engineer
Chad S. Green •Mission: To work
Stanford University
contractor
Yuning Wang
UC Berkeley
owner
architect
Kitty Chan
Stanford University
Robert Alvarado
together as AEC in
creating a meaningful
space for the users in
2010.
Site
• The site is at Central University in Los
Angeles, California
• University of San Francisco is picked
as the reference site.
Site Layout
Vision for 2010
• Students and Faculty interfacing with computers
in their daily functions in the department.
Design Alternates
SQUARE
ZIGZAG
TOWERS
SUNDIAL
Design Review – Construction
•Economic design;
good constructibility
•More connections due to zigzag shape;
irregular formwork needed
•Masts expensive, difficult to install;
expensive to excavate basement
•Slanted columns difficult to install;
precast members easier
Design Review – Engineer
•Good lateral support;
unchallenging design
•Rigid & symmetric;
issues with torsion
•Long cantilever;
low redundancy;
large point load above auditorium
•Torsion issues;
long spans;
no place to fit shear walls
Design Review – Architect
•Uninteresting exterior, poor circulation
•Interesting exterior, atrium
•Good interiors, interaction space
•Relates to religion, nature, and spatial
Preferred Alternate
SUNDIAL
Exterior View
morning
noon
afternoon
Elevation
• Using surrounding
context to define the
building
• Reading the building
from the inside
East Elevation
South Elevation
Basement
• Viewing the
Mechanical Room
• Seeing the
structure of the
auditorium
Basement (cont’d)
1st Floor
• Dual Usage
– Auditorium
– Hallway
1st Floor (cont’d)
2nd Floor
• Hallways as
telescope
2nd Floor (cont’d)
Before
After
3rd Floor
• Faculty & Student
Offices
3rd Floor (cont’d)
Program Requirements
Program
Design
Program Requirements (cont’d)
Natural Ventilation
• Using the wind for natural ventilation for the
building
• Cone serving as a greenhouse on the exterior
layer
Solar Power
• Los Angeles
Weather
• Solar Power for
Daytime
Electrical Use
• Skylights for
Natural Lighting
Interaction with Architectural Program
Large
Classroom
First Floor
Auditorium
Large
Classroom
Interaction with Architectural Program
Small
Classroom
Second Floor
Computer
Room
Small
Classroom
Interaction with Architectural Program
Office
Space
Office
Space
Third Floor
Interaction with Architectural Program
Iterations – AEC
E
A
C
A
C
A
Beams
Floor Slabs Hanging
from Beams
E
Iterations – A&C
• Discussion on how
HVAC will run
through the building
• Location of Utility
Floor
– Top vs. Bottom
Iterations – A&E
Dome Structure Layout
Changed to Fit
Architectural Program
Iterations – A&E
Slanted Walls
Caused
Columns to Be
Moved In
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
PHMRF System
BENEFITS:
Faster delivery time
Increased safety
Structure retains value
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
Computer Analysis
Max M = 572 k-ft
Max M = 852 k-ft
Max P = 486 k
Max P = 652 k
Earthquake Design –
Weight of Structure, W = 4100 k
Base Shear, V = 472 k
Story Shear, Fx = 118 k
Max Deflection = 1”
Computer Analysis
Max M = 572 k-ft
Max M = 852 k-ft
Max P = 486 k
Max P = 652 k
Earthquake Design –
Weight of Structure, W = 4100 k
Base Shear, V = 472 k
Story Shear, Fx = 118 k
Max Deflection = 1”
Structural Details
•Steel Reinforcing in
Dome Floor Slabs &
Elevator Core
Six #14 Bars
18” spacing
Develop. Length = 72”
Structural Details
Cantilever of
Precast
Double Tee
Slabs
Structural Details
Span of the
Dome
Structure
18”
20’
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
Load Paths
Construction Cost
Other
• Total Cost
– Present Value:
$4,270,936
– 2010 Value:
$5,663,944
– 3% over budget
• Structural System:
$582,959
– 72% over budget
Fire Protection
Cost Breakdown
Electrical System
Mechanical System
Sitework
100%
80%
60%
40%
Site Work
Exterior
Structural System
Plumping System
20%
0%
Doors/Frames/Hardw
are
Thermal Moisture
Protection and
Waterproofing
Finishes and
Accoustical
treatment
Concrete -Slabs and
Grout
Interior and Ceiling
Exterior and Roofing
Structural
Construction Schedule
Mon. Sept. 6, 2010
Jan. 31, 2011
Fri. May. 11, 2011
Resource Usage in Erection
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
Construction Sequence
I.
II.
Cone is cast-in-place
Construct cone first
Cone Construction
MEP Layout
•Utility floor
–Solves floor
height problem
–Saves life cycle
cost of further
expansion
–Structural
system + Wall:
about $280,000
•Solar Energy system
–Saves energy costs
during life cycle
–Issue of heat loss
Horizontal Distribution
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
Team Interaction
NetMeeting
Videoconferencing
Whiteboard
Sketches
Discussion
Forum
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
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
Central University – Los Angeles, CA