rethinking complexity edemskaya-libre

8/10/2019 Rethinking Complexity Edemskaya-libre

1/67

Rethinking complexity: steel lattice structures,

past and present

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree

Master of Architecture

January 2014

ELIZAVETA D EDEMSKAYA

School of Architecture

The University of Liverpool


2/67

2

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Asterios Agkathidis for his help in selecting and refining my chosen topic

as well as his immense patience and constructive guidance throughout the year.

Special thanks to Vladimir Shukhov, grandson of the great Russian engineer Vladimir

Grigorevich Shukhov, and his daughter Sonya for providing me with information and contacts

that helped incredibly during the research process.

Thank you to Sergei Arsenev, International Relations Director at the Shukhov Tower

Foundation, who kindly presented me with a book about Vladimir Shukhov.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their support and faith in me.


3/67

3

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the advantages and shortcomings of standardized and non-standardized

design and construction techniques relating to architectural double-curvature metal frame

constructions through a discussion of some examples from the pre- and post-computational eras.

The study of the past focuses on Vladimir Shukhovs construction systems. In late 19th

century

this Russian engineer invented and successfully applied the tessellation method to double-curved

surfaces using simple standardized elements. The study of the present digital approach revolves

around leading architects using computational tools, including Norman Foster and Frank Gehry,

who have materialized complex geometries of irregular units by taking advantage of

computational tools.

The two approaches are compared based on the following criteria: design process, structural

construction principles, fabrication process, assembly and construction cost. In the conclusion,

some suggestions are put forward about how principles of the past may inform current

computational design procedures.


4/67

4

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 5

2. Literature review 8

3. Introduction of metal constructions 11

3.1. Iron as a new construction material

3.2. Prefabrication and optimization

4. Vladimir Shukhov 15

4.1. The Russian school of engineering

4.2. The Russian Edison

4.3. Lattice structures and the first hyperboloid

4.4. Vladimir Shukhov and Constructivists

5. Developing grid-shell structures 25

6. Desig i the laguage of the ahie 28

7. Discussion 32

7.1. 30St Mary Axe Tower and Shabolovskaya Tower

7.2. The Great Court of the British Museum and Viksa Works

8. Conclusion 49

8.1. Overview of research findings on Shukhov and others

8.2. Review of the discussion chapter

.. I faor of hukhos arhitectural heritage

Appendix 1. 56

Appendix 2 54

Bibliography 55

List of images 62


5/67

5

INTRODUCTION

Professio gieer is ugrateful, eause for uderstadig its eauty you ust hae koledge

Vladimir Shukhov

Technology, materials and construction are three interdependent components that change

architecture. Contemporary architecture started with the Industrial Revolution, which brought

new technologies and new construction materials: iron and steel. Due to the high load-capacity

and the elastic qualities of these new materials, architectural construction had significantly

changed. The height of buildings started to increase, and so did their span. Architects and

engineers aimed to optimize buildings utilizing the advantageous properties of the new materials,

and to apply new technologies to improve the construction process. Prefabrication and

standardization methods emerged; they are widely applied today. Off-site manufacturing in the

controlled environment of a factory or workshop enables better fabrication element quality

control, whereas element unification simplifies the production process and reduces the building

cost. Then, the advent of computational technologies in the 20th

century opened a new chapter in

architecture.

In recent decades, computation has become an impetus for architectural development.1

This was most conspicuously the case in the late 1990s with the rise of Blob Architecture, which

optimized the use of computer-aided design (CAD) in the creation of new geometries.

Computation redefined the practice of architecture. Instead of working on compositions,

designers construct a parametric computational system, where the form can be generated simply

by varying parameter values. On one hand, computational technologies make it possible to

design a building of any level of geometric complexity. If you find a nice curve of surface

somewhere with interesting properties you can incorporate it in your design. 2 In addition,

simulating environment conditions optimizes any design proposal. On the other hand,

computational technologies create a gap between architects and the final product, because today

many architects do not have sufficient knowledge of algorithmic concepts.3 Despite of the

attention digital design methods have received and their wide implementation, computation has

1ele Castle, ditorial, .

2

Brady and Peters, Inside Smartgeometry: Expanding the Architectural Possibilities of ComputationalDesign, 139.3Brad et al, The uildig of algorithi, .


6/67

6

not yet been integrated as an intuitive and natural way to design. Most practices come up with a

building shape and a concept; then invite computational designers to optimize the project.

Computational designers generate and explore architectural concepts by writing and modifying

algorithms, but how efficient is this approach?

Aiming to rethink the advantages and disadvantages of the computational design

approach, I compare this contemporary method with the most efficient approach of the pre-

computational era. To narrow down my research area, the dissertation is focused on metal grid

structures. They were introduced to the construction field in late 19th

century, but have been

extensively used only since late 20th

century. Grid-shell structures are especially popular in

computational design. Due to their mathematical nature grid-shell structures are easily

transported to computer software, where they can be managed as meshes that can form a

structure of any level of complexity.

In this paper I investigate two types of grid structures: grid-shell towers and grid-shell

roofs. As an example of the pre-computational era, I discuss the constructions of the Russian

engineer Vladimir Shukhov, who invented and extensively applied this construction system in

his practice. Shukhovs unique design method has been called the earliest example of the

parametric approach.4To illustrate my discussion of the computational era, I analyze some

buildings created by Foster & Partners. Foster & Partners were one of the first to have applied

computational design methods in practice; they also established the Special Modeling Group,

whose guiding principle from the outset was to develop parametric geometry models for their

various projects.

The analysis in this paper is based on four core questions:

Does the design process and form definition differ in the pre- and post-computational

approaches?

What is the difference between manufacturing and assembling processes?

What is the difference in the design logic between the two approaches?

What benefits could be achieved by combining the design logic of the past masters with

the new technologies of parametric design?

4Matthias Bekh et al., Disussio,1147.


7/67

7

In the process of my research I extensively studied the background of the two approaches. Since

Shukhov belongs to the time of 19th

century industrialization, it was important to identify the

reasons for this process and its features, particularly in Russia. I explored relevant documents,

drawings and work pads stored in various archives in Russia. To obtain additional information

about the prominent engineer, I contacted Shukhovs heritor and the Shukhov Tower

Foundation, and attended a conference dedicated to Shukhovs 160th

birthday anniversary. I also

consulted numerous literary recourses concerning Shukhovs biographical details and articles

about the uniqueness of his structures. Finally, I visited some of Shukhovs constructions.

In order to familiarize myself with computational design processes, I comprehensively

researched material on the history of computational technology development and the features of

computational geometry and 3D modelling. Moreover, to understand the computational approachon practical terms, I studied some architectural parametric 3D modelling programs.


8/67

8

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In the process of writing this paper, I analysed a large amount of information connected

to the origin and development of metal grid structures. The Literature Review covers the main

sources of information I consulted regarding the origin, design and development of metal gridconstructions.

The history of lattice structures started in mid- to late-19th

century, when iron and steel

were introduced to the building industry as construction materials. The reasons for and

circumstances crucial to this turning point in architecture are explored in detail in Lee Wyatts

book Industrial Revolution (2008). Further development of metal construction theory and

construction methods is presented in French Iron Architecture (1984) by Frances H. Steiner.

The Eiffel Tower, the most famous monument of new technologies of that time, is thoroughly

described in Henri Loyrettes book Gustave Eiffel (1986). In addition, engineers M.M.

Sundaram and G.K. Ananthasuresh offer some interesting insights in the article Gustave Eiffel

and his optimal structures (2009), published in the Resonance journal, where they analyse

how Eiffel & Co cleverly optimized the tower through a combination of parameters and shape

hierarchy.5

Sourcing the literature about the origins of the metal lattice structure and its inventor

Vladimir Shukhov was challenging. Shukhovs active creative period coincided with a difficult

historical period in Russia: the end of the Russian Empire, the Revolution and the Civil War.

During that time a significant amount of Russian cultural heritage was lost or destroyed. Luckily,

Shukhovs family managed to save some of his photographs, drawings, sketchpads and other

working materials. Nowadays, most of them are stored in different national archives.

