Building Support Structures, 2nd Ed., Analysis and Design with SAP2000 Software

Structure is a necessary part of life; it establishes order. It relates various entities or all the parts of a whole, displaying some pattern of organization and lack of randomness. It occurs at any scale, ranging from the molecular structure of material to the laws of the universe. Everything has structure, even if we have not yet recognized it. Societies are structured to properly function; language has structure; and the interrelationship of plants and animals with their environment represents equilibrium in nature or ecology.

1.1

Introduction

The design of buildings evolves out of a complex interactive process. The many form determinants range from the effect of environmental context, be it cultural or physical, to the building organism itself, which must properly function. There are distinct building characteristics referring to building form, function, material, economy, and the process of making it. The factors defining architecture range from a purely subjective nature perceiving the building as art, to the rational considerations based on an organized body of information and knowledge treating the building almost as science. The various determinants of building design (i.e., ordering elements of buildings) do include the following criteria:

▪

Building context (e.g., political, economic, social, legal restrictions, topography, geology, orientation, parking, existing urban fabric)

▪

The building as architecture (e.g., aesthetics, massing)

▪

The building support structure

▪

The building as enclosure and climatic control

▪

The building as an organization of spaces

▪

The building as an activity and functioning system (e.g., circulation)

▪

The mechanical systems: HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning), cold and hot water systems, plumbing systems, transportation systems (elevators, escalators)

▪

The electrical distribution, including communication systems

▪

Fire protection and security

▪

The building as construction process and as assembly

▪

Building economy

Building support structures, in turn, can be organized in various ways such as,

▪

Classification of support structures according to geometry and form

▪

Classification of support structures according to building use and function

▪

Classification of support structure according to material and construction

▪

Classification of support structures according to their mechanical behavior

▪

Classification of support structures as systems

Building and structure are inseparable and intimately related to each other. Structure makes the building and spaces within the building possible; it gives support to the material and therefore is necessary.

The richness of structures can only be suggested by the wealth of building structure types, ranging from the single volume with large span, such as long-span stadiums, to the cellular subdivision with multiple small spans of massive building block and vertical slab buildings, to the slender towers (Fig. 1.1), from structures above or below ground or in water, to structures in outer space. They range from simple symmetrical to complex asymmetrical forms, from boxes to terraced and inverted stepped buildings, from low-rise to high-rise buildings, and so on.

Fig. 1.1 Building Structure Types

There is no limit to building shapes and forms or structures, ranging from boxy to compound hybrid, to organic and crystalline shapes, as indicated in Fig. 1.2. Most conventional buildings are derived from the rectangle, triangle, circle, trapezoid, cruciform, pin-wheel, letter shapes and other linked figures usually comprised of rectangles.

Traditional architecture shapes form the basic geometrical solids: the prism, pyramid, cylinder, cone, and sphere (Fig. 1.2 bottom). Odd-shaped buildings may have irregular plans that change with height, so floor plans are not repetitive. The modernists invented an almost inexhaustible number of new building shapes through transformation and arrangement of basic building shapes, through analogies with biology, the human body, crystallography, machines, tinker toys, flow forms, nature, and so on. Structural order in nature occurs in all natural forms, ranging from shells to honeycomb cells, leaf structures to spider webs and soap bubbles. These natural structures have evolved into their most efficient forms in response to environmental forces. Classical architecture, in contrast, is composed and lets the façade appear as a decorative element with symbolic meaning.

Buildings basically consist of the support structure, the exterior envelope, the ceilings, and the partition walls. Structures make spaces within a building possible; they give support to the material. Whereas the structures hold the building up, the exterior envelope provides a protective shield against the outside environment, and the partitions form interior space dividers. Naturally, the non-structural space-enclosing elements and structure do not have to be separate; they can be one and the same, for example, for a bearing wall masonry apartment building or a tent structure.

Building and structure are directly related to each other. The external forces that act on buildings cause internal forces within buildings. The forces flow along the structure members to the ground, requiring foundations as transition structures to the comparatively weak soil. The members must be strong and stiff enough to resist the internal forces. In other words, building support structures must provide the necessary strength and stiffness to resist the vertical forces of gravity and the lateral forces from wind and earthquakes and guide those forces safely to the ground. In addition to strength and stiffness, stability is a necessary requirement for structures to maintain their shapes. Safety of buildings must be guaranteed.

Fig. 1.2 Building Shapes and Forms

1.2

Structures vs. Buildings vs. Architecture

Building structures are defined by geometry, materials, load action, and construction as well as form, that is, its abstract dimensions as taken into account by architecture. When a building has meaning by expressing an idea or by being a special kind of place, it is called architecture. Although structure is a necessary part of a building, it is not a necessary part of architecture; without structure, there is no building, but depending on the design philosophy, architecture as an idea does not require structure.

The relationship of structure to architecture or the interdependence of architectural form and structures is most critical for the broader understanding of structure and design of buildings in general. On the one hand, the support structure may be exposed to be part of architecture. On the other hand, the structure may be hidden by being disregarded in the form-giving process, as is often the case in postmodern buildings.

Fig. 1.3 Examples of Exposed, Hidden and Partially Exposed Structures

One may distinguish structure from its visual expression as:

▪

hidden structure vs. exposed structure vs. partially exposed structure

▪

decorative structure vs. tectonic structure vs. sculptural structure

▪

innovative structures vs. standard construction

The purpose of structure in buildings may be fourfold:

•

SUPPORT. The structure must be stable and strong enough (i.e., provide necessary strength) to hold the building up under any type of load action, so it does not collapse either on a local or global scale (e.g., due to buckling, instability, yielding, fracture, etc.). Structure makes the building and spaces within the building possible; it gives support to the material, and therefore is necessary.

•

SERVICEABILITY. The structure must be durable, and stiff enough to control the functional performance, such as: excessive deflections, vibrations and drift, as well as long-term deflections, expansion and contraction, etc.

•

ORDERING SYSTEM. The structure functions as a spatial and dimensional organizer besides identifying assembly or construction systems.

•

FORM GIVER. The structure defines the spatial configuration, reflects other meanings and is part of aesthetics, i.e. aesthetics as a branch of philosophy.

