Post on 07-Jul-2018
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
1/12
56 TheStructuralEngineer
Project focus
City of DreamsMarch 2016
Synopsis
This article describes how cutting-
edge parametric-based engineering
techniques have been used to
achieve the detailed design of 2500
complex steelwork connections
for the exoskeleton of the new City
of Dreams hotel in Macau, China. It
discusses the tools, methodology and
strategy employed by the engineering
team to automate the diffi cult and
time-consuming process of creating,
verifying and documenting the
geometrically challenging, large-scale
steel connections using finite-
element methods within an ambitioustimescale of just 12 months.
City of Dreams, Macau –making the vision viable
Emidio Piermarini EI, BEng, MEng, Engineer, BuroHappold Hong KongHayden Nuttall MSc, DIC, BEng, CEng, FIStructE, MHKIE, Director, BuroHappold Hong KongRob May CEng, MIStructE, PE, MHKIE, MHKIBIM, Associate Director, BuroHappold BathVictoria M. Janssens PhD, PEng, Senior Structural Engineer, BuroHappold Hong Kong
IntroductionAn extraordinary building is taking shape
in the City of Dreams entertainment
resort in Macau (a Special Administrative
Region of the People’s Republic of China).
The 42-floor twin-tower construction
incorporates an irregular-form, aluminium-
clad structural exoskeleton with
connections of such scale and complexity
that they are possibly the most analytically
and geometrically challenging large-scale
steelwork connections ever to be built
(Figure 1).
The project for Melco Crown
Entertainment by Zaha Hadid Architects
and BuroHappold is under construction
(Figure 2). When it opens in 2017 it will
provide the City of Dreams development
with a dramatic landmark building tocomplement the existing complex of hotels
Figure 1
City of Dreamshotel – architect’srendering Z A
H A H A D I D A
R C H I T E C T S
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
2/12
57
www.thestructuralengineer.org
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
3/12
58 TheStructuralEngineer
Project focus
and entertainment facilities on the “Cotai
Strip”. Housed within its 150 000m2 of
floor space will be a seven-storey atrium,
780 hotel rooms, suites and villas, various
restaurants, luxury retail outlets, gaming
and event facilities, and a sky pool.
BuroHappold carried out the general
structural design of the building, together
with the detailed design and construction
documentation of all the steelwork
connections. The structural design work
faced engineering challenges arising from
the typhoon wind climate, seismic design
requirements, complex load paths and
highly irregular geometry of the building,
but it is the uniquely complex problem of
the detailed design and documentation of
the thousands of dissimilar and irregular
steelwork connections of the exoskeleton
– and the innovative methodology used
to solve it – that are the subject of this
article.
StructureThe design concept for the City of Dreams
hotel is of a striking exoskeleton which
wraps around the two concrete cores,
bringing them together with a flowing mid-
section featuring three irregular-shaped
curved openings. Inside the building, the
free-form steel framework continues,
curving high above a huge atrium space
that is echoed by that of the sky poolabove.
Figure 2City of Dreams hotel –current progress (January 2016)
Figure 3Structural system
b) Exoskeleton
c) Total system
City of DreamsMarch 2016
a) Concrete cores
In structural terms, the steel exoskeleton
and the two internal concrete cores act
together to provide lateral load resistance,
sharing wind and seismic loads in
proportion to stiffness. The gravity system
comprises composite beams and slabs
that span between the exoskeleton and the
cores with minimal internal columns (Figure
3).
There are approximately 2500
connections in the exoskeleton. The
members and connections are fabricated
from steel plate up to 150mm thick
using grades up to S460. Many of the
connections incorporate “offshore-quality”
plate to BS EN 102251 in order to ensure
adequate ductility and strength in the
through-thickness direction. Members are
generally bolted together at connections
in the flat regions and site-welded in the
free-form central zone and the corner fillets
(Figure 4).
Methodology With such complex and irregular geometry
it was clear from the outset that traditional
code-based methods and standard
drawing software would not be suffi cient
to design and document the exoskeleton
connections. Instead, the BuroHappold
team decided that the complex stress
states that exist where members merge
into the connections meant that finite-element (FE) analysis was the only viable
option to verify their structural adequacy.
It was also clear that standard software
packages would not have the functionality
required to create the constructiondocumentation, especially for the free-
V A D I M I
S M A G I L O V
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
4/12
59
www.thestructuralengineer.org
form central region.
