KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2014) 18(2):549-557 Structural Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2014 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-014-0107-0 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Investigation on Material Layouts of Structural Diagrid Frames

by using Topology Optimization
Dongkyu Lee*, Jaehong Lee**, Jinho Kim***, and Uwe Srarossek****
Received April 13, 2011/Revised May 26, 2011/Accepted June 3, 2013

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

This study shows a computer-oriented design tool conceptually extracting a so-called steel-framed “Diagrid”, which has been well-
known as a specific and effective structural unit cell for mainly free-formed building frames. The goal of this study is to provide a
smart design optimization task to measure the effects of variation of optimally geometrical configurations like shape and topology of
the diagrid to structural engineers. Numerical applications verify how optimal solutions by using the present topology optimization
design tool can evaluate promising possibility to conceptually generate practical diagrid unit cells as a trial of building related issues.
Keywords: steel-framed, diagrid, material layouts, topology, shape, optimization, structural design
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction structural systems can conform to both irregular set patterns of

Numerous brand-new structural systems for high-rise buildings
in steel have evolved since the mid-1960’s. In the fields of high-
rise buildings, the specific structural systems (Chew, 2009;
Nordenson and Riley, 2003; Wells, 2005) including core truss
systems, belt truss systems, plane frames, frames with shear
walls, shear walls with outriggers, tube systems, mega-structure
systems and so on have been increasingly developed by many
structural engineers. Substantially, the goal of these evaluated
structural systems is to create efficient or functional and
economical structural designs for different ranges of heights in
high-rise buildings.
In recent years the high-rise buildings with specific structural
systems have a tendency to be planned and constructed for a
national or an international landmark as well as economic
developments of each country. The landmark, i.e., the so-called
“symbolism” has been easily evaluated by engineers finding
structural and evolutionary transformed shapes in nature like a
tree as shown in Fig. 1(a). It is re-created as new artificial tall
buildings including the so-called “3T”, i.e., Twisted, Tapered,
and Tilted as shown in Fig. 1(b). These external shapes are
generated by regularly or irregularly consisting of internal basic
elements such as a point, a line, and a surface, which make up
structural units or grids. Especially, mega-structures of varied
the 3T type with respect to an external global system and regular
set patterns of repetitive girds with respect to an internal local
system. In order to be composed of mega-structure systems in
tall buildings, geometric sloping columns and beams can be
considered for a triangle or a diamond-wise structural grid
modules instead of typical vertical columns and horizontal
girders or beams. The structural system is denoted by the so-called
“DiaGrid” (Genduso, 2004), which is a portmanteau of diagonal
grid. The first detailed structural analysis on diagrid was
employed in 1932 (McCain, 2009) and this system was first
introduced in the John Hancock Center (Zimmer and Bell, 2006)
in Chicago in USA which was completed in 1969. In recent
years in Korea, Cyclon Tower located in Chung-Nam Asan
Bebang region, Jam-Sil Super Tower in Seoul, and Future-X
Tower in Daejun have been planned for construction as shown in
Fig. 2.
These are the first trial in Korea, however in the world there
are already a few high-rise building using diagrids such as
Swiss Re building in London in UK, Hearst Tower in New
York in USA, and CCTV building in Beijing in China, as
shown in Fig. 3 (please see the references (Rahimian and Eilon,
2006; Bridwell, 2005; Carroll et al., 2005) in turn) using
diagrid systems.
The diagrid is a simple and a systematic structure for

*Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 143-747, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-mail: dongkyulee@
sejong.ac.kr)
**Professor, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 143-747, Korea (E-mail: jhlee@sejong.ac.kr)
***Leader, Building Structures & Materials Research Dept., Steel Structures Research Division, Research Institute of Industrial Science & Technology,
Incheon 180-1, Korea (E-mail: jin800f13t@rist.re.kr)
****Professor, Structural Analysis and Steel Structures Institute, Hamburg University of Technology, Hamburg D-21073, Germany (E-mail: starossek@
tuhh.de)

− 549 −
 Dongkyu Lee, Jaehong Lee, Jinho Kim, and Uwe Srarossek

Fig. 1. New Trend in Building Designs by Utilizing Structural Forms in Nature: (a) Tree in Nature, (b) Buildings with Twisted, Tilted, and
Tapered Shapes (The Left, Middle, and Right Figures are Turning Torso in Sweden, Puerta de Europa in Spain, and Swiss Re in UK.)

