Better Alternate Structural Systems

[usarender]

A CALL TO ALL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ON THIS FORUM

Before presenting some excellent new structural systems, let us analyze a recent system posted on this forum, for it's validity, or lack of validity, in an objective way. Then we will proceed to analyze alternate structural systems in an open minded way.

Thank you to all who have been posting some very interesting structural solutions on this forum. These shall soon be praised individually.

Now, to analyze this system -->>

The author of this 3DH claims it is a sort of MARVEL OF THE CENTURY. Is it really ?

PC 3DH CLAIMS-->>

1. 3DH made of sheet metal can be as strong as any structure and substitute many structural systems, being as good as steel columns, girders, H and T beams.

2. 3DH can be the new solution for the world, and solve the world's problems in housing for the poor.

3. PC is gaining world recognition and becoming the new hero, with his 3DH, which is " advancing by leaps and bounds."

4. "3DH is an optimized system and an ideal structure for every architect to used and to be applied to all buildings in the soon future."

5. " PC is a genious and the only true one to have anything original".

6. "PC is 20 years ahead of this time."

AND, MANY STRUCTURAL CLAIMS. (See below).

Contrary to these claims, -->>

- PC has nothing to show to prove his thin 3DH skins of sheet metal will be as strong as steel beams and girders.

- PC never answers any QUESTIONS. He doesn't explain this 3DH is a way to be convincing. And nobody can understand his english.

His structural Claims -->>

1. "3DH is as thick as H or T beams and therefore as strong as structural steel H and T Beams."

Forget it, will use too much steel to erect such a structure.

2. 3DH made of sheet metal can be as thick as T and H beams.

Sheet metal as thick as the strongest T and H beams ? Have you ever heard of vertical gravity?

WHY 3DH IS NOT ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY DESIGNED, from an engineering point of view -->>

And why is 3DH not adequate to today's reality. Here is why -->>

3dh is not adequate in many ways as -->>

1. - Is was created by a boat builder that knows nothing of structural engineering.

2. - It will consume too much steel.

3. - PC has never produced any structural calculations to prove it works.

4. - It has never been built, is all theory.

5. - It is ten years old, and alternate systems are already on their way into the market, that have actually been built.

6. - It is nothing more then a nice series of matrix calculations, performed by a computer program, that distributes a structural grid into volumes, filling every space with it's "3dh" structural members that transverse the spaces in every direction. And it provides no structural details with calculations. It is all theoretical.

7. - Further, such transversing of spaces is cumbersome, it gets in the way, it creates interior spaces that are not free of structural members, but rather punched in every direction by these 3dh structural members, thus creating a need to resolve hundreds of interior spaces, and also creating many nooks and crannies in the corners, that one must now deal with. Interesting to note that your behavior has done the same. You have poked into every nook and cranny of these discussions, creating now problems to resolve. Your 3DH is consistent with your behavior on these forums.

8. - 3DH is difficult to build in practice, to set-up a production line to actually manufacture it.

9. - There are hundreds of alternate systems out there designed by some of the world's greatest engineers, and you expect designers to play around with this 3dh like a bunch of monkeys dangling around in a world of uncertainty, hanging from the conceptual beams of a structure never built before ? Monkey games.....

Further, -->>

11. The author of 3DH cannot decide what material to use to produce 3DH. First, he is adamant about sheet metal, now he is not SO CERTAIN.

[usarender]

And while we are thinking of this topic, have a look at these links -->>

Global Innovation & Architecture - The Pyramid

Latest Developments in Architecture & Technology

Vertical Vs Horizontal Living another direction?

The New Structural Gate To Space

100 Kilometres to the Future

The Structures of the Future

Magnetic Cancellation Theory

[P.C.]

I must ask you to exchouse me , but when I saw this tread I thought "finaly".
Finaly usarender is going to announce a structural system better than 3dh, but Iam sorry to say that I looked and looked and found no new system -- only misunderstood complains about 3dh mixed with fantasies about Per Corell.
It is difficult to find out what is realy the agenda proposing a new structural system ,and then make it into complains and personal issues , -- there are no new structural system in here, in this tread --- so please exchouse me, when I ask where I shuld look for it, I can't see it, only thing I see is complains about another structural system and not one step further towerds one that is better -- all those complains is not used to destill a better structural system , it kind of stop as soon as the complains are made, complains that -- sorry to say so -- seem a bit obsessed .

