1 / 35

The Central Project

The Central Project. Central University – A/E/C Engineering Building. ARCHITECTURE Joy Liu, Cal-Berkeley ENGINEERING Norm Faris, Stanford CONSTRUCTION Tim Kolaya, Georgia Tech OWNER Alex Barron, Stanford. Site Context. Central University Engineering School Location:

edythe
Download Presentation

The Central Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Central Project Central University – A/E/C Engineering Building ARCHITECTURE Joy Liu, Cal-Berkeley ENGINEERING Norm Faris, Stanford CONSTRUCTION Tim Kolaya, Georgia Tech OWNER Alex Barron, Stanford

  2. Site Context • Central University Engineering School • Location: • Los Angeles Metropolitan Area • Busy urban location / heavy traffic • Seismic Concerns – San Andreas Fault (8 km) • Warm Climate • High Ground Water Level

  3. Site Plan

  4. Designs & Decision Matrix New Design1: Flying Eagle 1st Fl. 2nd Fl. 3rd Fl. New Design 2: Pouring Stream 2nd Fl. 3rd Fl. 1st Fl.

  5. Architect Vision of 2015 • Awareness in Green Design for Sustainable Architecture • Better and cheaper materials ex. low-e glass Design Focus • Roof design • Poetic experience in space • Privacy measure • Green Design development

  6. Pouring Stream- 1st Floor N

  7. Pouring Stream- 2nd Floor N

  8. Pouring Stream- 3rd Floor N

  9. Evaluation

  10. Revised Roof Keep Rain out Roof Design Ceiling Fans • Average Wind Breeze between 10-15 miles per hour (direction N or W) • Average Seasonal Rain Fall 14.77 inches Air ventilation OldRoof N

  11. Sections Section B A B B Section A A

  12. Photovoltaic (PV) cells Concrete (Aerated) Material Choice Traffic Traffic

  13. 3D Model

  14. STRUCTURAL MODEL DUAL LATERAL SYSTEM: SHEARWALLS AND PERIMETER STEEL SMRF COMPOSITE GRAVITY SYSTEM: CONCRETE SLAB w/ STEEL BEAMS

  15. ANALYSIS – DESIGN & LOADING DESIGN USING UBC ’97 CRITERIA • LOADING CRITERIA • BASE SHEAR: V = 510 KIPS • NEAR SOURCE EFFECTS • DUAL SYSTEM: R = 8.5 • DL (TYPICAL) = 70PSF • DL (AUDITORIUM) = 90PSF • LL (CLASSROOM) = 50PSF • LL (CORRIDORS) = 80PSF SHEARWALL AND STEEL SMRF DESIGN: 100% BASE SHEAR TO WALLS 25% TO FRAMES (BACK-UP) DYNAMIC NONLINEAR LATERAL ANALYSIS - VERIFICATION (ETABS) - ’97 RESPONSE SPECTRA TORSIONAL EFFECTS 100% V + TORSIONAL RESISTANCE 13% V 13% V V TORSIONAL RESISTANCE GRAVITY PATH

  16. FOUNDATION MAT FOUNDATION @ UTILITY DESIGN CRITERIA: - 5 KSF BEARING • SANDY SOIL • WATER DEPTH = 15FT 8” 12” 3’-0” X 3’-0” @ MRF MRF FTGS: 7’-6” X 7’-6” GRAVITY SPREAD FTGS: 6’-0” X 6’-0” 1st FLOOR S.O.G. – 4” w/ #4 @18” O.C. AUDITORIUM S.O.G – 6” w/ #4 @ 12 O.C. 2’-6” X 6’-0” CONT. FTG. WITH 3’-6”SHEAR KEY

  17. 1ST FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT) RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’ LAB & LARGE CLASSROOM AUDITORIUM w/ PRECAST RISERS JOINING 2ND FLOOR. SMRF COLUMNS: W14 X 61 SMRF BEAMS: W21 X 62 SMALL CLASSROOMS SHEARWALLS: 8” W/ BOUNDARY ZONES TYPICAL GRAVITY COLUMN: W8X31

  18. 2ND FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT) RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’ LABS SMRF BEAMS: W18 X 60 STUDENT OFFICES SEMINAR COMPUTER ROOM

  19. 3RD FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT) RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’ LONG SPAN PRE-FAB TRUSSES LOUNGE TS 6X6 FACULITY OFFICES ATRIUM CHAIR OFFICE

  20. EXTERIOR CANTILEVER STAIR DESIGN STIFFENER PLATES IN COLUMN – TYPICAL. EMBEDDED PLATE W/ SHEAR STUDS AND DOWEL ANCHORS INTO WALL W14 WELD TS10X6 TO COLUMN FLANGE WELD TS10 X 6 TO EMBEDDED PLATE 2” SLAB ON 3” DECK OVER C6X13, STUD WELDED TS 10 X 6 CANTILEVER C10 BEAM w/ BENT RISERS FILLED w/ 2” CONCRETE 6’ X 8’ LANDING

  21. E – DESIGN TO BE INTEGRAL WITH MAIN STRUCTURE. C – DIFFICULTY IN ERECTION AND STABILITY DURING CONSTRUCTION. A – STAIRS TO HAVE CLADDING. E – DESIGN. E – MENTOR ADVISE TO SEPARATE STAIR FROM MAIN SYSTEM. C – COST AND ERECTION PROCEDURES – POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS. A – HEADROOM CONSTRAINTS. C – COST. A – ISSUES w/ CLADDING. CENTRAL TEAM – ITERATIONSA-E-C EXTERIOR STAIR SYSTEM A E A – STAIRS THAT PROVIDE EXPRESSION TO THE STRUCTURE. C

