Complexity in structural design: a questioning of structuralevolution through history and recent developments

Zastavni, Denis
(2011) Omaggio a Edoardo Benvenuto: Quali metodi, quali strumenti e quale storia per i saperi dell’Arte del costruire — Location: Palazzo Badoer, Venezia (25.November.2011)

Files

No attached file found for this publication.

Details

Authors
Abstract
From the Middle Ages onwards, construction was the prerogative of skilled masons. Despite the fact that knowledge of the science of construction did not extend beyond masons’ fellow fraternities, it is known that techniques to manage the stability of the geometrical arrangement were put into practice from then on. What may not have been sufficiently emphasised is how simple and practical these techniques were. The first method revealed for the design of vaults was Derand’s rule. Scientific work was then carried out with the objective of characterising the behaviour of vaults. It is worth noting that the lack of theories did not prevent some structural systems from appearing and being successfully implemented, even if they were not mastered particularly extensively or optimised. Physical experiments were a central part of the development of such structural arrangements. Later, mechanical sciences were developed and applied to structures. New types of structure generally emerged from new materials or industrial developments, frequently devised in the first instance as an adaptation of a system which already existed for other materials. Scientific knowledge of the structural characteristics of construction materials generally enabled new types of structures to emerge. This is the case for instance with iron and, subsequently, steel structures. Paradoxically, this knowledge changes the designer’s relationship with construction. Less energy is devoted to the same stages of the design, and more importance given to analysis. Furthermore the skills involved in the structural issue were distributed more widely (to engineers, architects, physicists etc.). This frequently led to structural designs remaining within the domain of classic solutions and innovations becoming scarcer. With new digital tools and computers, the complexity of mathematical analysis began to disappear, which could have led to more skilful and inventive designs, shifting the focus of studies from analysis to the creative part of the design. In actual fact, however, with the advent of numerical tools suited to mathematically complex analysis, other phenomena kept the designer’s focus on the analysis aspect of the design: geometrically complex architecture and greater demands made on structural analysis. As a result, the structural issue has remained difficult to master and structural design therefore more often confines to banal solutions. There are some specific exceptions, however – Maillart’s designs being one of them – but they only occur within the designer’s altered relationship with theory and analysis.
Affiliations

Citations

  • APA
  • Chicago
  • FWB

Zastavni, D. (2011). Complexity in structural design: a questioning of structuralevolution through history and recent developments. Omaggio a Edoardo Benvenuto: Quali metodi, quali strumenti e quale storia per i saperi dell’Arte del costruire, Palazzo Badoer, Venezia. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/231201