STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR ARCHITECTURE

Structural Design for Architecture

which four broad categories of decision-making

may be identified. These are: first, the decision

on the kind of relationship which will exist

between the architectural design and the struc-

tural design; secondly, the selection of the

generic type of structure for the building;

thirdly, the selection of the structural material;

and lastly, the determination of the detailed

form and layout of the structure. In a particular

case these sets of decisions may not be taken

in an ordered sequence and some - for

example on the relationship which is to be

adopted between structural and architectural

design - may not even be taken consciously.

They are nevertheless decisions which are

taken by the designer of every building.

In the design of the majority of buildings, in

which the relationship between architectural

design and structural design is not one of

'structure ignored' (see Section 2.2 for an

explanation of this term), the preliminary

structural decisions are taken consciously,

usually by a team of designers which includes

architects and structural engineers. The nature

of the decision-making sequence is explored in

this chapter.

It is quite possible to project whole forms

in the mind without any recourse to

material, ...'

More recently, Wolf Prix of Coop

Himmelblau expressed the view that:

... we want to keep the design moment free

from all material constraints ...^2

It is possible to say therefore that at least

some European architects have, since the

Renaissance, considered it feasible to ignore

structural considerations when they invent the

form of a building, believing that a preoccupa-

tion with technical matters inhibits the process

of creative design. The second of the quota-

tions above is a fairly explicit comment from a

contemporary architect whose work many

would regard as controversial but it neverthe-

less describes the reality of a very significant

proportion of present-day architectural design

activity, including much of what might be

thought of as belonging to the mainstream

rather than the fringe. Many architects, in fact,

pay little attention to structural issues when

determining the form of a building. Few,

however, find it appropriate to make state-

ments such as that quoted above.

Just as it is possible virtually to ignore struc-

tural issues when carrying out the preliminary

design of a building, it is also possible to

allocate the highest priority to the satisfaction

of structural requirements. In such cases the

aesthetic and programmatic aspects of the

design are accorded a lower priority than those

connected with the structure and are not

allowed to compromise the quality of the

structural design. This approach can occur

through necessity, when the limits of what is

feasible structurally are approached due, for

example, to the extreme height of a building or

2.2 The relationship between

structural design and architectural

design

2.2.1 Introduction

The detailed design of a structure is normally

carried out by a structural engineer (more

probably a team of engineers) but, as was

noted above, the overall form of an architec-

tural structure is determined by that of the

building which it supports and therefore princi-

pally by the architect (or architectural team).

This raises the issue of the extent to which the

architect should be preoccupied by structural

considerations when determining the form and

general arrangement of a building.

There are several possible approaches to

this. Leon Baptista Alberti, who in his treatise

on architecture written in the fifteenth century

more-or-less outlined the job description of

24 the modern architectural profession, stated:

1 L. B. Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books, 1486,

Trans. Rykwert, Leach and Tavernor, London, 1988.

2 Quotation from 'On the Edge', the contribution of Wolf

Prix of Coop Himmelblau to Architecture in Transition:

Between Reconstruction and New Modernism, Noever (ed.),

1991.