Central 2007
Central 2007
E
A
PALLAVI PHOR
C
OWNER
TIM SCHROTENBOER
WAFAA SABIL
C
JON JANSSON
KEVIN CHIN
Engineered Leaf
E
A
C
C
AEC
AEC Decision Matrix
Green Funnel
A Litrium Core
Engineered Leaf
A
Strong Metaphor- Leaf
Perimeter Zone
Building Performance
Central Organization
Branched Organization
E Standardized Structure
E
Creative Solution
Engineering Complexity
C Standardized Construction C
Design Build Approach
Contemporary Fabrication
Key Features
Within a tight
footprint, the
Engineered Leaf
maximizes movement
• Conceptualized
Engineered Leaf
and
spaceas an
through
quality
•a
Eco-TARDIS
Friendly & Sustainable
Building
experience.
• Low
Cost / Effective Construction
• LEED Gold Certified
• Value Engineered
Project Location- UCLA, CA
Access & Surroundings
Site Context
192’-0”
230’-0”
PARKING
DECK
SCIENCE
BUILDING
SOIL
SITE
5 KSF Bearing
Sandy Soil
Seismic Zone 4
WATER DEPTH
WIND
15 feet
Mostly from West
Climate Context
PARKING
DECK
SCIENCE
BUILDING
TEMPERATURE
230’-0”
192’-0”
SITE
Winter max= 68F min 58F
Summer max= 82F min 65F
HUMIDITY
Summer: morning 80%; afternoon 54%
Winter: morning 65%; afternoon 50%
PRECIPITATION
Summer:1.75 inch, Winter:13.04 inch
1
Line
Curve
2
Line
+Curve
Evolution of
geometry
3
inspired by the
growth of a leafENGINEERED
LEAF
Engineer
Concept- Winter Quarter
AEC
1.
2.
Engineer
Concept- Spring Quarter
3.
Leaf engineered numerically to comply
with nature’s Fibonacci series
AEC
NE Figurative
Engineer
Concept- Spring Quarter
SW Topological
Conceptual pine cone.
AEC
Exit
Enter
Engineer
Site Layout
AEC
24’-0”
24’-0”
Storage/
Recycle
M/E/P
24’-0”
24’-0”
24’-0”
24’-0”
Comp.
Room
Restroom
& Core
Engineer
Basement Level -10’-0”
AEC
76’-0”
76’-0”
Faculty
Room
Seminar
Room
Class
Room
Admin.
Chair
38’-0”
38’-0”
Restroom
& Core
Engineer
First Floor Level 0’-0”
AEC
76’-0”
Student
Offices
76’-0”
Audi.
Seminar
Room
Lab
Class
Room
38’-0”
38’-0”
Engineer
Second Floor Level 13’-0”
Restroom
& Core
AEC
Layout
Auditorium
Class
Rooms
Student Offices
Rest Room
Instructional
Labs
Class
Rooms
Engineer
Architectural Evaluation
AEC
Egress
Engineer
Architectural Evaluation
AEC
105’-0”
105’-0”
PV Roof
MEP
Green Terrace
Engineer
Terrace Level 26’-0”
Stairway
AEC
Engineer
Elevations
South Elevation
North
East
West
South
AEC
Engineer
Elevations
East Elevation
N
North Elevation
E
AEC
Engineer
Elevations
South Elevation
West Elevation
AEC
W
S
North
Engineer
10’
13’
13’
Sections
East
West
South
AEC
North
Engineer
13’
10’
7’
Sections
East
West
South
AEC
View from North
View from North East
Engineer
Exterior Views
AEC
Engineer
Exterior Views
AEC
View from South East
Engineer
Sun Path
June
21
W
Dec
21
E
AEC
Light & comfort
Daylight in
Classrooms,
Faculty offices,
Labs.
Engineer
Architectural Evaluation
AEC
Fenestration
To avoid South
& West Sun
Engineer
Architectural Evaluation
AEC
Predicted Life Cycle Cost
Roof: PV
Panel Roof
Fenestration:
Recycled
crushed glass
MEP
Roof:
Green Roof
Cladding: Metal
Composite
Panels
Engineer
Architectural Evaluation
AEC
Gravity Loading
- Slab/Self-Weight
70 psf
- Partitions
20 psf
- MEP
10 psf
- Exterior Cladding
30 psf
- Green Roof
25 psf
- PV Panels
10 psf
Engineer
Dead Loads (UBC 1997 – L.A.)
