Date post: | 30-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | angel-jordan |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Lucas Pettinati Rafael Monzon Andreas Dinopoulos architect structural engineer construction manager Berkeley Georgia Tech Strathclyde, UK
Luciana Barrosoowner
• The Project• Project Requirements• Owner Requirements• Architectural Context• Site Context• Alternatives• Preferred Alternative• A-E-C Solutions• A-E-C Interactions• Lessons Learned
Today’s Outline
• Year 2010• Lake Tahoe area• Rebuild 3-story educational building
• Ridge University Engineering School
The Project
• Maintain existing footprints• 36’ height limitation• $5,500,000 budget• One year duration
Project Requirements
Architectural Context
• South Lake Tahoe• Building style based on
University of California Berkeley Art Museum and I.M. Pei’s NCAR Building
Architectural Desires
• Large curtain wall• Unobstructed seating in
auditorium and lecture rooms• Heavy vs. light
• Boundary conditions• Geological features• Local weather conditions• Local working week
Site Context
Alternative 1: Architecture
• Pre-existing structural layout• Privacy increases on vertical and inward motion• Use of internal light wells to unite spaces• Large spaces within to be used for interaction
Alternative 1: Engineering and Construction
•Explored structural systems:•Concrete•Steel•Concrete+Steel
•Preferred Structural System:•Concrete+Steel
•Construction Cost: $5,800,000
Alternative 2: Architecture
• Programmatic in nature• Separation of function by level• Individuality• Large spaces within to be used for interaction
Alternative 2: Engineering and Construction
•Explored structural systems:•Concrete•Steel
•Preferred Structural System:•Steel
•Construction Cost: $5,400,000
Alternative 3: Architecture
• Programmatic in nature• Separation of function by level• Individuality• Periphery vs. core• Large spaces within to be used for interaction
Alternative 3: Engineering and Construction
•Explored structural systems:•Concrete•Steel
•Preferred Structural System:•Concrete
•Construction Cost: $6,000,000
Alternative 4: Architecture
• Auditorium as indoor/outdoor space• 8º shift • Cantilevers hold offices • Glass curtain• Slope roof
Alternative 4: Engineering and Construction
•Explored structural systems:•Concrete•Steel•Concrete+Steel
•Preferred Structural System:•Concrete+Steel
•Construction Cost: $5,700,000
Preferred Solution: Alternative 4
Architectural Elements• Glass curtain walls• Cantilevered offices• Dual purpose auditorium• Open space light well at
lobby• Dynamic spaces that allow
for options
Structural Elements• Challenging cantilever
system• Sound lateral load resisting
system• Structure nicely integrated
into architecture
Owner’s preference
Construction Elements• Tight time scheduling• Challenging cost cut-down
Overview
• Based on Alternative 4• Faculty offices along periphery• Student offices in an open environment• Auditorium follows ground
1st Floor: Lecture Rooms
• The following QuickTime VR movie is representative of the layout and feeling of the lecture rooms within the structure
3rd Floor: Faculty Offices
• The following QuickTime VR movie is representative of the layout and feeling of the dean’s office within the structure
Architecture Performance
Grand Total Actual Program DifferenceUseable Space 23400 30000Underground Storage/Machines 3000Open Space 1200Total 27600 30000 8.00%
• Planned space is 8% smaller than the program requirements • Total area: 27,600 square feet
• All areas handicap accessible per ADA regulations• At least 2 means of egress on every floor• Centralized plumbing runs• HVAC and Electrical distribution imbedded in walls
Architecture Performance
• Room affinities maintained from initial program• Some room functions combined into larger yet customizable units
•Seminar Rooms•Small Classrooms•Secretaries
• Security increases with levels• 1st Floor: Public• 2nd Floor: Semi-private• 3rd Floor: Private
• No internal stairwell
Structural System Description
Classroom + Office Building:•Concrete lateral load resisting system•Concrete plate slab•Steel cantilever system
Auditorium:•Steel braced frames•Truss roof system
Moderate to high seismicity (Zone 3) Heavy snow loads
Live Loads 40psf (Classrooms) 50psf (Offices) 100psf (Storage & Hallways) Snow Load = 125psf
Dead Loads 100psf (Slab + Beams) 25psf (Floor + Partitions) 10psf (Installations)
Structural Considerations
12x18 Concrete Ring Beam
Steel Cantilever Elements
12” Shear Walls 16x16 Concrete Columns
4” Composite Slab
8” Concrete Plate Slab
Third Floor Slab& Roof Slab Second Floor Slab
Classroom & OfficeBuilding
UBC Code Seismic Reduction Factor, Rw = 12 Seismic Zone Factor, Z = 0.3 Peak Ground Acceleration , Ao = 0.3 Importance Factor, I = 1.0 Site Coefficient, S = 1.2
Building Weight = 4807 K Design Base Shear = 255 K
(in both directions)
Analysis Parameters
Analysis Results
Max Disp = 1.70” (0.4% of total height)
Limit Drift Ratio = 0.03/Rw = 0.0025Max Drift Ratio Obtained < 0.0008
DriftsWest Side Frame
Axial Force Diagram
Moment Diagram
Shear Force Diagram
M+ max = 38.47 K-ft
A max = 197.5 KV max = 23.95 K
M- max = 82.04 K-ft
M, V & Axial ForceDiagramsWest Side Frame
Wall Stresses
ShearStresses
VerticalStresses
Max Vertical Stress0.73 Ksi << F’c
Max Shear Stress0.27 Ksi << F’v
ITERATION16x16 ColumnAs required = min = 1.0% = 2.6sqin
PRELIMINARY SIZE18x18 Column:As req= min = 1.0% = 3.2sqin
Column Sizing Iteration
ITERATION12x18 Beam:As max req = 1.02sqin (0.60%)
PRELIMINARY SIZE12x20 Beam:As max req = 0.71sqin (0.35%)
Beam Sizing Iteration
Cost Breakdown
3%
4%
3%
12%
11%
13%2%
40%
3% 9%
Demolition
Foundations
Substructure
Superstructure
Exterior
Interior
Conveying
M&E
Special Construction
Fees
$5,350,000
$5,400,000
$5,450,000
$5,500,000
$5,550,000
$5,600,000
$5,650,000
$5,700,000
Building Cost Budget Preliminary Cost
Cost Comparison
•Insulation
•R-30 Batt for roof
•R-19 Batt for walls
•Carpets for added insulation
•Glazing
•Double pane glazing to retain heat
•Conveying
•Pneumatic vs. hydraulic elevator
Life Cycle Considerations
Preliminary Engineering Proposal
Final Solution
ArchitecturalRequirements
+ Mentor Feedback
A-E Interaction: Cantilever System, Part 2
Can we afford to lower the Auditorium?
Problem: Cost increase of earthworks by 17%
Solution: Use a site that naturally slopes and create a building that follows it.
A-C Interaction: Auditorium
Preliminary Engineering Proposal
Final Solution
Construction Requirements+ Mentor Feedback
E-C Interaction: From Frame System to Flat Slab
E-C Interaction:
•Not dependable of weather
•Minimum erection time
•More expensive
•Transportation problems
•Last moment alterations possible
•Productivity rate can be fast
•Labor intensive
Pre-cast vr Cast in-situ
• Applying theory into practice• Iteration, iteration, iteration…• Negotiation is key• When technology doesn’t work it’s
not the end of the world.• Adapt technology to suit your
needs and conditions
Lessons Learned
• Distance is not a barrier• No one is ever “always right”• Ideas often come from outside
your discipline• Mentor feedback is crucial• Trust your teammates
Lessons Learned