Fig. 2. Practical Examples of Construction Plans of Diagrid Systems in Korea: (a) Cyclon Tower, (b) Lotte Super Tower, (c) Future-X
Tower

Fig. 3. Practical Examples of Diagrid Systems in the World: (a) Swiss Re Building, (b) Hearst Tower, (c) CCTV Headquarters

− 550 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Investigation on Material Layouts of Structural Diagrid Frames by using Topology Optimization
constructing large and tall buildings with mainly steel by using
straight, curved, or horizontal rings and triangulated beams
which together make up a complete structural system. In general
buildings, columns are utilized for providing vertical load carrying
capacity, diagonals or braces offers stability and resistance to
large horizontal forces such as wind and seismic loads. However
diagrid members take several advantages in addition to eliminating
perimeter columns. At most diagrid system optimizes each
structural element. In other words the diagonals and braces try to
join in the vertical load transfer, and the columns participate in the
lateral load. The two functions are combined into a diagrid and then
diagonals, braces, and columns become finally all one system.
In general diagrid can be made from wood, concrete, and
steel or their composite. However steel is the most common
material of choice due to its high abilities to resist both tensile
and compressive forces. Therefore for example, in Hearst
tower steel diagrid has resulted in a highly efficient structural
system that consumed 20% less steel material in comparison to
conventional moment frame structures (Rahimian and Eilon,
2006). In addition to the above-mentioned material selection,
another component to derive structural efficiency into a diagrid
system is the global structural geometry and the structural
topology within this structure. By defining both shape and
topology which are generated by structural optimization based
on a numerical technique an optimized diagrid structure can be
designed.
The goal of this study is to provide the engineer with a good
indication of the feasibility of the diagrid structure, based on
the geometrical parameters of the diagrid structure. For this
purpose a typical diagrid structure into a tall building will be
designed by using SIMP method (Bendsoe, 1989; Bendsoe,
1995) of topology optimization methods. The original research
of topology optimization is to generate optimal topologies in
structural design using homogenization introduced by Bendsoe
and Kikuchi (1988).
Topology optimization method of structural optimization
methods takes an advantage of obtaining both optimal shape and
topology. Moreover SIMP method is fast and simple for engineering
aspects in comparison to other topology optimization methods such
as homogenization, discrete, or geometric methods. In order to
practically investigate the feasibility of the diagrid system,
dynamic problem on maximum first or second order eigenfrequency
as well as static problem depending on maximum stiffness is
together considered in this study.
The outline of this study is as follows: Possibility of integration
between a design optimization task and a steel-framed diagrid
unit cell for free-formed high-rise buildings is presented in
Section 2. The SIMP material-based static and dynamic material
topology optimization problems are described in Section 3. In
Section 4 numerical algorithms of the static and dynamic SIMP
method are briefly explained. The diagrid extraction by combining
optimal solutions of static and dynamic problems is studied in
numerical applications in Section 5. Section 6 presents conclusions
of this study.
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014
2. Integration between a Good Design Optimiza-
tion Tool and Diagrid Unit Cell for High-Rise
Buildings
A good design optimization task is one in which there are
design parameters considered together and the engineer needs to
surely understand and measure the influences of their changes on
performances, to both meet design constraints and improve
performances.
In order to achieve it, the number of design parameters and
valances among performances should be considerable enough to
verify the effort involved in creating a new optimization model,
finding or developing an integrated computational tool to utilize
an appropriate design optimization task, and carrying out
optimization works.
Geometry in specific free-formed high-rise buildings as
shown in Figs. 1 and 2 can be present at a lot of different design
levels for a good design optimization task and a computational
design tool, as varying from overall geometry to geometry of
the structural details. The two most components on geometry
of high-rise buildings are the global structural geometry and the
structural topology within these buildings. By defining both the
components parametrically, associated with a free-formed
shape, and driven by structural optimization based on an
artificial intelligence technique an optimized structure can be
designed.
For the present study, a so-called diagrid unit cell, i.e., a
widely-known local structural topology system for the present
free-formed high-rise monumental buildings will be designed by
a good optimization task. SIMP optimizing both structural
topology and global structural geometry is one of the most
efficient artificial intelligence techniques and it is termed a
material topology optimization design tool. It provides the
engineer with a good indication of the feasibility of the diagrid
unit cell as a significant structural element of global free-formed
high-rise buildings.
Therefore successful combinations among a good SIMP-based
design optimization task, understanding a specific local topology
like the diagrid unit cell, and acknowledge of global high-rise
building geometry like a free-formed shape require engineers
who are willing to think outside the box in terms of both the
design variants they are willing to consider and embracing new
design processes that take advantage of emerging computational
methods and tools.
3. SIMP Material-Based Topology Optimization
Problems
Topology optimization technique can easily be used at the
beginning of the design stage and it provides the optimal material
distribution into a restricted space called the design space or
domain. Then connectivity or topology of structures is automatically
extracted through conceptual shapes formed by density distributions.
The schematic (Lee et al., 2010) of the solids and voids topology
− 551 −
 Dongkyu Lee, Jaehong Lee, Jinho Kim, and Uwe Srarossek
Fig. 4. Design Domain for Two-phase Material Topology Optimiza-
tion Problems of Structures
optimization under the specified field and boundary conditions is
sketched in Fig. 4.
Design parameters correspond to the material densities
constantly distributed into each finite element, by which a given
design space is discretized. The relative density may take any
value between almost voids (0) and complete solids (1) and an
artificial material law (the so-called SIMP (Bendsoe, 1989; Bendsoe,
1995) - Simply Isotropic Material with Penalization) is implemented
to link together stiffness and density.
By discretizing the continuous given design space, the element
stiffness-density relationship may be defined in terms of Young’s
h
modulus Ei , which is related to the updated element density Φi
h Φ
and it is defined as:
h subject to : ------------ ≤ g
Φ
E ( Φ ) = E0⎛ ------i ⎞ , k ≥ 1, 0 ≤ Φi ≤ 1, i = 1···Ne
h h h V0
i i
⎝ Φ 0⎠
where E0 and Φ0 are nominal values of Young’s modulus and
material density of elements, respectively, and Ne is the number
of elements.
3.1 Static Problem Achieving Minimum Strain Energy
In general structural topology optimization is specified as the
objective function and constraints. For static problems the
objective function can be defined as minimal strain energy
according to the principle of minimum potential energy, and
optimization constraints can be also given as follows.
1 T
min: f = --- ∫ δε CεdΩX (2)
2Ω
X
T T T
subject to: ∫ δε CεdΩX = ∫ δu bdΩX + ∫ δu t dΓt
ΩX ΩX Γt
∫ dΩX – Vref = 0
ΩX
where the material tensor C depends on the penalty formulation
of Eq. (1). The inequality optimization constraint is 0 ≤ Φ ≤ 1, in
strictly, not 0 but almost 0 for avoiding numerical singularity is
assumed. Equality constraints indicate a linear elastostatic
equilibrium of Eq. (3), and a control of volume of the used
material under the volume fraction Vref of Eq. (4).
3.2 Dynamic Problem Achieving Maximum Eigenfrequency
By considering governing equation for free vibration system
(Svanberg, 1987; Lee et al., 2012) which is treated in this study,
its Laplace transformation is written as:
MU(l)l 2 + KU(l) = 0 (5)
By substituting ω 2 for l into Eq. (5), the eigenvalue formulation
is written as
2
[K – ω i M ]ui = 0 (6)
where ω i is the i-th eigenfrequency and ui denotes the corres-
ponding eigenvector relying on ω i . K and M denote the global
stiffness and mass matrix, respectively.
The dynamic behaviors from Eq. (6) can be easily estimated
by eigenfrequency which describes structural stiffness. Therefore
in general maximizing first-order eigenfrequency can be an
objective function for dynamic topology optimization since
stiffness of structures has also a tendency to increase when
eigenfrequency of structure increases (Diaz and Kikuchi, 1992;
Krog and Olhoff, 1999; Pedersen, 2000).
A dynamic topology optimization design problem can be
formulated as the objective function and some constraint and are
written as:
T
max 2 u1 Ku1
:ω 1 ( Φ ) = ---------------
T
- (7)
u 1 Mu 1
V(Φ)
(8)
(1)
2
: [K – ω i M ]ui = 0 (9)
: 0 < Φmin ≤ Φ ≤ Φmax (10)
3.3 Mass and Stiffness Determination for Static and Dynamic
Optimization Problems
By using the penalty formulation of Eq. (1), element stiffness
and mass matrix of four-node square elements with eight-DOF
are shown in Table 1. Here v is Poisson's ratio. For the mass
matrix, a lumped mass matrix ML, a consistent mass matrix MC
or a combination of those two can be used. Here Φ and A denote
the material density and area of elements, respectively, and I is
the 8 × 8 unit matrice.
(3) 3.4 Variational and Discrete Sensitivity Analyses for Static
and Dynamic Optimization Problems
(4) In this study the analytical variational method is utilized since
it is numerically more efficient than the discrete method for
certain optimization problems like this study. In terms of design
parameter s, for example here element densities, the total
sensitivity formulation (Haug et al., 1986) of the objective function
is composed of an explicit and an implicit partial derivatives and
is written as.
− 552 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Investigation on Material Layouts of Structural Diagrid Frames by using Topology Optimization

