TeamMembers Architect: Angela Ribas UC Berkeley Engineer: Matthias Niebling Bauhaus-University...

TeamMembers

Architect:

Angela RibasUC Berkeley

Engineer:

Matthias NieblingBauhaus-University Weimar, Germany

Construction Manager:

Kevin CoyneStanford University

Product Manager:

Torsten SchluesselburgFH Aargau, Switzerland

Owner: David SteinbachWeimar, Germany

CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002)

Team members of theTeam members of the

Location


• BAY AREA / CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

• UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

• MAIN CAMPUS AT FULTON STREET

CAMPUS LOCATION CAMPUS LOCATION

SURROUNDING:

• GOLDEN GATE PARK

•RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD

•HILL AREA

(HUGE GREEN AREA)


CAMPUS VIEW N

Map

CAMPUS VIEW


SITE MAP

SURROUNDING SURROUNDING BUILDINGSBUILDINGS

Textures

SURROUNDING SURROUNDING BUILDINGSBUILDINGS


SITE SITE

PANORAMIC VIEW

SITE MAP

•FLAT GROUND

•FACING FULTON STREET

N

Building location

A_First concept


FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTFIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT

FOREST “AN OPEN AND FRIENDLY

SPACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN

INTERACT”

CORE VIEW

Concept


FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT

FIRST FLOOR PLAN Plan




BASEMENT


Plan



SECOND FLOOR


Plan



THIRD FLOOR


Plan



SECTION AA

A A

B B

C

C

SectionsSECTION CCSECTION BB

N




SOUTH FACADE

NORTH FACADE

SOUTH FACADE

EAST FACADE

NORTH FACADE

N

WEST FACADE Elevations

TOP VIEW


A1_E_SOLUTION1


STRUCTURAL SYSTEMSTRUCTURAL SYSTEM

Loading assumptions



Load Assumptions

LIVE LOADS:

• Storage 125 psf 6.00 kN/m²• First floor corridors / Stairs / Lobbies 100 psf 4.79 kN/m²• Corridors above first floor 80 psf 3.83 kN/m²

• Classrooms 40 psf 1.92 kN/m²

• Auditorium, Offices 50 psf 2.40 kN/m²

• RAIN LOAD 30 psf 1.44 kN/m²

DEAD LOADS:

• Finishes, Lights 10 psf 0.48 kN/m²• HVAC installation (ducts, etc) 5 psf 0.24 kN/m²

• Partition walls 20 psf 0.96 kN/m²

LATERAL LOADS:

• Wind load 13 psf 0.64 kN/m²

Concrete Walls



Concrete walls

Structural elements

Concrete walls: 12“

Typical element sizes:

Girders



Girders

Concrete walls

Structural elements

Possible sections of a column

typical column / girder connection

16“

15“

2 former Solutions



Solution 1

Solution 2

•Composite floor deck

•Bays of 30 x 30 ft

•Advantage: only 4 columns needed

•Steel Frame Structure

•Spans of 15 ft (concrete elements) and

30 ft (steel frames)

•Advantage: slab can be thin (reduction of dead loads)

Girders

Concrete walls

Former solutions

Typical element sizes



Girders

Secondary

Beams

Concrete wallsMost economic compromise:takes the advantages of both structural solutions

• only 4 columns• reduced slab thickness

Typical element sizes:

• Slab: Composite floor deck, total height: 4 ¾“• Secondary beams: 8“ (HEA 200)

• Small Girders: 12“ (HEB 280)

• Large Girders: 15“ (HEB 360)

•Concrete walls: 12“

Columns (in basement): ø 16“ with a steel thickness of 1/3“


Gravity Load Path1Gravity Load Path1



Girders

Secondary

Beams

Concrete walls

Gravity Load Path

Gravity Load Path2Girders

Secondary

Beams

Concrete walls



Gravity Load Path

Gravity Load Path3



Girders

Secondary

Beams

Concrete walls

Gravity Load Path

Gravity Load Path4



Girders

Secondary

Beams

Concrete walls

Gravity Load Path

Gravity Load Path5

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMSTRUCTURAL SYSTEMCEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002)

Gravity Load Path

Foundation MainBuilding


Foundation – Main Building

Column loadsLine loads

Foundation will be:• a ground plate with a height of 15“

• at the positions of concentrated loads (columns): strengthening of the ground plate up to 24“

Foundation Auditoroium


Foundation - Auditorium

Foundation will be:

• the floor of the auditorium is declined.

