|
Posted by EDS on March 14, 2008, 3:08 pm
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On my own house, it went through several hurricanes but some
>>>>>>>> things did fail, though nothing structural.
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I couldn't really tell from the program - in many areas, it looks
>>>>>>> like they're reinforcing it, but I don't knw whether other areas
>>>>>>> might be put onto rubber "floats" - I couldn't tell. But San
>>>>>>> Francisco (IIRC) has been literally lifted and placed onto rubber
>>>>>>> plugs that are supposed to absorb the shaking. THey also
>>>>>>> described the swaying that some wooden houses can withstand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Earth tremours are usually cyclic, so anything like rubber plugs
>>>>>> will certainly help. I've experienced a Richter 7.8 in PNG, and
>>>>>> seen what happens to structures in similar shakes. In timber
>>>>>> structures, multi-bolted plates are preferable to single bolts,
>>>>>> also trussed structures work well. In PNG joints in traditional
>>>>>> buildings are constructed out of a complex weave of bush vine;
>>>>>> acts as a torsion joint - moves, but tightens as it moves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is PNG Papua New Guinea...? Maybe I can fond some pic online.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> A Google for "haus tambaran" (Sepik Province) will produce examples
>>>> of the type of building where vine is used as a torsion joint
>>>> between a heavy beam and a column. I didn't find any where you can
>>>> see a joint detail. These buildings are sometimes three storeys high
>>>> and full of carvings, so the structural details tend to get
>>>> overlooked.
>>>
>>> Thanks, there are a lot of references, looking through them now.
>>>
>>> Structureal details do often tend to be either ovelooked, or
>>> deliberately hidden. I know that part of the "Modernist" movement
>>> was to lay them bare, but the results are IMO very seldom aesthetic.
>>> So it strikes me that ti's an inherent dichotomy in architecture,
>>> i.e. the balance between revealing the structural workings, and
>>> concealing them...
>>>
>>
>> If done correctly, designing with a logical structure and developing
>> fine structural details produce some of the finest architecture.
>
> No doubt (good image sources, whether books or URLS, are always welcome
> ;) ) - OTOH, I've seen it where things like pipes and ductwork are left
> exposed in a way that strikles me as being either affectatious, or
> cheap/lazy (or worse, both). It's one thing to be able to trace lines of
> force and so on, but I think there is more to revealing the structure,
> than merely leaving pipes and valves naked, especailly when they just end
> up collecting cobwebs and soot and so on. Wall surfaces/finishes were
> invented for a reason, I think. Even if I lived in a loft and wanted to
> see the gridwork, it seems to me that maintenence would be something of a
> nightmere.
>
> That being said, your points below are good ones:
>
>> What
>> is a Gothic Cathedral but a giant structural diagram of forces, in
>> stone, from roof peak to grade. Greek and Roman temples and Roman
>> baths are visible structures. Domes are structures that visibly bear
>> the weight. A bridge structure, clearly delineating the forces that
>> hold it up, is certainly more naturally pleasing to the eye than FOG
>> stuff. The list of beautiful structures is endless. A great and
>> logical structure is a joy to behold. EDS
>
> It's true that that those examples represent a balance between structure,
> and the concealment of structural workings. I suppose that "dichotiomy"
> was not the right word for me to use, and "infrastructure" (pipes,
> wiring, ductwork, etc) might also be more accurate than "structure" -
> although I've seen those things *called* (in books) part of the
> structure.
>
> At the same time, tho', taking, for example, the Roman bathsyou
> mentioned, I find myself doubting that, had the Romans had clear heat-
> tolerant flooring available, they'd have used it specifically to allow
> patrons to view the workings of the heating system...
>
>
Nor would I, but those items can often be incorporated within the structural
structure or other systems devised to move the air. Exposing the structure
in most minor buildings would just be messy. The engineer and the architect
should work together (or be the same person) from the beginning of a major
project to make it work. See Calatrava's and Nervi's work for structure and
architecture working together. To my understanding the MEP systems are not a
part of the structure.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap