Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
construction manager Kit Fleming
engineer Peng Li
architect Xiang Liu
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
Team Introduction
• Multi-disciplinary, collaborative teamwork in a building project
• Apply discipline knowledge and technologies.
• Knowledge management.
• 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.”
Requirements
Project Goal
The campus map of Express University
The site map of new engineering school
Location
Express University is located in Phoenix, Arizona.
Climate/Weather
Annual average temperature is 61F.
Annual rainfall is 7.6 inch
Site Map
The site map of new engineering school
• Good use of materials
• Insulation Concerns
• Aesthetic taste to enrich environment
Analysis of Context
The site map of new engineering school
• Cactus, a typical plant in a desert environment
• A collection of rare cactus varieties between two footprints
• Other green plants on campus
Analysis of Landscape
A collection of cactus
Outside public space
Entrance to each footprint
Subdivided roads
Main roads
Analysis of Circulation
static dynamic
Design Concept
• static status
• regular geometric forms
• solid exterior look
• symmetrical layout
conversation
The silent conversation between desert and architecture
static
Design I Concept
The relationship of three layers of lines along X, Y, Z axis 21 3
2
Vertical circulation of the building
The first layer of lines is along the footprint.
The second layer of lines reveals the horizontal lines along X, Y axis.
The third layer of lines displays the relationship between horizontal and vertical lines.
1
3
Design I Analysis
Auditorium, technical supportSmall classroomInstructional lab
MEP
The First Floor Plan
-7’-1’ 0’
14’
27’
40’
58’
116’
58’
Design I Drawings & Models
Student office
SeminarBig classroomStorage
Computer machine roomSmall classroom
The Second Floor Plan
Winterthur Museum of Art Extension
West Elevation
Design I Drawings
N
Faculty officeFaculty loungeMEPChair’s office Secretaries Senior admin. office
The Third Floor Plan
0’
14’
27’
40’
Design I Drawings & Details
• Climate
39 °FLow temperature in Jan
105 °FHigh temperature in July
0.1”Annual snow fall
7.6”Average rain
61°FAverage temperature
• Soil conditions
Bearing capacity: 5ksf
No expansive soil
• Earthquake free
Site Issues
Earthquake Locations
Gravity Loads
Gravity load path——Steel Braced frames
Gravity load path——Two way slabs
Gravity Loads
Lateral Loads
Wind Zone Map
Lateral load path —— Concrete MRF
Lateral Loads
Lateral load path —— Braced frames
“Simplicity and functionality through early collaboration and exchange of ideas, inspirations and constraints.”
• Simple
• Regular
• Least intrusive structural system
• Constructability
• Lower budget
Design Goals
Option 1 -- Framing
Framing Plan
Laterally Braced Frame
• 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
• Composite floor system
• Laterally braced frame
• Cast-in-place concrete walls in elevator shaft
• Spread footings
Option 1: Option 2:• Concrete frame
• One-way slab
• Waffle slab in auditorium
Option 1
entrance
main entrance
First floor
Second floor
Third floor
Matching The Architectural Plan
Option 1 -- Sizes
Typical Sizes:
2VLI20, 2.5”
W18x119
W16x40
W21x48
W21x48
10” wall
Option 1 -- Foundation
Foundation Plan
Foundation Plan:
• Shallow foundation
• Spread footing under columns, with size of 8’x8’
• Strip footing under concrete walls, with a width of 4’
Option 1 -- Connection
Typical connections
Beam-Girder
Girder-Column webGirder-Column flange
Beam Splice
Option 2 -- Framing
1st Floor Framing Plan 2nd and 3rd Floor Framing Plan
Framing Plan——Concrete Frame:
Option 2 -- SizesTypical Element Sizes:
•One way slab
Depth: 7”
Steel: #3@6”
3@3=9"2.5" 2.5"2.5"
2.5"
16.5"#3@10"
Beam Column section
2@4=8"3"
3"
3"
12"#3@14"
3"
Beam Section Column Section
•Beams
14” x 21.5”
6#7 bars
#3@10” Ties
•Columns
18” x 18”
6#7 bars
#3@14” Ties
Option 2 -- Waffle Slab
Waffle Slab:
Waffle slab
•4.5” slab
•Total depth: 22.5”
•30”x30” voids
•6” ribs
Top View
Option 2 -- Foundation
A A
Raft Footing
A - A
Pros and Cons
Options Pros Cons
Steel Braced FrameSpread Footing
•Regular framing plan•Simple connection•Easy construction•Inexpensive•Simple foundation
• Large and heavy beams in auditorium
• Exterior brace conflicts with architect’s vision
• Possible differential settlement
Concrete FrameRaft Footing
• Pre-cast• No differential
settlement• More redundant in
LFR system
• More form work on waffle slab
• Thick footing and more reinforcement
• More expensive
Layout1
Design I Static
Material Lay down
Cactus
Crane
Wash Out/Pump Area
Material Lay Down
Parking
Trailers
Design I Concept
Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame
Alternative 2- MRF Pre-Cast
Waffle Slab
Design I Static
Cost Analysis
$3,672,990 Total
$122/SF
$4,126,376 Total
$137/SF
Alternative 2- MRF Pre-Cast
Waffle SlabAlternative 1- Steel Brace
Frame
Design I StaticCost
Breakdown
$24,087 $255,264
$923,099
$580,683
$232,753
$549,857
$82,345
$713,715
$22,869$217,788
$445,503
$547,950
$278,553
$532,027
$81,570
$690,045
Design I Static
Alt 1- Steel
Start- 9/2/14
Occupancy- 7/11/16
Alt 2-MRF Pre-Cast
Occupancy June 3th ‘16
Occupancy July 11th ‘16
Foundation Complete 10/11/15
3rd Floor Steel Complete
11/5/16
Building Enclosed 1/14/16
Foundation Complete 10/16/15
Waffle Slab Complete 11/9/15
Building Enclosed 1/29/16
Schedule Comparison
Design I ConceptDesign I Static
Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame
Alternative 2- MRF Pre Waffle Slab
Pros and Cons
•Fast Construction
•Cheap
•Simple Layout
Pro:
Con:•Site Access
•Heavy Beams in Auditorium
Pro:
Con:•Waffle Slab
•Expensive
•Uniform Members
•Speed of Erection
conversation
The echo of conversation between desert and architecture
dynamic
• Dynamic status
• Façade
• Colors
• Angled partition walls
• Irregular circulation
Design II Concept
21 3
Vertical circulation of the building
The first dynamic element is the form.
