Journals / Sürdürülebilir Mühendislik Uygulamaları ve Teknolojik Gelişmeler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

An Examination of the Effects of Structural System Technologies on Building Culture

Taşıyıcı Sistem Teknolojilerinin Yapı Yapma Kültürüne Etkilerinin İncelenmesi

Burçin Söyler(BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ, MİMARLIK BÖLÜMÜ, YAPI BİLGİSİ ANABİLİM DALI)0009-0005-0744-3984
Murat Taş(BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-6152-5650
Nilüfer Taş(BURSA ULUDAĞ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, MİMARLIK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-3627-2011
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-18
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings demonstrate that structural system technologies are one of the key actors shaping building culture; future studies should examine the relationship between this transformation and sustainability, circular building production, and AI-assisted design tools.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Structural system technologies have played a decisive role throughout history not only as technological solutions that ensure the physical stability of buildings, but also as one of the fundamental determinants shaping building culture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Transformations in material possibilities, production techniques, and construction processes have directly influenced the spatial, formal, and tectonic expressions of architectural structures, thereby enabling the emergence of distinct building cultures in different historical periods.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings demonstrate that structural system technologies are one of the key actors shaping building culture; future studies should examine the relationship between this transformation and sustainability, circular building production, and AI-assisted design tools.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Taşıyıcı Sistem Teknolojileri · Yapı Yapma Kültürü · Mimari Strüktür

Abstract

Structural system technologies have played a decisive role throughout history not only as technological solutions that ensure the physical stability of buildings, but also as one of the fundamental determinants shaping building culture. Transformations in material possibilities, production techniques, and construction processes have directly influenced the spatial, formal, and tectonic expressions of architectural structures, thereby enabling the emergence of distinct building cultures in different historical periods. In this context, the study aims to contribute a conceptual framework to the literature by reexamining the cultural and design-related roles of structural systems in architectural practice through period-based comparisons. The study investigates the effects of transformations in structural system technologies on building culture across three critical threshold periods: the traditional craft era, the industrial era, and the digital design era. Within the scope of the study, these periods are not addressed merely through a chronological sequence; rather, they are evaluated within a comparative analytical framework based on parameters such as structural system configuration, production and component characteristics, form–structure relationships, and modes of tectonic expression. The study adopts qualitative research methods. As a research methodology, a literature review focusing on the relationship between building culture, architectural structure, and technology was first conducted. Subsequently, the building culture of each period was analyzed through representative case studies. These case studies were examined in accordance with predefined parameters designed to reveal how structural system technologies transform architectural expression. The findings demonstrate that structural system technologies are one of the key actors shaping building culture; future studies should examine the relationship between this transformation and sustainability, circular building production, and AI-assisted design tools.

Özet

Taşıyıcı sistem teknolojileri, tarihsel süreç boyunca yalnızca yapının ayakta kalmasını sağlayan teknolojik çözümler olarak değil, aynı zamanda yapı yapma kültürünü biçimlendiren temel belirleyicilerden biri olarak rol oynamıştır. Malzeme imkanları, üretim teknikleri ve yapım süreçlerindeki dönüşümler, mimari strüktürün mekansal, biçimsel ve tektonik ifadelerini doğrudan etkilemiş; bu durum farklı dönemlerde farklı yapı kültürlerinin ortaya çıkmasına zemin hazırlamıştır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, taşıyıcı sistemlerin mimarlık pratiğindeki kültürel ve tasarımsal rolünü, dönemsel karşılaştırmalar üzerinden yeniden tartışmaya açarak literatüre kavramsal bir çerçeve sunmayı hedeflemektedir. Yapılan çalışma, taşıyıcı sistem teknolojilerindeki dönüşümün yapı yapma kültürü üzerindeki etkilerini geleneksel zanaat dönemi, endüstri dönemi ve dijital tasarım dönemi olmak üzere üç eşik dönem üzerinden incelemektedir. Çalışma kapsamında bu dönemler yalnızca kronolojik bir sıralama biçiminde ele alınmamış; aynı zamanda taşıyıcı sistem kurgusu, üretim ve bileşen karakteri, biçim-strüktür ilişkisi, tektonik ifade biçimi parametreleri bağlamında karşılaştırmalı bir analitik çerçeve içinde değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında nitel araştırma yöntemleri benimsenmiştir. Araştırma yöntemi olarak öncelikle yapı yapma kültürü, mimari strüktür ve teknoloji ilişkisinde odaklanan literatür taraması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ardından her bir dönemi temsil eden örnek yapılar üzerinden o döneme ait yapı yapma kültürü analiz edilmiştir. Örnek yapılar, taşıyıcı sistem teknolojilerinin mimari ifadeyi nasıl dönüştürdüğünü ortaya koyacak şekilde belirlenen parametreler doğrultusunda incelenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, taşıyıcı sistem teknolojilerinin yapı yapma kültürünü biçimlendiren temel aktörlerden biri olduğunu göstermekte olup; gelecekte yapılacak çalışmaların ise bu dönüşümün sürdürülebilirlik, döngüsel yapı üretimi ve yapay zeka destekli tasarım araçlarıyla ilişkisini incelemesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Söyler, B., Taş, M., Taş, N. (2026). An Examination of the Effects of Structural System Technologies on Building Culture. Sürdürülebilir Mühendislik Uygulamaları ve Teknolojik Gelişmeler Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1. https://doi.org/10.51764/smutgd.1870369

