SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings
Geometry Optimization in Structural Design
Alessandro Beghini, PhD, SE, Associate
Abstract
Several practical tools for the characterization of the
optimal layout of material in a structure have been
developed in recent years based on both numerical and
analytical approaches. This paper revisits such methods
and demonstrates their relevance in the conceptual
design of high-rise buildings, long span structures and
smaller specialty structures.
Introduction
Structural optimization has been attracting increasing
interest in the building industry to identify optimal
geometric layouts. Designs based on an optimal material
distribution for the structural system are not only
efficient, lightweight and minimize the embedded
carbon, but are also often aesthetically pleasant from an
architectural point of view.
Once the geometric layout of a structure and its
components are defined during the conceptual phase of
design, only minor adjustments are usually performed in
later design stages, making the conception of the layout
of upmost importance. The optimization tools available
to engineers are various and their utilization depends on
the specific project or application considered.
Commercial software employing gradient based
optimization, for example, has been successfully applied
for topology and shape optimization. Custom made
optimization tools have also been developed by
accessing the advanced programming interface of
commercial software and utilizing several of their built-
in functions. In addition, engineers have been
Mark Sarkisian, SE, Partner
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP,
San Francisco, CA
rediscovering a variety of theorems including Maxwell's
theorem and Rankine’s theorem for funicular frames.
Maxwell's theorem enables the engineer to quickly
calculate the optimal volume of a frame for given loads
and boundary conditions while Rankine’s theorem can
be applied to identify optimal cable layouts for given
loads. This paper provides an overview of the
optimization techniques and tools currently used by
engineers to conceive optimal and innovative
architectural layouts. Particular attention will be given to
specific practical applications for a variety of projects.
Principal Stresses and High-rise Building
Mechanics
Principal stress trajectories represent an analytical
approach that informs optimal placement of material in a
structure. For the case of high-rise buildings, the
principal stress trajectories can be traced analytically by
numerically solving the governing differential equation
as indicated in what follows.
In the design of a high rise building, the structure can
initially be analyzed as a vertical cantilever beam fixed
at the top of the foundation. The fundamental laws of
mechanics controlling such problem are rather simple,
since the problem is statically determinate. For the sake
of brevity, we only underline a few fundamental
properties characterizing the behavior of this structure,
in particular in relation to the concept of principal stress
trajectories.
The problem under consideration is described in Fig. 1
where a high-rise building of aspect ratio H/B and
unitary thickness is loaded under a uniform wind load,
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings

w. Wind load profiles are technically represented by
power laws with exponent depending on the exposure
(i.e.: the building location in relation to the
surroundings: urban areas, coastal regions, open country,
etc.); however a uniform load distribution captures the
fundamental aspects of the problem without introducing
unnecessary complexity.
beam the stresses σy (stresses transverse to the beam
axis) are assumed to be negligible. The formulas to
calculate σx and τxy from the centerline moment and shear
according to Saint Venant’s Principle for various cross
sectional shapes can be found in a variety of solid
mechanics textbooks (Sokolnikoff 1951; Timoshenko
and Goodier 1987; Love 1944). The plane stress state
described by σx and τxy can be rotated in the principal
coordinate system to derive the principal stress
directions for the principal stresses σ1 and σ2 by solving
the following equations derived from the Mohr’s circle:

tan 2 ,

tan 1 (3)

Where  is the angle between the principal directions

and the Cartesian coordinate system in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Schematic representation of a high-rise

building as a cantilever beam of rectangular cross
section.

