Transcript Document

2001 Winter Presentation
Site Location
Site View
Site History
1923
1968
Boston Improved Sewage
1972
Site Constraints
 Peninsula, surrounded by
water
 Area of in-filled land
 Winter snow
Engineering Constraints

Soil Properties





Compactable Soil
4000 psf bearing capacity
Capacity, silt/clay and sand mixture
20’ water table
Loading




Live Load
Dead Load
Wind Load
Roof Load
50
70
35
28
psf
psf
psf
psf
Budget Information
$2,750,060
2001
$5,500,000
2015
0
Project Budget
1,000,000
Inflation
2,000,000
Design Fee (7%)
3,000,000
4,000,000 5,000,000
Overhead & Profit (10%)
City Factor (16%)
6,000,000
Means Budget
Architect’s Vision
“With a clear understanding of the
historical influences of site, the land, the
harbor, the history of Boston…”
Architectural Design 1
(Redesign)




Keep the integrity of the DOME
Allow open center to remain
Evaluate programmatic functionality
Relocate sloped floor rooms to basement
level for ease of constructability of slabs
Architectural Design 1
(Redesign)
Engineering Design 1 Steel
(Redesign)




Composite steel
design
Regular column grid
Easy installation
Steel moment frame
Typical Beam: W14X26 c=1”
Moment Frame: W16X36
Design 1 Steel Estimate
(Redesign)
Preparation & Landscaping
Exterior Skin
Structure
Insulation
MEP System
Contingency
Roof
Interior Finishes
149,740
1,256,483
360,800
392,679
130,657
672,786
Total = $3,145,000
140,162

Engineering Design 1
Precast (Redesign)


12” masonry wall
24” deep precast
concrete girders
Design 1 Precast Estimate
(Redesign)
Preparation & Landscaping
Exterior Skin
Structure
Insulation
MEP System
Contingency
Roof
Interior Finishes
153,840
1,256,483
360,800
392,679
130,657
754,780
Total = $3,231,000
140,162

Design 1 Schedules

Finish Dates:


Steel - 09/28/16, Precast - 10/05/16
Durations:

Steel – 8 mo & 4 wks, Precast – 9 mo
Precast
Steel
0
4
Basement Slab
8
Structure
12
16
Exterior Skin
20
24
Interior Walls
28
Interior Finishes
32
36
40
Finish Construction
Architectural Design 2

Concepts





Flow like the
waves of the
bay
Structure like
the hull of a
boat
Gesture
towards the
historic
influence of
the site
Open walls
towards the
oak trees
Individuality
between
faculty and
students
Architectural Design 2
Auditorium
Classrooms, seminar rooms, labs
Student offices
Faculty offices, facilities, administration
Engineering Design 2 Steel
 Gravity System
 Composite steel design
 No truss for auditorium
Typical Beam W14X30
Typ Girder W24X55
Typ Col W12X40
Auditorium beam w24X76
Engineering Design 2 Steel
 Steel bracing
 Tube 3X3X1/4
 Foundation layout
 Strip & spread footings
Design 2 Steel Estimate
Structure
Insulation
MEP System
Contingency
Roof
Interior Finishes
129,604
335,744
Preparation & Landscaping
Exterior Skin
1,158,757
418,572
438,479
Total = $2,722,000
140,162

Engineering Design 2 Precast
Concrete gravity system
 Load bearing wall, 2-way slab
 48’ post-tensioned girders
Engineering Design 2 Precast
 12” masonry walls
 Load path
 Foundation layout
 3’ wide strip footing
Design 2 Precast Estimate
Preparation & Landscaping
Exterior Skin
Structure
Insulation
MEP System
Contingency
Roof
Interior Finishes
133,353
1,158,757
335,744
418,572
513,450
Total = $2,800,000
140,162

Design 2 Schedules

Finish Dates:


Steel - 09/14/16, Precast - 09/21/16
Duration:

Steel – 8 mo & 2 wks, Precast – 8 mo & 3 wks
Precast
Steel
0
4
Basement Slab
8
Structure
12
16
Exterior Skin
20
24
Interior Walls
28
Interior Finishes
32
36
40
Finish Construction
Architectural Design 3

Concepts
 Box in a box
 Simple, double structure
 Advantageous use of sloped classroom
and auditorium floors

