DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix B – Eco-Charrette Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Appendix B – Eco-Charrette Report

2010 Facility Master Plan Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station

November 2010

2010 Facility Master Plan Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station

November 2010

  • Appendix B‐1:
  • Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station ‐ Eco‐Charrette – Final Report.

June 24, 2010. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks‐‐ Solid Waste Division. HDR Engineering, Inc.

  • Appendix B‐2:
  • Initial Guidance from the Salmon‐Safe Assessment Team regarding The

Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station – Site Design Evaluation. July 15, 2010. Salmon‐Safe, Inc.

  • Appendix B‐1:
  • Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station ‐ Eco‐Charrette – Final Report.

June 24, 2010. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks‐‐ Solid Waste Division. HDR Engineering, Inc.

Table of Contents

PART 1: ECO‐CHARRETTE...................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction and Purpose......................................................................................................................... 1 Project Background and Setting................................................................................................................ 1 Day 1. Introduction to the Sustainable Design Process ........................................................................... 3 Day 2: LEED Scorecard Review................................................................................................................. 4 The LEED Green Building Certification Program™ .................................................................................... 5 Eco‐Charrette Results Summary ............................................................................................................... 7

PART 2: DETAILED LEED STRATEGY.................................................................................................... 19

LEED Prerequisite and Credit Summaries ............................................................................................... 20

Sustainable Sites Category ......................................................................................................... 21

LEED Sustainable Sites Prerequisite 1.0, Construction Activity Pollution Prevention....................21 LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 1.0, Site Selection (1 point) ............................................................. 21 LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 2.0, Development Density and Community Connectivity (5 points)
........................................................................................................................................................23

LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 3.0, Brownfield Redevelopment (1 Point).......................................24 LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 4.1, Alternative Transportation–Public Transportation Access (6 Points) .............................................................................................................................................25

LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 4.2, Alternative Transportation–Bicycle Storage and Changing Rooms (1 Point)............................................................................................................................... 26

LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 4.3, Alternative Transportation–Low‐Emitting and Fuel‐Efficient Vehicles (3 Points)........................................................................................................................... 27

LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 4.4, Alternative Transportation–Parking Capacity (2 Points)..........28 LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 5.1, Site Development–Protect or Restore Habitat (1 Point)..........29 LEED Sustainable Sites Credit 5.2, Site Development–Maximize Open Space (1 Point) ................31 Sustainable Sites Credit 6.1, Stormwater Design–Quantity Control (1 Point)................................32 Sustainable Sites Credit 6.2, Stormwater Design–Quality Control (1 Point) ..................................34 Sustainable Sites Credit 7.1, Heat Island Effect—Non‐roof (1 Point) .............................................35 Sustainable Sites Credit 7.2, Heat Island Effect—Roof (1 Point) ....................................................37 Sustainable Sites Credit 8.0, Light Pollution Reduction (1 Point) ...................................................38

Water Efficiency Category .......................................................................................................... 41

  • Final Eco‐Charrette Report
  • i

Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station

LEED Water Efficiency Prerequisite 1: Water Use Reduction–20% Reduction Required ...............41 LEED Water Efficiency Credit 1.1, Water Efficient Landscaping–Reduce by 50% (2 Points) ..........41 LEED Water Efficiency Credit 1.2, Water Efficient Landscaping–No Potable Use or No Irrigation (2 Points) .............................................................................................................................................42

LEED Water Efficiency Credit 2, Innovative Wastewater Technologies (2 Points) ........................43

  • LEED Water Efficiency Credit 3, Water Use Reduction, 30%/35%/40%
  • (4 Points)..........44

Energy and Atmosphere Category .............................................................................................. 46

LEED Energy & Atmosphere Prerequisite 1, Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems ...........................................................................................................................................46

LEED Energy & Atmosphere Prerequisite 2, Minimum Energy Performance.................................47 LEED Energy & Atmosphere Prerequisite 3, Fundamental Refrigerant Management ...................48

  • LEED Energy & Atmosphere Credit 1, Optimize Energy Performance
  • (1 ‐ 19 Points)......49