To complicate matters further, since the
exoskeleton would be clad in aluminium,
all connections and associated plates
and bolts would have to be located
within the cladding zone defined by the
architect. This would inevitably constrain
and limit options for the geometry of the
connections and necessitate non-planar
solutions.
Finally, the timescale for detailed
design and documentation of all 2500
exoskeleton connections was just 12
months. Put another way, the team would
need to complete an average of 50
connections per week.
In response to this seemingly impossible
task, BuroHappold drew on its expertise
in parametric engineering and structural
optimisation developed on previous
projects, including the Aviva Stadium in
Dublin, Ireland2, and the Louvre Museum
in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates3.
Essentially, the team’s solution was to
create a unique, bespoke computational
approach using application programming
interface (API) techniques to allow
effi cient processing of the huge number
of FE models required and, critically,corresponding three-dimensional
Input Parameters
(variables)
Grasshopper
Definition/Script
Output Model
Viewed In Rhino 3D
Figure 5Parametric definitions using Grasshopper visual programming for Rhino 3D Figure 4Zones of exoskeleton Figure 6Design process
(3D) visualisation of every connection
throughout. The approach allowed the
engineering team to focus on the quality
of the engineering solution, rather than on
cumbersome data handling and repetitive
number-crunching tasks, resulting in
significantly faster and reliable output. As
a result, the entire detailed design and
documentation process was completed on
schedule, in a fraction of the time that the
team estimated would have been required
using a more conventional methodology.
Tools
Parametric design is a process in which
problem parameters are defined as
variables and a series of functions applied
in order to find the solution(s). By varying
these parameters, many variations of
the same problem can be solved. In this
case, the problem was FE analysis of the
many and various steel connections in the
exoskeleton.
The modelling software Rhinoceros
3D (Rhino 3D)4 and its plug-in module
Grasshopper5 were chosen as parametric
design tools for the speed and accuracy
they would bring to the task.
The combination allowed the team tocreate the geometry for a large number of
complex 3D forms quickly and accurately
using visual programming techniques and,
crucially, to make changes to the geometry
by changing the parameters (Figure 5).
They could literally “see what they were
doing” in each step of the programming
logic and in the corresponding geometry
as it was being created, making the code
debugging process much easier and
quicker than it would have been using
traditional practices.
Rhino 3D was also used to model
the outer surface geometry as a clash-
detection study to show that the
connections were within the cladding
zone. Autodesk’s Robot Structural Analysis
(RSA)6 software was used to create
the local FE models for each unique
connection type.
In this context, it is worth noting that
the size and complexity of the structure
meant that the global analysis model for
the building, which was created using
MIDAS structural analysis software7, took
over 12 hours to run. Hence, it was not
viable to create and insert FE models of
all the connections into the global model,
as this would have increased the analysis
time even further, possibly by three or fourtimes. Similarly, if the models were inserted
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
5/12
60 TheStructuralEngineer
Project focus
one at a time, there would be at least a
12-hour wait each time the team wanted to
investigate alternative arrangements for a
connection. The only practical alternativewas to create separate “local” FE models
of the connections and transfer, or map,
onto them the corresponding moments and
forces from the global model results file,
for all 105 load combinations.
To maintain the t ight programme, almost
every aspect of the local model generation
and analysis was automated using bespoke
Visual Basic scripts that linked MIDAS,
RSA and Excel with Grasshopper via their
APIs.
In achieving the solution to this
ambitious project, the BuroHappold
engineering team found themselves at the
cutting edge, using the software in ways
that had not been done before, sometimes
working at the limits of the products’
capabilities. The team maintained frequent
dialogue with all the software companies’
technical support teams throughout, which
proved to be highly productive for both
parties.
Strategy The engineering team’s strategy was to break
this immense problem into five key steps
(Figure 6). The first four months of the project
were spent developing bespoke Grasshopper
scripts for every step. This significant time
investment was justified many times over by
the huge time saving made in the subsequent
analyses and generation of documentation.
