See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336233684

The Architecture of Movement: Transformable Structures and Spaces

Conference Paper · September 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 7,137

1 author:

Feray Maden
Yasar University
46 PUBLICATIONS   171 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Horizon 2020-MSCA-RISE-2015- 689983- OptArch: Optimization Driven Architectural Design of Structures View project

Investigating novel architectural uses and fabrication problems of scissor-hinge structural mechanisms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Feray Maden on 03 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE ARCHITECTURE OF MOVEMENT:
TRANSFORMABLE STRUCTURES AND SPACES

Feray MADEN

Yaşar University, Turkey

feray.maden@yasar.edu.tr

ABSTRACT
The concept of movement is not new in the field of architecture. The root of
the idea of capturing movement within structure dates back to ancient times. It
continued and played a significant role through the architectural history.
Starting from the simple nomadic tents shown as the first examples of
transformable structures, various systems were applied in architecture even in
mediaeval times and Renaissance as retractable roofs for the protection
against sun and rain. In the twentieth century, the dynamic nature of the
environment and the need for adaptive spaces led architects and engineers to
develop innovative design solutions and structural systems that can respond
to variable climate conditions and occupants’ preferences. Those systems
allow not only transforming the structure into different geometric shapes, but
also transporting the structure from one location to another numerous times.
They may become self-standing structures as the conventional ones and be
used for different applications in architecture such as temporary protective
covers for outdoor activities, emergency shelters, exhibition halls and sporting
fields. The objective of this paper is to introduce the the concept of movement
in architecture and the transformable structures that are capable of changing
their geometries repeatedly and reversibly relative to environmental conditions
and occupant requirements.
Key Words: Concept of Movement; Transformable Structures; Kinetic
Architecture; Retractable Roofs; Moveable Bridges.

INTRODUCTION: The Concept of Movement in Architecture

For centuries, architecture has been perceived as permanent structures that
are identified with the concepts of stability, rigidity and immobility, [1]. The
dominance of static notions in architecture also restricted the flexibility in
space design. It has not been considered that the spaces or the structures
might be changed according to the future needs. Even though the change has
been neglected in the architectural design, it has always been a part of human
being and society since the needs, lifestyles, activities and space
requirements are changing constantly. Thus, the architecture should respond
to the changing needs of dynamic society. Moreover, the concepts of
movement, fluidity and adaptability should be considered within the design of
architectural space and structure. At this point, an obvious question arises:
how an architectural space and structure can be integrated with the concept of
movement while the the architecture still stands at the threshold between past

551
and future, and static and dynamic. To answer this question, the relationship
between movement and structure should be investigated first.
In fact, movement and structure can coexist in architecture. The root of the
idea of capturing movement within structure dates back to ancient times.
Nomadic tents can be shown as the first examples of transformable
structures, which were built with flexible outer skins for protection against
environmental extremes and to meet the housing needs of nomads [2] (Figure
1a). The shapes of these tents change according to the life styles of the
nomads. Those tents were either moved from one place to another as a whole
or assembled and dismantled on the site. The usage of the movement in
architecture can also be seen in Hellenistic times. Hero (Heron) of Alexandria,
a well-known engineer and mathematician lived in the 1st century AD,
designed a temple door having a pneumatic system that utilized steam
expansion and compressed air to open temple door when altar fires were
lighted [3] (Figure 1b). Another example is seen in the Roman Colosseum roof
that was covered with great canvas sheets rigged to the top to form awnings
for protection of the spectators from the sun (Figure 1c). The huge movable
roof was supported by the poles placed around the edge of the Colosseum.
The awnings served as a retractable roof having a pulley system that retracts
the canvas by means of ropes [1].

