Theoretical Basis of a Structural Strategy for a Medical Research Cluster

The structural strategy adopted for this medical research cluster, comprising four pavilion-type buildings in a temperate climate, foregrounds long-term adaptability, modular construction, and expressive structural language. Centred around a triangulated steel exoskeleton, the strategy allows the buildings to function as plug-and-play frameworks—accommodating frequent interior reconfigurations without significant structural modification. This approach resonates with emerging trends in healthcare and research architecture that emphasise flexibility, resilience, and prefabrication (Kieran and Timberlake, 2004; Smith, 2010). By decoupling the permanent structural frame from the more transient interior and services infrastructure, this system supports a high-performance environment that is responsive to technological evolution and research innovation. The adoption of prefabricated components, steel shear walls, and diaphragm frames provides a structurally efficient and future-proof backbone to a set of complex, dynamic spaces.

Exoskeleton Structure as Primary Frame

The exoskeleton acts as the primary load-bearing and lateral stability system, supporting floor plates, service cores, glazed roofs, and inclined façades. The triangulated geometry used for the exoskeleton not only improves lateral load resistance but also allows for material optimisation by directing forces through the shortest, most efficient paths (Engel, 2007). This approach reflects principles derived from structural morphology, where expressive geometries serve both aesthetic and performative roles. Triangulated or space-frame geometries distribute loads efficiently, reduce bending moments, and enable larger spans—ideal for creating column-free interior zones for laboratory functions (Menges, 2012). The steel exoskeleton supports long-term adaptability, as it isolates load-bearing functions from fit-out and mechanical systems, a separation that underpins the building’s capacity to absorb future technological changes (Brand, 1994). The use of twin-wall diaphragms in the upper levels, transitioning into reinforced concrete shear walls at lower levels, creates a hybrid structure that balances flexibility with mass and thermal inertia—an important consideration in temperate climates (Herzog et al., 2004). The mass of the concrete base contributes to thermal stability, while the upper steel assembly allows for faster assembly and lightweight construction.

Modular Construction and Plug-in Strategy

Prefabricated modular components—including light-gauge steel floor cassettes, lab pods, service risers, and stair cores—are designed for rapid insertion into the exoskeletal frame. This reflects the principle of mass customisation, where standardised modules are tailored to varying spatial and performance requirements (Lawson et al., 2014). These preassembled modules reduce on-site labour and time, improve construction quality, and minimise disruptions—especially critical in research campuses where adjacent buildings may remain operational. More importantly, they permit selective disassembly and replacement, a cornerstone of circular building design and design for disassembly (DfD) principles (Crowther, 2005). Such modularity aligns with the ‘plug-in’ architecture ideology popularised by Archigram and more recently embraced in high-tech architectural discourse. In this case, plug-in laboratory and service units extend the usable life of the building shell by allowing internal systems to evolve independently of the structure (Kronenburg, 2007).

Adaptive Structural Design and Lifecycle Considerations

The structural system is conceived with change embedded as a design driver. The exoskeleton's permanence contrasts with the shorter life expectancy of MEP systems and internal partitions, offering a model of temporal layering in architecture (Brand, 1994). The ability to reconfigure lab interiors or replace mechanical systems without structural interference directly supports operational continuity in research environments.

Option 1 features a steel frame with corner columns and additional mid-span columns in service zones, which allows for relatively simple slab configurations using prefabricated floor cassettes. This structural rhythm supports integrated service runs, minimising floor-to-floor heights and improving environmental performance.

In Options 2 and 3, the structural cores extend to ground level, contributing not only to vertical load-bearing and lateral stability, but also serving as thermal and air-lock buffers—transitioning users from exterior to controlled interior environments. In Option 3, these cores are partially external, enclosing service zones and staircase elements in ‘backpack’ structures that are thermally regulated using air recovered from upper-level spaces—a highly sustainable solution for temperate climates (Kibert, 2016).

Environmental Integration and Structural Performance

The exoskeleton structure doubles as an environmental mediator. Its configuration supports deep overhangs, shading devices, and inclined glazing systems, which provide both daylighting and solar control—critical for laboratories sensitive to glare and thermal gain. Structural expression thus reinforces environmental performance: form follows performance. Furthermore, the exoskeleton accommodates natural ventilation chimneys, mechanical service risers, and roof-mounted systems without intruding into the adaptable internal space. These provisions align with bioclimatic design principles for temperate zones, where diurnal swings and seasonal variations require careful envelope calibration (Herzog et al., 2004). The material palette—white steel and reinforced concrete—enhances solar reflectivity, while also visually linking the pavilion cluster with other campus buildings, maintaining a cohesive urban language. Structural choices thus support both environmental continuity and institutional identity.

Structural Economy through Standardisation

Though each pavilion differs in height and internal layout, the exoskeleton is standardised across all buildings at the upper levels. This facilitates economies of scale in fabrication, transport, and erection. The column grid and shear wall configuration adapt at lower levels to accommodate site-specific requirements and functional zoning, but are rationalised for continuity through joint detailing and coordinated beam depths. The variable geometry of lower-level structural walls responds to both spatial module dimensions and facade articulation. This introduces opportunities for form sculpting—achieving structural economy not through uniformity but through performance-based variation (Oxman, 2010). This sculptural quality also enhances the public identity of each pavilion, communicating its technical function through structural expression.

Overview

The structural strategy for this medical research cluster reflects a sophisticated alignment of architectural vision, performance requirements, and future adaptability. Through its use of triangulated steel exoskeletons, prefabricated modular systems, and hybrid structural typologies, the project demonstrates how structure can serve as both infrastructure and expression. It embodies key themes in contemporary construction: resilience, modularity, efficiency, and expression—all critical to buildings designed for evolving scientific work in a temperate climate.

References

Brand, S. (1994) How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. New York: Viking.

Crowther, P. (2005) 'Design for disassembly: Themes and principles', Building Research & Information, 33(6), pp. 479–490.

Engel, H. (2007) Structure Systems. Basel: Birkhäuser.

Herzog, T., Krippner, R. and Lang, W. (2004) Facade Construction Manual. Basel: Birkhäuser.

Kibert, C.J. (2016) Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. 4th edn. Hoboken: Wiley.

Kieran, S. and Timberlake, J. (2004) Refabricating Architecture: How Manufacturing Methodologies Are Poised to Transform Building Construction. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kronenburg, R. (2007) Flexible: Architecture That Responds to Change. London: Laurence King.

Lawson, R.M., Ogden, R.G. and Bergin, R. (2014) Design in Modular Construction. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Menges, A. (2012) ‘Material computation: Higher integration in morphogenetic design’, Architectural Design, 82(2), pp. 14–21.

Oxman, R. (2010) 'Performance-based design: Current practices and research issues', International Journal of Architectural Computing, 8(1), pp. 1–17.

Smith, R.E. (2010) Prefab Architecture: A Guide to Modular Design and Construction. Hoboken: Wiley.