1.3

Structure as Architecture

The development of modern building support structures has its origin in the inventive spirit of structural engineering and the rapid progress in the engineering sciences during the 19th century. This birth of a new era of building construction is reflected by:

▪

the enormous volume of the Crystal Palace in London (1851, Joseph Paxton), which used an iron-glass structure system that covered a ground area of 18 acres and was constructed in only 6 months

▪

the longest span of almost 1600 ft (480 m) of the Brooklyn Bridge in New York (1883, John and Washington Roebling)

▪

the unbelievable height of the Eiffel Tower in Paris with 300 m or nearly 1000 ft (1889, Gustave Eiffel, Fig. 1.4); the exponential shape of the tower is almost as funicular as a vertical cantilever with respect to lateral wind pressure and as a column with respect to weight (i.e., equal stress). The tower conveys an understanding of equilibrium forms and expresses clearly lateral stability with its wide base, similar to the base of tree trunks.

Fig. 1.4 Eiffel Tower

One should not forget, however, that the roots for these achievements were set by the master builders of the past. The Pantheon in Rome (123 AD) with its long span of 144 ft (c. 43 m) held a record for nearly 1700 years before steel made the breakthroughs of the 19th century possible. Other engineering masterworks include the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (537 AD), with its 112-ft span (c. 34-m) dome; the cathedrals of the Middle Ages in Europe with their delicate ribbed vaulting and column support systems, introducing for the first time skeleton construction; and the dome structures for churches, such as, in Florence, Rome, London, and Paris (Fig. 1.5).

One can only emphasize that after centuries of masonry and wood construction, the extraordinary human achievements using the new materials wrought iron, steel, and later reinforced concrete were made possible within such a short period of only about 50 years, primarily during the second half of the 19th century.

It is the spirit of engineering and science that realized these events in response to the birth of new building types, ranging from the long-span structures for the great exhibition halls and train stations, the multi-bay framing for mills, factories, and warehouses, and numerous bridge types to high-rise skeleton construction. These new building types challenged engineers to develop, for example:

▪

New structure systems (e.g., continuous beams, rigid frames, arches, trusses, suspension structures, stayed structures, braced domes, shells, and foundations)

Fig. 1.5 Historical Skeleton Construction

▪

New materials (e.g., cast iron, steel, reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete)

▪

Knowledge of material properties (e.g., strength, stiffness, fatigue, creep)

▪

Structural theories to predict the behavior of structure systems using different mathematical models to translate the real physical structure into a theoretical ideal one (e.g., strength, deflection, stability, solution of indeterminate structures)

▪

Graphic statics to replace lengthy analytical approaches

▪

The interaction of structure components, that is, force flow

▪

The geometry of support structure (e.g., form-resistant structures)

▪

New structure types (e.g., long-span and high-rise structures)

▪

Knowledge of load action, including vibrations

▪

Knowledge of building construction

The spirit of engineering is expressed in invention, search for economical solutions, experimentation, risk-taking, and perceiving structure as an active system or organism that is alive and moves as it reacts to all the external force conditions. This world of engineering was absorbed into architecture at the end of the 19th century, as is demonstrated by the birth of the skyscraper, where the skeleton is covered with a curtain so powerfully expressed by Louis Sullivan, the great master of the Chicago School. At the beginning of the 20th century, Antonio Gaudi in Catalonia experimented with funicular masonry shells based on inverted models of his vaults, besides working with saddle-shaped surfaces and being fascinated by the straight-line generation of the curved surfaces.

This spirit of engineering was integrated later by the early modernists in Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. They were concerned with the articulation of the functional spirit, form follows function, and the honest expression of building construction by abolishing the wall façade and freeing the hidden structure from its imprisonment by exposing it; they were concerned with the relationship of beam, column, and skin. This position of architecture was represented by designers such as Perret, LeCorbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Gropius, and many others. In other words, structure had become architecture by associating with it a meaning and abstract qualities.

Fig. 1.6 Structure is Architecture

While the architects experimented with the exciting new-found freedom of form giving, design engineers continued the spirit of the 19th century by searching for optimal forms or minimum weight structures, and by conquering space through construction; this is especially true with respect to concrete structures. Among the great engineering designers of the first half of the 20th century were the following:

▪

Franz Dishinger in Germany, who developed minimum weight thin concrete shells

▪

Eugene Freyssinet in France, who developed prestressed concrete construction

▪

Robert Maillart of Switzerland, who optimized the form of concrete bridges to carry loads with a minimum effort or material

▪

Eduardo Torroja in Spain, who unveiled the architectural potential of concrete shell and frame construction

▪

Riccardo Morandi of Italy, who expressed the power of the material concrete

▪

Pier Luigi Nervi of Italy, who conquered space with his daring sculptural, organic architecture for stadiums and large volume enclosures

▪

Vladimir Suchov of Russia, who built light-weight structures, such as networks and suspended roofs, among numerous other ingenious engineering structures.

The work of Maillart, Torroja, and Nervi had a strong impact on the new generation of architects of the 1950s, such as Eero Saarinen, Kenzo Tange, Marcel Breuer, and many others. The full integration of the spirit of structural engineering into architecture happened during this period, i.e., Structure is Architecture. One group of architects even went so far as to claim, Architecture is Structure. The expression of structures during this era took many directions, ranging from the minimal forms of Mies van der Rohe, Philip Johnson, SOM (e.g., Bruce Graham, together with Fazlur Khan, Myron Goldsmith), and possibly I.M. Pei, to the more sculptural forms of Paul Rudolph, Marcel Breuer, Kisho Kurokawa, and Bertrand Goldberg.

Fig.1.7 Works of Some Pioneering Engineering Designers

Finally, during the period of transition in the late 1960s and early 1970s or so, architects understood the spirit of the engineering discipline and began to separate themselves from the predominance of structural engineering thinking. They had matured and developed the necessary courage to invent their own structures by superimposing upon them other ideas and meanings, such as the effect of context, symbolism, and possible fragmentation in geometry and material. Sophisticated individual structures occurred in response to particular situations, quite in contrast to the catalogued structure systems identified by numerous types of line diagrams and rules of thumb. Among the important structural engineers of this period, who worked together with architects in their experimentations with structures were Anton Tedesko, Paul Weidlinger, Ove Arup, Fazlur Khan, Fritz Leonhardt, Lev Zetlin, T.Y. Lin, Fred Severud, and A.E. Komendant.

