Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Structure as architecture final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Structure as architecture final

2,155

Published on

structure as architecture..............

structure as architecture..............

Published in: Engineering, Technology, Business
1 Comment
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,155
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
470
Comments
1
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. STRUCTURE AS ARCHITECTURE HASHIM K ABDUL AZEEZ SD 0412 Center for Environmental Planning & Technology School of Building Science & Technology
  • 2. Outline  Introduction  The Ever Changing Relationship between Architecture and Structure  Treatment of form in Structural Engineering  Relationship between Structural Form and Architectural form  Structures and Architecture in tall buildings  Designing Bridges – Structural and Architectural concept  The concepts of the Architects and Structural Engineers to the present challenges – Sustainability and Earthquake Resistant Structures.  Multidisciplinary Design  Conclusion
  • 3. Introduction  Structures in past- designed and built by one person, the Master-Builder.  The Master-Builder was an architect, engineer and constructor, all in one.  Industrialization  Complex constructions and demand increased,.  Material and instruments developed with the technical development.  This made it harder for one person to know everything.  The work divided between the architect, the many different engineers, and the builder.  With the distribution of work came other problems.  The greatest - the communication between the different professions.  For the technical development of new architecture in the future and for the technical development in the construction - necessary for architects and engineers to work together much closer, both in the school and out on the field.
  • 4. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure  The relationship between architects and structural engineers as it has developed from the beginning of the twentieth century until the present day was a period in which very major changes occurred in the world of architecture as architects sought to find modes of visual expression which were appropriate to the Modern age.  Significant change during the period - the development of the technologies of steel and reinforced concrete.  Readily adopted by Architect – incorporated into the new architecture, bringing about changes in the methodologies needed for the design and realization of buildings.  The evolution of a new profession, that of the consulting structural engineer – a practitioner who is responsible for the design of the structural aspects of buildings and who works somewhere along a spectrum of collaborative relationship with architects in order to bring this about.
  • 5. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure  This spectrum ranges –  At one end, engineers who have produced architecture in their own right, working as architects rather than with architects  At the other end, who have sought to form close collaborations with architects and to evolve designs in partnership with them.  Understanding of aesthetic concept - a long debate between architect and structural engineer, because of different assignments and education backgrounds.  The participation of the public – deepen the gap  In the eyes of the public -the art of structures were dominated by the architects while structural engineers has been regard as the one who provide assistance.  Rise of the modern bridge engineering -Aesthetic value of structure has been cited by many structural artists
  • 6. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure The challenge of tradition (1760-1890)  Historical gigantic structures- no scientific basis of their resistant performance.  Up until the19th century, many bridges and other structures -work of architects.  The separation was determined by a change: Industrial revolution the period of stone and timber gave way to the period of metal.  Iron Bridge in 1779 by Abraham Darby III - the skeletal iron offended most architects and their classical values.  The leading civil engineer, such as Telford, Stephenson, Brunel, etc, moved increasingly further - away from architecture and took a strong stand for the independence of engineering.
  • 7. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure The challenge of tradition (1760-1890) (STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)
  • 8. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure From separate to combine (1890-1945)  Mankind suffered world wars twice.- an evolutionary phrase for the formation and crystallization of modern bridge and architecture.  Impact of industrialization and the advent of steel and reinforced concrete- the value of architects and engineers was much closer.  Increasing promotion of steel and reinforced concrete- the contradiction between form and technology is acute.  A number of structures were built under new theory of structure -trying to solve the appearance from a technical view.  Engineers were not restrained to theoretical analysis-developed the theory to suit the form, not the form to suit the theory.  There was no imposition of aesthetic rules in their works- but a strong desire for aesthetic results and great simplicity.
