1 / 105

Pacific Team 2000

Pacific Team 2000. The Project. Year 2010 Oregon Coast Rebuild 3-story Classroom & Lab Facility Pacific University Engineering School. Project Requirements. A “showcase” building 30 ft. height limitation Maintain existing footprint $5,500,000 budget (yr. 2010 $)

fred
Download Presentation

Pacific Team 2000

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pacific Team 2000

  2. The Project • Year 2010 • Oregon Coast • Rebuild 3-story Classroom & Lab Facility • Pacific University Engineering School

  3. Project Requirements • A “showcase” building • 30 ft. height limitation • Maintain existing footprint • $5,500,000 budget (yr. 2010 $) • One year construction duration

  4. Architectural Requirements • Consider: • Occupancy needs, security needs, privacy needs, acoustic needs, day lighting needs, and views • Emphasize: • Circulation, light, orientation, views, scale of space, connection of functional spaces, quality of the relationship of inside and outside, color, texture, visual language of the elements

  5. Sitemap

  6. Oregon Coast

  7. Campus Buildings

  8. Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 1 Previous design

  9. Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 1 Engineering & Construction • Explored Structural Systems • Steel • Concrete • Preferred Structural System • Steel EBFs w/composite deck • Construction Cost • $3.8 Million

  10. Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 2 Sun Pattern Redesign Conceptual goal to use a predefined circulation pattern and bring it into the building; structural elements exposed to capture sun shadows

  11. Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 2 Engineering & Construction • Explored Structural Systems • Steel • Concrete • Preferred Structural System • Exposed steel EBFs w/composite deck • Construction Cost • $4.2 Million

  12. Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 3 Puzzle Concept Conceptual goal to create a building that speaks to connections between disciplines within Each puzzle piece works as a functional block, symbolically representing with three materials, three disciplines

  13. Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 3 Engineering & Construction • Explored Structural Systems • Steel • Concrete • Preferred Structural System • Steel SMRFs w/composite deck • Construction Cost • $4.0 Million

  14. Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 4 Structural Engineering Design • Reverse order of roles in design process; engineer to work first with intriguing structural system, architect to layout rooms and advise

  15. Winter Quarter Alternatives:alt 4 Engineering & Construction • Explored Structural Systems • Steel • Preferred Structural System • Steel EBFs and cables w/composite deck • Construction Cost • $4.6 Million

  16. Decision Matrix – A/E/C PROS CONS Dynamic, radial, curvilinear, sun pattern Semi-regular bays sizes and layout Easier to construct (regular layout, little welding) Most flexible puzzle piece parti material-functional block relationships Braced frames have dual purpose of “backing” cantilevers & lateral load support Most dynamic interior spaces (auditorium), sunpatterns, shadowplay Structure integrated with architecture Extremely interesting structural system Regular structural patterns – many common components throughout • Costly atrium space • Vibration problems • May not challenge engineer • Long cantilevers • No economies of scale • Circulation undeveloped • Very irregular layout - large number of angled connections • Expensive to construct • No relationship to site or context, lack of spatial variation creating architectural limitations • Deep piles require lots of time & money, large overhanging portion 1 2 3 4

  17. End of Winter Quarter Reevaluation of Architects Role in Design Process: • How can the structural system meet height/program requirements? • How can the structural system set up by engineer create/provide meaning for the users of the space? • How can the structural system provide a form that upholds this meaning? • And how can design uphold a “high tech” feel desired by team and client?

  18. Richard Rogers Searching for precedent: What other buildings have used cables? • Richard Rogers buildings use cables to “pull” up a form for unhindered space • beneath How can a cable system create its own form?

  19. Santiago Calatrava How can cable stay structure inspire form?

  20. Start of Alternative 5:Iteration 1

  21. Nature vs. Hightech:

  22. Goal : to create an exterior relationship with nature while still maintaining an interior “high-tech” feel with a cable stay system

  23. Iteration 2: Accommodating program Auditorium Main building block Large classrooms

  24. Iteration 2 Plans Floor1 Floor3 Floor2

  25. Iteration 3 Grids discussed with structural engineer

  26. Iteration 3

  27. Iteration 4: changing layout of cantilever forms Original layout New layout

  28. First Cantilever Proposed by Architect • Architect: • Proposes cable-stayed system with ground anchors • Engineer: • Small rise creates large cable forces & overturning moments • Construction Manager: • Size of required foundations creates concerns

  29. Second Option: More Cables • Architect: • Structures do not relate to interior activities • Engineer: • Compromise between aesthetics & structural functionality sought

  30. Third Option: The Propped Cantilever • Architect: • How can volume be maintained and have a feasible structure? • Engineer: • Depth needed for king-post truss interferes with interior • Construction Manager: • Good constructability, capabilities for prefab

  31. Fourth Option: Cables w/ Buttress Wall • Architect: • Reintroduced cable stayed system • Engineer: • Earthquake forces require large number of cables • Construction Manager: • Concern over constructability expressed

  32. Final Option: Steel Truss Cantilever • Architect: • Volume maintained and enhanced through truss system • Engineer: • Provides for a very efficient and clean system • Construction Manager: • Steel truss w/prefab risers minimizes construction time

  33. Floor 1

  34. Floor 1 furniture layout

  35. Floor2

  36. Floor2 furniture layout

  37. Floor3

  38. Floor3 furniture layout

  39. Circulation: Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3

  40. Section Cut

  41. Classrooms

  42. Public Space

  43. Offices

  44. Overall: truss exposed through entire building

  45. Final design

  46. Interiors

  47. Specifications: For fireproofing exposed interior structure: intumescent paints • 100% asbestos-free; thin film; lightweight • Factory formulated; no onsite mixing • Aesthetically pleasing, architectural finish • 3 1/2 hour fire protection

  48. Specifications: Under floor mechanical system • Benefits of under floor air distribution system: • significantly reduced energy costs • downsizing of conventional plant equipment • reduced cooling-energy requirements when compared withconventional HVAC systems

  49. ~5o Shift Structural Design Goals • At first.... • To reflect the main axis shift of the architecture in the structure • To incorporate the cable-stayed concept from Alternative #4

  50. Structural Design Goals • After cost & time issues were considered.... • To use a simple, shop fabricated system for the 60 ft. cantilevers • To use an orthogonal grid for the main block of the building and to expose the structure where necessary

More Related