I know, I know...Its been a while. The only excuse i have is that we've been cranking here in Hoboken.
As a reminder, our studio group has been charged with assisting SHoP in designing the facade of the C2 building on the FIT campus. Additionally, the design of the facade will be driven by our Performance Criteria Document being developed for our Design Optimization Course. The goal and end result for mid-term was to have a complete DPC document that would include all our analysis and criteria that will be used to inform the design to happen in the remaining portion of the semester.
As a group, we decided that in order to fully understand the purpose, goals, and results of the facade, we had to analyze its structural and environmental implications. The facade, at its core, is a screen, filter, and barrier between the interior and exterior environments, and its design and fabrication have direct results on both those environments. This façade is unique in the fact that not only does it create this barrier, but it also serves as the vertical transport between floors, housing both a 4-floor express escalator and multiple convenience stairs. These have immense structural requirements that served as the basis of the structural analysis. Additionally, this thickened façade borders classrooms, office space, as well as the 5th floor Student Life Hall all of which require varying degrees of thermal, lighting, acoustical performance from it. As a result, an extensive array of environmental, site and program specific, studies have been performed to determine the most optimal façade conditions that will address and resolve many of these concerns.
Below are a variety of images from the environmental and structural analysis portions of our document. Keep in mind that these are just a handful of images from our analysis and may not be understood outside the context of the document.
In order to design the C² Building for optimal interior environmental performance the exterior conditions must first be accurately quantified. Understanding the climatological conditions of New York City is the first step to designing a building that fits harmoniously into the environment. Environmental conditions that should be studied include, air temperature, humidity, direct/indirect sun exposure, cloud cover, levels of precipitation, and wind speed, temperature, and frequency.
Analysis of each phenomenon on the site should be considered using the most appropriate time-dependent measurement. Depending on the nature of the study a measurement was taken over the course of a day, a week, or a year. Often multiple lengths were observed for the same phenomenon.
Accurately depicting this information and the integration of the results into the design of the building provides opportunity for energy savings and reduced operating costs. The site and climate analysis studies that have been performed for the C² Building identify potential resources and areas for design opportunities/refinement.
Weather data was implemented as an important input in environmental simulations which were used to refine building performance characteristics. Environmental simulations provide a means to predict and evaluate a building's thermal and lighting performance in a specific environment, environmental impact and energy consumption. This data provides a basis from which goals can be defined and design/analysis efforts can be focused in respect to establishing comfort conditions for both the interior and exterior environments as well as reduce annual energy consumption. 
weekly climate studies
hourly climate studies
climate classification
wind temp and frequency
Interior Environment Performance
The preliminary program for the FIT C² Building contains a variety of spaces including an atrium, classrooms, studios, computer labs, student activity areas, and circulation. Initial discussions with the College have indicated that the issue of indoor air quality is of great concern to the personnel, faculty and students. Performance issues that will be studied to optimize indoor air quality and the overall interior environmental performance will include: quality and amount of natural daylight, natural ventilation and passive heat gain/heat loss strategies, and acoustic performance.
An opportunity to optimize these interior environmental performance issues exists because of initial strategies identified by SHoP Architects in early stages of design. These strategies include the presence of the full height atrium space, triple height 5 th floor Student Hall, the north facing curtain wall, and the rooftop clerestory windows. Each of these features will allow for an opportunity to improve the overall interior environmental performance.
Each of the Environmental Performance studies will be conducted while considering both the impact of the immediate external environment over the course of a typical year and impact of changing interior climates due to various event based parameters. Potential changes in interior climate will result from the multitude events that may take place in the th floor Student Hall. Understanding the requirements of this space is vital to the Environmental Performance studies because of the open relationship it has with the full height atrium space and the north facing glass facade.
shadow cast by C² Building
direct solar stress diagram
Student Life Hall sunlight, solar radiation, overshadowing, and solar stress studies
daylight factors and daylight levels
externally reflected component and internally reflected component
thermal performane - spatial comfort in Student Life Hall
thermal performance-temperature distribution
fabric,solar, and heat gains
solar gains
median radiant temp
Summer North Facade Insolation Analysis
Winter North Facade Insolation Analysis
Sound Isolation Analysis
exterior and interior noise evaluation
Fifth Floor Student Life Hall Acoustic Analysis
full volume
sloped ceiling plane
compound ceiling plane
Structural Analysis
The building structure is composed of a number of different systems.