Fig.1.8 The Period of Structural Experimentation

Also during this period of transition, the experimentation with structures continued but by adding the integration of complex geometry and bionics (i.e., by studying and copying natural systems), especially related to minimum weight and surface structures, where designers such as Frei Otto, Robert Le Ricolais, Buckminster Fuller, Konrad Wachsmann, Max Mengeringhausen, and many others had a large influence. It was during this period of transition that shell structures, which had become popular in Mexico though Felix Candela’s concrete shells and the reinforced brick shells of the Uruguayan engineer Eladio Dieste, were slowly replaced by light-weight structures, with the exception of work by Heinz Isler and Ulrich Müther, who continued to experiment with thin concrete shells. This world of structural experimentation with light-weight structures is convincingly represented by the space frames, cable structures, prestressed tensile membranes, and pneumatics of the Expos in Montreal (1967) and Osaka (1970).

The experimentation with structures is also reflected by the constructivist art of modernism and was first articulated particularly by the dreams of designers such as the pioneers Antoine Pevsner and Naum Gabo in the early part of this century in Russia. This tradition was later continued by Alexander Calder with his kinetic art; his mobiles are tensile art − they express movement, balance, lightness, and antigravity (Fig. 1.9). In the same spirit are Kenneth Nelson’s tensegrity sculptures, which were influenced by Buckminster Fuller’s thinking. To build the 60-ft (c. 18-m) tall Needle Tower (1968, Hirshorn Museum, Washington, D.C., Fig. 1.9) with only discontinuous compression struts, which never touch each other and are held together by a prestressed tensile network of continuous cables, seems unreal. Some of this world of thinking is finally understood and occurs in the architecture of today. Also must be mentioned are the daring minimal support structures for chairs and tables expressed for example, by Marcel Breuer’s Wassili chair of 1925 and Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona chair of 1929 (Fig. 1.9).

Fig.1.9 Structural Experimentation in Art and Furniture Design

A new generation of structures was introduced in the late 1970s with the Pompidou Center in Paris, by Piano and Rogers together with the brilliant structural design engineer Peter Rice. Its tensioned-braced, hinged assembly structure is quite opposite in spirit to the conventional rigid, monolithic construction. Another quite different example is the 59-story Citicorp Building in New York City by Hugh Stubbins. The renowned structural engineer William J. LeMessurier introduced a new way of thinking about structures, with his spatial 8-story series of chevron-braced stacks that act as three-dimensional units. He introduced for the first time on a large scale, powered passive tuned mass dampers on top of the structure to counteract and dampen the building’s motion.

Stayed roof structures are surely part of the new generation of structures. They were made popular in the early 1980s or so, especially by Richard Rogers, Norman Foster, and later Nick Grimshaw, together with the structural engineers Peter Rice, Tony Hunt, and Ted Happold.

The tectonic, organic world of structural resistance has become quite fashionable, with some designers following the tradition of Antonio Gaudi and Pier Luigi Nervi. Here the architect/engineer Santiago Calatrava is quite outstanding. He is fascinated with how the structure works and how the loads are carried to the ground, which he demonstrates by articulating its tactile quality and the organic nature of the skeleton comprised of sculptural, bony-shaped elements asymmetrically arranged. He is concerned with the logic of material and the beauty of the section; he emphasizes the dynamics of structure by making the potential movement of forces visible. He achieves that by expressing equilibrium of the unbalance of forces.

Fig.1.10 A New Language of Structures

Especially mentioned should be glass-skin structures (or glass as a structural material) many of which are tension supported. Here the tensile glazing support structure becomes part of the glass skin; the traditional nonstructural members of glass and sash become structural. Special, non-conventional details are used, based on forging, casting, and machining steel. The glass weight is transferred across star-shaped (e.g., H-shaped or X-shaped) castings to vertical tension rods, or each panel is hung directly from the next panel above. Vertical or horizontal cable-truss systems give lateral support to the glass wall. The glass panels are glued together with silicone, which makes them quite rigid, so that racking movement is allowed in the sliding of the bolt connections to the star-shaped castings.

Besides the traditional building types, a new language of structures is developing today with respect to architecture. It may be characterized by the breakdown of the building into smaller assemblies, multilayered construction, complex shapes and spatial geometries, fractured forms (i.e., fractal mathematics), hinged assemblies, forms in tension and compression (i.e., buildings have muscles), mixed and hybrid structures, cast metals, light-weight composite materials, and so on. There is even an indication that certain passive structures may be replaced eventually by active structures with their own intelligence. We are already quite familiar with smart materials and energy dissipation systems.

Structures of this new generation of architecture may take the following positions, keeping in mind that structure may not be a necessary part of architecture, although it necessarily must be part of the building.

▪

In numerous building types, structure has no place in architecture. During the era of Beaux-Arts, the building façade was treated as a compositional picture. Students were taught to ignore structure that engineers will take care of that; in other words, structural engineers will plug structure into the architecture. This position of hiding structure and disregarding it in the form-giving process applies to numerous postmodern buildings of today.

Fig.1.11 A New Generation of Structures

▪

The complex hidden structure derived from intricate geometries and not from the nature of the support structure as convincingly demonstrated, for example, in the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, by Frank Gehry (1997), and by some of the work of Daniel Libeskind. For typical complex buildings, computers find the layout of structures within given boundaries.

▪

The structure as the primary idea of architecture, but not necessarily derived from traditional engineering thinking of optimization or standard construction techniques or tectonic expression, but from other intentions; architects invent structures: subjectivity and creativity are introduced in spite of the limits imposed by the rules and physical laws of engineering. In other words, the designer decides to expose the structure, rather than hide it behind a skin, in order to articulate its purpose and thereby enhances the quality of space such as articulating the illusion of weightlessness.

▪

The dialogue (or play) of architecture with structure, or symbolism with tectonics: e.g. the illusion of support structure, or the detail on a more local scale as a leitmotif.