Figure 1. a) Nomadic Tents; b) Hero of Alexandria’s Temple Door; c) Roman

Coliseum; d) Demountable Theatre.
The concept of movement continued and played a significant role through the
architectural history. Even in mediaeval times and Renaissance, various
systems were applied in architecture as retractable roofs for the protection
against sun and rain. In medieval times, retractable roofs were used in
demountable theatres that had similar system as in the roof of the Roman
Colosseum [4] (Figure 1d). In order to create a gathering space in front of the
stage, a pulley system was used to protect the audience from weather
conditions. Another example of the transformable structure can be seen in
one of Leonardo da Vinci’s designs. Da Vinci studied the design methods of
movable structures and designed a self-supporting movable bridge that can
be quickly dismantled and transported [5].
In 18th century, awning constructions became widespread in Europe. In the
middle of 18th century, one of the great changes in human history started with
the Industrial Revolution. In the 19th century, radical changes started in
building technologies by the invention of new building materials such as cast

552
iron, steel and glass. These materials offered architects and engineers the
possibility and freedom to design new buildings and structures of size, form
and function unimaginable before. Such developments also changed the
perception of architectural space and enabled the design of buildings under
the style of free plan and facade, which lent feasibility to walls freed from the
function of load bearing and to building cantilevers. At the beginning of the
twentieth century, a concept of avant-garde emerged in architecture which
can be formulated as a reaction to the past and an intention to forge a
radically new reality. As one of the avant-garde groups, Archigram inspired
from technology to create new realities and developed hypothetical projects
including A Walking City and Plug-in City (Figure 2). They questioned the
static notion of the buildings, investigated the relationship of society,
technology and architecture, and developed structures that can move through
the environment. The Walking City was considered like a human being, which
was able to move wherever necessary to escape from the environmental
conditions [6]. In the Plug-in City, Peter Cook proposed a megastructure in
which numerous units including residences, access routes and all other
services for the inhabitants are plugged in. Each piece is transportable and
placed temporarily. The units are projected under the principles of flexibility
and mobility. The project was designed to encourage the change. Although
both projects do not offer proper solutions for the applications, they can be
considered pioneering projects of the kinetic architecture, which emphasize
the movement not only conceptually but also architecturally.

Figure 2. Walking City and Plug-in City.

Aforementioned examples can be considered as the pioneering structures of
kinetic architecture in which the concept of movement was captured within
structure. In the 20th century, the importance of the concepts of change,
movement, flexibility and adaptability started to increase and the needs for
transformable spaces emerged. Thus, today’s architecture pursues new
kinetic and lightweight structures instead of the stability, steadiness and
immobility of the past examples. Recent developments in technology have
greatly influenced design techniques and opened up new dimensions for the
construction of transformable structures. The dynamic nature of the
environment and the need for adaptive spaces led architects and engineers to
develop more innovative design solutions and structural systems that can
respond to variable environmental conditions and occupants’ needs. Those
systems allow not only transforming the structure into different geometric
shapes, but also transporting the structure from one place to another many
times. They may become self-standing structures as the conventional ones

553
and be used for different applications such as temporary protective covers for
outdoor activities, emergency shelters or bridges after natural disasters,
exhibition halls, pavilions, travelling theatres, concert halls and temporary
buildings in remote construction sites. Furthermore, they can also be used to
cover sporting fields or even entire stadiums in which the roof can be
mechanically transforms into an extended form to cover the spectator areas
and the play field. These structures that change shape and form can adapt to
not only climatic conditions but also different functions. In the next section,
different applications of the transformable structures proposed in the late 20 th
and early 21st centuries are reviewed in terms of the concepts of movement,
flexibility and adaptability in structure.
Transformable Structures
Deployable Bar Structures
Deployable bar structures are impressive examples of transformable
structures, which have the ability to change their shapes according to
changing circumstances. Pioneered by Spanish architect Emilo Pérez Piñero,
different types of deployable bar structures have been developed by
architects, engineers and researchers. Piñero was the first who built such a
deployable structure composed of scissor like elements (SLEs) that was
intended for a movable theatre [7] (Figure 3a). His particular structure is like a
mechanism since it is stress-free during the deployment, in the compact and
deployed configurations, except for its own dead weight [8]. Thus, it requires
using some additional cables to lock the system and to provide the necessary
stabilization after it is folded. Having a circular plan shape and a capacity of
500 people, the movable theater is capable of folding or unfolding in every
direction and transportable. The seat of the stand has also movable structure
system. The deployability allows the structure to be moved rapidly on site. On
the other hand, the transportability allows the structure to be moved to any
desired location at any time. Considering the capability of deployability and
transportability of the structure, it can be said that the concept of movement
was achieved in Piñero’s design as structurally and architecturally since it
offers flexibility and adaptability to the change. By using the principles of
SLEs, Piñero proposed numerous structures including travelling pavilions,
retractable domes and structural systems for temporary enclosures. In Figure
3b, his foldable reticular dome composed of seven modules is shown. In his
design, each module has ability to deploy from a compact bundle to an
expanded form. However, they has to be deployed and stiffened on the
ground and then lifted up and locked together to generate the dome shape [9].
When the modules are connected to each other, the system loses its
deployment capability and became a static structure. Thus, the structure is
multifunctional behaving as both a mechanism in the folded configuration and
a structure in the fully deployed configuration.

