1 / 44

Redesigning Desert Rose: A Radial Design Approach for a Sustainable and Symbolic Building in El Paso, Texas

This project focuses on redesigning the Desert Rose building in El Paso, Texas using a radial design approach. The design aims to create a sustainable and symbolic building that embraces the desert climate and celebrates the local culture. The project includes the use of adobe panels, glazing systems, and different types of cladding. The structural system includes options for both steel and concrete, with considerations for seismic and wind loads. The design also incorporates post-tensioning and prefabrication techniques for efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

rmccarthy
Download Presentation

Redesigning Desert Rose: A Radial Design Approach for a Sustainable and Symbolic Building in El Paso, Texas

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. Express Team2001 A Chris Preciado, Berkeley E Christina Cho, Stanford C David Steinbach, Bauhaus Germany O Winston Win, Berkeley

  2. Project Description • Location: Desert of El Paso, Texas • Rainfall: 8.81” annually • Climate: 200 days clear days of sunshine annually and a dry climate, making it possible to enjoy most outdoor activities year-round • High 78º, Low 49º

  3. Team Dynamics Week 5 Webspace Discussion Forums Email Recall NetMeeting PLUS Web Page (E&C) First 4 weeks Webspace Discussion Forums Email Recall NetMeeting • Last couple of wks • …PLUS • MSN Messenger (E&C) • Easy accessibility • Quick file transfer • functionality Increased frequency of meetings & ease of communication

  4. Visual binding between city campus

  5. Redesign - Raised Roof A -> E -> A -> E

  6. Radial Core Parti: Radiating, Void, Permeability vs. Impermeability.

  7. Celebration and Symbolism – Adobe.

  8. Radial Design Process

  9. Radial Design

  10. Desert Rose - Grid

  11. Tectonics Legend of Material and Cladding : Blue: Glazing, glass to be mounted on strut system and/or fixed within mullion Yellow : Adobe Panels, spaced, glazing behind, transparency between panels. Red : Adobe Panels, spaced, with solid wall behind, opaque between panels Brown : Exterior Plaster (stucco or concrete), embossed to emulate panel grid

  12. Loads • DEAD LOADS • Roof                  25 psf • Floor                 35 psf • Exterior Walls    30 psf • Interior Walls     20 psf • Lightweight concrete floor 60 psf • Metal deck 5 psf • Flooring, ceiling, lights 12 psf • Ductwork 5 psf LIVE LOADS • Office                50 psf • Classrooms        40 psf • Lobby, Deck, Stairwell                100 psf • Auditorium        100 psf • Labs                  50 psf • Roof 20 psf Seismic Zone 1 Importance Factor 1.0 Wind Loads govern Exposure B Winds 70-80 mph

  13. Soil Profile • USGS Report: Berino loamy fine sand (BA) with 0 to 3% slopes and Simona-Bippus complex with a 0 to 5% slope • Expansive soils

  14. Foundation Plan 1 • Foundation wall footings + spread footings • 2-4% over optimum moisture • conditioning by continuous spray • 12” non-expansive • soil fill

  15. Foundation Plan 2 • Precast concrete or steel piles + grade beams • More expensive & time-consuming

  16. Redesign – Steel Option Second Floor Third Floor First Floor W12x45 W14x61 • Concentrically braced frames (tube sections) • 4.5” composite slab • Ductile system

  17. Redesign – Concrete Option • Preferred – concrete is medium of choice in TX • Don’t need ductility of steel system • In-situ concrete system w/ 10” shear walls • 2-way, 7” slab 16”x16” column 10”x15” beam

  18. Radial – Option 1 10” round columns • Shear walls with backup moment frames • Trusses to support long spans in classroom & auditorium • 5.5” structural floor thickness (steel + deck) • Buildings tied together at room with WF12x45

  19. Pacific 2000 Final Design

  20. Redesign AEC Collaboration A->E->C->E • Prefabricate truss • Field weld at point of low moment

  21. Truss Connection Details • Plate + uplift connection • Steel Pipe chords • Pipe slotted & inserted into plate • Fillet welded together

  22. Radial – Option 2 • 8” thick shear walls • Flat plate 8” thick 2-way slab • No beams or drop panels • 24”x24” square columns

  23. Post-Tensioning Details

  24. Desert Rose – Option 1 • Structural steel system • Shear walls + eccentrically braced frames in core • Up to 12’ cantilevers • Exposed Chevron bracing • Composite 5.5” deck • One-way slab • 30” round pipe sections

  25. Bracing Connection & Details • Back-to-back channels bolted together with connection plate between OR • Tube section slotted

  26. Panel Connection Horizontal Stud Solution Vertical Stud Solution Coldform steel vertical studs welded to structural members

  27. Next Iteration • Extending above height limit • Want to minimize excavation costs • Cantilever solution • Clear spans up to 30’

  28. Desert Rose – Option 2 • 2-way slab • 30’ x 30’ bay size • Monolithic 8” post-tensioned flat plate (checked ACI 318-99, R18 span-thickness ratio) • No beams nor drop panels required • Shear stud rails around columns • 24” x 24” round columns • Structural slab-on-grade • Semi-lightweight concrete (118 pcf) • 2 shear walls in short direction& ordinarymoment-resisting frames in long direction • ADAPT finite element analysis at KL&A

  29. PT FLAT PLATE + SHEAR WALLS BRACED STEEL FRAME + SHEAR WALLS Structural System Comparison + No edge or interior beams + Concrete is preferred medium + Sculptural capabilities of concrete + Positive camber maintained + Minimal long-term creep + Can support cantilevers + Curing time less than non-PT, in-situ concrete - Shoring & formwork costs + Fast erection + Avoid extensive shoring, PT, & formwork costs - Ductility of steel not necessary for Seismic Zone 1 Texas - Detailing of bracing connections - Many irregular sizes of members

  30. CM – Objectives • Build fast • Build in cost effective manner • Impact Architecture and Structural Engineering

  31. Budget $5,500,000 in 2015 Inflation Rate:  Average = 3.2%  $3,539,000 in 2001

  32. Radial Desert Rose • 1. Prefabricated elements • + faster construction • – more expensive • – very irregular plans • 2. Cast in place concrete • + cheaper • + flexible formwork • – more time consuming • 1. Prefabricated elements • + faster construction • – more expensive • + quite regular grid • 2. Cast in place concrete • + cheaper • + flexible formwork • – more time consuming Construction Methods Redesign • 1. Building pit with retaining wall • – more expensive • + less space needed • + less excavation • 2. Building pit with slope • + cheaper • + faster • – space necessary • + less equipment

  33. Cost Comparison Budget: $3,539,000

  34. Cost Calculations

  35. Access Site plan

  36. Equipment • Backhoe, 1 ½ CY • Dump truck, 10 CY • Concrete pump • Hydraulic, mobile crane • Compactor

  37. Schedule Redesign

  38. Milestones

  39. Construction Sequence

  40. AEC – Interaction Adobe panel system, cladding: A – C – A – E Bracing system: E – C – E – A

  41. Architecture Engineering Construction Structural Systems • 1. Steel Option • + Fast Construction • + don‘t need ductility of steel (nonseismic) • 2. Precast Concrete • + Repititive members eases design • + standard components & connections • – lots of supports necessary for beams and columns • 1. Steel Option • + faster construction • – very irregular floor plans • 2. Flat Plate Solution • + minimize excavation required • + flexible formwork • – more time consuming • 1. Steel Option • + AE integrated solution • + exposed structure • + faster • – complicated bracing • 2. Flat Plate Solution • + cheaper • + flexible formwork • – more time consuming • + regular standart components

  42. Architecture Engineering Construction AEC Decision Matrix Redesign Radial Desert Rose More flexibility in design Café at 2nd flr forces student faculty interaction AE integrated solution Maintain positive camber, no long-term creep problems Prefabrication possible Altogether least costs Reduced slab thickness Earlier removal of formwork Improved seating Gym doesn’t interfere with bldg More general use for café at 1st floor Repetitive grid & member sizes Long term savings Easy site access Open public area with easy access Interest in radiating bldg segments PT flat plate – can control deflections & cracking, longer spans achievable PROS Original site different Pacific ocean v desert Excavation required Ductility of steel system not necessary for Texas Additional time (basement) Additional costs (excavation & prefab trusses)) Large span Bldg over 30 ft limit Adobe adds distraction from design intent and process Very irregular floor plan Cost intenseConstructability problems (angles, curved lines) Limits spatial layouts of required spaces Bldg at 48 ft high – over limit Gym at 3rd floor could prove noisy Difficult & expensive connection details with eccentric bracing Expensive adobe panel system CONS

  43. Architecture Engineering Construction Lessons Learned • A needs to give E dimensions & prioritize core architectural concepts • A&E need to give C details to determine materials, prefab trusses, & other long lead-time items • C can be bolder about constructability issues Future goal: Document design process / rationale on webpage, publish wishlists A constraint is not a hindrance but an impetus for innovative design. -Express Team 2001-

  44. The journey continues…

More Related