The History of the Theory of Structures: Searching for Equilibrium

By Karl-Eugen Kurrer and Ekkehard Ramm

Ten years after the publication of the first English edition of The History of the Theory of Structures, Dr. Kurrer now gives us a much enlarged second edition with a new subtitle: Searching for Equilibrium. The author invites the reader to take part in a journey through time to explore the equilibrium of structures. That journey starts with the emergence of the statics and strength of materials of Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo, and reaches its first climax with Coulomb's structural theories for beams, earth pressure and arches in the late 18th century. Over the next 100 years, Navier, Culmann, Maxwell, Rankine, Mohr, Castigliano and Müller-Breslau moulded theory of structures into a fundamental engineering science discipline that - in the form of modern structural mechanics - played a key role in creating the design languages of the steel, reinforced concrete, aircraft, automotive and shipbuilding industries in the 20th century. In his portrayal, the author places the emphasis on the formation and development of modern numerical engineering methods such as FEM and describes their integration into the discipline of computational mechanics.
Brief insights into customary methods of calculation backed up by historical facts help the reader to understand the history of structural mechanics and earth pressure theory from the point of view of modern engineering practice. This approach also makes a vital contribution to the teaching of engineers.
Dr. Kurrer manages to give us a real feel for the different approaches of the players involved through their engineering science profiles and personalities, thus creating awareness for the social context. The 260 brief biographies convey the subjective aspect of theory of structures and structural mechanics from the early years of the modern era to the present day. Civil and structural engineers and architects are well represented, but there are also biographies of mathematicians, physicists, mechanical engineers and aircraft and ship designers. The main works of these protagonists of theory of structures are reviewed and listed at the end of each biography. Besides the acknowledged figures in theory of structures such as Coulomb, Culmann, Maxwell, Mohr, Müller-Breslau, Navier, Rankine, Saint-Venant, Timoshenko and Westergaard, the reader is also introduced to G. Green, A. N. Krylov, G. Li, A. J. S. Pippard, W. Prager, H. A. Schade, A. W. Skempton, C. A. Truesdell, J. A. L. Waddell and H. Wagner. The pioneers of the modern movement in theory of structures, J. H. Argyris, R. W. Clough, T. v. Kármán, M. J. Turner and O. C. Zienkiewicz, are also given extensive biographical treatment. A huge bibliography of about 4,500 works rounds off the book.
New content in the second edition deals with earth pressure theory, ultimate load method, an analysis of historical textbooks, steel bridges, lightweight construction, theory of plates and shells, Green's function, computational statics, FEM, computer-assisted graphical analysis and historical engineering science. The number of pages now exceeds 1,200 - an increase of 50% over the first English edition.
This book is the first all-embracing historical account of theory of structures from the 16th century to the present day.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wiley
• Release date: Jun 19, 2018
• ISBN: 9783433609132

Book preview

978-3-433-60916-3

Foreword of the series editors

Construction history has experienced amazing momentum over the past decades. It has become a highly vibrant, independent discipline attracting much attention through its international networks. Although research projects at national level focus on different themes, they are united through the knowledge that their diversity in terms of content and methods, and hence the associated synthesizing potential, are precisely the strengths that shape this new field of research. Construction history opens up new ways of understanding construction between engineering and architecture, between the history of building and history of art, between the history of technology and history of science. Since the appearance of the first German edition in 2002, The History of the Theory of Structures has become a standard work of reference for this latter field. It continues the series of great works on the history of civil and structural engineering by S. P. Timoshenko and I. Szabó right up to E. Benvenuto and J. Heyman, and enriches them by adding valuable new levels of interpretation and knowledge. We are delighted to be able to publish the second, considerably enlarged, English-language edition as part of the Construction History Series/Edition Bautechnikgeschichte.

Werner Lorenz and Karl-Eugen Kurrer

Series editors

Foreword

Ten years after the first English edition of Dr. Kurrer’s The History of the Theory of Structures, he now presents us with a much enlarged edition, and with a new subtitle: Searching for Equilibrium – an addition that reminds us of that most important of all mechanical principles: no equilibrium, no loadbearing system! But the subtitle also expresses the constant search for a balance between theory of structures as a scientific discipline and its prime task in practical applications – totally in keeping with Leibniz’ Theoria cum Praxi. This interaction has proved beneficial for both sides at all times in history, and runs like a thread through the entire book.

New content in this second edition includes: earth pressure theory, ultimate load method, an analysis of historical textbooks, steel bridges, lightweight construction, plate and shell theory, computational statics, Green’s functions, computer-assisted graphical analysis and historical engineering science. Furthermore, the number of brief biographies has been increased from 175 to 260! Compared with the first English edition, the number of printed pages has increased by 50 % to a little over 1,200.

Right at the start we learn that the first conference on the history of theory of structures took place in Madrid in 2005. This theme, its parts dealt with many times, is simply crying out for a comprehensive treatment. However, this book is not a history book in which the contributions of our predecessors to this theme are listed chronologically and described systematically. No, this is ‘Kurrer’s History of Theory of Structures’ with his interpretations and classifications; luckily – because that makes it an exciting journey through time, with highly subjective impressions, more thematic and only roughly chronological, and with a liking for scientific theory. Indeed, a description of the evolution of an important fundamental engineering science discipline with its many facets in teaching, research and, first and foremost, practice.

And what is theory of structures anyway? … Gerstner’s first book dating from 1789 talks about the statics of architecture and Emil Winkler used the term statics of structures around 1880. Winkler’s term also included earth pressure theory, the evolution of which from 1700 to the present day is now the topic of a new chapter 5 in this second edition.

The history of theory of structures is in the first place the history of mechanics and mathematics, which in earlier centuries were most definitely understood to be applied sciences. Dr. Kurrer calls this period from 1575 to 1825 the preparatory period – times in which structural design was still very much dominated by empirical methods. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the foundations of many structural theories were laid in this period. It is generally accepted that the structural report for the repairs to the dome of St. Peter’s in Rome (1742/1743) by the tre mattematici represents the first structural calculations as we understand them today. In other words, dealing with a constructional task by the application of scientific methods – accompanied, characteristically, by the eternal dispute between theory and practice (see section 13.2.5). These days, the centuries-old process of the theoretical abstraction of natural and technical processes in almost all scientific disciplines is called ‘modelling and simulation’ – as though it had first been introduced with the invention of the computer and the world of IT, whereas, in truth, it has long since been the driving force behind humankind’s ideas and actions. Mapping the loadbearing properties of building structures in a theoretical model is a typical case. Classic examples are the development of masonry and elastic arch theories (see chapter 4) and the continuum mechanics models of earth pressure of Rankine and Boussinesq (see sections 5.4 and 5.5). It has become customary to add the term ‘computational’ to these computer-oriented fields in the individual sciences, in this case ‘computational mechanics’.