LEED Energy & Atmosphere Credit 2, On‐Site Renewable Energy 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9%, 11%, 13% (1 – 7 Points) .......................................................................................................................................51

LEED Energy & Atmosphere Credit 3 – Enhanced Commissioning (2 Points).................................51 LEED Energy & Atmosphere Credit 4, Enhanced Refrigerant Management (2 Points) ..................53

  • LEED Energy & Atmosphere Credit 5, Measurement and Verification
  • (3 Points) ...........54

LEED Energy & Atmosphere Credit 6, Green Power (2 Points).......................................................56

Materials and Resources Category.............................................................................................. 58

LEED Materials & Resources Prerequisite 1, Storage and Collection of Recyclables .....................58 LEED Materials & Resources Credits 1.1, 1.2, Building Reuse, Maintain Existing Walls, Floors & Roof, Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non‐structural Elements (1 – 4 Points)...............59

LEED Materials & Resources Credit 2, Construction Waste Management, Divert 50%/75% from Disposal (1 ‐ 2 Points)...................................................................................................................... 60

LEED Materials & Resources Credits 3, Materials Reuse, 5%/10% (1 – 2 Points).........................61 LEED Materials & Resources Credits 4.1‐2, Recycled Content, 10%/20% (post‐consumer + ½ pre‐ consumer) (1 ‐2 Points)................................................................................................................... 62

LEED Materials & Resources Credit 5, 10%/20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Locally (1 – 2 Points) ..........................................................................................................................................65

  • LEED Materials & Resources Credit 6, Rapidly Renewable Materials
  • (1 Point) ........66

LEED Materials & Resources Credit 7, Certified Wood (1 Point) ....................................................67

Indoor Environmental Quality Category ..................................................................................... 69

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 1, Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance...69 LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Prerequisite 2, Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control .......69 LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 1, Outside Air Delivery Monitoring (1 Point)..............70

  • LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 2, Increased Ventilation
  • (1 Point)...........72

  • ii
  • Final Eco‐Charrette Report

Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 3.1, Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction (1 Point)..................................................................................................................... 74

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 3.2, Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy (1 Point)........................................................................................................................ 75

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 4, Low‐Emitting Materials ..........................................76 LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 4.1, Low–Emitting Materials: Adhesives & Sealants (1 Point)...............................................................................................................................................77

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 4.2, Low–Emitting Materials: Paints & Coatings (1 Point)...............................................................................................................................................78

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 4.3, Low–Emitting Materials: Flooring (1 Point).........79 LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 4.4, Low–Emitting Materials: Composite Wood Products ..........................................................................................................................................80

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 5, Indoor Chemical and Pollutant Source Control (1 Point)...............................................................................................................................................81

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 6.1, Controllability of Systems, Lighting (1 Point) ......83 LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 6.2, Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort (1 Point)...............................................................................................................................................83

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 7.1, Thermal Comfort, Design (1 Point)......................84 LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 7.2, Thermal Comfort, Verification (1 Point)..............85 LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 8.1, Daylight and Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces (1 Point)...............................................................................................................................................86

LEED Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 8.2, Daylight and Views, Views for 90% of Spaces (1 Point)...............................................................................................................................................87

Innovation In Design Category.................................................................................................... 89

LEED Innovation in Design Credit 1 (5 Points) ................................................................................ 89

  • LEED Innovation in Design Credit 2, LEED Accredited Professional
  • (1 Point)...............90

Regional Priority Category.......................................................................................................... 91

LEED Regional Priority Credits (4 Points) ........................................................................................ 91

Factoria RTS General LEED Assessment....................................................................................... 92

List of Appendices (Available upon request)

Appendix A – LEED Scorecard (June 2010) Appendix B – Roles and Responsibilities Appendix C – Eco‐Charrette Meeting Notes Appendix D – Aerial Site View

