Teaching Technology: What Do Architects

Need to Know About Structures?
Jonathan Ochshorn
First published in On Architecture, the City and Technology (Stoneham, MA: Butterworth
Publishers, 1991), selected articles from the 1990 ACSA Technology Conference, Los
Angeles, CA, February 15­18, 1990 (© 1991 ACSA). Images appear only in this online
version.
contact | homepage | index of selected writings

Recommend 1 Tweet 0

INTRODUCTION

Architects are required to know something about the technological systems in their
buildings, yet the specialized knowledge needed to actually design those systems is usually
left to others. Proposals to "integrate" design education with the study of technology seem
to be concerned mainly with organizational strategies (e.g., bringing technology
"consultants" into the design studio; or suggesting various forms of team teaching) rather
than addressing the basic question of content: what do architects need to know about
technology?

Accreditation criteria are not much help, being difficult to implement on the one hand
(students should be able to design structural elements from foundations to roofs, and
analyze structural systems including rigid frames) yet, on the other hand, being ambiguous
enough to include most current approaches to the teaching of technology (students should
be able to design "elementary" environmental control systems and "simple" building
elements).

Using the teaching of structures as an example, I propose to examine the conflicting

requirements of competence (implying a simplification of both numerical methods and
scope of material covered); versus literacy (implying a broadened understanding of not only
the technical issues actually encountered in architectural/engineering practice, but also the
social, economic, historic and intellectual context in which these technical issues are
framed) in an attempt to reconcile the content of these courses with the diverse needs of the
practicing professional.

WHY TEACH STRUCTURES?

At the outset, there are three broad explanations I have encountered for why structures
should be taught to architects: first, so that architects can solve structural problems; second,
so that they can talk more or less intelligently to their engineering consultants; and finally,
so that architectural design, informed by a sound grasp of structural theory, becomes more
rational and therefore, perhaps, more beautiful. Let us examine each of these arguments in
turn.

SOLVING STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS. The first rationale for teaching structures is that
architects need to know how to actually solve structural problems — determine the
distribution of stresses, compute beam and column sizes, etc. — but only for a relatively
simple class of buildings. In other words architects, especially in small practices, might find
it necessary or convenient to design and even prepare construction documents for small
buildings without utilizing the services of an engineering consultant. The case is never
made, however, that architectural education in structures should therefore duplicate the
more thorough training given to engineering students.

Yet even if architects are taught to design structures for relatively simple buildings, that
does not necessarily imply that they need to understand the mathematical underpinning of
the results they obtain. Because of the widespread availability and use of tables, charts and
"pre-engineered" items of all sorts, many structural elements can be sized without recourse
to any computations (or structural theory, for that matter).

Additionally, even where mathematical formulas are introduced in the classroom, they are
not always derived or explained — see, for example, Harry Parker's presentation of column
formulas for steel structures.1 Thus, the goal of solving structural problems cannot by itself
determine the content and methodology of structures courses.

COMMUNICATING WITH CONSULTANTS. The second rationale for teaching structures

is that, given the extent to which the engineering profession has taken over the task of
actually designing structures for buildings, architects must at least be able to discuss
structural design issues with these engineers. For one thing, the architect is more often than
not the leader of the design team; it would be difficult to exercise this leadership role,
involving the coordination of all the design and engineering specialties, without possessing
some knowledge about each area. Equally important, it would not be possible to
successfully collaborate with engineers on large scale projects.

Specifically, architects would need to know, at a minimum, the essential vocabulary of

structures: "moment," "shear," "deflection" and so on. Beyond the minimum vocabulary,
insight into the behavior of structures would also be necessary unless, as R.E. Shaeffer
warns, architects are willing to risk losing control over some basic design decisions.2

DESIGNING RATIONAL /BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS. The third rationale for teaching

structures is that architects need a basic qualitative understanding of structural theory in
order to design rational buildings. "Only then," according to Nervi, "will a structure be born
healthy, vital and, possibly beautiful."3 While this view can easily degenerate into such
sterile debates as, for example, whether the "extra" mullions in Sullivan's Guaranty
Building are structurally ambiguous and therefore aesthetically (or morally) wrong, there is
certainly some merit to the basic argument.

