Transcript desert

Team Introduction
construction manager
Kit Fleming
architect
Xiang Liu
engineer
Peng Li
owner
Hans Verheij
Collaboration in Cyberspace
E X P R E S S
T E A M
2 0 0 2
.
C E E 2 2 2
.
A E C
G L O B A L
T E A M
C L A S S
2 0 0 2
Project Goal
• Multi-disciplinary, collaborative teamwork in a building project
• Apply discipline knowledge and technologies.
• Knowledge management.
Requirements
• The year is 2015
• A 3-story building
• Total fund, $5,500,000
• Maintain the footprint of the existing buildings
• A collection of rare cactus varieties about 16,000 square feet is protected by
the “Society Environmental Desert Studies.”
Site Map
The site map of new engineering school
Location
Express University is located in Phoenix, Arizona.
Climate/Weather
Annual average temperature is 61F.
The campus map of Express University
Annual rainfall is 7.6 inch
Analysis of Context
• Good use of materials
• Insulation Concerns
• Aesthetic taste to enrich environment
The site map of new engineering school
Analysis of Landscape
• Cactus, a typical plant in a desert environment
• A collection of rare cactus varieties between two footprints
• Other green plants on campus
The site map of new engineering school
Analysis of Circulation
Main roads
Subdivided roads
Outside public
space
A collection
of cactus
Entrance to each footprint
Design Concept
static
dynamic
Design I Concept
conversation
The silent conversation between desert and architecture
• static status
• regular geometric forms
static
• solid exterior look
• symmetrical layout
Design I Analysis
1
The first layer of lines is along the footprint.
2
The second layer of lines reveals the horizontal
lines along X, Y axis.
3
The third layer of lines displays the relationship
between horizontal and vertical lines.
Vertical circulation of the building
The relationship of three layers of lines along X, Y, Z axis
1
2
3
Design I Drawings & Models
58’
58’
116’
40’
27’
14’
-1’
0’
-7’
The First Floor Plan
Auditorium, technical support
Small classroom
Instructional lab
MEP
Design I Drawings
Winterthur Museum of Art Extension
N
The Second Floor Plan
West Elevation
Student office
Small classroom
Computer machine room
Seminar
Big classroom
Storage
Design I Drawings & Details
The Third Floor Plan
40’
27’
14’
0’
Faculty office
Faculty lounge
MEP
Chair’s office
Secretaries
Senior admin. office
Site Issues
•
•
Climate
Average temperature
61°F
Average rain
7.6”
Annual snow fall
0.1”
High temperature in July
105 °F
Low temperature in Jan
39 °F
Soil conditions
Bearing capacity:
5ksf
No expansive soil
•
Earthquake free
Earthquake Locations
Gravity Loads
Dead load:
Live load:
Miscellaneous:
12 psf
(ceiling, flooring, fireproofing)
Partitions:
20 psf
System:
60 psf
Ducts:
5 psf
Cladding:
5 psf
Office:
Computer rooms:
Classroom:
Auditorium:
Corridors, stairway:
Storage:
Roof live load:
Beams:
Girders:
Columns:
50 plf
100 plf
200 plf
50
100
40
50
100
125
20
psf
psf
psf
psf
psf
psf
psf
Gravity Loads
Gravity load path
——Steel Braced frames
Gravity load path
——Two way slabs
Lateral Loads
Wind Load Calculation: (UBC code, Method 1)
p=CeCqqs I
Height
0-15'
20'
25'
30'
40'
Ce:
0.62
0.67
0.72
0.76
0.84
(Exposure B)
Cq=
0.8
0.7
0.5
1
(inward)
(roof)
(outward)
I=
qs =20.8psf
Floor
roof
3
2
1
(V33=90mph)
Height
39
25
11
-5
p(psf)
22.71
19.45
16.77
0
Wind Zone Map
Lateral Loads
Lateral load path
—— Braced frames
Lateral load path
—— Concrete MRF
Design Goals
“Simplicity and functionality through early collaboration
and exchange of ideas, inspirations and constraints.”
