1. The Mountain Ridge Team Mountain Ridge Team Final Presentation The Ridge University Engineering Building May 15, 1998 Architect: Humberto Cavallin Engineer: Alec Zimmer Construction Manager: David Miller Owner Representative: Luciana Barroso

2. The Mountain Ridge Team Presentation Outline The Project Statement Early Proposed Concepts The Idea: Product, Evolution, and Process The Final Product Summary: The Team Process

3. The Mountain Ridge Team Project Definition Facility: A new 30,000sf academic building for The Ridge University School of Engineering with classrooms, labs, offices and auditorium Year: 2010 Location: Tahoe City, California

4. The Mountain Ridge Team Project Definition: Physical Constraints Must use one of 2 existing footprints

5. The Mountain Ridge Team Must use one of 2 existing footprints 35’ height restriction Very heavy snow loads Moderate to high seismicity (Zone 3) Remote site with limited access Project Definition: Physical Constraints

6. The Mountain Ridge Team Proposed Concept - Lshape1

7. The Mountain Ridge Team Proposed Concept - Square1

8. The Mountain Ridge Team Proposed Concept - Lshape2

9. The Mountain Ridge Team Proposed Concept - Square2

10. The Mountain Ridge Team Proposed Concept - Square2

11. The Mountain Ridge Team The Iterative Process First QuarterSecond Quarter AO EC Lshape1 Lshape2 Square1 Square2

12. The Mountain Ridge Team Site Plan

13. The Mountain Ridge Team The Building 1 3 2

14. The Mountain Ridge Team Activities Administrative Students Educational

15. The Mountain Ridge Team Architectural Evaluations - Floor 1

16. The Mountain Ridge Team Architectural Evaluations - Floor 2

17. The Mountain Ridge Team Architectural Evaluations - Floor 3

18. The Mountain Ridge Team Architectural Evaluations - Section

19. The Mountain Ridge Team Architectural Evaluations - Section

20. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Loads- Gravity Loads Dead Loads Including 25 psf floor & partitions 10 psf MEP equipment 83.5 psf for 6.5” slab and metal deck 109.6 psf total (205 psf is seismically effective) Live Loads Including 100 psf in halls & library 50 psf in offices 40 psf in classrooms

21. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Loads- Seismic and Snow Loads Snow Loads 223 psf Ground Snow 1.0 Importance Factor 0.6 Exposure D Factor Nominally Flat Roof 133 psf roof snow load (75% is seismically effective) Seismic Loads from 1994 UBC Z = 0.3 Seismic Zone 3 T = 0.203 by Method A C = 2.75 for firm soil R w = 8 compromise for this dual system V base = 608 kip M ot = 9426 k-ft

22. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Evaluations - Floor Details and Load Path Composite steel deck - concrete slab Shallow beam sections Typical Sections : –Beams sizes from W10x12 to W12x30, unshored construction –All columns W12x40 to facilitate connections –Shear connections only Second Floor Beams - Plan View Typ. Vertical Gravity Load Transfer 12” Shearwalls Resist All Lateral Loads Cross Beam: W10x19, Typ. Ext. Girder: W10x22, Typ. Column: W12x40, Typ.

23. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Evaluations - ETABS model Verify period with modal analysis Evaluate deflections and interstory drift Verify load path assumptions Problems in model

24. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Evaluations - Cross Sections at Lines 1 and 3 Note typical sections and detail references

25. The Mountain Ridge Team Third Floor Moment Frame Connection Detail Engineering Evaluations - Critical Connection Details

26. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Evaluations - Shear Wall-Beam Connection Details

27. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Evaluations - Shear Wall Design Resist all lateral loads, both seismic and wind M ot = 1061.9 k-ft per wall V base = 484 k No boundary zones No additional moment reinforcement Torsional effects are negligible

28. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Evaluations - MEP Assumptions Steam heat and chilled water from central facility 15’ x15’ room provided on ground floor for equipment Circular ducts standard throughout with rectangular ducts in congested areas, 18” max. Small equipment rooms provided on all floors for advanced communications equipment Air requirements in auditorium are 20 CF/person/minute, given an approximate capacity of 250 people

