Pacific University Architecture Katie Kozarek EngineeringChristian Heimple ConstructionDebbie Sit ApprenticeChristina Cho OwnerPeter Demian School of Engineering

Pacific University

Architecture Katie Kozarek

Engineering Christian Heimple

Construction Debbie Sit

Apprentice Christina Cho

Owner Peter Demian

School of Engineering – New Construction Design Alternatives

Presentation Outline:

General Project Information & Introduction Discipline Constraints & Goals Alternative 1-4 by Discipline Decision Matrix (Pros/Cons of each Alternative) Team Process – Iteration Examples Team Dynamics Conclusion

CCAA

EE

Pacific Team & Project Information

Engineering School of Pacific University in Oregon

Location: Beautiful valley site near Pacific Ocean “Sunny Pond” of about 3000 sq.ft.

Preservation of existing footprint10,000 sq.ft. per story (3)

60% assignable CCAA

EE

Project Constraints

Total Budget: PV = $4.1 millionStructural System Budget: $330,000Completion Time: 1 year, by September

30, 2012Occupancy for Lab Facility: May 1, 2012Soil Condition: Rippable Rock

Design Considerations:

Rebuild a 3-story building for classroom, lab, office, and auditorium

Design a facility for innovative courses taking a team approach to engineering design

Put forth creative ideas considering: Architectural sense of place Functional use by occupants

Listen to team members knowledge-based notifications to design issues

Topography map Topography map

Oregon coast Site considerations:

•Small community

•Steep topography

•Cliffs

•Sparse highway system

Site map Site map

Small campus

Nearby pond

Overlooking cliff

Site photographsSite photographs

Considerations:

Cliff & Pond

Campus buildingsCampus buildingsNote:

Brick skin & Rectilinear forms

Structural Engineering – Requirements & Conditions

System Requirements Steel or concrete frame Cast-in-place, post-tensioned, or precast concrete

slab

Geometric Requirements Height of structure limited to 30’ Footprint of structure limited to existing

footprints

Pacific University – School of Engineering

Structural Engineering – Load Considerations Live Loads

Terrace, Atrium, Storage, & Stairwells – 100 psf Corridors – 80 psf Auditorium & Lobby – 60 psf Classrooms & Offices – 50 psf Roof – 20 psf

Dead Loads Lightweight concrete floor – 60 psf Metal deck – 5 psf Flooring, ceiling, lights – 12 psf Ductwork – 5 psf Partitions – 20 psf Exterior Cladding – 30 psf


Structural Engineering – Load Considerations

Seismic Considerations Moderate to high seismic activity; Zone 3 Occupancy category, I = 1.0 Rock subsurface

Wind Considerations Design wind speed, V33 = 85 mph (38m/s)


Equipment

Track-type Tractor

Ripper

Hydraulic Crane

Site Plan: L-shape

Material LaydownMaterial Storage

Office Trailer

Crane

Temporary Road Access

Main Road Access

Site Main Entrance

Optional Site Entrance

Site Boundary

Site Plan: Double Square

Material LaydownMaterial StorageOffice Trailer

CraneMain Site Entrance

Site Boundary

Optional Site Entrance

Alternative 1 - ArchitectureAlternative 1 - Architecture

Previous drawings restructured by engineer: Architectural redesign in Alternative 2

Alternative 1Alternative 1Previous Section & Elevation

Alternative 1 – Option 1 Structural Proposal


Steel moment resisting frame Composite concrete/steel deck (t = 4.5”)


First Floor Plan


Third Floor Plan

Outdoor TerraceLaboratory


Second Floor Structural Plan


W12x45

W14x61

6x6 tube

Third Floor Structural Plan

Roof StructurePacific University – School of Engineering



Roof Structure



Roof Structure




Cast-in-place concrete frame and two-way concrete slab (t = 6”) Shear walls (t = 10”) Goal: To address cost cost concerns of CM regarding rotunda


Second Floor Plan


Third Floor Plan

Outdoor TerraceStorage




Foundation Plan Main columns have 5’x5’ spread

footings Rotunda has 10” drilled piles

10”x15”

10”x10”

Complex connection


Eccentrically braced steel frame Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”) Goal: To address cost and constructability concerns of previous two

options



First Floor Plan


Second Floor Plan

No conflicts with architecture


Third Floor Structural Plan


W12x45

W14x61


W14x61

Fewer columns than with original concept (A/E/C)

W12x45


Gravity load distribution


Lateral load distribution

Space frame: Construction Method Excavated cost for sunken auditorium (20,000 cy)

at about $400,000, ~10% of Total Cost Steel SMRF more labor-intensive then braced

frame; Concrete requires CIP

Alternative 1 – Construction Issues

Alternative 1: Option 3 Schedule & Estimate

Total: $3.8 Million

Structural: $420,000

Alternative 2 - PartiAlternative 2 - Parti

Parti:Redevelopment of last year’s idea

How can the design pattern laid above the space be incorporated and brought into the building?