• using a stepping instead of declination -> horizontal loads (out of gravity loads) are avoided

Line loads

• a ground plate with a height of 15“

• at the positions of concentrated loads (columns): strengthening of the ground plate up to 24“

Lateral Load Path LeftSymmetrical plan:



Concrete walls

• no additional moment occurs

Lateral Load Paths

Lateral Load Path Right

S

M

(M=N·e)

e

N

N



Concrete wallsAsymmetrical plan:

• additional moment• can be compensatet by

two normal forces N

Lateral Load Paths

Outside Wall



Outside concrete walls:

• do not act as a slab because of number of openings• it is necessary to build a moment resisting

frame structure

• high amount of reinforcement is needed

Lateral Load Paths

A1_C_Slide1


Existing Buildings

Site Access (Fulton)

Project Office

Material Laydown & Storage

Building Perimeter

Site Perimeter

Crane

Site plan

CONSTRUCTION SITE PLANCONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN

A1_C_Slide2


EXCAVATION:

• 18’ Hard Strata Excavation – No retaining wall necessary

FOUNDATION:

• Poured Reinforced Concrete Mat Slab w/ Column Footings

SUPERSTRUCTURE A:

• Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame

• Cast-in-Place Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls

• Cast-in-Place Composite Concrete/Steel Floor System

SUPERSTRUCTURE B:

• Steel Moment Frame


EXTERIOR FACADE:

• Concrete and Glass Curtain Wall System

CONCEPT #1: CONSTRUCTIONCONCEPT #1: CONSTRUCTION

Materials and Methods

A1_C_Slide3


Sitework $33,423.00Substructure $18,667.00Foundations $313,856.00Superstructure $773,670.00Exterior Façade $801,820.00Interiors $454,850.00Finishes $132,658.00Bldg. Specialties $481,540.00MEP $2,047,950.00Subtotal $5,058,434.00

Contingency 10% $505,844.00Gen. Cond. 10% $505,844.00Subtotal $1,011,688.00

CONCEPT #1: COST


Contingency 10% $491,055.30Gen. Cond. 10% $491,055.30Subtotal $982,110.60

Structural Solution #1: Structural Solution #2:

• Concrete Moment Frame

• Concrete Shear Walls

• Steel Moment Frame

• Concrete Shear Walls

Total Cost = $6,070,122 Per S.F. = $164.06

CONCEPT #1: COST

Total Cost = $5,892,664 Per S.F. = $159.26

A1_C_Slide2


CONCEPT #1: SCHEDULECONCEPT #1: SCHEDULEID Task Name Duration

1 Site Work 8 wks

2 Substructure 8 wks

3 Foundation 6 wks

4 Milestone #1 - Foundation 1 day?

5 SuperStructure 16 wks

6 Milestone #2 - Frame 1 day?

7 Exterior Façade 8 wks

8 MEP 12 wks

9 Interior 10 wks

10 Milestone #3 - Move-In 1 day?

3/1

6/21

9/30

8/309/69/139/209/2710/410/1110/1810/2511/111/811/1511/2211/2912/612/1312/2012/271/31/101/171/241/312/72/142/212/283/63/133/203/274/34/104/174/245/1 5/85/155/225/296/56/126/196/267/37/107/177/247/318/78/14August September October November December January February March April May June July August

ID Task Name

1 Site Work

2 Substructure

3 Foundation

4 Milestone #1 - Foundation

5 SuperStructure

6 Milestone #2 - Frame

7 Exterior Façade

8 MEP

9 Interior

10 Milestone #3 - Move-In

3/1

5/10

9/30

7/57/127/197/268/2 8/98/168/238/309/69/139/209/2710/410/1110/1810/2511/111/811/1511/2211/2912/612/1312/2012/271/31/101/171/241/312/72/142/212/283/63/133/203/274/34/104/174/245/1 5/85/155/225/296/56/126/196/267/37/10July August September October November December January February March April May June July

Start: 9/20/2015 – End: 7/7/2016

Conceptual Schedules

Start: 9/20/2015 – End: 7/7/2016

Schedule Duration = 9 months


MILESTONE #1: 3/01/16 – Foundation Complete MILESTONE #2: 5/10/16 – Shell Complete MILESTONE #3: 9/30/16 – Move-In

A_Second concept


SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTSECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT

CONCEPTUAL IDEAS

• Plaza

• Suspended box

• Open auditorium below

• Bridge idea for suspension

• Owner requested round forms

•“The bridge curve”

• access and circulation issues Progress

• “The crane” - A / E idea

• Suspended auditorium

• very expensive


SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT

PLAZA “A PLAZA

SURROUNDED BY WATER”


Concept



FIRST FLOOR PLAN


Plan



BASEMENT PLAN


Plan



SECOND FLOOR PLAN


Plan



THIRD FLOOR PLAN


Plan


SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTSECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT

SOUTH / NORTH FACADEEAST / WEST FACADE

SECTION AA

S / N FACADE

E / W FACADE

N

AA

TOP VIEW

Section / Elevations

A2_E_SOLUTION1


STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1

Architectural sketch

Engineering model

• Width: 100 ft

• Length: 145 ft

Constraints



Solution 1• the whole building is based on 4 large columns at the corners• an additional 4 columns in the core • as well as concrete walls in the core

(Elevators, Restrooms)

Gravital Structure



In each slab there will be 4 large girders• to collect gravity loads and transport them to theframework and the core columns

Girders

• Additionally, secondary beams will be usedto reduce the span of the slab

Secondary

Beams

Gravity Structure

Framework



Realizing the large span by a huge framework:• to collect gravity loads and transport lateral loads• to reduce deformation of the slabs

Girders

Secondary

Beams

Gravity Structure

Element sizesFramework


STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1Typical Element sizes:

Girders

Secondary

Beams

• Slab: Composite floor deck, total height: 4 ¾“ (Span ~11ft)• Secondary beams: 8“ (HEA 200)

• Core Columns: 20“ x 20“

• Large Girders: 24 1/2“ (HEM 600)

• Small Girders: 14“ (HEB 340)

• Outside Columns: 40“ x 40“ (Assumption)


GravityLoadPath



• from secondary beams to the girders• from girders to the outside framework and the inner core

Forces are transported:

• by vertical elements into the ground

Gravity Load Path

Lateral Structure



Stiffening the inside of the box by EBF‘s (eccentric braced frames):• Advantage – in case of an earthquake, EBF‘s can absorb some of energy

Lateral Resisting Structure

• Note – detailed calculations will need to be completed to determine the feasibility of this solution(due to massive framework)

LateralLoadPath_Left



Symmetrical plan:

• no additional moments occur

Lateral Load Paths

LateralLoadPath_Top



Symmetrical plan:

• no additional moments occur

Lateral Load Paths

Foundation Columns


STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1Foundation of the columns is critical because of seismic issues:

• the outside columns must be able to rock -> base isolation system

• the core columns are supposed to be thinner and more ductile, allowing for deformation in case of an earthquake

• these two columns areconnected to the wall of the

auditorium

Foundation

FoundationBasement


STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1Foundation of the basement:

• will be a ground plate

• in the core, a strengthening of the ground plate becomes necessary (columns)

Foundation

A2_E_SOLUTION2



Solution 2• additional columns are used to reduce the span• the building becomes more economical

InsideElements



Stiffening inside of the box by EBF‘s (eccentric braced frames)


OutsideElements



Stiffening also the outside of the box by EBF‘s:

• with this structural solution there are shorter spans of about 30 ft.• EBF‘s can absorb energy in case of an earthquake• Columns are not stressed with the entire earthquake energy


LoadPaths and Foundation



Load paths and foundation are similar to the first structural solution

A2_C_Slide1A1_C_Slide2


CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTIONEXCAVATION:

• 18’ Hard Strata Excavation – No retaining wall necessary

FOUNDATION A:

• Concrete Slab and Base Isolation System

FOUNDATION B:

• Poured Reinforced Concrete Mat Slab w/ Column Footings

SUPERSTRUCTURE A:

• Exterior Steel Truss System

• Interior Steel Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) System


SUPERSTRUCTURE B:

• Exterior/Interior Steel EBF System


EXTERIOR FACADE:

• Concrete and Glass Curtain Wall System

CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION

Materials and Methods

A1_C_Slide3A2_C_Slide2


CONCEPT #2: COST

Sitework $33,423.00Substructure $22,234.00Foundations $345,000.00Base Isolation $617,500.00Superstructure $610,000.00Exterior Façade $750,000.00Interiors $467,000.00Finishes $145,000.00Bldg. Specialties $475,000.00MEP $2,112,000.00Subtotal $5,577,157.00