  • Final Eco‐Charrette Report
  • iii

Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station

  • iv
  • Final Eco‐Charrette Report

Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station

Part 1: Eco-Charrette Introduction and Purpose

The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Solid Waste Division (KCSWD) has goals for the Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station (Factoria RTS) Project that include environmental stewardship, creation of resources from solid waste, and green building principles. To meet these goals, the Factoria RTS project team is using an integrated, sustainable design process. As part of the sustainable design process, the design team conducted an Eco‐Charrette with the project team and KCSWD staff. The Eco‐Charrette consisted of two workshops: Day 1: Sustainable Design Process and Day 2: LEED Scorecard Review.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the Eco‐Charrette results and include a summary of environmental site characteristics, a preliminary LEED score, and a LEED strategy to use moving forward. This report presents the sustainable design and LEED strategies evaluated during preliminary site design and layout. As design and coordination with the project team and stakeholders continue to final design, the strategies may change and evolve. The sustainable design and LEED strategies will continue to be updated and tracked through monthly progress reports.

The following sections describe the project background and setting, then summarize the Eco‐ Charrette results for Day 1: Sustainable Design Process and Day 2: LEED Scorecard Review. Appendix A contains the current LEED scorecard, which includes minor updates since the Eco‐ Charrette. Appendix B summarizes the team roles and responsibilities for each LEED credit. Appendix C includes the meeting notes and the interactive Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) summary.

Project Background and Setting

The Factoria RTS is one of eight County transfer stations where waste is collected, transferred into large tractor‐trailers, and subsequently hauled to the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill (CHRLF) in Maple Valley, Washington. Commercial haulers and business and residential self‐haul customers use the Factoria RTS. The Factoria RTS was constructed in the 1960s and is nearing the end of its useful life.

The County intends to maintain operation of the existing transfer station during construction of its replacement on adjacent property. The new Factoria RTS will include the following features:



Enclosed solid waste transfer and processing area Employee/administration facility and education center

  • Final Eco‐Charrette Report
  • 1

Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station



Scalehouse with weigh station plaza Fueling facility Maintenance shop Household hazardous waste (HHW) collection area Recycling facility Vactor truck decant area
Construction of the new facilities is planned to occur in two phases to limit disruption to site operations. The first construction phase is expected to include the new Factoria RTS, administration and employee areas, a maintenance shop, fueling facility, vactor truck decant area, and access roads. The second construction phase will include a new facility for HHW and recycling functions, improved onsite and offsite access roads, new truck scales and a scalehouse facility.

The Factoria RTS is situated on an approximately 8.7‐acre parcel that is constrained by steep topography, wetlands, streams, and a large utility corridor easement occupied by Olympic Pipeline high‐pressure liquid petroleum lines and Puget Sound Energy (PSE) overhead power lines. The transfer station operation and household hazardous waste (HHW) collection are contained within one large building on the site. Southeast 32nd Street terminates at the Factoria RTS entrance, where a small scalehouse is located to weigh vehicles upon entering and exiting the site. To maintain existing operations, the County purchased adjacent property northwest of the site that contains two warehouse buildings, bringing the total size of the project site to approximately 10.7 acres. The photo below is an aerial image of the site. Appendix D includes full‐page aerial snapshots of the site.

Factoria RTS Aerial View

  • 2
  • Final Eco‐Charrette Report

Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station

Day 1. Introduction to the Sustainable Design Process

The sustainable design process is an integrated process that must be implemented during planning, design, construction, and operation. The integrated process includes an outward‐in approach:



Site opportunities Site constraints

KC Department of Natural Resources and Parks Mission: To

foster environmental stewardship and strengthen communities by providing regional parks, protecting the region’s water, air, land, and natural habitats, and reducing, safely disposing of, and creating resources from wastewater and solid waste.

Energy conservation and renewable energy opportunities



LEED structure Framework for cost and schedule

Factoria RTS Goals:

 Maintain existing operations safely and efficiently while the new facility is constructed.

Day 1 of the Eco‐Charrette provided an overview of the sustainable design process, and then focused on site and energy conservation opportunities. During Day 1 of the Eco‐ Charrette the project team discussed the site starting with regional and community levels, then focused on the site itself. This approach allowed the project team to brainstorm in an open forum about opportunities and ideas, experiences, and lessons learned. It was helpful to welcome all ideas before focusing on LEED requirements, because it may be possible to innovate and include ideas that otherwise may not have been brought forth.