554
 Figure 3. Movable Theater and Foldable Reticular Dome.
Piñero’s designs led to other researchers to investigate similar structures to
overcome the disadvantages that are inherent in his designs. For instance,
Félix Escrig developed new spherical grid structures composed of two-way
and three-way scissors and proposed several connection details for his
designs (Figure 4a). Moreover, he developed different types of deployable
scissor structures including quadrilateral expandable umbrella, deployable
polyhedral and compactly folded cylindrical, spherical and geodesic
structures. The most notable application of the deployable bar structures
developed by Escrig [5] was a deployable roof structure for a swimming pool
in San Pablo Sports Center in Seville, which consists of two identical
rhomboid grid structures with spherical curvature (Figure 4b). Consisted of
grids of equal quadrilateral SLEs, the structure was covered with a thin fabric
roof that was unfolded together with the structure from a compact
configuration to an expanded form.

Figure 4. Expandable Structure and Deployable Scissor Structure.

Another leading figure in deployable bar structures is Chuck Hoberman. He
has made a considerable advance in the design of structures composed of
SLEs when he discovered angulated element. Expanding Geodesic Dome,
Hoberman Arch, Expanding Sphere and Iris Dome are some of his interesting
designs. Having the same triangulated pattern in Buckminster Fuller’s
geodesic dome, Hoberman’s Expanding Geodesic Dome expands from a
1.5m compact cluster to a 6m dome by pulling it outwards from its base
(Figure 5a). The Iris Dome is a lamella dome with a geometry of interlocking
spirals, which is cable of retracting radially towards perimeter [10] (Figure 5b).
Consisting of six concentric rings of angulated elements, rigid panels are used

555
for cladding of the structure. Attached to the individual angulated elements,
panels slide over one another. They are stacked upon each other in the open
configuration while they form a continuous surface when the dome is closed.
Moreover, Hoberman designed a mechanical curtain for the Salt Lake 2002
Olympic Winter Games (Figure 5c). Called as Hoberman Arch, this structure
is composed of movable SLEs covered with radially arranged rigid panels and
a static arch-shape structure that supports the panels. As the structure moves,
panels slide over each other to form the fully closed or open configuration,
which was a part of the performance including lighting, music and dancers.

Figure 5. Expanding Geodesic Dome, Iris Dome and Hoberman Arch.

Apart from the deployable structures composed of SLEs, numerous structures
composed of bars have been proposed by architects and engineers as a
reflection of the change in architecture referring to the concept of movement.
The most well-known examples belong to Santiago Calatrava known as the
designer of expressive structures that are influenced by the movement in
nature. In his buildings such as the Ernsting Warehouse, the Pfalzkeller
Emergency Service Center and the Alcoy Community Hall, it is possible to see
that the concept of movement was integrated within the structure. In the
Ernsting Warehouse building, Calatrava designed three large service
entrances having the capability of folding [11] (Figure 6a). The doors are
composed of varying profiles made of aluminum slats. Vertical slats are
connected to each other by revolute joints along a curved line and fixed to the
door structure at upper ends. The lower ends of the slats connected to a
horizontal frame that can be raised or lowered. When the doors are opened by
raising the frame, the doors become horizontal canopies over entrance. In this
example, not only a creative solution was achieved by integrating the
movement into the design but also a functional solution was implemented as
creating a protected shaded space underneath the structure. Similar design
approach can be found in the design of the roof structure of the Pfalzkeller
Emergency Service Center that is placed underground (Figure 6b). Calatrava
developed a movable structure to cover the elliptical pitched-glass roof of the
building in order to control the daylight. Constructed with aluminum slats, the
structure is composed of two symmetrical rotating arched-shaped wings. The
slats are fixed to the ground from their lower ends and freed from the structure

