Integrated Design : Building Scale Looking at Options in Structures : Part I Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Basic Morphology of Horizontal Span Construction Systems Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Rigid Structural Systems Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Horizontal Spanning Systems – The Hierarchy of Framing Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Horizontal Spanning Systems – The Hierarchy of Framing 1. COLUMN Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Horizontal Spanning Systems – The Hierarchy of Framing 1. COLUMN 2. GIRDER Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Horizontal Spanning Systems – The Hierarchy of Framing 3. BEAM 1. COLUMN 2. GIRDER Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Horizontal Spanning Systems – The Hierarchy of Framing 4. DECK/SLAB 3. BEAM 1. COLUMN 2. GIRDER Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Walls and Plates Rigid, surface-forming structures Walls Load-bearing walls carry vertical loads resulting from floor plates lateral loads are also supported perpendicular to the plane of the surface Plates Horizontal flat plates are used to carry bending loads between load-bearing walls Can be constructed of concrete or steel Long, narrow plates can be joined in a beam-like configuration called folded plates Allow for greater spans Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

One-Way and Two-Way Structures Different spatial configurations and support placements One-way: Linear beam between two supports Two-way: Complex arrangement of supports that results in load transferring in more than one direction Certain applications provide advantages given material usage Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

One Way and Two Way Spanning Systems Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Typical Span Conditions Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

One-Way and Two-Way Structures 1. Plywood deck on wood joists 6. Two way concrete plate 2. Concrete slab on metal deck, steel joist and beam 7. Two way concrete slab on drop panels 3. One way concrete slab 8. Two way concrete slab on edge beams 4. One way beams 9. Two way beams 5. One way rib slab 10. Two way waffle slab

One Way Systems Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Two Way Systems Fig 13.8 Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Span Ranges for Horizontal Systems Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Typical Span Conditions : Concrete AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Concrete Construction Examples AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Concrete Construction One or Two Way Systems Requires Formwork Easy to Make Changes During Construction Difficult to Modify After Construction Does Not Require Fireproofing Typically Used for High-Rise Residential Construction Good for Vibration Control – Labs and Science Bldgs

Concrete Construction Systems Flat Plate Construction Two Way System Light Loads Simplified Formwork Approx. Square Bays Punching Shear May Control Slab Thick. and Column Size Need multiple bays

Sitecast Concrete two-way flat plate PRELIMINARY DESIGN: DEPTH = SPAN/30 Ref: The Architects Studio Companion. Allen and Iano. AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Concrete Construction Systems Flat Slab Construction Two Way System No Beams Drop panels reduce punching shear stresses Expensive to form drop panels Light or Heavy Loads Approx. Square Bays Need multiple bays

Sitecast concrete two-way flat slab PRELIMINARY DESIGN: DEPTH = SPAN/30 Ref: The Architects Studio Companion. Allen and Iano. AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Concrete Construction Concrete Joist System One Way System Repetitive “pan” Forms Light to Medium Loads Size Members based on ACI Guidelines

Concrete Construction Slab and Beam Const. Two Way System Medium to Heavy Loads More Complex Formwork than Flat Plate and Flat Slab Approx. Square Bays Size Members based on ACI Guidelines

SITECAST CONCRETE BEAMS AND GIRDERS PRELIMINARY DESIGN: DEPTH = SPAN/16 Ref: The Architects Studio Companion. Allen and Iano. AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Sitecast Concrete One-way Joists PRELIMINARY DESIGN: DEPTH = SPAN/18 Ref: The Architects Studio Companion. Allen and Iano. AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Concrete Construction Waffle Slab System Two Way System Expensive Repetitive Pan Forms Light to Heavy Loads Long Spans Approx. Square Bays Use only if part of architectural aesthetic

Sitecast Concrete Waffle Slab PRELIMINARY DESIGN: DEPTH = SPAN/24 Ref: The Architects Studio Companion. Allen and Iano. AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Typical Span Conditions : Steel AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Steel Floor Systems Typical Lease Span and Bay Configurations Steel Beam with Metal Deck Composite Action for Beams 40’ 30’

Steel Floor Systems Loose fit – Standard structural zone & MEP zone Composite steel beam Column Grid – 40’ x 30’ Typical beam – W18 Typical girder – W21 Structural depth– 27in Pro Traditional steel construction Least steel weight Con Deep structural depth

