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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

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

13. 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

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

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

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

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

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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

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

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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

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

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

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

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

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

42. 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

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

44. Modifying Space With Structure
Fig 13.2
Repetition Counts

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

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

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

48. 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

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

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

51. 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

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

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

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

55. 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

56. 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

57. 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

58. 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

59. 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

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

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