAL REPORT

Plate thickness: 00 1. Edge return: 1.12 Internal lip:

50000.

0.86

0.74

1.04

1.26

0.83

0.53 0.72 0.89 1.04

40000.

X * 0.672 Y * 0.959 Z * 0.793

1.26

1.26

Steel frame:

1.31 1.21 1.00

1.36

Outer frame: 0.70 0.35 1.21 Inner frame: 1.05 1.11 1.37 Frame 1.22connection: 0.44 91

RHS 30x100x6 RHS 30x80x6. RHS 30x100x8

-1.00

Z

0.21

4.83 4.70

4.20

4.92

4.07 3.94

UHPC panel

3.81

0.763

3.56

3.31

3.05

2.67 2.54

1.00

2.29 2.16 2.03

0.70

1.91 1.78 1.65 1.53 1.40

1.37 1.27

1.05

0.35

3.18

3.20

1.14

-6.50

0.0254 Basis of Facade Design - Rev 00B KAFD Metro Station - 10.06.2016 0.50 1.00

0.25

1.00

0.00

Z

Sector of system Beam Elements

Nodal displacement in global Y, Loadcase 3 Ws = Wind suction

, 1 cm 3D = 1.00 mm

Strength results

X

Y

-1.00

1.50

-0.50

2.00

0.00

m

Maximum principal tension stress from middle of element

, Loadcase 2001 1.4D

M 1 : 13

4.92

0.763

3.80

1.68

1 0.

0.150 0.146

1.91

0.141 0.137 0.133 0.128

0.05

4.20

12

0.

2 11 6 14 0.

m

M 1 : 13 X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

-4.50

21

9 0.05 2 0.07

4.58

0.154

0. 0 07 .18 1 6

0.158

0.071 71 0.0

0.167 0.163

4.70

4.45

1.50

6.9322e-04 to 5.09 step 0.127 MPa

Maximum stress UHPC - Load combination 2001

0.171

4.83

4.32

, from

X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

(Min=-1.37) (Max= 5.1421e-06)

0.181 0.176

5.09 4.96

4.07

0.38

0.13

0.50

0 .1

Y

0.00

-5.00

X

0.51

Lateral displacements distribution in Principal tension stress distribution steel frame (mm) in UHPC panel (MPa)

-0.50

4

Z

0.89 0.76 0.64

5.09 0.0617

Modelled as BEAM1.86 elements 3.21 1. 53

1.02

0.23 0.00

2.94

2.05

1.22 of QUAD elements taking into Modelled 0.44 by means 0.91 account membrane and plate behaviour page 175

3 76 0.

0.0207

2.42

1.11

-1.00

-6.00

0.0287

0.0252

02 1.

2.80

s

3.88

3.18

1.21

OK

Movement 1.91 allowed composite panel

2Steel .9 frame 2

3.43

1.21

M

1.68

0.750

3.69

1.32

building engineering

3.80

-5.50

4.45 4.32

1.31

1.26

dmaxMovement = 1.4allowed mmUHPC< L/240 = 2190/240 = 9.1 mm

4.58

1.26

OK

X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

-5.00

5.09 4.96

1.12 L/5

Status

m

M 1 : 13

-6.00

5

2.00

-6.50

4

1.50

Strength results 1.00

0.53 0.72 0.89 1.04

OK

1.00

(Min=-1.37) (Max= 5.1421e-06)

62

0 0. s071 /1.5 = 12/1.5 = 8 MPa smax = 5.1 MPa < . LOP

M

u -5.00

1.04

0.50

Maximum deflection for wind load

-5.00

0.86

1.26

0.00

UHPC panel-steel frame. , 1 cm 3D = 1.00 mm The constrains allow for thermal expansion of the UHPC panel.

Nodal displacement in global Y, Loadcase 3 Ws = Wind suction

-5.50

0.74

-0.50

Sector of system Beam Elements

Y

-6.00

OK

X

-6.50

Serviceability results

0.83

3

0.

0.23

Finite element model of composite panel 0.00 and UHPC cladding Point constraint to simulate the connection

01

-

L/5

25 mm 80 mm x 150 m 30 mm x 360 m

mm

M 1 : 195

-5.00

0.21

60000.

, 1 cm 3D = 98.0 kN (Min=-56.0) (Max=24.9)

-5.50

70000.

Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight

ZX

Status

2

OK

-5.57

MCCS_172

-

41 1.

1.00

-3.43

UHPC sizes:

0.129

80000.

Y

OK

OK

X * 0.672 Y * 0.959 Z * 0.793

Serviceability results Axial force distribution in steel gridshell (kN)

1.36

2001

23.2

OK 1.00

OK

mm

M 1 : 195

A detailed 3D finite element model of the panel including UHPC panel and steel frame is implemented in Sofistik 2014. An explanation of the finite element model is provided in the following diagrams. A static analysis is undertaken for each panel selected.

2.92

Details Load combination LimitFRP factor 1. Internal cladding 2. RHS steel stections 2005 1.00 3. Spider fixing bracket 2005 1.00 4. Composite panels with glazing insets 2005 1.00 5. External UHPC cladding

23.9

OK

MPa

12.8

-

8.0

-6.25

Status 1.00

2005

-6.26

OK

MPa

-47.4

-

8.0

-47.4

1.00

2001

-11.1

2005

1

9

-

MPa

-11.1

0.11

8.0

.0

OK

2001

-5.56

-

MPa

-47.1

1.00

8.0 2001

-4

2005

-

-4.24

Limit factor

-

0.30 2001

5.11.4 Structural system and support conditions

-6.28

40000.

1.32

0.18

Stress limit 2005

(Min=-1.09) (Max=0)

0.150

OK

Facade assembly Utilisation factor Load combination

Load combination 0.12 -

-32.0 -33.9

50000.

-11.1

IBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in Y

-45.3

0.9D±0.3Ex±1.0Ey-Ez

-45.8

3013-3016

-31.1

-46.5

IBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in X

2.21

-1.50

2 .8 -4

mm

0.9D±1.0Ex±0.3Ey-Ez

-27.2

4

7.0

3009-3012

1 -43.

Wind suction

OK

-44.

0.44

5.11.3 Load combinations

SpiderNumber bracket with fourNotes Description type Maximum stressFacade bracket Load combination Stress limit Status 2001 1.4D IBC Eq. 16-1. Main load case: self-weight adjustable arms. 2002 1.2D+0.5Wp IBC Eq. 16-3. Main load case: wind pressure 5.1Load case MPa 2001 8.0 MPa OK limit 2003 1.2D+0.5Ws IBC Eq. 16-3. Main load case: wind suction NumberDeflection of components in fix-Status 2004 1.2D+1.0Wp Eq. 16-4. Main load case: wind pressure 18 5.3 MPa 2001 8.0 MPa1.2D+1.0Ws OKIBC ing system 2005 IBC Eq. 16-4. Main load case: wind suction Wind suction 9.1 mm OKStrength design 2006 0.9D+1.0Wp IBC Eq. 16-6. Main load case: wind pressure 4.5 MPa 2001 8.0 MPa0.9D+1.0Ws OKIBC Eq. 16-6. Main load case: wind suction 2007 Weight of facade, including 7.7 2005 mm OK 8.0 1.99 3001-3004MPa1.2D±1.0Ex±0.3Ey+EzOKIBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in X 2 6.5Wind suction MPa secondary structure (kN/m ) 3005-3008 1.2D±0.3Ex±1.0Ey+Ez IBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in Y

mm

-44.5

0.0540

5.11.6 Maximum surface analysis

Type

7.8

-44.8

-10.5 -9. -1 79 7. 7 -1 -11 9. .8 5

Load combinations are evaluated according to International Building Code 2015.

Wind suction

-10.4

4.29

5.99

sections. OK 7.0 RHS steelmm

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

-43.1 -41.4

SecondaryWind structure mm suctiontype

3.2

-33.3

0.8

-34.0

mm Wind suction Facade zone mm Wind suction Primary structure type mm Wind suction

7 -55. 2 -52.

1.4 0.9

60000.

, 1 cm 3D = 1.23 mm

.1 19

Opaque composite panels with glazing UHPC Deflection limit insets and Status open-jointed rainscreen. 9.1 mm OK 1670 mm 7.7 mm OK 7.8 Steel gridshell. mm OK

Facade system Maximum deflection Load case

70000.

Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight

ZX

-2.0

80000.

Y

0.160

results

-160000.

Vertical displacement distribution in steel gridshell (mm) Finite element model of typical bay

The articulated bolts (M20) are inserted into the holes provided in the spider bracket arm. Each bolt can be adjusted vertically by±5 mm. A slotted washer allows an additional in-plane adjustment±5 ofmm. Once the panel is placed into the right position, the four bolts are tightened and fixed to the spider bracket by two nuts.

1

x 2 ±5

y 3

±5

Node 4

Node 1

Node 3

Node 2

4 ±20

±20

5 ±20

±20

Movement Rotation restrained Rotation restrained Support Movement Support restrained restrained

Bracket assembly Details 1. Cast steel casing 2. Articulated bolt 3. Bracket arms 4. Threaded tube 5. Serrated steel plate

±20 x

y

2.5 Spider bracket analysis z

Node 1 Node 1 Node 2 Node 2 Node 3 Node 3 Node 4 Node 4

0.10

m

M 1 :

X

Maximum equivalent stress: smax =spider 644.9 MPa < fuk (MPa) = 800 MPa Von Mises stress distribution in short bracket

-0.10

0.0

8.7

26.1

34.8

43.5

52.2

60.9

69.6

78.3

87.0

95.7

104.4

113.1

121.8

130.5

139.2

147.9

156.6

165.3

174.0

182.7

191.4

200.1

208.8

217.5

226.2

234.9

243.6

252.3

261.0

269.7

278.5

287.2

295.9

304.6

313.3

17.4

0.00

m

M 1 :

2.32

X * 0.984 Y * 0.332 Z * 0.960

uk

0.0

6.9

13.8

20.7

27.7

34.6

41.5

48.4

55.3

62.2

69.1

76.1

83.0

276.7

-0.10

-0.00

Sector of system Volume Elements Group 10...12 v.Mises stress from middle of element , nonlinear Loadcase 3 PODIUM PANEL LC 2022

ilding engineering

-0.20

0.05

, from 1.81 to 451.7 step 11.2 MPa

0.10

m

M 1 :

1.12

X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

71.0

According with the load combinations provided by IBC (Table 1605.2), the applied 199.4

4 31. kNm. 1steel the supporting design bending gridshell moment is 7.48 It should be is equal to the plas The global48.4 behaviour of the structure 96.8 therefore 112.0 Considering RHS standard profile section and ASTM A36 steel grade, the min 85.3 82.7 1.4 64.4 These are optimised directly related to the13dead loads of 244.7 the envelope. 153.8 105.0 27 .7 by analysing individual facade components, in accordance with the 85.7 255.3 Deflection design 13.8 6.91 1.49 256.2 244.0 range of geometric configurations established by theconditions overallitgeometry. Actually in steel members the most severe is not the strength, but the d 2.57 1 228.9 0.00

0.00 0.05 0.10

-0.05

-0.10

, from 0.0053 to 348.1 step 8.70 MPa

86 199.8 .and calculations under SLS were performed the section previously designed was check 7 276.7 192.4 was imposed equal to the deflection acting on a simply supported b by IBC (Table 1604.3) 185.2 placed alongdesigned its length. Inas thiscombined way it is possible tu calculate the minimum which are systems, such as inertia that section previously proposed had an inertia of 214 cm4,, so the design should be revised 0.10

