TeamMembers Team members of the Team members of the Angela Ribas CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) Team members of the Team members of the TeamMembers Angela Ribas Architect: UC Berkeley Matthias Niebling Engineer: Bauhaus-University Weimar, Germany Construction Manager: Kevin Coyne Stanford University Product Manager: Torsten Schluesselburg FH Aargau, Switzerland David Steinbach Owner: Weimar, Germany

Location CAMPUS LOCATION CAMPUS LOCATION CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CAMPUS LOCATION CAMPUS LOCATION Location BAY AREA / CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO MAIN CAMPUS AT FULTON STREET SURROUNDING: GOLDEN GATE PARK RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD HILL AREA (HUGE GREEN AREA)

CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CAMPUS VIEW CAMPUS VIEW N Map

SURROUNDING BUILDINGS SURROUNDING BUILDINGS CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SURROUNDING BUILDINGS SURROUNDING BUILDINGS SITE MAP Textures

SITE SITE Building location N PANORAMIC VIEW FLAT GROUND CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SITE SITE N PANORAMIC VIEW FLAT GROUND FACING FULTON STREET SITE MAP Building location

FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT A_First concept FOREST “AN OPEN AND FRIENDLY SPACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN INTERACT” CORE VIEW Concept

FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST FLOOR PLAN Plan

FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT BASEMENT Plan

FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND FLOOR Plan

FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT THIRD FLOOR Plan

FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT N C B B A A C SECTION AA SECTION BB SECTION CC Sections

FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT N SOUTH FACADE SOUTH FACADE NORTH FACADE NORTH FACADE EAST FACADE TOP VIEW Elevations WEST FACADE

A1_E_SOLUTION1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM A1_E_SOLUTION1

Loading assumptions STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Loading assumptions 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 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 LATERAL LOADS: Wind load 13 psf 0.64 kN/m² Load Assumptions

Concrete Walls STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Structural elements CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Concrete Walls Concrete walls Typical element sizes: Concrete walls: 12“ Structural elements

Girders STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Structural elements CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Girders Girders Concrete walls Possible sections of a column typical column / girder connection 16“ 15“ Structural elements

2 former Solutions STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM 2 former Solutions Solution 1 Girders Concrete walls Composite floor deck Bays of 30 x 30 ft Advantage: only 4 columns needed Solution 2 Steel Frame Structure Spans of 15 ft (concrete elements) and 30 ft (steel frames) Advantage: slab can be thin (reduction of dead loads) Former solutions

Typical element sizes STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Typical element sizes Most economic compromise: Girders Secondary Beams Concrete walls takes the advantages of both structural solutions only 4 columns reduced slab thickness Typical element sizes: Concrete walls: 12“ Large Girders: 15“ (HEB 360) Slab: Composite floor deck, total height: 4 ¾“ Small Girders: 12“ (HEB 280) Secondary beams: 8“ (HEA 200) Columns (in basement): ø 16“ with a steel thickness of 1/3“ Typical element sizes

Gravity Load Path1 Gravity Load Path1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Gravity Load Path1 Gravity Load Path1 Girders Secondary Beams Concrete walls Gravity Load Path

Gravity Load Path2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Gravity Load Path2 Girders Secondary Beams Concrete walls Gravity Load Path

Gravity Load Path3 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Gravity Load Path3 Girders Secondary Beams Concrete walls Gravity Load Path

Gravity Load Path4 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Gravity Load Path4 Girders Secondary Beams Concrete walls Gravity Load Path

Gravity Load Path5 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Gravity Load Path5 Gravity Load Path

Foundation MainBuilding CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Foundation MainBuilding 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“ Line loads Column loads Foundation – Main Building

Foundation Auditoroium CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Foundation Auditoroium 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“ the floor of the auditorium is declined. using a stepping instead of declination -> horizontal loads (out of gravity loads) are avoided Line loads Foundation - Auditorium

no additional moment occurs CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Lateral Load Path Left Concrete walls Symmetrical plan: no additional moment occurs Lateral Load Paths

