Allocate timber by value.
Higher-priority areas justify a denser weave, while lower-priority areas can use wider spacing or fewer beams.
01 · The design question
Use less material, more deliberately.
A large canopy of intersecting timber beams shelters a pavilion of approximately 20 × 20 m. A uniform weave would spend the same amount of material everywhere, even though different areas perform very differently. The study identifies where denser structure is justified and where wider spacing can reduce timber demand while preserving shade and daylight.
Create a measurable baseline.
A spatial density strategy makes timber quantities traceable, ready to be paired with product data for embodied carbon accounting.
Keep useful openness.
Removing unnecessary density reduces material and opens more of the canopy to daylight and views of the sky.
02 · Build the evidence
Turn exposure into a material map.
Each tested path runs between a point on the pavilion facade and a solar direction. Where that path crosses the canopy plane, the study records one intersection. Repeating the test reveals which parts of the canopy do more environmental work, creating evidence for where timber density can increase or decrease.
- 1
Start at the facade
A sample point on the pavilion facade is tested against a solar direction.
- 2
Find the crossing
Where that path meets the canopy plane, record an intersection.
- 3
Count within each cell
Repeating the test builds up a cell count. Larger circles mark more crossings.
Grasshopper connects the facade sampling points to Ladybug sun vectors. Obstruction checks retain the relevant paths, and Python aggregates their intersections into the canopy cell counts.
03 · Explore the result
Inspect the material priority field.
The map shows 4,960 sampled cells outside the pavilion footprint. Each circle represents a 0.5 × 0.5 m cell, with larger circles indicating stronger evidence for canopy density. Choose the share of exterior ray hits to focus on. The map retains the strongest cells until their combined intersections reach that share, then lets you inspect individual cells.
Loading the interception map…
Material priority evidence
At or above threshold Below threshold Starting canopy Optimized canopy
Solid line: the design team's starting canopy. Dashed line: the optimized outline. Points on or within the pavilion footprint are omitted.
Hover or tap to inspect. With the map focused, use arrow keys to move, Home for the strongest cell, and Escape to unpin.
04 · From data to fabrication
Turn priorities into a buildable timber strategy.
The solid outline is the design team's starting canopy and the dashed outline is the optimized boundary. Within it, layers of crossing beams retain the intended timber character while local spacing translates the priority field into denser and more open fabrication zones.
Starting canopy Optimized canopy
- 1
Refine the perimeter
Remove canopy reach that contributes little before resolving the internal beam pattern.
- 2
Vary the beam spacing
Use the priority field to define denser and more open fabrication zones instead of one uniform weave.
- 3
Track material quantities
Convert the resulting beam layout into quantities that can support cost and embodied emissions comparisons.
05 · Material choices
Less material, considered material choices.
Geometry and material selection address different parts of the same question. The priority field guides where beams can be reduced. A separate life-cycle assessment compares steel and timber structural options, distinguishing production emissions from carbon stored in wood and the reported whole-life outcome.
A different balance at the start.
Timber stores biogenic carbon during growth. Including that storage gives the timber option a negative net upfront balance in this study. Production still causes emissions; the negative total does not mean permanent carbon removal.
Hatched bar: negative net balance including stored biogenic carbon. Solid bar: positive net emissions.
Follow the carbon beyond production.
Stored carbon can return to the atmosphere at the end of a material's life. In the study's reported whole-life comparison, the steel and timber totals are almost equal. The assessment therefore supports examining life-cycle assumptions, rather than declaring a universal material winner.
Both views use the same scale. Values are rounded to tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.
Assessment scope and figures
The original production-stage study uses Ökobaudat data for A1–A3, separating positive production emissions from negative biogenic carbon storage. The later comparison shown here reports totals for the assessed structure, slab and facade; slab and facade values are estimates and the core is not quantified. These are study totals for those elements, not canopy-only results or measured savings from reducing beam density.
| Assessment | Steel | Timber |
|---|---|---|
| Net upfront | 266 | −86 |
| Reported whole life | 268 | 269 |
Source: project material assessment, July 2024, and its later two-page errata. Whole-life totals depend on the study's life-cycle assumptions. A quantity-based comparison of the uniform and varied beam layouts would be needed to establish the density strategy's material, cost and carbon savings.
06 · Project contribution
A clearer material and emissions decision.
The study connects performance, geometry, and fabrication. Refining the outer boundary and varying beam density can reduce timber relative to a uniformly dense canopy while preserving useful shade, daylight, and the layered design character.
The material assessment adds a second layer of evidence: carbon storage and production emissions must be read alongside the reported whole-life outcome. To quantify the density strategy's own savings, beam quantities from the uniform and proposed layouts can be paired with product data and costs.
Services