Alongside Shukhovs drawings and sketchpads, the most informative document was a typescript

produced by Shukhovs former employee Grigory Kovelman. Kovelman put together an

extensive overview of Shukhovs inventions and projects both as a biographer and a specialist

who had worked with Shukhov and had insider knowledge of the engineers design processes.

Elena Shukhova, the granddaughter of the genius engineer, extensively describes biographical

details in the book Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov. The First Engineer in Russia (2003). The

book Art of Construction (1989), edited by Murrat Guppoev, Ralner Graefe and Ottmar Pertchi,

is a valuable collection of articles about Shukhov and his various inventions written by different

specialists. It includes illustrations and information about Shukhovs structures and some

5udara ad Aathasuresh, Gustae iffel ad is Optial trutures, 849-850.


9/67

9

examples of his calculations. Shukhovs book Rafters (1897) has been a useful find because in it

he discusses mathematical investigations that have led him to the spatial lattice structure and

pronounced it the only way for further roof structure optimization.6In 2010 the journal Detail

published an analysis of Shukhovs constructions, calling his approach to design an early

example of parametric design.7

Recursion and a new stage of lattice structure development are presented in the book

Finding Forms (2001), where Frei Otto, one of the most famous engineers working with such

structures, explains his way of modelling and calculating grid surfaces. Ottos writings are

particularly interesting because he started working with lattice structures at the dawn of the era

of computational engineering and was one of the first to have collaborated with computational

designers in realizing complex lattice structure projects.

8

Since computational technologies are so prominent in contemporary design, there have

been numerous articles and books dedicated to different aspects of digital architecture. Animate

Form (1999) by Greg Lynn is one of the first comprehensive books on digital architecture; it

remains fundamental in its discussions of the computational approach. Lynn introduces a new

paradigm of thinking about architectural forms based on computational possibilities, and a new

vocabulary of blobs, bodies, hypersurfaces, and polysurfaces. Lynn establishes three base

properties of digital architecture: topology, time and parameters.9Branko Kolareviks book

Architecture in the Digital Age (2003) provides useful background knowledge on the process of

developing the computer-aided design approach. This book emerged out of the symposium on

designing and manufacturing architecture in the digital age10

held at the University of

Pennsylvania in March 2002. It tells the story of the development of the parametric approach

from the very beginning. In addition, a series of Architectural Design journals have been most

helpful for exploring the current situation in the field of digital architecture. In the issue

Computation Works. The building of algorithm thought(02/2013), a problem is raised: even

though architecture is shifting from drawing to algorithms, architects still do not have sufficient

understanding of algorithm concepts. At the same time, the role of computational designers is

6 Shukhov, Rafters, 105.

7

Matthias Bekh et al., Disussio,1147.8Otto and Rasch. Finding Forms: Towards an Architecture of the Minimal, p 76.9Lynn,Animate form, 9.

10Kolarevic,Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing, V.


10/67

10

significantly increasing; they do not just create 3D models, but distil the underlying logic of

architecture and create new environments.11

Inside Smartgeometry: Expanding the Architectural Possibilities of Computational Design

(2013), edited by Brady and Terri Peters, is a collection of articles dedicated to new geometry. In

the article Geometry: How smart do you have to be? Chris Williams, a structural engineer

known for his innovative work on the Great Court of the British Museum, speculates about the

irrelevance of particular mathematical knowledge for architects who want to model complicated

forms using computational programs: You dont need to be Bradley Wiggins to ride to the

shops.12 The vocabulary of new geometric objects and working principles in the field of

computational design is presented in Architectural Geometry (2007), written by Helmut

Pottmann, Andreas Asperl, Michael Hofer and Axel Kilian. In this book, the authors describe theelements of new computational geometry applied in the contemporary practice of modelling

grid-shell structures, including freeform surface, mesh and the logic of its formation.

Written sources on the Great Court of the British Museum and 30St Mary Axe tower,

designed by Foster & Partners for their client Swiss Re, are plentiful due to the cultural value

and the public discussion around these structures. The Great Court and The British Museum

(2000), published by the British Museum Press, documents the process of design, development

and construction of the Great Court. More construction details are presented in articles The

Brilliant Shell Game at the British Museum in Architectural Record (2001) and Court in the

Act in the Architects Journal (1999).

The process of genesis, development and construction of the tower at 30St Mary Axe in London

is described in the book 30St Mary Axe: A Tower of London (2006) by architecture critic and

journalist Kenneth Powell. The articles Swiss Res building, London (2006), published in the

electronic journal , and London will never look the same again (2002) in the Building

Magazine also cover 30St Mary Axe tower. Even though many journal articles are dedicated to

these prominent buildings, usually they do not include detailed construction and design

information. Therefore, I have collated comprehensive information about digital design

principles by cross-referencing numerous sources.

11Brad et al, The uildig of algorithi, .

12Brady and Peters, Inside Smartgeometry: Expanding the Architectural Possibilities of Computational

Design, 139.


11/67

11

3. INTRODUCTION OF METAL CONSTRUCTIONS

3.1. Iron as a new construction material

Between mid-18th

and early 20th

century, first Great Britain, then Western Europe, Russia

and several other parts of the world experienced great technical and social transformations that

were later called the Industrial Revolution. Numerous factors led to this significant point in

world history; however, in his book The Industrial Revolution, Lee Wyatt considers three main

reasons.13

The first reason pertains to social change: urbanization and the growth of population.

The second reason dates back to the Scientific Revolution of the 16th

and 17th

century, a period

marked by a spirit of invention, when, unlike in medieval practice, science and technology were

no longer seen as separate. In turn, the manufacturing field gained prominence as merchants and

manufacturers became more invested with practical applications, solutions to specific problems

and resulting financial gain. The third factor that triggered the Industrial Revolution was the

burgeoning economic development, whereby entrepreneurs and inventors realized that dated

methods and old technology failed to meet the demands of the new environment.14

These three

reasons primarily accounted for the changes that had occurred between the end of the 18th

and

the beginning of the 20th

century.

The Industrial Revolution had a significant effect on architecture. The rapid growth of

cities and increasing populations created a strong demand for new buildings that had to be biggerand included various new functions. In addition, extensive construction of utilitarian buildings,

such as factories, brought a new value to architecture, whereby a building was no longer

perceived as a unique piece of art. In the century of the fast-growing commercial sphere, the

most important qualities of a building were its economic value, final cost and construction time.

In light of such requirements, architects were looking for a new approach. They found one in

developing structural systems using iron and later steel, new materials that were already being

utilized by scientists and industrialists.

Theophile Gautier wrote La Presse in 1850, We have searched for a long time

without success to create an original architecture which is neither Greek nor

Gothic, nor the mixture of the two, as was that of the Renaissance. We will

succeed not in creating impossible forms on paper, but in being served by the new

means which modern industry gives.15

13Wyatt, The Industrial Revolution, 11.

14ibid, 23.

15Steiner, French iron architecture, 1


12/67

12

The use of iron made it possible to increase distances between supports at an affordable price,

and to have thinner floor constructions, which meant that while keeping the same cornice height,

the building could have more levels.

The first well-known precedent of such an approach, which unfortunately was destroyed

soon after its construction, was Crystal Palace designed by Sir Joseph Paxton in Hyde Park in

1851, when Great Britain was the leader in new technologies.16

The design of the building, based

on Paxtons experience of making greenhouses, was extremely simple and repeated a

conventional construction form. The structure was made from ferro-vitreous iron, and its

dimensions were based on the largest sheet of glass that could be manufactured at the time.

Figure 1. The Chrystal Palace Figure 2. Sketch

A further technological jump occurred in France in the second half of the 19th

century. French

engineers and mathematicians developed the principles of iron construction and explored theory

and creation methods, disengaging from empiricism and paving a path for progress.17

3.2. Prefabrication and optimization

The most prominent construction of that period in France was a tower built by Gustave

Eiffel & Co in 1889. Designed as the entrance arch for the Worlds Fair, it represented a new

approach to engineering and architecture.

Before building the 300-meter tower, as it was called during its construction, Eiffel & Co had

already been distinguished in the field of bridge construction. Through these utilitarian structures

16Wyatt, The Industrial Revolution, xii.

17Steiner, French iron architecture, 7.