Table 1. Stiffness and Mass Matrix for Static and Dynamic Topology Optimization
Stiffness matrix Mass matrix
T
Ke = ∫V B CB dV
k1 k2 k3 k4 k5 k6 k7 k8
· k1 k8 k7 k6 k5 k4 k3
e T
· · k1 k6 k5 k4 k3 k2 MC = ∫V ΦN N dV
h h
E i ( Φi ) · · · k1 k8 k3 k2 k5
= ----------------
2 4 0 2 0 1 0 2 0
1–v · · · · k1 k2 k3 k4
· 4 0 2 0 1 0 2
· · · · · k1 k8 k7
· · 4 0 2 0 1 0
· · · · · · k1 k6 1
sym. · · · · · · k1 = --- ΦA · · · 4 0 2 0 1
4 · · · · 4 0 2 0
1 v 1 v · · · · · 4 0 2
k1 = --- – ------ k5 = --- + ------
2 12 4 12 · · · · · · 4 0
1 v 1 v sym. · · · · · · 4
k2 = --- + --- k6 = – --- – ---
8 8 8 8 e 1
ML = --- ΦAI(8 × 8)
1 v v 4
k3 = – --- – ------ k7 = ---
4 12 6
1 3v 1 3v
k4 = – --- – ----- k8 = --- – -----
8 8 8 8

ex T method is implemented for sensitivity analyses as mentioned in

∇sf = ∇ sf + ∇u f ∇ s u (11)
Section 3.4. Gradient-based MMA is used for the optimization
By assuming that external forces b , t , the differential matrix method. Gradient-based method reduces computational costs,
L and a Jacobi matrix J are independent of the design variables, when many design parameters are used like topology optimization
for static topology optimization the total partial derivative is in this study. The developed MATLAB code for dynamic SIMP
written as a simple formulation as: topology optimization in this study is extended from MATLAB
code (Sigmund, 2001) of Sigmund which has employed for
1 T
∇sf = --- ∫ ε ∇SC ( Φ )ε dΩX (12) academic usage for static SIMP design problem.
2Ω X