  • 9. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure From separate to combine (1890-1945) (STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)
  • 10. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure Transformation and detachment (1945-1980)  Transformation at earlier phrase - architects seek forms to extend tradition.  World War II destroyed social and economic order -ideas in modern architecture still alive and not so easily defeated.  After World War II - mirrored the willingness to rebuild cultural building and escape from the Modernism.  Many architects stimulated new thinking about technology - did it from the perspective of architecture rather than structure.  In Structural side - a number of ideas so arranged that each succeeding one makes a stronger statement than its predecessor. For eg - cable-stayed bridge is the summation of the process. The clear force flows and new spatial relationship of cable-stayed bridge pushed SA to a new level with series of construction in this type.  Streamlined box girder in suspension bridge not only had superior performance under the wind load, but also brought the girder in cable-stayed and suspension bridge into a more slender era.
  • 11. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure Transformation and detachment (1945-1980) (STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)
  • 12. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure The undergoing combination (1980-2013)  Bridges and buildings built -narrowed the distance between AA and the SA.  The primary work of architects -The search of new form  The architecture of past thirty years demonstrated that architectural design should concern the culture and history.  The use of local materials and expression on local culture - evoked the regional spirit.  High-tech architecture promoted - the machinelike aspects of the building  Dissolving the intellectual boundaries between AA and SA is key to the success, i.e. not only from the architectural view for context and culture but find reasonable load path from a structural view.  Structural engineering in general have had a decisive influence on architecture and structural engineering inventiveness requires the support of rigorous analytical method.  Instead of complex analysis theory, fully embodied the idea of SA and clear aesthetic value in the conceptual design.
  • 13. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure The undergoing combination (1980-2010) (STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)
  • 14. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure  Buildings, bridges and large public facilities - part of human history rather than just manmade structures.  The space and image created by these structures - a direct impact on human behavior and feeling of life.  From Industrial Revolution, the division between architecture and engineering has existed for nearly two centuries.  Never been two parallels - an ever-changing line.  From separate to combine and then separate again, both AA and SA underwent constantly changing.  Every architect has a structural view while every engineer has an architectural concept.  Great architects and structural artist is very few ,while "architect-engineer- artist" combined is still fewer.
  • 15. The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure
  • 16. Treatment of Form in Structural Engineering  Structural engineering applied to the sphere of the great architecture - most attractive areas of creativity in the field of resistant structures.  As of now Structural Engineering – going through a situation of “over- proficiency”: where technicians, who operate via computer programs and spreadsheets with huge capacities and possibilities, are working with little refined knowledge and understanding of the structural behaviour.  The structural engineers are now faced to the challenges of the architectural form – need a refined and thorough structural processing for their concretion.  The three possibilities for the structural engineer‟s approach to the load bearing problems he is faced with due to free forms may be 1) To accept these free forms integrally and constitute them into possibly unsuitable resistant systems – forces elements to comply with the free configurations to transfer the tensional flow of internal stresses but over sizing them in enormous amount.
  • 17. Treatment of Form in Structural Engineering  2) Trying to insert a structural solution into the existing formal space, as intensively accurate and authoritative as possible and with a great load bearing and resistant capacity- Forcibly taking some areas of that space which had been designed for fulfilling building‟s functionality from the architect. 3) To force or slightly modify, as presice as possible, the proposed free form in order to try to approximate the system – quite casual and without real consistent schemes – towards an active-resistant arrangement on behalf of the material of the said system, and this by integrating precisely tuned structural arrangements into the architecture.  The third possibility can lead the process creatively a favorable fulfillment of the solution at optimal cost.  “significant” form of a structure.
  • 18. Treatment of Form in Structural Engineering  It should be compositional, analytical and constructive.  This allows the architect to express himself with a maximum freedom although he later will have to accept to interchange the aspects of structural insufficiency of his formal proposal.  Great architectural structures must be set up with  a tensible thought  vision of constructivity from the very initial moment of their design process.  Tensiblity is “the capacity to use optimally the maximum dimensions of the outline of the building in order to arrange in this space a structural system able to solve the load bearing and construction problems without altering the proposed architectonical spirit by using chiefly canonical arrangements which are auspiciously conditioned and which optimize the internal energy of the bearing system, hereby achieving the optimum efficiency and the least general cost of the structure: methods, materials and erection process.” (STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)
  • 19. Treatment of Form in Structural Engineering  Self constructivity “the evolutive capacity of the substructures which are embedded into the final structure and which could be obtained by cutting or dividing them temporarily”. (STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)  Successive or staged active areas so to enable the system‟s growing progress up to its final state without requiring temporary structures or arrangements except the ones needed for the mobility of these subsystems.  If in the conception of the architectural-structural design of the whole building the self-construction processes are taken into account, the said construction process may merge with the final design.  the constructive process also defines part of the building‟s geometry or image.
