Mountain Ridge Project * 07/16/96 Owner: Tomo Cerovsek Contract: Architectural Design: Mario Sargac Engineering Design: Michael Jewsbury Construction Manager: Roger Lee Apprentice: Kit Fleming Location: Hope River, Lake Tahoe Conceptual Development Phase 4 Alternate Designs for Instructional Lab Facility 11/22/2018 *

Ridge Team ~ Architectural

I

Alternative #1 3rd floor plan 1st floor plan 2nd floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Instructional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 1st floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Instructional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 2nd floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Instructional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage

Alternative #1 entrance from Ridge View Rd

Alternative #1 gaining natural light

Alternative #1

Alternative #1 fractionized structure

II

Alternative #2 room layout affinity / rejection extra security

Alternative #2 2nd geometry 2 entrances from N room layout 1st floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Insrtuctional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 3rd floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Insrtuctional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 2nd floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Insrtuctional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 2nd geometry 2 entrances from N room layout challenging cantilever

Alternative #2 entrance from Ridge View Rd

Alternative #2

Alternative #2

Alternative #2 mountain & river view

III

Alternative #3 3rd floor plan 1st floor plan 2nd floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Instructional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 1st floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Instructional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 2nd floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Instructional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage

Alternative #3 Ridge View road entrance AutoCAD 3D model

Alternative #3 two grids / two options exterior / interior grid utilizing two grids two grids two grids / two options exterior / interior grid

Alternative #3 proposal of extra columns combined grid extra columns combining two grids

Alternative #3 NetMeeting session

IV

Alternative #4 soft fluid among stones 2nd floor plan 1st floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Insrtuctional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 1st floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Insrtuctional labs computer machine room Technical support Storage 3rd floor plan Faculty offices Chair’s office Senior Admin. office Secretaries Faculty Lounge Student offices Auditorium Large classrooms Small classrooms Seminar rooms Insrtuctional labs computer machine room Techincal support Srorage soft fluid among stones

Alternative #4 sense of gravity

Alternative #4 entrance from Ridge View Rd

Alternative #4 growing structure

Alternative #4

Alternative #4 building as balancing item

Structural 11/22/2018

INTRODUCTION Structural Scope Design Parameters Four Alternatives Gravity Framing Seismic Framing Four Alternatives Material Selection Systems MEP 11/22/2018

4 Alternates 1 2 3 4 11/22/2018

Alternate 1 First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Added Shear Wall

Alternate 2 First Floor Second Floor Third Floor

Alternate 2 Roof Truss Sections Added Bracing Tower

Alternate 3 First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Added Support

Alternate 4 First Floor Second Floor Third Floor 11/22/2018

Alternate 4 First Floor Second Floor

Alternate 4 Third Floor Roof

Steel RC Precast Wood 1) Overall cost 2) Constructability Fabrication Time 3) Reliability 4) Versatility 5) Lightweight RC 1) Overall Cost 2) Formwork Time to Cure 5) Heavy Precast 2) Fabrication Time Less Formwork Wood 2) Availability Mill Time 5) Light

Seismic Framing for Each Alt. Determine the magnitude of seismic forces Design of Steel/Concrete/Composite diaphragm Conceptualization of Lateral Force Resisting Elements Details, Details, Details 11/22/2018

Seismic Loading    

Diaphragm Distributes shear forces to LFRs Static analysis showed maximum stresses to be 200 psi Maximum Metal deck-PCC composite on 2nd,3rd,and Roof Steel deck spans @ 10’ between beams “one-way” Portland cement concrete via pump-truck Wire mesh reinforcement and chord steel Shear Stud Reinforcement Steel Deck Concrete Diaphragm 11/22/2018

Overturning forces are not significant LFR Systems Steel Chevron Bracing Moment Frames Concrete Ductile Shear Walls Moment Frame Precast Post Tensioned Moment Frame 11/22/2018

Seismic Framing: CBF WT18x65 2L6x6x1/2 Shear Deformation

PT Moment Frame Special PT Moment Resisting Frame Precast Sections: Moment Frame allowable in building code with special testing Construction Problems, Ductile and Safe, Allows long, open, uninterrupted spans 11/22/2018

Structural: Seismic Framing Shear Wall Cast-in-Place Simple Ductility depends on failure mechanism Requires Architectural Space 11/22/2018

Typical Connection Details Worst Case Steel Connections 11/22/2018

Typical Connection Details Column Foundation Column Beam Confinement 11/22/2018

Foundation System Function of our foundation system Site Profile Handle vertical loads Resist lateral forces Site Profile Bedrock Very high bearing capacity Very low settlements Shallow Foundation Bearing pressures 5 kips/sq.ft. 4’x4’ Footings under columns 12”-18” strip footing (Perimeter and LFRs)

Slab on Grade Floor Systems Slab on grade under bulk of structure 6” thick, reinforced, expansion joints, chord steel Moisture prevention- vapor barrier and poorly graded gravel. Perimeter insulation

MEP Considerations Steel MEP Concrete MEP Light Light 11.5’ 10.5’ 10’ 9’ 9’ 11/22/2018

Construction 11/22/2018

General Construction Issues: Budget (in 2000): Total Budget…$4,200,000 Structural Budget…$370,000 Schedule Mobilize on Site…October 3, 2011 Early Occupancy Requirement…May 1, 2012 Completion Date…September 28, 2012 11/22/2018

Threats: Concrete MEP Steel MEP Light Light 11.5’ 10.5’ 10’ 10’ 9’ 9’ 11/22/2018

General Site Condition: Ell vs. Square Footprint 11/22/2018

Equipment Requirements: 11/22/2018

Alternative #1: Square Footprint w/ 21,400SF 11/22/2018

Alternative #1: Construction Schedule RC June 15, 2012 Sept. 28, 2012 Precast May 29, 2012 June 1, 2012 Steel Sept. 19, 2012 Sept. 21, 2012 11/22/2018

Alt #1: Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats Winter weather; Excavation Threats Increase SF to lower per SF cost Could use exterior wall panel as form Opportunities Over budget Shortage of SF; Odd angles Schedule; Concrete pour Weaknesses Faster erection & better integrity than RC Faster erection than RC More flexible forms; Within Budget Strengths Pre-Cast Concrete Steel Frame Reinforced Concrete SWOT Analysis Alternative #1 11/22/2018

Alternative #2: Ell Footprint w/ 30,300 SF 11/22/2018

Alternative #2: Construction Schedule RC June 1, 2012 Sept. 14, 2012 Shear Wall May 30, 2012 May 22, 2012 Steel Sept. 19, 2012 Sept. 12, 2012 11/22/2018

Alt #2: Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats Hope River; Excavation Threats Construct lab area first Structurally Challenging Opportunities Over budget Early Occupancy Concrete pour: CIP vs. Prefab Weaknesses Reduced interior columns Strengths Steel Frame w/ Shear Wall Steel Frame Reinforced Concrete SWOT Analysis Alternative #2 11/22/2018

EC-Alternative: Ell Footprint w/ 23,350 SF 11/22/2018

EC-Alternative: Construction Schedule RC June 10, 2012 Sept. 25, 2012 Precast May 22, 2012 May 15, 2012 Steel Sept. 12, 2012 Sept. 5, 2012 11/22/2018

EC-Alt: Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats Hope River; Excavation Threats New column grid More efficient use of SF Opportunities Over structural budget Lab rooms on 2nd floor Not enough SF Weaknesses Faster erection & better integrity than RC Faster erection than RC; within budget Within budget; Meets final delivery date Strengths Pre-Cast Concrete Steel Frame Reinforced Concrete 11/22/2018

A-Alternative: Square Footprint w/ 38,800SF 11/22/2018

A-Alternative: Construction Schedule RC June 15, 2012 Sept. 28, 2012 Shear Wall June 13, 2012 June 8, 2012 Steel Oct. 3, 2012 Sept. 28, 2012 11/22/2018

A-Alt: Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats Winter weather; Excavation Threats Realign interior walls Reduce cost by cutting back SF Opportunities High life cycle cost due to open space Schedule; Inefficient use of interior walls Pour schedule; Over budget Weaknesses Relatively uniform spacing Cost efficient & over SF requirements Can have finish quality surface Strengths Steel Frame w/ Shear Wall Steel Frame Reinforced Concrete SWOT Analysis A-Alternative 11/22/2018

Overall Opportunities: Re-use of existing structure  Savings on construction schedule & cost Use of existing facade as temporary enclosure  reduced weather risk Earlier start date  reduced winter weather risk 11/22/2018

Material and Team Matrix 11/22/2018

MATERIALS: AEROGEL What is Aerogel? Strengths: strength/weight, insulation Weaknesses: cost, transparency Opportunities: insulation, windows Threats: cost 11/22/2018

MATERIALS: SUPERCRITICAL CERAMICS What are supercritical ceramics? Strengths: perfect formation, strength/weight Weaknesses: scale, fabrication Opportunities: environment Threats: patents 11/22/2018

* 07/16/96 TEAM MATRIX A C E 11/22/2018 *

TEAM MATRIX A E C Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Alternate 4 11/22/2018

? FINAL SELECTION Alternate 4: dual system, Alternate 2: steel frame and truss system, steel bracing towers Alternate 4: dual system, concrete shear walls, steel frame Owner approval pending