The year 1825 has been fittingly chosen as the starting point of the discipline-formation period in theory of structures (see chapter 7). Theory of structures is not just the solving of an equilibrium problem, not just a computational process. Navier, whose importance as a mechanics theorist we still acknowledge today in the names of numerous theories (Navier stress distribution, Navier-Lamé and Navier-Stokes equations, etc.), was very definitely a practitioner. In his position as professor for applied mechanics at the École des Ponts et Chaussées, it was he who combined the subjects of applied mechanics and strength of materials in order to apply them to the practical tasks of building. For example, in his Mechanik der Baukunst of 1826, he describes the work of engineers thus: … after the works have been designed and drawn, [they] investigate them to see if all conditions have been satisfied and improve their design until this is the case. Economy is one of the most important conditions here; stability and durability are no less important … (see section 2.1.2.1). Navier was the first to establish theory of structures as an independent scientific discipline. Important structural theories and methods of calculation would be devised in the following years, linked with names such as Clapeyron, Lamé, Saint-Venant, Rankine, Maxwell, Cremona, Castigliano, Mohr and Winkler, to name but a few. The graphical statics of Culmann and its gradual development into graphical analysis are milestones in the history of theory of structures.

Already at this juncture, it is worth pointing out that the development did not always proceed smoothly – controversies concerning the content of theories, or competition between disciplines, or priority disputes raised their heads along the way. This exciting theme is explored in detail in chapter 13 by way of 13 examples.

In the following decades, the evolution of methods in theory of structures became strongly associated with specific structural systems and hence, quite naturally, with the building materials employed, such as iron (steel) and later reinforced concrete (see chapters 8, 9 and 10). Independent materials-specific systems and methods were devised. Expressed in simple terms, structural steelwork, owing to its modularity and the fabrication methods, initially concentrated on assemblies of linear members, not embracing plate and shell structures until the 1950s. On the other hand, reinforced concrete preferred its own two-dimensional design language, which manifested itself in slabs, plates and shells. Therefore, chapters 8 and 10 in this second English edition have been considerably enlarged by the addition of plate and shell structures. The space frames dealt with in chapter 9 represent a link to some extent. This materials-based split was also reflected in the teaching of theory of structures in the form of separate studies. It was not until many years later that the parts were brought together in a homogeneous theory of structures, albeit frequently ‘neutralised’, i. e. no longer related to the specific properties of the particular building material – an approach that must be criticised in retrospect. Of course, the methods of structural analysis can encompass any material in principle, but in a specific case they must take account of the particular characteristics of the material.

Dr. Kurrer places the transition from the discipline-formation period – with its great successes in the shape of graphical statics and the systematic approach to methods of calculation in member analysis in the form of the force method – to the consolidation period around 1900. This latter period, which lasted until 1950, is characterised by refinements and extensions, e. g. a growing interest in plate and shell structures and the consideration of non-linear effects. Only after this does the ‘modern’ age of theory of structures begin – designated the integration period in this instance and typified by the use of modern computers and powerful numerical methods. Theory of structures is integrated into the structural planning process of draft design – analysis – detailed design – construction in this period. Have we reached the end of the evolutionary road? Does this development mean that theory of structures, as an independent engineering science, is losing its profile and its justification? The tendencies of recent years indicate the opposite.

The story of yesterday and today is also the story of tomorrow. In the world of data processing and information technology, theory of structures has undergone rapid progress in conjunction with numerous paradigm changes. It is no longer the calculation process and method issues, but rather principles, modelling, realism, quality assurance and many other aspects that form the focus of our attention. The remit includes dynamics alongside statics; in terms of the role they play, plate and shell structures are almost equal to trusses, and taking account of true material behaviour is obligatory these days. During its history so far, theory of structures was always the trademark of structural engineering; it was never the discipline of ‘number crunchers’, even if this was and still is occasionally proclaimed as such when launching relevant computer programs. Theory of structures continues to play an important mediating role between mechanics on the one side and the draft and detailed design subjects on the other side in teaching, research and practice. Statics and dynamics have in the meantime advanced to what is known internationally as ‘computational structural mechanics’, a modern application-related structural mechanics.

The author takes stock of this important development in chapters 11 and 12. He mentions the considerable rationalisation and formalisation – the foundations for the subsequent automation. It was no surprise when, as early as the 1930s, the structural engineer Konrad Zuse began to develop the first computer (see section 11.4). However, the rapid development of numerical methods for structural calculations in later years could not be envisaged at that time. J. H. Argyris, one of the founding fathers of the modern finite element method, recognised this at an early stage in his visionary remark the computer shapes the theory (1965): Besides theory and experimentation, there is a new pillar – numerical simulation (see section 12.1).

By their very nature, computers and programs have revolutionised the work of the structural engineer. Have we not finally reached the stage where we are liberated from the craftsman-like, formula-based business so that we can concentrate on the essentials? The role of modern theory of structures is discussed in section 14.1, also in the context of the relationship between the structural engineer and the architect. A new graphical statics has appeared, not in the sense of the automation and visual presentation of Culmann’s graphical statics, but rather in the form of graphic displays and animated simulations of mechanical relationships and processes. This is a decisive step towards the evolution of structures and to loadbearing structure synthesis, to a new way of teaching structural engineering (see section 14.1.4). This potential as a living interpretation and design tool has not yet been fully exploited. It is also worth mentioning that the boundaries to the other construction engineering disciplines (mechanical engineering, automotive engineering, shipbuilding, aerospace, biomechanics) are becoming more and more blurred in the field of computational mechanics; the relevant conferences no longer make any distinctions. The concepts, methods and tools are universal. And we are witnessing similar developments in teaching, too. No wonder Dr. Kurrer also refers to leading figures from these disciplines. That fact becomes particularly clear in chapter 15, which contains 260 brief biographies of persons who have featured prominently in the theory of structures.

In terms of quality and quantity, this second English edition of The History of the Theory of Structures goes way beyond the first edition. This book could only have been written by an expert, an engineer who knows the discipline inside out. Engineering scientists getting to grips with their own history so intensely is a rare thing. But this is one such lucky instance. We should be very grateful to Dr.-Ing. Dr.-Ing. E. h. Karl-Eugen Kurrer, and also ‘his’ publisher, Ernst & Sohn (John Wiley & Sons), for his magnum opus.

Stuttgart, February 2018

Ekkehard Ramm, University of Stuttgart

Preface to the second English edition

Encouraged by the positive feedback from the engineering world regarding the first German edition of my Geschichte der Baustatik (2002) and the first English edition The History of the Theory of Structures (2008), two years ago I set myself the task of revising my manuscripts, adding new material once again and bringing everything up to date. Increasing the number of pages by a little over 50% was unavoidable, because my goal now was to present a total picture of the evolution of the theory of structures.