Using simple statics, the moment and shear diagram

with respect to the elevation x can be calculated as
follows:

1 (1)
1 (2)

The cantilever beam problem is treated according to the

Euler−Bernoulli beam theory, which hinges upon two
important assumptions: the cross section stays plane
during the deformation process and remains orthogonal
to the beam centerline. Both these assumptions are not
accurate for high-rise buildings due to the presence of
shear lag and shear deformation; however, as mentioned
already, the scope of this paper is to establish a
theoretical benchmark against which to compare the
numerical results. To this end, we deem the
Euler−Bernoulli theory as providing sufficient accuracy.
The simple expressions in (1) and (2) are employed to
calculate the flexural σx and shear τxy stresses in the
cantilever beam under consideration. Notice that in a
Figure 2. Elevation of the principal stress trajectories
for a tubular high-rise building.
The solution of the above equations leads to two sets of
characteristic lines (see Fig. 2); along these lines there is
no shear stress and the normal stress is acting at each
location along the tangent to the line. Equation (3) has
been solved by finite difference to trace a discrete
number of principal stress trajectories. One set of lines
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings
represent compression lines while the other set
represents tension lines.
Figure 3. Application of the principal stress
trajectories to the design of a high-rise building.
The trajectories are acting as streamlines such that the
lateral wind force ‘‘enters’’ the continuum at a certain
location along the height and flows through the
trajectories to the foundation (this is due to the non-shear
condition along these lines). Since the principal stress
trajectories represent the natural flow of forces in the
structure, they offer an analytical method to identify the
optimal layout of structural material in a high-rise. The
optimality comes from the idea of understanding how
the forces are ‘‘moving’’ through the structure to the
foundation and embrace this flow with the structural
members as indicated in the high-rise design in Fig. 3.
The principal stress trajectories in Fig. 2 show the
following important characteristics in relation to the
behavior of high-rise buildings:
• The tension and compression lines meet at a 45◦ angle
at the centerline since in beam theory there is a state of
pure shear stress at the centerline.
• The stresses at the beam edges are vertical because the
problem is purely axial. It can be noted how the lines
become very dense toward the edges, emphasizing how
in a high rise the most efficient way to carry the
overturing moment is to put material as far away as
possible from the neutral axis.
• The trajectories tend to be more vertical toward the
base of the cantilever and closer to 45◦ bracing toward
the top. This is caused by the fact that at the top there is
mainly shear-type loading while the bottom of the
cantilever is controlled by the overturning moment.
The principal stress analysis conducted in two
dimensions can be extended to three dimensions
assuming a cantilever beam with the cross section of a
hollow tube (see Fig. 2b). In this case, when the wind is
blowing orthogonally to one of the tube faces, the side of
the tube parallel to the wind directions are behaving
similarly to the two dimensional problem while, in the
sides orthogonal to the wind direction, the stress
trajectories are mainly vertical. This result emphasizes
the typical behavior of a tubular high rise structure
which behaves similarly to a simple I-beam section. The
faces of the tube orthogonal to the wind direction are
acting as flanges and mainly carry the overturning
moment, while the faces of the tube along the wind
direction are carrying the shear force. It should be noted
that the analysis presented in this section is based on
uniform material distribution. As the material is
redistributed the paths may change.
More details on high-rise building mechanics and
applications of principal stress to building design can be
found in Stromberg et al (2011).
Graphic Statics and Rankine’s Theorem
Graphic Statics is a graphical method of solving for the
forces in a structural frame using two reciprocal
diagrams, which can be created using simple drafting
tools. Each of the reciprocal diagrams in Graphic Statics
consists of a set of points, straight lines interconnecting
all the points, and polygons defined by those lines.
These polygons can be closed (i.e. defined by areas with
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings

closed loops of finite lines) or open (i.e. defined by
chains of finite lines between two nodes with external
loads).
The lines in the first diagram, called the form diagram,
represent structural members, or rather lines of action of
the structural members. The lines in the second diagram,
known as the force diagram, represent forces carried by
the members from the form diagram. For every line of
action in the form diagram, there is a reciprocal line in
the force diagram. That reciprocal line is drawn parallel
to the original line and its length is proportional to the
force in the original member. Thus, for a given structure,
graphic statics can be a very powerful tool to gain
insight to the total load path of the structure, as it
provides all of the information about the load and the
path using these two reciprocal diagrams. The
development of the theory of reciprocal diagrams dates
back to the work of Maxwell (1890). More recently
Zalewski and Allen (1998) showed possible applications
of the methodology for truss design. Several examples of
application of Graphic Statics to structural design are
also shown in Beghini et al. (2013, 2014a, 2014b).
member A-1 in the form diagram of Fig. 4 is
proportional to the length of the line between points a
and 1 in the corresponding force diagram. Similarly, the
force in the member between polygons 2 and 3 is
proportional to the length of the line between points 2
and 3 of the force diagram. The remaining forces in the
other members can be computed likewise. Thus, the
forces acting on a node in the form diagram correspond
to a polygon in the force diagram, where each force is a
side of the polygon. For example, at node A-B-3-2-1-A,
the force polygon is given by points a-b-3-2-1-a.
Reading clockwise around joint A-B-3-2-1-A in the form
diagram, we can determine if members A-1 and 2-3 are
in tension or compression. Since we go from 1 to A
clockwise around the joint, we read from 1 to a on
polygon a-b-3-2-1-a, i.e.: the force in A-1 is from left to
right, towards the joint A-B-3-2-1-A of the form diagram.
Thus, member A-1 is in compression. Likewise, moving
from 3 to 2 on the force polygon goes from the upper left
to the lower right, or away from the joint in the form
diagram, so member 3-2 is in tension. The remaining
forces can be interpreted likewise.

