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

Site Plan

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

Pouring Stream- 1st Floor

N

Pouring Stream- 2nd Floor

N

Pouring Stream- 3rd Floor

N

Evaluation

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

Sections

Section A

Section B

A

A

B B

Material ChoiceTraffic

Traffic

Photovoltaic (PV) cells

Concrete (Aerated)

3D Model

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

Construction Sequencing

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.

The Central Project

QUESTIONS?

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!