13/67

13

they explored the methods of prefabrication and standardization, optimizing project development

and construction processes. Prefabrication entails producing building elements in the controlled

environment of a factory or a workshop, which improves the final quality of the construction,

whereas standardization simplifies production and assembling. The Eiffel Tower is a structure

made with four curved weight-bearing edges that create irregular arcs and trusses in the

numerous panels that vary gradually from bottom to top. Its elements are not standardized;

however, each construction block has an internal structure that repeats the pattern of the bigger

one18

(Figure 5). This is similar to natural fractal systems.

In total, the tower consists of 18,038 individual pieces made from wrought iron. Each one was

designed separately, accounting for the inclination of the columns and the braces, and all bolt

holes were marked and made to precision. Then individual pieces were bolted together into 5-foot segments at Eiffel's fabrication shop and transported to the site. There, the bolts were

removed and the segments permanently riveted together, using a total of 2,500,000 rivets.

Another feature making the Eiffel Tower especially interesting is the multi-level optimization

approach. The wide bottom part and the light tapering upper part of the structure reduce the wind

load, a major problem for high-raised buildings. The weight of the Eiffel Tower was remarkably

diminished by using bone-like connective parts in its construction elements, where all flesh

[had] been left off.19In addition, the towers beams and columns have different cross-sections.

Some of them employ rectangular cross-sections; some have I-sections, while the rest rely on

other cross-sectional shapes. Only some elements have rectangular cross-sections for rotating

shafts, because each section was carefully chosen for certain loads: stretching/contracting,

bending, and twisting.20

Utilizing the properties of a new material, the Eiffel & Co engineers had designed a

building combining optimality and elegance. The tower became a monument to IR achievement

that represented the capability of new technologies. Its 300-meter height had remained

unprecedented until the 1930s. However, the structure of the Eiffel Tower was too complicated.

Thousands of different elements that had to be drawn and fabricated in a certain way made the

approach inappropriate for mass-production. This issue stayed unsolved until 1897, when

Russian engineer Vladimir Shukhov demonstrated his method of designing metal structures.

18aasa, Aleadre Gustae iffel: A gieer ietist , .

19Giedion,Building in France, building in iron, building in ferroconcrete, 143.

20udara ad Aathasuresh, Gustae iffel ad is Optial trutures, 850.


14/67

14

Figure 3. Eiffel Tower Figure 4. First drawing of the Eiffel Tower

Figure 5. Fractal structure of the tower Figure 6. Construction unit


15/67

15

4. VLADIMIR SHUKHOV

4.1. The Russian school of engineering

Having started in Great Britain, the process of industrialization soon came to the Russian

Empire. However, although the exchange of technological achievements, the inflow of foreign

investment and the influx of foreign specialists had a strong impact on the Russian industry, a

widespread transformation of technology did not take place until the 1880s.21

The reason for that

lay in Russias vast territory. Compared to the countries in Western Europe, the process of

industrialization unfolded in a different order in Russia. In contrast to Europe, where the

transition from the workhouse started with the manufacturing industry, eventually pervading the

transport infrastructure and communication facilities, in Russia industrialization started within

the railway infrastructure; thus, in Russia, the development of the heavy industry preceded the

progress of the light industry.22

Because of its numerous wide rivers, Russias railway infrastructure demanded many long-span

metal bridges. In response to such a course of industrial development, a strong school of

engineering had soon formed in Russia.23

As in Europe, in Russia engineers were the people

behind a new type of constructions and architecture in the new industrial age. There was a

strange situation in the architectural field at the edge of the 19th and 20thcenturies: architects

were trying to find a modern style desperately, but without any success, while th e engineers

were already designing pieces of art.24

21

Wyatt, The Industrial Revolution, 146.22Khan-Magomedov, Constructivism conception of form finding, 29.23

Khan-Magomedov, Constructivism conception of form finding, 29-30.24

Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia, 282.

Figure 7. Bridge above Enisei river,

constructred designed by Shukhov

Figure 8. Brodge above Oka River


16/67

16

4.2 The Russian Edison

One of the most interesting engineers of the late 19th

and early 20th

century in Russia was

Vladimir Shukhov. Contemporaries used to call him the Russian Edison due to his extensive

inventions in numerous science and engineering subfields, including the oil industry,

construction, thermal technology and ship-building. However, unlike Thomas Edisons,

Shukhovs approach was strictly based on analytical investigation.

Like Eiffel, Shukhov realized the commercial nature of the construction industry and the power

of optimization as aiding competitive advantage in the growing building industry. His design

method was based on two aspects, which, in Shukhovs opinion, fundamentally affected the total

cost of a construction and its quality: material consumption and labor expenditure.

Shukhov worked as a chief engineer in the Bari office, which specialized in industrial metal

constructions. For Shukhov, design processes had always been associated with extensive

analysis and research. Partly, this was due to the underdeveloped mechanics theory in late 19th

century Russia, yet more importantly, it was because of Shukhovs interest in the properties of

materials. He perceived a construction as one organism consisting of hidden interconnections.25

During the analysis stage, he would try to reveal a system of such correlations and select an

appropriate construction scheme, one pertinent to all aspects of a particular task and simple

enough to be built with primitive technologies available at that time. The uniqueness of

Shukhovs engineering talent was in his viewing any engineering issue both as a fundamental

problem and as a specific task.26 Shukhov used to encourage his fellow workers to think

symphonically,27

that is, multilaterally in a variety of ways. He never sought standard solutions

in any of his projects.

A serious educated engineer should not blindly follow existing precedents; such

repetition can sometimes lead to building a safe construction, but always causes

inefficient material expenses, which is unreasonable and usually harmful for a

deal.28

25Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia, 34.

26

Khan-Magomedov, Vladimir Shukhov, 21.27AA, ./Op./, A. N. Galaki, Vladiir Grigoreih hukho the prominent Russian

inventor, engineer 1853-1939. My brief memories,27.28

Shukhov and Hudyakov. Book of tasks on the stretching and compression theory, V.


17/67

17

Shukhovs mathematical approach was based on geometry as an analytical tool. This method

was taught to him by Nikolai Zhukovsky, lecturer of analytical mathematics at the Technical

School and pioneer of Russian aviation, who encouraged his students to think in geometric

forms: A geometer will always be the artist who creates the final design of a building!29

Shukhovs colleagues praised his ability to visualize and clearly explain even the most complex

spatial geometric interactions.30

He tried to ground his work in theoretical investigations and

never conducted research and calculations for their own sake. One cannot ask us, livin g people,

to pay special attention to figurative application of mathematical calculations.31In other words,

Shukhovs scholarly endeavors were practical and focused on finding the most effective

solutions for his engineering tasks. In addition to mathematical calculations, Shukhov relied on

physical models. He believed that even the smallest paper model was able to reveal hidden

forces that could be missed during the analysis stage.

32

Another important part of Shukhovs approach was preparing an elaborate plan for the

construction and assembling processes. He used rolled metal with varied section profiles and

tried to keep clear of any details and elements that could complicate the structure. In addition to

avoiding different-type elements in a construction, Shukhov aimed to standardize their size

within the structure. In an attempt to optimize the on-site building process and reduce faults,

Shukhov limited the number of working drawings and tried to combine all the necessary

information on a few sheets, developing detailed assembly process instructions for each specific

task. Some of them will be discussed in the following chapters. Shukhovs approach successfully

optimised structures as well as each step of the construction process.

29Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia, 22.

30

Konfederatov, Vladimir Grigirevich Shukhov, 13.31Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia, 168 .32

AA, ./Op./, G. N. oela, The great ussia egieer Vladiir Grigoreih hukho

(1853-1939), 65.


18/67

18

Figure 9.

Towers

calculations

(published

for the first

time)

Figure 10.Lattice

hyperboloi

d water

tower from

Nijnii

Novgorod

exhibition

Figure 11.

