MODERN

CONSTRUCTION
CASE STUDIES
Emerging Innovation in Building Techniques

ANDREW WATTS

Birkhäuser
Basel
 INTRODUCTION COMPLEX GEOMETRY

Foreword 4 1 Galaxy Soho 24

Scope of this book 5 Beijing, China.
Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects
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
2 Evolution Tower 34
Moscow, Russia.
Architect: RMJM

3 Hotel 44
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Architect: Gensler

4 Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre 56

Baku, Azerbaijan.
Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

5 Burjuman Tower 66
Dubai, UAE.
Architect: Kohn Pedersen Fox

6 Burj Alshaya 76
REFERENCES
Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Architect: Gensler
Authorship 220
Index 222
Further reading 223
 CONTENTS
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION ENHANCED PERFORMANCE

7 Dance & Music Centre 88 13 Burjuman Apartments 156

The Hague, Netherlands. Dubai, UAE.
Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects Architect: Kohn Pedersen Fox

8 K. Çamlica TV Tower 98 14 KAFD Metro 166

Istanbul, Turkey. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Architect: Melike Altinisik Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

9 Meixihu IC&A Centre 110 15 Grand Théatre 178

Changsha, China. Rabat, Morocco.
Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

10 Federation Square 122 16 The Avenues 190

Melbourne, Australia. Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Architect: LAB Architecture Architect: Gensler

11 New Port Centre 132 17 Stone Towers 200

Doha, Qatar. Cairo, Egypt.
Architect: LLewelyn Davies Architect: Zaha Hadid Architects

12 City Museum Istanbul 144 18 Holland Park School 210

Istanbul, Turkey. London, England.
Architect: Salon Architects Architect: Aedas
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.
Heydar Aliyev Cultural Serrated plates, castings and machined components;
4 GRP open-jointed rainscreen.
Centre 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.
Open-jointed rainscreen incorporating glazing, sandstone
10 Federation Square Spider bracket with three adjustable arms.
and perforated aluminium.
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.
Opaque composite panels with glazing insets and UHPC
14 KAFD Metro Spider bracket with four adjustable arms.
open-jointed rainscreen.
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 Holland Park School Full-height stick glazing with external copper louvres. Serrated plates; welded and bolted.
*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
The area of each circle is
proportional to the number of
components in each facade fixing
3.50
7 system, and represents the
complexity of the assembly utilised.

3.00
8
10
2.50
18

2.00 15.b 14
3.b
17.b
17.a
1.50 15.a
3.a 9
12.a
6.b 11
12.b 4
1.00
2.a
2.b 13 5
0.50 1 6.a
16.a
16.b

0
100 1000 10000
Facade zone (mm)

MCCS_6
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 fa-
cade 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 Total weight of facade, including
structure (kN/m²) 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. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 5. 6. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18
Ga a b a. b. He Bu a b Da K. M .F .N .a .b .B .K .a .b .a .b .a .b .H
lax Ev Ev Ho Ho yd rju Bu Bu nc Ca eix ed Ci Ci ur AF Gr Gr Th Th St St
olu olu te te rj rj ihu ew ty ty on on oll
yS tio tio lR lR ar m Al Al e m er Po jum D an an e e an
oh Al an sh sh & lic IC at M M M d d Av Av e e d
n n iya iya iye To ay a M a &A ion rt us us an et Th Th en en To To Pa
o To To dh dh vC ya us TV Ce eu eu Ap ro ea ea ue ue we we rk
we we we a ic Ce Sq m m
r r ult r Ce To ua nt ar tre tre s s rs rs Sc
ur we nt re re Ist Ist tm de de ho
al nt r re an an en ol
Ce re bu bu ts Ra Ra
nt l l ba ba
re t t

MCCS_7
INTRODUCTION
Comparison of projects

Linear thermal bridging

U-value of system Annual cumulative radiation -
effect for system typical Total glazed area
Project envelope Total on glazed area
detail (m2)
(W/m2K) (MWh)
(W/mK)

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
The area of each circle is
1.80 proportional to the percentage
7
of the envelope system U-value
determined due to framing
1.60 elements.
U-value of system envelope (W/m2K)

2 17
8
1.40

16
1.20
1
5 6
1.00
15 18

0.80 3

0.60
13

0.40
9
4 11
0.20 10 12
14

0.00

0 50 150 200 250

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
 Geometry of external shading (I/L)

Annual cumulative radiation - Reduction in annual

Average on glazed area solar gain by shading
(MWh/m2) system (%)

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

100
reduction

10
High

High
80
1 effectiveness 13

7
4
Reduction in annual

60
solar gain (%)

6 18
14

40 8
17
16 5 12 Expected 9
3 effectiveness
2
20
15
reduction
Low

11
0

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 3.00

Smaller Geometry Larger

shading of external shading
elements shading (I/L) 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

Current design methodology These various sources of information cannot be used directly in the
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
ANDREW
ANDREW
ANDREWWATTS
WATTS
WATTS STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
YASMIN
YASMIN
YASMINWATTS
WATTS
WATTS ENGINEERING FACADE
FACADE ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING SERVICES
SERVICES // MEP
MEP ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING
The application of current and emerging technologies for the design design of complex building envelopes, which require an in-depth under-
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)

engineering of facades is linked

1.00
1.00
to the information
1.00
1.00
available
1.00
1.00
in estab-
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
WIND
WIND
WIND
PRESSURE
PRESSURE
PRESSURE FIXING
FIXING
FIXING
IDIDID ZONE
ZONE
ZONE
FP21_1681 325mm
FP21_1681
FP21_1681 325mm
325mm
X1X1
X1
266.338
standing of the first 5.695
Y1Y1
Y1 Z1Z1
Z1
195.10030.612
266.338195.100
266.338 195.100 30.612
30.612
principles
5.695
X2X2
X2
266.362
266.362
Y2Y2
Y2
behind each technology; principles which
Z2Z2
Z2
195.09330.515
266.362195.093
195.093 30.515
30.515
X3X3
X3 Y3Y3
Y3 Z3Z3
Z3
266.41530.297
266.415266.415
266.415
266.415 266.415 30.297
30.297
PANEL
PANEL
PANEL
IDIDID
S21_JJ_014
S21_JJ_014
S21_JJ_014 AREA
AREA
AREA
(m(m
(m
) ))
2 22
3 33
4.067m
4.067m
4.067m
4 44

1.603m
1.603m
1.603m

1.8
1.820m
1.8
20m
20m
FP21_1682 325mm
FP21_1682
FP21_1682 325mm
325mm 202.15529.790
265.055202.155
265.055
265.055 202.155 29.790
29.790 265.079 202.14829.693
265.079202.148
265.079 202.148 29.693
29.693 265.134
265.134 265.13429.475
265.134265.134
265.134 29.475
29.475 S21_NN_039
S21_NN_039
S21_NN_039 IDIDID S21_T_012
S21_T_012
S21_T_012
TYPE
TYPE
TYPEOPAQUE
OPAQUE
OPAQUE
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN
157.34934.567
273.367157.349
273.367
273.367 157.349 34.567
34.567 273.307 273.30734.567
273.307273.307
273.307 273.307 34.567
34.567 E28_020_A
E28_020_A
E28_020_A
3.423m
3.423m
3.423m
FP21_1683 325mm
FP21_1683
FP21_1683 325mm
325mm 273.393
273.393 157.44534.568
273.393157.445
157.445 34.568
34.568 2 22 1 11

lished technical publications. These sources focus on providing an form the basis of the5.136
design with its accompanying cost certainty.
FP21_1684 325mm
FP21_1684
FP21_1684 325mm
325mm 268.232
268.232 185.04731.758
268.232185.047
185.047 31.758
31.758 268.255
268.255 185.04131.661
268.255185.041
185.041 31.661
31.661 268.305
268.305 268.30531.442
268.305268.305
268.305 31.442
31.442 S21_EE_014
S21_EE_014
S21_EE_014

5.136
FP21_1685 425mm
FP21_1685
FP21_1685 425mm
425mm 268.232
268.232 185.04731.758
268.232185.047
185.047 31.758
31.758 268.255
268.255 185.04131.661
268.255185.041
185.041 31.661
31.661 268.305
268.305 268.30531.442
268.305268.305
268.305 31.442
31.442 S21_EE_013
S21_EE_013
S21_EE_013
FP21_1686 425mm
FP21_1686
FP21_1686 425mm
425mm 159.52834.382
273.020159.528
273.020
273.020 159.528 34.382
34.382 273.037
273.037 159.52334.284
273.037159.523
159.523 34.284
34.284 273.077
273.077 273.07734.062
273.077273.077
273.077 34.062
34.062 S21_E_034
S21_E_034
S21_E_034 3 33 3.960m
3.960m
3.960m
4 44

FP21_1687 425mm
FP21_1687
FP21_1687 425mm
425mm 166.63333.702
271.684166.633
271.684
271.684 166.633 33.702
33.702 271.704 166.62733.604
271.704166.627
271.704 166.627 33.604
33.604 271.74733.384
271.747271.747
271.747
271.747 271.747 33.384
33.384 S21_X_020
S21_X_020
S21_X_020 AREA
AREA
AREA
(m(m
(m
) ))
2 22

ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATEDIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATEDIRECTOR
DIRECTOR
DIRECTOR

m
1.335m
m
1.335
1.335

1.603m
1.603m
1.60
FP21_1688 325mm
FP21_1688
FP21_1688 325mm
325mm 166.63333.702
271.684166.633
271.684
271.684 166.633 33.702
33.702 166.62733.604
271.704166.627
271.704
271.704 166.627 33.604
33.604 271.747 271.74733.384
271.747271.747
271.747 271.747 33.384
33.384 S21_X_021
S21_X_021
S21_X_021 IDIDID S21_T_012
S21_T_012
S21_T_012

3m
HOWARD
HOWARD
HOWARDTEE
TEE
TEE FABIO
FABIO
FABIOMICOLI
MICOLI
MICOLI FP21_1689 700mm
FP21_1689
FP21_1689 700mm
700mm 272.846
272.846 160.90934.269
272.846160.909
160.909 34.269
34.269 272.868 160.91434.172
272.868160.914
272.868 160.914 34.172
34.172 272.91933.953
272.919272.919
272.919
272.919 272.919 33.953
33.953 S21_H_032
S21_H_032
S21_H_032
TYPE
TYPE
TYPEOPAQUE
OPAQUE
OPAQUE
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN 2 22
3.524m
3.524m
3.524m
1 11

understanding of the main components within a given-27.6

building assem-
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 FP21_1690 700mm
FP21_1690
FP21_1690 700mm
700mm 272.846 160.90934.269
272.846160.909
272.846 160.909 34.269
34.269 272.864
272.864 160.90334.171
272.864160.903
160.903 34.171
34.171 272.90433.950
272.904272.904
272.904
272.904 272.904 33.950
33.950 S21_G_034
S21_G_034
S21_G_034

4.142
4.142
FP21_1691 700mm
FP21_1691
FP21_1691 700mm
700mm 270.571
270.571 173.25133.056
270.571173.251
173.251 33.056
33.056 270.591
270.591 173.24532.959
270.591173.245
173.245 32.959
32.959 270.637
270.637 270.63732.739
270.637270.637
270.637 32.739
32.739 S21_Z_016
S21_Z_016
S21_Z_016
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
DECREASE
DECREASE
DECREASE FP21_1692 700mm
FP21_1692
FP21_1692 700mm
700mm 173.25133.056
270.571173.251
270.571
270.571 173.251 33.056
33.056 173.24532.959
270.591173.245
270.591
270.591 173.245 32.959
32.959 270.63732.739
270.637270.637
270.637
270.637 270.637 32.739
32.739 S21_Z_017
S21_Z_017
S21_Z_017 3 33 3.926m
3.926m
3.926m

-27.4
-27.4 -27.6
-27.6 -27.6
4 44

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

6m
1.156m
6m

1.334m
1.334m
1.33
1.15
1.15

4m
IDIDID S21_T_012
S21_T_012
S21_T_012

-27.4
-27.4 -27.6
-27.6 -27.6
-27.6
TYPE
TYPE
TYPEOPAQUE
OPAQUE
OPAQUE
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN
RAINSCREEN 2 22 3.723m
3.723m
3.723m
1 11

bly and illustrate the different choices available for the construction of Newtecnic’s methodology
assemblies for the building envelope,
SENIOR
SENIOR
SENIORASSOCIATE
JOSEPH
JOSEPH
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
JOSEPHSHAW
SHAW
SHAW 67.7
67.7 as well
SENIOR
SENIOR
64.5 as construction
64.5
SENIORASSOCIATE
ANDY
ANDY
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
ANDYWATTS
WATTS
WATTS 64.5
64.5 methods
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
THERMAL
THERMAL
THERMAL
LOAD
LOAD
LOAD
INCREASE
INCREASE
INCREASE
In order to develop an understanding of the first principles underpin-
used for the interior of the building. Specific technologies or materials ning the design of current and particularly emerging technologies, a pri-
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)

can be selected by the architect-2.42or designer

-2.42 -3.08as a point
-3.08 of departure in
-2.86
-2.86
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
LOADCASE:
SELFWEIGHT
SELFWEIGHT
SELFWEIGHT
mary source of information is scientific papers published in journals and
-0.88
-0.88 -0.88
-0.88 -0.88
-0.88
order to select a construction system based on visual, performance or
SENIOR
SENIOR
SENIORASSOCIATE
CHIARA
CHIARA
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
CHIARATOSI
TOSI
TOSI
SENIOR
SENIOR
SENIORASSOCIATE
CARMELO
CARMELO
ASSOCIATE
ASSOCIATE
CARMELOGALANTE
GALANTE
GALANTE
proceedings from specialist conferences, which are peer reviewed by the
cost criteria. The details contained in these publications are often used engineering community. Peer-reviewed publications are concerned with
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

by the facade engineer as a point of departure for facade system draw- methods of analysis using a given technology, not on the relative merits
ings. These publications typically require an experienced facade engi- of one technology against another. The objective of these publications is
neer to be able to extract relevant knowledge for use on real projects. to fill in the current gaps in knowledge of the members of the engineer-
The information available from these primary sources is also used by ing community in the application of current and emerging technologies.
architects as a library of visual references and precedent built projects. This technical information is combined with project-specific research,
Beyond these primary sources, a mix of standards, codes and in order to assess the appropriateness of each technology and to devel-
design handbooks are used for the specific design of components and op an understanding of constraints related to their fabrication. For
assemblies, such as those used for connections in steel frames or emerging technologies, this typically requires physical prototyping and
concrete frames, for example. These design handbooks do not provide testing to validate their project-specific application, which cannot be val-
guidance for the reader to evaluate the appropriateness of the technol- idated through desktop analysis only.
ogy nor do these publications provide a means of validating the choice For the case studies in this book, the design methodology applied is
of a specific technology for a design application. Technical sheets and focused on ensuring the appropriateness of the technology in relation
informal advice from fabricators are also a source of information for to a series of parameters that go beyond its technical application. In the
current technologies, which are often used as the basis for calculations approach used for the case studies, the technology deployed is linked to
during the design stage. The design is also often informed by informa- the values and culture determined by the geographic location of the pro-
tion provided by a specialist contractor and is specific to the project. ject and the common aspirations of that culture; linked to sustainability,
justification of the use of resources, local skills in fabrication, but with
Limitations of current methodology the global reach of these shared values taken into account. The tech-
These primary sources of information present information which nology utilised meets the expectations of the client and increases the
is focused on the application of current and emerging technologies to value of the product delivered. A detailed understanding of local markets
specific materials or to specific projects. From the project-specific appli- and associated fabrication methods builds confidence in the project and
cation of each technology, it is often impossible to extract information ensures its realisation. As part of project-specific research, Newtecnic
about the first principles driving its behaviour. Technical sheets from ensures that for each given project there are always at least two com-
manufacturers rarely provide sufficient data with the given technology panies that are both capable and interested in realising the project. An
to design from first principles and to verify their suitability for a specific important aspect is to generate interest in the design through the con-
application. Often technical information is presented to satisfy commer- struction of proof-of-concept mock-ups and by providing a high level of
cial objectives and there is no method in place for the facade engineer design resolution, which shows direct engagement with the fabrication
to ensure the correctness or completeness of the information utilised. process. Part of this approach is to ensure that smaller local companies
Direct contact with specialist fabricators, manufacturers or contrac- are able to realise and are willing to construct the design. The technical
tors does not often result in the designer developing an understanding publications which are used at the primary sources of information on
of the general principles and common methods used, as manufacturers building technology do not typically seek to engage with specific issues
tend to guard such technical information as being key to the commercial of resolution of any completed building but instead make comparisons
value of their specific product. Fabricators are also often not willing to with other specific design solutions which are based on the adaptation
provide design advice as a result of similar commercial considerations. of available industrial processes to building construction. Emerging tech-
nologies are often based on new methods of fabrication. For the case

MCCS_10
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 ‘prod-
uct’; 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 pro-
posed 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 emerg-
ing construction technologies as applied to building envelopes of com-
plex 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 inte-
grated 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 tech-
nology and its adaptation to project specific facade assemblies, in
order to meet a set of different performance requirements for struc-
ture, 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. Con-
sequently, 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 funda-
mental 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 devel-
opment, which would limit the ability of the design to respond to later
changes in the design of the external envelope. Consequently, the selec-
tion 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 pro-
ject 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 resolu-
tion; 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 intro-
duced 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 test-
ing 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 tech-
nologies 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 prod-
ucts 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, cur-
rent technologies for facades are suited to a ‘loose fit’ design approach,
where a more generic solution is used to provide support to the archi-
tect rather than serving to help drive the design forward with innova-
tion. 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 inno-
vative assembly. Despite associations with the word ‘emerging’, the
engineering basis of an emerging technology must already be demon-
strated 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 per-
formance 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 reduc-
tions 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 per-
formance 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 pro-
vided earlier in the design process as a tool for problem-solving rather
than ‘recording choices’ in order to provide the same level of cost-cer-
tainty 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 perfor-
mance. 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 consid-
eration 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-specif-
ic development of a single facade system that is optimised to suit all con-
ditions of geometry in the facades. The design of interfaces in facades,
which are associated with the junction of current technologies, are slow-
er 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 opti-
mised 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 documen-
tation 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 technol-
ogy. This method allows the design priorities for the following stage of
design development to be determined for necessary prototyping and
physical testing.

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 con-
cept 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 manage-
ment 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 delivera-
bles, 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 man-
agement 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 (Amer-
ican 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 build-
ing 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 doc-
ument 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
INTRODUCTION
Design method and project management
parts is not determined. The limitation of the linear approach applied to
project management can be a reduction in the ability of the building engi-
neer or facade engineer to provide innovative designs which match the
innovation suggested by the architect. This comes as a result of the lim-
ited time available to inform the architect’s concept with a project-spe-
cific 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 devel-
opment 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 out-
puts, 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 perfor-
mance. 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 tech-
nology or an emerging technology. This design method focuses on gen-
erating 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 over-
coming 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 ten-
der. These three aspects also allow the design engineering process to
generate new knowledge and innovation, which can be applied to subse-
quent projects.
‘Agile’ management applied to facade projects
In the delivery of facades of complex geometry for large-scale pro-
jects, the design methodology usually drives the management method
used by the facade design team. Newtecnic has found ‘agile’ manage-
ment 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 man-
agement 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 pro-
file-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 communi-
cated 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 deliv-
er, 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 meth-
od 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-ori-
ented 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 engineer-
ing 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 improv-
ing 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 engi-
neering 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 engi-
neering of complex forms. The method aims at generating new knowl-
edge 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 develop-
ment. 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 con-
struction 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 opti-
misation, is generated through establishing new links between compo-
nents 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 engineer-
ing packages with a high level of technical resolution. These packag-
es 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, analy-
sis 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 spe-
cific 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 final-
ised 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 foun-
dations. 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 mathemati-
cal 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 for-
mulae 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 manufactur-
ers 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 sep-
arate calculation packages, where the assumptions considered for the
analysis are not required to be coordinated in order to ensure a ‘loose-
fit’ design outcome.
MCCS_16
Newtecnic’s methodology
In the method used for this book, the design approach aims to under-
stand 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 techni-
cal 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 special-
ised in the application of first principles to testing of materials, compo-
nents 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 prac-
tice in the design methods applied, which are validated by the engineer-
ing community. In order to be able to effectively share information for
peer review, an infrastructure is needed for facade engineering special-
ist advice, physical testing and peer review of outputs. In order to devel-
op a design, a partnership between the building engineer, or facade engi-
neer, and the architect is required, which is enabled though multidiscipli-
nary 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 ques-
tioned, 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 emerg-
ing 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 enve-
lopes 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 struc-
tures 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 val-
ues used to size mechanical equipment, and the total energy consump-
tions, 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 con-
stituent parts of the facade design, coordination between these com-
ponents 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 pro-
ject-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 analy-
ses are typically undertaken in parallel using specialised software pack-
ages 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 vol-
ume 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 for-
mat, 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 gen-
erated 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 optimisa-
tion 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 integrat-
ed 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 stag-
es 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 mathemati-
cal 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 lim-
its the accuracy of the analysis. Considerations of constructability, con-
struction 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 accu-
racy 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 meaning-
ful 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 design-
er, a judgment which is reviewed in the light of associated costs of fab-
rication and installation.
A basic implementation of the finite element method is in compu-
tational fluid dynamic (CFD) software and structural analysis software
packages. CFD is used primarily to explore global behaviour of exter-
nal and internal flow, in order to understand key relationships between
‘parts’ and ‘quantities’ (e.g. between temperature and velocity distribu-
tions). 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 con-
MCCS_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 com-
ponents. 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 reso-
lution 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 typ-
ical 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 inter-
nal 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.
FS02.06 ROOF VENTILATION
- WEATHER DATA RESEARCH
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

237
y coordinate [m]
SURFACE WATER COLLECTION, GUTTERS, FALLS
AND RAINWATER OUTLETS .
- SOLAR STUDIES:
QUANTITY OF ELEMENTS

7
SUN PATH ANALYSIS MAPPING SOLAR The energy efficiency of the facade depends on the
PENETRATION INTO THE BUILDING. GLAZING U-value, defined in the following way:
SPECIFICATION AND SIMULATION WITH GLARE U-value = Q tot/(A*(T out - Tin))
ANALYSIS. INCIDENT SOLAR RADIATION ON
For the double-skin facade considered it is:
FACADES WITH SHADING OPTIMISATION. ELEMENTS
PHOTOVOLTAIC EFFICIENCY CALCULATIONS AND U-Value < 0.3 W/m^2*K
DESIGN SPECIFICATION AND OPTIMISATION

INNER PAIN TEMPERATURE PROFILE HEAT FLUX

- WIND ANALYSIS:
DECONSTRUCTED FACADE BUILD-UP
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS SIMULATIONS
TECHNOLOGY
AIR FLOW IN MAIN CAVITY [M/S] TEMPERATURE PROFILE [DEGC] ES20.06 STEEL MESH

4
FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CLADDING WIND
PRESSURES WIND TUNNEL TESTING FOR
ES10.02 UHPC RAINSCREEN SOLAR ANALYSIS
CLADDING
ECOTECT
50
VERIFICATION AND CALIBRATION WITH CFD
Top of inner layer
OUTPUTS.
3.58 m
Outlet Outlet PANEL QUANTITY

188
- THERMAL SIMULATIONS:
PANEL QUANTITY Area Area
U-VALUE CALCULATIONS THROUGH MATERIALS. Air
Outlet

232
DOUBLE SKIN FAÇADE SIMULATIONS AND TESTING. Internal
DYNAMIC THERMAL ANALYSIS OF WHOLE Blinds
BUILDINGS.USE OF THERMAL MASS TO CONTROL AREA (m2)
INTERNAL ENVIRONMENTS. DESIGN OF PASSIVE
AREA (m2)
y - coord. SYSTEMS AND NATURAL VENTILATION
Bottom of inner layer
0m
Temperature [degC]

MATERIAL SYSTEMS ES.30.05 GUTTERS

88
Tin Tout
- SYSTEM DESIGN
ES10.05 UHPC LOUVRES
- SPECIFICATION Solar

47
- MATERIAL SAMPLES Radiation
Air Inlet Velocity = 1 [m/s] - COST CONTROL AND QUANTITIES
- APPROVALS 4.2 m LINEAR LENGTH (m)

Qtot STRUCTURAL
- STRUCTURAL DESIGN
- SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS
- OPTIMISATION OF STRUCTURES
PANEL QUANTITY

157
0.245 m
31
QUANTITY OF OUTLETS

- PHYSICAL TESTING LINEAR LENGTH (m)

ASSEMBLIES Double Glazing Units

THERMAL ANALYSIS: COMSOL N/A STEEL STRUCTURE BY OTHERS
- INTEGRATED DESIGN (90% Ar + 10% Air)
FS02.06 ROOF VENTILATION
- COORDINATION
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

237
y coordinate [m] - SHOP DRAWINGS

.
- MANUFACTURING Air Low-e coating
Inlet Inlet
Inlet Insulation
Area Area
PROCESSES QUANTITY OF ELEMENTS Aluminium

7
The energy efficiency of the facade depends on the - DIGITAL FABRICATION
U-value, defined in the following way:
- MOCK-UPS
U-value = Q tot/(A*(T out - Tin))
- TESTING
For the double-skin facade considered it is: - ACCESS, MAINTENANCE, CLEANING ELEMENTS
U-Value < 0.3 W/m^2*K

AIR FLOW IN MAIN CAVITY [M/S] TEMPERATURE PROFILE [DEGC] ES20.06 STEEL MESH DIGITAL WIND ANALYSIS

4 structure is to
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

The first step in the design of a complex geometry

Outlet Outlet PANEL QUANTITY ‘Integration’ and ‘differentiation’ are developed through iterative
188programme. The
Area Area
Internal
Blinds establish a strategy that responds to the architectural AREA (m2)
loops, where strategies for the technology of the assembly are tested by
strategy is subsequently deployed across different parts of the building ES.30.05 GUTTERS
examining their impact on a global finite element model. This approach
Solar
Radiation
88 concepts. The
and is the starting point for the generation of structural
LINEAR LENGTH (m)
captures the geometry-driven behaviour of the envelope. Typically, the
WIND TUNNEL TESTING

0.245 m behaviour of each part of the facade, or building, structure

31 is controlled behaviour of large steel enclosures is expected to be driven by its global
by a distinct structural primitive. Each structural primitive is combined displacements at serviceability. Large concrete shells are likely to be
QUANTITY OF OUTLETS

Double Glazing Units

(90% Ar + 10% Air) with the general strategy for the envelope that responds to the archi- N/A STEEL STRUCTURE BY OTHERS
driven by maximum stresses at ultimate limit states. Analytical/numeri-
Low-e coating

Insulation

Aluminium
tectural programme, in order for a structural concept to be generated.
Inlet
Area
Inlet
Area cal models are simplified in order to represent the essence of the object
A structural concept for a facade of complex geometry addresses the analysed. This is valid from small-scale components to large-scale struc-
following primary aspects: tures. This ensures that analytical models are robust and do not pro-
• Structural stability at global and local building scale. duce misleading results, in which potential analytical errors are of the
• Robustness of the design proposed. same order of magnitude of the results.
• Integration of primary, secondary and facade structure. Following this design approach, the envelope fabric is optimised in
The structural design of a complex geometry structure follows a terms of structural stiffness and strengths to match the performance
process of ‘differentiation’ and ‘integration’: all components (connec- required by the geometry at different locations. The structural optimisa-
tions, constitutive components, modules, etc.) are designed and ana- tion is done through digital analysis, where the global effect of changing
lysed in isolation but are ultimately assessed in their global behaviour by the stiffness of one part of the envelope is examined in real time. In this
establishing the load path through the structural elements.For complex way the assembly is conceived as a flexible set of sub-assemblies and
geometry structures the ‘integration’ usually reveals the final structural components, so that a single facade system can be used across the
behaviour, which is driven by the overall geometry. The step of differ- project to match the performance required by the envelope geometry.
entiation is nonetheless required in order to integrate the technology This approach is driven by a thorough understanding of current and
required at the level of an assembly. emerging technologies used for facades of complex geometry, which
The general strategy established at the outset of the design is driven inform both materials and assemblies. Assembly technologies are
by the technology of the proposed facade assembly. To this aim, current brought into the design process when establishing the general strategy
and emerging technologies are assessed to establish the strategy for for the load-bearing envelope. The approach in designing complex geom-
the envelope by examining existing built precedents. These precedents etry structures is assembly-driven.
are used to demonstrate the suitability of the technology proposed in
relation to either a specific building type, or the project location, climate, Method for MEP/environmental analysis of complex facades
etc. During ‘differentiation’, each assembly is examined independently The approach used to analyse the case studies in this book is based
through simplified calculation models, which range from hand calcula- on establishing a balanced set of environmental performance criteria.
tions to a finite element assessment of a typical structural bay, whose A commonly used approach sets environmental criteria based on ‘best
size is representative of local effects. This is aimed at assessing the practice’. However, this approach, where each criterion is derived inde-
robustness of the assembly and its local stability. During ‘integration’, pendently, does not allow for an assessment of combined effects, nor
the structural concept for the load-bearing envelope is analysed through for any subsequent optimisation.
a global finite element model. This is aimed at assessing global stability The objective of this design method is to produce a balanced set
and support reactions. The stiffness of the building is assessed primarily of studies that are coordinated and that document a robust design
by estimating natural frequencies and global displacements. Stiffness is concept by demonstrating a global understanding of all the implica-
typically the driving parameter for the structural design of large-scale tions when choosing a given environmental strategy. This method aims
enclosures for facades of complex geometry. Global displacements are at gaining a basic understanding of the order of magnitude of all the
required to be linked back to local effects in order to obtain preliminary environmental phenomena and their relative importance in the design
estimates of movement that will have to be accommodated within enve- within a very short time-frame. It departs from a more typical approach
lope assemblies, whilst still ensuring weather tightness. The interaction where one specific aspect of the design is optimised on the basis of
of the structure with the surrounding structures is investigated through an intuitive ‘fit’ with the proposed architectural concept. Environmental
support reactions, which are the basis of establishing load paths. The design covers a wide range of variables. Embedding interdependency
global model allows to assess areas of stress concentrations in order to between variables is necessary to ensure design robustness, which is
establish strategies to redistribute internal forces and stresses. 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 essen-
tial 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 pro-
ject is essential in order to establish a close relationship between enve-
lope 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 meth-
od of design implementation in order to be transformed into a set of
instructions, which is how the design is delivered for construction. Fol-
lowing the current approach in building construction, the building enve-
lope design is delivered through a set of drawings, which represent the
design intent, and a performance specification, which contains the per-
formance requirements for the facade systems illustrated in the draw-
ing 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 bid-
ding contractors based on compliance with what was issued at tender.
Since aspects of the design are not described in the tender documenta-
tion, the contractor is allowed to propose design changes on the basis
of their technical appropriateness. Different tender returns are com-
pared 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 stand-
ards 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 contrac-
tors 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 spec-
ification does not capture how the various parts of the design are coordi-
nated across the various disciplines. Consequently, there is no method to
ensure that all design requirements are both compatible and coordinat-
ed. In the drawings, the specific method of assembly is not described. The
drawings are organised as a hierarchy of general arrangement draw-
ings, 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 com-
patibility 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 well-
known 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 contrac-
tors, 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 compet-
ing 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 spe-
cific 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 enve-
lope and the other trades and a tool for a direct take-off of quanti-
ties. 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 test-
ing 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 esti-
mates 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 val-
idate 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 engi-
neer in response to the architectural brief. In order for the design to be
implemented, a series of steps is required to validate the design pro-
posed in in relation to the specific fabrication constraints of the appoint-
ed 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 knowl-
edge into design constraints/drivers for a given facade design project.
Material selection and HVAC (heating, ventilation, air conditioning) requires a strategy for
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 ele-
ment (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 con-
MCCS_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 mini-
mum 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 selec-
tion 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 primar-
ily 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 tech-
nology 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 appli-
cable to different degrees depending on the specific project:
1. Geometry definition. The coordination between facade, structure
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 require-
ments to be met by the proposed fabricator. This preliminary testing
provides both a proof-of-concept design, and a validated set of mechan-
ical properties to be used as inputs for the structural analysis. This pro-
cess 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 compli-
ance 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 - con-
siderations of the expected precision of workmanship during both fabri-
cation 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 identi-
fied. 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 structur-
al 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 compli-
ance 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 representa-
tive 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 can-
not be determined by numerical analysis. These bespoke tests are typi-
cally 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 per-
formance mock-ups. The prototype is also typically used for informal
structural testing, where the structural stability of the prototype is test-
ed 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 fabri-
cation 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 perfor-
mance mock-up must withstand a series of tests which are per-
formed 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 fab-
rication 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” N

116° 26’ 0.8” 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 TESTING

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

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

1
6

2
10

4
2

3D external view of typical bay

8

7
6
1

4
2

5
Details
1. Metal sheet 6. Thermal insulation
2. Mullion 7. External cladding
3. Transom 8. Floor slab
3D internal view of typical bay 4. Double glazed unit 9. Floor finish
5. Glazing frame 10. Ceiling finish

MCCS_26
 6
1
3

2
4
4 2

5 5

3D view of glazing system 3D exploded view of glazing system

4
4 2

5
9

7 8

7 6 10

3D view of interface between facade and structure 3D exploded view of interface between facade and structure

MCCS_27
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
1 System design

Top view

3
3

1
1

Front view

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:30

Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Mullion
3. Transom
4. Glazing frame
MCCS_28
 3 2
1

4
4

2D detail. Scale 1:10 2D detail. Scale 1:10

3
3

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

Finite element model of typical bay

45.0
43.9

42.7
45.0
43.9
41.6
45.0
42.7
40.5
43.9

41.6
39.4
42.7

40.5
38.2
41.6

39.4
37.1
40.5

38.2
36.0
39.4

37.1
34.9
38.2

36.0
33.7
37.1

34.9
32.6
36.0

33.7
31.5
34.9

32.6
30.4
33.7

31.5
29.2
32.6

30.4
28.1
31.5

29.2
27.0
30.4

28.1
25.9
29.2

27.0
24.7
28.1

25.9
23.6
27.0

24.7
22.5
25.9

23.6
21.4
24.7

22.5
20.2
23.6

21.4
19.1
22.5

20.2
18.0
21.4

19.1
16.9
20.2

18.0
15.7
19.1

16.9
14.6
18.0

15.7
13.5
16.9

14.6
12.4
15.7

13.5
11.2
14.6

12.4
10.1
13.5

11.2
12.4

10.1
11.2

10.1
9.0

7.9

9.0
6.7

7.9
5.6
9.0

6.7
4.5
7.9

5.6
3.4
6.7

4.5
2.2
5.6

3.4
1.1
4.5

2.2
0.0
3.4

1.1
2.2

0.0
1.1

0.0
5.94
5.80

5.65

5.50

5.35

5.20

5.05

4.90

4.76

4.61

4.46

4.31

4.16

4.01

3.86

3.71

3.57

3.42

3.27

3.12

2.97

2.82

2.67

2.53

2.38

2.23

2.08

1.93

1.78

1.63

1.49

1.34

1.19

1.04

0.89

0.74

0.59

0.45

0.30

0.15

0.00

0.00
15.00

0.00 15.015.0
15.0
0.00
0.00 1.45
1.45
0.19 0.00 1.161.16
1.16 4.214.21
0.00 0.00 4.21
5
0.00 0.00 0.18 0.255 5.305.30
2.26
2.26 .2 2.225.25
0.19 0.00 0.255
0.255 5.30
2.22 0.1862
0.186
0.00 0.23 0.00 2.38
2.38 0.9110.911
0.911

5.00

5.00

5.00
0.00 4.264.26 1.161.16
0.22 0.73 4.26
0.2600.260
0.260 1.160.138
0.138
2.602.60 3.373.373.37
0.00 2.60
3.