On the other hand, it is important not to overstate the case. For once a structural system has
become commonplace, it can be successfully integrated into an architectural design without
much consideration for structural theory or behavior, at least on the part of the architect.
Consider, for example, the steel skeleton frame,
to which so much attention was given in the first
half of this century as a determinant and generator
of architectural form. In many cases, the
architect's qualitative understanding of structural
theory with respect to this type has been largely
reduced to the deployment of columns along grid
lines.

Another argument for a qualitative treatment of

structures is that it is a "prerequisite to Sullivan's Guaranty Building, Buffalo,
quantitative analysis."4 In other words, students' NY with ambiguous expression of
column grid
interest in the mathematical formulation of
structural relationships can be stimulated by the
introduction of the same material on a more intuitive basis. Yet, paradoxically, it is also
held that this qualitative, intuitive feel for structural behavior can only be obtained by first
struggling with the more rigorous analytic approach. Giuseppe de Campoli writes: "It
would be easy for the teacher… to reduce instruction in structural design to a discussion of
the behavior of a few simplified models. But with such an approach, it is very difficult, if
not impossible, for teachers and students alike to obtain a true and general understanding of
structural behavior, let alone intuitive building creativity."5

A qualitative grasp of structural behavior can sometimes emerge through the use of
formulas in which the relationships among various parameters are expressed
mathematically. For example, the bending stress formula, fb=Mc/I, reveals in a remarkably
concise way that bending stress will be reduced precisely to the extent that the cross
section's moment of inertia is increased. But are we justified, therefore, in simply
presenting formulas, or should architects be required to actually understand their derivation.
And if so, do these derivations need to be more or less rigorous; should they be relegated to
textbook appendixes; or can they be simplified, for example, by examining only special
cases of a general condition, as in the derivation of the bending stress formula without
calculus by considering only rectangular cross sections.6

The use of physical models or computer graphics provides another means of encouraging a
qualitative understanding of structural behavior. If, as Salvadori suggests, "purely structural
messages originate in our intuitive understanding of structural behavior, which stems both
from our daily experience with structural actions and from our perception of structural
forms in nature,"7 then it would certainly be useful to harness this latent knowledge.
Physical models or interactive computer graphics offer the possibility of extending this
intuitive response, ordinarily limited by the kinds of structural behavior that can
presumably be grasped through our daily experiences, to a broader class of more complex
structural types.8

LITERACY VS. COMPETENCE

We are still left with the task of translating these various rationale for the teaching of
structures into specific curricular guidelines. Leon Trilling makes a distinction between
literacy and competence which is relevant to this discussion. He says: "We are literate in a
discipline when we understand its presuppositions, its research techniques and some of its
more important results. We are competent in it when we are able to use it for our own
purposes."9 But what exactly are our purposes?

Given the "division of labor" within the profession of architecture (and therefore within the
schools) in which practitioners with various levels and types of technical competence find
useful employment, it is improbable that a single unified purpose will emerge, or that a
single strategy for teaching structures to architects will be found or should be sought. What
is important is not that a particular selection of structural topics and methods be canonized,
but rather that course objectives be articulated within each school, and course content be
made to correspond to those objectives in a more systematic way.

Principal Stresses. As an example in which objectives tend to become somewhat obscure,

consider the typical treatment of combined stresses in architectural structures courses. Most
structures textbooks written specifically for architects discuss combined stresses, but they
do this from surprisingly diverse perspectives. In the case of combined bending and shear
stress, for example, several texts omit the topic altogether.10 Where it is discussed, the
stated objectives — that is, the reasons given as to why an understanding of the topic might
be important — vary strikingly from book to book.

According to de Campoli, for example, referring to concrete and steel beams, the topic is
included because of the "importance of diagonal stresses as triggers of the failure of the
structural materials..."11 Salvadori and Levy, on the other hand, emphasize its importance
in terms of visualizing stress concentrations: "The isostatics [lines of principal stress or
stress trajectories] allow the visualization of the stress pattern in complicated situations."12
Finally, according to Shaeffer, the "combinations [of internal stresses] must be considered...
in the more form-resistant structures which use thin shell or membrane action to carry
loads. Compression in one direction, tension in another, and shear can all act at the same
point and interact to cause a unique failure."13

In all of the examples cited, considerable effort is

expended to derive the rather complicated
relationships between principal stresses, on the
one hand, and the conventional bending, axial and
shear stresses with which we are more familiar.
Additionally, the graphical representation of this
relationship invented by Otto Mohr is usually
presented. Yet in none of the examples is a
numerical method suggested that would actually
Each diameter of Mohr's Circle shows
allow one to solve the types of problems for an equivalent state of bending and
which the topic was presumably introduced in the shear stress.
first place. Thus the insight into, and
manipulation of, states of stress encouraged by the use of this topic tends to become rather
petrified and obscure; the complexity of the whole procedure seems out of proportion to its
actual application in the design or analysis of the types of simple structural elements to
which architects are primarily exposed.

