1. CENTRAL UNIVERISTY ARCHITECTUREJoy Liu, Cal-Berkeley ENGINEERINGNorm Faris, Stanford CONSTRUCTIONTim Kolaya, Georgia Tech OWNERAlex Barron, Stanford Engineering School – New Classroom Project

2. Project Information  Central University Engineering School  Location:  Los Angeles Metropolitan Area  Busy urban location / heavy traffic  Seismic Concerns – San Andreas Fault (8 km)

3. Site Location Site in San Francisco Selected for accessibility by team 3 rd Street & Folsom

4. Site Photographs

5. Design Consideration Remote Team Work Seismic Urban ContextBusy Traffic setting High Tech Neighborhood Warm Climate

6. Structural – Loading Conditions Gravity Live Loads(UBC) Classroom / Offices = 50psf Stairs/Corridors = 100psf Auditorium seating = 50psf Roof = 20psf Dead Loads Lightweight Composite Deck = 70psf Concrete Slabs = 12psf/1” thickness Flooring, ceiling and fixtures = 10psf HVAC = 5psf Partitions = 20psf Exterior Cladding = 20psf (Vertical Surface) Lateral Seismic Conditions Seismic Zone 4 Soil Profile = S D Near Source Effects Occupancy Category = 1.0 V = 0.205*W (Moment Frames) V = 0.169*W (EBF) Wind Loading Design Wind Speed (70mph) = 20.2 psf

7. Construction Concerns  High Ground Water Level  Excavation/Shoring  Dewatering  Los Angeles Traffic ~16 -20 Ft.

8. Contact Information PhotoProject Goals Personal Goals A Joy Liu baby_joy1@hotmail.com (510) 665-3961 ► To transform the visionary goal into a reality. ► To provide a design that has an aesthetic exterior & interior, a pleasant atmosphere and potential for future development. ► To gain confidence in my designs/ability to do good architecture. ► To gain knowledge of other related fields, E/C ► To develop my skills as a designer. E Norm Faris nfaris@stanford.edu (650) 497-7558 ►To take the architect’s goals and C’s constraints to engineer a definable structure. ►To design to ensure safety and functionality for normal operation and hazardous events. ►To better develop my interaction level between the A and C. ►To become more efficient in being able to incorporate the A and C’s ideas and issues during the design phase. C Tim Kolaya gt6362c@prism.gatech.edu (404) 607-9227 ►To incorporate constructability ideas and issues within the architect’s and engineer’s designs. ►To develop a project that will be on time and on budget. ►To develop my skills in using IT and other remote-team-based technology. ►To become more familiar with the CM’s interaction with the A/E in project design and development stages. Team Defined Goals – Beginning of Project

9. Redesign Ideas: “Sun Rise” Explore the space from underground to top Keep Circulation smooth Think of the functionality of the space

10. Sun Rise Old plan New Plan Basement 1 st Floor2 nd Floor Cafe Gym Cafe Gym Cafe

11. Sun Rise 3-D Model

12. Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 1 Steel Moment Frames Beams: W24 x 84 Columns : W14x120 Gravity System Composite Slab (t = 6.5”) - W14 x 22 Beams Columns: W12 x 50 In Context of Architectural Layout – 2 nd Floor

13. Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 1 LOBBY: RADIAL STEEL GRAVITY SYSTEM Beam to Concrete Wall w/ Embedded Plate and Studs W12 Beams w/ 12” Channels @ Perimeter Column to Mat Connection w/ Base Plate and Stiffener W18 Column Roof Opening

14. Sun Rise – Structural Alternative 2 Concrete Moment Frames Beams: 18” x 24” Columns : 18” x 18” Gravity System Post Tensioned (PT) Slab Columns: 12” x 12” Lobby – PT Column Beam System Foundation System 6’x6’ Spread Footings w/ 18” Grade Beams 18” Post-Tensioned Mat Foundation below basement 15” Retaining Wall

