The text presented here is not precisely as published by OUP, but modifications are minor. Illustrations are another matter. Where images used in the original book were not my copyright, I have in most cases been able to substitute links to coloured images on the web.
When this text was submitted as part of a PhD thesis in 1996, the Notes were greatly extended. Most readers may prefer to ignore them. They have been collected at the end of each chapter, with internal links leading to them and back to the text. They are a mixture of: simple page references; additional examples or quotations to justify generalisations; and some afterthoughts.
There is an old saying which goes something like this: "An engineer is a man who can do for a dollar what any fool can do for two." Its emphasis on ingenuity is praiseworthy, but it has been seen too often as a justification for much that is cheap and nasty in engineering. It has been taken to mean that engineering is nothing more than the achievement of clearly specified technological objectives for the lowest possible cost in cash. This view has been reinforced for engineering students by the fact that with a few notable exceptions, text books entitled "Design of Structures" are predominantly concerned with the techniques of computational analysis. [Note 1.] This contrasts strongly with the situation in mechanical engineering, where much thought has been given to the mental processes involved in design and to the development of creativity.
When one looks at the architectural field, the contrast is even stronger. Many books are available, written by architects for architects on the selection of structural form and the understanding of structural behaviour, two fields which have traditionally received little attention in engineering texts. [Note 2.] In addition there is a vast literature devoted to the philosophy of architecture, and to the architect's place in society and in the professional design team. [Note 3.] Naturally, this literature represents a wide range of viewpoints. There is no definitive text giving the recipe for a philosophy of architecture, but a student architect is able to work out a philosophy for himself which suits his own personality and ideals, giving him a perspective with which to view his studies.
Although some such material does appear in the engineering journals, especially the "Engineering Issues" section of the Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the available literature is limited in comparison to that in other disciplines. Discussion of the merits and demerits of particular designs, which is quite common in the architectural world, is definitely discouraged. [Note 4.] As the impact of technology on society and on the environment becomes more apparent the resulting image of the profession must dissuade many intelligent people from entering or even considering a career in this field.
There are, however, some signs of improvement in recent times. Engineering news magazines such as the New Civil Engineer (U.K.) are willing to provide the background information on projects even when this may involve them in controversy. Authors of texts on 'Design' are including more discussion of issues behind the simple calculations. White et al. (1972, 1976) and Schodek (1980) are good examples of this new approach and the aim of the present book is to contribute to the closing of the gap which has been left in engineering studies by the almost exclusive emphasis on computation.
It may be that a proportion of students are drawn to engineering precisely because they see it as an entirely rational discipline. Such people imagine that to every problem there is a 'right' answer and that it is possible to work steadily and logically towards this goal by a process similar to that of a proof in Euclidean geometry. Some also imagine that when disagreements arise amongst technologists they are settled by recourse to purely dispassionate, logical discussion, free of the problems that normally beset human relationships. These people are destined for a rude awakening and it is doing them a great disservice to leave them with their misconceptions.
Students who are struggling to assimilate a vast range of new concepts in analytical subjects may not appreciate having their cosy image of well-defined technique shattered and may wish to forget about the 'art' of engineering for the time being. [Note 5.] They may have a justifiable pride in their new-found ability to choose the correct size of beam to carry a given load and may wish to enjoy practising this for at least a few years before worrying about the complications. This is an understandable attitude, but there are a number of good arguments for avoiding it if possible.
There is some evidence that traditional engineering courses reduce the creativity of students. [Note 6.] One reason is, no doubt, the vast amount of information which has to be assimilated; but perhaps the main difficulty is that one cannot teach standard clear-cut answers to problems without implying that there are standard clear-cut problems. Once the mind becomes set in this view of the world it becomes very difficult to break out of the mould at a later date. As a result, the possibility of improving on existing techniques and adapting them to changing needs is diminished. [Note 7.]
The practising graduate soon becomes aware that the knowledge and techniques available are quite limited compared with the complexity of the problems encountered. There are many areas where science can give little guidance or where quantitative techniques are not applicable. Rules are necessarily generalized and hence rarely apply exactly to any particular situation. Thus even in the technological sphere the engineer must face problems to which the only answers are subjective and as anyone who has worked in a design office knows, they provide grounds for a great deal of lively discussion. [Note 8.]
Then there is the question of personal satisfaction. Once the basic techniques have been assimilated, the joy of mastery begins to wear off, and the repetitive application of rules and formulas becomes tedious. Such work can often be carried out more efficiently by a computer. There is thus less intellectual satisfaction in the display of technical virtuosity than in the 'art' of design.
As the new graduate soon realizes, there is no clear-cut order of progression to the solution of a problem. Before a 'problem' can exist, someone must first have perceived a need and prepared a subjective formulation of what he thinks needs to be done. [Note 9.] Quite often this person is not an engineer and is thus unaware of the full range of technological options available and of the full advantages and disadvantages of each. As a result he has not been able to balance the strength of the perceived needs against the costs and difficulties of satisfying them.
Hence, after initial investigations it may be advisable to revise the original definition of the problem. This interaction is rarely mentioned in undergraduate courses. As a result, the recent graduate often feels totally bewildered when painstaking calculations made over a period of weeks are suddenly discarded because a new approach has been adopted, or awkward anomalies are found to have crept into the design which somehow cannot be eradicated. Thus it is important for engineers to have some idea of how their objectives are defined for them, how they may be changed and to what extent engineers can influence this process themselves.
