the central project architecturejoy liu, cal-berkeley engineeringnorm faris, stanford...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
The Central Project
ARCHITECTURE Joy Liu, Cal-BerkeleyENGINEERING Norm Faris, StanfordCONSTRUCTION Tim Kolaya, Georgia
TechOWNER Alex Barron, Stanford
Central University – A/E/C Engineering Building
Site Context Central University Engineering School Location:
Los Angeles Metropolitan AreaBusy urban location / heavy trafficSeismic Concerns – San Andreas Fault (8 km)Warm ClimateHigh Ground Water Level
Designs & Decision MatrixNew Design1: Flying Eagle
New Design 2: Pouring Stream
1st Fl. 2nd Fl. 3rd Fl.
3rd Fl.2nd Fl.1st Fl.
Pros ConsA Interesting progression Less resonable space layout
1) Steel SMRF w/ E Steel effective in seismic region Biaxial Bending in Frame
composite deck C Efficient construction method Auditorium contruction Difficult
2) Shearwall w/ Flat E Combination of gravity and lateral Detailing Shearwalls for Penetrations
Plate Gravity C Shotest construction time "
3) Concrete MRF w/ E More outside viewing space Integrating Wallfle slab w/ the Concrete Mom. frame
Flat Plate Gravity C Economic design "
Pros ConsA Great potential for poetic space Limited space use
1) Steel EBF w/ E Excellent performance for Region Cost of Repair in Major Event
Composite Deck C Cost Efficient Atrium poses uncertainty in construction
2) Steel SMRF& shearwallE Versatile system Cantilever gravity Scheme @core
w/ Composite Deck C Cost Efficient Atrium poses uncertainty in construction
3) Concrete MRF& ShearwallE Consistent integration of build. MaterialInteract.of Waffle slab over Auditorium Mom. frame
w/ Flat Plate Gravity C Cost Efficient Over Budget
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
Roof Design
• Average Wind Breeze between 10-15 miles per hour (direction N or W)
• Average Seasonal Rain Fall 14.77 inches
Revised Roof
Old Roof
Ceiling Fans
Keep Rain out
Air ventilation
N
STRUCTURAL MODEL DUAL LATERAL SYSTEM:
SHEARWALLS AND PERIMETER STEEL SMRF
COMPOSITE GRAVITY SYSTEM:
CONCRETE SLAB w/ STEEL BEAMS
ANALYSIS – DESIGN & LOADING DESIGN USING UBC ’97 CRITERIA
SHEARWALL AND STEEL SMRF DESIGN:100% BASE SHEAR TO WALLS25% TO FRAMES (BACK-UP)DYNAMIC NONLINEAR LATERAL ANALYSIS - VERIFICATION (ETABS)- ’97 RESPONSE SPECTRA
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
VV
TORSIONAL EFFECTS
TORSIONAL RESISTANCE
13% V100% V + TORSIONAL
RESISTANCE
13% V
GRAVITY PATH
FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA:- 5 KSF BEARING- SANDY SOIL- WATER DEPTH = 15FT
2’-6” X 6’-0” CONT. FTG.
WITH 3’-6”SHEAR KEY
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.
3’-0” X 3’-0”
@ MRF
12”12” 8”8”
MAT FOUNDATION @ UTILITY
1ST FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT) AUDITORIUM w/ PRECAST RISERS
JOINING 2ND FLOOR.
RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’
LAB & LARGE CLASSROOM
SMALL CLASSROOMS TYPICAL GRAVITY COLUMN: W8X31
SMRF COLUMNS: W14 X 61
SMRF BEAMS: W21 X 62
SHEARWALLS: 8”
W/ BOUNDARY ZONES
2ND FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT)
LABS
STUDENT OFFICES
COMPUTER ROOM SEMINAR
SMRF BEAMS: W18 X 60
RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’
3RD FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT)
TS 6X6
FACULITY OFFICES
LOUNGE
LONG SPAN PRE-FAB TRUSSES
CHAIR OFFICEATRIUM
RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’
EXTERIOR CANTILEVER STAIR DESIGN
TS 10 X 6 CANTILEVER
6’ X 8’ LANDING
W14W14
EMBEDDED PLATE W/ SHEAR STUDS AND DOWEL
ANCHORS INTO WALL
STIFFENER PLATES IN COLUMN – TYPICAL.
WELD TS10 X 6 TO EMBEDDED PLATE
WELD TS10X6 TO COLUMN FLANGE
2” SLAB ON 3” DECK OVER C6X13, STUD WELDED
C10 BEAM w/ BENT RISERS FILLED w/ 2” CONCRETE
CENTRAL TEAM – ITERATIONS A-E-C
A – STAIRS THAT PROVIDE EXPRESSION TO THE
STRUCTURE.
E – DESIGN TO BE INTEGRAL WITH MAIN
STRUCTURE.
E – MENTOR ADVISE TO SEPARATE STAIR FROM
MAIN SYSTEM.A – HEADROOM CONSTRAINTS.