Situated at the East and West borders of the site are 2 concrete cores which house the egress stairs, in addition to mechanical shafts, and utility closets and restrooms.
Spanning these two cores are two large trusses that support the roof as well as floors 8-10 hung below.
Below the hung floors and between the cores exists a steel post and beam system with metal decking and concrete topping slabs.
In addition to the overall make-up and sizing of the base structural system, the major focus of the analysis is how the façade, and the vertical circulation stairs and escalator will be supported. In most basic terms the system comes down to a thickened façade that is either: A. Self supporting/Load bearing, B. Hung from the edge of slabs, or C. Hung from the top mega-trusses.
The results below show the deformed shapes and structural member sizing of two self supporting schemes, one slab edge scheme, one hung from truss scheme, and one hybrid scheme...all analyzed using FEM Structural analysis software in addition to hand-calculation and sizing.
Self Supporting 01
the above content was shown for the rest of the schemes. below you wil find only some randomly chosen deformed shapes, beam sizing, and moment/shear diagrams
Self Supporting 02
hung from slab edge
hung from truss
Hybrid w/ 2 story trusses
11 Comments
Wow....that's a whole lot of fancy.
that is a lot of hand waiving about quantification? do you really believe in the eco tect software?
Switters,
As opposed to what? No, quantification?
And maybe then no justification?
Absolutely...and why not. Granted it is not the most sophisticated environmental analysis software (it was created by and architect for architects) but its a very usable software that is great for studying environmental issues quickly and early in design. In the end, you can do the quantification within the process of design or you can hand it off to the engineer when your done making those pretty pictures so he can tell you how it doesn’t work the way its intended.
Keep in mind switters, this is a design program within and engineering school. This type of environmental and structural analysis is absolutely necessary to fully validate any intervention we propose. All the software we have used thus far and are planning on using is recommended and used in varying degrees by Buro Happold. There are more sophisticated and robust CFD and structural software programs out there but within our preliminary stage of design we are looking to use software to be able to analyze various configurations and quickly make changes upon the results. The only beef we have had so far is the lack of compatibility between programs. We literally had to make models native to each program (a total of 4) to be able to accurately run analysis. This is something at this point that may be incomprehensible for a typical design firm. What many of us here are interested in learning is how to efficiently incorporate this level of analysis within the early stages design so one can achieve design as physics based operation........
Much of what we consider to be "architecture" is being done outside the context of environmental and structural performance and optimization and is then handed over to firms like Buro Happold or Arup to then allow the building "to stand" literally, functionally, and per formatively. In an ideal world architecture firms would have the internal knowledge of this type of analysis or world team with specialists like those mentioned above so there was never a separation between these two realms of design.
Furthermore, when we presented to SHoP on Friday, they were genuinely excited about the results of our analysis and voiced that they now are looking at the project in a whole new light. Granted, they are pushing us to quickly get into design which we have been itching to do all semester, but now we have the justification behind any interventions we make, and are capable of analyzing what happens as a result of their existence. Without this quantification you are questioning we are just designing by the seat of our pants with no care of its performance, fabrication, constructability, or cost. At that point why didn’t I go to any of the other schools I was accepted to.
