7/29/2019 Design for Coming Generations

1/6

IABSE congress report = Rapport du

congrs AIPC = IVBH Kongressbericht

Ostenfeld, Klaus H.

Design for coming generations

IABSE congress report = Rapport du congrs AIPC = IVBH Kongressbericht, Vol.15

(1996)

PDF erstellt am: Oct 25, 2009

Nutzungsbedingungen

Mit dem Zugriff auf den vorliegenden Inhalt gelten die Nutzungsbedingungen als akzeptiert. Die

angebotenen Dokumente stehen fr nicht-kommerzielle Zwecke in Lehre, Forschung und fr dieprivate Nutzung frei zur Verfgung. Einzelne Dateien oder Ausdrucke aus diesem Angebot knnenzusammen mit diesen Nutzungsbedingungen und unter deren Einhaltung weitergegeben werden.Die Speicherung von Teilen des elektronischen Angebots auf anderen Servern ist nur mit vorherigerschriftlicher Genehmigung des Konsortiums der Schweizer Hochschulbibliotheken mglich. DieRechte fr diese und andere Nutzungsarten der Inhalte liegen beim Herausgeber bzw. beim Verlag.

SEALS

Ein Dienst des Konsortiums der Schweizer Hochschulbibliotheken

c/o ETH-Bibliothek, Rmistrasse 101, 8092 Zrich, Schweizretro@seals.ch

http://retro.seals.ch

7/29/2019 Design for Coming Generations

2/6

179

Design for coming generations

Klaus H. OSTENFELDM.Sc. Civil Eng.COWILyngby, Denmark

Klaus H. Ostenfeld, born 1943.Exec Director TransportationDivision. M.Sc. 1966, PE 1972.Joined COWI 1966 and 1977.1970-77 Sverdrup USA, EEGFrance.

1. IntroductionWhat does design of structures for coming generations mean? Does it really matter how thestructures we design look? Does maintenance, inspection and durability matter, if thestructures fulfil their function? Does environmental impact and socio-economic influencematter?Hardly anyone would say no to these and similar questions.Nevertheless, a lot of structures - bridges as well as buildings - are designed without properconsiderations to the fact that they most likely will be physically present and part of societyfor more than 100 years.Often, design is heavily driven by economical and functional objectives, and the result islow-cost structures, undoubtedly with a high functionality and utility, but without the quality needed to deserve a life time of more than 100 years.When visionary designers develop exceptional projects like the Sidney Opera House, LaGrand Arche in Paris and olympic structures in Monreal 1976 just to name a few, financial,political and other difficulties generate Opposition during the realisation. That is natural andpart of a democratic system. However, after the dust has settled, such creations are mostoften recognised as outstanding pieces of art that represent the ultimate of mankind creations of their time. Short-sighted financial difficulties are often forgotten and consideredirrelevant in view of the added value to society.Obviously all structures cannot be, and should not be "Sidney Opera Houses", but significantly improved results could definitely be accomplished by a higher awareness of otherqualities than utility and costs in the design process.2. Uncontrolled growthIn the last Century, society has seen and experienced the results of uncontrolled growth inconstruction; a development which accelerated during the industrialisation towards the turnof the Century. The city and factory communities, which were built in this period, areseldom considered of high quality representing the state-of-the-art.

7/29/2019 Design for Coming Generations

3/6

180 DESIGN FOR COMING GENEIWIONS 4However, certain structures, and in particular a few well-known bridges, can becharacterised as extremely successful, not only from a pure structural viewpoint, but alsowith regard to elegance, blending and incorporation in the landscape: New York's BrooklynBridge from 1883, the Forth of Firth railway bridge built in the 1880s in Scotland, Den-mark's Little Beit Bridge from 1936 and the second one completed 1970, San Fransisco'sGolden Gate Bridge from 1937, the Normandy Bridge in France from 1995, the Great BeitEast Bridge to be completed in 1998, and others.Many other bridges are not so successful in this respect, and public awareness as well asour own conscience as structural engineers demand a serious review of our practice for thefuture. If we don't recognise this and take proper action, our profession will face a difficultfuture. Recruitment of bright youngsters into the engineering profession will be problem-atic, because the more unsuccessful part of engineers' creations have made the professionless attractive.Many existing structures are certainly not to be proud of - "boxes", industrial complexes,plants of doubtful design, utility low cost storage and fabrication buildings, Shoppingcentres, poor design, cheap materials, poor internal working climate for the people usingthem, etc., not worthy representatives of our age and stage of development.The bridge world, which is in focus for many of us, has also produced its share of non-harmonious solutions. Disidvantageous profiles and alignments, poor proportioning,unsuitable materials, clumsy, and poorly adapted for maintenance and repair, artificial andnon-harmonious additions to the environment in which they are located. Certainly notstructures of art.Some good examples have been mentionedpreviously, but excellent examples are fewand long in between. The cause may be lackof recognition of the long term impact andinfluence on the environment with maybelack of imagination and global view or lackof funds.3. Time to breatheThe industrial development in the modernwestern world is decreasing. Industry isfocusing on a green image and to creategood working places for the employees andthe population. It is time to stop and breathewithout short term profit being the soledriving force - also in the bridge world.Many intangible parameters have progressive^ entered the scene as valid and important considerations in the project decisionprocess, and "design for coming generations" must take these parameters seriously

"*>?

The Brooklyn Bridge

The Forth of Firth.

