Talk:Curved structures

Good job

Hi, very interesting article, great job! Xebe22 (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate your opinion SergioCarlosMiguel (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Article review

Hi, nice to meet you!

First of all, nice article and interesting topic:)

In general I found each section comprehensive and clear, as it analyses many different aspects related to the topic in a brief but still valuable way. For the sake of clarity, I'd just add a brief explanation, related to the concept of boolean operations and gaussian curvature.

However, maybe the structure of the article might be a bit refined, to balance the lenght of the two sections of "Geometry" and "Architecture and Engineering". In my opinion, a possible structure might consist of: . Explanation of curved structures and their geometry generation . History and current advancements, (also comprising the construction process) . Mechanical, acoustic and visual properties

Just a minor thing: in the construction section, it might be interesting to add also innovative practices related to curved structures, (for instance, the avoidance of timber frameworks by using knitted textiles developed by Mariana Popescu for the project "Knitted concrete") Camilla.vi (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Camilla,

thanks for your precious comment! As you understood my article wanted to be as general as possible, with some specific and explanatory example. Unfortunaty I am not so fast in writing and I also miss a section I wanted to include. Indeed, when you enter a space, you perceive the light and its colours, you have acoustic sensations but also feel its psychrometric conditions on your skin. By the way, unfortunately, the time was limited and I could neither expand the article nor go deeper into each single topic. (I would have liked though!)

You are right talking about the imbalance between the geometrical and the architectural part. Indeed, the first should serve as an introduction to say how to formally describe complex architectural shapes and explain the reason why these curved structures have intrinsic major resistance. I left untreated all the part related to these kind of structures when made by other materials (timber, RC or steel) or by truss members for the same reason I told you above, but I am glad you let me know your thoughts.

Concerning the Knitted Concrete, I find it very interesting (of course) and it could be in line with the way I dealt with the structural part (also because it is in line with the assumptions that some scholars from ETH do while assessing these kind of structures).

I am really grateful for your comment! Thank you SergioCarlosMiguel (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Good and comprehensible

I noticed that the "extrusion" link links to a german page. I don't know if this was done intentionally, so I left it there, but I also checked that the English 'extrusion' article exists, so maybe it was an error. Anyway, a very good, complete and comprehensible article, I enjoyed it! 77Davide77 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Davide. I did it intentionally. In fact, what you say is true. Actually many articles about extrusion exist in english, but they refer to other fields and not to pure geometry as in my article. That is why I decided to stick to the german page. Just a matter of coherence.

Thank you for noting that anyway and for your comment! SergioCarlosMiguel (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following an expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in July 2024.

This sentence can be simplified:"They traditionally differentiate from the other most diffused construction technology, namely the post and lintel, which results from the addition of regular and linear architectural elements.[1]".

typo in section 2: "genetratrices "

section 2: "An arch is generated by the revolution of a point", please revise. revolution of a point or line? Also in the same sentence it is recommended to correct "thought as" to "thought of as".

section 2: "The actions performed to make these solids are the same needed to generate them in a CAD[3] or – to some extent – in a FEM software to analyse them.[4]" I would remove the second part of the sentence since the section is dedicated to geometry only. I believe there is no need to address FEM, as some readers can miss it.

section 2: "Differently from the post and lintel construction, which capacity ...". I would remove this sentence as it is arguable such generalization. E.g., so the capacity of non-curved elements do not rely on their geometry? The span is not important?

section "structural behaviour", this sentence can be improved: "The boundary conditions that would cause bending and shear stress in a post and lintel structure, in a curved structure cause just axial stress in the unit elements". the boundary conditions cannot cause shear stress? Better to be more specific, highlighting that when subjected to vertical gravity forces are governed by compressive stresses.

Suggestion to replace "The resistance of an arch then,..." to "The capacity of an arch then, ..."

"Studying the problem of a hemispherical membrane in a gravitational field,", be more specific. Under its self-weight?

--Aandurro (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)