Page 1

P O R T F O L

Ema Scheifele O


Table of Contents 3 Prominent Works Housing Crisis: Affordable City Living........................................................................................................ 5 Landscape Studio: Reimagining the Site...................................................................................................... 15

21 Studio Production Strategies of Design: Program Distribution.................................................................................................. 23 A Landscaped City Site...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Exhibition and Museum Program....................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Reading and Green Room Program.................................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Spatial Studies: Transitioning from Analysis to Design................................................................................. 31 Facade Analysis.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Precedent and Pavilion Analysis........................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Condensed Corner Site........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 37


37 Technical Studies and Representation Technical Focus: Structures and Systems............................................................................................. 39 Structural Study and Electrical Study ..................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Systemic Study......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 HVAC Study........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Overall Representation........................................................................................................................ 49 Texture Mapping..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Class Collaborating................................................................................................................................................................................................. 53 Professional Drawings and Renderings................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Professional Renderings.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Chief Architect Renderings..................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Free Hand................................................................................................................................................................................................................61


Prominent


Works


Housing Crisis: Affordable City Living A study of Essex Street Development site, the affordable housing unit helped students understand how Federal Acquisition Regulations, zoning, unit dimensions, ADA, and context all play a part in a design. Working with one other student, this project was developed with all these components in mind, which influenced the scheme. The sense of community and involvement with the Lower East Side also was important.


MODULE CONFIGURATION STUDIO STUDIO 1 BEDROOM SWATCH

1 BEDROOM INTERIOR SHADING

2 BEDROOM EXTERIOR SHADING ACCENT

EXTERIOR SHADING

HALLWAY FOLIAGE ACCENT (USE SPARINGLY)

ACCENT (USE SPARINGLY)

SE

CIRCULATION PROGRAM COMMERICAL PUBLIC RESIDENTIAL MIXED

7

Housing Crisis: Affordable City Living

NW


HALLWAY SYSTEM

SWATCH INTERIOR SHADING EXTERIOR SHADING ACCENT

EXTERIOR SHADING

FOLIAGE ACCENT (USE SPARINGLY)

ACCENT (USE SPARINGLY)

6’ SECTIONAL SHIFT


TOPOGRAPHIC ROOF

1

COMMERICAL/OFFICE

RESIDENTIAL

3 CENTRAL ATRIUM PLAN 1. MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY

LOWER RESID

2. DAYCARE

4. CAREER SE

3. CORE

5. LOWER RES 6. GYM 2

CONVENIENCE RETAIL

PUBLIC: RETAIL

OSE

VEL T PA

RK

Exploded Program

DEL

YS

T

ALL EN

ST

SAR

AD

. RO

ANC

BRO SE

XS

E ST

ESS

EX

ST

T

WIL

LIA

GRA

ND

PROPOSED SITE

9

ST

PAR K

ELEVATED PATH DESIGNED BUILDING

SEW ARD

D

OM

ES

T

YS

NC

A EL

Housing Crisis: Affordable City Living

MSB

URG

BRID

GE

ELEVATED PATH PARKS SITE BOUNDS


7 7

9 9

4 4

10 10

10 10

9 9

5 5 HIGHER HIGHER RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL BLOCK BLOCK PLAN PLAN

LOWER RESIDENTIAL BLOCK PLAN LOWER RESIDENTIAL BLOCK PLAN

7. OFFICES 7. OFFICES

4. CAREER SERVICES 4. CAREER SERVICES

8 8

8. HIGHER 8. HIGHER RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL BLOCK BLOCK

5. LOWER RESIDENTIAL BLOCK 5. LOWER RESIDENTIAL BLOCK

9. ROOF 9. ROOF MEADOW MEADOW

6. GYM 6. GYM

10. 10. TERRACE TERRACE

6 6

1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM STUDIO STUDIO STUDIO

1 BEDROOM

1 BEDROOM

STUDIO DD EE

DD EE

DD EE

2 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM

1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM

1 BEDROOM

2 BEDROOM

2 BEDROOM

DD EE


13

Housing Crisis: Affordable City Living Models and Iterations


More Open Communal Area Larger Public Spaces

11

Housing Crisis: Apartment and Unit Study


More Storage (+100%) Larger Private Spaces


Landscape Studio: Reimagining the Site For the two sites given during this studio, students were asked to alter the fabric of the site in section, elevation, and plan. The first site, a rural location on the edge of a bay, was originally flat and open. With the use of pattern overlay, it manifested into a completely new aesthetic, with vegitation considered, and programs like greenhouses, gardens, terraces, classrooms, an auditorium, and exhibition halls. The second site was on the Santa Monica Pier, in California. Keeping some of the original program of an amusement park and a public arena, the pier was redesigned from a small scale to a large one. The patterns from the first project were carried over into the second.


17

Landscape Studio: Reimagining The Site 1


19

Landscape Studio: Reimagining The Site 2


CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM

ORIENTATION & CONE OF VISION

MOVEMENT THROUGH PUBLIC ZONES / LANDSCAPE


Studio


Production


Strategies of Design: Program Distribution Three projects are represented in this section- the first had a focus on creating a small scale community in which the police force could train for real situations. There is a small neighborhood included in the project, as well as a larger massing that houses many public programs for the small community. The second project was a design specifically for a museum. Looking at precedents and case studies to make a foundation for a design, the project was developed based off of the programmatic and square footage requirements. Graphic styles are starting to take form that will further develop later on. The third project is based in Syracuse NY, specifically the Oakwood Cemetery. The mixing of two different user groups influence the combination of 2 kinds of program use.


