The Tectonics of Structural Systems

An Architectural Approach

Yonca Hurol

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317518556
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

The Tectonics of Structural Systems provides an architectural approach to the theory of structural systems. The book combines:

• structural recommendations to follow during the architectural design of various structural systems and

• 
  
  

• the tectonic treatment of structural recommendations in architecture.

• 
  
  

Written expressly for students, the book makes structures understandable and useful, providing:

• practical and useful knowledge about structures

• 
  
  

• a design based approach to the subject of structures and

• 
  
  

• a bridge in the gap between structures and the theory of design.

• 
  
  

Good architectural examples for each structural system are given in order to demonstrate that tectonics can be achieved by applying technical knowledge about structures. Over 300 illustrations visually unpack the topics being explained, making the book ideal for the visual learner.

1

Introduction

System,

Structural system,

Tectonics,

Tectonics of structural systems.

It is first necessary to explain what the author understands from these concepts.

EXPLANATION OF KEY CONCEPTS

The concept of ‘system’ implies the presence of some parts within a whole and the presence of an organisational relationship between these parts (Checkland, 1981). Modern buildings can be analysed as combinations of various systems from a technical point of view. The best way of understanding these parts within buildings is to overview the professions that take place within a building team. Even a small building team contains an architect, a structural engineer or a civil engineer (a structural engineer specialises only in structures whereas a civil engineer has a wider area of knowledge including transportation and water structures), a mechanical engineer and an electrical engineer. Sometimes the team becomes larger with the inclusion of an interior architect, a landscape designer or an acoustic engineer. The structural engineer designs the building structure together with the architect. The mechanical engineer designs the clean water system, the dirty water system, the sewage system, the ventilation/heating/air-conditioning system and elevator/escalator systems together with the architect. The electrical engineer designs the electrical systems within the building together with the architect and the mechanical engineer. The architect is involved within all systems’ design processes and s/he is the coordinator of the building team. The architect is responsible for the holistic design of the building, including the functional and artistic issues of architecture and design, and coordination of the building systems.

The structure system is the part of the building that carries all the loads affecting the building. A structural element carries its own weight, the weight of other building parts and its share from all other loads affecting the building. A non-structural element carries only its own weight and loads. Thus, the structural system is specialised to carry loads in the building including dead weight, wind load and earthquake load.

Most probably you are reading this book sitting in a building. If you look at the building elements surrounding you, you might differentiate at least some of these building systems and the structural system. You can see some pipes or shafts. You can see some devices to control the heat. You can see some plugs, switches and lighting fixtures. There might be some columns or walls belonging to the structural system. There might also be some beams and slabs. Even if they are plastered and painted, you can differentiate the presence of different materials by hitting these elements with a metal ring on one of your fingers.

This book is about structural systems in architecture. It does not cover mechanical and electrical systems. However, this book does not handle structural systems as an isolated entity. It covers structural systems as they are needed in architectural design. This means that this book has to cover knowledge of structures, which is a quantitative type of knowledge determining what is right and what is wrong; and the systematic knowledge of design, which helps in transforming the quantitative knowledge of structures into qualitative knowledge to judge functionality and aesthetics of the building elements. The individual parts that take place within a system are important, but the whole is also important. This book bridges the gap between analytical knowledge about structures and artistic knowledge about architecture.

In order to handle the artistic knowledge of architecture in a systematic way, this book introduces the concept of tectonics. Tectonics in architecture (or architectonics) is a holistic and qualitative approach to artistic use of technology in architecture. Thus, the tectonics of structural systems means the role of the structure system within the artistic use of all systems and other physical entities that take place in architectural design. Tectonics covers the artistic use of the following physical entities (Şahali, 2009):

• Structure

• Building materials

• Details

• Mechanical systems

• Electrical systems

• Information technology

• Construction methods

• Topography/context (physical and social)

• Climatic response of the building

• Technology and culture relationship

• Light.

This list can be enlarged by adding other issues, such as acoustic precautions.