C – DIFFICULTY IN ERECTION AND
STABILITY DURING CONSTRUCTION.
A – STAIRS TO HAVE CLADDING.
EXTERIOR STAIR SYSTEM
A – ISSUES w/ CLADDING.
E – DESIGN.
C – COST.
CC
AA EE
C – COST AND ERECTION PROCEDURES – POSSIBLE
IMPLICATIONS.
ATRIUM – CONSTRAINTS AND DESIGN
20’ X 44’ OPENING
TYPICAL BEAMS – W10 X 26 IN
COMPOSITE ACTION.
(3) #5 CENTERED OVER BEAM IN SLAB.
CAN TILEVER W14CAN TILEVER W14
3/8” BENT PLATE w/ ½” D.B.A. @ 18” O.C., WELD
PLATE TO CENTER BEAM
W14 BOLTED TO PLATE AT TOP OF
COLUMN.
(4) #5 IN ADDITION TO #4 BARS TO ATTAIN RIGID
DIAPHRAGM ACTION.
SLAB EDGE DETAILSLAB EDGE DETAIL
12” CL BEAM TO EDGE
Item Quantity Code Number Unit Daily Output Duration Crew Material Labor Equipment Total Total Incl. O&P Total Cost
W 12X26, Gravity Bm. 4152 05120-640-1500 LF 880 4.71818 E-2 15.9 1.95 1.16 19.01 22 $91,344W 12X50, Gravity Clmn. 612.5 05120-640-1560 LF 750 0.81667 E-2 30 2.29 1.36 33.65 38.5 $23,581W 14X120, MF Clmn. 468.75 05120-640-2500 LF 720 0.65104 E-2 69 2.39 1.42 72.81 82 $38,438W 21X62, MF Bm. 756 05120-640-4500 LF 1036 0.72973 E-2 37 2.41 1.07 40.48 46.5 $35,154T 6X6X1/4 0 05120-440-0725 LF 28 0 E-3 5.18 27.3 2.94 35.42 60 $0Structural Steel Truss 30 05120-680-3100 TON 13 2.30769 E-5 1675 192 85 1952 2275 $68,250
Steel Decking - Open Type 31400 05310-300-2200 SF 4900 6.40816 E-4 0.7 0.21 0.02 0.93 1.18 $37,052
Door and Window Framing 4100 05410-300-0200 LF 220 18.6364 2 Carp 3.12 2.05 5.17 6.65 $27,265Stud Wall Framing 8750 05410-400-5110 LF 77 113.636 2 Carp 5.1 5.85 10.95 14.8 $129,500
Steel Stair Railing 400 05520-700-0640 LF 137 2.91971 E-4 23 7.5 0.61 31.11 40 $16,000Aluminum Stair Tread 80 05550-700-0010 Ea 24 3.33333 1 Sswk 25 10.55 35.55 47 $3,760
TOTAL DIV. 5 $379,000
Item Quantity Code Number Unit Daily Output Duration Crew Material Labor Equipment Total Total Incl. O&P Total Cost
Blocking to Steel Const. 0.875 06110-100-2740 MBF 0.14 6.25 1 Carp 590 1600 2190 3175 $2,778Ceilings Framing 1 06110-510-6400 MBF 0.5 2 2 Carp 610 900 1510 2100 $2,100
Base Moldings 8750 06220-200-0561 LF 240 36.4583 1 Carp 0.76 0.94 1.7 2.32 $20,300Ceilings Molding 8750 06220-450-0600 LF 270 32.4074 1 Carp 0.6 0.83 1.43 1.97 $17,238Trim Molding 8750 06220-700-3800 LF 270 32.4074 1 Carp 0.98 0.83 1.81 2.39 $20,913Door Molding 78 06220-800-3150 Opng. 5.9 13.2203 1 Carp 12.7 38 50.7 74 $5,772Window Molding 150 06220-800-5910 Opng. 13 11.5385 1 Carp 15.3 17.3 32.6 44.5 $6,675Wood Shelving 500 06270-200-0100 LF 110 4.54545 1 Carp 2.31 2.05 4.36 5.75 $2,875
DIVISION 5 - METALSBare Costs
05100 - STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING
05300 - METAL DECKING
06100 - ROUGH CARPENTRY
05400 - COLD FORMED METAL FRAMING
05500 - METAL FABRICATIONS
DIVISION 6 - WOOD & PLASTICSBare Costs
06200 - FINISH CARPENTRY
06400 - ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK
Budget & Cost
General Requirements
Site Construction
Concrete
Metals
Woods & Plastics
Thermal & MoistureProtectionDoors Windows
Finishes
Specialties
Conveying Systems
MEP
Final Project Cost - $3,378,000
Adjusted Budget - $3,500,000
Initial Estimate - $3,200,000
Construction Schedule
Building Closed In
Substantial Completion
Project Finished
9/29/15
3/7/16
6/17/16
8/8/16
Building Finished – 9 MonthsContract Completed – 11 Months
Equipment Selection
150 Ton Crawler
Hydraulic Hammer
Backhoe Loader / Front-end Loader
Welding Machines
Hydraulic Excavator
Cement Mixers / Dump Trucks / various others…
MEP SCHEMATIC (BACK)
3RD FLOOR
DISTRIBUTION
1ST FLOOR
DISTRIBUTION
VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION THRU ‘WET WALLS’
MAIN UNITS BELOW AUDITORIUM RISERS
2ND FLOOR
DISTRIBUTION
2ND & 3RD DISTRIBUTION THRU LONG SPAN TRUSSES.
