Lessons learned in reconciling high performance building design with acoustical comfort

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (4) ◽  
pp. 2181-2181
Author(s):  
Valerie Smith ◽  
Ethan Salter
Author(s):  
Jialei Shen ◽  
Bess Krietemeyer ◽  
Amber Bartosh ◽  
Zhi Gao ◽  
Jianshun Zhang

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prasad Vaidya ◽  
Lara Greden ◽  
David Eijadi ◽  
Tom McDougall ◽  
Ray Cole

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 4640
Author(s):  
Seung-Yeoun Choi ◽  
Sean-Hay Kim

New functions and requirements of high performance building (HPB) being added and several regulations and certification conditions being reinforced steadily make it harder for designers to decide HPB designs alone. Although many designers wish to rely on HPB consultants for advice, not all projects can afford consultants. We expect that, in the near future, computer aids such as design expert systems can help designers by providing the role of HPB consultants. The effectiveness and success or failure of the solution offered by the expert system must be affected by the quality, systemic structure, resilience, and applicability of expert knowledge. This study aims to set the problem definition and category required for existing HPB designs, and to find the knowledge acquisition and representation methods that are the most suitable to the design expert system based on the literature review. The HPB design literature from the past 10 years revealed that the greatest features of knowledge acquisition and representation are the increasing proportion of computer-based data analytics using machine learning algorithms, whereas rules, frames, and cognitive maps that are derived from heuristics are conventional representation formalisms of traditional expert systems. Moreover, data analytics are applied to not only literally raw data from observations and measurement, but also discrete processed data as the results of simulations or composite rules in order to derive latent rule, hidden pattern, and trends. Furthermore, there is a clear trend that designers prefer the method that decision support tools propose a solution directly as optimizer does. This is due to the lack of resources and time for designers to execute performance evaluation and analysis of alternatives by themselves, even if they have sufficient experience on the HPB. However, because the risk and responsibility for the final design should be taken by designers solely, they are afraid of convenient black box decision making provided by machines. If the process of using the primary knowledge in which frame to reach the solution and how the solution is derived are transparently open to the designers, the solution made by the design expert system will be able to obtain more trust from designers. This transparent decision support process would comply with the requirement specified in a recent design study that designers prefer flexible design environments that give more creative control and freedom over design options, when compared to an automated optimization approach.


Author(s):  
Alexandra Hain ◽  
Arash E. Zaghi

Corrosion at steel beam ends is one of the most pressing challenges in the maintenance of aging bridges. To tackle this challenge, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) has partnered with the University of Connecticut to develop a repair method that benefits from the superior mechanical and durability characteristics of ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) material. The repair involves welding shear studs to the intact portions of the web and encasing the beam end with UHPC. This provides an alternate load path for bearing forces that bypasses the corroded regions of the beam. The structural viability of the repair has been extensively proven through small- and full-scale experiments and comprehensive finite element simulations. Connecticut DOT implemented the repair for the first time in the field on a heavily trafficked four-span bridge in 2019. The UHPC beam end repair was chosen because of the access constraints and geometric complexities of the bridge that limited the viable repair options. Four of the repaired beam ends were fully instrumented to collect data on the performance of the repaired locations before casting, during curing, and for approximately 6 months following the application of the repair. This paper provides an overview of the successful repair implementation and presents the lessons learned during construction. Select data from the monitored beam ends are presented. It is expected that this information will provide engineers with a better understanding of the repair implementation process, and thus provide an additional repair option for states to enhance the safety of aging steel bridges.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document