On Teaching Structure Systems Author(s): Guntis Plsums Source: Journal of Architectural Education (1947-1974), Vol. 27, No.

4 (1974), pp. 68-77 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1423936 Accessed: 29/06/2010 07:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Architectural Education (1947-1974).

http://www.jstor.org

4. Most libraries should concentrate less of available resources on historic books if funding is limited. This may be difficult in some cases to accomplish; since probably those on the faculty with the most interest (often controlling interest!) in the branch library are the architectural historians. But, except in rare cases, we cannot afford to short change those materials necessary for the collector's inherent desire to maintain a collection. 5. Every attempt possible should be made to acquire at least one full-time professional librariot. Some schools treat such librarians as part of the academic faculty, which well they are and can be very useful as such. This person, having the training and knowledge of the library system will generally insure that the branch is not short-changed in the library system. 6. For departments whose branches are suffering, attempts should be made to interest alumni in contributions specifically for book funds. Alumnus are more prone to give for specific purposes -especially if the gift will tend to benefit architecture students rather than students at large, and certainly if he knows that his gift will be usable by many over a long period of years. 7. And finally, N.A.A.B. should immediately update its information and make specific its recommendations to schools for improvement. Comments such as "library is weak," "insufficient number of books," "poorly staffed," ad infinitum, tell the branches or schools nothing about what they must establish as specific objectives.

Several have suggested to us that A.C.S.A. support meetings at its regular conferences for those librarians and faculty who are working closely with the library resources for architectural schools. Many technical and operating problems could be reviewedhopefully to generate improvements of the generally depressingly wretched condition of our branch libraries. Unfortunately, many of us presently seem to be floundering under the old axiom: "if you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there."

'
i :B. ?_-l

1. Screw pine, a variety of Pandanus (Bermuda) illustrates nature's shear connections.

68

Guntis Plesums

On TeachingStructureSystems
A non-mathematical structures course at the University of Oregon attempts to explore the behavior of complete structure systems and their architectural implications. As a study of comparative structures, the course aims to equip the student with an overview of all structure systems. Emphasis is placed on identifying the basic criteria of each structure system, judicious use of and creative development of structures. Model construction and graphic comparisons are the primary methods used in reaching understanding of natural and technical structures.*

The Problem Prevailing structures curricula focus on trabeated structure systems and flat trusses and, by and large, employ the time-honored yet tedious engineering methodology. Despite a number of innovative introductory structures courses, the student still spends two to three years laboriously learning skills that he will hardly ever use once he is in practice. He is expected to integrate this knowledge in his design, yet the design proposals of architecture students often seem to lack the most elementary knowledge of structures. The mathematical methods assure safety and economy and indirectly help to develop a sense of scale of the structure. Judgment, however, hardly stems from the use of mathematical furmulas. Emphasis on sizing of components rather than examination of alternatives characterize the structures curricula. Acquired childhood observations and one's intuitive non-mathematical understanding of the physical world remain remote to the "by the numbers" approach of the engineer. The number of years required to master structural analysis tends to elevate this sequence to an end in itself, often obscuring the student's original goal: the study of architecture. Trapped by his own expertise and the assurance that comes with an established procedure, he is propelled towards specialization. Others, impatient with the existing
I am grateful to Professor Pasquale Piccioni for his voluntary involvement in the class, ongoing criticism, and review of this paper. He generated lively, stimulating discussions, provided valuable feedback and contributed to the evolution of this course, Architecture 372-373, Structure Systems.

structures sequence, eagerly opt for more exotic but equally recipe-like

of structures has been introduced at the University of Oregon, and this paper will attempt to describe the experiment. The course ARCH 372 & 373, Structure Systems, has evolved

out of a one time collaboration with Heinrich Engel on his book Structure and an introductory "cookbooks," which do show methods Systemlls1 structures course taught for two years of construction, but do not teach structural behavior. Lacking overview at Rhode Island School of Design of all structure systems, understanding (1967-69). With the introduction of the vertical curriculum structure at the of their behavior and ability to creatively propose structures and University of Oregon in 1970, Robert Harris, then chairmanof the examine alternatives, the architect risks losing control over the structure Department of Architecture, system and consequently his encouraged outlining two 3-credit terms of Structure Systems. architectural design. At the other extreme, there is the Students are required to select 70 credits from subject area courses and it tendency to ignore the importance of is unlikely that they could graduate structures. Perhaps as a reaction to overindulgence in repetitious structures without having taken some structures. in the fifties rather than synthesis of The amount and the particular path is structure with spatial needs, there is an determined by the student. unfortunate trend to downgrade the Prerequisites to all structures courses role of structure in architecture. is Arch 365, Introduction to Structures, Current emphasis on social patterns as which deals with basic structural the primary determination of phenomena and simple analysis. Upon architectural form prompts even completion of the introductory term, students may continue with the more complete disregard of the existence of structure during the studies. The traditional Theory of Structures resulting proposals are a collection of (8 terms), take Structure Systems, or unassemblable parts. The ordering terminate or interrupt structures courses. After completing or having potential of a structure system is unavailable. Lacking understanding taken any number of terms of Theory that structure is just as much a system of Structures, one is able to take a term as all the other design determinants, the or two of Structure Systems, or, student desperately tries to conversely, start with Structure superimpose structure on his Systems. In addition, more advanced courses (Structures Planning) or aggregation. Visualize the human special courses (Tension Structures, body as a collection of organs, with the bones as an afterthought. Pneumatic Structures) are available, as well as independent study in structures. Such choice accounts for students with An. Alternative diverse levels of understanding and An alternative approach to the study potential for cross fertilization. Objectives and Nature of the Course The purpose and objectives of the course are to provide a short cut path

69

..

Il

I-

--

--'--

lllB

2. Departure from what the double membrane pneumatic structure wants to be is apparent and the essentials of pneumatic systems observable. Only extreme pressures will inflate the tent-like extensions. The shape is counterproductive as a pneumatic structure. The tiny supports are indicators of the horizontal forces: as the pillow approaches the sphere, their deflection increases. (W. Igoe and W. Ramroth, Oregon, 1971.)

3 & 4. Double layer tent structure. Large column free space achieved with alternating high and low points. Progressive change in height of compression members and length of tension lines assures stressing both surfaces. Cables could replace either inner or outer surfaces, but the double surface has environmental possibilities, e.g. the use of tents in extreme climates. Model uses nylon stockings, unstretched fabric cut away; form, determined by supports. Particularly in tent model studies, the builder must be sensitive to clues the model communicates on its behavior. (F. Schneider, Jr., Oregon, 1970.)

towards acquiring an understanding of structures and to extend the range and content of structures courses available. As a study of comparative structures it is not a substitute for the Theory of Structures sequence, although some of the goals overlap. The course is a study of the behavior of structure systems and their potential for and influence on architectural space and form. It is essentially an investigation of the structure of structures rather than a systematization of structures according to materials and construction methods used (conventional: analysis of wood, steel and concrete structures). In concentrating on the behavior of the total structure system rather than on dimensioning of components, it adopts the philosophy stated by Heinrich Engel in his Structure Systems. The course aims to:
* equipthe studentwith the understanding of the mechanicsof each structure system in the shortest possible time. * expose the student to the range of of technicaland natural structures,their uniquenessand their interdependence. * developan awarenessof the possibilities and limitationsof each structuresystem. * develop an ability to conceive a structure system compatiblewith one's design proposal. * explore methodsfor anticipatingthe behaviorof structure systems. * enable the student to creatively develop logical structures. * furthercommunication with the engineers. * facilitate the awarenessand comprehensionof the behavior of the physical world.

---

Course Content The practice of systematizing structures has evolved out of the need to understand the predominant behavior of the structure, to analyze the structure, thus assuring safety and economy, and the necessity to transmit this knowledge to designers, builders and users. By ordering what at first is incomprehensible, man is able to understand and consequently create

70

and control his envronment. By concentrating on the typical that characterizes a number of structures, a pattern emerges. The course uses what is essentially Engel's taxonomy of structures with some changes and considerable supplementation in his order. Additional restructuring of course content may well be necessary. The structural implications of geometry will have to be more clearly educed from the context of structure forms. However, it is important to remember that physical phenomena exist independent of man as responses to forces, and classification is only an attempt to understand and utilize these phenomena. During the two terms structure systems are discussed in the following order: Structures transmitting forces through form (primary structural elements in single stress):
* Cable systems (linear tension elements): parallel, rotational,2 and 3-directional, multi-story and single layer cable systems. * Tent and cable net systems (surfaces in tension): single and double layer directly and indirectly supportedtension surface systems. * Arch systems: 2 and 3-hingedand fixed supportarch systems. * pneumatic systems: inside pressure, double membranepneumaticsystems and membranecontainers.

