Collaboration | Design Method 2.0

COLLABORATION | DESIGN METHOD 2.0

1

This is an academic project, but not your ordinary academic project. This is a professional project but not your usual professional project. This is our final project.

STOP, COLLABORATE, AND OPEN YOUR MIND

THIS IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL FINAL PROJECT!!!

2

A special THANK YOU to all those that have been involved with the 2013 Solar Decathlon project on Team Kentuckiana.Our investigation and results could not have happened without your assistance and efforts. Several of the graphics were generated as part of deliverables for the competition and thus we would like to give credit to those who have participated and assisted in generating these graphics. This type of effort is what truly makes these project successful and exciting.

3

Process 5Abstract 7Solar Decathlon Competition 9Solar Decathlon Competition Critique 13Proposal 19Methodology 21

Literature Review 23Interviews 31Survey 33Prior Decathlon Submissions 35

University of Kentucky: s.ky blue 35University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: Re-home 37University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: Gable Home 39University of Missouri: Science and Technology: Solar House Team 41

Collaboration 43Collaboration Encryption 45File Sharing 47Mock-up Wall Section 49

Site Analysis 53

4

Process

Collaboration | Design Method 2.0 61Design Networks 63Collaboration | Pyramid of Success 65

Mindset 67Communication 69Commitment 71Organization 73Adaptability & Process 75Skills + Tools 77Goal(s) 79Teach & Learn 79Reflection� 81Jamie�Owens� 82Zach�Kendall� 83

Final�Product� 87Appendix I - Interview Responses 95

Eric Holt | Purdue University | Solar Decathlon 2011 95Mark Taylor | University of Illinois | Solar Decathlon 2007, 2009, 2011 99Ryan Justak | Purdue University | Solar Decathlon 2011 103

Appendix II - Survey Results 106Bibliography and References 110

5

ARCHITECTURE

THE PROJECT

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

INTERIOR DESIGN

PLUMBING

STRUCTURAL

ELECTRICAL

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS

6

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Architecture� has� become� a� morphing� industry.� It� is� in� constant� flux,� and�each day the boundaries are being broken, stretched, and being reinvented. The single constant is the strong relations architecture maintains with its building industry partners. Architecture is very diverse in the relations it has with other disciplines and professions. From these relations, we are able to easily acknowledge the necessity to work in teams and groups. The idea of collaboration has become a vehicle and framework to revitalize the design process. Integrating a collaborative team of designers poses an abundance of understanding for different design philosophies and an appreciation for various design values from each of the members. As professionals, we tend to work together in the common workforce, however early on as we are still in school, we tend to teach in isolated bubbles. Implementing a collaborative design team allows for the greatest potential for innovation and optimized building solutions. They say “two heads are better than one” but really we think that the best designs simply are not of a single mind nor single idea. The�primary�focus�of�this�final�project�is�exploring�these�relationships�between�architecture and other disciplines as we move towards the completion of the Solar Decathlon competition. Through this process, we will present the inherent disconnect between disciplines in hopes of also presenting a viable framework for an integrated project delivery. Through the creation of both digital and physical models, we will explore the relations of 1) the disciplines that are extensively involved with the project, and 2) the project as both an academic and professional project. Our thesis will thoroughly document the process of the Phoenix House project from design through construction of the Solar Decathlon 2013 submission.

Abstract 7

8

2013 Solar Decathlon Teams:- Arizona State University and The University of New Mexico- Czech Republic: Czech Technical University- Kentucky/Indiana: University of Louisville, Ball State University and University of Kentucky- Middlebury College- Missouri University of Science and Technology- Norwich University- Santa Clara University- Southern California Institute of Architecture and California Institute of Technology- Stanford University- Stevens Institute of Technology- Team Alberta: University of Calgary- Team Austria: Vienna University of Technology- Team Capitol DC: The Catholic University of America, George Washington, and American University- Team Ontario: Queen’s University, Carleton University, and Algonquin College- Team Texas: The University of Texas at El Paso and El Paso Community College- Tidewater Virginia Hampton University and Old Dominion University- University of Nevada Las Vegas- The University of North Carolina at Charlotte- University of Southern California- West Virginia University

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

After several presentations and articles were released in the mid-1990’s , this brought� a� about�market� transformation� to� refl�ect� a� green�economy.� � It�was�these trajectories that led to the start of a public competition. Richard King of the Department of Energy in collaboration with the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), crafted and organized the competition, requirements, and jurors. The�U.S.�Department�of�Energy�held� its�fi�rst�Solar�Decathlon�competition� in�2002 with 14 teams starting their plans and designs in early 2000. Since its inception� in� 2002,� the� competition� has� repeated� in� 2005�with� 18� collegiate�teams, 2007, 2009, 2011 all had 20 international collegiate teams. Solar Decathlon 2013 will mark the sixth competition, with only one more competition currently planned for 2015.

The aim of the competition is to “challenge 20 collegiate teams to design, build, and� operate� solar-powered� houses� that� are� cost� effective,� energy� effi�cient,�and attractive.”�All�of�the�entries�take�a�holistic�view�of�energy�effi�ciency,�using�materials that are low cost and low energy, while also making use of complex, integrated computer systems to monitor usage and energy generation. The competition demonstrates to the public the comfort and affordability of homes that� combine� energy-effi�cient� construction� and� appliances� with� renewable�energy systems available today. The homes represent the accumulation of 2 years, thousands of hours, of dedication, sweat, and hard work from the university students, faculty, volunteers, and corporate sponsors. The winner of the competition is the team that best blends affordability, consumer appeal, and design�excellence�with�optimal�energy�production�and�maximum�effi�ciency.�

Solar Decathlon Competition 9

Solar Decathlon 2002-2011 Houses

10

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

The Solar Decathlon is split into 5 juried contests, based on jury evaluations, and 5 measured contests that are based on monitored performance. Each contest is worth a maximum of 100 points, for a combined total of 1,000 points for the competition. The 10 Solar Decathlon 2013 contests are:

It was with these goals in mind that the University of Louisville, Ball State University and University Kentucky joined together to form Team Kentuckiana. Together, the team was formed to join this elite group of decathletes and place their mark on this growing sustainable endeavor.

ENERGY BALANCE

COMFORT ZONE

HOT WATER

APPLIANCES

ENTERTAINMENT

ARCHITECTURE

ENGINEERING

AFFORDABILITY

COMMUNICATION

MARKET APPEAL

JURIED CONTESTS MEASURED CONTESTS

11

12

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

The Solar Decathlon is unlike any other architectural contest. Part of what makes the Solar Decathlon so unique is the 10 contest process that the project submissions must go through. Therefore, the design of the house needs to be thoroughly well-rounded in order to achieve high scores. This is a competition for collegiate teams, and therefore it is technically an academic project, yet this does not fully describe the process. It can also be considered a professional project, but this also does not fully portray the underlying complexity that is non-existent in practice. The Solar Decathlon is the melding and integration of both realms in the form of one project.

There seems to be some bias towards technology, and its implementation in the design submissions. Sustainable design is not simply throwing a bunch of PV panels on top of any roof. The Solar Decathlon presents the best and the worst answers to environmental and energy problems. Through the competition, we are able to demonstrate the collective solutions to these problems. Some of the solutions, however, put good design at a disadvantage. Where some submissions show a clear advance towards environmental design, the house itself can nevertheless be awarded low marks in something like the Comfort Zone Contest. We need to re-assess the evaluation methods we have for the competition, so that we are able to recognize simple passive design as much as we are able to reward for innovative technologies.

The point of the Solar Decathlon is to produce a house that is 100% powered by solar energy. The aim is “to design, build, and operate solar-powered houses”. There’s an underlying idea that this is a prerequisite for every house submitted for the competition, that they are completely powered by the sun. This is an expectation of the contest submissions, therefor there has to be some� alternate� efficiency� that� these� houses� showcase.� An� environmental�efficient� design� should� not� solely� concentrate� on� electrical� efficiency,� but�several�areas�of�efficiency.�And�just�like�each�house�should�be�well-rounded�to�compete in the contests, there should also be several systems that make that house�more�efficient.�That�is�how�the�Phoenix House sets itself apart from the average expectations of competing in the Solar Decathlon.

John Thackara says it best that “design for sustainability means fostering innovation- not just in products and services, but in work methods, behaviors, and business practices.” This we believe is the underlying theme and

Solar Decathlon Competition Critique 13

14

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

goal for the Solar Decathlon. Not only is it solely a competition, but it also a demonstration�of� smart,� efficient�design, and a chance to showcase little things that people can do to go green. It demonstrates a willingness to rid the idea that sustainability is overly expensive, and is a luxury above all else. It’s not just about the products that go into the building, or the way we build, but it’s also a state of mind, and the way we think or need to think about building.

15

16

COLLABORATION | DESIGN METHOD 2.0FINAL PROJECT PROPOSAL

17

18

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

In spring of 2012, Ball State University along with University of Louisville and University of Kentucky were nominated to collectively participate in the Solar Decathlon 2013 as Team Kentuckiana. The Solar Decathlon provides us with the perfect educational opportunity to demonstrate how to work and collaborate with students of other disciplines on a joint project that is both theory and practice based. In an educational realm where projects are generally, conceptually based and design dominated by one individual, the Phoenix House will bring together students with different backgrounds to collectively put together a professional project. Ball State, University of Louisville, and University of Kentucky are working together to produce one project that is just as much an architectural piece of work as it is an engineering project. These three universities and a variety of their departments are compiling their resources, knowledge and expertise in a joint effort towards a shared vision and goal of assembling together a winning submission.

The collaboration process has given the opportunity for varying levels of education on both the architectural and engineering side. These varying levels have offered a unique mix of skill and knowledge that is typically not experienced in an educational studio setting at Ball State. The Phoenix House allows for students of these varying levels to collaborate together to produce a holistic project with a larger pool of knowledge and skills that is transferred among the students. Next semester, a 402 and a 501 studio will both collectively work on both construction documents and physical construction of the Phoenix House. This presents us with an opportunity to guide the 4th year and 5th year students through their deliverables with our higher level of experience and knowledge.

In� this� final� project,� we� will� be� observing� and� actively� participating� in� the�collaborative efforts of these schools from the design drawing stage all the way through the construction phase. As the design moves from design drawings to construction documents, our positions in this project will shift to a management role, overseeing the construction documents produced by the Arch 402 and Arch 501 students. Following the construction documents, we will assist in the construction of the Phoenix House while coordinating the as-built�documents.�Our�final�product�for�this�thesis�will�be�the�complete�set�of contract documents, as required by the Department of Energy, in addition to the partially constructed Phoenix House. Our plan is to continue through the completion of the competition after graduation, therefore the 602 work will�represent�an�important�and�necessary�experience�for�us�and�a�significant�contribution to Team Kentuckiana.

Proposal 19

20

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

In our exploration of relationships between architecture and other disciplines, the project as both an academic and professional project, we performed a variety of methods of research: interviews with former solar decathlon advisors, precedent studies of previously entered houses into the competition, dicussions with professionals and industry partners, interactive design weekends with design team workshops with professional partners and a built full scale mock-up of a portion of the house.

The Solar Decathlon is not a typical studio project where it is a design down method but requires the collaboration of many parts that must work together and align to create a seamless project, much like the diagram to the left shows, A rubics cube when mixed up requires a certain methodology of turning and twisting to complete the design.

Much like a typical design, the project has certain desired goals and restrictions that help guide the process. The intended goal of the project, much like in the rubix cube analogy, is to align all of the disciplines so that all of the components of�the�project�fit�seamlessly�together�into�a�coherent�product.

Methodology 21

22

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Architecture has become disconnected from the origins that started the profession. Somewhere along the way, we as architects have grown too comfortable with the way we practice, the way we teach, the way we approach the project. The way architecture is practiced and taught for many of the past years is simply not as effective anymore. We are not DOING enough. We have to change the way we are doing things. To change this, we must change our way of THINKING. In the words of Albert Einstein, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it”. One problem with the built environment is�that�there�is�little�to�no�flexibility�in�ideologies.�Our�ideologies�are�based�on�developed behavior and repetition. These means and methods of construction have�long�passed�their�effectiveness,�efficiency�and�need�to�be�redeveloped�to accommodate the innovations of today’s building industry. In order to make a positive impact on our future, we need to take action and change these repetitive ideologies in what we do, and by how we think.

One way of thinking we must change is the idea that there can always be the “Quick Fix.” We need to stop simple repetition of what’s been built before just for simplicity’s sake. We need to start thinking outside of traditional parameters, such as the cheapest and quickest solutions, and think more holistically in terms of longevity and consequences based on our decisions. Building typologies were developed because they were the best methods and readily available materials at those times. As advanced and as rapidly developed as the building industry has become, we need to extract the roots to these systems to�produce�better�buildings�and�more�efficient�methods�of�construction.�One�method to accomplish this is to change the ideology that “Bigger is Better.” Bigger is NOT better. Bigger can lead to bigger problems. Bigger can lead to�more�waste.� Bigger� can� lead� to� greater� inefficiencies.�We� need� to� alter�

this system of thinking to demonstrate that only “Better is Better.” As architects we need to help terminate this philosophy that we’ve developed as consumers, and push forward with new views. We need to explain that sustainability shouldn’t be considered something of a luxury, but rather something of a necessity moving toward the future. It doesn’t have to be the $1million equipment and high-end materials, but rather something that is competitively affordable

Literature Review

TOP

DO

WN

DE

SIG

N

COLLABORATIVE DESIGN

23

and�economically�efficient.

Our education in architecture school has developed in us the sense of authority and creative dominance. Until now, we’ve had total control over every single academic project. As we started out in school, we developed our own design processes; we simultaneously developed senses of style and our own�artistic�licenses.�Part�of�the�difficulty�that�we’ve�noticed�with�this�project�is the unwillingness to relent any of the design to others. We’ve become very�selfish� in�some� regards� to� the�design,�as�we�have� learned� to�become�attached to each of our projects. We become so attached in some regards that we feel our decisions are right, and everyone else must be wrong. We become the egotistical architect portrayed in The Fountainhead. There is a large unwillingness to compromise, and in such an integrated project, there is a need to work collaboratively together as a single unit. We have to respect each discipline just as much as we do our own. Each individual added to the project is a necessary component in the overall makeup of the project. We have architects, engineers, landscape architects, interior designers, construction managers, and so many others that have contributed. As George Elvin explains, “each discipline gains respect for each other, creative tensions dissolve through understanding the needs of the project as a whole.” To some degree, the best designs are not based on one mind or one idea, just like the best design teams are multi-disciplinary, because how can people work together when everyone knows the same things? Working on a project in a collaborative fashion means that everyone has the same amount of input on the design as everyone else. When we work in such a fashion, previous barriers between the professions disappear, and we are able to work in a progressive and constructive manner.

Working on an integrated project is a large task. Few of us in architecture school can say that we have experience working on such a prominent project. And unlike�most�projects�we�are�used�to,�we�find�that�this�project�incorporates�many�areas of design in which it is a necessity to cooperate with other disciplines. Where in some areas we may disagree among each other, we have shared understanding of what the project is, and what it wants to be. Where there is a�partitioning�of�the�design�process�to�some�extent,�there�is�also�a�fluidity�in�the common structure and framework of our ideas. George Elvin describes the collaborative project as “a living thing, constantly evolving throughout the

24

CONCEPT

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

OCCUPANCY

CONCEPT

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION

OCCUPANCY

CONCEPT

DESIGN

CONSTRUCTION ASSEMBLY

SOLAR DECATHLONCOMPETITION

OVER THE WALL METHOD

DESIGN/BUILD METHOD

DECATHLON PROCESS

DISASSEMBLY

OCCUPANCY

ASSEMBLY

DISASSEMBLY

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

life of the project.” There is almost an unpredictability to such a complex and multifaceted project. The facets of the project adapt and develop, components change out of necessity of the evolution, and nothing in the project remains stationary.� A� flexible� relation� within� and� between� the� disciplines� makes� it�possible to coordinate such a demanding task, and creates the highest quality product. Once we are able to recognize the relations between the various disciplines,�we�are�then�able�to�recognize�the�significance�of�collaboration�and�the rewards that come with such a project. Collaboratively working together will produce a much richer and fully developed project, more so than a typical project that is developed in a typical segmented building process. As�we�have�further�developed�the�definition�and�role�of�architect�in�the�building�process, we also simultaneously developed a barrier from other professions. The word architect comes from the Greek words “arki” (meaning to oversee) and “tekton” (meaning building); essentially summing up one who oversees the building/construction. This changing of the role of the architect has progressively been stretched from skilled craftsman to designer, and it is from this disconnection that we’ve created this fragmented concept of the building industry. We’ve smoothly transitioned from a holistic development of the project to a sequential, segmented process. There are different entities demanding for their own objectives, and initiating their own systems of input towards the design. Instead of working in a fragmented system in which members of the design team are competing for input into the project, we need to format a system in which everyone’s input is equally relevant to the collaborative project. In a true collaborative project, each individual input is just as important as the next. If one segment is taken out of the project, other segments compensate for�this�change,�and�the�final�product�that�is�the�project�is�unaffected.