▪

The organizing geometry of the new aesthetics often is not regular as for typical buildings; the layout of structure may be random and fluid. It is possible now with modelling software that designers can explore forms and situations that they may have not been able to conceive before. Freeform shapes in architecture have become a great engineering challenge. The renowned structural engineer Cecil Balmond argues that structural engineers must become more intuitive and not just work towards the known; in other words, they must develop a less skeletal but more fluid understanding of structure. He points to the emergence of a new aesthetics of asymmetrical structures that oppose traditional notions of tectonic structures and stability. Structures derive from an animated sense of geometry possibly based on natural forms that are constantly changing where geometry evolves out of modeling and testing.

(a)

e.g. the sculptural structure as derived from other design ideas, such as the Phaeno Science Center in Wolfsburg, Germany (2005), by Zaha Hadid

(b)

e.g. the irregular and random type structure such as the Water Cube and Bird’s Nest in Beijing (2008).

(c)

The structural engineer Mutsuro Sasaki of Japan conducts experiments on refining the mathematical principles that allow buildings to escape rigid geometric forms and take on more biomorphic shapes. He helped to transform the complex geometries and ideas of architects like Toyo Ito and Arata Isozaki into reality.

1.3.1

Structural Engineer vs. Architect

The split between engineering and architecture is a relatively new phenomenon. In ancient Greek architecture and especially Roman architecture, structures were an integral part of architecture. During the medieval period, the master builders unified architecture, engineering and construction. In the Renaissance, the Universal Man integrated art, science, engineering, construction and architecture, as reflected by Leonardo da Vinci, Brunellesci, Alberti, Palladio, and many others.

The separation of engineering from architecture is often associated with the founding of the École des Ponts et Chaussées in Paris in 1747. Possibly during the Beaux-Art period near the end of the 19th century, this split reached its high point. Architects were primarily concerned with the building as façade, and presentation drawings. Students were told by their professors to ignore structure that engineers were to take care of it, a position that reappeared during the 1980s with the revival of past styles.

Engineers, on the other hand, developed new mathematical models to predict the behavior of buildings; they invented new materials and new structure systems to conquer space, as reflected by exhibition halls, train stations, numerous bridge types and high-rise skeleton construction. Engineers were always challenged by the unknown.

As discussed previously, the full integration of the spirit of structural engineering into architecture in the modern age happened during this period of the late 1950s and early 1960s or so. It was during this period that the issue of teaching structures to architects was raised. This concern of rethinking the programs of architecture to bring mathematics, mechanics, and the science of structure into sharper focus and into a clearer relationship with the design of space was addressed in the USA by Henry Kamphoefner, the dean of North Carolina State University School of Architecture. The engineers Mario Salvadori and Henry Cowan, together with German architects Curt Siegel, Heinrich Engel, and Fred Angerer, were most instrumental in introducing a position of structures in an architectural curriculum, rather than just presenting a watered-down version of engineering. This process of developing a discipline of building support structures in architecture has never been finished. The question is still, should structure as design engineering be part of architectural design or separated into lecture courses?

Often structural engineers are perceived by architects as surrounded by rules and as very narrow in their positions. One must keep in mind, however, that structural engineers are not trained at universities as conceptual engineering designers. They usually design according to existing bodies of engineering knowledge and tested structural solutions, that is, using mathematical models they are able to analyze. Most engineers are brought up to solve given problems where answers are simply right or wrong. To structural engineers, drawings are only a means to the end, in contrast to architects, who express their designs in drawings and think visually. Architectural students are therefore generally not enthusiastic about attending structure courses, which are based on mathematics only. Structural engineers are introduced to the project to make the building work structurally usually when the conceptual building design is almost complete, which is often quite dissatisfactory to the engineer. It is unfortunate to remove engineers from the design process, because it separates architecture from the rapid development of technology in society.

However, there is a select group of engineers who go back to the basic principles of structural behavior and create imaginative designs by a combination of inspiration and logic, in spite of their college education. It is those engineers with whom architects can successfully work together as a team, from the beginning of the design process on. The spirit of creative design engineering thinking is an essential part of the development of the design idea; in other words, architect and engineer depend on each other during the process of design. This true team approach allows the interplay of material and non-material spaces, and the integration of technology in the design process where the final design idea is not simply derived from a mathematical or management optimization process.

Furthermore, sustainable solutions necessitate the collaboration of engineers and architects; for example, the complexity of green building design requires the input and cooperation of every professional on the design team. In general, sustainable architecture is aimed at building performance and how buildings affect the environment as caused by their construction and operation. It focuses on energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, material selection, site planning, resource efficiency, and water use.

In general, the structural engineer’s fundamental concern is for life safety (i.e., protection of the people in the building) in other words, the building must stand and perform properly. To the engineer, the building is a body that is alive, its bones and muscles are activated by external and internal forces. As it reacts, it deforms and suggests the pain it must endure at points of stress concentration. The arrangement of space, which defines members and their spans, becomes most important in controlling the force flow to the foundations and reducing stress concentrations to a minimum. In other words, engineers visualize buildings in an animated state, moving back and forth, as can be convincingly expressed by computers through virtual modeling.

In contrast, architects tend to visualize structure often as fixed form, usually under uniform dead-load conditions, disregarding the effect of lateral load action, or the effect of asymmetry. Naturally, the architect’s responsibility lies in the general design of buildings and not just to the building support structure. Architects must respond in the design of buildings to the broader issues of the environmental context, be it cultural or physical. As coordinators of the design process, they are surrounded by numerous advisers.

The teacher of structures in architectural education is a hybrid: an individual who is torn between the predictable spirit of engineering, with its clear definition of right and wrong, and the much broader and more ambiguous world of architecture.

