Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

DEMYSTIFYING CONSTRUCTION Lecture Series Exercise 4 : Le Bus Station, Paris the prestigious Transport Terminal.

. (From Lecture 8: Planar Glass Construction) LECTURERS INSTRUCTIONS

1.0 Exercise Objectives This exercise is different in scale to the three exercises preceeding it. Whereas Exercises 1-3 ask for detailed design thought at 1:5 scale, this exercise asks the student to study the design of a planar glass faade in its entirety, and explain the functions of the differing elements in it. The main objective of the exercise is thus to gain an understanding of design and technical factors influencing detailed glass faade design. The exercise also has the secondary objectives as stated in the course introduction to develop a technical sketching technique, give some indication of work they may be asked to do during their year out in architectural practice etc. 2.0 Question 1 (refer to Lecturers Solution drawing below)

The student needs to rationalise the faade design / panel layout from the original planning drawing supplied, on the basis of the further technical information given since the planning drawing. The salient information is that the maximum size of glass panel is 2200x2200 and maximum length of glass fin is 2500mm. The student should appreciate the following: In the vertical plane there is 8100mm height from floor to underside of roof soffit. The door zone requires 2100mm (minimum) which leaves 6000mm for the planar panels above. The student needs to appreciate that this cannot be divided into 2 panels of 3000mm height (since the module would be greater than the maximum size of glass panel permitted) and that 4 panels of 1500mm would be inefficient economically through the increased number of panels / fixings. The best solution vertically is 3 No. panels of 2000mm height (which is within the maximum size of glass panel limits). In the horizontal plane, the cladding at the faade jambs will project beyond the gridline, thus the total width of glass faade is less than the 2 x 6300mm structural bays as shown. The width of this jamb cladding is within the control of the designer and thus there is an opportunity to rationalise the glass panel width and layout. Since the vertical dimension of panels size has been fixed at 2000mm height, there is a opportunity to create the same n horizontal dimension of 2000mm (and thus rational, square panels) by making the jamb cladding zone 300mm on each side and thus leaving 12,000mm for the glass.
Antony Wood 01.06.05


In rationalising the panel width / layout in the horizontal direction, there is a further opportunity to shift the panel configuration to omit the detrimental half-panels at jambs as shown in the planning drawing. Thus the final solution in the horizontal plane is 6 No. equal panels of 2000mm width as shown. Having thus rationalised the panel configuration into 3 x 6 planar glass panels of 2000mm x 2000mm size above a door zone of 2100mm height, the student should show all dimensioning and some notes as indicated on Lecturers solution. When the solution for the doors / fin restraint is determined through answering Question 2, relevant notes pertaining to this solution could also be added to this elevational drawing. Question 2 (refer to Lecturers Solution drawing below)

This student needs to address the 2 fundamental questions posed by the Structural Engineer in her fax, i.e. the position of the glass faade relative to the existing structure, and the fin restraint method / solution for doors (swing or sliding). There are two possible solutions for both these questions: Faade Position: Solution 1 = Faade is positioned significantly in front of existing structure to allow freedom of glass fins i.e. no spatial clash between glass fin and existing 305x305 column (since panel joint is on gridline see Q1 Lecturers solution). Faade Position: Solution 2 = Faade positioned close to existing structural column, but then it needs to be acknowledged that it is not possible to have a glass fin support in this position because of the spatial clash between fin / column (if the glass panel joint is on the gridline as with the Lecturers solution). If the student has followed this solution then he/she must show either (a) planar glass fixings supported directly off the existing column, (b) glass panel joint not on gridline, i.e. shifted with a half panel at the jambs as in the planning drawing. Solution 1 is the best solution since Solution 2 has implications for either the rationalisation of panel configuration (i.e. the requirement of a half panel at jambs) or the differential movement of the faade overall since, with planar fixings supported directly off the existing column, then the faade is supported off two different structural systems roof structure and vertical column which may move differentially and causes stresses in the faade. Fin Restraint: Solution 1 = Fins are continued down to the floor level and restrained directly off the floor slab. In this solution, only swing doors are possible which should be indicated on both section and the elevational drawing created in Question 1. Fin Restraint: Solution 2 = Fins are restrained by a new horizontal member existing above the door horizon (and supported at the midspan by the existing column). This solution allows the
Antony Wood 01.06.05

use of sliding doors, but an additional support solution needs to be found for the fixed glass panels between doors (vertical cantilever from frame in floor + structural silicon to lowest planar glass panel above?) Despite the requirement for additional restraint steel and a tricky solution for the support of the fixed glass panels between doors, Solution 2 is probably the better solution since it allows for the provision of sliding doors an advantage in a shopping mall environment. Either solution is a cceptable, however, as long as all the implications are understood in the student solution (to be assessed through the drawing notes). Having made the fundamental decisions as outlined above, the student next needs to draw the relevant section through the faade explaining these decisions and annotate the drawing to explain the differing elements of the system(s). The notes that should be included are shown on the Lecturers solution and summarised in the Marking Structure ( ee below). However note that the s annotation should be explanatory e.g. splice plates connecting glass fin sections, not simply splice plates. 4.0 Question 3

The response to this question needs to explain two factors, either in words or rough drawings: that the glass panels at the jamb and roof need to be (i) contained in a physical frame to protect the exposed edges, and (ii) this frame / glass edge needs to be concealed within the roof / jamb cladding construction to continue the frameless effect of the faade. 5.0 Marking Structure for Exercise 3. Based on the principles and objectives discussed above, the allocation of marks in this exercise (out of a total of 10) is shown in the table below. The attaching of marks to fundamental decisions made in the detail highlights the relative importance of each of these decisions in the success of the construction design.
Mark* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mark given for successfully: Handing the work in ** Elevation Vertical Rationale: showing the door zone at 2100mm height, and 3 No. panels of 2000mm height vertically (1/2 mark for each) Elevation Horizontal Rationale: showing 6 No. panels of 2000mm width, and shifted to be equal panels with panel joint on gridline (1/2 mark for each) Showing the glass faade in best position in Section, with implications (Solution 1 above) Showing fin restraint system and implications: at ground, swing doors only (as in Solution 1 above), or new restraint member / sliding doors / fixed panel (Solution 2 above). For explanatory note: Cantilever Structure off beam for hanging of glass fins (in faade position Solution 1) or Existing Roof Structure (in faade position Solution 2). For explanatory note: Glass fins hung off roof structure. For explanatory note: Splice plates connecting glass fins in 2000mm lengths. For explanatory note: Glass panels fixed to splice plates via planar / spider fixings. Appreciating that at jamb / head, glass edges need to be contained in a frame. .. and that this frame needs to be concealed within the jamb / roof construction. Discretionary point: Presenting / articulating the work submission criteria: sketching technique, showing notes, dimensions, working out etc.

Q1 Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2

Q2 Q3 Q3

Total = 10 * Note: Half marks can be given for partial-success in any of the categories. ** Note: In all the exercises, 1 mark is given for handing the work in, to distinguish non-submissions.
Antony Wood 01.06.05