Overall Roof Structure Roof Garden Police Training Village Yoga Studios Fitness Studios Lounge Gym Lobby/ Cafe OfďŹ ces/ Administration Auditorium Exhibition

Axonometric Programattic Drawing

25

Strategies of Design: A Landscaped City Site


27

Strategies of Design: Exhibition and Museum Program


0’

20’

40’

80’

Building Plan

29

Strategies of Design: Reading / Green Room Program

North and West Elevation


Site Axonometric

0’

20’

40’

Roof Plan

Model December 12pm

Render 3

80’


Spatial Studies: Transitioning from Analysis to Design

These projects represent the first year of architectural studies, and show the graudal change from studying and altering precedents, to spatial analysis and configuration, to facade studies. The end result is a final project that takes into account all of these new skills learned, including the use of the new softwares taught by the school.


33

Spatial Studies: Facade analysis


Light Filtration Exploded Diagram

ht Filtration

Exploded Diagram

Exploded Diagram

Materiality Circulation


35

Spatial Studies: Precedent and Pavilion Analysis


1/4”=1’


Model Iterations

Ramp Derived From The Kunsthal

Rendered Views

Longitudinal Section 1/4”=1’-0”

37

Spatial Studies: Condensed Corner Site

Facade Derived From The Formosa

Sectional Perspective Front Building Layering System

Sectional Perspective Middle Building


South Elevation

South Elevation

1/4”=1’-0”

Transverse Section

1/4”=1’-0”

1/4”=1’-0”

South Elevation

Transverse Section

1/4”=1’-0”

1/4”=1’-0”

SouthNorth Elevation Elevation

Transverse Section

1/4”=1’-0” 1/4”=1’-0”

1/4”=1’-0”

North Elevation 1/4”=1’-0”

Transverse Section 1/4”=1’-0”

North Elevation

North Elevation

1/4”=1’-0”

1/4”=1’-0”

Third Floor 30’

Third Floor 30’

Third Floor 30’

Third Floor 30’

Third Floor 30’

Second Floor 20’

Second Floor 20’

Second Floor 20’

First Floor 10’

First Floor 10’

First Floor 10’

Second Floor 20’

Second Floor 20’

First Floor 10’

Longitudinal Elevation

Ground 0’

1/4”=1’-0”

Longitudinal Elevation

First Floor 10’

Longitudinal Elevation

Ground 0’

1/4”=1’-0”

Longitudinal Elevation

Ground 0’

1/4”=1’-0”

Longitudinal Elevation

Ground 0’

1/4”=1’-0”

Ground 0’

1/4”=1’-0”

Ground Floor Plan 1/8”=1’-0”

Second Ground Floor Plan Floor Plan 1/8”=1’-0”

1/8”=1’-0”

Second FloorFloor PlanPlan Ground Floor Plan Third 1/8”=1’-0”

1/8”=1’-0” 1/8”=1’-0”

Second Floor Plan Ground Floor PlanThird Fouth Floor Floor Plan Plan 1/8”=1’-0”

1/8”=1’-0” 1/8”=1’-0” 1/8”=1’-0”

SecondThird Floor Plan Fouth Floor Floor Plan Plan 1/8”=1’-0” 1/8”=1’-0” 1/8”=1’-0”

Third Fouth Floor Floor PlanPlan 1/8”=1’-0” 1/8”=1’-0”

Fouth Floor Plan 1/8”=1’-0”


Technical Studies


& Representation


Technical Focus: Structures and Systems Aside from studio and design focuses, there are supporting classes that have further developed the architectural student’s experience. Structural analysis, calculations for certain materials, and a general understanding of how a building stands was covered. Systemically, natural cooling and heating systems as well as implored systems were taught and divulged into with great detail.


43

Technical Focus: Structural and Electrical Study


TMS architects

DRAFT

commercial division One Cate Street Eldredge Park Portsmouth, NH

P. 603.436.4274 F. 603.431.1828 www.tmsarchitects.com

CLIENT

TMS architects

ELECTRICAL LEGEND

DRAFT

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

fan

LIGHT FIXTURES

DN

commercial division

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

DN

4 3

*ALL LIGHTS ARE LED 2700K

3

DOOR SENSOR

One Cate Street Eldredge Park Portsmouth, NH

UP

fan

CIVIL ENGINEER

3

CEILING FAN / LIGHT

P. 603.436.4274 F. 603.431.1828 www.tmsarchitects.com

CLIENT 3

3

3

3

3

3

Revision & Reissue Notes

DOOR SENSOR

Rev. No.

Date

RECESSED DIRECTIONAL LIGHT FIXTURE Description

RECESSED CAN LIGHT FIXTURE

DOOR SENSOR 3 3

EXHAUST FAN / LIGHT

fan

3

3

3

G G G

3

4' STRIP LIGHTING 3

REF.

FRZ D

3

DOOR SENSOR

2' CLOSET LIGHT

PERMIT SET + Interiors PROJECT NUMBER

P:\2016036_CLARK New Home 376 Piscassic Rd Newfields NH\CADD\Proj_Models\2016036_Clark_CURRENT.rvt

3

Clark / WALL SCONCE VanOrden Residence 9" x 9" SQUARE RECESSED LIGHT

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

UNDER CABINET / BEAM LIGHTING

376 Piscassic Rd Newfields, NH

PENDANT LIGHT First Floor Electrical Plan

SWITCHING DEVICES

SINGLE POLE SWITCH DRAWN BY

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

Author

E101 3-WAY SWITCH CHECKED BY

1 E101

First Floor Lighting 1/4" = 1'-0"

3

Checker

SHEET SCALE

1/4" = 1'-0"

SHEET DATE

02/14/2018

3

3

4

D 4

3

UP

SURFACE MOUNTED LIGHT 2016036

GARAGE DOOR OPERATOR

8/9/2019 12:31:37 PM

4-WAY SWITCH DIMMER SWITCH

RECEPTACLES

CIVIL ENGINEER

DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

3

3

1/2 CONSTANT 1/2 SWITCHED RECEPTACLE

4

MISCELLANEOUS WIRING

4

UP / DN G

Revision & Reissue Notes Rev. No.