Lattice

vaulted

structure

Figure

12, 13.Suspensi

on lattice

structure

, Oval

pavilion

and

circule

pavilion


19/67

19

4.3 Lattice structures and the first hyperboloid

One of the most significant of Shukhovs inventions in the field of architecture was the

thin metal lattice shell structure. Based on Skukhovs principles, this structure caused a

revolution in construction. The main idea of Skukhovs proposal was to use spatial framingsmade with single-type elements instead of conventional coverings with multiple-plane

frameworks. Diagonally intersecting straight elements were fixed with bolts or rivets and formed

a grid with diamond-shaped cells. The advantages of a grid-shell covering compared to a regular

covering structure included: a significant reduction in weight; the uniaxial stress in working

elements (tension or compression); high load-bearing ability of a grid-shell surface, also in case

of concentrated strains; a remarkable simplification of production and assembly due to the use of

identical straight constructive elements.33

The structure was developed after detailed investigations searching for the most rational type of

rafters that weighed and cost the least and could be quickly assembled. Shukhov suggested a

proportion, which at first sight seemed senseless:

=e= ,

where length of panels, e minimal distance between frames, and distance between

two purlins, dependent on the actual situation34

According to the formula, the minimal covering weight could be achieved only if the

construction had no purlins, and the distance between trusses was equal to the distance between

the missing purlins. The answer to this riddle was the spatial lattice structure, where trusses and

purlins were the same, and the distances between trusses and purlins were equal. In 1895

Shukhov got a patent for the invention (see Appendix I).

The new structures were first presented to the general public at the All-Russian Industrial Art

Exhibition in Nizhniy Novgorod in 1896, where Shukhov designed a number of objects using

three types of lattice structures: suspension, vaulted and rigid spatial shell.

Suspension lattice structureswere based on tension, the most advantageous type of stress for

metal constructions. These structures were designed based on Shukhovs elaborate investigations

of material properties. The grid surface comprised of overlapping tensile elements: rolled metal

33Graefe et al., Shukhov V.G. (1853-1939): Art of construction, 28.

34Shukhov, Rafters, 104.


20/67

20

plane or angle-section rods riveted to each other. They were called roofs without trusses.35

The

clear, extremely simple suspension structure system and the easy-to-perform node conjunction

made on-site construction fast and straightforward.36

Vaulted grid-shell constructionsdid not attract much public attention; however, they brought

commercial success to the Bari office.37

The vaults were formed with thin metal arches turned

from the frontal position at a particular angle. Thus, they worked as one continuous resilient

truss. 68 was considered the most optimal angle of intersection. One professor, Shukhovs

contemporary, describing his vaulted structures, proposed the angle of 90 instead of 68, which

would have meant a 31% increase in the structures weight.38

Each arch was made with rigid metal strips of equal length, or with angle pieces set edgewise;each piece was equally bent during the assembling process. The most interesting example of a

vaulted lattice shell was the covering for the Viksa Works built in 18971898. It was the first

time in the worlds building practice when double-curved spatial vaults were created with single-

type rod elements.39

Shukhovs lattice-suspended and vaulted structures represented a carrying surface, which could

be shaped in any form. It was made of intercrossing rods and combined the function of trusses

(the main floor structural system) and purlins. The density of the grid made it possible to put it

on the shell without additional structures. Due to the rational distribution of material along the

shape, the grids were 2 to 3 times lighter than roofs with conventional frames.40

The difference

was proportionate to the span of the construction.

The final and most unusual of the grid-shell structures presented at the All-Russian

exhibition was the 32-meter-tall lattice hyperboloid watertower.

35Kovelman, Works of Honorary Academician engineer Vladimir Grogorevich Shukhov, 94.

36AA, ./Op./, G. N. oela, The great ussia egieer Vladiir Grigoreih hukho

(1853-1939), 44.37

Graefe et al., Shukhov V.G. (1853-1939): Art of construction, 44.38

Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia, 118.39Khan-Magomedov, Vladimir Shukhov, 43-45.40


(1853-1939), 54.


21/67

21

Everything amazed in that first Shukhov tower everything in it was some

structural and geometric puzzle: straight rods and the external silhouette double

curvature, the openwork lightness below and the solid heaviness above.41

It was a unique structure at that time, which had an unprecedented shape and construction

properties. According to Elizabeth Cooper, the idea of such a new structure came directly from

imaginary geometry, or hyperboloid geometry, which was invented by the Russian

mathematician Lobachevski in 1829.42

Shukhovs biographer Grigory Kovelman writes that

Shukhov told him he had been thinking about the properties of hyperboloid structures for a long

time, and that he had studied hyperboloid forms at the Technical School. Yet apparently the

moment of truth occurred when he saw an upside-down wicker paper basket with a ficus on top

at the office; Shukhov claimed that was when he clearly understood the hyperboloid structurewith its curved surface generated by straight rods.

43

As well as grid-shell coverings, the structure of the lattice tower was a spatial system, where the

load was equally spread along the surface. It was formed with angle rods and horizontal hoops

embracing the structure. The dense intersections between elements and wide cross-sections

granted the tower stability. Aiming to optimize the design process, soon after building the tower,

Shukhov presented the standardized elements of the tower structure in a table format. (Appendix

2) With the aid of the table, it became possible to design a new water tower, in keeping with a

clients requirements, in 25 minutes.44

Despite the standardized approach, each tower had an

individual character because the method was based not as much on unification as on

optimization.

After the exhibition Shukhov continued developing hyperboloid towers, trying to increase their

height. The tallest hyperboloid structure made by Shukhov was the ComIntern Radio Tower on

Shabolovskaya Street in Moscow, a construction built to celebrate the international collaboration

of Communist parties. It consists of several blocks and is 150 m tall.

The exhibition received international recognition, as testified by gold medals at the 1900 Paris

World Fair. In March 1897 the influential British magazine The Engineer wrote that the

41Khan-Magomedov, Vladimir Shukhov, 72.

42Cooper, Arkhitektura I iosti: the origis of oiet Aat-Garde Rationalist architecture in the

Russian mysticalphilosophial ad atheatial itelletual traditio, .43

AA, ./Op./, G. N. oela, The great ussian engineer Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov(1853-1939), 3-4.44


(1853-1939), 55.


22/67

22

exhibition brought to the annals of achievements some radical engineering inventions and that

Russian engineers quickly [claimed] their place among the best engineers of Europe.45

Shukhovs structures materialize the 19th

century engineering efforts to create

original metal buildings, whilst simultaneously paving the way for 20th

century

engineering. These structures express a significant progress, as the core lattice of

the then-traditional spatial trusses leaning on basic auxiliary elements is replaced

with a net of equal structural elements.

Christian Schadlich46

4.4 Vladimir Shukhov and Constructivists

Khan-Magomedov, an expert in Russian avant-garde, writes that no Constructivist was a

follower of Shukhov. This was because the information exchange between the fields of

engineering and architecture in the early 20th

century was limited: the new generation of Soviet

radicals felt suspicious of anything coming from the Tsars Empire and declined to see the

advantages of even the most promising construction solutions.

Nevertheless, the ComIntern Radio Tower was accepted as a prominent achievement of the

young Soviet Republic. Indeed, Shukhov-style forms can be seen in the projects by some of the

most important Russian avant-garde architects.

Figure 14. Tatlin Figure 15. Melnikov Figure 16. Leonidov

One example is the world-famous Tatlin Tower, the Monument to the Third International built in

1920. Another example is Aleksandr Melnikovs 1929 competition entry proposal for the

45The Engineering,The Niji-Nogorod hiitio,293.



23/67

23

Christopher Columbus Memorial in Santo. Melnikov worked with Shukhov in 1927, when

Shukhov advised Melnikov on roofing solutions for the Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage.

However, the impact of Shukhovs ideas is most apparent in the projects of Ivan Leonidov, a

prominent Russian architect. In his proposal for Narkomtiazhprom (The Heavy Industry

Commission) Leonidov presented the first inhabited hyperboloid tower. During his life Leonidov

designed a series of modern architectural forms called the Sun city, a city of the future, where

he also used Shukhovs suspension structures and hyperboloid towers.

Figure 17. Sun city by Leonidov

Unfortunately, Leonidov did not get the chance to put his ideas into practice. His most active

creative period occurred when Constructivism was already in decline; eventually Stalin's

totalitarian Neo-Renaissance, modernism and standardized buildings completely replaced

Constructivism. Originally built as a revolutionary symbol of the new world and technological

achievement, Shukhovs Radio Tower became a symbol of Soviet television, and the innovation

it embodied vanished from peoples memory. In 1961, Kovelman, a former employee of

Shukhov, wrote, There are specialists who do not believe that it is possible to build a double


24/67

24

curvature covering with straight identical rods. Shukhovs ideas were shelved and became part

of the historical heritage of Russian architecture.

