The Central Project
Central University – A/E/C Engineering Building
ARCHITECTURE
ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION
OWNER
Joy Liu, Cal-Berkeley
Norm Faris, Stanford
Tim Kolaya, Georgia Tech
Alex Barron, Stanford
Site Context
 Central University Engineering School
 Location:
 Los Angeles Metropolitan Area
 Busy urban location / heavy traffic
 Seismic Concerns – San Andreas Fault (8 km)
 Warm Climate
 High Ground Water Level
Site Plan
Designs & Decision Matrix
New Design1: Flying Eagle
A
1) Steel SMRF w/
E
composite deck
C
2) Shearwall w/ Flat E
Plate Gravity
C
3) Concrete MRF w/ E
Flat Plate Gravity C
Pros
Cons
Interesting progression
Less resonable space layout
Steel effective in seismic region
Biaxial Bending in Frame
Efficient construction method
Auditorium contruction Difficult
Combination of gravity and lateral
Detailing Shearwalls for Penetrations
Shotest construction time
"
More outside viewing space
Integrating Wallfle slab w/ the Concrete Mom. frame
Economic
1st Fl.design
"
2nd Fl.
3rd Fl.
New Design 2: Pouring Stream
Pros
Cons
A Great potential for poetic space
Limited space use
1) Steel EBF w/
E Excellent performance for Region Cost of Repair in Major Event
Composite Deck
C Cost Efficient
Atrium poses uncertainty in construction
2) Steel SMRF& shearwall
E Versatile system
Cantilever gravity Scheme @core
w/ Composite Deck C Cost Efficient
Atrium poses uncertainty in construction
3) Concrete MRF& Shearwall
E Consistent integration of build. MaterialInteract.of Waffle slab over Auditorium Mom. frame
w/ Flat Plate Gravity C Cost Efficient
Over Budget
2nd Fl.
3rd Fl.
1st Fl.
Architect Vision of 2015
• Awareness in Green Design
for Sustainable Architecture
• Better and cheaper materials
ex. low-e glass
Design Focus
•
•
•
•
Roof design
Poetic experience in space
Privacy measure
Green Design development
Pouring Stream- 1st Floor
N
Pouring Stream- 2nd Floor
N
Pouring Stream- 3rd Floor
N
Evaluation
Roof Design
Keep Rain out
Revised Roof
Ceiling Fans
Air ventilation
Old Roof
N
•
•
Average Wind Breeze between 10-15 miles per hour (direction N or W)
Average Seasonal Rain Fall 14.77 inches
Sections
Section B
A
B
B
Section A
A
Material Choice
Photovoltaic (PV) cells
Traffic
Concrete (Aerated)
Traffic
3D Model
STRUCTURAL MODEL
DUAL LATERAL SYSTEM:
COMPOSITE GRAVITY SYSTEM:
SHEARWALLS AND PERIMETER STEEL SMRF CONCRETE SLAB w/ STEEL BEAMS
ANALYSIS – DESIGN & LOADING
DESIGN USING UBC ’97 CRITERIA
SHEARWALL AND STEEL SMRF DESIGN:
100% BASE SHEAR TO WALLS
25% TO FRAMES (BACK-UP)
DYNAMIC NONLINEAR LATERAL ANALYSIS
- VERIFICATION (ETABS)
TORSIONAL
- ’97 RESPONSE SPECTRA
EFFECTS
LOADING CRITERIA
•BASE SHEAR: V = 510 KIPS
•NEAR SOURCE EFFECTS
•DUAL SYSTEM: R = 8.5
•DL (TYPICAL) = 70PSF
•DL (AUDITORIUM) = 90PSF
•LL (CLASSROOM) = 50PSF
•LL (CORRIDORS) = 80PSF
100% V + TORSIONAL
RESISTANCE
13% V
13% V
V
TORSIONAL RESISTANCE
GRAVITY PATH
DESIGN CRITERIA:
- 5 KSF BEARING
- SANDY SOIL
- WATER DEPTH = 15FT
FOUNDATION
MAT FOUNDATION
@ UTILITY
12”
8”
3’-0” X 3’-0”
@ MRF
MRF FTGS: 7’-6” X 7’-6”
GRAVITY SPREAD FTGS: 6’-0” X 6’-0”
2’-6” X 6’-0” CONT. FTG.
WITH 3’-6”SHEAR KEY
1st FLOOR S.O.G. – 4” w/ #4 @18” O.C.
AUDITORIUM S.O.G – 6” w/ #4 @ 12 O.C.