Fragmented�Additive�Project�Method�� 1ₐ+1ₑ+1ₒ+…=�XₔCollaborative�Project�Method� �� 1ₐx1ₑx1ₒx…=�1ₔ

The division of the professions in the building industry has placed barriers. Elvin describes the typical design process as the “Over-the-Wall Method” where the architect and engineer take turns compiling and editing information, details, etc. for the project, and then sending them to the other discipline, before

25

waiting to receive them back and revise. This process continues throughout the design and construction of the project. This method should not continue as is. It is a flawed�system that lacks certainty in knowledge of the project as a whole. In a collaborative design, knowledge and resources can be pooled together into a collective pot, from which the design can be made based on practical reasoning and collective innovation. Elvin states that “as much as 30%�of�project�costs�are�wasted�due�to�inefficient�management�and�much�of�this has been attributed to the extreme separation of design and construction.” Not only does this separation of the building disciplines complicate the process as a whole, but it also extends the process, increasing time and money. A streamlined method would allow for additional innovations and alternate improvements in performance. A collaborative system encourages the mixing of ideas and builds a substantial base for understanding, knowledge, and fostering exchanges between disciplines.

For centuries, master builders and architects have relied on drawings as an inventive and analytical medium, and to convey instructions to building trades. Francois Levy, talks about how the extensive technical expertise of historical craftsmen and tradesmen, combined with established and fairly static vernacular building practices, reduced the need for extensive construction documents. By the eighteenth century, drafting with specialized steel nibs on prepared surfaces, more or less as it had come to be practiced, had come into being. Such technical documents consisted of precisely constructed drawings executed on vellum. The advent of computer-assisted drafting (CAD) did little to change the nature of drawing, the method of creating the drawings vastly changed but the process of generating CAD drawings were still manually assembled by the architect and remained the same as the eighteenth century methods just no longer ink on vellum. As building materials and techniques have rapidly evolved, coupled with the tendency to mitigate risk through legislation, has contributed to the trend toward more extensive, complex, and detailed architectural drawing sets. Levy feels that it is in this technological climate that BIM has emerged.

Developments in building design and analysis software in recent years, coupled with advances in desktop and portable computational power, have engendered effective virtual buildings, or building information models (BIM). Through its development,�BIM�has�been�variously�defined,�pending�the�user’s�profession,�

26

PD

EFFO

RT:

EFF

ECT

EFFO

RT:

EFF

ECT

SD DD CD BID CA

A version of the so-called MacLeamy Curve, originally attributed to HOK’s Patrick MacLeamy. As time progresses in the design process, it takes more and more effort to make changes that have a diminishing effect;� the� least� effort� will� have� the� most� signifi�cant�impact early in the project. Typical project phases are listed left to right on the x-axis in chronological order: predesign (PD), schematic design (SD), design development (DD), contract or construction documents (CD), bid phase (BID), and construction administration (CA). The right-hand “camel hump” represents the traditional design process with the bulk of work occurring in the CD phase. Note that a substantial portion of that effort lies outside the Effort:Effect curve. With BIM (and IPD), however, more work is “left-shifted” (the left “camel hump”) and occurs when it is most effective--earlier in the design. The shaded area lies under the Effort:Effect curve, which suggests that most work occurs when it has the most effect, and less work occurs when it has less effect on the design outcome.

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

perspective, or agenda. Levy, references Eastman et al’s BIM Handbook as they�defi�ne�BIM�as�“a�modeling�technology�and�associated�set�of�processes�to�produce,�communicate,�and�analyze�building�models.”�Levy,�further�clarifi�es�that for the purpose of his book, BIM in Small-Scale Sustainable Design, that he�defi�nes�BIM�as,�Building� Information�modeling:�an�architectural�software�environment in which graphic and tabular views are extracted from data-rich building models composed of intelligent, contextual building objects.

With buildings being designed with the aid of BIM, designers have the opportunity to spend relatively more time on design, design more effectively, and capitalize on performance feedback from the virtual building to design for greater sustainability. Patrick MacLeamy, CEO of HOK, is credited with popularizing the graph to the left comparing the design team’s diminishing ability to control project costs and the increasing cost of making design changes over time, against the traditional architectural fee allocation.

BIM has a broad appeal to a wide variety of building professions from planning of the building location to the operation phases of the building. Many large owners�see�the�benefi�t�of�BIM�and�drive�the�adoption�in�their�project.��Levy,�explains�how�large�construction�fi�rms�have�met�this�challenge�as�they�are�too�fi�nding�the�benefi�ts�of�adopting�BIM�into�their�practice�with�having�the�ability�to pull quantities for cost estimating more accurately and have the ability to discover clash detections much faster to reduce potential future errors and issues. Meanwhile, architects have been more skeptical in the adoption with many questions left unanswered like, Who pays for more service? Who is liable? Who owns the Instruments of Service? Who pays for re-training of staff? How�can�the�fi�rm�handle�collaboration?��BIM�implies�not�just�a�different work methodology�within�a�fi�rm,�but�also�a�change�in�the�nature�of�relationships�with�consultants�and�their�project�team�members.��Many�fi�rms�are�not�able�or�ready�to implement a deeper integrated project delivery (IPD) or design-build (DB) process or methodology into their practices.

According to Levy, within design and construction, BIM has been seen as an enabling social framework and technology for integrated project delivery (IPD). One could hope that IPD methodologies hold the promise of a shift away from jealously� guarded� fi�efdoms� carved� out� of� the� project� scope� and� toward� an�open collaboration where designers, constructors, consultants, and owners

27

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY UPON SOCIETY

INFL

UEN

CE

OF

SOC

IETY

UPO

N T

ECH

NO

LOG

YBIM = 1980

BIM = 2010

BIM = 2050

28

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

have a vested interest in project success. IPD itself is not a technology, but a social structure that makes extensive use of technology to achieve its ends. IPD is based on collaboration between members of the project team (beyond just the design team) and their knowledge sharing, which, in turn, is dependent on communication and trust. Because IPD is only effective when based on a foundation of communication and trust, it is both conducive to and requires knowledge sharing. With its emphasis on collaborative project coordination and�open�communication�IPD�finds�a�ready�ally�in�BIM.��The�building�model�encourages coordination with the presence and interaction of interdisciplinary components within a singular model.

The traditional practice of leaving general contractors to fend for themselves may seem to “protect” the architects in the short term, only to potentially undermine the project as a hole in the long run.

29

30

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Interviews

In an effort to get a better understanding of how previous decathletes and their advisors overcame the challenges the Solar Decathlon competition brings to a fairly rigid academic curriculum, we sent questionnaires to former faculty advisors and students at the following schools: Purdue University, University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign, and University of Kentucky.

Some of their answers were in line with what were expecting and are currently working through on our own team. However, there were some that we were surprised about. The University of Illinois actually had their shell /envelope built�for�them�and�then�they�finished�the�interior�and�exterior�site�constructs.��This�is�due�to�insufficient�space�and�tools�on�campus�to�fabricate�it.��Something�that was pretty common among all the teams was the use of hired/paid student labor during various parts of the process and not just relying on volunteers to complete the project.

Purdue and UofI-UC both consisted of a small core set of students that led/managed the project while several students came in and out of the project at various phases to assist as their schedules and interest allowed. Both teams agreed that they wish that the core of students would have been double, in order to reduce the load on the leaders and thus reducing the stressfulness of the project.

31

0123456789

10

5. StronglyAgree

4. Agree 3. Neutral 2. Disagree 1. StronglyDisagree

The Solar Decathlon experience has greatly enhanced my understanding of the process of architect-engineer collaboration

1. Architecture Student

2. Engineering Student

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

VideoConferences

DesignWeekends

PersonalInteractions

Use of ashared Revit

Model

The methods of collaboration that proved most effective were: Rank the following in order of importance with 1 being the most important.

1. Architecture Student

2. Engineering Student

Rating Average

32

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Survey

A survey was given to all current and previous Team Kentuckiana participants to evaluate the effectiveness of BIM as a collaborative tool. This survey was given to all the students around the beginning of September. It was initially used for information for a paper that is being co-authored by Mark McGinley, Walter Gronzik, Michele Chiuini, Kelsey King and Jamie Owens, if accepted the paper would be presented at the Architectural Engineering Institute at Penn State, in April 2013.

The interdisciplinary collaboration methods that students perceived as most effective were the “Design Weekends” (joint interdisciplinary face-to-face design sessions) and personal interaction. Only 15% of student respondents listed the shared Revit model as the most important method. Physical distance, schedule� conflicts� and� lack� of� time� to� interact� were� seen� as� the� greatest�challenges.�Significantly,� less�that�half�of� the�architecture�students� indicated�that the Solar Decathlon “greatly enhanced” their understanding of the BIM process,�the�major�obstacles�being�difficulties�in�file�sharing�management�and�uneven level of Revit skills in the team. At this stage, architecture students felt� that� Revit� had� not� greatly� contributed� to� enhance� the� project� workflow�and the creativity of the design. A clear majority agreed, however, that the collaboration with engineering students was essential to achieve the project’s objectives (75%) and had led to an increased understanding of the design process (64%). Students also agreed that learning Revit was important for their professional training.

The intent is to re-evaluate and perform a similar survey at the end of the design process, to see how participants feel the effectiveness of BIM has developed over the course of the project.

*Results of survey can be found in Appendix I

33

34

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Prior Decathlon Submissions

The�s.ky�blue�home�was�the�first�Solar�Decathlon�submission�to�use�Autodesk�Revit as their modeling tool. This allowed for the collaboration between the multiple disciplines to be a stronger holistic design. Using Building Information Modeling software allowed for the design of unique and complicated elements such as casework intersection with appliances, and a compact and overcrowded mechanical room. The model was also used in conjunction with lighting analysis software to do virtual simulations in order to optimize interior and exterior lighting.

The s.ky blue home was constructed to exemplify the historic and local design of Kentucky homes. It was built with environmental design in mind, achieving a� net-zero� efficiency,� and� in� addition� exceeding� LEED� for�Homes�Platinum�standards (the highest achievable rating in the LEED rating system). The house� is�covered�with�a�screen�of�fiber�cement�panels.�Each�of� the�panels�were CNC milled with perforations, and together they form a continuous, picturesque scenery of a typical Kentucky landscape.

The house was designed to be completely naturally ventilated and lit with daylight. A simple rectangular shaped building with an open living space, and with several windows and doors located throughout the house that can be opened and allow in natural breezes. The house also contains a ribbon around the entire house of clerestory windows that allows the house to be completely filled�with�natural�daylight.�Besides�the�PV�array�on�the�roof,�the�south�wall�is�also�attached�with�a�fixed�PV�array,�in�addition�to�a�series�of�evacuated�tubes�that provide natural heating for the house and water system.

University of Kentucky: s.ky blue

35

36

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

The Re_home is a fully PV-powered housing unit that was developed and constructed as a rapid deployment system that is built in several strategic locations to offer an instantaneous and sustainable solution for families drastically affected due to natural disasters. The design consists of two module units that can be transported on one truck for a rapid response to any location and provide relief to a family as the area and community rebuild from a natural disaster.

The� efficiency� in� construction� of� the� Re_home� starts� with� its� 24”� o.c� wall�construction that reduces the amount of building material as well as the thermal bridging in the wall. The wall is then applied with a spray-foam insulation that forms an airtight seal and gives a high insulation value to the wall. Additional insulation panels were added to the exterior to provide a double layer of insulation�and�further�reduce�the�thermal�bridging.�Both�the�roof�and�floor�were�insulated with spray foam that created an insulation value of R60 for both, making them super insulated and airtight. The exterior panels are made from 60%�rice�husks,�22%�common�salt,�and�18%�mineral�oil.�These�panels�can�then�be�personally�finished�to�fit�the�owner’s�needs.

The�PV�system�can�be�mounted�flat�on�the�roof�before�being�shipped.�When�the�Re_home�reaches� its�final� location,� the�PV�array� is� then�shifted� into� its�optimal� position� for� solar� exposure� and� used� upon� final� adjustments.� The�house also uses an integrated solar shade canopy array, providing seasonal shading during the warmer months and reducing heat gain, allowing additional heat gain during the winter months, all while capturing solar energy to use from the array.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: Re-home

37

38

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

The Gable Home was a student driven design that accumulated 2 years of research and work. The students worked in a continuous process as part of their educational curriculum. Classes were initiated to aid the students in further developing their design, and there was a continuous and vertical studio created specifically�geared�towards�the�Solar�Decathlon.�The�professors�and�school�employees played the role of mentors and advisors to the 2009 competition team. They donated their time and expertise in guiding the students through the project development.

The Gable Home was construction to demonstrate the fusion of modern technology and a traditional vernacular of the Midwest. One of the principles behind the Gable Home was to make sure everything had a dual purpose and function, for example the shape of the gable roof was to effectively shed water�and�provide�an�efficient�surface�for�the�full�solar�panel�array.�It�was�many�examples such as this that helped to demonstrate the delicate relationship between traditional vernacular and new technologies.

The�final�design�is�clad�with�reclaimed�siding�from�an�Illinois�barn,�and�the�deck�was recovered from a grain elevator. The use of reclaimed materials is not only a sustainable approach in material use, but it also enhances the relationship to the Midwest vernacular. The blend of spray foam and rigid insulation helped to result in a tight building envelope, and energy analysis helped to demonstrate the�optimal�placement�for�windows.�The�house�uses�both�efficient�lighting�as�well� as�energy�efficient�appliances� that� further�offset� the�energy�use�of� the�house, which is fully powered by a solar panel array which provides energy four times of what the house needs.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: Gable Home

39

40

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

The Solar House Team is the longest running solar decathlon participant with having competed in 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009 and will be compete in 2013. University of Missouri S&T developed the Solar Team as a university recognized student organization. The team holds annual managerial elections for Project Manager, Design Manager, Construction Manager, Financial Coordinator and many other positions. After elections there are several appointed discipline leader positions that oversee the individual design aspects of the house and team. The team collaborates through a series of chain of command meetings where faculty advisors meet with managers, managers then meet with discipline leaders, and discipline leaders meet with discipline teams. The different discipline teams will then collaborate as needed, however according to many of the teammates, this collaboration does not happen enough.

The organization has portion of the university server dedicated to them to host�all�their�information�including�their�modeling�files.��The�use�of�Revit�and�BIM has aided in the discipline teams collaboration with each team being able to�see�updates�and�modifications�on�a� regular�basis.� � In�2009�University�of�Missouri S&T teamed up with University of Missouri’s architecture school in an attempt to broaden their perspective of the house. The distance between universities created challenges in communications which was often limited to conference�calls,�file�exchanges�and�emails.

University of Missouri: Science and Technology: Solar House Team

41

42

• 9/

29 -

10/3

Jam

ie a

nd Z

ach

tour

form

er S

olar

D

ecat

hlon

sub

mis

sion

s•

10/3

Jam

ie a

nd Z

ach

stop

s at

Uof

L to

giv

e a

Rev

it W

orks

hop

on th

e w

ay b

ack

from

UK

• 10

/11

Sub

mis

sion

of D

esgi

n D

evel

opm

ent t

o D

OE

• 10

/19/

12 B

SU

beg

ins

cons

truct

ion

of w

all m

ock-

up•

11/1

0 M

EP

Rev

it w

orks

hop

w/ L

iz P

rice/

BS

A Li

fest

ruct

ures

•

11/2

0 60

1 Fi

nal R

evie

w

• 9/

15/1

2 Ja

mie

goe

s to

Uof

L to

giv

e R

evit

Wor

ksho

p•

9/2

1 - 9

/22

Des

ign

Wee

kend

#5

@ B

SU

• 7/6-7/8�Design�Weekend�#4�@�UofL

• 7/20�Sum

mer�session�#2�final�presentation

• 6/

15 -

6/17

Des

ign

Wee

kend

#3

@ B

SU

• 12

/7 S

olar

Dec

athl

on R

ecep

tion

@ B

SU

• 12

/20

Sub

mis

sion

of R

ende

rings

and

Ani

mat

ions

to

DO

E

• 8/16�W

ebsite�submission�to�DOE

• 8/20�ARCH601�begins

• Ja

mie

and

Zac

h de

cide

to d

o S

olar

Dec

athl

on

Com

petit

ion

as T

hesi

s Fi

nal P

roje

ct

• 4/

19 S

ubm

issi

on o

f Sch

emat

ic D

esig

n to

DO

E

JAN ‘12 | FEB ‘12 | MAR ‘12 | APR ‘12 | MAY ‘12 | JUNE ‘12 | JULY ‘12 | AUG ‘12 | SEPT ‘12 | OCT ‘12 | NOV ‘12 | DEC ‘12

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Collaboration

With the team involving three different universities and a variety of different departments, collaboration is a challenge. The idea of trying to get students with an array of schedules and different project deadllines is a challenge to get them to collaborate when on one campus but when trying to get 30+ students to collaborate that are 175 miles apart is even more challenging. From the begining we have scheduled design weekends in which either Univeristy of Louisville students come to Ball State or Ball State Students go down to University of Louisville for a weekend and we have a collective design charette and presentations that allow the different taskgroups to work with the other team members on design issues.