In spite of this, I am not suggesting that this particular topic necessarily should be omitted.
For as we have seen, there may be reasons for introducing topics other than just solving
structural problems. For example, the ribbed slab used by Nervi in the Gatti Wool Factory
in Rome (1951-53) becomes inexplicable without some understanding of principal stresses,
as does the pattern of web-shear cracking in a reinforced concrete beam and the rationale
for using inclined longitudinal or shear reinforcement. The real issue becomes clearer when
we assess the importance of the topic according to the dual criteria of literacy and
competence.

From the point of view of structural competence, it would be necessary not only to master
the technique, in this case of determining the magnitude and direction of principal stresses
resulting from all possible combinations of axial, bending and shear-type stresses, but more
importantly to be able to use the technique in a purposeful way. Given the tendency of
structural design codes to propound design and analysis methods for typical structural
elements in which these principal stresses are not explicitly acknowledged — in other
words, where a purposeful application of those techniques is made largely irrelevant by the
standardized procedures suggested by design manuals — it is doubtful whether
competence, defined in this way, is a reasonable goal in an architectural curriculum.

From the point of view of structural literacy, on the other hand, what becomes crucial is not
so much the technique itself, but that connections be made between the derivation or
presentation of rather abstract sets of relationships — the formula for the maximum
principal stress has no obvious intuitive meaning, except perhaps in the graphic form
invented by Mohr — and the whole range of results to which they contribute. In the
example just cited, these results might well include all of the issues we mentioned: the
failure mechanism of beams; the crowding of isostatic lines at points of stress
concentration; the complex combinations of stress in thin shell structures. Where the results
are found to be either inconsequential, obscure, or in some way beyond the scope of the
architectural curriculum, then the topic itself might well be omitted. Where the results are
deemed important, then the derivation or manipulation of mathematical formulas ought to
be considered, not as an end in itself, but rather judged by the extent to which it contributes
to a deeper appreciation of those results.

STRUCTURAL DUALITIES

This conflict between literacy and competence in the teaching of structures to architects
could be framed as a series of dualities in which the second term is typically suppressed. In
the previous example, the treatment of axial, bending and shear stress as a collection of
discrete entities, each with its own method of analysis and its own criteria for design, was
contrasted with the more unified notion of an elemental "state of stress" in which the
combined action of shear, bending and so on was seen to produce inclined stresses of
greater magnitude than those computed separately.
In a similar way, a whole series of such pairs — statics vs. dynamics; member vs. system;
strength vs. stiffness; elastic vs. inelastic; even abstraction (load, shear, moment diagrams)
vs. reality (actual structure/building behavior) — all can be seen as expressing a certain
tension between the desire for competence and the search for structural literacy. This
tension comes about because, by essentially circumscribing the areas of inquiry to those
topics represented by the first terms and thereby providing a semblance of structural
competence, the kind of structural literacy that would be engendered by an appreciation of
both terms of the pairs tends to suffer. Consider the following example.

DETERMINATE VS. INDETERMINATE. Virtually all structural design and analysis within
the architectural curriculum is limited to statically determinate structures, in spite of the fact
that most structures designed today are indeterminate.14 The rationale for this policy, as
articulated by Mario Salvadori, consists of four arguments: "(1) all structures, both
statically determinate and indeterminate, obey the laws of statics; (2) statically determinate
structures are still widely used; (3) the behavior of statically indeterminate structures may
often be excellently approximated by that of simpler statically determinate structures; (4)
the behavior of statically determinate structures can be so easily grasped on the basis of
purely physical considerations that statics is the best introduction to the behavior of all
structures."15

Yet these arguments are really an explanation of why learning about determinate structures
might be useful; not an explanation of why indeterminate analysis need not also be taught
to architects. Perhaps the explanation is too self-evident to be stated explicitly: while a
qualitative understanding of the behavior of all types of structures (including indeterminate
ones) is certainly important, the mathematical knowledge prerequisite to an understanding
of modern indeterminate analysis techniques cannot reasonably be required of architectural
students.