15. Sun Rise – Load Path (Alternative 1 & 2)  Lateral Loads Distributed based upon rigidities Rigid Floor Diaphragm  Gravity Loads Post – Tension System: Slab – Column - Foundation Composite Concrete & Steel System Deck – Beam – Girder – Column - Foundation

16. Sun Rise – Construction Schedule and Cost Breakdown Steel MRF w/ Composite Deck Alt. 2 Concrete MRF w/ Post-Tensioned Deck Alt. 1 Schedule Alt. 1 – 9 months Alt. 2 – 8 months

17. Sun Rise - Team Interaction Adapt Old Design Attempt New Layout Collaboration / Final Layout Structural Design 1 st Iteration Initial Estimate Cost Concerns Detailed Estimate Issues Concerns Revisions Updates

18. Architecture Vision of 2015 Gaining awareness in Eco- design and sustainable architecture Better and cheaper technology in day-lighting devices

19. New Design 1 - Square Plan Design Concepts: “Flying Eagle” In Southern Latitude: –Respond to orientation –Use Natural energy instead of artificial energy –Progression –Repetition of open and compressed space N

20. Flying Eagle N

21. Model

22. Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 1 Steel Moment Frames Beams: W24 x 84 Columns : W18 x 211 Gravity System Composite Slab (t = 6.5”) w/ W12 x 26 Beams Long Span Trusses @ 3 rd Floor over Auditorium Columns: W12 x 58 Bending due to Lateral Loads induced in the Frame Additional Bending in columns due to Cantilever Support System Additional Costs to Reinforce Columns in their Weak Axis

23. Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 2 Lateral System 2 nd & 3 rd Floors-Shearwall t = 8” Roof - Concrete MRF Beams: 24” x 16” Columns: 16” x 16” Gravity System 9” Flat Plate w/ Drop Beams 1 st Floor Structural System in Context of Architectural Layout

24. Flying Eagle – Structural Alternative 3 Concrete Moment Frame Beams: 24” x 18” Columns : 20” x 20” Gravity System 9” Flat Plate w/ Drop Beams between Columns 24” Waffle Slab for 3 rd floor above auditorium Columns: 16” x 16” Foundation System 6’x6’ Spread Footings @ Columns 15” Mat Foundation @ Basement Level 4’ Continuous Footing @ Perimeter Walls 12” Retaining Walls

25. Flying Eagle – Cantilever at 3 rd Floor W14 Column Struts – Welded at Frame & Connected to Column w/ Welded Base Plate TS Brace From Exterior Cantilever Columns to Frame Composite Gravity System – Continuous From Main Structure

26. M.E.P System All utilities localized at basement Main Distribution Vertical More Narrower Ducts Single Excavation for Services Centralized for efficiency Based upon 30,000 ft 2 Floor Area Cooling Capacity = 90 tons Cooling Air Volume = 35000cfm Total Space for Boiler Room and Chilled Water Plant = 600ft 2 Area of Main Supply or Return Ducts = 20ft 2 Area of Branch Supply or Return Ducts = 35ft 2 Area of Fresh Air Louvers = 80ft 2 Area of Exhaust Air Louvers = 70ft 2

27. Flying Eagle – Construction Schedule and Cost Breakdown Steel MRF Alt. 1 Shear Wall Concrete MRF Alt. 2Alt. 3 Schedule Alt. 1 – 7½ months Alt. 2 – 8½ months Alt. 3 – 8 months

28. Flying Eagle – Construction Sequencing

29. Flying Eagle - Team Interaction Propose Design Structural Limitations Presented Back to the Drawing Board – Revisions Structural Solution Constraints / Constructability Finalize Design Issues Concerns Estimates/ Schedules

30. New Design 2 - Diamond Plan Idea: –“Pouring Stream” The contrast of solid and void Changes in experience Bring the flow of vegetation to inside of the building Recreation of Nature

