The Central Project ARCHITECTUREJoy Liu, Cal-Berkeley ENGINEERINGNorm Faris, Stanford CONSTRUCTIONTim Kolaya, Georgia Tech OWNERAlex Barron, Stanford Central University – A/E/C Engineering Building

Site Context  Central University Engineering School  Location:  Los Angeles Metropolitan Area  Busy urban location / heavy traffic  Seismic Concerns – San Andreas Fault (8 km)  Warm Climate  High Ground Water Level

Site Plan

Designs & Decision Matrix New Design1: Flying Eagle New Design 2: Pouring Stream 1 st Fl. 2 nd Fl.3 rd Fl. 2 nd Fl. 1 st Fl.

Architect Vision of 2015 Awareness in Green Design for Sustainable Architecture Better and cheaper materials ex. low-e glass Design Focus Roof design Poetic experience in space Privacy measure Green Design development

Pouring Stream- 1 st Floor N

Pouring Stream- 2 nd Floor N

Pouring Stream- 3 rd Floor N

Evaluation

Roof Design Average Wind Breeze between miles per hour (direction N or W) Average Seasonal Rain Fall inches Revised Roof Old Roof Ceiling Fans Keep Rain out Air ventilation N

Sections Section A Section B A A B B

Material Choice Traffic Photovoltaic (PV) cells Concrete (Aerated)

3D Model

STRUCTURAL MODEL DUAL LATERAL SYSTEM: SHEARWALLS AND PERIMETER STEEL SMRF COMPOSITE GRAVITY SYSTEM: CONCRETE SLAB w/ STEEL BEAMS

ANALYSIS – DESIGN & LOADING DESIGN USING UBC ’97 CRITERIA SHEARWALL AND STEEL SMRF DESIGN: 100% BASE SHEAR TO WALLS 25% TO FRAMES (BACK-UP) DYNAMIC NONLINEAR LATERAL ANALYSIS - VERIFICATION (ETABS) - ’97 RESPONSE SPECTRA LOADING CRITERIA BASE SHEAR: V = 510 KIPS NEAR SOURCE EFFECTS DUAL SYSTEM: R = 8.5 DL (TYPICAL) = 70PSF DL (AUDITORIUM) = 90PSF LL (CLASSROOM) = 50PSF LL (CORRIDORS) = 80PSF V TORSIONAL EFFECTS TORSIONAL RESISTANCE 13% V 100% V + TORSIONAL RESISTANCE 13% V GRAVITY PATH

FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA: - 5 KSF BEARING -SANDY SOIL -WATER DEPTH = 15FT 2’-6” X 6’-0” CONT. FTG. WITH 3’-6”SHEAR KEY MRF FTGS: 7’-6” X 7’-6” GRAVITY SPREAD FTGS: 6’-0” X 6’-0” 1 st FLOOR S.O.G. – 4” w/ O.C. AUDITORIUM S.O.G – 6” w/ 12 O.C. 3’-0” X MRF 12” 8” MAT UTILITY

1 ST FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT) AUDITORIUM w/ PRECAST RISERS JOINING 2 ND FLOOR. RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’ LAB & LARGE CLASSROOM SMALL CLASSROOMSTYPICAL GRAVITY COLUMN: W8X31 SMRF COLUMNS: W14 X 61 SMRF BEAMS: W21 X 62 SHEARWALLS: 8” W/ BOUNDARY ZONES

2 ND FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT) LABS STUDENT OFFICES COMPUTER ROOM SEMINAR SMRF BEAMS: W18 X 60 RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’

3 RD FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT) TS 6X6 FACULITY OFFICES LOUNGE LONG SPAN PRE-FAB TRUSSES CHAIR OFFICEATRIUM RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’

EXTERIOR CANTILEVER STAIR DESIGN TS 10 X 6 CANTILEVER 6’ X 8’ LANDING W14 EMBEDDED PLATE W/ SHEAR STUDS AND DOWEL ANCHORS INTO WALL STIFFENER PLATES IN COLUMN – TYPICAL. WELD TS10 X 6 TO EMBEDDED PLATE WELD TS10X6 TO COLUMN FLANGE 2” SLAB ON 3” DECK OVER C6X13, STUD WELDED C10 BEAM w/ BENT RISERS FILLED w/ 2” CONCRETE

CENTRAL TEAM – ITERATIONS A-E-C A – STAIRS THAT PROVIDE EXPRESSION TO THE STRUCTURE. E – DESIGN TO BE INTEGRAL WITH MAIN STRUCTURE. E – MENTOR ADVISE TO SEPARATE STAIR FROM MAIN SYSTEM. A – HEADROOM CONSTRAINTS. C – DIFFICULTY IN ERECTION AND STABILITY DURING CONSTRUCTION. A – STAIRS TO HAVE CLADDING. EXTERIOR STAIR SYSTEM A – ISSUES w/ CLADDING. E – DESIGN. C – COST. C AE C – COST AND ERECTION PROCEDURES – POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS.

