Theoretical Basis for Structural Strategy: Sports Science University Teaching Building

The structural strategy for the proposed university teaching building for sports science leverages an integrated system of reinforced concrete frames, walls, and slabs, with distinct structural forms that respond to both the architectural requirements and the specific functional needs of each building volume. The approach emphasizes economy of materials, structural efficiency, and spatial flexibility through the use of a unified construction technology, post-tensioned reinforced concrete, throughout the building's different scales and forms. This strategy is aligned with principles of structural optimization (Hawkins and Threlfall, 2015), whereby the specific needs of each section of the building are met by tailored solutions that exploit the material properties and spatial configurations most appropriate for each function. The key challenge in this design lies in balancing the structural demands of the different building volumes, each requiring a distinct response due to its scale and programmatic function, while maintaining a cohesive and cost-effective structural system across the building.

Structural Form and Technology: Post-Tensioned Concrete as a Unifying Strategy

The proposed design employs a single construction technology—post-tensioned reinforced concrete—to create a structurally coherent and efficient building. This approach is advantageous because post-tensioning allows for larger spans and slender structural elements that reduce material usage and construction costs, which is critical for a building of this scale (Wight and MacGregor, 2012). By using post-tensioned beams, floor units, and long-span trusses, the building achieves an efficient structural grid that can adapt to different spans, supporting a range of programmatic functions from classrooms to large sports halls. The exoskeletons employed around the perimeter of each building volume allow the structure to engage with the external environment while also providing opportunities for architectural expression (Ching, 2014). These exoskeletons are woven with internal structural elements, providing lateral stability and load distribution while reducing the need for interior columns in crucial spaces, such as teaching rooms and gymnasia, where column-free interiors are a requirement. This structural system enables a degree of spatial flexibility that is essential for the building’s long-term adaptability (Neufert et al., 2012).

Addressing Scale Differences: The Role of Movement Joints and Thermal Separation

The proposed movement joints play a vital role in responding to the differing structural scales of each volume within the building. Each structural unit—the podium, mini-towers, and the roof volumes—undergoes distinct thermal and structural movements, which must be accommodated to prevent unwanted stress and deformation (Hawkins and Threlfall, 2015). The movement joints are designed to thermally separate each mini-building from its neighbor, preventing heat transfer and allowing for independent thermal control at different building volumes, which is crucial in temperate climates for energy efficiency (Lechner, 2015). Furthermore, the movement joints provide a unique opportunity for acoustic separation, ensuring that sound transmission between the different parts of the building is minimized. This is particularly important for teaching environments and gymnasia, where noise levels can vary significantly depending on the activity. The use of double-wall construction at movement joints allows for both fire compartmentation and sound insulation, ensuring that the building meets fire safety and acoustic performance standards (Ching, 2014; CIBSE, 2016).

Structural Configuration and Functional Optimization

Option 1: Braced Frame with Independent Mini-Towers

In Option 1, the design incorporates two braced frames as independent structures, which rise from the ground floor to the roof-level mini-towers. The podium structure is surrounded by the mini-towers, which have a different structural grid optimized for smaller spans and more compact, functional spaces. The braced frames are structurally efficient, providing lateral stability to the entire building while allowing the mini-towers to remain independent of the podium structure (MacGregor, 2006). This separation allows for more flexibility in the use of space and easier structural adaptation in the future (Wight and MacGregor, 2012). The large spanning trusses and beams of the podium allow for open-plan spaces that cater to the needs of the sports science program, including the large gymnasia and lecture halls. The mini-towers above the podium are designed for smaller-scale spaces, such as classrooms and offices, with column-free layouts, a key design feature that supports functional flexibility and user comfort (Neufert et al., 2012). The independent mini-towers allow for separate structural optimization, ensuring that the design maximizes the use of material for each specific volume while also maintaining efficiency.

Option 2: Smaller Grid for Future Flexibility

Option 2 proposes a smaller structural grid at the podium level, facilitating the future subdivision of spaces and greater adaptability at roof level. A denser grid of reinforced concrete columns allows for smaller floor plates at the upper levels, making the structure more flexible and responsive to future demands (Allen and Iano, 2019). The smaller grid provides more points of support for the roof-level mini-buildings, increasing the potential for subsequent vertical expansion or reconfiguration of the building’s layout. This flexibility is critical in a university environment, where programmatic changes may arise over time (Schneider and Till, 2005). Additionally, this approach may be more economical in the long term, as it reduces the need for major structural alterations if changes to the building’s function are required, such as the integration of new spaces or the reorganization of existing ones (Wight and MacGregor, 2012).

Option 3: Optimized Structural Systems for Different Zones

In Option 3, the podium is subdivided into three separate structural units, each with its own set of structural elements optimized for its function. The central podium structure spans the entire length of the building, with mini-towers positioned at each end and a secondary structure in between. This approach allows for localized structural optimization, meaning that each part of the building can have a structure that is optimized for the specific requirements of that section (Hawkins and Threlfall, 2015). By tailoring the structure to the specific needs of the building’s various zones, material usage is minimized and the structural system becomes more cost-effective while still providing spatial flexibility (Ching, 2014). The separation of the podium into distinct structural forms also offers advantages for future adaptability. For example, the mini-towers may be reconfigured in the future, or the podium could be subdivided further if the program changes.

Overview

The proposed structural strategy for the university teaching building optimizes the use of post-tensioned reinforced concrete, enabling the building to respond flexibly to both functional requirements and structural efficiency. By using a unified construction technology and addressing the needs of different building scales, the design ensures that both the podium and mini-towers perform efficiently. The introduction of movement joints, thermal separation, and acoustic barriers provides opportunities for environmental optimization, ensuring that the building meets the demands of its users while maintaining sustainability and cost-effectiveness. This approach highlights the potential for creating structures that balance material economy, structural integrity, and functional adaptability—key principles in contemporary architectural and structural design for academic buildings.

References

Allen, E. and Iano, J. (2019). Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ching, F. D. K. (2014). Building Construction Illustrated. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

CIBSE (2016). CIBSE Guide A: Environmental Design. 8th ed. London: Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers.

Hawkins, H. and Threlfall, R. (2015). Structural Design: A Practical Guide for Architects. London: Routledge.

Lechner, N. (2015). Heating, Cooling, Lighting: Sustainable Design Methods for Architects. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

MacGregor, J. (2006). Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Neufert, E., Neufert, P. and Kister, J. (2012). Architects' Data. 4th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Schneider, T. and Till, J. (2005). Flexible Housing. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Wight, J. K. and MacGregor, J. G. (2012). Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Prentice Hall.