Project Introduction

1
(No Transcript)
2
Project Introduction

• New high-tech classroom and lab facility
• Area 30,000sq.ft.
• Function
• To provide a home for innovative courses that
  take a team based approach to problem solving and
  design.
• Inhabitants of building should feel a part of
  surrounding environ.
• Create a work environment that stresses
  collaborative achievement.

3
Project Constraints

• Constrained site- limited by palm grove, existing
  buildings and sea
• Budget - 5.5 million
• Completed by 9/30/12
• Hurricane zone
• Hot, humid climatic conditions high heat loads
• Structural system must withstand high winds and
  possible flooding
• Floor height restrictions

4
Site Context - Seaside, Florida
Seaside Florida provides a rich and colorful
oceanfront community with a unique architectural
sophistication.
City/ Campus Plan
Hybrid Building, Steven Holl
5
Existing Site Plan
6
Design Concept 1

• Special architectural features
• High heat load on east side
• Solid auditorium structure
• Inefficient floor plans

7
Design Concept 2

• Meets height requirements
• Limited cranage space
• Compact but awkward
• floor plans

8
Design Concept 3

• Light steel structure over
• flood protected Core
• Business
• Inflexible architecture layout
• Excessive use of concrete

9
Architecture
View of Building from road
10
Site Plan
11
South Elevation
First Floor Plan
South-east Axon
12
West Elevation
Second Floor Plan
13
North Elevation
Third Floor Plan
14
East Elevation
Section Through Auditorium
15
Area Analysis
Entry Perspective
16
Interior Space Model First Floor
View from Sea
17
Interior Space Model Second Floor
18
Interior Space Model Third Floor
19
(No Transcript)
20
Iterative Processes
Problem Design for 3rd floor office wing,
elevated slab

• Wayfinding problems caused by numerous
  corridors
• Quality of space corrupted by low ceiling heights

• Elevated slab raises several constructability
  issues
• Prohibitive complexity for architectural and
  structural design

21
Iterative Processes
Solution Swap second and third floors entirely
Large Classrooms
Offices
Auditorium

• Walls to hide main Beams in
• Large classrooms placed under
• large open steel truss roofing

• Simplified architectural design
• Organized architectural design,
  faculty offices with exterior view

22
Iterative Processes
Leveraging Aesthetic and Functional Concerns

• Architect prefers tighter spacing of structural
  elements to improve asymmetric balance
• Glazed corner important to design concept

• Large shear walls block a great deal of
  window wall on North elevation

23
Structural System

• Gravity loads
• DL 150 psf
• LL 50-100 psf
• Wind load 120 psf
• ASCE 7-95
• Preliminary system

24
Office Wing

• Shear wall system
• Foundation
• 9 Flat slab
• perimeter beam

25
Flat Plate in SAP 2000
26
Structural Model
27
Gravity System

• Beams
• Cast in place
• 9x12 (2.0)
• Columns
• Custom precast 18x18 (3) / 20x20 (3.5)
• Auditorium precast 26x16 (1.5)
• Interior cast in Place 18x18 (2)

28
Auditorium

• Retaining wall / slab
• Precast columns
• Glass corners
• Roof

?
29
Lateral System Auditorium

• Higher wind
• pressure
• Shear wall
• connection
• Ringbeam

30
Integrated Solution

• Hidden steel beams
• W24x450 (90)
• Larger shear walls
• Reduced cantilever

31
Structural Model
32
Wind Deflection
33
Cost Breakdown - 5,600,000
34
Schedule - Start Date 1 May 2011 Finish Date
25 Apr 2012
35
Equipment
Crane - Link Belt Hydraulic Truck Crane - HTC
11100
Backhoe Loader - Caterpillar 426C
36
Comparison Fenestration System
37
Comparison Column Construction
Precast
Cast-in-place
38
1 Aug 2011
39
12 Oct 2011
40
3 Nov 2011
41
Opportunities for Off-site Fabrication

• Copper roof
• Auditorium Roof Truss
• Precast concrete columns
• Curtain wall and cladding frame

42
Design Analysis

• Location a factor in team dynamics
• Tight design process between engineer and
  architect
• Design process monitored by construction
  management

43
Group Assessment

• Collaborative Successes
• Strong integration of structure and architecture
• Friendly relationship, friendly struggles
• Programmatic goals achieved through iterative
  design process

• Collaborative Inadequacies
• Lack of shared product model
• Creation of numerous design models, several for
  each discipline
• Difficulties with communicating key structural
  concerns

44
Using Technology

• Collaborative Means
• Heavy use of web based technologies
• NetMeeting
• Email
• Discussion Forums
• Group web space
• Technology cannot offset lack of communication
• Learning new technologies requires time overhead
  and may not produce desired results

45
Lessons learned

• Everyone should use compatible technology
• Shared product model saves time and increases
  efficiency across disciplines
• Team should follow protocols for developing and
  sharing information
• Greater understanding of other disciplines needs
• If technology is used properly, time and effort
  are saved for the entire team