But that goal did not just consist of including the research findings of the past few years. Instead, I would now be devoting more space to a detailed treatment of the development of modern numerical methods of structural analysis and structural mechanics as well as the connection between the formation of structural analysis theories and constructional-technical progress. It is for this reason that, for example, plate, shell and stability theories have been paid particular attention, as these theories played an important part in the development of the design languages of steel, reinforced concrete, aircraft, vehicles and ships. As a result, the chapters on steel (chapter 8) and reinforced concrete (chapter 10) have been greatly enlarged. Without doubt, the finite element method (FEM), spawned by structural mechanics and numerical mathematics, was the most important intellectual technology of the second half of the 20th century. Therefore, the historico-logical sources of computational statics plus their development and establishment are now presented in detail separately in chapter 12. Also new is the substantial chapter on the 300-year-old history of earth pressure theory (chapter 5). Earth pressure theory was the first genuine engineering science theory that shaped the scientific self-conception of modern civil engineering, a profession that was beginning to emerge in 18th-century France. It is the reference theory for this profession, and not beam theory, as is often assumed. Not until the 20th century did earth pressure theory gradually become divorced from theory of structures. As in earth pressure theory, it is the search for equilibrium that grabs our historico-logical attention in masonry arch theory. Chapter 4, From masonry arch to elastic arch, has therefore been expanded. The same is true for chapter 3, which covers the development of theory of structures and applied mechanics as the first fundamental engineering science disciplines. That chapter not only contains the first analysis of textbooks on these two sciences published in the 19th and 20th centuries, but also attempts to extract the scientific and epistemological characteristics of theory of structures and applied mechanics. That therefore also forms the starting point for chapter 14, Perspectives for a historical theory of structures, the integral constituent of my concept for a historical engineering science, which is explained in detail in this book. Current research into graphical statics is one example mentioned in this chapter, which I summarise under the term computer-aided graphic statics (CAGS). The number of brief biographies of the protagonists of theory of structures and structural mechanics has increased by 85 to 260, and the bibliography also contains many new additions.

Probably the greatest pleasure during the preparation of this book was experiencing the support that my many friends and colleagues afforded me. I would therefore like to thank: Katherine Alben (Niskayuna, N. Y.), William Baker (Chicago), Ivan Baláž (Bratislava), Jennifer Beal (Chichester), Norbert Becker (Stuttgart), Antonio Becchi (Berlin), Alexandra R. Brown (Hoboken), José Calavera (Madrid), Christopher R. Calladine (Cambridge, UK), Kostas Chatzis (Paris), Mike Chrimes (London), Ilhan Citak (Lehigh), Zbigniew Cywiński (Gdańsk), René de Borst (Delft), Giovanni Di Pasquale (Florence), Cengiz Dicleli (Constance), Werner Dirschmid (Ingolstadt), Albert Duda (Berlin), Holger Eggemann (Brühl), Bernard Espion (Brussels), Jorun Fahle (Gothenburg), Amy Flessert (Minneapolis), Hubert Flomenhoft (Palm Beach Gardens), Peter Groth (Pfullingen), Carl-Eric Hagentoft (Gothenburg), Friedel Hartmann (Kassel), Hans-Joachim Haubold (Darmstadt), Eva Haubold-Marguerre (Darmstadt), Torsten Hoffmeister (Berlin), Santiago Huerta (Madrid), Peter Jahn (Kassel), Andreas Kahlow (Potsdam), Christiane Kaiser (Potsdam), Sándor Kaliszky (Budapest), Andreas Kirchner (Würzburg), Klaus Knothe (Berlin), Winfried B. Krätzig (Bochum), Arnold Krawietz (Berlin), Eike Lehmann (Lübeck), Werner Lorenz (Cottbus/Berlin), Andreas Luetjen (Braunschweig), Stephan Luther (Chemnitz), René Maquoi (Liège), William J. Maher (Urbana), Gleb Mikhailov (Moscow), Juliane Mikoletzky (Vienna), Klaus Nippert (Karlsruhe), John Ochsendorf (Cambridge, Mass.), Eberhard Pelke (Mainz), Christian Petersen (Ottobrunn), Ines Prokop (Berlin), Frank Purtak (Dresden), Ekkehard Ramm (Stuttgart), Patricia Radelet-de Grave (Louvain-la-Neuve), Anette Rühlmann (London), Jan Peter Schäfermeyer (Berlin), Lutz Schöne (Rosenheim), Sabine Schroyen (Düsseldorf), Luigi Sorrentino (Rome), Valery T. Troshchenko (Kiev), Stephanie Van de Voorde (Brussels), Volker Wetzk (Cottbus), Jutta Wiese (Dresden), Erwin Wodarczak (Vancouver) and Ine Wouters (Brussels).

I am indebted to the technical and design skills of Sophie Bleifuß (typodesign), Siegmar Hiller (production), Uta-Beate Mutz (typesetting) and Peter Palm (drawings), who together helped to guarantee a high-quality production. And without the great support of my family, this book would have been impossible. My dear wife and editor, Claudia Ozimek, initiated the project at the Ernst & Sohn publishing house, and it was my colleague Ute-Marlen Günther who steered the project safely to a successful conclusion. Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues at Ernst & Sohn who have supported this project and who are involved in the distribution of my book.

I hope that you, dear reader, will be able to absorb the knowledge laid out in this book and not only benefit from it, but also simply enjoy the learning experience.

Berlin, March 2018

Karl-Eugen Kurrer

Preface to the second English edition

Encouraged by the positive feedback from the engineering world regarding the first German edition of my Geschichte der Baustatik (2002) and the first English edition The History of the Theory of Structures (2008), two years ago I set myself the task of revising my manuscripts, adding new material once again and bringing everything up to date. Increasing the number of pages by a little over 50% was unavoidable, because my goal now was to present a total picture of the evolution of the theory of structures.

But that goal did not just consist of including the research findings of the past few years. Instead, I would now be devoting more space to a detailed treatment of the development of modern numerical methods of structural analysis and structural mechanics as well as the connection between the formation of structural analysis theories and constructional-technical progress. It is for this reason that, for example, plate, shell and stability theories have been paid particular attention, as these theories played an important part in the development of the design languages of steel, reinforced concrete, aircraft, vehicles and ships. As a result, the chapters on steel (chapter 8) and reinforced concrete (chapter 10) have been greatly enlarged. Without doubt, the finite element method (FEM), spawned by structural mechanics and numerical mathematics, was the most important intellectual technology of the second half of the 20th century. Therefore, the historico-logical sources of computational statics plus their development and establishment are now presented in detail separately in chapter 12. Also new is the substantial chapter on the 300-year-old history of earth pressure theory (chapter 5). Earth pressure theory was the first genuine engineering science theory that shaped the scientific self-conception of modern civil engineering, a profession that was beginning to emerge in 18th-century France. It is the reference theory for this profession, and not beam theory, as is often assumed. Not until the 20th century did earth pressure theory gradually become divorced from theory of structures. As in earth pressure theory, it is the search for equilibrium that grabs our historico-logical attention in masonry arch theory. Chapter 4, From masonry arch to elastic arch, has therefore been expanded. The same is true for chapter 3, which covers the development of theory of structures and applied mechanics as the first fundamental engineering science disciplines. That chapter not only contains the first analysis of textbooks on these two sciences published in the 19th and 20th centuries, but also attempts to extract the scientific and epistemological characteristics of theory of structures and applied mechanics. That therefore also forms the starting point for chapter 14, Perspectives for a historical theory of structures, the integral constituent of my concept for a historical engineering science, which is explained in detail in this book. Current research into graphical statics is one example mentioned in this chapter, which I summarise under the term computer-aided graphic statics (CAGS). The number of brief biographies of the protagonists of theory of structures and structural mechanics has increased by 85 to 260, and the bibliography also contains many new additions.