16.8

236 .2

-0.10

Y

0.00

, Loadcase 2 DIAGRID MAX SURF LC 2001

bays allowed the preliminary sizing of structural members. Von have Mises equivalent stress distribution (bolt excluded) Structural bays been designed and stiffened individually. Only in a second step were they combined into a global model to consider global effects, which may take precedence in determining structural sizes that achieve a required global stiffness. Strength design 269.7

-0.05

1.8

11.2

22.5

33.7

45.0

56.2

67.5

78.7

90.0

101.2

112.5

123.7

135.0

146.2

157.4

168.7

179.9

191.2

202.4

213.7

224.9

236.2

247.4

258.7

269.9

281.2

292.4

314.9

326.1

337.4

348.6

359.9

371.1

382.4

393.6

404.9

416.1

427.4

438.6

451.7

303.6

22.2

The global geometry presents repetition and symmetry patterns which have been usedequivalent at the early to identify typical bays MPa < findividual = 550 MPa Maximum stress:stages smax = 451.7 uk representative of local structural effects. The identification of typical X

0.10

Sector of system Volume Elements v.Mises stress from middle of element

max

The global analysis9.78 of the188.5 building184.4 geometry provides an understand32.1 126.0 in the 316.8 ing of the distribution of 173.8 stiffness primary structure. This infor348. 451.7 152.3 6 90.8 135. 295.8 0 mation allows 123 the overall deflection design criteria for the building 332.1 183.4 368.3 80.9 .7 286.9 27.7 257.1 73.2 61.4 requirements of the envelope. to to suit the88.7 design 86.4 57.4be established 43.1 164.9 308.5 186.6 56. 2 126.1 22 89.6 .5 These deflections generate movements which can be 228.2localised 168.2 accommodated within the joints between the insulation cassettes 209.2 composing the thermal envelope, without affecting the performance 364.5 276.2 294.4 of the waterproofing layer. 194.9 Z

Y Z

Von Mises stressequivalent distribution spider Maximum stress:ins long = 348.1 MPabracket < f = 800(MPa) MPa

The structural design of the envelope system is based on cycles of Von Mises equivalent stress distribution (bolt excluded) iterative analysis which are conducted at different scales, ranging from global building scale to the scale of the structural module, to the scale of the assembly as well as its individual components. 12.4 17.2

322.0

0.20

1.26

X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

89.9

0.05

, from 0.0491 to 644.9 step 16.1 MPa

96.8

, nonlinear Loadcase 3 PODIUM PANEL LC 2022

103.7

-0.00

110.6

Y

348.1 1 26.

117.6

X Z

194.9

-0.05

83.4

181.3

124.5

-0.10

Sector of system Volume Elements v.Mises stress from middle of element

244.0

0.805

131.4

-0.15

0.0

0.614

138.3

16.1

148.5

228.9

192.4

145.2

32.2

199.8

0.0079 276.2

294.4

48.4

255.3

256.2

152.1

364.5

64.5

85.7

159.0

96.7 80.6

26 .1

166.0

112.8

17.4

172.9

0.635

129.0

2.41

1.65

8. 70

179.8

162.2

145.1

40.9

66.4

1.67

186.7

161.2

104.2

322.0

193.6

177.3

78.6 86.4

200.5

23.3 66.2

193.4

308.5

286.9 164.9

112.0 The different analysis design in the ultimate limit state an 85.3 were performed: a strength 82.7 13 5 0.428 64.4 state.0.Since the purpose244.7 of these calculations is only to estimate the sizes of the stee 153.8 105.0 the wind pressure, the imposed dead load and50.5 the sand load were considered. 5 0. 13

209.6

332.1

48.4 43.1

225.7

95.7

0.231

1.67

207.4

88.8 73.2

269.1

241.8

154.8

Von Mises equivalent stress distribution In order to check the validity of the results that were obtained a hand calculation mod we have developed in SOFISTIK, however it is required in order to estimate the dimens The latter serves as a comparison with the values obtained in the FE model. In the ha the maximum sizes present in the building was modelled, so 4.71m long and 1.73m wid 30 mm thick, without considering the edge return. It is used only to calculate the amo 44.5 the steel beams were modelled as simply supported beams with 2 applied force at L/ 87 .0 force depends on the fo the location of the stainless steel bracket. The amount of this state considered. 199.4

214.4

274.1 257.9

643.4

221.3

290.2

316.8

228.2

335.4

306.3

105.1

173.8

322.4

93.2

28.2

235.1

338.5

644.9

242.0

354.7

75.8 184.4

188.5

248.9

370.8

548.1

2 1. 16

386.9

-

-

0.10

9.78

403.0

17 7. 3

419.1

.5

43

32

.4 48

32.2

-0.05

18.0

467.5

17.9

16 1. 2. 4 2

73.8

435.3

176.3

18.3

532.0

0.00

548.1

451.4

-

-

0.10

18.2

564.2

0.05

580.3

330.7

339.4

18.1

596.5

255.8

612.6

262.8

644.9 628.7

348.1

18.3

483.6

-

-

Bracket supporting panels allowing- Rev 00B Basisopaque of Facade Design KAFD Metro Station - 10.6.2016 unrestrained thermal movement A.1 Preliminary Hand Calculations

Von Mises equivalent stress distribution

499.7

-

-

5.13.5 Analysis of Spider Bracket supporting opaque panels Appendix A- Analysis of the model of the panel

age 118

515.9

x, y, z x, y, z y, z z x, z z z y, z

For assemblies composite cassette panels and UHPC (ultra high performance reinSince the seismic load had not been taken into account yet, as well as the load due to forced concrete) exterior cladding panels, combined numerical models panel, it was decided to increase the thickness of the steel members, considering a fin are used to assess localised stresses at their points of connection. 0.20

X

Y

Z

0.10

0.00

Sector of system Volume Elements Group 10...12 v.Mises stress from middle of element , Loadcase 2 DIAGRID MAX SURF LC 2001

-0.20

m

M 1 :

2.32

X * 0.984 Y * 0.332 Z * 0.960

Maximum equivalent stress: smax = 276.7 MPa < fuk = 550 MPa

page 120

building engineering

-0.10

, from 0.156 to 276.7 step 6.91 MPa

MCCS_173

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 14 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates kWh/m2 780 650 500 325 175 50 Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

6,060 m2

4,402 MWh

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2 780 650 500 325 175 50

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay

Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

28.7 MWh

50.6 MWh

43%

MCCS_174

Glare analysis of interior spaces

External velocity, m/s 6.6 5.3

4.1

2.8

1.6

0

Internal velocity, m/s

External wind distrubution for pedestrian comfort assessment Velocity, m/s

2

80

1.5

60

1

45 0.5 35 0 25 External and internal air velocity distribution

-0.5

0 External wind velocity distribution

A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis provided values that informed the optimisation of the structural sizes of both facade and primary structure from the early stages of the project. This CFD study formed the basis of the combined design for structure and facade, as the design of the primary steel shell is affected mostly by global displacement caused by lateral wind loading. The thicknesses of both UHPC facade panels and glazing are also an important cost consideration for the facades. Without establishing specific loads to be applied to analysis, the application of loads derived from standards would have provided very different values for global wind pressures and localised cladding pressures, which typically assume more conservative values. This would have not provided a common ground for the design of the structure and facade and would have led to the introduction of a secondary structure to support the facade.

Pressure, kPa 2 1.5 1

A full wind tunnel test followed the initial CFD study and allowed calibration and more refined estimates, which confirmed the expected orders of magnitude. The presence of large glazed areas at ground floor, combined with the range of orientation of the glazed facades in the building, requires a full assessment for risk of glare and daylighting levels, and expected levels of thermal comfort due to direct radiation penetrating the interior space. The key outcome of the analysis was the adaptation of the interior mixed-use spaces to avoid risk of glare.

0.5 0 -0.5

Wind cladding pressure distribution MCCS_175

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 14 KAFD Metro, Riyadh

The design of the envelope of the KAFD Metro Station was driven by the need to provide a weather-tight and thermally insulated envelope around a supporting structure. The geometry of the envelope is not driven by a structural primitive that seeks to provide structural efficiency, but driven by the requirements to enclose the interior space with the minimum amount of internally air-conditioned volume. Consequently, the zones for the depth of the facade and its supporting structure are required to be minimised to contribute to this concept.

ing, with its higher costs, by using two independent elements fixed to a single threaded bar. This technology is derived directly from fixings for glazing panels which are supported on cables or lightweight steel structures. These ‘spider’ fixings are used to accommodate high levels of movement of the supporting structures at serviceability without generating stress concentrations at the points of support. The movement and adjustability is achieved by means of a ball joint located at the end of each spider leg which allows a limited degree of rotation.

The envelope system is driven by the need to minimise installation time through prefabrication whilst achieving a highly durable facade assembly.

The main driver for using spider fixings to fix the cassette system to its supporting structure, is that each spider can support four flat panels where they intersect at the corner, with each flat panel set at a different angle. Spider fixings allow the flat panels to be fixed across a doubly curved geometry, where panels meet at a given point with different inclinations. Each spider leg can be adjusted independently in length and can accommodate a different angle of rotation. The spider connection also reduces the number of brackets and penetrations through the thermal envelope and accommodates a higher amount of movement from the primary shell structure due to the free rotation allowed at each support.

The focus of the project research for the KAFD Metro was primarily focused on the assembly technology and several built precedents were identified to address two primary design priorities: • Speed of installation of the facade systems, given short time requirements for the construction of the transportation system of which the KAFD station is a part. • Durability of the facade materials given the extreme environmental conditions in Riyadh to which the building will be exposed. The Heydar Aliyev Centre in Baku was taken as the point of departure for the use of a prefabricated cassette system, composed of an insulated steel-framed module, to realise an insulated backing wall which is wrapped by a continuous weather-tight membrane. The cassette system also integrates glazed openings within large areas of perforated panels, set in vertical bays of the facades. The cassette system is protected from the effects of the sun, and from accidental damage, by large rainscreen panels which are moulded in order to achieve the geometrical complexity of the outer architectural surface. This solution, with a higher level of prefabrication, was chosen over the more time-consuming, site-based approach of using profile metal deck supporting thermal and waterproofing layers. In order to fix each cassette module to the supporting steel structure, the principles of ‘spider’ fixing technology have been utilised to ensure high levels of adjustment and flexibility, but avoiding the use of a castMCCS_176

The KAFD Metro represents an evolution from a precedent project: The Heydar Aliyev Centre, where the cassette system is based on rectangular modules in which the spatial disposition of the structural members of the supporting steel structure is set to match the envelope panelisation. This approach allows structure and facade to be closely integrated, removing the need for a secondary structure. The envelope is integrated with the primary structure by closely following the same shape and having the cassette modules fixing directly to the structure, despite the internal finishes following a different geometry inside the building. The project is mainly an opaque building enclosure which allows two main facade systems (rainscreen and stick glazing mainly at ground floor level) to be used together without the need for complex interfaces. The supporting steel primary structure is conceived as a self-supporting shell whose global stiffness needs to be suited to the envelope system to which it is directly fixed. The local movements of the steel structure have been investigated through finite element modelling to interface with the

facade system allowing joint widths between the cassette panels to be determined. These joints are made water-tight and are designed to withstand a range of movements during the service life of the building, including thermal movements and lateral displacements of the structure due to wind. The joints are realised by means of compressible insulation, a lapped waterproofing membrane and the use of a double layer of protection against both condensation and water ingress by including a vapour barrier underneath. The structural analysis at global scale allows areas of lower stiffness to be identified and analysed at the scale of a typical bay, in order for the interface with the facade system to be designed for the larger movements to be accommodated. The geometry was rationalised through a set of early stage iterative studies that introduced a slight double curvature in the perforated parts of the envelope which were subjected to larger deflections. This allowed a significant reduction in the size of the steel of the primary shell structure for these areas, without visibly changing the architectural intent. These studies were made possible as a result of applying the results of a preliminary computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis of the building to the structural model of a typical bay. The CFD analysis allowed the effects of the wind driven by the geometry to be determined in relation to the structural loads applied to the envelope structure. The single system designed across the envelope integrates glazed panels in the cassette system with the perforated areas of the envelope, where the diamond-shaped panels are arranged in a diagrid configuration. The project required the use of a set of current technologies to achieve the weather tightness of the building and coordinate economically with the supporting steel structure, avoiding the need to generate a project-specific technology. The use of well-understood components enabled a higher level of optimisation of the assembly in order to meet the durability requirements for the facades.

