Analysis of the First Metallic Works That Represented a Geometric Innovation in Their Architectural Application: The Origin of the Architecture-Engineering Dichotomy

Abstract

This research analyses the geometric modifications and improvements that the application of the technique of metallurgy meant for architecture. In the early days of engineering and without having the historical burden that architecture bore, the small variations in the classical definition of geometry meant the greatest advances at a structural and conceptual level in the world of metal structures. The use of metal as a structural element capable of containing new uses and responding to the great challenges that progress required was definitive for the development of the new architecture and paradigms of the new century. The new metallic materials and their mathematical and constructive models were the cause and effect of what would be the basis of the great change in modern architecture and engineering and would lay the foundations of today’s world. The interaction of these two new disciplines, architecture and engineering, and their relationship with metal is the basis of this research, which aims to find out where, when, and how these geometric changes took place that started to change the conception of metal structures.

1. Introduction

This study analyses the geometric changes that were a structural milestone for architecture in the direct application of new engineering techniques and technologies. During the nineteenth century, engineering as a distinct discipline and the appearance of new materials led architecture to shed the burden of traditional orders, generating the need for a new description of the architectural models and modules that until then had served as fixed axes in architectural planning.

This research has three objectives (Figure 1). Firstly, it aims to shed light on the France-Britain dichotomy at the beginning of the architectural application of the techniques proposed “a priori” exclusively in engineering. This early application of new techniques in the field of architecture represents a conceptual breakthrough and a maturity of thought that redraws the history of modern architecture and beyond to the present day.

Then, following the results and conclusions derived from the achievement of the first objective and with the intention of proposing a second phase, it aims to study the emergence of engineering as an independent discipline both practically and theoretically in France in a precursory manner. This delimitation leaves a margin for redefining the principles of the architectural model. This debate is situated in France and hence the analysis of the research is developed on its theories and projects.

Finally, in order to consolidate the results, exhaustive research has been carried out among the original publications of the time on the new theories of calculus applied to both engineering and architecture. These periodicals were responsible for publishing the debates that were taking place at that time in a direct way. This last analysis illustrates the origins of the technical application to architecture that will describe the new route of architecture in the coming years.

This study aims to lead the debate on the emergence of engineering as a precursor of the new architecture. As befits a theoretical study of this kind, the research offers many possibilities for expansion as other types of publications are studied, for example, or as other countries which, after France and Britain, found in the application of new technologies to architecture a way of writing the new constructive and architectural models.

2. Methods

This research was carried out with comprehensive analysis and desk research (Figure 2). The archival work and the consultation of sources formed the basis of the research. It also consolidates and draws conclusions based on the descriptions and periodical publications of the time. Each engineer and architect of the time who contributed to the technological advances of the historical period under study is clearly identified with a biographical summary in Appendix A.

The publications of books, manuals and handbooks that were published in those years have been left out because they did not have the immediacy we needed. The magazines include advertisements, letters to the editors, corrections to the regulations, etc., which perfectly describe the moment of restlessness and revolution that architecture was experiencing.

It is impossible to make an exhaustive analysis of the total number of issues and publications [1]; the French magazine “Revue Générale” was chosen for the study because it had the greatest repercussion and distribution, and it was also chosen because it was the one that understood the importance of the discussion about the new constructive and architectural models with Britain. In fact, the manuscript analyses several British examples that the journal publishes for study and discussion both in France and abroad.

3. Development of the Research and Achievement of Objectives

3.1. Description of the First Expressions of the Influences of the Technique in Architecture

France was the pioneer country in introducing trends in iron construction, vying with Britain for leadership.

We know of examples of the first iron roof reinforcements in France [2,3], before the cast-iron bridges in Britain; among these examples are the vaulted iron and glass structures of the Galerie D’Orléans (1840) (Figure 3) and the pavilion of the Jardin des Plantes (1834–1836) (Figure 4), Fontaine [A1] [4,5] and Rohault [A2] [6] created a fundamentally new system for 19th century architecture, long before these advances were translated into English architecture.

Despite this, it was in Britain where the iron industry evolved the most, giving rise to an industrial revolution. As early as 1720, Abraham Darby [A3] [7] had succeeded in obtaining iron by smelting with coke, thus obtaining the first large masses of cast iron. After several leading improvements in the smelting and manufacturing process, rolled iron plates were achieved in the mid-18th century. This would evolve over the next fifty years into railway rails in 1830, which would be the forerunners of the T-beams in Britain and later the double T-beams in France, which would change the structural concept of architecture and engineering during the 19th century [8].