Probably the greatest pleasure during the preparation of this book was experiencing the support that my many friends and colleagues afforded me. I would therefore like to thank: Katherine Alben (Niskayuna, N. Y.), William Baker (Chicago), Ivan Baláž (Bratislava), Jennifer Beal (Chichester), Norbert Becker (Stuttgart), Antonio Becchi (Berlin), Alexandra R. Brown (Hoboken), José Calavera (Madrid), Christopher R. Calladine (Cambridge, UK), Kostas Chatzis (Paris), Mike Chrimes (London), Ilhan Citak (Lehigh), Zbigniew Cywiński (Gdańsk), René de Borst (Delft), Giovanni Di Pasquale (Florence), Cengiz Dicleli (Constance), Werner Dirschmid (Ingolstadt), Albert Duda (Berlin), Holger Eggemann (Brühl), Bernard Espion (Brussels), Jorun Fahle (Gothenburg), Amy Flessert (Minneapolis), Hubert Flomenhoft (Palm Beach Gardens), Peter Groth (Pfullingen), Carl-Eric Hagentoft (Gothenburg), Friedel Hartmann (Kassel), Hans-Joachim Haubold (Darmstadt), Eva Haubold-Marguerre (Darmstadt), Torsten Hoffmeister (Berlin), Santiago Huerta (Madrid), Peter Jahn (Kassel), Andreas Kahlow (Potsdam), Christiane Kaiser (Potsdam), Sándor Kaliszky (Budapest), Andreas Kirchner (Würzburg), Klaus Knothe (Berlin), Winfried B. Krätzig (Bochum), Arnold Krawietz (Berlin), Eike Lehmann (Lübeck), Werner Lorenz (Cottbus/Berlin), Andreas Luetjen (Braunschweig), Stephan Luther (Chemnitz), René Maquoi (Liège), William J. Maher (Urbana), Gleb Mikhailov (Moscow), Juliane Mikoletzky (Vienna), Klaus Nippert (Karlsruhe), John Ochsendorf (Cambridge, Mass.), Eberhard Pelke (Mainz), Christian Petersen (Ottobrunn), Ines Prokop (Berlin), Frank Purtak (Dresden), Ekkehard Ramm (Stuttgart), Patricia Radelet-de Grave (Louvain-la-Neuve), Anette Rühlmann (London), Jan Peter Schäfermeyer (Berlin), Lutz Schöne (Rosenheim), Sabine Schroyen (Düsseldorf), Luigi Sorrentino (Rome), Valery T. Troshchenko (Kiev), Stephanie Van de Voorde (Brussels), Volker Wetzk (Cottbus), Jutta Wiese (Dresden), Erwin Wodarczak (Vancouver) and Ine Wouters (Brussels).

I am indebted to the technical and design skills of Sophie Bleifuß (typodesign), Siegmar Hiller (production), Uta-Beate Mutz (typesetting) and Peter Palm (drawings), who together helped to guarantee a high-quality production. And without the great support of my family, this book would have been impossible. My dear wife and editor, Claudia Ozimek, initiated the project at the Ernst & Sohn publishing house, and it was my colleague Ute-Marlen Günther who steered the project safely to a successful conclusion. Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues at Ernst & Sohn who have supported this project and who are involved in the distribution of my book.

I hope that you, dear reader, will be able to absorb the knowledge laid out in this book and not only benefit from it, but also simply enjoy the learning experience.

Berlin, March 2018

Karl-Eugen Kurrer

About this series

The Construction History Series/Edition Bautechnikgeschichte gives the new discipline of construction history a home for the publication of important works reflecting the full diversity of this subject. The scope of the series ranges from overviews to monographs on individual aspects or structures to biographies of prominent engineers. The two main orientations in construction history – either focusing more on the history of design or more on the history of theory – both receive due consideration.

Editors

Karl-Eugen Kurrer (Berlin) and Werner Lorenz (Cottbus)

Scientific Advisory Board

Bill Addis (Cambridge)

Antonio Becchi (Berlin/London)

Robert Carvais (Paris)

Bernard Espion (Brussels)

Stefan M. Holzer (Zurich)

Santiago Huerta (Madrid)

Andreas Kahlow (Berlin)

Roland May (Cottbus)

About the series editors

Karl-Eugen Kurrer was born in 1952 in Heilbronn, Germany. Following his degree in civil engineering at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences, he worked as a structural timber engineer in Heilbronn. He then returned to university to study civil engineering, history of technology and physical engineering sciences at TU Berlin. His dissertation on the development of vault theory from the 18th century to 1980 was completed in 1981, and that was followed by the award of a doctorate by TU Berlin in 1986. Between 1989 and 1995, Dr. Kurrer worked for Telefunken Sendertechnik GmbH in Berlin as a designer of antenna systems.

Since 1996, Dr. Kurrer has chaired the Working Group on the History of Technology at the VDI (Association of German Engineers) in Berlin. Between 1996 and February 2018, he was chief editor of Stahlbau and (from 2008) Steel Construction – Design and Research, journals published by Ernst & Sohn. For more than 35 years, Dr. Kurrer has carried out research on the subject of construction history with special emphasis on theory of structures and structural mechanics. He has published more than 180 papers and several monographs.

Werner Lorenz, born in 1953, graduated from TU Berlin in 1980 with a degree in structural engineering. After his first practical experience in an engineering practice in Berlin (1980 − 1984), he returned to TU Berlin to give his first seminars on construction history (1984 − 1989). He spent a period as visiting professor at the École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées in Paris (1988) and gained his doctorate with a thesis about the early history of building with iron and steel in Berlin and Potsdam (1992). The next year he was appointed to the newly created Chair of Construction History at BTU Cottbus, where he was able to establish a system of consecutive courses in construction history and structural preservation for undergraduates in civil engineering and architecture. In 1996 he founded a consultancy for structural engineering which specialises in the structural rehabilitation of historic buildings and bridges. The main fields of his research concentrate on construction shaped by industry history of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. He has been a member of various advisory boards and international scientific committees and was co-founder and first chairman (2013 − 2017) of the Gesellschaft für Bautechnikgeschichte.

About the author

Karl-Eugen Kurrer was born in Heilbronn, Germany, in 1952. After graduating from Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences with a general civil engineering degree in 1973, he worked as a structural timber engineer for Losberger GmbH in Heilbronn.

