structural masonry and architectural expression

Construction and Building Materials 18(2004) 133–139

0950-0618/04/$ - see front matter� 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2003.08.016

Structural masonry and architectural expression

Pattabi G. Raman

School of Architecture and Planning, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Africa

Received 24 April 2003; received in revised form 24 April 2003; accepted 15 August 2003

Abstract

Structural masonry has a formidable history, which has been subjected to much analysis by scholars in architecture andengineering. This paper attempts to abstract and explore in detail the nature of the distinct architectural expression this form ofconstruction yields. Illustrative examples are carefully selected and include a project by the author. The intention is to demonstratehow the lessons learnt are or can be put into practice in worked examples. A brief coverage of one or two historic buildingsexplores how symbolic value is extracted from the robustness of this form of construction and considers the relevance of thesevalues to the empirical temper of our times. The paper then concludes with some remarks on the relationship between engineering,building methods and architectural aspects of load-bearing masonry construction.� 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Expression; Flexural strength; Funicular shape

1. Introduction

Architectural design is often accompanied if notdriven by an array of slogans. Depending on one’sperspective, the famous or infamous one is that ‘formfollows function’. Structural engineering too did notescape the sloganising tendencies of architects. Thus,the celebrated nineteenth-century French architect Viol-let-le-Duc, through his outstanding studies of Gothicarchitecture, attempted to show that ‘form followedstructure’w1x. But of course the English architects couldnot be content with the French monopolising the catchyarchitectural slogans and so many in England arguedthat ‘form followed construction’, which to this day hascurrency. The French retort usually tends to be ‘Whyeverything in English architecture ends up being aboutdetail?’ In other words, the suggestion is that Englisharchitecture, from the French point of view, lacks whatone might call ‘style’. There is of course nothing newin this as the English had already expressed an analogousopinion on Viollet’s work. The argument goes somethinglike this. While his analysis of Gothic is certainly onthe right lines, his own proposals for new buildings,arising from his studies, are not at all stylish(Fig. 1).Quite sensibly perhaps, William Morris eschewed slo-

E-mail address: [email protected](P.G. Raman).

gans in favour of definitions and suggested that archi-tecture is nothing but an art of construction and to thisday many successful English buildings demonstrate thisconcern for an integrated view of composition andconstruction. Of course, English architects were in thisendeavour aided by able engineers like Peter Rice, TonyHunt and many others. Here, we are only touching onsome broad principles on the relation between construc-tion and architecture. There are many more involvedarguments, one of which might provide us an illustrativeexample of the kind of debate this topic can generate.Strange though it may seem to an outsider, underlyingsome of the architectural discussions around constructionand expression there is a belief that a framed buildingis Gothic in spirit and a load-bearing construction isRoman, Romanesque or classical. Depending uponwhich side of the religious divide one finds oneself, onestyle could be primitive, therefore not suitable for asophisticated religious building, and the other pagan,therefore not at all appropriate for Christian worship. Itneeded an atheist like Le Corbusier, often called the‘noble savage’ of architecture, to break away from thisimplicit orthodoxy to produce in Ronchamp a churchthat is essentially a framed building but in its sculpturalexpression exudes a powerful feeling of a load-bearingconstruction(Fig. 2). This effect is achieved through

134 P.G. Raman / Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 133–139

Fig. 1. Design for a concert hall in stone, iron and brick. Source:Viollet-le-Duc’s Entretiens.

Fig. 2. The chapel at Ronchamp; columns are hidden in this drawingbut they support the roof trusses subsumed in the folded roof. Theappearance of the chapel as though it is a load-bearing masonry build-ing is deceptive.Source: Le Corbusier, The Chapel at Roncahmp,London 1959.

Fig. 3. Ways of buttressing a single brick wall by L. Baker.Source:G. Bhatia.

the infilling of rubble work between columns up toclerestory height and finished with rough gunnite plaster.The point about this little excursion into architectural

debate on structure and its role in shaping architectureis that it involves certain implicit beliefs, which affectthe expression of building not merely in aesthetic termsbut also in terms of socioycultural aspects such asreligion. Can one go beyond the familiar architecturalslogans and unravel a link between structure, construc-tion and expression, especially in relation to load-bearingmasonry? One certainly needs to begin with the struc-tural characteristics of masonry, from simple cases toincreasingly complex ones.

2. The case of the garden wall and beyond

A straight garden wall of single brick thickness isweak or low in flexural strength and can fall over orget knocked over. It is therefore normally buttressed bypiers at every 1.5 m or so, usually along the central lineof the wall. Perhaps because this is a commonplacearrangement, variations on this theme in order to extractsculptural possibilities are always attempted by archi-tects. One could add the piers to one side of the wall orone could alternate them on either side in a zigzag

formation as shown in Fig. 3. But the most interestingway to overcome the low flexural strength of brickworkis to undulate it rather in the way Jefferson did in theVirginia University campus in Charlottesville, which inaddition to being elegant saves materials. It is interestingto note that Laurie Baker, the pioneer of low-costhousing in India, extends(in fact Fig. 3 comes fromhim) this conception to load-bearing walls for housesand argues that walls that are single brick deep but-tressed thus are enough to carry loads for single-storeyhousesw2x. Even the serpentine wall of Jefferson finds

135P.G. Raman / Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 133–139

Fig. 4. Women’s Hostel, Centre for Development Studies, Ulloor Tri-vandrum, India.Source: G. Bhatia.

