RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

STRUCTURE AND ARCHITECTURE

S U B M I T T E D B Y:
R. L . MA N AS A ( 10061A A 042) ,
B . N AV E E N K U M A R ( 1 0 0 6 1 A A 0 0 7 ) ,
M . S A S I D H A R R E D DY ( 1 0 0 6 1 A A 0 2 9 ) .
 INTRODUCTION

• Structural Engineering and Architecture are two

different sciences that are inter-related. Structural
Designing deals with the study of design of steel in a
structure i.e., the internal skeleton of the structure that
helps to keep the structure durable, sound and stiff.
• Whereas Architectural Design deals with design of
spaces meant for a particular function. It helps to
create ambient environment that is pleasing to eye.
The Architect designs the building keeping all the
functional aspects in mind that are to be incorporated
into the design and then they are executed by a Civil or
Structural Engineer.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRUCTURE
AND ARCHITECTURE

EXAMPLE:
STATUE OF
LIBERTY
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STRUCTURE
AND ARCHITECTURE
• It has long been recognized that an appreciation
of the role of structure is essential to the
understanding of architecture.
• It was Vitruvius, writing at the time of the
founding of the Roman Empire, who identified the
three basic components of architecture as
firmitas, utilitas and venustas and Sir Henry
Wooton, in the seventeenth century1 , who
translated these as ‘firmness’, ‘commodity’ and
‘delight’.
• Subsequent theorists have proposed different
systems by which buildings may be analyzed,
their qualities discussed and their meanings
understood but the Vitruvian breakdown
Commodity:

‘Commodity’, which is Falling water – commodity:

perhaps the most
obvious of the
Vitruvian qualities to
appreciate, refers to
the practical
functioning of the
building; the
requirement that the
set of spaces which is
provided is actually
useful and serves the
purpose for which the
building was
Delight:
‘Delight’ is the term for the effect of
the building on the aesthetic
sensibilities of those who come into
contact with it.
• It may arise from one or more of a
number of factors.
• The symbolic meanings of the
chosen forms, the aesthetic qualities
of the shapes, textures and colours,
the elegance with which the various
practical and programmatic
problems posed by the building have
been solved, and the ways in which
links have been made between the
different aspects of the design are all Falling water -
possible generators of ‘delight’. delight
FIRMNESS:
• ‘Firmness’ is the most basic
quality.
• It is concerned with the
ability of the building to
preserve its physical
integrity and survive in the
world as a physical object.
Structures of Falling
• The part of the building Water
which satisfies the need for
‘firmness’ is the structure.
• Structure is fundamental:
• without structure there is
no building and therefore
no ‘commodity’. Without
well designed structure
COMMODITY + DELIGHT + FIRMNESS
EXAMPLES OF SOME BUILDINGS
SHOWING DIFFERENT RELATIONS:
• The form of a structural armature is inevitably very closely
related to that of the building which it supports, and the act
of designing a building – of determining its overall form – is
therefore also an act of structural design.
• At one extreme it is possible for an architect virtually to
ignore structural considerations while inventing the form of
a building and to conceal entirely the structural elements in
the completed version of the building.
• The buildings of early twentieth-century
expressionism, such as the Einstein Tower at Potsdam
by Mendelsohn and some recent buildings based on
the ideas of Deconstruction might be cited as further
examples.
OLYMPIC MUNICH STADIUM
OLYMPIC MUNICH STADIUM

• All of these buildings contain a structure, but the

technical requirements of the structure have not
significantly influenced the form which has been
adopted and the structural elements themselves
are not important contributors to the aesthetics of
the architecture.
• At the other extreme it is possible to produce a
building which consists of little other than
structure. The Olympic Stadium in Munich, by the
architects Behnisch and Partners with Frei Otto, is
an example of this.
• Between these extremes many different
approaches to the relationship between structure
1980’S REVOLUTION IN BUILDINGS:

• In the ‘high tech’ architecture of the 1980s , for

example, the structural elements discipline the
plan and general arrangement of the building
and form an important part of the visual
vocabulary.
• In the early Modern buildings of Gropius, Mies
van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and others, the
forms which were adopted were greatly
influenced by the types of geometry which
were suitable for steel and reinforced concrete
structural frameworks.
THE RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE
TO BUILDING
• The simplest way of describing the function of an
architectural structure is to say that it is the part of a
building which resists the loads that are imposed on it.
• A building may be regarded as simply an envelope which
encloses and subdivides space in order to create a
protected environment.
• The surfaces which form the envelope, that is the walls,
the floors and the roof of the building, are subjected to
various types of loading: external surfaces are exposed to
the climatic loads of snow, wind and rain; floors are
subjected to the gravitational loads of the occupants and
their effects; and most of the surfaces also have to carry
their own weight .
• All of these loads tend to distort the building envelope and
to cause it to collapse; it is to prevent this from happening
that a structure is provided.
 SOME BUILDINGS SHOWING
DIFFERENT RELATION BETWEEN
STRUCTURE AND ARCHITECTURE
IGLOO

