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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT SECTION AA A A BB C C Sections SECTION CCSECTION BB N FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT

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

A1_E_SOLUTION1 CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

Loading assumptions CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Load Assumptions 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 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 LATERAL LOADS: Wind load 13 psf0.64 kN/m²

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foundation Auditoroium STRUCTURAL SYSTEM CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) Foundation - Auditorium Foundation will be: the floor of the auditorium is declined. using a stepping instead of declination -> horizontal loads (out of gravity loads) are avoided Line loads a ground plate with a height of 15“ at the positions of concentrated loads (columns): strengthening of the ground plate up to 24“

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

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

Outside Wall CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM 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

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

A1_C_Slide2 CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) 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 CONCEPT #1: CONSTRUCTION Materials and Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foundation Columns CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 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 CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 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 CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 Solution 2 additional columns are used to reduce the span the building becomes more economical

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

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

A2_C_Slide1A1_C_Slide2 CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION 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 Cast-in-Place Composite Concrete/Steel Floor System EXTERIOR FACADE: Concrete and Glass Curtain Wall System CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION Materials and Methods

A1_C_Slide3A2_C_Slide2 CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) CONCEPT #2: COST 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. = $ Total Cost = $5,977,581 Per S.F. = $ CONCEPT #2: COST

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

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

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

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

Lessons Learned CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002) 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 Computer Integrated AEC (2002) 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 s We should announce team-meetings (with all the members) once a week The notification mechanism should be improved Discussing with everybody (other disciplines) brings an improved learning experience Importance of knowing if an , attachment arrived and was useful

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