8’ X 8’ HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR w/ 6’ MECHANICAL PIT FOR SERVICE.
UTILITY BASEMENT – PUMPS, MAIN SERVICES, COMMUNICATION,
ELEVATOR MOTOR, OUTFLOW.
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
CENTRAL TEAM – ITERATIONS A-E-C
INITIALLY LOCATE ALL SYSTEMS IN BASEMENT.
C – LARGE COSTS FOR EXCAVATION – DIFFICULT
AXCESS.
A – MAXIMIZE HEADROOM – REDUCED RESTROOM SIZE
AND PROVIDED ‘WET WALLS’
DISTRIBUTION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DUCTS TO ROOMS VERSUS HEADROOM .
A – UTILIZE SPACE BELOW RISERS IN
AUDITORIUM.
E – DESIGN OF SPACE TO ENSURE ALL MACHINARY
WILL FIT.A – ISSUES WITH SOUND – USE OF
INSULATION AND SOUND PROOFING.
C – COST OF SOUND PROOFING MATERIAL VS.
EXCAVATION.
E – FRESH AIR AND EXHAUST LOUVERS – LESS
IMPLICATION ON STRUCTURE.
C – EASY REPLACEMENT/AXCESS -
FIRE SYSTEMS EASILY INTEGRATED.
A – PLACE DUCTS PERPENDICULAR TO BEAMS ALONG WALLS AND THOSE
PARALLEL TO BEAMS BETWEEN THE SPANS..
E – MINIMIZE PENETRATION IN BEAMS AND SHEARWALLS.
C – INPUT ON COST FOR BEAM PENETRATIONS AND
WALL BLOCK-OUTS.
MEP SYSTEMS – LOCATION & DISTRIBUTION
CENTRAL TEAM - INTERACTION
NETMEETING• SHARING PROGRAMS
• A & E COMMUNICATION
MSN MESSENGER• GROUP MEETINGS
• ‘QUICK QUESTIONS’
• ‘INSTANT’
PBL DISCUSSION FORUM• DOCUMENT / STORE
• SET – UP MEETINGS
• POST QUESTIONS
CENTRAL TEAM - PROCESS • A – INITIATED MAIN DESIGN CONCEPTS – VERY EFFECTIVE IN A – INITIATED MAIN DESIGN CONCEPTS – VERY EFFECTIVE IN COMMUNICATING CHANGES AND IDEAS.COMMUNICATING CHANGES AND IDEAS.
• E – DEVELOPED MOST QUESTIONS & ISSUES IN THE DESIGNS.E – DEVELOPED MOST QUESTIONS & ISSUES IN THE DESIGNS.
• C – PROVIDED DIRECTION IN MEETINGS & ON STEPS TO TAKE.C – PROVIDED DIRECTION IN MEETINGS & ON STEPS TO TAKE.
• A – ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALIZE ‘E & C’ REQUIREMENTS.A – ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALIZE ‘E & C’ REQUIREMENTS.
• E – ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT IN E – ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT IN STRUCTURAL LAYOUT & EFFECTIVELY MINIMIZE COST AND STRUCTURAL LAYOUT & EFFECTIVELY MINIMIZE COST AND ERECTION DIFFICULTIES.ERECTION DIFFICULTIES.
• C – CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED SCHEDULE & COST C – CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED SCHEDULE & COST IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL ITERATIONS AND PHASES OF DESIGN.IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL ITERATIONS AND PHASES OF DESIGN.
CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED?
• AA
• BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ENGINEER AND BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ENGINEER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S CONSTRAINT AND ABLE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S CONSTRAINT AND ABLE TO INTEGRATE INTO THE DESIGN PROCESSTO INTEGRATE INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS
• MORE FREQUENT NOTIFICATION TO THE TEAM MORE FREQUENT NOTIFICATION TO THE TEAM MEMBERS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND QUESTIONS.MEMBERS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND QUESTIONS.
• E E • BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
• ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE. WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE.
• MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.
• CC • BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND
ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
• MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS.PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS.
• TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!
CENTRAL TEAMTHANK YOUTHANK YOU
WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND OUR GREATEST WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND OUR GREATEST APPRECIATION TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: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.
CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED?
• E E • BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
• ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE. WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE.
• MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.
CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED?
• CC • BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND
ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
• MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS.PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS.
• TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!