waterproofing membrane by providing protection against accidental damage and UV radiation from the sun. Pressure equalisation reduces peak loads on the membrane and protects it from wind-driven rain. Aluminium strips are used to ensure UV protection along the open joints between adjacent panels, whilst allowing the system to be ventilated. The research on material selection focused on establishing clear terms of comparison between different composite materials, which were required to meet the basic requirement of achieving a doubly-curved shape together with the large panel spans within the facade zone available. The design of the assembly has been developed as being independent from the specific material system and technology. The facade assembly is designed to accommodate heavier fibre-reinforced concrete materials to lighter fibre-reinforced polymers by varying uniformly the structural sizes within the assembly, without changing the components or the connections between components. The cladding panels are supported directly from the metal frame of the cassette system, which causes the penetrations through the thermal envelope to disengage from the waterproofed joints between the cassette modules. This approach allowed the assembly design of the cassette system to be developed independently of the specific material technology and connection type chosen. As fibre reinforced composites are engineered materials, their performance is dependent on the specific mix and fabrication techniques used by each fabricator. The research on material selection involved factory visits to specialist manufacturers, comparison of results from physical testing for different mixes, documentation of fabrication processes and surface finishes achievable by each fabricator. An essential aspect of the material research was to establish a set of benchmark values for the use of each material considered on the project, which serve both as a proof-of-concept and establish key constraints in the use of each material.

The research conducted for the material selection led to the use of a fibre composite material as the primary material for the rainscreen cladding. Rainscreen cladding technology ensures the durability of the MCCS_177

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 15 Grand Théatre, Rabat

MCCS_178

GRAND THEATRE, Rabat THEATRE

34°00’ 47” 6° 49’ 57”

N W

ARCHITECT ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AKT II MEP ENGINEERING MAX FORDHAM FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

FACADE ZONE (mm)

ENVIRONMENTAL

TESTING

700 mm

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.30

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

2.04

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.94

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL MOMENT FRAME

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE CHS STEEL SECTIONS

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES, THREADED TUBES; WELDED AND BOLTED

MCCS_179

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 15 System design

6

1

3

2 1

4

5

3D internal view of typical bay 2

3 4

5

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_180

Details 1. GRC cladding panel 2. Double glazed unit 3. Mullions 4. Floor finish 5. Floor slab 6. Primary structure 7. Steel bracket 8. Profiled metal sheet 9. Concrete 10. I-beam girder 11. Glass reinforcement

1

1

7

7 11

11 9 9

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

1

1 7 11 11 7 8

7

8

10

7

10

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

3 2

3

2

3D view of glazing system

3D exploded view of glazing system MCCS_181

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 15 System design

2 1

Top view

2

1

1

2 2

Front view

1 3 2

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:30

1 2

MCCS_182

1

1

2 2

4

4

2D detail. Scale 1:10

3D view of the assembly

3 3

1

1

2

2

Back view

Details 1. GRC panel 2. Steel bracket 3. GRC rib 4. Thermal insulation

1

3

2

MCCS_183

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 15 Structural analysis

Finite element model of typical bay Finite element model of the concrete structure

Monolithic open-jointed GRC rainscreen on concrete.

Facade system Facade zone

425 mm

Primary structure type

Concrete shell.

Secondary structure type

-

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

-

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates, threaded tubes; welded and bolted.

Number of components in fixing system

12

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.52

1

Facade assembly

2

3

Details 1. Rainscreen panel 2. Waterproofing cap 3. Thermal insulation 4. Fixing adjustable bracket 5. Concrete structure

4

5

2340 mm

4120 mm Edge return -Thickness = 110 mm Depth = 150 mm

Thickness = 35 mm

Structural ribs Thickness = 110 mm Depth = 110 mm

GRC panel surface

8.70 m2

GRC panel self-weight

1320 kg

Finite element analysis model of monolithic GRC panel

MCCS_184

Principal stress distribution in typical bay

1

2

3

Von Mises stress distribution in steel bracket (MPa):

4 6

5

7

Facade assembly Details 1. GRC rainscreen 2. Waterproofing cap 3. Thermal insulation 4. Secondary steel adjustable bracket

5.

Primary steel adjustable bracket Secondary steel tubes Primary structure

Monolithic open-jointed GRC rainscreen on concrete.

Facade zone

700 mm

Primary structure type

Steel moment frame.

Secondary structure type

CHS steel sections.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.30

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates, threaded tubes; welded and bolted.

Number of components in fixing system

15 and 15

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

2.04

1.00

-4.55

-4.56

-4.41

-4.27

-4.00

-4.14

-3.86

-3.72

-3.45

-3.58

-3.31

-3.17

-2.89

-3.03

-2.76

-2.48

1.00

-0 .5 5 -0 .1 4

5 .4 -3

0.00

-2.07

6 -3.8

-2.76

-1.79

2.84

, from 0.0020 to 4.95 step 0.124 MPa

-2.62

-2.34

-2.21

-1.93

-2.07

-1.79

-1.65

-1.38

-1.52

-1.24

-1.10

-0.83

-0.96

-0.69

-0.55

-0.28

-0.41

-0.14

0.00

0.28

0.14

0.41

0.69

-1 .6 5

0.00

0.90

-1.10

-0.28

0.80

-1.00 2.00

-1.00

1

0. 37

0.55

0.95

1.00

0.12

0.00

0.25

0.37

0.62

0.49

0.74

0.87

1.11

0.99

1.24

1.48

1.73

1.61

1.36

3.46

1.85

1.98

2.23

2.10

2.35

3.0 9

2.47

2.72

2.60

2.84

2.97

3.22

3.09

3.34

5 1. 8

4 3.3

-4.56 -4.27

0.28

-3. 72 -3.0 3

-1.93 -2.89

9

4.18

-0.96

7 -1.

0.00

, Loadcase 205 1.40*1.20G + 1.40*1.20*wp + 1.40

1.10

2.38 4.03

8 -2.4 3 .9 -1

61 1.

4.29 0.444

6

-1.00

4.29

0.95

-0.55

-2.21

1.3

Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements

Maximum principal tension stress in Node

4.95

8

1.4

2.40

41 0.

1.73

-0.83

-1.24 3 -0.8 8 .2 -0

1.72

0.56

3.02

2.24

1.67

3.96

Z X

3.16

3.19

1.03 1.48

1.56

2.56

4.55

4.73

0.926

33 4.

-2.00

Y

73 1.

8 61

58 4.

0.833 3.63

4.76

08 4.

3.03

3

1.20

0.

4.3

4.45 4.70 0. 49 5

0.0610

83 3.

4.51 1.98

2.52

3.09

4.90

3.46

3.71

3.59

3.83

3.96

4.20

4.08

4.33

4.45

4.58

4.82

4.70

4.95

2.00

6. 7.

Facade system

-2.00

m

M 1 : 22

ZY

X

Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements Nodal displacement in global Z in Node

-1.00

0.00

, Loadcase 206 1.40*1.20G + 1.40*1.20*wp + 1.40

1.00

, from -4.56 to 0.954 step 0.138 mm

2.00

m

M 1 : 23

X * 0.929 Y * 0.804 Z * 0.700

Maximum principal tensile stress distribution in GRC panel (MPa)

Vertical nodal displacements distribution in GRC panel (mm)

The assembly and installation of the envelope system is one of the main drivers in the design of the individual components and of the connections between them. The design of the envelope system is highly adjustable and uses bespoke connections between material systems, such as the bolted connection between steel and glass fibre reinforced concrete (GRC) panels, in order to minimise the number of components in the assembly. The engineering structural analysis often finds its practical limitations when deployed within the design process as the timeframe to develop reliable calculation models is not available. Each finite element analysis model attempts to describe a specific aspect of the behaviour of a component. The GRC panels are modelled on point or pad supports, which is useful to verify the stresses across the panels except at the connection points, where a more detailed three dimensional finite element model is utilised to assess the connection between GRC and steel bracket. Even the more detailed analytical model developed is not sufficient to provide enough confidence in the design as this requires too many assumptions regarding workmanship, interaction between materials, etc. Physical testing on a statistically meaningful number of specimens has

been considered as the safest and most effective engineering approach which allowed to validate with certainty a set of assumptions developed through engineering analysis, which is implemented by means of a series of linked numerical models. The complexity required in the design of the assembly affects directly the decision by the designer of testing rather than analysing an assembly in order to verify its structural performance. The complexity of the assembly is primarily related to adjustability, which concerns the interface between facade and primary structure. As part of the assessment of the amount of adjustability required, the finite element analysis of the amount of creep in the concrete structure through a representative global model, has been performed as the envelope system is fixed mainly to a continuous concrete structure. Additional aspects taken into account are both the construction tolerances and the geometric deviations from the ideal surface of the primary structure. These are typically obtained after the construction through a 3D scan of the building which is directly overlaid with the original 3D model of the structure. MCCS_185

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 15 Environmental analysis

21 June 21 March Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

23 September

22 December kWh/m2 558 503 447 391 335 279

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

2,094 m2

4,100 mWh

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2 558 503 447 391

% Daylight factor

335

2.5

279

2.0 1.5

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

18.5 mWh

21.8 mWh

15%

MCCS_186

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

1.0

Mean daylight factor: 1.15% 100% of area between 0-2.5%

0.5 0

Wind cladding pressure distribution. North view, wind from north

Wind cladding pressure distribution. South view, wind from south-west

Pressure, kPa 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 Isotherms showing temperature distribution across system

Wind cladding pressure distribution and air velocity distribution External velocity, m/s 15 11.2 8.4 5.6 3D isotherms showing temperature distribution across concrete layer and fixing bracket

2.8 0 Internal velocity, m/s 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across insulation layer

External and internal air velocity distribution

The continuous structural support provided by the concrete structure to the rainscreen GRC (glass fibre reinforced concrete) panels allows secondary structure to be omitted, but this approach requires every panel fixing bracket to penetrate the thermal envelope, generating a thermal bridge. Given the high number of brackets, the thermal bridge effect has been accurately quantified by means of a 3D digital model of the assembly in order to assess the overall U-value of the envelope. A representative area of the envelope was considered for the analysis with a specific ratio of brackets to surface area of envelope. In this way, the performance of the bracket could be calibrated by adjusting the

thickness of thermal break plate to be applied to each individual bracket at the interface between base plate and concrete structure. CFD analysis was used to obtain a preliminary estimate of cladding pressures, which were subsequently calibrated against a full wind tunnel test. Risk of glare and visual user comfort was assessed for each internal space through numerical analysis which provided confirmation of the required light transmission of the glass type used for the facades, as well as identify areas of glazed facade that required additional internal shading.

