2. 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 C E E A E C G L O B A L T E A M C L A S S

3. 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.”

4. 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

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

6. 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

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

8. Design Concept
static
dynamic

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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’

12. 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

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

14. 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: ksf
No expansive soil
Earthquake free
Earthquake Locations

15. Gravity Loads

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

17. Lateral Loads
Wind Zone Map

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

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

20. 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

21. 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

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

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

24. 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

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

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

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

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

29. Option 2 -- Foundation
Raft Footing

30. 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

31. Layout1 Design I Static Cactus Material Lay down Crane
Parking
Wash Out/Pump Area
Trailers

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

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

40. 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

41. 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’

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

43. 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

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

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

46. 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

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

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

49. 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

50. Layout 2 Design II Dynamic Cactus Material Lay down Parking Trailers
Crane
Wash Out/Pump Area
Parking

51. 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

52. 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

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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

57. Valuable Lessons Do not wait until last minutes!!!
Team iteration is critical to achieve a better structural design.
Be prepared before discussion.

58. Improvements More contact with owner and mentors.
Faster and more frequent iteration.
Learn more about other disciplines.
Early sharing of information, even if incomplete

59. Thanks Thanks to Mentors and Owner
Special thanks to all AEC classmates