The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity

the emergence of space frames in modernity

The Emergence of Space Frame in Modernity “The remarkable rigidity and economy of three-dimensional space structures has long been realized, but only during the last decade have they begun to come into widespread architectural usage. In an age of standardization and prefabrication, their simplicity of manufacture, ease of transportation, and speed of erection are sufficient recommendation. Even more important, however, the ratio of weight to area covered can be greatly reduced through their use, and they allow the construction of long span structures with a far smaller number of intermediate supports.”

John Borrego – Space Grid Structures: Skeletal Frameworks and Stressed-Skin Systems, MIT Press, 1968, Introduction Advisor: Bruce A. Johnson Assitant Professor of Architecture Students: Lauren L. Brown Master of Architecture Track I Kadim J. Alasady Master of Architecture Track I

010 022 046 064 076 090 248

Introduction Type Joint Support Geometry Case Studies Appendices

Foreword: The Hollow Stone In 1953, the acclaimed architect Louis I. Kahn expressed some of his early and formative thinking on the potential of the space frame, writing: “In Gothic times, architects built in solid stones. Now we can build with hollow stones. The spaces defined by the members of a structure are as important as the members. These spaces range in scale from the voids of an insulation panel, voids for air, lighting and heat to circulate, to spaces big enough to walk through or live in. The desire to express voids positively in the design of structure is evidenced by the growing interest and work in the development of space frames.”

Louis I Kahn: Toward a Plan Midtown

Philadelphia – Perspecta 2, page 23, 1957 When Kahn spoke of the hollow stone, he was speaking to the integration of emergent materials and environmental systems within the lightweight structure of the engineered space frame. Each of the structural members forms a system that together provides a greater structural potentiality than when used independent of one another, as is typically the case with a traditional column and beam system. While he later abandoned the use of steel in favor of the timelessness of concrete, he maintained the notion of the hollow structure as a manifestation of his earlier thinking on the hollow stone. For Kahn, the hollow stone remained a metaphor for the integration of the latest scientific thinking in the building arts. He saw architecture as a researching of the history of materials and structure enhanced by a practical application of contemporary scientific thinking and this manifests an alignment with some of the thinking/work of Fuller.

“Even the newest and most publicized skyscrapers are decades obsolete in terms of what science and industry have rendered attainable.”

R. Buckminster Fuller – Nine Chains to the Moon, p 17, 1963

This Arch History 700 Course explored the idea of the hollow stone as a premier embodiment of building culture while simultaneously examining seminal works that were historically important, but that did not embody the space frame as a structural element, in order to conceptualize the varying movements throughout architecture. Specifically, students were interested in how hollow structure (in the case of this course, any space frame constructed of wood, steel, bamboo, plastics, etc. that was representative of an era or significant as a work of architecture or parallel industry) could provoke cultural notions of shelter (or substantial societal meaning in the case of product/machine) at various scales. This could occur at the scale of a house, school, museum, office building, campus, city or furniture/product, via the use of a roof system as a sheltering surface or in the case of furniture or products in an organization matrix that could integrate systems or elements for anthropological comfort. For this structure based historical research project, we investigated the roof as an integration of structure (space frame, hollow cavity, or composite), systems (not to the same level in all projects, but i.e., mechanical, electrical, data, etc.) and emergent materials (plastics, carbon fiber, bamboo, or ceramics to name but a few). As the course progressed the notion of the joint or stitch within the fabric of the space frame demanded that students examine the texts of Gottfried Semper (The Four Element of Architecture, 1989, Cambridge University Press) and Kenneth Frampton’s (Postscriptum: The Tectonic Trajectory 1903-1994, pp. 335-376. Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, 1995, MIT Press), in order to better frame the changing modes of tectonic development over time/history. In the end, the work of Kahn and his infamous collaborator Anne Tyng, brought the student’s thinking full circle with regard to geometry, meaning and emergent materials, as a nexus of energy both constrained by physics within the space frame joint and simultaneously freed from materiality by a philosophical underpinning that equated human-made geometry as but a reflection of the fundamental building blocks present throughout both the voided and the organized space of the Universe.

“The forms being experimented with come from a closer knowledge of nature and the outgrowth of a constant search

for order. Design habits leading to the concealment of structure have no place in this implied order. Such habits retard the development of an art. I believe that in architecture, as in all art, the artist instinctively keeps the marks which reveal how a thing was done. The feeling that our present-day architecture needs embellishment stems in part from our tendency to fair joints out of sight, to conceal how parts are put together.

Structures should be devised which can harbor the mechanical needs of rooms and spaces. Ceilings with structure furred in tend to erase scale. If we were to train ourselves to draw as we build, from the bottom up, when we do, stopping our pencil to make a mark at the joints of pouring or erecting, ornament would grow out of our love for the expression of method. It would follow that the pasting over the construction of lighting and acoustical material, the burying of tortured unwanted ducts, conduits, and pipelines, would become intolerable. The desire to express how it is done would filter through the entire society of building, to architect, engineer, builder and craftsman.”

Louis I Kahn: Toward a Plan Midtown Phila

delphia – Perspecta 2, page 23, 1957 What follows chronicles a journey towards understanding the possibilities of the space frame as a manifestation of Kahn’s Hollow Stone.

Bruce A. Johnson Assistant Professor The University of Kansas School of Architecture, Design and Planning - 2012

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity In 1851 Gottfried Semper compartmentalized, in a strategic way, the essence(s) of architecture into four elements: the mound, the hearth, the enclosure and the roof.1 Anne Tyng more than a century later in 1969 described our awareness of space through a synthesis of geometry.2 Later in the 1980s Kenneth Frampton linked the four elements of architecture as they pertain to human awareness of space by privileging the joint.3 Frampton argues that the joint in architecture is the binding agent in a network of elements, creating interstitial space, adding or subtracting space based on density and porosity. Essentially space is constructed through a network of joints that span a gradient of densities and porosities, helping to establish an order to Semper’s four elements of architecture and respectively identifying Tyng’s spatial continuum, evolving from simplicity to complexity. This essential definition which constructs space architecturally might find its ultimate manifestation in the space frame. A space frame by its natural structural and geometric derivations encapsulates the four elements and creates a holistic spatial continuum.

There is a physicality to architecture that has taken various forms throughout time and there is an interstitial in architecture, the in between; these two are unified in the art of joining which manifests itself in a space frame that can satisfy certain architectural intentions. The following is a dissection of Semper’s four elements of architecture, Anne Tyng’s awareness of space through geometry, Frampton’s synthesis of the two (the joint) and the cultivation of the three, which is the space frame.

As Gottfried Semper began to unpack the essential elements of architecture he synthesized them into the mound, the hearth, the enclosure, and the roof (Fig.1). The mound (Fig. 1a) was founded out of water and masonry works (essential construction processes) to reform raw earth into specific foundational components such as the plinth, the floor, and the foundation itself. It serves to transform earth into inhabitable space by providing a horizontal division between raw earth and the other three elements. It is continually the most permanent of the four elements. Today, through the progression of technology, the idea of the mound has evolved to en-

GOTTFRIED SEMPER: THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE 1851

M

R

E

H

LEGEND: (M) MOUND (E) ENCLOSURE (H) HEARTH (R) ROOF

Fig.1

Fig.1a

Fig.1b

Fig.1c

Fig.1d

capsulate radiant flooring, sub-flooring, raised floor systems, slab-on-grade foundations, subterranean structures, systems, and infrastructure. Evidence of the growing desire for integration is found in the concrete space frame floor structures of Louis I. Kahn’s Yale University Art Gallery in 1954. However, the pinnacle of evolution of the original mound is perhaps the multi-layered city (first conceptualized by Leonardo da Vinci in the fifteenth century) in which systems, transportation, commerce, and even inhabitation occur underground.

The hearth (Fig. 1c) evolved from ceramic and metal works (construction processes) and was considered by Semper to be the ‘moral’ element of architecture, serving to create a central gathering space, protected by each of the other elements.

The hearth, by the very nature of its function situated itself in the center of its surrounding space and yielded a domestic program, ultimately becoming a defining element in the typology of the house. For most of history, the hearth was the central heating system of a space, and today it has evolved into the mechanized and concealed conditioning systems of a building, including central heating and cooling, plumbing, and electrical.

The enclosure, or wall filter (Fig. 1b), emerged from the traditions of carpet weaving, initially intended as a divider of space. In time, its materiality transformed from fabrics and grasses into brick, stone, and clay tiling, creating a much tighter and opaque enclosure. However, beginning at the Industrial Revolution the wall enclosure transformed from a heavy, rustic, and permanent condition to a porous, light, and more temporary condition. Today, this condition is made possible through advanced building surfaces and skins as isolated elements that are attached to structure. Accelerated advances in technology have led to building enclosures that include multi-layered skins, environmentally-responsive skins (with changing apertures), insulated glass, plant-growing walls, interactive surfaces, and digitally projected surfaces.

Space frames are the logical evolution of more conventional wall structures, allowing highly advanced routing methods for systems, wires and data to emerge, revealing new wall patterns and implying weaving (wires), a direct return to Semper’s notion of the original textile.

Lastly, the roof (Fig. 1d) was developed through carpentry and became the lightest of the four elements through its need to span distance(s), serving essentially to protect. Today, roofs have two primary formations: sloped or flat. The sloped roof serves as an efficient way to shed water and snow as well as to create additional inhabited space, such as an attic. The flat roof typically serves to hold many of a building’s mechanical units. Although sloped and flat roofs are most common, the dome is a far less-utilized and more efficient roof application.

This is best demonstrated in Buckminster Fuller’s geodesic domes, made of single-layer lattice structure space frames.

His domes which emerged in the 1950s are thin-shelled structures which optimize material and construction, gracefully shed rain and water, and create uniquely lit and inhabited spaces. The roof, as it has begun to evolve technologically, is a logical progression for space frame use.

While these modern technological transformations helped to advance each element independently, they may have (or sometimes led to) a less than all-encompassing process of thinking about architecture, causing the elements to be treated as isolated parts instead of a whole informed by the parts. This disintegration in thinking about an integrated architecture, which sprung from mass specialization due to industrialization, yields not only a separation in design but also in inhabitation; the spaces people inhabit today are more and more comprised of isolated elements. This is most strikingly evident in the individual advancement of the four architectural elements listed above; while the mound, hearth, and roof have evolved into more advanced versions of themselves the enclosure has far exceeded them. Due to this distinction many buildings today are constructed on a standard foundation and structural core with systems, a system of building that due to economic and labor factors will not in all likelihood advance beyond the current times. With the current method of building requiring little modification over time the enclosure is then installed as an additive element which is revised or replaced potentially multiple times as technology advances over the lifespan of a building.

