nigeldale
Engineering Art - Richard Rogers Inmos Central Spine Ben Johnson 1985
The Inmos Microprocessor factory in Newport, South Wales completed in 1982 and designed by Richard Rogers Partnership represented the last vestige of the High-Tech Movement. This building was actually designed after the Lloyds of London project by the same architects, but it was completed before Lloyds. Exposed lattice steelwork pin-jointed together with expressed tension rod support and externally positioned service pods were all an echo to the mantra of Archigram and the Architectural Association in the 1960’s and 1970’s for loose-fit, plug-in, industrialised, adaptable buildings.
Tony Hunt was left to resolve engineering designs for the Inmos project when the spirit of architectural adventure in which it had been conceived had been all but exhausted. Hunt’s friendship with Iann Barron, the Inmos CEO helped with the commission, and with Tony Hunt’s steadfast engineering input, the project was a success.
Hunt had at first become friendly with Iann Barron in the mid 1970’s at the time of the Willis Faber Dumas project. Barron was head of a computer firm Computer Technology for which Hunt worked on a project.
Artist Ben Johnson, a graduate of the Royal college of Art , was commissioned to work on a super-realist painting of the central spine of the Inmos building. He also produced a painting of the ground floor of the Willis Faber Dumas building in Ipswich. Both of these paintings celebrate Tony Hunt’s structures.
Possibly the best example of High Tech architecture as far as its marriage with a high tech client operation is concerned, the Inmos Microprocessor Plant was built for the emerging microprocessor “chip” manufacturing industry (known then in the 1980’s as a new-dawn industry). With the new building type came the architectural requirements of clean air, and
flexibility in layout, which required wide uninterrupted spaces that could be sub-divided and provided with very high levels of servicing.
Inmos Ltd was founded in 1978 by Iann Barron, a British computer consultant with Richard Petritz and Paul Schroeder, both American semiconductor industry experts. Funds of £50m were made available from the UK National Enterprise Board. In 1984 Thorn EMI made a bid of £124m for the state’s 76% interest in the company. In total, Inmos Ltd had received £211m from UK taxpayers, but never became profitable. In 1994 the Inmos brand name was discontinued.
The exacting brief called for rapid building methods and possibilities to extend and greatly increase its size. Hunt’s response was to design a bolt together structure in enormous sec- tions (that is as large as could be transported and lifted into position) which were connect- ed together using stainless-steel pins for the joint assembles.
In the tradition of Archigram and of Michael Webb’s Architectural Association design studies, Richard Rogers’s Inmos designs represent the ideals of dry construction, plug-in ex- ternally serviced systemised accommodation modules. The central spine, the main access corridor for the building, an internal street, has above it, supported by a series of lattice steel towers, double storey roof level service pods and plant rooms. Highly visible exposed ductwork and pipework feed into the ceilings of the production areas, supported from above by the lattice steel prismatic structure.
Unlike earlier and more experimental High Tech buildings such as Foster Associates’ Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, Inmos relies upon traditional flat roof technology and upon proprietary glazing systems to construct modular walls of glass, solid infill or louvred panels. The design did not provide the opportunity for technological advances in structural panel construction.
The central spine is 7.2m wide and 106m long. A series of similarly sized, (six bays deep) accommodation bays are positioned each side of the spine at 13m centres, 36m deep. To the north side are the production areas and to the south side are canteen, office and ancillary areas. The design allowed for unlimited extension to the same pattern.
Anthony Hunt Associates devised some complex connections for the structure including pin joints, forked connectors and specially designed bracketry. The principle was to bring the largest possible fabrications to site and to erect them quickly and easily. Three legged CHS tower columns each side of the central spine provide the primary support structure. Stainless steel pins were used instead of bolted connections.
The prismatic roof trusses are supported by tension rods paired to match the twin outer members of the three legged tower columns. Twin tension rods support the prismatic trusses at the one third point of their span with a single rod at the two thirds point. External splayed tension struts, held to the ground by anchor piles, are expressive of the need to balance the bending moment at that point; they provide lateral bracing and support the roof trusses at their end away from from the central spine.