  • 20. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  Architectural form - A building‟s external outline or shape, and to a lesser degree references its internal organization and unifying principles.  Form - The shape or three dimensional massing, but also encompasses additional architectural aspects including structural configuration and form, in so far as they may organize and unify an architectural design.  Structural form is a building‟s primary or most visually dominant structural system responsible for maintaining the shape of the building under the influence of the forces, loads and other environmental factors to which it is subjected.  SYNTHESIS OF ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL FORM  Structure defines architectural form and often functions, at least partially, as the building envelope. 1) Shell Structures  Achieve the most pure synthesis of architectural and structural forms.  Resist and transfer loads within their minimal thicknesses.  Rely upon their three-dimensional curved geometry and correct orientation and placement of supports for their adequate structural performance.
  • 21. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  Greenhouses of the Eden Project, Cornwall .  Building blocks - Hexagons,  Outer primary hexagonal steel structure - supplemented by secondary inner layer of tension rods .  Increase in structural depths of the biomes - the diameters of the main hexagon tubes reduced and improve the overall transparency.  The biomes demonstrate the degree of synthesis of forms possible with shell structures
  • 22. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form 2) Fabric Structures/Membrane Structures  Another type of surface structure.  Tensioned fabric initially resists self weight and other loads.  Rely upon their three-dimensional curvatures for structural adequacy.  Thickness and strength must match the expected loads.  Surfaces must be stretched taut to prevent the fabric flapping during high winds.  No distinction between the architectural and the structural forms.  Require additional and separate compression members to create high points over which the fabric can be stretched.  Stellingen Ice Skating Rink and Velodrome, Hamburg - four masts (a tall upright post) that project through the fabric and connect to it by tension cables provide the primary means of compression support . Eight flying struts provide additional high points. From interior cables tensioned between the four outermost masts they thrust upward into the fabric to increase its curvature and improve its structural performance.
  • 23. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  The building interior illustrates clearly the different architectural qualities of the fabric and its linear supporting structure – masts, flying struts and interior steel cables
  • 24. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form 3) Catenaries (a curve formed by a chain hanging freely from two points on the same horizontal level).  Transfer loads to their supports through tension.  Catenaries that support roofs are usually designed so that the roof self weight exceeds the wind suction or uplift pressures that would otherwise cause excessive vertical movement.  Reinforced concrete is chosen as a catenary material for this reason.  The concrete encases the tension steel protectively and provides the exterior and interior surfaces.  Lighter catenary systems are possible provided that wind uplift is overcome with ballast or a separate tie-down system.  Catenary tension members are usually distinct from the cladding and exposed within or outside the building envelope.
  • 25. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  The southern end of the Portuguese Pavilion, a ceremonial plaza 65 m long by 58 m wide is sheltered by a 200 mm thick reinforced concrete catenary slab.  Two porticoes (a roof supported by columns at regular intervals), one at each end, act as massive end-blocks to resist the catenary tension.  Within each portico, nine parallel walls or buttresses resist the large inwards pull from the hanging slab.  It consists of two forms, the catenary and the porticoes.  Both, simple and plain, exemplify synthesis of architectural and structural form.
  • 26. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form 4) Ribbed Structures  It can also become almost synonymous with enclosure where they generate and define architectural form  Their skeletal character often necessitates a separate enveloping system.  Ribs usually cantilever from their foundations or are propped near their bases.  If ribs are inclined from the vertical or curved in elevation they may be propped by other ribs to achieve equilibrium, as in the case of a ribbed dome.  Ribbed structures generally enclose single volumes rather than multi-storey construction.  By restricting the height of these structures effectively to a single storey, designers avoid potentially compromising a pure architectural language of ribs with additional interior load-bearing structure.
