1. Mildred van der ZwanArchitect - TUDelft Valerie OuEngineer – Stanford Diego AvilesConstruction Manager - Stanford Daniel KwonApprentice – Stanford Brooke BarrettOwner - DPR W a v e 2 0 0 1

2. Architect’s Vision Flexible building and workplaces Central areas for interaction Ocean view Context

3. ArchitectEngineerCM New Design 1 Undeveloped circulation High Tech Clear structural grid Possible difficulty casting slope slab Excavation required for Auditorium High cost of the exterior (glass) Possible savings by exposing slab New Design 2 Good organization, elegant, interesting for good detail Structure integrated with architecture No visual intrusion to architectural components High learning curve due to the symmetry of the structure No excavation required for auditorium W a v e 2 0 0 1 Matrix

4. W a v e 2 0 0 1 3D Model

5. auditorium classroomslab seminar computerofficeslounge storageMEP elevator W a v e 2 0 0 1 Floor 1

6. auditorium classroomslab seminar computerofficeslounge storageMEP elevator W a v e 2 0 0 1 Floor 2

7. auditorium classroomslab seminar computerofficeslounge storageMEP elevator W a v e 2 0 0 1 Floor 3

8. A” A B”B B A”A W a v e 2 0 0 1 Section

9. Large classrooms: Sloped, 2 exits, 65 seats Auditorium: sloped, 5 exits, 197 seats All classrooms, LAB, Computer: ocean view All offices: daylight W a v e 2 0 0 1 Building Performance

10. Design wind speed: V 33 = 80mph NBCC (National Building Code of Canada) Most severe case: North wind Wind parallel to corridor Design snow load: Uniformly distributed load 25psf W a v e 2 0 0 1 Structural Requirements

11. Steel Moment resisting frame 3” 20GA full composite slab 12m girder, column/column span W a v e 2 0 0 1 Final Structural Solution Beam : W18X35 Girder: W24X76 Column: W14X48

12. Foundation Design W a v e 2 0 0 1 Spread footings :1.5m X 1.5m X 60cm Grade beams: 30 cm X 60cm

13. Architectural/Structural Integration Column!! No structure element intrusion in architectural space in 1 st and 2 nd floor One column intruded flexible offices are, but acceptable to architect W a v e 2 0 0 1

14. Architectural/Structural Integration ArchitectEngineer ElevatorCheck for beam & girder location and frame around slab opening Sloped slabDesign supporting structure for gravity load

15. Conventional Truss: Double angles Truss Spacing: 20’ oc Purlin Spacing: 5’oc EW, 7oc NS Simple connections to main structure W a v e 2 0 0 1 Final Roof Design: Structure N

16. Sloping N-S direction Suction effect due to North wind at wing trusses—uplifting Compression on end trusses L 2X2 ½ X 5/16 L 2X2 ½ X 3/16 N WIND W a v e 2 0 0 1 Roof Design: Truss Configuration WIND L 2X2 ½ X 3/16

17. N WIND W a v e 2 0 0 1 Roof Design: Truss Configuration con’t L 2X2 ½ X 3/16 Sloping E-W direction Wind parallel to ridge suction effect Uplifting at connections

18. Purlin size: C 9X20 1 ½” steel deck Expanded perlite and fibers impregnated with integral asphalt waterproofing 2hr fire rating with 1” slab W a v e 2 0 0 1 Roof Design: Truss Configuration con’t

19. Truss / Truss connectionDeck/channel/truss connection Truss member connectionTruss end connection W a v e 2 0 0 1 Roof Connections

20. Girder to column connectionMoment connection Beam to column connectionColumn to footing connection Structure Connections W a v e 2 0 0 1

21. P-d effect included Story drift : 1.2 in Large horizontal shear force at truss/structure connection Structural Analysis: W a v e 2 0 0 1 Truss element forces are verified by MASTAN Average element force ranging from 10 kips to 50 kips

22. Pro’sCons Minimum space intrusion Flexible future upgrades Simple structure Deep beams and girders limiting floor to ceiling height Conservative structural member sizes Pro’s and Cons W a v e 2 0 0 1

23. Budget: $5.5 Million in 2015 (4.6 Million PV) Time Constraints: 1 year (construction duration ) Computer Lab Occupied by May 30, 2016 Preserve Architecture Construction Objectives W a v e 2 0 0 1

24. Site Plan W a v e 2 0 0 1

25. Crane Dump Truck Excavator Material HandlerConcrete Pump Truck Construction Equipment W a v e 2 0 0 1

26. 4D Simulation W a v e 2 0 0 1

27. Milestone 1 Foundation (week 5) Schedule - Milestones W a v e 2 0 0 1

28. Milestone 2 Set HVAC Equipment (week 18) Schedule - Milestones W a v e 2 0 0 1

29. Milestone 3 Exterior Closure (week 24) Schedule - Milestones W a v e 2 0 0 1

30. Milestone 4 Project Completion (week 31) Schedule - Milestones W a v e 2 0 0 1

31. Total Pre-construction Time: 8 months Total Construction Duration: 7 months Milestones: –Foundation (by June 30, 2015) –Exterior Closure (by November 30, 2015) –Project Completion (by January 15, 2016) Time savings achieved by: –Simple Foundation –Steel Structure –On time Enclosure Schedule Analysis W a v e 2 0 0 1

32. $611,176 $3,756,820 Construction Estimate W a v e 2 0 0 1

33. Cost Distribution W a v e 2 0 0 1

34. Where are the main costs? –Superstructure (Roof-Truss) –Larger Surface Area (2,736 sf) How did we save? –Simple Foundation –Avoided Mass Excavation (Bedrock) –Local Wood Facade Cost Analysis W a v e 2 0 0 1 $3,756,820$3,590,600

35. Chiller 60 Tons Nominal Capacity Dimensions: Length = 9.5ft Width = 7.3ft Height = 6.5ft Weight = 2465/3010 lbs Equipment Specifications (1) W a v e 2 0 0 1

36. Air Handling Unit 120 Tons with 20,000 CFM airflow Dimensions: –Length = 12.4 ft –Width = 6 ft –Height = 8 ft( –Weight = 8,000 lbs Equipment Specifications (2) W a v e 2 0 0 1

37. MEP Layout W a v e 2 0 0 1 Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3

38. A E C W a v e 2 0 0 1 Team Process: Roof Design

39. Lessons Learned Explanation of concepts in other disciplines Good design requires interaction and collaboration Technology is only as good as the user W a v e 2 0 0 1

40. Thank You W a v e 2 0 0 1 ACarel Weeber (TUDelft), Rutger Smook (TUDelft), Sevil Sariliydize (TUDelft), Dennis Scott (MBT), David Bendett (MBT), Bart Luiten (HBG), Bart van der Pot (HBG), Cor Notenboom (HBG) EGreg Luth (KLAA), Shilin Jiang (KLAA), Eduardo Miranda (Stanford) CEric Horn (Webcor Builders), Bob Tatum (Stanford) and Eduardo Miranda (Stanford)