sowa market hall design by camdcommunications

Xun Chong

SOWA Market Hall Design

Tom Gardner

Jessica Ho

SOWA Market Hall Design The loads of our structure are transferred from the roof decking down to wooden purlins. From there, they are transferred across the wooden beam to the glue laminated arches, where they are transferred to the ground through a pin connection. The Mezzanine hangs from the center of the arch by cables attached to a box-beam that supports purlins and the mezzanine decking. Below grade, the arch is held together by tension cables embedded in a concrete slab.

Anaheim Ice

Sheffield Winter Garden

Melnea Cass Recreation Center

Architect: Frank Gehry Location: Anaheim, California Project Year: 1995 Purpose: Indoor Ice Rink

Architect: Pringle Richards Sharratt Architects Location: Sheffield, England Year: 2003 Purpose: Garden

Architect: HKT Architects, Somerville MA Location: Roxbury, MA Year: Renovated 2011 Purpose: Sports Arena and Swimming Complex

History: At the time, Disney’s CEO Michael Eisner said, “I was looking for the next generation of American architects- and he was on the list of architects who were pushing the envelope. We bought a hockey team [Mighty Ducks of Anaheim]. We needed a practice rink.” In 1995, the Disney Ice was opened. However, in 2005, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim were sold to Henry Samueli and the ice rink was renamed to Anaheim Ice.

History: Sheffield Winter Garden is located in South Yorkshire, England and is one of the largest temperate urban glasshouses in Europe. On May 22, 2003, Queen Elizabeth II officially opened the Garden. It is home over 2,500 plants from all over the world. The Garden is able to accommodate 5,000 domestic greenhouses.

History: Originally an outdoor ice rink and outdoor public pool from the 1970’s, the renovations enclosed the areas to create year round sports arenas and fields. The $4.2 Billion project also created a 24,000 square foot community center, uniting one of Boston’s most undeserved communities.

Inspiration: We really liked the openness and lightness of the Sheffield Winter Garden. Continuing with our interest with wood structure, the Sheffield Winter Garden was an interesting precedent. The Garden was “conceived as a covered galleria an integral part of the network of pedestrian streets,” and houses several retail and cafe/refreshments shops, which we thought was prevalent to our project We were also inspired by the steel cradles that the structure is being supported by.

Inspiration: After initial development of the structure over the course of a few weeks we discovered the Melnea Cass Recreation Center in Boston. We were inspired by the glue-laminated arches in other precedents and found a local example we could visit right by Northeastern. The structure helped us size members and member spacing as the design is very similar to our initial idea. We also used this example for our placement and understanding of the cross bracing tension ties.

Inspiration: We were really interested in doing a curved structure for our project along with using a glue laminated timber structure. We wanted to use wood due to its aesthetic quality and durability as a material. Wood also has an inviting and warm qualities to it that other materials do not possess. Contrasted from the ice, the wood structure gives the rink a warmer quality.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/database/gehry_pop/disneyice.html

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/parks-sport-recreation/public-spaces/winter-garden.htm http://www.prsarchitects.com/projects/arts-civic/sheffield-winter-garden

A D

B C

Roof Structure 1/16” = 1’-0” Legend A. Arch B. Beams C. Purlins D. Decking

SITE PLAN 1/32” = 1’-0”

Gravity Loads

Lateral Loads 1. Decking to Joist

Dead Load of Decking: 5psf Dead Load of Joist: 15 psf Live Load: 40 psf Snow Load: 35 psf Total Load: 95 psf

W = 6.6’ * 95 lb/ft = 627 lb

Mezzanine

Roof

1. Decking to Joist R = 120 lb/ft*2ft = 240lb

Joist

Secondary (Purlins)

Primary (Box Beams)

RBeam

Tertiary (Purlins) Secondary (Beams)

Primary: Beams

∑M = 0 Rarch = (W*L)/2 = (2000 lb +627 lb )/2 = 1313.5 lb

RArch

Quaternary: Decking DL RMezzanine

RCable2

Tertiary: Purlins

this should be shown "split" into smaller segments. They would never be fabricated as one full length.

