structure as architecture final

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.


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


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.


Architecture and Structure

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)


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.



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


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.



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.


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.


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)


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.

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 Form

5) 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