  • 27. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  A combination of primary structural ribs and secondary horizontal tubes defines the architectural form of the Reichstag Cupola, Berlin .  Ribs lean against each other via a crowning compression ring.  An internal double helical ramp structure supported off the ribs provides them with additional horizontal stiffness through its in plan ring-beam action  . A circumferential moment-resisting frame lies within the dome surface to resist lateral loads.
  • 28. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form5) Arches  Arches also offer a potential synthesis of architectural and structural form.  Great Glasshouse, Carmarthenshire, arches form a toroidal dome .  The dome‟s two constant orthogonal radii of curvature require that the arches distant from the building‟s centre line lean over in response to the three dimensional surface curvature.  Clarity of the arched structural form is undiminished by the small diameter tubes that run longitudinally to tie the arches back at regular intervals to a perimeter ring beam. Apart from supporting the roof glazing they also prevent the arches from buckling laterally and deflecting from their inclined planes.
  • 29. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form 6) Framed Structures  Synthesis of architectural and structural form extends beyond curved forms.  Most orthogonal beam-column frameworks integrate well within prismatic architectural forms.  La Grande Arche, Paris, itself a huge open frame when viewed in frontal elevation, comprises a hierarchy of frames .  Along each leg of the frame four equally spaced five-storey internal mega-frames rise to support the roof.  Each mega-frame storey is subdivided into seven intermediate floor levels.
  • 30. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  The long-span roof and the plinth structure that spans over numerous subterranean tunnels are also framed – in the form of three-storey deep vierendeel trusses.  Vierendeel truss elements are exposed within the roof exhibition areas.
  • 31. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form 7) Walls  Another structural system capable of participating in the integration of architectural and structural forms.  The Faculty of Journalism, Pamplona, walls not only dominate its façades, but also define interior spaces .  In some areas of the building horizontal slots force the walls to span horizontally and function structurally like beams.  Inside and out, walls dominate the architectural experience.  Any possible blandness arising from this architecture of walls is mitigated by exterior elevational and interior spatial variation, careful attention to surface textures, and the lightening of the concrete colour.  The rectilinear form of the walls strengthens the orthogonal architecture they support, enclose and subdivide.
  • 32. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form
  • 33. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  Most buildings fall into this category where the architectural and structural forms will not synthesize.  Rather, a comfortable and usually unremarkable relationship exists between them.  Often several different structural systems co-exist within the same architectural form. For example, frames and cross-bracing might resist gravity and lateral loads respectively.  CONSONANT FORM  Although their forms cannot be considered synthesized, they are nonetheless highly integrated.
  • 34. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  From the perspective of its architectural form, the European Institute of Health and Medical Sciences building, Guildford, represents a higher level of complexity.  In plan the building approximates a triangle with a rounded apex, in elevation the area above the main entry rises like a blunted ship‟s prow  The roundedness of the prow in plan also appears in section at the roof level where a curved eaves area softens the architectural form.
  • 35. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  Several materials and systems constitute the structure.  Vertical reinforced concrete walls concentrate in the front and rear plan areas and provide lateral stability and columns elsewhere in plan support the weight of up to five flat-slab suspended floors.  Inclined columns follow the building envelope profile to prop the cantilevering prow.  Curved glue-laminated portal frames in the top floor achieve the exterior roundness of the roof form, and inside they strengthen the maritime metaphor implied by the architectural form
  • 36. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  CONTRASTING FORM  Architectural and structural forms contrast where a juxtaposition of architectural qualities such as geometry, materiality, scale and texture are observed.  Geometric dissimilarity between forms is the most common quality contrasted.  An element of surprise is a feature common to buildings with contrasting forms.  If the actual form is considerably different from what is anticipated then it is likely that architectural and structural forms contrast.  Well-designed contrasting forms provide many opportunities for innovative and interesting architecture.  Most examples of contrasting forms can be attributed to designers attempting to enliven their work, but occasionally reasons arise from practical rather than theoretical considerations.
  • 37. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  CONTRASTING FORM  Evident at the geometrically challenging Stealth Building, Los Angeles.  The architectural form itself transforms along the building‟s length – from a triangular cross- section at the northern end to a conventional rectilinear shape at the south .  Southern end - Moment-resisting frames and relate closely to the reasonably rectilinear form of that area.  North end-four columns support two longitudinal trusses that carry the second floor, the mezzanine and the roof.