MCCS_187

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 15 Grand Théatre, Rabat

The main envelope system for the project is based on an opaque glass fibre reinforced concrete (GRC) rainscreen cladding fixed to the primary structure, which is a mix of reinforced concrete and steel. The main driving parameter for the design of the GRC system was the required 60 year life span of the envelope system. This required the use of monolithic GRC panels, up to 4mx2m in size, which did not require the conventional steel backing frame cast-in on the back of the panel. Given the large number of GRC panels used for the project in different sizes and configuration, an important aspect was to ensure that a single system was implemented with a single fixing detail, serving as a ‘universal’ connection detail. In addition, the sizes of main components were required to be understood at an early stage of the project, in order to minimise time for both fabrication and installation. A clear set of rules for component sizing was established during the design phase in order to provide highly resolved tender package for accurate quantity take-offs. GRC panel thickness, size of panel ribs and size steel fixing brackets were required to be determined. The high level of resolution in the engineering design was achieved through the following steps: • Material testing of GRC was undertaken in order to obtain mechanical properties, which were used as input for all the structural calculations. The characteristic flexural strength obtained through testing was set as a minimum target characteristic strength to be achieved by the GRC fabricators. • CFD analysis for preliminary cladding pressures was undertaken and subsequently validated by an early stage wind tunnel test. This analysis allowed the use of precise values for wind loads, which drive the stress analysis of the panels while taking into full account the effects of the geometry of the building. • Structural calculations for each component were undertaken for each project-specific configuration by using finite element modelling and scripting in order to automate the structural analysis process for all panels. • The design of the adjustable steel fixing bracket was conceived in order to be able to use one fixing type only across the whole project, so that repetition and reduce costs could be maximised. • A set of physical tests were designed in order to validate a single design for the connection between GRC panels and steel fixings, which could be used safely across the entire project. The design of both GRC panels and steel fixings is based on well-understood principles documented in standards. The design of the connection between GRC panels and steel fixings could not be assessed through standards. Instead, project-specific testing was required in order to ensure the reliability of the system and obtain the building approvals. MCCS_188

As part of the testing programme, the following tests were undertaken: • Testing of GRC mechanical properties: the GRC mix and particularly the percentage volume of glass fibres in the mix affects the mechanical properties of the material and particularly its flexural strength, which is the critical parameter in the design of large cladding elements. The mix is specific to each fabricator, who develops the proprietary mix which suits their fabrication techniques and expertise. The samples were made and tested in an independent test laboratory in order to establish the minimum flexural strength required from the material, which provided a benchmark that the appointed GRC fabricator had to meet, using their own material. The flexural strength was established through a three-point bending test and this result fed directly into all the structural calculations to size the GRC panels, including skin and monolithic ribs which provide stiffening to the panel. •

Connection testing between GRC and steel bracket: the connection between the GRC panel and fixing bracket is realised through a stainless steel socket cast into the GRC which receives an M16 stainless steel bolt to fix to the steel plate. There are no standards available to quantify, analytically, the capacity of such a connection. The closest reference standard refers to steel element cast in concrete, but due to the presence of glass fibres, GRC has much higher tensile and shear strength, which affect the properties of the connection, improving its capacity.

Whilst the material testing was covered by standard procedures, the test for the connections was devised for the project-specific application. The first set of tests were devised to establish the capacity of the proposed connection under static loading, both in pull-out and shear. The second set of tests were devised to establish the resistance of the connection assembly to wind-induced fatigue, which is related to the cyclic nature of wind. The alternating pressure and suction forces on the panels apply cyclic loads during the whole design life of the connection. Fatigue failure is driven by the formation and propagation of microcracks within both steel and GRC. Micro-cracks tend to form in the proximity of stress concentrations but are also due to several other factors such as fabrication, particularly GRC. In brittle materials, the fatigue failure of nominally identical specimens can vary considerably, as every specimen would have a random distribution of cracks from which fatigue can initiate. This requires empirical testing of a statistically significant number of specimens in order to establish robust safety factors for the design. Testing should be sequential, with an increase in accuracy and time/ resources commitment at each stage. This ensures an effective use of

time as with any construction-related task, which is typically driven by the programme and aims for any building to be designed and executed in the shortest possible time. The specific items tested are signed off sequentially so that if any step fails or design changes are required, an economy of resources is ensured.

a. b.

This reflects the scientific approach applied to design, where the understanding of the object analysed is built up through a series of analyses and tests of increasing complexity.

c.

The basic material testing and static testing of connections was undertaken before tender in order to provide an essential proof-of-concept validation for the proposed design and test the feasibly of both outputs and process, which would then have to be repeated by the appointed fabricator. The fatigue test was not performed ahead of tender as the large amount of samples and testing time required was beyond the time-frame available for the design development.

4.

d.

a.

b. Wind-induced fatigue testing requires a larger number of samples to be tested. This represents a much higher level of commitment for the fabricator, and typically can only be expected as part of the delivery of the project and not as a proof of concept.

c. d.

In light of the experience gained by Newtecnic on this project, testing the viability of processes and outputs was confirmed, since the time-frames following tender award were short. For future projects, a test-run of the process of each physical test will be considered before tender, and used as a way of calibrating finite element analysis, rather than as a final validation of a design. This would allow more precise analytical predictions to be obtained, together with a more defined test process and outputs. The implementation of the design concept for the GRC system comprised the following tasks: 1. Geometry and material testing. The inputs for the contractor are a well-defined geometry where facade, structure and MEP are closely coordinated. Mechanical properties of the mix must be confirmed through testing by the contractor. For GRC, the flexural strength after 28 days of curing is the only mechanical property that requires direct testing as it is the basis of the structural design of the panels. 2. Structural design through standards. GRCA (International Glassfibre Reinforced Concrete Association) is the main European standard for GRC calculations, and this standard was used where the principles could be applied. 3. Validation of a critical aspect of the design through structural testing. A critical aspect for the GRC system design is the resistance of the connections which cannot be assessed by means of

5.

a.

b. c.

direct calculations through standards. The following steps are required to validate this aspect of the design: Establish connection capacity in shear and pull out through testing. Compare the capacity with the most onerous design support reactions and establish the safety factor that the current connection design is providing. Verify that the safety factor is acceptable for the design (expected safety factor of around 2.0 - 2.5). Establish resistance to fatigue of the connection through a separate dynamic test. Construction of mock-up for final validation of assembly design. A final validation of the assembly design is required through a 1:1 physical mock-up, where all the components are fabricated following the final design. This mock-up validates the following aspects: Fabrication time. This is used to define and test the specific fabrication process and allows the estimation of the time required to fabricate each component. Assembly performance. Sufficient adjustment is provided, ease of fabrication of components, ease and sequence of assembly of components. Installation sequence. The installation of both panels and brackets is tested and timed. Performance under static loading. The mock-up is subjected to a set of basic static loads at ultimate limit state in order to verify its overall performance in terms of micro-cracking and around the connections upon removal of the load, as the system should be able to sustain without permanent damage or deformation the project static loads at ultimate limit states. Considerations of time required for fabrication of mock-up. The following considerations affect the speed of procurement of GRC components for testing: Time for testing. Both static and fatigue tests are to be done on samples which have cured for 28 days. Static tests can be undertaken within a week. Fatigue testing may require several months, depending on the level of accuracy desired for the results and the appropriate number of fatigue levels to be tested. Time to manufacture the first batch of panels. The size of the first panel batch is related to availability of site storage. Time to construct mock-up. The construction of the mock-up allows the establishment of a clear estimate of the time required to manufacture the first batch of panels.

MCCS_189

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 16 The Avenues, Kuwait City

MCCS_190

THE AVENUES, Kuwait City RETAIL MALL

29° 18’ 09.8’’ 47° 56’ 11.0’’

N E

ARCHITECT GENSLER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING PACE MEP ENGINEERING PACE FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACADE ZONE (mm)

325

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.07

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

0.31

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.34

TESTING

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL SPACE FRAME

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL BOX SECTIONS

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES; WELDED AND BOLTED

MCCS_191

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 16 Typical system bays 1

9 5

1

5

4

2

9 5

1 2 4

2

9

4

1

10 3 2 9

4

3D internal view of typical bay 10

9

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_192

Details 1. Composite cladding panel 2. Double glazed unit 3. Extruded aluminium transom 4. Extruded aluminium mullion 5. Thermal insulation 6. Backing wall, typically concrete 7. Outer brick skin 8. Extruded aluminium section 9. Floor slab 10. Floor finish 11. Ceiling finish

1

5

8 5 3

2 2 4 4

10 10

9

9

3D view of typical bay

3D exploded view of typical bay

7 7

5

5

6

6

3D exploded view of cladding system

3D view of cladding system

8

5

6

1 6

2

5

8 8

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

MCCS_193

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 16 System design

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50

6

2 5

Top view

6

2

2

1

1 1

5

5

4

4

4

Front view

4

MCCS_194

Bottom view

6 6

2

2

1

2D detail. Scale 1:5

3D view of assembly

2

1

3

1

4

2

5

4 1

Details 1. Double glazed unit 2. Extruded aluminium transom 3. Extruded aluminium mullion 4. Floor slab 5. Floor finish 6. Steel profile 9. Floor slab 10. Floor finishing 11. Ceiling finishing

3

4

3D views of system

MCCS_195

0.591

70.00 72.00

Facade system Full-height stick glazing.

Facade zone 230 mm

Primary structure type

Concrete slabs.

Secondary structure type

Aluminium extruded profiles.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.06

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates; welded and bolted. 74.00

2.54

, 1 cm 3D = 200.0 kNm (Min=-313.7) (Max=321.4)

-2 .5 4 -10.00

3. 67

-6.51

-11.8

68.00

13 .1

-0.2 28 -8.00

-6.00

-4.00

.7 51 -1 -2.00

-313.7

-301.7

-285.8

-269.9

-254.0

-238.1

-222.3

-206.4

-190.5

-174.6

-158.8

-142.9

-127.0

-111.1

-95.3

-79.4

-63.5

-47.6

-31.8

-15.9

80.00

8. 87

6.44

0.54 -19.2

2 7. 83

-34.4

30.9

Details 1. Steel adjustable bracket 2. Steel tube 3. Aluminium extruded mullion 4. Glazing panel 54.3

Facade assembly 9 23 0.

Number of components in fixing system Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2) 0.0

70.00

16 .3

.3

76.5

66.00

15.9

31.8

47.6

63.5

, 1 cm 3D = 535.2 kN (Min=-960.0) (Max=104.5)

19 .6

35 .8

8 49 0.

64.00

-0.1 2

0

-0.1 20

9

18 .4

74

08 .1 -0

97.5

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight 79.4

95.3

111.1

127.0

142.9

158.8

174.6

190.5

-306. 5

-357.

-23

1.2

5

.5

-539 .

-539

1

-387.5

-243. 5 -228 .9

.9 25 -2

19 .8

-73.5

0.217

87.0

8 66 0.

Sector of system Group 11

-72.6

-5 .5 6

5.1 -19

0.297

283.8 0 2. 1 11 7. 14 136.0

62.00

.1 -112

-5 1. 8

.9

60.00

-2 0. 0

08 .9

206.4

-0.1 20

.2 25 -2 .1 -194 28.4 -6 .4 6

20 .2

.6 75 .6 -2 75 -2

.7 13 -3

.7

08

222.3

238.1

254.0

269.9

50.00

-3

5.4 -33 42.4

. 73

-3 5. 4

-3 13

-3

-3

.7

-26 1.6 -2 61 .6

-17 2

30 .3

1 18.

Axial force distribution (kN) in arched roof 0

.2

. 42

321.4 60.00 285.8

.2

Bending moment distribution in steel frame (kNm) Y X 301.7

59

Z

46

.5 59 5 5. -4

2 3.

12 .1

.7

59

Finite element model of the typical bay -645.3

-664.1

-665.4

-666.3

-608.3

-441. 7

-540.

0

-605.4

9.81

-4

4

7

-44.1

16.9

-404.1

-408.1

-406.3

-9. 33

84

3.

