4.7 Article

Design challenges of reciprocal frame structures in architecture

期刊

JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING
卷 26, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100867

关键词

Construction process; Design challenges; Design process; Reciprocal frame structures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the significant advantages of reciprocal frame (RF) structures, especially the integration of architectural and structural components, they are barely used in architecture, particularly during early design stages. This paper proposes a design framework for reciprocal frames, and provides architects and designers with a systematic procedure toward better understanding the design, fabrication, and maintenance of RFs. The study is to find out what challenges and complexities exist in the design and construction process of reciprocal frame structures and what opportunity they can provide for architects and designers. The complexity aspects of these structures are investigated by evaluating the design and fabrication of three models of similar form categories, but in different elements' shapes and materials (linear and planar). The examined examples show that the design process of these structures encompasses an iterative procedure among design, construction, and maintenance issues. This research also evaluates the design process of these structures in architecture and the challenges that an architect faces during the design process. The structural issues of RFs are considered from an architectural point of view regarding the general understanding of geometrical stability and behavior of the structure under its weight. Useful parameters in the design and construction of these structures - namely, the geometry of elements, type of material, and fabrication process to achieve an optimal RF structure - are presented. Results of this study also show that RFs can take different shapes and configurations by using modular elements and integrating structural and architectural elements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据