1560 lb * 2 = 3120 lb

65’

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

YOU SHOULD HAVE MODIFIED THIS HERE TOO.

18°

∑M = 0; Ry *100’- 2627 LB*(10+20+30+40+50+60+70+80+90)- RMezzanine *35’ - RMezzanine*65’ - 4400*50’ =0 Ry = 17141.5 lb

Rx / Ry = Tan 18° Rx = 5569.6

Ry R

∑Fy = 0; Ry + Ry -2RMezzanine -9RRoof to Beam = 0; Ry = 17141.5 lb

RMezzanine = 3120 lb

10’

18°

Primary: Arches

19,250 lb

Larch = 110’

RMezzanine

35’

Rcable = 3120 lb

19,250 lb 45º

Rroof to beam = 1313.5 lb *2 = 2627 lb

1560 lb *2 =3120 lb

∑Fy = 0; Rv1 + Rv2 - R = 0; Rv1 = 38,500 lb

∑M = 0; Rv2 *100’- (77000 lb*50ft) = 0 Rv2 = 38,500 lb

Rroof to beam

Secondary: Beams

Rshear

Dead load of Arch = 40 lb/ft * 110’ =4400 lb

∑Fy = 0; RCable1 = 1560 lb

3. Cable

Rshear

v = 38,500 lb

3. Beam to Arch

30’

Secondary: Purlins

Dead Load of Beam 100 Lb/ft *20 = 2000 lb

20’

DL of beam=100 lb/ft

∑M = 0 = (RCable2)(30ft) - (R)(15ft) = 0 RCable2 = [(100lb/ft)(30ft) + (120lb)]/2 RCable2 = 1560 lb

Tributary Width = 20 feet Weight = 35psf * 20 ft = 700 lb/ft R = 700 lb/ft *110ft = 77,000 lb

Beam

RArch

Beam

RCable1

Dead Load of Arch = 40 lb/ft * 110ft = 4400 lb

Tributary Width = 6.6’

W = 313.5 lb * 2 = 627 lb

2. Joist to Beam

Tertiary: Decking

Wind = 35 psf

2. Joist to Beam

Primary (Arches)

w = 100lb/ft

Larch = 110 feet

Rroof to beam = 1313.5 lb * 2 = 2627 lb

= 627/2 = 313.5 lb

∑Fy = 0; RBeam1 + RBeam2- R = 0 =120 lb + RBeam1 - 240lb = 0 RBeam1 = 120 lb

Wind Load

weight: 95psf*1’ = 95 lb/ft

∑M = 0 Rarch = (W*L)/2

Tributary width: 2 feet

∑M = 0 (RBeam2)(15ft) - (R)(7.5ft)=0 RBeam2 = 120 lb

Tertiary (Decking)

10’

LL = 100psf Dead Load of Decking = 5psf Dead Load of Joist = 15 psf Total Load = 120 psf weight = 120psf *1’ = 120 lb/ft

RBeam2

RBeam1

Dead and Live Load

Quaternary (Decking)

15’ Dead and Live Load

Joist

19,250 lb

27,223.6 lb

19,250 lb

Modifications to Project

The triangular arrangement adds stability to our design. The shape adds inherent stability as it is rigid. The trapezoid arrangement is able to flatten and change shape while the triangle retains its form even when a force is applied. Similarly, we changed our cables from horizontal cables parallel to the ground to at an angle. This adds to the stability of our design and helps brace our Mezzanine in the Z dimension as well.

