• The relationship between architects and structural engineers as it has developed from the beginning of the twentieth century until the present day was a period in which very major changes occurred in the world of architecture as architects sought to find modes of visual expression which were appropriate to the Modern age. Significant change during the period - the development of the technologies of steel and reinforced concrete. Readily adopted by Architect – incorporated into the new architecture, bringing about changes in the methodologies needed for the design and realization of buildings. The evolution of a new profession, that of the consulting structural engineer – a practitioner who is responsible for the design of the structural aspects of buildings and who works somewhere along a spectrum of collaborative relationship with architects in order to bring this about. • This spectrum ranges – At one end, engineers who have produced architecture in their own right, working as architects rather than with architects • At the other end, who have sought to form close collaborations with architects and to evolve designs in partnership with them. • Understanding of aesthetic concept - a long debate between architect and structural engineer, because of different assignments and education backgrounds. • The participation of the public – deepen the gap In the eyes of the public -the art of structures were dominated by the architects while structural engineers has been regard as the one who provide assistance. • Rise of the modern bridge engineering -Aesthetic value of structure has been cited by many structural artists The challenge of tradition (1760-1890) • Historical gigantic structures- no scientific basis of their resistant performance. • Up until the19th century, many bridges and other structures -work of architects. • The separation was determined by a change: Industrial revolution the period of stone and timber gave way to the period of metal. • Iron Bridge in 1779 by Abraham Darby III - the skeletal iron offended most architects and their classical values. • The leading civil engineer, such as Telford, Stephenson, Brunel, etc, moved increasingly further - away from architecture and took a strong stand for the independence of engineering Treatment of Form in Structural Engineering • Structural engineering applied to the sphere of the great architecture - most attractive areas of creativity in the field of resistant structures. As of now Structural Engineering – going through a situation of “over- proficiency”: where technicians, who operate via computer programs and spreadsheets with huge capacities and possibilities, are working with little refined knowledge and understanding of the structural behaviour. • The structural engineers are now faced to the challenges of the architectural form – need a refined and thorough structural processing for their concretion. • The three possibilities for the structural engineer‟s approach to the load bearing problems he is faced with due to free forms may be 1) To accept these free forms integrally and constitute them into possibly unsuitable resistant systems – forces elements to comply with the free configurations to transfer the tensional flow of internal stresses but over sizing them in enormous amount. Treatment of Form in Structural Engineering 2) Trying to insert a structural solution into the existing formal space, as intensively accurate and authoritative as possible and with a great load bearing and resistant capacity- Forcibly taking some areas of that space which had been designed for fulfilling building‟s functionality from the architect. 3) To force or slightly modify, as presice as possible, the proposed free form in order to try to approximate the system – quite casual and without real consistent schemes – towards an active-resistant arrangement on behalf of the material of the said system, and this by integrating precisely tuned structural arrangements into the architecture. The third possibility can lead the process creatively a favorable fulfillment of the solution at optimal cost. “significant” form of a structure. • It should be compositional, analytical and constructive. • This allows the architect to express himself with a maximum freedom although he later will have to accept to interchange the aspects of structural insufficiency of his formal proposal. Great architectural structures must be set up with a tensible thought vision of constructivity from the very initial moment of their design process. • Tensiblity is “the capacity to use optimally the maximum dimensions of the outline of the building in order to arrange in this space a structural system able to solve the load bearing and construction problems without altering the proposed architectonical spirit by using chiefly canonical arrangements which are auspiciously conditioned and which optimize the internal energy of the bearing system, hereby achieving the optimum efficiency and the least general cost of the structure: methods, materials and erection process.” • Treatment of Form in Structural Engineering Self constructivity “the evolutive capacity of the substructures which are embedded into the final structure and which could be obtained by cutting or dividing them temporarily”. (STRUCTURES AND ARCHITECTURE, Paulo J.S. Cruz) Successive or staged active areas so to enable the system‟s growing progress up to its final state without requiring temporary structures or arrangements except the ones needed for the mobility of these subsystems. If in the conception of the architectural-structural design of the whole building the self-construction processes are taken into account, the said construction process may merge with the final design. the constructive process also defines part of the building‟s geometry or image • The Relationship Between Architectural Form and Structural Form Architectural form - A building‟s external outline or shape, and to a lesser degree references its internal organization and unifying principles. Form - The shape or three dimensional massing, but also encompasses additional architectural aspects including structural configuration and form, in so far as they may organize and unify an architectural design. Structural form is a building‟s primary or most visually dominant structural system responsible for maintaining the shape of the building under the influence of the forces, loads and other environmental factors to which it is subjected. SYNTHESIS OF ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL FORM Structure defines architectural form and often functions, at least partially, as the building envelope. 1) Shell Structures Achieve the most pure synthesis of architectural and structural forms. Resist and transfer loads within their minimal thicknesses. Rely upon their three-dimensional curved geometry and correct orientation and placement of supports for their adequate structural performance. Relationship of Structure and Aesthetic Form • relationship of interior space and structural systems was discussed with particular emphasis on their suitability to functional need. The different types of structural systems through their construction methods (namely solid, skeleton and surface) were examined to see how they affect the architectural form. Technical limitations of structural systems were also considered but as Hardy Cross said, "We must 3 always remember that what we want is a structure not merely an analysis. "