Building Structural Systems vs.Architectural Form Nichole M. Bekken,
[email protected] Associate Professor Donna Kacmar, College of Architecture University of Houston, Gerald D. Hines College of Architecture Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program University of Houston, The Honors College 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Calhoun Lofts Houston, TX, USA 2009 Kirksey - Architect Haynes Whaley Associates - Structural Engineer Post Tension Slab and Column - Building System 7 110 110 Brief Abstract Sq.Foot Sq.Foot Bay 3 16.8 2.4 47.3 2,930 2,350 176 395,200 Vol.Concrete TonsConcrete 1 15.75 Short Columns Quantity Slab Shear Wall Understanding the relationship between structure and architectural form allows architects to weigh the relative importance of aesthetics, strength, and intentions of a building. These issues are combined and evaluated relative to the building’s efficiency of energy use, cost, space, and material use. This does not negate the importance of the more traditional needs of a building to define spacial differences (define and enclose space, communicate hierarchy, and convey cultural values, through their form). I looked at several buildings that engage this relationship between form and structure from a variety of perspectives: direct, indirect and no relationship to structure. Tons/Member Tons Total Background 21’ 12’ 12’ 24’ 25’ Slab Structural solutions often vary in their materiality, form, and relationship to a building’s overall form. There are multiple ways to begin to understand these solutions. I began looking at structure in a comparative way that also included a quantitative analysis of span, depth, weight, weight per square foot, and volume per square foot. Decoration vs. Structure Intention vs. Aesthetics 18” Columns 24” 12” 26’ Shear Wall 5 10 20 40 structure cladding 20’ Rosenthal Center for Contemporary Art Cincinnati, OH, USA 2003 Zaha Hadid - Architect KZF Design - Project Architect THP Limited - Structural Engineer Beam & Column - Building System 14.75 1 6 88.5 2010 Turn Exhibition Building Hall C, 1949 GW Bridge Bus Station, 1962 Lunar & Planetary Institute, 1970s Malevich’s Tektonic, 1977 Checkpoint Charlie, 1980 Carré d'Art 1984 Chelsea Market 1986 Villa Dall’ava 1991 Addition to Joslyn Art Museum, 1994 Moder Art Museum Rosenthal Center for Wyly Theater of Fort Worth, 2002 Contemp. Art, 2003 2008 Calhoun Lofts 2009 Margot & Bill Winspear Opera House, 2009 180 180 10 Methods Sq.Foot Sq.Foot Bay 107107 80,000 2,150 4,030 272 14 3 Vol.Concrete 4 TonsConcrete 1 .20 .95 .30 3.57 Vol.Steel TonsSteel Case Studies Rosenthal Center for Contemporary Art (Cincinnati, OH) Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth (Fort Worth, TX) Calhoun Lofts (Houston, TX) Turin Exhibition Building Hall C (Turin, Italy) Margot and Bill Winspear Opera House (Dallas, TX) Dee and Charles Wyly Theater (Dallas, TX) Comparative Volume vs. Weight Area vs. Weight Form vs. Structure Section vs. Surface Columns Slab Long I-Beams Short I-Beams Loadbearing Walls Quantity Tons/Member Tons Total Slab 1’-6” 1’-8” Techniques Define Structural Elements Primary Form Elements Secondary Form Elements Relationship Direct to Structure Indirect to Structure Not Direct to Structure 5’-6” Loadbearing Wall Long i-beams 20’-11” Long Columns Short Columns 33’ 22’ 2’-9” 28’ 2’-9” 11’-8” 5 10 20 40 structure cladding Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth Fort Worth, TX, USA 2002 Tadao Ando - Architect Kendall/Heaton Associates - Project Architect Thornton-Tomasetti - Structural Engineer Beam & Column, Loadbearing Walls - Building System 6 356 9 567 283.3 Further Research Sq.Foot Sq.Foot Bay Vol.Concrete 156,000 22,500 356 14,400 1,080 69 17 129 21.5 1 14.4 14.4 1 1.816.2 2 TonsConcrete Vol.Steel TonsSteel After investigating the six building in my research I noticed more of the buildings had a direct relationship of form to structure. The coexistence of structure and form within one element allows for efficiency of energy, cost, space and material use within a building. Beginning to evaluate the amount of material, energy use, space, and cost saved by allowing these two necessities to become one would be the next step in research. Columns Column - Y Slab Beams Loadbearing Walls Quantity Tons/Member Tons Total Loadbearing Walls Acknowledgements Rollie Childers, Kendall/Heaton Associates Dr. Joe Colaco, CBM Engineers Scott Cutlip, Kirksey Architecture Jay Taylor, Magnusson Klemencic Associates Beams 1’-4” 34’-6” 1’ 3’-9” 24’ 18” 24’ 49’ 24’ 24’ 2’ Column - Y Columns 5 10 20 40 structure cladding