4.50
4.50
3.
3. 7

0.22 1.31
1.31
0.19 1.701.70
1.70 4.384.38
4.38
37

1.08
3
37

0.00 -0.00
9.589.58 2.25
2.25
1.12 5.225.22
5.22 5.90
5.90 9.58
0.22 2.54 6.936.93
6.93
1.12 2
5.6 5.62
5.62 17.317.3
17.3
0.20 0.54 0.22 5.815.135.13
5.815.81 5.13 45.045.0
45.0
10.00

4.58 0.02 3.973.97

3.97 42.842.8
42.8
5.94 28.228.2
28.2
0.30 0.11
5.39 8.978.97
8.97
0.45

0.20
3.51 0.28
0.40
0.30 1.04

0.00

0.00

0.00
3.68
5.12
5.46
5.00

2.32
-140.00 -145.00 -150.00 -155.00 m -140.00 -140.00
-140.00 -145.00 -145.00
-145.00 -150.00 -150.00
-150.00 m m m

Z Sector of system Group 1 11 M 1 : 83 Z Sector

Z Sector
Zof system
Sector
of system
Group
of system
3Group
11 Group
3 11 3 11 M 1 : 80
M 1 :M 80
1 : 80
X X * 0.672 X X X principal
Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 0 to 5.94 step 0.149 MPa
Tensile stress distribution in glazing panels (MPa) Tensile stress distribution in concrete structure (MPa)
Maximum X * 0.517
X * 0.517
X * 0.517
Y Y * 0.884 Y Y Y 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 * 0.927
Y * 0.927
Y * 0.927
Z * 0.875 Z * 0.934
Z * 0.934
Z * 0.934

19.6
19.1
13.7
14.6
19.8
19.3

18.8

18.3

17.8

17.3

16.8

16.3

15.8

15.4

14.9

14.4

13.9

13.4

12.9

12.4

11.9

11.4

10.9

10.4

9.9

9.4

8.9

8.4

7.9

7.4

6.9

6.4

5.9

5.4

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

18.8

13.6
20.00

18.4
2.31 18.0
10

4.51
17.6
.1

17.3
1.70
15.0
11

17.0
16.9
4.46

92
16.5
19.2
.

4.41 0.997 4.00 7. 11.6

3

12.
18.00

16.1

4
109.00

2.75 11.6 19.6

15.8

2.56 3.98 15.4

17.1
5.34 11.5 9.39 15.0
19
97

96

2 11.4 14.6
.1
7. 9 10.4
2.

3.
48

14.3

4.13 11.5
8.94 13
13.9

12.8
2.

11.2
16.00

5.49 9.49 .9
12.

13.5

9.01
17

13.1

11.6 9.35 12.8

15
3.84 10.0
0

.6

.8
4.46

7.56 10.4 12.8 12.4

10. 12.8
0

12.0

4 19.6
18.

11.6

11.5 19.6
108.00

11.3

12 . 17 18.4
14.00

10.9
4 .3
12.0 19.5 10.5
12.0

19.8 13.1
10.1

9.8

11.3
19.5 12.4 9.4
19.2 16.1
9.0

19.3 12.1 8.0 9.8

12.00

8.6

8.29
19.2
8.3

7.9

12.4
15.4

7.5
19.1
12.0
7.1
12.2
107.00

6.8

7.5
6.4

12.8
10.00

6.0

10.2 5.6

5.3

4.9
-140.00 -142.00 -144.00 -146.00 -148.00 -150.00 -152.00 -154.00 -156.00 m 328.00 329.00 330.00 331.00 332.00 m
4.6

Z Sector of system Group 1 11 M 1 : 74 Sector of system Group 2 M 1 : 21

ZY
Tensile stress distribution in glazing panels due to the wind pressure (MPa)
Y
X Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 2 wind pressure , from 1.8390e-06 to 19.8 step 0.495 MPa X * 0.658
Y * 0.841
Z * 0.927
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 X * 0.881
Y * 0.790
Z * 0.774

MCCS_30
 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
Floor-to-ceiling stick
1.78 1.69
Facade system
1.69 1.61 glazing.
1.61 1.52
1.52

1.44
1.44
Facade zone 270 mm Type of bay
Type of bay Glass
1.35
41.35 1.27
1.27 1.18 Primary structure type Concrete slabs
1.18 1.10
Façade zone
1.10 1.01 Façade zone aluminium
Extruded 270 mm
1.01
0.93 Secondary structure type
0.93
0.85 profiles. Primary stru
0.85

0.76
1 0.76

Weight of secondary Primary structure Concrete slab

0.68
0.68 0.14
structure (kN/m2) Secondary s
0.59

Secondary structure Steel I profile

0.59
0.51
0.51
0.42
0.42 Serrated plates; post- Weight of se
0.34
0.34
Facade bracket type Weight of secondary
0.25
0.25
drilled anchorages.
2 -structure (m
structure (m )
0.17
0.17
0.08
Number of components in
-Bracket com
0.08

3
0.00
4
Bracket complexity
fixing system
0.00
-0.08
-0.08
-0.17
-0.17

-Bracket's nu
4 -0.25 -0.25
Weight of facade, including
-0.34 3
-0.34 Bracket's
0.54 number of pieces
-0.42
-0.42
secondary structure (kN/m2)
-Weight of fa
-0.51
2
Weight of façade
-0.51
-0.59
-0.59
-0.68
-0.68
-0.76
-0.76
-0.85

Finite element model of typical bay Facade assembly-0.85

-0.93
-0.93

-1.01
-1.01
-1.10
-1.10

Details -1.18
-1.18

-1.27
-1.27
1. Aluminium mullion
-1.33
-1.33

Typical bay of the building 2. Aluminium transom

Principal stress Principal stress
Typical bay of the building
3. Glazing frame
4. Primary structure
0.372

-0.013
0.01 0.337

-0.013

8.00
0.00
-0.038 -0.038 -0.0380

-0.0104
-0.05 -0.05 -0.0499 0.318

-0.001
-0.31
-0.001

-0.0096
0.05

-0.01
0.05

-0.01
- -0.0541
- 0.299
-0.46
-0.013 -0.013
-0.061 -0.0128 -0.061

0.0035
-0.0612 -0
.5
-0.07 0.281 98

0.002

0.0029
-0.07

0.0038
0.002
-0.61 -0.0733 2E

0.004
0.004
-3
-0.078

0.0041
0.01
-0.078

0.0057
0.004
0.01

-0.0776 0.262

0.0039
0.004

-0.76
-0.036

0.004
-0.036
0.004

-0.0364 0.
0.

0.004
-0.085 0. 02
0.004

-0.92 -0.085 0.243 -0.0845

03 0. 03 0. 91

-0.1 -0.1 -0.0967 0. 03

02
91
-1.07 0.224
0. 03 0. 0.
02
-0.10 -0.10 -0.101
03 0. 03 91

-0.06 0. 0.206
0. 03
-0.0600 0.
-1.22
-0.06 -0.11 03 -0.108 0. 05
-0.11 06 0. 06 0.
78
-1.38
-0.12 -0.120 0.187 0. 06
05
-0.12 0. 06 0. 0.
05
79
-1.53 -0.13 -0.13 -0.125
0.
0.168 06 0 06 88

0. .06
0.
-0.084 -0.0836
0 0.

6.00
-1.68 -0.084 -0.131 -0.131 6 -0.131
09
08
64
-0.143
0.150
0. 09 0. 0.
08
-1.84 -0.143 -0.143
0.131 0. 09 0. 09 0.
08
67
-0.148
-0.148 -0.148 09 09 84
-0.0121

0. 0
-0.0155
-0.01
-0.01

-0.0185

0. .09
-1.99 0.
-0.107
-0.107
09 0.112
0. 11
-0.022

-0.107 -0.154
-0.022

-0.15 -0.167 12 12 5
-0.021
0.-002

-0.15
0.02

-2.14 0. 0. 0.
11
-0.010

0.094
12 12 5
-0.003

-0.17
-0.01

-0.17
-0.01

0.
0. 0.
.0

11
0

-0.172
12 12 8
5

-2.29
070

-0.172 -0.172 0. 0.075

0
0. .12
8

0.
-0.131
12 0.

0.0014
9

0.9730E-3
14
-0.131 -0.131
0.005

0.7829E-3
0.005
-2.45
15 15 4

0.8477E-3
0.056
0. 0. 0.

0.0022
0.0021
14

0.0034
14
0

14
0
-2.60 4
0. 0. 0.

0.0050
0.037 14
14
0

14
0

8
0.01

0.01

-2.75
0.019
-2.91
0.000
-3.06 -0 -0
-0
.3
-0.019
-0
-4.46
.3 .3 76

4.00
-0
-3.21 -4.46 -4.46-5.97 .3 74 -0 74 .3
76
76 .3 -0
.3
-5.97 -5.97
-5.81
-0 -0 -0.037
-0 76 74
-3.36
-5.81 .3 .3 -0 .3 -0
-5.81
-4.90
74 76
-0.056 -4.48
.3 76 .2
51
-3.52 -4.90 -4.90 -6.00
74 -0
.2
52
-0.075 -0
-3.67 .2
-5.83 50
-4.92 -0.094
-3.82 -4.51 -0
-4.51
- 0. -0. .1
27
-4.51-6.02 -0.112 -0 12 -0 12 -0
-3.98
-6.02 -0 .1 6 .1 6
.1
27
-6.02
-5.85
27 -0 27
-0
.1
-4.13 -5.85 -4.94
-5.85 -0
-0.131
.1 .1 26
27 - 27
-4.94 -4.94
.1
26 -0.150 -4.53 -0 0.1 -0
-4.28
-6.04 .0 26 .0
-0
.0
-0.168 -0 02 -0 02 -0
.0
02
5
-4.44 -5.88
-0 .0 .0
-0
.0 02
5 0.
-4.96 -0 .0 -4.55 03 -0 -0 03
01
1
-4.59 .0 -0.187
00.2033 .0 .0 0.
02
-4.55 -6.06
01 00.2033

2.00
03
-4.55 0
0.1
-4.74 -0.206
-6.06 -6.06
-5.90
0.
-5.90 -4.99
-0.224 12 12
-4.89
-5.90 -4.57
0. 3 3 0.
-4.99 12 0. 0. 12
2
-5.05 -4.99 -0.243 0. 2 0. 12 12
3
-6.09
0. 12 12 2
-5.92
24-0.262 2 0. 2
-0.6854

-5.20 -5.01
24
-0.005

-0.0027
-0.7239E-3

-0.0027
-0.005

-4.59
8 0.

-0.0051
24
-0.003

-0.0027
-5.35 -0.281
0.0088

-6.11 6
0.0071

-0.003

0.
-4.59
-0.0081
0.0103
-0.003

0.0067

24
E-3

0.0043

-4.59
-0.003

8
0.003
-0.008

-5.94
0.0027

-5.51
-6.11
0

0.0061

-0.299
-0.008

0.9220E-3

0.0102
0.0051
0.01

0.0021

-6.11
0

0.
0.004

0.0023

0.4360E-3
0.01

-5.03
0.0036

-5.94
0.0069

0.
0.004
0.002

0.0

37

0.0124
-5.66
0.0057

-5.94
0.0039

-0.318
0.
0.0015
0.

37
0.002

-5.03 1 0.
0.
0.0086

37
075002
0.004

0.002

37
-5.03 0. 37 1 1
0.004

-5.81
0 0.
0.004

-0.337
37 0. 0
37
0.004

2
-5.96 0. 1 37
-160.00 -158.00 -156.00 -154.00 -0.355
3 -152.00 0. 1 -150.00 m
-6.11 -16 72 37
-16 -0.374 2
-160.00 -158.00 -156.00 -154.00
Z Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kN (Min=-6.11) (Max=0.0103)
-0.376 M 1 : 50
AxialX Yforce distribution in aluminium frame (kN) X * 0.502
Bending
Z
Y
moment distribution in aluminium frame (kNm)
Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight Y,* 10.906
cm 3D
Z * 0.962
= 0.200 kNm (Min=-0.376)
X
MCCS_2 MCCS_2

The glazing panels follow the curved perimeter of each building, inter- The analysis of a typical bay addresses the most unfavourable condition
facing with the floor slabs in a floor-to-ceiling configuration. The glazing in terms of structural movements, with two glazing configurations inter-
panels and framing, which ‘sit’ on the slab, are allowed to expand freely facing with the same slab. The stress generated in each panel varies
in the vertical direction. Due to the geometry of each building, the glazing according to its position and can in this way be estimated. The reaction
line follows a curved perimeter line, which requires an assessment of forces exerted as a result on the concrete structure are also considered
the effects of inter-storey drift (maximum horizontal movement between together with any stress concentration along the concrete slab edge.
two slabs) on the stresses inside each glazed unit. The inter-storey
drift would typically be accommodated within each glazing frame for a Detailed finite element modelling is required for these cases in order to
straight vertical configuration, where the panels are allowed to move establish glass thicknesses, which requires a first principles approach
independently of the frame, by a limited amount, in order to avoid any in the design of the glass which cannot be achieved by using most of the
damage to the glazed unit during structural movements. The curved current standards which require the engineer to use charts to calculate
configuration of the glazing line causes additional torsional stresses to the effects of lateral deflection only. The calculated design strength of
be introduced into the glazed units as a result of the out-of-plane move- the glass, which takes into account the specific glass mechanical prop-
ment. This movement is, inevitably, imposed on some of the glazed units erties, load duration, age and size is compared directly with the maxi-
around the perimeter, a movement which cannot be accommodated mum stresses found through finite element analysis.
within the plane of the framing.

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

Period Total area Total radiation 25

1 year 10,490 m 2
15,268 MWh
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2 % Daylight factor

300 12

260 10

180 8

150 6

100 4

62 2
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 5.4%

Period With shading 98.4% of area between 2-12%
shading reduction
0.1% of area > 12%
1 year 4.5 MWh 17.1 MWh 74%
1.5% of area < 2%

MCCS_32
 External Internal
velocity, m/s 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 2.5
shelf being determined by the building geometry in order to provide an
1.9
effective cut-off of solar radiation, whilst avoiding a significant reduction of
daylighting levels in the internal space. 1.3

Through solar radiation analysis, the building form has been adjusted to 0.7
suit directly the shading requirements around the perimeter of the build-
0
ing. In addition, the overshadowing effect of the skybridges has been taken
into account through the solar radiation analysis of the global model. Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

MCCS_33
CURRENT AND
COMPLEX EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
GEOMETRY 1
2 Evolution Tower, Moscow

MCCS_34
EVOLUTION TOWER, Moscow
OFFICES

55° 44’ 55.1” N

37° 32’ 32.4” E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

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

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

11

11
2

8
5

3D external view of typical bay

4 5

Details
1. Double glazed unit 5. Floor supporting bracket 9. Support bracket
2. Mullion 6. Primary structure 10. Steel structure
3. Transom 7. Ceiling finish 11. Shading elements
3D internal view of typical bay 4. Floor finish 8. Glazing frame

MCCS_36
 11

3 3
11

1
2

5
3
4 6
5 7

6
7

3D view of glazing system 3D exploded view of glazing system

10 10

3D view of glazing system 3D exploded view of glazing system

8
8

9
9

3D view of supporting bracket 3D exploded view of supporting bracket

MCCS_37
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
2 System design

3 2

Top view

3
4

4 3
3

Front view

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:30

MCCS_38
 3

2 1
4

2 2

2D detail. Scale 1:5 2D detail. Scale 1:10

2 1
2

Back view

5 5

2 2
1
1

Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Mullion 3
3. Transom 3
4. Glazing frame MCCS_39
5. Shading elements
 COMPLEX GEOMETRY
2 Structural analysis

Twisting unitised
Facade system
glazing.
Facade zone 230 mm
Primary structure type Concrete slabs.
Extruded aluminium
Secondary structure type
profiles.
Weight of secondary
0.08
structure (kN/m2)
Serrated plates; post-
Facade bracket type
drilled anchorages.
Number of components in
2
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
0.63
secondary structure (kN/m2)

1
5

Finite element model of twisting facade

Alternative option using kinked Facade assembly

framing explored as part of
Details
the design development to
1. Aluminium mullion
generate the final straight-
2. Aluminium transom
framed solution used for the
3. Glazing
construction of the facade.
4. Primary structure
5. Fixing bracket

10.00
51 0.551
0.152 0.152 0.152
66 0.466 0.080 0.080 0.080

19 0.419 0.040 0.040 0.040

94 94
-0.02 0.000 -0.02 0.000 0.000
0 0 300
72 0.372
6 030 56 030 6
88 99 88 99 055 -0. 2 -0.05 -0. 055 2 .0
-0.05 -0.05 -0. 0 -0. .30528 -0
2
-0.040 -0.040 -0.040
-0.02 -0.02 028 028
26 0.326
5 0 35 00
083 060 -0. 4 -0.08 060 .008
- 4 .06 -0.
-0. -0. -0.
-0.080 -0.080
881 3140881
-0.080
4
314 056 0 -0 01.1056 -0 056
79 0.279
-0.0 598 -0.121 -0.0-0. 598 -0.0 0 900
-0.0 -0.0 111 9 0 0 . 1 1 9 0 -0.
0 - 46 -0.1 0.0 0.-1 46-0.0
-0.121 -0.121
-0. -0. 846
33 0.233
8 0 8 - - 0 8 0
-0.11 97-0.161 629118 97 629 20 -0. 20 -0. 20 -0.
-0.08 -0.0-0. -0.08 -0.0
-0.161 -0.161
86 0.186
. 1 . 1 . 1
-0 -0
8.00

8.00

7 -0
47 94.3147 16-0.201 150 113 167 7
150 -0.160.113 0.150 113
8.00

-0.201 -0.201
-0.1 0 0 43 -0. -0.241 -0.
-0.12 -0.241 -0.12
40 0.140
6 0.09
41 -0.0-0 -0.241 - -0. -0. -0. - 95 - -0.
195 195
8.00

.0 180 80 1 80
-0. -0.282 -0.
93 0.093
-0 -0.40
5 9 26 .405 9 26 -0. 69 0.1 -0. 69-0.1 169
-0.0456 -0.14-0.282
-0.1 -0 -0.14
-0.282
-0.1 -0 . 1 -
-0 . 1
-0.
210 210 10
47 0.047
0.0850 11
4
60
8
-0. 197 -0. 19 7 0.2 197
0.0152 57 57 -0. -0. -5 -0.
-0.322 -0.322 -0.322
-0.488 -0.488 -0.488
87

87

.0 .0
00 0.000
-0.1 -0.1
87

87

-0 -0 25 2 225
87

87

2 2
-0.4

-0.4

33
60

.
60

.
0

-0.
-0.362 -0.362 -0.362
-0 -0 -0.0270
47 -0.047
-0.4

-0.4

0.149 86 86 0 0 -0.522
0.46

0.353-0.093 01 -0.5 -0.5 -0. 027 -0. 027

-0.4

-0.4

522 522
09

09

-0. -0.
0.551 -0.402 551
-0.4

-0.4

93 0. 0. -0.402 -0.402
09

09
-0.6

-0.6

0.469
09

09

98

98

98

0.285 -0.140 0.0260 -0.443

20 -0.443
20 -0.0844
-0.443 -0.627
-0.0844 -0.0844 -0.627 -0.627
-

0.522 .522 -0.6 -0.6

-0.6

-0.6

40
98

98

98
-0.6

-0.6

0
-0.5

-0.5

-0.5
98

98

98

0.378 -0.483 -0.483 -0.483

-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

86 -0.186
0.217 3 0.472 93 11 11 -0.661 -0.661 -0.661
0.49 -0.523 0.4 -0.5 -0.5
-0.5

-0.5

-0.5

33 -0.233 -0.523 -0.523

0.286
.09210.464 921
6.00

0.354 40 40 -0.627 -0.627 -0.627

6.00

6.00

0.149 -0.279 0.464 -0-0.563 -0.5 -0.0-0.563 -0.5 -0. 145

-0.563 -0.145 -0.145
6.00

79

0.194 -0.604 1
69 1 69
-0.12 0.435 -0.12
-0.604 -0.604
35236 -0.5 -0.5 -0.176 -0.176 -0.176
0.

26 -0.326
0.0814 0.40. 658 658
-0. -0. -0.658
05

-0.450 -0.450 -0.450

0.

-0.644 -0.644 -0.644

72 -0.372
0.102 1
078 -0.15 0.407 -0.5
98 .151 -0.5
98
16

02

.411 -0-0.684 -0.684 330 30 0

00. -0.684
-0. -0.688-0.3 .33 -0.688 623 -0.688
623 62-30
19 -0.419
09

8 1 8 0 8 6 2 7 1 8 0 6 27 0 . 0 . 0 .
0.37 -0. 0.37 -0. -0. -0. - - - 2 3
-0.724 -0.724 -0.724
62 862
66 -0.466
58 53 8 53 58 6 5
-0.765
1 0 5 6 -0.765
1 0 5 6 -0.765 0.3
- -0.6 - 0.8 -0.35 -0.6 -0.3 - 0.-80.6 -0.
12 -0.512
9 2 9 6 2 6
0.34 -0. 0.34 -0. -0. -0. 683 9 683 414 6983 9
-0

4 4
59 -0.559 -0.805
5
-0.805
5
-0.805
0 .41 -0. 0.91 0.41 -0. -03 . 0 -.09.1 3 0.91
.0

3 9 6 8 3 9 6 8 - 3 - - - -
-0

0.32 0 -0. 2 0.32 0 -0 . -0. 2 -0 . 71 71 1

-0. 947 -0. 09.47
7 947
30

-0.845 -0.845 -0.845

-0. -0-. -0.
05 -0.605
.0

-0

8 1 4 8 1 4 3 3 69 3
6

1 6 1 7 6 7 9 4 9 4 4
47

0.2 9 -0. 2 0.2 9 -0 . -0. 2 -0 . 6 7 6 7 7

-0. -0. -0.34
-0.885 -0.885 -0.885
-0.
4.00

4 4
.0

52 -0.652
-0. -0.
4.00
5

8
773 3
55

06 43 43 497 00 497 77 97 .707 00

4.00

4.00

-0.926 -0.926 -0.926

98 -0.7 98 -0.7 0
-0. -0.43
98 -0.698
0.26
2 -0.2 0.262 -0.2 -0. -0. -1. -0. -1-.0 -1.
-0

.0
7

-0 .80
3
.03 .80 303
.0

45 -0.745 -0.966 -0.966 -0.966

0.08 03
-0

3 2 7 3 . 77 2 2 7 . 7 7 2 - 0 -1 - 0 -1-. -1.
3 3 3 0 3 0
51

-0.255 0.2 20 -0. 0.2 - -1.006-0. -

.1

6 6 06
-0

-1.006 -1.006
91 -0.791
7 07 4 0 7 4 646 .0 646 646 . 0
9

.0 -0.0 -0.0 0.801 -1.046 -0. -1 -0. -0. -1 -1.

47

01
.1

0 -1.046 35 6 35 6 0 . 8 -1.046
-0. - -0. -
38 -0.838
-
-0.202 -0.885
32

-0.493 -0.493 -0.493

4
94

94

-0.284
-1.087
30 -1.087 30 -1.087 -0.680 -0.680 -0.680
0.49

85
. 8 . 8
61

61

0 0
-0

85 - 5 -
-0.4

-0.4
61

61

-0.1 -1.127 -0.18 -1.42 -1.42 -1.42

61

61

81
81

81

0.1 52 0.152 0.152

.0

-1.127 -1.127
-0.4

-0.4
61

61

31 -0.931
-0.246 8 8
-0.4

-0.4

81
81

8-1
61

61

-1.2-1.167 -1.2 -1.167

-0.4

-0.4

-0.978 -0.410
-0.5
-0.5

-0.5
80

81
81

81
51

51
-0.4

-0.4

78 -1.167
-1.46 -1.46 -1.46
51

51

-0.5
-0.5

-0.5
-0.4

-0.4
4

51

51

-0.5
-0.5

-0.5
-0.5

-0.5
51

51

93 3 1 3 1 915 915 915

-0.5

-0.5

-1.207 -1.207 -1.207

51

.551

24 -1.024
-0.4 -1. .
-1 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.5

-0.5

-02.00
-0.5

-0.5

2.00

3 3
0.026
-0.5

0.026
71 -1.071 -1.248 -1.248 -1.248

0.0822 0.08220.0610 0.0822

0.0610 0.0610
17 -1.117 -1.288 -1.288 -1.288
2.00

2.00

1 -1.328 1
0.0548 0.0609 0.0548 0.06090.0548 0.0609
0.027 0.027
64 -1.164 -1.328 -1.328
95 95 0.0305 0.0305 0.0305
11 -1.211 -1.368 0.05 -1.368 0.05 -1.368
0.0 274 0.0 274 0.0274
2 9 8 29 8 0.0 304 0.0 304 0.0304
57 -1.257 -1.408
0.0 -1.408
0.0 -1.408

04 -1.304 -1.449 -1.449 -1.449

-10.00 -14.00 -12.00-16.00
-10.00 -14.00 -12.00
-18.00 -8.00 -16.00
-20.00-14.00 -10.00 -8.00 -16.00-12.00 m
-18.00
-22.00 -10.00
-20.00 -8.00
-14.00
-18.00 -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 -18.00
-22.00 m -20.00 -20.00 -
11 -1.311 -1.457 -1.457 -1.457

Beam
ase Elements
1 self , Normal
weight , 1 force
cm 3D Nx, Loadcase
Beam kNm
Z= 0.500 Elements
1(Min=-0.493)
self
, weight
Normal (Max=0.472)
force
, 1 cm
Nx,3D
Loadcase
= 1.00 kN
1 self Beam Elements
Z(Min=-1.31)
weight , Normal
(Max=0.551)
, 1 cm force
3D = 1.00 Nx,Z Loadcase
Beam MElements
kN (Min=-1.31) 11 :self
58 weight
, Normal ,force
(Max=0.551) 3D Beam
1 cm ZNx, Elements
=Loadcase
1.00 kN ,:self
Normal
M 11(Min=-1.46)force(Max=0.152)
53 weight Nx,, Loadcase
1 cm 3D1 =self weight
1.00 53, 1 cm 3D = 1.00
M 1kN: (Min=-1.46) kN (Min=-1.46) (Max=0.152)
(Max=0.152) M 1 : 60
XAxial force distribution in twisting facade (kN)
Y
X
Y
X
Y
X * 0.940
Y * 0.542
X
Y
X * 0.923
Y * 0.558
Axial force distribution in folded facade (kN)
X * 0.923
Y * 0.558
X * 0.923
Y * 0.558
Z * 0.907 Z * 0.915 Z * 0.915 Z * 0.915

MCCS_40
 2.20
2.15

2.09

0.38
0.20
0.22
2.04

0.38
1.98

0.

0.42
0.57

0.41

0.54
50
0.
1.93

0.
0.54

18

0.
0.34

0.45
50

48
0.23
1.87
0.14

0.21
0.53

0.39
1.82 0.53
0.10
1.76
0.51 0.52
1.71 0.10 0.13
0.50 0.50
1.65
0.02 0.05
1.60 0.49 0.49
1.54 0.05 0.05
0.48 0.48
1.49
0.04 0.05
1.43 0.47 0.47
0.05 0.10
1.38
0.45 0.46
1.32 0.08 0.18
1.27 0.44 0.45
0.16 0.25
1.21
0.43 0.44

0.
1.16 0.40

59
0.
2.13

0.52

0.52
4

2.13
0.9

59
2.14

0.
2.14
1.10

59
0.17

2.19
1.05

0.

2.19
2.19
2.19
2.20
1

2.20
6

2.20
0.99 6

2.20
0.8

2.15
2.15
2.14
2.14
0.94
0
0.88 0.9
4
0.83
0.8 0.8
8
0.77
3
0.8 0.8
7
0.72
2
0.66 0.8 0.8
6

0.61 0
0.8 0.8
5
0.55
9
0.50 0.7 0.8
4

8
0.44
0.7 0.8
3
0.39
8
0.7 0.8
2
0.33
7
0.28 0.7
0.22

0.17

0.11

0.06
Finite element model of typical bay 0.00
-32.00 -30.00
Axial force distribution
-28.00 -26.00
in cable
-24.00
elements (kN)
-22.00 -20.00 -18.00

5
Z Cable Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 10 sw + prestress , 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kN (Max=2.20)
4 XY

Atrium full-height
Facade system
inclined glazing.
1500 mm

2000 mm

Facade zone 370 mm

3
4 Primary structure type Concrete slabs.
CHS steel sections,
3 Secondary structure type
cables.
Weight of secondary
0.28
structure (kN/m2)
4 5 Spider bracket with
Facade bracket type
four adjustable arms.
Number of components in
26 and 2
2 fixing system
1
Weight of facade, including
0.88
Atrium glazing assembly secondary structure (kN/m2)

Details
1. Double glazed unit 4. Cables
2. Spider bracket 5. Steel tube sections
3. Structural connector

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 ac-
commodate 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 op-
tion using kinked aluminium framing also introduced additional torsional
moments in the members when subjected to lateral loads perpendicu-
lar 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 addi-
tional stiffening to avoid torsional resonance effects triggered by wind
vortex shedding. The additional stiffness introduced in the primary struc-
ture 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 be-
tween 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 accom-
modated between each panel rather through folds in the geometry. This
is achieved by means of spider brackets which offer separate adjust-
ment on each supporting leg. Spider bracket fixings allow the accom-
modation 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
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

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay.
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.
1
Daylight factor analysis on typical bay.
Alternative design option using kinked framing and not used for construction.

Mean daylight factor: 5.2%

Without Solar
Period With shading 100% of area between 1-10
shading reduction
1 year 5.8 MWh 7.3 MWh 20%

MCCS_42
 External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s

5 2

4 1.5

3
1
2
0.5
1

0 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

30 Pressure, kPa

20 2.5

10
2.0
0

1.5

1.0

0.5

EXT
1 1
1 1 0.0

1
2

15

2
1
17
16 16

5
18

17 16
17
15
Wind cladding pressure distribution

18
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
20 °C glass without external shading has been selected in order for the com-
13 °C
plex twisting form of the tower to be made visible.
0 °C INT

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly The global wind effects of the twisting geometry are assessed by avoid-
ing resonance of the structure at the vortex shedding frequency, calcu-
o
lated through CFD analysis.
20.0 C
o
13.0 C

o
0.0 C MCCS_43
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 Hotel, Riyadh

MCCS_44
HOTEL, Riyadh
HOTEL

24° 41’ 31.4” N

46° 41’ 08.8” E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

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

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

2
4

3
8

3
2

Details
1. Double glazed unit 6.
2. Secondary link 7.
3. External FRP cladding 8.
4. Internal FRP cladding 9.
3D view of a typical bay 5. Primary structure
Secondary structure
Supporting bracket
Thermal insulation
Shading elements

MCCS_46
 2

4
3
2
6

5 1

3D view of glazed roof 3D assembly view of glazed roof

3
9

5 6
7

5
9

3D view of plant roof 3D exploded view of plant roof

1
3
1

3D view of hotel vertical glazed facade 3D exploded view of hotel vertical glazed facade

MCCS_47
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 System design

Top view

2
3

5 1
1

Front view

2
5
4

Bottom view

Details
1. Double glazed unit
2. Secondary link
3. External FRP cladding
Third angle projection. Scale 1:200 4. Internal FRP cladding
5. Primary structure
6. Secondary structure
7. Supporting bracket
8. Thermal insulation

MCCS_48
 3

8 1
1 8
7
7
5 4
5
4

2D detail. Scale 1:10 3D view of detail

4
2

1
1
6

Back view

2 1

1
4

MCCS_49
 Vertical displacements distribution in FRP louvre due to wind load (mm)
m

M 1 : 28
X * 0.982
Y * 0.769
Z * 0.667

88.00 87.00 86.00 85.00 84.00

474.00
7.04

0.0
11.8

8.14

0.3
9.39

0.6
0.9

Von Mises stress distribution in FRP louvre (MPa)

473.00

1.3
1.6
11.0

6.65

1.9
10.3

2.2
2.5
7
6.5
11.4

2.8
0.313

3.1
0.0

472.00
.3

3.4
11

1.88

3.8
0.0622

4.1
5.01

4.4
4.69

5.95
9

4.7
9.3
4

5.0
8.1

2.82

6.26
0.0
6

5.3
8.76
6.2

471.00

5.6
0
7.2
0.0

5.9
9.70

, from 0 to 12.5 step 0.313 mm

6.3
.3

6.6
10

6.9
6

7.2
3.7
8
1.8

7.5
470.00

7.8
0.0

4.38
5

8.1
8.4

8.4
0.0

.3

8.8
11

20
1.56

9.1
7.
39

Nodal displacement vector in Node, Loadcase 4 W3

9.4
9.