556
at their upper ends. Another impressive design of Calatrava is the Alcoy
Community Hall that is built underground to accommodate 600 people for all
kinds of social and cultural and events. Calatrava developed a transformable
structure composed of stainless steel slats to cover the western entrance of
the Hall (Figure 6c). When the structure is raised, it becomes a huge entrance
door for the Hall. It becomes a part of the plaza when closed.

Figure 6. Ernsting Warehouse Doors, Pfalzkeller Emergency Service Center

and Alcoy Community Hall.
In recent years, the concepts of movement, flexibility and adaptability have
become increasingly predominant in architecture. Numerous transformable
structures have been proposed in response to changing spatial, functional and
environmental conditions. The author of the paper has also developed
different structures that have ability to change their geometric shapes
according to changing circumstances. Although most of the existing
deployable scissor structures have only two predefined configurations as
stowed and expanded, the proposed structures have more flexibility on shape
control since they can be transformed into multiple alternative expanded
forms. The first proposal is a hypar-shaped canopy structure that can
transform from a planar configuration into a hypar shape [12] (Figure 7a).
Having a doubly ruled surface, the structure is composed of identical straight
bars and covers an area of 100m2. The second proposal is a multi-hypar
structure that serves as a transformable roof for an exhibition hall [13] (Figure
7b). Covering approximately 250m2, the structure is composed of six hypars
that can be can be operated simultaneously or optionally. Either all the hypars
or the selected ones can deploy from a planar configuration to spatial ones.
The system allows obtaining numerous configurations in response to
changing conditions. The third proposal is a dynamic shelter structure that can
serve for different temporary or permanent activities [14] (Figure 7c). Having a
covered area of 140m2, the proposed structure is composed of eleven S-
shaped modules that are connected to each other by X-shaped elements. The

557
superiority of the dynamic shelter structure over the existing deployable
scissor structures is its transformation capability. It not only transforms from S-
shaped geometry to the reversed S-shaped form, but also provides a planar
configuration. According to the changing circumstances, the structure
responds to the user needs by geometric transformations.

Figure 7. Transformable hypar structure, Transformable Multi-hypar Structure

and Transformable Scissor Structure.
Retractable Roofs
There was an increasing demand to construct sport facilities after World War
II. Buckminster Fuller’ invention of geodesic dome and Frei Otto’s works on
membrane and retractable structures were inspiration to the researchers,
architects and engineers. These works and significant pioneering
transformable structures paved the way for constructing higher scale
structures. The advances in building technology in the last century allowed
building wide-span retractable roof structures. These structures have
capability of changing their shapes from open position to closed one
completely or partially according to functional requirements and environmental
conditions. The transformation may occur within a short amount of time. This
transformation capability allows using the retractable roofs for other types of
applications such as exhibition halls, pavilions, theaters, recreational facilities,
etc.
The concept of movement plays a crucial role in flexible facilities due to the
needs of flexible spaces. Retractable roofs provide adaptability to different
weather conditions since the roof can be opened in good weathers to benefit
from the air and be closed to protect audiences and players against extreme
weather conditions. Thus, it can be said that the concept of movement
integrates with multi-functionality in retractable roofs. Further, the space
transforms from an indoor space to an outdoor one or vice versa. This