It is important to understand that bespoke
programming, however skilled it might be, does
not replace engineering expertise. Rather,
it augments it by handling large amounts of
data effi ciently and releasing engineers to
focus on optimising the design. Accordingly,
visualisation, manual verification and
Figure 8Visualisation of data for similar connections
Figure 9Developingconnectionarrangement
City of DreamsMarch 2016
a) b) c)
R U P E R T
I N M A N
Figure 7Grasshopper script to identify similar connections
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
6/12
61
www.thestructuralengineer.org
b)
acceptance were considered essential and
built into the process throughout.
The five steps were:
1. Identify similar connections
2. Develop the connection arrangement3. Find and map forces from global analysis
model
4. Analyse the connection
5. Generate analysis reports and construction
documents
Step 1: Identify similar connections
The first task was to confirm the number
of unique connection types required by
identifying those that were similar, in order to
reduce fabrication and erection time. With up
to nine elements connecting at each node,
and each element potentially having a different
section shape, section size and/or curvature,
this was not an easy task.
To identify unique connection types, a
Grasshopper script was written to interrogate
the exoskeleton member geometry Rhino
3D file created previously to help build the
global structural analysis model. It contained
the member centreline geometry and the
associated section shapes and sizes.
The script was used to search this file for
all intersections of centrelines (to locate the
connections) and to collect and organise the
relevant geometric data, such as the number
of intersecting members, whether members
are straight or curved, the member shapes
and sizes and the angles between adjacent
members. Thus organised into a programming
library, the data could be easily and accurately
compared to determine similarity of the
intersections, allowing for cases where the
geometry is handed (Figure 7).
Once the unique connection types had
been identified, the script visualised the
geometric data from the Rhino 3D file,
allowing the team to verify the similar
connection information easily (Figure 8). From
a total number of over 2500 connections, this
reduced the number of unique types to about
400.
Step 2: Develop the connection arrangement
Next, the principles of the connection weredeveloped through engineering judgement
based on the load paths (Figure 9a) and a
Grasshopper script was created to allow the
designer to rapidly conceive a connection’s
geometry to meet architectural and fabrication
constraints before sending the connection to
be analysed.
Mindful of the fabrication and erection
challenges that such massive connection
nodes would present, 3D study models of
each connection were created using Rhino
3D to ensure that the connections could be
readily fabricated. The models show the “plate-
by-plate” fabrication sequence for appropriate
clearance at every stage, including edge
distance tolerances and room for site welding,
testing and bolt tightening (Fig. 9b).
The connection designs also had to
accommodate extraordinary architectural
constraints. Zaha Hadid Architects had
provided a Rhino 3D model of the inner
surface of the cladding zone that all the steel
elements and connections had to fit inside(Figure 10a). For simpler connections, with
little or no curvature, the connections and
associated plates and bolts were similar in size
to the steel elements; therefore, clashes were
relatively easy to manage. However, in the free-
form central zone, multiple members typically
meet with high curvature, leading to complex
intersections (Fig. 10b). For this reason, the
connections are necessarily significantly
larger than the individual members. Given the
architectural envelope was not only tight but
also varied in depth where it was in double
curvature or warped, clashes were a real
possibility (Fig. 10c).
Since the constraints of fabrication
would often oppose those presented by
the architecture, the team realised that
Figure 10Workingwith architecturalenvelope
a)
c)
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
7/12
62 TheStructuralEngineer
Project focus
applying them to the local connection
models was significant. Once again,
Grasshopper’s capability as a tool
for creating and visualising geometry
offered a number of benefits in terms of
speed and reliability.
With a script similar to that used in
Step 1 to identify unique connections,
data including connection geometry,
bar/node numbering, section sizes and
member orientations were transferred
to Grasshopper from the global analysis
model and mapped for each connection
under consideration (Figure 13). The
corresponding forces/moments were
then also extracted. The volume of
data this created was so large that it
was split into 55 separate files, each
containing up to five million sets of bar
forces/moments.
The bespoke scripts allowed
designers to search for any set of
forces/moments from the entire data
set and instantly visualise them on
screen. In-built vector transformation
tools could then be used to map the
forces/moments onto the local model.
The task would have been much more
diffi cult and time-consuming without the
powerful visualisation functionality that
Grasshopper provides, allowing as it did
for “visual debugging” of the script.
Even with Grasshopper’s power
vector tools, mapping and translation of
the forces/moments from multiple files
was susceptible to error, so the team
used a two-step verification process
comprising visual and numerical checks
to ensure the extracted data were
correct (Figure 14).
