Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Timber High-Rise

Abstract

There are two main challenges in the construction industry: carbon emissions and densification in cities. Timber high-rise might prove as a suitable solution to both these challenges. However, there is a lack of implementation of timber high-rise. This research argues that a lack of thorough analysis of timber design alternatives in the conceptual design phase results in the exclusion of further evaluation of timber building designs. This research aims to analyze timber building design alternatives more thoroughly by the development of a tool, based on the Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) method. In Grasshopper, a parametric model is created with which timber building designs are generated, validated, and optimized. Two main optimization objectives and two constraints are considered in the tool: Firstly, the structural constraint: Each building must be designed according to the constraints as determined in the Eurocode. Secondly, the architectural constraint: Each building must satisfy the architectural design requirements for acoustics, building height, and daylight entrance. Thirdly. the environmental objective: minimize the shadow costs, which are determined according to the MPG methodology. The MPG methodology uses Life Cycle Analysis data to assess the embodied energy impact of structural materials. This embodied energy impact is expressed in shadow costs. Lastly, the economical objective: minimize the construction costs. Based on the mentioned constraints, the tool aims to indicate the design situations in which timber high-rise can be competitive to an assessed concrete design alternative, considering the combination of properties for shadow costs and construction costs. By research and development of the Multidisciplinary Design Optimization tool and analyzing two case studies, a conclusion can be made. Two concrete buildings, which are based on a current Arcadis project, are used as case studies. Both concrete buildings represent a design situation. The main difference between these design situations is the building dimensions. Building A3 represents timber building designs that are created for a design situation with a floor area of 28.8 x 28.8 m and a height of 60 meters. Building B3 represents timber building designs that are created for a design situation with a floor area of 21.6 x 43.2 m and a height of 50 meters. For both case studies, an optimization will obtain timber building designs with an optimal combination of properties for shadow costs and construction costs. This resulted in the following results. For the design situation based on the concrete building "The Rectangle", the Pareto optimal timber building designs, referred to as Building B3, were found to be competitive with "The Rectangle". For the other analyzed design situation, the Pareto optimal timber building designs referred to as Building A3, were not found to be competitive with the concrete building "The Square". Considering the boundary conditions and scope of this research, it can be concluded that a design situation with a rectangular floor plan is favorable over a design situation with a square floor plan and a design situation with a building height of 50 meter is favorable over a design situation with a building height of 60 meter. Also, based on analysis of the case studies the following conclusions were made. Firstly, when the effect of carbon sequestration is excluded in the calculation of shadow costs, the use of timber and concrete in the structural system was found to generate comparable results considering their shadow costs. The inclusion of the effect of carbon sequestration during the lifetime of a timber building results in a reduction of shadow costs of approximately 40% compared to a similar concrete building. Secondly, considering the boundary conditions and scope of this research the ULS is found to be normative for a slenderness up to 2.35. When the slenderness is greater than 2.35, the along-wind acceleration was found to become normative. Next, for all Pareto optimal building designs, the ULS check was found to be normative over the SLS check. Lastly, the mass of the Pareto optimal timber building designs was found to be approximately 8 times smaller than their respective concrete design alternatives, resulting in a foundation with less construction costs and shadow costs.