EBOOK - Structures & Architecture - ICSA 2010 (Paulo J. S. Cruz)

Since the end of the 19th century, structural engineering applied to the domain of the great architecture has come to be one of the most appealing areas of creativity in the field of resistant structures, in parallel with those of bridges and great industrial buildings and energy plants, which are presently going through a full evolution.
The relationship between Architecture and Structural Engineering has experienced in recent times a remarkable transformation, on account of the frantic race for originality, surprise or media impact, which the private or political powers demand for landmark projects worldwide.
At present, and as a result of the impulse which the relatively recent introduction of the computer has promoted into the unrestrained genesis of unprecedented architectural forms, this Architecture-Structural Engineering (A-S) relationship reaches a high level of mutual involvement.
An increasing number of these forms could be defined as “free”, not adjusted or far from structurally sound arrangements, which on the contrary, would be defined as “harmonized” geometries and which, in a maximum level of resistant effectiveness, would constitute what the author refers to as “canonical” forms.

This comes to configure the delicate situation in which we, the structural engineers, presently find ourselves, greatly being subjected to the “empire of the form” and which has monopolized the field of landmark buildings, hence needing a refined and thorough structural processing for their concretion. On the contrary, and as a favourable outcome, this processing is undoubtedly giving rise to interesting innovations and work trends.
Therefore, the A-S collaboration now raises a large set of questions and reflections about the different action possibilities, among which the following are to be highlighted:
− How should the structural engineer approach the resistant problem posed by these free forms?
− Is it adequate that the structural engineer grants maximum freedom of treatment during the genesis of these free forms to the architect and later try to fit in the best resistant arrangement, with great effort? Or must he try to restrain this freedom of the architect in order to reach a compromise between the absolute free form and one which improves the low structural adequacy of this kind of forms to acceptable principles?
− Looking at the real cost of making resistant this originality, to what extent the search for originality has to be primordial or consented?
− What should be the engineer’s position in the judgment and attitude towards the architectural forms which claim a structural solution which is particularly special, difficult or complex?
It is the aim of this paper to give a brief synthesis of the positions the author upholds when answering to all these and many more questions, as well as the attitudes with which they have to be approached. This synthesis focuses on two fundamental proposals (both in terms and ideas):
1.  Canonicity and Tensibility: Proficiency
2.  Constructivity and self-construction: Suitability 8
which allow expressing these views on the subject of the appealing domain of civil engineering.

LINK DOWNLOAD

Since the end of the 19th century, structural engineering applied to the domain of the great architecture has come to be one of the most appealing areas of creativity in the field of resistant structures, in parallel with those of bridges and great industrial buildings and energy plants, which are presently going through a full evolution.
The relationship between Architecture and Structural Engineering has experienced in recent times a remarkable transformation, on account of the frantic race for originality, surprise or media impact, which the private or political powers demand for landmark projects worldwide.
At present, and as a result of the impulse which the relatively recent introduction of the computer has promoted into the unrestrained genesis of unprecedented architectural forms, this Architecture-Structural Engineering (A-S) relationship reaches a high level of mutual involvement.
An increasing number of these forms could be defined as “free”, not adjusted or far from structurally sound arrangements, which on the contrary, would be defined as “harmonized” geometries and which, in a maximum level of resistant effectiveness, would constitute what the author refers to as “canonical” forms.

This comes to configure the delicate situation in which we, the structural engineers, presently find ourselves, greatly being subjected to the “empire of the form” and which has monopolized the field of landmark buildings, hence needing a refined and thorough structural processing for their concretion. On the contrary, and as a favourable outcome, this processing is undoubtedly giving rise to interesting innovations and work trends.
Therefore, the A-S collaboration now raises a large set of questions and reflections about the different action possibilities, among which the following are to be highlighted:
− How should the structural engineer approach the resistant problem posed by these free forms?
− Is it adequate that the structural engineer grants maximum freedom of treatment during the genesis of these free forms to the architect and later try to fit in the best resistant arrangement, with great effort? Or must he try to restrain this freedom of the architect in order to reach a compromise between the absolute free form and one which improves the low structural adequacy of this kind of forms to acceptable principles?
− Looking at the real cost of making resistant this originality, to what extent the search for originality has to be primordial or consented?
− What should be the engineer’s position in the judgment and attitude towards the architectural forms which claim a structural solution which is particularly special, difficult or complex?
It is the aim of this paper to give a brief synthesis of the positions the author upholds when answering to all these and many more questions, as well as the attitudes with which they have to be approached. This synthesis focuses on two fundamental proposals (both in terms and ideas):
1.  Canonicity and Tensibility: Proficiency
2.  Constructivity and self-construction: Suitability 8
which allow expressing these views on the subject of the appealing domain of civil engineering.

LINK DOWNLOAD

Chuyên mục: C. Bài giảng C. Bài giảng chuyên ngành Kiến trúc - Xây dựng (Architecture & Building) C. Bài giảng kỹ thuật