20 .3

.5

-410.4

-404.8

-365.2

-24 -326 6.1 .4 -412.0 -30 -300 9.8 .1 -408.0 -36 0.8 -391.2 -960 -39 .0 1.3 -360. 5 -960 - 40 .0 -30 8.0 0.3 -309. - 41 4 2. -32 1. 9 6.5 31 -4 -244. 10 8 -44 .2 1.9 -4 04 540 .5 -540 12 . .8 2 -2 7. -3 92 1 -60 64 -540 .0 5.7 -9 .9 -3 .8 -2 8 25 .6 -23 -64 .3 40 1.0 5.6 -1 .7 52 -24 -66 .5 5.8 4 .3 -2 0 -3 -30 1. -6 9.4 65 1 75 .6 .1 -36 -6 -32 0.5 66 -4 2.9 .5 79 -39 .5 1.1 -4 -6 08 37 -3 -40 .3 -5 .9 79 -4 7.9 42 . .5 39 4 - 41 .9 -4 1 .9 42 -4 -6 .0 10 .3 27 .9 -4 -6 04 30 .7 -0.2 .0 -6 44 3 32 65 . .0 23 -0.2 1 -7 44 7. 325. 19 9 4 .7 -7 21 -3 .8 -7 74 23 .6 -3 .8 76 . -3 7 -0.1 78 20 .7 -4 -0.1 38 20 .8 -4 40 .9

92 4.

321.4

36. 8

-400.6

-364.3

-5 9. 2

12.2

6. -2

8 5. -2

-4

40.00

5 3. -2

121.7

-52. 4

-52. 4

.3

4

23

8.07

.3

3 11.0

24

1

4

30.00

3 1.

Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight

18 .2

-86.1

2 12.1 .4 24

20.00

.4 35 -2 -152.0

-200.6

10.00

-269.0

.6 55 4 . 55 5 4. 10

6 .2

MCCS_196 -61.7 9 0. -3

Y X

- 24

Z

-286.3

0.00

14.7 5.4 -37

94 -7. 3 7. -4 1.0 -44 -64.5 3.1 -44 7.6 -62 9.6 -62 1.7 -63 9.4 -71 1.4 -72 3.5 -72

8.7 -36 0.7 -37 2.8 -37 3.4 -43 5.5 -43 7.6 -43

-0.1 20 -0.1 20

-960.0

-958.0

-931.4

-904.8

-878.2

-851.6

-825.0

-798.4

-771.8

-745.1

-718.5

-691.9

-665.3

-638.7

-612.1

-585.5

-558.9

-532.2

-505.6

-479.0

-452.4

-425.8

-399.2

-372.6

-346.0

-319.3

-292.7

-266.1

-239.5

-212.9

-186.3

-159.7

-133.1

-106.4

-79.8

-53.2

-26.6

0.0

26.6

53.2

104.5

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 16 Structural analysis

28.2

28.5

42.0

M 1 : 342

m

X * 0.883 Y * 0.636 Z * 0.903

0.50 3

M 1 : 63 X * 0.883 Y * 0.636 Z * 0.903

m

-4.44

-0

8

23

7

15

.0 0

-0 -0

.0

.0

.0

0.0374

0.0374

0.0374

-4.44

-4.30

-65.00 -65.00 -70.00 -75.00

0.376

0.451

0.338

0.265 0.252

0.183 0.147 0.111 0.0744

0.0374

0.111 0.0744

0.111

0.0744

0.0744

0.278

0.334

0.340 0.301 0.320

0.328

0.111 0.0745 0.0374

0.218

0.380

0.390

0.406

0.275

0.359

0.451

0.424

0.405

0.423

0.350

0.409 0.218 0.183 0.147

0.0375

0.183

0.359

0.408

0.408

0.424

0.424

0.423

0.405

0.407

0.408 0.424

0.301

0.390

0.374 0.800

0.0745

0.147

0.590

0.341

0.947

0.893

0.490

0.374

0.309

0.334

0.343 0.341

0.353

0.993

1.14

0.451

0.649

0.701

0.800

0.893

0.738

0.925

0.675

0.369 1.27

0.290 0.341

0.309

0.353 1.13

1.31

1.14

0.330

0.334

0.962

0.947

0.490

1.18

0.993

0.947

1.27

0.311 0.343

0.343

0.378

0.347

0.490

0.409 0.893

0.675

0.309

0.346

0.309

0.381 0.490

0.277

0.311

0.738 0.800

1.31

1.25

1.27

0.961

0.956

1.13

0.961

0.947

0.478

0.408

0.347

0.993 1.14

0.925

0.701

0.649

1.27

0.738

0.993

0.590

1.18

1.14

1.18 0.381

1.27

1.27

1.31

0.893

0.800

0.701 0.642

0.649

0.701

0.800

0.947

0.893

1.27 0.408

1.31

1.25

0.961

0.961

1.13

0.478

1.13

0.893

0.962

0.893

1.25 0.566

0.629

0.800

0.590

0.962

0.893

1.25

0.642

0.947

0.496

0.590

0.649

1.27

1.31

0.925

1.14

0.381

0.409

0.962

1.13

1.27

1.18

0.496

0.590

0.642

0.566

0.800

0.947

0.962

1.13

0.956

0.962

0.478

0.317

0.354

0.925

1.14

1.27

1.31

1.25

1.27

0.738

0.993

1.18

1.25

0.956

1.13

0.962

0.676

1.14

0.925

1.27

1.31

0.701

0.800

0.369

0.701

0.649

0.111

480.00

(Max=1.31)

0.893

0.590

1.27

0.478

0.422

1.18

0.993

0.277

0.738

0.369

0.490

0.309

0.675

0.343

0.309

0.330

0.341

0.424

0.374

0.353

0.364

0.407

0.451

0.390

0.0375

0.147

0.0374

475.00

, 1 cm 3D = 1.00 mm

0.800

0.701

0.478

0.566

0.490

0.354

0.341

0.353

0.675

0.330

0.334

0.305

0.290

0.347

0.378

0.408

1.31

1.14

0.408

0.406

0.424

0.390

0.0745

0.0745

0.183

0.111

470.00

Nodal displacement vector, Loadcase 1 self weight

m

M 1 : 115

0.649

0.701

0.800

0.893

0.947

1.25

1.27

0.341

0.947

485.00

X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

1.13

1.27

0.334

0.490

0.993

0.309

0.424

0.423

0.359

0.370

0.111

0.218

0.147

Y

-4.13

8

79

0.961

0.961

0.947

0.893

0.800

0.405

0.962

-3.97

08 1

05 4

02 7

480.00

0.701

0.409

0.391

0.408

0.408

0.451

0.956

-3.80

-3.64

-3.47

-3.31

-3.14

-2.98

-2.81

-2.65

-2.48

-2.32

-2.15

-1.98

-1.82

-1.65

-0 .0

26

-70.00

-1.68

-1.89

-0.514

-1.49

-1.16

-0.99

-0.83

-0.66

-1.32

-0 .0

-75.00

2.17

1.62

1.7

-0.50

-0.33

-0.17

-1.68

-4. 4

4

1

2.1 7

0

-75.00

-4.44

1.71

2.17

-4. 44

3

2 2.1

0.00

0.17

0.33

0.50

0.66

0.83

-0.674

0.99

1.32

1.16

-2. 23

-2. 2

2.1 7

-0. 470

2 1.6

2.1 0

99 0.6

1.6

-70.00

-1. 89

1.49

1.65

1.82

1.98

-0. 674

-65.00

0. 00 60

0.0086

2.17

-60.00

0.0013

0.0023

0.0029

0.0018

0. 00 69

0.0035

0. 0

06 2

0.0041

0.0047

0.0058

0.0053

0.01 21 0.00 55 0.00 37 0.0 053

0.0070

0.0076

0.0064

0.0053

3 0.

00 5

0.0078

0.0036

0. 01 05 0.0054

0. 01 00 0. 01 01 0. 01 02

0.0038

0.0082

0.0088

0.0099

0.0105

0.0111

0.0117

0.0123

0.0094

0.0069

0.0047

0.0062

0.0024

0.0129

0. 00 67

0.0015 0.0069

0.0054

0.0038

0.0140

0.0146

0.0135

0.0064

0.0158

0.0164

0.0170

0.0175

0.0152

71 0.

01

54

00 0.

0.0054

0.

00 86

0.0187

0.0193

0.0199

0.0181

3 07 0. 0 178

0. 0

00 67 0. 0.0062

0.01 21

0.00

53

076 0.0

0.0076

0.0205

0.0211

0.0216

0.0222

0.0086

0.0073

0 63 0 .0

0.00 63 0 .0

0 62

0. 00 60

0.995

1.20

0. 00 69

44 -4.

-1.68

-0

-0 .0

77

-2.55

1.84

-1.14

0.881

0.457

1.02

0.669

-4.44

0.669

0.365

0.256

1.02 0.559 0.559 78 2 0. 8 674 1.6 -0. 1.01 0 2.1 1.84 -2.55 7 2.1 -0.504 7 -0.904 1.95 2.1 1 1.95 1.7 1.02 -2.55 1 0.881 1.7 0.975 -0.904 -1.75 9 1.01 -1.8 -0.375 0.595 -1.91 -1.75 23 -2. 0.667 -4.27 -4.27 -1.59 1.84 -1.68 1.95 2.17

-0.674

2.17 -4.27

44 0

, 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kNm (Min=-4.44) (Max=2.17)

0.341

0.252

0.183

X

485.00

m

M 1 : 105 X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

Secondary steel structure Steel space frame

1

2

3

4

5 4

5

00

29 2

4

2

Vertical displacements distribution in steel space frame (mm) 465.00

Z

4. 5.

0.328

0.31

0.370

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.350

5

0.328

Number of components in fixing system

0.318

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

0.326

Facade bracket type

0.340

0.07

0.451

Steel box sections.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.

-1 .0

0.

56

475.00

0.328

Secondary structure type

05

.0

1.

21 9 -0 .0 14 6 -0 .0 07 3

1

470.00

0.278

Steel space frame.

35

0

-0 .0

5

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight

Y

0.338

325 mm

Primary structure type

-2.55

X

0.409

Facade zone

-4.44

90

465.00

Z

X * 0.502 Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962

-1 .1

0. 26

Bending moment distribution in steel space frame (kNm)

m

M 1 : 122

0.881

.6

490.00

11

-0

485.00

.3

-1 .

0.881

1.01

1.95

1.20

-0

-0 07

1.

-1.14

67 0

-4.27

-1.05

0.457

0.669

0.

3

0. 0

0.256

-0.237

-4.27

480.00

-0.904

-4.27

0.163

0.668

1.01

0.881

1.02

0.532

.0 15

62

03

-2.55

-0.904

2 .0

1.20

-1

-2.55

-0.904

0. 0

-0.689

1.95

1.84

1.01

-4.27

-1.91

1.20

1.95

-1.75

0.975

0.881

-1.75

-0.904

475.00

, 1 cm 3D = 0.0200 (Max=0.0247)

FRP open-jointed rainscreen.

Facade assembly

-2.55

0.962

0.0247

Facade system

Details: 1. FRP cladding panel 2. Thermal insulation 3. Adjustable bracket

-0.375

Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case 1

-0.904

Y

1.02

X

1.01

Z

-2.55

0.0245

0. 00

-0 23 92

90

.6

-0

0.0247

0.0247

470.00

0. 01

0. 00

Utilisation factor distribution of steel space frame 465.00

62

121 0.0

0.0245

69 00 0. 63 0.00 65 0.00

0.0245

0.0 053

0. 00

0.0243

0.0247

0.0241

121 0.0 0.0121

0.0241

0.0245

0.0243

63 00 0. 65 00 0. 84 00 0.

