coral-team 2001 winter presentation coral university of hawaii school of engineering...

Coral-Team 2001Winter Presentation

Coral University of HawaiiSchool of Engineering

Architecture Guido ZimmermannMarcel SchulerUniversity of applied siences Aargau, Switzerland

Engineering Sarah DiegnanStanford University, California

Constuction Chunyan GeStanford University, California

Owner Chad Green


Design Considerations

Analysis:

Vision of a future school system

Information technology

Going wireless

Think-Tank


Site informationClimate (Temperature and precipitation)

9595(temperature)(temperature)

5050(temperature)(temperature)

0.2inch/day(Precipitation)

•Finish foundation before Nov.

•Material suit for humid and warm weather.

HawaiiHonolulu


• Steel (Popular in Hawaii)• Concrete (A common material in Hawaii, easy to get)• Bamboo ( For small project, a nature material)• Plexiglass $20/SF (Plexiglass Roof)• Wood (Traditional material, cheap and easy to get)

Construction Material


Site plan


Design Loads• Dead Loads

Concrete Slab-38 psf

Steel Deck - 2.8 psf

Int. Partition-10 psf

Girders - 30 plf

Floor Beams – 20 plf

Columns – 50 plf

Misc – 12 psf

Exterior Clad –25 psf

• Live LoadCorridors - 100 psf

Offices - 50 psf

Classrooms - 50 psf

Auditorium - 50 psf

• Lateral LoadWind Design Speed 80 MPH

V = 105 kipsEarthquake – Zone 4

UBC ’97

• Unconsolidated sand/siltPiers to bed rockMat

Design Dead Load = 100 psf

Design Live Load = 70 psf

Lateral Load = Earthquake

18” Mat Foundation


New-Solution #1

Vision out of the site-context

Maximum flexibility

Exposure the center of the building


New-Solution #1

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Faculty

School (Class. Lab)

Auditorium

Technical

Restroom

Circulation

Org

anis

atio

n M

odel

3D-M

odel

Gro

und

plan

Lege

nd


New-Solution #1Structural Option 1

• Gravity System – 5.5” cast-in-place • Lateral System – SMRF perimeter

with first floor concrete– Base Shear = 465 Kips

W18X40W14X60

W14X48

BeamsGirdersColumnsSMRFVierendeel TrussConcrete

Floor 1 Floor 2, 3

10 @ 11.5

Connection



Gravity LateralLoad Paths



Structural System with Architecture



• Gravity System – 5.5” cast-in-place concrete slab• Lateral system – EBF Core

– Base Shear = 567 Kips

W14X40

6”X6” t=3/8”W14X43

BeamsGirdersColumnsEBFVierendeel TrussConcrete

W14X43

W14X30 W18X50

10 @ 11.5

Floor 1 Floor 2, 3

Connection



Gravity LateralLoad Path


New-Solution #1Structural Option 1,2

38 Foot CantileverVierendeel Truss – unbraced frame


Equipment

Link-Belt HTC-8640 Hydraulic Truck Crane

Selection Criteria:

•Maximum load; Maximum reach

•Costs; Site accessibility

The Caterpillar 301.5 Hydraulic Excavator


Plexiglass roof: Construction Method. The costs may go up $10,846. Excavated cost for sunken auditorium (20,000 cy) at about $40,000. Steel SMRF more labor-intensive than EBF

New-Solution #1

Construction Issues

EBFEBF(NPV)

SMRFSMRF(NPV) S1

$359,135

$559,521

$288,476

$449,436

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

NPV is the net present value

Structure budget

EBFEBF(NPV)

SMRFSMRF(NPV) S1

$3,485,310

$5,430,000

$3,892,251

$6,064,000

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$7,000,000

Total budget

Solution 1 – Construction Issues


Solution 1: Schedule


Milestone1: finished the foundation (Nov.25)

Building enclosed (Mar. 5)

The end of the project

(May. 20)


New-Solution #2

Two cubes: school-/faculty-block

Two vertical developments

Classrooms oriented to the seaside


New-Solution #2

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Faculty

School (Class. Lab)

Auditorium

Technical

Restroom

Circulation

Org

anis

atio

n M

odel

3D-M

odel

Gro

und

plan

Lege

nd


New-Solution #2Structural Option1

Gravity System – 5.5” cast-in-place concreteLateral System – Shear Wall Core and Special

Concentrically Braced FramesCantilever – 16’

6”X6” t=3/8”

W14X30 W18X50

W14X48

W18X86

BeamsGirdersColumnsConcreteCantileverBracesShear Wall

Floor 1 Floor 2,3

12’ t=12”

14.5’ t=12”



Gravity Lateral

Load Path



Knee Braces Shear WallsTimber

Knee Brace

Tie Strap

Timber Columns

Anchor Strap

Wall

End WallRoof

Simple Structure



Nail Couple Free body of Single sheet of Plywood

Nail Couple Resist M

M in Board Stud/JoistShear Force

Resisting Force




Building is separated into 2 parts.

The auditorium is sunken into the ground assuming that it has been excavated.

Constructibility difficulties arise for sun protection. It is possible but increased costs.



New-Solution #2

•Inflexible solar shading from aluminum lamella with different incline angles.