  • 38. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  Trusses enable the building to span over an outdoor sunken theatre and maintain the proscenium (an arch framing the opening between the stage and the auditorium) through its rear wall into the building behind.  Central area which accommodates vertical circulation and bathrooms - steel tubes on an axis angled to the main structural axes support cantilevered triangulation to which light-weight eaves and balcony construction is attached.
  • 39. The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form  Apart from these structural elements, structure maintains an orthogonality that flies in the face of the angled lines and the sloping planar surfaces of the building enclosure.  Floor plate geometry does not follow the lines of structural support but rather ignores the generally rational structural layout to satisfy the goal of completing the global geometrical transformation.  Structure and construction clash, but both systems maintain their integrity and independence .  The reality of most architectural design practice is that structure rarely generates architectural form, but rather responds to it in a way that meets the programme and ideally is consistent with design concepts.  No one category or attitude to the relationship between forms is inherently preferable to another
  • 40. Structures and Architecture in Tall Buildings  Tall buildings - accumulation of the most advanced building technologies due to their extreme height.  The role of structures is more important in tall buildings than any other building type due to the “premium for height.  Breakthrough technologies allowed the emergence of a new building type, tall buildings, and eventually led to a new architectural style through the aesthetic aspiration of architects who wanted to transform technological products into their aesthetic ideology.  While this new style at its culminating phase is still a mainstream design direction, many branch-out trends have been prevalent in tall building design.  These design approaches of architects accompany the technological evolutions enabled by the efforts of engineers.
  • 41. Structures and Architecture in Tall Buildings  The impact of technology is significant in tall buildings due to their extreme heights.  Technology tends to govern the design of tall buildings more than that of other building types.  This may conflict with architectural aspects of tall buildings.  Good design involves resolving this possible conflict.  It depends on the capability of architects and engineers to transform any present challenges like earthquake resistance into the potentiality of enhanced synergistic design integration toward higher quality built environments.
  • 42. Designing Bridges- Structural and Architectural Concept  A bridge built to - provide passage over an obstacle.  Bridge stands up defining a form in space, and in that sense could be said to be a sculpture.  But due to th practical implications-a bridge cannot be regarded, let alone designed, the way sculptures are.  Most fundamental requirement for structural design-Knowledge of actions to be considered, of structural materials proprieties and their structural behaviour, and of how forces and their values are generated in the various structural elements.  The inherent responsibility of design and the vital and dominant task of the structure- imply the person detaining that knowledge plays a central role in the design of a bridge.  Whatever the structure and regardless of equipment or decorative elements to be added, the definition of the structure signifies an architectonic form is created.
  • 43. Designing Bridges- Structural and Architectural Concept  Equilibrium and resistance govern the structure, but the resulting structure articulates an architectonic concept.  The aesthetic value of that structure refers to its architectonic form.  BRIDGE DESIGN - STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS  Although equilibrium and resistance guide the design of a bridge, construction and maintenance costs are major constraints.  Talent in the design of a bridge is displayed in the weight given to each factor and in the definition of the multi-objective optimization criterion, but art comes in the subjective synthesis of so many factors and objectives.  Structural Engineers are best at weighing the design factors and at balancing the optimization multi-objectives but feel uncomfortable at the irrational and subjective parts of the synthesis.  Architects are very able at the irrational and subjective parts of the synthesis and understand better dimensions and proportions in space.
  • 44. Designing Bridges- Structural and Architectural Concept  Since Architects know little of the structural designing factors, they feel free at a more speculative design approach.  But because they do not master the fundamental and safety design factors, Architects should not take the leading role in bridge design.  Only Structural Engineers are expected to be equipped for the design of a structure to guarantee equilibrium and resistance.  BRIDGE AESTHETICS  Aesthetics can be neither a design factor nor an explicit component in the bridge design multi-purpose objective.  The aesthetics of a bridge must spring from the well-balanced synthesis of all factors affecting the subjectivity of beauty, where decorative elements may take a significant role.  The “Pedro e Inês” footbridge embodies the fusion of all the various issues, whether social, artistic or technical, resulting in an achievement of natural harmony between the beauty of the architectural concept and the demand for an innate meeting point in the social life of Coimbra.