The title of the book was inspired by two sources: Mr. P. Dunican's paper (1966) on 'The Art of Structural Engineering', and Mr. C.B. Stone's Presidential Address to the Institution of Structural Engineers, London (1969), in which he said:
"We are, by definition, duty bound to care for the science and the art of structural engineering: we cope very well with the science, but what about the art?; this embraces not only the choice of form, the technique of structure, the related processes of production and the fabrication of building units, but above all the humanities of our profession …" [Note 10.]
The need for this is re-affirmed in the section of the Handbook of the Royal Institute of British Architects which deals with multi- disciplinary design teams. This states that:
"… it is vital to bring together a sufficient number of members of the main professions, each of whom has a perceptive awareness of the nature of their fellow designers' contributions along with deep knowledge and professional competence in his own field."
and later:
"It is not the system, but the people who operate within it, who produce results … all disciplines may have to make concessions." [Note 11.]
It would be an impossible task to survey the entire range of non-computational factors which influence the daily work of the structural engineer and the form of the structures he designs. Of the larger issues, only a brief mention is made here of the influence of politics and organizational behaviour. On the technological side little is said of the important subjective decisions which the engineering profession makes on behalf of society by defining the criteria for design and the levels of safety factors. Only a mention is made of the qualitative technological knowledge required in fields such as fabrication and construction techniques.
The emphasis in this volume is on those fields which lie mid-way between the very broad issues such as politics and the subjective technological issues listed above. These are; the nature of the design process and especially of creativity; the formal organization of design; and functional requirements and economic criteria.
A large part of the book is devoted to studying the architect: his modus operandi and his philosophies, since in many projects his is the single most important influence on the work of the structural engineer. This knowledge is of direct practical value to the structural engineer, but at the same time provides an example of the difficulties of co-operating with any other member of the design team who has a different outlook and training, be he a mechanical engineer or a lawyer, economist or sociologist. The constant themes, which culminate in the final chapters, are the questions 'what are the true aims of structural design?' and 'what relative influence should be accorded to all the relevant factors in determining the form of structures?'
It can be seen that this is not the sort of book to which engineering students are accustomed. There are no formulas and little technology. It is hoped that students will find it pleasant reading for the sake of the light it throws on broader issues which are not normally included in their undergraduate course, but which will concern them immediately they graduate.
Because the book covers so many broad topics it is impossible to survey them in depth. For those readers who wish to delve further into particular topics copious source material is provided, although the average overworked engineering student may not have time to follow this up until he graduates. Since many engineering schools schedule some part of the timetable for studies in the humanities and the development of English expression, a number of questions are supplied at the back of the book, related to various topics covered. These provide suitable material for assignments and are designed to give practice in critical appraisal of source material in descriptive subjects, and the assembly, testing and presentation of theses in essay form.
A.H. Melbourne, 1984.
An exception is Abeles (1966), Vol.2, Chaps 25, 28, and 29. [Please remember this note was written in 1984. A.H.] [Return.]
Examples are: Siegel (1962), Salvadori and Heller (1963), Engel (1967), and Howard (1975). [As at 1984.] [Return.]
See Chaps 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 below. [Return.]
[Added 2002.] In fact, as was pointed out to me while I was writing AOBF, discussion in architectural journals is generally positive or nebulous because of fear of legal action from practitioners claiming damage to their commercial interests. [Return.]
Structural engineering design is described as an "art" in e.g. Dunican (1966), Harris,A.J. (1975), and by Arup in Faber (1963), p.7. [All practitioners.] [Return.]
e.g. Snyder (1967), Conway (1967), Cooper (1970), and Kubie (1967). [Return.]
More importantly, as developments occur in materials and techniques the appropriate answer to a given problem may change. As we have seen in recent years, well-established solutions to some problems may become socially unacceptable. Finally, the problems themselves, being in the last analysis related to human needs will also change as the needs and priorities of society vary. Standard responses may then become an impediment rather than an aid to good design. Well established solutions become unacceptable due to changing social, economic, or technical factors. The demolition of high-rise apartment blocks is one example (for two instances, see Blake (1974) on the Pruitt-Igoe complex in St. Louis, and New Scientist 13 July 1978, p.112. [Return.]
[Added 2002.] The situation has changed greatly since 1984 due to developments in electronic computing, though there is still a considerable way to go before its advantages will be applied to model every aspect of everyday buildings. Even then, there will still be many factors which will be unkownable at the time of design, or known only in terms of probability, such as variations in the properties of materials; in workmanship (of, e.g. masonry infill panels); in geometric imperfections; in magnitude and position of loads; and in the sequence of future loading and environmental effects. [Return.]
[Added 2002] This book was written before the feminist movement promoted 'he/she' and 'he or she', and before there were any female students in my classes. I find he/she etc clumsy (and still sexist) and shudder at the use of 'their' as a singular pronoun. In my next book (Aesthetics of Built Form) I avoided these problems by using the plural. Changing this text is on my list of 'things to do'. [Return.]
Stone quotation, p.473. The concept of engineering design as an "art" is widespread. See also Dunican (1966) and Harris, A. J. (1975). Stone's quotation continues: "… i.e. the art of dealing fairly and happily with our fellow men, whether they be the building labourer, the contracts manager, the building owner, or members of the general public: to each we owe a duty of caring, and that is a word which is essentially human, but with legal overtones, and for which there is no technological substitute." [Return.]
Royal Institute of British Architects (1973), p.160. [Return.]
[Top.]
The art in structural design navigation:
[Chapter 1.]
[Contents]
[References]
Site navigation:
[Aesthetics of built form.]
[Papers.]
[Work of Jörg Schlaich.]
[John Monash's early engineering.]