2. Project Introduction  New high-tech classroom and lab facility  Area : 30,000sq.ft.  Function –To provide a home for innovative courses that take a team based approach to problem solving and design. –Inhabitants of building should feel a part of surrounding environ. –Create a work environment that stresses collaborative achievement.

3. Project Constraints  Constrained site- limited by palm grove, existing buildings and sea  Budget - 5.5 million  Completed by 9/30/12  Hurricane zone  Hot, humid climatic conditions; high heat loads  Structural system must withstand high winds and possible flooding  Floor height restrictions

4. Site Context - Seaside, Florida Seaside Florida provides a rich and colorful oceanfront community with a unique architectural sophistication. Hybrid Building, Steven Holl City/ Campus Plan

5. Existing Site Plan

6. Design Concept 1  Special architectural features  High heat load on east side  Solid auditorium structure  Inefficient floor plans

7. Design Concept 2  Meets height requirements  Limited cranage space  Compact but awkward floor plans

8. Design Concept 3  Light steel structure over flood protected “Core” Business  Inflexible architecture layout  Excessive use of concrete

9. Architecture View of Building from road

10. Site Plan

11. First Floor Plan South Elevation South-east Axon

12. Second Floor Plan West Elevation

13. Third Floor Plan North Elevation

14. Section Through Auditorium East Elevation

15. Area Analysis Entry Perspective

16. Interior Space Model First Floor View from Sea

17. Interior Space Model Second Floor

18. Interior Space Model Third Floor

20. Iterative Processes Wayfinding problems caused by numerous corridors Quality of space corrupted by low ceiling heights Problem: Design for 3rd floor office wing, elevated slab Elevated slab raises several constructability issues Prohibitive complexity for architectural and structural design

21. Iterative Processes Simplified architectural design Organized architectural design, faculty offices with exterior view Solution: Swap second and third floors entirely Auditorium Offices Large Classrooms Walls to hide main Beams in Large classrooms placed under large open steel truss roofing

22. Iterative Processes Architect prefers tighter spacing of structural elements to improve asymmetric balance Glazed corner important to design concept Leveraging Aesthetic and Functional Concerns Large shear walls block a great deal of window wall on North elevation

23. Structural System  Gravity loads –DL = 150 psf –LL = 50-100 psf  Wind load 120 psf –ASCE 7-95  Preliminary system

24. Office Wing  Shear wall system  Foundation  9 ‘ Flat slab perimeter beam

25. Flat Plate in SAP 2000

26. Structural Model

27. Gravity System  Beams –Cast in place 9”x12” (2.0%)  Columns –Custom precast 18”x18” (3%) / 20”x20” (3.5%) –Auditorium precast 26”x16” (1.5%) –Interior cast in Place 18”x18” (2%)

28. Auditorium  Retaining wall / slab  Precast columns  Glass corners  Roof ?

29. Lateral System Auditorium  Higher wind pressure  Shear wall connection  Ringbeam

30. Integrated Solution  Hidden steel beams W24x450 (90%)  Larger shear walls  Reduced cantilever

31. Structural Model

32. Wind Deflection

33. Cost Breakdown - $ 5,600,000

34. Schedule - Start Date 1 May 2011 Finish Date 25 Apr 2012

35. Crane - Link Belt Hydraulic Truck Crane - HTC 11100 Backhoe Loader - Caterpillar 426CEquipment

36. Comparison: Fenestration System

37. PrecastCast-in- place Comparison: Column Construction

38. 1 Aug 2011

39. 12 Oct 2011

40. 3 Nov 2011

41. Opportunities for Off-site Fabrication Copper roof Auditorium Roof Truss Precast concrete columns Curtain wall and cladding frame

42. Design Analysis Location a factor in team dynamics Tight design process between engineer and architect Design process monitored by construction management

43. Group Assessment  Collaborative Successes –Strong integration of structure and architecture –Friendly relationship, friendly struggles –Programmatic goals achieved through iterative design process  Collaborative Inadequacies –Lack of shared product model –Creation of numerous design models, several for each discipline –Difficulties with communicating key structural concerns

44. Using Technology Collaborative Means Heavy use of web based technologies –NetMeeting –Email –Discussion Forums –Group web space  Technology cannot offset lack of communication  Learning new technologies requires time overhead and may not produce desired results

45. Lessons learned  Everyone should use compatible technology  Shared product model saves time and increases efficiency across disciplines  Team should follow protocols for developing and sharing information  Greater understanding of other disciplines needs  If technology is used properly, time and effort are saved for the entire team