So here is where my curiosity lies; knowing that this is a multi-disciplinary group of people enrolled in the graduate program and, that it is part of a greater engineering school how, then, are the teams made up and how is/are everyone adapting. For instance, if one has a background in Fine Arts, perhaps painting, what it is that they bring to the table in this type of research and analysis and how do they adapt versus someone who holds a B.Arch degree OR and engineering degree
I think the analysis is good and I am sure the information you had to put together was quite extensive; I see it taking the place of the diagram or context analysis that one would see in a more normative masters program or one that is purely architectural if any program could be defined as such. Part of this is replacement is due to the specificities of the project and part of this is due to the framework of the program correct? Also, I understand that by performing the study you are inherently covering a number of the areas of analysis that one would do anyhow but in this case it is specific to something that is IN design instead of acting as direction or inspiration for design. Am I thinking about this correctly? Yet it results in the constant evolution of the design?
Do you see any positives or negatives of this approach you are immersed in now versus an approach that may be fostered at say UCLA or Yale or, related to your undergrad studies, since the former two would be mere speculation. And this applies to the first part which relates to background, is this program more suited to someone already read in an arch or engineer background or is it inclusive for all?
damnit arno, since when did you become so inquisitive. i'll reply later
i have no quarrel with you and if fact i am quite happy that stevens is so attentive to the milieu in the way that you show. my question still remains: do you believe in eco-tect or similiar software? yes, i understand the deisre and need to quanitfy the milieu (as you have done rather well) but take for instance, the mean radiant temperature diagram. it is misleading and does not approximate an actaul mean radiant temperature when built and occupied which would lead to questions about process, performance, fabrication, constructability, or cost if design decisions are based on an incorrect assumption-a fundamentally incorect 'justification'. (justification, physics, quantification, by the way, begins to sound a lot like yet another perennial form of determinism. what is its limits, what is desgin in such determinism?) yes, ecotect is a good little start for design but what happens when you rely upon, or trust, the images it produces? i am not arguing for seat of your pants design, hardly, but rather-what is your expertise? ecotect makes assumptions, some of them rather gross even inaccurate. it sometimes surrounds its quantification with a cloud, an aura of correctness (it looks so convincing and scientific in those charts and diagrams-how could such a well-meaning program be wrong?). are you basing decisions upon its quantification? are you just as likely to modify those assumptions once a more integrative and rigorous analysis is completed by happold, arup, or transsolar? yes, design should be more physics based. and yes architects should have a greater knowledge of the milieu and its opportunities. but architecture has a very uneasy history with quantification. at what point do accept the quantification? at what opint do you question it? the quantification and 'justification' is not as simple as presented. what is the architect's expertise and how do you use that expertise in the design process?
(again i have no quarrel with you, i am quite interested in the results of the stevens experiment. nastasi is great. big fan. my questions are earnest.)
Hi Switters... as a member of the fit team, I appreciate your questions and sympathize with your suspicions, but I think you're quickly jumping to conclusions.
Any form of modeling is an abstraction; the results of any analysis should never be read at face value... these simulations simply become a tool for facilitating a discussion. We are not experts, nor do we claim to be. The ecotect results demonstrate trends and while they are built on assumptions and are inaccurate to a point, at this point they are no more inaccurate than the rhino model that was used to build the competition model and plans... but you would never expect to go to full scale fabrication from the competition model, nor would you make final MEP decisions based on the results of the first environmental analysis. You would use these as a basis to make preliminary decisions and then you would move forward. The design benefit for adding this analysis to the beginning of a project is that you begin to get a general sense of how your building will perform, many of these results should be somewhat predictable, others are not. The main benefit is to begin to visualize these normally invisible forces, both for yourself, your consultants and ultimately your client. For example, something like the acoustic performance of the Student Life Hall hadn't really been considered an integral part of the design of that space until a preliminary acoustic analysis (which is as accurate as one performed by any professional acoustician) showed that this was going to be a problem based on the current design. Now SHoP has the ability to rethink this space and more importantly bring in an acoustician to begin to inform the design. Their recommendations can be modeled and analyzed and the results presented to the client to reinforce design decisions. This is by no means deterministic... it is simply a methodology that brings validity to design decisions that would otherwise get caught up in discussions of style and the typical rhetoric.
this is some good conversation...