7/29/2019 Design for Coming Generations

4/6

K. OSTENFELD 181

into aecount. Structural engineers must adapt to this changing world in a decisive way, ifthey want to be part of the future decision process, and development of society.However, the real imaginative designer is facing the problem of selling his ideas convinc-ingly. If not, the sad result is that short term "business people" take over the project forpoorly optimisation to gain short term cost benefits. The designer's bright ideas beingpartly lost.How to influence and change this undesirable Situation in our modern society which inreality should be able to afford to leave a desirable world for coming generations, butwhich "cannot" afford to do nothing about it?4. Optimisation for societyIn this context it is interesting to note, that some of our most remarkable bridges such asthe beautifully sculptured arch bridges across the Seine in Paris, the Forth Bridge and theBrooklyn Bridge have all been built before the Computer age. They are created by soundaesthetic and structural feel and a healthy amount of intuition also with respect to theirenvironment. These bridges have the ability to grow old with grace and style. They have aninfinite life-time as man made additions to society and their surroundings.How have these remarkable structures been created? Have they been optimised? I amconvinced they have, but not necessarily only from an economical point of view, rather as atotal, probably not documented "vision" about the visual and environmental function andintegration as real structures of art. Their creation is not a result of a systematic step bystep analysis and a "bottom up"optimisation. They seem right at the rightplace, because their creation has beendriven by a global idea, a vision and animagination as well as a high level of confidence between the Owner on his designer.5. Optimisation in logical stepsToday the process is much more complex.Many experts are involved, and we usedifferent terms: quality management, qualityassurance, environmental management,aesthetics, risk, cost, energy consumption,maintenance, import quota, employmentetc. We tend to separate the tasks in individual expert areas with the risk that the overall vision is lost, and the optimisation ismechanised to a series of logical steps in the"bottom up" approach. The advantage is awell documented process, leading to a resultwhich is difficult to neglect and thus difficult to overrule by "top down" considerations.

-.vr**

The second Little Beit Bridge.W?S&i ifxxy 1' .'t^vK

V"i^}3FiTffr**>V^Hiiffii ii^Tii^i r^^S^--!PI W^^m--ffii5g|p%| r Hpipst i^-TttT^r^Hl ^11111The Golden Gate Bridge.

7/29/2019 Design for Coming Generations

5/6

182 DESIGN FOR COMING GENERATIONS

A parallel can be drawn to the car industry which has been uniformed to the extend that itis not possible any more to distinguish between European, Japanese and American middle-size average Standard cars. Obviously the required similar input leads to similar outputthrough the logical steps in all the manufacturers' Computers.6. It has never been done beforeQuantum leap development and improvement can only take place by the "top down"approach which is based on new ideas, untraditional thinking, imagination and vision, ascan be seen in such creations as the supersonic airplane Concorde, Man on the Moon, BillGates PC Software development, and high speed TGV trains in France.The people behind these projects have been driven by imagination and bold thinking, andhave penetrated the classical barrier "it has never been done before".Can we likewise imagine or even suggest changes in our roles and procedures as structuralengineers which could provide the right Stimulation and encouragement for a betterapproach?7. If the goal is moneyA resent approach, which becomes still more common for financing reasons, isDesign/Build or BOT. However, in today's form it is not always conductive to a betterresult. It may lead to rather short-lived structures with the concession period in mind, andsometimes to structures of doubtful aesthetic value, because of the drive in fierce competition and financial return objectives.This approach tends to remove the ultimate responsibility from the Owner, who representsSociety, towards a pure business Operation. The primary goal is to generate financial returnby designing, constructing and operating the facilities.Without turning the development backwards - will it be possible to modify this procedure tofulfil the objective of creating more desirable, aesthetic and improved technical solutions?Is it possible to develop competition rules and selection criteria which lead to the right kindof incentives for better structures?The public organisations - the Owners responsible for the development of our infrastructure- play a fundamental role in this process.Successive competitions for each step and phase in a major project do not necessary lead toan optimum Solution. Many contract and boundary limits of responsibility often lead toincreased litigations and costs in defending the responsibility limits and the contract limitsrather than making the fll mental capacity available for the primary goal: to create theoverall best and globally most desirable structure for its indented purpose in the environment.

7/29/2019 Design for Coming Generations

6/6

4 K. OSTENFELD 1838. A creative forum up frontTo follow an untraditional and maybe provocative idea "which has never been done before"would be to abandon the traditional division of responsibility between Owner, designer,architect, Consultants, contractor, Operator, environmental designer and Controller, Supervisor, and many others. It would mean to bring about a creative forum up front whichinvolves a one-team of all specialists who were driven by the objective to create the verybest without direct regard to individual profits at this stage.Terms of References would be put together in a process to develop the best from everypoint of view and possibly rank various solutions according to selection criteria, and checksensitivity for changed weighing of criteria. It would lead to a sound decision basis for theOwner who might be assisted by independent experts in this decision process.Once this "top down" approach has lead to the "right", overall selection, the details withineach of the specialities could be developed, and a confirmation round be carried out at alater stage, before the ultimate Solution is finally selected and adopted.The project now Would be ripe for definition in individual contracts to be executed inaccordance with individual TOR's which would lead to optimum economical results withinthe firm framework established by the common, multidisciplinary group.This approach could be considered a modernisation of the decision process, or an adaptingof the old approach to the possibilities of the modern technologies.

^The Normandie Bridge. The Great Beit East Bridge.