Concerning the further advancement of the mound, the

Fig.2a

Fig.2b

Fig.2c

Fig.2d

hearth, and the roof, the space frame structure is an avenue by which these three elements could match the acceleration of the enclosure and further advance the enclosure itself. The heroic attributes of the space frame which include optimized material use, hollowness, lightness, exceptionally quick construction, and modulated patterns make it a structure which can be easily attached to and oriented in any direction. In the case of the mound a space frame replaces massive foundation slabs and walls with a hollow structure which carries systems and infrastructure. If the space frame replaces steel post-and-beam systems and stud walls it acts as a divider of space while carrying the loads and conditioning systems of a building all at once, distributing the systems of the hearth. In the case of the roof a space frame structure is incredibly light, allowing roofs to span broader distances with more apertures for light. For both the roof and the enclosure a space frame provides a framework for modulated and panelized attachment; as building skins and surfaces continue to advance they can be more efficiently replaced with less cost and less waste. Modulation also permits many more apertures for day lighting and ventilation without compromising structural integrity. Essentially, Semper’s four original architectural elements can be synthesized by technology (through the space frame) into a more integrated, woven architecture, and the continued trajectory of technology-based fabrication will accelerate the use of the space frame.

One example of a technological building innovation beyond its own time is Anne Tyng and Louis I. Kahn’s City Tower in Philadelphia, proposed in 1956 and never built, it is a space frame tower comprised of pure, geometric tessellations and entirely three-dimensional loading. The tower is a demonstration of many of the foundational theoretical principles Anne Tyng adhered to in her architecture and philosophies. As an elemental explanation of the transformation of man’s consciousness of space through time, Tyng prescribes a cyclic process of simplicity to complexity. Tyng attempts to establish this process through four fundamental geometric principles: the bilateral, the rotational, the helical, and the spiral, significant in that respective order (Fig. 2). The bilateral (Fig. 2a) identifies a synthesis in which there is an understanding of symmetry (in relation to a node, the human body). The

ANNE GRISWOLD TYNG: GEOMETRIC EXTENSIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1969

rotational (Fig. 2b) identifies an understanding of space as a continuum beyond the human body. The helical (Fig. 2c) identifies time, in which duration is perceived as part of the spatial continuum. The spiral (Fig. 2d) identifies space-time, a hierarchical flux of the helix as it moves through time marking a beginning and an end. These four geometric principles describe our awareness of space, beginning with a simple, (bilateral and axial) understanding to a more complex (spiraling space-time) understanding.

B

S

B

R

H

S

R

H

Fig.2

LEGNED: (B) BILATERAL - SYENTHSIS (R) ROTATIONAL - SPACE (H) HELICAL - TIME (S) SPIRAL - SPACE TIME

Architecture’s bilateral nature begins with the joint acting as a binding agent that transcends to a rotational nature as elements connect to the joint, creating clusters. The clusters of elements begin to take a helical nature as they extrude in space, horizontally or vertically. Ultimately, these extrusions converge into a spiral experience in which there is a beginning, an end, and an in between. The cycle then begins to repeat itself in a process that continues to build infinitely into larger and more complex forms. In the City Tower by Tyng and Kahn one can very evidently perceive the joints as isolated moments from which spring a rotational array of structural members, taking helical formations as they cluster and then creating a complete spiraling integrated and holistic space frame structure.

Anne Tyng’s spatial continuum that builds from simplicity to complexity and Gottfried Semper’s evolving elements of architecture find their union in the joint, which finds its origins in the word “tectonic”. Kenneth Frampton, in order to clarify the use of the word “tectonic” in the realm of architecture, breaks down its origin and establishes its incidental meaning in order to project. The word’s essential origin comes from the Greek tekton, meaning carpenter or builder.4 As the act of making and building transcends throughout history into the poetic, tectonic comes to mean the “art of joining,” such as assembling and weaving.5 The art of joining is never more evident than in the space frame; it is essentially a kit of parts prepared for assembly into a woven spatial continuum in which the spacing of the joints dictates the structure’s density and porosity.

KENNEHT FRAMPTON: STUDIES IN TECTONIC CULTURE 1985

S

T

Frampton refers to Karl Botticher’s analysis of the Greek

A

Fig.3 LEGNED: (S) STEROTOMIC (A) ATECTONIC (T) TECTONIC

GOTTFRIED SEMPER: THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE 1851 KENNEHT FRAMPTON: STUDIES IN TECTONIC CULTURE 1985

M

R

A

E

H

M

R

T H

Fig.4 LEGEND: (M) MOUND (E) ENCLOSURE (H) HEARTH (R) ROOF (A) ATECTONIC (S) STEROTOMIC (T) TECTONIC

M

E

R

S H

E

temple and his understanding of the tectonic “as signifying a complete system binding all the parts… into a single whole” to project the significance of joining parts to compose a whole.6 Frampton then turns to Gottfried Semper, who identifies a built space as a whole being composed of four fundamental elements: the mound (earthwork), the hearth, the enclosure (lightweight membrane encompassing a spatial matrix), and the roof (frame).7 Frampton further distinguishes these elements into two fundamental procedures: the tectonic, made of the frame and the lightweight membrane, having a relationship with the sky, and the stereotomic, made of earthworks and the hearth, having a relationship with the earth (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).8 Throughout the historic development of building techniques and material capacities, people have begun to engineer structures in which the tectonic and the stereotomic extend and merge to become multiple elements simultaneously. For example, in 1951 Konrad Wachsmann designed the American Air Force Aircraft Hangar, the entire structure being composed of a space frame in which periodic space frame columns extend and branch out to support a cantilevering space frame roof plane that was revolutionary for its time. The project was not built, but it is not difficult to imagine the extension of the members and joints of the columns into the ground to receive the multiplicity of systems harbored below ground in the network of hollow spaces of a space frame foundation.

During this same historical period other seminal works of architecture were being constructed, most of which did not take advantage of such technological advancements of the era as Wachsmann and others that followed his structural-based lineage were able to. For example, in 1952 one of Alvar Aalto’s seminal works of architecture, the Saynatsalo Town Hall, was completed. The town hall, constructed primarily of load-bearing brick walls and choreographed with earthworks such as the elevated courtyard and the terraced stairs that lead up to it give the building an inherent stereotomic nature. In the same instance Aalto designs a highly tectonic network of spaces within the building in which different densities and textures of materials filter in light and designate a series of articulated details. One could imagine that if Wachsmann were to design this same project he would have proposed a structure that could describe the same number and type of spaces created

through the aggregation of a space frame’s changing density and porosity.

Our research through the analysis of space frame case studies spanning from 1898 to the present have led us to conclude that the geometric principles found within the space frame, prescribing a natural structural logic, encapsulate Semper’s evolving four elements gradating from density to porosity; the microcosm to the macrocosm, ultimately finding a resultant in the human inhabitation of space. Furthermore, the inhabitation of space is understood through geometries that are embedded in consciousness as a visual underpinning of the world, prescribing an advanced and interconnected environment which brings multiple elements closer to convergence; an integrated network of spaces in which human functions and inhabitations coexist. The geometric principles in such an environment find cues from molecular structures to the largest of cosmic structures. Architectural space, in essence, is nothing other than a meaning-charged interstitial that exists between everything from the molecular to cosmic structures; and architectural intent begins to perform as the genetic coding of architectural space. As a result of our historical study of structural progression we conclude that architectural intention resides in a proportional composition of Gottfried Semper’s four elements, Anne Tyng’s geometric principles, and Kenneth Frampton’s tectonic and stereotomic natures, all equating to a spatial continuum manifested in the space frame (Fig. 5).

Endnotes 1 Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture, trans. Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 101-129.

2 Tyng Griswold Tyng, “Geometric Extensions of Consciousness,” Zodiac 19 (1969), 131-152.

3 Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies in Tectonic Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995), 3-8, 19-21.

4 Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies in Tectonic Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995), 3.

5 Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies in Tectonic Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995), 4.

6 Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies in Tectonic Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995), 4.

7 Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies in Tectonic Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995), 5.

8 Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies in Tectonic Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995), 5-8.

M

R

A

E

H

B

M

R

T

E

M

R

H

S

E

H

S

R

H

Fig.5

Fig.1

Gottfried Semper: The Four Elements of

GOTTFRIED SEMPER: THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE 1851 Architecture 1851

INANIMATE

M

ANIMATE

STATIC

DYNAMIC

R

H

LEGEND: (M) MOUND (E) ENCLOSURE (H) HEARTH (R) ROOF

Legend: (M) Mound (E) Enclosure (H) Hearth (R) Roof

E

Fig.2

Anne Griswold Tyng: Geometric Extensions of Consciousness 1969

ANNE GRISWOLD TYNG: GEOMETRIC EXTENSIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1969

B

S

B

R

E

SP AC

E

C PA

TI

-S

M

IS

E-

ES

SY

TH

N

N

TH

SY

ES

IS

H

S

R

E

SP AC

E-

TI

AC SP

M

E-

E

M

TI E

M

TI

H LEGNED: (B) BILATERAL - SYENTHSIS (R) ROTATIONAL - SPACE (H) HELICAL - TIME (S) SPIRAL - SPACE TIME Legend:

(B) Bilateral Synthesis (R) Rotational Space (H) Helical Time (S) Spiral Space-Time

Fig.3

Kenneth Frampton: Studies In Tectonic Culture 1985

KENNEHT FRAMPTON: STUDIES IN TECTONIC CULTURE 1985

S

TE /S IC N TO C TE

IC

N

TO

C

TE /A

Legend: (S) Stereotomic (A) Atectonic (T) Tectonic

IC

LEGNED: (S) STEROTOMIC (A) ATECTONIC (T) TECTONIC

M

R

TO

EO

EO

TO

ER

M

IC

ST

T

STEREOTOMIC TECTONIC ATECTONIC

TECTONIC/ATECTONIC

A

Fig.4

Gottfried Semper (Four Elements) Kenneth Frampton (Tectonic Culture)

GOTTFRIED SEMPER: THE FOUR ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE 1851 KENNEHT FRAMPTON: STUDIES IN TECTONIC CULTURE 1985

M

R

A

E

H

M

R

T H

LEGEND: (M) MOUND (E) ENCLOSURE (H) HEARTH (R) ROOF Legend: (A) ATECTONIC (M) (S) Mound STEROTOMIC (T) Enclosure TECTONIC (E)

(H) Hearth (R) Roof (A) Atectonic (S) Stereotomic (T) Tectonic

M

E

R

S H

E

Fig.5

Gottfried Semper (Four Elements) Kenneth Frampton (Tectonic Culture) Anne Griswold Tyng (Geometric Extensions)

M

R

A

E

H

B

M

R

T

E

M

R

H

S

E

E

SP AC

E

C PA

-S

TI

M

IS

E-

ES

SY

TH

N

N

TH

SY

ES

IS

H

S

R

M TI

SP AC

E

E-

C PA

TI M E

S E-

M

TI E

Legend: (M) Mound (E) Enclosure (H) Hearth (R) Roof (A) Atectonic (S) Stereotomic (T) Tectonic (B) Bilateral Synthesis (R) Rotational Space (H) Helical Time (S) Spiral Space-Time

H

SPACE FRAME | TYPES

Within the multiplicity of space frame types exist two families: double-layered grids and single-layered grids, each family having its own unique set of geometries and applications.