Finite element model of typical bay

6.57

4.07

9.7
0.0600
4.38

469.00
10.0
.0

Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements

10

10.3
7.72
9

2.82
8.76
0.93

6.88

10.6
6.88
0

11.0
11.
0

11.6

12.5
12.2
10.

11.3
Finite element model of typical bay

11.6
4.38
2.50

11.9
12.2 1.56

468.00
12.5
6
3.7

57

0.246
6.
69
4.
9

X
93

M 1 : 259
X * 0.659
Y * 0.769
Z * 0.986
ZY
20.00 10.00 0.00 -10.00
0.

0.03 0.00
0.08
0.09 0.04 0.01
0.09 2.00
0.24 0.11 0.03
0.43 5.00 0.07
0.08 0.01
0.07 7.09 3.51 0.04
0.32

330.00
-234.5 0.21 0.00
0.27 9.63 0.07
0.49

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

Vertical displacements distribution in steel structure due to self-weight (mm)
0.56 0.23 0.18 0.09
-228.8 0.76 14.17
8.31

M 1 : 271
X * 0.815
Y * 0.621
Z * 0.975
30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 0.41 0.32 0.25 0.14 0.03
20.29

5
1.13 0.17 7.85

26
-222.1
26.50 0.23 0.15 0.07

0.
0.496 1.24 1.75
0.0205 0.01 7.24
0.987 -215.4 34.18 0.11 0.02
2.03 0.07 0.04
1.33 3.89 6.00 6.68
24 5 0.542 42.58
1. 4.9 -208.7 2.44 3.79 0.28
9.69 0.01
95 7.95

86
8. 0.24 6.63 51.00 1.55
3.37 16.82

1.
.5 0.877 -201.9 0.07 0.04 0.02
12 4.74 7.11 60.26 9.29
11.2 3.62 24.36 0.02 0.01

370.00
1.
30 04 15
.1 9.56 -195.2 3.44 70.17 9.05 0.32 0.00
-11.9 3. .4 12.5 4.53 33.08 8.73
17 0.36
.0 6.86 2.07 42.72 79.35 9.38 0.15
.9 17 12.0 0.677 -188.5 10.22
-9.1 1.88 11 5.73 5.44
33 .9 88.57 11.45 0.14 0.09 0.04
5. 10.5 2.00 53.35

320.00
18 .5 0.74 13.15
20 .2 8.01 9.05
-4.6
.8
2
17
-181.7 97.01 0.19 0.12 0.06
88 7 .3 7.60 2.02 63.78 5.71 16.37
3. 15 54 1.83 11.47 17.05
.0 .9 5. 26.13 106.02 0.07 0.03
0.0 22 .6 17
4.90 73.96 6.19 20.12
2.09 23 7.23 2.14 -175.0 0.28
.3 16.72 32.08 0.00 0.00
14 11.2 33.98 81.85 114.41

2.64
4.6 .4 1.90 4.91 14.56 23.44
0.981 22 .7 .6 6.94 -168.3 1.59
1.74 4 25 22 13.3 21.51 44.92 120.86 16.76
12. 1.04 91.72 18.06 30.65
9.1
2.80 .7 1.70
88 21 .5 15.2 5.52 2.99 97.37 127.79
1. 27 -161.5 11.36 30.02 69.43 52.14
12.4 .3 25
.6
16.7 6.19 2.12 23.46 35.23
13.7 24 3.82 31.42 105.16 133.04
.2 4.65 4.85 45.50 63.46
33.69

360.00
29 15.1 2.72 -154.8 64.26

0.145
17.9 5.26 32.70 137.06
18.2
.4 .7 7.25 111.07
.5 24

(Min=-234.5) (Max=34.8)
27 30 3.38 14.74 36.83 57.36
6.65 14.7 5.91 -148.1 37.71 79.31 139.56
22.8 3.60 20.6 116.59
19.4 .1 8 3.25 40.82 63.05
9.26
28
7.48
.5 36.1 24
4.17 97 5.27 17.32 49.84 86.21 120.35 140.58
27.3 42.2 0.
1.81
-141.3
.9 15.1 7.6 122.04 139.94
.4 13 51 60.7 2 4.95 28.06 53.57 90.61 122.27
18.6 27 4. 66.8 8.91
31.9 .7 39 .0 -134.6 138.11
23 1. 19 5.41 24.57 85.45 122.69

310.00
.5 85.5 46.04 50.55 76.62
26.6 15 27.2 90.8 28.1 135.13
36.4 28 8 .8
5.69 20.77 36.21 79.58 121.81
1. 11
. 18 -127.9 54.26
108.0 85.84
21.5 44.8 111.8 53.5 46.67 131.47
41.0 33.0 5.01 0.237 16.49 19.29 119.06 61.63
11.1 95.48

0.230
07 83.31 127.78
.6 3. 125.9 77.4 123.5 75.9
-121.2
11.54 46.14
18 5.30 3.06 0.807 114.09 68.78

(Min=-11.9) (Max=170.1)
45.5 35.4 96 78.23 76.72
4 1. 133.1 52.30 121.60
.3 137.7 98.4 90.4 1.55 -114.4 8.43
76.41
36.5 .8 9 .96 11.1 8.95 6.81 108.32 116.58

350.00
50.1 15 6 7.82 141.8 1.72 60.22
146.3 95.9 2.89 74.74 103.05
58 99.6 -107.7 8.48 9.40 86.36 112.09
54.6 37.5 6. 11.9 149.7 16.2 2.25 69.12
154.5 97.3 65.83 99.12
14 98.6 3.76 15.36 98.44 107.77
5. 9.21 157.7 20.9 -101.0 10.80 77.59 99.13
59.2 38.2 5.34 95.6 62.16 94.89
161.1 3.05 19.79 87.75 8.66 104.38
163.8 97.2 19.09
5.24 55 2.71 99.8 113.48
63.7 38.6 1. 165.3 22.0 19.5 -94.2 7.01 18.98 68.55 89.06
99.37 9.10 100.74
168.3 124.24
98.8 14.3 2.99 26.46 67.17 84.37 0.28 0.07
68.3 38.8 167.0 101.3 20.58 110.89 97.77
3.36 170.1
-87.5
23.16
3.86 83 92.1 97.6 29.98 67.14 81.03 139.92
39.0 2. 7.87 29.58 121.85 94.87
72.8 165.9 95.4 169.4
96.8

300.00
-80.8
0.97 32.32 79.00 152.08 28.08
38.8 4.99 5.97 84.2 6.46 31.50 133.86
161.9 166.2 91.18

, 1 cm 3D = 696.9 mm
77.4 98.7 109.6 68.42 163.35 50.43
7.56 -74.0 4.10 34.77 144.99 78.95
10 38.5 3.06 83.7 155.1 83.6 161.9 13.91 35.73 71.90
2. 176.16 85.41
102.1 7.46 31.17
81.9
58 156.49 80.16 60.71

340.00
2. 65.4 89.7 154.4 25.99 42.67
38.0 9.31 145.7 -67.3
34.37 73.31 186.29 80.91
86.5 67.9 10.08 166.31 81.76
6.89 76.8 145.6 26.76 42.82 81.05
3.05 37.4 62.3 134.3 97.3 199.09
-60.6 30.24 175.35
91.0
05
13.6 63.1 133.2 13.31 33.73 48.25 85.60 80.89
3. 36.5 50.5 121.8 98.49
43.0 90.3 182.31 90.34 210.01
41

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

76 35.4 11.5 120.9
3.

, 1 cm 3D = 275.0 mm
95.6 2. 109.0 51.1 -53.8 17.99 27.11 35.51 45.01 59.66 49.34 82.65
31.5 25.0 76.6 216.12
18.2 107.2 188.57 99.26 110.78
3.21

0.754
0.364
95.6 38.8 19.87 39.94 51.03

2.45
1.83
1.25
31.31
78 70.48
100.1
34.1 27.3 91.5 59.7 -47.1
193.48 225.33
63 81.26
84.3
3. 3. 19.5 31.7 19.1 55.80 112.01
3.16
33.2 23.02 35.13 44.45 78.29 101.93
104.7 14 54 30.2 75.2 5.07 230.83
COMPLEX GEOMETRY

3.75 68.1 197.12

4. 3.
-40.4 123.15
31.7 24.3 60.87
17 17.36 33.82 42.85 51.15
109.09
4. 3.02 4.30 6.63 5.1352.4 12.5 61.7 111.84 233.85

0.118
109.2
3.47 60.93 80.81 198.20
30.3 -33.7 28.60 50.10
3 Structural analysis

10 7.48 47.3 98.27 234.46 125.42

Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 sw

4. 2.90 8.96 7.23 38.7 2.31 41.54 197.05 111.09
113.8 63.67 79.32
28.7

290.00
5.15
36.1 30.75 52.38
2.56 3.64 -26.9 43.24 109.67 233.17 125.98
194.07 114.72

330.00
81 26.9 9.99 1.75 28.0 2.00 64.71
118.3
3. 3.93 24.2
35.51
48.91 91.84 229.76
25.8 5.09 57.11 190.26 131.96
5.98 19.4 1.28 -20.2 23.76 106.32
4.40 9.00 3.98 39.75 110.71
122.9 16.2 48.02 60.79 73.65 185.14 129.71

0.128
222.83
23.3 6.35 7.38 13.2 1.18 4.17 35.77 78.02

Nodal displacement in local z, Loadcase 1 sw

4.87 3.75 9.87 -13.5 45.52 53.81 83.11 103.40
127.4
2.39 176.43 215.14
5.55 20.3 13 5.89 8.65
2.70 36.56 61.77 114.30

0.0804

0.176
118.08
17.9 7. 5.94 50.42
70.51 167.60 104.85 206.12
132.0 4.49 5.54 3.75 -6.7 43.26

0.0159
2.80 1.51 58.00
92 4.00 156.88 96.53 101.38 112.32
5.98 3.47 3.03 36.12 48.69 78.09 190.98
136.6
3.65
15.9 7. 3.76 0.476 0.0 42.42
55.89
2.23 3.22 99.58 2.56 89.57 99.46
2.53 33.63 60.82 143.71 177.53
10.3 61 0.838

0.0175
3.45 46.19
141.1 6.43 39.60 52.10 88.35
4.65 9. 3.11 2.90 6.7 131.35 60.87 160.53 105.41
7.53 3.67 3.37 37.53 42.82 74.78
145.7 9.87 3.22 3.07 45.78 59.67 117.37
6.32 13.5 78.67 146.66 82.58
3.96 3.55 39.04 42.25 61.11

6
3.09 35.42 50.36 103.61

.3
150.2
44 3.17 68.90

320.00
126.05
8. 3.72 54.84

7
4.20 29.12 33.90 37.14 88.34 45.20
2.80 2.80 20.2 61.46

10.5
108.50 66.55

280.00
154.8 4.03

.0

82
4.56 28.88 31.51 30.68 74.04 29.39

10
1.39

8.
8.42 4.47 26.9 48.31 91.51 41.03
159.3 4.94 26.32 25.40 60.29 33.91

9.10
7.89
6.50
5.01
. 9 .4
11 10 0.223 4.71
34.8 31.30 72.55
20.46
163.9 5.10 20.96 21.62 46.48 26.46 0.93 0.00 0.00
56.09

MCCS_50
9.30

0.323
0.672
0.770
4.59 17.71 16.53 17.74
170.1 4.86 32.87

12.7
0.03 40.06
4.08 12.88 5.76 1.55
4.40 23.48

14.6
8.53 27.25
3.90 3.52 14.22 0.02
1.87 12.57
5.66
3.18 2.82 0.02
1.72 1.56

310.00
0.409 0.374

XY
YX

Z
Z
 Curved glazed roof with
Facade system Details
FRP shading louvres.
1. Primary
Up to 3 meters (due to structure
Facade zone 3
cladding) 2. Fixing bracket
Primary structure type CHS steel sections. 3. Secondary
6
Secondary structure type RHS steel sections. structure
Weight of secondary 4. Glazing frame
0.52 5. Glazing
structure (kN/m2) 1 6
Spider bracket with four 6. FRP cladding
Facade bracket type
adjustable arms.
Number of components in 6
22
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
1.89
secondary structure (kN/m2) 5
2

Vertical full-height glazing 4

Facade system
with FRP cladding.
Facade zone 975 mm Retail facade assembly
Primary structure type Concrete slabs.
Secondary structure type CHS steel sections.
Weight of secondary
0.30
structure (kN/m2) 5
Serrated plates; post-
Facade bracket type
drilled anchorages.
1
Number of components in
3
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
1.44
secondary structure (kN/m2)

4
6
Vertical facade assembly

0.336

20000.
0.314

0.301

0.31

0.27

0.32
0.287

0.34

0.30

0.26

0.29
0.273

0.260 0.00 0.
0 0
0.246
0.00

0.31

0.26
0.232

0.32

0.33

0.29

0.26
0.219

0.29
0.205 0. 0.
0.00 0 0 00
0.191
0.00
0.30
0.178

0.25

0.31

0.32

0.28
0.164

0.25

0.28

10000.
0.150
0.
0.00 0 0
0.137 0.
00
0.123 0.00
0.29

0.23

0.29
0.109
0.31

0.27

0.23

0.27
0.096
0. 0.
0.082 0.00
0 0 00
0.068
0.00
0.27

0.21

0.00
0.24

0.055 0.
0.29

00 0.25
0.041

0.00 0.
0.027 0 0
0. 0.
0 0 00
0.014
0.00
0.24

0.000
0.18
0.26

0.27
0.17

-0.014
0.22

0.
-0.027 0.00
0. 0.
-0.041 01 0. 00
01
0.21

-0.055
0.13

0.20

0.25

0.17

-0.068
0.12

0.19

-0.082
0.
-0.096 00
-0.109 0. 0.
01 01
-0.123
0. 0.
-0.137 01 01
-0.150 0. 0.
00 00
-0.164 0.
00

-10000.
-0.178
0.
-0.191 00
-0.205

Finite element model of typical Vertical nodal displacement

310000. 320000. 330000. 340000. 350000. mm
-0.211

Z Deformed Structure from LC 1 sw Enlarged by 1.0000e+06 M 1 : 207

bay of the vertical facade distribution in steel elements (mm)

Y Nodal displacement in local z, Loadcase 1 sw , 1 cm 3D = 0.377 mm (Min=-0.211) (Max=0.336) X * 0.494
X Y * 0.905
Z * 0.968

The detailed structural analysis of each typical bay was used to establish
the feasibility of the structural system across a range of project condi-
tions 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 dis-
tribution 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 cre-
ated 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.
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.
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 con-
struction 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 cali-
brate 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
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
3 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June 23 September 22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

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 % Daylight factor

1739 19

1550 16.2

1100 13.3

750 10.5

470 5

173 2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor

Period With shading
shading reduction Second floor: 12%
1 year 230 MWh 304 MWh 24% First floor: 6%

MCCS_52
 Internal External
velocity, m/s 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

-0.75

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 shad-
ing 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 con-
nects retail units.
Early stage CFD analysis was implemented for both internal and
external environments in order to estimate preliminary cladding pres-
sures 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.
An internal CFD study was used to investigate the temperature distri-
bution 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 struc-
ture 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.

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 second-
ary 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 venti-
lated 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 ele-
ments, 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 spe-
cific 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 occu-
pants 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 second-
ary 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 prima-
ry 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 support-
ing 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 local-
ised effects due to support reactions, the design of interfaces between
structure and envelope, as well as expected slab stiffness and move-
ments 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 enve-
lope 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 typical-
ly 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 accommo-
dates 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 glaz-
ing system, which is set above them and can move independently of the
supporting structure.
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 struc-
ture, a diagrid structure is typically utilised where the glazed or opaque
panels, usually triangulated, are fixed directly as a site-assembled sys-
tem 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 technol-
ogy 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/con-
tract independently in order to accommodate thermal movement.
The envelope technology developed for the envelope presents the follow-
ing innovative aspects.
1. Primary and secondary structure are integrated which allows a
doubly-curved surface to be achieved by using flat rectangular pan-
els 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 vis-
ually-continuous shading louvres are disengaged from the penetra-
tions 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.
MCCS_55
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre, Baku

MCCS_56
HEYDAR ALIYEV CULTURAL CENTRE, Baku
CULTURAL CENTRE

40° 23’ 59.2” N

49° 52’ 49.7” E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

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

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

3D external view of typical bay

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

7
3
6

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

MCCS_59
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 System design

7
6
1

Top view

3
1

2
6

Front view

1
6 7

Bottom view

MCCS_60 Third angle projection. Scale 1:100

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

7
7

2D detail. Scale 1:10 3D view of the assembly

3 2

Back view

7 3

2
6 2
3

MCCS_61
 COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 Structural analysis
130.5
127.2

123.9

120.7

117.4

114.2

110.9

107.6

104.4

101.1

97.8

94.6

91.3

88.1

84.8

81.5

78.3

75.0

71.8

68.5

65.2

62.0

58.7

55.4

52.2

48.9

45.7

42.4

39.1

35.9

32.6

29.4

26.1

22.8

19.6

16.3

13.0

9.8

6.5

3.3

0.0

Finite element model of typical bay

19.2 18.4
23.6 16.9
26.7 22.7
33.0 25.3 20.8
49.1
435.00

28.1 20.9 17.9

.3 10.4 22.3 26.8
16 1.76 28.8
15.7
3.68 18.1 21.5 33.3
37.7 23.0
26.8
36.5 24.9 33.8
3.88 65.2
60.0 26.1 105.7
69.8 48.3 59.5
118.4 20.1 27.0 41.5 125.9 58.0
76.5
65.9 3.00 0.485 2.18 1.53
11.1 37.4 30.4 56.5 0.290
6.04
8.94 101.9 47.7 55.0
0.366 0.369
3.74
18.6 62.5
79.0
1.91
430.00

9.89 53.5
42.5
9.93
3.49 24.2
52.0
0.300
7.59 31.7 79.5 4.86 2.14 0.600 0.395
50.5
31.2 0.168 15.2 5.47 68.7 36.3 2.24
33.5 0.593

149.50
31.8 49.0
12.4 11.6
14.3
7.33 30.8
47.5
1.11 0.333
7.32 8.00 25.6 22.8
14.7 54.2
38.9
7.70 30.7 10.6 21.9 46.1 0.448
9.59
6.15 15.5 34.1
10.1
29.3 25.2 18.0 5.97
17.2 21.6
52.7
44.6 0.458 1.00
14.9
7.54 5.95
32.4
11.6
43.1 0.907
34.5 14.4 21.8 8.66 45.5 1.05
425.00

41.6

10
24.5 0.735 31.5 6.60 48.5
4.45 8.49 23.0

.
45.7 15.2 20.9 40.1

4
15.2 2.29 6.63 34.2 15.3
37.2 31.4 57.9
4.36 5.02
38.6 0.0257

149.00
7.95 10.8 40.7 46.7
7.

12.1

97
37.1
9.61 11.2 5.33
25.0 20.5 4.01
43

2.
57.6 19.6 3.28 21.1 35.7
11.3 10.1 7.02
16.4 10.6
12.8 63.2
4.25
17.8 24.9 2.42
34.2 2.02
6.99

5.
100.3 1.78 45.8 32.7 2.97 1.61

1.
33.5 7.15 0.264 4 0.0160 30.7

94
130.5 44.5 96.0 5. 59.5

49
34.1 17.3 7 0.636 32.9 31.2
6.46
59.5 120.6
37.6 4.67 0.236
420.00

20.2 2.65 29.7

3.59 48.3 24.6 5.81 125.6 15.4 0.239 3.02
15.3
3.17 15.9 81.7 28.2
24.6
17.9 8.56 74.9
26.7 2.31 0.728
3.37 6.90 83.4
0.933

148.50
18.8 2.76 0.0219 69.6
2.45 9.22
7.65
4.33
25.3
0.312 1.49 0.0330
11.2 23.8
10.3 17.7
7.00 22.3 2.21
6.21
70.2
6.26 20.8
1.76
1.26
18.2 19.3 0.288
4115.00 4110.00 4105.00 4100.00 4095.00 4090.00 4085.0017.8 4080.00 m
0.996
2.31 0.262
2.

Principal stress distribution in FRP panels (MPa) 16.3 48.3

97

Z Sector of system Beam Elements,Quadrilateral Elements M 1 : 155 0.796

14.9
3.59

148.00
XY Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 1.1972e-06 to 130.5 step 3.26 MPa X * 0.831
13.4 Y * 0.602 1.71 0.534
Z * 0.973
11.9
17.9
9.54 3.17 0.451
1.

10.4
49

8.9

7.4 1.60
5.9
0.698
4.5 3.30
3.0
12.1

3007.00
1.5

0.0
Close up view of principal stress distribution in the panels (MPa)
3006.50 3006.00 3005.50 3005.00 3004.50 3004.00 3003.50 m

Z Sector of system Group 9 M 1 : 16

Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 0.0257 to 59.5 step 1.49 MPa X * 0.518
YX Y * 0.857
Z * 0.999

The structural sizes of the steel space frame which forms the primary
structure are determined by its global stability, specifically by global de-
flections due to lateral wind loads. The approach to the design of the pri-
mary 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 in-
dependent 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.
Von Mises stress distribution in the bracket fixing the FRP panels
to the secondary structure (MPa)

MCCS_62
 0.096
0.084

0.006 0.006 0.077 0.096

0.01
0.000 0.084

0.04
0.000

0.02
0.070

0.04
0.01
-0.046 -0.046 0.077

0.01
-0.04 -0.04 0.063

0.04
0.02
-0.01
-0.04

-0.03

0.01

0.04
-0.04
-0.069 -0.08 0.070

-10.00
-0.069
-0.07 -0.08

-10.00

0.04
0.01
-0.07

-0.04

-0.01
0.056

-0.04
-0.04
-0.07

0.01
-0.092 -0.092 -0.07 0.063

3
-0.01
-0.03
-0.11

0.01

0.04
-0.04
-0.11

0.0
-0.04
0.049
-0.09 -0.10 -0.07 -0.07

-0.01
-0.114 -0.09 0.056

-0.04
-0.10

0.01
-0.114

0.01
4
-0.00 -0.00

03
4

-0.0
0.042

-0.0
-0.137 0.049
-0.14 -0.10 -0.10

0 0.
-0.137 -0.12 -0.14 -0.12

0.01
0.04
-0.04

0.04
-0.12 -0.12

0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
-0.10 -0.10

1
-0.04

0 .0
-0.00
-0.00

0.02
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.035

0.01
-0.00
-0.00
0.042

-0.00
-0.00
-0.160

-0.0
-0.00
-0.00
-0.08 -0.08

0.0
-0.160

6
0.04
0.04 -0.03
0.04 -0.04
0.04 -0.04

0
5.05

0.04 -0.04
0.04 -0.04

0
0 .0
0.02
5

3
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.0
-0.183 0.028 0.035

0.01

-0.0

0.0
-0.0

0.0
-0.183

5
-0.19 -0.24 -0.22 -0.22 -0.21 -0.21 -0.19 -0.18

0.01
-0.19 -0.18

-0.0
-0.19 -0.24

-0

0.0
-0.00

0
-0.01
-0.01
0.01

-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.0

3
0.0
-0.206 0.021 0.028

-0.04

0.0

5
-0.27 -0.25 -0.23 -0.22 -0.20

5
-0.206 -0.22 -0.20

0.0
-0.27 -0.25 -0.23 -0.22

5
-0.22

-0.00
-0.0

-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01

-0.03
-0.0

-0.04
-0.12

-0.04
-0.04
-0.04
-0.229 0.021

-0.04
-0.229 -0.12 0.014
-0.24 -0.29 -0.27 -0.26 -0.24 -0.23 -0.14

04
-0.252 -0.24 -0.29 -0.27 -0.26 -0.24 -0.23 -0.14 -0.15 0.014

04
-0.252 -0.15 0.007

-50.

07
5
-0.

.0

01
05
-0.
-0.275 0.007

.0

7
6
-0.27 -0.25

3
-0.27 -0.32 -0.30 -0.28 -0.16

-60

0.
-0.17

.
-0.275 0.000

.0
7 .0

01
05
.0
-0.27 -0.32 -0.30 -0.28 -0.27 -0.25 -0.16

-0

02
-0
-0.17

1
.0

3
.0 -0

0.
-0

.
.0
-0.297 0.000

-0

.0
0.
7

02
-0
-0

1
-0.297

.0
-0.007

-0

.0
-0.34 -0.32 -0.31 -0.29 -0.28

-0
-0.29 -0.19

0.
-0.20 9
02

-0
-0.320 -0.29 -0.34 -0.32 -0.31 -0.29 -0.28 -0.19 .0
-0.007

-0
-0.20 9
0.

-0
-0.320
.0 -0 -0.014 02
-0.343 -0.32 -0.37 -0.35 -0.33 -0.32 -0.30 -0.21 -0 -0.014 0.
-0.22 11
-0.343 -0.32 -0.37 -0.35 -0.33 -0.32 -0.30 -0.21 -0.22 1 0. -0.021
.1 - 02

-15.00
-0.366 -0 4
-0.021
0. 02
0.

-15.00
-0.366 -0.34 -0.39 -0.37 -0.36 -0.34 -0.33 -0.23 1
-0.24 4 0. -0.028
-0.389 -0.34 -0.39 -0.37 -0.36 -0.34 -0.33 -0.23 -0.24 .1 - -0.028 2
-0.389 -0 -0.0 -0.0
2
-0.035

0.10
-0.412 -0.37 -0.42 -0.40 -0.38 -0.37 -0.35 -0.26 -0.27 -0.035

0.10
0.07

0.07
-0.00
-0.00

-0.00

-0.00

-0.00

-0.00
-0.00
-0.412 -0.37 -0.42 -0.40 -0.38 -0.37 -0.35 -0.26 -0.27 -0.17

0.05
0.04

0.05
0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04
0.03

0.04
0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04
0.03
-0.00

-0.00
-0.00

-0.00

-0.00

-0.00
-0.00

0.02 -0.01
-0.17 -0.042

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
-0.042

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.02
-0.435

0.01

0.02
0.01

0.01

0.01
0.07

0.01 -0.01
0.01
-0.18 0.07
-0.435
-0.458 -0.44 -0.52 -0.50 -0.48 -0.46 -0.45 -0.33 -0.45 -0.18 -0.
-0.049 -0.049
25

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00
0.10 0.10
-0.458 -0.44 -0.52 -0.50 -0.48 -0.46 -0.45 -0.33 -0.45 -0.25

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.54 -0.52 -0.51 -0.49 -0.48 -0.36 -0.47

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.481 -0.056

-0.03
-0.03
0.09

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04
-0.056

-0.04

-0.03
-0.03
0.09

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

-0.04

-0.05
-0.04
-0.47 -0.54

-0.06
-0.05
-0.52 -0.51 -0.49 -0.48 -0.36 -0.47

-0.06
-0.481 -0.2
-0.503 -0.47 9 -0.063
-0.49 -0.57 -0.55 -0.53 -0.51 -0.50 -0.38 -0.2 -0.063 0.05
-0.503 9 0.05
-0.49 -0.57 -0.55 -0.53 -0.51 -0.50 -0.38 -0.50 -0.070
-0.526 -0.3

-0.
0
-0.50 -0.070
1

01

0
-0.526 -0.3

01
01

01
-0.59 -0.57 -0.55 -0.54 -0.53 -0.52 0.03

01
01
1 -0.077
0.047
-0.549 0.0

1
-0.52 -0.59 -0.41

-0.
-0.549
-0.57 -0.55 -0.54 -0.53 -0.52 -0. -0.077 3

0
-0.572 -0.52 -0.41 34 -0.084
-0.54 -0.62 -0.59 -0.58 -0.56 -0.55 -0.43 -0.54 -0. 0.0

0
34-0. -0.084 0

-0.
-0.572 -0.54 -0.62 -0.59 -0.58 -0.56 -0.55 -0.43 -0.54 36 0.0
0

0.0
-0.595 -0.091 -0.
0.042 -0.57 -0.64 -0.62 -0.60 -0.59 -0.58 -0.46 -0.57
-0.
36 -0.091 01

1
-0.

0.00
-0.595

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00-0.00

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0. -0.098 01

0.01
-0.618

0.01
-0.57 -0.64 -0.62 -0.60 -0.59 -0.58 -0.46 -0.57 39

.0
-0.618 -0. -0.098 -0.
02

0
-0.641 -0.67 -0.64 -0.63 -0.61 -0.60 -0.48 -0.59 39 -0.105
-0.
0.037 -0.59 02 -0.

0 .0

-0
-20.00
-0.641
-0.664 -0.67 -0.64 -0.63 -0.61 -0.60 -0.48 -0.59 -0. -0.105 -0.112 03
-0.59 41 -0.

-20.00
-0.61 -0.69 -0.67 -0.65 -0.64 -0.63 -0.51 -0.62 -0. 03
-0.664

0.04
-0.

0.04

0.04
0.04

0.04

0.04
-0.112

0.03
-0.00

-0.00

-0.00
-0.00

-0.00

-0.00
-0.687 41 -0.119

0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01

0.01

0.01
03

0.01

0.01
-0.61 -0.69 -0.67 -0.65 -0.64 -0.63 -0.51 -0.62 -0.
0.031 44
-0.00

-0.00

-0.00

-0.00
-0.00

-0.00

-0.00

0.04
0.04

0.04
-0.

0.04

0.04

0.04
0.03
-0.687 -0.68 -0.66 -0.65 -0.53 -0.64 -0.119 -0.126
-0.709 -0.

0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01

0.01

0.01
03

0.01

0.01
-0.69 -0.79 -0.77 44 -0.
04

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00
-0.68 -0.66 -0.65 -0.53 -0.64 -0.

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01
-0.709

-0.01

-0.02

-0.02
-0.732 50 -0.126 -0.133

-0.04
-0.04

-0.04

-0.04
-0.04

-0.04
-0.04
-0.69 -0.71 -0.79 -0.82 -0.77 -0.79

-0.04
-0.78 -0.76 -0.75 -0.63 -0.71 -0.

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00
-0.

-0.07
04
0.026

01
-0.732 50-0 -0.

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.02
-0.140

-0.02
-0.755 -0.71 -0.82 -0.79 -0.78 -0.76 -0.75 -0.63 -0.71 .53 -0.133 14

-0.04
-0.04

-0.04

-0.04
-0.04

-0.04
-0.04

-0.04
-0.73 -0.84 -0.81 -0.80 -0.78 -0.77 -0.65 -0.73

-0.07
-0.755 -0.778 -0.5 -0.148 -0. -0.1

0.
3-0.5 -0.140 14 2
-0.73 -0.84 -0.81 -0.80 -0.78 -0.77 -0.65 -0.73 6

30.00
0.021

02
-0.778 -0.801 -0.76 -0.86 -0.84 -0.82 -0.81 -0.79 -0.68 -0.76 -0.155 -0.07
-0.56 -0.59 -0.148 -0.1 0.03
-0.801 -0.76 -0.86 -0.84 -0.82 -0.81 -0.79 -0.68 -0.76 -0.162
2
-0.824 -0.59

0.
-0.78 -0.89 -0.86 -0.84 -0.83 -0.82 -0.70 -0.78 -0.61 -0.155 -0.07

02
0.03
-0.824
0.016
-0.847
-0.78
-0.80
-0.89
-0.91
-0.86
-0.88
-0.84
-0.87
-0.83
-0.85
-0.82
-0.84
-0.70
-0.72
-0.78
-0.80
-0.61 -0.162
-0.169
-0.1
8

01

0.
-0.847 -0.870 -0.176 8
-0.169 -0.1
-0.80 -0.91 -0.88 -0.87 -0.85 -0.84 -0.72 -0.80

0. 845.00
8
-0.183
-0.1
0
-0.870 -0.892
0.010855.00 850.00 845.00 840.00 -0.176835.00 m 855.00 850.00 840.00

.0 0 -0.18
.0 (Max=0.0965)
-0.892 -0.910 -0.185

-0.07
855.00 850.00 845.00 840.00 835.00 m
0.200 0kN (Min=-0.185)
0
-0.183

Axial force distribution in framing members (kN) Shear force distribution in framing members (kN) -
-0.910
Z 0.005
Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 1.45 kN (Min=-0.910) (Max=0.0055) 855.00
M 1 : 97 Z Beam Elements , Shear force Vz, Loadcase 1 self weight845.00
850.00 , 1 cm 3D = 840.00 835.00
-0.185
Z Beam
Y X Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 1.45 kN (Min=-0.910) (Max=0.0055) M 1 :YZ 97
* 1.000
Y X
* 1.000
Z Beam Elements
Y * 1.000 , Shear force Vz, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.200 kN (Min=-0.185) (Max=0.0965) M 1
Y X 0.000
0.00
0.098 Z * 1.000

-0.02
Y *
0.089 Y X
-0.01

-0.01

-0.01
-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
0.098 Z *
-0.01

-0.01
35.00
0.084
-0.005
0.089
-0.01

35.00
-0.01

-0.02
0.079 0.084
-0.01

1.01
.01

0.073 -0.010
0.079

-0.06
0.00

1
-0
0.00-0

0.073
-0.0
0.01

-0.0

0.068
0.01

1
0.00

01
0.01

-0.016
-0.0

0.068
0.01

0.00
0.01

0.00
0.00-0.01

0.00

0.00
0.063
0.00

0.01
0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01
0.00

0.01

0.01
-0.