The competition requires that a BIM model be generated in Revit format. This modeling forces the students to work in a collective model that allows for each taskgroup to see changes made with the envelope and how it is going to affect the exterior design spaces.

43

• M

id A

ugus

t 201

3 A

s-B

uilt

Dra

win

gs s

ubm

issi

on to

D

OE

• 2/

14 S

ubm

issi

on o

f Con

stru

ctio

n D

ocum

ents

to D

OE

• 1/

11-1

/12

Des

ign

Dev

elop

men

t Wor

ksho

p

• La

te M

arch

/ E

arly

Apr

il be

gin

cons

truct

ion

of

The

Pho

enix

Hou

se

• 9/

22 B

egin

Sol

ar D

ecat

hlon

com

petit

ion

in Ir

vine

, CA

• 11

/14

Fina

l Rep

ort s

ubm

issi

on to

DO

E

• 10/18�Com

petition�ends,�depart�Irvine,�CA�and�

head

bac

k to

Lou

isvi

lle a

nd M

unci

e

JAN ‘13 | FEB ‘13 | MAR ‘13 | APR ‘13 | MAY ‘13 | JUNE ‘13 | JULY ‘13 | AUG ‘13 | SEPT ‘13 | OCT ‘13 | NOV ‘13

• 4/

25 P

roje

ct S

umm

ary

subm

issi

on to

DO

E

• 6/

27 P

ublic

Exh

ibit

Mat

eria

l sub

mis

sion

to D

OE

Each cube represents a different component in the process, each of these cubes is actually made up of a smaller collection of challenges and steps. These smaller collections are also even made up of sub collections of information. The four examples shown to the left represent, funding (green), design (orange), construction (teal), and logistics (brown).

44

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Collaboration Encryption

The Solar Decathlon house prototypes may look cool, sleek and high tech but if you start to look at the competition a little deeper you will notice that it is actually much more complex then simply picking 20 teams and letting them design a house. The diagram to the left explains the complexity and layers of information that goes into creating one Solar Decathlon house prototype, like Team Kentuckiana’s The Phoenix House. Much like a typical design, the project has certain desired goals and restrictions that help guide the process. Each shift of the rubix cube is a design change applied by any of the design team members. With each design change, the shift of the rubix cube is either progressive or regressive. The intended goal of the project, much like in the rubix cube analogy, is to align all of the disciplines so� that� all� of� the� components� of� the� project� fit� seamlessly� together� into� a�coherent product. Each cube represents a different component to the process, a different profession in the design process. Each of these individual cubes is actually a component made up of a smaller collection of subcomponents, each with its own set of challenges and steps.

45

BALL STATE UNIVERSITYSERVER

DROPBOX

REVIT FILE SHARINGFOR COORDINATION

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLESERVER

ARCHITECTURECENTRAL FILE


ENGINEERINGCENTRAL FILE


LOCAL REVIT FILESPER STUDENT


1

1

1

12

2

2

2

Figure 1

Figure 2

46


AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

File Sharing

The Solar Decathlon competition offered an interesting challenge early on to Team�Kentuckiana.��How�are�we�going�to�share�files�among�the�three�different�universities that are located hundred of miles apart? This is something that is not typically worried about, discussed or even an issue during a students academic studies as most work is done individually. Even if group work is done,� files� are� worked� on� individually� and� then� just� shared� via� a� personal�portable�storage�media�device,�i.e.�flash�drive.��

Initial attempts to collaborate were made by using a free cloud based system, Dropbox (See Figure 1). This however, quickly started showing its challenges of�working�with�Revit.��Revit�allows�for�multiple�users�to�access�a�single�file�at�the�same�time,�something�new�for�many�students,�by�creating�a�central�file�on�a�server�and�each�users�creating�local�save�files�that�each�user�works�out�of�and�then�uploads�the�data�back�to�the�central�file�for�others�to�have�access�to�the data. Dropbox, allowed for this system to work, but it caused many issues of�delayed�controlled�responses�and�therefore�many�files�were�corrupted.

As the team grew and developed, further discussions with department chairs, each university was able to get their own “server” space on the university server. Each user then mapped the server to the computer, the server then hosted�the�Revit�Central�files�(See�Figure�2).

On�a� regular�basis� then�a�cleaned�up�version�of�each� team’s�file�would�be�uploaded� to�a� folder�on�Dropbox�as�a�discipline�file�sharing�method.� �Then�each�team�would�download�the�other�team’s�file�and�reload�the�link�in�the�Revit�model.

The�later�method�of�file�sharing�of�using�a�local�company�server�and�a�web�based�file�sharing�protocol,�i.e.�Dropbox,�FTP,�or�some�other�cloud�system,�is�a�common�method�of�collaboration�amongst�“over-the-wall”�type�of�design�firms.

47


06 12 00

06 12 00

06 12 0006 11 00.D5

06 11 00.D5

07 71 00.A1

07 61 16

07 61 16

06 25 13

07 46 46

06 40 13

06 16 00.D706 25 13

06 15 33

48


2

B

3DECK

06 25 13 06 11 00.B1

06 11 00.B1

07 21 1907 21 19

06 25 16

06 16 00.D7

06 11 00.D11

06 11 00.D11

06 11 00.D5

06 11 00.D5

07 71 00.B3

06 15 33

06 11 00.B106 11 00.B1

?

07 21 1907 25 00

07 26 00.A406 16 00.D7

S2

S1

S3

E3

E1

E3

2

A108

8' - 5 7/8"

2' -

3"

2' - 5 1/4"

2 1/

8"

-----

---

2' -

5 3/

4"2'

- 1

1/2"

1' -

3 1/

4"

1' -

6 3/

4"

5' - 6 5/8"

2' -

3"

2' -

3 3/

4" 1' - 7"

----

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Mock-up Wall Section

This portion of our collaboration occurred through a joint effort with the entire Arch 601 studio. The hope with the mock-up was to allow the students to understand and study the connection methods of many of the materials and look at the different materials interacting with each other. Additionally, the study allowed for the team to study the construction method of a stagger stud wall construction. Part of the way through the construction, a large change occurred and we switched our wall construction from a stick built construction method to a structural insulated panel (SIP). This change did not change wall thickness but just method of framing, so we had to re-analysis our construction and adapt to the new design without wasting time and money creating new walls.

49


50


AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

51


52


AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

Site Analysis

To what degree does site play in design? That is something we’ve asked ourselves numerous times while developing this project for the Solar Decathlon 2013. For this design, we can’t really say, mainly because the site is a given for all 20 teams competing. Whereas previous Solar Decathlons were held in Washington D.C. on the National Mall, this year’s Solar Village is being relocated across country to the West Coast in Orange County Great Park, California. This new “site” celebrates the fact that these are all solar-powered houses and further presents applications of solar energy, solar design, and solar technology to the students and the viewing public.

Orange County Great Park is 1,300 acres of what is described as a metropolitan park, centrally located between Los Angeles and San Diego. The area has served many purposes, from agricultural farmland to more recently as the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro until 1999, and now as an educational tool about environmental sustainability, sustainable park design, and urban planning. The 2013 Solar Decathlon Solar Village will be located on the former air station tarmac, where it can be seen as the centerpiece to enriching the viewing public with ideas of sustainability and design. The Great Park is a place where such new technologies are tested, and the Solar Village seems to be a prominent component to the plan.

One�of�the�primary�difficulties�we’ve�discovered�while�working�on�this�project,�is that we are essentially designing this house for two separate sites that are 2,100 miles apart.. As you can see on the following pages, the 2013 Solar Village consists of two rows of 10 houses. Part of the Solar Decathlon rules state the limits of the design due to site restrictions of each of the houses. Each�of�the�houses�is�given�a�60’�x�78’�site.�Additional�restrictions�of�the�design�include the solar envelopes of each of the houses, which pertain to a maximum height�of�18’�0”.�One�of�the�advantages�we’ve�found�in�observing�and�studying�the site from Muncie, IN is that the solar path in Irvine, CA is along the same parallel as southern Indiana/ northern Kentucky. So in theory, we designing a house that will be constructed and permanently placed on University of Louisville’s campus that will simultaneously�work�as�efficiently in Irvine, CA for the Solar Decathlon 2013 competition.

53


54


Temporary Loading and Unloading OnlyTravel Lane , One -Way , No Parking , No Loading or Unloading

Travel Lane , One -Way , No Parking , No Loading or UnloadingTemporary Loading and Unloading Only

Pedestrian Zone during assembly /disassembly (no construction activities permitted )

NORTH

Solar Envelope

Team Construction Area

Vehicle Temporary Loading and Unloading

Construction Vehicle Travel Lane

Non-construction Pedestrian Zone

Organizer Utility Space

ASSEMBLY AND DISASSEMBLY DIAGRAM

DECATHLETE WAY – Primary Visitor Pathway

NORTH

Solar Envelope

Organizer Utility Space

Decathlete Way

Existing Pavement

Grass

PUBLIC EXHIBIT DIAGRAM

Existing Pavement

Grass

116

115 113

114 112

111 109

110

107 105 103 101119 117

120 118 108 106 104 102

Secondary Pedestrian Pathway


Public Exhibit Space


116

115 113

114 112

111 109

110

107 105 103 101119 117

120 118 108 106 104 102

WVU

VUT

SIT

MST

CTU

CALG

ASUNM KENDC

ONT

SCU

UNLV

NU

MIDD TEX

VA SU

WVU

ONT

USC

USC

SCU

DC KEN

UNCC

UNCC

ASUNM

CALG

VUT SCICAL

SCICAL

SIT

MST

CTU

UNLV

UNLV

NU

MIDD

VA SU

TEX

78’-0”

50’-0”14’-0” 14’-0”

18’-0” 18’-0”

60’-0

”

Solar Envelope site restrictions

AB

STR

AC

T |

CO

MP

ETITIO

N

| P

RO

PO

SA

L |

ME

THO

DLO

GY

| S

ITE

55


56

team�kentuckiana

REN

DER

ING

SU

BM

ISSI

ON

US

DO

E D

D W

OR

KSH

OP

DES

IGN

WEE

KEN

D #

5

NAT

UR

AL

DIS

AST

ER T

YPO

LOG

Y ST

UD

Y

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T O

F PH

OEN

IX C

ON

CEP

T

PHO

ENIX

HO

USE

DES

IGN

DIR

ECTI

ON

DEV

ELO

PED

PHO

ENIX

HO

USE

WEB

SITE

GO

ES L

IVE

INIT

IAL

PRO

JEC

T PR

OPO

SAL

PRO

JEC

T PR

OPO

SAL

AC

CEP

TED

JAM

IE G

ETS

INVO

LVED

IN C

OM

PETI

TIO

N

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

DO

CU

MEN

T SU

BM

ISSI

ON

BEG

INN

ING

OF

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

MO

CK

-UP

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

MO

DEL

FIL

E C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIO

N D

EFIN

ED

AR

CH

ITEC

TUR

E +

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

FIN

AL

SCH

EMAT

IC D

ESIG

N O

PTIO

NS

ZAC

H G

ETS

INVO

LVED

IN C

OM

PETI

TIO

N

INIT

IAL

DES

IGN

SK

ETC

HES

SIP

WA

LL C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

STA

GG

ER S

TUD

WA

LL C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

SIP

WA

LL C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

REF.OVEN

C

10

1112

14

15

15

5.2 6.52

G

F

8

37

36

1

A

A

AB

A

2

4

CC

C

3

3

3

?

2

44

4

5

?

6

?

15

LF3

?

7

?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

SOLAR DECATHLON 2013

WWW.SOLARDECATHLON.GOV

TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS

NONE: PROJECT ISPUBLIC DOMAIN

01 10/11/2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 02 11/20/2012 DD RESUBMISSION 03 02/14/2013 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS

2/14

/201

3 5:

07:4

7 PM A-121

FURNITURE PLAN

113

ZACH KENDALL

JAMIE OWENS

TEAM KENTUCKIANA

UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE2301 SOUTH 3RD STREET

LOUISVILLE, KY [email protected]

SD2013.TEAMKENTUCKIANA.ORG

1/4" = 1'-0"A1 FIRST FLOOR FURNITURE PLAN0 2' 4' 8'

SHEET KEYNOTES10 LINE OF CABINETRY AND SHELVING ABOVE11 SLIDING TABLE EXTENSION WITH

DEMOUNTABLE LEAVES SHALL ONLY BEEXTENDED DURING THE DINNER CONTEST

12 RECONFIGURABLE TABLE/DESK SHALL BE INDESK CONFIGURATION DURING PUBLICTOURS AND COMPETITIONS

14 COUCH CAN BE RECONFIGURED INTO A BED.WILL REMAIN IN COUCH CONFIGURATIONDURING PUBLIC TOURS AND COMPETITIONS

15 BUILT-IN STORAGE/ ENTERTAINMENT UNIT36 BUILT-IN PANTRY SHELVING37 BUILT-IN BATHROOM SHELVING

MARK DATE DESCRIPTION

GRADE0"

05 52 13

L-503C5

2" 3' - 5 1/2" 2"

06 11 00.H1

06 11 00.D3

2 3/4" 1' - 0" 9" 1' - 0" 2 3/4"

3"4"

4"4"

4"4"

4"4"

4"4"

2 1/

2"

05 52 13 05 52 13

05 52 13

06 15 33

3' - 3"

2"1

1/2"

1 3/

4"2'

- 11

"1

3/4"

1 1/

2"2"

06 11 00.D206 11 00.D2

VARIES W/ ANGLE

6 3/4"

06 11 00.H11

06 05 23.D29

06 11 00.G1

06 11 00.D12

06 15 33

FIRST FLOOR2' - 0"

GRADE0"

75

L-504A5

06 15 33 06 11 00.G1

8080

8080

8080

05 52 13

3 1/

4"

05 52 13.A1

80

05 05 23.A105 05 23.A1

05 05 23.I10

1 1/2" 1 3/4"

05 52 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

3 5:

06:2

5 PM L-503

RAMP DETAILS

113

JESSE MCCLAIN

JAMIE OWENS

TEAM KENTUCKIANA





1" = 1'-0"C1 GUARDRAIL AND STRINGER 1 1/2" = 1'-0"C3 RAMP CROSS MEMBER

1/2" = 1'-0"A1 EXIT RAMP AND PLANTERS

GENERAL SHEET NOTES

REFERENCE KEYNOTES05 05 23.A1 1/2" A307 BOLT05 05 23.I10 1/4" STEEL PLATE05 52 13 PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS05 52 13.A1 STEEL RAILING BRACKET06 05 23.D29 JOIST HANGER06 11 00.D2 TREATED 2X406 11 00.D3 2X4 FRAMING06 11 00.D12 2X4 LEDGER BOARD06 11 00.G1 2X806 11 00.H1 2X1006 11 00.H11 2X10 STRINGER06 15 33 WOOD PATIO DECKING

SHEET KEYNOTES75 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING80 HANDRAIL BRACKET MOUNTED TO 2X4

POSTS. ADJUST BRACKET TO CORRESPONDWITH CONDUIT TUBING AND HANDRAIL.

