central univeristy architecturejoy liu, cal-berkeley engineeringnorm faris, stanford constructiontim...

CENTRAL UNIVERISTYCENTRAL UNIVERISTY

ARCHITECTURE Joy Liu, Cal-Berkeley

ENGINEERING Norm Faris, Stanford

CONSTRUCTION Tim Kolaya, Georgia Tech

OWNER Alex Barron, Stanford

Engineering School – New Classroom Project

Project InformationProject Information

Central University Engineering SchoolLocation:

Los Angeles Metropolitan AreaBusy urban location / heavy trafficSeismic Concerns – San Andreas Fault (8 km)

SiteSite LocationLocation

Site in San Francisco• Selected for accessibility by team

3rd Street & Folsom

Site PhotographsSite Photographs

Design ConsiderationDesign Consideration

Remote Team Work

Seismic Urban Context Busy Traffic settingHigh Tech NeighborhoodWarm Climate

Structural – Loading ConditionsStructural – Loading Conditions

Gravity• Live Loads(UBC)

• Classroom / Offices = 50psf • Stairs/Corridors = 100psf• Auditorium seating = 50psf• Roof = 20psf

• Dead Loads• Lightweight Composite Deck = 70psf • Concrete Slabs = 12psf/1” thickness• Flooring, ceiling and fixtures = 10psf• HVAC = 5psf• Partitions = 20psf• Exterior Cladding = 20psf (Vertical Surface)

Lateral• Seismic Conditions

• Seismic Zone 4

• Soil Profile = SD

• Near Source Effects

• Occupancy Category = 1.0

• V = 0.205*W (Moment Frames)

• V = 0.169*W (EBF)

• Wind Loading

• Design Wind Speed (70mph) =

20.2 psf

Construction ConcernsConstruction Concerns

High Ground Water Level

Excavation/Shoring

Dewatering

Los Angeles Traffic

~16 -20 Ft.

Contact Information

Photo Project Goals

Personal Goals

AJoy Liu

baby_joy1@hotmail.com(510) 665-3961

► To transform the visionary goal into a reality.► To provide a design that has an aesthetic exterior & interior, a pleasant atmosphere and potential for future development.

► To gain confidence in my designs/ability to do good architecture.► To gain knowledge of other related fields, E/C► To develop my skills as a designer.

E Norm Farisnfaris@stanford.edu

(650) 497-7558

►To take the architect’s goals and C’s constraints to engineer a definable structure.►To design to ensure safety and functionality for normal operation and hazardous events.

►To better develop my interaction level between the A and C.►To become more efficient in being able to incorporate the A and C’s ideas and issues during the design phase.

C Tim Kolayagt6362c@prism.gatech.edu

(404) 607-9227

►To incorporate constructability ideas and issues within the architect’s and engineer’s designs.►To develop a project that will be on time and on budget.

►To develop my skills in using IT and other remote-team-based technology.►To become more familiar with the CM’s interaction with the A/E in project design and development stages.

Team Defined Goals – Beginning of ProjectTeam Defined Goals – Beginning of Project

RedesignRedesign

Ideas: “Sun Rise”

• Explore the space from underground to top

• Keep Circulation smooth

• Think of the functionality of the space

Sun RiseSun Rise

Old plan

New Plan

Basement 1st Floor 2nd Floor

Cafe

Gym

Cafe

Gym

Cafe

Sun RiseSun Rise

3-D Model

Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 1Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 1

Steel Moment Frames

• Beams: W24 x 84

• Columns : W14x120

Gravity System

• Composite Slab (t = 6.5”) - W14 x 22 Beams

• Columns: W12 x 50

In Context of Architectural Layout – 2nd Floor

Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 1Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 1

LOBBY: RADIAL STEEL GRAVITY SYSTEM

Beam to Concrete Wall w/ Embedded Plate and Studs

W12 Beams w/ 12” Channels @ Perimeter

Column to Mat Connection w/ Base Plate and Stiffener

W18 Column

Roof Opening

Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 2Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 2Concrete Moment Frames

• Beams: 18” x 24”

• Columns : 18” x 18”