1
0.01
0.01

0.0

0.01
0.063
0.058
0.01

-0.021
0.01

01-
-0.01

0.058
-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01
-0.01

0.03
0.052

0.03
0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

05
-0.01

0.04
01

0.052
-0.

5
01

0.047
-0.

-0.

-0.026
0

01

0.047
-0.
-0.
0.0

-00.00

0.042
-0.
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.01

0.042
.0

1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.01

.0

0.037
0.0
0.0

-0.031
0.037
0.0

-0

0.031
0.031 2
01

0.026
-0.037
01

0.026
0.

30.00
0.
02

0.021
0.0

30.00
02

0.021
0.

4
02

0.

25.00
0.016
02

-0.042
0.016
01
0.

01
0.

0.010 0.010 0. 00 0 0. 00 0
0. .0 0. .0
-0.07

-0.07

-0
0.005
-0.047
0.005 -0
0.0

-0.07
0.000 0.000
0.00 0.00
4
-0.02

-0.02
-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.052
-0.01

-0.01

-0.01 0.00

-0.01

-0.005 -0.005
-0.02 -0.02 0.0
4

-0.03
-0.010 -0.010
-0.06 -0.06
-0.058
-0.016
0.00 0.04
0.00

-0.016
0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00

0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01

0.010.03
0.00
0.01

0.01
0.00

0.00

0.00
0.00

0.01

0.0
0.01

0.01
0.01

0.01

-0.02
0.01

0.01

0.01
-0.01

-0.01
0.01

-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.01

-0.01
-0.021
-0.01

2
-0.021
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.04

-0.026 -0.063
-0.026

-0.031
0.0
0.0
2 0.0
1
-0.031
2
-0.037
-0.068
-0.037
0.0
0.0 4
25.00

-0.042
4
25.00

-0.042
0.00
0.00
0.00 -0.01

0.00

0.00

-0.073
0.00

0.00
0.01

0.01

0.01
0.01
0.01-0.01

-0.047 0.0
-0.0 -0.01
-0.07

-0.047 0.0 4
0.0
-0.07-0.01

4
8 6
-0.052
-0.052 0.0
4
-0.079
-0.03

-0.058 0.0
4
-0.03

0.0
-0.02
-0.01

-0.01
-0.01

-0.058
-0.01
-0.01

0.0 2
-0.02

-0.063
-0.11
-0.01

-0.01 0.00
-0.01 0.00

-0.01
-0.01

-0.010.00

-0.010.00
-0.01

2 0.0
-0.063
-0.084
-0.068
0.0
1
-0.068 1
-0.073
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01
0.01

-0.0 -0.0 0.0

-0.073
-0.089 8 1 6
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01
0.01

-0.079 -0.0
-0.0 0.0
-0.079 -0.084
8 1
-0.11
6 -0.11
-0.084 -0.094
-0.089 -0.11
-0.11
-0.089 -0.094
-0.11
-0.094 -0.100
-0.100

0.10
0.10
-0.100 -0.105
20.00

20.00
-0.105 -0.105
-0.110 0.10
20.00

1235.00 1230.00 1225.00 1220.00 1215.00 m

-0.110 -0.112
1235.00 -0.110 1230.00 1225.00 1220.00 1215.00 m
-0.112
Bending
Z moment
1235.00 distribution in framing members
Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight
1230.00 (kNm)
, 1 cm 3D = 0.0648 kNm (Min=-0.112) (Max=0.0976)
1225.00
Close 1220.00 1215.00 M 1 : 102

M 1up view of bending moment distribution in framing members (kNm) X * 0.083

Y X
Z -0.112
Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.0648 kNm (Min=-0.112) (Max=0.0976) : 102 Y * 0.997
X * 0.083 Z * 1.000
X Y * 0.997
Z * 1.000
Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.0648 kNm (Min=-0.112) (Max=0.0976)

1 Facade system GRP open-jointed rainscreen.

Facade zone 550 mm
Primary structure type Steel tubular space-frame.
Secondary structure type CHS steel sections.
2 Weight of secondary
0.20
structure (kN/m2)
Serrated plates, castings
Facade bracket type and machined components;
3 mechanically fixed.
Number of components in
10
4 fixing system
Weight of facade, including
1.15
secondary structure (kN/m2)

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

MCCS_63
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
4 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June 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 0
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 1.21%

Period With shading 100% of area between 0-7%
shading reduction
1 year 65.3 MWh 153.3 MWh 57%

MCCS_64
 External Internal
velocity, m/s 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

1.5

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” N

55° 18’ 6.0” 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 TESTING

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

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

2
8

8 7

3D internal view of typical bay

Details
1. Louvre 5. Metal sheet
2. Louvre frame 6. Insulation
3. Double glazed unit 7. Floor finish
3D external view of typical bay 4. Glazing frame 8. Floor slab

MCCS_68
 2

7 7

2 5 8
1 8

5 1

3
3
4
4

3D view of louvre system 3D exploded view of louvres system

6
5

3
3 4

3D view of glazing system 3D exploded view of glazing system

MCCS_69
 3

1
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
5 System design

Third angle projection. Scale 1:30 2

1 4 3

Top view

5
4
4

7
1

Front view

3
2 1

MCCS_70
Bottom view
 3

4
1

4
3

2 1
1
4 7
3
2D detail. Scale 1:5
8 8

7 7
4

8 8

4
5

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.

1.188
1.113
0.088 1.188
0.082 1.071 1.113

0.077 1.030 1.071 -0.07

0.072 0.989 1.030
-0.07 -0.07
0.067 0.948 0.989 -0.14
-0.07 -0.07
0.061 0.906 0.948 -0.14 -0.14
-0.07 -0.07
-0.21
-225.00

0.056 0.865 0.906

-0.14 -0.14
-0.07
-0.21 -0.07
-0.21
-225.00

0.051 0.865 -0.14

-0.0 0.824
-0.27 -0.14
0.046 3 0.824
-0.21
-0.21
0.783 -0.0 0.48 -0.27 -0.14
-0.03

3 -0.14
0.48 -0.21
-0.05

0.041
0.02 0.783
-0.21
-0.03

0.742
-0.0 0.18
-0.05

0.036 1 0.02 0.742 -0.27 -0.21

-0.700
0.03 -0.0 -0.21 0.18
1 0.34 -0.27
-0.06

0.031 -0.0 0.700 0.21 0.34

3
-0.06

0.02 0.659
0.00 0.00 0.29 0.21
0.026 0.02 0.00
0.659 0.00
-0.03

0.618
-0.07 -0.06 -0.05
0.93
-0.03

0.020 0.618
-0.07 -0.06 -0.05
0.01 0.23
0.01

0.577
0.01

0.01
0.01

-0.13
0.01

0.015 0.577
-0.22 -0.13
0.16
0.01

-0.0 -0.14 -0.22

0.01

0.536
-0.0
7

-0.
-0.0

0.010
2 -0.01 0.536 -0.14
7

02
-0.0

1
-0.0

0.10
-0.0
3

0.005 -0.0 0.494

-0.0 0.494 -0.20 -0.29 -0.20
-0.0

0 0 -0.20 -0.12 -0.29 -0.12

-0.0 -0.0 0.453 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.20
0.000
2 0 1 2 0 0.453 1 -0.08
-0.0 0.412 0.00 -0.0 0.0.412
00 -0.27 -0.36 -0.27
-0.005
-0.0 0 -0 .04 0 -0.27 -0.18 -0.36 -0.18
4 -0.27
-0.010 0.371 0.371 1.19 -0.14 1.19
-0.03

0.01 0.01
-0.03

0.01 0.01
-0.05
-0.05

-0.015 0.330
-0.0 0.330 -0.25 -0.25
-0.0 0.02 1 0.32 -0.46 0.32 -0.46
0.02 1
-230.00

-0.0 0.02 -0.21

-230.00

-0.020 0.288
-00.288 3 1.01
-0.06

.03 0.02 0.26 1.01 0.26

-0.06

-0.026 0 .03 0.247 0.37 0.37

0.03
0.247 0.01 0.47
0.01 0.13
-0.03

-0.031 0.206 0.11 0.13 0.11

0.206 0.13
-0.03

0.13
4

1.10
4

0.01
0.01

-0.00

-0.0
0.01

-0.0

-0.036
0.01 -0.0 0.165 0.41 0.04
0.01

-0.00

0.165 0.04 0.06

0
0.01

0.01

-0.0 -0.124
0.03 0.06
-0.041
0 0.29
7
0.01

0.124
7

-0.0 -0
7

-0.10
-0.0

0.13 0.00
7
7

-0.0

3 .02 -0.10
-0.0

-0.0 0.00
7

-0.0

-0.046 0.082
-0.0

0
-0.0

0.082
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 - 0.01 0.06-0.06 -0.01
0.12 0
2
2

-0.051 0.041
0 0 -0.06 -0.01 -0.17
-0.0

-0.0
0.041 -0.0 -0.03 -0.17
-0.056
0 1 0.000 -0.08
0.05 0
-0.11

-0.0 0.000 -0.0 0.00 0.00 -0.08 -0.13

0.03
-0.061 3 -0.0 0 -0.041 -0.13 0.36 -0.24 -0.00
-0.11

-0.0 -0.041 0.00 0.10 0 0.36 -0.24 -0.00 0.02

-0.12

-0.067 -0.0 0 -0.0 0.04 -0.082

0.01 0.40 -0.07
1 -0.082 9 -0.0 -0.07 -0.02
0.10
0.40
-0.12

-0.072
0.04 0.0-10.07 5 -0.124
0.10 0.95
-0.0 -0.08 0.34
-0.077 9 -0.124
-0.0 0.00 -0.165 0.03 0.95
-0.0 5 0.01 0.34
0.00

-0.165 0.19
4

-0.082 7 -0.206
0.40
4

0.03
-0.1

0.02
0.06

0.0-0.206
0.1

0.19
4

0
4

0.01
0.00

4
-0.1

-0.087 -0.247
-0.1

0.83
4

0.08
-0.1

-235.00
-
4

-0.2

0.02 0.34
0.06

-0.247
-0.1

-0.092 -0.288
4
4

-0.2

0.09
5
-0.2
-0.2

5
-0.2

0.09
4

0.08
5
-0.2

-0.288
4

-0.097 -0.330
-0.2

5
-235.00

-0.2
5
-0.2

-0.2
5
-0.2

-0.

0.09
5
0.06

-0.2

-0.102 -0.330 -0.371

3
5
-0.2

3
-0.1
-0.2

3
-0.1

-0.108 -0.412
-0.1

-0.371
-0.1
0.06

-0.113 -0.412 -0.453

-270.00 -265.00 -260.00 -225.00 -255.00 m
-220.00
-0.117 -0.460
-0.453
-225.00 -220.00 -215.00
Bending
Z moment
Sector
-265.00
distribution
of system Group 1 2 in aluminium
-0.460 frame (kNm)
-260.00 ZY
-255.00
Axial force distribution in aluminium frame (kN)
Sector of system Group 1 2 m M 1 : 90
Y Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.100 kNm (Min=-0.117) (Max=0.0882) X *,0.895
X Sector of system Group 1 2 X Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight 1 cm 3D = 1.00 kN (Min=-0.460) (Ma
Y * 0.624
ZY
Z * 0.900
X Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D M= 11.00
: 90kN (Min=-0.460) (Max=1.19)
My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.100 kNm (Min=-0.117) (Max=0.0882) X * 0.895
Y * 0.624
MCCS_72 Z * 0.900
 Unitised glazing with
Facade system external aluminium
shading louvres.
Facade zone 1300 mm
Primary structure type Concrete slabs. 5

Extruded aluminium
Secondary structure type
profiles. 4
Weight of secondary
0.10
structure (kN/m2)
Cast aluminium 2
brackets, bolted
Facade bracket type 3
through unitised Details
joints. 1. Louvres
Number of components in 2. Cast aluminium
7 bracket
fixing system 1
3. Glazing
Weight of facade, including 4. Glazing frame
0.64
secondary structure (kN/m2) 5. Floor slab

Facade assembly 2.77

2.55
-0.896

0.709
0.702 2.42

2.
0.696 2.30

28
-292.00

0.
0.691 2.17

70

-292.00
9
0.685 2.04

0.680 1.91

2.
28
0.674 1.79
-0.157

0.
0.669 1.66

48
0.663 1.53

2.
0.657 1.40

28
0.652 4 86
0.
1.28

0.646 1.15
60
0.4
0.641 1.02

0.635 0.89
2.77
6
0.630
48 0.77
0.
-0.507

0.
0.624 0.64
0.581

72
0.618 0.51

5
0.613 0.38
-292.50

0.607 0.26
0.136

0.486

0.602

-292.50
0.13

0.596 0.00

0.591 4 86

-2
-0.13
0.

.3
2
003 0.585 -0.26

3
-0.113

-0. 0.579 2.76

-0.38
-0.032

0.574 -0.51

0.568 -0.64
2

0.563 -0.77

0.557 -0.89
6
48
0.

-2
0.552 -1.02
0.486
-0.188

.3
0.546

3
-1.15

0.540 -1.28

0.535 -1.40
467
-0.
0.529 -1.53 2.75
0.279

-293.00

6
0.524 48
0.
-1.66

0.518 -1.79

-2

-293.00
.3
0.513 -1.91

3
0.507 -2.04
-0
0.456

.20

0.501 -2.17
2

0.496 -2.30
50 -415.00 -414.50 -414.00 m -415.50 -415.00 -414.50 -414.00

Bending moment distribution in cast bracket (kNm) 0.490

0.486
-415.50
Utilisation factor distribution in cast bracket
-415.00
-2.33
-414.50
Sector of system Group 31
Axial force distribution in cast bracket (kN)
-414.00 m

Group 31 M 1 : 8.54 Z Y
Sector of system Group 31 Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight M 1= :2.00
, 1 cm 3D 7.89
kN (Min=-2.33) (Max=2.77)
-135.00

ending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight Z Y

, 1 cm 3D = 0.500 kNm (Min=-0.896) (Max=0.581) X * 0.846 X
Y *Case
Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design 0.8781 , 1 cm 3D = 0.500 (Max=0.709) X * 0.846
X Z * 0.717 Y * 0.878

The lightweight aluminium structure integrates curtain wall technology

Z * 0.717
0.892
0.870

0.848

0.825
0.0173 with the application of large scale external fixed shading devices. The
0.0173
0.803 0.0293 structural solution combines cast aluminium brackets, which use the full
0.

0.781
0.0173
78

0.0293
height of the spandrel panel, with shading devices, which are perforated
1

0.758 0.0373
0.

0.0293
0.

0.0233
48

0.736 0.0173
aluminium set forward of the facade. This strategy minimises the weight
8
6

0.0443
92

0.714 3.63 0.0373

0. 0.0333 0.0293
0.692 0.02 4 86 0.526
of the assembly fixed to the curtain wall and does not impose additional
5.05
183

4.03
61

0.

0.669 0.486 0. 0.0443

70

48
0.1

0.0373
loads onto the glazing framing.
0.0

0.01 6
9

0.647
0.486 0.522
5.17
53

0.625 6.39 0.0443

0.2

-265.00

0.486 0.
0.602 0.01 0.243 0.252 4 86
5.04
-140.00

0.486 0.484
0.580 0.14 0.131 0.205
The structural analysis of the lightweight cladding system is driven by
57
0.

0.04 0.216 0.486

0.1

0.558
81

0.248
18

0.117
0.13
1

0.486
0.

0.535 0.166
both lateral
0.172 0.203 deflections of the panel and localised stress concentrations
0.
4

0.513 0.240
0.

0.02
86

0.265
around0.115
the connection points. The distance between brackets has been
81

0.491
4

0.167 0.193
0.468 7.21 0.519
0.03
0.486
0.250 maximised in order to meet both of these criteria.
0.
183

70

0.446 0. 0.252
75

0.486
0.1

48 0.163
6.63
0.0

7.17 0.355
9

0.424 6
0.

0.297
4

0.01 0.486
48

0.402
4

0.261
0.2

0.01
6

0.379 5.19 6.84 0.

4
0.486 0.247 0.427
86 0.139
0.357 0.03 0.502
0.203 0.486
0.

61

0.15 5.44
87

0.335
73
0.1

0.111 0.486 0.243 0.396

7

0.01

0.312 0.04 0.166

0.168
0.

0.02 0.200
0.290 0.16 0.285
48

-270.00
0.

0.04
6

0.272 0.108
7

0.268 0.196
0.02
-145.00
76

0.162
0.245 0.486 0.672 0.0503 0.130
4.03
183

0.223
0.486
363

0. 0.410 0.248
0.228 48 0.178 0.163
0.03
0.0

0.201
6
0.0

0.570
5.45 6.64 0.486
29

0.178
0.200 0.266
0.2

0. 0.405
0.156
0.01 0.486 0.281 48
6
0.134 0.01 4.66 6.69 0.486 0.199
0.635
64

0.112 0.05 0.258

0.1

0.486
0.089
0.19 5.44
0.11
0.02
0.

0.067
48

0.

0.19
6

80

0.045
4

0.022
-285.00 -280.00
0.09 -275.00 -270.00 m
0.000
-385.00 -380.00 -375.00 -370.00 m
Principal
Z stress
Sector distribution
of system in aluminium louvres (MPa)
Group 1...3 M 1 : 84
Y X * 0.896
X Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case 1 , 1 cm 3D = 0.500 (Max=0.892)
2...4 M 1 : 91 Y * 0.679
Z * 0.858
on stress in Node , Loadcase 1 self weight , from 0.0029 to 7.21 step 0.180 MPa X * 0.760
Y * 0.725
Z * 0.948
MCCS_73
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
5 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June 23 September 22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

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

kWh/m2 % Daylight factor

1063 20

875 16.5

700 12

500 9

300 4.5

150 1

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 6.44%

Period With shading
shading reduction 99.9% of area between 1-20%
0.1% of area > 20%
1 year 60.7 MWh 88.1MWh 31%

MCCS_74
 Internal External
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
2 2.5

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 Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

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 sup-
ported 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.
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 TESTING

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

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 8

10

3D internal view of typical bay

10

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
3D external view of typical bay 8. Floor slab
9. Floor finish
10. Ceiling finish

MCCS_78
 1
6
1 6

4
4

2 2
5
5

3D view of typical bay 3D exploded view of typical bay

5
7

4
8
2 3

2
5
1

1 9

10

8
3
10

3D view of typical bay 3D exploded view of typical bay

2
2

9 9

8 8

3D view of glazing system 3D exploded view of the glazing system

MCCS_79
COMPLEX GEOMETRY 2

6 System design 9

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

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50 3D view of typical detail

7
2

Top view

3
5

6
10
2

8
7
6

Front view

2
7

10

MCCS_80
Bottom view
 4

2
3 2
9 8

4
2 5

8 1
1
6

9
9
2D detail. Scale 1:5
8 8

10

10

3D views of typical bay

6 8
8

3
7

9
9

1
8

10
10

Back view

MCCS_81
 78.90
COMPLEX GEOMETRY 77.66

77.00

6 Structural analysis 76.34

78.90
77.66

77.00
75.68
76.34
75.02
75.68 78.8 64.6
74.37
75.02 64.6
73.71 78.9 78.8 64.6
74.37 76.3 63.8 64.6
73.05
73.71
63.8 78.9
76.4 76.3
72.39
76.3 63.8
63.8
73.05 63.8
63.8
76.3 76.4
71.73 72.39 76.4 63.8
73.6 62.4 63.8
71.08 71.73 62.4 73.6 76.4
62.4
70.42 71.08 73.6 73.6 62.4
62.4
70.42 62.4 73.6 73.6
69.76 62.4
73.1 73.6 62.4
69.76
69.10 62.1 73.1 73.6
69.10 62.1 62.1
68.44 73.1 73.1 62.1
68.44 62.1 73.1 73.1
67.78 62.1 62.1
67.78 73.1 73.1 62.1
67.13 61.6 73.1 73.1
67.13 61.6 61.6
63.5 61.6
66.47 72.2 73.0 63.5 73.0
66.47 63.5 72.2 63.5
65.81 65.81
63.4 72.2 63.4
65.15
72.2 63.5 72.2 63.5
72.2
65.15

64.49 64.49 71.6 61.2 72.1 71.6 61.2 72.1

63.84 63.5 63.5
63.84 63.5
63.5 71.7 71.6 71.7
63.18 71.6
63.18 63.5
63.5 63.5
62.52
62.52 63.5 71.6
71.6
61.86 72.1 63.4 70.8
61.86 72.1 63.4 70.8 63.4
61.20 63.4
61.20 72.1 62.4 72.2
60.55 72.1 62.4 72.2 62.4
60.55 62.4 69.0
59.89
69.0 62.4 72.1
59.89 62.4 72.1 72.7 62.4
59.23
62.4 68.9
61.9
59.23 58.57 72.7 68.9 61.9
61.9 72.7 72.7
58.57 57.91 61.9 61.9
72.7 72.7 66.5 61.9
57.91 57.25 61.9 59.6 72.7
66.5 61.9 59.5
57.25 56.60 59.6 72.7 73.6 66.4
59.5 62.9
55.94 73.6 62.9
56.60 66.4 73.7
62.9 73.6
55.94
55.28 62.9 62.9
73.7 62.9
54.62 73.6 73.6 73.6
55.28 62.9 62.9
53.96 62.9 62.9
54.62 73.6 73.6 73.6
53.31 62.9
53.96 62.9
52.65 73.6
53.31 15000. 20000. 25000.
52.58
52.65

52.58
15000.
Tension
Z 20000.
Y
distribution
Sector in Elements,Cable
of system Beam pre-stressed cables (kN) Elements,Supporting Lines30000.
25000.
Elements,Quadrilateral
X Cable Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 10 sw + prestress , 1 cm 3D = 140.0 kN (Max

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

Y Cable Elements , Normal force Nx, nonlinear Loadcase 10 sw + prestress , 1 cm 3D = 140.0 kN (Max=78.9)
X

Full height cable-glass

Facade system
facade.
Facade zone 315 mm
Primary structure type Concrete slabs.
Secondary structure type Cable truss.
Weight of secondary
-
structure (kN/m2)
Spider brackets with
Facade bracket type
two adjustable arms.
Number of components in
10
fixing system

Finite element model of typical bay Weight of facade, including

0.51
secondary structure (kN/m2)
0.05
0.04

0.03 0.19
0.12
0.13 0.54

0.
01
0.54 0.54 0.70 0.70

4.07
0.26
0.340.53 0.53

0.12
0.43 0.56

0.06
0.02
0.00

3
0.56 0.70

4.5
0.69

0. 3.75
01 04. 06
00 .
5.41 0. 2
0. 0. 0 0 3.2
01 01
3.97 0.
01
0. 9
0.70

5000.
0. 0
0.71

.4
0.
00 00 3 1 4.97
2. 82
0.71 0.71 0.71

0.
0. 0 .0 01 3.86
00 0.960 2.1 8
0.70

0.71 0.71 0.71

0. 0 3.04
00 1..19
0.70 0.70

00
0 . 0 . 1.91 2
0.65 00 0
0.209
0.70

0.
0 0
1.86 0.
10.005
3.00 0
2.25 .
10.9 0
0
4.06 0.0
0.70 0.70
0.70 0.70

0 13 0.0
3. 0
0.2.38
0.71

5.11 0.
0.70 0.70

1 13 00
04.
0.71

6. 32
0.5.24 0..25 0.00
7.49 01 7 4 01
0.

0. 6.3 0.0 1
0.71

8.89 01 0 6.12
1
0 7.94 .01
0.70 0.70

10.32 .01 8 7. 27 0
0.70 0.70

.2
0.71

9 0. .0
11.70 0.0.32 01 1
0.71

10 1 0 0.
13.31 0.02.87 .01 01
11
0.69

0.
15.20 0.0213.12 01
0.
01 780.0
Facade assembly
16.30
0.71

12. 1
16.62 0.0
0.71

2 Details
0 16.44 0.
01 1. Structural cables
2. Spider bracket
0. 5000. 10000. 15000. 20000. m
Von Mises stress distribution (MPa) Displacements distribution in double glazing units (mm) 3. Double glazed unit
Z Sector of system Beam Elements,Cable Elements,Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines M 1 : 9
Y Quadrilateral Elements , Displacement components in local directions in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 10.0 mm (Min=-5.63) X * 0.54
X Y * 0.89
(Max=16.6) Z * 0.94
MCCS_82
 .8
32
-0 6E
.0 -3
0.0360 01
9
0.0309 0.
00
13
0.0257 Unitised glazing with

-0.0052

-0.0469
-0.0208
0.0206 0.
Type of bay external aluminium
00
shading diamonds.

-0.0073
19
0.0154

0.0103 0. Facade zone 440 mm

-0.0467
01
06

-0.0073
0.0051 Primary structure type Concrete slabs.

0.0083

-0.0208
0.0135
0.0000 -0
Extruded aluminium

-0.0052
.0
10
5 Secondary structure type
-0.0051 profiles.

0.103
-0.0103 Weight of secondary
0.08

0.159
-0.0154 structure (kN/m2)
-0.0206 Serrated plates; post-

0.103
Facade bracket
-0.0257 drilled anchorages.

0.159
-0.0309 Number of components
3 and 4
-0.0360
type of fixing system
-0.0412 Bending moment distribution in the Weight of facade, primary
1.20
-0.0463 aluminium frame (kNm) structure excluded (kN/m2)
-28.00 -26.00 -24.00 -22.00 -20.00 -18.00
-0.0469
Details
Z Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 0.100 kNm (Min=-0.0469) (Max=0.159) M 1
1. Aluminium cladding
Y 2. Aluminium extruded profile X *
X Y *
2
3. Fixing bracket Z *
4. Double glazing unit
5. Aluminium transom
2 6. Spandrel panel
7. Primary structure
3

3 7

1 6

Model of the external Axial force distribution in Von Mises stress

shading the aluminium frame (kN) distribution in the
aluminium frame (kN)
Facade assembly

The facade systems integrate assemblies which have very different re- The deflection limit determines the pre-stress required in the cables.
quirements for structural performance and stiffness. A primary objective The finite element analysis model was built up by introducing increasing
of the design has been to embed as much interdependence as possible numbers of components. The non-linear behaviour of the cables due to
by using interface connections that allow parts to move freely and provide large displacements is tested first with simplified analytical models to
restraint only where needed for minimum structural support. Given the pre-size cables and establish preliminary pre-stress levels, which can
high level of integration and in order to ensure global stability, interdepen- be checked through hand calculations. A representative portion of the
dencies are inevitably generated which are analysed through combined supporting primary structure is modelled to simulate the stiffness of
numerical models, where the mutual effects are quantified. The size and the supports, which alters the response of the structure during lateral
weight of the diamond-shaped shading panels is significant for an external loading. The effect of the primary structure is similar to adding a set of
shading element and its effects on the overall mullion deflections are un- springs with varying stiffness at each support, which determines a dif-
derstood through a combined numerical model, which includes both shad- ferent response of the facade when subjected to wind loading or dynam-
ing and glazing. Relative movements in service are kept sufficiently low ic excitation, as it changes its resonant frequency. The glass panels are
to ensure the water tightness and air tightness of the facade assembly. modelled as being point-supported with released rotation, which simu-
lates the connection between glass panels and cables through ‘spider’
connectors. These allow free rotation that avoids stress concentrations
The cable support of the glass facades used at ground floor level provides
at corner points. The final numerical model is used to assess the overall
structural visual lightness by introducing higher loads on the primary
stiffness of the combined system; this numerical model also includes
structure. Pre-stressing forces are introduced in each cable during instal-
the glazing panes, which introduce additional stiffness in the system and
lation. During the service life of the building, these forces are absorbed by
may attract loads. The model allows to establish a link between localised
the primary structure, at top and bottom interfaces. The design of the ca-
stresses at glazing panel level, global movements of the facade and stiff-
ble glass facade is driven by its global deflections at serviceability, whose
ness of the cable structure.
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.

MCCS_83
COMPLEX GEOMETRY
6 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June 23 September 22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

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

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 0.39%

Period With shading 100% of area between 0-2%
shading reduction
1 year 37.7 MWh 72.9 MWh 48%

MCCS_84
 External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s

6.5 2.5

5 2

4 1.5

2.5 1

1.5 0.5

0 0
External and internal air velocity distribution

20 °C Pressure, kPa
13 °C
0 °C 2

1.5

EXT INT 0.5

Isotherms showing Wind cladding pressure and air

temperature distribution velocity 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 spac-
es, 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.
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 high-
rise 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 rela-
tive 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 mini-
mises the amount of scaffolding required.
MCCS_86
The unitised assembly technology used for the project is a well-estab-
lished 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 develop-
ments. Previous building technologies tended to use mechanical fasten-
ers 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 compo-
nent 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 sep-
aration 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 compo-
nents than other available emerging technologies, but its inherent limi-
tations 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 robust-
ness, 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 ven-
tilated 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 environmen-
tal 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 tri-
angulation to achieve stiffness in the assembly. These types of connec-
tion 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 exter-
nal shading system, together with the weather tightness and structural
resistance of the assembly to wind and earthquake loads at serviceabili-
ty. 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 (uni-
tised curtain wall and external shading devices) and includes some mate-
rial 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. Phys-
ical testing was then required to verify the magnitude of the combined
effect of external shading fixed onto curtain wall, particularly the magni-
tude 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 appli-
cations. 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” N

4° 17’ 54” E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

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

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 6

6
4

3D internal view of typical bay

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

MCCS_90
3D internal view 3D internal view

5 1
1 5

6
3
6

6
2
2

3D view of system components 3D exploded view of system components

1
3
2

2
1

5
5

7
4

3D view of typical bay 3D exploded view of system components

MCCS_91
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
7 System design

5
1

Top view

2
4

1
1

3
2

Front view

2
1
5

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50

MCCS_92
 4
3
3
4
2
1

2D detail. Scale 1:5 3D view of detail

3
4

1
5

Back view

1 1
2

4 2 4

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

3D views of system

MCCS_93
 INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
7 Structural analysis

2000.
1800.
1600.
Finite element model of a typical bay

1400.
8.7893E6
8.3217E6
2000.

8.0443E6

7.7669E6

7.4895E6

7.2122E6

6.9348E6

6.6574E6

6.3800E6
1800.

6.1026E6

5.8252E6

5.5478E6

5.2704E6

4.9930E6

4.7156E6

4.4382E6

1200.
1600.

4.1609E6

3.8835E6

3.6061E6

3.3287E6

3.0513E6

2.7739E6

2.4965E6
1400.

2.2191E6

1.9417E6

1.6643E6

1.3870E6

1.1096E6

8.3217E5

5.5478E5
1200.

2.7739E5

0.0000E0

-2.7739E5
1000.

-5.5478E5

-8.3217E5

-1.1096E6

-1.3870E6
Finite element model of connection bracket
1000.