1ST FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT)
LAB & LARGE CLASSROOM
RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’
AUDITORIUM w/ PRECAST RISERS
JOINING 2ND FLOOR.
SMRF COLUMNS:
W14 X 61
SMRF BEAMS:
W21 X 62
SMALL CLASSROOMS
SHEARWALLS: 8”
W/ BOUNDARY ZONES
TYPICAL GRAVITY COLUMN:
W8X31
2ND FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT)
RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’
LABS
SMRF BEAMS:
W18 X 60
STUDENT OFFICES
COMPUTER ROOM
SEMINAR
3RD FLOOR (ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT)
RESTROOMS AND ‘WET WALL’
LONG SPAN PRE-FAB TRUSSES
LOUNGE
TS 6X6
FACULITY OFFICES
ATRIUM
CHAIR OFFICE
EXTERIOR CANTILEVER STAIR DESIGN
STIFFENER PLATES IN
COLUMN – TYPICAL.
EMBEDDED PLATE W/
SHEAR STUDS AND DOWEL
ANCHORS INTO WALL
W14
WELD TS10X6 TO
COLUMN FLANGE
WELD TS10 X 6 TO
EMBEDDED PLATE
2” SLAB ON 3” DECK OVER
C6X13, STUD WELDED
TS 10 X 6
CANTILEVER
6’ X 8’ LANDING
C10 BEAM w/ BENT RISERS
FILLED w/ 2” CONCRETE
CENTRAL TEAM – ITERATIONS A-E-C
EXTERIOR STAIR SYSTEM
A
A – STAIRS THAT PROVIDE
EXPRESSION TO THE
STRUCTURE.
E – DESIGN TO BE
INTEGRAL WITH MAIN
STRUCTURE.
E
C
C – DIFFICULTY IN
ERECTION AND
STABILITY DURING
CONSTRUCTION.
A – STAIRS TO HAVE
CLADDING.
E – DESIGN.
C – COST.
A – HEADROOM
CONSTRAINTS.
C – COST AND ERECTION
PROCEDURES – POSSIBLE
IMPLICATIONS.
E – MENTOR ADVISE TO
SEPARATE STAIR FROM
MAIN SYSTEM.
A – ISSUES w/ CLADDING.
ATRIUM – CONSTRAINTS AND DESIGN
(4) #5 IN ADDITION TO #4 BARS
TO ATTAIN RIGID
DIAPHRAGM ACTION.
TYPICAL BEAMS –
W10 X 26 IN
COMPOSITE
ACTION.
3/8” BENT PLATE w/ ½”
D.B.A. @ 18” O.C., WELD
PLATE TO CENTER BEAM
12” CL BEAM
TO EDGE
(3) #5 CENTERED
OVER BEAM IN SLAB.
SLAB EDGE DETAIL
20’ X 44’ OPENING
W14 BOLTED TO
PLATE AT TOP OF
COLUMN.
CAN TILEVER W14
Adjusted Budget - $3,500,000
Budget & Cost
Initial Estimate - $3,200,000
DIVISION 5 - METALS
Item
Quantity Code Number
05100 - STRUCTURAL METAL FRAMING
W 12X26, Gravity Bm.
4152 05120-640-1500
W 12X50, Gravity Clmn.
612.5 05120-640-1560
W 14X120, MF Clmn.
468.75 05120-640-2500
W 21X62, MF Bm.
756 05120-640-4500
T 6X6X1/4
0 05120-440-0725
Structural Steel Truss
30 05120-680-3100
05300 - METAL DECKING
Steel Decking - Open Type
31400 05310-300-2200
05400 - COLD FORMED METAL FRAMING
Door and Window Framing
4100 05410-300-0200
Stud Wall Framing
8750 05410-400-5110
05500 - METAL FABRICATIONS
Steel Stair Railing
400 05520-700-0640
Aluminum Stair Tread
80 05550-700-0010
Unit
Daily Output Duration Crew
Bare Costs
Labor Equipment Total Total Incl. O&P
Total Cost
Final Project Cost - $3,378,000
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
TON
880
750
720
1036
28
13
SF
4900 6.40816 E-4
4.71818 E-2
0.81667 E-2
0.65104 E-2
0.72973 E-2
General
0 E-3
2.30769 E-5
15.9
1.95
30
2.29
69
2.39
37
2.41
Requirements
5.18
27.3
1675
192
1.16
1.36
1.42
1.07
2.94
85
19.01
33.65
72.81
40.48
35.42
1952
22
38.5
82
46.5
60
2275
$91,344
$23,581
$38,438
$35,154
$0
$68,250
0.7
0.21
0.02
0.93
1.18
$37,052
3.12
5.1
Site Construction
Concrete
LF
LF
220 18.6364 2 Carp
77 113.636 2 Carp
2.05
5.85
5.17
10.95
6.65
14.8
$27,265
$129,500
LF
Ea
137 2.91971 E-4
23
7.5
24 3.33333
1 Sswk
25 10.55
Woods
& Plastics
0.61 31.11
35.55
40
47
TOTAL DIV. 5
$16,000
$3,760
$379,000
Metals
DIVISION 6 - WOOD & PLASTICS
Item
Quantity Code Number
06100 - ROUGH CARPENTRY
Blocking to Steel Const.