31. Pouring Stream New Plan Old Plan

32. Pouring Stream

33. Section

34. Pouring Stream Material Choice –Exterior Glass and lightweight metal with adjustable day-lighting metal panels. –Changes the personality of the building from day to night –Constant movement –Interior Atria space will use wood(cladding) Use concrete at other place. At DayAt Night

35. Pouring Stream Model

36. Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 1 Steel Eccentric Brace Frame (EBF) w/ Composite Gravity System W21 x 62 Link Beam W21 ‘Outside’ Beam W12 Columns TS 6 X6 Link Beam w/ Stiffeners

37. Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 1 24” Long Span Truss and Concrete Slab W12 x 50 Columns 6.5” Composite Deck w/ W12 x 26 Beams 8” Bearing Wall @ Elevator Shaft 3 rd Floor Gravity System Cantilever Beam – Column at Central Atrium

38. Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 2 Steel SMRF w/ Shearwalls Beams: W21 x 62 Columns : W14 x 120 Shearwall: 8” Gravity System Composite Deck(t=6.5) w/ W12 x 26 Beams Columns: W12 x 50 In Context of Architectural Layout – 3rd Floor

39. Pouring Stream – Structural Alternative 3 Concrete MRF w/ Shearwalls Beams: 16” x 18” Columns : 18” x 18” Shearwall: 8” Gravity System 10” Flat Plate w/ Drop Beams Columns: 12” x 12” Foundation System 6’x 6’ Spread Footings 4’ Cont. Footing @ Retaining Walls 12” Mat Foundation @ Utility Tunnel 12” Perimeter Retaining Wall Moment Frame Connection

40. Pouring Stream – Construction Schedule and Cost Breakdown Steel EBF Alt. 1Alt. 2Alt. 3 Steel SMRFConcrete MRF Schedule Alt. 1 – 8 months Alt. 2 – 8½ months Alt. 3 – 9 months

41. Pouring Stream - Construction Sequencing

42. Pouring Stream - Team Interaction Propose Design Structural Limitations Back to the Drawing Board – Revisions Initial Estimate / Constructability Issues Issues Concerns Finalize Design Estimates / Schedules Structural Solutions Cost Issues

43. Site Plan – 2 Footprints

44. Equipment Selection  Hydraulic Truck Crane  Hydraulic Hammer  Backhoe Loader / Front-end Loader  Welding Machines  Cement Mixers / Dump Trucks / various others…

45. Crawler – 150 Ton w/ 160 FT. Boom

46. Budget Concerns  Construction in 2015  Project Budget : $5.5 Million  Assumed 3.5% Inflation  Adjusted Budget : $3.4 Million  Cost Index for L.A. – 110% Pouring Stream - Alt. 2 Pouring Stream - Alt. 1 Flying Eagle - Alt. 3 Flying Eagle - Alt. 2 Flying Eagle - Alt. 1 Sunrise - Alt. 2 Sunrise - Alt. 1 New Adjusted Budget Adjustment for Location - 1.1 Adjustment for Inflation Original 2015 Budget Pouring Stream - Alt. 3

47. DECISION MATRIXDECISION MATRIXDECISION MATRIXDECISION MATRIX

48. Preferred Design Alternative ‘ POURING STREAM’ A: Effective Space Layout, Potential for Poetic Space, Good Eco-Design Development E: Steel SMRF w/ Shearwalls – Versatile – Efficient - Effective C: Within Budget and Schedule Constraints - Atrium Poses Interesting Challenge

49. Team Improvement Team Dynamics A interacts with owner the most E is very good in informing A and C about his progress C is very consistent in keeping group records, organization Improvements More interaction with Owner and Mentors Inform each other about one’s progress more frequently Continue education between three disciplines

50. Thank you! We would like to pay our respect and gratitude to our mentors : Brook Barrett - DPR David Bendet -MBT Eric Elsesser - Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc Helmut Krawinkler – Stanford Paul Chinowsky – Georgia Tech AND.. Renate Fruchter - Stanford For contributing their valuable time and suggestions, Thank you!