The second dynamic element is partition angled walls.
The third dynamic element is the color.
Three dynamic elements
2
1
3
Design II Analysis
why architects love colors ?
Chapel of St. Ignatius by Steven HollBerlin IBA housing by Zaha Hadid
Kamioka Town Hall by Arata Isozaki
Shukosha Building by Arata Isozaki
Sports Center Davos by Annette Gigon + Mike Guyer
Colors represent nature
Colors light the space
Colors may function as landmark
Colors have symbolic meaning
Colors lift spirit
Design II Color Coding
Auditorium, technical supportSeminar
Instructional lab
MEP
The First Floor Plan
Small classroom
West Elevation
38’ 76’
114’
Design II Drawings & Models
N
Big classroomStudent officeComputer machine room
The Second Floor Plan
SeminarMEPSmall classroom
0’
14’
27’
43’
-4’ -1’
Design II Drawings & Models
Faculty office
Chair’s office, Secretary, Senior admin. office
Faculty lounge
The Third Floor Plan
MEPSmall courtyard
0’
14’
27’
40’
-6’ -1’
Hamburg Music School A House by Morphosis
Design II Drawings & Details
Angled walls and colors imply movement
Sequential spatial layout
Design II Movement
Structural Options
• Composite floor system
• Steel MRF
• Concrete walls in elevator shaft
• Strip footings
Option 1: Option 2:• Cast-In-Place Concrete frame
• Flat slab
• Strip footing along exterior columns
Option 1 -- Framing
Moment Resistant Frame
W14x26
W16x50
W18x50
2VLI20, 2.5”
W14x68 column
Option 1
First floor
Second floor
Third floor
Matching The Architectural Plan
Option 1 -- Foundation
Foundation Plan
Foundation Plan:
• Shallow foundation
• Spread footing under interior columns, 8’x8’
• Strip footing under external columns, with a width of 4’
Option 2 -- Framing
Framing Plan
12”x18” beam
8” two way slab
10” concrete wall
14”x14” column
Option 2 -- Two-way slab
Slab
Column
Shear reinforcing
Flat slab with drop panel
Typical span: 25’x25’
Pros and Cons
Options Pros Cons
Steel MRF
• Prefabrication possible
• Inexpensive• Simple foundation, no
much excavation work
• Complex moment resistant connection
• Less space for MEP
Concrete Frame
• Large clear space for MEP system
• Less concrete and reinforcing
• Simple foundation
• Cast-In-Place concrete
• More form work
Layout 2
Cactus
Trailers
Crane
Material Lay Down
Material Lay down
Parking
Wash Out/Pump Area
Parking
Design II Dynamic
Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs
Cost Analysis
$3,715,073 Total
$125/SF
$3,846,427 Total
$129/SF
Design II Dynamic
Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs
Design II Dynamic
$23,936 $229,392
$628,224
$622,325
$284,511
$590,195
$85,345
$713,175
$23,817$228,901
$487,601
$628,205
$283,956
$581,075
$85,345
$709,609
Cost Breakdown
Schedule Comparison
Alt 1- MRF Steel
Alt 2-Flat Slabs
Start- 9/2/14
End- 7/29/15
Occupancy June 15th ‘15
Foundation Complete 10/16/14
3rd Floor Steel Complete 11/17/15
Building Enclosed
2/2/15
Structural System
Complete 12/15/14
Building Enclosed 2/19/15
Foundation Complete 10/17/14 Occupancy July29th ‘15
Design II DynamicSchedule
Comparison
Design I Concept
Pros and Cons
•Fast Construction
•Simple Foundation
Pro:
Con:•Difficult Connections
•More Expensive
Pro:
Con:•Longer Schedule
•Less Pre-Fabrication
•No Beams
•Site Access
Design II Dynamic
Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs
Decision Matrix
CONCEPT 1
+ PROS - CONS
A
E
C
• Regular framing
• Simple connection
• Large and heavy beams
• Unsymmetric
• Easy accessibility
• Big public open space
• Interesting details
• Unexciting interior space
• Less active in existing environment
• Simple connection/framing
• Cheap, Fast Schedule
• Waffle Slab, Expensive
• Site Access
Decision Matrix
CONCEPT 2
+ PROS - CONS
A
E
C
• Larger space for MEP
• Symmetric
• Irregular overhanging
• More form work
• More difficult connection
• Playing active role
• Concerning movements
• Interesting interior space
• No big open space
• Potential conflict to MEP system
• Site Access
• Smaller Beam Sizes
• More Expensive, Longer Construction
• Irregular 3rd Floor
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