Lateral Load Path Right CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Lateral Load Path Right Asymmetrical plan: Concrete walls additional moment e N can be compensatet by two normal forces N (M=N·e) S M Lateral Load Paths

Outside Wall STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Lateral Load Paths CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM 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

CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN A1_C_Slide1 Existing Buildings Site Access (Fulton) Project Office Material Laydown & Storage Crane Building Perimeter Site Perimeter Site plan

A1_C_Slide2 CONCEPT #1: CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT #1: CONSTRUCTION CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONCEPT #1: CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT #1: CONSTRUCTION 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 Cast-in-Place Composite Concrete/Steel Floor System EXTERIOR FACADE: Concrete and Glass Curtain Wall System Materials and Methods

A1_C_Slide3 CONCEPT #1: COST CONCEPT #1: COST Structural Solution #1: CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONCEPT #1: COST CONCEPT #1: COST A1_C_Slide3 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 Total Cost = $5,892,664 Per S.F. = $159.26

A1_C_Slide2 CONCEPT #1: SCHEDULE CONCEPT #1: SCHEDULE CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONCEPT #1: SCHEDULE CONCEPT #1: SCHEDULE A1_C_Slide2 Schedule Duration = 9 months Start: 9/20/2015 – End: 7/7/2016 Schedule Duration = 9 months Start: 9/20/2015 – End: 7/7/2016 MILESTONE #1: 3/01/16 – Foundation Complete MILESTONE #2: 5/10/16 – Shell Complete MILESTONE #3: 9/30/16 – Move-In Conceptual Schedules

SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT A_Second concept CONCEPTUAL IDEAS Plaza Suspended box Open auditorium below “The crane” - A / E idea Suspended auditorium very expensive Bridge idea for suspension Owner requested round forms “The bridge curve” access and circulation issues Progress

SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT PLAZA “A PLAZA SURROUNDED BY WATER” Concept

SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FIRST FLOOR PLAN Plan

SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT BASEMENT PLAN Plan

SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND FLOOR PLAN Plan

SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT THIRD FLOOR PLAN Plan

SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECOND ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT N A A S / N FACADE SECTION AA E / W FACADE EAST / WEST FACADE SOUTH / NORTH FACADE TOP VIEW Section / Elevations

A2_E_SOLUTION1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 A2_E_SOLUTION1 Architectural sketch Width: 100 ft Length: 145 ft Engineering model

Constraints STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 Solution 1 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 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 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 Gravital Structure In each slab there will be 4 large girders Girders to collect gravity loads and transport them to the Additionally, secondary beams will be used to reduce the span of the slab Secondary Beams framework and the core columns Gravity Structure

Framework STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 Gravity Structure CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 Framework Girders Secondary Beams Realizing the large span by a huge framework: to collect gravity loads and transport lateral loads to reduce deformation of the slabs Gravity Structure

Framework Element sizes STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 Framework Element sizes Typical Element sizes: Girders Secondary Beams Slab: Composite floor deck, total height: 4 ¾“ (Span ~11ft) Secondary beams: 8“ (HEA 200) Small Girders: 14“ (HEB 340) Large Girders: 24 1/2“ (HEM 600) Core Columns: 20“ x 20“ Outside Columns: 40“ x 40“ (Assumption) Typical element sizes

GravityLoadPath STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 GravityLoadPath Forces are transported: from secondary beams to the girders from girders to the outside framework and the inner core by vertical elements into the ground Gravity Load Path

Lateral Structure STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 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 Note – detailed calculations will need to be completed to determine the feasibility of this solution (due to massive framework) Lateral Resisting Structure

LateralLoadPath_Left CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 LateralLoadPath_Left Symmetrical plan: no additional moments occur Lateral Load Paths

no additional moments occur CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 LateralLoadPath_Top Symmetrical plan: no additional moments occur Lateral Load Paths

