En bärande idé? : Ett explorativt examensarbete om samspelet mellan konstruktion och arkitektur

The report deals with the problems of cooperation or lack of cooperation between architects and engineers in the construction process. The problems that arise are errors in the design that are discovered late in the process and are therefore often expensive to resolve. Furthermore presents how both the efficiency of structural design and aesthetics and functionality of the architecture will suffer as a consequence of these problems. The work aims to explore how far a collaboration between architect and designer can go without having one of the two discipline suffer.What the advantages and disadvantages of this is also being investigated. The research methods consists of a literature review, interviews with professionals invovled in the construction buisness and a case study. The interviews were held with five architects, three engineers and three project managers. They were documented with a dictaphone and transcribed while analyzed and summarized. The interviews included around 10 questions which were answered during the interview which took about 45 minutes a piece. The case study consists of an office building combined with a warehouse. The project was designed, drawn and load-bearing calculated. The case study aimed to test if architects and structrual engineers could be combined in one person. The conclusions are that architects and designers should work closer together in a closer dialogue around the building. But for them to be combined in one person a fairly major change in both the construction process and a change in the academic training are required. The benefits of this closer collaboration will be most noticable in projects with a clear ambition to visually present their load-bearing elements or projects with a not too complex structure or architecture. The two different types of projects are assumed to provide different types of gains. The project that visually communicate with their structural components ports profits at the architectural level. The architect will be able to support his visuall concept with load-bearing elements. In the less advanced type of project the gain is believed to be of an economical nature as a result of that no communication misses occurs and the number of errors during the design stage can be minimized. No major risks are identified by bringing the two disciplines closer together, the impact is considered to be of a positive nature, focusing on a win at the architectural level. The only risk would be that one less consultant results in one less meeting. Thus a filter in which the various professional roles are faced with a critical examination of both themselves and their counterparties are not achieved.Validerat; 20110222 (anonymous