558
transformability is achieved by means of the integration of the movement with
the structure.
Starting from 1960s, many retractable roofs have been built around the world.
The first retractable large-span roof is the Pittsburgh Civic Arena opened in
1961 (Figure 8a). Spanning 127m, the retractable roof of the Arena can be
opened in about two minutes by sliding circularly [15]. The roof panels overlap
each other while rotating. Another example is the roof of the Bad Hersfeld
Open Air Theater in Germany that was designed by Frei Otto in 1968 (Figure
8b). Built to protect the audience from weather conditions such as sun and
rain, the roof structure covers an area of approximately 1300 square meters.
The membrane supported by a 32m high post is moved by pulling the cables
with the help of electric motors [15]. Designed by Roger Taillibert in 1976, the
roof of the Montreal Olympic Stadium is another example of retractable
membrane roof (Figure 8c). Covering an ellipse-shaped area of approximately
20.000 square meters, the retractable membrane roof was hung on the
reinforced concrete tower at a height of 175m. The roof of the stadium was
originally covered in 1987 with an orange colored PVC/Kevlar membrane that
can unfold in 30 minutes. It was stowed in a bunched configuration in good
weathers and lowered from the tower in bad weather conditions. However, the
membrane was replaced by a stationary teflon coated fiberglass material in
1998 due to the damage occurred on the roof [16]. One of the major problem
was the design of the cable system, which allows for the extension and
retraction of the membrane roof. Another was enormous weight of snow that
accumulates on the membrane. After several opening and closing operations
of the roof structure, the membrane had serious deformations from hanging
points and connections.

Figure 8. Pittsburgh Civic Arena, Bad Hersfeld Open Air Theater and Montreal
Olympic Stadium.
A similar retractable membrane was applied in 1988 by Jörg Schlaich, R.
Bergermann and Werner Sobek on the roof of the Zaragoza Arena in Spain
which is a multi-functional hall serving for festivals, concerts and other events
(Figure 9a). The Arena is covered with both a fixed and a movable roof
structure. Covering an almost 1.000 m², the movable part can unfold only in 3
minutes in which the movement is controlled by by 16 electric motors [17]. On
the other hand, built in 1993 in Japan, the Ocean Dome is one of the largest
indoor water park in the world. Made of terta fluoroethylene resin coated
fiberglass, the retractable roof consists of four structurally independent panels

559
[8] (Figure 9b). The roof is opened in 10 minutes by translational movement of
the four panels.

Figure 9. Zaragoza Arena, Ocean Dome, Bengt Sjostrom Starlight Theatre

and Qizhong Tennis Stadium.
While most of the retractable roofs designed in late twentieth century were
either membrane roofs or rigid structures having heavy mechanisms, creative
solutions have been developed in the twenty-first century. In 2001, a foldable
retractable roof was designed for the Bengt Sjostrom Starlight Theatre by
Studio Gang (Figure 9c). The design brings flexibility to the tradition of open-
air performances .The roof opens upward like the petals of a flower in a helical
order. The roof petals overlap their neighbors during transformation. The roof
structure is adaptable to different weather conditions. It provides not only a
protected space underneath when closed, but also a strong visual connection
to the sky enhancing the delight of being outdoor when opened. In the
Qizhong Tennis Stadium completed in August 2005, the retractable roof
structure covers the central space, which opens and closes in a spiral manner
with eight sliding petal-shaped sections in 8 minutes to accommodate indoor
and outdoor events (Figure 9d). A fixed spatial steel ring truss having a
diameter of 123m supports the retractable roof. Located in Atlanta, Mercedes-
Benz Stadium is one of the recent examples of the retractable roofs. The roof
of the stadium opens in eight minutes by the movement of eight ETFE-clad
petals.
Responsive facades
The conventional understanding of the building façade defined as a static
vertical architectural element has started to change in the twentieth century
since the façade has more function than just being a separator between inside
and outside. The rapidly changing climate and growing population have
changed the architects’ design approaches. They have investigated new
design solutions in order to to reduce energy consumption of the buildings.
The adaptation to the environment and changing circumstances has become
predominant not only in building design but also in the façade design. In this
manner, a new façade design approach called as responsive façade has
emerged in architecture, which is directly related to concept of movement.
Responsive façades are capable of changing their functions, features or
behaviors over time repeatedly and reversibly. They are mainly used to
establish an optimal relation between the internal building environment and
external conditions. Most of the built examples of responsive facades are
actuated mechanically which are moved by rotating, folding or sliding.

