R I V E R 2 0 0 2 A rchitect Elena Paparizou Berkeley E ngineer Paul Kulseth Kansas C onst. Manager Wendy Wang Stanford O wner Jonathan Wong W i n t e

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

CConst. Manageronst. Manager Wendy WangWendy Wang StanfordStanford

OOwnerwner Jonathan WongJonathan Wong

W i n t e r P r e s e n t a t i o nW i n t e r P r e s e n t a t i o n

Thorton-Thorton-Tomasetti Tomasetti EngineersEngineers

The SiteAA

The SiteAA

The SiteAAAccess

The SiteAABuildings

Soil ConditionsSource: Earth Sciences Library and Map Collection on Stanford Campus

EE

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 by seasonal high water table to a depth of 5 feet.

Foundation IssuesDeep Foundation

EE

Proposal :

2-½’ dia. Drilled Shafts for column loads.

Grade Beams for wall loads.

Reasoning :

Earthquake regions may have problems with liquefaction in non-cemented soils, such as alluvial fans.

Bearing Pressure for non-cemented soils is typically between 2000 - 3000 psf.

Building Column

Casing

Rebar Cage

Rock Socket

Loading ConditionsGravity

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

Estimated Weight of Structure 5 psf (Joists and Beams)

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

= 65 psf

ROOF LIVE LOAD

[ 1997 UBC, Table 16-C ]

Flat Roof = 20 psf

( < 33% slope )

Loading ConditionsLateral

EE

WIND LOADS [ 1997 UBC ] Exposure "B" [ Section 1616 ]

Basic Wind Speed = 70 mph [ Figure 16-1 ]

Wind Importance Factor (Iw) = 1.00 [ Table 16-K ]

Design Wind Pressure = P = ( Ce ) ( Cq ) ( qs ) ( Iw )

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

Soil Profile Type “SD” [ Table 16-J ]

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

1st AlternativeAAOrientation

N

1st AlternativeAAAccess

1st AlternativeAAConcept

100 ft

100 ft





1st AlternativeAAAdjacencies

1st floor

2nd floor

student offices

chair/senior admin./secretaries

faculty offices

3rd floor

1st AlternativeAAOrganization

1st floor

3rd floor

2nd floorN

student offices


faculty offices

1st AlternativeAA

1st AlternativeAAFloor Plans

1st floor

3rd floor

2nd floorN

1st AlternativeAASections

1st AlternativeAAElevations & Sketches

South-East North-West

South-West

1st Alternative OptionsStructural Systems

EE

Design Considerations : Curved walls

• Interior and Exterior Non-Intrusive Columns Long spans in Auditorium Loading in Mechanical Room Symmetrical

Option # 1 : Steel Framing Braced Frame Lateral System

Option # 2 : Reinforced Concrete Framing Shear Wall Lateral System Steel support for Auditorium

Steel Option - 1st Alternative1st Floor Plan

EERationale : Ample locations for bracing

Braced Frame vs. Moment

• Reduces overall weight

• Simple connections

Wide, column free Auditorium proposes need for steel trusses.

W10x33

W10x33

LL 3x3x¼

Steel Option - 1st Alternative2nd Floor Plan

EESystem : Steel Framing

Open Web Steel Joists used to support flooring system

Total slab depth = 4” LWC

Non-Composite Metal Decking

• Type 1.0 C 26W16x40

20 K 4 (7.6 lb/ft)

Steel Option - 1st Alternative3rd Floor Plan

EE

W10x19

W16x57

W12x22

Steel Option - 1st AlternativeRoof Plan

EE

Details :

Reduced roof loading allows for greater spacing of joists.

Columns need to be placed within the Faculty Office area due to floor height restrictions.

Option # 1 Advantages :

Rigid, but flexible

Lightweight

Challenging

Opt. # 1 Disadvantages :

Curved Steel Fabrication

Truss DetailPanel Loading

EE

Details :

Faculty Offices above the Auditorium can not utilize similar framing to that in the Auditorium due to ceiling height restrictions.

Inner Column loads are carried by the Truss to the Outer Columns.

RC Option - 1st Alternative3rd Floor Plan

EESystem : Reinforced Concrete Framing

One-Way slab @ 6” NWC

Long spans necessitate similar support above the Auditorium as used in Option # 1

Column and lateral support locations are the same as in Option #1

12” x 12”

h = 10”

20”x10”

20”x10”

RC Option - 1st AlternativeRoof Plan

EE

Details :

Columns again needed in Faculty Office area to reduce span lengths and beam depths.


Curved Walls could be easily done through formwork.

Site AccessSquare Option

CC

Site LayoutSquare Option

CC

Equipment SelectionSquare Option

CC

•Hydraulic Excavator (front shovel & backhoe)

•Dump truck

•Hydraulic mobile crane

•Compactor

•Concrete pump

Constructibility IssuesCC• Curved Form: Steel members must be rolled during fabrication and formwork for concrete must be carefully designed.

• Symmetry allows for repetitious construction and ordering of steel elements; and reuse of formwork is possible for cost savings.

• Installation of trusses will be a challenge due to variable sizes.