[P.C.]

And please let me add --- I so often tried to presave anyone , to build on or use 3dh to develob such system. Use it to realise the oppotunities with these automatet structural systems ; so often I said "use this to make something better" , but realy if you critic something then first you must understand what it is, and it seem usarender fail to get the point or atleast reconise what 3dh is. And then complaining about it or complaining about a man you don't know even fantasising about what this man think , do not bring any new or beter suggestion than 3dh.
And usarender did write 3dh in allmost each line .

I could understand these complains, if usarender realy have something better, but all those personal oppinions do not develob any new system , even with so many words used complaining about 3dh , no suggestion come out of it -- isn't that strange ? Sorry but I think it is strange, as for me it seem a lot of promises are made in the start of the tread , but they all fall into becoming only complains and that is not the way to develob a new and better than3dh system.

[usarender]

If 3dh were so relevant, and there were many thousands of visitors, surely some of them should be structural engineers and be able to give an opinion on 3dh. Why is it none of them have done this ? Apparently either nobody understands it or cares to understand, and many probably realizing it is irrelevant simply do not give any opinion at all. Why is it you see nobody showing from a structural point of view whether it is good or bad other then me? It is obvious something is wrong. I have already made a call to all the structural engineers on this forum to analyze 3dh in an objective way and so far nobody is heeding the call.

As I have already demonstrated, the system may be nice but it would consume too much steel. And there are hundreds perhaps thousands of alternate structural systems out there and these guys should be posting their alternatives, not me.

[P.C.]

Eh -- when there are thousands of alternative systems "doing the same" , systems that go strait from 3d drawing to manufactored building part, -- then why havn't you pointed everyone to just one of those ?

[usarender]

Ok, you asked for it, finally I give it to you PC. Start cooperating now and stop harassing.

Here is the key to improving your 3DH and to make it work -->>

http://www.montanstahl.de/

These guys are doing laser cut profiles and optimized sections, according to each application. I already knew about this and don't see how somehow you missed it. But then again, you are never ready to cooperate with others, only harass, slander and accuse. Once you stop doing this, maybe you can make some progress in your thinking. On the contrary, I will now stoop down so low as to treat others this way. In any event, maybe you will learn a lesson or two just from this one link I just gave you.

Once all the engineers have a look at it, they will realize my arguments are true, but maybe there is still hope for 3DH to be revamped using similar technology, unless you continue in your folly. In that case, I give up trying to help you realize your error.

[usarender]

Only a few advantages of this technology, among others -->>

-Better optimized materials.
-A better production system.
-Technical knowledge and expertise.
-Proper machinery.
-Application knowledge for material conservation.
-The latest in technology.
-3D cutting/machining/production of profiles.
-Profiles optimized for application.
-No need for a particular structural system - applies to many structural systems, and 3dh is just one among many.
-Then look at my points on 3dh and see if those do not make sense as well.

[P.C.]

Yes yes yes --- but think about it ; sure it is fine that we now has lasers and N.C. mashines to maneage what before asked a very different production line. In terms of efficiency this is great and in terms of now having multible more choices it is just great.
But then we still work within the old concept -- ot is still profiles , it is still thinking in profiles, it is profiting all the old skills about how to use and put together a new "old" product.
This explain what I instantly think when I see these profiles, that surely it is great the good old profile now can be manufactored in way's offering both digital manufactoring and a simplified manufactoring --- but it is still the good old profile, dictating us to build under it's dictate, as it is still limited in particular way's our buildings will carry the same limitations.

[usarender]

Yes, and the limitations of such systems will be the same as pointed out above, among the greatest use of materials and failure to optimize the structural system in terms of material consumption. So this fantastic system can certainly be applied to hundreds of structural solutions and this is only one of them. All along sheet metal has been the main element of the system, which certainly has it's structural limitations. And there are the other limitations, of structural systems transversing the architectural spaces, as mentioned. So many of the same limitations continue. We only have now an optimized structural system that has no limitations, being applied to systems with limitations.

