基于結構約束探索不規(guī)則網狀鋼和玻璃外殼形式外文翻譯)畢業(yè)論文

1、 PAGE25 / NUMPAGES25基于結構約束探索不規(guī)則網狀鋼和玻璃外殼形式Sigrid Adriaenssens, M.ASCE1; Laurent Ney2; Eric Bodarwe3; and Chris Williams4摘要:在對荷蘭阿姆斯特丹荷蘭海事博物館頂部覆蓋的一種高效的結構形式進行探究的文章中，作者簡要討論了作用力對最早的玻璃屋頂覆蓋物的影響。在20世紀末到21世紀初，外露的鋼骨架玻璃殼設計慢慢出現(xiàn)。這些設計形式在從雕塑到幾何再向結構轉變。通過荷蘭海事博物館鋼玻璃殼屋頂?shù)陌l(fā)展，對它的挑戰(zhàn)性設計的討論得出了設計者在基于一個詩意的幾何思想的基礎上，對尋求有效的結構鏈形式的

2、探索。本文提出了一種建筑結構設計方法。這種方法稍微適和用數(shù)值模擬方法探索目的是在所有的的三角化、四面性和五面性的網面中實現(xiàn)平面化的結構鏈模形。然而，如何通過分析玻璃面的途徑將其很好的解決并呈現(xiàn)給人們?yōu)閷崿F(xiàn)平面化向人們提出了挑戰(zhàn)。對照此種方法得到麥克斯韋互惠網絡圖。最后，雕琢出的平面向人們展示了典雅、耐用。DOI:10.1061 /(土木)ae.1943 - 5568.0000074。2012美國土木工程師學會。CE數(shù)據(jù)庫主題詞:設計;鋼材;玻璃;古跡;屋頂;荷蘭。關鍵詞:形狀;概念設計;模型探究;鋼玻璃殼體結構;歷史意義的庭院;平面化感官;結構約束;麥克斯韋互惠網絡。正文：隨著工業(yè)革命的興起,

3、玻璃金屬結構出現(xiàn)受兩個因素支配: 其一、在人口過多的城市, 社會對綠色和安靜的空間的渴望；其二、新的建筑材料(玻璃和鐵) 的出現(xiàn)。在十八世紀初,第一溫室裝以玻璃的屋頂出現(xiàn)在人們生活的中。它們的高昂的建設和維護成本(由于玻璃和必需的供暖系統(tǒng))讓它們成為精英階層的標志。他們的彎曲形狀 (1) 嵴溝連跨型例如,查特斯沃思莊園, 英國(建于1834年), 與(2) 拱形, 例如, 裘園（倫敦市郊著名植物園）, 英國 (建于1844年) (Kohlmaier and Von Sartory 1991)允許稀疏的進入室并照在柑橘和檸檬樹上(因此,名稱橘園)。其他品種的溫室植物、灌木和奇異的植物也被安置在橘

4、園。其中棕櫚樹, 扮演著大量的色彩,是尤其令人印象深刻的和有名的植物,從而也把溫室的形象進一步提升。十九世紀中期，溫室類型學已全面發(fā)展，由此便產生了文化室、暖房以與冬景花園例如, 皇家溫室、拉肯,比利時(建于1876年)現(xiàn)于Fig. 1 (Woods and Swartz 1988).冬季花園是本文特別感興趣的,因為它是一個社交場合，與一棟私人豪宅或公共建筑與其接近。在十九世紀下半葉，大規(guī)模生產的負擔得起的鐵進一步鼓勵了高層和大跨度由鋼材和玻璃建成的展廳的設計和施工。大量光線進入展覽區(qū)的建筑物，如水晶宮、英國(建于1851年)(如圖所示在Fig. 1)。其如網狀的鋼結構骨架是預制的，后來被拆除