For the visual check, the connectionwas displayed in 3D together with
multiple connections. These allowed parts
of the parametric scripts for one unique
connection to be copied or developed for
application to others.
For example, as a general design
principle, a 25mm edge distance tolerance
was allowed for members being site-
welded to the connections, to account for
erection tolerances. However, increasing
the thickness of a connection node in
order to maximise edge distance for
site welds would make it more likely that
the connection would clash with the
architectural envelope. In order to
explore this, the thickness was
defined as a parameter within the
Grasshopper script. The value
could then be adjusted until the
edge distance tolerance of 25mm
was achieved.
Thanks to Grasshopper’s
powerful visualisation, all these
changes occurred graphically and
in real time as the designer moved
the slider value up and down
(Figure 12). If the 25mm tolerance
could not be achieved because
of a clash with the architectural
envelope (as in the example
shown), the designer could rapidly
determine what value would
optimise the edge distance while
remaining within the architectural
envelope.
Step 3. Find and map forces from
global analysis model
With 105 load combinations and
up to nine members in a single
connection, the process of finding
the correct forces/moments inthe global model and correctly
finding an optimal solution meant being
able to explore the design space for
each connection rapidly. To address this,
BuroHappold engineers programmed the
geometry of each connection using a
parametric script with variables defined
for all dimensions that were likely to
need further study to meet architectural,
fabrication and construction constraints
(Figure 11). The more complex the
geometry of the connection, the more
complex the parametric script became, but
some guiding principles were common to
Figure 11Parametric connection definition and fabrication connection
Figure 13Global analysis model
City of DreamsMarch 2016
R U P E R T I N M A N
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
8/12
63
www.thestructuralengineer.org
vectors showing the magnitude and
direction of the applied forces/moments.
This quickly displayed any missing data
and verified that the forces were acting in
the correct direction. Additional analytical
information from the global model, such
as bar/node numbers, section properties,
gamma angles and local axes, could
be displayed as well to ensure proper
mapping of bar information.
For numerical verification, an
equilibrium check was performed for all
load combinations to ensure no “out-of-
balance” forces/moments existed. Any
questionable load combinations or nodes
were then displayed graphically and further
interrogated.
Step 4: Analyse the connection
The accurate prediction of the resultant
stresses where multiple members intersect
was a major concern. Consideration
of even a simple cruciform example
illustrates the importance of accurately
predicting stresses where members merge
(Figure 15). At the start of the project, the
BuroHappold team had determined that
neither established code-based methods
nor bespoke first-principles methods
would readily capture the complex stress
states that exist in the many and varied
connections of the exoskeleton where
individual plates intersect and overlap,
especially in locations where multiple
plates up to 750mm wide merged into
a single plate. Given the geometric
complexity and sheer size of the
connection nodes, an FE approach was
the only viable method for verifying the
adequacy of the connections.
Almost every step of the connectionanalysis process was semi-automated
Figure 12Using parametric definition to meet multiple constraints
Figure 14Visualisation and numerical check of mapped forces
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
9/12
64 TheStructuralEngineer
Project focus
to reduce set-up and processing time,
using bespoke scripts to link the various
software programs to Grasshopper though
their APIs. The scripts were used to
• generate the local FE model
• add extension bars and apply the forces
• apply analytical links and boundary
conditions
• run the analysis and extract results
At every stage, the engineer could
employ visual checks to ensure the correct
data were being used. Once the scripts
had been created, these local analysis
models took just a few minutes to run
(compared to 12 hours for the global
analysis using MIDAS), allowing the team
to run them as many times as they needed
to, in order to match plates’ thicknesses to
stress levels and optimise the connections.
The FE models were based on 2D shell
elements that incorporated all plates in the
connection together with an appropriate
portion of the incoming members. Beyond
this, bar elements were added to match
those in the global model and the mapped
forces/moments from the global model
were applied to these. Since the geometry
and the forces/moments in the local and
global models should match, it was easy
to check these visually and numerically
against one another.
The first step was to generate the local
analytical model in RSA (Figure 16). Thescript first created a Rhino 3D model of 2D
surfaces at the centre of the plates, which
could be planar or curved, and converted
these surfaces into RSA objects. It then
asked RSA to create the FE mesh of 2D
shell elements from these objects. Since
the FE mesh would be generated inside
RSA, the geometry of the surfaces created
in Rhino 3D needed to be of suffi cient
accuracy to avoid meshing problems,
which can occur when the meshing
algorithms cannot determine the intended
common boundary between adjacent
surfaces. Since the Rhino 3D geometry
was defined parametrically, the overall
geometry could be altered as necessary
until the connection was optimised and
the various fabrication/architectural
constraints had been met.