A
EC
Gravity Loading
- Classrooms
40 psf
- Offices
50 psf
- Auditoriums / Corridors
100 psf
- Access Floor Systems
100 psf
- Light Storage
125 psf
- Heavy Storage
250 psf
Engineer
Live Loads (UBC 1997 – L.A.)
A
EC
Wind Loading
Engineer
Method 1 (UBC 1997)
P = CeCqqsI
Wind Speed = 70 mph
qs = 12.6 psf
Exposure B
I = 1.0 (non-essential)
Cq = 1.3 (in and outward)
Height (ft)
0-15
20
30
Ce
0.62
0.67
0.76
A
EC
Earthquake Loading
Engineer
Site Context
Seismic Zone 4
Santa Monica Fault
Source Type B
Distance = 2km
NA = 1.3
NV = 1.6
A
EC
Earthquake Loading
Engineer
Seismic Zone 4
Soil Profile = SD
0.3
Importance = 1.0
R = 6.4
V
0.2
0.1
CA = 0.44NA
0
CV = 0.64NV
0
1
2
3
T (s)
Base Shear Coefficient, V = 0.22W
A
EC
Structural Plans
24’
24’
“1st Building”
Engineer
Structural Grid
24’
24’
16’
Transition
18’
16’
24’
16’
12’
12’
“2nd
Building”
16’
24’
16’
30’
30’
12’ 12’ 18’
A
EC
Structural Plans
Engineer
Basement
Foundation
Spread Footings
Strip Footings
2’ Depth
4’ Width
24’
24’
24’
Walls
12” Thick Concrete
A
EC
Structural Plans
Engineer
Ground Floor
Columns
W14x143
24’
Flooring
24’
Cast-in-place
24’
Concrete on
Metal Deck
Foundation
Spread Footings
A
30’
12’ 12’ 18’
EC
Structural Plans
Engineer
2nd Floor
Floor Framing
Typical Beam:
24’
W18x71
Secondary Beam:
24’
W18x143
Tertiary Beam:
24’
W18x175
Flooring
Sloped False
Flooring
A
30’
12’ 12’ 18’
EC
Structural Plans
Engineer
Terrace / Roof
Lateral System
Braces Around
24’
Perimeter
HSS10x10x0.5
24’
Long Span
24’
King-Post Truss
Arched Beams
A
30’
12’ 12’ 18’
EC
3D Structural Model
Bracing for
Segmented
Building
King-Post
Lateral-Torsional
Overview
Truss
Arches Buckling
Engineer
Long-Span Auditorium
A
EC
3D Structural Model
Engineer
Gravity Load Path
A
EC
3D Structural Model
Additional
Braces
to
Stiffen
Connection
Lateral
FloorDiscontinuity
Slab
Acts
Around
as
atDiaphragm
Roof
Perimeter
Engineer
Lateral Load Path
A
EC
Structural Details
Engineer
Concrete Embed
A
Mentored
by GPLA
EC
Structural Details
Engineer
Beam-Column (Web Connection)
A
Mentored
by GPLA
EC
Structural Details
Engineer
Slab Edge
A
Mentored
by GPLA
EC
Design Verification
ETABS Building Model
Engineer
ETABS Analysis
A
EC
Design Verification
Girder Design: Moments – Gravity Loads
Engineer
ETABS Analysis
A
EC
Design Verification
Brace Design: Axial Loads – Gravity Loads
Engineer
ETABS Analysis
A
EC
Design Verification
Brace Design: Axial Loads – Earthquake Loads
Engineer
ETABS Analysis
A
EC
Engineer
Damage Mitigation
Acceleration Content Damage
A
Prevention Measures
EC
ENVIRONMENTAL
COST AND TIME
SATISFY OWNER´S GOALS
Engineer
Construction Objectives
• OCCUPANCY
• LEED
A E
C
Engineer
Construction Site Plan
A E
C
Soldier Piles &
Wood Lagging
Sheet Piles
Pros
Particularly
effective adjacent
to existing
structures
Cons
Not appropriate
Difficult in soils
for sensitive soil
prone to caving,
and running sands condition and very
Great advantage
when there is a
high ground water
level
dense soils
Select
Soil Nail Walls
Typically used in
dense to very
dense granular
soils
Less cost effective
in loose dense
sands
Engineer
Shoring
X
A E
C
Engineer
Cost Estimation
A E
C
Engineer
Cost Estimation
A E
C
•Crane one: 90 days
•Crane two: 50 days
Engineer
Crane Selection
A E
C
Cost [$]
7 500 000
7 000 000
6 500 000
6 000 000
Bugdet
Winter Estimate
Spring Estimate
Engineer
Cost Evolution
A E
C
CONSTRUCTION STARTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE DONE
INNER WALLS DONE
COMPUTER ROOM DONE
CONSTRUCTION FINISHED
Sept 21
Dec 31
Mar 04
Apr 15
Jul 15
Engineer
General Time Schedule
A E
C
Engineer
Structure Time Schedule
A E
C
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roof – 30 days
Painting – 30 days
False floor – 30 days
Auditorium – 40 days
Inner walls – 45 days
Installations – 60 days
Outer walls + facade – 75 days
Additional installations – 40 days
Engineer
Construction Times
A E
C
MEP
Engineer
Under floor air distribution system
Separate system for bathrooms
Regular system in basement
SUPPLY
RETURN
A E
C
Plenum
Raised Floor
Room Cavity
MEP integrated building structure.
