1 / 50

CENTRAL UNIVERISTY

CENTRAL UNIVERISTY. Engineering School – New Classroom Project. ARCHITECTURE Joy Liu, Cal-Berkeley ENGINEERING Norm Faris, Stanford CONSTRUCTION Tim Kolaya, Georgia Tech OWNER Alex Barron, Stanford. Project Information. Central University Engineering School Location:

saxon
Download Presentation

CENTRAL UNIVERISTY

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. CENTRAL UNIVERISTY Engineering School – New Classroom Project ARCHITECTURE Joy Liu, Cal-Berkeley ENGINEERING Norm Faris, Stanford CONSTRUCTION Tim Kolaya, Georgia Tech OWNER Alex Barron, Stanford

  2. Project Information • Central University Engineering School • Location: • Los Angeles Metropolitan Area • Busy urban location / heavy traffic • Seismic Concerns – San Andreas Fault (8 km)

  3. SiteLocation • Site in San Francisco • Selected for accessibility by team 3rd Street & Folsom

  4. Site Photographs

  5. Design Consideration Remote Team Work High Tech Neighborhood Seismic Urban Context Busy Traffic setting Warm Climate

  6. Structural – 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

  7. Construction Concerns • High Ground Water Level • Excavation/Shoring • Dewatering ~16 -20 Ft. • Los Angeles Traffic

  8. Team Defined Goals – Beginning of Project

  9. Redesign • Ideas: “Sun Rise” • Explore the space from underground to top • Keep Circulation smooth • Think of the functionality of the space

  10. Sun Rise • Old plan Cafe Gym New Plan Cafe Cafe Gym Basement 1st Floor 2nd Floor

  11. Sun Rise • 3-D Model

  12. Sun 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

  13. Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 1 W12 Beams w/ 12” Channels @ Perimeter W18 Column Roof Opening Column to Mat Connection w/ Base Plate and Stiffener Beam to Concrete Wall w/ Embedded Plate and Studs LOBBY: RADIAL STEEL GRAVITY SYSTEM

  14. Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 2 • Concrete 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

  15. 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

  16. Sun Rise – Construction Schedule and Cost Breakdown Steel MRF w/ Composite Deck Concrete MRF w/ Post-Tensioned Deck Schedule Alt. 1 – 9 months Alt. 2 – 8 months Alt. 1 Alt. 2

  17. Structural Design 1st Iteration Collaboration / Final Layout Attempt New Layout Adapt Old Design Updates Issues Concerns Revisions Initial Estimate Cost Concerns Detailed Estimate Sun Rise - Team Interaction

  18. Architecture Vision of 2015 • Gaining awareness in Eco-design and sustainable architecture • Better and cheaper technology in day-lighting devices

  19. New 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

  20. Flying Eagle N

  21. Flying Eagle • Model

  22. Flying 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

  23. Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 2 • Lateral System • 2nd & 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

  24. Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 3 • Concrete 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

  25. Flying Eagle – Cantilever at 3rd Floor Composite Gravity System – Continuous From Main Structure TS Brace From Exterior Cantilever Columns to Frame W14 Column Struts – Welded at Frame & Connected to Column w/ Welded Base Plate

  26. M.E.P System • 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 • All utilities localized at basement • Main Distribution Vertical • More Narrower Ducts • Single Excavation for Services • Centralized for efficiency

  27. Flying Eagle – Construction Schedule and Cost Breakdown Shear Wall Concrete MRF Steel MRF Schedule Alt. 1 – 7½ months Alt. 2 – 8½ months Alt. 3 – 8 months Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

  28. Flying Eagle – Construction Sequencing

  29. Flying Eagle - Team Interaction Structural Solution Propose Design Back to the Drawing Board – Revisions Finalize Design Issues Concerns Estimates/ Schedules Constraints / Constructability Structural Limitations Presented

  30. New 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

  31. Pouring Stream Old Plan New Plan

  32. Pouring Stream

  33. Pouring Stream Section

  34. Pouring 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

  35. Pouring Stream • Model

  36. Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 1 Steel Eccentric Brace Frame (EBF) w/ Composite Gravity System W21 x 62 Link Beam W21 ‘Outside’ Beam TS 6 X6 W12 Columns Link Beam w/ Stiffeners

  37. Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 1 3rd Floor Gravity System 6.5” Composite Deck w/ W12 x 26 Beams 24” Long Span Truss and Concrete Slab 8” Bearing Wall @ Elevator Shaft Cantilever Beam – Column at Central Atrium W12 x 50 Columns

  38. Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 2 • Steel 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

  39. Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 3 • Concrete 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” Moment Frame Connection • Foundation System • 6’x 6’ Spread Footings • 4’ Cont. Footing @ Retaining Walls • 12” Mat Foundation @ Utility Tunnel • 12” Perimeter Retaining Wall

  40. Pouring Stream – Construction Schedule and Cost Breakdown Steel EBF Steel SMRF Concrete MRF Schedule Alt. 1 – 8 months Alt. 2 – 8½ months Alt. 3 – 9 months Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

  41. Pouring Stream - Construction Sequencing

  42. Pouring Stream - Team Interaction Structural Limitations Back to the Drawing Board – Revisions Propose Design Initial Estimate / Constructability Issues Cost Issues Finalize Design Structural Solutions Issues Concerns Estimates / Schedules

  43. Site Plan – 2 Footprints

  44. Equipment Selection • Hydraulic Truck Crane • Hydraulic Hammer • Backhoe Loader / Front-end Loader • Welding Machines • Cement Mixers / Dump Trucks / various others…

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

  46. Original 2015 Budget Adjustment for Inflation Adjustment for Location - 1.1 New Adjusted Budget Sunrise - Alt. 1 Sunrise - Alt. 2 Flying Eagle - Alt. 1 Flying Eagle - Alt. 2 Flying Eagle - Alt. 3 Pouring Stream - Alt. 1 Pouring Stream - Alt. 2 Pouring Stream - Alt. 3 Budget Concerns • Construction in 2015 • Project Budget : $5.5 Million • Assumed 3.5% Inflation • Adjusted Budget : $3.4 Million • Cost Index for L.A. – 110%

  47. DECISION MATRIX

  48. Preferred 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

  49. Team 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

  50. 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 Tech AND.. • Renate Fruchter - Stanford For contributing their valuable time and suggestions, Thank you!

More Related