  • 45. Designing Bridges- Structural and Architectural Concept  Multiple arched structural solution. The decision to convert it into two half- bridges resulted from an evolutionary process arising out of extensive research into the feasibility of various geometric alternatives, since concerns existed about its inherent potential lack of balance and about an apparent loss of structural efficiency. Conclusion was reached that the adopted geometry exhibits various advantages in its structural response, especially with regard to transversal motion. An original architectural concept converges with an unchangeable structural objective. 
  • 46. Designing Bridges- Structural and Architectural Concept  It reveals the very special solution designed for this bridge. Both deck and arch split in two halves and shift transversally into parallel alignments with the two decks united along 12 m in the centre of the bridge. This bridge is more of a framed structure than of an arch, with the two semi-arches in each half-bridge, together with the deck, defining two triangular frames supporting each other transversally. Therefore, structural response of the bridge resistance system depends upon the relationship between the rigidity of the two large triangular cells and the rigidity of the arch/foundation set.
  • 47. Designing Bridges- Structural and Architectural Concept  The bridge is very much prone to vibrations induced by pedestrians. The conclusion was that the adopted geometry exhibits various advantages in its structural response, especially with regard to transversal motion.
  • 48. Concept of Architects and Structural Engineers to Present challenges  When Architects talks about the present challenge , it would be Sustainable Forms and to the Structural Engineers , it would be Earthquake Resistant structures.  In present scenario, Architect is abide to look after the seismic criteria and the Structural Engineer the Sustainable criteria of the structure.  Sustainable design- implies many factors such as environmental friendliness, energy competence, functionality, adaptability and efficient use of world‟s resources.  Sustainable design is not only the realization of an architect‟s vision, but also the notion of the structural engineering regulation.  As a result of close cooperation between architects and structural engineers, many brilliant and elegant structures have been built all over the world in the years.  On the other hand, with the increasing concern over the environment the architects and structural engineers find themselves once again faced with new challenges.
  • 49. Concept of Architects and Structural Engineers to Present challenges  If a structure is not well designed to survive extremely devastating earthquakes, in the economical life of the structure, it will either need to be strengthened or demolished to be rebuilt.  Considering the new material which will be consumed for these operations, the environmental effects will be high from the view point of sustainable construction.  With this respect, earthquake disaster reduction and sustainable development have equally supportive goals.  Technological developments to support earthquake resistant design such as seismic isolations, dampers, durable and flexible structural systems are practical solutions to mitigate the risks against earthquake hazards.  If properly designed they may lead to structures that are more efficient in materials and also potentially earthquake resistant without the need for either straightening or demolishing for rebuilding.
  • 50. Concept of Architects and Structural Engineers to Present challenges  Structural engineers have the opportunity to play an even larger role for the achievement of sustainability in building developments - adopting a life-cycle approach from planning, design, construction, destruction, and operation of the buildings especially in the earthquake prone areas.  The choice of materials design and construction method - major bearing on the constructability, consumption and maintenance requirements which structural engineers should carefully consider from sustainability point of view.  The structural system recognized as one of the fundamental parameters in controlling the response to strong seismic activities.  The structural system is the parameter having a crucial influence on the dynamic behavior .  Architects are primarily responsible for structural system selection. They determine the overall form of a building and, with input from structural engineers, determine the structural design to suit building function and planning requirements as well as to express their architectural concepts .
  • 51. Multi Disciplinary Designs  The integration of architecture and structural design in a symbiotic fashion results in the generation of unprecedented built form.  Working relationships - profound impact on the project and are mainly responsible for its final form.  The conventional practices - a prescriptive approach that serves to realize the architect‟s image of the project but does not address the underlying ideas of how one structures a project.  Architect is charged with the conceptualization and idealization of the project which closely followed by the generation of images that capture the „Character and Quality‟ of the built form.  Role of the structural engineer - to develop a structural system that serves to realize the architects‟ initial image of the project.  From the start this process disjointed and does not allow the architect and engineer to work in a collaborative manner  Separates their task in a linear process flow.