1.4

Structure as Geometry

The form of a building is in response to a rather complex interplay of design generators caused by functional, behavioral, political, economic, and aesthetic forces. Its geometry is defined by its enclosed spaces and by the shapes of its solid components, all in an ordered relationship to each other. The layout of the building is coordinated using a dimensional grid that can be derived from its modularity, as in Fig. 1.12. The basic building module is a frame of reference, a unit measurement that attempts to encompass in a purely geometrical fashion all the requirements of its components and construction process. The layout of most buildings is coordinated by a repetitive, rectangular network in horizontal and vertical directions, as explained visually in Fig. 1.12; obviously, any other dimensional lattices can be used if the arrangement of the building components so requires. Visualize the typical building to be subdivided by a three-dimensional, spatial network of reference lines derived from the international basic module of 100 mm = 10 cm ≈ 4 in. The typical grids of organization for a building are the following:

▪

The basic three-dimensional modular grid, as a multiple of the basic module

▪

The planning grid

▪

The structural grid (shown as dash-dotted line).

The building’s superstructure and substructure are defined by geometry, that is, points, lines, surfaces, spaces, and bodies or solids. The basic structure components in an ordinary building superstructure are the nodes or point elements of joints (i.e., connections), the linear members of beams and columns, the surface elements of slabs and walls, and spatial elements, such as cores. The geometry of the structure layout is defined by the profile of the building, by its enclosed spaces, as well as by the location and shapes of the solid components, all in an ordered relationship to each other. This interdependence and dimensional coordination of solid and void are described in planar views by horizontal and vertical sections.

Fig. 1.12 Dimensional Coordination

In other words, the layout of the building structure is coordinated with a dimensional grid, such as a typical, repetitive, rectangular network in horizontal and vertical directions. Naturally, the geometrical patterns of the structural grid can take any form, keeping in mind that the degree of regularity of the grid allows for standardized construction process and makes it easier to control sources of errors. We must distinguish between the structural grids defining the floor and roof framing of the horizontal building planes, and the structural grids for the walls, frames, and stairs of the vertical support structure.

In a typical building, the geometry of the building structure (i.e., all structure components) is located in a spatial grid and defined by a single, rectangular (Cartesian) GLOBAL coordinate system X-Y-Z, where the Z-axis is vertical, with +Z being assumed upward (i.e., the Z-X plane is the vertical plane); the X-Y plane is horizontal (Fig. 5.1).

The organizing geometry of the new aesthetics, however, often is not regular anymore as for typical buildings. It may be random and dynamic as demonstrated, for example in 2008, by the Beijing National Stadium (Fig.10.12) and the Beijing National Swimming Center (Fig. 10.13). It is possible now with modelling software that designers can explore forms and situations that they may have not been able to conceive before. Freeform shapes in architecture have become a great engineering challenge. Frank Gehry, one of the pioneers of computer assisted design, demonstrates the complexity of geometry in the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain (1997).

Fig. 1.13 Structure as Material

In contrast to the geometry that defines the building layout, engineers have developed computational grids, called the finite element method of analysis, to develop an understanding especially of complex structures. Here, plane figures and solid objects are divided into a finite number of discrete elements to approximate their geometry, such as determining the circumference of a circle with a polygon of equal sides. These grids are only temporary and used during structural analysis (refer to Ch. 5.1 for further discussion of the topic).

1.5

Structure as Material and Construction

The building as material reflects the physical reality; without materials, architecture is only an idea. The exposed structure visually expresses the spirit of materials and its unique character. The very soul of material is reflected by member shapes and sizes, joining of members, connector types, construction process, behavior under load action, surface texture, and so on; in other words, it is reflected by the visual harmony of material and space. The aesthetical material properties (i.e., material as architecture) are not further discussed in this context.

The material properties determine the building type and scale of structure; a clear understanding of material properties is needed for the physical design of structure. The nature of the material largely affects member shapes, sizes, and the way they are connected. The effect of material character on the geometry of the ordinary structure is reflected by the linear wood and steel members, the surface character of masonry walls, and the plastic quality of concrete and synthetic materials. The materials form the basic building block of building technology.

The numerous material properties are related to various performance requirements. The fundamental material properties are derived from material science as mechanical, chemical, and physical properties; for further discussion, refer to Properties of Materials in Ch. 3.3.

1.5.1

Construction as Related to Materials

During the development of new construction methods in the first half of the 20th century, many great engineering designers had their roots firmly embedded in construction firms, such as Gustave Eiffel, Robert Maillart, Eduardo Torroja, Franz Dishinger, Pier Luigi Nervi, Ove Arup, Jean Prouvé, and Felix Candela, among many others. Nervi first investigated in the late 1940s the idea of permanent formwork by developing ferrocemento.

Materials and methods of construction are directly related. They may be organized according to typical conventional construction, industrialized construction, and special construction techniques.

Typical conventional construction methods use rationalized traditional methods with a certain degree of industrialization. Although it still depends primarily on conventional skilled trades, it does include mechanization of the building process and the use of prefabricated components. The current conventional construction as related to materials includes the following:

▪

Conventional steel construction consists of skeleton framing using concrete only as topping for the floor framework, basement walls, and foundations.

▪

In light-frame construction, as typically found in residential construction, the horizontal and vertical structural elements are formed by a system of repetitive light gage steel, aluminum, or wood members.

▪

While in steel and precast concrete construction most structure elements are assembled and connected to form the building assembly, in typical cast-in-place concrete construction first the formwork is set up and the steel reinforcing is placed, and then the concrete is cast, in turn, requiring a large labor force on site. The formwork constitutes a large portion of the cost of a reinforced concrete structure; more than 50% of the total cost of a concrete frame is generally for the formwork.

▪

Typical mixed construction uses steel and concrete for the major parts of the building, such as vertically mixed systems for mixed-use buildings (e.g., concrete for the upper residential portion and steel for the lower office levels) or steel framing and slip-formed concrete cores.

It is quite common to use precast concrete or cast-in-place concrete slabs in steel or masonry buildings. In mixed steel-concrete construction, for example, a flat plate concrete construction for the upper residential portion of a building may change to long-span steel framing for the lower office levels.

▪

In composite steel-concrete construction usually steel members are embedded in reinforced concrete, or adjacent materials are bonded to each other through mechanical shear connectors, such as in slabs, beams and columns.

▪

Precast concrete construction is similar to steel construction, in that it must concern itself with fabrication, transportation, and erection, which includes the ease of connection.

▪

In typical masonry construction bricks or concrete blocks are embedded using mortar and laid by hand and thus represents a traditional construction system. Since masonry is a compressive material, it is used in axial structure systems, such as walls, columns, and arches.