The models illustrated are the work of students in the course. All photographs are by the author.

Structures transmitting forces through triangulation (coactive tension and

compression systems): * Truss systems (single layer) : linear flat trusses and singly curved, rotational and doubly curved triangulatedsurfaces. * Space truss systems (double or multiple layer): linear, planar,curved and multi-story space truss systems.

Structures transmitting forces through bending (structures dependent on naterial mass and continuity):
* Beam and beam grid systems: simply supported,continuous,2 and 3-directional planarand curved beam,beam grid and beamgrid and slab systems. * Frame systems: 2 and 3-hinged parallel and 2 and 3-directionalframe systems, completeframe (Vierendeel) systems.
5 & 6. Set of categories with varying spans and heights; change in supports and length of chains results in corresponding change in structure form. Instability of the flexible chains is observable. An introductory project to the study of cable systems. Different parameters established to generate variety. Students experimented with the effects of loads on the catenaries. (H. Nelson, Oregon, 1971.)

71

* Space frame systems (double or multiple layer) : linear, planarand curved space frame systems. * Vertical (multi-story) space frame systems: tower and slab type, and space frame grid "close-packing" systems.

Structures transmitting forces through surface continuity (surfaces transmitting tension and compression forces):
|-

* Folded surface systems: prismaticand polygonal linear, planar, "close-packing" and vertical folded surfacesystems. * curved shell systems: singly curved, rotational,anti-clastic and vertical shell systems. * Curved folded surface systems (single and double layer).

Each of the four basic structure systems is discussed in greater detail in the following order:
* basic structural phenomenaand force transfer mechanisms * inherentstructuralbehavior * essential components and their relationships * fundamentalgeometry of the system * prototypicalstructureforms * possible geometrical combinations * common structural and architectural deviations * potentialfor architecturalform and space * actual built structures and their expression,currentas well as historical * influenceon and choice of materials and methodsand other construction implications * implicationson environmentalcontrol systems * influenceof environmenton structure form or potential environmentalcontext * analogous systems in nature * similar applicationsin mad-madeobjects

._

.__

~ _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__ _.~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ _ _

7-12. Minimal wire model of planar space frame. Suspended fishing weights simulate various loading conditions. The unloaded model shows secondary stresses due to soldered connections. One also could keep loads constant but vary placement of supports. (G. Bennet, Oregon, 1971.)

Sequential graphic analysis and simple models of the force transfer mechanisms rather than mathematical formulas are more sympathetic to the natural ability and need of architecture students to conceptualize three-dimensionally. Experience indicates that a large number of students tend to shy away from mathematics.They are expected to have an understanding of basic structural phenomena as a prerequisite for entering the course. Knowledge of mathematical methods, however, does

72

not assure a feeling for structural behavior, and a review of such phenomena is necessary. Examination of the inherent structural behavior of each system discloses the predominantattributes and identifies a family of structures. Behavior and prerequisites of shells, for instance, characterizes a group uniquely different from similar forms among tent, cable or truss systems. Essential components of a system, their geometry, relationships, prototypical forms and their combinations are the consequence of the intrinsic behavior of a particular structure system. The requirements and, at times, the bewildering number of variations permit a discussion of their advantages or drawbacks, revealing the particular system's potential for architectdiral form and space. The discussion of each structure system originates with the abstract and proceeds to the concrete, general and specific It is through abstraction that the universal is discovered, the essential in all systems and phenomena. The abstracted systems permit us to study structural behavior independent of scale. Few built examples are pure enough to be free of the accidental whims of the architect and compromises due to conflicting demands of other systems to represent universal prototypes. It is, however, not enough to confine teaching of structures to abstracted systems and geometric relationships. Nor does a discussion of simplified models suffice as a teaching aid. Actual built structures and worked out proposals give credibility to the abstract and generate enthusiasm among the students. It is the abstract rather than the concrete that will stimulate the mature designer. He is able to project his own realized image of the abstracted prototype. An actual building inhibits further structural exploration. That particular structure is ruled out, and it becomes more difficult to visualize alternate manifestations of the same abstraction. Most undergraduates, however, are not yet equipped to transform universalities into particular solutions. Inclusion of structures which represent misunderstood structural behavior is particularly useful. The