[P.C.]

It is interesting, that the major structural building structure made from steel profiles, is in fact made from sheet material.
The H beam are tree strips of sheet put together to form an H beam. A strip placed like this ; !
A strip placed like this ; -
and a second strip of steel placed like this ; !
Together they produce an H.

[P.C.]

3dh make another H profile, it litteraly work in a compleatly manner.
3Dh challance the genetic chosen H , -- genetic it must be so rigrid the industrie continue, but off caurse , striving to steer the right direction, when it's about the guts to trust these computers, can also compute something exactly as 100 times better, like all other things that was right computerised.
Constructing will newer step into a renecaince by continue with the ol H beam.
3dh beat that by a mile.
As for sheets materials not fittet for structural ability, not at all ; sheet material allready form what to count for in construction allread, it's just about realising the same principles, just in newthinking and realising, that when sheet steel can make an H beam, then it also can make an intire computed buildng core, --- this do not ask a robot to do each one. of a hundred assemblie movements, routed to the right spot to rivit a beam one at a time. 3dh is a new world in construction, doing it with the cheapest and most flexible, manufactoring mashin only one, in the nature of the concept only one is needed, please compare this to how cutting edge are thought to be, mimicing the rpbots to build as construction workers do, I will not call that brave innovative spirit. It is just automating what man allready do.
Beside, what are these times, other than times where a real change, can bring far so many side effects.

[usarender]

In fact, such CNC cutting machines you advocate have been around since the 40s and 50s and the link I gave you above points over to more modern technology in optimized high strength beam production.

Further, there is a need to understand the difference between sheet metal, what can be considered metal plates, and how structural beams are formed. Sheet metal is normally anything below 1/4" in thickness. It can be considered "thin" yes -->>

Thin and flat pieces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheet_metal

It is usually produced in sheets less then 6 mm thick. Anything very thin is regarded as a "strip" or "coil".

The different processes applied to sheet metal of stretching, drawing, deep drawing, cutting, bending and flanging allows it to form weak structures such as aluminum cans. Other processes applied are spinning, press brake forming, roll forming and rolling.

Now, my point is that since sheet metal is anything below 1/4" in thickness --->>

- It would require even thinner sections to be formed into box beams.
-The thinner sections would be to weak and fragile.
-The system would still consume too much steel.
-Hot or cold rolling to be used ? Larger beams apply typically extrusion or hot rolling of a wide flange. However cold rolling applies usually to thinner sections of sheet metal, not larger sections needed for large structures.

Now, even if the structures were to use thicker plates, such an enormous amount of beams would consume a large amount of steel, be difficult to fire-proof, be more difficult and time consuming to produce (as welded steel beams are slow to produce in comparison to rolled or extrusion processes) and create many nooks and crannies, and further brake up the architectural space into hundreds of small spaces that must be resolved, as the structure penetrates the space in every direction, thus creating cumbersome spaces and many unresolved nooks, crannies and corners that have no architectural or structural function.

This, the reason why typically standard steel structures are used, they allow for better architectural use of the space, better economy of material, easier fire-proofing, and more standard production and assembly techniques, among other reasons. These are the points I made above in my original article.

And your system, as you explained -->>

[P.C.]

That was a long mail to say that if you design wrong it will not hold, yet you did not realy answer -- usarender how long must this sharade go on ?

I just answered you that H beams are made from strips of sheet material, -- that prove you are wrong when you say sheet material is not fit for structural uses, -- be productive .

[P.C.]

----- And usarender ; starting to promote the old H beam and the tradisional methods as described in what you refere, is like promoting the Ford T model. time is passed that way of thinking, time is also pass the tradisional H beam lattrice structure thinking, times changed into genuine innovation and new thinking . When that happen, the old methods and the papers you found about them is a bad argument towerds new way's of realising the build structure.

As I read the papers you refere, they only describe the old methods and progress them as it would be done when they was new, but it is descriptions of something that lay behind newthinking and the use of computers, to calculate and manufactor the build works, in way's that was newer even possible, before the computer.