 Architectural excellence. Design and construct a facility that will enhance the local community, achieve at least a LEED Gold rating, and tie into the overall plans for the area (trails and mass transportation facilities).

 Develop the Eastgate property to potentially provide funding for the Factoria RTS project and to secure support for the Factoria RTS project from the City of Bellevue

After discussing the KCSWD mission and the Factoria RTS goals, some of the key design criteria were also discussed:

 Diversion. Increase waste diversion through improved public recycling opportunities and the transfer facility design.



Enclosed solid waste transfer and processing area HHW collection Recycling facility Separate public and commercial users from KCSWD transfer vehicles Minimize customer time onsite Increase vehicle capacity 900 tons/day capacity (by 2042)

  • Final Eco‐Charrette Report
  • 3

Factoria Recycling and Transfer Station



3 days’ storage capability Ability to efficiently compact waste Minimum roof clearance for collection trucks Wetland mitigation Traffic flows and site access Retaining walls/grading Trailer parking Stormwater features Sustainable features Flexibility for expansion and additional services

Once the sustainable design process, guiding principles, goals, and key design criteria were discussed for the framework, the project team participated in an interactive Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis. The SWOT analysis was framed by a discussion of the built and natural environments in the context of the community and the site. The discussion also focused on energy efficiency and operations and maintenance.

The opportunities and concerns resulting from this exercise will serve as a point of reference throughout design, construction, and ideally, operation of the facility, especially the operations and maintenance (O&M) discussions. While some ideas may contribute to the LEED strategies, other ideas might contribute to best management practices or “pilot” ideas where the KCSWD might choose to lead by example and test new strategies.

The detailed results of the SWOT analysis are included in Appendix C as meeting notes as well as a reproduction of the flip chart notes that were used throughout the Eco‐Charrette. The Eco‐Charrette results section below includes select ideas from the SWOT analysis that could be considered with a specific LEED credit.

Day 2: LEED Scorecard Review

Day 2 of the Eco‐Charrette provided an overview of the LEED certification process, and then focused on each of the LEED credits using the information developed from the SWOT analysis and project team experience on LEED projects and other transfer stations in the region. The one‐page LEED scorecard that resulted from Day 2 of the Eco‐Charrette (with minor updates from follow up) is

Recommended publications
  • Tool Design Engineer

    Tool Design Engineer

    Job Description Tool Design Engineer Job Title: Tool Design Engineer FLSA Status: Non-exempt Department: Engineering Reports To: Tooling and Engineering Manager Prepared By: Rich Neubauer Prepared Date: 1/13/2021 Approved By: Approved Date: Summary Under the direction of department management, perform engineering assignments relative to the development and design of metal stamping tools, dies, jigs, adapters, gauging devices, machine attachments, and special or single purpose machine tools. Analyze operational requirements, designs, dimensions, materials and treating specifications, etc. Prepare initial drawings, cost estimates, material requisitions, work orders etc. Design progressive and stage dies, jigs, fixtures, gauges etc. Work from sketches, instructions, specifications, and application data. Utilize CAD techniques to perform applicable drafting work. Assist with determining the various design factors e.g. economical production use, tool cost, versatility, locating points, securing methods, tolerances, materials, material treatment etc. Detail sections of large tools to facilitate expediting of work to tool manufacturers or within company Toolroom. Job Duties and Responsibilities 1. Complete designs for progressive and stage tooling, die modifications, fixtures and jigs using SolidWorks. 2. Maintain CAD software and hardware. 3. Maintain materials, records, and resources in a documented system to enable others to use these materials. 4. Maintain proper up-to-date file management for all designs. 5. Create Purchase Orders (POs) in JobBOSS for the toolroom and die builds. 6. Conduct communication meetings and offer support during the design, build and debug process. Additional Job Duties and Responsibilities 7. Work with existing and new customers with product design support. 8. Perform quality assurance on completed designs. 9. Develop and maintain design standards.
  • BEYOND SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH REGENERATIVE ARCHITECTURE Regenerative Urban Landscapes