disasterous economic, psychological and perhaps other consequences of the Sydney Opera House are invaluable examples in convincing students of the need for knowing some basic facts about the nature of shells. Some of the monstrosities at the New York World's Fair, for instance, serve to illustrate poor judgment and unfortunate structural gymnastics. It is most instructive to discuss structures in the design and construction of which one has been intimately involved. There is a wealth of material available that otherwise may be hard to come by. Suppressed and potentially embarrassing facts are particularly convincing. Project associated anecdotes liven the discussion and contribute to classroom rapport. "Man the Producer" and "Man the Explorer" theme pavilions of Expo '67, for example, are discussed in context of space trusses.2 Discussion of built structures is not limited to contemporary buildings. Historical structures and experiments in many cases provide examples of structure systems and methods which antedate current concerns, illustrate limitations imposed by available materials and methods, may be the only built structures of a system which never reached its full potential, or transmit a limited understanding of the behavior of a structure system. Alexander Graham Bell's tetrahedral kites and connections rival much of recent work in this area.3 Ancient Japanese wood constructions, 19th century engineering marvels, shelters and artifacts of "primitive" cultures serve to make a point where contemporarymaterial may be hard to come by or may leave a lesser impact on the student. Construction methods and choice of material are of secondary importance, but they may be preeminent in relation to some systems. Their consideration cannot alwavs be excluded. The development of joinery has made space structures possible; inclusion of joinery in discussion of trusses is absolutely essential. Likewise, the advances in membrane materials have brought about pneumatic structure systems. Brief examination of acoustical properties, suitability for integration of environmentalcontrol systems, lighting and thermal characteristics, etc. serve

in identifying the architectural range and potential of each structure system. Inevitably discussions lead to structures for other than gravity environments. Some of the polyhedral systems that students assemble are more suited to outer space habitats than earthly needs. In view of man's exploration of space, the realm of structures is entering yet unknown dimensions. Discussion of forces or the absence of them on other planetary bodies in space or below oceans helps in understanding the effects of environment on the structure systems. Nature provides us with quite a number of structures designed to resist or utilize other than gravitational forces. We are all familiar with radiolaria,the minute marine organisms shaped to resist external pressure, and the maple seeds, nature's propellers designed for flight. It may be dangerously misleading to draw close parallels with structures in nature. One must stress the different purpose of these structures and how form has evolved in response to needs and forces. Otherwise the student is likely to imitate the external appearance, resulting in meaningless shapes unsuitable for human needs and building methods. In the past man has looked to nature for inspiration and designed structures which are not direct copies. Paxton's Crystal Palace was inspired by the leaf of Victoria regia. He never directly imitated nature. Man has also searched in nature to justify his independent discoveries. Buckminster Fuller's analogies between diatoms, viruses and other microstructuresand his geodesic domes is a more current example. There is also the conscious search among nature's structures by the less gifted for applicable forms, which in the past have led to rather unfortunate imitations. We are endowed with a number of sea shell roofs which do not recognize the changed context and needs. Structure systems in nature appear to be interrelated much more than in what we have been able to construct. Nature freely utilizes and integrates a number of force transfer mechanisms. The human bone lattices are a mixture of Vierendeel space frame with rigid connections, space truss and shell. In

73

13 & 14. Planar space truss built with cement joints. The flexible joints simulate the pin connection assumed in the analysis of such structures. The delicate model built using discontinuous members establishes a more uniform condition and is able to respond to various loading conditions. (G. Adcock, Oregon, 1971.)

16. Space truss joinery. Gusset connections and member angles determined by geometry of tetrahedral-octahedral space truss. Connector plates center on planes defining the geometry. Linear members are within tetrahedral volumes. Doubling members where needed would eliminate eccentricity. A hierarchy of nodes and members could form extremely versatile space truss system. Abstracted arrangement and thin chipboard allow observation of deformations. (F. Schneider, Jr., Oregon, 1970.) 15. Present joinery methods make pin connections at the intersection o all space truss members impossible. Model demonstrates rotation resulting from a pin connection between the connector and the linear member. (R. Grosjean, Oregon, 1971.)