Construction MethodsCC• Floor by Floor

Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3


•Phased


1 1 1

2 23 3

ScheduleCC

Milestone: 1st Floor Deck and Slab

Milestone: 2nd Floor Deck and Slab

Milestone: 3rd Floor Deck and Slab

Finish: 4/21/2016

Cost DistributionCC

Substructure1.4%

Foundations4.3%

Special Construction

3.8%

Electrical10.3%

Mechanical37.2% Conveying

3.6%

Interior Construction

13.7%

Roofing0.8%

Exterior Closure

4.6%

Superstructure20.4%

Steel: $2,946,535

Hybrid: $2,831,030

2nd AlternativeAAOrientation

N

2nd AlternativeAAAccess

2nd AlternativeAAConcept

76 ft

38 ft

76 ft

76 ft

76 ft

38 ft

38 ft

38 ft




2nd AlternativeAAOrganization

1st floor

3rd floor

2nd floor

student offices


faculty offices

N

2nd AlternativeAA

2nd AlternativeAAFloor Plans

1st floor

3rd floor

2nd floorN

2nd AlternativeAASections

2nd AlternativeAAElevations & Sketches

South-East

North-East

2nd Alternative OptionsStructural Systems

EE

Design Considerations : Regular Grid

Non-Intrusive Columns

Non-Symmetrical

Option # 1 :

Steel Moment Frame

Option # 2 :

Reinforced Concrete Framing

Shear Wall Lateral System

Steel Option - 2nd Alternative1st Floor Plan

EE

Rationale :

Few locations for bracing

Cantilevered, exterior circulation necessitates a stiffer structure.

Regular grid makes steel quick and easy

Wide, column free Auditorium proposes need for steel trusses or deep girders.

W12x50

W10x33

Steel Option - 2nd Alternative2nd Floor Plan

EE

System :

Steel Moment Frame

Open Web Steel Joists used to support flooring system

Total slab depth = 4” LWC

Non-Composite Metal Decking (Type 1.0 C 26)

W18x60

20 K 4 (7.6 lb/ft)

Steel Option - 2nd Alternative3rd Floor Plan

EE

W16x36

Steel Option - 2nd AlternativeRoof Plan

EE

Details :

Reduced roof loading allows for greater spacing of joists.


Rigid, Sturdy

No wall intrusions

Option # 1 Disadvantages :

Heavy

Connections …$$$

RC Option - 2nd Alternative2nd Floor Plan

EE

System :

Reinforced Concrete

Framing

Shear Wall Lateral Support

One-Way slab @ 6” NWC

Column locations are the

same as in Option #1

12” x 12”

h = 10”

18”x16”

16”x14”

RC Option - 2nd AlternativeRoof Plan

EE

Details :

Columns again needed in Faculty Office area to reduce span lengths and structural depths.

2-Way slab above Auditorium (hatched area) needed to support those columns.


Structural Regularity allows for formwork reuse.

Site AccessDouble-Square Option

CC

Site LayoutDouble-Square Option

CC

Equipment SelectionDouble-Square Option

CC

•Hydraulic Excavator (front shovel & backhoe)

•Dump truck

•Tower crane

•Compactor

•Concrete pump

Constructibility IssuesCC

• Shorter spans allow easier construction; rectangular form allows for fairly straightforward construction process.

• No symmetry: Lead to higher costs.

• Consider pre-fabricated concrete elements to shorten construction time.

• Longer boom length required for crane =>more expensive.




•Phased

1 1 2 21

3


Schedule - SteelCC




Finish: 4/21/2016

Schedule - ConcreteCC

Finish: 5/12/2016




Cost DistributionCCSteel:

$2,952,709

Concrete: $2,805,125

$2,484,563

$2,946,535$2,831,070

$2,952,709$2,805,125

Budget Square Steel SquareSteel/Concrete

D. SquareSteel

D. SquareConcrete

Cost ComparisonCC

4% Inflation

& Fees Adjusted

Material ComparisonCC

PROS CONS

Steel Faster construction

Expensive,

Lead time

Concrete

(Cast-in-Place)

Cheap,

Flexible formwork

Time

consuming

Concrete

(Prefabricated)

Faster than CIP concrete

Expensive if no regular grid

Team Process & Interaction AA EE CC

Conceptual Sketches

Spatial Organization &

Circulation

Revision/ Redesign

Material Proposal

Constraints & Structural Options

Column Locations & Framing

Refining

Material Stability Issues

Site Constraints &

Considerations

Constructibility Issues

Material Options & Costs

Construction Costs &

Scheduling

Decision Matrix AdvantagesAdvantages DisadvantagesDisadvantages

Square Base

Double-Square Base

CC

CC

AA

EE

•Symmetrical•Short Construction Time

•Expensive Structural System•Curved form

•Rectangular form•Well-defined grid

•Longer reach for crane

•Much longer construction time with concrete

A A

EE

•Meets Spatial Requirements

•Minimal Circulation

•Floor Plan is crammed•Volume appears too massive

•Circulation as a path

•Interaction between inside and outside

•Spatial requirements are not entirely fulfilled

•Circulation has flaws

•Structural Symmetry•Lateral Support Availability

•Non-Orthogonal Connections•Non-regular column locations

•Regular structural grid•Relatively short spans

•Structural Symmetry•Lateral Support Availability

Proposed Solution

Square Base

11stst Alternative Alternative Provides a challenge for all disciplines

More Learning opportunities

Lessons Learned & Goals

How can we continue our design ?

Utilize available technology more efficiently

Improve and increase communication

Challenge each other

What did we learn ?

Each other’s work habits

How to get the most out of each other

The best ways to convey our ideas

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

Documents

R I V E R 2 0 0 2 A rchitect Elena Paparizou Berkeley E ngineer Paul Kulseth Kansas C onst. Manager Wendy Wang Stanford O wner Jonathan Wong W i n t e