560
However, there is an increasing use of pneumatic actuation and smart
materials in recent proposals. With the combination of smart materials or low-
tech strategies, mechanically actuated systems would become more efficient
in near future. Most prominent examples of responsive facades are the Arab
World Institute designed by Jean Nouvel, the Kiefer Technic Showroom by
Ernst Gieselbrecht and Partner, the Q1 ThyssenKrupp Headquarters by
Sirotnjak, the Al Bahr Towers by AHR, the One Ocean Thematic Pavilion by
SOMA and the Campus Kolding building by Henning Larsen Architects.
Built in 1987, the south facade of the Arab World Institute is covered with
hexagonal pattern inspired from the geometry of Mashrabiya that is a
traditional latticework façade system generally used in Islamic architecture
(Figure 10a). There are 27.000 aluminum diaphragms operating on the
principle of a camera lens on the façade, which are controlled by a central
computer to allow up to 30% natural daylight in and reduce cooling loads of
the building [18]. By this means, the temperature inside of the building
remains at a favorable level. There are 240 actuators on the facade to
facilitate the movement, which allow maximum 18 movements in a day.
Different geometric shapes such as squares, circles and octagon are
produced in a fluid motion. Interior spaces are modified along with the exterior
appearance. Even though the façade of the building fulfills the requirements of
energy efficiency, it has very complicated mechanism and some of the
shutters are no longer functioning [19].

Figure 10. Arab World Institute, OPEN Café-Restaurant and Kiefer Technic
Showroom.
Designed by Pi de Bruijn, OPEN café-restaurant in Amsterdam built on an
existing railroad bridge in 2006 is one of the examples of responsive façades
that has a simple mechanism (Figure 10b). The fully glazed faced of the
restaurant is formed entirely of pivotal windows that can be opened up to the
outside by electronically actuated pivots. As the windows open, it allows for
cross-ventilation of the restaurant. A similar design approach was applied in
the Kiefer Technic Showroom in Steiermark that was built in 2007 by Ernst
Gieselbrecht and Partner (Figure 10c). It is an office and showroom building
having a responsive façade that is composed of 112 white metal panels.

561
These panels unfold and fold into rows. The responsive façade moves
according to the weather conditions, regulates the internal environment of the
building and minimizes the necessity of air conditioning. In addition, the
system allows users to control the amount of light transmitted into the interior
space by changing the panel angles. Because the façade changes its face
continuously each hour, it become a dynamic structure that responses to
change.
The facade of the Q1 ThyssenKrupp Headquarters in Essen designed in 2010
by JSWD Architekten is composed of approximately 400.000 stainless steel
lamellas, which open and close according to the sun direction to maximize the
view and to reduce the glare and heat gain (Figure 11a). The weather station
on the roof sends signals to the central computer to rotate the slats. These
slats move based on the position of the sun to create either a solid enclosure
by closing or a maximum opening to allow solar exposure. They also enable
light redirection without blocking the view and control the thermal comfort
conditions. Completed in 2012, the Al Bahr Towers in Abu Dhabi has a
responsive facade system inspired from Mashrabiya pattern (Figure 11b). The
south, east and west facades of the building are covered with 1049
translucent umbrella-like components organized into hexagonal units, which
expand and contract depend on the movement of the sun during the day.
Umbrella-like components move by a linear actuator located at the center of
each. Coated with translucent PTFE fiberglass, the units are controlled via a
central computer and programmed to reduce solar gain and glare. The
responsive façade deflects some of the glare without permanently blocking
the views. It is estimated that the facade reduces the solar heat gain by up to
50% and the cooling loads by 25%.

Figure 11. Q1 ThyssenKrupp Headquarters and Al Bahr Towers.