Steel castings were used where a large number of repeat components were required. The quantity justified the investment in casting patterns and foundry processes. Source Connexions: The unseen hand of Tony Hunt
Engineering Art - Richard Rogers Inmos Central Spine Ben Johnson 1985
The Inmos Microprocessor factory in Newport, South Wales completed in 1982 and designed by Richard Rogers Partnership represented the last vestige of the High-Tech Movement. This building was actually designed after the Lloyds of London project by the same architects, but it was completed before Lloyds. Exposed lattice steelwork pin-jointed together with expressed tension rod support and externally positioned service pods were all an echo to the mantra of Archigram and the Architectural Association in the 1960’s and 1970’s for loose-fit, plug-in, industrialised, adaptable buildings.
Tony Hunt was left to resolve engineering designs for the Inmos project when the spirit of architectural adventure in which it had been conceived had been all but exhausted. Hunt’s friendship with Iann Barron, the Inmos CEO helped with the commission, and with Tony Hunt’s steadfast engineering input, the project was a success.
Hunt had at first become friendly with Iann Barron in the mid 1970’s at the time of the Willis Faber Dumas project. Barron was head of a computer firm Computer Technology for which Hunt worked on a project.
Artist Ben Johnson, a graduate of the Royal college of Art , was commissioned to work on a super-realist painting of the central spine of the Inmos building. He also produced a painting of the ground floor of the Willis Faber Dumas building in Ipswich. Both of these paintings celebrate Tony Hunt’s structures.
Possibly the best example of High Tech architecture as far as its marriage with a high tech client operation is concerned, the Inmos Microprocessor Plant was built for the emerging microprocessor “chip” manufacturing industry (known then in the 1980’s as a new-dawn industry). With the new building type came the architectural requirements of clean air, and
flexibility in layout, which required wide uninterrupted spaces that could be sub-divided and provided with very high levels of servicing.
Inmos Ltd was founded in 1978 by Iann Barron, a British computer consultant with Richard Petritz and Paul Schroeder, both American semiconductor industry experts. Funds of £50m were made available from the UK National Enterprise Board. In 1984 Thorn EMI made a bid of £124m for the state’s 76% interest in the company. In total, Inmos Ltd had received £211m from UK taxpayers, but never became profitable. In 1994 the Inmos brand name was discontinued.
The exacting brief called for rapid building methods and possibilities to extend and greatly increase its size. Hunt’s response was to design a bolt together structure in enormous sec- tions (that is as large as could be transported and lifted into position) which were connect- ed together using stainless-steel pins for the joint assembles.
In the tradition of Archigram and of Michael Webb’s Architectural Association design studies, Richard Rogers’s Inmos designs represent the ideals of dry construction, plug-in ex- ternally serviced systemised accommodation modules. The central spine, the main access corridor for the building, an internal street, has above it, supported by a series of lattice steel towers, double storey roof level service pods and plant rooms. Highly visible exposed ductwork and pipework feed into the ceilings of the production areas, supported from above by the lattice steel prismatic structure.
Unlike earlier and more experimental High Tech buildings such as Foster Associates’ Sainsbury Centre for Visual Arts, Norwich, Inmos relies upon traditional flat roof technology and upon proprietary glazing systems to construct modular walls of glass, solid infill or louvred panels. The design did not provide the opportunity for technological advances in structural panel construction.
The central spine is 7.2m wide and 106m long. A series of similarly sized, (six bays deep) accommodation bays are positioned each side of the spine at 13m centres, 36m deep. To the north side are the production areas and to the south side are canteen, office and ancillary areas. The design allowed for unlimited extension to the same pattern.
Anthony Hunt Associates devised some complex connections for the structure including pin joints, forked connectors and specially designed bracketry. The principle was to bring the largest possible fabrications to site and to erect them quickly and easily. Three legged CHS tower columns each side of the central spine provide the primary support structure. Stainless steel pins were used instead of bolted connections.
The prismatic roof trusses are supported by tension rods paired to match the twin outer members of the three legged tower columns. Twin tension rods support the prismatic trusses at the one third point of their span with a single rod at the two thirds point. External splayed tension struts, held to the ground by anchor piles, are expressive of the need to balance the bending moment at that point; they provide lateral bracing and support the roof trusses at their end away from from the central spine.
Steel castings were used where a large number of repeat components were required. The quantity justified the investment in casting patterns and foundry processes. Source Connexions: The unseen hand of Tony Hunt