RIVER UNIVERSITYRIVER UNIVERSITY

R I V E R 2 0 0 2R I V E R 2 0 0 2

AArchitectrchitect Elena PaparizouElena Paparizou BerkeleyBerkeley

EEngineerngineer Paul KulsethPaul Kulseth KansasKansas

CConstructoronstructor Wendy WangWendy Wang StanfordStanford

OOwnerwner Jonathan WongJonathan Wong

The TeamThe Team

Thorton-Thorton-Tomasetti Tomasetti EngineersEngineers

The SiteAALocation

The SiteAAElements

The SiteAAAccess

The SiteAABuildings

AlternativesAAPlacement

N

2nd Alternative

1st Alternative

1st Alternative

DisadvantagesDisadvantages

CC

AA

EE•Symmetrical•Short Construction Time

•Expensive Structural System•Curved form

•Clear Spatial Organization

•Minimal Circulation

•Floor Plan is crammed•Volume appears too massive

•Structural Symmetry•Lateral Support Availability

•Non-Orthogonal Connections•Non-regular column locations

AdvantagesAdvantages

CC

AA

EE

EvaluationAAEECC

Evaluation2nd Alternative

•Rectangular form•Well-defined grid

•Longer reach for crane

•Much longer construction time with concrete

•Circulation as a path

•Interaction between inside / outside

•Spatial requirements are not entirely fulfilled

•Circulation has flaws

•Regular structural grid•Relatively short spans

•Structural Symmetry•Lateral Support Availability

CC

AA

EE

AdvantagesAdvantages

CC

AA

EE

DisadvantagesDisadvantages

AAEECC

Proposed Solution1st Alternative

• Design is solid but there is room for improvement in certain areas both in terms of spatial quality as well as in terms of construction requirements.

• Symmetry facilitates the structural development but the shell-like auditorium represents a big challenge.

• Curves are essential to the architectural concept as well as the choice of concrete and wood as façade materials. The question is how to keep the architect’s vision while staying in budget.

AAEECC

DesignAAConcept

100 ft

100 ft

DesignAAConcept

DesignAAConcept

DesignAAConcept

DesignAAConcept

DesignAAAdjacencies & Privacy

2nd floor

student offices

chair/senior admin./secretaries

faculty offices

3rd floor

1st floor

DesignAAOrganization

1st floor

3rd floor

2nd floorN

student offices

chair/senior admin./secretaries

faculty offices

DesignAARevisions

N2nd floor 1st floor

DesignAAOrientation

N

DesignAAAccess

DesignAAFloor Plans

1st floor

3rd floor

2nd floorN

DesignAAFloor Plans

3rd floor

2nd floorN

1st floor

DesignAAFloor Plans

3rd floor

2nd floorN

1st floor

DesignAAFloor Plans

3rd floor

2nd floorN

1st floor

DesignAASections & Elevations

South-West

South

DesignAAElevations

North-West

South-East

DesignAASun Paths

February

May

November

August

10:30 am

DesignAASun Paths

May

7 am – 8 pm

DesignAASun Paths7 am – 8 pm

August

DesignAASun Paths7 am – 8 pm

November

DesignAASun Paths7 am – 8 pm

February

DesignAA

StructureEESystem Details : Steel Framing

Braced Frame Lateral System Composite Slab ( 4” )

Metal Floor Decking with a max span of 11 ½ feet to alleviate the need for shoring.

Design Considerations : Symmetrical building, layout, and loading.

Lightweight and ease of construction.

Soil & Foundation IssuesEE

Foundation Proposal :

Building Column

Casing

Rebar Cage

Rock Socket

Soil Survey for Yolo County : Well Drained Nearly Level Silt Loams to Silty Clay Loams On Alluvial Fans Depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet

The soil is not affected water table to a depth of 5 feet.

Source: Earth Sciences Library and Map Collection on

Stanford Campus

2-½’ dia.

Drilled

Shafts for

column

loads.

Grade

Beams for

wall loads.

Structure & ArchitectureEE

11stst

FloorFloor

22ndnd

FloorFloor

33rdrd

FloorFloor

Loading ConditionsGravity

EEFLOOR DEAD LOAD = 85 psf Lightweight Concrete Slab 40 psf (4" @ 120 pcf)

Estimated Weight of Structure 5 psf

Metal Decking and Flooring 3 psf

Interior Partitions 20 psf

MEP Overhead Systems 10 psf

Suspended Ceiling 2 psf

Cladding 5 psf

FLOOR LIVE LOAD [ 1997 UBC, Table 16-A ]

Office 50 psf

Restrooms 50 psf

Storage ( light ) 125 psf

Classrooms 40 psf

Auditorium ( fixed seating ) 50 psf

Auditorium ( stage area ) 125 psf Exit Facilities 100 psf 

ROOF DEAD LOAD

Floor Dead Load

-  Interior Partitions

- Slab

=  25 psf  

ROOF LIVE LOAD

[ 1997 UBC, Table 16-C ]

Flat Roof = 20 psf

( < 33% slope )

Shape DesignationsEE

22ndnd Floor Floor

RoofRoof

33rdrd Floor FloorColumn Sizing : All columns are W10x33’s. Size governed by connections.