Despite this technical boom in Britain, France, due to the trends of constructive thinking and rationalist spirit that was taking place at that time in the country [9,10], clearly knew from the beginning that Abraham Darby’s discovery would be a real breakthrough; in fact, it understood that the possibility of having a new resistant material and in large masses gave the opportunity to change the scale and so it tried in 1755, with a failed attempt to build a cast iron bridge over the Rhine, twenty years before Britain succeeded in doing so over the Severn. Conceptually, therefore, we can determine that France was a pioneer in the conception of architecture and iron structures [11].

As soon as iron became available in large quantities, it was thought that this material was fire-resistant and would prevent the collapse of structures in a matter of minutes, as was the case with wooden structures. An example of the first breakthrough in this respect was the roof of the French Theatre in Paris (Figure 5), which was designed with great daring in 1786 by the French architect Victor Louis (1731–1800) [A4] [12,13]. The structure of this roof was a structural feat for the time, as it was supported by extremely light walls. The shape of its framework already pointed to an instinctive knowledge of moments of inertia and the workings of forces, which was probably the beginning of skeletal architecture [14].

3.2. Study of the Origins of the Relationship between Architecture and Engineering in France

In the 19th century, the theory of applying the technological advances obtained so far to architecture began to emerge in France. The first scientific journals appeared, which revolutionised the dissemination of different theories and greatly facilitated their diffusion and application, spreading to different countries, such as Britain.

In 1840, publication of the magazine Revue Générale de l’architecture began (Figure 6) [15]. This was the first to announce the new theories based on calculations. In its first year of publication, its editor, César Daly [A5], explained and defended the theory of suspension bridges. To do this, on the one hand he divided the text into sections that were in turn divided into chapters; on the other hand, the theoretical part was reinforced by the study and technical analysis of executed works. In the first edition, the bridge that supported the theory was the bridge over the James River, in Richmond, Virginia, USA (Figure 7) [16]. With this example, Daly wanted to make two points: one, that his magazine was international and that it aimed to encompass universal knowledge; and two, many of the articles in the magazine were dedicated to the history of architecture and to the exhaustive style of styles, which made this publication a great source of historical knowledge and a source of transferred inspiration of its time.

In relations between engineer and architect [17], France has always been a pioneering country, and not in vain, for one of the first buildings in which an architect and an engineer worked together, but with different skills and different responsibilities, was in the dome of the La Halle aux Blés in Paris in 1811 (Figure 8), where the old structure of timber from the market that covered the circular courtyard was destroyed by fire in 1802. In 1811, the architect Bélanger [A6] [18,19], together with the engineer Brunet, built an adaptation of the old methods to the new material, replacing the wooden beams with a structure made of iron and copper ribs [20].

The first building conceived as a skeleton and executed entirely with a metal structure was also built near Paris, the Menier chocolate factory (Figure 9), in Noisiel-sur-Marne, by Jules Saulnier [A7] [21,22] between 1871 and 1872. It was the first building whose exterior brick walls had a merely enveloping function and where all the load lines were situated within a metallic structure, minimizing the structure and functioning as a single whole. The structure included, for the first time, foundations, brace beams, pillars and beams, all metallic and all with a specific, known and calculated function [23].

It had also been in Paris where for the first time, in 1747, a school of civil engineers (École des Ponts et Chaussées) [A8] was established, and in Méziers, a school of military engineers in 1748 [A9], almost 100 years before Viollet Le Duc’s [A10] project in Vézelay [24,25,26]. We can therefore assume that there was already in France a clear awareness of disciplines, if not separate, then at least complementary and distinct. Before 1750, prior to the creation of these official engineering schools, bridges were considered a derivation of the problem of the vault, so architects were in charge of their design and construction, until Rodolphe Perronet (1708–1794) [A11] [27,28], organiser of the school of civil engineering and director of the École des Ponts et Chausseés, understood that the rules and tables applied to the calculation of dimensions needed a scientific method and calculations based on the mechanics and resistance of materials. With this theory of calculation, he built the first bridge based entirely on scientific principles, the Neuilly Bridge over the Seine between 1768 and 1772 (Figure 10) and was thus able to reduce its piers to a tenth of their length, leaving an open path to be followed in the following century on the use of mathematics and stress analysis in the practical application of bridges. It is difficult to understand how bridge design became the almost exclusive competence of engineers and engineering; on the one hand, Perronet, despite being an architect, disseminated his knowledge and theories in engineering schools, thus creating a breeding ground very different from the one that was being established in architecture schools, which were more closely linked to history and fine arts. On the other hand, the engineers together with the mathematicians knew how to obtain a direct application for these new techniques very soon [29]. For example, Perronet was a civil engineer, and together with three mathematicians [A12], was the first to scientifically study the structure of the dome of Saint Peter’s in Rome as a result of structural doubts about its stability.

It is logical to think that when Viollet Le Duc undertook the work of the Vézelay abbey in 1836 [30], he was perfectly aware of the advances in which his own country was the protagonist (Figure 11).

3.3. Analysis According to Periodical Publications in France and Britain

In 1840, in the first issue of the Revue Générale, the theory of suspension bridges was published in France. Before this, the Menai Bridge had been built in Wales in 1826 by Telford [A13] [31,32,33], with the suspension structural solution (Figure 12). This fact might suggest that Britain was more advanced in this type of construction than France, however, analysing it in context, we discover that the engineering basis of this type of bridge was not yet under control. The Menai bridge collapsed twice in the first twenty years. Telford’s Menai Bridge lies 1 mile east of where the Britannia Bridge was later built. This bridge was the first fixed road link between Anglesey and the surrounding environment. The popularization of the train as a means of transportation created the need to build a second bridge and it was Stephenson, the engineer commissioned to build the Britannia Bridge close by, and who [A14] [33,34] in 1846 rejected the proposal to use the same model as the Menai. Instead, (Figure 13), he raised the structure as a large tubular box girder used for the interior, moving away from the suspension theory that had caused problems with the Menai Bridge. (Figure 14) [35] and (Figure 15) [36].

English architects and engineers continued to dabble in practice before theory and calculation could provide them with a solid scientific foundation [29]. Roebling is, without a doubt, a pioneer in the design of suspension bridges. It was in 1840 that Roebling [A15] [37,38] wrote to suspension bridge designer Charles Ellet Jr. [A16] [39], offering help with a bridge near Philadelphia, saying:

“My favorite occupation in recent years in my residence in Europe has been the study of suspension bridges… Let just one such bridge stand in Philadelphia exhibiting the beautiful forms that come from the maximum utilization of the structural system, and it will not need a prophecy to predict the effect this bridge will have on the intelligent minds of Americans.”

With this we see to what extent he believed in the benefits of this type of structure, but it was not until 1844, in Pennsylvania, that Roebling made one of the first designs for a long-lasting suspended structure. We are talking about four years after the theory of suspension bridges was published in France and the project was not even a bridge, but a wooden aqueduct with seven eyes of almost fifty meters of light each, supported by a continuous cable of about eighteen centimeters in diameter.

A year later, in the opening of this aqueduct, Roebling built the Monongahela Bridge in Pittsburgh, where, for the first time, the principle of the pendulum was applied to compensate for adjoining spans under the action of unequal loads and was the beginning of a series of four hanging aqueducts (Figure 16 and Figure 17) [40].

Also in 1840, César Daly proposed for the first time a scientific basis for the typology of bridges with a box girder structure (Figure 18) [41]—we have already referred to the Britannia Bridge, in which the box girder merges with the arch structure more conventionally (Figure 19). As a crucial evolution of this typology, there is the Niagara Falls Bridge in 1851 (Figure 20 and Figure 21), conceived as a large box girder with an upper part for trains and a lower deck for cars. This new conception of a box girder is important because it is a beam that cannot be calculated scientifically and that, in the first instance, is made to work by weight and mass with a framework that is as dense as possible. This is a fundamental aspect in the geometry of the bridge. Daly, in his 1840 theory (Figure 22) [16], continues to support this structure with a simple support, creating a very unreal proportion between the large piece of the bridge and the section of masonry that has to support it [42]. But we do see in this first sketch a very interesting concept, such as the fact that the beam is not symmetrical at its top and bottom, that is, it is braced; in fact, the structure could be translated as two large lateral beams that work together. This 1840 sketch is the embryo of what will be a milestone in engineering, such as the Niagara Falls Bridge in 1851 and the same structural typology that Eiffel [A17] [43] would use at Cubzac-des-Ponts in 1883 (Figure 23), and which will serve Eiffel to present and preside over, together with Contamin [A18] [44] and Fouquet, the First International Congress of Construction Procedures associated with the Universal Exhibition of 1889.