As a result, a number of approaches have been used, alone or in various combinations, to

introduce this subject to architectural students: non-mathematical examinations of
indeterminate structures based on intuition, models, etc.; approximate analyses (based on
simplifying assumptions about relative stiffness or location of inflection points) that reduce
the problems to statically determinate ones; iterative methods, such as moment distribution,
in which "exact" solutions are approached using relatively simple mathematics; and finally,
the presentation of results without explanation, as occurs, for example, in the "beam
diagrams and formulas" of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction, or in the analysis of
indeterminate structures using computers. In the latter case, results can be obtained without
having any knowledge of the matrix algebra underlying the method.

Since the early part of this century, it has been hard to make the case that architects ought to
be able to do the engineering design for large or complex buildings, which are often
statically indeterminate. At the same time, it is hard to imagine how an architect can design
and execute such buildings without some insight into their structural behavior and without
some method of evaluating different structural options. Yet even if the architecture student
possesses some reasonable means of analyzing indeterminate structures, the following
pedagogical dilemma remains: how does one impart a sense of structural literacy when the
behavior of complex structures and the choices among structural systems often hinge upon
the subtle interaction of many variables, some of which, like the costs of material and labor
or the availability of particular technologies, are in a constant state of motion and, strictly
speaking, are not even structural parameters. Eduardo Torroja says that the "achievement of
the final solution is largely a matter of habit, intuition, imagination, common sense, and
personal attitude. Only the accumulation of experience," he continues, "can shorten the
necessary labor or trial and error involved in the selection of one among the different
possible alternatives."16 But given the relatively small amount of time allocated to
structures within typical professional programs in architecture, coupled with a general
insecurity in the use of mathematical tools, how can the architect accumulate such
experience?

PEDAGOGICAL GOALS

In fact, there are several reasons why the quest for structural literacy is not hopelessly
compromised by the architect's lack of quantitative technical competence. As I have
suggested elsewhere, architects are able to obtain particular kinds of knowledge about
appropriate structural systems either because they have designed similar projects in the
past, or because they have studied similar projects designed by others.17 Knowing the
typical spans and depths of beams, the approximate sizes of columns, and the usual options
for the provision of lateral bracing becomes more or less routine in architectural offices that
deal repeatedly with conventional structures. Yet this type of "competence" should not be
confused with that of the engineer: an architect's "rule of thumb" methodology implies
neither insight into structural behavior nor the facility for quantitative analysis. This is not
meant as a criticism. Architects, after all, are in the habit of "controlling the spaces to be
used by people," and do not primarily think of form "as the means of controlling the forces
of nature."18

And what about unconventional structures — "the emergence each year," according to
Nervi, "of new structures of increasing size, such as railway and air terminals, industrial
buildings, stadia, large theatres and very tall buildings."19 For these types of structures,
conventional wisdom and rules of thumb may well be inadequate. A more substantial
understanding of structural behavior — a more educated intuition — is required. But
designing structures of the sort represented in the works of Nervi, Torroja or Frei Otto
cannot be the goal of architectural courses in structures. For one thing, few engineers, let
alone architects, possess the combination of mathematical competence and artistic intuition
which the design of such structures presuppose. As Felix Candela has said, this type of
creative act is the "result of long and painstaking work, the fruit of many years of constant
effort and steadfast mental occupation with the problem concerned. This is," he says, "…
the only way to get the sort of inspiration that all ambitious young architects so ardently
wish for."20

Additionally, this quest to "cover increasingly large spans with ever diminishing quantities
of materials,"21 that is alleged to have animated the history of building construction, has a
far more limited role within the great majority of architectural practices. Architecture is no
longer defined primarily by the sorts of temples and churches amply represented in history
of architecture texts in which the expression and continual refinement of structure
contributed to the sense of architectural accomplishment. While structures of that type
continue to be built, the heirs to that tradition have generally separated themselves from the
profession of architecture, becoming engineering specialists with enormous skill acquired
from years of study and practical experience. Architects, on the other hand, have
increasingly come to view technical systems as preexisting products of an "optimized
technology," to use Frampton's phrase, that can be assembled and manipulated according to
rules embodied in codes, specifications and so forth.