5、,從海德公園搬運至倫敦南部的西登哈姆。不幸的是,它在1936年毀于火災。19世紀后半期和20世紀早期，公共建筑物屋頂?shù)脑O計和施工又經歷了一個很大的提升，冬景花園不再種植植物，而是覆蓋在重要的歷史公共建筑的庭院上方例如 , 大英博物館的大院子, United Kingdom, 英國; 見 Fig. 1; theDeutschen Historischen Museum, and Museum fur HamburgischeGeschichte, 德國(如期分別在2001和2004年建成的Schlaich Bergermann and Partners); 和the Smithsonian In

6、stitute,Washington, DC (Foster and Partners, and Buro Happold in 2001)。頂部覆蓋玻璃的單層鋼骨架的形狀由雕塑、幾何、物理以與施工條件等因素共同決定。最近這些結構的重新崛起，伴隨著由數(shù)字化設計演化出的工具，使得設計師能夠開發(fā)和分析出更多大膽和自由的幾何設計。單層玻璃鋼骨架結構今天的設計師（有過設計和工程背景）在設計這些非種植植物的冬季花園時主要遵循以下四個因素: 實施現(xiàn)狀,建筑美學,建筑幾何形狀和建筑物結構效率等。現(xiàn)代冬季花園在過去的二十年里, 存在著這樣與歷史有關的公共建筑，它們已經能夠通過擴展建筑物的中部空間適應室或室外氣

7、候。那些狹小的建筑物通常利用中部空間提供光亮。鋼結構玻璃外殼為設計的挑戰(zhàn)提供了唯一的解決方案。歷史的顯示，設計師在研發(fā)設計殼體結構的過程中往往會受到一系列約束條件的限制。其限制條件通常包括高度的限制以與強加于現(xiàn)有建筑物,尤其是水平方向，最大負荷的限制。大英博物館法院屋頂是滑動軸承支撐,這樣就沒有水平推力落在歷史博物館的砌體墻上(威廉姆斯2001)?；仡欁罱脑O計我們就會意識到，推動鋼結構玻璃殼結構設計的因素主要是建筑形態(tài)美學而非結構的性能。建筑美學利用可用幾何數(shù)字建模工具，更多的建筑師通過把他們的工作建立在審美(通常是主觀的)條件上來實現(xiàn)結構的布景效果。它們的結構設計主要取決于結構形式的創(chuàng)新,

8、而非結構的重力荷載條件。因此，這種特殊的設計方法可以解決結構缺乏結構效率的問題。不幸的是, 這種結構解決方案通常必須使用一些笨拙的、重要的材料來構造這些建筑形態(tài)。這些自由延伸的構造會在建筑物產生不利的力，也會在建筑物的表面造成無法預料的其它不利力的影響。這些形狀依靠彎曲支撐受力-最有效的基本負荷的方法。然而，設計師往往忽略這樣一個事實,即建筑物自由的結構形式由傳統(tǒng)的建筑和結構方式構造產生。弗蘭克蓋里,普利茲克獎建筑師, 促進了這種建筑設計進程, 他傳達過這種建筑設計的想法而沒有過這種建筑設計(Shelden2002)。一個合理化的設計，在初步設計階段，需要超越傳統(tǒng)布局經驗而且要以結構的完整性設

9、計為中心(Leach et al . 2004)。形成一個初步的建筑結構形態(tài)需要一個強大的工程師和承包商團隊。例如, Nuovo Polo Fiera Milano, 意大利 (建于2004年) (Guillaume et al. 2005) 的屋頂殼體設計概念是由建筑師馬希米亞諾?？怂_斯,然后交給結構工程師和承包商Mero TSK 集團解決結構上和構造上的關系后確定的(見圖 2) (Basso et al. 2009)。幾何造型幾何學是一種工具, 古代建筑模型的構造就已經使用。當然，這也一直受到立體解析幾何和設計者想象力強加的規(guī)則的限制。幾個世紀以來,建筑學已經能夠圍繞簡單的幾何圖形來判斷建

