EKT-No-3-Historical Development of Structural Form

Important
notice
As the registered person who downloaded this file from
www.istructe.org, a non-transferable, non-exclusive licence
to access its content has been granted to you.
A record of your download has been retained by the Institution.
Reproduction or transmission (electronically or otherwise) of all

or part of the content is prohibited.
Unless the licensee is a registered member of the IStructE’s Academic

Community, storing all or part of the content (electronically or
otherwise) in any form of multi-user repository is prohibited.
Registered members of the IStructE’s Academic Community

may store the content in their institution’s repository. The content
may also be used by these registered members for teaching purposes
only (e.g. course/lecture materials).
Any infringement of the terms of this licence may result in legal action.
Licence agreement - NWM - free V1

Essential Knowledge Series
Essential Knowledge Text No. 3
Historical
development of
structural form
Allan Mann
Historical development of structural form
Acknowledgements
Author
Allan Mann FREng PhD BSc(Eng) FIStructE
Reviewers
David Brohn PhD CEng FIStructE (E-Training Systems Ltd)
Bill Harvey BSc PhD CEng FIStructE FICE (Bill Harvey Associates Ltd)
Lawrance Hurst BSc(Eng) CEng FIStructE FICE FCGI FCABE (Hurst Peirce & Malcolm LLP)
Bob Lark BSc(Eng) ACGI PhD CEng FICE (Cardiff University)
Series Editor
Graham Owens FREng FIStructE CEng MSc PhD DIC FRSA
Permissions
Photographs and other digital imagery are supplied/reused courtesy of the following:
Figure 1.1 pixelfehler1, Figure 2.1a John Salmon2, Figure 2.1b Banister Fletcher4, Figure 2.2a M J Richardson2, Figure 2.3a IanVisits2,
Figure 3.1a Jasonjsmith3, Figure 3.2 Arpingstone4, Figure 3.3 R. Hooghe4, Figure 3.4a Mike Quinn2, Figure 3.4b Institute of Civil Engineers4,
Figure 4.1 Peter Trimming2, Figure 4.2a Ianbrown5, Figure 5.1a Museum of London4, Figure 5.2 (left) Nick Cooper5, Figure 5.2 (right)
Thomas Nugent2, Figure 5.3 © Thomas Graham/Arup, Figure 5.4 Expedition Engineering, Figure 5.5 J-P Kärnä5, Figure 6.1 Robeyclark5,
Figure 6.2 Tonyharp5, Figure 6.3 François Roche (Creative Commons CC BY 2.0), Figure 6.4 Simon Cole5, Figure 6.5 James Jin2,
Figure 6.6 Stevekeiretsu6, Figure 6.7 Charlie fong4, Figure 6.8 Donaldytong5, Figure 7.2 Yhz12215
1 (Creative Commons CC BY SA 2.5); 2 (Creative Commons CC BY SA 2.0); 3 (assumed – public domain); 4 (public domain);
5 (Creative Commons CC BY SA 3.0); 6 (Creative Commons CC BY SA 1.0).
Published by:
The Institution of Structural Engineers
47–58 Bastwick Street
London EC1V 3PS
United Kingdom
T: +44(0)20 7235 4535
E: mail@istructe.org
W: www.istructe.org
First published: April 2016

This version (1.0) published: April 2016
© 2016 Allan Mann (pre-publication version) and published under a non-exclusive licence by
The Institution of Structural Engineers and those individuals who contributed to this Essential Knowledge Text have
endeavored to ensure the accuracy of its contents. However, the information presented should always be reviewed by those
using the Text in the light of the facts of their particular case and specialist advice obtained as necessary. No liability for
negligence or otherwise in relation to this Text and its contents is accepted by the Institution, the author, the reviewers, their
servants or agents.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means
without prior permission of The Institution of Structural Engineers, who may be contacted at 47–58 Bastwick Street,
London EC1V 3PS, United Kingdom.
Contents
Synopsis2
1. Introduction 3
2. Medieval to modern times 5
3. 18th and 19th centuries 10
4. First half of 20th century 17
5. Second half of 20th century: materials 21
5.1 Immediate post-war era 22
5.2 Steel development 24
5.3 Concrete development 25
5.4 Timber and masonry 26
5.5 Foundations and ground engineering 28
5.6 Research and trade organisations 28
6. Second half of 20th century: form 29
6.1 Anything is possible 30
6.2 1980s boom 31
6.3 Bridges 31
6.4 Long spans 33
6.5 Tall structures 35
7. Future 36
8. Conclusions 38
The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 1

Synopsis
The built environment is key to the functioning of civilisation. Structures, buildings and
infrastructure enable cities to function and offer delight. Today, architects and engineers have a
vast portfolio of products and structural forms to draw on; this text describes how these forms have
evolved from earliest times.
2 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Introduction
By the end of this section, readers will understand that all structural form is based on
the availability of material and products and the capacity of engineers to use them in
construction. They should also be aware that fundamental principles never change.

All civilisations have required buildings for dwelling, worship, military use and civic pride. Much of what
we know of Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and other civilisations comes from an examination of their
construction legacy. Early architects and engineers were constrained by the materials to hand and the
technology available. Thus, many Egyptian structures were based on mud bricks and stone, since timber
was scarce. Form was limited to walls, columns and beams, and members were massive in proportion.
Greek buildings, mainly stone, had sophisticated layouts and were incredibly elegant (Figure 1.1); but
Greek technology was limited, trusses unknown and spans small, constrained by timber size.
Figure 1.1: Temple of Concordia, Agrigento, Sicily
Romans advanced the art of building considerably, not least since a locally occurring material allowed
them to invent a form of concrete and use it extensively in their evolution of arches, vaults and domes.
Using concrete, Romans spanned roofs up to 30m; the Pantheon dome is 43m across. Triangulation was
understood; Roman carpenters managed to roof over reasonable distances. Roman engineers certainly
had an intuitive grasp of force as vaults and arches were heavily buttressed, while structures such as the
Colosseum showed great sophistication in cross section with the distribution of gravity force (by arch
and wall to ground) transmitted over several stories. Roman bridges had a form close to that of many
modern structures, piers were placed within flow and shaped to minimise drag and obstruction, and
arches up to 35m were accomplished.
A most famous Roman architect and engineer was Vitruvius (born 80–70 BC) best known for authorship
of De architectura, known today as The Ten Books on Architecture1.1. These asserted that structures
must exhibit the three qualities of firmitas, utilitas, venustas — that is, structures must be solid, useful,
beautiful; this is still true today.
A general review of older construction techniques can be found in the literature1.2.
References
1.1 Rowland, I.D. and Howe, T.N. (Eds.) The Ten Books on Architecture, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2001
1.2 Fitchen, J. Building Construction Before Mechanisation, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1989

Medieval to
modern times
By the end of this section, the reader will see that early developments were relatively
slow. Developments that did occur were driven by demand and by a gradual evolution
of intuitive understanding.

The growth of structural form between medieval and modern times was relatively slow. Much building
was still required for the same reasons as more ancient civilisations. But fortifications naturally tended
to be massive; palaces tended to be grand with an emphasis on architecture rather than engineering.
Materials were much the same as they had always been: brick, stone and timber. Two great changes
in structural form did develop, linked to the growth of cathedral architecture in stone. Firstly, the
arch shape evolved from ‘Roman round’ to ‘Norman pointed’ with a gradual reduction in solidity.
The culmination of cathedral elegance in the gothic perpendicular style (c.15th century) shows great
sophistication in the handling of load paths and stability, and significant skill in enclosing space via
vaulted roofs (Figure 2.1a–c).
Figure 2.1a: Ely Cathedral roof

self weight
horizontal
taken out
buttresses
cathedral vaulting
Figure 2.1c: Force flows for an individual vault

in Ely Cathedral roof
Figure 2.1b: Plan of Ely Cathedral
Note:
• In a corridor of vaulting, all the vaults are balanced off each other
• At one end of the cathedral, the massive self weight of the towers provides enough resistance for
the horizontal thrust
• Down the sides of the building, the thrust would be taken out by flying buttresses; sometimes the
pinnacles on top of the buttresses add more vertical deadweight to aid stability

The second great innovation stemmed from the skills of carpenters in developing timber trusses and the
frame form. What was possible can be seen in timber roofs still extant: e.g. trusses in the Merchant
Adventurers’ Hall in York (1357) (Figure 2.2a–b).
vertical forces
Figure 2.2a: Roof of Merchant

Adventurers’ Great Hall horizontal forces
Figure 2.2b: Force flows for Merchant

Adventurers’ Hall roof
Note:
• The diagonal struts do not meet at a point at mid-span. This induces local bending in the bottom
chord under non-symmetric load
• As shown in the lower part of Fig. 2.2b, the truss can act to share any horizontal forces between the
two supports, and resist them by the bending of the bottom chord and supporting columns

This technique evolved through to English hammer beam roofs later in the 14th century, with the
magnificent Westminster Hall example (1399), having a span of 21m — the longest in Europe at the time
(Figure 2.3a–b).
Figure 2.3a: Westminster Hall
Figure 2.3b: Force flows in Westminster Hall roof
Note:
• This roof is complex and there is more than one way it can resist vertical forces
• Fig. 2.3b shows one option, albeit one that requires horizontal reactions to resist the thrusts from
the mid-height arch. (Some iron ties were added at a later stage to resist these forces)
These masons and timber craftsmen must have had an extraordinary understanding of structural
behaviour. That is not to say they were infallible though; there were many collapses and, over the
centuries, many weaknesses have emerged. Some surviving structures have required significant
engineering intervention to stabilise them. Masonry structures survive by balancing gravity forces —
occasionally with assistance, as at Salisbury Cathedral (1220–1258) where the UK’s tallest spire (123m)
was stabilised by pre-stressing its masonry together with a rod and turnbuckle.

18th and 19th
centuries
Here the reader will see that the pace of change over the 19th century quickened
dramatically. That pace was driven by societal changes coupled with increased
availability of new materials. It was also promoted by increasing confidence exhibited
by the emerging specialisation of ‘Engineering’ as a profession.

Significant changes of building and structural form took place in the late 19th century, for several
reasons. Firstly, there was a huge growth of urban population, leading to a massive demand for increased
infrastructure all within the context of increasing living standards. Secondly, there was the Industrial
Revolution with its demand for factories, and a demand for better transportation systems to distribute
the goods manufactured — not just domestically but across the world. These demands were satisfied
by the railway boom and canal building era which preceded it, both leading to a requirement for more
complex structures. Bridges, viaducts, railway sheds and docks were needed. One outcome of the
revolution itself was the cheap generation of power and cheap production of iron — which offered
opportunities for that material to be used structurally in bulk for the first time.
The stone Causey Arch built near Newcastle (1725) is the world’s oldest surviving railway bridge.
Spanning 30m its form was copied from Roman precedents. Changes soon followed with the world’s
first iron bridge built in 1779 at Coalbrookdale, Shropshire, also spanning 30m (Figure 3.1a–b).
Figure 3.1a: Iron Bridge at Coalbrookdale
deck load
Figure 3.1b: Force flows in Iron Bridge, Coalbrookdale

Note:
• This structure is pinned at mid-span, so it is just a simple three pinned arch
• The rings make it look complicated, but they only serve to transfer the deck forces to the arch
(Fig. 3.1b)
Developments were then rapid and another wonder, the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct, was constructed by
Thomas Telford between 1795 and 1805. Water is contained within a cast iron trough supported on 39m
high stone piers (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2: Pontcysyllte Aqueduct
Other innovations followed. The Mythe cast iron bridge (1823–26) was significant for its span alone, but
also introduced clever concepts of prefabrication. Spanning longer distances and carrying heavier loads
required more innovation in construction. The development of suspension bridges in the early 1800s was
a great leap forward, the most famous being the Menai Suspension Bridge (1826). In building this, Telford
used chains, but the invention of steel wire (1830s) later enabled longer suspension bridge construction
in the United States, forerunners of today’s wonders. Meanwhile, Robert Stephenson introduced the
box girder for railways with the Britannia Bridge (1845–1850) (span 70m). None of these developments
would have been possible without the ready availability of metal as a construction material, along with
industrial processes for shaping, and with the joining technology offered by hot riveting.

Buildings also benefited from the use of iron. In the 18th and 19th centuries, fire remained a major
hazard, particularly in textile mills, and a significant boon was the development of fireproofing. An
innovation suggested around 1800 was to build floors using jack arches, which are a series of metal
beams supporting brick arches springing at right angles from them. The arches are then overlain by a
concrete floor to give a level surface. This structural form offers both strength and fireproofing. Belper
Mill (1804), which utilised this form, is generally acknowledged as a landmark structure, built using cast
iron columns and tied jack arch floors with thick boundary walls made of brick. Thereafter the trend was
for iron to replace timber.
Construction of the Mythe bridge showed the value of standardisation and prefabrication. Those
virtues promoted speed of erection, and were combined to great effect in greenhouses at Chatsworth
(and later Kew Palm House) and then spectacularly in The Crystal Palace built by Joseph Paxton for the
Great Exhibition of 1851 (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3: The Crystal Palace (1851)
The Palace form was truly innovative. It had a pure structural skeleton made up of standardised sections
and was sheathed entirely in glass, which had become cheap to make. The building was 564m long
and 39m high. Remarkably, it was relatively inexpensive overall, and was designed, manufactured and
constructed in less than a year. That feat was accomplished, at least in part, by evolving the structural
form to make erection and installation easy and repetitive. Layout was modularised around a basic unit
of 24ft × 24ft (8m × 8m), all linked back to the standard size of a glass pane.

The Crystal Palace had a trussed roof, and the history of truss form development is an interest in itself.
Truss success is based on the capability of stringing together small standardised units to create a larger
single entity, capable of carrying loads over longer spans. Throughout the nineteenth century, by
combining arches and truss form, engineers managed to enclose very large volumes; their success in
creating railway station roofs remains impressive even today. Liverpool’s Lime Street spanned 47m, while
the later St Pancras roof (1868) spanned 73m. This roof and station have recently been renovated to form
the London Eurostar terminus (Figure 3.4a–c).
Figure 3.4a: St. Pancras Station

Figure 3.4b: General arrangement of a typical arch at St Pancras
roof weight
Figure 3.4c: Force flows for St Pancras Station roof
Note:
• This is similar to Ironbridge, except that there is no pin at the crown
• There may, therefore, be a bending moment at the crown, its magnitude depending on the relative
stiffness of the arch and the horizontal supports (i.e. the structure is ‘redundant’)

As well as allowing longer spans, the introduction of metal (or more precisely steel) offered opportunities
to build higher. Demand was great around the end of the century as populations and commerce grew,
while urban transport systems remained weak. High-rise structures started to be built in America; some
of the first were in Chicago and New York and required complete steel frames since masonry buildings
had reached their limit. Upward development was further promoted by the invention of the Otis safety
elevator (1852). The term ‘skyscraper’ first came into use in the late 19th century.
Until the 1900s, concrete’s use for framing lagged behind that of steel (although concrete was used for
floors and foundations and for some buildings, especially in France). Perhaps surprisingly, as ferrocement,
it was also used for boat building. Portland cement, the basis for all modern concrete, was invented in
1824. However, its most useful form lies within reinforced concrete, often claimed to have been invented
c.1850. Hennebique, a French engineer, patented a system in 1892 and this is thought to be one of the
first modern appearances of the medium. Development must have been rapid with the 1903 Ingalls
Building (15 stories) in Cincinnati, claiming to be the world’s first reinforced concrete skyscraper. Thus,
at the start of the 20th century, engineers had in place their key materials of reinforced concrete and
structural steel, methods of design and an economic climate that favoured all kinds of development.
The development of structural form thereafter conveniently follows the history of The Concrete Institute
founded in 1908, which developed into The Institution of Structural Engineers founded in 1922
(Royal Charter 1934).

First half of
20th century
In this section, the reader will see that changes in the the 20th century were
phenomenal, as modern cities emerged and the world economy developed. Over this
century, the basic building commodities that we now use became widely available.

The first half of the 20th century, up until the Second World War, was marked by a great deal of urban
development temporarily stalled by the Great Depression, starting from about 1930. Nevertheless,
London’s population alone grew by around 50% over the period and extensions of its underground
(‘tube’) network and southern railways were largely responsible for the outward city sprawl.
At the beginning of the period, steel sections were readily available and the trend to frame buildings
(rather than support them via load bearing masonry) was firmly established. Although high-rise steel
framed buildings were being erected in the US, comparable UK structures were held back by Building
Regulation. The Ritz hotel in London is often cited as the first fully steel framed building structure in
Britain, yet it was only eight storeys high when completed in 1904. On the other side of the Atlantic,
by 1931 the Empire State Building in New York was 102 stories high (381m).
Framed structures offered architects a number of advantages in freedom of expression, particularly by

eliminating a need for internal support walls. They also offered speedy construction and cost reductions,
both strong influencing factors for structural form. Some of the building rates achieved in this period
were truly remarkable. Taking advantage of modularisation, the British Empire Stadium at Wembley
(seating 125,000 people) was built in 12 months in 1924.
Tall concrete structures were also being constructed in the UK, notably the Liver Building in Liverpool
(1911) which was 51m high. Concrete became competitive because it offered opportunities for
constructing whole structures, floors and supports in just one material. In the first decade of the century,
enterprising constructors obviously grasped its potential and a number of systems emerged to rival
Hennebique’s patent. It was this proliferation of systems, in addition to a concern to realise the benefits
of fire protection, that was the impetus behind the formation of The Concrete Institute.
Considerable demands came from industry for power stations and factories; the new materials and
possibilities of transport and fabrication led to some iconic builds in steel. Battersea Power Station
(Figure 4.1) was constructed in 1933 and used thousands of tonnes of steel. Although framed internally,
its exterior walls were brick and the station remained the largest brick building in Europe. For factories,
a range of latticed steel frames evolved, often clad in corrugated galvanised sheet or a new cheap
composite material; asbestos reinforced cement sheets (no longer used). Self evidently, next to no
attention was given to aesthetics or insulation!
Figure 4.1: Battersea Power Station

The era had many notable bridge achievements, including the Tyne Bridge of 1928 (7,000 tonnes) with
a 162m span, acting as a prototype for a larger version; the Sydney Harbour Bridge, completed in 1933
(Figure 4.2a–b).
Figure 4.2a: Sydney Harbour Bridge
Figure 4.2b: Force flows in Sydney Harbour Bridge

Note that this is similar to St Pancras except that:
• The arch truss is much deeper and therefore stiffer
• There is a continuous, slender deck in the middle, which is subject to local loading
• Because the arch is much stiffer than the deck, it will carry most of the bending and shear
associated with this local loading, as well as the compression from the arch action
We can distinguish a number of reasons for change. Firstly, the construction community had been readily
supplied with its basic modern construction materials, offering opportunities never before available.
Alongside that, there were developments in calculation techniques, as discussed in Essential Knowledge
Text No. 4 4.1. These developments gave engineers confidence in being able to design structures
scientifically. Of course, these techniques did not always work, as Essential Knowledge Text No. 5 4.2
explains. Less obviously, there was increased standardisation of parts, increasing availability of these
parts and development of mechanical equipment; all aiding production and economy within a maturing
construction industry.
References
4.1 Mann, A.P. Essential Knowledge Text No. 4: The historical development of structural theories
and methods of analysis — context of modern computer analysis [online] Available at:
www.istruct.org/resources-centre/essential-knowledge-series (Accessed: 12 April 2016)
4.2 Mann, A.P. Essential Knowledge Text No. 5: Lessons from failures [online] Available at:

Second half of
20th century:
materials
By the end of this section, readers will understand the huge changes that have taken
place over the working lifetime of engineers now retiring. Those changes began after
the Second World War and progressed at an ever increasing rate so that, nowadays,
designers have at their disposal a vast range of high quality products and construction
techniques.

5.1 Immediate post-war era

The Second World War was a huge set back for everyone, construction included. In its immediate
aftermath, there were severe material shortages and skilled labour was scarce. On the other hand,
European devastation brought with it a huge demand for reconstruction, for restoration of infrastructure,
a need to house millions and the need to rebuild economies within modern factories. There were other
societal pressures as well; a strong desire not to return to a poverty-stricken pre-war existence, with its
slum dwellings and poor working conditions. So governments pushed for entirely new cities and a brave
new world: clean and healthy. In the UK, the national mood was celebrated at the 1951 Festival of Britain
which included such notable structures as the Dome of Discovery (a latticed aluminium trussed dome,
111m diameter) and the futuristic Skylon (Figure 5.1a–b).
Figure 5.1a: Skylon structure at the

1951 Festival of Britain

pre-stress
gravity alone
Figure 5.1b: Force flows in the Skylon
Note:
• The loading system is well triangulated, in principle ensuring stability of the structure under both
gravity and horizontal loads
• There needs to be some minimal pre-stress under gravity loading (as shown on the right) to ensure
that the geometry of the cables does not change significantly
• In fact, the hangers were pre-stressed substantially to improve geometric consistency. This put the
Skylon itself into additional compression
Lessons in productivity during the war years had also been learned. The goal was mass production
applied to building products, since technological and organisational developments had shown how to
build quickly. During the war, US shipyards were churning out all-welded Liberty ships within 24 days
from keel set-down to launch. Bailey bridges could be installed in hours. There were also legacies from
aircraft production. Some former aeronautical engineers realised the potential for lightweight products
and, from their initiatives, the modern cold-rolled section industry emerged. Mechanical equipment
received a huge boost and powered tools increasingly became the norm. The UK company, JCB,
launched in 1945 with its first vehicle being made from war surplus material, and grew into one of the
world’s largest construction equipment manufacturers. Insertion of hydraulically operated rams into their
equipment offered great advantages.

So the development of structural form after the end of the war was strongly linked to conditions existing
at that time. The drive for structural efficiency was promoted by shortages, giving a boost to various
technologies. The demand for housing and need for speed were powerful incentives towards the
development of system building for housing, schools and hospitals. The dream was to make high quality
components in factories and assemble them on site, thus also bypassing shortages in skilled labour. That
trend of innovation, a push for cost reduction in material use and speed of construction has continued
until the present day, and at an ever increasing pace. This drive received an additional boost with the
advent of computers and their application to information handling, quality control, automation and
numerically controlled machines. All these factors affected the form of structures that engineers created.
5.2 Steel development

In the early 1960s when universal beam and column sections became available, steel fabrication differed
little from practice at the turn of the century. However, attitudes changed quickly over the following
decades. Built up members disappeared and joining techniques were soon based solely on welding
and high strength bolts. Factory development took place introducing significant automation and faster
welding, much of it fully automatic. Many connections were standardised on an industry-wide basis.
Development was continuous, linking electronic drawing production directly to ordering, handling
material and making products, all targeted within a ‘just-in-time’ philosophy. Progress has been so
great that for some structures, the trend of relying on ‘off the shelf’ products has now almost reversed;
it becoming economic to tailor-make members for high-rise structures into shapes directly suited to
architectural and structural demands.
Over the post war years, steelwork engineers have been supplied with an ever increasing range of
products. Hot-rolled sections have been standardised into a range of universal beams and columns.
Hollow sections were introduced in the 1950s and widely used (almost impossible without welding) for
appearance and efficiency. A range of efficient proprietary beams was now on offer. While steel strengths
remain much the same as those available at the turn of the century, higher strength steel grade usage is
now more common and specialist steels can be sourced where necessary.
The structural steelwork industry is specialised. At one extreme, it has managed to fabricate power
stations and offshore contracts requiring thousands of tonnes of material. At the other, there has been
a large annual demand for lightweight sheds; the lattice roof of earlier years has largely been replaced
by pitched portals designed and fabricated in a highly efficient process by specialist companies.
Cladding has evolved from the corrugated tin and asbestos cement of pre-war years, to mass produced
attractive sheeting, incorporating high standards of insulation. Purlins and sheeting rails, which had
formerly been hot-rolled angles, have been replaced by cold-rolled purlins and rails marketed as part of
complete package systems. Such sheds are now an intrinsic part of the UK landscape, being used for vast
superstores and warehouses right across the country. Figure 5.2 shows the versatility of modern steel
structures.

Figure 5.2: Emirates Air Line, London
5.3 Concrete development

Concrete development has been no less spectacular. Steel shortages after the war spurred on the
development of pre-stressing as a technology. That led to widespread use of standard pre-tensioned,
precast slabs in buildings, and the use of a range of pre- and post-tensioned beams in bridges. Relatively
recently, post-tensioning has became common in the production of efficient floor slab solutions in
multi-storey buildings. The spur, as always, has been the need to design long-span floors and erect them
quickly and cost-effectively.
With improvements in UK roads in the post war years (including the 1960s motorway boom) it became
possible to move products around more easily. This was one factor — along with pressures for
standardisation, quality and speed — for growth in the pre-cast industry. Thus today we take for granted
pre-stressed concrete floor slabs, pre-cast staircases and all manner of standard units as well as bespoke
ones. They are all just part of the product portfolio available to designers.
In situ concrete has not been eliminated, but has become more efficient. Throughout the post war
era, technology moved from onsite batching and hand placing to ordering quality assured mixes
from centralised plant, moving them by mixer and placing them via pump. Shuttering ceased to be
tailor‑made, and a wide variety of standardised systems became available. Slipforming technology
evolved and became the norm for construction of tall shafts. Concrete quality has been immeasurably
improved by the development of cements, through a better understanding of aggregates, and by the
availability of a range of admixtures. In this era, concrete moved from being an aesthetically distained
material to an architectural product that could be finished in a variety of attractive ways, albeit some
having since gone out of fashion. Photographs of Christ’s College, Cambridge and the South Bank
Development5.1 show radically different modernist architectural forms, both heavily reliant on concrete
as their material of expression. Figure 5.3 shows the diving boards at the London Aquatics Centre; this is
a clear example of using reinforced concrete in a specialist application.

Figure 5.3: Diving boards at the 2012 Olympic Aquatics Centre
5.4 Timber and masonry

The traditional materials of timber and masonry also underwent significant development. Timber
selection began to include grading for strength, effectively changing a natural product into one of
more consistent properties. A range of proprietary trusses were developed so that traditional rafters for
housing almost disappeared. Synthetic glues were invented and used to create large ‘glulam’ beams
with architectural potential. A range of improved plywoods and particle boards were created, such that
chipboard has now become standard for flooring.
Much research on brick and blockwork allowed masonry to be designed by science rather than rule
of thumb; architects created many splendid brick structures including high-rise blocks. Masonry still
maintains its market share as a load-bearing medium for low-rise structures. Figure 5.4 shows a modern
use of timber, while Figure 5.5 shows a modern application of brickwork.

Figure 5.4: Timber cladding of 2012 Olympic Velodrome
Figure 5.5: Helsinki University of Technology auditorium

5.5 Foundations and ground engineering

The legacy of past industry has bequeathed us many ‘brownfield’ sites ill suited for modern building, but
land is too valuable to remain out of use and so techniques have evolved for clean up and compaction to
permit new development. Another pressure on innovation has been to work on city centre sites in close
proximity to other buildings. Frequently, the demand is to either build tall (so imposing large loads) or
to build deep (to incorporate basements). To solve such problems, new pile forms have been created:
large diameter bored piles, flight augured piles and piles inserted by vibration. Powerful equipment
is available to drill even into rock, to shore up ground, to build diaphragm walls below ground and so
on. Construction techniques such as ‘top down’ improve productivity and speed of construction by
permitting building both up and down at the same time.
Geotechnical advances have offered improved confidence in construction where there is closeness to
vulnerable structure. Examples are construction of the underground car park for the House of Commons
(1977)5.2 or the deep tube stations for the Jubilee line (1979). Collectively, these improvements have
offered engineers many new possibilities.
5.6 Research and trade organisations

In reviewing the drivers for innovation and change, the role of universities and trade organisations
should not be overlooked. The post-war era saw a very large increase in the number of universities, and
therefore in the number of departments keen to conduct research. Their output in the UK in the latter
half of the 19th century has been formidable. Equally, all the major construction materials had their own
UK trade organisation — developing standards, encouraging better product use and publicising new
ideas: BCSA and SCI for steel, The Cement and Concrete Association for concrete (now The Concrete
Centre) , The Brick Development Association for masonry and TRADA for timber. Their publications have
been a source of inspiration for generations of engineers while their annual competitions celebrating
excellence, have disseminated what was achievable and set ever higher goals.
References
5.1 Collins, A.R. (Ed.) Structural Engineering: Two Centuries of British Achievement, Tarot Print Ltd., 1983
5.2 Burland, J.B. and Hancock, R.J.R. (1977) ‘Underground car park at the House of Commons, London:
Geotechnical aspects’, The Structural Engineer, 55(2), pp. 87–100

Second half of
20th century:
form
In this section, the reader will understand that the latter part of the 20th century
showed the profession utilising materials in ever more innovative ways to offer clients
and society better, faster and more cost-effective structures.

6.1 Anything is possible

In the post-war years architects and structural engineers embraced new materials and new technologies
with enthusiasm. They experimented with new structural forms and constructed ever more exciting
buildings using ever more daring arrangements. The ability of concrete to be poured into structurally
efficient shapes had been known for a long time but its capability was exploited to the extreme by
casting thin shell cooling towers and by numerous shell roof structures.
The challenges of such construction might best be signified by the Sydney Opera House (1973)
(Figure 6.1). The story of its building, from simple sketches of intent, to simplification via making
shuttering of common curvature, is legendary. It was almost impossible to build and enormously
expensive; its completion may have been a triumph of technology but a commercial failure and a
cautionary tale for the construction community.
Figure 6.1: Sydney Opera House
Perhaps the industry became too self-confident? Many iconic structures suffered builder work defects,
and the legacy of decay — caused by a mismatch between ‘structural efficiency’ and poor durability —
reflected badly on the industry. Even such triumphs as Liverpool’s catholic cathedral (1967) had a leaky
roof. ‘Progress’ perhaps suffered its biggest set back with the collapse of the system built Ronan Point
tower block in 1968. The flats had a structural form quick to build but inherently vulnerable.

6.2 1980s boom

Evolution of structural form stems partly from architectural ingenuity with the desire to do something
different, and it partly responds to customer pressure: form follows function. In the mid 1980s, there
was an explosion in London’s importance as a financial centre, brought about by deregulation. In its
wake, building activity boomed with a demand for high quality, open planned, column free offices and
dealing floors that were heavily serviced with electronic equipment, air conditioned and with long-span
floors. Industry responded. Designs were now not just a matter of structural efficiency but really had to
be completed at speed. This led to the use of steel frames — taking advantage of factory productivity
and rapid erection — and the pumping of flooring concrete directly onto metal decking. Long spans
were facilitated using composite action, with their construction made efficient by the use of concrete
pumping. This, in turn, created a demand for more pumpable mixes which would achieve their requisite
strength rapidly. Floor production was boosted by machine developments creating flat surfaces by
power floating.
6.3 Bridges
The worldwide demand for bridges continued until the end of the century and there was much
innovation. Longer and longer bridges were tackled. Iconic structures were the suspension bridges of
the Forth (1006m, 1964) and Severn (988m, 1966) crossings. The later Humber crossing (2220m, 1981)
(Figure 6.2) was at the time the longest suspension bridge in the world by far. As an alternative to the
suspension form, cable-stayed structures were developed, a famous example being Pont du Normandie
finished in 1995 with a maximum span of 856m (Figure 6.3). All these were made possible by technical
advances in deck design, making the form more structurally efficient and especially making cross
sections aerodynamically stable.
Figure 6.2: Humber Suspension Bridge

Figure 6.3: Pont du Normandie
A feature of the era’s bridges was not only functionality; they also had to be beautiful. They had to
display architectural, even sculptural, elegance. Vitruvius had been rediscovered. Prime examples
might be found in Santiago Calatrava’s bridges, such as his stunning viaduct at Seville (1992) and
Michel Virlogeux’s Millau bridge in southern France (2004) (Figure 6.4). Apart from these showcase
examples, many more innovations were made in design and construction for ‘normal’ bridges:
post‑tensioning, even pre-casting and bringing segments to site for onsite joining. Design often had
to be intimately connected to the type of construction equipment being used and the manner of
erection proposed.
Figure 6.4: Millau Viaduct

As with buildings, there were setbacks. Successful bridge design has to be matched to build
methodology. The Internet affords wonderful opportunities for seeing construction projects in action6.1.
Box girder bridges were thought to be highly efficient in structural form (and so they were) but some
spectacular collapses during construction shook the industry6.2. Equally, sober lessons have been learned
about maintenance costs; one bridge master has claimed that the most efficient form is the one easiest
to paint in situ!
6.4 Long spans

As well as bridges spanning further and further, the latter part of the 20th century (and beginning of the
21st) are characterised by a demand for longer roof and floor spans. A start may be the Festival of Britain
dome (111m), with an end being perhaps London’s Millennium Dome spanning 320m (Figure 6.5). To
span such distances, a variety of structural forms were tried: lattices, suspended lattices, proprietary
space frames and air-supported structures. As with bridges, appearance and novelty were also drivers.
The cable nets used as roofs over the Munich Olympic stadium (1972) showed what was possible using
new forms of sheeting and ingenious support arrangements. Likewise, development of geodesic domes,
exemplified by the Eden Project’s biomes (2001) (Figure 6.6), again, using new coverings, gave architects
with imagination a raft of new possibilities6.3.
Figure 6.5: Millennium dome

Figure 6.6: Roof structure of Eden Project
Olympic stadia have always presented opportunities for architects and national prestige. Perhaps the
trend started at the Berlin games of 1936. By 1972, in Munich, the profession was certainly expected
to be at their most creative. A spectacular stadium was produced for the 2004 Athens Olympics, while
the Beijing games of 2008 included the incredible form of the ‘Birds Nest’ Stadium and the Water
Cube, whose walls were based on the mathematical intersection of bubbles in a block of idealised
foam (Figure 6.7)6.4. The 2012 Olympics produced a crop of outstanding structures large and small6.5.
Almost as contemporary, Wembley Stadium (2007) has a complex roof supported on one of the world’s
largest arches.
Figure 6.7: Water Cube from 2008 Beijing Olympics

6.5 Tall structures

Structures have been getting taller and taller. While the first ‘skyscraper’ was a mere 10 stories high, there
are now super tall buildings — 829.8m for the Burj Khalifa in Dubai (Figure 6.8). For some such buildings,
the sole rationale is prestige. With others, it is simply a desire to squeeze maximum useable area onto
minimum land space. Any visit to Hong Kong reveals a dizzying number of high-rise apartments.
Such heights have been made possible by technical understandings, especially in wind drag (and its
reduction), by adopting structurally efficient forms for lateral resistance — with the tallest buildings
gaining stiffness by invoking the tube effects of grouping structural members around their perimeter,
and by using super strength materials to carry maximum load on low cross-section. Control of sway
has also been improved with the development of damping systems. Construction requires extreme
control of storey height and this is achieved via efficiencies in floor and beam design to squeeze depths
down. Tall buildings would not have been feasible without parallel developments in high speed lifts and
efficient mechanical servicing6.6.
Figure 6.8: Burj Khalifa
References
6.1 YouTube (2011) 1,000 tonne bridge deck replaced over Caversham Road [online] Available at:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLncokuZHtk (Accessed: 8 March 2016)
6.2 Mann, A.P. Essential Knowledge Text No. 5: Lessons from failures [online] Available at:
6.3 Jones, A.C. et al. (2001) ‘Eden Project, Cornwall: design, development and construction’
The Structural Engineer, 79(20), pp. 30–36
6.4 Fu, X. et al. (2007) ‘Beijing Olympic National Swimming Centre: structural design’, The Structural
Engineer — Beijing Olympics 2008 special supplement, pp. 27–33
6.5 Various authors (2012) ‘Olympic structures for London 2012’, The Structural Engineer — special issue,
90(6), pp. 13–88
6.6 Agrawal, R. et al. ‘The Shard at London Bridge’, The Structural Engineer, 92(7), pp. 18–30

Future
Here, readers are given a brief perspective on past achievements and will be offered a
vision of possibilities to tackle the enormous demand from a world which needs quality
infrastructure.

The last half century has given architects and engineers a vast range of products and a stock of structural
examples illustrating what is possible; setting standards for the future. The Institution-commissioned
artwork by Stephen Wiltshire MBE, for the Institution’s 2008 centenary, showcases some of these
examples to beautiful effect (Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1: The Institution’s centennial celebration of structure
At the beginning of the 20th century, architectural and engineering progress was still largely dominated
by developments across the old world. But things were changing. Over the century until present, world
population expanded significantly and so did its expectations, with aspirations for improved cities and
infrastructure. We have witnessed the rise of the mega city and all the challenges these bring. In less than
half a century, Shanghai has progressed from a line of old buildings on the Bund to what is now one of
the most spectacular skylines on the planet (Figure 7.2). It points to the future.
Figure 7.2: Shanghai skyline

Conclusions
• At its simplest, structural form is created from walls, roofs, beams and columns to enclose
space and support load
• However, the varieties inherent in the word ‘beam’ (or any of the other terms) are immense.
Differences arise in materials used, arrangements, structural efficiency, constructability
and aesthetics
• Over the centuries, engineers have been called upon to create structures satisfying the
changing needs of society. The pace of change has been phenomenal. Over the last
century, there have been ever increasing pressures to build higher, longer and faster
• Human ingenuity is incredible and we have been left with both a knowledge legacy, and a
wonderful portfolio of functional and beautiful structures that offer a guide to the future

International HQ
47–58 Bastwick Street
London EC1V 3PS
United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)20 7235 4535
E: mail@istructe.org
W: www.istructe.org
Founded 1908 and incorporated by Royal Charter 1934

Registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales No. 233392
and in Scotland No. SC038263

EKT-No-3-Historical Development of Structural Form

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EKT-No-3-Historical Development of Structural Form

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Important

A record of your download has been retained by the Institution.

Reproduction or transmission (electronically or otherwise) of all

Unless the licensee is a registered member of the IStructE’s Academic

Registered members of the IStructE’s Academic Community

Licence agreement - NWM - free V1

First published: April 2016

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 1

2 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 3

Figure 1.1: Temple of Concordia, Agrigento, Sicily

A general review of older construction techniques can be found in the literature1.2.

4 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 5

Figure 2.1a: Ely Cathedral roof

6 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Figure 2.1c: Force flows for an individual vault

Figure 2.1b: Plan of Ely Cathedral

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 7

Figure 2.2a: Roof of Merchant

Figure 2.2b: Force flows for Merchant

8 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Figure 2.3a: Westminster Hall

Figure 2.3b: Force flows in Westminster Hall roof

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 9

10 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Figure 3.1a: Iron Bridge at Coalbrookdale

Figure 3.1b: Force flows in Iron Bridge, Coalbrookdale

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 11

• This structure is pinned at mid-span, so it is just a simple three pinned arch

Figure 3.2: Pontcysyllte Aqueduct

12 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Figure 3.3: The Crystal Palace (1851)

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 13

Figure 3.4a: St. Pancras Station

14 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Figure 3.4b: General arrangement of a typical arch at St Pancras

Figure 3.4c: Force flows for St Pancras Station roof

• This is similar to Ironbridge, except that there is no pin at the crown

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 15

16 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 17

Framed structures offered architects a number of advantages in freedom of expression, particularly by

Figure 4.1: Battersea Power Station

18 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Figure 4.2a: Sydney Harbour Bridge

Figure 4.2b: Force flows in Sydney Harbour Bridge

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 19

Note that this is similar to St Pancras except that:

• The arch truss is much deeper and therefore stiffer

20 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 21

5.1 Immediate post-war era

Figure 5.1a: Skylon structure at the

22 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Figure 5.1b: Force flows in the Skylon

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 23

5.2 Steel development

24 The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3

Figure 5.2: Emirates Air Line, London

5.3 Concrete development

The Institution of Structural Engineers Essential Knowledge Text No. 3 25

Figure 5.3: Diving boards at the 2012 Olympic Aquatics Centre

5.4 Timber and masonry