Lateral AnalysisEE

Base Shear :

V = 311 kips

SEISMIC [ 1997 UBC ] Zone 3 [ Figure 16-2 ]

Soil Profile Type “SD” [ Table 16-J ]

Seismic Importance Factor (Ip) = 1.00 [ Table 16-K ]

Story Drift :

2nd Floor = 0.485 in.

3rd Floor = 0.981 in.

Roof = 1.347 in.

Total Building Weight :

W = 1933 kips

Cantilever SupportEE

Details :

Lower supported by a Dogleg Slab.

Upper Supported by a Vierendeel Truss System.

Details :

Cantilever at Roof level is approximately 13’.

19’ Adjacent Span

11’ Cantilever

9’ Cantilever

13’ Cantilever

12’ Story

Height

Lower Cantilever SupportEEDetails : Dogleg slab acts as a counterweight to the cantilever.

Also supported by retaining walls.

Varying slab thickness.

2 x Cantilever Length9’ Cantilever10”

6”

Upper Cantilever SupportEEDetails :

Vierendeel Truss system.

Fully rigid (moment-resisting) connections, rather than pin connections.

Tension forces at Roof Level, with compression forces at 3rd Floor Level.

Site AccessSquare Option

CC

Site LayoutSquare Option

CC

Equipment SelectionSquare Option

CC

•Hydraulic Excavator (front shovel & backhoe)

•Dump truck

•Hydraulic mobile crane

•Concrete pump

Constructibility IssuesCC• Curved Form: Steel structure will have non-orthogonal connections.

• Symmetry allows for repetitious construction and ordering of steel elements.

• Installation of auditorium girders will need careful planning due to variable sizes

Construction MethodsCC•Building-height columns for quicker construction and elimination of splicing costs.

• Prefabrication and off-site connections for quicker construction time.

• Exterior steel structure built in segments to give curved affect rather than having rolled members-cheaper and easier construction especially for exterior cladding.

Construction MethodsCC• Floor by Floor

Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3

Construction MethodsCC• Floor by Floor

•Phased

Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3

1

23 3

4D-Cad SimulationCC

Critical Stages of Construction On-Site

4D-Cad Simulation

ScheduleCC

Milestone: Steel Erection Complete

Milestone: Exterior Closure Complete

Finish: 7/11/2016

Milestone: Interior Finishing Complete

Start Date: 9/1/2002

MEP SystemCC• Separate Mechanical Room located on first floor away from auditorium.

• Air intake and outtake systems located on side of building away from entrance.

• Vertical shaft for mechanical ducts.

• Ducts will run parallel to girders taking advantage of more interstitial space.

• Long-term maintenance considered.

MEP SystemCC

Louvers

Mechanical Room

Vertical Shaft

Horizontal Ducts

Cost DistributionCC

Substructure1.3%

Foundations5.1%

Special Construction

3.7%

Electrical10.0%

Mechanical35.2% Conveying

3.5%Interior

Construction11.6%

Roofing0.8%

Exterior Closure

11.0%

Superstructure17.8%

Budget vs. Estimated CostCC

$146,798 over budget

$2,872,480 $3,019,277$3,019,277

$3,590,600

$5,500,000

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

2002 Budget 2016 Budget (3%inflation)

Budget w/20%O&P & Fees

Estimate w/Location Factor

Prelim. Estimate

Team Interaction

Before A - E InteractionBefore A - E Interaction

AfterAfter

To scale sketch to see if the bracing would not impede doorway.

AAEECC

Team Interaction

Before InteractionBefore Interaction

AfterAfter

Access added for future maintenance considerations of large mechanical equipment.

Mechanical Room switched with Computer Machine Room and Technical Support Room.

AAEECC

Final Reflections Collaboration Technologies

Remote locations required use of technologies to “bridge the gap.”

Conflicting schedules led to mostly asynchronous collaboration tools (i.e. group space and discussion forum)

What did we learn ?

Interacting with other disciplines on different issues we normally may not consider.

Communication can be difficult.

Optimizing use of technology.

Goals accomplished? Successful interaction in using a shared 3D model. (A&E: 3D model, C: 4DCAD).

Meetings were not more frequent, but better organized.

AAEECC

Acknowledgements For this unique learning experience, we

would like to thank:

Renate Fruchter

Our instructors at:

• UC Berkeley

• Stanford University

• Kansas University

The industry mentors

Our classmates

The PBL support team

AAEECC

Q U E S T I O N S ?Q U E S T I O N S ?