The information about the internal forces can be

interpreted from the form and force diagrams as follows:
The capital letters, A,B,C...,G are sequentially placed
clockwise in the intervals between external forces (open
polygons) in the form diagram and the numbers, 1,2,3,...,
are placed in the internal spaces (closed polygons)
between members. Each line in the form diagram is
bordered by two polygons. Thus, a member may be
called using the corresponding letter or number of the
adjacent polygons, e.g. B-3 or 6-7, and a joint called
with a series of letters and numbers, e.g. A-B-3-2-1-A.
Similarly, the external forces are called using the
adjacent open polygons, for example FAB. The open
polygons denoted by capital letters in the form diagram
correspond to points (nodes) on the load line of the force
diagram, denoted by the lowercase letters, a,b,c,…g..
The numbers denoting the closed polygons in the form
diagram also have corresponding nodes in the force
diagram.
Figure 4. From diagram (top) and force diagram
The axial force in a truss member can then be (bottom) for a simply supported truss.
determined by measuring the length of the reciprocal
line in the force diagram. The relative scale of the force Moreover, in Graphic Statics, the member lengths and
diagram is set by drawing the load line representing the forces can be determined solely using geometry. These
external forces to a scale. For example, the force in diagrams can be constructed with simple drafting tools
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings
(straight edges, triangles, and a scale) or by the use of
simple equations for lines and the intersection of lines
required to solve a truss.
Within graphical methods, Rankine’s Theorem
(Rankine, 1858) was formulated to generalize the
solution of the equilibrium of a funicular. An example of
the application of Rankine’s Theorem for a cable with a
series of loads is shown in Figure 5. Unfortunately,
Rankine’s Theorem (and graphical methods in general)
progressively lost popularity with the development of
mathematical analytical tools at the beginning of the
20th century and the advances in numerical methods and
computational power towards the end of the century.
However, recently engineers have re-discovered this
theorem, which provide powerful insight to the design
problem, and have been using it for practical design
application as shown in what follows.
Figure 5. Generation of a funicular polygon using
Rankine’s Theorem.
Cable Supported Structures with Assigned
Load Path
The concepts of graphic statics and Rankine’s theorem
described in the previous section can be used in a variety
of design application as shown by Fivet and Zastavni
(2012), Zastavni (2008), and Beghini et al. (2014a,b). In
particular, the authors focus here on the use of Rankine’s
theorem for the design of cable-nets with a primary cable
and secondary cables as shown in Figure 5 supporting an
assigned path with prescribed loads. Such path could be
the deck of a pedestrian bridge or it could be the edge of
a canopy cantilevering off a high-rise building. The red
line in the figure indicates the main cable from which
secondary cables are strung. The secondary cables
support the assigned path.
Notice that the force density method (Schek, 1974) has
historically been used to identify the layout of cable-
nets. However, its original formulation would not be
suitable for this application because it is not possible to
simultaneously assign the location of a point load and
the value of it. Extensions have been introduced in the
literature to overcome such issue with non-linear
formulations. Beghini et al. (2013) presents a linear
analytical approach to the solution of the problem, which
gives the designer a significant degree of insight in the
equilibrium solution. Such insight would be hidden in
the numerical calculations using the force density
approach.
The first step for the application of Rankine’s theorem is
to extend the formulation of the equilibrium of a
funicular in a three dimensional space assuming that the
three dimensional solution is the composition of two
two-dimensional funiculars (Beghini et al., 2013).
Therefore, the main cable equations (red line in figure 4)
in the coordinate system indicated in the figure are:
∑
(4)
∑
(5)
In the above equations, and are the vertical
reactions at one end of the main cable in the z and y
direction respectively; H is the level of prestress in the
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings
main cable; are the assigned design loads; are
the unknown horizontal thrusts; and . Figure 5 shows a rendering of the canopy.
The locations of the nodes of the main cable are the
unknown variables of the problem considered and they
are defined by the intersection of equations (4) and (5)
with the equation for the secondary cables given by:
(6) resisted by a grid of in-plane moment connected steel
, ̅ in the above equation indicates the assigned
coordinates of the path. Notice that the secondary cables
are assumed to be in a plane parallel to the y-z plane and
that the value of the coordinate is given. Therefore,
the unknowns in the above equations are only the
coordinates , .
Equation (4) is independent of equation (5) and (6),
hence the coordinates are defined by the level of
prestress considered and the gravity design loads. The
coordinates and the thrust are calculated solving
equations (5) and (6) simultaneously. The mathematical
details of the solution can be found in Beghini et al.
(2013), where the solution for parallel secondary cables
described above is also generalized to the case where the
cables are non-parallel.
Figure 5. Problem statement.
Canopy Design Application
The methodology outlined in the previous section has
been used to derive the geometry of the currently under-
construction canopy for a high-rise building in China.
The final design incorporate two sets of cables: upper
and lower. The former resists gravity loads due to the
structure self-weight and superimposed loads (glass and
other architectural components) while the latter is mainly
required to resists the vertical uplift forces due to wind
and seismic events. The lateral forces on the canopy are
members.
The initial cable geometry was adjusted using finite
element analysis to account for the cables self-weight.
The analysis was also required to check for any potential
structural instability since lightweight structures are
typically susceptible to it.
Other possible cable layouts with non-parallel secondary
cables and their impact on the structural performance of
the canopy are described in Beghini et al. (2013).
Upper cables resist gravity
loads and downward forces
from wind and seismic events
Lower cables
resist uplift
loads
Figure 6. Rendering of the canopy.
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings
Density Methods
Topology optimization with density methods is a
numerical method that enables the identification of
optimal geometries for bracing systems without the need
to specify a priori the number of bracing members, their
locations and their connectivity. For application in
structural optimization for architecture, the design
domain is taken to be the outer skin or shell of the
building so that the resulting structural system is
expressed in the exterior as an integral part of the
architecture itself. Thus, the optimal layout problem in
terms of an objective function can be stated using the
design variables, , and the displacements, , as
follows:
min ,
. . , 0 (7)
, 0
where the design field, , and the structural response, ,
are related through the equality and inequality constraint
functions, . A common optimization problem solved in
structural engineering applications is the minimum
compliance problem:
min ,
. . , (8)
, An example of the aforementioned topology
where represents the equilibrium equation constraint,
while is the constraint on the available volume of
material for the design, . The global stiffness matrix is
given by which depends on the design variables,
; and are the vectors of nodal displacements and
forces, respectively. The minimum compliance problem
corresponds to the maximization of the system stiffness
and it is employed to calculate the optimal material
layout in the following examples.
In density methods, a void is signified by a null material
density ( 0), while 1 represents solid material.
For regions of gray material, or intermediate densities,
the commonly used Solid Isotropic Material with
Penalization (SIMP) model is employed (Zhou and
Rozvany (1991), Rozvany et al. (1992), Bendsoe (1989),
Bendsoe and Sigmund (1999)):
(9)
This power-law relationship uses the Young’s Modulus
of solid material and the penalization power 1 to
force the material to tend towards 0 or 1 (void or solid
respectively) where the element density assumes a
value somewhere in this range. The optimization process
can also include continuation on the penalization power
from 1 to 4 in steps of 0.5 until convergence.
Figure 7. Picture of the model for the conceptual
design of the upper and lower “bridges” spanning
several towers in the Zendai competition.
optimization framework for an architectural design
application integrated with structural engineering
principles is the conceptual design for the Zendai
competition (China) (see Figure 7). The aim in this
project was to create a unique and innovative design for
the upper “bridge” structure spanning several towers.
The design space was approximated as a beam that was
discretized with a mesh of polygonal elements to
eliminate any mesh bias (Talischi et. al 2010). The
gravity load on the mesh was applied as a series of equal
point loads at nodal locations. The mesh was constrained
with pin supports at the nodes corresponding to the
locations where the towers would support the “bridge”.
Using topology optimization techniques, the resulting
design solution is unique and innovative with an organic
look as illustrated by the picture of the model in Figure
7. The results show member lines intersecting at 90
degree angles reminiscent of the geometries of Michell
frames (Michell, 1904). In particular, the left-most and
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings
right-most areas of the design domain give way to the
development of a bounded Michell-like truss.
Additional examples of application of topology
optimization in Architectural design are indicated in
Beghini et al. (2014).
Figure 8. Rendering of the high-rise building used in
the optimization example.
Figure 9. Topology optimization of the outer surface
of a high-rise building in China. Resulting contour
plot (left) and interpretation of the results in a
structural system (right).
Another example of application of topology optimization
in Architectural design is illustrated in Fig. 8 and 9 for
the design of a high-rise tower in China. In this
application the outer surface of the building was
discretized using shell elements and the topology
optimization was conducted using commercial software.
The resulting contour plot in Fig. 9 (left) indicates in red
the areas requiring larger amount of material and in blue
the regions with very low material requirements. The
contour plot is later interpreted into an actual structural
system for the building as indicated in Fig. 9 on the
right.
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings

Combining Continuum and Beam Elements

One of the main challenges for the engineer using

topology optimization to identify optimal layouts of
material for the design is the interpretation of the results.
In the prototypical two-dimensional high-rise building
problem illustrated in Stromberg et al. (2012) and
reproduced in Figure 10 (left), for example, large bands
of material tend to form at the ends of the domain to
resists the overturning moments induced by the lateral
(wind) loading. As a consequence, there is little material
available to form the diagonals. In addition, the thick
bands of material cause unrealistic flexural stiffness
giving spurious results in the layout geometry of the
structure and makes the identification of the bracing
workpoints very difficult. To circumvent these issues, a
methodology has been introduced in Stromberg et. al
(2012) to combine continuum and discrete
(beam/column) elements. The use of beam elements at
the edge of the domain prevents the formation of the
thick bands of material and gives a realistic
representation of the flexural properties of the column as
indicated in Fig. 10 on the right.
Figure 11 shows an example of a conceptual design
using the combined element technique for a 288m tall Figure 10. Issues associated with topology
high-rise building in Australia, where the behavior is optimization using continuum elements only (left)
modeled using both 2D continuum (Q4) elements and and advantages of combining continuum and discrete
beam/column elements. The final results show a bracing elements (right).
system in which the densities increase as the load
increases throughout the height of the structure,
indicating an increase in member sizes of the diagonals.
Here, several patterns emerge naturally (i.e. no layout
constraints were applied in this study), which provide an
aesthetic value to the design as well. The image shows
another important result illustrated in Stromberg et al.
(2012): the optimal location of the bracing workpoint is
not in the middle of the module (i.e.: 45 degrees bracing)
but at three quarter of the height.