Can circulation systems become the pattern?

Can the pattern be highlighted with structure?

Can the structure reflect the pattern’s form and in turn cause sunshadows to develop in the interior spaces?

Alternative 2 - PlansAlternative 2 - Plans

Initial plans

More Finalized plans

Alternative 2 – Model ViewsAlternative 2 – Model Views

Auditorium space underground

Pattern defined by structure and pathways

Structure filters and captures sunlight

Alternative 2Alternative 2

SectionSection through building bringing truss down through building above stairwells

Question to engineer? Can you make this a load bearing element in your structural considerations?


Eccentrically braced steel frame Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”) Basement auditorium (steel space frame or concrete dome roof) Goal: To meet architect’s challenge of a radial layout with the structure

integrated into the north building’s radial hallways





W12x45

W14x61

First Floor Plan

Laboratory


Special moment resisting steel frame Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”) Basement auditorium (steel space frame or concrete dome roof

with compression ring) Goal: To eliminate structural conflicts with architecture



First Floor Plan


W12x45

W14x61


No conflicts w/architecture


Steel frame with shear walls Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”) Basement auditorium (steel space frame or concrete dome roof

with compression ring) Goal: To explore a shear wall alternative





First Floor Plan

No conflicts w/architecture


North Building – visible braced frames along main corridors South Building – eccentrically braced frames on exterior walls Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”) Basement auditorium (steel space frame or concrete dome roof) Goal: To integrate functional braced frames into the north building’s

hallways




First Floor Plan

W12x45

W14x61

Alternative 2 – Construction Issues

Building is separated into two parts:Cost Consideration for duplication of MEP systems

Connecting the two parts by 3rd floor skywalk: Potential savings: ~20% of total cost

Enclosed or Open Radial hallways: Life-cycle Costs

Constructability issues: Curved Walls & Angled Connections

Milestone 1:Structural System Erected

Milestone 2:Building enclosed

Milestone 3:Project completion

Total: $6.0 Million


MEP: $.2.2 Million

Alternative 2: Schedule & Estimate

Alternative 2: Revised Estimate

MEP: $1.1Million

Structural:$400,000

Total: $4.2 Million

parti sketches

Alternative 3Alternative 3

Organically growing plans and elevations moving out from footprint: representing natural growth of coastal habitat ; provisions for experimental growth

Alternative 3: Puzzle ConceptAlternative 3: Puzzle Concept

Option 1 – First set of plans

Alternative 3: Option 1Alternative 3: Option 1

Second set of plans: Changes include moving auditorium to first and second floor instead of excavation – consequential redesign of some interior spaces

Alternative 3: Elevation

Option 2 involves the L-shaped plan for the site

It is still working with the puzzle concept – showing its versatility

Alternative 3: Option 2

Material selectionMaterial selection3 materials

5 blocksEach block has own material skin

Considered in construction and structural process

Computer block: brick to match surrounding buildings

Administration block : wood

Student block: wood

Auditorium: concrete

Classroom block: concrete

Alternative 3: ModelAlternative 3: ModelSuggestions made to construction manager and engineer: think about how can we think of this design as being constructed in separate functional blocks? Can prefabrication be an option? Classroom block

Computer blockStudent blockFaculty blockAuditorium

PUZZLE PIECE AS INTERCONNECTING BLOCKS

Alternative 3 - Interior examplesAlternative 3 - Interior examples

Isozaki/

Kurokawa

how can elements from puzzle concept enter into interior spaces?

Alternative 3 - Exterior examples

Isozaki/

Kurokawa How can elements of form

create interesting spaces? Can structure be pushed into

stipulating form? Can functional blocks merge

to create a whole?