He then returned to university to study civil engineering and physical engineering sciences at TU Berlin, the city’s science and technology university. As a tutor in the Theory of Structures Department at TU Berlin between 1977 and 1981, one of Karl-Eugen Kurrer’s most important teaching and learning experiences was grasping the basic principles of structural analysis from the historical point of view. The intention of his handwritten introductory lecture notes on the history of each method of structural analysis was to help students understand that theory of structures, too, is the outcome of a socio-historical everyday process in which they themselves play a part and, in the end, help to shape. Another goal was to create a deeper sense of the motivation for and enjoyment of the learning of structural analysis. It was crucial to overcome the formula-type acquisition of the subject matter by introducing a didactic approach to the fundamentals of theory of structures through their historical appreciation. By 1998 this had evolved into a plea for a historico-genetic approach to the teaching of theory of structures.

His dissertation Entwicklung der Gewölbetheorie vom 19. Jahrhundert bis zum heutigen Stand der Wissenschaft am Beispiel der Berechnung einer Bogenbrücke (the development of vault theory from the 19th century to today using the example of structural calculations for an arch bridge) was completed in 1981. Since 1980, his many articles on the history of science and technology in general and construction history in particular have appeared in journals, newspapers, books and exhibition publications.

Karl-Eugen Kurrer completed his PhD – on the internal kinematic and kinetic of tube vibratory mills (advisers: Eberhard Gock, Wolfgang Simonis, Gerd Brunk) – with the highest level of distinction, summa cum laude, at TU Berlin in 1986 and went on to carry out externally funded research on energy efficiency in industry. He contributed to the development of a new eccentric vibratory mill that uses 50% less energy than comparable models. After 1995 the design successfully established itself on the international machine market (US and EU patents). The head of the Eccentric vibratory mill team at Clausthal University of Technology, Prof. Dr. Eberhard Gock (1937 – 2016), received an innovation award (Technologietransferpreis der Industrie- und Handelskammer Braunschweig) for this work in 1998.

Summaries of the research results from Dr. Kurrer’s work at the interface between mechanical process engineering, machine dynamics and raw materials engineering appeared in issues 124 and 282 of series 3 (process engineering) of the progress reports published by the VDI (Association of German Engineers), and also in numerous presentations and journal publications at home and abroad.

Between 1989 and 1995, Dr. Kurrer was employed at the Department of Antenna Design of Telefunken Sendertechnik GmbH (head of department: Dr.-Ing. Peter Bruger) in Berlin as a developer of structural systems for large long-, medium- and short-wave antenna systems. He worked on the further development of Telefunken’s own program suite for the calculation, dimensioning and design of cable networks for short-wave antennas according to third-order theory. He also contributed to the design of a rotating steel short-wave curtain antenna.

For nearly 40 years, Karl-Eugen Kurrer has carried out research on the subject of construction history with a special emphasis on theory of structures. Since 1992, he has been involved in the conference series entitled Between Mechanics and Architecture, which was established by Patricia Radelet-de Grave and Edoardo Benvenuto.

Since 1996, Dr. Kurrer has been Chair of the VDI’s Working Group on the History of Technology in Berlin. Between 1996 and February 2018, he was chief editor of Stahlbau and (from 2008) Steel Construction – Design and Research, journals published by Ernst & Sohn (now a Wiley brand). In his capacity as Chair of the History of Technology Working Group, Dr. Kurrer organises, together with Prof. Werner Lorenz (Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg), eight lectures on construction history every year for the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin. In this capacity, Dr. Kurrer has also organised more than 330 events at the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin between 1996 and 2017 – some 140 of them on the history of construction.

For his commitment to the field of the history of technology, Dr. Kurrer was awarded the VDI’s Medal of Honour in 2016.

Dr. Kurrer was chairman of the scientific committee of the 3rd International Congress on Construction History (20 – 24 May 2009, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Germany).

He has published more than 180 papers and several monographs, e.g. Geschichte der Baustatik (2002, 540 pp.), The History of the Theory of Structures. From Arch Analysis to Computational Mechanics (2008, 848 pp.) and Geschichte der Baustatik. Auf der Suche nach dem Gleichgewicht (2016, 1184 pp.). The first edition of The History of the Theory of Structures was reviewed in 50 international journals.

In recognition of his outstanding scientific achievements in the field of the history of construction, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg awarded him an honorary doctorate on 18 October 2017.

"To-day is the result of yesterday.

We must find out what the former would ere

we can find what it is the latter will have".

Heinrich Heine, French Affairs (trans. C. G. Leland, 1893, vol. I, p. 158)

Chapter 1

The tasks and aims of a historical study of the theory of structures

FIGURE 1 - 1 Drawing by Edoardo Benvenuto

Until the 1990s, the history of theory of structures (Fig. 1-1) attracted only marginal interest from historians. At conferences dealing with the history of science and technology, but also in relevant journals and other publications, the interested reader could find only isolated papers investigating the origins, the chronology, the cultural involvement and the social significance of theory of structures. This gap in our awareness of the history of theory of structures has a passive character; most observers still assume that the stability of structures is guaranteed a priori, that, so to speak, structural analysis wisdom is intrinsic to the structure, is absorbed by it, indeed disappears, never to be seen again. This is not a suppressive act on the part of the observer, instead is due to the nature of building itself – theory of structures had appeared at the start of the Industrial Revolution, claiming to be a mechanics derived from the nature of building itself [Gerstner, 1789, p. 4].

Only in the event of failure are the formers of public opinion reminded of structural analysis. Therefore, the historical development of theory of structures followed in the historical footsteps of modern building, with the result that the historical contribution of theory of structures to the development of building was given more or less attention in the structural engineering-oriented history of building, and therefore was included in this.

The history of science, too, treats the history of theory of structures as a sideline. Indeed, if theory of structures as a whole is noticed at all, it is only in the sense of one of the many applications of mechanics. Structural engineering, a profession that includes theory of structures as a fundamental engineering science discipline, only rarely finds listeners outside its own discipline.

Today, theory of structures is, on the one hand, more than ever before committed to formal operations with symbols, and remains invisible to many users of structural design programs. On the other hand, some attempts to introduce formal teaching into theory of structures fail because the knowledge about its historical development is not adequate to define the real object of theory of structures. Theory of structures is therefore a necessary but unpopular project.

Notwithstanding, a historical study of theory of structures has been gradually coming together from various directions since the early 1990s. The first highlight was the conference Historical Perspectives on Structural Analysis – the world’s first conference on the history of theory of structures – organised by Santiago Huerta and held in Madrid in December 2005. The conference proceedings (Fig. 1-2) demonstrates that the history of theory of structures already possesses a number of the features important to an engineering science discipline and can be said to be experiencing its constitutional phase. Another significant contribution to the historical study of theory of structures is the series of congresses initiated by Santiago Huerta in Madrid in 2003 and entitled International Congress on Construction History, with events held every three years.