74

fact, in the molecular scales we can recognize but a combination of twospace frame and space truss. Geometry is clearly the determinant of structural behavior of the system and the strength of the material. Witness Pauling's comparison between the structure of graphite and diamond crystals,4 or the stability due to the tetrahedral bonds of the hydrocarbon molecules. All changes in the physical states of matter are preceded by a change in their structural geometry for whatever reason. A geometrical rearrangement accompanies or causes the change of water to ice. With a change in scale we are looking at a "different" system and another mechanism for transfering forces. Both the steel cable and the egg shell are composed of closely packed "solid" crystals capable of transmitting bending at those scales. Reduced further, they become space structures with their capacity to transmit loads determined by geometric stability. In still finer scale the continuity in mass as well as observable form disappears, and we have a kinetic structure of electrons and what have you. Method The course attempts to structure situations and outline projects which permit the student to learn through experimentation and discovery. Hopefully, the basic urge to explore, to test, to experience can be evoked and stimulated. More experienced students are encouraged to go beyond the assignments or explore aspects of the structure system that intrigue them. Emphasis is placed on building models which transmit behavior of the system, rather than the visual scale models of architectural form and space as in Engel's Structural Systems. Fortunately, some of the structure systems that work in tension, such as cable, tent and pneumatic systems also are indicative of structural behavior. Impossible structures cannot be built even in the model form. Structural determinants are immediately communicated to the builder, difficulties are very apparent and discrepancies can be observed and examined. Such models provide valuable immediate feedback that no photograph, drawing or description can substitute. One can touch and feel the

stresses, and if they are not right, the model will collapse. It is much more difficult to apply the same method to trusses, structures working through bending and surface systems. We have explored several alternative ways for learning about the behavior of these systems. Construction of scale models relies on intellectual comprehension of the workings of these systems. Such models require scaling of all components, and they facilitate visualizing architectural potentials and implications. They, of course, also provide stimulating displays. Students, however, are likely to copy existing prototypes, as they are not yet equipped to be creative in their initial proposals. Construction of simple triangulated mechanisms with pin connections and distinction between compression and tension members led to experiments with minimal structural components without any initial guessing as to their stresses. Subjected to various span and load conditions, such models provide the same benefits as the tension systems. Subtleties in structural behavior, normally unobservable, suddenly can be discussed. The minimal frameworks are particularly instructive in studying beam, beam grid, frame and space frame systems, as well as space trusses. Some more sophisticated models of basic structural phenomena have been built by Neal Mitchell and his staff at Harvard5 as well as others, and the presence of a few such devices could be most instructive. It is, however, very inexpensive to build minimal wire or balsa wood models and of much greater benefit to the student. He can test alternatives using comparative scientific methodology by changing only one variable of the system. The student can easily play with this mechanism and demonstrate his discoveries to the class. A rather wide area is explored by almost everyone doing something different, yet sharing in the experience. The minimal structures approach is equally applicableto surface structures, particularly folded systems, but it is difficult to build model shells which will actually behave as shells. Such attempts, however, are worthwhile as they are convincing demonstrations of the disparities between a tent and a hyperbolic paraboloid shell. The failures of actual

shells are usually more instructive than the geometric representations of surfaces. It is importantto rememberthat these are not the familiar engineering test models which have to be meticulously built and tested, but minimal expenditure constructions to maximize understanding of the behavior of the systems in the short time available. In some exercises the implications of the discovered behavior are transmitted by the subsequent more familiar scale models. It is difficultto communicatethe excitement to others outside the class, as the simple things without demonstrations may look ridiculous comparedto display models-an effective demonstration of the benefits of the affective mode of learning over those of the cognitive mode. Experimentation with the behavioral models alone will not sustain the momentum of the class, nor will such exercises fulfill the course objectives to test the newly acquired knowledge, the student is ready for creative development of structures. Every attempt is made to go beyond well publicised models and examples discussed in class. This is not as difficult as it may appear. Unexplored possibilities within the boundaries of each system are discovered continuously in class discussions. Some assignments establish definite parameters for each group of students. Unforseen structural problems evolve new structure forms. Their feasibility and applicabilityare examined and discussed. Two-directional cable structures, for example, were explored with various suspension and stabilization methods and peripheral supports. There is hardly better stimulus for a student, nor potential for a learning situation than exploration of the less obvious aspects and applications of the structure system. The fact that the end result may be disastrous should not preclude experimentation, as the process, more than the product, is instrumental in learning about structures. The undergraduate researcher is less inhibited in conception of structures due to his limited knowledge. He dares to do the "impossible."The student becomes a collaborator with the faculty member, both attempting to solve the problem, both equally uncertain of the results.