Members to Design Arch

Cable Box Beam

Design of Components Mezzanine Rod (Jessica Ho)

1560 lb *2 =3120 lb

Rcable = 3120 lb Steel A36: Ft = 22,000 psi 1560 lb * 2 = 3120 lb

w = 3120 lb l = 20 feet Ft = P / A Arequired = P/Ft = 3120 lb / 22,000 psi = 0.0418 in2 1/2 diameter: 0.25 in2 > 0.1418 in2 OK

Since, we did not design the cable component of the mezzanine, we took this opportunity to design it. Originally, we had designed the mezzanine hung by cables, however, we now decided that it should be hung from a steel pipe. The mezzanine is hanging 20 feet from the ceiling and weighs 3120 lbs. Thus, we needed to determine the size of the steel pipe that would be able to hold the mezzanine safely.

Design of Components Mezzanine Beam (Thomas Gardner)

w = 1560 lb dead load = 100 lb / ft E = 1.8x106 psi Beam 30’ 1560 lb

In this exercise we imagined how the box beam supporting our Mezzanine would act if it were in use as a column. What we found was that while our beam was appropriately designed to act as a beam, it was over designed should it act as a column. If it were in use as a column it could be smaller however we didn’t change our final design based on this information because we already sized the member for its actual use in a previous lab.

1560 lb

Reflection: ∆ allow = L / 240 = (30 ft*12) / 240 = 1.5 in

Moment Srequired = Mmax / Fb = (1560lb*30*12) / (2400 psi) = 234 in3

Shear Arequired = 1.5Vmax / FS = (1.5*1560lb) / (200 psi) = 11.7 in2

∆ actual = (5WL4) / (384EI) = (5*100lb/ft*304*123) / (384*(1.8x106 psi)*5225) = 0.19 in

Madd = (WL2)/8 = (100lb/ft*302)/8 = 11250 lb/ft

Vadd = (WL)/2 = (100lb/ft*30ft)/2 = 1500 lb

∆ actual < ∆ allow OK

Sadd = Madd / Fb = (11250*12)/2400psi = 56 in3

Aadd = 1.5Vadd / Fv = (1.5*1500)/200psi = 11.25 in3

Stotal = 234 + 56 = 290 in3

Atotal = 11.7 + 11.25 = 22.95 in2

290 in3 < 346 in3 OK

22.95 in2 < 193.5 in2 OK

Design of Components Arch (Xun Chong) DL RMezzanine

RMezzanine Rroof to beam 10’

E = 1.8x106 psi FC= 1650 psi CD = 1.15

35’ 65’

Rx 18° RR

18° Ry R

Rmin = √(A /I) = √(202.5/15190) = √0.0133 = 0.1155 Slenderness Ratio = L/r = (22.5ft*12)/0.1155 = 2337.7

Try: 6” x 30” (A=202.5 in2) le/dmin = (22.5ft*12)/6in = 45 45 < 50 (max slenderness ratio) OK

FCE = 0.418E/(le/d)2 = (0.418*(1.8x106))/452 = 752400 / 452 = 371.56 psi FC*≈ FCCD = 1650 psi*1.15 = 1898 psi FCE/FC *= 371.56 / 1898 = 0.2

From Table 9.3, CP = 0.195

Try : 6” x 10” (A=70.88 in2)

FC’ = FC*CP = 1898*0.195 = 370.11 psi

Pa = Fc’ A = 370.11 psi*70.88 = 26233.39 lb >17141.4 lb Still overdesigned.

Pa = Fc’ A = 370.11 psi*202.5 = 74947.275 lb 74947.275 lb > 17141.5 lb The arch is overdesigned.

Try: 6” x 7” (A=50.63 in2) Pa = Fc’ A = 370.11 psi*50.63 = 18738.67 lb >17141.5 lb

The 6”x7” is the most economial size for the arch based on the calculations. But, the 6”x7” arch with 110 feet in length will be super slender. Hence, for aesthetic reasons, the thicker arch would still be considered for our market space.

