Peter Rice: Role of the Engineer (1994)

Fig1: Architect versus Engineer
Photo credit: www.pinterest.com

Through this article, Peter Rice talks about how the role of an engineer differs from that of an architect (Fig1). In his argument, architects are visionaries with artistic inspiration whereas engineers have more of a dry and practical approach. Since engineers are perceived to be monotonous, he argues that their unique form of innovation gets lost, or hidden within the complexity of these boring systems. If engineers are expected to search for creative solutions (like architects), it is only fair to expect that good architects attempt to do the same (think more like engineers). This may mean moving past strictly subjective design criteria and reach for solutions that can be explained objectively. In other words, he believed that buildings are the result of a symbiotic relationship between the architect and the engineer, where the engineer is the objective inventor and the architect the creative input.

According to Rice, the roles of the engineer are:

• The use of the engineer’s understanding of materials and structure to make an architect's visions come true.
•  Innovate and support the creativity of architects.

Louvre Pyramids

Fig2:  The main pyramid seen from the top of the inverted one
Photo credit: www.archdaily.com

Here is an attempt to compare the main Louvre pyramid with the less known Inverted pyramid. Both are part of I.M.Pei's plan for Le Grand Louvre in Paris, but has similarities and differences in terms of its structural properties. The main pyramid is an example of the structural frame whereas the inverted pyramid shows the power of the structural glass. 

So why are these two structures different?

The first difference is in their size, of course. The main pyramid is almost double the size of the inverted pyramid. The second reason is its wind load. The main pyramids has to withstand strong wind loads that do not exist in the inverted pyramid as it only has suction loads. The next reason is a process of evolution; in the main pyramid, the engineers used glass as an infill whereas in the inverted pyramid, they used glass as a structural element. 

The main pyramid is not designed as a glass pyramid but  instead it is a steel pyramid with glass cladding. Glass is just used to fill the space between the stainless steel struts without having any structural role. In other words, it is like a steel space frame with integrated glazing. Suppose we take out all the glass panels, nothing would happen to its structure as the pyramid does not depend on it.

Fig2:  Stages of glass installation on the main pyramid
Photo credit: www.archdaily.com

For the inverted pyramid, there was disappearance of mullion frames, elevating glass to the primary structural element of the building's skin. The flat, clean glazed surfaces lost their ugly steel tube edges and became a pure glass-enclosed volume (Fig3a&3b). 

Fig3a: Inverted pyramid from below
Photo credit: www.archdaily.com

Fig3b: Inverted pyramid as seen from inside
Photo credit: www.archdaily.com

To tie these together, in the main pyramid, Pei wanted a glass as clear as possible, and he was sure that the required laminated thickness (and even more in diagonal views) would be seen as green form the outside; which was his design intention (Fig4). In order to achieve this, he merely used a steel framework with glazing as a secondary element. Whereas in the inverted pyramid, this idea was taken forward by its engineers and by their knowledge of material, it was used as the primary structural element. 

Fig4: Inner transparency, so much sought after by the architects, depends largely on the point of view.Photo credit: www.archdaily.com

Pompidou Centre

The multi-colored, 'inside-out', machine of a modern art museum, designed by Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers, along with Arup engineers and Gianfranco Franchini, was built to create column-less, flexible interior space for exhibitions.  The cultural center follows the idea of a machine and places the mechanical systems on the exterior, to keep the inside open. Nevertheless, the multi-colored pipes and structures aren’t merely colored for design purpose. Each shade corresponds to a certain function: ventilation components were painted white; stairs and elevators were grey; smaller ventilation pieces were blue; plumbing and fire control were green; electrical systems were yellow and orange; and elevator motor room were colored red (Fig5).

Fig5: Facade of the building
Photo credit: https://www.curbed.com

Even though the radical exterior has been an inspiration for generations, the actual structural solution used to support the building’s flexible floorplates was actually very old fashioned (Fig6). Peter Rice used the innovative structural element at the center of the building’s design which in turn connected the building’s long-span trusses with its perimeter column. He also used cast steel, an uncommon material for a load-bearing element.

Fig6: Explanatory model of the building structure of the Centre Pompidou
Photo credit: https://www.curbed.com

In conclusion, Rogers and Piano's design for the Pompidou Centre was a flexible cultural sand exhibition space. From the initial designing process, engineers like Peter Rice and Ted Happold helped translate their ideas into workable plans and a functional structure, keeping in mind the materials and its structural implications, which finally brought in a revolutionary icon into the history of architecture (Fig7a&7b).

Fig7a: Design without any inputs by the engineers
Showing Model built after winning the design competition
Photo credit: https://www.curbed.com

Fig7b: Final building
 Showing evolution of the competition design, by Renzo Piano, Richard Rogers,
Gianfranco Franchini, and Ove Arup & Partners
Photo credit: https://www.curbed.com

So who is a good engineer?

Even though it is quite obvious that a good engineer must be dependable, scientific, able to think through a situation logically,  a good communicator, understand contracts, party wall agreements and a manager of risks. They must also have integrity, work to improve the environment and ensure worker safety.They must be cautious but brave, striving for the best while preparing for the worst. They must be lifelong learners, questioning, curious. Widely read and deeply knowledgeable. Nevertheless, this applies for almost all professions. To be more precise, is that the good ones understand what everything does. This means that they know what you need and what your don't. It’s tempting to add strength to the structure to cover the weakness in our understanding. The better the engineer, the less structure you’ll get. Good engineers give you less. Less is better. Less is more.

Moreover, engineers are the liable persons in construction. With that in mind, it is undeniable that when the imagination of architects go wild, engineers go wild in figuring out how such imaginations could become real. There would not be so much of a problem if the two can meet halfway. An architect can be free to design a structure, but upon agreed limitations from an engineer.  The problem with an architect’s creativity is that it can go too far without considering practicality.

Reference: 

https://gineersnow.com/engineering/civil/an-architects-dream-is-a-civil-engineers-nightmare
http://facadesconfidential.blogspot.com/2011/10/louvre-pyramids-revisited.html
https://www.curbed.com/2017/1/23/14365014/centre-pompidou-paris-museum-renzo-piano-richard-rogers