Engel's Structure Systems is recommended as basic text, particularly the back pages, but there is extensive bibliography and assigned reading of material ranging from Haldane6 to Torroja, Nervi, Otto, Thomson, Salvadori and the other more familiar publications on structures. Slides are shown during the weekly two-hour lecture. Some films have been scheduled outside regular class, as they generally take up too much time and deal with only limited concerns. Most of the students have already seen the few films available in other contexts. The two three-hour studio periods per week are continuous presentationdiscussion sessions. It is desirable to work on the projects in the studio, but this does not always happen, as most students maintain their work space in design studio. The absence of a permanent studio-storage space with previous and on-going projects remains a serious disadvantage. There is always the temptation to build full-scale structures. They will generate much energy, provide practical experience and serve to draw attention to the school. Emphasis has been put on exposing the student to the range of structure systems, rather than on spending the term building one structure. Students are encouraged to construct such structures as special studies projects after completion of the sequence.

Conclusion Transmission of knowledge is a risky task. We do not know what will be relevant 30 years, or even ten years from now. Fads, new methods and social customs affect the built environment. Preoccupation with shells is replaced by pneumatics. Structure systems, not structures, are non-temporal. As orders they represent relationships of sub-systems and components. Governed by physical laws, structure systems are beyond personal interpretation. They are universal design principles affected only by the extent of our knowledge. Ecological concerns may prompt some questioning of perpetuation of less efficient systems and methods. The inertia of technology has made man overly dependent on shapes which are a consequence of manufacturing convenience. The impending shortage of raw materials warrants reexamination and reuse of building materials. The history of structures is a record of progressive lightness. Perhaps the greatest challenge lies not in achieving larger and larger spans and lighter structures, but in the development of the most predominant cellular structures. Structures systems will have to evolve in unison with other systems, anticipate and accomodate change and recognize the essential synthesis of structure with spatial needs

and other systems. Such a development calls for a different kind of course more closely integrated with design and other disciplines. It is beyond the scope of this survey course which attempts to gain insight in the behavior of all the structure systems through simulation. Insight could also be attained through contemplation, but this is a difficultpath. The ancient Japanese poet Basho taught that in order to draw a pine tree you must become one with the pine. Look into things. If you understand the pine tree, you understand the world. The same may be true in the study of structures. To fully comprehend the structure, you must become but an extension of it and feel all the stresses and strains, wind, the weight of a bird. Bibliography
1. Engel, Heinrich, Structure Systems, Stuttgart, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1967. 2. Plesums, Guntis, "Architecture and Structure as a System," Architecture Canada, April 1969, pp. 22-33. 3. "A. Graham Bell Has New Idea in Architecture," Architectural Forum, August 1961, pp. 100-105. 4. Pauling, Linus and Roger Hayward, The Architecture of Molecules, San Francisco, W. H. Freeman, 1964. 5. "An Old School Tries a New Technique," Progressive Architecture, February 1967, pp. 136-140. 6. Haldane, J.B.S., "On Being the Right Size," in volume 2 of James R. Newman's The World of Mathematics, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1956.

It 1'/ t

-t-. I'
: i

a .,u-.

?e

.;..
r

" .I.._1 :
I

.r :?

a:

::

::: .r";.. u?
C

t L*' ;

II

t I It

ilr 1(7

_, r

ri i:

1"

Sft

17. Planar space truss composed of tetrahedra and semi-octahedra forming a two-hinged frame. Such models suggest architectural space and form; building them is less instructive for they do not convey the structure system's behavior. (H. Nelson, Oregon, 1971.) 18. Three-dimensional cable structure with stabilization cables below suspension cables over hexagonal floor plan, columns on three sides. (J. Machinist, M. McKennis, L. McKinley, E. Schmitt, A. Taube, R. Tupper, Rhode Island School of Design, 1967.)

76

BTLLUDIDN G In Pse.t
---.
6

FL.32.
_.j. 3.

--

'1I

i . [l ;[ ;

-4y .
' II li"'

i:

:;?

I
l lk.k

I I

I
i I

I
9y. ,.;.>.. ",il Bal','::{ O~,llllll-l[~]'i{ la ;.ipiM_ii [liiiiig\i]B!" ^.a, ^.i~~

L)

9'

B
i i

i, I

z'. //.
(;'*

~I

i
f ' .U
-

-: W-

=* --: -

UI

'
.

-.-_

W. -

.. - - -w -

r- -

T--i

__

- :W

W
*y7^-

Pmli
i
-

?w

"

Huc&w So.Sfa . J-f&Aai 1y arwsly. Fleet Sreet.yovj.28o.

Q,t

77