    BEYOND SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH REGENERATIVE ARCHITECTURE Regenerative Urban Landscapes

    BEYOND SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH REGENERATIVE ARCHITECTURE Regenerative Urban Landscapes SAM NEMATI Thesis Report Master of Fine Arts in Architecture and Urban Design Year 5 Studio 12 Tutors: Alejandro Haiek, Carl-Johan Vesterlund, Andrew Bellfild, Tom Dobson Spring 2020 Umeå School of Architecture Umeå University 4640 Words Sam Nemati Thesis Report Spring 2020 Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER 1: Beyond sustainability through regenerative architecture ..................................................... 6 1. Climate Change and Regenerative Architecture ................................................................................... 6 2. Regenerative Architecture in Practice .................................................................................................. 7 2.1. Case Study: Playa Viva, Mexico (2009) .............................................................................................. 8 3. Regenerative
  • Lean Process Design a Concept of Process Quality

    Lean Process Design a Concept of Process Quality

    Lean Process Design A Concept of Process Quality David N. Card [email protected] Agenda Background and Objectives Concepts of Lean Lean Process Design Process Summary Background CMMI® requires the definition of processes that cover certain goals and practices • Requires “sufficiency” • Does not provide criteria for a “good” process – not an appraisal consideration Lean principles provide “goodness” criteria for processes Lean usually applied as a re-engineering technique, e.g., Kaizen CMMI® is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University 3 Objectives Identify the process “goodness” criteria implicit in Lean principles Explain how these can be applied during the design and initial definition of processes Minimize later rework and re-engineering 4 The Lean Misconception Lean is not about “light weight” processes “Lean” refers to reducing inventory and “work in progress” Lean is accomplished through robust processes • Simple • Reliable • Standardized • Enforced Caveat: many flavors of Lean 5 Five Lean Principles Value – identify what is really important to the customer and focus on that Value Stream – ensure all activities are necessary and add value Flow – strive for continuous processing through the value stream Pull – drive production with demand Perfection – prevent defects and rework Value Stream = Business Process 6 Views of Lean Industry Five Observed Principles Domain • Value • Value Stream Language • Flow Queuing & Culture Theory • Pull • Perfection Perfection Technical Practices • Similar to Six Sigma (including
  • Multifarious Approaches to Attain Sustainable Fashion

    Multifarious Approaches to Attain Sustainable Fashion

    Dr. Nidhi L Sharda is an Associate Professor in the Department of Multifarious Approaches to Knitwear Design at National Institute of Fashion Technology, Bangalore. In Attain Sustainable Fashion the decade and a half of her profes- sional life, she has extensively utilized Dr. Nidhi L. Sharda, Mr. Mohan Kumar VK her applied research which focuses Dept. of Knitwear Design, National Institute of Fashion Technology, Bangalore on the area of apparel and textile [email protected] design. Her applied research focuses on the area of textile and costumes Abstract with research experience in the field Fashion is a huge industry and affects environmental, economic and social system in of natural dyes, sustainable fashion, many ways. Exploitation of resources for ever changing trends in fashion is immense clothing and craft. and providing these demands put enormous pressure on the environment. In such a situation sustainable practices in every human activity has become important and fashion Mr. Mohan Kumar VK is an Assistant is not less affected by this drive. Fashion professionals have to play major role to Professor & Centre Coordinator of the inculcate the concept of sustainable fashion with responsibility in their product line. It Department of Knitwear Design at is important that while designing, designer should understand the benefits of sustain- National Institute of Fashion able operation starting with concept development level. In this paper design solutions Technology, Bangalore. He has 9 years for sustainable fashion are inferred in a design school scenario. The main idea to do so of teaching experience in NIFT. As a is to develop more sensible and responsible designs, which can be better solutions for designer, NIFT being his Alma Mater, sustainable fashion.
  • A Guide to Environmentally Sustainable Landscape Architecture Products

