The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure

STRUCTURE
AS
ARCHITECTURE
HASHIM K ABDUL AZEEZ
SD 0412
Center for Environmental Planning & Technology
School of Building Science & Technology

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

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.

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.

 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

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.

The challenge of tradition (1760-1890) (STRUCTURES AND
ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)

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.

From separate to combine (1890-1945) (STRUCTURES
AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)

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.

Transformation and detachment (1945-1980)
(STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)

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.

The undergoing combination (1980-2010) (STRUCTURES
AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz)

 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.

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.

 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.

 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)

 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Structural Form

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Designing Bridges-
 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.

Designing Bridges-
 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.

Designing Bridges-
 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.


Designing Bridges-
 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.

Designing Bridges-
 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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure

Similar to The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Ever Changing Relationship Between Architecture and Structure