FIGURE 1 - 2 Cover of the proceedings of the first conference on the history of theory of structures (2005)

Articles examining the analysis of masonry loadbearing structures from the perspective of a historical theory of structures also appear in the International Journal of Architectural Heritage, published bimonthly by Taylor & Francis since 2007. There are also essays on the history of theory of structures in Engineering History and Heritage, a journal published quarterly since 2009 by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) as part of its Proceedings. When it comes to articles in German, it has been principally the journals Bautechnik, Beton- und Stahlbetonbau and Stahlbau – all published by Ernst & Sohn – that keep alive the interest in a historical study of construction in general and theory of structures in particular.

Following Geschichte der Baustatik (history of theory of structures, 2002) and the much more comprehensive study The History of the Theory of Structures. From Arch Analysis to Computational Mechanics (2008) by this author, it was the turn of Max Herzog to present his Kurze Geschichte der Baustatik und der Baudynamik in der Praxis (brief history of theory of structures and construction dynamics in practice) [Herzog, 2010].

The above publications dealing with the history of theory of structures form one of the cornerstones of the scientific history of building, which has yet to get off the ground and together with the technical history of construction could form the scientific discipline of the history of building.

1.1 Internal scientific tasks

Like every scientific cognition process, the engineering science cognition process in theory of structures also embraces history in so far as the idealised reproduction of the scientific development included within the status of knowledge of an area of study forms a necessary basis for new scientific ideas; science is genuinely historical. Reflecting on the genesis and development of the object of theory of structures always then becomes an element in the engineering science cognition process when rival, or rather coexistent, theories are subsumed in a more abstract theory – possibly by a basic theory of a fundamental engineering science discipline. Therefore, the question of the inner consistency of the more abstract theory, which is closely linked with this broadening of the area of study, is also a question of the historical evolution. In the middle of the establishment phase of theory of structures (1850 –1875), Saint-Venant’s monumental historical and critical commentary [Saint-Venant, 1864] of the first section of the second edition of Navier’s Résumé des leçons [Navier, 1833] was the first publication to shed light on historical elastic theory as the very essence of historical engineering science [Kurrer, 2012, pp. 51 – 52]. The classification of the essential properties of technical artefacts or artefact classes reflected in theoretical models is inherent in the formation of structural analysis theories. This gives rise to the task of the historically weighted comparison and criticism of the theoretical approaches, theoretical models and theories, especially in those structural analysis theory formation processes that grew very sluggishly, e. g. masonry arch theory. Examples of this are Emil Winkler’s historico-logical analysis of masonry arch theories [Winkler, 1879/1880] and Fritz Kötter’s evolution of earth pressure theories [Kötter, 1893] in the classical phase of theory of structures (1875 –1900).

In their history of strength of materials, Todhunter and Pearson had good reasons for focusing on elastic theory [Todhunter & Pearson, 1886 & 1893], which immediately became the foundation for materials theory in applied mechanics as well as theory of structures in its discipline-formation period (1825 –1900) and was able to sustain its position as a fundamental theory in these two primary engineering science disciplines during the consolidation period (1900 –1950). The mathematical elastic theory first appeared in 1820 in the shape of Navier’s Mémoire sur la flexion des plans élastiques (Fig. 1-3). It inspired Cauchy and others to contribute significantly to the establishment of the scientific structure of elastic theory and induced a paradigm change in the constitution phase of theory of structures (1825 –1850), which was essentially complete by the middle of the establishment phase of theory of structures (1850 –1875). One important outcome of the discipline-formation period of theory of structures (1825 –1900) was the constitution of the discipline’s own conception of its epistemology – and elastic theory was a substantial part of this. Theory of structures thus created for itself the prerequisite to help define consciously the development of construction on the disciplinary scale. And looked at from the construction side, Gustav Lang approached the subject in his evolutionary portrayal of the interaction between loadbearing assemblies and theory of structures in the 19th century [Lang, 1890] – the first monograph on the history of theory of structures.

FIGURE 1 - 3 Lithographic title page of Navier’s Mémoire sur la flexion des plans élastiques [Roberts & Trent, 1991, p. 234]

Up until the consolidation period of theory of structures (1900 –1950), the structural analysis theory formation processes anchored in the emerging specialist literature on construction theory contained a historical element that was more than mere references to works already in print. It appears, after all, to be a criterion of the discipline-formation period of theory of structures that grasping the relationship between the logical and the historical was a necessary element in the emerging engineering science cognition process. If we understand the logical to be the theoretical knowledge reflecting the laws of the object concerned in abstract and systematic form, and the historical to be the knowledge and reproduction of the genesis and evolution of the object, then it can be shown that the knowledge of an object’s chronology has to be a secondary component in the theoretical knowledge of the object. This is especially true when seen in terms of the leaps in development during the discipline-formation period of theory of structures. Whereas Pierre Duhem pursues the thinking of natural philosophy from the theory of structures of the Middle Ages to the end of the 17th century in his two-volume work Les origines de la Statique [Duhem, 1905/06], the comprehensive contributions of Mehrtens [Mehrtens, 1900 & 1905], Hertwig [Hertwig, 1906 & 1941], Westergaard [Westergaard, 1930], Ramme [Ramme, 1939] and Hamilton [Hamilton, 1952] to the origins of the discipline of theory of structures provide reasons for the historical study of theory of structures in a narrower sense. Timoshenko’s famous book on the history of strength of materials (Fig. 1-4) contains sections on the history of structural theory [Timoshenko, 1953].

FIGURE 1 - 4 Cover of Timoshenko’s History of Strength of Materials [Timoshenko, 1953]

In the former USSR, Rabinovich [1949, 1960 & 1969] and Bernstein [1957 & 1961] contributed to the historical study of strength of materials and theory of structures in particular and structural mechanics in general. But of all those monographs, only one has appeared in English [Rabinovich, 1960], made available by George Herrmann in the wake of the Sputnik shock. In that book, Rabinovich describes the future task of a type of universal history of structural mechanics as follows: [Up] to the present time [early 1957 – the author], no history of structural mechanics exists. Isolated excerpts and sketches, which are the elements, do not fill the place of one. There is [a] need for a history covering all divisions of the science with reasonable thoroughness and containing an analysis of ideas and methods, their mutual influences, economics, and the characteristics of different countries, their connection with the development of other sciences and, finally, their influence upon design and construction [Rabinovich, 1960, p. 79]. Unfortunately, apart from this one exception, the Soviet contributions to the history of structural mechanics were not taken up in non-Communist countries – a fate also suffered by Rabinovich’s monograph on the history of structural mechanics in the USSR from 1917 to 1967 (Fig. 1-5).