Conclusions

This paper describes some the methodologies applied to

explore optimal structural systems using both numerical
and analytical approaches. Several examples of
applications of such methods are discussed. The
resulting designs are not only structurally efficient, but
also show interesting architectural features.
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings
Figure 11. Bracing design based on the combined
continuum/discrete elements approach
References
Baker, W. F. (1992). “Energy-Based Design of Lateral
Systems.” Structural Engineering International, 2:99-
102.
Beghini A., Beghini L. L., Schultz, J. A., Carrion, J.
Baker, W. F. (2013) “Rankine’s Theorem for the Design
of Cable Structures.” Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, 48(5) pp.: 877-892.
Beghini A., Beghini L. L., Baker, W. F. (2014b) “On the
Layout of a Least Weight Single Span Structure with
Uniform Load.” Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, published online.
Beghini L.L., Beghini A., Katz, N., Baker, W. F.,
Paulino G.H. (2014) “Connecting Architecture and
Engineering through Structural Topology
Optimization.” Engineering Structures, 59 pp.: 716-726.
Beghini L.L., Carrion, J., Beghini A., Mazurek, A.,
Baker, W. F. (2014a) “Structural Optimization Using
Graphic Statics.” Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, 49(3) pp.: 351-366.
Bendsoe, M.P. (1989). “Optimal shape design as a
material distribution problem.” Structural Optimization;
1(4):193-202.
Bendsoe, M.P., Sigmund, O. (1999). “Material
interpolation schemes in topology optimization.”
Archive of Applied Mechanics; 69(9-10):635-654.
Fivet C., Zastavni D. (2012). “Robert Maillart’s Key
Methods from the Salginatobel Bridge Design Process
(1928)”. J. IASS 53(1):39-47
Love AEH (1944) A treatise on the mathematical theory
of elasticity, 4th edn. Dover, New York
Maxwell, J.C. Edited by Niven W.D. (1890) . The
Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell. Cambridge
Library Collection.
Mazurek A. (2011). “Geometrical aspects of optimum
truss like structures for three-force problem.” Structural
and Multidisciplinary Optimization, DOI:
10.1007/s00158-011-0679-y
Mazurek A., Baker F. W., Cenk T. (2011). “Geometrical
aspects of optimum truss like structures.” Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, Volume 43, Number 2,
pp. 231-242, DOI: 10.1007/s00158-010-0559-x
Michell, A.G.M. (1904) “The Limits of Economy
of Material in Frames-structures” Philosophical
 SEAOC 2014 83rd Annual Convention
Proceedings

Magazine, 8(47): 589-595.

Rankine W. (1858). A Manual of Applied

Mechanics. C. Griffin and Co., London

Rozvany, G.I.N., Zhou, M., Birker, T. (2001)

“Generalized shape optimization without
homogenization.” Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization; 22(2):116-124.

Schek (1974). “The Force Density Method for Form

Finding and Computation of General Networks”
Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng.

Sokolnikoff S (1951) Mathematical theory of elasticity,

2nd edn.McGraw Hill, New York

Stromberg, L.L., Beghini, A., Baker, W.F., Paulino,

G.H. (2012). “Topology Optimization for Braced
Frames: Combining Continuum and Discrete Elements.”
Engineering Structures; 37:106-124.

Stromberg, L.L., Beghini, A., Baker, W.F., Paulino,

G.H. (2011). “Application of Layout and Topology
Optimization using Pattern Gradation for The
conceptual Design of Buildings.” Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 43 (2), pp. 165-180,
DOI: 10.1007/s00158-010-0563-1

Talischi, C., Paulino, G.H., Pereira, A., Menezes, I.F.M.

(2010). “Polygonal finite elements for topology
optimization: A unifying paradigm” IJNME; 82(6):671-
698.

Timoshenko SP, Goodier JN (1987) Theory of elasticity,

3rd edn. Elsevier, New York

Zalewski W., Allen E. (1998). Shaping Structures:

Statics. Wiley, New York.

Zastavni, D. (2008). “ The Structural Design of

Maillart’s Chiasso Shed (1924): A Graphic Procedure.”
Struct. Eng Int.: J. Int. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Eng.
18(3):247-252

Zhou, M., Rozvany, G.I.N. (1991) “The COC algorithm,

Part II: Topological, geometrical and generalized shape
optimization.” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering; 89(1-3):309-336.