  22. ATRIUM – CONSTRAINTS AND DESIGN (4) #5 IN ADDITION TO #4 BARS TO ATTAIN RIGID DIAPHRAGM ACTION. TYPICAL BEAMS – W10 X 26 IN COMPOSITE ACTION. 3/8” BENT PLATE w/ ½” D.B.A. @ 18” O.C., WELD PLATE TO CENTER BEAM 12” CL BEAM TO EDGE (3) #5 CENTERED OVER BEAM IN SLAB. SLAB EDGE DETAIL 20’ X 44’ OPENING W14 BOLTED TO PLATE AT TOP OF COLUMN. CAN TILEVER W14

  23. Adjusted Budget - $3,500,000 Initial Estimate - $3,200,000 Final Project Cost - $3,378,000 Budget & Cost

  24. 9/29/15 3/7/16 Building Closed In 6/17/16 Substantial Completion 8/8/16 Project Finished Construction Schedule Building Finished – 9 Months Contract Completed – 11 Months

  25. Construction Sequencing

  26. Equipment Selection • 150 Ton Crawler • Hydraulic Hammer • Backhoe Loader / Front-end Loader • Welding Machines • Hydraulic Excavator • Cement Mixers / Dump Trucks / various others…

  27. DEMANDS: • COOLING CAPACITY - 90 TONS • AIR VOLUME – 35,000 CFM • MAIN AIR DUCTS – 20 FT2 • FRESH AIR LOUVERS – 80 FT2 • EXHAUST AIR LOUVERS – 70 FT2 MEP SCHEMATIC (BACK) VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION THRU ‘WET WALLS’ 8’ X 8’ HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR w/ 6’ MECHANICAL PIT FOR SERVICE. 2ND & 3RD DISTRIBUTION THRU LONG SPAN TRUSSES. 3RD FLOOR DISTRIBUTION 2ND FLOOR DISTRIBUTION 1ST FLOOR DISTRIBUTION MAIN UNITS BELOW AUDITORIUM RISERS UTILITY BASEMENT – PUMPS, MAIN SERVICES, COMMUNICATION, ELEVATOR MOTOR, OUTFLOW.

  28. E – DESIGN OF SPACE TO ENSURE ALL MACHINARY WILL FIT. A – UTILIZE SPACE BELOW RISERS IN AUDITORIUM. A – ISSUES WITH SOUND – USE OF INSULATION AND SOUND PROOFING. E – FRESH AIR AND EXHAUST LOUVERS – LESS IMPLICATION ON STRUCTURE. C – EASY REPLACEMENT/AXCESS - FIRE SYSTEMS EASILY INTEGRATED. C – COST OF SOUND PROOFING MATERIAL VS. EXCAVATION. E – MINIMIZE PENETRATION IN BEAMS AND SHEARWALLS. C – INPUT ON COST FOR BEAM PENETRATIONS AND WALL BLOCK-OUTS. A – PLACE DUCTS PERPENDICULAR TO BEAMS ALONG WALLS AND THOSE PARALLEL TO BEAMS BETWEEN THE SPANS.. CENTRAL TEAM – ITERATIONSA-E-C MEP SYSTEMS – LOCATION & DISTRIBUTION INITIALLY LOCATE ALL SYSTEMS IN BASEMENT. C – LARGE COSTS FOR EXCAVATION – DIFFICULT AXCESS. DISTRIBUTION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DUCTS TO ROOMS VERSUS HEADROOM . A – MAXIMIZE HEADROOM – REDUCED RESTROOM SIZE AND PROVIDED ‘WET WALLS’

  29. CENTRAL TEAM - INTERACTION • MSN MESSENGER • GROUP MEETINGS • ‘QUICK QUESTIONS’ • ‘INSTANT’ • PBL DISCUSSION FORUM • DOCUMENT / STORE • SET – UP MEETINGS • POST QUESTIONS • NETMEETING • SHARING PROGRAMS • A & E COMMUNICATION

  30. CENTRAL TEAM - PROCESS • A – INITIATED MAIN DESIGN CONCEPTS – VERY EFFECTIVE IN COMMUNICATING CHANGES AND IDEAS. • E – DEVELOPED MOST QUESTIONS & ISSUES IN THE DESIGNS. • C – PROVIDED DIRECTION IN MEETINGS & ON STEPS TO TAKE. • A – ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALIZE ‘E & C’ REQUIREMENTS. • E – ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT IN STRUCTURAL LAYOUT & EFFECTIVELY MINIMIZE COST AND ERECTION DIFFICULTIES. • C – CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED SCHEDULE & COST IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL ITERATIONS AND PHASES OF DESIGN.

  31. CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED? • E • BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. • ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE. • MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. • C • BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. • MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS. • TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT! • A • BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ENGINEER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S CONSTRAINT AND ABLE TO INTEGRATE INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS • MORE FREQUENT NOTIFICATION TO THE TEAM MEMBERS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND QUESTIONS.

  32. CENTRAL TEAMTHANK YOU • WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND OUR GREATEST APPRECIATION TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: • MR. GREG LUTH – KL&A • BROOK BARRET - DPR • PAUL CHINOWSKY – GEORGIA TECH. • PROF. MIKE MARTIN –BERKELEY • HUMBERTO CAVALLI- BERKEELY • DAVID BENDET-MBT • PROF. BOB TATUM - STANFORD • PROF. HELMUT KRAWINKLER - STANFORD • RENATE FRUCHTER • …. AND OF COURSE FELLOW STUDENTS.

  33. The Central Project QUESTIONS?

  34. CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED? • E • BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. • ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE. • MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.

  35. CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED? • C • BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. • MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS. • TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!

More Related