Structure in Design of Architecture And Structural Material

时间:2020/10/14 14:35:07  作者:  来源:  查看:1  评论:0
内容摘要: Structure in Design of ArchitectureAnd Structural MaterialWe have and the architects must deal with the spatial aspect of activity, phys...

Structure in Design of Architecture
And Structural Material
We have and the architects must deal with the spatial aspect of activity, physical, and symbolic needs in such a way that overall performance integrity is assured. Hence, he or she well wants to think of evolving a building environment as a total system of interacting and space forming subsystems. Is represents a complex challenge, and to meet it the architect will need a hierarchic design process that provides at least three levels of feedback thinking: schematic, preliminary, and final.
Such a hierarchy is necessary if he or she is to avoid being confused , at conceptual stages of design thinking ,by the myriad detail issues that can distract attention from more basic considerations .In fact , we can say that an architect’s ability to distinguish the more basic form the more detailed issues is essential to his success as a designer .
The object of the schematic feed back level is to generate and evaluate overall site-plan, activity-interaction, and building-configuration options .To do so the architect must be able to focus on the interaction of the basic attributes of the site context, the spatial organization, and the symbolism as determinants of physical form. This means that ,in schematic terms ,the architect may first conceive and model a building design as an organizational abstraction of essential performance-space in teractions.Then he or she may explore the overall space-form implications of the abstraction. As an actual building configuration option begins to emerge, it will be modified to include consideration for basic site conditions.
At the schematic stage, it would also be helpful if the designer could visualize his or her options for achieving overall structural integrity and consider the constructive feasibility and economic of his or her scheme .But this will require that the architect and/or a consultant be able to conceptualize total-system structural options in terms of elemental detail .Such overall thinking can be easily fed back to improve the space-form scheme.
At the preliminary level, the architect’s emphasis will shift to the elaboration of his or her more promising schematic design options .Here the architect’s structural needs will shift to approximate design of specific subsystem options. At this stage the total structural scheme is developed to a middle level of specificity by focusing on identification and design of major subsystems to the extent that their key geometric, component, and interactive properties are established .Basic subsystem interaction and design conflicts can thus be identified and resolved in the context of total-system objectives. Consultants can play a significant part in this effort; these preliminary-level decisions may also result in feedback that calls for refinement or even major change in schematic concepts.
When the designer and the client are satisfied with the feasibility of a design proposal at the preliminary level, it means that the basic problems of overall design are solved and details are not likely to produce major change .The focus shifts again ,and the design process moves into the final level .At this stage the emphasis will be on the detailed development of all subsystem specifics . Here the role of specialists from various fields, including structural engineering, is much larger, since all detail of the preliminary design must be worked out. Decisions made at this level may produce feedback into Level II that will result in changes. However, if Levels I and II are handled with insight, the relationship between the overall decisions, made at the schematic and preliminary levels, and the specifics of the final level should be such that gross redesign is not in question, Rather, the entire process should be one of moving in an evolutionary fashion from creation and refinement (or modification) of the more general properties of a total-system design concept, to the fleshing out of requisite elements and details.
To summarize: At Level I, the architect must first establish, in conceptual terms, the overall space-form feasibility of basic schematic options. At this stage, collaboration with specialists can be helpful, but only if in the form of overall thinking. At Level II, the architect must be able to identify the major subsystem requirements implied by the scheme and substantial their interactive feasibility by approximating key component properties .That is, the properties of major subsystems need be worked out only in sufficient depth to very the inherent compatibility of their basic form-related and behavioral interaction . This will mean a somewhat more specific form of collaboration with specialists then that in level I .At level III ,the architect and the specific form of collaboration with specialists then that providing for all of the elemental design specifics required to produce biddable construction documents .
Of course this success comes from the development of the Structural Material.
The principal construction materials of earlier times were wood and masonry brick, stone, or tile, and similar materials. The courses or layers were bound together with mortar or bitumen, a tar like substance, or some other binding agent. The Greeks and Romans sometimes used iron rods or claps to strengthen their building. The columns of the Parthenon in Athens, for example, have holes drilled in them for iron bars that have now rusted away. The Romans also used a natural cement called puzzling, made from volcanic ash, that became as hard as stone under water.
Both steel and cement, the two most important construction materials of modern times, were introduced in the nineteenth century. Steel, basically an alloy of iron and a small amount of carbon had been made up to that time by a laborious process that restricted it to such special uses as sword blades. After the invention of the Bessemer process in 1856, steel was available in large quantities at low prices. The enormous advantage of steel is its tensile force which, as we have seen, tends to pull apart many materials. New alloys have further, which is a tendency for it to weaken as a result of continual changes in stress.
Modern cement, called Portland cement, was invented in 1824. It is a mixture of limestone and clay, which is heated and then ground into a power. It is mixed at or near the construction site with sand, aggregate small stones, crushed rock, or gravel, and water to make concrete. Different proportions of the ingredients produce concrete with different strength and weight. Concrete is very versatile; it can be poured, pumped, or even sprayed into all kinds of shapes. And whereas steel has great tensile strength, concrete has great strength under compression. Thus, the two substances complement each other.
They also complement each other in another way: they have almost the same rate of contraction and expansion. They therefore can work together in situations where both compression and tension are factors. Steel rods are embedded in concrete to make reinforced concrete in concrete beams or structures where tensions will develop. Concrete and steel also form such a strong bond─ the force that unites them─ that the steel cannot slip within the concrete. Still another advantage is that steel does not rust in concrete. Acid corrodes steel, whereas concrete has an alkaline chemical reaction, the opposite of acid.
The adoption of structural steel and reinforced concrete caused major changes in traditional construction practices. It was no longer necessary to use thick walls of stone or brick for multistory buildings, and it became much simpler to build fire-resistant floors. Both these changes served to reduce the cost of construction. It also became possible to erect buildings with greater heights and longer spans.
Since the weight of modern structures is carried by the steel or concrete frame, the walls do not support the building. They have become curtain walls, which keep out the weather and let in light. In the earlier steel or concrete frame building, the curtain walls were generally made of masonry; they had the solid look of bearing walls. Today, however, curtain walls are often made of lightweight materials such as glass, aluminum, or plastic, in various combinations.
Another advance in steel construction is the method of fastening together the beams. For many years the standard method was riveting. A rivet is a bolt with a head that looks like a blunt screw without threads. It is heated, placed in holes through the pieces of steel, and a second head is formed at the other end by hammering it to hold it in place. Riveting has now largely been replaced by welding, the joining together of pieces of steel by melting a steel material between them under high heat.
Priestess’s concrete is an improved form of reinforcement. Steel rods are bent into the shapes to give them the necessary degree of tensile strengths. They are then used to priestess concrete, usually by one of two different methods. The first is to leave channels in a concrete beam that correspond to the shapes of the steel rods. When the rods are run through the channels, they are then bonded to the concrete by filling the channels with grout, a thin mortar or binding agent. In the other (and more common) method, the priestesses steel rods are placed in the lower part of a form that corresponds to the shape of the finished structure, and the concrete is poured around them. Priestess’s concrete uses less steel and less concrete. Because it is a highly desirable material.
Progressed concrete has made it possible to develop buildings with unusual shapes, like some of the modern, sports arenas, with large spaces unbroken by any obstructing supports. The uses for this relatively new structural method are constantly being developed.


广告联系QQ:45157718 点击这里给我发消息 电话:13516821613 杭州余杭东港路118号雷恩国际科技创新园  网站技术支持:黄菊华互联网工作室 浙ICP备06056032号