-1.6643E6

-1.9417E6

-2.2191E6
-14400. -14200. -14000. -13800. -13600. -13400. -13200. -13000. -12800. mm

0. -13600. -13400. -13200. -13000. -12800. mm

-2.3063E6

Z Sector of system Group 4 44 M 1 : 7

VonX Y Mises stress
2nd stress invariantdistribution
in Node, Loadcasein connection
1 self weight bracket
, from (MPa)
-2.3063e+06 to 8.7893e+06 step 2.7739e+05 N/mm2 X * 0.502
Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

M 1 : 7
, from -2.3063e+06 to 8.7893e+06 step 2.7739e+05 N/mm2 X * 0.502
Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

MCCS_94
 2.09

0.0546 0.678 29.8 9.46

69.6 69.6

0.436
4.73

65.0 65.0

0.423 29.3
9.20

0.175
13.3

0.495
0.465
21.4
62.3 62.3

0.317 26.9
17.6

0.0245
24.6
27.2
59.5 59.5

0.513

0.400
4.09

0.0406
30.6
5.32

0.450
28.7
31.1
56.8 56.8
6.47

30.8
7.60

0.311
8.39

0.0110
1.84

0.0998
8.97

24.6
54.1 54.1

21.3
9.42
4.49

17.4

0.260
0.379
7.38

8.70

0.0531
9.70 21.2

0.586
10.3

13.1
9.80
51.4 51.4

0.147
12.9

9.72

3.80
6.71

0.242

-5000.
15.3

5.93
48.7 48.7

0.365
17.5

0.475
0.867
19.3
20.5
4.41

0.612
7.44

0.683
46.0 46.0

6.31
7.21

0.766
10.0

4.67
19.0
21.4

3.46
2.15
12.9

17.8
21.1
43.3 43.3
15.2

20.2
17.5

1.85
16.1
19.4

13.9
20.5

11.3
40.6 40.6
21.1
7.28

8.65
4.39

10.2

19.0

5.91
21.3

37.9 37.9
12.8

17.8
21.0

2.57
15.2

20.1
17.4

16.2
35.2 35.2

14.0
19.2

11.4
20.5
21.1
4.49

8.67

0.0411
19.0

32.5 32.5
5.57

5.93
21.3 9.71
6.64

17.8
21.0
7.49

2.60
8.29

0.0453
20.1 9.36

29.8 29.8
8.87

0.504
16.2

0.168
14.0
9.32

11.4
5.74

0.355

0.0085
27.1 8.48 27.1

0.549

0.0818
9.61
9.01

5.47
11.7

5.24

0.191
9.63
14.6

2.61
24.4 24.4

0.306
16.8

0.813
6.28 17.8
18.9

0.435
0.539
4.41

7.33

21.7 21.7
21.1

0.661
7.29

20.2 20.5

6.19

0.759
10.2

4.92 11.4
19.0

1.87
3.59 8.67
21.3

2.29

18.9 18.9
12.9

20.1
20.9
15.2
17.5

16.2

-10000.
14.0
19.2

16.2 16.2
4.48

21.1
7.28
10.1

19.0

13.5 13.5
5.94
21.3
12.9

17.8
21.0

2.60
15.3

20.1
17.5

10.8 10.8
16.1
19.4

14.0
20.6

11.3
21.2
4.78

8.65

0.0352
3.77

5.78

8.1 8.1
19.0

5.91
21.4 9.56

0.0630
0.183
7.53

17.7

0.8993E-3
0.0086
21.1

2.58
6.68

5.4 5.4
20.2 9.23
8.23

0.0030
16.1
9.21

13.9
8.78

11.3

2.7 2.7
9.47

0.0045
8.60

0.341

0.144
5.85

0.452

0.243

0.0697
9.49

0.0 0.0
2.52

0.0906
8.80

7.32
8.13

-2.7 -2.7
5.44
6.36

4.43

-5.4 -5.4
1.93
1.05
3.31

-8.1 -8.1

-10.8 -10.8
-30000. -25000. -20000. mm
Vertical displacements distribution-13.5
in the steel frame (mm) -13.5

ment in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight -16.2 mm

, 1 cm 3D = 142.3 (Min=-31.1) (Max=0) -16.2
M 1 : 78
-18.9 -18.9 X * 0.765
Y * 0.727
-21.7 Curved glazing set -21.7
Z * 0.941

Facade system -24.4 between FRP clad -24.4

-27.1 primary structure. -27.1

Facade zone -29.8 1035 mm -29.8

-32.5 -32.5
Primary structure type Concrete slabs.
-35.2 -35.2
Secondary structure type-37.9 I and H steel sections. -37.9
-15000. -14500. -14000. -15000. -13500. -14500. -13000. -14000. -1
-38.6 -38.6
Weight of secondary
2.44
structure (kN/m2) Z Sector of system Group 2...4 Principal
Z stress
Sector distribution in the steel
of system Group 2...4beams (MPa)
Y Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weightY Top
, from
Principal
-38.6 stress
to 69.6 I step
in Node,
2.71 Loadcase
N/mm2 1 self weight , from
X Serrated and welded X
Facade bracket type plates; post-drilled
anchorages.
Number of components in Details
3
fixing system 1. Double glazed unit 5. Mullion
Weight of facade, including 2. FRP cladding 6. Floor slab
3.42 3. Thermal insulation 7. Fixing bracket
secondary structure (kN/m2)
4. I beam girder

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 con-
cealed internally behind the glazing. The primary mullions span between
floor slabs and support the long secondary louvres which are revealed 3

externally as lines of primary structure which are ‘wrapped’ by the fa-

2 1
cade assemblies. The horizontal secondary steel members accommo- 5
6
date the curved geometry along their length, allowing the facade assem- 4

blies to be fixed with greater ease as a result of them being fixed directly 7

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 dou-
Facade assembly
bly-curved shapes. The secondary horizontal members also support a
large spandrel panel which interfaces with the framing of the glazing
strips above and below.

MCCS_95
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

kWh/m2 % Daylight factor

1750
12
1400
10
1100
8
700
6
350
4
150
2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 5.4%

Period With shading 98.4% of area between 2-12%
shading reduction
0.1% of area > 12%
1 year 8.1 MWh 21.9 MWh 63% 1.5% of area < 2%

MCCS_96
 Internal External
velocity, m/s 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

20 °C Pressure, kPa
13 °C 2
0 °C

1.5

0.5

-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 main-
tained 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 enve-
lope 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” N
29°04’09” E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

FACADE ZONE (mm) 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

7
1

7
8
3

3D internal view of typical bay

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
3D external view of a typical bay
9. Louvre plates

MCCS_100
 1 1

8
9 6

3D view of louvre system 3D exploded view of louvre system

2
1 2

4 6
5

3D view of glazed bay 3D exploded view of glazed bay

3
1

8
3

3
8
1

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

MCCS_101
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
8 System design

1
2

Top view

1
1

2
4

2
3

Front view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50 Bottom view

MCCS_102
 2

4 4

2D detail. Scale 1:5 3D view of detail

1 1

4
2

Back view

2 4

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

MCCS_103
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
8 Structural analysis

40000. 45000. 50000. 55000. 60000.

Z
Vertical displacements distribution in the
Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight
, 1 cm 3D = 2.00 mm
steel structure (mm)
(Min=-2.40) (Max=0.0098)
Y X

Finite element model of typical bay

2 Opaque and glazed unitised

1 Facade system
panels with GRC rainscreen.
3 1 Facade zone Up to 7 meters
3 Concrete core and slabs.
2 Primary structure type
4
Steel I profiles.

4
Secondary structure type SHS steel sections.
Weight of secondary
3 1.33
structure (kN/m2)
2
Serrated plates; post-drilled
Facade bracket type
anchorages.
3 Details Number of components in
1. Primary structure 12
3 fixing system
2. Steel secondary structure
3. Fixing bracket Weight of facade, including
2.83
4. Panel frame secondary structure (kN/m2)

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 typ-
ically 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 cantile-
vering 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.
 33.6 13.6
32.2 12.2
31.1 11.4
30.0 10.5
29.0 9.6
27.9 8.7
33.6 13.6
26.8 32.2 7.9 12.2
31.1
25.8 11.4

160.00
7.0
30.0 10.5
24.7 6.1
29.0 9.6

23.6 27.9 5.2 8.7

26.8 7.9
22.5 4.4
25.8

160.00
7.0
21.5 24.7 3.5 6.1

20.4 23.6
2.6 5.2

22.5 4.4
19.3 1.7
21.5 3.5
18.2 20.4 0.9 2.6

19.3 1.7
17.2 0.0
18.2 0.9
16.1 -0.9
17.2 0.0

15.0 16.1 -1.7 -0.9

15.0 -1.7
14.0 -2.6

140.00
14.0 -2.6

140.00
12.9 12.9 -3.5 -3.5

11.8 11.8 -4.4

-4.4
10.7 -5.2
10.7 -5.2
9.7 -6.1
9.7 8.6 -6.1 -7.0

7.5 -7.9
8.6 -7.0
6.4 -8.7
7.5 -7.9
5.4 -9.6

6.4 4.3 -8.7 -10.5

3.2 -11.4
5.4 -9.6
2.1 -12.2
4.3 -10.5

120.00
1.1 -13.1

3.2 0.0 -14.0

-11.4
-1.1 -14.9
2.1 -12.2
-2.1 -15.7

120.00
1.1 -3.2 -13.1 -16.6

-4.3 -17.5
0.0 -14.0
-5.4 -18.4
-1.1 -14.9
-6.4 -19.2

-2.1 -7.5 -15.7 -20.1

-8.6 -21.0
-3.2 -16.6
-20.00 0.00 20.00 -20.00 40.00 0.00 60.00 20.00 80.00 m 40.00
-9.3 -21.4
-4.3 -17.5
Z Sector of system Group 1 Z Sector of system Group 4 M 1 : 435
-5.4 Y -18.4
Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight Top Principal
, from -9.34 Yto 33.6 step 1.07stress
MPa I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight X * 0.332
, from -21.4 to 13.6 step 0.874 MPa
X X Y * 1.000
-6.4 -19.2 Z * 0.944

-7.5 -20.1

-8.6 -21.0
-20.00 0.00 20.00-20.00 40.00 0.00 60.00 20.00 80.00 m 40.00 6
-9.3
Principal stress distribution in the core (MPa)
-21.4
Principal stress distribution in the slabs (MPa)
Z Sector of system Group 1 Z Sector of system Group 4 M 1 : 435
Y Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight Y toTop
, from -9.34 Principal
33.6 stress
step 1.07 MPa I in Node, Loadcase 1 Self weight X *MPa
, from -21.4 to 13.6 step 0.874 0.332
X X Y * 1.000
Z * 0.944

Facade Systems

Unitised System
GRC panel and carrier frame

um steel displacements (LC 1002)

Finite element model of concrete structure Finite element model of rainscreen panel Finite element model of unitised panel

0. 4.77 4.77
0. 71 4.60 4.60
0.424
44 5 1.
3 4.48 4.48
4.00

98
0
0. .48 1. 1.8 1.89
4.36 4.36
1.
4.00

89 9 51 4.24
1. 8 9 4.24 0.0854
4
0. 0 2. 14.12 82 1.03
.8 0. 4.12
0.803 1.97 0.8
0. 48 30 0 62
11 8 3. 1. 4.01
2 4.01
0 1. 3. 06 1. 81 13.89 .1 1.39
0. 48 11 84 9 1. 3.89
1.99 3.31 1.9
71 0 0 0. 0.
3. 3.4 1. 1.9
3.77 3.77
6 3. 58 58
1. 29 5 72 98 2 03.65
.9 1. 3.65 9
3.80
0.972 9
28 0. 3.54 80 85 1.90 1.90
3. 4. 12 3.54
3 45 37 1.
3.00

53.42
2. .05 4
4.
5 23 2. 3.42
3.81 1.12 3.8
67 .5 9 0. 2. 56 1.03 1.03
3.00

5 50 3.30
63 3.30

3. 4. 4.6 3. 6
72 2. 2.8 3. 3.20 1.00
3.18
32 49 8 4.7
3.18
14 3.41 3.41
1. 663.06 1
6 4.0 04 3.06
1.95
4. 7
37 4. 4 2. 2.6 .81
2 2.95
3. 3.4 2.95
0.474 3.20 0.746 0.474 3.2
76 .3 2.833 8 0 6 1.97
0 2. 26 3 .7 2.83
4.77 1.9
3. 2 1.96
93 4. 27 2.71 2.71
1.12 3.04 1.12
22 3. 2. 2. 3. 3.
4. 32 31 72 78 3.2.59 45 2.59
29 2.08
2.47 96 3.
2.00

3. 2. 2.47 2.92 2.9

84 2 92 3 66
.6 1.82
4.12
4.12

2.00

0. .7
2. 2.7 2 1 3.9
2.36 2.36
3. 42 2.05 2.0
17 93 5 5 6 3.2.24 2.24 2.84
2. 0 3. 76 2.
2.
1. .637
37 52 47 2.12
55 2.12
1.58 1.89 1.58
06 3.
1. 0. 75 2. 2.6
2.00 2.00 4.77 2.97 1.38 4.77 2.9
19 3. 7 0 1.86
0.
80 1. 1.0 6 50 1.89 9 1.89
1.90 1.02 1.9
06 6
96
6 0. 0.
0. 3. 2. 2.6 1.77 0. 1.77 3.08
73 0. 20 13 79 51.65 0 32 1.82 1.82
0. 7 44 4 23 2. .6 5 1.65

25 0. 4 0. 8 58 2. 0 10 3.40
1.53 . 2.94 2.9
1.00

57 60 0. 71 1.53
2 12 5 0.
6 60
1.00

0. 0. 3 2. 1.41 50 1.41
57 0. 1 97 08 0. 0.8 1.30 0 5 1.37 3.73
1.04
1.37
0. 5 0. 1. 98 17 1.30

44 84 52 30 3 1.
5 9 3 0. 1.18 2 1.18

0.
71 1. 3 3.71 1.91 3.7
0. 0. 5 1.06 98 1.06
1.02 1.02
22 0. 74 61
9 0. 89 8 5 0.94
1. 1.8 0.94
81 3 84 9 1.99
0.821. 3.39 3.39
0. 9 0. 81
0.82
0. 76
0. 66 20 1. 0.71 0.71
0.185
52 7 0 6 800.59 0.59 1.97 1.9
1.04 1.04
0.00

0. 7 1.
11 1. 1.8
0.00

30 84 1 0.47 0.47
0.118 0.118
2 1. 1.90 1.90
1. 89 0.35 0.35
98
-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
0.24
m
0.24
0.0608 0.0608
0.12 0.12
-3.00 -2.00 -1.00 -3.00 0.00 -2.00 1.00 -1.00 2.00 0.00 3.00

Displacements distribution in -3.00 -2.00 -1.00

Displacements distribution
0.00
in 0.06
M 11.00
: 32 2.00 3.00
0.06
Von Mises stress distribution in
4.00
Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements
m

LC 1002 G1+Ws Enlarged by 20.0 Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements

Z X * 0.808 Z
YY * 0.847 Y
Z Sector of system Group 1 Top v.Mises
Top v.Mises stress in Node, Loadcase 2002 1.35G1+1.50Ws X , from stress
M 14.77
0.0561 to in
: 32 Node,
step Loadcase
0.118 MPa 2002 1.35G1+1.50Ws , from 0.0561 to 4.77
composite
obal X, Loadcase 1002 G1+Ws
panel frame
, 1 cm 3D = 10.0 mm Y (mm)
X
(Min=-0.716) (Max=4.76)
Deformed Structure from LC 1002 G1+Ws Enlarged byrainscreen
20.0 frame (mm) XZ * 0.793
the GRC panel (MPa) X * 0.808
Y * 0.847
Nodal displacement in global X, Loadcase 1002 G1+Ws , 1 cm 3D = 4.00 mm (Min=-1.98) (Max=3.96) Z * 0.793
MCCS_105
4.85 mm < Span/240=8.3 mm
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 % Daylight factor

850 10

675 8

500 6

350 4

175 2

50 0

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar
Period With shading Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 1.47%
shading reduction
Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.89%
1 year 14.5 MWh 23.6 MWh 38% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.55%

MCCS_106
Pressure, kPa Velocity, m/s Pressure, kPa
1.6 100 1.6

0.6 0.6
75

-0.4 -0.4
50
-1.4 -1.4

25
-2.4 -2.4

-3.4 0 -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 exte- Wind cladding pressure distribution
rior 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 meas-
ure 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 structur-
al calculations and to calibrate the CFD analysis used also to assess
dynamic effects. This allowed the required stiffness of the tower to be
Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution on east and
confirmed, which informs the overall movements that are to be accom- north facade
modated by the external envelope.

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 under-
standing 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 can-
tilevers 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 re-
inforced concrete (GRC) rainscreen panels, stiffened by a steel frame
which is fixed directly to a steel framed insulated backing wall. This back-
ing wall has integrated glazed openings. The use of glazing unitised fram-
ing 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 move-
ments 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 rain-
screen GRC cladding so that the facade for the lower floors can also
serve as open-jointed rainscreen GRC panels, fixed via adjustable brack-
ets 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 in-
volving 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 to be performed and would therefore not allow design options to be
of the building geometry and has a long set-up and testing timeframe. It tested at the start of the project. This basic test ensures preliminary
is performed only by specialist laboratories that are required to follow calibration which adds considerable value to CFD modelling, despite not
standard procedures and certify their results. 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.
CFD analysis was used on the KCTV tower to assess the variation in
magnitude of the structural loads across the tower. The vortex shed-
ding 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.
Due to the height of the building, a wind tunnel test was undertaken dur-
ing 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 undertak-
en, 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 also critical in estimating preliminary cladding pres-

sures, 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 inde-

pendent 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” N

113° 6’ 49” E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

FACADE ZONE (mm) 1000

WEIGHT OF SECONDARY
((kN/m2)
STRUCTURE (kN/N/m2)
2) 0.60

TOTAL WEIGHT
OF FACADE (k
kN/m
m2)
(kN/m2) 1.43

U-VALUE (W/m2K) 0.23

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

7 5

2
3
1
6

7
3D internal view of typical bay

1
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
3D external view of typical bay 8. Transom

MCCS_112
 2

1 2

3 1

3
8
5
4
6 6 5
4
8

7
7
5 9

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

10

8
5
10

11 6
5 11

4
4

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

15

15
14

12

12
13
13

14

3D view of glazing system 3D exploded view of glazing system

Details
1. GRC rainscreen panel 6. Thermal insulation 11. Waterproofing membrane
2. Glazed rooflight 7. Facade primary structure 12. Double glazed unit
3. Glazing frame 8. Supporting bracket 13. Mullion
4. I-beam primary structure 9. Metal frame 14. Glazing frame
5. Facade secondary structure 10. External cladding 15. Transom

MCCS_113
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
9 System design

3
2 6
5
1

Top view

2
2

Front view

3 1

6 5
2 6

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:100

MCCS_114
 1

3 1
6

2D detail. Scale 1:5 3D view of detail

1
2

Back view

4
Details
1. External cladding 4
3D views of system
2. Steel structure
3. Supporting bracket
4. I-beam primary structure
5. Cladding supporting bracket
MCCS_115
6. Thermal insulation
 INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
9 Structural analysis

310.00 300.00 290.00 280.00 270.00 260.00

View of typical bay Z Sector of system Beam Elements Nodal displacements distribution
X Y 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

-605
-80.00

-706
-80.00

-77
-807 5.2 -77
5.2
-908 -723.5 -77
6.4 -723.5 -77
-1008 6.4
-1109
-724.6
-724.6
-1210 -77
-7 7.5 -77
-1311 -725.7 13 -7 7.5
.0 -725.7 13
-1412
.0
-11
-7 33 -11
-1513 -769 14 -7 33
.1 -1077 .3 -769 14
-1613 115.2 .1 -1077 .3
153.1 115.2
-770 153.1
-90.00

-1714
.4 -770
-90.00

-1 .4
-1815 19 -1
4 19
113.9 4
-1916 113.9
-108 -15
-2017 8 46 -108 -15
46
-1529 112.6 8 -1529
-2118 112.6
150.5
150.5
-2219 -108 -15
9 4 -108 -15
-1531 7 9 4
-2319 -1531 7
-109 -109
-2420 1 -15 1
-1532 49 -15
-2521 -1532 49
-3494 -36 -3494 -36
-2622 34 34
-100.00

-2723
-100.00

-3495 -36 -3495

35 -36
-2824 35

-2924

-3025 -3877 -3877

-3126

-3227 -3878 -3878

-3328

-3429 -3879 -3879

-3529 -37 -37
39 39
-3630 -3881 -3881
-3731

-3832
300.00 310.00 290.00 300.00 280.00 290.00 270.00 280.00 260.00 270.00 m 260.00 m
-3881

tem Group 0 1 4 Axial force distribution in steel columns (kN)

Z Sector of system Group 0 1 4 Von Mises stress distribution in secondary bracket (MPa)
M 1 : 251 M 1 : 251
X * 0.908
Y Beam 1Elements , Normal force Nx,
= Loadcase
2000. kN 1(Min=-3881.)
self weight (Max=153.1)
, 1 cm 3D = 2000. kN (Min=-3881.) (Max=153.1)
, Normal force Nx,
X Loadcase self weight , 1 cm 3D X * 0.908
Y * 0.475 Y * 0.475
Z * 0.975 Z * 0.975

MCCS_116
 1
Thin open-jointed GRC
Facade system
rainscreen on steel frame.
Facade zone 1000 mm
2
Details Primary structure type Steel I sections.
4 1. GRC panels
3
Secondary structure type CHS steel sections.
2. Panel frame
3. Secondary bracket Weight of secondary
0.60
4. Steel tubes structure (kN/m2)
5. Primary bracket Serrated plates and
4 Facade bracket type threaded tubes; welded
6. Steel C-sections
5 7. Primary structure and bolted.
Number of components in
10 and 9
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
1.43
secondary structure (kN/m2)
6

5
-10.7

60
62
7 -
-0.8 -0.0.41

.0
.2
Facade assembly
61 650 3

-1. -0
-0
-0.97

-20

10
-8.68 -36.5
5

-4.
.5

50
-11.2

-6.49
-19.

-9.25
9
-20.7

8
6.
9

5
8.

-3
1.

.8
-1 71
-0.8
-2

0
3.

-3
55.2 51.2
.7
30

34
-60.2 -2
-31.0
-39.0
.8
-26

-35.6
-9
.6

-26.2
4
-1
.8
7

-95.3 -96.9
-86.1
-51.6
-22.4
-2
.
79

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

-200. -100. 0. 100. 200. 300. 400. 500.

-30.6

Finite element model of primary bracket Von Mises stress distribution in primary Principal stress flow distribution in
.1.8

Sector of system
.1

Z
04

bracket (MPa)
Y X Top primary bracket
, 1 cm(MPa)
Principal stress II in Node, nonlinear Loadcase 2001 2001 3D = 179.7 N/mm2 += -= (Min=-234.7) (Max=55

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 op-
timised 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.
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 con-
straint required the optimisation of the weight of each individual compo-
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 loca-
tions 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 con-
crete (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 con-
tinuous 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 23 September 22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

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 Daylight factor analysis on typical bay
Without Solar Mean daylight factor (floor-4): 2.11%
Period With shading Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 2.43%
shading reduction
Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.61%
1 year 36.3 MWh 49.4 MWh 24% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.32%
Mean daylight factor (floor-0): 0.92%

MCCS_118
 Velocity, m/s
80
65
55
40
30
15
0
Wind velocity contours External wind velocity streamlines

External Internal
velocity, m/s 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 tun-
nel 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 1.5
natural light within the building, allowing coordination of the design of 1
the interior lighting to be undertaken in order to avoid visual discomfort.
0.5
This is caused by abrupt changes in lux levels when moving from areas
0
adjacent to the external glazed facades to the spaces located more
internally, which rely on artificial lighting. -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
Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution
to fit the space between a larger number of brackets.

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 sec-
ondary system which forms transparent strips within the opaque con-
struction 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 struc-
ture 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 behav-
MCCS_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 subse-
quently 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 geome-
try, 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 rein-
forced 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-
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 test-
ed 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 cast-
in steel studs which ensure that lateral loads are transferred to the
framing and that the backing frame can expand thermally without im-
posing 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 pan-
els 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 compu-
tational fluid dynamics (CFD), which validates the expected thick-
nesses 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
validated through wind tunnel testing to confirm cladding pres-
sures and overall structural loads.
• Assessment of the global stability of the proposed structural con-
cept 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 en-
velope 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 calcula-
tion 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 ele-
ment 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” S
144°57’47.81 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 TESTING

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

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

4
3D internal view of typical bay

Details
1. Double glazed panel 7. Girder
2. Metal sheet 8. Steel mesh
3. Backing wall 9. Thermal insulation
4. Cladding 10. Floor slab
5. Mullion 11. External metal sheet
3D external view of the typical bay 6. Cladding bracket

MCCS_124
 8 4

1 5
8
6
3

3D viiew of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

1 1
5

4
10
10 2 9 11

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

5 5

1 1

3D view of glazing system 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

1
3

Front view

Bottom view

MCCS_126
3D view from below of cladding system
 1

2D detail. Scale 1:5

Back view

2
3

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

Finite element model of typical bay

Finite element model of typical bay

Open-jointed rainscreen
Facade system incorporating glazing, sandstone
and perforated aluminium.
Facade zone 335 mm
Primary structure type Steel moment frame.
Steel framed wall, cold formed
Secondary structure type
profiles.
Weight of secondary
0.20
structure (kN/m2)
2 Spider bracket with three
Facade bracket type
adjustable arms.
Number of components in
5
fixing system
4
Weight of facade, including
2.61
secondary structure (kN/m2)
3

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

Facade assembly

MCCS_128
 2.29
2.17 0.266
0.260
2.06
0.253 0.0123
1.94
0.0193

09
0.246

0.
1.83

41
.2
0.0263

-0.171

71
.5

73
0.240

-0
0.222

79

15.00
1.71 0.2111E-

-0

.7

85
3 0.0263

E-
-0.9926E 0.186

-0.0680
0.233

-0

.8
-3

3
1.60

91
0.6332E- -0.9307E 0.157

-0
0.0263
3

.8

15.00
1.48
0.226 -3 0.121
0.6332E-

-0.214
23

-0
-0.7417E

68
-0.711 3 07

0.0213
-3

0.0183
-0.

-21.9

0.0153
0.220 0.

.7
0.138
1.37 084 0.6332E- -0.5717E
3

-0
5 -3 73

38
0.100 01

-0.375
0.213 0.6332E-

-0.0841
-1.37 -0. 0.

.5
0.183
1.26
172 3 -0.9076E
0.0423
00
93

16
-0
0.206 0.6353E- -3 0.116 02 0. 13

6
3 06 01

0.
-0.285
0.242 0.

.2
44
1.14 0.
-1.44 -0. 82

-4.99
0.6332E- 33

57
03

70
0.4

-0.177
-0
01
0.
0.161
323 3 0.

0.0213
0.4 0.200 12 0.

06
05

03
1.03 0.237 0. 23

-1.66
-1.48 57 01
37

0.

E-
0.193 07 0.
-0. 0.5880E- 0.133
0.
37

0.0163
93

1.24

3
0.208 0.91
346 3 00

-0
-0.666 0.203 0.191 0.

0.0033
0.0683

94
-2.37 -0.2 73

-2
0.186

.7
49

-1.35
01

-0

0.0143

0.0213
0.0183
0.80 0.

05

.2
0.9451E- 0.0603

22
-0.

.7
0.237 -0.733 3 0.255 0.178

-2
0.
0.180

8
-0. 312

-21.9
-2.44

2.
2

0.
-21.5
0.69 0 0.0010

.
05

787
2
219

28
0.103

29
62
2.65 -5.67

0.0443
0.
0.173 0.249
.8

0.0373
8.17
0.209
0.1

2.
-0.

0.0293
-3.36 -1.42

9
90

0.57 0.138

1.19

0.0

62
-0.230
-0

0 0.6590E-

29
717
.5

-0

9
-1.50
0.166 3
23

-9.88
-3.42
0.206 16

11.4
0.46 0
-0

.7
-1.49 -0. 0.8979E- 0.0853 0.

9.51

10.00
115 0.160 3 0.2206E-3 83

03
-0.483 0.132 00
0.34 0.8452E- 0.110 0. 03
0.132

0E
3 01

0.135
-1.53 5 0.

-1.61
0.153

-3
-0.3567E-3 23
42
-0.

0.23 0.240 01
-1.41

0.0445
0.
-0.

0.
0.0683

0.780
0.136
83

2
-0.

-2.45 0.146
226 0.

32

10.00
0.11
-0.

768
0.266
06

0.0453
-1.33
226

0.

-0

0.0373
0.322 -1.47

0.0143
-2

0.0163
97

0.0293
226

0.144
0.

- 0.140

0.0203
.7
.2
08

-0
-2.51

-2
226

0.00

0.0
43

-21.5
0.233

13

0.
0.

-21.4
01

1
0.136

.7

2.
.2
0.257 -1.54
0.

-2
0.133

61
2.60 -5.53

0.
13
0.1

-0.11
136

2
-1.84
0.199

1
61

8.01
-3.46

.2

2.
3

-4.00

3
01

-6.44

7
5

61
0.

0.
1 0.126

1
0.117

23
-2.46
0.

-0
36

7
-0.23

0.0433
61
-9.81

0.0363
-3.52

063
11.1

0.0283
.
0.166

0.0193
7
41
0.338 2 0.120

9.35
7

1
-2.53 -0.34-0.502
01

04
074
3

0.0
1
4
0.367 01
0.
0.115

074
0.113 0.

E-
1
0.0773
0.207 73

-1.61
-0.46

074
-0.
00

3
-1.46 9 0.
99

-0.
0.132
-0.318

0.107
.2 0 0.0893
-0.604

0.497
55

-0.
3
07

-0.57 10
-0 .0
0.238 0.
0

-1.33
-1.52
0.

0.0083
0.100 0.0953

057
0.332 -0

-0
-0.69
-0.136

-2
-0.669 0.126 0.0503

.7
0.253

-21.4

.2

-0

0.0443
0.0
0.093

-2
-21.2

0.0373
-1.59

0.0133
2.

0.0293
11
-0.80

0.

.7

0.0193
.
2.54 -5.50

0.
-2
0.108
0.220 -1.61

23
5
-1.66

21
7.96
-0.0569

2.
1
23
-3.77

10

11
0.087 0.232
-6.17

27
01

61
.2
-5.86
-0.91 -2.54 0.
0.

23

5.00
2.
0.
1E

5
1
0.207 0.0783
-0.0785
0.342 -1.68
0.080

23
11.0

61
-3

187
-1.03
-2.60
9.29
6

0.0433
06

0.0363
187
0.377-1.14 0.073

5.00 0066
0.144

0.0283
0.277 -1.74 .0

-0.
7

187
10

6
0.
-0.324

-1.61
-0

006

0.

187
-0.
0.067 63
0.163 01

00
0.
0.374

-0.
-1.26
0.231

0.163 -0.625 0.115 0.

77

70
-0.

-0.
1
-
.1
0.060

5
0.168 83
-1.32

1
0.363 -1.37 00
-0
-0.

0.0653 0.

-0.
-0
1 0.118
-0.690 10 13
-0.

0.053 0. 01

-2

.7
9

0.
-21.2

-0

0.0093
-1.48
211
70

0.298

.2
7
-0.751

10
-2
10

.7
204

2.
0.119
-1.66 0.
0.

0.047
2.40 -5.51
4

1
-2.63

7.95

.2

0.
10
-1.60

-2

0.0433
91

-4.80

22
78

0.0103

0.0363
-7.26

0.0933

0.0283
E-3
1
0.232

61

0.0193
2.
.2
0.

0.
0.040
10

0.1
-1.71 -1.73

4
33

22
1
11.0

61
0.168 01
1.

-0.0429

335
94
11

0.
9.26

0.033 51

4
3 07
1.

-1.83

94
0.1
-1.79 0.
E-
4

0.6
91

-0.

48 0.027 5

0.1
10
1

-0.
6

0.
0.

72

31
-1.94
16

0.
0.

0.020
0.

658
059

-2.06 0.1558E-3
0.013
5

-2.17
0.0327 -10.00 0.007 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00
0.00Axial
-10.00 force distribution in steel
-2.28 -5.00
5.00 Bending moment10.00 distribution
0.00
0.000
in-10.00
steel Torsional
15.00 m moment distribution in steel
5.00 -5.00 10.00
Utilisation
m0.00
level distribution in steel
5.00

Elements
frame (kN) Z Beam Elements frame
, Torsional moment Mt, Loadcase 1 self weight
(kNm) , 1 cm 3D = 2.00 kNm (Min=-2.28) (Max=2.29)
frame (kNm) ,frame
M 1 :
f weight , , 1 cm 3D = 2.00 kN (Min=-3.52) (Max=1.11)
Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight
Y
, 1 cm 3D = 20.0 kNm (Min=-21.9) Z(Max=11.4)
Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case
M 1 : 101 M 11 : 108 1 cm 3D = 0.200 (Max=0.266) X * 0
X Y X * 0.715 Y * 0
X X * 0.710 Z * 0
Y * 0.886
Y * 0.874
Z * 0.839
Z * 0.855

Spider bracket

Von Mises stress distribution in spider bracket (MPa)

The framed wall construction suits the irregular panelisation of the The external rainscreen panels are supported with adjustable three-leg-
external rainscreen panels by providing a lightweight solution to the ged spider fixings screwed directly to the metal sheet. The rainscreen
continuity of thermal insulation and structural support over a range cladding panels incorporate glass, sandstone and aluminium. The struc-
of geometric configurations. The framed wall construction utilised tural robustness of the fixing is achieved through multiple perforations
adopts a metal sheet on each side to provide lateral stability to the in the metal sheet which spread the load transferred from the panel in
pressed steel channels through diaphragm action. The pressed steel order to avoid local failure at the perforation location. The spider fixing
channels achieve the required stiffness through a balance between is designed to transfer the maximum amount of load to the framed wall
the cross sectional depth and the spacing between them, where ther- by supporting the vertices of three panels. The rainscreen panels are
mal insulation is set. In this way, a lightweight insulated steel frame allowed to move freely when subjected to thermal loads.
is capable of providing continuity of structural support, together with
thermal and waterproofing insulation.