Date

Description

WIRING TO ANOTHER FLOOR LEVEL WALL MOUNTED GARAGE DOOR OPENER

fan

PERMIT SET + Interiors PROJECT NUMBER

P:\2016036_CLARK New Home 376 Piscassic Rd Newfields NH\CADD\Proj_Models\2016036_Clark_CURRENT.rvt

2016036

Clark / VanOrden Residence

376 Piscassic Rd Newfields, NH

Basement Electrical Plan

DRAWN BY

Author

1 E100

Garage Level Lighting 1/4" = 1'-0"

E100

CHECKED BY

Checker SHEET SCALE

1/4" = 1'-0" SHEET DATE

UNISSUED

8/9/2019 12:31:33 PM


e

VI: Design Case

VI: Design Case

Baseline Design

Design

Design Case 0

Baseline Design Through a series of studies, and iterations of design changes, the most efficient use of a spacial layout has been determined on the ground of daylighting, electric setup, ventilation, heating and cooling loads, and material use.

15:00

Design Case

D

Ema Scheifele | Arc 322 | Fall 2018 |

VI: Design Case

50

Through a series of studies, Through a series of studies, Baseline Design Design Case Daylight Availablility Daylight Availablility and iterations of design changes, and iterations of design changes, Through a series of studies, Renders of Design Case and iterations of design changes, the most efficient use of a most useefficient use of a thethe most efficient of a spacial layout has been spacial layout has been spacial layout has been determined on the ground of daylighting, electric setup, determined on the ground of determined on the ground of ventilation, heating and cooling Interior Renders of Proposed Scheme loads, and material use. Availablility Daylightsetup, Availablility daylighting, electricDaylight setup, daylighting, electric of Design Case ventilation, heating and coolingRendersventilation, heating and cooling loads, and material use. loads, and material use. ght Availablility Daylight Availablility Daylight Availablility

0

100

0

<0

09:00

12:00

Illuminance - cd/m2

15:00

>100

22:00

843

Floor Plan of Design Case

50

400

09:00

12:00

100

15:00

55

above, one can clearly see that the space has improved in terms 45% of the space in the Baseline Model. This is because of a es and Horizontal Louvers, skylights for ambient light, and the nook that was causing problems as well. Materiality was ing, to bounce around light more than in previous strategies. pretty well-lit area.

09:00

Floor Plan of Design Case

ayout of the windows entilation did improve he baseline model. omfort zone for part k of time, August 01h it does rise out of ar the end part of the easily bumped down the help of shading e bit of direct cooling tems.

15:00

22:00

Daylight Av <0

843

Renders of Design Case

12:00 Interior Renders of Proposed Scheme 09:00

400

09:00

15:00

12:00

12:00

>100

15:00

22:00 15:00

55

As shown with the False color renders and the Daylight Availability Simulation above, one can clearly see that the space has improved in terms of natural light. There are next to no overlit areas, which is taking up about 45% of the space in the Baseline Model. This is because of a a rearragement of the window scheme, shading devices such as Light Shelves and Horizontal Louvers, skylights for ambient light, and narrower windows near the roof. Also, the floor plan was altered to remove the nook that was causing problems as well. Materiality was altered to add more reflectivity to the walls, shading devices, floor and ceiling, to bounce around light more than in previous strategies. all of this put together created a pretty well-lit area.

Ventilation Efficiency Floor Plan

of Design Case

After altering the layout of the windows on the site, the ventilation did improve as compared to the baseline model. it is more in the comfort zone for part of the studied week of time, August 01August 07. Although it does rise out of the comfort zone near the end part of the week, this can be easily bumped down into comfort with the help of shading devices, and a little bit of direct cooling systems.

09:00 12:00

45

100

Illuminance - cd/m2

Renders of Design Case 09:00

12:00

<0 >100

Illuminance - cd/m2 843

Proposed Interior Scheme Renders of Proposed Scheme

0

50

400

12:00 15:00 55

As shown with the False color renders and the Daylight Availability Simulation above, one can clearly see that the space has improved in terms of natural light. There are next to no overlit areas, which is taking up about 45% of the space in the Baseline Model. This is because of a a rearragement of the window scheme, shading devices such as Light Shelves and Horizontal Louvers, skylights for ambient light, and narrower windows near the roof. Also, the floor plan was altered to remove the nook that was causing problems as well. Materiality was altered to add more reflectivity to the walls, shading devices, floor and ceiling, to bounce around light more than in previous strategies. all of this put together created a pretty well-lit area.

Technical Focus: Systemic Study Ventilation Efficiency

After altering the layout of the windows


Design Case:

VI: Design Case: Electric Lighting Scheme

Calculations Formulae

Workplane Illuminance

Ema Scheifele Arc 322 | Fall 2018 | LPD and = ((5Luminares)*(54W))+((2Luminaires)*(24W)) 29.3M^2 = 10.8| W/M^2 Recessed Downlighting lighting /will be brought into the Design Case. they are showcased Lighting Power = 10.8W/M^2 * 29.3M^2 = 316 W Group throughout the space, Light 1 showing andthree Light 2 twice. As Section you can see from the 130 up 5 times,

Group One

Power Workplace Illumination Diagram to the right, this combination and placement Lighting performed wellDensity for = (Luminares)*(Watts) / Floor A Lighting Power = the space at hand, with only a small part of the building appearing to two be underlit. This spaceLPD is * Floor Area = W Group As you can see by the Schedules, the use of Group 1: Manual Dimming, with dimming system LPD Maximum of an Office Space = <10.8 alsoPerformance whereRecessed the Downlighting majority the spacesodownthe lighting scheme is fully taking electric lighting has been cut by aelectric lot. In for Lytecaster (24W).of daylighting enters previous iterations, the Total Lighting used in the care of the darker parts of the space. Simulation reached as high as Design 190 kWh. This Case:

Lighting Use

Illuminance - cd/m2 280

18

Group2 three Design. main

particular scheme and layout of electrical ligting systems limits that to a mere 90.1kWh,

LPD = ((5Luminares)*(54W))+((2Luminaires)*(24W)) / 29

Onedesign The lighting scheme presented is derivative from the studies done shown in Lighting Lighting Power = 10.8W/M^2 * 29.3M^2 = 316 W a large improvement from theGroup preferred Calculations strategy discussed in previous pages. The lights were picked because of aesthetic and their performance in previous iterations- Silhouette SF combination of a good daylighting source, as well Group two Workplanea Illuminance and Recessed Downlighting lighting will be brought intoFormulae the Design Case. they are showcased as well-picked Luminaires, andLighting carefully plannedUse placement of said members, allowed this Group 2: Occupancy Dimming with delay on sensor of Lighting Power Density = (Luminares)*(Watts) / allowed FloortheArea M^2=W/M^2 throughout the space, Light 1 showing up 5 times, and Light 2 twice. As you can see from the improvement to be possible. It also 5minutes. switches light off when no motion. Light of use Group 1: Manual Dimming, with dimming system LPD toArea be exactly the maximum lighting for is Silhouette and SF Indirect/Direct Pendant Light (54W). Power Lighting =W Workplace Illumination Diagram to the right, this combination placement performed well= LPD for * Floor for Lytecaster The lighting scheme presented is derivative from the studies done shown in Lighting Design. 2 main an office space, 10.8W/M^2. ReflectedPerformance Ceiling PlanRecessed Downlighting (24W). the space at hand, with only a small part of the building appearing to be underlit. This space is lights were picked because of aesthetic and their performance in previous iterations- Silhouette LPD SF Maximum of an Office Space = <10.8 Illuminance Electric Lighting Use: also where the majority of daylighting thethey electric lighting scheme isWorkplane fully taking and Recessed Downlighting lighting will beenters brought the into spacethe DesignsoCase. are showcased Lighting Group 1: 11.8 kWh Design Case: Lighting Group 2: 62.1 kWh throughout the space, Light 1 showing times, and Light 2 twice. can see from theLPD = ((5Luminares)*(54W))+((2Luminaires)*(24W)) care up of 5the darker parts of As theyouspace. / 29.3M^2 = 10.8 W/M^2 Lighting Group 3: 24.2 kWh Workplace Illumination Diagram to the right, this combination and placement performed well for Total Lighting used in Simulation: 90.1 kWh Total Heating and Cooling Loads (kWh) Section Power = 10.8W/M^2 * 29.3M^2 = 316 W the space at hand, with only a small part of the building appearing to be underlit. This space Lighting is 130

18

also where the majority of daylighting enters the space- so the electric lighting scheme is fully taking Calculations Group 3: Manual control, care of the darker parts of the space. Lighting Use for Lytecaster Performance Recessed Downlighting (24W). Formulae

Calculations Formulae

Design Case: Design Case:

The heating and cooling loads, although not impressively low, are still much smaller than the Baseline Study. The Heating energy was around 11,000kWh, and cooling about 9,500kWh. In this design, the cooling dropped Group Occupancy with the delay on of sensor| of As you can by the Dimming Schedules, use Ema2:see Scheifele | Arc 322 | Fall 2018 Group 1: Manual Dimming, with dimming system way down to due more efficient ventilatilation 5minutes. switches light cut off when electric lighting has been down no bymotion. a lot. Light In of use for Lytecaster Performance Recessed Downlighting (24W). and shading devices; only 700kWh are needed. isiterations, Silhouette the SF Indirect/Direct previous Total LightingPendant used inLight the(54W). And heating, although still relatively high, still dropped down to around 1000kWh. LoweringSimulation reached as high as 190 kWh. This the total heating and cooling loads was particular scheme and layout of electrical a success, for sure. ligting systems limits that to a mere 90.1kWh,

Lighting Power Density = (Luminares)*(Watts) / Floor Area M^2=W/M^2 Lighting Power = LPD * Floor Area = W Lighting Power Density = (Luminares)*(Watts) Floor Area M^2=W/M^2 LPD Maximum of an OfficeCase Space = /<10.8 VI: Design Lighting Power = LPD * Floor Area = W LPD Maximum of an Office Space = <10.8

LPD = ((5Luminares)*(54W))+((2Luminaires)*(24W)) / 29.3M^2 = 10.8 W/M^2

Baseline Design

LPD = ((5Luminares)*(54W))+((2Luminaires)*(24W)) Lighting Power = 10.8W/M^2 * 29.3M^2/ =29.3M^2 316 W= 10.8 W/M^2 Lighting Power = 10.8W/M^2 * 29.3M^2 = 316 W

Final Thoughts:

Section

Section

As elec previo Sim p ligt a la st combi as we

impr LP

a large improvement Design Casefrom the preferred design strategy discussed in previous pages. The

combination of a good daylighting source, as well0

Through a series of studies, as well-picked Luminaires, and a carefully planned Lighting LightingUse Use placement of said members, allowed this Group 2: Occupancy Dimmingof withdesign delay on sensor of Th and iterations changes, suggested design changes werenoamotion. success. Certain design aspects were used to alter to theberesult of all simulations improvement possible. It also allowed and the As Overall, you can seethese by the Schedules, the use of 5minutes. switches light off when Light of use Group 3: Manual control, Group 1: Manual Dimming, with dimming system imp As you can see by the Schedules, the use of Group 1: Manual Dimming, with dimming system because of has it, been a lotcut beneficial changes were made.use The natural although still not perfect. the most efficient of a ventilation became somewhat electric lighting down by a lot. for Lytecaster Performance Recessed Downlighting (24W). LPD to be adequate, exactly the maximum lighting for isof Silhouette SFInbeen Indirect/Direct Light formore Lytecaster Performance Recessed Downlighting (24W). electric lighting has cut downPendant by a lot. In (54W). for Lytecaster Performance Recessed Downlighting (24W). previous There iterations, Totalfor Lighting used in the with that- possibly adding another window on the Northern face is the room improvement the site to 10.8W/M^2. allow more cross 50 anofoffice space, Reflected Ceiling Plan w previous iterations, the Total Lighting has used in the spacial layout been Simulation reached as high as 190 kWh. This ventilation to take place. Daylighting performance became much more successful, with little to no overlit areas, and all spaces getting a good amount particular scheme Simulation and layout of reached electrical as high as 190 kWh. This 9,50 on the ground of lighting. This was through iterations. Heating and of cooling loads are also much more efficient, shown through ligting systems limits acheived that to a determined mere 90.1kWh,many Electric Lighting Use:the graphs. This was particular scheme and layout of electrical way abecause large improvement from the preferred design LightingSome Group 1:cons 11.8 kWh of a successful electrical also took many iterations to reach its full potential. of the site is that systems limitslighting that tosetup, a merewhich 90.1kWh, and daylighting, electric setup, strategy discussedligting in previous pages. The Lighting Group 2: 62.1 kWh it combination still is getting some overlit areas, not the best natural ventilation, and a large heating load- with the help of a few more design changes like large improvement of a gooda daylighting source, as wellfrom the preferred design Lighting Group 3: 24.2 kWh And ventilation, heating and cooling adding Northern windows, playing withinthe electrical scheme, could beused used at its 90.1 maximum potential. as well-picked Luminaires, and a carefully planned Lighting in Simulation: kWh strategy discussed previous pages. The and working on shading devices, this siteTotal Totaldro H 100 placement of said members, allowed this Group 2: Occupancy Dimming with delay on sensor of combination ofallowed aloads, good daylighting source, as well and material use. t improvement to be possible. It also the 5minutes. switches light off when no motion. Light of use Daylight Availablility Daylight Availablility asthe well-picked Luminaires, and a carefully planned LPD to be exactly maximum lighting for is Silhouette SF Indirect/Direct Pendant Light (54W). The heating and cooling loads, although not Reflected Ceiling Plan of Group said members, 3: Manual allowed control, this improvement to bePerformance possible. ItRecessed also allowed the (24W). for Lytecaster Downlighting Renders of Design Case Electric Lighting Use: LPD exactly the maximum lighting 12:00 for Lighting Group 1: 11.8to kWhbe 09:00 Lighting Group 2: 62.1 kWhan office space, 10.8W/M^2. Lighting Group 3: 24.2 kWh

<0

an office space,placement 10.8W/M^2.

impressively low, are still much smaller than the Baseline Study. The Heating energy >100 15:00 was around 11,000kWh, 22:00 and cooling about Reflected Ceiling Plan 9,500kWh. In this design, the cooling dropped Total Lighting used in Simulation: 90.1 kWh Total Heating and Cooling Loads (kWh) way down to due more efficient ventilatilation Electric Lighting Use: and shading devices; only 700kWh are needed. The heating and cooling loads, although not Group 1: 11.8 kWh Lighting And heating, although still relatively high, still Group 3: Manual control, impressively low, are still much smaller thanGroup 2: 62.1 kWh Lighting Overall, suggested design changes were a success. C for Lytecaster Performance Recessed Downlighting (24W). the Baseline Study. The Heating energy Lighting Group 3: 24.2 kWh dropped down these to around 1000kWh. Lowering Floor Plan of Lighting was around 11,000kWh, andTotal cooling aboutused in Simulation: 90.1 kWh because of it, a lot of beneficial the total heating and cooling loads Total Heating and Cooling Loads (kWh) was changes were made. The na 9,500kWh. In this design, the cooling dropped Design Case a success, for for sure.improvement with that- possibly addin There is room way down to due more efficient ventilatilation and shading devices; The only 700kWh needed. heatingareand cooling loads, although not ventilation to take place. Daylighting performance became much mor And heating, althoughimpressively still relativelylow, high, are still still much smaller than Group 3: Manual control, dropped down to around 1000kWh. Lowering of lighting. This was acheived through many iterations. Heating and for Lytecaster Performance Recessed Downlighting (24W). the Baseline Study. The Heating energy the total heating and cooling loads was 09:00 15:00 of a successful electrical lighting setup, which also t around 11,000kWh, and 12:00 cooling about because a success,was for sure. 9,500kWh. In this design, the cooling dropped it still is getting some overlit areas, not the best natural ventila way down to due more efficient ventilatilation adding Northern windows, playing with the electrical scheme, an and shading devices; only 700kWh are needed. Overall,although thesestill suggested design And heating, relatively high, still changes were a success. Certain design aspects were used to alter the result of all s because oftoit,around a lot1000kWh. of beneficial dropped down Lowering changes were made. The natural ventilation became somewhat more adequate, although the total heating and cooling loads was Overall, these suggested design changes were a success. Certain design aspects were used to alter result of all simulations andpossibly adding another window on the Northern face of the site to allow There is room forthe improvement with thatsuccess, more for sure. because of it, a lot of beneficial changes were made. The natural ventilation became asomewhat adequate, although still not perfect. Group 2: Occupancy Dimming with delay on sensor of 5minutes. switches light off when no motion. Light of use is Silhouette SF Indirect/Direct Pendant Light (54W).