▪

Wood construction is typically used as residential light framing (e.g., stud walls, platform construction, balloon construction), and as timber-frame construction. Other types of wood construction are heavy timber construction, glulam construction, pole building construction, and log building construction.

▪

Aluminum as a structural material in building construction is used as an alloy for cladding systems and as formwork for concrete, stud walls, frames, space frames, geodesic domes, etc.

▪

Typical tensile membranes in fabric construction are vinyl-coated nylon fabric, vinyl-coated polyester fabric, vinyl-coated fiberglass fabric, and Teflon-coated fiberglass fabric.

In typical industrialized construction building systems are mass-produced in factories.

▪

Complete product, e.g., mobile homes

▪

Partial products, e.g., sectionalized home manufacturers; modular and panelized construction; subsystems, such as utility modules and wet packages

▪

Structure systems, e.g., skeleton systems, panel-frame systems, wall-panel systems, box-systems, mixed systems

Some special construction techniques are as follows:

▪

Lift-slab construction

▪

Push-up construction

▪

Suspension erection method

▪

Balanced cantilever method

▪

Tilt-up construction

1.6

Structure as Support

Typical buildings consist of horizontal planes (i.e., floor and roof structures), the supporting vertical planes (e.g., frames, walls), and the foundations. The horizontal planes tie the vertical planes together to achieve somewhat of a three-dimensional box effect, and the foundations make the transition from the building to the ground possible (Fig. 13.1). Although the structure’s primary responsibility is that of support to transfer loads to the ground, it also acts as a spatial and dimensional organizer. The building support structure must resist the vertical force action of the gravity loads, that is, the physical building weight, as well as the nonpermanent live and occupancy loads; it must resist the horizontal force action, such as due to wind and earthquakes; in other words, it must guarantee lateral stability of the building (Fig. 1.14).

Load action on support structure ≤ resistance of support structure

Here, the resistance of the support structure refers to material properties, such as strength and stiffness, as well as to the geometrical member properties (e.g., cross-sectional area, section modulus, moment of inertia). In other words, the primary purpose of the building support structure is to stand up and maintain its shape under load action by considering the fundamental principles of:

▪

Strength that represents the ability of the structure to sustain load; it is measured by the maximum load that the structure can support before it causes permanent deformation or collapse of the structure.

▪

Stiffness of structural members, which represents a measure of resistance to displacement and rotation; it may refer to bending stiffness, axial stiffness, shear stiffness or torsional stiffness. For instance, axial stiffness is measured by the ratio of the applied service load and maximum displacement, or the bending stiffness by the ratio of the maximum moment and angular displacement.

The stiffness of the entire building structure is measured by some characteristic deflection relative to an applied load. For instance, the lateral stiffness of a high-rise building is measured by the deflection at the top of the building under wind loads.

▪

Ductility where materials pass through large deformations before failing, such as steel and aluminum, which are called ductile; while materials with relatively little deformation at failure are called brittle (e.g., concrete, masonry). Ductility represents the amount of inelastic deformation that a structure experiences before it collapses, which is especially of concern in earthquake design. It is measured by comparing its maximum displacement at failure to the maximum elastic displacement.

Fig. 1.14 Building Response to Load Action

▪

Stability where the building structure (or structure element) must be able to maintain position and geometry. Instability refers to the total collapse of the building structure or local collapse of a member. External stability is concerned with the supports keeping the structure in place, whereas internal stability is concerned with the structure’s ability to maintain its shape.

For a building not to fail, members must be properly connected and not form a collapse mechanism. Member strength must be adequate to resist loads, and the stiffness of a building (i.e., serviceability requirements) must be controlled so that it does not distort and deflect enough to cause excessive eccentric action of gravity loads (i.e., P-Delta effect) or to stress the curtains, partitions, and mechanical systems. Drift, acceleration and ductility must be considered for structures that are not massive. Whereas the structures of ordinary buildings are generally stress governed, that of large-scale buildings, such as very tall buildings and long-span structures, are stiffness governed, keeping in mind that stability must always be considered.

Whereas the tower shape also may represent the structure shape, a massive building block needs only some stabilizing vertical elements to give lateral support to the entire building. For ordinary low-rise buildings, only some stand-alone systems are required to provide lateral stability.

Structures must support the shape of buildings, which may be of any configuration. To develop some understanding of the effect of building scale and size, rectangular buildings are investigated in Fig. 1.1 from an overall proportion’s point of view. If one assumes that the building shape is equal to the shape of the lateral-force resisting structure, then structures may be organized as,

▪

Horizontal slabs

▪

Massive blocks

▪

Vertical slabs

▪

Gravity towers

▪

Cantilever towers

While the slender tower cantilevers out of the ground and uses all its energy to resist lateral forces, the flat horizontal slab is spread out on the ground. It hardly provides any resistance to wind, and the path of gravity flow is short (unless it is a long-span structure). In this case, the structural behavior is based on gravity flow and gravity bending for normal-weight structures (keeping in mind that the situation is different for light-weight structures). The massive building block, in contrast, is controlled by axial gravity flow. Not gravity, but the lateral loads due to wind or seismic action become dominant design determinants as the building increases in height. For the typical, slender, slab-type building, axial gravity together with lateral force action must be considered. As the slenderness of towers increases from the range of 5:1 to 8:1 for buildings (14:1 is considered at the upper limit for buildings), gravity towers change into cantilever towers, such as in the case of the 30:1 slenderness ratio of TV towers, where the effect of wind together with oscillations and the flexibility of the structure become extremely critical.

In traditional gravity-type structures, the inherent massiveness of material transmits a feeling of stability and protection. In contrast, tensile structures seem to be weightless and to float in the air; their stability is dependent on induced tension and on an intricate, curved, three-dimensional geometry in which the skin is pre-stretched. These antigravity structures require a new aesthetics; now the curve, rather than the straight line, is the generator of space. The aesthetics is closely related to biological structures and natural forms: there is no real historical precedent for the complex forms of membrane structures. Fabric structures are forms in tension; as nearly weightless structures, they are pure, essential, and minimal. Spatial, curved geometry, together with induced tension, is necessary for structural integrity.

