Possible solution to past CM examination question

Question 1 - April 2010

Yachting Exhibition Hall

by Dr Peter Gardner

The information provided should be seen as an interpretation of the brief and a possible solution to a past question offered by
an experienced engineer with knowledge of the examiners’ expectations (i.e. it's an individual's interpretation of the brief
leading to one of a number of possible solutions rather than the definitive "correct" or "model" answer).
Yacht exhibition hall

This question relates to an exhibition hall, to be constructed at a waterfront location to house a

famous record-breaking yacht as a permanent public exhibition.

The brief stipulates that:

• All parts of the building including the floors must be outside the "limit of structure"
which is clearly shown on the diagram as a truncated triangular envelope enclosing the
yacht.
• Viewing platforms at least six metres wide are to be provided at levels +6m, +15m, +24m
and +33m. These floors extend right around the diamond shape created by the "limit of
structure" at each of the levels. The viewing floors need to extend to the limit.
• Additionally, the floor at plus six metres shall have an area of at least 750 square metres
in addition to the void space of 150m2.
• There are no upper limits on the size of any floor, but this point does need to be
considered when making judgements and interpreting the brief.
• Stairs are positioned at the perimeter of the building (it is not clear whether this means
within the building at the perimeter, or outside the perimeter, but it is probably not
critical).
• The building is completely clad in glass to maximise the amount of natural illumination.

Interpretation of the brief

The obvious starting point for this question is to assess the various dimensional constraints (ie
the vertical alignment and the associated requirements for the viewing areas). However, there is
some complicated geometry, which could be assessed by calculating the exact geometrical
constraints at each level, but this will be time-consuming. A simplified/approximate (thus
quicker) approach can be used, ensuring the floors are at least 6m wide and the 750m2
requirement is satisfied (bearing in mind that the floors can larger (but not smaller) than the
minimums specified), making accurate dimensional analysis unnecessary.

By far the simplest way of providing the required floor space is to plonk a large rectangular box-
shaped building over the yacht, which satisfies the requirement for 750 square metres of floor
space at level six, and thus automatically satisfies all the other constraints. I feel this solution
does not address the spirit of the brief, although it does technically satisfy the floor requirements.
This amply illustrates the decisions that one needs to make when assessing a brief. Your decision
in relation to this issue will influence the rest of your solution. Also, see comments later on
relating to the structural schemes.

CM Q1 2010
Cladding

The client wishes the building to be clad in glass. Although this requirement is more to do with
architecture and aesthetics, care needs to be taken with the supporting structure; the main
implication to be aware of is movement. This is a relatively large building, and therefore will
pick up significant wind loading. If the proposed frame is too flexible this will result in
movement, which may cause problems with the brittle finish. The easiest way of addressing this
problem is to minimise deflection in the first place by ensuring the structure is stiff. Some
candidates proposed a very large rectangular structure, with moment resisting connections to
provide lateral restraint, but made no assessment of the likely movement, nor made any mention
of deflection and potential problems with the glass cladding.

Ground conditions and foundations

The site conditions are relatively straightforward, with made ground down to three metres, stiff
clay down to eight metres and rock from eight metres. The obvious solution would be to go
straight to the rock, where the ground bearing pressure is given. The strength of the clay could be
assessed, potentially allowing an alternative foundation solution, however whatever is proposed
would need to go down three metres, which is nearly halfway to the rock. The issue of lateral
resistance in the first three metres (made ground) should be addressed/discussed. The
recommended solution should utilise the rock, giving a straightforward foundation design.

Sea water exists at -2.5 metres which will affect any excavation and needs to be considered in
relation to the concrete used to construct the foundations.

Scheme layout and stability

It seems to me that the "obvious" solution to this question is a triangular structure that follows
the shape of the yacht, with a diamond shaped footprint. This would minimise the volume and/or
size of the structure, it would be visually attractive and has the added advantage that the
triangular form would have inherent stability. This could take the form of four inclined lattice
columns, one at each corner of the diamond, meeting at the top. The floors could span between
these columns. See figure 2.

The structure needs to include provision for each of the six-metre walkways but there is no
stipulation that the walkways need to be clear of structural elements, although obviously they
must allow for the free movement of visitors. The level 2 (+6.0m) viewing floor needs to be at
least 750m2 (ie more than is provided by the 6m walkways).

This can be provided in one of three ways:

• making the whole building rectangular with a floor area of at least 900 square metres
(750 plus 150) at each level (this is not my preferred option),

CM Q1 2010
• making the floor at plus six metres larger than the other levels (to provide 750 square
metres) but tapering/stepping back at upper levels to reflect the lower space requirement
and smaller "yacht void",
• following the yachts shape and providing a six metre walkway at each specified level
with an extended structure at level plus six (and thus at plus 0).

The third option is the simplest in terms of satisfying the brief, but would be more complicated
to construct and visually less attractive. The second option is probably the simplest in terms of
the examination, the most attractive, and the most practical if the structure was actually built.

In both my schemes, I have provided this additional floor space as an additional structure
(outside the main frame) to minimise the size of the structure above the +6m level walkway (see
figures 2 & 3).

For the second scheme, I looked for an arrangement that is distinct from the first, but still
follows the shape of the yacht (many candidates didn’t do this for either scheme). The simplest
option would be four vertical columns, one at each corner of the diamond, with a lattice roof (2D
or 3D). The floor structures would then be hung from the roof. Stability would be afforded by
exposed cross bracing, which could be made an architectural feature (much stiffer than a moment
frame (bearing in mind the glass cladding)). See figure 3.

Other options are sketched in figure 4.

[Many of the candidates who attempted this question placed a large rectangular box over the
yacht with a plan area of 900m2, with no attempt whatsoever to follow the triangular form, nor
the diamond-shaped footprint. This would have resulted in a far larger, and visually imposing
building than was necessary, compared with structures that followed the geometry of the yacht
(albeit that it dealt with the requirement for 750m2 of floor at level +6m and strictly didn’t
infringe the brief). This is a first-class example of how the interpretation of the brief can have
significant implications for your solutions.]

Question 1b

The scenario presented relates to a client change made after the design is completed but before
construction has started.

The change requires that the yacht can be removed from the building, albeit the mast can be
detached from the hull. Although you need to make judgments or scale from the diagram (actual
dimensions are not given) the top of the hull seems to be at plus six metres, thus will clash with
the floor structure as it is removed. Also in both my schemes, I have specified major columns at
each corner of the diamond shaped footprint. This means removal of the yacht could have
significant structural implications.

CM Q1 2010
Lowering the yacht in a purpose-built well/trench will allow the hull to clear the floor structure
but it would still clash with the columns. Rotating the hull would solve this problem (otherwise a
major redesign is required moving the columns to an alternative location). Also, the additional
floor area at levels 1 and 2 (required to provide the larger space requirement) may need to be
repositioned (to one side) to facilitate removal of the hull.

Although the question implies that detaching the mast would facilitate its removal, a 30m mast
will need 30m of horizontal space within the building to enable it to be “lowered”. This
provision would be difficult to provide without major structural implications.

Summary

This question represents a significant challenge but is not over-complicated and there are "two
distinct and viable solutions”, therefore it represents the sort of question that you should expect
in this examination.

From my attempt at this question, and my experience of marking scripts, there are too
overarching issues.

The first is the geometry of the yacht (vertically and horizontally) and the required viewing areas
at the various levels. This can be over-complicated by calculating the dimensions precisely.
Because the stipulated width of the floors is a minimum, rather than a fixed dimension, a much
simpler approach would result in the same outcome, but would be much quicker.

The second issue is the shape of the proposed structures. The question does not stipulate that the
triangular form, nor the diamond footprint, needs to be followed, therefore a rectangular box
structure placed over the yacht and the viewing platforms does strictly satisfy the brief.
However surely common sense suggests that this would provide a much larger structure than is
necessary, and that some attempt should be made to minimise the size, and broadly follow the
shape of the yacht, both vertically and horizontally. A surprising number of candidates placed a
very large rectangular box over the whole structure, and dealt with the requirement for two
different schemes purely through different stability options relating to the same basic structure
(ie braced and moment resisting). The unusual shape gives clear options for different geometrical
and structural framing arrangements, which seems the obvious approach to take.

CM Q1 2010