外文翻译-在建筑学的设计构成和结构的材料 Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures Second EditionUSA Williams?Alan2 Structure in Design of Architecture And Structural Material,China Water Power Press,Beijing,2002 P3757钢筋混凝土结构设计第二版美艾伦?威廉斯著第二章,在建筑学的设计构成和结构的材料 ,中国水利水电出版社,北京,2002.P37页57页. Structure in Design of Architecture And Structural Material We have and the architects must deal with the spatial aspect of activity, physical, and symbolic needs in such a way that overall performance integrity is assured. Hence, he or she well wants to think of evolving a building environment as a total system of interacting and space forming subsystems. Is represents a complex challenge, and to meet it the architect will need a hierarchic design process that provides at least three levels of feedback thinking: schematic, preliminary, and final. Such a hierarchy is necessary if he or she is to avoid being confused , at conceptual stages of design thinking ,by the myriad detail issues that can distract attention from more basic considerations .In fact , we can say that an architects ability to distinguish the more basic form the more detailed issues is essential to his success as a designer The object of the schematic feed back level is to generate and evaluate overall site-plan, activity-interaction, and building-configuration options .To do so the architect must be able to focus on the interaction of the basic attributes of the site context, the spatial organization, and the symbolism as determinants of physical form. This means that ,in schematic terms ,the architect may first conceive and model a building design as an organizational abstraction of essential performance-space in teractions.Then he or she may explore the overall space-form implications of the abstraction. As an actual building configuration option begins to emerge, it will be modified to include consideration for basic site conditions. At the schematic stage, it would also be helpful if the designer could visualize his or her options for achieving overall structural integrity and consider the constructive feasibility and economic of his or her scheme .But this will require that the architect and/or a consultant be able to conceptualize total-system structural options in terms of elemental detail .Such overall thinking can be easily fed back to improve the space-form scheme. At the preliminary level, the architects emphasis will shift to the elaboration of his or her more promising schematic design options .Here the architects structural needs will shift to approximate design of specific subsystem options. At this stage the total structural scheme is developed to a middle level of specificity by focusing on identification and design of major subsystems to the extent that their key geometric, component, and interactive properties are established .Basic subsystem interaction and design conflicts can thus be identified and resolved in the context of total-system objectives. Consultants can play a significant part in this effort; these preliminary-level decisions may also result in feedback that calls for refinement or even major change in schematic concepts. When the designer and the client are satisfied with the feasibility of a design proposal at the preliminary level, it means that the basic problems of overall design are solved and details are not likely to produce major change .The focus shifts again ,and the design process moves into the final level .At this stage the emphasis will be on the detailed development of all subsystem specificsHere the role of specialists from various fields, including structural engineering, is much larger, since all detail of the preliminary design must be worked out. Decisions made at this level may produce feedback into Level II that will result in changes. However, if Levels I and II are handled with insight, the relationship between the overall decisions, made at the schematic and preliminary levels, and the specifics of the final level should be such that gross redesign is not in question, Rather, the entire process should be one of moving in an evolutionary fashion from creation and refinement or modification of the more general properties of a total-system design concept, to the fleshing out of requisite elements and details. To summarize: At Level I, the architect must first establish, in conceptual terms, the overall space-form feasibility of basic schematic options. At this stage, collaboration with specialists can be helpful, but only if in the form of overall thinking. At Level II, the architect must be able to identify the major subsystem requirements implied by the scheme and substantial their interactive feasibility by approximating key component properties .That is, the properties of major subsystems need be worked out only in sufficient depth to very the inherent compatibility of their basic form-related and behavioral interactionThis will mean a some