Steel Floor Systems Tight fit – Integrated structural & MEP zone Single or Double Punched Girder Column Grid – 40’ x 30’ Typical beam – W16 Typical girder – W27 Structural & MEP zone – 36in Pro Minimized smep zone Con 3-d coordination required (revit/navisworks) Reduced future flexibility

Steel Floor Systems Tight fit – Compressed structural zone & MEP zone Slim floor Column Grid – 25’ x 25’ Typical beam – W12 Structural depth– 13.5in Pro Shallow structural depth Con Uncommon in US market High steel weight

Structural Steel Beams and Girders PRELIMINARY DESIGN: DEPTH = SPAN/20 Ref: The Architects Studio Companion. Allen and Iano. AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

OPEN-WEB STEEL JOISTS PRELIMINARY DESIGN: DEPTH = SPAN/24 Ref: The Architects Studio Companion. Allen and Iano. AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Grid Layouts AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Orthogonal Grids Fig 13.10 Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Grid Transitions – In Plan Fig 13.21 Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Columns and Transfer Structure Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Grid Transitions – Section Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Grid Transitions – Transfer Beams Locations where columns “transfer” in vertical construction Large beams typically are required where columns transfer Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Spatial Considerations AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Modifying Space With Structure Fig 13.2 Repetition Counts

Using Cantilevers Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Spatial Compatibility with Architectural Intent Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Integration with Ceiling and Mechanical Systems Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Floor Systems Loose fit – Standard structural zone & MEP zone Pro Traditional office construction Con Deep floor to floor depths Structural Zone MEP Zone Tight fit – Compressed structural zone & MEP zone Pro Reduced floor to floor depths Con Increased material use Structural Zone MEP Zone Tight fit – Integrated structural & MEP zone Structural Zone Pro Least floor to floor depths Con Increased coordination Lack of flexibility Integrated Zone MEP Zone

Distribution of Building Services Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Choosing A Structural System – Putting It All Together AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Laying it out – Simple Approach Establish Your Clear Span Requirements – Determine Initial Ideal Column Grids. Find a pattern. Test Fit Floor Plans. Determine Your Depth Requirements – Influence from Zoning Height or Occupancy Use is Important. Adjust Column Grids if Depth Requirements Cannot be Achieved. Choose Your Structural System and Material Approach for Gravity System Elements – Beams and Columns Establish Lateral Approach – Look for Opportunities with Egress Core Locations Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Establish Your Clear Span Requirements - General Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Establish Your Clear Span Requirements - Concrete Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Establish Your Clear Span Requirements - Steel Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Determine Your Depth Requirements Review Column Locations Determine Use and Occupancy Characteristics Leave Room for Ceilings, Lighting and MEP Understand Implications for Stairways Try to Regularize Floor To Floor Heights. Check your Zoning – Make Sure You are Below Requirements Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Choose Your Structural Systems and Material Approach Steel? Positives: Lightweight. Good for Longer Spans. Readily Available in Most US Markets Prefabrication Possibilities. Quicker Construction Periods. Good for Orthogonal Typologies – Can Be Costly for Unusual Floor Plates Negatives: Fireproofing. Difficult to Achieve More “Fluid” Geometries Can Be Bulky – More Space for Core Walls and Columns Deeper floor construction – Typically Leads to Larger Floor to Floor Heights Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Choose Your Structural Systems and Material Approach Concrete? Positives Inexpensive in most markets for flat plate systems Ability to economically create floor plan shapes out of orthangonal Thinner than Steel typically for closely space columns. Reduction of overall floor to floor height and building height. Acoustic Benefit MEP Coordination with flat plate easier Easy to alter design in the field. Negatives Cast in place beams needed for larger spans – can be deep and costly. Difficult to retrofit Spans for flat plate systems limiting for certain uses. Heavier than Steel – More Foundation cost and higher seismic cost Quality control can be challenging Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Establish Your Lateral System Approach Braced Frames Shear Walls Size, Placement More Info Next Week in Part II Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Laying it out – Simple Approach Establish Your Clear Span Requirements – Determine Initial Ideal Column Grids. Find a pattern. Test Fit Floor Plans. Determine Your Depth Requirements – Influence from Zoning Height or Occupancy Use is Important. Adjust Column Grids if Depth Requirements Cannot be Achieved. Choose Your Structural System and Material Approach for Gravity System Elements – Beams and Columns Establish Lateral Approach – Look for Opportunities with Egress Core Locations Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan

Foundations AT 1 | Technology + Making in Architecture | Prof. Craig Schwitter

Foundation Types Integrated Design : Building Scale | Prof. Craig Schwitter, Prof. Sarrah Khan