Interior Renders of Proposed Scheme

Final Thoughts:

Final Thoughts:

Final Thoughts:


47

Technical Focus: HVAC Study


evel 7 1/8" = 1'-0"

Level -2 1/8" = 1'-0"


Wiggin Memorial Library Floor Plan 4’

2

0

4

8

12’

Exit

Exit Exit

Exit

Children’s Room

Exit

Book Drop

Staff Only

Staff Only Entry Hall

Office

Offices

Teen Room

Book Drop

Office

Activity Room

Storage

Storage

Storage

Storage

quiet study

Staff Only

Meeting Room Town Offices

Exit

ema scheifele 1’= 1/4”


Overall Representation Representation is important for an architect. This is general knowledge gained over the course of the education, throughout a variety of classes and mediums. Many softwares were covered and used for these purposes.


51

Overall Representation: Texture Mapping


30’

30’

35’

32’

30’ 34’

35’

23’

32’

34’

23’

32’ 30’

34’

22’

23’

30’ 37’

22’

30’

22’ 24’

27’

53

36’

36’

44’

44’

Overall Representation: Class Collaboration

32’

29’

36’

32’ 29’

32’

34’

34’

40’

34’

40’

40’

44’


Ema Scheifele

Ema Scheifele Ema Scheifele

(3) Polygrand Theatre, Emerson College, Church At Firmity, Parallel Perspective

(2) Folk Art Museum, Parc de la Villett, Le Fresnoy & Emerson College Combo, Render 1

(3) Polygrand Theatre, Emerson College, Church At Firmity, Render 2

(3) Polygrand Theatre, Emerson College, Church At Firmity, Render 3


3' - 8"

102.0'

4' - 5"

10' - 8"

M.O.

3' - 6" 3' - 8"

6' - 9"

M.O.

2' - 0" +/-

(3)

52' - 4"

TYPICAL WALL CONSTRUCTION MAIN GABLE: CERTAINTEED BARN RED VINYL SIDING OVER 7/16” ZIP PANEL AND MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDED TAPE OVER 2X6 STUDS @ 16” O.C. PROVIDE 1X8 PVC CORNER BOARDS, FASCIA TRIM AND SHADOW TRIM AS OUTLINED IN THE ELEVATION. PROVIDE MINIMUM R-30 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION OR CELLULOSE INSULATION WITH VAPOR BARRIER IN ALL WALL CAVITIES.

Finish Flr 2 109' - 0"

(3) 1 3/4

28' - 0" +/-

M.O.

Footing Width

(3) LVL 1 3/4 x 11 7/8 Header

1 1/2"

11" pad on 12" footing, not below frost line

Foundation 102' - 0"

3"

12" footing below frost line, 8" wall 24" above grade. Slab is 7" with rebar, to hold heavy machinery

2' - 0" +/-

4' - 0"

3' - 0" +/-

(3) LVL 1 3/4 x 11 7/8 (Continuous entire length) 101.0'

8' - 8"

2"

PREFER C1 NEW HERE IF POSSIBLE

17' - 2"

43' - 8"

M.O.

12' - 8"

M.O. NOTE: LVLS SHOWN ON PLAN REPRESENT HEADER OUTLINE FOR LARGER OPENINGS. PROVIDE (3) 2X8'S FOR WINDOWS AND DOORS 4' WIDE OR LESS. PROVIDE 5 1/4 X 5 1/4 PSL POST AT ALL LVL HEADER ENDS.

24" +/-

12"

6"

B1

12"

Rigid Insulation

C1 OLD

Foundation Plan 1/8" = 1'-0"

TYPICAL WINDOWS: PROVIDE STOREFRONT WINDOWS (BARN RED) AS SHOWN IN THE ELEVATIONS. ALL STOREFRONT WINDOWS TO BE TEMPERED. PROVIDE 2” METAL FRAME SYSTEM AND REVIEW FINAL SIZES IN SHOP DRAWING PHASE. PROVIDE PVC WINDOWS AT ALL LOCATIONS THAT ARE NOT STORE FRONT.

Foundation Plan 96' - 0" N Base Footing 95' - 0"

6"

C1 NEW

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

CIVIL ENGINEER

TYPICAL EXTERIOR PASSAGE DOORS: PROVIDE INSULATED METAL DOORS AS SHOWN IN THE ELEVATIONS WITH UPPER GLASS PANEL. COORDINATE DOOR HARDWARE WITH OWNER FOR OPERATION AND SECURITY OPTIONS. ENTRY DOORS TO BE STOREFRONT TYPE AND MATCH WITH FRONT ELEVATION STOREFRONT GLASS SYSTEM (STYLE AND COLOR.)

TYPICAL OVERHEAD DOORS: PROVIDE OVERHEAD DOORS AS SHOWN IN THE ELEVATIONS AND DOOR SCHEDULE. ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM R-9 FOR ALL DOORS. OPENING SYSTEM AND SECURITY OUTLINES TO BE REVIEWED WITH OWNER AND COORDINATED IN SHOP DRAWING PHASE.