0.0239

0.0243

53 0.00 76 0.00

0.0247

0.0237

0.0078

0.0243 0.0245

0.0235

0.0239 0.0241

0.0086

0.0247

0.0237

89 00 0. 78 78 01 0.01 0. 65 0.0068 0.00

0.0247

0. 01 78

0.0171

0.0243

076 0.0 54 00 0.

0.0099 0.0101

070 0.0

0.0235

39 00 0.

0.0239

0.0066

0.0100

0.0049 0. 01 01 0.0237

0.0241

58

00

0.0063

0.0046

Deformed shape of steel frame

71 01 0. 66 00 0.

0.0245

0

8 17 .0

0.0245

0.0245

0.0247

0.0053

73

0.0241 0.0243

00

0.0237 0.0239

7

0.

0.0235

0.

0.0235

0.0055

0.0097

0.0121

0

06 .0

59

00

0.

0.0096

1

04 01 0.

7 01 01 0. 01 0. 02 01 0.

0.0171

0.0073

0.0086

0.0096

0.0037

0.0062

0.0047

69

0.0121 121 0.0

0.0069

0.0054 38 0.00

121 0.0

00

62

0.

00 0.

0. 00 60

0.0078

0.0228

0.0234

0.0240

0.0247

Finite element model of roof steel space frame

The structural design of each steel roof construction involved a significant use of 3D modelling and finite element software in order to develop structural concepts, by using analysis as a tool to explore structural behaviour. For each structural roof a different strategy was developed to rapidly evolve a concept, depending on the level of symmetry and modularity. Typically, symmetrical roofs allow the main load-path diagram to be identified ahead of modelling, which allows the main stiffness paths to be reinforced already at the stage of preliminary sizing through hand calculations. The design for modular roofs can be developed entirely on the basis of a typical bay, which is then implemented in the full model of the roof to check additional requirements for global stability. For cases where structural hierarchies or expected behaviour are not clear, all structural members can be set to the same size for an initial assessment of the geometry. This approach highlights the main stiffness paths determined by the shape only. The stiffness path is then either shifted by creating a different hierarchy of structural sizes or reinforced by introducing larger members at the most stressed locations. MCCS_197

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 16 Environmental analysis

21 June

21 March

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 2000 1750 1500 1300

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

7,895 m

12,931 mWh

Without shading

1 year

13.63 mWh 19.51 mWh

MCCS_198

Solar reduction 30%

700

900

12

675

10

575

8

400

6

250

4

100

2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay

With shading

1000

% Daylight factor

kWh/m2

Period

2

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 5.4% 98.4% of area between 2-12% 0.1% of area > 12% 1.5% of area < 2%

External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

6

2.5

4.5

2

1.5 3 1 1.5

0

0.5

0

External and internal air velocity distribution 20 °C 13 °C 0 °C

EXT

INT

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

A solar radiation analysis was undertaken for all the roofs in order to assess the peak solar gain through the envelope for each. Given the height of the shopping arcades, internal CFD studies were used to assess the temperature stratification across the internal spaces and the potential use of top level vents to exhaust hot air. The introduction of fully opaque insulated elements is aimed at reducing solar gains. Another aspect of the environmental design of these highly transparent roofs consists in assessing the penetration of direct radiation hitting the floor surface. High levels of direct solar radiation are an indicator of both visual and thermal comfort, respectively due to glare and perceived air temperature by the building user. This analysis is critical to establish the usability of the interior spaces. In order to maximise light transmission but minimise g-value and thermal conduction gains, ETFE has been chosen as the primary technology for the roofs. ETFE is a highly transparent and highly thermally insulating material, which can be applied to the range of geomtries of the roofs.

Pressure, kPa 2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5

Wind cladding pressure distribution MCCS_199

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 17 Stone Towers, Cairo

MCCS_200

STONE TOWERS, Cairo OFFICES AND HOTEL BUSINESS PARK

29° 59’ 06.8’’ 31° 22’ 51.7’’

N E

ARCHITECT ZAHA HADID ARCHITECTS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AKT II MEP ENGINEERING HOARE LEA FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

FACADE ZONE (mm)

ENVIRONMENTAL

TESTING

950 mm

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.10

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

1.65

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

1.49

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE COLUMNS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE ALUMINIUM BOX SECTIONS

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES; WELDED AND BOLTED

MCCS_201

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 17 Typical system bays

4

2

9

6

11

3D internal view of typical bay 1

2

6

3D external view of typical bay MCCS_202

4

Details 1. GRC shading louvre 2. Double glazed unit 3. Extruded aluminium transom 4. Extruded aluminium mullion 5. Thermal insulation 6. GRC permanent formwork 7. Extruded aluminium section 8. Backing concrete wall 9. Floor slab 10. Floor finish 11. Ceiling finish

1 2

4

9

6

6

3D view of typical bay

3D exploded view of typical bay

9

7

8

5

6

8

6

9

3D view of cladding system

3D exploded view of cladding system

4 4 3 9 11 1 2

2

1

10 9 10 3

3D view of glazed system

3D exploded view of glazed system MCCS_203

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 17 System design

4

1

Top view

4

3

2

4 1 2

1

3

Front view

1

Third angle projection. Scale 1:60

Bottom view MCCS_204

3

3

1

1

3D view of detail

2D detail. Scale 1:15

3

3

4

2 1 2

3

3

Back view

3

2 2 1

1

Details 1. GRC shading louvre 2. Double glazed unit 3. Extruded aluminium transom 4. Extruded aluminium mullion

4

3 3

3D views of assembly MCCS_205

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 17 Structural analysis

3D model of typical bay

Details 1. GRC louvers 2. Double glazed unit 3. Concrete slab 4. Extruded aluminium transom Finite element model of typical bay

2 1 4

3

Facade assembly

Typical bay of glazed facade

MCCS_206

Facade system

Unitised glazing with GRC shading louvres.

Facade zone

950 mm

Primary structure type

Concrete columns.

Secondary structure type

Aluminium box sections.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.10

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

Number of components in fixing system

1

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.65

0.0060

0.0060

69.0

4.26

58.2 56.2

32.5

54.3

0.996

6.97

60.1

37.7

11.6

50.4 48.5

37.4

44.6 42.6 40.7 38.8

34.9 33.0

29.1

5.8

27.1

2.9

25.2

0.0

88 3.

31.0

8.6

6.77

5.38

23.3

-2.9

21.3

-5.8

19.4

-8.6 -11.5

15.5

-14.4

13.6

-17.3

11.6

-20.1

9.7

-23.0

7.8

-25.9

5.8

-28.8

3.9

-31.6

1.9

-75.00

0.0

-70.00

-65.00

-60.00

5.38

12.6 2.35

6.72

3.75

-70.00

-37.5

15.00

5.8 2.9 0.0 -2.9 -5.8 -8.6

1.11

2.35 0.112

-65.00

Principal tension stress distribution in concrete structure (MPa)

-20.1 -23.0

25.0

-25.9 -28.8

0.110

-31.6 -34.5

-55.00

-50.00

-60.00 -45.00

-50.00

-45.00

m -55.00

-50.00

33.0 31.0 29.1 27.1 25.2 23.3 21.3 19.4 17.4 15.5 13.6

38.8

11.9 2.22

27.1

19.4

8.56

17.4

13.6

0.719

6.72

11.6 9.7

-25.00

0.0

8.56

3.22

6.72

77.5

-25.00

-20.00 -20.00

4.23

-15.00 -15.00

-10.00 -10.00

0.719

Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 1.8366e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94 MPa Z Y X Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 1.8366e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94 MPa

Concrete wall.

Secondary structure type

-

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

-

Facade bracket type

-

Number of components in fixing system

-

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

1.52

-5.00

Principal tension stress distributionon in concrete structure (MPa)

The facade forms an integrated part of the supporting structure as a result of the fabrication process used to construct the reinforced concrete primary structure. The permanent formwork is formed by the external GRC panel (glass fibre reinforced concrete), which is compatible with reinforced concrete and can be moulded to any doubly-curved shape. The large GRC monolithic panels provide a natural formwork for the concrete structure supporting it. A layer of thermal insulation is introduced between the two structural layers, which removes any risk of condensation and ensures the use of this system as a high performing thermal envelope, as well as a structurally efficient system which integrates structure and facade. This construction process was used for the complex concrete shapes of this project, such as the curved shear walls. The production of the moulds requires specialised fabrication skills, with the GRC panel being produced by a facade contractor. The use of numerical models provided an understanding of the behaviour of the structural forms of the buildings; specifically the relationship between floor slabs and curved shear walls.

X

2.40

25.0

5.8 3.9

3.69

46.9

2.40

25.0

7.8

1.9

12.6

8.98

3.22

8.98

15.5

3.9

3.69

46.9

21.3

5.8

2.22

12.6

23.3

130 mm

Primary structure type 5.00

9.26

11.9

25.2

1.58

6.16

1.58 7.56

9.26

29.1

0.129

0.129 1.28

6.16

7.56

0.0214

Facade zone

10.00

10.00

33.7

0.143 0.0214

5.00

5.41

0.0020

1.28

31.0

3.8 8

3.8 8

4

33.7

33.0

7.8

Z Y X

1.06

34.9

9.7

0.0

1.58

0.0020

36.8

11.6

1.9

3.15

3.24

0.143 5.41 3.15 1.58

Sprayed GRC used as permanent formwork.

0.00

34.9

40.7

2.52 3.24 0.265

7.7 5

-37.5

Z

77.5

4.23

-5.00

36.8

42.6

1.06

1

0.0054

7.7 5

0.00

38.8

2.52 0.265

44.6

Y * 0.792 Z * 0.912

Facade system

-5.00

40.7

46.5

29.8

1

13.6

42.6

2.26

48.5

2.26 0.0054

27 .

29.8

.3

44.6

5.41

27 .

17.4

46.5

50.4

4.26

.2 25

48.5

52.3

0.385

30.3

4.25

13.6

50.4

54.3

6.97

2.05 8.19 0.441 2.05 37.7 7.25 9.85 6.97 0.385 4.26 7.25 4.25 37.7 9.85 75 32.5 7. 75 5.41 32.5 7.

.3

52.3

56.2

0.441

17.4

54.3

58.2

.2 25

56.2

60.1

21

58.2

62.0

21

60.1

30.3

8.19

19 .

62.0

1.28

64.0

23. 3

64.0

1.28

65.9

11 .6 15 .5

65.9

0.2306E-3

67.9

-45.00

M 1 : 148

Y * 0.792 Z * 0.912

69.8

4

67.9

19 .

69.8

-37.4

m

Principal compression stress distribution in concrete structure (MPa)Y X * 0.735

0.0087

0.2306E-3 0.0087

23. 3

71.7

0.0060

71.7

11 .6 15 .5

73.7

73.7

-14.4 -17.3

Y Maximum principal 1 self weight from 1.8367e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94 MPa Sector of system,Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines Z tem Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines tension stress in Node, Loadcase M 1 : 148 X 77.5 0.0060 Top Principal I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from -37.5X to 77.5 step 2.88 MPa * 0.735 75.6 Node, Loadcase 1 self weight ipal tension stress in , from 1.8367e-05 Y to step 1.94 stress MPa X 77.5 77.5 75.6

-11.5

0.719

0.345

-60.00 -55.00

Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines

Z

8.6

3.75

-65.00

-37.4

11.5

2.22

77.5

0.110

77.5

14.4

11.9

0.120

25.0

0.120

9.26

6.72

0.719

0.345

25.9

0.0214

12.6

8.98

0.112

8.98

28.8

20.1

4.55

46.9

1.11

31.6

23.0

0.103

0.421

2.22

46.9

-34.5

-70.00

6.77 11.9

34.5

17.3

0.260

0.02147.43

9.26

37.4

3.63

33.7

0.0149

0.103

0.421

17.4

40.3

0.287 .1 29.8 27 3 . 23 7.4 1.06 1 3.63 3.15 9.69 5.41 1.58

4.55

11.5

7.43

43.1

30.3

88 3.