Gravity System• Post Tensioned (PT) Slab

• Columns: 12” x 12”

•Lobby – PT Column Beam System

Foundation System

• 6’x6’ Spread Footings w/ 18” Grade Beams

• 18” Post-Tensioned Mat Foundation below basement

• 15” Retaining Wall

Sun Rise – Load Path (Alternative 1 & 2)Sun Rise – Load Path (Alternative 1 & 2)

Lateral Loads

• Distributed based upon rigidities

• Rigid Floor Diaphragm

Gravity Loads

• Post – Tension System:

Slab – Column - Foundation

• Composite Concrete & Steel System

Deck – Beam – Girder – Column - Foundation

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

M/E/P

Conveying Systems

Specialties

Finishes

Doors & Windows

Thermal & MoistureProtection

Woods & Plastics

Metals

Concrete (incl. Foundation)

Site Construction

General Requirements

Sun Rise – Construction ScheduleSun Rise – Construction Scheduleand Cost Breakdownand Cost Breakdown

Steel MRF w/ Composite Deck

Alt. 2

Concrete MRF w/ Post-Tensioned Deck

Alt. 1

ScheduleAlt. 1 – 9 monthsAlt. 2 – 8 months

Sun Rise - Team InteractionSun Rise - Team Interaction

AdaptOld Design

Attempt New Layout

Collaboration / Final Layout

Structural Design1st Iteration

Initial EstimateCost Concerns

Detailed Estimate

IssuesConcerns

Revisions

Updates

Architecture Vision of 2015Architecture Vision of 2015

Gaining awareness in Eco-design and sustainable architecture

Better and cheaper technology in day-lighting devices

New Design 1 - Square PlanNew Design 1 - Square Plan

Design Concepts:• “Flying Eagle”

In Southern Latitude:

– Respond to orientation

– Use Natural energy instead of artificial energy

– Progression

– Repetition of open and compressed space

N

Flying EagleFlying Eagle

N

Flying EagleFlying Eagle

Model

Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 1Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 1

Steel Moment Frames• Beams: W24 x 84

• Columns : W18 x 211

Gravity System• Composite Slab (t = 6.5”) w/ W12 x 26 Beams

• Long Span Trusses @ 3rd Floor over Auditorium

• Columns: W12 x 58

• Bending due to Lateral Loads induced in the Frame

• Additional Bending in columns due to Cantilever Support System

• Additional Costs to Reinforce Columns in their Weak Axis

Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 2Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 2Lateral System2nd & 3rd Floors-Shearwall• t = 8”

Roof - Concrete MRF• Beams: 24” x 16”

• Columns: 16” x 16”

Gravity System• 9” Flat Plate w/ Drop Beams

1st Floor Structural System

in Context of Architectural Layout

Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 3Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 3Concrete Moment Frame

• Beams: 24” x 18”

• Columns : 20” x 20”

Gravity System• 9” Flat Plate w/ Drop Beams between Columns

• 24” Waffle Slab for 3rd floor above auditorium

• Columns: 16” x 16”

Foundation System• 6’x6’ Spread Footings @ Columns

•15” Mat Foundation @ Basement Level

• 4’ Continuous Footing @ Perimeter Walls

• 12” Retaining Walls

Flying Eagle – Cantilever at 3Flying Eagle – Cantilever at 3rdrd Floor Floor

W14 Column Struts – Welded at Frame & Connected to Column w/ Welded Base Plate

TS Brace From Exterior Cantilever Columns to Frame

Composite Gravity System – Continuous From Main Structure

M.E.P SystemM.E.P System

All utilities localized at basement • Main Distribution Vertical• More Narrower Ducts • Single Excavation for Services• Centralized for efficiency

Based upon 30,000 ft2 Floor Area • Cooling Capacity = 90 tons

• Cooling Air Volume = 35000cfm

• Total Space for Boiler Room and Chilled Water Plant = 600ft2

• Area of Main Supply or Return Ducts = 20ft2

• Area of Branch Supply or Return Ducts = 35ft2

• Area of Fresh Air Louvers = 80ft2

• Area of Exhaust Air Louvers = 70ft2

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

M/E/P

Conveying Systems

Specialties

Finishes

Doors & Windows

Thermal & MoistureProtection

Wood & Plastics

Metals

Concrete (incl. Foundation)