Fig. 6. Rat-trap bond, proposed by L. Baker.Source: G. Bhatia.

Fig. 5. Ways of effecting economy in brick walls by L. Baker.Source:G. Bhatia.

Fig. 7. L. Baker’s ways of effecting savings in concrete lintels. Source:G. Bhatia.

an expression in Baker’s work as a screen wall of abuilding in the form of a honeycomb wall enabling himto be even more economical than Jefferson could envis-age(Fig. 4). Baker goes on to show further that structurealone cannot be taken in isolation when it comes toeconomy and elegance.As we all know, it is difficult to get ‘fair face’ on

both sides of any brick wall, let alone one that is onlyone brick deep. Conventionally one plasters the wall toovercome this problem, which costs money not onlyimmediately but also in the long run in order to paintthe plastered wall. Baker’s solution is to use any excessmortar from bedding to fill over the sunken side of thewall to produce a fair face, thus achieving a pleasantpattern without plaster, painting and therefore avoidingany future maintenance cost(Fig. 5).

Baker is endlessly inventive in effecting economiesof construction. Of interest are his suggestions of a ‘rat-trap’ bond if a two brick thick wall is needed(Fig. 6)and brick on edge arch(Fig. 7), corbels(Fig. 8), flatarch (Fig. 9) and so on, instead of concrete lintels,which are expensive in the developing world.

3. A simple mud brick vault

Funicular form in the vertical direction for masonrybuildings is of course familiar to architects and engineersbut to construct it without using expensive centering iswhat would be effective in the developing world. HassanFathy in his mud brick housing at Gourna learnt just to


Fig. 8. L. Baker’s proposals for using corbelled arch in place of lintels.Source: G. Bhatia.

Fig. 10. Having outlined a parabola on the end wall with mud plasterand having trimmed the plaster with an adze, the first brick is laidagainst the wall.

Fig. 9. L. Baker suggests that arches are cheaper than concrete lintels.Source: G. Bhatia. Fig. 11. The second course starts with a half brick.

do that from the brick layers, who have been doing thatin Egypt for centuriesw3x. Funicular shapes enable usto eliminate bending, the object being to ensure that, asfar as possible, any section through any part of thestructure is in compression over the whole of thesectional area regardless of the nature of the appliedload. An elegant use of this principle by Hassan Fathyis shown in Figs. 10–13(Source: Hassan Fathy).

4. The case of the arch

There is an interesting passage about an arch in ItaloCalvino’s book called Invisible Citiesw4x in which thefictitious Marco Polo is describing every stone in an


Fig. 12. The vault is just taking shape.

Fig. 14. Tempio Malatestiana, Rimini. Source: T.W. West, A Historyof Renaissance Architecture.

Fig. 13. The vault in the next stage of completion. Fig. 15. St. Andrea in Mantua.

arch to the imagined Kubla Khan. Polo is interruptedand asked, ‘What makes the arch stand up?’ ‘The arch’strajectory’, answers Polo. Khan retorts, ‘Why then areyou describing every stone?’ Polo replies, ‘Becausewithout the stones there is no arch.’ If an engineeringmatter can elicit lyrical pronouncements by writers, thensurely the architect’s concern for the expressive aspectof construction is understandable.There is a celebrated account of Louis Kahn, which

goes something like this: The architect asks the brick‘What do you want to be?’ The brick replies, ‘ I wantto be part of an arch.’ ‘But an arch is expensive’, saysthe architect. ‘I still want to be an arch’, says the brick.Whether this is post-rationalisation of what Kahn alwayswanted to do for aesthetic reasons or a genuine concernfor the formal potential of brick is debatable. But whatis beyond question is that Kahn takes the traditionalform and extends its potential for enlarging its architec-tural use in his management centre at Ahmedabad, India.The cross tie of a massive arch in concrete is made ofconcrete and culminates into elegant haunches set intothe brickwork at either end. This revived but extendedand transformed use of the arch moved Colin St. JohnWilson to suggest that if Romans saw Kahn’s arch theywould be pleased to see their invention still evolvingand developing in unforeseen waysw5x.