In a good architectural project, all of these physical entities are in the service of tectonics. Each might have equal roles or one/two/three of them might be more dominant in achieving the tectonic quality of the building. For example, Santiago Calatrava’s Auditorio de Tenerife in Spain exaggerates the structural system in order to achieve the tectonic qualities of the building. All other systems in the building are in the service of the tectonics achieved through the structure. (You can search the internet to see images of this building). Louis Kahn’s Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad in Gujarat, India, exaggerates the use of bricks as the main structural material to achieve tectonic qualities. Thus, the materials and the structure are dominant in achieving this building’s tectonic value. Carlo Scarpa’s Museo di Castelvecchio in Verona, Italy, is famous for the details of reinforced concrete elements and its stairs. Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers’ Centre Pompidou in Paris, France, uses all mechanical systems in the building to represent the tectonic idea. Every colour, especially at the back facade of the building, shows the presence of a different system. On the other hand, all the buildings in New York Times Square, USA, are covered with electronic screens that are used for advertising and artistic purposes. (You can search the internet for the night view of New York Times Square in order to see the screens’ contribution to the quality of space for the whole square.) Type of formwork used in reinforced concrete buildings affects the tectonic qualities of those buildings. Thus, the construction method might affect the tectonics of the building. The integration of topography and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water in Pennsylvania, USA, can be seen as one of the dominant tectonic ideas behind this building. Renzo Piano’s Tjibaou Cultural Center in Noumea, New Caledonia, responds to the climate in a tectonic way by interpreting the vernacular technology. This building is also an example of interpretation of vernacular technology to achieve a cultural relationship with the existing context. Finally, Tadao Ando’s Church of Light and Sunday School in Osaka, Japan, is one of the best examples of the use of openings/light in order to achieve the tectonic qualities of the building.

The concept of ‘tectonics of structural systems’ often makes people think about buildings which were designed by Santiago Calatrava and Zaha Hadid because structure is the dominant contributor to the tectonic qualities of their projects. However, all good examples of architecture can be analysed in terms of their structures’ contribution to tectonics whether or not structure is the dominant contributor. If another building system and/or environmental characteristic is dominant within the tectonics of the building, structure is still contributing to this tectonic quality. It can be in harmony with the tectonic quality or make a contrast with it. Thus, all good examples of architecture can be analysed in terms of tectonics of their structural systems. This means that the contribution of structure to the buildings’ tectonics is equally discussible for Santiago Calatrava’s State Hermitage Museum in Russia (see Figure 1.1) and Richard Murphy’s Circus Lane House in the UK (see Figure 1.2). The first building uses structure in order to achieve a sculptural form, whilst the other building integrates masonry and frame systems in order to achieve larger openings without losing the contextual value of the building that takes place in a historical context of stone buildings. Determining the role of structure within the tectonic qualities of buildings is one of the interest areas of this book.

How does structure affect the design concept (or the image) of the building?

How does structure affect the architectural space?

How does structure affect the relationship between the building and its context?

To start bridging the gap between the structural system (analytical) and tectonics (balance between the artistic and technology), it can be stated that each structural system has a potential (or tendency) to make certain contributions to the tectonic qualities of buildings. This potential/tendency can be studied with the help of the concept of ‘structural guidelines’. Structural guidelines are whatever structural engineers recommend for the design of a structural system from the perspective of values such as safety and/or economy, and they determine the potential of that structural system to achieve tectonic qualities. For example, having the beam and column dimensions close to each other in reinforced concrete frame systems in earthquake regions is a structural recommendation that takes place within structural guidelines. Not having steel frame systems in a building over 30 storeys is another structural recommendation.

1.1 A sketch of Santiago Calatrava’s State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, 2012 (drawn with the help of URL1, 2012)

1.2 A sketch of Richard Murphy’s Circus Lane House, Edinburgh, 2006 (drawn with the help of URL2, 2006)

Although all structural guidelines have a quantitative basis, they can also be related to the qualitative value system of tectonics. The quantitative and quantitative value systems start to be related when the sanction power of recommendations that take place within structural guidelines is questioned. It is known that designers do not follow all structural guidelines strictly. There are many successful buildings that do not follow some structural guidelines. For example, the 102-storey Empire State Building in New York, USA, which was completed in 1931, has a steel frame system. Yet, from an economy standpoint, buildings with rigid steel frame systems should not be used for more than around 30 storeys.

On the other hand, there are many successful buildings for which structural guidelines have been followed consistently. This means that it is somehow optional whether designers choose to follow structural guidelines. This is the point at which the value system of structural engineers and architects differ from each other. Structural engineers try to guarantee safety and economy, whilst architects try to achieve safety (firmitas), functionality (utilitas), aesthetics (venustas) and expected level of economy simultaneously. What architects and structural engineers understand from ‘economy’ can also differ. Structural engineers’ value system is hierarchical: safety is more important than economy. However, all architectural values are equally important and none of them can be sacrificed. It may seem as if there is a contradiction between architects not following some structural recommendations and still needing to achieve safety, but actually there is no contradiction. Either safety is achieved in another way, or the recommendation in the structural guideline is about economy (which has less sanction power in comparison to other structural recommendations about safety).

Architects need to classify recommendations within structural guidelines according to their sanction power. This shift from the quantitative value system (of right and wrong) into the qualitative value system as regards the structural recommendations (to follow them, leave them, replace them, compensate for them or transform them) forms the interface between quantitative and qualitative in building design. It is urgent for architects and structural engineers to explain the nature of this shift from quantitative to qualitative that is very common within modern architecture.

There are structural guidelines in one hand and there are tectonics of architecture in the other hand. The nature of each is different and also the nature of their combination. Following structural guidelines forms the structural engineering poin...