00

24

DOUBLE LAYERED GRIDS

Double-layer grids, or flat surface space frames, consist of two planar networks of members forming the top and bottom-layers parallel to each other and interconnected by vertical and inclined web members. Double-layer grids are characterized by hinged joints with no moment or torsional resistance; therefore, all members can only resist tension or compression. Even in the case of connection by comparatively rigid joints, the influence of bending or torsional moment is insignificant.

25

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

DG.000

Two-Way Orthogonal Latticed Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Two-Way Connection: Square Mem.Length: 2 Varied Lengths

Notes: Two-way orthogonal latticed grids (square on square) (Figure 24.4a). This type of latticed grid has the advantage of simplicity in configuration and in joint detail. All chord members are of the same length and lie in two planes that intersect at 90 degrees to each other. Because of its weak torsional strength, horizontal bracings are usually established along the perimeters.

26

DG.001

Two-Way Diagonal Latticed Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Two-Way Connection: Diamond Mem.Length: 2 Varied Lengths

Notes: Two-way diagonal latticed grids (Figure 24.4b). The layout of the latticed grid is exactly the same as in type 1, except that it is offset by 45 degree from the edges. The latticed trusses have different spans along two directions at each intersecting joint. Since the depth is all the same, the stiffness of each latticed truss varies according to its span. The latticed trusses of shorter span may be considered as a kind of support for latticed trusses of longer span, hence more spatial action is obtained.

27

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

DG.002

Three-Way Latticed Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Three-Way Connection: Triangle Mem.Length: 2 Varied Lengths

Notes: Three-way latticed grids. All chord members intersect at 60 degrees to each other and form equilateral triangular grids. It is a stiff and efficient system that is adaptable to odd shapes like circular and hexagonal plans. The joint detail is complicated by numerous members intersecting at one point, with 13 members in extreme cases.

28

DG.003

One-Way Latticed Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Four-Way Connection: Square Rect. Differential Mem.Length: 2 Varied Lengths

Notes: One-way latticed grids. It is composed of a series of mutually inclined latticed trusses to form a folded shape. There are only chord members along the spanning direction, therefore one-way action is predominant. As in type 1, horizontal bracings are necessary along the perimeters to increase the integral stiffness.

Considered as a kind of support for latticed trusses of longer span, hence more spatial action is obtained.

29

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

DG.004

Orthogonal Square Pyramid Space Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Four-Way Connection: Square Offset Mem.Length: Equal Lengths

Notes: Orthogonal square pyramid space grids (square on square offset). This is one of the most commonly used framing patterns with top-layer square grids offset over bottom layer grids. In addition to the equal length of both top and bottom chord members, if the angle between the diagonal and chord members is 45 degrees, then all members in the space grids will have the same length. The basic element is a square pyramid that is used in some proprietary systems as prefabricated units to form this type of space grid.

30

DG.005

Orthogonal Square Pyramid Space Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Four-Way Connection: Square Offset Mem.Length: Equal Lengths

Notes: Orthogonal square pyramid space grids with openings (square on square offset with internal openings, square on larger square). The framing pattern is similar to that of type 5, except that the inner square pyramids are removed alternatively to form larger grids in the bottom-layer. This modification will reduce the total number of members and consequently the weight. It is also visually effective as the extra openness of the space grids network produces an impressive architectural effect. Skylights can be used with this system.

31

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

DG.006

Differential Square Pyramid Space Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Four-Way Connection: Square Diamond Differ.

Mem.Length: 2 Varied Lengths

Notes: Differential square pyramid space grids (square on diagonal). This is a typical example of differential grids. The two planes of the space grids are at 45 degree to each other, which will increase the torsional stiffness effectively. The grids are arranged orthogonally in the top layer and diagonally in the bottomlayer. It is one of the most efficient framing systems with shorter top chord members to resist compression and longer bottom chords to resist tension.

Even with the removal of a large number of members, the system is still structurally stable and esthetically pleasing.

32

DG.007

Diagonal Square Pyramid Space Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Four-Way Connection: Square Diamond Differ.

Mem.Length: 2 Varied Lengths

Notes: Diagonal square pyramid space grids (diagonal square on square with internal openings, diagonal on square). This type of space grid is also of the differential layout but with a reverse pattern from type DG.006. It is composed of square pyramids connected at their apices with fewer members intersecting at the node.

The joint detail is relatively simple since there are only six members connecting at the top chord joint and eight members at the bottom chord joint.

33

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

DG.008

Triangular Pyramid Space Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Three-Way Connection: Triangle Offset Mem.Length: Varied

Notes: Triangular pyramid space grids (triangle on triangle offset). Triangular pyramids are used as basic elements and connected at their apices, thus forming a pattern of top-layer triangular grids offset over bottom-layer grids. If the depth of the space grids is equal to square root of 2/3 chord length, then all members will have the same length.

34

DG.009

Triangular Pyramid Space Grids

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Three-Way Connection: Differ. Varied Geometry Mem.Length: Varied

Notes: Triangular pyramid space grids with openings (triangle on triangle offset with internal openings). Like type DG.005, the inner triangular pyramids may also be removed alternatively. As in the figure shown, triangular grids are formed in the top-layer, while triangular and hexagonal grids are formed in the bottom-layer.

The pattern in the bottom-layer may be varied depending on the ways of removal. This type of space grids has a good open feeling, and the contrast of the patterns is effective.

35

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

SINGLE LAYERED GRIDS

The main difference between doublelayer grids and latticed shells (single layered grids is the form. For doublelayer grid, it is simply a flat surface. For latticed shell, the variety of forms is almost unlimited. A common approach to the design of latticed shells is to start with the consideration of the form — a surface curved in space. The geometry of basic surfaces can be identified, according to the method of generation, as surface of translation and surface of rotation.

36

SG.000

Orthogonal Grid With Single and Double

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Four-Way Connection: Diagonal Braced Rect.

Mem.Length: 2 Varied Lengths

Notes: The first three types of braced barrel vaults can be formed by composing latticed trusses with difference in the arrangement of bracings. In fact, the original barrel vault was introduced by Foppl. It consists of several latticed trusses, spanning the length of the barrel and supported on the gables. After connection of the longitudinal booms of the latticed trusses, they became a part of the braced barrel vault of the single-layer type.

37

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

SG.001

Diamond-Patterned Lamella Openings

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Two-Way Connection: Skewed Mem.Length: Equal Lengths

Notes: The popular diamond-patterned lamella type of braced barrel vault consists of a number of interconnected modular units forming a rhombus-shaped grid pattern. Each unit, which is twice the length of the side of a diamond, is called a lamella. Lamella roofs proved ideal for prefabricated construction as all the units are of standard size.

38

SG.002

Three-Way Bracing

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Three-Way Connection: Triangle Mem.Length: Equal Lengths

Notes: To increase the stability of the structure and to reduce the deflections under unsymmetrical loads, purlins were employed for large-span lamella barrel vaults. This created the three-way grid type of bracing and became very popular. The three-way grid enables the construction of such a system using equilateral triangles composed of modular units, which are of identical length and can be connected with simple nodes.

39

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

SG.003

Ribbed Dome

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : One-Way Connection: Trapezoid Mem.Length: Varied

Notes: Ribbed dome is the earliest type of braced dome that has been constructed.

A ribbed dome consists of a number of identical meridional solid girders or trusses, interconnected at the crown by a compression ring. The ribs are also connected by concentric rings to form grids in trapezium shape. The ribbed dome is usually stiffened by a steel or reinforced concrete tension ring at its base.

40

SG.004

Schwedler Dome

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Four-Way Connection: Braced Trapezoid Mem.Length: Varied

Notes: A Schwedler dome also consists of meridional ribs connected together to a number of horizontal polygonal rings to stiffen the resulting structure so that it will be able to take unsymmetrical loads.

Each trapezium formed by intersecting meridional ribs with horizontal rings is subdivided into two triangles by a diagonal member. Sometimes the trapezium may also be subdivided by two crossdiagonal members

41

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

SG.005

Three Way Grid Dome

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Three-Way Connection: Triangle Mem.Length: Equal Lengths

Notes: The construction of three-way grid dome is self-explanatory, which may be imagined as a curved form of three-way double-layer grids (Figure 24.14c). It can also be constructed in single layer for the dome. The Japanese ‘‘diamond dome’’ system by Tomoegumi Iron Works belongs to this category. The theoretical analysis of three-way grid domes shows that even under unsymmetrical loading the forces in this configuration are very evenly distributed leading to economy in material consumption.

42

SG.006

Parallel Lamella Dome

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Three-Way Connection: Triangle Mem.Length: Varied

Notes: A lamella dome is formed by intersecting two-way ribs diagonally to form a rhombus-shaped grid pattern. As in lamella braced barrel vault, each lamella element has a length that is twice the length of the side of a diamond. The lamella dome can further be distinguished into parallel and curved domes.

For parallel lamella, the circular plan is divided into several sectors (usually six or eight), and each sector is subdivided by parallel ribs into rhombus grids of the same size. This type of lamella dome is very popular in the United States. It is sometimes called a Kiewitt dome, after its developer.

43

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

SG.007

Curved Lamella Dome

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Two-Way Connection: Skewed Mem.Length: Equal Lengths

Notes: Curved lamella, rhombus grids of different sizes, gradually increasing from the center of the dome, are formed by diagonal ribs along the radial lines. Sometimes, for the purpose of establishing purlins for roof decks, concentric rings are introduced, and a triangular network is generated.

44

SG.008

Geodesic Dome

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Three-Way Connection: Triangle Mem.Length: Equal Lengths

Notes: The geodesic dome was developed by the American designer Buckminster Fuller, who turned architects’ attention to the advantages of braced domes in which the elements forming the framework of the structure are lying on the great circle of a sphere. This is where the name ‘‘geodesic’’ came from. The framework of these intersecting elements forms a three-way grid comprising virtually equilateral spherical triangles.

In Fuller’s original geodesic domes, he used an icosahedron as the basis for the geodesic subdivision of a sphere; then, the spherical surface is divided into 20 equilateral triangles.

45

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

SG.009

Hyperbolic Paraboloid

TYPE

S y m m . A x i s : Varied Connection: Varied Mem.Length: Varied

Notes: The hyperbolic paraboloid or hypar is a translational surface formed by sliding a concave paraboloid called generatrix parallel to itself along a convex parabola called directrix, which is perpendicular to the generatrix. By cutting the surface vertically, parabolas can be obtained, and cutting horizontally will give hyperbolas. Such a surface can also be formed by sliding a straight line along two other straight lined skewed with respect to each other. The hyperbolic paraboloid is a doubly ruled surface; it can be defined by two families of intersecting straight lines, which form in plan projection a rhombic grid.

SPACE FRAME | JOINT

The joint in any space frame is its genetic coding, prescribing the shape and number of members by which loads will be equally distributed and determining the density of the entire structure. The following section will describe two types of joints: proprietary and purpose-made.

The proprietary joint is mass-produced, pre-fabricated, and shipped to site. The purpose-made joint is a custom joint fabricated on site.

01

48

Space Frame Geometric Decoding

The jointing system is an extremely important part of a space frame design. An effective solution of this problem may be said to be fundamental to successful design and construction. The type of jointing depends primarily on the connecting technique, whether it is bolting, welding, or applying special mechanical connectors. It is also affected by the shape of the members. This usually involves a different connecting technique depending on whether the members are circular or square hollow sections or rolled steel sections.

The effort expended on research and development of jointing systems has been enormous, and many different types of connectors have been proposed in the past decades.

The joints for the space frame are more important than the ordinary framing systems because more members are connected to a single joint. Furthermore, the members are located in a three-dimensional space, and hence the force transfer mechanism is more complex. The role of the joints in a space frame is so significant that most of the successful commercial space frame systems utilize proprietary jointing systems. Thus, the joints in a space frame are usually more sophisticated than the joints in planar structures, where simple gusset plates will suffice.

49

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

with node

without node

sphere

cricular

cylindar

rectangluar

disc

square

prism

rolled steel

form of member addition of member bolting geometric solids

prefabricated

system

2d components

welding

3d components

mechanical connectors

sub-system

connection

section

50

PJ.000

Mero System

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Sphere Bolting Circular Hollow Sections 18

Notes: The Mero connector, introduced some 50 years ago by Dr. Mengeringhausen, proved to be extremely popular and has been used for numerous temporary and permanent buildings.

Its joint consists of a node that is a spherical hot-pressed steel forging with flat facets and tapped holes. Members are circular hollow sections with cone-shaped steel forgings welded at the ends, which accommodate connecting bolts. Bolts are tightened by means of a hexagonal sleeve and dowel pin arrangement, resulting in a completed joint. Up to 18 members can be connected at a joint with no eccentricity.

51

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

PJ.001

Mero Disc Node

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Disc Bolting Square, Rectangular Hollow Sections 10

Notes: The Mero connector, introduced some 50 years ago by Dr. Mengeringhausen, proved to be extremely popular and has been used for numerous temporary and permanent buildings.

Its joint consists of a node that is a spherical hot-pressed steel forging with flat facets and tapped holes. Members are circular hollow sections with cone-shaped steel forgings welded at the ends, which accommodate connecting bolts. Bolts are tightened by means of a hexagonal sleeve and dowel pin arrangement, resulting in a completed joint. Up to 18 members can be connected at a joint with no eccentricity.

52

PJ.002

Mero Bowl Node

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Sphere Bolting Circular Hollow Sections

Notes: This is a hemispherical node connecting top chord and diagonal members. A single bolted connection from node to member is used. The top chord members of square or rectangular sections can be loaded in shear and are fitted flush to the nodes. Bowl nodes are used for double-layer planar and curved surfaces, in particular buildings irregular in plan or pyramid in shape. The diagonals and lower chords are constructed in ordinary Mero system with circular tubes and spherical nodes.

53

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

PJ.003

Mero Cylindrical Node

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Cylinder Bolting Square, Rectangular Hollow Sections 10

Notes: This is a cylindrical node with multiple bolted connection, which can transmit bending moment. Usually, the node can connect 5 to 10 square or rectangular sections that can take transverse loading. Connection angle varies from 30 to 100 for U-angle and from 0 to 10 for V-angle. Cylinder nodes are used in singly or doubly curved surface of latticed shells with trapezoidal meshes where flexural rigid connections are required.

54

PJ.004

Mero Block Node

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Disc Bolting Square, Rectangular Hollow Sections 4

Notes: This is a block- or prism-shaped solid node connecting members of square or rectangular sections. The U-angle varies from 70 to 120, and the V-angle varies from 0 to 10. It can be used for singly or doubly curved surfaces with pin-jointed or rigid connections where the number of members is small. The structure is of simple geometry and small dimensions.

55

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

PJ.005

Space Deck System

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) Prefabricated Unites - Geometric Solids Bolting Square, Rectangular Hollow Sections 1

Notes: The Space Deck System, introduced in England in the early 1950s, utilizes pyramidal units that are fabricated in the shop.

The four diagonals made of rods or bars are welded to the corners of the angle frame and joined to a fabricated boss at the apex. It is based on square pyramid units that form a configuration of square on square offset double-layer space grids.

The units are fieldbolted together through the angle frames.

56

PJ.006

Triodetic System

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Cylinder Bolting Square, Rectangular Hollow Sections 8

Notes: The joint for the Triodetic System, developed in Canada, consists of an extruded aluminum connector hub with serrated keyways. Each member end is pressed to form a coined edge that fits into the hub keyway. The joint is completed when the members are inserted into the hub, washers are placed at each end of the hub, and a screw bolt is passed through the center of the hub. The triodetic connector can be used for any type of three-dimensional space frame.

57

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

PJ.007

Unistrut System

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Prism Bolting Rolled Steel Sections 8

Notes: The Unistrut System was developed in the United States in the early 1950s. Its joint consists of a connector plate that is press-formed from steel plate. The members are channel-shaped, cold-formed sections and are fastened to the connector plate by using a single bolt at each end. The connectors for the top and bottom-layers are identical, and therefore the Unistrut double-layer grids consist only of four components, that is, the connector plate, the strut, the bolt, and the nut.

58

PJ.008

Oktaplatte System

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Sphere Welding Circular Hollow Sections

Notes: The Oktaplatte System utilizes hollow steel spheres and circular tube members that are connected by welding. The node is formed by welding two hemispherical shells together, which are made from steel plates either by hot or cold pressing. The hollow sphere may be reinforced with an annular diaphragm.

This type of node was popular at the early stage of development of space frames. It is also useful for the long-span structures where other proprietary systems are limited by their bearing capacity. Hollow spheres with diameter up to 500 mm are used. It can be applied to single-layer latticed shells as the joint can be considered as semi- or fully rigid.

59

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

PJ.009

Unibat System

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) Prefabricated Units - 2D and 3D Components Bolting Rolled Steel, Square, Circular Hollow Sections 1

Notes: The Unibat System, developed in France, consists of pyramidal units by arranging the top-layer set on a diagonal grid relative to the bottom-layer. The short length of the top chord members results in less material being required in these members to resist the applied compressive and bending stresses. The standard units are connected to the adjacent units by means of a single high-tensile bolt at each upper corner. The bottom-layer is formed by a two-way grid of circular hollow sections, which are interconnected with the apex of pyramidal units by a single vertical bolt.

60

PJ.010

Nodus System

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Addition to Member Welding and Mechanical Connectors Circular Hollow Sections 8

Notes: The Nodus System was developed in England in the early 1970s. Its joint consists of half-casing, which is made of cast steel and has machined grooves and drilled holes. The chord connections are made of forged steel, have machined teeth, and are full-strength welded to the member ends. The teeth and grooves have an irregular pitch to ensure proper engagement. The forked connectors are made of cast steel and are welded to the diagonal members. The main feature of the Nodus jointing system is that all fabrication is carried out in the workshop so that only the simplest erection techniques are necessary for the assembly of the structure on-site.

61

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

PJ.011

Nippon Steel (NS) Space System

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Joint (PJ) With Node - Sphere Bolting Circular Hollow Sections

Notes: The NS Space Truss System was introduced around 1970 by the Nippon Steel Corporation. It originated from the space truss technology developed for the construction of the huge roof at the symbol zone for Expo ’70 in Japan. The NS Space Truss System has a joint consisting of thick spherical steel shell connectors open at the bottom for bolt insertion. The structural members are steel hollow sections having specially shaped end cones welded to both ends of the tube. End cones have threaded bolt holes.

Special high-strength bolts are used to join the tubular members to the spherical shell connector. The NS nodes enable several members to be connected to one node from any direction without any eccentricity of internal forces.

62

PM.000

Cruciform Gusset Plate

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Purpose Made (PM) Welding Rolled Steel Sections Varied

Notes: The purpose-made joints are usually used for long-span structure where the application of standard proprietary joints is limited. An example of such a joint is the cruciform gusset plate for connecting rolled steel sections.

63

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

BJ.000

Curved Plate Bearing

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Bearing Joint (BJ) With Node, Without Node, Prefabricated Units Bolting, Welding, Mechanical Connectors Square, Rect, Circular Hollow Sections Varied

Notes: Joint resting on a curved bearing block, which allows rotation along the curved surface. This type of construction is considered as a hinged joint.