5. DEVELOPING GRID-SHELL STRUCTURES

Further development of lattice structures and their wide implementation in architecture

started after the 1950s. The most famous example is a structure called the Biosphere that

Buckminster Fuller presented at the Montreal Expo in 1967. The construction was made with

tubular steel elements, was 60 m tall and had a diameter of 75 m. However, Fuller was not the

original inventor of this structure; he simply managed to put it to use on a greater scale than his

architectural predecessors, making the US pavilion stand out at the Expo.

Fuller valued grid-shell structures for their lightness. He believed that the weight of a building

reflected the extent of industrialization development, as well as of mankind.47

Invested with the

problem of material consumption, Fuller employed geometry as a framework for designing large

structures with minimal materials. Long before the idea became commonplace, Fuller dreamed

of a sustainable planet, and speculated about putting Manhattan under a giant dome, two miles in

diameter, to protect it from pollution.48

A geodesic dome combines the advantages of a sphere and a tetrahedron. Due to its spherical

initial form, it encloses the most space within the least surface, whereas its tetrahedron qualities

ensure high resistance against

external pressure. A geodesic

structure is based on the

shortest line between two

points on a mathematically

defined surface.49

As they

intersect, these lines form a

grid of interlocking polygons,

also known as chords, which

make up the structures

surface.

In geodesic spheres, a

47Otto,Frei Otto : complete works ; lightweight construction, natural design, 11.

48Sudjic, Norman Foster: A life in architecture,145.

49Silver, Introduction to architectural technology, 62.

Figure 18. The Montreal Biosphre


25/67

25

formula for calculating the chord factor is:

Any load in a geodesic construction is distributed evenly across its surface along the ribs.

Because a dome is a symmetric structure, it is constructed using standardized prefabricated

elements. This ensures an efficient construction process.

The Biosphere was not the only lightweight grid structure at the Montreal Expo as Frei

Otto presented his grid construction, the German pavilion. In contrast to Fuller, who focused on

the potential of compressed lattice structures, Otto was interested in the various types of grid

surface, especially in tensile structures. Ottos unique form-finding method is presented in hisbook Finding Form, written in collaboration with Brodo Rasch. The method was based on the

idea of a shape created naturally, by gravitation forces, its own weight, air pressure and so on. In

designing his grid-shell structures, Otto relied on chain models. A hanging chain mesh takes the

most optimal shape itself, according to the scope of external forces and internal interrelations.

Otto based his tensile membrane structures on models made using soap lye, a membrane-forming

liquid. The experiment would occur in a soap-film machine that served as a climatic chamber

creating special conditions that would preserve fragile structures for longer, so that Otto could

measure and photograph them. Soap lye models contracted to the smallest surface possible;

appropriately enlarged, they provided a precise shape for tent construction.50

Otto also came up

with a rope net construction, a variation of the tensile tent structure. Following extensive

experiments, Otto reinforced the tent structure with ropes, that way covering considerably larger

spans. Such a structure was presented at the Montreal Expo in 1967.

The height of the final structure was between 14 m to 36 m with an overall area of 8,000 sqm.

The net was made up of steel ropes 12 mm thick with a mesh width of 50 cm, which was

prefabricated in 15 m wide strips in Konstanz and shipped to Montreal in rolls. In

interconnection sites, ropes were fixed with rope nodes as clamps; reusing ropes was practical.

The pavilion was designed and built in 13 months. The rope net construction had a similar

structure to Shukhovs pavilions presented at the Nizhnii Novgorod Exhibition in 1897. Both

Shukhov and Otto were concerned with the issue of material consumption, and tried to simplify

manufacture and installation processes. Otto does not compare his and Shukhovs structures in

50Otto and Rasch, Finding Forms: Towards an Architecture of the Minimal, 58-59.


26/67

26

his books; however, there are some pictures and references to the Russian engineer. Elena

Shukhova mentions that Otto visited Moscow in mid-1960s. He studied Shukhovs constructions

and was impressed with the vault lattice roof of the Gum passage that, as he said, eclipsed the

famous Chrystal Palace in London.51

Nonetheless, Otto and Shukhov's approach to design was

significantly different. Shukhov primarily relied on analytical investigation and calculations,

using models merely to prove ideas, whereas for Otto, models were fundamental for finding

forms and their parameters. For instance, the angle between metal strips in Shukhovs oval

pavilion was 34, because he calculated this angle would make the metal strips work most

effectively and minimize material consumption.52

In Ottos projects, the net grid had a squared

shape, reminiscent of his chain models. Otto was an advocate of architecture of self-formation

and self-optimization processing.53

His empirical design method made it possible to generate a

great amount of information in his models, but translating data into real-life objects was achallenge. Therefore, since 1970, whilst not rejecting the striking physical models, all

constructions built by Otto had been computer-generated.54

An example is the Mannheim

Multhalle, a multifunctional building designed for the National Plant Fair in Germany in 1975.

Its highly complicated shape is a 15.5 meter tall compressed grid-shell structure with a total area

of 3,600 sqm. Otto was invited to design the shell as a specialist in membrane structures. Of all

lightweight constructions, the lattice shell structure was considered the most appropriate because

it offered the required shape and complied with local building regulations. Otto made a chain

model of the structure and revealed the desired shape for the shell. Due to the structures highly

irregular form, the design process became overly complicated, so Over Arup & Partners took

over the task, finalizing and optimizing the shell with the aid of computational design

programmes.55

Since mid-20th

century, grid structures have been increasingly attracting attention from engineers

and architects. These lightweight structures can be prefabricated, are easy to transport to the

construction site due to the relatively small size of the elements, and are easy to assemble. Since

engineers and architects have started using computer technologies in the designing stage, the

search of new architectural forms has become ever so active. Conventional constructions are

rigid, which means that usually they dictate the shape of the building, whereas grid structures

allow forming more complex shapes. Rooted in geometry, grid structures are easily transferred

51Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia,105.

52

Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia,114.53Otto and Rasch. Finding Forms: Towards an Architecture of the Minimal, 14.54

Otto and Rasch. Finding Forms: Towards an Architecture of the Minimal, 76.55

Paoli, Past ad uture of Grid hell trutures. Diploa , MIT, -22.


27/67

27

to the virtual space as mesh models that the designer can control by varying certain parameters.

So what to do in order to realize a beautiful design, which includes a nonstandard shape? One

answer is to use meshes.56Thus, nowadays grid structures are developed using computational

programmes.

6. DESIGN IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE MACHINE

During the Cold War, in the period between 1959 and 1967, the Massachusetts Institute

of Technology (MIT) hosted the pioneering Computer-Aided Design Project funded by the US

Air Force. Engineers, researchers and students were brought together to re-imagine design in

the language of the machine.57

It was a time when specialists were starting to realise the

potential of computers and tried to formulate a new approach to the design process.

One should think of computer-aided design as producing not only graphical

outputs but also material lists; labour estimates; floor area computations;

heating, lighting, and ventilation simulations (to demonstrate the adequacy of

the design); as well as many other auxiliary outputs.58

Architects started to think about a building not as hard compositional object, but as a set of

principles that are digitally encoded like a sequence of parametric equations, which, by varying

the parameter values, can generate specific design instances.59

Designers do not just model an

external form. Rather, first and foremost, they aim to articulate an internal generative logic,

which, often in an automated fashion, then generates a range of possibilities for further

development. Because of such data-driven nature, the new approach was called parametric

design.

In the early 1990s, two projects heralded the new possibilities that digital technologies

had brought to architecture: Barcelonas Fish sculpture (1992), the first paperless project

created in Gehrys office, and Grimshaws International Terminal at Waterloo Station (1993)

that utilized the developmental benefits of the parametric approach. The former project is a

relatively simple steel structure with a cladding surface.

56Pottmann,Architectural geometry,381.

57

Llah,Algorithi tetois: ho old ar era researh shaped our iagiatio of desig,. 58Llah,Algorithi tetois: ho old ar era researh shaped our iagiatio of desig,. 59

Peters and Peters, Inside Smartgeometry: Expanding the Architectural Possibilities of Computational

Design,51.


28/67

28

Figure 19. Barcelonas Fish sculpture 99by Gehry Partner, LLP, 1992

Owing to its complicated initial shape, the design, fabrication and construction were all

coordinated using a computer model in CATIA, Computer-Aided Three-Dimensional Interactive

Application, the software originally used in the aerospace industry. The latter project is a 400-

meter-long roof structure at London Waterloo train station.

Figure 20. Figure 21.

International Terminal at Waterloo Station by Grimshaw Architects, 1993


29/67

29

Because of the asymmetric geometry of the platforms, the roof consists of a series of 36

dimensionally different, but identically configured three-pin bowstring arches. Instead of

modelling each arch separately, computational engineers generated a parametric model based on

the correlation between the size of the span and the curvature of the individual arches.

Initially, the parametric design method was a new, integrated rational approach that helped

architects and engineers in the design and construction process. With the rapid development of

computational technologies and their extensive implementation in the design sphere, the impact

of parametric design on architecture had significantly increased. In 1999, one of the first

comprehensive books on digital architecture was published: Greg Lynns Animate Form

embraces the specifics of the computational design approach and defines its stylistic character. In

Animate Form, Lynn reveals parametric design as a new paradigm of thinking; sets out its coreprinciples and introduces some new terms to the architectural vocabulary, including blobs,

bodies, hypersurfaces and polysurfaces.

Figure 22. Blob forms. Embriological Housing by Greg Lynn

In addition, using his animation hypothesis, Lynn flags up the disadvantages of designing

architectural projects on the flat plane of a drawing desk, and stresses the necessity of simulating

a particular environment in virtual space, where hidden forces, which affect the construction, can

be predicted and calculated.


30/67

30

Traditionally, in architecture, the abstract space of design is conceived as an ideal

neutral space of Cartesian coordinates. In other design fields, however, design

space is conceived as an environment of force and motion rather than as a neutral

vacuum.60

The idea of constant change and transformation has led Lynn to topology as a new kind of

geometry for the computational approach. According to its mathematical definition, topology is a

study of inherent, qualitative properties of geometric forms that are not affected by changes in

size or shape and remain equal through continuous one-to-one transformations or elastic

deformations, such a stretching or twisting. This theory of form relationships and

interdependences fits in with the computational form-finding logic, where modelling one simple

object can generate numerous transformations.

What makes topology particularly appealing in architecture is the primacy over

form of the structures of relations, interconnections or inherent qualities which

exist internally and externally within the context of an architectural project.61

The behaviour of a topological form can be manipulated through construction lines. 62

Historically, architects have used such abstract elements to enforce an organising framework for

establishing positions and relations of line segments within and between shapes at a basic

compositional level. In parametric design, construction lines become key elements that are

linked to particular data as well as to each other. Together they form a mesh network system of

geometric relations and dependencies, where each point influences the position and orientation

of others.

Figure 23. Klein bottle

60Lynn, Greg.Animate form,10.

61

Peters and Peters, Inside Smartgeometry: Expanding the Architectural Possibilities of ComputationalDesign,56.62

Peters and Peters, Inside Smartgeometry: Expanding the Architectural Possibilities of Computational

Design,57.


31/67

31

In computer modelling programmes a mesh represents a collection of points (vertices) arranged

into flat sides called faces, which are bounded by polygons. Polygons can have different shapes:

triangle, quadrilateral, or hexagon; however, usually one type dominates. All seemingly smooth

surfaces in animation or architecture visualizations are smoothly rendered meshes. The main

advantage of using a mesh surface is the potential of controlling and modelling a shape at any

level of complexity. Because architecture is invested with form-finding and because grid-shells

are complex structures, meshes are currently extensively utilized in parametric design.

Here the main driving force for the choice of a grid shell structure as a structural

scheme is the desire to follow the initial shape wanted by the architects and thelack of a more performing structural system.

63

However, the shift from the drawing board to relying on algorithms for capturing and

communicating designs in architecture has been slow, as many architects still do not have

sufficient computer modelling skills. As a result, most major architectural offices have been

establishing internal groups of computational specialists, who mostly work separately from the

design teams. The computational specialists act as internal consultants integrated with the design

process to varying degrees, depending on the needs of the project. Such groups exist in major

architectural companies including Foster & Partners, UNStudio and Herzog & de Meuron.64

In

this set-up, development architects establish the initial characteristics of the building and its

shape; then they hand the information over to computational designers, who optimise the design

by simulating environments and loads. For instance, Robin Partington, the Director at Foster &

Partners responsible for developing the design of 30St Mary Axe, recalls that in the late 1990s

they did not have sufficient computer skills.65

Therefore, Foster & Co architects designed the

shape of the Swiss Re tower by producing hundreds of scale models, then invited Mark Burry, a

specialist from the Arup Group, to optimize the final shape according to aerodynamic

requirements.66

Additionally, since each grid structure is unique and no guides or design and

construction recommendations exist regarding these buildings, only large practices with the

63

Paoli, Past ad uture of Grid hell trutures. Diploa , MIT, 2264Peters ad Xaier de estelier. The uildig of algorithi, 15.65

Powell, 30 St Mary Axe: A Tower for London, 63.66

Burry, Mark. Scripting cultures: architectural design and programming,108.


32/67

32

knowledge and research back-up available, for example, Buro Happold and Over Arup &

Partners, have agreed to take part in such projects.67

The gap between the conceptual idea and the skill set needed to operate computational

technologies contradicts the gist of the parametric approach. The parametric approach is based

on generated design principles that lead to a transformation from a method to a style. As a result,

in 2008, Patrick Schumacher of Zaha Hadid Architects wrote the Parametricist Manifesto68

,

proposing that the parametric design method should be seen as a style called parametricism. Two

years later, he considered stylistic taboos and dogmas in the Architectural Journal.69

Figure 24. Beko Masterplan by Zaha Hadid Architects

Striving to understand the current situation in more depth, in the next chapter I will compare the

computer-generated grid structure design process with the most effective design and construction

methods from the pre-computational era.

67

Paoli, Past ad uture of Grid hell trutures. Diploa , MIT, . 68http://www.patrikschumacher.com/Texts/Parametricism%20as%20Style.htm69

http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/patrik-schumacher-on-parametricism-let-the-style-wars-

begin/5217211.article


33/67

33

7. DISCUSSION

To assess the effectiveness of computer software in the design process I have chosen four

grid-shell structures with comparable parameters: 30St Mary Axe and the Great Court of the

British Museum designed by Foster & Partners, and the Radio Tower and Viksa Works by

Shukhov. The Radio Tower and 30St Mary Axe are examples of manual and digital metal grid-

shell tower design respectively. The Great Court and Viksa Works are metal grid-shell roof

structures with complex double-curved surface.

At the outset of this discussion, I would like to note some differences between the buildings

compared. The Radio Tower on Shabolovskaya Street is a utilitarian structure for storing radio

equipment, whereas 30St Mary Axe is an inhabited office building. The grid-shell of the Great

Court is part of a sophisticated restoration process of a historical monument, while Viksa Works

was a newly-built industrial building. These differences should be taken into account in the

course of the analysis, which is focused on four aspects: grid-shell structure, design process,

fabrication and assembling.

7.1. 30St Mary Axe Tower and Shabolovskaya Tower

Form and structural scheme

The Swiss Re building, later rebranded 30St Mary Axe, is a 40-storey office tower. It is

180 m tall and consists of 33 floors, with the external diameter of 56.15 m on the largest floor.

The building has an aerodynamic egg shape that reduces the wind load, the main challenge for

high-rise buildings. Foster & Partners developed the initial tower concept using card and plastic

scale models, then the final shape was transferred into a computer programme in order to explore

its performance in a simulated real-life environment.70

The curvature of the tower makes wind

flow around it and enables natural cross-flow ventilation due to the pressure difference on thesides of the building. In addition, the reduced diameter at street level leaves more open public

space around the building, which improves its social sustainability.