Revision & Reissue Notes Rev. No.

1

Date

Description

7-24-2019

Foundation & Details

NOTE: ALL OVERHEAD DOORS TO RECEIVE 4” CASING. COORDINATE METAL FLASHING FOR POSITIVE WATER FLOW AROUND AND AWAY AT ALL DOORS. TYPICAL LIGHTING: PROVIDE LED LIGHTING AT ALL LOCATIONS TYPICAL HVAC: PROVIDE HVAC SYSTEM BASED ON R-VALUES AND DESIRED OPERATIONAL OUTLINE OF OWNER. REVIEW HEATING AND COOLING LOADS AND VENTING WITH ALL OTHER SYSTEMS IN THE BUILDING. PROVIDE ADEQUATE VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BASED ON BUSINESS USE AND AREAS OF THE BUILDING.

24"

1

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

NOTE: ALL DOORS TO RECEIVE 4” CASING. COORDINATE METAL FLASHING FOR POSITIVE WATER FLOW AROUND AND AWAY AT ALL DOORS.

3' - 8"

36" +/-

11" 7"

12"

A1

REMAINING SIDES: METAL CORRUGATED METAL BARN RED SIDING OVER 1X3 EXTERIOR STRAPPING @ 16” O.C.OVER 7/16” ZIP PANEL AND MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDED TAPE OVER 2X6 STUDS @ 16” O.C. PROVIDE 1X8 PVC CORNER BOARDS, FASCIA TRIM AND SHADOW TRIM AS OUTLINED IN THE ELEVATION. PROVIDE MINIMUM R-30 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION OR CELLULOSE INSULATION WITH VAPOR BARRIER IN ALL WALL CAVITIES.

NOTE: ALL WINDOWS TO RECEIVE 4” CASING. COORDINATE METAL FLASHING FOR POSITIVE WATER FLOW AROUND AND AWAY AT ALL WINDOWS. Level 1 100' - 0" Grade 99' - 9"

101.0'

C1 NEW

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

INTERIOR FINISHES: PROVIDE 5/8” TYPE ‘X’ SHEETROCK AT ALL LOCATIONS IN SALES, OFFICE AND BATHROOM AREAS. PROVIDE 3/4” PLYWOOD AT SHOP AND PARTS AREAS. PROVIDE MOISTURE RESISTANT SHEETROCK IN ALL WET LOCATIONS.

TYPICAL FOUNDATION: 10” CONCRETE WALLS WITH #5 REBAR AS SHOWN IN PLAN. 2’ FOOTINGS WITH MINIMUM 4’ FROST PROTECTION. PERIMETER DRAIN SYSTEM ON EXTERIOR OF BUILDING (PITCH TO DAYLIGHT.) REVIEW PLAN FOR HEIGHTS AND MASONRY OPENINGS. PROVIDE 2" CONTINUOUS RIGID INSULATION AND 6 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER ENTIRE SLAB AREA AND DOWN TO TOP OF FOOTING. 6"CONCRETE SLAB THICKNESS.

25' - 0"

B1

8"

P. 603.436.4274 F. 603.431.1828 www.tmsarchitects.com

NOTE: DOUBLE TOP PLATE AT MAIN GABLE WITH HORIZONTAL BLOCKING EVERY 4’ TYPICAL TRIPLE TOP PLATE REMAINING SIDES WITH HORIZONTAL BLOCKING EVERY 4’ TYPICAL

4"

2' - 0" A1

17' - 2"

One Cate Street Eldredge Park Portsmouth, NH CLIENT

INTERIOR FINISHES: PROVIDE 5/8” TYPE ‘X’ SHEETROCK AT ALL LOCATIONS IN SALES, OFFICE AND BATHROOM AREAS. PROVIDE 3/4” PLYWOOD AT SHOP AND PARTS AREAS. PROVIDE MOISTURE RESISTANT SHEETROCK IN ALL WET LOCATIONS.

40' - 0" +/-

C1 NEW

PROVIDE REQUIRED CROSS BRACING, HURRICANE TIES AT ALL TRUSS / PLATE CONNECTIONS AND OTHER TRUSS MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS TO MEET OR EXCEED APPLICABLE CODES. PROVIDE MINIMUM R-40 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM OR CELLULOSE TYPE INSULATION WITH INTEGRAL IGNITION BARRIER.

residential division

TYPICAL ROOF TRIM 1X4 PVC SHADOW BOARD OVER 1X8 PVC FASCIA OVER TRUSS AND OVERHANG BLOCKING.

1"x 3" 1"x 8"

40' - 0"

Foundation Information

TMS architects

TYPICAL ROOF CONSTRUCTION STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF PANEL SYSTEM (LIGHT GRAY) OVER #15 FELT PAPER WITH ICE AND WATER SHIELD UP FIRST 3’ OF ROOF AND SPANNING ROOF JOINT AT ALL VALLEYS. OVER 5/8” ZIP PANEL ROOF SHEATHING WITH MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDED TAPE OVER SCISSOR TRUSS SYSTEM 2’-0” O.C. BY BEAU TRUSS COMPANY.

Top of Wall 113' - 6"

(3)

3' - 0" +/-

8' - 8"

12' - 8" M.O.

99.4' (Typ. Door Foundation Elevation)

(3)

2

(3) 1 3/4

40' x 28' - 6" pad. No footing or wall

9' - 3"

M.O.

8"

Typical footing below frost line, wall above grade. 4-6" pad to connect with other pads.