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (46)

  1. Addis, B. (2006). The crystal palace and its place in structural history. International Journal of Space Structures, 21(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1260/026635106777641199
  2. ASAR, H., (2022). Mimari Tasarım Sürecinde Konut, Ev ve Kültür İlişkisi. ULUSLARARASI KONYA SANAT VE MİMARLIK SEMPOZYUMU IKAAS’22, Turkey
  3. Akgün, Y., Erkarslan, Ö. E., & Kavuncuoğlu, C. (2022). Tectonics of kinetic architecture: Moving envelope, changing space and the shades of the shed. Frontiers in Built Environment, 8, Makale 1006300. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2022.1006300
  4. Berman, C. (2023). The Shed: An intersection of disciplines. Technology Architecture and Design, 7(1), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2023.2176133
  5. Billington, D. P. (1983). The tower and the bridge. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/J.CTV23R3GK2
  6. Bozkurt Güvenç. (1997). Kültürün Abcsi 9.Baskı. Yapı Kredi Yayınları. 9789753637993
  7. Carpo, M. (2013). The digital turn in architecture 1992–2012. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118795811
  8. Conway, H. M. (1991). Visible structures [Doktora tezi, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. MIT DSpace. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/65205
  9. Çakmak, A. (2021). Yapı malzemesinin tarihsel gelişimi ve mimarlığa etkileri. ATA Planlama ve Tasarım Dergisi, 5(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/221/1/012139
  10. Devi, P., Abdur Rahman, F., Babu, H. S., & Biju, H. M. (2022). Kinetic buildings in climate-responsive architecture. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 9(8), 500–510. https://www.irjet.net/archives/V9/i8/IRJET-V9I883.pdf
  11. Elizalde, R. R. (2025). Designing the widest Gothic nave: Structural logic and geometric ingenuity in Girona Cathedral. https://doi.org/10.20944/PREPRINTS202505.0371.V1
  12. ETH Zürich. (2019). DFAB HOUSE: Factsheet digital fabrication [Factsheet/Bilgi formu]. https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/main/news/eth-news/medienmitteilungen/2019/pdf/190227_DFAB/Factsheet_Digital_Fabrication_EN.pdf
  13. Ewert, C. (1986). The mosque of Tinmal (Morocco) and some new aspects of Islamic architectural typology.
  14. Frampton, K. (1997). Studies in tectonic culture: The poetics of construction in nineteenth and twentieth century architecture. Technology and Culture, 38(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/3106977
  15. Friedman, D., & Redondo, G. P. (2012). The New York Crystal Palace: Iron structure without engineering. Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335966903
  16. Giedion, S. (1948). Mechanization takes command. Oxford University Press.
  17. Graser, K., Kahlert, A., & Hall, D. (2021). DFAB HOUSE: Implications of a building-scale demonstrator for adoption of digital fabrication in AEC. Construction Management and Economics, 39(10), 853–873. https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/server/api/core/bitstreams/b3fd4599-c28d-4eda-b52e-ec0495dec591/content
  18. Hack, N., Dörfler, K., Walzer, A. N., Wangler, T., Mata-Falcón, J., Kumar, N., Buchli, J., Kaufmann, W., Flatt, R. J., Gramazio, F., & Kohler, M. (2020). Structural stay-in-place formwork for robotic in situ fabrication of non-standard concrete structures. Automation in Construction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103197
  19. Hack, N., Wangler, T., Mata-Falcón, J., Dörfler, K., Kumar, N., Walzer, A. N., Graser, K., Buchli, J., Kaufmann, W., Flatt, R. J., Gramazio, F., & Kohler, M. (2017). Mesh mould: An on-site, robotically fabricated functional formwork. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314952069
  20. Huerta, S. (2001). Mechanics of masonry vaults: The equilibrium approach. İçinde Historical constructions: Possibilities of numerical and experimental techniques (ss. 47–69). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/39424866
  21. James, J. (2010). The Contractors of Chartres forty-five years later, John James.
  22. Karimov, N., Sarybaev, M., Kaipnazarov, A., Djumageldiev, N., Reymbaev, R., & Kholdarova, F. (2024). Historical development of construction techniques. Archives for Technical Sciences, 2, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.70102/afts.2024.1631.036
  23. Kılınç, G. A. (2024). A review: 7000 years of building structures. Işık Üniversitesi Sanat, Tasarım ve Mimarlık Dergisi, 2(1), 81–120. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jada/issue/87840/1522223
