Here’s the compilation of your suggestions offered as part of the extra credit. I’ve put in a few comments.
Jim Mitchell
Suggestions for Improving the Assignment
1. This particular assignment gives good exposure to the integrative processes that occur between the owner, programmers, architects, and engineers in building design. In order to improve the effectiveness of this assignment, it is suggested that the architectural designers for a building be encouraged to discuss their concepts and ideas for the building to the engineers during their design process, and not just after the design is complete. This would help the designers to better determine aspects of the building design that are of special interest to the engineers. Also, since many of the buildings assigned require unique and expressive designs in order to meet the owner's intent for the building, as well as the building's overall aesthetics, students should be given a formal review of Revit Architecture and perhaps a short tutorial of other useful techniques that can be used to generate relatively enhanced and/or complex designs using such a program. This would allow for the time spent in trying to adequately exhibit the designers' vision to be used, instead, on focusing on the considerations that should be given to the engineers designing for the building.
JEM – Good suggestions. I wish we had the time to do so. It’s always a balance.
2. A major aspect of assignment 2 which hampered the assignment as a whole was the inclusion of the fire protection. This segment seemed more at home with the previous assignment, specifically using codes to come up with design restraints for the particular system. Although including it in this assignment does make some sense, as a general building design would have been made, so the specifics of the system can be looked at in more detail and customized specifically for that particular building. Conversely including it with this assignment detracts from its main objective, the architecture. This doesn't occur with any of the other assignments and you could argue its unfair for the architecture to share its segment with something else.
So the overall improvement to this assignment would be to remove the fire protection and place it in assignment 1, possibly splitting that assignment into two or increasing the permissible for assignment 1, and having architecture as its own separate assignment, this could allow for better and more detailed designs to come through, giving the students increased experience with AutoCAD, Google Sketch-Up and/or Revit, possibly, if time permitted, including a class on one or two of the programs to increase the students knowledge.
JEM – This is a valid suggestion. I’d argue, however, that fire safety is extraordinarily important during design, particularly assuring that occupants can exit safely. That doesn’t really come into focus until you’re involved in physical design.
3. This assignment was an introduction to the first process of a design. Material was chosen and the site was organized due to surrounding environment and sunlight. The problem with this comes from possible assumptions made by the architect that don't in many cases work from a structural standpoint. Maybe if there was a class before presentations where the architectural groups sat down with the structural groups to talk before designs were "finalized" at this point in the project. Another suggestion might be a way of breaking the points assigned to each section up. The design of the building while it doesn't take as much numerical analysis, it does take up a lot of time and covers a large amount of the grading criteria. This section is fairly hard to incorporate every member of the group, making it hard to assure finalized plans were used for the others pieces of the project.
JEM – as with the prior suggestion, integrated design is generally a better process in practice. It’s what you’ll undertake in Senior Design. Nonetheless I believe there is much to be learned from seeing the consequences of sequential design.
4. The "Comparison to the Program" section of the assignment is very general. While this gives the students a lot of freedom, a little more direction would be helpful.
JEM – I suggest feeling free to ask in class about these kinds of issues.
5. This assignment was useful in getting students to collaborate and think about the specifics of architectural layout. It also helped introduce us to the requirements of fire code and explored the intersection of architectural and engineering requirements. In order to simplify and facilitate the integrated design process, groups should be required to build a model in the same program, such as Revit, in the future. A common platform for design would give successor groups of engineers a building model to begin with without having to redraw it, or measure dimensions manually and transfer them to their work. For example, some groups worked in Sketchup or AutoCAD on A2, which means that the structural engineers on that project have more work to do in A3 and their design will not likely match up perfectly to the architectural plans. Using a common platform would also prepare students for professional work, in which tolerances among architects, structural engineers, and HVAC engineers must be nearly as tight as the tolerances within any of those disciplines.
JEM – Good idea. My justification for not insisting on it is twofold. First, we’re not yet really committed to Revit as a program – many people have varied prior experience. Second, I’m not convinced that in early design (which this is) that Revit is the best tool.
6. Although some codes, such as the International Building Code and local zoning ordinances were utilized, there should a greater emphasis on the legal and political restrictions that face building projects. For instance, if basements are being constructed in urban settings, is underpinning going to be an issue? What added cost does that bring to the project? Would it be more efficient to design the building a different way to avoid this type of problem? The way buildings are designed are rarely just up to the engineer and architect, and often affected by legal and political factors as well, so this should be factored into the design stage. In addition, more emphasis should be put on local codes. Boston has different requirements for buildings than Arizona does. While the IBC covers a general range of issues, other factors such as seismic activity, heavy wind loads, snow loads, and the like should be more integrated into the design stage of the building.
The logistics of mechanical systems in the building should be given greater consideration as well. When designing the floor plan, totaling the gross area for the building, and determining the cost of construction, these mechanical systems play a major role. For example with our building, we changed the original program to include a mechanical room on every floor instead of one every five floors. This made sense to our group from a localized control and efficiency standpoint, but how these systems are put together in such a large building is hard to design for at this point in our careers. We should be given guidelines such as the amount of space needed for duct work, plumbing, and MEPs. We estimated that 2ft between the floors would be sufficient, but that was just intuitive. Like the total square footage of the building was increased by 35% for circulation purposes, similar ratios for mechanical systems would be helpful.
Another tool that would help make this project easier would be a 1-2 day tutorial in the class on how to use Revit or another similar program. I know there was a short tutorial on it in AE391, but only briefly touched on how to use the program. Revit is a very useful modeling tool that a lot of companies use, and it would be very helpful to have everyone in the class at least proficient with it. It helps visualize how the design of the building fits together, increasing awareness of system compatibility and feasibility.
JEM – Again good idea, but I plead time limitations and the issues discussed previously.
7. This project was meant for design and codes regarding design. Within the fire protection section, searching for code was a big task. The International Building Code 2009 is a long document that has many tangents to get lost in. To improve the pertinent information needed for egress, occupancy, stairwells and sprinkler systems a firm understanding of terms is needed. In class, it is suggested, that a brief explanation of the IBC would help students get on the right track to finding what information is required. Also going through the table of contents would help the student. A quick overview of the chapters or groups of related chapters can reduce the time spent loking for information and increase time understanding the material within the chapter. The IBC has many useful codes and can help refine and integrate the design to the codes required. For design, the use of AutoDesk Revit is the best program to use. In the cad lab many of the computers had problems with saving the designs created. IRT should be able to install Revit correctly and have this program ready for students to use.
JEM – I apologize for the computer problems in class – IRT is working on it and think it’s nearly addressed. Also, please feel free to ask in class for guidance on codes. I’d be glad to provide it.
8. The assignment should be geared towards new architectural trend, including some LEED rating analysis, as well as other green technologies. Buildings could be reduced in size so that more detailed analysis and designed can be produced in the short period of time.
JEM – Yet another good idea. My response is that at this early stage of your engineering design careers I’m not ready to make that kind of restriction, although I certainly encourage that kind of thinking.