64

BJ.001

Flat Plate Bearing

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Bearing Joint (BJ) With Node, Without Node, Prefabricated Units Bolting, Welding, Mechanical Connectors Square, Rect, Circular Hollow Sections Varied

Notes: The simplest form of bearing is to establish the joint on a flat plate and anchored by bolts. This joint seems to be fixed at the support, but in structural analysis it has to be incorporated with the supporting structure, such as columns or walls that have a lateral flexibility.

65

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

BJ.002

Elastomeric Joint Bearing

JOINT

Joint System: Sub - System: Connection: Mem.Shape: Maximum#:

Proprietary Bearing Joint (BJ) With Node, Without Node, Prefabricated Units Bolting, Welding, Mechanical Connectors Square, Rect, Circular Hollow Sections Varied

Notes: If a laminated elastomeric pad is used under the joint as shown, a new type of bearing joint is formed. Due to the shear deformation of the elastomeric pad, the joint can produce both rotation and horizontal movements. It is very effective to accommodate the horizontal deformation caused by temperature variation or earthquake action.

SPACE FRAME | SUPPORT

Since the most common use of the space frame has been as a roof structure its support types primarily include various combinations of column placements (the columns potentially being space frames themselves). However, some space frame types are dynamic enough to maintain equilibrium through their geometric configuration and require a minimum number of columns or only a simple ground extension.

02

68

MS.000

Four Internal Columns

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Multicolumn Support Location: Internal Placement

Notes: For single-span buildings, like sports hall, double-layer grids can be supported on four intermediate columns. It is more desirable to locate them in the middle of the sides rather at the corners of the building.

69

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

MS.001

Internal Grid

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Multicolumn Support Location: Internal Placement

Notes: For buildings like workshops, usually multispan columns in the form of grids. It is best to design with overhangs, which are taken as quarter to one third of the midspan. Corner supports should be avoided if possible, since this cause large forces in the edge chords.

70

MS.002

Internal Grid & Perimeter

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Multicolumn Support Location: Internal/Perimeter Placement

Notes: Column grids are used in combination with supports along perimeters.

71

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

MS.003

Along Perimeter

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Perimeter Support Location: Internal Placement

Notes: Support along perimeters. This is the most commonly used support location. The supports of double-layer grids may directly rest on the columns or on ring beams connecting the columns or exterior walls. Care should be taken that the module size of grids should match the column spacing.

72

MS.004

Three Side Perimeter

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Perimeter Support Location: Perimeter Placement

Notes: Support along perimeters on three sides and free on the other side. For buildings of rectangular shape, it is necessary to have one side open, such as in the case of airplane hangar or for future extension. Instead of establishing the supporting girder or truss on the free side, triple-layer grids can be formed by simply adding another layer of several module widths. For shorter spans, this can also be solved by increasing the depth of the double-layer grids. The sectional area of the members along the free side will increase accordingly.

73

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

CST.000

Inverted Pyramid

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Column Addition

Notes: Carry the space grids down to the column top by an inverted pyramid

74

CST.001

Triple Layer Grids

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Column Addition

Notes:

75

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

CST.002

Ground Extension

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Space Frame Extension

Notes: The inverted pyramids may be extended down to the ground.

The spreading out of the concentrated column reaction on the space grids reduces the maximum chord and web member forces adjacent to the column supports and reduces the effective spans

76

CST.003

Vertical Strut

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Column Addition

Notes: The use of a vertical strut on column tops enables the space grids to be supported on top chords, but the vertical strut and the connecting joint have to be very strong.

77

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

CST.004

Crosshead Beams

SUPPORT

S y s t e m : Column Addition

Notes: The use of crosshead beams on column tops produces the same effect as the inverted pyramid but usually costs more in material and special fabrication.

SPACE FRAME | GEOMETRY

The geometry of both double-layered and single-layered space frames is nearly limitless. Combinations of the most simple to the most complex of polygons can be combined to create a space frame geometry as long as the geometry creates triangulated loading. The following geometries were created by Kadim Alasady as foundational principles in his thesis “Structure, Geometry, and Material,� and are divided into regular grids and semi-regular grids.

03

80

Space Frame Geometric Decoding

The space frame grid geometry takes 5 geometric operations to created the corresponding grid to ultimatly created a double layer space frame. The vertices on the grid (GI) are connected (VC) to identify the 3 dimensional joint (3DN) and by connecting the 3DN the semi-regular (SR) is constructed.

Lastly, overlay all of the systems, the structural members of the spaceframe (SFSM) are identified.

Legend: GI - Grid R - Regular SR - Semi-Regular VC - Vertex Connection NID - Node Identification 3DN - 3 Dimensional Node RD - Dual Regular SRD - Dual Semi-Regular SFSM - Space Frame Structural Members

81

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

GI

3DN

VC

SR

NID

SFSM

82

Regular.Grid.000

83

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

Regular.Grid.001

84

Semi.Regular.Grid.000

85

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

Semi.Regular.Grid.001

86

Semi.Regular.Grid.002

87

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

Semi.Regular.Grid.003

88

Semi.Regular.Grid.004

89

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

Semi.Regular.Grid.005

90

Semi.Regular.Grid.006

91

The Emergence of Space Frames in Moderntiy | Types

Semi.Regular.Grid.007

SPACE FRAME | CASE STUDIES

The following section is a catalog of space frames since their origin in 1898

by Alexander Graham Bell. These works are listed chronologically and are inclusive of space frames within architecture and its parallel industries: automotive, aeronautical, and nautical. The catalog is punctuated at each decade with a non-space frame seminal work of architecture to demonstrate the contrast of the innovative use of the space frame against the standard building construction methods used at that time.

04

1860

1870

1860

1880

1890

1900

Biblotheque Nationale

1910

1920

1930

1940

Designer: Henri Labrouste Material: Bearing Masonry, Iron Columns Location: Paris, France Typology: Library Notes: 1862-1868

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

94

1. Reading Room 2. Section Drawing

95

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

Prudential (Guaranty) 1890 Building

1910

1920

1930

1940

Designer: Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler Material: Steel Structure, Terra Cotta Blocks Cladding Location: New York, USA Typology: Office Building Notes: 1895

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

96

3. Prudential Building

97

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

Tetrahedral (Box) 1898 Kite

1910

1920

1930

1940

Designer: Alexander Graham Bell Material: Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Typology: Kite Notes: Cygnet I, II, & III (manned & unmanned)

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

98

4. Cockpit of Tetrahedral Kite

99

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

AEG High Tension Factory

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1900 Designer: Peter Behrens Material: Glass, Steel, Masonry Location: Berlin, Germany Typology: Factory Notes: 1900

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

100

5. A. E. G. High Tension Factory

101

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

AEA Silver Dart

1900

1910

1908

1930

Designer: Aerial Experiment Association Material: Location: New York, USA Typology: Aircraft

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

102

6. The SIlver Dart 7. Silver Dart in Flight

103

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Maison Domino

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1920

Designer: Le Corbusier Material: Concrete Location: Universal Typology: Universal Notes: 1922

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

104

8. Le Corbusier’s Domino

105

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Zeiss Corporation Planetarium

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1923

Designer: Walther Bauersfeld Material: Walter Bauersfeld Location: Jena, Germany Typology: Planetarium Notes: World’s first geodesic dome

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

106

9. Planetarium Dome

107

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

Casa del Fascio

1910

1920

1930

1940

Designer: Giuseppe Terragni Material: Reinforce Concrete Location: Como, Italy Typology: Municipal Administration Building

1930 Notes: 1936

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

108

10. Exterior Facade

109

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

Dymaxion Car

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

Designer: R. Buckminster Fuller and Issamu Noguchi Material: Location: United States Typology: Car

1933 Notes:

Fuel efficiency: 30 miles per US gallon. Fastest documented speed: 90mph (Fuller claimed it could reach 120mph).

3-wheel car with teardrop-shaped body that could a U-turn in its own length. Development halted after a fatal accident at the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair. Fuller highly influenced by German inventor and helicopter pioneer Englebert Zaschka; his 1929 automobile was a three-wheeled car that could be folded, disassembled, and re-assembled.

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

110

11. Photo of Prototype 12. Top and Side Views

111

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Johnson Wax Building

1900

1910

Designer: Frank Lloyd Wright Material: Precast Concrete, Brick Location: Wisconsin, USA Typology: Office Building

1920

1930

1940

1950

1940

Notes: 1939

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

112

13. Interior Main Room 14. Exterior Overvew

113

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Geodesic Dome

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Buckminster Fuller Material: Steel Location: North Carolina, USA Typology: Various Applications

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1949

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

114

15. Buckminster Fuller in Front of a Geodesic Dome

115

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Saynatsalo Town Hall

1900

1910

Designer: Alva Aalto Material: Brick, Wood Location: Saynatsalo, Finland Typology: Town Hall

1920

1930

Notes: 1949-1952

1940

1950

1960

1950

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

116

16. Interior Trusses 17. Council Chamber

117

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

American Air Force Aircraft Hanger

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Konrad Wachsmann Material: Model Location: California Typology: Aircraft Hanger

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1951

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

118

18. Structure and Space 19. Overiew

119

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Philadelphia Tower

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Louis Kahn and Anne Tyng Material: Model Location: Pennsylvania, USA Typology: Skyscraper

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1952

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

120

20. The City Tower

121

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Roof Framing Model

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Anne Tyng Material: Model Location: California, USA Typology: Various Application

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1952

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

122

21. Roof Framing Model

123

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Convention Hall

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Mies Van der Rohe Material: Model Location: Illinois, USA Typology: Hall

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1953

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

124

22. Model Photographs 23. Elevation Drawing

125

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Yale University Art Gallery

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Louis Kahn Material: Precast Concrete Location: Connecticut, USA Typology: Museum

1940

Notes:

1920

1950 1954

1960

1954

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

126

24. Art Gallery Ceiling

127

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Palazzetto dello Sport

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Pier Luigi Nervi Material: Model Location: Rome, Italy Typology: Athletic Arena

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1957

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

128

25. Sectional Model

129

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

McCormick Place

1900

1910

Designer: C.F. Murphy Associates Material: Steel Frame, Curtain Wall Location: Illinois, USA Typology: Convention Center

1920

1930

Notes: (Check Mies’ Democratic National Convention)

1940

1950

1960

1958

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

130

26. Model Collage

131

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

ASM International Materials Park

1890

1900

1910

Designer: John Terence Kelly and William Hunt Eisenman Material: Steel Location: Ohio, USA Typology: Company Headquarters

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1959

Notes: Symbolic of humanity’s mastery of metals and materials. On Nation Register of Historic Places. Structure named “Space Lattice.” 103’ above ground, 274’ across, weighs 80 tons, made of 65,000 pieces of extruded aluminum (12 miles of tubing) welded together in a hexagon pattern. Strong enough to withstand an 8-inch coating of ice or 500-mph winds. Only damage reported was during 1986 earthquake- sheared off a few bolts while shaking.