Structural Solution #1: Structural Solution #2:

• Steel Truss/EBF system

• Base Isolation System

• Exterior/Interior EBF system

Total Cost = $6,804,132 Per S.F. = $183.90

Total Cost = $5,977,581 Per S.F. = $161.56

CONCEPT #2: COST

A1_C_Slide2


CONCEPT #2: SCHEDULE

ID Task Name

1 Site Work

2 Substructure

3 Foundation

4 Milestone #1 - Foundation

5 SuperStructure

6 Milestone #2 - Frame

7 Exterior Façade

8 MEP

9 Interior

10 Milestone #3 - Move-In

3/29

6/21

9/30

8/98/168/238/309/69/139/209/2710/410/1110/1810/2511/111/811/1511/2211/2912/612/1312/2012/271/31/101/171/241/312/72/142/212/283/63/133/203/274/34/104/174/245/1 5/85/155/225/296/56/126/196/267/37/107/177/247/318/78/14August September October November December January February March April May June July August

Schedule Duration = 9.5 months

ID

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2/2

4/12

9/30

8/98/168/238/309/69/139/209/2710/410/1110/1810/2511/111/811/1511/2211/2912/612/1312/2012/271/31/101/171/241/312/72/142/212/283/63/133/203/274/34/104/174/245/15/85/155/225/296/56/126/196/267/37/107/177/247/318/78/148/218/289/49/119/189/2510/210/9August September October November December January February March April May June July August September October


CONCEPT #2: SCHEDULE

Conceptual Schedules

MILESTONE #1: 3/29/16 – Foundation Complete MILESTONE #2: 6/21/16 – Shell Complete MILESTONE #3: 9/30/16 – Move-In

Start: 9/20/2015 – End: 7/17/2016

Start: 9/20/2015 – End: 5/21/2016

Decision_Forest


DECISION MATRIXDECISION MATRIX

Costs:

$5.9 MilCONS: •More conventional design

•Only one main access•Relatively simple box - structure

A

E

C

•Daylight / Green area inside•No extended footprint•Owners preference

•Large glass facade•Interesting retractable roof

A

E

C

PROS:

FOREST

•Steel is efficient and cost effective

•Retractable roof / Glass facade costly

•Straightforward construction sequencing

Decision_Plaza


DECISION MATRIX

Costs:

$6.8 MilCONS:A

E

C

A

E

C

PROS:

PLAZA

•More unusual design•Two accesses•Daylight inside

•Extended footprint•Space on first floor wasted

•A lot of details must be solved

•Again: interesting structure with A LOT of details

•Open ground floor

•Interesting structure (large spans)

•Base Isolation System costly

•EBF system is cost andschedule efficient

DECISION MATRIX

Matrix


DECISION MATRIX

Costs:

•Daylight / Green area inside

$5.9 Mil $6.8 Mil

PROS:

CONS:

•No extended footprint•Owners preference

•More conventional design•Only one main access

•Large glass facade•Interesting retractable roof

•Relatively simple box - structure

•More unusual design•Two accesses•Daylight inside

•Extended footprint•Space on first floor wasted

•Interesting structure (large spans)•A lot of details must be solved

•Again: interesting structure

•Open ground floor

with a lot of details

Comparison

•EBF system is cost and

•Base Isolation System costly

•Steel is efficient and cost•Straightforward construction

•Retractable roof/Glass facade

effective.

sequencing

schedule efficient

costly

DECISION MATRIX

Lessons Learned


LESSONS LEARNEDLESSONS LEARNED

New media needs further development to work properly every time

• We encountered problems, especially in using Netmeeting

The phone line we have as backup is used every time in present meetings

• The data archival is very important but also complicated

Necessity of keeping track of the different versions of a document

Developing a tool to easily gather and manage data

Further Collaboration


FURTHER COLLABORATIONFURTHER COLLABORATION

The discussion forum should be used more often

We used it at the beginning of the project quite often but recently we „fell back“ to Emails

We should announce team-meetings (with all the members) once a week

The notification mechanism should be improved

Discussing with everybody (other disciplines) brings an improved learning experience

Importance of knowing if an email, attachment arrived and was useful

Questions?CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002)

QUESTIONS ?

Thank youThank you

Date post:	22-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lee-morton
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

TeamMembers Architect: Angela Ribas UC Berkeley Engineer: Matthias Niebling Bauhaus-University...

Documents