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

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

3. CEE 222 - Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
CAMPUS VIEW
CAMPUS VIEW N
Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT
FIRST ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT N C B B A A C
SECTION AA
SECTION BB
SECTION CC
Sections

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

13. A1_E_SOLUTION1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
A1_E_SOLUTION1

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

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

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

17. 2 former Solutions STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
2 former Solutions
Solution 1
Girders
Concrete walls
Composite floor deck
Bays of 30 x 30 ft
Advantage: only 4 columns needed
Solution 2
Steel Frame Structure
Spans of 15 ft (concrete elements) and
30 ft (steel frames)
Advantage: slab can be thin (reduction of dead loads)
Former solutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. Foundation Auditoroium
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
Foundation Auditoroium
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“
the floor of the auditorium is declined.
using a stepping instead of declination -> horizontal loads (out of gravity loads) are avoided
Line loads
Foundation - Auditorium

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

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

28. Outside Wall STRUCTURAL SYSTEM STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Lateral Load Paths
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM
Outside Wall
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

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

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

31. A1_C_Slide3 CONCEPT #1: COST CONCEPT #1: COST Structural Solution #1:
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
CONCEPT #1: COST
CONCEPT #1: COST
A1_C_Slide3
Structural Solution #1:
Structural Solution #2:
Concrete Moment Frame
Concrete Shear Walls
Steel Moment Frame
Concrete Shear Walls
Total Cost = $6,070, Per S.F. = $164.06
Total Cost = $5,892, Per S.F. = $159.26

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41. Constraints STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 Solution 1
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1
Constraints
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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49. Foundation Columns STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1
Foundation Columns
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

50. FoundationBasement STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #1
FoundationBasement
Foundation of the basement:
will be a ground plate
in the core, a strengthening of the ground plate becomes necessary (columns)
Foundation

51. A2_E_SOLUTION2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 Solution 2
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2
A2_E_SOLUTION2
Solution 2
additional columns are used to reduce the span
the building becomes more economical

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

53. OutsideElements STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2
STRUCTURAL SYSTEM #2
OutsideElements
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

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

55. CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION
CONCEPT #2: CONSTRUCTION
A1_C_Slide2
A2_C_Slide1
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
EXTERIOR FACADE:
Concrete and Glass Curtain Wall System
Materials and Methods

56. A1_C_Slide3 A2_C_Slide2 CONCEPT #2: COST CONCEPT #2: COST
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
CONCEPT #2: COST
CONCEPT #2: COST
A1_C_Slide3
A2_C_Slide2
Structural Solution #1:
Structural Solution #2:
Steel Truss/EBF system
Base Isolation System
Exterior/Interior EBF system
Total Cost = $6,804, Per S.F. = $183.90
Total Cost = $5,977, Per S.F. = $161.56

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

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

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

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

61. Lessons Learned LESSONS LEARNED LESSONS LEARNED
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
LESSONS LEARNED
LESSONS LEARNED
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

62. Further Collaboration
CEE Computer Integrated AEC (2002)
FURTHER COLLABORATION
FURTHER COLLABORATION
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
Discussing with everybody (other disciplines) brings an improved learning experience
The notification mechanism should be improved
Importance of knowing if an , attachment arrived and was useful

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