PACIFIC TEAM SPRING QUARTER PRESENTATION

TEAM MEMBERS Owners TONIE GARZA ARCHITECTBBerkeley PETER DEMIAN STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Stanford JOHN ENGSTROM CONSTRUCTION MANAGER Stanford Owners ASAKO AKAZAWA APPRENTICE Stanford Robert Alvarado Industry Owner Mr. Kozakai Japan

Outline of Presentation Project Introduction Winter Quarter Alternatives A-E-C Iterations and Resolutions Architectural Review Structural Review Construction Review Collaboration and Group Dynamics

A E C Team Dynamics Lessons from Winter Quarter Be more honest in our interactions Meet more frequently Increase the team’s interaction with the owner

A E C Team Dynamics Interaction was more active Spring Quarter Improvements? Interaction was more active The group met more frequently (at least twice per week) Interactions with the owner were not increased significantly The group developed a better understanding of the disciplines Our individual project decisions were more disciplined based

A E C Project Information The Engineering School of Pacific University Location: Oregon Coast Year: 2010 Square Footage: 30,000 sf. Budget: $5,500,000

A E C Site Layout

A E C Design Alternatives PROPOSAL 1 - The Saucer PROPOSAL 2 - The Zig-Zag PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace

A E C Design Alternatives A E C $4.8M DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Good forms. PROPOSAL 1 - The Saucer Good forms. Slightly predictable. No clear architectural intent. A DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Simple Frame. Potential problems with columns. E C $4.8M

A E C Design Alternatives A C E PROPOSAL 2 - The Zig-Zag Large beam span in auditorium may pose some significant challenges. Standard grid allows for little variation in building skin. A C Concurrent construction $4.8M E Simple layout due to grid format

A E C Design Alternatives A C E DESIGN ALTERNATIES PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker A Initial reaction to conceptual beginning. Challenging and intriguing structural system. Exceeds structural budget. $5.9M C E

A E C Design Alternatives A C E PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace Remains close to conceptual ideas while at the same time addressing programmatic requirements A Best combination of structural and architectural requirements. Presents challenges to all disciplines while staying within the budget. $5.5M C E

A E C Proposal Recommendation PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace

A E C The Design

1st Floor: Plan & Layout

2nd Floor: Plan & Layout

3rd Floor: Plan & Layout

Programmatic Changes Iteration 1 Iteration 2

Circulation vs. Used Space Iteration 1 Iteration 2

Area Designated by Use

Privacy/Security Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

Atrium Lighting Evening light study Morning light study

3D Renderings Building main entry -Evening and afternoon light

3D Renderings Northeast façade & Overhangs

A E C 100 psf (computer lab) Structural Concept Concrete - to reflect architectural ‘bunker’ concept PT flat slab, drop panels Shear walls - seismic Zone 3 large spans: span/depth=38 gravity loads: dead 100 psf live 50 psf (office) 100 psf (computer lab) earthquake load: UBC 94 Zone 3 Spectrum

A E C Overall Structure

A E C Columns / Foundations Columns and Foundations PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker Columns and Foundations Columns / Foundations Interior columns circular, 20” diameter, 3% reinforcement, very small moments drop panels 4’ diameter by 8” deep Exterior columns (corners and sides) 24” square, 6% reinforcement drop panels 5’ square by 8” deep Foundations rock - simple footings 4½ ft by 12 in, 0.33% reinforcement

A E C Slab 12 in thick PT slab Shear Moment

A E C Column Slab Connection “Chair” to hold tendons PT tendons: 21 in columns stip, 7 in middle stip per span Shear around column necessitates drop panels Shrinkage rebar

A E C Shear Wall 4 exterior walls 20” thick by 12’ long architectural influence: thicker than necessary limit on length of wall shear wall combined with adjacent column. ‘Column’ acts as a column for out-of-plane bending, and as a shear wall boundary element for in-plane bending. Construction consequences: Connection subtleties

A E C Shear Wall Detail Rebar to slab No8 bars at 12in c-c in wall (12ft) No11 bars in ‘minor’ boundary element Column/ Boundary Element Continuos ties ensure both parts act as one component Closed hoops

A E C Old Atrium Moment resisting Frames Complex joint between two different slab systems Roof/ slab interaction Struts for lateral support

A E C New Atrium Conceptually: leaning column Beams tucked away beneath staircase

A E C Seismic Analysis

A E C Slab Deflections, Vibrations - Problem? Large spans, large deflections UBC limit: 1 in Max displacement from ‘model’: 2 in Vibrations: more difficult to analyze.

A E C Construction Summary Construction Concrete CIP Structure Rock Excavation Slab Overhangs and Pre-cast Atrium Glass Curtain Wall

A E C Site Layout

A E C Estimate Cost = $4.9M ($161/sf)

A E C Excavation Costs Discovery of Rock on Site significantly increased the unit cost of excavation. This was mitigated by: Reducing floor-to-floor heights and eliminating a submerged 1st level. This reduced the amount of excavation by over half (still need auditorium and large classrooms Ancillary effect was to reduce the size of footings

A E C Slab Costs $/sf

A E C Schedule Completion September 12, 2012

A E C Milestones Exterior Closure May 24, 2012 Superstructure April 12, 2012 (5.5 Months)

A E C MEP Systems Mild Climate Exposed system important for architecture Standard Design Air Handler, Chiller, Boiler configuration

A E C HVAC Distribution A-C Iteration MEP Rooms centrally located E-C Iteration Holes in the Slab Next to Elevator Shaft

A E/ C AEC Interaction E/ C A A E AEC Interaction Atrium Overhangs Shear Walls

AEC Interaction A E/ C Atrium AEC Interaction

AEC Interaction E/ C A Overhangs AEC Interaction

Shear Walls A E

Future Design Proposal

Value of Course Architect Cross-Disciplinary Take Home Lesson Construction Manager focus on work efficiency Engineer assumption about architectural understanding of structure Take Home Lesson The more sketching I do, the more questions E & CM will want answered.

Value of Course Engineer Cross-Disciplinary Take Home Lesson Understanding the importance of structural concept Appreciate the scheduling/financial aspects of CM Take Home Lesson Every structural decision will effect other disciplines

Value of Course Construction Manager Cross-Disciplinary Conceptual architecture is difficult to grasp. 3D Model is essential to facilitate communication Take Home Lesson Design is never complete, it is simply abandoned. Pay attention to the gap between conceptual phase and detail phase

The End