【作者】 陈超；

【导师】 莫天伟；

【作者基本信息】 同济大学 ， 建筑设计及其理论， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 建筑设计工具是建筑设计工作的技术要素之一。当前,建筑设计领域正迈进信息化时代,数字化设计工具也在信息化浪潮中越来越普及。随着人们对数字化设计工具的依赖与日俱增,对它的期望也不乏曲解和迷信;而与此同时,非数字化工具则面临了影响力下降和作用被不断质疑的局面。本论文尝试将设计图解作为建筑设计工具和设计工作之间的研究中介,来回顾建筑设计工具的发展过程,研究其发展规律,并期望这样的视角和研究方法将有助于客观地去理解在各个历史时期,特别是当前的设计工具的作用和发展。 图解思考是建筑设计普遍采用的手段,设计图解也是设计工具直接作用的结果。以设计图解的介质及构建方式的发展为参照,可以区分设计工作方式的三个重要发展阶段:与建造实物为对象的设计阶段;以设计信息的实物载体为对象的设计阶段;和以设计信息的数字化载体为对象的设计阶段。它们构成了设计工具发展研究的大背景。在此基础上,论文强调了在1980年代之前的两个阶段中的非数字化工具,与之后的第三阶段中的数字化设计工具在形式和任务上的特征与区别。 在对1980年代以前的设计工具的研究中,论文依据设计图解的形式结构和构建过程上的区别,将非数字化设计工具依据其用途分为线描、涂彩、实体模拟、定位定向和尺寸度量五种类型,对各个类型中的典型设计工具的发展过程分别进行了分类研究。以分析相应的设计图解的手段,对影响设计工具发展的科学技术因素和社会文化因素分别加以探讨,指出这一时期中的设计工具的产生、发展、变化的条件和规律。 对于1980年代以后的设计工具,论文比较了数字化与非数字化两类设计工具各自在功能上的优势和局限。论文以数字化图解的新的构建模式为依据,对以计算机设计程序为代表的数字化设计工具进行了分类研究,认为数字化工具在整合并发展了非数字化工具的功能后,在智能化设计、感知空间构建和设计与建造的整合等领域回应了新时代的需求。而这一时期的非数字化工具通过形式和使用方式的发展,也在非线性设计和情感表达等领域发挥了相当大的作用。 根据上述研究,论文将设计工具的发展模式归纳为与生产过程组织相对应的发明和改进,和与使用过程组织相对应的引用与操作的两种类型,并分析了使用过程组织和生产过程组织之间存在的“超前性联系”,指出造成“超前性联系”的使用过程组织是设计工具发挥革命性作用的根本原因。最后,通过上述规律的运用,对于当前两类设计工具的作用和发展趋势分别得出了自己的认识。更多还原

【Abstract】 Architectural design tools are key factors of the architectural design technologies. In the cybernetic age, the digital tools are holding more and more weight in design process. Meanwhile, the influence of non-digital tools in that sphere is sliding down rapidly. The situation thus have brought about some confusion and misunderstanding to the users of the tools, the architects. The main purpose of this dissertation is to reveal some disciplines in the development of design tools which might lead to a better understanding of them both in the history and of today.Diagrams are used as a medium in the studies. By identifying the three different historical stages of the development of the diagrams’ media, which are the on-site materials, the physical media and the digital media, the development of design tools are divided into three stages accordingly. In the first two stages (before 1980s), the non-digital tools share many features in common. In the third stage (after 1980s), however, the digital ones form a category apart.In the studies of the non-digital design tools before 1980s, the formal structure of diagram helps to identify five categories of the tools, which are lining, coloring, modeling, locating/orientating and measuring, each contributing to a different aspect of the structure. Then the threads provided by diagrams through out the history before 1980s are used to specify the development of some typical tools in each category. The impacts caused by certain cultural factors rather than the scientific ones are especially emphasized in the elaboration.When it comes to the third stage, namely after 1980s, the newly emerged digital tools are categorized into three types according to the modes in which the digital diagram are created. Each typical tool of the three types, which are animation mode, parametric mode and design + manufacturing mode, has been given an in-depth analysis. A comparison between the digital and non-digital tools in the third stage is also carried out in this part to better reveal the roles they are taking, in addressing the new demands of architectural design in the new age.The studies culminate in a series of disciplines. For architectural design tools, there are two types of developing modes, which are inventing/improving (manufacturing-system) and importing/manipulating (using-system). There also lies an important "anticipatory articulation" between the two systems above which means the using of existing tools as a quick response to a certain new demand always foresees a specific invention of tool to address it. Also the creative using of existing tools will have a revolutionary impact on the development of architectural design. The conclusion draws that the development of architectural design tools are mainly affected by their users, the architects, rather than the manufacturers through out the history and this may also apply to both the digital and non-digital tools of today.更多还原