project introduction new high-tech classroom and lab facility area : 30,000sq.ft. function –to...
TRANSCRIPT
Project IntroductionProject 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.
Project ConstraintsProject 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
Site Context - Seaside, Site Context - Seaside, FloridaFlorida
Seaside Florida provides a rich and colorful oceanfront community with a unique architectural sophistication.
Hybrid Building, Steven Holl
City/ Campus Plan
Existing Site PlanExisting Site Plan
Design Concept 1Design Concept 1
Special architectural features
High heat load on east side
Solid auditorium structure
Inefficient floor plans
Design Concept 2Design Concept 2
Meets height requirements
Limited cranage space
Compact but awkward
floor plans
Design Concept 3Design Concept 3
Light steel structure over
flood protected “Core”
Business
Inflexible architecture layout
Excessive use of concrete
ArchitectureArchitecture
View of Building from road
Site PlanSite Plan
First Floor Plan
South Elevation
South-east Axon
Second Floor Plan
West Elevation
Third Floor Plan
North Elevation
Section Through Auditorium
East Elevation
Area Analysis
Computer Mach Room
3%
Tech Support
0%
Instructional Labs7%
Auditorium10%
Large Classrooms
9%
Circulation28%
Storage4%
Seminar Rooms
5%
Small Classrooms
9%
Senior Admin
1%
Student Offices
4%
Faculty Lounge
4%
Secretaries1%
Chair's Office
1%
Faculty Office14%
Entry Perspective
Interior Space ModelFirst Floor
First Floor Area Analysis
Seminar Rooms
14%
Restrooms3%
HVAC / Mechanical
3%
Auditorium27%
Small Classrooms
24%
Circulation/ Lobby29%
View from Sea
Interior Space ModelSecond Floor
Second Floor Area Analysis
Secretaries5%
Senior Admin office
5%
Faculty Lounge16%
Chair's office5%
Faculty offices49%
Student's office20%
Interior Space ModelThird Floor
Third Floor Area Analysis
HVAC / Mechanical3%
Restrooms3%
Tech Support1%
Computer Mach. Room
8%
Faculty offices5% Large Classrooms
24%
Instructional Labs21%
Circulation/ Lobby24%
Storage11%
Iterative ProcessesIterative Processes
• Wayfinding problems caused by
numerous corridors
•Quality of space corrupted by low
ceiling heights
Problem: Design for 3rd floor office wing, elevated slab
• Elevated slab raises several
constructability issues
• Prohibitive complexity for
architectural and structural design
Iterative ProcessesIterative Processes
• Simplified architectural design
• Organized architectural design,
faculty offices with exterior view
Solution: Swap second and third floors entirely
Auditorium
Offices
Large Classrooms
• Walls to hide main Beams in
• Large classrooms placed under
large open steel truss roofing
Iterative ProcessesIterative Processes
• Architect prefers tighter
spacing of structural elements to
improve asymmetric balance
• Glazed corner important to
design concept
Leveraging Aesthetic and Functional Concerns
• Large shear walls block a great
deal of window wall on North
elevation
Structural SystemStructural System
Gravity loads– DL = 150 psf– LL = 50-100 psf
Wind load 120 psf – ASCE 7-95
Preliminary system
Office WingOffice Wing
Shear wall system
Foundation
9 ‘ Flat slab
perimeter beam
Flat Plate in SAP 2000Flat Plate in SAP 2000
Structural ModelStructural Model
Gravity SystemGravity System
Beams– Cast in place
9”x12” (2.0%)
Columns– Custom precast 18”x18” (3%) / 20”x20” (3.5%)– Auditorium precast 26”x16” (1.5%)– Interior cast in Place 18”x18” (2%)
AuditoriumAuditorium
Retaining wall / slab
Precast columns
Glass corners
Roof
?
Lateral System Lateral System AuditoriumAuditorium Higher wind
pressure
Shear wall
connection
Ringbeam
Integrated SolutionIntegrated Solution
Hidden steel beams
W24x450 (90%)
Larger shear walls
Reduced cantilever
Structural ModelStructural Model
Wind DeflectionWind Deflection
Cost Breakdown - $ Cost Breakdown - $ 5,600,0005,600,000
2% 3%
21%
9%
4%
22%
2%
16%
18%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1
Proportion of Total Cost
Cost Breakdown
Foundations
Substructure
Superstructure
Exterior closure
Roofing
I nterior construction
Conveying
Mechanical
Electrical
Special construction
Schedule - Start Date 1 Schedule - Start Date 1 May 2011May 2011
Finish Date 25 Finish Date 25 Apr 2012Apr 2012
Crane - Link Belt Hydraulic Truck Crane - HTC 11100
Backhoe Loader - Caterpillar 426C
EquipmentEquipment
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
COST $
1
Type of Fenestration
COMPARISON OF FENESTRATION SYSTEMS
Glazed reflective curtain wall
Non-reflective high e curtain wall
Comparison: Comparison: Fenestration SystemFenestration System
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
Cost $
1 2
Type of construction
COLUMN CONSTRUCTION
Precast Cast-in-place
Comparison: Comparison: Column Column ConstructionConstruction
1 Aug 20111 Aug 2011
12 Oct 201112 Oct 2011
3 Nov 2011 3 Nov 2011
Opportunities for Off-Opportunities for Off-site Fabricationsite Fabrication
• Copper roof
• Auditorium Roof Truss
• Precast concrete columns
• Curtain wall and cladding frame
Design AnalysisDesign Analysis
• Location a factor in team dynamics
• Tight design process between engineer and architect
•Design process monitored by construction management
Group AssessmentGroup 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
Using TechnologyUsing Technology
Collaborative MeansHeavy 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
Lessons learnedLessons 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