0.875 06110-100-2740
Ceilings Framing
1 06110-510-6400
06200 - FINISH CARPENTRY
Base Moldings
8750 06220-200-0561
Ceilings Molding
8750 06220-450-0600
Trim Molding
8750 06220-700-3800
Door Molding
78 06220-800-3150
Window Molding
150 06220-800-5910
Wood Shelving
500 06270-200-0100
06400 - ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK
Material
Unit
Daily Output
MBF
MBF
0.14
0.5
LF
LF
LF
Opng.
Opng.
LF
240
270
270
5.9
13
110
Thermal & Moisture
Protection
Duration Crew Material Labor
Doors Windows
6.25 1 Carp
Total Cost
1600
900
2190
1510
3175
2100
$2,778
$2,100
36.4583
1 Carp
0.76
0.94
Specialties
32.4074 1 Carp
0.6
0.83
32.4074 1 Carp
0.98
0.83
Conveying
13.2203
1 Carp Systems
12.7
38
11.5385 1 Carp
15.3
17.3
4.54545
2.31
2.05
MEP 1 Carp
1.7
1.43
1.81
50.7
32.6
4.36
2.32
1.97
2.39
74
44.5
5.75
$20,300
$17,238
$20,913
$5,772
$6,675
$2,875
Finishes
2 2 Carp
590
610
Bare Costs
Equipment Total Total Incl. O&P
9/29/15
Construction Schedule
3/7/16 Building Closed In
Building Finished – 9 Months
Contract Completed – 11 Months
6/17/16
8/8/16
Substantial Completion
Project Finished
Construction Sequencing
Equipment Selection
150 Ton Crawler
Hydraulic Hammer
Backhoe Loader / Front-end Loader
Welding Machines
Hydraulic Excavator
Cement Mixers / Dump Trucks / various others…
MEP SCHEMATIC (BACK)
VERTICAL DISTRIBUTION
THRU ‘WET WALLS’
DEMANDS:
• COOLING CAPACITY - 90 TONS
• AIR VOLUME – 35,000 CFM
• MAIN AIR DUCTS – 20 FT2
• FRESH AIR LOUVERS – 80 FT2
• EXHAUST AIR LOUVERS – 70 FT2
2ND & 3RD DISTRIBUTION THRU
LONG SPAN TRUSSES.
3RD FLOOR
DISTRIBUTION
2ND FLOOR
DISTRIBUTION
1ST FLOOR
DISTRIBUTION
MAIN UNITS BELOW
AUDITORIUM RISERS
UTILITY BASEMENT – PUMPS, MAIN
SERVICES, COMMUNICATION,
8’ X 8’ HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR w/ 6’
ELEVATOR MOTOR, OUTFLOW.
MECHANICAL PIT FOR SERVICE.
CENTRAL TEAM – ITERATIONS A-E-C
MEP SYSTEMS – LOCATION & DISTRIBUTION
INITIALLY LOCATE ALL SYSTEMS IN BASEMENT.
C – LARGE COSTS FOR
EXCAVATION – DIFFICULT
AXCESS.
A – UTILIZE SPACE
BELOW RISERS IN
AUDITORIUM.
C – EASY
REPLACEMENT/AXCESS FIRE SYSTEMS EASILY
INTEGRATED.
E – DESIGN OF SPACE TO
ENSURE ALL MACHINARY
WILL FIT.
E – FRESH AIR AND
EXHAUST LOUVERS – LESS
IMPLICATION ON
STRUCTURE.
A – ISSUES WITH
SOUND – USE OF
INSULATION AND
SOUND PROOFING.
C – COST OF SOUND
PROOFING MATERIAL VS.
EXCAVATION.
DISTRIBUTION OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL DUCTS TO ROOMS VERSUS HEADROOM .
