central univeristy architecturejoy liu, cal-berkeley engineeringnorm faris, stanford constructiontim...
TRANSCRIPT
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
[email protected](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 [email protected]
(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 [email protected]
(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!