For dynamic topology optimization, the total derivative is
written as a discrete form:
2 e
T
k–1 2 k–1
∂ω u1 [k ( Φe ) K 0 – ω 1 k ( Φe ) M0 ]u 1
---------1 = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
∂Φe T
u1 Mu 1
The sensitivities for the eigenvalue problem (Seyranian et al.,
1994; Rodrigues et al., 1995) are correct for the case of single
valued eigenfrequencies. However, when there is a double
eigenfrequency, the problem is no longer differentiable, and
when performing the maximization of the lowest frequency this
usually happens, since the first frequency approaches the second.
4. Numerical Algorithm for Material Topology
Optimization Design
Numerical algorithm of static and dynamic topology optimization
is sequentially composed of a structural analysis, a sensitivity
analysis, and then an optimization method. For elastostatic and
dynamic structural analyses, a finite element method is usually
used. A variational approach with adjoint method or discrete
5. Numerical Examples and Discussion
e The objective of these numerical applications is to present
- (13) numerical stages determining practical diagrid by using com-
bination strategy between static and dynamic topological optimal
solutions presented in this study.
A given design structure for the numerical generation is a 2D
wall with fixed supports near four edge parts as shown in Fig. 5.
Note that the solution obtained will absolutely depend on the
initial fixed supports. The influence of these supports would
provide some insight to the problem. A 2.8 m × 3.6 m design
domain is discretized using 28 × 36 square finite elements with
four nodes. The material parameters are assumed to be Young’s
modulus of steel E = 1.0 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of steel v = 0.3 .
For only static optimal problem, an applied load of Fv (a vertical
load) or Fh (a horizontal load) = 1 kN is concentrated at the
center of the structure. For both static and dynamic problems the
penalty parameter is k = 3.0 in the SIMP algorithm.
Objective functions are minimal strain energy (kN·m) for static
design and maximal fundamental first or second-order eigen-

Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014 − 553 −

 Dongkyu Lee, Jaehong Lee, Jinho Kim, and Uwe Srarossek

Fig. 5. Design Domain and Problem Definition

frequency for dynamic design. The volumes of 20% or 30% are

fixed during entire optimization iterations. A consistent mass is used
for eigenvalue analyses to dynamic topology optimization design.

5.1 The First Design Stage: Optimal Design for Static Dia-
grid Unit Cell Extraction
Figure 6 shows the optimal topologies by using a 0.5 density
isoline contour (Youn and Park, 1997) of all density distribution
Fig. 6. Optimal Topologies for Static Problem: (a) Fv and volume =
contours for static minimal strain energy-based topology 20%, (b) Fh and volume = 20%, (c) Fv and volume=30%,
optimization. Here the 0.5 lsoline is used to extract obvious (d) Fh and volume = 30%
optimal form. Total volume is fixed to 20% in Fig. 6(a) and (b),
and 30% in Fig. 6(c) and (d) during every 50 optimization
procedures.
It can be found that global optimal shapes and topologies
are a X-form in all cases in spite of different X-angles and
their forms are somewhat similar to the typical diagrid node
detail as shown in Fig. 7. When a vertical and a horizontal
load are applied to a given design space, their optimal results
are Fig. 6(a) and (c), and (b) and (d), respectively. As can be
seen in Fig. 6(a) and (c), density distributions make toward
vertical directions in enforcing a vertical load since material
is concentrated and reinforced into positions, in which
stresses are large. Positions with large stresses are relatively Fig. 7. Practical Diagrid Details: (a) Constructed Diagrid Detail, (b)
structural weak and then more material supplement is Schematic Diagrid Detail
needed. In the same manner, when a horizontal load is
applied to a given design space, densities are distributed
toward horizontal directions. Therefore optimal density girder combined to the X-type does not appear contrary to Fig. 7.
assignments conform to Von-Mises stress distributions as From this fact it can be inferred that it is necessary to additionally
shown in Fig. 8. consider dynamic behaviour by repetitive horizontal loadings for
Since X angles yielded on two loading cases considerably complete topology optimization design. The result for dynamic
differ from that of Fig. 7 and each other, appropriate angles of X- problem will be presented in next Section 5.2.
form need to be controlled through a link between both angles in Figure 8 shows Von-Mises stress distributions of optimal
a horzontal and vertical loadings. topologies in Fig. 6. As can be seen, stresses in the center node
In addition, please note that in this static problem a beam or a part of X-structure produced by the loading condition of a

