520 likes | 537 Views
Introduction: The People. Owner: Tomo Cerovsek: Slovenia Contract: A rchitectural Design: Mario Sargac E ngineering Design: Michael Jewsbury C onstruction Manager: Roger Lee A pprentice: Kit Fleming Location: Hope River, Lake Tahoe Detailed Design Phase. Four Alternatives.
E N D
Introduction: The People • Owner: Tomo Cerovsek: Slovenia • Contract:ArchitecturalDesign:Mario Sargac EngineeringDesign:Michael Jewsbury ConstructionManager:Roger Lee Apprentice: Kit Fleming • Location: Hope River, Lake Tahoe • Detailed Design Phase
Four Alternatives
Alternative 1 2nd floor plan 3rd floor plan 1st floor plan
Alternative 2 A A E C
Alternative 3 RC June 10, 2012 Precast May 22, 2012 Sept. 25, 2012 • Cantilevers • Too Much Steel • Roofing System • Doesn’t Meet Square Footage Requirement Sept. 12, 2012 May 15, 2012 Steel Sept. 5, 2012
Pros/cons • Cost • Constructability • Challenge • Satisfaction of Owner Requirements • Life-Cycle Costs • Owner’s second choice • Need for New Technology
Architect Fakulteta za Gradbenistvo in Geodezijo
Architecture • #1 Floor plan
Architecture • #1 Floor cutaway
Architecture • #2 Floor plan
Architecture • #2 floor cutaway
Architecture • #3 Floor plan
Architecture • #3 floor cutaway
Room layout requirements • Typical room sizes on #1, #2 and #3 floor: required vs. designed {sq ft}
Requirements Structural Seismic Design Gravity Design • Geometry Alignment • System Design • Component Design • PB-Design Big Picture
Interations Gravity A E A C • Structure vs. Architecture • Integration • Gravity Design • FL = 0.244 ksf • W18X35 C=1” (40) • W18x46 C=1” (45) • W14X30 C=1/8” (22) • C9X15
Structural Gravity • Structure vs. Architecture • Integration • Gravity Design • FL = 0.244 ksf • W18X35 C=1” (40) • W18x46 C=1” (45) • W14X30 C=1/8” (22) • C9X15
Structural Gravity • Structure vs. Architecture • Integration • Gravity Design • RL = 0.588 ksf • W21X147 C=3/8”(36) • W21x101 C=1” (52) • W18X40 C=1/8” (45) • W21X160 C = 1” (40)
Iterations Foundation A E A C • Foundation Design • Bearing=4-5ksf • Glacial Till/Bedrock • Ring Beam • Grade Beam • Spread Footing
Structural Gravity System Max 300k Factored
Seismic Design T1 = .31 sec T2 = .29 sec Vx = 925 k Vy = 1001 k • PGA = .4g • Elastic = .18g • Inelastic = .7g • UBC1997 Elastic/Inelastic • Spectral Analysis (SAP2000) • Loma Prieta Ground Motions for Bedrock Sites • Nonlinear Analysis/ P-delta • FE Shear Walls 10% Prob. In 50 years 2% Prob. In 50 years MCE = 7.2
Seismic Design Drift = .42% Shear Wall Stress = 1ksi Inelastic Stress = 4 ksi • Shear Wall Design • Performance Based Design • Ductile Failure in worst case EQ-IV SP2 Performance (some repair) NP2 Performance (some Damage) Enhanced Performance Objective 2 (SEAOC)
Shear Stud Reinforcement Steel Deck Concrete Diaphragm Shear Wall And Misc. MEP ROOF
Foundation Site Profile Bedrock Settlement Foundation Slab on grade Spread Footing
Construction Requirements & Challenges • Schedule Limitations • May 2012 - Early room occupancy for computer lab • September 30, 2012 - Project completes for dedication • Schedule Risks • Winter weather during months of January and February may affect concrete pour • Lead time for Structural steel and MEP equipment
Construction Requirements & Challenges • Budget Limitations • Total Budget - $4,200,000 • Structural Budget - $370,000 • Budget Risks • Inflation Rate - Assumed 2.5% • Production Rate - Skill labor force is limited in Lake Tahoe area • Winter Weather - May need to heat concrete forms
Excavation October 3, 2011 • Excavate from South to North • 2 Weeks • 180 CY/Day • $41,000
Footing and Foundation October 10, 2011 • Starting from South Side • 5 weeks • $24,600
Steel Frame November 14, 2011 • Start from east and back out • Steel structure • Metal decking • 2 weeks to erect • 3 weeks to PBW
Shear Walls November 30, 2011 • Total Structural System $422,000
Milestone #1 January 3, 2012 • Steel Structure complete • Shear walls poured • Start pouring slabs from top down to accommodate early occupancy
MEP Systems Light 12’ 10’ 9’ January 30, 2012 • Beam Height Consideration
Interior February 6, 2012 • Glass walls vs. Stud walls • $50/SF for glass • $3/SF for stud • $5/SF aerogel
Slab on Grade February 6, 2012 • Concurrent activity with 3rd floor interior & MEP systems • Place vapor barrier & sand with bob cat • Also finish strip footing on west side
Exterior Cladding February 27, 2012 • GFRC Panels $384,000 • Concurrent with interior work at 3rd and 2nd flrs
Milestone #2 - Early Occupancy May 14, 2012 • 2nd floor interior partially complete
Project Completion September 10, 2012 • Ahead of schedule
SWOT Analysis for Construction • Strengths • Meets owner’s schedule requirements • Cost effective at $112/SF • Weaknesses • Heavy roof beam • Construction sequence forced by staggered trusses system • 4.4 Million • High cost for interior glass wall
SWOT Analysis for Construction • Opportunities • Cost savings by reducing amount of glass walls • Cost savings with Aerogel • Threats • Winter weather • Lack of skill labor pool • Installation of glass walls
Materials • Aerogel • What is Aerogel? • Strengths: strength/weight, insulation • Weaknesses: cost, transparency • Opportunities: insulation, windows • Threats: cost
Materials • Supercritical Ceramics • What are supercritical ceramics? • Strengths: perfect formation, strength/weight • Weaknesses: scale, fabrication • Opportunities: environment • Threats: patents
The Process A Iteration Collaboration Communication International C E
Team Matrix A E C Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4