switters I apologize if my tone was a bit strong. The assumed tone of your post put me in defense mode. I hope Steve answered your questions above.
tonight i will answer aeaa:
Yes the program is interdisciplinary. There are a variety of different projects among the total 30 students. Some architectural, some not. Our team, as mentioned, has up until now consisted of 4 architects and 1 mechanical engineer. The other team on another SHoP project consists of one mid-career architects and 2 recent architecture graduates. There is one woman also with an architecture background who is studying the parametric capabilities of another SHoP project. One industrial designer and one mechanical engineer are working on boat design. One computer engineer working on an in-dash computer system. One artist working on kinetic sculpture. One mechanical engineer studying modes and methods of fabrication. Two architects and a mathematician working on a church apse and another thesis . An architect designing a snowboard binding. Two architects separately developing optimized structural space frame structures. One mechanical engineer developing scripting that would create faceted flat planed surfaces from complex curved surfaces. One architect working on an interactive gaming interface as well as an optimized surf board. One architect working on the wind farm competition. And there are more that I cant remember right now.
This is only for the studio projects and does not include the other courses which also foster interaction. Granted, those people with architectural backgrounds usually gravitate to more architectural projects and have a good grasp of all the new software…we are all essentially in the same boat in being exposed to this new way of thinking and designing. I think what a person from a non architecture/engineering background would bring to the table is exactly what you’d imagine….an alternative way of thinking about aspects of design. The way a fine arts major or a graduate of mathematics would approach a design problem will most likely be different from the approach of an architect. Within our numerous project presentations we get exposed to these different approaches which then may inform our own processes. Ultimately though, for someone with no technical training whatsoever would probably not choose this school and opt for another that teaches the basics.....
As far as your second question… this is exactly what was discussed in our presentations to SHoP. The thing is, you have to start somewhere. I think some people may thing that there will someday be an Architectural Easy Button (similar to that sold at Staples) with all analysis you have to put something in to get something out. This does require making some assumptions or decisions…hopefully rational. In this case, yes the project is already in design. However the layout that we have taken as a fixed entity within our analysis is something too that has gone under design, but based on requirements set forth by the schools and the master plan which also has gone under a similar process of optimization. You will always have program… it is unavoidable. The flexibility of the program to conform to other conditions, environmental or structural for example, is a per project condition and is very real. Because it was a competition, SHoP probably had to make quick decisions and assumptions on the performance of the building and thus its aesthetic. In this case the performance was mostly social.
If one had a carte blanche, I would assume one would start with more global or macro forms of analysis such as CFD wind analysis on the site, day lighting, site acoustics,, etc. And let that inform the way one would configure the required program. Then…further in design one would have to determine what you are designing for. You can’t optimize everything in a building. It is against the very definition of the word optimization. You can however pick your battles. If the focus of the project is a theatre surrounded on three sides by classrooms and one side by loud New York City street noise.. Obviously you would optimize for acoustics. If creating the most lightweight and visually permeable façade is the goal… then you would optimize the wall makeup and its structure. .....
This approach to design is what I have been hoping for in a design school. I can only see positive things coming from this experience. A new approach to design, learning the tools that will allow me to do the type of work I want to do, being exposed to other fields and ways of thinking and breaking free of my architectural tunnel-vision, and consulting with the top experts in the field
The major negative about this process is that its time consuming. And in a culture that puts so little value on good, efficient, intelligent design (unless it is sold at Target), we are often faced with rushing to get things done. As I mentioned above, as much as I enjoyed this analysis and fell its necessity, I am itching to get into design. I am curious to see how all this analysis will effect our decision making process. I have nothing against the approach of other schools, and am quite amazed with much of their work. However, I feel this approach that we are taking is very important, and should be addressed to some extent in all schools. Otherwise I think we have to tendency to spit out pretty selfish and irresponsible designers competing for the best image.
Ok. Hope that answered your question. I guess I could have told you this over Thanksgiving Day dinner.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.