  • 52. Multi Disciplinary Designs  The architect is provide „a „preliminary design‟ illustrating the scale and relationship of the project components‟ during the schematic design phase  Subsequently follows with the addition of structural systems in the later phases of project development.  Two key features of this design process  First - the process employs a hierarchical relationship between team members. The architect assumes the top position of this hierarchy while the roles of the other team members serve to support the role of the architect.  Secondly - this process employs a linear form of development - the concepts and ideas are first initiated by the architect in which subsequent development occurs downstream by the supporting project team members.  This process of design summarised in architectural competitions -the time constraints hyper realize these working conventions of the profession.  The Architect generates the organization and form of the building followed by the production of compelling images which serve to impress and sell the jury.
  • 53. Multi Disciplinary Designs  The role of the engineer - to verify to the architect whether or not the architectural proposal is structurally feasible.  Long way from a thorough investigation of how one might reinvent a structural system for a particular building.  Since the shape of the building is directly related to the structure which holds it together - the structural system of the building is basically designed when the shape is designed.  Important for architect and structural engineer to work together early in the design process in order to design architectural shape and structure together.  Multi-disciplinary versus mono-disciplinary creativity  The work of the structural engineer - an incomputable creative part (e.g. designing the structural system) and of a computable scientific part (e.g. dimensioning a structural element).  Designing the structural system - engineer operates within the logics, objectives and culture of the engineering field.  The same for the architect when designing the architectural shape.
  • 54. Multi Disciplinary Designs  Mono-disciplinary creativity - the design step is taken considering the logics, objectives and culture of only one discipline.  This occurs when the design process develops through a sequence of single solution propositions (e.g. a dimensioned structure) in answer to precise defined questions from the opposite field (e.g. to dimension the structure for an already designed shape).  The collaboration between architect and engineer -mainly a negotiation of the volumetric dimensions of the architectural shape and the structure.  Multi-disciplinary design  Architect and structural engineer design architectural shape and structure together.  Not dealing with pure numerical problems, and the overall evaluations of the design result is not quantifiable.  One of the techniques to come to a multi-disciplinary design optimisation-the use of a range of design solutions instead of a single design solution during negotiation between different disciplines.
  • 55. Multi Disciplinary Designs  This range of solutions obtained by keeping certain design parameters undecided, and mathematically defining objectives that holds a design optimization within a specific discipline.  When all disciplines involved propose such a range of solutions - software is then able to optimize the undecided design parameters to find an optimized design result.  The collaboration process were each different profession proposes a single design solution - risks to eliminate this optimized design result because some design parameters are chosen without the necessary expertise of the other professions involved.  But even though the design optimisation cannot be quantified for the overall architectural design, the architect still decides which design proposal meets best the different objectives .  Keeping this range of design solutions large during the different negotiations enables the different professions to provide additional discipline specific information without narrowing down the design possibilities too early in the process.
  • 56. Multi Disciplinary Designs  This method of collaboration can be applied to all professions involved in designing architecture.  Proposing a range of design solutions requires that several design decisions still have to be taken.  Therefore the collaboration between the two professions needs to be early in the design process: architectural shape and structure still need to be designed.  A range of architectural and structural design solutions can be obtained through the use of conceptual propositions instead of the dimensioned and materialized single solution.  A structural or architectural concept mainly determines the objectives of the design proposition without being too detailed or specific.  Communication during design collaboration  The understanding of the structural or architectural concept as a range of design solutions, is embedded in the specific terminology, logic and culture of the according discipline.  For the architect to understand the structural concept, he must possess sufficient structural knowledge, and vice versa for the structural engineer.
  • 57. Multi Disciplinary Designs  The communication between architect and engineer will only be successful if they possess the same –internal- „system of thoughts‟ and understand the same -external- „system of symbols‟ on this mutual ground of structural and architectural knowledge .  During this collaboration different kind of representations are used with different purposes: consultation drawings to a response, diagrams –very reductive and simplifying properties to reflect, and proposition drawings to put down in order to stand back and look at it .  These drawings are often accompanied with verbal explanations.  The heart of the design process lays in these proposition drawings : proposing one particular solution concept.  This is then evaluated, and thereby the design problem further analysed in order to generate a better design proposal.  For architect and engineer to operate both at the core of designing structure and architecture, it is important to understand each other‟s propositions or conjectures which are embedded in the different disciplines.