Once the 2D shell elements were
generated, the script automatically added
the bar elements to the model. The bar
geometry was extracted directly from the
global analysis model and placed in the
same virtual position in the local model.
As the bar forces had been mapped
inside Grasshopper, and the bar numbers
generated in the local model matched
the global model, the load combinations
and bar forces/moments could beautomatically applied using Grasshopper.
This again mitigated errors associated
with manual processes such as copy and
pasting tabulated data.
Under a conventional approach, the
definition of the analytical links between
the bars and the shell elements in RSA,
and the definition of boundary conditions
(analytical supports) would both have
been time-consuming manual operations.
Here, they were both scripted to happen
automatically, saving considerable time
for the project. The nodes of the FE mesh
were imported into Grasshopper, which
applied a script that used geometric
search algorithms to find the appropriate
nodes to which the bar elements should
be connected. This information was then
sent back to RSA and used to create
the analytical connections. The script
also automatically applied the required
boundary conditions to the local RSA
model in predetermined locations.
After the forces/moments for all load
cases had been applied, the models were
batch-processed. Finally, the sum of each
reaction was checked to ensure they all
equalled zero before the results were
prepared for extraction.
To avoid unnecessary handling of largeand cumbersome data files, and to speed
Figure 15Interaction of in-plane principle stresses and theoreticalvon Mises envelope for simple cruciform connection
Figure 16Connectionmodel
a) In Rhino 3D
b) Connected live to RSA
City of DreamsMarch 2016
NB In both cases, the stress levels σ1 and σ2 for the incoming members of the cruciform are set at the yield stress of the material(p
y). When σ
1 and σ
2 are both positive or negative (right-hand case), the maximum stress in the overlapping region does not
significantly increase. However, when σ1 and σ2 have opposite signs (left-hand case), the maximum stress in the overlappingregion reaches √3 × p
y. This phenomenon is predicted by inspection of the well-known “von Mises failure envelope”.
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
10/12
65
www.thestructuralengineer.org
up the process, a script was developed to
extract stresses in batches to determine
the governing load cases. Stress maps
of these connections were interrogated
using a scale based on the maximum plate
thickness for a given selection of plates
(Figure 17). The stress maps were then
visually inspected to establish whether the
stresses in any areas were unacceptable.
If necessary, the plates’ thicknesses,
arrangements or grades were changed andthe whole process re-run until satisfactory
results were achieved.
Finally, the results were all individually
reviewed by BuroHappold engineers as
part of the verification and acceptance
process.
Step 5: Generate analysis reports and
construction documents
It was recognised early in the project
that, given the large number of unique
nodes, the generation of engineeringdocumentation for each connection
could be a laborious task. Since all the
visual data available to the designers
during the design process were created
in Grasshopper, the logical solution was
to transfer this to an Excel template after
the analysis was complete. By creating a
tool to automate this task, the team made
considerable time savings and provided a
comprehensive visual record of all steps
of the design process, ensuring that any
independent party could easily follow the
assumptions made and data used for the
design of each connection (Figure 18).
While documentation was not a primary
objective of the process, the Grasshopper
scripts generated rich and coordinated
data that could be easily extracted to
provide accurate and relevant information
for the fabricator.
After careful consideration of the
options, it was agreed with the contractor
that the construction information would
be issued in the form of 2D drawings for
the connections in the flat-sided areas
and curved corners, where the geometry
could be readily defined using conventional
drawing software, and as 3D digital models
for the free-form areas to assist the
fabricator in understanding the connection
geometry (Figures 19 and 20).
This was because the design intent for
the connections in the free-form area was
more diffi cult to communicate using 2D
drawings. Since the 3D information was
readily available, it seemed illogical to
convert this to conventional 2D drawings
that would have required multiple views,
sections and coordinates to define the
shape, position and orientation relative to
the finished structure. Rather, using the
Rhino 3D surface models that had already
been created for the clash-detectionstudies, 3D models that were geometrically
Figure 193D documentation for largestfree-form connection
Figure 17RSA von Mises stress plot and fabricated connection
Figure 18Example of calculation output
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
11/12
66 TheStructuralEngineer
Project focus
Figure 20Example of complex 3D documentation
accurate in every sense (plate thickness,
plate geometry, plate hierarchy at plate
intersections, actual position/orientation
in the building) were provided for the
fabricator, who simply transferred them into
their own 3D construction model.