29. The Mountain Ridge Team Engineering Evaluations - Three-Dimensional Model

30. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Site Plan

31. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Fall 2011 Schedule

32. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Spring 2012 Schedule

33. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Winter Respite Analysis Impractical to weatherproof before winter weather hits Either shut job down during winter or rent tent for $42,000 per month Project can still be completed comfortably if dormant for <4 months Respite allows for coordination and planning

34. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Estimate Details Location adjustment factor of 1.15 $160/s.f. 1998 dollars ($210/s.f. 2010 dollars) 6% Contractor fee 10% Architecture and Engineering fee

35. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Critical Phases of Work Heaviest lift complete

36. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Critical Phases of Work Floors and roof complete

37. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Equipment Crane selection for steel erection –50T hydraulic rough terrain crane with 65’ boom –Critical lift: 4 ton beam at 60’ radius Gradall material handlers

38. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Estimate Progression

39. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Schedule Loading 20112012

40. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Budget Breakdown

41. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Inflation Analysis

42. The Mountain Ridge Team Contractor - Construction Cost Index

43. The Mountain Ridge Team Product, Evolution, and Process A/E/C/O Height variance Ramp in rear of building 2 plane vs. 4 plane roof system C/E Beam spacing Floor system A/E/O Window wall Balcony in rear 3rd floor Shearwall Entrance façade column locations A/C/O Cladding Excavation costs

44. The Mountain Ridge Team Floor and Structural Systems - E/C Trade-off Analysis Concrete for floor decks: –Lightweight concrete? –Normal weight concrete? Steel Framing: –Moment resistant frames - shop welded? –Eccentrically braced frames? –Simple gravity frames?

45. The Mountain Ridge Team Beam Spacing - E/C Trade-off Analysis 20’ column grid Beams can be spaced at 10’ or 20’ on center? Larger beam spacing means fewer pieces, fewer connections and thus faster construction. But, also requires deeper slabs Cost basically unaffected Long-term usability chosen over short-term construction schedule benefits

46. The Mountain Ridge Team Basement Layout vs. Excavation - A/E/C/O Trade-Off Analysis Building Functioning Space allocation slope floor, owner requirement Costs Activities and program requirements O/A Evaluation

47. The Mountain Ridge Team Relationship with the excavation Development of the option Rejection of the ramp alternative Ramp in Rear of Building - A/E/C/O Trade-Off Analysis

48. The Mountain Ridge Team East Balcony and Column Locations - A/E Trade-Off Analysis Owner requirements for a balcony Architectural solution - cantilever Engineer’s response with additional columns - spares moment connections Added Columns Plan of East Balcony

49. The Mountain Ridge Team Window Wall and West Balcony - A/E/O Issues The Requirements of O/A/E The communications breakdowns The positioning of walkway supports

50. The Mountain Ridge Team Exterior Cladding - A/C/O Cost vs. Appearance Concerns Plaster or stone Stone more has institutional, timeless appearance Stone $1 million than plaster Stone/plaster combination chosen

51. The Mountain Ridge Team Product, Evolution, and Process The building solution is the PRODUCT The A/E/C team interaction is the PROCESS The iterations along the way are EVOLUTION Process is the Cause Evolution is the Effect Product is Summation of those effects

52. The Mountain Ridge Team Evaluation of Communication Media and Resources Hardware vs. Software Progress in the Future

53. The Mountain Ridge Team At the Core of Our Process... Complementing skills Sharing points of view Mutual concern for cross disciplinary problems Mentor Interaction

54. The Mountain Ridge Team Summary of Team Process Importance of information flow transfer Team dynamic The role of the owner O E A C

55. The Mountain Ridge Team 2 times better process = Creating a Better Solution 8 times better product! Dave’s Axiom

56. The Mountain Ridge Team We acknowledge the support of Luciana Barroso and the Course Mentors!