1. PACIFIC TEAM SPRING QUARTER PRESENTATION

2. TEAM MEMBERS Owners TONIE GARZA ARCHITECTBBerkeley PETER DEMIAN
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Stanford
JOHN ENGSTROM
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
Stanford
Owners
ASAKO AKAZAWA
APPRENTICE
Stanford
Robert Alvarado
Industry Owner
Mr. Kozakai
Japan

3. Outline of Presentation
Project Introduction
Winter Quarter Alternatives
A-E-C Iterations and Resolutions
Architectural Review
Structural Review
Construction Review
Collaboration and Group Dynamics

4. A E C Team Dynamics Lessons from Winter Quarter
Be more honest in our interactions
Meet more frequently
Increase the team’s interaction with the owner

5. A E C Team Dynamics Interaction was more active
Spring Quarter Improvements?
Interaction was more active
The group met more frequently (at least twice per week)
Interactions with the owner were not increased significantly
The group developed a better understanding of the disciplines
Our individual project decisions were more disciplined based

6. A E C Project Information The Engineering School of Pacific University
Location: Oregon Coast
Year: 2010
Square Footage: 30,000 sf.
Budget: $5,500,000

7. A E C
Site Layout

8. A E C Design Alternatives PROPOSAL 1 - The Saucer
PROPOSAL 2 - The Zig-Zag
PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker
PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace

9. A E C Design Alternatives A E C $4.8M DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Good forms.
PROPOSAL 1 - The Saucer
Good forms.
Slightly predictable.
No clear architectural intent. A
DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Simple Frame.
Potential problems with columns. E C
$4.8M

10. A E C Design Alternatives A C E
PROPOSAL 2 - The Zig-Zag
Large beam span in auditorium may pose some significant challenges. Standard grid allows for little variation in building skin. A C
Concurrent construction
$4.8M E
Simple layout due to grid format

11. A E C Design Alternatives A C E DESIGN ALTERNATIES
PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker A
Initial reaction to conceptual beginning.
Challenging and intriguing structural system.
Exceeds structural budget.
$5.9M C E

12. A E C Design Alternatives A C E
PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace
Remains close to conceptual ideas while at the same time addressing programmatic requirements A
Best combination of structural and architectural requirements.
Presents challenges to all disciplines while staying within the budget.
$5.5M C E

13. A E C
Proposal Recommendation
PROPOSAL 4 - The Crystal Palace

14. A E C
The Design

15. 1st Floor: Plan & Layout

16. 2nd Floor: Plan & Layout

17. 3rd Floor: Plan & Layout

18. Programmatic Changes
Iteration 1
Iteration 2

19. Circulation vs. Used Space
Iteration 1
Iteration 2

20. Area Designated by Use

21. Privacy/Security
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1

22. Atrium Lighting
Evening light study
Morning light study

23. 3D Renderings
Building main entry
-Evening and afternoon light

24. 3D Renderings
Northeast façade & Overhangs

25. A E C 100 psf (computer lab) Structural Concept
Concrete - to reflect architectural ‘bunker’ concept
PT flat slab, drop panels
Shear walls - seismic Zone 3
large spans: span/depth=38
gravity loads: dead 100 psf
live 50 psf (office)
100 psf (computer lab)
earthquake load: UBC 94 Zone 3 Spectrum

26. A E C
Overall Structure

27. A E C Columns / Foundations Columns and Foundations
PROPOSAL 3 - The Bunker
Columns and Foundations
Columns / Foundations
Interior columns
circular, 20” diameter, 3% reinforcement, very small moments
drop panels 4’ diameter by 8” deep
Exterior columns (corners and sides)
24” square, 6% reinforcement
drop panels 5’ square by 8” deep
Foundations
rock - simple footings
4½ ft by 12 in, 0.33% reinforcement

28. A E C
Slab
12 in thick PT slab
Shear
Moment

29. A E C Column Slab Connection
“Chair” to hold tendons
PT tendons: 21 in columns stip, 7 in middle stip per span
Shear around column necessitates drop panels
Shrinkage rebar

30. A E C Shear Wall 4 exterior walls 20” thick by 12’ long
architectural influence:
thicker than necessary
limit on length of wall
shear wall combined with adjacent column. ‘Column’ acts as a column for out-of-plane bending, and as a shear wall boundary element for in-plane bending.
Construction consequences:
Connection subtleties

31. A E C Shear Wall Detail Rebar to slab
No8 bars at 12in c-c in wall (12ft)
No11 bars in ‘minor’ boundary element
Column/ Boundary Element
Continuos ties ensure both parts act as one component
Closed hoops

32. A E C Old Atrium Moment resisting Frames
Complex joint between two different slab systems
Roof/ slab interaction
Struts for lateral support

33. A E C New Atrium Conceptually: leaning column
Beams tucked away beneath staircase

34. A E C
Seismic Analysis

35. A E C Slab Deflections, Vibrations - Problem?
Large spans, large deflections
UBC limit: 1 in
Max displacement from ‘model’: 2 in
Vibrations: more difficult to analyze.

36. A E C Construction Summary Construction Concrete CIP Structure
Rock Excavation
Slab Overhangs and Pre-cast
Atrium Glass Curtain Wall

37. A E C
Site Layout

38. A E C
Estimate
Cost = $4.9M ($161/sf)

39. A E C
Excavation Costs
Discovery of Rock on Site significantly increased the unit cost of excavation.
This was mitigated by:
Reducing floor-to-floor heights and eliminating a submerged 1st level.
This reduced the amount of excavation by over half (still need auditorium and large classrooms
Ancillary effect was to reduce the size of footings

40. A E C
Slab Costs $/sf

41. A E C
Schedule
Completion
September 12, 2012

42. A E C Milestones Exterior Closure May 24, 2012 Superstructure
April 12, 2012 (5.5 Months)

43. A E C MEP Systems Mild Climate
Exposed system important for architecture
Standard Design
Air Handler, Chiller, Boiler configuration

44. A E C HVAC Distribution A-C Iteration MEP Rooms centrally located
E-C Iteration
Holes in the Slab Next to Elevator Shaft

46. A E/ C AEC Interaction E/ C A A E AEC Interaction Atrium Overhangs
Shear Walls

47. AEC Interaction A
E/ C
Atrium
AEC Interaction

48. AEC Interaction
E/ C A
Overhangs
AEC Interaction

49. Shear Walls A E

50. Future Design Proposal

51. Value of Course Architect Cross-Disciplinary Take Home Lesson
Construction Manager focus on work efficiency
Engineer assumption about architectural understanding of structure
Take Home Lesson
The more sketching I do, the more questions E & CM will want answered.

52. Value of Course Engineer Cross-Disciplinary Take Home Lesson
Understanding the importance of structural concept
Appreciate the scheduling/financial aspects of CM
Take Home Lesson
Every structural decision will effect other disciplines

53. Value of Course Construction Manager Cross-Disciplinary
Conceptual architecture is difficult to grasp.
3D Model is essential to facilitate communication
Take Home Lesson
Design is never complete, it is simply abandoned.
Pay attention to the gap between conceptual phase and detail phase

54. The End