R I V E R A rchitect Elena Paparizou Berkeley E ngineer Paul Kulseth Kansas C onst. Manager Wendy Wang Stanford O wner Jonathan Wong W i n t e r P r e s e n t a t i o n Thorton- Tomasetti Engineers

The SiteA

A

A Access

The SiteA Buildings

Soil Conditions Source: Earth Sciences Library and Map Collection on Stanford CampusE Soil Survey for Yolo County :  Well Drained  Nearly Level  Silt Loams to Silty Clay Loams  On Alluvial Fans  Depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet  The soil is not affected by seasonal high water table to a depth of 5 feet.

Foundation Issues Deep FoundationE Proposal :  2-½’ dia. Drilled Shafts for column loads.  Grade Beams for wall loads. Reasoning :  Earthquake regions may have problems with liquefaction in non-cemented soils, such as alluvial fans.  Bearing Pressure for non-cemented soils is typically between psf. Building Column Casing Rebar Cage Rock Socket

Loading Conditions GravityE FLOOR DEAD LOAD = 85 psf  Lightweight Concrete Slab40 psf 120 pcf)  Estimated Weight of Structure5 psf (Joists and Beams)  Metal Decking and Flooring3 psf  Interior Partitions20 psf  MEP Overhead Systems10 psf  Suspended Ceiling2 psf  Cladding5 psf FLOOR LIVE LOAD [ 1997 UBC, Table 16-A ]  Office50 psf  Restrooms50 psf  Storage( light )125 psf  Classrooms40 psf  Auditorium( fixed seating )50 psf  Auditorium( stage area )125 psf  Exit Facilities100 psf ROOF DEAD LOAD Floor Dead Load - Interior Partitions = 65 psf ROOF LIVE LOAD [ 1997 UBC, Table 16-C ]  Flat Roof = 20 psf ( < 33% slope )

Loading Conditions LateralE WIND LOADS [ 1997 UBC ]  Exposure "B" [ Section 1616 ]  Basic Wind Speed = 70 mph[ Figure 16-1 ]  Wind Importance Factor (I w ) = 1.00[ Table 16-K ]  Design Wind Pressure = P = ( C e ) ( C q ) ( q s ) ( I w ) SEISMIC LOADS [ 1997 UBC ]  Zone 3 [ Figure 16-2 ]  Soil Profile Type “S D ”[ Table 16-J ]  Seismic Importance Factor (I p ) = 1.00[ Table 16-K ]

1 st AlternativeA Orientation N

1 st AlternativeA Access

1 st AlternativeA Concept 100 ft

1 st AlternativeA Concept

1 st AlternativeA Concept

1 st AlternativeA Concept

1 st AlternativeA Concept

1 st AlternativeA Adjacencies 1 st floor 2 nd floor student offices chair/ senior admin./ secretaries faculty offices 3 rd floor

1 st AlternativeA Organization 1 st floor 3 rd floor 2 nd floor N student offices chair/ senior admin./ secretaries faculty offices

1 st AlternativeA

A Floor Plans 1 st floor 3 rd floor 2 nd floor N

1 st AlternativeA Sections

1 st AlternativeA Elevations & Sketches South-East North-West South-West

1 st Alternative Options Structural SystemsE Design Considerations :  Curved walls Interior and Exterior  Non-Intrusive Columns  Long spans in Auditorium  Loading in Mechanical Room  Symmetrical Option # 1 :  Steel Framing  Braced Frame Lateral System Option # 2 :  Reinforced Concrete Framing  Shear Wall Lateral System  Steel support for Auditorium

Steel Option - 1 st Alternative 1 st Floor PlanE Rationale :  Ample locations for bracing  Braced Frame vs. Moment Reduces overall weight Simple connections  Wide, column free Auditorium proposes need for steel trusses. W10x33 LL 3x3x¼

Steel Option - 1 st Alternative 2 nd Floor PlanE System :  Steel Framing  Open Web Steel Joists used to support flooring system  Total slab depth = 4” LWC  Non-Composite Metal Decking Type 1.0 C 26 W16x40 20 K 4 (7.6 lb/ft)

Steel Option - 1 st Alternative 3 rd Floor PlanE W10x19 W16x57 W12x22

Steel Option - 1 st Alternative Roof PlanE Details :  Reduced roof loading allows for greater spacing of joists.  Columns need to be placed within the Faculty Office area due to floor height restrictions. Option # 1 Advantages :  Rigid, but flexible  Lightweight  Challenging Opt. # 1 Disadvantages :  Curved Steel Fabrication

Truss Detail Panel LoadingE Details :  Faculty Offices above the Auditorium can not utilize similar framing to that in the Auditorium due to ceiling height restrictions.  Inner Column loads are carried by the Truss to the Outer Columns.

RC Option - 1 st Alternative 3 rd Floor PlanE System :  Reinforced Concrete Framing  One-Way 6” NWC  Long spans necessitate similar support above the Auditorium as used in Option # 1  Column and lateral support locations are the same as in Option #1 12” x 12” h = 10” 20”x10”

RC Option - 1 st Alternative Roof PlanE Details :  Columns again needed in Faculty Office area to reduce span lengths and beam depths. Option # 2 Advantages :  Curved Walls could be easily done through formwork.

Site Access Square OptionC

Site Layout Square OptionC

Equipment Selection Square OptionC Hydraulic Excavator (front shovel & backhoe) Dump truck Hydraulic mobile crane Compactor Concrete pump

Constructibility IssuesC Curved Form: Steel members must be rolled during fabrication and formwork for concrete must be carefully designed. Symmetry allows for repetitious construction and ordering of steel elements; and reuse of formwork is possible for cost savings. Installation of trusses will be a challenge due to variable sizes.

