RIVER UNIVERSITY

R I V E R A rchitect Elena Paparizou Berkeley E ngineer Paul Kulseth Kansas C onstructor Wendy Wang Stanford O wner Jonathan Wong The Team Thorton- Tomasetti Engineers

The SiteA Location

The SiteA Elements

The SiteA Access

The SiteA Buildings

AlternativesA Placement N 2 nd Alternative 1 st Alternative

Disadvantages C A E Symmetrical Short Construction Time Expensive Structural System Curved form Clear Spatial Organization Minimal Circulation Floor Plan is crammed Volume appears too massive Structural Symmetry Lateral Support Availability Non-Orthogonal Connections Non-regular column locations Advantages Advantages C A E Evaluation AECAECAECAEC

2 nd Alternative Rectangular form Well-defined grid Longer reach for crane Much longer construction time with concrete Circulation as a path Interaction between inside / outside Spatial requirements are not entirely fulfilled Circulation has flaws Regular structural grid Relatively short spans Structural Symmetry Lateral Support Availability C A E Advantages C A E Disadvantages AECAECAECAEC

Proposed Solution 1 st Alternative Design is solid but there is room for improvement in certain areas both in terms of spatial quality as well as in terms of construction requirements. Symmetry facilitates the structural development but the shell-like auditorium represents a big challenge. Curves are essential to the architectural concept as well as the choice of concrete and wood as façade materials. The question is how to keep the architect’s vision while staying in budget. AECAECAECAEC

DesignA Concept 100 ft

DesignA Concept

DesignA Concept

DesignA Concept

DesignA Concept

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

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

DesignA Revisions N 2 nd floor1 st floor

DesignA Orientation N

DesignA Access

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

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

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

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

DesignA Sections & Elevations South-West South

DesignA Elevations North-West South-East

DesignA Sun Paths February May November August 10:30 am

DesignA Sun Paths May 7 am – 8 pm

DesignA Sun Paths 7 am – 8 pm August

DesignA Sun Paths 7 am – 8 pm November

DesignA Sun Paths 7 am – 8 pm February

DesignA

StructureE System Details :  Steel Framing  Braced Frame Lateral System  Composite Slab ( 4” )  Metal Floor Decking with a max span of 11 ½ feet to alleviate the need for shoring. Design Considerations :  Symmetrical building, layout, and loading.  Lightweight and ease of construction.

Soil & Foundation IssuesE Foundation Proposal : Building Column Casing Rebar Cage Rock Socket 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 water table to a depth of 5 feet. Source: Earth Sciences Library and Map Collection on Stanford Campus  2-½’ dia. Drilled Shafts for column loads.  Grade Beams for wall loads.

Structure & ArchitectureE 1 st Floor 2 nd Floor 3 rd Floor

Loading Conditions GravityE FLOOR DEAD LOAD = 85 psf  Lightweight Concrete Slab40 psf 120 pcf)  Estimated Weight of Structure5 psf  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 - Slab = 25 psf ROOF LIVE LOAD [ 1997 UBC, Table 16-C ]  Flat Roof = 20 psf ( < 33% slope )

Shape DesignationsE 2 nd Floor Roof 3 rd Floor Column Sizing :  All columns are W10x33’s.  Size governed by connections.

Lateral AnalysisE Base Shear : V = 311 kips SEISMIC [ 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 ] Story Drift : 2 nd Floor = in. 3 rd Floor = in. Roof = in. Total Building Weight : W = 1933 kips

Cantilever SupportE Details :  Lower supported by a Dogleg Slab.  Upper Supported by a Vierendeel Truss System. Details :  Cantilever at Roof level is approximately 13’. 19’ Adjacent Span 11’ Cantilever 9’ Cantilever 13’ Cantilever 12’ Story Height

Lower Cantilever SupportE Details :  Dogleg slab acts as a counterweight to the cantilever.  Also supported by retaining walls.  Varying slab thickness. 2 x Cantilever Length 9’ Cantilever 10” 6”

Upper Cantilever SupportE Details :  Vierendeel Truss system.  Fully rigid (moment-resisting) connections, rather than pin connections.  Tension forces at Roof Level, with compression forces at 3 rd Floor Level.

Site Access Square OptionC

Site Layout Square OptionC

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

Constructibility IssuesC Curved Form: Steel structure will have non- orthogonal connections. Symmetry allows for repetitious construction and ordering of steel elements. Installation of auditorium girders will need careful planning due to variable sizes

Construction MethodsC Building-height columns for quicker construction and elimination of splicing costs. Prefabrication and off-site connections for quicker construction time. Exterior steel structure built in segments to give curved affect rather than having rolled members-cheaper and easier construction especially for exterior cladding.

Construction MethodsC Floor by Floor Floor 1Floor 2Floor 3

Construction MethodsC Floor by Floor Phased Floor 1Floor 2Floor

4D-Cad SimulationC Critical Stages of Construction On-Site

4D-Cad Simulation

ScheduleC Milestone: Steel Erection Complete Milestone: Exterior Closure Complete Finish: 7/11/2016 Milestone: Interior Finishing Complete Start Date: 9/1/2002

MEP SystemC Separate Mechanical Room located on first floor away from auditorium. Air intake and outtake systems located on side of building away from entrance. Vertical shaft for mechanical ducts. Ducts will run parallel to girders taking advantage of more interstitial space. Long-term maintenance considered.

MEP SystemC Louvers Mechanical Room Vertical Shaft Horizontal Ducts

Cost DistributionC

Budget vs. Estimated CostC $146,798 over budget

Team Interaction Before A - E Interaction After To scale sketch to see if the bracing would not impede doorway. AECAECAECAEC

Team Interaction Before Interaction After Access added for future maintenance considerations of large mechanical equipment. Mechanical Room switched with Computer Machine Room and Technical Support Room. AECAECAECAEC

Final Reflections Collaboration Technologies  Remote locations required use of technologies to “bridge the gap.”  Conflicting schedules led to mostly asynchronous collaboration tools (i.e. group space and discussion forum) What did we learn ?  Interacting with other disciplines on different issues we normally may not consider.  Communication can be difficult.  Optimizing use of technology. Goals accomplished?  Successful interaction in using a shared 3D model. (A&E: 3D model, C: 4DCAD).  Meetings were not more frequent, but better organized. AECAECAECAEC

Acknowledgements For this unique learning experience, we would like to thank:  Renate Fruchter  Our instructors at: UC Berkeley Stanford University Kansas University  The industry mentors  Our classmates  The PBL support team AECAECAECAEC

Q U E S T I O N S ?