Project Tomas

This case consists of one design workshop in which I collaborate as structural engineer with an experienced architect. The architectural project is developed by the architect within his work on his doctoral thesis as a

professional design project in which the structural engineer is involved early in the design process. This opportunity is used (1) to apply the further

developed language (with an improved symbol for bending) in a professional practice, and (2) to test the paraphrasing of each designer’s design proposition as a communication and collaboration tool. As this collaboration takes place early in the architectural design process, the new language should enable a negotiation of architectural and structural concepts without narrowing the design possibilities by relying on structural typologies. As the architect has never encountered the new structural language, this workshop is also a test of whether it is intuitively comprehensible by architects.

During our one face-to-face meeting, the architect demonstrates through paraphrasing and explicit confirmation that he understands the applied structural language. Later, the architect confirms this in an informal inquiry and even describes the structural drawings as inspiring for his architectural design. He later reiterates this confirmation publicly at a conference.

Figure 6-8. Building site and designed façade.

At the beginning of the workshop, the architect presents his conceptual design through a bundle of sketches and a verbal explanation. I write down my interpretation of the design characteristics of his proposal and present

6. Cases for explorative research

119 them to him. The architect agrees on my interpretation. Although I am not

used to applying this paraphrasing, it seems to benefit our communication and collaboration, as I have never worked with this architect before and within a short span of time we are able to develop a qualitative structural answer for the proposed architectural question.

For the architect’s design proposition, I design two different structural conceptual design propositions that differ only on the upper floor. These propositions are presented to the architect through three-dimensional drawings using the new structural language. As I draw the various symbols, I explain the meaning of each to the architect by relating it to structural typologies like beams and columns.

The main difference for me with more conventional structural advice in such a situation is that my structural proposition is much more conceptual and does not include structural typologies. With only two drawings I can present both conceptual design propositions, while many more drawings would be required to show the different possibilities of these two propositions using structural typologies. In the structural drawings developed in this meeting, each of the conceptual elements represents an array of design possibilities of structural typologies, and through various combinations of these elements the range of structural possibilities grows much wider still.

Another advantage of using this language in this phase of the design collab-oration is the ability to present my advice through three-dimensional drawings that give an overview of the structure. (In conventional collaborations two-dimensional ground floor plans would mainly be used indicating plates, beams and columns.) This overview not only expresses the spatial qualities of the structural concept, it also enables me to have an ‘overlooking’ conversation with the structural proposition and find three-dimensional alternative solutions instead of just two-dimensional ones.

During this meeting, I notice I am able to design while drawing the proposi-tions, as this language lets me record an idea on paper and thus allow other ideas to enter my design thinking. The conceptual language keeps my design attention on a conceptual level, encouraging me to search first in breadth without getting distracted by details prematurely and losing my concentration.

Using a language of typologies would seem to require more effort, since one is forced to return from detail to a more conceptual level each time a different kind of structural proposition is explored. (Finding satisfaction in a first adequate solution might even eliminate the incentive to explore other solu-tions.)

The technique of going through different structural solutions for each con-ceptual element provides me with an organized range of design solutions.

6. Cases for explorative research

120

In my experience, this wide range would not be attained by going immediately into more detailed design propositions through a language of typologies.

The spatial qualities of the structural propositions in this meeting relate directly to architectural design, since the two propositions organize space on the upper floor in different ways. This forms a part in the negotiation between architect and structural engineer to further the design.

In order not to overload the drawing with information, only the structural story of the vertical loads is presented. (In this case the horizontal load is not particularly determinate of the structural form.) Through the new language the structural behaviour of the propositions is explained to the architect so that he can manipulate the given form models according to structural logic.

Also some of the conceptual elements are further refined to show the architect the range of possible solutions entailed by the conceptual design proposition. The architect demonstrates his understanding of the range of possible structural solutions I present, but this advantage for architectural design is not put to the test because the architect decides not to further devel-op the project. (The architect does not proceed with his doctoral work.) At the end of this workshop, the architect expresses a clear understanding of my language and my conceptual propositions, and says he has received sufficient structural input to further develop his design. He is very pleased with the outcome of this meeting for his design process.

Figure 6-9. Sketches of the workshop; redrawn structural propositions.

6. Cases for explorative research

121 In this workshop only two A4-sized pages are required to communicate the structural input. As an exercise, I redraw the conceptual design propositions in a more careful manner (Figure 6-9) in order to check if the language can provide a rich image without being overloaded. (On this drawing I also express some of the possible refinements of certain conceptual elements.)

This exercise tells me that rich pictures are possible, but that the symbol of bending applied to a conceptual line is still confusing to interpret. (This leads to a further development of the language by using a different pencil for the functions than for the wire-frame model.) It also shows me that a different symbol is applied in the language for bending in a surface than in a line. The two symbols bring out different aspects of the structural characteristics of the element: the bending requirement and the load path. This insight leads to the introduction of an extra ‘load path’ layer in the language as a way to express the course followed by the load through the structure to its supports, and as a way to show the interdependency of the various structural elements.

123