The structure of Swiss Res buildingconsists of a central core and a perimeter steel grid-shell

tightened to each other with rolled-steel radial beams. The diagonal lattice grid, also known as a

diagrid, developed by Foster & Partners in association with Arup, is fundamental to the

realization of the radical form of the tower. The grids interlocking horizontal hoops turn the

70Powell, 30 St Mary Axe: A Tower for London, 63.


34/67

34

structure into a stiff triangulated shell with a lateral working load that resists wind force and

makes the whole construction stable. The interconnection between the diagrid shell and the core

alleviates loads on floor beams, which has made it possible to reduce their section size and keep

the occupied internal area free from columns.71

Figure 25. 30St Mary Axe hard models Figure 26. Parametric early design study

Figure 27. Computer modeling of the air movement Figure 28. Concept sketch

71Architectural Record, 2004, p 222.


35/67

35

The Radio Tower in Moscow is a grid-shell structure with the base diameter of 40.3 m

and the upper diameter of 3.75 m. It consists of six hyperboloid blocks, 2530 m tall each. The

block-stacking approach has made it possible to build a tower as tall as 150 m. Also, the multi-

level construction system creates additional intersections in the towers trunk, which reinforce

the structure with minimal material consumption.72

In the initial proposal, the towers height was

projected to be 350 m, 50 m taller than the Eiffel Tower, the tallest building at the time. The

proposal had to be altered because due to the difficult post-Revolution situation, the Soviet

Union suffered a metal shortage. Unlike the elliptical shape of the 30St Mary Axe tower, the

hyperboloid shape is less suitable for offices and residential buildings due to its low space

efficiency.73

On the other hand, its high load-carrying capacity makes it highly efficient as an

industrial tower. Its minimal surface and open lattice structure reduce the wind load, while thewide base makes the tower stable. Stability and safety were particularly important because of the

lack of experience in building high-rise buildings at the time.


73Reid, Esmond, "Understanding Buildings", 38

Figure 29. Original

proposal, 350-meters

high

Figure 30. Shabolovskaya Tower.


36/67

36

Grid-shell design

The Swiss Res diagrid system comprises of a series of steel two-storey A-frames. Each

frame consists of two tubular diagonal columns bolted with a node. Nodes play a crucial role in

the overall structure of the construction. They connect the diagrid shell to the radial beams of the

central core and govern the curvature of the building. Arup designers formed the complex

diagrid shape merely with two column types: 508 mm columns with the wall thickness of 40 mm

(used between Ground level and level 2) and 273 mm columns with the wall thickness of 12.5

mm (used on levels 36-38). However, because of the buildings elliptical shape, the connection

angle between each A-frame is different throughout the structure.74

That means that the

geometry of each node is different. Instead of manufacturing individual end frames, designers

decided to use separate node pieces. Each of the two-meter-height nodes consists of three steelplates welded together at varying angles to address the curvature of the tower. Since correct node

connections are fundamental to the success of any grid scheme,75

the Arup team designed them

in detail during the computer modelling stage. As a result, node connections were prefabricated

to the exact size, and the bearing surface was milled to a tolerance of 0.1 mm.76

Arups structural engineers designed the inclination of the diagonal grid based on the architects

concept of having a helical path of atriums with a 5twist.77


75

BM Departet of Arhitetural epresetatio, iss es Buildig, Lodo. Aessed Noeer12, 2013), 40.76

Powell, 30 St Mary Axe: A Tower for London, 63.77

Buildig, Lodo ill eer look the sae agai, 44.

Figure 31. Steel central core Figure 32. Steel perimeter grid


37/67

37

Figure 33. Nodes installation Figure 34. Assembling A-frame

Figure 35. Even-number floors are encircled by a hoop


38/67

38

The lattice mesh of the hyperboloid pylons in the Shabolovskaya Tower is made of two

layers of diagonal double 140 mm U-section rods aligned between two rings. These rings have a

truss structure comprising of two L-section rods, 100 mm x 100 mm x 10 mm, that are tied to

each other. Such a structure simplifies pylon connections and makes it possible to fix rods

securely. Intermediate U-section rolled metal holding rings fix the rods between the main

structural rings.

In the process of connecting the diagonal U-section rods to the rings, the rods were slightly

twisted along the whole length. Due to high material flexibility and because the rod section was

relatively small, it was easy to twist the rods during the assembling process. That granted

additional structural stiffness to the construction. The number of the rods in the six tower

sections varies. In order to stabilize the construction, the top hyperboloid pylon has almost twice

as few rods as the bottom one. All the elements were riveted.In the patent document for lattice structures Shukhov mentions circular section tubes instead of

rods. However, when he attempted to replace rolled L-section metal rods with tubes in one of his

hyperboloid water towers, Shukhov found them economically unfeasible. He had hoped to save

even more material and lighten the structure, but circular section tube fabrication and assembling

process was too expensive and complicated. Therefore, he never used them again.78

The main idiosyncrasy of Shukhovs lattice towers was that he never used equal rings and

regular intersections: the intersection points between straight lines in the upper and lower parts

are not symmetrical.79

Rod connections were also shifted from one rod to another, trying to

create as much small-scale intercrossing as possible, like in a knitted garment.

Shukhov had devised the method for assessing hyperboloid spatial systems in the process of

designing his water towers, a new type of construction with high redundancy levels. He would

take it upon himself to conduct any structural analysis on new constructions. The logic of his

calculations was based on exploring structural interdependences and embracing the most

important parameters in generative formulas. For instance, Shukhovs design equation for the

form of a hyperboloid structure is:


79Khan-Magomedov, Vladimir Shukhov, 91


39/67

39

Figure 36. Lattice construction Figure 37. Rods are a bit twisted

Figure 38. Assembling

Figure 39. Connection the diagonal rods to the rings Figure 40. Accident at the project site


40/67

40

Galankin, Shukhovs former employee, writes that Shukhov used to make calculations in a

unique way: his calculations were so laconic that other specialists found them difficult to

understand. In spite of this briefness, if someone asked Shukhov for the specifications of load,

rod stress, rod profile and section, rivet quantity, material weight, temperature impact or any

other detail, he always had an answer, because his concise calculations covered all these aspects,

but nothing that was irrelevant.80

Figure 4. Shabolovskaya Towers calculation

80AA, ./Op./, A. N. Galaki, Vladiir Grigoreih hukho the prominent Russian

inventor, engineer 1853-. M rief eories,17-18.


41/67

41

Assembling

The main issue in assembling the grid-shell structure for 30St Mary Axe was that it depended on

accurate fabrication.81

With a triangular grid, theres nothing you can do if all goes wrong.82

The entire tower structure was designed for bolted assembly to eliminate the need for welding.

Bolted assembly reduced the potential of weld-induced defects and the need for adjusting

connections post-welding. On the other hand, bolted assembly caused certain difficulties. For

example, it entailed a step of forming a horizontal hoop, when all 18 nodes were in place around

the circumference, and tie-sections were added to link the nodes. To close the boltholes, all the

tie-sections would have to line up; the process demanded high precision. Building such a

structure was possible only with the aid of advanced 3D-modelling and modern computational

fabrication technologies that enable accurate calculation and construction element productionwith minimum defects and errors. Adjustable connections on the radial steel members also

played a key role. They provided some flexibility in positioning the nodes and allowed them to

be eased in or out until the tie-section bolts dropped into place.83

Although Arups design

allowed leeway for the structure to be built with its apex 40 mm from the dead center, usually

the deviation did not exceed 3 mm.84

The nodes were fabricated in the Netherlands and Belgium according to Arups computer

models.85

A-frames were pre-assembled on-site by bolting two steel columns to a node, and then

craned into place. Three tower cranes of different lifting capacity were used in the construction

process. Their primary role was to lift the steel sections into place to form the structure. Also,

one main hoist was used for bulky goods, whereas three ancillary hoists carried people and

materials up and down the building. The most important thing about building a high-rise is

getting men and materials to the workface as quickly as possible, explains Gary Clifford,

Skanskas project director.86

In building his tower, Shukhov implemented the highly original telescopic assembly method

whereby each consecutive hyperboloid section was lifted in large blocks inside the structure.87

Shukhov preferred to assemble the structure in large blocks because such a method guaranteed a


82Buildig, Lodo ill eer look the sae agai, .