10、筑物在結構和構造上的質量。 我們可以從花之圣母大教堂的圓頂與其最近的混凝土外殼的設計中找到這樣的例子?；ㄖツ复蠼烫玫膱A頂，意大利(建于1436年),由菲利普布魯萊斯基；其最近的混凝土外殼，費利克斯坎德拉(Moreyra Garlock and Billington 2008) 旋轉彎曲型屋面,移動型屋面,和大小可變型屋面能讓它們更好的組合成殼體屋面結構，并分散成一個個小小的單元。在這種背景下, 耶爾格施萊希和漢斯舍貝爾在鋼殼結構的工作是一種創(chuàng)新。他們設計了將屋面分為平面四邊形網格方法，能夠獲得正確的移動型屋面,和大小可變型屋面。柏林動物園的HippoHouse，德國（建于1996年），由建筑

11、師設計Grieble和Schlaich Bergermann以與合作伙伴(Schober 2002,Glymph et al . 2004)利用這種方法設計的一個優(yōu)美的鋼殼,見圖3。通過結構形式考慮結構效率幾乎所有傳統(tǒng)的結構設計原理(從材料選取、剖面圖,節(jié)點類型, 整體微分幾何、和支撐條件), 整體微分幾何學都是確定一個殼體結構是否是穩(wěn)定的,安全的,足夠的支撐。每個擁有精美結構網絡的大跨度殼體結構都是由大量細小模塊組成。第一個此類結構的設計在于設置精確的邊界條件,在這個精確的邊界外殼的形狀可以向外拓展。在實現(xiàn)膜強度的穩(wěn)定性，曲線形狀是至關重要的。彎曲的殼體需要通過尋找“正確”的幾何形狀來避免因

12、自重而只有膜起作用的結果。薄膜效應使材料的性能得以充分發(fā)揮。結構設計最重要的的挑戰(zhàn)首先在于確定約束骨架的殼體的三維(3 d)表面。在二十世紀,建筑師和工程師高迪(Huerta 2003),奧托(Ottoet al .1995), 易思樂(Billington 2008)嘗試利用物理形式尋找這樣一種方法,在對于一個給定的材料,建立一組邊界條件和重力荷載,以尋找有效的三維結構形狀。為鋼殼結構找到一個纜索系統(tǒng)的重要性首先在于這樣一個事實，自重(鋼和玻璃引起的重力負載) 主要貢獻的負載被抵消。子模塊需要軸向加載使截面輪廓最有效地受力。利用數(shù)值模擬形式尋找方法力密度法(Schek 1974)和動態(tài)松弛法

13、(1965天)已經成功地應用于輕便系統(tǒng)，其模型是由部預應力和建筑物邊界圍條件的水準設定。然而,當談到纜索系統(tǒng)的形狀并不取決于初始預應力而是由重力負載 (如案例中的磚石、混凝土或鋼殼) 決定時,更少的數(shù)值模擬方法被應用。這主要因為很難找到最優(yōu)形式對于那些依靠拉伸和壓縮膜應力相互抵消的殼體結構。基利恩和奧科申朵夫(2005) 為靜定系統(tǒng)呈現(xiàn)了一種基于粒子-彈簧系統(tǒng)的面料仿真模型的結構形狀探索工具，該系統(tǒng)是用龍格-庫塔求解器求解。布勞克和奧科申朵夫(2007)發(fā)表了應力網絡分析來確定純壓力體系。對于荷蘭海事博物館屋頂?shù)某跏荚O計大賽項目, 動態(tài)松弛法通常是用于預應力系統(tǒng)，該法適應處理重力加載下，力和壓

14、力下的三維纜索體系。在NSA庭院競爭設計鋼玻璃殼體結構在不久的將來，荷蘭海事博物館計劃徹底的改造項目。十七世紀歷史建筑成為受限空間阻礙了游客的運行。博物館的院子需要集成到旅客流通空間,且要規(guī)避天氣影響,保持最小的室溫度。這樣，一個邀請設計大賽被舉辦，為這座歷史建筑增加更多附加價值一個新的玻璃屋頂產生了。2005年,奈伊和其合作伙伴,一個總部位于布魯塞爾的工程設計咨詢公司, 鋼和玻璃結構外殼設計贏得了這次比賽。外殼的制造和施工在2009年和2011年之間。2012年,該項目被授予阿姆斯特丹建筑獎。Finding the Form of an Irregular Meshed Steel and

15、Glass ShellBased on Construction ConstraintsSigrid Adriaenssens, M.ASCE1; Laurent Ney2; Eric Bodarwe3; and Chris Williams4Abstract: In the context of the search for an efficient structural shape to cover the Dutch Maritime Museum courtyard in Amsterdam, Netherlands,the authors briefly discuss the dr

16、iving design factors that influenced the earliest glass roof coverings. The trends that emerged during thelate 20th and early 21st century in the design of skeletal steel glass shells are exposed. These design developments range from sculptural togeometric and structural intentions. The discussion o

17、f the competition design development of the Dutch Maritime Museum steel glass shellroof shows the quest for a structurally efficient catenary form based on a poetic geometric idea. This paper presents a construction-driven designmethodology that slightly adapts the numerical form found catenary shap

18、e with the objective of achieving planarity in all the triangulated, foursidedand five-sided mesh faces. The challenge of facet planarity is gracefully solved by an analytical origami approach and presented. Thisapproach is compared with finding the Maxwell reciprocal network diagram. The final face

19、ted shape shows elegance and structural efficiency.DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000074. 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.CE Database subject headings: Design; Steel; Glass; Historic sites; Roofs; Netherlands.Author keywords: Shape; Conceptual design; Form finding; Steel glass shell; Hist

20、oric courtyard; Planarity faces; Construction constraint;Maxwell reciprocal network.IntroductionIn the wake of the Industrial Revolution, glass metal structuresappeared as a result of two factors: societys desire for green, quietspaces in overpopulated cities, and the scientific emergence of newcons

21、truction materials (glass and iron).In the early nineteenth century, the first greenhouses with aglazed roof appeared as living spaces. Their tall construction andmaintenance costs (because of the glass and the required heatingsystem) made them style icons of the elite. Their curved shapes(1) ridge

22、and furrow e.g., Chatsworth, United Kingdom (builtin 1834), and (2) vaulted, e.g., Kew, United Kingdom (built in1844) (Kohlmaier and Von Sartory 1991) allowed the sparsesunlight into the space and hit the citrus and lime trees (hence, thename orangery). Other varieties of tender plants, shrubs, ande

23、xotic plants were also housed in the orangery. The introductionof the palm tree, an impressive and prestigious plant with largereligious significance, pushed the shape of the greenhouse furtherupwards.In the middle of the nineteenth century, the development ofgreenhouse typologies was in full swing,

24、 and resulted in culturehouses, conservatories, and winter gardens e.g., the Royal greenhouses,Laeken, Belgium (built in 1876) shown in Fig. 1 (Woods andSwartz 1988). The winter garden is of particular interest to thispaper because it defines a social meeting place adjacent to a privatemansion or pu

25、blic building.Mass production of affordable iron in the second half of thenineteenth century further encouraged the design and constructionof tall and large span exhibition halls made of cast and wrought ironand glass. Plenty of light entered the exhibition areas of buildings,such as the Crystal Pal

26、ace, United Kingdom (built in 1851) (shownin Fig. 1). Its filigree iron structural skeleton was prefabricated, andit was subsequently dismantled and moved from Hyde Park toSydenham in South London. Unfortunately, it was destroyed by firein 1936.The second half of the 20th and the early 21st centurie

27、s experienceda new uprising of the design and construction of roofs oversocial gathering places, winter gardens without plants, coveringcourtyards of historically important public buildings e.g., the greatcourtyard of the British Museum, United Kingdom; see Fig. 1; theDeutschen Historischen Museum,

28、and Museum fur HamburgischeGeschichte, Germany (both Schlaich Bergermann and Partners, builtin 2001 and 2004, respectively); and the Smithsonian Institute,Washington, DC (Foster and Partners, and Buro Happold in 2001).The shapes of these glass-covered, single-layered steel skeletalshells were driven

29、 by a combination of sculptural, geometric,physical, and constructional considerations (Williams 2000). Therecent re-emergence of these structures goes hand in hand with theevolution of digital design tools that enable the designer to developand analyze more free and daring geometries.Single-Layered

30、SteelSkeletalShellsCoveredwithGlassTodays designers (either from an architectural or engineeringbackground) of these nonbotanical winter garden shells seem tobe guided by one or more of the following four driving factors: Fig. 1. (a) Laeken winter garden (Belgium, built in 1875) still serves asa soc

31、ial meeting place. (Jackson 2007; reprinted with permission fromthe photographer); (b) prefabricated Crystal Palace (United Kingdom,built in 1851) was dismantled soon after its intended use (reprintedfrom /wiki/File:Crystal_Palace.PNG,originally from Tallis History and Criticism

32、 of the Crystal Palace.1852); (c) British Museum Courtyard (United Kingdom, built in 2000)steel roof adds value to the museum by expanding the useable circulationspace (image by authors)imposed existing situation, sculptural architectural esthetics,geometric shape, and structural efficiency through

33、form.Imposition on an Existing Situation: The ModernWinter GardenIn the last two decades, existing historically relevant publicbuildings with a central open courtyard have been adapted to extendthe useable floor area to an indoor/outdoor climate. Thesegenerally narrow buildings count on the courtyar

34、d for daylight.Steel and glass shells offer a unique solution to this design challenge.The historic context for these shells imposes a series ofdesign constraints within which the designer has the freedom todevelop the shells form. The boundary conditions often includeheight restrictions and limits

35、upon the maximumextra load that canbe imposed on the existing building, particularly in a horizontaldirection. The British Museum Court Roof is supported on slidingbearings so that no horizontal thrust is exerted on the historicmasonry walls of the museum (Williams 2001). In the reviewingthe design

36、of recently realized steel shells, the driving design factormore often seems to be architectural scenographic esthetics ratherthan structural performance.Sculptural Architectural EstheticsWith the available geometric digital modeling tools, more architectsbase their work on esthetic (and often subje

37、ctive) considerations toachieve scenographic effects. This sculptural design intent can beappreciated for its inventiveness of plastic forms, but not for itsconsideration of gravity loads. This particular design approach thusraises questions from a structural point of view with respect to theresulti

38、ng lack of structural efficiency. Unfortunately, the structuralsolutions necessary to make these sculptural shapes possible typicallyuse an awkward and significant accumulation of material.These free-form shapes often lead to unfavorable internal forces andunder loading do not allow membrane stresse

39、s to develop within thesurface. These shapes then rely on bending actionthe least effectiveof all basic load carrying methods. Designers often ignore thefact that the free form is made up of conventional constructional andstructural means. Frank Gehry, the Pritzker prize-winning architect,promotes t

40、his architectural process, which expresses sculpturalintentions but is disconnected from any sculptural intent (Shelden2002). A rationalization is needed at the preliminary design stagethat goes beyond this scenographic experience and concentrates onthe structural integrity of the design (Leach et a

41、l. 2004).The evolution of an initial sculptural shape into a constructablestructure needs a strong team of engineers and contractors. For example,the conceptual design for the shell of the Nuovo Polo FieraMilano, Italy (built in 2004) (Guillaume et al. 2005) was developedby the architect Massimilian

42、o Fuksas and then handed over to theengineers Schlaich Bergermann and Partners and contractor MeroTSK Group for the development of the structural and constructionalrationale for the project (see Fig. 2) (Basso et al. 2009).Geometric ShapeGeometry is a tool that has been used since antiquity for the

43、developmentof architectural shapes. These forms are thus limited bythe rules imposed by analytical geometry and the designers imagination.Through the centuries, architecture has developed around“simple” geometries chosen for their constructive or structuralqualities. Examples can be found in the des

44、ign of the cupola ofthe cathedral Santa Maria del Fiore, Italy (built in 1436), by FilippoBrunelleschi and more recently the thin concrete shells by FelixCandela (Moreyra Garlock and Billington 2008). Surfaces of revolution,translational surfaces, and scale-trans surfaces lend themselvesexcellently

45、to shell action and discretization into subelements.In this context, the work of Jorg Schlaich and Hans Schober on steelshells is innovative. They devised a method to find the right translationalor scale-trans surface that can be divided into four-sidedplanar meshes. The HippoHouse of the Berlin Zoo