− 554 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Investigation on Material Layouts of Structural Diagrid Frames by using Topology Optimization
Fig. 8. Von-Mises Stress Distributions of Optimal Topologies for Static Problem: (a) Fv and Volume = 20%, (b) Fh and Volume = 20%,
(c) Fv and Volume = 30%, (d) Fh and Volume = 30%
horizontal load are larger than those by a vertical load regardless
of volume magnitude of 20% or 30%. It can be found that
material reinforcement for resisting a horizontal loading is more
important than one for a vertical loading in the node part of X-
form. The largest stresses act to the node part in all the cases, and
therefore a node is the most significant element with respect to
structural safety of diagrid systems.
5.2 The Second Design Stage: Optimal Design for Dynamic
Diagrid Unit Cell Extraction
Figure 9 shows the optimal 0.5 density isoline contour for
dynamic maximal first and second-order eigenfrequency-
based topology optimization. Total volumes are fixed to 20%
in Fig. 9(a) and (b), and 30% in Fig. 9(c) and (d) during every
100 optimization step. Contrary to Section 5.1, there is no
loading condition due to the consideration of only free vibration
problem.
It can be found that global optimal shapes and topologies are a
X-form similar to typical diagrid form as shown in Fig. 7.
However it consists of a combination of four diagonal
members branched in a main horizontal member. Strictly
speaking it is different from the perfect X-shape like Fig. 7,
although a horizontal member acts as a beam together linked
to diagonal members. Therefore these results in dynamic
design have to be combined to perfect X-shape in static
design and then it produces more similar X-shape toward
practical diagrid details of Fig. 7.
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014
As can be seen in Fig. 9(a) and (c), and (b) and (d), global
topologies between eigenmode 1 and 2 are similar but shapes are
different each other, including effect of volume difference.
5.3 The Third Design Stage: Final Diagrid Unit Cell by
Combining the First and Second Stages
In this Section, the third design stage may be performed, when
both static and dynamic behaviors of diagrid are inspired to the
present structural detail. This denotes the so-called rule of thumb
(Pope, 1997), which is a principle with broad application that is
not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation.
It is an easily learned and easily applied procedure for
approximately calculating or recalling some value, or for making
some determination.
Computational diagrid extractions in Section 5.1 and 5.2
considerably are different from practical diagrid details in Fig. 7.
In order to reduce the problems of the static and dynamic
optimum results, structural design strategy which links between
static results in Section 5.1 and dynamic results in Section 5.2 is
presented in this study. It can be found that the combining
strategy is structurally proper since surely final diagrid forms can
resist to both static and dynamic behaviors.
According to the final diagrid extraction strategy presented in
this study, we could understand practical diagrid mechanism as
follows.
1. Diagrids are redundant and load path following.
2. Angled setting of column elements allows for a natural flow
− 555 −
 Dongkyu Lee, Jaehong Lee, Jinho Kim, and Uwe Srarossek
Fig. 9. Optimal Topologies for Dynamic Problem: (a) Eigenmode 1
and Volume = 20%, (b) Eigenmode 2 and Volume = 20%,
(c) Eigenmode 1 and Volume = 30%, (d) Eigenmode 2 and
Volume = 30%
of forces through the structure.
3. Loads can follow the diagonals through the structure as it
naturally resists vectors of forces through its triangulation.
6. Conclusions
This study shows a computationally structural component
extracted by optimizing local structural topology of high-rise
buildings. Here diagrid element is considered as a feasible
component in order to generate the structural local topology
through numerical topology optimization technique. SIMP-
based static and dynamic topology optimization method is used
as a strong theoretical and numerical tool due to both topology
and shape extractions.
For topologically optimizing design parameters, i.e., element
densities, for the diagrid component, a 2D model of the total
geometry is used to analyze the structural performance. The
ambition for this study is to develop a smart and unambiguous
engineers approach toward the visual or computer-aided assessment
of the efficiency of the diagrid structure. This approach will
− 556 −
provide the engineer and architect with a good indication of the
feasibility of the diagrid structure, based on the geometrical
parameters of the diagrid.
With these new design approaches, the computer should help
the structural designers to obtain more insight in the complex