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

132

27. Structural Support 28. Geometric Overview

133

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Brasilia City

1900

1910

Designer: Oscar Niemeyer Material: Various Location: Brasilia, Brazil Typology: Country Capital

1920

1930

Notes: 1956-1963

1940

1950

1960

1970

1960

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

134

29. Montagem Barsilia

135

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Reticulated Foldable Space Grid

1890

1900

1910

Designer: Emilio Perez Pinero Material: Model Location: Torreblanca, Spain Typology: Various Application

1920

1930

Notes: Deployable and Foldable

1940

1950

1960

1970

1960

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

136

30. Opened Retractable Structure 31. Emilio Perez Pinero with Retractable Structure

137

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Maserati Tipo 61

1900

1910

Designer: Maserati Material: Steel Location: Modena, Italy Typology: Car

1920

1930

Notes: 200 chro-moly steel tubes welded

1940

1950

1960

1970

1961

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

138

32. Maserati Tipo 61 Birdcage

139

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Smoke Sculptor

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Tony Smith Material: Location: Washington, USA Typology: Sculptor

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1967

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

140

33. Photo of Smoke Sculptor

141

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Symbol Zone

1900

1910

Designer: Kenzo Tango Material: Steel Location: Osaka, Japan Typology: Exhibition Pavilion

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1967

Notes: In the Symbol Zone of the World Exposition held in Osaka in 1970, a huge, transparent, space truss roof 291.6m by 108m, supported on only six lattice columns at a height of 30m above the ground, covered the Festival Square. Based on a 10.8m by 10.8m double layer grids 7.637m deep, the roof spanned 75.6m across its width and spanned 108m in the longitudinal direction. On top of each of the grids, a transparent air-supported panel was located, realizing the first transparent membrane structure of large scale in the world. The top and bottom skins of this panel consist of layers of very thin, transparent polyester film. The whole roof structure of 4800 tons was assembled on the ground and it was lifted to its final position by means of pneumatic jacks climbing up along the six main columns.

2000

2010

2020

2030

142

34. The Expo’70 Space Frame for the Festival Plaza 35. Spherical Joint

143

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Nakagin Capsule Tower

1900

1910

Designer: Kisho Kurokawa Material: Precast Concrete Location: Tokyo, Japan Typology: Residential, Office

1920

1930

Notes: 1972

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1970

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

144

36. Exterior Overview Photograph

145

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

The National Exhibition Centre

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Edward D. Mills and Partners Material: Steel Location: Birmingham, UK Typology: Exhibition

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1970

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

146

37. Construction Photo of Exhibition

147

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Ducati Trellis Chassis

1900

1910

Designer: Ducati Material: Steel Location: Bologona, Italy Typology: Motorcycle

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1972

Notes: Developed in cooperation with Ducati Corse, the lightweight Trellis frame features 34mm main section tubes with a material thickness of 1.5mm. The result is an incredibly rigid construction that remains one of Ducati’s lightest frame solutions ever. Through decades of racing and development, Ducati has proven that innovative chassis engineering and evolutionary frame advancements win races. The tubular Trellis frame, used on every Ducati motorcycle, is a signature design element. This unique Ducati frame is light, rigid and beautiful thanks to its ingenious Trellis design and use of high quality ALS 450 tubing. Each tube is mitred and micro-fusion welded in a complex triangulated pattern and our incredibly strong L-Twin engine cases are functional “stressed members” of the chassis.

2000

2010

2020

2030

148

38. Ducati Superbike 39. Ducati Trellis Frame

149

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Hall of Nations

1900

1910

Designer: Raj Rewal Material: Concrete Location: New Dehli, India Typology: Exhibition Complex

1920

1930

Notes: Reinforced concrete, first of its kind, adapted to climate - permit ventilation & shade from sun

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1972

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

150

40. Space and Structure 41. Exterior Structure

151

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Sainsbury Center

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Norman Foster and Partners Material: Steel Location: Norwich, UK Typology: Museum

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1977

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

152

42. Exterior Overview

153

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Nusatsum House

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Randall G. Satterwhite Material: Location: Vella Coola Valley, Canada Typology: Residential

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1978

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

154

43. Nustasum House Interior

155

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Gehry House

1900

1910

Designer: Frank Gehry Material: Various Location: California, USA Typology: Residential

1920

1930

Notes: 1978

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1980

2000

2010

2020

2030

156

44. Gehry Residence

157

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

VLA: Very Large Array

1900

1910

1930

Designer: NRAO, NSF, and Associated Universities, Inc. Material: Location: New Mexico, USA Typology: Radio Antennas

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1980

2000

2010

2020

2030

158

45. Very Large Array Partial Photo 46. Satelite Sturcture

159

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Jacob K. Javits Center

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Pei, Cobb Freed Material: Steel Location: New York, USA Typology: Convention Center

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1980

2000

2010

2020

2030

160

47. Javits Center Interior

161

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

The Crystal Cathedral

1900

1910

Designer: Phillip Johnson and John Burgee Material: Steel, Glass Location: California, USA Typology: Religious

1920

1930

Notes: Designed using RISA structural analysis software.

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1980

2000

2010

2020

2030

162

48. Interior of Crystal Cathedral

163

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Meishusama Hall

1900

1910

Designer: Minoru Yamasaki and Associates Material: Location: Shiga, Japan Typology: Hall

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1983

Notes: At the far end of the Great Plaza, an expanse of 14,000 square meters paved with Italian marble, stands this grand hall, which is dedicated to our founder Meishusama. Completed in 1983, it was designed by Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York City. Resembling the shape of Mt. Fuji, the structure is supported by just four pillars that curve upward from its base.

The structure is an amazing 60 meters in width, 100 meters in length, and 50 meters in height. Yamasaki’s design was realized with the aid of his engineering partner, Yoshikatsu Tsuboi, a foremost authority on structural dynamics. Meishusama Hall is a stunning feat of architecture that set a benchmark in structural engineering.

2000

2010

2020

2030

164

49. Exterior Facade 50. Interior Lobby

165

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Retractable Structures

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Charles Hoberman Material: Various Location: Typology: Various Applications

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1985

2000

2010

2020

2030

166

51. Retractable Structure

167

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Oguni Dome

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Yoh Design Office Material: Wood Location: Kyushu, Japan Typology: Stadium

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1988

2000

2010

2020

2030

168

52. Interior of Dome 53. Structural Axonametric

169

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

FFV Aerotech Hanger

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Faulks, Perry, Culley, and Rech Material: Location: Stansted, UK Typology: Aircraft Hanger

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1988

2000

2010

2020

2030

170

54. Exterior Overview 55. Structure Construction

171

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Pantadome Erection System

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Buckminster Fuller and Mamoru Kawaguchi Material: Model Location: Typology: Various Applications

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1989

2000

2010

2020

2030

172

56. Pantadome Erection System Sequence

173

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Rogers Centre

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Robbie Young and Wright Material: Location: Toronto, Canada Typology: Stadium

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1989

2000

2010

2020

2030

174

57. Rogers Centre Open Space Frame Structure 58. Rogers Centre Closed Space Frame Structure

175

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Louvre Pyramid

1900

1910

1930

Designer: I.M. Pei and Partners Material: Steel, Glass Location: Paris, France Typology: Museum

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1989

2000

2010

2020

2030

176

59. Exterior Overview 60. Louvre Pyramid Interior

177

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Walt Disney World Swan (Hotel)

1890

1900

1910

Designer: Michael Graves Material: Location: Florida, USA Typology: Hotel

1920

1930

Notes: 1900

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1900

2010

2020

2030

178

61. Exterior Overview

179

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Bank of China Tower

1900

1910

1930

Designer: I.M. Pei and Partners Material: Location: Hong Kong, China Typology: Skyscraper

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1900

2010

2020

2030

180

62. Tower Model Facade Drawings

181

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

National Indoor Arena for Sport

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: HOK and Percy Thomas Partnership Material: Steel Location: Birmingham, UK Typology: Arena

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1900

2010

2020

2030

182

63. Stucture Construction

183

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Sant Jordi Arena

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Arata Isozaki Material: Location: Barcelona, Spain Typology: Olympic Complex

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1900

2010

2020

2030

184

64. Exterior Overview

185

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Biosphere 2

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Margaret Augustine Material: Location: Arizona, USA Typology: Biome Complex

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1900

2010

2020

2030

186

65. Exterior Overview 66. Structure and Space

187

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Barrel Vault Atrium, The Bantall Centre

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Building Design Partnership Material: Location: Kingston, UK Typology: Shopping Mall

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1900

2010

2020

2030

188

67. Interior of Atrium 68. Structural Axonametric

189

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Stansted Airport

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Norman Foster and Partners Material: Steel, Glass Location: Stansted, UK Typology: Airport Terminal

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1991

2010

2020

2030

190

69. Interior Entrance 70. Exterior Entrance

191

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

LAN Chile Maintenance Hanger

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Material: Location: Santiago, Chile Typology: Aircraft Hanger

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1991

2010

2020

2030

192

71. Roof Plan Drawing

193

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Pylon Chair

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Tom Dixson Material: Location: London, UK Typology: Chair

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1991

2010

2020

2030

194

72. Pylon Chair Photo

195

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Palafolls Sports Hall

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Arata Isozaki Material: Steel, Glass Location: Palafolls, Spain Typology: Olympic Complex

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1991

2010

2020

2030

196

73. Exterior Overview 74. Structural Axonametric

197

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

ONCE Pavilion

1900

1910

1930

Designer: M&B Arquitectos, S.A. Material: Location: Seville, Spain Typology: Exhibition Pavilion