Ordinary buildings can generally be considered an assembly of independent horizontal and vertical planar structures, at least for preliminary design purposes, so that force systems can be treated as two-dimensional or coplanar. The investigation of various structure systems in this book is primarily concerned with planar structures and force systems.

In conclusion, a building structure is defined by the geometry of the structure layout as well as by the material and the physical action of its members under the applied loads. Building structures are three-dimensional, where the applied loads flow along the members and joints to the external supports, usually the foundations. Since the applied loads cause internal forces in the members and joints, one can visualize the support structure as replaced by corresponding, complex three-dimensional force systems. In other words, under the load action, the support structure displaces and changes its geometry, thereby causing deformations in the members which, in turn correspond to internal forces.

1.6.1

Force Flow

The horizontal and vertical structural building planes must disperse the external and internal loads to the ground. There must be a continuous load path running like a chain through the building from the roof and floors along the walls and columns to the foundations. Naturally, each link of the chain must be strong enough to transfer the loads, which is particularly important with respect to seismic forces.

The gravity load resisting structure transfers the gravity loads applied at the various floor structure levels and guides them down to the foundations and ground (Figs. 1.15, 1.16). The load path may be short and direct or long and indirect and suddenly interrupted, causing a detour. The paths the loads may take along the horizontal and vertical planes depend on the structure layout, which must respond to the functional organization of the building, where the columns and walls may help to separate and reinforce the spaces to allow for different activities.

In general, one may distinguish between the following path systems:

▪

Direct path systems, where slabs are supported on columns, bearing walls, or soil

▪

Indirect multi-path systems, where slabs are supported on beams, where beams may be supported on other beams and/ or columns or walls

Fig. 1.15 Gravity Force Flow

Examples of horizontal and vertical force flow due to gravity load action are investigated in Fig. 1.16. A concentrated load acting upon a slab is transferred by the floor or roof framing in bending to the vertical structural planes, which usually transmit the loads axially straight to the ground. The type and pattern of force flow naturally depend on the arrangement of the vertical structural members.

Only four corner columns are used to demonstrate the diversity of horizontal force flow in Fig. 1.15b. The horizontal load path follows the member layout from the secondary beams to the primary beams and then vertically downwards; the stiffest member attracts most of the loads. Force flow patterns range from one- to two-directional systems, from linear to curvilinear systems, from two-way grids parallel to the perimeter to diagonal two-way grids, from symmetrical to asymmetrical radial systems, from direct to more complex branching patterns, and so on.

For example, one-way floor or planar roof structures typically consist of linear elements spanning in one direction, where the loads are transferred from slab/deck/plank to secondary beams to primary beams. Two-way systems, on the other hand, carry loads to the supports along different paths, that is, in more than one direction; here members interact and share the load resistance (e.g., two-way ribbed slabs, space frames).

Simple examples of vertical force flow are shown in Fig. 1.15a and Fig. 1.16, for various types of planar structure systems. Visualize a gravity load acting on a slab and transferred by the floor framing in bending (Fig. 1.16, top left) to one of the vertical structure building planes, which may transmit the load axially directly to the ground. The type and pattern of force flow depend on the arrangement of the vertical structural planes, as indicated at the top of Fig. 1.15 and in Fig. 1.16 for two-dimensional structures. While the vertical load flow is along linear paths in ordinary skeleton construction, in tubular structures with closely spaced columns, the gravity loads tend to spread out, similar to a bearing wall. When a concentrated load bears on a wall, it spreads out, causing a complex flow net. The flow follows the paths of compression arches, which, in turn, must be balanced by tension arches perpendicular to them, thereby developing tensile stresses in the wall.

Should there be an opening in the frame, as required for an atrium, then the force flow is not continuous and straight, but interrupted, and must be transferred to another column line, which may be achieved through frame action or inclined columns (Fig. 1.15a). This action causes lateral thrust in a symmetrical structure, where the thrust due to the dead load will self-balance. The path of the force flow may be continuous along the columns or may be suddenly interrupted and transferred horizontally to another vertical line. The transmission of the loads may be short and direct or long and indirect with a detour, such as for a suspension building. From an efficiency point of view, the vertical loads should be carried along the shortest path possible to the foundations.

Keep in mind that the columns may be vertical or inclined, continuous or staggered; they may be evenly distributed or concentrated in the center or along the periphery, possibly to form a core. When columns are inclined, gravity will cause lateral thrust, which increases as the column moves away from the vertical supporting condition. The cases at the bottom of Fig. 1.16 indicate that the horizontal floor beams at the top act as ties in tension when the columns lean outward, but as struts in compression at the bottom. For a symmetrical structure, the thrust due to the dead load will self-balance, but the horizontal forces due to asymmetrical live loads must still be resisted, as for an asymmetrical building, where the weight also causes thrust. Hence, not only wind and earthquake, but also gravity, together with the respective geometry, may cause lateral force action on a building.

Optimum, free ground-level space with a minimum of columns is often required for high-rise buildings. For these conditions, the upper building mass must be linked to the ground by changing its structure at the base or using a different structure system, as indicated at the bottom of Fig. 1.16. Various transition types range from suspension buildings and lifting an entire building up on frames or stilts, to changing the column spacing to a wider pattern by using transfer systems within the framed tube grid or using heavy transfer systems, such as girders, trusses, wall beams, arches, or V- and Y-shaped tree columns, to collect the columns above.

Fig. 1.16 Vertical Gravity

Conflicts of force flow are generated when plan forms or structure systems change, possibly at locations of setbacks often found at the base, top, or intermediate levels of buildings. For example, when a triangular plan changes to an L-shaped base or when a perimeter structure such as a tube cannot be continued to the base, an extensive horizontal transfer structure is necessary, not only to redirect the vertical forces, but also to act as a diaphragm to transfer the horizontal forces.

The horizontal forces are transmitted along the floor and roof planes, which act as deep, flat beams (i.e., diaphragms) spanning between the vertical lateral-force-resisting structures. For example, for the basic building shapes in Figs. 1.14 and 1.17, the curtain panels are assumed to act similarly to one-way slabs spanning vertically as the lateral wind forces strike the building façade. They transfer the loads to the top and bottom floor levels; from there, they are distributed to the lateral force-resisting structural systems.