MCCS_129
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
2,234 MWh 175

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis

kWh/m2 % Daylight factor

275
4

220
3.3

175
2.7

125
1.5

75
0.8

25
0

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 0.41%

Period With shading
shading reduction
1 year 6.3 MWh 55.1 MWh 89%

MCCS_130
 External Internal
velocity, m/s 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

0.5

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 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 large rainscreen panels provide a durable finish for the external
facades, as well as conceal the utilitarian nature of the interior wall. A driv-
ing 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 disengagement between the two skins allows independent mainte-
nance 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’ N

51° 32’ 21’ E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

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

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

3D internal view of typical bay

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
3D external view of typical bay 8. GRC panels

MCCS_134
 1

1 4

3
3

3D view of roof system 3D exploded view of roof system

5 1
5 1

6 6

3D view of vertical facade system 3D exploded view of vertical facade system

8 8

3D view of opaque wall system 3D exploded view of opaque wall system

MCCS_135
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
11 System design
4

Top view

Front view

1
2

4
3

Bottom view

MCCS_136
Third angle projection. Scale 1:50
 1

1
2

4
3

3 4

3D views of details

3
4
1 2

Back view

4
1
3

Details
1. Double glazed unit 3D view of assembly
2. Steel box MCCS_137
3. Primary structure
4. Secondary structure
 INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
11 Structural analysis

Finite element model of the structure 29.8

28.2
29.8
27.4
28.2
0.932
26.5
27.4
0.932
8.72
60.6 60.6 25.7
26.5
59.1 59.1

0.960 8.72
24.8
25.7
57.6 57.6
23.9
24.8
56.1 56.1

0.960 -3.83
23.1
23.9
54.6

40.00
54.6

-3.83
22.2
23.1
53.1 53.1

40.00
10.1
51.5 21.4
22.2
51.5

10.1 14.4
50.0 20.5
21.4
50.0
40.00
40.00

14.4
48.5 19.7
20.5
48.5

12.4
47.0 47.0 18.8
19.7

12.4
45.5 45.5 18.0
18.8

44.0 44.0 17.1

18.0

6.29
42.4 42.4 16.3
17.1

6.29
40.9

-1.40
40.9 15.4
16.3
39.4 39.4

-1.40
14.5
15.4
37.9 37.9

35.00
13.7
14.5
36.4 36.4

35.00
12.8
13.7
34.9 34.9
12.0

6.37
12.8
35.00

33.3
35.00

2.81
33.3
11.1
12.0

6.37
31.8 31.8

2.81
10.3
11.1
30.3 30.3

28.8
9.4
10.3
28.8
27.3 8.6
9.4
27.3

9.47 12.4
25.8 7.7
8.6
25.8

9.47 12.4
24.3 24.3 6.8
7.7

22.7 22.7 6.0

6.8

21.2 21.2 5.1

6.0
5.64 3.15

30.00
5.64 3.15
19.7 19.7 4.3
5.1

30.00
18.2 18.2
3.4
4.3
30.00
30.00

16.7 16.7
2.6

16.9
3.4
15.2 15.2
1.7
2.6
13.6 13.6

12.1
0.9
1.7
13.6 16.9
13.6
12.1
0.0
0.9
10.6

29.8
10.6
-0.9
0.0
9.1

29.8
9.1

-4.41
-1.7
-0.9
7.6 7.6

-4.41
-2.6
-1.7
6.1 6.1

4.5 -3.4
-2.6
4.5
3.0 -4.3
-3.4
3.0 -60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 m
1.5 -4.4
-4.3
1.5
-60.00 -60.00 -55.00 -55.00 -50.00 -50.00 -45.00 -45.00 -40.00 -40.00 -35.00 -35.00 m m -60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 m
0.0 -4.4
0.0 Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from -4.41 to 29.8 step 0.855 MPa M 1 : 119
Von Mises stress distribution in typical bay
Y
Z
X
Maximum
Y
Maximum
Z v.Mises
X
v.Mises
stress in stress in Node, 1Loadcase
Node, Loadcase 1 self ,weight
self weight , from
from 0.0051 to 0.0051 to 60.6
60.6 step 1.52 step
MPa 1.52 MPa M 1 : 119 M 1 : 119
X * 0.750 X * 0.750
Y
Y
Z

Von Mises stress distribution in typical bay (MPa)

Z
X
X
Top Principal stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from -4.41 to 29.8 step 0.855 MPa MX 1* :
0.750
119
Y * 0.723
ZX ** 0.957
0.750
Y * 0.723 Y * 0.723 Y * 0.723
Z * 0.957 Z * 0.957
Z * 0.957
45.00

0.84354

-0

45.00
.
- 66
0.548

3.01

0.84354
-0.00000

0. 6

45.00
0.122

3.97

-0.06174
-0.00000
66
6
4.30

40.00

-0.06174
3.99
3.15

40.00
-0.11281

0.
3.52

0. 844

40.00
-0.11281
2.86

-0.21501
-1 84
-1 .1
2.00

4
2.09

-0.21501

-0.21503
. 4
14
1.17

35.00

-0.21503
1.06

35.00
-0 0.21 5

-0.24519
0.751

35.00
-0-0.2
- 21 5

-0.24519
.2 5

-0.06
. 1

-0.06617

-0.38978
15

-0.06
1.08

-0.0

-0.38978
0.779
1.07

-0.66573
1.35

17
30.00

30.00

-0.66573
1.43

17
17

30.00

-0.69832
-0.69832

-1.14337
-1.14337

-1.14339
-1.14339
-60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 m
-60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 m
-60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00 -35.00 -30.00 m

Z Vertical displacements distribution in typical bay (mm)

Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 5.00 mm (Min=-4.30) (Max=0.122) M 1 : 150 Y
Z Torsional moment distribution in typical bay (kNm)
X
Y
Z
Beam
X
Elements
Beam , Torsional
Elements , Torsionalmoment
moment Mt,
Mt, Loadcase 1 self
Loadcase 1 self weight
weight , ,1 1cmcm3D3D = 1.00
= 1.00 kNmkNm (Min=-1.14)
(Min=-1.14) (Max=0.844)
(Max=0.844) M 1 : 140M 1 : 140
X * 0.750 X * 0.750
Y * 0.723 Y * 0.723
Y X X * 0.750 Z * 0.957 Z * 0.957
Y * 0.723
Z * 0.957

Elevation of typical steel arch

MCCS_138
 Fish-scale glazed roof
Facade system
on steel structure.
Facade zone 500 mm
Primary structure type Steel arches and tubes.
Steel T profiles,
Secondary structure type
aluminium frame.
Weight of secondary
0.25
structure (kN/m2)
Spider bracket with
Facade bracket type
four adjustable arms.
Number of components in
18
fixing system

Finite element model of steel facade Weight of facade, including

1.22
secondary structure (kN/m2)

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

Facade assembly

First natural frequency Second natural frequency Third natural frequency

of vertical facade (f = 2.15 Hz) of vertical facade (f = 2.77 Hz) of vertical facade (f = 2.91 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
the global stability of the roof is provided by the framing supporting the fish-
scale 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 pro-
vide 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-fabricat-
ed 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

Period Total area Total radiation

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis
1 year 3,147 m2 3,310 MWh

kWh/m2 % Daylight factor

2300
12

2000 10

1500 8

6
950
4
475
2

250

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar
Period With shading Mean daylight factor: 5.4%
shading reduction
98.4% of area between 2-12%
0.1% of area > 12%
1 year 348 MWh 359 MWh 3% 1.5% of area < 2%

MCCS_140
 External Internal
velocity, m/s 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

0.5

-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% shad-
ing 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 com-
fort 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.
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 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 with-
out 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 addition-
al 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’ con-
struction. 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 com-
fort throughout the occupied exhibition spaces. This allowed a substantial
reduction of the ventilation capacity required for this environmental zone.
MCCS_142
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 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 shad-
ing 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 uniform shading pattern generated by the opaque panel edges deter-
mines 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 inter-
nal 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 vari-
ations 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 archi-
tectural design - which was being developed in parallel to the engineering
design - and new findings from analytical studies. Agile management tech-
niques 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.
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
ducts in the facade zone and the coordination of these with the facade open-
ings 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, integrat-
ing 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 result-
ed 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 multi-
disciplinary team of building engineers.
MCCS_143
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 City Museum Istanbul, Istanbul

MCCS_144
CITY MUSEUM Istanbul, Istanbul
MUSEUM

41°01’04.9” N
28°55’15.2” E

ARCHITECT
SALON ARCHITECTS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
BALKAR MÜHENDISLIK
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

FACADE ZONE (mm) 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

2
3

11

5
9
6

3D internal view of typical bay

2

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

MCCS_146
 3

2 2

3
9
5
6 5
4

10
6

10

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

7
8

10
1
2
8

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

2 3
3

5
5 11
2 11
9
9 4

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

3
5
11
9
4
6

Front view

5
3
2

11

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:50

MCCS_148
 3
11
11

9 2
9
4 3
4
5
6

6
2

2D detail. Scale 1:5 3D view of detail

3
2

11 11
9 9
4
6 4
6

Back view

5
11

Details
1. Double glazed unit
4
2. Steel structure
3. Rigid insulation 6
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 3D view of assembly MCCS_149
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 Structural analysis

Finite element model of steel framed wall

-45.00
8.78
9 9.61 4.46
6.6 3
7.8 5 9.02 9.20
8.6 8
0.0
6 0.0 9.2 9 8.47
2.08
7 9.7 0 1 13.80
10. 0 6.34 1.60 1
3 9 0.06 0.0 9.4 7
5.30
7.
63 7 7.3 61
3.14 4 .9
6
8. 4. 16.4

-50.00
2 26 0.07 6
.3 9. 79 79 .73
12 9. 1. 0 0.07 16.
86
.7
2
.5
7 . 86 9 0.2
3 1 6.
13 15 5 2 11 .1 4 0.07 0. 62
.9 7.0 10 9.9 76 15.
15 1 37
6.3 5 53 1
8. 98

3.49
6 .9 0.67 1
6 6. .2
6.95 16 7.2 39 4 0.92 4.3

3.29
1 . 0 1
17 7.1 05 5 1
3.46

9 1.2
4.66

1.4

2.66
4.02

1 .
4.86 16 .9 48 8.0
3
13 0.
4.61

-55.00
0.74
4.66 1
1

4.33
4

3.82
3 4 7 3.7

3.14
4 6. 5 8
5. 2. 1.
05

0.52
1.06
6 6
0. 0.
46
28 2 0.
0. .4 47
-20.00 -25.00 -30.00 0 -35.00 -40.00 m

Z Lateral displacements distribution in cold

Sector of system M 1 : 103
X * 0.840
Nodal displacement vector, Loadcase 102 SLS: G1+G2+Wp , 1 cm 3D = 24.8 mm (Max=17.4)

pressed steel elements (mm)

X Y Y * 0.721
Z * 0.880

Finite element model of typical bay

Details
1. External aluminium shading
2. Aluminium frame
3. Glazing
Full-height glazed 4. Steel mullion
Facade system facade with external 5. Steel fixing bracket
aluminium mesh. 6. Edge beam
Facade zone up to 1500 mm
Composite concrete
Primary structure type 4
slabs.
Secondary structure type RHS steel sections.
5
Weight of secondary
0.47
structure (kN/m2)
Serrated plates; 6
Facade bracket type 5
welded and bolted. 2 1
3
Number of components in
5
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
1.36
secondary structure (kN/m2)
Facade assembly

MCCS_150
 Finite element model of typical bay

10.00
1
.8

9
9
9

74
7
4
11

3.8

52
8

3
.2

5.5

3
8
.5

7.2
0
.5

9.1
5

.4

1.
.3

10.
0
6
.3

90
11.
2
4
77

3
.1

07
75

.7
.1

.9
73

.0
.0

.9

99
.6

10

54
70

6.
66
61

3.
2
48
55

11
19
.0
42

5.
26
95 04
34

2.21
0
2.4 14 35. . 3
51 59.5 .14 00
14.52

5
16.29

9
4.3
17.95

59
19.26

.1
9 64 66. 5
20.23

3. 1 .2
20.73

.
20.87

3.
46

28 5 5
20.65

4 64
20.18

1
19.44

.5

36 3
18.52

0.00
.7

40 9
9
17.14

.1

38 5
16.62 .8 3 35

.9
23 3 7.

53
.7

7
21

.3

4
22 36.

30

.1
.2
8

5.
3 .
4.7 40 .1
1

13
98 60

1.08

2.45
8
40 38 31. 3. 3.2 .03
4. 96 2 5
03
. 1
3.71
7

3.33

2.71
1.94
4.

1.

5.91
4.30
9

2.80

1.96
3

2.14
Lateral displacements distribution in cold pressed steel elements (mm)
44
0.

-10.00
Aluminium rainscreen Details
Facade system supported on steel 1. Aluminium rainscreen
framed wall. panels
Facade zone 480 mm 2. Aluminium supporting rails
30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 m
3. Steel-framed wall
Composite concrete
Primary structure type
Z Sector of system 4. Edge beam M 1 : 252
Y
X
slabs
Nodal displacement vector, Loadcase 103 SLS: G1+G2+Ws , 1 cm 3D = 44.9 mm (Max=77.3) X * 0.847
Y * 0.719
Z * 0.875
Steel framed wall, cold
Secondary structure type
formed profiles.
Weight of secondary
0.22
structure (kN/m2)
Facade bracket type Bolted steel plates 4

Number of components in
5
fixing system
Weight of facade, including 1
1.05
secondary structure (kN/m2)
2 3
Facade assembly

The structural envelope is composed of a continuous framed wall which The continuous framed wall envelope is top-hung from the slab edge of
is designed to accommodate the sharp folds that define both the inter- the highest floor and is restrained by slab edges on floors beneath, as
nal and external architectural surface, which closely follows the same well as at the interface with the ground floor glazing. At these points the
geometry. The structural concept for the framed wall follows the direc- restraint is only for out-of-plane movement and allows the hanging folded
tion of the frame elements in each facet to form the folded surface, as facade to move freely.
well as the structural depth of the wall required to achieve sufficient
stiffness. The structural depth of the cold pressed steel members is The framed wall incorporates movement joints only at corner loca-
balanced with the spacing between them as well as the ability of the wall tions, in order to allow unrestrained thermal movements to be ac-
framing to incorporate connections with the exterior aluminium rain- commodated for each side of the building. Framing members run in
screen cladding. the two perpendicular directions within the plane of each facet, which
introduces diaphragm action and provides global stability to the enve-
Two layers of outer wall are used: a framed backing wall and an outer lope. The setting out and installation of the framed wall is performed
rainscreen cladding which is supported on rails. The external open-joint- through semi-prefabricated modules, where thermal insulation, mem-
ed cladding is set out along diagonal lines and supported on alumini- brane and interior finishes are site-assembled. The rails are fixed di-
um rails, which are fixed to the framed wall in order to minimise the rectly to the framed wall through adjustable thermally broken brackets
number of penetrations of both thermal and waterproofing envelope. in order to support aluminium panels along the long edge.
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.

MCCS_151
INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTION
12 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

Period Total area Total radiation 350

1 year 10,490 m 2
15,268 MWh
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 Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 0.34%

Period With shading 96.5% of area between 0-1
shading reduction
3.5% of area > 1%
1 year 2.2 MWh 3.3 MWh 32%

MCCS_152
 Internal External
velocity, m/s 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

1.5

20 °C 0.5
13 °C
0 °C
0

Isotherms showing temperature distribution across assembly Wind cladding pressure and air velocity distribution

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 ther-
mal transmittance of the envelope. The analysis of the thermal bridg-
ing 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 rein-
forced gypsum) which provide sufficient mass in order to acoustically
insulate the interior space of the museum.
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 calibra-
tion 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 indi-
rect 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 exter-
nal wall zone wraps the building around the outer perimeter and morphs
into a full height glazed façade with external shading screens in the inter-
nal 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 expres-
sion 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 solu-
tion 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 pro-
vide an internal arrangement set at 45 degrees to the structural layout.
This is driven mainly by circulation and is independent of the main func-
tion 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 overshad-
owing 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 suffi-
cient 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 lat-
erally 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 ele-
ments 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 struc-
tural wall. This was achieved as a balance between the depths of fram-
ing 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 condi-
tions 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 con-
densation 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 exter-
nal cladding brackets. Thermal breaks typically have lower compressive
strength than the structural materials that they connect. The connec-
tions 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 inde-
pendently identifying all the requirements and constraints of each design
aspect through feasibility studies, and through identification of built prec-
edents, conducted in parallel. The primary purpose is to generate a pre-
liminary set of studies in the least amount of time possible in order to
identify all the project-specific requirements for realising the design con-
cept. 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 struc-
tural and thermal design conducted in parallel. This allowed the feasibil-
ity 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 enve-
lope. 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 ther-
mal 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.
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.
The following design phase is based on ‘integration’. The key design cri-
teria 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 build-
ing 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 con-
ducted 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 (struc-
tural, 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 conse-
quences of the structural and environmental strategies implemented.
MCCS_155
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
13 Burjuman Apartments, Dubai

MCCS_156
BURJUMAN APARTMENTS, Dubai
RESIDENTIAL TOWER

25° 15’ 10.9” N

55° 18’ 6.0” 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 TESTING

FACADE ZONE (mm) 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

5
7
1
6

2
3D internal view of typical bay

9
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
3D external view of typical bay 9. Ceiling finish

MCCS_158
 4

2 3

3D view of typical glazed bay 3D exploded view of typical glazed bay

3
8
5
6
5 7

7 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

Top view

4 4
2

Front view

MCCS_160
Bottom view
 2

3
3

Detail 3D view of connection

Details
1. Aluminium sliding shading screen 4. Extruded aluminium mullion
2. Double glazed unit 5. Reinforced concrete slab
3. Extruded aluminium transom 6. Secondary steel structure
7. Thermal insulation

1 2

4 4

3
6

Back view

2 4

3
2 5

5
6

3D views of cladding system MCCS_161

 ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
13 Structural analysis

-0.00
-0.12
-0.00
-0.24 -0.12

-0.36 -0.24

-0.36
-0.48
-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

-4.54 -4.66
18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00
-4.66 -4.78
18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.0
-4.78
Z Sector of system Group 0...2
Finite element model of typical bay Z Sector of system Group 0...2Y Principal
X
stress
Maximum distribution
principal in slabs
compression stress and
in Node, louvres
Loadcase (MPa)
1 self weight , from -4.78 to -9.5507e-08 step 0.119 MPa
X Maximum principal compression stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from -4.78 to -9.5507e-08 step 0.119 MPa
Y

0.252
0.233

0.218

-0.371
0.202

0.187

-0.214
-0.323

0.171

0.156
-0.368

0.140
4
005
0.124 -0.0069 -0 .
-0.0729

7
01 1
0.109 -0.
-0.0018

-0.110
033
-0.0099

0.585 0
0.093 -0.
0.02

-0.0604

3.47
975

0.02

0.078 3
0.0973

2E-
0.0011
39

-0.0060 0.507 666

0.0

0.062 -0.
39

3.46
2.00
57

102
-0.111 0.047
0.0015

0.252

0.0
0.1

0.572 3.46
0.031 0.246 0 068
-0.
0.174

3.24
0.0923

0.016 1.41
0.000 1.40 1 - 3
3.24 0.492 001 09E
-0. 0.6
6
0.244

-0.016
3.23
0.235 1.40 7
-0.031
004
-0.0929
1 -0 .
004
1.20 - 0.
-0.047
-0.666 039
-0.062 0.0
1.20 -0.671
-0.078
0.477
-0.362

1.19 -0.093
-0.106 -0.677 038 002
1
0.0 004
5
-0.
-0.109
-0.429 - 0.
-0.903 0
001
-0.212

-2.73
-0.124
- 0.
-0.316
0.00

-0.908 -0.140
-0.364

-0.0639

-2.74
0.461 -0.156
165

-0.914
165

-2.74
165

-0.0025
-0.

165

-0.171
-0.0804
-0.

-0.450 1
-0.213

003
-0.

-0.763
-0.
-0.

-2.95 -0.187
-0.0012

-0.766
-0.0139
868

-2.96 -0.202 1
001
-0.0633

-0.114 - 0. 3
5E-
0
167

73 2
-0.

-0.218
0.0836

-0.
167

0.0

0.0016
167
-0.

-2.96 -0.0300 3
167

-0.233 6 2E-
-0.

0 01
717
0.07

-0.788 364
0.0361
-0.

-0. - 0.
-0.

0.924 -0.249 -0.0353

0.230
0.0022

-0.793 87
17

0
0.113
-0.264 0.0059 0.0
0.152
0.0082

-0.125
0.0859

-0.280
0.108
-0.0310 -0.295
0.0020
0.234

-0.0364 -0.311
-2.00

0.0015
-0.327
0.9638E-3
-0.342

16.00 14.00 -0.358 12.00 10.00 m

Axial force distribution in alumnium framing (kN) -0.371
18.00
Bending moment
16.00
distribution in aluminium
14.00
framing (kNm) 12.00 10.00

ts , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 2.00 kN (Min=-2.96) (Max=3.47) M 1 : 39

Z Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 selfX weight
* 0.688 , 1 cm 3D = 0.200 kNm (Min=-0.371) (Max=0.252)
X Y * 0.800
Y Z * 0.942

MCCS_162
 Facade assembly
2

5
6

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

Stick glazing with

Facade system external movable
72
72
0.6

aluminium shading.
72
0.6

0.6
2

0.672
7

2
0.67
0.6

72

0.672 Facade zone 1150 mm

0.6

2
0.67
2 7

Composite concrete
0.6

72

0.672
0.672
Primary structure type
2
0.6

0.672 slabs.
0.6

0.0288
0.672

2.00
0.67
2 Aluminium plates
0.672

0.672
0.672 Secondary structure type
0.67
2 and profiles.
0.672
Weight of secondary
0.0270 0.672
0.0117 0.17
structure (kN/m2)
0.672 0.672
Serrated plates;
0.672 0.672 Facade bracket type
0.672
welded and bolted.
0.0100 Number of components in
0.0040
0.672 6
0.672
fixing system
0.672
0.672
0.672
Weight of facade, including
0.672 0.65
0.00

secondary structure (kN/m2)

72
72

0.672 0.672
0.6

72

0.672
0.6

72
0.6
0.6
72

0.672 0.672
72

2
0.67
0.6

72
0.6
0.6

0.672 2
0.67 0.672
72
72
0.6

72
0.6

72

0.672 0.672
0.6
0.6

0.672
0.672
0.672
2
0.67 0.672 0.672
2
0.67 0.672

0.672
0.672
-2.00

0.672

0 Utilisation factor
16.00 distribution in steel frame
14.00 12.00 10.00 m

, Utilisation level Total Interaction, Design Case 1 , 1 cm 3D = 1.18 (Max=0.672) M 1 : 39

X * 0.688
Y * 0.800
Z * 0.942

The lightweight aluminium curtain wall structure supports both the glaz-
ing 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 verti-
cal 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.
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 op-
erable 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 nu-
merical 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 sys-
tem 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

Period Total area Total radiation

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis
1 year 6,136 m2 2,524 mWh

kWh/m2 % Daylight factor

300 3

260 2.7

180 2.4

150 2

100 1.3

62 1

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Mean daylight factor: 1.85%

Period With shading Without shading Solar reduction 98.6% of area between 1-3%
1.4% of area < 1%
1 year 1.1 mWh 4.3 mWh 75%

MCCS_164
 External velocity, m/s Internal 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

0.5

-0.5

-1

External air velocity distribution Wind cladding pressure distribution

1 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

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 20 °C
approach avoids the need to have internal shading which has to be 13 °C
0 °C
deployed for the whole day and does not perform as well as external
19
shading in reducing solar gain. 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. 15 17 18 19

1
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.

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’’ N

46° 44’ 18.90’ E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

FACADE ZONE (mm) 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

6 7

2
6

3 1 4

5
4

3D internal view of typical bay

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

MCCS_168
 2
8 3 1
2

3 1

3D view of typical bay 3D exploded view of typical bay

9 9

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

9 9

3
3

1
1

4
4

3D view of glazing system 3D exploded view of glazing system

MCCS_169
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
14 System design
3

Third angle projection. Scale 1:60

2D detail. Scale 1:10

4
Top view

5
3 5

Front view

5
3

MCCS_170
Bottom view
 5

3
5

1
2

3D view of detail

4
1

3D views of typical bay

5
3
4

2 2

5 1

Back view

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

MCCS_171
 ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
14 Structural analysis

-10.8

-11.5

-12.3

-13.1

-13.8

-14.6

-15.4

-16.1

-16.9

-17.5
13.3
12.3

11.5

10.8

-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
9.9

9.2

8.4

7.7

6.9

6.1

5.4

4.6

3.8

3.1

2.3

1.5

0.8

0.0

-0.825
-6.65

-0.539
-0.539

-1.61 2.92

23

.9
-0.

-0.7
-1

-12

-0.533
2.

715
-2

-1.29
9

2.97
4.96
.7
-0

4.95

4
13
1.8

-1.40
-1.28

7.
0.657
3
.2

1
1.22

-1
-0.
40 9 .
-1

6
7. 9.18

39
13

0.0474
9.
18 1.

-5.8
.3

-9.
6
1.

-4.

45
-0.

0.19
-

1
13
1.84
1.93

1.59
13

2.04
1.64

4.
-5.0

4
1.59
50

5.42
2.8
2.06
.3
348 79

6.70
2.8

-9

0
3.6
0.17

2.79
.3
1

0.
2.

1.91
65
5.46

1
-0

-9
6.76

6
.5
6.12

9
.4

41
11

-2.

-1.91
0.

.2
2
10

28
.4

-9
7

3
-0 28 06

7
8

2.22

-1.08
70 .3

-0.6
-3
-9
0. -0 739

12
0.216

3
-0.

.6

-3.60
-1
.6

-2.

.0
2
-1.06

-4.07
-1.91

75

1
-1.51

43
.1
.0

.1

-1.54
-1.51
-3
-3.61

0.314
-0.7

-4.25

0.315
-2.
-4.08

1
75
12

-1

0.318
47

-4.20
-4.26

0.32
0.3
-4.20

-4.02
0.315
0.314

0.318

0.
-4.02
2

-3.89
27

-3.89
0.32

-3.74

2
27
-3.74

-3.74

0.
4

33
33
0.3

41

0.

4
5

41
0.

0.

3
34

41
0.

45
0 .3
31

34
0.

0.32
3

0.315
0.315
0.

0.32

1
0.3

31
1

-160000.
Bending moment distribution in steel gridshell (kNm)
80000. 70000. 60000. 50000. 40000. mm

Finite element model of the structure Y

ZX
Beam Elements , Bending moment My (Maximum values cubic interpolated), Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 19.6 kNm (Min=-17.5) (Max=13.3) M 1 : 195
X * 0.672
Y * 0.959
Z * 0.793

0.0397

0.0534 0.999
0.0394
0.0531 0.999

0.217

0.158

-140000.
0.947
1.06
1.09

0.891
1.06
0.948

0.817
0.892
0.816

0.494 0.236
0.740

0.225

0.142

0.0367
0.524
0.517

0.161

0.135
0.728

0.786
0.796
0.797
0.787
0.231

0.524
0.147

0.709
0.728

0.579
0.164

0.729
0.710
0.0368

0.688
0.138

0.612

0.337
0.501 0.138

0.105
0.251

0.0333
0.0417
0.0452
0.706
0.469

0.718
0.707

0.718

0.0472
0.106

0.178

0.577

0.242
0.520

0.619
0.577
0.0401

0.0433

0.384
0.619
0.0480

0.0414

-150000.
0.0180

0.0704
0.0022

0.0691

0.148

0.292
0.292

0.289

0.0783
0.136
0.106
0.0783

0.0979
Vertical displacement distribution in steel gridshell (mm)

-160000.
results
Finite element model of typical bay
80000. 5.11.6 Maximum surface analysis
70000. 60000. 50000. 40000. mm

Nodal displacement in global Z, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 1.23 mm (Min=-1.09) (Max=0) M 1 : 195

-10.1

-12.1

-14.2

-16.2

-18.2

-20.2

-22.2

-24.3

-26.3

-28.3

-30.3

-32.4

-34.4

-36.4

-38.4

-40.4

-42.5

-44.5

-46.5

-48.5

-50.6

-52.6

-54.6

-56.0
ZX
24.9
22.2

20.2

18.2

16.2

14.2

12.1

10.1

-2.0

-4.0

-6.1

-8.1
8.1

6.1

4.0

2.0

0.0
Y X * 0.672
Y * 0.959
Z * 0.793

Opaque composite panels

-11.1

-11.1
-11.1
Facade system with glazing
limit insets and UHPC

-11.1

1
Maximum deflection Load case Deflection Status

19.
19
.1

open-jointed rainscreen.

-47.4

-47.1

-46.5
-47.4

-45.9
-47.1

-45.3
-46.5

-44.6
1.4 mm Wind suction 9.1 mm OK
-45.8

-43.5

-56.0
-45.3

-52.6
-44.

-45.0

-42.9
-43.
-55.

-33.3
-36.0
-36.3
-31.2
-52.

Facade zone 1670 mm

-44.5

0.150
-43.1

4
-41.4

1.

99
2.21
-44.8

0.9 mm Wind suction 7.7 mm OK

1
7

-3.43
-34.0

41
-33.3

-5.57

-3.
-6.26
-6.25
-1.50
-5.56
-4.24

-9.41
5

.2
Primary structure type 7.8 Steel gridshell.
-6.

8
6.2

-10

.8
-10.4 -27.1 14
-4

0.8 mm Wind suction mm OK 4.29

-3
-4

18
5.99
.8

-31.0 .2
.0

19
-27.2
-11

.8
2

-10.5
9

1 9.
9

.9
-31.1
19.

.2
4

17.
SecondaryWind
structure
suctiontype 7.0 RHS steelmm
sections. OK -9. -1 3
-13
19.

14
17.6

15.5
-31.9 9.
3.2 mm

3
5

79
15.6

7.
13.7
-1
13.8

20
12.8
18.

12.8

7
8

.6
6
-11 -1 -32.0
14.

0.0540
.3

0.160
22
9.
STRUCTUR

0.276
.8
5.11.6 Maximum surface analysis 5 -33.8

.0
23.
6

-6.28
Weight of secondary
19.

-33.9

0.6
23.
0.160
0.0540

0.276

23.
0.411

23.6

8
24.9

0.7
0.549

0.44
24.8

23.9
23.2
23.8
0.681

81
8

0.8
95

95
structure (kN/m2) 5.11.3 Load combinations 5.11.4 Structural system and support conditions STRUCTURAL REPORT
0.7
55
0.7

55
89

0.6
0.8

UHPC sizes:
0.387

89
0.7

0.387

0.129
0.61

0.129

Load combinations are evaluated according to International Building Code 2015. A detailed 3D finite element model of the panel including UHPC panel and steel frame is implemented in Sofistik 2014.
16

SpiderNumber
bracket with fourNotes An explanation of the finite element model is provided in the following diagrams.
Serviceability results
Maximum stressFacade bracket type
Load combination Stress limit Type Description
Status A static analysis is undertaken for each panel selected.
Axial force distribution in steel gridshell (kN)
adjustable
2001 arms.
1.4D IBC Eq. 16-1. Main load case: self-weight
0.21
Plate thickness: 25 mm
80000. 70000. 60000. 50000. 40000. mm

5.1Load case MPa 2001 8.0 2002

MPa 1.2D+0.5Wp
OKIBC Eq. 16-3. Main load case: wind pressure
0.86
NumberDeflection limit in fix-Status
Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 98.0 kN (Min=-56.0) (Max=24.9) M 1 : 195

of components
ZX
2003 1.2D+0.5Ws IBC Eq. 16-3. Main load case: wind suction Y
0.74 1.04
X * 0.672

1. Edge return: 80 mm x 150 m

1.26
Y * 0.959

5.3 MPa 2001 8.0 18 2004

MPa1.2D+1.0Ws
1.2D+1.0Wp
OKIBC Eq. 16-4. Main load case: wind pressure 0.83 00
Z * 0.793

-5.00
Wind suction ing system
9.1 mm OKStrength design 2005 IBC Eq. 16-4. Main load case: wind suction

4.5 MPa 2001 8.0 2006

MPa0.9D+1.0Ws
0.9D+1.0Wp
OKIBC Eq. 16-6. Main load case: wind suction
IBC Eq. 16-6. Main load case: wind pressure
0.53
0.72
Internal lip:
1.12
30 mm x 360 m
1.26
Weight of facade, including 2007 0.89

6.5Wind suction MPa 7.7 2005 mm

secondary structure (kN/m ) 2
OK 8.0 1.99 3001-3004MPa1.2D±1.0Ex±0.3Ey+EzOKIBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in X 1.04 1.31
Steel frame:

-5.50
3005-3008 1.2D±0.3Ex±1.0Ey+Ez IBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in Y

Wind suction 7.8 mm OK 3009-3012

3013-3016
0.9D±1.0Ex±0.3Ey-Ez
0.9D±0.3Ex±1.0Ey-Ez
IBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in X
IBC Eq. 16-5. Main load case: seismic force in Y
1.26 1.21

1.36 1.00

Wind suction 7.0 mm OK 1.32 Outer frame: 0.70 RHS 30x100x6 -6.00

Facade assembly 1.21 Inner frame: 0.35 RHS 30x80x6.

Utilisation factor Load combination Limit factor Status 1.05
1.11

0.18 - 2005 1.00 - OK

L/5
Frame
0.44 1.22connection:
1.37
91
RHS 30x100x8
0.
0.23
Finite element model of composite panel
-6.50

0.11 - 2005 1.00 - OK 0.00

Serviceability results and UHPC cladding Point constraint to simulate the connection
Load combination
0.12 - Stress
2005limit Status
1.00 - OK
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 m

Z
X
Y
Sector of system Beam Elements
Nodal displacement in global Y, Loadcase 3 Ws = Wind suction
UHPC panel-steel frame.
, 1 cm 3D = 1.00 mm
The constrains allow for thermal expansion of
Maximum deflection for wind load (Min=-1.37) (Max= 5.1421e-06)
M 1 : 13
X * 0.502

0.21
Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

2001
0.30 - 8.0 2001 MPa OK 1.00 - OK 0.86
Strength results
the UHPC panel.

0.74 1.04
1.26
2001 8.0 MPa OK 0.83 1.00
5.09
4.96

dmaxMovement
= 1.4allowed
mmUHPC< L/240 = 2190/240 = 9.1 mm M
-5.00

4.83

4.70

1.12 1.68
0.53
4.58

L/5
1 2
4.45

3.80
2001 8.0 MPa OK 0.72
0.763
4.32

s
-5.00

Movement
1.91 allowed composite panel
1.26
4.20

4.92
0.89
4.07

2Steel
3
3.94
UHPC panel .9 frame
3.81
2
1.04
2005 8.0 MPa OK 4 1.31
3.69

3.56
0.750
3.88
-5.50

3.43

5 3.31

1.26 1.21 3.18

0.0287
-5.50

3.05

2.92
0.0252
2.80

1.00
1.

1.36 2.67
02

2.54

0.0207
2.42

0.70
2.29
0.

1.32 2.16
76

3.18
2.03
-6.00

Details
3

1.91
-6.00

1.21 0.35 3.20

1.78

Load combination
1. Internal LimitFRP
factor
cladding Status 1.65

1.53

1.05
2.94
1.11 1.40
2.05 5.09
1.37
1.27

2005 2. RHS steel

1.00 stections
- OK Modelled 1.22 of QUAD elements taking into
0.44 by means
1.14

1.02
Modelled as BEAM1.86
elements
3.21
0.0617
0.91 1.
0.89
account membrane and plate behaviour
3. Spider fixing bracket 0.23
0.76
53
-6.50

0.64
-6.50

2005 1.00 - OK
0.51

0.00
4. Composite panels with page 175
0.38

0.25

0.13
0.0254
Basis of Facade Design - Rev 00B
KAFD Metro Station - 10.06.2016
Lateral displacements distribution in Principal tension stress distribution
-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 m

glazing insets building engineering -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.50 2.00 m

2005 1.00 - OK Z Sector of system Beam Elements

Z
X
Y
Maximum principal tension stress from middle of element
M 1 : 13
, Loadcase 2001 1.4D , from 6.9322e-04 to 5.09 step 0.127 MPa M 1 : 13
X * 0.502

5. External UHPC cladding steel frame (mm) in UHPC panel (MPa)

Y * 0.906
Y Nodal displacement in global Y, Loadcase 3 Ws = Wind suction , 1 cm 3D = 1.00 mm (Min=-1.37) (Max= 5.1421e-06) X * 0.502 Z * 0.962
X Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

2001 1.00 - OK Strength results 0.181

0.176

M
-4.50

Maximum stress UHPC - Load combination 2001

0.171
5.09
21

MCCS_172
0.071

0.167
1

4.96
0.0

07 .18
0 .1

0.163
4.83
0.158
4.70
0

12
71

0.154

1.68
6

1
u
4.58

0.
0.150
0.05

4.45 0.146

3.80 2
0.

62
0.07

4.32
0.763 0.141
11
smax = 5.1 MPa <
0. s071 /1.5 = 12/1.5 = 8 MPa
-5.00

6 0
-5.00

1.91 0. 14
0.137
4.20
9
4
0.05

0.
0.133
01

4.92 . LOP
2

4.07
0.128
 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.

x
2
±5
y

3
±5

Node 4 Node 1

Node 3 Node 2
4
±20
±20

±20

Movement Rotation
±20 restrained Rotation
Support Movement restrained
Bracket assembly Support
restrained restrained
±20 Details
Node 1 x, y, z -
1. Cast steel casing Node 1 x, y, z -
x
2. Articulated bolt Node 2 y, z -
Node 2 z -
3. Bracket arms Node 3 x, z -
4. Threaded tube Node 3 z -
y Node 4 z -
5. Serrated steel plate Node 4 y, z -
2.5 Spider bracket analysis
z
5.13.5 Analysis of Spider Bracket supporting opaque panels
Appendix A- Analysis of the model of the panel
Bracket supporting
Basisopaque panels
of Facade allowing- Rev 00B
Design
age 118 unrestrained KAFD
thermal
A.1 Preliminary Metro Station - 10.6.2016
movement
Hand Calculations
Von Mises equivalent stress distribution Von Mises equivalent stress distribution
In order to check the validity of the results that were obtained a hand calculation mod
18.3
644.9
628.7 we have developed in SOFISTIK, however it is required in order to estimate the dimens
348.1
339.4

330.7

322.0

313.3

304.6

295.9

287.2

278.5

269.7

261.0

252.3

243.6

234.9

226.2

217.5

208.8

200.1

191.4

182.7

174.0

165.3

156.6

147.9

139.2

130.5

121.8

113.1

104.4

95.7

87.0

78.3

69.6

60.9

52.2

43.5

34.8

26.1

17.4
The latter serves as a comparison with the values obtained in the FE model. In the ha

8.7

0.0
612.6

596.5 18.1
580.3

564.2
18.2 176.3 the maximum sizes present in the building was modelled, so 4.71m long and 1.73m wid
548.1
17.9
532.0
18.3 30 mm thick, without considering the edge return. It is used only to calculate the amo
-0.05

44.5
515.9

the steel beams were modelled as simply supported beams with 2 applied force at L/
2

73.8 18.0
.5
499.7
1.

-0.10
87
43
483.6
16

467.5

32.2 the location of the stainless steel bracket. The amount of this
.0 force depends on the fo
48

451.4
4

75.8 93.2
2.

435.3
state considered.
.4

199.4
32

419.1

403.0 9.78 184.4

188.5 644.9
16

28.2
386.9

95.7
112.0
370.8

The different analysis

85.3 were performed: a strength design in the ultimate limit state an
1.

548.1

0.00

354.7

105.1 316.8 0.231 13 5 82.7

2

643.4
state.0.Since 0.428
338.5

322.4
173.8 1.67 the purpose244.7 64.4
of these calculations is only to estimate the sizes of the stee

0.00
306.3
335.4 88.8 154.8 153.8 105.0
290.2
332.1 78.6 26 the wind pressure, the imposed dead load and50.5 the sand load were considered.
274.1

286.9 104.2 1.67 .1 85.7 255.3

257.9
269.1 73.2 322.0 8. 17.4
70

13
241.8
86.4
48.4 43.1 164.9 256.2 244.0

0.
308.5
3

225.7

1.65
7.

209.6

23.3 66.2

5
66.4 40.9 2.41 228.9
0.05

199.8
193.4
17

177.3

161.2
83.4 348.1
162.2 0.0079 192.4 181.3
145.1

0.10
129.0
0.635 1
148.5 0.614 26.
112.8

96.7
364.5 276.2 0.805
80.6

64.5

48.4
294.4 194.9
0.10

32.2

16.1
-0.15 -0.10 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 0.10 m 0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 m
0.0

Sector of system Volume Elements M 1 : 1.26 Sector of system Volume Elements

X M 1 : 2.32
Y v.Mises stress from middle of element , nonlinear Loadcase 3 PODIUM PANEL LC 2022 , from 0.0491 to 644.9 step 16.1 MPa X * 0.502 X Y
v.Mises stress from middle of element , Loadcase 2 DIAGRID MAX SURF LC 2001 , from 0.0053 to 348.1 step 8.70 MPa X * 0.984
Z Y * 0.906
Z Y * 0.332
Z * 0.962
Z * 0.960

Maximum
Von Mises equivalent
stress stress:
distribution smax =spider
in short 644.9 MPa < fuk (MPa)
bracket = 800 MPa Von Mises stressequivalent
Maximum distribution
stress:ins long spider
= 348.1 MPabracket
< f = 800(MPa)
MPa max uk

The structural design of the envelope system is based on cycles of bays allowed the preliminary sizing of structural members.
Von Mises equivalent stress distribution (bolt excluded)
iterative analysis which are conducted at different scales, ranging Structural bays
Von have been designed
Mises equivalent and stiffened
stress distribution individually. Only in a
(bolt excluded)

from global building scale to the scale of the structural module, to second step were they combined into a global model to consider global
451.7
438.6

427.4

416.1

404.9

393.6

382.4

371.1

359.9

348.6

337.4

326.1

314.9

303.6

292.4

281.2

269.9

258.7

247.4

236.2

224.9

213.7

202.4

191.2

179.9

168.7

157.4

146.2

135.0

123.7

112.5

101.2

90.0

78.7

67.5

56.2

45.0

33.7

22.5

11.2

1.8

-0.05

276.7
269.7

262.8

255.8

248.9

242.0

235.1

228.2

221.3

214.4

207.4

200.5

193.6

186.7

179.8

172.9

166.0

159.0

152.1

145.2

138.3

131.4

124.5

117.6

110.6

103.7

96.8

89.9

83.0

76.1

69.1

62.2

55.3

48.4

41.5

34.6

27.7

20.7

13.8

the scale of the assembly as well as its individual components. effects, which may take precedence in determining structural sizes
6.9

0.0

12.4 22.2
17.2 that achieve a required global
Strength stiffness.
design
-0.10

16.8
The global analysis9.78 of the188.5
building184.4geometry provides an understand-
32.1 71.0 According with the load combinations provided by IBC (Table 1605.2), the applied
199.4
4
ing of the distribution of 173.8
stiffness
126.0 in the primary structure. This infor- The global48.4 behaviour of the the supporting
design bending gridshell 1steel structure
31. kNm. It should be is
0.00

316.8 348.
6 451.7 152.3 96.8 therefore moment is 7.48 equal to the plas
112.0
90.8 Considering RHS85.3standard profile section and ASTM A36 steel grade, the min
135.
mation allows 123 the overall deflection
332.1 183.4 design criteria
0 for the building
295.8
368.3 80.9
directly related to the13dead 1.4 loads of 244.7
the envelope. 64.4 These are optimised
82.7
0.00

27.7 257.1 73.2 .7 286.9 153.8 105.0

to
57.4be established 43.1to suit the88.7design
61.4 requirements of the envelope.
164.9 86.4 by analysing individual
27
.7 facade
85.7 components,
255.3 in accordance with the
22 126.1
56.
2
308.5 186.6
1.49 6.91 13.8 Deflection design
These
.5 deflections generate 228.2localised movements
89.6
which can be range of geometric configurations established
256.2 244.0
by theconditions
overallitgeometry.
0.05

168.2 2.57
Actually in steel members the most severe
1
is not the strength, but the d
228.9 199.8 86
calculations under SLS were performed .and the section previously designed was check
accommodated within the joints between the insulation cassettes 7
.2

276.7
192.4 was imposed equal to the deflection acting on a simply supported b
by IBC (Table 1604.3)
236

0.10

209.2 185.2
composing the thermal envelope, 364.5 without
276.2
affecting the performance For assemblies which are
placed alongdesigned
its length. Inas
thiscombined systems,
way it is possible such
tu calculate as inertia that
the minimum
section previously proposed had an inertia of 214 cm4,, so the design should be revised
of the waterproofing layer. 294.4
194.9 composite cassette panels and UHPC (ultra high performance rein-
0.10

Since the seismic load had not been taken into account yet, as well as the load due to
-0.10 -0.05 -0.00 0.05 0.10 m forced concrete) exterior cladding panels, combined numerical models
panel, it was decided to increase the thickness of the steel members, considering a fin
0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 m

The global geometry presents repetition and symmetry patterns which are used to assess localised stresses at their points of connection.
Sector of system Volume Elements Group 10...12 M 1 : 1.12
X
Y v.Mises stress from middle of element , nonlinear Loadcase 3 PODIUM PANEL LC 2022 , from 1.81 to 451.7 step 11.2 MPa X * 0.502
Y * 0.906 Sector of system Volume Elements Group 10...12 M 1 : 2.32
Z X Y
Z * 0.962 v.Mises stress from middle of element , Loadcase 2 DIAGRID MAX SURF LC 2001 , from 0.156 to 276.7 step 6.91 MPa X * 0.984
Z Y * 0.332
Z * 0.960

have been usedequivalent

Maximum at the early
stress:stages to identify
smax = 451.7 MPa < findividual
uk
typical bays
= 550 MPa Maximum equivalent stress: smax = 276.7 MPa < fuk = 550 MPa
representative of local structural effects. The identification of typical

page 120
MCCS_173
ilding engineering
building engineering
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

Without Solar
Period With shading
shading reduction
1 year 28.7 MWh 50.6 MWh 43%
Glare analysis of interior spaces

MCCS_174
 External
velocity, m/s

6.6

5.3

4.1

2.8

1.6

Internal
velocity, m/s External wind distrubution for pedestrian comfort assessment

2 Velocity,
m/s

1.5 80

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 consider-
ation 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
Pressure, kPa
cladding pressures, which typically assume more conservative values.
2
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 sec-
1.5
ondary structure to support the facade.
1
A full wind tunnel test followed the initial CFD study and allowed calibra-
tion and more refined estimates, which confirmed the expected orders 0.5
of magnitude.
0
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 -0.5
assessment for risk of glare and daylighting levels, and expected lev-
els of thermal comfort due to direct radiation penetrating the interior
space. The key outcome of the analysis was the adaptation of the interi-
or mixed-use spaces to avoid risk of glare. 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.
The envelope system is driven by the need to minimise installation time
through prefabrication whilst achieving a highly durable facade assembly.
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 insu-
lated steel-framed module, to realise an insulated backing wall which is
wrapped by a continuous weather-tight membrane. The cassette sys-
tem also integrates glazed openings within large areas of perforated
panels, set in vertical bays of the facades. The cassette system is pro-
tected from the effects of the sun, and from accidental damage, by large
rainscreen panels which are moulded in order to achieve the geomet-
rical complexity of the outer architectural surface. This solution, with a
higher level of prefabrication, was chosen over the more time-consum-
ing, 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 cast-
MCCS_176
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 gen-
erating 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 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 incli-
nations. 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 KAFD Metro represents an evolution from a precedent project: The
Heydar Aliyev Centre, where the cassette system is based on rectangu-
lar modules in which the spatial disposition of the structural members
of the supporting steel structure is set to match the envelope panelisa-
tion. This approach allows structure and facade to be closely integrated,
removing the need for a secondary structure. The envelope is integrat-
ed 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 struc-
ture due to wind. The joints are realised by means of compressible insu-
lation, 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 struc-
ture 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 pro-
ject-specific technology. The use of well-understood components ena-
bled a higher level of optimisation of the assembly in order to meet the
durability requirements for the facades.
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
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. Alu-
minium 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 togeth-
er 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 materi-
als to lighter fibre-reinforced polymers by varying uniformly the struc-
tural sizes within the assembly, without changing the components or
the connections between components. The cladding panels are sup-
ported 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 con-
nection type chosen.
As fibre reinforced composites are engineered materials, their per-
formance 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 pro-
cesses 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.
MCCS_177
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 Grand Théatre, Rabat

MCCS_178
GRAND THEATRE, Rabat
THEATRE

34°00’ 47” N
6° 49’ 57” W

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

FACADE ZONE (mm) 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

2
1

3D internal view of typical bay

2

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

MCCS_180
 1

7
7

11

11

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

11

11
7

8
7

8
10

10

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

3
2

3D view of glazing system 3D exploded view of glazing system

MCCS_181
 ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 System design

Top view

1
2 1

2
2

Front view

Bottom view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:30

MCCS_182
 1
1

2
2

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 1 3
3. GRC rib
4. Thermal insulation

MCCS_183
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 Structural analysis

Finite element model of typical bay

Finite element model of the concrete structure

1
Monolithic open-jointed
Facade system GRC rainscreen on Facade assembly
concrete.
Facade zone 425 mm
Primary structure type Concrete shell.
2

Secondary structure type -

Weight of secondary
-
structure (kN/m2) 3

Serrated plates, Details

Facade bracket type
Number of components in
fixing system
Weight of facade, including
secondary structure (kN/m2)
threaded tubes; welded 1. Rainscreen panel
and bolted. 2. Waterproofing cap
3. Thermal insulation
4
12 4. Fixing adjustable bracket
5. Concrete structure
1.52

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 Principal stress distribution in typical bay

MCCS_184
 1

4 Von Mises stress distribution in steel bracket (MPa):

6

Monolithic open-jointed GRC

5 Facade system
rainscreen on concrete.
Facade zone 700 mm
7 Primary structure type Steel moment frame.
Secondary structure type CHS steel sections.
Facade assembly
Weight of secondary
0.30
Details structure (kN/m2)
1. GRC rainscreen 5. Primary steel adjustable Serrated plates, threaded
Facade bracket type
2. Waterproofing cap bracket tubes; welded and bolted.
3. Thermal insulation 6. Secondary steel tubes Number of components in
4. Secondary steel adjustable 7. Primary structure 15 and 15
fixing system
bracket
Weight of facade, including
2.04
secondary structure (kN/m2)

2.00
4.95
4.82

4.70

4.58

4.45

4.33

4.20

4.08

3.96

3.83

3.71

3.59

3.46

3.34

3.22

3.09

2.97

2.84

2.72

2.60

2.47

2.35

2.23

2.10

1.98

1.85

1.73

1.61

1.48

1.36

1.24

1.11

0.99

0.87

0.74

0.62

0.49

0.37

0.25

0.12

0.00

-0.14

-0.28

-0.41

-0.55

-0.69

-0.83

-0.96

-1.10

-1.24

-1.38

-1.52

-1.65

-1.79

-1.93

-2.07

-2.21

-2.34

-2.48

-2.62

-2.76

-2.89

-3.03

-3.17

-3.31

-3.45

-3.58

-3.72

-3.86

-4.00

-4.14

-4.27

-4.41

-4.55

-4.56
0.95
0.69

0.55

0.41

0.28

0.14

0.00

4.51 0.56
2.52
9
3.

4.3

1.98 3.19
3.0

3.46

4.73
83

1.03 3.02 -0.83 -0.55

3.09
3

1.00

1.00
-0.96
73 0.926
8 1. 1.48
2.24 -2.21 -1.93
61
5

0.
4.45

0.0610 1.56
.6

-2.89
2.56
-1

2.40
-0.8
0.

-1.24

0.95
5

-0
41
8

4.90 1.67
1.

.2

2.38
3

4.76
-2.4
8

3.16
-1.
-1

4.29 4.29
1

4.55 -4.56
37

4.70
.9

-4.27
7
-2.07

0.00
-3.
0.00
0.

4.03 72 -3.8
6 5
33
3.96

0. -3.0 .4
49 4. -3
5 0.444 3
0.28

0.90
5

-2.76
.5

.1

1.72 61
-0

-0

1.73 -1.79
1.20 1. 2.84
-1.10
8 1.10
1.4 -0.28
1.3

0.833 4.95
4.

3.03
4

4.18
4.
3.3

58

-1.00
6

3.63 0.80
-1.00
08

-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 m -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 m

Y Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements M 1 : 22 ZY Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements M 1 : 23

Maximum principal tension stress in Node , Loadcase 205 1.40*1.20G + 1.40*1.20*wp + 1.40 , from 0.0020 to 4.95 step 0.124 MPa Nodal displacement in global Z in Node , Loadcase 206 1.40*1.20G + 1.40*1.20*wp + 1.40 , from -4.56 to 0.954 step 0.138 mm X * 0.929
Z X X 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 been considered as the safest and most effective engineering approach
drivers in the design of the individual components and of the connec- which allowed to validate with certainty a set of assumptions developed
tions between them. The design of the envelope system is highly adjust- through engineering analysis, which is implemented by means of a se-
able and uses bespoke connections between material systems, such as ries of linked numerical models.
the bolted connection between steel and glass fibre reinforced concrete
(GRC) panels, in order to minimise the number of components in the The complexity required in the design of the assembly affects directly
assembly. The engineering structural analysis often finds its practical the decision by the designer of testing rather than analysing an assem-
limitations when deployed within the design process as the timeframe to bly in order to verify its structural performance. The complexity of the
develop reliable calculation models is not available. Each finite element assembly is primarily related to adjustability, which concerns the inter-
analysis model attempts to describe a specific aspect of the behaviour face between facade and primary structure. As part of the assessment
of a component. The GRC panels are modelled on point or pad supports, of the amount of adjustability required, the finite element analysis of
which is useful to verify the stresses across the panels except at the con- the amount of creep in the concrete structure through a representa-
nection points, where a more detailed three dimensional finite element tive global model, has been performed as the envelope system is fixed
model is utilised to assess the connection between GRC and steel brack- mainly to a continuous concrete structure. Additional aspects taken into
et. Even the more detailed analytical model developed is not sufficient to account are both the construction tolerances and the geometric devia-
provide enough confidence in the design as this requires too many as- tions from the ideal surface of the primary structure. These are typically
sumptions regarding workmanship, interaction between materials, etc. obtained after the construction through a 3D scan of the building which
Physical testing on a statistically meaningful number of specimens has is directly overlaid with the original 3D model of the structure.

MCCS_185
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
15 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June 23 September 22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

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 Daylight factor analysis on typical bay 1.0

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 1.15% 0.5

Period With shading 100% of area between 0-2.5%
shading reduction
1 year 18.5 mWh 21.8 mWh 15% 0

MCCS_186
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 2.8
across concrete layer and fixing bracket
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 pres-
sures, 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 driv-
ing 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 ‘univer-
sal’ 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 mechan-
ical properties, which were used as input for all the structural cal-
culations. 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 model-
ling and scripting in order to automate the structural analysis pro-
cess 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 pro-
ject, 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-under-
stood 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 particu-
larly 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 clad-
ding 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 bend-
ing test and this result fed directly into all the structural calcula-
tions 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 pro-
posed connection under static loading, both in pull-out and shear. The
second set of tests were devised to establish the resistance of the con-
nection assembly to wind-induced fatigue, which is related to the cyclic
nature of wind. The alternating pressure and suction forces on the pan-
els apply cyclic loads during the whole design life of the connection.
Fatigue failure is driven by the formation and propagation of micro-
cracks 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 sig-
nificant 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.
This reflects the scientific approach applied to design, where the under-
standing of the object analysed is built up through a series of analyses
and tests of increasing complexity.
The basic material testing and static testing of connections was under-
taken 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.
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.
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 val-
idation 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 com-
prised 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 proper-
ty that requires direct testing as it is the basis of the structural
design of the panels.
2. Structural design through standards. GRCA (International Glass-
fibre 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 resist-
ance of the connections which cannot be assessed by means of
direct calculations through standards. The following steps are
required to validate this aspect of the design:
a. Establish connection capacity in shear and pull out through testing.
b. Compare the capacity with the most onerous design support reac-
tions and establish the safety factor that the current connection
design is providing.
c. Verify that the safety factor is acceptable for the design (expected
safety factor of around 2.0 - 2.5).
d. Establish resistance to fatigue of the connection through a sepa-
rate dynamic test.
4. 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 follow-
ing the final design. This mock-up validates the following aspects:
a. Fabrication time. This is used to define and test the specific fabri-
cation process and allows the estimation of the 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 installation of both panels and brackets
is tested and timed.
d. 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.
5. Considerations of time required for fabrication of mock-up.
The following considerations affect the speed of procurement of
GRC components for testing:
a. Time for testing. Both static and fatigue tests are to be done on
samples which have cured for 28 days. Static tests can be under-
taken 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.
b. Time to manufacture the first batch of panels. The size of the first
panel batch is related to availability of site storage.
c. Time to construct mock-up. The construction of the mock-up allows
the establishment of a clear estimate of the time required to man-
ufacture 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’’ N

47° 56’ 11.0’’ E

ARCHITECT
GENSLER
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
PACE
MEP ENGINEERING
PACE
FACADE ENGINEERING
NEWTECNIC

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

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

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 5

2 4

2
4

4
1

10

3
2
9

4
3D internal view of typical bay

Details
10 1. Composite cladding panel
2. Double glazed unit
3. Extruded aluminium transom
9 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
3D external view of typical bay 11. Ceiling finish

MCCS_192
 1

5 8
5

2
4
4

10
10
9

3D view of typical bay 3D exploded view of typical bay

7 5 6

7 5 6

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

8
5 6

5
2

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

Top view

6
2

1
1

5 5

4 4
4

Front view

Bottom view
MCCS_194
 6

2
1

2D detail. Scale 1:5 3D view of assembly

1 3

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
4
11. Ceiling finishing

3D views of system MCCS_195

 -43

Z
7.6

Y
X
-0.1

0.00
20 -43
5.5
-0.1
20
-43
3.4
-37

MCCS_196
-52. 2.8
4 -37
0.7
-52.
4

14.7
-36 -72
104.5
8.7 3.5
53.2
-72
-286.3 1.4

10.00
-5
26.6
9.
2
-71
9.4

-61.7
0.0
- 24
-63
-364.3
6 .2 1.7
-26.6

.6

55
.
-62
16 Structural analysis

55 4
-3 9.6
-400.6 -53.2
0. -62
9

3
7.6
-79.8
-44
36. -406.3 3.1
8 -64.5
-106.4
-44
-408.1 1.0

20.00
10
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE

2
-133.1
-4

Finite element model of the typical bay

4. 7.
5 -404.1 3
-608.3 -159.7

Axial force distribution (kN) in arched roof

-7.
-387.5 94
16.9
-186.3

4
-357.
1 -269.0 -666.3
-212.9
-37
5.4
-306.
5 -665.4
-239.5
-200.6
-243.
5

Beam Elements , Normal force Nx, Loadcase 1 self weight

12.1
-266.1
-152.0 -664.1

30.00
-228
.9 -2
-292.7

1
35 -645.3
-539 .4 -365.2
24 .5 -605.4 -319.3
.4
-346.0
-539
. 5 -540.
0 -404.8
18

-23
-372.6
1.2
.2

-441.
7 -410.4
-24
8.07

-399.2
6.1 -326
.4
11.0

-412.0
-425.8
-30 -86.1

40.00
-300
9.8 .1 -408.0
-2

-452.4
-36
3.

0.8 23 1.
5

4. .3
4
-960 3 -391.2
.0 -479.0
92 -39 24
1.3 .3 -360.
5
20

-505.6
- 40 -960
.0
.3

-4 -30
8.0 0.3
-532.2
3.
7 - 41 -309.
1. 9 2. -32 4
6.5
12.2

-558.9
59
-4 31

Z
.2 -2 -244.

Y
10 8

X
59 .2 5. -44
30

8
-585.5

50.00
1.9
321.4
.5
-4
.3

04 - -
-612.1
.5 540

60.00
12 -540
121.7
. 2 .8
-9.

-2 -3 7.
92 1

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

-638.7
64 -60
33

.0
321.4
-540
12

.9 -9 5.7 .8

Details
-3 8
301.7
-44.1 -2 25 .6
.1

-665.3
-23
285.8
-6

40 .3 -64 1.0
-1 5.6
269.9
.4
-2

.7
9.81

52
6

-691.9

Sector of system Group 11

46

-17
-24
2 254.0
.5 -66
.7
25

5.8

62.00
.2

-2 4 .3
238.1
0
-718.5
.2

-26 -3 1. -6 -30
1.6
84
222.3
1
.1

Facade zone

2. Steel tube
-2
65 9.4

fixing system
75
61
.7
.6
206.4
60.00

-0.1
.6 20 -745.1
.1 -2
-36
-3

Facade assembly
6.

Facade system
-6
190.5
-32 4

4. Glazing panel
08 -4 66 0.5
.9
-3
2.9
174.6 -771.8
-194 28.4

08
-0.1
20 79 42 .5 -39
.9 .5 .
158.8
-3
0

structure (kN/m2)
-4 -6 1.1
13

-3
-798.4

64.00
-4
142.9
.7
-0.1 37 -3 08

13
2

283.8

Facade bracket type

.3 3.
0 -5 -40

-2
2

Weight of secondary
127.0

.7
-4 .9 18. 79

75
42 7.9

87.0
-2
1 . 4 -825.0
111.1

.6
39 .5

Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight

75

Primary structure type

-3

- 41

.6
95.3

-19
-4 .9 -4 1 .9
-851.6
73

136.0
5.
79.4
5

Secondary structure type

42

5.1

-73.5
-33
.

-4

Number of components in
9

-6 10

1. Steel adjustable bracket

.0
63.5
-1

14

Weight of facade, including

-878.2
7. 27 .3
51

11
59
1
5.4

47.6
2.

66.00
74
.7

0
.9 -4
.5
70.00

-6

35

secondary structure (kN/m2)

.3
31.8
-112

04
-904.8

3. Aluminium extruded mullion

97.5 30

.8
.7
.1

15.9
-72.6

-34.4
.0
42.0
42.4

-0.2 -6
44 -
0.0
0.
66 0.297 32 3 -931.4
76.5 8 - 65
.
-5
-15.9
1.
.0 23 - 1
8
-0.2
-958.0
0. 44 -7
-31.8
49
8 0.217 7. 325.
54.3 -3
19 9 4
-47.6

2
5.
4
.7

68.00
-2

-960.0
0. -7
-63.5
23
9 -0 -2
21
25

30.9 .1
-79.4
0.
-3
0
08

0.54
0.06
-7 .8 74
.9

-5 -95.3
23 .6
.5
-3
-111.1
6.44 7. 6

profiles.
.8
83
76

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

Bending moment distribution in steel frame (kNm)

-127.0
-0.2 .

230 mm
80.00

28 20 -3 7
-142.9
-19.2 .2

and bolted.
28.2
28.5

-0.1 78
-158.8

70.00
20 .7
0.50
3

-174.6
-4
-11.8 19
.8 -0.1 38
-190.5
20 .8

Concrete slabs.
19
-4
-6.51 .6 -206.4 40
Z * 0.903
Y * 0.636
X * 0.883

-222.3
M 1 : 342
m

.9
18
-238.1
.4

Aluminium extruded
-254.0

72.00
16
-269.9
.3
0.591
-285.8

Full-height stick glazing.

Serrated plates; welded

13
-301.7
.1

8. -313.7
87

3.
74.00

67

2.54
-2
.5
4
-10.00 -8.00 -6.00 -4.00 -2.00
Z * 0.903
Y * 0.636
X * 0.883
M 1 : 63
m
Finite element model of roof steel space frame Deformed shape of steel frame

-0.17

-0.33

-0.50

-0.66

-0.83

-0.99

-1.16

-1.32

-1.49

-1.65

-1.82

-1.98

-2.15

-2.32

-2.48

-2.65

-2.81

-2.98

-3.14

-3.31

-3.47

-3.64

-3.80

-3.97

-4.13

-4.30

-4.44
0.0247
0.0240

0.0234

0.0228

0.0222

0.0216

0.0211

0.0205

0.0199

0.0193

0.0187

0.0181

0.0175

0.0170

0.0164

0.0158

0.0152

0.0146

0.0140

0.0135

0.0129

0.0123

0.0117

0.0111

0.0105

0.0099

0.0094

0.0088

0.0082

0.0076

0.0070

0.0064

0.0058

0.0053

0.0047

0.0041

0.0035

0.0029

0.0023

0.0018

0.0013

-60.00

2.17
1.98

1.82

1.65

1.49

1.32

1.16

0.99

0.83

0.66

0.50

0.33

0.17

0.00

-2.55

-0.904
-0.904
0.0121

-0.674
0.0055

-0.674
0.0062
0.0054
0.0038

0.0069
0.0037

0.0047

-2.55
-0.904
0.0069

21
0.0047

-0.904
0.0062

-2.55
-0.904
0.0038
0.0053
0.0054

3
0.0

0.01

-0.904

-4.27
0.00

-0.375
55
07

-4.27

-1.75
0.256
86

0.881
37

-1.75
053
0

0.00
0.0
121

1.01

-1.05
00

71
0.

-65.00
-0.
0.00
0.0

06 2
54

0.0053

-4.27
-1.89
38

0.

-1.14
01

-0.514
0.0

-4.27
0.881
070
00

1.84
0.0024

69

674
59

-65.00

1.02
0.

0. 0

674
0.

1.84
076
0.

0.975
0.0086
0.0073

2.17
-1.91
00 0.
0.
0.0078

00
00
00

-2.55
0.975
26
0 63

1.95
89
0.0076

0.

-0.
58

1.01
0.0054

60
2

0.
0.

54

-0.504
62

-4.27
00

-1.
00

-2.55

-0.689
00

0.

0.0096 0.0066

1.01
0 .0

-1.75

-4.44
0.

0.559
-4.44
-0.375
0.
3
0.0171

0.

2.17
69

01

00

-1.68

-1.91
5

00 1.

1.84
0.

121

-0.237
00
0.0064

60 7 11
01

01

1.95
0.0
01

-4.27
06

1.71
01

-1.68
0.

-4.27

-4.
1.20
17
0.

0.
0.

1.95
.0
01
0.

44
470
02
02

0.0086
00

.0
0.0086

-1

2
0.0078

0.0121

23
0.0063
178

0
0.

00

1.02
0.0073

.1
0.

1.6
01

0
01

44
-4.
66

2.1
-1.75
0

-2.
0
90
0.

00

-0.
63
0.

0.
71

-1.14
63

0.

0.0096
0. 0

2.1
0.0121

1.02
0.0046 0.0 44

7
.6

1.7
01

-2.55
0.

65
00

053

2.1
0

7
0.0171

0. 8
1.

-0
05

0.
0.00

0.669
-0

0.995
4
121
7

0.669
-2.55
01

56

-0.904

0.457

-2.
0.0100 67
1

84

.6
0.0

1
01
0.0036

0.0097 0.0049 0. 0. 0

3
-1

1.95
-4.
0.0235
04

1.20

78
-1.59
0.962
01

90
00

2
0.0054

0.559
0.

-1.8
-4.44

23
.0
0. 78

-2.

-4.44
62
0.0078

0.0235
60

0.0086
67

1.6
01 -0

-2.55
0.0235

99

-1.68
2
0.
0.
0.

.3
0.00

01

-1.68
00

2.1
0.0237

-70.00
00

0.00

35

2
0.6
69

076

00

2.1
9
00

-1
0.0068 0.00

1.20
00
0.

2
0.

1.6
-70.00

0.532

1.7
1.20
0
0.0237 .0
0.

-1
00

73

69
0 62

0
0.0237

7
2.1

1
4
89

1.95 2.17
00

0.

1.02
.
63

0.0235

2.1

1.95
0.0

7
0.667
1.7
0.0239 05

0.881
0.

65

1
0.0015

0.0099

1.01
0.668
53

39

1.84
01

0.595
0 .0

0.881
0.0

0.0239

0.163
1.01
0.00

0.0239
0.00

78

0.256

0.881
1.02
0.0237
21

1.01

0.881
0.0241
0.00

0.0101

1.62

0.669
0.0062

121

0.457
0.0069

2.17
0.01

0.01

0.365
0.0241
53

0.0241 0.0239 -0 -0
76

0.0243 .0 .0
67

65

0. 15 08
78

0.0243 01 3 1
00

0.0243 23 0. -0
0.0245 0.0241 .0 -0
0.

00 26 .0
0.0245 0. -0 77 8 05
0.0245 00 .0 -0 4
0.0247 0.0243 92 0. 29 .0 -0
0 07 2 23 .0
0.0247 0. 5 -0 7 02
0.0247 00 .0 -0 7
0.0241 0.0245 62 21 .0
0.0245 9

-75.00
15
-75.00

0.0243 0. -0 8
0.0247 0 03 .0 -0
0.0243 1 14 .0
0.0247 0.0245 6 0 79
0.0245 -0
.0
0.0245 07
0.0247 3
0.0247
0.0247

Utilisation factor distribution of steel space frame Bending moment distribution in steel space frame (kNm)
465.00 470.00 475.00 480.00 485.00 m
465.00 470.00 475.00 480.00 485.00 490.00 m

Z Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1 self weight , 1 cm 3D = 5.00 kNm (Min=-4.44) (Max=2.17) M 1 : 115
Z Beam Elements , Utilisation level (all effects), Design Case 1 , 1 cm 3D = 0.0200 (Max=0.0247) M 1 : 122
Y X * 0.502
Y X * 0.502 X Y * 0.906
X Y * 0.906 Z * 0.962
Z * 0.962

FRP open-jointed
Facade system

0.701

0.800
0.649

0.893
0.701

0.947
0.800

0.961
0.893
0.947

0.961
0.961

rainscreen.

0.947
0.956

0.893
0.961

1.13

0.800
0.947

1.13

0.701
0.893

0.649
0.800

1.27

0.701
0.701

1.27

0.590

0.800
1.25

-65.00
0.566
0.649

0.993
1.18
1.25

0.893
0.478
0.701

0.993

0.408
0.800

1.31
0.738
0.478

Facade zone 325 mm

0.378
0.642

0.962
0.490
0.893

1.31
0.408

0.309
0.490

0.347
0.309

0.590
0.334

0.956
0.334
0.947

0.343

1.27
0.346

1.13

0.962
0.290
0.961

0.409
0.590

1.27
0.311

0.305
0.381

1.27

0.947
0.341

1.18
0.993
1.14

0.738
0.309

0.334
1.13

0.341
0.961

1.14

0.354

0.490

1.25
1.27

0.341
0.993

0.341

0.800
1.18

0.359
0.738

0.490

0.330
0.925
0.343

0.408

1.31
0.341
0.893

1.25

0.408
Primary structure type Steel space frame.
0.408

0.353

0.376
0.330

0.566
0.675

0.478
0.405

1.27
0.675
0.309
1.31

0.408
0.405
0.408
0.391

0.309
0.326

0.642
0.311

0.340
0.347
0.408
0.478
0.566

0.338

0.451

1.14
0.629

1.27

0.451

0.893
0.407

0.408

0.364

0.353

0.925

0.590
0.341

0.343
0.359
1.14

0.353
0.381

0.330
0.290 0.341

0.359

0.407
0.800

0.354
0.343

0.675

0.496
0.490

0.423
0.277

0.423

0.962
0.374

1.18
0.334
0.590

0.738

1.27
0.374
0.993

0.353

0.424
0.309

1.13
0.451
0.947

0.317
0.275

0.301
0.309

0.338
Secondary structure type Steel box sections.
0.424
1.18

0.424

0.962
0.374
0.369

0.265
1.27
0.962

0.409
1.13

1.25
0.956

0.424

0.328
0.490
0.347

0.318

0.409

0.893
1.31
0.490
0.962

0.378

0.328

0.369

0.738

0.277

0.278
0.278

0.320

1.27
0.390
0.390
1.25

0.409

0.334
0.424
0.424

0.381
0.370

0.993

0.252

1.14
1.31

0.424

0.925
0.993
0.350

0.649
1.27

1.18
0.406
1.14

0.390
0.925

0.642
0.370
0.328

1.27
0.675
0.649

0.405

0.380
Weight of secondary

0.590
0.301

-70.00
1.27

0.422

0.406
0.451
0.701

0.478

0.423

0.496
0.947
0.800

0.962
1.13
0.893

0.328

0.956
0.947

1.13

0.07
0.962

1.25
1.31
0.800
0.947

0.701
0.340

0.893

1.27
0.390

0.925
0.649
0.800

0.701

1.14
0.252

0.676
1.31

0.451
0.350
0.369
1.14

0.451

structure (kN/m2)

0.183
0.409
0.183

0.218
0.111
0.218
0.111

0.0745

0.147
0.218
0.147

Serrated plates; 0.0745

0.183
0.183
0.0745

0.0375

0.111
Facade bracket type
0.183
0.111

0.147
0.0374

welded and bolted.

0.147
0.0375

0.0744
0.147
0.0745

0.111
0.111

0.0374

Number of components in
0.111
0.0374

0.0744
0.0744

-75.00
5
0.0744

fixing system
0.0374
0.0374

0.0374

Weight of facade, including

0.31
secondary structure (kN/m2)
Z
Vertical displacements distribution in steel space frame (mm)
465.00

Nodal displacement vector, Loadcase 1 self weight

470.00

, 1 cm 3D = 1.00 mm
475.00

(Max=1.31)
480.00 485.00

M 1 : 105
m

Y X * 0.502
X Y * 0.906
Z * 0.962

Details:
1. FRP cladding panel 4. Secondary steel structure
2. Thermal insulation 5. Steel space frame
3. Adjustable bracket
The structural design of each steel roof construction involved a significant
use of 3D modelling and finite element software in order to develop
1
structural concepts, by using analysis as a tool to explore structural
behaviour. For each structural roof a different strategy was developed
2
to rapidly evolve a concept, depending on the level of symmetry and
modularity. Typically, symmetrical roofs allow the main load-path diagram
3
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
4 5
the basis of a typical bay, which is then implemented in the full model
4
of the roof to check additional requirements for global stability. For
5
cases where structural hierarchies or expected behaviour are not
Facade assembly
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 March 21 June 23 September 22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2
2000

1750

1500

1300
Period Total area Total radiation
1000

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis 1 year 7,895 m 2

12,931 mWh
700

% Daylight factor
kWh/m2

900 12

675 10

575 8

400 6

250 4

100 2

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar Mean daylight factor: 5.4%

Period With shading
shading reduction 98.4% of area between 2-12%
0.1% of area > 12%
1 year 13.63 mWh 19.51 mWh 30% 1.5% of area < 2%

MCCS_198
 External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
6 2.5

4.5 2

1.5
3
1

1.5
0.5

0 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
Pressure, kPa
height of the shopping arcades, internal CFD studies were used to
assess the temperature stratification across the internal spaces and 2
the potential use of top level vents to exhaust hot air.
1.5
The introduction of fully opaque insulated elements is aimed at reducing
solar gains. Another aspect of the environmental design of these highly
1
transparent roofs consists in assessing the penetration of direct radia-
tion hitting the floor surface. High levels of direct solar radiation are an
indicator of both visual and thermal comfort, respectively due to glare 0.5
and perceived air temperature by the building user. This analysis is criti-
cal to establish the usability of the interior spaces. 0

In order to maximise light transmission but minimise g-value and ther-

-0.5
mal 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. 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’’ N

31° 22’ 51.7’’ E

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

FACADE ZONE (mm) 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

9
6

11

3D internal view of typical bay

6 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
3D external view of typical bay 11. Ceiling finish

MCCS_202
 1

4
9

3D view of typical bay 3D exploded view of typical bay

7
5 6

8 6 8

3D view of cladding system 3D exploded view of cladding system

4
4

11

2 2

10

9
10
3

3D view of glazed system 3D exploded view of glazed system

MCCS_203
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
17 System design

Top view

4
3

4 2

Front view

Third angle projection. Scale 1:60

Bottom view

MCCS_204
 3

3
1

2D detail. Scale 1:15 3D view of detail

3 3

2
1
2

3 3

Back view

2
2
1 1
4

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

4 3

Facade assembly

Unitised glazing with GRC

Facade system
shading louvres.
Facade zone 950 mm
Primary structure type Concrete columns.
Secondary structure type Aluminium box sections.
Weight of secondary
0.10
structure (kN/m2)
Serrated plates; welded
Facade bracket type
and bolted.
Number of components in
1
fixing system

Typical bay of glazed facade Weight of facade, including

1.65
secondary structure (kN/m2)

MCCS_206
 77.5 0.0060 77.5
75.6 71.9
0.0060 0.2306E-3
77.5
73.7 69.0
71.9
71.7
0.2306E-3 66.1
69.0
0.0087
69.8 63.3
66.1
0.0087 60.4
67.9

15.00
63.3
0.0043
65.9 57.5
0.441 0.311 1.28

15.00
60.4
0.0043
64.0 57.5 0.996 54.6
0.441 0.311 1.28
62.0 0.996 54.6 6.97 2.04 8.19 51.8

60.1
6.97 4.26
8.1951.8
48.9
2.04
58.2 4.26 32.5
48.9 37.7 46.0

56.2
32.5 37.7 46.0
7.75 4.25 43.1

3.97 30.3 40.3

54.3
7.75 4.25
11.630.3
43.1

52.3 3.97 40.3

37.4
11.6

10.00
50.4 37.4 0.287 34.5
0.243

10.00
48.5 0.287 29.8 .1 31.6
27
34.5
0.243 .3
.1
28.8
46.5
29.8
31.6 0.265 23 7.4
27 3 1.06 1 3.63
3.
44.6 25.9
0.265 28.8

42.6
1.06 25.9 2 17.4 3.63
3.15 9.69 23.0

1.58 5.41
40.7 3.15 23.0 9.69 20.1

38.8 1.58 20.1 5.41 33.7 17.3

36.8 17.3 33.7 0.0149 0.260 0.0214 14.4

0.014914.4 0.260 4.55

11.5

5.00
34.9
0.02147.43

3.
33.0 8.6
11.5
4.55

5.00
7.43 9.26

88
6.77 5.8

3.
31.0 8.6
9.26

88
2.9
29.1 5.8 6.77 5.38 0.103 11.9
27.1 0.0
2.9
5.38 0.103 11.9 -2.9
25.2 0.0
0.421 12.6
23.3 -2.9
2.22 -5.8
0.421 12.6
21.3 -5.8 2.22 -8.6

46.9 1.11 -11.5

19.4 -8.6 2.35
1.11

0.00
46.9 -14.4
17.4 -11.5
2.35 0.112
8.98

0.00
-17.3
15.5 -14.4
8.98 0.112 6.72 -20.1
13.6 -17.3 0.345 0.719
-23.0
11.6 -20.1 6.72 0.345 0.719
0.120 25.0 -25.9
9.7 -23.0
0.120 25.0 -28.8
7.8 -25.9 0.110
77.5 -31.6
5.8 -28.8
0.110
3.9 -31.6
77.5 3.75 -34.5

-37.4
1.9
-75.00 -70.00
-34.5 3.75
-65.00 -60.00 -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 m
-70.00
-37.5
0.0 -37.4
.00 -70.00 -65.00 -60.00 -70.00 -55.00 -65.00 -50.00 -60.00 -45.00 m -55.00 -50.00 -45.00 -40.00
-37.5
Z Sector of system
Y
Principal tension stress distribution in concrete structure (MPa)
Z Sector of system Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines Principal compression stress distribution in concrete structure (MPa)Y M 1 : 148
Top Principal st
Maximum principal
tem Quadrilateral Elements,Supporting Lines tension stress in Node, Loadcase
Z 1 self weight
Sector of system,Quadrilateral
from 1.8367e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94
Elements,Supporting MPa
Lines M 1 : 148
X * 0.735 X M 1 :
X Y * 0.792
0.0060
, from 1.8367e-05 Y Top Principal
step 1.94 stress I in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from -37.5X to 77.5 step 2.88 MPa X * 0
77.5
ipal tension stress in
75.6 Node, Loadcase 1 self weight to
X 77.5 MPa * 0.735 Z * 0.912
77.5 0.0060 0.0087 Y * 0.792 Y * 0
75.6
73.7
0.2306E-3 Z * 0.912 Z * 0
71.7 0.0087
73.7
0.2306E-3
Sprayed GRC used as per-

10.00
69.8
71.7
67.9
1.28 Facade system
10.00

69.8

67.9
65.9

64.0
1.28 8.19 30.3
manent formwork.
65.9

8.19 2.05 30.3

Facade zone 130 mm
62.0
64.0
0.441
8

60.1
2.05 37.7 7.25 4.25
3.8

62.0
6.97 9.85
58.2 0.441 27
8

60.1 0.385 .
21

13.6

4.26 7.25 4.25

17.4
3.8

9.85 37.7
25

6.97 1
75 7.7
27
Primary structure type Concrete wall.
.3

56.2
32.5 5
4

.2

7.
58.2
0.385
3
.5
.6

. 29.8
21

13.6
.

4.26
17.4
23.

25

1
75 7.7
54.3
19
11

15

.3

56.2
32.5 5.41 5
4

.2

7.
3
.5
.6

29.8
.

52.3
23.

54.3
0.0054
19
11

15

52.3
50.4 5.41 2.26
0.0054 2.52
3.24
Secondary structure type -
5.00

50.4
48.5
2.26 3.24 1.06 0.143
46.5 2.52 0.265 5.41 0.0214
5.00

Weight of secondary
48.5
1.06 0.143 0.0214 0.129
44.6 0.265 5.41 3.15 1.58
-
46.5
33.7
42.6
3.15 0.129
structure (kN/m2)
44.6
1.58 33.7 1.28 1.58
42.6
40.7 0.0020
40.7
38.8
0.0020 1.28 1.58
7.56 6.16
38.8

36.8
36.8

34.9
7.56 6.16 9.26 Facade bracket type -
33.0
9.26
34.9 11.9
33.0
31.0
11.9
2.22 Number of components in
31.0
29.1
2.22 -
fixing system
0.00

29.1
27.1 12.6
0.00

27.1
25.2 12.6
23.3 46.9 3.69
25.2

23.3
21.3
46.9 3.69 8.56
3.22 Weight of facade, including
21.3
19.4
8.56 1.52
19.4
17.4 3.22 8.98
0.719 secondary structure (kN/m2)
17.4
15.5
8.98 6.72
13.6 0.719
15.5
11.6 6.72 25.0 2.40
13.6
9.7
11.6 25.0 2.40
7.8 77.5
-5.00

9.7
5.8
7.8 77.5 4.23
-5.00

3.9
5.8
1.9
4.23
3.9 -25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 m
0.0
1.9
-25.00 -20.00 -15.00 -10.00 -5.00 m
0.0
Z Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 1.8366e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94 MPa M 1 : 115

Z
Principal tension stress distributionon in concrete structure (MPa)
Y X
Maximum principal tension stress in Node, Loadcase 1 self weight , from 1.8366e-05 to 77.5 step 1.94 MPa M 1 : 115
X * 1.000
Y * 0.281
Y X X * 1.000 Z * 0.960
Y * 0.281
Z * 0.960

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 3
external GRC panel (glass fibre reinforced concrete), which is compatible
with reinforced concrete and can be moulded to any doubly-curved 2 4

shape. The large GRC monolithic panels provide a natural formwork

3
for the concrete structure supporting it. A layer of thermal insulation is 3
1
introduced between the two structural layers, which removes any risk of
4
condensation and ensures the use of this system as a high performing
thermal envelope, as well as a structurally efficient system which 2

integrates structure and facade. 1

This construction process was used for the complex concrete shapes Facade assembly
of this project, such as the curved shear walls. The production of the Details
moulds requires specialised fabrication skills, with the GRC panel 1. GRC panels used as
being produced by a facade contractor. The use of numerical models permanent formwork
2. Reinforced concrete wall
provided an understanding of the behaviour of the structural forms of 3. Internal GRC cladding
the buildings; specifically the relationship between floor slabs and curved 4. Concrete slabs
shear walls.

MCCS_207
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

500
Period Total area Total radiation

1 year 10,490 m2 15,268 mWh 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 Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Without Solar
Period With shading Mean daylight factor (floor-3): 2.62%
shading reduction
Mean daylight factor (floor-2): 1.71%
1 year 67.8 mWh 104.0 mWh 35% Mean daylight factor (floor-1): 1.83%

MCCS_208
 External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
6 2.5

4.5 2

1.5
3
1

1.5
0.5

0 0

External and internal air velocity distribution

20 °C 5

13 °C
0 °C

17
16
15 15 19

15 15
16
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
o

has13.0been desgined as a function of the solar radiation intensity distribu-

o
C

tion
0.0 on
C each surface. The primary objective of this design optimisation is
o

Pressure, kPa
to minimise the energy costs of the building in use, rather than reduce
2
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 1.5
frequent usage of smaller shading elements provides higher solar gain
reduction without obstructing the view from inside, when compared to 1
08/09/2016
larger shading elements more spaced apart.
P:\0291_MCCS\03_Design\17_Stone Towers\Environmental Analysis\17_Detail_Hygrothermal analysis_02.flx

flixo pro 7.0.618.1

0.5
CFD studies are used to assess the effect of wind on pedestrian com-
fort, especially given the disposition of the buildings to form natural chan-
nels for air movement. 0

A daylight factor analysis on two floors of a typical bay was used as a -0.5
method to explore how varying floor-to-ceiling heights altered the pene-
tration of natural light into the interior space. 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” N
00°12’01.5” W

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

STRUCTURAL FACADE MEP ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING

FACADE ZONE (mm) 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

7
5

10

9
6

10

3D internal view of typical bay

1 3

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

MCCS_212
 6

5 8
6

2
2
1
3

3D back view of typical bay 3D exploded back view of typical bay

3
6
7
7

10

3D front view of typical bay 3D exploded front view of typical bay

MCCS_213
 ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
18 System design

Top view

3 1

1 2

Front view

8
Third angle projection. Scale 1:60

MCCS_214 Bottom view

 2D detail. Scale 1:10 3D view of assembly

7 7

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

6 6

8
5
8

Back view

1
1
4
3
3

6
6

3D views of assembly
MCCS_215
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
18 Structural analysis

Full-height stick glazing with

Facade system
external copper louvres.
Facade zone Up to 2000 mm.
Primary structure type Steel I sections.
Steel box sections and T
Secondary structure type 3
sections.
Weight of secondary
0.19
structure (kN/m2)
Serrated plates; welded and
Facade bracket type
bolted.
Number of components in
2
fixing system 4

Weight of facade, including 1

2.21
secondary structure (kN/m2) 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. Finite element model of typical bay

MCCS_216
 4.68 -0.0
4.57 -0.3

4.45 -0.6

4.33 -0.0 -0.9

-0.3
4.22 -1.3
-0.6
4.10 -1.6
-0.9
3.98 -1.9
-1.3
3.86 -2.2
-1.6
3.75 -2.5
-1.9

20.00
3.63 -2.8
-2.2
3.51 -3.1
-2.5

20.00
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

10.00
2.34 -5.7 -6.3

2.22 -6.0
-6.6

10.00
-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

0.00
1.17 -9.4
-9.1
1.05 -9.8
-9.4

0.00
0.94 -10.1
-9.8
0.82 -10.4
-10.1
0.70 -10.7
-10.4
0.59 -11.0
-10.7
0.47 -11.0 -11.3

0.35 -11.3 -11.7

0.23 -11.7 -12.0

0.12 -12.0 -12.3

50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 50.00 90.00 60.00 100.00 70.00 m 80.00
0.00 -12.3 -12.6
60.00 70.00 80.00 50.00 90.00 60.00 100.00 m 70.00 80.00 90.00
-12.6
Z Sector of system Group 2 4 6 45 Z Sector of system Group 2 4 6 45 M 1 : 236
Principal
Y stress
Maximum distribution
principal in copper
tension stress fins of(MPa)
from middle element ,Z Loadcase
Sector1 of
self weight 4 6Vertical
Group ,2 from Y 4.68
0 to displacements
step 0.117 of copper fins (mm) , Loadcase X1 *self
0.861
m Group 2 4 6 45 X system 45 M 1MPa
X Maximum principal :compression
236 stress in Node
Y * 0.643
weight , from -12.6 to -1.9787e-08 step 0.315
Y
al tension stress from middle of element , Loadcase 1 self weight X Maximum
, from 0 to 4.68 step principal compression stress in Node
0.117 MPa ,X Loadcase
* 0.861 1 self weight , from -12.6 to -1.9787e-08
Z * 0.919 step 0.315 MPa
Y * 0.643
Z * 0.919
-26.4

67.4
63.3

-19.7
59.8
-1 9.
2
-0.827

56.3
-45.0

52.8 - 7. 6
-6.2 2
15.4

49.3 3 19.714
17.1

17
-19.1

-1 .4 2. 60 .59
45.7
-2.1 9 1. 2.
-19.7-10.2

-1 9. 0 . 57 1 2
-19.0
-47.8

42.2 2 6 8 73
-0.827

-16. 0 5 . 2.
10.1

5 1 8
-45.0

38.7 - 7. 6 1. 1.5 1 7 4
-0.219

0
-6.2 2 . 5 2.
78 5 4.5
-0.317 0.225

38
15.4

3 4.78
-19.8

35.2
19.7 55 1. 0.3526 4. .83
17.1

48
-19.1

-7.27

-4.23

-1 .4 2. .5
9 1. 0 8 4 4
-10.2

-53.6

31.7 -2.1 6 4 . 7
-10.9

21.1

0 5 1
-19.0
-47.8

-16. -16. 1. 9 4. 63
28.1
29 .5 4.
10.1

5 9 3 28
1. 4
00 4. 9
-0.219

-0.2 .1 98
-10.2

24.6 -5.6 .
-8.77

91 2 3 .
-0.317 0.225

7 2 6. 3 5 4 1
20.00

0 3
0.275

4.78
-19.8

-17.5

0 .35 4. 4. .41
-7.82

.9
-7.27

-4.23

-63.6

21.1
-5.0 5 9 73 22 90
6 9. 77
10.4

-5.18 8 4
-2.77

-23.9

.7
-10.2

-53.6

-6-.7 1. .7 4. 3. 37
-10.9

21.1

17.6 2 1- 1 5
16.19 57 18.7 .2 4
3.
9
.4
0 4.
-5.6 0.10 1. 4 8 1 4 4 0 3
14.1
-5.6 -0.2 8.46 2 1. 1 4.
6 56 40 18 .
18
-8.77

7 9 1 6.3 5 70 6.06 8 1. 1. 77-15.84

0.275

1.
-17.5

3. 34 4.
-7.82

-13.2

10.6
-73.3

-8.51.
-63.6

-5.0 9. 77 61 -8.5 8 3 4. 97
10.4

8
-2.77

-23.9

-30.5

6 -5.8 -5. 7 .68 3 . 3 4 . 9

7.0 -6 .7
1 2 -1 12 2.04 1 1 . 1 1 9 3 .1 29 3 . 3.
8.7 26 5 44 1. .5
-2.89

. . -
3 2 18 0
0.10 1 0 3 4
08 . 4 7 .29 4.
-5.6 8.46 1 1. .3 7 3. .68
3.5
6 2 -2 .0
6 .0 6 3 -15 -7.88 1. 6 131 1. 1 3.
71
-4.6 .8 .0 .1 .52 0 3
-13.2
-73.3

.2 -17.1
0.0
965.8 1 91
-20.5

-8.5 - 8. 5
4.89 .78 1 - 6 3
-30.5

-5.1 7 .68 3.292 . 0 .

-41.4

2 2.04 3 3 0 69 9 3 7
0 .78.58 .3 .2
-3.5
.8
0.126

-7 . 9
-2.89

5 .47 -20.
5 5.66 0 0 0 3 5 3 .3
7 01 3 3
67.4

-7. 8 1. 13 9 5 3 7 6
-7.0 -2 .0
3 8 -4.3 0. .6 -.1528. 0. 2. 3 .5 2.7
-4.6 - 5 .36 0 4 9 0
-6.157.1 6.5 5.4043 0
-20.5

-57..89 0. 4 .
10.00

-10.6 2 4.89 5.1 6 22 7

-41.4

-8.5 96 5 2 0 . 1 47.0
5.51

. 2. -20.2 5
22 0 6 0 19
0.126

-7 .9 5.66 8 3.01 0 .4
5 .2 7 0. 3 2.
-14.1
0
67.4

-4.3 -12.
4 - 6. 95 7 .53 -0.2 0 .09.86 9.0 13 3 23.141 2
.3 65
-17.6 5 03 0 .4 3 1.
64.5

-7.9 5.1 6 -6.5 6 .5 2 5 .40 5 9 3 0 . 1 6.7 .4

6 5 4.4 7 0.120.2 6. 0.3
3
0.
4 1 2 30 09
5.51

-21.1 -2 0. 4 3 . 0.
7.86 2 - 7 .6 4 9 9 1 . 0 6
40.5

-0.2 -7
9..0 7. 79 3 .9 9 1 8 .3 49 2 .6
-24.6 - 6. 9 7 .53 130 2.41 5 2 4 4 5 2 0 0 . 5 0
03 0. 5.72 1.
64.5

5 16.7 3 0. 0.
0.6.90 0.606 57
-28.1
-7 .6
0 .12
4 6.39
-6.0 -6.7 2.74 .40 5 6 0. 22
4. 43 7 43 .48 0. 66 0.
40.5

-7.0 7. 79 3 .9 9 1 9 4 5 0 2
0 . . 6 .
7
4 81 9 0.
7.39 00.210 8 55.0 15 44 2.2.33 1
-31.7
5.72
6 .9 0 0 .66
43 0 0 . 0 . 02
-35.2 -6.0 -6.7 -27.74.2 1 7.086 5 . 22 .4 0. 0. 29 0.
9 4. 43 7 2.8 1 49 0 8 0 8 . 02 0.
2.23 .
0 5. 4 2 0
-38.7 7 .39 0.2 1 5 .1 5 .40.2604 41 0. 0.
-7.2 7. 08 5 .22 8
- 3.1 3.71
-7.4
0 4671 0 4 0. 0.
03
-42.2 1 5 0. 0. 4 3 2 9 1 4
5 .71 0.20 2 . 0. 0.
0.00

-45.7
- 3.1 -7.4 4 7.90 0.01.544 9 2.810 .42
5 3.71 0 - 4.6 7.40 1. 2 2 0.
3 0
-49.3
0. 15 8 40 06
7.9 0 4
2.81
3 . 01..0 6 42 0.
- 4.6 7.40 1.2 2 -8 .2 0 3 6 . 3 0.
-52.8
8 -1.7 1 .4 4 3 0 06
3 .0 3 1.0 6 5 1 0 32 0.
-8 .2 4.800.1 1.106 0.
-56.3
-1.7
5 1 .4 4 3 8 0 .1
0.03 0. 06 01
0.
-59.8
4.80 1.16 2.15 06 0.
0.03 1 .83 . 05 5
-63.3 2.15 06 0 0
1 .83 -2.1 0.
-66.8
2 01 03
-70.4
-2.1
2 0. 0.
50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00
-73.3
60.00 70.00 80.00 50.00 90.00 60.00 100.00 70.00 m 80.00 90.00 100.

Bending
Z
moment
Sector of distribution
system Groupin2steel elements (kNm)
4 6 45 Lateral displacements distribution in steel elements (mm) M 1 :
ystem Group 2 4 6 45 Y Z Sector of system Group 2 4 6 45 M 1 : 236
Beam Elements , Bending moment My, Loadcase 1Y self weight , 1 cm 3D = 50.0 kNm (Min=-73.3) X(Max=67.4) X * 0.
ts , Bending moment My, XLoadcase 1 self weight * 0.861
X Nodal displacement in global Y, Loadcase 1 self weight ,Y 1* cm
, 1 cm 3D = 50.0 kNm (Min=-73.3) (Max=67.4) 3D = 5.00 mm
0.643
(Min=-0.897) (Max=6.57) Y * 0.
Z * 0.919 Z * 0.
MCCS_217
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE
18 Environmental analysis

21 March 21 June 23 September 22 December

Shadow study on the contextual model for equinox and solstice dates

kWh/m2
990

800

625

450

225

100
Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis
Period Total area Total radiation

1 year 5,332 m2 2,768 mWh

kWh/m2 % Daylight factor

500 2

450 1.6

375 1.2

300 0.7

250 0.3

175 0

Annual cumulative solar radiation analysis on typical bay Daylight factor analysis on typical bay

Mean daylight factor: 0.9%

Without Solar
Period With shading 100% of area between 0-2%
shading reduction
1 year 7.7 mWh 14.7 mWh 48%

MCCS_218
 External Internal
velocity, m/s velocity, m/s
12 2.5

9 2

1.5
6
1

3
0.5

0 0

External and internal air velocity distribution

20 °C
13 °C
0 °C

EXT

1 2 2 1

5
15

15 16 17 18

2
15

1 16

17

18

INT

5 15
Pressure, kPa
o
20.0 C

Isotherms
o

showing temperature distribution across assembly

13.0 C 2.5
o
0.0 C

The aim of the shading strategy is to create a homogenous internal

1.5
space with a uniform level of shading that allows a large glazed area to
be implemented whilst avoiding uncontrolled heat gains and glare.
1

The application of the external shading itself reaches a percentage of

shading of approximately 50%, which allows the transparency of the 0.5
08/09/2016

glass to be very high to maximise daylighting.

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

flixo pro 7.0.618.1

0
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. Wind cladding pressure distribution

MCCS_219
REFERENCES
Authorship

MCCS_220
MCCS_221
REFERENCES
Index
A
Analysis method and scientific foundations 16
Current design methodology 16
Limitations of current methodology 16
Newtecnic’s methodology 16
Analysis method and scientific foundations 17
Method for structural analysis of complex facades 18
Method for MEP/environmental
analysis of complex facades 19
The Avenues 190
Authorship 220
B
Burj Alshaya 76
Burjuman Apartments 156
Burjuman Tower 66
C
City Museum of Istanbul 14
Comparison of projects 6
Current and emerging technologies 10
Current design methodology 10
Limitations of current methodology 10
Newtecnic’s methodology 10
Current technologies in facade assemblies 11
Emerging technologies in facade assemblies 12
Use of current and emerging technologies
in facade design 12
D KAFD Metro 166
Dance & Music Centre 88
Design implementation and research method 21
Current design methodology 21
Limitations of current methodology 21
Newtecnic’s methodology 21
Material selection 22
Assembly technology 22
Design validation 22
MCCS_222
Design method and project management 13
Current design methodology 13
Limitations of current methodology 13
Newtecnic’s methodology 13
‘Agile’ management applied to facade projects 14
Generating innovation 15
Application of design method
and project management 15
E
Evolution Tower, Moscow 34
F
Federation Square 122
Foreword 4
Further reading 223
G
Galaxy Soho Offices 24
Grand Théatre de Rabat 178
H
Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre 56
Holland Park School 210
Hotel 44
K
K. Çamlica TV Tower 98
M
Meixihu IC&A Centre 110
N
New Port Centre 132
S
Scope of this book 5
Stone Towers 200
 REFERENCES
Further reading

Current and emerging technologies Analysis and scientific foundations

Constructing Architecture: Materials, Processes, Structures; a Finite Element Analysis and Design of Metal Structures
Handbook by Andrea Deplazes Ehab Ellobody, Ran Feng, Ben Young
Birkhäuser, 2013 Elsevier, 2013

Facade Construction Manual Introduction to Finite and Spectral Element Methods Using
Thomas Herzog / Roland Krippner / Werner Lang MATLAB, Second Edition: Edition 2
Birkhäuser, Edition Detail, 2012 Constantine Pozrikidis
CRC Press, 2014
Modern Construction Series by Andrew Watts: Modern Con-
struction Handbook, Modern Construction: Envelopes, Modern Introduction to Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics:
Construction: Facades, Modern Construction: Roofs, Edition 2
Springer / Ambra / Birkhäuser, 2001 - 2016 Constantine Pozrikidis
Oxford University Press, 2011
Design method
MATLAB Codes for Finite Element Analysis: Solids and Structures
Design Engineering: A Manual for Enhanced Creativity A. J. M. Ferreira
W. Ernst Eder, Stanislav Hosnedl Springer Science & Business Media, 2008
CRC Press, 2008
Multiphysics Modeling with Finite Element Methods
Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Edition 3 William B J Zimmerman
Gerhard Pahl, W. Beitz, Jörg Feldhusen, Karl-Heinrich Grote World Scientific, 2006
Springer, 2007
Design implementation and research method
Handbook of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety in
Engineering Design Building Engineering and Systems Design
Rudolph Frederick Stapelberg Frederick S Merritt, James Ambrose
Springer, 2009 Springer, 2012

The Future of Design Methodology Design Engineering Manual

Herbert Birkhofer Mike Tooley
Springer, 2011 Elsevier, 2010

Project management Modern Construction, Lean Project Delivery and Integrated

Practices
Agile Management: Leadership in an Agile Environment Lincoln H Forbes, Syed M Ahmed
Ángel Medinilla Taylor and Francis, 2011
Springer, 2012
Project Quality Management, Critical Success Factors for
Managing Agile Buildings
Alan Moran Sui Pheng Low, Joy Ong
Springer, 2015 Springer, 2014

Project Management for Environmental, Construction and Standards of Practice in Construction Specifying
Manufacturing Engineers Dennis J Hall, Nina M Giglio
Nolberto Munier Wiley, 2013
Springer, 2013
Sustainability in Engineering Design and Construction
Systems Engineering Agile Design Methodologies J K Yates, Daniel Castro-Lacouture
James A. Crowder, Shelli A. Friess Taylor and Francis, 2016
Springer, 2013

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