5. Alberti, the triumphal arch and the barrel vault

Among architects and historians Alberti’s transfer ofthe triumphal arch motif from the arch of Constantinein Rimini on to the facade of Tempio Malatestiana iswell known (Fig. 14). It fitted perfectly the task ofrestructuring the facade of the original Gothic churchwith a nave and two isles. This procedure followed byAlberti is taught to every student of architecture in hisor her history course but seldom do we stop to considerthe possible relevance of this to today’s practice ofwanting to integrate construction and spatial conception.In fact, Alberti pushes the idea further in his church ofSt. Andrea in Mantua(Figs. 15 and 16). The vault ofthe triumphal arch is extruded to become the nave. Theresulting barrel vault produces side thrusts, which haveto be resisted by heavy masonry, which in turn aregouched out to produce side chapels having the same


Fig. 16. St. Andrea, Mantua, side thrust of the vault is resisted bymasonry containing the side chapels.

Fig. 18. Plan of Branley Hall. School for handicapped children inLondon.

Fig. 17. Model of Suleimanye, in Istanbul. A number of half domestransfer side thrusts to masonry below.

Fig. 19. Axonometric of school for handicapped children in BranleyHall, London.

rhythm of major and minor arches of the triumphal archmotif. The simple exercise of transferring the motifeventually gets transformed into a unified symbolic,constructional and interior architectural conception.Thus, the essence of the whole pervades the parts.

6. The case of the dome

The dome of Santa Sophia in Istanbul is well knownand the later addition of flying buttresses to resist theside thrusts of the dome is recorded in great detail inengineering and architectural history books. While SantaSophia provided the inspiration for many of the mosquesof the Ottoman architect Sinan, one aspect of the greatchurch, which he did not like, was the buttresses. Thismay be because he was classical in outlook, which seesbuttresses as frames and therefore Gothic. Or, he mayhave been influenced by the oriental tradition, whichshuns all structural gymnastics and shows a definitepreference for what can be called ‘harmony of parts’.Thus, both in Suleimaniye in Istanbul(Fig. 17) and inSelimiye in Edirne, half and quarter domes are used totransfer the side thrusts of their respective domes tomassive masonry below, which in turn are gouged outinto internal and external galleries. Thus, what is nec-essarily a visual concern leads to a structural ideademonstrating that aesthetic, expression, structure andconstruction are nested and interlocking aspects for thearchitect and the creative engineer.

7. Design and knowledge

Sociology of knowledge maintains that historical datacan produce as much illumination as any rational meth-odology. Sociology of knowledge distinguishes betweentwo types of knowledgew6x. What is contained intextbooks, formulae, etc. is one kind of knowledge. It isobjective knowledge. The kind of knowledge that onepossesses before embarking on solving a problem isanother kind and it is what can be called personalknowledge. The latter is learnt by the act of doing andnot acquired through rules for doing. Therefore, therecannot be any rules or recipes for extracting expressiveand aesthetic possibilities from constructional system.Historical awareness and working on the basis of trialand error are the factors that yield design possibilities.This last example in this paper is an attempt to show

how this happens. The school illustrated in Figs. 18 and19 is conceived rather like an Islamic Madrese, which


is usually incorporated as wings of a mosque with alarge courtyard, with each room having its own domeand the mosque proper having the biggest dome. Thesame pattern is followed in the roof structure of thisschool, with the assembly room having the biggest roofand the other rooms such as classrooms, library, etc.having smaller roofs. The structure is load-bearing brick-work and as it can be imagined the side thrust of theroof structure is to be resisted. The simplest way to doit would have been by diagonal cross ties but thearchitect felt that this would have interfered with thespatial flow internally affecting the lofty feeling. So theplywood sarking was used to tie the rafters together anda compression ring forming the parapet gutter to resistthe side thrust further. The roof structure thus sits asthough it is a hat.

8. Concluding remarks

Whether it is a garden wall, low-cost housing, aschool or a dignified grand church or a mosque, thereis an intricate connection between structural and con-structional principles and expression. Poetic buildingsof temporal depth result when an architect, engineer orbuilder exploits this connection. The developing world

need not always bemoan the shortage of resources. Onthe contrary, these disadvantages often offer opportuni-ties to suggest innovative ideas, which invariably endup producing lessons to the developed world as well.The examples explored here hint at possibilities for

collaboration not only between architects and engineersbut also between them and the masons, bricklayers andother craftsmen. An integrated view of structure, con-structional method and architectural conception has end-less potential waiting to be explored in our quest forbuildings that can provide value for money spent.

References

w1x Summerson J. Heavenly mansions and other essays. New York,London: Norton, 1963. p. 135–58 (See Viollet-Le-Duc and theRational Point of View).

w2x Bhatia G. Laurie Baker, life, work, writings. New Delhi:VikingyHUDCO, 1991.

w3x Fathy H. Gourna: architecture for the poor. Chicago: ChicagoUniversity Press, 1973.

w4x Calvino I. Invisible cities. London: Picador, 1973.w5x St. John Wilson C. Open and closed, in architectural reflections.

Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1992. p. 166–73.w6x Raman PG. In: Honickman, editors. Towards a social psychol-

ogy of design, Environmental Design Research AssociationConference, 1974. See proceedings vol. 11: pp. 87–96.

structural masonry and architectural expression

Documents