The force flow or force distribution depends on the rigidity and location of the lateral-force-carrying structures and the rigidity of the floor structures. The deep beam action or diaphragm action of floors under uniform lateral loading is demonstrated in Fig. 1.17 for typical structure systems, such as bearing wall buildings, symmetrical and asymmetrical core structures and bundled tube structures. Should the resultant force action not pass through the center of rigidity, twisting is generated. After the lateral forces have been distributed to the vertical structure planes, these systems must act as vertical cantilevers to carry the forces down to the ground. For further discussion of the topic, refer to Ch. 13.

1.6.2

The Effect of Form on Structure

Structural members may be linear, planar or spatial; they may be straight, folded or curved. The shape of the components may be of constant or variable cross-section. The structure of the members may be solid (homogen-eous or composite), trussed, framed (e.g., Vierendeel type), or composite (e.g., cable-supported). The effect of form on the behavior of a member becomes apparent when a line element or flat surface structure is folded or bent, then strength and stiffness are clearly increased. In other words, the geometry of the form determines how efficiently forces are resisted with a minimum effort.

Fig. 1.17 Horizontal Force Flow

The member weight may be minimalized and the shape optimized to yield a funicular shape as, for example, a curved prestressed cable-strut system. In other words, the spatial configuration of a structure and the arrangement of its members can represent an equilibrium form, where the form of the structure makes a natural equilibrium of external forces possible. These forms are derived from structural behavior and not from mathematical shapes. Typical equilibrium-form systems are as follows:

▪

Funicular systems, or form-resistant structures

▪

Self-stressed systems, where the induced internal forces are in equilibrium, e.g., fabric structures, tensegrity structures

▪

Intelligent systems responding actively to loads through material and geometry adjustments

In the search for more efficient structural solutions, a new generation of hybrid systems has developed, with the aid of computers. The computer software simulates the effectiveness of a support system, so that the form and structure layout, as well as material, can be optimized, and nonessential members can be eliminated to obtain the stiffest structure with a minimum amount of material.

Fig. 1.18 Basic Structure Types

1.7

Structure Systems

Structure systems may be organized for this introductory discussion according to structural behavior and support structure types, that is, as horizontal-span structure systems and high-rise building structure systems; but first the following terms should be clarified:

▪

Basic structure elements (e.g., beams, columns, struts, ties, arches, slabs, walls)

▪

Structure element assemblies (e.g., trusses, braced arches, cable-supported members, roof and frame bracing, Vierendeel frames)

▪

Building substructure types (e.g., floor framing structures, planar vertical framing systems)

▪

Building structure systems, which represent the entire building structure

They may be organized according to (1) member types, (2) behavior, (3) building type, and (4) material (see Ch. 1.5).

A building structure can be perceived as an assembly system of basic structure elements or components and their linkages. The components or members may be rigid or flexible, they may be linear, planar or spatial, and may be straight, folded or curved. The shape of the components may be of constant or variable cross-section. The structure of the members may be solid (homogeneous or composite), trussed, framed (e.g., Vierendeel type), or composite (e.g., cable-supported). The typical material of members may be steel, aluminum, reinforced concrete, masonry, wood, or plastics.

The basic elements, in turn, are assembled and connected to joints to form planar/spatial structure systems. They may be form-passive structures (i.e., rigid structures) or form-active structures (i.e., flexible structures). From a behavioral point of view, they may be organized as follows:

Axial systems: Line elements: e.g., tensioned structures (e.g., stayed and suspended cables), compressed structures (e.g., funicular arches), compressed and tensioned structures (e.g., planar and space trusses), trusses, compression-tension roof enclosure systems, lateral bracing of frames, suspended glass walls, battered piles, space frame structures, cable-supported structures, air members, etc.

Surface elements: e.g., tensioned structures (e.g., fabric membranes, cablenets), compressed structures (e.g., thin concrete shells, walls), compressed and tensioned structures (e.g., planar and space trusses).

Axial-shear systems: Surface elements: e.g., thin shells

Flexural systems: Line elements: e.g., post-beam structures, floor/roof framing systems, two-way floor/roof framing, stayed roof structures (i.e., roof framing supported from top), cantilevers (rigid or stayed);

Surface elements: e.g., slabs (two-way space grids, space frames).

Flexural-axial systems: Line elements: e.g., frames (e.g., portal frames, pitched frames, arches, braced frames), composite members (e.g., cable- supported beams, cable beams), hybrid forms, etc.

Surface elements: e.g., plates, walls, slabs, vaults, thick shells.

Structure elements or substructures, in turn, are assembled to form building structure types. They may be classified as horizontal-span structures and high-rise structures.

1.7.1

Horizontal-Span Structure Systems

The great domes of the past, together with cylindrical barrel vaults and the intersection of vaults, represent the long-span structures of the past. The Gothic churches employed arch-like cloister and groin vaults, where the pointed arches represent a good approximation of the funicular shape for a uniformly distributed load and a point load at midspan. Flat arches were used for Renaissance bridges in Italy.

The Romans had achieved immense spans of 90 ft (27 m) and more with their vaults, as was so powerfully demonstrated by the 143-ft (44-m) span of the Pantheon in Rome (c. 123 AD), which was unequaled in Europe until the second half of the 19th century. The series of domes of Justinian’s Hagia Sofia in Constantinople (537 AD), 112 ft (34 m) causes a dynamic flow of solid building elements together with an interior spaciousness quite different from the more static Pantheon. The Taj Mahal (1647) in Agra, India, is a 125-ft (38-m) span corbelled dome. These early heavy-weight structures in compression were made from solid thick surfaces and/or ribs of stone, masonry or concrete. The transition to modern long-span structures occurred primarily during the second half of the 19th century with the light-weight steel skeleton structures for railway sheds, exhibition halls, bridges, etc., as represented by:

Further development of new structure systems occurred during the 20th century, such as:

Typical horizontal-span structures are bridges and buildings controlled by horizontal roof or floor framing. The classification for horizontal-span building structures may be based