2. construction manager Kit Fleming engineer Peng Li architect Xiang Liu 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 Team Introduction

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

4. The campus map of Express University 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 Site Map

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

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

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

8. staticdynamic Design Concept

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

10. The relationship of three layers of lines along X, Y, Z axis 213 2 Vertical circulation of the building The first layer of lines is along the footprint. The second layer of lines reveals the horizontal lines along X, Y axis. The third layer of lines displays the relationship between horizontal and vertical lines. 1 3 Design I Analysis

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

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

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

14. 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 Site Issues Earthquake Locations

15. Gravity Loads

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

17. Lateral Loads Wind Zone Map

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

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

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

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

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

23. Option 1 -- Sizes Typical Sizes: 2VLI20, 2.5” W18x119 W16x40 W21x48 10” wall

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

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

26. Option 2 -- Framing 1 st Floor Framing Plan2 nd and 3 rd Floor Framing Plan Framing Plan——Concrete Frame:

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

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 OptionsProsCons 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. Layout1Layout1 Design I Static Material Lay down Cactus Crane Wash Out/Pump Area Material Lay Down Parking Trailers

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

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

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

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

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

37. 213 Vertical circulation of the building The first dynamic element is the form. The second dynamic element is partition angled walls. The third dynamic element is the color. Three dynamic elements 2 1 3 Design II Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49. Pros and Cons OptionsProsCons 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 2Layout 2 Cactus Trailers Crane Material Lay Down Material Lay down Parking Wash Out/Pump Area Parking Design II Dynamic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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