The development of additive manufacturing in steel construction opens new possibilities for shaping structurally efficient and geometrically differentiated load-bearing systems. At the same time, the viability of such solutions depends strongly on their material rationality, especially at the scale of larger structural typologies. This paper presents a computational comparative screening of spatial steel roof typologies that may be relevant for future large-scale metal additive manufacturing, focusing on how global geometry, support arrangement, curvature, and structural depth influence mass efficiency under a unified structural modelling framework. Using computational modelling and comparative evaluation, the study examines how variations in structural form influence the performance of spatial systems developed within a unified design framework. The analysis demonstrates that the potential for material rationalisation of such structures is not limited to local modification of member dimensions, but is fundamentally linked to the configuration of the overall structural geometry. More than 40 structural configurations were analysed, covering seven typological variants, three rise levels, two support strategies, and two section-sizing approaches. An additional threshold sensitivity check was performed for representative variants to examine whether the main typological ranking remained stable under an alternative four-group utilisation classification. The obtained masses varied by more than one order of magnitude between the most and least favourable configurations, confirming the strong influence of global typology and support arrangement on material demand. The results highlight the importance of structural typology, support arrangement, and geometric organisation in achieving material-efficient solutions. The study therefore argues that, in the context of steel structures considered for future additive manufacturing, global form should be treated as a primary design variable rather than as a secondary outcome of local member sizing.
Urbanek et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: