ARCHITECTURAL WORKING

DRAWING II
ARCHITECTURE Vs
STRUCTURE
ARCHITECTURE Vs
STRUCTURE

INRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
 ARCHITECTURE:
 is the art or science of buildings; esp. the art or
practice of designing and building edifices for
human use, taking both aesthetic and practical
factors in to account.
 is the built realisation of particular concept, or idea.
This idea can be about construction, or how the
building fits into a physical, or a social, landscape.
INTRODUCTION cont

 STRUCTURE:
 the word structure is drived from the Latin word “stuere”
(to construct) and it is synonymous to the word
“construction” in many languages.
 something constructed: a complex object which is made
up of small pieces; the organization of pieces, parts or
components.
 signifies the carrier part of a building or defines the
relationship between the components esp the ones
which resists against gravity and several other forces
which works on other directions which functions for
maintaining the initial form of a building.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
• Structural designing 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 and stiff.
 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.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE and
STRUCTURE
– 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 .
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE and
STRUCTURE
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE and
STRUCTURE

• 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.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE and
STRUCTURE

 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
Notre Dame chaple, France, Le Corbusier, 1954
which give it the ability to
maintain its form and
resist load.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE and
STRUCTURE
• The relationship between structure and architecture
is expressed as follows:
 Structural as ornament
 Structure as architecture
 Structure as form generator/ Structure accepted
 Structure ignored
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
 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.
STRUCTURE AS ORNAMENT

Lloyd's Building, London, Richard Rogers,

1978
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.
STRUCTURE AS FORM GENERATOR
 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.
 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
STRUCTURE AS FORM GENERATOR
 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.
STRUCTURE AS FORM GENERATOR
 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
STRUCTURE AS FORM GENERATOR
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.
Vitra Design Museum, Basel, Switzerland, Frank
The scale of such a
Gehry, 1989
project must be small
however.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE
AND STRUCTURE
• 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’.
Vitruvius Sir Henry Wooton

Utilitas → Commodity

Firmitas → Firmness

Venustas → Delight
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE
AND STRUCTURE
• 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/
utilitas
Commodity’, which is
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 Falling water
intended.
 Delight/
venustas
‘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.
Falling water ,
The symbolic meanings of the chosen forms, Delight
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 possible generators of ‘delight’.
FIRMNESS/
Firmitas
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 Falling water structure
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’.
CONCLUSION
• Being one of the main components of architecre, structure
has followed a parallel pathway to the advancement in
material, technique and technology throughout history.
• Depending on these developments in structure,
architcture has become diversified. This has resulted in
the construction of buildings in which the total form and
structural form are identical.
• The influence of structure on architectural form has been
increasing through out the history, even today.
CONCLUSION
• If architecture is defined as the solution of needs with the
available facilities, the integration of structure with
arhitecture becomes more valuable, since structure in
architecture is one of the most important factors which
reflects the level of civilization of the society it belongs to.
THANK YOU!!!