The appreciation of structures that can be attained through both qualitative and quantitative
study within the limited framework normally provided by architectural curricula should not
be confused with the type of creative act outlined by Candela. Even the most rigorous
presentation of structural concepts will not promote real structural competence if the
material is not internalized — taken apart and re-synthesized — by each student over a
period of many years of careful study. And where sufficient information about the
structural systems used in the overwhelming majority of building types can be assimilated
by the typical architect without such a lifelong commitment to the pursuit of structural
knowledge, it is unrealistic to expect such an effort to be made. What should be expected is
a certain degree of structural literacy, in which mathematical relationships are studied and
employed, not to engender a false sense of competence, but so that the vocabulary of
structures, intrinsic to any definition of literacy, becomes more tangible and intelligible.

NOTES
1Parker, Harry Simplified Design of Structural Steel, 5th Ed. John Wiley & Sons (New York, NY)
1983, pp.197-198
2Shaeffer, R.E. Building Structures: Elementary Analysis and Design, Prentice-Hall (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ) 1980, p.4
3Nervi, Pier Luigi, "Foreword" in Salvadori, Mario with Heller, Robert Structure in Architecture:
The Building of Buildings, Prentice-Hall (Englewood Cliffs, NJ) 1986
4 Salvadori, ibid., p.449
5de Campoli, Giuseppe, Statics of Structural Components, John Wiley & Sons (New York, NY)
1983, p.vii
6 This approach is adopted in Salvadori, Mario, Statics and Strength of Structures, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ) 1971, pp.153-157
7 Salvadori, Mario, Why Buildings Stand Up: The Strength of Architecture, W.W. Norton & Co.
(New York, NY) 1980, pp.292-293
8 The construction and use of physical models to illustrate structural concepts is discussed in Cowan,
Henry J., Architectural Structures, Elsevier (New York, NY) 1976, pp.289-300; for a discussion of
interactive computer graphics as well as "interactive-adaptive methods," see Abel, John F.,
"Interactive Computer Graphics for Applied Mechanics," Proceedings of the Ninth U.S. National
Congress of Applied Mechanics American Society of Mechanical Engineers (New York, NY) 1982,
pp.3-27
9Trilling, Leon, "Technology as Part of a Liberal Education," Technology and Science: Important
Distinctions for Liberal Arts Colleges, Davidson-Sloan New Liberal Arts Program (Davidson, North
Carolina) 1984, p.70
10See, for example, Lauer, Kenneth, Structural Engineering for Architects, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
(New York, NY) 1981; and Benjamin, B.S., Structures for Architects, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
(New York, NY) 1984
11de Campoli, Giuseppe, Strength of Structural Materials, John Wiley & Sons (New York, NY)
1984, p.67
12Salvadori, Mario and Levy, Matthys, Structural Design in Architecture, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ) 1981, p.285
13 Shaeffer, op. cit., p.170
14This claim is made in White, Richard N., Gergely, Peter and Sexsmith, Robert G., Structural
Engineering, Vol. 2: Indeterminate Structures, John Wiley & Sons (New York, NY) 1972, p.5; as
well as in Salvadori and Heller, op. cit., p.63
15 Salvadori Statics, op. cit., p.4
16 Torroja, Eduardo, Philosophy of Structures, University of California Press (Berkeley, CA) 1958,
p.313
17 Ochshorn, Jonathan, "Separating Science from Architecture: Why Technology is Taught Outside
the Design Studio," Proceedings of the 1990 ACSA Annual Meeting (San Francisco, CA)
18 Billington, David P., The Tower and the Bridge, Basic Books, Inc. (New York, NY) 1983, p.14
19Nervi, Pier Luigi, Buildings, Projects, Structures 1953-1963, Frederick A. Praeger (New York,
NY) 1963
20Candela, Felix, "Foreword," in Roland, Conrad, Frei Otto: Tension Structures, Praeger Publishers
(New York) 1970
21 Candela, ibid.

Last updated 25 January, 2008 [minor re­formatting]