0 1/2' 1' 2' 0 1' 1 1/2'1/2" 0 6" 1'3"

0 1' 2' 4'

3" = 1'-0"C5 POST HANDRAIL CONNECTION

T / LOFT10' - 1"

06 12 00

07 62 00.A3

07 62 00.H2

07 14 16

6 1/4"

1'-0"

06 40 23

06 11 00

09 29 00.A3

09 29 00.A3

M1 - SPLIT9' - 6 3/4"

09 29 00.A3 07 44 56

05 40 00.B2

F

07 41 13

T / LOFT10' - 1"

09 29 00.A3

06 16 00.D18

06 11 00.A1

06 11 00.A1

06 11 00.D3

06 11 00.F2

06 11 00.F4

09 29 00.A3

06 12 00

07 41 13

07 62 00.A307 62 00.A3

07 62 00.H2

07 14 16

1' - 0"1' - 0"

6.25

12

1.4412

06 11 00.F4

06 11 00

06 11 00M1 - SPLIT

9' - 6 3/4"

07 21 16

07 21 16

06 11 00

F

07 14 16

06 12 00

07 41 13

07 41 13

07 62 00.H207 41 13

07 71 23

07 44 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

35:

08:4

6PM A-561

ROOF DETAILS

113

MICHEAL BOLLATO

JAMIE OWENS

TEAM KENTUCKIANA




1 1/2" = 1'-0"A1 GUTTER DETAIL @ EXTERIOR WALL0 1' 1 1/2'1/2" 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4 GUTTER DETAIL @ MATING WALL

0 1' 1 1/2'1/2"

REFERENCE KEYNOTES05 40 00.B2 3/4" HAT CHANNEL06 11 00 WOOD FRAMING06 11 00.A1 BLOCKING06 11 00.D3 2X4 FRAMING06 11 00.F2 2X6 FRAMING06 11 00.F4 2X6 FRAMING @ 16" O.C.06 12 00 STRUCTURAL PANELS06 16 00.D18 7/16" OSB06 40 23 INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK07 14 16 COLD FLUID-APPLIED WATERPROOFING07 21 16 BLANKET INSULATION07 41 13 METAL ROOF PANELS07 44 56 MINERAL-FIBER-REINFORCED

CEMENTITIOUS PANELS07 62 00.A3 STAINLESS STEEL FLASHING07 62 00.H2 5" X 5" BOX GUTTER07 71 23 MANUFACTURED GUTTERS AND

DOWNSPOUTS09 29 00.A3 1/2" GYPSUM WALLBOARD

C1 WEST GUTTER ROOF CONNECTION


GENERAL SHEET NOTES

FLASHING ON M1 FIXED. FLASHING ON M2 TO BE INSTALLEDAFTER M1 AND M2 ARE CONNECTED.

6"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

8"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

10"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

12"x8" RETURN

AIR

16"x8" RETURN

AIR

6"x6" SUPPLYAIR

6"x6" SUPPLYAIR

6"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

6"ø SUPPLY AIR

ø6"

ø6"

880 CFM

1180 CFM

5120 CFM

4390 CFM

6"ø EXHAUST

AIR

6"ø RETURN AIR

6"ø EXHAUST

AIR

9"ø RETURN AIR

ø9"

9250 CFM

5125 CFM

6"x6" RETURNAIR

6"x6" RETURNAIR

ø6"

5125 CFM

760 CFM

1040 CFM

1040 CFM

245 CFM

245 CFM

3150 CFM

145 CFM

ME1

ME1

ME3

ME2

99

9

10

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS


01 10/11/2012 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 02 11/20/2012 DD RESUBMISSION 03 02/14/2013 CONSTRUCTION DOCS

2/14

/201

3 5:

23:4

7 AM M-901

COMPLETE HVACISOMETRIC

113

CONNOR CLICK

CONNOR CLICK

TEAM KENTUCKIANA

UNIVERISTY OF LOUISVILLE2301 SOUTH 3RD STREET


WWW.SD2013.TEAMKENTUCKIANA.ORG

A1 COMPLETE HVAC ISOMETRIC1/2" = 1'-0"

0 1' 2' 4'

SHEET KEYNOTES8 COOKTOP DOWNDRAFT DUCTING9 STUBOUT FOR FLANGE BREACH

10 HVAC REFRIDGERANT LINES


PRODUCED BY AN AUTODESK STUDENT PRODUCT

PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

06 25 13

07 46 46

07 46 46

07 61 13

07 61 13

07 71 13

07 71 00.B307 71 00.A1

06 11 00.D11

06 12 00

06 11 00.G13

06 15 33

08 54 13

06 11 00.F11

06 17 53

Scale

Project numberDateDrawn byChecked by

www.autodesk.com/revit

9/20

/201

2 2:

00:2

1 P

M

A109SOUTHEAST BIRDSEYE

LOT NUMBERU.S. DOE

SD 2013ISSUE DATEAuthorChecker

No. Description Date

1 SOUTHEAST BIRDSEYE

MATERIAL KEYNOTEKey Value Keynote Text

06 11 00.B1 1 X _FURRING STRIPS06 11 00.D5 2X4 FRAMING @ 16" O.C.06 11 00.D11 2X4 STAGGER STUDS @ 16" O.C.06 11 00.F11 2X6 JOISTS @ 16" O.C.06 11 00.G6 2X8 JOISTS @ 16" O.C.06 11 00.G13 2X8 RAFTERS @ 16" O.C.06 12 00 STRUCTURAL PANELS06 13 23.B1 6X6 HEAVY TIMBER06 15 33 WOOD PATIO DECKING06 16 00.D7 1/2" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD06 16 00.D17 7/16" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD06 17 53 SHOP-FABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES06 25 13 PREFINISHED HARDBOARD PANELING06 25 16 PREFINISHED PLYWOOD PANELING06 40 13 EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK07 21 19 FOAMED-IN PLACE INSULATION07 25 00 WEATHER BARRIERS07 26 00.A4 VAPOR RETARDER07 46 46 MINERAL-FIBER CEMENT SIDING07 61 13 STANDING SEAM SHEET METAL ROOFING07 71 00.A1 GUTTER07 71 00.B3 DOWNSPOUT07 71 13 MANUFACTURED COPINGS08 54 13 FIBERGLASS WINDOWS

Yazoo River FloodingVicksburg, MS

TORNADO PROTECTION FLOODING PROTECTION WILDFIRE PROTECTION

The Team Kentuckiana “Anywhere” house is a low-cost solar-powered habitat designed as a solution to disaster relief, addressing the signifi cant need for a modular habitat that can be quickly/easily deployed, be powered independently of the electric power grid. The house will be designed to serve as the foundation for an expandable permanent housing solution as the infrastructure and community recover. Additionally, the power systems of the house will be grid compatible for net metering, with consideration given to using multiple houses to form local microgrids to support community energy demands, taking advantage of concepts such as load diversity and community energy sharing. Although not part of the Solar Decathlon competition, as part of its designated role of housing for disaster relief, the “Anywhere” house will be designed to support a potable water generation system using the EDGE Outreach system and provisioning with food and medical supplies needed to support a family of four for up to two weeks. The competition house will not be run with these systems in place and functioning since this will negatively impact the team’s competitiveness. Although Team Kentuckiana design focus is on the needs and culture of our own region, such an off-grid, permanent solution to disaster relief can be incorporated into models for use with other cultures and conditions. The idea of a service module that contains the kitchen, power generation, HVAC, communication center, sanitation elements, and possibly water purifi cation can be of value in many applications. We believe that a number of designs can be developed for use with a variety of indigenous building materials and practices, thereby improving acceptance of the housing concept in developing world applications. Where applicable, the team will utilize existing shipping infrastructure (such as UPS) for transport.

The building industry has slowly, but surely become a fragmented system of disciplines and professions. We each work, learn, and teach in isolated spheres. This fragmentation has created a built environment that has little fl exibility in ideologies. Therefore, this project is the result of several simultaneous lines of investigations. Collaboration is a resourceful alternative to the orthodox conventions of the design process and methods that have become ineffective. Integrating a collaborative team of designers creates an abundance of understanding for different design philosophies, an appreciation for various design values from each of the members, and the greatest potential for innovation and optimized building solutions. It encourages mixing of ideas and builds a substantial base for fostering ideas and exchanges between disciplines.

The Design Process - Network, Not LinearEven though the design process has been perfected throughout the years, there is an ideological perception that it is a purely linear process. This is not the case, because this does not effectively portray the complexity to any project. Each discipline working on this project has a unique perspective and different process through which they go through. Each member of the team is a necessary component to the overall makeup of the integrated project. What we have come to realize is just how much impact our areas of expertise facilitate necessary changes and infl uence the other disciplines. In any project, our decisions have far wider implications than just within our area. There are underlying links that we fail to recognize in school that have been brought to light while working on this project. As professionals, we do NOT work in isolated areas, but rather in one large, combined network where the project as a whole benefi ts from the collective interaction and knowledge of the individuals.

The Phoenix House - A Permanent Solution for Disaster ReliefOn Friday, March 2, 2012, Henryville, IN suffered an EF-4 tornado. With such devastation hitting so close to home, our team began to focus on developing a house that would be quickly deployable, reliable, and safe for people to restart their lives after a disaster.Disaster Relief is the design focus of the Phoenix House. The phoenix is a symbol of resurrection, a rebirth from destruction. Survivors of natural disasters have a vision for the future, and are inspired for a new home better than the one before. Just as the phoenix rises from the ashes, so too will people rise from disaster to begin a-new in the Phoenix House. The Phoenix House is designed to be a permanent solution for disaster relief. After a disaster, one’s life is forever changed, and one wishes to return to the life he or she once knew. With the Phoenix House, the hope is to return to a life better than before. The phoenix is a shining symbol of rebirth. Team Kentuckiana is proud to reveal the Phoenix House as our design for Solar Decathlon 2013.

The Phoenix House is where energy effi ciency and durability reach new heights. The Phoenix House is not just a home, it’s a lifestyle; a lifestyle that inspires conscious efforts to save both money and energy. Survivors of natural disasters have a vision for the future, of a new home more durable and effi cient than the one before. The name speaks to the Phoenix bird, a symbol of rebirth and hope, in this case from the destruction of a natural disaster. Our completely solar-powered home functions as a permanent and sustainable housing solution, specifi cally in tornado-prone areas.

Modular construction and off-the-shelf products are key to its rapid deployment. The bathroom is the safest room in the house, with its steel door, small laminated glass window, and multiple lines of defense from possible fl ying debris. A steel base, metal roof, and fi ber cement material on the exterior make the house extremely durable. The butterfl y roof, which is supported by wood trusses, has an optimum slope for solar and rainwater collection. This vaulted ceiling and open plan help maximize space within a small footprint. With two bedrooms and a sofa-bed, the home comfortably sleeps six people, and the extendable dining table seats eight. The loft and multiple closets and shelving units provide ample space for storage in every room of the house.

Energy is saved with structural insulated walls, LED lights, and smart appliances that actually communicate with each other to share energy when one is in use. The exterior features many elements for both “greener” living and normalcy. A greywater treatment system fi lters water from the house through a series of stages that generates reusable water. The large kitchen garden on the back deck where the family can grow food surrounds a large outdoor dining area. Vine-covered screens provide grapes, privacy for the master bedroom deck, and a fi rst line of defense against fl ying debris. A large deck provides space for outdoor activities or relaxation.

The house is seeking to be LEED Gold certifi ed, which speaks to how the design and construction is energy-effi cient, conserves water, and uses recycled materials. Reclaimed wood, hypothetically from decimated homes, is used in various ways, so the family can incorporate a piece of their past into their new home. The construction cost is $265,000 for both modules and the exterior features. For the level of innovation built into the solar home, this price is very reasonable. The energy and money saved over the years compounds the value and appeal of this traditional, yet contemporary home.

The key to the design process is communication. It is the glue that holds the different aspects of the design together, and is instrumental in generating solutions. The creation of Computer-Assisted Drafting (CAD) did little to change the nature of drawing; the medium and method vastly changed from paper to digital information, but the process of generating drawings manually assembled by the architect remained the same. This standardized system of drawing is the foundation to the systems that we still use to this day. Developments in building design and analysis software in recent years have engendered effective virtual buildings, or building information models (BIM). The goal of BIM is compiling comprehensive, reliable, accessible, and easily exchanged building information. BIM has a broad appeal to a wide variety of building professions from planning and construction to management and building operations. The collaborative ability of BIM is the one advantage to this platform as a design tool. The building model encourages coordination with the presence and interaction of interdisciplinary components within a singular model. BIM is not only a technological tool and process, but it is most importantly a design framework that invokes collaboration and communication. For this project, the use of BIM as a design tool was able to help facilitate an early collaboration between the architects and engineers. Within the building model, multiple students can access the data and information simultaneously, and consequently can all make necessary changes. One of the advantages of the BIM system is that it is geared towards streamlining the entire design process. It is able to recognize and call attention to coordination issues so that the design team can make the necessary changes. It is also able to coordinate between the different disciplines, creating an excellent framework for organizing the team and interdisciplinary collaboration.

BALL

STA

TE U

NIV

ERSI

TYSE

RVER


ARCHITECTURESHARED FILE

UN

IVER

SITY

OF

LOU

ISVI

LLE

SERV

ER


ENGINEERINGSHARED FILE

DROPBOX




1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2 2



STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANEL (SIP)STAGGER STUD WALL FRAMING

CONSTRUCTION

ARCHITECTURE

THE PROJECT


INTERIOR DESIGN

PLUMBING

STRUCTURAL

ELECTRICAL


INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS

PRO

JEC

T N

AR

RAT

IVE

A special thank you to all those that have been involved with the 2013 Solar Decathlon project on Team Kentuckiana. Our investigation and results could not have happened without your assistance and efforts. Several of the graphics were generated as part of deliverables for the competition and thus we would like to give credit to those who have participated and assisted in generating these graphics. This type of effort is what truly makes these project successful and exciting.

ENERGY BALANCE

COMFORT ZONE

HOT WATER

APPLIANCES

ENTERTAINMENT

ARCHITECTURE

ENGINEERING

AFFORDABILITY

COMMUNICATION

MARKET APPEAL

JURIED CONTESTS MEASURED CONTESTS2013 Solar Decathlon Teams:- Arizona State University and The University of New Mexico- Czech Republic: Czech Technical University- Kentucky/Indiana: University of Louisville, Ball State University and University of Kentucky- Middlebury College- Missouri University of Science and Technology- Norwich University- Santa Clara University- Southern California Institute of Architecture and California Institute of Technology- Stanford University- Stevens Institute of Technology- Team Alberta: University of Calgary- Team Austria: Vienna University of Technology- Team Capitol DC: The Catholic University of America, George Washington, and American University- Team Ontario: Queen’s University, Carleton University, and Algonquin College- Team Texas: The University of Texas at El Paso and El Paso Community College- Tidewater Virginia Hampton University and Old Dominion University- University of Nevada Las Vegas- The University of North Carolina at Charlotte- University of Southern California- West Virginia University

FALL

201

3

FALL

201

1

SPR

ING

201

2

FALL

201

2

SUM

MER

201

2

SUM

MER

201

3

SPR

ING

201

3

COLLABORATION | DESIGN METHOD 2.0FINAL PROJECT

ZACH KENDALL | JAMIE OWENS

57

team�kentuckiana

REN

DER

ING

SU

BM

ISSI

ON

US

DO

E D

D W

OR

KSH

OP

DES

IGN

WEE

KEN

D #

5

NAT

UR

AL

DIS

AST

ER T

YPO

LOG

Y ST

UD

Y

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T O

F PH

OEN

IX C

ON

CEP

T

PHO

ENIX

HO

USE

DES

IGN

DIR

ECTI

ON

DEV

ELO

PED

PHO

ENIX

HO

USE

WEB

SITE

GO

ES L

IVE

INIT

IAL

PRO

JEC

T PR

OPO

SAL

PRO

JEC

T PR

OPO

SAL

AC

CEP

TED

JAM

IE G

ETS

INVO

LVED

IN C

OM

PETI

TIO

N

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

DO

CU

MEN

T SU

BM

ISSI

ON

BEG

INN

ING

OF

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

MO

CK

-UP

CO

NST

RU

CTI

ON

MO

DEL

FIL

E C

OLL

AB

OR

ATIO

N D

EFIN

ED

AR

CH

ITEC

TUR

E +

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

FIN

AL

SCH

EMAT

IC D

ESIG

N O

PTIO

NS

ZAC

H G

ETS

INVO

LVED

IN C

OM

PETI

TIO

N

INIT

IAL

DES

IGN

SK

ETC

HES

SIP

WA

LL C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

STA

GG

ER S

TUD

WA

LL C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

SIP

WA

LL C

ON

STR

UC

TIO

N

REF.OVEN

C

10

1112

14

15

15

5.2 6.52

G

F

8

37

36

1

A

A

AB

A

2

4

CC

C

3

3

3

?

2

44

4

5

?

6

?

15

LF3

?

7

?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

3 5:

07:4

7 PM A-121

FURNITURE PLAN

113

ZACH KENDALL

JAMIE OWENS

TEAM KENTUCKIANA




1/4" = 1'-0"A1 FIRST FLOOR FURNITURE PLAN0 2' 4' 8'

SHEET KEYNOTES10 LINE OF CABINETRY AND SHELVING ABOVE11 SLIDING TABLE EXTENSION WITH

DEMOUNTABLE LEAVES SHALL ONLY BEEXTENDED DURING THE DINNER CONTEST

12 RECONFIGURABLE TABLE/DESK SHALL BE INDESK CONFIGURATION DURING PUBLICTOURS AND COMPETITIONS

14 COUCH CAN BE RECONFIGURED INTO A BED.WILL REMAIN IN COUCH CONFIGURATIONDURING PUBLIC TOURS AND COMPETITIONS

15 BUILT-IN STORAGE/ ENTERTAINMENT UNIT36 BUILT-IN PANTRY SHELVING37 BUILT-IN BATHROOM SHELVING


GRADE0"

05 52 13

L-503C5

2" 3' - 5 1/2" 2"

06 11 00.H1

06 11 00.D3

2 3/4" 1' - 0" 9" 1' - 0" 2 3/4"

3"4"

4"4"

4"4"

4"4"

4"4"

2 1/

2"

05 52 13 05 52 13

05 52 13

06 15 33

3' - 3"

2"1

1/2"

1 3/

4"2'

- 11

"1

3/4"

1 1/

2"2"

06 11 00.D206 11 00.D2

VARIES W/ ANGLE

6 3/4"

06 11 00.H11

06 05 23.D29

06 11 00.G1

06 11 00.D12

06 15 33

FIRST FLOOR2' - 0"

GRADE0"

75

L-504A5

06 15 33 06 11 00.G1

8080

8080

8080

05 52 13

3 1/

4"

05 52 13.A1

80

05 05 23.A105 05 23.A1

05 05 23.I10

1 1/2" 1 3/4"

05 52 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

3 5:

06:2

5 PM L-503

RAMP DETAILS

113

JESSE MCCLAIN

JAMIE OWENS

TEAM KENTUCKIANA





1" = 1'-0"C1 GUARDRAIL AND STRINGER 1 1/2" = 1'-0"C3 RAMP CROSS MEMBER

1/2" = 1'-0"A1 EXIT RAMP AND PLANTERS

GENERAL SHEET NOTES

REFERENCE KEYNOTES05 05 23.A1 1/2" A307 BOLT05 05 23.I10 1/4" STEEL PLATE05 52 13 PIPE AND TUBE RAILINGS05 52 13.A1 STEEL RAILING BRACKET06 05 23.D29 JOIST HANGER06 11 00.D2 TREATED 2X406 11 00.D3 2X4 FRAMING06 11 00.D12 2X4 LEDGER BOARD06 11 00.G1 2X806 11 00.H1 2X1006 11 00.H11 2X10 STRINGER06 15 33 WOOD PATIO DECKING

SHEET KEYNOTES75 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING80 HANDRAIL BRACKET MOUNTED TO 2X4

POSTS. ADJUST BRACKET TO CORRESPONDWITH CONDUIT TUBING AND HANDRAIL.

0 1/2' 1' 2' 0 1' 1 1/2'1/2" 0 6" 1'3"

0 1' 2' 4'

3" = 1'-0"C5 POST HANDRAIL CONNECTION

T / LOFT10' - 1"

06 12 00

07 62 00.A3

07 62 00.H2

07 14 16

6 1/4"

1'-0"

06 40 23

06 11 00

09 29 00.A3

09 29 00.A3

M1 - SPLIT9' - 6 3/4"

09 29 00.A3 07 44 56

05 40 00.B2

F

07 41 13

T / LOFT10' - 1"

09 29 00.A3

06 16 00.D18

06 11 00.A1

06 11 00.A1

06 11 00.D3

06 11 00.F2

06 11 00.F4

09 29 00.A3

06 12 00

07 41 13

07 62 00.A307 62 00.A3

07 62 00.H2

07 14 16

1' - 0"1' - 0"

6.25

12

1.4412

06 11 00.F4

06 11 00

06 11 00M1 - SPLIT

9' - 6 3/4"

07 21 16

07 21 16

06 11 00

F

07 14 16

06 12 00

07 41 13

07 41 13

07 62 00.H207 41 13

07 71 23

07 44 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

35:

08:4

6PM A-561

ROOF DETAILS

113

MICHEAL BOLLATO

JAMIE OWENS

TEAM KENTUCKIANA




1 1/2" = 1'-0"A1 GUTTER DETAIL @ EXTERIOR WALL0 1' 1 1/2'1/2" 1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4 GUTTER DETAIL @ MATING WALL

0 1' 1 1/2'1/2"

REFERENCE KEYNOTES05 40 00.B2 3/4" HAT CHANNEL06 11 00 WOOD FRAMING06 11 00.A1 BLOCKING06 11 00.D3 2X4 FRAMING06 11 00.F2 2X6 FRAMING06 11 00.F4 2X6 FRAMING @ 16" O.C.06 12 00 STRUCTURAL PANELS06 16 00.D18 7/16" OSB06 40 23 INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK07 14 16 COLD FLUID-APPLIED WATERPROOFING07 21 16 BLANKET INSULATION07 41 13 METAL ROOF PANELS07 44 56 MINERAL-FIBER-REINFORCED

CEMENTITIOUS PANELS07 62 00.A3 STAINLESS STEEL FLASHING07 62 00.H2 5" X 5" BOX GUTTER07 71 23 MANUFACTURED GUTTERS AND

DOWNSPOUTS09 29 00.A3 1/2" GYPSUM WALLBOARD

C1 WEST GUTTER ROOF CONNECTION


GENERAL SHEET NOTES

FLASHING ON M1 FIXED. FLASHING ON M2 TO BE INSTALLEDAFTER M1 AND M2 ARE CONNECTED.

6"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

8"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

10"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

12"x8" RETURN

AIR

16"x8" RETURN

AIR

6"x6" SUPPLYAIR

6"x6" SUPPLYAIR

6"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

6"ø SUPPLY AIR

ø6"

ø6"

880 CFM

1180 CFM

5120 CFM

4390 CFM

6"ø EXHAUST

AIR

6"ø RETURN AIR

6"ø EXHAUST

AIR

9"ø RETURN AIR

ø9"

9250 CFM

5125 CFM

6"x6" RETURNAIR

6"x6" RETURNAIR

ø6"

5125 CFM

760 CFM

1040 CFM

1040 CFM

245 CFM

245 CFM

3150 CFM

145 CFM

ME1

ME1

ME3

ME2

99

9

10

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

3 5:

23:4

7 AM M-901


113

CONNOR CLICK

CONNOR CLICK

TEAM KENTUCKIANA





0 1' 2' 4'





PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

06 25 13

07 46 46

07 46 46

07 61 13

07 61 13

07 71 13

07 71 00.B307 71 00.A1

06 11 00.D11

06 12 00

06 11 00.G13

06 15 33

08 54 13

06 11 00.F11

06 17 53

Scale

Project numberDateDrawn byChecked by

www.autodesk.com/revit

9/20

/201

2 2:

00:2

1 P

M

A109SOUTHEAST BIRDSEYE

LOT NUMBERU.S. DOE

SD 2013ISSUE DATEAuthorChecker

No. Description Date

1 SOUTHEAST BIRDSEYE

MATERIAL KEYNOTEKey Value Keynote Text

06 11 00.B1 1 X _FURRING STRIPS06 11 00.D5 2X4 FRAMING @ 16" O.C.06 11 00.D11 2X4 STAGGER STUDS @ 16" O.C.06 11 00.F11 2X6 JOISTS @ 16" O.C.06 11 00.G6 2X8 JOISTS @ 16" O.C.06 11 00.G13 2X8 RAFTERS @ 16" O.C.06 12 00 STRUCTURAL PANELS06 13 23.B1 6X6 HEAVY TIMBER06 15 33 WOOD PATIO DECKING06 16 00.D7 1/2" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD06 16 00.D17 7/16" EXTERIOR GRADE PLYWOOD06 17 53 SHOP-FABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES06 25 13 PREFINISHED HARDBOARD PANELING06 25 16 PREFINISHED PLYWOOD PANELING06 40 13 EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK07 21 19 FOAMED-IN PLACE INSULATION07 25 00 WEATHER BARRIERS07 26 00.A4 VAPOR RETARDER07 46 46 MINERAL-FIBER CEMENT SIDING07 61 13 STANDING SEAM SHEET METAL ROOFING07 71 00.A1 GUTTER07 71 00.B3 DOWNSPOUT07 71 13 MANUFACTURED COPINGS08 54 13 FIBERGLASS WINDOWS

Yazoo River FloodingVicksburg, MS

TORNADO PROTECTION FLOODING PROTECTION WILDFIRE PROTECTION

The Team Kentuckiana “Anywhere” house is a low-cost solar-powered habitat designed as a solution to disaster relief, addressing the signifi cant need for a modular habitat that can be quickly/easily deployed, be powered independently of the electric power grid. The house will be designed to serve as the foundation for an expandable permanent housing solution as the infrastructure and community recover. Additionally, the power systems of the house will be grid compatible for net metering, with consideration given to using multiple houses to form local microgrids to support community energy demands, taking advantage of concepts such as load diversity and community energy sharing. Although not part of the Solar Decathlon competition, as part of its designated role of housing for disaster relief, the “Anywhere” house will be designed to support a potable water generation system using the EDGE Outreach system and provisioning with food and medical supplies needed to support a family of four for up to two weeks. The competition house will not be run with these systems in place and functioning since this will negatively impact the team’s competitiveness. Although Team Kentuckiana design focus is on the needs and culture of our own region, such an off-grid, permanent solution to disaster relief can be incorporated into models for use with other cultures and conditions. The idea of a service module that contains the kitchen, power generation, HVAC, communication center, sanitation elements, and possibly water purifi cation can be of value in many applications. We believe that a number of designs can be developed for use with a variety of indigenous building materials and practices, thereby improving acceptance of the housing concept in developing world applications. Where applicable, the team will utilize existing shipping infrastructure (such as UPS) for transport.

The building industry has slowly, but surely become a fragmented system of disciplines and professions. We each work, learn, and teach in isolated spheres. This fragmentation has created a built environment that has little fl exibility in ideologies. Therefore, this project is the result of several simultaneous lines of investigations. Collaboration is a resourceful alternative to the orthodox conventions of the design process and methods that have become ineffective. Integrating a collaborative team of designers creates an abundance of understanding for different design philosophies, an appreciation for various design values from each of the members, and the greatest potential for innovation and optimized building solutions. It encourages mixing of ideas and builds a substantial base for fostering ideas and exchanges between disciplines.

The Design Process - Network, Not LinearEven though the design process has been perfected throughout the years, there is an ideological perception that it is a purely linear process. This is not the case, because this does not effectively portray the complexity to any project. Each discipline working on this project has a unique perspective and different process through which they go through. Each member of the team is a necessary component to the overall makeup of the integrated project. What we have come to realize is just how much impact our areas of expertise facilitate necessary changes and infl uence the other disciplines. In any project, our decisions have far wider implications than just within our area. There are underlying links that we fail to recognize in school that have been brought to light while working on this project. As professionals, we do NOT work in isolated areas, but rather in one large, combined network where the project as a whole benefi ts from the collective interaction and knowledge of the individuals.

The Phoenix House - A Permanent Solution for Disaster ReliefOn Friday, March 2, 2012, Henryville, IN suffered an EF-4 tornado. With such devastation hitting so close to home, our team began to focus on developing a house that would be quickly deployable, reliable, and safe for people to restart their lives after a disaster.Disaster Relief is the design focus of the Phoenix House. The phoenix is a symbol of resurrection, a rebirth from destruction. Survivors of natural disasters have a vision for the future, and are inspired for a new home better than the one before. Just as the phoenix rises from the ashes, so too will people rise from disaster to begin a-new in the Phoenix House. The Phoenix House is designed to be a permanent solution for disaster relief. After a disaster, one’s life is forever changed, and one wishes to return to the life he or she once knew. With the Phoenix House, the hope is to return to a life better than before. The phoenix is a shining symbol of rebirth. Team Kentuckiana is proud to reveal the Phoenix House as our design for Solar Decathlon 2013.

The Phoenix House is where energy effi ciency and durability reach new heights. The Phoenix House is not just a home, it’s a lifestyle; a lifestyle that inspires conscious efforts to save both money and energy. Survivors of natural disasters have a vision for the future, of a new home more durable and effi cient than the one before. The name speaks to the Phoenix bird, a symbol of rebirth and hope, in this case from the destruction of a natural disaster. Our completely solar-powered home functions as a permanent and sustainable housing solution, specifi cally in tornado-prone areas.

Modular construction and off-the-shelf products are key to its rapid deployment. The bathroom is the safest room in the house, with its steel door, small laminated glass window, and multiple lines of defense from possible fl ying debris. A steel base, metal roof, and fi ber cement material on the exterior make the house extremely durable. The butterfl y roof, which is supported by wood trusses, has an optimum slope for solar and rainwater collection. This vaulted ceiling and open plan help maximize space within a small footprint. With two bedrooms and a sofa-bed, the home comfortably sleeps six people, and the extendable dining table seats eight. The loft and multiple closets and shelving units provide ample space for storage in every room of the house.

Energy is saved with structural insulated walls, LED lights, and smart appliances that actually communicate with each other to share energy when one is in use. The exterior features many elements for both “greener” living and normalcy. A greywater treatment system fi lters water from the house through a series of stages that generates reusable water. The large kitchen garden on the back deck where the family can grow food surrounds a large outdoor dining area. Vine-covered screens provide grapes, privacy for the master bedroom deck, and a fi rst line of defense against fl ying debris. A large deck provides space for outdoor activities or relaxation.

The house is seeking to be LEED Gold certifi ed, which speaks to how the design and construction is energy-effi cient, conserves water, and uses recycled materials. Reclaimed wood, hypothetically from decimated homes, is used in various ways, so the family can incorporate a piece of their past into their new home. The construction cost is $265,000 for both modules and the exterior features. For the level of innovation built into the solar home, this price is very reasonable. The energy and money saved over the years compounds the value and appeal of this traditional, yet contemporary home.

The key to the design process is communication. It is the glue that holds the different aspects of the design together, and is instrumental in generating solutions. The creation of Computer-Assisted Drafting (CAD) did little to change the nature of drawing; the medium and method vastly changed from paper to digital information, but the process of generating drawings manually assembled by the architect remained the same. This standardized system of drawing is the foundation to the systems that we still use to this day. Developments in building design and analysis software in recent years have engendered effective virtual buildings, or building information models (BIM). The goal of BIM is compiling comprehensive, reliable, accessible, and easily exchanged building information. BIM has a broad appeal to a wide variety of building professions from planning and construction to management and building operations. The collaborative ability of BIM is the one advantage to this platform as a design tool. The building model encourages coordination with the presence and interaction of interdisciplinary components within a singular model. BIM is not only a technological tool and process, but it is most importantly a design framework that invokes collaboration and communication. For this project, the use of BIM as a design tool was able to help facilitate an early collaboration between the architects and engineers. Within the building model, multiple students can access the data and information simultaneously, and consequently can all make necessary changes. One of the advantages of the BIM system is that it is geared towards streamlining the entire design process. It is able to recognize and call attention to coordination issues so that the design team can make the necessary changes. It is also able to coordinate between the different disciplines, creating an excellent framework for organizing the team and interdisciplinary collaboration.

BALL

STA

TE U

NIV

ERSI

TYSE

RVER



UN

IVER

SITY

OF

LOU

ISVI

LLE

SERV

ER



DROPBOX




1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2 2



STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANEL (SIP)STAGGER STUD WALL FRAMING

CONSTRUCTION

ARCHITECTURE

THE PROJECT


INTERIOR DESIGN

PLUMBING

STRUCTURAL

ELECTRICAL


INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS

PRO

JEC

T N

AR

RAT

IVE

A special thank you to all those that have been involved with the 2013 Solar Decathlon project on Team Kentuckiana. Our investigation and results could not have happened without your assistance and efforts. Several of the graphics were generated as part of deliverables for the competition and thus we would like to give credit to those who have participated and assisted in generating these graphics. This type of effort is what truly makes these project successful and exciting.

ENERGY BALANCE

COMFORT ZONE

HOT WATER

APPLIANCES

ENTERTAINMENT

ARCHITECTURE

ENGINEERING

AFFORDABILITY

COMMUNICATION

MARKET APPEAL

JURIED CONTESTS MEASURED CONTESTS2013 Solar Decathlon Teams:- Arizona State University and The University of New Mexico- Czech Republic: Czech Technical University- Kentucky/Indiana: University of Louisville, Ball State University and University of Kentucky- Middlebury College- Missouri University of Science and Technology- Norwich University- Santa Clara University- Southern California Institute of Architecture and California Institute of Technology- Stanford University- Stevens Institute of Technology- Team Alberta: University of Calgary- Team Austria: Vienna University of Technology- Team Capitol DC: The Catholic University of America, George Washington, and American University- Team Ontario: Queen’s University, Carleton University, and Algonquin College- Team Texas: The University of Texas at El Paso and El Paso Community College- Tidewater Virginia Hampton University and Old Dominion University- University of Nevada Las Vegas- The University of North Carolina at Charlotte- University of Southern California- West Virginia University

FALL

201

3

FALL

201

1

SPR

ING

201

2

FALL

201

2

SUM

MER

201

2

SUM

MER

201

3

SPR

ING

201

3

58

As part of the Solar Decathlon 2013 competition and apart of Team Kentuckiana, we (Jamie Owens and Zach Kendall) have been working on this project for a year. The project itself has been in the works for more than 1.5 years, and it has been an extensive amount of work and development. We have come a long way as a team and project from where we were in the beginning, to where we are today. We’ve had a total of 111 students and 35 faculty advisors who have given us feedback or worked directly on this project at some point of its development. Additionally, we’ve had a number of professional advisors who have also given us immense help and guidance during this process.

It has been an interesting journey, to see how this project has developed from the time we joined the team last year. There have been many deadlines and deliverables, both internal and required, that we both believe we all have passed�with�flying�colors.�All�of�the�feedback�we’ve�received�so�far�has�been�extremely positive, and we all feel we have a very strong product moving forward. Construction was started recently within the past month, and will continue through Summer 2013. To all of the people who have been associated with this project, we would like to say THANK YOU.

59

COLLABORATIONCOLLABORATIVE

PROJECT

JOINT EF

FORT

MANA

GE

TOOL

S

COMMUNICATIONCO

OPER

ATION

DESIGNCOEXISTENCE

PARTICI

PATIO

N

COMB

INATION

BENEFIT

DEDICATIO

N

GOALS

SERVICE

HARMONY

SYMBIOSIS

PARTNERSHIP

SUPPORT

SYNERGYIMPR

OVE

TEAMWORK NETWORKSUNITY

COMP

ETITI

ON

LEAD

ERSH

IP

CHALLENGES

COMMUNITY

PROF

ESSIO

NALS

CREATE

INFORMATION

PERF

ORMA

NCE

EDUCATE

REVIT

KNOWLEDGELEARNINGPR

OCESS

SOLU

TION

VISION

BSU

UOFLGO

AL COMM

UNITY

IDEA

S

ENGAGE

ARCH

STRUCTURALCONS

TRUC

TION

LANDSCAPE

INTERIOR DESIGN

LOGISTICS

PLUM

BING

ELEC

TRICA

L

MANAGEMENT

MECH

TEAM

COMM

ORGANIZATION

PRACTICE

B.I.M

IDEAS

PROFS

STUDENTS

ENER

GY

MODE

LS

TECH

NOLO

GY

HELP NREL D.O.E

MODE

LS

SUSTA

INAB

ILTY

I.P.DINTE

GRATE

DESIGN EXPERTSTESTING

SPONSORS TEAMPROTOTYPE UNITYCOLLABORATING

NREL

60

Collaboration | Design Method 2.0

Close collaboration between the building industry professions is clearly a necessity as we move forward from students to employees. Consequently, this is something we have not had much exposure to while in school, but should be considered something of the norm in professional practice. There is, however, some misconceptions when it comes to working in a collaborative environment. There is some perception that designers working with consultants is collaboration, but this is false. Collaboration is more than working in a group or various professionals with different backgrounds. As we’ve explored this concept throughout the development of the project, we’ve come to discover the�nuances�of�what�collaboration�is.�We�found�Webster�Dictionary’s�definition�unsuitable,�due�to�its�lacking�of�some�of�the�finer�qualities�and�necessities�to�collaboration,�and�have�instead�generated�own�definition�of�collaboration.

Collaboration: a group of 2+ who come together to actively participate�in�communicating,�enriching,�and�refining�solutions�to intellectual endeavours; coexisting in a joint effort to enhance their own profession, and improve the knowledge base of the�collective�whole�so�as�to�increase�the�quality�of�the�final�product and depth of the process itself.

61

62

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Design Networks

For most designers, they visualize the design process as a linear, 1-dimensional timeline. Previously, we presented the concept of collaborative design as a rubix cube; each component of the cube representing a different facet or profession of the design. The process itself became much like the solution to the cube, rotating the forms this way and that, until each component is properly placed on its corresponding side, and then the project is complete.

While�we�liked�this�analogy�of�the�cube,�there�were�some�flaws�in�this�concept.�The�process�itself�cannot�be�predefined�or�determined�by�one�singular�method,�and the end product itself cannot be predetermined. However, we think the complexity and relationship of components with one another was still a strong concept. Thus, our perception of the design process has changed from a linear design process to a design network practice. In any building design, there are a number of people important to the design and construction processes. The era of the “StArchitect” is long gone. The complexity and necessary integration of systems and disciplines is becoming too complicated for any one person to handle or manage by themselves. This is why we need to take advantage of these design networks, to delegate work to the appropriate disciplines in order to�create�a�better�final�product.

With this in mind, architects as members of the design team should not look to control�the�design,�but�rather�look�to�act�as�a�conduit�for�the�design�workflow.�Instead of acting as the Master Architect, we should instead act as a facilitator of the design components, and guide the process of design according to the project goals and design criteria. Mark Wigley in Network Practices writes that “architecture is seen to lie at the intersection of ideas.” Architecture is a network incubator, initiating networks and connections with all disciplines of building industry.

In a network practice, each member knows both the importance of his task within the framework of the design, but also his connections with other members. Each component of the project is just as important as any other, and works just as it should within the boundaries of the project. Simultaneously, the team as a whole constructively explores both similarities and differences between members and their ideas, in order to search for solutions that result in a product greater than the limited visions of the individuals. Collaboration is an effective alternative to the conventional mechanisms, a process that is free of agenda and outcome that will ultimately lead to better communication, deeper understanding, and a higher quality product.

63

64

MINDSET

COMMUNICATION COMMITMENT

ORGANIZE ADAPT PROCESS

SKILLS+TOOLS GOALS REFLECT TEACH

+LEARN

FINAL PRODUCT

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Collaboration | Pyramid of Success

As we have come to understand through school and from this project, there is no one way to effectively form a collaborative, inter-disciplinary team. However, the following is what we’ve discovered has worked for this project and for our team. Effective collaboration is composed of a series of ideals and factors that when fully implemented, will lead to a successful and meaningful process and final�product.�What�we’ve�come�to� term�Collaboration | Pyramid of Success is composed of the following areas: Mindset, Communication, Commitment, Organization, Adaptability, Process, Skills + Tools, Goal(s), Teach + Learn, Reflection,�and�Final�Product.

65

66

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Mindset

The foundation to working in any collaborative group is the mentality and the mindset of each of the individual designers and professionals. Anyone could argue that the largest accomplishment to an integrated design is the collaborative process; the interaction between professions and bringing the team members together in a joint effort to co-create and design. We are taught as students about our individual professions in a vacuum bubble, in systems that are distinguishingly separate even though they have a common significance�in�the�building�industry.�Specifically�in�architecture�school,�we�are�taught�as�designers�to�respect�our�project,�to�refine�our�design,�etc.�There’s�the old saying “There’s no ‘I’ in Team” but in school there is generally always a “Me and My Project.” Working on an intense multi-disciplinary project, this mentality�has�been�difficult�and�challenging�to�overcome.

Each individual team member carries with them their own sense of ownership and�personal�stake� in� the�project� .� It� is�difficult� for�anyone�to�relinquish�any�portion� of� the� project� to� another� team�member.�That� is� one� of� the� benefits�and apprehensions associated with the collaboration process. Implementing a collaboration mentality also implies social interaction. It is synonymous with sharing.�In�the�professional�realm,�the�mentality�around�the�office�is�completely�different. Instead of a ME and My Project, most professionals present their work as “I helped with this project while working with...” Interdisciplinary projects present�applications�of�several�professionals�working�in�fields�they�know�best.�Collaboration helps to change this “ME” mentality to a “WE” mentality.

Another mentality that has developed while going through school, is the presumption� that� every� student� finishes� his/her� education� and�will� become�the next “StArchitect.” We leave school with fresh knowledge and optimistic on�the�prospects�of�getting�hired�with�the�largest�and�most�well�known�firms.�We go out into the real world with the mentality of individuals, believing that it� is� us� against� the� world,� survival� of� the� fittest.�What� we� fail� to� realize,� is�that we are not alone in this transition. It is not just architects making this step from academia to profession, but rather an industry group of architects along with landscape architects, construction managers, engineers, interior designers,�etc,�etc.�We�do�not�work�in�an�industry�that�is�survival�of�the�fittest�in the Darwinian sense, but rather “Survival of the [Fit]est” in that those who thrive will be those designers that are able to collaborate and adapt with the morphing industry.

67

68

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Communication

The building industry has fragmented from a common singular profession into multiple disciplines and multiple designers, which makes the process from�design� to�construction� that�much�more�complicated�and�difficult.�Each�of�the�industry�disciplines�have�their�own�priorities,�concentrating�on�specific�tasks during every phase of the project, from design to construction, and even building management and maintenance. Each professional communicates in his/her own way. Each of the individual disciplines has their own terms, own lingo, their own means in which they like to design. This makes the design process�very�difficult�when�we�designers�are�unable�to�communicate�our�ideas�and design proposals. One of the keys to successful collaboration is clear communication. Communication, CONSTANT communication, will allow the entire�process�to�run�much�more�efficiently,�and�for�everyone�to�remain�on�the�same page in understanding one another.

One� of� the� largest� difficulties� working� on� the� Solar� Decathlon� has� been�establishing daily communication between Ball State and Louisville. A project as� challenging� as� the� Solar� Decathlon� would� be� difficult� enough� trying� to�coordinate with just one university among the different colleges at Ball State. However, not only are there two different universities who have been apart of� the�design�process,�but�we�are�also�nearly�180�miles� from�one�another.�As we’ve progressed through the design, we have developed a number of means and tools to work together to counteract the distance between our two universities. One of the Solar Decathlon competition requirements is to work in�Revit,�which�allows�us�to�simultaneously�work�together�within�the�same�file.�We’ve�found�that�the�most�influential�and�meaningful�tool�to�the�collaboration�process has always been face-to-face discussions. In order to facilitate this, several times throughout the semesters, we’ve organized Design Weekends, in which one of the university teams will travel to the other university. Weekly, we have scheduled online meetings for the Managers to discuss problems and coordination topics that need to be addressed. Also, it allows us to discuss concerns and plan for the following week’s schedule. One of the advantages to this constant communication between all of the students, is it allows us to be completely transparent with one another. We can openly discuss the project, and make sure everyone is clear with what we are trying to do, and the direction we are going in.

69

Individual commitment to a group effort -- that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work. ~Vince Lombardi

70

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Commitment

One�of�the�major�difficulties�we�have�witnessed�working�on�the�Solar�Decathlon�project�has�been�the�academic�setting�in�which�we�find�ourselves.�As�we�have�said before, this project is not just a professional project, but also an academic one. Due to the fact that we are all students working on this project, the commitment� towards� the�project�has�fluctuated�as�other�pressing�academic�obligations�have�come�around.�Part�of�the�difficulty�of�this�project�being�in�an�academic setting has been the overturn of students working on the project. At Ball State, we’ve had six different groups of students who have worked on this project, and only a handful of students who have continued on for more than one semester. For a completely integrated project, every member needs to be fully committed to their roles within the project, otherwise the production from members�affects�the�overall�quality�and�hurts�the�final��end�product.

71

KELSEYKING

JAMIEOWENS

ZACHKENDALL

SCOTTKOLLWITZ

TRAVISDAVIS

INT. ENG.LA.ARCH. COMM. CM.

72

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Organization

Something we believe has been a successful component to our team development is the way in which we’ve organized the team. Late last semester, we organized a group of managers, that have since organized and orchestrated much of the coordination between disciplines and among students. The key is how you determine leadership and management roles within the collaborative group. Organization will come to a project by project basis, but will ultimately give some structure and direction to the group.

73

178 MILES

74

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Adaptability & Process

Something that all group members need to be prepared for while working on�an�interdisciplinary�team�is�the�fluidity�of�the�project.�The�dynamics�to�the�design process are never static, and changes to the design can occur at any moment. Individuals need to be able to adapt to any situation, be it during the design, construction, or even during occupancy.

Another successful component to our team development has been the process that we’ve developed in order to allow collaboration to succeed. With there being so many weekly commitments by all of the student members, we collectively developed a schedule from which we meet to coordinate issues, and inform everyone of any project updates.

75

3D REVIT MODEL

ENERGY ANALYSIS MODEL

QUANTITY TAKE-OFF REPORTS

76

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Skills + Tools

As the advances in architecture and the construction industry have progressed, so too has the need to improve our communication. The interaction between architects, engineers, and all professions of the building industry is highly recognized as a necessity. The skills and tools we use to communicate are many and varied. The progression of these tools have gone from hand drawn blueprints to computer-aided drawings (CAD). The most recent development comes in the form of Building Information Modeling (BIM). BIM has extended the development of 3D modeling into two additional “dimensions”; the 4D as time and assembly schedule, demonstrating the construction sequence, and the 5D as cost, breaking the model itself down into material quantities with associated costs.

BIM is not just a piece of technology. BIM is a number of tools that help develop a comprehensive�digital�representation�and�data�specific�characteristics�of�a�building.�BIM is a process of developing, generating, and managing the building data during the complete lifecycle of the building, from conception through construction, maintenance, and operation. Admittedly, any architect, contractor, or designer who has worked with BIM will describe it in its intensity, innovation, appealing technology, or even the value of a business model through the use of BIM. Like any other design tool, BIM is only as good as the information that is communicated and�put�into�the�technology.�According�to�the�director�of�the�GSA’s�Office�of�Project�Delivery, Charles Hardy, “BIM is about 10% technology and 90% sociology.”

There are three drivers of BIM implementation into the building industry as Randy Deutsch explains in BIM and Integrated Design: business, technology, and people. The one problem that is preventing the implementation and expanse of BIM in the workplace is: people. Deutsch further details the expanse of problems we have with implementing BIM, mainly the “human factors such as personal initiative,�mutual�respect�and�trust,�[...]�workflow,�impact�of�technology�on�design,�work habits, preferences, identity and role, personality, legacy, collaboration and�communication�-�all�of�these�impact�the�efficiency�and�effectiveness�of�your�BIM efforts.” The problem with BIM implementation, we believe, is due to the hesitancy of learning and teaching a new design tool and adopting a completely new process. Using BIM inherently implies working and designing with a group or team in support of the overall project goals. As stated before, it is a structured framework that provokes and fosters collaboration between professionals, to the extent that it encourages interdisciplinary projects. BIM has become a platform from which design professionals can mutually communicate and collaborate. It creates a shared tool that everyone can use, allowing for a better, deeper, and more holistic project.

77

Preliminary DesignFall 2011

Stud

ent K

now

ledg

e

Schematic Design4/19/12

Interim Design WorkshopSummer #1

Design Developement WorkshopSummer #2

Website Launch8/16/12

DD Submission10/11/12

Walkthrough +Digital Renders10/20/12

CD Submission2/14/12

Construction Start4/01/12

78

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Goal(s)

A�necessary�cornerstone�to�any�project�is�to�have�specific�goals�in�mind�and�an�intended objective. Something that is sometimes lacking in our design projects while� in� school� is� clear� set�of�goals� that�directs� the�flow�of� the�design.�We�believe that because the Solar Decathlon has 10 separate contests in which our design must compete, this has allowed us to keep a clear set of goals to anticipate the effectiveness of our design.

Teach & Learn

An important ideology to accept for any designer is the progressive nature of the design industry. There are innovations being made each and every day. The skills and tools we use are many and varied and in order to keep up with the fast pace of change, we need to accept both the roles of student and teacher. There is always something new to learn in each project, so we need to be prepared to learn new techniques and new design tools. In return, we also need to be prepared to impart our own knowledge with others on the design team. This helps to not only educate individuals on the design team, but it also improves the knowledge base of the collective team as a whole.