ATRIUM – CONSTRAINTS AND DESIGN 20’ X 44’ OPENING TYPICAL BEAMS – W10 X 26 IN COMPOSITE ACTION. (3) #5 CENTERED OVER BEAM IN SLAB. CAN TILEVER W14 3/8” BENT PLATE w/ ½” 18” O.C., WELD PLATE TO CENTER BEAM W14 BOLTED TO PLATE AT TOP OF COLUMN. (4) #5 IN ADDITION TO #4 BARS TO ATTAIN RIGID DIAPHRAGM ACTION. SLAB EDGE DETAIL 12” CL BEAM TO EDGE

Budget & Cost Final Project Cost - $3,378,000 Adjusted Budget - $3,500,000 Initial Estimate - $3,200,000

Construction Schedule Building Closed In Substantial Completion Project Finished 9/29/15 3/7/16 6/17/16 8/8/16 Building Finished – 9 Months Contract Completed – 11 Months

Construction Sequencing

Equipment Selection   150 Ton Crawler   Hydraulic Hammer   Backhoe Loader / Front-end Loader   Welding Machines   Hydraulic Excavator   Cement Mixers / Dump Trucks / various others…

MEP SCHEMATIC (BACK) 3 RD FLOOR DISTRIBUTION 1 ST FLOOR DISTRIBUTION VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION THRU ‘WET WALLS’ MAIN UNITS BELOW AUDITORIUM RISERS 2 ND FLOOR DISTRIBUTION 2 ND & 3 RD DISTRIBUTION THRU LONG SPAN TRUSSES. 8’ X 8’ HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR w/ 6’ MECHANICAL PIT FOR SERVICE. UTILITY BASEMENT – PUMPS, MAIN SERVICES, COMMUNICATION, ELEVATOR MOTOR, OUTFLOW. DEMANDS: COOLING CAPACITY - 90 TONS AIR VOLUME – 35,000 CFM MAIN AIR DUCTS – 20 FT 2 FRESH AIR LOUVERS – 80 FT 2 EXHAUST AIR LOUVERS – 70 FT 2

CENTRAL TEAM – ITERATIONS A-E-C INITIALLY LOCATE ALL SYSTEMS IN BASEMENT. C – LARGE COSTS FOR EXCAVATION – DIFFICULT AXCESS. A – MAXIMIZE HEADROOM – REDUCED RESTROOM SIZE AND PROVIDED ‘WET WALLS’ DISTRIBUTION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DUCTS TO ROOMS VERSUS HEADROOM. A – UTILIZE SPACE BELOW RISERS IN AUDITORIUM. E – DESIGN OF SPACE TO ENSURE ALL MACHINARY WILL FIT. A – ISSUES WITH SOUND – USE OF INSULATION AND SOUND PROOFING. C – COST OF SOUND PROOFING MATERIAL VS. EXCAVATION. E – FRESH AIR AND EXHAUST LOUVERS – LESS IMPLICATION ON STRUCTURE. C – EASY REPLACEMENT/AXCESS - FIRE SYSTEMS EASILY INTEGRATED. A – PLACE DUCTS PERPENDICULAR TO BEAMS ALONG WALLS AND THOSE PARALLEL TO BEAMS BETWEEN THE SPANS.. E – MINIMIZE PENETRATION IN BEAMS AND SHEARWALLS. C – INPUT ON COST FOR BEAM PENETRATIONS AND WALL BLOCK-OUTS. MEP SYSTEMS – LOCATION & DISTRIBUTION

CENTRAL TEAM - INTERACTION NETMEETING SHARING PROGRAMS A & E COMMUNICATION MSN MESSENGER GROUP MEETINGS ‘QUICK QUESTIONS’ ‘INSTANT’ PBL DISCUSSION FORUM DOCUMENT / STORE SET – UP MEETINGS POST QUESTIONS

CENTRAL TEAM - PROCESS A – INITIATED MAIN DESIGN CONCEPTS – VERY EFFECTIVE IN COMMUNICATING CHANGES AND IDEAS. A – INITIATED MAIN DESIGN CONCEPTS – VERY EFFECTIVE IN COMMUNICATING CHANGES AND IDEAS. E – DEVELOPED MOST QUESTIONS & ISSUES IN THE DESIGNS. E – DEVELOPED MOST QUESTIONS & ISSUES IN THE DESIGNS. C – PROVIDED DIRECTION IN MEETINGS & ON STEPS TO TAKE. C – PROVIDED DIRECTION IN MEETINGS & ON STEPS TO TAKE. A – ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALIZE ‘E & C’ REQUIREMENTS. A – ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALIZE ‘E & C’ REQUIREMENTS. E – ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT IN STRUCTURAL LAYOUT & EFFECTIVELY MINIMIZE COST AND ERECTION DIFFICULTIES. E – ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT IN STRUCTURAL LAYOUT & EFFECTIVELY MINIMIZE COST AND ERECTION DIFFICULTIES. C – CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED SCHEDULE & COST IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL ITERATIONS AND PHASES OF DESIGN. C – CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED SCHEDULE & COST IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL ITERATIONS AND PHASES OF DESIGN.

CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED? A A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ENGINEER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S CONSTRAINT AND ABLE TO INTEGRATE INTO THE DESIGN PROCESSBETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ENGINEER AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER’S CONSTRAINT AND ABLE TO INTEGRATE INTO THE DESIGN PROCESS MORE FREQUENT NOTIFICATION TO THE TEAM MEMBERS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND QUESTIONS.MORE FREQUENT NOTIFICATION TO THE TEAM MEMBERS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND QUESTIONS. E E BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE.ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE. MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. C C BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS.MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS. TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!

THANK YOU CENTRAL TEAM THANK YOU WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND OUR GREATEST APPRECIATION TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND OUR GREATEST APPRECIATION TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: MR. GREG LUTH – KL&A BROOK BARRET - DPR PAUL CHINOWSKY – GEORGIA TECH. PROF. MIKE MARTIN –BERKELEY HUMBERTO CAVALLI- BERKEELY DAVID BENDET-MBT PROF. BOB TATUM - STANFORD PROF. HELMUT KRAWINKLER - STANFORD RENATE FRUCHTER …. AND OF COURSE FELLOW STUDENTS.

The Central Project QUESTIONS?

CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED? E E BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE.ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE. MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.

CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED? C C BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS.MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS. TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!