Site Construction

General Requirements

Flying Eagle – Construction ScheduleFlying Eagle – Construction Schedule and Cost Breakdown and Cost Breakdown

Steel MRF

Alt. 1

Shear Wall Concrete MRF

Alt. 2 Alt. 3

ScheduleAlt. 1 – 7½ months Alt. 2 – 8½ monthsAlt. 3 – 8 months

Flying Eagle – Construction SequencingFlying Eagle – Construction Sequencing

Flying Eagle - Team InteractionFlying Eagle - Team Interaction

Propose Design

Structural Limitations

Presented

Back to the Drawing Board –

Revisions

Structural Solution

Constraints / Constructability

Finalize Design

IssuesConcerns

Estimates/Schedules

New Design 2 - Diamond PlanNew Design 2 - Diamond Plan

Idea:– “Pouring Stream”

• The contrast of solid and void

• Changes in experience

• Bring the flow of vegetation to inside of the building

• Recreation of Nature

Pouring StreamPouring Stream

New Plan

Old Plan

Pouring StreamPouring Stream

Pouring StreamPouring Stream

Section

Pouring StreamPouring Stream

Material Choice– Exterior

• Glass and lightweight metal with adjustable day-lighting metal panels.

– Changes the personality of the building from day to night

– Constant movement

– Interior• Atria space will use

wood(cladding)• Use concrete at other place.

At Day At Night

Pouring StreamPouring Stream

Model

Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 1Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 1 Steel Eccentric Brace Frame (EBF) w/ Composite Gravity System

W21 x 62 Link Beam

W21 ‘Outside’ Beam

W12 ColumnsTS 6 X6

Link Beam w/ Stiffeners

Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 1Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 1

24” Long Span Truss and Concrete Slab

W12 x 50

Columns

6.5” Composite Deck w/ W12 x 26 Beams

8” Bearing Wall

@ Elevator Shaft

3rd Floor Gravity System

Cantilever Beam – Column at Central Atrium

Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 2Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 2Steel SMRF w/ Shearwalls

• Beams: W21 x 62

• Columns : W14 x 120

• Shearwall: 8”

Gravity System

• Composite Deck(t=6.5) w/ W12 x 26 Beams

• Columns: W12 x 50

In Context of Architectural Layout – 3rd Floor

Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 3Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 3Concrete MRF w/ Shearwalls

• Beams: 16” x 18”

• Columns : 18” x 18”

• Shearwall: 8”

Gravity System• 10” Flat Plate w/ Drop Beams

• Columns: 12” x 12”

Foundation System• 6’x 6’ Spread Footings

• 4’ Cont. Footing @ Retaining Walls

• 12” Mat Foundation @ Utility Tunnel

• 12” Perimeter Retaining Wall

Moment Frame Connection

Pouring Stream – Construction SchedulePouring Stream – Construction Schedule and Cost Breakdown and Cost Breakdown

Steel EBF

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Steel SMRF Concrete MRF

ScheduleAlt. 1 – 8 monthsAlt. 2 – 8½ monthsAlt. 3 – 9 months

Pouring Stream - Construction SequencingPouring Stream - Construction Sequencing

Pouring Stream - Team InteractionPouring Stream - Team Interaction

Propose Design

Structural Limitations

Back to the Drawing Board –

Revisions

Initial Estimate / Constructability Issues

IssuesConcerns

Finalize Design

Estimates /Schedules

Structural Solutions

Cost Issues

Site Plan – 2 FootprintsSite Plan – 2 Footprints

Equipment SelectionEquipment Selection

Hydraulic Truck Crane

Hydraulic Hammer

Backhoe Loader / Front-end Loader

Welding Machines

Cement Mixers / Dump Trucks / various others…

Crawler – 150 Ton w/ 160 FT. BoomCrawler – 150 Ton w/ 160 FT. Boom

30-Year Inflation Rate TrendsBased on Consumer Price Index

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

Ra

te

Budget ConcernsBudget Concerns

Construction in 2015Project Budget : $5.5 MillionAssumed 3.5% InflationAdjusted Budget : $3.4 MillionCost Index for L.A. – 110%