In this sense, we see how Daly tries to give a mathematical basis to this bridge model. It was not until 1854, fourteen years later, when Isambard Kingdom Brunel [A19] [45] began the construction of the Royal Albert Bridge, an exceptional version of the bridge where the structural solution was sought with the new technological progress that was emerging at international level (Figure 24).

It is curious that in the same issue of the Revue Générale the new theories of suspension bridges appear and also a review of the restoration of the church of Vézelay [24]. We can therefore consider that at the time, both were considered relevant, created debate and were closely related. Viollet was also aware of all the profound changes (Figure 25) [25,46].

From this first analysis, we see how those who build were the British and those who were concerned with theory and precise calculation would undoubtedly be the French. This tonic will accompany both magazines throughout the period studied. In fact, Eiffel himself, in the minutes of the First International Congress of Construction Procedures, writes (Figure 26):

“England was the first country, due to the nature of its soil and the special situation of its industry, to make use of this type of construction; but France soon acquires a very important place, thanks to the science of its engineers. In fact, they are the first to establish the principles that should reasonably guide the use of matter and form, creating the science we call strength of materials. Thanks to it, the use of metal has been made with remarkable precision and works have been carried out that seem extremely audacious for all the spirits that are not familiar with the resources of modern construction, where metal is somehow the type.” [A20].

Supporting this affirmation, in the French magazine we can find a great British influence, above all, and almost exclusively, as far as the practical part is concerned, such as the dissemination of engineering and architecture projects or articles and presentations of new machinery [A21] used in Britain to ship coal, for example.

France develops a variety of tables [A22] and graphic calculation [A23] on British patents or inventions (Figure 27) [47], (Figure 28) [48] and (Figure 29) [49]. It is easy to find in the articles of the French magazine architects complaining about doing the theoretical and analytical work that English architects or engineers do not do on their own structures; the English, in turn, reproach the French for their lack of practical creativity.

Proof of this is that the English magazine The Builder (Figure 30) [50] has a relatively extensive section dedicated to patents and inventions [A24], and the French magazine only occasionally refers to some of them, looking much more deeply at the analytic and calculus theory [A25].

But it was not only the publications that disseminated the most recent developments in the sciences, engineering or architecture [26,51]. It is important to note that both publications have sections on the history of architecture [A26] and on the study and analysis of “ancient” architecture [A27]. A reflection of this transversal knowledge that was developed at this time was the engraving used as the header of the magazine signed by Thibault [A28] [52] (Figure 31) [53] and which graphically symbolizes his spirit. The engraving appears for the first time accompanying an article entitled “The artists of the Middle Ages. And the monuments studied in his memory”, signed by Guilhermy in 1840 [A29] [54], and which will become an iconic element for the magazine that will appear many times. It summarizes the complex spirit of the time; on the one hand, development and modernity are present and, on the other, the basis of architecture and historical engineering [55]. In the background plane, at the base of the image, a structure that could be Roman with arches; in the middle shot, a tunnel (one of the most complicated feats of engineering at the time) with a steam railway is more difficult to see; and in the foreground, a renewed Doric style, which makes use of pilasters and columns alike and has been raised thanks to new machines. The compass on the plans cannot be missing, a symbol of the architect and a possible allusion to Rondelet’s theoretical treatise [A30] with the stone sawing machine [56,57].

It is interesting to see how a new concept of scientific calculation arises [58]. Until then, there has been a great development of graphical calculation based on graphical statics above all, but from then on in France a data deployment begins (Figure 32) [59] that will lead to moving little by little from data tables to empirical conclusions and valid mathematical justifications for a calculation considered more scientific [A31]. This progress is seen very clearly throughout the publication of the French journal, especially since it was this publication that was in charge of disseminating the data in the first place, thus generating a great scientific response.

In all the publications of the time, special attention is paid to coal and the methods that were being developed around it [A32], that is, all the engineering that accompanied this crucial material for technical and technological progress (Figure 33) [60]. The degree, the difficulty and the machinery for the extraction and obtaining of coal [A33] documents the degree of industrialization that was going to take place and above all the evolution of the industrialization process (Figure 34) [61]. This may be equivalent to the process of extracting oil at this time. The reason was that the coal was mined even five meters deep in the ponds and in the areas around London. This was why London was left undone on its perimeter. When it was not achieved at that distance, they moved away from the city and made larger slopes, but it happened that at a depth of about fifteen meters, normally, where there is coal, there is a constant outflow of groundwater (it is the natural coal-cooling system, otherwise the coal would ignite by itself), which made access to the material impossible.