46、, Germany (builtin 1996), designed by architect Grieble and Schlaich Bergermannand Partners (Schober 2002, Glymph et al. 2004) exploits this approachin an elegant steel shell, as shown in Fig. 3.Structural Efficiency through FormOf all traditional structural design elements (ranging from materialcho

47、ice, profile sections, node type, global geometry, and supportconditions), global geometry mostly decides whether a shell will bestable, safe, and stiff enough. The shell spans large distanceswithFig. 2. Nuovo Polo Fiera Milano (Italy, built in 2004; architect Massimiliano Fuksas, structural enginee

48、rs Schlaich Bergermann and Partner and MeroTSK Group) illustrates how a sculptural shell is discretized in four-sided and triangulated (at the supports) meshesFig. 3. Hippo House (Germany, built in 1997), designed by architect Grieble and Schlaich Bergermann and Partners, shows the discretization of

49、a translational surface into planar quadrangular meshes (photograph courtesy of Edward Segal, reprinted with permission)a fine structural network (skeleton) of individual small subelements.The first design consideration lies in setting the exact boundaryconditions within which the shell shape can be

50、 developed. Thecurved shape is of vital importance to achieve stability throughmembrane stiffness. Shell bending needs to be avoided by findingthe “right” geometry, so that under the self-weight only membraneaction results. Membrane action makes efficient use of material. Theimportant structural des

51、ign challenge lies in the determination ofa three-dimensional (3D) surface that will hold the skeletal shell.In the twentieth century, both architects and engineers Gaudi(Huerta 2003), Otto (Otto et al. 1995), and Isler (Billington 2008)experimented with physical form finding techniques, which fora

52、given material, created a set of boundary conditions and gravityloading that found the efficient 3D structural shape. The importanceof finding a funicular shape for steel shells lies in the fact that theself-weight (gravity loads caused by steel and glass) contributeslargely to the load to be resist

53、ed. The subelements need to be loadedaxially to make most efficient use of the section profile.Numerical form finding techniques force density (Schek 1974)and dynamic relaxation (Day 1965) have been successfully appliedto weightless systems whose shape is set by the level of internalprestress and bo

54、undary supports. However, when it comes to funicularsystems whose shape is not determined by initial prestress butby gravity loads (such as the case for masonry, concrete, or steelshells), fewer numerical methods have been developed. This ismainly because of the difficulty of finding optimal forms f

55、or thoseshells that rely on both tensile and compressive membrane stressesto resist dead load. Kilian and Ochsendorf (2005) presenteda shape-finding tool for statically determinate systems based ona particle-spring system solved with a Runge-Kutta solver, used incomputer graphics for cloth simulatio

56、n. Block and Ochsendorf(2007) published the thrust network analysis to establish the shapeof pure compression systems. For the initial design competition forthe Dutch Maritime Museum roof project, the dynamic relaxationmethod usually used for prestressed systems was adapted to dealwith 3D funicular

57、systems with tension and compression elementsunder gravity loads.Competition Design for a Steel Glass Shell overthe NSA CourtyardThe Dutch Maritime Museum planned a thorough museum renovationin the near future. The restricted space in the seventeenthcentury historic building hinders the movement of

58、visitors. Thecourtyard needed to be integrated into the museums circulationspace, sheltered from weather, and kept to a minimal indoor temperature.An invited design competition was held for a new glass roofthat added value to the historic building. In 2005, Ney and Partners,a Brussels-based engineer

59、ing design consultancy, won this competitionwith a steel and glass shell design. The shell manufacturingand construction processes took place between 2009 and 2011. In2012, the project was awarded the Amsterdam Architectural Prize.Initial Planar GeometryIn the late seventeenth century, the historic

60、building housing themuseum (shown in Fig. 4) was the headquarters of the admiralship. It was the instrument and symbol of the Dutch maritime power. Thedevelopment of this sea-faring nation was closely linked to theproduction of sea charts and the associated sciences, such as geometry,topography, and