  24. Kolarevic, B. (2001). Designing and manufacturing architecture in the digital age. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe, 117–123. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.2001.117
  25. Kolarevic, B. (2004). Back to the future: Performative architecture. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1260/1478077041220205
  26. Kurtuluş, M. (2021). Endüstri devrimi sonrası mimari akımlarda malzeme ve teknoloji kullanımlarının incelenmesi [Yüksek lisans tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi]. Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi Açık Erişim Sistemi. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14124/1426
  27. McCoy, C., & Duffy, T. A. (2022). The deployable tectonic: Mechanization and mobility in architecture. Architecture, Structures and Construction, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44150-022-00045-w
  28. Menges, A. (2016). Computational material culture. Architectural Design, 86(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.2027
  29. Metin, R. Y. (2022). Yapı yapma kültüründe teknoloji yönetimi [Yüksek lisans tezi, Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi]. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Açık Erişim Sistemi. http://hdl.handle.net/11452/24787
  30. Örmecioğlu, H. T., Er Akan, A., & Uçar, A. (2013). Çevresel Faktörlerin Geleneksel Yapım Sistemleri Üzerindeki Etkisi: Anadolu Örneği. Akdeniz Sanat, 6(11). https://izlik.org/JA69AY66AB
  31. Salvadori, M. (1980). Why buildings stand up: The strength of architecture. W. W. Norton.
  32. Schoenefeldt, H. (2008). The Crystal Palace, environmentally considered. arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 12(3-4), 283–294. https://www.academia.edu/3266044/The_Crystal_Palace_environmentally_considered
  33. Sekler, E. F. (1965). Structure, Construction, Tectonics. Structure in Art and Science. London: Studio Vista.
  34. Sennet, R. (2008). The Crafstman. Yale University Press (Vol. 1, pp. 1–326). Yale University Press.
  35. Streit, J. (2013). Monumental austerity: The meanings and aesthetic development of Almohad Friday mosques. https://hdl.handle.net/1813/34025
  36. Tavares, V., Calheiros, C. S. C., Martins, I. B., Maia, J., Tsikaloudaki, K., Fonseca, M., Marchesi, M., Laban, M., Soares, N., Santos, P., Pineda-Martos, R., Rajčić, V., & Ungureanu, V. (2025). Modularity and prefabrication. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, 215–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73490-8_8
  37. Vatan, M. (2017). Evolution of Construction Systems: Cultural Effects On Traditional Structures and Their Reflection On Modern Building Construction. In G. Koç, M. Claes, & B. Christiansen (Eds.), Cultural Influences on Architecture (pp. 35-57). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-1744-3.ch002
  38. Wangler, T., Lloret, E., Reiter, L., Hack, N., Gramazio, F., Kohler, M., Dillenburger, B., Buchli, J., Roussel, N., & Flatt, R. (2016). Digital concrete: Opportunities and challenges. RILEM Technical Letters, 1, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.21809/RILEMTECHLETT.2016.16
  39. Baan, I. (2019). The Shed [Fotoğraf]. ArchDaily. https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5cab/f89b/284d/d1c3/9900/005f/slideshow/01_The_Shed_Photography_by_Iwan_Baan.jpg
  40. Chartres Cathedral. (1979). Dimensions [Fotoğraf]. François Delauney / Ville de Chartres. Google Arts & Culture. https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/dimensions-0017/NQExPQ7Y-_EZUA
  41. Heritage. (t.y.). Under the Iron Bridge view [Fotoğraf]. English Heritage. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/siteassets/home/visit/places-to-visit/iron-bridge/gallery/undertheironbridgeview.jpg
  42. Dehio, G., & von Bezold, G. (1901). Cross section of Chartres Cathedral [Çizim]. Images of Medieval Art and Architecture. https://www.medart.pitt.edu/_medart/image/france/france-a-to-c/chartres/de382ch2.jpg
  43. ETH Zürich. (2019). DFAB House opening – event view [Fotoğraf]. ETH Zürich News. https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/02/opening-dfab-house/_jcr_content/news_content/slideshow_904695889/images/image-3.imageformat.slideshow.899786105.png
  44. Lebourgeois, E. (2021, September 28). Tinmal Mosque interior [Fotoğraf]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20210928_151046EX_Mosqu%C3%A9e_de_Tinmal_(51630598147).jpg
  45. Museums London. (t.y.). Crystal Palace Museum [Fotoğraf]. Museums London. https://www.museumslondon.org/img/[email protected]
  46. ASAR, H., (2022). Mimari Tasarım Sürecinde Konut, Ev ve Kültür İlişkisi. ULUSLARARASI KONYA SANAT VE MİMARLIK SEMPOZYUMU IKAAS’22, Turkey