Due to this fact, the use of the so-called Indian wells began, which are foundation systems based on caissons that are driven into the ground; the worker “sneaks” under it to extract the coal, but the very high mortality rate led to new techniques being proposed to open the galleries, such as pressurized air machines. With the improvement of these new methods, depths of fifteen meters were reached. Because of this, the coalfields around London, Liverpool and Birmingham were where the longest industrial processes began; From then on, the excavations and searches for coal began to be carried out in the closed pit, those of the mine. The vital thing about these is to understand that there is a contemporary development of machinery and very complex construction systems derived solely and exclusively from extraction, that is, given the extraction capacity, the possibilities of industrial development in each area also increased and therefore would take place in Britain and not in France. However, it is important to see how France, despite being behind in this field, echoes these advances in its architectural publications [A34] (Figure 35) [62].

4. Discussion

The research hypothesis that there was a new architecture based on the geometric changes derived from the use of the new metallic structures is amply contrasted after the achievement of the three objectives set out in the research.

The metallic structures developed in architecture provided a new architectural and constructive model that disarticulated the traditional orders that modulated buildings until then. The approach developed through the analysis of French periodicals that reflected step by step the milestones and synergies created between engineering and architecture was important. In this way France and Britain wrote the new architectural theories and applications.

Within the analysis of the journal “Revue Générale de l’architecture et des travaux publics”, a comparative study of the contents has been carried out in an attempt to objectify as much as possible the interests of the professionals of the time and the specific dissemination of each field within the most important periodical publication since its beginning in 1840 (Figure 36).

In these years, theoretical treatises multiplied as a search for agreement or consensus (hence the name) of the different arts or sciences [1]. The importance of the appearance of these treatises is crucial for the time; they try to respond to the theoretical debate that is held due to the appearance and relevance of technical advances that absorb and shake the theoretical hegemony of previous constructive models derived exclusively from purely ideal or utopian decisions such as the reuse of architectural orders.

Metal and its new forms as the defining material of contemporary architecture, posed new possibilities that represented geometric milestones that were unreachable until then.

5. Conclusions and Results

In the course of the research, several milestones of geometrical and definite change in their structures and concepts have been pinpointed in order to clarify when and how this symbiosis between architecture and engineering succeeded in renaming and redefining architectural models that had remained almost immutable since they were fixed centuries before.

This paradigm shift was also the trigger for a coherent response to the new architec-tural and industrial uses that the new techniques and technologies required and which rendered obsolete previous architectural models and the materials traditionally used in architecture. The use of metal and its derivatives and alloys led to the emergence of engineering as an independent discipline which, in its origins, was inevitably intertwined with architecture but which soon detached itself from the historical, conceptual, compositional and geometrical burdens that architecture possessed.

In order to verify the theoretical burden of the debate as opposed to the practice, a comparative study of the contents of this particular magazine was carried out, because there is no doubt of its technical importance and because it is one of the magazines that has had the greatest continuity over time. Even so, it has been proven that, within the catalogue of French treatises and journals of the time, the “Revue Générale de l’architecture et des travaux publics” provided content for many of them with a “local” circulation and wrote the path of global thought, as both its editor and main contributors were the most relevant thinkers, theoreticians and architects of the time. From the outset, the journal has been divided into different sections, which are: Introduction (usually theoretical), History, Theory, Practice, Mélanges (Varieties), Planches (Tables or engravings accompanying the text).

According to the analysis carried out, as time went by, the practical part of the magazine began to take on greater importance than the theoretical part. From 1855 onwards, more than half of the total content of the publication was devoted to the practical (i.e., technical) part, the importance of the theoretical content as such decreases significantly. For example, in the 1845 volume, the percentage of pages devoted to theory is 25% (adding together the sections on theoretical introduction, history, taken into account as theoretical work, and the theoretical section itself). This shows that at the beginning the theoretical basis of the journal was equal to the practical one, and fifteen years later the importance of pure theory has greatly diminished. More than 60% of the content of the publication is included in the “Mélanges” section, which became by far the most demanded and requested by both the public and the editor, as the frontier between practice and theory was blurred and the imperative need to create competencies and frontiers between architecture and engineering became clear.

On the other hand, and within these blurred boundaries, we can conclude that there were advanced geometric applications coming from the world of engineering that, developed in architecture, meant a technological advance that was the beginning of the disappearance of traditional architectural models. The advanced geometric application destined exclusively for metals was really the great structural advance of the time, defined in specific milestones that redesigned the archetypes and the new challenges of today’s world.