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