Built for Expo 2012 and designed by SOMA, the One Ocean Thematic
Pavilion in Yeosu has a responsive façade that comprises of 108 vertical
kinetic lamellas made of glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP) (Figure 12a).
This material makes the lamellas elastic and able to deform without breaking
[20]. The synchronized actuators attached to the pavilion structure at top and
bottom edges provide the movement of the lamellas. Bending asymmetrically
by means of the strength and flexibility of the material, the lamellas control the
entry of light into the building and the solar gain. As the lamellas move, a

562
wave-like pattern is created along the façade of the building. The operation of
the façade is controlled by four computers. The responsive façade of the
Campus Kolding building in Denmark, which was designed in 2014 by
Henning Larsen Architects, is composed of 1600 triangulated shutters of
perforated steel (Figure 12b). They adjust to the changing climate conditions
and user patterns. The sensors fitted on the façade continuously monitor heat
and light levels and regulate the shutters mechanically. By this means, they
shift from entirely open configuration to half-open or closed configurations.
Even in the fully closed configuration, a controlled measure of of natural light
enters through the pattern of round holes. The responsive façade provides an
optimal daylight and a comfortable indoor space.

Figure 12. One Ocean Thematic Pavilion and Campus Kolding.

Movable Bridges
As in the retractable roofs and the responsive façades, the concept of
movement is also integrated with the structure in bridge design due to the
functional requirements. Moveable bridges are constructed to change the
position and occasionally the shape of the bridge to allow the passage of
boats and vessels in the waterway. Since medieval times, many types of
movable bridges have been developed such as drawbridge, bascule bridge,
swing bridge, vertical-lift bridge, tilt bridge, curling bridge, transporter bridge,
table bridge, etc. Movable bridges having dynamic characteristics are still
desirable and applicable.
The remarkable technological progress in the twenty first century has changed
the bridge design. Innovative design solutions have been proposed by the
architects and engineers in recent years. One of the impressive example of
bridge designs was developed by Thomas Heatherwick in 2004. He has
constructed a pedestrian rolling bridge to cross part of the Grand Union Canal
in London (Figure 13). Consisting of eight sections hinged at the walkway
level, the bridge has 12.9m long span. To provide an access route for both the
pedestrians and the boats in the inlet, the bridge was designed as a movable
structure that can transform from a conventional straight bridge into a circular

563
shape sitting on the bank of the canal. By using a series of hydraulic rams on
either side, the structure is opened or curled up until two ends of its segments
touch and form a circle [21]. The handrails are extended upwards, as the rams
open out of their vertical posts. The pivoted sections are drawn toward each
other that create a slow curling motion. The system also allows stopping the
bridge at any point along its transformation process.

Figure 13. Rolling Bridge, Jet D'eau Movable Footbridge and Fan Bridge.
Designed in 2013 by Etienne Bouleau and Gabriele Guscetti, the Jet D'eau
movable footbridge in Geneva is another interesting example of the movable
bridges, which can transform itself from a curved structure into a flat structure
(Figure 13b). Spanning 12m over a canal, the bridge is composed of 30
couples of SLEs. In the flat configuration, pedestrians and disabled people
using wheelchair can cross the bridge. On the other hand, in the deployed
configuration of the bridge, not only the boats can pass underneath the bridge
but also pedestrians can cross. There is a mechanical deck between the
scissors, which becomes stairs as the bridge transforms from planar
configuration to the curved one [22]. Another unique bridge design was
accomplished by Knight Architects. Completed in 2014, the Fan Bridge is a

564
movable pedestrian bridge spanning the Grand Union Canal in Paddington,
London (Figure 13c). The design of the bridge is very simple which is based
on the movement of the five steel beams rising and falling in sequence. Using
hydraulic jacks, the beams are raised to different angles. The weight of the
beams is balanced by shaped counterweights that not only keep the beams
steady during the movement but also aid to reduce the energy required to
move the structure. When the bridge is fully closed, it offers a three-meter
wide crossing for pedestrians. When the beams are raised, the boats can
pass underneath the bridge.

