建筑结构设计及材料中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文对照外文翻译文献

(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)

Structure in Design of Architecture

And Structural Material

We have and the architects must deal with the spatial aspect of

activity, physical, and symbolic needs in such a way that overall

performance integrity is assured. Hence, he or she well wants to think

of evolving a building environment as a total system of interacting

and space forming subsystems. Is represents a complex challenge, and

to meet it the architect will need a hierarchic design process that

provides at least three levels of feedback thinking: schematic, preliminary, and final.

Such a hierarchy is necessary if he or she is to avoid being

confused , at conceptual stages of design thinking ,by the myriad

detail issues that can distract attention from more basic

considerations .In fact , we can say that an architect’s ability

to distinguish the more basic form the more detailed issues is

essential to his success as a designer .

The object of the schematic feed back level is to generate and

evaluate overall site-plan, activity-interaction, and

building-configuration options .To do so the architect must be able

to focus on the interaction of the basic attributes of the site

context, the spatial organization, and the symbolism as determinants

of physical form. This means that ,in schematic terms ,the architect

may first conceive and model a building design as an organizational

abstraction of essential performance-space in teractions.Then he or

she may explore the overall space-form implications of the

abstraction. As an actual building configuration option begins to

emerge, it will be modified to include consideration for basic site

conditions.

At the schematic stage, it would also be helpful if the designer

could visualize his or her options for achieving overall structural

integrity and consider the constructive feasibility and economic of his or her scheme .But this will require that the architect and/or

a consultant be able to conceptualize total-system structural

options in terms of elemental detail .Such overall thinking can be

easily fed back to improve the space-form scheme.

At the preliminary level, the architect’s emphasis will shift

to the elaboration of his or her more promising schematic design

options .Here the architect’s structural needs will shift to

approximate design of specific subsystem options. At this stage the

total structural scheme is developed to a middle level of specificity

by focusing on identification and design of major subsystems to the

extent that their key geometric, component, and interactive

properties are established .Basic subsystem interaction and design

conflicts can thus be identified and resolved in the context of

total-system objectives. Consultants can play a significant part in

this effort; these preliminary-level decisions may also result in

feedback that calls for refinement or even major change in schematic

concepts.

When the designer and the client are satisfied with the

feasibility of a design proposal at the preliminary level, it means

that the basic problems of overall design are solved and details are

not likely to produce major change .The focus shifts again ,and the

design process moves into the final level .At this stage the emphasis will be on the detailed development of all subsystem specifics . Here

the role of specialists from various fields, including structural

engineering, is much larger, since all detail of the preliminary

design must be worked out. Decisions made at this level may produce

feedback into Level II that will result in changes. However, if Levels

I and II are handled with insight, the relationship between the

overall decisions, made at the schematic and preliminary levels, and

the specifics of the final level should be such that gross redesign

is not in question, Rather, the entire process should be one of moving

in an evolutionary fashion from creation and refinement (or

modification) of the more general properties of a total-system design

concept, to the fleshing out of requisite elements and details.

To summarize: At Level I, the architect must first establish,

in conceptual terms, the overall space-form feasibility of basic

schematic options. At this stage, collaboration with specialists can

be helpful, but only if in the form of overall thinking. At Level

II, the architect must be able to identify the major subsystem

requirements implied by the scheme and substantial their interactive

feasibility by approximating key component properties .That is, the

properties of major subsystems need be worked out only in sufficient

depth to very the inherent compatibility of their basic form-related

and behavioral interaction . This will mean a somewhat more specific