RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRUCTURE

AND ARCHITECTURE

S U B M I T T E D B Y:
R. L. MANASA (10061AA042),
B . N AV E E N K U M A R ( 1 0 0 6 1 A A 0 0 7 ) ,
M. SASIDHAR REDDY (10061AA029).
 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
nevertheless still provides a valid basis for the examination and
criticism of a building.
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 intended.
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.
• The part of the building which Structures of Falling Water
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 there can be no
‘delight’.
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 and architecture are possible.
 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 is entirely nonstructural
and the poles have a purely
structural function.
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 some extent.
The floors are both structural and space-
dividing elements.
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 its function is something which
affects the quality of the architecture.
 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.
In these buildings the structure and the architectural expression co-exist in
perfect harmony.
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 are not themselves examples of technology which is
appropriate to the function involved.
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