    A Guide to Environmentally Sustainable Landscape Architecture Products

    A Guide to Environmentally Sustainable Landscape Architecture Products jonite.com/a-guide-to-environmentally-sustainable-and-long-lasting-landscape-architecture-products May 23, 2019 Landscape architects play an essential role in creating design interventions to ensure environmental sustainability. As we’ve explained in our other post on architectural trends that are here to stay (link), sustainability and climate adaptation strategies have not only been increasingly in the focus, but is here to stay. Sustainable architecture aims to incorporate elements of green design into various parts of the building. The main goal is to strike a beautiful harmony between green life and architecture to preserve nature and improve the quality of living. Green buildings are designed in a way to be built in a way that reduces harmful impact on the environment. What is environmentally sustainable design? 1/13 Environmentally sustainable design (or environmentally-conscious design, eco-design) is the philosophy of designing physical objects, the built environment and services to comply with the principles of ecological sustainability. Its core idea is to eliminate wastefulness and minimise environmental impact through architecture design. There are some common principles in sustainable design that most designers take into consideration when scoping out their design projects. They include the following: Choosing low-impact materials: These come in the form of choosing products that have high recycled content incorporated in the manufacturing process. Also, designers may choose materials that are locally sourced to reduce the carbon footprint of transporting materials to the project site. Choosing energy-efficient materials: Designers may also take the time to understand the material’s basic manufacturing processes and make their choice based on the energy involved in producing their selected materials.
  • An Example-Centric Tool for Context-Driven Design of Biomedical Devices

    An Example-Centric Tool for Context-Driven Design of Biomedical Devices

    Advances in Engineering Education WINTER 2015 An Example-Centric Tool for Context-Driven Design of Biomedical Devices RACHEL DZOMBAK Department of Civil Engineering University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA KHANJAN MEHTA Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship (HESE) Program AND PETER BUTLER Department of Bioengineering The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA ABSTRACT Engineering is one of the most global professions, with design teams developing technologies for an increasingly interconnected and borderless world. In order for engineering students to be proficient in creating viable solutions to the challenges faced by diverse populations, they must receive an expe- riential education in rigorous engineering design processes as well as identify the needs of customers living in communities radically different from their own. Acquainting students with the unique context and constraints of developing countries is difficult because of the breadth of pertinent considerations and the time constraints of academic semesters. This article describes a tool called Global Biomedi- cal Device Design, or GloBDD, that facilitates simultaneous instruction in design methodology and global context considerations. GloBDD espouses an example-centric approach to educate students in the user-centered and context-driven design of biomedical devices. The tool employs real-world case studies to help students understand the importance of identifying external considerations early in the design process: issues like anthropometric, contextual, social, economic, and manufacturing considerations amongst many others. This article presents the rationale for the tool, its content and organization, and evaluation results from integration into a junior-level biomedical device design class. Results indicate that the tool engages students in design space exploration, leads them to making sound design decisions, and teaches them how to defend these decisions with a well-informed rationale.
  • Interaction Design Studio - 711 Instructor: Patrick Thornton Email: Pthornt1@Umd.Edu Thursday 6-8:45 Pm Location: Pac 1815 - Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center

    Interaction Design Studio - 711 Instructor: Patrick Thornton Email: [email protected] Thursday 6-8:45 Pm Location: Pac 1815 - Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center

    Interaction Design Studio - 711 Instructor: Patrick Thornton Email: [email protected] Thursday 6-8:45 pm Location: Pac 1815 - Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center Course Description Interaction design is the process of defining products and the broad services built around them. When interacting with systems, people build expectations and mental models of how things work. They learn what they can and cannot achieve. This course is about how to design for interactions that will resonate with your audiences: How the features and functions of a product get translated into something people find usable, useful, and desirable. Through a series of lectures, discussions, in-class design practice, and projects, students will explore the role of interaction designers. Students will learn how to prototype interactive products, systems, and services, and how to defend their work through the cycle of brainstorming and shared critique. This is a studio class, focusing on production processes that are required to develop public-facing work. The studio is important both as a working space and a space for collaborative reflection. Studio practice also describes a working method. As such, the INST711 classroom will focus on two activities: ● Externalization: You will put your ideas and conceptualizations into tangible materials. ● Critique: You will both give and receive constructive feedback on your own work and the work of other students in class. Student Learning Outcomes On the successful completion of this course, students will be able to: ● Explain basic concepts, techniques, and knowledge of interaction design. ● Critically discuss common methods in the interaction design process ● Use visual thinking and communication techniques to develop design concepts ● Build prototypes at varying levels of fidelity and can evaluate them using appropriate methods ● Develop critiquing skills to analyze interaction design artifacts and concept design.
  • Personas in Action: Ethnography in an Interaction Design Team

