Posted by Per Corell on November 11, 2003 at 03:21:09:
In Reply to: Re: Design Theory - Much Needed posted by AD on November 10, 2003 at 17:00:46:
The difference is much bigger than you se at first, 3D-H is about being able to shape the frames from sheet materials from a 3D computer model so you are able to generate the structure for any shape building . This is a very different attitude than the architect applications of today where you focus on counting up each door and window or as how the concept about Bilbao work, shaping just the outher limits of a structure, then 3D-H do the lot, not just the "skin" or the steel mesh forming these limits but also the floors ,walls and other foundations needed.
Now you will se structures that at first can look simular ,but when you go in detail with these very few structures ,you will most often se that they are bound in the same troubles that kept 3D-H out of reach with the tradisional 3 plane construction method ; now it's difficult to se if the hall you point to have a roof where the beams are halve-notch assembled as how 3D-H is, but you will notis that the framework consist of the "same" curve ---------- sort of a standard frame just angled the same 90 deg. but 3D-H is much more than this, even 3D-H work perfect performing a "long" building with the same sections as how you se with the skytrain-station where there is acturly only two different types of building elements,forming as long a station platform you ask.
Back to the trouble with the tradisional 3 Plane methods 3D-H simply is "impossible" to work from the tradisional 3 planes but the main issue is how much easyer this work with a CAD program, ---- you can say that Pier Luigi Nervi get the exelent idear to perform the roof from frames turned 45 deg. ( a bit difficult to check in detail from the graphics ) but 3D-H work from a much wider perspective while there you take the intire structure and make floors and wall frames "grow" , ----- somthing simply impossible in terms of calculations with the tradisional methods, where 3D-H offer just those accurate projections that fit with modern water,laser or pounching mashines.
So it is not just the turning frames 45 deg that make the trick ,also you must realise the difference between the Geostatic structure idea and how 3D-H extend and expand that design trend into somthing much more promising adding other structural issues than just the outher shell. ----- I would rather describe that as a Geostatic structure and the simplest geostatic structure will occour simply turning the frames 45 deg. as how Hangar,Design 1,by Pier Luigi Nervi perform ; rather a Geostatic shell.
I don't know if this ansver your question, ----- you se with structures that at first glimpse look simular to 3D-H , you often find that this rater deal with "lookalike" , where the important issue is , if this offer a direct link to producing the intire structure, from assemblies calculated individualy to perform this. With many lookalike structures ( well there is not that many anyway) , you will find that the idear have been to perform a roof or some decor based in structural assembly rather than the very different idear that is behind 3D-H. Also check the angles when you se a 3D-H lookalike, as there is no idear to it if frames don't cross 90 deg _and_ the most important issue anc chareteristic for a 3D-H , that all assemblies are paralell sort of slided in the same direction.
So yea you can build a simple structure ,such as a roof and make the frames 45 deg. out of normal direction but that just make a stronger roof with a better and stronger framework ,just like 3D-H, but you must realise the great difference between primitive Geostatic structures that often make the outher limits being the issue of focus -------- when geostatic idear make a roof so "easy", then the house soon become one big roof ; but 3D-H don't focus so narrow ,as with that you first of all have a ready direct link to production and no fiddeling, but secondly you have full freedom and can perform a round house with square rooms ; with Geostatic you most often are bound with the restrictions of Geostatic structures, and without 3D-H is is very difficult to expand the projecting to more comples building elements than just roof beams , ------- realy the trouble describing a 3D-H structure within the tradisional 3 Planes, is I guess the reson these obvious options havn't been exploided before.
------- Just check the Skytrain-Station as an example, but notis that I placed two different design concepts ; one where the frames follow the same direction as the Design by Pier Luigi Nervi ,strait up-down . But I also placed an example where all the sections lean against eachother, not as seen from top but as seen from side, and that show a bit more about the options ------ but just a start.
Sorry, ------- I must ask you to check the top graphic and realise the sectioning direction that is there opposite of the Design by Pier Luigi Nervi , and then please check the bottom link, where I made sections the same directions as that Design by Pier Luigi Nervi.
And then please realise the difference in performing a part structure as a geostatic structure, oposed the concept of generating the intire assembly structure , covering walls and floors ,making it so that you focus on only sheet material ------- I se 3D-H ad a method that finaly offer a woven structure that don't just cover the outher thin shell.
Types & Styles
Library Places Building Photos Free 3D Models Archiplanet