A – MAXIMIZE HEADROOM –
REDUCED RESTROOM SIZE
AND PROVIDED ‘WET WALLS’
E – MINIMIZE PENETRATION
IN BEAMS AND SHEARWALLS.
A – PLACE DUCTS PERPENDICULAR TO
BEAMS ALONG WALLS AND THOSE
PARALLEL TO BEAMS BETWEEN THE
SPANS..
C – INPUT ON COST FOR
BEAM PENETRATIONS AND
WALL BLOCK-OUTS.
CENTRAL TEAM - INTERACTION
MSN MESSENGER
PBL DISCUSSION FORUM
• GROUP MEETINGS
NETMEETING
• DOCUMENT / STORE
• ‘QUICK QUESTIONS’
• SHARING
PROGRAMS
• SET – UP MEETINGS
• ‘INSTANT’
•A
& E COMMUNICATION
• POST QUESTIONS
CENTRAL TEAM - PROCESS
• A – INITIATED MAIN DESIGN CONCEPTS – VERY EFFECTIVE IN
COMMUNICATING CHANGES AND IDEAS.
• E – DEVELOPED MOST QUESTIONS & ISSUES IN THE DESIGNS.
• C – PROVIDED DIRECTION IN MEETINGS & ON STEPS TO TAKE.
• A – ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALIZE ‘E & C’ REQUIREMENTS.
• E – ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT IN
STRUCTURAL LAYOUT & EFFECTIVELY MINIMIZE COST AND
ERECTION DIFFICULTIES.
• C – CONSISTENTLY EXPRESSED SCHEDULE & COST
IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL ITERATIONS AND PHASES OF DESIGN.
CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED?
• •E C
• A• • BETTER
BETTERUNDERSTANDING
INVOLVEMENT WITH
OF THE
THEREQUIREMENTS
ARCHITECT AND
OF
ENGINEER
THEUNDERSTANDING
ARCHITECT
ON THE FRONT-END
AND ABOUT
CONSTRUCTION
OF ENGINEER
THE PROJECT
MANAGER.
DESIGN
• BOTH
BETTER
AND
AND
DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS.
• ACCOMPLISHED
GOAL
OF BEING
ABLE TO GET
INVOLVED
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGER’S
CONSTRAINT
AND
ABLE
• WITH
MORE
THE
CONSISTENT
ARCHITECT
EARLY
IN THE
OF
DESIGN
TEAM PHASE.
MEMBERS OF
TO INTEGRATE
INTONOTIFICATION
THE
DESIGN
PROCESS
PROGRESS
ON THE
PROJECT
AND
NEEDS
• • MORE
INNOTIFICATION
THE
USE OF
TECHNOLOGOICAL
MOREEFFICIENT
FREQUENT
TO
THE FROM
TEAM OTHERS.
• TOOLS
TECHNOLOGY
AS A ABOUT
MEANS
CANTHE
OF
BECOMMUNICATION.
A
HUGE BARRIER
IF YOU FAIL TO
MEMBERS
PROCESS
AND QUESTIONS.
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU
MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!
CENTRAL TEAM
THANK YOU
WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND OUR GREATEST APPRECIATION
TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE:
MR. GREG LUTH – KL&A
BROOK BARRET - DPR
PAUL CHINOWSKY – GEORGIA TECH.
PROF. MIKE MARTIN –BERKELEY
HUMBERTO CAVALLI- BERKEELY
DAVID BENDET-MBT
PROF. BOB TATUM - STANFORD
PROF. HELMUT KRAWINKLER - STANFORD
RENATE FRUCHTER
…. AND OF COURSE FELLOW STUDENTS.
The Central Project
QUESTIONS?
CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED?
•E
• BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF
BOTH THE ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
• ACCOMPLISHED GOAL OF BEING ABLE TO GET INVOLVED
WITH THE ARCHITECT EARLY IN THE DESIGN PHASE.
• MORE EFFICIENT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGOICAL
TOOLS AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.
CENTRAL TEAM – WHAT WE LEARNED?
• C
• BETTER INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ARCHITECT AND
ENGINEER ON THE FRONT-END OF THE PROJECT DESIGN
AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
• MORE CONSISTENT NOTIFICATION OF TEAM MEMBERS OF
PROGRESS ON THE PROJECT AND NEEDS FROM OTHERS.
• TECHNOLOGY CAN BE A HUGE BARRIER IF YOU FAIL TO
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND A TREMENDOUS AIDE IF YOU
MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF IT!