17.3 33.7 0.014914.4 0.260

36.8

46.0

4.25

3.97

.1 29.8 27 3 28.8 0.265 3. 1.06 25.9 2 17.4 23.0 3.15 9.69 5.41 1.58 20.1 31.6

54.6

48.9

0.243 0.287 0.265

34.5

57.5

51.8

37.7

11.630.3

40.3

0.243

46.5

.00

4.25

43.1

3.97

60.4

8.19

2.04

7.75

46.0

1.28

0.996

6.97

54.6

4.26 51.8 8.19 48.9 32.5

2.04

7.75

52.3

60.4 0.441 0.311 57.5 1.28

63.3

10.00

0.311

0.0043

5.00

0.441

0.0043

63.3

0.00

65.9

15.00

67.9

62.0

66.1

0.0087

66.1

0.0087

10.00

69.8

64.0

69.0

71.9

0.2306E-3

71.7

77.5 71.9

0.2306E-3 77.5

5.00

73.7

0.00

77.5 75.6

-5.00

m m

M 1 : 115

X * 1.000 Y * 0.281 Z * 0.960

M 1 : 115

X * 1.000 Y * 0.281 Z * 0.960

3 2

4 3 3

1

4 2 1

Facade assembly Details 1. GRC panels used as permanent formwork 2. Reinforced concrete wall 3. Internal GRC cladding 4. Concrete slabs

MCCS_207

-70.00 -40.00

Sector of system

Top Principal st M 1 :

X * 0 Y * 0 Z * 0

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 17 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 2310 1850 1400 1000

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

10,490 m2

15,268 mWh

500 250

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

% Daylight factor kWh/m2 10 1000

8

850

6

675

4

500

2

350

0

250

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay

Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

67.8 mWh

104.0 mWh

35%

MCCS_208

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 2.62% Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.71% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.83%

External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

6

2.5

4.5

2

1.5 3 1 1.5

0

0.5

0

External and internal air velocity distribution 20 °C

5

13 °C 0 °C 17 16 15

15 19

15 16

15

17

EXT

INT 5

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

The solar shading for the glazed facades on the long side of the building 20.0 C C has13.0been desgined as a function of the solar radiation intensity distribution 0.0 on C each surface. The primary objective of this design optimisation is to minimise the energy costs of the building in use, rather than reduce the capacity of the mechanical ventilation installation itself, as the louvre density matches the annual cumulative radiation map. A detailed solar radiation analysis on a typical bay identified that more frequent usage of smaller shading elements provides higher solar gain reduction without obstructing the view from inside, when compared to larger shading elements more spaced apart. o o

o

08/09/2016 P:\0291_MCCS\03_Design\17_Stone Towers\Environmental Analysis\17_Detail_Hygrothermal analysis_02.flx

flixo pro 7.0.618.1

CFD studies are used to assess the effect of wind on pedestrian comfort, especially given the disposition of the buildings to form natural channels for air movement. A daylight factor analysis on two floors of a typical bay was used as a method to explore how varying floor-to-ceiling heights altered the penetration of natural light into the interior space.

Pressure, kPa 2

1.5

1

0.5

0

-0.5 Wind cladding pressure distribution MCCS_209

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 18 Holland Park School, London

MCCS_210

HOLLAND PARK SCHOOL, London EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE

51°30’15.6” 00°12’01.5”

N W

ARCHITECT AEDAS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING MEP ENGINEERING BURO HAPPOLD ENGINEERING FACADE ENGINEERING NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL

FACADE

MEP

FACADE ZONE (mm)

ENVIRONMENTAL

TESTING

Up to 2000mm

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE (kN/m2)

0.19

TOTAL WEIGHT OF FACADE (kN/m2)

2.21

U-VALUE (W/m2K)

0.94

PRIMARY STRUCTURE TYPE CONCRETE SLABS

SECONDARY STRUCTURE TYPE STEEL BOX SECTIONS AND T SECTIONS

FACADE BRACKET TYPE SERRATED PLATES; WELDED AND BOLTED

MCCS_211

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 18 Typical system bays

1

6

7

5

10

3

4

9

6

10

3D internal view of typical bay 4

1

3

9

7

3D external view of typical bay

MCCS_212

Details 1. External copper shading louvre 2. Double glazed unit 3. Extruded aluminium transom 4. Extruded aluminium mullion 5. Steel profile 6. Precast concrete panel 7. Floor slab 8. Thermal insulation 9. Floor finish 10. Ceiling finish

6 5

8 6 8 5

2

2

1 3 1 3

3D back view of typical bay

3D exploded back view of typical bay

6 3

6 7

7 10

9 9

3D front view of typical bay

3D exploded front view of typical bay

MCCS_213

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 18 System design

7

2

1

Top view

7 5

3

1

2

1

4 3

6 8

Front view

1

2

8

Third angle projection. Scale 1:60 MCCS_214

Bottom view

2D detail. Scale 1:10

3D view of assembly

7

7 5

3

3

Details 1. External copper louvres 2. Double glazed unit 3. Extruded aluminium transom 4. Extruded aluminium mullion 5. Steel profile 6. Floor slab 7. Floor finish 8. Ceiling finish

1

2

6

4

6

8

5

8

Back view

1 1

4

3

3

6 6

3D views of assembly

MCCS_215

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 18 Structural analysis 2

Facade system

Full-height stick glazing with external copper louvres.

Facade zone

Up to 2000 mm.

Primary structure type

Steel I sections.

Secondary structure type

Steel box sections and T sections.

Weight of secondary structure (kN/m2)

0.19

Facade bracket type

Serrated plates; welded and bolted.

Number of components in fixing system

2

Weight of facade, including secondary structure (kN/m2)

2.21

3

4 1

Facade assembly Details 1. Edge beam 2. Glazing 3. Extruded aluminium frame 4. Copper shading louvre

Global model

The design and analysis of the slender copper clad fins required a detailed analysis of lateral torsional buckling phenomena, which are due to the inherent slenderness of the fins. This was achieved through finite element modelling which allows detailed buckling analysis to be performed also for members with varying cross section. For this reason, a cable system was introduced to stabilise the fins laterally. The cables are moderately pre-stressed as they require a minimum initial stiffness to resist the lateral torsional buckling of the fins. The cables are fixed directly to the framing elements within each shading louvre. A parametric structural model was implemented in order to analyse the effect of different shapes and spans of the fins. The varying stiffness across the length of each fin is taken into account together with the restraints at slab level and the structural stabilising cables. As a result of the high level of modularity of the system, the structural analysis performed on a representative typical bay provides insight on both global and local effects. MCCS_216

Finite element model of typical bay

-0.0 -0.3

4.68 4.57

-0.6

4.45

-1.6

-0.9

-1.9

-1.3

-2.2

-1.6

-2.8

-2.2

-3.1

3.51

-2.5

3.40

-2.8

-3.5

3.28

-3.1

-3.8

3.16

-3.5

-4.1

3.04

-3.8

-4.4

2.93

-4.1

-4.7

2.81

-4.4

-5.0

2.69

-4.7

-5.4

2.58

-5.0

-5.7

2.46

-5.4

-6.0

2.34

-5.7

-6.3

2.22

-6.0

-6.6

-6.3

2.11

-6.9

-6.6

1.99

-7.2

-6.9

1.87

-7.6

-7.2

1.76

-7.9

-7.6

1.64

-8.2

-7.9

1.52

-8.5

-8.2

1.41

-8.8

-8.5

1.29

-9.1

-8.8

1.17

-9.4

-9.1

1.05

-9.8

-9.4

0.94

-10.1

-9.8

0.82

-10.4

-10.1

0.70

-10.4

-10.7

-10.7

-11.0

0.47

-11.0

-11.3

0.35

-11.3

-11.7

0.23

-11.7

0.59

0.12

50.00

0.00

60.00

-12.0

-12.0

60.00

70.00

70.00

Sector of system Group 2 4 6 45

80.00

-12.3

80.00

10.00

3.63

20.00

-2.5

-1.9

0.00

3.75

20.00

3.86

10.00

3.98

Z

-1.3

-0.6

4.10

0.00

4.22

50.00 90.00

-12.6

-12.3 -12.6

90.00

50.00 60.00 100.00

, Loadcase 1 self weight

80.00 90.00

-26.4 20.00

-23.9

-17.5

0.275

-7.82

-30.5

-13.2

-41.4

-20.5

40.5

64.5

5.51

67.4

10.00

21.1

-19.8

-4.23

-0.317 0.225

-19.0

-19.1

17.1

-2.89

0.00

70.00

90.00

60.00

100.00

80.00

70.00 m

80.00

90.00

Lateral displacements distribution in steel elements (mm)

Sector of system Group 2 4 6 45 M 1 : 236 Z , 1 cm 3D = 50.0 kNm (Min=-73.3) X(Max=67.4) * 0.861 , 1 cm 3D = 50.0 kNm (Min=-73.3) (Max=67.4) 3D = 5.00 mm X Nodal displacement in global Y, Loadcase 1 self weight ,Y 1* cm 0.643

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1Y self weight

ts , Bending moment My, XLoadcase 1 self weight

-2.77

0.126

50.00

10.1

-73.3

Bending moment elements (kNm) Sector of distribution system Groupin2steel 4 6 45 Z

-63.6

80.00

-53.6

60.00

-47.8

70.00

2.15

1 .83

-10.9

-2.1 2

5

10.4

50.00

4.80

1.16

-8.77

-73.3 60.00

06

-1.7

-7.27

-70.4

0.03

2.81

1.0 6

5

7.40

9

40.5

-66.8

3

4

3 .0 3

8

-41.4

2.15

-63.3

-8 .2

0. 15

- 4.6

-30.5

1 .4 4

5

7.9 0

4

2.23

-1 .4

-23.9

-59.8

1.2 2

5 .71

9

7.086 - 3.1

21.1

-1.7

7.40

0

5 .1 5 0.20

0 .66

-19.0

-56.3

8

-7.4

8

.2 1

-17.5

- 4.6

-52.8

5 3.71

0.2 1

-6.0

-27.74

0.275

- 3.1

-49.3

7 .39

7. 79

-19.8

-45.7

5 .22

7. 08

130

-0.317 0.225

1

6 .9 0

-10.2

-7.2

-42.2

4

-7 9..0

6.39

5.1 6

4 - 6. 95

-0.219 -19.1

-38.7

9 4. 43

-7 .6 1

0 .12

5 .40

17.1

-6.0

-35.2

3 .9 9 -6.7 7

03

-12.

64.5

7. 79

-0.2

96

8

-7 . 9 5

-2.1 0

5.51

7 .53

5

7.86

-20. 9

-57..89

67.4

0

- 6. 9

6 .5 2

5

1. 13 -8.5

-4.3 5

6 .0 6 3

-20.5

-7.0

-31.7

-6.5

4.89

-2 .0

3

-2.89

-28.1

5.1 6

-7. 8 8

5 .47

- 8. 5

-13.2

-24.6

-7 .9 5

-4.6 2 5.66

-8.5 3

7 .68

0.126

-7.9 6

-21.1

2.04

-5.8 -5. 2 -1 12 8.7

2

-2.77

3

-14.1 -17.6

7 .68

-5.6 6

6.3 5

-7.82

-2 .0

-7.0 -10.6

0.10

-4.23

2

6

8.46

10.1

-5.1

-3.5

-5.6 6

-6-.7

-73.3

0.0

1

1

-5.6 7

4.78

-63.6

3.5

9. 77

16.19

-53.6

-6 .7

7.0

-5.0

10.4

10.6

-0.2 9

9

5

-16.