Foundation Columns STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 Foundation Columns Foundation 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 are connected to the wall of the auditorium Foundation

FoundationBasement STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 FoundationBasement Foundation of the basement: will be a ground plate in the core, a strengthening of the ground plate becomes necessary (columns) Foundation

A2_E_SOLUTION2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 Solution 2 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 A2_E_SOLUTION2 Solution 2 additional columns are used to reduce the span the building becomes more economical

InsideElements STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 InsideElements Stiffening inside of the box by EBF‘s (eccentric braced frames) Lateral Resisting Structure

OutsideElements STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 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 Lateral Resisting Structure

LoadPaths and Foundation CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 LoadPaths and Foundation Load paths and foundation are similar to the first structural solution

CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION A1_C_Slide2 A2_C_Slide1 EXCAVATION: 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 Cast-in-Place Composite Concrete/Steel Floor System SUPERSTRUCTURE B: Exterior/Interior Steel EBF System EXTERIOR FACADE: Concrete and Glass Curtain Wall System Materials and Methods

A1_C_Slide3 A2_C_Slide2 CONCEPT #2: COST CONCEPT #2: COST CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONCEPT #2: COST CONCEPT #2: COST A1_C_Slide3 A2_C_Slide2 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

A1_C_Slide2 CONCEPT #2: SCHEDULE CONCEPT #2: SCHEDULE CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONCEPT #2: SCHEDULE CONCEPT #2: SCHEDULE A1_C_Slide2 Schedule Duration = 9.5 months Start: 9/20/2015 – End: 7/17/2016 Schedule Duration = 8 months Start: 9/20/2015 – End: 5/21/2016 MILESTONE #1: 3/29/16 – Foundation Complete MILESTONE #2: 6/21/16 – Shell Complete MILESTONE #3: 9/30/16 – Move-In Conceptual Schedules

Decision_Forest DECISION MATRIX DECISION MATRIX A E C A E C FOREST CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) DECISION MATRIX DECISION MATRIX Decision_Forest PROS: A Daylight / Green area inside No extended footprint Owners preference E Large glass facade Interesting retractable roof Steel is efficient and cost effective C Straightforward construction sequencing CONS: Costs: $5.9 Mil More conventional design A Only one main access E Relatively simple box - structure C Retractable roof / Glass facade costly FOREST

Decision_Plaza DECISION MATRIX DECISION MATRIX A E C A E C PLAZA PROS: CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) DECISION MATRIX DECISION MATRIX Decision_Plaza PROS: Open ground floor A More unusual design Two accesses Daylight inside E Interesting structure (large spans) A lot of details must be solved C EBF system is cost and schedule efficient CONS: Costs: $6.8 Mil Extended footprint A Space on first floor wasted E Again: interesting structure with A LOT of details C Base Isolation System costly PLAZA

Matrix DECISION MATRIX DECISION MATRIX Comparison Costs: PROS: CONS: CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) DECISION MATRIX DECISION MATRIX Matrix Costs: $5.9 Mil $6.8 Mil PROS: Daylight / Green area inside Open ground floor No extended footprint More unusual design Owners preference Two accesses Daylight inside Large glass facade Interesting retractable roof Interesting structure (large spans) A lot of details must be solved Steel is efficient and cost effective. EBF system is cost and schedule efficient Straightforward construction sequencing More conventional design Extended footprint CONS: Only one main access Space on first floor wasted Relatively simple box - structure Again: interesting structure with a lot of details Retractable roof/Glass facade Base Isolation System costly costly Comparison

Lessons Learned LESSONS LEARNED LESSONS LEARNED CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) LESSONS LEARNED LESSONS LEARNED Lessons 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 CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FURTHER COLLABORATION FURTHER COLLABORATION Further 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 Discussing with everybody (other disciplines) brings an improved learning experience The notification mechanism should be improved Importance of knowing if an email, attachment arrived and was useful

Thank you Thank you Questions? QUESTIONS ? CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002) Questions? Thank you Thank you QUESTIONS ?