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1992

2010

2020

2030

198

75. Exterior Overview

199

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Pavilion of Extremadura

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Felix Escrig and J. Valcarcel Material: Location: Extremadura, Spain Typology: Exhibition Pavilion

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1992

2010

2020

2030

200

76. Structural Axonametric 77. Joint Detail Axonametric

201

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Terminal 2, Manchester Airport

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Scott, Brownigg, and Turner Material: Location: Manchester, UK Typology: Airport Terminal

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1993

2010

2020

2030

202

78. Exterior Overview 79. Structural Section

203

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Fantasy Island Pyramid

1900

1910

1930

Designer: IDS Studio Material: Steel, Glass Location: Skegness, UK Typology:

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1995

2010

2020

2030

204

80. Construction Assembly 81. Construction Drawings

205

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Atlanta Pavilion

1900

1910

Designer: Scogin Elam and Bray Material: Location: Skegness, UK Typology: Exhibition Pavilion

1920

1930

Notes: Unbuilt

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1996

2010

2020

2030

206

82. Digital Model Wireframe 83. Model Photo Overview

207

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

New Exhibition Facilities, Milan Fair

1890

1900

1910

Designer: Redesco Srl Material: Location: Milan, Italy Typology: Exhibition

1920

1930

Notes: Integrated Systems in floor plates

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990 1900

2000

1996

2010

2020

2030

208

84. Floor Eerection Sequence with Integrated Systems

209

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Acropolis Museum

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Bernard Tschumi Material: Concrete Location: Athens, Greece Typology: Museum

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2000

2020

2030

210

85. Exterior Overview 86. Interior Structure

211

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Eden Project

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Nicholas Grimshaw Material: Steel, Thermoplastic Location: St. Blazery, UK Typology: Greenhouse Complex

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2000

2020

2030

212

87. Interior Volume 88. Exterior Overview

213

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Desert Dome Henry Doorly Zoo

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: ASD Stanley Architects Material: Steel, Glass Location: Nebraska, USA Typology: Zoo

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2002

2020

2030

214

89. Exterior Overview 90. Interior Volumne

215

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Gehrkin

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Norman Foster and Partners Material: Location: London, UK Typology: Office Skyscraper

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2003

2020

2030

216

91. Exterior Overview

217

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Kunsthaus Graz

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Peter Cook and Colin Fournier Material: Location: Graz, Austria Typology: Museum

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2003

2020

2030

218

92. Exterior Overview 93. Structrual Wireframe

219

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Selective Space Structure (3S)

1890

1900

1910

Designer: NetFabb Material: Additive Manufacturing Location: Global Typology: Various Applications

1920

1930

Notes: Selective Space Structures (3S) creates complex structures to reach unique part properties with standard additive manufacturing materials.

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2003

2020

2030

220

94. Sample Material Geometry Printed 95. Sample Directed Load Path Member

221

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Hotel Diagonal Barcelona Roof

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Juli Capella Material: Steel Location: Barcelona, Spain Typology: Hotel

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2004

2020

2030

222

96. Roof Patio Structure 97. Exterior Overview

223

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Aeroelastic Wing

1900

1910

Designer: NASA Material: Location: California, USA Typology: Aeroplane Wing

1920

1930

Notes: Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) Technology is multidisciplinary in that it integrates air vehicle aerodynamics, active controls, and structural aeroelastic behavior to maximize air vehicle performance. The techonolgy was first put to test on the F/A-18 which is now the configured version by NASA X-53 in March 2005.

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2004

2020

2030

224

98. Aerolastic WIng in Motion 99. Aerospace Engineer George Lesieutre, of Pennsylvania State University

225

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

QuaDror

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Dror Benshetrit Material: Various Location: Typology: Various Application

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2006

2020

2030

226

100. Residential Housing Applicaton 101. Various Scales

227

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Audi Dynamic Space Frame

1890

1900

1910

Designer: Patrick Faulwetter, Daniel Simon, and Ian Hilton Material: Steel Location: California, USA Typology: Car

1920

1930

Notes: The Audi Space Frame速 is a high-strength aluminium frame structure. The use of aluminium produces a significant reduction in weight, which cuts fuel consumption and boosts efficiency

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2006

2020

2030

228

102. Audi Space Frame

229

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Hearst Tower

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Norman Foster and Partners Material: Steel, Glass Location: New York, USA Typology: Office Skyscraper

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2006

2020

2030

230

103. Elevation Drawing

231

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Galzigbahn Cable Car Station

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Dreindl Architects Material: Concrete, Steel, Glass Location: Tyrol, Austria Typology: Recreation

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2007

2020

2030

232

104. Exterior Overview 105. Section Drawing

233

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Wuxi Grand Theatre

1900

1910

1930

Designer: PES-Architects Material: Steel, Glass Location: Wuxi, China Typology: Theater

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2008

2020

2030

234

106. Roof Structure Close Up 107. Structural Axonametric

235

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Beijing National Stadium

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Herzog and de Meuron Material: Steel, Concrete Location: Beijing, China Typology: Stadium

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2008

2020

2030

236

108. Exterior Overview 109. Exterior Facade

237

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Bamboo Bird’s Nest

1900

1910

1930

Designer: 10 Bamboo Sculptors Material: Bamboo Location: Hangzhou City, China Typology: Stadium Model

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2008

2020

2030

238

110. Exterior Overview 111. Structure Construction

239

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Project Cover Reel

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Amann Canovas Maruri Material: Steel Location: Cartagena, Spain Typology: Museum

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2009

2020

2030

240

112. Exterior Space 113. Section Drawing

241

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

Punta Della Dogana

1900

1910

Designer: Tado Ando Material: Concrete, Wood Location: Venice, Italy Typology: Museum

1920

1930

Notes: 2009

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2010 242

114. Concrete Renovation/Addition 115. Gallery Space Overview

243

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Heydar Aliyev Cultural Centre

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Zaha Hadid Architects Material: Steel Location: Baku, Azerbaijan Typology: Cultural Center

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2010 244

116. Structure Construction 117. Exterior Overview

245

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Airbus Transparent Plane

1890

1900

1910

1930

Designer: Boeing Material: Location: Typology: Passenger Airplane

1940

Notes:

1920

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2011 246

118. Passenger Airplane Overview

247

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

1890

JWST

1900

1910

Designer: NASA, CSA, ESA Material: Location: Washington DC, USA Typology: Deployable Structure

1920

1930

Notes: The James Webb Space Telescope

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2012 248

119. Telescope Structure 120. Telescope Overview

249

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

1860

1870

1880

Metal Organic Framework

1890

1900

1910

Designer: Northwestern University Research Material: MOF Location: Typology: Various Application

1920

1930

Notes: Named NU-109 and NU-110, the materials belong to a class of crystalline nanostructure known as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) that are promising vessels for natural gas storage for vehicles, catalysts, and other sustainable materials chemistry. The materials’ promise lies in their vast internal surface area. If the internal surface area of one NU-110 crystal the size of a grain of salt could be unfolded, the surface area would cover a desktop. Put another way, the internal surface area of one gram of NU-110 would cover one-and-ahalf football fields.

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2012 250

121. Model of NU-110

251

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Case Studies

APPENDICES

The following appendices are supplemental bits to this entire study of The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity. The appendices include a world map demonstrating the propogation of space frames through time, selections from Gottfreid Semper’s The Four Elements of Architecture, Anne Tyng’s “Geometric Extensions of Consciousness,” and Kenneth Frampton’s Studies in Tectonic Culture, and an extended readings list.

05

1940

1930

1920

1910

1900

1890

1880

1870

1860

Johnson Wax Building, Frank Lloyd Wright

Casa del Fascio, Guiseppe Terragni

Dymaxion Car, R. Buckminster Fuller & Issamu Noguchi

Zeiss Corporation Planetarium, Walter Bauersfeld

Maison Domino, Le Corbusier

AEA Silver Dart, Aerial Experiment Association

AEG Turbine Factory, Peter Behrens

Tetrahedral (Box) Kite, Alexander Graham Bell

Prudential (Guaranty) Building, Louis Sullivan & Dankmar Adler

Bibliotheque Nationale, Henri Labrouste

the emergence of space frames in modernity

2020

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

1960

1950

Saynatsalo Town Hall, Alvar Aalto Philadelphia Tower, Louis I. Kahn & Anne Tyng Roof Framing Model, Anne Tyng

Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center, Zaha Hadid Architects Airbus Transparent Plane JWST: The James Webb Space Telescope, NASA, CSA, & ESA Metal Organic Framework, Northwestern University

QuaDror, Dror Benshetrit Audi Dynamic Space Frame, Patrick Faulwetter, Daniel Simon, & Ian Hilton Hearst Tower, Foster & Partners Galzigbahn Cable Car Station, Dreindl Architects Wuxi Grand Theatre, PES-Architects Beijing National Stadium (”Bird’s Nest”), Herzog & de Meuron Bamboo Bird’s Nest, bamboo sculptors Project Cover Reel, Amann Canovas Maruri Punta Della Dogana, Tadao Ando

30 St Mary Axe (”the Gherkin”), Foster & Partners Kunsthaus Graz, Peter Cook & Colin Fournier Selective Space Structures (3S), NetFabb Hotel Silken Diagonal Barcelona, Juli Capella Aeroelastic Wing, NASA

Desert Dome, Henry Doorly Zoo, ASD Stanley Architects

Acropolis Museum, Bernard Tschumi Eden Project, Nicholas Grimshaw

Atlanta Pavilion, Scogin, Elam, & Bray New Exhibition Facilities, Milan Fair, Redesco srl

Fantasy Island Pyramid, IDS Studios

Oguni Dome, Yoh Design Office FFV Aerotech Hangar, Faulks, Perry, Culley, & Rech Pantadome Erection System, R. Buckminster Fuller & Mamoru Kawaguchi Rogers Centre, Robbie Young & Wright Louvre Pyramid, I.M. Pei & Partners Walt Disney World Swan Hotel, Michael Graves National Indoor Arena for Sport, HOK Stansted Airport, Foster & Partners Sant Jordi Sports Arena, Arata Isozaki Biosphere 2, Margaret Augustine LAN Chile Maintenance Hangar Palafolls Sports Hall, Arata Isozaki Barrel Vault Atrium, Building Design Partnership Bank of China Tower, I.M. Pei & Partners Pylon Chair, Tom Dixson ONCE Pavilion, M&B Arquitectos, S.A. Pavilion of Extremadura, Felix Escrig & J. Valcarcel Terminal 2, Manchester Airport, Scott, Brownrigg, & Turner

Jacob K. Javits Center, Pei, Cobb, Freed & Partners

Retractable Structures, Charles Hoberman

Meishusama Hall, Minoru Yamasaki & Associates

The Crystal Cathedral, Phillip Johnson & John Burgee VLA: Very Large Array, NRAO, NSF, & Associated Universities, Inc.