• Simple
• Regular
• Least intrusive structural system
• Constructability
• Lower budget
Option 1 -- Framing
Laterally Braced Frame
Framing Plan
•
2VLI20 composite deck with 2.5” light
weight concrete slab
•
Beam & Girder: full composite with
slab
•
6”x6” HSS shape braces
•
Column size: W14x68
•
10” concrete walls
Structural Options
Option 1:
Option 2:
• Composite floor system
• Concrete frame
• Laterally braced frame
• One-way slab
• Cast-in-place concrete walls in
elevator shaft
• Waffle slab in auditorium
• Spread footings
Option 1
First floor
Third floor
Second floor
main entrance
Matching The
Architectural Plan
entrance
Option 1 -- Sizes
W21x48
Typical Sizes:
10” wall
2VLI20, 2.5”
W18x119
W21x48
W16x40
Option 1 -- Foundation
Foundation Plan:
•
Shallow foundation
•
Spread footing under columns,
with size of 8’x8’
•
Strip footing under concrete
walls, with a width of 4’
Foundation Plan
Option 1 -- Connection
Beam-Girder
Girder-Column flange
Typical
connections
Girder-Column web
Beam Splice
Option 2 -- Framing
Framing Plan——Concrete Frame:
1st Floor Framing Plan
2nd and 3rd Floor Framing Plan
Option 2 -- Sizes
• Columns
Typical Element Sizes:
18” x 18”
•
6#7 bars
One way slab
#3@14” Ties
Depth: 7”
2.5"
Steel: #3@6”
16.5"
#3@10"
• Beams
3"
12"
#3@14"
14” x 21.5”
6#7 bars
#3@10” Ties
2.5"
2.5"
3@3=9"
Beam
2.5"
Beam Section
3"
3"
2@4=8"
Column section
Column Section
3"
Option 2 -- Waffle Slab
SQUARE BASE DESIGN: AEC 5
outing
Waffle Slab:
•
Two-Way Slab System
4.5” slab
Two-Joists
Elevated
• Total with
depth:
22.5”Floor
•Space for Building Services
• 30”x30”
voids
•Required
Additional
Columns
•
6” ribs
Waffle slab
Top View
Option 2 -- Foundation
A - A
A
Raft Footing
A
Pros and Cons
Options
Steel Braced
Frame
Spread Footing
Concrete Frame
Raft Footing
Pros
Cons
•
•
•
•
•
Regular framing plan
Simple connection
Easy construction
Inexpensive
Simple foundation
•
•
•
•
Pre-cast
•
No differential settlement
•
More redundant in LFR
system
•
•
•
Large and heavy beams
in auditorium
Exterior brace conflicts
with architect’s vision
Possible differential
settlement
More form work on
waffle slab
Thick footing and more
reinforcement
More expensive
y
o
u
t
1
Design I Static
Material Lay down
Crane
Cactus
Material
Lay Down
Parking
Wash Out/Pump Area
Trailers
Design I Concept
Design I Static
Cost Analysis
$3,672,990 Total
$4,126,376 Total
$122/SF
$137/SF
Alternative 1- Steel Brace
Frame
Alternative 2- MRF Pre-Cast
Waffle Slab
Design I Static
Cost Breakdown
$22,869
$217,788
$255,264
$713,715
$690,045
$445,503
$81,570
$532,027
$24,087
$82,345
$923,099
$549,857
$547,950
$580,683
$278,553
Alternative 1- Steel Brace
Frame
$232,753
Alternative 2- MRF Pre-Cast
Waffle Slab
Design I Static
Schedule Comparison
Alt 1- Steel
Foundation
Complete
10/11/15
Start- 9/2/14
3rd Floor Steel
Complete
11/5/16
Building
Enclosed
1/14/16
Occupancy June 3th ‘16
Occupancy- 7/11/16
Foundation
Complete
10/16/15
Waffle Slab
Complete 11/9/15
Alt 2-MRF Pre-Cast
Building
Enclosed
1/29/16
Occupancy July 11th ‘16
Design I Concept
Design I Static
Pros and Cons
Pro:
•Fast Construction
•Cheap
Pro:
•Uniform Members
•Speed of Erection
•Simple Layout
Con:
Con:
•Site Access
•Waffle Slab
•Heavy Beams in Auditorium
•Expensive
Alternative 1- Steel Brace
Frame
Alternative 2- MRF Pre
Waffle Slab
Design II Concept
conversation
The echo of conversation between desert and architecture
• Dynamic status
• Façade
• Colors
dynamic
• Angled partition walls
• Irregular circulation
Design II Analysis
1
The first dynamic element is the form.
2
The second dynamic element is partition
angled walls.
3
The third dynamic element is the color.
Vertical circulation of the building
Three dynamic elements
1
2
3
Design II Color Coding
why architects love colors ?