The approach was mutually beneficial
as it saved time for all parties in what was
already an aggressive schedule and helped
to minimise fabrication errors (Figure 21).
Conclusion
To meet the aggressive construction
programme for the City of Dreams
hotel project, BuroHappold needed to
develop a state-of-the-art approach to
the complex design and documentation
of the exoskeleton connections. Thisinvolved full FE analysis of more than 2500
connections and 105 load cases. The
whole process was run using bespoke
parametric Grasshopper scripts, which
successfully integrated MIDAS, RSA,
Rhino 3D and Excel. Due to the number of
unique arrangements, their highly irregular
shapes and the complex stress states
that exist where the members merge, the
exoskeleton connections are possibly
the most analytically and geometrically
challenging large-scale connections of
any building constructed to date (Figure
22).
The Grasshopper scripts not only
allowed the engineering team to process
vast amounts of data quickly; importantly,
they also incorporated “on-screen” visual
checks at all stages of the process tohelp eliminate errors. The scripts were
carefully designed to avoid being a so-
called “black box” set of tools, but rather
an extension of the engineer’s hand; cutting
out mundane tasks and allowing more time
to focus on problem-solving.
The initial decision to spend the first
four months of the 12-month programme
developing the process and writing/testing
the parametric scripts was a bold one, but
one which paid off later when some of the
connections were being created, analysed
and documented in less than one hour.
There was inevitably periodic updating
of the scripts throughout the project,
but the majority of the development was
completed in this early stage. Once set up,
this innovative design approach achieved
huge savings in man-hours and allowedBuroHappold to consistently deliver ahead
Figure 213D documentation via digital model and construction
City of DreamsMarch 2016
a) Assembly details b) 3D setting-out
8/18/2019 2016_City of Dreams Hotel, Macau
12/12
67
www.thestructuralengineer.org
1 British Standards Institution (2009) BS EN
10225:2009 Weldable structural steel for fixed
offshore structures. Technical delivery conditions,
London, UK: BSI
2 Shepherd P. (2011) ‘Aviva Stadium – the use ofparametric modelling in structural design’, The
Structural Engineer, 89 (3), pp. 28–34
3 Shrubshall C. and Fisher A. (2011) ‘The practical
application of structural optimisation in the design
of the Louvre Abu Dhabi’, Taller, Longer, Lighter:
Proc. IABSE–IASS Symposium, London, UK, 20–23
September
4 Robert McNeel & Associates (2016) Rhinoceros
References
3D [Online] Available at: www.rhino3d.com
(Accessed: January 2016)
5 Robert McNeel & Associates (2016) Grasshopper
[Online] Available at: www.grasshopper3d.com
(Accessed: January 2016)
6 Autodesk (2016) Robot Structural Analysis
Professional [Online] Available at: www.autodesk.
co.uk/products/robot-structural-analysisoverview
(Accessed: January 2016)
7 MIDAS Engineering Software (2016) midas Gen
[Online] Available at: http://en.midasuser.com/
product/gen_overview.asp (Accessed: January
2016)
of schedule.
Structural engineering in themodern era is challenged by projects
of increasing complexity, falling fees
and faster construction programmes.
The profession will not meet these
competing challenges successfully
without harnessing the best available
technology. The construction industry
is now largely a “digital” industry, with
the leading design teams, contractors
and manufacturers increasingly
creating and sharing digital information.
For structural engineers, parametric
and computational design are the tools
that will enable them to embrace this
complexity, avoid getting bogged down
in ever-increasing amounts of data and
devote more valuable time to what they
do best – engineering.
Figure 22Node fabrication in Guangzhou, China
ADVERT
fact
A concrete shieldA serious re can damage business. Concrete’s inherent properties
mean it doesn’t burn or give off noxious fumes. Its slow rate of
thermal conductivity also provides an effective re shield, protecting
lives, livelihoods and the environment.
Choose concrete for built-in re resistance.
Visit www.concretecentre.com to nd out more.