Steel frame w/ shear walls (t = 8”) Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)


First Floor Plan


W14x90

W12x65


Instructional Laboratory


Cantilever Details


Tube Section (6x6)

Tube Section (6x6)


Concrete frame w/ shear walls (t = 8”) C-I-P two-way beam supported slab (t = 5”) Post-tensioned cantilever beams and slab Goal: To explore concrete alternatives





Cantilever Details


Eccentrically braced steel frame Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”) Preferred option for Alternative 2 Goal: A cost and time efficient, constructible alternative



First Floor Plan


Moment frames used to integrate structure with architecture

W12x45

W14x61




Alternative 3

Computer Room & Instructional Lab located on different floors: Construction Sequence

Trailer rental costs $10,000 vs Late move-in penalty $37,500

Pre-cast concrete allows fast erection, yet relatively expensive for small-scale projects

Alternative 3 - Option 3 Schedule & Estimate

Total: $4.0 Million


Alternative 4 - Architecture

CAD model sent by structural engineer…

Alternative 4Breaking down massing to make for more usable interior spaces outside of auditorium

Working on unfolding building to consider spatial issues

Alternative 4

Potential

for new

spaces

Creating circulation

Alternative 4How can “floating column” be replaced to show load transfer?

• Conceptual plan – how can this form fit into the site? – needs to be broken down


60’ Cable-stayed cantilever over ocean-side cliff Composite steel/concrete deck with eccentrically

braced frame



Structural Concept based on TWA hangar in Philadelphia and American hangar at San Francisco International

Design started with engineer to break out of A > E > C pattern and to overcome prior structural difficulties with previous alternatives



Cantilevered portion of structure




Eccentrically braced steel frame Composite steel/concrete deck (t = 4.5”)

8x8 tube steel hanging columns


Third Floor Plan



60’ Cable-stayed cantilever over ocean-side cliff Shear walls and post-tensioned slab (t = 5”) Cantilevered portions remain steel Goal: Reduce mast height and reflect architect’s

revisions




Northeast shoulder removed to accommodate footprint constraint


Footprint

2nd Floor Structural Plan


Alternative 4

Structurally very dynamic, yet repetition aids in cutting construction costs

Cable-stayed system requires deep pile foundation 2nd and 3rd floor cantilever hanging over cliff:

require temporary platform for efficient construction of the exterior wall

Design still young; construction input in structure/materials/method can possibly drive cost and schedule down

Alternative 4: Schedule & Estimate

Total: $4.6 Million


Cost Comparisons

Decision Matrix AEC

1

2

3

4

PROS CONS

•Dynamic, radial, curvilinear, sun pattern•Semi-regular bays sizes and layout•Easier to construct (regular layout, little welding)

•Most flexible puzzle piece parti•material-functional block relationships•Braced frames have dual purpose of “backing” cantilevers & lateral load support

•Most dynamic interior spaces (auditorium), sunpatterns, shadowplay•Structure integrated with architecture

•Design speaks to engineering and structure•Extremely interesting structural system•Regular structural patterns – many common components throughout

•Cantilevered walkway over atrium susceptible to vibration and imposes large moments in connecting column•Costly atrium space

•May not challenge engineer•Long cantilevers may be susceptible to vibration problems•No economies of scale with so many materials

•Circulation undeveloped•Very irregular layout resulting in a large number of angled connections •Expensive to construct (curved walls, angled connections)

•No relationship to site or context, lack of spatial variation creating architectural limitations•Exceeds height limit and footprint (under review)•Deep piles require lots of time & money, large overhanging portion

Team Process – Iteration Examples Alternative 1 A->E->C->A->E->C

Predetermined, old architectural drawings redesigned

Alternative 2 A->E->C Developed architecturally but needs more structural and construction advice due to issues of

constructability

Alternative 3 A->E->C->E->A->C Redesign of Alternative 1 E&C advised architect against irregular, oblique layout

Expensive, angled connections A challenges E&C to integrate their systems into the architecture (e.g. exposed structural

system)

Alternative 4 E->A->C->A->E->C Design started with engineer

Team Dynamics INTERACTION WITH OWNER:

Very understanding, sensitive, & informative b/c has engineering

Encouraging of ideas outside original scope

INTERACTION WITH TEAM: Initial lack of conceptual understanding of each

others’ fields and roles Challenge to meet new expectations for next semester

by being informative and understanding of different expectations and considerations in the design process

Challenge to be more communicative and outspoken during the design process

Consideration of Alternative 4 Redesign as Final Solution:

CCAA

EE

Challenging Structural Design Feasible in Time and Cost for

Construction without current considerations for material

Architecturally lacks spatial concept and connection to context

CONCLUSION

Considering a fifth alternative

that can challenge all fields equally

CCAA

EE

Documents

Pacific University Architecture Katie Kozarek EngineeringChristian Heimple ConstructionDebbie Sit ApprenticeChristina Cho OwnerPeter Demian School of Engineering