Thanks to funding by ARQ and Stockholms Byggnadsförening, and with support from Svenskt Trä, we have once again made an update to our research project How to CLT! In a new chapter of our CLT handbook, we propose 6 principles for a closer collaboration between the consultants that we believe will foster innovation, architectural quality and efficiency when working with CLT. Furthermore, our Grasshopper definition has been updated with additional functionality and the possibility to work with more complex volumes.
In her research Rivka Oxman, architect and researcher on computational design and methods, concludes that the shift towards a material based design will deeply challenge and re-formulate how architects, structural engineers, fabricators etc. collaborate. As buildings must deal with an increasingly complex set of challenges (not least to do with their environmental impact) and the dynamics between consultants change, the time is ripe to establish close collaboration as the industry standard.
The current situation could be compared to the industry’s shift from CAD to BIM in the 2000s. An opportunity that promised revolutionary changes to interdisciplinary collaboration, that in many ways seem to have been lost due to an unwillingness to change traditional processes. The still relatively liquid state of processes and methodology regarding CLT could be seen as yet another chance to improve interdisciplinary collaboration, especially between architects and structural engineers.
The benefits of a tighter collaboration are generally agreed upon throughout our sources and respondents, but considerable barriers exist for it to become an industry norm. Close collaboration between architects and structural engineers in the early stages must, for example, in some form include a cross-disciplinary formulation and testing of conceptual designs. In our general experience, working with structural engineers is a rather linear process and occurs in the later stages of the building project. The conceptual design of a building is on the other hand an iterative process, going back and forth between sketching and evaluation.
The difference in methodology and the costs it would add, makes it unreasonable to include a structural engineer as an equal part of the
conceptual design. Such a set-up would also risk putting too many technical limitations on the design in a stage that thrives from creative
thinking. The collaboration that we propose in our new chapter should rather be thought of as an early engagement of the structural engineer as a sounding board, available to evaluate the structural challenges of a sketch or an early design.
Read more and download our updated resources here!
Best of Luck with your CLT endeavors! // Arkemi