    Personas in Action: Ethnography in an Interaction Design Team

    NordiCHI, October 19-23, 2002 Short Papers Personas in Action: Ethnography in an Interaction Design Team Åsa Blomquist Mattias Arvola Department of Information Technology Dept. of Computer and Information Science Swedish National Tax Board Linköpings universitet SE-117 94 Solna, Sweden SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden +46 8 7648192 +46 13 285626 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT was an IT-company with offices in six countries and had Alan Cooper’s view on interaction design is both appealing around 250 employees, before it went into bankruptcy. The and provoking since it avoids problems of involving users main business of Q was to develop and sell The Portal, by simply excluding them. The users are instead which is an individualised company portal, or an advanced represented by an archetype of a user, called persona. This intranet. The purpose of The Portal was, according to the paper reports a twelve-week participant observation in an description from the company, to help co-workers in large interaction design team with the purpose of learning what information intense and knowledge intense organisations to really goes on in a design team when they implement work more efficiently. The work behind this article was personas in their process. On the surface it seemed like they made in cooperation with the User Experience Team at Q. used personas, but our analysis show how they had They were responsible for the interaction design and the difficulties in using them and encountered problems when graphical design at the company. Working with personas trying to imagine the user.
  • DEVELOPING a PARAMETRIC URBAN DESIGN TOOL. Some Structural Challenges and Possible Ways to Overcome Them

    DEVELOPING a PARAMETRIC URBAN DESIGN TOOL. Some Structural Challenges and Possible Ways to Overcome Them

    DEVELOPING A PARAMETRIC URBAN DESIGN TOOL. SOME STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO OVERCOME THEM Nicolai Steinø1, Esben Obeling2 1 Aalborg University, Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Østerågade 6, DK – 9000 Aalborg, Denmark 2 Urban Design Independent researcher E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Parametric urban design is a potentially powerful tool for collaborative urban design processes. Rather than making one- off designs which need to be redesigned from the ground up in case of changes, parametric design tools make it possible keep the design open while at the same time allowing for a level of detailing which is high enough to facilitate an understan- ding of the generic qualities of proposed designs. Starting from a brief overview of parametric design, this paper presents initial findings from the development of a parametric urban design tool with regard to developing a structural logic which is flexible and expandable. It then moves on to outline and discuss further development work. Finally, it offers a brief reflection on the potentials and shortcomings of the software – CityEngine – which is used for developing the parametric urban design tool. Keywords: parametric design; urban design; building footprint; sequential hierarchy; design tools INTRODUCTION The overall aim of the research presented in this important once the tool is put to use, it need not be the paper is to develop a parametric urban design tool. focus of design at the early design stages. Hence, the While the research is in its early stages of development, focus of this paper lies on developing a structural logic the aim of the paper is to present some initial results and for a parametric urban design tool which is parametri- to outline further development.
  • Design Process Visualizing and Review System with Architectural Concept Design Ontology

    Design Process Visualizing and Review System with Architectural Concept Design Ontology

    INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, ICED’07 28 - 31 AUGUST 2007, CITE DES SCIENCES ET DE L'INDUSTRIE, PARIS, FRANCE DESIGN PROCESS VISUALIZING AND REVIEW SYSTEM WITH ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT DESIGN ONTOLOGY Sung Ah Kim and Yong Se Kim Creative Design & Intelligent Tutoring Systems (CREDITS) Research Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Korea ABSTRACT DesignScape, a prototype design process visualization and review system, is being developed. Its purpose is to visualize the design process in more intuitive manner so that one can get an insight to the complicated aspects of the design process. By providing a tangible utility to the design process performed by the expert designers or guided by the system, novice designers will be greatly helped to learn how to approach a certain class of design. Not only as an analysis tool to represent the characteristics of the design process, the system will be useful also for learning design process. A design ontology is being developed as a critical part of the system, to represent designer’s activities associated with various design information during the conceptual design process, and then to be utilized for a computer environment for design analysis and guidance. To develop the design ontology, a conceptual framework of design activity model is proposed, and then the model has been tested and elaborated through investigating the early phase of architectural design. A design process representation model is conceptualized based on the ontology, and reflected into the development of the system. Keywords: Design Process, Design Research, Design Ontology, Design Activity, Architectural Design 1 INTRODUCTION Design is an evolving process interwoven with numerous intermediate representations and various design information.
  • 244 Project 1 = 10% Sustainability 101 Design Manifesto

    244 Project 1 = 10% Sustainability 101 Design Manifesto

    244 PROJECT 1 = 10% SUSTAINABILITY 101 DESIGN MANIFESTO WHAT • Write your vision for your career through a personal manifesto. Present it in the form of an 11X17” colour poster. Use concept, layout and typography to share your vision in a unique way. • Your target audience is future industry employers. Imagine that employerw will decide who to hire based on this poster. WHY • To document your understanding of sustainable design and to explore how you see it influencing your future practice. • To practice communicating a message quickly and engagingly in a poster format, using concept, layout, imagery, typography, etc. • To give you an opportunity to implement design principles such as balance, scale, colour, figure/ground and framing. HOW • Review the links to examples of past design manifestos for inspiration. • Consider what you’ve uncovered about sustainable design. What resonates with you? What elements of sustainable design will you apply in your work? • Design a poster that includes your name and demonstrates that you understand the four pillars of sustainability. Write your manifesto in one or several paragraphs. It’s a poster, so keep it to 150 words maximum. • Consider the vernacular and the sensibilities of your target audience. • Consider what kind of design will best reflect you and your personality as a designer. • Combine two different type families in your design, and use at least three levels of type hierarchy. • Consider how to inject your personal voice into the copy itself and the typography. • Sketch different ideas. Revise and refine. • Post a jpg/png of your poster on your blog along and provide a rationale.
  • Application of Sustainable Integrated Process Design and Control for Four Distillation Column Systems

    Application of Sustainable Integrated Process Design and Control for Four Distillation Column Systems

    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281393677 Application of Sustainable Integrated Process Design and Control for Four Distillation Column Systems ARTICLE in CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS · SEPTEMBER 2015 Impact Factor: 1.03 · DOI: 10.3303/CET1545036 READS 52 3 AUTHORS: Mohamad Zulkhairi Nordin Mohamad Rizza Othman Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Malaysia Pahang 8 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Mohd. Kamaruddin Abd. Hamid Universiti Teknologi Malaysia 93 PUBLICATIONS 95 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Mohd. Kamaruddin Abd. Hamid letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 11 November 2015 provided by UMP Institutional Repository View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk CORE brought to you by 211 A publication of CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS The Italian Association VOL. 45, 2015 of Chemical Engineering www.aidic.it/cet Guest Editors: Petar Sabev Varbanov, Jiří Jaromír Klemeš, Sharifah Rafidah Wan Alwi, Jun Yow Yong, Xia Liu Copyright © 2015, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l., ISBN 978-88-95608-36-5; ISSN 2283-9216 DOI: 10.3303/CET1545036 Application of Sustainable Integrated Process Design and Control for Four Distillation Column Systems Mohamad Z. Nordina, Mohamad R. Othmanb, Mohd K. A. Hamid*a aProcess Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia bProcess System Engineering Group (PSERG), Faculty of Chemical and Natural Resources Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300 Gambang, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia [email protected] The objective of this paper is to present the application of sustainable integrated process design and control methodology for distillation columns systems.