Construction MethodsC Floor by Floor Floor 1Floor 2Floor 3

Construction MethodsC Floor by Floor Phased Floor 1Floor 2Floor

ScheduleC Milestone: 1 st Floor Deck and Slab Milestone: 2 nd Floor Deck and Slab Milestone: 3 rd Floor Deck and Slab Finish: 4/21/2016

Cost DistributionC Steel: $2,946,535 Hybrid: $2,831,030

2 nd AlternativeA Orientation N

2 nd AlternativeA Access

2 nd AlternativeA Concept 76 ft 38 ft 76 ft 38 ft

2 nd AlternativeA Concept

2 nd AlternativeA Concept

2 nd AlternativeA Concept

2 nd AlternativeA Organization 1 st floor 3 rd floor 2 nd floor student offices chair/ senior admin./ secretaries faculty offices N

2 nd AlternativeA

A Floor Plans 1 st floor 3 rd floor 2 nd floor N

2 nd AlternativeA Sections

2 nd AlternativeA Elevations & Sketches South-East North-East

2 nd Alternative Options Structural SystemsE Design Considerations :  Regular Grid  Non-Intrusive Columns  Non-Symmetrical Option # 1 :  Steel Moment Frame Option # 2 :  Reinforced Concrete Framing  Shear Wall Lateral System

Steel Option - 2 nd Alternative 1 st Floor PlanE Rationale :  Few locations for bracing  Cantilevered, exterior circulation necessitates a stiffer structure.  Regular grid makes steel quick and easy  Wide, column free Auditorium proposes need for steel trusses or deep girders. W12x50 W10x33

Steel Option - 2 nd Alternative 2 nd Floor PlanE System :  Steel Moment Frame  Open Web Steel Joists used to support flooring system  Total slab depth = 4” LWC  Non-Composite Metal Decking (Type 1.0 C 26) W18x60 20 K 4 (7.6 lb/ft)

Steel Option - 2 nd Alternative 3 rd Floor PlanE W16x36

Steel Option - 2 nd Alternative Roof PlanE Details :  Reduced roof loading allows for greater spacing of joists. Option # 1 Advantages :  Rigid, Sturdy  No wall intrusions Option # 1 Disadvantages :  Heavy  Connections …$$$

RC Option - 2 nd Alternative 2 nd Floor PlanE System :  Reinforced Concrete Framing  Shear Wall Lateral Support  One-Way 6” NWC  Column locations are the same as in Option #1 12” x 12” h = 10” 18”x16” 16”x14”

RC Option - 2 nd Alternative Roof PlanE Details :  Columns again needed in Faculty Office area to reduce span lengths and structural depths.  2-Way slab above Auditorium (hatched area) needed to support those columns. Option # 2 Advantages :  Structural Regularity allows for formwork reuse.

Site Access Double-Square OptionC

Site Layout Double-Square OptionC

Equipment Selection Double-Square OptionC Hydraulic Excavator (front shovel & backhoe) Dump truck Tower crane Compactor Concrete pump

Constructibility IssuesC Shorter spans allow easier construction; rectangular form allows for fairly straightforward construction process. No symmetry: Lead to higher costs. Consider pre-fabricated concrete elements to shorten construction time. Longer boom length required for crane =>more expensive.

Construction MethodsC Floor by Floor Floor 1Floor 2Floor 3

Construction MethodsC Floor by Floor Phased Floor 1Floor 2Floor 3

Schedule - SteelC Milestone: 1 st Floor Deck and Slab Milestone: 2 nd Floor Deck and Slab Milestone: 3 rd Floor Deck and Slab Finish: 4/21/2016

Schedule - ConcreteC Finish: 5/12/2016 Milestone: 1 st Floor Deck and Slab Milestone: 2 nd Floor Deck and Slab Milestone: 3 rd Floor Deck and Slab

Cost DistributionC Steel: $2,952,709 Concrete: $2,805,125

Cost ComparisonC 4% Inflation & Fees Adjusted

Material ComparisonC PROSCONS Steel Faster construction Expensive, Lead time Concrete (Cast-in-Place) Cheap, Flexible formwork Time consuming Concrete (Prefabricated) Faster than CIP concrete Expensive if no regular grid

Team Process & Interaction AE C Conceptual Sketches Spatial Organization & Circulation Revision/ Redesign Material Proposal Constraints & Structural Options Column Locations & Framing Refining Material Stability Issues Site Constraints & Considerations Constructibility Issues Material Options & Costs Construction Costs & Scheduling

Decision Matrix AdvantagesDisadvantages Advantages Disadvantages Square Base Double- Square Base C C A E Symmetrical Short Construction Time Expensive Structural System Curved form Rectangular form Well-defined grid Longer reach for crane Much longer construction time with concrete A E Meets Spatial Requirements Minimal Circulation Floor Plan is crammed Volume appears too massive Circulation as a path Interaction between inside and outside Spatial requirements are not entirely fulfilled Circulation has flaws Structural Symmetry Lateral Support Availability Non-Orthogonal Connections Non-regular column locations Regular structural grid Relatively short spans Structural Symmetry Lateral Support Availability

Proposed Solution Square Base 1 st Alternative  Provides a challenge for all disciplines  More Learning opportunities

Lessons Learned & Goals How can we continue our design ?  Utilize available technology more efficiently  Improve and increase communication  Challenge each other What did we learn ?  Each other’s work habits  How to get the most out of each other  The best ways to convey our ideas

Q U E S T I O N S ?