FIGURE 1 - 5 Dust cover of the monograph Structural Mechanics in the USSR 1917–67 [Rabinovich, 1969]

In his dissertation The art of building and the science of mechanics, Harold I. Dorn deals with the relationship between theory and practice in Great Britain during the preparatory period of theory of structures (1575 –1825) [Dorn, 1971]. T. M. Charlton concentrates on the discipline-formation period of theory of structures in his book [Charlton, 1982]. He concludes the internal scientific view of the development of theory of structures in so far as the historical study of theory of structures was now entering its initial phase. And as early as 1972, Jacques Heyman’s monograph Coulomb’s memoir on statics: An essay in the history of civil engineering [Heyman, 1972/1] was not only lending a new emphasis to the treatment and interpretation of historical sources, but was also showing how practical engineering can profit from historical knowledge. He demonstrated this, in particular, through the structural analysis of masonry arches [Heyman, 1982 & 1995/1], which he expanded to create a historical arch theory [Kurrer, 2012, pp. 52 – 56]. This was followed nine years later by Edoardo Benvenuto’s universal work La scienza delle costruzioni e il suo sviluppo storico [Benvenuto, 1981], the English edition of which – in a much abridged form – did not appear until 10 years later [Benvenuto, 1991]. Heyman’s later monographs in particular, e. g. Structural Analysis. A Historical Approach [Heyman, 1998/1], demonstrate that the historical study of theory of structures is able to advance the scientific development of structural analysis in the sense of a historical structural analysis within the scope of a historical engineering science [Kurrer, 2012]. Many of Heyman’s books have been published in Spanish in the Textos sobre teoría e historia de las construcciones series founded and edited by Santiago Huerta (see, for example, Fig. 1-6).

FIGURE 1 - 6 Dust cover of the Spanish edition of Heyman’s Structural Analysis. A Historical Approach [Heyman, 2004]

In 1993 Benvenuto initiated a series of international conferences under the title of Between Mechanics and Architecture together with the Belgian science historian Patricia Radelet-de Grave. The conferences gradually became the programme for a school and after Benvenuto’s early death were continued by the Edoardo Benvenuto Association headed by its honorary president Jacques Heyman. Only six results of this programme will be mentioned here:

– The first volume in this series edited by Benvenuto and Radelet-de Grave and entitled Entre Méchanique et Architecture. Between Mechanics and Architecture [Benvenuto & Radelet-de Grave, 1995].

– Towards a History of Construction edited by Becchi, Corradi, Foce and Pedemonte [Becchi et al., 2002].

– Degli archi e delle volte [Becchi & Foce, 2002], a bibliography of the structural and geometrical analysis of masonry arches past and present with an expert commentary by Becchi and Foce.

– The volume of essays on the history of mechanics edited by Becchi, Corradi, Foce and Pedemonte (Fig. 1-7) [Becchi et al., 2003].

– The collection of articles on the status of the history of construction, Construction History. Research Perspectives in Europe, edited by Becchi, Corradi, Foce and Pedemonte [Becchi et al., 2004/2].

– The reprint of Edoardo Benvenuto’s principal work La scienza delle costruzioni e il suo sviluppo storico, made available by Becchi, Corradi and Foce [Benvenuto, 2006].

– The collection of articles Mechanics and Architecture between Epistéme and Téchne edited by Anna Sinopoli [Sinopoli, 2010].

FIGURE 1 - 7 Cover of Essays on the History of Mechanics [Becchi et al., 2003]

Erhard Scholz investigated the development of graphical statics in his habilitation thesis [Scholz, 1989] from the viewpoint of the mathematics historian. Dieter Herbert’s dissertation analyses the origins of tensor calculus from the beginnings of elastic theory with Cauchy (1823 and 1827) to its use in shell theory by Green and Zerna [Herbert, 1991] at the end of the consolidation period of theory of structures (1900 –1950). The twovolume work by Gérard A. Maugin [Maugin, 2013 & 2014] provides deep insights into the history of continuum mechanics.

In the past three decades we have seen specialists gradually working through more and more of the backlog in the history of modern structural mechanics. The development of modern numerical engineering methods was the subject of a conference held in Princeton by the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) in May 1987 [Crane, 1987]. Ekkehard Ramm provides a fine insight into the second half of the consolidation period (1900 –1950) and the subsequent integration period of theory of structures (1950 to date) [Ramm, 2000]. As a professor at the Institute of Theory of Structures at the University of Stuttgart, Ramm has supervised dissertations by Bertram Maurer, Karl Culmann und die graphische Statik (Karl Culmann and graphical statics) [Maurer, 1998], and Martin Trautz, Entwicklung von Form und Struktur historischer Gewölbe aus der Sicht der Statik (development of form and structure in historical arches from the structural viewpoint) [Trautz, 1998]. Following many years of research into the relationship between the development of loadbearing systems in iron/steel construction and structural calculations, Ines Prokop was able to complete her dissertation Eiserne Tragwerke in Berlin. 1850 –1925 (iron/steel structures in Berlin, 1820 –1925) at Berlin’s University of the Arts in 2011 and publish her work as a book (Fig. 1-8).

FIGURE 1 - 8 Cover of Vom Eisenbau zum Stahlbau [Prokop, 2012]

The biographical tradition popular in the Soviet historical study of mechanics is evident, in particular, in Malinin’s book Kto jest’ kto v soprotivlenii materialov (who’s who in strength of materials) [Malinin, 2000]. In this respect, Grigolyuk’s work S. P. Timoshenko: Zhizn’ i sud’ba (Timoshenko: life and destiny) [Grigolyuk, 2002] is also worth mentioning.

Publications by Samuelsson and Zienkiewicz [Samuelsson & Zienkiewicz, 2006] plus Kurrer [Kurrer, 2003] have appeared on the history of the displacement method. Carlos A. Felippa deals with the development of matrix methods in structural mechanics [Felippa, 2001] and the theory of the shear-flexible beam [Felippa, 2005]. On the other hand, the pioneers of the finite element method (FEM) Zienkiewicz [Zienkiewicz, 1995 & 2004] and Clough [Clough, 2004] concentrate on describing the history of FEM. It seems that a comprehensive presentation of the evolution of modern structural mechanics is necessary. Only then could the historical study of theory of structures make a contribution to a historical engineering science in general and a historical theory of structures in particular, both of which are still awaiting development.

1.2 Practical engineering tasks

Every structure moves in space and time. The question regarding the causes of this movement is the question regarding the history of the structure, its genesis, utilisation and nature. Whereas the first dimension of the historicity of structures consists of the planning and building process, the second dimension extends over the life of the structure and its interaction with the environment. The historicity of the knowledge about structures and their theories, and in turn their influence on the history of the structure, form the third dimension of the historicity of structures. In truth, the history of the genesis, utilisation and nature of the structure form a whole. Nevertheless, the historicity of structures is still always broken down into its three dimensions. Whereas historicity in the first dimension is typically reduced to the timetable parameters of the participants in the case of new structures, understanding the second dimension is an object of history of building, preservation of heritage assets and construction research plus the evolving history of construction and design. One vital task of a historical study of theory of structures would be to help develop the third dimension, e. g. through preparing, adapting and re-interpreting historical masonry arch theories. Stefan M. Holzer’s two-volume work [Holzer, 2013 & 2015] demonstrates in exemplary fashion how a historical study of theory of structures can be productively exploited for the structural assessment of historic loadbearing structures (Fig. 1-9).