• The location of the structure

within a building is not
always obvious because the
structure can be integrated
with the nonstructural parts
in various ways.
• Sometimes, as in the simple
example of an igloo, in which
ice blocks form a self-
supporting protective dome,
the structure and the space
enclosing elements are one
and the same thing.
TEPEE

Sometimes the structural

and space enclosing
elements are entirely
separate.
A very simple example is the
tepee, in which the
protecting envelope is a
skin of fabric or hide which
has insufficient rigidity to
form an enclosure by itself
and which is supported on
a framework of timber
poles.
Complete separation of
structure and envelope
occurs here: the envelope
CNIT EXHIBITION HALL

The CNIT exhibition Hall in

Paris is a sophisticated
version of the igloo; the
reinforced concrete shell
which forms the main
element of this enclosure
is self-supporting and,
therefore, structural.
Separation of skin and
structure occurs in the
transparent walls,
however, where the glass
envelope is supported on a
structure of mullions.
RONCHAMP CHAPEL
The chapel by Le Corbusier
at Ronchamp is a similar
example.
The highly sculptured walls
and roof of this building
are made from a
combination of masonry
and reinforced concrete
and are self-supporting.
They are at the same time
the elements which define
the enclosure and the
structural elements which
give it the ability to
maintain its form and resist
load.
YALE HOCKEY ARENA

The very large ice hockey arena at Yale by Saarinen is yet

another similar example. Here the building envelope consists
of a network of steel cables which are suspended between
three reinforced concrete arches, one in the vertical plane
forming the spine of the building and two side arches almost
in the horizontal plane.
The composition of this building is more complex than in the
previous cases because the suspended envelope can be
broken down into the cable network, which has a purely
structural function, and a nonstructural cladding system.
It might also be argued that the arches have a purely
structural function and do not contribute directly to the
enclosure of space.
YALE HOCKEY ARENA

Conceptual sketch of
arena

Aerial view of hockey

arena
FOSTER ASSOCIATES
In most buildings the relationship
between the envelope and the
structure is more complicated
than in the above examples, and
frequently this is because the
interior of the building is
subdivided to a greater extent by
internal walls and floors. For
instance, in Foster Associates’
building for Willis, Faber and
Dumas, Ipswich, UK. the
reinforced concrete structure of
floor slabs and columns may be
thought of as having a dual
function. The columns are purely
structural, although they do
punctuate the interior spaces and
are space-dividing elements, to
CONCLUSION
To sum up, these few examples of very different
building types demonstrate that all buildings
contain a structure, the function of which is to
support the building envelope by conducting the
forces which are applied to it from the points
where they arise in the building to the ground
below it where they are ultimately resisted.
Sometimes the structure is indistinguishable from
the enclosing and space-dividing building
envelope, sometimes it is entirely separate from
it; most often there is a mixture of elements with
structural, non-structural and combined functions.
In all cases the form of the structure is very closely
related to that of the building taken as a whole
and the elegance with which the structure fulfils
 ROLE OF
STRUCTURE
IN A
BUILDING
HISTORY AND EVOLUTON OF
RELATIONSHIP
VARIOUS RELATIONS BETWEEN
STRUCTURE AND ARCHITECTURE
Structure and architecture may be related in a wide variety of
ways ranging between the extremes of complete domination
of the architecture by the structure to total disregard of
structural requirements in the determination of both the form
of a building and of its aesthetic treatment.
This infinite number of possibilities is discussed here under six
broad headings:
• ornamentation of structure
• structure as ornament
• structure as architecture
• structure as form generator/ structure accepted
• structure ignored.
1
ORNAMENTATION OF STRUCTURE
There have been a number of periods in the history
of Western architecture in which the formal logic
of a favored structural system has been allowed
to influence, if not totally determine, the overall
form of the buildings into which the age has
poured its architectural creativity.
In the periods in which this mood has prevailed,
the forms that have been adopted have been
logical consequences of the structural armatures
of buildings.
The category ornamentation of structure, in which
the building consists of little more than a visible
structural armature adjusted in fairly minor ways
for visual reasons, has been one version of this.
PARTHENON
The architecture of the Parthenon is tectonic: structural
requirements dictated the form and, although the purpose
of the building was not to celebrate structural technology,
its formal logic was celebrated as part of the visual
expression.
The Doric Order, which reached its greatest degree of
refinement in this building, was a system of ornamentation
evolved from the post-and beam structural arrangement.
There was, of course, much more to the architecture of the
Greek temple than ornamentation of a constructional
system.
The archetypal form of the buildings and the vocabulary and
grammar of the ornamentation have had a host of symbolic
meanings attributed to them by later commentators.
No attempt was made, however, by the builders of the Greek
temples, either to disguise the structure or to adopt forms
other than those which could be fashioned in a logical and
straightforward manner from the available materials.
2 STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT

The relationship between structure and

architecture categorized here as structure as
ornament involves the manipulation of structural
elements by criteria which are principally visual
and it is a relationship which has been largely a
twentieth-century Phenomenon.
Three versions of structure as ornament may be
distinguished
• symbolically.
• artificially created circumstances
• a visual agenda is pursued which is incompatible
with structural logic
 STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT

The conclusion which may be drawn from the

above examples of structure as ornament is that
in many buildings with exposed structures the
structure is technically flawed despite appearing
visually interesting. This does not mean that the
architects and engineers who designed these
buildings were incompetent or that the buildings
themselves are examples of bad architecture.
It does mean, however, that in much architecture
in which exposed structure is used to convey the
idea of technical excellence (most of High-Tech
architecture falls into this category), the forms
and visual devices which have been employed
LLOYDS HEADQUARTERS BUILDING,
LONDON, UK,
3 STRUCTURE AS ARCHITECTURE

There have always been buildings which consisted

of structure and only structure.
The igloo and the tepee are examples and such
buildings.
Occasionally, they have found their way into the
architectural discourse and where this has
occurred it has often been due to the very large
scale of the particular example.
Examples are the Crystal Palace in the nineteenth
century and the CNIT building in the twentieth.
CRYSTAL PALACE
BACKPACKER’S TENT

The backpacker’s tent – an extreme example of the

need to minimize weight in a portable building –
has already been mentioned.
Portability requires not only that the building be
light but also that it be demountable – another
purely technical consideration.
In such a case the resulting building form is
determined almost entirely by technical Criteria.
EXHIBITION OF IBM EUROPE

Although the field of temporary buildings remains dominated by

the tent in all its forms, the compressive form-active structure has
also been used for such purposes. A late-twentieth century
example was the building designed by Renzo Piano for the
travelling exhibition of IBM Europe. This consisted of a semi-form-
active vault which was ‘improved’ by triangulation. The sub-
elements were laminated beech wood struts and ties linked by
polycarbonate pyramids. These elements were bolted together
using aluminum connectors.
The structure combined lightness of weight, which was achieved
through the use of low density materials and an efficient
structural geometry, with ease of assembly – the two essential
requirements of a portable building.
No technical compromises were made for visual or stylistic reasons.
IBM PAVILION, RENZO PIANO
4 STRUCTURE AS FORM GENERATOR
The terms structure as form generator and structure accepted are used
here to describe a relationship between structure and architecture in
which structural requirements are allowed to influence strongly the
forms of buildings even though the structure itself is not necessarily
exposed.
In this type of relationship the configuration of elements which is most
sensible structurally is accepted and the architecture accommodated to
it.
The reason why two cases are distinguished is that the closeness of the
link between the architectural and the structural agendas is subject to
considerable variation.
Sometimes it is very positive, with the form-generating possibilities of
structure being used to contribute to an architectural style.
Alternatively, even though the overall form of a building may have been
determined largely to satisfy structural requirements, the architectural
interest may lie elsewhere.
STRUCTURE AS FORM GENERATOR

The vaulted structures of Roman antiquity are an example of the

first of these possibilities.
The large interior spaces of the basilicas and bath houses of
Imperial Rome, which are one of the chief glories of the
architecture of the period and which are among the largest
interiors in Western architecture, were roofed by vaults and
domes of masonry or unreinforced concrete.
The absence at the period of a strong structural material which
could withstand tension dictated that compressive form-active
structures be adopted to achieve the large spans involved.
Lofty interiors of impressive grandeur were created by placing
the vaults and domes on top of high walls which were given
great thickness so as to accommodate the lateral thrusts
produced at the wall-heads.
STRUCTURE AS FORM GENERATOR

The Pantheon, Rome, 2nd

century AD.
The hemispherical concrete
dome is supported on a
cylindrical drum
also of concrete.
Both have thick cross-
sections which have been
‘improved’ by the use of
coffers or voids of various
types and these technical
devices have been
incorporated into the visual
scheme of the interior.
5 STRUCTURE IGNORED IN THE FORM-MAKING PROCESS
AND NOT FORMING PART OF THE AESTHETIC PROGRAM.

Since the development of the structural technologies of steel

and reinforced concrete it has been possible to design
buildings, at least to a preliminary stage of the process,
without considering how they will be supported or
constructed.
This is possible because the strength properties of steel and
reinforced concrete are such that practically any form can be
built, provided that it is not too large and that finance is not a
limiting consideration.
This freedom represents a significant and often
unacknowledged contribution which structural technology has
made to architecture, liberating architects from the
constraints imposed by the need to support buildings with
masonry and timber
EXAMPLE: VITRA DESIGN MUSEUM

Vitra Design Museum, Basel,

Switzerland, 1989; Frank
Gehry, architect.
From a technical point of
view forms such as this
present a challenge.
Their construction is made
possible by the excellent
structural properties of
present-day materials such
as reinforced concrete and
steel.
The scale of such a project
must be small however.
 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS
The nature of the relationship has taken many forms, and
the form in play at any time has always influenced the
nature of the interface between structure and architecture.
In Greek and Roman antiquity, the relationship between
the equivalents of architects and engineers must have
been very close in order to achieve the creation of
buildings in which the requirements of structure and
architecture were reconciled in a very positive way. In this
period the architect and engineer would, in many cases,
have been the same individual – the master builder.
The relationship between an architect and structural
engineer in 21st century have become a mutual work
where both play equal role in construction.
Thank you