Xun Chong Final reflection

In general, I learnt a lot from this group project. I know how to analyze a complicated structure by simplifying it into free body diagrams. I also used the logics from the class lectures to apply them to real life structure designs. I learned how to compromise the structure requirement with coding regulations as well as aesthetical needs. To be specific, firstly, the calculations helped me to go over all the logics that I learnt from the entire semester. I know how to analyze the gravity load that has been carried from the top components to the bottom components. Also, I learnt how to stable the arch from the effect of lateral load. Then I learnt how to find the most economical and practical size for structure components by using actual and required concept to test different dimensions for a specific material. Furthermore, the gallery review part also helped me to rethink this project from different perspectives. Firstly, the stability of mezzanine is the biggest issue. After the comments, I realized that how important the position of the cables are: in a triangle pattern or placing them at different levels. These are more functional than our current trapezoidal pattern cables or cables placed horizontally. Secondly, the design of the mezzanine space. I think we can think more of the program function for the mezzanine space. Lastly, the process of making the physical model also provided me with some feedback of our design. During the process of making this physical model, we had issues with pin connections to stable the arch which direct us to switch from wood to steel in real life design. Hence, in real life, after considering moment, shear and deflection, we still should think of bearing stress, especially for wood. The grain of wood matters a lot to the bearing stress. Also, I experienced how

glue laminated wood is constructed in real life since we mimic the same process of making glue laminated timber when making physical model.

Tom Gardner

The third part of the project, the column sizing, was interesting for our particular project as we don’t have traditional columns as part of our design. Instead we applied the column logic to our cables, arch, and box beam. This lead to some confusion as to which factors to actually account for when sizing the members, as some were correctly sized as beams but not columns or vice versa. This caused us to look back and really try do see which way the member would be acting, and which minimums sizing requirements we would need to follow, the beam or column design.

Overall, I greatly enjoyed this project. I think the highlight for me is still the building of the model and the glue laminated process, and I’m proud of how that turned out. I think this project was a good way to apply the knowledge we learned in class to a more real world example. This process and what I’ve learned from this class has already bled over into other classes and informed decisions I’ve made on other projects.

Jessica Ho

I really enjoyed designing and building our SOWA Market Hall design. Through this process, we learned a great deal about how the smaller components of a building make the whole.

From the beginning, we were interested in a wood structure due to its aesthetic qualities. Through our research, we came upon the Metropol Parasol in Spain. We were fascinated with the pavilion and the observation deck that overlooked the city. With further research, we became inspired by the arch and decided to create one for our project. We came upon various precedents that had an arch and used wood as their material: the Anaheim Ice in California and the Sheffield Winter Garden in England.

With understanding that we had to build a model, we decided to use glue laminated wood. We wanted to see on a much smaller scale how glue laminated wood was built. Thus, when we built the model, we had a greater appreciation of glue laminated structures: photos do not do the real design justice. From cutting a reference arch, to bending the wood around it and waiting for it to settle, we were able to experience how a heavy timber glue-laminated arch was built, albeit on a smaller scale.

With the gallery review feedback, we had great input as to how the mezzanine should be stabilized. In our initial design, we used horizontal cables in a trapezoidal pattern to account for lateral loads. However, by substituting the trapezoidal design with a triangular one, we were able to increase the stability of the mezzanine. Thus, the gallery review was really helpful with design and program strategies.

The calculations were important in learning how the loads travel from the roof to the ground. Designing the major components of our structure helped us to understand how the different parts of a building work together. We also learned an important lesson: the material that one chooses will have a significant impact on the structural performance of a building. In addition, the connections would have a great impact on how the column is designed. With our calculations, it was interesting to see how we significantly oversized some components of the project before we learned how to size columns. From this, we learned the most economical and efficient way to design a beam.

Ultimately, we worked well together in designing and building the SOWA Hall Market. I enjoyed applying what we learned in the classroom to a real-life situation. In sum, I learned a great deal from this project about designing a building and how every part of a building is considered.