83Buildig, Lodo ill eer look the sae agai, 48.

84

Buildig, Lodo ill eer look the sae agai, 48.85Powell, 30 St Mary Axe: A Tower for London, 93.86

Buildig, Lodo ill eer look the sae agai, .87

Khan-Magomedov, Vladimir Shukhov,107.


42/67

42

fast and accurate construction process. The lower supporting section was assembled first; then,

five basic wooden cranes were installed on its top ring in order to raise the next section. The

second section was assembled inside the supporting pylon. While the second section was still on

the ground, the next set of cranes, required for raising the third section, was fixed to its top. Then

the second section was lifted to its position with pulleys affixed to the first section and fixed in

place. Shukhovs office would always prepare detailed assembly instructions complete with

illustrations and guidance notes, which included possible on-site assembly issues and solutions.88

The fabrication and assembly of this structure was quite simple due to the identical elements

throughout the building. The only issue was bending horizontal U-section rings according to the

structures diameter because it was an expensive process at the time.89

The simplicity of the

design and the assembling method made it possible to build a complex structure using primitiveequipment and relying on low-skilled workers.

90The telescope assembly method was highly

accurate. In another famous hyperboloid tower that had similar structural features to the

Shabolovskaya Tower and was 128 m tall, the leeway from the dead center was only 24 mm.91

Figure 4. Telescope methodof assembling

88AA, ./Op./, G. N. oela, The great ussia egieer Vladiir Grigoreih hukho

(1853-1939), 5189

Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia,141.90Khan-Magomedov, Vladimir Shukhov,97.91

Kovelman, Grigori Markovich. Works of Honorary Academician engineer Vladimir Grogorevich

Shukhov,215.


43/67

43

Shabolovskaya Tower 30St Mary Axe

Construction period:

19191920 (1 year)

Dimensions:

Height: 150m

Weight: 240 tons

Base diameter: 40.3 mTop diameter: 3.75 m

U-section rolled metal:

Horizontal hoops: 100 x 100 x 10 mm

Rods: 140 mm height


20012003 (3 years)

Dimensions:

Height: 180 m

Diagrid shell height: 158 m

Total steel structure weight: 8,358 tonsDiagrid structure weight: 2,424 tons

Largest floor external diameter: 56.15 m

Diagrid column sizes:

Ground levellevel 2: 508 mm, 40 mm thick

Level 3638: 273 mm, 12.5 mm thick


44/67

44

7.2. The Great Court of the British Museum and Viksa Works

Form and structural scheme

Figure 43. The Great Court Roof Figure 44. Viksa Works Roof

The Great Court of the British Museum and the Viksa Works represent two different

approaches to designing a double-curved roof. Shukhov used this complex covering for one of

the sections of a metallurgical plant in the town of Viksa. The rigid shell structure made it

possible to have no support columns in the internal space, maximizing the room for the

technological processes at the plant.

Three-pinned arches divide the roof surface into five segments that are covered with five

symmetrical double-curvature shells. Kovelman writes that at the time no one could imagine a

spatial structure made with straight rods. A polyhedron surface made more or less smooth by

polygons was more commonplace.92

The complex structure of the Viksa Works relied on further

development of vaulted grid-shell roofs built at the Nizhnii Novgorod Exhibition in 1986. The

single-curvature system was transformed to a double-curved surface by bending the longitudinal

beams.93

The elements of the shells were made with Z-profile rod steel strips (60.5 mm x 45.6

mm).

From the cross to the long sections, the curcular-cut dome edges have a bend size equal to 1/6 of

the span. Due to sufficient roof curvature, structural purlins could be installed in the same

direction lengthwise.

92Kovelman, Grigori Markovich. Works of Honorary Academician engineer Vladimir Grogorevich

Shukhov,104.93Graefe et al., Shukhov V.G. (1853-1939): Art of construction,45.


45/67

45

The symmetric shape of the double-curved domes made it possible to form them with identically

bent rods.94

The lattice structure of the small arches forms an elastic system, which can bear

loads from any direction and does not need additional ties.95

Figure 45. Viksa Works drawings

The character of the Great Court covering structure is more complicated. The covering works as

a lattice-glazed canopy, which is connected to the domes drum at the Reading Room as well as

to the four sides of the Museums quadrangle. In the initial design proposal, the roof was almost

flat, only slightly inclined from the center. The shell was to be shaped as a torus. Due to its

double-curved surface properties, this shell would discharge the museums quadrangle facades;

as they were not built to support a lateral load, the shell would have made the structure

collapse.96

To prevent this, the roof rests on the sliding bearings of the quadrangle facades as

94Graefe et al., Shukhov V.G. (1853-1939): Art of construction,45.95Shukhova, Vladimir Grigorevich Shukhov: the first engineer of Russia,151.96art, A Brilliat hell Gae at the British Museu, 150.


46/67

46

well as on 20 new concrete-filled tubular steel columns hidden behind the cladding of the

Reading Room.

According to the Architectural Record magazine, the roof is a computational and geometric

feat itself.97

For this project, Foster & Partners collaborated with Buro Happold. Happold

engineers calculated the geometry for the initial roof design using standard static, or linear,

computer programming. Such programming considers structural integrity by examining the

effects of gravity alone. Chris Williams, a pioneer of design computation, was invited to study

the deformation of the structure. Using computer software, he designed a 3D simulation model

and optimized the mesh of the grid-shell structure.

Figure 46. Generated grid shell structure

Assembling

The final grid construction was formed of radial hollow steel sections (box beams), which were

welded to 1,826 structural nodes, each node having a unique design.98

The engineers were highly

concerned about the reliability of the structure. To reduce the risk of fracturing, Happold paid

great attention to the accuracy of the welding process. In addition, instead of using lower grade

steel that might contain impurities, they chose Grade D steel material, which is usually used in

marine and offshore applications.99

The grid size was determined by the maximum glass panel

size available; thus the structure consists of 3,312 unique double-glazed panels. The height of the

double-curved roof was restricted by the historical environment. In order to help the roof hold its

form, the steel members near the perimeter need to work in bending and compression. To

achieve this, the steel sections increase in depth from about 76 mm at the Reading Room to

97art, A Brilliat hell Gae at the British Museu, 149.98Anderson, The Great Court and The British Museum, 96.99art, A Brilliat hell Gae at the British Museu, 153.


47/67

47

about 178 mm at the corners of the quadrangle.100

The total weight of the steel structure without

glazing is 478 tons.

Cranes and scaffolds covering the entire courtyard were used in assembling the roof for the

Great Court.

Figure 47. Structural nodes of the grid shell structure

Figure 48. Process of welding

100art, A Brilliat hell Gae at the British Museu, 153.


48/67

48

Figure 49. Three functions describe the transformation from a rectangle to a circular


49/67

49

Figure 50. Assembling the roof for the Viksa Works

In contrast to the canopy of the Great Court, the construction system of the roof for the Viksa

Works, while highly original, was relatively simple and used no extended scaffolds, which are

necessary in the assembling of complicated spatial shell structures.101

All that was built at Viksa

was an intermediate mobile supporting structure, used until each segment of the lattice structure

was locked.

This construction system was 40% lighter than other roof structures. Kovelman writes that

initially builders refused to climb on the roof because they could not believe that such a light

lattice structure could sustain their weight.102

101

Kovelman, Grigori Markovich. Works of Honorary Academician engineer Vladimir GrogorevichShukhov,107.102Kovelman, Grigori Markovich. Works of Honorary Academician engineer Vladimir Grogorevich

Shukhov, 109.


50/67

50

Viksa Works Queen II Great Court


18971898 (1 year)

Dimensions:

Length: 75 m

Width: 38.3m

Area: 2,795.9 sqm

Span: 14.5 m

Minimum roof height: 6.8 m

Maximum roof height: 13.25 m

Rods:

Z-section rolled metal: 60.5 mm x 45.6 mm

Budget:

40 568 roubles103


19982000 (2 years)

Dimensions:

Length: 73 m

Width: 9

rethinking complexity edemskaya-libre

Documents