  • 58. Multi Disciplinary Designs  Conditions for multi-disciplinary creativity  Multi-disciplinary design intends to avoid unnecessary conflicts during design negotiation between the different professions- use of a range of design solutions instead of the single design solution.  Major conflicts - often a result of conflicting architectural and structural volumes and objectives.  Through the use of conceptual design propositions this can be countered.  Sufficient understanding of the opposite proposition on the level of its volume and objectives.  These objectives are to be understood within the terminology, culture and logic of the discipline.  The objectives of the opposite field should be incorporated in the design process of the own field.  This lead to a design proposition that fits within these opposite objectives and thus avoiding negotiation conflicts,  Also provide inspiration to the own design process and open unexpected possibilities to the opposite design process.
  • 59. Multi Disciplinary Designs  In this communication it is important to present the design proposition through a filter: unnecessary information is best avoided to keep the focus on the essence.  What should be conveyed of the design proposition are those characteristics that matter to the design process in the opposite discipline, and the essence of the proposition within the own discipline.
  • 60. Multi Disciplinary Designs  This collaboration should start early in the design process when shape and structure are not designed yet and with open questions and answers, letting creativity take place in the field of the expert-collaborator.
  • 61. Conclusions  Architects, who have recently been in the vanguard of structural inventiveness in their architecture, have been so only because of the support of engineers, yet the public's appreciation of the engineer has been severely limited by the media's sole promotion of the architects.  Engineers should not ignore their creative dimension, waiting for some architects to decorate their construction.  Function and art like the content and spirit of a structure is inseparable, which are directly related to human lives.  If we decide to build a "immortal" building by damaging the environment, the nature one day will take this "immortal" away in a more devastating way.  The great masters and their works from two areas modified the line of AA and SA, guiding their followers to narrow the gap between AA and SA.  So, architects and engineers should not treat the future design as product of technology, but crystallization of human intelligence.
  • 62. Conclusions  Only architecture is not enough while engineering alone was insufficient.  The combination of AA and SA now will answer the call to build more "Landmark" structures.  We need more "form giver" not just "form taker".  No matter how much differences between AA and SA now - the ultimate goal for man-made structures-the manifestation of human spirit.  Architecture and Structural Engineering have both had their own historical development, their interaction has led to the many fascinating and delightful existing structures nowadays.  There is still the need to stimulate the creative and original design of architectural structures and to persuade architects and structural engineers to further collaborate in this process and to take advantage of constructive principles and aesthetic and static values jointly.
  • 63. Conclusions  Future engineers and architects should ignore the major boundary during the college learning.  It is better to bring architecture and engineering student together in some major courses, like design theory or aesthetics.  Why not remove professional barriers to some extent by the discussion or even dispute during college?  As for engineering student, the knowledge from architectural semiotics the (study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation), psychology, phenomenology (an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience) is as important as structural analysis.  History of AA and SA should be a compulsory course rather than optional one.  Architects require knowing the theory of structures for a masterpiece of AA while some engineers do need architectural concept to complete the outstanding works of SA.
  • 64. Conclusions  Actually, the ultimate goal for us is not AA or SA, but the art of human.  The triumph in the age of information not depends on how much knowledge you obtain but how best use of it.  Apart from the information- Important for architects and engineers to unify their commitment and ethics - how to face the aging structure in ever- changing environment, mitigate disasters and terrorism, improve the aesthetic value of city.
  • 65. References  Structures and Architecture, Paulo J.S Cruz  Structure in Architecture, Row law J, Mainstone  Structure and Architecture, Angus J Macdonald  The Architecture of Complex Systems: Do Core- periphery Structures Dominate?, Alan MacCormack, Carliss Baldwin , John Rusnak  Structure as Architecture, Louise Pedersen and Jonas Taljsten  Structure as Architecture, Andrew W Charleson

×