Engineer
MEP
A E
C
Energy Usage: 10 kWh / SF,yr
DC Rating: 61 kW
Total Energy Cost: 29 000 $ / yr
Energy Value: 11 000 $ / yr
Calculated Energy Cost CA: 12 cent / kWh
Pay Back Time - 10 years
Regular
PV-panels
20
16
20
19
20
22
20
25
20
28
20
31
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/version1/US/code/pvwattsv1.cgi
Engineer
PV-Panels
A E
C
Building Envelope
During Construction
• Accessible Green Roof
• Eco- Friendly Materials
• NE Side Lighting
• Lean Construction
• PV Panels
Inside Building
Site
• Under Floor Air Distribution System
• Permeable Pavement
• Earthquake Damage Prevention
• Water Harvesting
• Wastewater Treatment System
• Bike Racks
Engineer
Sustainability
• Sustainable Elevator
• Recycle Center
A E
C
Engineer
LEED
A E
C
CO2
Reduce CO2 Embedded In Construction
• Steel Structure
• Eco- Friendly Materials
• Material Reusage
Reduce CO2 During Lifecycle
• PV-Panels
•Interior Flexibility
Reduce Transportation
• Local Suppliers,
Materials & Contractors
• Close To Public
Transportation
• Accessible Green Roof
• Fast / Effective
Construction Erection
• Under Floor Air Distribution System
• Lean Construction
Engineered Leaf will contribute to a new era
of environmental buildings.
Team Interaction
GOAL
A
E
C
C
Team Interaction
1st ATTEMPT
A
E
C
C
(January – February)
Team Interaction
GOAL
A
E
C
C
Team Interaction
2nd ATTEMPT
A
E
C
C
(February - March)
Team Interaction
AT LAST !
A
E
C
C
(March - April)
Spring Improvements
Winter
Presentation
Screenshot
Additional Weekly Meeting
– Owner Involved Once a Week
At Least 2 Mentor Meetings per Team Member
Increased Use of ThinkTank
Design Evolution
Hmm… They did
OK.teach
Let’sthis
do it.
not
in
class.
Curves!! Don’t
you love it?
NO!
is
Yeah.Straight
We can
cheaper
and
make
it happen!!
faster!$!
This class isn’t
meant to be
easy! We can
do it!
Design Evolution
E
C
Architectural
Massing Concept
E
C
A
Final Solution
A
Refined Architectural
Concept
A
C
E
Integrated Structural/CM Solution
Lessons Learned
”Final iteration = Work in progress.”
– Pallavi
”Be positive. Be patient. Be pliable.”
– Tim
”Language barriers are often higher than Mount Everest.”
– Jon
”Transparency between each discipline is crucial.”
– Kevin
Special Thanks
Paola Sanguinetti, Georgia Tech
Greg Luth, GPLA
David Bendet, HOK
Helmut Krawinkler, Stanford
Adhamina Rodriguez, Swinerton
Eric Elsesser, Forell Elsesser
John Nelson, UWMadison
Imagine Lab, Georgia Tech
Our
Classmates
Wafaa
C
E Sabil
A
RENATE!
Patrik Lindstrom, PEAB Sweden
Mats Bjale, PEAB Sweden
Weine Hagg, PEAB Sweden
Johan Bjornstrom, Chalmers
Hans Bjornsson, Chalmers
Per-Erik Josephson, Chalmers
Thank you!