Colors represent nature
Colors light the space
Colors may function as landmark
Colors have symbolic meaning
Sports Center Davos by Annette Gigon
+ Mike Guyer
Berlin IBA housing by Zaha Hadid
Kamioka Town Hall
by Arata Isozaki
Colors lift spirit
Chapel of St. Ignatius by Steven Holl
Shukosha Building by Arata Isozaki
Design II Drawings & Models
N
114’
38’
76’
The First Floor Plan
Auditorium, technical support
Seminar
MEP
Small classroom
Instructional lab
West Elevation
Design II Drawings & Models
43’
27’
14’
-4’
0’
-1’
The Second Floor Plan
Big classroom
Student office
Computer machine room
Seminar
MEP
Small classroom
Design II Drawings & Details
Hamburg Music School
A House by Morphosis
40’
The Third Floor Plan
27’
14’
-6’
0’ -1’
Faculty office
Faculty lounge
Small courtyard
MEP
Chair’s office, Secretary,
Senior admin. office
Design II Movement
Angled walls and colors imply movement
Sequential spatial layout
Structural Options
Option 1:
Option 2:
• Composite floor system
• Cast-In-Place Concrete frame
• Steel MRF
• Flat slab
• Concrete walls in elevator shaft
• Strip footing along exterior columns
• Strip footings
Option 1 -- Framing
W14x26
2VLI20, 2.5”
W18x50
Moment
Resistant Frame
W16x50
W14x68
column
Option 1
First floor
Third floor
Second floor
Matching The
Architectural Plan
Option 1 -- Foundation
Foundation Plan:
•
Shallow foundation
•
Spread footing under interior
columns, 8’x8’
•
Strip footing under external
columns, with a width of 4’
Foundation Plan
Option 2 -- Framing
8” two way slab
12”x18” beam
14”x14”
column
10” concrete wall
Framing Plan
Option 2 -- Two-way slab
Column
Flat slab with drop panel
Typical span: 25’x25’
Slab
Shear reinforcing
Pros and Cons
Options
Steel MRF
Concrete Frame
Pros
Cons
•
•
•
Prefabrication possible
Inexpensive
Simple foundation, no
much excavation work
•
•
Complex moment
resistant connection
Less space for MEP
•
Large clear space for
MEP system
Less concrete and
reinforcing
Simple foundation
•
•
Cast-In-Place concrete
More form work
•
•
y
o
u
t
2
Design II Dynamic
Material Lay down
Parking
Trailers
Cactus
Material
Lay Down
Crane
Wash
Out/Pump
Area
Parking
Design II Dynamic
Cost Analysis
$3,715,073 Total
$3,846,427 Total
$125/SF
$129/SF
Alternative 1- MRF Steel
Alternative 2- Flat Slabs
Design II Dynamic
Cost Breakdown
$23,817
$23,936
$228,901
$709,609
$229,392
$713,175
$487,601
$85,345
$628,224
$85,345
$581,075
$628,205
$590,195
$622,325
$283,956
Alternative 1- MRF Steel
$284,511
Alternative 2- Flat Slabs
d
u
Design II Dynamic
l
Schedule Comparison
e
C
Alt 1- MRF Steel
o
m
Foundation
Building
rd
3 Floor Steel
Complete
Enclosed p
Complete
10/16/14
2/2/15
11/17/15
a
Start- 9/2/14
r
iBuilding
Foundation
Structural
Complete
System
Enclosed
s
10/17/14
Complete
2/19/15
o
12/15/14
n
Alt 2-Flat Slabs
Occupancy June 15th ‘15
End- 7/29/15
Occupancy July29th ‘15
Design I Concept
Design II Dynamic
Pros and Cons
Pro:
Pro:
•Fast Construction
•No Beams
•Simple Foundation
•Site Access
Con:
Con:
•Difficult Connections
•Longer Schedule
•More Expensive
•Less Pre-Fabrication
Alternative 1- MRF Steel
Alternative 2- Flat Slabs
Decision Matrix
CONCEPT 1
+ PROS
- CONS
• Easy accessibility
• Big public open space
• Unexciting interior space
• Interesting details
• Less active in existing environment
• Regular framing
• Large and heavy beams
• Simple connection
• Unsymmetric
• Simple connection/framing
• Waffle Slab, Expensive
• Cheap, Fast Schedule
• Site Access
A
E
C
Decision Matrix
CONCEPT 2
+ PROS
- CONS
• Playing active role
• Concerning movements
• No big open space
• Interesting interior space
• Potential conflict to MEP system
• Larger space for MEP
• Irregular overhanging
• Symmetric
• More form work
A
E
• More difficult connection
• Site Access
• Smaller Beam Sizes
• More Expensive, Longer
Construction
• Irregular 3rd Floor
C
Valuable Lessons
• Do not wait until last minutes!!!
• Team iteration is critical to achieve a better structural
design.
• Be prepared before discussion.
Improvements
• More contact with owner and mentors.
• Faster and more frequent iteration.
• Learn more about other disciplines.
• Early sharing of information, even if
incomplete
Thanks
Thanks to Mentors and Owner
Special thanks to all AEC classmates