Flow of light to below grade level
 Exterior wood structure to gesture
towards trees
Architectural Design 3
Auditorium
Classrooms, seminar rooms, labs
Student offices
Faculty offices, facilities, administration
Architectural Design 3
Engineering Design 3 Steel
Inside Frame Plan
Gravity System
Steel Bracing
Tube 3x3x1/4
Engineering Design 3 Steel
Outside Frame Plan
Flat Roof
Steel Knee Brace Frame
Design 3 Steel Estimate
Preparation & Landscaping
Exterior Skin
Structure
Insulation
MEP System
Contingency
Roof
Interior Finishes
146,816
1,153,149
347,210
410,539
779,172
Total = $3,083,000
140,162

Engineering Design 3 Wood
Inside Frame Plan
Gravity System
Wood Wall Lateral
System
Engineering Design 3 Wood
Outside Frame Plan
Pre-fabricated wood truss with knee brace
Prefab wood truss 2"X6"
Column 12"DIA
Knee brace 2"X6"
Joist 2"X4"
Steel Brace 12"X2"
Engineering Design 3 Wood
Outside Structure
Load Path
Gravity Load
Lateral Load
Engineering Typical Connection
Steel Bracing
Wood With Steel Plate
& Bolts
Design 3 Wood Estimate
Preparation & Landscaping
Exterior Skin
Structure
Insulation
MEP System
Contingency
Roof
Interior Finishes
141,816
1,153,149
347,210
410,539
679,172
Total = $2,978,000
140,162

Design 3 Schedules

Finish Dates:


Steel - 08/24/16, Wood - 09/07/16
Durations:

Steel – 7 mo & 3 wks, Wood – 8 mo & 1 wk
Wood
Steel
0
4
Basement Slab
8
Structure
12
16
Exterior Skin
20
24
Interior Walls
28
Interior Finishes
32
36
40
Finish Construction
Equipment Selection
Truck Crane
Mini Excavator
Skid Steer Loader
Budget Comparison
1,000,000
500,000
0
Design 1 (Redesign)
Budget
Design 2
Steel
Design 3
Precast / Wood
$2,978,138
$3,083,138
$2,750,060
$2,800,403
$2,721,683
1,500,000
$2,750,060
2,000,000
$3,230,636
2,500,000
$2,750,060
3,000,000
$3,144,542
3,500,000
Design Evaluations
Design
Architect
Engineer
CM
1S
Attractive Dome
Design
Moment Frame Is
Expensive
Constructability &
Budget Concerns
1P
Good Circulation
Dome Poses Wind
Load Problems
Constructability &
Budget Concerns
2S
Concept Fits Local
Area
Rigid Diaphragm
Problem
Best Budget
2P
Least Visually
Pleasing
Rigid Diaphragm
Problem
Good Budget
3S
Best Looking Building
Girders Have
Deflection Problem
Very Constructible
3W
Very Interesting
Building
Sloped Roof Helps
Snow Load
Very Constructible
Explanation of design rankings:
1=Best…6=Worst
Decision Matrix
Lowest point total wins
Design
Attractive
Interest
Budget
Schedule
Total
1S
4
3
5
5
17
1P
3
4
6
6
19
2S
6
5
1
3
15
2P
5
6
2
4
17
3S
2
2
3
1
8
3W
1
1
4
2
8
Design Choice

Design 3


Best combination of strengths vs. weaknesses
were 3W & 3S from matrix
Wood/Steel Hybrid
• Combine the attractiveness/interest of 3W with the
cost and schedule benefits of 3S
• Keep wood exterior structure of 3W, but incorporate
the steel interior structure of 3S
Team Dynamics/Interaction
Team Dynamics/Interaction
“The most challenging and the most
successful part of this whole process is the
perpetual learning of our own and each
others discipline and how we must
collaborate in order to succeed.”
“The structural system is not the only
aspect of the building. We need to think
about the others' intentions and
constraints. Compromising between
different intentions is very important in
developing a successful project.”
“The greatest thing we will take away from
this class is learning how to successfully
work in a challenging situation with diverse
people on a project with little contact.”
Lessons Learned

Cross-Discipline Knowledge



Teamwork




Vocabulary
Interests/Concerns
Tolerance
Dependence/Collaboration
Organization/Work Habits
Technology

New Applications
2001 Winter Presentation
Questions?