2. Kitty Chan UC Berkeley architect Chad S. Green Stanford University Yuning Wang Stanford University engineer contractor owner Robert Alvarado Mission: To work together as AEC in creating a meaningful space for the users in 2010.

3. Site The site is at Central University in Los Angeles, California University of San Francisco is picked as the reference site.

4. Site Layout

5. Vision for 2010 Students and Faculty interfacing with computers in their daily functions in the department.

6. Design Alternates SQUARE TOWERS ZIGZAG SUNDIAL

7. Design Review – Construction Slanted columns difficult to install; precast members easier Masts expensive, difficult to install; expensive to excavate basement More connections due to zigzag shape; irregular formwork needed Economic design; good constructibility

8. Design Review – Engineer Torsion issues; long spans; no place to fit shear walls Long cantilever; low redundancy; large point load above auditorium Rigid & symmetric; issues with torsion Good lateral support; unchallenging design

9. Design Review – Architect Relates to religion, nature, and spatial Good interiors, interaction space Interesting exterior, atrium Uninteresting exterior, poor circulation

10. Preferred Alternate SUNDIAL

11. Exterior View morningnoonafternoon

12. Elevation Using surrounding context to define the building Reading the building from the inside East ElevationSouth Elevation

13. Basement Viewing the Mechanical Room Seeing the structure of the auditorium

14. Basement (cont’d)

15. 1 st Floor Dual Usage –Auditorium –Hallway

16. 1 st Floor (cont’d)

17. 2 nd Floor Hallways as telescope

18. 2 nd Floor (cont’d) BeforeAfter

19. 3 rd Floor Faculty & Student Offices

20. 3 rd Floor (cont’d)

21. Program Requirements Program Design

22. Program Requirements (cont’d)

23. Natural Ventilation Using the wind for natural ventilation for the building Cone serving as a greenhouse on the exterior layer

24. Solar Power Los Angeles Weather Solar Power for Daytime Electrical Use Skylights for Natural Lighting

25. Interaction with Architectural Program First Floor Auditorium Large Classroom

26. Interaction with Architectural Program Second Floor Small Classroom Computer Room

27. Interaction with Architectural Program Office Space Third Floor

28. Interaction with Architectural Program

29. Iterations – A  E  C Beams Floor Slabs Hanging from Beams A E A C E A C

30. Iterations – A&C Discussion on how HVAC will run through the building Location of Utility Floor –Top vs. Bottom

31. Iterations – A&E Dome Structure Layout Changed to Fit Architectural Program

32. Iterations – A&E Slanted Walls Caused Columns to Be Moved In

33. Northridge Earthquake  1994  6.7 magnitude  9,000 injured; 51 fatalities  $44 billion in damages (costliest in US history)  29,000 buildings yellow- or red-tagged  Steel SMRF experienced unexpected cracks

34. PHMRF System BENEFITS: Faster delivery time Increased safety Structure retains value

35. Typical Structural Members Floor Slabs: 8X20 Double Tee 50’ max span 2” topping Beams: 24X20 L-Beam 24X32 Inverted T-Beam 30’ max span Columns: 12X12 Interior 24X24 Exterior/Moment max M = 525 k-ft

36. Computer Analysis Earthquake Design – Weight of Structure, W = 4100 k Base Shear, V = 472 k Story Shear, Fx = 118 k Max Deflection = 1” Max M = 572 k-ft Max P = 486 k Max M = 852 k-ft Max P = 652 k

37. Computer Analysis Earthquake Design – Weight of Structure, W = 4100 k Base Shear, V = 472 k Story Shear, Fx = 118 k Max Deflection = 1” Max M = 572 k-ft Max P = 486 k Max M = 852 k-ft Max P = 652 k

38. Structural Details Steel Reinforcing in Dome Floor Slabs & Elevator Core Six #14 Bars 18” spacing Develop. Length = 72”

39. Structural Details Cantilever of Precast Double Tee Slabs

40. Structural Details Span of the Dome Structure 18” 20’

41. Foundation Sandy Soil Likely Low Water Table Earthquake and Liquefaction Max Column Axial Load = 486k Soil Bearing Capacity = 4ksf Footing Area = 120 sqft Footing = 11’ X 11’ Max Uplift Force = 118k

42. Load Paths

43. Construction Cost Total Cost –Present Value: $4,270,936 –2010 Value: $5,663,944 –3% over budget Structural System: $582,959 –72% over budget Site Work Exterior Structural System

44. Construction Schedule Mon. Sept. 6, 2010 Fri. May. 11, 2011 Jan. 31, 2011

45. Resource Usage in Erection

46. Construction Equipment Terrain Crane, 40 ton Backhoe Loader, 48 H. P. Dump Truck, 16 ton F. E. Loader T. M. 2.5 C.Y. Truck Gas Engine Vibrator Gas Welding Machine

47. Construction Sequence Cone is cast-in-place Construct cone first I. II.

48. Cone Construction

49. MEP Layout Solar Energy system –Saves energy costs during life cycle –Issue of heat loss Utility floor –Solves floor height problem –Saves life cycle cost of further expansion –Structural system + Wall: about $280,000 Horizontal Distribution

50. Structural System Evaluation Largely Precast Concrete –Saving labor –Few shear walls –Shipping cost: approximately $80,000 –Lead time: detail shop drawing, pre-casting –Re-stressing cables over life cycle Slanted columns in Cone

51. Team Interaction Whiteboard Sketches NetMeeting Videoconferencing Discussion Forum

52. Team Process  Most iterations triggered by A  C improved on being more vocal early on in design decisions  E and C more reactionary than A  A attempted to design with E and C in mind  Although E and C were able to appreciate the goals of A and integrate well with one another, not yet able to think and design in A’s terms

53. Thank You Mentors!! Thank you to all mentors for their invaluable support and time investment in the PBL program and Central Team 2000! Robert Alvarado, CM Salter Assoc Scott Dennis, NBT John Hoeppner, Dillingham Builders Ron Hoyle, Pankow Builders Shilin Jiang, KL&A Greg Luth, KL&A Chuck Madewell, Habitat Bob Tatum, Stanford

54. Central University – Los Angeles, CA