Team Introduction Collaboration in Cyberspace construction manager Kit Fleming architect Xiang Liu engineer Peng Li 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

Project Goal Requirements Multi-disciplinary, collaborative teamwork in a building project Apply discipline knowledge and technologies. Knowledge management. Requirements 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.”

Site Map Location Climate/Weather Annual average temperature is 61F. 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 The campus map of Express University

Analysis of Context Good use of materials Insulation Concerns Aesthetic taste to enrich environment The site map of new engineering school

Analysis of Landscape Cactus, a typical plant in a desert environment A collection of rare cactus varieties between two footprints Other green plants on campus The site map of new engineering school

Analysis of Circulation Main roads Subdivided roads Outside public space A collection of cactus Entrance to each footprint

Design Concept static dynamic

static Design I Concept static status regular geometric forms conversation The silent conversation between desert and architecture static status regular geometric forms solid exterior look symmetrical layout static

Design I Analysis The first layer of lines is along the footprint. 1 The second layer of lines reveals the horizontal lines along X, Y axis. 2 The third layer of lines displays the relationship between horizontal and vertical lines. 3 Vertical circulation of the building The relationship of three layers of lines along X, Y, Z axis 1 2 3

Design I Drawings & Models 58’ 58’ 116’ The First Floor Plan 40’ 27’ Auditorium, technical support Small classroom 14’ Instructional lab 0’ MEP -1’ -7’

Design I Drawings N The Second Floor Plan West Elevation Winterthur Museum of Art Extension N The Second Floor Plan Student office Small classroom Computer machine room Seminar Big classroom West Elevation Storage

Design I Drawings & Details The Third Floor Plan 40’ Faculty office Faculty lounge 27’ MEP 14’ Chair’s office Secretaries Senior admin. office 0’

Site Issues Earthquake Locations Average temperature Average rain Climate 39 °F Low temperature in Jan 105 °F High temperature in July 0.1” Annual snow fall 7.6” Average rain 61°F Average temperature Soil conditions Bearing capacity: 5ksf No expansive soil Earthquake free Earthquake Locations

Gravity Loads

Gravity Loads Gravity load path ——Steel Braced frames ——Two way slabs

Lateral Loads Wind Zone Map

Lateral Loads Lateral load path —— Braced frames Lateral load path —— Concrete MRF

Design Goals “Simplicity and functionality through early collaboration and exchange of ideas, inspirations and constraints.” Simple Regular Least intrusive structural system Constructability Lower budget

Option 1 -- Framing Laterally Braced Frame Framing Plan 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 Framing Plan

Structural Options Option 2: Option 1: Concrete frame One-way slab Waffle slab in auditorium Composite floor system Laterally braced frame Cast-in-place concrete walls in elevator shaft Spread footings

Matching The Architectural Plan Option 1 First floor Third floor Second floor Matching The Architectural Plan

Option 1 -- Sizes Typical Sizes: W21x48 10” wall 2VLI20, 2.5” W18x119

Option 1 -- Foundation Foundation Plan: Shallow foundation Spread footing under columns, with size of 8’x8’ Strip footing under concrete walls, with a width of 4’ Foundation Plan

Option 1 -- Connection Typical connections Beam-Girder Girder-Column flange Girder-Column web Beam Splice

Option 2 -- Framing Framing Plan——Concrete Frame: 1st Floor Framing Plan 2nd and 3rd Floor Framing Plan

Option 2 -- Sizes Typical Element Sizes: Columns One way slab Beams 18” x 18” 6#7 bars #3@14” Ties Typical Element Sizes: One way slab Depth: 7” Steel: #3@6” Beams 14” x 21.5” 6#7 bars #3@10” Ties Column Section Beam Section

Option 2 -- Waffle Slab Waffle Slab: 4.5” slab Total depth: 22.5” 30”x30” voids 6” ribs Top View

Option 2 -- Foundation Raft Footing

Pros and Cons Options Pros Cons Steel Braced Frame Spread 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 Frame Raft 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 Cactus Material Lay down Crane Parking Wash Out/Pump Area Trailers

Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame Design I Concept Design I Static Cost Analysis $3,672,990 Total $122/SF $4,126,376 Total $137/SF Alternative 2- MRF Pre-Cast Waffle Slab Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame

Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame Design I Static Cost Breakdown $22,869 $24,087 $255,264 $217,788 $713,715 $690,045 $445,503 $82,345 $923,099 $81,570 $549,857 $547,950 $532,027 $580,683 $232,753 $278,553 Alternative 2- MRF Pre-Cast Waffle Slab Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame

Schedule Comparison Design I Static Occupancy June 3th ‘16 Alt 1- Steel Foundation Complete 10/11/15 3rd Floor Steel Complete 11/5/16 Building Enclosed 1/14/16 Occupancy June 3th ‘16 Start- 9/2/14 Occupancy- 7/11/16 Foundation Complete 10/16/15 Waffle Slab Complete 11/9/15 Building Enclosed 1/29/16 Occupancy July 11th ‘16 Alt 2-MRF Pre-Cast

Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame Alternative 2- MRF Pre Waffle Slab Design I Concept Design I Static Pros and Cons Pro: Pro: Fast Construction Cheap Simple Layout Uniform Members Speed of Erection Con: Con: Site Access Heavy Beams in Auditorium Waffle Slab Expensive Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame Alternative 2- MRF Pre Waffle Slab

dynamic Design II Concept Dynamic status Façade Colors conversation The echo of conversation between desert and architecture Dynamic status Façade Colors Angled partition walls Irregular circulation dynamic

Design II Analysis The first dynamic element is the form. 1 The first dynamic element is the form. The second dynamic element is partition angled walls. 2 3 The third dynamic element is the color. Vertical circulation of the building Three dynamic elements 1 2 3

Design II Color Coding why architects love colors ? Colors represent nature Colors light the space Colors may function as landmark Colors have symbolic meaning Colors lift spirit Kamioka Town Hall by Arata Isozaki Sports Center Davos by Annette Gigon + Mike Guyer Berlin IBA housing by Zaha Hadid Chapel of St. Ignatius by Steven Holl Shukosha Building by Arata Isozaki

Design II Drawings & Models 114’ 38’ 76’ The First Floor Plan Auditorium, technical support Seminar MEP Small classroom Instructional lab West Elevation

Design II Drawings & Models The Second Floor Plan 43’ Big classroom 27’ Student office Computer machine room 14’ Seminar MEP 0’ -1’ -4’ Small classroom

Design II Drawings & Details Hamburg Music School A House by Morphosis 40’ The Third Floor Plan Faculty office 27’ Faculty lounge 14’ Small courtyard MEP 0’ Chair’s office, Secretary, Senior admin. office -1’ -6’

Design II Movement Angled walls and colors imply movement Sequential spatial layout

Structural Options Option 1: Option 2: Composite floor system Steel MRF Concrete walls in elevator shaft Strip footings Cast-In-Place Concrete frame Flat slab Strip footing along exterior columns

Moment Resistant Frame Option 1 -- Framing W14x26 2VLI20, 2.5” W18x50 W16x50 Moment Resistant Frame W14x68 column

Matching The Architectural Plan Option 1 First floor Third floor Second floor Matching The Architectural Plan

Option 1 -- Foundation Foundation Plan: Shallow foundation Spread footing under interior columns, 8’x8’ Strip footing under external columns, with a width of 4’ Foundation Plan

Option 2 -- Framing Framing Plan 8” two way slab 12”x18” beam 14”x14” column 10” concrete wall Framing Plan

Flat slab with drop panel Option 2 -- Two-way slab Flat slab with drop panel Typical span: 25’x25’ Shear reinforcing

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 Design II Dynamic Cactus Material Lay down Parking Trailers Crane Wash Out/Pump Area Parking

Cost Analysis Design II Dynamic Alternative 1- MRF Steel $3,715,073 Total $125/SF $3,846,427 Total $129/SF Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs

Cost Breakdown Design II Dynamic Alternative 1- MRF Steel $23,817 $23,936 $229,392 $228,901 $709,609 $713,175 $487,601 $85,345 $628,224 $85,345 $590,195 $628,205 $581,075 $622,325 $283,956 $284,511 Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs

Schedule Comparison Schedule Comparison Design II Dynamic Schedule Comparison Alt 1- MRF Steel Schedule Comparison Foundation Complete 10/16/14 Building Enclosed 2/2/15 3rd Floor Steel Complete 11/17/15 Occupancy June 15th ‘15 Start- 9/2/14 End- 7/29/15 Foundation Complete 10/17/14 Structural System Complete 12/15/14 Building Enclosed 2/19/15 Occupancy July29th ‘15 Alt 2-Flat Slabs

Pros and Cons Design II Dynamic Pro: Pro: Fast Construction Design I Concept Design II Dynamic Pros and Cons Pro: Pro: Fast Construction Simple Foundation No Beams Site Access Con: Con: Difficult Connections More Expensive Longer Schedule Less Pre-Fabrication Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs

Decision Matrix A E C CONCEPT 1 + PROS - CONS Easy accessibility Big public open space Interesting details A Unexciting interior space Less active in existing environment Regular framing Simple connection Large and heavy beams Unsymmetric E Simple connection/framing Cheap, Fast Schedule Waffle Slab, Expensive Site Access C

Decision Matrix A E C CONCEPT 2 + PROS - CONS Playing active role Concerning movements Interesting interior space No big open space Potential conflict to MEP system A Larger space for MEP Symmetric Irregular overhanging More form work More difficult connection E Site Access Smaller Beam Sizes More Expensive, Longer Construction Irregular 3rd Floor C

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