Читать книгу Rethinking Prototyping - Группа авторов - Страница 66

During the past decades, the professional profiles of architects and engineers have been increasingly diverging - even though they initially have a common origin. Considering the complexity of building procedures and of specialist knowledge this process is comprehensible; considering the demand for holistic understanding and planning on the other hand, it is destructive.

The profession of the structural engineer is relatively young - compared to other professional profiles, and above all, compared to the history of building. Since the beginning of the ninetennth century, methods of structural analysis have been established and continuously developed. The characteristics of structural analysis can be described as a reduction or de-construction of a building into parts that can be calculated and dimensioned: In order of increasing scale the typical elements are nodes, columns and beams, plates and slabs, cables and arches, frames, shells and membranes. These structural elements can be isolated from a system and are part of a common language of architects and engineers, which can be very useful under diverse aspects: they facilitate communication, and serving as prototypes for the design and construction of a building, they can also support architectural concepts.

On the other hand, thinking in structural prototypes can also mean a loss of intuition and creativity.

From the author‘s point of view, there are two approaches to the analysis and design of structures: classical structural analysis on one side, and the principles of lightweight structures on the other side. The images shown in Fig. 1 represent these two views. Galileo Galilei in the later periods of his life was dealing with mathematics and mechanics and drew this in his „Discorsi e dimonstrationi matematiche“ (Galilei 1638). His cantilever illustrates the thinking in analysable elements. Michell‘s approach in „The Limits of Economy of Material in Frame-Structures“, published in the Philosophical Magazine in 1904, represents another approach: Taking off with a force to be transmitted from A to B, the material layout within a given design space is developed. The construction of structural element is the following step. Michell‘s approach today finds applications in numerical analysis and optimisation.

New design approaches and tools in architecture and engineering contribute to blur the borders of what is architecture and what is engineering. Designers of diverse backgrounds discuss and develop new methods from design development to construction. The method of structural optimisation is a very valuable design tool for designers of all backgrounds. This can contribute extensively to establish a common language for architects and engineers: It is the common, broadly adaptable tool that brings designers of various specialisations back together. Liberating the designer from pre-defined structural elements opens up a conceptual view that can strongly influence and support the design process.

Irmgard Lochner

Biberach University of Applied Sciences, Biberach, Germany

Fig. 1 Galileo Galilei‘s illustration of a cantilever (1st); Michell structure (2nd)