9' - 0"

M.O.

5' - 0"

6' - 8"

4' - 6"

18' - 4"

M.O.

1' - 0" +/-

3' - 8"

6"

10' - 9"

2

107' - 5"

Typical Wall Section 1/2" = 1'-0"

VERIFY HAZARDOUS MATERIAL QUANTITIES BASED ON F-1 USE GROUP AND TYPE OF MATERIAL TO BE STORED. IBC 307.1 (1) & 307.1 (2).

103' - 0"

Roof Peak 128' - 1" +/-

Permit Set : 7-5-2019 7-24-2019 Updates, Revision 1 19' - 1"

PROJECT NUMBER

Project Number

5' - 0"

Top of Wall 113' - 6"

Brentwood Power Equipment

1' - 0"

Finish Flr 2 109' - 0"

9' - 0"

8' - 0"

244 Route 125 Brentwood NH

Foundation 102' - 0"

5' - 0"

P:\2019054_TRI CON BPE New Building\CADD\Proj_Models\Revit_Proj\Brentwood Power Equip Model.rvt

(3) 2X8 Header Typical

Level 1 100' - 0" Grade 99' - 9"

Foundation Plan, Sections

Foundation Plan 96' - 0" Base Footing 95' - 0"

DRAWN BY

Author

3

Long Section 1/4" = 1'-0"

A100

CHECKED BY

Checker SHEET SCALE

As indicated SHEET DATE

07/05/2019

7/24/2019 10:28:23 AM

59

Overall Representation: Professional Drawings & Renderings


1' -

9"

TMS architects

1" 9"

18' - 2 1/2"

residential division 2"

One Cate Street Eldredge Park Portsmouth, NH

6"

4"

UNIT A DECK

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

Roof Section 1" = 1'-0"

18' - 4 1/2"

18' - 4 1/2" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

ENTRY

UP

BEDROOM 2

UP

ENTRY

UP

UNIT C DECK

BEDROOM 2

BEDROOM 2

UNIT C STORAGE 1

2

3

MECH. ROOM

4

5

UP

21' - 0"

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

UP

6

LIVING / DINING

LIVING / DINING

LIVING / DINING

CIVIL ENGINEER

CIVIL ENGINEER

KITCHEN

KITCHEN

UNIT A STORAGE Roof Plan 10' - 0"

Roof Plan 10' - 0"

KITCHEN

UNIT C STORAGE

UNIT B STORAGE

Revision & Reissue Notes Rev. No.

Date

UNIT A DECK

Description

Revision & Reissue Notes

UNIT C DECK

UP

5' - 4"

Rev. No.

Date

Description

UNIT B DECK

3' - 4"

1/2"

P. 603.436.4274 F. 603.431.1828 www.tmsarchitects.com

UP

1 A300

5' - 4"

residential division One Cate Street Eldredge Park Portsmouth, NH

COMMON DECK

1 1/2 "

2"

2

C A300

55' - 1 1/2"

18' - 4 1/2" STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

8" 10"

ENTRY

Peak Detail 1" = 1'-0"

B A300

CLIENT

DN

6"

6"

1

TMS architects

13' - 4" A A300

1"

1/2"

2"

6" 3/4"

1' - 1"

3 1/2"

1' - 4"

34' - 10"

8"

1 1/2"

9' - 6"

P. 603.436.4274 F. 603.431.1828 www.tmsarchitects.com

CLIENT

1

2 A300

Ground Level 1/8" = 1'-0"

2 A100

Level 1 1/4" = 1'-0"

3' - 4"

A100

Level 1 0' - 0"

Level 1 0' - 0"

A

B

C

A300

A300

A300

Project Status

Pricing Set

PROJECT NUMBER

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

4

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

5

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

PROJECT NUMBER

Project Number

Solar Panel Roof Design

7

Roof Clip Detail

9

Rails on Clips Detail

11

Solar Panels and Clasps

13

Underside Details

1 Cate Street Portsmouth, NH

C:\Users\emas\Desktop\Solar Panels.rvt

Drawings

DRAWN BY

Scheifele

6

Metal Roof & Clips

8

Rails

10

Solar Panels

12

Solar Panels & Roof System

A300

CHECKED BY

Alther SHEET SCALE

As indicated SHEET DATE

09/19/17

7/26/2019 2:06:30 PM

P:\2019032_GODIN 5 Northern Residential Units\CADD\Proj_Models\Revit Model\2019032 - Godin 5 Northern Concept 4.rvt

3

MASTER BATH W/D

W/D

MASTER BATH

MASTER BATH

2019032

Godin Concept #2

W/D

DN

DN UP

UP DN

MASTER BEDROOM

DN

MASTER BEDROOM

DN

UNIT A ROOF DECK

UNIT B ROOF DECK

UNIT C ROOF DECK

DN

DN

MASTER BEDROOM

5 Northern Blvd

DN

Plans UP DN

DRAWN BY

Author

3 A100

Level 2 1/4" = 1'-0"

4 A100

Roof Terrace 1/8" = 1'-0"

A100

CHECKED BY

Checker SHEET SCALE

As indicated SHEET DATE

08/02/2019

8/8/2019 11:09:40 AM


61

Overall Representation: Professional Renderings


57

Overall Representation: Chief Architect Renderings


55

Overall Representation: Freehand


Profile for Ema Scheifele

Ema Scheifele Portfolio  

This document is a compilation of important works I have completed since starting my education in 2015. There are examples of work done in t...

Ema Scheifele Portfolio  

This document is a compilation of important works I have completed since starting my education in 2015. There are examples of work done in t...

Advertisement