79

80

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Reflection

One�of�the�final�components�to�a�successful�collaborative�effort�is�taking�the�time�for�reflection�and�self-analysis.�While�working�on�an�interdisciplinary�project,�there are times when the team needs to take a step back from the project, and evaluate the process that’s been put into place. We need to continually evaluate the previous areas of this pyramid, and question improvements to areas, in order to produce a better collaborative process.

81

Jamie Owens

What started out as just a dream in 2007 after seeing a previous Solar Decathlon house, became reality for me in mid-Spring 2012 when I came to do a lecture to the fourth year students who were working on Team Kentuckiana’s 2013 Solar Decathlon entry. After coming on board and working on the project, I knew I wanted to continue on�with�the�project�as�my�final�project�investigation.��After�further�discussions,�Zach�and I decided that we both had the same passion for the project and what it meant in terms of an academic project and an international competition. With this in mind, we set our sights on seeing the project through to the end, with having one goal in the end, to build something awesome. Little did we know at the time that we would be digging further into the heart of the project and analyzing how the three universities worked�together�on�a�daily�basis.��After�all,�several�firms�that�we�talked�with�already�practice�similar�ways�or�are�moving�toward�a�more�integrated�office�that�allows�for�this�type of communication within the team.

As we have worked through the project and have come to better understand the engineer + architect relationship and how this project has developed the students, especially Zach and I in discussions with engineers and others that are directly related to our architectural profession. These type of discussions and interaction, typically are not able to be made or had by students in our academic curriculums and have to rely�on�getting�this�type�of�experience�and�exposure�until�we�get�into�an�office.��

There�has�definitely�been�challenges�that�the�team�has�been�faced�with�during�this�process but nothing has been more than we couldn’t handle as a team. I think that is one of the biggest keys that has made this project as successful as it has been, is that�the�leadership�has�been�unselfish�and�has�but�the�projects�greater�good�ahead�of their own personal vendettas. This mindset is not typical in our academic careers, especially in architecture, when there are so many times that we work on projects individually and everything is about me or my design.

As I am wrapping up this year long experience and moving out into the “real” world, I am bringing this experience with me and sharing these “new” ideas of communicating and�working�with�engineers,�with�firms�and�going�to�try�and�change�the�way�that�firms�and architects think from a top down control approach but a we all have the same at stake in the project. This is going to be an interesting experience and endeavour as there are many legal aspects of projects and businesses that create road bumps along the way but I think that if we can get people to open our minds, take a step back and look at the bigger picture, that there can be a way to develop a business motto and practice that allows for a deeper level of collaboration within the team, similar to the level of commitment that Team Kentuckiana has shown during this process.

82

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Zach Kendall

As� I�sit�here,�attempting� to�finish�up� two�semester’s�worth�of�work,� I�would�first�like�to�say�thank�you�to�everyone�who�has�been�involved�with�this�project�since�I�first�started�working�on�this�a�year�ago�(students,�faculty,�and�advisors).�When�Jamie�and�I�first�got�together�early�in�Fall�2012,�and�decided�we�wanted�to�tackle�this�final�project�together,�I�don’t�know�if�either�of�us�knew�what�we�were getting into. The intention for this project was never to recreate the wheel, or design the next Farnsworth House. When it came to producing a finished�product�for�our�final�project,�both�of�us�stated�that�we�simply�wanted�to continue working on the Solar Decathlon team, and see the project through to�the�very�end.�The�intent�all�along,�I�believe,�has�been�for�this�final�project�to�create a dialogue between the two us, discussing our views and opinions on design, architecture, and the building industry.

These two semesters of work have been a real eye-opener for me this past year. As we’ve stated before, this project is both simultaneously an academic project and a professional project. I personally feel this has been a much more enriching�final�project,�in�that�it’s�been�the�perfect�transitional�piece�between�my academic career and my professional career. This joint partnership with Jamie has also been an experience, and to this point we’ve seemed to have balanced each other fairly well. Not only have Jamie and I created a dialogue between ourselves, but I feel we’ve also created an open dialogue. Through this dialogue, we’ve begun to discuss the way we’ve come to understand architecture through our education.

Before this project, I had envisioned myself as the Master Architect someday. Now, I’ve come to see myself as an associate and colleague to others within the design profession, rather than a competitor. Something that we’ve come across in research for this project is the idea of competition, and its application to this project. This project is part of the Solar Decathlon 2013 competition If broken down into its Greek roots, the word literally means “strive together.” This idea of “together” I feel has been lost over time, and the true value lies in competitors making each other stronger. This one example has made it easier to understand the value of design as a network process. Jamie and I both know that there will never be the “perfect” project. There will be some projects that are really good, and some that may even come close to perfection, but the perfect project as a design network practice will be able to show every single member of the design process communicating with one another. As we’ve stated a number of times previously, communication is key!

83

84

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Moving forward from here and right now, I believe this project has brought some clarity�and�stability�to�the�rest�of�our�careers.�I�now�have�a�firm�understanding�of what direction I want to proceed continuing with my professional career. I�want� to�find�something�similar� to�an�AEC�firm,� that�prioritizes�BIM� in� their�design process. I want to implement discussions of a new design thinking, so that we continually work to innovate the design process. I want to challenge the architectural paradigms that I’ve been given as a student. What this project has come down to for me is this: collaboration is a mindset. It’s about co-creating with my peers to perform something neither of us could do by ourselves. Throughout this process, I have daily challenged myself to acquire this state of mind. Collaboration is meant to improve the design and change the�inefficiencies�of�the�current�system.�Collaboration�is�about�communication.�It creates a common framework of thinking, through which anyone and everyone can exchange ideas. Collaboration is a process. It’s is about creating a�final�product�that�is�more�refined�in�quality,�depth,�and�value.�This�is�what�we�have in the Phoenix House. This is what is evident in Team Kentuckiana. In a culmination�of�6�years�of�architecture�school,�THIS�is�my�final�project.�

85

86

L

Y

McGINLEY

KCU

TNEKFO

ETATS

W. MARK

ICENSED27225

PROF

ESSIONA L ENG

NEER

I

F

5.2

2 6.5

C

3

H

9.1

G

3.22.3

8

3.4

2'-1 1/2"

D

B

1 4

I

J

6 7

D.8

9

E

A

6"

6.3 7.2

B.9

3'-6

1/2

"

10

F2A

F2AF2A

F2AF2A

F2A

F2A

F2A

F2A

F2AF2A

F1

F1F1F1

F1

F1

F1 F1 F1

F1

F1

F1F1

F1F1

F1

F1

F1

F2

F1

F1

F1

F1

F1

F1

F1F1

F1F1

F1

F1

F1

F1

F1F1

F1

F1 F1

F2AF2A

F1

F1F1

F1F1

F1

F1

4'-5" 7'-6" 8'-0" 8'-0" 4'-6 1/2" 3'-5 1/2" 14'-6 1/2" 4'-6 1/2"

START E/W LAYOUT FROM HERE16'-0"

4'-1

1/4

"4'

-3 3

/4"

4'-5

1/2

"12

'-0 1

/2"

8"4'

-1"

4'-2

3/4

"3'

-11

3/4"

5 1/

2"3'

-0"

4'-1

3/4

"

4'-5" 2'-4 3/4" 5'-1 1/4" 1'-0"1'-0" 6'-0" 1'-6" 6'-6" 1'-6" 3'-0 1/2" 3'-5 1/2" 1'-6" 7'-0" 6'-6" 4'-1"

STAR

TN

/SLA

YOU

TH

ERE

24'-0

"

8'-2"

4'-3

1/4"

3'-8

3/4"

3'-8

3/4"

4'-0"

4'-1 1/2"

61/

4"2'

-11"

53/

4"3'

-71/

4"

A 1S-301

F1

A1S-501

D1S-501

C1S-501

19

17

18

18

19

19

18

19

18

19

19

18

18

18

17

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

34:

03:2

4PM S-101

FOUNDATION PLAN

113

WMM

CONNOR CLICK

TEAM KENTUCKIANA




1/4" = 1'-0"A1 FOUNDATION PLAN


0 2' 4' 8'

GENERAL SHEET NOTES

SHEET KEYNOTES17 C12 x 30 CHANNEL, (6) 1"X 36" DRIVEN

ANCHOR RODS18 1" A307 THREADED ROD, ATTACHED (WITH

THREADED COUPLER) TO A 1" X 36 DRIVENANCHOR

19 C12 x 30 CHANNEL, (4) 1"X 36" DRIVENANCHOR RODS

1. ALL CONCRETE F'C 4000 PSI OR BETTER2.CHANNELS , PLATES AND ANGLES A36STEEL, TUBES A 500 STEEL.3.ANCHOR RODS A 36 STEEL4.THREADED RODS AND BOLTS A307 STEEL.


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

L

Y

McGINLEY

KCU

TNEKFO

ETATS

W. MARK

ICENSED27225

PROF

ESSIONA L ENG

NEER

I

27.5

1°

62.49°57.65°

59.86°

90°

S-201A4

2X6 (x2)

2X6

(x2)

2X6 (x2)

2X6 (x2) w/ 3 1/2" GAP

2X6

(x2)

5'-8" 6'-10"

28

27

27

27

2827

27

27

27

27

27

27

291'-2"

2 3/4"

2"

1 1/2"

1 3/4"

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

34:

03:3

2PM S-201

FRAMING ELEVATIONS

113

OWENS

CONNOR CLICK

TEAM KENTUCKIANA




1/2" = 1'-0"A1 TYP. ROOF TRUSS ELEVATION

C1 TYP. ROOF TRUSS AXON

1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4 M1 TRUSS TOP PLATE


0 1' 2' 4' 0 1' 1 1/2'1/2"

0 1/2' 1' 2'1" = 1'-0"

GENERAL SHEET NOTES

SHEET KEYNOTES27 1/4" A 36 STEEL PLATE, FASTENED WITH (6) #8

SCREWS TO EACH SIDE OF DOUBLED 2 X 6,1/2" DIA A 3.7 BOLT THROUGH ALL PLATESAND WOOD MEMBERS

28 1/4" A 36 STEEL PLATE, FASTENED WITH (6) #8SCREWS TO EACH SIDE OF DOUBLED 2 X 6,1/2" DIA A 3.7 BOLT THROUGH ALL PLATESAND WOOD MEMBERS L SHAPED

29 1/4" A 36 STEEL PLATE, FASTENED WITH (6) #8SCREWS TO EACH SIDE OF DOUBLED 2 X 6,1/2" DIA A 3.7 BOLT THROUGH ALL PLATESAND WOOD MEMBERS T SHAPED

1. ALL DIMENSIONAL LUMBER SPF#2 ORBETTER2. ALL FASTENERS TO MEET IRC 2012 UNLESSSHOWN.3.CONCRETE F'C=4000PSI


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

L

Y

McGINLEY

KCU

TNEKFO

ETATS

W. MARK

ICENSED27225

PROF

ESSIONA L ENG

NEER

I

27.5

1°

62.49°57.65°

59.86°

90°

S-201A4

2X6 (x2)

2X6

(x2)

2X6 (x2)

2X6 (x2) w/ 3 1/2" GAP

2X6

(x2)

5'-8" 6'-10"

28

27

27

27

2827

27

27

27

27

27

27

291'-2"

2 3/4"

2"

1 1/2"

1 3/4"

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

34:

03:3

2PM S-201

FRAMING ELEVATIONS

113

OWENS

CONNOR CLICK

TEAM KENTUCKIANA




1/2" = 1'-0"A1 TYP. ROOF TRUSS ELEVATION

C1 TYP. ROOF TRUSS AXON

1 1/2" = 1'-0"A4 M1 TRUSS TOP PLATE


0 1' 2' 4' 0 1' 1 1/2'1/2"

0 1/2' 1' 2'1" = 1'-0"

GENERAL SHEET NOTES

SHEET KEYNOTES27 1/4" A 36 STEEL PLATE, FASTENED WITH (6) #8

SCREWS TO EACH SIDE OF DOUBLED 2 X 6,1/2" DIA A 3.7 BOLT THROUGH ALL PLATESAND WOOD MEMBERS

28 1/4" A 36 STEEL PLATE, FASTENED WITH (6) #8SCREWS TO EACH SIDE OF DOUBLED 2 X 6,1/2" DIA A 3.7 BOLT THROUGH ALL PLATESAND WOOD MEMBERS L SHAPED

29 1/4" A 36 STEEL PLATE, FASTENED WITH (6) #8SCREWS TO EACH SIDE OF DOUBLED 2 X 6,1/2" DIA A 3.7 BOLT THROUGH ALL PLATESAND WOOD MEMBERS T SHAPED

1. ALL DIMENSIONAL LUMBER SPF#2 ORBETTER2. ALL FASTENERS TO MEET IRC 2012 UNLESSSHOWN.3.CONCRETE F'C=4000PSI


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

STR

UC

TUR

AL

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

Final Product

Coming Together Is a Beginning...

87

REF.OVEN

C1

A-211

A1

A-212

C1

A-212

A1

A-211

A1A-312

A1A-312

C

A1A-311

A1A-311

A-216A-215C1

C2

A-214C4

C1

A4

A1

A3

7' - 8 7/8"

A1L-301

A1L-301

LIVING ROOM1

LAUNDRY3

BATHROOM5

MASTERBEDROOM

6BEDROOM 1

7

MECH.4

A-501C3

A-501A3

A-501A1

A-501C3

SIM

A-501C1

A-501A5

KITCHEN2

3' - 4 3/4" 3' - 6 1/2"

10' - 9" 11' - 11 1/2"

PANTRY8

4

20

7A 6A

6C7B

6B

26

11

22

37

4029

9

CLOSET9

S1

S1

S1

S8

S2

S1S1

S2

S5

S2

1' -

7 7/

8"

1' -

8 1/

2"

A-401A1

A-402A1

C1

A5

A1

MODULE 2

MODULE 1

5.2 6.5

6' - 1 1/4"

25' -

9 1

/2"

7' -

3 1/

4"

12' -

9 1

/2"

13' -

0"

13' -

0"

12' -

9 1

/2"

46' - 9 1/2"

17' - 0" 23' - 9 1/4" 6' - 1 1/4"

2

G

F

A2

8

8' - 0 1/2"

A1

1A

1B 2A

38

S9

S1

5A

2B

5' - 0 7/8" 3' - 10 1/2" 3' - 9 3/4" 4' - 3" 2' - 1 5/8" 8' - 10 7/8" 11' - 11 3/8" 6' - 0 5/8"

17' - 0 1/8" 11' - 0 1/2" 11' - 11 3/8"

5' - 0 7/8" 6' - 0 1/8" 11' - 10 7/8" 8' - 8 1/2" 10' - 0 1/8"

35

36

33

4' - 9 1/4"

77

9

5 7/

8"

----

E


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

07 41 13

07 62 00.H207 41 13

07 71 23

07 44 56


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

FIRST FLOOR2' - 0"

C

A1A-311

A1A-311

T / LOFT10' - 1"

C1A-311

C1A-311

6.25

12

6

2

7

5

M1 - SPLIT9' - 6 3/4"

7' -

1"

9

GF

34

6B

17' - 8 1/2"

12' - 7 1/4"

7' - 7 5/8"

6' -

0"

E


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

FIRST FLOOR2' - 0"

5.2 6.5

1' -

4 1/

2"

3/4"

3/4"

1' -

4 1/

2"1

1/2" 2"

1 1/4"

11 3/4" 3' - 0" 4 1/2"

3/4"

1' - 10 1/2"

1 1/2"

1' - 5 1/2" 1' - 5"

1 1/2"

2' - 5 1/4"

1 1/2"09 64 29

41


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

AR

CH

ITEC

TUR

E

88

6"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

8"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

10"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

12"x8" RETURN

AIR

16"x8" RETURN

AIR

6"x6" SUPPLYAIR

6"x6" SUPPLYAIR

6"x6" SUPPLY

AIR

6"ø SUPPLY AIR

ø6"

ø6"

880 CFM

1180 CFM

5120 CFM

4390 CFM

6"ø EXHAUST

AIR

6"ø RETURN AIR

6"ø EXHAUST

AIR

9"ø RETURN AIR

ø9"

9250 CFM

5125 CFM

6"x6" RETURNAIR

6"x6" RETURNAIR

ø6"

5125 CFM

760 CFM

1040 CFM

1040 CFM

245 CFM

245 CFM

3150 CFM

145 CFM

ME1

ME1

ME3

ME2

99

9

10

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

3 5:

23:4

7 AM M-901


113

CONNOR CLICK

CONNOR CLICK

TEAM KENTUCKIANA





0 1' 2' 4'





PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

ME2

ME1MSP

ø6"ø6"

ø6"

10

ME1MSP

ME2

45 6

4"ø

ME1

MSP

145 CFM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

3 5:

23:4

5 AM M-401

MECHANICAL ROOMHVAC PLAN AND

ELEVATIONS

113

CONNOR CLICK

CONNOR CLICK

TEAM KENTUCKIANA




1/2" = 1'-0"C1 HVAC NORTH ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0"C3 HVAC WEST ELEVATION

1" = 1'-0"A1 HVAC MECHANICAL ROOM PLAN0 1 2

0 1' 2' 4' 0 1' 2' 4'

SHEET KEYNOTES4 HOT WATER HEATER CLEARANCE5 AIR HANDLER CLEARANCE6 ELECTRICAL PANEL CLEARANCE




PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

MEC

HA

NIC

AL

ENG

INEE

RIN

G

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

89

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A

B

C

D

E

SHEET TITLE

LOT NUMBER:

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

COPYRIGHT:

CLIENT




TEAM NAME:

ADDRESS:

CONTACT:

CONSULTANTS



2/14

/201

3 5:

29:3

2 AM P-903

WASTE , GREY WATER,& VENTING ISOMETRIC

113

A. HUNTER CAMBRON

CONNOR CLICK

TEAM KENTUCKIANA




1/2" = 1'-0"A1 WASTE, GREY WATER, & VENTING ISOMETRIC


0 1' 2' 4'


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T PR

OD

UC

T


PR

OD

UC

ED

BY

AN

AU

TOD

ES

K S

TUD

EN

T P

RO

DU

CT

PLU

MB

ING

EN

GIN

EER

ING

90

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

...Keeping Together Is Progress...