•Laminated coatings: vinyl films are used to provide nonmetallic color and long-lasting finish, and won’t aggregate heat in surrounding area.


Solution 2 – Cost Estimate


1% 1%

16%

19%

1%

12%3%

24%

19%

4%

Foundations

Substructure

Superstructure

Exterior Closure

Roofing

Interior Construction

Conveying

Mechanical

Electrical

Site Work

Cost = $5.39M


Solution 2 – Schedule


Milestone1: finished the foundation(Nov. 20)

Building enclosed (Mar. 10)

The end of the project

(May 22)


Solution 2 – Timber


Advantage Disadvantage

Material cheap and easy to get

Overturning forces need deep foundation

A traditional structure in Hawaii

Decay and termite control

Combine the advantage of steel and wood structure

Separation of wood from Ground


Re - Design #1

Minimum intervention

Architectural division:new cube / existing building


Re - Design #1

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Public (Cafe, Gym)

Faculty

School (Class. Lab)

Auditorium

Technical

Restroom

Circulation

Org

anis

atio

n M

odel

3D-M

odel

Gro

und

plan

Lege

nd


Re-Design #1Structural Option 1

Gravity System – 5.5” cast-in-place concrete

Lateral System – SMRF/Braced FrameTwo Separate buildings


Re-Design #1Structural Option 1Bridge

UBC 1633.2.11 Building Separation:All structures shall be separated from adjoining structures. Separation shall

allow for the displacement DM. Adjacent buildings on the same property shall be separated by at least DMT where DMT = Ö (DM1)

2 + (DM2)2

DM1and DM2and are the displacements of the adjacent buildings.When a structure adjoins a property line not common to the public way, that

structure shall also be set back from the property line by at least the displacement DMof that structure.

Hinge Connection

Rest on top



Glass

Rigid Connection to New Building

Expansion Joint in between

Emseal (http://www.emseal.com/)



Gravity System – 5.5” cast-in-place concrete

Lateral System – SMRF/Braced FrameTie Buildings Together


Re-Design #1Structural Option 2Bridge

UBC 1633.2.5 Ties and continuity:All parts of a structure shall be interconnected and the connections shall be capable of transmitting the seismic force induced by the parts being connected. As a minimum, any smaller portion of the building shall be tied to the remainder of the building with elements having at least a strength to resist .5CaI times the weight of the smaller portion.A positive connection for resisting a horizontal force acting parallel to the member shall not be less than .5CaI times the dead plus live load.

Elements must resist

.5CaIW = 79.2 kips



Glass

Mullions – Rigid Connections

Braces – Simple Connections


Re-Design #1Structural Option1&2



• Underpinning foundation in the new part of the building

• The excavation is open excavation.

• We use standard wellpoint system to dewater the area prior to excavation.


Construction Issues


• Underpinning foundation


Construction Issues


Re - Design #2

Existing structure /new room organisation

Natural exposure of rooms


Re - Design #2

Floor 1

Floor 2

Floor 3

Public (Cafe, Gym)

Faculty

School (Class. Lab)

Auditorium

Technical

Restroom

Circulation

Org

anis

atio

n M

odel

3D-M

odel

Gro

und

plan

Lege

nd


Re-Design #2Structural Option

Gravity System – 5.5” cast-in-place concreteLateral System – SMRF/Concentrically braced

framesCantilevered area with Café underneath – 9’ clear



Cantilever

Non- Composite Beam design – W44 X 230



Simple Truss - still too large and does not meet architects standards



Complex Truss - Carries the load like a bridge


Re-Design #2



Redesign #1 and #2 Cost Estimate

Total Cost: 935,000

Total CF of building: 76,000cf

Underpinning

Total Cost: 381,000

Total CF of building: 15,162cf

Big cantilever


Sample IterationSolution 2

E

developed preliminary structure

C

Had a problem with cladding

A

Adjusted plans for sun protection

E

Had problem with columns

A

Decided to adjust wall instead of

columns- Produced 3D model

A

Developed Plans

A/E/C

Discussed cladding problem

in NetMeeting


Decision MatrixSolution Pros Cons

SMRF Simple Design, symmetricFlexible, Central Circulation Quick to erect

CantileverNo reference to the locationCost more than EBF

EBF Core Lateral Load PathFlexible, Central Circulation More connection

Details, CantileverNo reference to the location Cost less

Shear Wall Core

Utilizes Stair-wellArrangement of the rooms analogous to utilization Easy material accessibility

Accidental TorsionRequire additional formwork

Timber

UnexploredArrangement of the rooms analogous to utilizationCost less when space is small

Fear of the unknownNot good for big space, need consider life cost

Architect Engineer Construction Manager


Looking Ahead and Behind

BehindWe all did a good job of

informing each other when work would be done and then sticking to it

MSN Messenger is a great tool

Switzerland is 9 hours ahead of PST

AheadMore communication with work done

More interaction with Mentors/Owners

A tighter work schedule

3D/4D models

coral-team 2001 winter presentation coral university of hawaii school of engineering...

Documents

architecture slide

connection slide

building slide

structural option

structural system

construction material

psf girders

hawaii honolulu slide