FIGURE 1 - 9 Cover of Statische Beurteilung historischer Tragwerke – Mauerwerks-konstruktionen (structural assessment of historic loadbearing structures – masonry structures) [Holzer, 2013]

Nevertheless, the task of a historical study of theory of structures for everyday engineering is not limited to the province of the expanding volume of work among the historic building stock. Knowledge gleaned from a historical study of theory of structures could become a functional element in the modern construction process because unifying the three dimensions of the historicity of structures is elementary to this; for engineering science theory formation and experiments, the conception, calculation and design as well as the fabrication, erection and usage can no longer be separated from the conversion, preservation and upkeep of the building stock. The task of the historical study of theory of structures lies not only in feeding the planning process with ideas from its historical knowledge database, but also in incorporating its experience of work on historic structures into the modern construction process. In this sense, a historical study of theory of structures could be further developed into a productive energy for engineering.

FIGURE 1 - 10 Cover of Building: 3000 Years of Design Engineering and Construction [Addis, 2007]

When engineers conceive a building, they have to be sure – even before the design process begins – that it will function exactly as envisaged and planned. That applies today and it also applied just the same to engineers in Roman times, in the Middle Ages, in the Renaissance and in the 19th century. All that has changed are the methods with which engineers achieve this peace of mind. Bill Addis has written a history of design engineering and construction which focuses on the development of design methods for buildings (Fig. 1-10).

Bill Addis looks at the development of graphical and numerical methods plus the use of models for analysing physical phenomena, but also shows which methods engineers employ to convey their designs. To illustrate this, he uses examples from structural engineering, building services, acoustics and lighting engineering drawn from 3,000 years of construction history. Consequently, the knowledge gleaned from a historical study of theory of structures serves as one of the cornerstones in his evolution of the design methods used by structural engineers.

FIGURE 1 - 11 Cover to the collection of essays on columns Nouvelle Histoire de la Construction. La Colonne [Gargiani, 2007]

Roberto Gargiani pursues an artefact-based approach in his collection of essays on columns (Fig. 1-11), which are presented from the history of building, history of art, history of construction, history of science and history of theory of structures perspectives. In a second volume, numerous authors analyse historic beam and suspended floor systems in detail from the history of design and history of science viewpoints [Gargiani, 2012]. The discipline-oriented straightforwardness of a historical study of theory of structures is especially evident in both volumes.

1.3 Didactic tasks

The work of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), founded in 1893, brought professionalism to issues of engineers’ education in the USA and led to the formation of engineering pedagogy as a subdiscipline of the pedagogic sciences. In the quarterly Journal of Engineering Education, the publication of the ASEE, scientists and practitioners have always reported on progress and discussions in the field of engineering teaching. For example, the journal reprinted the famous Grinter Report [Grinter, 1955], [Harris et al., 1994, pp. 74 – 94], which can be described as a classic of engineering pedagogy and which calls for the next generation of engineers to devote 20% of their study time to social sciences and the humanities, e. g. history [Harris et al., 1994, p. 82]. Prior to L. E. Grinter, another prominent civil engineering professor who contributed to the debate about the education of engineers was G. F. Swain. In his book The Young Man and Civil Engineering (Fig. 1-12), Swain links the training of engineers with the history of civil engineering in the USA [Swain, 1922].

FIGURE 1 - 12 Cover of Swain’s The Young Man and Civil Engineering [Swain, 1922]

Nevertheless, students of the engineering sciences still experience the division of their courses of study into foundation studies, basic specialist studies and further studies as a separation between the basic subjects and the specific engineering science disciplines; and the latter are often presented only in the form of the applications of subjects such as mathematics and mechanics. Even the applied mechanics obligatory at the fundamental stage in many engineering science disciplines is understood by many students as general collections of unshakeable principles – illustrated by working through idealised technical artefacts. Closely related to this is the partition of the engineering sciences in in-depth studies; they are not studied as a scientific system comprised of specific internal relationships, for example, but rather as an amorphous assemblage of unconnected explicit disciplines whose object is only a narrow range of technical artefacts. The integrative character of the engineering sciences thus appears in the form of the additive assembly of the most diverse individual scientific facts, with the result that the fundamental engineering science disciplines are learned by the students essentially in the nature of formulas. The task of a historical study of theory of structures is to help eliminate the students’ formula-like acquisition of structural theory. In doing so, separating the teaching of theory of structures into structural analysis for civil and structural engineers and structural engineering studies for architects presents a challenge. Stefan Polónyi carried out groundbreaking work to overcome this separation. In an essay on the structural engineer and the science of structural engineering [Polónyi, 1982], he criticised the deductive self-conception of structural analysis and developed the framework for an inductive method for structural engineering studies [Kurrer, 2014/1] using the historico-logical approach. Encouraged by Polónyi’s work, Rolf Gerhardt developed proposals for a didactic approach to structural engineering studies based on history and tests on models [Gerhardt, 1989]. Introducing the historical context into the teaching material of project studies in theory of structures in the form of a historico-genetic teaching of structural theory could help the methods of structural engineering to be understood, experienced and illustrated as a historico-logical development product, and hence made more popular. An initial concept for this was presented by the author [Kurrer, 1998/3 & 1999/2], which was later worked out in more detail in the first edition of this book (pp. 455 – 459) and then integrated into the newly created framework of the historical engineering sciences [Kurrer, 2012, pp. 57 – 59]. Werner Lorenz, Chair of Construction History and Loadbearing Structure Maintenance at Brandenburg University of Technology, inaugurated a course on history of theory of structures in the winter semester 2013/14. This series of seminars was aimed at bachelor students of structural engineering in their fifth semester. Werner Lorenz had three objectives in mind:

– a sound understanding of structural methods gained through the analysis of their successive historical evolution,

– a historico-genealogical approach to supplement the systematic/deductive approach in the teaching of basic structural theory,

– fundamental knowledge of the historical development of theory of structures and strength of materials.

This innovation in the teaching of structural theory in a structural engineering course of study enabled Werner Lorenz to take a decisive step towards a formalised historical approach to teaching this subject. The historical study of theory of structures could thus become a significant knowledge database for an evolving historico-genetic method of teaching for all those involved in the building industry. Proposals for this within the scope of a historical theory of structures are developed in section 14.2.3.

1.4 Cultural tasks

There is an elementary form of the scientist’s social responsibility: the democratising of scientific knowledge through popularising; that is the scientist’s account of his or her work – and without it society as a whole would be impossible. Popular science presentations are not just there to provide readers outside the disciplinary boundaries with the ensuing scientific knowledge reflected in the social context of scientific work, but rather to stimulate the social discussion about the means and aims of the sciences. Consequently, the