behavior of the special structures like free-formed structures and
should offer the structural designers more design freedom in the
end of the design process.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the MKE (The Ministry of
Knowledge Economy), Korea, under Convergence-ITRC
(Convergence Information Technology Research Center),
supervised by NIPA(National IT Industry Promotion Agency),
(NIPA-2013-H0401-13-1003) and a grant (code# 2010-0019373,
2012R1A2A1A01007405 and 2013-057502) from the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the government of
Korea.
References
Bendsoe, M. P. (1989). “Optimal shape design as a material distribution
problem.” Structural Optimization, Vol. 1, pp. 193-202.
Bendsoe, M. P. (1995). Optimization of structural topology, Shape, and
Material, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Bendsøe, M. P. and Kikuchi, N. (1988). “Generating optimal topologies
in structural design using homogenization method.” Comput. Meth.
Appl. Mech. Engrg, Vol. 71, pp. 197-224.
Bridwell, S. G. (2005). “Swiss re building.” Architecture, Vol. 489, pp.
107-115.
Carroll, C., Cross, P., Duan, X., Gibbons, C., Ho, G., Kwok, M., Lawson,
R., Lee, A., Luong, A., and McGowan, R. (2005). “CCTV Headquarters,
beijing, china structural engineering design and approvals.” ARUP
Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 3-9.
Chew, M. Y. L. (2009). Construction technology for tall buildings, 3rd
Edition, World Scientific.
Diaz A. R. and Kikuchi N. (1992). “Solutions to shape and topology
eigenvalue optimization problems using a homogenization method.”
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol.
35, No. 7, pp.1487-1502.
Genduso, B. (2004). Structural redesign of a perimeter diagrid lateral
system, Senior Thesis, Architectural Engineering, Penn State University.
Haug, E. J., Choi, K. K., and Komkov, V. (1986). Design sensitivity
analysis of structural systems, Academic Press, Orlando, New York.
Krog, L. A. and Olhoff, N. (1999). “Optimum topology and reinforcement
design of disk and plate structures with multiple stiffness and
eigenfrequency objectives.” Computers and Structures, Vol. 72, No.
4, pp. 535-563.
Lee, B. K., Jeong, J. S., Fan, L. G., and Jin, T. K. (2012). “Free vibration
of tapered piles embedded partially in Winkler type foundations.”
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, KSCE, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 195-
203.
Lee, D. K., Starossek, U., and Shin, S. M. (2010). “Optimized topology
extraction of steel-framed diagrid structures for tall buildings.”
International Journal of Steel Structures, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 157-
164.
McCain, I. (2009). DiaGrid: Structural efficiency & increasing popularity,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Investigation on Material Layouts of Structural Diagrid Frames by using Topology Optimization
<www.dsg.fgg.uni-lj.si/dubaj2009/.../Diagrid%20tehnologija.pdf>.
Nordenson G.., Riley T. (2003). Tall buildings, The Museum of Modern
Art.
Pedersen, N. L. (2000). “Maximization of eigenvalues using topology
optimization.” Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 20,
No. 1, pp. 2-11.
Pope, J. E. (1997). Rule of thumb for mechanical engineers - A manual
of quick, accurate solutions to everyday mechanical engineering
problems, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.
Rahimian, A. and Eilon, Y. (2006). “New York’s Hearst Tower - A
restoration, an adaptive reuse and a modern steel tower rolled into
one.” Structure Magazine, pp. 25-29.
Rodrigues, H. C., Guedes, J. M., and Bendsoe, M. P. (1995). “Necessary
conditions for optimal-design of structures with a nonsmooth
eigenvalue based criterion.” Structural Optimization, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp. 52-56.
Vol. 18, No. 2 / March 2014
Seyranian, A. P., Lund, E., and Olhoff, N. (1994). “Multiple eigenvalues
in structural optimization problems.” Structural Optimization, Vol.
8, No. 4, pp. 207-227.
Sigmund, O. (2001). “A 99 topology optimization code written in
Matlab.” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 21,
No. 2, pp. 120-127.
Svanberg, K. (1987). “The method of moving asymptotes - A new method
for structural optimization.” International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 359-373.
Wells, M. (2005). Skyscrapers: Structure and design, Laurence King
Publishing.
Youn, S. K. and Park, S. H. (1997). “A Study on the shape extraction
process in the structural topology optimization using homogenization
material.” Computers and Structures, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 527-538.
Zimmer, A. S. and Bell, G. R. (2006). John hancock center scaffold
collapse, ASCE Fourth Forensic Engineering Congress.
− 557 −
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.