Gehry House, Frank Gehry Nusatsum House, Randall G. Satterwhite

Sainsbury Center, Norman Foster & Partners

Nakagin Capsule Tower, Kisho Kurokawa Ducati Trellis Chassis Hall of Nations, Raj Rewal

The National Exhibition Centre, Edward D. Mills & Partners

Smoke Sculpture, Tony Smith Symbol Zone, Kenzo Tange

Brasilia City, Oscar Niemeyer

Maserati Tipo 61

Reticulated Foldable Space Grid, Emilio Perez Pinero

ASM International Materials Park, John Terence Kelly & William Hunt Eisenman

McCormick Place, C.F. Murphy Associates

Palazzetto dello Sport, Pier Luigi Nervi

Yale University Art Gallery, Loius I. Kahn

Convention Hall, Mies van der Rohe

American Air Force Aircraft Hangar, Konrad Wachsmann

Geodesic Domes, R. Buckminster Fuller

256

Appendix II

Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture, trans.

Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 101-129.

Through the early phases of society humankind began constructing architecture with what Gottfried Semper identifies as the four elements: the hearth, the mound, the roof, and the enclosure. The hearth is central to all of these elements, serving to congregate the individuals of a group, while the other three elements serve to protect the hearth and the group from the environment around them. The enclosure in particular was significant to Semper as a “vertical space divider� that had its origins in woven carpets. As humans became more domestic, an artisan and a weaver were the resultants, specializing in the art of the wall filter. The modus operandi included weaving of branches that were joined by entwining and knotting, perhaps the oldest form of ornamentation. This woven carpet wall began as a spatial division between the exteriority and the interiority of architecture, later moving internally to articulate further spatial divisions and externally becoming articulated in different characters through masonry construction and mosaics.

257

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

Appendix III

Tyng Griswold Tyng, “Geometric Extensions of Consciousness,� Zodiac 19 (1969), 130-173.

Anne Tyng, as an elemental explanation of the transformation of man’s consciousness of space through time as a cyclic process of simplicity to complexity, describes four fundamental geometric principles: the bilateral, the rotational, the helical, and the spiral, significant in that respective order. The bilateral identifies a synthesis in which there is an understanding of symmetry (in relation to a node, the human body). The rotational identifies an understanding of the continuity of space beyond the physical body. The helical identifies time, in which duration is perceived as part of continuous space. The spiral identifies space-time, a hierarchical flux of the helix as it moves through time marking a beginning and an end.

Tyng provides multiple analogies within nature to prove the continuous nature of this cycle; one of which is hemoglobin in its most elemental construction. Its bilateral nature begins with carbon bonds that transcend to a rotational nature as the bonds begin clustering. The clusters develop to a helical nature in which they form alpha and beta chains and gravitate to a spiral nature as they form irregular spirals. At this point, the hemoglobin is once again in a basic bilateral state; the process continues to build infinitely into larger and more complex forms.

258

Appendix IV

Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies in Tectonic Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995), 3-8, 19-21.

Chapter 1: Tectonic and Atectonic

Kenneth Frampton describes the tectonic in architecture as having a resultant expression or character, which stems from structure and construction to inform one another directly. In an attempt to describe the atectonic Frampton uses a deviated definition of tectonics prescribed by Eduard Sekler which states “tectonics is a certain expressivity arising from the statical resistance of constructional form in such a way that the resultant expression could not be accounted for in terms of structure and construction alone.� Therefore the atectonic is an expressivity where structure and construction oppose one another by neglecting or obscuring the loading and support of structure. An elemental case study of the atectonic is the Stoclet House whose walls appear to be made of large sheets of thin material joined at the corners with metal band while they are load bearing walls.

259

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

Appendix IV

Kenneth Frampton and John Cava, Studies in Tectonic Culture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995), 3-8, 19-21.

Chapter 1: Etymology

Kenneth Frampton, in order to clarify the use of the word “tectonic” in the realm of architecture, breaks down its origin and establishes its incidental meaning in order to project. The word’s essential origin comes from the Greek tekton, meaning carpenter or builder. As the act of making and building transcends throughout history into the poetic, tectonic comes to mean the “art of joining,” such as assembling and weaving. Frampton refers to Karl Botticher’s analysis of the Greek temple and his understanding of the tectonic “as signifying a complete system binding all the parts… into a single whole” to project the significance of joining parts to compose a whole.

Frampton then turns to Gottfried Semper, who identifies a built space as a whole being composed of four fundamental elements: the hearth, the mound (earthwork), the roof (frame), and the enclosure (lightweight membrane encompassing a spatial matrix). Frampton further distinguishes these elements into two fundamental procedures: the tectonic, made of the frame and the lightweight membrane, having a relationship with the sky, and the stereotomic, made of earthwork and the hearth, having a relationship with the earth. Throughout the historic development of building techniques and material capacities, people engineered structures in which the tectonic and the stereotomic began to extend and merge to become multiple elements simultaneously.

260

Bibliography

Space Grid Structures: Skeletal Frameworks and Stressed Skin Systems, John Borrego, 1968, MIT Press The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings, Gottfried Semper, 1989, Cambridge University Press “Geometric Extensions of Consciousness,” Anne Tyng, Zodiac 19, 1954 Modern Architecture: A Critical History, Kenneth Frampton, pp.

32-40, pp. 78-83, 1996, Thames and Hudson Introduction: The Machine Age and After, pp.9-12. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, Reyner Banham, 1960, MIT Press – 2nd Edition Vers une Architecture, pp. 220-246. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age, Reyner Banham, 1960, MIT Press – 2nd Edition Home Delivery: Fabricating Modern Dwelling, Barry Bergdoll & Peter Christiansen, pp. 58-63, pp. 134-135, MOMA Publications The New Engineer is Coming, Werner Graeff, p71. Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architecture, Edited by Ulrich Conrads, 1964, MIT Press Technology and Architecture, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, p.154. Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architec-

261

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

ture, Edited by Ulrich Conrads, 1964, MIT Press The New Era, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, p.123. Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architecture, Edited by Ulrich Conrads, 1964, MIT Press Principles of Bauhaus Production (excerpt) Walter Gropius, pp.95-97. Programs and Manifestoes on 20th-Century Architecture, Edited by Ulrich Conrads, 1964, MIT Press Louis Kahn: Modernization and the New Monumentality 19441972, pp. 209-246. Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, by Kenneth Frampton, 1995, MIT Press

262

Photo Credits

The copyright holders, photographers, and sources of visual material other than those indicated in the captions are as follows. Every effort has been made to credit the copyright holders, photographers, and sources; if there are errors or omissions, please contact the editors so that corrections can be made in any subsequent edition.

n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 33) Digital Image @ The Art Institute of Chicago. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 26) Digital Image @ The Buckminster Fuller Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 27, 28)

Digital Image @ AA Diploma Unit 9.

Digital Image @ Contemporist. N.p., n.d.

N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 22, 23) Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 96, 97) Digital Image @ Amann Canovas Maruri. Digital Image @ Cook Robotham N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 112, Architectural Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 113) Winter 2012. (fig. 92, 93) Digital Image @ ArchDaily. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 44)

Digital Image @ Crystal Cathedral. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 48)

Digital Image @ Architecture Books Part Digital Image @ Designboom. N.p., n.d.

1. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 34) Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 25) Digital Image @ Architizer. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 85, 86) Digital Image @ Architonic. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 104, 105) Digital Image @ Arrested Motion. N.p.,

Digital Image @ DocStoc. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 43, 47, 52-58, 63-68, 71, 73-81, 84) Digital Image @ Domus. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 20)

263

The Emergence of Space Frames in Modernity | Types

Digital Image @ Dprbarcelona. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 18, 19, 30) Digital Image @ Ducati. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 38, 39) Digital Image @ Dymaxion Car. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012.

Digital Image @ Flickr. Yahoo!, n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 24, 49, 50)

N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 32) Digital Image @ MRC. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 40, 41) Digital Image @ NBC News. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 98, 99) Digital Image @ NetFabb. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 94, 95)

Digital Image @ New York Times. N.p., Digital Image @ “Gallerist NY.� n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 114, 115) GalleristNY. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 15) Digital Image @ NRAO Very Large Array. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig.

Digital Image @ Gizmodo. N.p., n.d.

45, 46) Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 110, 111) Digital Image @ Oobject RSS. N.p., n.d.

Digital Image @ GreatBuildings. N.p., Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 4) n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 1, 2, 5, 10, 13, 14, 42, 59, 60) Digital Image @ OpenBuildings. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 16, 17, 103, Digital Image @ Hive. N.p., n.d. Web. 106, 107) Winter 2012. (fig. 72) Digital Image @ Patent Genius - Patent Digital Image @ The James Webb Search. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012.

Space Telescope. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter (fig. 51) 2012. (fig. 119, 120) Digital Image @ Princeton University.

Digital Image @ Kawaguchi and N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 9) Engineers. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 35) Digital Image @ Project Projects. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 21) Digital Image @ Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter Digital Image @ Qua Dror. N.p., n.d.

2012. (fig. 82, 83) Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 100, 101) Digital Image @ Mail Online. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 118)

Digital Image @ Roulotte. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 31)

Digital Image @ Modellautos Modelcar.

Digital Image @ ScienceDaily.

264

ScienceDaily, n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 121) Digital Image @ SkyscraperModels.

N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 62) Digital Image @ Stanley J. How Architects. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 89, 90) Digital Image @ STUDYBLUE. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 8) Digital Image @ Super Street. N.p., n.d.

Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 102) Digital Image @ Walt Disney World Resorts. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 61) Digital Image @ Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Winter 2012. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 3, 7, 29, 36, 37, 69, 70, 87, 88, 91, 108, 109) Digital Image @ Wright Brothers Aeroplane Company. N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 6) Digital Image @ Zaha Hadid Architects.

N.p., n.d. Web. Winter 2012. (fig. 116, 117)