CONCLUSION
In this paper, the concept of movement in architecture and its relationship of
the structure have been investigated thoroughly. It has been revealed that the
concept of movement in architecture has been used since the ancient times in
response to changing functional, spatial or environmental needs. The
integration of the movement with the structure has been explored by reviewing
the transformable structures that are proposed for both temporary and
permanent usage by the main contributors. It has been demonstrated that
transformable structures have a wide range of applications in architecture
such as retractable roofs, movable bridges, emergency shelters, exhibition
halls, sporting fields, pavilions and theaters since they have the ability to
transform themselves into different geometric configurations according to the
activity and user requirements or environmental conditions. The main
characteristics, transformation capabilities, advantages and deficiencies of the
existing examples of the transformable structures have been discussed, as
well. Considering the increasing demand of the change and the possible
further applications of such structures, it can be concluded that these
structures will be more applicable in near future as they allow developing
flexible design solutions spatially, structurally and functionally.

565
REFERENCES
[1] Zuk, W., Roger H.C., Kinetic Architecture, New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Press, 1970.
[2] Harris, J.B., Li, K.P., Masted Structures in Architecture, Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996.
[3] Tzonis, A., Lefeivre, L., Movement, Structure and the Work of Santiago
Calatrava, Birkhäser: Basel, 1995.
[4] Kronenunberg, R., Architecture in Motion: The History and Development of
Portable Building, London: Routledge, 2014.
[5] Escrig, F., General Survey of Deployability in Architecture, In Proceedings
of MARAS’96:2nd International Conference on Mobile and Rapidly Assembled
Structures, pp. 3-22, 1996.
[6] Simon, S. Archigram: Architecture without architecture, Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press, pp.36-39, 2005.
[7] Piñero, E.P., Project for a Mobile Theatre, Architectural Design 31: 12, p.
570, 1961.
[8] Gantes, C.J., Deployable Structures: Analysis and Design, Boston: WIT
Press, 2001.
[9] Belda, E.A., The Structures of Emilo Pérez Piñero: Evolution and Types, In
Proceeding of the First Conference Transformables 2013, pp. 31-39, 2013.
[10] Hoberman, C., Unfolding Architecture, Architectural Design 63, pp. 56-59,
1993.
[11] Tzonis, A., Santiago Calatrava: The Complete Works, New York: Rizzoli
International Publications, pp 66-68, 2004.
[12] Maden, F., Aktaş, E., Korkmaz, K., A Novel Transformable Structural
Mechanism for Doubly-Ruled Hypar Surfaces, Journal of Mechanical Design
137:3, pp. 1-14, 2015.
[13] Maden, F., Adaptive Multi-Hypar Structure, Architectural Science Review
60: 6, pp. 428-445, 2017.
[14] Maden, F., Ölmez, D., Gür, Ş., Uncu, M.Y., Mitropoulou, C., Dynamic
Shelter Structure, Structures and Architecture: Bridging the Gap and Crossing
Borders. London: CRC Press, pp. 689-696, 2019.
[15] Ishii, K., Structural Design of Retractable Roof Structures, Boston: WIT
Press, 2000.
[16] Holgate, A., The Art of Structural Engineering, Stuttgart: Axel Menges,
1997.
[17] Bergermann R, Schlaich, J. Cable-Membrane Roof for the Arena in
Zaragoza, Structural Engineering International 2:4, pp. 238-241, 1992.
[18] Moloney, J., Between Art and Architecture: The Interactive Skin, In
Information Visualization 2006, pp. 681-686, 2006.
[19] Mazzoleni, I., Architecture Follows Nature-Biomimetic Principles for
Innovative Design, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2013.

566
 [20] Knippers, J.; Scheible, F.; Oppe, M.; Jungjohann, H., Bio-inspired Kinetic
GFRP-façade for the Thematic Pavilion of the EXPO 2012 in Yeosu, In
Proceedings of the IASS-APCS-Symposium, 2012.
[21] Heatherwick, T., Rolling Bridge, Architectural Review, pp. 56-57, 2005.
[22] Bouleau E., Guscetti G., Scissor Mechanisms for Transformable
Structures with Curved Shape, Advances in Architectural Geometry 2016, pp.
222-239, 2016.

567

View publication stats