Design 
  Community 
  Architecture 
  Discussion 
 

Message - Re: Wire mesh structures

    Responses | Architecture Forum | Architecture Students | Architecture Scrapbook | ArchitectureWeek    
   

Posted by  Per Corell on January 05, 2003 at 01:49:12:

In Reply to:  Re: Wire mesh structures posted by Jacques Pochoy on January 04, 2003 at 16:59:56:

Hi
I agrea with most of what you say, still about design and boats, I think boat design give an oppotunity ti view a construction in a way that open very interesting perspectives, ---- the other issue is the main issue in most of my mails, and I need to state a few facts ;
These aeroplane was geostatic mesh structures, where each "ring" was most often made from several small rods, and the surface was kind of constructed from a middle point as a mesh all around the aeroplane body . ------- Now the reson no one made a 3D-H is, that a 3D-H is not possible without a computer ; you can simply not calculate it unless you have a compleatly aproach, than that with a geostatic mesh.
3D-H slide together by simple overlaps mut in _one direction only othervise you can not assemble it. a geostatic mesh assemble with a new direction for each piece and can not be assembled from one direction only as this work against the idear of a geostatic structure where you must fit each part in a different direction than the one before.
So 3D-H is not a geostatic just from these two facts, they are produced in very different way's and they are assembled in very different way's beside you need a computer to generate a 3D-H.
You se it will make no meaning in the tradisional front-top-side views, where an othervise simple structure will be impossible to even place ; try emagine the sections placed in a tradisional drawing, simply impossible and no use.
With boat design, you are aloved to overun the tradisional xy axis with small boats ; you can place a center point in the xy section pictur in the middle of the boat, and draw lines from this ti the edges of the section , then the length of the lines and their angle will tell you as much as the tradisional xy cooerdinates of the sections, --------- but even this will not fit a 3D-H into the tradisional projection drawings, and trying to do it, will only show the framework as useless boxes where the framework been cut by sections. So a 3D-H is somthing very different, that you must rather understand as a "material" , a mass of frames with different abilities depending on direction of "rings" , ---------- obviously this offer the option to point the square openings that all run in the same direction oposed the geostatic structure that you try to make even, ------- so light will be dircted in at the projected parts and closed out at the opposide side of the structure.
I only showed very few structures where two or more frameworks intergrate, and this is proberly a foult ; I focused on the fact that even very few know the limitation and even generation of a simple geostatic structure and have argued the difference between these two very different structures again and again, ---- so much that I havn't even had time to show what happen when you combine a 3D-H with a tradisional structure ------- _without_ somone emediatly say "hey Bilbao are made like this" ; it is not, as this is rather a geostatic mesh forming geometric volumes and as I told this is the same in terms of high-tech , 3D-H would prove much more flexibility and acturly produce each building element without bending a single piece, where a geostatic structure requier an army of craftmen ;these are two different technologies ; now I had the same discussion with F.A.A. engineers so I hope you se the difference to.
Anyway a geostatic structure will cover a huge arear, but 3D-H will bring the floors and structure, ------- again two very different functions.
Still it's the ease of manufactoring that make the big difference, the fact that you can press a button and "fill" a structure volume with self carrying structure that count, the fact that the assembly will not be thousand of small strings as with most geostatic structures and the fact, that the 3D-H form a reliable framework for even a round structure, even everything are cut from sheet material.
No bending no fiddeling, and ----- sorry to say ,but a better _Tool_ than what was offered to form the volumes in Bilbao.
You se for me it's about the vision, the materials and tools, and I acturly wrote applications to expand the 4 line limit of AutoCAD to offer mesh shaped in any organic shape so I know geostatic structures and their limitations.
Realy I feel that when you show a better tool and argue why, then you first of all must fight one conservatism, then a few misunderstood facts, then you need to educate about that there are different technologies, and then come a new guy.
3D-H is a new form language, a new way to design a structure ,that work far better with Digital production than any other. 3D-H is the first true construction method, that link the production with proojecting , ------- what's the idear not allowing me the credit when the only thing that talk against is general conservatism.

 
 
ArchitectureWeek     Search     Buildings     Architects     Types     Places     Pix     Free 3D Models     Store     Library

Search GreatBuildings.com by name of Building, Architect, or Place:   
Examples:  "Fallingwater",  "Wright",  "Paris"           Advanced Search

Responses:




Post a Response -

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:


This is an archive page. Please post continuing discussion to the new Architecture Forums.

To post successfully to the new membership-based DesignCommunity Forums:

    1) Go to the new forums area.
    2) Register with a valid email address.
    3) Receive and respond to the confirmation email.
    4) Then login to the new forum system.



 

Special thanks to our Sustaining Subscribers including BuilderSpace.com .

Home | Great Buildings | CAD Outpost | DesignWorkshop | Free 3D | Gallery | Search | ArchitectureWeek
This document is provided for on-line viewing only. /discussion/24625.html