91

92

DE

SIG

N

NE

TWO

RK

|

CO

LLAB

OR

ATION

|

RE

FLEC

TION

|

FINA

L P

RO

DU

CT

..Working Together Is Success.~ Henry Ford

93

94

Appendix I - Interview Responses

As graduate students at Ball State University, Zach and I are focusing our final�project�research�on�the�2013�Solar�Decathlon�and�Team�Kentuckiana’s�participation. The following questions are to assist us to get a background of how other teams have participated in the competition and have overcome many of the challenges that are created within the traditional academic curriculum.

1. What departments within each university were involved with the solar decathlon competition? Please list all departments and colleges. i.e. College of Architecture and Planning: Department of Architecture, Department of Landscape Architecture.

a. Mechanical Engineering Technologyb. Building Construction Managementc. Computer Graphics Technologyd. College of Engineeringe. Hotel and Tourism Managementf. Landscape Architectureg. Interior Design

2. Which department and/or university was the lead on your team?a. Mechanical Engineering Technology

3. Were you able to mix graduate and under-graduate students in the project? What were the roles of each class level?

a. Management team was Graduate Studentsb. Student labor was a mix of graduate and undergraduate

4. How were design classes/studios organized and correlated with the competition submissions? Were students able to take the same studio (Solar Decathlon Studio) from semester to semester or did studios change each semester and a new group of students were brought in?

a. There was a SD course each semester, and the students signed up each semester. There was a consistent showing of students and management team for each class. Most of the management team�was�with� the�project� form�the�design,� to�cd,� to�final�plans�and�implementation. Any time there was a change in personnel in the management positions it caused major headaches for the other managers. Depending on the class and stage of the project, the mix of students was different. We had more undergraduate students later in the project in preparation for the trip to the DC for the construction on site and tour teams.

Eric Holt | Purdue University | Solar Decathlon 2011

95

5. How was the construction process managed with classes? Were classes offered that allowed students to work on the construction of the house?

a. Construction was done over the summer. Some students were hired as “interns” and paid for the summer, others were paid by course credit, and others did it as volunteers.

6. Were there any problems getting a consistent students participation throughout the project?

a. Yes. The list of those who burnt out or left because they could not�keep�the�time�commitment�or�it�did�not�fit�their�plan�of�study�is�just�as long as those who stayed through the project. It take take a huge time�commitment�and�it�need�to�fit�their�POS.

7. Did the same students who designed the house also able to build the house or was the construction team completely separate?

a. A large amount of the design time was on the construction team.

8.� How many students were on your design team? Construction team?a. Approximately 24 for each team with a lot of overlap.

9. How involved were faculty advisors during the design process?a. It was a love hate relationship. Sometimes they were too hands on, and other time they were not around when you needed them.��The�lead�faculty�knew�their�specific�area,�but�had�never�done�a project of this scope and magnitude, so they fumbled through it. And�there�was�also�conflict�between�the�academic�world,�and�how�the�real world works. Since we had to utilize so much outside industry consulting and sponsors, it created some interesting and frustrating times.

10. Was Revit/BIM taught in your standard course curriculum prior to the competition? If so, how many classes were taught and at what level in the curriculum?

a. The CGT and Interior Design departments teach it, but not in any other departments. Since the Revit//BIM requirements was new to the SD2011, it caught everyone by surprise and was a struggle throughout the project. Our BIM modelers and Revit drivers did a great job handling this new requirement.

96

11. If Revit/BIM was not previously taught is it being taught now? If so, how many classes were taught and at what level in the curriculum?

a. There are two undergraduate classes being taught that I am aware of.

12. How did you overcome software learning curves during the design process? Were additional classes taught, were workshops held, or was it self-taught?

a. Self-Taught13. What were some of the biggest challenges working on a professional

project in an academic setting?a. The pace of the academic world in contrast to the pace of industry. It would take 2 to 6 weeks to get approval to purchase construction materials. Getting credit cards approved and students managers approved was a pain. Getting people and consultants paid in a timely fashion was a major challenge and put parts of the construction project on hold and jeopardized meeting some deadlines.

14. If you were to rate the support and resources you received from the school (1-10, 1 being little and 10 being a lot) as participants in this collegiate competition, how would you rate your school?

a. 715. Was there any previous knowledge you had of the Solar Decathlon upon

entering the competition?a. None

16. How would you describe the team management structure? Would you say it was organized well, and what advice would you give?

a. Good student management team. Needed a more assertive leader at times, but overall the team did a good job.

97

98

Mark Taylor | University of Illinois | Solar Decathlon 2007, 2009, 2011



a. School of Architectureb. Landscape Architecturec. College of ACES, Engineering, Mechanical and Electricald. Industrial Design

2. Which department and/or university was the lead on your team?a. Gable Home - The PI was om Electrical Engineeringb. Re�Home�-�Xinlei�Wang�-�ACES

3. Were you able to mix graduate and under-graduate students in the project? What were the roles of each class level?

a. Graduate Students were mainly the leads on the projectb. Undergraduates assisted in the early design phases and during construction


a. Some students were paid RAs (Research Assistants)b. Some students were paid student labor over the summerc. Some classes were incorporated into the process.

5. How was the construction process managed with classes? Were classes offered that allowed students to work on the construction of the house?

a. Delivery schedule impacted this badly on both the 2009 and 2011 house.b. Made mock-ups of decking and plantersc. Most work was done over the summer with a core of 4-10 students

99


a. There were always a core of 4-6 students that lead the team, it would have been easier on them if it would have been 10-15 students.

7. Did the same students who designed the house also able to build the house or was the construction team completely separate?

a. Mostly the sameb. Shell of the house was contracted out to a mobile home manufacturer�and� the� team�built� the�exterior� elements�and�finished�the interior of the house.

8.� How many students were on your design team? Construction team?a. Design Arch - 10 - 4b. Engineering - 16 -4

9. How involved were faculty advisors during the design process?a. Architectural Faculty were strongly involved during the 2009 and 2011 housesb. Engineering faculty were not as involved - Smaller teams were�formed�for�specific�task�which�met�with�separate�faculty�related�to their research.


a. Courses are available in the architecture curriculum during their sophomore year - most of the team knew Revit from prior work experience

11. If Revit/BIM was not previously taught is it being taught now? If so, how many classes were taught and at what level in the curriculum?

a. N/A12. How did you overcome software learning curves during the design

process? Were additional classes taught, were workshops held, or was it self-taught?

a. Workshops were done but not software focused - that is what the RAs brought to the team

13. What were some of the biggest challenges working on a professional project in an academic setting?

a. State “Red Tape” purchasing - everything is good (checks and balances - but takes time).

100


a. Opted not to rate but felt that since he was given the opportunity to teach something related over the course of two years, twice (that is support) and that the university was as supportive as they could be given�the�financial�constraints.

15. Was there any previous knowledge you had of the Solar Decathlon upon entering the competition?

a. The university had previously done a Solar Decathlon in 2007, I got involved at the end of that project and was the architectural advisor for the 2009 and 2011 teams.


a. It got better in 2011 in comparison to 2009. We knew what we were in for and what issues we had previously and possible solutions to avoid them again. We had 6-10 core people if that had been closer to 10-20 and the purchasing of the shell of the building had all us to have the house on campus in the Spring 2009 and Spring 2011, it would have been a lot less stressful of a project.

101

102



a. No Response2. Which department and/or university was the lead on your team?

a. No Response3. Were you able to mix graduate and under-graduate students in the project?

What were the roles of each class level?a. No Response


a. No Response5. How was the construction process managed with classes? Were classes

offered that allowed students to work on the construction of the house? a. No Response


a. No Response7. Did the same students who designed the house also able to build the

house or was the construction team completely separate?a. No Response

8.� How many students were on your design team? Construction team?a. No Response

9. How involved were faculty advisors during the design process?a. Faculty advisors had more direct communication with the students. They would, at times, extend invitations to outside parties for additional review and comment. My involvement was through design charettes and presentations as well as on-site discussions during construction.

Ryan Justak | Purdue University | Solar Decathlon 2011

103


a. No Response11. If Revit/BIM was not previously taught is it being taught now? If so, how

many classes were taught and at what level in the curriculum? a. No Response

12. How did you overcome software learning curves during the design process? Were additional classes taught, were workshops held, or was it self-taught?

a. No Response13. What were some of the biggest challenges working on a professional

project in an academic setting?a. No Response


a. No Response15. Was there any previous knowledge you had of the Solar Decathlon upon

entering the competition?a. No Response


a. Team Purdue appeared to be very well organized. The team leaders/managers were involved from the beginning of the project to the end and had to stay on top of everything at all times. The performance of the home and a close second place in the competition was a result of their hard work..

104

1.) The Solar Decathlon Experience has greatly enhanced my understanding of the value of architect-engineer collaboration in the design process.

Response Percent5. Strongly Agree 21.1%4. Agree 52.6%3. Neutral 26.3%2. Disagree 0.0%1. Strongly Disagree 0.0%

2.) The Solar Decathlon experience has greatly enhanced my understanding of the process of architect-engineer collaboration.


3.) The methods of collaboration that proved most effective were: Rank the following in order of importance with 1 being the most important.

Rating Average (1-4)Video Conferences 2.79Design Weekends 1.63Personal Interactions 2.00Use of a Shared Revit Model 3.44

4.) List any additional methods of collaboration that proved effective.

ResponseOne response was given for this question:

The personal interactions in small groups during the design weekends�were�most�beneficial.�Less�time�presenting�progress�to the entire group would of been good.

5.) The greatest challenges to the interdisciplinary collaboration were: Rank the following in order of importance with 1 being the most important.

Rating Average (1-4)Differences in Knowledge and Skills 3.58Differences in Values/Design Objectives 2.84Difficulty�in�Scheduling�Meetings 3.21Physical Distance 2.68Lack of Time to Interact 2.68

6.) List any additional challenges to the interdisciplinary collaboration:

ResponseThree responses were given for this question:a) Its really hard to help the other team understand the architectural side of design work when we can not sit down with them and run through things. That discussion is very important in the collaborative effort.b) Lots of people have been included on the process for different lengths of time, maybe trying to have a smaller core group.

105

7.) The Solar Decathlon experience greatly enhanced my understanding of the BIM process within the design process:


10.) Architecture Student vs Engineering Student:Questions 11-15 were architecture students responses onlyQuestions 16-20 were engineering students responses only

Responses Response PercentArchitecture 15 78.9%Engineering 4 21.1%

8.)�The�greatest�challenge�in�the�BIM�process�was:�Rank�the�following in order of importance with 1 being the most important.

Rating Average (1-4)Use of Revit Software 2.16Management/Sharing of Files 2.16Revit Version Control 3.63Level of Revit Skills in the Team 2.05

11.) The use of BIM(Revit) has greatly enhanced the project workflow:


9.) List any additional challenges in the BIM process:Response

Two responses were given for this question:a)�Access�to�files�outside�of�campusb) Need to account for the learning curve in the schedule

Appendix II - Survey Results

c)�Collaboration�is�difficult�when�one�person�makes�it�seem�like�they know best and no matter what you do, they will change/alter/pass judgement on it later. Why even care then? It’s also difficult�when�one�discipline�tells�the�other�discipline�what�to�do.�It’s not what they are trained in, or the skills they are bringing to the group, so it leaves the other feeling offended and put off. If it were offered as an idea or opinion, that would accepted and taken note of.

106

13.) Collaborating with the Engineering students has been essential to achieve the design objectives:


16.) The use of BIM(Revit) has greatly enhanced the project workflow


14.) Collaboarting with the engineering students has increased by understanding of the design process


17.) Collaborating with the architecture students has been essential to achieve the design objectives


15.) Collaborating with the engineering students has broadened my view of the architectural profession


12.) The use of BIM(Revit) has greatly enhanced the creativity of the design process:


107

18.)�The�use�of�BIM�(Revit)�and�interaction�with�the�designers�from other disciplines has enhanced my understanding of the importance of holistic design


19.) Collaborating with the architecture students has increased my understanding of the design process


22.) Design collaborative tools such as the BIM process should be taught as part of the A/E curriculim


20.) Collaborating with the architecture students has broadened my view of the engineering profession


23.) Learning BIM skills is an important component of my professional education


21.) Interdisciplinary collaboration between engineers and architects should be an integral part of our professional education


108

24.) The Solar Decathlon is an excellent opportunity for experiencing integrated design


109

Bibliography and References

Amaratunga, Dilanthi, and Richard Haigh. Post-disaster Reconstruction of the Built Environment: Rebuilding for Resilience. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print.

Braungart, Michael, and McDonough, William. Cradle to Cradle. New York: North Point Press, 2002. Print

Burke, Anthony, and Tierney, Therese. Network Practices. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2007. Print

Cradle to Cradle Design. Perf. William McDonough. TEDTalks. N.p., Apr. 2007. Feb. 2013. Web. <http://www.ted.com/talks/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html>.

Design Thinking. Perf. Tim Brown. TEDTalks. N.p., Sept. 2009. Feb. 2013. Web. <http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html>.

Deutsch, Randy. BIM and Integrated Design: Strategies for Architectural Practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Print

Elvin, George. Integrated Practice in Architecture: Mastering Design-build, Fast-track, and Building Information Modeling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007. Print.

Institutions� vs.� Collaboration.� Perf.� Clay� Shirky.� TEDTalks.� N.p.,� July� 2008.�Feb. 2013. Web. <http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html>.

Kalay, Yehuda E. Architecture’s New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004. Print

Kaufmann, Michelle, and Catherine Remick. Prefab Green. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2009. Print.

Luhan, Gregory A., Donald Colliver, and Chike Anyaegbunam. Live.light. [San Rafael, Calif.]: ORO Editions, 2010. Print.

110

Bibliography and References

Lévy, François. BIM in Small-scale Sustainable Design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2012. Print.

Piotrowski, Andrzej, and Robinson, Julia Williams. The Discipline of Architecture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. Print

Rand,�Ayn.�The�Fountainhead.�New�York:�Bobbs-Merrill,�1968.�Print.�

Smith, Dana K, and Tardif, Michael. Building Information Modeling: A Strategic Implementation Guide for Architects, Engineers, Constructors, and Real Estate Asset Managers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Print

Taylor, Mark. “University of Illinois Solar Decathlon Architectural Faculty Advisor.” Telephone interview. 11 Dec. 2012.

“University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.” DOE Solar Decathlon: 2009. U.S. Department of Energy, 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.

“University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.” DOE Solar Decathlon:. U.S. Department of Energy, 29 July 2012. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.

“University of Kentucky.” DOE Solar Decathlon: 2009. U.S. Department of Energy, 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.

“U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon Home Page.” U.S. Department of Energy�Solar�Decathlon�Home�Page.�U.S.�Department�of�Energy,�8�Aug.�2012.�Web. 12 Dec. 2012.

Zaretsky, Michael. Precedents in Zero-energy Design: Architecture and Passive Design in the 2007 Solar Decathlon. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print.

111

Documents

Collaboration | Design Method 2.0