-10.9

-5.6 7

-8.77

14.1

-7.27

17.6

-10.2

21.1

-10.2

24.6

-0.219

28.1

-47.8

-1 .4

-2.1 0

31.7

19.714 17 2. 60 .59 1. 2. 2 57 1 . 6 8 73 . -16. 0 5 2. 8 1 5 4 1. 1.5 1 7 0 . 5 2. 78 5 4.5 38 4.78 19.7 0.3526 55 1. 4. .83 48 .5 8 4 2. 1. 4 0 . 7 6 4 1 5 -16. 1. 9 63 4. .5 4. 29 8 3 9 2 4 1. -0.2 00 4. 9 .1 98 . . 2 3 91 1 4 3 0 2 6. 3 5 0 .35 4. .41 4. .9 5 9 -5.0 73 4 8 90 22 -5.18 .7 6 9. 77 1. .7 3. 4. 137 5 1 2 9 7 4 0 18.7 .2 4. 5 3. .4 3 8 1 1. 4 0 4 0.10 4 . 1 8.46 4 . 2 1. 40 18 56 18 77-15.84 70 6.06 8 1. 1. 1. 34 4. 3. -8.51. 3 4. 8 61 -8.5 8 97 . 4 . 9 9 1 3 . 1 3 . 3 2.04 .1 29 3 3. 1 1 44 8 1. 26 5 .5 0 . 1 . 2 3 3 0 4 1 1 .29 7 4. 1. .3 08 . 4 7 3. .68 71 -15 -7.88 1 1. 6 131 1. 3. 3 0 .1 .52 .0 -4.6 .8 .2 -17.1 91 965.8 1 3 0 . . 4.89 .78 1 - 6 3.292 3 0 9 7 69 0 .3 .2 .78.58 5.66 .8 3 3 3 3 5 0 . 0 0 7 01 3 5 7 6 3 2. 0. .5 .7 -.1528. -4.3 0. .6 3 2 0 0 4 5 .36 9 5.4043 0 -6.157.1 6.5 0. 4 . 7 22 0 1 . 2 5 . 5 47.0 6 0 0 2. -20.2 0 19 22 3.01 .4 3 0 .2 7 0. 2. .3 9.0 13 3 -0.2 0 .09.86 65 7 .53 23.141 2 .4 03 0 1. 3 1 . 0 3 9 5 6.7 .4 1 4 3 4.4 7 09 2 3 -2 0. 30 0.120.2 6. 0. 0.3 4 0. . 2 . 9 - 7 .6 0 4 9 6 1 3 .9 9 49 1 .3 8 2 .6 . 2 4 0 2 5 0 2.41 5 0 5 4 16.7 3 5.72 0. 1. 0. 0. 0.606 57 0.6.90 -6.7 22 0. 2.74 .40 5 6 4. 43 7 0. 0. 0 5 66 43 .48 4 2 . . 9 7 6 . 0. 1 2.2.33 4 81 5.72 . . 7.39 00.210 8 55.0 15 44 02 0 0 0 43 0. 5 . 22 29 .4 0. 0. 2.8 1 0. 02 49 0 8 0 8 . . 4 2 0 0 5. 0. 0. .40.2604 41 -7.4 03 4671 0 0. 4 3.71 0 0. 0. 0. 3 9 4 4 2 1 2 . 0. 0. 7.90 0.01.544 9 2.810 .42 3 0 1. 2 2 0. 40 06 01..0 0. 42 3 6 . 6 0 3 3 -8 .2 0. . 0 3 06 1 .4 4 1 0. 32 0 0. .1 4.800.1 1.106 8 0 0.03 01 06 0. 06 0. 0. 05 . 1 .83 5 0 0 0. -2.1 2 01 03 0. 0.

15.4

- 7. 6 2

-6.2 3

35.2

-0.827

38.7

-45.0

-1 9. 2

42.2

-19.7-10.2

45.7

- 7. 6 2

15.4

-6.2 3

49.3

-0.827

52.8

-45.0

-1 9. 2

56.3

-19.7

59.8

Y

70.00 m 80.00

Y * 0.643 Z * 0.919

67.4 63.3

ystem Group 2 4 6 45

100.00

60.00 70.00

m

M 1 : 236 Sector of system Group 2 4 6 45 Z displacements of copper fins (mm) Y 4.68 0.861 ,Z Loadcase self weight 0 to step 0.117 Sector1 of system Group ,2 from 4 6Vertical 45 , Loadcase X1 *self weight , from -12.6 to -1.9787e-08 step 0.315 stress in Node M 1MPa :compression 236 X Maximum principal Y * 0.643 Y ,X Loadcase , from -12.6 to -1.9787e-08 principal compression stress in Node Z * 0.919 step 0.315 MPa * 0.861 1 self weight , from 0 to 4.68 step 0.117 MPa X Maximum

Y Principal stress distribution in copper fins of(MPa) Maximum principal tension stress from middle element

X al tension stress from middle of element

m Group 2 4 6 45

-0.9

-0.0 -0.3

4.33

Z * 0.919

90.00

100.00

100.

M 1 :

(Min=-0.897) (Max=6.57)

MCCS_217

X * 0. Y * 0. Z * 0.

ENHANCED PERFORMANCE 18 Environmental analysis

21 March

21 June

23 September

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2 990 800 625 450 225 100 Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Period

With shading

Without shading

Solar reduction

1 year

7.7 mWh

14.7 mWh

48%

MCCS_218

Period

Total area

Total radiation

1 year

5,332 m2

2,768 mWh

% Daylight factor

500

2

450

1.6

375

1.2

300

0.7

250

0.3

175

0

Daylight factor analysis on typical bay Mean daylight factor: 0.9% 100% of area between 0-2%

22 December

External velocity, m/s

Internal velocity, m/s

12

2.5

9

2

1.5 6 1 3

0

0.5

0

External and internal air velocity distribution 20 °C 13 °C 0 °C

EXT 1

2

2

1 5 15 15 16

17

18

1 2

2

15 16

1

17

18

INT

Pressure, kPa

5 15 o

20.0 C o

13.0 C Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly

2.5

o

0.0 C

2

The aim of the shading strategy is to create a homogenous internal space with a uniform level of shading that allows a large glazed area to be implemented whilst avoiding uncontrolled heat gains and glare.

1.5

1

The application of the external shading itself reaches a percentage of shading of approximately 50%, which allows the transparency of the glass to be very high to maximise daylighting.

0.5

08/09/2016 P:\0291_MCCS\03_Design\18_Holland Park School\Environmental Analysis\18_Detail_Hygrothermal analysis.flx

flixo pro 7.0.618.1

Cladding pressures and distribution of wind pressures across the long spanning fins is critical in order to assess the effects of varying wind loads along the length the fins, which span across vertical wall and roof, and some of them across the building.

0

Wind cladding pressure distribution MCCS_219

REFERENCES Authorship

MCCS_220

MCCS_221

REFERENCES Index A Analysis method and scientific foundations Current design methodology Limitations of current methodology Newtecnic’s methodology Analysis method and scientific foundations Method for structural analysis of complex facades Method for MEP/environmental analysis of complex facades The Avenues Authorship

16 16 16 16 17 18 19 190 220

Design method and project management Current design methodology Limitations of current methodology Newtecnic’s methodology ‘Agile’ management applied to facade projects Generating innovation Application of design method and project management

E Evolution Tower, Moscow B Burj Alshaya 76 Burjuman Apartments 156 Burjuman Tower 66

C City Museum of Istanbul Comparison of projects Current and emerging technologies Current design methodology Limitations of current methodology Newtecnic’s methodology Current technologies in facade assemblies Emerging technologies in facade assemblies Use of current and emerging technologies in facade design

D Dance & Music Centre Design implementation and research method Current design methodology Limitations of current methodology Newtecnic’s methodology Material selection Assembly technology Design validation

MCCS_222

14 6 10 10 10 10 11 12

13 13 13 13 14 15 15



34

F Federation Square Foreword Further reading

122 4 223

G Galaxy Soho Offices Grand Théatre de Rabat

24 178

H Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre Holland Park School Hotel

56 210 44

K KAFD Metro K. Çamlica TV Tower

166 98

12

88 21 21 21 21 22 22 22





M Meixihu IC&A Centre

110

N New Port Centre

132

S Scope of this book Stone Towers

5 200

REFERENCES Further reading Current and emerging technologies

Analysis and scientific foundations

Constructing Architecture: Materials, Processes, Structures; a Handbook by Andrea Deplazes Birkhäuser, 2013

Finite Element Analysis and Design of Metal Structures Ehab Ellobody, Ran Feng, Ben Young Elsevier, 2013

Facade Construction Manual Thomas Herzog / Roland Krippner / Werner Lang Birkhäuser, Edition Detail, 2012

Introduction to Finite and Spectral Element Methods Using MATLAB, Second Edition: Edition 2 Constantine Pozrikidis CRC Press, 2014

Modern Construction Series by Andrew Watts: Modern Construction Handbook, Modern Construction: Envelopes, Modern Construction: Facades, Modern Construction: Roofs, Springer / Ambra / Birkhäuser, 2001 - 2016

Introduction to Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics: Edition 2 Constantine Pozrikidis Oxford University Press, 2011

Design method Design Engineering: A Manual for Enhanced Creativity W. Ernst Eder, Stanislav Hosnedl CRC Press, 2008 Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Edition 3 Gerhard Pahl, W. Beitz, Jörg Feldhusen, Karl-Heinrich Grote Springer, 2007

MATLAB Codes for Finite Element Analysis: Solids and Structures A. J. M. Ferreira Springer Science & Business Media, 2008 Multiphysics Modeling with Finite Element Methods William B J Zimmerman World Scientific, 2006 Design implementation and research method

Handbook of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety in Engineering Design Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg Springer, 2009

Building Engineering and Systems Design Frederick S Merritt, James Ambrose Springer, 2012

The Future of Design Methodology Herbert Birkhofer Springer, 2011

Design Engineering Manual Mike Tooley Elsevier, 2010

Project management

Modern Construction, Lean Project Delivery and Integrated Practices Lincoln H Forbes, Syed M Ahmed Taylor and Francis, 2011

Agile Management: Leadership in an Agile Environment Ángel Medinilla Springer, 2012 Managing Agile Alan Moran Springer, 2015 Project Management for Environmental, Construction and Manufacturing Engineers Nolberto Munier Springer, 2013 Systems Engineering Agile Design Methodologies James A. Crowder, Shelli A. Friess Springer, 2013

Project Quality Management, Critical Success Factors for Buildings Sui Pheng Low, Joy Ong Springer, 2014 Standards of Practice in Construction Specifying Dennis J Hall, Nina M Giglio Wiley, 2013 Sustainability in Engineering Design and Construction J K Yates, Daniel Castro-Lacouture Taylor and Francis, 2016

MCCS_223

Author Andrew Watts London, England

Layout and Cover Design: Yasmin Watts, London, England Cover image: Newtecnic Ltd Proofreading: Andrea Lyman, Vienna, Austria Printing and binding: Holzhausen Druck GmbH, Wolkersdorf, Austria

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the German National Library The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained.

This publication is also available as an e-book (ISBN PDF 978-3-0356-0880-9; ISBN EPUB 978-3-0356-0872-4). © 2016 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel P.O. Box 44, 4009 Basel, Switzerland Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printed on acid-free paper produced from chlorine-free pulp. TCF ∞ Printed in Austria

ISBN 978-3-0356-1098-7 (Hardcover edition) ISBN 978-3-0356-1095-6 (Softcover edition) 987654321

www.birkhauser.com