Pouring Stream - Alt. 2Pouring Stream - Alt. 1Flying Eagle - Alt. 3Flying Eagle - Alt. 2Flying Eagle - Alt. 1Sunrise - Alt. 2Sunrise - Alt. 1New Adjusted BudgetAdjustment for Location - 1.1Adjustment for InflationOriginal 2015 Budget

Pouring Stream - Alt. 3

DDEECCIISSIIOONN

MMAATTRRIIXX

Pros ConsSunrise A Good Circulation & Use of Space Natural Light to Basement

1- (Steel SMRF w/ Composite Deck)

EChallenge in Gravity system - Lobby

Perimeter Frames min. reqd headroom Cantilever @ 2nd and 3rd Floors

C Within Budget Difficult Connections

2 - (Concrete MRF w/ P-T Slab)

EChallenge of P-T Concrete in Layout

Perimeter Frames minimize reqd headroomLong Span in Auditorium w/ P-T

C Efficient Erection Process Over Budget

Flying Eagle ADramatic Entrance, Progression Interesting,

Interesting Roof FormLess Reasonable Space Layout

1- (Steel SMRF w/ Composite Deck)

E3rd Floor Cantilever fits in w/ Exterior Steel

Effective in Seismic RegionBiaxial Bending in Frame

CBalanced Design Leads to Efficient

Construction MethodsAuditorium Construction Difficult

2 - (Shearwall w/ Flat Plate Gravity)

ECombination of Gravity and Lateral Systems

is EfficientDetaling Shearwalls for Penetrations

C Shortest Construction Time "

3 - (Concrete MRF w/ Flat Plate Gravity)

EMore Outside Viewing Space with Perimeter

FramesIntegrating Waffle Slab with the Concrete

Moment FramesC Economic Design "

Pouring Stream

AGood Space Layout, Great Potential for Poetic Space, Interesting Concept, Good

Eco-Design DevelopmentInefficient Use of Space

1- (Steel EBF w/ Composite Deck)

ESystem Hidden in Interior Spaces Excellent

Performance for RegionCost of Repair in Major Event

CCost Efficient, Balanced Design = Increased

EfficiencyAtrium Poses Uncertainties in Constructability

1- (Steel SMRF & Shearwall w/

Composite Deck)E

Versatile System, Shearwalls effective in Layout, SMRF is a 'Back-up' in case of

Shearwall FailureCantilever Gravity Scheme @ Core

CCost Efficient, Balanced Design = Increased

EfficiencyAtrium Poses Uncertainties in Constructability

3 - (Concrete MRF& Shearwall w/ Flat

Plate Gravity)E

Concrete Gravity System Effective @ Central Atrium, Consistent Integration of

Building Material

Interaction of Waffle Slab Over Auditorium w/ Moment Frame

CCost Efficient, Balanced Design = Increased

EfficiencyOver Budget

Preferred Design AlternativePreferred Design Alternative

‘ POURING STREAM’

A: Effective Space Layout, Potential for Poetic Space, Good Eco-Design Development

E: Steel SMRF w/ Shearwalls – Versatile – Efficient - Effective

C: Within Budget and Schedule Constraints - Atrium Poses Interesting Challenge

Team ImprovementTeam Improvement

Team Dynamics• A interacts with owner the most

• E is very good in informing A and C about his progress

• C is very consistent in keeping group records, organization

Improvements• More interaction with Owner and Mentors

• Inform each other about one’s progress more frequently

• Continue education between three disciplines

Thank you!Thank you!

We would like to pay our respect and gratitude to our mentors :

• Brook Barrett - DPR • David Bendet -MBT• Eric Elsesser - Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc • Helmut Krawinkler – Stanford• Paul Chinowsky – Georgia TechAND..• Renate Fruchter - Stanford

For contributing their valuable time and suggestions, Thank you!